User kolik - MathOverflowmost recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-25T15:30:01Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/user/23998http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/98343/number-of-integers-coprime-to-lNumber of integers coprime to lkolik2012-05-30T08:54:30Z2012-05-31T17:20:41Z
<p>A long time ago I've seen a paper considering, given $\ell$ fixed, estimates for</p>
<p>$$
\sum_{n \leq x, (n, \ell) = 1} 1
$$</p>
<p>Of course, this is easy to estimate with a trivial error term of $O(\varphi(l))$. However in the paper I am looking for the authors
attempted obtaining better bounds, using some Fourier analysis (in particular the Fourier series for the fractional part of x). I think, bounds in the sum</p>
<p>$$
\sum_{n \leq x} (n, \ell)
$$
are essentially an equivalent variation of the problem, so references on this problem are welcome aswell.</p>
<p>The reason why I am interested in this problem is ... pure curiosity. I am curious to see how the Fourier methods meshed in, and what kind of bounds they gave, even though of course we cannot really expect anything too fantastic in this problem. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98171/what-is-the-relation-between-quasicrystals-riemann-hypothesis-and-pv-numbersWhat is the relation between Quasicrystals, Riemann Hypothesis, and PV numbers?kolik2012-05-28T05:56:25Z2012-05-28T17:22:39Z
<p>Could somebody explain to me, from a mathematical stand-point, what is a quasi-crystal, and how it relates to the set of Pisot numbers, and the Riemann Hypothesis?</p>
<p>I've heard Freeman Dyson say that the zeros of the Riemann zeta function form a quasi-crystal. But, a priori, I do not see what kind of property of the zeros, that we currently now of, would be able to confer to them more structure than to a random set of isolated numbers. </p>
<p>(Notwithstanding the explicit formula in prime number theory)</p>
<p>To wit, my second question possibly based on a misunderstanding: why is the set of zeros of $\zeta(s)$ a quasi-crystal, while a random sequence of isolated numbers is not? Of course, I first need to fully understand what is a quasi-crystal, because Freeman's definition left me in a fog. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98174/is-mertens-function-negatively-biased/98175#98175Answer by kolik for Is Mertens function negatively biased?kolik2012-05-28T07:18:47Z2012-05-28T07:18:47Z<p>I believe that this paper</p>
<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1524" rel="nofollow">http://arxiv.org/abs/1108.1524</a></p>
<p>By one of the members of MO, will have some relevant answers for the closely related case of the Liouville function.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98144/what-happens-when-infinite-values-of-zeta-hs-z-approach-zetas/98172#98172Answer by kolik for What happens when infinite values of $\zeta_{H}(s,z)$ approach $\zeta(s)$ ?kolik2012-05-28T06:12:42Z2012-05-28T06:12:42Z<p>The functional equation for the Hurwitz zeta function is far from being of the type $\zeta_{H}(s) = \Phi(s) \zeta_{H}(1-s)$ for some 'easy' $\Phi(s)$. I believe that the fact that $1 - \rho$ is not a zero $\zeta_{H}(s)$ when $\rho$ is, to be exclusively related to the shape of the functional equation of the Hurwitz zeta function, which is very different from that of the Riemann zeta function. It seems unlikely to me that the shape of the functional equation for the Hurwitz zeta function will have implications for the location of the zeros of $\zeta(s)$. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98162/a-question-about-normalization-in-the-fourier-transform/98164#98164Answer by kolik for A question about normalization in the Fourier transformkolik2012-05-28T04:39:01Z2012-05-28T04:39:01Z<p>I think I've come to the personal concensus, that with the choice of notation
$$
\hat{f}(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{- 2 \pi i t x} f(t) d t
$$
we are <em>extracting</em> information from $f$, while with the notation
$$
\hat{f}(x) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{2 \pi i t x} f(t) d t
$$
we are <em>generating</em> information from the function $f$.</p>
<p>For example, if $f$ were the probability density of a distribution I would
go with the second notation to denote the characteristic function of the
distribution. This aligns with the standard notation for the fourier transform
of a probability distribution (check "characteristic function" on wiki). Anybody with me on this? </p>
<p>P.S: I've seen both conventions used in my field. I believe the choice has to do with the perspective you take on the role of $f$. Do you want to understand $f$ better or do you want to generate things from $f$ and are actually interested in $\hat{f}$ rather than $f$?</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/58325/complex-fourier-coefficients-introduced-by/98155#98155Answer by kolik for complex fourier coefficients, introduced by?kolik2012-05-27T23:40:09Z2012-05-27T23:40:09Z<p>I cannot comment because I don't have enough reputation, but here is the remark:</p>
