Andrew Granville
Universite de Montreal
K. Soundararajan
Stanford University
2011
PREFACE
Riemanns seminal 1860 memoir showed how questions on the distribution of
prime numbers are moreorless equivalent to questions on the distribution of
zeros of the Riemann zeta function. This was the starting point for the beautiful
theory which is at the heart of analytic number theory. Heretofore there has been
no other coherent approach that was capable of addressing all of the central issues
of analytic number theory.
In this book we present the pretentious view of analytic number theory;
allowing us to recover the basic results of prime number theory without use
of zeros of the Riemann zetafunction and related Lfunctions, and to improve
various results in the literature. This approach is certainly more flexible than
the classical approach since it allows one to work on many questions for which
Lfunction methods are not suited. However there is no beautiful explicit formula
that promises to obtain the strongest believable results (which is the sort of thing
one obtains from the Riemann zetafunction). So why pretentious?
It is an intellectual challenge to see how much of the classical theory one
can reprove without recourse to the more subtle Lfunction methodology (For
a long time, top experts had believed that it is impossible is prove the prime
number theorem without an analysis of zeros of analytic continuations. Selberg
and Erd
os refuted this prejudice but until now, such methods had seemed ad
hoc, rather than part of a coherent theory).
Selberg showed how sieve bounds can be obtained by optimizing values
over a wide class of combinatorial objects, making them a very flexible tool. Pretentious methods allow us to introduce analogous flexibility into many problems
where the issue is not the properties of a very specific function, but rather of a
broad class of functions.
This flexibility allows us to go further in many problems than classical
methods alone, as we shall see in the latter chapters of this book.
The Riemann zetafunction (s) is defined when Re(s) > 1; and then it is
given a value for each s C by the theory of analytic continuation. Riemann
pointed to the study of the zeros of (s) on the line where Re(s) = 1/2. However
we have few methods that truly allow us to say much so far away from the
original domain of definition. Indeed almost all of the unconditional results in
the literature are about understanding zeros with Re(s) very close to 1. Usually
the methods used to do so, can be viewed as an extrapolation of our strong
understanding of (s) when Re(s) > 1. This suggests that, in proving these
results, one can perhaps dispense with an analysis of the values of (s) with
Re(s) 1, which is, in effect, what we do.
viii
Preface
CONTENTS
1
The
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1
1
3
5
6
8
9
12
12
13
15
18
18
21
23
23
26
26
28
30
33
33
34
35
35
38
Hal
aszs Theorem
8.1 Averages of averages
8.2 Applications of the Plancherel formula
8.3 The key estimate
39
39
40
42
Contents
8.4
8.5
9
Proof of Hal
aszs theorem
The logarithmic mean
Multiplicative functions
9.1 Upper bounds by averaging further
9.2 Convolutions of Sums
9.3 A first Structure Theorem
9.4 Bounding the tail of a sum
9.5 Elementary proofs of the prime number theorem
43
44
45
45
46
46
47
48
10 Dirichlet Characters
49
52
52
53
12 Hal
aszs Theorem: Inverses and Hybrids
12.1 Lower Bounds on mean values
12.2 Tenenbaum (Selberg)
56
58
59
60
14 Lipschitz bounds
14.1 Consequences
14.2 Truncated Dirichlet series
62
64
66
68
69
71
74
75
17 The
17.1
17.2
17.3
76
76
77
78
Small Sieve
List of sieving results used
Shius Theorem
Consequences
80
80
85
88
21 Linniks Theorem
91
94
94
Contents
xi
96
98
23 Exponential Sums
23.1 Technical Lemmas
23.2 The bound of Montgomery and Vaughan
23.3 How good is this bound?
23.4 When f is pretentious
101
101
102
103
105
24 The exponents k
24.1 How to determine a better upper bound on k in general
109
111
114
114
26 The
26.1
26.2
26.3
116
116
117
118
119
122
SiegelWalfisz Theorem
Primes well distributed implies...
Main results
Technical results
26.3.1 Preliminaries
26.3.2 Proofs
126
133
134
135
136
136
29 Laplace Transforms
138
30 The
30.1
30.2
30.3
30.4
30.5
Spectrum
The Mean Value Spectrum
Factoring mean values
The Structure of the Mean Value Spectrum
The Euler product spectrum
The Delay Equation Spectrum
140
140
141
144
144
146
31 Results on spectra
31.1 The spectrum for realvalued multiplicative functions
31.2 The number of mth power residues up to x
31.3 An important example
31.4 Open questions of interest
148
148
149
149
150
151
126
130
xii
Contents
32.1
32.2
32.3
32.4
33 The
33.1
33.2
33.3
33.4
33.5
153
153
154
156
logarithmic spectrum
Results for logarithmic means
Bounding 0 (S)
Negative truncations
Convergence
Upper bounds revisited
163
163
166
167
170
170
172
173
174
References
175
1
THE PRIME NUMBER THEOREM
As a boy Gauss determined that the density of primes around x is 1/ log x, leading
him to conjecture that the number of primes up to x is wellapproximated by
the estimate
X
x
.
(1.1)
(x) :=
1
log x
PNT
px
It may seem less intuitive, but in fact it is simpler to weight each prime with
log p; and, as we have seen, it is natural to throw the prime powers into this sum,
which has little impact on the size. Thus we define the von Mangoldt function
(
log p if n = pm , where p is prime, and m 1
(n) :=
(1.2)
0
otherwise,
vM
PNT
(1.3)
nx
PNT
PNT2
The equivalent estimates (1.1) and (1.3), known as the prime number theorem,
are difficult to prove. In this chapter we show how the prime number theorem
is equivalent to understanding the mean value of the Mobius function. This will
motivate our study of multiplicative functions in general, and provide new ways
of looking at many of the classical questions in analytic number theory.
1.1
Partial Summation
an f (n)
n=A+1
in terms of the partial sums S(t). Let us first assume that A < B are nonnegative
integers. Since an = S(n) S(n 1) we may write
B
X
n=A+1
an f (n) =
B
X
n=A+1
PNT2
B1
X
S(n)(f (n + 1) f (n)).
(1.4)
PS1
PS2
n=A+1
n=A
A<nB
PS2
PNT2
Exercise 1.1 Using partial summation show that (1.1) and (1.3) are equivalent,
and that both are equivalent to
X
(x) =
log p = x + o(x).
(1.6)
px
ex:harmonic
Exercise 1.2 Using partial summation, prove that for any integer N 1
Z N
N
X
1
{t}
= log N + 1
dt,
N
t2
1
n=1
where throughout we write [t] for the integer part of t, and {t} for its fractional
part (so that t = [t] + {t}). Deduce that for any real x 1
1
X 1
= log x + + O
n
x
nx
Using that
Rx
1
{t}
dt.
t
{t}
1
1
dt = log N
t
2
2
Z
1
{t} {t}2
dt.
t2
PNT3
Y
X
1 1
1
=
1 s
.
s
n
p
p
n=1
Here the Dirichlet series and the Euler product both converge absolutely in the
region Re(s) > 1.
zeta
x
x
(x) (C + o(1))
.
log x
log x
(1.7)
(x)
x/ log x
Summing both sides over n (and rewriting dn as n = dk), we obtain that
Cheb1
log n =
nx
X X
(d) =
nx n=dk
(x/k).
(1.8)
Cheb2
(1.9)
Cheb3
k=1
ex:stirling
k=1
(x)
(x)
1 lim inf
,
x
x
x
Cheb2
which gives the lower bound of (1.7) with c = log 2 a permissible value. And we
also obtain that
(2x) (x) x log 4 + O(log x),
which, when used at x/2, x/4, . . . and summed, leads
to (x) x log 4 +
Cheb1
O((log x)2 ). Thus we obtain the upper bound in (1.7) with C = log 4 a permissible value.
ex:Bertrand
Exercise 1.6 Using that (2x) (x) + (2x/3) x log 4 + O(log x), prove
Bertrands postulate that there is a prime between N and 2N .
Cheb2
dx
kx/d
dx
Using Stirlings formula, and the recently established (x) = O(x), we conclude
that
X (d)
,
x log x + O(x) = x
d
dx
or in other words
X (n) X log p
=
+ O(1) = log x + O(1).
n
p
nx
px
(1.10)
Pavg
Pavg
Exercise 1.7 Show that (1.10) would follow from the prime number theoremPavg
and
partial summation. Why does the prime number theorem
not
follow
from
(
1.10)
P
and partial summation? What stronger information on px log p/p would yield
the prime number theorem?
Pavg
Exercise 1.8 Use (1.10) and partial summation show that there is a constant c
such that
X1
1
= log log x + c + O
.
p
log x
px
.
p
log x
px
(In fact is the EulerMascheroni constant. There does not seem to be a straightforward, intuitive proof known that it is indeed this constant.)
1.3
The main objects of study in this book are multiplicative functions. These are
functions f : N C satisfying f (mn) = f (m)f (n) for all coprime integers m and
n. If the relation f (mn) = f (m)f (n)Qholds for all integers m and n we say that f
the primes pj are distinct, then f (n) = j f (pj j ) for multiplicative functions f .
Thus a multiplicative function is specified by its values at prime powers and a
completely multiplicative function is specified by its values at primes.
A handy way to study multiplicative functions is through Dirichlet series. We
let
X
f (p) f (p2 )
f (n) Y
=
1
+
+
+
.
.
.
.
F (s) =
ns
ps
p2s
p
n=1
The product over primes above is called an Euler product, and viewed formally
the equality of the Dirichlet series and the Euler product above is a restatement
of the unique factorization of integers into primes. If we suppose that the multiplicative function f does not grow rapidy for example, that f (n) nA
for some constant A then the Dirichlet series and Euler product will converge
absolutely in some halfplane with Re(s) suitably large.
Given any two functions f and g from N C (not necessarily multiplicative),
their Dirichlet convolution f g is defined by
X
(f g)(n) =
f (a)g(b).
ab=n
If F (s) = n=1 f (n)ns and G(s) = n=1 g(n)ns are the associated Dirichlet
convolution f g corresponds to their product F (s)G(s) =
Pseries, then the
s
(f
g)(n)n
.
n=1
Here are some examples of the basic multiplicative functions and their associated Dirichlet series.
The function (1) = 1 and (n) = 0 for all n 2 has the associated
Dirichlet series 1.
The function 1(n) = 1 for all n N has the associated Dirichlet series (s)
which converges absolutely
when Re(s) > 1, and whose analytic continuation we
zeta
discussed in Exercise 1.4.
For a natural number k, the kdivisor function dk (n) counts the number of
ways of writing n as a1 ak . That is, dk is the kfold convolution of the function
1(n), and its associated Dirichlet series is (s)k . The function d2 (n) is called the
divisor function and denoted simply by d(n). More generally, for any complex
number z, the zth divisor function dz (n) is defined as the nth Dirichlet series
coefficient of (s)z .
The M
obius function (n) is defined to be 0 if n is divisible by the square
of some prime, and if n is squarefree (n) is 1 or 1 depending on whether
n
an even or odd number of prime factors. The associated Dirichlet series
Phas
s
= (s)1 so that is the same as d1 .
n=1 (n)n
The von Mangoldt function (n) is not multiplicative, but is of great interest to us. Its associated Dirichlet series is 0 /(s). The function log n has
associated Dirichlet series 0 (s), and putting these facts together we see that
log n = (1 )(n) =
Lammu
ab=n
dn
Exercise 1.9 If f and g are functions from N to C, show that the relation
f = 1 g is equivalent to the relation g = f . This is known as M
obius
inversion.
As mentioned earlier, our goal in this chapter is to show that the prime
number theorem is equivalent to a statement about the mean value of the multiplicative function . We now formulate this equivalence precisely.
PNTM
Theorem 1.10 The prime number theorem, namely (x) = x + o(x), is equivalent to
X
M (x) =
(n) = o(x).
(1.12)
nx
Before we can prove this, we need one more ingredient: namely, we need to
understand the average value of the divisor function.
1.4
PrS4
Mx
The average value of the divisor function and Dirichlets hyperbola method
XX
d(n) =
nx dn
nx
dx
dx nx
dn
X hxi
XX
1=
X x
dx
+ O(1)
= x log x + O(x).
Dirichlet realized that one can substantially improve the error term above by
pairing each divisor a of an integer n with its complementary divisor b = n/a;
2
one minor exception is when
n = m and the divisor m cannot be so paired.
Since a or n/a must be n we have
d(n) =
1=2
1 + n ,
dn
d< n
dn
nx
X
d< x
dn
d< n
1+2
nx
n=d2
1
d2 <nx
dn
(2[x/d] 2d + 1) ,
d< x
and so
X
nx
d(n) = 2x
X 1
x + O( x) = x log x x + 2x + O( x),
d
(1.13)
DD
d< x
ex:harmonic
by Exercise 1.2.
The method described above is called the hyperbola method because we are
trying to count the number of lattice points (a, b) with a and b nonnegative and
lying below the hyperbola ab = x. Dirichlets idea maybe thought of as choosing
parameters A, B with AB = x, and dividing the points under the hyperbola
according to whether a A or b B or both. We remark that an outstanding
open problem,
known as the Dirichlet divisor problem, is to show that the error
DD
1
term in (1.13) may be improved to O(x 4 + ). ex:stirling DD
For our subsequent work, we use Exercise 1.3 to recast (1.13) as
X
nx
(1.14)
divest
8
kdiv
Exercise 1.11 Given a natural number k, use the hyperbola method together
with induction and partial summation to show that
X
dk (n) = xPk (log x) + O(x11/k+ )
nx
where Pk (t) denotes a polynomial of degree k 1 with leading term tk1 /(k 1)!.
1.5
Primes5
The primePNTM
number theorem and the M
obius function: proof of
Theorem 1.10
P
First we show that the estimate M (x) = nx (n) = o(x) implies the prime
number theorem (x) = x + o(x).
Define the arithmetic function a(n) = log n d(n) + 2, so that
a(n) = (1 ( 1))(n) + 2.
When we convolve a with the Mobius function we therefore obtain
( a)(n) = ( 1 ( 1))(n) + 2( 1)(n) = ( 1)(n) + 2(n),
where (1) = 1, and (n) = 0 for n > 1. Hence, when we sum ( a)(n) over all
n x, we obtain
X
X
( a)(n) =
((n) 1) + 2 = (x) x + O(1).
nx
nx
On the other hand, we may write the left hand side above as
X
(d)a(k),
dkx
and, as in the hyperbola method, split into terms where k K or k > K (in
which case d x/K). Thus we find that
X
X
X
X
(d)a(k) =
a(k)M (x/k) +
(d)
a(k).
dkx
kK
dx/K
K<kx/d
divest
(x) x =
a(k)M (x/k) + O(x/ K).
kK
If we now know that M (x) = o(x), then by letting K tend to infinity very
slowly with x, we may conclude that (x) x = o(x), obtaining the prime
number theorem.
Selbergs formula
Now we turn to the converse. We must show that the prime number theorem
implies that M (x) = o(x). Consider the arithmetic function (n) log n which
is the nth Dirichlet series coefficient of (1/(s))0 . Since
1 0
0
0 (s)
1
=
=
(s)
,
(s)
(s)2
(s)
we obtain the identity (n) log n = ( )(n). Since 1 = , we find that
X
X
(n) log n 1.
(1.15)
( ( 1))(n) =
nx
nx
Pr51
nx
nx
Pr51
ax
We are assuming the prime number theorem, which means that given > 0 if
t T is large enough then (t) t t. Using this for a x/T (so that
x/a > T ) and the Chebyshev estimate
(x/a) x/a x/a for x/T a x
Pr51
we find that the left hand side of (1.15) is
X
X
x/a +
x/a x log x + x log T.
ax/T
x/T ax
log T
x,
log x
Pr51
10
Selberg
pqx
P
Proof We define 2 (n) := (n) log n + `m=n (`)(m). Thus 2 (n) is the
nth Dirichlet series coefficient of
0 0 0 2
00 (s)
(s) +
(s) =
,
(s)
so that 2 = ( (log)2 ).
Our previous work exploited that = (log) and that the function d(n)2
had the same average value as log n. Now we search for a divisor type function
which has the same average as (log n)2 .
By partial summation we find that
X
(log n)2 = x(log x)2 2x log x + 2x + O((log x)2 ).
nx
kdiv
Set b(n) = (log n)2 2d3 (n) c2 d(n) c1 so that the above relations give
X
b(n) = O(x2/3+ ).
(1.16)
nx
nx
lx/k
kx
nx
Pr61
Selbergs formula
SelbergIden
11
+ O(x)
n
n
nx
Pavg
(x) x
,
x
and
A = lim sup
x
(x) x
.
x
2
FIRST RESULTS ON MULTIPLICATIVE FUNCTIONS
C2
As we have just seen, understanding the mean value of the Mobius function
leads to the prime number theorem. Motivated by this, we now begin our study
of mean values of multiplicative functions in general. We begin by giving in this
chapter some basic examples and developing some preliminary results in this
direction.
S2.1
2.1 A heuristic
PrS4
In Section 1.4 we saw that a profitable way of studying the mean value of the kdivisor function is to write dk as the convolution 1 dk1 . Given a multiplicative
function f let us write f as 1 g where g is also multiplicative. Then
hxi
X
XX
X
f (n) =
g(d) =
g(d)
.
d
nx
nx dn
dx
(2.1)
E2.1
E2.2
nx
dx
dx
nx
where
P(f ; x) =
Y
1+
px
Y
g(p) g(p2 )
1
f (p f (p2 )
+ 2 +... =
1
1+
+ 2 +... .
p
p
p
p
p
px
(2.3)
E2.2
Consider the heuristic (2.2) in the case of the kdivisor function. The heuristic
predicts that
X
Y
1 (k1)
dk (n) x
1
x(e log x)k1 ,
p
nx
px
which is off from the true asymptotic formula x(log x)k1 /(k 1)! only by a
constant factor.
E2.3
13
One of our aims will be to obtain results that are uniform over the class of all
mutiplicative functions. Thus for example we could consider
x to be large and
f (pk ) = 1
consider
the multiplicative function f with f (pk ) = 0 for p x and
for p > x. In this case, we have f (n) = 1 if n is a prime between x and x
and f (n) = 0 for other n x. Thus, the heuristic suggests that
X
nx
Y
1
e
2e x
1
x
f (n) = 1 + (x) ( x) x
.
p
log x
log x
p x
Again this is comparable to the prime number theorem, but the heuristic is off
by the constant 2e 1.1.... This discrepancy is significant in prime number
theory, and has been exploited beautifully by many authors starting with the
pioneering work of Maier.
In the case of the M
obius function, the heuristic suggests comparing
M (x) =
(n)
with
nx
Y
px
xe2
1 2
,
p
(log x)2
but in fact nx (n) is much smaller. The best bound that we know uncondiP
3
tionally is that nx (n) x exp(c(log x) 5 ), but we expect that it is as
1
small as x 2 + this is equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis. In any event, the
heuristic certainly suggests the prime number theorem that M (x) = o(x).
S2.2
2.2
The heuristic (2.2) is accurate and easy to justify when the function g is small in
size, or in other words, when f is close to 1. We give a sample such result which
is already quite useful.
pr2.1
X
g(d)
e
= G()
d
d=1
E2.1
Since P(f ) =
d1
dx
dx
14
X g(d)
X g(d)
P(f )
.
d
d
d>x
dx
dx
d>x
The result follows from the following observation, which holds for any sequence
of nonnegative real numbers: If an 0 for all n 1 then for any , 0 1,
we have
X x
X an n 1
X an
X
X an
an
+x
= x
.
(2.4)
an + x
n
n
n x
n
n>x
n>x
nx
nx
n1
2
P
g(n)/n
ex2.0
ex2.1
n=1
Remark 2.4 If we are bounding the sum of f (n) for n x then the values of
f (pk ) for p > x are not used in determining the sum, yet the F () in the upper
bound in the previous exercise implicitly uses those values. This suggests that in
order to optimize our bound we may select these f (p) to be as helpful as possible,
typically taking f (pk ) = 1 for all p > x, so that g(pk ) = 0.
ex2.2
ex2.3
Exercise 2.5 For any natural number q, prove that for any 0 1
X
Y
(q)
1
1
x
x
1+ .
q
p
nx
pq
(n,q)=1
If one takes = 0, we obtain the sieve of Eratosthenes bound of 2(q) (where
(q) is the number of distinct
primes dividing q) for the right side above. A little
P
calculus shows that, if pq (log p)/(p + 1) log x, the choice of that optimizes
P
our bound, is given by the relation pq (log p)/(p + 1) = log x.
P
Exercise 2.6 Let (n) = dn d. Prove that
X (n)2 (n)
15
= 2 x + O( x log x).
(n)
nx
Rankin
15
X f (n)
X
g(d)
e
= P(f )(log x + )
log d + O(x1 log xG()).
n
d
nx
ex2.5
d=1
E2.3
Now we refine Proposition 2.1 and establish the heuristic (2.3) under a less
restrictive hypothesis.
Prop2.7
X
g(n)
e
= G(1)
n
n=1
is convergent. Then
X
g(d)
1X
f (n) = P(f ) =
.
x x
d
nx
d=1
E2.1
P
P
P
Proof Recall (2.1) which gives nx f (n) = x dx g(d)/d + O( dx g(d)).
Now
X
X
g(n)
g(n)
P(f )
x 0,
n
n>x n
lim
nx
and
X
Z
g(n) =
0
nx
as
n=1
X g(n)
dt = o(x),
n
t<nx
px
16
Proof Consider
X
f (n) log x =
f (n) log n +
f (n) log(x/n).
nx
nx
nx
nx n=pk r
(p,r)=1
X
rx
rx
Ax
f (r)
+B .
r
f (n)
and since
follows.
nx
nx
X f (n)
B X
x
(A + 1)
+
f (n),
log x
n
log x
nx
nx
pk x/r
f (n)/n
px (1
nx
X 1 f (p)
f (n) xP(f ; x) x exp
p
(2.5)
px
nx
pk z
E2.5
E2.5
If
p (1
17
E2.5
1X
f (n) = 0 = P(f ).
x
nx
We would love to have a uniform result like (2.5) for real valued multiplicative
functions with 1 f (n) 1 (and more generally for complex valued multiplicative functions), since that would immediately imply the prime number theorem.
Establishing such a result will be one
P of our goals in the coming chapters. In particular, one may ask if limx x1 nx f (n) exists (and equals P(f )) for more
general classes of multiplicative functions. Erdos and Wintner conjectured that
this is so for real valued multiplicative functions with 1 P
f (n) 1, and this
was established by Wirsing whose proof also establishes that nx (n) = o(x).
The work of Halasz, which we shall focus on soon, considers the more general
case of complex valued multiplicative functions taking values in the unit disc.
3
INTEGERS WITHOUT LARGE PRIME FACTORS
3.1
Given a real number y 2, we let S(y) denote the set of natural numbers all of
whose prime factors are at most y. Such natural numbers are called smooth in
the English literature, and friable (meaning crumbly) in the French literature;
the latter usage seems to be spreading, at least partly because the word smooth
is already overused. Smooth numbers appear all over analytic number theory in
connections ranging from computational number theory and factoring algorithms
to Warings problem. Our interest is in the counting function of smooth numbers:
X
(x, y) :=
1.
nx
nS(y)
y<px
x
log x
= x 1 log
+O
.
log y
log y
The formula above suggests writing x = y u , and then for 1 u 2 it gives
(y u , y) = y u (1 log u) + O
yu
.
log y
We can continue the process begun above, using the principle of inclusion and
exclusion to evaluate (y u , y) by subtracting from [y u ] the number of integers
which are divisible by a prime larger than y, adding back the contribution from
integers divisible by two primes larger than y, and so on. A result of this type
for small values of u may be found in Ramanujans unpublished manuscripts
(collected in The last notebook), but the first published uniform results on this
problem are due to Dickman and de Bruijn. The answer involves the Dickmande Bruijn function (u) defined as follows. For 0 u 1 let (u) = 1, and
19
(t)dt.
u(u) =
u1
yu
+1 .
log y
Using log n =
X
dn
nx
nS(y)
(d) we have
log n =
nx
nS(y)
nx
(d)(x/d, y) =
py
dx
dS(y)
=
u
d(log t + E(t)),
p
log y
log y
1
py
E2.10
20
log p
py
E2.11
x log(x/p)
+ O(x).
p
log y
(3.2)
E2.11
(3.3)
E2.12
E2.10
(1 1/ps )1 =
py
ns ,
nS(y)
be the Dirichlet series associated with the ysmooth numbers. For any real numbers x 1 and y 2, show that the function x (, y) for (0, ) attains its
minimum at = (x, y) satisfying
log x =
X log p
.
p 1
py
ex2.1
py
1
log y
p1
21
log(1/) + O
y
log(y )
.
(Hint: Compare the sum for the primes with p 1 to the sum of 1/p in the
same range. Use upper bounds on (x) for those primes for which p 1.)
ex2.8
ex2.9
log u)
Exercise 3.4 For x = y u with y > (log x)2+ let = 1 log(u
. Deduce
log y
from the last two exercises that there exists a constant C > 0 such that
u
C
(x, y)
x log y.
u log u
1 + o(1)
u log u
u
.
(Hint: Select c maximal such that (u) (c/u log u)u . By using the functional
equation for deduce that c 1. Take a similar approach for the implicit upper
bound.)
C2a
GenFundLem
3.2
Proposition 3.6 Suppose that f (pk ) = 1 for all p > y. Let x = y u . Then
1X
f (n) = P(f ; x) + O(1/uu/3 ).
x
nx
Can we get an estimate of P(f ; x){1 + O(1/uu )}, and so generalize the Fundamental Lemma of Sieve Theory? We begin with a simple case that follows
from the Fundamental Lemma of Sieve Theory:
BabyBuchstab
Lemma 3.7 Suppose that g(pk ) = 0 for all p y, and g(pk ) = 1 for all p > y.
Let x = y u . Then
X
Y
1
{1 + O(1/uu )}.
g(n) = x
1
p
nx
py
GenFundLem
22
f (n) =
h(a)
aA
nx
Let A = B =
X
bx/a
g(b) +
g(b)
bB
h(a).
