2
$\begingroup$

Looking at @Lucia's answer to this question it appears $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\mu(n)}{n^s}$ converges for $\sigma > \frac{1}{2}$. Can someone point me to a proof or provide proof for this? If I misunderstood and if this is not true, is it known for what minimum value of $\sigma$ will it converge?

Thanks in advance!

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The proof that under RH it converges for $\Re(s) > 1/2$ is very similar to the PNT $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Oct 17 '18 at 6:08
15
$\begingroup$

The convergence of $\sum\mu(n)/n^s$ for $\Re(s)>1/2$ is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis. First, by Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 in Montgomery-Vaughan: Multiplicative number theory I, this convergence implies that $1/\zeta(s)$ is holomorphic in $\Re(s)>1/2$ (which is clearly equivalent to the Riemann Hypothesis), and also that $$M(x):=\sum_{n\leq x}\mu(n)\ll_\varepsilon x^{1/2+\varepsilon}\tag{$*$}$$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. Conversely, by Theorems 13.24 and 1.3 in the same book, the Riemann Hypothesis implies $(*)$, and also the convergence of $\sum\mu(n)/n^s$ for $\Re(s)>1/2$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ I was on the verge to posting the same response as GH when I saw your question. Perhaps the upper bound obtained so far for the de Bruijn-Newman constant (less or equal than 0.22 so far according to Polymath 15) can lead to some abcissa of convergence strictly less than 1. $\endgroup$ Oct 17 '18 at 11:21
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @SylvainJULIEN, no, an abscissa of convergence $\Theta < 1$ implies that $\zeta(s)$ has no zeroes for $\Re(s) > \Theta$. This is not implied by improved bounds for the de Bruiijn-Newman constant (it is not a substitute for RH in this sense). $\endgroup$ Oct 17 '18 at 12:51

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.