text:
# Partial Euler products as a new approach to Riemann hypothesis

## 1. Introduction

The number $`\pi (x)`$ of prime numbers less or equal to $`x`$ is known to be equivalent to $`\frac{x}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}`$ and prime number theorem has been proved with the estimation:

$$\pi (x)=\text{Li}(x)+O(xe^{c\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(x)}})$$

for some suitable positive constant $`c`$: an improvement (Vinogradov and Korobov) of the error term and associated comments can be found in $`[Nar]`$ p.236. One importance of Riemann hypothesis (which states that the non-real zeros of $`\zeta (s)`$ have real part equal to $`\frac{1}{2}`$) lies in the fact that the estimation

$$\pi (x)=\text{Li}(x)+O(\sqrt{x}\mathrm{ln}(x))$$

is probably true. Many arithmetical conjectures and various problems are directly connected to Riemann hypothesis. The zeta function has been studied intensively with developments in various directions. Literature on Riemann zeta function is known to be huge and very diversified and this work hopes not to find results already published.

One purpose of this work is to show that analytic continuation of partial zeta functions

$$\zeta _k(s)=\underset{pM_k}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})}\text{with}M_k=\{p_1,p_{k+1},p_{2k+1},p_{3k+1},\mathrm{}\}$$

is equivalent to Riemann hypothesis: here, $`k`$ is an integer and $`=(p_n)_n^{}`$ is the set of all primes. The obtaining of the analytical continuation of functions $`\zeta _k(s)`$ is in direct relation with the study of subsets of $`^{}`$ generated by an arbitrary subset of $``$: this approach is a new facet of arithmetic. So, another purpose of this work is to adapt classic formulas of arithmetic to such subsets.

Every subset M, included in $``$ (the set of prime numbers) generates, by successive products of the different elements of M, a subset of $`^{}`$, that is a sub-population of $`^{}`$. As a consequence, we use notation $`pop(M)`$ to indicate such a set, $`pop`$ term being the abbreviation of population. When there is no ambiguity on the choice of $`M`$, one writes simply $`pop`$ in the place of $`pop(M)`$. By definition, $`pop()=^{}`$ and each function $`\zeta _k(s)`$ is constructed by choosing for $`M`$ the prime numbers taken by jumps of $`k`$ inside the set of index of the descriptive formula $`=(p_n)_n^{}`$. Such an $`M`$ is called an arithmetical list of reason $`k`$ (see Conventions of section 2): naturally, this does not mean that the $`p_i`$’s chosen constitute an arithmetical sub-sequence of $`^{}`$.

The integer part function $`[x]`$ of $`x`$, appropriate for the analysis in $`^{}`$, is then replaced by the function

$$N_{pop}(x)\text{card}([1;x]\text{pop})$$

and another useful function is

$$S_{pop}(x)\underset{n\text{pop},nx}{}\frac{1}{n}$$

(generalization of the harmonic series)

The rigorous evaluation of $`N_{pop}(x)`$ (or of $`S_{pop}(x)`$) insures the existence of the analytical continuation of partial zeta functions $`\zeta _k(s)`$ to the open set $`\{𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}\}[\frac{1}{2};1]`$. More precisely, for $`M`$ an arithmetical list of reason $`k`$, these unproved evaluations are

$$N_{\text{pop}(x)}=Cte\frac{x\mathrm{ln}(x)}{\sqrt[k]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}+\psi (x)$$

with $`\psi (x)=O(x^{\frac{1}{2}+ϵ})`$ or

$$S_{\text{pop}(x)}=Cte\sqrt[k]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}+\varphi (x)$$

with $`\varphi (x)=O(\frac{1}{x^{\frac{1}{2}ϵ}})`$. Formula 6.29 is the natural equivalent of $`N_{pop}(x)`$ and we indicate in last section some consequences connected to this equivalence. In summary, when one passes through evaluation of $`N_{pop}(x)`$ (to obtain the analytical continuation of $`\zeta _k(s)`$), Riemann’s problem is returned to an arithmetical problem. One can also tempt others techniques to obtain the existence of the analytical continuation of $`\zeta _k(s)`$.

## 2. Preliminaries

In the following, n stands for an integer, p stands for a prime number. We denote by $`=(p_n)_n^{}`$ the set of all primes p (with $`p_1=2,p_2=3,p_3=5,p_4=7\mathrm{}`$ ), by $`\pi (x)`$ the number of $`p`$ satisfying $`2px`$. As usual, $`\zeta (s)=_n^{}\frac{1}{n^s}`$ is the Riemann zeta function, and $`Z_\zeta `$ the set of zeros of $`\zeta (s)`$ in the half space $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$. It is a known fact that zeros of $`\zeta (s)`$ in the critical strip are displayed symetrically relatively to the line $`\sigma =\frac{1}{2}`$: thus, we may restrict some considerations to $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$.

We shall need in this paper, partial zeta functions $`Z_M`$ defined by an Euler product:

$$Z_M(s)=\underset{pM}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})}$$

where $`M`$ is a subset of $``$. Expanding each function:

$$\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})}=1+\frac{1}{p^s}+\frac{1}{p^{2s}}+\mathrm{}$$

in power series, with $`pM`$, and multiplying all expansions, we develop the Euler product as a Dirichlet series $`_{npop_M}\frac{1}{n^s}`$ , clearly analytic for $`𝔢(s)>1`$: here, n moves in the set $`pop_M`$ of all integers of the form $`n=q_1^{\alpha _1}q_2^{\alpha _2}\mathrm{}`$ , with all $`\alpha _i0`$,$`\alpha _i^{}`$ and all $`q_iM`$. The characteristic function of $`pop_M`$ will be denoted $`1_{pop_M}(n)`$, and equals 1 when $`npop_M`$ and $`0`$ elsewhere. Thus, an equality of the form

$$\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\alpha _n}{n^s}=\underset{n^{}}{}1_{pop_M}(n)\frac{\alpha _n}{n^s}$$

means that the Dirichlet series considered on left side satisfies $`\alpha _n=0`$ whenever $`npop_M`$. We also need:

$$\eta _M(s)=\underset{pM}{}\frac{1}{p^s}$$

clearly analytic for $`𝔢(s)>1`$.

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`M`$ and

$$f(s)=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\alpha _n}{n^s}g(s)=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\beta _n}{n^s}$$

be two absolutely convergent Dirichlet series. Then, the Dirichlet product

$$(fg)(s)=\underset{n^{}}{}\frac{\gamma _n}{n^s}$$

of $`f(s)`$ and $`g(s)`$ satisfies $`\gamma _n=0`$ whenever $`n\text{pop}_M`$.

The lemma follows from equality

$$\gamma _n=\underset{kl=n,k1,l1}{}\alpha _k\beta _l$$

and the fact that $`k|n`$ with $`npop_M`$ implies $`kpop_M`$ and $`lpop_M`$.
Let $`Z_M(s)=_{npop_M}\frac{1}{n^s}`$ be the associated partial zeta function (defined and analytic for $`𝔢(s)>1`$). One verifies that some of known formulas concerning $`\zeta (s)`$ become now:

$$\frac{Z_M(s1)}{Z_M(s)}=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(n)}{n^s}\text{for }𝔢(s)>2$$

$$Z_M(s)Z_M(s1)=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\sigma (n)}{n^s}\text{for }𝔢(s)>2$$

$$Z_M^2(s)=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\tau (n)}{n^s}\text{for }𝔢(s)>1$$

$$\frac{1}{Z_M(s)}=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n^s}\text{for }𝔢(s)>1$$

$$(1+\eta _M(s))Z_M(s)=\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\nu (n)}{n^s}\text{for }𝔢(s)>1$$

$$\underset{npop_M}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(n)}{n^s}=Z_M(s)\underset{pM}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p^s1}\text{for }𝔢(s)>1$$

where, as usual:
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(n)`$ = the Euler Phi-function;
$`\sigma (n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i|n}i`$, the sum of the divisors of n;
$`\tau (n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i|n}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ , the number of divisors of n;
$`\nu (n)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{p|n}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$, the number of distinct prime factors of n;
$`\mu (n)`$ the Moebius function,$`\mu (1)=1`$ , $`\mu (n)=0`$ if n is divisible by a square $`>1`$, $`=(1)^{\nu (n)}`$ in others cases.
Subsets $`M`$ of main interest will be arithmetical lists obtained from the list of all primes:

$$=\{2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,47,53,59,61,67,71,73,79,83,\mathrm{}\}$$

Conventions:
An arithmetical list of $``$ having a reason $`r>0`$ is a subset $`M`$ of the form

$$M=\{p_{r_0},p_{r_0+r},p_{r_0+2r},\mathrm{}\}$$

for some $`r_0>0`$ with $`r_0r`$.
Whenever a function $`f_M(\mathrm{})`$ is defined or depends on an arithmetical list determined by its two first elements $`aM`$ and $`bM`$ with $`a=p_{r_0}`$ and $`b=p_{r_0+r}`$, we shall write

$$M=M_{a,b}$$

$$f_M(\mathrm{})=f_{a,b}(\mathrm{})$$

Moreover, when the arithmetical list $`M_{a,b}`$ starts with the first prime (ie one has $`a=p_1=2`$), we write simply

$$M_{a,b}=M_r$$

$$f_{a,b}(\mathrm{})=f_r(\mathrm{})$$

where $`r`$ is the reason of the list.
For example, $`M=\{5,13,23,37,47,61,73,\mathrm{}\}`$ is an arithmetical list with first element $`p_3=5`$ and reason $`r=3`$.

We observe that many results concerning functions built with an arithmetical list are easily adapted to functions built with subsets $`M`$ which are finite union of arithmetical lists having all the same reason $`r>0`$ (such an $`M`$ has the following property: $`p_kM`$ implies $`p_{k+r}M`$ and $`p_{kr}M`$ whenever $`kr1`$).
With our conventions, choosing an $`M`$ of the form $`M_{a,b}`$, one may write $`Z_M(s)=Z_{a,b}(s)`$ and $`1_{pop_M}(n)=1_{pop_{a,b}}(n)`$. In fact,

$$\zeta _k(s)=\underset{pM_k}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})}\text{with}M_k=\{p_1,p_{k+1},p_{2k+1},p_{3k+1},\mathrm{}\}$$

$$\zeta _2(s)=\underset{nn0}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p_{2n+1}^s})}=\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{2^s})}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{5^s})}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{11^s})}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p_{2n+1}^s})}\mathrm{}=Z_{2,5}(s)$$

$$\zeta _3(s)=\underset{nn0}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p_{3n+1}^s})}=\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{2^s})}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{7^s})}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{17^s})}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p_{3n+1}^s})}\mathrm{}=Z_{2,7}(s)$$

$$Z_{3,7}(s)=\underset{nn0}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p_{2n+2}^s})}=\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{3^s})}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{7^s})}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{13^s})}\mathrm{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p_{2n+2}^s})}\mathrm{}$$

$$Z_{2,5}(s)=1+\frac{1}{2^s}+\frac{1}{4^s}+\frac{1}{5^s}+\frac{1}{8^s}+\frac{1}{10^s}+\frac{1}{11^s}+\frac{1}{16^s}+\frac{1}{17^s}+\frac{1}{20^s}+\frac{1}{22^s}+\frac{1}{23^s}+\frac{1}{25^s}+\frac{1}{31^s}+\frac{1}{32^s}+\mathrm{}$$

$$Z_{3,7}(s)=1+\frac{1}{3^s}+\frac{1}{7^s}+\frac{1}{9^s}+\frac{1}{13^s}+\frac{1}{19^s}+\frac{1}{21^s}+\frac{1}{27^s}+\frac{1}{29^s}+\frac{1}{37^s}+\frac{1}{39^s}+\frac{1}{43^s}+\frac{1}{49^s}+\mathrm{}$$

$$\eta _{3,7}(s)=\frac{1}{3^s}+\frac{1}{7^s}+\frac{1}{13^s}+\frac{1}{19^s}+\frac{1}{29^s}+\frac{1}{37^s}+\frac{1}{43^s}+\mathrm{}$$

$$\eta _2(s)=\frac{1}{2^s}+\frac{1}{5^s}+\frac{1}{11^s}+\frac{1}{17^s}+\frac{1}{23^s}+\frac{1}{31^s}+\frac{1}{41^s}+\frac{1}{47^s}+\mathrm{}=\eta _{2,5}(s)$$

$$\eta _1(s)=\underset{p}{}\frac{1}{p^s}\frac{1}{2^s}+\frac{1}{3^s}+\frac{1}{5^s}+\frac{1}{7^s}+\frac{1}{11^s}+\frac{1}{13^s}+\frac{1}{17^s}+\frac{1}{19^s}+\frac{1}{23^s}+\frac{1}{29^s}+\frac{1}{31^s}+\mathrm{}=\eta _{2,3}(s)$$

A central result, proved in section 5, is:

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ be the open set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}=\{𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2};s[\frac{1}{2};1]\}`$. The following properties are equivalent:

1. The Riemann hypothesis holds.
2. For every $`i2`$ , the function $`\zeta _i(s)`$ extends as an analytic (resp. meromorphic) function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

## 3. Basic Properties

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let ($`\alpha _n`$) and ($`\beta _n`$) be two increasing sequences of reals such that $`\alpha _n\beta _n\alpha _{n+1}`$ for all $`n`$, $`\alpha _1>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\frac{1}{\alpha _n^\lambda }<+\mathrm{}`$ for every $`\lambda >1`$.
Then, the following properties holds:

1. Euler products

$$E_1(s)=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})}E_2(s)=\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{\beta _n^s})}$$

are well defined and analytic for $`𝔢(s)>1`$.
2. There exists a function $`f(s)`$, defined and analytic for $`𝔢(s)>0`$, which never vanishes on this set, such that $`E_1(s)=E_2(s)f(s)`$ when $`𝔢(s)>1`$.

