My question is about the end of the proof of theorem 1.1, in page 27.

Namely, it is stated that whenever we have a multiplicative function $f:\mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{C},$ let the sequence $\Lambda_{f}(n)$ be defined via the Dirichlet series $$-\frac{D'_{f}(s)}{D_{f}(s)}=\sum_{1}^{\infty}\Lambda_{f}(n)n^{-s}$$ where $D_{f}=\sum_{1}^{\infty} f(n) n^{-s}$ is the Dirichlet series of $f(n).$ Now let's suppose that $$\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda_{f}(n)=k \log{x}+O(1) $$ for some constant $k>-\frac{1}{2}$ and that $$\sum_{n \leq x}|f(n)| \ll (\log x)^{|k|}$$

The fact that I am not able to justify is that under these assumptions the following infinite product $$ \prod_{p}(1-p^{-s-1})^{k}\left(\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty}f(p^{\nu})p^{-\nu s}\right)$$ has the following limit as $s \to 0$ from the right $$\prod_{p}(1-p^{-1})^{k}\left(\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty}f(p^{\nu})\right) $$

Any suggestions on that ?


Notice that $\prod_{p\leq\\z}(1-p^{-1})^{k}\left(\sum_{\nu=0}^{\\r}f(p^{\nu})\right) \leq O((\log z)^{-k})\left(\sum_{n\leq\\x}f(n)\right)$, where $\\n\leq\ x$ is chosen accordingly to $\\z\geq\ p$. So, letting $\\x,z\to \infty$ we note that the product is convergent. Now, $\prod_{p}(1-p^{-s-1})^{k}\left(\sum_{\nu=0}^{\infty}f(p^{\nu})p^{-\nu s}\right) = D_f(s)/(\zeta(s+1))^k$ which is absolutely 'okay' for $\\Re(s)>0$, also $D_f(s)/(\zeta(s+1))^k$ is analytic at $s=0$ by checking limit (having no pole there) . Hence, by well known facts from complex analysis letting $\\s\to\ 0+$ we get the result.


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.