where μ(k) is the Möbius function; the Mertens conjecture is that for all n > 1,
Disproof of the conjecture
Stieltjes claimed in 1885 to have proven a weaker result, namely that was bounded, but did not publish a proof.[1] (In terms of , the Mertens conjecture is that .)
It was later shown that the first counterexample appears below [4] but above 1016.[5] The upper bound has since been lowered to [6] or approximately and then again to .[7] In 2024, Seungki Kim and Phong Nguyen lowered the bound to ,[8] but no explicit counterexample is known.
The law of the iterated logarithm states that if μ is replaced by a random sequence of +1s and −1s then the order of growth of the partial sum of the first n terms is (with probability 1) about √n log log n, which suggests that the order of growth of m(n) might be somewhere around √log log n. The actual order of growth may be somewhat smaller; in the early 1990s Steve Gonek conjectured[9] that the order of growth of m(n) was which was affirmed by Ng (2004), based on a heuristic argument, that assumed the Riemann hypothesis and certain conjectures about the averaged behavior of zeros of the Riemann zeta function.[9]
In 1979, Cohen and Dress[10] found the largest known value of for M(7766842813) = 50286, and in 2011, Kuznetsov found the largest known negative value (in the sense of absolute value) for M(11609864264058592345) = −1995900927.[11] In 2016, Hurst computed M(n) for every n ≤ 1016 but did not find larger values of m(n).[5]
In 2006, Kotnik and te Riele improved the upper bound and showed that there are infinitely many values of n for which m(n) > 1.2184, but without giving any specific value for such an n.[12] In 2016, Hurst made further improvements by showing
which is valid for 1 < σ < 2, and valid for 1⁄2 < σ < 2 on the Riemann hypothesis.
From this, the Mellin transform integral must be convergent, and hence
M(x) must be O(xe) for every exponent e greater than 1/2. From this it follows that
for all positive ε is equivalent to the Riemann hypothesis, which therefore would have followed from the stronger Mertens hypothesis, and follows from the hypothesis of Stieltjes that
References
^Borwein, Peter; Choi, Stephen; Rooney, Brendan; Weirathmueller, Andrea, eds. (2007). The Riemann hypothesis. A resource for the aficionado and virtuoso alike. CMS Books in Mathematics. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag. p. 69. ISBN978-0-387-72125-5. Zbl1132.11047.
Kotnik, Tadej; te Riele, Herman (2006). "The Mertens Conjecture Revisited". In Hess, Florian (ed.). Algorithmic number theory. 7th international symposium, ANTS-VII, Berlin, Germany, July 23--28, 2006. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Vol. 4076. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 156–167. doi:10.1007/11792086_12. ISBN3-540-36075-1. Zbl1143.11345.
Mertens, F. (1897). "Über eine zahlentheoretische Funktion". Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse, Abteilung 2a. 106: 761–830.
Stieltjes, T. J. (1905), "Lettre a Hermite de 11 juillet 1885, Lettre #79", in Baillaud, B.; Bourget, H. (eds.), Correspondance d'Hermite et Stieltjes, Paris: Gauthier—Villars, pp. 160–164