15

This is in order to repair the pdf and answers of this user.

$$f(x)=2\sum_{k\ge 0}\frac{x^{2k+1}}{\zeta(2k+2)}=2x\sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{\mu(n)/n^2}{1-x^2/n^2}, \qquad |x|<1$$ The RHS extends meromorphically to $\Bbb{C}$ and we have $-\mu(n) = \lim_{x \to n}(x-n)f(x)$ but this is outside of the domain of convergence of the power series. To solve that problem it suffices to look at $$g(x) = \frac{1-e^{2i\pi x}}{2i\pi} f(x)=-\sum_{k\ge 2} x^k \left(\sum_{ m\le k/2-1} \frac{(2i\pi )^{k-2m-2}}{(k-2m-1)!} \frac{2}{\zeta(2m+2)}\right)$$

It is entire and $g(n)=\mu(n)$

The same process holds when replacing $1/\zeta(s)$ by any Dirichlet series convergent at $s=2$ (thus there is no hope to obtain something about the Riemann hypothesis), we also obtain a (quite ugly) formula for $\pi(N)$ $$-\pi(N) = \sum_{n\le N} \mu(n) \frac{\Lambda(n)}{\log n}$$ $$=\sum_{n\le N}\left(\sum_{k\ge 2} n^k \sum_{m\le k/2-1} \frac{(2i\pi )^{k-2m-2}}{(k-2m-1)!} \frac{4}{\zeta(2m+2)}\right)\left(\sum_{k\ge 2} n^k \sum_{m\le k/2-1} \frac{(2i\pi )^{k-2m-2}}{(k-2m-1)!}\log\zeta(2m+2)\right)$$

Question : did I miss something in the idea of the pdf ?

K.defaoite
  • 13,890
reuns
  • 79,880
  • I noticed that the graph of $\pi(x)$ in section 7.1 of the pdf you reference only seems to converge to $\pi(x)$ at integer values of $x$. Are you claiming your formula for $\pi(N)$ converges to $\pi(N)$ for all real values of $N>0$ or only at positive integer values of $N$? – Steven Clark May 24 '21 at 12:32
  • 1
    My function $g(x)$ is continuous (and entire). – reuns May 24 '21 at 13:48
  • The formula for $\pi(N)$ is obviously valid for all real numbers $N$. What do you not understand in my post? The whole derivation is there, 3 lines. – reuns May 24 '21 at 13:56
  • That's not what I meant. I'm asking if your formula evaluates to $\pi(N)$ at non-integer values of $N$. For example does it evaluate to $2$ for $3\le N<5$? – Steven Clark May 24 '21 at 13:57
  • The formula for $\pi(N)$ is completely useless, it is doing $-\pi(N) = \sum_{n\le N} \mu(n) \frac{\Lambda(n)}{\log n}$ – reuns May 24 '21 at 13:58
  • Could you please take a look at my answer at https://mathoverflow.net/q/393699 and let me know if formula (5) which represents the analytic continuation of $\sigma_0(n)$ to $n\in\mathbb{R}$ is an entire function? – Steven Clark May 25 '21 at 15:14
  • Why would it be? – reuns May 25 '21 at 15:26
  • I meant entire except at $x=0$. I was curious if it converges for complex $x\ne 0$. I was under the impression that the analytic nested Fourier series which I've been studying diverge for complex $x$, but I noticed that an analytic formula that I derived for $\mu(x)$ seems to evaluate similar to the analytic formula for $\mu(x)$ in the pdf you referenced for $x\in\mathbb{R}$ which made be wonder if perhaps my analytic formulas are somehow equivalent to the analytic formulas in the pdf which are claimed to be entire. – Steven Clark May 25 '21 at 15:37
  • I just verified my analytic formula for $\mu(x)$ evaluates equivalent to the formula for $\mu(x)$ in the pdf along the line $x=i\ t$ for $-1<t<1$, but the problem I'm having is I don't seem to be able to get the pdf formula to converge much beyond $0\le |x| \le1$. I suspect there may be something wrong with your formula for $\mu(x)$ as I can't seem to get it to converge at all (even in the range $-1<x<1$) and the evaluation of your formula seems to have an imaginary part of approximately the same magnitude as the real part when evaluated for real $x$. – Steven Clark May 25 '21 at 15:55
  • I don't know which formula you are talking about. My above function $g(x)=-\sum_{k\ge 2} x^k (\sum_{ m\le k/2-1} \frac{(2i\pi )^{k-2m-2}}{(k-2m-1)!} \frac{2}{\zeta(2m+2)})$ is entire and $g(n)=\mu(n)$. The proof is in the above post. The pdf is sloppy/wrong, that's why my post starts with "in order to repair". – reuns May 25 '21 at 17:10
  • I was referring to formula (5) $\mu(x)=-2 \sum {i=0}^\infty (-1)^i (2 \pi n)^{2 i} \sum _{j=0}^i \frac{(-1)^j (2 \pi )^{-2 j}}{\zeta (2 j) (2 i-2 j+1)!}$ which the author claims is the continuation of formula (6) $\mu(x)=-\frac{\sin(2 \pi n)}{\pi n}\sum{j=0}^J\frac{n^{2 j}}{\zeta(2 j)}$. I've noticed that neither formula seems to evaluate correctly at $\mu(0)=0$ since both seem to converge to $4$ (in a limit sense) when evaluated at $x=0$. – Steven Clark May 25 '21 at 17:29
  • The author seems to have somehow manipulated formula (5) to evaluate correctly at $x=0$ in the two figures on page 7, and the formula illustrated by the author in these two figures also seems to evaluate correctly at other integer values of $x$ as well. – Steven Clark May 25 '21 at 17:29
  • Come on, the proof of my above formula takes 2 lines, I don't care of your numerical experiments, nor do I care of the pdf which is sloppy/wrong! For your limit of trigonometric series, can you prove that it converges? Locally uniformly? On the whole complex plane? (use the Dirichlet kernel) – reuns May 25 '21 at 17:41
  • I believe it is important to be careful in this case and state more clearly what does that arXiv paper contain and what is your contribution. Judging by 17 versions of it, an explicit Maclaurin series converging everywhere to an entire function whose values at positive integers are coefficients of any (?) given Dirichlet series was already there before your correction, but convergence issues were not even addressed, am I right? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 26 '21 at 07:28
  • @მამუკაჯიბლაძე See the version at the time I was writing this post, I think my contribution is, for $\sum_{n\ge 1} |a_n|< \infty$, to introduce the meromorphic function $f(x)=2x\sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{a_n}{1-x^2/n^2}$ and its Taylor series on $|x|< 1$ so that $g(x)=\frac{e^{2i\pi x}-1}{2i\pi } f(x)$ is entire, its Taylor coefficients are given by finite sums of $\sum_{n\ge 1} a_n n^{-k}$, and $g(n)=a_n$. Given that the linked user is likely the author it is clear how this approach helps. – reuns May 26 '21 at 17:43
  • No idea how $g(x)$ relates to $\sum_{n\ne 0} a_{|n|} \frac{sin(\pi (x-n))}{\pi (x-n)}$ – reuns May 26 '21 at 17:46
  • I rather had in mind his formula$$a(n)=-2\sum_{i=0}^\infty (-1)^{i}(2\pi n)^{2i}\sum_{j=0}^{i}\frac{(-1)^j (2\pi)^{-2j}F_a(2j)}{(2i+1-2j)!}$$for $F_a(s)=\sum_{n\geqslant1}\frac{a(n)}{n^s}$. He certainly does not address any convergence questions, but I believe $a(n)$ is in many cases indeed an entire function of (complex) $n$, no? In particular, for $F_a(s)=1/\zeta(s)$ one gets an entire function $a(z)$ with $a(n)=\mu(n)$ for all natural $n$. It is Theorem 2 at the top of page 12 of the version you link to. He also had a question here about it, https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3230248/214353 – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 26 '21 at 18:03
  • By the way, it seems that the series with coefficients equal to the coefficients of the product of his series for $a(n)$ and of the Maclaurin series for $1/\cos(\pi n)$ has better convergence properties (although it analytically extends $(-1)^na(n)$ rather than $a(n)$). – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 26 '21 at 18:27
  • @მამუკაჯიბლაძე It is entire because of my above post, everything is obvious when introducing the meromorphic function $f(x)=2x\sum_{n\ge 1} \frac{a_n}{1-x^2/n^2}$ and so is $g(n)=a_n$ – reuns May 26 '21 at 20:42
  • Sorry, but I believe it is confusing. You start by telling that you will repair that arXiv preprint. That preprint contains an entire function $\mu$ coinciding with the Möbius function at positive integers, but does not prove that it is entire. You construct another function $g$ with this property. I believe you should explain in what sense this repairs that preprint. Do you mean that it is easy to construct such function anyway and it does not matter which one to consider? Or you mean that your proof for $g$ easily adapts to $\mu$? In any case you should at least mention what do you mean, no? – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე May 27 '21 at 06:41
  • I don't think evaluating the complex analytic function $\tilde{a}(x)$ at non-integer values of $x$ is of much value since there are an infinite number of functions that evaluate correctly at integer values of $x$ but which generally evaluate very differently at non-integer values of $x$. Therefore I don't really see the point in extending $a(n)$ to an analytic function $\tilde{a}(x)$ where $x\in\mathbb{C}$. – Steven Clark Jun 14 '21 at 18:21
  • I think the real value in the PDF is it lead to formulas (9) and (10) for $\tilde{f}a(x)$ and $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ in the answer I posted below. I believe $\tilde{f}_a(x)$ and $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ are complex analytic for any finite evaluation frequency $f\in\mathbb{Z}{>0}$, but only converge as $f\to\infty$ when $x\in\mathbb{R}$. – Steven Clark Jun 14 '21 at 18:21

1 Answers1

6

This answer assumes the following definitions

$$f_a(x)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^x a(n)\tag{1}$$

$$F_a(s)=s\int\limits_0^\infty f_a(x)\,x^{-s-1}\,dx=\underset{N\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^Na(n)\ n^{-s}\right),\quad\Re(s)\ge 2\tag{2}$$

where $f_a(x)$ and $F_a(s)$ are the summatory function and Dirichlet series associated with $a(n)$.


The analytic formulas for $a(n)$ in the PDF and question above are related to analytic formulas for

$$\tilde{f}_a(x)=\underset{\epsilon\to 0}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{f_a(x-\epsilon)+f_a(x+\epsilon)}{2}\right)=\underset{N\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^N a(n)\,\theta(x-n)\right)\tag{3}$$

and it's first-order derivative

$$\tilde{f}_a'(x)=\underset{N\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^N a(n)\,\delta(x-n)\right)\tag{4}$$

where $\theta(x)$ is the Heaviside step function and $\delta(x)$ is the Dirac delta function.


Consider the following analytic representations of $\tilde{f}_a(x)$ and it's first order derivative $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ where the evaluation frequency $f$ is assumed to be a positive integer. Formulas (5) and (6) below are based on this answer I posted to my own related question on MathOverflow.

$$\tilde{f}_a(x)=\underset{\substack{K,f\to\infty \\ K\gg f\,x}}{\text{lim}}\left(-4 f \sum\limits_{k=1}^K \frac{(-1)^k\ x^{2 k+1}}{2 k+1} \sum\limits_{j=1}^k \frac{(-1)^j\ (2 \pi f)^{2(k-j)}\ F_a(2 j)}{(2 k-2 j+1)!}\right)\tag{5}$$

$$\tilde{f}_a'(x)=\underset{\substack{K,f\to\infty \\ K\gg f\,x}}{\text{lim}}\left(-4 f\sum\limits_{k=1}^K (-1)^k\ x^{2 k}\sum\limits_{j=1}^k \frac{(-1)^j\ (2 \pi f)^{2(k-j)}\ F_a(2 j)}{(2 k-2 j+1)!}\right)\tag{6}$$


I believe formulas (5) and (6) above are exactly equivalent to

$$\tilde{f}_a(x)=\underset{K,f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^K b(n) \left(-\frac{\text{Si}(2 f \pi x)}{\pi}+\frac{x}{n} \sum\limits_{k=1}^{f\,n} \left(\text{sinc}\left(\frac{2 \pi (k-1) x}{n}\right)+\text{sinc}\left(\frac{2 \pi k x}{n}\right)\right)\right)\right)\tag{7}$$

$$\tilde{f}_a'(x)=\underset{K,f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^K b(n) \left(-2 f\,\text{sinc}(2 \pi f x)+\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{f\,n} \left(\cos\left(\frac{2 \pi (k-1) x}{n}\right)+\cos\left(\frac{2 \pi k x}{n}\right)\right)\right)\right)=\underset{K,f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^K b(n) \left(-2 f\,\text{sinc}(2 \pi f x)+\frac{\sin(2 \pi f x) \cot\left(\frac{\pi x}{n}\right)}{n}\right)\right)\tag{8}$$

where the evaluation frequency $f$ is assumed to be a positive integer and

$$b(n)=\sum\limits_{d|n} a(d)\, \mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)\,.\tag{9}$$


The following figure illustrates formula (7) for $\tilde{f}_a(x)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\mu(n)$ in orange overlaid on $\text{sgn}(x)\,M(|x|)$ in blue where $M(x)$ is the Mertens function and formula (7) is evaluated at $K=20$ and $f=4$. The red discrete portion of the plot represents the evaluation of formula (7) at integer values of $x$. Note formula (7) for $\tilde{f}_a(x)$ converges to $0$ at $x=0$ and is an odd function of $x$.


Illustration of formula (7)

Figure (1): Illustration of formula (7) for $\tilde{f}_a(x)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\mu(n)$ (orange) overlaid on $\text{sgn}(x)\,M(|x|)$ (blue)


The following figure illustrates formula (8) for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\mu(n)$ where formula (8) is evaluated at $K=20$ and $f=4$. The red discrete portion of the plot represents the evaluation of formula (8) at integer values of $x$. Note formula (8) for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ converges to $0$ at $x=0$ and is an even function of $x$. Also note formula (8) converges to $2\,f\times a(|x|)$ at positive and negative integer values of $x$.


Illustration of formula (8)

Figure (2): Illustration of formula (8) for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\mu(n)$


In the remainder of this answer $\tilde{a}(s)$ is used to refer to an analytic representation of the arithmetic function $a(n)$. The convergence of formula (8) for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ to $0$ at $x=0$ and to $2\,f\times a(|x|)$ at positive and negative integer values of $x$ leads to the following analytic representation which converges to $0$ at $s=0$ and to $a(|s|)$ at positive and negative integer values of $s$.

$$\tilde{a}(s)=\frac{1}{2\,f}\ \underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^K b(n) \left(-2 f\,\text{sinc}(2 \pi f s)+\frac{1}{n}\sum\limits_{k=1}^{f\,n} \left(\cos\left(\frac{2 \pi (k-1) s}{n}\right)+\cos\left(\frac{2 \pi k s}{n}\right)\right)\right)\right)=\frac{1}{2\,f}\ \underset{K\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\sum\limits_{n=1}^K b(n) \left(-2 f \text{sinc}(2 \pi f s)+\frac{\sin(2 \pi f s) \cot\left(\frac{\pi s}{n}\right)}{n}\right)\right)\tag{10}$$


The following figure illustrates formula (10) for $\tilde{a}(s)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\mu(n)$ where formula (10) is evaluated at $K=20$ and $f=1$ (which is equivalent to the value used in the PDF and question above). The red discrete portion of the plot represents the evaluation of $\mu(|s|)$ at integer values of $s$. Note formula (10) for $\tilde{a}(s)$ converges to $0$ at $s=0$ and to $a(|s|)$ at positive and negative integer values of $s$.


Illustration of formula (10)

Figure (3): Illustration of formula (10) for $\tilde{a}(s)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\mu(n)$


I illustrated formula (10) for $\tilde{a}(s)$ corresponding to $a(n)=\sigma _0(n)$ in this answer I posted to a related question on Math Overflow which also used the evaluation frequency $f=1$.


I've investigated the exact equivalence of formulas (5) and (6) above to formulas (7) and (8) above for cases such as the following where $\delta_n$ is the Kronecker delta function, $\sigma_0(n)$ is the divisor function, $\mu(n)$ is the Möbius function, $\Lambda(n)$ is the von Mangoldt function, $\zeta(s)$ is the Riemann zeta function, $\eta(s)$ is the Dirichlet eta function, $D(x)$ is the divisor summatory function, $M(x)$ is the Mertens function, and $\psi(x)$ is the second Chebyshev function.

