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

For any sequence of complex numbers $(a_n)$, an application of the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives $$\left|\sum_{m=1}^{n}a_m\right|\leq \sqrt {n\sum_{m=1}^{n}|a_m|^2}.$$ Putting $a_n=\mu(n)/\sqrt n$, one (trivially) finds that $$\sum_{m=1}^{n}\frac{\mu(m)}{\sqrt m}= O(\sqrt{n\log n}).$$ Is a better unconditional estimate known to hold for this sequence? In other words, is Cauchy -Schwarz the most we know about this sequence?

share|improve this question
7  
For starters, the sum is bounded by $\sum_{m=1}^n 1/\sqrt{m} = O(\sqrt{n})$, which is of strictly lower order than $O(\sqrt{n\log n})$, though still trivial. One can probably do a bit better using zero-free regions for the Riemann zeta function. –  Noam D. Elkies Oct 25 '11 at 19:46
    
Thanks, Noam. Ok, I can see that $O(\sqrt{n})$ can be proved by Euler-Maclaurin, or by writing $\sum_{m=1}^{n}1/\sqrt{m}$ as an inverse Mellin transform. Can the same be proved using Cauchy-Schwarz? –  Kevin Smith Oct 25 '11 at 20:57

1 Answer 1

up vote 6 down vote accepted

Summing by parts and using the bound on the Mertens function $M(n)=o(n)$ (which is equivalent to the Prime Number Theorem) one gets for your sum $S(n)=o(\sqrt n)$. Better bounds on the order of magnitude of $M(n)$ of course give a better one for $S(n)$ (see e.g. the Handbook of Number Theory, by J. Sándor, Dragoslav S. Mitrinović, B. Crstici). And, since $O(n^{1/2+\epsilon})$ for all $\epsilon >0$ is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis, I guess one can't expect for your sum better than $O(n^{\epsilon})$ for all $\epsilon >0$.

share|improve this answer
    
Great! Thanks, Pietro. I had thought the Prime Number Theorem would come into it. I guess that $o(\sqrt{n})$ is the best that is currently known then? I asked this question because I wondered if, when viewed as the distance from the origin, one can distinguish the growth of the sequence from a typical point in $\mathbb{R}^n$ - it appears then that one can hardly do so. –  Kevin Smith Oct 25 '11 at 21:47
5  
The specific versions of $o(\sqrt n)$ that are known are more precise than the statement $o(\sqrt n)$ itself. For example, the error term in the classical prime number theorem is $O\big(n\exp(-c\sqrt{\log n})\big)$ for some constant $c>0$; the corresponding estimate for your $M(n)$ would be $O\big(\sqrt n\cdot\exp(-c\sqrt{\log n})\big)$ (possibly with a slightly smaller $c$). –  Greg Martin Oct 25 '11 at 23:33

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.