Applications of multiplicative number theory to uniform
distribution and ergodic Ramsey theory
V. Bergelson∗
J. Kułaga-Przymus†
M. Lemańczyk‡
F. K. Richter
arXiv:1705.07322v1 [math.NT] 20 May 2017
May 23, 2017
Abstract
We utilize facts, techniques and ideology coming from multiplicative number theory to
obtain refinements and enhancements in the theory of uniform distribution and the theory
of multiple recurrence involving level sets of multiplicative functions. Among other things
we obtain a generalization of Kátai’s orthogonality criterion. Here is a special case of our
result:
Theorem. Let a : N → C be a bounded sequence satisfying
X
a(pn)a(qn) = o(x), for all distinct primes p and q.
n6x
Then for any multiplicative function f and any z ∈ C one has the following relation for
the indicator function of the level set E = E(f, z) := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z}
X
1E (n)a(n) = o(x).
n6x
As an application of the above theorem we show that if E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} is a
level set of a multiplicative function having positive upper density, then for a large class
of sufficiently smooth functions h : (0, ∞) → R the sequence (h(nj ))j∈N is uniformly
distributed mod 1. The class of functions h(t) to which our result applies includes: p(t)
for any non-constant polynomial in R[t]\Q[t], tc for any c > 0 with c ∈
/ N, logr (t) for any
t
r > 2, log(Γ(t)), t log(t), and log t .
Given a level set E of an arbitrary multiplicative function f , we establish a structure
theorem which gives a decomposition of 1E into an almost periodic and a pseudo-random
component. Using this structure theorem, we obtain the following result pertaining to
polynomial multiple recurrence.
Theorem. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a level set of an arbitrary multiplicative function.
Then the following are equivalent:
• E is divisible, i.e. the upper density of the set E ∩ uN is positive for all u ∈ N;
• E is an averaging set of polynomial multiple recurrence, i.e. for all measure preserving systems (X, B, µ, T ), all A ∈ B with µ(A) > 0, all ℓ > 1 and all polynomials
pi ∈ Z[x], i = 1, . . . , ℓ, with pi (0) = 0 we have
N
1 X
µ A ∩ T −p1 (nj ) A ∩ . . . ∩ T −pℓ (nj ) A > 0.
N →∞ N
j=1
lim
We also show that if a level set of a multiplicative function E has positive upper
density, then any self-shift E − r, r ∈ E, is a set of polynomial multiple recurrence. This
yields the following refinement of the polynomial Szemerédi theorem.
∗
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support of the NSF under grant DMS-1500575.
Research supported by Narodowe Centrum Nauki UMO-2014/15/B/ST1/03736.
‡
Research supported by Narodowe Centrum Nauki UMO-2014/15/B/ST1/03736 and the EU grant “AOS”,
FP7-PEOPLE-2012-IRSES, No 318910.
†
1
Theorem. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a level set of an arbitrary multiplicative function,
suppose E has positive upper density and let r ∈ E. Then for any set D ⊂ N with positive
upper density and any polynomials pi ∈ Q[t], i = 1, . . . , ℓ, which satisfy pi (Z) ⊂ Z and
pi (0) = 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , ℓ}, there exists β > 0 such that the set
n
o
n ∈ (E − r) : d D ∩ (D − p1 (n)) ∩ . . . ∩ (D − pℓ (n)) > β
has positive lower density.
Contents
1
Introduction
2
Preliminaries
2.1 Multiplicative functions . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Mean value theorems for multiplicative functions
2.3 Besicovitch almost periodic functions . . . . . .
2.4 Additive functions with values in T . . . . . . .
2.5 Additive functions with values in R . . . . . . .
2.6 Ruzsa’s theorem and some of its corollaries . . .
2.7 Uniform functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
10
11
12
15
16
17
18
Extending the Kátai orthogonality
(∞)
3.1 Definition of Ec.pt. and E∂ . . . .
3.2 A generalization of Theorem A .
3.3 Proof of Proposition 3.2 . . . . .
3.4 Proof of Proposition 3.5 . . . . .
3.5 Proof of Proposition 3.8 . . . . .
3.6 Proof of Proposition 3.9 . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
20
20
21
23
24
30
33
3
2
criterion
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
The dichotomy theorem for M0
36
4.1 Equivalent characterizations of M0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Proof of Theorem G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
5
The
5.1
5.2
5.3
6
Applications to the theory of uniform distribution
7
Applications to Ergodic Theory and Combinatorics
7.1 Single recurrence and proofs of Corollary C and Theorem F
7.2 Proof of Theorem H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(1)
7.3 The class Drat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7.4 Proofs of Theorems J and K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Structure Theorem for D(1)
38
Relative uniformity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A proof of Theorem I for the special case of concentrated multiplicative functions . . . . . . . 40
A proof of Theorem I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
47
.
.
.
.
A Appendix
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
48
49
50
52
54
55
1. Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to refine some known results in the theory of uniform distribution
and the theory of multiple recurrence by establishing new results for the pertinent Cesàro
averages along arithmetic sets originating in multiplicative number theory.
An arithmetic function f : N = {1, 2, . . . , } → C is called multiplicative if f (1) = 1 and
f (mn) = f (n) · f (m) for all relatively prime m, n ∈ N (and is called completely multiplicative
if f (mn) = f (m) · f (n) for all m, n ∈ N). Let f : N → C be a multiplicative function, let z ∈ C
and let E(f, z) denote the set of solutions to the equation f (n) = z, i.e.,
E(f, z) := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z}.
We will refer to E(f, z) as a level set of f . While E(f, z) is defined by means of the multiplicative structure of N, it possesses many interesting properties from the viewpoint of additive
integer arithmetic.
In this article we will be interested in studying the structure of sets of the form E(f, z)
with the intention to obtain applications to the the theory of uniform distribution and ergodic Ramsey theory. We start the discussion by formulating the following classical result of
Daboussi.
Theorem 1.1 (cf. [12, Theorem 1]). Let f : N → C be a multiplicative function with |f (n)| 6
1 for all n ∈ N. Then for all irrational θ,
X
f (n)e(θn) = o(x),
n6x
where e(x) := e2πix for all x ∈ R.
A nice (and shorter) proof of Theorem 1.1, which also yields more general results (for
instance e(θn) replaced with e(θn2 )), was later discovered by Kátai [29]. The following theorem
is the main technical result that Kátai uses to improve Daboussi’s result and, in addition, to
derive new results in the theory of equidistribution (in particular, it is proved in [29] that for
any additive function 1 a : N → R and any non-constant p ∈ R[x]\Q[x] the sequence a(n)+p(n)
is uniformly distributed mod 12 .).
Theorem 1.2 (Kátai’s orthogonality criterion, see [29, 10]). Let a : N → C be a bounded
sequence satisfying
X
a(pn)a(qn) = o(x), for all distinct primes p and q.
(1)
n6x
Then for every multiplicative function f : N → C that is bounded in modulus by 1, one has
X
f (n)a(n) = o(x).
(2)
n6x
Our first result is a generalization of Kátai’s orthogonality criterion in which the multiplicative function f is replaced by the indicator function of a level set of f . Actually, our
result holds for sets that are more general than sets of the form E(f, z).
Definition 1.3.
Definition of D (r) . For r ∈ N let D (r) denote the collection of all sets of the from
E(f1 , . . . , fr , z1 , . . . , zr ) := {n ∈ N : f1 (n) = z1 , . . . , fr (n) = zr },
where f1 , . . . , fr are arbitrary multiplicative functions and z1 , . . .S
, zr are arbitrary com(1)
(2)
(∞)
(r)
plex numbers. It
:= ∞
r=1 D .
is clear that D ⊂ D ⊂ . . .; we set D
Definition
of Ec.pt. . A point z ∈ C is called a concentration point for f : N → C if
P
1
p prime
p = ∞ (cf. [31, Definition 3.9]). We define Ec.pt. to be the collection of all
f (p)=z
sets of the from E(f, K) := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K}, where K is an arbitrary subset of C
and f : N → Cis a multiplicative function possessing at least one concentration point.
Definition of Epol . A set K ⊂ C is an elementary set in polar coordinates if it can be
1
An arithmetic function a : N → R is called additive if a(nm) = a(n) + a(m) for all m, n with gcd(n, m) = 1.
A real-valued sequence (xn )n∈N is called uniformly distributed mod 1 if for all continuous functions
f : [0, 1) → C one has
Z 1
N
1 X
lim
f ({xn }) =
f (x) dx,
N→∞ N
0
n=1
2
where for y ∈ R the expression {y} denotes the fractional part of y.
3
expressed as a finite union of sets of the form {re2πiϕ : r ∈ I1 , ϕ ∈ I2 }, where I1 and
I2 are (open, closed or half-open) intervals in R. Let Epol denote the collection of all
sets of the form E(f, K) := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K}, where K is an elementary set in polar
coordinatesP
and f is a multiplicative function bounded in modulus by 1 and satisfying
limN →∞ N1 N
6 0 (note that this limit always exists by Wirsing’s mean value
n=1 |f (n)| =
theorem, see Theorem 2.3 below).
The classes D (∞) , Ec.pt. and Epol contain numerous classical sets originating in multiplicative
number theory. The following (admittedly long) list is comprised of representative examples
of sets from these classes which will frequently appear in the next sections of the paper. A
more detailed explanation why the sets in Ex.1.4.1 - Ex.1.4.7 below are indeed elements of
D (∞) , Ec.pt. or Epol is provided at the end of Subsection 3.1 (see Example 3.6).
Example 1.4.
Ex.1.4.1: The set Q of squarefree numbers belongs to D (1) ;
Ex.1.4.2: Let Ω(n) denote the number of prime factors of n (counted with multiplicities) and
ω(n) denote the number of distinct prime divisors of n (without multiplicities). For
any b1 , b2 , r1 , r2 ∈ N, the sets
SΩ,b1 ,r1 := {n ∈ N : Ω(n) ≡ r1 mod b1 }
Sω,b2 ,r2 := {n ∈ N : ω(n) ≡ r2 mod b2 }
belong to D (1) and the sets
Sω,b1 ,r1 ∩ SΩ,b2 ,r2 = {n ∈ N : ω(n) ≡ r1 mod b1 , Ω(n) ≡ r2 mod b2 }
belong to D (2) .
Ex.1.4.3: For any irrational α > 0 and any set J ⊂ [0, 1), the sets
SΩ,α,J
Sω,α,J
:= {n ∈ N : Ω(n)α mod 1 ∈ J}
:= {n ∈ N : ω(n)α mod 1 ∈ J}
belong to Ec.pt. (cf. [17]).
Ex.1.4.4: For any x ∈ (0, 1), the set Φx := {n ∈ N : ϕ(n) < xn} belongs to Epol , where ϕ(n)
is Euler’s totient function (cf. [32]).
Ex.1.4.5: The set of abundant numbers A := {n ∈ N : σ(n) > 2n} and the
P set of deficient
numbers D := {n ∈ N : σ(n) < 2n} belong to Epol ; here σ(n) := d|n d denotes the
sum of divisors
P function (cf. [13]).
Ex.1.4.6: Let τ (n) := d|n 1 be the number of divisors function. For b, r ∈ N with gcd(r, b) =
1, the set
Sτ ,b,r := {n ∈ N : τ (n) ≡ r mod b}
belongs to D (t) , where t equals the number of generators of the group (Z/bZ)∗ . More
generally, {n ∈ N : f (n) ≡ r mod b} ∈ D (t) for any multiplicative function f : N → N
(cf. Ex.3.6.2 in Subsection 3.1).
Ex.1.4.7: If E belongs to either D (∞) , Ec.pt. or Epol , then for any multiplicative set 3 M the set
E ∩ M again belongs to D (∞) , Ec.pt. or Epol respectively. Clearly, any subsemigroup
of (N, ·) is a multiplicative set. Other examples include the set of k-free numbers.
Theorem A (Kátai’s orthogonality criterion for D (r) , Ec.pt. and Epol ). Let a : N → C be a
3
A set M ⊂ N is called multiplicative if 1 ∈ M and for all m, n ∈ N with gcd(m, n) = 1 one has m · n ∈ M
if and only if m ∈ M and n ∈ M . Equivalently, a set M is multiplicative if and only if its indicator function
1M is a multiplicative function.
4
bounded sequence satisfying criterion (1). If E ⊂ N belongs to one of the classes D (∞) , Ec.pt.
or Epol then
X
(3)
1E (n)a(n) = o(x).
n6x
Note that one can quickly derive Theorem 1.2 from Theorem A. Indeed, any multiplicative
function f : N → C that is bounded in modulus by 1 can be uniformly approximated by finite
linear combinations of functions of the form 1E(f,K), where K is an elementary set in polar
coordinates (and hence E(f, K) ∈ Epol ).
In Section 3 we also state and prove a generalization of Theorem A in which the restrictions on f and K in the definition of Ec.pt. and Epol are slightly relaxed (see Theorem 3.7).
However, the restrictions on f and K in Ec.pt. and Epol cannot be dropped entirely, as there
are multiplicative functions f and sets K ⊂ C such that (3) does not hold for E = E(f, K).
From Theorem A, by setting a(n) = e(nθ), we obtain the following generalization of Theorem 1.1.
Corollary B. Suppose E ⊂ N belongs to one of the classes D (∞) , Ec.pt. or Epol . Then for any
irrational θ we have
X
1E (n)e(θn) = o(x).
n6x
From Corollary B we obtain an immediate application to ergodic theory. We need first the
following definition.
Definition 1.5. A sequence (nj )j∈N in N is called totally ergodic if for any totally ergodic4
measure preserving system (X, B, µ, T ) and any f ∈ L2 we have
Z
N
1 X nj
f dµ,
T f=
lim
N →∞ N
X
n=1
where T f (x) := f (T x) and the convergence takes place in L2 (X, B, µ).
Using the spectral theorem, it is straightforward to show that a sequence (nj )j∈N is totally
ergodic if and only if (nj α) is uniformly distributed mod 1 for all irrational α. Thus Corollary B
yields the following result.
Corollary C. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to one of the classes D (∞) , Ec.pt.
or Epol and suppose d(E) exists5 and is positive. Then (nj )j∈N is a totally ergodic sequence.
Theorem A also leads to new uniform distribution results involving functions from Hardy
fields. Let G denote the set of all germs 6 at ∞ of real valued functions defined on some halfline (t0 , ∞) ⊂ R. Note that G forms a ring under pointwise addition and multiplication, which
we denote by (G, +, ·). Any subfield of the ring (G, +, ·) that is closed under differentiation is
called a Hardy field. By abuse of language, we say that a function h : (0, ∞) → R belongs to
some Hardy field H (and write f ∈ H) if its germ at ∞ belongs to H. See [7, 8, 9] and some
references therein for more information on Hardy fields.
A measure preserving system (X, B, µ, T ) is called totally ergodic if for every m ∈ N the map T m : X → X
is ergodic.
5
exists (cf. [31] and Corollary 2.21
For any E ∈ D(r) the natural density d(E) := limN→∞ |E∩{1,...,N}|
N
below). The density of sets E = E(f, K) belonging to Ec.pt. or Epol may not exist, but it exists for a rather
wide family of sets E(f, K), where the multiplicative function f and the set K are sufficiently regular. In
particular, all sets appearing in Example 1.4 have positive natural density.
6
A germ at ∞ is an equivalence class of functions under the equivalence relationship (f ∼ g) ⇔ ∃t0 >
0 such that f (t) = g(t) for all t ∈ (t0 , ∞) .
4
5
Here are some classical examples of functions from Hardy fields.
• the class of logarithmico-exponential functions introduced by Hardy in [26, 27], which
consists of all functions that can be obtained from polynomials with real coefficients,
log(t) and exp(t) using the standard arithmetical operations +,−,·,/ and the operation
log t
c
of composition (e.g. p(t)
q(t) for all p, q ∈ R[t], t for all c ∈ R, t , t log t, etc.).
• the Gamma function Γ(t), the Riemann zeta function ζ(t), and the logarithmic integral
function Li(t).
Given two functions f, g : (0, ∞) → R we write f (t) ≺ g(t) if fg(t)
(t) → ∞ as t → ∞. We will
say that a function f (t) has polynomial growth if there exists k ∈ N such that f (t) ≺ tk .
Theorem D. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to either D (∞) , Ec.pt. or
Epol . Suppose h : (0, ∞) → R belongs to a Hardy field, has polynomial growth and satisfies
2
|h(t) − r(t)| ≻ log
(t) for all polynomials r ∈ Q[t]. If d(E) exists and is positive then the
sequence h(nj ) j∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1.
We give in the following corollary a sample of cases to which Theorem D applies.
Corollary E. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to one of the classes D (∞) , Ec.pt.
or Epol and suppose d(E)exists and is positive. Then
• the sequence p(nj ) j∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1 for any non-constant p ∈ R[t]\Q[t];
• the sequence (ncj )j∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1 for any positive real number c that
is not an integer.
• the sequence (logr nj )j∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1 for any r > 2.
We will present now an application of Theorem D to ergodic theory.
Definition 1.6 (cf. Definition 1.5 above). A sequence (nj )j∈N of integers is called an ergodic
sequence if for any ergodic probability measure preserving system (X, B, µ, T ) and any f ∈ L2
we have
Z
N
1 X nj
lim
f dµ,
T f=
N →∞ N
X
n=1
where T f (x) := f (T x) and the convergence takes place in L2 (X, B, µ).
Theorem F. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to one of the classes D (∞) , Ec.pt.
or Epol . Suppose h : (0, ∞) → R belongs to a Hardy field, has polynomial growth and satisfies
either log2 t ≺ h(t) ≺ t or tk ≺ h(t) ≺ tk+1 for some k ∈ N. If d(E) exists and is positive then
the sequence ⌊h(nj )⌋ j∈N is an ergodic sequence.
Let M0 denote
P the collection of all multiplicative functions f : N → C with |f | 6 1 such
that limN →∞ N1 N
n=1 f (qn + r) exists for all q, r ∈ N. We will formulate now a dichotomy
theorem for M0 which relies on the work of Daboussi and Delange [11, 12] and Frantzikinakis
and Host [18] and is closely related to [18, Theorem 1.1]. The dichotomy theorem asserts that
any function in M0 is either very structured or exhibits (pseudo-)random behaviour. In order
to formulate this theorem we first have to introduce Besicovitch rationally almost periodic
functions, which epitomize ‘structure’, and Gowers’ notion of uniformity, which epitomizes
(pseudo-)randomness.
The Besicovitch seminorm k.kB for a bounded function f : N → C is defined as
N
1 X
|f (n)|.
kf kB := lim sup
N →∞ N n=1
(4)
Definition 1.7 ([6, 1, 4]). Let f : N → C be a bounded arithmetic function.
• f is called Besicovitch almost periodic if for every ε > 0 there exists a trigonometric
6
Pk
polynomial P (n) =
j=1 cj e(nθj ) with c1 , . . . , ck ∈ C and θ1 , . . . , θk ∈ R such that
kf − P kB < ε.
• Following [4], we call f : N → C (Besicovitch) rationally almost periodic if for every ε > 0
there exists
P a periodic function P : N → C (or, equivalently, a trigonometric polynomial
P (n) = kj=1 cj e(nθj ) with c1 , . . . , ck ∈ C and θ1 , . . . , θk ∈ Q) such that kf − P kB < ε.
Many multiplicative functions are Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. For instance,
one can show that any bounded multiplicative function taking values in [0, ∞) is Besicovitch
rationally almost periodic (cf. Remark 2.11 below).
Next, we give the definition of the Gowers uniformity seminorms and of uniform functions.
These notions play a central role in additive combinatorics and have useful applications to
ergodic theory.
For N ∈ N we write [N ] for the set {1, 2, . . . , N }.
Definition 1.8 (Gowers Uniformity Seminorms, [20]). For h, N ∈ N and for f : N → C let
T h f denote the function f (n+h) and fN the function 1[N ] ·f . For s ∈ N the Gowers uniformity
s
seminorms k.kU[N]
are defined7 inductively as
kf kU 1
[N]
and for s > 1
s+1
kf k2U s+1
[N]
N
1 X
fN (n)
:= N
n=1
N
2s
1 X
h
:=
fN T fN s .
N
U[N]
h=1
s
A bounded function f : N → C is called U s -uniform if kf kU[N]
converges to zero as N → ∞.
s
A function f is called uniform if it is U -uniform for every s > 1.
It follows from [23] and [24] that the Möbius function µ and the Liouville function λ are
uniform multiplicative functions.
We can state now the dichotomy theorem for M0 .
Theorem G (Dichotomy Theorem for M0 ). Let f ∈ M0 . Then either
(i) f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic,
or
s
(ii) f is uniform (i.e., all Gowers uniformity seminorms kf kU[N]
converge to 0 as N → ∞).
With the help of Theorem G we derive the following result.
Theorem H. Let (X, B, µ, T ) be a totally ergodic invertible measure preserving systems,
k ∈ N and f1 , . . . , fk ∈ L∞ (X, B, µ). Then for all f ∈ M0 the limit
N
1 X
lim
f (n) T n f1 T 2n f2 · · · T ℓn fℓ
N →∞ N
n=1
exists in L2 (X, B, µ) and equals
7
!
N
1 X
lim
f (n)
N →∞ N
n=1
!
N
1 X n
lim
T f1 T 2n f2 · · · T ℓn fℓ .
N →∞ N
n=1
s , but they
We remark that there are different ways of introducing the Gowers uniformity seminorms k.kU[N
]
all lead to equivalent seminorms. For a comprehensive discussion on this topic see subsections A.1 and A.2 of
Appendix A in [18] or see Appendix B in [22].
7
Our next goal is to present a structure theorem for the class D (1) , which is inspired by
Theorem G. Let us call a set A ⊂ N uniform if d(A) exists and the function 1A − d(A) is
uniform in the sense of Definition 1.8. In what follows we will also need a generalization of
the notion of uniform sets: Given E, R ⊂ N for which the densities d(E) and d(R) exist, we
say that E is uniform relative to R if E ⊂ R and the function d(R)1E − d(E)1R is uniform.
Note that a set A is uniform if and only if it is uniform relative to N. If E is uniform relative
to R then many properties of the set R are inherited by the set E. A more detailed discussion
on the notion of relative uniformity can be found in Subsection 5.1.
Example 1.9. As an example of a set E that is uniform relative to another set R, one can
take E := {n ∈ N : µ(n) = 1} and R to be the set Q of squarefree integers. Indeed, the
function d(R)1E − d(E)1R is a scalar multiple of the Möbius function µ, which is known to
be uniform.
The structure theorem for D (1) , which we will presently formulate, is motivated by Example 1.9 and asserts that any set E ∈ D (1) is uniform relative to a “structured” superset R.
(1)
In this context, “structured” sets are elements of the family Drat , which is introduced in the
following definition.
Definition 1.10.
(i) A set A ⊂ N is called rational if for every ε > 0 there exists a set B, that is a union of
