alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Spectral synthesis for the Báez–Duarte step space

AI contributions
  • OpenAI’s AI tools
View details

Abstract

We prove that the closed Báez–Duarte subspace of the Mellin step space is exactly the common kernel of the derivative evaluations prescribed by the zeros of the Riemann zeta function in Re⁡s>1/2\operatorname{Re}s>1/2, with their multiplicities. No finiteness or sparsity assumption on this zero set is required. The proof combines a uniform fractional regularity estimate for Mellin transforms of step functions with a comparison obtained by reflecting zeros in a shifted vertical line. These estimates produce a holomorphic Hardy-space family whose membership in the Báez–Duarte subspace continues from large positive shifts to every sufficiently small positive shift. A uniformly bounded weak limit then gives the synthesis theorem.

The step space and the synthesis theorem

For a≥0a \ge0, set

Ωa={s∈C:Re⁡s>12+a},Ω=Ω0.\Omega_a = \{s \in\mathbb{C} : \operatorname{Re} s > \frac{1}{2} + a\}, \qquad\Omega= \Omega_0.

We use the normalization

∥h∥H2(Ωa)2=sup⁡σ>1/2+a12π∫R∣h(σ+it)∣2 dt.(1)\lVert h \rVert_{H^2(\Omega_a)}^2 = \sup_{\sigma> 1/2+a} \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{\mathbb{R}} \lvert h(\sigma+ it)\rvert^2\,dt. \tag*{(1)}

The Mellin transform

(Mh)(s)=∫01h(u)us−1 du(\mathcal{M}h)(s) = \int_0^1 h(u)u^{s-1}\,du

is an isometry from L2(0,1)L^2(0,1) onto H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega). Let SS be the Mellin image of the closed subspace of functions constant almost everywhere on each interval

Cm=(1m+1,1m],m∈N.C_m = \left(\frac{1}{m+1},\frac{1}{m}\right], \qquad m \in\mathbb{N}.

For f∈Sf \in S, write fmf_m for its value on CmC_m before taking the Mellin transform. Thus

∥f∥2=∑m≥1∣fm∣2m(m+1),em(s)=m−s−(m+1)−ss(2)\lVert f\rVert^2 = \sum_{m \ge1}\frac{\lvert f_m\rvert^2}{m(m+1)}, \qquad e_m(s) = \frac{m^{-s}-(m+1)^{-s}}{s} \tag*{(2)}

are, respectively, the norm and an orthogonal basis of SS. This is the Mellin formulation of the Báez–Duarte system [1, 2].

For each integer l≥2l \ge2, define

Gl(s)=(l−s−l−1)ζ(s)s,V=span⁡{Gl:l≥2}‾S.(3)G_l(s) = \left(l^{-s}-l^{-1}\right)\frac{\zeta(s)}{s}, \qquad V = \overline{\operatorname{span}\{G_l:l \ge2\}}^{S}. \tag*{(3)}

The singularity at s=1s = 1 is removable. Indeed, GlG_l is the Mellin transform of the negative of the step function

ql(u)={1lu}−1l{1u}.(4)q_l(u) = \left\{\frac{1}{lu}\right\} - \frac{1}{l}\left\{\frac{1}{u}\right\}. \tag*{(4)}

Here {⋅}\{\cdot\} denotes fractional part. On CmC_m, ql=m/l−⌊m/l⌋q_l = m/l - \lfloor m/l\rfloor, so Gl∈SG_l \in S.

Let Z+\mathbb{Z}^{+} be the set of zeros of ζ\zeta in Ω\Omega, and let m(ρ)m(\rho) be the multiplicity of ρ\rho. Define

J={f∈S:f(j)(ρ)=0 for all ρ∈Z+ and 0≤j<m(ρ)}.(5)J=\{f\in S:f^{(j)}(\rho)=0\text{ for all }\rho\in\mathbb{Z}^{+}\text{ and }0\le j<m(\rho)\}. \tag*{(5)}

Interior derivative evaluations are continuous on H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega), so JJ is closed. The formula for GlG_l gives V⊆JV\subseteq J.

Theorem 1.1 (Full spectral synthesis). The spaces in (3) and (5) satisfy

V=J.V=J.

The conclusion holds whether Z+\mathbb{Z}^{+} is empty, finite, or infinite, and requires no additional condition on the distribution or multiplicities of its zeros.

The theorem identifies the closed subspace determined by the off-line zero jets. It does not assert that Z+\mathbb{Z}^{+} is empty. The finite-zero case and a conditional infinite-zero case are treated in [5]; the proof below does not use either result.

Throughout, implied constants may depend on explicitly fixed compact parameter ranges. We use the standard inner–outer factorization and Smirnov boundary theorem for half-plane Hardy spaces [4]. In particular, a function in the Smirnov class with square-integrable boundary values belongs to H2H^2, and division by a Blaschke product whose zeros are canceled preserves the H2H^2 norm.