A<a<x/b
BabyBuchstab
where y :=
py
1
p
y x
X h(a)
a
X h(a)
X h(a)
x X 1
+(u/2)u/2 y x
+(u/2)u/2 x (u/2)u/2 x,
a
a
log y
a
a
a>A
a>A
as h(a) 1, using our estimate on tail of sums over smooth numbers. We bound
the second sum above using our knowledge of smooths to obtain
X
x
4
DISTANCES AND THE THEOREMS OF DELANGE, WIRSING
AND HALASZ
C2
2.2)
or when f was nonnegative (see
S2.3
??). Even for nice nonnegative functions the heuristic is not entirely accurate,
C3
as revealed by the example of smooth numbers discussed in Chapter ??. We
now continue our study of this heuristic, and focus on whether the mean value
can be bounded above by something like P(f ;S2.2
x). We begin by making precise
the geometric language, already employed in 2.2, of one multiplicative function
being close to another.
4.1 The distance between two multiplicative functions
The notion of a distance between multiplicative functions makes most sense in
the context of functions whose values are restricted to the unit disc U = {z 1}.
In thinking of the distance between two such multiplicative functions f and g,
naturally we may focus on the difference between f (pk ) and g(pk ) on prime
powers. An obvious candidate for quantifying this distance is
X f (pk ) g(pk )
,
pk
k
p x
Prop2.7
Lemma 4.1 Suppose we have a sequence of functions j : U U R0 satisfying the triangle inequality
j (z1 , z3 ) j (z1 , z2 ) + j (z2 , z3 ),
for all z1 , z2 , z3 U. Then we may define a metric UN = {z = (z1 , z2 , . . .)} by
setting
X
21
d(z, w) =
j (zj , wj )2 ,
j=1
assuming that the sum converges. This metric satisfies the triangle inequality
d(z, w) d(z, y) + d(y, w).
24
j (zj , wj )2
j=1
j=1
j=1
j (zj , yj )j (yj , wj )
j=1
X
j (zj , yj , )2
21 X
j (yj , wj )2
21
j=1
j=1
2
(4.1)
eq:4.2.1
(4.2)
eq:4.2.2
25
X 1 Re f (p)g(p)
.
p
px
lem4.1
(4.3)
triangle1
(4.4)
triangle2
Alternatively, we can take any > 1 and take the coefficients aj = 1/p and
zj = f (p) as p runs over all primes. In this case we have
D (f, g)2 =
X 1 Re f (p)g(p)
,
p
p
triangle1 triangle2
Lemma 4.3 For any multiplicative functions f and g taking values in the unit
disc we have
D(f, g; x)2 = D (f, g)2 + O(1)
with = 1 + 1/ log x. Furthermore, if f is completely multiplicative and F (s) =
P
s
n=1 f (n)/n is the Dirichlet series associated to f we have
F (1+1/ log x) (1+1/ log x) exp D(1, f ; x)2 log x exp D(1, f ; x)2 .
Proof With = 1 + 1/ log x we have
X 1
X 1
1
1+ + 2
= O(1),
D(f, g; x)2 D (f, g)2  2
p p
p1+
p>x
px
proving
assertion. The second statement follows since log F () =
P our first
Re
f
(p)/p
+
O(1).
2
p
Taking g(n) = nit we obtain, for x 2
X f (p)
X
f (n)
1
exp
+ it .
=F 1+
1
p1+it
log x
n1+ log x +it
px
n1
(4.5)
TruncRight
26
4.2
Delange
Delanges Theorem
Theorem 4.4 Let f be a multiplicative function taking values in the unit disc
U. Suppose that
X 1 Re f (p)
D(1, f ; ) =
< .
p
p
Then as x we have
X
nx
Prop2.7
Delanges theorem gives a satisfactory answer in the case of multiplicative functions at a bounded distance from 1, and we are left to ponder what happens
when D(1,
P f ; x) as x . One would be tempted to think that in this
case x1 nx f (n) 0 as x were it not for the following important counter
example. Let 6= 0 be a fixed real number and consider the completely multiplicative function f (n) = ni . By partial summation we find that
X
nx
ni =
x+
y i d[y]
x1+i
.
1 + i
(4.6)
eq:4.1
27
zeta
1
y
N
n=1
Choose N = [s] + 1, and bound the sum over n trivially to deduce the stated
bound for (s).
2
lem4.3.1
Lemma 4.6 Let be any real number. Then for all x 3 we have
D(1, pi ; x)2 = log(1 +  log x) + O(1),
in the case  1/10. When  1/10 we have
D(1, pi ; x)2 log log x log log(2 + ) + O(1).
lem4.3
log x
.
(1 + 1/ log x + i)
lem4.3.0
We shall find Lemma 4.6 very useful in our work. One important consequence
of it and the triangle inequality is that a multiplicative function cannot pretend
to be like two different problem examples ni and ni .
cor:repulsive
Corollary 4.7 Let and be two real numbers and let f be a multiplicative
function taking values in the unit disc. Then
D(f, pi ; x) + D(f, pi ; x)
2
exceeds
log(1 +   log x) + O(1)
in case   1/10 , and in the case   1/10 it exceeds
log log x log log(2 +  ) + O(1).
Proof Indeed the triangle inequality gives that D(f, pi ; x) + lem4.3.1
D(f, pi ; x)
i i
i()
D(p , p ; x) = D(1, p
; x) and we may now invoke Lemma 4.6.
2
The problem example ni discussed above takes on complex values, and one
might wonder if there is a real valued multiplicative function f taking values in
[1, 1] for which D(1, f ; x) as x but for which the mean value does not
tend to zero. A lovely theorem of Wirsing, a precursor to the important theorem
of Hal
asz that we shall next discuss, establishes that this does not happen.
28
Wirsing
Theorem 4.8 Let f be a real valued multiplicative function with f (n) 1 and
D(1, f ; x) as x . Then as x
1X
f (n) 0.
x
nx
Note that Wirsings theorem applied to (n) immediately yields the prime
number theorem. We shall not directly discuss this theorem; instead we shall
deduce it as a consequence of Halaszs theorem.
4.4
Hal
aszs theorem
We saw in the previous section that the function f (n) = ni has a large mean
value even though D(1, f ; x) as x . We may tweak such a function at
a small number of primes and expect a similar result to hold. More precisely, one
can ask if an analog of Delanges result holds: that is if f is multiplicative
with
P
D(f (p), pi ; ) < for some , can we understand the behavior of nx f (n)?
This is the content of the first result of Halasz.
ex:4.4.1
Hal1
Proof We
show how Hal
aszs first theorem may be deduced from Delanges
Delange
Theorem 4.4. By partial summation we have
Z x
Z x
X
X
X
X
f (n) =
ti d
g(n) = xi
g(n) i
ti1
g(n)dt.
nx
nt
nx
nt
Now D(1, g; ) = D(f, pi ; ) < and so by Delanges theorem, if t is sufficiently large then
X
g(n) = tP(g; t) + o(t).
nt
Therefore
X
f (n) = x P(g; x) i
nx
Now note that P(g; t) is slowly varying: P(g; t) = P(g; x) + O(log(ex/t)/ log x)
and our result follows.
2
Hal1
Hal
aszs theorem
29
x
1 + i x
ni
nx
nx
AsympT2
Theorem 4.12 Let f be a multiplicative function with f (n) 1 for all n and
let 1 T (log x)10 be a parameter. Let
M (x, T ) = Mf (x, T ) = min D(f, pit ; x)2 .
tT
Then
(4.7)
1 X
1
f (n) M (x, T ) exp(M (x, T )) + .
x
T
nx
ex:4.13
Conclude that Mf (x, T ) log log x + O(1), and the bound in Hal
aszs theorem
is never better than x log log x/ log x.
Exercise 4.15 If x y show that
0 Mf (x, T ) Mf (y, T ) 2
X 1
log x
= 2 log
+ O(1).
p
log y
y<px
mindist
5
PROOF OF DELANGES THEOREM
Delange
Theorem 4.4 Let f be a multiplicative function taking values in the unit disc
U for which D(1, f ; ) < . Then as x we have
X
f (n) xP(f ; x).
nx
X 1 Re f (p)
p
(5.1)
eq:Del21
py
eq:Del22
py
We shall prove Delanges theorem by showing that for large x (henceforth assumed > y 2 ) the function `(n) is more or less constant over n x.
Exercise 5.1 For any complex numbers w1 , . . ., wk and z1 , . . ., zk in the unit
disc we have
j
X
z1 zk w1 wk 
zj wj .
j=1
Define
now g(p) = 0 if p y, g(p) = f (p) 1 for y < p
for p > x. Then consider the additive function
X
g(n) =
g(p),
pn
x and g(p) = 0
31
p> x
pn
x>p>y
1 f (p)2 +
pn
p>y
f (p) 1.
pn
p> x
X 1 f (p)2
X 1 f (p)
x
+x
+x
y
p
p
x>p>y
x<px
p
x( (y) + 1/y),
(5.4)
`(n) exp(g(n))
nx
eq:Del22
where the last step follows upon using Cauchys inequality and (5.2).
PropDel
Proposition 5.2 Suppose that g(.) is additive (as above) with each g(p) 1.
Let
X g(p)
ge =
.
p
y<px
Then, for x y 2 ,
X
g(n) ge2 x
nx
x
X g(p)2
+O
.
p
(log x)2
y<px
Proof Note that since g(.) is additive, and g(p) = 0 for p y and p >
have
x
X
X
g(n) =
g(p)
+ O(1) = xe
g + O(( x)).
p
nx
xp>y
Hence, using e
g  log log x,
x log log x
X
X
g(n) ge2 =
g(n)2 xe
g 2 + O
.
log x
nx
nx
nx
nx
p,qn
xp,qy
x
+ O(( x)2 )
[p, q]
x
1
1
2
g(p)
2 +O
p p
(log x)2
g(p)g(q)
xp,qy
= xe
g 2 + x
xpy
x we
eq:bound1
32
nx
Now if z and w have negative real parts,  exp(z) exp(w) z w. Therefore
X
X
X
s(n) exp(g(n)) = exp(e
g)
s(n) + O
g(n) ge
nx
nx
= exp(e
g)
nx
s(n) + O(x(
nx
eq:Del22
PropDel
eq:Del23
upon using (5.2), Proposition 5.2 and Cauchys inequality. Now using (5.3) we
conclude that
X
1
1
f (n) = exp(e
g )xP(s; x) + o(x) + O(x((y) 2 + y 2 )).
nx
Now
P(`; x) = exp ge+O
y<p x
X
1
+
p2
x<px
1 p
f (p) 1
= ge 1+O + (y) .
p
y
6
DEDUCING THE PRIME NUMBER THEOREM FROM
HALASZS
THEOREM
6.1
1p
2
1
log log x + O(1), D(1, f ; x) + O(1) .
3
In the range 1/100  (log x)10 , we obtain from Lemma 4.6 that D(1, p2i ; x)2
(1 ) log log x, and so the lemma follows in this range.
Suppose
now that  1/100. Then D(1, p2i ; x) = D(1, pi ; x) + O(1) by
lem4.3.1
Lemma 4.6. Thus, by the triangle inequality and our estimate above
D(f, pi ; x) D(1, f ; x) D(1, pi ; x) D(1, f ; x) 2D(f, pi ; x) + O(1)
so that
D(f, pi ; x)
1
D(1, f ) + O(1).
3
2
Using the above Lemma and Halaszs theorem with T = (log x)10 we deduce:
Halreal
34
6.2
and then
(x) = x + O
x
2
(log x) 9 +o(1)
x
(log x) 9 +o(1)
7
SELBERGS SIEVE AND THE BRUNTITCHMARSH
THEOREM
In order to develop the theory of mean values of multiplicative functions, we
shall need an estimate for the distribution of primes in short intervals. We need
only an upper estimate for the number of such primes, and this can be achieved
by a simple sieve method and does not need results of the strength of the prime
number theorem. We describe a beautiful method of Selberg which works well in
this and many other applications, but there are many other sieves which would
also work. The reader is referred to Friedlander and Iwaniecs Opera de Cribro
for a thorough treatment of sieves in general and their many applications.
7.1
(x + y; q, a) (x; q, a)
x<nx+y
na (mod q)
2
dn
1,
x<nx+y
na (mod q)
[d1 ,d2 ]n
36
X
y X d1 d2
d1 d2 
+
q
[d1 , d2 ]
d1 ,d2
d1 ,d2
2
y X d1 d2 X
=
+
d  .
q
[d1 , d2 ]
(x + y; q, a) (x; q, a)
d1 ,d2
(7.1)
E3.1
d1 ,d2
`d1
`d2
If we set
` =
X d`
d
d1 ,d2
(7.2)
E3.2
X d`
`
(`) =
X d` X
`
(r) =
(r)
r`
X d`
r`
X (r)
r
dr .
X (r)
r
r .
(7.3)
We
have transformed our problem to minimizing
the diagonal quadratic form
E3.2
E3.3
in (7.2) subject to the linear constraint in (7.3). It is clear that the optimal choice
E3.3
37
1 r(r)
Lq (R) (r)
where
Lq (R) =
X (r)2
.
(r)
(7.4)
E3.4
rR
(r,q)=1
E3.2
For this choice, the quadratic form in (7.2) attains the minimum value which is
1/L(q R). Note also that for this choice of , we have (for d R and (d, q) = 1)
d =
X d(r)(dr)
1
,
Lq (R)
(dr)
rR/d
(r,q)=1
and so
X
dR
d 
1
Lq (R)
X
d,r
drR
(dr,q)=1
X (n)2 (n)
(dr)2 d
1
=
,
(dr)
Lq (R)
(n)
(7.5)
P
where (n) = dn d.
E3.1
Putting these estimates into (7.1) we deduce that for any arithmetic progression a (mod q) with (a, q) = 1, and any R x, we have
y
1 X (n)2 (n) 2
(x + y; q, a) (x; q, a)
+
,
(7.6)
qLq (R) Lq (R)2
(n)
nR
(n,q)=1
C2
This bound looks unwieldy but the techniques developed in Chapter 2 are enough
to estimate
the sums above. We illustrate this in the case q = 1. Note that by
ex2.3
Exercise 2.6
X (n)2 (n)
15
= 2 x + O( x log x).
(n)
nR
ex2.4
X
p
E3.5
nR
(n,q)=1
(log R)2
,
R
log p
= 0.7553 . . . .
p(p 1)
2y
2y
450
y
+
1 2 2C + log 4 + O
,
2
3
log y
(log y)
(log y)
BTeqn
38
In particular we have:
Theorem 7.1 (BrunTitchmarsh) If y y0 is large enough then
(x + y) (x)
2y
.
log y
BTeqn
One can go much further than this, using (7.6), to obtain that if y/q y0
then
2y
(x + y; q, a) (x; q, a)
.
(q) log(y/q)
Exercise 7.2 Prove this.
7.2
log(2 + t)
Proof Fix [0, 1) and > 0. Let P be the set of primes for which there
exists an integer n such that p In := [e2(n+)/t , e2(n++)/t ), so that
Re(pit ) lies between cos(2) and cos(2( + )). We partition the intervals In
into subintervals of the form [y, y + z], where z = o(y) and log z log y, which is
possible provided t = o(n/ log n) (Exercise). The BrunTitchmarsh Theorem
implies P
that the number of primes in each such interval is {2 + o(1)}z/ log y,
and so pIn 1/p {2 + o(1)} log(1 + n+
), from which we deduce
X
1
log x
{2 + o(1)} log
+ O(),
p
log x0
x0 <px
pIn for some n
log x0
log x
The result follows if t 1. If t < 1 then log log
x0 log(t log x). However,
we also have
X 1
X 1 + cos(t log p)
1
1
(1 + cos(2/3))
log
+ O(1),
p
p
2
t
2/3t
2/3t
pe
pe
by (1.2.4), and then adding these lower bounds gives the result.
HALASZS
THEOREM
Hal2
In this chapter we develop the proof of Halaszs Theorem (Theorem) 4.12) that
if f is a multiplicative function with f (n) 1 for all n and let 1 T (log x)10
be a parameter with M (x, T ) = Mf (x, T ) = mintT D(f, pit ; x)2 , then
1
1 X
f (n) M (x, T ) exp(M (x, T )) + .
x
T
nx
Throughout
the chapter f will be a multiplicative function with f
1. The
P
P(n)
sum nx f (n) will be denoted by S(x) and the Dirichlet series n=1 f (n)ns
by F (s).
MeanF(n)
lemHal1
(8.1)
HildIdentity
px
nx
nx
P
Next writing log n = dn (d) we have
X
X
X
X
X
f (n) log n =
f (n)
(d) =
(d)
f (n).
nx
nx
dn
dx
nx
dn
nx
pn
px
eq:Hal1.1
40
Hal
aszs Theorem
The next step is to bound S(x) by an average involving S(t) for all t x.
propHal1
Z
1
S(t) dt
1
+
.
t
t
log x
Note that S(t)/t is the average size of f (n) for n up to t, and so the Proposition bounds S(x) by an average of averages.
Proof Now, for z = y + y 1/2 , using the BrunTitchmarsh theorem,
X
y<pz
x
x
X
x
log
p
max
(z
y)
max
log p S
S
S
yuz
yuz
p
u
u
y<pz
Z z
y
x
x
x
S
S
dt + (z y) max S
,
yt,uz
t
t
u
and
x
x x x
u t
zy
x
.
S
S
=x
t
u
t
u
tu
y2
Summing over such intervals between y and 2y we obtain
X
y<p2y
Z
x
log p S
p
2y
x
x
S
dt + 1/2 ,
t
y
lemHal1
S(x)
2
8.2
Plancherel
Proposition
8.3 Let an be any sequence of complex numbers such that
P
P A(s) =
s
a
n
converges
absolutely
in
Re(s)
>
1.
Define
also
A(x)
=
n=1 n
nx an .
For any > 0 we have
Z
1
A(t)2
1
dt =
3+2
t
2
A(1 + + iy)2
dy.
1 + + iy2
41
Proof Consider the function G(y) = A(ey )/e(1+y) . Note that the Fourier
transform of G is
Z
Z
X
A(1 + + i)
.
G()
=
G(y)eiy dy =
an
e(1++i)y dy =
1 + + i
log n
n=1
Thus Plancherels formula gives
Z
Z
Z
A(t)2
1
A(1 + + i) 2
2
G(y) dy =
dt,
d =
2 1 + + i
t3+2
1
keybound
Y
p
f (p) 1 X f(n)
=
.
ps
ns
n=1
That is, f(n) is the completely multiplicative function which matches f on all
primes. Note that H(s) is given then by an Euler product which converges absolutely in Re(s) > 1/2 and that in the region Re(s) 1 we have H(s) and
H 0 (s) 1.
The Plancherel formula gives
Z X
Z 0
2 dt
F (1 + + iy) 2
f (n) log n 3+2
dy
t
1 + + iy
1
nt
Z 0
G H(1 + + iy) 2 GH 0 (1 + + iy) 2
(8.3)
+
dy.
1 + + iy
1 + + iy
+
iy
t
1
nt
(8.4)
eq:Hal12
eq:Hal13
42
Hal
aszs Theorem
eq:Hal12
Now consider the first term in (8.3) and split it into the two regions y T
and y > T . Consider the contribution of the first region. This is
(G0 /G)(1 + + iy) 2
dy
1 + + iy
yT
yT
Z (G0 /G)(1 + + iy) 2
max F (1 + + iy)2
dy.
1
+
+
iy
yT
max F (1 + + iy)2
Now G0 /G(s) =
Z
P
s
, and using Plancherel yet again we have
n f (n)(n)n
Z X
Z
(G0 /G)(1 + + iy) 2
2 dt
dt
1
f (n)(n) 3+2
,
dy
1+2
1
+
+
iy
t
t
1
1
nt
upon using the Chebyshev bound that (t) t. This is clearly acceptable.
It remains lastly to consider the contribution of the region y T . Since
H(1 + + iy) 1 we must bound
Z
y>T
Z 0
G0 (1 + + iy) 2
G (1 + + iy) 2
dy
dy.
1 + + iy
T + 1 + + iy
Z
2
X
f(n)nT log n dx
e2x(T +1+)
nex
x2 e2x(T +1+)
X
nT
2
dx.
nex
Now
into the cases ex T and ex > T we can easily establish that
P by splitting
T
Tx
n
e
+ e(T +1)x /(T + 1). Therefore our integral above is
nex
Z
0
1
e2x
dx 1 + 3 2 .
x2 e2x(1+) +
(T + 1)2
T
Combining our work in the preceding two sections we arrive at the following key
estimate.
keyProp
T
log x
nx
Proof of Hal
aszs theorem
43
eq:Hal1.1
Z 1
X
d
y
1 X
y
f (n) log n 2 +
f (n) log n + O
.
log y
log y
y
log y
1/ log x
ny
ny
Therefore
Z 1
Z x
dy
Z x X
S(y)
f
(n)
log
n
dy
2+2 d + log log x.
y2
y
1/ log x
2
2
(8.5)
ny
keybound
S(y)
dy
y2
1/ log x
1
1
1
max F (1 + + iy) + 1 +
d + log log x
yT
T
Z
max F (1 + + iy)
1/ log x yT
d log x
+
+ log log x.
propHal1
Inserting this bound in Proposition 8.2 we have completed the proof of our
Proposition.
2
8.4
Proof of Hal
aszs theorem
P an 
Lemma 8.6 Let
n be a sequence of complex numbers such that
n=1 n < ,
Pa
so that A(s) = n=1 an ns is absolutely convergent in Re(s) 1. For all real
numbers T 1, and all 0 1 we have
max A(1 + + it) max A(1 + iu) + O
tT
u2T
X
an 
.
T n=1 n
2
2 + 2
1
=
i
n
d
+
O
.
2 + 2
T
eq:Hal14
44
Hal
aszs Theorem
Proof Multiplying the result in this exercise through by an /n1+it , and summing over all n, we obtain
Z
X
1 T
an 
A(1
+
it
+
i)d
+
O
A(1 + + it) =
2
2
T +
T n=1 n
which yields the result when t T , since then u t +  2T for u = t + ,
RT
R
1
2
and as 1 T 2
+ 2 d 2 + 2 d = 1 by the exercise with n = 1.
Now we are ready to complete the proof
of Halaszs theorem.
We will bound
keyProp
lemHal12
the termslemHal12
in the integral in Proposition 8.5 using Lemma 8.6 above. Applying
Lemma 8.6 with an = f (n)n1/ log x we obtain that for any 1/ log x 1 we
have
log x
max F (1 + + iy) max F (1 + 1/ log x + iy) + O
T
yT
y2T
log x
(log x) exp(M (x, 2T )) +
.
T
Moreover we have
1
max F (1 + + iy) (1 + ) = + O(1).
yT
keyProp
Using the minimum of the two bounds above in Proposition 8.5 (in other words,
using the first bound for exp(M (x, 2T ))/ log x and the second for larger
) we conclude that
1 X
1
log log x
f (n) M (x, 2T ) exp(M (x, 2T )) + +
.
x
T
log x
nx
ex:4.13
By Exercise 4.14 we have M (x, 2T ) exp(M (x, 2T )) log log x/ log x, so that
the log log Hal2
x/ log x term above may be dropped. Now renaming 2T as T we obtain
Theorem 4.12.
8.5 The logarithmic mean
Since
Z x
Z xX
X
X f (n) 1 X
dt
dt
f (n)
=
f (n),
f (n) 2 =
2
t
n
x
1
n t
nx
nt
nx
nx
eq:Hal14
(8.6)
Halasz4Log
9
MULTIPLICATIVE FUNCTIONS
This is where the book gets less organized. This section includes several useful
results that will be used, but at the moment are not well tied together in a
common theme.
9.1
pa x
Therefore
X
nx
h(n) log n =
X
nx
h(n)
log pa =
pa kn
h(m)
h(pa ) log pa x
pa x/m
pm
mx
X h(m)
,
m
mx
mx
h(n)
nx
x X h(m)
.
log x
m
(9.1)
(3.2.1)
(9.2)
(3.2.2)
mx
(3.2.1)
h(n)
log(2y)
n
log x
X h(n)
.
n
nx
pr2.1
46
Multiplicative functions
X g(d) X g(d)
S(x) S(x/y) S(x) X g(d) S(x/y)
+
+
x x/y x
d x/y
d
d
dx
x/y<dx
dx/y
X
X
X
1
g(d)
1
g(d) +
g(d) +
x
x/y
d
dx
dx/y
x/y<dx
X
X
log(2y)
g(m)
log(2y)
1 f (p)
,
exp
log x
m
log x
p
mx
px
(9.3)
(3.2.1)
ConvId
(3.2.2)
by (9.1) and (9.2). Note that this holds trivially for y > x. This result may be
regarded C20
as a first Lipschitz type estimate, explored in more detail later on in
chapter 15.
9.2
Convolutions of Sums
We
introduce here an idea that will be of importance later, in which we develop
HildIdentity
(8.1). If f is totally multiplicative then
Z
S(x
1t
f (r)(r)dt =
rxt
dt
f (mr)(r)
log r
log x
mrx
log x/m
log x
f (n) log n
nx
log x/n
=
log x
S(x/t)
1
log(x/t2 ) dt
.
log x t
ConvId
X
S(x)
x
1 f (p)
S(x) + O
+
exp
.
log x log x
p
(9.4)
px
9.3
ax
abx
bx/a
ConvId
By (9.3) this is
X H(a) 1 X
X H(a) log(2a)
X 1 g(p)
.
g(b) + O
exp
a
x
a
log x
p
ax
bx
ax
px
(ConvolApprox)
47
We may extend both sums to be over all integers a since the error term is trivially
bigger than the main term when a > x. Now
X H(a)
a
a1
log a =
X H(a) X
a
a1
k log p
pk ka
X k log p X H(A)
X H(p)
,
log y exp
2
pk
A
p
A1
py
k1
writing a = pk A with (A, p) = 1 and then extending the sum to all A, since
H(pk ) 2. Now
X 1 g(p) + H(p) X 1 f (p)
=
,
p
p
px
px
GenFundLem
X 1 f (p)
1X
1X
1X
log
y
.
f (n) =
g(n)
h(n) + O
exp
x
x
x
log x
p
nx
nx
nx
px
(9.5)
This is especially useful for understanding real valued f whose meanvalue is
large.
