I would like to estimate the Dirichlet series of a multiplicative function. Consider the following:

$$\sum_{m \leqslant X} \frac{\mu^2(m)}{m^s}$$

When does it converges when $X$ grows? What is an equivalent for $s=1$?

More generally I have no method for doing so, obtaining an estimate of summatory functions or Dirichlet series knowing properties about the sum over divisors. Is there any suitable transform doing so?

If I generalize the settings a little, what can be said about the relation between such an estimate and the associated one on a more general number field? For instance, do we know something precise about:

$$\sum_{N\mathfrak{m} \leqslant X} \frac{\mu^2(\mathfrak{m})}{N\mathfrak{m}^s}$$

where $\mathfrak{m}$ runs along ideals of the integer ring of a number field $F/\mathbf{Q}$?

  • $\begingroup$ @MarcoCantarini Yes indeed, I fixed the question. I wonder what can be said as asymptotic development when $s=1$ and $X$ goes to infinity? $\endgroup$ – Desiderius Severus Dec 18 '16 at 10:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You can use the Abel's summation and the asymptotic of the number of squarefree numbers $$\sum_{n\leq x}\mu^{2}(n)=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}x+O(\sqrt{x}).$$ $\endgroup$ – Marco Cantarini Dec 18 '16 at 10:55

Perron's inversion formula states that if $F(x) = \sum_{n \leq x} f(n)$ and $F(s) = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} f(n) n^{-s}$, then \[F(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\sigma - i\infty}^{\sigma + i\infty} F(s) x^s \, \frac{ds}{s}\] for $\sigma$ sufficiently large and $x > 1$ not an integer. We take $f(n) = \sum_{N(\mathfrak{a}) = n} \mu^2(\mathfrak{a}) N(\mathfrak{a})^{-\alpha}$. Then via multiplicativity, \[F(s) = \prod_{\mathfrak{p}} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\mu^2(\mathfrak{p}^k)}{N(\mathfrak{p}^k)^{\alpha}} \frac{1}{k N(\mathfrak{p}^k)^s} = \prod_{\mathfrak{p}} \left(1 + \frac{1}{N(\mathfrak{p})^{\alpha + s}}\right) = \prod_{\mathfrak{p}} \frac{1 - N(\mathfrak{p})^{-2(\alpha + s)}}{1 - N(\mathfrak{p})^{-(\alpha + s)}} = \frac{\zeta_K(\alpha + s)}{\zeta_K(2(\alpha + s))},\] where $\zeta_K(s)$ denotes the Dedekind zeta function of the number field $K$. So \[\sum_{N(\mathfrak{a}) \leq x} \frac{\mu^2(\mathfrak{a})}{N(\mathfrak{a})^{\alpha}} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\sigma - i\infty}^{\sigma + i\infty} \frac{\zeta_K(\alpha + s)}{\zeta_K(2(\alpha + s))} x^s \, \frac{ds}{s}\] for $\sigma > \max\{1 - \alpha,0\}$. The integrand has a pole at $s = 1 - \alpha$, at $s = 0$, and at $s = \frac{\rho}{2} - \alpha$ for any zero $\rho$ of $\zeta_K(s)$. By Cauchy's residue theorem, we may move the line of integration to the left, picking up residues along the way. These give the main terms for the left-hand side.

Suppose first that $\alpha \neq 1$. Then the residue of the integrand as $s = 1 - \alpha$ is \[\lim_{s \to 1} (s - 1) \zeta_K(s) \times \frac{x^{1 - \alpha}}{(1 - \alpha) \zeta_K(2)}.\] When $K = \mathbb{Q}$, the limit is $1$ and $\zeta(2) = \pi^2/6$. In general, the limit is given by the analytic class number formula, and $\zeta_K(2)$ may not have such a nice closed form.

Now suppose that $\alpha = 1$. Then the integrand has a double pole at $s = 0$, so this residue is a little more complicated to calculate. We write the integrand in the form \[\frac{\zeta_K(s + 1)}{\zeta_K(2s + 2)} \frac{e^{s \log x}}{s}\] and expand this as a Laurent series around $s = 0$. The main term (after writing $e^{s \log x} = 1 + s \log x + O_x(s^2)$) turns out to be \[\lim_{s \to 1} (s - 1) \zeta_K(s) \times \frac{\log x}{\zeta_K(2)}.\] There is also a constant term that is much more complicated (at least when $K$ is not $\mathbb{Q}$).

