Explicit Formula - Weil's Explicit Formula

Weil's Explicit Formula

There are several slightly different ways to state the explicit formula. Weil's form of the explicit formula states

\begin{align} & {} \quad \Phi(1)+\Phi(0)-\sum_\rho\Phi(\rho) \\ & = \sum_{p,m} \frac{\log(p)}{p^{m/2}} (F(\log(p^m)) + F(-\log(p^m))) - \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_{-\infty}^\infty\varphi(t)\Psi(t)\,dt \end{align}

where

  • ρ runs over the non-trivial zeros of the zeta function
  • p runs over positive primes
  • m runs over positive integers
  • F is a smooth function all of whose derivatives are rapidly decreasing
  • φ is a Fourier transform of F:
  • Φ(1/2 + it) = φ(t)
  • Ψ(t) = −log(π) + Re(ψ(1/4 + it/2)), where ψ is the digamma function Γ′/Γ.

Roughly speaking, the explicit formula says the Fourier transform of the zeros of the zeta function is the set of prime powers plus some elementary factors.

The terms in the formula arise in the following way.

  • The terms on the right hand side come from the logarithmic derivative of
with the terms corresponding to the prime p coming from the Euler factor of p, and the term at the end involving Ψ coming from the gamma factor (the Euler factor at infinity).
  • The left-hand side is a sum over all zeros of ζ * counted with multiplicities, so the poles at 0 and 1 are counted as zeros of order −1.

Read more about this topic:  Explicit Formula

Famous quotes containing the words weil, explicit and/or formula:

    “It is not the cause for which men took up arms that makes a victory more just or less, it is the order that is established when arms have been laid down.”
    —Simone Weil (1909–1943)

    “I think “taste” is a social concept and not an artistic one. I’m willing to show good taste, if I can, in somebody else’s living room, but our reading life is too short for a writer to be in any way polite. Since his words enter into another’s brain in silence and intimacy, he should be as honest and explicit as we are with ourselves.”
    —John Updike (b. 1932)

    “Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
    —Walter Pater (1839–1894)