Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Zeta functions abound in mathematics. Audrey Terras describes in Zeta Functions and Chaos three zeta functions--the zeta fct. of a projective non-singular algebraic variety; the Artin-Mazur zeta function; and a special Reulle (aka dynamical systems or Smale) zeta function, the Ihara zeta function for a graph $G$--all can be expressed in the same basic form:

$$\zeta(u)=\exp\left ( \sum_{m\geq 1} \frac{N_mu^m}{m} \right ).$$

For graph zeta functions $\zeta(u,G_n)$ typically $N_m$ is the number of closed walks of $m$ steps (with some qualifications) on the graph $G$ with $n$ vertices and is related to the trace of the power of an edge adjacency matrix. For a vertex adjacency matrix $A_n$, also $N_m = tr[A_n^m]$ (e.g., A054878 and A092297). (Edited per draks' comment.)

You can use the general heuristic $O=KPK^{-1}\Leftrightarrow P=K^{-1}OK$ to obtain

$$tr(A)=\ln[det[\exp(A)]] \Leftrightarrow det(A)=\exp[tr[\ln(A)]]$$

and then

$$det(I-uA_n)=\exp[tr[ln(I-uA_n)]]=\exp\left( -\sum_{m\geq 1} \frac{tr(A_n^m)u^m}{m} \right)$$ $$=\exp\left (-\sum_{m\geq 1} \frac{N_mu^m}{m} \right ),$$

so

$$\zeta(u;G_n)=\frac{1}{det(I-uA_n)}=\exp\left(\sum_{m\geq 1} \frac{tr(A_n^m)u^m}{m} \right)=\exp\left(-:\ln(1-ua): \right).$$ where $a^k=a_k=tr(A_n^k)$ for $k>0$.

This last expression is the umbral form for the exponential generating function for the cycle index polynomials (OEIS-A036039) for the symmetric group (mod signs).

The Appell sequence in MO-Q111165 incorporating the Riemann zeta function reverses the last relation in some sense:

$$\exp\left (-\beta p_{.}(z)\right )=\exp\left [-(z+\gamma)\beta -\sum_{k=2}^{\infty } \frac{\zeta (k)\beta ^k}{k} \right ]=\exp\left [ :ln(1-b\beta ) :\right ]$$ where $b^1=b_{1}=(z+\gamma)$ and $b^k=b_k=\zeta(k)$ for $k>1$.

For easy reference: $$p_{0}(x)=1$$ $$p_{1}(x)=x+\gamma$$ $$p_2(x)=(x+\gamma)^2-\zeta(2)$$ $$p_3(x)=(x+\gamma)^3-3\zeta(2)(x+\gamma)+2\zeta(3)$$ $$p_4(x)=(x+\gamma)^4-6\zeta(2)(x+\gamma)^2+8\zeta(3)(x+\gamma)+3[\zeta^2(2)-2\zeta(4)]$$

These polynomials are the first few cycle index polynomials for the symmetric group. I'd like to relate each $p_n(x)$ to the characteristic polynomial of a matrix with a null main diagonal.

For example, for such a 3x3 matrix the char polynomial is

$$ \sigma^3-(a_{12}a_{21}+a_{13}a_{31}+a_{23}a_{32})\sigma+(a_{12}a_{23}a_{31}+a_{13}a_{32}a_{21}).$$

Picture a triangle with the vertices ($v$) labelled 1 to 3. Make a closed loop or path traversing the triangle from $v_1$ through $v_2$ and $v_3$ and then to $v_1$. Denote this closed transition/loop/path of three steps and length three by $a_{12}a_{23}a_{31}$ and assign it the "moment/transition amplitude" of $\zeta(3)$. Likewise, assign the amplitude $\zeta(2)$ to paths of two steps and length one $a_{12}a_{21}$, an amplitude of $\sigma=x+\gamma$ to a self- or null-loop, and so on. This generates $p_3(x)$.

The analogous 4x4 determinant generates six paths each with four steps and length four, e.g., $a_{12}a_{24}a_{43}a_{31}$, that can be assigned an amplitude of $\zeta(4)$ each and three sets of two paths of two steps and length one, e.g., $a_{13}a_{31}a_{24}a_{42}$, that can be assigned an amplitude of $\zeta^{2}(2)$. The algorithm can be continued to the other terms to generate $p_4(x)$.

How to prove that the algorithm will work for all $p_n(x)$, i.e., that each $p_n(x)$ can be generated in the above manner from an $n$ by $n$ "adjacency" matrix?

[Nov. 15, 2013 update: Replacing $p_1(x)=x+\gamma$ by $x$ and the $\zeta(n)$ by $1$ gives the characteristic polynomials (mod signs) of the adjacency matrix of the complete n-graph (see A055137).]

share|improve this question
    
Aren't your "adjacency" matrices just symmetric matrices? In that case, a polynomial can be generated if and only if its roots are all real. –  Will Sawin Nov 8 '12 at 2:23
    
By "adjacency" matrix I really mean the matrix of indeterminates $a_{ij}$ with $a_{ii}=0$ on the main diagonal. It can be thought of as an "adjacency" matrix from which the char polynoms, in $\sigma$ and the indeterminates, can be formed, which will not have a $\sigma^{n-1}$ term since the trace is zero (neither do the p_n(x)). The question is really whether I can make the transformation as indicated from these indeterminates in the char polynoms to the appropriate $\zeta(j)$ amplitudes to obtain the $p_n(x)$. That might lead to physical/geometric interpretations of these zeta terms. –  Tom Copeland Nov 8 '12 at 11:02
    
To assign values to the $a_{ij}$ indeterminates before the transformation is made would be like taking the derivative of a function by first assigning a numerical value to the independent variable at some point. The derivative would always return a zero then. However, we are free to fix parameters to determine the function we are interested in, same as making the main diagonal null. –  Tom Copeland Nov 8 '12 at 11:24
    
Call it a pseudo-adjacency matrix since assigning ones to all the off-diagonal elements would give the adjacency matrix for a complete n-graph and a characteristic polynomial with the coefficients oeis.org/A055137, which appear in the $p_n(x)$ as noted in mathoverflow.net/questions/111165/…. –  Tom Copeland Nov 8 '12 at 11:55
    
Actually, better to call it an umbral adjacency matrix to be evaluated over cycles as a determinant for a characteristic polynomial. See also mathoverflow.net/questions/112062/… –  Tom Copeland Nov 13 '12 at 8:13

1 Answer 1

I think the validity of the algorithm is corroborated by the relation between the trace and determinant of m-dim square matrices A inherent in the Cayley-Hamilton theorm applied to the characteristic polynomial of A as explained in Wikipedia. The relation between the $det(A)$ and $(tr(A^k))^j)$ for $k,j<(m+1)$ is precisely that given by the cycle index partition polynomials, and the cycle mapping is clearly shown by Mark Dominus in the link in OEIS/A036039. Substitute $(\zeta(k))^j$ for $(tr(A^k))^j)$ in the Wikipedia entry, just as above, but how to formally prove the relation between the indices mapping above and the cycle mapping still is a mystery to me.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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