Let $a_{m}$ be the imaginary part of the nontrivial roots of the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$. Suppose we have their generating function $u(x)=\sum_{m=1}^{\infty} a_{m}x^{m}=14.134725\ldots{}x^{1}+21.022040\ldots{}x^{2}+\ldots$ What information about the nontrivial roots of $\zeta(s)$ are encoded by the roots and poles of $u(x)$?

Besides the theorem of Hadamard mentioned in twf:190 and standard generatingfunctionological techniques, what can this function tell us?

  • I changed the code used for the links. The changes worked in the preview, but the links only work for me while the math is being rendered. I'll start a thread on meta. – Douglas Zare Apr 23 '10 at 17:44

I would be willing to wager vast sums of money that this function has the unit circle as a boundary of essential singularities. As $x\to 1$ it diverges like $u(x) \sim c (1-x)^{-2}\log{(1-x)}$.

Edit: Hi Ben, let me say a bit more. Write $N(t)$ for the number of zeros of the Riemann zeta function in the strip $0 < Re(s) < 1$ with imaginary part between $0$ and $t$. According to Riemann we have $N(t)=\frac{t}{2\pi}\log{(\frac{t}{2\pi e})}+S(t)$ where $S(t)$ satisfies $S=O(\log{t})$. This function $S(t)$ captures the fine variation in the distribution of the zeros of the zeta function. It is quite random: Selberg proved unconditionally, in a triumph of analytic number theory, that $(\log{\log{t}})^{-\frac{1}{2}}S(t)$ has the distribution of a Gaussian random variable with mean zero and variance one!

Now, what if you try to invert this? Write $\gamma_n$ for the imaginary part of the $n$th zero, ordered by height. After inverting the above functions you'll get something like $\gamma_n=f(n)+r(n)$ where $f$ is essentially the valute of $t$ such that of $n=\frac{t}{2\pi}\log{(\frac{t}{2\pi e})}$, and $r$ is some chaotically varying error term. Splitting $u$ as $u_f(x) + u_r(x)$ accordingly, I am sure that $u_f(x)$ has a nice analytic continuation, but for all intents and purposes $u_r(x)$ looks like a power series with "random" coeffecients. Such things generally do not have good analytic continuations

That being said, this is not a proof of my claim, and I would be delighted to see one.

  • So, why would I be a sucker to take the other end of that bet? – Ben Webster Apr 24 '10 at 20:16

In keeping with David Hansen's wager, I'd also be willing to bet that this is related to Hugh Montgomery's pair correlation conjecture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montgomery%27s_pair_correlation_conjecture

  • Unless one has to look at the mean-square of $u(x)$, I am not sure exactly how the distribution of pairs of zeros comes into play. – Micah Milinovich Aug 2 '10 at 22:35

My answer not exactly refers to the generating function you state above, but rather a kind of Dirichlet series which is built up from the zeta function. It is called the acid zeta function. I seem to remember to have seen even a monograph on this topic but I could not come up with a title by a quick google search.

The only thing I found is this recent preprint of Jining Gao: http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.3392 Maybe this is of interest for you too.

EDIT: I recently came across the following book. http://books.google.de/books?id=op0RejW-pvoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Zeta+Functions+over+Zeros+of+Zeta+Functions&source=bl&ots=ytkjMifsmd&sig=kXXU9CFMvU5Cvtkc4vZr_9610v0&hl=de&ei=e11MTPz9KYuWOKa2zJUD&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false Maybe that ist of interest

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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