This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

On the series expansion of a square-free zeta series

Artur Kawalec
Abstract

In this article, we develop a square-free zeta series associated with the Möbius function into a power series, and prove a Stieltjes like formula for these expansion coefficients. We also investigate another analytical continuation of these series and develop a formula for ζ(12)\zeta(\tfrac{1}{2}) in terms of the Möbius function, and in the last part, we explore an alternating series version of these results.

1 Introduction

In the recent work of Wolf [7] who investigated the divergence of a certain zeta series involving the Möbius function μ(n)\mu(n) [3, p. 304], (thus essentially running over square-free integers) as such

n=1x|μ(n)|n=O(logx)\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n}=O(\log x) (1)

(as xx\to\infty) and determined a more refined estimate

n=1x|μ(n)|n=γM+6π2logx+O(1x),\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n}=\gamma^{M}+\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\log x+O(\frac{1}{x}), (2)

where a new constant

γM\displaystyle\gamma^{M} =limx(n=1x|μ(n)|n6π2logx)\displaystyle=\lim_{x\to\infty}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\log x\right) (3)
=1.04389451571193829740,\displaystyle=1.04389451571193829740\ldots,

can be extracted in the limit in a much the same way as the classical Euler-Mascheroni constant

γ\displaystyle\gamma =limx(n=1x1nlogx)\displaystyle=\lim_{x\to\infty}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{1}{n}-\log x\right) (4)
=0.57721566490153286060\displaystyle=0.57721566490153286060\ldots

Recalling that the Riemann zeta function is defined by the simplest Dirichlet series

ζ(s)=n=11ns\zeta(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{n^{s}} (5)

is absolutely convergent for (s)>1\Re(s)>1, and admits the Laurent series expansion about s=1s=1 is given by

ζ(s)=1s1+n=0γn(1)n(s1)nn!,\zeta(s)=\frac{1}{s-1}+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\gamma_{n}\frac{(-1)^{n}(s-1)^{n}}{n!}, (6)

which analytically extends ζ\zeta to \1\mathbb{C}\backslash 1 with residue 11 and an only pole at s=1s=1. With the Euler’s constant (γ0=γ\gamma_{0}=\gamma) appearing as the 0th0^{th} order coefficient in the series, and consequently, the next higher order Stieltjes constants γn\gamma_{n} [4, p. 561] can be similarly generated by the well-known formula

γn=limx{k=1xlogn(k)klogn+1(x)n+1}.\gamma_{n}=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}\sum_{k=1}^{x}\frac{\log^{n}(k)}{k}-\frac{\log^{n+1}(x)}{n+1}\Bigg{\}}. (7)

And in a similar fashion, a certain fraction of the zetas

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=n=1|μ(n)|ns\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n^{s}} (8)

involves the Möbius function as in (1) [6, p.5], and based on some previous analysis its Laurent series expansion is given by

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=6π2(s1)+n=0γnM(1)n(s1)nn!,\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(s-1)}+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\gamma_{n}^{M}\frac{(-1)^{n}(s-1)^{n}}{n!}, (9)

also with a pole at s=1s=1 and residue 6π2\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}, and the proposed formula by Wolf for these expansion coefficients

γnM=limx{k=1x|μ(k)|logn(k)k6π2logn+1(x)n+1}\gamma^{M}_{n}=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}\sum_{k=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(k)|\log^{n}(k)}{k}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\frac{\log^{n+1}(x)}{n+1}\Bigg{\}} (10)

is an analogue of the Stieltjes formula (7) [7]. We also note that the radius of convergence of (9) is only limited to R=2R=2 due to the pole at the first trivial zero when 2s=22s=-2 for s=1s=-1 from the center at s=1s=1.

We now prove (10) by following exactly the proof in Bohman-Fröberg [2][4, p. 561-562], but additionally inserting the Möbius function. We begin the proof by introducing a self-canceling telescoping series

k=1(|μ(k)|k1s|μ(k+1)|(k+1)1s)=1\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(|\mu(k)|k^{1-s}-|\mu(k+1)|(k+1)^{1-s})=1 (11)

then one has

(s1)ζ(s)ζ(2s)=1+k=1(|μ(k+1)|(k+1)1s|μ(k)|k1s+(s1)|μ(k)|ks)(s-1)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=1+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(|\mu(k+1)|(k+1)^{1-s}-|\mu(k)|k^{1-s}+(s-1)|\mu(k)|k^{-s}\right) (12)

which is still valid for (s)>1\Re(s)>1, but since for s=1s=1 the (lhs) limit is

lims1(s1)ζ(s)ζ(2s)=6π2\lim_{s\to 1}(s-1)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}} (13)

is inconsistent with (rhs) of (12). So if we consider another re-scaled sequence instead

(s1)ζ(s)ζ(2s)=6π2+k=1(6π2|μ(k+1)|(k+1)1s6π2|μ(k)|k1s+(s1)|μ(k)|ks)(s-1)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}|\mu(k+1)|(k+1)^{1-s}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}|\mu(k)|k^{1-s}+(s-1)|\mu(k)|k^{-s}\right) (14)

such that the (lhs) equals (rhs) at s=1s=1, and then proceeding with the exp-log expansion exactly about s=1s=1, then one obtains

(s1)ζ(s)ζ(2s)=\displaystyle(s-1)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}= 6π2+k=1[6π2exp(|μ(k+1)|(1s)log(k+1))+\displaystyle\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\Big{[}\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\exp(-|\mu(k+1)|(1-s)\log(k+1))+ (15)
6π2exp(|μ(k)|(1s)log(k))+(s1)1kexp((s1)|μ(k)|log(k))]\displaystyle-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\exp(|\mu(k)|(1-s)\log(k))+(s-1)\frac{1}{k}\exp(-(s-1)|\mu(k)|\log(k))\Big{]}
=\displaystyle= 6π2+k=1[6π2n=0(1)n(s1)nn![|μ(k+1)|nlogn(k+1)|μ(k)|nlogn(k)]+\displaystyle\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\Bigg{[}\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}(s-1)^{n}}{n!}\Big{[}|\mu(k+1)|^{n}\log^{n}(k+1)-|\mu(k)|^{n}\log^{n}(k)\Big{]}+
+(s1)1kn=0(1)n(s1)n|μ(k)|nlogn(k)n!]\displaystyle+(s-1)\frac{1}{k}\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n}(s-1)^{n}|\mu(k)|^{n}\log^{n}(k)}{n!}\Bigg{]}

and by collecting the (s1)(s-1) terms (with (s1)0=1(s-1)^{0}=1) and since |μ(k)|n=|μ(k)||\mu(k)|^{n}=|\mu(k)|, we obtain

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=6π2(s1)+n=0γnM(1)n(s1)nn!\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(s-1)}+\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\gamma^{M}_{n}\frac{(-1)^{n}(s-1)^{n}}{n!} (16)

where

γnM=k=1[|μ(k)|logn(k)k6π2logn+1(k+1)logn+1(k)k]\gamma^{M}_{n}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left[\frac{|\mu(k)|\log^{n}(k)}{k}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\frac{\log^{n+1}(k+1)-\log^{n+1}(k)}{k}\right] (17)

and last term as self-cancels again leaving only the n+1n+1 term leading to the final limit formula

γnM=limx{k=1x|μ(k)|logn(k)k6π2logn+1(x)n+1}.\gamma^{M}_{n}=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}\sum_{k=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(k)|\log^{n}(k)}{k}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\frac{\log^{n+1}(x)}{n+1}\Bigg{\}}. (18)

We next consider an alternative representation for these coefficients. If we take the Laurent series expansion about s=1s=1 of

ζ(s)=1s1+γ+O(|s1|)\zeta(s)=\frac{1}{s-1}+\gamma+O(|s-1|) (19)

to the 0th0^{th} order, and another expansion of

1ζ(2s)=1ζ(2)2ζ(2)ζ(2)2(s1)+O(|s1|2)\frac{1}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{1}{\zeta(2)}-2\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(2)}{\zeta(2)^{2}}(s-1)+O(|s-1|^{2}) (20)

to the 1st1^{st} order, then by multiplying them together yields

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=6π2(s1)+γζ(2)2ζ(2)ζ(2)2+O(|s1|).\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(s-1)}+\frac{\gamma}{\zeta(2)}-2\frac{\zeta^{\prime}(2)}{\zeta(2)^{2}}+O(|s-1|). (21)

As a result, the 0th0^{th} order coefficient in (21) is collected in the limit s1s\to 1 as

γM=6γπ272ζ(2)π4\gamma^{M}=\frac{6\gamma}{\pi^{2}}-\frac{72\zeta^{\prime}(2)}{\pi^{4}} (22)

gives a better closed-form formula in terms of other known constants. And the value for the zeta derivative ζ(2)\zeta^{\prime}(2) can be computed directly from (5) as

ζ(2)=k=1log(k)k2.\zeta^{\prime}(2)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\log(k)}{k^{2}}. (23)

In Table 1, we compute the first 1010 higher order γnM\gamma^{M}_{n} coefficients to high-precision (3030 decimal places) by the nthn^{th} differentiation of the (lhs) of (16) in the limit as

γnM=(1)ndndsn[ζ(s)ζ(2s)6π2(s1)]|s1\gamma^{M}_{n}=(-1)^{n}\frac{d^{n}}{ds^{n}}\Bigg{[}\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(s-1)}\Bigg{]}\Bigr{\rvert}_{s\to 1} (24)

which is easily possible to do in software packages such as Mathematica or Pari/GP [5][8]. The error term for γM\gamma^{M} in (1) is O(1x)O(\frac{1}{x}), and this would roughly imply that in order to get 3030 decimal places using (3), one needs to compute the limit with xx on the order of 1030\sim 10^{30}, which is so large that even on modern computer workstations is still completely unfeasible to do in reasonable time (but perhaps on a supercomputer it could run faster), but one can still easily compute these constants to thousands of digits by differentiation in (24).

Table 1: A high-precision computation of expansion coefficients
nn γnM\gamma_{n}^{M}
0 1.043894515711938297404563438509
11 0.236152886477122974860578286060
22 0.319384120408014249249465207074
33 0.501294458741649566645935631332
44 1.010739722784850417039579626049
55 2.544030257932552280334481508980
66 7.666100995112318690725728704276
77 26.88797470534219199661349019865
88 107.6566910334506652692812639473
99 484.6934692784684121614213582581
1010 2424.080089640181055133479838894

2 On analytical continuation of the Dirichlet series

We saw earlier that the square-free Dirichlet series

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=n=1|μ(n)|ns\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n^{s}} (25)

is convergent for (s)>1\Re(s)>1. In the previous Section, the telescoping series (12) is also convergent for (s)>1\Re(s)>1, but with the introduction of a scaling constant we propose that (14) is actually valid for (s)>14\Re(s)>\frac{1}{4} (except at s=1s=1) and assuming (RH). We reformulate the expression and bring over (s1)(s-1) to the (rhs) we have

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=6π2(s1)+1s1k=1[6π2(|μ(k+1)|(k+1)1s|μ(k)|k1s)+(s1)|μ(k)|ks]\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(s-1)}+\frac{1}{s-1}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left[\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\left(|\mu(k+1)|(k+1)^{1-s}-|\mu(k)|k^{1-s}\right)+(s-1)|\mu(k)|k^{-s}\right] (26)

and in another form

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=limx{k=1x|μ(k)|ks+6π2(s1)[1+k=1x(|μ(k+1)|(k+1)1s|μ(k)|k1s)]}\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}\sum_{k=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(k)|}{k^{s}}+\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(s-1)}\left[1+\sum_{k=1}^{x}\left(|\mu(k+1)|(k+1)^{1-s}-|\mu(k)|k^{1-s}\right)\right]\Bigg{\}} (27)

and then self-canceling the telescoping series to last term we get

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=limx{n=1x|μ(n)|ns6π2(1s)x1s}\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n^{s}}-\frac{6}{\pi^{2}(1-s)}x^{1-s}\Bigg{\}} (28)

which we numerically find is valid (s)>14\Re(s)>\frac{1}{4} as stated. This limitation is due to the poles that arise at 12ρ\frac{1}{2}\rho, where ρ\rho is the non-trivial root of ζ\zeta. As evidenced by numerical computations, for example, for s=0.8s=0.8 we compute the (lhs) of (28) to 1.9413794172-1.9413794172\ldots, while the (rhs) with x=108x=10^{8} is 1.9413¯8634-1.941\underline{3}8634\ldots, an agreement to 44 digits. And if s=0.5s=0.5 then the (lhs) of (28) is 0, while the (rhs) with x=108x=10^{8} is computed as 0.00173997-0.00173997\ldots, where we see it is going to zero. And we checked many more random points and see that this formula is clearly converging to right values in the new domain (s)>14\Re(s)>\frac{1}{4}, and as shown by the plot in Fig. 1, where we compare the (lhs) and (rhs) of equation (28) for x=108x=10^{8}, and observe a deviation starts to happen near 14\frac{1}{4}. This means that all non-trivial roots are also roots of the (rhs) of (28).

Refer to caption
Figure 1: A plot of equation (28) for x=108x=10^{8} showing deviation near s=14s=\frac{1}{4}

Equation (28) can give many more interesting results. As previously seen, s=12s=\frac{1}{2} is a zero of (28), and so we obtain a special case

n=1x|μ(n)|n12π2x\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{\sqrt{n}}\sim\frac{12}{\pi^{2}}\sqrt{x} (29)

as xx\to\infty, or expressing in another way

limx1xn=1x|μ(n)|n=12π2.\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x}}\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{\sqrt{n}}=\frac{12}{\pi^{2}}. (30)

We also consider another expansion about s=12s=\frac{1}{2} of

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=2ζ(12)(s12)+O(|s12|2)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=2\zeta(\frac{1}{2})(s-\frac{1}{2})+O(|s-\frac{1}{2}|^{2}) (31)

and seek to extract the first order zeta value by differentiation of the (rhs) of (28). We obtain the formula

ζ(12)=limx{12n=1x|μ(n)|log(n)n+6π2x(2+log(x))}\zeta(\frac{1}{2})=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|\log(n)}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\sqrt{x}\left(-2+\log(x)\right)\Bigg{\}} (32)

which is converging to this zeta value. We next verify this formula numerically and find that it is a rather noisy and fluctuating series. In Fig. 2, we plot (32) as a function of xx from x=100x=10^{0} to 10810^{8} in increments of 11, on a logarithmic scale on the x-axis to capture all points. We note how it is fluctuating about the value ζ(12)=1.4603545088\zeta(\frac{1}{2})=-1.4603545088\ldots, with a gradual decrease in amplitude as xx increases. Another form can be simplified by plugging in (30) into (32) to have

ζ(12)=limx{12n=1x|μ(n)|(log(n)+2)n+6π2xlog(x)}\zeta(\frac{1}{2})=\lim_{x\to\infty}\Bigg{\{}-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{|\mu(n)|(\log(n)+2)}{\sqrt{n}}+\frac{6}{\pi^{2}}\sqrt{x}\log(x)\Bigg{\}} (33)

and when we test this formula we reproduce an almost the same plot as in Fig. 2.

Refer to caption
Figure 2: A plot of equation (32) for ζ(12)\zeta(\frac{1}{2}) as a function of limit variable xx

3 On an alternating series representation

There is a common alternating series representation for the zeta function

ζ(s)=1121sn=1(1)n+1ns\zeta(s)=\frac{1}{1-2^{1-s}}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n^{s}} (34)

which is valid for (s)>0\Re(s)>0 (but except at those points tt on the line 1+it1+it where the leading factor becomes singular). A similar relation can be obtained for the square-free zeta series inspired by the MathOverflow post [9] by taking advantage of a certain connection to the Euler product

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=n=1|μ(n)|ns=p(1+1ps)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n^{s}}=\prod_{p}\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{s}}\right) (35)

valid for (s)>1\Re(s)>1, where pp runs over all primes p={2,3,5,7,}p=\{2,3,5,7,\ldots\}. Then, the application of the general Dirichlet series [3, p. 326] reads

n=1f(n)ns=pk=0f(pk)pks,\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{f(n)}{n^{s}}=\prod_{p}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{f(p^{k})}{p^{ks}}, (36)

where f(n)f(n) is a multiplicative function, meaning that for any positive integers aa and bb must satisfy the relation f(1)=1f(1)=1 and f(a)f(b)=f(ab)f(a)f(b)=f(ab) whenever aa and bb are co-prime holds. It turns out that an alternating sign function f(n)=(1)n+1f(n)=(-1)^{n+1} is multiplicative, and hence f(n)=(1)n+1|μ(n)|f(n)=(-1)^{n+1}|\mu(n)| is multiplicative, then we get the following transformation

n=1(1)n+1|μ(n)|ns\displaystyle\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n^{s}} =pk=0(1)pk+1|μ(pk)|pks\displaystyle=\prod_{p}\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{p^{k}+1}|\mu(p^{k})|}{p^{ks}} (37)
=(112s)p3(1+1ps)\displaystyle=\left(1-\frac{1}{2^{s}}\right)\prod_{p\geq 3}\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{s}}\right)
=(112s)(1+12s)1p2(1+1ps)\displaystyle=\left(1-\frac{1}{2^{s}}\right)\left(1+\frac{1}{2^{s}}\right)^{-1}\prod_{p\geq 2}\left(1+\frac{1}{p^{s}}\right)
=(2s12s+1)ζ(s)ζ(2s)\displaystyle=\left(\frac{2^{s}-1}{2^{s}+1}\right)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}

since μ(0)=1\mu(0)=1, and μ(p)=1\mu(p)=-1 and μ(pk)=0\mu(p^{k})=0 for k>1k>1. And this leads to the form analogue to the alternating zeta series (34) as

ζ(s)ζ(2s)=(2s+12s1)n=1(1)n+1|μ(n)|ns.\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(2s)}=\left(\frac{2^{s}+1}{2^{s}-1}\right)\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}(-1)^{n+1}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n^{s}}. (38)

It is rare get such a coincidence, since this transformation depends on the existence of such a Euler product form. But unfortunately, the domain of convergence of (37) is only valid for (s)>1\Re(s)>1 instead of (s)>0\Re(s)>0 as in the alternating zeta (34). One reason is that at s=1s=1 the summation in (34) is conditionally convergent as

n=1(1)n+1n=log(2)\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{(-1)^{n+1}}{n}=\log(2) (39)

while the for square-free alternating zeta at s=1s=1 diverges for the reason being by equating (8) with (34), where they only differ by a factor of 13\frac{1}{3}. And this leads to consider an estimate

n=1x(1)n+1|μ(n)|n=γ¯M+2π2logx+O(1x),\sum_{n=1}^{x}(-1)^{n+1}\frac{|\mu(n)|}{n}=\bar{\gamma}^{M}+\frac{2}{\pi^{2}}\log x+O(\frac{1}{x}), (40)

as xx\to\infty, and an analogue constant for the alternating series

γ¯M\displaystyle\bar{\gamma}^{M} =limx(n=1x(1)n+1|μ(n)|n2π2logx)\displaystyle=\lim_{x\to\infty}\left(\sum_{n=1}^{x}\frac{(-1)^{n+1}|\mu(n)|}{n}-\frac{2}{\pi^{2}}\log x\right) (41)
=0.53524615263113376955,\displaystyle=0.53524615263113376955\ldots,

where the closed-form formula can be computed by

γ¯M=13γM+83π2log(2)\bar{\gamma}^{M}=\frac{1}{3}\gamma^{M}+\frac{8}{3\pi^{2}}\log(2) (42)

by the virtue of expansion of the factor

2s12s+1=13+49log(2)(s1)+O(|s1|2)\frac{2^{s}-1}{2^{s}+1}=\frac{1}{3}+\frac{4}{9}\log(2)(s-1)+O(|s-1|^{2}) (43)

in conjunction with (19) to (22).

4 Acknowledgement

I would like to thank Professor Wolf for comments and suggestions for improving the paper.

References

  • [1] M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun. Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables. Dover Publications, ninth printing, New York, (1964).
  • [2] J. Bohman and C.E. Fröberg. The Stieltjes function - Definition and Properties. Mathematics of Computation 51(183),281-289 (1988).
  • [3] G. H. Hardy and E. M. Wright. An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers. 6th Ed., Oxford Science Publications, 2008.
  • [4] J.C. Lagarias, Euler’s constant: Euler’s work and modern developments, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society 50(4), 527–628 (2013).
  • [5] The PARI Group, PARI/GP version 2.11.4, Univ. Bordeaux, (2019).
  • [6] E.C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-function, The Clarendon Press Oxford University Press, New York, 2nd ed. (1986). Edited and with a preface by D.R. HeathBrown.
  • [7] M. Wolf, Numerical determination of a certain mathematical constant related to the Möbius function, Computational Methods in Science and Techonology 29(1-2),17-20 (2023).
  • [8] Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica version 12.0, Champaign, IL, (2018).
  • [9] MathOverflow,Alternating Dirichlet series involving the Möbius function https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4712014/alternating-dirichlet-series-involving-the-m%C3%B6bius-function, Accessed: June 2023