I have seen statements like $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\mu(n)}{n^s}$ is convergent for $\Re(s)>1$, and I have seen proof of it being zero (and therefore convergent) when $s = 1$ but haven’t seen specific claim that the abscissa of convergence $\sigma_c=1$ for this Dirichlet series. And I’ve seen proof of $\sigma_a = 1$

Does anyone know of a reference to a proof for the value of $\sigma_c$?

Thanks in advance.

  • 4
    Finding value of $\sigma_c$ would be equivalent to solving the Riemann zeta hypothesis. $\sigma_c = \frac12$ would imply that RZH is true, and $\sigma_c > \frac12$ would imply RZH is false. – Dark Malthorp Nov 3 at 5:30
  • It is possible $\sigma_c =1$ and the sum oscillates without exploding. (Like $\eta(0)$ is Grandi series) - in which case it won’t prove or disprove RH – Shree Nov 3 at 5:38
  • @Shree, this sum is $1/\zeta(s)$ (@DarkMalthorp is right). – metamorphy Nov 3 at 5:48
  • I do agree it is $\frac{1}{\zeta(s)}$ and $\sigma_c=\frac{1}{2}$ proves RH, but I do think $\sigma_c>\frac{1}{2}$ does not disprove RH. – Shree Nov 3 at 5:54
  • 1
    $\sigma_c > \frac12$ would imply non-analyticity of $\frac1{\zeta}$ at some point with real part $>\frac12$, but since $\zeta$ is holomorphic except for a single pole at $s = 1$, this is only possible if $\zeta(s)$ has a zero with real part $>\frac12$. – Dark Malthorp Nov 3 at 15:19

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.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.