Since $zeta(1) neq 1$, does this mean that $zeta$ is not multiplicative?












0












$begingroup$


Let $zeta(s)$ be the Riemann zeta function, that is,
$$zeta(s) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n^s}}.$$



A function $g$ is said to be multiplicative if, whenever $gcd(x,y)=1$, we have
$$g(xy) = g(x)g(y).$$
Examples of multiplicative (arithmetic) functions include the divisor-sum $sigma(z)=sigma_{1}(z)$ and the abundancy index $I(z)=sigma(z)/z$.



It is known that, if a function $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero), then $f(1)=1$.




Proof: Suppose that $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero). Since $gcd(m,1)=1$ and $f neq 0$ is multiplicative, then
$$f(m)=f(mcdot{1})=f(m)f(1)$$
which implies that $f(1)=1$.




Since we know that $zeta(1) neq 1$ (in fact, the sum
$$zeta(1) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n}}$$
is known to diverge), then can we already conclude that the Riemann zeta function $zeta$ is not multiplicative?






number-theory elementary-number-theory riemann-zeta multiplicative-function







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The term "multiplicative" is for functions defined on the positive integers. Zeta isn't defined at $1.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 8 at 12:02








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, ohh yeah right! Can you write your last comment as an actual answer, so that I would be able to accept it? Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:06
















0












$begingroup$


Let $zeta(s)$ be the Riemann zeta function, that is,
$$zeta(s) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n^s}}.$$



A function $g$ is said to be multiplicative if, whenever $gcd(x,y)=1$, we have
$$g(xy) = g(x)g(y).$$
Examples of multiplicative (arithmetic) functions include the divisor-sum $sigma(z)=sigma_{1}(z)$ and the abundancy index $I(z)=sigma(z)/z$.



It is known that, if a function $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero), then $f(1)=1$.




Proof: Suppose that $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero). Since $gcd(m,1)=1$ and $f neq 0$ is multiplicative, then
$$f(m)=f(mcdot{1})=f(m)f(1)$$
which implies that $f(1)=1$.




Since we know that $zeta(1) neq 1$ (in fact, the sum
$$zeta(1) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n}}$$
is known to diverge), then can we already conclude that the Riemann zeta function $zeta$ is not multiplicative?






number-theory elementary-number-theory riemann-zeta multiplicative-function







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The term "multiplicative" is for functions defined on the positive integers. Zeta isn't defined at $1.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 8 at 12:02








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, ohh yeah right! Can you write your last comment as an actual answer, so that I would be able to accept it? Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:06














0












0








0


2



$begingroup$


Let $zeta(s)$ be the Riemann zeta function, that is,
$$zeta(s) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n^s}}.$$



A function $g$ is said to be multiplicative if, whenever $gcd(x,y)=1$, we have
$$g(xy) = g(x)g(y).$$
Examples of multiplicative (arithmetic) functions include the divisor-sum $sigma(z)=sigma_{1}(z)$ and the abundancy index $I(z)=sigma(z)/z$.



It is known that, if a function $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero), then $f(1)=1$.




Proof: Suppose that $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero). Since $gcd(m,1)=1$ and $f neq 0$ is multiplicative, then
$$f(m)=f(mcdot{1})=f(m)f(1)$$
which implies that $f(1)=1$.




Since we know that $zeta(1) neq 1$ (in fact, the sum
$$zeta(1) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n}}$$
is known to diverge), then can we already conclude that the Riemann zeta function $zeta$ is not multiplicative?






number-theory elementary-number-theory riemann-zeta multiplicative-function







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




Let $zeta(s)$ be the Riemann zeta function, that is,
$$zeta(s) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n^s}}.$$



A function $g$ is said to be multiplicative if, whenever $gcd(x,y)=1$, we have
$$g(xy) = g(x)g(y).$$
Examples of multiplicative (arithmetic) functions include the divisor-sum $sigma(z)=sigma_{1}(z)$ and the abundancy index $I(z)=sigma(z)/z$.



It is known that, if a function $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero), then $f(1)=1$.




Proof: Suppose that $f$ is multiplicative (and not identically zero). Since $gcd(m,1)=1$ and $f neq 0$ is multiplicative, then
$$f(m)=f(mcdot{1})=f(m)f(1)$$
which implies that $f(1)=1$.




Since we know that $zeta(1) neq 1$ (in fact, the sum
$$zeta(1) = sum_{n=1}^{infty}{frac{1}{n}}$$
is known to diverge), then can we already conclude that the Riemann zeta function $zeta$ is not multiplicative?






number-theory elementary-number-theory riemann-zeta multiplicative-function




number-theory elementary-number-theory riemann-zeta multiplicative-function






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 8 at 11:55









Jose Arnaldo Bebita DrisJose Arnaldo Bebita Dris

5,38141944




5,38141944








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The term "multiplicative" is for functions defined on the positive integers. Zeta isn't defined at $1.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 8 at 12:02








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, ohh yeah right! Can you write your last comment as an actual answer, so that I would be able to accept it? Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:06














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    The term "multiplicative" is for functions defined on the positive integers. Zeta isn't defined at $1.$
    $endgroup$
    – coffeemath
    Jan 8 at 12:02








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @coffeemath, ohh yeah right! Can you write your last comment as an actual answer, so that I would be able to accept it? Thanks!
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:06








2




2




$begingroup$
The term "multiplicative" is for functions defined on the positive integers. Zeta isn't defined at $1.$
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Jan 8 at 12:02






$begingroup$
The term "multiplicative" is for functions defined on the positive integers. Zeta isn't defined at $1.$
$endgroup$
– coffeemath
Jan 8 at 12:02






1




1




$begingroup$
@coffeemath, ohh yeah right! Can you write your last comment as an actual answer, so that I would be able to accept it? Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
Jan 8 at 12:06




$begingroup$
@coffeemath, ohh yeah right! Can you write your last comment as an actual answer, so that I would be able to accept it? Thanks!
$endgroup$
– Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
Jan 8 at 12:06










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















8












$begingroup$

The term "multiplicative" is used for a function $f$ defined on the positive integers, for which $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever $gcd(m,n)=1.$ The Riemann zeta function $zeta$ isn't even defined at $1$ so is not a candidate to be called multiplicative. Even ignoring the problem at $1$ it could be checked numerically that $zeta(2)zeta(3) neq zeta(6)$.



Added: No need for a numerical check. Exact values for $zeta(2k)$ are known, and $zeta(6)/zeta(2)<0.7.$ So it can't equal $zeta(3),$ which is greater than $1.$



Another note: $zeta(n)$is strictly monotone decreasing as $n>1$ increases. So if for $a,b$ with $1 <a,b$ we had $zeta(ab)=zeta(a)zeta(b),$ then since $ab>a$ it would follow that $zeta(ab)/zeta(a)<1,$ which cannot be $zeta(b)>1.$ So $zeta(n)$ is not multiplicative for any values of $a,b>1,$ coprime or not.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:18











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%2f3066081%2fsince-zeta1-neq-1-does-this-mean-that-zeta-is-not-multiplicative%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









8












$begingroup$

The term "multiplicative" is used for a function $f$ defined on the positive integers, for which $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever $gcd(m,n)=1.$ The Riemann zeta function $zeta$ isn't even defined at $1$ so is not a candidate to be called multiplicative. Even ignoring the problem at $1$ it could be checked numerically that $zeta(2)zeta(3) neq zeta(6)$.



Added: No need for a numerical check. Exact values for $zeta(2k)$ are known, and $zeta(6)/zeta(2)<0.7.$ So it can't equal $zeta(3),$ which is greater than $1.$



Another note: $zeta(n)$is strictly monotone decreasing as $n>1$ increases. So if for $a,b$ with $1 <a,b$ we had $zeta(ab)=zeta(a)zeta(b),$ then since $ab>a$ it would follow that $zeta(ab)/zeta(a)<1,$ which cannot be $zeta(b)>1.$ So $zeta(n)$ is not multiplicative for any values of $a,b>1,$ coprime or not.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:18
















8












$begingroup$

The term "multiplicative" is used for a function $f$ defined on the positive integers, for which $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever $gcd(m,n)=1.$ The Riemann zeta function $zeta$ isn't even defined at $1$ so is not a candidate to be called multiplicative. Even ignoring the problem at $1$ it could be checked numerically that $zeta(2)zeta(3) neq zeta(6)$.



Added: No need for a numerical check. Exact values for $zeta(2k)$ are known, and $zeta(6)/zeta(2)<0.7.$ So it can't equal $zeta(3),$ which is greater than $1.$



Another note: $zeta(n)$is strictly monotone decreasing as $n>1$ increases. So if for $a,b$ with $1 <a,b$ we had $zeta(ab)=zeta(a)zeta(b),$ then since $ab>a$ it would follow that $zeta(ab)/zeta(a)<1,$ which cannot be $zeta(b)>1.$ So $zeta(n)$ is not multiplicative for any values of $a,b>1,$ coprime or not.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:18














8












8








8





$begingroup$

The term "multiplicative" is used for a function $f$ defined on the positive integers, for which $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever $gcd(m,n)=1.$ The Riemann zeta function $zeta$ isn't even defined at $1$ so is not a candidate to be called multiplicative. Even ignoring the problem at $1$ it could be checked numerically that $zeta(2)zeta(3) neq zeta(6)$.



Added: No need for a numerical check. Exact values for $zeta(2k)$ are known, and $zeta(6)/zeta(2)<0.7.$ So it can't equal $zeta(3),$ which is greater than $1.$



Another note: $zeta(n)$is strictly monotone decreasing as $n>1$ increases. So if for $a,b$ with $1 <a,b$ we had $zeta(ab)=zeta(a)zeta(b),$ then since $ab>a$ it would follow that $zeta(ab)/zeta(a)<1,$ which cannot be $zeta(b)>1.$ So $zeta(n)$ is not multiplicative for any values of $a,b>1,$ coprime or not.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The term "multiplicative" is used for a function $f$ defined on the positive integers, for which $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever $gcd(m,n)=1.$ The Riemann zeta function $zeta$ isn't even defined at $1$ so is not a candidate to be called multiplicative. Even ignoring the problem at $1$ it could be checked numerically that $zeta(2)zeta(3) neq zeta(6)$.



Added: No need for a numerical check. Exact values for $zeta(2k)$ are known, and $zeta(6)/zeta(2)<0.7.$ So it can't equal $zeta(3),$ which is greater than $1.$



Another note: $zeta(n)$is strictly monotone decreasing as $n>1$ increases. So if for $a,b$ with $1 <a,b$ we had $zeta(ab)=zeta(a)zeta(b),$ then since $ab>a$ it would follow that $zeta(ab)/zeta(a)<1,$ which cannot be $zeta(b)>1.$ So $zeta(n)$ is not multiplicative for any values of $a,b>1,$ coprime or not.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 8 at 21:16

























answered Jan 8 at 12:12









coffeemathcoffeemath

2,7361415




2,7361415








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:18














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
    $endgroup$
    – Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
    Jan 8 at 12:18








1




1




$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
$endgroup$
– Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
Jan 8 at 12:18




$begingroup$
Thank you for your answer. I hope you don't mind my minor edit.
$endgroup$
– Jose Arnaldo Bebita Dris
Jan 8 at 12:18


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3066081%2fsince-zeta1-neq-1-does-this-mean-that-zeta-is-not-multiplicative%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

An IMO inspired problem

Image
14 4 This problem from IMO 1988 is said to be one of the most elegant ones in functional equations. Problem : The function $f$ is defined on the set of all positive integers as follows: begin{align} f(1) = 1, f(3) &= 3, f(2n) = f(n), \ f(4n+1) &= 2f(2n+1) - f(n), \ f(4n+3) &= 3 f(2n+1) - 2f(n) end{align} Find the number of $n$ with $f(n) = n, 1 leq n leq 1988$. The main idea towards the solution is realizing that these conditions stand for the fact that $f(n)$ just reverses the digits in the binary representation of the number $n$. So, essentially the solution is finding the number of binary pallindromes $leq 1988_{10}$. My question is the following : How to reformulate the problem so that $f(n)$ reverses the digits of $n$ in its ternary representation. Or even better, can we reformulate it for a
Read more

Management

Image
Management From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search "Manager" redirects here. For other uses, see Management (disambiguation) and Manager (disambiguation). An organization chart for the United States Coast Guard shows the hierarchy of managerial roles in that organization. Business administration Management of a business Accounting Management accounting Financial accounting Financial audit Business entities Cooperative Corporation Limited liability company Partnership Sole proprietorship State-owned enterprise Corporate governance Annual general meeting Board of directors Supervisory board Advisory board Audit committee Corporate law Commercial law Constitutional documents Contract Corporate crime Corporate liability Insolvency law International trade law Mergers and acquisitions Economics Commodity Pu
Read more

Has there ever been an instance of an active nuclear power plant within or near a war zone?

Image
36 3 The question Has there ever been a military combat going on around an active (running or in outage but not decommissioned) commercial nuclear power plant? Or dangerously near it? If yes, how did the plant and its personnel fare in such situation? Why I ask Let's assume for the scope of this question modern commercial nuclear power plants (CANDU, PWR, BWR of generation II plus all of gen III and newer) are usually reasonably safe to operate given that the engineering has been done right and there is a whole cohort of very well trained personnel on-site at all times, well rested and with considerable resources on their hands. Things hard to get with an armed conflict like the recent Syrian war raging around. I can't seem to find any reference or a comprehensive article about this, hence this question.
Read more