Uniform fractional regularity of Mellin steps

Lemma 2.1. Let A>0A>0 and 0<α0<1/20<\alpha_0<1/2. There is a constant C=C(A,α0)C=C(A,\alpha_0) such that, for every f∈Sf\in S,

12π∫R(1+∣t∣)2α∣f(12+a+it)∣2 dt≤C∥f∥S2(6)\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}(1+|t|)^{2\alpha}|f(\tfrac{1}{2}+a+it)|^2\,dt\le C\|f\|_S^2 \tag*{(6)}

whenever 0≤a≤A0\le a\le A and 0≤α≤min⁡(a,α0)0\le\alpha\le\min(a,\alpha_0). At a=0a=0 the boundary values are understood in the Hardy-space sense. Moreover,

(s+1)αf(s)∈H2(Ωa),∥(s+1)αf(s)∥H2(Ωa)≤C′∥f∥S.(7)(s+1)^\alpha f(s)\in H^2(\Omega_a),\qquad\|(s+1)^\alpha f(s)\|_{H^2(\Omega_a)}\le C'\|f\|_S. \tag*{(7)}

The power uses the holomorphic logarithm on Re⁡(s+1)>0\operatorname{Re}(s+1)>0.

Proof. Put u=e−yu=e^{-y} and extend all functions of yy by zero to y<0y<0. The function t↦f(12+a+it)t\mapsto f(\tfrac{1}{2}+a+it) is the Fourier transform of

ha(y)=∑m≥1ha,m(y),ha,m(y)=fme−(1/2+a)y1Im(y),h_a(y)=\sum_{m\ge1}h_{a,m}(y),\qquad h_{a,m}(y)=f_m e^{-(1/2+a)y}\mathbf{1}_{I_m}(y),

where

Im=[log⁡m,log⁡(m+1)),ℓm=∣Im∣≍m−1.I_m=[\log m,\log(m+1)),\qquad\ell_m=|I_m|\asymp m^{-1}.

If Mm=∥ha,m∥22M_m=\|h_{a,m}\|_2^2, then

Mm≤m−2a∣fm∣2m(m+1).(8)M_m\le m^{-2a}\frac{|f_m|^2}{m(m+1)}. \tag*{(8)}

For 0<α<1/20<\alpha<1/2, the Fourier characterization of the fractional seminorm is

12π∫R∣t∣2α∣h^(t)∣2 dt=dα∫R∫R∣h(y)−h(v)∣2∣y−v∣1+2α dy dv.(9)\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|t|^{2\alpha}|\widehat{h}(t)|^2\,dt =d_\alpha\int_{\mathbb{R}}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{|h(y)-h(v)|^2}{|y-v|^{1+2\alpha}}\,dy\,dv. \tag*{(9)}

where

dα−1=∫R∣eir−1∣2∣r∣1+2α dr,dα≍α(0<α≤α0).d_\alpha^{-1}=\int_{\mathbb{R}}\frac{|e^{ir}-1|^2}{|r|^{1+2\alpha}}\,dr,\qquad d_\alpha\asymp\alpha\quad(0<\alpha\le\alpha_0).

The identity follows from Plancherel and Tonelli; see also [3]. The comparison near α=0\alpha=0 follows by splitting the last integral at ∣r∣=1|r|=1: the tail is of order 1/α1/\alpha and the integral near zero stays bounded on the indicated range.

Consider one cell I=[L,R)I=[L,R) of length ℓ=ℓm\ell=\ell_m. The maximum and minimum of e−(1/2+a)ye^{-(1/2+a)y} on II have uniformly bounded ratio. The part of the double integral in (9) with one variable outside II is therefore bounded by

CMmℓ−2αα(1−2α).(10)\frac{CM_m\ell^{-2\alpha}}{\alpha(1-2\alpha)}. \tag*{(10)}

Indeed, integration in the outside variable produces the factors (y−L)−2α/(2α)(y-L)^{-2\alpha}/(2\alpha) and (R−y)−2α/(2α)(R-y)^{-2\alpha}/(2\alpha), while ∥ha,m∥∞2≤CMm/ℓ\|h_{a,m}\|_\infty^2\le CM_m/\ell. For y,v∈Iy,v\in I, the mean value theorem gives

∣ha,m(y)−ha,m(v)∣2≤C(Mm/ℓ)∣y−v∣2.|h_{a,m}(y)-h_{a,m}(v)|^2\le C(M_m/\ell)|y-v|^2.

Consequently the contribution from I×II\times I is at most CMmℓ2−2α≤CMmℓ−2αCM_m\ell^{2-2\alpha}\le CM_m\ell^{-2\alpha}. Multiplying these estimates by dα≪αd_\alpha\ll\alpha yields

∥ha,m∥22+12π∫R∣t∣2α∣h^a,m(t)∣2 dt≤Cℓm−2αMm,(11)\|h_{a,m}\|_2^2+\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}|t|^{2\alpha}|\widehat{h}_{a,m}(t)|^2\,dt\le C\ell_m^{-2\alpha}M_m, \tag*{(11)}

uniformly for 0<α≤α00<\alpha\le\alpha_0.

