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 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 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 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 giving the effect of multiplication by⌊ ⌋k on a basis of approximate divisors, arranged in increasing order. The matrix ρ(1) is the , 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

The kernels ker(˜ρn) of these maps seem worthy of further study, but we will not treat them here. 1 2.4. Matrix Image of Dirichlet series ζ(s) and ζ(s) . We look at the image of the s s Riemann zeta function ζ(s)= k∞=1 k− and its inverse 1/ζ(s)= k∞=1 µ(k)k− under this homomorphism. View n as fixed. Define theP vector u := u to be a 1 s(n)Prow vector that has n × entries that sum the function 1 over those integers in the half-open intervals (m−, m] 6 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE for m . The lower triangular matrix Z := ρ (u ) is then a finite analogue of ∈ Sn n n n the Riemann zeta function. Cardinal also introduces a vector µ := µn whose entries sum the Möbius function over the interval (k−,k]; the corresponding inverse matrix 1 Zn− := ρn(µn) is then a finite analogue of the inverse of the Riemann zeta function.

Example 2.8. For n = 16 the vector u16 = (1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 3, 8). The matrix Zn for ρ16(u) is (omitting 0 entries)

ρ16(u) 12345816 1 1 2 1 1 3 1 0 1 Z = 16 4 1101 5 10001 8 321101 16 843221 1 Example 2.9. For n = 16 the inverse (Möbius) vector is µ = (1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1). 1 − − − The matrix Zn− = ρ16(µ) is

ρ16(µ) 1 2 3 4 5 816 1 1 2 -1 1 1 3 -1 0 1 (Z )− = 16 4 0 -1 0 1 5 -10 0 0 1 8 0 -1 -1 -1 0 1 16 1 -1 - 2 -1 -2 -1 1

3. CARDINAL’S ALGEBRA OF SYMMETRIC MATRICES 3.1. Cardinal’s Algebra has image. A key observation of Car- dinal concerns the image of the algebra under left multiplication by a matrix T An having ones above and on its antidiagonal ai,s+1 i, and zeros below the antidiagonal. An example of T for s =7 is given in example 3.2.− Cardinal showed ([3, Proposition 20]) the following result.

Theorem 3.1. (Cardinal) The linear map T : n Mats(n) s(n) given by A T A A → × 7→ has image in the set of real symmetric matrices Syms(n) s(n). × To put this result in perspective, when T multiplies on the left a general lower tri- angular matrix L, the resulting matrix T L is in general not symmetric. This symmetry property is a special property of elements of the algebra . This symmetry property An encodes the involution k k, which in turn encodes the identity in Proposition 3.5. Note that this map A 7→T A is not an algebra homomorphism, it preserves addition 7→ but it does not respect matrixb multiplication in general, i.e. usually T does not commute with all the elements of . An Example 3.2. For n = 16, we have s(n)=7 and the matrix T is (omitted entries are 0). The borders giving the values of the approximate divisors are not part of the matrix. NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 7

T 12345816 1 111111 1 2 111111 3 11111 T = 4 1111 5 1 1 1 8 1 1 16 1 Example 3.3. For n = 16, multiplication of the matrix ρ(2) by T yields a symmetric matrix T ρ16(2) (omitted entries are 0).

T ρ16(2) 12345816 1 111111 2 1111 3 1 1 T ρ (2) = 16 4 1 1 5 1 8 1 16

3.2. Cardinal’s -matrices. Cardinal now introduces an s s symmetric matrix n corresponding toU the zeta vector u: × U := T Z = T ρ (u). Un s n s n The following characterization of this matrix shows that it encodes the multiplication for the approximate divisors in a manifestly symmetric form, which we stated as the definition in the introduction of the paper.

Lemma 3.4. (Cardinal) Let K = diag(k1, ..., ks), where the kj run through the elements of = n in increasing order. Thus ki = ks+1 i. Then = n is the s s integer S S n − U U × matrix with entries i,j = . That is, U ⌊ kikj ⌋ b n/(k1k1) n/(k1k2) n/(k1ks 1) n/(k1ks) ⌊ ⌋ ⌊ ⌋ ··· ⌊ − ⌋ ⌊ ⌋ n/(k2k1) n/(k2k2) n/(k2ks 1) 0  ⌊ . ⌋ ⌊ . ⌋ ···. ⌊ . − ⌋ .  n = ...... U    n/(ks 1k1) n/(ks 1k2) 0 0  ⌊ n/(k−k ) ⌋ ⌊ 0− ⌋··· 0 0   s 1   ⌊ ⌋ ···  The fact that the matrix in Lemma 3.4 is symmetric easily follows from the following set of identities for the floor function [3, Lemma 6]. Proposition 3.5. (Cardinal) For all positive integers n, i, j, there holds 1 n 1 n n = = . ⌊ i ⌊ j ⌋⌋ ⌊j ⌊ i ⌋⌋ ⌊ij ⌋ These identities may be checked by a calculation. In fact that dilated floor function αx and βx never commute for real (α, β) except for the discrete family (α, β) = ⌊ ⌋ ⌋ ⌋ 8 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

