![Arxiv:2001.02405V1 [Math.NT]](http://data.docslib.org/img/39719306a8fa78556d926eff73a0afb0-1.webp)
arXiv:2001.02405v1 [math.NT] 8 Jan 2020 where 1o aepr 3) h estimate the [3]), Davenport of 21 zero elzr nti ein hc aifis ySiegel’s by satisfies, which region, this in zero real oGowl–aduTthas c.Catr1 fDvnot[3]) Davenport of 14 Chapter (cf. Gronwall–Landau–Titchmarsh to opeeymlilctv xeso fteLgnr yblto symbol Legendre the of extension multiplicative completely siae) elnnpicplcharacters non-principal Real estimates). ouo1 h lsia us eofe ein o Dirichlet for regions zero-free quasi t classical is The character 1. principal primitive modulo only the for characters, principal characters eo in zeros { sa is for as the udai ubrfield number quadratic s e od n phrases. and words Key 2010 Write 1 | ninteger An ∈ q D udai iihe character Dirichlet quadratic > β udmna discriminant fundamental ∈ → | C c ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics eso f“oSee eo”frodra hrcesof characters real odd for zeros” Siegel “no of version then l fa plcto,w hwta h uniform the that show we application, an of ple Abstract. and u euti .[]tgte ihatermo hn 1 nzero-fr on [1] Chang of theorem a with together [9] T. in result our a ozrsi h region the in zeros no has 0 ON Z | Q s > ≥ 1 2 0 + 2 ( = f χ in ssm ffcieycmual osat(f et-rw 5 for [5] Heath-Brown (cf. constant computable effectively some is 0 ℜ q hl ecalled be shall , ∞ < σ < : when ) ℜ ( D σ (mod Z Q L L ( where , ≥ ′ ∈ + L ( (1 L 2 q ′ Z (1 χ , → when ) it Let ( { \ χ , )) q K/ σ R ∈ χ 1 fteDirichlet the if ) 0 + ≪ q } )) ucinstsyn 2 satisfying function a } C Q β scmlx(.. o el,adhsa otoera simple real one most at has and real), not (i.e., complex is aiyo regions of family A . ≥ it Dirichlet scle a called is lentvl,testo udmna iciiat a eexplicit be may discriminants fundamental of set the Alternatively, . p D N EOFE EIN NEAR REGIONS ZERO-FREE AND (with χ ∈ ea integer, an be 2 s f =max := sra teso-called (the real is ( C ∈ q us zero-free quasi 1 log( )
C − > σ σ 1 1 L HITA T CHRISTIAN
1. β fnto,zr-rergos oaihi derivative. logarithmic regions, zero-free -function, q n ( and udmna discriminant fundamental = σ D { χ nfrl o primitive for uniformly ) 1 Introduction β D ≥ − ℜ ≪ ∈ ( : f 12,1M6 11N37. 11M26, 11M20, 1 ε s L D ( 1 Z ), − q χ R | -function D ) 1 χ ≤ | ∋ , (mod t k log( | D | f | ε i the (in sthe is ) = t L k ( | (mod AFULA ´ q Q < ( ) ℑ q 7→ ( ,χ β, q ∀ ( ≪ iglzero Siegel 1 ( rmtv iihe character, Dirichlet primitive a ) | c = > ε s t − non-effective 0 abc ( | log( ) n osdrthe consider and )), D L D | 2)) + q q Q D p 0 = ) o ( cnetr mle strong a implies -conjecture apc)frpiiieDirichlet primitive for -aspect) rnce symbol Kronecker | (1) 0) ,χ s, ( q f | k a aea otoesimple one most at have can ) q .W hwta,if that, show We ). ( sot oui yusing by moduli, -smooth ) ) q χ fi stedsrmnn fsome of discriminant the is it if log( ) 1 = ) {− ∈ { ⊆ } (mod .Nt htti excludes this that Note ). , Here, . L q s P ) fntos attributed -functions, 1 ) hoe c.Chapter (cf. theorem q Z ∈ , n .A nexam- an As ). eregions. ee 0 , The . etiilcharacter trivial he ≥ , C 1 1 χ r ie by given are , χ } D | ( n where 0 (mod χ L s hc sa is which , rtclstrip critical ) ( D n 1 = < σ < ,χ s, − saereal are ’s s ) explicit D a no has | D ∈ | is ) 1 Z ly } , 2 CHRISTIAN TAFULA´
