1: \documentclass[12pt,twoside]{paper}
2: \usepackage{amsmath}
3: \usepackage{hyperref}
4: \usepackage{amsfonts}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6: \usepackage{amsthm}
7:
8:
9: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[]
10: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}[section]
11: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}[section]
12:
13: \textwidth=15truecm
14: \textheight=22truecm
15: \voffset=-1truecm
16: %\hoffset=-1cm
17: \oddsidemargin=1cm
18: \evensidemargin=0.0cm
19: %\usepackage{graphicx}
20: \usepackage{graphics}
21: \usepackage[pdftex]{graphicx}
22: %\input epsf
23:
24: \def\be{\begin{displaymath}}
25: \def\ee{\end{displaymath}}
26: \def\bee{\begin{equation}}
27: \def\eee{\end{equation}}
28: \def\Mas{Ma$\acute{\rm s}$lanka }
29: \pagestyle{myheadings}
30:
31: \markboth{\centerline{\rm J. Cis{\l}o, M. Wolf}}{\centerline{\sl Riesz and Baez-Duarte criterion for RH}}
32:
33: \usepackage{graphicx}
34:
35: \def\be{\begin{displaymath}}
36: \def\ee{\end{displaymath}}
37: \def\bee{\begin{equation}}
38: \def\eee{\end{equation}}
39: \def\Mas{Ma$\acute{\rm s}$lanka }
40:
41: \pagenumbering{arabic}
42:
43: \begin{document}
44:
45: \thispagestyle{empty}
46: \centerline{}
47: \bigskip
48: \bigskip
49: \bigskip
50: \bigskip
51: \bigskip
52: \centerline{\Large\bf Equivalence of Riesz and Baez-Duarte}
53: \bigskip
54: \centerline{\Large\bf criterion for the Riemann Hypothesis}
55: \bigskip
56:
57: \begin{center}
58: {\large \sl J.Cis{\l}o, M. Wolf}\\*[5mm]
59:
60: Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of Wroc{\l}aw\\
61: Pl.Maxa Borna 9, PL-50-204 Wroc{\l}aw, Poland\\
62: \href{mailto:cislo@ift.uni.wroc.pl}{e-mail:cislo@ift.uni.wroc.pl}\\
63: \href{mailto:mwolf@ift.uni.wroc.pl}{e-mail:mwolf@ift.uni.wroc.pl}\\
64: \bigskip
65: \today
66:
67: \end{center}
68:
69:
70: \bigskip\bigskip
71:
72: \begin{center}
73: {\bf Abstract}\\
74: \end{center}
75:
76: \begin{minipage}{12.8cm}
77: We investigate the relation between the Riesz and the Baez-Duarte criterion
78: for the Riemann Hypothesis. In particular we present the relation between the
79: function $R(x)$ appearing in the Riesz criterion and the sequence $c_k$ appearing
80: in the Baez-Duarte formulation. It is shown that $R(x)$ can expressed by $c_k$
81: and vice versa the sequence $c_k$ can be obtained from the
82: values of $R(x)$ at integer arguments. We give also some relations involving $c_k$ and $R(x)$,
83: in particular value of the alternating sum of $c_k$.
84: \end{minipage}
85:
86: \bigskip\bigskip
87:
88: {\bf 1. Introduction.}\\
89:
90: The Riemann Hypothesis (RH) states that the nontrivial zeros of the function:
91: \bee
92: \zeta(s)=\frac{1}{1-2^{1-s}}\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n-1}}{n^s},
93: \eee
94: where $\Re(s)>0$ and $s\neq 1$, are simply and have the real part equal to half, i.e. $\Re (s)=\frac{1}{2}$.
95: There are probably over 100 statements equivalent to RH, see eg. \cite{Titchmarsh},
96: \cite{aimath}, \cite{Watkins}.
97: In the beginning of XX century M. Riesz \cite{Riesz} has considered the function:
98: \bee
99: R(x) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{k+1}x^k}{(k-1)!\zeta(2k)}=
100: x \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{k}x^{k}}{k!\zeta(2k+2)}.