1 1 ( i , j ) with i, j positive integers as given in Proposition 3.5, aside from three continuous families: α = β, α =0 and β =0, see [10]. Note that all entries on the anti-diagonal i + j = s +1 of are 1, since Un n i,s+1 i = =1 U − ⌊kiks i+1 ⌋ − Example 3.6. For n = 16 the matrix is (omitted entries are 0) Un

16 1 2345816 U1 1685432 1 2 8 42211 3 5 2111 = U16 4 4 211 5 3 11 8 2 1 16 1

The matrix is invertible, and since det( )= 1 it is also an . Un Un ± 1 Example 3.7. For the case n = 16 the matrix − is (omitted entries are 0) Un 1 ( 16)− 12 3 4 5 816 U 1 1 2 1 -2 1 3 1 -1 -1 ( )− = U16 4 1 -1 -1 1 5 1 -1 0 0 -1 8 1 -1-1 0 0 1 16 1-2-1 1 -1 1 2

4. CARDINAL’S MATRIX AND THE MERTENS FUNCTION Mn Cardinal also introduces an s s symmetric matrix n, that corresponds to the Möbius vector µ similarly. × M

4.1. Cardinal’s Matrix . Mn Definition 4.1. The s s symmetric matrix is defined by × Mn 1 = := T − T , M Mn s Un n in which Tn is an s(n) s(n) matrix having Tij =1 if i+j s(n)+1, and 0 otherwise (i.e. if s(n)+2 i +×j 2s(n)). ≤ ≤ ≤ Note that by definition of , one also has Un 1 = T (Z )− = T ρ(µ). Mn s n s Example 4.2. For n = 16 the matrix is: (omitted entries are 0) Mn NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 9

16 1 2 3 4 5816 M1 -1 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 1 2 -2-1 0 0 1 1 3 -2 0 1 1 1 = M16 4 -1 0 1 1 5 -1 1 1 8 0 1 16 1 A main result of Cardianal is that the entries of this matrix are expressible using the Mertens function M(x) := µ(j). 1 j x ≤X≤⌊ ⌋ Here we set M(x)=0 for 0 x< 1. ≤ Theorem 4.3. (Cardinal) The entries of n are exactly the Mertens function evaluation of the entries of , i.e. M Un ( ) = M( ), for i, j , Mn ij Uij ∈ Sn where M(x) is the Mertens function. That is

M( n/(k1k1) ) M( n/(k1k2) ) M( n/(k1ks 1) ) M( n/(k1ks) ) ⌊ ⌋ ⌊ ⌋ ··· ⌊ − ⌋ ⌊ ⌋ M( n/(k2k1) ) M( n/(k2k2) ) M( n/(k2ks 1) ) 0  ⌊ . ⌋ ⌊ . ⌋ ···. ⌊ . − ⌋ .  n = ...... M   M( n/(ks 1k1) ) M( n/(ks 1k2) ) 0 0   M⌊( n/(k−k ) )⌋ ⌊ 0 − ⌋ ··· 0 0   s 1   ⌊ ⌋ ···  Here again one has that all the anti -diagonal entries i + j = s +1 are given by n i,s+1 i = M( )= M(1) = 1. M − ⌊kiks i+1 ⌋ − 4.2. Riemann Hypothesis equivalence in terms of n. The Riemann hypothesis is nicely encoded in terms of a suitable bound on the normsM of these matrices . Mn Theorem 4.4. The following properties are equivalent. (i) For each ǫ> 0 there holds the estimate 1 +ǫ = O (n 2 ). ||Mn||F ǫ where 2 = s s 2 is the Frobenius matrix norm. ||M||F i=1 j=1 Mij (ii) The RiemannP hypothesisP holds. Proof. (i) (ii). The hypothesis (i) yields the upper bound ⇒ M(n)2 = 2 2 = O n1+2ǫ . |M11| ≤ ||Mn||F ǫ This upper bound on the the Mertens function is well-known toimply the Riemann hy- pothesis [19, Theorem 14.25(C)]. 10 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

