Proper Way To Compute An Upper Bound












4












$begingroup$


I regard to the proof of Lemma 10 in "A remark on a conjecture of Chowla" by M. R. Murty, A. Vatwani, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 33, No. 2, 2018, 111-123,



the authors used the average value $(log x)^c$, $c$ constant, of the number of divisors function $tau(d)=sum_{d|n}1$ as an upper bound for $tau(d)^2$, where $d leq x$. To be specific, they claim that
$$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x (log x)^{2c},$$



where $2 delta <1/2$.



The questions are these:




  1. Is the main result invalid? The upper bound should be
    $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
    m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x ^{1+2delta}.$$
    This is the best unconditional upper bound, under any known result, including Proposition 3.


  2. It is true that the proper upper bound $tau(d)^2 ll x^{2epsilon}$, $epsilon >0$, is not required here?


  3. Can we use this as a precedent to prove other upper bounds in mathematics?







nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    4












    $begingroup$


    I regard to the proof of Lemma 10 in "A remark on a conjecture of Chowla" by M. R. Murty, A. Vatwani, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 33, No. 2, 2018, 111-123,



    the authors used the average value $(log x)^c$, $c$ constant, of the number of divisors function $tau(d)=sum_{d|n}1$ as an upper bound for $tau(d)^2$, where $d leq x$. To be specific, they claim that
    $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
    m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x (log x)^{2c},$$



    where $2 delta <1/2$.



    The questions are these:




    1. Is the main result invalid? The upper bound should be
      $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
      m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x ^{1+2delta}.$$
      This is the best unconditional upper bound, under any known result, including Proposition 3.


    2. It is true that the proper upper bound $tau(d)^2 ll x^{2epsilon}$, $epsilon >0$, is not required here?


    3. Can we use this as a precedent to prove other upper bounds in mathematics?







    nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory







    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      4












      4








      4





      $begingroup$


      I regard to the proof of Lemma 10 in "A remark on a conjecture of Chowla" by M. R. Murty, A. Vatwani, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 33, No. 2, 2018, 111-123,



      the authors used the average value $(log x)^c$, $c$ constant, of the number of divisors function $tau(d)=sum_{d|n}1$ as an upper bound for $tau(d)^2$, where $d leq x$. To be specific, they claim that
      $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
      m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x (log x)^{2c},$$



      where $2 delta <1/2$.



      The questions are these:




      1. Is the main result invalid? The upper bound should be
        $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
        m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x ^{1+2delta}.$$
        This is the best unconditional upper bound, under any known result, including Proposition 3.


      2. It is true that the proper upper bound $tau(d)^2 ll x^{2epsilon}$, $epsilon >0$, is not required here?


      3. Can we use this as a precedent to prove other upper bounds in mathematics?







      nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory







      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      I regard to the proof of Lemma 10 in "A remark on a conjecture of Chowla" by M. R. Murty, A. Vatwani, J. Ramanujan Math. Soc., 33, No. 2, 2018, 111-123,



      the authors used the average value $(log x)^c$, $c$ constant, of the number of divisors function $tau(d)=sum_{d|n}1$ as an upper bound for $tau(d)^2$, where $d leq x$. To be specific, they claim that
      $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
      m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x (log x)^{2c},$$



      where $2 delta <1/2$.



      The questions are these:




      1. Is the main result invalid? The upper bound should be
        $$sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 left | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
        m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)right | ll x ^{1+2delta}.$$
        This is the best unconditional upper bound, under any known result, including Proposition 3.


      2. It is true that the proper upper bound $tau(d)^2 ll x^{2epsilon}$, $epsilon >0$, is not required here?


      3. Can we use this as a precedent to prove other upper bounds in mathematics?







      nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory




      nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 31 '18 at 1:54









      GH from MO

      58.6k5146223




      58.6k5146223










      asked Dec 30 '18 at 19:37









      r. t.r. t.

      211




      211






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          Good question, and I agree that the authors should have been more explicit here. However, I think I can reconstruct their argument: note that
          begin{align*}
          sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 bigg | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
          m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)bigg | &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} |mu(m)| \
          &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} 1 \
          &ll sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 frac xq = x sum_{q leq x^{2delta}} frac{tau(q)^2}q.
          end{align*}
          And this remaining sum is indeed $ll_delta (log x)^{2c}$ for some constant $c$; indeed, it's not hard to show that
          $$
          sum_{q leq y} frac{tau(q)^2}q sim frac{(log y)^4}{4pi^2}.
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
            $endgroup$
            – literature-searcher
            Dec 31 '18 at 9:14








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
            $endgroup$
            – Greg Martin
            Dec 31 '18 at 18:00











          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: "504"
          };
          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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319773%2fproper-way-to-compute-an-upper-bound%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









          6












          $begingroup$

          Good question, and I agree that the authors should have been more explicit here. However, I think I can reconstruct their argument: note that
          begin{align*}
          sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 bigg | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
          m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)bigg | &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} |mu(m)| \
          &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} 1 \
          &ll sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 frac xq = x sum_{q leq x^{2delta}} frac{tau(q)^2}q.
          end{align*}
          And this remaining sum is indeed $ll_delta (log x)^{2c}$ for some constant $c$; indeed, it's not hard to show that
          $$
          sum_{q leq y} frac{tau(q)^2}q sim frac{(log y)^4}{4pi^2}.
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
            $endgroup$
            – literature-searcher
            Dec 31 '18 at 9:14








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
            $endgroup$
            – Greg Martin
            Dec 31 '18 at 18:00
















          6












          $begingroup$

          Good question, and I agree that the authors should have been more explicit here. However, I think I can reconstruct their argument: note that
          begin{align*}
          sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 bigg | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
          m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)bigg | &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} |mu(m)| \
          &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} 1 \
          &ll sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 frac xq = x sum_{q leq x^{2delta}} frac{tau(q)^2}q.
          end{align*}
          And this remaining sum is indeed $ll_delta (log x)^{2c}$ for some constant $c$; indeed, it's not hard to show that
          $$
          sum_{q leq y} frac{tau(q)^2}q sim frac{(log y)^4}{4pi^2}.
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
            $endgroup$
            – literature-searcher
            Dec 31 '18 at 9:14








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
            $endgroup$
            – Greg Martin
            Dec 31 '18 at 18:00














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          Good question, and I agree that the authors should have been more explicit here. However, I think I can reconstruct their argument: note that
          begin{align*}
          sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 bigg | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
          m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)bigg | &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} |mu(m)| \
          &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} 1 \
          &ll sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 frac xq = x sum_{q leq x^{2delta}} frac{tau(q)^2}q.
          end{align*}
          And this remaining sum is indeed $ll_delta (log x)^{2c}$ for some constant $c$; indeed, it's not hard to show that
          $$
          sum_{q leq y} frac{tau(q)^2}q sim frac{(log y)^4}{4pi^2}.
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Good question, and I agree that the authors should have been more explicit here. However, I think I can reconstruct their argument: note that
          begin{align*}
          sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 bigg | sum_{substack{m leq x+2\
          m equiv a bmod q}} mu(m)bigg | &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} |mu(m)| \
          &le sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 sum_{substack{m leq x+2\ m equiv a bmod q}} 1 \
          &ll sum_{q leq x^{2delta}}tau(q)^2 frac xq = x sum_{q leq x^{2delta}} frac{tau(q)^2}q.
          end{align*}
          And this remaining sum is indeed $ll_delta (log x)^{2c}$ for some constant $c$; indeed, it's not hard to show that
          $$
          sum_{q leq y} frac{tau(q)^2}q sim frac{(log y)^4}{4pi^2}.
          $$







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 30 '18 at 21:19









          Greg MartinGreg Martin

          8,78813560




          8,78813560












          • $begingroup$
            I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
            $endgroup$
            – literature-searcher
            Dec 31 '18 at 9:14








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
            $endgroup$
            – Greg Martin
            Dec 31 '18 at 18:00


















          • $begingroup$
            I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
            $endgroup$
            – literature-searcher
            Dec 31 '18 at 9:14








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
            $endgroup$
            – Greg Martin
            Dec 31 '18 at 18:00
















          $begingroup$
          I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
          $endgroup$
          – literature-searcher
          Dec 31 '18 at 9:14






          $begingroup$
          I think the confusion in the paper is that they have an expression of the form $(A)^{1/2}(B)^{1/2}$ and refer therein to a bound of $x^{1/2}(log x)^c$ for "the first term in parenthesis" when they really mean this for $(A)^{1/2}$ rather than $(A)$, not to mention a possible discrepancy in $c$-values from one usage to the next, and the strange usage of $tau(x)^2$ in speaking of the average, when I would say $tau(q)^2$. OTOH, I don't think their "by crude estimates" (as you codify) need be more explicit here.
          $endgroup$
          – literature-searcher
          Dec 31 '18 at 9:14






          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
          $endgroup$
          – Greg Martin
          Dec 31 '18 at 18:00




          $begingroup$
          My philosophy of writing is that it's better for authors to do the work once than to require each reader to do that work individually. In this case, it would take three more display-equation lines at most to write the argument and save readers the trouble; I think that's well worth it.
          $endgroup$
          – Greg Martin
          Dec 31 '18 at 18:00


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


          • 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%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f319773%2fproper-way-to-compute-an-upper-bound%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

          Bressuire

          Image
          .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
          Read more

          Cabo Verde

          Image
            Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º)
          Read more

          Gyllenstierna

          Image
          .mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
          Read more