Is this zeta-type function meromorphic?












1














In An older question I asked :



( See A Thue-Morse Zeta function (Generalized Riemann Zeta function and new GRH) )



——



Consider $t_n$ as the Thue-Morse sequence. Let $m$ be a positive integer and $s$ a complex number, and recall that the Odiuos numbers are the indices of nonzero entries in the Thue-Morse sequence. Now consider the sequence of functions below:



$$f(1,s)=1+2^{-s}+3^{-s}+4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>1$.



$$f(2,s)=1-2^{-s}+3^{-s}-4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the alternating zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>0$.



$$f(3,s)=1-2^{-s}-3^{-s}+4^{-s}+5^{-s}-6^{-s}-7^{-s}+8^{-s}+dotsb = 4^{-s} (zeta(s,1/4) - zeta(s,2/4) - zeta(s,3/4) + zeta(s,4/4) ) $$



( $zeta(s,a)$ is Hurwitz zeta )



I'm not sure if this has an official name yet but it clear that it is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-1$. This sequence of functions is constructed in the similar way the Thue-Morse sequence is constructed.



$$begin{align}
&vdots\
f(infty,s)&= sum (-1)^{t_n} n^{-s}
end{align}$$



This is a nice generalization/variant of the Riemann Zeta function and the Dirichlet eta or Dirichlet $L$-functions. It follows that $f(m, s)$ is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-m+2$. Now there are two logical questions analogue to the questions about the Riemann Zeta function:




  1. What are the functional equations for $f(m,s)$?


  2. Call the $N^text{th}$ zero $Z_n(m)$. Are all the zero's of $f(m,s)$ for any $m$ with $0<mathrm{Real}(s)<1$ on the critical line $(mathrm{Real}(Z_N(m))=1/2)$ ?


  3. Is clearly a generalizations of the Riemann Hypothesis. And I think it might be true! (I made some plots that were convincing but the accuracy was low.)



I wonder if these functions have a name yet and what the answers to the 2 logical questions are. I also invite the readers to make more conjectures and variants with this.



——



Some additional questions :



let $T(s) = f(infty,s) $.



1) Is $T(s)$ meromorphic on The entire complex plane ?



2) how Many poles does $T(s)$ have ? Is it one ?



3) assuming 1) : What is The infinite product representation for $T(s)$ ? ( hadamard type product )



4) assuming 1),2) how fast is this function growing on The complex plane ? As fast as Riemann zeta ?? I assume so.



I think all of these are true.
Maybe 2) can Be shown by induction from $f(n,z) $ To $f(n+1,z) $ ?? But infinity is no integer , so maybe not.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    ??? Is this supposed to be a definition of $f(m,s)$ ? Only Euler products lead to non-messy coefficients for both $F(s), log F(s)$.
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 16:28












  • @reuns I was talking About hadamard type products. Not euler type. Besides I assume iT had no euler type.
    – mick
    Nov 29 '18 at 17:49






  • 1




    If you don't define $f(m,s)$ we won't go far. No Euler product and non-messy coefficients ⟹ no RH. The analytic continuation is obtained by summing by parts $k$-times or looking at the Mellin transform of $sum_{n=1}^infty a(n,m) e^{-nx}$. The limit is $h(x)=prod_{l ge 1} (1-e^{-2^l x})$. $log h(x) approx sum_l e^{-2^l x} approx int_0^infty e^{-xy} 2^{-2^y} dy= O(...)$
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 21:36
















1














In An older question I asked :



( See A Thue-Morse Zeta function (Generalized Riemann Zeta function and new GRH) )



——



Consider $t_n$ as the Thue-Morse sequence. Let $m$ be a positive integer and $s$ a complex number, and recall that the Odiuos numbers are the indices of nonzero entries in the Thue-Morse sequence. Now consider the sequence of functions below:



$$f(1,s)=1+2^{-s}+3^{-s}+4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>1$.



$$f(2,s)=1-2^{-s}+3^{-s}-4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the alternating zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>0$.



$$f(3,s)=1-2^{-s}-3^{-s}+4^{-s}+5^{-s}-6^{-s}-7^{-s}+8^{-s}+dotsb = 4^{-s} (zeta(s,1/4) - zeta(s,2/4) - zeta(s,3/4) + zeta(s,4/4) ) $$



( $zeta(s,a)$ is Hurwitz zeta )



I'm not sure if this has an official name yet but it clear that it is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-1$. This sequence of functions is constructed in the similar way the Thue-Morse sequence is constructed.



$$begin{align}
&vdots\
f(infty,s)&= sum (-1)^{t_n} n^{-s}
end{align}$$



This is a nice generalization/variant of the Riemann Zeta function and the Dirichlet eta or Dirichlet $L$-functions. It follows that $f(m, s)$ is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-m+2$. Now there are two logical questions analogue to the questions about the Riemann Zeta function:




  1. What are the functional equations for $f(m,s)$?


  2. Call the $N^text{th}$ zero $Z_n(m)$. Are all the zero's of $f(m,s)$ for any $m$ with $0<mathrm{Real}(s)<1$ on the critical line $(mathrm{Real}(Z_N(m))=1/2)$ ?


  3. Is clearly a generalizations of the Riemann Hypothesis. And I think it might be true! (I made some plots that were convincing but the accuracy was low.)



I wonder if these functions have a name yet and what the answers to the 2 logical questions are. I also invite the readers to make more conjectures and variants with this.



——



Some additional questions :



let $T(s) = f(infty,s) $.



1) Is $T(s)$ meromorphic on The entire complex plane ?



2) how Many poles does $T(s)$ have ? Is it one ?



3) assuming 1) : What is The infinite product representation for $T(s)$ ? ( hadamard type product )



4) assuming 1),2) how fast is this function growing on The complex plane ? As fast as Riemann zeta ?? I assume so.



I think all of these are true.
Maybe 2) can Be shown by induction from $f(n,z) $ To $f(n+1,z) $ ?? But infinity is no integer , so maybe not.










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 2




    ??? Is this supposed to be a definition of $f(m,s)$ ? Only Euler products lead to non-messy coefficients for both $F(s), log F(s)$.
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 16:28












  • @reuns I was talking About hadamard type products. Not euler type. Besides I assume iT had no euler type.
    – mick
    Nov 29 '18 at 17:49






  • 1




    If you don't define $f(m,s)$ we won't go far. No Euler product and non-messy coefficients ⟹ no RH. The analytic continuation is obtained by summing by parts $k$-times or looking at the Mellin transform of $sum_{n=1}^infty a(n,m) e^{-nx}$. The limit is $h(x)=prod_{l ge 1} (1-e^{-2^l x})$. $log h(x) approx sum_l e^{-2^l x} approx int_0^infty e^{-xy} 2^{-2^y} dy= O(...)$
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 21:36














1












1








1


3





In An older question I asked :



( See A Thue-Morse Zeta function (Generalized Riemann Zeta function and new GRH) )



——



Consider $t_n$ as the Thue-Morse sequence. Let $m$ be a positive integer and $s$ a complex number, and recall that the Odiuos numbers are the indices of nonzero entries in the Thue-Morse sequence. Now consider the sequence of functions below:



$$f(1,s)=1+2^{-s}+3^{-s}+4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>1$.



$$f(2,s)=1-2^{-s}+3^{-s}-4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the alternating zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>0$.



$$f(3,s)=1-2^{-s}-3^{-s}+4^{-s}+5^{-s}-6^{-s}-7^{-s}+8^{-s}+dotsb = 4^{-s} (zeta(s,1/4) - zeta(s,2/4) - zeta(s,3/4) + zeta(s,4/4) ) $$



( $zeta(s,a)$ is Hurwitz zeta )



I'm not sure if this has an official name yet but it clear that it is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-1$. This sequence of functions is constructed in the similar way the Thue-Morse sequence is constructed.



$$begin{align}
&vdots\
f(infty,s)&= sum (-1)^{t_n} n^{-s}
end{align}$$



This is a nice generalization/variant of the Riemann Zeta function and the Dirichlet eta or Dirichlet $L$-functions. It follows that $f(m, s)$ is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-m+2$. Now there are two logical questions analogue to the questions about the Riemann Zeta function:




  1. What are the functional equations for $f(m,s)$?


  2. Call the $N^text{th}$ zero $Z_n(m)$. Are all the zero's of $f(m,s)$ for any $m$ with $0<mathrm{Real}(s)<1$ on the critical line $(mathrm{Real}(Z_N(m))=1/2)$ ?


  3. Is clearly a generalizations of the Riemann Hypothesis. And I think it might be true! (I made some plots that were convincing but the accuracy was low.)



I wonder if these functions have a name yet and what the answers to the 2 logical questions are. I also invite the readers to make more conjectures and variants with this.



——



Some additional questions :



let $T(s) = f(infty,s) $.



1) Is $T(s)$ meromorphic on The entire complex plane ?



2) how Many poles does $T(s)$ have ? Is it one ?



3) assuming 1) : What is The infinite product representation for $T(s)$ ? ( hadamard type product )



4) assuming 1),2) how fast is this function growing on The complex plane ? As fast as Riemann zeta ?? I assume so.



I think all of these are true.
Maybe 2) can Be shown by induction from $f(n,z) $ To $f(n+1,z) $ ?? But infinity is no integer , so maybe not.










share|cite|improve this question















In An older question I asked :



( See A Thue-Morse Zeta function (Generalized Riemann Zeta function and new GRH) )



——



Consider $t_n$ as the Thue-Morse sequence. Let $m$ be a positive integer and $s$ a complex number, and recall that the Odiuos numbers are the indices of nonzero entries in the Thue-Morse sequence. Now consider the sequence of functions below:



$$f(1,s)=1+2^{-s}+3^{-s}+4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>1$.



$$f(2,s)=1-2^{-s}+3^{-s}-4^{-s}+dotsb$$



This is the alternating zeta function valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>0$.



$$f(3,s)=1-2^{-s}-3^{-s}+4^{-s}+5^{-s}-6^{-s}-7^{-s}+8^{-s}+dotsb = 4^{-s} (zeta(s,1/4) - zeta(s,2/4) - zeta(s,3/4) + zeta(s,4/4) ) $$



( $zeta(s,a)$ is Hurwitz zeta )



I'm not sure if this has an official name yet but it clear that it is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-1$. This sequence of functions is constructed in the similar way the Thue-Morse sequence is constructed.



$$begin{align}
&vdots\
f(infty,s)&= sum (-1)^{t_n} n^{-s}
end{align}$$



This is a nice generalization/variant of the Riemann Zeta function and the Dirichlet eta or Dirichlet $L$-functions. It follows that $f(m, s)$ is valid for $mathrm{Real}(s)>-m+2$. Now there are two logical questions analogue to the questions about the Riemann Zeta function:




  1. What are the functional equations for $f(m,s)$?


  2. Call the $N^text{th}$ zero $Z_n(m)$. Are all the zero's of $f(m,s)$ for any $m$ with $0<mathrm{Real}(s)<1$ on the critical line $(mathrm{Real}(Z_N(m))=1/2)$ ?


  3. Is clearly a generalizations of the Riemann Hypothesis. And I think it might be true! (I made some plots that were convincing but the accuracy was low.)



I wonder if these functions have a name yet and what the answers to the 2 logical questions are. I also invite the readers to make more conjectures and variants with this.



——



Some additional questions :



let $T(s) = f(infty,s) $.



1) Is $T(s)$ meromorphic on The entire complex plane ?



2) how Many poles does $T(s)$ have ? Is it one ?



3) assuming 1) : What is The infinite product representation for $T(s)$ ? ( hadamard type product )



4) assuming 1),2) how fast is this function growing on The complex plane ? As fast as Riemann zeta ?? I assume so.



I think all of these are true.
Maybe 2) can Be shown by induction from $f(n,z) $ To $f(n+1,z) $ ?? But infinity is no integer , so maybe not.







complex-analysis analytic-number-theory infinite-product zeta-functions






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 3 '18 at 3:04







mick

















asked Nov 29 '18 at 14:47









mickmick

5,09422064




5,09422064








  • 2




    ??? Is this supposed to be a definition of $f(m,s)$ ? Only Euler products lead to non-messy coefficients for both $F(s), log F(s)$.
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 16:28












  • @reuns I was talking About hadamard type products. Not euler type. Besides I assume iT had no euler type.
    – mick
    Nov 29 '18 at 17:49






  • 1




    If you don't define $f(m,s)$ we won't go far. No Euler product and non-messy coefficients ⟹ no RH. The analytic continuation is obtained by summing by parts $k$-times or looking at the Mellin transform of $sum_{n=1}^infty a(n,m) e^{-nx}$. The limit is $h(x)=prod_{l ge 1} (1-e^{-2^l x})$. $log h(x) approx sum_l e^{-2^l x} approx int_0^infty e^{-xy} 2^{-2^y} dy= O(...)$
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 21:36














  • 2




    ??? Is this supposed to be a definition of $f(m,s)$ ? Only Euler products lead to non-messy coefficients for both $F(s), log F(s)$.
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 16:28












  • @reuns I was talking About hadamard type products. Not euler type. Besides I assume iT had no euler type.
    – mick
    Nov 29 '18 at 17:49






  • 1




    If you don't define $f(m,s)$ we won't go far. No Euler product and non-messy coefficients ⟹ no RH. The analytic continuation is obtained by summing by parts $k$-times or looking at the Mellin transform of $sum_{n=1}^infty a(n,m) e^{-nx}$. The limit is $h(x)=prod_{l ge 1} (1-e^{-2^l x})$. $log h(x) approx sum_l e^{-2^l x} approx int_0^infty e^{-xy} 2^{-2^y} dy= O(...)$
    – reuns
    Nov 29 '18 at 21:36








2




2




??? Is this supposed to be a definition of $f(m,s)$ ? Only Euler products lead to non-messy coefficients for both $F(s), log F(s)$.
– reuns
Nov 29 '18 at 16:28






??? Is this supposed to be a definition of $f(m,s)$ ? Only Euler products lead to non-messy coefficients for both $F(s), log F(s)$.
– reuns
Nov 29 '18 at 16:28














@reuns I was talking About hadamard type products. Not euler type. Besides I assume iT had no euler type.
– mick
Nov 29 '18 at 17:49




@reuns I was talking About hadamard type products. Not euler type. Besides I assume iT had no euler type.
– mick
Nov 29 '18 at 17:49




1




1




If you don't define $f(m,s)$ we won't go far. No Euler product and non-messy coefficients ⟹ no RH. The analytic continuation is obtained by summing by parts $k$-times or looking at the Mellin transform of $sum_{n=1}^infty a(n,m) e^{-nx}$. The limit is $h(x)=prod_{l ge 1} (1-e^{-2^l x})$. $log h(x) approx sum_l e^{-2^l x} approx int_0^infty e^{-xy} 2^{-2^y} dy= O(...)$
– reuns
Nov 29 '18 at 21:36




If you don't define $f(m,s)$ we won't go far. No Euler product and non-messy coefficients ⟹ no RH. The analytic continuation is obtained by summing by parts $k$-times or looking at the Mellin transform of $sum_{n=1}^infty a(n,m) e^{-nx}$. The limit is $h(x)=prod_{l ge 1} (1-e^{-2^l x})$. $log h(x) approx sum_l e^{-2^l x} approx int_0^infty e^{-xy} 2^{-2^y} dy= O(...)$
– reuns
Nov 29 '18 at 21:36










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














The standard methods for Dirichlet L-functions apply.




  • Let
    $$h_k(t) = tprod_{m=0}^{k-1}(1 - t^{2^m}) = sum_{n=1}^{2^k} a_k(n)t^n$$
    $$F_k(s) = sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) n^{-s} $$


$$f_k(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- n x}= frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}$$
Note $h_k(1) = 0$ so $f_k$ is $C^infty(mathbb{R})$.




  • For $Re(s) > 0$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = int_0^infty x^{s-1}frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}dx$$
    For $Re(s) > -K-1$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} frac1{s+r}+ int_0^infty x^{s-1}(frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}-1_{x < 1}sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} x^r) dx$$
    Thus $Gamma(s) F_k(s)$ is meromorphic everywhere with simple poles at negative integers and $F_k(s)$ is entire.



  • Functional equation : Poisson summation formula, same method as for Dirichlet L-functions and $sum_n chi(n) e^{-pi n^2 x}$.



    Let $sum_{n=0}^{2^k-1} a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{2i pi mn/2^k}= h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})$ the discrete Fourier transform of $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$. Then




$$sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x} = (2^k x)^{-1/2} sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^k} e^{- pi m^2 2^k/ x}$$



$$F_k(s)Gamma(s/2)pi^{-s/2}2^{sk/2}= int_0^infty x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}dx$$
$$= int_1^infty (x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}+x^{(1-s)/2-1}sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^{k/2}} e^{- pi m^2 x/2^k}) dx$$



So $F_k(s)$ is a Dirichlet series with functional equation. The standard tools apply, density of zeros, explicit formula for $log F_k, 1/F_k, F_k'/F_k$ and their Dirichlet series coefficients in term of the non-trivial zeros. But since the $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$ aren't multiplicative, no Euler product, no Riemann hypothesis.




  • the limit $F_infty(s) = lim_{k to infty}F_k(s)$. Some properties of the $F_k$ are preserved (the analytic continuation), some are not (functional equation, density of zeros). Asking about a Riemann hypothesis for $F_infty$ doesn't really make sense.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:07










  • @mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
    – reuns
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:15










  • 1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 6:34











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018712%2fis-this-zeta-type-function-meromorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1














The standard methods for Dirichlet L-functions apply.




  • Let
    $$h_k(t) = tprod_{m=0}^{k-1}(1 - t^{2^m}) = sum_{n=1}^{2^k} a_k(n)t^n$$
    $$F_k(s) = sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) n^{-s} $$


$$f_k(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- n x}= frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}$$
Note $h_k(1) = 0$ so $f_k$ is $C^infty(mathbb{R})$.




  • For $Re(s) > 0$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = int_0^infty x^{s-1}frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}dx$$
    For $Re(s) > -K-1$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} frac1{s+r}+ int_0^infty x^{s-1}(frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}-1_{x < 1}sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} x^r) dx$$
    Thus $Gamma(s) F_k(s)$ is meromorphic everywhere with simple poles at negative integers and $F_k(s)$ is entire.



  • Functional equation : Poisson summation formula, same method as for Dirichlet L-functions and $sum_n chi(n) e^{-pi n^2 x}$.



    Let $sum_{n=0}^{2^k-1} a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{2i pi mn/2^k}= h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})$ the discrete Fourier transform of $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$. Then




$$sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x} = (2^k x)^{-1/2} sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^k} e^{- pi m^2 2^k/ x}$$



$$F_k(s)Gamma(s/2)pi^{-s/2}2^{sk/2}= int_0^infty x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}dx$$
$$= int_1^infty (x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}+x^{(1-s)/2-1}sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^{k/2}} e^{- pi m^2 x/2^k}) dx$$



So $F_k(s)$ is a Dirichlet series with functional equation. The standard tools apply, density of zeros, explicit formula for $log F_k, 1/F_k, F_k'/F_k$ and their Dirichlet series coefficients in term of the non-trivial zeros. But since the $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$ aren't multiplicative, no Euler product, no Riemann hypothesis.




  • the limit $F_infty(s) = lim_{k to infty}F_k(s)$. Some properties of the $F_k$ are preserved (the analytic continuation), some are not (functional equation, density of zeros). Asking about a Riemann hypothesis for $F_infty$ doesn't really make sense.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:07










  • @mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
    – reuns
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:15










  • 1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 6:34
















1














The standard methods for Dirichlet L-functions apply.




  • Let
    $$h_k(t) = tprod_{m=0}^{k-1}(1 - t^{2^m}) = sum_{n=1}^{2^k} a_k(n)t^n$$
    $$F_k(s) = sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) n^{-s} $$


$$f_k(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- n x}= frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}$$
Note $h_k(1) = 0$ so $f_k$ is $C^infty(mathbb{R})$.




  • For $Re(s) > 0$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = int_0^infty x^{s-1}frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}dx$$
    For $Re(s) > -K-1$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} frac1{s+r}+ int_0^infty x^{s-1}(frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}-1_{x < 1}sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} x^r) dx$$
    Thus $Gamma(s) F_k(s)$ is meromorphic everywhere with simple poles at negative integers and $F_k(s)$ is entire.



  • Functional equation : Poisson summation formula, same method as for Dirichlet L-functions and $sum_n chi(n) e^{-pi n^2 x}$.



    Let $sum_{n=0}^{2^k-1} a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{2i pi mn/2^k}= h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})$ the discrete Fourier transform of $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$. Then




$$sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x} = (2^k x)^{-1/2} sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^k} e^{- pi m^2 2^k/ x}$$



$$F_k(s)Gamma(s/2)pi^{-s/2}2^{sk/2}= int_0^infty x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}dx$$
$$= int_1^infty (x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}+x^{(1-s)/2-1}sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^{k/2}} e^{- pi m^2 x/2^k}) dx$$



So $F_k(s)$ is a Dirichlet series with functional equation. The standard tools apply, density of zeros, explicit formula for $log F_k, 1/F_k, F_k'/F_k$ and their Dirichlet series coefficients in term of the non-trivial zeros. But since the $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$ aren't multiplicative, no Euler product, no Riemann hypothesis.




  • the limit $F_infty(s) = lim_{k to infty}F_k(s)$. Some properties of the $F_k$ are preserved (the analytic continuation), some are not (functional equation, density of zeros). Asking about a Riemann hypothesis for $F_infty$ doesn't really make sense.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:07










  • @mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
    – reuns
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:15










  • 1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 6:34














1












1








1






The standard methods for Dirichlet L-functions apply.




  • Let
    $$h_k(t) = tprod_{m=0}^{k-1}(1 - t^{2^m}) = sum_{n=1}^{2^k} a_k(n)t^n$$
    $$F_k(s) = sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) n^{-s} $$


$$f_k(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- n x}= frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}$$
Note $h_k(1) = 0$ so $f_k$ is $C^infty(mathbb{R})$.




  • For $Re(s) > 0$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = int_0^infty x^{s-1}frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}dx$$
    For $Re(s) > -K-1$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} frac1{s+r}+ int_0^infty x^{s-1}(frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}-1_{x < 1}sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} x^r) dx$$
    Thus $Gamma(s) F_k(s)$ is meromorphic everywhere with simple poles at negative integers and $F_k(s)$ is entire.



  • Functional equation : Poisson summation formula, same method as for Dirichlet L-functions and $sum_n chi(n) e^{-pi n^2 x}$.



    Let $sum_{n=0}^{2^k-1} a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{2i pi mn/2^k}= h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})$ the discrete Fourier transform of $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$. Then




$$sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x} = (2^k x)^{-1/2} sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^k} e^{- pi m^2 2^k/ x}$$



$$F_k(s)Gamma(s/2)pi^{-s/2}2^{sk/2}= int_0^infty x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}dx$$
$$= int_1^infty (x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}+x^{(1-s)/2-1}sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^{k/2}} e^{- pi m^2 x/2^k}) dx$$



So $F_k(s)$ is a Dirichlet series with functional equation. The standard tools apply, density of zeros, explicit formula for $log F_k, 1/F_k, F_k'/F_k$ and their Dirichlet series coefficients in term of the non-trivial zeros. But since the $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$ aren't multiplicative, no Euler product, no Riemann hypothesis.




  • the limit $F_infty(s) = lim_{k to infty}F_k(s)$. Some properties of the $F_k$ are preserved (the analytic continuation), some are not (functional equation, density of zeros). Asking about a Riemann hypothesis for $F_infty$ doesn't really make sense.






share|cite|improve this answer














The standard methods for Dirichlet L-functions apply.




  • Let
    $$h_k(t) = tprod_{m=0}^{k-1}(1 - t^{2^m}) = sum_{n=1}^{2^k} a_k(n)t^n$$
    $$F_k(s) = sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) n^{-s} $$


$$f_k(x)=sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- n x}= frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}$$
Note $h_k(1) = 0$ so $f_k$ is $C^infty(mathbb{R})$.




  • For $Re(s) > 0$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = int_0^infty x^{s-1}frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}dx$$
    For $Re(s) > -K-1$
    $$Gamma(s) F_k(s) = sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} frac1{s+r}+ int_0^infty x^{s-1}(frac{h_k(e^{-x})}{1-e^{-2^k x}}-1_{x < 1}sum_{r=0}^K frac{f_k^{(r)}(0)}{r!} x^r) dx$$
    Thus $Gamma(s) F_k(s)$ is meromorphic everywhere with simple poles at negative integers and $F_k(s)$ is entire.



  • Functional equation : Poisson summation formula, same method as for Dirichlet L-functions and $sum_n chi(n) e^{-pi n^2 x}$.



    Let $sum_{n=0}^{2^k-1} a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{2i pi mn/2^k}= h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})$ the discrete Fourier transform of $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$. Then




$$sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x} = (2^k x)^{-1/2} sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^k} e^{- pi m^2 2^k/ x}$$



$$F_k(s)Gamma(s/2)pi^{-s/2}2^{sk/2}= int_0^infty x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}dx$$
$$= int_1^infty (x^{s/2-1} sum_{n=1}^infty a_k(n bmod 2^k) e^{- pi n^2 x/2^k}+x^{(1-s)/2-1}sum_{m=1}^infty frac{h_k(e^{2i pi m/2^k})}{2^{k/2}} e^{- pi m^2 x/2^k}) dx$$



So $F_k(s)$ is a Dirichlet series with functional equation. The standard tools apply, density of zeros, explicit formula for $log F_k, 1/F_k, F_k'/F_k$ and their Dirichlet series coefficients in term of the non-trivial zeros. But since the $a_k(n bmod 2^k)$ aren't multiplicative, no Euler product, no Riemann hypothesis.




  • the limit $F_infty(s) = lim_{k to infty}F_k(s)$. Some properties of the $F_k$ are preserved (the analytic continuation), some are not (functional equation, density of zeros). Asking about a Riemann hypothesis for $F_infty$ doesn't really make sense.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 3 '18 at 3:57

























answered Dec 3 '18 at 3:46









reunsreuns

19.7k21046




19.7k21046












  • Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:07










  • @mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
    – reuns
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:15










  • 1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 6:34


















  • Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:07










  • @mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
    – reuns
    Dec 3 '18 at 4:15










  • 1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
    – mick
    Dec 3 '18 at 6:34
















Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
– mick
Dec 3 '18 at 4:07




Ok Thank u. Well Maybe a Riemann hypothesis in the sense of Number theory might not make sense. But How about the positions of the zero’s for f(3,s) , f(4,s) or f(Oo,s) in the strip 0 <re(s) < 1 ?? Pictures would be Nice.
– mick
Dec 3 '18 at 4:07












@mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 4:15




@mick Forget about it and look at simpler linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions.
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 4:15












1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
– mick
Dec 3 '18 at 6:34




1) no I want to know. Not forget About it. Even if it just Nice pictures. 2) what do you mean simpler lin combinations of dirichlet L-functions ?? Why ?? Which one ? 3) maybe platting the zero’s is better done in the related question 4) but questions 3) and 4) are still unanswered. I assume you actually know the answer. Since the zero’s are requested elsewhere , adding answers to 3),4) might get the accept.
– mick
Dec 3 '18 at 6:34


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018712%2fis-this-zeta-type-function-meromorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Quarter-circle Tiles

build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

Mont Emei