101: \label{Riesz}
102: \eee
103: Unconditionally it can be proved that $R(x)=\mathcal{O}( x^{1/2+\epsilon})$, see
104: \cite{Titchmarsh} \S 14.32. Riesz has proved that the Riemann Hypothesis is equivalent
105: to slower increasing of the function $R(x)$:
106: \bee
107: RH \Leftrightarrow R(x) = \mathcal{O}\left( x^{1/4+\epsilon}\right).
108: \label{Riesz criterion}
109: \eee
110: A few years ago L. Baez-Duarte \cite{Luis2} \cite{Luis3} considered the sequence
111: of numbers $c_k$ defined
112: by:
113: \bee
114: c_k=\sum_{j=0}^k {(-1)^j \binom{k}{j}\frac{1}{\zeta(2j+2)}}.
115: \label{ckmain}
116: \eee
117: He proved that RH is equivalent to the following rate of decreasing to zero of the above
118: sequence:
119: \bee
120: RH \Leftrightarrow c_k={\mathcal{O}}(k^{-\frac{3}{4}+\epsilon})~~~~~~~~~{\rm for~ each~~} \epsilon>0.
121: \label{criterion}
122: \eee
123: Furthermore, if $\epsilon$ can be put zero, i.e. if
124: $c_k={\mathcal{O}}(k^{-\frac{3}{4}})$, then the zeros of $\zeta(s)$ are simply. Baez-Duarte
125: also proved in \cite{Luis3} that it is not possible to replace $\frac{3}{4}$ by larger
126: exponent. Although the title of the Baez-Duarte paper was {\it A sequential
127: Riesz-like criterion for the Riemann Hypothesis} he has not pursued further relation
128: between $c_k$ and $R(x)$.
129:
130:
131: In this paper we are going to establish the relation between
132: $c_k$ and $R(x)$. In Sect. 2 we will present formulae allowing to obtain values of
133: $R(x)$ and $c_k$ much faster than from (\ref{Riesz}) and (\ref{ckmain}).
134: In Sect. 3 we will use the fact that $c_k$ can be obtained as
135: forward differences of a appropriate sequence to express $R(x)$ in terms of $c_k$. % and present plots of
136: Next we will prove equivalence of the Riesz and Baez-Duarte criterion for RH.
137: In the mathematical logic the {\it iff} obeys the transitivity rule:
138: \be
139: (p\Leftrightarrow q ~~{\rm AND}~~q \Leftrightarrow s) \Rightarrow (p \Leftrightarrow s)
140: \ee
141: thus from (\ref{Riesz criterion}) and (\ref{criterion}) we have that $R(x) = \mathcal{O}\left( x^{1/4+\epsilon}\right)
142: \Leftrightarrow c_k={\mathcal{O}}(k^{-\frac{3}{4}+\epsilon})$.
143:
144: However we will prove equivalence (Riesz~ criterion) $ \Leftrightarrow $ (Baez-Duarte~ criterion)
145: in a more general form, namely the exponents $1/4$ and $3/4$ will be replaced by arbitrary
146: parameter $\delta$ and combination $1-\delta$: $c_k=\mathcal{O}\left(k^{-\delta}
147: \right) \Leftrightarrow R(x)=\mathcal{O}\left(x^{1-\delta}\right)$.
148: In the final Section we will speculate on some equations involving $c_k$ and $R(x)$,
149: in particular we will calculate the alternating sum $\sum_{k=0}^\infty (-1)^k c_k$.
150:
151: \bigskip
152: \bigskip
153:
154: {\bf 2. Some facts on the $R(x)$ and $c_k$}
155:
156: \bigskip
157:
158: The most comprehensive source of information about the Riesz function $R(x)$ we have
159: found on the Wikipedia
160: \cite{Wikipedia}. For large negative $x$ function $R(x)$ tends to $xe^{-x}$.
161: For positive $x$ the behaviour of $R(x)$ is much more difficult to reveal
162: because the series (\ref{Riesz}) is very slowly convergent. Applying
163: Kummer's acceleration convergence method gives
164: \bee
165: R(x) = x \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2} ~e^{-\frac{x}{n^2}}
166: \label{Riesz2}
167: \eee
168:
169: \begin{figure}[pht]
170: \vspace{-3.5cm}
171: \begin{minipage}{15.8cm}
172: \begin{center}
173: \hspace{-3.5cm}
174: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0, scale=1]{fig1.eps} \\
175: \vspace{-4cm} Fig.1 The plot of $R(x)$ for $x\in(1,20)$. Such a short interval
176: is chosen to show the first zero of $R(x)$. \\
177: \end{center}
178: \end{minipage}
179:
180: \vspace{-2.0cm}
181: \begin{minipage}{15.8cm}
182: \begin{center}
183: \hspace{-3.5cm}
184: \includegraphics[width=12cm,angle=0, scale=1]{fig2.eps} \\
185: \vspace{-3cm} Fig.2 The plot of $R(x)$ for $x\in(0, 10^7)$. The part of $R(x)$ smaller
186: than -0.006 is skipped. \\
187: \end{center}
188: \end{minipage}
189: \end{figure}
190: \bigskip
191: \bigskip
192:
193: \vfill
194:
195: \newpage
196:
197: \noindent where $\mu$ is the M\"{o}bius function:
198: \bee
199: \mu(n) \,=\,
200: \left\{
201: \begin{array}{ll}
202: 1 & \mbox {if $ n =1 $} \\
203: 0 & \mbox {if $n$ is divisible by a square of a prime} \\
204: (-1)^k & \mbox{if $n$ is a product of $k$ different primes}
205: \end{array}
206: \right.
207: \eee
208: Repeating Kummer's procedure gives:
209: \bee
210: R(x) = x \left(\frac{6}{\pi^2} + \sum_{n=1}^\infty
211: \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2}\left(e^{-\frac{x}{n^2}} - 1\right)\right).
212: \label{Riesz3}
213: \eee
214: Using this formula we were able to produce the plot of $R(x)$ for $x$ up to $10^7$, see
215: Fig.1 and Fig.2. The first nontrivial zero of $R(x)$ is $x_0=1.1567116438\ldots$.
216: The envelops on the Fig.2 (in red) are given by the equations
217: \bee
218: y(x)=\pm A x^{\frac{1}{4}},
219: \eee
220: where $A=0.777506\ldots \times 10^{-5}$.
221:
222: It is very time consuming to calculate values of the sequence $c_k$ directly
223: from the definition (\ref{ckmain}), see \cite{Maslanka3}, \cite{Wolf}. The point is, that for
224: large $j$ $\zeta(2j)$ is practically 1, and to distinguish it from 1 high precision
225: calculations are needed. The experience of \cite{Wolf} showed that to calculate
226: $c_k$ from (\ref{ckmain}) roughly $k\log_{10}(k)$ digits accuracy is needed. However in
227: \cite{Luis3} Baez-Duarte gave the explicit formula\footnote{There is an error
228: in \cite{Luis3} and there should be no minus sign in front of $c_{k-1}$ in formulae
229: (1.11), (1.12), (4.1), (4.11) in \cite{Luis3}.} for $c_k$ valid for large $k$:
230: \bee
231: c_{k-1}=\frac{1}{2k}\sum_{\rho} \frac{k^{\frac{\rho}{2}}\Gamma(1-\frac{\rho}{2})}{\zeta'(\rho)}
232: + o(1/k)
233: \label{explicite}
234: \eee
235: where the sum runs for nontrivial zeros $\rho$ of $\zeta(s)$: $\zeta(\rho)=0$
236: and $\Im (\rho) \neq 0$. \Mas in \cite{Maslanka3}
237: gives the similar formula which contains the term hidden in o(1/k) in (\ref{explicite}). %in \cite{Luis3}.
238: Let us introduce the notation
239: \bee
240: \frac{\Gamma(1-\frac{\rho_i}{2})}{\zeta'(\rho_i)}= a(\rho_i)+ib(\rho_i)\equiv a_i+ ib_i.
241: \eee
242: Assuming $\rho_i=\frac{1}{2}+i\gamma_i$ it can be shown \cite{Wolf} that $a_i$ and $b_i$
243: very quickly decrease to zero:
244: \bee
245: \left|\frac{\Gamma(1-\frac{\rho_i}{2})}{\zeta'(\rho_i)}\right| \sim e^{-\pi\gamma_i/4}
246: \eee
247: Finally we obtain for large $k$:
248: \bee
249: c_{k-1}=\frac{1}{k^{\frac{3}{4}}}\sum_{i=1}^\infty \left\{a_i \cos\left(\frac{\gamma_i \log(k)}{2}\right) -
250: b_i \sin\left(\frac{\gamma_i \log(k)}{2}\right)\right\}.
