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

This question arose from an earlier one and the MO user's useful answers there: What are the values of the derivative of Riemann's zeta function at the known non-trivial zeros? (which is not a prerequisite for this version). As usual, let $\rho=\beta+i\gamma$ denote the non-trivial zeros of $\zeta(s)$. Essentially, the question is this:

How are the numbers $e^{i\phi(\rho)}=\lim_{s\rightarrow\rho}\zeta(s)/\overline{\zeta(s)}$ distributed in $\mathbb{T}$?

Of course $\phi\in\mathbb{R}$ and the limit could be replaced by quotients of derivatives if we knew the order of the zeros (in which case $\phi$ is just twice their argument there), but I don't think it is necessary to know that any way. Moreover, I think the answer is independent of RH. My reasoning is as follows.

For $x\in\mathbb{R}$, one may consider the mean-value: $$M(x)=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N(T)}\sum_{0 <\gamma < T}e^{i\phi(\rho)x}.$$ Let $t>0$ and $\theta(t)$ denote the Riemann-Siegel theta-function. Firstly, by separating the sums over zeros on and off the line $\beta=1/2$ and, secondly, by the Bohr-Landau theorem (that the number of zeros with $\beta>1/2$ is $O(T)$), one gets $$M(x)=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{N(T)}\left(\sum_{0 <\gamma < T :\beta=1/2}e^{i\phi(\rho)x}+O\left(T\right)\right)$$ $$=\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac{\pi}{\theta(T)}\sum_{0 <\gamma < T :\beta=1/2}e^{-i2\theta(\gamma)x}.$$

If my reasoning is correct, $M(1)=0$ is equivalent to $e^{i\phi(\rho)}$ being dense in $\mathbb{T}$, and $M(n)=0$, $n\in\mathbb{N}$, to them being uniformly distributed. Any advice, insights and corrections would be most welcome.

EDIT 1: the arguments are $2\theta x$- corrected.

EDIT 2: $O(T)$ inside the bracket- corrected.

share|cite|improve this question
1  
It's not true that the number of zeroes with $\beta>1/2$ is $O(T)$; this would imply that almost all zeroes lie on the critical line which is not known. I think that the right estimate is $|\\{\rho:\beta>1/2+\epsilon,|\gamma|\le T\\}|\ll_\epsilon T$. – Dimitris Koukoulopoulos Nov 21 '11 at 2:04
    
Thanks Dimitri, indeed there should be a $\delta>0$ there. The interpretation being that all but a vanishing proportion lie within $\delta$ of the critical line. – Kevin Smith Nov 25 '11 at 17:18
    
It seems to me that the numbers $\phi(\rho)$ are not well-defined: if $\zeta(s)=g(s)(s-\rho)^m$, where $g(\rho)\neq0$, then we need to calculate the limit $\lim_{s\to\rho}\left(\frac{s-\rho}{\overline{s-\rho}}\right)^m$, which does not exist. – Dimitris Koukoulopoulos Nov 26 '11 at 1:17
    
Thank you for your comment, Dimitri, however I think it is generally incorrect (except in one particular circumstance, which I will suggest below): First note that $\zeta/\overline{\zeta}=e^{2i\arg(\zeta)+2\pi i n}$ whenever $\zeta\neq 0$. Admittedly, apart from when a zero is on the line $\sigma=1/2$, actually calculating the limit requires knowledge of the signs of the real and imaginary parts of the first non-vanishing derivative (otherwise you could get the sign wrong). – Kevin Smith Nov 26 '11 at 10:48
    
However, you would be correct if it happens that, at some $\rho$ not on the line $\sigma=1/2$, one has $\Im\zeta^{n}(\rho)= 0$, $n=0,1,...,m-1$; $\Im\zeta^{m}(\rho)\neq 0$ and $\Re\zeta^{m}(\rho)= 0$ $n=0,1,...,m$, because in this case the argument itself is singular. – Kevin Smith Nov 26 '11 at 10:57

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.