If one knows besides that $`E_1(s)`$ has a meromorphic (resp. analytic) continuation for $`𝔢(s)>a`$ for some $`0<a<1`$ (for example, $`E_1`$ may be the Riemann zeta function as in $`[Gr`$-$`Sc]`$), our lemma implies that $`E_2`$ has also a meromorphic (resp. analytic) continuation for $`𝔢(s)>a`$. Therefore, functions $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ have the same zeros and same poles for $`𝔢(s)>a`$.
Proof: It is known that $`\left|(1(1z)e^z)\right|\left|z\right|^2`$ for $`\left|z\right|1`$, hence the infinite product $`_n(1\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}}`$ defines of an analytic function for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$. The equation $`(1\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$ has no zeros in variable $`s`$, hence the infinite product never vanishes. Clearly,

$$E_1(s)=e^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}}\underset{n}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}}}$$

for $`𝔢(s)>1`$ and this formula clearly defines an analytic function on that set. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n\frac{1}{\beta _n^\lambda }<+\mathrm{}`$ for every $`\lambda >1`$, we get same conclusions for $`_n(1\frac{1}{\beta _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}}`$: this proves 1).
We now show that there exists a function $`f(s)`$, defined and analytic for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$, which satisfy formula of 2). Assuming $`n1`$, one has, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$:

$$E_1(s)=E_2(s)\frac{_n(1\frac{1}{\beta _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}}}{_n(1\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}}}e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _1^s}\frac{1}{\beta _1^s}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}+\mathrm{}}$$

We put:

$$f(s)=\frac{_n(1\frac{1}{\beta _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}}}{_n(1\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}}}e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _1^s}\frac{1}{\beta _1^s}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}+\mathrm{}}$$

From Dirichlet series, we see that the series $`\frac{1}{\alpha _1^s}\frac{1}{\beta _1^s}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}+\mathrm{}`$ is analytic in the half-plane $`𝔢(s)>0`$. Thus, $`f(s)`$ has the required properties for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$.
In the general case, taking $`k^{}`$, we use the Weierstrass factor

$$W_k(z)=(1z)e^{z+\frac{z^2}{2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{z^k}{k}}$$

having the property $`\left|1W_k(z)\right|\left|z\right|^{k+1}`$ for $`\left|z\right|1`$. Writting:

$$E_1(s)=E_2(s)\frac{_nW_k(\frac{1}{\beta _n^s})}{_nW_k(\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s})}e^{\frac{1}{\alpha _1^s}\frac{1}{\beta _1^s}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\alpha _n^s}\frac{1}{\beta _n^s}+\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}e^{\frac{1}{k}\left(\frac{1}{\alpha _1^{ks}}\frac{1}{\beta _1^{ks}}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{\alpha _n^{ks}}\frac{1}{\beta _n^{ks}}+\mathrm{}\right)}$$

our conclusion follows for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{k+1}`$. Now, $`f(s)`$ is the analytic continuation of $`\frac{E_1(s)}{E_2(s)}`$ for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{k+1}`$ and all $`k^{}`$: this proves the lemma.

###### Proposition 3.2.

Let $`k2,k^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be a simply connected open set contained in $`𝔢(s)>0`$ in which the Riemann function $`\zeta (s)`$ never vanishes. The following properties holds:

1. $`\zeta _k(s)`$ extends analytically for $`s\mathrm{\Omega }`$.
2. There exists a function $`g_k(s)`$ defined and analytic for $`𝔢(s)>0`$, having no zeros on this half-plane, such that

(3.1)
$$\zeta (s)=g_k(s)\zeta _k(s)^k\text{for}s\mathrm{\Omega }$$

It follows that

(3.2)
$$\zeta _k(s)\frac{A_k}{\sqrt[k]{1s}}\text{as}s1$$

for some constant $`A_k`$.
Proof: One has $`\zeta _k(s)=_{pM_k}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})}`$. For $`i1,ik`$, we define

$$A_i=\{p_i,p_{k+i},p_{2k+i},p_{3k+i},\mathrm{}\}\text{and}Z_{p_i,p_{k+i}}(s)=\underset{pA_i}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})}$$

Each $`A_i`$ is an arithmetical list of $``$ with $`A_1=M_k`$ and $`=_{i=1}^{i=k}A_i`$. One has $`\zeta (s)=_{i=1}^{i=k}Z_{p_i,p_{k+i}}(s)`$ and $`\zeta _k(s)=Z_{p_1,p_{k+1}}(s)`$. Using lemma 3.1, we get for every $`i>1`$ an analytic function $`f_i(s)`$ having no zeros for $`𝔢(s)>0`$ such that $`Z_{p_i,p_{k+i}}(s)=f_i(s)\zeta _k(s)`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$. Putting $`g_k(s)=f_1(s)f_2(s)\mathrm{}f_{k1}(s)`$, we get $`\zeta (s)=g_k(s)\zeta _k(s)^k`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$.
Let us now assume $`s\mathrm{\Omega }`$. There exists an analytic function $`h(s)`$ analytic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`\frac{\zeta (s)}{g_k(s)}=e^{h(s)}`$ for $`s\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus

$$\left(\frac{\zeta _k(s)}{e^{\frac{h(s)}{k}}}\right)^k=\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}\text{for}𝔢(s)>1$$

therefore, for some fixed $`\alpha `$, $`\zeta _k(s)=e^{2i\frac{\alpha }{k}\pi }e^{\frac{h(s)}{k}}\text{for}𝔢(s)>1`$. This formula defines now the analytic continuation of $`\zeta _k(s)`$ for $`s\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and formula 3.1 holds for $`s\mathrm{\Omega }`$ by uniqueness of analytic continuations.
The following lemma is contained in the proof of lemma 3.1.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`M`$. The function $`W_M(s)=_{pM}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})e^{\frac{1}{p^s}}}`$ is analytic for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$ and has no zeros on this open set. It satisfies:

(3.3)
$$Z_M(s)=W_M(s)e^{\eta _M(s)}\text{for}𝔢(s)>1$$

## 4. Functions $`\eta _M(s)`$

As defined previously, $`\eta _M(s)={\displaystyle \underset{pM}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^s}}`$ and $`\eta _1(s)=_p\frac{1}{p^s}=\eta _{2,3}(s)`$.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`M=\{p_{r_0},p_{r_0+r},p_{r_0+2r},\mathrm{}\}`$ be an arithmetical list of $``$ with a reason $`r>1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be an open connected set contained in $`𝔢(s)>0`$. Then, one has:

(4.1)
$$\eta _1(s)=r\eta _M(s)+w(s)\text{for}𝔢(s)>1$$

where $`w(s)`$ is analytic for $`𝔢(s)>0`$.
Therefore, $`\eta _M(s)`$ has an analytic (resp. meromorphic) continuation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if and only if $`\eta _1(s)`$ has the same property.

Proof: Let $`M_r=\{p_1,p_{1+r},p_{1+2r},\mathrm{},p_{1+nr},\mathrm{}\}`$. For every $`0j<r`$, we put:

$$M^{(j)}=\{p_{1+j},p_{1+j+r},p_{1+j+2r},\mathrm{},p_{1+j+nr},\mathrm{}\}$$

to be the shifted list of $`M_r`$, hence $`M^{(0)}=M_r`$. One has

$$\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)\eta _{M^{(j)}}(s)\underset{pM_r}{}\frac{1}{p^s}\underset{pM^{(j)}}{}\frac{1}{p^s}$$

for $`𝔢(s)>1`$, thus

$$\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)\eta _{M^{(j)}}(s)=\frac{1}{p_1^s}\frac{1}{p_{1+j}^s}+\frac{1}{p_{1+r}^s}\frac{1}{p_{1+j+r}^s}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{p_{1+nr}^s}\frac{1}{p_{1+j+nr}^s}+\mathrm{}$$

The Dirichlet series on the right hand side is an analytic function $`w_j(s)`$ in $`𝔢(s)>0`$ for every $`0j<r`$. From

$$\eta _1(s)=\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)+\eta _{M^{(1)}}(s)+\mathrm{}+\eta _{M^{(r1)}}(s)$$

we get

$$\eta _1(s)=\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)+\left(\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)w_0(s)\right)+\mathrm{}+\left(\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)w_{r1}(s)\right)$$

which leads to

$$\eta _1(s)=r\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)W(s)$$

with $`W(s)w_0(s)+\mathrm{}+w_{r1}(s)`$. This proves 4.1 for $`M=M^{(0)}`$.
The arithmetical sublist $`M=\{p_{r_0},p_{r_0+r},p_{r_0+2r},\mathrm{}\}`$ is one of the $`M^{(j)}`$ (with $`j=r_01`$) and relation $`\eta _{M^{(0)}}(s)\eta _{M^{(j)}}(s)=w_j(s)`$ implies formula 4.1. It follows from this formula that $`\eta _M(s)`$ extends as an analytic (resp. meromorphic) function to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if and only if $`\eta _1(s)`$ has the same property.
We recall that $`Z_\zeta `$ stands for the set of zeros of $`\zeta (s)`$ in the half space $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`M`$ be an arithmetical list.

1. The derivative $`\frac{d}{ds}\eta _M(s)=_{pM}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p^s}`$ extends as a meromorphic function in $`𝔢(s)>0`$ with simple poles for singular points.
2. $`\eta _M(s)`$ can be continued to an analytic function in the open simply connected

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_c=\{𝔢(s)>0\}\underset{\alpha Z_\zeta }{}[0;\alpha ][0;1]$$

Assertion 2) is more precise than \[Tit\] page 182.
Proof: Let $`r>0`$ be the reason of the list. By proposition 4.1, $`\eta _1(s)=r\eta _M(s)+w(s)`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$ , where $`w(s)`$ is analytic for $`𝔢(s)>0`$. Taking the derivative, we are reduced to the case $`\eta _M=\eta _1`$ for which this property is true for $`𝔢(s)>0`$. This proves 1) since our formula now defines the holomorphic continuation.
For 2), we note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ has the property that $`s\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ and $`\lambda 1`$ implies that $`\lambda s\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$. Since the Riemann function $`\zeta (s)`$ never vanishes on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$, it follows from proposition 3.2 that

$$\zeta (s)=g_k(s)Z_M(s)^k\text{for}s\mathrm{\Omega }_c$$

for some suitable analytic function $`g_k`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ which never vanishes on this set. Now, the function:

$$W_M(s)=\underset{pM}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})e^{\frac{1}{p^s}}}$$

is analytic for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$ , has no zeros on this half-plane and satisfies $`Z_M(s)=W_M(s)e^{\eta _M(s)}`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$. Thus, $`\frac{Z_M(s)}{W_M(s)}=e^{\eta _M(s)}`$ has no zeros in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c`$ and this leads to the analytic continuation on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c\{𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{p+1}\}`$ with $`p=1`$. We now iterate this process as follows. For $`p`$ with $`p1`$

$$W_M^{(p)}(s)=\underset{pM}{}\frac{1}{(1\frac{1}{p^s})e^{\frac{1}{p^s}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{p^{2s}}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{p}\frac{1}{p^{2s}}}}$$

is analytic for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{p+1}`$ , has no zeros on this half-plane and satisfies:

$$Z_M(s)=W_M^{(p)}(s)e^{\eta _M(s)+\frac{1}{2}\eta _M(2s)+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{p}\eta _M(ps)}\text{for}𝔢(s)>1$$

It follows that $`\eta _M(s)+\frac{1}{2}\eta _M(2s)+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{p}\eta _M(ps)`$ has an analytic continuation $`f_{p+1}(s)`$ on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c\{𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{p+1}\}`$. By induction, the analytic continuation $`\stackrel{𝑝}{\eta }_M(s)`$ of $`\eta _M(s)`$ being obtained on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c\{𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{p}\}`$, one has, for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{p+1}`$

$$f_{p+1}(s)=\eta _M(s)+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{𝑝}{\eta }_M(2s)+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{p}\stackrel{𝑝}{\eta }_M(ps)$$

since $`𝔢(2s)>\frac{1}{p},\mathrm{},𝔢(ps)>\frac{1}{p}`$. Thus,

$$f_{p+1}(s)\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{𝑝}{\eta }_M(2s)\mathrm{}\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{𝑝}{\eta }_M(ps)$$

defines the analytic continuation $`\stackrel{p+1}{\eta }_M(s)`$ of $`\eta _M(s)`$ to the open half-plane $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{p+1}`$.
The following proposition is known for $`M=`$.

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`M`$.

1. one has, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$,

$$\underset{pM}{}\frac{1}{p^s}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}\mathrm{ln}(Z_M(ns))$$
2. Let $`l_{\text{pop}_M}(x)=_{k\text{pop}_M}\frac{x^k}{k}`$ for $`|x|<1`$. One has:

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}l_{\text{pop}_M}(x^n)=x$$

$$l_{\text{pop}_M}(x)=\underset{n\text{pop}_{(M)}}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{1x^n})$$

It follows that

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}\left(\underset{pM}{}l_{\text{pop}_M}(\frac{1}{p^{ns}})\right)=\underset{pM}{}\frac{1}{p^s}$$

The function $`l_{\text{pop}_M}(x)`$ coincide with $`\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{1x})`$ when $`M=`$ (because $`\text{pop}_M=^{}`$ in this case). Taking $`\text{pop}_M=\text{pop}_{2,5}`$ in 2), one has:

$$l_{pop}(x)=x+\frac{x^2}{2}+\frac{x^4}{4}+\frac{x^5}{5}+\frac{x^8}{8}+\mathrm{}$$

and our first summation is

$$\frac{\mu (1)}{1}l_{pop}(x)+\frac{\mu (2)}{2}l_{pop}(x^2)+\frac{\mu (4)}{4}l_{pop}(x^4)+\frac{\mu (5)}{5}l_{pop}(x^5)+\frac{\mu (8)}{8}l_{pop}(x^8)+\mathrm{}$$

Proof: For 1), we use formula $`_{n=1}^+\mathrm{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{1x^n})=x`$ valid for $`|x|<1`$. Choosing $`x=\frac{1}{p^s}`$ for $`pM`$ and $`𝔢(s)>1`$, it remains to sum expansions for all $`p`$.
For 2), one has

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}l_{\text{pop}_M}(x^n)=\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}\underset{k\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{x^{nk}}{nk}=\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{x^n}{n}\underset{\begin{array}{c}kn\\ k\text{pop}_M\end{array}}{}\frac{\mu (\frac{n}{k})}{\frac{n}{k}}$$

Since conditions $`kn`$ with $`k\text{pop}_M`$ and $`kn`$ are identical when $`n\text{pop}_M`$ , using for $`n>1`$

$$\underset{d|n}{}\frac{\mu (d)}{d\frac{n}{d}}=\frac{1}{n}\underset{d|n}{}\mu (d)=0$$

one has, from $`\mu (1)=1`$

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}l_{pop}(x^n)=x$$

This proves first formula of 2). Formula

$$l_{\text{pop}_M}(x)=\underset{n\text{pop}_{(M)}}{}\frac{\mu (n)}{n}\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{1x^n})$$

follows from inclusion-exclusion principle. Last formula is obtained with $`x=\frac{1}{p^s}`$ in first formula of 2) and summation for all $`pM`$.

## 5. Equivalences between analytic continuations and Riemann hypothesis

As seen previously, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}=\{𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}\}[\frac{1}{2};1]`$.

###### Proposition 5.1.

The following properties are equivalent:

1. $`\eta _1(s)`$ extends as an analytic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.
2. $`\eta _1(s)`$ extends as a meromorphic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.
3. The Riemann function $`\zeta (s)`$ never vanishes in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.
4. For one $`i^{},i2`$ (resp. for all $`i^{}`$), the function $`\zeta _i(s)`$ extends as an analytic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and never vanishes in that open set.
5. $`\eta _1^n(s)`$ extends as a meromorphic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, for one $`n^{},n1`$ (resp. for all $`n^{}`$).

Proof: Let $`M`$ be an arithmetical list of $``$. From proposition 4.1, $`\eta _M(s)`$ has an analytic (resp. meromorphic) continuation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ if and only if $`\eta _1(s)`$ has the same property: and one has $`Z_M(s)=W_M(s)e^{\eta _M(s)}`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$. where $`W_M`$ is an analytic function for $`𝔢(s)>\frac{1}{2}`$ and has no zeros on this half plane.
Assume that $`1)`$ is satisfied. Taking $`M=M_i`$ with $`i1`$, one has $`\zeta _i(s)=W_{M_i}(s)e^{\eta _i(s)}`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$, thus the right side hand has an analytic continuation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$: thus, $`13`$ and $`14`$. Conversely, if 4) is satisfied for one $`i2`$, then $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta _i(s)}{W_{M_i}(s)}}=e^{h(s)}`$ for some analytic function $`h=h(s)`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. It follows that $`\eta _i(s)h(s)`$ is constant for $`𝔢(s)>1`$, hence $`\eta _i(s)`$ has an analytic continuation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Hence, $`31`$ and $`41`$.
Let us assume 2). Let $`\alpha `$ be a pole of $`\eta (s)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Formula $`\zeta (s)=W(s)e^{\eta (s)}`$ has an analytic continuation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}\{\text{the set of poles of}\eta \}`$. Taking a small neighborhood $`V(\alpha )`$ of $`\alpha `$ not containing $`\alpha `$, we see that the right (resp. left) hand side our the formula is unbounded (resp. bounded) on $`V(\alpha )`$ leading to a contradiction: hence $`12`$.
Let us assume 5) for some $`n2`$. The derivative $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\eta ^n(s)=n\eta ^{n1}(s){\displaystyle \frac{d}{ds}}\eta (s)`$ is meromorphic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Since $`\frac{d}{ds}\eta (s)`$ is meromorphic in $`𝔢(s)>0`$, it follows that $`\eta ^{n1}(s)`$ is meromorphic in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$: hence by iteration, one has $`51`$ and $`15`$ is clear.

###### Theorem 5.2.

The following properties are equivalent:

1. The Riemann hypothesis holds.
2. The function $`\zeta _i(s)`$ has a meromorphic continuation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, for all $`i^{}`$.
3. The function $`\zeta _i(s)`$ has an analytic continuation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, for all $`i^{}`$ (resp. for $`i`$ moving in an infinite subsequence of $`^{}`$).

Proof: By proposition 4.1, proposition 5.1 and lemma 3.3, one has $`12`$ and $`13`$. Let us assume 2). With notations of proposition 3.2, one has $`\zeta (s)=g_i(s)\zeta _i(s)^i`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$ and this holds by analytic continuation in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}\{\text{the set of poles of}\zeta _i\}`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be a pole of $`\zeta _i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Taking a small compact neighborhood $`V(\alpha )`$ of $`\alpha `$ not containing $`\alpha `$, we get that $`\zeta _i(s)`$ is bounded on $`V(\alpha )`$ hence is analytic at $`\alpha `$ (ie the singularity is removable). Hence, $`\zeta (s)=g_i(s)\zeta _i(s)^i`$ for $`s\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ with $`\zeta _i(s)`$ analytic for all $`s\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. Let $`s_0`$ be a possible root of the equation $`\zeta (s)=0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$. It follows that $`\zeta _i(s)=0`$ and $`\zeta (s_0)=g_i(s)\zeta _i(s_0)^i`$ implies that $`N_0`$ has multiplicity $`i`$. Since this holds for all $`i^{}`$, we get a contradiction. Hence $`21`$. The proof of $`31`$ is similar.

###### Theorem 5.3.

The following properties are equivalent:

1. The Riemann hypothesis holds.
2. For any arithmetical list $`M`$ , the function $`\frac{d}{ds}\eta _M(s)`$ extends analytically in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.
3. The function of $`s`$

$$_2^+\mathrm{}\frac{\pi (t)\mathrm{ln}(t)}{t^{s+1}}𝑑t$$

extends as an analytic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$.

Proof: One has $`12`$ by proposition 5.1. Conversely, as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$ is simply connected, one has $`21`$ by lemma 3.3.
Using Abel summation, one has, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$, $`\eta _1(s)=s_2^+\mathrm{}\pi (t)\frac{dt}{t^{s+1}}`$ hence,

$$\frac{d}{ds}\eta _1(s)=_2^+\mathrm{}\pi (t)\frac{dt}{t^{s+1}}s_2^+\mathrm{}\pi (t)\frac{\mathrm{ln}(t)dt}{t^{s+1}}$$

Therefore, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$

$$\frac{d}{ds}\eta _1(s)\frac{1}{s}\eta _1(s)=s_2^+\mathrm{}\pi (t)\frac{\mathrm{ln}(t)dt}{t^{s+1}}$$

Thus, if 3) holds, $`\frac{d}{ds}\eta _1(s)\frac{1}{s}\eta _1(s)`$ extends as an analytic function in $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, thus $`\eta _1(s)`$ has a meromorphic continuation to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\frac{1}{2}}`$, since $`\frac{d}{ds}\eta _1`$ is always meromorphic in that set. From proposition 4.2, we get $`31`$. The implication $`13`$ is similar.

## 6. Summations relative to $`\text{pop}_M`$

In the previous considerations, we met subsets $`𝔸`$ of $`^{}`$ having the following properties:

1. conditions $`a𝔸`$ and $`b𝔸`$ imply $`ab𝔸`$
2. conditions $`a𝔸`$ and $`d|a`$ with $`d^{}`$ imply $`d𝔸`$

Obviously, $`1𝔸`$ when $`𝔸\mathrm{}`$ and:

###### Lemma 6.1.

There exists a unique subset $`M`$ such that $`𝔸`$ consists of all products (with multiplicities) of elements of $`M`$, ie one has $`𝔸=\text{pop}_M`$.

We need to consider summations or formulas involving $`\text{pop}_M`$. In some cases, formulas involving $`\text{pop}_M`$ can be viewed as the restriction to $`\text{pop}_M`$ of a known formula assumed classic on $`^{}`$: this fact often appears for arithmetical functions $`f`$ expanding some value $`f(n)`$ as a finite summation of others values depending on all $`d|n`$. Thus, proposition 7 is the direct adaptation of Moebius formulas.

Another kind of formulas rest on the known principle of inclusion-exclusion sketched in next lemma.

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`f:^{}`$ be a function, $`M`$ with $`𝔸=\text{pop}_M`$. Then, putting $`M^{}=M`$ and $`𝔹=\text{pop}_M^{}`$, one has:

(6.1)
$$\underset{i𝔸}{}f(i)=\underset{k𝔹}{}\mu (k)\underset{i^{}}{}f(ki)$$

(questions of convergence are not considered here)

Let $`M`$ (we abbreviate $`\text{pop}_M=\text{pop}`$) and $`G_{pop}`$ be the ”geometrical” series defined for $`|q|<1`$ by:

(6.2)
$$G_{pop}(q)\underset{kpop}{}q^k$$

Taking $`f(i)=e^{it}`$ for $`t>0`$ fixed, we get, with $`G_{pop}(e^t)_{n\text{pop}}e^{nx}`$ that:

$$G_{pop}(e^t)=\frac{1}{1e^x}\underset{pM^{}}{}\frac{1}{1e^{px}}+\underset{\begin{array}{c}p<q\\ p,qM^{}\end{array}}{}\frac{1}{1e^{pqx}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}p<q<r\\ p,q,rM^{}\end{array}}{}\frac{1}{1e^{pqrx}}+\mathrm{}$$

This summation is essential in formula

(6.3)
$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)Z_M(s)=_0^+\mathrm{}G_{pop}(e^t)t^s\frac{dt}{t}$$

valid for $`𝔢(s)>1`$.

###### Proposition 6.3.

Let $`M`$ and $`\text{pop}=\text{pop}_M`$.

1. The identity

$$Z_M(s)\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{a_n}{n^s}=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{A_n}{n^s}$$

is equivalent to

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}a_nG_{pop}(x^n)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}A_nx^n$$
2. Let

$$Z_M(s)\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{a_n}{n^s}=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{A_n}{n^s}\text{and}\zeta (s)\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{a_n}{n^s}=\underset{n^{}}{}\frac{B_n}{n^s}$$

Then, $`B_n=A_n`$ when $`n\text{pop}`$ and $`B_n=_{i|ni\text{pop}}a_i`$ when $`n\text{pop}`$.

Taking $`\alpha _n=\mu (n)`$ for $`n\text{pop}`$, we get, in 1):

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\mu (n)G_{pop}(x^n)=x$$

Taking $`\alpha _n=\mathrm{\Phi }(n)`$ for $`n\text{pop}`$, we get, in 1):

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(n)G_{pop}(x^n)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}nx^n=x\frac{d}{dx}G_{pop}(x)$$

For 2), we deduce from Lambert series that:

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}a_n\frac{x^n}{1x^n}=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}B_nx^n+\underset{n^{}\text{pop}}{}B_nx^n$$

With $`a_n=1`$ for $`n\text{pop}`$, we get:

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\frac{x^n}{1x^n}=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\tau (n)x^n+\underset{n^{}\text{pop}}{}B_nx^n$$

where $`B_n=\text{card}(\text{Div(n)}\text{pop})`$, and Div(n) stands for the set of divisors of $`n`$.

In the same way,

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}n\frac{x^n}{1x^n}=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\sigma (n)x^n+\underset{n^{}\text{pop}}{}B_nx^n$$

where $`B_n=_{i\text{Div(n)}\text{pop}}i`$.

In the case $`\text{pop}=^{}`$, first assertion is a classical calculation met in Lambert series with $`G_{pop}(x)=\frac{x}{1x}`$.
Proof: To get a visual proof, we choose $`\text{pop}=\text{pop}_{2,5}=\{1,2,4,5,8,10,11,16,\mathrm{}\}`$. Then $`G_{pop}`$ is the ”geometrical” series

$$G_{pop}(q)=q+q^2+q^4+q^5+q^8+q^{10}+q^{11}+\mathrm{}$$

One has:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}a_1G_{pop}(x)\hfill & =& a_1x& +a_1x^2& +a_1x^4& +a_1x^5& +a_1x^8& +a_1x^{10}& +\mathrm{}\\ a_2G_{pop}(x^2)\hfill & =& & a_2x^2& +a_2x^4& & +a_2x^8& +a_2x^{10}& +\mathrm{}\\ a_4G_{pop}(x^4)\hfill & =& & & a_4x^4& & +a_4x^8& & +\mathrm{}\\ a_5G_{pop}(x^5)\hfill & =& & & & a_5x^5& & +a_5x^{10}& +\mathrm{}\\ a_8G_{pop}(x^8)\hfill & =& & & & & a_8x^8& & +\mathrm{}\\ a_{10}G_{pop}(x^{10})\hfill & =& & & & & & a_{10}x^{10}& +\mathrm{}\end{array}$$

Summing columns, we get our formula since $`A_n=0`$ when $`n\text{pop}`$ and $`A_n=_{d|n}a_d`$.
Assertion 2) is a simple verification.
An important function is, for $`x>0`$:

(6.4)
$$N_{pop}(x)\text{card}([1;x]\text{pop})=\underset{\begin{array}{c}nx\\ npop\end{array}}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}_{pop}(n)$$

which agree, by Perron’s formula, with

(6.5)
$$N_{pop}(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}_{\sigma iT}^{\sigma +iT}Z_M(s)\frac{x^s}{s}𝑑s+O(\frac{x^{\sigma +ϵ}}{T})$$

(with $`\sigma >1`$ and $`ϵ>0`$ when $`x`$ is not an integer).

###### Proposition 6.4.

Let $`M`$ and $`\text{pop}=\text{pop}_M`$.

1. Given a function $`f=f(x)`$, we put $`F(x)=_{k\text{pop}}f(kx)`$. Then,

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}a_nF(nx)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}A_nf(nx)$$

where $`a_n`$ and $`A_n`$ are related by formula $`Z_M(s)_{n\text{pop}}\frac{a_n}{n^s}=_{n\text{pop}}\frac{A_n}{n^s}`$.
2. Formulas

$$F(x)=\underset{k\text{pop}}{}f(kx)$$

and

$$f(x)=\underset{k\text{pop}}{}\mu (k)F(kx)$$

are equivalent

Proof: One has

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}a_nF(nx)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\underset{k\text{pop}}{}a_nf(knx)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\underset{kn}{}a_{\frac{n}{k}}f(nx)$$

Since

$$A_n=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{jn}a_j$$

this proves 1), noting that $`kn`$ with $`n\text{pop}`$ implies $`k\text{pop}`$.
For 2), taking $`a_n=\mu (n)`$ for $`n\text{pop}`$ (zero elsewhere), one has $`A_n=0`$ for all $`n`$ except $`A_1=1`$, hence $`f(x)=_{k\text{pop}}\mu (k)F(kx)`$. Conversely, from $`f(x)=_{k\text{pop}}\mu (k)F(kx)`$, we obtain

$$\underset{n\text{pop}}{}f(nx)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\underset{k\text{pop}}{}\mu (k)F(knx)=\underset{n\text{pop}}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}kn\\ k\text{pop}\end{array}}{}\mu (\frac{n}{k})F(nx)$$

and our assertion follows from $`\mu (1)=1`$ and $`_{kn}\mu (\frac{n}{k})=0`$ for $`n>1`$ with the observation that

$$\underset{kn}{}\mu (\frac{n}{k})=\underset{\begin{array}{c}kn\\ k\text{pop}\end{array}}{}\mu (\frac{n}{k})$$

###### Proposition 6.5.

1. For $`k^{}`$ let $`G(k)=_{i|ki\text{pop}}g(i)`$ where $`g`$ is a function defined on $`pop`$. Then, for $`x1`$

(6.6)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}G(i)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})g(i)$$
2. For $`k^{}`$ and $`a`$, let

$$H(k)=\underset{i|ki\text{pop}}{}h(i)\frac{i^a}{k^a}\text{and }S_{pop}(u;a)=\underset{iui\text{pop}}{}\frac{1}{i^a}$$

where $`h`$ is a function defined on $`pop`$. Then

(6.7)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}H(i)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}S_{pop}(\frac{x}{i};a)h(i)$$

When $`a=1`$, the series $`S_{pop}(u;a)`$ can be considered as the harmonic series associated to a given pop.

Proof: The formula 6.6 can be considered as a particular case of 6.7 with $`a=0`$. For 6.7, we expand successively $`H(k)`$ with $`k\text{pop}`$ and $`kx`$. The term $`h(i)`$ appears exactly one time in each expansion of $`H(k)`$, $`kx`$, when $`ik`$: when it is it so, the coefficient of $`h(i)`$ is $`\frac{i^a}{k^a}`$. As $`\frac{k}{i}\text{pop}`$, we see that the total coefficient of $`h(i)`$ is of the form

$$\underset{jC(i)j\text{pop}}{}\frac{1}{j^a}$$

with $`C(i)`$ to be clarified . The last term of this summation is $`\frac{i^a}{y^a}`$ where $`y`$ is the biggest element of $`\text{pop}[1;x]`$. Thus our summation consists of all $`\frac{1}{j^a}`$ with $`j\text{pop}`$ such that $`ijx`$ with $`i\text{pop}`$. Using definition 6.4, this gives $`C(i)=N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})`$. From

$$\underset{jN_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})}{}\frac{1}{j^a}=S_{pop}(\frac{x}{i};a)$$

we get our formula 6.7.
In formula 6.6, we choose for $`g`$ the Euler $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$-function. Since $`_{i|k}\mathrm{\Phi }(i)=k`$, we get

(6.8)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}i=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})\mathrm{\Phi }(i)$$

Taking for $`g`$ the function $`g(i)=\mu (i)`$, we get

(6.9)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\nu (i)}=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})\mu (i)$$

where $`\nu (n)`$ is the number of distinct prime factors of $`k`$: this follows from $`_{i|k}\mu (i)=2^{\nu (k)}`$. Thus

$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\nu (i)}=N_{pop}(x)+\underset{p\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{p})+\underset{\begin{array}{c}p<q\\ p\text{pop}q\text{pop}\end{array}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{pq})+\underset{\begin{array}{c}p<q<r\\ p\text{pop}q\text{pop}\\ r\text{pop}\end{array}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{pqr})+\mathrm{}$$

If we choose for $`g`$ the Moebius $`\mu `$-function, from $`G(i)=_{i|k}\mu (i)=0`$ for $`i>1`$ and $`G(1)=1`$, we get for $`x>1`$

(6.10)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})\mu (i)=1$$

Taking for $`g`$ the function $`g(i)=\frac{\mu (i)}{i}`$, from formula $`_{i|k}\frac{\mu (i)}{i}=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(k)}{k}`$, we get

(6.11)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(i)}{i}=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})\frac{\mu (i)}{i}$$

Taking for $`g`$ the function $`g(i)=1`$ when $`i\text{pop}`$, from formula $`_{i|k}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}=\tau (k)`$ (the number of positive divisors of $`k`$), we get

(6.12)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\tau (i)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})$$

Replacing $`g`$ by the function $`g(i)=1`$ when $`i\text{pop}`$ and $`i`$ is a prime number, we get

(6.13)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\nu (i)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}ixi\text{pop}\\ i\text{prime}\end{array}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})$$

Taking for $`g`$ the function $`g(i)=i^a`$ when $`i\text{pop}`$, from formula $`_{i|k}i^a=\sigma _a(k)`$ (the sum of powers of positive divisors of $`k`$), we get

(6.14)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\sigma _a(i)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})i^a$$

Noting that $`_{i|k}i^a=\frac{1}{k^a}\sigma _a(k)`$, we get for $`g(i)=i^a`$

(6.15)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\frac{\sigma _a(i)}{i^a}=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}N_{pop}(\frac{x}{i})\frac{1}{i^a}$$

We now use formula 6.7. With $`h(i)=1`$ for all $`i`$, one has $`H(k)=\frac{\sigma _a(k)}{k^a}`$, hence

(6.16)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\frac{\sigma _a(i)}{i^a}=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}S_{pop}(\frac{x}{i};a)$$

With $`h(i)=\frac{1}{i^a}`$ for all $`i`$, one has $`H(k)=\frac{\tau (k)}{k^a}`$, hence

(6.17)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\frac{\tau (i)}{i^a}=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}S_{pop}(\frac{x}{i};a)\frac{1}{i^a}$$

With $`h(i)=\frac{1}{i^a}`$ when $`i`$ is a prime number and $`0`$ elsewere, one has $`H(k)=\frac{\nu (k)}{k^a}`$, hence

(6.18)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\frac{\nu (i)}{i^a}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}ixi\text{pop}\\ i\text{prime}\end{array}}{}S_{pop}(\frac{x}{i};a)\frac{1}{i^a}$$

More generally, for $`k^{}`$, let $`F(k)=_{i|ki\text{pop}}f(i)g(\frac{k}{i})`$ where $`h`$ and $`g`$ are functions defined on pop. Then, the same calculation yields

(6.19)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}F(i)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}f(i)\underset{j\frac{x}{i}j\text{pop}}{}g(j)$$

Thus, with $`x`$ infinite, $`f(i)=a^i`$, $`g(i)=b^i`$, we obtain, for $`a<1`$ and $`b<1`$

(6.20)
$$G_{pop}(a)G_{pop}(b)=\underset{n\text{pop}n1}{}\left(\underset{d|n}{}a^db^{\frac{n}{d}}\right)$$

One also has the formula

(6.21)
$$\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}i=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\mu (i)\underset{j\frac{x}{i}j\text{pop}}{}\sigma (j)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\sigma (i)\underset{j\frac{x}{i}j\text{pop}}{}\mu (j)$$

due to $`_{i|k}\sigma (i)\mu (\frac{k}{i})=k`$ for $`k^{}`$. And $`_{i|k}\tau (i)\mu (\frac{k}{i})=1`$ for $`i^{}`$ yields

(6.22)
$$N_{pop}(x)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\mu (i)\underset{j\frac{x}{i}j\text{pop}}{}\tau (j)=\underset{ixi\text{pop}}{}\tau (i)\underset{j\frac{x}{i}j\text{pop}}{}\mu (j)$$

$`\tau (n)`$ being the divisor function.

Let $`𝔸`$ be a subset of $`^{}`$. We put $`𝔸^+=_{i𝔸}[i;i+1[=𝔸+[0;1[`$ and, for $`n^{}`$, $`𝔸_n^+=_{i𝔸in}[i;i+1[`$.
The comparison of a series with an integral takes here the following aspect

###### Proposition 6.6.

Let $`𝔸`$ be a subset of $`^{}`$ and $`f:[1;+\mathrm{}[`$ be a continuous positive decreasing function on the interval $`[1;+\mathrm{}[`$ such that $`\text{limit}_{t+\mathrm{}}f(t)=0`$.
Then, the sequence:

$$u_n=\underset{ini𝔸}{}f(i)_{𝔸_n^+}f(t)𝑑t$$

has a finite limit $`C_A`$ when $`n+\mathrm{}`$.

Proof: We modify the function $`f`$ on interval $`[i;i+1[`$ whenever $`i𝔸`$ making it affine on such intervals (values $`f(i)`$ and $`f(i+1)`$ being unalterated). Let $`h:[1;+\mathrm{}[`$ be the continuous positive decreasing function so obtained. It is known that the sequence:

$`v_n`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{i=n}{}}}h(i){\displaystyle _1^{n+1}}h(t)𝑑t`$
$`=h(1){\displaystyle _1^2}h(t)𝑑t+\mathrm{}+h(i){\displaystyle _i^{i+1}}h(t)𝑑t+\mathrm{}+h(n){\displaystyle _n^{n+1}}h(t)𝑑t`$
has a finite limit when $`n+\mathrm{}`$. Whenever $`i𝔸`$, one has:

$$h(i)_i^{i+1}h(t)𝑑t=\frac{1}{2}\left(f(i)f(i+1)\right)$$

thus

$$u_n=v_n\frac{1}{2}\underset{i𝔸in}{}\left(f(i)f(i+1)\right)$$

Our conclusion follows since $`_{i𝔸}\left(f(i)f(i+1)\right)`$ satisfies hypothesis of the theorem of alternating convergent series.

###### Proposition 6.7.

Let $`𝔸`$ be a subset of $`^{}`$ and $`Z(s)`$ be the function $`Z(s)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n𝔸}\frac{1}{n^s}`$ for $`𝔢(s)>1`$. One has, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$:

$$Z(s)=_{𝔸^+}\frac{dt}{t^s}+h(s)$$

where $`h(s)`$ is analytic in the half-plane $`𝔢(s)>0`$.

Proof: Classic demonstration (see \[Nar\] p.209 when $`𝔸=^{}`$) adapts itself without any trouble. One has, for $`n^{}`$ and $`𝔢(s)>1`$:

$$_0^1\frac{dt}{(t+n)^s}=\frac{1}{(1+n)^s}+s_0^1\frac{tdt}{(t+n)^{s+1}}$$

Summing for $`n𝔸`$, we get

$$Z(s)=\underset{n𝔸}{}\left(\frac{1}{n^s}\frac{1}{(1+n)^s}\right)\underset{n𝔸}{}s_0^1\frac{tdt}{(t+n)^{s+1}}+\underset{n𝔸}{}_0^1\frac{dt}{(t+n)^s}$$

The first expression of the right-hand side is an alternate Dirichlet series clearly analytic for $`𝔢(s)>0`$. We define, for $`t[0;1]`$ :

$$g_𝔸(t)=\underset{n𝔸}{}\frac{t}{(t+n)^{s+1}}$$

The series of $`g_𝔸(t)`$ converges uniformly for $`t[0;1]`$ and $`s`$ in any given compact of $`𝔢(s)>0`$, hence

$$\underset{n𝔸}{}s_0^1\frac{tdt}{(t+n)^{s+1}}=s_0^1g_𝔸(t)𝑑t$$

defines an analytic function in that half-plane.
Since

$$\underset{n𝔸}{}_0^1\frac{dt}{(t+n)^s}=_{𝔸^+}\frac{dt}{t^s}$$

this proves the lemma.
One has, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$:

(6.23)
$$Z_M(s)=\underset{n^{}}{}N_{pop_M}(n)\left[\frac{1}{n^s}\frac{1}{(n+1)^s}\right]=s_1^+\mathrm{}N_{pop_M}(t)\frac{dt}{t^{s+1}}$$

and, by Abel summation, for $`t>0`$:

$$G_{pop}(e^t)=\underset{k=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}N_{pop}(k)t_k^{k+1}e^{tu}𝑑u=t_1^+\mathrm{}N_{pop}(u)e^{tu}𝑑u$$

Now, from formula 6.1 with $`g(i)=1`$ for all $`in`$ and $`0`$ elsewere, in the case $`\text{pop}_M=\text{pop}_{2,5}`$, we obtain

$$N_{pop}(n)=n\left[\frac{n}{3}\right]\left[\frac{n}{7}\right]\mathrm{}+\left[\frac{n}{21}\right]+\mathrm{}$$

which is close to

$$n(1\frac{1}{3})(1\frac{1}{7})(1\frac{1}{13})\mathrm{}n\underset{pnp\text{pop}_{3,7}}{}(1\frac{1}{p})\alpha _{3,7}\frac{n}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}(n)}}$$

for some constant $`\alpha _{3,7}`$ (by proposition below). Numerical computations directly checked on $`\text{pop}_{2,5}=\{1,2,4,5,8,10,11,16,17,\mathrm{}\}`$ gives $`\alpha _{3,7}0,736\mathrm{}`$ with an oscillating limit.
More generally, it is highly probable that, for an arithmetical list $`M`$ having a reason $`r>0`$, one has, for some suitable constant $`A_M`$:

$$N_{pop}(x)A_Mx\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}\text{as}x+\mathrm{}$$

This property is related to formula $`Z_M(s)\frac{\text{Cte}}{(s1)^{\frac{1}{r}}}`$ associated with Perron’s formula 6.5 or a possible improvement of Ikehara-Wiener theorem.
Mertens’s formulas takes the form:

###### Proposition 6.8.

Let $`M`$ be an arithmetical list of $``$, $`r>0`$ being its reason. There exists a constant $`\gamma _M`$ such that one has:

(6.24)
$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}px\\ pM\end{array}}{}(1\frac{1}{p})=\frac{e^{\gamma _M}}{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}\right)$$

(6.25)
$$\frac{1}{_{\begin{array}{c}px\\ pM\end{array}}(1\frac{1}{p})}=e^{\gamma _M}\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}+O\left(\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}\right)$$

When $`M=`$, one has $`r=1`$ and $`\gamma _M`$ is the Euler constant $`\gamma `$.
Proof: Demonstration proposed here is inspired, in the main lines, by that of \[Nat\] p. 278. One has

$$\underset{px,pM}{}\frac{1}{p}=\underset{px,pM}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p}\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(p)}=\underset{2nx}{}f(n)g(n)$$

with $`g(t)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}`$ for $`t>2`$, $`f(n)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p}`$ if $`n=pM`$ and $`f(n)=0`$ otherwise.
From known formula

(6.26)
$$\underset{px}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p}=\mathrm{ln}(x)+O(1)$$

we first deduce that

(6.27)
$$\underset{px,pM}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p}=\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{ln}(x)+O(1)$$

Indeed, if

$$p_1q_1p_2q_2\mathrm{}p_nq_np_{n+1}\mathrm{}$$

are real numbers tending to infinity as $`n+\mathrm{}`$, one must have

$$\underset{p_ix}{}f(p_i)\underset{q_ix}{}f(q_i)=O(1)$$

since

$$f(p_1)f(q_1)+f(p_2)f(q_2)+\mathrm{}+f(p_n)f(q_n)+\mathrm{}$$

is an alternating convergent sequence (and partial summations gives rise to two monotonic sequences having the same limit): thus, we adapt the proof of proposition 4.1 taking $`s=1`$, $`w_j(s)=O(1)`$ and formula 6.27 follows.
Let

$$F(t)=\underset{pt,pM}{}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(p)}{p}=\underset{pt,pM}{}f(n)$$

Then $`F(t)=\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{ln}(t)+r(t)`$ with $`r(t)=O(1)`$. Our next goal is to get formula

(6.28)
$$\underset{px,pM}{}\frac{1}{p}=\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(x))+b+O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}\right)$$

for some fixed $`b`$. This is a consequence of partial summation since

$$_x^+\mathrm{}\frac{r(t)}{t(\mathrm{ln}(t))^2}𝑑t=O\left(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}\right)$$

and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{2nx}{}}f(n)g(n)`$ $`=F(x)g(x){\displaystyle _2^+\mathrm{}}F(t)g^{}(t)𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle _2^x}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t\mathrm{ln}(t)}}𝑑t+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle _2^x}{\displaystyle \frac{r(t)}{t(\mathrm{ln}(t))^2}}𝑑t`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(x)){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(2))+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle _2^+\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \frac{r(t)}{t(\mathrm{ln}(t))^2}}𝑑t+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}\right)`$
leading to formula 6.28 with

$$b=\frac{1}{r}\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{ln}(2))+\frac{1}{r}_2^+\mathrm{}\frac{r(t)}{t(\mathrm{ln}(t))^2}𝑑t$$

It follows that

$$\mathrm{ln}(\underset{\begin{array}{c}px\\ pM\end{array}}{}(1\frac{1}{p})^1)=\underset{px,pM}{}\mathrm{ln}(1\frac{1}{p})=\underset{px,pM}{}\frac{1}{p}+\underset{pM}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{kp^k}\underset{pMp>x}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{kp^k}$$

Noting that

$$\underset{pM}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{kp^k}\underset{p}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{kp^k}<+\mathrm{}$$

$$\underset{pMp>x}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{kp^k}\underset{pp>x}{}\underset{k=2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{kp^k}\frac{2}{x}$$

we find a constant $`\gamma _M`$ such that:

$$\mathrm{ln}(\underset{\begin{array}{c}px\\ pM\end{array}}{}(1\frac{1}{p})^1=\frac{1}{r}\text{ln(ln(}x))+\gamma _M+O(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)})$$

Thus,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{_{\begin{array}{c}px\\ pM\end{array}}(1\frac{1}{p})}}`$ $`=e^{\gamma _M}\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}e^{O(\frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)})}`$
$`=e^{\gamma _M}\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}\left(1+O\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{ln}(x)}}\right)\right)`$
which is formula 6.25. Taking the inverse, we get formula 6.24.

###### Proposition 6.9.

Let $`M`$ be an arithmetical list of $``$ with a reason $`r>0`$. We assume that, for large $`t`$:

(6.29)
$$N_{pop}(t)A_Mt\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(t)}}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}$$

for some suitable constant $`A_M`$. Then, one has:

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M,nx}{}\frac{1}{n}rA_M\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(x)}\text{as}x+\mathrm{}$$

Proof: With Abel summation, putting $`m=[x]`$, one has:

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M,nx}{}\frac{1}{n}=_1^mN_{pop}(t)\frac{dt}{t^2}+\frac{1}{m}N_{pop}(m)$$

Clearly, $`\frac{1}{m}N_{pop}(m)A_M\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}}{\mathrm{ln}(m)}0\text{as}m+\mathrm{}`$. For large $`A`$, one may write, for $`tA`$, $`N_{pop}(t)=(A_M+o(1))t\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(t)}}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}`$, hence for $`mA`$:

$$_A^mN_{pop}(t)\frac{dt}{t^2}=(A_M+o(1))_A^m\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(t)}}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}\frac{dt}{t}=(A_M+o(1))\left[r\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(t)}\right]_{t=A}^{t=m}$$

$$=r(A_M+o(1))\left(\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(A)}\right)rA_M\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}\text{as}m+\mathrm{}$$

Now, with $`A`$ fixed, as $`1N_{pop}(t)t`$ for any $`t1`$, one has:

$$0\frac{_1^AN_{pop}(t)\frac{dt}{t^2}}{rA_M\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(A)}{rA_M\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}}0\text{when}m+\mathrm{}$$

Hence,

$$_1^mN_{pop}(t)\frac{dt}{t^2}rA_M\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}\text{as}m+\mathrm{}$$

This proves the proposition.

###### Proposition 6.10.

Let $`M`$ be an arithmetical list of $``$ with a reason $`r>0`$. We assume that

$$N_{pop}(t)A_Mt\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(t)}}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}\text{as}t+\mathrm{}$$

Then, one has, for $`x>0`$:

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}e^{nx}=x_1^+\mathrm{}N_{pop}(t)e^{tx}𝑑t$$

For $`x`$ near 0, one has

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}e^{nx}\frac{A_M}{x}\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}$$

In formula 6.3, using $`_0^+\mathrm{}=_0^1+_1^+\mathrm{}`$, we obtain that the function

$$\phi :s_1^+\mathrm{}\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}e^{nt}t^s\frac{dt}{t}$$

clearly defines an analytic function $`\phi (s)`$ for $`𝔢(s)>0`$. The remaining integral can be written:

$$_0^1\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}e^{nt}t^s\frac{dt}{t}=_0^1\frac{A_M}{t}\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{t})}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{t})}t^s\frac{dt}{t}+_0^1h(t)t^s\frac{dt}{t}$$

for some unknown function $`h(t)`$, weak near $`t=0`$. Since one has, for $`𝔢(s)>1`$

$$_0^1\frac{1}{t}\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{t})}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{t})}t^{s1}𝑑t=\frac{1}{\sqrt[r]{s1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{r})$$

we get that:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)Z_M(s)=\frac{A_M}{\sqrt[r]{s1}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{r})+_0^1h(t)t^s\frac{dt}{t}+\phi (s)$$

which is consistent with the property 3.2.
It is also known that $`_{n^{}n1}e^{nx}=\frac{1}{x}\frac{1}{2}+_{n=1}^+\mathrm{}\frac{2x}{x^2+4n^2\pi ^2}`$ and important features of $`\zeta (s)`$ are obtained from this formula. When $`M`$ is an arithmetical list with a reason $`r`$, simple arguments seems to indicate that the corresponding development of $`_{n\text{pop}_M}e^{nx}`$ looks like

$$\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}e^{nx}=\frac{B_r}{x}\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}+\underset{n\text{pop}_M}{}\frac{2x}{x^2+4n^2\pi ^2}+A(x)$$

where $`A(x)`$ is a new expression to be found. A complete knowledge of this expansion may be essential to the solution of Riemann’s conjecture.
Proof of proposition 6.10 : Let $`m^{},m2`$. By Abel summation,

$$\underset{1nmn\text{pop}_M}{}e^{nx}=x_1^mN_{pop}(t)e^{tx}𝑑t+e^{mx}N_{pop}(m)$$

Clearly, for $`x>0`$,

$$e^{mx}N_{pop}(m)m\frac{A_M\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(m)}}{\mathrm{ln}(m)}e^{mx}0\text{when}m+\mathrm{}$$

As $`1N_{pop}(t)t`$ for any $`t1`$, the function $`tN_{pop}(t)e^{tx}`$ is integrable on the interval $`[1;+\mathrm{}[`$, hence letting $`m+\mathrm{}`$, one has, for fixed $`x>0`$

$$\underset{1nn\text{pop}}{}e^{nx}=x_1^+\mathrm{}N_{pop}(t)e^{tx}𝑑t$$

since $`_{1nn\text{pop}}e^{nx}`$ is a convergent series.
Let $`A>1`$. We put $`f(t)=t\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(t)}}{\mathrm{ln}(t)}`$ for $`tA`$. One has, for large $`t`$:

$$\frac{f^{}(t)}{f(t)}=\frac{1}{t}+(\frac{1}{r}1)\frac{1}{t\mathrm{ln}(t)}\frac{1}{t}$$

and it follows from Laplace’s method that, for $`x`$ near 0:

$$_A^+\mathrm{}f(t)e^{tx}𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2)}{x}f(\frac{1}{x})=\frac{1}{x^2}\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}$$

For any $`0<ϵ<1`$, one can find $`A=A(ϵ)`$ such that, for $`tA`$, one has

$$(1ϵ)A_Mf(t)N_{pop}(t)(1+ϵ)A_Mf(t)$$

leading to

$$\begin{array}{cc}(1ϵ)A_Mx_A^+\mathrm{}f(t)e^{tx}𝑑t\hfill & x_A^+\mathrm{}N_{pop}(t)e^{tx}𝑑t\hfill \\ & (1+ϵ)A_Mx_A^+\mathrm{}f(t)e^{tx}𝑑t\hfill \end{array}$$

for any $`x>0`$, thus it remains to show that

$$\frac{x_1^AN_{pop}(t)e^{tx}𝑑t}{\frac{A_M}{x}\frac{\sqrt[r]{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}}{\mathrm{ln}(\frac{1}{x})}}0\text{as}x0$$

for $`A`$ fixed, which easily follows from $`_1^AN_{pop}(t)e^{tx}𝑑tA^2`$. This proves the proposition.

References

$`[Gr`$-$`Sc]`$ E.Grosswald, F.J.Schnitzler. A class of modified $`\zeta `$ and $`L`$-functions. Pacific J.Math., 74, 357-364, 1978.
$`[Iv]`$ A.Ivic. Mean values of the Riemann Zeta-function. Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 1991.
$`[Nar]`$ W.Narkiewicz. The development of Prime Number Theory. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg 2000.
$`[Nat]`$ M.B.Nathanson. Elementary Methods in Number Theory. volume 195 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York Berlin Heidelberg 2000.
$`[Pat]`$ S.Patterson. An introduction to the theory of the Riemann zeta function. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathemaics 14. Cambridge University Press, 1988.
$`[Ser]`$ J-P.Serre. Cours d’arithmétique. P.U.F Paris, 1970.
$`[Tit]`$ E.C.Titchmarsh. The Theory of Riemann Zeta-function. Oxford. Clarendon Press, 1951.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The main problem faced by the imaging of planetary systems is to separate the planets from their parent star. This requires two equally important capabilities: a sufficent angular resolution to separate the planet from the star and a method of supression of stellar light to fight the very high star to planet contrast (of the order of $`10^6`$ to $`10^9`$). But many characteristics of the planetary system require other capabilities and the present paper is intended to point out that the traditional couple “High angular resolution and contrast” is not the final response to all the scientific questions.

## 2 Characteristics of planets accessible to imaging

Mass: The most traditional quantity accessible beyond radial velocity measurements is the planet mass. The latter is measurable by astrometry. The astrometric precision forbidds to measure mass below a few Eerth masses. Another way to measure planet masses, with a much higher precision and down to fractions of Mars masses is to detect satellites of light planets and to infer the mass from the satellites revolution period and distance to the planet from Kepler laws (Schneider and Riaud 2001).

Radius $`R_{pl}`$: It is can in principle be deduced from the planet thermal flux $`(F_{pl})_{th}`$ given by

$$(F_{pl})_{th}=4\pi \sigma R_{pl}^2\times T_{pl}^4$$
(1)
The planet temperature $`T_{pl}`$ can be infered from the matching of a planckian function to the observed thermal spectrum (forgetting here complications due to absorption features).

Albedo $`A`$: It can be measured from the reflected flux $`(F_{pl})_{refl}`$ given by

$$(F_{pl})_{refl}(t)=F_{}\times A\times \left(\frac{R_{pl}}{2a}\right)^2\times \varphi (t)$$
(2)
where $`\varphi (t)`$ is an orbital phase factor. For a circular orbit with an “annual” period $`P`$, it is given by

$$\varphi (t)=(1\mathrm{sin}i\mathrm{sin}(2\pi t/P))/2$$
(3)
The measurement of the albedo (generally in the visible) thus requires the measurement of the thermal flux (generally in the mid-infraed region).

But this scheme faces some complications which are a priori not exceptional. Indeed, formulae (2.1) to (2.3) are valid only for spherical bodies. There are at least two situations for which a planetary companion cannot be identified to a single spherical body: planetary rings and “binary planets”.

Rings: In that case:

(1) part of the planet can be hidden by the ring (and vice versa)

(2) The ring being not spherical, for half of the orbit the observer sees its back side which is not illuminated by the star and thus completely dark (Schneider 1999 ). The planet + ring total flux can then have an orbital dependence completely different from (2.3), even in case of circular orbit. The solution is then to measure $`\varphi (t)`$ along the orbit. That requires the capability to revisit the target several times (more then 10 along the orbit).

Binary planets: By “binary planet” I mean a planet with a large satellite companion which can eventually be as large as the planet itself. In the Solar System we do not know such binary planets. But since binary asteroïds and brown dwarfs haved been discovered these last years, it is not an unrealistic speculation that binary planets may exists in other planetary systems. They would not constitute just a curiosity, their existence would disturbe the planet mass function deduced from dynamical (radial velocity, astrometric and timing) measurements.

How the separate a single from a binary planet? Even if the binary planet cannot be resolved, a straightforward way is to measure the position variations of the binary planet photocenter. Its amplitude $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{ph}`$ along a binary orbital period (“month”) is given by

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{ph}=\frac{|F_1a_1F_2a_2|}{F_1+F_2}$$
(4)
where $`F_{1,2}`$ and $`a_{1,2}`$ are the flux and the distance to the center of mass of the binary planet for each component. For the reflected stellar light and the thermal emission of the planets (assuming a rotation rate for each component sufficiently large to ensure a uniform temperature), $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{ph}`$ is of the order of 1 to 10 $`10^3`$ AU (0.1 to 1 mas at 10 pc). A special mention must be made for tidally locked satellites. For that configuration, the satellite has, at any time, a cold and a warm face. In addition to the photocenter motion, there is a variation in the thermal flux as seen by the observer along the annual orbit (Woolf 2001). The corresponding annual variation of the effective temperature of the binary planet given by

$$T_{eff}=(1+(R_1/R_2)^2)[T_{min}^4(1+\mathrm{cos}\alpha )/2+T_{max}^4(1\mathrm{cos}\alpha )/2])^{1/4}$$
(5)
where $`\alpha `$ is the angle between the line of sight and the star to planet direction. The induced monthly photocenter motion has an amplitude

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }x)_{ph}=2(a_1+a_2)\frac{(M_1T_1^4R_1^2M_2T_2^4R_2^2)}{(M_1+M_2)(T_1^4R_1^2+T_2^4R_2^2)}$$
(6)
For instance, for an Earth with a large moon (half the Earth size), the photocenter amplitude is 3.3 10<sup>-3</sup> UA (= 0.3 mas 10 pc).

Variations of the planet temperature and albedo:

Annual: It can be due to the eccentricity of the orbit or to the inclination of the planet rotation axis with respect to the normal to the orbital plane (seasonal variation). For an orbit with an eccentricity $`e`$, one simply has $`\mathrm{\Delta }T/T=e`$. In that case, the star to planet distance projected on the sky varies by an amount $`2ea\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$ ($`=0.1a`$ in case of an eccentricity 0.1 and $`\alpha =30^o`$) between two positions of extreme temperature variation.

Diurnal: The combination of the existence of surface albedo inhomegeneities (continents and oceans) with the diurnal rotation of the planet causes a periodic variation of its reflected flux. The period of this variation gives the duration of the day and its amplitude gives constraints on the surface features. For instance, on Earth, the albedo contrast continents/oceans is 200 to 300 %, giving rise to a relative flux variation of a few tenths for the whole planet.

Random: It is due to planet clouds or dust storms. On Earth, the global cloud coverage varies from 30% to 50%. For a mean surface albedo of 20% and a cloud albedo of 80%, the resulting random global albedo variation has an amplitude of 10-20%.

Some of these effects have been estimated quantitatively in the case of the Earth (Ford, Turner and Seager 2001). Nevertheless, it must be remarked that they will be difficult to disentangle from other effects (such as eccentric orbits or binary planets or planetary rings) without additional information on the planet position.

It is important to point out that several conditions must be fulfilled in order to make these effects measurable:

1. The angular resolution must be sufficient (a fraction of mas)
2. In order to detect both reflected light and thermal emission, both visible and mid infrared spectral domain must be accessible
3. The photometric precision must be sufficient to detect temperature variations (of the order of at most a few percent)
4. It must be possible to make separate exposures shorter than a planet rotation period at any time along the orbit. This exludes inertial scannning modes of the celestial sphere.

## 3 Conclusion: constraints on future space mission “architectures”

Imaging is scientifically more productive for optical architectures having, in addition to obvious angular resolution (large baseline) and stellar light rejection power

* Sufficiently flexible pointing capabilities
* Sufficient photometric precision
* Adequate spectral domain

Architectures fulfilling these conditions are feasible. For instance the “hypertelescope” concept (Labeyrie 1996) is now under study in the framework of the Terrestrial Planet Finder project (Ridgway 2000).


text:
# Experimental Implementation of Remote State Preparation by Nuclear Magnetic Resonance

## I Introduction

Quantum states are the carrier of quantum information. Preparing, controlling, accessing and transmitting quantum states constitute the important part of quantum information theory. However, the non-clone theorem of an unknown quantum state holds back the effective utilization of quantum information. One of the striking discoveries in this area is quantum teleportation, which transmits an unknown quantum state from the sender (Alice) to the receiver (Bob) by a maximally entangled channel (ebit) and two classical bit (cbit) communication, namely 1 ebit+2 cbit teleports 1 qubit. Recently, some interesting works for remote state preparation (RSP) , similar to teleportation, have been theoretically proposed by Lo, Pati and Bennett et al., which can remotely prepare a quantum state from Alice to Bob with less classical bit communication than teleportation. In their papers, they showed that for a special ensemble of states (e.g., qubit states chosen from the equator or the polar of the Bloch sphere) RSP requires only one bit of classical communication per qubit, exactly half that of teleportation, i.e., 1 ebit + 1 cbit transmits 1 qubit. But hitherto, though quantum teleportation has been implemented experimentally, RSP has not been experimentally tested yet.

In this paper, we will experimentally demonstrate RSP for a special quantum state (i.e., a qubit chosen from equator or polar great circles of a Bloch sphere), with a 2-qubit sample, carbon-13 labeled chloroform 13CHCl$`_3,`$ and complete the task that 1 ebit + 1 cbit transmits 1 qubit. For the general case, Lo conjectured that the classical communication cost of RSP is equal to that of teleportation, and their procedure would be similar. Bennett et al. showed that, in the presence of a large amount of prior entanglement, the asymptotic classical communication cost of RSP for general states is one bit per qubit. However, the experimental verification of the asymptotic character requires preparation of a large amount of entanglement source, which would be difficult to implement by the existing techniques.

## II Remote State Preparation of a Special Ensemble and the NMR Realization

Consider an arbitrary single qubit state

$$|\psi =\alpha |0+\beta |1,$$
(1)
where $`\alpha =\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)`$ is chosen to be real and $`\beta =\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$, a complex number. The state can be represented by a point in a Bloch sphere with two real parameters $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$, and obtained by a transformation $`R`$ on $`|0`$ with

$$R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)& \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }\\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)e^{i\varphi }& \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\end{array}\right)$$
(2)
The task of RSP is that Alice helps Bob in a distant laboratory to prepare the state $`|\psi `$ known to her but unknown to Bob.

Pati proposed a procedure for RSP of a qubit chosen from equatorial or polar line on a Bloch sphere. The schematic circuit for RSP is shown in Fig. 1(a).

Similar to teleportation, at first, Alice and Bob share a two-qubit maximal entangled state, i.e. an EPR state,

$$|\psi ^{}_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|1_B|1_A|0_B).$$
(3)
$`|\psi ^{}_{AB}`$ can be expanded in different orthogonal basis. We choose the qubit orthogonal basis $`\{|\psi ,|\psi _{}\}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}|\psi ^{}_{AB}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi _A|\psi _{}_B|\psi _{}_A|\psi _B),\hfill \\ =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|\psi _AU^1|\psi _B|\psi _{}_A|\psi _B).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`|\psi _{}=\alpha |1\beta ^{}|0,`$ $`\beta ^{}`$ is the complex conjugate of $`\beta `$, and $`U^1`$ is the inverse of $`U`$ which is a unitary operator to convert $`|\psi _{}`$ into $`|\psi .`$ It is possible for Alice to perform a single particle Von-Neumann measurement under the basis because of the state $`|\psi `$ known to her. Conditional on Alice’s two measurement outcomes $`|\psi `$ and $`|\psi _{},`$ Bob’s state is either $`|\psi `$ or $`U^1|\psi .`$ Thus, after Alice performs the measurement, she sends the result (one classical bit information) to Bob, who can then recover the desired state $`|\psi `$ by deciding to do nothing $`E`$ or a unitary operation $`U`$ according to the received classical information. For a special ensemble, $`U`$ can be an affirmative unitary operator to transform $`|\psi _{}`$ into $`|\psi .`$ For example, if Alice choose to prepare a polar great circles on a Bloch sphere, i. e., $`\varphi =0,|\psi =\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)|0+\mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)|1,`$ then $`U=i\sigma _y.`$ Alternatively, if Alice wish to help Bob prepare an arbitrary equatorial state such as $`|\psi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+e^{i\varphi }|1),`$ then $`U=\sigma _z.`$ However, for a general state (both $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are arbitrary), there is no universal transformation $`U`$ to take $`|\psi _{}|\psi `$ by this protocol. Therefore, RSP of an arbitrary state can be made with the success probability of 50%.

The network of RSP for a special ensemble shown in Fig. 1(b) corresponds to the schematic circuit in Fig.1(a), including three steps.

(1) Preparation of the EPR pair $`|\psi ^{}_{AB}.`$ In NMR experiments, suppose that Alice and Bob have spin $`A`$ and spin $`B`$, respectively, consisting of a bipartite spin quantum system in a $`4\times 4`$ Hilbert space $`H_AH_B.`$ The EPR pair can be prepared from a pure state $`|0_A|0_B`$ by the operations of NOT ($`N_i`$ flips the sign of spin $`i`$), the Hadamard gate ($`H_i`$ transform the states according to ($`|0\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1),|1\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)`$) and controlled-NOT ($`CN_{\overline{A}B}`$ flips spin $`B`$ if and only if $`A`$ is $`|0`$ ) gates. The $`N_A`$ , $`H_A`$ and $`CN_{\overline{A}B}`$ gates were respectively realized by the pulse sequences $`X_A(\pi )`$, $`\overline{Y}_A(\frac{\pi }{2})\overline{X}_A(\pi )`$ and $`\overline{Y}_B(\frac{\pi }{2})Z_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)Z_A\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)J_{AB}(\pi )`$ (pulses applied from right to left). By simplification methodology, the EPR pair was realized by using the pulse sequence

$$\overline{Y}_B(\frac{\pi }{2})J_{AB}(\pi )Y_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)\overline{X}_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)\overline{Y}_A\left(\pi \right)X_A\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(5)
(2) The single particle Von-Neumann measurement under the qubit basis $`\{|\psi ,|\psi _{}\}.`$ We use a two-part procedure inspired by Brassard et al. to perform the measurement . Part one of the procedure is to rotate from the basis $`\{|\psi ,|\psi _{}\}`$ into the computational basis $`\{|0,|1\}`$ by the transformation $`R^+=R^1,`$ inverse of $`R`$. Part two of the procedure is to perform a projective measurement in the computational basis.

Applying $`R_A^+`$ on the EPR pair, one gets

$$R_A^+|\psi ^{}_{AB}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0_A|\psi _{}_B|1_A|\psi _B),$$
(6)
For a polar state, the operation

$$R_A^+(\theta ,\varphi =0)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\hfill & \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\hfill \\ \mathrm{sin}(\theta /2)\hfill & \mathrm{cos}(\theta /2)\hfill \end{array}\right),$$
(7)
which can be realized by the NMR pulse sequence $`\overline{Y}_A\left(\theta \right).`$ For an equatorial state, the operation

$$R_A^+\left(\theta =90^{},\varphi \right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & e^{i\varphi }\hfill \\ e^{i\varphi }\hfill & 1\hfill \end{array}\right)$$
(8)
which can be realized by the NMR pulse sequence $`X_A\left(\theta _1\right)\overline{Y}_A\left(\theta _2\right)X_A\left(\theta _1\right),`$ where $`\theta _1=\mathrm{tan}^1\left(\mathrm{sin}\varphi \right),`$ and $`\theta _2=2\mathrm{sin}^1\left(\mathrm{cos}\varphi /\sqrt{2}\right).`$

It is possible to simulate directly the second step in NMR exploiting magnetic gradient pulses. However, it can be seen from Eq. (6) that, the final state of Alice is one of $`|0`$ and $`|1,`$ corresponding to the two different measurement results. Owing to the weak measurement of NMR, we can employ the conditional unitary operation $`S`$, instead of the projective measurement in the computational basis and the post-measurement operation.

(3) Conditional unitary operation $`S`$. It can be verified from Eq. (6), that when Alice measures the outcome of spin $`A`$ $`|0`$, Bob performs the transformation $`U`$ on spin $`B`$; when $`|1`$, Bob does nothing, then two measurement results lead to Bob in $`|\psi .`$ For a polar state, $`U=i\sigma _y,`$ the conditional unitary operation $`S=i\sigma _y^BE_+^A+E_{}^A,`$ is implemented by the pulse sequence

$$\overline{Y}_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)X_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)J_{AB}\left(\pi \right)\overline{X}_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right).$$
(9)
For an equatorial state, $`U=\sigma _z,`$ the conditional unitary operation $`S=\sigma _z^BE_+^A+E_{}^A,`$ is implemented by the pulse sequence

$$\overline{Y}_A\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)\overline{X}_A\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)Y_A\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)\overline{Y}_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)X_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)Y_B\left(\frac{\pi }{2}\right)J_{AB}\left(\pi \right).$$
(10)
(4) The measurement of the final state. After tracing out spin $`A`$ the state of spin $`B`$ is reduced to the expected form $`|\psi ,`$ which indicates the success of RSP. In principle, spin $`A`$ could be traced out experimentally by applying a decoupling field during observation of spin $`B`$. But this approach was found to lead to unacceptable sample heating, with resultant shifts in resonance frequencies. Thus, the tracing out process was implemented in software by integrating the entire multiplet of spin B after adjusting the right phase.

## III  The NMR Experiment and Results

The RSP scheme stated above was implemented by liquid-state NMR spectroscopy with carbon-13 labeled chloroform $`{}_{}{}^{13}CHCl_3`$ (Cambridge Isotope Laboratories, Inc.). To perform RSP we make use of the hydrogen nucleus $`(^1H)`$ as the sender (Alice) and the carbon nuclei $`(^{13}C)`$ as the receiver (Bob) in the experiments, transmitting the state from $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$. Spectra were recorded on a BrukerARX500 spectrometer with a probe tuned at 125.77MHz for $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$, and at 500.13MHz for the $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ . The spin-spin coupling constant $`J`$ between $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ and $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ is 214.95Hz. The relaxation times were measured to be $`T_1=4.8sec`$ and $`T_2=0.2sec`$ for the proton, and $`T_1=17.2sec`$ and $`T_2=0.35sec`$ for carbon nuclei.

The pseudo-pure state was prepared in our experiment using line-selective pulses and the gradient-pulse techniques . We performed two separate sets of experiments of the RSP process (shown in Fig.2) from $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ to $`{}_{}{}^{13}C.`$ As all NMR observables are traceless and the constant item has no effect on the NMR signal, any point on the Bloch sphere can be expressed as the product form $`I_x\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi +I_y\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi +I_z\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (apart from a constant unit matrix), which corresponds to the observable NMR signal. Using Alice’s knowledge of the qubit, an advanced operation $`R^+`$ was performed on $`{}_{}{}^{1}H`$ for a given set of $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ values. In the first set, a total of 25 qubit states chosen from a range of points on the polar line of the Bloch sphere $`\left(\varphi =0\right)`$ with a $`\theta `$ spacing of $`\pi /12`$ were studied. The second set of experiments was executed for RSP of 17 equatorial states on the Bloch sphere $`\left(\theta =\pi /2\right)`$ with a $`\varphi `$ spacing of $`\pi /8.`$ For each state the experimental spectra of $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ were recorded from the $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$ nucleus, and their real and imaginary components are plotted in Fig. 2. The experimental results clearly show the expected line, sine and cosine modulations. It can be seen from Fig. 2, there exists an same initial phase offset in the fitting curves, which maybe caused by the systemic errors, such as static magnetic field and rf field inhomogeneities and the imperfect calibrations of rf pulses, etc.. Furthermore, we reconstructed the density matrices of the obtained states by quantum state tomography, and the maximal relative errors $`<18\%,`$ where

$$=\underset{all\text{ }states}{\mathrm{max}}\left\{\frac{\rho _{theory}\rho _{\mathrm{exp}t}}{\rho _{theory}}\right\},$$
(11)
and $`\rho _{theory}`$ is the expectative state of RSP, and $`\rho _{\mathrm{exp}t}`$ is the reconstructed state by the experimental data. Besides static magnetic field and rf field inhomogeneities and the imperfect calibrations of rf pulses, the errors in experiments arise from decoherence due to the $`T_2`$ relaxations of nuclei and the environmental effects such as temperature. Nevertheless, it turns out from Fig. 2 and the reconstructed density matrices that the RSP network is effective for a special ensemble.