251: \label{rownanie}
252: \eee
253: \vspace{-2.5cm}
254: \begin{center}
255: \hspace{-3truecm}
256: \includegraphics[width=12truecm,angle=-90]{fig3.eps}\\
257: \vspace{-1cm}
258: Fig.3 The plot of $c_k$ for $k\in(1, 10^6)$.\\
259: \end{center}
260:
261: \bigskip
262:
263: The above formula explains oscillations seen on the plots of $c_k$ published in \cite{Luis3}
264: and \cite{Maslanka3}, see Fig.3 . Because these curves are perfect cosine--like graphs
265: on the plots versus $\log(k)$ it means that in fact in the above formula (\ref{rownanie})
266: it suffices to maintain only the first zero and skip all remaining terms in
267: the sum.
268:
269:
270: \bigskip
271: \bigskip
272:
273: {\bf 3. Relation between $R(x)$ and $c_k$ }
274:
275: \bigskip
276:
277: The values of $c_k$ can be obtained as the first elements of the sequence of forward
278: differences of the sequence:
279: \bee
280: f_0^0=\frac{1}{\zeta(2)} \hskip 1truecm f_1^0=\frac{1}{\zeta(4)}\hskip1truecm f_2^0=\frac{1}{\zeta(6)}
281: \hskip 1truecm f_3^0=\frac{1}{\zeta(8)}\hskip 1truecm f_4^0=\frac{1}{\zeta(10)}~~~~\dots
282: \eee
283: Then we form forward differences:
284: \bee
285: f_l^k=f_l^{k-1} - f_{l+1}^{k-1}
286: \eee
287: and we have that $c_k=f_0^k$. We will recall some facts from finite difference calculus adapted for our purposes \cite{Knuth}:
288: Let us define as usual the shift operator $E$:
289: $$ Ef(k)=f(k+1). $$
290: Next we introduce sequence:
291: \bee
292: c_k=(1-E)^k f(0)=\sum_{j=0}^{k} \binom{k}{ j } (-1)^j f(j).
293: \label{sequence}
294: \eee
295: Then the following equalities holds \cite{Knuth}:
296: $$ e^{x(1-E)}f(0)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{c_k}{k!} x^k, $$
297: $$ e^{x(1-E)}f(0)=e^xe^{-xE}f(0)=e^{x} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-x)^k}{k!}f(k), $$
298: from which it follows that:
299: $$ \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{c_k}{k!} x^k= e^{x} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-x)^k}{k!}f(k). $$
300: In our case we put
301: $$ f(k)=\frac{1}{\xi(2k+2)} $$
302: and finally we have:
303: \bee
304: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{c_k}{k!} x^k = e^{x} \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-x)^k}{k!\xi(2k+2)}=
305: \frac{e^x}{x}R(x).
306: \label{rownosc1}
307: \eee
308: Thus $R(x)$ can be reconstructed from $c_k$. Vice versa, we will see later, see (\ref{bound}),
309: that within some accuracy $c_k$ can be obtained from $R(x)$.
310: In the paper \cite{Wolf} it was suggested that the duality holds:
311: \bee
312: c_k=\mathcal{O}\left(k^{-\delta} \right) \Leftrightarrow
313: R(x)=\mathcal{O}\left(x^{1-\delta}\right).
314: \label{duality}
315: \eee
316: Putting $\delta=\frac{3}{4}-\epsilon$ gives original criteria (\ref{Riesz criterion})
317: and (\ref{criterion}). In fact we will prove it in the following form:
318:
319: \begin{theorem}\label{dualnosc}
320: The sequence $c_k$ defined by (\ref{ckmain}) decrease like $c_k=\mathcal{O}\left(k^{-\delta}
321: \right)$ if and only if the function $R(x)$ defined by (\ref{Riesz})
322: grows like $R(x)=\mathcal{O}\left(x^{1-\delta}\right)$, where $\delta<3/2$.
