The discrete second moment of the Riemann zeta-function along powers of Gram points

Choose

and write s=\sigma+i\tau. The quantities \sigma and \tau range over fixed bounded intervals. On a dyadic block X<k\leq2X, put

By (?), uniformly for s\in K,

For large X, both T_k and M_k are increasing functions of k. Let M_X=C_KX^{d/2}(\log X)^{-d/2}, with C_K large enough that M_k\leq M_X on the block. Since C_K is fixed, (Proof) also gives the two-sided comparison M_k\asymp_K M_X.

Apply Lemma 3.1 and subtract the absolutely convergent series (?). We obtain

where

For fixed Y, absolute convergence in (?) gives

Also, (Proof) and (Proof) show that the block mean square of E_k tends to zero.

We now estimate A_{k,Y}. Put

Since m\notin\mathcal S_Y implies m>Y,

Upon expanding the square of (Proof), the diagonal is bounded by D_Y. For an off-diagonal pair m<n\leq M_X, the condition n\leq M_k selects either the empty set or a terminal integer subinterval I_n(s) of (X,2X]. Hence Proposition 2.2, with \lambda=\log(n/m), applies to the k-sum. The bounded number \tau only contributes the unit factor \exp(i\tau\log(n/m)).

Using Lemma 2.3 with \eta=\eta_d and absorbing powers of \log X into X^\varepsilon, we obtain, uniformly for s\in K,

For clarity, the first off-diagonal term before logarithmic factors are absorbed is

which explains the exponent d(1-\sigma_0)-\eta_d in (Proof).

It remains to treat the dual sum. Put w_s(u)=|\chi(s+it_u^d)|^2. From (3.1), (3.1), and \frac{d}{du}(t_u^d)/t_u^d\ll_d1/X on [X,2X], one has

The first estimate here uses both sides of M_k\asymp_KM_X, because 2-4\sigma<0. After the square of (Proof) is expanded, the cutoff n\leq M_k gives a terminal interval I_n(s). Abel summation gives, for every real \lambda,

Thus the all-subinterval estimate (2.2) applies to every dual off-diagonal pair.

The dual diagonal is, uniformly on K,

For the off-diagonal, (2.3) gives the factor M_X^{2\sigma+\varepsilon}; multiplying by the first factor in (Proof) leaves M_X^{2-2\sigma+\varepsilon}. Consequently,

The choice (Proof) says d(1-\sigma_0)<\eta_d. Moreover,

Therefore every power of X in (Proof) and (Proof) is negative when \varepsilon>0 is chosen sufficiently small. By (Proof), the elementary inequality |a+b+c+d|^2\leq4(|a|^2+|b|^2+|c|^2+|d|^2), and (Proof),

Decompose [2,N] into dyadic blocks. The displayed negative powers give some fixed 0<\kappa<1. Before normalization, a subinterval I\subset(X,2X] contributes at most

the diagonal scales with |I|, while the off-diagonal bound is valid on every subinterval by Proposition 2.2 and (Proof). This also treats the final partial block. Blocks below a fixed threshold contribute o(1) after division by N, and \sum_{2^j\leq N}2^{j(1-\kappa)}\ll N^{1-\kappa}. Consequently,

Finally let Y\to\infty and use (Proof).

Fix

On X<k\leq2X retain the notation z_k,T_k,M_k,D_Y from the preceding section, now with d=2. Choose

Partition (X,2X] into consecutive intervals J of length between U/2 and U, apart from at most one shorter final interval.

The sharp cutoff M_k changes slowly on J. Indeed, (?) and the definition of M_k give

Put M_J=\min_{k\in J}\lfloor M_k\rfloor. Then

Replacing M_k by M_J in the primal polynomial (Proof) changes it pointwise by at most

For the dual polynomial, (3.1) gives |\chi(z_k)|\ll_KM^{1-2\sigma}, so its cutoff shell is bounded by

This is o_K(1) because u_0<3/4<\sigma_0. Its contribution to either block mean square is

It therefore remains to estimate the two polynomials with the fixed cutoff M_J on each J.

We begin with the primal polynomial. Write every off-diagonal pair uniquely as

After all terms with the same ratio a/b are grouped, their coefficient, apart from the fixed unit factor \exp(i\tau\log(a/b)), is

Consequently,

Put a\asymp A, b\asymp B, A\geq B, and P=AB. Distinct reduced fractions in this box satisfy

Indeed, |ab'-a'b|\geq1, and all ratios in the box are comparable. After the logarithms are centered, they lie in an interval of bounded length. Center also t_k^2/(2\pi) at one point of J. By (?), these centered phase points have span

and mutual spacing \asymp D. Hence their close-pair sum in Lemma 2.4 is diagonal and is O(U). On the frequency side, (Proof) and (Proof) give

where x_{a,b}=\log(a/b). The double large sieve, summed over the O(X/U) intervals J and normalized by X, therefore bounds this dyadic ratio box by

There is a complementary pointwise estimate. For \lambda=\log(a/b), equations (?) and (2.1), used with the actual interval length U and r=3, give

The proof of Lemma 2.3, applied to the coprime variables a,b, shows that the sum of either logarithmic power, weighted by (ab)^{-\sigma_0}, over the box is O_{K,\varepsilon}(P^{1-\sigma_0+\varepsilon}). For example, in the only delicate case A\asymp B, writing a=b+h gives

Because u_0>2/3, all three terms in (Proof) yield the normalized box estimate

Use (Proof) for P\leq X^{4/3} and the first term of (Proof) for P>X^{4/3}. The two estimates meet at P=X^{4/3}; since 1/2-\sigma_0<0, dyadic summation gives

For completeness, consider the dual polynomial with cutoff M_J. For a\asymp A, b\asymp B, A\geq B, its ratio coefficient before the factor w_s(k)=|\chi(z_k)|^2 is

It satisfies

and hence

On J, (3.1) also gives

Thus the same double-large-sieve calculation, now with w_s(k) as the coefficient of the phase point, gives after normalization

Here we used (A/B)^{1/2-\sigma_0}\leq1 and A^{1-\sigma_0}B^{\sigma_0}\leq M. Adding the dual diagonal and the cutoff shell gives

Every term on the right of (Proof) and (Proof), apart from D_Y, tends to zero after \varepsilon>0 is chosen sufficiently small. The decisive exponent is

The estimates for the smooth tail and for the error term in the approximate functional equation are unchanged. Therefore

The argument is uniform on subintervals of (X,2X]: partition such an interval into the same U-blocks. At most two remaining pieces have length less than U and are bounded trivially; after normalization their contribution is

The dyadic passage at the end of the general proof now applies, and letting Y\to\infty proves (1.1) for d=2.

Choose

and then choose \mu>0 so small that

On X<k\leq2X, retain the notation z_k=s+it_k^d and T_k=\operatorname{Im} z_k. By Lemma 3.2,

uniformly for s\in K. The length is

Subtracting (?), we write

where

For fixed Y, the second sum is o_{K,Y}(1) uniformly on the block, by the same absolute-convergence argument as in (Proof). The error in (Proof) is also negligible in block mean square.

Expand the square of A^{(\mu)}_{k,Y}. Its diagonal is at most D_Y. For m<n, the condition n\leq T_k^\mu again selects a terminal subinterval, so Proposition 2.2 applies. By Lemma 2.3,

The first exponent is decisive. Indeed, (Proof) gives 2d\mu(1-\sigma_0)<\eta_d, while (Proof) shows that the second exponent is no larger. Moreover, 2d\mu(1-\sigma_0)<\eta_d<1, so the third exponent is negative as well. Choose \varepsilon>0 below the resulting fixed margin. Then all three terms tend to zero.

Combining (Proof) and (Proof) gives the dyadic estimate

The three displayed negative exponents give a fixed power saving X^{-\kappa'}. Hence the subinterval and geometric-summation argument at the end of the preceding section applies verbatim, first giving an upper limit \ll_KD_Y and then, as Y\to\infty, (1.1).

For d=2, the safe choice (Proof) reads

Thus the same calculation covers every closed substrip to the right of 1/2 in the motivating quadratic case.

Fix Y. By the absolute convergence of (?),

where s=\sigma+i\tau. If m\ne n, then \lambda=\log(n/m) is fixed and nonzero. Applying Proposition 2.2 on dyadic blocks gives

To justify the limit uniformly for s\in K, first truncate the absolutely convergent double series in (Proof). There are then only finitely many nonzero frequencies, and (Proof) is uniform. The remaining double-series tail is bounded uniformly by

which tends to zero as M\to\infty. Therefore

uniformly for s\in K.

As Y\to\infty, one has

uniformly for \sigma\geq\sigma_K, since the omitted terms are bounded by \sum_{m>Y}m^{-2\sigma_K}.

It remains to transfer the limit from \zeta_Y to \zeta. Put

Also set

Minkowski’s inequality gives

For fixed Y, the triangle inequality gives

Take the upper limit as N\to\infty, uniformly on K. The middle term vanishes by (Proof), and the first is bounded by E_Y^{1/2}. Now let Y\to\infty and use Theorem 1.1, or Theorem 1.2 when d=2, together with (Proof). It follows that a_N(s)\to\sqrt{\zeta(2\operatorname{Re} s)} uniformly on K. These quantities are uniformly bounded for large N, so squaring proves (1.4).

Under the Lindelöf hypothesis, use Theorem 1.3 in (Proof); the remainder of the argument is unchanged.

We first upgrade the mean-square approximation to the uniform norm on K. Choose a bounded open rectangle G satisfying (Proof). For every k, the function

is analytic on a neighborhood of \overline G, because \overline G lies strictly to the left of the line \operatorname{Re} z=1. Apply (Proof), average over k, and use Fubini’s theorem. With

we obtain

by Theorem 1.1, or by Theorem 1.2 when d=2, applied to \overline G.

Apply Lemma 8.2 with the given \varepsilon. It supplies Y_0 and c>0, independent of the later cutoff. Only now choose one fixed Y\geq Y_0 so large that

By Chebyshev’s inequality,

On the other hand, (8.2) gives a set of lower density at least c on which \max_{s\in K}|\zeta_Y(s+it_k^d)-f(s)|<3\varepsilon/4. After the exceptional set in (Proof) is removed, the remaining set has lower density at least 8c/9>0, and the triangle inequality gives

This proves (1.5) by a direct density argument.

Under the Lindelöf hypothesis, take \overline G\subset\{1/2<\operatorname{Re} s<1\} and use Theorem 1.3 in the Bergman estimate following (Proof), together with the last assertion of Lemma 8.2. The remaining finite-product calculation and equidistribution argument are unchanged.

Since F^{(r)} never vanishes, it has a constant sign on I. The case r=2 is the classical second-derivative estimate

Replacing |I| by H proves (2.1) in this case. For r\geq3, put N=|I|\geq1 and Q=2^{r-2}, so that \delta_r=(4Q-2)^{-1}. By [GrahamKolesnik1991, Theorem 2.8],

The middle term is the geometric mean of N\Lambda^{\delta_r} and N^{1-1/Q}\Lambda^{-\delta_r}. If \Lambda\geq N^{-4+2/Q}, the last term is at most N^{1-1/Q}\Lambda^{-\delta_r}; otherwise this quantity is at least N, and the trivial bound applies. Hence

Replacing |I| by its upper bound H again gives (2.1); the final 1 also covers intervals containing at most one integer.

By (?), throughout [X,2X] the absolute value of the (d+1)-st derivative of F(u)=\lambda t_u^d/(2\pi) is comparable with

Apply Lemma 2.1 with r=d+1 and \delta_{d+1}=\eta_d. Since the derivative comparison holds on the whole dyadic block, the same estimate is valid for every subinterval I\subset[X,2X].

First consider m<n\leq2m and write n=m+h. Then \log(n/m)\asymp h/m. For the negative logarithmic power,

The same calculation with m^{2\sigma-2} in place of m^{-2\sigma} gives O_J(M^{2\sigma}) for the dual weights. The positive logarithmic power is no larger in this near-diagonal range. In the complementary range n>2m, the negative logarithmic power is bounded, while the positive power is O((\log M)^\eta). Separating the variables and using (\log M)^\eta\ll_\varepsilon M^\varepsilon proves both estimates.

This is the cited inequality in dimension one. Translating the x-points or the y-points inserts factors of modulus one. These can be absorbed into \beta_v or \alpha_r, respectively.

