§12.2 The Riemann -Function
12.2 The Riemann -Function
The -function was first studied by Euler in the 18th century, who investigated its values at positive integers and informally discovered its connection to prime numbers through what is currently known as the Euler Product Formula. In the 19th century, Bernhard Riemann extended the function to complex arguments. Riemann also primarily used the related and -functions, to express the -function’s analytic continuation and functional equation more elegantly. While his original notations have largely been deprecated, his contributions are a fundamental part of analytic number theory.
Following Riemann’s personal convention, denote the primary variable with .
Definition 12.2.1.
For , define the Riemann -function by the series
Let be arbitrary. It is well known that absolute converges by integral comparison. Therefore, ,
Hence, is uniformly and absolutely convergent on by the Weierstrass –Test (Theorem 2.3.3). The Weierstrass Theorem (Theorem 4.1.1) gives the analyticity of thereon. We will now explain the simple connection between and the prime numbers. Let be the sequence of all prime numbers in increasing order.
Theorem 12.2.2 (Euler Product Formula).
For , we have
where is the -th prime number.Proof.
Since is an absolutely convergent sequence, it follows from Section 4.4.3 that the infinite product in (12.2.1) is absolutely convergent. Because
Consequently,
Repeating this process for up to the -th prime (by the Sieve of Eratosthenes), we have
as . This completes the proof. Theorem 12.2.3.
Let with . Then
Proof.
Starting from the Euler integral for the Gamma function and rewriting the exponential factor,
so for each fixed one has
Multiplying by and summing over yields
By Fubini’s theorem, the summation and integral may be interchanged:
Now consider the Hankel contour, which consists of an arc and two rays oriented as in Figure 12.1 (note that this contour is not actually closed):
Define the auxiliary function
for , where the integrand is , where we take to be the principal branch with a branch cut on (corresponding to in terms of ). It is important to note that is independent of . To see this, suppose that is arbitrarily chosen. Then we have
where is a closed keyhole countour (Figure 12.2) around the positive real axis. Since is holomorphic on and inside , Cauchy–Goursat (Theorem 3.1.9) implies that . Therefore, .
For any , define . By the preceding discussion, this value is constant for .
For brevity, let and let . Then can be expanded as
By the Maclaurin expansion with respect to , we have
(where we have , where is independent of ) by absolute convergence, which implies that for (so that ),
Then for , we have that , and thus . Therefore,
On the contrary, for fixed , if we assume that , then it follows that . Then,
where the principal branch logarithm gives that . It is trivial to see that the bounding integrals (now independent of , as the integration bounds depend only on ) are convergent for fixed . Then Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem applies to (12.2.3) as , resulting in
Now under the limiting operations and , we have
by virtue of Theorem 12.2.3. The integral for any and defines an entire function of —by expressing each integral in its parametric form as in (12.2.2), a simple calculation yields that (either through differentiation under the integral sign, or by Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence) and hence the entireness of each follows.
Thus (12.2.5) defines an analytic continuation of by
whose singularities lie within (the -function never vanishes since is entire by its Weierstrass factorization in Theorem 12.1.4). By the series definition, the singularities at are removable and hence unimportant to our consideration, while the simple zeros of the function at each cancel with the simple poles of the -function and hence those are removable singularities of as well. Our final consideration is of the singularity at :
Theorem 12.2.4.
The Riemann -function is holomorphic on . The singularity at is a simple pole with a residue of .Proof.
Our previous characterizations of the removable singularities in allow for its analytic continuation to . Hence we are left to show the nature of the singularity at .
The and integrals vanish at since (in (12.2.4)). Now because
as , the integrand has a simple pole at . Its residue, calculated via (4.5.2), is equal to
Hence, . Now the expression shows that the singularity at is a simple pole (contributed from the simple zero of ). By (4.5.2) once more, the residue at is equal to
The functional equation as provided by Riemann in his original paper gives a more advanced characterization of the -function’s continuation:
Theorem 12.2.5 (Riemann’s Reflection Formula).
For any , we have
Proof.
We restrict our consideration to (and the usage of limits suffices to extend the relation to all of ). The integrand (as a function of ) has a branch cut singularity on (in terms of ) (a region excluded by all Hankel contours and thus irrelevant to our interest). The denominator vanishes (simply) when or when and thus has simple poles at these points.
Suppose that . Now the Residue Theorem (Theorem 4.5.2) gives that
where is the keyhole contour in Figure 12.2 with a larger radius of and a smaller one of whose lateral segments are apart from each other. Since , the choice of does not affect the enclosed singularities. Then we have, by virtue of (4.5.2):
where by definition, uses the principal branch:
Now as ,
As , the second integral vanishes by the definition of convergent improper integrals. Now observe that depends only on and and is independent of , and hence is insignificant. We now aim to prove that is above by a positive constant for all . Observe that
(by the double argument/angle formulas) where for some . Now we observe two cases:
If , then
If , then . Assume, without loss of generality, that ( gives the same conclusion since is even, and cannot happen for the given range of ). Since
Because , we deduce that
Since , we have that , which implies that
(since concavity of for suffices to ensure that the tangent line at is an over-approximation). Therefore, we have
since . On this range is decreasing and we hence obtain
We have thus shown that is bounded below by a positive constant
for all (and hence is bounded). Therefore, from (12.2.8) we have that as for . Hence, we may deduce that for ,
The left-hand side can be simplified by (12.2.6) to give
which we now extend to all of by analytic continuation.
Remark.
Suppose that
Then the functional equation can simply be rewritten as .Proposition 12.2.6.
The only zeros of the Riemann -function not in the set defined by occur at the negative even integers .Proof.
By the Euler Product Formula (Theorem 12.2.2), has no zeros for . Now by the functional equation (Theorem 12.2.5), we have that
for . On this range, , , and are all nonzero. The function vanishes only at odd multiples of , or when for . Therefore, the only zeros of for occur at , or when , completing the proof. The zeros at the negative even integers are known as the trivial zeros of the Riemann -function. The other zeros, known as the non-trivial zeros, all lie within the critical strip defined by .
There exists a long-standing conjecture relating to the distribution of the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann -function, known as the Riemann Hypothesis:
Conjecture 12.2.7 (Riemann Hypothesis).
All non-trivial zeros of the Riemann -function lie on the critical line defined by .Results have already shown that an infinite number of zeros lie on this line. For the purpose of our discussion, we proceed to show that has no zeros in .
Definition 12.2.8.
Define the von Mangoldt function to be
Proposition 12.2.9.
For ,
Proof.
By the logarithmic differentiation of the Euler Product Formula (Theorem 12.2.2), we have that
where the interchange of the order of summation is justified by the absolute convergence of the series for . Proposition 12.2.10.
If is holomorphic on a neighborhood of a point on which (except for at ) such that , then
for near .Proof.
By assumption, has the local Taylor expansion
for some and holomorphic (non-vanishing near ). Hence
which implies that
for sufficiently close to . Theorem 12.2.11.
The Riemann -function has no zeros on the lines defined by and .Proof.
Without loss of generality, we restrict our consideration to the line (the other line follows from the functional equation). Suppose that there exists some for such that .
By Proposition 12.2.10, such that
where we define to be holomorphic on the real line (dependent on ) via
since the triple pole at of is cancelled by the (at least) quadruple zero of at .
Now a manual calculation of the quantity in (12.2.10) gives
where the last equality follows from Proposition 12.2.9. Taking the real part, we have
which is a direct contradiction of (12.2.10).