(ii) (i). The Mertens function RH bound implies that ⇒ s s 2 = 2 ||Mn||F Mij i=1 j=1 X X s s n M( )2 ≤ k k i=1 j=1 i j X X s s n = O ( )1+ǫ ǫ k k i=1 j=1 i j ! X X ∞ 1 ∞ 1 = O n1+ǫ( ( )1+ǫ)( ( )1+ǫ) ǫ k k i=1 i j=1 j ! X X 1+ǫ = Oǫ n . Here we used the fact that the Mertens function is constant on unit intervals to remove the greatest integer function. The important thing is that the implied constant in the O-symbol does not depend on s = s(n). 

Cardinal observes empirically that the function n (using the l2 operator norm) seems to be a much smoother function than the Mertens||M || function M(n), i.e. it empiri- cally has smaller fluctuations.

Remark 4.5. The Frobenius norm n F mustbe atleast as large as its (1, 1)-th entry. Hence it must see fluctuations as large||M as|| those of M(n) in the upwards direction. The true order of growth of the Mertens function, assuming the truth of RH, is not known at present. Soundararajan [17] shows that the RH implies the upper bound M(n) = O √n exp((log x)1/2(log log x)14) | | His paper suggests that assuming conjectured bounds on the maximal size of L-functions (made by Farmer, Gonek and Hughes) one might be able to derive the stronger bound M(n) = O √n exp C(log log x)3 . | | ? Heuristics suggest that the upper bound is much smaller. Nathan Ng [Ng04, Theorem 1] shows, assuming unproved hypotheses, that

3 M(n) √n(log n) 2 . | | ≤ He notes that S. Gonek has conjectured that the best possible maximal order of magni- tude of M(n) will be of shape M(x) B√n(log log log n)5/4, | | ≤ where B > 0 is a constant. In the other direction it is known that the GUE hypothesis implies that M(n) lim sup | | =+ . n √n ∞ →∞ Kaczorowski [7] has proved a complementary result showing that for a certain analogue M ∗(n) of M(n) the fluctuations of M ∗(n) are at least of size √n log log log n. NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 11

5. DEFORMED VERSION OF CARDINAL MATRIX Un We define and study certain deformed matrices , of similar design to . All Un Un entries of are greater than or equal to the corresponding entry of , and any entry Un Un increase is less than one. Thus n is recoverable frome n by applying the floor function to each of itse entries. These areU modification of the deformatU ion proposed in [4]. e 5.1. Deformed Matrix . We now define and study certain deformed matrices , of Un Un similar design to . All entries of are greater than or equal to the corresponding Un Un entry of n, and any increasee is less than one. Thus n is recoverable from en by applyingU the floor function to each ofe its entries. U U e Definition 5.1. For n N, let T = T be the s s matrix with s = s(n) = #( ), ∈ s × Sn which has ones on and above the antidiagonal, and zeros elsewhere. That is, Ts =(tij), where t =1 if i + j s +1, and 0 else. ij ≤ 1 1 1 1 1 1 ··· 1 0 . . ···. . . T = ......   1 1 0 0 1 0 ··· 0 0    ···  1 Its inverse T − is the matrix with 1’s on the antidiagonal and ( 1)’s just below the antidiagonal. That is: −

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 ··· 0 1 1  ··· −  1 0 0 1 1 0 T − = . . ···. . −. . ......      0 1 0 0 0  1 1 ··· 0 0 0     − ···  Definition 5.2. For n N, define the row vector ∈ d =(d ,d , ..., d ) := √n/k , √n/k , , √n/k ), 1 2 s 1 2 ··· s where k runs through = in increasing order. Let D be the j S Sn D = diag(d1, ..., ds), and then set

= := DTD. U Un Then set e e 1 = := T − T. M Mn U We note an equivalent definition of . f Ufn e e 12 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