9.4
Lemma 9.2 If f and g are totally multiplicative, with 0 f (p) g(p) p for
all primes p, then
X
X
Y
Y
f (p)
f (n)
g(p)
g(n)
1
1
p
n
p
n
py
nx
P (n)y
py
nx
P (n)y
Proof We prove this in the case that f (q) < g(q) and g(p) = f (p) otherwise,
since then the result follows by induction. Define h so that g = f h, so that
h(q b+1 ) = (g(q) f (q))g(q b ) for all b 0, and h(pa ) = 0 otherwise. The left
Q
times
hand side above equals py 1 g(p)
p
X h(m)
m
m1
as desired.
X f (n)
nx
P (n)y
X h(m) f (n)
X g(n)
=
,
m
n
n
N x
mn=N
P (N )y
nx
P (n)y
1stStructure
48
Multiplicative functions
pn = py
where x = y u .
Proof If take x = , both sides equal 1 in the Lemma. Hence if we subtract
both sides from 1, and let g = 1, we obtain
Y
X
Y
X
f (p)
f (n)
1
1
1
1
.
p
n
p
n
n>x
n>x
py
pn = py
py
pn = py
dt,
.
log y x
t
log y x
t2
2
+ O(x).
p
p
px
M (x)
M (x)
+ lim sup
= 0.
x
x
x
10
DIRICHLET CHARACTERS
We give a concise introduction to Dirichlet characters. We wish to classify the
nonzero homomorphisms : Z/qZ C.
Qk
e
e
Suppose that q = j=1 pj j . We define a homomorphism j : Z/pj j Z C,
e
ej
by taking j (a) = (A) where A a (mod pj ) and A 1 (mod q/pj j ) (as
is possible by the Chinese Remainder Theorem). Moreover one can verify that
= 1 2 . . . k , and so the characters mod q can be determined by the characters
mod the prime power factors of q.
Now if k = 1 then = 1 . . . k1 is a homomorphism Z/(q/pekk )Z C.
Dirichlet characters are those that are not (also) a homomorphism Z/dZ C
for some proper divisor d of q with (d, q/d) = 1. Hence we may assume that each
j 6= 1.
Now suppose that q = pe . Since 6= 0 there exists a such that (a) 6= 0.
Then (a) = (a 1) = (a)(1) and so (1) = 1. Since 6= 1 there exists b
such that (b) 6= 1. Then (0) = (b 0) = (b)(0) and so (0) = 0. But then
(p)e = (pe ) = (q) = (0) = 0 and so (p) = 0. Hence (a) = 0 if (a, p) > 1.
Now let us return to arbitrary q. The last paragraph implies that (a) = 0 if
(a, q) > 1, so we can think of as a homomorphism (Z/qZ) C. Now suppose
that (Z/qZ) is generated by g1 , g2 , . . . , g` of orders k1 , . . . k` , respectively. Any
a with (a, q) = 1 can be written uniquely as g1a1 . . . g`a` (mod q) where 0 ai
ki 1 for each i, and so (a) = (g1 )a1 . . . (g` )a` and therefore the values of
(g1 ), . . . , (g` ) determine . Now (gi )ki = (giki ) = 1 and so (gi ) is a ki th
root of unity, and in fact we can select any ki th root of unity. Indeed let j be
that character mod q with j (gj ) = e(1/kj ), and j (gi ) = 1 for i 6= j. Then the
set of possible characters mod q is
{1a1 . . . `a` where 0 ai ki 1 for each i}
which, we see, can be viewed as a multiplicative group, isomorphic to (Z/qZ) .
Exercise 10.1 Prove that if (a, q) = 1 but a 6 1 (mod q) then there exists a character
mod q such that (a) 6= 1.
50
Dirichlet Characters
1
(q)
(
X
1
(q)
1
0
if m = 1,
otherwise;
(10.1)
Orthog1
1
0
if = 0 ,
otherwise.
(10.2)
Orthog2
(m) =
(mod q)
(
X
b
(b) =
(mod q)
Orthog1
Orthog1
Exercise 10.2 Prove (10.2). (Hint: One proof is analogous to that of (10.1).)
g() :=
a
(a)e
(mod q)
a
.
q
When (m, q) = 1 we can change the variable a to bm, as b varies through the
residues mod q, coprime to q, so that
X
bm
.
(10.3)
(m)g() = g(, m), where g(, m) :=
(b)e
q
b
(mod q)
P
e
e
e
Select bj to be the inverse of q/pj j (mod pj j ) so that 1 j bj q/pj j (mod q),
and therefore
Y
Y
X
X abj
=
g(j , bj ) =
j (bj )g(j ).
g() =
(1 . . . k )(a)e
ej
pj
j
j
j
a
(mod q)
Q
This implies that g() = j g(j ), and so we may restrict our attention to
prime powers q = pe :
Orthog2
Suppose that is a primitive character mod q. We have g(, 0) = 0 by (10.2).
If e > 1 then (1 + q/p) 6= 1, else is a character mod q/p. Now by writing
a b(1 + q/p) (mod q), we have
X
g(, M p) =
a
(a)e
(mod q)
aM
q/p
= (1 + q/p)
b
(mod q)
(b)e
bM
q/p
= (1 + q/p) g(, M p),
GenGSums
Dirichlet Characters
(q)g() =
m
g(, m) =
(mod q)
=q
a
a,b
(mod q)
51
(a)(b)
m
(mod q)
e
(a b)m
q
(a)2 = (q)q,
(mod q)
so that g() = q for q a prime power and, by the above, this follows for
primitive characters modulo composite q as well.
11
ZETA FUNCTIONS AND DIRICHLET SERIES: A MINIMALIST
DISCUSSION
11.1
X (n)
ns
n1
for Re(s) > 1. One can verify using the fundamental theorem of arithmetic that
this has the Euler product expansion
L(s, ) =
Y
p prime
(p)
ps
1
L(s, ) = lim
N
X
(n)
,
ns
n=1
53
X
(n)
,
ns
n=N +1
X
px
1
+ O(1),
p1+ikt
and so
log (s) = Re(log (s)) =
X Re(pikt )
+ O(1)
p
px
X1
=
D(1, nikt ; x) + O(1) = log log x + Ot (1),
p
px
zeta
a contradiction.
Koukoul
54
Proof
(Koukoulopoulos)
Taking absolute values we have the upper bound
log x
log log y . Let m be the product of the primes y that do not divide q. Write
sX := 1 + log1 X + it for all X > 0, and take s = sx for convenience. Taking
absolute values we obtain an acceptable upper bound for the primes in the sum
TruncRight
that are Y := (sx q)4 . We may therefore now assume that y Y . By (4.5)
with f = we have that
X (n)
X (p)
.
exp
p1+it
ns
y<px
n1
(n,m)=1
1
log x
+ it we have
X
N <nN +qH
(n,m)=1
(n)
1
= s
ns
N
X
N <nN +qH
(n,m)=1
(n) + O
X
N <nN +qH
(n,mq)=1
1
1 .
ns
s
N
Now 1/ns 1/N s  (sqH/N )/N <s sqH/N 2 as sqH N , which leads
to a bound on the second
sum; and we bound the first sum by taking x = N, y =
FLS2
H, z = y in Corollary 17.3. Then, partitioning (N, 2N ] into intervals of length
qH, we obtain
X
N <n2N
(n,m)=1
1
1
sqH
1
1
(n)
1
1
+ +
+ 1.
ns
log y H log1 y
N log y
log y N log1 y
H
N6
Summing over N = y, 2y, 4y, 8y, . . . yields that our sum is bounded, and hence
the result.
2
TruncRight
P
(p)
By (4.5) with f = we have that log(L (sx , ) /L (sy , )) = y<px p1+it +
O(1), and so we deduce from the above that if is a character mod q and
x y q then
L 1 + 1 + it, 1 + log t L 1 + 1 + it, .
log x
log y
log y
There is a proof of this which uses the theory of analytic functions, which is too
beautiful to not include:
Proof It is wellknown that the completed Dirichlet Lfunction has a Hadamard
factorization; that is if = (1 (1))/2 then
s+
2
s+
(s, ) :=
L(s, ) = eA+Bs
q
2
Y
(,)=0
s
1
es/
where Re(B +
55
Y
(,)=0
+ it
+ it .
Now if Re then  + it   + it  by the (geometric) triangle inequality, and so the above product is 1 if 1 since we know
that Re() 1. Inserting this inequality into the definition of (s, ), we deduce the result from the fact that 0 (s)/(s) = log s + O(1/s) (as in (6) of
Chapter 10 of Davenport), which implies that the ratio of the Gamma factors is
log t/ log y 1.
2
Exercise 11.6 The Riemann Hypothesis for L(s, ) states that if (, ) = 0
then Re() 1/2. Prove that this is equivalent to the conjecture that (s, ) is
increasing as one moves in the positive real direction along any horizontal line,
from the line Re(s) = 1/2.
12
HALASZS
THEOREM: INVERSES AND HYBRIDS
It is evidently useful to evaluate the mean value of f (n) in terms of the mean
value of f (n)/nit :
AsympT2
Theorem 12.1 Suppose f (n) is a multiplicative function with f (n) 1 for all
n. If t = tf (x, log x) then
X
xit X f (n)
x log log x
f (n) =
+O
.
1 + it
nit
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
This also holds if we take t = tf (xA , log(xA )) for some A, 1 A 1.
This yields a hybrid version of Halaszs theorem that takes into account the
point 1 + it:
UBdt
Theorem 12.2 Let t = t(x, log x) and let L = L(x, log x). Then
L
1 X
2
log log x
.
f (n)
log +
x
1 + t
L (log x)2 3
(12.1)
nx
We can obtain a better result when we have no useful information about the
size of L:
UBdHyb2
UBdHyb2
Proof of Theorem 12.3 We may suppose that t 10. Let y = tf (x, t 2).
tRepulsion
2
By Lemma ?? and the definition of t, weHalExplic2
see that F (1 + iy) (log x) , as
y t 2, and the result follows from (??) with T = t 2.
2
Exercise 12.1 Prove that if t m and  1/2 then 2mit = (m )it + (m +
)it + O(t/m2 ). Deduce that
(
X
mz
mit =
z 1+it
1+it
+ O(1 + t2 )
O(z).
Generalize this argument to sum other (carefully selected) functions over the integers.
We require the following lemma, which relates the mean value of f (n) to the
meanvalue of f (n)nit .
UBdHyb1
Hal
aszs Theorem: Inverses and Hybrids
AsympT1
57
Lemma 12.4 Suppose f (n) is a multiplicative function with f (n) 1 for all
n. Then for any real number t with t x1/3 we have
X
p
x
xit X f (n)
it
+O
f (n) =
log(2+t) exp D(f (n), n ; x) 2 log log x .
1 + it
nit
log x
nx
nx
nx
nx
dn
dx
mx/d
2
We use the first estimate in the exercise when d x/(1 + t ), and the second
estimate when x/(1 + t2 ) d x. This gives
X
X
X
x1+it X h(d)
h(d)
f (n) =
+ O (1 + t2 )
h(d) + x
.
1 + it
d
d
2
2
nx
dx
dx/(1+t )
x/(1+t )dx
dx
We use this estimate twice, once as it is, and then with f (n) replaced by f (n)/nit ,
and t replaced by 0, so that g and h are the same in both cases.
Then, by the CauchySchwarz inequality,
2
X 1 g(p)
X 1 X 1 Re(g(p))
px
px
and the result follows, since D(f (n), nit ; x)2 = D(g(n), 1; x)2 log log x.
AsympT2
UBdt
Proof
12.2 We may assume that M := Mf (x,
log x) >
of Theorems 12.1 andAsympT2
AsympT1
(2 3) log log x else Corollary 12.1 follows immediately
from
Lemma
12.4.
Now,
P
2 3
in this case nx f (n) x log log x/(log x)
by Halaszs Theorem. Now let
P
g(n) = f (n)/nit . If t > 12 log x then (xit /(1 + it)) nx g(n) x/(1 + t)
AsympT2
x/ log x and Corollary 12.1 follows. But if tAsympT2
> 21 log x then tg (x, 12 log x) = 0,
so that Mg (x, 21 log x) = M , and Corollary 12.1 follows from Halaszs Theorem
applied to g.
UBdt
AsympT2
Finally Theorem 12.2 follows from Corollary 12.1 by the definition of L.
It is left as an exercise for the reader to prove this for t = tf (xA , log(xA )).
2
58
12.1
Hal
aszs Theorem: Inverses and Hybrids
Hal
aszs Theorem states that
1 X
f (n) L(x, T ) log(2/L(x, T )) + T 1 .
x
nx
We will see an example which shows that the L log(1/L) is necessary, but that is
for a very special function. Of more interest is whether we really need a function
like L in our upper bound for typical f .
LBdL
TruncRight
n1
= 1+
X f (n)
n
1+ log1 x
ny
1
y
2+ log1 x
f (n)dy.
ny
2+ log1 x
Z
1
log x
f (n)dy
ny
L(x)
xCB
dy
y
1+ log1 x
L(x) log x
.
e(C1)B
xL/C
Now if (1/y)
Z
ny
xCB
xL/C
1
2+ log1 x
xL/C
f (n)dy
1
ny
dy
L log x
.
y
C
2+ log1 x
X
ny
L
f (n)dy
C
xL/C
xCB
dy
y
1+ log1 x
L log x
.
C
Tenenbaum (Selberg)
59
Now
Then L(xt ) L(x)/t, and hence if
P suppose that f (n) 0 for all n.
L/C
(1/y) ny f (n) L(y)/C for all y, x
< y < xCB then
Z
xCB
xL/C
1
y
2+ log1 x
log x
f (n)dy L/C
xL/C
ny
1+ log1 x
log y
xCB
dy
dy + L/C
x
1+ log1 x
L log x
,
C
Exercise 12.6 Use Theorem 12.1 to obtain an analogous result when tf (x, T ) 6=
0.
12.2
Tenenbaum (Selberg)
Developing an idea of Selberg, Tenenbaum showed that if the mean value of f (p)
is z, where z 6= 0, 1, with very little variance, then
1
1X
f (n)
lim (s 1)z F (s) (log x)z1 .
x
(z) s1+
nx
Our expected mean value is the same quantity with (z) replaced by e(1z) .
Note that if z = 0, 1 then 1/(z) = 0 so we might expect a rather different
phenomenon there. Indeed one can show that in both those cases the mean
value is 1/(log x)2 . In the case z = 0 this singularity restricts how much we
might believe our heuristic about the mean value of a multiplicative function. In
particular when trying to prove a lower bound on the mean value like L we
see that it is necessary to include at least a O(1/ log x) term.
This is a very delicate
Pkind of result for real z 0. Let z = , 0;
the above suggests that
nx f (n) = o(x/(log x)). If we now alter
P the multiplicative
function
f
on
the
primes
(x/2,
x]
only,
then
we
alter
nx f (n) by
P
0
x/2<px f (p)f (p) which can be selected to have any size as large as x/2 log x.
This implies that to prove the above result we need very precise distribution of
the f (p); not something of great general interest.
13
DISTRIBUTION OF VALUES OF A MULTIPLICATIVE
FUNCTION
Suppose that f is a multiplicative function, with f (n) = 1 for all n 1. Define
1
1
Rf (N, , ) :=
# nN :
arg(f (n)) (, ] .
N
2
We say that the f (n) are uniformly distributed on the unit circle if Rf (N, , )
for all 0 < < 1. Jordan Ellenberg asked whether the values f (n)
are necessarily equidistributed on the unit circle according to some measure, and
if not whether their distribution is entirely predictable. We prove the following
response.
Theorem 13.1 Let f be a completely multiplicative function such that each f (p)
is on the unit circle. Either the f (n) are uniformly distributed
on the unit circle,
P
or there exists a positive integer k for which (1/N ) nN f (n)k 6 0. If k is the
smallest such integer then
Rf (N, , ) = k1 Rf k (N, k, k) + oN (1) for 0 < < 1
Exercise 13.2 Deduce in the final case that R(N, + k1 , + k1 ) = R(N, , ) +
oN (1) for all 0 < < 1.
The last parts of the result tell us that if f is not uniformly distributed on the
unit circle, then its distribution function is k copies of the distribution function
for f k , a multiplicative function whose mean value does not 0. It is easy to
construct examples of such functions f k = g whose distribution function
is not
uniform: For example, let g(p) = 1 for all odd primes p and g(2) = e( 2), where
g is completely multiplicative.
To prove our distribution theorem we use
Weyls theorem Let {n : n 1} be any sequence of points on the unit circle.
The setP{n : n 1} is uniformly distributed on the unit circle if and only if
(1/N ) nN nm exists and equals 0, for each nonzero integer m.
We warm up for the proof of the distribution theorem by proving the following
result:
WeylCor
61
mZ
We can take this sum in the range 1 m M with an error . Hence
X
R(N, , ) =
1mM
e(m) e(m) 1 X
f (n)m + O()
2im
N
X
1rR
nN
e(kr) e(kr) 1 X
f (n)kr + O()
2ikr
N
nN
writing m = kr (since the other mean values are 0) and R = [M/k]. This formula
does not change value when we change {, } to { + k1 , + k1 }, nor when we
change {f, , } to k1 times the formula for {f k , k, k} and hence the results.
2
It is an interesting problem to prove a uniform version of this result when N
is large.
14
LIPSCHITZ BOUNDS
We wish to determine
how mean values of multiplicative functions vary in short
AsympT2
intervals. Theorem 12.1 shows that this is not straightforward for if the mean
values of f (n) at x and x/z are roughly the same and AsympT2
large, and similarly the
mean values of f (n)/nit at x and x/w; then Theorem 12.1 implies that wit 1
which is not necessarily true. However if we take the t into account then we can
prove such a result:
LipschBounds
f
(n)
log
+
x1+it
1+it
(x/w)
1
+
t
log
2w
(log
x)2 3
nx
nx/w
where t = tf (x, log x) if tf (x, log x) < 21 log x, otherwise t = 0, and := 1 2 =
0.36338 . . ..
RealLipsch
f
(n)
log
+
x
x/w
log x
log 2w
(log x)2 3
nx
nx/w
LipschBounds
x
nit
x
nit
log x
log 2w
nx
nx/w
Lipschitz bounds
63
1 T
iy
(1
w
ni (1 wiyi )d + O
,
)
=
2
2
n
T +
T
lemHal12
OffLineOn
OffLineOn2
Lemma 14.4 With the same hypothesis as Lemma ??, for all real numbers
T, w 1, and all 0 1 we have
X
an 
.
max A(1 + + it)(1 wiy ) max A(1 + iu)(1 wiy ) + O
T n=1 n
tT
u2T
HalModi
keyProp
keyProp
f (n) log n
f (n) log n 1+2 d
y
y/w
y
y/w
y
2w
1/ log x
2w y ny
ny/w
log x
+ log 2w log
.
log 2w
Using Cauchys inequality, we obtain for 1/ log x,
2
Z x X
X
1
1
dy
f (n) log n
f (n) log n 1+2
y/w
y
2w y ny
ny/w
Z x X
2 dy
1
1 X
1
f (n) log n
f (n) log n 1+2 .
2w y
y/w
y
ny
ny/w
keyProp
As
8.5, extending the range of integration for y to
R in the proof of Proposition
t
,
substitute
y
=
e
,
and
use
Plancherels
formula. The only difference is that
1
F 0 (1 + + iy)/(1 + +P
iy) in the right side there must
Pbe replaced by the Fourier
transform of e(1+)t net f(n) log n we(1+)t net /w f(n) log n which is
F 0 (1 + + iy)(1 wiy )/(1 + + iy). We
make this adjustment, and follow
keyProp
the remainder of the proof of Proposition 8.5.
2
64
Lipschitz bounds
Lipschitz
HalModi
Let aP
function with apk = g(pk ) if OffLineOn2
p x and apk = 0 so
n be the multiplicative
Q
that n an /n px (1 1/p)1 log x. By Lemma 14.4 with A(s) = G(s),
and T = (log x)/2, we have
max
y(log x)/2
max
y(log x)/2
y(log x)/2
1
.
Using the first bound when < 1/(log x) (log 2w)1 , and the second bound
otherwise, in our integral, we obtain our result
2
LipschBounds
AsympT2
Proof ofLipschitz
Corollary 14.1 The result follows from Corollary 12.1 followed by
Theorem 14.3.
2
14.1 Consequences
If m is a squarefree integer x1 we have, for f totally multiplicative,
X
X
X
X
X
f (n) =
f (n)
(d) =
(d)f (d)
f (r)
nx
(n,m)=1
nx
d(m,n)
dm
X (d)f (d) X
dm
Y
pm
d1+it
1
f (n) + O
nx
f (p)
p1+it
X
nx
Xx
dm
f (n) + O
rx/d
log 2m
log x
log
log x
log 2m
+
log log x
(log x)2 3
!!
m
log 2m
log x
log log x
x
log
+
(m)
log x
log 2m
(log x)2 3
d
(14.1)
FSieved1
Consequences
65
LipschBounds
LipschBounds
pm
nx/w
(n,m)=1
+O
m
x
(m) w
log log x
(log x)2
log mw
log x
12/
log
log x
log mw
!!
(14.2)
.
FSieved2
+
dz.
n
x
y
z2
y
ynx
log 2w
X
1
f (n)
1
log x
log log x
log x
.
= t (w)
f (n)+O
log
+
2 3
log w
n
x
1 + t
log 2w
(log
x)
nx
x/wnx
X
f (n) = Ct (f )
g(n) + O x
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
where t = tf (x, log x) = tg (x, log x), and the correction factor
Ct (f ) :=
Y
p
f (p)
1 1+it
p
f (p)
f (p2 )
1 + 1+it + 2+2it + . . . .
p
p
(Hint: Write f = g h and bound the size of h(pk ).) Show that we may take
t = 0 if f is realvalued. Show that Ct (f ) = 0 if and only if f (2k ) = 2ikt for all
k 1.
66
UseTotally2
Lipschitz bounds
= C0 (f )
t (f )
g(n) + O
n
n
x
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
nx
!
P
k
k
X
kf
(p
)/p
f
(p)/p
.
Pk0
0 (f ) = C0 (f )
log p
k
k
1 f (p)/p
k0 f (p )/p
p prime
= C00 (f ) log 8
g(n) + O
,
n
x
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
Q
where C00 (f ) = p3 (1 f (p)/p)(1 + f (p)/p + f (p2 )/p2 + . . .). Show that we may
take t = 0 if f is realvalued.
14.2
One can verify the identity (obtained through partial summation) that for every
> 0 one has
Z x
X f (n)
S(x)
S(z)
=
+
dz.
1+
n
x
1 z
nx
LipschBounds
OtherMeans
=
+
1+O
+O
.
n
n
1 + it
x
x1
(1 + t)(log x)
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
In particular if t = 0 then this equals S(x)/x + o(1).
Exercise 14.10 Show that if > 1 and ( 1) log x then
X f (n)
Y
f (p) f (p2 )
1 + + 2 + . . . .
n
p
p
p prime
nx
1
+
+
+
.
.
.
.
n
n
p
p
p2
nx
nx
px
In the last two exercise we have seen that the value of the truncated Dirichlet
series can be easily understood for all 0 in terms of Euler products and S(x),
67
nx
nx
15
THE STRUCTURE THEOREM
C20
nx
nx
Proof of Theorem 15.1 We begin our proof in the case that tf (x, log x) = 0.
We let I(x) equal
X
(g h)(n) log(x/n) =
nx
Z
g(a)h(b)
b
abx
x/a
dT
=
T
g(a)
X
bT
ax/T
h(b)
dT
.
T
We split this integral into several intervals. First for T y we simply use the
trivial bounds to get
x log y. For the remaining values of T we simply take
GenFundLem
f = h in Proposition 3.6 to obtain a main term, as P(h; T ) = P(h; x), of
Z
y
x/y
ax/T
X
aA
g(a)
dA
A2
Best possible
69
GenFundLem
X
1
= log z P(h; x)
g(n) + O (1/v + (v/u) )
x
nx
X
X
1
1
= log z
g(n)
h(n) + O (1/u )
x
x
nx
nx
Lipschitz
GenFundLem
Best possible
Let f (p) = 1 if y 1/2 < p y or x/y 1/2 < p x, and f (p) = 1 otherwise. Then
1X
1
h(n) = + O((c/u)u ),
x
2
nx
1
1
1
= 1 + 2 log(1 1/2u) = 1 + O
,
p
u
u2
nx
x/y 1/2 <px
X
1X
1
1 1
1
u
f (n) = 1/2 + O((c/u) ) 2
= +O
.
2
x
p
2
u
u
1/2
1X
g(n) = 1 2
x
nx
Hence
x/y
<px
1
1X
1X
1X
1
f (n)
g(n)
h(n) =
+O
x
x
x
2u
u2
nx
nx
nx
StructThm
nx
nx
but it is not true in general. Try f (p) = 1 for y < p y or x/y < p x, and
f (p) = 1 otherwise. Then the means for h, g and f are 2 , 12/u and 2 2/u,
70
respectively. Taking = 1/u gives mean values 1/u2 , 1 and 1/u2 roughly; ie the
above hopedfor estimate is ridiculous. This example does not work if we take 0
instead of 1 since then the mean values are , 1 /u, /u respectively, so
the last displayed equation with = 1 is feasible. This would be a good research
project (ie prove the last display for f (n) [0, 1])
16
THE LARGE SIEVE
We are interested in how a given sequence of complex
numbers, a1 , a2 , . . ., is
Orthog1
distributed in arithmetic progressions mod q. By (10.1), when (b, q) = 1, we
have
X
X
X
1
(b)
an (n),
an =
(q)
n
nb
(mod q)
(mod q)
Orthog2
(16.1)
SumSqs
(16.2)
1stBound
Now
2
X N
X
X
X
a
+
1
an 2
n
q
nN
nN
(b,q)=1
(b,q)=1
nb (mod q)
nb (mod q)
X
N
an 2 ,
+1
=
q
n
SumSqs
2
X
X
an (n) (q + N )
an 2 .
nN
(mod q) nN
X
1stBound
Note that if an = (n) for all n, then the term on the leftside of (16.2) corre1stBound
2
sponding to the character has size (q)
q N , whereas the rightside of (16.2) is
1stBound
about (q + N ) (q)
q N . Hence if q = o(N ) and then (16.2) is best possible and any
of the terms on the leftside could be as large as the right side. It thus makes
sense to remove the largest term on the left side (or largest few terms) to determine whether we can get a significantly better upper bound for the remaining
terms.
This also has arithmetic meaning since the same argument used to prove
SumSqs
(16.1) yields, for any choice of 1 , . . . , k ,
2
2
k
X
X
X
X
X
X
1
1
an
(b)
an i (n) =
an (n) .
(q)
(q)
n
n
(b,q)=1 nb
(mod q)
i=1
6=1 ,...,k
(16.3)
SumSqk
72
Exercise 16.1 Show that the correct measure of how well the an are distributed
mod q (with respect to the divisors of q) is
X (q/d)(d)
(q)
dq
an =
nx
nb (mod d)
(n,q)=1
1
(q)
(b)
(mod q)
primitive
an (n).
nx
1stBound
q
(q)
2
+N
M
+N
MX
X
an (n) (N + Q2 1)
an 2 .
(mod q) n=M +1
primitive
(16.4)
n=M +1
(We will prove this initially with Q2 1 replaced by 3Q2 log Q.)
Theorem 16.1 (Duality) Let xm,n C for 1 m M, 1 n N . For any
constant c we have
2
X X
X
am xm,n c
an 2
n
m
n
for all am C, 1 m M if and only if
2
X X
X
bn xm,n c
bm 2
m
n
m
for all bn C, 1 n N .
LargeSieve
73
Proof This can be rephrased as stating that for any mbyn matrix X with
complex entries (that is X Mm,n (C)), we have
max
aM1,m (C)
Xb
aX
= max
.
a
bMn,1 (C) b
To see this suppose that aX a for all a M1,m (C). Given any b Mn,1 (C)
let a = Xb so that
a Xb = Xb2 = a Xb = aXb = aX b aX b a b,
and therefore either Xb b, or a = Xb = 0 which also yields Xb b.
The reverse implication is analogous.
2
BabyLS
r
n=M +1
where e(t) = e
2it
n=M +1
r,s
n=M +1
br bs e(L(xr xs ))
r6=s
sin(N (xr xs ))
.
sin((xr xs ))
X
r6=s
X
X
X
br bs 
br bs 
1
br 2
 sin((xr xs ))
2kxr xs k
2kx
xs k
r
r
r6=s
s6=r
since 2br bs  br 2 + bs 2 . Now, for each xr the nearest two xs are at distance
at least away, the next two at distance at least 2 away, etc, and so
[1/]
E
X
r
so that
br 2
X 2
log(e/) X
bm 2 ,
2j
m
j=1
2
X X
log(e/) X
b
e(nx
)
N
+
bm 2 .
r
r
n
r
m
74
P
P
We have E r br 2 / mins6=r kxr xs k r br 2 / by the strong Hilbert
inequality (see section *), which leads to the constant N + O(1/) in the result
above.
LargeSieve
GenGSums
1
g()
an (n) =
n=M +1
X
b
(b)
(mod q)
M
+N
X
an e
n=M +1
bn
q
.
SumSqs
(mod q) b
primitive
(q)
X
b
(mod q)
n=M +1
2
+N
MX
bn
an e
.
q
(mod q) n=M +1
(b,q)=1
LargeSieve
an e
q
qQ b
(mod q) n=M +1
(b,q)=1
BabyLS
We now apply Proposition 16.2 with {xr } = {b/q : (b, q) = 1, q Q}, so that
0
b
1
b min 1
,
min
min
q q 0 q6=q0 Q qq 0
q,q 0 Q
Q(Q 1)
b,b0
b/q6=b0 /q 0
LargeSieve
16.1
Prime moduli
Primes are the only moduli for which the only imprimitive
character is the prinLargeSieve
cipal character. Hence an immediate consequence of (16.4) is:
2
X
X
X
X
X
1
p
a
a
an 2 ,
(16.5)
n
n N
p
n
(b,p)=1 nb (mod p)
(n,p)=1
p N
p prime
a
an 2 .
n
n
p
n
n
(b,p)=1
nb (mod p)
p N
p prime
(16.6)
75
(Elliott showed how to also include the b = 0 congruence class in the sum.)
Typically this corresponds to a massive saving. For example if an = 1 if n is
prime and 0 otherwise, then this gives
2
X
X
(x; p, b) (x) x(x);
p
p 1
p x
p prime
and so
X
(b,p)=1
2
2
X
(x; p, b) (x) x
.
p1
Q log x
Q<p x (b,p)=1
p prime
2
X
X
N
a
(p)
ap 2 .
p
log N
pN
(mod q) pN
X
(16.7)
qQ
primitive
16.2
Elliott [MR962733] proved that for Q < x1/2 , and f multiplicative with
f (n) 1,
2
0
X
X
X
1
x
f (n)
(p 1) max max
f (n)
,
yx (a,p)=1
p1
logA x
ny
pQ
ny
na (mod p)
(n,p)=1
where the sum is over all p except one where there might be an exceptional
character.
Consequences of the large sieve to be discussed : Least quadratic
nonresidue.
LargeSievePrimes
17
THE SMALL SIEVE
17.1
In this subsection we have collected together many of the simple sieve results that
we use. We will need to decide how to present this; whether to prove everything
or whether to quote, say, Opera di Cribro. This chapter probably should come
a lot earlier.
FLS
(m)
1 = 1 + O(uu2 )
y + O( y),
m
where y = z u .
FLS1
Corollary 17.2 If (am, q) = 1 and all of the prime factors of m are x1/u
then
X
nx
(n,m)=1
na (mod q)
(m) x
log n = 1 + O(uu2 )
(log x 1) + O( x log x).
m q
Corollary 17.3 If is a character mod q and all of the prime factors of m are
z = y 1/u and coprime with q, then
X
x<nx+qy
(n,m)=1
(n)
1 (mq)
qy + q y.
uu mq
Let p(n), P (n) be the smallest and largest prime factors of n, respectively.
Shius Theorem
FLS3
77
Shius Theorem
cor2.3
Suppose that 0 f (n) 1. Corollary 2.11 states that the mean value of f up
to x is P(f ; x). Shius Theorem states that an analogous result is true for the
mean value of f in short intervals, in arithmetic progressions, and even in both:
Shiu
1f (p)
pq
p
P
k
Proof
Let g(p)
P
P = f (p) where p y, and g(p ) = 1 otherwise. Then  n f (n)
n f (n)
n g(n), and proving the result for g implies it for f .
Write n = pk11 pk22 . . . with p1 < p2 < . . ., and let d = pk11 pk22 . . . pkr r where
kr+1
d y 1/2 < dpr+1
. Therefore n = dm with p(m) > zd := max{P (d), y 1/2 /d},
(d, q) = 1 and g(n) g(d). Now, if we fix d then m is in an interval (x/d, x/d +
qy/d] of an arithmetic progression a/d (mod q) containing y/d + O(1) integers.
Note
that zd max{d, y 1/2 /d} y 1/2 y/d, and so we may apply Corollary
FLS3
17.4 to show that there are qy/d(q) log(P (d) + y 1/2 /d) such m. This implies
that
X
qy X
g(d)
.
g(n)
(q)
d
log(P
(d)
+ y 1/2 /d)
1/2
x<nx+qy
na
dy
(d,q)=1
(mod q)
For those terms with d y 1/2 or P (d) > y , we have log(P (d) + y 1/2 /d)
log y, and so they contribute
X
Y
qy Y
g(p)
1
1
g(d)
1
y
1
1+
,
(q)
p
d
p
p
1/2
py
dy
(d,q)=1
py
pq
the upper bound claimed above. We are left with the d > y 1/2 for which
P (d) 2r for some r, 1 r k = [ log y]. Hence we obtain an upper bound:
78
k
qy X 1
(q) r=1 r
X
d>y 1/2
(d,q)=1
P (d)2r
qy
g(d)
1
d
(q)
k
X
d>y 1/2
(d,q)=1
P (d)2k
k
g(d) X 1
+
d
r2
r=1
X
d>y 1/2
(d,q)=1
P (d)2r
g(d)
.
d
For the first term we proceed as above. For the remaining terms we use Corollary
3.4.2, with ur := (1/2 ) log y/(r log 2), to obtain
k
k
X
qy X 1 Y
1
g(p)
1
1 Y
g(p)
y
1
1
+
1
+
.
(q) r=1 r2
p
ruur r
p
p
uur r +1
r
r=1
py
pq
p2
pq
P
Finally note that ur is decreasing, so that R/2<rR 1/(ruur r ) 1/uuRR ; moreP
over u2R = uR /2 and so 1rk 1/(ruur r ) 1/uuk k 1, and the result follows.
2
17.3
Consequences
Define
q (f ) :=
Y
pq
pq
1
p
f (p)
(q)
1+
and 0q (f ) =
q (f ).
p
q
Shiu
where S might be an interval [a, b], and we might write Q in place of [2, Q],
or R in place of [R, ). Note that log n = log[2,n] n.
Small.1
Lemma 17.6 Suppose that x Q2+ and Q q. Then, for any character
(mod q) and any R,
X
x
x
f (n)(n)e(n)L(n) q (f ) = 0q (f )
,
q
(q)
nN
na (mod q)
log
log
x/Q
where L(n) = 1, log(x/n), logQQ or log
Q , and N = {n : Y < n Y + x}
for Y = 0 in the second and fourth cases, and for any Y in the other two cases.
Consequences
79
1+
Proof The first estimate
R Theorem
Pfor x q . One can
P follows from Shius
1
deduce the second since nx an log(x/n) = 1T x T nT an dT for any an .
If d is a power of the prime p then let fd (n) denote f (n/pa ) where pa kn, so
that if n = dm then f (n) fd (m). Therefore if x > Qq 1+ then, for the third
estimate, times log Q, we have, again using Shius Theorem,
X
X
X
(d)
fd (m)
f (md)(d)
dQ
(d,q)=1
Y <mdY +x
mda (mod q)
dQ
Y /d<m(Y +x)/d
ma/d (mod q)
X (d)
x
x
q (fd ) q (f ) log Q.
d
q
q
dQ
(d,q)=1
2
In the final case,
writing n = mp where p is a prime > x/Q (and note that p  n
as p > x/Q > x), we have
f (m)
mQ
(m,q)=1
log p
x/Q<px/m
pa/m (mod q)
f (m)
mQ
(m,q)=1
x
x/m
q (f ) log Q.
(q)
q
Small.2
Small.3
18
THE PRETENTIOUS LARGE SIEVE
18.1
Define
S (x) :=
f (n)(n),
nx
2
1
S (x)
x
eO(
k) 0
q (f )
log Q
log x
1 1
log
log x
log Q
!2
,
Y
1
max
log x Cq
1+
px
max
tlog2 x
F (1 + it),
f (p)(p) f (p2 )(p2 )
+
+
.
.
.
.
ps
p2s
(f
)
log
.
q
q
x
log x
log Q
Cq
PLSk
PLSG
kRepulsion
81
Cq
MeanF(n)
g(p) log p
Q<p<x/Q
X
k
Q<p <x/Q
k2
log p
g(mpk ) +
mx/pk
g(m)
mx/p
log p
Q<p<x/Q
(g(mp) g(p)g(m)).
mx/p
The last term is 0 unless p2 m, so this last bound is, in absolute value,
X log p
X
x
log p
+ 2x
1/2 .
x
k
2
p
p
Q
k
Q<p <x/Q
k2
Q<p<x/Q
MeanF(n)
We now bound our main term as in section 8.1; though now MeanAveraged
we let z = y + y
so we obtain the error term x/ y in the equation before (??). Summing over
such dyadic intervals this yields
Z x/Q
X
X
x
g(p) log p
g(m)
S (x/t)dt + 1/2 .
Q
Q
Q<p<x/Q
mx/p
The result follows from the change of variable t x/t since Q q and
0q (f ) log Q 1.
2
82
2
2
X Z x X
1
dt
dt
S (t)
f (n)(n) log>Q n 2
t
t
Q
t log t
Cq
nt
+
0q (f ) log Q
log
log x
log Q
2
.
Proof We expand using the fact that log t = log(t/n) + logQ n + log>Q n; and
the CauchySchwarz inequality so that, for any function c (t),
X Z
dt
t2 log t
c (t)
2
dt
t log t
c (t)2
dt
t3 log t
Small.2
2
Z x
X X
dt
log x
dt
0
2
0
2
q (f )
q (f ) log
f (m)(m) log(t/m) 3
log Q
Q t log t
t log t
mt
and
Z
2
Z x
X X
2 dt
dt
,
f
(m)(m)
log
m
0q (f )t log Q
Q
t3 log t
t3 log t
Q
mt
2
Now we prove the mean square version of Halaszs Theorem, which is at the
heart of the pretentious large sieve.
AvParsev
2
X
dt
f (n)(n) log>Q n 2
Qnt
t log t
Cq
log x
(q) log Q log3 x
2
M log
+
+
log Q
T
Q
T2
log
log x
log Q
83
keyProp
P
so that G(s)(G0>Q (s)/G>Q (s)) = n1 h(n)/ns for Re(s) > 1. Now
X X log p
X
X
X
X
t log t
2
1 2t
log p
h(n)
g(n)
log
n
,
>Q
b+1
p
Q
nt
b
b
nt
nt
b1
p >Q
p >Q
pb+1 n
pb+1 t
by the prime number theorem. This substitution leads to a total error, in our
estimate, of
Z x
2
t log t
dt
q
log x
1
log x
2
2
Cq 
log
log
,
Q t2 log t
Q2
log Q
q
log Q
Qq
which is smaller than the first term in the given upper bound, since M 1/ log q.
Now we use the fact that
Z 1/ log Q
1
d
2
log t
t
1/ log x
whenever x t Q, as x > Q1+ , so that
Z x X
Z 1/ log Q Z x X
dt
dt
h(n) 2
h(n) 2+2 d.
t
2
1/ log x
2
t log t
nt
nt
keyProp
dtd.
2
1 + + it
1/ log x
1/ log x
The integral in the region with t T is now
Z X
2 dt
max G(1 + + it)2
g(n)(n) 3+2 .
t
tT
1
Q<nt
Cq
max F (1 + + it)2
tT
Cq
Small.3
(mod q) Q<nt
dt
1
max F (1 + + it)2 ,
t1+2
tT
Cq
84
For that part of the integral with t > T , summed over all twists of
f by
keyProp
characters (mod Int>T
q), we now proceed as in the proof of Proposition 8.5. We
obtain (q) times (??), with f (`) log ` replaced by h(`) for ` = m and n, but now
with the sum over m n (mod q) with m, n Q. Observing that h(`) log `,
we proceed analogously to obtain, in total
Proof
of Theorem 18.2: The result follows byAvLogWt
taking TAvConvol
= 12 log2 x in ProposiAvParsev
tion 18.5, and then combining this with Lemmas 18.3 and 18.4, since 0q (f ) log q
1.
2
PLSRange
Corollary 18.6 Fix > 0. There exists an integer k 1/2 such that if x
q 4+5 then
X
(mod q)
6=1 ,2 ,...,k
2
1
S (y) eO(1/)
y j
0q (f )
log Q
log y
1 !2
,
/2
log x
2
,
log Q
Proof Select k to be the smallest integer for which 1/ k < 3. Let Cq be the
C
set of all characters mod q except 1 , 2 , . . . , k . PLSG
Write x = QB , so that y = QMBds1
,
1 1/2
where B C 2kRepulsion
B
, and apply Theorem 18.2 with x = y. Then, by (??)
and Proposition ?? we have
Ly Lx
log x
log y
2
eO(1/) 0q (f )
1
B 13
B eO(1/) 0q (f )
1
C 14
and the result follows. Note that by bounding Ly in terms of Lx , we can have
the same exceptional characters 1 , 2 , . . . , k for each y in our range.
2
19
MULTIPLICATIVE FUNCTIONS IN ARITHMETIC
PROGRESSIONS
It is usual to estimate the mean value of a multiplicative function in an arithmetic
progression in terms of the mean value of the multiplicative function on all the
integers. This approximation is the summand corresponding to the principal
character when we decompose our sum in terms of the Dirichlet characters mod
q. In what follows we will instead compare our mean value with the summands
for the k characters which best correlate with f . So define
k
(k)
Ef (x; q, a) :=
na
f (n)
nx
(mod q)
X
1 X
j (a)
f (n)j (n).
(q) j=1
nx
(k1)
e
0q (f )X
(q)
log Q
log x
1 1
log
log x
log Q
,
where Q = (q log x)5 and the implicit constants are independent of f and k. If f
is real and 1 is not then we can extend this to k = 1 with exponent 1 12 .
To prove this we need the following technical tool, deduced from Corollary
PLSRange
18.6.
LinearPLS
Proposition 19.2 Fix > 0. For given x = q A there exists K 3 log log A
such that if x X x1/2 and Q = (q log x)5 then
1
X
X
1
log Q
O(1/) 0
1
f
(n)(n)
log
n
e
(f
)
.
[Q,x/Q]
q
X
log x
log x
(mod q)
6=j , j=1,...,K
nX
Proof Let log xi = 2(1+/3) +1 log q for 0 i IA, with I chosen to be the
smallest integer
for which xI > x/Q, so that I (1/) log log A. In order to apply
PLSRange
Corollary 18.6 with x = xi we must exclude the characters j,i , 1 j k, for
86
PLSuniform
(mod q)
6=1 ,2 ,...,K
and split this into subsums, depending on the size of d. This is bounded by a
sum of sums of the form
X
X
X
.
f
(d)(d)(d)
f
(m)(m)
DdD+
(mod q)
mX/d
6=j , j=1,...,K
log(X/D))
where Q D x/Q with D log(q
. If we approximate the last sum
q log(X/D)
here with the range m X/D, then we can Cauchy to obtain
2
X
X
X
f
(d)(d)(d)
f (m)(m)
(19.2)
(mod q) DdD+
mX/D
6=j , j=1,...,K
2
X
f (d)(d)(d)
(mod q) DdD+
(mod q)
6=j , j=1,...,k1
2
X
f (m)(m)
mX/D
(19.3)
eO(1/)
0q (f )
Small.3
X
D
log Q
log(X/D)
1 !2
,
(19.4)
PLSuniform
by Lemma 17.8 and (19.1). Summing the square root of this over the D/ such
intervals for d in [D, 2D) yields an upper bound
1
log Q
O(1/) 0
;
e
q (f )X
log(X/D)
and then summing this over D = X/Q2j for 0 j J log X we obtain the
claimed upper bound.
OneTermBound
87
f (m)0 (m)
f (m)0 (m) 0q (f ) 2 ,
D
X/d<mx/D
(m,q)=1
X/(D+)<mx/D
(m,q)=1
Proof of Theorem
19.1 : Fix > 0 sufficiently small with 1/ k > . By
Small.1
applying Lemma 17.6 , with = 0 we have
X
X
x
log x
f (n) =
f (n) log[Q,x/Q] n + O 0q (f )
log Q .
(q)
which is smaller than the other error term.
FnsInAPs
na
nx
(mod q)
na
nx
(mod q)
nx
so that
(K)
Ef
(q)
X
X
log[Q,x/Q] n
x log Q
1
j (a)
f (n)j (n)
+ O K0q (f )
(q)
log x
(q) log x
j=K+1
nx
0q (f )x log Q 1
eO(1/)
,
(q)
log x
(x; q, a) =
LinearPLS
by
Proposition 19.2 , where K 3 log log A. By Cauchying and then Corollary
PLSk
18.1, we obtain
(k)
(K)
Ef (x; q, a) Ef
(x; q, a)
K
1 X
Sj (x)
(q)
j=k+1
1/2
K
X
1
S (x)2
K
j
(q)
j=k+1
eO(
k) 0
q (f )
x
(q)
log Q
log x
1 1
1
since K log log A, and 1 k+1
> 1 1k . Applying the same argument again,
we also obtain
1 1
0 (f )x
k
log Q
log x
q
(k1)
(k)
log
.
Ef
(x; q, a) Ef (x; q, a) eC k
(q)
log x
log Q
The result follows from using the triangle inequality and adding the last three
inequalities.
2
20
PRIMES IN ARITHMETIC PROGRESSION
PNTapsk
(n)
ny
ny
(mod q)
e
PNTaps1
k1
X
1 X
1 X
(n)
j (a)
(n)j (n)
(q)
(q) j=1
x
(q)
ny
log Q
log x
1 1
log3
log x
log Q
.
nx
(mod q)
1 1
2
x
1 X
(a) X
log Q
.
(n)
(n)
(n)(n)
(q)
(q)
(q)
log x
nx
nx
((n) Q (n))
nx
(mod q)
X
nx
pn = pQ
(d)
X
pQ
log x Q
log x
.
log Q
by the BrunTitchmarsh theorem. Denote the left side of the equation in the
(k1)
Theorem as E,+
P (x; q, a), and note that all of these sums can be expressed as
meanvalues of nx, nb (mod q) (n), as b varies. Hence
(k1)
89
log x
.
log Q
Now
X
Q (n) =
nx
na (mod q)
f (d)
dx
(d,q)=1
g(m) log m.
(20.1)
mx/d
ma/d (mod q)
P
(k1)
Similar decompositions for the n Q (n)j (n) imply that EQ ,+ (x; q, a) equals
the sum of f (d) over d x with (d, q) = 1, times
X
g(m) log m
mx/d
ma/d (mod q)
k1
X
1 X
j (a/d)
j (b)
(q) j=0
(b,q)=1
g(m) log m.
mx/d
mb (mod q)
FLS1
By Corollary 17.2 (with m the product of the primes Q that do not divide q)
this last quantity is
r
k
x
x
+k
log x/d
u+2
u
d(q) log Q
d
where x/d = Qu . Let R be the product of the primes Q. We deduce that the
sum over d in a range x/Q2u < d x/Qu with f (d) 6= 0, is
r
X
x
1
x
k x
kux
k
+
log x/d u
+ u/2
u+2 d(q) log Q
u
d
u
(q)
Q
2u
u
x/Q
<dx/Q
(d,R)=1
FLS3
log x
log Q
. Summing
x
(q)
log Q
log x
2
.
The same argument works to give a much better upper bound for the terms with
d Q2 , though removing the condition (d, R) = 1 in the sum above. Hence we
are left to deal with those d LQexpand
> x/Q , which implies that m x/d < Q .
The remaining sum in (20.1) is
X
X
g(m) log m
f (d).
m<Q
(m,q)=1
x/Q <dx/m
da/m (mod q)
(k1)
There are analogous sums for the remaining terms in EQ ,+ (x; q, a) and so we
need to bound
LQexpand
90
(k1)
(k1)
m<Q
(m,q)=1
PLSG
of all characters
To do so we need to apply Theorem 18.2 with Cq to be the set PLSk
mod q, less 0 , 1 , . . . , k1 . Then we can deduce Corollary 18.1 though now
with 6= 0 , . . . , k1 as the condition onPLSRange
the sum (but otherwise the same).
FnsInAPs
We can then similarly modify Corollary 18.6 and finally obtain Theorem 19.1
(k1)
(k1)
with Ef
replaced by Ef,+ . Therefore we obtain the bound
X
(k1)
(k1)
m<Q
(m,q)=1
e
e
0q (f )x
(q)
0q (f )x
(q)
log Q
log x
1 1
log Q
log x
1 1
g(m)
m<Q
(m,q)=1
k
log m
m
( log Q)2
.
log Q
FLS3
by Corollary 17.4, and the result follows since 0q (f ) 1/ log Q. (This means we
need to change the sieving to go up to Q throughout rather than q.)
2
PNTaps1
nx
nx
PNTapsk
21
LINNIKS THEOREM
In this section we complete the proof of Linniks famous theorem:
Linnik
Theorem 21.1 There exist constants c, L > 0 such that for any coprime integers a and q there is a prime a (mod q) that is < cq L .
There are several proofs of this in the literature, none easy. Here we present
a new proof as a consequence of thePNTaps1
Pretentious Large Sieve, as developed in
the previous few sections. Corollary 20.2 implies that if there are no primes a
(mod q) up to x, a large power of Q, then the vast majority of primes satisfy
(p) = (a). The difficult part of our current proof is to now show that (a) = 1
(which surely should not be difficult! ):
LinkNoSieg
LinkSiegCond
Q<px
(p)=1
HalRevisited
where M := mintT
Q<px
1Re(f (p)pit )
.
p
92
Linniks Theorem
HalExplic1
this range, as in Lemma ??; and we also note that, in our range
for , F (1 + +
HalExplic2
it) 1/( log Q). We then proceed as in the proof of (??), but now splitting
the integral at 1/L log Q log x to obtain the result, since L log Q eM .
2
LinkNoSieg
log x
Proof of Proposition 21.2 Write := log log
Q . We return to the proof
PNTapsk
of Theorem 20.1, and show, under our hypothesis here, that there exists y in the
range x1/2 < y x for which
X
y
.
f (n)(n) 2
log
Q
ny
Q<px
4
5
Let T := {z : z = 1, and 3 < arg(z) < 2
3 or 3 < arg(z) < 3 }. We must
it
it
have t / log x else p T (and hence (p)p T ) for enough of the primes
in (xc/ , x] that the previous estimate cannot hold. Therefore
X 1
X 1 + Re((p)pit ) + pit 1
1 X 1 + Re((p))
=
log .
p
2
p
p
Q<px
(p)=1
Q<px
Q<px
Linniks Theorem
LinkSiegCond
93
PNTaps1
Proof of Corollary 21.3 By Corollary 20.2 we know that for all y in the
range Q y x we have
X
(n)((p) + (a)) y
py
log Q
log y
1/5
.
Q<px
LinkNoSieg
22
BINARY QUADRATIC FORMS
22.1
Suppose that a, b, c are integers for which b2 4ac = d and define the binary
quadratic form F (x, y) := ax2 + bxy + cy 2 , which has discriminant d. We will
study the values am2 + bmn + cn2 when m and n are integers, and in particular
the prime values. We say that F represents the integer N if there exists integers
m, n such that F (m, n) = N .
