Mathematica knows that: $$\log(n) = \lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\left(1 - \frac{1}{n^{(s - 1)}}\right)$$ The von Mangoldt function should then be: $$\Lambda(n)=\lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\sum\limits_{d|n} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^{(s-1)}}$$ So in the case of the logarithm of $2$, log(2), this is equal to a table (red and green) called $\zeta(s)$: $k \mid n : 1$ else $0$. matrix multiplied by a second table (red, green and yellow) called $(1 - 2^{1-s})$: $n=k: 1$ else if $n=2 \cdot k: -2$ else $0$ Picture of tables $\zeta(s)$ and $(1 - 2^{1-s})$ [Image 1]: ![Zeta(s) and (1-2^(s-1)][1] Taking the matrix product of the two tables above we get [Image 2]: ![Zeta(s) times (1-2^(s-1)][2] The first column then has the numerators of the alternating series. This is as said: $$\log(2) = \lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\left(1 - 2^{(1 - s)}\right)$$ which with a sign change in the exponent is equal to: $$\log(2) = \lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\left(1 - \frac{1}{2^{(s - 1)}}\right)$$ Before I get to the actual question I show the Dirichlet series for logarithm of n. We had already: $$1-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}-\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}... =\log(2)$$ which is the second column in: Logarithms of $n$: $$T_1 = \begin{bmatrix} 0&0&0&0&0&0&0 \\ 1&-1&1&-1&1&-1&1 \\ 1&1&-2&1&1&-2&1 \\ 1&1&1&-3&1&1&1 \\ 1&1&1&1&-4&1&1 \\ 1&1&1&1&1&-5&1 \\ 1&1&1&1&1&1&-6 \end{bmatrix}$$ It turns out that: $$1+\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{3}+\frac{1}{4}+\frac{1}{5}-\frac{2}{6}... =\log(3)$$ and: $$\displaystyle \log(n)=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{T(n,k)}{k}$$ in general. That is same as the Mathematica known formula above. The recurrence describing matrix $T_1$ is: $$\displaystyle T_1(1,n)=0; n>1: T(n,k) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} T(n,k-i)$$ It is natural to ask what this recurrence might do when applying it symmetrically, like this: $$\displaystyle T_2(n,1)=1, T_2(1,k)=1, n>=k: -\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1} T_2(n-i,k), n<k: -\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} T_2(k-i,n)$$ von Mangoldt function matrix: $$\displaystyle T_2 = \begin{bmatrix} +1&+1&+1&+1&+1&+1&+1&\cdots \\ +1&-1&+1&-1&+1&-1&+1 \\ +1&+1&-2&+1&+1&-2&+1 \\ +1&-1&+1&-1&+1&-1&+1 \\ +1&+1&+1&+1&-4&+1&+1 \\ +1&-1&-2&-1&+1&+2&+1 \\ +1&+1&+1&+1&+1&+1&-6 \\ \vdots&&&&&&&\ddots \end{bmatrix} $$ Here we then have $\log(2)$ in the second column and second row. Like wise $\log(3)$ in third row and third column. By doing a Möbius inversion on each row or column one can conjecture that the von Mangoldt function is found as: $$\Lambda(n)=\lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\sum\limits_{d|n} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^{(s-1)}}$$ Alteratively by inspecting the numbers in the decimal digits one also finds conjecturally that: $$\Lambda(k)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{T_2(n,k)}{n}$$ Also, matrix $T_2$ is a matrix with the Greatest Common Divisor as lookup index: $$T_2(n,k) = a(GCD(n,k))$$ where conjecturally: $$a(n) = \lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\sum\limits_{d|n} \mu(d)(e^{d})^{(s-1)}$$ which is also known as the Dirichlet inverse of the Euler Totient starting: $$1,-1,-2,-1,-4,+2,-6,...$$ And as a side note we can by a result of Wolfgang Schramm calculate the Möbius function from this matrix as: $$\displaystyle \mu(n) = \frac{1}{n} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{k=n} T_2(n,k) \cdot e^{i 2 \pi \frac{k}{n}}$$ So much for the elementary introduction. Next we will look at the function: $$\Lambda(n)=\lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\sum\limits_{d|n} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^{(s-1)}}$$ in the complex plane where $$s=a+ib$$ is a complex number, and thereby get closer to the question, The plot of this I call the Riemann zeta