finitely many arithmetic progression, such that d(A△B) < ε (see [5, Definition 2.1] and
[4]). Equivalently, a set A is rational if and only if its indicator function is Besicovitch
rationally almost periodic.
(1)
(ii) Let Drat be the collection of all sets of the from E(f, z) := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z}, where f
is a Besicovitch rationally almost periodic multiplicative function and z is an arbitrary
(1)
complex number. We remark that any set in Drat is a rational set (see Section 7.3 for a
proof of this fact).
Theorem I (Structure theorem for D (1) ). For any set E ∈ D (1) with positive density there
(1)
(1)
exists R ∈ Drat such that E is uniform relative to R. If d(E) 6= 1 then R ∈ Drat with this
property is unique.
Theorem I allows us to study multiple ergodic averages along level sets of multiplicative
functions, such as
N
1 X
1E (n) T p1 (n) f1 · · · T pℓ (n) fℓ,
N
n=1
where T is a measure preserving transformation on a probability space (X, B, µ), f1 , . . . , fℓ ∈
L∞ (X, B, µ), p1 , . . . , pℓ are polynomials with integer coefficients and E belongs to D (1) . Similar
expressions have also been studied by Frantzikinakis and Host in [17].
Definition 1.11. Let E = (nj )j∈N be a subset of N. We say that E is an averaging set of
recurrence if for all invertible measure preserving systems (X, B, µ, T ) and all A ∈ B with
µ(A) > 0,
N
1 X
µ A ∩ T nj A > 0.
N →∞ N
lim
j=1
We say that E is an averaging set of polynomial multiple recurrence if for all invertible
measure preserving systems (X, B, µ, T ), all A ∈ B with µ(A) > 0, all ℓ > 1 and all polynomials
8
pi ∈ Z[x], i = 1, . . . , ℓ, with pi (0) = 0 we have
N
1 X
lim
µ A ∩ T −p1 (nj ) A ∩ . . . ∩ T −pℓ (nj ) A > 0.
N →∞ N
(5)
j=1
If E is an averaging set of recurrence such that the density d(E) exists and is positive then
it follows – by considering cyclic rotations on finitely many points – that the density of E ∩ uN
also exists and is positive for any positive integer u. This divisibility property is a rather
trivial but necessary condition for a positive density set to be “good” for averaging recurrence.
This leads to the following definition.
Definition 1.12. Let E ⊂ N. We say that E is divisible if d(E ∩ uN) exists and is positive
for all u ∈ N.
Theorem J. Let E ∈ D (1) and let r ∈ N ∪ {0}. Then the following are equivalent:
• E − r is divisible;
• E − r is an averaging set of recurrence;
• E − r is an averaging set of polynomial multiple recurrence.
In view of Theorem J, it is of interest to determine for which integers r the set E − r is
divisible.
Example 1.13. Consider the sets E := {n ∈ N : µ(n) = 1} and R = Q from Example 1.9.
Then one can show that E − r is divisible if and only if r ∈ Q.
The next theorem asserts that the phenomenon showcased in Example 1.13 not only holds
for E := {n ∈ N : µ(n) = 1} but for any E ∈ D (1) of positive density.
(1)
Theorem K. Suppose E ∈ D (1) has positive density. Let R ∈ Drat be as guaranteed by
Theorem I. Then for all r ∈ R the set E − r is divisible.
Combining Theorem J and Theorem K yields the following corollary.
Corollary L. Suppose E ∈ D (1) has positive density. Then every self-shift of E is an averaging
set of polynomial multiple recurrence.
For more examples similar to Example 1.13 for which Theorem K can be applied see
Example 5.1 below.
Corollary L, in turn, implies – via Furstenberg’s correspondence principle – the following
combinatorial result (cf. [2, Theorem 1.8] and [4, Proposition 4.2]).
Corollary M. Let E be a set that belongs to D (1) and suppose E has positive density. Then
for any set D ⊂ N with positive upper density and any polynomials pi ∈ Q[t], i = 1, . . . , ℓ,
which satisfy pi (Z) ⊂ Z and pi (0) = 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , ℓ}, there exists β > 0 such that the
set
n
o
n ∈ (E − r) : d D ∩ (D − p1 (n)) ∩ . . . ∩ (D − pℓ (n)) > β
has positive lower density.
Structure of the paper:
In Section 2 we review basic results and facts regarding multiplicative functions, almost
periodic functions and the Gowers uniformity seminorms, which are needed in the subsequent
sections.
In Section 3 we establish some generalizations of the Kátai orthogonality criterion and give
a proof of Theorem A.
In Section 4 we discuss the dichotomy between structure and randomness for multiplicative
9
functions belonging to the class M0 and provide a proof of Theorem G.
In Section 5 we discuss in detail the notion of relative uniformity and prove Theorem I.
Sections 6 and 7 contain numerous applications of our main results to the theory of uniform
distribution and to ergodic theory. In particular, we provide proofs for Theorems D, F, H, J
and K.
Acknowledgements: We thank Viktor Losert for providing several helpful comments and
additional references regarding Theorem 2.5 in Subsection 2.3.
2. Preliminaries
In this section we present some basic results and ideas which will be used in the subsequent
sections. In certain instances the classical results are presented in a slightly modified form and
in those cases proofs are provided.
2.1. Multiplicative functions
Define
n
o
M := f : N → C f is multiplicative and sup |f (n)| 6 1 .
n∈N
The class M will play a central role throughout the paper. The following sample amply
demonstrates the diversity of multiplicative functions belonging to M; these functions will
frequently appear in the later sections.
Example 2.1.
Ex.2.1.1: The Liouville function λ is defined as λ(n) := (−1)Ω(n) and is completely multiplicative (for the definition of Ω(n) see Example 1.4).
Ex.2.1.2: The Möbius function µ is defined as µ(n) := λ(n) if n is squarefree and µ(n) := 0
otherwise. Note that µ is multiplicative but not completely multiplicative.
Ex.2.1.3: Let ϕ denote Euler’s totient function. Clearly, ϕ(n)
n ∈ M.
Ex.2.1.4: An arithmetic function χ is called a Dirichlet character if there exists a number
d ∈ N, called a modulus of χ, such that
(1) χ(n + d) = χ(n) for all n ∈ N;
(2) χ(n) = 0 whenever gcd(d, n) > 1, and χ(n) is a ϕ(d)-th root of unity whenever
gcd(d, n) = 1;
(3) χ(nm) = χ(n)χ(m) for all n, m ∈ N.
Any Dirichlet character is periodic and completely multiplicative.8 We also remark
that χ : N → C is a Dirichlet character of modulus k if and only if there exists a
group character χ
e of the multiplicative group (Z/kZ)∗ such that χ(n) = χ
e(n mod k)
for all n ∈ N. The Dirichlet character determined by the trivial (constant equal to
1) character of (Z/kZ)∗ is called the principal character of modulus k. It is denoted
by χ1 . Note that if d|k and χ is a Dirichlet character of modulus d then
χ′ := χ · χ1
(6)
is a Dirichlet character of modulus k. Throughout this paper we reserve the letter
χ to denote Dirichlet characters.
Ex.2.1.5: An Archimedean character is a function of the form n 7→ nit = eit log n with t ∈ R.
Any Archimedean character is completely multiplicative and takes values in the unit
8
The opposite is also true: Any periodic and completely multiplicative function is a Dirichlet character.
10
circle.
Ex.2.1.6: Throughout this paper we identify the torus T := R/Z with the unit interval
[0, 1) mod 1 or, when convenient, with the unit circle in the complex plane. Given
ξ ∈ T, let us define the multiplicative functions κξ , λξ and µξ as
κξ (n) := e(ξω(n)),
λξ (n) := e(ξΩ(n))
and
µξ (n) :=
(
e(ξΩ(n)), if n is squarefree
0,
otherwise.
It is clear that κξ , λξ , µξ ∈ M.
Next, we recall the definition of the “distance” function D : M × M → [0, ∞], which serves
as a useful tool for cataloguing the class of multiplicative functions bounded in modulus by 1.
Let P denote the set of prime numbers. For f, g ∈ M define
s
X 1
D(f, g) :=
1 − Re(f (p)g(p)) .
p
p∈P
Remark 2.2. Let us list some important properties of D. For more details and proofs the
reader is referred to the book of Granville and Soundararajan [21].
(1) D(f, g) = D(g, f ) = D(f , g);
(2) D satisfies the triangle inequality, D(f, g) 6 D(f, h) + D(h, g);
(3) mD(f, g) > D(f m , gm ) for all m ∈ N;
(4) For all t ∈ R\{0} one has D(1, nit ) = ∞ (cf. [21, Lemma 4.6]).
(5) D(f, g) < ∞ implies D(|f |, |g|) < ∞;
(6) D(χ, nit ) = ∞ for each t 6= 0 and each Dirichlet character χ;
(7) Let χ be a Dirichlet character. Then D(χ, 1) < ∞ if and only if χ is principal.
When D(f, g) < ∞ then, borrowing the terminology from [21], we say that f pretends to
be g. In this case, many properties of f are shared by g and vice versa. For instance, we
will see later that if f pretends to be g, then f is aperiodic if and only if g is aperiodic (see
Definition 2.25 and Remark 2.28 below).
2.2. Mean value theorems for multiplicative functions
For f ∈ M let M (f ) denote the mean value of f whenever it exists, i.e.,
N
1 X
f (n).
N →∞ N
n=1
M (f ) := lim
(7)
Note that the mean of a multiplicative function does not always exist (take, for example,
Archimedean characters, cf. [21, Section 4.3]).
Theorem 2.3 (Wirsing; see [34] and [16, Theorem 6.4]). For any real-valued g ∈ M the mean
value M (f ) exists.
The next theorem is essentially due to Halász [25] and provides easy to check (necessary
and sufficient) conditions for M (g) to exist.
Theorem 2.4 (Halász; see [16, Theorem 6.3]). Let g ∈ M. Then the mean value M (g) exists
if and only if one of the following mutually exclusive conditions is satisfied:
(i) there is at least one positive integer k so that g(2k ) 6= −1 and, additionally, the series
11
P
1
p∈P p (1
− g(p)) converges;
(ii) there is a real number t such that D(g, nit ) < ∞ and, moreover, for each positive integer
k we have g(2k ) = −2itk ;
(iii) D(g, nit ) = ∞ for each t ∈ R.
When condition (i) is satisfied then M (g) is non-zero and can be computed explicitly using
the formula
!
∞
X
Y
1
−m
m
p g(p ) .
(8)
1+
M (g) =
1−
p
m=1
p∈P
In the case when g satisfies either (ii) or (iii) then the mean value M (g) equals zero.
2.3. Besicovitch almost periodic functions
The Besicovitch seminorm k · kB and Besicovitch almost periodic and Besicovitch rationally
almost periodic functions were introduced in Section 1 (see equation (4) on page 6 and Definition 1.7).
Any periodic function is clearly Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. In particular, any
Dirichlet character χ is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. There are, however, many other
natural examples of multiplicative functions that are Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
For instance, µ2 and ϕ(n)
are such. More generally, it will be shown at the end of this
n
Subsection (see Remark 2.11 below) that any bounded multiplicative function with values in
[0, ∞) is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
For any Besicovitch almost periodic function f : N → C and any θ ∈ [0, 1) the limit
N
1 X
f (n)e(−nθ)
fˆ(θ) := lim
N →∞ N
n=1
exists; moreover fˆ(θ) differs from 0 for at most countably many values of θ (cf. [6, pp. 104 –
105]). The set σ(f ) := {θ ∈ [0, 1) : fˆ(θ) 6= 0} is called the spectrum of f . See [1, 6] for more
information on the Fourier Analysis of almost periodic functions.
We say that a Besicovitch almost periodic function f : N → C has rational spectrum if σ(f )
is a subset of Q ∩ [0, 1). Note that if f is periodic then its spectrum is rational. Moreover,
any function f ∈ M that is Besicovitch almost periodic has rational spectrum by Theorem 1.1
(this fact is used later, cf. Corollary 2.10 part (i) and (ii)).
In Corollary 2.6 below we show that a Besicovitch almost periodic function is Besicovitch
rationally almost periodic if and only if it has rational spectrum. We will derive this as a
corollary from the following theorem.
Theorem 2.5 (cf. [6, Theorem II.8.2◦ (page 105)] and [1, Lemma 3.11]). Let f : N → C be a
Besicovitch almost periodic function P
with spectrum σ(f ). Then for every ε > 0 there exists
a trigonometric polynomial P (n) = ki=1 ci e(θi n) with c1 , . . . , ck ∈ C and θ1 , . . . , θk ∈ σ(f )
such that kf − P kB 6 ε. This includes the case σ(f ) = ∅, where one can take P ≡ 0 for all
ε > 0 (i.e., f has empty spectrum if and only if kf kB = 0).
Proof. The following proof was kindly provided to the authors by Viktor Losert.
Given n0 , n1 , . . . , ns ∈ N and β1 , . . . , βs ∈ R such that the set {2π, β1 , β2 , . . . , βs } is linearly
n n ... n independent over Q, the discrete Bochner-Fejér kernel with parameter B = 2π0 β11 ... βss is
defined as
X
|νs | −i nν0 2π+ν1 β1 +...+νs βs k
|ν1 |
0
··· 1 −
e
KB (k) :=
1−
n1
ns
12
where the sum ranges over ν0 = 1, . . . , n0 , |ν1 | < n1 , . . . , |νs | < ns . The corresponding discrete
Bochner-Fejér polynomial is
N
1 X
f (n + k)KB (k).
N →∞ N
f
σB
(n) := lim
k=1
It is shown in [1, Lemma 3.11] (also cf. [6, Theorem II.8.2◦ (page 105)]) that there exists a
f
f
sequence of Bochner-Fejér polynomials σB
, m ∈ N, such that kf − σB
k → 0 as m → ∞.
m
m B
It is not hard to see that
d
f
ˆ
[
[
σB
(θ) = fˆ(θ) · K
Bm (1 − θ) = f (θ) · KBm (θ)
m
f
and hence σ(σB
) ⊂ σ(f ). This finishes the proof.
m
From Theorem 2.5 we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 2.6. Let f : N → C be Besicovitch almost periodic. Then f is Besicovitch rationally
almost periodic if and only if f has rational spectrum.
Proof. First assume f has rational spectrum. By Theorem 2.5,
Pfk can be aprroximated in k·kB seminorm by trigonometirc polynomials of the from P (n) = i=1 ci e(θi n) with c1 , . . . , ck ∈ C
and θ1 , . . . , θk ∈ σ(f ) ⊂ Q. Since θ1 , . . . , θk are rational numbers, the functions P (n) is
periodic. In other words, f satisfies the definition of Besicovitch rationally almost periodic
functions.
Next, let f be Besicovitch rationally almost periodic and let θ be an irrational number. We
will show that fˆ(θ) = 0. Let ε > 0 be arbitrary and let P : N → C be a periodic function with
kf − P kB 6 ε. Then
N
1 X
fˆ(θ) = lim f (n)e(−θn)
N →∞ N
n=1
N
1 X
P (n)e(−θn) + ε
6 lim N →∞ N
n=1
= ε.
Since ε > 0 was chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that fˆ(θ) = 0. This shows that no irrational
number θ is contained in σ(f ).
The next lemma is a consequence of Theorem 2.4 and establishes a connection between the
distance function D, defined in Subsection 2.1, and the Besicovitch seminorm k · kB .
Lemma 2.7. Suppose f ∈ M. Then kf kB = 0 if and only if D(|f |, 1) = ∞.
Proof. First, observe that kf kB = 0 if and only if the mean value of the multiplicative function
|f | is zero, i.e., M (|f |) = 0. In view of Theorem 2.4, the mean value of |f | is zero if and only
if |f | satisfies either condition (ii) or condition (iii) of the theorem. Since
1 − |f (p)| cos (tlog(p)) > min (1, 1 − cos (tlog(p))) ,
∀p ∈ P,
and D(1, nit ) = ∞ for all t 6= 0 (cf. part (4) of Remark 2.2), it follows that D(|f |, nit ) = ∞ for
all t 6= 0. Therefore |f | cannot satisfy condition (ii) of Theorem 2.4. Hence M (|f |) = 0 if and
only if f satisfies condition (iii) of Theorem 2.4. Finally, observe that |f | satisfies condition
(iii) if and only if D(|f |, 1) = ∞.
13
of Ex.2.1.3 onpage10. By TheExample 2.8. Consider the
function ϕ(n)
n
multiplicative
ϕ(n)
exists. Lemma 2.7 implies that M ϕ(n)
is non-zero.
orem 2.3 we have that M
n
n
2
P
P
Indeed, D | ϕ(n)
= p∈P p12 < ∞ and therefore, by Lemma 2.7,
= p∈P 1p 1 − ϕ(p)
n |, 1
p
ϕ(n) ϕ(n)
n > 0. Hence the mean value of n is strictly positive.
B
In [12, 11] Daboussi and Delange give necessary and sufficient conditions for a bounded
multiplicative function to be Besicovitch almost periodic:
Theorem 2.9 ([12, Theorem 6]). A function f ∈ M is Besicovitch almost
periodic if and
P
only if either kf kB = 0 or there exists a Dirichlet character χ such that p∈P 1p (1 − f (p)χ(p))
converges.9
From Theorem 2.9 we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 2.10. Let f ∈ M. The following are equivalent:
(i) f is Besicovitch almost periodic;
(ii) f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic;
P
(iii) either kf kB = 0 or there exists a Dirichlet character χ such that p∈P 1p (1 − f (p)χ(p))
converges.
Proof. The equivalence of (ii) and (iii) is given by Theorem 2.9. Also, the fact that (ii) implies
(i) is obvious. It thus remains to show that (i) implies (ii). However, from Theorem 1.1 we deduce that any multiplicative function f has rational spectrum, which, in view of Corollary 2.6,
implies that f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
Remark 2.11. We claim that any bounded multiplicative function f taking values in [0, ∞)
is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
Let us first prove the claim for the special case when 0 6 f (n) 6 1 for all n ∈ N. If
kf kB = 0 then f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic for trivial reasons; it thus suffices
to verify the claim for f with kf kB > 0. In view of Lemma 2.7 it follows from kf kB > 0
that D(f, 1) < ∞. Since f only takesP
values in the interval [0, 1], the assertion D(f, 1) < ∞ is
equivalent to the fact that the series p∈P p1 (1 − f (p)) converges. Therefore, using (iii) ⇒ (ii)
of Corollary 2.10, we conclude that f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
Next, assume f takes values in [0, b) for some b > 1. Define two new multiplicative functions
g and h via
(
(
1,
if f (pk ) 6 1
f (pk ), if f (pk ) 6 1
k
k
and
h(p
)
:=
g(p ) :=
f (pk ), if f (pk ) > 1.
1,
if f (pk ) > 1
Clearly, f (n) = g(n)h(n)for all n ∈ N. Moreover, g and h1 are multiplicative functions taking
values in [0, 1]. It follows from the previous paragraph that both g and h1 are Besicovitch
rationally almost periodic. Since h1 is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic, for all ε > 0 there
1
6 1 we can assume without
exists a periodic function P with k h1 − P kB 6 ε. Since 1b 6 h(n)
1
loss of generality that b 6 P (n) 6 1. It is then straightforward to show that kh − P1 kB 6 b2 ε,
which proves that h is also Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. Finally, observe that f , as a
product of two Besicovitch rationally almost periodic functions, is itself Besicovitch rationally
almost periodic.
9
P Actually,2 Daboussi and Delange prove their theorem for the larger class of multiplicative functions satisfying
n6x |f (n)| = O(x).
14
2.4. Additive functions with values in T
An arithmetic function a : N → T is called additive if a(n · m) = a(n) + a(m) for all m, n with
gcd(n, m) = 1. Note that for every additive function a : N → T the function f : N → {z ∈ C :
|z| = 1} ⊂ C defined as
f (n) := e(a(n)) = e2πia(n)
is a multiplicative function.
Definition 2.12. Let ν be a Borel probability measure on T and let x : N → T. The sequence
x has limiting distribution ν if for all continuous functions F ∈ C(T),
Z
N
1 X
F dν.
F (x(n)) =
lim
N →∞ N
T
n=1
If ν is the Lebesgue measure on T, then x(n) is said to be uniformly distributed in T.
Theorem 2.13 (see [16, Theorem 8.1, Theorem 8.2 and Remark after Theorem 8.2]). Let
a : N → T be an additive function and f (n) := e(a(n)) denote the corresponding multiplicative
function.
(a) The additive function a(n) is uniformly distributed in T if and only if D(f k , nit ) = ∞ for
all t ∈ R and all k > 1.
(b) The additive function a(n) has a limiting distribution ν that is not the Lebesgue measure
if and only if there exists k ∈ N such that
X1
p∈P
p
1 − f k (p)
converges. The limiting distribution is continuous (i.e. the measure ν is non-atomic) if
and only if
X
p∈P
ma(p)6=0 mod 1
1
= ∞,
p
∀m ∈ N.
Theorem 2.13 gives necessary and sufficient conditions for an additive function do have
a limiting distribution. In particular, if an additive function a(n) satisfies neither condition
(a) nor condition (b) of Theorem 2.13 then a(n) does not possess a limiting distribution.
However, even in this case the limiting behavior of a is well understood, as is demonstrated by
Theorem 2.15 below. In order to formulate Theorem 2.15 it will be convenient to introduce
first the following variant of Definition 2.12.
Definition 2.14. Let ν be a Borel probability measure on T and, for every N ∈ N, let
xN : {1, . . . , N } → T. Then (xN )N ∈N is said to have limiting distribution ν if for all continuous
functions F ∈ C(T),
Z
N
1 X
F dν.
F (xN (n)) =
N →∞ N
T
lim
n=1
Theorem 2.15 (see [16, Theorem 8.9]). Let a : N → T be an additive function. Then there
exists α : N → T and a Borel probability measure ν on T such that if aN : {1, . . . , N } → T
denotes the sequence
aN (n) := a(n) − α(N ),
15
1 6 n 6 N,
then (aN )N ∈N has limiting distribution ν. Moreover, the measure ν is continuous (i.e. nonatomic) if and only if
X
p∈P
ma(p)6=0 mod 1
1
= ∞,
p
∀m ∈ N.
2.5. Additive functions with values in R
In this subsection we summarize some known results regarding the distribution of real-valued
additive functions.
An arithmetic function a : N → R is called additive if a(n · m) = a(n) + a(m) for all m, n
with gcd(n, m) = 1. For every additive function a : N → R, the function
f (n) := ea(n)
is a real-valued multiplicative function.
Definition 2.16. Let ν be a Borel probability measure on R. A sequence x : N → R has
limiting distribution ν if for all bounded continuous functions F ∈ Cb (R),
Z
N
1 X
F dν.
F (x(n)) =
lim
N →∞ N
R
n=1
Theorem 2.17 (Erdős-Wintner, see [16, Theorem 5.1]). In order for an additive function
a : N → R to possess a limiting distribution it is both necessary and sufficient that the three
series
X 1
p
p∈P
|a(p)|>1
X a(p)
p
p∈P
|a(p)|61
X (a(p))2
p
p∈P
|a(p)|61
converge. In this case the corresponding measure is continuous (i.e. non-atmonic) if and only
if
X 1
= ∞.
p
p∈P
|a(p)|>0
Corollary 2.18. Let f ∈ M be a multiplicative function taking values in (0, 1] and assume
kf kB 6= 0. Then f (n) possesses a limiting distribution. This limiting
is continuous
P distribution
1
=
∞.
(i.e. the corresponding measure ν is non-atomic) if and only if
p∈P
p
f (p)6=1
Proof. Let a : N → R denote the additive function a(n) := log(f (n)). Note that f has a
limiting distribution if and only if a has one. We have |a(p)| > 1 if and only if f (p) ∈ 0, 1e . Since kf kB 6= 0, it follows from Lemma 2.7
that D(f, 1) < ∞. Therefore
X 1
=
p
p∈P
|a(p)|>1
X
p∈P
f (p)∈(0,e−1 )
1
e
6
D(f, 1) < ∞.
p
e−1
16
Also, using the basic inequality 1e (1 − x) > − log(x) for all x ∈
X (a(p))2
X a(p) 6 p∈P
p
p p∈P
|a(p)|61
|a(p)|61
X
=
p∈P
f (p)∈[e−1 ,1]
6
6

