0
$\begingroup$

Let $$ E(n) = 1 \qquad \forall n \in \mathbb{Z} $$ be the constant function, and let $\mu$ be the Möbius function. Based on the following definition of the latter function, where $\mu(n) = 1$ for $n=1$, $\mu(n) = 0$ if $a^2 | n$ for some integer $a >1$, and $\mu(n)= (-1)^{r} $ if $n$ has, in total, $r$ different prime factors: why is $$ \mu \star E = e \quad \text{?}$$ (Where $\star$ is the Dirichlet Convolution operator and $e(n) = 1$ for $n=1$ and $e(n) = 0$ for $n \neq 1$ .)

I guess it's quite a simple question for those who had a course in Analytic Number Theory, but I just can't figure it out... Thanks a lot in advance though!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What sort of "why" are you interested in? Is $$\sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d) = \begin{cases} 1 &, n = 1 \\ 0 &, n > 1\end{cases}$$ the sort of "why" you're looking for? $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Sep 15 '14 at 19:11
  • $\begingroup$ Ehm wel for me it isn't obvious that $\mu \star E = 1$ based on the definition I gave in the question. Based on your definition, however, it becomes much clearer. Do you know who came up with the proof of your formula? $\endgroup$ – Max Muller Sep 15 '14 at 19:26
3
$\begingroup$

By the definition of the Dirichlet convolution,

$$(\mu \star E)(n) = \sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d) E\left(\tfrac{n}{d}\right)\tag{1}$$

for all $n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus \{0\}$. Since $E(m) = 1$ for all $m$, $(1)$ simplifies to

$$(\mu \star E)(n) = \sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d),\tag{2}$$

and $\mu\star E = e$ is therefore equivalent to

$$\sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d) = \begin{cases} 1 &, n = 1 \\ 0 &, n > 1. \end{cases}\tag{3}$$

For $n = 1$, this is evident, it just says $\mu(1) = 1$. For $n > 1$, we can write $n = m\cdot p^k$ with a prime $p$ and $k > 0$, and an integer $m$ that is not a multiple of $p$. The divisors of $n$ then can be grouped according to the power of $p$ occurring in them,

$$\sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d) = \sum_{\kappa = 0}^k \sum_{f \mid m} \mu(p^\kappa\cdot f).$$

For $\kappa > 1$, the divisors $p^\kappa\cdot f$ are never squarefree, so $\mu(p^\kappa\cdot f) = 0$ then, and we are left with

$$\sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d) = \sum_{f\mid m} \left(\mu(f) + \mu(p\cdot f)\right).$$

Since for every $f$ we have $\mu(p\cdot f) = -\mu(f)$ (because $p\nmid f$), the sum is seen to be zero.

On a more abstract level, $(3)$ follows from the multiplicativity of $\mu$. If $f$ is a multiplicative function, then so is

$$n\mapsto \sum_{d\mid n} f(d),$$

and it suffices to see that

$$\sum_{d\mid n} \mu(d) = 0$$

for prime powers $n = p^k$. But then

$$\sum_{d\mid p^k} \mu(d) = \sum_{\kappa = 0}^k \mu(p^\kappa) = \mu(1) + \mu(p) + \sum_{\kappa = 2}^k \mu(p^\kappa) = 1 + (-1) + 0 = 0$$

is easily seen.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

We know that if $m>0$, $(1-1)^m=0$, i.e. that $\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^m(-1)^k\binom mk=0$ for $m>0$. Now suppose that $n=p_1^{k_1}\cdots p_m^{k_m}$. Then in $\displaystyle \sum_{d\mid n}\mu (d)$ the term $\mu(d)$ will be nonzero precisely when we look at a divisor of the form $p_{i_1}\cdots p_{i_k}$. For each $k$; we can choose $\displaystyle\binom mk$ many of these divisors ($i_k=0$ is considered as the divisor $1$), and they will appear as $(-1)^k=\mu(p_{i_1}\cdots p_{i_k})$. It follows that $$\sum_{d\mid n}\mu(d)=\sum_{k=0}^m \binom mk(-1)^k=0$$ as desired. If $n=1$, $\displaystyle\sum_{d\mid n}\mu(d)=\mu(1)=1$.

$\endgroup$

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.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.