3
$\begingroup$

It is well known that:

$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\mu(n)}{n^s} = \frac{1}{\zeta(s)} \qquad \Re(s) > 1$$

with $\mu(n)$ the Möbius function and $\zeta(s)$ the Riemann Zeta function.

Numerical evidence strongly suggests that the alternating Dirichlet series:

EDIT: as pointed out in the answer and the comment, I got the domain of absolute convergence wrong. To avoid any confusion, below are the corrected values.

$$\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1}\frac{\mu(n)}{n^s} = \frac{2^s+1}{(2^s-1)\,\zeta(s)} \qquad \Re(s) > \require{cancel}\cancel{0} \color{ForestGreen}1$$

i.e. the series on the LHS should now also induce a pole at the non-trivial zeros in the critical strip. I did find that this series has been mentioned in this MSE-question, which didn't get much traction and there is no proof provided.

Q: Is the relation above true?

Assuming it is true, after a small manipulation we obtain:

$$ \coth\left(\frac{s}{2}\,\log(2)\right) = \zeta(s)\,\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1}\frac{\mu(n)}{n^s} \qquad \Re(s) > \require{cancel}\cancel{0} \color{ForestGreen}1$$

so that also:

$$s = \zeta\left(\frac{\log(s+1)-\log(s-1)}{\log(2)}\right) \,\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1}\frac{\mu(n)}{n^{\frac{\log(s+1)-\log(s-1)}{\log(2)}}} \qquad \Re(s) > \require{cancel}\cancel{0} \color{ForestGreen}1$$

which yields, with $\zeta(s)$ in terms of the Dirichlet $\eta$-function, the following relation:

$$\frac{s\,(3-s)}{s+1} = \left(\sum_{k=1}^\infty (-1)^{k+1}\frac{1}{k^{\frac{\log(s+1)-\log(s-1)}{\log(2)}}} \right) \cdot\left(\sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1}\frac{\mu(n)}{n^{\frac{\log(s+1)-\log(s-1)}{\log(2)}}}\right) \qquad \Re(s) >\require{cancel}\cancel{0} \color{ForestGreen}1$$

which for $s=3$ becomes zero. The first series becomes $\log(2)$, hence the second series must be equal to zero at this value.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ With respect to your comment "the series on the LHS should now also induce a pole at the non-trivial zeros in the critical strip", the series does not converge at $\Re(s)=\Re(\rho)$ where $\rho$ is a non-trivial zero of the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$. I believe the series converges for $\Re(s)\ge 1$, and assuming the Riemann Hypothesis for $\Re(s)>\frac{1}{2}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 3, 2023 at 19:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StevenClark, yes, you (and Greg) are correct about the domain of convergence. The numerical evidence I had gathered for $\Re(s) > 1/2$ looked quite promising, but is indeed dependent on the RH. I have updated the question to avoid confusion. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 4, 2023 at 11:59

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

It is indeed true. The function $(-1)^{n+1}$ is a multiplicative function (really! confirm this), and therefore the Dirichlet series can be expanded into an Euler product as usual (in its half-plane of absolute convergence, which is $\sigma>1$ in this case): \begin{align*} \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n+1} \frac{\mu(n)}{n^s} &= \prod_p \sum_{k=0}^\infty (-1)^{p^k+1} \frac{\mu(p^k)}{(p^k)^s} \\ &= \prod_p \biggl( 1 + (-1)^{p+1} \frac{-1}{p^s} + \sum_{k=2}^\infty 0 \biggr) \\ &= \biggl( 1+\frac1{2^s}\biggr) \prod_{p\ge3} \biggl( 1 - \frac{1}{p^s} \biggr) \\ &= \biggl( 1+\frac1{2^s}\biggr) \biggl( 1-\frac1{2^s}\biggr)^{-1} \prod_p \biggl( 1 - \frac{1}{p^s} \biggr) = \frac{2^s+1}{2^s-1} \frac1{\zeta(s)} \end{align*} as claimed.

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.