Proposition 5.3. The matrix is equal to Un n/(k1k1) n/(k1k2) n/(k1ks 1) n/(k1ks) ··· − n/(k2k1) e n/(k2k2) n/(k2ks 1) 0  . . ···. . − .  n = ...... U   n/(ks 1k1) n/(ks 1k2) 0 0  e  n/(k−k ) 0− ··· 0 0   s 1   ···  where k runs through in increasing order. That is, =(u ), where i S U ij n/(k k ): i + j s +1 u = i j e e ij 0 i + j ≤ s +2  ≥ Note the simple relationship: is obtained from by taking the greatest integer e Un Un part of each entry of n. U e Proof. As defined, e= DTD, and we have U d 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 d 0 0 0 1 ··· ··· 1 ··· 0 de2 0) 0 1 1 1 0 0 d2 0) 0  . . ···. . .  . . ···. . .  . . ···. . .  DTD = ......        0 0 ds 1 0  1 1 0 0  0 0 ds 1 0   0 0 ··· 0− d  1 0 ··· 0 0  0 0 ··· 0− d   ··· s  ···   ··· s  d d d d  d 0 0 0  1 1 ··· 1 1 1 ··· d2 d2 d2 0 0 d2 0 0  . . ···. . .   . . ···. . .  = ......     ds 1 ds 1 0 0   0 0 ds 1 0   d− 0− ··· 0 0   0 0 ··· 0− d   s   s  ···   ···  d1d1 d1d2 d1ds 1 d1ds ··· − d2d1 d2d2 d2ds 1 0  . . ···. . − .  = ......   ds 1d1 ds 1d1 0 0   d−d −0 ··· 0 0   s 1 ···  The proposition follows from noting that the entries of this final matrix are equal to the uij defined in the proposition statement. 

Example 5.4. For the case n = 16 the matrix n is (omitted entries are 0 ) e U 16 1 2 3 4 5 816 U1 16 8 16/3e 4 16/5 2 1 e2 8 4 8/3 2 8/5 1 3 16/3 8/3 16/9 4/3 16/15 = U16 4 4 2 4/3 1 5 16/5 8/5 16/15 e 8 2 1 16 1 NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 13

The matrix n can be viewed as a one-sided perturbation of n in which each entry is larger by someU amount between 0 and 1. U e We next define a matrix + = + := dT d (outer product), which has entries U Un + = n/(k k ), 1 i, j s. eUij b i j ≤ ≤ In the French preprint [4] this was Cardinal’s formal definition of a matrix which he b denoted ˜. This matrix has rank one, in consequence Cardinal’s formal definition of U 1 ˜ , which uses ˜− , becomes undefined. M U Example 5.5. For the case n = 16 the outer product matrix + = dT d is: U16 + 16 12 3 4 5e 8 16 U1 16 8 16/3 4 16/5 2 1 e2 8 4 8/3 2 8/5 1 1/2 3 16/3 8/3 16/9 4/3 16/15 2/3 1/3 + = U16 4 4 2 4/3 1 4/5 1/2 1/4 5 16/5 8/5 16/15 4/5 16/25 2/5 1/5 e 8 2 1 2/3 1/2 2/5 1/4 1/8 16 1 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/8 1/16

This matrix has rank one, and agrees with 16 on and above the antidiagonal. The difference matrix is: U

+ e 16 16 1234 5 8 16 U −1 U 0 e 2 e 0 1/2 3 0 2/3 1/3 + = U16 − U16 4 0 4/5 1/2 1/4 5 0 4/5 16/25 2/5 1/5 e e 8 0 2/3 1/2 2/5 1/4 1/8 16 0 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/8 1/16

The matrix n can be viewed as a one-sided perturbation of n in which each entry is larger by someU amount between 0 and 1. U e Remark 5.6. (1) On can recover the Cardinal matrix n from either of the matrices + U n and n by applying the floor function to each entry. Here n is also obtained by U U + U + applying the floor function to some entries of n , namely those entries of n that are strictlyf belowe the antidiagonal (the lower rightU corner), and whosee effect isU to zero out all of these entries. As a consequence is an invertiblef matrix, having determinantf the U n(n−1) product of the entries on the anti-diagonal, times ( 1) 2 . Furthermore all entries on − the antidiagonal are 1, so that det( e) 1. ≥ 1 | U | ≥ 1 (2) The structure of − is similar in shape to that of T − . Namely it is supported Un on the antidiagonal and the parallel antidiagonale under it, see the next example. 14 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

1 Example 5.7. For the case n = 16 the matrix − is (omitted entries are 0) Un 16 12 3e 4 5 8 16 U1 1 e2 1 -1/2 3 15/16 -3/2 = U16 4 1 -5/4 5 15/16 -5/4 e 8 1 -3/2 16 1 -1/2

6. DEFORMED MATRIX Mn In this section we show the proof idea of Cardinal on the deformed matrix given in [4] can be adjusted to work using the modified definitionf of ˜ given above. The argu- Un ment given follows [4] closely, but uses the Frobenius norm instead of the ℓ2 operator norm.

