Ref: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02399204

My question is about the proof of Theorem 0(b). On p.213, we see the expression


I suppose I know how to get this: \begin{eqnarray*} \Delta_{\alpha\ast\beta}(x;q,a) &=& \sum_{n\leq x, n\equiv a(q)}\alpha\ast\beta(n)-\frac{1}{\varphi(q)}\sum_{n\leq x,(n,q)=1}\alpha\ast\beta(n)\\ &=& \sum_n\alpha\ast\beta(n)\frac{1}{\varphi(q)}\sum_{\chi}\chi(n)\bar{\chi}(a)-\frac{1}{\varphi(q)}\sum_{n\leq x,(n,q)=1}\alpha\ast\beta(n)\\ &=& \frac{1}{\varphi(q)}\sum_{\chi\neq\chi_0}\bar{\chi}(a)\sum_n\alpha\ast\beta(n)\chi(n), \end{eqnarray*}

and then we split the innermost sum into a product of two sum, by the definition of convolution $\alpha\ast\beta$.

My question is that, the supports of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is $(M,2M]$ and $(N,2N]$ respectively, where $NM=x$. But the range $\Delta_{\alpha\ast\beta}$ considers is just $n\leq x$. Even using the usual practice $x<n\leq 2x$ when we define $\Delta_{\alpha\ast\beta}$, it cannot cover $(x,4x]=(NM,4NM]$. Therefore the aforementioned innermost sum may not be split.

I then try to assume the supports of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ is $(0,M]$ and $(0,N]$. This makes everything fine, but when I try to use this result obtained to recover Theorem 0(b) I just fail.

Can someone help me? Thanks a lot.


I think you just want to forget the $n\le x$ conditions in the $\Delta$ definition of (1.1). Once they start at the bottom of p206 to switch to Motohashi's formulation, then the $n$-restriction on any $\Delta$-sum is better seen as coming from the support of the $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Prior to that, they needed to introduce the $x$-parameter to be able to cogently discuss the Introduction, but the later rewriting overrides this. At least that is what I think is going on.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know, but if this is the case, then the $n$-restriction on $\Delta$ in this example would be in $(x,4x]$, which seems quite unusual. $\endgroup$ – ccire Jul 1 '13 at 9:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The point is, in the Intro they were dealing with a function $f$ that was not finitely supported, so $\Delta$ had the $x$-cutoff in it, to make it easier to talk about. When they introduce the convolution of Motohashi, then the sequence $\alpha\star\beta$ is already finitely supported (though in a way that depends on $x$), so the prior convention is not any longer in value. $\endgroup$ – v08ltu Jul 1 '13 at 11:52

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.