0

As a proof of the second part of part(b) of this question :

Liouville function and perfect square

I have the solution given below:

enter image description here

But I can not see how this solution explains the case when $n =5 \times 3^2 $

Could anyone explain this for me please? and if the solution does not deal with this case can anyone give me hints towards the correct solution?

Intuition
  • 3,043
  • 1
    You don't show the question. But I assume is to prove what $\sum_{d|n}\lambda(d)$ is. This solution has mistakes. (how in the world a number $n$ is called a "square free function"? ) – Julian Mejia May 31 '19 at 01:59
  • I am sorry ... the question is here https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/516153/liouville-function-and-perfect-square?rq=1 – Intuition May 31 '19 at 02:13

1 Answers1

2

First, let's recall the definition of the liouville function,$\lambda(n)=(-1)^{\Omega(n)}$ where $\Omega(n)$ is the number of prime factors counted with multiplicity. Note that $\lambda$ is completely multiplicative.

We want to know what is $\lambda\ast 1(n)=\sum_{d|n}\lambda(d)$ (Here, $\ast$ denotes the convolution of arithmetic functions)

Since $\lambda$ and $1$ are multiplicative, then $\lambda\ast 1$ is also multiplicative, so it's enough to know the values of $\lambda\ast 1$ at the prime powers.

Note $$\lambda\ast 1(p^{k})=\sum_{d|p^{k}}\lambda(d)=\sum_{j=0}^k\lambda(p^j)=\sum_{j=0}^k(-1)^j$$ From here, convince yourself that $\lambda\ast 1(p^{k})=1$ if $k$ is even and $\lambda\ast 1(p^{k})=0$ if $k$ is odd.

Conclude that $\lambda\ast 1(n)=1$ if $n$ is square and $0$ otherwise.

Edit: If you don't know the fact that convolution of two multiplicative functions is multiplicative, alternatively we can prove directly that $n\mapsto \sum_{d|n}\lambda_f(d)$ is a multiplicative function.

Indeed, let $n=p_1^{k_1}\dots p_r^{k_r}$. Since $\lambda$ is (completely) multiplicative you have \begin{align*}\sum_{d|n}\lambda(d)&=\sum_{(j_1,\dots,j_r)\leq (k_1,\dots,k_r)}\lambda(p_1^{j_1}\dots p_r^{j_r})\\ &=\sum_{(j_1,\dots,j_r)\leq (k_1,\dots,k_r)}\lambda(p_1^{j_1})\dots \lambda(p_r^{j_r})\\ &=\left(\sum_{j_1\leq k_1}\lambda(p_1^{j_1})\right)\dots \left(\sum_{j_r\leq k_r}\lambda(p_r^{j_r})\right) \\ &=\left(\sum_{d|p_1^{k_1}}\lambda(d)\right)\dots \left(\sum_{d|p_r^{k_r}}\lambda(d)\right) \end{align*}

Julian Mejia
  • 4,458
  • Can you solve it without convolution? – Intuition May 31 '19 at 02:14
  • 1
    @hopefully I am just using the fact that the map $n\mapsto \sum_{d|n}\lambda(d)$ is multiplicative, which comes for free since it is a convolution of two multiplicative functions. But, you can prove that this map is multiplicative directly. I will edit my answer to be more specific. – Julian Mejia May 31 '19 at 02:24