1
$\begingroup$

I'm studying analytic number theory for undergraduates and I read this theorem in Tom Apostol's book on the second chapter:

Theorem 2.12. If $f$ is multiplicative then $f(1)=1$

And under need there is a note that says that $\Lambda (n)$ is not multiplicative because $\Lambda (1) = 0$. So I wonder if the converse of the theorem is true.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You mean $\Lambda(1)=0,$ I think. $\endgroup$ – saulspatz Mar 20 '18 at 3:26
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, I fixed it. Thanks @salpatz $\endgroup$ – Luis Victoria Mar 20 '18 at 3:33
1
$\begingroup$

The arithmetic function $$ f(x)=\begin{cases}1 & x = 1 \\ 2 & x > 1\end{cases} $$ is not multiplicative even though $f(1)=1$.

(But when the book says that $\Lambda(n)$ is not multiplicative because $\Lambda(1)=0$, it's using the contrapositive, not the converse...)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I didn't notice. $\endgroup$ – Luis Victoria Mar 20 '18 at 3:35
2
$\begingroup$

Consider $f(x)=2x-1$. $f(1)=1$ but $f(6)=11 \neq f(2)\cdot f(3)=3\cdot 5=15$

$\endgroup$

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.