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

Landau's Theorem for Dirichlet series with real coefficients ($c_n$) states that if the coefficients are of fixed sign for all sufficiently large $n$, then the point $\sigma_0$ on the abscissa of convergence of the series is itself a singularity of the function represented by the series in the half plane $\sigma>\sigma_0$.

One can also show that the conclusion of Landau's Theorem applies in a broader context. For example, if the partial sums $\sum_{n\leq x} c_n\geq 0$, then the real point $\sigma_0$ is a singularity of the function.

My question is this: To what extent does the converse implication hold, that is, if $\sigma_0$ is a singularity of the function represented for $\sigma>\sigma_0$ by some Dirichlet series with real coefficients, then under what additional conditions may we conclude that the ($c_n$) are of fixed sign for sufficiently large $n$?

share|improve this question
    
As Daniel explained, you can rig counterexamples to any simple statement you might hope to prove. However, theorems of this flavor tend to be provable under conditions on the $c_n$ which are strong, but typical for the kinds of Dirichlet series that show up in number theory. What example are you interested in? –  Frank Thorne Oct 30 '11 at 20:24
    
Thanks for the input, Frank. I am interested in the sequence $c_n=2\mu{n}M(n)$- its partial sum is $M^2(x)$ - and so satisfies the statement I made in the question. I don't expect it to be of constant sign for sufficiently large $n$ (that would be asking a lot!), yet I am wondering if the pole on the real axis (which occurs at $2\Omega$, where $\Omega$ is the largest real part of a zero of $\zeta(s)$) + some other hypotheses would imply the positivity of the partial sum. –  Kevin Smith Oct 30 '11 at 23:21
    
Error: should read $c_n=2\mu(n)M(n)$. –  Kevin Smith Oct 30 '11 at 23:23
    
One can see that it is not of constant because $M(x)$ is known to be zero infinitely often. –  Kevin Smith Oct 30 '11 at 23:34
1  
Sorry, what is $M(n)$? –  Frank Thorne Oct 31 '11 at 0:20

2 Answers 2

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I'm not sure you can hope for much. For example consider the case $c_n=1$ if $n$ is not a square, and $c_n=-1$ otherwise. The associated Dirichlet series has a pole at $s=1$, but of course the terms are not of fixed sign for sufficiently large $n$.

In general, knowing analytic properties of a Dirichlet series (such as convergence) cannot tell you much about any of the individual terms $c_n$, since you can always change infinitely many of the $c_n$ for $n$ in a "sparse" set.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks Daniel. I should perhaps consider the sign on "dense" sets, maybe the squarefree integers, yet, the function I am interested in is not multiplicative so that wouldn't really help. –  Kevin Smith Oct 30 '11 at 20:03

Let $n_1<n_2<\cdots$ be any increasing sequence of positive integers, and define an arithmetic function $f$ by declaring that $f(n_k) = n_k^{\sigma_0}/k$ for each $k\ge1$, while $f(n)=-2^{-n}$ if $n$ is not equal to any of the $n_k$. Then $F(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n)n^{-s}$ converges for $\sigma>\sigma_0$, but $\lim_{\sigma\to\sigma_0+} F(s) = +\infty$ and so $\sigma_0$ is a singularity. This class of examples shows that the set of positive integers at which $f(n)$ is positive can literally be any infinite set of numbers. (I say "positive" instead of "fixed sign" here to emphasize the fact that this can happen even when the one-sided limit is $+\infty$ rather than $-\infty$.)

One concrete example that's similar is: let $j$ be a positive integer, and set $G(s) = \zeta(js) - \zeta(s+1)$ (where $\zeta$ is the Riemann zeta-function). Then $G(s)$ has a singularity at $s=1/j$, indeed a simple pole with positive residue; however, its Dirichlet series coefficients are almost all negative, as the coefficient of $n^{-s}$ equals $-1/n$ unless $n$ is a $j$th power, in which case it equals $1-1/n$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you Greg - Your answer is very illuminating. In hindsight I think that its the positivity of the partial sum for sufficiently large $n$ that I want to get at, so I will re-think and post a new question. –  Kevin Smith Oct 31 '11 at 7:54

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.