Let ϕ(m) Euler's totient function and rad(m) the multiplicative function defined by rad(1)=1 and, for integers m>1 by rad(m)=∏p∣mp the product of distinct primes dividing m (it is obvious that it is a multiplicative funtion since in the definition is ∏p∣msomething and since empty products are defined by 1).
Denoting r1(n)=rad(n), and R1(n)=∑d|nrad(d)ϕ(nd),
I claim that it is possible to proof that this Dirichlet product of multiplicative functions (thus is multiplicative) is computed as nrad(n)∏p∣n(2p−1).
Question 1. Can you prove or refute that
Rk:=∑d|nrk(d)ϕ(nd)=nrad(n)rk+1(n)
for rk+1(n)=∏p∣n((k+1)p−k), with k≥1? Thanks in advance.
I excuse this question since I've obtain the first examples and I don't know if I have mistakes. I know that the proof should be by induction. Since computations are tedious I would like see a full proof. In this ocassion if you are sure in your computations, you can provide to me a summary answer. The following is to obtain a more best post, in other case I should to write a new post.
I know the theorem about Dirichlet product versus Dirichlet series that provide us to write
∞∑n=1nrad(n)r2(n)n2=(∞∑n=1rad(n)ns)(∞∑n=1ϕ(n)ns)=∞∑n=1∑d∣nrad(d)ϕ(n/d)ns,
for ℜs=σ>2 (I've read notes in Apostol's book about this and follows [1]). By a copy and paste from [2] we can write
$$\frac{\zeta(s)^2}{\zeta(2s)}
where R(s) is the Dirichlet series for rad(n), and I believe that previous inequality holds for σ>2.
Question 2. Can you write and claim the convergence statement corresponding to Dirichlet series for rk(n)? I say if Question 1 is true, and looking to compute these Dirichlet series for rk(n) as values, or inequalities involving these values, of the zeta function. Thanks in advance.
I excuse this Question 2 to encourage to me read and understand well, previous references [1] and [2].
[1] Ethan's answer, this site Arithmetical Functions Sum, ∑d|nσ(d)ϕ(nd) and ∑d|nτ(d)ϕ(nd)
[2] LinusL's question, this site, Average order of rad(n)
Answer
About your first question, you just have to observe that Rk(n) is multiplicative beeing a Dirichlet product of multiplicative functions, and as a consequence so is rk(n), so you can compute it for a prime power a then multiply,
Rk(n)=∏pj||nRk(pj)
For computing Rk(pj) we treat separately the divisor 1 for the rest of divisors of pj, (p,p2,…,pj) obtaining:
Rk(pj)=pj−pj−1+j∑i=1(kp−(k−1))ϕ(pj−i)=pj−pj−1+(kp−(k−1))((pj−1−pj−2)+⋯+(p−1)+1)=(k+1)pj−kpj−1=pjrad(pj)((k+1)p−k)
And you are done.
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking in the second question, if I understand you are interested in the convergence of the Dirichlet series
∑nrk(n)ns
suppose it converges for some s=σ+it, then it is easy to show that it converges for any s with real part >σ, know in that hypothesis it will have also an expresion as an Euler product:
∑nrk(n)ns=∏p(1+(kp−(k−1))(p−s+p−2s+…))=∏p(1+p−s(kp−k))1−p−s)=ζ(s)A(s)
Where A(s) has the Euler product
A(s)=∏p(1+p−s(kp−k))
if s is real then all the factors are positive so you can bound it above by
A(s)<∏p(1+p−s+1)k=(∑n|μ(n)|ns−1)k
this implies that the original series converges for σ>2, to see that it diverges for σ<2 it is easy for k>1 as we have kp−k>=p, and so again for s real
A(s)>∏p(1+p−s+1)=∑n|μ(n)|ns−1
and the right hand series diverges for s=2. It still remains to prove that it diverges for k=1 I can't see now any simple proof but a limiting argument should work.
I hope this is what you were looking for.
No comments:
Post a Comment