Exercise 22.1 Prove that if there is an invertible linear transformation (over
Z) between two binary quadratic forms then they represent the same integers;
indeed there is a 11 correspondence between representations. Show also that the
two forms have the same discriminant. These results suggests that we study the
equivalence classes of binary quadratic forms of a given discriminant.
Now d = b2 4ac b2 0 or 1 (mod 4). For such integers d there is always
at least one binary quadratic form of discriminant d:
x2 (d/4)y 2
when d 0
(mod 4)
when d 1
(mod 4).
x + xy ((d 1)/4)y
The key result is that there are only finitely many equivalence classes of binary
quadratic forms of each discriminant d, and we denote this quantity by h(d).
We now prove this when d < 0: The idea is that every binary quadratic form
of negative discriminant is equivalent to a semireduced form, one forpwhich
b a c. In that case d = 4ac b2 4a2 a2 = 3a2 and so a d/3,
and
p so for a given d there are only finitely2 many possibilities since b a
d/3 and once these are chosen c = (b d)/4a. Gausss proof that every
form is equivalent to a semireduced form goes as follows: If c < a then the
transformation (x, y) (y, x) swaps a and c; hence we may assume that a c.
If b < a then let B b (mod 2)a with a < B a, so that there exists an
integer k with B = b + ka. The transformation (x, y) (x + ky, y) changes F to
ax2 + Bxy + Cxy where C = (B 2 d)/4a. Either this is semireduced or C < a
in which case we repeat the above process. If we need to then we see that our
new pair a, C is smaller than our old pair a, c, so the algorithm must terminate
in finitely many steps.
Before we count representations, lets note that given one representation,
one can often find a second trivially (the automorphs), for example F (m, n) =
F (m, n).
95
Exercise 22.2 Show that the only other automorphs when d < 0 occur for d =
3 and d = 4. We denote the number of automorphs by w(d). Deduce that
w(4) = 4, w(3) = 6 and w(d) = 2 for all other negative discriminants d.
The key result in the theory of binary quadratic forms is to show that there is
a 11 correspondence between the inequivalent representations of a given integer
N by the set of binary quadratic forms of discriminant d, and the number of
solutions to x2 d (mod 4n). Once this is established one knows that the total
number of representations is
Xd
.
R(N ) = w(d)
k
kN
Dirichlet had the idea to simply sum R(N ) over all N x since the sum equals
the total number of values up to x of the inequivalent binary quadratic forms F
of discriminant d < 0.
Exercise 22.3 Show that the number of pairs m, n of integers for which am2 +
bmn + cn2 x can be approximated by the
area of this
shape, with an error term
proportional to the perimeter, that is 4x/ d + O( x).
Hence
x
R(N ) = h(d) 2 + O( x) .
d
N x
X
R(N ) = w(d)
N x
X Xd
N x kN
X d
= w(d)
.
a
abx
X d x
X d 1
X d 1
+ O( x) = x
+ O x
+ x
a a
a a
a a
a1
a x
a x
4d x.
a
b x
x<a<x/b
96
h(d) = w(d)
d
L(1, (d/.)),
2
when d < 0.
When d < 0 the binary quadratic forms are positive definite and so can only take
each value finitely often. When d > 0 there is no obvious limitation on how often a
given integer can be represented, and indeed integers can be represented infinitely
often. The reason for this is that there are infinitely many automorphs for each
d. Fortunately the automorphs can all be generated by two transformations:
F (m, n) = F (m, n) and F (m, n) = F (m + n, m + n) for some linear
transformation of infinite order. After taking due consideration this leads to
Prime values
Let us suppose that is induced from the quadratic character (./D) so that D
must be squarefree. We rewrite this as (d/.) = (./D) where d = (1)(D1)/4 D,
so that d 1 (mod 4). To begin with we look at divisibility. For a binary
quadratic form ax2 +bxy +cy 2 , we know that (a, b, c)2 d, which is squarefree, and
so (a, b, c) = 1. Also note that (m, n)2 divides am2 + bmn + cn2 , so we proceed
by replacing m by m/(m, n), and n by n/(m, n), and hence we may assume that
m and n are coprime.
We now show that if odd prime p divides am2 + bmn + cn2 then (d/p) = 0
or 1. If p divides n then 0 am2 + bmn + cn2 am2 (mod p) and so p divides
a as (m, n) = 1. Therefore d = b2 4ac b2 (mod p) and hence (d/p) = 0 or 1.
If m  n then 4ap divides 4a(am2 + bmn + cn2 ) = (2am + bn)2 dn2 , and so
2am + bn
p
2
=
(2am + bn)2
p
=
dn2
p
2
d
n
d
=
=
,
p
p
p
1
#{m, n
p2
(mod p)} =
(d/p)
1
1
1
.
p
p
We wish to show that am2 + bmn + cn2 takes on many prime values, that
is not many composite values.
If am2 + bmn + cn2 x is composite then it
certainly has a prime factor x so we will count the number of such values
with no small prime factor. To explain our method in an intuitive fashion we
will proceed assuming that d < 0 < a (so that am2 + bmn + cn2 only takes
nonnegative values); when we give the actual proof we will use sieve weights
that are easier to work with but more difficult to understand.
Prime values
97
py
= {1 + O(u
)}
Y
py
1
1
p
(d/p)
1
X + O( X),
p
Y
py
1
p
(d/p) X
.
1
p
`
Y
X
y<`x1/2
(d/`)=1
2
1
1
`
p
py
(d/p)
1
X,
p
1
`
log Q
log y
1/5
;
y<`x
(d/`)=1
P
hence if x = q L where L/u is sufficiently large then ypx1/2 (1 + (d/p))/p
1/2; and so, from the above, we know that there are many prime values of our
binary quadratic form.
98
22.3
To obtain a complete proof without proving all sorts of results about binary
quadratic forms (and of positive and negative discriminant), we can proceed
working (moreorless) only with the character , though based on what we
know about binary quadratic forms. The extra observation to add to the analysis
of the previous section is that we should work with the values of all binary
quadratic forms of discriminant d, simultaneously, since Gauss
P showed that the
total number of inequivalent representations of n is then mn (m). Hence
P
let w(n) = mn (m), so that w(p) = 1 + (p). We define
X
A(x; q, a) =
w(n).
nx
na (mod q)
g(mn) =
(d)f (d)g(m/d)g(n/d).
d(m,n)
P
As usual Am (x; q, a) := n w(n) where the sum is over n x with M n and
n a (mod q). Hence, using the exercise with f = , if (m, q) = 1 then
X
X
X
Am (x; q, a) =
w(mN ) =
(d)(d)w(m/d)w(N/d)
N x/m
N a/m (mod q)
N x/m
d(m,N )
N a/m (mod q)
w(N/d)
N x/m
N a/m (mod q)
dN
dm
(d)(d)w(m/d)
(d)(d)w(m/d)A(x/md; q, a/md).
dm
Now w(n) =
mn, m n
(m) +
mn, m< n
(n/m). Therefore
A(x; q, a) =
nx
na (mod q)
(m)
mx
(m,q)=1
1
q
m x
(m,q)=1
(m) +
mn, m n
mn, m n
1 + (a)
mx
(m,q)=1
m nx
na (mod q)
mn
((m) + (a)(m))
x
m
(n/m)
X
(m)
m <nx
na (mod q)
mn
m + O(1) .
99
P
P
P
Now m (mod q) (kq+m)(m) = m (mod q) m(m) q 3/2 . Moreover mM (m)/m =
X
X
p
x
(d)(d)
q
Am (x; q, a) = L(1, )
w(m/d)(1 + (a/md)) + O
w(m/d) mx/d
mq
d
m
dm
dm
Y
Y
x
1
q
= 2L(1, )
1 + (p) 1
+O
x
(1 + (1 + (p)) p) .
mq
p
m
pm
pm
Sieving Lemma
X 1 Y
(1 + (p) + 1/ p) q M x log2 M.
rm (x; q, a) q M x
m
mM
pm
an =
n: mn
g(m)
A(x) + rm (x)
m
for all squarefree m, for which there exists K, > 0 such that
1
Y
g(p)
log z
1
K
,
p
log y
y<pz
for all 2 y < z x. Let P be a given set of primes, and P (z) be the product
of the elements of P that are z. Then
X
X
Y
g(p) X
rm (x)
an = 1 + OK, (eu )
1
an + O
p
nx
(n,P (z))=1
pP
pz
nx
mP (z)
mz u
Above we let x
q 5 /L(1, )2 and z = x , with u large and u small, and
Sieving Lemma
then apply Lemma 22.4 with = 2 to obtain
X
Y
1
(p)
u
w(n) = 1 + O(e )
1
1
A(x; q, a).
p
p
nx
na (mod q)
(n,P (z))=1
pz
Now for each primes p, z < p x we must remove from the left side those n
divisible by p. For each prime p write n = N p and so we get an upper bound from
100
X
X 1 + (p) Y
1
(p)
1
w(p) = 1 + O eu +
1
A(x; q, a).
p
p
p
px
pa (mod q)
p prime
1+(p)
z<p x
p
Y
pz
where x = q L and z = q
pz
z<p x
1
p
log Q
log z
1/5
, and hence
(p)
x
1
L(1, ) ,
p
q
23
EXPONENTIAL SUMS
Given a real number we consider rational approximations a/q with (a, q) = 1
such that
a 1 .
(23.1)
q q2
23.1
DiApprox
Technical Lemmas
and
1
2M
X
AM m<A+M
2
m A
1
e(m) 1
min
1,
.
M
M kk
M log
q
1 + q log N
X
1
min 1,
N M
M kn + k
log 2M
nN
M
N
N
+
q
M log M
N
q
1+
+
+
q
M
M, N q
N q<M
M q<N
q < M, N
N
log(2M N/q)
M
if
if
if
if
(23.2)
(23.3)
X
`=0
min 1,
1
M `/q
1+
q
q
+
log
M
M
min{N, q}
q
1+ M
,
expsum1
102
Exponential Sums
min 1,
`=0
1
M `/q
2
1+
q
,
M
(23.4)
expsum2
nN
This usually wins a log(2M N/q) over the first moment, which can be important.
Now we wish to do the same for prime differences. That is, instead of summing
over n N , we sum over p, p0 N and let n = p p0 . We get (N ) N/ log N
copies ofP0 and the number of prime pairs p, p + n is (n/(n))N/ log2 N . Now
n
2
X
p,p0 N
1
M k(p p0 )k
2
2 X 2
X
1
N
N
(m)
min
1,
+
log N
M knk
m
log2 N nN
mn
m< n
N
N
+
log N
log2 N
X 2 (m)
m
m< N
min 1,
m<kN/m
1
M kkmk
2
writing n =expsum2
mk. Now if = a/q then m = b/r (mod 1) where r = q/(q, m).
Hence by (23.4) this sum is
X 2 (m)
N (m, q)
q
N
N
q
N
1+
+
+
1+
+
log N + ;
m
mq
M
(m,
q)
mM
(q)
M
M
m< N
(23.5)
23.2
expsum3
MV1
103
f (m)
m
d
f (m)
f (d)e(dm)(d)
m
m
d
X
X
e((d1 d2 )m)
M
(d1 )(d2 )f (d1 )f (d2 )
m
d1 ,d2
M
(d1 )(d2 ) max M,
d1 ,d2
1
k(d1 d2 )k
.
This can be improved by a minor modification. If the range for m is A M/2 <
m < A + M/2 then we bound the top line above by multiplying the mth term
by 2(1 m A/M ) (which is 1 in this range), and then extend the sum to
all m in the range A M < m < A + M . By the second part of the exercise we
then obtain the bound
2
X
1
x2
x2
M2
(d1 )(d2 ) max 1,
+ +(M +q)x log(x/M )
M k(d1 d2 )k
(q) M
d1 ,d2 D
expsum3
nq
where g() is the Gauss sum. We saw earlier that g() = q, and so if q is
p
MV1
prime then this is x/ (q). Hence the first term in (23.6) needs to be there.
104
Exponential Sums
P
Given the values of f (p) for p x/2 let n f (n)e(n) = re() with r
R0 , where the sum is over all n x other than the primes in (x/2, x]. Now
consider the multiplicative
P function f where f (p) = e( p) for all primes
p,Px/2 < p x. Then nx f (n)e(n) = (r + (x) (x/2))e();
in particular
MV1
 nx f (n)e(n) x/ log x. Hence the second term in (23.6) needs to be there.
In both cases we do not need to take f to be exactly the functions described,
f should just be pretentious in that way. In the latter case one can most easily
avoid such problems by removing all integers that have
some large prime factor:
f (n)e(n)
nx
P (n)y
x
xy +
q
log2 x +
log x
(23.7)
In this case we do not multiply through by log x but rather write each n = dm
where (d, m) = 1 and d is a power of the largest prime dividing n. Hence
X
f (n)e(n) =
nx
P (n)y
X
d=pk
p prime,y
f (d)
f (m)e(dm).
mx/d
P (m)<p
Taking absolute values, we first deal with the term where d is a prime power.
This gives
X
(x/pk , p).
d=pk , k2
p prime
pT
p prime
q
where T = exp( 12 log x log log x).
To bound the remaining terms we forget that d should only be prime, and
arrive at
X X
f (m)e(dm) .
T <dy mx/d
P (m)<d
Cauchying for the terms with T < d D and m M where DM x we obtain
LaBret1
When f is pretentious
D
D
f (m)f (m0 )
m,m0 2M
min
m,m0 2M
e(d(m m0 ))
105
x
1
,
0
max{m, m } k(m m0 )k
.
D
min
j,k2M
x
1
,
k + j kjk
For each k we partition the jvalues into intervals [1, k] and [2i k, 2i+1 k)expsum1
for
i = 0, 1, 2, . . . , I where I is minimal such that 2I k > 2M , and then apply (23.3)
assuming x q. We obtain
X x x
+
+ q log(M/k) + M log(2x/q)
k
q
k2M
x
+ q DM + DM 2 log(2x/q).
xD log 2M +
q
D
When f is pretentious
log x
nx
f (n)e(n) =
nx
(mod q)
(23.8)
Small.1
FirstRedn
e
d
d
(d)
j=0
mod d
(b)(j) =
1
(d)
(b)g(); (23.9)
mod d
therefore if (a, q) = 1 then, writing n = mq/d when (n, q) = q/d (so that
(m, d) = 1),
ExpSums2Chars
106
Exponential Sums
f (n)e
nx
an
q
=
(d)
f (mq/d)e
am
dq mx/(q/d)
(m,d)=1
X f (q/d)
dq
(a)g()
mod d
f (m)(m)
mx/(q/d)
FnsInAPs
q
(d)
nx
mod
d
mx/(q/d)
dq
induces some j , 1jk
X
X d
X
f (m)(m)
(d)
mx/(q/d)
mod d
dq
induces some j , k+1jK
X
dq
d
(d)
X
mod d
induces j , j>K
X
log[Q,x/Q] m
,
f (m)(m)
log x
mx/(q/d)
LinearPLS
since all the prime factors of q/d are < Q. By Proposition 19.2 x = QA , the
second error term is
X d 0 (f ) x
x Y
1
2
1
0
(f
)
1
+
+
1 .
1
(d) A
q/d
q
p p
A
dq
pq
which dominates.
We now deal with the main terms: Suppose that the primitive character
(mod r) induces some j (mod q). If (mod kr) is induced from (mod r)
then g() = (k)(k)g(), so we may assume (k, r) = 1 else g() = 0. Therefore
the total contribution is
= (a)g()
X f (q/kr)
(k)(k)
(kr)
kq/r
(k,r)=1
FSieved2
X
mkrx/q
(m,k)=1
f (m)(m).
When f is pretentious
r X (k)2 k
krx
(r)
(k) (k)
q
2(q/r) r
x
(q)
(log x)2
as 1 2/ > 2
terms add up to
log log x
(log x)2
log log x
kq/r
(k,r)=1
log q/r
log x
107
log q/r
log x
12/
log
12/
log
log x
log q/r
log x
log q/r
!
!
q
log log x
,
x
(q) (log x)2 3
Y
X f (q/kr)
F (p) X
1
1 1+it
F (n)
(a)g()
(k)(k)
(kr)
(q/kr)1+it
p
nx
pk
kq/r
(k,r)=1
(a)g() X
F (n)
(q)
nx
where
Y
(f, , t; q) :=
(f (p)/pit )e .
p kq/r
pr
p kq/r
pr
f (n)e
an
q
=
k
X
(f, j , t; q)
j=1
j (a)g(j ) X
f (n) j (n)
(q)
nx
Y
q
1
1
log
A
log
log
x
0
+ (f )
+O
x
1+ +
1 1 .
(q)
p p
k+1
(log x)2 3
A
pq
X
k
X
X
j (a)g(j )
an
x
f (n)e
(f, j , t; q)
f (n) j (n) + O 2(q/r)
q
(q)
(log x)2 3+o(1)
j=1
nx
nx
q
x
(q) (log x)1 12 +o(1)
if log q (log log x)2 .
108
Exponential Sums
(q)
x
nx f (n)e
f (q) 1 X
log log x
log A
+
1 it
f (n) + O
2
q
x
(log x)2 3
A1
nx
if some j = 1; plus (a)g() times
f (q) 1 X
log log x
f
(n)(n)
+
O
q it x
(log x)2 3
nx
1 k+1
for each = j of conductor q, plus O( q(log A)/A
).
an
q
equals
24
THE EXPONENTS K
We wish
to find the largest exponents 1 2 . . . that can be used in PropokRepulsion
sition ??; that is if 1 , 2 , . . . , k are distinct characters mod q, with q < Q < x
then
X 1 Re((f j )(p)/pitj )
log x
{1 k + o(1)} log
max
+ Ok (1),
1jk
p
log Q
Qpx
kRepulsion
1 Re (p)
.
3
kRepulsion
Q<px
110
The exponents k
where = 1 2 and t = (t2 t1 )/2. We will suppose t > 0 (if t < 0 we simply
replace (p)p2it by (p)p2it .) By our assumption on (x; q, a), this equals
1
2(q)
X
a
(mod q)
(a,q)=1
log x
log Q
dv
+ O(1).
1 + (a)e2itv
v
If has order m > 1 then there are exactly (q)/m values of j (mod m) for
which (a) = e2ij/m , and so our integral equals
m1 Z log x
m1 Z t log x
dv
d
1 X
1 X
=
cos(tv + j/m)
cos(j/m + )
m j=0 log Q
v
m j=0 t log Q
We
handle that part of the integral with 1 using the first part of exercise
ex7.2
??. When < 1 we substitute cos(j/m + ) = cos(j/m) + O(). Hence our
integral equals
2
where cm :=
1
m
1
m
max{1,t log x}
max{1,t log Q}
Pm1
j=0
d
+ cm
min{1,t log x}
min{1,t log Q}
d
+ O(1)
 cos(j/m) equals
(
cos(j/m) =
m/2<jm/2
1
m sin(/2m)
1
m tan(/2m)
if m is odd,
if m is even.
The maximum of cm thus occurs for m = 3, and equals 2/3. Therefore, since
2
2
< 3 our integral is
2
3
t log x
t log Q
d
2
= log
log x
log Q
+ O(1)
as claimed.
log x
When t = 0 we can simplify the above proof to obtain cm log log
Q + O(1).
2
etak
2 m
< m
1
m
for all m 1.
kRepulsion
Proof The upper bound was obtained in Proposition ??. For the lower bound,
let ` be the smallest prime in (2m, 4m], say = 2k + 1.
Suppose that (mod q) has prime order `. Define f (p) = 1 if (p) = 1, and
a
a
f (p) =
when (p) = e
`
`
whenever a 6 0 (mod `). In this case we note that
f (p)g` =
n
(mod `)
where g` = g
.
`
a1 n
`
n
=
e
`
X
m
(mod `)
m am
e
=
`
`
111
X
m
(mod `)
m
`
, so that
`1
`1
1 X m m
1 X m
f (p) =
(p) +
(p),
g` m=0 `
` m=0
kRepulsion
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
+ = + =
+
> .
g`
`
`
2k
+
1
2 m
2k + 1
`
2
24.1
We may proceed much as in the proofs above. Given the j and tj we select f (p)
Pk
to have size 1 in the same direction as j=1 j (p)pitj so that
k
X
j (p)pitj .
j (p)/pitj =
Re((f j )(p)/pitj ) = Re f (p)
j=1
j=1
j=1
k
X
k
X
Qpx
eta2
X
a
(mod q)
(a,q)=1
log x
log Q
k
X
dv
j (a)eitj v
+ O(1).
v
j=1
It is not so easy to proceed as before since the quantity inside . is no longer
periodic. Certainly one can do something similar but not the exact same thing.
m (p),
112
The exponents k
One important special case is where each tj = 0, since this was the worst
case when k = 2. In this case suppose that each m
j = 1, that q is prime and if
g has order m mod q then j (g) = e(bj /m). (Here the bj must be distinct mod
m, as the j are distinct.) Hence the above becomes
m1
k
log x
1 X X
e(nbj /m) log
+ O(1).
m n=0 j=1
log Q
We therefore wish to find the maximum of this as we vary over all possible bj .
By computer we found optimal examples for 2 m 6 by an exhaustive search. Writing the example as [b1 , . . . , bk ; m], we have [0, 1; 3], [0, 1, 3; 7],
[0, 1, 3, 9; 13], [0, 1, 4, 14, 16; 21], [0, 1, 3, 8, 12, 18; 31]. One observes that m = k 2
k + 1 and that these are all perfect difference sets; that is the numbers {bi bj
(mod m) : 1 i 6= j k} = {` (mod m) : 1 ` m 1}. This case is easy to
analyze because then we have
k
2
X
e(nbj /m) =
j=1
X
1i,jk
e(n(bi bj )/m) = k +
e(n`/m) = k 1,
1`m1
if n 6= 0. Therefore
k
m1
(m 1)k 1 + k
1 X X
e(nbj /m) =
.
m n=0 j=1
m
Exercise 24.3 Use the CauchySchwarz inequality to show that this is indeed
maximal. (Hint: Under what circumstances do we get equality in the CauchySchwarz inequality?)
Although there are perfect difference sets for k = 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, there is
none for k = 8. The existence of a perfect difference set is equivalent to the
existence of a cyclic projective plane mod m = k 2 k + 1. 1 There are always
perfect difference sets for k a prime power.
The next question is to understand the size of the individual sums, if we want
a lower bound. What we get is that
X Re((f )(p))
log x
i
= ci log
+ O(1),
p
log Q
Qpx
where
1 This is Theorem 2.1 in Cyclic projective planes by Marshall Hall Jr, Duke 14 (1947) 1079
1090.
113
X
m1 k
k
nb
1 X X
nbi
nbj
j
e
ci =
e
e
m n=0 j=1
m
m
m
j=1
k m1
X
X n(bj bi )
1
1
=
1+
e
m
m
k 1 j=1 n=1
1
mk
1
=
1+
>
,
m
k1
k+1
for k > 1. Evidently, because of equalities throughout, this best possible (when
the tj = 0). It also supplies us with a lower bound in general, at least if k is
prime.
We can use short gaps between primes to extend this to all k. For example,
the prime number theorem implies that there is always a prime in [m, m + o(m)),
and so
1
k .
k
25
LOWER BOUNDS ON L(1, ), AND ZEROS; THE WORK OF
PINTZ
Exercise 25.1 For , 0 < < 1 show that
lim
X
mx
1
m1
x 1
1
x
1
1
1 .
1
mx m
x
Proposition 25.2 Suppose that L(s, ) 6= 0 for real s, 1 log1 q s 1 where
is a real nonprincipal character mod q. Then L(1, ) 1/ log q.
Proof Let = c/ log q. For any real character define g = 1 so that g(n) 0
for all n and g(m2 ) 1. Hence
X
m2 x
1
m22
X g(n)
X (d) X
1
=
1
n
d1
m1
nx
dx
mx/d
X (d) (x/d) 1
d1
+ + 1
d1
x
dx
X
X
(d)
1
(d)
1 X
x
+
+ 1
(d)
=
1
d
x
dx
dx
dx
x
1
L(1, ) +
L(1 , ) + O(q/x1 )
P
since d>x (d)/d q/x for all > 0. Now as there are no zeros in [1 , 1]
hence L(1 , ) > 0 (like L(1, )) and < 1/ so that term is < 0. Taking
x = q 2 we obtain the result.
2
25.1
Siegels Theorem
Siegels Theorem
115
that there exists a character (mod k) and a real number such that L(, ) =
0. Now
X (a)(a) (b)
X (1 )(n)(n)
=
n
a
b
nx
abx
X (a)(a) X (b)
X (b)
X
(a)(a)
+
a
b
b
a
bx/a
a x
b x
x<ax/b
X (a)(a)
X 1
X 1
qk
qk .
=
L(, ) + O k
+ /2
a
x
x1/2
x
b
a x
a x
b x
X
m2 x
(m,k)=1
m22
X (n)(1 )(n)
X (n)(1 h)(n)
X (a)(1 )(a) (b)h(b)
=
=
.
n
n
a
b
nx
nx
abx
Now the terms with b x are, since h(b) 2(b) , and using the bound above,
X 2(b)
X h(b) X (1 )(a)(a)
X 2(b)
qk
qk
qk log x
3/4 .
(x/b)1/2
1/2
1/2
b
a
b
x
b
x
ax/b
b x
b x
b x
The remaining terms , since (1 )(a) d(a), 0 h(b) (1 )(b) and
1/(ab) x1 /ab, are
x1
X d(a) X
a
a x
x<bx
X d(a)
X
(1 )(b)
= x1
b
a
a x
x<mnx
(m)
.
mn
The first sum here is x(1)/2 log x. For the second we have
X 1
X
1
(m)
+
n
n 1/3
m
x/m<nx/m
mx1/3
nx2/3
x
<mx/n
X (m) 1
X 1
X 1 q
+O
=
log x + O
1/3
m
2
n
x
x
mx1/3
mx1/3
nx2/3
1
1
= L(1, ) log x + O
2
x1/6
X
(m)
m
26
THE SIEGELWALFISZ THEOREM
We saw in our discussion of SelbergTenenbaum that if the mean value of f (p)
is about , with 6= 0, 1 then the mean value of f (n) for n x is about
cf /(log x)1 . In both the two cases = 0 and 1 one can show that the mean
value of f (n) is f 1/(log x)2 . In our first subsection we shall sketch an argument
to show that if the mean value of f (p) is about 0 then the mean value of f (n)
is correspondingly small. The case when the
mean value of f (p) is 1 is rather
IK
more difficult but fortunately featured in [?]. This is relevant to a strong version
of the prime number theorem, since their argument can be used to bound the
mean value of (n). In a future version we shall give a stronger version of their
argument.
