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

Edit: as GH noticed, the way I tried to state Montgomery's conjecture is wrong. There were some mistakes in the references I used, which compounded with some mistakes of mine, gave a very poor post. Let me try again, hoping that the questions make more sense now.

Second Edit: I have added a bounty to the question. I would be very happy to give it for an answer to just the first greyed question. I am not comfortable with explicit formulas, but I wonder if the conjecture stated here might be translated into conjecture about the distribution of $0$'s on the critical line (assuming GRH) for Dirichlet L-function, uniformly in the character. This in turn should be known (conjecturally I mean) to specialists...


The Montgomery's conjecture I am talking about is the following: Let $q \geq 1$ an integer, $a \geq 1$ an integer such that $(a,q)=1$, and let $$\psi(q,a,x) = \sum_{p^\alpha \leq x, p^\alpha \equiv a[q]} \log p.$$ Then for all $\epsilon>0$, one has $$(1) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \psi(q,a,x)=\frac{x}{\phi(q)} + O(x^{1/2+\epsilon}q^{-1/2})$$ uniformly for $x>q$ (that is, the implied constant depends only of $\epsilon$).

Montgomery himself states a slightly stronger conjecture in [M], with the error term in $O((x/q)^{1/2+\epsilon})$ and forgets to assume $x>q$. Without the latter condition, the conjecture is trivially false, as noted by GH (see the comments below). Even with the restriction $x>q$, Montgomery's initial conjecture is false, as proven in [FG], who proposes the slightly weaker statement above as a replacement: see [FG, conjecture 1(b)]. The conjecture is also given in {IK,17.5] but without the restriction $x>q$.

Since Dirichlet, results on primes in arithmetic progressions are proved using Dirichlet characters. Hence let $\chi$ be a non-principal Dirichlet character of conductor $q$. Define (as usual) $$\psi(\chi,x) = \sum_{p^\alpha < x} \chi(p^\alpha) \log p.$$ One has $\psi (\chi,x)=\sum_{a \pmod{q}} \chi(a) \psi(q,a,x)$ and $\psi(q,a,x) = \frac{1}{\phi(q)} \sum_\chi \chi(a)^{-1} \psi(\chi,x)$.

Is it reasonable to conjecture the following estimate, uniformly in the non-principal character $\chi$ and the integer $q$, for $x>q$, $$(2)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \psi(\chi,x) = O(x^{1/2+\epsilon} q^{-1/2})$$? Has this been conjectured somewhere?

Note that the Montgomery's estimate (1) for $\psi(q,a,x)$ follows immediately from (2) by summing over $a$ invertible mod $q$ and dividing by $\phi(q)$. However, it is not clear that (1) implies (2) as the error term seems to get multiplied by $\phi(q)$. Yet, I have made some numerical computation, and the estimate for Dirichlet character seems to hold.

Now assuming that the first question has a positive answer, I want to generalize it boldly to Artin's representations. Let $\rho : Gal(K/\mathbb Q) \rightarrow Gl_d(\mathbb C)$ be an irreducible, non-trivial representation of dimension $d$, Artin's conductor $q$ and let $\chi$ be its character. In this context, I define (also as usual): $$\psi(\chi,x)=\sum_{p^\alpha < x} \chi(Frob_p^\alpha) \log p.$$

What would be a reasonable conjectural estimate for $\psi(\chi,x)$, in terms of $q$, $d$, and $x$, giving back the above conjecture when $d=1$? Has anyone formulated such a conjecture?

Perhaps a starting point is the estimate one gets by usual methods assuming both the GRH for the Artin $L$-function $L(s,\rho)=L(s,\chi)$ and the holomorphy of its $L$-function everywhere, that is, Artin's conjecture for $\rho$ (cf. [IK, Theorem (5.15)]): $$\psi(\chi,x)=O(x^{1/2} \log(x) (d \log x + \log q)).$$ Can we replace the estimate by $O(x^{1/2+\epsilon} d / q^{1/2})$ for example ? I am at a loss even to guess a reasonable formula.

My motivation is trying to understand the best error terms in effective Chebotarev theorem. Any conjecture as asked will lead to a new estimate for Chebotarev, and I have a nice collection of examples to test those versions of Chebotarev against.

References:

[FG] Friedlander, Granville, Limitations of the equi-distribution of primes I, Annals of Maths vol. 129, no2, 1989

[IK] Iwaniec, Kowalski, Analytic Number Theory

[M] Montgomery, Problems about Prime Numbers, in PSPM XXVIII, AMS.

share|improve this question
    
There must be a typo in your second display, since it would imply for $x<q^{2/3}$ (say) that $\psi(\chi,x)=o(1)$ as $q\to\infty$, hence also that the terms in $\psi(\chi,x)$ are $o(1)$, which is false. –  GH from MO Dec 4 '12 at 23:56
    
Dear GH, why would the terms $\chi(p^\alpha) \log p$ in the sum defining $\psi(\chi,x)$ be $o(1)$, even if their sum is $o(1)$? Remember $\chi$ is a non-principal Dirichlet character here, so it takes values that are not always real positive. –  Joël Dec 5 '12 at 2:00
    
@Joel: If $x=p^\alpha$, then $\psi(\chi,x+1)-\psi(\chi,x)=\chi(p^\alpha)\log p$. If $x<q^{2/3}$, then on the left hand side both $\psi(\chi,x+1)$ and $\psi(\chi,x)$ are $o(1)$ as $q\to\infty$, hence so is $\chi(p^\alpha)\log p$, a contradiction. This has nothing to do with positivity: $o(1)-o(1)=o(1)$. –  GH from MO Dec 5 '12 at 4:29
    
@Joel: I suggest that you give a reference to Montgomery's conjecture, as it is certainly not your second display for the reason I explained. –  GH from MO Dec 5 '12 at 4:31
    
@GH: you're perfectly right. And I know realize the mistake I have done, and which makes the current formulation of my question a total non-sense. I'll try to change it tomorrow. –  Joël Dec 5 '12 at 6:02

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The basic heuristic behind the scenes in all of these conjectures is that there is optimal "square-root" cancellation in the various error terms. The estimate (2) is surely not true; the explicit formula links this to a sum over zeros of the related Dirichlet L-function, and it has zeros on the half-line. Instead, one may hope that $$\psi(\chi, x) = \sum_{n < x} \chi(n) \Lambda(n) = O(x^{1/2 + \varepsilon}).$$ This is square-root in the number of terms, with an extra $x^{\varepsilon}$ thrown in for safety. It's much more subtle to figure out powers of logs.

To get to Montgomery's conjecture, you use the formula $$\psi(q,a,x) = \frac{1}{\phi(q)} \sum_{\chi} \overline{\chi}(a) \psi(\chi, x),$$ and imagine that there is square-root cancellation in the sum over $\chi$. You have roughly $q$ terms, are dividing by roughly $q$, and so in all this amounts to having an error of size $x^{1/2+\varepsilon} q^{-1/2 + \varepsilon}$.

share|improve this answer
    
Actually, under the OP's hypothesis $x>q$, your bound $x^{1/2+\epsilon}q^{-1/2+\epsilon}$ is smaller than $x^{1/2+2\epsilon}q^{-1/2}$. –  GH from MO Dec 11 '12 at 1:57
    
Thanks a lot, Matt. I was on the wrong track. This helps me a lot. –  Joël Dec 20 '12 at 19:47

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.