2
$\begingroup$

Robin showed that if $a\in(1/2, 1]$ is the supremum of the real parts of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$, then $f(x)=\Omega_{\pm} (x^{-b})$, where $b$ is some number on $(a-1/2, 1/2],$ $$f(x)=\log \Big(e^{\gamma}\log \theta(x)\prod_{p\leq x} (1-p^{-1})\Big),$$ $\theta(x)=\sum_{p\leq x} \log p$, the Chebyshev sum over the primes $p\leq x$ and $\gamma=0.577\cdots$ the Euler constant.

But is it true that if $\zeta(s)\neq 0$ for $\Re(s)\in(1/2 , 1]$, then $f(x)\neq \Omega_{\pm} (x^{-c})$ for any $c\in (0, 1/2]$?

In other words, is it true that $a\in(1/2, 1]$ is the supremum of the real parts of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function if and only if $f(x)=\Omega_{\pm} (x^{-b})$, where $b$ is some number on $(a-1/2, 1/2]$ ?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

It is well-known that the Riemann hypothesis implies $$ \theta(x)=x+O(\sqrt{x}\ln^2 x). $$ Therefore, under the Riemann hypothesis we have $$ \ln\theta(x)=\ln x+O\left(\frac{\ln^2 x}{\sqrt{x}}\right). $$ Also, from the partial summation we get $$ \sum_{p\leq x}\frac{1}{p}=\int_{1.5}^x \frac{d\theta(t)}{t\ln t}=\ln\ln x+M+O\left(\frac{\ln x}{\sqrt x}\right). $$ Now, from Mertens' theorems we obtain $$ \ln(e^\gamma \prod_{p\leq x}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right))=-\sum_{p\leq x} \frac{1}{p}+M+O\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)=-\ln\ln x+O\left(\frac{\ln x}{\sqrt x}\right). $$ Therefore assuming RH we deduce that $$ f(x)=\ln\ln\theta(x)+\ln(e^\gamma \prod_{p\leq x}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right))=O\left(\frac{\ln x}{\sqrt x}\right), $$

which is certainly not $\Omega(x^{-c})$ for any $c<1/2$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, so $a\in(1/2, 1]$ is the supremum of the real parts of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function if and only if $f(x)=\Omega_{\pm} (x^{-b})$, where $b$ is some number on $(a-1/2, 1/2]$ ! Interesting... $\endgroup$
    – IUTT Geometer
    Apr 24, 2019 at 12:09
2
$\begingroup$

A bit more can be said. Assuming RH, $f(x)<0$ for $x$ sufficiently large; and conversely, if $f(x)<0$ for $x$ sufficiently large, then RH holds (you can take $x\geq 3$, this is in Nicolas, J.L., “Petits valeurs de la fonction d’Euler”, Journal of Number Theory 17 (1983) 375-388).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ thanks ! Only if MO could allow one to accept two answers ! $\endgroup$
    – IUTT Geometer
    Apr 24, 2019 at 18:38
  • $\begingroup$ Notice that if the inequality $\sum_{d\mid N} d \geq e^{\gamma}N\log \log N + \frac{c\log \log N}{(\log N)^{\beta}}$ is false for some $\beta$, then it is also false for any $\beta'< \beta$. And since $a\in(1/2, 1]$ is the supremum of the real parts of the complex zeros of $\zeta(s)$ iff $f(x)=\Omega_{\pm}(x^{-b})$, it follows that this inequality is false for $\beta=1/2$ since $\zeta(s)\neq 0$ for $\Re(s)=1/2 + \beta\geq 1$. Hence it must also be false for any $\beta<1/2$, thus $\zeta(s)\neq 0$ for $\Re(s)=1/2+\beta, \beta>0$. $\endgroup$
    – user83236
    Apr 29, 2019 at 20:50
  • $\begingroup$ Note that Robin demonstrated that if $\theta=1/2 + \beta, \beta\in(0, 1/2]$ is the supremum of the zeros of $\zeta(s)$, then $\sum_{d\mid N} d \geq e^{\gamma}N\log \log N + \frac{c\log \log N}{(\log N)^{c}}$, where $c$ can be taken to have any value on $[a-1/2, 1/2)$. $\endgroup$
    – user83236
    Apr 29, 2019 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ ...for infinitely many positive integers $N$... $\endgroup$
    – user83236
    Apr 29, 2019 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ Robin's result is a corollary of Nicolas' result that if $a\in(1/2, 1]$ is the supremum of the real parts of the zeros of the Riemann zeta function, then $f(x)=\Omega_{\pm}(x^{-c})$. Thus if it could be shown that $\zeta(s)\neq 0$ for $\Re(s)>1/2$ entails that $f(x)\neq \Omega_{\pm}(x^{-c})$, then it would follow that $a\in(1/2, 1]$ is the sup of the zeros of $\zeta$ iff $f(x)=\Omega_{\pm}(x^{-c})$, where $c$ is some real number on $(a-1/2, 1/2]$. $\endgroup$
    – user83236
    Apr 29, 2019 at 21:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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