4

The Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$ is known to be holomorphic, except at $s=1$.

I am not trained to university maths, but I interpret this to mean:

  • it is complex differentiable at every point (smoothly changing values, no discontinuities)

  • and is equal to Taylor series developed around any point in its domain

Question: How do we show $\zeta(s)$ is holomorphic?

Is it enough to show that the series which represent it, $\zeta(s)=\sum 1/n^s$ valid for $\Re(s)>1$ for example, are infinitely differentiable, except at the known pole at $s=1$?

Is it also correct to say that by the principle of analytic continuation, any other series, such as $\zeta(s)=(1-s^{1-s})^{-1}\eta(s)$ valid over larger domains, are also holomorphic, except at any new poles. By separate analysis, there are no new poles in $0<\Re(s)\leq 1$.

Apologies if this question seems naive, I am self-teaching.

Penelope
  • 3,635
  • Recommendation: Read about analytic continuation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_continuation and then come back to ask about anything still unclear. – GEdgar Sep 05 '21 at 00:45
  • hi @GEdgar I know you're trying to help, but that doesn't help me. Is it not as simple as proving the series is infinitely differentiable, except at one pole s=1? – Penelope Sep 05 '21 at 03:12
  • Start by recalling local uniform limit of holomorphic is holomorphic, and the usual definition of $\zeta$. Extend that to, e.g., the Dirichlet series $(s-1)\zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^\infty\left(\frac{n}{(n+1)^s}-\frac{n-s}{n^s}\right)$ and then use reflection formula. – user10354138 Sep 05 '21 at 05:11
  • "Is it not as simple as..." No, it is not. – GEdgar Sep 05 '21 at 12:36
  • hi @GEdgar from this question: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4032871/riemann-zeta-function-is-analytic-for-operatornamerez1 we have a comment "$z \mapsto \frac{1}{n^z}$ is holomorphic everywhere, so if you know that $\sum_{n=1}^k \frac 1 {n^z}$ converges locally uniformly on the right of $\Re()=1$, you know that its limit is holomorphic". This seems relatively simple enough. Have I deeply misunderstood ? – Penelope Sep 05 '21 at 13:52
  • 1
    @Tariq That argument shows that $\zeta(s)$ is holomorphic for $\Re (s)>1$. – Gary Sep 05 '21 at 15:48
  • hi @Gary thanks for your patience with me (self-taught) .. so if it is holomorphic for $\Re(s)>1$ then by analytic continuation it is elsewhere, except for a finite number of singularities where we can find them. Is this correct logic? – Penelope Sep 05 '21 at 16:18
  • @Tariq The basic thing is that you can come up with an expression that is a well-defined analytic function of $s$ for all complex $s\neq 1$ and it turns out that it agrees with $\zeta(s)$ when $\Re s >1$. Please read the answer by peek-a-boo below. – Gary Sep 05 '21 at 16:54

1 Answers1

2

Let $U=\{s\in\Bbb{C}\,:\, \text{Re}(s)>1\}$, and consider first $\zeta_0:U\to\Bbb{C}$ defined as \begin{align} \zeta_0(s)&:=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^s} \end{align} For each $\sigma>1$, if $\text{Re}(s)\geq \sigma$, then \begin{align} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\left|\frac{1}{n^s}\right|&=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{\text{Re}(s)}}\leq \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{\sigma}}<\infty \end{align} This implies local uniform convergence of a series of holomorphic functions on $U$, and thus $\zeta_0$ is a holomorphic function on $U$. The only reason I use the notation $\zeta_0$ is to emphasize that we have not done any analytic continuation yet, so it's not the full Riemann zeta function yet. One has the following theorem:

Theorem.

There exists an analytic/holomorphic function $\zeta: \Bbb{C}\setminus \{1\}\to\Bbb{C}$ such that $\zeta|_U=\zeta_0$, and such that $s=1$ is a simple pole of $\zeta$ (with residue $1$).

We call the full mapping $\zeta$ the Riemann zeta function. $\zeta_0$ is merely a part of the restriction. As mentioned in the theorem, one has to prove that such an analytic/holomorphic function $\zeta:\Bbb{C}\setminus\{1\}\to\Bbb{C}$ exists. This is not a trivial thing (in general, existence of analytic continuations/extensions is a non-trivial issue), but in this case there are several well-known proofs of this theorem.

In the first part of my answer, showing the local uniform convergence of the series only shows that $\zeta_0$ is holomorphic on $U$. This says nothing about the existence of an analytic/holomorphic extension of $\zeta_0$ from the initial domain $U$ to $\Bbb{C}\setminus\{1\}$.


As I mentioned, there are several well-known proofs of the theorem. Here are two I remember off the top of my head:

  • The first method can be found in Ahlfors. Start by observing that for $\text{Re}(s)>1$ (i.e $s\in U$) we have $\Gamma(s)\zeta_0(s)=\int_0^{\infty}\frac{x^{s-1}}{e^x-1}\,dx$. One can then deform the integration to get it as an integral over a certain contour $C$ which avoids the non-negative real axis, and then with a bit of work, one can show \begin{align} \zeta_0(s)&=-\frac{\Gamma(1-s)}{2\pi i}\int_C\frac{(-z)^{s-1}}{e^z-1}\,dz \end{align} (see Ahlfors for the details). Now, one observes that on the RHS, the integral is an entire function of $s$ (this is not trivial, but also not too hard if we have things like Fubini's theorem and Morera's theorem available). $\Gamma(1-s)$ has poles at $s=1,2,3,\dots$. In short, the RHS is a mermomorphic function on $\Bbb{C}$; but actually on the LHS, we already know $\zeta_0$ is holomorphic at $s=2,3,4,\dots$. In summary, the RHS provides us with a meromorphic extension of $\zeta_0$ to $\Bbb{C}$ with only a simple pole at $s=1$.

  • Another approach for showing the existence of an analytic continuation involves using Mellin transforms and the Jacobi theta identity. Wikipedia gives a formula for $\zeta_0$. You can find more details in the delightful little book A Brief Introduction to Theta Functions (there are sections on Jacobi's identity, the Mellin Transform and the zeta function).

peek-a-boo
  • 65,833
  • thanks @peek-a-boo. Your answer is clear for $\sigma>1$ but in my self-teaching I keep finding references to the need for the uniform convergence of the series to be on a compact subset of the complex domain. Why is this not an issue here? What am I misunderstanding. Once I've understood this I will mark this as solved. – Penelope Jan 08 '22 at 00:59
  • @Tariq here we have a special situation where we have uniform convergence on a closed but not bounded set. This is an extra benefit. i.e we have something better than just uniform convergence on compact sets, so I'm not sure why you think this is a problem. – peek-a-boo Jan 08 '22 at 01:23
  • my apologies. We've established uniform convergence on $\sigma>1$ which is better than compact sets. However I can't find the logical step from this to say the series is holomorphic. My interpretation of the textbooks is that the link can only be made if the convergence is on a compact set. This is the source of my puzzle. – Penelope Jan 08 '22 at 15:05
  • Can some one explain some more why the RHS is entire? – Port Apr 26 '25 at 15:14
  • @Port the integrand is holomorphic wherever it’s defined, so all you have to do is justify differentiation under the integral or justify using Fubini+ Morera. Try this out yourself, using this and this as a guide. So you just have to find a suitable dominating function. – peek-a-boo Apr 26 '25 at 16:33