323: \end{theorem}
324:
325: \medskip
326:
327: {\bf Remark: } In fact $\delta$ is smaller than $3/4$, as shown by Baez-Duarte
328: in \cite{Luis3}.\\
329:
330:
331: {\bf Proof:} The reasoning that if $c_k=\mathcal{O}\left(k^{-\delta}
332: \right)$ then $R(x)=\mathcal{O}\left(x^{1-\delta}\right)$ we will base on the
333: % As the preliminary we will recall the
334: following facts from Exercises 67 -- 71
335: in the Part IV of famous book of G. Polya and G. Szeg\"{o} \cite{Polya}. We summarize these
336: facts adapted for our purposes in the form: Let
337: \bee
338: f(x)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k x^k,
339: \eee
340: where $a_k$ are positive and decrease monotonically $a_0\geq a_1 \geq a_2 \ldots
341: \geq a_k \geq \ldots$. Let $\alpha$ be defined by
342: \bee
343: \log a_k \sim - \frac{k\log k}{\alpha}
344: \eee
345: and next the parameter $b$ be determined from
346: \bee
347: \log f(x) \sim b x^\alpha.
348: \eee
349: Then for large $x$ the following asymptotic relation is fulfilled:
350: \bee
351: \sum_{k=1}^\infty k^\delta a_k x^k \sim (\alpha b x^\alpha)^\delta f(x).
352: \eee
353: In our case we have $a_k = 1/k!$ thus $f(x)=e^x$ and from Stirling formula we have
354: $\alpha = 1$ and next $b=1$ and hence we have from above formula for large $x$:
355: \bee
356: \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{k^{-\delta} x^k}{k!} \sim x^{-\delta} e^x.
357: \eee
358: If we assume that $|c_k|<A k^{-\delta}$ then we have
359: \bee
360: \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{|c_k| x^k}{k!} < A x^{-\delta} e^x
361: \eee
362: and from (\ref{rownosc1}) it follows:
363: \bee
364: |R(x)| < A x^{1 - \delta}
365: \eee
366: what is a desired inequality.
367:
368: We will show now the opposite implication: from $R(x)=\mathcal{O}\left(x^{1-\delta}\right)$
369: it follows that $c_k=\mathcal{O}\left(k^{-\delta} \right)$. In Appendix we prove
370: the following inequality: % holds (derivation on p.???):
371: \bee
372: \left|\frac{R(k)}{k}-c_k\right| \leq \frac{3\sqrt{\pi}}{16}k^{-3/2} + \mathcal{O}\left(
373: k^{-2}\right)
374: \label{bound}
375: \eee
376: Because $|c_k| -|R(k)/k|<|c_k -R(k)/k|$ and we assume $|R(k)|\leq B k^{1-\delta}$ thus
377: we have
378: \bee
379: |c_k|\leq Bk^{-\delta} + \mathcal{O}\left(k^{-\frac{3}{2}} \right)
380: \eee
381: To avoid nonsense $\delta$ should be smaller than 3/2 and in fact Baez-Duarte showed
382: \cite{Luis3} that existence of zeros on the critical axis requires $\delta<3/4$.
383:
384: \hfill $\square$\\
385:
386:
387: The comparison of the above
388: bound (\ref{bound}) with real computer data is given in the Fig.4. Here the fit (red line)
389: was obtained
390: by the least square method from the data with $k>10000$ to avoid transient regime and it is
391: given by the equation $y=0.0117483x^{-1.52655}$. The fact that approximately $c_k \approx R(k)/k$
392: was observed previously by S. Beltraminelli and D. Merlini \cite{Merlini}.
393: It can be explained heuristically as follows: Baez-Duarte gives in \cite{Luis3} despite
394: (\ref{ckmain}) a few formulae for $c_k$. We need
395: here the following expression being the transformation of (\ref{ckmain}):
396: \bee
397: c_k=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)^k.
398: \label{c k moebius}
399: \eee
400: For large $k$ we can write:
401: \bee
402: c_k=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2}\left(1-\frac{k}{kn^2}\right)^k \approx
403: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2}e^{-n^2/k}
404: \eee
405: and comparing it with (\ref{Riesz2}) we get $c_k\approx R(k)/k$ for large $k$.\\
406:
407: \bigskip
408:
409: \begin{minipage}{12.8cm}
410: \begin{center}
411: \vspace{-2.0cm}
412: \includegraphics[width=11cm ]{fig4.eps}\\
413: \vspace{-2.5cm}
414: Fig. 4 The log-log plot of $|c_k -R(k)/k|$ for $k\in(0,10^6)$.