The main point of this section is to prove a strong converse theorem when
the mean value of f (n) is around 0 and the mean value of f (p) cannot be close
to 1. Since this is what we know about Dirichlet characters this will lead us to
a pretentious proof of the SiegelWalfisz Theorem. This proof is due to Dimitris
Koukoulopoulos. In this version of the book we include a preliminary version of
his paper; he will present a more complete version at the Snowbird meeting.
26.1 Primes well distributed implies...
P
P
Let S(x) = nx f (n) and P (x) = dx (d)f (d). Assume P (x) cx/(log x)A
with A > 2.
Select B in the range 2 < B < A and then cB > 0 minimal for which there
exists a constant xB such that if x xB then S(x) cB x/(log x)B . Let D = x
with > 0 so that (B 1)(1 )B1 > 1.
Suppose f is totally multiplicative
X
X
X
X
f (n) log n =
f (md)(d) =
(d)S(x/d)+
f (m)(P (x/m)P (D)).
nx
dmx
dD
mx/D
.
2c
A
A1
m log(x/m)
A 1 (log D)
(log x)A1
mx/D
If our bound is proved up to x/2 then we can insert into the first term to obtain
X
x
cB
x
x
cB
(d)
< (1 2)cB
.
B
B1
d log(x/d)
B 1 (log x/D)
(log x)B1
dD
Hence the total bound that we get is S(x) (1 )cB x/(log x)B .
Main results
117
log x
log x
X
f (n)
ns
n=1
and Ly (s, f ) =
X
P (n)>y
f (n)
,
ns
t>y
118
bounded
e0
nx
(j)
Theorem e0
26.3 Let f : N D be a completely multiplicative function which
satisfies (26.1) for some > 0 and some Q 2.
e0
(j)
(2)
min
LQt (1 + it, f )
and
L(f ; Q, k, A, M ) = min LQt (1 + it, f ).
tR
The notation
g(x) a,b,... h(x)
(x x0 )
qt
Technical results
119
different at each case and possibly depending on certain parameters which will
always be specified, e.g. by c = c(a, b, . . . ).
main
(x Q)
px
log z
1 + <(f (p)pit )
log
C
p
log Qt
(z Qt , t R), (26.3)
where > 0 and C 0 are some constants, then LQt (1 + it, f ) A,,C 1.
3. If f 2 F(Q, k, A, M ) as well, then L(f ; Q, k, A, M ) A 1.
4. If f (p) {1, +1} for all primes p > Q, then
L+ (f ; Q, k, A, M ) A 1
and
L(f ; Q, k, A, M ) A LQ (1, f ).
main
p1+1/ log x
A
c m log y m
Ly (1, f )
(1 m k)
Preliminaries
X
X
an
an
lim
=
.
1+
0+
n
n
n=1
n=1
n=1
an /n con
fi
Lemma 26.7 Let y 2 and D = y s with s 2. Let 1[P (n) > y] denote the
indicator function of integers n all of whose prime factors are greater than y.
notmobius
120
Then there exist two sequences { (d)}dD whose elements lie in [1, 1] and
such that
( 1)(n) 1[P (n) > y] (+ 1)(n).
Moreover, if f : N [0, 1] is a multiplicative function then
Y
X (d)f (d)
f (p)
1
.
= (1 + O(es ))
d
p
dD
quadruple
py
.
M ()
M (u)eu/
1
Proof (a) If j = 0, then the result follows immediately because M is increasing.
Fix 1 j k and max{j, log Q}. Then
Z A
Z
Z j2
1
du
Ak
u
Ak
du
.
uj2 du +
2
M (u)
M () 1
M (A) A u
M ()
1
(b) It suffices to consider the case 1. So fix such a and some
max{log Q, k}. If k = 0, the result follows immediately by the fact that M is
increasing and by the estimate
Z
Z
du
du
log
+
log + 1.
u/ u
u/ u
e
e
1
+log
+1
,
k M () M (A) A eu/ u
M ()
M () k
M (u)eu/
1
which completes the proof.
sieve
P (n)>y
Also, we have
X f (n) logk+1 n
log x
k+1
(2A(k
+
1)
log
y)
1
+
A
log
.
log y
n1+1/ log x
P (n)>y
Technical results
121
fund
nx
P (n)>y
nx
n1+1/ log x
(2(m + 1) log y)m +
m1
y 2m+2
m
m logm1 u + logm u
log y
du
(log u)2 M (log u/2)
u1+1/ log x
m log
quadruple
Lemma 26.8 and our assumption that M (log Q) 1/A then complete the proof
of the lemma.
2
distance
(z y1 )
y0 <pz
f (p)
A,,C 1.
p
sieve
X
f (n)(n) X
f (n)(n) X
(n)f (n) X f (n) log n
+
n1+1/ log x
n1+1/ log x
n1+1/ log x
n1+1/ log x
n=1
P (n)y0
P (n)>y0
P (n)>y0
log x 1 X f (n) log n
C log y0 +
1+1/ log x
log y0
n
P (n)>y0
log x 1
log x
A log y0 +
(log y0 ) 1 + log
log y0
log y0
log x 1/2
(log y0 )
.
log y0
122
So we deduce that
X
y1 <py2
n
n
f (p)
1 o
1 o
= O(1) + log F 1 +
log F 1 +
p
log y2
log y1
Z y2
0
1
du
F
1+
= O(1) +
F
log u u log2 u
y1
Z y2
du
A,,C 1 + (log y0 )/2
1.
1+/2
y1 u(log u)
2
Proofs
derivative
X
P (n)>y
f (n)(n) logm1 n
.
n1+1/ log x
Moreover, we have
F 0 (m1)
F
(s) = m!
a1 !a2 !
1!F (s)
2!F (s)
+=m
X
a1 +2a2
(26.4)
sieve
1
(j log y)j
log x
(1 j m).
x<px
sieve
n X <(f (p)) o
n X <(f (p)) o
1
A exp
exp
log x
p
p
y<px
y<px0
X
f (n)
Ly (1, f )
n1+1/ log x0
P (n)>y
identity
Technical results
123
series
identity
sieve
A
C m log y m
2
Ly (1, f )
a
1 +2a2 +=m
for some C2 = C2 (A). To complete the proof of part (a), note that
X
1=
a1 +2a2 +=m
I{1,...,m}
Ym
I{1,...,m} iI
iai =m
ai 1 (iI)
iI
2m
(2e)m
mm
,
m!
m
2
by Stirlings formula.
main
Proof [Proof of Theorem 26.4] (a) We may assume that x Q1 . For every
T 1 we have
Z
X f (p)(log p)k1
x1/ log x+it
1
1X
f (p)(log p)k1 log(x/p) =
1+1/
log
x+it
x
2i tT p p
(1 + 1/ log x + it)2
px
+O
(k log x)k1
T
.
(26.5)
(x Q),
nu
that is
M (/3)
f (n)nit F Qt , k, c1 A,
c1 (1 + t)
A
c2 k log Qt k1
LQt (1 + it, f )
M ( log3 x )
M ( log3 Q )
c2 k log Qt k1 dt
.
L+ (f ; Q, A, M )
t2
e3
124
Making the change of variable t = M (u), we find that log Qt = 3u and thus
Z log3 x k1 0
Z M (log x/3)
dt
u
M (u)
(log Qt )k1 2 = 3k1
du
2
log Q
t
(M
(u))
M (log Q/3)
3
=
We have
Z
log x
3
max{k, log3 Q }
((log Q)/3)k1
((log x)/3)k1
M ((log Q)/3)
M ((log x)/3)
Z log3 x k2
u
+ (k 1)
du.
log Q
M (u)
3
(26.6)
uk2
du (A max{log Q, k})k ,
M (u)
quadruple
e5
series
p
2
p
p
y<pz
y<pz
y<pz
2
log z
log
O(1),
2
log y
distance
e5
Technical results
125
y<pz
P (n)>y
C2
1+2it+1/ log z
fund
1 + cos(t log p)
c log(t log x) c0
p
(26.7)
for some gs
appropriate constants c and c0 . In order to show this we use the argument in [?, Lemma 4.2.1]. Fix some (1/10 log Q, 1/3) to be chosen later and
let P be the set of primes for which there exists an integer n with
p In := [e
(n)
t
,e
(n+)
t
(n N {0}).
1
log(t log x).
p
Thus
X
e1/t <px
1 + <((p)pit )
X
e1/t <px
pP
/
1 + <(f (p)pit )
p
X
e1/t <px
pP
/
1
p
distance
e4
Choosing a small enough proves (26.7). Next, notice that Lemma 26.10 and (26.7)
yield that
X
f (p)
1.
p1+it
1/t
e
<px
Q<px
X
Q<pe1/t
sieve
X f (p)
f (p)
+ O(1)
+ O(1),
p
p
Q<px
Proof [Proof of Theorem 26.2] For the function M (u) = eu main
the quadruple
(Q,
k,
1/,
M
)
is
admissible
for
all
k
N.
Applying
Theorem
26.4
with k
e4
27
PRIMES IN PROGRESSIONS, ON AVERAGE
Suppose that the character (mod q) is induced from the primitive character
(mod r). Then we write cond = q and cond = r.
We shall use the SiegelWalfisz Theorem which states that for any fixed
A, B > 0 one has
(N ; q, a)
N
(N )
,
(q)
(q) logB N
(n)(n)
nN
N
,
logB N
for all primitive characters (mod q), uniformly for q logA N . We also make
use of a strong form of the prime number theorem: For any fixed A > 0 we have
(N ) N
N
.
(log N )A
The BarbanDavenportHalberstamMontgomeryHooley
Theorem
The first result shows that the mean square of the error term in the prime number
theorem for arithmetic progressions can be well understood.
BDHLMH
qQ (a,q)=1
LemLS1
X
rR
X
rR
1
= c log R + c 0 + O
(r)
log R
R
127
,
r
= cR + O(log R),
(r)
X r2
c
= R2 + O(R log R).
(r)
2
rR
Also
X
rR
mr
1
1
=
(r)
(m)
Y
1+
pm
1
p(p 1)
dr
log R +
m
X
pm
log p
+O
p2 p + 1
log R/m
R
X 1 X 2 (d)
X 2 (d) X 1
X 2 (d)
1
R
d
=
=
=
(log + + O( ))
(r)
r
(d)
(d)
r
d(d)
d
R
rR
rR
dr
dR
dr
= c(log R + ) + O
log R
R
dR
,
by (1.2.1). The next two estimates follow analogously but more easily. The last
estimate is an easy generalization of the first.
2
PropLS2
Proposition 27.3
X
qQ
1
(q)
2
X+N
X+N
X
X
N
an (n)
an 2 .
log Q + Q log log Q
R
(mod q) n=X+1
cond R
n=X+1
Proof Suppose that the character (mod q) is induced from the primitive
character (mod r). Let m be the product of the the primes that divide q
but not r and write q = rm` so that (r, m) = 1, and p` = prm. Hence
(q) = (r)(m)` and
X
X
an (n) =
an (n);
n
n: (n,m)=1
X 2 (m)
X
X
X
X
1
1
a
(n)
.
n
(m)
(r)
`Q/rm `
mQ
RrQ/m
(mod r) X<nX+N
p` = prm
(n,m)=1
(r,m)=1
.
128
r
(r)
m
(m) .
X 2 (m)m
(m)2
mQ
log log Q
r
(r)2
r
(r)
X
y=2i R, i=0,...I
2I R:=Q/m
log log y
,
y
LargeSieve
and so by (16.4)
X+N
X
1
(N + y 2 )
an 2
y
n=X+1
X+N
X 2 (m)m N
X
Q
an 2 ,
+
2
(m)
R
m
n=X+1
mQ
1 X
(q)
(a)
rR (mod q)
rq
cond =r
CorLS3
(n)(n),
nx
)
so that (1) (N ; q, a) = (N ; q, a) (N
(q) .
2
X X
X 1
(N ; q, a) (N ) log Q
(q)
(r)
qQ (a,q)=1
rR
+O
2
X
(n)(n)
(mod r) nN
N 2 log2+o(1) N
+ QN log N log log N
R
SumSqk
PropLS2
(n)(n) =
X
nN
(n)(n)
(pa ) log p,
p N
pq, pr
hence the error term in replacing by here is ((q) (r)) log N , and in
the square is ((q) (r))N log N , Therefore the total such error is
129
X X (q) (r)
N log N N log N log Q log R(log log Q)2 N (log N )2+ ,
(q)
rR qQ
rq
SumSqs
X 1
X 1 X
X
X
=
(n)(n)
(q)
(r)
qQ
rR
(mod r) nN
rR
rq
2
X
X
(r)
(n)(n)
,
(q)
qQ
(mod r) nN
rq
Proof of Theorem 27.1 Let Q0 = Q/ log2 N and R = (N log3 N )/Q, and use
the
SiegelWalfisz Theorem with A = 2C + 6 and B = C + 2 so that Corollary
CorLS3
27.4 yields
2
X X
(N ; q, a) (N ) QN.
(q)
qQ0 (a,q)=1
We are left with the sum for Q0 < q Q, which we will treat as the sum for
Q0 < q N , minus the sum for Q < q N . We describe only how we manipulate
the second sum, as the first is entirely analogous.
Now the qth term in our sum equals
X
log2 p + 2
log p1 log p2
p1 <p2 N
p2 p1 (mod q)
pN
(N )2
,
(q)
plus a small, irrelevant error term made up of contributions from prime powers
that divide q. We sum the middle term over all q in the range Q < q N .
Writing p2 = p1 + qr we have r N/q < N/Q, so that p2 p1 (mod r) with
N p2 p1 + Qr, and therefore the sum equals
X
X
2
{(N ; r, p) (p + Qr; r, p)} log p
rN/Q pN Qr
X
rN/Q
2
(r)
(N p Qr) log p + O
pN Qr
X (N Qr)2
=
+ O (N Q)
(r)
rN/Q
(r)
logB N
rN/Q
X
by the SiegelWalfisz theorem and Lemma 27.2. We deduce that the sum of the
middle terms over all q in the range Q0 < q Q is therefore cN 2 log Q/Q0 +
130
This is an extremely useful tool in analytic number theory, showing that the
primes up to x are well distributed in arithmetic progressions mod q, on average
over q x1/2+o(1) .
The BombieriVinogradov Theorem. For any fixed A > 0 there exists B =
B(A) > 0 such that
X
x
(x)
max (x; q, a)
(q)
(log x)A
(a,q)=1
qQ
where Q =
P
or 1 then  nx (n)(n) x/e4c log x .
StrongBV
(x)
(x, 1 )
max (x; q, a)
1 (a)
Q x log3+o(1) x,
(q)
(q)
(a,q)=1
qQ
With Q = x1/2 /ec log x we see that we get a much stronger bound than in
the BombieriVinogradov Theorem at the cost of including in or terms.
In order to prove these results we continue to develop the large sieve.
PropLS6
1
(q)
X+M
X
am (m)
(mod q) m=X+1
cond R
+N
YX
bn (n)
n=Y +1
v
!
u X+M
YX
+N
u X
MN
2
log Q + Q + ( M + N ) log Q log log Qt
am 2
bn 2 .
R
m=X+1
n=Y +1
131
Exercise
27.7 Prove this result. Remarks: If one Cauchys thepresult in PropoPropLS2
sition 27.3 one obtains
a weaker result,with log2 Q replaced by (Q/R) log Q as
the coefficient of M + N in the bound given. To prove the above one proceeds
analogously to the proof of Proposition 13.2. One can Cauchy in this exercise
with m fixed, to obtain the result given here.
PropLS8
(mod q) N x
cond R
mnx
PropLS6
MN
a 0 b0 M N
log Q + Q + ( M + N ) log2 Q log log Q
R
We now describe the partition for m in the range X < m 2X. Let Y = x/X.
We begin with all X < m 2X, n Y /2. Then in step k, with k = 1, 2, . . . K,
we take
2j
2j + 1
2j + 2
2j + 1
1+ k X <m 1+
X, Y
1+
<nY
1+
,
2
2k
2k
2k
for 0 j 2k1 1. The total upper bound from all these terms is
!
XY
2
log Q + KQ + ( X + Y ) log Q log log Q.
a0 b0 XY
R
Let K be such that 2K Y . Then, for each m, X < m < 2X there are 1 values
of n x/m not yet accounted. Hence these missing pairs contribute a0 b0 QX,
and so in our construction we interchange X and Y to guarantee
that X Y .
Hence the total error from these unaccountedfor points is Q x in total.
We now sum up the upper bound over X = 2j R2 for j = 0, 1, 2, . . . , J where
J
2 = x/R4 (since if m < R2 then bm = 0, and if m > x/R2 then n < R2 and so
cn = 0), to obtain the claimed upper bound.
2
We now prove a version of the BombieriVinogradov Theorem:
132
CorLS9
(q)
qQ
(x, ) .
(mod q)
cond R
PropLS8
Our
goal is to bound this using Proposition 27.8 so, as in the proof of Theorem
PNTapsk
20.1, we let g be totally multiplicative with g(p) = 0 if p R2 and g(p) = 1
otherwise. Then we letPropLS8
an = g(n)(n) for n > 1 and bm = g(m) log m. To be able
27.8
we are forced to take a1 = 0 (rather than 1 as in the
to apply Proposition
PNTapsk
proof of Theorem 20.1),PropLS8
and so (a b)(n) = R2 (n) g(n) log n. We substitute
27.8, and bound the contribution of
this into PropositionP
the powers of the
primes R2 by Q pR2 log x QR2 log x/ log R Q x, which yields the
above upper bound for the sum of (x, ) G(x, ), and P
hence for the sum of
(R)
max(a,q)=1  (R) (x;
q,
a)
G
(x;
q,
a)
where
G(x,
)
:=
nx (n)g(n) log n
P
and G(x; q, a) := nx, na (mod q) g(n) log n.
Now, by the small sieve, we know that
1/2
x log x
1
x
(1)
G (x; q, a)
u+
(q) log R u
q
X
qQ
log x
X X
x
x
(r)
(q)e4log x elog x ,
qQ rR
rq
1/2
1/2
(x)
max (x; q, a)
Q x log3 x log log x
(q)
(a,q)=1
qQ
CorLS9
Proof Let R = logA+1 x in Corollary 27.9, and bound  (R) (x; q, a) (1) (x; q, a)
by the SiegelWalfisz Theorem.
2
The BombieriVinogradov Theorem is an immediate consequence of this result.
StrongBV
CorLS9
Proof of Theorem 27.5 Let R = ec log x in Corollary 27.9.. There are at most
R2 characters 6= 1 or1 in the sum (R) (x; q, a), and hence their contribution
is (R2 /(q))x/e4c log x . Summing over all q Q, their total contribution is
x/R. The result follows.
2
28
INTEGRAL DELAY EQUATIONS
We have seen two basic examples of multiplicative functions:
Those for which f (p) = 1 for all primes p > y, and typically
the mean value
GenFundLem
of f (n) tends to P(f, x), an Euler product (see Proposition 3.6).
Those for which f (p) = 1 for all primes p y. We saw the example of the
smooth numbers, for which the mean value up to y u is given by (u), a function
which we defined in terms of an integral delay equation. We will now show that
this is typical.
FnToDelEqn
1 X
f (d)(d),
(y t )
t
dy
(where (x) = mx (m) as usual) so that (t) 1 for all t, and (t) = 1 if
t 1. Let (t) = 1 if t 1, and
Z
1 u
(u t)(t)dt for all u 1.
(28.1)
(u) =
u 0
Ru
(Typically one writes (g h)(u) := 0 g(u t)h(t)dt for the (integral) convolution
of the two functions g and h.) Then, for x = y u , we have
u
1 X
f (m) = (u) + O
.
(28.2)
x
log y
IntDelEqn
IntDel1
mx
Exercise 28.2 Convince yourself that the functional equation for estimating
smooth numbers, that we gave earlier, is a special case of this result.
P
t
t
t
t
Proof Define s(t) :=
) if
t f (m) so that s(t) = 1 + O(y
my
PS(y )/y = y
P
t 1. We note that px 1 f (p)/p 2 y<px 1/p 2 log u + O(1/ log y).
ConvulApprox
Then, by (??) and the prime number theorem in the form (D) = D+O(D/(log D)1+ ),
we obtain
Z
1 u
u
s(u) =
s(u t)(t)dt + O
.
u 0
log y
Now if (u) = s(u) (u) then we deduce that (t) y t if t 1, and
Z
1 u
Cu
(u)
(u t)dt +
,
u 0
log y
134
for some constant C > 0. We claim that (v) < 2Cv/ log y for all v > 0 for if
not, let u be minimal for which (u) 2Cu/ log y, so that
Z
Cu
Cu
1 u 2C(u t)
Cu
(u)
<
dt =
,
log y
log y
u 0
log y
log y
IntDel1
This result shows that the mean value of every such multiplicative function
can be determined in terms of an integral delay equation.
28.1
IntDelEqn
Remarks on (28.1)
We will now show that there is a unique solution (u) to (28.1) which can
be given as follows: Define I0 (u) = I0 (u; ) = 1, and for k 1,
Z
1 (t1 )
1 (tk )
Ik (u) = Ik (u; ) =
...
dt1 . . . dtk .
t1 ,...tk 1
t1
tk
t1 +...+tk u
k
X
(1)j
j=0
j!
Ij (u; ),
and
(u) =
X
(1)j
j=0
j!
Ij (u; ).
InclusionExclusion inequalities
135
Exercise 28.4 Modify the proof given above to show that (u) 1 to now
prove that (u) (u) = 0 for all u 0.
CompareTwoChi
X
(1)j
j=1
j!
t1 ,...,tj 1
t1 +...+tj u
0 (t1 ) (t1 )
0 (tj ) (tj ) 0
...
(ut1 . . .tj )dt1 . . . dtj .
t1
tj
Deduce that if (t) 0 (t) for all t then (u) 0 (u) u 1, for all
u 1.
Exercise 28.6 Suppose that and 0 are two such functions with (t) = 0 (t)
for 0 t u/2. Deduce that
(u) 0 (u) =
Z
u/2tu
28.2
(t) 0 (t) 0
(u t)dt.
t
InclusionExclusion inequalities
136
28.3
A converse Theorem
We now show that for every (appropriate) such integral delay equation there is
an appropriate multiplicative function whose mean value can be determined in
terms of that integral delay equation.
Converse
Proposition 28.9 Let S be a closed subset of U and suppose that is a measurable function whose values lie in, K(S), the convex hull of S, with (t) = 1
for all t 1. Given > 0 and u 1 there exist arbitrarily large y and f F(S)
with f (n) = 1 for n y and
X
(t) 1
f (m)(m) for almost all 0 t u.
(y t )
t
my
IntDelEqn
Proof Since is measurable and (t) belongs to the convex hull of S, we can
find a step function 1 within the convex hull of S such that 1 (t) = 1 for t 1,
and (t) 1 (t) /2 for almost all t [0, u]. 2
Now 1 (t) belongs to the convex hull of S and so can be arbitrarily wellapproximated by (integral) linear combinations of elements of S. Hence if 1 (t)
has a fixed value in (t1 , t2 ) then we can select the set of values of f (p) S when
y t1 < p < y t2 to reflect such a linear combination, and therefore if
0 (t) :=
1 X
f (p) log p,
(y t )
t
py
then 0 (t) 1 (t) /2 for almost all t [0, u]. Hence (t) 0 (t) for
almost all t [0, u]. The proof in exercise 3.3 then implies
that (u) 0 (u)
IntDel1
u 1, for all u 1, and the result then follows from (28.2).
2
28.4
almost all, we mean that the inequality is only violated on a set of measure 0.
137
t)
(u) = 0 (u)+
0 (ut)dt = ei  0 (u) +
dt .
t
u/2tu t
u/2tu
Let be a complex number with Re() < 1, and let denote the unique
continuous solution to u0 (u) = (1 ) (u 1), for u 1, with the initial
condition (u) = 1 for u 1 (The DickmanDe Bruijn function is the case
= 0).3 For [0, 1], Goldston and McCurley [5] gave an asymptotic expansion
of ,4 and showed that when is not an integer
(u)
e(1)
,
()u1
as u .5 In our example 0 (v) = i (v) for v u/2, and so, for c = e /(i) =
3.414868086 . . . we have  0 (v) c/v. Hence taking v = u t above
Z
c
c log(u 1)
log u
(u) &
dv =
M eM ,
v(u
v)
u
u
1vu/2
since, in this example we have
1
Z u/2
1 cos(vy)
1 sin(vy)
dv +
dv ,
yR
v
v
0
1
Z y
Z Y
1 cos t + sin t
sin t
log u/2 + min
dt max
dt log u O(1).
yR 0
Y R 0
t
t
M (x, T ) min
Z
3 We will discuss this example in more detail a little later. Perhaps we should combine the
two discussions.
4 Their proof is in fact valid for all complex with Re() < 1
5 Just as we saw in the SelbergTenenbaum Theorem, when is an integer the behaviour
of is very different; in fact (u) = 1/uu+o(u) . Exercise: Use the Structure theorem to
compare these results.