At any pair (y,v)(y,v), at most two of the differences ha,m(y)−ha,m(v)h_{a,m}(y)-h_{a,m}(v) are nonzero. Hence, for finite sums,

∣ha(y)−ha(v)∣2≤2∑m∣ha,m(y)−ha,m(v)∣2.|h_a(y)-h_a(v)|^2\le2\sum_m|h_{a,m}(y)-h_{a,m}(v)|^2.

Using (8) and (11), the total cost is bounded by

C∑m≥1m2α−2a∣fm∣2m(m+1)≤C∥f∥S2.C\sum_{m\ge1}m^{2\alpha-2a}\frac{|f_m|^2}{m(m+1)}\le C\|f\|_S^2.

Finite truncations converge in the corresponding fractional norm, so the same estimate holds for every f∈Sf\in S. Since (1+∣t∣)2α≤C(1+∣t∣2α)(1+|t|)^{2\alpha}\le C(1+|t|^{2\alpha}) uniformly in α\alpha, this proves (6) for α>0\alpha>0. For α=0\alpha=0 it is Plancherel’s theorem.

Finally, f∣Ωa∈H2(Ωa)f|_{\Omega_a}\in H^2(\Omega_a) and (s+1)α(s+1)^\alpha is the reciprocal of a bounded outer function there. Thus their product is in the Smirnov class. The weights ∣32+a+it∣α|\frac{3}{2}+a+it|^\alpha and (1+∣t∣)α(1+|t|)^\alpha are uniformly comparable in the prescribed range. The Smirnov boundary theorem and (6) now imply (7).

Remark 2.2. Suppose that BB is a Blaschke product on Ωa\Omega_a and that f∈Sf\in S vanishes at all its zeros with at least their multiplicities. Under the hypotheses of Lemma 2.1, inner division gives

∥(s+1)αf(s)B(s)∥H2(Ωa)=∥(s+1)αf(s)∥H2(Ωa)≤C′∥f∥S.(12)\left\|\frac{(s+1)^\alpha f(s)}{B(s)}\right\|_{H^2(\Omega_a)} =\|(s+1)^\alpha f(s)\|_{H^2(\Omega_a)} \le C^\prime\|f\|_S. \tag*{(12)}

In particular, the constant does not depend on the number or separation of the zeros of BB.

Reflection of the completed zeta function

Write

ξ(s)=A(s)ζ(s),A(s)=12s(s−1)π−s/2Γ(s/2),X(z)=ξ(12+z).(13)\xi(s)=A(s)\zeta(s),\qquad A(s)=\frac{1}{2}s(s-1)\pi^{-s/2}\Gamma(s/2),\qquad X(z)=\xi\left(\frac{1}{2}+z\right). \tag*{(13)}

The function XX is even, entire of order one, and satisfies X(z‾)=X(z)‾X(\overline{z})=\overline{X(z)}. Its zeros lie in ∣Re⁡z∣<1/2|\operatorname{Re}z|<1/2 and none are real. We use the usual canonical product and zero-counting formula for ξ\xi [6].

Let ν(β,γ)\nu(\beta,\gamma) be the multiplicity of XX at β+iγ\beta+i\gamma. For 0≤a<1/20\le a<1/2, define

Ba(z)=∏β+iγ∈Z(X)β>a, γ>0((z−β)2+γ2(z+β−2a)2+γ2)ν(β,γ).(14)B_a(z)=\prod_{\substack{\beta+i\gamma\in Z(X)\\ \beta>a,\ \gamma>0}}\left(\frac{(z-\beta)^2+\gamma^2}{(z+\beta-2a)^2+\gamma^2}\right)^{\nu(\beta,\gamma)}. \tag*{(14)}

Each zero with β>a\beta>a and positive ordinate is indexed; the displayed factor includes its conjugate. Each factor equals one at z=az=a. The product is a Blaschke product on Re⁡z>a\operatorname{Re}z>a and extends meromorphically to the plane. In fact, the paired factors differ from one by OK(γ−2)O_K(\gamma^{-2}) on any fixed compact set away from the poles, and the multiplicity-weighted inverse-square sum over these zeros converges. Set

Da(z)=X(z)/Ba(z).(15)D_a(z)=X(z)/B_a(z). \tag*{(15)}

The quotient extends to an entire function. It replaces the zeros β+iγ\beta+i\gamma, with β>a\beta>a, by 2a−β±iγ2a-\beta\pm i\gamma; every other zero stays in place. In particular, DaD_a has no zeros in Re⁡z>a\operatorname{Re}z>a.

For clarity, the canonical factor of XX associated with an off-line quadruple {±β±iγ}\{\pm\beta\pm i\gamma\}, β>0\beta>0, is

((z−β)2+γ2)((z+β)2+γ2)(β2+γ2)2.(16)\frac{\left((z-\beta)^2+\gamma^2\right)\left((z+\beta)^2+\gamma^2\right)}{(\beta^2+\gamma^2)^2}. \tag*{(16)}

If β>a\beta>a, its counterpart in DaD_a replaces the first numerator factor by (z+β−2a)2+γ2(z+\beta-2a)^2+\gamma^2 and leaves the positive denominator unchanged. A line-zero pair contributes (z2+γ2)/γ2(z^2+\gamma^2)/\gamma^2. These products converge locally uniformly and have the same prefactor X(0)X(0), so no additional exponential factor is introduced.

Lemma 3.1 (Real-shift comparison). If x>0x>0, 0≤a<1/20\le a<1/2, and a≤x/2a\le x/\sqrt{2}, then

∣X(it)∣≤∣Da(x+it)∣(t∈R).(17)|X(it)|\le|D_a(x+it)| \qquad(t\in\mathbb{R}). \tag*{(17)}

Proof. We compare the canonical factors at each ordinate; the normalizing denominators are identical. For a zero on the line, the required inequality is ∣u∣≤∣x+iu∣|u|\le|x+iu|, with u=t−γu=t-\gamma, and the same inequality holds at −γ-\gamma.

For an off-line pair at ordinate γ\gamma, the magnitude contributed at itit is β2+u2\beta^2+u^2. If 0<β≤a0<\beta\le a, the pair is unchanged, and

((x+β)2+u2)((x−β)2+u2)−(β2+u2)2=x2(2u2+x2−2β2)≥0.\left((x+\beta)^2+u^2\right)\left((x-\beta)^2+u^2\right)-(\beta^2+u^2)^2 =x^2(2u^2+x^2-2\beta^2)\ge0.

If β>a\beta>a, put r1=x+βr_1=x+\beta and r2=x+β−2ar_2=x+\beta-2a. Both are positive, and

r1r2−β2=2(x−a)β+x(x−2a)≥x2−2a2≥0.r_1r_2-\beta^2=2(x-a)\beta+x(x-2a)\ge x^2-2a^2\ge0.

It follows that r12+r22≥2r1r2≥2β2r_1^2+r_2^2\ge2r_1r_2\ge2\beta^2, whence

(r12+u2)(r22+u2)≥(β2+u2)2.(r_1^2+u^2)(r_2^2+u^2)\ge(\beta^2+u^2)^2.

The same comparison applies at −γ-\gamma. Multiplying the comparisons over finite products and passing to their locally uniform limits proves (3.5). □

Lemma 3.2 (Vertical variation). Fix 0≤a<1/20\le a<1/2 and a compact interval I⊂(a,∞)I\subset(a,\infty). There is C=C(a,I)C=C(a,I) such that

∣∂∂tlog⁡∣Da(x+it)∣∣≤Clog⁡(2+∣t∣),x∈I, t∈R.(18)\left|\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\log|D_a(x+it)|\right|\le C\log(2+|t|),\qquad x\in I,\ t\in\mathbb{R}. \tag*{(18)}

Consequently, if also a≤x/2a\le x/\sqrt{2} for x∈Ix\in I, then, uniformly for x∈Ix\in I and ∣v∣≤1|v|\le1,

∣X(it)∣∣Da(x+i(t+v))∣≤C1(1+∣t∣)C2∣v∣.(19)\frac{|X(it)|}{|D_a(x+i(t+v))|}\le C_1(1+|t|)^{C_2|v|}. \tag*{(19)}

Proof. Let b±iγb\pm i\gamma run over the conjugate pairs of zeros of DaD_a, including multiplicity. All bb lie in [−1/2,a][-1/2,a]. Differentiation of the paired canonical product gives terms

Kr(t−γ)+Kr(t+γ),Kr(u)=ur2+u2,r=x−b.K_r(t-\gamma)+K_r(t+\gamma),\qquad K_r(u)=\frac{u}{r^2+u^2},\qquad r=x-b.

For x∈Ix\in I, the distances rr belong to a fixed compact subinterval of (0,∞)(0,\infty). Thus

∣Kr(u)−K1(u)∣≤C(1+∣u∣)−3.|K_r(u)-K_1(u)|\le C(1+|u|)^{-3}.

The unit-interval zero bound N(T+1)−N(T)=O(log⁡(2+T))N(T+1)-N(T)=O(\log(2+T)) shows that replacing all the kernels by K1K_1 incurs an error O(log⁡(2+∣t∣))O(\log(2+|t|)).

Here N(T)N(T) counts the positive ordinates of all nontrivial zeta zeros, with multiplicity; reflection preserves this counting function. Write

N(T)=M(T)+E(T),M(T)=T2πlog⁡T2π−T2π,E(T)=O(log⁡(2+T)).(20)N(T)=M(T)+E(T),\qquad M(T)=\frac{T}{2\pi}\log\frac{T}{2\pi}-\frac{T}{2\pi},\qquad E(T)=O(\log(2+T)). \tag*{(20)}

By conjugation it suffices to consider t≥10t\ge10. For γ>2t\gamma>2t,

K1(t−γ)+K1(t+γ)=O(t/γ2),K_1(t-\gamma)+K_1(t+\gamma)=O(t/\gamma^2),

and summing by (20) gives O(log⁡t)O(\log t). The ranges γ<t/2\gamma<t/2 and 3t/2<γ≤2t3t/2<\gamma\le2t also contribute O(log⁡t)O(\log t), since each kernel is O(1/t)O(1/t) there. On the remaining range [t/2,3t/2][t/2,3t/2], the terms K1(t+γ)K_1(t+\gamma) satisfy the same bound.

