bloodhound Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Define [math]\Lambda(n):=\log(p)[/math] if n is a power of a prime p and 0 if n = 1 or n is a composite number Prove that [math]\Lambda(n)=\sum_{d|n}\mu(\tfrac{n}{d})\log(d)[/math] The hint says to look at [math]\sum_{d|n}\Lambda(d)[/math] and apply the Mobius inversion formula. So far I have got [math]\sum_{d|n}\Lambda(d)= \sum_{i=1}^r \log(p_i)= \log(\prod_{i=1}^r p_i)[/math] assuming that n has r distinct primes in its expansion. So help Don't mind the above, I have figured it out. I will post more questions if any in this thread instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 New question: [math]\sigma_k(n)=\sum_{d|n} d^k[/math] It was asked to show that sigma is multiplicative, which I have done. I have to find a formula for it which is where I am stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Why not break down n into: [imath]n=p_1^{e_1} \cdots p_n^{e_n}[/imath]? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 Trouble is that there are so many possible divisors of n, I have trouble keeping track of all of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmoe Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 You've shown [math]\sigma_k[/math] is mutiplicative so it's enough to evaluate it on prime powers, which is just a geometric series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Yep, I figured it out. I didn't realise sigma k was just sum of divisor function for k=1 for which we have already done the formula. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shmoe Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Ahh, good. k=0 should be familiar as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Sorry, I should probably have said that I meant each pi to be prime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now