6.1. Deformed matrix n. We define the deformed Cardinal Mertens matrix n by following the same recipeM for , namely M M f 1 f := T ( )− . Mn Un Proposition 6.1. For the nonnegativef symmetrice s s real matrices Tn, n, n the fol- lowing hold. × U U e (1) T , where represents the inequality of corresponding entries. ≤P U ≤P U ≤P (2) For the valuese of in the upper-left corner of the matrix, we have , in the sense that for iU+ j s +1, U ≃ U ≤ e 0 1= T . ≤ Uij − Uij ≤ ij ≤ Uij (3) For the values of on the antidiagonal i + j = s +1, we have = T =1. U e Uij ij

Proof. The properties (1)-(3) follow by inspection. 

6.2. Bound for norm of deformed matrix . Our main observation is that the ||Mn||F norm of n F can be unconditionally estimated, and it satisfies the Riemann hypoth- esis bound.||M || f To estimatef the growth of n F , we first need a bound for Tn F . ||M || || || f Proposition 6.2. The matrix T = Ts(n) satisfies the Frobenius norm bound T = O(√n), || n||F NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 15

Proof. For a s s matrix A, let max A = max a . We use the general bound × | | | ij| s s A 2 = A 2 s2(max A )2, || ||F | ij| ≤ | | i=1 j=1 X X which gives A s max A . || ||F ≤ | | Here, applied to A = T , we have max A =1, and s = #S 2√n.  n | | ∼ Remark 6.3. It is clear that T √n, since T has 1 (2√n)2 entries equal to || n||F ≥ n ∼ 2 1. In terms of the l2-norm, it is also easy to see that lim inf Tn /√n 1. Indeed, let us consider the column vector w of size #S made up of 1s,|| and|| denote≥ its transpose by 2 w′. Because of the fact that #S 2√n we have w 2√n and also w′Tw 2n. ≃ || || ≃ ≃ The spectral radius of the symmetric matrix Tn, which is also the l2-norm of Tn, is thus w′Tw greater than w 2 √n. || || ≃

Now we can bound the size of the perturbed inverse matrix n elementwise, as follows. M Lemma 6.4. The deformed matrix has elements bounded by f Mn max ( n)i,j = O(log n). i,j | fM | 1 1 1 1 Proof. As n is defined to be DTD, wef have ( n)− = D− T − D− . We now calculate 1 1 U 1 U T − , D− , and ( n)− . 1 U (1) T −eis the matrix with 1’s on the antidiagonale and ( 1)’s just below the antidi- agonal. Thate is: −

1 1 1  1 1 −  1 . − T − =  ..  .      1   1 1    1 1 −    1 − (2) D− = diag(1/√n, ...,k/√n, ..., n/√n), where k runs through . S 1 1 (3) ( n)− has the same shape as T − in that the only nonzero entries are on and justU below the antidiagonal. 1 eTraversing the antidiagonal of ( n)− from the bottom left to the top right, kk U we get the terms n , where k runs through . As k = [n/k], it follows that each one of these terms lies between 0 ande 1. S kk+ Traversing just under the antidiagonal, we have the terms n , where k runs + − kk+ through n and k designates the successor of k in . Aswecan bound n S\{+ }+ S by (n/k)k = k C for some constant C (as shown in point 3 of Proposition n k ≤ 2.4 of [4], we can take C = 4+2√2). Thus each of these terms thus lies between C and 0. − 16 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

1 Now, we turn to = T ( )− T . Upon multiplying a general s s matrix A = Mn Un × (aij) on both sides by T , we see that the resulting matrix takes the form T AT = C = (cij), where f s+1 i s+1 j − − cij = akℓ. Xk=1 Xℓ=1 1 Thus, we see that obtaining the (i, j)-th term of n = T ( n)− T consists of sum- ming all the terms within the (s +1 i) (s +1 Mj) submatrixU starting located at the 1 − × −1 top left of ( n)− . Considering the form of ( n)− f– the onlye nonzero entries are on and just belowU the antidiagonal – and the fact thatU the matrix is symmetric, we conclude that each coefficiente of is the sum of at most:e Mn two sums of terms along the antidiagonal, each of the form (the two sums are • f 1 + the same as the matrix is symmetric) n k ,i k j k(k k ), where i and j are ∈S ≤ ≤ − fixed in , and j < √n S P and a sum of at most three terms at the center of the matrix, each of which is • between C and 1. − Now, since we have k < √n in the above sums, we have that k+ = k +1 and so each 1 of the two sums mentioned above simplifies to n k ,i k j k . Now, we have the − ∈S ≤ ≤ bound P  k k = [n/k] n/k n log √n, ≤ ≤ ∼ k ,i k j 1 k √n 1 k √n 1 k √n ∈SX≤ ≤ ≤X≤ ≤X≤ ≤X≤ and so we obtain

max = O(log n). |Mn|  f Lemma 6.4 immediately yields a bound for the Frobenius matrix norm . ||Mn||F Corollary 6.5. The Frobenius norm of satisfies Mn f = O(√n log n). ||Mn||F f Proof. Use Lemma 6.4 along with the inequality used in Proposition 6.1, which is f A s max A .  || ||F ≤ | |