The only remaining sum is

∫t/23t/2K1(t−v) dN(v).\int_{t/2}^{3t/2}K_1(t-v)\,dN(v).

The contribution of dEdE is O(log⁡t)O(\log t) by integration by parts, because K1′K_1' is integrable on R\mathbb{R} and the endpoint terms are bounded by O(log⁡t/t)O(\log t/t). For the main term, the constant M′(t)M'(t) integrates to zero by oddness on this symmetric interval, and

∣M′(v)−M′(t)∣≤C∣v−t∣/t.|M'(v)-M'(t)|\le C|v-t|/t.

Its remaining integral is therefore O(1)O(1). The estimates on a fixed bounded range of tt follow from local convergence and the positive lower bound on rr. This proves (18).

Integrating (18) between tt and t+vt+v and applying Lemma 3.1 proves (19). □

We record the form of these comparisons that will be used below. For s=1/2+its=1/2+it and w=x+ivw=x+iv, (13) gives

ζ(s)ζ(s+w)/Ba(s+w−1/2)=X(it)Da(x+i(t+v))A(s+w)A(s).(21)\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(s+w)/B_a(s+w-1/2)} = \frac{X(it)}{D_a(x+i(t+v))} \frac{A(s+w)}{A(s)}. \tag*{(21)}

Stirling’s formula, uniformly for ww in a fixed compact subset of Re⁡w>0\operatorname{Re}w>0, gives

∣A(s+w)A(s)∣≤C(1+∣t∣)x/2.(22)\left|\frac{A(s+w)}{A(s)}\right|\le C(1+|t|)^{x/2}. \tag*{(22)}

The denominator has no zero on Re⁡s=1/2\operatorname{Re}s=1/2; bounded tt is handled by continuity. Thus the hypotheses of Lemma 3.2 give

∣ζ(s)ζ(s+w)/Ba(s+w−1/2)∣≤C(1+∣t∣)x/2+C2∣v∣.(23)\left|\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(s+w)/B_a(s+w-1/2)}\right| \le C(1+|t|)^{x/2+C_2|v|}. \tag*{(23)}

For real shifts, there is a useful uniform version: for each fixed x∗>0x_*>0,

∣ζ(s)ζ(s+x)/Ba(s+x−1/2)∣≤Cx∗(1+∣t∣)x/2(24)\left|\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(s+x)/B_a(s+x-1/2)}\right| \le C_{x_*}(1+|t|)^{x/2} \tag*{(24)}

when 0<x≤x∗0<x\le x_*, 0≤a<1/20\le a<1/2, and a≤x/2a\le x/\sqrt{2}. Indeed, the comparison in Lemma 3.1 has constant one, while Stirling’s formula is uniform for 0≤x≤x∗0\le x\le x_*. All ratios are understood by removing their removable singularities.

A holomorphic family in the Hardy space

We first justify the boundary-to-Hardy step needed for the family.

Lemma 4.1. The bounded holomorphic function

Z(s)=(s−1)ζ(s)(s+1)2Z(s) = \frac{(s-1)\zeta(s)}{(s+1)^2}

on Ω\Omega has a factorization

Z(s)=B0(s−1/2)O(s),(25)Z(s) = B_0(s-1/2)O(s), \tag*{(25)}

where OO is bounded and outer, with a unimodular constant absorbed into OO. Every interior translate O(s+w)O(s+w), Re⁡w>0\operatorname{Re} w > 0, is also outer on $\Omega.

Proof. The classical convexity estimate in a bounded vertical strip and absolute convergence farther to the right imply boundedness of ZZ. The pole at 11 is canceled, and its zeros in Ω\Omega are precisely those of ζ\zeta, with their multiplicities.

The function ZZ extends analytically across every finite point of the boundary line. Away from its isolated boundary zeros this excludes singular inner measure; at a zero of finite order its logarithmic boundary behavior excludes a singular atom as well. Thus its inner factor has no singular measure on the finite boundary. A nonconstant singular inner factor at infinity would contain e−c(s−1/2)e^{-c(s-1/2)} for some c>0c > 0, which is impossible since Z(σ)∼1/σZ(\sigma) \sim1/\sigma as σ→+∞\sigma\to+\infty. The remaining inner factor is exactly B0(s−1/2)B_0(s-1/2), proving (4.1).

After scaling OO to have modulus at most one, its log modulus is the Poisson extension of its boundary log modulus, with no linear term at infinity. The Poisson semigroup identity shows the same assertion after a positive horizontal translate. A vertical translate merely translates the boundary data. This proves the last assertion. □

Fix f∈Jf \in J. Define

g(s)=sf(s)ζ(s).(26)g(s) = \frac{s f(s)}{\zeta(s)}. \tag*{(26)}

The prescribed zero jets remove every possible pole in Ω\Omega, and g(1)=0g(1) = 0. For Re⁡w>0\operatorname{Re} w > 0 put

Fw(s)=ζ(s)s(g(s+w)−g(1+w)).(27)F_w(s) = \frac{\zeta(s)}{s}\bigl(g(s+w)-g(1+w)\bigr). \tag*{(27)}

This is holomorphic in s∈Ωs \in\Omega: the numerator in parentheses vanishes at s=1s = 1, canceling the only pole of ζ(s)/s\zeta(s)/s.

