5
$\begingroup$

Let $\rho=\beta+i\gamma$ a non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function and $s=\sigma+it$ a complex number. It is possible to prove that $$\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}\left(s\right)=\sum_{\left|t-\gamma\right|\leq1}\frac{1}{s-\rho}+O\left(\log\left(t\right)\right) \tag{1}$$ uniformly for $-1\leq\sigma\leq2$ (see for example Titchmarsh, “The theory of the Riemann zeta function”, second ed., page $217$). So in particular if we take $\sigma=0$ holds $$\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}\left(it\right)=\sum_{\left|t-\gamma\right|\leq1}\frac{1}{it-\beta-i\gamma}+O\left(\log\left(t\right)\right). $$ Question: is it possible to prove that $$ \sum_{\left|t-\gamma\right|\leq1}\frac{1}{it-\beta-i\gamma}\ll\log\left(t\right)? $$ The problem is that it could be some zeros with real part very close to $0$ and so for $t=\gamma$ the sum is very "big". Thank you.

Addendum: My final goal it's to prove that $$\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}\left(it\right)=O\left(\log\left(t\right)\right)$$ so also another proof of it (if exists) without the use of $(1)$ is welcome.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Note that $\beta\gg\frac{1}{\log t}$ by the classical zero-free region and the symmetry $s\leftrightarrow 1-s$ for the zeros, so each term in the sum is $\ll\log t$. In fact the whole sum is $\ll\log t$, as shown by my response below. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Mar 3 '16 at 14:57
11
$\begingroup$

I think your final goal follows by taking the logarithmic derivative of the functional equation: $$\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(s)+\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(1-s)=\log\pi-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma'}{\Gamma}\left(\frac{s}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\frac{\Gamma'}{\Gamma}\left(\frac{1-s}{2}\right).$$ Applying this with $s=it$ and using the familiar asymptotic expansion of $\Gamma'/\Gamma$, we get $$\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(it)+\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(1-it)=O(\log t),\qquad t>2.$$ In fact we get $$\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(it)+\frac{\zeta'}{\zeta}(1-it)=-\log t+\log(2\pi)-\frac{i}{2t}+O(t^{-2}),\qquad t>2,$$ but observing $O(\log t)$ is sufficient on the right hand side. Indeed, the second term on the left hand side is $O(\log t)$, hence the same holds for the first term.

P.S. Of course this means that your sum is indeed $O(\log t)$. See also my comment below the original post.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You say "Indeed, the second term on the left hand side is O(log t)". Sorry for my ignorance - Is this well known? $\endgroup$ – Wolfgang Mar 5 '16 at 12:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Wolfgang: Yes, this is a classical result. See, for example, Theorem 3.5 in Titchmarsh: The theory of the Riemann zeta-function. The improved bound $O((\log t)^{2/3})$ is also known, see Section 6.19 of the same book. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Mar 5 '16 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Wolfgang: Let me correct my previous comment as I confused $\zeta'/\zeta$ with $\zeta$. Yes, this is a classical result. See, for example, Theorem 5.17 or Theorem 4.11 in Titchmarsh: The theory of the Riemann zeta-function (or Theorem 6.7 in Montgomery-Vaughan: Multiplicative number theory I). The improved bound $O((\log t)^{2/3}(\log\log t)^{1/3})$ is also known, see Section 6.19 of the same book. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Mar 5 '16 at 16:50

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.