| Download
William Stein -- Talk for Mathematics is a long conversation: a celebration of Barry Mazur
\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}1\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }2% \MRhref is called by the amsart/book/proc definition of \MR.3\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%4\href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}5}6\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}7\begin{thebibliography}{10}89\bibitem{Note01}10{\bf How not to factor the numerator of a Bernoulli number:} \par As mentioned11in Chapter~\ref {ch:envision}, the coefficient $B_k$ of the linear term of12the polynomial $$ S_k(n)= 1^k+2^k+3^k+\dots +(n-1)^k $$ is (up to sign) the13$k$-th {\bf Bernoulli number}. These numbers are rational numbers and,14putting them in lowest terms, their numerators play a role in certain15problems, and their denominators in others. (This is an amazing story, which16we can't go into here!) \par One of us (Barry Mazur) in the recent article17{\em How can we construct abelian Galois extensions of basic number fields?}18(see \url19{http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/2011-48-02/S0273-0979-2011-01326-X/}) found20himself dealing (for various reasons) with the fraction $-B_{200}/400$, where21$B_{200}$ is the two-hundredth Bernoulli number. The numerator of this22fraction is quite large: it is---hold your breath---\ $$389\cdot 691\cdot235370056528687 \ \ \ \ \text {times this 204-digit number:} $$\vskip 10pt24$N:=3452690329392158031464109281736967404068448156842396721012$\newline25$\mbox {}\,\,\,\qquad269920642145194459192569415445652760676623601087497272415557$\newline $\mbox27{}\,\,\,\qquad280842527652727868776362959519620872735612200601036506871681$\newline $\mbox29{}\,\,\,\qquad 124610986596878180738901486527$ \vskip 10pt and he {\it30incorrectly asserted} that it was prime. Happily, Bartosz Naskr\c {e}cki31spotted this error: our $204$-digit $N$ is {\it not} prime. \par How did he32know this? By using the most basic test in the repertoire of tests that we33have available to check to see whether a number is prime: we'll call it the34``{\bf Fermat $2$-test.}'' We'll first give a general explanation of this35type of test before we show how $N$ {\it fails the Fermat $2$-test.} \par36\par The starting idea behind this test is the famous result known as {\em37Fermat's Little Theorem} where the ``little'' is meant to alliteratively38distinguish it from you-know-what. \begin {theorem}[Fermat's Little Theorem]39If $p$ is a prime number, and $a$ is any number relatively prime to $p$ then40$a^{p-1} - 1$ is divisible by $p$. \end {theorem} A good exercise is to try41to prove this, and a one-word hint that might lead you to one of the many42proofs of it is {\em induction}.\footnote {Here's the proof: $$(N+1)^p \equiv43N^p +1 \equiv (N+1)\ \mod p,$$ where the first equality is the binomial44theorem and the second equality is induction.} \par Now we are going to use45this as a criterion, by---in effect---restating it in what logicians would46call its {\it contrapositive}: \begin {theorem}[The Fermat $a$-test] If $M$47is a positive integer, and $a$ is any number relatively prime to $M$ such48that $a^{M-1} - 1$ is {\it not} divisible by $M$, then $M$ is {\it not} a49prime. \end {theorem} \par Well, Naskr\c {e}cki computed $2^{N-1}-1$ (for the50$204$-digit $N$ above) and saw that it is {\it not} divisible\footnote {The51number $2^{N-1}-1$ has a residue after division by $N$ of\\52$3334581100595953025153969739282790317394606677381970645616725285996925$\newline53$546610000568292727335792620957159782739813115005451450864072425835484898$\newline55$ 565112763692970799269335402819507605691622173717318335512037457$.} by $N$.56Ergo, our $N$ fails the Fermat $2$-test so is {\it not} prime. \par But then,57given that it is so ``easy'' to see that $N$ is not prime, a natural question58to ask is: what, in fact, is its prime factorization? This---it turns59out---isn't so easy to determine; Naskr\c {e}cki devoted $24$ hours of60computer time setting standard factorization algorithms on the task, and that61was not sufficient time to resolve the issue. The factorization of the62numerators of general Bernoulli numbers is the subject of a very interesting63website run by Samuel Wagstaff (\url64{http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/bernoulli}). Linked to this web page one65finds (\url {http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/bernoulli/composite}) which66gives a list of composite numbers whose factorizations have resisted all67attempts to date. The two-hundredth Bernoulli number is 12th on the list.68\par The page \url69{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_factorization_records} lists record70challenge factorization, and one challenge that was completed in 200971involves a difficult-to-factor number with 232 digits; its factorization was72completed by a large team of researchers and took around 2000 years of CPU73time. This convinced us that with sufficient motivation it would be possible74to factor $N$, and so we asked some leaders in the field to try. They75succeeded! \begin {quote}\sf Factorisation of B200 \par by Bill Hart on 4 Aug7605, 2012 at 07:24pm \par We are happy to announce the factorization of the77numerator of the 200th Bernoulli number: \par \begin {align*} N &= 389 \cdot78691 \cdot 5370056528687 \cdot c_{204}\\ c_{204} &= p_{90} \cdot p_{115}\\79p_{90} &= 149474329044343594528784250333645983079497454292\\ &=80838248852612270757617561057674257880592603\\ p_{115} &=81230988849487852221315416645031371036732923661613\\ &=82619208811597595398791184043153272314198502348476\\ &= 262970389605037770983\end {align*} \par The factorization of the 204-digit composite was made84possible with the help of many people: \begin {itemize} \item William Stein85and Barry Mazur challenged us to factor this number. \item Sam Wagstaff86maintains a table of factorizations of numerators of Bernoulli numbers at87\url {http://homes.cerias.purdue.edu/~ssw/bernoulli/bnum}. According to this88table, the 200th Bernoulli number is the 2nd smallest index with unfactored89numerator (the first being the 188th Bernoulli number). \item Cyril Bouvier90tried to factor the c204 by ECM up to 60-digit level, using the TALC cluster91at Inria Nancy - Grand Est. \item {\sf yoyo@home} tried to factor the c204 by92ECM up to 65-digit level, using the help of many volunteers of the93distributed computing platform \url {http://www.rechenkraft.net/yoyo/}. After94ECM was unsuccessful, we decided to factor the c204 by GNFS. \item Many95people at the Mersenne forum helped for the polynomial selection. The best96polynomial was found by Shi Bai, using his implementation of Kleinjung's97algorithm in CADO-NFS: \url98{http://www.mersenneforum.org/showthread.php?p=298264##post298264}. Sieving99was performed by many volunteers using {\sf NFS@home}, thanks to Greg100Childers. See \url {http://escatter11.fullerton.edu/nfs} for more details101about {\sf NFS@home}. This factorization showed that such a distributed102effort might be feasible for a new record GNFS factorization, in particular103for the polynomial selection. This was the largest GNFS factorization104performed by {\sf NFS@home} to date, the second largest being $2^{1040}+1$ at105183.7 digits. \item Two independent runs of the filtering and linear algebra106were done: one by Greg Childers with msieve (\url107{http://www.boo.net/~jasonp/qs.html}) using a 48-core cluster made available108by Bill Hart, and one by Emmanuel Thom\'{e} and Paul Zimmermann with CADO-NFS109(\url {http://cado-nfs.gforge.inria.fr/}), using the Grid 5000 platform.110\item The first linear algebra run to complete was the one with CADO-NFS,111thus we decided to stop the other run. \end {itemize} \par Bill Hart \end112{quote} \par We verify the factorization above in SageMath as follows: \\113\par {\sf sage: p90 = 1494743290443435945287842503336459830794974542928382\\11448852612270757617561057674257880592603\\ sage: p115 =115230988849487852221315416645031371036732923661613619\\1162088115975953987911840431532723141985023484762629703896050377709\\ sage: c204117= p90 * p115\\ sage: 389 * 691 * 5370056528687 * c204 ==118-numerator(bernoulli(200))\\ True\\ sage: is\_prime(p90), is\_prime(p115),119is\_prime(c204)\\ (True, True, False) }.120121\bibitem{Note02}122\label {bibnote:factor} Given an integer $n$, there are many algorithms123available for trying to write $n$ as a product of prime numbers. First we can124apply {\em trial division}, where we simply divide $n$ by each prime $2, 3,1255, 7, 11, 13, \ldots $ in turn, and see what small prime factors we find (up126to a few digits). After using this method to eliminate as many primes as we127have patience to eliminate, we typically next turn to a technique called {\em128Lenstra's elliptic curve method}, which allows us to check $n$ for129divisibility by bigger primes (e.g., around 10--15 digits). Once we've130exhausted our patience using the elliptic curve method, we would next hit our131number with something called the {\em quadratic sieve}, which works well for132factoring numbers of the form $n=pq$, with $p$ and $q$ primes of roughly133equal size, and $n$ having less than 100 digits (say, though the 100 depends134greatly on the implementation). All of the above algorithms---and then135some---are implemented in SageMath, and used by default when you type {\tt136factor(n)} into SageMath. Try typing {\tt factor(some number, verbose=8)} to137see for yourself. \par If the quadratic sieve fails, a final recourse is to138run the {\em number field sieve} algorithm, possibly on a supercomputer. To139give a sense of how powerful (or powerless, depending on perspective!) the140number field sieve is, a record-setting factorization of a general number141using this algorithm is the factorization of a 232 digit number called142RSA-768 (see \url {https://eprint.iacr.org/2010/006.pdf}): \par $ n =14312301866845301177551304949583849627207728535695953347921973224521\\144517264005072636575187452021997864693899564749427740638459251925573263\\145034537315482685079170261221429134616704292143116022212404792747377940\\14680665351419597459856902143413 $ \par \noindent {}which factors as $pq$,147where\par \noindent {} $ p =148334780716989568987860441698482126908177047949837137685689124313889\\14982883793878002287614711652531743087737814467999489 $ \par \noindent {}and\par150\noindent {} $ q =151367460436667995904282446337996279526322791581643430876426760322838\\15215739666511279233373417143396810270092798736308917. $ \par \noindent {}We153encourage you to try to factor $n$ in SageMath, and see that it fails.154SageMath does not yet include an implementation of the number field sieve155algorithm, though there are some free implementations currently available156(see \url {http://www.boo.net/~jasonp/qs.html}).157158\bibitem{Note03}159We can use SageMath (at \url {http://sagemath.org}) to quickly compute the160``hefty number'' $p = 2^{43,112,609}-1$. Simply type {\tt p = 2\^{}43112609 -1611} to instantly compute $p$. In what sense have we {\em computed} $p$?162Internally, $p$ is now stored in base $2$ in the computer's memory; given the163special form of $p$ it is not surprising that it took little time to compute.164Much more challenging is to compute all the base 10 digits of $p$, which165takes a few seconds: {\tt d = str(p)}. Now type {\tt d[-50:]} to see the last16650 digits of $p$. To compute the sum $58416637$ of the digits of $p$ type167{\tt sum(p.digits())}.168169\bibitem{Note04}170In contrast to the situation with factorization, testing integers of this size171(e.g., the primes $p$ and $q$) for primality is relatively easy. There are172fast algorithms that can tell whether or not any random thousand digit number173is prime in a fraction of second. Try for yourself using the SageMath command174{\tt is\_prime}. For example, if $p$ and $q$ are as in endnote~\ref175{bibnote:factor}, then {\tt is\_prime(p)} and {\tt is\_prime(q)} quickly176output True and {\tt is\_prime(p*q)} outputs False. However, if you type {\tt177factor(p*q, verbose=8)} you can watch as SageMath tries forever and fails to178factor $pq$.179180\bibitem{Note05}181In Sage, the function {\tt prime\_range} enumerates primes in a range. For182example, {\tt prime\_range(50)} outputs the primes up to $50$ and {\tt183prime\_range(50,100)} outputs the primes between $50$ and $100$. Typing {\tt184prime\_range(10\^{}8)} in SageMath enumerates the primes up to a hundred185million in around a second. You can also enumerate primes up to a billion by186typing {\tt v=prime\_range(10\^{}9)}, but this will use a large amount of187memory, so be careful not to crash your computer if you try this. You can see188that there are $\pi (10^9) = 50{,}847{,}534$ primes up to a billion by then189typing {\tt len(v)}. You can also compute $\pi (10^9)$ directly, without190enumerating all primes, using the command {\tt prime\_pi(10\^{}9)}. This is191much faster since it uses some clever counting tricks to find the number of192primes without actually listing them all. \par In Chapter~\ref193{sec:tinkering} we tinkered with the staircase of primes by first counting194both primes and prime powers. There are comparatively few prime powers that195are not prime. Up to $10^8$, only $1{,}405$ of the $5{,}762{,}860$ prime196powers are not themselves primes. To see this, first enter {\tt197a~=~prime\_pi(10\^{}8); pp~=~len(prime\_powers(10\^{}8))}. Typing {\tt198(a,~pp,~pp-a)} then outputs the triple {\tt (5761455, 5762860, 1405)}.199200\bibitem{Note06}201Hardy and Littlewood give a nice conjectural answer to such questions about202gaps between primes. See Problem {\bf A8} of Guy's book {\em Unsolved203Problems in Number Theory} (2004). Note that Guy's book discusses counting204the number $P_k(X)$ of pairs of primes up to $X$ that differ by a fixed even205number $k$; we have $P_k(X)\geq \Gap _k(X)$, since for $P_k(X)$ there is no206requirement that the pairs of primes be consecutive.207208\bibitem{Note07}209If $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ are real-valued functions of a real variable $x$ such that210for any $\epsilon >0$ both of them take their values between $ x^{1-\epsilon211}$ and $ x^{1+\epsilon }$ for $x$ sufficiently large, then say that $f(x)$212and $g(x)$ are {\bf good approximations of one another} if, for any positive213$\epsilon $ the absolute value of their difference is less than $ x^{{1\over2142}+\epsilon }$ for $x$ sufficiently large. The functions $\Li (X)$ and $R(X)$215are good approximations of one another.216217\bibitem{Note08}218This computation of $\pi (X)$ was done by David J. Platt in 2012, and is the219largest value of $\pi (X)$ ever computed. See \url220{http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.5712} for more details.221222\bibitem{Note09}223In fact, the Riemann Hypothesis is equivalent to $|\Li (X) - \pi (X)| \leq224\sqrt {X}\log (X)$ for all $X\geq 2.01$. See Section 1.4.1 of Crandall and225Pomerance's book {\em Prime Numbers: A Computational Perspective}.226227\bibitem{Note10}228For a proof of this here's a hint. Compute the difference between the229derivatives of $\Li (x)$ and of $x/\log x$. The answer is $1/\log ^2(x)$. So230you must show that the ratio of $\int _2^X dx/\log ^2(x)$ to $\Li (x)= \int231_2^Xdx/\log (x)$ tends to zero as~$x$ goes to infinity, and this is a good232calculus exercise.233234\bibitem{Note11}235See \url {http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Riemann/Zeta/} for the236original German version and an English translation.237238\bibitem{Note12}239We have $$\psi (X) =\sum _{p^n \le X}\log p$$ where the summation is over prime240powers $p^n$ that are $\le X$.241242\bibitem{Note13}243See \url {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_Fourier_transform}.244245\bibitem{Note14}246\url {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_\%28mathematics\%29} contains a247more formal definition and treatment of distributions. Here is Schwartz's248explanation for his choice of the word {\it distribution:} \begin249{quote}``Why did we choose the name distribution? Because, if $\mu $ is a250measure, i.e., a particular kind of distribution, it can be considered as a251distribution of electric charges in the universe. Distributions give more252general types of electric charges, for example dipoles and magnetic253distributions. If we consider the dipole placed at the point $a$ having254magnetic moment $M$, we easily see that it is defined by the distribution255$-D_M \delta _{(a)}$. These objects occur in physics. Deny's thesis, which he256defended shortly after, introduced electric distributions of finite energy,257the only ones which really occur in practice; these objects really are258distributions, and do not correspond to measures. Thus, distributions have259two very different aspects: they are a generalization of the notion of260function, and a generalization of the notion of distribution of electric261charges in space. [...] Both these interpretations of distributions are262currently used.''\end {quote}.263264\bibitem{Note15}265David Mumford suggested that we offer the following paragraph from\\ \url266{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function}\\ on the Dirac delta267function: \begin {quote} An infinitesimal formula for an infinitely tall,268unit impulse delta function (infinitesimal version of Cauchy distribution)269explicitly appears in an 1827 text of Augustin Louis Cauchy. Sim\'{e}on Denis270Poisson considered the issue in connection with the study of wave propagation271as did Gustav Kirchhoff somewhat later. Kirchhoff and Hermann von Helmholtz272also introduced the unit impulse as a limit of Gaussians, which also273corresponded to Lord Kelvin's notion of a point heat source. At the end of274the 19th century, Oliver Heaviside used formal Fourier series to manipulate275the unit impulse. The Dirac delta function as such was introduced as a276``convenient notation'' by Paul Dirac in his influential 1930 book {\em277Principles of Quantum Mechanics}. He called it the ``delta function'' since278he used it as a continuous analogue of the discrete Kronecker delta. \end279{quote}.280281\bibitem{Note16}282As discussed in\\ \url283{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_\%28mathematics\%29},284``generalized functions'' were introduced by Sergei Sobolev in the 1930s,285then later independently introduced in the late 1940s by Laurent Schwartz,286who developed a comprehensive theory of distributions.287288\bibitem{Note17}289If the \RH {} holds they are precisely the {\it imaginary parts of the290``nontrivial'' zeroes of the Riemann zeta function}.291292\bibitem{Note18}293{\it The construction of $ \Phi (t)$ from $\psi (X)$:} \par Succinctly, for294positive real numbers $t$, $$\Phi (t): \ = \ e^{- t/2}\Psi '(t),$$ where295$\Psi (t) = \psi (e^t)$ (see Figure~\ref {fig:psi_200}), and $\Psi '$ is the296derivative of $\Psi (t)$, viewed as a distribution. We extend this function297to all real arguments $t$ by requiring $\Phi (t)$ to be an even function of298$t$, i.e., $\Phi (-t)= \Phi (t)$. But, to review this at a more leisurely299pace, \begin {enumerate} \par \item Distort the $X$-axis of our staircase by300replacing the variable $X$ by $e^t$ to get the function $$\Psi (t):= \psi301(e^t).$$ No harm is done by this for we can retrieve our original $\psi (X)$302as $$\psi (X) = \Psi (\log (X)).$$ Our distorted staircase has risers at ($0$303and) all positive integral multiples of logs of prime numbers. \par \par \par304\par \item Now we'll do something that might seem a bit more brutal: {\it305take the derivative of this distorted staircase $\Psi (t)$.} This derivative306$\Psi '(t)$ is a {\it generalized} function with support at all nonnegative307integral multiples of logs of prime numbers. \par \vskip 20pt \ill308{bigPsi_prime}{1}{$\Psi '(t)$ is a (weighted) sum of Dirac delta functions at309the logarithms of prime powers $p^n$ weighted by $\log (p)$ (and by $\log310(2\pi )$ at $0$). The taller the arrow, the larger the weight.} \par \item311Now---for normalization purposes---multiply $\Psi '(t)$ by the function312$e^{-t/2}$ which has no effect whatsoever on the support. \end {enumerate}313\vskip 20pt\ill {psi_200}{.4}{Illustration of the staircase $\psi (X)$314constructed in Chapter~\ref {sec:tinkering} that counts weighted prime315powers.\label {fig:psi_200}} \par \par \par In summary: The generalized316function that resulted from the above carpentry: $$\Phi (t) = e^{-t/2}\Psi317'(t),$$ retains the information we want (the placement of primes) even if in318a slightly different format.319320\bibitem{Note19}321A version of the Riemann--von Mangoldt explicit formula gives some theoretical322affirmation of the phenomena we are seeing here. We thank Andrew Granville323for a discussion about this. \par \ill {granville}{0.25}{Andrew Granville}324\par \par Even though the present endnote is not the place to give anything325like a full account, we can't resist setting down a few of Granville's326comments that might be helpful to people who wish to go further. (This327discussion can be modified to analyze what happens unconditionally, but we328will be assuming the \RH {} below.) The function ${\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta329)$ that we are graphing in this chapter can be written as: $${\hat \Phi330}_{\le C}(\theta )= \sum _{n\le C}\Lambda (n)n^{-w}$$ where $w = {\frac331{1}{2}}+i\theta $. This function, in turn, may be written (by Perron's332formula) as \begin {align*} &{\frac {1}{2\pi i }}\lim _{T \to \infty }\int333_{s=\sigma _o-iT}^{s=\sigma _o+iT}\sum _{n}\Lambda (n)n^{-w}\left ({\frac334{C}{n}}\right )^{s}{\frac {ds}{s}}\\ &= {\frac {1}{2\pi i }}\lim _{T \to335\infty }\int _{s=\sigma _o-iT}^{s=\sigma _o+iT}\sum _{n}\Lambda336(n)n^{-w-s}C^{s}{\frac {ds}{s}}\\ &= -{\frac {1}{2\pi i }}\lim _{T \to \infty337}\int _{s=\sigma _o-iT}^{s=\sigma _o+iT}\left ({\frac {\zeta '}{\zeta338}}\right )(w+s){\frac {C^{s}}{s}}ds. \end {align*} \par Here, we assume that339$\sigma _o$ is sufficiently large and $C$ is not a prime power. \par One340proceeds, as is standard in the derivation of Explicit Formulae, by moving341the line of integration to the left, picking up residues along the way. Fix342the value of $w= {\frac {1}{2}}+i\theta $ and consider $$K_w(s,C):=\ \ {\frac343{1}{2\pi i }}\left (\frac {\zeta '}{\zeta }\right )(w+s){\frac {C^{s}}{s}},$$344which has poles at $$s= 0, \ \ \ 1-w,\ \ \ {\rm and }\ \ \ \rho -w, $$ for345every zero $\rho $ of $\zeta (s)$. We distinguish five cases, giving346descriptive names to each: \par \begin {enumerate} \item {\it Singular pole:}347$s= 1-w$. \item {\it Trivial poles:} $s= \rho -w$ with $\rho $ a trivial zero348of $\zeta (s)$. \item {\it Oscillatory poles:} $s= \rho -w = i(\gamma -\theta349) \ne 0$ with $\rho = 1/2 + i \gamma (\ne w)$ a nontrivial zero of $\zeta350(s)$. (Recall that we are assuming the \RH {}, and our variable $w= {\frac351{1}{2}}+i\theta $ runs through complex numbers of real part equal to ${\frac352{1}{2}}$. So, in this case, $s$ is purely imaginary.) \item {\it Elementary353pole:} $s=0$ when $ w$ is not a nontrivial zero of $\zeta (s)$---i.e., when354$0=s\ne \rho -w$ for any nontrivial zero $\rho $. \item {\it Double pole:}355$s=0$ when $ w$ is a nontrivial zero of $\zeta (s)$---i.e., when $0=s=\rho356-w$ for some nontrivial zero $\rho $. This, when it occurs, is indeed a357double pole, and the residue is given by $m\cdot \log C +\epsilon $. Here $m$358is the multiplicity of the zero $\rho $ (which we expect always---or at least359usually---to be equal to $1$) and $\epsilon $ is a constant (depending on360$\rho $, but not on $C$). \par \end {enumerate} \par The standard technique361for the ``Explicit formula'' will provide us with a formula for our function362of interest ${\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta )$. The formula has terms resulting363from the residues of each of the first three types of poles, and of the {\it364Elementary} or the {\it Double} pole---whichever exists. Here is the shape of365the formula, given with terminology that is meant to be evocative: \par \par366$$ {\bf (1)}\ \ \ {\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta ) = {\Sing }_{\le C}(\theta ) +367{\Triv }_{\le C}(\theta ) + {\Osc }_{\le C}(\theta ) + {\Elem }_{\le368C}(\theta )$$ \par Or: \par $${\bf (2)}\ \ \ {\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta ) =369{\Sing }_{\le C}(\theta ) + {\Triv }_{\le C}(\theta ) + {\Osc }_{\le370C}(\theta ) + {\Double }_{\le C}(\theta ),$$ \par \noindent the first if $w$371is not a nontrivial zero of $\zeta (s)$ and the second if it is. \par The372good news is that the functions ${\Sing }_{\le C}(\theta ), {\Triv }_{\le373C}(\theta )$ (and also ${\Elem }_{\le C}(\theta )$ when it exists) are smooth374(easily describable) functions of the two variables $C$ and $\theta $; for375us, this means that they are not that related to the essential376information-laden {\it discontinuous} structure of $ {\hat \Phi }_{\le377C}(\theta )$. Let us bunch these three contributions together and call the378sum ${\Smooth }(C,\theta )$, and rewrite the above two formulae as: $$ {\bf379(1)}\ \ \ {\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta ) ={\Smooth }(C,\theta ) + {\Osc }_{\le380C}(\theta ) $$ \par Or: \par $${\bf (2)}\ \ \ {\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta ) =381{\Smooth }(C,\theta )+ {\Osc }_{\le C}(\theta ) + m\cdot \log C +\epsilon ,$$382\par depending upon whether or not $w$ is a nontrivial zero of $\zeta (s)$.383\par \par We now focus our attention on the Oscillatory term, ${\Osc }_{\le384C}(\theta ) $, approximating it by a truncation: $$\Osc _w(C,X):= 2\sum385_{|\gamma | < X} {{\frac {e^{i\log C\cdot (\gamma -\theta )}}{i(\gamma386-\theta )}}}.$$ Here if a zero has multiplicity $m$, then we count it $m$387times in the sum. Also, in this formula we have relegated the ``$\theta $" to388the status of a subscript (i.e., $w = {\frac {1}{2}} +i\theta $) since we are389keeping it constant, and we view the two variables $X$ and $C$ as linked in390that we want the cutoff ``$X$" to be sufficiently large, say $X \gg C^2$, so391that the error term can be controlled. \par At this point, we can perform a392``multiplicative version'' of a Ces\`aro summation---i.e., the operator $F(c)393\mapsto ({\Ces } F)(C):= \int _1^CF(c) dc/c.$ This has the effect of forcing394the oscillatory term to be bounded as $C$ tends to infinity. \par This395implies that for any fixed $\theta $, \begin {itemize} \item ${\Ces }{\hat396\Phi }_{\le C}(\theta )$ is bounded independent of $C$ if $\theta $ is not397the imaginary part of a nontrivial zero of $\zeta (s)$ and \item ${\Ces398}{\hat \Phi }_{\le C}(\theta )$ grows as ${\frac {m}{2}}\cdot (\log C)^2399+O(\log C)$ if $\theta $ is the imaginary part of a nontrivial zero of $\zeta400(s)$ of multiplicity $m$, \end {itemize} giving a theoretical confirmation of401the striking feature of the graphs of our Chapter~\ref402{ch:prime-to-spectrum}.403404\bibitem{Note20}405A reference for this is: \par \vskip 10pt {\bf [I-K]: }H. Iwaniec; E. Kowalski,406{\bf Analytic Number Theory}, {\em American Mathematical Society Colloquium407Publications} {\bf 53} (2004). \par (See also the bibliography there.) \vskip40810pt Many ways of seeing the explicit relationship are given in Chapter 5 of409{\bf [I-K]}. For example, consider Exercise 5 on page 109. \par $$\sum _{\rho410}{\hat \phi }(\rho ) = -\sum _{n \ge 1}\Lambda (n)\phi (n) + I(\phi ),$$ \par411where \begin {itemize} \item $\phi $ is any smooth complex-valued function on412$[1,+\infty )$ with compact support,\item ${\hat \phi }$ is its Mellin413transform $${\hat \phi }(s):= \int _0^{\infty }\phi (x)x^{s-1}dx,$$ \item the414last term on the right, $I(\phi )$, is just $$I(\phi ):= \int _1^{\infty415}(1-{\frac {1}{x^3-x}})\phi (x)dx$$ (coming from the pole at $s=1$ and the416``trivial zeroes''). \item The more serious summation on the left hand side417of the equation is over the nontrivial zeroes $\rho $, noting that if $\rho $418is a nontrivial zero so is~${\bar \rho }$. \end {itemize} \par \par \par Of419course, this ``explicit formulation'' is not {\it immediately} applicable to420the graphs we are constructing since we cannot naively take ${\hat \phi }$ to421be a function forcing the left hand side to be $G_C(x)$. \par See also422Exercise 7 on page 112, which discusses the sums $$ x - \sum _{|\theta | \le423C} {\frac {x^{{\frac {1}{2}} +i\theta }-1}{{\frac {1}{2}} +i\theta }}. $$.424425\bibitem{Note21}426You may well ask how we propose to order these correction terms if RH is false.427Order them in terms of (the absolute value of) their imaginary part, and in428the unlikely situation that there is more than one zero with the same429imaginary part, order zeroes of the same imaginary part by their real parts,430going from right to left.431432\bibitem{Note22}433Bombieri, {\em The Riemann Hypothesis}, available at \url434{http://www.claymath.org/sites/default/files/official_problem_description.pdf}.435436\end{thebibliography}437438439