Proposition 4.2. There is an open connected set U⊂{Re⁡w>0}U \subset\{\operatorname{Re} w > 0\} containing (0,3/4)(0, 3/4) such that w↦Fww \mapsto F_w is an H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega)-valued holomorphic map on UU. Its Hardy norm is locally bounded on UU.

Proof. We first place FwF_w in the Smirnov class. Since f∈Jf \in J, inner division gives f(s)=B0(s−1/2)f1(s)f(s) = B_0(s-1/2)f_1(s) with f1∈H2(Ω)f_1 \in H^2(\Omega). Lemma 4.1 yields

g(s)=s(s−1)(s+1)2f1(s)O(s).g(s) = \frac{s(s-1)}{(s+1)^2}\frac{f_1(s)}{O(s)}.

For each Re⁡w>0\operatorname{Re} w > 0, the translate f1(s+w)f_1(s+w) belongs to H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega) and O(s+w)O(s+w) is bounded and outer. Thus g(s+w)g(s+w) and hw(s)=g(s+w)−g(1+w)h_w(s) = g(s+w)-g(1+w) are in the Smirnov class on Ω\Omega. The function

b1(s)=s−1sb_1(s) = \frac{s-1}{s}

is the Blaschke factor of Ω\Omega at 11. Since hw(1)=0h_w(1) = 0, hw/b1h_w/b_1 remains in the Smirnov class, and

Fw(s)=Z(s)(s+1)2s2hw(s)b1(s)(28)F_w(s) = Z(s)\frac{(s+1)^2}{s^2}\frac{h_w(s)}{b_1(s)} \tag*{(28)}

does also.

Fix x0∈(0,3/4)x_0 \in(0,3/4). Choose

x02<α<a<min⁡(x02,12).(29)\frac{x_0}{2}<\alpha<a<\min\left(\frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{2}\right). \tag*{(29)}

Choose a small compact interval II about x0x_0 with a<x/2a<x/\sqrt{2} for x∈Ix\in I. By making a complex neighborhood Ux0U_{x_0} smaller if necessary, Lemma 3.2 gives, for w=x+iv∈Ux0w=x+iv\in U_{x_0},

x∈I,x/2+C2∣v∣<α.(30)x\in I,\qquad x/2+C_2|v|<\alpha. \tag*{(30)}

On Re⁡s=1/2\operatorname{Re}s=1/2, factor the first term of (27) as

ζ(s)sg(s+w)=s+wsζ(s)ζ(s+w)/Ba(s+w−1/2)f(s+w)Ba(s+w−1/2).(31)\frac{\zeta(s)}{s}g(s+w)=\frac{s+w}{s}\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(s+w)/B_a(s+w-1/2)}\frac{f(s+w)}{B_a(s+w-1/2)}. \tag*{(31)}

The rational factor is uniformly bounded. By (23) and (30), the middle factor is bounded by C(1+∣t∣)αC(1+|t|)^\alpha. Choose a fixed α0∈(α,1/2)\alpha_0\in(\alpha,1/2). The zeros of Ba(s−1/2)B_a(s-1/2) are among the zeros canceled by ff, so Lemma 2.1 and (12) give

Ha,α(z)=(z+1)αf(z)Ba(z−1/2)∈H2(Ωa),∥Ha,α∥H2(Ωa)≤C∥f∥S.H_{a,\alpha}(z)=\frac{(z+1)^\alpha f(z)}{B_a(z-1/2)}\in H^2(\Omega_a),\qquad\|H_{a,\alpha}\|_{H^2(\Omega_a)}\le C\|f\|_S.

For z=s+wz=s+w we have Re⁡z=1/2+x>1/2+a\operatorname{Re}z=1/2+x>1/2+a and ∣z+1∣α≍(1+∣t∣)α|z+1|^\alpha\asymp(1+|t|)^\alpha, uniformly in Ux0U_{x_0}. Evaluating the Hardy norm on this interior vertical line therefore shows that the boundary function in (31) is locally bounded in L2(R)L^2(\mathbb{R}).

The remaining boundary term is g(1+w)ζ(s)/sg(1+w)\zeta(s)/s. Its L2L^2 norm is locally bounded because g(1+w)g(1+w) is holomorphic and

∫R∣ζ(1/2+it)1/2+it∣2 dt<∞.(32)\int_{\mathbb{R}}\left|\frac{\zeta(1/2+it)}{1/2+it}\right|^2\,dt<\infty. \tag*{(32)}

For example, the convexity estimate ζ(1/2+it)≪(1+∣t∣)1/3\zeta(1/2+it)\ll(1+|t|)^{1/3} suffices for this integrability. The two boundary terms are used here only as L2L^2 functions; their poles at s=1s=1 cancel in the complete expression (27). Combining the boundary bound with (28), the Smirnov boundary theorem gives Fw∈H2(Ω)F_w\in H^2(\Omega) with locally bounded norm.

For each fixed s∈Ωs\in\Omega, including the removable value at 11, Fw(s)F_w(s) is holomorphic in ww. Testing against the reproducing kernels of H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega) gives weak holomorphy on their linear span. This span is dense; local norm boundedness extends holomorphy to every bounded linear functional. The standard weak-to-strong holomorphy principle now gives Hardy-space-valued holomorphy on Ux0U_{x_0}. The union of these neighborhoods over x0∈(0,3/4)x_0\in(0,3/4) is open and connected and proves the proposition. □

Membership, continuation, and the zero-shift limit

Lemma 5.1 (Membership at large shifts). For every f∈Sf\in S and real x∈(1/2,3/4)x\in(1/2,3/4), the expression (27), formed using g(z)=zf(z)/ζ(z)g(z)=zf(z)/\zeta(z) at the translated arguments, belongs to VV.

Proof. First suppose ff has finite step support. Then

P(s)=sf(s)P(s)=sf(s)

is a Dirichlet polynomial. On Re⁡s>1\operatorname{Re}s>1,

P(s)ζ(s)=∑l≥1cll−s,sup⁡l∣cl∣<∞,\frac{P(s)}{\zeta(s)}=\sum_{l\ge1}c_l l^{-s},\qquad\sup_l|c_l|<\infty,

because 1/ζ(s)=∑n≥1μ(n)n−s1/\zeta(s)=\sum_{n\ge1}\mu(n)n^{-s} converges absolutely there and PP has finitely many coefficients. For x>1/2x>1/2 this gives

Fx=∑l≥2cll−xGl.(33)F_x=\sum_{l\ge2}c_l l^{-x}G_l. \tag*{(33)}

To justify norm convergence, use (1.4). On (0,1/ℓ](0,1/\ell] one has ∣qℓ∣≤1+1/ℓ|q_\ell|\le1+1/\ell, while on [1/ℓ,1][1/\ell,1],

qℓ(u)=1ℓ⌊1u⌋.q_\ell(u)=\frac{1}{\ell}\left\lfloor\frac{1}{u}\right\rfloor.

Hence

∥Gℓ∥H2(Ω)2=∥qℓ∥L2(0,1)2≤Cℓ+1ℓ2∫1/ℓ1u−2 du≤C′ℓ.\|G_\ell\|_{H^2(\Omega)}^2=\|q_\ell\|_{L^2(0,1)}^2\le\frac{C}{\ell}+\frac{1}{\ell^2}\int_{1/\ell}^1u^{-2}\,du\le\frac{C'}{\ell}.

The series in (5.1) is therefore absolutely convergent in H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega), since ∑ℓℓ−x−1/2<∞\sum_\ell\ell^{-x-1/2}<\infty. It agrees pointwise with (4.3) in an absolutely convergent half-plane and hence throughout Ω\Omega. Thus Fx∈VF_x\in V.

Now let f∈Sf\in S be arbitrary and let f(N)f^{(N)} be its finite step truncations. For fixed x>1/2x>1/2, absolute convergence gives a uniform bound for 1/ζ(s+x)1/\zeta(s+x) on Re⁡s=1/2\operatorname{Re}s=1/2. The convexity bound used in (4.8) and Lemma 2.1, with a=xa=x and α=1/3\alpha=1/3, imply

∥s+xsζ(s)ζ(s+x)(f(N)(s+x)−f(s+x))∥L2(Re⁡s=1/2)≤Cx∥f(N)−f∥S.\left\|\frac{s+x}{s}\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta(s+x)}\left(f^{(N)}(s+x)-f(s+x)\right)\right\|_{L^2(\operatorname{Re}s=1/2)} \le C_x\|f^{(N)}-f\|_S.

Evaluation at 1+x1+x is also continuous in the step norm. It follows that the boundary expressions for Fx(N)F_x^{(N)} converge in L2L^2. Since Fx(N)∈V⊂H2(Ω)F_x^{(N)}\in V\subset H^2(\Omega), they converge in Hardy norm to an element of VV. Interior point evaluation identifies this limit with FxF_x as defined in (4.3). No zero-jet condition on the truncations has been used. □

Proof of Theorem 1.1. It remains to prove J⊆VJ\subseteq V. Fix f∈Jf\in J and form FwF_w as in Proposition 4.2. Let L∈(H2(Ω))∗L\in(H^2(\Omega))^* be any continuous complex-linear functional with L∣V=0L|_V=0. The scalar function w↦L(Fw)w\mapsto L(F_w) is holomorphic on the connected set UU of Proposition 4.2. Lemma 5.1 shows that it vanishes for every x∈(1/2,3/4)x\in(1/2,3/4). By the identity theorem it vanishes throughout UU. The space SS is closed in H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega), and VV is closed in SS, hence VV is also closed in H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega). The Hahn–Banach separation theorem therefore gives

Fx∈V(0<x<3/4).(34)F_x\in V\qquad(0<x<3/4). \tag*{(34)}

We next show that

sup⁡0<x<1/4∥Fx∥H2(Ω)<∞.(35)\sup_{0<x<1/4}\|F_x\|_{H^2(\Omega)}<\infty. \tag*{(35)}

Set

a=2x3,α=x2.a=\frac{2x}{3},\qquad\alpha=\frac{x}{2}.

