Codex @codex  0

An arithmetic function $f$ is a multiplicative function when $f(1)=1$ and $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ for all coprime integers $m,n>0$, meaning their greatest common divisor is $1$. The condition $f(1)=1$ excludes the identically zero function. This definition makes no assertion about a pair whose greatest common divisor exceeds $1$. ^[ref]

For the divisor function, the integer divisors of $2$ are $1,2$, those of $3$ are $1,3$, and those of $6$ are $1,2,3,6$. HenceHere $2$ and $3$ are coprime integers. In contrast, $\tau (4)=3\ne 4=\tau (2{)}^2$, because the integer divisors of $4$ are $1,2,4$. Thus the divisor function is a multiplicative function but not a completely multiplicative function.

The practical gain is that prime factorization reduces all values to values at prime powers. For distinct prime numbers $p_1,\dots ,p_r$ and positive exponents $a_1,\dots ,a_r$,For instance, $f(12)=f(4)f(3)$ since $4$ and $3$ are coprime integers; replacing $f(4)$ by $f(2{)}^2$ additionally requires a completely multiplicative function. The short proof repeatedly applies the defining rule to prime powers belonging to different prime numbers, which are coprime integers.

The Dirichlet convolution of two multiplicative functions is a multiplicative function. For positive coprime integers $m,n$, every positive integer divisor of $mn$ has a unique form $de$ with $d\mid m$ and $e\mid n$, by prime factorization. The pairs $d,e$ and $m/d,n/e$ are each coprime integers, so the defining rules for the two multiplicative functions separate the sum:Also $(f\ast g)(1)=f(1)g(1)=1$. This short argument proves multiplicativity of both the divisor function $1\ast 1$ and the sum-of-divisors function $\mathrm{id}\ast 1$. The result need not be a completely multiplicative function, even when both inputs are: $1\ast 1=\tau$ fails at $2\cdot 2$. ^[ref]

For the full modular group $\Gamma =S{L}_2(\mathbb{Z})$ and integer weight $k$, a modular form is a holomorphic function on the upper half-plane satisfyingand holomorphic at the cusp at infinity. Explicitly, periodicity under $\tau \mapsto \tau +1$ gives a Fourier expansion of a modular form in $q=e^{2\pi i\tau }$, and holomorphy at the cusp means $f={\sum }_{n\ge 0}{a}_n{q}^n$. A cusp form has $a_0=0$. All cusps are equivalent for this group. The matrix $-I$ forces $f=(-1{)}^{k}f$, so every odd-weight modular form is zero.

There is a corresponding qualification to the displayed Eisenstein series formula: the Bernoulli-normalized formula is for even integers $k\ge 4$. For odd integers $k>2$, pairing $(m,n)$ with $(-m,-n)$ gives $G_k=0$, while $B_k=0$, so the printed expression divided by $B_k$ is undefined. We prove the asserted nonzero formula in its even-weight range.

On each compact set in the upper half-plane, the real-linear map $(m,n)\mapsto m\tau +n$ has a uniformly bounded inverse. Hence $|m\tau +n|\ge C(m^2+n^2{)}^{1/2}$ there. For $k>2$, lattice convergence gives locally uniform absolute convergence of $G_k$, and therefore holomorphy. If $\gamma =\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)\in \Gamma$, thenThe map $(m,n)\mapsto (ma+nc,mb+nd)$ permutes the nonzero integer pairs. Reindexing proves the weight-$k$ transformation law.

To compute the Fourier expansion of a normalized Eisenstein series, start from the cotangent partial-fraction expansionFor $\mathrm{Im}z>0$, the cotangent Fourier expansion is $\pi \cot (\pi z)=-\pi i-2\pi i{\sum }_{r\ge 1}{e}^{2\pi irz}$. Differentiating both normally convergent expressions $k-1$ times givesFor even $k$, the terms with $m=0$ sum to $2\zeta (k)$, and the terms with $m<0$ duplicate those with $m>0$. Substituting $z=m\tau$ in the last identity and collecting $N=mr$ givesThe rearrangement is absolutely convergent for every $|q|<1$, since the divisor function grows at most polynomially.

For completeness, the normalization follows directly from the definition of the Bernoulli numbers. Near zero, the cotangent partial-fraction expansion givesOn the other hand $\pi \cot (\pi z)=\pi i+2\pi i/(e^{2\pi iz}-1)$. Substitute $t=2\pi iz$ in the generating function of the Bernoulli numbers. The term $B_1=-1/2$ cancels $\pi i$, and the higher odd terms vanish because $t/(e^t-1)+t/2$ is even. Comparison of Laurent coefficients proves the Euler evaluation of even zeta valuesThusThis Fourier series also proves holomorphy at infinity, completing the modular form verification.

For the Ramanujan congruence modulo 691, the standard facts we use are that the modular discriminant is the weight-twelve cusp form $\Delta =q{\prod }_{n\ge 1}(1-q^n{)}^{24}={\sum }_{n\ge 1}\tau (n)q^n$, and that $S_{12}=\mathbb{C}\Delta$. The latter also follows from the valence formula for the modular group: a nonzero weight-twelve modular form has total weighted zero order one, so a cusp form whose coefficient of $q$ vanishes would have cusp order at least two and must be zero. The product makes the Ramanujan tau function integer-valued.

Write $E_k=G_k/(2\zeta (k))$. Using $B_4=-1/30$ and the supplied $B_{12}=-691/2730$, we haveBoth $E_{12}$ and $E_4^3$ have weight twelve and constant term one. Their difference is a cusp form, so is a multiple of $\Delta$. Its coefficient of $q$ is $65520/691-720=-432000/691$, which determines that multiple:The coefficients of $E_4^3$ are integers. Comparing the positive-index Fourier coefficients and reducing modulo $691$ therefore gives $65520{\sigma }_{11}(n)\equiv -432000\tau (n)$. Both numerical constants are congruent to $566$ modulo $691$, and $\gcd (566,691)=1$. Cancellation proves

A precise useful form of the principle is the type I–type II inverse principle for Möbius correlation. Normalize $|f(n)|\le 1$, and supposeFor any positive integer cutoffs $U,V$ with $U+V\le \delta X/2$, defineThen $|c_d|,|a_d|\le \tau (d)$, where $\tau$ is the divisor function, and at least one of the following two sums has modulus at least $\delta X/4$:The first is correlation against a controlled linear combination of indicators of multiples of small moduli, each a periodic function: this is the “somewhat periodic” branch. The second is a bilinear sum with independently weighted factors, both larger than the cutoffs: this is the “somewhat multiplicative” branch. The statement concerns these precise correlations, not an assertion that $f$ must itself be periodic or multiplicative.

For clarity, the Vaughan identity for the Möbius function proves this version immediately. Split $\mu ={\mu }_{\le U}+{\mu }_{>U}$ and likewise at $V$. Since $\mu \ast \mu \ast 1=\mu$,Multiply by $f(n)$ and sum. The first two terms contribute at most $U+V$ in modulus, and the remaining terms are $-T_{\mathrm{I}}+T_{\mathrm{II}}$. The triangle inequality gives the stated dichotomy. It is valid at finite $X$ and for any chosen cutoffs in the indicated range.

We now prove the required orthogonality without appealing to a stronger uniform exponential-sum theorem. Write $\alpha =\sqrt{2}$ and $e(u)=e^{2\pi iu}$. The Diophantine bound for the square root of two iswhere $\Vert u\Vert$ is distance to the nearest integer. If $a$ is that nearest integer, then $|2h^2-a^2|\ge 1$, while $h\sqrt{2}+a\le 4h$; dividing proves the bound.

Use the preceding Dirichlet convolution identity with $U=V=P=\lfloor X^{1/10}\rfloor$. The two short terms are $O(P)$. For the type I sum, the exponential geometric sum bound givesConsequentlyusing ${\sum }_{d\le Y}\tau (d)\ll Y\log (2Y)$ from counting factor pairs.

For the type II sum, perform a dyadic decomposition into $d\in (D,2D]$, $w\in (W,2W]$, keeping $dw\le X$. Nonempty blocks have $DW<X$, while $D,W\gg P$. A block $B$ satisfies, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the divisor-square summatory bound,To justify the cutoff, after expanding the square the permissible $d$ for a pair $w,w^{\prime }$ still form an interval, with upper endpoint $\min (2D,X/\max (w,w^{\prime }))$. Its exponential sum has the same geometric bound. Diagonal pairs supply $DW$; for each nonzero difference $h=w-w^{\prime }$ there are $O(W)$ pairs.

The points $0,\alpha ,2\alpha ,\dots ,\lfloor W\rfloor \alpha$ modulo one are separated by at least $1/(4W)$. Counting points in consecutive distance bands around zero therefore givesSubstitution yields the bilinear cancellation for badly approximable phases estimateThere are $O({\log }^{2}X)$ blocks, so $T_{\mathrm{II}}\ll X^{19/20}{\log }^{4}X$. The divisor-square bound itself can be obtained elementarily from $\tau (n{)}^2\le {\tau }_4(n)$ prime-power by prime-power and ${\sum }_{n\le Y}{\tau }_4(n)\le Y(1+\log Y{)}^3$; no uncontrolled coefficient bound is being suppressed.

Combining the short, type I and type II terms,Hence

Put $P(t)={\sum }_{n\le \sqrt{t/(2\pi )}}{n}^{-1/2-it}$. The given bound for the Riemann zeta function, together with $(a+b{)}^4\le 8(a^4+b^4)$ for $a,b\ge 0$, givesThe integral over $[0,1]$ is bounded, since the Riemann zeta function has no pole on this compact segment. It remains to estimate the fourth moment of the Riemann zeta function through this moving Dirichlet polynomial cutoff.

Let $L=\lfloor \sqrt{T/(2\pi )}\rfloor$ and $Y=L^2$. In the expansion of $|P(t){|}^4$, a quadruple $n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4\le L$ occurs precisely forIts oscillatory factor is $e^{it\log (n_3{n}_4/(n_1{n}_2))}$, and its weight is $(n_1{n}_2{n}_3{n}_4{)}^{-1/2}$. When $n_1{n}_2=n_3{n}_4$, its integral has length at most $T$. When these products differ, its integral over $[t_0,T]$ has absolute value at most $2/|\log (n_3{n}_4/(n_1{n}_2))|$. Thus the moving cutoff affects the lower endpoint but preserves the off-diagonal bound from part (a).

Write $r_L(m)=\#\{(a,b):a,b\le L,ab=m\}$. The divisor function $d(m)$ bounds $r_L(m)$. Grouping the off-diagonal majorant by the two products and using the weighted row-sum argument in part (a), with coefficient $r_L(m)$ and $\sigma =1/2$, bounds it byThis uses only the given divisor-square summatory bound. For bounded $T$, the desired conclusions follow by boundedness on compact segments, so these estimates may be read for large $T$ with $Y\ge 2$. We have proved the requested diagonal-plus-error estimate:

The diagonal sum equals ${\sum }_{m\le Y}{r}_L(m{)}^2/m\le {\sum }_{m\le Y}d(m{)}^2/m$. If $D(x)={\sum }_{m\le x}d(m{)}^2\ll x{\log }^3(2x)$, then partial summation givesConsequently the full fourth-moment bound is

Take both functions to be the constant arithmetic function $1$. Thenso the divisor function is multiplicative by part (a). For $s$ with $\mathrm{Re}s>1$, the relevant Dirichlet series are absolutely convergent, so their Cauchy product may be rearranged:Equivalently, Dirichlet convolution becomes multiplication of absolutely convergent Dirichlet series.

If $n={\prod }_{p^{\alpha }\parallel n}{p}^{\alpha }$, multiplicativity and the prime-power formula for the divisor function giveChoose $P_0=2^{1/ϵ}$. For $p\ge P_0$ and $\alpha \ge 1$, the elementary bound $\alpha +1\le 2^{\alpha }$ givesFor each of the finitely many primes $p<P_0$, the sequence $(\alpha +1)p^{-\alpha ϵ}$ tends to zero and therefore has a finite maximum $M_p$ over $\alpha \ge 0$. Consequentlyuniformly in $n$, which proves $\tau (n)\le C(ϵ)n^{ϵ}$.

A prime number is a positive integer $p>1$ whose only positive divisors are $1$ and $p$. The first ten prime numbers are $2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29$. In contrast, $12=3\cdot 4$ is a composite number because it has a positive divisor strictly between one and itself. The integer one is neither a prime number nor a composite number: the lower bound $p>1$ is part of the definition. Equivalently, the divisor function satisfies $\tau (p)=2$ for a prime number, whereas $\tau (1)=1$ and $\tau (n)\ge 3$ for every composite number $n$.

Prime numbers are the building blocks of positive integers under multiplication. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic says that every integer greater than one is a product of prime numbers, with a unique collection of factors when their order is ignored. For example, $12=2\cdot 2\cdot 3$ and $18=2\cdot 3\cdot 3$. Their common factors reveal the greatest common divisor $6$, and the combined maximum powers reveal the least common multiple $36$. A complicated divisibility question becomes a comparison of prime exponents.

There is also a useful finite test. If a composite number $n$ equals $ab$ with $1<a\le b$, then $a^2\le n$. Therefore some prime factor is at most $\sqrt{n}$, and trial division only needs to check prime numbers up to that square root. For $97$, checking $2,3,5,7$ suffices; none divides $97$, so it is a prime number. For $91$, the same test finds $7$, giving $91=7\cdot 13$. To find many prime numbers together, the sieve of Eratosthenes reuses the work by marking multiples.

The division with remainder calculations for $97$ make the test explicit:Since $9^2<97<10^2$, these are all the prime numbers at most its square root, and every remainder is nonzero. Thus the calculation certifies a prime number, without testing the integers $8,9,10,\dots ,96$ individually. In contrast, $91=7\cdot 13+0$ gives a prime factor and proves that $91$ is a composite number.

The definition has a long history. Book VII of Euclid's Elements distinguishes prime numbers from composite numbers through their possible measures; Book IX, Proposition 20 establishes that no finite list exhausts the prime numbers. The modern argument under Euclid's theorem needs only divisibility, so it proves an infinite conclusion without estimating how frequently prime numbers occur. ^{[ref] [ref]}.

For each $\eta >0$, the divisor function satisfies the displayed bound. Write $n=\prod p^{a_p}$, so $\tau (n)=\prod (a_p+1)$. For all sufficiently large primes, $a+1\le 2^a\le p^{\eta a}$ for every $a\ge 0$. For each of the finitely many smaller primes, ${\sup }_{a\ge 0}(a+1)p^{-\eta a}$ is finite. Multiplying these finitely many constants proves the bound. Products of a fixed number of divisor functions obey the same conclusion after reducing $\eta$.

The sum-of-divisors function adds all positive integer divisors of a positive integer, including the number itself:It is the divisor sum of the identity arithmetic function $\mathrm{id}(n)=n$, so $\sigma =\mathrm{id}\ast 1$ under Dirichlet convolution. Both factors are multiplicative functions, hence so is the sum-of-divisors function. The notation ${\sigma }_1$ distinguishes it from other weighted divisor sums. ^[ref]

For a prime number $p$ and a nonnegative exponent $a$, the positive integer divisors of the prime power $p^a$ are precisely $1,p,\dots ,p^a$. Their finite geometric series givesFor example, $\sigma (8)=1+2+4+8=15=(2^4-1)/(2-1)$. For a prime factorization $n={\prod }_{k=1}^r{p}_k^{a_k}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_k$ and positive exponents $a_k$, multiplicativity givesFor $n=1$, this is an empty product, equal to $1$. ^[ref]

The distributive property makes the formula especially beautiful: choosing one term from each factor produces each positive integer divisor exactly once, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. For $12=4\cdot 3=2^2\cdot 3$, the choices form a three-by-two grid with entries $2^i{3}^j$, where $0\le i\le 2$ and $0\le j\le 1$. Adding its rows givesThe divisor function counts six cells; the sum-of-divisors function adds their six values. Once the prime factorization is known, the product formula avoids testing every candidate integer divisor. Shared prime factors require care: $\sigma (4)=7\ne 9=\sigma (2{)}^2$, so the sum-of-divisors function is not a completely multiplicative function.

Subtracting the number itself gives the proper-divisor sum $s(n)=\sigma (n)-n$. Comparing $s(n)$ with $n$ distinguishes perfect numbers, deficient numbers, and abundant numbers. For $6$, $s(6)=1+2+3=6$; for $28$, $s(28)=1+2+4+7+14=28$. Both are perfect numbers. The calculation $s(8)=1+2+4=7<8$ makes $8$ a deficient number, while $s(12)=1+2+3+4+6=16>12$ makes $12$ an abundant number. These comparisons turn the sizes of integer divisors into a classification of positive integers. ^[ref]

This connection is ancient: Euclid's Elements, Book IX, Proposition 36, constructs a perfect number by multiplying the last term of $1,2,\dots ,2^{k-1}$ by their sum, when that sum is a prime number. In modern notation, put $q=2^k-1$ and $N=2^{k-1}q$, with $k\ge 2$ and $q$ a prime number. The sum-of-divisors function proves the construction immediately:Consequently the proper-divisor sum is $s(N)=N$. Taking $k=2,3$ produces the perfect numbers $6,28$. ^[ref]

For $|f|\le 1$, if $|{\sum }_{n\le X}\mu (n)f(n)|\ge \delta X$ and $U+V\le \delta X/2$, the Vaughan identity for the Möbius function gives a type I sum or a type II sum of modulus at least $\delta X/4$. The first is ${\sum }_{d\le UV}{c}_d{\sum }_{k\le X/d}f(dk)$, with $c_d={\sum }_{bc=d,b\le U,c\le V}\mu (b)\mu (c)$. The second is ${\sum }_{d>V,w>U,dw\le X}{a}_d\mu (w)f(dw)$, with $a_d={\sum }_{c\mid d,c>V}\mu (c)$. Both coefficient sequences are bounded by the divisor function. Thus correlation forces either detection by small-modulus periodic indicators or a large multiplicatively organized bilinear sum, without claiming that $f$ itself is literally periodic or multiplicative.