Remark 6.6. The Frobenius norm upper bound O(√n log n) for n is better than the known Ω-bounds on the fluctuations of the Mertens’s function,M assuming RH. See Remark 4.5. f

Remark 6.7. Cardinal [3] reports that numerical experiments with the l2-operator norm suggest that the ratio /(√n log n) seems to tend to 0. He also remarks it is easy ||Mn|| to prove that max n / log n has a strictly positive limit (a result more precise than Lemma 6.4). It appears|M f| that the inequality A s max A gives away too much to || || ≤ | | deduce such a result.f NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 17

7. REMARKSON BOUNDING CARDINAL’S MATRIX ||Mn||F We would like to obtain upper bounds for , perhaps viewing as a pertur- ||Mn||F Mn bation of . One approach is first study its inverse compared to . The basic Mn Un Un quantity controlling the size of n F willbe the size of the smallest eigenvalue of n. ||M || 1 U This is becausef n is a fixed linear of the matrix T ( n)− and the largeste norm eigen- M 1 U value of the symmetric matrix ( )− is the reciprocal of the smallest norm (nonzero) Un eigenvalue of ). Note that det( )=1 and det( ) 1. Un Un Un ≥ e 7.1. Positivity property. Each of and and, especially, their difference matrix Un Un

En := en n U − U are nonnegative symmetric matrices. Perhapse the nonnegativity constraint can be put to some use. Note that the perturbation En has det(En)=0.

Example 7.1. For the case n = 16 the matrix En is (omitted entries are 0)

E16 1 2 3 4 5816 1 0 0 1/3 0 1/5 0 0 2 0 0 2/3 0 3/5 0 3 1/3 2/3 7/9 1/3 1/15 E = 16 4 0 0 1/3 0 5 1/5 3/5 1/15 8 0 0 16 0

+ Next we note that Cardinal’s original deformed matrix n is given by the outer prod- uct U

+ T e n := [d1,d2, ,ds] [d1d2, ..., ds] = [didj]1 i,j s U ··· ≤ ≤ which shows it is ae rank one matrix, hence non-invertible. It satisfies + . Un ≥N Un ≥N Un where A N B means A B is ae nonnegativee (symmetric) matrix. It follows that the larger difference≥ matrix −

E := + n Un − Un + exhibits a sufficiently large nonnegativee perturbatione to reach a very singular matrix n from . U Un e 18 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

Example 7.2. For the case n = 16 the larger difference matrix En is

E16 12 3 4 5 8 16 1 0 0 1/3 0 1/5 0e 0 e2 0 0 2/3 0 3/5 0 1/2 3 1/3 2/3 7/9 1/3 1/15 2/3 1/3 E = 16 4 0 0 1/3 0 4/5 1/2 1/4 5 1/5 3/5 1/15 4/5 16/25 2/5 1/5 e 8 0 0 2/3 1/2 2/5 1/4 1/8 16 0 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/8 1/16

This suggests that it will be hard to bound the smallest eigenvalue of n by a general matrix inequality. U

It may also be useful to study the difference matrix E+ := + . n Un − Un Here on has ˜ e+ e En = En + En. + Example 7.3. For the case n = 16 the difference matrix En is (omitted entries are 0 ) + E16 1234 5 8 16 1 0 2 0 1/2 3 0 2/3 1/3 E+ = 16 4 0 4/5 1/2 1/4 5 0 4/5 16/25 2/5 1/5 8 0 2/3 1/2 2/5 1/4 1/8 16 0 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/8 1/16

We can also define an upper triangular matrix Zn by

n = TnZn U e The matrix Zn is lower triangular, and we can compare it with Zn. In comparing these two matrices, in the range 1 j i es we havee ≤ ≤ ≤ e 1 < (Z Z ) < 1, − n − n i,j 1 a result which follows from the structure of Tn− . e Example 7.4. For n = 16 the matrix Zn is (omitted entries are 0)