Then α<a<x/2\alpha<a<x/\sqrt{2}. On the boundary s=1/2+its=1/2+it, (4.7) and the uniform real-shift estimate (3.12) imply

∣ζ(s)sg(s+x)∣≤C(1+∣t∣)x/2∣f(s+x)B2x/3(s+x−1/2)∣.\left|\frac{\zeta(s)}{s}g(s+x)\right| \le C(1+|t|)^{x/2}\left|\frac{f(s+x)}{B_{2x/3}(s+x-1/2)}\right|.

Lemma 2.1 and inner division, with fixed upper bounds for aa and α\alpha, make the right-hand side uniformly bounded in L2(R)L^2(\mathbb{R}). Explicitly,

∥(z+1)x/2f(z)B2x/3(z−1/2)∥H2(Ω2x/3)≤C∥f∥S.\left\|\frac{(z+1)^{x/2}f(z)}{B_{2x/3}(z-1/2)}\right\|_{H^2(\Omega_{2x/3})} \le C\|f\|_S.

and the vertical line z=s+xz=s+x lies inside Ω2x/3\Omega_{2x/3}. The comparison of ∣z+1∣x/2|z+1|^{x/2} with (1+∣t∣)x/2(1+|t|)^{x/2} is uniform for 0<x<1/40<x<1/4.

For the subtraction term, the simple pole of ζ\zeta at 11 and boundedness of evaluation near 11 give

∣g(1+x)∣=∣(1+x)f(1+x)ζ(1+x)∣≤Cx∥f∥S.|g(1+x)|=\left|\frac{(1+x)f(1+x)}{\zeta(1+x)}\right|\le Cx\|f\|_S.

Its boundary norm therefore tends to zero by (32). Since each FxF_x already belongs to H2(Ω)H^2(\Omega), the boundary estimates prove (35).

Finally, gg is holomorphic on Ω\Omega and g(1)=0g(1)=0. Thus, at every s∈Ω∖{1}s\in\Omega\setminus\{1\},

lim⁡x↓0Fx(s)=ζ(s)s(g(s)−g(1))=f(s),\lim_{x\downarrow0}F_x(s)=\frac{\zeta(s)}{s}\bigl(g(s)-g(1)\bigr)=f(s),

including the canceled zeta zeros by holomorphic continuation. At s=1s=1 the removable value is Fx(1)=g′(1+x)F_x(1)=g'(1+x), which tends to g′(1)=f(1)g'(1)=f(1). Hence Fx(s)→f(s)F_x(s)\to f(s) at every point of Ω\Omega. The uniform Hardy bound and density of the linear span of the reproducing kernels imply

Fx⇀fin H2(Ω)(x↓0).F_x\rightharpoonup f\quad\text{in }H^2(\Omega)\quad(x\downarrow0).

By (34) and weak closedness of the closed linear subspace VV, we obtain f∈Vf\in V. Together with V⊆JV\subseteq J, this proves the theorem. □

Acknowledgment of AI assistance

The authors acknowledge assistance from OpenAI’s AI tools in refining the argument, checking intermediate steps, and preparing the mathematical exposition.

Email address, Will Howe: [email protected]

Email address, Grant Huffman: [email protected]

Email address, Jensen Kohlmeyer: [email protected]

Email address, Liam Kruer: [email protected]

References

  1. [1]L. Báez-Duarte, A strengthening of the Nyman–Beurling criterion for the Riemann hypothesis, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Natur. Rend. Lincei (9) Mat. Appl. 14 (2003), no. 1, 5–11. arXiv:math/0202141.
  2. [2]B. Bagchi, On Nyman, Beurling and Baez-Duarte’s Hilbert space reformulation of the Riemann hypothesis, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. Sci. Math. Sci. 116 (2006), no. 2, 137–146. doi:10.1007/BF02829783.DOI
  3. [3]E. Di Nezza, G. Palatucci, and E. Valdinoci, Hitchhiker’s guide to the fractional Sobolev spaces, Bull. Sci. Math. 136 (2012), no. 5, 521–573. doi:10.1016/j.bulsci.2011.12.004.DOI
  4. [4]P. L. Duren, Theory of Hᵖ Spaces, Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 38, Academic Press, New York–London, 1970.DOI
  5. [5]span_of_dilates, The Báez-Duarte subspace has codimension equal to the number of zeta zeros off the critical line, with distance and rate bounds not assuming RH, rStation, Paper 1, version 12, October 27, 2026. https://rstation.ai/problems/riemann_hypothesis/papers/1.
  6. [6]E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-Function, 2nd ed., revised by D. R. Heath-Brown, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1986.

Paper details

vlnc:W_sgbgvzbx
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — published within the last 30 days

Usage

views · 1

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

OpenAI’s AI tools · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents