The factor $\frac12$ in the Riemann $\xi$ function:

$$\xi(s)=\frac12 s(s-1)\,\pi^{-s/2}\,\Gamma(s/2)\,\zeta(s)$$

was introduced by Riemann, however appears to be redundant. Once he had arrived at:


the remaining poles at $s=0,1$ could have been removed by the simpler factor $s\,(s-1)$. This would have also made the function entire and retains the reflection formula $\xi(s) = \xi(1-s)$.

A quite plausible explanation as to why the additional factor $\frac12$ was introduced, I found here. It boils down to the following trick:


that serves as the first step towards deriving the well known Fourier integral expression for $\xi(\frac12+it)$. Splitting the LHS into $\Gamma$'s with constant weights, only works when the factor $\frac12$ is introduced and apparently this was a trick known to Riemann.

However, this is not the approach towards the Fourier integral that is attributed to Riemann in the well-known books about the Zeta-function of Titchmarsh (1986-edition p254/255) and Edwards (1974-edition p16/17, p41). These predominantly apply integration by parts to an integral representation of $\xi(s)$ and use a special relation involving $\psi(x)$ and $\psi'(x)$. But this approach doesn't seem to require the factor $\frac12$.

The only reference about the factor $\frac12$ that I have ever come across was in a footnote in a book or paper that (paraphrased) said: 'the factor $\frac12$ was introduced by Riemann in his 1859 paper and has since then stuck' (unfortunately I can't recall the precise source of this quote...).

Q1: Is there any reference to literature about why the factor $\frac12$ was introduced?

Q2: Does it actually matter that the factor $\frac12$ got 'stuck' in $\xi(s)$? It is obviously just a factor, but I could imagine that such a redundant factor would make certain formula less 'beautiful', e.g without the factor, $\xi(0=\xi(1)=1$ and the Hadamard product would simply be: $\displaystyle \xi(s)=\prod_{\rho} \left(1-\frac{s}{\rho}\right)$.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A translation of Riemann's manuscript can be found at: claymath.org/sites/default/files/ezeta.pdf. It appears that $\xi(s)$ is defined there (page 3) without the factor of $1/2$ (or the factor of $s$). $\endgroup$ – Mark Lewko Dec 12 '19 at 0:19
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ I agree that factor of 1/2 is ridiculous and should not be there (e.g., without it $\xi(0) = 1$). In Riemann's paper (e.g., at the link posted by Mark Lewko) you see the reason Riemann had the $1/2$: he used not $\Gamma(s)$ but $\Pi(s) = \Gamma(s+1)$, for which $\Pi(n) = n!$. (Let's not get started about why we nowadays prefer the Gamma-function, whose value at $n$ is $(n-1)!$.) Since Riemann used $\Pi(s)$, on line -5 of page 3 he was led to $\Pi(s/2)(s-1)\pi^{-s/2}\zeta(s)$, which is $(1/2)s(s-1)\Gamma(s/2)\pi^{-s/2}\zeta(s)$, and there's the "extra" $1/2$ when using the $\Gamma$-function. $\endgroup$ – KConrad Dec 12 '19 at 0:57
  • $\begingroup$ Your final comment about the Hadamard product seems strange. The standard formula is $\xi(s)=e^{A+Bs}\prod_\rho (1-s/\rho)e^{s/\rho}$ with $B=-\gamma/2-1+\log\sqrt{4\pi}$, and you've only changed the $e^A$ to be 1 instead of 1/2 $\endgroup$ – MyNinthAccount Dec 12 '19 at 4:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Riemann extended zeta to the complex plane, but of course Euler had worked with zeta for real $s$ long before, and there $\sum n^{-s}$ seems more natural than $2\sum n^{-s}$. So wasn't Riemann just trying to be consistent with previous practice? $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Dec 12 '19 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ @KConrad. Thanks, that makes a lot of sense. So, his train of thought could have been in the language of the paper: I have $\Pi(s/2-1)\pi^{-s/2}\zeta(s)$ and to remove the remaining poles at $s=0,1$, I have to multiply by $s(s-1)$ (i.e. remove the factor $1/(s(s-1))$ on line -7 of page 3) to obtain $s(s-1)\Pi(s/2-1)\pi^{-s/2}\zeta(s)$. Then he decided to further simplify by introducing a factor $\frac12$ and obtained: $\Pi(s/2)(s-1)\pi^{-s/2}\zeta(s)$ (line -5 of page 3). P.S. if you would be prepared to post your comment as an answer, I would gladly accept it. $\endgroup$ – Agno Dec 12 '19 at 12:27

This factor of $\frac12$ is ultimately due to the fact that the usual integral representation is written as a Mellin transform, that is an integral over $\mathbb{R}^\times_{>0}$, whereas the "correct" integral is over $\mathbb{R}^\times=\mathrm{GL}_1(\mathbb{R})$.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.