The Hardy–Littlewood approximate functional equation, in its uniform form, states that whenever x,y\geq1 and 2\pi xy=T,

see Titchmarsh [Titchmarsh1986, formula (4.12.4), Theorem 4.15], or the formulation used by Sourmelidis [Sourmelidis2020, Section 2]. Taking x=y=(T/2\pi)^{1/2} makes both error terms O_J(T^{-\sigma/2}). The two remaining estimates follow by applying Stirling’s formula to the quotient of gamma factors in (?) and then differentiating its logarithm. The constants are uniform on the fixed closed interval J.

By Gonek [Gonek2012, Theorem 2.1 and formula (12.1)], under the Lindelöf hypothesis, for every \epsilon>0,

uniformly for 1/2\leq\sigma\leq1, 2\leq X\leq(T+2)^2, and all sufficiently large T. Take X=T^\mu and \epsilon=\mu(\sigma_0-1/2)/2. Then the error is O_{\sigma_0,\mu}(T^{-\nu}) uniformly for \sigma_0\leq\sigma\leq1, where \nu=\mu(\sigma_0-1/2)/2>0.

This is [Pankowski2018, Lemma 2], specialized to the Dirichlet character modulo 1 and to the empty excluded set of primes. The increasing finite prime sets in that lemma exhaust all primes; hence a sufficiently late set contains every p\leq z and gives uniform error less than \rho on \overline G.

Because \mathbb C \setminus K is connected and f has no zeros on K, the function f has a continuous logarithm on K which is analytic in its interior. Mergelyan’s theorem, applied to this logarithm, gives a polynomial Q such that, with F=\exp Q,

Choose a bounded open rectangle G with

Put

Write s=\sigma+i\tau and dA(s)=d\sigma\,d\tau for ordinary planar area measure. Put

For every function h analytic on a neighborhood of \overline G, the mean-value inequality for |h|^2 gives

Indeed, the closed disc of radius r about every point of K lies in G, and the first inequality follows by integrating |h|^2 over that disc. This is also commonly called the Bergman–Cauchy estimate.

Since \sigma_G>1/2,

Choose z so large that

Apply Lemma 8.1 with this z and with an error smaller than \min\{1/4,\varepsilon/16\}. It gives a finite prime set \mathcal M\supset\{p:p\leq z\} and phases \boldsymbol\theta. By an arbitrarily small perturbation of their representatives, if necessary, we may suppose that \boldsymbol\theta\in(0,1)^{\mathcal M}. Continuity of (?) then gives an ordinary rectangular box with closure contained in (0,1)^{\mathcal M},

such that, for every \boldsymbol\omega_{\mathcal M}\in D,

Let

Fix Y\geq Y_0, put

Since \mathcal M\subset\mathcal Q_Y,

For s=\sigma+i\tau, elementary orthogonality on [0,1] gives

Indeed, expand the absolutely convergent Dirichlet series of the finite Euler product and integrate term by term. For every pair of nonnegative integers r,\ell,

Thus all unequal prime-power monomials disappear. Every prime in \mathcal R_Y exceeds z, which proves the final inequality. The usual empty-product convention covers \mathcal R_Y=\varnothing.

Combining (Proof)– (Proof) and using ordinary iterated integration gives

Let \Omega_Y be the subset of D\times[0,1)^{\mathcal R_Y} on which

The elementary integral form of Chebyshev’s inequality and (Proof) give explicitly

Since the containing rectangle has volume a, it follows that

On \Omega_Y, equations (Proof) and (Proof) give

It remains to turn the ordinary volume in (Proof) into density of Gram-power shifts. For every finite set of primes \mathcal Q, the vectors

are uniformly distributed modulo one in [0,1)^{\mathcal Q}. By Weyl’s criterion, a nontrivial integer vector leads to

Unique factorization shows that the frequency is nonzero, and Proposition 2.2, followed by a dyadic decomposition, makes this average tend to zero.

Since \Omega_Y is relatively open and has volume greater than a/2, inner approximation supplies a finite union \mathcal B_Y of boxes with pairwise disjoint interiors and boundaries of volume zero such that

Uniform distribution now gives

Finally,

Equations (Proof) and (Proof) prove (8.2) with c=a/2. The number a, and hence c, was fixed before Y and is independent of it.

For the last assertion, choose the rectangle G with \overline G\subset\{1/2<\operatorname{Re} s<1\}. Nothing else in the proof changes.