primitive Dirichlet characters modulo D , and they constitute a complete list of real primitive Dirichlet characters (cf. Satz| | 4, 5 of Zagier [10]). In this paper, we are going to consider quasi§ zero-free regions of the type 1 1 ( ) (q, f) := s C σ > 1 , t < 1 , ∗ Q ∈ − f(q) | | − ( f(q) log(q))
where f : Z 2 R is a real-valued function of q satisfyingp 2 f(q) log(q). Although a seemingly≥ → restrictive hypothesis, the effect of the zero≤s outside≪ of the height 1 box s C 0 <σ< 1, t < 1 will be negligible for our purposes. In Subsection 3.2,{ we∈ will| use the zero-free| | regions} derived in Theorem 10 of Chang [1], but restricted to the height 1 box (for a broader discussion on zero-free regions, refer to Iwaniec [6], Heath-Brown [5], Chang [1]). Theorem. If = (q, f) (as defined in ( )) is quasi zero-free, then Q Q ∗ L (1, χ) ′ = O f(q) log(q) (q + ) ℜ L(1, χ) → ∞ p uniformly for complex primitive χ (mod q). For real characters, it holds that
L (1, χ ) 1 ′ D = O f( D ) log( D ) ( D + ), L(1, χ ) − 1 β | | | | | |→ ∞ D D − p where βD := max β R L(β, χD)=0 . { ∈ | } L′ In plain words, this says that: save for Siegel zeros, the real part of L (1, χ) is uniformly bounded (in the q-aspect) by the geometric mean between f and log. The key ingredient in the proof is a remarkably simple inequality (see Lemma 2.2 (iii)) involving the following pairing function (cf. Subsection 2.4 of T. [9]): 1 1 1 1 (1.1) Π (s) := + + + , ε s + ε s + ε 1 s + ε 1 s + ε − − defined for s,ε C such that ε = s, s, 1+ s, 1+ s. Since the non-trivial zeros ̺ of L(s, χ) appear∈ in pairs ̺,6 1− ̺−, with− ̺,−1 ̺ being non-trivial zeros of {L′ − } { − } L(s, χ), one can estimate 4 ( L (1, χ)) by considering the sum of Π0(̺) over all the non-trivial zeros of L(s, χ),ℜ which is done through the classical Hadamard product formula for completed Dirichlet L-functions (cf. Section 12 of Davenport [3] for details). This shall be described in Lemma 2.1. The bounds from this theorem are much weaker than O(log log(q)), which is what one expects from the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH), as will be 1 described in Subsection 3.1. They are enough, however, to obtain (1 βD)− = o(log( D )) as D through highly smooth negative fundamental discriminants− from Chang’s| | zero-free→ −∞ regions [1], using the same methods from T. [9] (which are based on Granville–Stark [4]). In other words, one can derive a strong form of “no Siegel zeros” for odd characters of fundamental discriminants with small prime divisors — cf. Subsection 3.2 for more precise definitions and results.
