## On the Density Hypothesis for the Selberg Class

## by J´ anos Pintz ∗

## 1 Introduction

The Selberg class S of L -functions was introduced by Atle Selberg in 1992 [9]. The elements of the class S are Dirichlet series F s ( ) satisfying the following axioms:

- (i) F s ( ) is absolutely convergent for σ &gt; 1;
- (ii) ( s -1) m F s ( ) is an entire function of finite order with an integer m ≥ 0;
- (iii) F s ( ) satisfies a functional equation of the form

$$\Phi ( s ) = \omega \overline { \Phi } ( 1 - s ),$$

$$\text{where } | \omega | = 1, \, \overline { f } ( s ) = \overline { f ( s ) } \text{ and}$$

$$\Phi ( s ) = Q ^ { s } \prod _ { j = 1 } ^ { r } \Gamma ( \lambda _ { j } s + \mu _ { j } ) F ( s ), \ Q > 0, \ \lambda _ { j } > 0, \ R e \ \mu _ { j } \geq 0 ;$$

- (iv) the Dirichlet coefficients a n ( ) of F s ( ) satisfy the Ramanujan condition a n ( ) /lessmuch n ε for every ε &gt; 0;
- (v) log F s ( ) is a Dirichlet series, log F s ( ) = ∑ p log F p ( s ),

$$\frac { \log F _ { p } ( s ) = \sum _ { m = 1 } ^ { \infty } \frac { b ( p ^ { m } ) } { p ^ { m s } }, \ \ b ( p ^ { m } ) \ll ( p ^ { m } ) ^ { \vartheta } \ \text{ for some } \vartheta < 1 / 2. \\ \frac { \lambda } { \lambda } \quad \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \colon$$

∗ Supported by the National Research Development and Innovation Office of Hungary, NKFIH, K133819 and K147153.

Keywords and phrases: Selberg class, density hypothesis.

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 11M41.

One of the most important notions is the degree d F of a function F ∈ S defined by

$$d _ { F } = 2 \sum _ { j = 1 } ^ { r } \lambda _ { j },$$

which is, in fact, an invariant of F .

One of the main goals of the theory would be to characterize elements of the Selberg class if their degree d F is given. Selberg conjectured that the degree is always a non-negative integer. One of the other main goals (clearly hopeless at present) would be to show the Riemann Hypothesis for all F ∈ S , i.e., that all non-trivial zeros of F lie on the line Re s = 1 2. /

Concerning the characterization problem Conrey and Ghosh [2] showed that there is no element F with a degree d F ∈ (0 1) while the only function , with d F = 0 (i.e. without Γ-factors) is F = 1.

Very deep results were reached by Kaczorowski and Perelli ([6] and [8]). In [6] they showed that the only functions with d F = 1 are the Riemann zeta and ordinary Dirichlet L -functions. In [8] they showed that there are no elements F ∈ S with 1 &lt; d F &lt; 2.

For the number N F ( T ) of non-trivial zeros of F with 0 ≤ Ims ≤ T Selberg showed that

$$N _ { F } ( T ) = d _ { F } \frac { T ( \log T + C ) } { 2 \pi } + O ( \log T ),$$

similarly to the case of Riemann's ζ ( s ).

As an approximation to the Riemann Hypothesis Carlson proved more than hundred years ago [1] that

$$N ( \sigma, T ) \ll T ^ { 4 \sigma ( 1 - \sigma ) } \log ^ { c } T.$$

The best possible (eventually uniform) conjecture of type

$$N ( 1 - \eta, T ) \ll T ^ { A ( \eta ) \eta } \log ^ { c } T, \quad ( \eta \leq 1 / 2 )$$

or

$$N ( 1 - \eta, T ) \ll _ { \varepsilon } T ^ { A ( \eta ) \eta + \varepsilon } \text{ for any } \varepsilon > 0 \text{ \quad \ \ } ( 1. 5 ) \\ \tilde { \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda } \text{ \ \dots \ \lambda }$$

is by (1.2) with A η ( ) ≤ A = 2. It is called the Density Hypothesis.

