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

The Bombieri-Vinogradov Theorem states that given $A>0$, there exists $B>0$ such that for $Q=\sqrt{x}\left(\log x\right)^{-B},$ we have $$\sum_{q\leq Q}\max_{y\leq x}\max_{\begin{array}{c} a\text{ mod q}\\ (a,q)=1 \end{array}}\left|\psi(y;q,a)-\frac{y}{\phi(q)}\right|\ll \frac{x}{(\log x)^A}.$$

I was wondering what happens if a restriction is put on the $q$ so that they are all divisible by some smaller integer $k$. Are there any non-trivial bounds on the average over $q$ divisible by $k$? Specifically, suppose that $k\leq Q^{1-\epsilon},$ and that there is no Siegel zero${}^{++}$ for any $\chi$ modulo $k$. Is it true that $$\sum_{\begin{array}{c} q\leq Q\\ k|q \end{array}}\max_{y\leq x}\max_{\begin{array}{c} a\text{ mod q}\\ (a,q)=1 \end{array}}\left|\psi(y;q,a)-\frac{y}{\phi(q)}\right|\ll_{\epsilon}\frac{1}{k} \frac{x}{(\log x)^A}.$$

Any references would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks for your help,

${}^{++}$ Edit: As mentioned by Terence Tao in the comments, there is an issue regarding Siegel zeros modulo $k$. The original result I was asking about would give stronger bounds on the location of a possible Siegel zero modulo $k$, and for that reason it is out of reach.

I worked out a sketch/heuristic, as suggested by Terence Tao's comment, for why we have to assume that there are no Siegel zeros modulo $k$. I wrote this mainly for my own understanding, and I have added it here for anyone who is interested. I would still like to know if the result holds assuming there are no non-trivial real zeros for $\chi$ mod $k$.

Heuristic: Suppose that $k$ is a small power of $x$. If there is an exceptional zero $\beta$ for a quadratic character $\chi$ modulo $k$ , then for every $q$ such that $k|q,$ the induced character modulo $q,$ $\chi^{\star},$ will have the same exceptional zero, and so we expect that $$\psi(x;q,a)\approx\frac{x}{\phi(q)}-\frac{\chi^{\star}(a)}{\phi(q)}\frac{x^{\beta}}{\beta}+small$$ for each $q.$ This leads us to expect that $$\sum_{\begin{array}{c} q\leq Q\\ k|q \end{array}}\max_{y\leq x}\max_{a\text{ mod }q}\left|\psi\left(y;q,a\right)-\frac{y}{\phi(q)}\right|\approx x^{\beta}\sum_{\begin{array}{c} q\leq Q\\ k|q \end{array}}\frac{1}{\phi(q)}\approx\frac{x^{\beta}\log x}{k},$$ however, the desired upper bound is too strong, as $$x^{\beta}\log x\ll \frac{x}{\left(\log x\right)^{B}},$$ implies that for some $C>0$, $$\beta\leq1-C\frac{\log\log x}{\log x},$$ which is stronger than the long standing bound by Siegel $$\beta\leq1-C(\epsilon)x^{-\epsilon}.$$ In the above, we have used $x$ interchangeably with $k$ for the bounds since $k$ is a small power of $x$.

share|improve this question
1  
I think you want $Q \leq\sqrt{x}/\log^B x$ rather than $\sqrt{x}/\log^B x \leq Q \leq \sqrt{x}$. The bound you want is true on GRH, but I'd be surprised if one can get something this strong unconditionally. In particular, a Siegel zero at the quadratic character with conductor k is likely to be inconsistent with this claim (though I haven't checked this carefully). –  Terry Tao Jul 16 '13 at 17:39
    
@TerryTao: Thanks, I have now corrected the statement of the Theorem. I'll try and work out the contributions from the Siegel zero. –  Eric Naslund Jul 16 '13 at 17:52
1  
What you need follows by zero density estimates, assuming that there are no Siegel zeroes for primitive characters mod $km$ with $m\le (\log x)^B$. Look up the Grand Density Theorem (thm 10.4 in Iwaniec-Kowalski). This should give you the result when $k\le x^{\epsilon/\log\log x}$ for an appropriate $\epsilon$. It might be possible to improve this range using the log-free zero density estimate (eq. (18.9) in Iwaniec-Kowalski). –  Dimitris Koukoulopoulos Jul 19 '13 at 19:51
1  
I should also add that in order to use the Grand Density Theorem, you need to remove the "bad" moduli. If $k$ is prime, then "bad" means that either $d>(\log x)^B$ or $d=km$ with $m>(\log x)^B$, and $N(1-M\log\log x/\log x,\sigma,\chi,x^3)>0$ for an appropriate constant $M$. –  Dimitris Koukoulopoulos Jul 19 '13 at 19:55
add comment

1 Answer

Elliott has a result in this direction. Let $A>0$ and $a \geq 2$ a fixed integer. Furthermore, let $q \leq x^{1/3-\epsilon} $ be a large power of $a$. One then has that $$ \sum_{\substack{d \leq q^{-1}x^{1/2} \log^{-A-6}(x) \\ (d,q)=1 }} \max_{(r,qd)=1} \max_{y\leq x} \left|\pi(y,qd,r) - \frac{\text{Li}(y)}{\phi(qd)} \right| \ll_{A} \frac{x}{\phi(q) \log^{A}(x) } .$$ Taking $d=1$ recovers the Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem. Note that while Bombieri-Vinogradov doesn't contain any information about specific arithmetic progressions with modulus larger than $\log^{A}(x)$, Elliott's inequality implies that $$\pi(x,q,r) \sim \frac{Li(x)}{\phi(q)}$$ for $q \leq x^{1/3-\epsilon}$ that is a large power of $a$.

share|improve this answer
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.