<p>In Zygmund's classical treatise on Fourier series, the complex exponential is not used. His book was published in the 50's. Thus, Kahane is (obviously) right, the complex representation did not come to prevail well until the 20-th century. </p>
<p>I find it curious myself. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/97976/approachable-french-masters/98091#98091Answer by kolik for Approachable French Masterskolik2012-05-27T06:11:21Z2012-05-27T06:11:21Z<p>Actually Borel wrote a series of very nice little books, around 1900's. One of them is called "Sur les series de Taylor a coefficient positive". It has some very nice theorem, many of which are forgotten at this day; it reads like a beautifully written paper that just came out. </p>
<p>Also, Paul Levy. He has an exceedingly beautiful writting style. His 7 volume collected works should be available in a math library. </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98708/typesetting-papers-on-lineComment by kolikkolik2012-06-03T10:58:59Z2012-06-03T10:58:59Zfor text editing i use emacs so its pretty fast
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98708/typesetting-papers-on-lineComment by kolikkolik2012-06-03T10:58:35Z2012-06-03T10:58:35Zit's mostly the compilation, preview part which is very slow.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98708/typesetting-papers-on-lineComment by kolikkolik2012-06-03T10:24:20Z2012-06-03T10:24:20Zthank you, but do you know if immediate preview as in MO is implemented in any of these clouds?http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98343/number-of-integers-coprime-to-l/98357#98357Comment by kolikkolik2012-06-02T03:22:05Z2012-06-02T03:22:05ZI was looking for the paper by Codeca and Nair in the Math. Bulletinhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/98343/number-of-integers-coprime-to-l/98357#98357Comment by kolikkolik2012-06-02T03:21:23Z2012-06-02T03:21:23ZThank you ! It is amazing that you've found the reference :-)
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/58325/complex-fourier-coefficients-introduced-by/98155#98155Comment by kolikkolik2012-06-01T15:25:15Z2012-06-01T15:25:15ZTo be precise it is correct that Zygmund mentions the complex representation. However for the bigger part of the book it is the sin, cos notation which is used. http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98343/number-of-integers-coprime-to-l/98357#98357Comment by kolikkolik2012-05-30T11:19:33Z2012-05-30T11:19:33ZWell, I know how it meshed in. I want to see the real work :-)http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98343/number-of-integers-coprime-to-lComment by kolikkolik2012-05-30T08:56:20Z2012-05-30T08:56:20ZI vaguely remember that the journal in question is likely to be the Canadian Math. Bulletin, or the Canadian Math. Journal, but I could be completely wrong on this hunch (so far my attempts at googling with "canadian" have failed). http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98263/max-of-fourier-transformComment by kolikkolik2012-05-29T10:28:50Z2012-05-29T10:28:50ZI think that if f(x) = d mu(x) where mu(x) is a non-lattice distribution, then you can get some bounds < 1. I've seen results of this type in Esseen's (of Berry-Esseen fame) thesis.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98174/is-mertens-function-negatively-biased/98178#98178Comment by kolikkolik2012-05-28T20:39:10Z2012-05-28T20:39:10ZAssuming rh and Li there is in that paper an explicit formula for the distribution function in terms of the probability distribution of some random variables . Now, it might be computationally difficult to get a hold of it , but that's a different story. Note that the paper I posted below is more directly focused on biaseshttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/98174/is-mertens-function-negatively-biased/98178#98178Comment by kolikkolik2012-05-28T20:36:24Z2012-05-28T20:36:24ZThe point is that if you want to see if the mertens function is negatively biased it suffices to plot the graph of the distribution functionhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/98144/what-happens-when-infinite-values-of-zeta-hs-z-approach-zetas/98172#98172Comment by kolikkolik2012-05-28T20:34:35Z2012-05-28T20:34:35ZI need to learn a bit more about hurwitz zeta when the shift is irrational.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98171/what-is-the-relation-between-quasicrystals-riemann-hypothesis-and-pv-numbersComment by kolikkolik2012-05-28T07:47:08Z2012-05-28T07:47:08ZDyson said that every PV number gives rise to a quasi crystal. Anyway, do you know of a solid definition of quasi crystal? I do not believe there is a relation between PV numbers and RH.http://mathoverflow.net/questions/98171/what-is-the-relation-between-quasicrystals-riemann-hypothesis-and-pv-numbersComment by kolikkolik2012-05-28T07:08:26Z2012-05-28T07:08:26ZInquiring minds want to know.