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

It is well-known that Mertens function $$M(N)=\sum_{i=1}^N\mu(n)$$ changes sign infinitely many times when $N\rightarrow +\infty$.

Question: Is there a proof of this statement without Riemann zeta function?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

I am not an expert, but I do not think so. The proofs I have seen use Dirichlet series $f(x)=\sum_{n\le x} a_n n^{-s}$, with $S(x)=\sum_{n\le x}a_n$, to consider $$ s^{-1}f(s)=\int_1^{\infty} S(x)x^{-s-1}dx. $$ This leads to information on sign changes of $\sum_{i=1}^N a_n$. For the $\mu$-function, this gives of course $f(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \mu (s)n^{-s}=(\zeta(s))^{-1}$, and the formula $$ (s\zeta(s))^{-1}- C(s-\lambda)^{-1} =\int_1 ^{\infty} \lbrace M(x)-Cx^{\lambda}\rbrace x^{-s-\lambda}dx. $$ For details on the notations and the precise arguments see "OSCILLATION THEOREMS OF ARITHMETICAL FUNCTIONS" by Emil Grosswald from $1967$.

I have the feeling that every (sufficently) non-trivial statement on $\mu(n)$ will always involve $\zeta(s)$, directly or indirectly.

Update: Of course one should mention here the reference of Odlyzko and te Riele, "Disproof of the Mertens Conjecture", which contains many more informations on the behavior of $M(x)$, which is in fact determined by the zeros of the zeta function. They refer to the following reference:
J. Pintz, Oscillatory properties of $M(x)$, Acta Arith. 43 (1984), 105-113.

share|improve this answer
    
I have no idea how to define a "sufficiently non-trivial statement". What about the elementary proof of PNT? It is likely to be a non-trivial statement(without zeta function in its proof), I think. –  zy_ Jun 7 '13 at 1:05
add comment

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.