4
$\begingroup$

For complex number $z$, equation $2^z + 3^z = 2^{1-z}+3^{1-z}$ has a simple solution $z=\frac{1}{2}$.

Are there any other solutions?

do all solutions lie on the critical line?

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ All solutions with $ |\Im(z)|\le 7000$ are on the critical line. $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented Mar 21, 2017 at 16:55
  • $\begingroup$ @juan How do you know? $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Commented Mar 21, 2017 at 16:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ They are the zeros of $\sqrt{2}\sin(t\log2)-\sqrt{3}\sin(t\log3)$. I make some plots. A complex zero of this function will be "visible" in the real plot. Again this have a long justification. Each time the function decreases it cuts the real axis. each time the function increases cuts the real axis. (I have no time for English grammar). $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented Mar 21, 2017 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ I was trying to find the first zero off the line. This needs no explanation. I have only to show it. But it is not so easy. Perhaps the question is more interesting that I thought. $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented Mar 21, 2017 at 17:04
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "Functional equations"?? $\endgroup$
    – Qfwfq
    Commented Mar 21, 2017 at 20:27

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Yes, it is provable that all zeros of that expression are on the critical line, and are simple. (The existence of infinitely many zeros is a separate exercise using Hadamard's product formula results.)

There are several types of arguments to prove things of this sort, going back to P.J. Taylor 1945, Lax-Phillips 1976 ("Scattering Theory" book), L. de Branges, and more recent work of J. Lagarias and M. Suzuki 2006, W. Mueller 2008, R. C. McPhedran and C.G. Poulton 2014, K. Klinger-Logan 2017, among others.

A very simple case is simple to state: for a meromorphic function $h(s)$ not vanishing in $\Re(s)>1/2$, taking real values on $\mathbb R$, and such that $h(1-s)/h(s)$ is bounded in $\Re(s)>1/2$, $h(s)\pm h(1-s)$ has no zeros off the critical line, except for possible simultaneous zeros of $h(s)$ and $h(1-s)$.

Among the variety of proof techniques that give results similar to this, the spectral method of Lax-Phillips, Mueller, and Klinger-Logan seems to me to be the most conceptual: one constructs an unbounded, semi-bounded self-adjoint operator whose discrete spectrum, if any, is $s(1-s)\ge 1/4$ for exactly for zeros $s$ of $1-h(1-s)/h(s)$. This entails that $s$ is on the critical line.

(As it stands, naturally one wonders whether this can be adapted to prove things like RH, but by this year it does not seem that this idea alone is sufficient. Indeed, Conrey-Li proved that de Branges' version of such an approach cannot succeed for zeta. Also, whatever device might be imagined to succeed in proving that all zeros are on-the-line must somehow distinguish Epstein zetas and other linear combinations of Hecke L-functions (for example) which are known to have many off-the-line zeros...)

EDIT: in response to @ChristianRemling's request... although I will not reproduce the whole argument, I will sketch Klinger-Logan's preprint's argument for the simplest case, which includes that of the question. With $h(s)$ as just above, let $V$ be the Hilbert space of square-integrable functions on the critical line. Let $T$ be the unbounded operator of multiplication by $s(1-s)$. (Yes, just a multiplication operator, but unbounded.) The domain of $T$ can be taken to be compactly supported square-integrable functions on the critical line. Since $T$ is semi-bounded, it has a Friedrichs self-adjoint extension $T^F$. Let $\theta(s)=1-h(1-s)/h(s)$, and view integration-against $\theta$ as an unbounded functional on $V$. The restriction $T_\theta$ of $T^F$ to the kernel of $\theta$ is still self-adjoint and densely defined, so has a Friedrichs extension $S$. An alternative characterization of $S$ is that $Su=f$ if and only if $s(1-s)u=f+c\cdot \theta$ for some constant $\theta$, and $\theta(u)=0$. Some relatively straightforward computations show that for $\theta$ of this special form, $(S-s(1-s))u=0$ (and $u\in V$) implies $\theta(s)=0$, and also $\theta(u)=0$, and conversely.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a great answer, but it is a little surprising that one has to go to such depth to answer what looks like an elementary question... $\endgroup$
    – Igor Rivin
    Commented Mar 22, 2017 at 2:50
  • $\begingroup$ @paul garret Thanks for pointing the interesting work of Kim Klimger-Logan. I am really interested in that preprint. $\endgroup$
    – juan
    Commented Mar 22, 2017 at 9:13
  • $\begingroup$ @paul garret I appreciate your beautiful answer and very useful references. it will take me some time to assimilate it. but for me it is still like that using a cow knife to kill a chicken $\endgroup$
    – zhizhi Liu
    Commented Mar 22, 2017 at 12:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @IgorRivin, as in some of the other earlier work on similar topics, it is sometimes possible to address similar issues by relatively elementary inequalities. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 22, 2017 at 12:18
  • $\begingroup$ @zhizhiLiu, as I commented to Igor Rivin, some of the references do show how to use more elementary arguments. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 22, 2017 at 12:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .