4

I'm going through the paper of D. Zagier on Short Proof of Prime Number Theorem. There it says in V that $\Phi(s)=\int_1^\infty \frac{d\vartheta(x)}{x^s}$ . Can someone please explain in details why that is the case ? And also how The Analytic Theorem is being applied here to the functions defined as f(t) and g(z) ?

MSE question link: Newman's "Natural proof"(Analytic) of Prime Number Theorem (1980)

Edit: I have understood how the Analytic Theorem is being applied here but I am still unable to figure out about that integral. I saw a post mentioning that because $\vartheta(x)$ changes by $log(p)$ for primes only. I got that point but is their a way to formally proof that thing. Any relative reference is appreciated. Thank you ,

1 Answers1

5

This is a form of integration called Riemann-Stieltjes integration. In short, we define

$$ \int_a^b f(x) d g(x) = \sum f(c_j) \big( g(x_{j + 1}) - g(x_j) \big) $$

for partitions $a = x_0 < \cdots < x_n = b$ and points $c_j \in [x_j, x_{j + 1}]$. This is a weighted generalization of typical Riemann integration.

Concretely, we can think of this sort of integral as adding $f(x) \Delta(g(x))$ whenever $g(x)$ changes.

Here, $\vartheta(x) = \sum_{p \leq x} \log p$ is the first Chebyshev function. Observe that this changes only on intervals $(p - \epsilon, p + \epsilon)$ when $p$ is prime (for sufficiently small $\epsilon$). Thus a Riemann-Stieltjes integral of the form

$$ \int_a^b f(x) d \vartheta(x)$$

for a continuous function $f$ on an interval $[a, b]$ (and where $p_1, \ldots, p_k$ are the primes in the interval $[a, b]$) will be the limit of partition terms that look like

$$ \sum_{j = 1}^k f(\alpha_j) \big( \vartheta(p_j + \epsilon) - \vartheta(p_j - \epsilon) \big) \to \sum_{j = 1}^k f(p_j) \log p_j.$$

Here, I write $\alpha_j$ to mean some number in $(p_j - \epsilon, p_j + \epsilon)$. As I've assumed $f$ is continuous, the limit as $\epsilon \to 0$ tends to $f(p_j)$. And the point is that for all $\epsilon > 0$, $\vartheta(p_j + \epsilon) - \vartheta(p_j - \epsilon) = \log p_j$ exactly. As $\vartheta(x)$ only changes around $p_j$, there is no other contribution to the integral.

More explicitly, I have given an explicit limit of partitions of the interval $[a, b]$, consisting of $2\epsilon$ boxes around primes; and I claim that taking refinements of this partition (i.e. taking $\epsilon \to 0$) converges.

Applying this to $f(x) = x^{-s}$ and to the integral $\int_1^B x^{-s} d \vartheta(x)$ shows that

$$ \int_1^B \frac{d \vartheta(x)}{x^s} = \sum_{1 \leq p \leq B} \frac{\log p}{p^s}. $$

Taking the improper integral amounts to taking the limit as $B \to \infty$, which is equal to $\sum (\log p)/p^s$ as long as $s > 1$, which guarantees absolute convergence.

  • Got it , thanks a lot ! – Sagnik Dutta Mar 09 '24 at 20:39
  • Also I have a small question. In the proof of the Analytic Theorem, how does Cauchy Theorem gives us that integral involving $g(0)-g_T(0)?$ I don't understand how that term $e^{zT}(1+\frac{z^2}{R^2})$ comes . Thanks in advance – Sagnik Dutta Mar 11 '24 at 14:55
  • The term $e^{zT}(1 + z^2/R^2)$ isn't useful for the evaluation of the integral using Cauchy's Theorem. The point there is that the integrand has a simple pole from $dz/z$, and the residue is $(g(0) - g_T(0)) e^{0T} (1 + 0^2/R^2) = g(0) - g_T(0)$. Presumably the confusing terms are useful for a later convergence argument. – davidlowryduda Mar 11 '24 at 15:00
  • Let me tell you what I understood from your comment. So we are applying just Residue formula on the RHS integrand and expect that $1/z$ factor everything else is holomorphic hence the reidue is coming out to be $g(0)-g_T(0)$. – Sagnik Dutta Mar 11 '24 at 18:32
  • Can you explain III ? How are we getting $\theta(x)-\theta \frac{x}{2} \leq Cx $ – Sagnik Dutta Mar 16 '24 at 11:38
  • @SagnikDutta That is the purpose of the question you link to, and is a bit bigger than a comment. If it's unclear, consider asking a separate question. But be sure to include what you find confusing about the answer from the answer you link to in your question statement here. – davidlowryduda Mar 19 '24 at 00:04
  • Thank you so much . I have figured it out btw. Thanks for all your help . – Sagnik Dutta Mar 19 '24 at 04:17