Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose $s$ is a complex number with $\Re(s) \in (0,1]$ and $\{a_n\}$ is a complex sequence converging to $a \neq 0$. Must the Dirichlet series $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{a_n}{n^s}$$ diverge?

share|improve this question
Yes. $a_n\to a$ implies for any $\epsilon>0$ the sequence is eventually trapped in an $\epsilon$-radius disk around $a$; if $a\ne0$ then we may split the series into two parts based on the index when the sequence becomes stuck inside and bound the infinite-term part in magnitude from below using real/imaginary parts and comparing with $\zeta(\cdot)$ (up to a constant). (Comment resubmitted because Will referenced it.) –  anon Dec 13 '11 at 22:12
@anon, do you know about the possibility of conditional convergence with all $a_n= 1$ and the real part of $s$ equal to 1, but $s \neq 1?$ I'm not seeing anything definitive. –  Will Jagy Dec 13 '11 at 22:14
@Will: Erm, I hadn't thought about Re(s)=1. I'm not sure about the case. –  anon Dec 13 '11 at 22:32
@anon, I bet there is a pretty good discussion of the case in print somewhere, just not necessarily written within the last 100 years. –  Will Jagy Dec 13 '11 at 22:43
@anon: Put $s = \sigma + i t$. Let's assume for the moment that $\sigma \in (0,1)$ and $t \neq 0$. The complex series $D(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n^s}$ certainly diverges (though $\zeta(s)$ is defined). Neither the real nor the imaginary part of $D(s)$ is a positive series. Call the original series in the statement of the problem $A(s)$. How do you show that the magnitude of your "infinite-term part" of $A(s)$ is bounded from below? –  Richard Hevener Dec 14 '11 at 0:52
show 1 more comment

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I have worked out a partial answer to my own question.

Define $A(s) = \sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac{a_n}{n^s}$.

First, assume that $s = 1$. WLOG we can also assume that $a = 1$. Observe that for some $N$ and all $n > N$, $\Re(a_n) > 1/2$. It follows that $A(1)$ diverges.

I found a pertinent result in Knopp, Konrad. Infinite Sequences and Series. New York: Dover, 1956. Item 4 on p. 138 is the result that if the partial sums of the Dirichlet series $A(s_0)$ are bounded, then $A(s)$ converges provided $\Re(s) > \Re(s_0)$. Since $A(1)$ diverges, we conclude from this result that $A(s_0)$ diverges for $s_0 < 1$.

Thus, we see that $A(s)$ must diverge for $\Re(s) \in (0,1]$, unless $s = 1 + it$, where $t \neq 0$.

Please see my question on MO for a demonstration of divergence in the remaining case.

share|improve this answer
Richard, very good. I never really figured out what to expect when $a_n \rightarrow a.$ When $a_n \rightarrow 0,$ we can pick a favorite point and either force convergence there or divergence. I'm not sure what happens away from the chosen point. –  Will Jagy Dec 18 '11 at 4:21
add comment

I'm going to post this without having all the facts yet. There is no ambiguity possible for the real part of $s$ strictly between 0 and 1, as in the comment by anon.

However, I am not sure at this point about the sum $$ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s}$$ for $s = \sigma + i t$ and $\sigma = 1,$ that is $s = 1 + i t.$ The sum diverges for $t=0,$ the Riemann zeta function has a pole there.

It turns out that the Euler product is conditionally convergent at $s = 1 + i t$ with real $t\neq 0.$ So, it is at least possible that $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^{1 + i t}}$ is conditionally convergent. If so, the question for your sequence $a_n$ becomes extremely subtle when $s = 1 + i t$ with real $t\neq 0.$

share|improve this answer
$\sum_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{n^s}$ diverges for $\sigma \le 1$ and any value of $t$, but if $t \neq 0$ neither its real nor imaginary parts is a positive series. How does one show that the original series diverges for $\sigma \in (0,1]$? (Please see my note to anon above.) –  Richard Hevener Dec 14 '11 at 3:59
@RichardHevener , I will need to work on it, but my immediate feeling is that we may divide through by your $a,$ getting numerators $1 + b_n$ with $b_n \rightarrow 0,$ eventually the numerators are close to 1 in both modulus and argument. –  Will Jagy Dec 14 '11 at 5:56
add comment

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.