6
$\begingroup$

(a) Let $s>1$, $x>0$ be real. Then it is not hard to see that $$\sum_{n\leq x} \frac{1}{n^s} \leq \zeta(s) - \frac{1}{(s-1) x^{s-1}} + \frac{1}{2 x^s},$$ basically because $x\mapsto 1/x^s$ is convex. (The naive bound would have $1/x^s$ instead of $1/2 x^2$.) By Euler-Maclaurin, this bound is tight, in the sense that the inequality would not be valid for large $x$ if $1/2$ were replaced by a smaller constant.

This bound looks as if it should be completely standard (in fact, known since the umpteenth century). Is there an easy reference? Also, what happens for real $0<s<1$? (Is the term $1/2 x^2$ still correct? It seems so to me.)

(b) Let $s = \sigma + i t$, $0<\sigma\leq 1$, $s\ne 1$. Let $x\geq |t|$ be real. After trying a little, my students and I showed that $$\zeta(s) = \sum_{n\leq x} \frac{1}{n^s} + \frac{x^{1-s}}{s-1} + O^*\left(\frac{c}{x^\sigma}\right)$$ with $c=5/6$, where $O^*(y)$ stands for a complex number whose norm is bounded by $y$. The bound is well-known with $c=1$. My question is: what is the optimal value of $c$? Again, this matter must be in some standard reference.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Experimentally, if $f(s,x)$ denotes $x^\sigma$ times your $O()$ term, we have $$\lim_{x\to\infty}|f(1/2+ix,x)|=0.5071327273234875601074447511597399662392804984736522540331$$ and I would guess that this the optimal value of $c$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2019 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ Is there experienced mental support for that guess? What happens for $\Re(s)=1/2$ , or for $|t|<c? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 26, 2019 at 23:43
  • $\begingroup$ $\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} n^{-s}- \frac{N^{1-s}}{s-1} + \int_N^\infty (\lfloor x \rfloor^{-s}-x^{-s})dx$ $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Commented Apr 27, 2019 at 2:39
  • $\begingroup$ Well, yes, we know that. Using that and convexity, you get (a) (for $0<s<1$ as well, thanks to analytic continuation). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2019 at 11:40
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "Experienced mental" should be "experimental". Silly phone! $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2019 at 11:41

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let $x$ be half an odd integer. Then, by the discussion in Section 4.14 of Titchmarsh: The theory of the Riemann zeta-function, the error term is bounded in absolute value by $$\frac{x^{-\sigma}}{2\pi-|t|/x}.$$ Hence one can take $c=1/(2\pi-1)=0.189279\dots$ for these values of $x$.

Added. For general $x$, it follows with a bit of thought that the error term is bounded in absolute value by $$\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2\pi-1}\right)x_0^{-\sigma},$$ where $x_0$ is a half odd integer nearest to $x$. Hence, for large $x$, one can take $c=0.689280$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ indeed, but not when $x$ is an integer. Does Titchmarsh have a corresponding bound in that case ? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 27, 2019 at 20:15
  • $\begingroup$ Titchmarsh displays explicit complex integral representations of the error term. Then he goes on to estimate this expression when $x$ is half an odd integer. I guess this approach can be generalized for more general $x$, but the obtained bound will be weaker. See also my comment below the original post. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 27, 2019 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ We get $c=7/12+\zeta(3)/(4\pi^2 (\pi-1))=0.59756...$ for $x$ large. That value of $c$ is not optimal either. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2019 at 5:22
  • $\begingroup$ I actually don't see how exactly Titchmarsh uses that $x$ is half an odd integer. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 28, 2019 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ @HAHelfgott: Titchmarsh estimates $|\cot\pi z\pm i|$ for $z=x+ir$. This is clearly sensitive on how far $x$ is from an integer. On the other hand, one can also clearly deform the $z$-contour in Line 3 of Page 81, and get something nontrivial for all $x$ that way. I have no time to think about this, but it is worth to try. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 28, 2019 at 17:30

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .