Why couldn't Baez-Duarte prove the Riemann Hypothesis?
$begingroup$
Define
begin{equation} I_n=int_{0}^{1/n} |U s_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x
end{equation} where $Us_{n}(x)=frac{1}{x}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx), mu$ denotes the Mobius function and $rho(y)$ is the fractional part of $y$. We make three crucial observations: Firstly, since $0leq rho(jx)leq jx$ for every $jgeq 1, xgeq 0$, note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0^+} Big(frac{rho(jx)}{jx}Big)<infty$, thus the integrand of $I_n$ is well-defined for all $xgeq 0$. Secondly, the integral $I_n$ is defined over a finite range $(0, 1/n)$. Thirdly, by $2.14$ of Baez-Duarte we have $lim _{nrightarrow infty} Us_{n}(x)=-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$ hence $|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for all $n$, where $c$ is some positive constant. Notice that these observations collectively imply that $I_n leq C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant, or equivalently,
begin{equation}
Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n),
end{equation} by identity 2.12 of Baez-Duarte that
begin{equation}
I_n = frac{1}{n}Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^{2}.
end{equation}Since it is known that the RH is equivalent to the statement that $Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n^{1+epsilon})$ for any $epsilon>0$, couldn't Baez-Duarte conclude this way that the RH is true ?
number-theory analytic-number-theory riemann-zeta
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
$endgroup$
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
Define
begin{equation} I_n=int_{0}^{1/n} |U s_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x
end{equation} where $Us_{n}(x)=frac{1}{x}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx), mu$ denotes the Mobius function and $rho(y)$ is the fractional part of $y$. We make three crucial observations: Firstly, since $0leq rho(jx)leq jx$ for every $jgeq 1, xgeq 0$, note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0^+} Big(frac{rho(jx)}{jx}Big)<infty$, thus the integrand of $I_n$ is well-defined for all $xgeq 0$. Secondly, the integral $I_n$ is defined over a finite range $(0, 1/n)$. Thirdly, by $2.14$ of Baez-Duarte we have $lim _{nrightarrow infty} Us_{n}(x)=-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$ hence $|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for all $n$, where $c$ is some positive constant. Notice that these observations collectively imply that $I_n leq C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant, or equivalently,
begin{equation}
Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n),
end{equation} by identity 2.12 of Baez-Duarte that
begin{equation}
I_n = frac{1}{n}Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^{2}.
end{equation}Since it is known that the RH is equivalent to the statement that $Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n^{1+epsilon})$ for any $epsilon>0$, couldn't Baez-Duarte conclude this way that the RH is true ?
number-theory analytic-number-theory riemann-zeta
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Because you are mixing things you didn't look at carefully. For $x in (0,1/n), m le n$ then $rho(mx) = mx$. So what ? The complicated part of $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ is for $x in (1/n,1)$. Everything is explained in the paper and in several places on books, MSE and the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:14
2
$begingroup$
$int_{0}^{1/n} |Us_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x=OBigg(int_{0}^{1/n} frac{sin^2(2pi x)}{pi ^2 x^2} mathrm{d}x Bigg)$ doesn't make any sense. You are confusing $L^2$ and pointwise convergence. All you know is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin (pi x)/pi$ in $L^2([0,1])$ and under the RH it converges in $L^2([0,1], x^{-1+epsilon})$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:32
2
$begingroup$
The paper is exactly about that, why not read it, as well as the many explications you'll find on the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:35
2
$begingroup$
$|Us_{n}(x)|^2 leq frac{Csin^2 (2pi x)}{x^2}$ is wrong. All you know (from the Fourier series of $rho$ and $sum_{d | n} mu(d) = 1_{n=1}$ and say $sum_n mu(n)/n=0$ equivalent to the PNT) is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin(pi x)/pi$ in $L^2((0,1])$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:55
1
$begingroup$
You are claiming that in his paper on some criterion of the RH Baez is mentioning/proving that $frac{1}{N} (sum_{n=1}^N mu(n))^2 = O(1)$ without noticing it ? Understanding the exact mode of convergence of $sum_{n=1}^{N} frac{mu(n)}{n} rho(nx)$ is complicated. Showing it converges uniformly to $-sin(2pi x)/pi$ is academic.oup.com/qjmath/article-abstract/os-8/1/313/… The only thing that is +/- obvious is to relate "zeta has no zeros for $Re(s) > sigma$" with $sup_N int_0^1 |sum_{n=1}^N mu(n)frac{rho( nx)}{n}x^{sigma-3/2}|^2 dx < infty$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 20:02
|
show 11 more comments
$begingroup$
Define
begin{equation} I_n=int_{0}^{1/n} |U s_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x
end{equation} where $Us_{n}(x)=frac{1}{x}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx), mu$ denotes the Mobius function and $rho(y)$ is the fractional part of $y$. We make three crucial observations: Firstly, since $0leq rho(jx)leq jx$ for every $jgeq 1, xgeq 0$, note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0^+} Big(frac{rho(jx)}{jx}Big)<infty$, thus the integrand of $I_n$ is well-defined for all $xgeq 0$. Secondly, the integral $I_n$ is defined over a finite range $(0, 1/n)$. Thirdly, by $2.14$ of Baez-Duarte we have $lim _{nrightarrow infty} Us_{n}(x)=-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$ hence $|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for all $n$, where $c$ is some positive constant. Notice that these observations collectively imply that $I_n leq C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant, or equivalently,
begin{equation}
Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n),
end{equation} by identity 2.12 of Baez-Duarte that
begin{equation}
I_n = frac{1}{n}Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^{2}.
end{equation}Since it is known that the RH is equivalent to the statement that $Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n^{1+epsilon})$ for any $epsilon>0$, couldn't Baez-Duarte conclude this way that the RH is true ?
number-theory analytic-number-theory riemann-zeta
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
$endgroup$
Define
begin{equation} I_n=int_{0}^{1/n} |U s_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x
end{equation} where $Us_{n}(x)=frac{1}{x}sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx), mu$ denotes the Mobius function and $rho(y)$ is the fractional part of $y$. We make three crucial observations: Firstly, since $0leq rho(jx)leq jx$ for every $jgeq 1, xgeq 0$, note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0^+} Big(frac{rho(jx)}{jx}Big)<infty$, thus the integrand of $I_n$ is well-defined for all $xgeq 0$. Secondly, the integral $I_n$ is defined over a finite range $(0, 1/n)$. Thirdly, by $2.14$ of Baez-Duarte we have $lim _{nrightarrow infty} Us_{n}(x)=-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$ hence $|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for all $n$, where $c$ is some positive constant. Notice that these observations collectively imply that $I_n leq C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant, or equivalently,
begin{equation}
Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n),
end{equation} by identity 2.12 of Baez-Duarte that
begin{equation}
I_n = frac{1}{n}Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^{2}.
end{equation}Since it is known that the RH is equivalent to the statement that $Big(sum_{j=1}^n mu(j)Big)^2 = O(n^{1+epsilon})$ for any $epsilon>0$, couldn't Baez-Duarte conclude this way that the RH is true ?
number-theory analytic-number-theory riemann-zeta
number-theory analytic-number-theory riemann-zeta
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
edited Dec 12 '18 at 10:00
Klangen
1,72411334
1,72411334
asked Dec 6 '18 at 12:01
user507152
3
$begingroup$
Because you are mixing things you didn't look at carefully. For $x in (0,1/n), m le n$ then $rho(mx) = mx$. So what ? The complicated part of $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ is for $x in (1/n,1)$. Everything is explained in the paper and in several places on books, MSE and the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:14
2
$begingroup$
$int_{0}^{1/n} |Us_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x=OBigg(int_{0}^{1/n} frac{sin^2(2pi x)}{pi ^2 x^2} mathrm{d}x Bigg)$ doesn't make any sense. You are confusing $L^2$ and pointwise convergence. All you know is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin (pi x)/pi$ in $L^2([0,1])$ and under the RH it converges in $L^2([0,1], x^{-1+epsilon})$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:32
2
$begingroup$
The paper is exactly about that, why not read it, as well as the many explications you'll find on the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:35
2
$begingroup$
$|Us_{n}(x)|^2 leq frac{Csin^2 (2pi x)}{x^2}$ is wrong. All you know (from the Fourier series of $rho$ and $sum_{d | n} mu(d) = 1_{n=1}$ and say $sum_n mu(n)/n=0$ equivalent to the PNT) is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin(pi x)/pi$ in $L^2((0,1])$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:55
1
$begingroup$
You are claiming that in his paper on some criterion of the RH Baez is mentioning/proving that $frac{1}{N} (sum_{n=1}^N mu(n))^2 = O(1)$ without noticing it ? Understanding the exact mode of convergence of $sum_{n=1}^{N} frac{mu(n)}{n} rho(nx)$ is complicated. Showing it converges uniformly to $-sin(2pi x)/pi$ is academic.oup.com/qjmath/article-abstract/os-8/1/313/… The only thing that is +/- obvious is to relate "zeta has no zeros for $Re(s) > sigma$" with $sup_N int_0^1 |sum_{n=1}^N mu(n)frac{rho( nx)}{n}x^{sigma-3/2}|^2 dx < infty$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 20:02
|
show 11 more comments
3
$begingroup$
Because you are mixing things you didn't look at carefully. For $x in (0,1/n), m le n$ then $rho(mx) = mx$. So what ? The complicated part of $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ is for $x in (1/n,1)$. Everything is explained in the paper and in several places on books, MSE and the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:14
2
$begingroup$
$int_{0}^{1/n} |Us_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x=OBigg(int_{0}^{1/n} frac{sin^2(2pi x)}{pi ^2 x^2} mathrm{d}x Bigg)$ doesn't make any sense. You are confusing $L^2$ and pointwise convergence. All you know is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin (pi x)/pi$ in $L^2([0,1])$ and under the RH it converges in $L^2([0,1], x^{-1+epsilon})$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:32
2
$begingroup$
The paper is exactly about that, why not read it, as well as the many explications you'll find on the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:35
2
$begingroup$
$|Us_{n}(x)|^2 leq frac{Csin^2 (2pi x)}{x^2}$ is wrong. All you know (from the Fourier series of $rho$ and $sum_{d | n} mu(d) = 1_{n=1}$ and say $sum_n mu(n)/n=0$ equivalent to the PNT) is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin(pi x)/pi$ in $L^2((0,1])$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:55
1
$begingroup$
You are claiming that in his paper on some criterion of the RH Baez is mentioning/proving that $frac{1}{N} (sum_{n=1}^N mu(n))^2 = O(1)$ without noticing it ? Understanding the exact mode of convergence of $sum_{n=1}^{N} frac{mu(n)}{n} rho(nx)$ is complicated. Showing it converges uniformly to $-sin(2pi x)/pi$ is academic.oup.com/qjmath/article-abstract/os-8/1/313/… The only thing that is +/- obvious is to relate "zeta has no zeros for $Re(s) > sigma$" with $sup_N int_0^1 |sum_{n=1}^N mu(n)frac{rho( nx)}{n}x^{sigma-3/2}|^2 dx < infty$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 20:02
3
3
$begingroup$
Because you are mixing things you didn't look at carefully. For $x in (0,1/n), m le n$ then $rho(mx) = mx$. So what ? The complicated part of $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ is for $x in (1/n,1)$. Everything is explained in the paper and in several places on books, MSE and the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:14
$begingroup$
Because you are mixing things you didn't look at carefully. For $x in (0,1/n), m le n$ then $rho(mx) = mx$. So what ? The complicated part of $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ is for $x in (1/n,1)$. Everything is explained in the paper and in several places on books, MSE and the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:14
2
2
$begingroup$
$int_{0}^{1/n} |Us_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x=OBigg(int_{0}^{1/n} frac{sin^2(2pi x)}{pi ^2 x^2} mathrm{d}x Bigg)$ doesn't make any sense. You are confusing $L^2$ and pointwise convergence. All you know is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin (pi x)/pi$ in $L^2([0,1])$ and under the RH it converges in $L^2([0,1], x^{-1+epsilon})$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:32
$begingroup$
$int_{0}^{1/n} |Us_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x=OBigg(int_{0}^{1/n} frac{sin^2(2pi x)}{pi ^2 x^2} mathrm{d}x Bigg)$ doesn't make any sense. You are confusing $L^2$ and pointwise convergence. All you know is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin (pi x)/pi$ in $L^2([0,1])$ and under the RH it converges in $L^2([0,1], x^{-1+epsilon})$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:32
2
2
$begingroup$
The paper is exactly about that, why not read it, as well as the many explications you'll find on the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:35
$begingroup$
The paper is exactly about that, why not read it, as well as the many explications you'll find on the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:35
2
2
$begingroup$
$|Us_{n}(x)|^2 leq frac{Csin^2 (2pi x)}{x^2}$ is wrong. All you know (from the Fourier series of $rho$ and $sum_{d | n} mu(d) = 1_{n=1}$ and say $sum_n mu(n)/n=0$ equivalent to the PNT) is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin(pi x)/pi$ in $L^2((0,1])$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:55
$begingroup$
$|Us_{n}(x)|^2 leq frac{Csin^2 (2pi x)}{x^2}$ is wrong. All you know (from the Fourier series of $rho$ and $sum_{d | n} mu(d) = 1_{n=1}$ and say $sum_n mu(n)/n=0$ equivalent to the PNT) is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin(pi x)/pi$ in $L^2((0,1])$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:55
1
1
$begingroup$
You are claiming that in his paper on some criterion of the RH Baez is mentioning/proving that $frac{1}{N} (sum_{n=1}^N mu(n))^2 = O(1)$ without noticing it ? Understanding the exact mode of convergence of $sum_{n=1}^{N} frac{mu(n)}{n} rho(nx)$ is complicated. Showing it converges uniformly to $-sin(2pi x)/pi$ is academic.oup.com/qjmath/article-abstract/os-8/1/313/… The only thing that is +/- obvious is to relate "zeta has no zeros for $Re(s) > sigma$" with $sup_N int_0^1 |sum_{n=1}^N mu(n)frac{rho( nx)}{n}x^{sigma-3/2}|^2 dx < infty$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 20:02
$begingroup$
You are claiming that in his paper on some criterion of the RH Baez is mentioning/proving that $frac{1}{N} (sum_{n=1}^N mu(n))^2 = O(1)$ without noticing it ? Understanding the exact mode of convergence of $sum_{n=1}^{N} frac{mu(n)}{n} rho(nx)$ is complicated. Showing it converges uniformly to $-sin(2pi x)/pi$ is academic.oup.com/qjmath/article-abstract/os-8/1/313/… The only thing that is +/- obvious is to relate "zeta has no zeros for $Re(s) > sigma$" with $sup_N int_0^1 |sum_{n=1}^N mu(n)frac{rho( nx)}{n}x^{sigma-3/2}|^2 dx < infty$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 20:02
|
show 11 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Your argument for "This collectively implies that $I_nle C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant" is based on the following reasoning: If the functions $f_n$ converge pointwise to an integrable function $f$, then $int_{Omega_n} f_n$ is bounded by some function of $int_{Omega} f$ for some $Omega$ which contains all $Omega_n$.
This is simply false. For example the functions $f_n(x)=frac{1}{nx}$ converge pointwise on $(0,1)$ to $f(x)=0$. Yet $int_0^{1/n} f_n=infty$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
2
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
1
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
|
show 26 more comments
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028406%2fwhy-couldnt-baez-duarte-prove-the-riemann-hypothesis%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
$begingroup$
Your argument for "This collectively implies that $I_nle C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant" is based on the following reasoning: If the functions $f_n$ converge pointwise to an integrable function $f$, then $int_{Omega_n} f_n$ is bounded by some function of $int_{Omega} f$ for some $Omega$ which contains all $Omega_n$.
This is simply false. For example the functions $f_n(x)=frac{1}{nx}$ converge pointwise on $(0,1)$ to $f(x)=0$. Yet $int_0^{1/n} f_n=infty$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
2
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
1
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
|
show 26 more comments
$begingroup$
Your argument for "This collectively implies that $I_nle C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant" is based on the following reasoning: If the functions $f_n$ converge pointwise to an integrable function $f$, then $int_{Omega_n} f_n$ is bounded by some function of $int_{Omega} f$ for some $Omega$ which contains all $Omega_n$.
This is simply false. For example the functions $f_n(x)=frac{1}{nx}$ converge pointwise on $(0,1)$ to $f(x)=0$. Yet $int_0^{1/n} f_n=infty$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
2
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
1
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
|
show 26 more comments
$begingroup$
Your argument for "This collectively implies that $I_nle C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant" is based on the following reasoning: If the functions $f_n$ converge pointwise to an integrable function $f$, then $int_{Omega_n} f_n$ is bounded by some function of $int_{Omega} f$ for some $Omega$ which contains all $Omega_n$.
This is simply false. For example the functions $f_n(x)=frac{1}{nx}$ converge pointwise on $(0,1)$ to $f(x)=0$. Yet $int_0^{1/n} f_n=infty$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
$endgroup$
Your argument for "This collectively implies that $I_nle C$ for every positive integer $n$ where $C$ is some positive constant" is based on the following reasoning: If the functions $f_n$ converge pointwise to an integrable function $f$, then $int_{Omega_n} f_n$ is bounded by some function of $int_{Omega} f$ for some $Omega$ which contains all $Omega_n$.
This is simply false. For example the functions $f_n(x)=frac{1}{nx}$ converge pointwise on $(0,1)$ to $f(x)=0$. Yet $int_0^{1/n} f_n=infty$.
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
answered Dec 9 '18 at 1:34
Gjergji ZaimiGjergji Zaimi
1,234911
1,234911
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
2
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
1
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
|
show 26 more comments
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
1
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
2
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
1
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
Your purported counter-example isn't valid because it doesn't satisfy all the outlined three observations upon which the argument is based. Note that $lim_{xrightarrow 0} f_{n}(x)$ doesn't exist.
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 1:47
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Where in your argument are you making use of continuity at zero?
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 1:48
1
1
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. Let me know if you would like to add fourth or fifth or sixth conditions, :)
$endgroup$
– Gjergji Zaimi
Dec 9 '18 at 2:35
2
2
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
$begingroup$
@FunIsMath. We are again at the starting point. "$|Us_{n}(x)|<c/x$ for every $n$ and $x in [0,1/n]$" doesn't imply anything about $int_0^1 |Us_{n}(x)|^2dx$ which can be $infty$. Why are you not capable to state clearly that you want $Us_n$ to converge uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi x}$, which is what suggests reading too fast Baez paper right after 2.11 (reading it more slowly shows they meant $x Us_n$ converges uniformly to $-frac{sin 2pi x}{pi }$, which is already a complicated theorem proven in Davenport, that I'd like to find a copy of)
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 9 '18 at 5:39
1
1
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
$begingroup$
@reuns, my bad, you're right. The main issue is i had overlooked the fact that $ sum_{j=1}^{n} frac{mu(j)}{j}rho(jx)$ is simply $sum_{j=1}^{n} mu(j)$ for $xin(0, 1/n)$, which made all of my subsequent arguments erroneous. Thanks !
$endgroup$
– user507152
Dec 9 '18 at 16:27
|
show 26 more comments
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3028406%2fwhy-couldnt-baez-duarte-prove-the-riemann-hypothesis%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
3
$begingroup$
Because you are mixing things you didn't look at carefully. For $x in (0,1/n), m le n$ then $rho(mx) = mx$. So what ? The complicated part of $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ is for $x in (1/n,1)$. Everything is explained in the paper and in several places on books, MSE and the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:14
2
$begingroup$
$int_{0}^{1/n} |Us_{n}(x)|^2 mathrm{d}x=OBigg(int_{0}^{1/n} frac{sin^2(2pi x)}{pi ^2 x^2} mathrm{d}x Bigg)$ doesn't make any sense. You are confusing $L^2$ and pointwise convergence. All you know is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin (pi x)/pi$ in $L^2([0,1])$ and under the RH it converges in $L^2([0,1], x^{-1+epsilon})$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:32
2
$begingroup$
The paper is exactly about that, why not read it, as well as the many explications you'll find on the web.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:35
2
$begingroup$
$|Us_{n}(x)|^2 leq frac{Csin^2 (2pi x)}{x^2}$ is wrong. All you know (from the Fourier series of $rho$ and $sum_{d | n} mu(d) = 1_{n=1}$ and say $sum_n mu(n)/n=0$ equivalent to the PNT) is that $sum_{m=1}^{n} frac{mu(m)}{m} rho(mx)$ converges to $-sin(pi x)/pi$ in $L^2((0,1])$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 13:55
1
$begingroup$
You are claiming that in his paper on some criterion of the RH Baez is mentioning/proving that $frac{1}{N} (sum_{n=1}^N mu(n))^2 = O(1)$ without noticing it ? Understanding the exact mode of convergence of $sum_{n=1}^{N} frac{mu(n)}{n} rho(nx)$ is complicated. Showing it converges uniformly to $-sin(2pi x)/pi$ is academic.oup.com/qjmath/article-abstract/os-8/1/313/… The only thing that is +/- obvious is to relate "zeta has no zeros for $Re(s) > sigma$" with $sup_N int_0^1 |sum_{n=1}^N mu(n)frac{rho( nx)}{n}x^{sigma-3/2}|^2 dx < infty$
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 6 '18 at 20:02