Z16 12 3 4 5 816 1 1 e e2 1 1 3 6/5 3/5 16/15 Z = 16 4 4/5 2/5 4/15 1 5 4/3 2/3 4/9 1/3 16/15 e 8 8/3 4/3 8/9 2/3 8/15 1 16 8 4 8/3 2 8/5 1 1 NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 19

Example 7.5. For n = 16 the matrix W := Z Z f is (omitted entries are 0) n n − n W16 1 2 3 4 5816 1 0 e 2 0 0 3 1/5 3/5 1/15 W := Z Z = 16 16 − 16 4 -1/5 -3/5 4/15 0 5 1/3 2/3 4/9 1/3 1/15 e 8 -1/3 -2/3 -1/9 -1/3 8/15 0 16 0 0 -1/3 0 -2/50 0 As remarked above, all entries of W lie strictly between 1 and 1. The column sums n − of Wn are all nonnegative, since they can be shown to coincide with the first row of U . Un − n 7.2. Continuous deformations. To understand the structure of eigenvalues and eigen- e vectors of Cardinal’s matrices n one might try deforming the Cardinal matrix n in other fashions, along a smoothU path, in which it remains skew upper triangular,U and symmetric, with numbers close to 1 on the diagonal. These are homotopy paths and it might be interesting to use T = Ts(n) as the base point. One can get to the matrix n starting from the matrix T by making non-negative in- creasing changes in entries aboveU the anti-diagonal, leaving zeros below the diagonal, and only allowing such deformations with all deformed matrices remaining symmet- ric. This preserves the reality of the eigenvalues during the deformation, which vary continuously. The eigenvalues of T are all equal to 1 and 1, as equal as possible in number. They may mismatch in number by at most 1, noting− that the trace of T is 0 or 1 depending on whether s is even or odd. Under a continuous symmetric deformation, no eigenvalue can change sign, because a symmetric matrix has real eigenvalues and eigenvalue 0 cannot occur because the anti-diagonal elements remain positive, so the sign of the determinant stays fixed. We note that there are about s different values of n giving Cardinal matrices n having the same size s, because s(n) jumps by 1 only at values n = k(k + 1) or kU2. The Cardinal algebras n of these different n are not the same in general. However the number of such matricesA is much less than the total set of deformation parameters that 1 2 maintain symmetry of the matrix, which is about 4 s . An interesting question is the structure of deformations for which there is an underlying rank s commutative algebra 1 of lower triangular matrices (obtained by applying T − that simultaneously is being deformed along the deformation path. Perhaps requiring such an extra property would restrict the allowable set of deformations to better match the number of sample matrices.

8. CONCLUDING REMARKS The Riemann hypothesis can also be related to the the size of the smallest eigenvalue (in absolute value) of n. Its truth requires that this eigenvalue not get too close to 0. This property might beU viewed as a kind of level repulsion phenomenon. It might be useful to get more general information about the eigenvalues of . Un (1) How do the positive eigenvalues and (absolute values of )negative eigenvalues of interact. Do they interlace? Un 20 JEFFREYC.LAGARIASANDDAVIDMONTAGUE

(2) Does interlacing of eigenvalues hold when increasing n to n +1, or whether they change in a simple way. Only a few entries in the matrix n change in going from n to n +1. U (3) What happens to the eigenvalues at the special values n = k2 or k(k +1) where the size of the Cardinal matrices increases by one. One can break this jump in half by building additional Cardinal matrices using the ceiling function instead of the floor function. This adds another row and column to the matrix and some interesting features emerge.

The Cardinal algebra n is a kind of “finite-dimensional quantization" of the alge- bra of Dirichlet series. itA is an interesting construction half way between addition and multiplication. It has added in a nice way “approximate divisors" which increase the number of divisors of n from d(n) to about 2√n. Recall that the number of divisors function d(n) = O(nǫ) for any ǫ > 0. The commutativity property of the resulting algebra seems very important. The symmetry property of the matrices may be a finite- dimensional vestige of the symmetry under s 1 s given in the functional equation of the Riemann zeta function. If that were so,→ then− the matrix T might be associated with the Euler factor at the real place. We now remark on various numerology connected with n and n +1 together that has appeared recently in several different number-theory contexts. In a paper of the first author with Harsh Mehta [9] we observed in a context of products of Farey fractions, but also potentially related to the Riemann hypothesis, functions with jumps that occur at a subset of these values k2 and k(k + 1), which arise in part as an artifact of Dirich- let’s hyperbola method. In another direction, work on splitting of polynomials of the first author with B. L. Weiss [11] led to the discovery by interpolation in a variable z of measures defined on each symmetric group Sn at z = p, a prime, to a signed measure at on the symmetric group Sn at the value z = 1, which combines symmetric group rep- resentations from Sn and Sn 1 in an interesting way, and has an internal multiplicative structure respecting integer multiplication− on n. This is being explored further in work in progress with Trevor Hyde. Might there exist a family of finite-dimensional quantum integrable systems, with parameter n increasing to infinity, with a (possibly nonlinear) difference operator as a Hamiltonian, acting on a space of dimension higher than one, which can explain all these numerological coincidences? Acknowledgments. This work began in 2009, as part of an REU project at the Uni- versity of Michigan, in which the first author mentored the second author. The authors thank the University of Michigan for support.