415: \end{center}
416: \end{minipage}\\
417:
418: %\bigskip
419: %\bigskip
420:
421: {\bf 4 Some other relations}\\
422:
423: Using the formula (\ref{c k moebius})
424: it is possible to calculate the alternating sum of $c_k$:
425: \bee
426: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^k c_k = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2^k} \frac{1}{\zeta(2k)}.
427: \label{suma}
428: \eee
429: Numerically this sum is $\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}(-1)^k c_k = 0.782527985325384234576688\ldots$.
430: This number probably can not be expressed by other known constants, because the Simon Plouffe
431: inverter failed to find any relation \cite{Plouffe}. By the Abel's summation the r.h.s.
432: can be written as:
433: \bee
434: \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{2^k} \frac{1}{\zeta(2k)} =
435: 1 + \int_2^\infty \left(1-\frac{1}{2^{\lfloor x/2 \rfloor }} \right) \frac{\zeta'(x)}{\zeta^2(x)} dx.
436: \eee
437: In fact more general than (\ref{suma}) formula holds:
438: \bee
439: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}c_k s^k = \frac{1}{1-s}
440: \sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left( \frac{-s}{1-s}\right)^k \frac{1}{\zeta(2k+2)},
441: \label{suma_2}
442: \eee
443: where $-1 \leq s <\frac{1}{2}$. Here we have made use of the identity
444: \bee
445: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)^k s^k =
446: \frac{1}{1-s}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\left( \frac{-s}{1-s}\right)^k \frac{1}{n^{2k}}.
447: \eee
448: The l.h.s. is convergent for $-1\leq s <1$ while the r.h.s. converges for $-\infty< s<1/2$.
449:
450: The question of the convergence of the sum $\sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k $
451: is much more complicated. Formally summing both sides of (\ref{sequence}) we get:
452: \bee
453: \sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k = E^{-1}f(0) = f(-1)
454: \label{formal}
455: \eee
456: As in our case $f(k)=1/\zeta(2k+2)$ we have
457: \bee
458: \sum_{k=0}^\infty c_k = \frac{1}{\zeta(0)} = -2
459: \eee
460: because $\zeta(0)=-\frac{1}{2}$, see e.g. \cite{Titchmarsh}, p.19. The partial sums
461: $\sum_{k=0}^n c_k $ indeed initially tend from above to -2, but for $n\approx 91000$
462: the partial sum crosses -2 and around $n\approx 100000$ the partial sum starts to increase.
463: % numerical investigation
464: These oscillations begins to repeat with growing amplitude around -2. The Fig. 5
465: shows the plot of distances of the partial sums $\sum_{k=0}^n c_k $ from -2. Let us remark
466: that at $n\sim 10^8$ the amplitude is rather very small: of the order 0.001.
467: When we retain in (\ref{rownanie}) only the first zero $\gamma_1$
468: it can be shown that this amplitude grows like $n^{1/4}$, thus it appears that the above
469: formal derivation (\ref{formal}) is wrong and the sum $\sum_{k=0}^n c_k$ is divergent.
470:
471: \begin{minipage}{12.8cm}
472: \begin{center}
473: \vspace{-2.0cm}
474: \includegraphics[width=10cm, scale=0.8]{fig5.eps}\\
475: \vspace{-2.5cm}
476: Fig. 5 The distance from -2 of the partial sums $\sum_{k=0}^n$ for $n=1,\ldots 10^8$.
477: \end{center}
478: \end{minipage}
479:
480: \bigskip
481:
482: We have made analogous plot of
483: partial sums $\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k c_k$ and there we have seen oscillations around
484: the limit value $s=0.782527985 \ldots$ of {\it decreasing} amplitude. Thus we speculate,
485: that this partial sums behave as $c_k$ and $R(x)$ accordingly:
486: \bee
487: \left| \sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k c_k - s\right | = \mathcal{O}\left(n^{-\frac{3}{4}}\right),
488: \eee
489: \bee
490: \left| \sum_{k=0}^n c_k +2 \right | = \mathcal{O}\left(n^{\frac{1}{4}}\right).
491: \eee
492:
493: \bigskip
494:
495: Finally we would like to argue in favour of the two strange approximate equalities.
