You are on page 1of 25

# Analytic Number Theory

Lecture Notes
Taught Course Centre 2007
Tim D. Browning
Typeset by Sean Prendiville

Part A
Basic Topics in Analytic Number
Theory
1 Introduction
1.1 What is Analytic Number Theory?
A basic human instinct is to count interesting objects. For example:
Prime numbers less than some bound
(x) := #p N : p prime and p x
What is
R
s,d
(N) := #(x
1
, . . . , x
s
) N
s
: x
d
1
+ +x
d
s
= N ?
For which s, d do we have
R
s,d
(N) > 0 ?
Lagrange (1770):
R
1,2
(N) +R
2,2
(N) +R
3,2
(N) +R
4,2
(N) > 0 for all N N
Often non-exact answers are sucient, which is where analysis enters the picture.
It is not always clear why or how analysis should help with theorems like:
Every odd number greater than 10
1347
is a sum of three primes (Vinogradov).
The sequence of primes contains arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions (Green
and Tao).

All errors are the responsibility of the typesetter. In particular there are some arguments
which, as an exercise for the typesetter, have been eshed out or re-interpreted, possibly incor-
recly. Tims lectures were neater and more concise. Corrections would be gratefully received at
sean.prendiville@bristol.ac.uk
1
1.2 Notation
Let f, g : R C with g non-negative. Then we say:
(1) f = O(g), or f g, if there exists x
0
and C > 0 such that for all x x
0
[f(x)[ Cg(x)
(2) f g if f is also non-negative and g f
(3) f g if
lim
x
f(x)
g(x)
= 1
(4) f g if f g f.
(5) f = o(g) if for any > 0 there exists X R such that for all x X
[f(x)[ g(x)
So f = o(g) certainly when
lim
x
f(x)
g(x)
= 0
2 Arithmetic Functions
An arithmetic funciton is any function f : N C. It is said to be multiplicative
if it is not identically zero and for any m, n N with (m, n) = 1
f(mn) = f(m)f(n) (1)
f is said to be completely multiplicative if (1) holds even when m and n are not
coprime.
Lemma 1. If f, g are multiplicative, then f g : N C dened by
f g(n) :=

d|n
f(d)g(n/d)
is also multiplicative.
Proof. Let (m, n) = 1. Then every divisor d[mn can be written as a product d = ab
with a[m and b[n. In particular
(a, b) =
_
m
a
,
n
b
_
= 1
It can be checked that this induces a bijection
d N : d[mn a N : a[m b N : b[n
2
given by d = ab (a, b). Hence
f g(mn) =

a|m
b|n
f(ab)g
_
mn
ab
_
=

a|m

b|n
f(a)g
_
m
a
_
f(b)g
_
n
b
_
=
_
f g(m)
__
f g(n)
_
Remark. The operation is called Dirichlet convolution.
In fact the set of all multiplicative arithmetic functions, equipped with , forms
an abelian group with identity I dened by
I(n) =
_
1
n
_
=
_
1 if n = 1
0 otherwise
Note. If f is multiplicative then
f(1) = 1
and if p
1
, . . . , p
r
are distinct primes, then for any non-negative integers e
i
f (p
e
1
1
p
e
r
r
) = f (p
e
1
1
) f (p
e
r
r
)
Lets have some examples:
2.0.1 The Mobius Function
(n) =
_

_
1 if n = 1
(1)
r
if n = p
1
p
r
where p
1
, . . . , p
r
are distinct primes.
0 otherwise
Clearly is multiplicative. A key property of is:
Lemma 2. We have

d|n
(d) =
_
1 if n = 1
0 otherwise
Proof. Suppose n > 1. Then there exist distinct primes p
1
, . . . , p
r
and positive
integers e
1
, . . . , e
r
such that n = p
e
1
1
p
e
r
r
.

d|n
(d) = 1 +(p
1
) +(p
2
) + +(p
r
) +(p
1
p
2
) +. . .
= 1 +
_
r
1
_
(1)
1
+
_
r
2
_
(1)
2
+ +
_
r
r
_
(1)
r
= (1 1)
r
= 0
3
Lemma 3 (Mobius Inversion). Let f be an arithmetic function and dene
F(n) :=

d|n
f(d)
Then
f = F
Proof.
F (n) =

ab=n
F(a)(b)
=

ab=n

cd=a
f(c)
_
n
cd
_
=

cd|n
f(c)
_
n
cd
_
=

c|n
f(c)

d|
n
c

_
n/c
d
_
= f(n) by Lemma 2.
2.0.2 The Euler Totient Function
(n) :=

dn
I
_
(d, n)
_
= #d n : d and n coprime
Lemma 2 implies that
(n) =

dn

c|(d,n)
(c)
=

c|n
(c) #d n : c[d
=

c|n
(c)
n
c
= h(n)
4
where h(x) := x for all x N. Hence, by Lemma 1, is a multiplicative arithmetic
function. In fact:
(n) = (p
e
1
1
p
e
r
r
)
=

i
(p
e
i
i
)
=

i
_
_

d|p
e
i
i
(d)
p
e
i
i
d
_
_
=

i
_
p
e
i
i
p
e
i
1
i
_
= n

p|n
_
1
1
p
_
2.0.3 The Divisor Function
d(n) :=

d|n
1 = u u(n)
where u(x) := 1 for all x N. Hence d is another example of a multiplicative
function. More generally:
d
k
(n) :=

a
1
a
k
=n
1
=

a
k
|n

a
1
a
k1
=
n
a
k
1
= (u d
k1
)(n)
It follows by a simple induction and the fact that d
1
= u (or d
2
= d) that d
k
is
multiplicative for all k N.
Lemma 4.
d
k
(n) d(n)
k1
Proof. Notice that when c[n then d
k
(c) d
k
(n). Hence for all k 2:
d
k
(n) =

c|n
d
k1
(c)
d
k1
(n)

c|n
1
= d
k1
(n)d(n)
The result now follows by induction.
3 Partial Summation
The behaviour of arithmetic functions can be quite erratic. For example, d(n) takes
the value 2 innitely often, but can also be extremely large (see the exercises).
However, one still thinks of d(n) as a small function:
5
Lemma 5. For all > 0
d(n)

(2)
Proof. If n =

p
p
e
then
d(n)
n

p
e + 1
p
e
=

p
f
p
(e)
where each f
p
(e) :=
e+1
p
e
is a non-negative function which tends to 0 as e .
In particular, f
p
has a maximum e
p
N 0. Then
f
p
(e
p
) f
p
(e
p
1)
Re-arranging, this implies
1
p

1
e
p

1
p

1
1 (3)
Hence e
p
=
_
1
p

1
_
, unless e
p
=
1
p

1
1. In the latter case, reversing our previous
re-arrangement gives f
p
(e
p
) = f
p
(e
p
+1), so
_
1
p

1
_
= e
p
+1 is again a maximum
of f
p
. We may therefore assume e
p
=
_
1
p

1
_
for all p. For all n N we thus have
that
d(n)
n

p
f
p
(e
p
) := C()
Notice that e
p
= 0 if p > 2
1/
, so C() is certainly nite.
Note. C() is in fact the best possible implied constant in (2) (equality can be
achieved by taking n =

p
p
e
p
).
It is often more revealing to study the mean value of an arithmetic function f:
1
x

nx
f(n) as x
An alternative reason for studying these averages is when f is an indicator function
for an interesting set, e.g.
(x) :=

nx

n
where

n
=
_
1 if n is prime
0 otherwise
Part A of this course will culminate in a proof of the Prime Number Theorem (de
la Vallee-Poussin, Hadamard; 1896), which states:
(x)
x
log x
as x
6
Lemma 6 (Partial Summation). Suppose a
n
C (n N) and that f is continu-
ously dierentiable on [x, y]. Dene
A(t) :=

nt
a
n
Then

x<ny
a
n
f(n) = A(y)f(y) A(x)f(x)
_
y
x
A(t)f

(t)dt
Proof. We can clearly extend f to a continuously dierentiable function on [1, y]
by dening it linearly on [1, x). Then
_
y
x
A(t)f

(t)dt =
_
y
1
A(t)f

(t)dt
_
x
1
A(t)f

(t)dt
Well partition [1, y] into [y] sub-intervals by dening y
i
:= i for i = 1, . . . , [y] and
y
i
:= y for i = [y] + 1. Then
_
y
1
A(t)f

(t)dt =

iy
_
y
i+1
y
i
A(t)f

(t)dt
=

iy

ni
a
n
_
y
i+1
y
i
f

(t)dt
=

ny

in
a
n
_
y
i+1
y
i
f

(t)dt
=

ny
a
n
_
y
n
f

(t)dt
Similarly
_
x
1
A(t)f

(t)dt =

nx
a
n
_
x
n
f

(t)dt
Therefore
_
y
x
A(t)f

(t)dt =

ny
a
n
(f(y) f(n))

nx
a
n
(f(x) f(n))
= A(y)f(y) A(x)f(x)

x<ny
a
n
f(n)
Lemma 7.

nx
1
n
= log x + +O
_
1
x
_
for some constant > 0.
7
Proof. Let a
n
= u(n) and f(x) = x
1
in Lemma 6. Then
A(x) = [x] = x x
= x +O(1)
Hence

nx
1
n
= 1 +

1<nx
1
n
= 1 +
[x]
x

[1]
1
+
_
x
1
[t]
t
2
dt
= 1 +O
_
1
x
_
+
_
x
1
1
t
dt
_
x
1
t
t
2
dt
= log x + +O(x
1
)
where
= 1
_

1
t
t
2
dt
Here = lim
x
_
_

nx
1
n
log x
_
_
0.5772 is Eulers constant.
Were now ready to study the mean value for the divisor function. Our rst
attempt proceeds as follows:
D(X) :=

nX
d(n) =

nX

d|n
1 (4)
=

dX

nX
d|n
1
_
_
_
_
=

d,e
deX
1
_
_
_
_
(5)
=

dX
_
X
d
_
(6)
= X log X +O(X) (7)
The rightmost sum in (5) counts the number of points in the lattice N N which
lie on or below the hyperbola xy = X. Dirichlet signicantly improved the error
term above by utilising the symmetry in the inequality ab X:

abX
1 =

abX
a

X
1 +

abX
b

X
1

abX
a,b

X
1
= 2

abX
a

X
1
_

X
_
2
= 2

X
_
X
a
_
[

X]
2
8
Here we have fewer terms of summation than in our rst attempt. This trick is
called the Dirichlet hyperbola method. By Lemma 7
2

X
_
X
a
_
[

X]
2
= 2X
_
1
2
log X + +O
_
X
1/2
__
+O
_
X
1/2
_
X
Dividing the latter by X we obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 8.
1
x

nx
d(n) = log x + (2 1) +O
_
x
1/2
_
Remark. Let (x) := D(x)(xlog x + (2 1)x). The problem of understanding
the behaviour of (x) is called the Dirichlet divisor problem and is still actively
investigated. We saw in Lemma 8
(x) x
1/2
and in fact we know that
(x) =
_
x
1/4
_
(this means there are innitely many values of x for which (x) grows faster than
x
1/4
). The current record is
(x) x
131
416
+
(Huxley)
We now dene three functions which play an important role in prime number
theory. The von Mangoldt function:
(n) =
_
log p if n = p
k
for some prime p and some k N
0 otherwise
and the Chebyshev functions:
(x) =

px
log p, (x) =

nx
(n)
How do these relate to (x)? Well show that
(x)
x
log x
(x) x (8)
(x) x (9)
In order to establish the above equivalences we utilise the following: f g if and
only if f(x) = g(x)
_
1 +o
_
1(x)
_
_
, where 1(x) = 1 for all x.
Applying partial summation we have
(x) = (x) log x
_
x
2
(t)
t
dt
Supposing (x)
x
log x
_
x
2
(t)
t
dt =
_
x
2
1 +o
_
1(t)
_
log t
dt
= O
__
x
2
1
log t
dt
_
9
Therefore
lim
x
(x)
x
= 1 + lim
x
O
_
1
x
_
x
2
1
log t
dt
_
The right-hand side above is equal to one, since
_
x
2
dt
log t
=
_

x
2
dt
log t
+
_
x

x
dt
log t

x +
x
log x
For the converse, we once again begin by using partial summation to deduce:
(x) =
(x)
log x
+
_
x
2
(t)
t(log t)
2
So if (x) x, then
lim
x
(x) log x
x
= 1 + lim
x
1
x
_
x
2
t +o(t)
t(log t)
2
dt
= 1 + lim
x
O
_
1
x
_
x
2
1
(log t)
2
dt
_
The last expression is equal to one by a similar argument to that given before. Thus
(8) holds. To prove (9), note that
0 (x) (x) =

2m
log x
log 2

p
p
m
x
log p
=

2m
log x
log 2

_
x
1/m
_

2m
log x
log 2
x
1/m
log
_
x
1/m
_

log x
log 2
x
1/2
log
_
x
1/2
_

x(log x)
2
Hence it follows that
(x)
x
=
(x)
x
+O
_
(log x)
2

x
_
which establishes (9).
To prove the Prime Number Theorem (PNT), we begin by showing that (x)
has the right order of magnitude.
Lemma 9. We have x (x) x.
Proof. In view of (x) = (x) + O
_
x(log x)
2
_
it suces to establish the result
for . An easy application of partial summation implies that
T(x) :=

nx
log n
= xlog x x +O(log x)
10
Taking logs in the prime factorisation of n, its easy to see that
log n =

d|n
(d)
Thus it follows that
T(x) =

nx

d|n
(d) =

dx
(d) [x/d]
and so
T(x) 2T(x/2) =

dx
(d)
__
x
d
_
2
_
x
2d
__
Now
_
x
d

2
_
x
2d

## [0, 1] and is equal to 1 when

x
2
< d x. Hence
(x) (x/2) T(x) 2T(x/2) (x)
whilst T(x) 2T(x/2) = xlog 2 +O(log x). In particular, (x) x and further-
more
(x) (x/2) +xlog 2 +O(log x)
(x/4) + (1 + 1/2)xlog 2 +O(2 log x)
.
.
.
(x/2
r
) + (1 + 1/2 + + 1/2
r1
)xlog 2 +O(r log x)
for any r 1. Choose r such that 2
r
x < 2
r+1
. Then
(x) (2 log 2)x +O
_
(log x)
2
_
Euler observed that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes is like the logarithm
of the harmonic series. He proved

px
1
p

Theorem A 1 (Mertens). There exists a constant B such that

px
1
p
= log log x +B +O
_
1
log x
_
We begin the proof with:
Lemma 10.

px
log p
p
= log x +O(1)
11
Proof.

px
log p
p
=

nx
(n)
n

px
log p

2k
log x
log p
1
p
k
We have

px
log p

2k
log x
log p
1
p
k

px
log p
p
2
1 p
1

px
log p
p
2

n=1
log n
n
2
1
Therefore

px
log p
p
=

nx
(n)
n
+O(1)
By Lemma 9

nx
(n)
n
= x
1

nx
(n)
_
x
n
_
+x
1

nx
(n)
_
x
n
_
= x
1

nx
log n +x
1
O((x))
= log x 1 +x
1
O(log x) +x
1
O(x)
= log x +O(1)
Proof of A 1. Let
a
n
=
_
log n
n
if n is prime
0 otherwise
By partial summation (Lemma 6):

px
1
p
=
1
2
+

2<nx
a
n
log n
=
1
2
+
_
_

nx
a
n
_
_
1
log x

1
2
+
_
x
2
_
_

nt
a
n
_
_
1
t(log t)
2
dt
=
_
log x +O(1)
_
1
log x
+
_
x
2
_
log t +O(1)
_
1
t(log t)
2
dt
= 1 +O
_
1
log x
_
+ log log x log log 2 +O
_
1
log x

1
log 2
_
= log log x +B +O
_
1
log x
_
for some B
12
4 Dirichlet Series
A Dirichlet series is an innite series of the form
F(s) :=

n=1
a
n
n
s
where a
n
will be an arithmetic function and s = +it is a complex variable. They
are ubiquitous in analytic number theory, forming an important class of generating
functions.
Lemma 11. Suppose F(s
0
) converges for some value s
0
=
0
+ it
0
. Then F(s)
converges uniformly on every compact subset of the half-plane >
0
.
Proof. Let K be a compact subset of the half-plane >
0
. Then K is bounded,
so there is some B such that [s[ B for all s K and it can be checked that
there exists > 0 such that for all s K,
0
+. We apply partial summation
(Lemma 6), taking
a
n
n
s
0
(n N) as our sequence and f(t) = t
(ss
0
)
as our
continuously dierentiable function, to get that

a<nb
a
n
n
s

1
b
ss
0

nb
a
n
n
s
0

1
a
ss
0

na
a
n
n
s
0
+ (s s
0
)
_
b
a
_
_

nt
a
n
n
s
0
_
_
dt
t
ss
0
1

S
_
1
b

+
1
a

+
[s s
0
[

0
_
1
b

1
a

0
__

2S( +B +[s
0
[)
a

Where S = sup
NN

n=1
a
n
n
s
0

## < . Hence Cauchys condition for uniform convergence

completes the proof.
Dene the abscissa of convergence of a Dirichlet series F(s) to be

c
:= inf R : F( +it) converges
Similarly the abscissa of absolute convergence is given by

a
:= inf
_
R :

n=1
[a
n
[
n

converges
_
Example. We dene the Riemann zeta function to be
(s) :=

n=1
1
n
s
(for > 1)
Its clear that (s) is absolutely convergent for > 1 and diverges for s = 1. Hence
(in this case)
c
=
a
= 1.
In general we have
c

a

c
+1 for any Dirichlet series.
c

a
is obvious.
To see the second inequality suppose F(s
0
) converges for some s
0
. It suces then
13
to show F(s) converges absolutely for >
0
+ 1. Since we must have
a
n
n
s
0
0,
there exists A such that for all n N

a
n
n
s
0

A
Hence for >
0
+ 1

n=1

a
n
n
s

n=1
1
n

0
<
Lemma 12. Let
F(s) =

n=1
a(n)
n
s
, G(s) =

n=1
b(n)
n
s
be Dirichlet series with abscissae of absolute convergence
a
(F),
a
(G). Provided
> max
a
(F),
a
(G), we have
F(s)G(s) =

n=1
(a b)(n)
n
s
Proof.
F(s)G(s) =

m,n=1
a(m)b(n)
(mn)
s
=

k=1

mn=k
a(m)b(n)
k
s
Example. Recall that u(n) = 1 and I(n) = [1/n] (n N). Then we know u = I.
Clearly the Dirichlet series

n=1
(n)
n
s
has abscissa of absolute convergence 1. So for > 1
(s)

n=1
(n)
n
s
=

n=1
u (n)
n
s

n=1
I(n)
n
s
= 1
Thus we conclude that when > 1

n=1
(n)
n
s
= (s)
1
(10)
14
Example. Since d(n) = u u(n)
(s)
2
=

n=1
d(n)
n
s
( > 1)
The following is a key property of Dirichlet series (sometimes called the analytic
fundamental theorem of arithmetic):
When a(n) is a multiplicative arithmetic function, F(s) has an Euler
product.
Lemma 13 (Euler Product Formula). Suppose f is a multiplicative function and
F(s) :=

n=1
f(n)
n
s
has abscissa of absolute convergence
a
. Then provided >
a
F(s) =

p
_
f(1)
1
+
f(p)
p
s
+
f(p
2
)
p
2s
+
_
In particular, if f is completely multiplicative, then
F(s) =

p
_
1
f(p)
p
s
_
1
Proof. Let >
a
. Since F(s) is absolutely convergent, so is

m=0
f(p
m
)
p
ms
for all primes p. We can therefore dene
P(s; x) :=

px

m=0
f(p
m
)
p
ms
(x 2)
Let r = (x) . Absolute convergence ensures the following identity is valid
P(s; x) =

m
1
=0

m
r
=0
f (p
m
1
1
) f (p
m
r
r
)
(p
m
1
1
p
m
r
r
)
s
=

n
f(n)
n
s
#(m
1
, . . . , m
r
) : n = p
m
1
1
p
m
r
r

By the fundamental theorem of arithmetic

n
f(n)
n
s
#(m
1
, . . . , m
r
) : n = p
m
1
1
p
m
r
r
=

n
p|npx
f(n)
n
s
Therefore
[F(s) P(s; x)[

n>x
[f(n)[
n

## where the latter quantity 0 as x .

15
Example. For > 1
(s) =

n=1
u(n)
n
s
Hence
(s) =

p
_
1
1
p
s
_
1
The above example is the rst piece of evidence for the following correspondence
principal:
Analytic properties of (s) Properties of primes
Exercise. By using Lemma 13, show that

n=1
(n)
n
s
= (s)
1
( > 1)
One of the key properties of Dirichlet series lies in the following result.
Lemma 14 (Perron). Let F(s) =

n=1
f(n)
n
s
be a Dirichlet series with abscissa of
absolute convergence
a
. Provided x / Z and > max
a
, 0 we have

nx
f(n) =
1
2i
_
+iT
iT
F(s)x
s
s
ds +O
_
x

n=1
[f(n)[n

log
_
x
n
_

_
Proof. Its an easy exercise in contour integration to show that for any > 0
1
2i
_
+iT
iT
u
s
s
ds =
_

_
1 +O
_
u

T log u
_
if u > 1
1
2
+O
_

T
_
if u = 1
O
_
u

T log(
1
u
)
_
if u (0, 1)
By Lemma 11

nN
f(n)
n
s
converges uniformly to F(s) on the set [iT, +iT] :=
+it : t [T, T]. We are therefore justied in swapping the order of integra-
tion and summation in the following:
_
+iT
iT
F(s)x
s
s
ds =

n=1
f(n)
_
+iT
iT
(x/n)
s
s
ds
=

nx
_
2if(n) +O
_
[f(n)[(x/n)

T log(x/n)
__
+

n>x
O
_
[f(n)[(x/n)

T log(n/x)
_
We end this section by establishing the analyticity of a Dirichlet series in an
appropriate half-plane.
Lemma 15. F(s) =

n=1
f(n)
n
s
is holomorphic for >
c
with derivative
F

(s) =

n=1
f(n) log n
n
s
16
Proof. Let H := s C : >
c
and let be a closed contour in H. Since the
partial sums F
x
(s) :=

nx
f(n)n
s
are entire functions, Cauchys Theorem tells
us that for all x
_

F
x
(z)dz = 0
By uniform convergence (Lemma 11) we can pass to a limit under the integral sign,
giving
_

F(z)dz = 0
It follows from Moreras Theorem that F is holomorphic on H. The treatment of
derivatives is similar
1
.
5 The Riemann Zeta Function
We now explore some basic properties of (s) as needed to establish the Prime
Number Theorem.
It follows from Lemma 15 that (s) is holomorphic on > 1. It is clearly
non-zero on > 1 (see (10)). Assume > 1. Then

(s) =

n=1
log n
n
s
Hence by Lemma 12
(s)

n=1
(n)
n
s
=

n=1
u (n)
n
s
=

n=1
log(n)
n
s
=

(s)
This establishes:
Lemma 16. For > 1 we have

n=1
(n)
n
s
=

(s)
(s)
Recall (x) =

nx
(n). Letting T in Perrons Formula (Lemma 14)
we get
(x) =
1
2i
_
+i
i
_

(s)
(s)
_
x
s
s
ds ( > 1)
This is one of the most popular approaches to PNT and naturally leads to the
study of analytic properties of and

## . We shall follow an alternative path (due

1
Calculate the derivative of the partial sum, then use Cauchys integral formula for the rst
derivative, passing to the limit under the integral sign.
17
to Newman) but we will still need to make sense of (s) for 1. An application
of Lemma 6 gives

nx
n
s
=
[x]
x
s
+s
_
x
1
[t]t
s1
dt (11)
= x
1s
x x
s
+
s
s 1
_
1 x
1s
_
s
_
x
1
t t
s1
dt (12)
for all s ,= 1. Letting x when > 1 we obtain
Lemma 17. For > 1
(s) =
s
s 1
s
_

1
t
t
s+1
dt (13)
Note. For values of > 0, we have that

_

1
t
t
s+1
dt

_

1
1
t
+1
dt

1
Lemma 17 therefore gives a formula for (s) which continues to make sense for
(0, 1].
Consider the sequence of functions
f
N
(s) :=
s
s 1
s
_
N
1
t
t
s+1
dt (N N)
dened on the punctured half-plane := s C : s ,= 1 and > 0. Since t
t is periodic modulo 1, a quick calculation establishes that each f
N
is a nite sum
of functions holomorphic on , and therefore f
N
is itself holomorphic on . An
argument similar to that given in Lemma 11 shows that the f
N
converge uniformly
to (as dened by (13)) on all compact subsets of . Using Moreras Theorem (as
in Lemma 15) we can show that is holomorphic on every open ball contained in ,
and hence holomorphic in . Clearly has a simple pole at s = 1. To summarise:
Formula (13) gives an analytic continuation of (s) to > 0, whose
only pole is a simple one at s = 1.
Since (s) is not identically zero in the open connected set , it follows that the
zeroes of (s) form a discrete subset of . Moreover, we now also know that

(s)
is holomorphic in with a pole of order 2 at s = 1. Thus

(s)
(s)
is meromorphic in
the half-plane > 0 with a simple pole at s = 1.
Lemma 18. (i) For all 1 and t 2
[(s)[ = O(log t)
(ii) For all (0, 1), if > and t 1 then
[(s)[ = O

_
t
1
_
18
Proof. Let > 0, t 1, x 1. Combining (13) and (12) gives
(s)

nx
1
n
s
=
1
(s 1)x
s1
+
x
x
s
s
_

x
u
u
s+1
du
Therefore
[(s)[

nx
1
n

+
1
tx
1
+
1
x

+[s[
_

x
du
u
+1
(14)
First suppose 1 and t 2. Take x = t in (14) to deduce that
[(s)[ log t +
1
t

+
[ +it[
t

log t +
1
t

+
1
t
1
log t + 1 log t
Next suppose t 1 and where (0, 1). Again taking x = t in (14) we
have
[(s)[ log t +
_
1
t
+
1

_
t
1

t
1
Taking = 1/2 in Lemma 18.(ii) gives

(
1
2
+it)

= O
_
t
1/2
_
(t 1) (15)
The Lindelof Hypothesis predicts that for all > 0

(
1
2
+it)

= O

(t

)
The record is [(
1
2
+ it)[ = O
_
t

_
for = 0.156 . . . (M. Huxley). In fact the
Riemann Hypothesis implies the Lindelof Hypothesis.
Dene
(s) :=

p
log p
p
s
Then:
Lemma 19. For 1 we have that (s) ,= 0 and (s)
1
s1
is holomorphic.
Remark. We say f is holomorphic on the set X (where X is not necessarily open) if
there exists an open set C which contains X and on which f is holomorphic. So
in Lemma 19 we claim that (s)
1
s1
is holomorphic on some open set containing
1.
Proof. Weve already seen that (s) ,= 0 for > 1. For > 1, Lemma 16 implies
that

(s)
(s)
=

n=1
(n)
n
s
=

k=1
log p
p
ks
=

p
log p
p
s
1
19
Since
1
x 1
=
1
x
+
1
x(x 1)
we have

(s)
(s)
= (s) +

p
log p
p
s
(p
s
1)
(16)
Notice that

p
log p
p
s
(p
s
1)
converges absolutely for >
1
2
. It therefore follows from
Lemma 17 and the remarks after it, that (s) has a meromorphic continuation to
>
1
2
with poles only at s = 1 and the zeros of . To complete the proof of the
lemma, it suces to show that
(1 +it) ,= 0 for all real values of t. (17)
Since if this holds then for each t R there exists
t
(0, 1) such that is non-zero
on B

t
(1 +it). The set
z C : '(z) > 1
_
t
B

t
(1 +it)
is then open, contains '(z) 1 and contains no zeros of . It follows that (s)
1
s1
is holomorphic on this set.
To prove (17), suppose has a zero of order Z at s
0
:= 1 + i, where
R 0. By which we mean, there is a function g which is non-zero at
s
0
, holomorphic in a neighbourhood of s
0
and with (s) = (s s
0
)

g(s) in this
neighbourhood. So a simple pole is a zero of order 1. Similarly suppose (s) has
a zero of order at s = 1 +i2. Then certainly , 0 by Lemma 17 (the only
pole of in the half-plane > 0 is at s = 1). By (16) we have
lim
0
(1 + ri) =
_

_
1 r = 0
r = 1
r = 2
Note that
2

r=2
_
4
2 +r
_
(1 + +ir) =

p
log p
p
1+
_
p
i/2
+p
i/2
_
4
0
Multiplying through by and taking the limit as 0 we get
lim
0
((1+i2) + 4(1+i) + 6(1+) + 4(1++i) +(1++i2))
= 6 8 2 0
Therefore = 0 and so there does not exist a zero of (s) with = 1.
Remark. The above proof relies on a trick which cannot be used for general L-
functions: is special.
20
6 The Prime Number Theorem
We now have everything in place to prove:
Theorem A 2. (x) x as x .
We saw prior to Lemma 9 that this is equivalent to
(x)
x
log x
The main analytic tool is the following:
Lemma 20 (Newmans Analytic Lemma). For t 0 let f(t) be a bounded function
which is locally integrable, i.e. integrable on any compact subset of [0, ). Suppose
g(z) :=
_

0
f(t)e
zt
dt ('(z) > 0)
extends holomorphically to '(z) 0. Then
_

0
f(t)dt
exists and is equal to g(0).
Proof. When we say g extends holomorphically to '(z) 0 we mean that there
exists an open set E C which contains the closed half-plane '(z) 0 and on
which g has an analytic extension. We will rst show that for each R > 0 there
exists = (R) > 0 such that the set
E
R
:= z C : [z[ < R + 1 and '(z) > 2
is contained in E. Suppose otherwise. Then for each n N there exists z
n
CE
with
[z
n
[ < R + 1 and '(z) >
1
n
Since (z
n
)
n
is a sequence in compact set B
R+1
(0), it has a convergent subsequence
(z
k(n)
)
n
with limit z
0
. Then
z
0
B
R+1
(0) z C : '(z) 0 E
But C E is closed, so z
0
C E (a contradiction).
Next we dene the closed contour C
R
to be the boundary of the closed set
F
R
:= z C : [z[ R and '(z) E
R
We also dene:
C
R,+
:= z C
R
: '(z) > 0
C
R,
:= z C
R
: '(z) < 0
For each T > 0 let
g
T
(z) :=
_
T
0
f(t)e
tz
dt (z C)
21
Clearly each g
T
is entire.
We wish to prove that
lim
T
_
g(0) g
T
(0)
_
= 0
By Cauchys Integral Formula, we have that for all T > 0
g(0) g
T
(0) =
1
2i
_
C
R
g(z) g
T
(z)
z
_
1 +
z
2
R
2
_
e
Tz
dz (18)
Since the left-hand side of (18) is independent of R, it suces to show that for all
large R
limsup
T
_
C
R
I(z; R, T)dz R
1
(19)
where
I(z; R, T) :=
g(z) g
T
(z)
z
_
1 +
z
2
R
2
_
e
Tz
To establish this we will estimate the integral over C
R,+
and C
R,
separately. Let
B := sup[f(t)[. For z C
R,+
[I(z; R, T)[ =

1
R
_
R
z
+
z
R
_
e
Tz
_

T
f(t)e
tz
dt

=
2['(z/R)[
R
e
T(z)

_

T
f(t)e
tz
dt

2'(z)
R
2
e
T(z)
B
_

T
e
t(z)
dt
=
2'(z)
R
2
e
T(z)
B
e
T(z)
'(z)
=
2B
R
2
Hence
_
C
R,+
I(z; R, T)dz R
1
Next, dene
C

R,
:= z C : [z[ = R and '(z) < 0
Since
J(z; R, T) :=
g
T
(z)
z
_
1 +
z
2
R
2
_
e
Tz
is analytic on simply connected domain C [0, ), by Cauchys Theorem
_
C
R,
J(z; R, T)dz =
_
C

R,
J(z; R, T)dz
22
For z C

R,
[J(z; R, T)[ =
1
R

R
z
+
z
R

e
Tz
_
T
0
f(t)e
tz
dt

2['(z)[
R
2
e
T(z)
B
['(z)[
_
e
T(z)
1
_

2B
R
2
Finally we estimate
K(z; R, T) :=
g(z)
z
_
1 +
z
2
R
2
_
e
Tz
on C
R,
. K is analytic on the intersection of E
R
with the half-plane '(z) < 0.
This intersection is in fact an open convex set, so by Cauchys Theorem for convex
domains, for each (0, (R)]
_

K(z; R, T)dz =
_
C
R,
K(z; R, T)dz
where

## is the portion of the boundary of the region

z C : [z[ R and '(z) F
R
which intersects '(z) < 0.
Let
S
R
:= sup
zF
R
[f(z)[
and

:= z

: '(z) =
If z

then
[K(z; R, T)[
2S
R
R
Using elementary trigonometry, one can verify that the contour

has length
at most
2
2

R
, hence

K(z; R, T)dz

4
2
S
R
R
2
So choosing := min
_
(R),
1
S
R
_
we have that when R 1
_

K(z; R, T)dz
1
R
2

1
R
Now for z

[K(z; R, T)[ S
R
e
T(z)
[z[

S
R

e
T
So K(z; R, T) 0 uniformly on

as T . (19) follows.
23
We apply Newmans Lemma to study the integral
_

1
(x) x
x
2
For > 1, Lemma 6 tells us
(s) =

p
log p
p
s
= lim
x

px
log p
p
s
= lim
x
_
(x)
x
s
+s
_
x
1
(t)
t
s+1
dt
_
= s
_

1
(t)
t
s+1
dt
= s
_

0
(e
u
)e
su
du
The last equality is obtained by making the change-of-variables t = e
u
. Hence for
> 1
(s) = s
_

0
e
su
(e
u
)du
Let
f(t) := (e
t
)e
t
1
g(z) :=
(z + 1)
z + 1

1
z
Then
_

0
f(t)e
zt
dt =
_

0
(e
t
)e
t(z+1)
dt
_

0
e
zt
dt
= g(z)
By Lemma 9, f(t) is bounded. By Lemma 19, g(t) = (z + 1)(z + 1)
1
z
1
extends holomorphically to '(z) 1, i.e. '(z) 0.
By Newmans Lemma
_

0
_
(e
t
)e
t
1
_
is a convergent integral and equal to
_

1
(t) t
t
2
dt
(by a simple change of variables).
Assume that for some > 1, there exists arbitrarily large values of x such that
(x) x
Since is non-decreasing, we have
_
x
x
(t) t
t
2

_
x
x
x t
t
2
dt
=
_

1
t
t
2
dt
= ( 1 log ) > 0
24
This contradicts the convergence of
_

1
(t) t
t
2
dt
Similarly, for each < 1 there cant exist arbitrarily large values of x for which
(x) x
Therefore (x) x.
25