STUDENT ARTICLE

2
Dirichlets Prime Number Theorem:
Algebraic and Analytic Aspects
Igor Rapinchuk 07

Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138
rapinch@fas.harvard.edu
Abstract
The focus of this paper is the famous theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions due to Dirichlet: if
a and m > 0 are relatively prime integers, then there exist innitely many primes of the form a + km
with k a positive integer. The proof of this theorem in the general case uses analytic techniques, and in
fact some key statements heavily rely on complex analysis. The case a = 1, however, can be handled
by purely algebraic methods as we will show in Section 2.1 following suggestions given in [La]. In
Section 2.2, we will outline the idea of the proof of Dirichlets theorem as it is presented in [IR] and
[Kn] for the case m = 4. Finally, in Section 2.3, after a brief discussion of characters of nite abelian
groups following [Se], we will present the proof of Dirichlets theorem (cf. [IR, Kn, Se]).
2.1 There are innitely many primes p 1(mod m): algebraic
proof
Let P = 2, 3, 5, be the set of all primes. For relatively prime integers a and m > 0 we let
P
a(m)
= p P [ p a(mod m).
Dirichlets Prime Number Theorem states that P
a(m)
is always innite. In this section, we will prove
this for a = 1 by using purely algebraic techniques. It is interesting that the argument can be traced
back to Euclids proof of the fact that P is innite: if P = p
1
, . . . , p
r
then for any prime factor p of
p
1
p
r
+ 1 we have p / p
1
, . . . , p
r
, a contradiction. We will now do a couple of simple examples
which demonstrate that suitable modications of Euclids method allow one to nd innitely many
primes in certain arithmetic progressions.
Proposition 1. The sets P
1(4)
and P
3(4)
are innite.
Proof. P
1(4)
: We will use the well-known fact that primes in P
1(4)
(in other words, primes of the form
4k + 1) can be characterized as those primes > 2 for which the congruence x
2
1(mod p) has a
solution. Assume that P
1(4)
contains only nitely many primes, say, p
1
= 5, p
2
= 13, . . . , p
n
. Consider
a = 4p
2
1
p
2
n
+ 1, and let p be a prime factor of a. Then, just as in Euclids proof, p / p
1
, . . . , p
n
.

Igor Rapinchuk 07 is a mathematics concentrator living in Kirkland House. He came to Harvard from Charlottesville, VA,
where he graduated from Albemarle High School. His main mathematical interests are in algebraic geometry and algebraic
number theory, with related interests in algebra and complex analysis. Following graduation, Igor plans to pursue graduate
studies in mathematics, and will, in particular, be spending the next academic year in the Math Tripos, Part III program at the
University of Cambridge as a Gates Cambridge Scholar.
15
On the other hand, p[a implies that 1 (2p
1
p
n
)
2
(mod p), and therefore p P
1(4)
(as obviously
p > 2). So, p is a new prime in P
1(4)
, contradicting our original assumption. Thus P
1(4)
is innite.
P
3(4)
: Again, assume that P
3(4)
contains only nitely many primes: p
1
= 3, p
2
= 7, . . . , p
n
.
Consider b = 4p
2
p
n
+ 3. Clearly, b is odd, not divisible by 3, and satises b 3(mod 4). Then all
prime factors of b cannot be belong to P
1(4)
as otherwise we would have b 1(mod 4). Since P =
2 P
1(4)
P
3(4)
, we conclude that b has a prime factor p P
3(4)
. But obviously p / p
1
, . . . , p
n
,
which again yields a contradiction.
It is important to observe that the above argument for P
1(4)
already contains the idea that we will
use to prove that P
1(m)
is innite for any m : show that there exists a polynomial f(X) Z[X] (for
m = 4 we used f(X) = X
2
+ 1) such that any prime factor p m of f(a), where a Z, belongs to
P
1(m)
, and on the other hand, the values f(a) as a runs through Z have innitely many prime divisors.
We will show that the latter property holds in fact for any nonconstant integer polynomial (Lemma 2),
while the former property holds for the m-th cyclotomic polynomial
m
(X) (see the proof of Theorem
4). This approach to proving that P
1(m)
is innite is suggested in Problems 20 and 21 in Ch. VI of
[La]. We also notice that our argument for P
3(4)
depends on the fact that an odd prime can get only in
one of the two classes, P
1(4)
or P
3(4)
, mod 4, and therefore may not be generalizable for m > 4.
Lemma 2. (Problem 20 in [La], Ch. VI) Let
f(X) = a
n
X
n
+a
n1
X
n1
+ +a
0
Z[X]
be a nonconstant polynomial. Then the nonzero values f(a) with a Z
+
are divisible by innitely
many primes.
Proof. We can assume that a
0
,= 0 as otherwise for any prime p, the value f(pa) is divisible by p for
any a Z, and of course one can pick an a so that f(pa) ,= 0. Next, observe that
f(a
0
X) = a
0
g(X) where g(X) = a
n
a
n1
0
X
n
+ + 1,
so it is enough to show that the nonzero values g(a) with a Z
+
are divisible by innitely many
primes. In other words, we can assume that a
0
= 1. Suppose that the nonzero values f(a) for a Z
are divisible only by nitely many primes, say, p
1
, . . . , p
r
. Consider F(X) = f(p
1
p
r
X). Then
F(X) is a nonconstant integer polynomial of degree n, hence assumes each value at not more than n
values of the variable. In particular, there exists a Z
+
such that F(a) ,= 0, 1. Then it follows from
our construction that F(a) is divisible by some p
i
where i 1, . . . , r. But
F(a) = a
n
(p
1
p
r
a)
n
+ +a
1
(p
1
p
r
a) + 1,
so the fact that p
i
[F(a) implies that p
i
[1. This is a contradiction, proving the lemma.
Obviously, the above proof of Lemma 2 is based on the same idea as Euclids proof. We will now
give another proof of Lemma 2 which gives some additional quantitative information. For a subset
A Z and a natural number N we let A(N) = a A [ [a[ N. We will use the following
simple idea: given two subsets A, B Z, to show that A , B it is enough to nd N such that
[A(N)[ > [B(N)[. We will apply this idea to the sets
A = f(a) [ a Z
+
and f(a) ,= 0
and, assuming that the numbers in A are divisible only by nitely many primes p
1
, . . . , p
r
,
B = p

