Analytic Number Theory/Tools from complex analysis

Infinite products

edit

Lemma 5.1 (Convergence of real products):

Let   be such that

 

converges absolutely. Then if  ,

 

converges.

Proof: Without loss of generality, we assume   for all  .

Denote

 .

Then we have

 .

We now apply the Taylor formula of first degree with Lagrange remainder to   at   to obtain for  

 ,  .

Hence, we have for  

 ,  .

Hence,   and thus we obtain the (even absolute) convergence of the  ; thus, by the continuity of the exponential, also the   converge. 

Theorem 5.2 (Comparison test for complex products):

Assume that   is a non-negative real sequence such that

 

converges. Assume further that   is a sequence of complex numbers such that  . Then also

 

converges. Furthermore, for all  

 .

Proof:

We define

 ,  . We note that
 .

Without loss of generality we may assume that all the products are nonzero; else we have immediate convergence (to zero).

We now prove that   is a Cauchy sequence. Indeed, we have

 

and furthermore

 

and therefore

 .

Since  , it is a Cauchy sequence, and thus, by the above inequality, so is  . The last claim of the theorem follows by taking   in the above inequality. 

Theorem 5.3 (Sum test for complex products):

Let   be a real sequence such that

 

converges absolutely. Then if  ,

 

converges, where   is a complex sequence. Furthermore, for all  

 .

Proof 1:

We prove the theorem using lemma 5.1 and the comparison test.

Indeed, by lemma 5.1 the product

 

converges. Hence by theorem 5.2, we obtain convergence and the desired inequality. 

Proof 2 (without the inequality):

We prove the theorem except the inequality at the end from lemma 5.1 and by using the Taylor formula on  .

We define  . Then since every complex number satisfies  , we need to prove the convergence of the sequences   and  .

For the first sequence, we note that the convergence of   is equivalent to the convergence of  . Now for each  

 

Theorem 5.4 (Holomorphic products):

Let   be a sequence of holomorphic functions in a domain   such that for each   we can find a compact   and a sequence   such that   and

 

converges absolutely. Then

 

defines a holomorphic function.

Proof:

First, we note that   is well-defined for each   due to theorem 5.2. In order to prove that the product is holomorphic, we use the fact from complex analysis that if a sequence of functions converging locally uniformly to another function has infinitely many holomorphic members, then the limit is holomorphic as well. Indeed, we note by the inequality in theorem 5.3, that we are given uniform convergence. Hence, the theorem follows. 

Exercises

edit

The Weierstraß factorisation

edit

The following lemma is of great importance, since we can deduce three important theorems from it:

  1. The existence of holomorphic functions with prescribed zeroes
  2. The Weierstraß factorisation theorem (a way to write any holomorphic function made up from linear factors and the exponential)
  3. The Mittag-Leffler theorem (named after Gösta Mittag-Leffler (one guy))

Lemma 5.5:

Let   be a sequence of complex numbers such that

 

and

 .

Then the function

 

has exactly the zeroes   in the correct multiplicity.

Proof:

Define for each  

 .

Our plan is to prove that   converges uniformly in every subcircle of the circle of radius   for every  . Since the function   is holomorphic in a unit ball around zero, it is equal to its Taylor series there, i.e.

 .

Hence, for  

 .

Let now   be given and   be arbitrary. Then we have for  ,   arbitrary

 .

Now summing over  , we obtain

 

for all  . Hence, we have uniform convergence in that circle; thus the sum of the logarithms is holomorphic, and so is the original product if we plug everything into the exponential function (note that we do have   even if   is an arbitrary complex number). 

Note that our method of proof was similar to how we proved lemma 5.1. In spite of this, it is not possible to prove the above lemma directly from theorem 5.4 since the corresponding series does not converge if the   are chosen increasing too slowly.

Theorem 5.6 (Holomorphic functions with given zeroes):

Let   be a sequence of complex numbers which does not have an accumulation point. Then the function

 

has zeroes   with the right multiplicity, where the sequence   are the nonzero elements of the sequence   ordered ascendingly with respect to their absolute value and   is the number of zeroes within the sequence  .

