MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

I am looking for approximations, or a closed form, if available, for the sum

$S(n,k)=\sum_{1\leq i,j,\leq n} lcm(i,j)^{-k}$

where lcm(i,j) is the least common multiple of integers $i,j$ and $k$ is a positive integer.

For the case $k=1$, I can see that a very loose lower bound is $3H_n-2$ where $H_n$ is the harmonic sum. Another lower bound is obtained by replacing $lcm(i,j)$ by $ij$ which yields $H_n^2$ for $k=1$ and $H_n^{2k}$ in general.

I am, however more interested in upper bounds, and small and even $k$ values

I am certainly no expert in number theory, so my apologies if this is trivial, but at least the statement looks clean to me.

Remark: There seems to be some work on determinants of matrices with entries of the form above.

share|cite|improve this question

For $k > 1$ the sums are bounded, by exactly $\zeta^3(k)/\zeta(2k),$ but maybe you're looking for something more exact than this? (The evaluation of these sums when $n\rightarrow\infty$ I thought was an old exercise in Polya and Szego's problem books, but apparently that's not the right source. I first found out about these identities from a friend, at any rate.) An outline of a proof goes as follows:

$$\zeta(2s)\sum_{i,j=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\textrm{lcm}(i,j)^s} = \zeta(2s)\sum_{(i,j)=1}\sum_{\lambda=1}^\infty \frac{1}{i^s j^s}\frac{1}{\lambda^s} = \sum_{u,v=1}^\infty\sum_{\lambda=1}^\infty \frac{1}{u^s v^s}\frac{1}{\lambda^s} = \zeta(s)^3$$

(Here $\lambda$ 'takes the role' of being the highest common factor of $i$ and $j$, in the first sum.)

I don't think there could be a very nice closed form for these sums, although you can collect terms and write them as a more standard Dirichlet series...

I'm curious, how does the question come up?

share|cite|improve this answer

Thanks Brad.

Presumably, your ratio of zeta functions provide an upper bound as $n \rightarrow \infty$. I had a quick look at Polya and Szego but did not manage to find it.

My actual sum is $n^k S(n,k)$ and the bound above would be $O(n^k)$ but I'd like a tighter upper bound, say $O(n^{k-1} \log(n))$ or something like this, if at all possible.

I am considering signal expansions along these kinds of regularly sampled support sets, and correlation moments between non-orthogonal expansion coefficients.

If we let $n=5,$ and decompose $(f(1),\ldots,f(5))$ by taking inner products with the vectors $\{(1,1,1,1,1),(0,1,0,1,0),(0,0,1,0,0),\ldots,(0,\ldots,0,1)\}$ the correlations between these expansion coefficients lead directly to $n^k S(n,k).$

share|cite|improve this answer
I can't find it in Polya and Szego either, so I must be thinking of another book! At any rate, I saw it for the first time when a friend showed it to me. Given that for fixed $k$, $S(n,k) \sim \zeta(k)^3/\zeta(2k)$, the best we can hope for in bounding $S(n,k)$ is (unfortunately perhaps) $O(n^k).$ If $n$ and $k$ tend to infinity in concert (e.g. $n=k$) then one could get a better bound, but it would depend upon how $n$ and $k$ tend to infinity together (and might be a very messy bound at that). Anyway, since I couldn't find the reference, I'm editing the post above to contain the proof... – Brad Rodgers Jul 31 '10 at 1:31
Two other observations: 1) Aurel Wintner's paper "Diophantine Approximations and Hilbert's Space" may be relevant to what you're looking for. 2) Usually on math overflow it is best to respond by adding a comment rather than another answer. I did the same thing when I joined, so no real worries though. In a lot of ways I think a discussion board format is much more natural than the format here... – Brad Rodgers Jul 31 '10 at 1:36
Brad, Thanks for the pointers and for clarifying the proof. Unfortunately, I do not know how to respond directly with a comment, hence my comment ended up being an answer. – serdar Aug 1 '10 at 3:42

Your Answer


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.