Prove that
∞∑n=1d(n)2n−s=ζ(s)4/ζ(2s)
for σ>1
what i did:
I already proved this formally, that is, without considering convergence. I use euler products, that is, theorem 1.9 in Montgomerys multiplicative number theory:
If f is multiplicative, and
∑|f(n)|n−σ<∞
Then
∞∑n=1f(n)n−s=∏p∈P(∞∑n=0f(pn)p−ns).
I first prove that d is a multiplicative function. Then i apply Euler-products and after some technicalities, the result pops up.
However, my problem is the assumption for the Euler product. My naive bound for the divisor function is d(n)<2√n, with the rough argument that d>√n is a divisor if and only if n/d is a divisor d<√n.
But this is not good enough , since this bound only lets me apply the Euler product form for σ>2.
I found some rather complicated bounds for the divisor functions on the internet, but since this is an early exercise in the montgomery Multiplicative number theory book (1.3.1 exercise 5) i doubt thats what i should use.
The post beneath consider the same problem, but it solved what i already solved, and ignore the convergence part:
Dirichlet series generating function
Answer
I found a solution myself.
We use Montgomery theorem 1.8 :
If α(s)=∑n∈Nf(n)n−sβ(s)=∑n∈Ng(n)n−s
γ(s)=∑n∈Nh(n)n−s
Where h(n) is the Dirichlet product f∗g(n)
Indeed,
α(s)=∑n∈Nd(n)n−s
converges absolutely for σ>1, so
α(s)2=∑n∈Nd∗d(n)n−s
converges as well, due to the theorem above.
But since d(D)d(n/D)≥d(n) we get
d∗d(n)=∑D|nd(D)d(n/D)≥∑D|nd(n)=d(n)2
and hence the result follows by direct comparison.
No comments:
Post a Comment