Table (1): Example Cases

$$\left( \begin{array}{ccccc} a(n) & b(n)=\sum\limits_{d|n} a(d)\,\mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right) & \text{Fa}(s)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{a(n)}{n^s} & \frac{\text{Fa}(s)}{\zeta(s)}=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{b(n)}{n^s} & f(x)=\sum\limits_{n=1}^x a(n) \\ 1 & \delta_{1-n} & \zeta(s) & 1 & \lfloor x\rfloor \\ (-1)^{n-1} & \delta_{1-n}-2\,\delta_{2-n} & \eta(s)=\left(1-2^{1-s}\right) \zeta(s) & 1-2^{1-s} & \lfloor x\rfloor -2 \left\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\right\rfloor \\ \delta_{1-n} & \mu(n) & 1 & \frac{1}{\zeta(s)} & 1_{x\ge 1}(x) \\ \sigma_0(n) & 1 & \zeta(s)^2 & \zeta(s) & D(x) \\ \mu(n) & \sum_{d|n} \mu(d)\,\mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right) & \frac{1}{\zeta(s)} & \frac{1}{\zeta(s)^2} & M(x) \\ \Lambda(n) & -\log(n)\,\mu(n) & -\frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)} & -\frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)^2} & \psi(x) \\ \end{array} \right)$$


Note in the first two rows in Table (1) above the upper evaluation limit can be terminated at $K=1$ and $K=2$ respectively since $b(n)=0$ for all larger values of $K$. Formulas (7) and (8) for the cases $a(n)=1$ and $a(n)=(-1)^{n-1}$ lead to the following formulas for the Riemann zeta function $\zeta(s)$ and Dirichlet eta function $\eta(s)$ which I believe converge for $\Re(s)<2$.

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(2^s \pi^{s-1} \sin\left(\frac{\pi s}{2}\right) \Gamma(1-s) \left(-\frac{f^s}{s}+\frac{1}{2} \left(1+\sum\limits_{n=2}^f \left(n^{s-1}+(n-1)^{s-1}\right)\right)\right)\right),\ \Re(s)<2\tag{11}$$

$$\eta(s)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(2 \pi^{s-1} \sin\left(\frac{\pi s}{2}\right)\ \Gamma(1-s) \left(\frac{2^{s-1} f^s}{s}-\sum\limits_{n=1}^f (2 n-1)^{s-1}\right)\right),\ \Re(s)<2\tag{12}$$


Formulas (11) and (12) for $\zeta(s)$ and $\eta(s)$ above and the functional equations

$$\zeta (s)=2^s \pi^{s-1} \sin\left(\frac{\pi s}{2}\right) \Gamma(1-s) \zeta (1-s)\tag{13}$$

$$\eta (s)=2 \pi^{s-1} \sin \left(\frac{\pi s}{2}\right) \Gamma (1-s) \left(-\frac{1-2^{s-1}}{1-2^s} \eta (1-s)\right)\tag{14}$$

lead to the following formulas for $\zeta(s)$ and $\eta(s)$ which I believe converge for $\Re(s)>-1$.

$$\zeta(s)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{f^{1-s}}{s-1}+\frac{1}{2} \left(1+\sum\limits_{n=2}^f \left(n^{-s}+(n-1)^{-s}\right)\right)\right),\ \Re(s)>-1\tag{15}$$

$$\eta(s)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{1-2^{1-s}}{1-2^{-s}} \left(\frac{2^{-s} f^{1-s}}{s-1}+\sum\limits_{n=1}^f (2 n-1)^{-s}\right)\right),\ \Re(s)>-1\tag{16}$$


For the case $a(n)=\delta_{n-1}$ (Kronecker delta function) where $F_a(s)=1$, I believe formulas (7) and (8) above are exactly equivalent to

$$\tilde{f}_a(x)=-1+\theta(x+1)+\theta(x-1)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{\text{Si}(2 f \pi (x+1))}{\pi }+\frac{\text{Si}(2 f \pi (x-1))}{\pi }\right)\tag{17}$$

$$\tilde{f}_a'(x)=\delta(x+1)+\delta(x-1)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(2 f\ \text{sinc}(2 \pi f (x+1))+2 f\ \text{sinc}(2 \pi f (x-1))\right)\tag{18}$$

in which case formula (8) above can be used to derive a series representation of $\delta(x)$ which I believe is exactly equivalent to the integral representation

$$\delta(x)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(\int\limits_{-f}^f e^{2 i \pi t x}\,dt\right)=\underset{f\to\infty}{\text{lim}}\left(2 f\ \text{sinc}(2 \pi f x)\tag{19}\right)$$

which I define in this answer I posted to one of my own questions on Math Overflow.


