Arxiv:0811.3701V4 [Math.NT] 9 Mar 2009 Matrices Are Not Symmetric, and Many Eigenvalues Must Be Computed to Estimate the Determi- Nants
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Symmetric matrices related to the Mertens function Jean-Paul Cardinal D´epartement de Math´ematiques Universit´eParis 13 93430 Villetaneuse, France [email protected] Abstract ∗ In this paper we explore a family of congruences over N from which one builds a sequence of symmetric matrices related to the Mertens function. From the results of numerical experiments, we formulate a conjecture about the growth of the quadratic norm of these matrices, which implies the Riemann hypothesis. This suggests that matrix analysis methods may come to play a more important role in this classical and difficult problem. Key words: Mertens function, Symmetric Eigenvalue Problem, Riemann hypothesis 2000 MSC: 11C20, 11N56, 15A36, 15A60 1. Introduction Among the numerous statements equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis, a few have been formulated as matrix problems. The Redheffer matrix An = (ai;j)1≤i;j≤n is an n × n matrix defined by ai;j = 1 if j = 1 or if i divides j, and ai;j = 0 otherwise. R. Redheffer [16] proved that the Riemann hypothesis is true if and only if 1=2+ det(An) = O(n ); for every > 0: F. Roesler [17] defined the matrix Bn = (bi;j)2≤i;j≤n by bi;j = i − 1 if i divides j, and bi;j = −1 otherwise, and he thus proved that the Riemann hypothesis is true if and only if −1=2+ det(Bn) = O(n!n ); for every > 0: Both the Redheffer and Roesler matrices are related, via their determinants, to the Mertens func- tion, which is by definition the summatory function of the M¨obiusfunction (see [1] p.91). These arXiv:0811.3701v4 [math.NT] 9 Mar 2009 matrices are not symmetric, and many eigenvalues must be computed to estimate the determi- nants. The matrix Mn that we introduce in this paper is also related to the Mertens function, and it is symmetric. In Section 2, we will prove that the Riemann hypothesis is true if 1=2+ kMnk = O(n ); for every > 0; where kMnk denotes the quadratic norm of the matrix, i.e. its spectral radius. In Section 3, from 1=2+ the results of a series of numerical experiments, we will conjecture that kMnk = O(n ); for every > 0. Consequently, the search for a good estimate of kMnk turns out to be a key problem. At this prospect, it should be noted that, contrary to both the Redheffer and Roesler matrices, only one eigenvalue must be estimated in the matrix Mn. Preprint submitted to Linear Algebra and its Applications October 31, 2018 2. Construction of the matrices Mn ∗ 2.1. A family of congruences over N ∗ ∗ Definition 1. To each n 2 N , we associate an equivalence relation R over N , defined by i R j () [n=i] = [n=j] : Example 2. For n = 16, R possesses the eight equivalence classes f1g; f2g; f3g; f4g; f5g; f6; 7; 8g; f9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16g and f17; 18; · · · g. Due to the interval structure of these classes, we can unambiguously identify each class by its largest representative (with the convention that 1 denotes the largest representative of the unbounded class). For clarity, the representatives are written in plain letters, and the classes are written in letters with a hat. We denote by S the set of the largest representatives and by Sb the ∗ set of the classes, i.e. Sb = N =R. We also set S = S n f1g. Throughout Section 2, most of the objects we define, such as the sets R; S defined above, and the matrix M introduced in Proposition 21, depend on the integer n. However, in order to simplify the notations in this section, we will not index these objects by n, since there is no risk of ambiguity. Example 3. For n = 16, S = f1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 8; 16; 1g, S = f1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 8; 16g, Sb = fb1; b2; b3; b4; b5; b8; 16b ; c1g, b1 = f1g; b2 = f2g; b3 = f3g; b4 = f4g; b5 = f5g; b8 = f6; 7; 8g; 16b = f9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16g, c1 = f17; 18; · · · g. ∗ Proposition 4. Let n be fixed in N , and let S be defined as above, i.e. S is the set of the largest representatives of the classes of R. For each k in S, we set k = [n=k]. 1. For each k in S, we have k 2 S and k = k, which means that the map k 7! k is a decreasing involution on S. Actually, k 7! k is just the order reversing map on S. 2. The set S can be described precisely by the following alternative : p p n p p o If n < [ n]2 + [ n] then S = 1; ··· ; [ n] = [ n]; ··· ; n = 1 ; p hence #S = 2[ n] − 1; p p n p p o if n ≥ [ n]2 + [ n] then S = 1; ··· ; [ n]; [ n]; ··· ; n = 1 ; p hence #S = 2[ n]: Proof. 1. Let k 2 S and k = [n=k], which means that kk ≤ n < kk + k. That is to say, n n < k ≤ . k + 1 k n n Since k is an integer, it follows that < , which proves that k 2 S. k + 1 k n hni n hni Let k 2 S. Since < , it follows that < = k. That is to say, n < kk+k. k + 1 k k + 1 k n From this last inequality and the fact that kk ≤ n, we deduce that k ≤ < k + 1, which k means that k = [n=k] = k. 2 p 2. We begin to prove that each singleton set fkg, with 1 ≤ k < n, is a class. Indeed, p p n n n if k < [ n], then we have successively k + 1 ≤ [ n], − = > 1, and k k + 1 k(k + 1) n hni < . This last inequality means that k and k + 1 do not belong to the same k + 1 k class, which is to say, k 2 S. p Considering now the case k = [ n], there are two possibilities : n n n n hni (a) either − = ≥ 1, hence < , k k + 1 k(k + 1) k + 1 k n n n n n (b) or − = < 1, hence < k ≤ , and since k is an integer, it follows k k + 1 k(k + 1) k + 1 k n hni that < . k + 1 k p p p In both cases, [ n] and [ n] + 1 do not belong to the same class, so [ n] 2 S. p p Now that we have proved that f1; 2; ··· ; [ n]g ⊂ S, let k 2 S with k > [ n]. Therefore, p p p p k satisfies the inequalities k ≥ n, n=k ≤ n and k ≤ [ n]. In other words, [ n] is the largest element of S such that k ≤ k. Using the fact that k 7! k is a decreasing involution on p p p p S, and distinguishing the two cases [ n] = [ n] and [ n] < [ n], we deduce the expected form of S. p p p ∗ To conclude, we rewrite the condition [ n] = [ n]. Set n = k + α with k 2 N and 0 ≤ α < 1. We have n = k2 + 2αk + α2, i.e.: n=k = k + 2α + α2=k, so the following equivalences hold : p p [ n] = [ n] , 2α + α2=k < 1 , α2 + 2kα − k < 0 , n < k2 + k; and this completes the description of S. ∗ Remark 5. A synthetic formula for #S, one valid for all n 2 N , is p #S = [ n] + [pn + 1=4 − 1=2]: Lemma 6. For all positive integers n; i; j, we have [[n=i] =j] = [n=ij] : Proof. Write n=i = u + α, with u 2 N and 0 ≤ α < 1. Hence [n=i]=j = u=j and n=ij = u=j + α=j, from which it follows that [[n=i] =j] ≤ [n=ij]. If this last inequality were strict, then there would exist an integer v such that u=j < v ≤ u=j + α=j. Hence, u < vj ≤ u + α < u + 1, which is impossible since both u and vj are integers. ∗ ∗ Proposition 7. R is compatible with the multiplication over N , meaning that, for all i; j; k 2 N , we have i R j =) ik R jk. Therefore, the formula bibj = ijb defines an induced multiplication over Sb (recall that bi denotes the class of i, and c1 the class of every integer strictly larger than n). Proof. Assume that i R j, so [n=i] = [n=j]. Using the previous lemma we deduce [n=ik] = [[n=i]=k] = [[n=j]=k] = [n=jk], which is to say, ik R jk. 3 ∗ The set N , equipped with the usual multiplication, is a commutative semigroup. Since R ∗ is compatible with the multiplication, the quotient set Sb = N =R, equipped with the induced ∗ multiplication, is also a commutative semigroup. From now on, for each fixed n in N , the equivalence relation R will be called a congruence, and any two integers i; j such that iRj will be said to be congruent. ∗ Example 8. Multiplication table of Sb = N =R, for n = 16. b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b8 c16 c1 b1 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b8 c16 c1 b2 b2 b4 b8 b8 c16 c16 c1 c1 b3 b3 b8 c16 c16 c16 c1 c1 c1 b4 b4 b8 c16 c16 c1 c1 c1 c1 b5 b5 c16 c16 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 b8 b8 c16 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c16 c16 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 c1 2.2. Three Z-algebras G The Z-algebra of a semigroup G is the set Z of maps from G to Z equipped with the G convolution product ?, defined naturally as follows : if a and b are elements of Z , then c = a ? b is the map defined by X 8t 2 G; c (t) = a(r)b(s): r;s2G:rs=t Of course, this makes sense if the above sum is finite, a condition that is always satisfied in the remainder of this paper.