described as those integers D Z which satisfy either: (i) D 1 (mod 4) and D is square-free; or (ii) D 0 (mod 4), D/4 2 or∈ 3 (mod 4), and D/4 is square-free.≡ ≡ ≡ ′ ℜ L ON ( L (1,χ)) AND ZERO-FREE REGIONS NEAR s = 1 3
Remark (Non-primitive characters). The restriction to primitive characters is some- what immaterial. Recall that a Dirichlet character is primitive if there is no d q, | d = q for which χ factors through (Z/qZ)× ։ (Z/dZ)×. Thus, if χ (mod q) fac- 6 tors through (Z/dZ)× as χ′ (mod d) for some d q, then χ(p) = χ′(p) for all but finitely many primes p, which are those p for which| p q but p ∤ d (implying | χ(p)=0 = χ′(p)). This means that the Euler products of L(s, χ) and L(s, χ′) differ from each6 other by only finitely many terms, and thus the only possible zeros of L(s, χ) which are not zeros of L(s, χ′) occur at (s) = 0. Hence, if the function f in ( ) satisfies “d q = f(d) f(q)”, then itℜ suffices to consider the restriction to non-principal∗ characters.| ⇒ In spite≤ of that, we shall keep this restriction, since the zero-free regions in Theorem 10 of Chang [1] are given in this form.
Notation. For a Dirichlet character χ (mod q), we write “ ̺(χ)” for an infinite sum over the non-trivial zeros ̺ = β + iγ (i.e., 0 <β< 1) of L(s, χ), which should be P understood in the principal value sense limT + ̺, γ T . → ∞ | |≤ P 2. Proof of the theorem Let q 2 be an integer, and χ (mod q) a primitive Dirichlet character. Our starting point≥ is the following formula (cf. Eqs. (17), (18), Chapter 12, p. 83 of Davenport [3]):
1 L (s, χ) 1 q 1 Γ′ (s + aχ) 1 1 (2.1) ′ = log 2 + B(χ)+ + , L(s, χ) −2 π − 2 Γ 1 (s + a ) ̺ s ̺ 2 χ ̺(χ) X − a 1 where χ := 2 (1 χ( 1)), and B(χ) C is a constant not depending on s which satisfies (B(χ))− = − (1/̺). From∈ the functional equation of L(s, χ) (cf. Eqs. ℜ − ̺(χ) ℜ (13), (14), Chapter 9, p. 71 of Davenport [3]), we have that, if ̺ s C 0 <σ< 1 P is a zero of L(s, χ), then ̺, 1 ̺ are zeros of L(s, χ), and 1 ∈{̺ is∈ a zero| of L(s, χ}). − 1 − 1 From this, by noting that (s ̺)− = (̺ +(s 1))− , we get ̺(χ) − ̺(χ) − P P 1 a 1 q L′(s, χ) Γ′ 2 (s + χ) (2.2) Πs 1(̺) = log +2 + 2 − π ℜ L(s, χ) Γ 1 (s + a ) ̺(χ) 2 χ X L′ L′ L′ by calculating 2 L (s, χ) = L (s, χ)+ L (s, χ) according to (2.1), where Π is the pairing function ℜdefined in (1.1). As a consequence, we have the following: Lemma 2.1. The following hold: 1 2 (i) Πε(̺) log(q) + O(1) as q + , uniformly for 0 <ε 1. 2 − ≤ ε → ∞ ≤ ̺(χ) X 1 L (1, χ) (ii) Π (̺) = log(q)+2 ′ γ + log(2π)+ χ( 1) log(2) . 2 0 ℜ L(1, χ) − − X̺(χ) Proof. We prove the items separately. 4 CHRISTIAN TAFULA´
Item (i): Since Πx(s) is invariant under conjugation for x R, we have Πx(s) R •for every s C. From (2.2), we have ∈ ∈ ∈ 1 a 1 ζ′(1 + ε) Γ′ 2 (1 + ε + χ) Πε(̺) log(q) log(π)+2 + , 2 − ≤ ζ(1 + ε) Γ 1 (1 + ε + a ) ̺(χ) 2 χ X ′ ζ 1 and thus, since (s)= (s 1)− + γ + O (s 1) as s 1, the result follows. ζ − − − → Item (ii): Setting s = 1 in (2.2) yields • 1 1 L (1, χ) Γ′ (1 + aχ) Π (̺) = log(q)+2 ′ log(π)+ 2 . 2 0 ℜ L(1, χ) − Γ 1 (1 + a ) ̺(χ) 2 χ X ′ ′ Knowing the special values Γ (1) = γ and Γ ( 1 )= γ 2 log(2), it follows that Γ − Γ 2 − − 1 Γ′ (1 + aχ) log(π) 2 = γ + log(2π)+ χ( 1) log(2), − Γ 1 (1 + a ) − 2 χ which completes the proof.
