3

The Dirichlet transform of the Liouville function $\lambda(n)$ is famously

$$ \sum_{n=1} \frac{\lambda(n)}{n^s} = \frac{\zeta(2s)}{\zeta(s)}\tag{1}$$

The Liouville function is defined by $$ \lambda(n) = (-1)^{\Omega(n)}\tag{2} $$ with $\Omega(n)$ being the number of not-necessarily distinct prime factors of the natural number $n$.

I am interested in the Dirichlet transform of a similar (completely multiplicative) function $f$ defined as $$ f(n):= e^{(2 \pi i / 3)\Omega(n)} \tag{3}$$

I have got that far in the evaluation:

$$\begin{eqnarray} \sum_{n=1} \frac{f(n)}{n^s} & = & \sum_{n=1} \frac{e^{(2 \pi i / 3)\Omega(n)}}{n^s} \nonumber \\ & = & \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left( \sum_{k=0} \frac{e^{(2 \pi i / 3)k}}{p^{ks}} \right) = \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left( \sum_{k=0} \left(\frac{e^{(2 \pi i / 3)}}{p^{s}}\right)^k \right)\nonumber \\ & = & \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \frac{1}{ 1 - \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}} \tag{5} \\ \end{eqnarray}$$

at this point I am not completely sure how to continue. In analogy to the case of the Dirichlet transformation of $\lambda(n)$ one could expand these fractions in trinomial fashion possibly by a factor of $ \frac{1}{1 + \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}} + \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^2}$ that would yield

$$\begin{eqnarray} \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \frac{1}{ 1 - \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}} \cdot \frac{{1 + \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}} + \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^2}}{{1 + \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}} + \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^2}} & = & \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \frac{{1 + \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}} + \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^2}}{ 1 - \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^3 } \nonumber \\ & = & \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \frac{{1 + \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}} + \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^2}}{ 1 - \frac{1}{p^{3s}} } \nonumber \\ & = & \zeta(3s) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left({1 + \frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}} + \left(\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}\right)^2}\right) \nonumber \\ \end{eqnarray}$$

setting $\beta(p)=\frac{e^{2 \pi i / 3}}{p^{s}}$ I obtain

$$\begin{eqnarray} \sum_{n=1} \frac{f(n)}{n^s} & = & \zeta(3s) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} (1 + \beta(p) + \beta^2(p)) & \nonumber \\ & = &\zeta(3s) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\beta(p) - \frac{i\sqrt{3}-1}{2}\right) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\beta(p) + \frac{i\sqrt{3}+1}{2}\right) \end{eqnarray}$$

Here I get a bit stuck, the hope would be that one would be able to express the whole thing in terms of elementary functions.

Any help appreciated.


Edit

From here I can slightly proceed by

$$\begin{eqnarray} \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\beta(p) - \frac{i\sqrt{3}-1}{2}\right) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\beta(p) + \frac{i\sqrt{3}+1}{2}\right) & = & \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\frac{1-i\sqrt{3}}{2} - \beta(p)\right) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\frac{i\sqrt{3}+1}{2} + \beta(p)\right) \end{eqnarray}$$

by defining the constants $\alpha_{1/2}:=\frac{2e^{2\pi i / 3}}{(+/-)1-i\sqrt{3}}$ this can be rewritten to

$$\begin{eqnarray} \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\frac{1-i\sqrt{3}}{2} - \beta(p)\right) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(\frac{i\sqrt{3}+1}{2} + \beta(p)\right) & = & \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(1-\frac{\alpha_1}{p^s}\right) \prod_{p\in\Bbb{P}} \left(1-\frac{\alpha_2}{p^s}\right) \end{eqnarray}$$

These expressions look up to the factors $\alpha$ very similar to the Euler Product of $\zeta^{-1}$, but I am not aware of if this can be simplified any further.

1 Answers1

2

For your case, it is possible to write the Dirichlet series in the following product. Let $|z|\leq R <2$. Then

$$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} z^{\Omega(n)} n^{-s} = \zeta(s)^z F(s,z) $$ where $$ F(s,z) = \prod_p \left( 1- \frac z{p^s}\right)^{-1}\left(1-\frac 1{p^s}\right)^z $$ is absolutely convergent for $\Re(s)>\frac12$.

Thus, you can try putting $z=e^{2\pi i/3}$.

For a general method, you can refer to Montgomery, Vaughan's Multiplicative Number Theory, classical theory I, p.232 Theorem 7.18.

Sungjin Kim
  • 20,850
  • Thank you very much, this is good to know that there is a formal way to proceed. Unfortunately inserting this $z=e(1/3)$ into the Montgomery expression yields exactly my $(5)$, which is a nice confirmation that everything is OK up to that point. So it seems we cannot proceed further, can we? – Raphael J.F. Berger Jul 10 '21 at 06:05
  • 1
    Yes, everything is okay up to (5). An advantage of this approach is to factor out $\zeta(s)^z$. This allows having $F(s,z)$ with a Dirichlet series absolutely convergent over a larger region than $\zeta$. I forgot to mention in my answer that the name of this approach is "Selberg-DeLange method". – Sungjin Kim Jul 10 '21 at 12:14
  • 1
    Another place to look up the method is Tenenbaum's Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory II.5, p185, Theorem 3. This version is a stronger theorem than Montgomery, Vaughan's Theorem 7.18. – Sungjin Kim Jul 10 '21 at 12:21