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

Is there any information known for the Ordinary Generating Function for Mobius? $$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} {\mu(n)}x^n $$ I know that

  1. It has radius of convergence 1.

  2. Does not have limit as $x\rightarrow 1$.

My question is

  1. Does it have limit as $x\rightarrow \textrm{exp}(i\theta)\neq 1$?

  2. Is there a similar result for $\textrm{exp}(i\theta)\neq 1$ with $$ \sum_{n\leq x}\mu(n)=o(x)$$ i.e. is there a result of this type? $$ \sum_{n\leq x}\mu(n)\textrm{exp}(in\theta) = o(x)$$

EDIT1: Aside from my questions, there are some known results for the OGF for Mobius.

EDIT2: Found a reference for (III)


P. Borwein, T. Erd´elyi, and F. Littman, Polynomials with coefficients from a finite set available at

(I) This function has the unit circle as natural boundary.

(II) This function is a transcendental function.

(III) It is not bounded on any open sector($\{z:|z|<1, z=re^{i\theta}, \alpha<\theta<\beta\}$)of unit disc.

This result (III) together with Baire Category answers my question 1 with a dense set of $\theta$'s, but as Prof Tao mentioned, there can be a possibility that it is bounded for some values of $\theta$.

share|cite|improve this question

Mobius randomness heuristics suggest that $\sum_n \mu(n) (r e^{i\theta})^n$ does not converge to a limit as $r \to 1^-$ for any (or at least almost any) $\theta$. If it did converge for some $\theta$, then we would have

$$\sum_n \mu(n) e^{in\theta} \psi_k(n) \to 0$$ as $k \to \infty$, where

$$ \psi_k(n) := (1-2^{-k-1})^n - (1-2^{-k})^n.$$

The cutoff function $\psi_k$ is basically a smoothed out version of the indicator function $1_{[2^k,2^{k+1}]}$. The Mobius randomness heuristic (discussed for instance in this article of Sarnak) then suggests that the sum $\sum_n \mu(n) e^{in\theta} \psi_k(n)$ should have a typical size of $2^{k/2}$, and so should not decay to zero as $k \to \infty$.

Note from Plancherel's theorem that the $L^2_\theta$ mean of $\sum_n \mu(n) e^{in\theta} \psi_k(n)$ is indeed comparable to $2^{k/2}$. This does not directly preclude the (very unlikely) scenario that this exponential sum is very small for many $\theta$ and only large for a small portion of the $\theta$, but if one optimistically applies various versions of the Mobius randomness heuristic (with square root gains in exponential sums) to guess higher moments of $\sum_n \mu(n) e^{in\theta} \psi_k(n)$ in $\theta$, one is led to conjecture a central limit theorem type behaviour for the distribution of this quantity (as $\theta$ ranges uniformly from $0$ to $2\pi$), i.e. it should behave like a complex gaussian with mean zero and variance $\sim 2^k$, and in particular it should only be $O(1)$ about $O(2^{-k})$ of the time, and Borel-Cantelli then suggests divergence for almost every $\theta$ at least. Unfortunately this is all very heuristic, and it seems difficult with current technology to unconditionally rule out a strange conspiracy that makes $\sum_n \mu_n (re^{i\theta})^n$ bounded as $r \to 1$ for some specific value of $\theta$ (say $\theta = \sqrt{2} \pi$), though this looks incredibly unlikely to me. (One can use bilinear sums methods, e.g. Vaughan identity, to get some nontrivial pointwise upper bounds on these exponential sums when $\theta$ is highly irrational, but I see no way to get pointwise lower bounds, since $L$-function methods will not be available in this setting, and there may well be some occasional values of $\theta$ and $k$ for which these sums are actually small. But it is likely at least that the $\theta=0$ theory can be extended to rational values of $\theta$.)

share|cite|improve this answer

For (2), the answer is yes - see for example this paper of Baker and Harman.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you for this. Actually their paper is conditional. Indeed, unconditional result by H. Davenport is Anyway, that answers 2. – i707107 Apr 3 '13 at 21:01
Fair enough, although on the first page it cites unconditional results as well. – Greg Martin Apr 4 '13 at 5:57
Yeah. They cited Davenport's result. I enjoyed reading it. – i707107 Apr 4 '13 at 18:27

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.