REFERENCES [1] Wayne W. Barrett, Rodney W. Forcade and Andrew D. Pollington, On the spectral radius of a (0, 1) matrix related to Mertens’ function, Appl. 107 (1988), 151–159. [2] Wayne W. Barrett and Tyler J. Jarvis, Spectral properties of a matrix of Redheffer, in: Directions in Matrix Theory, Auburn, AL, 1990, Linear Algebra Appl. 162/164 (1992), 673–683. [3] J. P. Cardinal, Symmetric matrices related to the Mertens function, Linear Algebra and Its Applica- tions 432 (2010), 161–172. [4] J. P. Cardinal, Une suite de matrices symétriques en rapport avec la fonction de Mertens, eprint: arXiv: 0807.4145v3 [math.NT] 28 Jul 2008. NOTESONCARDINAL’SMATRICES 21

[5] D. A. Cardon, Matrices related to Dirichlet series, J. Number Theory 130 (2010), no. 1, 27–39. [6] Stephen P. Humphries, Cogrowth of groups and a matrix of Redheffer, Linear Algebra Appl. 265 (1997) ,101117. [7] J. Kaczorowski, Results on the Möbius function, J. London Math. Soc. 75 (2007), 509–521. [8] J. C. Lagarias, A family of measures on symmetric groups and the field with one element, J. Number Theory, to appear. [9] J. C. Lagarias and H. Mehta, Products of Farey Fractions, Experimental Math., to appear. [10] J. C. Lagarias, T. Maruyama and D. H. Richman, Dilated floor functions that commute, in prepara- tion. [11] J. C. Lagarias and B. L. Weiss, Splitting behavior of Sn-polynomials, Res. Number Theory 1 (7) (2015), 30 pp. [12] M. Mirzakhani, A simple proof of a theorem of Schur, Amer. Math. Monthly 105 (1998), 260–262. [13] Nathan Ng, The distribution of the summatory function of the Möbius function, Proc. London Math. Soc. 89 (2004), 361–389. [14] Ray Redheffer, Eine explizit lösbare Optimierungsaufgabe, in: Numerische Methoden bei Opti- mierungsaufgaben, Band 3, Tagung, Math. Forschungsinst., Oberwolfach, 1976, in: Internat. Ser. Numer. Math., vol. 36, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1977, pp. 213–216. [15] Donald W. Robinson and Wayne W. Barrett, The Jordan 1-structure of a matrix of Redheffer, Linear Algebra Appl. 112 (1989), 57–73. [16] I. Schur, Zur Theorie der Verauschbären Matrizen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 130 (1905), 66–76. [17] K. Soundararajan, Partial sums of the Möbius function, J. Reine Angew. Math. 631 (2009), 141– 152. [18] F. Tenenbaum Introduction to analytic and probabilistic number theory, Third Edition. American Math. Society: Providence RI 2015 [19] E. C. Titchmarsh, Revised by D. R. Heath-Brown, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta Function, Ox- ford Univ. Press: Oxford 1986. [20] R. C. Vaughan, On the eigenvalues of Redheffer’s matrix. I. in: Number theory with an Emphasis on the Markoff Spectrum, Provo, UT 1991, Lect. Notes Pure Applied Math., vol. 147, Dekker, New York 1993, pp. 283–296. [21] R. C. Vaughan, On the eigenvalues of Redheffer’s matrix. II. J. Australian Math. Soc. Ser. A 60 (1996), 260–273.

DEPT. OF MATHEMATICS,UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, ANN ARBOR, MI 48109-1043, E-mail address: [email protected]

DEPT. OF MATHEMATICS, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, STANFORD, CA 94305 E-mail address: [email protected]