496: Both follows from $c_k \approx R(k)/k$ for large $k$. The first follows when write this
497: relation with the help of (\ref{Riesz}) and (\ref{ckmain}):
498: \bee
499: \sum_{j=0}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{j}k^{j}}{j!\zeta(2j+2)}\approx
500: \sum_{j=0}^k (-1)^j \binom{k}{j}\frac{1}{\zeta(2j+2)}.
501: \eee
502: On both sides there appears inverses of $\zeta(2n)$. We have checked numerically that the
503: difference between these two sums very quickly tends to zero.
504:
505: The second formula we get when in (\ref{rownosc1}) we put instead of $c_k$ simply $R(k)/k$:
506: \bee
507: \frac{e^x}{x}R(x) \approx \sum_{k=0}^\infty R(k) \frac{x^k}{k \ k!}
508: \eee
509: Thus we get $R(x)$ as ``entangled'' combination of $R(k)$ at positive integers.
510: We end asking the question: Will such
511: a kind of constraint help to prove (\ref{Riesz criterion})?
512:
513: \bigskip
514:
515: {\bf Acknowledgement} We thank Prof. L. Baez-Duarte and Prof. K. \Mas for e-mail exchange.
516: To prepare data for some figures we have used the free package PARI/GP \cite{Pari}.
517:
518: \bigskip
519:
520: {\bf Appendix }
521:
522: In this appendix we will calculate the error of the approximation $c_k\approx R(k)/k$.
523: Looking at (\ref{Riesz2}) and (\ref{c k moebius}) we see that we have to estimate the sum:
524: \bee
525: \left|\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2} ~e^{-\frac{k}{n^2}} - \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\mu(n)}{n^2}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)^k\right|<
526: \sum_{n=1}^\infty \left| \frac{1}{n^2} ~e^{-\frac{k}{n^2}} - \frac{1}{n^2}\left(1-\frac{1}{n^2}\right)^k\right|
527: \label{Start}
528: \eee
529: Instead of $\mu(n)$ we have put 1. Let $h(x)$ denote for $1\leq x$:
530: \be
531: h(x)=\frac{1}{x^2}\exp(-k/x^2)-\frac{1}{x^2}\left(1-\frac{1}{x^2}\right)^k.
532: \ee
533: This function is bounded by:
534: \be
535: 0 < h(x) \leq \frac{27}{2e^3k^2}+\frac{128}{e^4k^3} .
536: \ee
537: and has one maximum. Thus we can apply the rule:
538: \be
539: \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} h(n) \leq \max_n h(x) + \int_{1}^{\infty} h(x)dx.
540: \ee
541: The integral is estimated as
542: $$ \int_1^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2}\left(\exp(-k/x^2)-(1-1/x^2)^k\right)dx=\int_0^1 (e^{-ky^2}-(1-y^2)^k)dy. $$
543: $$ \int_0^1 e^{-ky^2}dy=k^{-1/2}\int_0^{\sqrt{k}} e^{-y^2}dy \leq k^{-1/2} \int_0^{\infty} e^{-y^2}dy
544: = \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{k}}. $$
545: \bee
546: \int_0^1 (1-y^2)^k dy = \frac{4^k}{\binom{2k}{k}(2k+1)}
547: \geq \frac{ \sqrt{\pi k}}{2k+1}\left(1+\frac{1}{8k}-\frac{1}{72k^2}\right).
548: \label{Beta}
549: \eee
550: Here the Stirling formula in the form
551: \be
552: k!=\sqrt{2\pi k} \; k^k e^{-k+\theta(k)}, \quad \frac{1}{12k+1} < \theta(k) < \frac{1}{12k}
553: \ee
554: was used. Collecting all above estimations we obtain:
555: $$ \int_1^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2}(\exp(-k/x^2)-(1-1/x^2)^k)dx \leq $$
556: $$ \leq \frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{k}}- \frac{ \sqrt{\pi k}}{2k+1}\left(1+\frac{1}{8k}-\frac{1}{72k^2}\right)
557: <\frac{3\sqrt{\pi}}{16}k^{-3/2}+\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{144}k^{-5/2}. $$
558: and finally from the starting sum (\ref{Start}) we get the desired inequality:
559: $$ | R(k)/k - c_k |\leq \frac{3\sqrt{\pi}}{16}k^{-3/2} + \frac{27}{2}e^{-3}k^{-2}+\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{144}k^{-5/2}
560: +128e^{-4}k^{-3}. $$
561: For $k>16$ it suffices to retain in the above inequality on the r.h.s only the leading
562: term $k^{-3/2}$.
