arXiv:1511.08154v1 [math.NT] 25 Nov 2015 M-412.Tescn uhrswr a upre yteN the by supported was work author’s second The DMS-1401224. where U ± neesi nitrsigwy sn loteflo function floor the also using way, interesting an in integers htti arxhas matrix this that ignl n are and diagonal, n value and ae by taken n elblthem label we and n oun from columns and matrices eo.Ec fteemtie a eotie rmteother. the from obtained be can matrices these of Each below. arcs where matrices, P aesm eaieetisaoeteatdaoa.Oeo Ca its of antidiagonal One the above antidiagonal. entries the the above that entries negative some have that prove can One tityblwteatdaoa n l values all and antidiagonal the below strictly hetyof entry th n 1 h rtato’ okwsprilyspotdb S grants NSF by supported partially was work author’s first The adnldfie eodmatrix, second a defines Cardinal 1991 Date n21 enPu adnl[]itoue o each for introduced [3] Cardinal Jean-Paul 2010 In esatwt enn adnlsbscmatrix basic Cardinal’s defining with start We j Teatdaoa nre r the are entries antidiagonal (The . noeifrainmxn oehrteadtv n multip and additive the together mixing information encode ≤ x µ oebr2,21,v24. 2015, 21, November : T ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics nhsMresmtie ntenwnr.W loseiyadefo a specify bound. also bound hypothesis suit We norm Riemann a to norm. satisfy unconditionally hypothesis new that the Riemann matrices in Mertens Usin the matrices of Mertens hypothesis. equivalence his on Riemann show an the He show implied we function. matrices norm Mertens his the on to bounds related matrices symmetric A ( j ⌊ sasur arxo h aesz,having size, same the of matrix square a is BSTRACT U ) 0 n k n ⌋ steMresfnto fpienme hoy h nre b entries The theory. number prime of function Mertens the is U taletissrcl eo h niignl Clearly antidiagonal. the below strictly entries all at and when n is s hs oe r oiae ytewr fJa-alCardinal Jean-Paul of work the by motivated are notes These . M 0 ⌊ = k taletisblwteatdaoa,cneunl thsd has it consequently antidiagonal, the below entries all at k 1 k s 1 n i EFE .LGRA N AI MONTAGUE DAVID AND LAGARIAS C. JEFFREY M n s k 2 usfrom runs to OE NCRIA’ MATRICES CARDINAL’S ON NOTES 1 = j ( osrce sn e f“prxmt iios of divisors" “approximate of set a using constructed n ⌋ ≈ n n a hwta uhmtie aevalue take matrices such that show can One . s ) )Aletisaoeteatdaoa r oiie tfollo It positive. are antidiagonal the above entries All .) a iia atr fetisto entries of pattern similar a has k , 4 sabout is n 2 .,k ..., , nre n bu afo hmaenneo h matrices The nonzero. are them of half about and entries 1 to .I 1. M 2 s √ n = M n hs auscmrs h prxmt divisors, approximate the comprise values These . ( n NTRODUCTION rmr 10;Scnay1R2 22,12E25. 12E20, 11R32, Secondary 11R09; Primary ,j i, := n Here . n yterecipe the by , nicesn order. increasing in ) T ( etiswith -entries 1 ,j i, ( U s n ) ( 1 ) t nr is entry -th n − U ) nteatdaoa,bti a now may it but antidiagonal, the on 1 n T, onstenme fdsic values distinct of number the counts tahdt ninteger an to attached 1 so n bv h anti-diagonal, the above and on ’s Fa ato nRUproject. REU an of part as SF i n + ftesm tegha this as strength same the of M-812 M-117 and DMS-1101373 DMS-0801029 . ≥ M j U = dta eti norm certain that ed 1 ( n ifrn matrix different a g ⌊ iaiesrcue fthe of structures licative mdvrino his of version rmed ohmtie are matrices Both nhvn l values all having in , dnlsmi eut is results main rdinal’s benr bounds norm able w ymti integer symmetric two s k i det( n 1 + k j ⌋ ) ubrn rows numbering , M where , ncertain on n 1 n det( = ) nteanti- the on The . eterminant n defined , lwthe elow M ( ( s x ,j i, U = ) × ws n ) ) 0 s - . 2 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE antidiagonal are also Mertens function values, since in that case M( n )= M(0) = ⌊ kikj ⌋ 0. We might therefore name this matrix a Mertens matrix. 