I'd like to estimate the following sum $$ \sum_{n\leq x}\frac1{k_n}\;,\qquad x\rightarrow \infty\;, $$ where $k_n=[\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_n,a^{1/n}):\mathbb{Q}]$ is the degree of a Kummer extension for a fixed integer $a$, $a\neq 0,\pm1$. From the literature (Hooley's paper on Artin conjecture under GRH), we know that if $a=b^h$ for some integer $b=b_0 b_1^2$, with $b_0$ squarefree, being $h$ the maximum possible exponent, then $$ k_n=\frac{n\varphi(n)}{\delta(n)\gcd(n,h)}\;, $$ where $\delta(n)=1,2$ depending on $a$ (irrelevant for our asymptotic estimate).

Is it correct what follows? $$ \sum_{n\leq x}\frac1{k_n} \leq 2h \sum_{n\leq x}\frac1{n\varphi(n)} \ll \frac{\log x}{x}\;, $$ by Abel's summation formula.

Last but not least, does a similar result apply in the case $a\in\mathbb{Q}$? In this case, can we continue saying that $$ \sum_{n\leq x}\frac1{k_n}\leq C \sum_{n\leq x}\frac1{n\varphi(n)} $$ for some fixed constant $C$? That is, does the Hooley's computations of $k_n$ remain similar in this case? What's the analogy of $a=b^h=(b_0b_1^2)^h$ now? Any literature suggestion where I can find this argument explained?

Thanks in advance.

  • $\begingroup$ how does $\delta$ depend on $a$ - just for fun - plus it might be relevant $\endgroup$ – JMP Oct 6 '15 at 20:21

I can explain the first part. The second part I'm not sure about.

We have:


Because $\delta(n)\le2$ so:

$$\sum_{n\leq x}\dfrac1{k_n} = \sum_{n\leq x}\dfrac{\delta(n)\gcd(n,h)}{n\varphi(n)}\le2\sum_{n\leq x}\dfrac{\gcd(n,h)}{n\varphi(n)}$$

Also $\gcd(n,h)<=h$, so:

$$\sum_{n\leq x}\dfrac1{k_n} \le2h\sum_{n\leq x}\dfrac1{n\varphi(n)}$$

Using Abel's Summation Formula with $a_n=\dfrac1n$ and $\phi(n)=\dfrac1{\varphi(n)}$

means that $A(x)\lt\log(x)$ and we also have that $\dfrac1{\varphi(x)}<\dfrac1x$, and so with the integral missing, we get:

$$\sum_{n\leq x}\dfrac1{k_n}\ll \frac{\log x}{x}$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I'm wondering how a positive series could have a sum that tends to 0 asymptotically, though. $\endgroup$ – Fan Zheng Oct 7 '15 at 0:03
  • $\begingroup$ Hey so I think your inequality involving $\phi(x)$ and $x$ is backwards (I think you want to use $\phi(y) \gg y/\log\log{y}$), and also you are proving a bound on the sum over $n > x$ (else how can the sum go to zero? I may be confused by the definition but the other sum is at least $1/k_1$, no?). This way we get a bound of $\ll \sum_{n > x} \log\log{n}/n^2 \ll \log\log{x}/x$. $\endgroup$ – alpoge Oct 7 '15 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ i'm thinking about it - i like the sum $n>x$ bit $\endgroup$ – JMP Oct 7 '15 at 1:07
  • $\begingroup$ @JonMarkPerry: thanks, that's exactly what I did in the case of integer $a$. Maybe for the case $a$ rational I should post another specific question. Thanks again! $\endgroup$ – PITTALUGA Oct 7 '15 at 7:41

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.