1

e
e,1
, we obtain
− log(f (p))
p
X
p∈P
f (p)∈[e−1 ,1]
1
D(f, 1)2 .
e
1


1
(1 − f (p))

p
Therefore, the three series
X 1
p
p∈P
|a(p)|>1
X a(p)
p
p∈P
|a(p)|61
X (a(p))2
p
p∈P
|a(p)|61
converge and hence a(n) possesses a distribution. Clearly, f possesses a continuous
P distribu1
tion if and only if a does, which is the case (by Theorem 2.17) if and only if
p∈P
p =
|a(p)|>0
P
1
p∈P
p = ∞.
f (p)6=1
2.6. Ruzsa’s theorem and some of its corollaries
In this short section we formulate a theorem of Ruzsa that shows that the density of a level set
of a multiplicative function always exists and which gives necessary and sufficient conditions
for this density to be positive. We also derive additional corollaries from this theorem which
will be used in the later sections of this paper.
Let r ∈ N. A function f~ = (f1 , . . . , fr ) : N → Cr is called multiplicative if each of its coordinate components fi : N → C is a multiplicative function. In accordance with the definition
of concentration points for multiplicative functions f : N → C (cf. Definition 1.3), we say that
a point ~z ∈ Cr is a concentration
point for a multiplicative function f~ : N → Cr if the set
P
P := {p ∈ P : f~(p) = ~z} satisfies p∈P 1p = ∞.
Definition 2.19 (cf. [31, Definition 3.8]). Assume that a multiplicative function f~ : N →
(C\{0})r possesses at least one concentration point ~z = (z1 , . . . , zr ). The subgroup G of
the multiplicative group ((C\{0})r , ·) generated by all concentration points of f~ is called the
concentration group of f~.
Theorem 2.20 (cf. [31, Theorem 3.10]). Let f~ : N → (C\{0})r be a multiplicative function,
let im(f~) denote the image of f~ and, for ~z ∈ im(f~), let E(f~, ~z) := {n ∈ N : f~(n) = ~z}.
(1) Assume that f~ satisfies the following three conditions:
(a) f~ has at least one concentration point,
(b) P
the concentration group G of f~ is finite, and
1
(c)
p∈P, p < ∞,
f~(p)∈G
/
17
Then d(E(f~, ~z)) exists and is strictly positive for all ~z ∈ im(f~). Moreover,
X
d(E(f~, ~z)) = 1.
~
z ∈im(f~)
(2) If f~ does not satisfy (at least) one of the conditions (a), (b) or (c) of part (1), then
d(E(f~, ~z)) = 0 for all ~z ∈ im(f~).
Although we formulated Theorem 2.20 for arbitrary r ∈ N, we will mostly deal with the
special case r = 1; the only exception is the proof of Lemma 5.8 below, where we also need
the case r = 2.
Corollary 2.21 (cf. [31, Corollary 1.6 and the subsequent remark]). Let r ∈ N, f~ : N → Cr
be a multiplicative function, ~z ∈ Cr and E(f~, ~z) := {n ∈ N : f~(n) = ~z}. Then the density of
E(f~, ~z) exists.10
Definition 2.22 (cf. [31, Definition 3.9]). A multiplicative function f : N → C\{0} is called
concentrated if it satisfies conditions (a), (b) and (c) in part (1) of Theorem 2.20.
Corollary 2.23. Let f : N → C be a multiplicative functions, z ∈ C\{0} and E(f, z) := {n ∈
N : f (n) = z}. If d(E(f, z)) > 0 then there exists a concentrated multiplicative function
g : N → C\{0} such that
{n ∈ N : f (n) = z} = {n ∈ N : g(n) = z}.
P
Moreover, the set P := {p ∈ P : f (p) 6= g(p)} satisfies p∈P 1p < ∞.
Proof. Define J := im(f )\{0}. Since J is a countable subset of C\{0}, there exists y ∈ C\{0}
such that (y n · J) ∩ J = ∅ for all n ∈ N. We define a new multiplicative function g as
(
f (pk ), if f (pk ) 6= 0
k
,
∀k ∈ N, ∀p ∈ P.
g(p ) :=
y,
if f (pk ) = 0
It follows from (y n · J) ∩ J = ∅ that E := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z ′ } = {n ∈ N : g(n) = z ′ } for all
z ′ ∈ J, so, in particular {n ∈ N : f (n) = z} = {n ∈ N : g(n) = z}. Since g(n) 6= 0 for all
n ∈ N, we can apply Theorem 2.20 and deduce that g must satisfy conditions (a), (b) and (c)
in part (1) of Theorem 2.20.
Note that kf kB > 0, because z 6= 0 and d(E(f,
z)) > 0. Therefore, by Lemma 2.7, we
P
′
conclude that P = {p ∈ P : f (p) = 0} satisfies p∈P ′ p1 < ∞. Finally, note that f (p) 6= g(p)}
if and only if p ∈ P ′ , which completes the proof.
Remark 2.24. Consider f~ : N → (C\{0})r . Notice that, by Theorem 2.20, if f~ is concentrated
then d(E(f~, ~1)) > 0 since ~1 ∈ im(f~). Moreover, f~ is concentrated if and only if each of its
coordinates fi is concentrated.
2.7. Uniform functions
It follows from the work of Green and Tao [23] and Green, Tao and Ziegler [24] that the
classical Möbius function µ is a uniform function (see Definition 1.8). A more general result
was obtained by Frantzikinakis and Host in [18]. In order to state their theorem, we need the
following definition.
10
If f1 , f2 , . . . is an infinite collection of multiplicative functions that satisfy fi (n) 6= 0 for all i, n ∈ N, then
for all z1 , z2 , . . . ∈ C\{0} the density of the set {n ∈ N : f1 (n) = z1 , f2 = z2 , . . .} also exists. However, without
the assumption fi (n) 6= 0 one has to restrict to the case of finitely many multiplicative functions (cf. [31, page
315]).
18
Definition 2.25. We call a multiplicative
function f aperiodic if for all b ∈ N and all r ∈
1 PN
{0, 1, . . . , b} we have limN →∞ N n=1 f (bn + r) = 0.
Theorem 2.26 (Theorem 2.4, [18]). A multiplicative function f ∈ M is uniform if and only
if it is aperiodic.
In [14, 15] Delange gives a full characterization of all aperiodic functions in M:
Proposition 2.27. Let f ∈ M. Then f is aperiodic if and only if D(f, χ · nit ) = ∞ for each
Dirichlet character χ and t ∈ R.
Remark 2.28. It follows immediately from Proposition 2.27 and from the triangle inequality
for D (see Remark 2.2) that if f, g ∈ M satisfy D(f, g) < ∞ then f is aperiodic if and only if
g is aperiodic. Using Theorem 2.26 we can replace “aperiodic” with “uniform”. Hence, we get
that if f, g ∈ M satisfy D(f, g) < ∞ then f is uniform if and only if g is uniform.
Proposition 2.29. Suppose f : N → C is bounded.
(a) If fn is uniform and fn → f in k · kB , then f is uniform.
(b) If f is uniform, q ∈ N and r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , q − 1} then f · 1qN+r is uniform.
(c) If f is uniform and if g is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic, then h := f ·g is uniform.
(d) If f is uniform and t ∈ N then h(n) := f (tn) is uniform.
Proof. To prove part (a) it suffices to show that for all f : N → C bounded in modulus by 1
we have
s+1
kfN k2U s [N ] 6
N
1 X
|f (n)|.
N n=1
(9)
We prove (9) by induction on s. For s = 1 the inequality in (9) follows immediately from the
definition of the U 1 -norm (see Definition 1.8). Thus, assume (9) has already been proven for
s > 1. Then,
s+1
kf k2U s+1
[N]
=
6
6
N
2s
1 X
fN T h fN s
N
U[N]
1
N
1
N
h=1
N
X
h=1
N
X
n=1
N
1 X f
(n)f
(n
+
h)
N
N
N n=1
|fN (n)| .
Part (b) follows directly from the inverse conjecture for the Gowers seminorms (see [24] or
[33, Theorem 1.6.12 and Theorem 1.6.14]).
For the proof of part (c) observe that it follows from part (b) and the triangle inequality
s
for k · kU[N]
that for any uniform f and any g that is a finite linear combination of functions
of the form 1qN+r , q ∈ N and r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , q − 1}, the product f · g is uniform. Since any
Besicovitch rationally almost periodic function can be approximated in the k · kB -seminorm by
finite linear combinations of functions of the form 1qN+r , it follows from part (a) that for any
uniform f and any Besicovitch rationally almost periodic g the function h = f · g is uniform.
Finally, for part (d), one can easily show by induction that
s+1
s+1
kf (tn)k2U s+1 6 t2
[N]
kf · 1tN k2U s+1 + o(N )
s+1
[N]
and hence the claim follows from part (b).
19
3. Extending the Kátai orthogonality
criterion
In Section 1 we introduced the classes D (∞) , Ec.pt. and Epol ; the statement of Theorem A holds
for any set E belonging to either one of these two classes. In this section we will state and
prove a generalization of Theorem A where D (∞) , Ec.pt. and Epol are replaced by the more
(∞)
general classes Ec.pt. and E∂ defined in the next subsection. This generalization is given by
Theorem 3.7 formulated in Subsection 3.2.
(∞)
3.1. Definition of Ec.pt. and E∂
Let r ∈ N. Recall that a point ~z ∈ Cr is a concentration
P point for a multiplicative function
f~ : N → Cr if the set P := {p ∈ P : f~(p) = ~z} satisfies p∈P 1p = ∞ (see Subsection 2.6).
(r)
Definition 3.1. We denote by Ec.pt. the collection of all sets E ⊂ N of the form
E(f~, K) := {n ∈ N : f~(n) ∈ K},
where K is an arbitrary subset of Cr and f~ : N → Cr is a multiplicative function possessing
(j)
(i)
(1)
at least one concentration point. Observe that Ec.pt. = Ec.pt. and Ec.pt. ⊂ Ec.pt. for i 6 j. We
S
(r)
(∞)
define Ec.pt. := ∞
r=1 Ec.pt. .
(r)
Proposition 3.2. If E ∈ D (r) and d(E) > 0 then E ∈ Ec.pt. .
A proof of Proposition 3.2 will be given in Subsection 3.3
In order to introduce the class E∂ we need the following definition.
Definition 3.3. Let f : N → C be an arithmetic function. We define N (f ) – the class of
f -null sets – to be the collection of all sets C ⊂ C\{0} such that for all ε > 0 there exists a
continuous function F : C → [0, 1] satisfying F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ C and
lim sup
N →∞
1 X
F (f (n)) 6 ε.
N 16n6N
f (n)6=0
In many cases, multiplicative functions have a limiting distribution corresponding to a
Borel probability measure ν (cf. Subsections 2.4 and 2.5). If this is the case then the class of
f -null sets coincides with the class of ν-null sets, i.e. all sets C that satisfy ν(C) = 0. For
instance, if f = λξ for some irrational ξ ∈ T, then (λξ (n))n∈N is uniformly distributed in the
unit circle S1 := {z ∈ C : |z| = 1} (by Theorem 2.13 part (a)). It is then straightforward to
verify that a set C ⊂ C belongs to N (λξ ) if and only if C ∩ S1 has zero measure with respect
to the Lebesgue measure on S1 .
In the following let ∂J := J\J ◦ denote the boundary of a set J ⊂ C.
Definition 3.4.
(a) Given a multiplicative function f define A∗ (f ) := {J ⊂ C\{0} : ∂J ∈ N (f )} and
A(f ) := A∗ (f ) ∪ {J ∪ {0} : J ∈ A∗ (f )}.
It is straightforward to check that both A∗ (f ) and A(f ) are algebras, i.e. they are closed
under finite unions, finite intersections and taking complements.
(b) We denote by E∂ the collection of all sets E ⊂ N of the form E(f, K) := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈
K}, where f ∈ M with kf kB 6= 0, and K ∈ A(f ).
20
(1)
Proposition 3.5. We have Epol ⊂ E∂ ∪ Ec.pt. .
A proof of Proposition 3.5 is given in Subsection 3.4.
We will introduce and discuss now two pertinent families of general examples of sets be(∞)
longing to Ec.pt. and/or E∂ .
Example 3.6.
Ex.3.6.1: Let α1 , . . . , αt , β1 , . . . , βt be real numbers and let J1 , . . . , Jt , I1 , . . . , It be arbitrary
subsets of [0, 1). Consider the set
E := {n ∈ N : Ω(n)αi mod 1 ∈ Ji and ω(n)βi mod 1 ∈ Ii for all i ∈ {1, . . . , t}}.
(2t)
Then E belongs to the class Ec.pt. because it can be written as
E = {n ∈ N : λαi (n) ∈ Ji′ and κβ1 ∈ Ii′ for all i ∈ {1, . . . , t}},
where λξ and κξ are as defined in Ex.2.1.6 and Ji′ := {e(x) : x ∈ Ji } and Ii′ := {e(x) :
x ∈ Ii }. Similarly, one can show that the sets SΩ,b1 ,r1 , Sω,b2 ,r2 , Sω,b1 ,r1 ∩ SΩ,b2 ,r2 ,
SΩ,α,J and Sω,α,J from Example 1.4 belong to D (1) , D (2) and Ec.pt. respectively; in
(∞)
particular, they all belong to Ec.pt. .
Ex.3.6.2: Let f : N → N be a multiplicative function and let b, r ∈ N with gcd(b, r) = 1. Let t
denote the number of generators of (Z/bZ)∗ . We claim that the set
E := {n ∈ N : f (n) ≡ r mod b}
belongs to D (t) . For the proof of this claim, choose b1 , b2 , . . . , bt ∈ N with b = b1 ·. . .·bt
and such that (Z/bZ)∗ is isomorphic to Cb1 × . . . × Cbt , where Cn denotes the finite
cyclic group of order n. For i ∈ {1, . . . , t} let ci denote a generator of Cbi . We can
identify r with an element (cr11 , . . . , crt t ) ∈ Cb1 × . . . × Cbt , where ri ∈ {0, 1, . . . , bi − 1}
for all i ∈ {1, . . . , t}. For i ∈ {1, . . . , t} define χ̃i : Cb1 × . . . × Cbt → C as
si
s1
st
.
χ̃i (c1 , . . . , ct ) := e
bi
Then χ̃i can be identified with a Dirichlet character χi of modulus b via the isomorphism (Z/bZ)∗ ∼
= Cb1 × . . . × Cbt . It is clear that
r1
rt
{n ∈ N : n ≡ r mod b} = n ∈ N : χ1 (n) = e
, . . . , χt (n) = e
b1
bt
and therefore
rt
r1
, . . . , χt (f (n)) = e
.
E = n ∈ N : χ1 (f (n)) = e
b1
bt
This proves that the set E belongs to D (t) . In particular, by choosing f = τ , we see
that the set Sτ ,b,r from Ex.1.4.6 belongs to D (t) .
3.2. A generalization of Theorem A
In light of Propositions 3.2 and 3.5 it is clear that the following result is a generalization of
Theorem A.
21
Theorem 3.7. Let a : N → C be a bounded sequence satisfying
X
a(pn)a(qn) = o(x), for all p, q ∈ P with p 6= q.
(10)
n6x
(∞)
Then for all sets E ⊂ N belonging to either Ec.pt. or E∂ we have
X
1E (n)a(n) = o(x).
(11)
n6x
For the proof of Theorem 3.7 we will need the following proposition.
(∞)
Proposition 3.8. Let E ⊂ N be a set that belongs to either Ec.pt. or E∂ and suppose d(E) > 0.
Then for all ε > 0 there exist sets E1 ⊂ E2 ⊂ C and a subset of prime numbers P ⊂ P satisfying
(i) P
d(E2 \E1 ) 6 ε;
1
(ii)
p∈P p = ∞;
(iii) for all p ∈ P and n ∈ N with gcd(n, p) = 1 we have 1E1 (n) 6 1E (np) 6 1E2 (n).
A proof of Proposition 3.8 can be found in Subsection 3.5.
Another key ingredient for proving Theorem 3.7 is the following generalization of the Kátai
Orthogonality Criterion (Theorem 1.2), which we believe is of independent interest.
Proposition 3.9. Let Py be a subset of P with p 6 y for all p ∈ Py and
X 1
p
p∈Py
y→∞
−−−→ ∞.
(12)
If F S
, G1 , G2 and H are bounded real-valued arithmetic functions such that for all n ∈ N and
p ∈ y Py with (n, p) = 1 one has
G1 (n)H(p) 6 F (np) 6 G2 (n)H(p)
and if (un ) is a bounded sequence in a Hilbert space H satisfying
X
hupn , uqn i = o(x)
(13)
(14)
n6x
for all p, q ∈
S
y
Py with p 6= q then
X
F (n)un = o(x) + O(xkG1 − G2 kB ).
(15)
n6x
A proof of Proposition 3.9 is given in Subsection 3.6.
At this point we have collected all the tools needed to provide a proof of Theorem 3.7.
Proof of Theorem 3.7. Let a(n) be a bounded sequence of complex numbers satisfying (10).
(∞)
Let E ⊂ N be a set that belongs to either Ec.pt. or E∂ . If d(E) = 0 then (11) is trivially
satisfied. Hence we can assume without loss of generality that d(E) > 0. Let ε > 0 be
arbitrary. According to Proposition 3.8 there
P exist sets E1 ⊂ E2 ⊂ C and a set of prime
numbers P ⊂ P satisfying d(E2 \E1 ) 6 ε, p∈P p1 = ∞, and 1E1 (n) 6 1E (np) 6 1E2 (n) for
all p ∈ P and n ∈ N with gcd(n, p) = 1.
Now take Py := P ∩ [1, y], F := 1E , G1 = 1E1 , G2 = 1E2 , H = 1 and un = a(n). It follows
immediately from d(E2 \E1 ) 6 ε that kG1 − G2 kB 6 ε. Also, if p ∈ P and gcd(n, p) = 1, then
22
G1 (n)H(p) 6 F (np) 6 G2 (n)H(p). This means we can apply Proposition 3.9 to obtain
X
X
F (n)un = (16)
1E (n)a(n) = o(x) + O(xε).
n6x
n6x
Since ε > 0 was chosen arbitrarily, this proves the theorem.
We end this Subsection with formulating an open question.
Question 3.10. Consider the class EJor of all sets of the form E(f, K) := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K},
where f ∈ M with kf kB > 0 and K is a Jordan measurable subset of C. Observe that
Epol ⊂ EJor . Can Theorem A be extended to the class EJor ?
3.3. Proof of Proposition 3.2
Before giving the proof of Proposition 3.2 we need the following elementary lemma.
Lemma 3.11. Let f1 , . . . , fr : N → C be multiplicative functions and suppose that for every
i ∈ {1,P
. . . , r} there exists a set of primes Pi ⊂ P satisfying the following two properties:
1
(i)
p∈P\Pi p < ∞;
(ii) the set {fi (p) : p ∈ Pi } is finite.
P
Then there exist z1 , . . . , zr ∈ C and a set P ⊂ P with p∈P 1p = ∞ such that fi (p) = zi for
all p ∈ P and all 1 6 i 6 r.
T
P
Proof. Let P ′ := ri=1 Pi . Then clearly p∈P p1 = ∞. Moreover, {(f1 (p), . . . , fr (p)) : p ∈ P ′ }
is finite, so we get a finite partition of P given by the possible r-tuples (z1 , . . . , zr ) in the
set {(f1 (p), . . . , fr (p)) : p ∈ P ′ }. By the pigeon hole principle,
P for at least one choice of
(z1 , . . . , zr ), the set P = {p ∈ P ′ : fi (p) = zi , 1 6 i 6 r} satisfies p∈P 1p = ∞.
Proof of Proposition 3.2. Let E ∈ D (r) with d(E) > 0 be given. By Definition 1.3, there
exist multiplicative functions f1 , . . . , fr : N → C and complex numbers z1 , . . . , zr such that
E = E(f1 , . . . , fr , z1 , . . . , zr ) = {n ∈ N : f1 (n) = z1 , . . . , fr (n) = zr }. Note that E ⊂
E(fi , zi ) = {n ∈ N : fi (n) = zi }, which implies that d(E(fi , zi )) > 0 for all i ∈ {1, . . . , r}.
We now define new multiplicative functions g1 , . . . , gr : N → C in the following way: For
i ∈ {1, . . . , r}, if zi = 0, we define
(
1, if fi (n) 6= 0,
gi (n) :=
0, otherwise.
On the other hand, if zi 6= 0, we take gi to be the concentrated multiplicative function
guaranteed by Corollary 2.23. Define ~g := (g1 , . . . , gr ), ~z := (z1 , . . . , zr ) and K := {~z}.
Observe that
E = E(~g , K).
(r)
It thus suffices to show that E(~g , K) ∈ Ec.pt. .
P
Note that for every i ∈ {1, . . . , r} there exists a set of primes Pi ⊂ P, satisfying p∈P\Pi p1 <
∞, such that {gi (p) : p ∈ Pi P
} is finite. In light of Lemma 3.11 we can find w1 , . . . , wr ∈ C and
a set of primes P ⊂ P with p∈P 1p = ∞ such that gi (p) = wi for all p ∈ P and all 1 6 i 6 r.
(r)
This proves that ~g has a concentration point and hence E(~g , K) belongs to Ec.pt. .
23
3.4. Proof of Proposition 3.5
In this subsection we give a proof of Proposition 3.5. First, we need the following useful lemma.
P
Lemma 3.12. Let P ⊂ P and assume p∈P\P 1p < ∞. Let A be an algebra of subsets of C
and suppose that for all K ∈ A and all u ∈ C the set uK belongs to A. Then for all f, g ∈ M
that satisfy f (p) = g(p) for all p ∈ P we have A ⊂ A(f ) if and only if A ⊂ A(g).
Proof. It follows from the definition of A(f ) that the set K belongs to A(f ) if and only if
K\{0} belongs to A(f ) (we will use this fact implicitly later).
Define the sets
SP := {n ∈ N : there exist distinct p1 , . . . , pt ∈ P such that n = p1 · . . . · pt }
(17)
and
TP := n ∈ N : for all p ∈ P if p | n then p2 | n .
(18)
Note that the sets SP and TP are multiplicative, hence 1SP and 1TP are multiplicative functions
(cf. footnote 3). Also, f · 1SP = g · 1SP .
Since any natural number n can be written uniquely as st, where s ∈ SP , t ∈ TP and
gcd(s, t) = 1, N can be partitioned into
[
(t)
N=
(19)
tSP ,
t∈TP
(t)
where SP := {s ∈ SP : gcd(s, t) = 1}.
We now claim that for all f ∈ M, A ⊂ A(f ) if and only if A ⊂ A(f · 1SP ). Note that
once we prove this claim, the proof of this lemma is completed, because f · 1SP = g · 1SP and
therefore A ⊂ A(f ) if and only if A ⊂ A(g).
First, assume A ⊂ A(f ). Let K ∈ A be arbitrary and let J := K\{0}. Since J ∈ A(f ), for
all ε > 0 there exists a continuous function F : C → [0, 1] such that F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂J
and
1 X
lim sup
F (f (n)) 6 ε.
N →∞ N 16n6N
f (n)6=0
This, however, implies
lim sup
N →∞
1
N
X
F (f (n)) 6 ε,
16n6N
f (n)·1S (n)6=0
P
which shows that J ∈ A(f · 1SP ) and therefore K ∈ A(f · 1SP ).
Next, assume A ⊂ A(f ·1SP ). Again, let K ∈ A be arbitrary. Fix ε > 0 and let
P J := K\{0}.
Note that d(SP ) = M (1SP ) exists (due to Theorem 2.3) and d(SP ) > 0 because p∈P\P p1 < ∞
and therefore D(1SP , 1) < ∞ (cf. Lemma 2.7). Likewise, 1S (t) is a multiplicative function and
P
hence d(SP ) = M (1SP ) exists (again due to Theorem 2.3) and is positive (also by Lemma 2.7).
(t)
(t)
(t)
(t)
Using (19) and the fact that d(tSP ) = t−1 d(SP ) we obtain


[
X
X d(S (t) )
(t)
(t)
P
tSP  = d(N) = 1.
=
d(tSP ) 6 d 
t
t∈TP
t∈TP
t∈TP
24
(20)
For every t ∈ TP with f (t) 6= 0 the set (f (t))−1 J ∈ A ⊂ A(f · 1SP ). This means that for
every t ∈ TP there
exists a continuous function Ft : C → [0, 1] such that Ft (z) = 1 for all
z ∈ ∂ (f (t))−1 J and
1
lim sup
N →∞ N
(t)
X
16n6N
f ·1S (n)6=0
P
Pick M > 1 sufficiently large such that
εd(SP )
Ft (f (n) · 1SP (n)) 6
.
2
P
(t)
t∈TP
t>M
d(SP )
t
6 2ε . Define
F (z) := min Ft (f (t))−1 z .
t∈TP
t6M
Certainly, F is continuous and F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂J. Moreover,
lim sup
N →∞
1 X
F (f (n))
N 16n6N
f (n)6=0





X
1 X 


F (f (ts))
= lim sup


i
h
N →∞ N t∈T , 
N
(t)
P 

s∈S ∩ 1,
f (t)6=0
t
P


X 
1
6 lim sup

N →∞ t∈T  N
P 
t6M
f (t)6=0

f (s)6=0


X d(S (t) )

P
F (f (t)f (s)) +

t
i
h
t∈TP
N
(t)

s∈S ∩ 1,
t>M

X 1
t

6
lim sup
t  N →∞ N
t∈TP

t6M
f (t)6=0


X 1
t

6
lim sup
t  N →∞ N
t∈TP

t6M
f (t)6=0
6

X
P
t
f (s)6=0



ε

Ft (f (s)) +

2
h
i
(t)
N

s∈S ∩ 1,
P
X
t
f (s)6=0
X
N
16s6 t
f ·1SP (s)6=0
(t)
ε X d(SP )
ε
+
6 ε.
2
t
2



ε

Ft (f (s) · 1SP (s)) +

2

t∈TP
Since ε > 0 was arbitrary, we conclude that J ∈ A(f ) and therefore K ∈ A(f ).
Let kxk denote the distance of a real number x to the closest integer. For every δ > 0 and
every y ∈ T define function Fy,δ ∈ C(T) as
(
1 − kx−yk
δ , if kx − yk 6 δ;
(21)
Fy,δ (x) :=
0,
otherwise.
25
Lemma 3.13. Let ν be a Borel probability measure on T and let (νN )N ∈N be a sequence
of Borel probability Rmeasures onR T that converges to ν in the weak-*-topology (i.e., for all
F ∈ C(T), limN →∞ T F dνN = T F dν). If ν is non-atomic then for every ε > 0 there exist
δ > 0 and N0 ∈ N such that
Z
Fy,δ dνN < ε
T
for all y ∈ T and for all N > N0 .
R
Proof. Define Iδ (y) := T Fy,δ dν. It is clear that Iδ is a continuous function on T for every δ ∈
(0, 1). Also, the family (Iδ )δ∈(0,1) is monotonically decreasing in the sense that Iδ1 (y) > Iδ2 (y)
for all y ∈ T and all δ1 > δ2 ∈ (0, 1). Since ν is non-atomic, the functions Fy,δ (x) converge to
0 for ν-almost every x. Therefore, by the monotone convergence theorem, Iδ (y) converges to
0 as δ → 0 for every y.
We invoke now the classical Dini theorem, which states that a monotonically decreasing sequence of continuous real-valued functions which converges pointwise to a continuous function
convergences uniformly. Therefore Iδ converges to 0 uniformly as δ → 0.
Fix now some ε > 0. Pick δ > 0 such that supy∈T I2δ (y) < 2ε . We claim that there exists
N0 such that for all N > N0 and all y ∈ T we have
Z
Fy,δ dνN < ε.
T
Assume that, contrary to our claim, there exists an increasing sequence of natural numbers
(Nj )j∈N such that for every j ∈ N there exists yj ∈ T with
Z
Fyj ,δ dνNj > ε.
T
The sequence (yj )j∈N has a convergent subsequence. Hence, by passing to it if necessary, we
can assume without loss of generality that limj→∞ yj exists. Let y ∈ T denote this limit. It is
straightforward to verify that for sufficiently large j we have
∀x ∈ T.
Fyj ,δ (x) 6 2Fy,2δ (x),
Therefore,
lim sup
j→∞
Z
T
Fyj ,δ dνNj
Z
6 lim sup 2Fy,2δ dνNj
j→∞
T
Z
2Fy,2δ dν
=
T
6 2 sup I2δ (y)
y∈T
< ε.
This contradicts
R
T Fyj ,δ
dνNj > ε for all j ∈ N.
Lemma 3.14. Suppose f ∈ M satisfies kf kB 6= 0 and f (n) 6= 0 for all n ∈ N. Then
lim d {n ∈ N : |f (n)| < ε} = 0.
ε→0
(22)
The following proof of Lemma 3.14 was provided by a user with alias Lucia as an answer to
a question posted by the third author at http://mathoverflow.net. We gratefully acknowledge
Lucia’s help.
26
Proof of Lemma 3.14 (see http://mathoverflow.net/questions/215170 ). By replacing f with |f | if necessary, we can ssume without loss of generality that f takes values in (0, 1]. For 0 < δ < 1
and k > 1 put
X
Fk (δ) :=
p∈P,
f (pk )6δ
1
pk
and F (δ) =
∞
X
Fk (δ).
k=1
Since kf kB > 0, it follows from Lemma 2.7 that D(f, 1) < ∞. Then, it follows from the
P
definition of D(·, ·) and the fact that f is real-valued that p∈P 1−fp(p) < ∞. This shows that
F1 (δ) P
<∞P
for every 0 P
< δ < 1 and so Fk is a well defined function for all k > 1. Moreover,
1
since k>2 p∈P p1k = p∈P p(p−1)
< ∞, the function F is well defined in (0, 1).
We claim that F (δ) converges to zero as δ → 0. For 0 < δ < 1, let
We have F (δ) =
P
H ⊂ B 1 such that
2
Bδ := {pk : p ∈ P, k ∈ N, f (pk ) 6 δ}.
1
pk ∈Bδ pk
P
and therefore F (δ) 6
< ∞. In particular, F (1/2) < ∞ and there exists a finite set
1
pk ∈B1/2 \H pk
P
6 ε. Take 0 < δ < minpk ∈H f (pk ). Then Bδ ⊂ B1/2 \H
1
pk ∈B1/2 \H pk
6 ε.
For 0 < δ < 1, let FBδ denote the set of Bδ -free numbers, that is FBδ := N\
It is straightforward to show that


[
X 1
= 1 − F (δ).
pk N  > 1 −
d(FBδ ) = 1 − d 
pk
k
k
p ∈Bδ
S
pk ∈Bδ
pk N .
p ∈Bδ
So,
d {n ∈ N : f (n) < ε} 6 d {n ∈ FBδ : f (n) < ε} + F (δ).
Notice that x > exp (2 log(δ)(1 − x)) for any x ∈ (δ, 1]. Moreover, for n = pk11 · · · pkr r ∈ FBδ ,
pki i ∈ FBδ for 1 6 i 6 r, so, in particular, pki i 6∈ Bδ whence f (pki i ) > δ, 1 6 i 6 r. Thus, for
each n = pk11 · · · pkr r ∈ FBδ , we have
!
k
X
ki
k1
kr
(1 − f (pi )) .
(23)
f (n) = f (p1 ) · · · f (pr ) > exp 2 log (δ)
i=1
So, if f (n) < ε and n ∈ FBδ , then (23) implies that
X
pk |n
(1 − f (pk )) >
log(ε)
.
2 log(δ)
This shows that
1 {n 6 x : n ∈ FBδ , f (n) < ε} 6
x
6
1 2 log(δ) X X
(1 − f (pk ))
x log(ε)
k
n6x p |n
2 log(δ) X (1 − f (pk ))
log(ε) p∈P,
pk
= O
27
k∈N
log(δ)
log(ε)
.
p
Finally, if we set δ = exp(− − log(ε)), which goes to zero as ε goes to zero, then this shows
that for ε > 0 sufficiently small
!
p
1
d {n ∈ N : f (n) < ε} = O p
+ F exp(− − log(ε)) ,
− log(ε)
which completes the proof.
We are now ready to give a proof of Proposition 3.5.
Proof of Proposition 3.5. Suppose E belongs to Epol . This means that E is of the form
E(f, K) := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K}, where f ∈ M with kf kB 6= 0 and K is an elementary
(1)
set in polar coordinates. If f has a concentration point then E ∈ Ec.pt. and we are done. Let
us therefore assume that f possesses no concentration points. It remains to show that any
elementary set in polar coordinates belongs to A(f ), because this implies that E ∈ E∂ .
Let f ′ ∈ M denote the multiplicative function uniquely determined by
(
f (pk ), if f (pk ) 6= 0,
′ k
f (p ) :=
1,
otherwise.
Let P denote thePset of all primes p such that f (p) = f ′ (p). Since kf kB 6= 0, it follows from
Lemma 2.7 that p∈P\P 1p < ∞. Therefore, using Lemma 3.12, we deduce that A(f ) contains
all elementary sets in polar coordinates if and only if A(f ′ ) does. We can therefore assume
without loss of generality that f (n) 6= 0 for all n ∈ N.
Recall that e(x) := e2πix . Now suppose K := {re(ϕ) : ϕ ∈ I1 , r ∈ I2 }, where I1 is a
subinterval of T and I2 is a subinterval of [0, 1]. We assume that both I1 and I2 are closed
intervals and remark that for open and half-open intervals the same argument applies. Choose
a1 , b1 ∈ T such that I1 = [a1 , b1 ] and a2 , b2 ∈ [0, 1] such that I2 = [a2 , b2 ].
Let h(n) := |f (n)|, n ∈ N, and let g(n) := |ff (n)
(n)| . Clearly, f = g · h. Let a : N → T be the
(unique) additive function such that g(n) = e(a(n)) for all n ∈ N.
WeP
now distinguish three
P cases:
1
1
(i)
<
∞
and
p∈P
p∈P
p
p < ∞ for some m ∈ N;
h(p)6=1
ma(p)6=0 mod 1
P
1
(ii)
p∈P
p = ∞;
h(p)6=1
P
1
(iii)
p∈P
p = ∞ for all m ∈ N.
ma(p)6=0 mod 1
In case (i), one of the m-th roots of unity is a concentration point of f , which contradicts
the assumption that f possesses no concentration points. Therefore we only have to deal with
cases (ii) and (iii).
In case (ii), h(n) possesses a continuous limiting distribution given by a Borel probability
measure ν2 on [0, 1] (cf. Corollary 2.18). RLet ε > 0 be arbitrary. Pick a continuous F2 : R →
1
[0, 1] such that F2 (a2 ) = F2 (b2 ) = 1 and 0 F2 dν2 6 ε; such a function is guaranteed to exist
because ν2 is non-atomic. Define a new function F : C → [0, 1] as F (re(ϕ)) = F2 (r). Notice
that F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂K. Moreover,
lim sup
N →∞
N
N
1 X
1 X
F (f (n)) = lim sup
F (g(n)h(n))
N
N →∞ N
n=1
= lim sup
N →∞
=
Z
0
28
1
1
N
n=1
N
X
F2 (h(n))
n=1
F2 dν2 6 ε.
Since ε > 0 was chosen arbitrarily, this proves that K ∈ A(f ).
Next, we deal with case (iii). Using Theorem 2.15 we can find α : N → T and a probability
measure ν on T such that if aN : {1, . . . , N } → T denotes the sequence
aN (n) := a(n) − α(N ),
1 6 n 6 N,
then (aNP
)N ∈N has limiting distribution ν. Moreover, this limiting distribution is continuous
1
because
p∈P
p = ∞ for all m ∈ N. Fix ε > 0. For y ∈ T let δy denote the point-mass
ma(p)6=0 mod 1
at y. Define
νN :=
N
1 X
δa(n)−α(N ) .
N
n=1
By definition, the limit of (νN )N ∈N in the weak-*-topology equals ν. Let Fy,δ be as defined in
(21). Using Lemma 3.13 we can find δ > 0 and N0 ∈ N such that
Z
ε
(24)
Fy,δ dνN <
3
T
for all y ∈ T and for all N > N0 . In view of Lemma 3.14 we have
lim d {n ∈ N : |f (n)| < η} = 0.
η→0
In particular, there exists η > 0 such that
ε
d {n ∈ N : |f (n)| < η} < .
3
Let F̃ : {re(ϕ) : ϕ ∈ T, r ∈ [η, 1]} → [0, 1] denote the function
F̃ (re(ϕ)) := max{Fa1 ,δ (ϕ), Fb1 ,δ (ϕ)}.
Let F : C → [0, 1] be an arbitrary continuous continuation of F̃ to all of C that satisfies
F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂K. Then
N
N
1 X
1 X
F (f (n)) = lim sup
lim sup
1[|f |<η] (n)F (f (n)) + 1[|f |>η] (n)F (f (n))
N →∞ N
N →∞ N
n=1
6 lim sup
N →∞
6 lim sup
N →∞
6 lim sup
N →∞
1
N
1
N
1
N
n=1
N
X
n=1
N
X
n=1
N
X
1[|f |>η] (n)F (f (n)) +
ε
3
1[|f |>η] (n)F̃ (h(n)g(n)) +
Fa1 ,δ (a(n)) + lim sup
n=1
N →∞
ε
3
N
1 X
ε
Fb ,δ (a(n)) + .
N n=1 1
3
Now observe that
Z
N
N
1 X
1 X
Fa1 −α(N ),δ dνN .
Fa1 ,δ (a(n)) =
Fa1 −α(N ),δ (a(n) − α(N )) =
N
N
T
n=1
n=1
29
It follows from (24) that
N
1 X
ε
lim sup
Fa1 ,δ (a(n)) 6 .
3
N →∞ N n=1
An analogous argument shows that
lim sup
N →∞
N
1 X
ε
Fb1 ,δ (a(n)) 6 .
N n=1
3
We conclude that
lim sup
N →∞
N
N
N
1 X
1 X
1 X
ε
F (f (n)) 6 lim sup
Fa1 ,δ (a(n)) + lim sup
Fb1 ,δ (a(n)) +
N
3
N →∞ N n=1
N →∞ N n=1
n=1
ε ε ε
6
+ + = ε.
3 3 3
To summarize, the function F : C → [0, 1] is continuous, it satisfies F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂K
and it also satsifies
N
1 X
lim sup
F (f (n)) 6 ε.
N →∞ N
n=1
Since ε > 0 is arbitrary, this proves that K ∈ A(f ).
3.5. Proof of Proposition 3.8
The purpose of this subsection is to present a proof of Proposition 3.8. The proof of Proposi(∞)
tion 3.8 for the case E ∈ Ec.pt. is fairly easy and straightforward; the proof for the case E ∈ E∂ ,
however, is more complicated and relies on the following lemma.
Lemma 3.15. Let f ∈ M with kf kB 6= 0 and let K ∈ A(f ). Then for all ε > 0 there exist
sets K1 ⊂ K2 ⊂ C and a set of prime numbers P ⊂ P satisfying
– P
f (p) 6= 0 for all p ∈ P ;
1
–
p∈P p = ∞;
– f (p)K1 ⊂ K ⊂ f (p)K2 for all p ∈ P ;
– d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K2 \K1 }) 6 ε.
The proof of Lemma 3.15 hinges on two other lemmas, namely Lemmas 3.16 and 3.17,
which we state and prove next.
Lemma 3.16. Let f ∈ M with kf kB 6= 0. Then there exists
P u ∈ C with |u| = 1 such that
for all δ > 0 the set Pu,δ := {p ∈ P : |f (p) − u| < δ} satisfies p∈Pu,δ p1 = ∞.
Proof. LetPS1 := {z ∈ C : |z| = 1}. Suppose that for every u ∈ S1 there exists some δu > 0
such that p∈Pu,δ 1p < ∞. Since B(u, δu ) := {z ∈ C : |u−z| < δu }, u ∈ S1 , is an open cover of
u
the compact set S1 , we can find a finite
S sub-cover. In other words,
S there exist u1 , . . . , ur ∈ C,
|ui | = 1 for i = 1, . . . , r, such that ri=1 B(ui , δui ) ⊃ S1 . Since ri=1 B(ui , δui ) is an open set
containing S1S
, there exists some δ > 0 such that the set {z ∈ C : 1 − δ < |z| < 1 + δ} is
contained in ri=1 B(ui , δui ). Define P := {p ∈ P : |f (p)| > 1 − δ}. Then we have