## IV Conclusion

In summary, we have experimentally implemented the RSP protocol by using NMR quantum logic gates and circuits in quantum information. In our experiments, RSP of a special ensemble was successfully completed by a maximally entangled channel with one classical bit communication, exactly half that of teleportation, namely 1 cbit $``$ 1 qubit. The special states distributes on the equatorial and polar circles on the Bloch sphere. The RSP protocol can be generalized to remotely prepare a large number of general qubit states in the high-entanglement limit at an asymptotic cost of one bit per qubit . Like teleportation, RSP can be applied not only to pure states, but also to parts of entangled states which has been studied by Bennett et al.. Although the communication happens between spins in angstrom distance, the concept and method of quantum information transmission should be useful for quantum computation and quantum communication.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank C. P. Sun for bringing the topic of RSP to our attention and Xiaodong Yang, Hanzheng Yuan, Xu Zhang and Guang Lu for help in the course of experiments.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1 Schematic protocol for RSP proposed by Pati (a) and the corresponding network of implementing RSP (b). $`H`$ represents the Hadamard gate and conditional operation on a spin being in the $`|1`$ state and the $`|0`$ state are represented by a filled circle and an empty circle, respectively. $`R^+`$ is demonstrated in the text.

Fig. 2 Experimental results for RSP of qubits chosen from (a) the polar line, and (b) the equatorial circle, on the Bloch sphere. Data points $``$ and $``$ denote the real and imaginary parts of the NMR signals from $`{}_{}{}^{13}C`$, respectively. The fitting expectative curves are depicted with the solid lines.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the new, precision era of cosmology, redundancy will play an increasingly important role, permitting multiple, independent, tests of and constraints on competing cosmological models, and providing a window on systematic errors which can impede progress or send us off in unprofitable directions. To illustrate the value of this approach, here the baryon density of the Universe is tracked from the first few minutes (as revealed by BBN), through the first few hundred thousand years later (as coded in the fluctuation spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background – CMB), and up to the present epoch, approximately 10 Gyr after the expansion began. Theory suggests and terrestrial experiments confirm that the baryon number is preserved throughout these epochs, so that the number of baryons ($``$ nucleons) in a comoving volume should be unchanged from BBN to today. As a surrogate for tracking a comoving volume, the nucleon density may be compared to the density of CMB relic photons. Except for the additional photons produced when e± pairs annihilate, the number of photons in any comoving volume is also preserved. As a result, the baryon density may be traced throughout the evolution of the universe utilizing the nucleon-to-photon ratio $`\eta n_\mathrm{N}/n_\gamma `$. Since the temperature of the CMB fixes the present number density of relic photons, the fraction of the critical mass/energy density in baryons (nucleons) today ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}\rho _\mathrm{B}/\rho _{crit}`$) is directly related to $`\eta `$ by, $`\eta _{10}10^{10}\eta =274\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$, where the Hubble parameter is H$`{}_{0}{}^{}100h`$ kms-1Mpc-1. According to the HST Key Project, $`h=0.72\pm 0.08`$ .

For several decades now the best constraints on $`\eta `$ have come from the comparison of the predictions of BBN with the primordial abundances of the relic nuclides D, 3He, 4He, and 7Li, as inferred from observational data. New data, of similar accuracy, which will soon be available, will enable quantitative probes of the baryon density at later epochs in the evolution of the universe. Indeed, recent CMB data has very nearly achieved this goal. Although a comparable level of precision is currently lacking for the present universe estimates, the data do permit comparisons of independent estimates of $`\eta `$ (or $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2`$) at three widely separated eras in the evolution of the universe.

## 2 The Baryon Density During The First Few Minutes

During the first few minutes in the evolution of the universe the density and temperature were sufficiently high for nuclear reactions to occur. As the universe expanded, cooled, and became more dilute, the universal nuclear reactor ceased to create or destroy nuclei. The abundances of the light nuclei formed during this epoch are determined by the competition between the time available (the universal expansion rate) and the density of the reactants: neutrons and protons. The abundances of D, 3He, and 7Li are “rate limited”, being determined by the competition between the nuclear production/destruction rates and the universal expansion rate. As such, they are sensitive to the nucleon density and have the potential to serve as “baryometers”.

Of the light, relic nuclides whose primordial abundances may probe the baryon density, deuterium is the baryometer of choice. Its predicted primordial abundance varies sigificantly with the nucleon density (D/H $`\eta ^{1.6}`$) (see Fig. 1). As a result, a primordial abundance known to, say, 10%, determines the baryon density ($`\eta `$) to $`6\%`$; truly precision cosmology! Equally important, BBN is the only astrophysical site where an “interesting” abundance of deuterium may be produced (D/H $`\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^5`$) ; the relic abundance is not enhanced by post-BBN production. Furthermore, as primordial gas is cycled through stars, deuterium is completely destroyed. Because of the small binding energy of the deuteron, this destruction occurs during pre-main sequence evolution, when stars are fully mixed. As a result, the abundance of deuterium will only have decreased (or, remained close to its primordial value) since BBN.

After some false starts, as of early 2001 there were three high-redshift (z), low-metallicity (Z) QSO absorption line systems where deuterium had been reliably detected . Earlier observations  of a system with very high D/H are widely agreed to have had insufficient velocity data to rule out contamination of the deuterium absorption by a hydrogen interloper . More recently, detection of deuterium has been claimed for another QSO absorption line system . However, the large variations in the inferred D/H, due to the uncertain velocity structure, render this line of sight inappropriate for determining the primordial deuterium abundance. An apparently more reliable, recent determination along a different line of sight yields a surprisingly small D/H . These current data, along with the D/H values for the local interstellar medium  and the pre-solar nebula  are shown in Figure 2 as a function of metallicity. At low metallicity there should be a deuterium “plateau”, whose absence, so far, is notable – and very puzzling. Clearly more data is needed. For the purpose of deriving the early universe baryon density, I will rely on the deuterium abundance proposed by O’Meara et al. : (D/H)$`{}_{\mathrm{BBN}}{}^{}3.0\pm 0.4\times 10^5`$.

From a careful comparison between the BBN predicted abundance and the adopted primordial value, the baryon density when the universe is less than a half hour old is determined (see Fig. 1): $`\eta _{10}\left(\mathrm{BBN}\right)=5.6\pm 0.5\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.020\pm 0.002\right)`$. This is truly a “precision” determination; only time will tell if it is accurate. The likelihood distribution of this BBN-derived baryon density is the curve labelled “BBN” in Figure 5.

## 3 The Baryon Density A Few Hundred Thousand Years Later

The early universe is radiation dominated and the role of “ordinary” matter (baryons) is subdominant. As the universe expands and cools, the density in non-relativistic matter becomes relatively more important, eventually dominating after a few hundred thousand years. At this stage perturbations begin growing under the influence of gravity and, on scales determined by the relative density of baryons, oscillations in the baryon-photon fluid develop. At redshift $`1100`$, when the electron-proton plasma combines to form neutral hydrogen, the CMB photons are freed to propagate thoughout the universe (“last scattering”). These CMB photons preserve the record of the baryon-photon oscillations through very small temperature fluctuations in their spectrum. These fluctuations, or anisotropies, have been detected by the newest generation of experiments, beginning with COBE  and continuing with the exciting early results from BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA-1 , providing a tool for constraining the baryon density at last scattering. In Figure 3 the status quo ante is shown. The relative heights of the odd and even peaks in the CMB angular fluctuation spectrum depend on the baryon density and these early BOOMERANG and MAXIMA-1 data favored a “high” baryon density (compare the “BBN case”, $`\eta _{10}=5.6`$, in the upper panel of Fig. 3 with that for a baryon density some 50% higher shown in the lower panel). These data posed a challenge to the consistency of the standard models of cosmology and particle physics, suggesting that the baryon number may have changed (increased) since BBN. Subsequently, new data from the DASI experiment , along with the revised and expanded BOOMERANG  and MAXIMA  data appeared. The new and revised data eliminated the challenge posed by the older results.

Although the extraction of cosmological parameters from the CMB anisotropy spectra can be very dependent on the priors adopted in the analyses (see e.g.), the baryon density inferred when the universe was a few hundred thousand years old is robust. For example, we (Kneller et al. ) find, $`\eta _{10}\left(\mathrm{CMB}\right)=6.0\pm 0.6\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.022\pm 0.002\right)`$. The likelihood distribution for this CMB-determined baryon abundance is shown in Figure 5 by the curve labelled “CMB”. The excellent agreement between the two independent estimates, BBN at a few minutes, and CMB at a few hundred thousand years, represents a spectacular success for the standard model of cosmology and illustrates the great potential for future precision tests of cosmology.

## 4 The Baryon Density At 10 Gyr

There are a variety of approaches to measuring the baryon density today, or during the very recent past. Many of these depend on assumptions concerning the relation between mass and light or, they require the adoption of a specific model for the growth of structure. The approach utilized here attempts to avoid such model-dependent assumptions. Instead, the data from the SNIa magnitude-redshift surveys , is used along with the assumption of a flat universe (this latter receives strong support from the newest CMB data ) to pin down the total matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$). This is then combined with an estimate of the universal baryon fraction ($`f_\mathrm{B}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}/\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$) derived from studies of the X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies. For more details on this approach, see  and .

In Figure 4 are shown the SNIa-constrained 68% and 95% contours in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ plane. The expansion of the universe is currently accelerating for those models which lie above the (dashed) q$`{}_{0}{}^{}=0`$ line. The $`k=0`$ line is for a “flat” (zero 3-space curvature) universe. As shown in , adopting the assumption of flatness and assuming the validity of the SNIa data, leads to a reasonably accurate ($`25\%`$) estimate of the present matter density: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}(\mathrm{SNIa};\mathrm{Flat})=0.28_{0.07}^{+0.08}`$.

As the largest collapsed objects, rich clusters of galaxies provide an ideal probe of the baryon fraction in the present/recent universe. Observations of the X-ray emission from clusters of galaxies permit constraints on the hot gas content of such clusters which, when corrected for the baryons in stars (but, unfortunately, not for any dark baryons!), may be used to estimate (or bound) $`f_\mathrm{B}`$. From observations of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect in X-ray clusters, the hot gas fraction may be constrained  and used to estimate $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ . The combination of $`f_\mathrm{B}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$ is then used to derive a present-universe ($`t_010`$ Gyr; $`z\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$) baryon density: $`\eta _{10}(\mathrm{SNIa};\mathrm{Flat})=5.1_{1.4}^{+1.8}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.019_{0.005}^{+0.007}\right)`$. In Figure 5 the corresponding likelihood distribution for the present universe baryon density is shown labelled by“SNIa”. Although the uncertainties are largest for this present-universe value, it is in excellent agreement with the other, independent estimates.

## 5 Summary – Concordance

The abundances of the relic nuclides produced during BBN reflect the baryon density present during the first few minutes in the evolution of the universe. Of these relics from the early universe, deuterium is the baryometer of choice. Although more data is to be desired, the current data permit reasonably constrained estimates of the abundance of primordial deuterium, leading to a tight constraint on the early universe baryon-to-photon ratio $`\eta _{10}\left(\mathrm{BBN}\right)=5.6\pm 0.5`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$).

Several hundred thousand years later, when the universe became transparent to the CMB radiation, the baryon density was imprinted on the temperature fluctuation spectrum. In determining the baryon density, the current CMB data have a precision approaching that of BBN: $`\eta _{10}\left(\mathrm{CMB}\right)=6.0\pm 0.6`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.022\pm 0.002`$). The excellent agreement between the BBN and CMB values (see Fig. 5) provides strong support for the standard model of cosmology.

In the present universe most baryons are dark ($`\eta \left(\mathrm{LUM}\right)\eta \left(\mathrm{BBN}\right)\eta \left(\mathrm{CMB}\right)`$), so that estimates of the baryon density some 10 billion years after the expansion began are more uncertain and, often model-dependent. In § 4 an estimate of the total matter density ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{M}`$) derived from the SNIa magnitude-redshift data was combined with the assumption of a flat universe to derive $`\eta _{10}(\mathrm{SNIa};\mathrm{Flat})=5.1_{1.4}^{+1.8}`$ ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{B}h^2=0.019_{0.005}^{+0.007}`$). Although this estimate is of lower statistical accuracy than those from BBN or the CMB, it is in agreement with them (see Fig. 5). Note that if the mass of dark baryons in clusters were similar to the stellar mass, the present-universe baryon density estimate would increase by $`10\%`$, bringing it into essentially perfect overlap with the BBN and CMB values.

Increasingly precise observational data have permitted us to track the baryon density from the big bang to the present. At widely separated epochs, from the first few minutes, through the first few hundred thousand years, to the present, $``$ ten billion year old universe, a consistent value for the baryon abundance is revealed. This remarkable concordance of the standard, hot, big bang cosmological model is strikingly revealed by the overlapping likelihood distributions for the universal baryon abundances shown in Figure 5.

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and its extremely efficient staff for having organized such an exciting and informative symposium. The research described here is supported by the U.S. D.O.E. through grant DE-FG02-91ER-40690.