• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

NOTES ON CARDINAL’S MATRICES JEFFREY C. LAGARIAS AND DAVID MONTAGUE ABSTRACT. These notes are motivated by the work of Jean-Paul Cardinal on certain symmetric matrices related to the Mertens function. He showed that certain norm bounds on his matrices implied the Riemann hypothesis. Using a different matrix norm we show an equivalence of the Riemann hypothesis to suitable norm bounds on his Mertens matrices in the new norm. We also specify a deformed version of his Mertens matrices that unconditionally satisfy a norm bound of the same strength as this Riemann hypothesis bound. 1. INTRODUCTION In 2010 Jean-Paul Cardinal [3] introduced for each n 1 two symmetric integer ≥ matrices n and n constructed using a set of “approximate divisors" of n, defined below. EachU of theseM matrices can be obtained from the other. Both matrices are s s matrices, where s = s(n) is about 2√n. Here s(n) counts the number of distinct values× taken by n when k runs from 1 to n. These values comprise the approximate divisors, ⌊ k ⌋ and we label them k1 =1,k2, ..., ks = n in increasing order. We start with defining Cardinal’s basic matrix n attached to an integer n. The (i, j)- n U th entry of n is . One can show that such matrices take value 1 on the anti- U ⌊ kikj ⌋ diagonal, and are 0 at all entries below the antidiagonal, consequently it has determinant 1. (The antidiagonal entries are the (i, j)-entries with i + j = s +1, numbering rows and± columns from 1 to s.) All entries above the antidiagonal are positive. It follows that this matrix has s2 4n entries and about half of them are nonzero. The matrices ≈ n encode information mixing together the additive and multiplicative structures of the integersU in an interesting way, using also the floor function. Cardinal defines a second matrix, , by the recipe Mn arXiv:1511.08154v1 [math.NT] 25 Nov 2015 1 := T ( )− T, Mn Un where T is a square matrix of the same size, having 1’s on and above the anti-diagonal, and value 0 at all entries strictly below the antidiagonal. Clearly det( ) = det( ). Mn Un One can prove that n has a similar pattern of entries to n, in having all values 0 strictly below the antidiagonalM and all values 1 on the antidiagonal,U but it may now have some negative entries above the antidiagonal. One of Cardinal’s main results is that the entries above the antidiagonal its (i, j)-th entry is M( n ), where M(x) = ⌊ kikj ⌋ j x µ(j) is the Mertens function of prime number theory. The entries below the ≤ PDate: November 21, 2015, v24. 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 11R09; Secondary 11R32, 12E20, 12E25. The first author’s work was partially supported by NSF grants DMS-0801029 DMS-1101373 and DMS-1401224. The second author’s work was supported by the NSF as part of an REU project. 1 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.

Load more

  21

Copy Link