An important theorem of Landau states that, given a Dirichlet Series f(s) with coefficients $a_n$ then

If $a_n\geq0$ for all values of n, the real point of the line of convergence is a singularity of f(s).

A particular example being $\zeta(s)$, which has coefficients constantly equal to 1 and thus has a singularity on $s=1$.

But if we consider the D.S. $$f(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n^s\log^2{}n} $$

it clearly has non-negative Dirichlet coeffiecients $(1/\log^2{}n\geq0)$ and abscissa of convergence equal to 1 with the series $$f(1)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\dfrac{1}{n\log^2{}n} $$ being convergent.

Doesn't this contrast with Landau's theorem mentioned above? What am I missing here?

  • $\begingroup$ I think you want to start the sum at 2. $\endgroup$ – Chappers Jun 14 '17 at 11:06
  • $\begingroup$ You are write, but still that does not answer my question. You can define $a_1=0$ and start it from 1. $\endgroup$ – Mathitis Jun 14 '17 at 11:20
  • $\begingroup$ How do you prove that $f(1)$ converges? $\endgroup$ – franz lemmermeyer Jun 14 '17 at 11:27
  • $\begingroup$ @franzlemmermeyer $ \int \frac{dx}{x\log^2{x}} = -\frac{1}{\log{x}} $, so the integral test shows the sum converges. $\endgroup$ – Chappers Jun 14 '17 at 11:37

I suppose the meaning of singularity here is not, that $f(1)=\infty$ but rather just that f is not holomorphic at $1$. Naively differentiating $f$ leads to

$$f'(s)=-\sum_{n=2}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s\log(n)},$$

which doesn't converge at $1$ anymore.

Edit: Actually for $Re(s)>1$ the derivative definitely has the above form. Therefore $f'(1+t)\to \infty$ for $t\to 0$ so $f$ cannot be continuously differentiable at $1$, therefore it is also not holomorphic.

  • $\begingroup$ This does not answer fully, because if we take the Dirichlet series $\sum_{n \ge 2} \frac{1}{n^s \log^3 n}$ the argument does not qualify. Instead, the below one is more suitable answer. $\endgroup$ – user41481 Oct 9 '17 at 7:38

Indeed, this theorem is not hard to prove.

Let $F(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n n^{-s}, a_n \ge 0$ and $\sigma$ its abscissa of convergence, which means $ \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n n^{-x} = \infty$ for $x < \sigma$.

If $F(s)$ has an analytic continuation which is analytic around $s= \sigma$ then take $\epsilon > 0$ small enough such that the Taylor series $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{F^{(k)}(\sigma+\epsilon)}{k!} (x-\sigma-\epsilon)^k$ converges for some $x < \sigma$.

With $F_N(s) = \sum_{n=1}^N a_n n^{-s}$ we obtain term-by-term $$F(x) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{F^{(k)}(\sigma+\epsilon)}{k!} (x-\sigma-\epsilon)^k \ge \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{F_N^{(k)}(\sigma+\epsilon)}{k!} (x-\sigma-\epsilon)^k = F_N(x)$$ a contradiction since $\lim_{N \to \infty} F_N(x) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty a_n n^{-x}=\infty$.

Qed. an analytic continuation of $F(s)$ must have a singularity at $s=\sigma$.


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.