Consider now a function f : Z 2 R satisfying 2 f(q) log(q), and take the following partition of the critical≥ strip→ s C 0 <σ<≤ 1 : ≪ { ∈ | }
:= s C 0 <σ< 1, t 1 , 1 R1 { ∈ | | |≥ } 0 < σ(1 σ) < 1 1 1 , − f(q) − f(q) 2 := s C 1 , R ∈ 1 t < 1 − √f(q) log(q) ≤ | |
0 1 1 1 := s C σ 1 , t < 1 , R3 ∈ f(q) ≤ ≤ − f(q) | | ( )
1 := s C 0 <σ< 1 ( 1 2 3) . − Q { ∈ | }\ R ∪ R ∪ R
Note that 2 = 2(q, f), 3 = 3(q, f), and = (q, f). By the symmetries of the non-trivialR zerosR of L(s,R χ), theR region beingQ quasiQ zero-free is equivalent to the region defined in ( ) being quasi zero-free.Q The following lemma shall provide bounds for Π (s) in terms∗ of Π (s) for s outside of (cf. Lemma 2.4 in T. [9]). 0 ε Q Lemma 2.2. The following hold: Π (s) ε2 (i) ε < Π (s) < 1+ Π (s) for s , ε> 0; 1+2ε 0 1+ ε ε ∈ R1 Π (s) 70 ε2 2 (ii) ε < Π (s) < 1+ Π (s) for s , ε ; 1+2ε 0 1+ ε ε ∈ R2 ≥ f(q) log(q) Π (s) (iii) ε < Π (s) (1 + εf(q)) Π (ps) for s , ε> 0. (1+2ε)(1+2ε(1 + ε)f(q)) 0 ≤ ε ∈ R3 ′ ℜ L ON ( L (1,χ)) AND ZERO-FREE REGIONS NEAR s = 1 5
Proof. If 0 <σ< 1, then, for δ > 1, we have − σ σ + ε σ t2/(σ + ε) (2.3) (1 + δ) δ − ε. σ2 + t2 ≤ (σ + ε)2 + t2 ⇐⇒ ≥ σ2 + t2 Moreover, writing σ := σ(1 σ) and σε := (σ + ε)(1 σ + ε) = σ + ε(1 + ε), we have: − −
Πε(s) σ +eε 1 σ +eε e = + − 2 (σ + ε)2 + t2 (1 σ + ε)2 + t2 − σ + t2 = ε (1+2ε) σ2 +((1+2ε)2 2σ )t2 + t4 ε − ε σ +(1+e σ )t2 + t4 (1+2ε) (2.4) = ε ε σe2 +((1+2ε)2 2σe )t2 + t4 1+ t2 ε − ε σe(1 σ )+(3e σ 4ε(1 + ε))t2 (1+2ε) = 1+ ε − ε ε − e σ2 +((1+2ε)e2 2σ )t2 + t4 1+ t2 ε − ε eσ(1 σe)+3σte2 + ε(1 + ε) 1 2σ ε(1 + ε) t2 (1+2ε) (2.5) = 1+ − − − − . σ2e+ (1 2σ)t2 + t4 +e ε(1 + ε) 2σ + ε(1 + ε)+2t2 1+ t2 − e e e e With that, we prove the items separately. e e e Item (i): Since ε(1 + ε)(2σ + ε(1 + ε)+2t2) > 0 for every 0 <σ< 1 and ε > 0, •from (2.5) we get: 2 Πε(s) e 1 + 2σ + ε(1 + ε)+ t ε(1 + ε) (2.6) Π0(s) 2 − . − 1 + 2ε ≥ σ2 + (1 2σ)t2 + t4 + ε(1 + ε) 2σ + ε(1 + ε) + 2t2 1+ t2 − e Hence, for the lower bound, it suffices to note that, for every s 1, we have e e e ∈ R 1+2σ + ε(1 + ε)+ t2 > 0, − and thus, from (2.6), it holds that Π0(s) Πε(s)/(1+2ε) > 0. For the upper bound, we use (2.3). For s , we have e − ∈ R1 σ t2/(σ + ε) 1 1 1 ε2 − ε< ε 1 ε = , σ2 + t2 t2 − 1+ ε ≤ − 1+ ε 1+ ε 2 and thus, taking δ := ε /(1 + ε) in (2.3) makes the inequality Π0(s) < (1 + δ)Πε(s) valid for every s . ∈ R1 Item (ii): For s and ε 2/ f(q) log(q), we have • ∈ R2 ≥ 2 1 1+2σ + ε(1 + ε)+ t2 2σp+ ε(1 + ε) + − ≥ − f(q) log(q) f(q) log(q) 5 e 2σe + p> 0, ≥ f(q) log(q) and thus, the lower bound followse from (2.6). For the upper bound, we use (2.3). For s and ε as before, we have σ t2/(σ + ε) 1 1 ε + (1 t2) ε − ε< ε = − σ2 + t2 t2 − 1+ ε t2 1+ ε 6 CHRISTIAN TAFULA´