29
LAPLACE TRANSFORMS
For a measurable function
g : [0, ) C we will denote the Laplace transform
R
of g by L(g, s) := 0 g(t)est dt. If g is integrable and grows subexponentially
(that is, for every > 0, g(t) et almost everywhere) then the Laplace
transform
is well defined for all complex numbers s with Re (s) > 0. We begin
IntDelEqn
with (28.1). Multiplying through by uesu and integrating over all u 0 yields
Z
Z Z u
L0 (, s) =
u(u)esu du =
(t)est (u t)es(ut) du
0
t=0
k0 (1)
L(, s) =
1 1 (v) k
L
,s .
s
v
1 (v)
1
exp L
,s .
s
v
CompareTwoChi
Z
0
sigmaUB
1 (t)
dt .
t
Lemma 29.2 Suppose that (t) = 1 for t 1 and 0 (t) 1 for all t. Given
u define (t)
= (t) for t u and (t)
= 0 for t > u. We have
Z
e
1
(u)
(t)dt.
E(u) u u
Laplace Transforms
139
(t)(u
t)dt
(t) =
(t)dt
(t)dt.
u 0
u 0
u 0
u u
For s a small positive real < 1/u, we have
Z
Z u
1 (t)
1 (t)
1 (t)
st
L
, s log E(u) =
e dt
dt
t
t
t
0
0
Z u
Z st
1 (t)
e
=
(est 1)dt +
dt
t
t
0
u
= log(us) + O(us),
since =
1
u
R1
0
1et
dt
t
(t)dt =
0
R
1
et
t dt.
Hence
1 (t)
1
1
e
lim L(
, s) = lim
exp L
,s =
,
s0 us
u s0
t
E(u)
30
THE SPECTRUM
30.1
We are interested in what are the possible mean values of multiplicative functions
in certain classes; for example, characters of order m. To this end we let S be a
given subset of the unit disc U, and let T be the unit circle. Let F(S) denote the
class of completely multiplicative functions f such that f (pk ) S for all prime
powers pk .6 Our main concern is:
What numbers arise as meanvalues of functions in F(S)?
P
That is, we define N (S) = N1 nN f (n) : f F(S) and then seek to
understand the (mean value) spectrum
(S) = limN N (S).7
The case of most interest to us is Sm , defined as 0 together with the mth roots
of unity, because F(Sm ) yields the possible character sums of characters of order
m. We begin by making some simple observations.
We see that ({1}) = {1}, and if S1 S2 then (S1 ) (S2 ). Moreover
(S) is a closed subset of the unit disc U, and (S) = (S) where S denotes the
closure of S, and so, henceforth, we shall assume that S is closed.
The hypothesis implies that the set S is closed under taking integer powers,
for if S then let f (p) = and so k = f (pk ) S for all k.
RealElt
Exercise 30.1 Deduce that if there exists S with 6= 1 then there exists a
real number K(S), the convex hull of S.
1SinS_m
141
Exercise 30.4 Suppose that S T is finite. Fix > 0. Show that there exists
> 0 such that if z T and z s for all s S T, then z s . for
all s S.
Exercise 30.5 Show that if there exists s S such that s 6=GenFundLem
1 then 0 (S).
Show that if 1 6 S then (S) = {0}. (Hint: Use Proposition 3.6).
Henceforth we may assume that there exists 1, RealElt
S with 6= 1 and therefore
there exists a real number K(S) by exercise 30.1.
If z U\{1} then define Ang(z) = arg(1z), so that /2 < Ang(z) < /2.
For any V U, define Ang(V ) to be the supremum of  arg(1 v) as we range
over all v V with v 6= 1. We will obtain the following improvement of the last
lemma:
SinS_m
AngMaxRegion
nx
nx
142
The Spectrum
sS
f (n) CS
nx
HalExplic1
Proof To obtain this from (??) we need to bound D(f, nit , x) from below. We
may assume that t 1/ log x else the result is trivial. Now
X 1 Re(f (p)pit )
X
1 Re(spit )
D(f, nit , x)2 =
min
sS
p
p
px
e1/t <px
Z t log x
1 Re(seiv )
=
min
dv + O(1) = CS log(t log x) + O(1).
sS
v
1
2
Exercise 30.10 Show that
Z
CS =
Suppose that 
Now for small t,
nx
0 zK(S)
X 1 pit 
X Re(f (p)(1 pit ))
p
p
px
px
which is t log x if t 1/ log x, and otherwise 2 log(t log x) + O(1).
Therefore we deduce that D(f, 1, x)2 S log(1/). This implies that 1 S.
Remark 30.11 In a similar vein to the Proposition, Hall [] asked for the largest
constant such that D(f, nit , x)2 D(f, 1, x)2 whenever f (p) S. This can be
reexpressed as
X Re((1 f (p))( pit )) X 1 Re(pit )
;
p
p
px
px
sS
sS
143
(S)
2 )
Proof of Theorem
P 30.8.
Suppose that  nx f (n) > x and let t = tf (x, log x). We have just proved
that t S 1/ log x and
D(f, 1, x)2 S log(1/). Taking y = x where 0
StructThm
very slowly, Theorem 15.1 then implies that
1X
1X
1X
f (n) xit
gt (n)
ht (n),
x
x
x
nx
nx
nx
where gt (pk ) = 1, ht (pk ) = f (pk )/pikt if p y, and gt (pk ) = f (pk )/pikt , ht (pk ) =
1 if p > y. Hence the mean values of gt and of ht are both in
absolute value.
GenFundLem
We focus first on the mean value of ht (n). By Proposition 3.6 we see that
1X
1X
ht (n) P(ht ; x) = P(ht ; y) P(f, y) = P(h, y)
h(n),
x
x
nx
nx
since
2
2
1 + ht (p) + ht (p ) + . . . 1 + f (p) + f (p ) + . . . t log p ,
p
p2
p
p2
p
and hence
Y
t log p
P(ht ; y)
=
1+O
= 1 + O(t log y) 1.
P(f, y)
p
py
AsympT1
X
X
1X
1
1
1X
gt (n)
gt (n)nit =
g(n) + O
g(n) gt (n)nit  .
x
x
x
x
nx
nx
nx
nx
g(n) gt (n)nit 
 log(g(n)/gt (n)nit )
nx
t
X
py
k1
XX
kt log p
nx pk kn
py
log p
x
xt log y = o(x),
pk
since g(pk )/gt (pk )(pk )it = (pit )k if p y and = 1 if p > y. The result follows.
2
144
The Spectrum
30.3
Theorem 30.8 allows us to factor the spectrum (S) into two parts:
The first corresponds to mean values for multiplicative functions that only
vary from 1 on the small primes. These mean values can be realized in terms of
Euler products. We denote this Euler product spectrum by P (S).
The second corresponds to mean values for multiplicative functions that
only vary from 1 on the large primes. These mean values can be realized in
terms of solutions to integral delay equations. We denote this delay equation
spectrum by (S).
MeanValueStructure
Hence Theorem 30.8 implies that9
(S) = P (S)(S).
We will now be more precise in analyzing the sets P (S) and (S).
30.4
Proposition 30.13
P (S) = {e(1)t : t 0, K(S)}.
Proof Since f is totally multiplicative then
1
Y
1
f (p)
P(f ; x) =
1
1
p
p
px
and so
X
X f (pm ) 1
1
= (1 )
log 1
log P(f ; x) =
mpm
p
px
m1
px
S
so
that
y<px
y<px f (p)/p = t +
O(1/y), which is certainly possible if y is sufficiently large. But then log P(f ; x) =
(1 )t + O(1/y). Letting y gives the result.
2
If 6 R then {e(1)t , t 0} is a spiral which begins at 1 and ends at 0.
Exercise 30.14 Deduce that P (S) = P (K(S)).
Exercise 30.15 Prove that P (S) P (S) = P (S).
9 We
145
Exercise 30.16 We showed above that we can assume that there exists real
6= 1 with S R. Deduce that P (S) contains the straightline connecting
0 to 1. Deduce further that P (S) is starlike; that is the straightline connecting
any point of P (S) to the origin, lies entirely inside P (S).
sizez
Exercise 30.17 Prove that if z P (S) then z exp( arg(z) cot(Ang(S))).
Corollary 30.18 Ang(P (S)) Ang((S)) Ang(S).
Proof Suppose that S with  arg(1 ) Ang(S) . Now if vt =
e(1)t P (S) then 1 vt = (1 )t (1 )2 t2 /2 + . . .. If t is sufficiently
small then  arg(1 vt )  arg(1 ) Ang(S) 2, and the result follows.
2
i
: /2 /2, r > 0}
P (S) = 1 {ere
: + , r > 0}.
This can be written as the boundary and interior of the curves given by
et cos (cos + +i sin + ) and et cos + (cos +i sin ) for 0 t
2
.
sin(+ )
146
The Spectrum
Now suppose that Ang(S) < /2. Note that if there exists S
T which
1SinS_m
is not a root of unity then T S (as in the proof of Lemma 30.2) and so
Ang(S) = /2. Hence we may assume that S T is finite and consists only of
roots of unity.
Now suppose that S T which is an mth root of unity. We now show that
Ang(S) < /2. If not then we have a sequence of points rn ein S with n 0
as n with rn 1 and rn = 1 + o(n ). Then rnm eimn = (rn ein )m S
but here mn 0 as n with rnm 1 and rnm = 1 + o(mn ), so that
Ang(S) = /2, by the previous exercise, a contradiction.
Let us suppose that every element of S T is an mth root of unity, and
select M divisible by m, so that Ang(SM ) > maxST Ang(S) and sufficiently
large that the largest distance
from T to the perimeter of K(SM ) is < then
NoPtsNrT
K(S) K(SM ) by exercise 30.4.
2
To simplify our treatment of P (S) we shall now restrict attention to totally
multiplicative functions. Hence we define (S) to be the spectrum of meanvalues of totally multiplicative functions, and similarly P (S) and (S). All of
the above proofs are still valid, and so we deduce that (S) = P (S) (S) and
(S) = (S).
Exercise 30.21 (Open problem) Define (S) to be the spectrum of meanvalues of all multiplicative functions with f (pk ) S (but not necessarily totally
multiplicative). Similarly define P (S). It is evident that P (S) P (S). Can
you find elements of P (S) that do not belong to P (S)? Can you determine
P (S)?10
30.5
Let (S) denote the values (u) = (u) obtained from (28.1) when is a
measurable function
with (t) K(S) for all t 0, with (t) = 1 for 0 t 1.
FnToDelEqn
Proposition 28.1 implies that any mean value of a multiplicative function that
only varies from 1 on the large primes, belongs to (S). On the other hand if
(u) (S) then
there is an f F(S) whose mean value up to x is (u), by
Converse
Proposition 28.9.
Exercise 30.22 Explain why (S) = (K(S)). Deduce that (S) = (K(S)),
so we can assume throughout that S is a convex, closed, proper subset of U.
Lemma 30.23
P (S)(S) (S)
Exercise 30.24 Deduce that (S) and (S) are all also starlike. Then deduce
that (S) = (S).
10 The easiest examples arise by simply taking the p = 2 term. If S = S let f (2k ) = i so
4
. However the spirals in S4 look like etit , so with angle
that (1 12 )(1 + 2i + 4i + . . .) = 1+i
2
/4 the maximum in size is e/4 (1 + i) and e/4 = 0.4559381277 < 1/2.
147
Proof Suppose that we are given e(1)t P (S) and (u) (S). Let x
be sufficiently large that
we can choose f (p) with z < p y = x1/u , as in the
EulSpec
P(f, y) = e(1)t +O(1/z). We select f (p)
proof of Proposition 30.13, for which
Converse
for y < p
x, as in Proposition 28.9.GenFundLem
We let f (p) = 1 for all p z. Applying
MeanValueStructure
Theorem 30.8 and then Proposition 3.6 we
deduce that the mean value of f is
MeanValueStructure
e(1)t (u). Now applying Theorem 30.8 again, but this time with y there
equal to z here, we find that h = 1, g = f and so the mean value of f belongs to
(S).
2
This result implies that P (S) (S). Are there elements of (S) that do
not belong to P (S)? In general, the spectrum contains more elements than
simply the Euler products. For example, the spectrum of Euler products for
S = [1, 1] is simply the interval [0, 1], whereas negative numbers are part of
(S). We have seen that P (S) is straightforward to fully understand, whereas
(S) remains somewhat mysterious. We will discuss this in more detail in the
next chapter.
31
RESULTS ON SPECTRA
31.1
The spectrum has been fully determined in only one interesting case, where
S = [1, 1]; that is realvalued multiplicative functions. In that case, in [GS], we
proved that ([1, 1]) = [1 , 1] where
1 = 1 2 log(1 +
Z
e) + 4
1
log t
dt = 0.656999 . . . .
t+1
1
for primes p x1/(1+ e)
f1 (p) =
1 for primes x1/(1+ e) p x.
Applying this to the totally multiplicative function f (n) = np , for some
prime p, we deduce that the number of integers below x that are quadratic
residues (mod p) is
n
1 + 1
1X
1+
x + o(x) = (0 + o(1))x,
2
p
2
nx
can derive the following curious expression for 0 (from the definition of 1 ):
0 = 1
2
e
1
1
log(1 + e) log
.
+2
6
1+ e
n2 (1 + e)n
n=1
31.2
149
We now establish that similar results hold for mth power residues. For each
integer m 2, define the minimal density and minimal logarithmic density of
mth power residues modulo primes, to be
m = lim inf inf
x ` prime
0
and m
= lim inf inf
x ` prime
1
x
1,
nx
nam (mod `)
1
log x
X
nx
nam (mod `)
1
.
n
We already know that 2 = 0 and we will see that 20 = 1/2. For m 3 we show
that
1 X km
1
1
1
0
min
m/e .
0 < m (m) m < m1 m
0 e
m
2
(km)!
e
k=0
0
for any m 3. Calculating the
We do not know the exact values of m and m
0
minimum over , we found that 3 0.3245, 40 0.2187, 50 0.14792, and
60 0.1003. However we do obtain the following consequence:
ImportantEx
31.3
An important example
0 (u)
and therefore
= (1 ) (u 1)/u. The case = 0 has already been
discussed in detail. In general we can compute the mean value for small u, using
our results that = (u), and Ij (u, ) = 0 if j u. Hence:
If 1 u 2 then the mean value is 1 (1 ) log u. Therefore if = rei
K(S) (with 6= 1) then z = 1 (1 )v (S) for 0 v log 2. If z = mei
then one can showsizez
that m = sin / sin( + ). On the other hand, if z P (S)
then by exercise 30.17
z exp( cot )
1
1
sin
<
=
,
1 + cot
cos + sin cot
sin( + )
150
Results on spectra
2
dt1 dt2
t1 ,t2 1 t1 t2 .
t1 +t2 u
AverageIntEqn
Exercise 31.2 Show that for any , satisfying (28.1) (that is u(u) = (
)(u) for all u 0) weIntDelEqn
have u(1 )(u) = ((1 ) (1 + ))(u). Go on to show
that if j , j satisfy (28.1) for j = 1, 2 then u(u) = ( )(u) for all u 0
where = 1 + 2 and = 1 2 .
Ru
Define M (u) = M (u) := 0 (t)dt; that is M = (1 AverageIntEqn
). If (t) = 1 for
all t > 1 then M1 (u) = u for 0 u 1 and, by exercise 31.2,
Z u
uM1 (u) = 2
M1 (t)dt for u > 1.
u1
This is much like the functional equation for (u) and can be analyzed in much
the same way:
Exercise 31.3 Prove that M1 (u) = ((2e + o(1))/u log u)u . Use the fact that
this is decreasing so fast to deduce that for all sufficiently large v there exists u
with v < u < v + v/ log v such that 1 (u) ((2e + o(1))/u log u)u .
31.4
What is ([, 1])? That is the spectrum for realvalued f with the each f (p)
[, 1]. An easy Corollary of Corollary 27.18 is that if S contains a nonreal point
that (S) contains a negative realnumber. We want to know here if this is true
when S is real but contains negative real numbers. Evidently [0, 1] Gamma(S)
is this case.
What is the spectrum for the meanvalue of realvalued multiplicative functions up to x, when f (p) = 0 for all p y? We will see that this is useful in
understanding the distribution of quadratic residues.
32
THE NUMBER OF UNSIEVED INTEGERS UP TO X
This is the article original,
Qmoreorless unedited
One expects around x p6P, px (1 1/p) integers up to x, all of whose prime
factors come from the set P . Of course for some choices of P one may get rather
more integers, and for some choices of P one may get rather less. Hall [4] showed
that one never gets more than e + o(1) times the expected amount (where
is the EulerMascheroni constant), which was improved slightly
by Hildebrand
Q
[5]. Hildebrand [6] also showed that for a given value of p6P, px (1 1/p),
the smallest count that you get (asymptotically) is when P consists of all the
primes up to a given point. In this paper we shall improve Hildebrands upper
bound, obtaining a result close to optimal, and also give a substantially shorter
proof of Hildebrands lower bound. As part of the proof we give an improved
Lipschitztype bound for such counts.
Define
1X
1X
f (n),
and
G(w) := lim sup
f (n),
g(w) := lim inf
x x
x x
nx
nx
where both limits are taken over the class of multiplicative functions f with
P(f, x) = 1/w + o(1).
If f is completely multiplicative with f (p)P
= 1 for p x1/u and f (p) = 0 for
x1/w p x then P(f ; x) = 1/w + o(1) and nx f (n) = (x, x1/w ) x(w).
Hence g(w) (w) and A. Hildebrand [6] established that in fact g(w) = (w).
Since (w) = ww+o(w) note that g(w) decays very rapidly as w increases.
this does
R mark an improvement over Halls result, but the difference from e /w
is w1 w (t)dt = ww+o(w) which is very small. In this paper we shall prove that
G(w) = e /w 1/w2+o(1) , but it remains to determine G(w) more precisely. We
shall also give a shorter proof of Hildebrands result that g(w) = (w).
1
w0
Z
(w + ) +
0
(t)
dt .
w+t
When w is large, the maximum is attained for log w/ log log w, and yields
G(w)
e
(e + o(1)) log w
.
w
w2 log log w
152
2
G(w)
for a positive constant c.
We also give an explicit upper bound for G(w) valid for all w.
3
Theorem 32.3 For 1 w we have that G(w) 1 log w + (log w)2 /2 and
equality holds here for 1 w 3/2. For w 1 put (w) := 21 (w + 1/w) +
log w
nx
X
y w px
1
log p
w+
x (w + ) +
p
log y
Z
0
(t)
dt ,
w+t
which gives the lower bound (1.3) for G(w). For large w we see that
Z
(w+)+
and since
R
0
(t)
1
dt =
w+t
w+
R
0
Z
(t)dt+
t(t)
dt+(w+)
(w + )(w + t)
1
1
(e (1+o(1)) ) + O 2 .
w+
w
The quantity above attains a maximum for = (1 + o(1)) log w/ log log w, completing the proof of Theorem 1.
2
153
We noted above that G(w) = 1 log w + (log w)2 /2 for 1 w 1.5 (with
the maximum attained in (1.3) at = w). Next we record the bounds obtained
for 1.5 w 2 (though here the maximum is attained with a little smaller
than w).
w
G(w)
G(w)
1.5
.676735
.676736
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
.640255 .608806 .581685 .557392 .535905
.640449 .610155 .584960 .564135 .547080
The upper and lower bounds for G(w) given by Theorems 1 and 3.
32.1
Reformulation in terms of integral equations
Note that P(f, y u ) 1/E(u). Analogously to g(w) and G(w) we may define
g(w) = lim
inf (u),
u,
and
G(w)
= lim sup (u),
u,
E (u)=w
E (u)=w
2.2
where the limits are taken over all pairs u, with u 1, where is a measurable
function for which (t) = 1 for t 1 and (t) [0, 1] for all t, and with
E (u) = w. We shall show that these quantities are in fact equal to g(w) and
G(w) respectively. Something similar was stated (but not very precisely) by
Hildebrand in his discussion paper [7].
Prove that
1
Z 1/
X f (n)
Y
f (p)
(e + o(1))
(t)dt
1
,
n
p
0
nx
px
R +
where is the Dickmande Bruijn function. (Note that 0 (t)dt = e ). This
inequality is sharp. To see that take f such that f (p) = 1 for all primes p x
and f (p) = 0 otherwise.
R u We can reformulate this in terms of integral equations. Define (u) :=
(t)dt, then Halls conjecture is the following
0
154
Conjecture 32.5
Z u
Z
(t)dt
u
(u)
Z
(t)dt exp
1
(t)
dt .
t
u
(u)
.
P
If true , this implies the result of Hildebrand that lim inf x x1 nx f (n) exists
and is equal to (), where the limit is taken over the class of multiplicative
functions f with
Y
1
f (p) f (p2 )
1
1
+
+
...
1+
= + o(1).
2
p
p
p
px
,
E(v)
vE(u)
u
using Halls result that (u) e /E(u).
3.1
155
Proof We shall only prove the lower bound, the proof of the upper bound is
similar. From (2.2a,b) we see that
X
1
(Ij (u(1 + ); ) Ij (u; )) .
j!
j=1
(u(1 + )) (u)
j odd
dt1 dtj .
max(t
,...,t
,ut
...t
)t
1
j1
1
j1
j
t1
tj1
tj
t1 ,...,tj1 1
tj u(1+)t1 ...tj1
u/j + u
= log(1 + j) j log(1 + ),
u/j
X
1 2
j log(1 + )(log E(u))j1 ,
j!
j=1
j odd
will think of as giving the optimal function for either g(w/v) or G(w/v)).
Let
U 1 be a parameter which we will let tend to infinity. Put 1 (t) = (t/U )
and note that the corresponding solution to (2.1) is 1 (u) = (u/U ). Define
2 (t) = 0 for 1 t v and 2 (t) = 1 (t) for all other t, and let 2 (u) denote
the corresponding solution to (2.1). By Lemma 2.5 we see that for U v
Z
X
(1)j
1 1
1
2 (uU ) = 1 (uU )+
. . . 1 (uU t1 . . .tj )dt1 dtj .
vt1 ,...,tj 1 t1 t2
j!
t
j
j=1
t1 +...+tj uU
156
G(w)
1 log w + (log w)2 /2. If w 3/2 then consider (t) = 0 for 1 t w
and (t) = 1 for all other t. Then we see that the corresponding solution (u)
(u(1 + ))
(u) (E(u)) log(1 + ) for 0 1
by Proposition 3.1. If E(u) 2 then (E(u)) 7/4 > 1/ log 2 so that exp((u)/(E(u)))
1 < 1. Hence we obtain that
1
u
(t)dt
exp((u)/(E(u)))1
(32.1)
(u)
= (u) + (E(u)) exp
1 ,
(E(u))
(32.2)
(32.3)
Our
R proof of Theorem 2 is also based on (3.2) and obtaining lower bounds for
1
(t)dt. However Theorem 4 is not quite strong enough to obtain this conu u
clusion and so, in this section, we develop a hybrid Lipschitz estimate which for
our problem is almost as good as (3.3) with = 1. We begin with the following
Proposition (compare Lemma 2.2 and Proposition 3.3 of [3]).
4.1
157
Then
log
u
log
u
(u) (v)
Z 2/(uF )
eu
1 e2xu
+F +F
dx
x
0
eu
e3
+ F log .
(32.4)
(32.5)
(32.6)

(t)
(t )dt =
2t
(t)
(t )
e2xt dx dt
0
(32.8)
Z
2
0
{t
(t) (t )
(t ) + 
(t )}e2tx dtdx
(32.9)
Z
I(x)dx +
0
u
+
I(x)dx,
0
(32.10)
(32.11)
where
Z
I(x) =
2t
(t) (t )
(t )e2tx dt.
eu 1
(u) (v) log
+
I(x)dx.
u
u 0
By Cauchys inequality
Z u
Z u
I(x)2 4
e2tx dt
t
(t) (t )
(t )2 e2tx dt
0
0
1 e2xu Z
2
t
(t) (t )
(t )2 e2tx dt .
x
0
(32.12)
(32.13)
(32.14)
158
1 e2xu
F (x).
x
We now demonstrate that F (x) is a decreasing function of x. Suppose that
z
1
z
e
dz = 2 +2 . Hence e
= k(z) = k(z) = 2 +2 eiz dz
(1 e(x++iy) )et(x++iy) =
et(x+iy+i) (1 e(x+iy+i) )d.
2 + 2
I(x)
1
L(
, x + iy + i)(1 e(x+iy+i) )d
(1 e(x++iy) )L(
, x + +iy) =
2 + 2
(32.15)
1 Z
so that
159
Z
1
1 (v)eivy
vx
L(, s) = exp
e
dv .
x
v
0
1
exp
x
etx
dt
t
Re
0
1 (t)eity
t
etx dt .
L(
, x + iy) = e u exp
Re
dt + O(ux) .
t
0
Note that this is u 1, so that the maximum of 1 e(x+iy) L(
, x + iy)
cannot occur with ky/2k 0 as x 0+ (here ktk denotes the distance from
the nearest integer to t), else F (x) u x + ky/2k 0 as x 0+ , implying
that F (x) = 0 which is ridiculous. Thus the maximum occurs with ky/2k 1
as x 0+ so that 1 e(x+iy) = 1 eiy + O(x) = (1 eiy ){1 + O(x)},
so that
Z u
1 (t)eity
(x+iy)
iy
1e
L(
, x+iy) = u1e
 exp
dt + O(ux) .
Re
t
0
Therefore F (x) uF {1 + O(ux)} for sufficiently small x; and so F (x) uF .
Also F (x) 2 maxyR L(
, x + iy) 2/x. Therefore, by (4.2), we get that
(
1e2xu
uF if x 2/uF
I(x) 2 x
if x > 2/uF,
x2
which when inserted in (4.1) yields the first estimate in the Proposition.
Now if F 1 then
Z 2/(uF )
Z 2/u
Z 2/(uF )
1 e2xu
1
1 e2xu
dx
dx +
dx 2 + log(1/F ),
x
x
x
0
2/u
0
and so we deduce the second estimate of Proposition 4.1. If F > 1 this holds
trivially since (u) (v) 2.
2
As an application of this Proposition, we establish the following strangelooking Lipschitz estimate in the case that (t) [0, 1] for all t 1.
