It is known that$$\frac{1}{s-1} - \frac{\zeta(s)}{s} = \int_1^\infty \frac{x - [x]}{x^{s+1}} dx$$ for $Re(s) > 0.$

The last integration can provide the analytic continuation for $\zeta.$

I encouter one generalization of the situation :

Let $f$ be a continuous function on $[0,1]$. If $$F(s) = s \int_1^\infty f(\{t\})t^{-s-1} dt, s = \sigma + it, \sigma >0$$ then $F(s)$ has the analytic continuation to the entire $\mathbb{C},$ where$ \{a\} = a - [a].$

This general case is for Riemann zeta if $f(x) = x.$

I want to prove this theorem, and it states just set $$A = \int_0^1 f(u) du , f_1(u) = \int_0^u (f(\{v\})-A) dv.$$ Then induction and integration by parts will yields the result, but I do not understand. At least, $F$ has different integration $(\int_1^\infty = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \int_n^{n+1})$ from $A$ and $f_1.$

It sounds like it is a well-known theorem, but most of the time I notice that $\zeta$ analytic continuation method is done using gamma function $\Gamma$ or Bernoulli polynomial.

I cannot find a reference with good detail to follow the steps in the proof.

Any help please ?

migrated from mathoverflow.net Nov 2 '16 at 12:41

This question came from our site for professional mathematicians.

  • Thank you. I ask there already, but no response. Is this site valid to ask a question related to when I read a textbook and stuck on the proof claim in the book ? If not, I am sorry. – user117375 Nov 2 '16 at 9:43
  • I didn't find your question on Math.SE, is it called like this one? This site is actually for research-level mathematics. – Giovanni De Gaetano Nov 2 '16 at 9:50
  • 1
    Usually you should wait longer for an answer there before reasking here. And you should post links in both places for people to know. – abatkai Nov 2 '16 at 10:03
  • okay, sorry about that. – user117375 Nov 2 '16 at 10:31
  • And this theorem is useful for the Dirichlet L-functions, or the Hurwitz zeta, or for a mix of those, for example $\sum_{n=1}^\infty e^{i n x} n^{-s}$ – reuns Nov 2 '16 at 16:25

$f(\{t\})$ is a weird way to say it is $1$ periodic.

If $g(x)$ is $T$-periodic, then for any $a > 0$, the Mellin transform of $g(x) 1_{x > a}$ is meromorphic on the whole complex plane

  • Let $g_0(x) = g(x)$ and consider the sequence of functions $$g_{n+1}(x) = \int_a^x (g_n(t) - \overline{g}_n)dt,\qquad\qquad \overline{g}_n = \frac{1}{T}\int_a^{a+T}g_n(x)dx$$ note that all those functions $g_n(x)$ are $T$-periodic.

  • Look at the Mellin transforms of $g_n(x) x^{-n}1_{x > a}$ : $$G_n(s) = \int_a^\infty g_n(x)x^{-s-n-1}dx$$ Since $g_n(x) = \mathcal{O}(1)$, it converges and is analytic on $Re(s) > -n$

  • Subtracting the mean value and integrating by parts : $$\begin{eqnarray}G_n(s) - \frac{\overline{g}_n a^{-s-n}}{s+n}&=& \int_a^\infty (g_n(x)-\overline{g}_n)x^{-s-n-1}dx \\ &=& (s+n+1)\int_a^\infty g_{n+1}(x)x^{-s-n-2}dx \\ &=& (s+n+1)G_{n+1}(s)\end{eqnarray}$$ and hence $G_{n+1}(s)$ is meromorphic on $Re(s) > \sigma \implies$ $G_{n}(s)$ is meromorphic on $Re(s) > \sigma $ too.

Overall, $G_0(s)$ is meromorphic on $Re(s) > -n$ for every $n$, i.e. it is meromorphic on the whole complex plane

  • Note that $\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n^{-s}$ is already the Mellin transform of a periodic distribution : $\zeta(s)= \int_{1-\epsilon}^\infty \text{I}\Pi(x) x^{-s}dx$ where $\text{I}\Pi(x) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty \delta(x-n)$ is the Dirac comb – reuns Nov 2 '16 at 16:31
  • Thank you very much for help. I have never heard about Merlin transformation. Can I think of it as a kind of special integration ? I will try to deduce it, but I wonder if it has a simpler longer, but require not much background knowledge. Or when the book says set $A = ...$ and do induction, it means this whole things. – user117375 Nov 2 '16 at 17:14
  • @user117375 Here you don't need to look at the properties of the Mellin transform, except that $\int_a^\infty g(x) x^{-s-1}dx$ is analytic for $Re(s )> 0$ if $|g(x)| < C$. And $\int_1^\infty h(x) x^{-s-1}dx = \int_0^\infty h(e^t)e^{-st}dt$ so the Mellin transform of $h(x)1_{x > 1}$ is the Laplace transform of $h(e^t)1_{t > 0}$ – reuns Nov 2 '16 at 17:19
  • Of course, since Dirichlet series are Mellin transforms, you need to study it in detail for understanding the theory of $\zeta(s)$ – reuns Nov 2 '16 at 17:20
  • okay, thank you very much. I will try to understand that. I far more complicated than I first expect. – user117375 Nov 2 '16 at 17:21

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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