r
X
X 1
X1

 < ∞.
6
p
p
p∈P
i=1
p∈Pui ,δu
30
i
One the other hand, it follows from kf kB 6= 0 and Lemma 2.7 that D(|f |, 1) < ∞ and therefore
X 1
1X1
1
6
(1 − |f (p)|) 6 D(|f |, 1) < ∞.
p
δ
p
δ
p∈P
p∈P\P
However,
P
1
p∈P\P p
< ∞ and
P
1
p∈P p
< ∞ yield a contradiction.
Lemma 3.17. Let f ∈ M with kf kB 6= 0, let J ⊂ C\{0} and assume that ∂J ∈ N (f ). Then
for all ε > 0 there exist sets J1 ⊂ J2 ⊂ C\{0} and a set of prime numbers P ⊂ P satisfying
– P
f (p) 6= 0 for all p ∈ P ;
1
–
p∈P p = ∞;
– f (p)J1 ⊂ J ⊂ f (p)J2 for all p ∈ P ;
– d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ J2 \J1 }) 6 ε.
Proof. Let ε > 0 be arbitrary and let u ∈ C be as guaranteed by Lemma 3.16. We can find a
continuous function F : C → [0, 1] satisfying F (z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂J and
lim sup
N →∞
1 X
ε
F (f (n)) 6 .
N 16n6N
4
f (n)6=0
Let D := {z ∈ C : |z| 6 1} be the unit disc in C. We define a new function G : D → [0, 1] as
G(z) = F(uz) for all z ∈ D. Note
that G has the property that G(z) = 1 for all z ∈ ∂(uJ).
Let S := z ∈ C\{0} : G(z) > 12 and define J1 := (uJ)\S and J2 := (uJ) ∪ S. It remains to
show that J1 and J2 have the desired properties.
Since G is uniformly continuous, there exists some δ0 > 0 such that for all z, w ∈ D
(25)
=⇒
|G(z) − G(w)| 6 min 4ε , 14 .
|z − w| < δ0
o
n
Take δ := min δ20 , 12 . We claim that
J1 + B(0, δ) ⊂ uJ,
(26)
uJ + B(0, δ) ⊂ J2 ,
(27)
where B(0, δ) := {z ∈ C : |z| < δ}.
We prove (26) by contradiction. Assume there are w ∈ J1 and z ∈
/ uJ such that |w −z| < δ.
/ uJ, there exists a point y ∈ ∂(uJ) with |w − y| < δ. Using (25) and the
Since w ∈ uJ and z ∈
fact that G(y) = 1 we deduce that G(w) > 34 . In particular, w ∈ S. However, this contradicts
the fact that J1 ∩ S = ∅. The inclusion in (27) can be proved in a similar way. P
Let Pu,δ be as in the statement of Lemma 3.16 and define P := Pu,δ . Then p∈P 1p = ∞.
Also, for all p ∈ P we have |f (p) − u| < δ and therefore f (p)J1 ⊂ uJ1 + B(0, δ). Using (26), we
then obtain that f (p)J1 ⊂ J. Analogously, using |f (p) − u| < δ and (27) we get J ⊂ f (p)J2
for all p ∈ P .
It remains to show that d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ J2 \J1 }) 6 ε. Take any p ∈ P that satisfies
1
ε
<
p
4 . Note that
d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ J2 \J1 }) = d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ S})
2 X
G(f (n))
6 lim sup
N →∞ N 16n6N
f (n)6=0
2 X
= lim sup
F (uf (n)).
N →∞ N 16n6N
f (n)6=0
31
Using (25) we get that |F (uf (n)) − F (f (p)f (n))| 6 4ε . Hence,
d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ J2 \J1 }) 6 lim sup
N →∞
ε
2 X
F (f (p)f (n)) + .
N 16n6N
4
f (n)6=0
Finally,
lim sup
N →∞
2 X
2
F (f (p)f (n)) 6 lim sup
N 16n6N
N
N →∞
f (n)6=0
= lim sup
N →∞
6 lim sup
N →∞
2
N
X
F (f (p)f (n)) +
X
F (f (pn)) +
16n6N
gcd(p,n)=1
f (n)6=0
16n6N
gcd(p,n)=1
f (n)6=0
2
p
2
p
2
2 X
F (f (n)) +
N 16n6N
p
f (n)6=0
6
ε 2
3ε
+
6
.
4 p
4
This shows that d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ J2 \J1 }) 6 ε.
Proof of Lemma 3.15. Let K ∈ A(f ) and ε > 0 be arbitrary and define J := K\{0}. Since
K ∈ A(f ), ∂J is an f -null set (f -null sets were defined in Definition 3.3) and therefore, by
Lemma 3.17, we can find sets J1 ⊂ J2 ⊂ C and P ⊂ P such that
– P
f (p) 6= 0 for all p ∈ P ;
1
–
p∈P p = ∞;
– f (p)J1 ⊂ J ⊂ f (p)J2 for all p ∈ P ;
– d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ J2 \J1 }) 6 ε.
Define
(
(
J2 ∪ {0}, if 0 ∈ K
J1 ∪ {0}, if 0 ∈ K
and K2 :=
K1 :=
J2 ,
if 0 ∈
/ K.
J1 ,
if 0 ∈
/K
It is now straightforward to check that P , K1 and K2 satisfy the conclusion of Lemma 3.15.
We are now in position to give a proof of Proposition 3.8.
(∞)
Proof of Proposition 3.8. We start with the case E ∈ Ec.pt. and d(E) > 0. Hence E is of
the form E(f~, K) := {n ∈ N : f~(n) ∈ K}, where K are arbitrary subsets of Cr and f~ :=
(f1 , . . . , fr ) is multiplicative function with at least one concentration
point. Hence there exist
P
~z = (z1 , . . . , zr ) ∈ Cr and a set of primes P ⊂ P with p∈P p1 = ∞ and fi (p) = zi for all
p ∈ P and all 1 6 i 6 r. Take
E1 := E2 := {n ∈ N : f~ · ~z ∈ K},
where f~ · ~z = (f1 (n)z1 , . . . , fr (n)zr ) ∈ Cr . Note that E2 \E1 = ∅ and therefore d(E2 \E1 ) = 0.
Also, for all p ∈ P and n ∈ N with gcd(n, p) = 1, we have
np ∈ E
This shows that
⇐⇒
f~(np) ∈ K
⇐⇒
f~ · ~z ∈ K
⇐⇒
n ∈ E1 = E2 .
1E1 (n) = 1E (np) = 1E2 (n) for all p ∈ P and n ∈ N with gcd(n, p) = 1.
32
Next, we deal with the case E ∈ E∂ . By the definition of E∂ there exist f ∈ M with
kf kB 6= 0 and K ∈ A(f ) such that E = E(f, K) = {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K}. According to
Lemma 3.15, we can find sets K1 , K2 ⊂ C and a set of prime numbers P ⊂ P satisfying
(1) P
f (p) 6= 0 for all p ∈ P ;
1
(2)
p∈P p = ∞;
(3) f (p)K1 ⊂ K ⊂ f (p)K2 for all p ∈ P ;
(4) d({n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K2 \K1 }) 6 ε.
Define E1 := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K1 } and E2 := {n ∈ N : f (n) ∈ K2 }. It follows from property
(4) that d(E2 \E1 ) 6 ε. Using properties (1) and (3), we deduce that K1 ⊂ (f (p))−1 K ⊂ K2
for all p ∈ P . Also, if p ∈ P and gcd(n, p) = 1, then
np ∈ E ⇐⇒ f (np) ∈ K ⇐⇒ f (n) ∈ (f (p))−1 K.
It follows that 1E1 (n) 6
completes the proof.
1E (np) 6 1E2 (n) for all p ∈ P and n ∈ N with gcd(n, p) = 1, which
3.6. Proof of Proposition 3.9
Before embarking on the proof Proposition 3.9 we formulate and prove the following variant
of the classical Turán-Kubilius inequality.
P
Lemma 3.18. Let P be a finite subset of P and let w(n) := p∈P 1p|n , where 1p|n = 1 if
P
p | n and 1p|n = 0 otherwise, and m := p∈P 1p . Then,
X
n6x
(w(n) − m)2 = O(xm + |P |2 ).
(28)
Proof. First we expand the left hand side of (28) and get
X
(w(n) − m)2 = Σ′ − 2Σ′′ + Σ′′′ ,
n6x
where
Σ′ :=
X X
1p|n1q|n ,
Σ′′ := m
P
n6x
1p|n and Σ′′′ := xm2 .
p∈P n6x
p,q∈P n6x
Note that
XX
1p|n = xp + O(1) and hence


Xx
Σ′′ = m 
+ O(|P |) = xm2 + O(m|P |).
p
p∈P
Since m|P | 6 |P |2 , we get Σ′′ = xm2 + O(|P |2 ).
Next observe that 1p|n 1q|n = 1pq|n unless p = q. Therefore
X X
XX
Σ′ =
1pq|n +
1p|n − 1p2 |n .
p,q∈P n6x
We can estimate
P
n6x
1pq|n =
XX
p∈P n6x
x
pq
p∈P n6x
+ O(1) and
1p|n − 1p2 |n 6
XX
p∈P n6x
33
1p|n = O (xm + |P |) .
(29)
Hence (29) can be written as
X x
Σ′ =
+ O(xm + |P |2 ) = xm2 + O(xm + |P |2 ).
pq
p,q∈P
Putting everything together we conclude that
Σ′ − 2Σ′′ + Σ′′′ = O(xm + |P |2 ).
Proof of Proposition 3.9. In what follows y = y(x) will be a slow growing functions, the conditions for the rate of growth being clear from the context. Instead of showing norm-convergence
in (15) we will show that
X
sup hF (n)u, un i = o(x) + O(xkG1 − G2 kB ).
(30)
u∈H kuk61
n6x
Let u ∈ H with kuk 6 1 be arbitrary. We have
X
X
1
my hF (n)u, un i
hF (n)u, un i =
m
y
n6x
n6x
1 X
1 X
6
wy (n)hF (n)u, un i +
(my − wy (n))hF (n)u, un i
my n6x
my n6x
!1/2
!1/2
X
X
1
1 X
.
hF (n)u, un i2
wy (n)hF (n)u, un i +
(wy (n) − my )2
6
my
my n6x
n6x
n6x
We have used the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the last line.
Applying Lemma 3.18, we get
X
1 X
wy (n)hF (n)u, un i
hF (n)u, un i 6
my n6x
n6x
+O
(m x + |P |2 )1/2 x1/2 y
y
.
my
Let us assume that y = y(x) is growing sufficiently slow so that
x (my x + |Py |2 )1/2 x1/2
6O √
.
my
my
Hence
X
hF (n)u, un i 6
n6x
6
1
my
1
my
X
X
+ O √x
hF
(n)u,
u
i
1
n
p|n
my
n6x p∈Py
X X
+ O √x
hF
(np)u,
u
i
.
np
my
p∈Py n6x/p
Note that the cardinality of the set {n 6 x/p : gcd(n, p) 6= 1} does not exceed x/p2 . Since F ,
34
G1 , G2 , H and un are bounded, it follows from (13) that
X
x
x
X
hF
(np)u,
u
i
−
hG
(n)H(p)u,
u
i
=
O
kG
−
G
k
+
O
np
1
np 1
2 B .
p2
p
n6x/p
n6x/p
This implies that
1 X X
hF (np)u, unp i =
my p∈Py n6x/p
X X
hG1 (n)H(p)u, unp i
p∈Py n6x/p
x +O √
+ O xkG1 − G2 kB .
my
1
my
Next, we set Pk,y = Py ∩ {n ∈ N : 2k 6 n < 2k+1 }. Hence
X X
log2 y
X X
hG1 (n)H(p)u, unp i =
n6x
k=0
hG1 (n)H(p)u, unp i.
k=0 p∈Pk,y n6x/p
p∈Py n6x/p
Combining all of the above we get
log2 y X
X
X
1
hF (n)u, un i 6
my
X
hG1 (n)u, H(p)unp i
p∈Pk,y n6x/p
x +O √
+O xkG1 − G2 kB .
my
X
(31)
Let Ak,y be defined as
Ak,y =
X
X
hG1 (n)u, H(p)unp i =
p∈Pk,y n6x/p
X D
n6x/2k
G1 (n)u,
X
E
1n6x/p H(p)unp .
p∈Pk,y
Fixing k and applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality again, we get
X
X
|Ak,y | 6
1n6x/p H(p)unp |G1 (n)| p∈Pk,y
n6x/2k

6 
X
2
n6x/2k
6 O
6 O
x
1
2
k
22
|G1 (n)|2 
!

X
p6=q
6 O
x
k
22
!
X
n6x/2k p,q∈Pk,y
!
1
x 2 X
k
2 2 p,q∈Pk,y
1
2
2  21
X
X 
1n6x/p H(p)unp 
n6x/2k p∈Pk,y
1 

1
2
1n6x/p 1n6x/q H(p)H(q)hunp , unq i
1
2
X
H(p)H(q)hunp , unq i + O
n6min{x/p,x/q}
 12
X

 X  + O
hu
,
u
i

np
nq
p,q∈Pk,y n6min{x/p,x/q}
p6=q
35
1
x|Pk,y | 2
2k
1
x|Pk,y | 2
2k
!
.
!
.
1
Using the prime number theorem to estimate |Pk,y | 2 we deduce that
1
log2 y
x x|Pk,y | 2
1 X
=
O
.
my
2k
my
k=0
Combining this with equation (31) and using |Pk,y | 6 2k we get
X
hF (n)u, un i 6 O
n6x

! log y
2
X  1
x

my
|Pk,y |
1
2
k=0
 21
X
X 
hunp , unq i
p,q∈Pk,y n6min{x/p,x/q}
p6=q
(32)
x + O xkG1 − G2 kB .
+O √
my
Finally, if y = y(x) is growing sufficiently slowly then, from (14), we obtain that
X
x
6
hu
,
u
i
np
nq
y log2 y
n6min{x/p,x/q}
2
for every p, q ∈ Py with p 6= q. Note that |Pk,y | 6 y and hence
X
X
X
1
6 1
hu
,
u
i
np
nq
|Pk,y |
|Pk,y | p,q∈P p,q∈P
k,y
p6=q
n6min{x/p,x/q}
k,y
p6=q
x
x
6
.
2
y log2 y
log22 y
Thus the inequality (32) becomes
! log y
1
1
2
X
x X
2
x2
x
+O √
+ O xkG1 − G2 kB
hF (n)u, un i 6 O
my
log2 y
my
n6x
k=0
x + O xkG1 − G2 kB .
= O √
my
Since all the estimates above do not depend on u but only on kuk, it follows that
X
x + O xkG1 − G2 kB .
sup hF (n)u, un i = O √
my
kuk61 n6x
This completes the proof.
4. The dichotomy theorem for M0
In this section we discuss some equivalent characterizations of M0 and give a proof of Theorem G.
4.1. Equivalent characterizations of M0
The following subclass of M was introduced in Section 1:
)
(
N
1 X
f (qn + r) exists for all q, r ∈ N .
M0 = f ∈ M : lim
N →∞ N
n=1
36
The next proposition offers an alternative characterizations of functions in M0 . The result
must be well-known to aficionados; we provide an elementary proof in the Appendix.
Proposition 4.1. Let f ∈ M. Then f ∈ M0 if and only if for all Dirichlet characters χ the
mean value M (χ · f ) exists.
P
Remark 4.2. Let f ∈ M0 and let χ be a Dirichlet character. We claim the series p∈P 1p (1 −
f (p)χ(p)) converges ifPand only if D(f, χ) < ∞. To prove this claim it suffices to prove that
D(f, χ) < ∞ implies p∈P p1 (1 − f (p)χ(p)) converges, as the other direction is obvious. Let
q denote a modulus of χ. If q is even, then we set χ′ := χ and if q is odd then we set
χ′ := χ · χ1 , where χ1 denotes the principal character of modulus 2q (cf. (6)). Since f ∈ M0 ,
by Proposition 4.1, the function f · χ′ has a mean. Therefore f · χ′ satisfies either (i), (ii)
or (iii) of Theorem 2.4. However, f · χ′ cannot satisfy (ii) because χ′ has even modulus and
hence χ′ (2k ) = 0 for all k. Also, χ′ (p) = χ(p) for all but finitely many primes p and therefore
D(f, χ) < ∞ implies D(f, χ′ ) < ∞. This implies that f · χ′ cannot satisfy (iii), because
D(f · χ′ , 1) =PD(f, χ′ ) < ∞. Therefore f · χ′ must satisfy (i) of Theorem 2.4, from which it
follows that p∈P p1 (1 − f (p)χ(p)) converges.
Using the above observation we can now replace condition (iii) in Corollary 2.10 for functions f ∈ M0 with a slightly simpler condition (see (iii)′ below):
Corollary 4.3. Let f ∈ M0 . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) f is Besicovitch almost periodic;
(ii) f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic;
(iii)′ either kf kB = 0 or there exists a Dirichlet character χ such that D(f, χ) < ∞ (in other
words f pretends to be a Dirichlet character).
Proposition 4.4. Let f, g ∈ M0 and suppose D(f, g) < ∞. Then f is Besicovitch rationally
almost periodic if and only if g is.
Proof. Suppose f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. We distinguish two cases, the case
kf kB = 0 and the case kf kB > 0.
If kf kB = 0 then, by Lemma 2.7, we have D(|f |, 1) = ∞. It follows from part (5) of
Remark 2.2 that D(|f |, |g|) < ∞ and therefore, using the triangle inequality for D(·, ·), we get
D(|g|, 1) = ∞. Another application of Lemma 2.7 shows that kgkB = 0. Since any function
with kgkB = 0 is trivially Besicovitch rationally almost periodic, this concludes the first case.
Now
P assume kf kB > 0. Then, by Theorem 2.9, there exists a Dirichlet character χ such
that p∈P p1 (1 − f (p)χ(p)) converges. This implies that D(f, χ) < ∞ and, combined with
D(f, g) < ∞ and the triangle inequality for D(·, ·), we obtain D(g, χ) < ∞. Since g ∈ M0 , we
can now use (iii)′ from Corollary 4.3 to deduce that g is Besicovitch almost periodic.
4.2. Proof of Theorem G
In this subsection we provide a proof of the dichotomy theorem for M0 . The proof is rather
short and follows quickly from well-known results.
Lemma 4.5. Suppose f ∈ M0 . Then for any Dirichlet character χ and any t ∈ R\{0} one
has D(f, χ · nit ) = ∞.
Proof. Supoose there exist a Dirichlet character χ and some t ∈ R\{0} such that D(f, χ·nit ) <
∞. Let q denote a modulus of χ. If q is even, then we set χ′ := χ and if q is odd then we set
χ′ := χ · χ1 , where χ1 denotes the principal character of modulus 2q.
We now use an argument that has already appeared in Remark 4.2. Since f ∈ M0 , by
Proposition 4.1, the mean of the function f · χ′ exists. This means that f · χ′ satisfies either
(i), (ii) or (iii) of Theorem 2.4. However, f · χ′ cannot satisfy (ii) because χ′ has even modulus
37
and hence χ′ (2k ) = 0 for all k. Since χ′ (p) = χ(p) for all but finitely many primes p, we
deduce from D(f, χ · nit ) < ∞ that D(f · χ′ , nit ) < ∞. It follows that f · χ′ cannot satisfy (iii).
Finally, D(f · χ′ , nit ) < ∞ together with properties (2) and (4) listed in Remark 2.2 imply that
D(f · χ′ , 1) = ∞ and therefore f · χ′ cannot satisfy (i) of Theorem 2.4; we have arrived at a
contradiction.
Proof of Theorem G. Let f ∈ M0 be arbitrary. If D(f, χ · nit ) = ∞ for all t ∈ R and all
Dirichlet characters χ then we deduce from Proposition 2.27 that f is aperiodic and therefore,
in view of Theorem 2.26, f is a uniform function. If, on the other hand, D(f, χ · nit ) < ∞ for
some t ∈ R and some Dirichlet characters χ, then we first apply Lemma 4.5 to deduce that
t = 0 and hence D(f, χ) < ∞ and thereafter, using Proposition 4.4, we conclude that f is
Besicovitch rationally almost periodic because χ is periodic.
5. The Structure Theorem for D (1)
The goal of this section is to give a proof of Theorem I. In Subsection 5.1 we discuss in some
detail relatively uniform sets. Subsection 5.2 is devoted to the proof of Theorem I for the
special case of level sets of concentrated multiplicative functions. Finally, in Subsection 5.3
we establish Theorem I in full generality by reducing it to the special case established in
Subsection 5.2.
5.1. Relative uniformity
In this subsection we provide additional examples of relatively uniform sets and prove a technical lemma which will be needed in the subsequent subsections.
We start with recalling the definition of relative uniformity of sets. Given sets E, R ⊂ N we
say E is uniform relative to R if E ⊂ R, d(E) and d(R) exist and the function d(R)1E −d(E)1R
s
is uniform, i.e. kd(R)1E − d(E)1R kU[N]
goes to zero as N → ∞ for all s > 1.
In Section 1, Example 1.9, we have already seen a natural example of sets E and R such
that E is uniform relative to R, namely E = {n ∈ N : µ(n) = 1} and R = Q (where Q denotes
the set of squarefree numbers). We list below some additional examples illustrating relative
uniformity.
Example 5.1.
Ex.5.1.1: Let R ⊂ N be an arbitrary set whose density d(R) exists and is positive. Let
(Xn )n∈R be a sequence of {0, 1}-valued independently and identically distributed
random variables such that Xn takes on the value 1 with probability 21 and the value
0 with probability 21 . We then claim that almost surely the random set E := {n ∈
R : Xn = 1} is uniform relative to R.
s
To verify this claim, let f := 21E − 1R and note that kf k2U s is bounded from above
[N]
by
1
N s−1
X
16h1 ,...,hs−1 6N
where
N
1 X
gh1 ,...,hs−1 (n) ,
N
(33)
n=1
gh1 ,...,hs−1 (n) := fN (n)fN (n + h1 )fN (n + h2 )
fN (n + h1 + h2 ) · . . . · fN (n + h1 + . . . + hs−1 ).
Let Vh1 ,...,hs−1 := R ∩ (R − h1 ) ∩ (R − h2 ) ∩ (R − h1 − h2 ) ∩ . . . ∩ (R − h1 − . . . − hs−1 )
38
and fix ε > 0. Let
Λ := {h1 , . . . , hs−1 ∈ {1, . . . , N }s−1 : |Vh1 ,...,hs−1 ∩ {1, . . . , N }| > εN }.
P
If n ∈
/ Vh1 ,...,hs−1 then gh1 ,...,hs−1 (n) = 0, which implies N
g
(n)
6
n=1 h1 ,...,hs−1
|Vh1 ,...,hs−1 ∩ {1, . . . , N }| and so
N
1 X
X
1
g
(n)
6
h
,...,h
1
s−1
s−1
N
N
n=1
16h1 ,...,hs−1 6N
N
1 X
X
1
g
(n)
+ ε.
h
,...,h
1
s−1
N
N s−1
(h1 ,...,hs−1 )∈Λ
n=1
On the other hand, if n ∈ Vh1 ,...,hs−1 , then gh1 ,...,hs−1 (n) equals 1 or −1 with probability 12 respectively. Utilizing Hoeffding’s inequality for sums of independent random variables [28], applied to the sequence of random variables gh1 ,....hs−1 (n) for
n ∈ Vh1 ,....hs−1 ∩ {1, . . . , N }, we get that the probability for the event
X
1
gh1 ,...,hs−1 (n) > ε
|V
h1 ,...,hs−1 ∩ {1, . . . , N }|
n∈Vh1 ,...,hs−1 ∩{1,...,N }
2
is smaller or equal than 2 exp − ε2 |Vh1 ,...,hs−1 ∩ {1, . . . , N }| . If (h1 , . . . , hs−1 ) ∈ Λ,
3 2
then 2 exp − ε2 |Vh1 ,...,hs−1 ∩ {1, . . . , N }| 6 2 exp − ε 2N and hence the probability for
N
1 X
g
(n)
sup
>ε
h1 ,...,hs−1
N
16h1 ,...,hs−1 6N
n=1
3 is O N s−1 exp − ε 2N . In conclusion, the probability for the event (33) to be at
s
least 2ε, which majorizes the probability for the event kf k2U s > 2ε, is bounded by
[N]
3 ε N
1
s−1
. Since d(R)1E − d(E)1R = d(E) f , it follows that kd(R)1E −
O N
exp − 2
s
d(E)1R kU[N] goes to zero as N → ∞ almost surely.
Ex.5.1.2: Let ξ ∈ [0, 1) and let J be a Jordan measurable subset of the circle S 1 := {w ∈
C : |w| = 1}. It was shown in [17] that the set {n ∈ N : λξ (n) ∈ J} is uniform.
It thus follows from Lemma 5.2 below that the set E = {n ∈ N : µξ (n) ∈ J}
is uniform relative to the squarefree numbers Q, because Q is a rational set and
E = {n ∈ N : λξ (n) ∈ J} ∩ Q.
One can show that if sets E, R, V ⊂ N are such that V is rational (see Definition 1.10)
and E is uniform relative to R then E ∩ V is uniform relative to R ∩ V ; in fact we have the
following slightly stronger result.
Lemma 5.2. Suppose E ⊂ R ⊂ N are sets such that d(E) and d(R) exist and suppose
d(R)1E − d(E)1R is uniform. Let t ∈ N, let V ⊂ N be any rational set and define E ′ := tE ∩ V
and R′ := tR ∩ V . If d(R′ ) exists, then d(E ′ ) exists and satisfies the equation
d(E)d(R′ ) = d(R)d(E ′ )
and the function d(R′ )1E ′ − d(E ′ )1R′ is uniform.
39
(34)
Proof. If d(R) = 0 then d(E) = d(E ′ ) = d(R′ ) = 0 and hence there is nothing to show.
Let us therefore assume that d(R) > 0. Since d(R)1E − d(E)1R is uniform, it follows from
Proposition 2.29 part (d) that the function d(R)1tE − d(E)1tR is uniform. Then, using Proposition 2.29 part (c), it follows that (d(R)1tE − d(E)1tR ) · 1V = d(R)1E ′ − d(E)1R′ is uniform
as well. By definition, any uniform function has zero mean. From this we immediately obtain
the identity d(E)d(R′ ) = d(R)d(E ′ ) whenever d(R′ ) exists. Using this identity and multiplying the function d(R)1E ′ − d(E)1R′ by the constant d(R′ )/d(R) we obtain the function
d(R′ )1E ′ − d(E ′ )1R′ . This shows that d(R′ )1E ′ − d(E ′ )1R′ is also uniform.
5.2. A proof of Theorem I for the special case of
concentrated multiplicative functions
Let f : N → C\{0} be a concentrated multiplicative function (see Definition 2.22) and let G
denote its concentration group. Clearly, z |G| = 1 for all z ∈ G. Let us consider all pairs (k, χ),
where k ∈ N and χ is a Dirichlet character, such that
D(f k , χ) < ∞.
(35)
There is at least one such pair (k, χ), since we can pick k = |G| and χ to be the principal
character of modulus 1 (i.e. χ(n) = 1 for all n ∈ N). This leads to the following definition.
Definition 5.3. Given a concentrated multiplicative function f with concentration group G
let kG denote the smallest positive integer such that for some Dirichlet character χG equation
(35) is satisfied.
The next theorem is a version of Theorem I for concentrated multiplicative functions and
constitutes the main result of this subsection. In Subsection 5.3 we will show how Theorem I
can be derived in its full generality from this special case.
Theorem 5.4. Let g be a concentrated multiplicative function with concentration group G
and let kG be as in Definition 5.3. Then gkG is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic and for
every z ∈ C\{0} the set Eg := {n ∈ N : g(n) = z} is uniform relative to Rg := {n ∈ N :
gkG (n) = z kG }.
For the proof of Theorem 5.4 we need two lemmas.
Lemma 5.5. Let p ∈ P and let k, m ∈ N and let c > 1. Let f and g be multiplicative
functions and suppose f (q ℓ ) = g(q ℓ ) for all pairs (q, ℓ) ∈ P × N with (q, ℓ) 6= (p, k). Assume
f m is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic and for every z ∈ C\{0} the set Ef := {n ∈ N :
f (n) = z} is uniform relative to Rf := {n ∈ N : f m (n) = z m } and cd(Ef ) = d(Rf ). Then
gm is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic and for every z ∈ C\{0} the set Eg := {n ∈ N :
g(n) = z} is uniform relative to Rg := {n ∈ N : g m (n) = z m } and cd(Eg ) = d(Rg ).
Proof. Let z ∈ C\{0} be arbitrary. Let
T := {n ∈ N : n = s · pk for some s ∈ N with gcd(s, p) = 1}
=
p−1
[
a=1
(36)
pk ((pN ∪ {0}) + a)
and
S := N\T.
40
(37)
Note that S is a multiplicative set. Clearly,
Eg ∩ S = Ef ∩ S
and
Rg ∩ S = Rf ∩ S.
(38)
Define
Ef′ :=
(n
n ∈ N : f (n) =
zf (pk )
g(pk )
∅,
o
, if g(pk ) 6= 0;
if g(pk ) = 0
and
Rf′ :=
m o
(n
(pk )
n ∈ N : f m (n) = zf
, if g(pk ) 6= 0;
g(pk )
if g(pk ) = 0
∅,
If g(pk ) 6= 0 then, by assumption, Ef′ is uniform relative to Rf′ and cd(Ef′ ) = d(Rf′ ). On the
other hand, if g(pk ) = 0 then Ef′ = Rf′ = ∅ and hence it is trivially satisfied that Ef′ is uniform
relative to Rf′ and cd(Ef′ ) = d(Rf′ ).
Let n ∈ T be arbitrary and write n = s · pk with gcd(p, s) = 1. If g(pk ) 6= 0 then
g(n) = z ⇔ g(s) =
z
g(pk )
⇔ f (s) =
z
g(pk )
⇔ f (n) =
zf (pk )
.
g(pk )
If g(pk ) = 0 then g(n) = z holds for no n ∈ T , because z 6= 0. This proves that
Eg ∩ T = Ef′ ∩ T.
(39)
Rg ∩ T = Rf′ ∩ T.
(40)
An analogous calculation shows that
Combining (38), (39) and (40) we obtain
Eg =
Ef ∩ S ∪ Ef′ ∩ T ,
Rg =
Rf ∩ S ∪ Rf′ ∩ T .
(41)
(42)
Our goal is to show that the function d(Rg )1Eg − d(Eg )1Rg is uniform. It follows from
Corollary 2.21 that the density of Rg exists. If d(Rg ) = 0 then the k · kB -norm of d(Rg )1Eg −
d(Eg )1Rg equals 0 and hence this function is uniform for trivial reasons. We can therefore
assume without loss of generality that d(Rg ) > 0.
Since 1S is a {0, 1}-valued multiplicative function, we deduce from Remark 2.11 that S is
a rational set. Moreover, Rf ∩ S = {n ∈ N : f m (n)1S (n) = z m } and therefore the density
d Rf ∩ S exists by Corollary 2.21. Similarly d(Ef ∩ S) exists. Now, by (38) and Lemma 5.2
(applied to Ef ⊂ Rf and S), we obtain that the function
d(Rg ∩ S)1Ef ∩S − d(Eg ∩ S)1Rf ∩S =
d(Rg ∩ S) d(Rg )1Ef ∩S − d(Eg )1Rf ∩S
d(Rg )
is uniform. From this we conclude that
d(Rg )1Ef − d(Eg )1Rf · 1S
(43)
is also uniform. Also, from (34) and d(Rf ) = cd(Ef ) we get d Rf ∩ S = cd Ef ∩ S .
Analogous to the way we proved that d(Rf ∩ S) exists, one can show that d(Rf′ ∩ S) exists.
41
It follows that d(Rf′ ∩ T ) = d Rf′ \(Rf′ ∩ S) = d(Rf′ ) − d(Rf′ ∩ S) also exists. Additionally,
since S is rational, the set N\S = T is rational. Using the fact that Ef′ is uniform relative
to Rf′ together with (39), (40) and Lemma 5.2 (applied to Ef′ ⊂ Rf′ and T ) we deduce that
d Ef′ ∩ T exists and that
d(Rg )1Ef′ − d(Eg )1R′f · 1T
(44)
is uniform. From (34) and d(Rf′ ) = cd(Ef′ ) we obtain d Rf′ ∩ T = cd Ef′ ∩ T .
Since the sum of two uniform functions remains uniform (due to the triangle inequality
s ), we conclude by taking the sum of (43) and (44) and utilizing (41) and (42)
for k · kU[N]
that d(Rg )1Eg − d(Eg )1Rg is uniform. Moreover, combining d Rf′ ∩ T = cd Ef′ ∩ T and
d Rf ∩ S = cd Ef ∩ S with (41) and (42) we obtain cd(Eg ) = d(Rg ).
It is straightforward to show that if h is a Besicovitch rationally almost periodic function
then for any q ∈ N so is
( h nq , if q | n
h0 (n) :=
0,
otherwise.
In particular, the function
h1 (n) :=
( f m pnk , if pk | n
otherwise
0,
is Besicovitch almost periodic. Since S and T are rational sets, it follows that the functions
f m · 1S and h1 · 1T are Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. Note that any n ∈ T satisfies
pk | n. Hence,
(
m (pk )f m n , if n ∈ T ;
g
pk
h3 (n) := gm (pk )h1 · 1T =
0,
otherwise,
is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. Therefore gm = f m · 1S + h3 is Besicovitch rationally
almost periodic.
P
Lemma 5.6. Let P ⊂ P with p∈P\P p1 < ∞ and let m ∈ N and c > 1. Let f and g be
multiplicative functions and suppose f (p) = g(p) for all p ∈ P\P . Assume f m is Besicovitch
rationally almost periodic and for every z ∈ C\{0} the set Ef := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z} is
uniform relative to Rf := {n ∈ N : f m (n) = z m } and cd(Ef ) = d(Rf ). Then g m is Besicovitch
rationally almost periodic and for every z ∈ C\{0} the set Eg := {n ∈ N : g(n) = z} is uniform
relative to Rg := {n ∈ N : g m (n) = z m }.
Proof. Let Ω := {(p, k) ∈ P × N : f (pk ) 6= g(pk )}. Note that Ω can be turned into a linearly
ordered set (Ω, ≺) using the the relation
(p, k) ≺ (q, ℓ)
⇔
pk < q ℓ .
Let (p1 , k1 ) ≺ (p2 , k2 ) ≺ . . . be an enumeration of Ω.
We now define inductively a sequences of multiplicative functions f0 , f1 , f2 , . . . as follows.
First, we let f0 := f ; then we define
(
fi (pk ), if (p, k) 6= (pi+1 , ki+1 );
k
fi+1 (p ) :=
g(pk ), otherwise.
42
Note thatPfor a fixed n ∈ N there exists in such that fi (n) = g(n) for all i > in .
Since p∈P\P 1p < ∞ it follows that
X
1
pk
(p,k)∈Ω
< ∞.
Also,
d n ∈ N : g m (n) 6= fim (n)


6 d n ∈ N : g(n) 6= fi (n) 6 d 
[
(p,k)∈Ω
(pi ,ki )≺(p,k)


pk N  6
X
1
.
pk
(45)
(p,k)∈Ω
(pi ,ki )≺(p,k)
It follows that limi→∞ kg − fi kB = 0 and limi→∞ kgm − fim kB = 0.
Let z ∈ C\{0} be arbitrary. Recall that, by assumption, Ef is uniform relative to Rf .
Define Efi := {n ∈ N : fi (n) = z} and Rfi := {n ∈ N : fim (n) = z m }. It clearly follows
from Lemma 5.5 and induction on i that fim is Besicovitch almost periodic, Efi is uniform
relative to Rfi and cd(Efi ) = d(Rfi ). Therefore gm is Besicovitch almost periodic, because
limi→∞ kgm − fim kB = 0. We deduce from (45) that
and
lim d Rg △Rfi = 0,
(46)
lim d Eg △Efi = 0
i→∞
i→∞
where Eg := {n ∈ N : g(n) = z} and Rg := {n ∈ N : g m (n) = z m }. Hence
i→∞
d(Rg )1Eg − d(Eg )1Rg − d(Rfi )1Efi − d(Efi )1Rfi −−−→ 0.
B
Finally, using part (a) of Proposition 2.29 we deduce that Eg is uniform relative to Rg . This
finishes the proof.
Lemma 5.7. Let m ∈ N, let f be a multiplicative function and let χ be a Dirichlet character.
Assume that f j is aperiodic for all j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , m − 1} and that f m = χ. Let z ∈ C and
define E := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z} and R := {n ∈ N : χ(n) = z m }. Then E is uniform relative to
R and md(E) = d(R).
Proof. First, using Theorem 2.26, we deduce that for all j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , m − 1} the function f j
is uniform. Also, note that the density of E and R exists, due to Corollary 2.21. It remains
to show that the function
d (R) 1E − d (E) 1R
(47)
is uniform.
If z = 0 then R = E (because f m = χ) and so the function d (R) 1E − d (E) 1R is constant
0 and hence uniform. We can therefore assume without loss of generality that z 6= 0.
By assumption, for any n ∈ R we have f m (n) = χ(n) = z m . Therefore, the number
−1
z f (n) is an m-th root of unity for any n ∈ R. It follows that for all n ∈ R,
(
m−1
1, if f (n) = z;
1 X −j j
z f (n) =
m
0, otherwise.
j=0
43
So,
1E
and after rearranging we get
1E −


m−1
X
1
= 1R · 
z −j f j 
m
j=0

1
1
1R = 1R · 
m
m
m−1
X
j=1

z −j f j  .
(48)
Since 1R is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic and f j is uniform for j = 1, ..., m − 1, by
Proposition 2.29 (c), we deduce that the right hand side of (48) is uniform. This implies that
1E −
1
1R
m
(49)
is uniform as well. Since any uniform function has zero mean, it follows that d(E)m = d (R)
and so the function in (47) is a constant multiple of the function in (49) and hence also
uniform.
Proof of Theorem 5.4. Let G denote the concentration group of g and let kG and χG be as
in Definition 5.3. Define ΩG := {(p, k) ∈ P
P × N : g(pk ) ∈ G, g kG (pk ) = χG (pk )}. Since the
1
pair (kG , χG ) satisfies (35), we have that (p,k)∈Ω
/ G pk < ∞.
kG
Given (p, k) ∈
/ ΩG let ξ(p,k) be any complex number that satisfies ξ(p,k)
= χG (pk ). Define
a new multiplicative function f via
(
g(pk ), if (p, k) ∈ ΩG ;
k
f (p ) :=
ξ(p,k) , otherwise.
Note that f satisfies the functional equation
f k G = χG .
(50)
We claim that D(f j , χ · nit ) = ∞ for all j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , kG − 1}, for all t ∈ R and for all
Dirichlet characters χ. To verify this claim we have to distinguish between the case t = 0 and
the case t ∈ R\{0}.
j
The case t = 0 follows from the minimality assumption
P on kG : 1D(g , χ) = ∞ for each
j = 1, ..., kG − 1 and each Dirichlet character χ. Since
p∈P
p < ∞, it follows from
f (p)6=g(p)
the triangle inequality for D that D(f j , χ) = ∞ for each j = 1, ..., kG − 1 and each Dirichlet
character χ.
For the case t 6= 0 we give a proof by contradiction. Let us assume that there are j ∈
{1, . . . , kG }, a Dirichlet character χ and a number t ∈ R\{0} such that D(f j , χ · nit ) < ∞.
Using part (3) of Remark 2.2 it follows that also D(f j|G|, χ|G| · nit|G| ) < ∞. However, for all
primes p with g(p) ∈ G we have that gj|G| (p) = f j|G|(p) = 1. Hence, D(f j|G|, χ|G| ·nit|G| ) < ∞
implies D(χ|G| , nit|G| ) < ∞. This is a contradiction to part (6) of Remark 2.2.
Since D(f j , χ · nit ) = ∞ for all j ∈ {1, 2, . . . , kG − 1}, all t ∈ R and all Dirichlet characters
χ, it follows from Proposition 2.27 that f j is aperiodic. It therefore follows from Lemma 5.7
that for all z ∈ C\{0} the set Ef := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z} is uniform relative to Rf := {n ∈ N :
χG (n) = z kG } and kG d(Ef ) = d(Rf ).
Finally, observe that f and g are two multiplicative functions that satisfy the conditions
of Lemma 5.6 (with c = m = kG ), from which we conclude that g kG is Besicovitch rationally
44
almost periodic and for every z ∈ C\{0} the set Eg := {n ∈ N : g(n) = z} is uniform relative
to Rg := {n ∈ N : gkG (n) = z kG }.
5.3. A proof of Theorem I
In this subsection we give a proof of Theorem I. The proof is based on the idea that any
multiplicative function f either behaves like a concentrated multiplicative function, in which
case Theorem I can be derived from Theorem 5.4, or all sets of the form E := {n ∈ N : f (n) =
z} with z 6= 0 have zero density. This only leaves the case z = 0, which can be taken care of
by using the characterization of Besicovitch rationally almost periodic multiplicative functions
due to Daboussi and Delange discussed in Subsection 2.3.
We will need the following lemma.
Lemma 5.8. Suppose E1 , E2 ∈ D (1) and 0 < d(E1 ), d(E2 ) < 1. Then d(E1 △E2 ) = 0 if and
only if E1 = E2 .11
Proof. Clearly E1 = E2 implies d(E1 △E2 ) = 0. To prove the other direction we assume
that there exists n0 ∈ E1 with n0 ∈
/ E2 and show that this leads to a contradiction with
d(E1 △E2 ) = 0.
By Definition 1.3 there exist multiplicative functions f1 , f2 : N → C and numbers z1 , z2 ∈ C
such that E1 = E(f1 , z1 ) and E2 = E(f2 , z2 ). We have to distinguish three cases, the case
z1 = z2 = 0, the case z1 6= 0 and z2 6= 0 and finally the case z1 = 0 and z2 6= 0. We remark
that the case z1 6= 0 and z2 = 0 is analogous to the case z1 = 0 and z2 6= 0 and is therefore
omitted.
If z1 = z2 = 0 then for i ∈ {1, 2} we define gi (n) = 0 if fi (n) = 0 and gi (n) = 1 if fi (n) 6= 0.
It is clear that gi = 1N\Ei and Ei = E(gi , 0). Since d(Ei ) < 1, we have that kgi kB > 0 and
P
hence, in view of Lemma 2.7, the sets Pi := {p ∈ P : gi (p) = 1} satisfy p∈P\Pi 1p < ∞. Let
P denote the set of all primes that belong to both P1 and P2 and that do not divide n0 . Let
SP ⊂ N be defined as in formula (17). Then by Lemma 2.7 we have d(SP ) > 0. Since n0 ∈ E1
but n0 ∈
/ E2 and n0 is coprime to all numbers in SP it follows that E1 \E2 contains the set
n0 SP . In particular d(E1 \E2 ) > d(n0 SP ) > 0. This, however, contradicts d(E1 △E2 ) = 0.
Next, assume z1 6= 0 and z2 6= 0. Using Corollary 2.23 we can find two concentrated
multiplicative functions g1 , g2 : N → C\{0} such that E1 = E(g1 , z1 ) and E2 = E(g2 , z2 ).
Define ~g := (g1 , g2 ) and let im(~g ) ⊂ (C\{0})2 denote the image of ~g . Since g1 and g2 are
concentrated multiplicative functions, also ~g is concentrated, see Remark 2.24. We now use
an argument similar to the one used in the proof of Corollary 2.23. Choose ~y ∈ (C\{0})2
such that (~y n · im(~g )) ∩ im(~g ) = ∅ for all n ∈ N. We define a new multiplicative function
~h = (h1 , h2 ) via
(
k
k
~h(p ) := ~g(p ), if p ∤ n0 ,
∀k ∈ N, ∀p ∈ P.
~y ,
if p | n0
It is straightforward to verify that ~g (n) = ~h(n) if and only if gcd(n, n0 ) = 1 and ~h(n) ∈
/
~
im(g(n)) for all n with gcd(n, n0 ) > 1. Since ~g satisfies (a), (b) and (c) of Theorem 2.20,
also ~h satisfies them because the number of primes p for which ~g(p) 6= ~h(p) is finite. Thus,
~h is concentrated, whence the set E(~h, (1, 1)) = {n ∈ N : h1 (n) = 1 and h2 (n) = 1} has
positive density by Remark 2.24. Note that ~h(n) = (1, 1) if and only if ~g(n) = (1, 1) and
11
Note that if d(E1 ) = d(E2 ) = 0 or d(E1 ) = d(E2 ) = 1 then d(E1 △E2 ) = 0 does not necessarily imply
E1 = E2 . Take for instance E1 = {1, 2} and E2 = {1, 3} or E1 = N\{1, 2} and E2 = N\{1, 3}, which are sets
belonging to D(1) because the functions 1{1,2} and 1{1,3} are multiplicative.
45
gcd(n, n0 ) = 1. Hence
E(~h, (1, 1)) = {n ∈ N : g1 (n) = 1, g2 (n) = 1, gcd(n, n0 ) = 1}.
We obtain that g1 (n0 m) = g1 (n0 ) and g2 (n0 m) = g2 (n0 ) for all m ∈ E(~h, (1, 1)). In particular
n0 E(~h, (1, 1)) ⊂ E1 \E2 , which contradicts d(E1 △E2 ) = 0.
Finally, we deal with the case z1 = 0 and z2 6= 0. Let g denote the multiplicative function
defined as g1 (n) = 0 if f1 (n) = 0 and g1 (n) = 1 if f1 (n) 6= 0. Let P := {p ∈ P : p ∤ n0 , g1 (p) =
1} and let SP ⊂ N be defined as in formula (17). Arguing as in the case z1 = z2 = 0 above one
can show that d(SP ) > 0. Next, using Corollary 2.23, we can find a concentrated multiplicative
function g2 : N → C\{0} such that E2 = E(g2 , z2 ). Then, using arguments similar to the ones
utilized in the previous paragraph, we first find y ∈ C\{0} such that (y n · im(g2 )) ∩ im(g2 ) = ∅
for all n ∈ N and then define a multiplicative function h : N → C\{0} via
(
g2 (p), if p ∈ P and k = 1
k
,
∀k ∈ N, ∀p ∈ P.
h(p ) :=
~y ,
if either p ∈
/ P or k > 2
It is straightforward to verify that g2 (n) = h(n) if and only if n ∈ SP and h(n) ∈
/ im(g2 (n))
for all n which are
either
not
squarefree
or
satisfy
p
|
n
for
some
p
∈
P\P
.
Since g2 is
P
concentrated and p∈P\P 1p < ∞, h is also concentrated. It follows from Theorem 2.20 that
E(h, 1) has positive density. Since h(n) = 1 if and only if g(n) = 1 and n ∈ SP , we obtain
that g1 (n0 m) = g1 (n0 ) and g2 (n0 m) = g2 (n0 ) for all m ∈ E(h, 1) ⊂ SP . In particular
n0 E(h, 1) ⊂ E1 \E2 , which again contradicts d(E1 △E2 ) = 0.
Proof of Theorem I. Let E ∈ D (1) and suppose d(E) > 0. By Definition 1.3 there exists a
multiplicative function f such that E = E(f, z) = {n ∈ N : f (n) = z}. Our goal is to find a
(1)
set R ∈ Drat such that E is uniform relative to R. We distinguish two cases, z = 0 and z 6= 0.
If z = 0 then let g be the multiplicative function defined as g(n) = 0 if f (n) = 0 and
g(n) = 1 if f (n) 6= 0. In view of Remark 2.11, g is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
(1)
Also, E = E(f, z) = E(g, z), which proves that the set E belongs to Drat . Since any set is
uniform relative to itself, we can simply pick E = R and are done.
Now assume z 6= 0. Using Corollary 2.23 we can find a concentrated multiplicative function
g : N → C\{0} such that E = E(f, z) = E(g, z). According to Theorem 5.4 there exists a
Besicovitch rationally almost periodic multiplicative function h and y ∈ C\{0} such that E is
uniform relative to R := E(h, y) (namely h = g kG and y = z kG ). Clearly, the set R belongs
(1)
to Drat . This proves the claim.
(1)
Finally, we have to show that if 0 < d(E) < 1 then the set R ∈ Drat such that E is uniform
(1)
relative to R is unique. Suppose R′ ∈ Drat is another set such that E is uniform relative to
R′ . Since 1R′ is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic and d (R) 1E − d (E) 1R is uniform, it
follows from part (c) of Proposition 2.29 that the function
(d (R) 1E − d (E) 1R ) · 1R′ = d (R) 1E − d (E) 1R∩R′
(51)
P
is uniform. Since any uniform function has zero mean, we have that limN →∞ N1 N
n=1 d (R) 1E (n)−
′
′
d (E) 1R∩R (n) = 0, which shows that d(R) = d(R ∩ R ). By symmetry it follows that
d(R) = d(R ∩ R′ ) = d(R′ ) and hence d(R△R′ ) = 0. In view of Lemma 5.8 this proves
that R = R′ .
Theorem I leads to the following question:
Question 5.9. Does there exists a structure theorem in the spirit of Theorem I for the classes
(∞)
D (r) with r > 2 or for Ec.pt. or E∂ (or certain subclasses thereof)?
46
6. Applications to the theory of uniform
distribution
Recall (cf. Definition 2.12) that a sequence (xn )n∈N of real numbers is called uniformly distributed in T (or uniformly distributed mod 1) if for all continuous functions f : [0, 1) → C we
have
Z 1
N
1 X
lim
f (x) dx,
f ({xn }) =
N →∞ N
0
n=1
where for y ∈ R the expression {y} denotes the fractional part of y.
This section is dedicated to proving the following generalization of Theorem D.
(∞)
Theorem 6.1. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to either Ec.pt. or E∂ . Suppose
h : (0, ∞) → R belongs to a Hardy field, has polynomial growth and satisfies |h(t) − r(t)|
≻
log2 (t) for all polynomials r ∈ Q[t]. If d(E) exists and is positive then the sequence h(nj ) j∈N
is uniformly distributed mod 1.
It follows immediately from Propositions 3.2 and 3.5 that Theorem D is a special case of
Theorem 6.1.
In the proof of Theorem 6.1 we will be using the following result of Boshernitzan.
Theorem 6.2 (see [9, Theorem 1.3]). Let H be a Hardy field and assume h ∈ H has polynomial growth (i.e. |h(t)| ≺ tn for some n ∈ N). Then (h(n))n∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1
if and only if for every polynomial r ∈ Q[t] one has |h(t) − r(t)| ≻ log(t).
We will also need the following lemma.
Lemma 6.3. Let H be a Hardy field and assume g ∈ H satisfies |g(t)| ≻ log2 (t). Then, for
all p, q ∈ N with p 6= q,
|g(pt) − g(qt)| ≻ log(t).
(52)
Proof. It suffices to show that for all c > 1 one has
|g(ct) − g(t)| ≻ log(t),
(53)
because (52) follows quickly from (53) by change of variables. Suppose there exists a constant
c > 1 such that (53) is not satisfied. Remembering that g(ct) − g(t) belongs to a Hardy field,
this means that there exist t0 ∈ (0, ∞) and M > 0 such that
|g(ct) − g(t)| 6 M log(t),
∀t ∈ [t0 , ∞).
Define a := |g(t0 )| and b := M log(ct0 ). It follows that
n
X
j
j−1
n
g(c t0 ) − g(c t0 ) |g(c t0 )| = g(t0 ) +
j=1
6 a+
n
X
j=1
6 a+M
|g(cj t0 ) − g(cj−1 t0 )|
n
X
log(cj−1 t0 )
j=1
2
6 a + bn .
47
However, |g(t)| ≻ log2 (t) and hence |g(cn t0 )| ≻ log2 (cn t0 ) > b′ n2 for some constant b′ . This is
a contradiction.
(∞)
Proof of Theorem 6.1. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to either Ec.pt. or E∂
and assume d(E) exists and is positive. Let H be a Hardy field, let h ∈ H and suppose h has
2
polynomial growth and satisfies |h(t)
− r(t)| ≻ log (t) for all polynomials r ∈ Q[t]. We want
to show that the sequence h(nj ) j∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1.
In light of Weyl’s criterion it suffices to show that for all k ∈ Z\{0} the averages
N
1 X
e(kh(nj ))
N
j=1
converge to 0 as N → ∞. Since d(E) exits and is positive, this is equivalent to
N
1 X
1E (n)e(kh(n)) = 0,
N →∞ N
lim
n=1
∀k ∈ Z\{0}.
(54)
In view of Theorem 3.7, to prove (54) it suffices to show that
N
1 X
e(k(h(pn) − h(qn))) = 0,
lim
N →∞ N
n=1
(55)
for all primes p 6= q.
We claim that the sequence (h(pn) − h(qn))n∈N is uniformly
distributed mod 1. Once we
R1
have verified this claim, (55) follows immediately, because 0 e(kx) dx = 0.
Note that h(pt) − h(qt) belongs itself to a Hardy field. According to Theorem 6.2, (h(pn) −
h(qn))n∈N is uniformly distributed mod 1 if and only if for all r ∈ Q[t],
|h(pt) − h(qt) − r(t)| ≻ log(t).
(56)
Let r(t) = ck tk + . . . + c1 t + c0 ∈ Q[t] be arbitrary. Note that the value of c0 has no influence
on (56) and we can assume that c0 = 0. Define a new polynomial s(t) := bk tk + . . . + b1 t,
i
where bi := pic−q
i , 1 6 i 6 k. A simple calculation shows that r(t) = s(pt) − s(qt). Define
g(t) := h(t) − s(t). Then (56) can be written as
|g(pt) − g(qt)| ≻ log(t).
(57)
However, since s(t) ∈ Q[t], we have that |g(t)| = |h(t) − s(t)| ≻ log2 (t) by our assumption.
Therefore (57) follows directly Lemma 6.3. This completes the proof.
7. Applications to Ergodic Theory and
Combinatorics
In this section we provide proofs of Corollary C, Theorem F, Theorem H, Theorem J and
Theorem K.
48
7.1. Single recurrence and proofs of Corollary C and
Theorem F
We start by recalling the following well-known characterizations of ergodic and totally ergodic
sequences (see Definitions 1.6 and 1.5).
Theorem 7.1. Let (nj )j∈N be a sequence in N.
(a) The sequence (nj )j∈N is ergodic if and only if for all α ∈ R\Z,
N
1 X
lim
e(nj α) = 0.
N →∞ N
n=1
(b) The sequence (nj )j∈N is totally ergodic if and only if for all α ∈ R\Q,
N
1 X
lim
e(nj α) = 0.
N →∞ N
n=1
(It is not hard to see that both parts of Theorem 7.1 follow immediately from the spectral
theorem.)
Theorem 7.1 allows us to derive the following corollary from Theorem 3.7.
(∞)
Corollary 7.2. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to either Ec.pt. or E∂ and
suppose d(E) exists and is positive. Then (nj )j∈N is a totally ergodic sequence.
Proof. It follows from part (b) of Theorem 7.1 that it suffices to show that
N
1 X
lim
e(nj α) = 0
N →∞ N
n=1
(58)
for all irrational α. Since d(E) exists and is positive, equation (58) is equivalent to
N
1 X
lim
1E (n)e(nα) = 0.
N →∞ N
(59)
n=1
However, (59) follows from Theorem 3.7 because for any irrational α the sequence e(nα)
satisfies (10).
Note that in view of Propositions 3.2 and 3.5, Corollary C follows directly from Corollary 7.2. We also have the following generalization of Theorem F.
(∞)
Theorem 7.3. Let E = {n1 < n2 < . . .} be a set that belongs to either Ec.pt. or E∂ . Suppose
h : (0, ∞) → R belongs to a Hardy field H, has polynomial growth and satisfies either log2 t ≺
h(t) ≺ t or tk ≺ h(t) ≺ tk+1 for some k ∈ N. If d(E) exists and is positive then ⌊h(nj )⌋ j∈N
is an ergodic sequence.
Proof of Theorem 7.3 (cf. [3, Lemma 5.12]). In view of Theorem 7.1, part (a), it suffices to
show that for every α ∈ R\Z we have
N
1 X
e ⌊h(nj )⌋α = 0.
lim
N →∞ N
j=1
We have ⌊h(n)⌋ = h(n)− {h(n)}. Therefore
e
⌊h(n)⌋α
=
g
αh(n
),
h(n
)
, where g : R2 → C
j
j
is the function g(x, y) = e x − α{y} . Note that g is 1-periodic and hence can be viewed as a
49
function from T2 to C. It thus suffices to show that
N
1 X
g αh(n), h(n) = 0.
N →∞ N
lim
(60)
j=1
Let H := {(αt mod 1, t mod 1) : t ∈ R}. Note that H is a closed subgroup of T2 and one
has H = T2 if α is irrational and H ( T2 if α is rational.
R
Let µH denote
the (normalized)
Haar
measure
on H. We claim that g dµH = 0. If
R
R
R
R
H = T2 then g dµH =
g(x, y) dx dy = 0 dy = 0. If H ( T2 , then α must be rational
and hence
{(αt mod 1, t mod 1) : t ∈ R} = {(αt mod 1, t mod 1) : t ∈ R}.
Therefore,
1
T →∞ T
lim
Z
T
f (αt, t) dt =
0
Z
f dµH ,
(61)
for all continuous f : H → C. (Indeed, the left hand side of (61) describes an invariant
probability measure on H and any invariant probability measure must coincide with µH , by
uniqueness of Haar measures.) Thus, we have
Z
Z
1 T
e(αt − α{t}) dt
g dµH = lim
T →∞ T 0
Z
1 T
= lim
e(α⌊t⌋) dt = 0.
T →∞ T 0
R
Since g dµH = 0 and g is Riemann integrable, to show (60) it suffices to show that the
sequence αh(nj ), h(nj ) j∈N is uniformly distributed in H. Since any group character of H
comes from a character on T2 and the non-trivial characters of H are described by {(x, y) 7→
e(ℓx + my) : ℓ,
m ∈ Z, αℓ + m 6= 0}, it follows from Weyl’s equdistribution criterion that
αh(nj ), h(nj ) j∈N is uniformly distributed in H if and only if for all (ℓ, m) ∈ Z2 that satisfy
αℓ + m 6= 0 one has
N
1 X
e (ℓα + m)h(nj ) = 0.
N →∞ N
lim
(62)
j=1
Since h ∈ H has polynomial growth and satisfies nk−1 ≺ h(t) ≺ nk , we conclude that (ℓα +
m)h(n) also belongs to H, has polynomial growth and satisfies |(ℓα + m)h(t)− r(t)| ≻ log2 (t)
for all r ∈ Q[t]. It follows from Theorem 6.1 that the sequence (ℓα+m)h(nj ) j∈N is uniformly
distributed mod 1. This implies that
Z 1
N
1 X
e(x) dx = 0
e (ℓα + m)h(nj ) =
lim
N →∞ N
0
j=1
and we conclude that (62) holds.
7.2. Proof of Theorem H
In this subsection we prove Theorem H. The proof hinges on Theorem G and the following
two results.
50
Theorem 7.4 ([30]). Suppose φ is a Besicovitch almost periodic function and let hσ(φ)i denote
the subgroup of T generated by the spectrum of φ.12 Let (X, B, µ, T ) be an invertible measure
preserving system and let Eig(T ) the discrete spectrum13 of T . If Eig(T ) ∩ hσ(φ)i = {1} then
for all ℓ ∈ N and f1 , . . . , fℓ ∈ L∞ (X, B, µ) the limit (in L2 -norm)
N
1 X
φ(n) T n f1 T 2n f2 · · · T ℓn fℓ
N →∞ N
lim
n=1
equals
!
N
1 X
φ(n)
lim
N →∞ N
n=1
N
1 X n
lim
T f1 T 2n f2 · · · T ℓn fℓ
N →∞ N
n=1
!
.
Lemma 7.5 (Lemma 3.5, [19]). Let (X, B, µ, T ) be an invertible measure preserving system,
k ∈ N, p1 , . . . , pℓ ∈ Z[x], f1 , . . . , fℓ ∈ L∞ (X, B, µ) bounded by 1 and let F : N → C be bounded
by 1 as well. Then there exists an integer s ∈ N, that only depends on k and the maximal
degree of the polynomials p1 , . . . , pℓ , such that
N
1 X
s
F (n)T p1 (n) f1 · · · T pℓ (n) fℓ = O kF kU[N]
+ o(1).
N
2
n=1
L (X,B,µ)
Proof of Theorem H. Let (X, B, µ, T ) be a totally ergodic invertible measure preserving system, ℓ ∈ N, f1 , . . . , fℓ ∈ L∞ (X, B, µ) and f ∈ M0 . According to Theorem G, f is either
uniform or Besicovitch rationally almost periodic.
If f is uniform then by Lemma 7.5,
ℓ
N
Y
1 X
T jn fj = 0.
f (n)
lim
N →∞ N
n=1
j=1
ℓ
N
Y
1 X
T jn fj = 0 =
f (n)
N →∞ N
lim
n=1
j=1
1
N
PN
= 0. Therefore,

!
N
N Y
ℓ
X
1 X
1
lim
f (n)  lim
T jn fj  .
N →∞ N
N →∞ N
Also, any uniform function satisfies limN →∞
n=1 f (n)
n=1
n=1 j=1
Next, assume f is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic. Note that Eig(T ) ∩ {e(r) : r ∈
Q} = {1}, because T is totally ergodic. Also, it follows from Corollary 2.6 that σ(f ) ⊂ {e(r) :
r ∈ Q}. Hence Eig(T ) ∩ hσ(φ)i = {1}. Therefore, by Theorem 7.4,

!
ℓ
N
N
N Y
ℓ
Y
X
X
1
1 X
1
T jn fj = lim
lim
f (n)
f (n)  lim
T jn fj  .
N →∞ N
N →∞ N
N →∞ N
n=1
n=1
j=1
12
n=1 j=1
In Subsection 2.3 we defined the spectrum σ(φ) of a Besicovitch almost periodic function φ as a subset of
the torus T = R/Z when identified with the unit interval [0, 1). In this subsection it will be more convenient
to identity T = R/Z with the unit circle in the complex plane. For that reason, we will also view σ(φ) as a
subset of the unit circle.
13
An invertible measure preserving transformation T : X → X induces an unitary operator T : L2 (X, B, µ) →
2
L (X, B, µ) via T f (x) = f (T x). The discrete spectrum of T is defined as Eig(T ) := {λ ∈ C\{0} : T f =
λf for some non-zero f ∈ L2 (X, B, µ)}.
51
(1)
7.3. The class Drat
(1)
In this subsection we prove some basic facts about elements in Drat (see Definition 1.10); these
properties will be needed for the proofs of Theorems J and K in the next subsection.
Given a set E ⊂ N consider the following two conditions:
(A) E is a rational set;
(B) for all q ∈ N and all r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , q − 1} either E ∩ (qN − r) = ∅ or d(E ∩ (qN − r)) exists
and is positive.
Lemma 7.6. If f : N → C is a multiplicative function and 0 lies in the image of f then the
set T = {n ∈ N : f (n) = 0} satisfies conditions (A) and (B).
Proof. Let g(n) be the multiplicative function defined as g(n) = 0 if f (n) = 0 and g(n) = 1 if
f (n) 6= 0. Then T = {n ∈ N : f (n) = 0} = {n ∈ N : g(n) = 0}. However, using Lemma 2.7,
we either have kgkB = 0 or D(g, 1) < ∞. If kgkB = 0, then d(TP) = 1, which implies that
T is rational. On the other hand, if D(g, 1) < ∞ then D(g, 1) = p∈P p1 (1 − g(p)) < ∞ and
therefore, using Corollary 2.10, we deduce that g is Besicovitch rationally almost periodic,
which implies that T is rational. This shows that T satisfies (A).
Next, let q ∈ N and r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , q −1}. Since T is a rational set, the density d(T ∩(qN−r))
exists. It remains to show that if T ∩ (qN − r) 6= ∅ then d(T ∩ (qN − r)) is positive. Suppose
x ∈ T ∩ (qN − r). Let S := {n ∈ N : gcd(x, n) = 1}. Then xS ⊂ T . Also, xS is a finite
union of infinite arithmetic progressions and hence xS ∩ (qN − r) is a non-empty finite union
of infinite arithmetic progressions. This shows that d(xS ∩ (qN − r)) exists and is positive,
which, in turn, proves that T satisfies (B).
(1)
Proposition 7.7. Suppose R ∈ Drat and d(R) > 0. Then R satisfies conditions (A) and (B).
Before proving Proposition 7.7 we recall the definition of inner regular sets.
Definition 7.8 (see [5, Definition 2.3] and [4]). A subset R ⊂ N is called inner regular if
for each ε > 0 there exists m ∈ N such that for each s ∈ {0, 1, . . . , m − 1} the intersection
R ∩ (mN − s) is either empty or has lower density > 1−ε
m .
Remark 7.9. It follows immediately from Definition 7.8 that any inner regular set satisfies
condition (A). We claim that inner regular sets also satisfy condition (B). To prove this
claim, let q ∈ N and r ∈ {0, 1, . . . , q − 1} be arbitrary and assume R ∩ (qN − r) 6= ∅. Fix any
x ∈ R ∩ (qN − r). Let 0 < ε < 1q and choose m ∈ N such that for each s ∈ {0, 1, . . . , m − 1} the
intersection R∩(mN+s) is either empty or has lower density > 1−ε
m . Take s ∈ {0, 1, . . . , m−1}
such that s ≡ x mod m. Since x ∈ R and x ∈ mN + s, the intersection R ∩ (mN + s) is non1
empty and hence d(R ∩ (mN + s)) > 1−ε
m . On the other hand, d((qN + r) ∩ (mN + s)) > qm . It
1 1
( q − ε) > 0. This finishes the proof of the claim.
follows that d(R ∩ (mN + s) ∩ (qN + r)) > m
We need two lemmas for the proof of Proposition 7.7, which we state next.
Lemma 7.10 (see [5, Lemma 2.7] applied to B = {p2 ∈ P } ∪ (P\P )). Let P ⊂ P with
P
1
p∈P\P p < ∞, and let SP be the set defined in formula (17). Then SP is inner regular. In
particular, according to Remark 7.9, SP satisfies conditions (A) and (B).
P
1
Lemma 7.11. Let P ⊂ P with
p∈P\P p < ∞, let f be multiplicative function and, for
z ∈ C, let E(f, z) := {n ∈ N : f (n) = z}. Let SP be the set defined in formula (17) and for
(t)
(t)
t ∈ N let SP := {s ∈ SP : gcd(s, t) = 1}. If for all t ∈ N and z ∈ C the set E(f, z) ∩ SP
satisfies (A) and (B) then for all z ∈ C the set E(f, z) satisfies (A) and (B).
Proof. Let TP be as in formula (18). It was shown in the course of the proof of Lemma 3.12
52
that
N=
[
(t)
tSP
t∈TP
is a partition of N (cf. equation (19)) and that
X
(t)
d(tSP ) = 1
(63)
t∈TP
(cf. equation (20)).
For t ∈ TP let ut := f (t) and define

z

E(f, ut ), if ut 6= 0;
Et := ∅,
if ut = 0 and z 6= 0;


N,
if ut = 0 and z = 0.
(t)
It is easy to check that E(f, z) ∩ tSP
(t)
(64)
(t)
= t(Et ∩ SP ). Observe that if Et = E(f, uzt )
then Et ∩ SP satisfies (A) and (B) due to the assumptions stipulated in the statement of
(t)
Lemma 7.11. Also, if Et = ∅ then Et ∩ SP = ∅ obviously satisfies (A) and (B). In light of
(t)
(t)
Lemma 7.10, if Et = N then Et ∩ SP = SP satisfies (A) and (B). We see that for each of the
(t)
three cases comprising the definition of Et in (64), the set Et ∩ SP satisfies (A) and (B).
(t)
(t)
(t)
Since Et ∩ SP satisfies (A) and (B) and E(f, z) ∩ tSP = t(Et ∩ SP ) it follows that
(t)
E(f, z) ∩ tSP satisfies (A) and (B).
Note that any finite union of sets satisfying (A) and (B) also satisfies (A) and (B). Therefore, for every M > 1, the set
[ (t)
BM :=
E(f, z) ∩ tSP
t∈TP
t6M
satisfies (A) and (B). Finally, since d(E(f, z)\BM ) = 0 as M → ∞ S
(see equation (63)), we
conclude that E(f, z) satisfies (A). Since B1 ⊂ B2 ⊂ . . . and E(f, z) = M >1 BM , we conclude
that E(f, z) satisfies (B). This finishes the proof.
(1)
Proof of Proposition 7.7. Let R ∈ Drat with d(R) > 0 be given. Then there exists a Besicovitch rationally almost periodic multiplicative function f and a complex number z such that
R = E(f, z) = {n ∈ N : f (n) = z}. Note that if z = 0 then it follows from Lemma 7.6 that R
satisfies (A) and (B). We can therefore assume without loss of generality that z 6= 0.
We now apply Corollary 2.23 to find a concentrated P
multiplicative function g : N → C\{0}
such that the set P ′ := {p ∈ P : f (p) 6= g(p)} satisfies p∈P ′ p1 < ∞. Since f is Besicovitch
rationally almost
P periodic it follows from Corollary 2.10 that there exists a Dirichlet character
χ such that p∈P p1 (1 − f (p)χ(p)) converges. In particular, D(f, χ) < ∞.
The function g is a concentrated multiplicative function
and therefore its concentration
P
1
group G is a finite set of roots of unity and we have
p∈P, p < ∞. Define
g(p)∈G
/
P ′′ := {p ∈ P : f (p) 6= χ(p)}
53
and let ρ := min{1 − Re(xy) : x ∈ G, y ∈ im(χ), x 6= y}. Note that ρ > 0 and
X 1
p
′′
6
X 1
X 1
+
+
p
p
′
p∈P,
g(p)∈G
/
p∈P
6
p∈P
X
p∈P,
f (p)6=χ(p),
g(p)∈G,
g(p)=f (p)
1
p
X 1
X 1
1
+
+ D(f, χ) < ∞.
p
p
ρ
′
p∈P,
f (p)∈G
/
p∈P
(t)
Let P := P\P ′′ , let SP be the set defined in formula (17) and, for t ∈ N, let SP := {s ∈ SP :
(t)
(t)
gcd(s, t) = 1}. Since f (p) = χ(p) for all p ∈ P , we conclude that E(f, z)∩SP = E(χ, z)∩SP .
Recall that all Dirichlet characters are periodic functions. Therefore the set E(χ, z) is either
(t)
empty or a finite union of infinite arithmetic progressions. In view of Lemma 7.10, the set SP
(t)
is inner regular. Hence E(χ, z) ∩ SP is an inner regular set. Therefore, by Remark 7.9, for
(t)
(t)
all t ∈ N the set E(f, z) ∩ SP = E(χ, z) ∩ SP satisfies (A) and (B). Finally, we can apply
Lemma 7.11 and conclude that E(f, z) satisfies (A) and (B).
Proposition 7.7 immediately gives the following corollary.
(1)
Corollary 7.12. Let R ∈ Drat with d(R) > 0. Then for all r ∈ R the set R − r is divisible
(cf. Definition 1.12).
7.4. Proofs of Theorems J and K
(1)
Proof of Theorem K. Suppose E ∈ D (1) has positive density, R ∈ Drat and E is uniform
relative to R. Our goal is to show that for all r ∈ R the set E − r is divisible.
It follows from Proposition 7.7 and Corollary 7.12 that for all r ∈ R and q ∈ N the
density d((R − r) ∩ qN) = d(R ∩ (qN + r)) exists and is positive. However, since the function
d (R) 1E −d (E) 1R is uniform, it follows from Proposition 2.29, part (b), that d (R) 1E∩(qN+r) −
d (E) 1R∩(qN+r) is uniform. Since all uniform functions have zero mean, we deduce that d(E ∩
(qN + r)) also exists and that
d (R) d(E ∩ (qN + r)) − d (E) d(R ∩ (qN + r)) = 0.
Thus, it follows from d(R ∩ (qN + r)) > 0 that d(E ∩ (qN + r)) > 0. This proves that E − r is
divisible.
For the proof of Theorem J we need the following theorem.
Theorem 7.13 ([4]). Let R ⊂ N be rational and let r ∈ N ∪ {0}. Then the following are
equivalent:
• R − r is divisible;
• R − r is an averaging set of recurrence;
• R − r is an averaging set of polynomial multiple recurrence.
Proof of Theorem J. Let E ∈ D (1) and let r ∈ N ∪ {0}. It suffices to show that if E − r is
divisible then E − r is an averaging set of polynomial multiple recurrence, since all the other
implications formulated in Theorem J are obvious.
(1)
Thus, assume E − r is divisible. Note that by Theorem I there exists R ∈ Drat such that
E is uniform relative to R. According to Proposition 7.7, the set R is rational. Moreover, it
follows from E − r ⊂ R − r that R − r is divisible.
54
Let (X, B, µ, T ) be an arbitrary (invertible) measure preserving system, let A ∈ B with
µ(A) > 0 and let pi ∈ Z[x], i = 1, . . . , ℓ with pi (0) = 0 be given. Using Lemma 7.5 and the
fact that d (R) 1E − d (E) 1R is uniform, we get that the limit
N
1 X
lim
1E−r (n)µ A ∩ T −p1(n) A ∩ . . . ∩ T −pℓ(n) A
N →∞ N
(65)
n=1
is the same as the limit
N
1 X
d(E)
1R−r (n)µ A ∩ T −p1 (n) A ∩ . . . ∩ T −pℓ(n) A ,
lim
d(R) N →∞ N n=1
(66)
(meaning that (65) exists if and only if (66) exists and then they are equal). Using Theorem 7.13 and the fact that R is rational and R − r is divisible, we conclude that the limit in
(66) exists and is positive. It follows that the limit in (65) exists and is positive. Hence E − r
is an averaging set of polynomial multiple recurrence.
A. Appendix
Proof of Proposition 4.1. For f ∈ M0 and for any
periodic function g :P
N → C, say of period
Pq−1
1
q, the mean M (f · g) exists, because M (f · g) = r=0 g(r) limN →∞ N N
n=1 f (qn + r). Since
any Dirichlet character χ is periodic, we conclude that M (χ · f ) always exists.
It thus remains to show that for any multiplicative function f bounded by 1 for which
M (χ · f ) exists for all Dirichlet characters χ, we have
N
1 X
f (qn + r) exists ∀q, r ∈ N.
N →∞ N
(67)
lim
n=1
This is equivalent to the assertion that
N
1 X
lim
1qZ+r (n)f (n) exists ∀q, r ∈ N.
N →∞ N
n=1
(68)
We prove (67) by induction on d = gcd(q, r). The beginning of the induction is given by
d = 1. In this case the numbers q and r are coprime, which implies that the function 1qZ+r
can be written as a finite linear combination of Dirichlet characters in the following way:
1qZ+r (n) =
X
1
χ(r)χ(n),
ϕ(q)
χ mod q
where
P
χ mod q
denotes the sum over all Dirichlet characters of modulus q. Therefore,
N
1 X
1
1qZ+r (n)f (n) =
N →∞ N
ϕ(q)
lim
n=1
X
χ mod q
N
1 X
f (n)χ(n).
N →∞ N
χ(r) lim
n=1
From this (68), and therefore also (67), follows immediately.
Next, we prove the inductive step. Let d0 > 1 and assume that (67) has already been
proven for all pairs q and r with gcd(q, r) < d0 . We will show (67) for all pairs q and r with
gcd(q, r) = d0 .
In the following, for a set D ⊂ C of complex numbers we will use accD to denote the set
of accumulation points of D. Note that for a bounded sequence (xN )N ∈N of complex numbers
55
the limit limN →∞ xN exists if and only if
diam (acc{xN : N ∈ N}) = 0,
where diam (·) is used to denote the diameter of a set. We make the following claim:
Claim: Let p ∈ P be an arbitrary prime number and let d ∈ N be a natural number satisfying
p ∤ d and d < d0 . Then for all pairs Q, R ∈ N for which gcd(Q, R) = dpk for some k ∈ N, one
of two possibilities holds:
(a) Either
(
)!
N
1 X
diam acc
f (Qn + R) : N ∈ N
= 0,
(69)
N
n=1
(b) or there exist Q′ , R′ ∈ N such that gcd(Q′ , R′ ) = dpk+1 and
(
)!
N
1 X
diam acc
f (Qn + R) : N ∈ N
N n=1
)!
(
N
1 X
1
f (Q′ n + R′ ) : N ∈ N
.
6 diam acc
p
N
(70)
n=1
Before we proceed to prove this claim, let us see how we can use it to finish the proof of
the inductive step. Hence, let q, r ∈ N with gcd(q, r) = d0 . Since d0 > 1 we can find p ∈ P and
k ∈PN such that d0 = dpk and gcd(d, p) = 1. Observe that d < d0 . To prove that the limit of
N
1
n=1 f (qn + r) exists as N → ∞, it suffices to show that for all ε > 0 one has
N
(
)!
N
1 X
diam acc
f (qn + r) : N ∈ N
< ε.
(71)
N n=1
Thus, let ε > 0 be arbitrary. We apply the above claim and find ourselves either in case (a)
or in case (b). If we end up in case (a) then (71) holds and we are done. If we are in case
(b) then we obtain a new pair of numbers q ′ , r ′ ∈ N with gcd(q ′ , r ′ ) = dpk+1 . We then apply
the claim again to this new pair of numbers q ′ and r ′ . We continue this procedure and, after
j-many applications of the claim, it follows either from (69) that
)!
(
N
1 X
f (qn + r) : N ∈ N
= 0,
diam acc
N
n=1
or from (70) that
(
N
1 X
diam acc
f (qn + r) : N ∈ N
N n=1
)!
6
1
.
pj
If j is sufficiently large, then p1j < ε and hence (71) is proven.
It remains to prove the above claim. Let p ∈ P. Assume that k, d ∈ N with p ∤ d and d < d0
and let Q, R ∈ N satisfy gcd(Q, R) = dpk . Define Q0 := Qp−k and R0 := Rp−k . We now
distinguish two cases, the case p | Q0 (which will correspond to part (a) of the claim) and the
case p ∤ Q0 (which will correspond to part (b) of the claim). In the first case we have p ∤ R0 ,
because otherwise we have pk+1 | gcd(Q, R) which contradicts p ∤ d. Therefore the equation
Q0 x + R0 ≡ 0 mod p
56
(72)
has no solutions in x. This implies that for any n ∈ N the number Q0 n + R0 is coprime to pk .
Hence
!
N
N
1 X
1 X
k
f (Qn + R) = f (p )
f (Q0 n + R0 ) .
(73)
N n=1
N n=1
However, we have that gcd(Q0 , R0 ) = d and d < d0 . Therefore, by the induction hypothesis,
the limit of (73) as N → ∞ exists and so (69) is satisfied.
Next, assume p ∤ Q0 . In this case equation (72) possesses exactly one solution for x ∈
{0, . . . , p − 1}, which we denote by x0 . We deduce that pk is coprime to Q0 n + R0 if and only
if n 6≡ x0 mod p. In particular, we have that f (Qn + R) = f (pk )f (Q0 n + R0 ) for all n ∈ N
with n 6≡ x0 mod p. Define Q′ := pQ and R′ := Qx0 + R. We obtain
pN
1 X
f (Qn + R) =
pN n=1
=
pN
1 X
f (pk (Q0 n + R0 ))
pN n=1
p−1 N
1 XX
f (pk (Q0 (pn + x) + R0 ))
pN
x=0 n=1
=
X
x∈{0,1...,p−1}\{x0 }
f (pk )
p
!
N
1 X
f (Q0 pn + Q0 x + R0 )
N n=1
!
N
1 X
f (Q′ n + R′ ) .
N n=1
1
+
p
Define Q1 := Q0 p and Rx := Q0 x + R0 . Then,
N
N
1 X
1 X
f (Q0 pn + Q0 x + R0 ) =
f (Q1 n + Rx ).
N
N
n=1
n=1
Furthermore, for x 6= x0 , we have gcd(Q0 , Q0 x + R0 ) = gcd(Q0 , R0 ) = d and therefore
gcd(Q1 , Rx ) is either equal to d or to dp. However, gcd(Q1 , Rx ) cannot be equal to dp because
Rx 6≡ 0 mod p for x 6= x0 . Hence gcd(Q1P
, Rx ) = d. Since d < d0 , we can use the induction
1
hypothesis to deduce that the limit of N N
n=1 f (Q1 n + Rx ) exists as N → ∞ for all x 6= x0 .
Therefore,
(
)!
N
1 X
diam acc
f (Qn + R) : N ∈ N
N
n=1
)!
(
pN
1 X
f (Qn + R) : N ∈ N
= diam acc
pN
n=1
(
)!
N
1 X
′
′
= diam acc
f (Q n + R ) : N ∈ N
pN n=1
)!
(
N
1 X
1
f (Q′ n + R′ ) : N ∈ N
.
= diam acc
p
N
n=1
Moreover, since gcd(Q0 , Q0 x0 + R0 ) = gcd(Q0 , R0 ) = d and since Q0 x0 + R0 ≡ 0 mod p, we
have that gcd(Q′ , R′ ) = dpk+1 . This shows that we are in case (b) of the claim.
57
References
[1] A. Bellow and V. Losert, The weighted pointwise ergodic theorem and the individual ergodic
theorem along subsequences, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 288 (1985), pp. 307–345.
[2] V. Bergelson, Ergodic Ramsey theory—an update, in Ergodic theory of Zd actions (Warwick,
1993–1994), vol. 228 of London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
1996, pp. 1–61.
[3] V. Bergelson and I. J. Håland Knutson, Weak mixing implies weak mixing of higher orders
along tempered functions, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 29 (2009), pp. 1375–1416.
[4] V. Bergelson, J. Kułaga-Przymus, M. Lemańczyk, and F. K. Richter, Rationally almost
periodic sequences, polynomial multiple recurrence and symbolic dynamics, ArXiv e-prints, (2016).
https://arxiv.org/abs/1611.08392.
[5] V. Bergelson and I. Ruzsa, Squarefree numbers, IP sets and ergodic theory, in Paul Erdős
and his mathematics, I (Budapest, 1999), vol. 11 of Bolyai Soc. Math. Stud., János Bolyai Math.
Soc., Budapest, 2002, pp. 147–160.
[6] A. S. Besicovitch, Almost periodic functions, Dover Publications, Inc., New York, 1955.
[7] M. Boshernitzan, An extension of Hardy’s class L of “orders of infinity”, J. Analyse Math., 39
(1981), pp. 235–255.
[8]
, New “orders of infinity”, J. Analyse Math., 41 (1982), pp. 130–167.
[9] M. D. Boshernitzan, Uniform distribution and Hardy fields, J. Anal. Math., 62 (1994), pp. 225–
240.
[10] J. Bourgain, P. Sarnak, and T. Ziegler, Disjointness of Moebius from horocycle flows, in
From Fourier analysis and number theory to radon transforms and geometry, vol. 28 of Dev.
Math., Springer, New York, 2013, pp. 67–83.
[11] H. Daboussi and H. Delange, Quelques propriétés des fonctions multiplicatives de module au
plus égal à 1, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. A, 278 (1974), pp. 657–660.
[12]
, On multiplicative arithmetical functions whose modulus does not exceed one, J. London
Math. Soc. (2), 26 (1982), pp. 245–264.
[13] H. Davenport, Über numeri abundantes, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss.,Phys.-Math. Kl., No.
6, (1933), pp. 830–837.
[14] H. Delange, Sur les fonctions multiplicatives de module au plus égal à un, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris
Sér. A-B, 275 (1972), pp. A781–784.
[15]
, Sur les fonctions arithmétiques multiplicatives de module 6 1, Acta Arith., 42 (1983),
pp. 121–151.
[16] P. D. T. A. Elliott, Probabilistic number theory. I, vol. 239 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen
Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Science], Springer-Verlag, New YorkBerlin, 1979. Mean-value theorems.
[17] N. Frantzikinakis and B. Host, Multiple ergodic theorems for arithmetic sets, ArXiv e-prints,
(2015). https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07154 – to appear in Transactions of the American Mathematical Society.
[18] N. Frantzikinakis and B. Host, Higher order Fourier analysis of multiplicative functions and
applications, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 30 (2017), pp. 67–157.
[19] N. Frantzikinakis, B. Host, and B. Kra, The polynomial multidimensional Szemerédi theorem along shifted primes, Israel J. Math., 194 (2013), pp. 331–348.
[20] W. T. Gowers, A new proof of Szemerédi’s theorem, Geom. Funct. Anal., 11 (2001), pp. 465–588.
[21] A. Granville and K. Soundararajan, Multiplicative number theory: The pretentious approach. In preparation - http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/∼andrew/PDF/BookChaps1n2.pdf.
58
[22] B. Green and T. Tao, Linear equations in primes, Ann. of Math. (2), 171 (2010), pp. 1753–1850.
[23] B. Green and T. Tao, The Möbius function is strongly orthogonal to nilsequences, Ann. of
Math. (2), 175 (2012), pp. 541–566.
[24] B. Green, T. Tao, and T. Ziegler, An inverse theorem for the Gowers U s+1 [N ]-norm, Ann.
of Math. (2), 176 (2012), pp. 1231–1372.
[25] G. Halász, Über die Mittelwerte multiplikativer zahlentheoretischer Funktionen, Acta Math.
Acad. Sci. Hungar., 19 (1968), pp. 365–403.
[26] G. H. Hardy, Properties of Logarithmico-Exponential Functions, Proc. London Math. Soc., S210 (1912), pp. 54–90.
[27]
, Orders of infinity. The Infinitärcalcül of Paul du Bois-Reymond, Cambridge tracts in mathematics and mathematical physics, no 12, Cambridge University Press, London, 1954.
[28] W. Hoeffding, Probability inequalities for sums of bounded random variables, J. Amer. Statist.
Assoc., 58 (1963), pp. 13–30.
[29] I. Kátai, A remark on a theorem of H. Daboussi, Acta Math. Hungar., 47 (1986), pp. 223–225.
[30] J. Moreira and F. K. Richter, A spectral refinement of the Bergelson-Host-Kra decomposition
and new multiple ergodic theorems, ArXiv e-prints, (2016). https://arxiv.org/abs/1609.03631.
[31] I. Z. Ruzsa, General multiplicative functions, Acta Arith., 32 (1977), pp. 313–347.
[32] I. Schoenberg, Über die asymptotische Verteilung reeller Zahlen mod 1, Math. Z., 28 (1928),
pp. 171–199.
[33] T. Tao, Higher order Fourier analysis, vol. 142 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics, American
Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2012.
[34] E. Wirsing, Das asymptotische Verhalten von Summen über multiplikative Funktionen, Math.
Ann., 143 (1961), pp. 75–102.
Vitaly Bergelson
Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
E-mail address: [email protected]
Joanna Kułaga-Przymus
Institute of Mathematics, Polish Acadamy of Sciences, Śniadeckich 8, 00-956 Warszawa, Poland
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Chopina 12/18,
87-100 Toruń, Poland
E-mail address: [email protected]
Mariusz Lemańczyk
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Chopina 12/18,
87-100 Toruń, Poland
E-mail address: [email protected]
Florian K. Richter
Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA
E-mail address: [email protected]
59