When I say formulas (5) and (6) above are exactly equivalent to formulas (7) and (8) above, I mean formulas (5) and (6) above are the Maclaurin series for the functions defined in formulas (7) and (8) above. Note the Maclaurin series for a function $g(x)$ is defined as $g(x)=\sum\limits_{m = 0}^\infty\frac{g^{(m)}(0)}{m!} x^m$. Since formula (7) for $\tilde{f}_a(x)$ is an odd function of $x$ (see Figure (1) above), all of the even coefficients in the related Maclaurin series defined in formula (5) above are zero. Since formula (8) for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ is an even function of $x$ (see Figure (2) above), all of the odd coefficients in the related Maclaurin series defined in formula (6) above are zero.

I've validated this equivalence using Mathematica for the first few values of $k$ in formulas (5) and (6) above for most of the cases defined in Table (1) above. This is easier to do when Mathematica understands the Dirichlet transform of $b(n)$ (i.e. the closed form representation of $\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty b(n)\,n^{-s}$) which it does for the first four rows in Table (1) above but not for the last two rows. Evaluating this equivalence requires a little more work when Mathematica doesn't understand the Dirichlet transform of $b(n)$. For example, consider the following table for the first few Maclaurin series coefficients for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ for the case where $a(n)=\mu(n)$.

Table (2): Maclaurin Series Coefficients for $\tilde{f}_a'(x)$ for $a(n)=\mu(n)$

$$\begin{array}{cccc} k & m=2 k & -4 f (-1)^k \sum\limits_{j=1}^k \frac{(-1)^j (2 \pi f)^{2 (k-j)}\frac{1}{\zeta (2 j)}}{(2 k-2 j+1)!} & \frac{1}{m!}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} b(n) \underset{x\to 0}{\text{lim}}\left(\frac{\partial^m \left(-2 f\,\text{sinc}(2 f \pi x)+\frac{\cot \left(\frac{\pi x}{n}\right) \sin (2 f \pi x)}{n}\right)}{\partial x^m}\right) \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 1 & 2 & -\frac{24 f}{\pi ^2} & \frac{1}{2} \sum _{n=1}^{\infty } -\frac{4 \pi ^2 f b(n)}{3 n^2} \\ 2 & 4 & 16 f^3-\frac{360 f}{\pi ^4} & \frac{1}{24} \sum _{n=1}^{\infty } \frac{16 \pi ^4 f b(n) \left(10 f^2 n^2-1\right)}{15 n^4} \\ 3 & 6 & -\frac{4 f \left(4 \pi ^8 f^4-300 \pi ^4 f^2+4725\right)}{5 \pi ^6} & \frac{1}{720} \sum _{n=1}^{\infty } -\frac{64 \pi ^6 f b(n) \left(21 f^4 n^4-7 f^2 n^2+1\right)}{21 n^6} \\ \end{array}$$


The last two columns of Table (2) above can be validated as equivalent using the relationship $\sum\limits_{n=1}^\infty\frac{b(n)}{n^s}=\frac{1}{\zeta(s)^2}$ applicable to the case $a(n)=\mu(n)$. Take for example the second to last row in Table (2) above which can be verified as follows:

$$\frac{1}{24}\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{16 \pi ^4 f\,b(n) \left(10 f^2 n^2-1\right)}{15 n^4}=\frac{16 \pi ^4 f}{24\times 15} \left(10 f^2 \sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{b(n)}{n^2}-\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{b(n)}{n^4}\right)=\frac{16 \pi ^4 f}{24\times 15} \left(\frac{10 f^2}{\zeta (2)^2}-\frac{1}{\zeta (4)^2}\right)=16 f^3-\frac{360 f}{\pi ^4}\tag{20}$$

Steven Clark
  • 8,744