1 +ǫ Cardinal [3, Theorem 24] proves that an upper bound O(n 2 ) on the growth of the norms of the matrices measured in the ℓ operator norm implies the Riemann Mn 2 hypothesis holds. He gives numerical plots of the norms of n for small n supporting this upper bound. M Cardinal’s results are structural. He relates these matrices to finite-dimensional quo- tient algebras of the algebra of Dirichlet series, and proves that his quotient algebras are commutative and associative matrix algebras, which are lower triangular. His Propo- sition 3.5 about floor functions is important in establishing that certain linearly trans- formed versions of the matrices in the algebra giverise to symmetric matrices, including n and n. U In theM 2008 French preprint version [4] of this paper Cardinal introduced additionally + a deformed version n of his matrix n, whose entries when rounded down by the floor function yield . HeU then proposedU to define by the same recipe a deformed version of Un the Mertens matrix e n as M + + 1 := T ( ˜ )− T . Mn s Un s He presented an argument giving a matrix norm for the perturbed matrix, asserting that it satisfied the Riemann hypothesisf bound. Unfortunately his argument failed because + his definition of a deformed matrix n had rank one, so was not invertible. Perhaps be- cause of this no discussion of deformedU matrices appeared in the author’s final English version of his paper. Cardinal’s argument,e though flawed, has serious content, and we obtain below a modified result where it works. 1.1. Results. Much of this note consists of an exposition of Cardinal’s results in a very slightly different notation, presenting similar numerical examples. The main new contributions are the following. (1) We use a different family of matrix norms, the Frobenius norms. We prove that the Riemann hypothesis is equivalent to a suitable growth bound on the Frobenius matrix norms n F (Theorem 4.4). The choice of the family of norms possibly matters to||M obtain|| an equivalence because the dimensionality of the matrices goes to infinity as n . →∞ (2) We introduce in Section 6.2 a natural modified definition of deformed matrix n, that applies the floor function to “half" of Cardinal’s deformed matrix, whichU is 1 entrywise close to n. We set n := T ( n)− T and prove for n uncon-e ditionally a FrobeniusU norm upperM bound ofU the same strength as theM Riemann hypothesis bound above (Corollaryf 6.5). Thise proof follows the ideasf given in Cardinal’s 2008 French preprint [4]. 1.2. Related work. There is earlier work on integer matrices having a determinant related to the Mertens function ([1], [15], [2], [20], [21], [6]). This work concerns Red- heffer’s matrix, named after Redheffer [14]. It is an interesting question to determine if there are relations between Redheffer’s matrix and Cardinal’s matrix. Recent work of n Cardon [5] makes a connection of the Redheffer matrix with the quantities k appear- ing in Cardinal’s matrix. ⌊ ⌋ NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 3
1.3. Matrix norms. In this paper we bound matrices using the Frobenius matrix norm n n M 2 := M 2. || ||F | ij| i=1 j=1 X X In Cardinal’s paper [3] the matrix norm M on an n n complex matrix is taken || || × to be the l2 operator norm Mv 2 M := max || || , || || v Cn,v=0 v 2 ∈ 6 || || 2 n 2 where v = i=1 vi . For symmetric real matrices M this norm bound coincides with the|| spectral|| radius| of| the matrix. P 2. CARDINAL’S ALGEBRA OF APPROXIMATE DIVISORS Cardinal’s paper is concerned with matrices encoding properties of “approximate di- visors" of n. The surprising property they have is of forming a commutative subalgebra n of lower triangular matrices, of rank s = s(n). A These matrices encode information mixing together the additive and multiplicative structures of the integers in an interesting way.
2.1. Approximate Divisors. First, Cardinal introduces “approximate divisors" of n (our terminology). The number of such divisors is on the order of twice the square root of n.
n Definition 2.1. Let n be the set of distinct integers of the form k : 1 k n . Let S {⌊ ⌋ ≤ ≤ } s = s(n) := #( ), Sn so that s(n)=2 √n , or 2 √n 1. ⌊ ⌋ ⌊ ⌋ − + The set = − consists of all integers in Sn Sn Sn − := j : 1 j √n , S Sn { ≤ ≤ ⌊ ⌋} together with the complementary set n + := : 1 j √n . Sn {⌊ j ⌋ ≤ ≤ ⌊ ⌋} These sets are disjoint if m(m +1) n< (m +1)2 and they have exactly one element in common, namely m = √n , if m≤2 n < m(m + 1). He shows [3, Prop. 4]: ⌊ ⌋ ≤ Lemma 2.2. (Cardinal) Number the elements of in increasing order as ki, 1 i s, so k =1,k = n. The map : defined byS ≤ ≤ 1 s S → S n ki := = ks+1 i, b ⌊ki ⌋ − + is an involution exchanging and −. Sn b Sn Example 2.3. For n = 16 the approximate divisors are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 16 . The invo- { } lution acts 1=16, 16=1, and 2=8, 8=2, and 3=5, 5=3 and 4=4.
b b b b b b b 4 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE
2.2. Cardinal’s Multiplication Algebra . Cardinal associates to an integer n a An commutative, associative algebra n of lower triangular matrices of dimension s in- side the s s matrices, for which heA gives generators. The generators give the effect of “multiplication× by a fixed divisor" on the this algebra.
Theorem 2.4. (Cardinal) The algebra has rank s and is spanned by the s s matri- An × ces ρn(k); k n, where k runs over the set of approximate divisors of n, which are } ∈ S n all integers of the form k . Each matrix ρn(k) is a lower triangular matrix giving the effect of multiplication by⌊ ⌋k on a basis of approximate divisors, arranged in increasing order. The matrix ρ(1) is the identity matrix, and all other ρn(k) are lower triangular nilpotent. This algebra is commutative.
The commutativity property is a consequence of the identities in Proposition 3.5.
Example 2.5. For n = 16 the multiplication by k matrices ρ(k) for k = 2, 3, 4, 5 are given below (omitted entries are 0). All these matrices are nilpotent.
ρ16(2) 12345816 1 2 1 3 ρ (2) = 16 4 1 5 8 1 1 16 1 1
ρ16(3) 12345816 1 2 3 1 ρ (3) = 16 4 5 8 1 16 1 1 1
ρ16(4) 12345816 1 2 3 ρ (4) = 16 4 1 5 8 1 16 1 1 NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 5
ρ16(5) 12345816 1 2 3 ρ (5) = 16 4 5 1 8 16 1 1
Remark 2.6. The algebra n is not semi-simple. In fact all its generators, aside from the identity element, are nilpotent.A It has dimension exactly s, equal to its size. (Com- mutative subalgebras of matrix algebras over C can have larger dimension than their 1 2 size s for s 6. The maximal dimension is 4 s +1, a result found by I. Schur [?]. A simple proof≥ was given by Mirzakhani [12]).⌊ ⌋
2.3. Dirichlet Series and Cardinal’s Multiplication Algebra n. Cardinal showed the algebra to be a homomorphic image of the algebra of formalA Dirichlet series. An Let Z denote the Z-algebra of all (formal) Dirichlet series D ∞ s D(s)= ann− n=1 X with integer coefficients an Z. Here addition on Dirichlet series coefficients is point- wise and multiplication is Dirichlet∈ convolution, see Tenenbaum [18, Sect. 2.3]. We describe a (formal) Dirichlet series by the row vector u =(a , a , a , ) of its coeffi- 1 2 3 ··· cients. The invertible elements in Z are those with a1 = 1. D c ± If we restrict to the subalgebra Z of Dirichlet series that absolutely converge to a function f(s) on some right half-plane,D then viewed as such functions on a half- plane, these algebra operations correspond to pointwise addition and multiplication of the functions in their joint convergence domain. For an integer 1 j < n, we let the minus operator give to each k the value k− ≤ that is its predecessor of , and we artificially define 1− := 0. If 1 k < √n then Sn ≤ ⌊ ⌋ k− = k 1. Cardinal’s− analysis implies the following result [5, Propositions 9 to 13.].
Theorem 2.7. (Cardinal) The map ρ˜ : Z given by n D →An s akk− ak ρn(m) 7→ − k 1 m n m