  • $\begingroup$ "moving the contour to the left" is not very clear. What contour, and what estimate of $\zeta_K(s)-\frac{C}{s-1}$ on the left of $Re(s) > 1$ ? $\endgroup$ – reuns Dec 18 '16 at 22:54
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, of course not. You need a zero-free region for $\zeta_K(s)$ and bounds for the growth of $\zeta_K(s)$ in this zero-free region, both of which are highly nontrivial and take a fair amount of effort to prove (they're in chapter 5 of Iwaniec and Kowalski). I was just sketching the standard analytic methods for this kind of problem, and showing where the leading order terms come from. $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Dec 18 '16 at 22:56
  • $\begingroup$ ?? No you don't need a zero-free region, the denominator is $\zeta_K(2s)$ whose analytic region $Re(s) > 1/2$ is trivial. As I sad what you need is an estimate for the growth rate of $\zeta_K(s)$ on $Re(s) > 1/2$ as $t \to \infty$, for example see there $\endgroup$ – reuns Dec 18 '16 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ Right, you just need to show that $\zeta_K(s)$ doesn't grow too fast in a strip of the form $\sigma > 1 - \frac{c}{\log t}$ (nothing needed about a zero-free region, sorry). Alternatively, you can just be lazy and use a Tauberian theorem; this won't give you a nice bound for the error term, but it means that you just need to know that $\zeta_K(s)$ is meromorphic on $\Re(s) \geq 1$ with only a simple pole at $s = 1$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Dec 18 '16 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ And optimally (I think) you can move the contour much more to $Re(s) = 1/2+\epsilon$ at least when $\mathbb{Q} = K$ $\endgroup$ – reuns Dec 18 '16 at 23:06

We have that \[\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\mu(n)^2}{n^s} = \frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)} = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{n^s} \sum_{d^2 \mid n} \mu(d)\] so that \[\sum_{n \leq x} \mu(n)^2 = \sum_{n \leq x} \sum_{d^2 \mid n} \mu(d) = \sum_{d^2 \leq x} \mu(d) \left\lfloor \frac{x}{d^2} \right\rfloor = x \sum_{d^2 \leq x} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^2} + \sum_{d^2 \leq x} \mu(d) \left(\left\lfloor \frac{x}{d^2} \right\rfloor - \frac{x}{d^2}\right)\] where \[\sum_{d^2 \leq x} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^2} = \sum_{d = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^2} - \sum_{d^2 > x} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^2} = \frac{1}{\zeta(2)} + O\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\right)\] and \[\sum_{d^2 \leq x} \mu(d) \left(\left\lfloor \frac{x}{d^2} \right\rfloor - \frac{x}{d^2}\right) = O\left(\sqrt{x}\right),\] i.e. \[\sum_{n \leq x} \mu(n)^2 = \frac{x}{\zeta(2)} + O\left(\sqrt{x}\right).\]

Now let \[B(x) = \sum_{n \leq x} \left(\mu(n)^2 - \frac{1}{\zeta(2)}\right) = O\left(\sqrt{x}\right), \qquad A(x) = \sum_{n \leq x} \frac{\mu(n)^2-\frac{1}{\zeta(2)}}{n}.\] By summation by parts, \[F(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s} \left(\mu(n)^2-\frac{1}{\zeta(2)}\right) = \lim_{x \to \infty} \left(\frac{B(x)}{x^s} - s \int_{1}^{x} \frac{B(t)}{t^s} \, \frac{dt}{t}\right)\] converges for $Re(s) > 1/2$, so taking $s = 1$ shows that $F(1) =\lim_{x \to \infty} A(x)$ and $A(x) = F(1)+o(1)$, and so \[\sum_{n \leq x} \frac{\mu(n)^2}{n} = A(x) + \frac{1}{\zeta(2)} \sum_{n \leq x} \frac{1}{n} = \frac{\log x+\gamma}{\zeta(2)} + F(1)+o(1).\]

  • $\begingroup$ (and for $\zeta_K(s)$ it should work exactly the same) $\endgroup$ – reuns Dec 19 '16 at 5:32
  • $\begingroup$ The nice thing about this is that $F(s)$ converges absolutely, so you do truly get $\lim_{x \to \infty} A(x) = \lim_{s \to 1} F(s)$. $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Dec 19 '16 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ This won't work quite as nicely for number fields; the difficulty is the error term $\sum_{N(\mathfrak{a}) \leq x} 1 - C_K x$ isn't $O(1)$ unless $K = \mathbb{Q}$. (Here $C_K = \lim_{s \to 1} (s - 1) \zeta_K(s)$.) $\endgroup$ – Peter Humphries Dec 19 '16 at 16:48
  • $\begingroup$ @PeterHumphries you mean we need something like the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artin_L-function#The_Dedekind_conjecture for the general case ? $\endgroup$ – reuns Dec 19 '16 at 18:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Because $\sum_{n > x} \frac{1}{n^2} = O(1/x)$ @LuisFelipe $\endgroup$ – reuns May 12 '17 at 14:56

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.