In a paper I was reading recently, the author has made use of the following formula in his proof:


Here $\nu(n)$ denotes the number of distinct prime divisors of $n$, $\lambda$ is Liouville's function and $d$ is the divisor function. I don't understand this formula and have not seen it before. Is this true? What would be a proof of it? I feel it must be a simple exercise in number theory, but am unable to prove it at first attempt. Any help will be appreciated. I think the argument for $d$ involves the Jacobi symbol. Is that so? What exactly is this identity?

  • $\begingroup$ in general, when you have such an equality of multiplicative functions, you can look at their Dirichlet series and Euler product (as Marko Riedel did) $\endgroup$ – reuns Jun 29 '16 at 21:29

Introduce for the RHS

$$L_1(s) = \sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{2^{\nu(n)} \lambda(n)}{n^s}$$

and $$L_2(s) = \sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{\sigma_0(n)}{n^s} = \zeta(s)^2.$$

We have $$L_1(s) = \prod_p \left(1-\frac{2}{p^s}+\frac{2}{p^{2s}}-\frac{2}{p^{3s}} + \cdots \right) \\ = \prod_p \left(-1 + 2\frac{1}{1+1/p^s}\right) = \prod_p \frac{-1-1/p^s+2}{1+1/p^s} = \prod_p \frac{1-1/p^s}{1+1/p^s} \\ = \prod_p \frac{(1-1/p^s)^2}{1-1/p^{2s}} = \frac{\zeta(2s)}{\zeta(s)^2}.$$

It follows that $$L_1(s) L_2(s) = \zeta(2s) = \sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{1}{n^{2s}}$$

which is the Dirichlet series of the indicator function of positive integers being a square.

However this is precisely the LHS as was proved at this MSE link, QED.

  • $\begingroup$ Great answer, thank you. This was not a 'simple exercise' . $\endgroup$ – adrija Jun 29 '16 at 21:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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