563: Let us remark that the integral (\ref{Beta}) can be also taken from tables
564: as it is the Euler Beta integral:
565: \be
566: \int_0^1(1-y^2)^k dy = \frac{1}{2}B\left(\frac{1}{2}, k+1\right)
567: \ee
568: and from
569: \be
570: B(a,x)\sim x^{-a} \Gamma(a) ~~~~~~{\rm for}~~x~~{\rm large}
571: \ee
572: see e.g. \cite{Titchmarsh2}\S 1.8.7, we get:
573: \be
574: \int_0^1(1-y^2)^k dy \sim \frac{\Gamma(\frac{1}{2})}{2\sqrt{k+1}} =\frac{\sqrt{\pi}}{2\sqrt{k+1}}
575: \ee
576: what for large $k$ reproduces leading term in (\ref{Beta}).
577:
578:
579:
580: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
581:
582: \bibitem{Titchmarsh} Titchmarsh, E. C. {The Theory of the Riemann Zeta Function, 2nd ed.}
583: New York: Clarendon Press, 1987.
584:
585: \bibitem{aimath} \href{http://www.aimath.org/WWN/rh/} {http://www.aimath.org/WWN/rh/}
586:
587: \bibitem{Watkins} \href{http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/RHreformulations.htm}
588: {http://www.maths.ex.ac.uk/~mwatkins/zeta/RHreformulations.htm}
589:
590: \bibitem{Riesz} M. Riesz {\it Sur l'hypothe`se de Riemann}, Acta Math. 40 (1916), 185-190
591:
592: \bibitem{Luis2} L. Baez-Duarte, A new necessary and sufficient condition for
593: the Riemann Hypothesis, 2003, math.NT/0307215
594:
595: \bibitem{Luis3} L. Baez-Duarte, A sequential Riesz-like criterion
596: for the Riemann Hypothesis, International Journal of Mathematics and Mathematical
597: Sciences (2005) 3527–--3537
598:
599: \bibitem{Maslanka3} K. Ma$\acute{\rm s}$lanka, Baez-Duarte’s Criterion for the Riemann
600: Hypothesis and Rice’s Integrals, math.NT/0603713 v2 1 Apr 2006
601:
602: \bibitem{Wolf} M. Wolf {\it Evidence in favor of the Baez-Duarte criterion for the Riemann
603: Hypothesis} \href{http://lanl.arxiv.org/ps/math.NT/0605485}{math.NT/0605485} 17 May 2006
604:
605: \bibitem{Wikipedia} \href{http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Riesz\_function\&oldid=53093073}
606: {Wikipedia, "Riesz function --- Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia"}
607:
608: \bibitem{Knuth} Ronald L. Graham, Donald E. Knuth, Oren Patashnik,
609: {\it Concrete Mathematics: A Foundation for Computer Science} (2nd Edition)
610: Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
611:
612:
613: \bibitem{Polya} G.Polya, G.Szeg\"{o}, {\it Problems and Theorems in Analysis. Volume II}(Springer,
614: Berlin, Heidelberg, New York 1976, 1998)
615:
616: \bibitem{Merlini} S. Beltraminelli, D. Merlini, {\it The criteria of Riesz,
617: Hardy-Littlewood et al. for the Riemann Hypothesis revisited using similar functions},
618: math.NT/0601138 7 Jan 2006
619:
620: \bibitem{Plouffe} \href{http://pi.lacim.uqam.ca/eng/}
621: {Plouffe's inverter} and private e-mail exchange with Simon Plouffe
622:
623: \bibitem{Pari} PARI/GP, version {\tt 2.2.11}, Bordeaux, 2005,
624: \href{http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/}
625: {http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/}.
626:
627: \bibitem{Titchmarsh2} Titchmarsh E. C. {\it The Theory of Functions},
628: 2nd ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1960.
629:
630: \end{thebibliography}
631:
632: \end{document}
633: