Professional Documents
Culture Documents
YIFAN YANG
Abstract. We investigate
P the asymptotic
Q∞ behavior of the partition function
pΛ (n) defined by ∞ n
n=0 pΛ (n)x =
m −Λ(m) , where Λ(n) denotes
m=1 (1 − x )
the von Mangoldt
p function. Improving a result of Richmond, we show that
√
log pΛ (n) = 2 ζ(2)n + O( n exp{−c(log n)(log2 n)−2/3 (log3 n)−1/3 }), where
c is a positive constant and logk denotes the k times iterated logarithm. We
also show that the error term can be improved to O(n1/4 ) if and only if the
Riemann Hypothesis holds.
1. Introduction
The asymptotic behavior of partition functions has been extensively studied in
the literature. The most famous result is the asymptotic formula
1 √
p(n) ∼ √ eπ 2n/3 (n → ∞)
(4 3)n
for the ordinary partition function p(n), proved in 1918 by Hardy and Ramanujan
[3]. The asymptotic behavior of more general partition functions has been studied
by many authors, including Ingham [4], Kohlbecker [6], Meinardus [7], [8], Roth
and Szekeres [12], Schwarz [13], [14], and Richmond [10], [11].
Of particular interest are functions related to partitions into primes. As an
application of an asymptotic formula for general partition functions, Roth and
Szekeres [12] showed that the number qP (n) of partitions of n into distinct primes
satisfies
r 1/2
2 n log log n
log qP (n) = π 1+O .
3 log n log n
A similar, but in some ways more natural, partition function is the function
pΛ (n) defined by
X∞ ∞
Y
pΛ (n)xn = (1 − xm )−Λ(m) ,
n=0 m=1
where
(
log p, m = pr ,
Λ(m) =
0, else,
is the von Mangoldt function. The function pΛ (n) represents a weighted count of
the number of partitions of n into prime powers. This weighted partition function
was first introduced and studied in 1950 by Brigham [1], who proved a conditional
2000
c American Mathematical Society
2581
2582 YIFAN YANG
result under the assumption of the Riemann Hypothesis. More recently, Richmond
[11], using an asymptotic formula for general partition functions (see [10]) and
Vinogradov’s zero-free region for the Riemann zeta function, obtained the following
unconditional result.
Theorem A (Richmond). There exists a positive constant c such that for all
sufficiently large n
p n o
(1.1) log pΛ (n) = 2 ζ(2)n1/2 1 + O exp(−c(log n)4/7 (log log n)−3/7 ) .
be the summatory function of pΛ (n). In Section 4 we show that Theorems 1-3 are
true if and only if the corresponding statements with n replaced by u and pΛ (n)
replaced by PΛ (u) are true. Hence it suffices to prove Theorems 1-3 with PΛ (u)
instead of pΛ (n).
Our main tools for proving these results are Abelian and Tauberian theorems
that relate estimates for PΛ (u) to estimates for the Laplace-Stieltjes transform of
PΛ (u), defined by
Z ∞
FΛ (x) = e−xu dPΛ (u).
0
We will state and prove these results in Section 2. In Section 3 we establish some
lemmas relating the behavior of general weighted partition functions pw (n) defined
by
X∞ Y∞
pw (n)xn = (1 − xm )−w(m)
n=0 m=1
to analytic properties of the Dirichlet series
X∞
w(n)
fw (s) = ,
n=1
ns
where w(m) is a non-negative function defined on the set of positive integers. Our
methods here are, to some extent, similar to those in Meinardus [7]. However,
Meinardus made much stronger assumptions on the analytic properties of fw (s).
These assumptions are not satisfied in the case w(n) = Λ(n), so that Meinardus’
results are not applicable to pΛ (n). In Section 4 we complete the proof of Theorems
1-3. In Section 5 we use one of our Tauberian results to give a new proof of Theorem
B that is simpler and more elementary than the original proof of Richmond.
holds for all sufficiently large u, where r(u) is a positive differentiable function
satisfying
(R1) r(u)u−a → 0 monotonically as u → ∞,
and
(R2) r(u)/(log u) → ∞ monotonically as u → ∞.
Then
(2.2a) log F (x) ≥ Bx−b − r(B 0 x−b−1 )
for all sufficiently small x, where
(2.3) B = (Aa)1/(1−a) (1 − a)/a, b = a/(1 − a), B 0 = Bb.
Similarly, if
(2.1b) log P (u) ≤ Aua + r(u)
for all sufficiently large u, then with the same notation
(2.2b) log F (x) ≤ Bx−b + 2r(B 0 x−b−1 )
for all sufficiently small x.
As a simple consequence of Proposition 1, we have the following corollary.
Corollary. Let P (u), F (x), A, a, B, b and B 0 be given as in Proposition 1. Sup-
pose that r(u) satisfies conditions (R1) and (R2). Then
log F (x) − Bx−b = Ω+ (r(B 0 x−b−1 ))
as x → 0 implies that
log P (u) − Aua = Ω+ (r(u))
as u → ∞. The same statement holds if Ω+ is replaced by Ω− .
Proof of Proposition 1. Suppose first that (2.1a) holds for sufficiently large u. By
the monotonicity of P (t) and the assumption that P (t) is non-negative, we have
for all x > 0 and all u > 0,
Z ∞ Z ∞
−xt
(2.4) F (x) = e dP (t) = x e−xt P (t) dt
Z ∞
0 0
Z ∞
−xt
≥x e P (t) dt ≥ x e−xt P (u) dt = e−xu P (u).
u u
(Note that the convergence of the integral defining F (x) is ensured by the assump-
tion that P (t) = O (et ) for every > 0.)
By (2.1a) it follows that
(2.5) F (x) ≥ exp{−xu + Aua − r(u)}
for all sufficiently large u and all x > 0. We choose u = ux to maximize −xu + Aua,
i.e., we let ux be defined by
(2.6) x = Aau−(1−a)
x .
If x is sufficiently small, then ux will be large enough for (2.5) to hold. We note
that
(2.7) xux = x(Aax−1 )1/(1−a) = B 0 x−a/(1−a) = B 0 x−b
PARTITIONS INTO PRIMES 2585
and
(2.8) Auax = A(Aax−1 )a/(1−a) = (Aa)1/(1−a) a−1 x−b = B 0 a−1 x−b .
Substituting these expressions into the right-hand side of (2.5), we obtain
log F (x) ≥ B 0 (−1 + a−1 )x−b − r(B 0 x−b−1 ) = Bx−b − r(B 0 x−b−1 ),
which proves (2.2a). It remains to prove that (2.1b) implies (2.2b).
Let u0 be a positive constant such that (2.1b) and conditions (R1)-(R2) are
satisfied for u ≥ u0 . Given a positive number x, we let ux be defined by (2.6) and
assume that x is small enough so that ux ≥ 2u0 . We write
(Z Z (1−µ)ux Z (1+µ)ux Z ∞ )
u0
(2.9) F (x) = x + + + e−xt P (t) dt
0 u0 (1−µ)ux (1+µ)ux
= x{I1 + I2 + I3 + I4 },
where µ is a parameter to be chosen so that xI3 has the same order of magnitude
as F (x). It turns out that the optimal choice for µ is
q
(2.10) µ = µ(ux ) = K u−ax r(ux ),
1
≤ exp B 0 x−b (a−1 − 1) + (a − 1)µ2 + O(µ3 ) + (1 + µ)a (Aa)−1 r(ux )u−a x
2
+ O(log µ−1 )
1
= exp Bx−b 1 − aµ2 + O(µ3 ) + (1 + O(µ))A−1 (1 − a)−1 r(ux )u−a x
2
+ O(log µ−1 ) ,
where we have used the identity B 0 (a−1 − 1) = B which follows from (2.3). Ex-
pressing r(ux )u−a
x in terms of µ using (2.10), the last expression becomes
n a o
exp Bx−b 1 − µ2 − K −2 A−1 (1 − a)−1 + O(µ3 ) + O(xb log µ−1 ) .
2
By (2.8), (2.10) and condition (R2) we have
xb log µ−1 u−a −a 2
x log ux = o(ux r(ux )) = o(µ ).
we finally obtain
F (x) ≤ O(x) + O(exp Bx−b − aµ2 /4 )
+ exp Bx−b + (1 + µ)a r(B 0 x−b−1 ) + O(log x−1 )
= exp Bx−b + (1 + µ)a r(B 0 x−b−1 ) + O(log x−1 )
≤ exp Bx−b + 2r(B 0 x−b−1 )
for all sufficiently small x, where in the last step we have used the assumption (R2).
This yields the desired estimate (2.2b).
Our next result is a Tauberian counterpart to Proposition 1.
PARTITIONS INTO PRIMES 2587
Similarly, we see that xu I2 = o(F (xu )). Hence xu I3 ≥ F (xu )(1 + o(1)). On the
other hand, bounding the integral I3 trivially, we obtain
xu I3 ≤ 2µuxu e−xu (1−µ)u P ((1 + µ)u).
It follows that
P ((1 + µ)u) ≥ F (xu ) exp {xu (1 − µ)u − log(2µuxu ) + o(1)} .
By (2.10), (2.18) and conditions (R1) and (R2) we have
log(2µuxu ) log u r(u).
Thus, using the bound (2.15) for F (xu ), we obtain
P ((1 + µ)u) ≥ exp Bx−bu − r(B xu
0 −b−1
) + xu (1 − µ)u + O(r(u)) .
Substituting (2.18), (2.19) and (2.20) into the last expression, we see that
log P ((1 + µ)u) ≥ Aua − Aaµua + O(r(u)) = A(1 + µ)a ua + O(µua ) + O(r(u)).
p
The last error term can be omitted since r(u) = o( r(u)ua ) = o(µua ) by
p condition
(R1)
p and (2.10). Moreover, by condition (R2), we have µu a
= K r(u)ua ≤
K r((1 + µ)u)(1 + µ)a ua . It follows that
p
log P ((1 + µ)u) ≥ A(1 + µ)a ua − C r((1 + µ)u)(1 + µ)a ua
for all sufficiently large u. Since (1 + µ(u))u is a continuous function of u and
tends to infinity when u → ∞, for all sufficiently large v, there exists a u such that
v = (1 + µ(u))u. Hence we have
p
log P (v) ≥ Av a − C v a r(v)
for all sufficiently large v. This completes the proof of the proposition.
Proposition 2 is not a complete converse to Proposition 1, as the lower bound
in (2.16) is weaker than the lower bound for log P (u) in Proposition 1. Our next
result gives, under a stronger hypothesis, a complete converse.
Proposition 3. Let P (u) and F (x) be defined as in Proposition 1. Suppose that
for some constants B, b > 0 and B 0 = Bb the inequality
(2.15) log F (x) − Bx−b ≤ r(B 0 x−b−1 )
holds for all sufficiently small x, where r(u) is a positive differentiable function
satisfying conditions (R1) and (R2) in Proposition 1 with a = b/(1 + b). Suppose
that, in addition, r(u) satisfies
(R3) r(u) ua/2
as u → ∞. Suppose further that the function G(x) = log F (x) satisfies
(2.22) G0 (x) = −B 0 x−b−1 + O x−1 r(B 0 x−b−1 )
and
(2.23) G00 (x) x−b−2
as x → 0. Then
(2.24) −Cr(u) ≤ log P (u) − Aua ≤ r(u)
PARTITIONS INTO PRIMES 2589
for all sufficiently large u, where A and a are determined by (2.3), and C is a
positive constant depending on B, b and the constants implicit in (2.22), (2.23) and
condition (R3).
Proof. The upper bound in (2.24) follows from Proposition 2. Therefore it remains
to prove the lower bound in (2.24). To this end we use a method of Odlyzko [9].
Given a large number u, we let 0 < µ1 < µ2 < 1 be positive numbers to be
chosen later as functions of u. Set u0 = u, u1 = (1 − µ1 )u, u2 = (1 − µ2 )u, and let
x0 , x1 and x2 be defined by (2.18) with u = u0 , u1 and u2 respectively. Thus, we
have x1 = (1 − µ1 )−(1−a) x0 and x2 = (1 − µ2 )−(1−a) x0 . We consider the function
h(t) = exp{x1 u1 − x1 t} − exp{x0 u0 + x1 u1 − x1 u0 − x0 t}
− exp{x2 u2 + x1 u1 − x1 u2 − x2 t}.
Since x0 < x1 < x2 , we have for t ≥ u0
x1 u1 − x1 t ≤ x1 u1 − x1 t + (x1 − x0 )(t − u0 ) = x0 u0 + x1 u1 − x1 u0 − x0 t,
and for t ≤ u2
x1 u1 − x1 t ≤ x1 u1 − x1 t + (x2 − x1 )(u2 − t) = x2 u2 + x1 u1 − x1 u2 − x2 t.
Thus h(t) ≤ 0 for t ≤ u2 and t ≥ u0 . Now we let
Z ∞
H= h(t) dP (t)
0
= ex1 u1 F (x1 ) − ex0 u0 +x1 u1 −x1 u0 F (x0 ) − ex2 u2 +x1 u1 −x1 u2 F (x2 ).
Then we see that
H ≤ (P (u0 ) − P (u2 )) × max h(t)
u2 ≤t≤u0
x1 u1 −x1 t
≤ P (u0 ) × max e = P (u0 )ex1 (u1 −u2 ) .
u2 ≤t≤u0
Hence, we have
(2.25) P (u0 ) ≥ ex1 u1 F (x1 ) − ex0 u0 +x1 u1 −x1 u0 F (x0 )
− ex2 u2 +x1 u1 −x1 u2 F (x2 ) e−x1 (u1 −u2 ) .
We now show that, with a suitable choice of µ1 and µ2 , ex0 u0 +x1 u1 −x1 u0 F (x0 ) +
ex2 u2 +x1 u1 −x1 u2 F (x2 ) ≤ ex1 u1 F (x1 )/2, and thus the last expression has the same
order of magnitude as F (x1 )ex1 u2 .
By assumptions (2.22) and (2.23), there are positive constants C1 and C2 such
that
−B 0 x−b−1 − C1 x−1 r(B 0 x−b−1 ) ≤ G0 (x) ≤ −B 0 x−b−1 + C1 x−1 r(B 0 x−b−1 )
and
G00 (x) ≥ C2 x−b−2
when x is sufficiently small. Thus, Taylor’s formula yields that
1
(2.26) G(x1 ) − G(x0 ) ≥ G0 (x0 )(x1 − x0 ) + min G00 (ξ)(x1 − x0 )2
2 x0 ≤ξ≤x1
≥ (x1 − x0 )(−B 0 x−b−1
0 − C1 x−1 0 −b−1
0 r(B x0 ))
1
+ C2 x−b−21 (x1 − x0 )2 .
2
2590 YIFAN YANG
−a/2
(2.27) µ1 ≥ KC3 u0
for all sufficiently large u0 , where C3 is a positive constant depending on the con-
stant implicit in condition (R3). Moreover, by condition (R1), this choice of µ1
satisfies µ1 → 0 as u0 → ∞. It follows that when u0 is sufficiently large,
(
−(1−a) ≤ 2(1 − a)µ1 x0 ,
x1 − x0 = x0 ((1 − µ1 ) − 1)
≥ (1 − a)µ1 x0 .
for all sufficiently large u0 . Therefore, by (2.25), (2.28) and (2.29), we have for all
sufficiently large u0
1 x1 u1 1
P (u0 ) ≥ e F (x1 )e−(u1 −u2 )x1 = F (x1 )ex1 u2 = exp {G(x1 ) + x1 u2 + O(1)} .
2 2
PARTITIONS INTO PRIMES 2591
and the bound w(n) nσa +1 (which follows from the convergence of fw (s) at
s = σa + 1), we see that the double series defining hw (s) converges uniformly in
any strip σ1 ≤ Re s ≤ σ2 , and hence represents an entire function of s.
Lemma 3 (Landau). (i) Let g(n) be a function defined on the set of positive
integers and of constant sign for all sufficiently large n. Suppose that the Dirichlet
series
∞
X
g(n)n−s
n=1
Proof. Part (i) is the classical version of a well-known theorem of Landau (see, e.g.,
Ingham [5, p. 88]). To obtain part (ii), we note that the given integral can be
written as
Z ∞
h(u)u−s du
1
with h(u) = g(1/u)/u and x = 1/u. By the integral version of Landau’s lemma
(Ingham [5, p. 88]) the last integral has a singularity at s = σa .
Lemma 4. Assume that for some constants B > 0 and b > 0
(3.4) log Fw (x) = Bx−b {1 + o(1)}
as x → 0+. Then the Dirichlet series fw (s) has abscissa of convergence b and
satisfies
1 B |s − b|
(3.5) fw (s) = +o
s − b Γ(b)ζ(1 + b) σ−b
as s → b, while σ = Re s > b.
Proof. By Lemma 2 we have
Z 1
1
(3.6) fw (s) = xs−1 log Fw (x) dx + hw (s) ,
Γ(s)ζ(1 + s) 0
where hw (s) is an entire function. On the other hand, the hypothesis (3.4) implies
that
Z 1 Z 1 Z 1
(3.7) xs−1 log Fw (x) dx = B xs−b−1 dx + o xσ−b−1 dx
0 0 0
B 1
= +o
s−b σ−b
as σ → b+. Combining these two estimates yields (3.5).
To show that the Dirichlet series fw (s) has abscissa of absolute convergence b, we
observe that, by (3.6) and (3.7), fw (s) is analytic on the half-plane {s : Re s > b},
but has a singularity at the real point s = b. Since w(n) is non-negative, Lemma 3
implies that fw (s) has abscissa of absolute convergence b.
Lemma 5. Suppose that
B 1
gw (s) = fw (s) −
Γ(b)ζ(1 + b) s − b
can be meromorphically continued to a half-plane {s : Re s > σ0 }, where σ0 < b.
Let θ be the least upper bound of the real parts of the singularities of gw (s), and
suppose that gw (s) is analytic at the real point s = θ. Then, for any > 0,
log Fw (x) − Bx−b = Ω± (x−(θ−) ) as x → 0.
Proof. Let be given and consider the function
Φ(x) = log Fw (x) − Bx−b − x−(θ−)
with Mellin transform
Z 1
φ(s) = xs−1 Φ(x) dx.
0
2594 YIFAN YANG
Since Λ(q) − 1 > 0 when q is an odd prime power, expanding each factor in the last
expression yields a series with non-negative coefficients. Thus we have pΛ (n + q) ≥
pΛ (n) for all n ≥ 0. Iterating this inequality with q = 3 and q = 5, we see that
pΛ (n + 3k + 5l) ≥ pΛ (n) for all non-negative integers n, k and l. Since every
integer ≥ 15 can be written as a linear combination of 3 and 5 with non-negative
coefficients, the lemma follows.
Lemma 7. Let n ∈ N. Let r(u) be a function satisfying r(u)(log u)−1 → ∞ as
u → ∞, and r(u + v) r(u) uniformly for all sufficiently large u and 0 ≤ v ≤ 15.
Then
p
log pΛ (n) = 2 ζ(2)n1/2 + O(r(n))
as n → ∞ if and only if
p
log PΛ (u) = 2 ζ(2)u1/2 + O(r(u))
as u → ∞. A similar statement holds if O is replaced by Ω± .
Proof. By Lemma 6, we have
X
n
(4.1) pΛ (n) ≤ PΛ (n) = pΛ (k) ≤ (n + 1)pΛ (n + 15)
k=0
PARTITIONS INTO PRIMES 2595
and
Z Z T
e−t (log t)x−η(t) dt x−η(T ) .
γ2,4 10
We also have
Z
x−η(10) .
γ3
2596 YIFAN YANG
Thus, we obtain
(4.3)
−1
0
−T ζ (κ) −κ
log FΛ (x) = ζ(2)x +O e x + O e−T (log T )x−κ + O x−η(T ) .
ζ(κ)
We now assume that x is sufficiently small so that log3 x−1 is defined and ≥ 1. We
set κ = 1 + 1/ log x−1 and
C log x−1
T = ,
(log2 x−1 )2/3 (log 3 x−1 )1/3
where C is the constant appearing in the definition of η(t). Then x−κ = ex−1 and
ζ 0 (κ)/ζ(κ) log x−1 . Hence, noting that
C
1 − η(T ) ∼
(log2 x−1 )2/3 (log3 x−1 )1/3
as x → 0, we obtain from (4.3)
−1 −1 (C/2) log x−1
(4.4) log FΛ (x) = ζ(2)x + O x exp − .
(log2 x−1 )2/3 (log3 x−1 )1/3
We now apply Proposition 2 with B = B 0 = ζ(2), b = 1 and the quantities A and
a determined by (2.3), i.e.,
p
A = a−1 (Ba/(1 − a))
1−a
(4.5) a = 1/2 and = 2 ζ(2).
Setting y = B 0 x−b−1 = ζ(2)x−2 and
(C/5) log y
r(y) = y exp −
1/2
,
(log2 y)2/3 (log3 y)1/3
it easily follows from (4.4) that
| log FΛ (x) − ζ(2)x−1 | ≤ r(ζ(2)x−2 )
for all sufficiently small x. Hence, by Proposition 2, we may conclude that, with
c = C/10,
p
log PΛ (u) = Aua + O( r(u)ua )
p c log u
= 2 ζ(2)u + O u exp −
1/2 1/2
.
(log2 u)2/3 (log3 u)1/3
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
Proof of Theorem 2. We will prove only the Ω− -estimate; the Ω+ -estimate can be
proved similarly.
Applying
p the corollary to Proposition 1 with P (u) = PΛ (u), F (x) = FΛ (x),
A = 2 ζ(2), a = 1/2, B = B 0 = ζ(2), b = 1 and r(u) = u1/4 , we see that it suffices
to show that
(4.6) log FΛ (x) − ζ(2)x−1 = Ω− (x−1/2 ).
Let θ be the least upper bound of the real parts of the zeros of the Riemann zeta
function. If the Riemann Hypothesis is false, i.e., if θ > 1/2, we apply Lemma 5
with w(n) = Λ(n), fw (s) = −ζ 0 (s)/ζ(s), B = ζ(2) and b = 1. The function gw (s)
in Lemma 5 then is given by −ζ 0 (s)/ζ(s) − 1/(s − 1). Thus gw (s) is a meromorphic
function in Re s > 0, whose singularities are exactly the zeros of ζ(s). In particular,
the least upper bound of the real parts of these singularities is equal to the least
PARTITIONS INTO PRIMES 2597
upper bound θ of the real parts of the zeros of ζ(s). Moreover, since ζ(s) has no
zeros on the real line, gw (s) is analytic at s = θ. Thus, Lemma 5 implies that, for
any > 0,
log FΛ (x) − ζ(2)x−1 = Ω± (x−(θ−) ).
In particular, we can choose = θ − 1/2 and the assertion of Theorem 2 follows.
We therefore assume that the Riemann Hypothesis is true.
Let 1/2 + iγ be one of the non-trivial zeros of the Riemann zeta function and let
m be its multiplicity. Let C be a positive constant such that
(4.7) C < m|Γ(1/2 + iγ)ζ(3/2 + iγ)|
and define
Φ(x) = log FΛ (x) − ζ(2)x−1 + Cx−1/2 .
If (4.6) is false, then there exists x0 > 0 such that Φ(x) ≥ 0 holds for all x ≤ x0 .
By Lemma 3, the integral
Z 1
φ(s) = Φ(x)xs−1 dx
0
has a singularity at the real point s = σa , the abscissa of absolute convergence of
φ(s). On the other hand, applying Lemma 2 with fw (s) = −ζ 0 (s)/ζ(s), we obtain
ζ 0 (s) ζ(2) C
(4.8) φ(s) = −Γ(s)ζ(1 + s) − hΛ (s) − + ,
ζ(s) s − 1 s − 1/2
where hΛ (s) is an entire function. Since the last expression has no singularity on
the real axis to the right of 1/2, the abscissa of absolute convergence σa of the
integral φ(s) must be ≤ 1/2. For σ > 1/2 we have
Z 1 Z x0
(4.9) |φ(σ + iγ)| ≤ |Φ(x)|xσ−1 dx + Φ(x)xσ−1 dx
x0 0
Z1 Z 1
= {|Φ(x)| − Φ(x)}xσ−1 dx + Φ(x)xσ−1 dx
x0 0
Z1
≤ 2|Φ(x)|x−1/2 dx + φ(σ).
x0
We multiply both sides by σ − 1/2 and let σ → 1/2+. The right-hand side becomes
limσ→1/2+ (σ − 1/2)φ(σ), which, by (4.8), is equal to
ζ 0 (σ) ζ(2) C
lim (σ − 1/2) − Γ(σ)ζ(1 + σ) − + = C.
σ→1/2+ ζ(σ) σ − 1 σ − 1/2
On the other hand, applying (4.8) to φ(σ + iγ), we see that the left-hand side of
(4.9) becomes (after multiplying by σ − 1/2 and letting σ → 1/2+)
ζ 0 (σ + iγ)
lim (σ − 1/2) − Γ(σ + iγ)ζ(1 + σ + iγ)
σ→1/2+ ζ(σ + iγ)
ζ(2) C
− + = m|Γ(1/2 + iγ)ζ(3/2 + iγ)|.
σ − 1 + iγ σ − 1/2 + iγ
Hence m|Γ(1/2 + iγ)ζ(3/2 + iγ)| ≤ C, which contradicts (4.7). Therefore (4.6)
holds, and the proof of Theorem 2 is complete.
2598 YIFAN YANG
Proof of Theorem 3. Let θ be the least upper bound for the real parts of the zeros
of the Riemann zeta function. It suffices to show that if α is a real number such
that the estimate
p
(4.10) log PΛ (u) = 2 ζ(2)u1/2 + O(uα/2 )
holds as u → ∞, then α ≥ θ.
By Proposition 1, (4.10) implies that
log FΛ (x) = ζ(2)x−1 + O(x−α ).
Thus the integral
Z 1
φ(s) = xs−1 log FΛ (x) − ζ(2)x−1 dx
0
defines an analytic function on the half-plane {s : Re s > α}. On the other hand,
by Lemma 2 we have, for Re s > 1,
ζ 0 (s) ζ(2)
(4.11) φ(s) = −Γ(s)ζ(1 + s) − − hΛ (s),
ζ(s) s−1
where hΛ (s) is an entire function. Since φ(s) is analytic in Re s > α, the latter
relation remains valid in this larger region, and the right-hand side of (4.11) is
analytic in Re s > α. Therefore ζ(s) cannot have zeros on the half-plane {s : Re s >
α}, i.e., we have θ ≤ α, as claimed.
we obtain
X X
Γ(ρ)ζ(1 + ρ)x−ρ e−|γ| x−β x−θ .
ρ ρ=β+iγ
Also, for Re s = −1/2 we have ζ 0 (s)/ζ(s) log(|s| + 2) and ζ(1 + s) (|s| + 1)1/2
(Theorems 9 and 27 in [5]). Thus
Z −1/2+i∞
ζ 0 (s) −s
Γ(s)ζ(1 + s) x ds
−1/2−i∞ ζ(s)
Z ∞
x1/2 e−|t| (|t| + 1)1/2 log(|t| + 2) dt x1/2 .
−∞
Hence, we obtain
(5.1) log FΛ (x) = ζ(2)x−1 + O(x−θ ).
Similarly, we have, for κ > 1,
Z
d 1 κ+i∞
ζ 0 (s) −s−1
(5.2) log FΛ (x) = sΓ(s)ζ(1 + s) x ds
dx 2πi κ−i∞ ζ(s)
−2
= −ζ(2)x + O(x−(θ+1) )
and
Z
d2 1 κ+i∞
ζ 0 (s) −s−2
(5.3) log FΛ (x) = − s(1 + s)Γ(s)ζ(1 + s) x ds
dx2 2πi κ−i∞ ζ(s)
= 2ζ(2)x−3 + O(x−(θ+2) ).
By (5.1)-(5.3), the function F (x) = FΛ (x) satisfies the hypotheses (2.15), (2.22)
and (2.23) of Proposition 3 with b = 1, B = B 0 = ζ(2) and r(u) = Kuθ/2, where
K is a sufficiently large constant. Moreover, the function r(u) satisfies conditions
(R1), (R2) and (R3) of that proposition. Hence the conclusion (2.24) of Proposition
3 holds with A and a given by (4.5). Therefore
p
log PΛ (u) = Aua + O(r(u)) = 2 ζ(2)u1/2 + O(uθ/2 )
as u → ∞, which is the claimed result.
Acknowledgment
The author wishes to thank Professor A. Hildebrand for helpful advice on the
exposition of the paper.
References
1. N. A. Brigham, On a certain weighted partition function, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1950),
192–204. MR 11:582c
2. G. A. Freiman, Inverse problems of the additive theory of numbers, Izv. Akad. SSSR. Ser.
Mat. 19 (1955), 275-284. (Russian) MR 17:239c
3. G. H. Hardy and S. Ramanujan, Asymptotic formulae in combinatory analysis, Proc. London
Math. Soc. (2) 17 (1918), 75–115.
4. A. E. Ingham, A Tauberian theorem for partitions, Ann. of Math. (2) 42 (1941), 1075–1090.
MR 3:166a
5. , The distribution of prime numbers, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
MR 91f:11064
6. E. E. Kohlbecker, Weak asymptotic properties of partitions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc 88
(1958), 346–365. MR 20:2309
2600 YIFAN YANG