Although there were many improvements of Carlson's result in the past hundred years, the Density Hypothesis is still open. A breakthrough result was shown half a century later by Hal´sz and Tur´n [3] who could show its a a validity in a fixed strip η &lt; c 1 of the critical strip. Several mathematicians

showed Carlson type density theorems for elements of the Selberg class, including Kaczorowski and Perelli [7] who showed for any F ∈ S

$$N _ { F } ( 1 - \eta, T ) \ll _ { \varepsilon } T ^ { A _ { F } ( \eta ) \eta + \varepsilon }$$

with

$$A _ { F } ( \eta ) = 4 ( d _ { F } + 3 ) \quad \text{for } \ \eta < 1 / 4.$$

Other works proved even the corresponding Density Hypothesis for several elements F ∈ S .

Our present goal is to show a density theorem, namely the following Theorem. Under the above notations (1.6) holds with

$$A _ { F } ( \eta ) = \max ( d _ { F }, 2 ) \quad \text{for } \eta \leq 1 / 1 0. \quad \text{(1.8)}$$

In particular, we obtain the Density Hypothesis if d F ≤ 2. We do not use the deep fact (resp. conjecture) that there are no elements of the Selberg class, if d F is not a non-negative integer.

## 2 Notation. Proof of Theorem. Preparation

We begin with some notation and a definition.

Let us assume that we have zeros /rho1 j = β j + iγ j of F S ( ) with γ j ∈ [ T/ , T 2 ], T large, β j = 1 -η j , n j ≤ η ≤ 1 4, / σ = 1 -η . Suppose further that for j = ν

/negationslash

$$| \gamma _ { j } - \gamma _ { \nu } | \geq 3 \mathcal { L } ^ { 3 } \quad \text{with} \quad \mathcal { L } = \log T.$$

Let ε be a generic arbitrary small positive constant which might be different at different occurrences.

Let us choose the parameters X and Y as

$$X & = T ^ { \varepsilon },$$

$$Y = T ^ { d _ { F } / 2 + \varepsilon }.$$

Definition. The implicit constants in the ϑ and /lessmuch symbols might depend on ε and F s ( ). A non-trivial zero /rho1 = β j + iγ j = 1 -η j + iγ j of F S ( ) will be called an extreme right hand (eRH) zero if the rectangle (for H = L )

$$R _ { H } ( \varrho ) \coloneqq \left \{ \sigma$$

is free of zeros of F s ( ).

Starting from any zero /rho1 0 with β 0 ≥ 1 2 we have two possibilities: /

- (i) /rho1 0 is an eRH zero;
- (ii) we can find another zero /rho1 1 = β 1 + iγ 1 with β 1 ≥ β 0 +1 / L | , γ 1 -γ 0 | ≤ L 2 .

$$\begin{array} {$$

In case (i) we are ready, in case (ii) we continue the same procedure with /rho1 1 in place of /rho1 0 . In such a way we arrive after at most /ceilingleftL / 2 /ceilingright steps at an eRH zero /rho1 ′ with

The advantage of using an eRH zero /rho1 ′ instead of an arbitrary /rho1 in our counting procedure will be clear from the following

Lemma 1. If for a point s 0 = σ 0 + it 0 = 1 -η 0 + it 0 with σ 0 ≥ 1 2 / , | t 0 | ≤ 2 T the rectangle R H ( s 0 ) defined by H = L and (2.4) with /rho1 replaced by s 0 is zero-free, then

$$F \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } + i t \right ) \ll T ^$$

Proof. Let 3 L &lt; δ be a sufficiently small parameter to be determined later. Let us use the Borel-Carath´odory theorem for log e F z ( ) with the circles of radius r = 2 -σ 0 -δ/ 2 and 2 -σ 0 -δ and centre 2 + it 0 . Then we have on the larger circle

$$\text{Re } \log F ( z ) & = \log | F ( z ) | \$$

Hence, on the smaller circle by F s ( ) = t 0(1) and axiom (v)

$$& | \log F ( z ) | \ll \frac { 4 - 2 \sigma _ {$$

Afterwards apply Hadamard's three circle theorem with circles C , C , C 1 2 3 , centered at 1 /δ + it 0 passing through the points 2 + it 0 , σ 0 + 10 δ + it 0 , σ 0 + + δ it 0 , i.e. with radii r 1 = 1 /δ -2, r 2 = 1 /δ -σ 0 -10 , δ r 3 = 1 /δ -σ 0 -δ . Let us denote the maximum of F z ( ) on these circles by M 1 , M 2 , M 3 . We have then

$$M _ { 2 } \leq M _ { 1 } ^ { 1 - a } \cdot M _ { 3 } ^ { a } \\.. 2. \quad \dots$$

where by log(1 + x ) = x -x 2 2 (1 + o (1)) for x → 0

$$a & = \log \frac { r _ { 2 } } { r _ { 1 } } \Big / \log \frac { r _ { 3 } } { r _ { 1 } } = \log \left ( 1 + \frac { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 0 \delta } { 1 / \delta - 2 } \right ) \Big / \log \left ( 1 + \frac { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } - \delta } { 1 / \delta - 2 } \right ) \quad ( 2. 1 0 ) \\ & \leq \left ( \frac { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 0 \delta } { 1 / \delta - 2 } \left ( 1 - \frac { 2 \delta } { 5 } \right ) \right ) \Big / \left ( \frac { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } - \delta } { 1 / \delta - 2 } \left ( 1 - \frac { 2 \delta } { 3 } \right ) \right ) \\ &.$$

$$& \leq \frac { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 0 \delta } { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } - \delta } \left ( 1 + \frac { \delta } { 3 } \right ). \\ & \pi _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \iota _ { - - } \, \i }$$

For the elements F of the Selberg class we have by axiom (v)

$$M _ { 1 } = \max _ { z \in C _ { 1 } } | \log F ( z ) | \ll 1,$$

while the argument of the Borel-Carath´ eodory theorem, yields (2.8) for every point of the circle C 3 (not only for σ 0 + δ + it 0 )

$$M _ { 3 } & = \max _ { z \in C _ { 3 } } | \log F ( z ) | \ll \frac { \mathcal { L } } { \delta }. & & ( 2. 1 2 ) \\. &. &. &. &.$$

Taking into account (2.9)-(2.10) we obtain

$$\text{img movie accuracy} \, \underbrace { \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot } _ { \cdot \cdot \cdot } \, \underbrace { \cdot \cdot \cdot } _ { \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot } \, \underbrace { \cdot \cdot \cdot } _ { \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot } \, \underbrace { \cdot \cdot \cdot } _ { \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot \cdot } \\ \left | \log F ( \sigma _ { 0 } + 1 0 \delta + i t _ { 0 } ) \right | & \leq M _ { 2 } \ll \frac { 1 } { \delta } \mathcal { L } ^ { a } & & ( 2. 1 3 ) \\ & \ll \frac { 1 } { \delta } \mathcal { L } ^ { ( 1 - \frac { 9 \delta } { 2 - \sigma _ { 0 } } ) ( 1 + \frac { \delta } { 3 } ) } \\ & \ll \frac { 1 } { \delta } \mathcal { L } ^ { 1 - 6 \delta }. \\ \text{in} \, \delta = 1 \, / \, \sqrt { 1 \sigma } \, \mathcal { L } ^ { 1 }$$

$$| \log F ( \sigma _ { 0 } + 1 0 \delta + i t _ { 0 } ) | \ll \sqrt { \log \mathcal { L } } \cdot \mathcal { L } e ^ { - 6 \sqrt { \log \mathcal { L } } } = o ( \mathcal { L } ). \quad \quad ( 2. 1 4 ) \\ \text{Hence from the functional equation we obtain}$$

Choosing δ = 1 / √ log L

Hence, from the functional equation we obtain

$$| \log F ( 1 - \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 0 \delta + i t _ { 0 } ) | \leq \frac { d _ { F } } { 2 } ( 2 \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 + o ( 1 ) ) \log T. \quad \quad ( 2. 1 5 )$$

If we replace in the definition R L ( s ) the parameter L by L / 2 then the whole argument yielding (2.14)-(2.15) remains valid. Therefore we have (2.14)-(2.15) if t 0 is replaced by an arbitrary t ∗ with

$$| t ^ { * } - t _ { 0 } | \leq \mathcal { L } ^ { 2 } / 4.$$

So, we can now use Hadamard's three lines theorem for the function

$$f ( z ) = F ( z ) e ^ { ( z - i t ^ { * } ) ^ { 2 } }$$

on the lines σ 1 = σ 0 +10 , δ σ 2 = 1 2, / σ 3 = 1 -σ 0 -10 . δ

Let us denote the corresponding maximums by M 1 , M 2 , M 3 . First we note that as (2.14)-(2.15) are valid for t 0 replaced by t ∗ we have

$$M _ { 1 } = \sup _ { t } | f ( \sigma _ { 1 } + i t ) | \ll | F ( \sigma _ { 1 } + i t ^ { * } ) | \ll T ^ { \varepsilon } \quad \quad ( 2. 1 8 )$$

and

$$M _ { 3 } = \sup _ { t } | f ( \sigma _ { 3 } + i t ) | \ll | F ( \sigma _ { 3 } + i t ^ { * } ) | \ll T ^ { d _ { F } ( 2 \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 ) / 2 + \varepsilon }. \quad \ ( 2. 1 9 )$$

Consequently, by Hadamard's three lines theorem we have

$$M _ { 2 } = \sup _ { t } | f ( 1 / 2 + i t ) | \ll ( M _ { 1 } M _ { 3 } ) ^ { 1 / 2 } \ll T ^ { d _ { F } ( \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 / 2 ) / 2 + \varepsilon }. \quad ( 2. 2 0 )$$

In particular we have for t ∗ ∈ [ t 0 -L 2 / , t 2 0 + L 2 / 2]

$$\left | F \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } + i t ^ { * } \right ) \right | = \left | f \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } + i t ^ { * } \right ) \right | e ^ { - 1 / 4 } \ll T ^ { d _ { F } ( \sigma _ { 0 } - 1 / 2 ) / 2 + \varepsilon }. \quad \ \ \Omega$$

## 3 The zero detection method

We will use the now standard method of Montgomery to detect the zeros of F s ( ) with β ≥ 3 4 with slight modifications applied by Kaczorowski and / Perelli [7] to prove (1.6)-(1.7). We will closely follow [7], so we will be brief. Until the end of (3.5) these zeros can be arbitrary with (2.1), later on we suppose that they are eRH zeros (see Section 2).

Denoting the p -th Euler factor of F s ( ) = ∞ ∑ n =1 a n n ( ) -s by F p ( s ) with a z = z ε ( ) to be chosen later we write

$$F ( s, z ) \coloneqq \prod _ { p > z } F _ { p } ( s ), \ M _ { X } ( s, z ) \coloneqq \sum _ { \substack { n \leq X \\ ( n, P ( z ) ) = 1 } } a ^ { - 1 } ( n ) n ^ { - s }. \quad ( 3. 1 )$$

/negationslash

Since F p ( s ) = 0 for σ ≥ 1 2 (see Section 2 of [6]), the zeros / of F s ( ) and F s, z ( ) coincide in the halfplane σ ≥ 1 2. For / σ &gt; 1 we have

$$F ( s, z ) M _ { X } ( s, z ) = 1 + \sum _ { n > X } c ( n, z, X ) n ^ { - s },$$

where by Lemma 1 of [7]

$$c ( n ) = c ( n, z, X ) & \ll n ^ { \varepsilon }. \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \quad \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \cdots \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \colon \code. \quad \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
 \end{cases}$$

By the well-known Mellin transform we have for a zero /rho1 of F s ( )

$$I ( \varrho ) \, \colon = \, e ^ { - 1 / Y } + \sum _ { n > X } c ( n ) n ^ { - \varrho } e ^ { - n / Y } = \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi i } \int _ { ( 2 ) } F ( \varrho + s, z ) M _ { X } ( \varrho + s, z ) Y ^ { s } \Gamma ( s ) d s \\ \intertext { a s e },$$

(3.4)

$$= r ( X, Y, \varrho ) + \frac { 1 } { 2 \pi i } \underset { ( 1 / 2 - \beta ) } { \int } \ F ( \varrho + s, z ) M _ { X } ( \varrho + s, z ) Y ^ { s } \Gamma ( s ),$$

where r X,Y,/rho1 ( ) denotes the residue of the integrand at s = 1 -/rho1 , since the integrand is regular at s = 0. We have

$$r ( X, Y, \varrho ) \ll ( M _ { X } ( \varrho + s, z ) Y ^ { s } \Gamma ( s ) ) _ { s = 1 - \varrho } ^ { ( m - 1 ) } \ll T ^ { \varepsilon } X Y ^ { 1 - \beta } e ^ { - T } = o ( 1 ).$$

Further, we have by b n ( ) /lessmuch n ϑ , ϑ &lt; 1 2, in case of an eRH zero / /rho1 for | u | ≤ L 2 / 2 by (2.21)

$$\left | F \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } + i ( u + \gamma ) z \right ) \right | & \leq \prod _ { p \leq z } F _ { p } ^ { - 1 } \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } + i ( u + \gamma ) \right ) F \left ( \frac { 1 } { 2 } + i ( u + \gamma ) \right ) \quad ( 3. 6 ) \\ & \ll ( | u + \gamma | + 2 ) ^ { ( d _ { F } / 2 ) ( \beta - 1 / 2 ) + \varepsilon }. \\ \intertext { D o n o t h o o m o t i t o n o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o t i t o n o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o T i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o o t i t o n i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i o n o t i t t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t t o n o t i o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o o t i t o n t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t i t o n o t ier { \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \amma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma \Gamma } \pm } \right )$$

Due to the exponential decay of the Γ-function we can restrict the integral on the RHS of (3.4) to the interval [ 1 2 / -β - L i 2 / 2, 1 / 2 -β + i L 2 / 2 ] and so we obtain from (3.4)-(3.6) and (2.1)

$$1 + O \left ( \frac { 1 } { Y } \right ) + \sum _ { x < n < Y \mathcal { L } ^ { 2 } } c ( n ) n ^ { - \varrho } e ^ { - n / Y } \ll T ^ { ( d _ { F } / 2 ) ( \beta - 1 / 2 ) + \varepsilon } Y ^ { 1 / 2 - \beta } + o ( 1 ) \\ \dots$$

= (1)

o

.

This implies by partial summation by β ≥ 1 -η

$$\sum _ { X < n < Y \mathcal { L } ^ { 2 } } c ( n ) n ^ { - ( 1 - \eta ) - i \gamma } e ^ { - n / Y } \gg 1.$$

Hence, by a dyadic subdivision of the interval [ X,Y L 2 ] we obtain an interval

$$[ M, M ^ { \prime } ] \subseteq [ M, 2 M ] \subset [ X, Y \mathcal { L } ^ { 2 } ]$$

with if /rho1 = 1 -η j -iγ j was an eRH zero of F s ( ) with η j ≤ η .

$$& \left | \sum _ { M < n \leq M ^ { \prime } } c ( n ) n ^ { - ( 1 - \eta ) - i \gamma _ { j } } e ^ { - n / Y } \right | \gg 1 / \mathcal { L } \quad \quad ( 3. 1 0 ) \\ - \, \eta _ { i } - i \gamma _ { i } \text{ was an eRH zero of } F ( s ) \text{ with } \eta _ { i } \leq \eta.$$

We will now use Hal´sz's idea for a suitable a k th power of the LHS of (3.9) in a version of Heath-Brown [5] which incorporates the twelfth power moment estimate of the Riemann zeta function due to Heath-Brown [4].

Lemma 2. Suppose t 1 , . . . , t R are real numbers, a n arbitrary complex numbers, ε &gt; 0

$$| t _ { i } - t _ { j } | \geq 1 \ \text{ for } i, j \in [ 1, R ], \ i \neq j, \ | t _ { i } | \leq T. \quad \$$

/negationslash

Then

$$\sum _ { r \leq R } \left | \sum _ { N } ^ { 2 N } a _ { n } n ^ { - i t _ { r } } \right | ^ { 2 } \ll T ^ { \varepsilon$$

Corollary 1. Suppose that s r = 1 -η + it r (1 ≤ r ≤ R ) with t r satisfying (3.11) , b n arbitrary complex with b n /lessmuch n ε . Then

$$& \sum _ { r \leq R } \left | \sum _ { N } ^ { 2 N } b _ { n } n ^ { - s _ { r } } \right | ^ { 2 } \ll T ^ { \varepsilon$$

Now, if then we obtain from (3.13)

$$\left | \sum _ { N } ^ { 2 N } b _ { n } n ^ { - s _ { r } } \right | ^ { 2 } \gg T ^ { - \varepsilon }, \quad \quad \quad$$

$$R \ll T ^ { 3 \varepsilon } N ^ { 2 \eta + 2 \varepsilon }$$

or

$$R \ll R ^ { 1 1 / 1 2 } T ^ { 1 / 6 + 3 \varepsilon } N ^ { - ( 1 / 2 - 2 \eta ) + 2 \v$$

consequently

$$R \ll T ^ { 2 + 3 6 \varepsilon } N ^ { 2 4 \eta - 6 + 2 4 \varepsilon }. \quad \quad \quad$$

Now, (3.15) and (3.17) mean that in case of

$$N _ { 0 } \coloneqq T ^ { \frac { 2 - 2 \eta } { 6 - 2 4 \eta } + C \varepsilon } \leq N \le$$

we have (we remind that ε is a generic constant)

$$R \ll T ^ { \varepsilon } ( N ^ { 2 \eta } + T ^ { 2 \eta } ) \quad \text{for any } \varepsilon >$$

k

$$N _ { 0 } \leq N \ll Y$$

We consider now two cases according to the size of N = M : (i) If N N Y 1+ ε then by (3.19)

$$R \ll T ^ { \varepsilon } ( Y ^ { 2 \eta } + T ^ { 2 \eta } ) = T ^ { d _ { F } \eta + \varepsilon } + T ^ { 2 \eta + \varepsilon } ;$$

$$( \text{ii} ) & \text{ if } N _ { 0 } \ll N _ { 0 } ^ { 3 / 2 } \text{ then by } ( 3. 1 9 ) \\ & R \ll T ^ { \varepsilon } ( N _ { 0 } ^ { 3 \eta } + T ^ { 2 \eta } ) = T ^ { \frac { ( 1 - \eta ) \eta } { ( 1 - 4 \eta ) } + \varepsilon } + T ^ { 2 \eta + \varepsilon } \ll T ^ { 2 \eta + \varepsilon } \quad \quad ( 3. 2 1 ) \\ \cdot \quad \quad \ > \vdash \nu$$

since η ≤ 1 7. /

$$R \ll T ^ { \varepsilon } \left ( N _ { 0 } ^ { 4 \eta } + T ^ { 2 \eta } \right ) \ll T ^ { \frac { 4 ( 1 - \eta ) \eta } { 3 ( 1 - 4 \eta ) } + \varepsilon } + T ^ { 2 \eta + \varepsilon } \ll T ^ { 2 \eta + \varepsilon } \quad \quad ( 3. 2 2 ) \\ \text{sim} \, n < 1 / 1 0$$

If the original value of M was less than N 1 2+ / ε 0 we can find k with M k ∈ [ N 1+ ε 0 , N 3 2+ / ε 0 ] . If M ∈ [ N 1 2+ / ε 0 , N 1+ ε 0 ] , we choose k = 2 and obtain since η ≤ 1 10. /

Finally, for M ≥ N 1+ ε 0 we have (3.20) by M ≤ Y with the choice k = 1. For the sake of completeness we have to note that we used the fact that if 2 M ∑ M a m m -s is a Dirichlet polynomial with | a m | ≤ C δ m ( ) δ then its k th power, i.e.,

$$\sum _ { N } ^ { 2 ^ { k } N } b _ { n } n ^ { - s }$$

satisfies

$$\underset { n = n _ { 1 } n _ { 2 } \dots n _ { k } } { \sigma } b _ { n } = \left | \sum _ { \substack { n = n _ { 1 } n _ { 2 } \dots n _ { k } \\ n _ { i } \in ( M, 2 M ) \\ } } a _ { n _ { 1 } } a _ { n _ { 2 } } \dots a _ { n _ { k } } \right | & \leq \tau _ { k } ( n ) C ( \delta ) ^ { k } ( n _ { 1 } \dots n _ { R } ) ^ { \delta } \quad \ \ ( 3. 2 4 ) \\ & \leq C ( \delta ) ^ { k } n ^ { \delta } \tau ^ { k } ( n ) \\ & \ll _ { \delta, k } n ^ { 2 \delta } \\ \text{where } \tau _ { k } ( n ) \text{ is the generalized divisor function. In our case we have } \tau ( n ) \ll$$

where τ k ( n ) is the generalized divisor function. In our case we have τ ( n ) /lessmuch n c/ log log n , δ = ε and k ≤ log 2 (1 /ε ) + 1 (log 2 m denotes the logarithm of base 2).

We note that in the course of proof we used that the number of eRH zeros satisfying (2.1) is at most a factor C L 5 times higher than the total number of all zeros with | γ | ≤ T , β ≥ σ = 1 -η .

## References

- [1] Carlson, F., ¨ ber U die Nullstellen der Dirichletschen Reihen und der Riemannschen ζ -Funktion, Arkiv f¨r Mat. Astr. och Fysik o 15 (1920), No. 20.

- [2] Conrey, J. B. and Ghosh, A., On the Selberg class of Dirichlet series: small degrees, Duke Math. J. 72 (1993), 673-693.
- [3] Hal´ asz, G. and Tur´n, P., On the distribution of roots of Riemann zeta a and allied functions. I, J. Number Theory 1 (1969), 121-137.
- [4] Heath-Brown, D. R., The twelfth power moment of the Riemannfunction, Quart. J. Math. Oxford Ser. (2) 29 (1978), no. 116, 443-462.
- [5] Heath-Brown, D. R., Zero density estimates for the Riemann zetafunction and Dirichlet L -functions, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 19 (1979), no. 2, 221-232.
- [6] Kaczorowski, J. and Perelli, A., On the structure of the Selberg class. I: 0 ≤ d ≤ 1. Acta Math. 182 (1999), no. 2, 207-241.
- [7] Kaczorowski, J. and Perelli, A., On the prime number theorem for the Selberg class, Arch. Math. (Basel) 80 (2003), no. 3, 255-263.
- [8] Kaczorowski, J. and Perelli, A., On the structure of the Selberg class. VII: 1 &lt; d &lt; 2, Ann. of Math. (2) 173 (2011), no. 3, 1397-1441.
- [9] Selberg, A., Old and new conjectures and results about a class of Dirichlet series, in: Proceedings of the Amalfi Conference on Analytic Number Theory (Maiori, 1989) , pp. 367-385. Univ. of Salerno, Salerno, 1992; Collected Papers, Vol. II, pp. 47-63. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1991.

J´ anos Pintz

HUN-REN Alfr´ ed R´ enyi Institute of Mathematics Budapest, Re´ltanoda u. 13-15 a H-1053 Hungary e-mail: pintz@renyi.hu
János Pintz
On the Density Hypothesis for the Selberg class
We prove a general zero density theorem on the Selberg class of functions.
The result verifies the Density Hypothesis in the strip when the real part of
the variable is at least 0.9 under the assumption that the degree of the
function does not exceed 2. In the other cases we obtain a density theorem
weaker than the Density Hypothesis.