MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

(Cross-posted from StackExchange). Let $g$ be a multiplicative function which satisfies $0 \le g(p) \ll 1/p$ and

$$ \sum_{p\le x} g(p) = \log \log x + C + O((\log x)^{-10}). $$

Iwaniec and Friedlander claim the following product identity (equation 1.14). Why is it true?

$$-\sum_n \mu(n)g(n)\log n = \prod_{p} (1-g(p))(1-p^{-1})^{-1}$$

Even the case $g(n)=1/n$ is not clear to me.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 11 down vote accepted

Generally speaking, Euler product type formulae involving logarithms can be derived (formally, at least) from Euler product formulae without logarithms via differentiation in the $s$ parameter.

In the specific situation, one can argue as follows. For $s>0$ one has

$$ \sum_n \frac{\mu(n) g(n)}{n^s} = \prod_p (1 - \frac{g(p)}{p^s}) $$ $$ = \zeta(1+s)^{-1} \prod_p (1-\frac{g(p)}{p^s}) (1-\frac{1}{p^{1+s}})^{-1}.$$ The latter product equals $\prod_p (1-g(p)) (1-p^{-1})^{-1} + O(|s|)$ for $s>0$ small by the hypothesis on $\sum_{p \leq x} g(p)$. Thus the RHS is $s \prod_p (1-g(p)) (1-p^{-1})^{-1} + O(|s|^2)$ for $s>0$ small. This implies that $\sum_n \mu(n) g(n) = 0$ and $\sum_n \mu(n) g(n) \log n = - \prod_p (1-g(p)) (1-p^{-1})^{-1}$. Formally, this follows by differentiating both sides with respect to $s$ at $s=0$. To justify the calculation rigorously, first use (2.4) of Friedlander-Iwaniec to truncate $n$ to some large finite range $n \leq x$ and then perform a Taylor expansion of $\sum_{n \leq x} \frac{\mu(n) g(n)}{n^s}$ for some suitably small $s>0$ (e.g. $s = 1/\log^2 x$).

share|cite|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.