function product. With a modification of Jeffrey Stopple's code; Show[Graphics[ RasterArray[ Table[Hue[ Mod[3 Pi/2 + Arg[Sum[Zeta[sigma + I t]* Total[1/Divisors[n]^(sigma + I t - 1)* MoebiusMu[Divisors[n]]]/n, {n, 1, 30}]], 2 Pi]/(2 Pi)], {t, -30, 30, .1}, {sigma, -30, 30, .1}]]], AspectRatio -> Automatic] it looks like this: Riemann zeta function product (30-th partial sum) [Image 3]: ![spectral zeta][3] Again as a sidenote we can compare with the usual Riemann zeta function: Normal or usual zeta [Image 4]: ![Normal zeta][4] which is plotted in the same (complex) region as Spectral Riemann zeta (-30 to +30 and -30i to +30i). The critical strip of the Riemann zeta function product (Spectral Riemann zeta); scale = 50; (*scale = 5000 gives the plot below*) Print["Counting to 60"] Monitor[g1 = ListLinePlot[ Table[Re[ Zeta[1/2 + I*k]* Total[Table[ Total[MoebiusMu[Divisors[n]]/Divisors[n]^(1/2 + I*k - 1)]/(n* k), {n, 1, scale}]]], {k, 0 + 1/1000, 60, N[1/6]}], DataRange -> {0, 60}, PlotRange -> {-0.15, 1.5}], Floor[k]] looks like this: Riemann zeta function product [Image 5]: ![zeta zero spectrum 1][5] What a coincidence then that if we take the Fourier transform of the von Mangoldt function with [Heike][6]'s algorithm; Clear[f] scale = 100000; f = ConstantArray[0, scale]; f[[1]] = N@HarmonicNumber[scale]; Monitor[Do[ f[[i]] = N@MangoldtLambda[i] + f[[i - 1]], {i, 2, scale}], i] xres = .002; xlist = Exp[Range[0, Log[scale], xres]]; tmax = 60; tres = .015; Monitor[errList = Table[(xlist^(1/2 + I k - 1).(f[[Floor[xlist]]] - xlist)), {k, Range[0, 60, tres]}];, k] ListLinePlot[Im[errList]/Length[xlist], DataRange -> {0, 60}, PlotRange -> {-.01, .15}] where we have set the first term in the von Mangoldt function sequence: Table[Limit[Zeta[s]*Total[MoebiusMu[Divisors[n]]/Divisors[n]^(s - 1)], s -> 1], {n, 1, 32}] $$\infty ,\log (2),\log (3),\log (2),\log (5),0,\log (7),\log (2),\log (3),0,\log (11),0,$$ equal to a Harmonic number: $$H_{\text{scale}} ,\log (2),\log (3),\log (2),\log (5),0,\log (7),\log (2),\log (3),0,\log (11),0,$$ and where scale is the _scale_ is the scale of the Fourier transform matrix and the number of terms used in the von Mangoldt function sequence, we get the same plot: Fourier transform of von Mangoldt function [Image 6]: ![zeta zero spectrum 2][7] This is unclear to me. But the parameter `scale` in the program anyways, is the value of the Harmonic Number $H_{\text{scale}}$. Put simpler I have taken a matrix $A$: $$ A = \left( \begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 3^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 4^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 5^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 6^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 3^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 7^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 8^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 4^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 9^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 3^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 10^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 5^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$$ calculated it's matrix inverse and multiplied by the Riemann zeta function: $$B=\zeta(\frac{1}{2}-i t)\left( \begin{array}{cccccccccc} 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -3^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & -2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -5^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 6^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & -3^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & -2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ -7^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & -2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & -3^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ 10^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & -5^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & -2^{\frac{1}{2}-i t} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \end{array} \right)$$ and then plotted the function that is matrix $B$ > So the question is if image 5 and image 6 are equivalent, differing only by a scale factor? Or as in the title: Is the Riemann zeta function product $f(t)$ (Spectral Riemann zeta): $$f(t)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{n=\infty} \frac{1}{n} \zeta(1/2+i \cdot t)\sum\limits_{d|n} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^{(1/2+i \cdot t-1)}}$$ similar or equal to the Fourier transform of: $$\Lambda(n)=\lim\limits_{s \rightarrow 1} \zeta(s)\sum\limits_{d|n} \frac{\mu(d)}{d^{(s-1)}}$$ times a scale factor? In support of this claim is that if we take the Fourier transform of the Riemann zeta function product at the critical line (real part equal 1/2); Clear[n, k, t, A, nn, B] nn = 60 A = Table[ Table[If[Mod[n, k] == 0, 1/(n/k)^(1/2 + I*t - 1), 0], {k, 1, nn}], {n, 1, nn}]; MatrixForm[A]; B = FourierDCT[ Table[Total[ 1/Table[n, {n, 1, nn}]* Total[Transpose[Re[Inverse[A]*Zeta[1/2 + I*t]]]]], {t, 1/1000, 600, N[1/6]}]]; g1 = ListLinePlot[B[[1 ;; 700]]*Table[Sqrt[n], {n, 1, 700}], DataRange -> {0, 60}, PlotRange -> {-60, 600}]; mm = 11.35/Log[2]; g2 = Graphics[ Table[Style[Text[n, {mm*Log[n], 100 + 20*(-1)^n}], FontFamily -> "Times New Roman", FontSize -> 14], {n, 1, 16}]]; Show[g1, g2, ImageSize -> Large] we get: Mobius function -> Dirichlet series -> Spectral Riemann zeta -> Fourier transform -> von Mangoldt function: ![from Mobius via spectral Riemann zeta to von Mangoldt][8] which looks a lot like the von Mangoldt function in Heikes algorithm, in the way it is input there. Notice that the line in the last program above > B[[1 ;; 700]]*Table[Sqrt[n], {n, 1, 700}] is not analytically correct. A larger image of the same plot: https://i.sstatic.net/02A1p.jpg ------------------------------------------------ The partial sums of the Riemann zeta function product: 12 first curves together or partial sums: ![12 curves][9] and a larger plot: https://i.sstatic.net/5LirM.jpg This whole question has previously been asked here: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/424530/is-this-similarity-to-the-fourier-transform-of-the-von-mangoldt-function-real Clear[n, k, t, A, nn, h] nn = 60; h = 2; (*h=2 gives log 2 operator, h=3 gives log 3 operator and so on*) A = Table[ Table[If[Mod[n, k] == 0, If[Mod[n/k, h] == 0, 1 - h, 1]/(n/k)^(1/2 + I*t - 1), 0], {k, 1, nn}], {n, 1, nn}]; MatrixForm[A]; g1 = ListLinePlot[ Table[Total[ 1/Table[n*t, {n, 1, nn}]* Total[Transpose[Re[Inverse[A]*Zeta[1/2 + I*t]]]]], {t, 1/1000, nn, N[1/6]}], DataRange -> {0, nn}, PlotRange -> {-3, 7}]; mm = N[2*Pi/Log[h], 12] g2 = Graphics[ Table[Style[Text[n*2*Pi/Log[h], {mm*n, 1}], FontFamily -> "Times New Roman", FontSize -> 14], {n, 1, 32}]]; Show[g1, g2, ImageSize -> Large] Matrix inverse of Riemann zeta times log 2 operator: ![2 Pi div log2 spectrum][10] Clear[n, k, t, A, nn, dd] dd = 220; Print["Counting to ", dd] nn = 20; A = Table[ Table[If[Mod[n, k] == 0, 1/(n/k)^(1/2 + I*t - 1), 0], {k, 1, nn}], {n, 1, nn}]; Monitor[g1 = ListLinePlot[ Table[Total[ 1/Table[n*t, {n, 1, nn}]* Total[Transpose[ Re[Inverse[ IdentityMatrix[nn] + (Inverse[A] - IdentityMatrix[nn])* Zeta[1/2 + I*t]]]]]], {t, 1/1000, dd, N[1/100]}], DataRange -> {0, dd}, PlotRange -> {-7, 7}];, Floor[t]] mm = N[2*Pi/Log[2], 20] g2 = Graphics[ Table[Style[Text[n, {mm*n, 1}], FontFamily -> "Times New Roman", FontSize -> 14], {n, 1, 32}]]; Show[g1, g2, ImageSize -> Large] Matrix Inverse of matrix inverse times zeta function (on critical line): ![matrix inverse of matrix inverse as function of t][11] [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/GDmoU.png [2]: https://i.sstatic.net/c8KY7.png [3]: https://i.sstatic.net/2iXhr.jpg [4]: https://i.sstatic.net/hFtGB.jpg [5]: https://i.sstatic.net/SjS5c.jpg [6]: http://stackoverflow.com/a/8975710/1067753 [7]: https://i.sstatic.net/QVWkQ.jpg [8]: https://i.sstatic.net/yj8Ef.jpg [9]: https://i.sstatic.net/HG7Jy.jpg [10]: https://i.sstatic.net/5aaE9.jpg [11]: https://i.sstatic.net/PVrdb.jpg