160
4.2
X
tP2Z
1tuy
1 (t/y)
t
and the sum over t above is over real values of t in the range [1, uy] such that
t P is an integer multiple of 2. Note that
1
0 G(P) log(uy) + O(1) for all P,
Z
Z u
1 (t)
and
G(P)dP =
dt = z.
t
0
1/y
(32.25)
(32.26)
(32.27)
161
R
Consider the problem of minimizing 0 G(P) cos PdP over all functions G satisfying these two constraints. Since cos P decreases from 1 to 1 in the range [0, ],
we see that this is achieved by taking G(P) = 0 for P [0, P0 ], and G(P) =
1
1
log(uy) + O(1) for P [ P0 , ], where P0 satisfies P0 ( log(uy) + O(1)) = z.
We conclude that
Z
Z
1
1
log(uy) + O(1) dP = log(uy) sin P0 + O(1)
G(P) cos PdP
cos P
0
P0
(32.28)
1
z
= log(uy) sin
+ O(1)
(32.29)
log(uy) + O(1)
1
z
= log(uy) sin
+ O(1),
(32.30)
log(uy)
(32.31)
since 0 z log(uy). Therefore
Z
0
z
1 (t) cos(ty)
1
dt A z + log(uy) 1 sin
+ O(1).
t
log(uy)
A
1
min(1, y)
(uy) sin( log(uy) ) .
uy
.

(u)
(v) C(1 + ) exp + sin
162
4
A
2 3
1
A+
= 2C(1+A) exp A
+O
2C(1+A) exp A+
sin
.
A+
6 A2
A3
2
(t)dt
u
1
u
u(1+eA )
(v)dv
u
1
1
1
ueA
>
,
u
2
22 exp()
33
THE LOGARITHMIC SPECTRUM
TruncDirSeries
X f (n) X 1
:
f
F(S)
lim
x
n
n
nx
nx
nx
ny
Proposition 33.1
P Let f be a multiplicative function with f (n) 1 for all n,
and put g(n) = dn f (d). Then
1 X 1 Re(f (p))
1 X f (n)
.
exp
log x
n
2
p
nx
px
g(n) =
nx
we see that
XX
nx dn
f (d) =
X
dx
x
X f (d)
f (d)
+ O(1) = x
+ O(x),
d
d
dx
164
1
1 X
1 X f (n)
g(n) + O
log x
n
x log x
log x
nx
nx
1 X g(n)
1
+
2
n
log
x
log x nx
X 1 + f (p) 2)
+ 1
exp
p
log x
px
(3.2.1)
G0UB
1
.
(log x)16
it
It is not entirely
P surprising that t must be small since if f (n) = n with t
1/ log x then nx f (n)/n = log(1/t) + O(1).
LogLipsch
,
log x
n
log(x/y)
n
log x
nx
nx/y
for all functions f with f (n) 1. (Hint: Do this from first principles.)
GenFundLem
nx
165
Proof Let f 1 =g h so that h(p) = 1 for all p > y. Using the last exercise
we obtain, for v = u and x = y u ,
X g(a) X h(b)
X h(b)
X (g h)(n)
=
+
n
a
b
b
v
v
nx
ax/y
bx/a
by
X
x/y v <ax/b
g(a)
a
X g(a)
X log(y v /b)
=
(P(h; y) log x/a + O(log y)) + O
a
b
v
v
by
ax/y
Z xX
g(a) dt
= P(h; y)
+ O(u log2 y),
a t
1
at
at
We subtract
the expression for x from that for xy w , with w = u, and then use
LogLipsch
exercise 33.2 to note that
Z xyw X
Z xyw
X f (n)
f (a) dt
dt
log
t
=
+ O(log(t/x))
a
t
log
x
n
t
x
x
at
nx
1 X f (n)
= uw log2 y
+ O(u log2 y).
log x
n
nx
This is our structure theorem, and allows us to assert that 0 (S) = P (S) 0 (S),
and hence 0 (S) is starlike.
Exercise 33.5 Prove that 0 (S) = 0 (S).
One can easily show that there are elements of 0 (S) that do not belong to
P (S): Let (t) = 1 for t 1 and (t) = S for t > 1, so that (t) =
1 (1 ) log t for 1 t 2, and hence
Z
Z
1 u
1 u
1
(t)dt = 1 (1 )
log t dt = 1 (1 ) log u 1 +
u 0
u 1
u
for 1 u 2. This implies that {1 (1 )t : 0 t log 2 1/2} 0 (S) and
if z belongs to this set then arg(1 z) = arg(1 ). In particular this implies
that Ang(
0 (S)) Ang(S). Moreover if 0 <Ang(S) < 2 then one can show, as in
ImportantEx
section 31.3 then z 6 P (S), and hence we have proved that there are elements
of 0 (S) are not in P (S).
166
The elements of
0 (S) are of the form (1 )(u)/u, which arise naturally, as
AverageIntEqn
we saw in exercise 31.2. Let us suppose that S = [1, 1] and F(S). Then
1 + (t) = 2 for all t 1 and 1 + (t) 0 for all t 1. Now we know that
M
(u) = M (u) = u for 0 u 1. If M (t) 0 for all t < u then, by exercise
AverageIntEqn
31.2,
Z
Z
u
M (u t)(1 + )(t)dt 2
uM (u) =
0
Gamma011
M (u t)dt.
0
Exercise 33.6 Use this functional equation to prove that M (u) > 0 for all
u > 0, or even M (u) ((2 + o(1))/u log u)u . Deduce that 0 ([1, 1]) = [0, 1].
33.2
Bounding 0 (S)
We are able to say much more about the structure of 0 (S) thanks to the following result:
HullOfG0(S)
By exercise 30.7 we know that the elements of K(S) are all convex linear
combinations of the points ei with = 0 or 2  . Hence 0 (S) is a
Qn
ij
where 2 j  , with
subset of the convex hull
of the points j=1 1+e2
HullOfG0(S)
n 0, by Theorem 33.7. Such a product has magnitude (cos )n cos if
n 1, and so 0 (S) is a subset of the convex hull of {1} {z cos }. Now,
if z cos then one can show that Ang(z) arcsin(z) 2 , and so it
follows that Ang(0 (S)) 2 =Ang(S). In the previous section we showed
that Ang(0 (S)) Ang(S), and so we can now deduce that
Ang(0 (S)) = Ang(S).
HullOfG0(S)
CompareTwoChi
X
1
k!
k
Y
1 + (ti )
ti
t1 ,...,tk 1
t1 +...+tk u i=1
k=1
1 (u t1 . . . tk )dt1 . . . dtk .
X
1
k!
k=1
k
Y
1 + (ti )
t1 ,...,tk 1
t1 +...+tk u i=1
ti
We have shown that M1 (v) > 0 for all v > 0, so this is a linear combination of
elements of R, with nonnegative coefficients. The sum of those coefficients is
M1 (u) +
X
1
k!
k=1
t1 ,...,tk 1
t1 +...+tk u
k
Y
2
M1 (u t1 . . . tk )dt1 . . . dtk ,
t
i=1 i
LinearCombo
Negative truncations
167
which equals M1 (u), that is the case that (t) = 1 for all t; that is (t) = 1 for
all t, and so M
1 (u) = u. Hence we have proved that M (u)/u, which equals the
LinearCombo
quantity in (33.1) divided by u, lies in the convex hull of R, as desired.
2
33.3
Negative truncations
Gamma011
In exercise 33.6P
we saw that 0 ([1, 1]) = [0, 1], which might mistake one into
surmising thatP nN f (n)/n 0 whenever f F([1, 1]); however all one can
deduce is that nN f (n)/n oN (log N ). In 1958 Haselgrove showed that
P
k
k
nN (n)/n gets negative, where (p ) = (1) , and recently it was shown
MR2398787
[8] that the first such value is N = 72185376951205. Moreover the sum equals
2.075 . . . 10?9 when N = 72204113780255.
This leads to several questions:
P
What is the minimum possible value of nN f (n)/n for each large NP
? For any
N ? To begin with we show that this is easily bounded below: If g(n) = dn f (d)
then each g(n) 0 and so
0
g(n) =
nx
X
dx
h x i X f (d)
x
+1 ,
f (d)
d
d
dx
nN
f (d) then
dn
=
g(n) + (1 )
f (n) + O
.
n
x
x
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
nx
g(n) =
nx
X
dx
nxo
hxi
X f (d) X
f (d)
=x
f (d)
,
d
d
d
dx
dx
g(n) =
n
nx
nx
k=1 x/(k+1)<mx/k
x/k
f (m)
m
x
dt + O(x/K).
t2
168
x/k
f (m)
x/(k+1) x/(k+1)<mt
x
dt
t2
!
Z x/k
Z x/k
1X
x log log x
x
x
x
=
dt + O
dt
f (n)
t
x
k + 1 t2
k(log x)2 3 x/(k+1) t2
x/(k+1)
nx
X
k+1
1
log log x
=
f (n) log
+O
k
k+1
k(log x)2 3
nx
RealLipsch
by
PKexercise 14.2. Summing up over all k, 1 k K yields the result since
2
k=1 1/(k + 1) = log(K + 1) + 1 + O(1/K).
LipschBounds
GenTruncPrecise
Exercise 33.9 Modify the above proof, using Corollary 14.1, to show that for
any totally multiplicative f with f (n) 1 we have the same estimate but with
1 replaced by
Z
{z}
ct := (1 + it)
dz, where t = tf (x, log x).
2+it
z
1
NegVals
n
log x
nx
P
Proof We discussed above that there exists an integer N such that nN (n)
n =
2
for some > 0. Now let x > N be large and define f (p) = 1 if x/(N +
1) < p x/N and f (p) = 1 for all other p. If n x then we see that
f (n) = (n) unless n = p` for a (unique) prime p (x/(N + 1), x/N ] in which
case f (n) = (`) = (n) + 2(`). Therefore
X f (n)
X (n)
X
1 X (`)
=
+2
n
n
p
`
nx
nx
x/(N +1)<px/N
X (n)
=
2
n
nx
X
x/(N +1)<px/N
`x/p
1
2
,
p
N log x
2
This next
Ppart needs editing:
5
Set u = px (1 f (p))/p. By Theorem 2 of A. Hildebrand [?] (with f there
being our function g, K = 2, K2 = 1.1, and z = 2) we obtain that
X max(0, 1 g(p))
Y
1
g(p) g(p2 )
1X
g(n)
1
1+
+ 2 +. . . exp
x
p
p
p
p
nx
px
px
+ O(exp((log x) )),
Negative truncations
169
(33.2)
nx
eue
u/2
since () = +o() .
3
On the other hand, a special case of the main result in [?] implies that
1 X
(33.3)
f (n) eu ,
x
nx
where = 0.32867 . . .. Combining Proposition 3.1 with (3.5) and (3.6) we immediately get that
(x) c/(log log x) for any < 2. This completes the proof
1
of Theorem 32.1.
Remark 33.11 The bound (3.5) is attained only in certain very special cases,
u
that is when there are very few primes p > xe
for which f (p) = 1 + o(1).
In this case
one
can
get
a
far
stronger
bound
than
(3.6).
Since the first part of
1
Theorem 32.1 depends on an interaction between these two bounds, this suggests
that one might be able to improve Theorem 1 significantly by determining how
(3.5) and (3.6) depend upon one another.
Now what about the class of all multiplicative functions, not necessarily
totally multiplicative, with values in [1, 1]? We will P
sketch a proof that we
have the same lower bound 1/(log log x)3/5 unless k1 (1 + f (2k ))/2k
P
1/(log x)1/20 . Now nx f (n)/n 1 log 2 + o(1), with equality if and only
P
P
k
k
if D (f, f2 ; x) = o(1) where D (f, g; x) :=
px
k1 (1 (f g)(p ))/p , and
k
f2 (2 ) = 1 for all k 1, otherwise f2 (.) is totally multiplicative with f2 (p) =
f1 (p) for all p 3.
UseTotally2FSieved1
Exercise 33.12 Use the special case of exercise 14.8 and (14.1) to prove that
X f2 (n)
1X
log log x
= log 2
f1 (n) + O
.
n
x
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
UseTotally2
GenTruncPrecise
.
= C0 (f )
G(n) + (ct C0 (f ) t (f ))
g(n) + O
n
x
x
(log x)2 3
nx
12 The
u 1.
nx
3.5
nx
Ru
u1
(t)dt for
3.6
170
.
= C0 (f )
G(n)+((1)C0 (f )0 (f ))
g(n)+O
n
x
x
(log x)2 3
nx
nx
nx
P
For nx f (n)
value, C0 (f ) must be small else
n to have a nottoosmall negative
P
one can argue as above. If C0 (f ) is small then k1 (1 + f (2k ))/2k must be very
small and the main term comes from 0 (f ) times the mean value of g(n). We
can easily then show that the largest negative value comes from when g is close
to f1 .
33.4
Convergence
P
P
We observe that if n f (n)/n converges then px f (p)/p is bounded.
To see
P this we begin by observing that if t t0 then E(t) where
E(t) := n>t f (n)/n. This implies, by partial summation, that if N t then
R
P
1
1+ log1 x
= tN dE(t)/t log x . Hence if log2 N < log x then
nN f (n)/n
X f (n) X f (n)
=
+ O(),
1+ log1 x
n
nN
n1 n
P
P
and so the value of n f (n)/n is simply the limit of n1 f (n)/n1+ as 0.
P
1+
Taking logarithms and limits this means that p f (p)/p
exists as 0.
P
Now if = 1/ log x then we have seen that this equals px f (p)/p + O(1). The
result follows.
33.5
n
a1it
b
nx
abx
X g(b) X
X 1
X
1
g(b)
+
b
a1it
a1it
b
aA
bx/A
ax/b
x/A<bx/a
xit X g(b)
g(b)
(1 + t)2 X g(b) X 1
=
1+it + O
+
it
b
b
x
(x/b)
a
=
bx/A
bx/A
aA
X
x/A<bx
g(b)
.
b
171
(3.2.2)
g(b)
A)2 P
The secondtolast term is 1. The last term is (log
bx
log x
b . by (9.2).
Just taking absolute values above, with A = (1 + t)2 , we deduce when T log x
X f (n)
1
(log log x)2 X g(b)
+
.
n
t
log x
b
nx
bx
34
THE POLYAVINOGRADOV INEQUALITY
GenGSums
(mod q)
(n)
q log q.
q
 sin a/q
n=M +1
(a,q)=1
Exercise 34.1 Justify this last step. Indicate how one might improve this to
Polya
1nN
ExpSums2Chars
ExptoChi
nN
dr
(b)g()
(mod r/d)
X f (n)(n)
.
n
nN/d
X
nbq/r
(n) =
X 2(d)
g()
(1 (1))L(1, )
2i
d(r/d)
dr
X
(mod r/d)
()(1)=1
173
nmin{R,x}
min{R,x}<nx
x
(2/3o(1)) log( log
log r )+O(1) by Proposition 24.1; and that if k is sufficiently large
etak
x
then Mf j (x, log x) (1 ) log( log
log r ) + O(1) by Proposition 24.2. Substituting
Halasz4Log
ExptoChi
these bounds into (8.6), and then the bounds from there into exercise 34.4, we
obtain14
X f (n)e(bn/r)
X f (n) (n)
g(1 )
1
f (d1 ) 1 (b)
n
d1 (r/d1 )
n
nx
nx/d
r1/2 (log x)1/3 + r1/2 (r log x)o(1) .
X 1 Re(()(p)/pit )
p
px
from below, where t < (log x)2 . The smallest the pth term can be, for given (p)
and pit , is when (p) is that gth root of unity nearest to (p)pit . If is a character
mod r the SiegelWalfisz Theorem tells us that there are roughly equal number
of primes p h (mod r) for each (h, r) = 1 in the interval [z, z + z/(log z)3A ]
provided log log z > (1/A) log log x. If has order k we may write each (p) =
e(`/k), the ` depending on the arithmetic progression that p belongs to mod
k. Also pit = z it + o(1) = e2i + o(1) where := (t log z)/2. Hence
(
)
X 1 Re(()(p)/pit ) X 1 1 k1
X
a
`
1 min cos 2
+
+ o(1)
0ag1
p
p k
g
k
p
p
`=0
174
sin g
sin L
cos
2
L
{L}
1
2
.
1 sin O().
log log x
g
(Also deduce that if L/g is odd and D((n), (n)nit , x)2 = o(log log x) then
D((n), (n), x)2 = o(log log x) and g = L (i.e. k divides g).)
We deduce from the above that if (g 3 is odd and)
X (n)e(bn/r)
g
r
1
(log x) sin g +o(1) + r1/2 (r log x)o(1) .
n
rd1 (r)
nx
MV1
We apply this bound when r log x. By partial summation on (23.6) for the
sum between r1+ and x, for x r2 , we obtain
X f (n)e(bn/r)
log x
log r + p
+ log log x.
n
(r)
nx
We use this bound for r > log x.
Combining the above (and this needsPolya
tidying up) we obtain that if is a
primitive character of order g then, by (34.1), for any N 1 we have
X
g
We believe that this exponent is best possible with this method (this needs
some explanation!).
34.2
PVimprove
REFERENCES
MR1654882
MR1716573
MR1956972
MR1956974
MR1767398
MR0250990
MR891718
MR2398787
MR0093504
MR0132733
MR0132732
MR0148628
MR0148626
MR551333
MR623788
MR741085
MR0332702
MR0439794
MR675168
176
MR839933
MR1790423
MR719245
MR0387220
MR933499
MR962733
MR1041494
MR993299
MR1117012
MR1067262
MR1072058
MR1042765
MR1084180
MR1292619
MR1225952
MR1222182
MR1911217
MR586468
References
whose modulus does not exceed one. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 26(2):245
264, 1982.
Hedi Daboussi and Hubert Delange. On a class of multiplicative functions. Acta
Sci. Math. (Szeged), 49(14):143149, 1985.
Harold Davenport. Multiplicative number theory, volume 74 of Graduate Texts
in Mathematics. SpringerVerlag, New York, third edition, 2000. Revised
and with a preface by Hugh L. Montgomery.
Hubert Delange. Sur les fonctions arithmetiques multiplicatives de module 1.
Acta Arith., 42(2):121151, 1983.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. A meanvalue theorem for multiplicative functions. Proc.
London Math. Soc. (3), 31(4):418438, 1975.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. Mathematika, 34(2):199206, 1987.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. II.
Mathematika, 35(1):3850, 1988.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Extrapolating the meanvalues of multiplicative functions.
Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math., 51(4):409420, 1989.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. In
ementaire des Nombres, 1987
Groupe de Travail en Theorie Analytique et El
1988, volume 89 of Publ. Math. Orsay, pages 3137. Univ. Paris XI, Orsay,
1989.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. III.
The large moduli. In A tribute to Paul Erd
os, pages 177194. Cambridge
Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1990.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. IV. The
middle moduli. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 41(2):201216, 1990.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. V.
Composite moduli. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 41(3):408424, 1990.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions g 1 and their convolutions: an
overview. In Seminaire de Theorie des Nombres, Paris 198788, volume 81
of Progr. Math., pages 6375. Birkhauser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Some remarks about multiplicative functions of modulus
1. In Analytic number theory (Allerton Park, IL, 1989), volume 85 of
Progr. Math., pages 159164. Birkhauser Boston, Boston, MA, 1990.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. On the correlation of multiplicative functions. Notas Soc.
Mat. Chile, 11(1):111, 1992.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. VI.
More middle moduli. J. Number Theory, 44(2):178208, 1993.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. On the correlation of multiplicative and the sum of additive
arithmetic functions. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 112(538):viii+88, 1994.
P. D. T. A. Elliott. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. VII.
Large moduli. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 66(1):1428, 2002.
P. Erd
os and I. Z. Ruzsa. On the small sieve. I. Sifting by primes. J. Number
Theory, 12(3):385394, 1980.
References
MR1978371
MR2647984
MRNotIn4
MR925610
MR2024414
MR2053604
MR1691308
MR1815216
MR1829755
MR1930263
MR2016245
MR2099829
MR2335187
MR2276774
MR2362198
MR2299742
MR2437976
MR0209237
177
178
MR0230694
MR0246836
MR0319930
MR0319931
MR728404
MR0369292
MR0424730
MR527762
MR0340193
MR1346679
MR1417699
MR1113432
MR810949
MR1467991
MR791589
MR827113
MR818818
MR905750
References
G. Hal
asz. Uber
die Mittelwerte multiplikativer zahlentheoretischer Funktionen. Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 19:365403, 1968.
G. Hal
asz. Uber
die Konvergenz multiplikativer zahlentheoretischer Funktionen. Studia Sci. Math. Hungar., 4:171178, 1969.
G. Hal
asz. On the distribution of additive and the mean values of multiplicative
arithmetic functions. Studia Sci. Math. Hungar., 6:211233, 1971.
G. Hal
asz. Remarks to my paper: On the distribution of additive and the
mean values of multiplicative arithmetic functions. Acta Math. Acad. Sci.
Hungar., 23:425432, 1972.
G. Hal
asz. On random multiplicative functions. In Hubert Delange colloquium
(Orsay, 1982), volume 83 of Publ. Math. Orsay, pages 7496. Univ. Paris
XI, Orsay, 1983.
G
abor Hal
asz. On the distribution of additive arithmetic functions. Acta Arith.,
27:143152, 1975. Collection of articles in memory of Juri Vladimirovic
Linnik.
H. Halberstam and H.E. Richert. Sieve methods. Academic Press [A subsidiary
of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers], LondonNew York, 1974. London
Mathematical Society Monographs, No. 4.
H. Halberstam and H.E. Richert. On a result of R. R. Hall. J. Number Theory,
11(1):7689, 1979.
R. R. Hall. Halving an estimate obtained from Selbergs upper bound method.
Acta Arith., 25:347351, 1973/74.
R. R. Hall. A sharp inequality of Halasz type for the mean value of a multiplicative arithmetic function. Mathematika, 42(1):144157, 1995.
R. R. Hall. Proof of a conjecture of HeathBrown concerning quadratic residues.
Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. (2), 39(3):581588, 1996.
R. R. Hall and G. Tenenbaum. Effective mean value estimates for complex
multiplicative functions. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 110(2):337
351, 1991.
A. Hildebrand. Quantitative mean value theorems for nonnegative multiplicative functions. I. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 30(3):394406, 1984.
A. Hildebrand. Extremal problems in sieve theory. S
urikaisekikenky
usho
K
oky
uroku, (958):19, 1996. Analytic number theory (Japanese) (Kyoto,
1994).
Adolf Hildebrand. Fonctions multiplicatives et equations integrales. In Seminar
on number theory, Paris 198283 (Paris, 1982/1983), volume 51 of Progr.
Math., pages 115124. Birkhauser Boston, Boston, MA, 1984.
Adolf Hildebrand. A note on Burgess character sum estimate. C. R. Math.
Rep. Acad. Sci. Canada, 8(1):3537, 1986.
Adolf Hildebrand. On Wirsings mean value theorem for multiplicative functions. Bull. London Math. Soc., 18(2):147152, 1986.
Adolf Hildebrand. Multiplicative functions in short intervals. Canad. J. Math.,
39(3):646672, 1987.
References
MR921088
MR955953
MR1023920
MR1078172
MR991697
MR1265913
MR1253441
MR0314790
MR2173378
MRNotIn1
MR0457371
MR1689558
MR1830577
MR0337847
MR2378655
MR0444586
MR0485730
MR0485731
MR0485732
MR0485737
179
Adolf Hildebrand. Quantitative mean value theorems for nonnegative multiplicative functions. II. Acta Arith., 48(3):209260, 1987.
Adolf Hildebrand. Large values of character sums. J. Number Theory,
29(3):271296, 1988.
Adolf Hildebrand. Some new applications of the large sieve. In Number theory
(New York, 1985/1988), volume 1383 of Lecture Notes in Math., pages 76
88. Springer, Berlin, 1989.
Adolf Hildebrand. The asymptotic behavior of the solutions of a class of
differentialdifference equations. J. London Math. Soc. (2), 42(1):1131,
1990.
Adolf Hildebrand. Multiplicative functions on arithmetic progressions. Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc., 108(2):307318, 1990.
Adolf Hildebrand and Gerald Tenenbaum. Integers without large prime factors.
J. Theor. Nombres Bordeaux, 5(2):411484, 1993.
Adolf Hildebrand and Gerald Tenenbaum. On a class of differentialdifference
equations arising in number theory. J. Anal. Math., 61:145179, 1993.
B. V. Levin, N. M. Timofeev, and S. T. Tuljaganov. Distribution of the values
of multiplicative functions. Litovsk. Mat. Sb., 13(1):87100, 232, 1973.
H. Maier and A. Sankaranarayanan. On a certain general exponential sum. Int.
J. Number Theory, 1(2):183192, 2005.
H. L. Montgomery. A note on the mean values of multiplicative functions. Inst.
MittagLeffler, 17, 19**.
H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan. Exponential sums with multiplicative
coefficients. Invent. Math., 43(1):6982, 1977.
H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan. Extreme values of Dirichlet Lfunctions
at 1. In Number theory in progress, Vol. 2 (ZakopaneKoscielisko, 1997),
pages 10391052. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999.
H. L. Montgomery and R. C. Vaughan. Mean values of multiplicative functions.
Period. Math. Hungar., 43(12):199214, 2001.
Hugh L. Montgomery. Topics in multiplicative number theory. Lecture Notes
in Mathematics, Vol. 227. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1971.
Hugh L. Montgomery and Robert C. Vaughan. Multiplicative number theory. I.
Classical theory, volume 97 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007.
J. Pintz. Elementary methods in the theory of Lfunctions. I. Heckes theorem.
Acta Arith., 31(1):5360, 1976.
J. Pintz. Elementary methods in the theory of Lfunctions. II. On the greatest
real zero of a real Lfunction. Acta Arith., 31(3):273289, 1976.
J. Pintz. Elementary methods in the theory of Lfunctions. III. The Deuringphenomenon. Acta Arith., 31(3):295306, 1976.
J. Pintz. Elementary methods in the theory of Lfunctions. IV. The Heilbronn
phenomenon. Acta Arith., 31(4):419429, 1976.
J. Pintz. Corrigendum: Elementary methods in the theory of Lfunctions.
VII. Upper bound for L(1, ) (Acta Arith. 32 (1977), no. 4, 397406).
180
MR0485733
MR0485735
MR0485736
MR0485738
MRNotIn2
MR552470
MR0292772
MR1366197
MRNotIn3
MR0131389
MR0223318
References