ε + 1 2 1 √f(q) log(q) − √f(q) log(q) ε 2 1+ ε ≤ 1 1 ! − √f(q) log(q) 1/2 2 2 − √f(q) log(q) ε 2 1+ ε ≤ 1 1 − √f(q) log(q) x 2 The function (2 2 )/(1 x) is increasing for x < 1, and thus, since f(q) 2 for every q 2, we have− − ≥ ≥ 1/2 1/2 2 2 0.85 − √f(q) log(q) − √2 log(2) 2 < − 2 = 70, 2 ≤ 2 (1 0.85)2 1 1 1 1 − − √f(q) log(q) − √2 log(2) 2 implying that taking δ := 70 ε /(1 + ε) in (2.3) makes Π0(s) < (1 + δ)Πε(s) valid for every s . ∈ R2 Item (iii): We start with the lower bound. The denominator of (2.4) is always positive• (as discussed before, in item (i)), and so is the numerator, for every ε> 0. Thus, it holds that (2.7) Π (s) Π (s) ε 0 − (1+2ε)(1 + g(ε)) ≥ e e σ σε + 1 1 + σ σε t2 + 1 1 t4 − 1+g(ε) − 1+g(ε) − 1+g(ε) − 1+g(ε) 1 2 2 2 4 2 , σ + (1 2σ)t + t !1+ t e − e where g(ε) > 0 is some functione of ε> 0.e Therefore, since σ g(ε) ε(1 + ε) σ ε = σ , − 1+ g(ε) 1+ g(ε) − 1+ g(ε) e in order for (2.7) to bee strictly positive, it sufficese to have g(ε) ε(1 + ε)/σ. For 1 1 1 1≥ s , we have σ = σ(1 σ) f(q)− (1 f(q)− ) f(q)− (since f(q) 2), ∈ R3 − ≥ − ≥ 2 ≥ and thus it suffices to take g(ε) := 2ε(1+ ε)f(q). Finally, for the upper bound,e since t2 0, it holds that ≥ e σ t2/(σ + ε) ε − ε , σ2 + t2 ≤ σ implying that taking δ := εf(q) ( ε/σ) in (2.3) makes Π0(s) (1 + δ)Πε(s) valid for every s . ≥ ≤ ∈ R3 ′ Remark 2.3 (Unconditional lower bounds for ( L (1, χ))). From (2.6), we have ℜ L Π (s) √5 1 Π (s) > φ , φ := − 0 1+2φ 2 ′ ℜ L ON ( L (1,χ)) AND ZERO-FREE REGIONS NEAR s = 1 7
for every s in the critical strip. This follows from the simple fact that φ(1 + φ) = 1. Putting this together with Lemma 2.1 yields: 1 L (1, χ) 1 1 1 1 ′ = Π (̺) + O log(q)ℜ L(1, χ) 4 log(q) 0 − 2 log(q) X̺(χ) 1 1 1 1 > Π (̺) + O 4(1+2φ) log(q) φ − 2 log(q) X̺(χ) 1 1 1 = + O , 2(1+2φ) − 2 log(q) ′ which, since 1 1 > 0.2764, implies that ( L (1, χ)) > 0.2764 log(q)+ o(1) 2√5 − 2 − ℜ L − uniformly for primitive χ (mod q) as q + . This is reminiscent of the argument we used in Proposition 2.5 (ii) of T. [9],→ which∞ was inspired by an argument attrib- uted to U. Vorhauer used in estimating the real part of the term B(χ) appearing in (2.1) (cf. Exercise 8, Section 10.2 of Montgomery–Vaughan [7]). Lemma 2.4. For ε(q) := 2/ f(q) log(q), it holds: p f(q) Π0(s) Πε(q)(s) Πε(q)(s) | − |≪ plog(q) uniformly for s as q + . ∈ R1 ∪ R2 ∪ R3 → ∞p Proof. From Lemma 2.2, for s , we have ∈ R1 ∪ R2 2ε(q) 70 ε(q)2 Π (s) Π (s) Π (s) < max , Π (s) ε(q) , | 0 − ε(q) | 1+2ε(q) 1+ ε(q) ε(q) ≪ f(q) log(q) and for s , we have ∈ R3 p 2ε (1 + ε)f(q) Π (s) Π (s) max 1+ , εf(q) Π (s) | 0 − ε(q) | ≤ 1+2ε 1+2ε(1 + ε)f(q) ε(q) ε(q)f(q) Π (s) ≪ ε(q) f(q) Πε(q)(s). ≪ plog(q) Note that the expressionsp inside the max’s are independent of s, and thus the con- stants implied by “ ” also do not depend on s, concluding the proof. ≪ We are now ready to prove the theorem.
Proof of the theorem. Let ε(q) := 2/ f(q) log(q). Write “ ̺′ (χ)” for a sum over the non-trivial zeros of L(s, χ) outside of . Assuming that is quasi zero-free, we have pQ Q P ̺′ (χ) = ̺(χ) if χ is complex; if χ is real, then ̺′ (χ) excludes at most two zeros (the Siegel zero β and its counterpart 1 β). Recall that βD = max β R L(β, χD)=0 Pfor primitiveP real characters χ (mod− D ). SinceP { ∈ | } D | | 1 1 1 1 1 + min , , β + ε( D ) (1 β )+ ε( D ) ≪ 1 β ε( D ) ≤ ε( D ) D | | − D | | − D | | | | 8 CHRISTIAN TAFULA´
we have that Lemma 2.1 (i) and Lemma 2.4 imply:
1 ′ 1 ′ 1 Π0(s) log(q) Π0(s) Πε(q)(s) + Πε(q)(s) log(q) 2 − ≤ 2 − 2 − ̺(χ) ̺(χ) ̺(χ) X X X f(q) 1 ′ Π (s)+ ≪ ε(q) ε(q) plog(q) ̺(χ) X p f(q) 1 f(q) log(q)+ +1 ≪ plog(q) !ε(q) p f(q) log(q)+ f(pq). ≪ Hence, since f(q) log(q) (byp hypothesis), the claim of the theorem follows from Lemma 2.1 (ii). ≪
3. Remarks As mentioned in the introductory section, we finish by briefly commenting on two aspects of the theorem we have just proven: a comparison with what one gets by assuming GRH, and an application to the problem of Siegel zeros following our previous work in [9]. We shall skip over a lot of the details; for a more comprehensive exposition of the analytic facts used in Subsection 3.1, refer to Davenport [3] or Montgomery–Vaughan [7], and for a more detailed explanation of the algebraic arguments mentioned in Subsection 3.2, refer to Granville–Stark [4] or T. [9]. 1 3.1. Weak GRH and explicit formula. For 0 ϑ 2 , write GRH(ϑ) for the statement “if (s) > 1 ϑ, then L(s, χ) = 0 for every≤ ≤ Dirichlet character χ”, and write GRH[ϑ]ℜ for the same− statement but6 with (s) 1 ϑ instead. In this way, weaker forms of GRH may be interpreted as a gradationℜ ≥ between− the Prime Number Theorem (PNT) and GRH, since: GRH[0] PNT for arithmetic progressions, 2 ⇒ 1 GRH( 2 ) = Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. L′ We sketch now a short proof of the fact that GRH(ϑ) = L (1, χ) = O(log log(q)) for every ϑ> 0, which is a direct consequence of the explicit⇒ | formula| for ψ(x, χ). For a (not necessarily primitive) non-principal Dirichlet character χ (mod q), consider
the Chebyshev-type function ψ(x, χ) := n x Λ(n)χ(n), where Λ is von Mangoldt’s function, defined as Λ(n) := log(p) if n = p≤k for some prime p and integer k 1, P and Λ(n) := 0 otherwise. Then, from the explicit formula for ψ(x, χ) (cf. Eqs. (13),≥ (14), Chapter 19, p. 120 of Davenport [3]), it holds that x̺ (3.1) ψ(x, χ)= + O x1/2 log(qx)2 − ̺ ̺(χ) (̺X)
x1/2 1 dN(t, χ) 1 ϑ 1/2 2 ψ(x, χ) ϑ− N(1, χ)+ x − + O x log(qx) | | ≤ t Z1 ! 1 ϑ 2 x − log(qx) , ≪ 1 ϑ 2 and thus, GRH(ϑ) = ψ(x, χ) x − log(qx) . From that, by applying partial ′ ⇒ | L | ≪ 1 summation to the identity L (1, χ)= n 1 Λ(n)χ(n) n− , and using the elementary 3 ≥ fact that n y Λ(n) y, we get ≤ ≪ P + PL (1, χ) Λ(n)χ(n) ∞ ψ(t, χ) ′ = = dt + O(log(y)) L(1, χ) n t2 n 1 y X≥ Z ϑ 2 y− log(qy) + log( y), ≪ ′ which, by taking y = y(q) := log(q)2/ϑ, yields L (1, χ) = O(log log(q)). | L | 3.2. Uniform abc and Siegel zeros. Rephrasing the statement of the main theo- rem of this paper for real characters, if (as in ( )) is quasi zero-free, then Q ∗ 1 L (1, χ ) (3.2) = ′ D + O f( D ) log( D ) ( D + ), 1 βD L(1, χD) | | | | | |→ ∞ − p where βD denotes the largest real zero of L(s, χD). Conjecturally, the largest real 4 1 zero of L(s, χD) is trivial (i.e., not on the critical strip), and occurs at s = 2 (1 1 − 1 −1 χ ( 1)); thus, (1 β )− = 1 if χ is even (i.e., χ ( 1) = 1), and (1 β )− = D − − D D D − − D 2 if χD is odd (i.e., χD( 1) = 1). We will sketch a short version of the proof in T. [9] of: − − Uniform abc-conjecture = “no Siegel zeros” for odd Dirichlet characters, ⇒ originally due to Granville–Stark [4]. Moreover, by using the quasi zero-free regions of Chang [1], we show how a stronger version of “no Siegel zeros” can be obtained for odd characters of qo(1)-smooth moduli.