Proof:

We order   increasingly according to the modulus   and the standard greater or equal order on the real numbers. We go on to observe that then  , since if it were to remain bounded, there would be an accumulation point according to the Heine–Borel theorem. Also, the sequence is zero only finitely many often (otherwise zero would be an accumulation point). After eliminating the zeroes from the sequence   we call the remaining sequence  . Let   the number of zeroes in  . Then due to lemma 5.5, the function

 

has the required properties. 

Theorem 5.7 (Weierstraß factorisation theorem):

Let   be holomorphic and not the constant zero function with zeroes  , let   are the nonzero elements of the sequence   ordered ascendingly with respect to their absolute value, and if  , let   be the order of the zero   of  . Then there exists a holomorphic function   such that

 .

Proof:

First, we note that   does not have an accumulation point, since otherwise   would be the constant zero function by the identity theorem from complex analysis. From theorem 5.6, we obtain that the function   has exactly the zeroes   with the right multiplicity, where the sequence   are the nonzero elements of the sequence   ordered ascendingly with respect to their absolute value and   is the number of zeroes within the sequence  . We have that   has no zeroes and is bounded and hence holomorphic due to Riemann's theorem on resolvable singularities. For, if   were unbounded, it would have a singularity at a zero   of  . This singularity can not be essential since dividing   by finitely many linear factors would eliminate that singularity. Hence we have a pole, and this would be resolvable by multiplying linear factors to  . But then   has a zero of the order of that pole, which is not possible since we may eliminate all the zeroes of   by writing  ,   holomorphic and nonzero at  , where   is the order of the zero of   at  .

Hence,   has a holomorphic logarithm on  , which we shall denote by  . This satisfies

 . 

Corollary 5.8 (Mittag-Leffler's theorem):

Let   be a sequence of complex numbers which does not have an accumulation point. Then there exists a meromorphic function   which has exactly the poles  , where the pole   has order  .

Proof:

From theorem 5.7 we obtain a function   with zeroes   in the right multiplicity. Set  . 

Exercises

edit

The Hadamard factorisation

edit

In this subsection, we strive to factor certain holomorphic functions in a way that makes them even easier to deal with than the Weierstraß factorisation. This is the Hadamard factorisation. It only works for functions satisfying a certain growth estimate, but in fact, many important functions occuring in analytic number theory do satisfy this estimate, and thus that factorisation will give us ways to prove certain theorems about those functions.

In order to prove that we may carry out a Hadamard factorisation, we need some estimates for holomorphic functions as well as some preparatory lemmata.

Estimates for holomorphic functions

edit

Theorem 5.9:

Let   be a holomorphic function such that  , and let   be the sequence of zeroes of that function ordered ascendingly by absolute value. Let  . If we denote the number of zeroes of   inside   by  , then

 .

Proof:

Set   and define the function   by

 ,

where the latter limit exists by developing   into a power series at   and observing that the constant coefficient vanishes. By Riemann's theorem on removable singularities,   is holomorphic. We now have

 ,

and if further  , then   and hence we may multiply that number without change to anything to obtain for  

 .

Now writing   and  , we obtain on the one hand

 

and on the other hand

 .

Hence,

 ,

which is why both   and   have the same distance to  , since   lies on the real axis.

Hence, due to the maximum principle, we have

 . 

Theorem 5.10:

Let  , let   be holomorphic within   and define  . Then

 .

Proof:

First, we consider the case   and  . We may write   in its power series form

 ,

where  . If we write   and  , we obtain by Euler's formula

 

and thus

 .

Since the latter sum is majorised by the sum

 ,

it converges absolutely and uniformly in  . Hence, by exchanging the order of integration and summation, we obtain

 

due to

 

and further for all  

 

due to

 ,

as can be seen using integration by parts twice and  . By monotonicity of the integral, we now have

 .

This proves the theorem in the case  . For the general case, we define

 .

Then  , hence by the case we already proved

 . 

Theorem 5.11:

Further preparations

edit

Definition 5.12 (exponent of convergence):

Let   be a sequence of complex numbers not containing zero such that

 

converges for a  . Then

 

is called the exponent of convergence of the sequence  .

Definition 5.13 (holomorphic functions of finite order):

Let   be holomorphic, and define for  

 .

If there exists   such that

 

for a suitable  , then   is said to be of finite order. In this case,

 

is called the order of  .

Lemma 5.14:

The theorem

edit

Exercises

edit