The discussion focuses on the nth Ramanujan sum, defined as $$c_n(k) = \sum_{\substack{m = 1\\(m,n) = 1}}^n \exp\left\{2\pi i \frac{k m}{n}\right\}$$. It establishes that $$c_n(k) = \sum_{d\mid (k,n)} d\, \mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)$$, where ##\mu## is the Möbius function. The analysis includes the conditions under which the sums evaluate to zero or n, depending on whether n divides k. This leads to the conclusion that $$\mu(n) = \sum_{m=1 , (m,n)=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{n} \right\}$$.
PREREQUISITES
Understanding of Ramanujan sums and their properties
Familiarity with the Möbius function and its definition
Knowledge of number theory concepts such as gcd and divisors
Proficiency in complex exponentials and their applications in summation
NEXT STEPS
Explore the properties of the Möbius function in number theory
Study the applications of Ramanujan sums in analytic number theory
Investigate the relationship between Ramanujan sums and Fourier analysis
Learn about the implications of the results for modular forms and their applications
USEFUL FOR
Mathematicians, number theorists, and students interested in advanced topics in analytic number theory and complex analysis.
#1
Euge
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
2,072
245
Consider the ##n##th Ramanujan sum, $$c_n(k) = \sum_{\substack{m = 1\\(m,n) = 1}}^n \exp\left\{2\pi i \frac{k m}{n}\right\}$$ Show that $$c_n(k) = \sum_{d\mid (k,n)} d\, \mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)$$
Consider the ##n##th Ramanujan sum, $$c_n(k) = \sum_{\substack{m = 1\\(m,n) = 1}}^n \exp\left\{2\pi i \frac{k m}{n}\right\}$$ Show that $$c_n(k) = \sum_{d\mid (k,n)} d\, \mu\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)$$
Can you define the terms please?
#3
Euge
Gold Member
MHB
POTW Director
2,072
245
The function ##\mu## is the Möbius function: it is defined by setting ##\mu(1) = 1## and for integers ##n > 1##, ##\mu(n) = (-1)^r## if ##n## is a product of ##r## distinct prime factors. Otherwise ##\mu(n) = 0##.
The notation ##(a,b)## means the gcd of ##a## and ##b##, and ##\sum_{d\mid (k,n)}## means the sum over all positive divisors ##d## of ##(k,n)##.
I looked at the case where ##k=1## first. Proved the Mobius inversion formula. Answered the question for ##k=1##. Then proved the general case.
Case ##k=1##.
Consider
\begin{align*}
c_n (1) = \sum_{m=1 , (m,n)=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{n} \right\}
\end{align*}
We wish to show:
\begin{align*}
c_n (1) = \sum_{d|(1,n)} d \; \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) = \mu (n)
\end{align*}
The fractions ##\frac{l}{n}##, ##l=1,2, \dots, n## and the fractions defined by ##\frac{m}{d}##, ##(m,d)=1##, ##1 \leq m \leq d## for the set of divisors of ##n##, ##\{ d_1, d_2, \dots , d_s \}##, are the same set of fractions. As such:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|n} \sum_{m=1 , (m,d)=1}^d f \left( \frac{m}{d} \right) = \sum_{l=1}^n f \left( \frac{l}{n} \right)
\end{align*}
We use this, for ##n>1##,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|n} c_d (1) = \sum_{d|n} \sum_{m=1 , (m,d)=1}^d \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{d} \right\} = \sum_{l=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{l}{n} \right\} = \dfrac{\exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \right\} - 1}{\exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{1}{n} \right\} - 1} = 0
\end{align*}
If ##n=1##:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|1} c_d (1) = \sum_{d|1} \sum_{m=1 , (m,d)=1}^d \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{d} \right\} = 1
\end{align*}
Next consider the same sum for ##\mu (n)##. First take ##n>1##. We have ##n = p_1^{e_1} p_2^{e_2} \cdots p_r^{e_r}##. Note the divisors ##d## of ##n## such that ##\mu (d) \not= 0## are the product of members of subsets of: ##\{ p_1 , p_2 , \cdots , p_r \}## (the empty set corresponds to ##d=1##). As there are ##\dfrac{r!}{k! (r-k)!}## ways of choosing subsets of size ##k##, the following:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^r \dfrac{r!}{k! (r-k)!} (-1)^k
\end{align*}
will tell us how many more subsets of even number there are than subsets of odd number (where ##k=0## term corresponds to the empty set). The above sum is equal to ##[1 + (-1)]^r = 0##, meaning that there are an equal number of subsets of even number and subsets and odd number. As such:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|n} \mu (d) = 0 \qquad (n>1) .
\end{align*}
For ##n=1##:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|1} \mu (1) = 1 .
\end{align*}
This second result can be used to prove the Mobius inversion formula:
\begin{align*}
\text{if} \qquad
g (n) = \sum_{d|n} f(d)
\qquad \text{then} \qquad
f (n) = \sum_{d|n} \mu(d) g \left( \frac{n}{d} \right)
\end{align*}
If the divisors of ##n## are ##\{ d_1 , d_2, \dots d_s \}##, define ##\tilde{d}_i = \frac{n}{d_i}## for each ##i##. The ##\{ \tilde{d}_1 , \tilde{d}_2, \dots \tilde{d}_s \}## are the ##s## original distinct divisors in a new order, and obviously, ##d_i = \frac{n}{\tilde{d}_i}##. So that
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|n} \mu(d) g \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) = \sum_{i=1}^s \mu (d_i) g (\tilde{d}_i) = \sum_{i=1}^s \mu (\tilde{d}_i) g (d_i) = \sum_{d|n} \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) g (d)
\end{align*}
So we have the alternative version of the Mobius inversion formula:
\begin{align*}
\text{if} \qquad
g (n) = \sum_{d|n} f(d)
\qquad \text{then} \qquad
f (n) = \sum_{d|n} \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) g (d) .
\end{align*}
Taking an example:
\begin{align*}
& \sum_{d|8} \mu(d) g \left( \frac{8}{d} \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \sum_{d|8} \mu(d) \sum_{d'|\frac{8}{d}} f \left( d' \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \mu(1) \sum_{d'|8} f \left( d' \right) + \mu(2) \sum_{d'|\frac{8}{2}} f \left( d' \right) + \mu(4) \sum_{d'|\frac{8}{4}} f \left( d' \right) + \mu(8) \sum_{d'|\frac{8}{8}} f \left( d' \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \mu(1) f \left( 1 \right) + \mu(2) f \left( 1 \right) + \mu(4) f \left( 1 \right) + \mu(4) f \left( 1 \right)
\nonumber \\
& + \mu(1) f \left( 2 \right) + \mu(2) f \left( 2 \right) + \mu(4) f \left( 2 \right) + \qquad 0
\nonumber \\
& + \mu(1) f \left( 4 \right) + \mu(2) f \left( 4 \right) + \qquad 0 \qquad + \quad \;\; 0
\nonumber \\
& + \mu(1) f \left( 8 \right) + \quad \;\;\; 0 \quad \;\;\; + \quad \;\;\; 0 \quad \;\;\; + \quad \;\;\; 0
\nonumber \\
& = f \left( 1 \right) \sum_{d|8} \mu(d) + f \left( 2 \right) \sum_{d|4} \mu(d) + f \left( 4 \right) \sum_{d|2} \mu(d) + f \left( 8 \right) \sum_{d|1} \mu(1)
\nonumber \\
& = \sum_{d'|8} f \left( d' \right) \sum_{d|\frac{8}{d'}} \mu(d)
\nonumber \\
& = f \left( 8 \right) .
\end{align*}
where we have used ##(*)##.
Let ##\{ d_1 , d_2, \dots d_s \}## be the divisors of ##n##. Define
\begin{align*}
\epsilon (d_i',d_j) =
\left\{
\begin{matrix}
1 & d_i' | \frac{n}{d_j} \\
0 & d_i' \nmid \frac{n}{d_j}
\end{matrix}
\right.
\end{align*}
Note ##d_i' | \frac{n}{d_j}## if and only if ##d_j | \frac{n}{d_i'}##. Thus
\begin{align*}
\epsilon (d_i',d_j) =
\left\{
\begin{matrix}
1 & d_j | \frac{n}{d_i'} \\
0 & d_j \nmid \frac{n}{d_i'}
\end{matrix}
\right.
\end{align*}
So
\begin{align*}
\sum_{d|n} \mu(d) g \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) & = \sum_{d|n} \mu(d) \sum_{d'|\frac{n}{d}} f \left( d' \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \sum_{j=1}^s \mu(d_j) \sum_{i=1}^s \epsilon (d_i',d_j) f \left( d_i' \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \sum_{i=1}^s f \left( d_i' \right) \sum_{j=1}^s \epsilon (d_i',d_j) \mu(d_j)
\nonumber \\
& = \sum_{d'|n} f \left( d' \right) \sum_{d|\frac{n}{d'}} \mu(d)
\nonumber \\
& = f \left( n \right)
\end{align*}
where we have used ##(*)##.
Write
\begin{align*}
f (n) = \sum_{m=1 , (m,n)=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{n} \right\}
\end{align*}
then
\begin{align*}
g (n) = \sum_{d|n} \sum_{m=1 , (m,n)=1}^d \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{d} \right\}
= \left\{
\begin{matrix}
1 & n=1 \\
0 & n>1
\end{matrix}
\right.
\end{align*}
and then
\begin{align*}
f (n) = \sum_{d|n} \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) g(d) = \mu (n)
\end{align*}
So finally,
\begin{align*}
\mu (n) = \sum_{m=1 , (m,n)=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{m}{n} \right\}
\end{align*}Next, the general case, ##1 \leq k##:
Consider
\begin{align*}
c_n (k) = \sum_{m=1 , (m,n)=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{km}{n} \right\}
\end{align*}
We wish to prove
\begin{align*}
c_n (k) = \sum_{d|(k,n)} d \; \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right)
\end{align*}
Write ##f(n) = c_n (k)##. When ##n \nmid k##,
\begin{align*}
g (n) = \sum_{d|n} \sum_{m=1 , (m,d)=1}^d \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{km}{d} \right\}
= \sum_{l=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{kl}{n} \right\}
= \dfrac{\exp \left\{ 2 \pi i k \right\} - 1}{\exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{k}{n} \right\} - 1} = 0
\end{align*}
When ##n | k##,
\begin{align*}
g (n) = \sum_{d|n} \sum_{m=1 , (m,d)=1}^d \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{km}{d} \right\}
= \sum_{l=1}^n \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{kl}{n} \right\}
= n .
\end{align*}
That is:
\begin{align*}
g (n) = \sum_{d|n} \sum_{m=1 , (m,d)=1}^d \exp \left\{ 2 \pi i \frac{km}{d} \right\} =
\left\{
\begin{matrix}
n & n | k \\
0 & n \nmid k
\end{matrix}
\right.
\end{align*}
So that
\begin{align*}
f (n) = \sum_{d|n} \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right) g (d) = \sum_{d|(k,n)} d \; \mu \left( \frac{n}{d} \right)
\end{align*}