4
$\begingroup$

There is an elementary statement that I believe I have read somewhere, but I can't remember where. I'd like to know if the statement is correct (in which case it is surely standard) and if so, where I can find a proof of it.

The statement is about the prime-counting function $\psi(x) = \sum_{ p^n < x } \log p$. It is well-known that GRH is equivalent to $\psi(x) = x + O(x^{1/2} \log^2 x)$. The statement in question is:

If $1/2< \alpha < 1$ is a real number, and $\zeta(s)$ has no zero on $\Re s> \alpha$, then $\psi(x) = x + O(x^{\alpha} \log x)$?

The point here is that we get to replace $\log^2 x$ by $\log x$. Thanks for any reference (or disproof, if this is just a dream I made).

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

The reference for this (given in the 3rd edition of Davenport's Multiplicative Number Theory) is:

Grosswald, Émile. "Sur l'ordre de grandeur des différences $\psi(x)-x$ et $\pi(x)-\ell i(x)$." (French) C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 260 (1965), 3813–3816.

It seems (according to the Math Review) that for $\alpha$ fixed, the error is $O(x^\alpha)$. So, two powers of the logarithm can be saved.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Intuitively, the reason for the saving comes from the fact that it is known (from zero density estimates) that only a tiny fraction of the zeroes of zeta can have real part anywhere close to $\alpha$, so their net contribution to the explicit formula $\psi(x) = x - \sum_\rho \frac{x^\rho}{\rho} + \ldots$ is small enough that their portion of sum $\sum_\rho 1/\rho$ is absolutely convergent, thus producing no logarithmic factor. $\endgroup$
    – Terry Tao
    May 23, 2013 at 16:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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