1
1
p

r
r
.
Let M = max[a
n
[, . . . , [a
0
[. Then for any a Z 0 we have
[f(a)[ [a
n
[[a[
n
+ +[a
0
[ M(n + 1)[a[
n
.
16
It follows that if d Nis such that M(n+1)d
n
N then all the nonzero numbers among f(1), . . . , f(d)
belong to A(N). Since f assumes each value at not more than n different values of the variable, we get
that
[A(N)[
d n
n
=
d
n
1
1
n
_
_
N
M(n + 1)
_
1/n
1
_
1
because for d one can take
d =
_
_
N
M(n + 1)
_
1/n
_
>
_
N
M(n + 1)
_
1/n
1. (2.1)
Since (1 +n)
1/n
2, we nally get that
[A(N)[
N
1/n
2M
1/n
n
2.
On the other hand, since p
i
2, we see that p

1
1
p

r
r
N implies that

1
+
r
log
2
N,
and in particular,
i
log
2
N for all i = 1, . . . , r. It follows that
[B(N)[ (log
2
N + 1)
r
.
Since N
1/n
/(log
2
N)
r
as N , we nd that
[A(N)[ > [B(N)[
for all sufciently large N. Thus, A , B, which yields another proof of Lemma 2. In fact, we proved
the following.
Proposition 3. Fix a natural number r and pick N so that
N
1/n
2M
1/n
n
2 > (log
2
N + 1)
r
.
If d is dened by (2.1) then the nonzero numbers among f(1), f(2), . . . , f(d) have at least (r + 1)
distinct prime divisors.
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section.
Theorem 4. For any m > 0, the set P
1(m)
is innite.
Let
m
(X) denote the m-th cyclotomic polynomial (cf. [Co], Sec. 9.1, or [La], Ch. VI, Sec. 3).
Lemma 5. (Problem 21(a) in [La], Ch. VI) Let p be a prime, a and m > 0 be integers prime to p.
Then p[
m
(a) if and only if the image a of a in (Z/pZ)

has order (exactly) m.

Proof. First, suppose a has order m in (Z/pZ)

. Then a
m
=

1, or equivalently p[(a
m
1). On the
other hand, for any d such that 0 < d < m, we have a
d
,=

1, and therefore p (a
d
1). By Proposition
9.1.5 in [Co], we have
X
m
1 =

d|m

d
(X) (2.2)
and therefore
a
m
1 =

d|m

d
(a). (2.3)
17
Let d be a proper divisor of m. Since
d
(a)[(a
d
1), it follows from the above that p
d
(a). On the
other hand, p[(a
m
1), so we conclude from (2.3) that p[
m
(a).
Conversely, suppose p[
m
(a). Then it follows from (2.3) that p[(a
m
1), i.e. a
m
=

1. This means
that the order of a divides m. Suppose the exact order of a is m

< m (clearly, m

[m). Then using

a factorization similar to (2.3) in which m is replaced with m

we see that there exist d[m

such that
p[
d
(a) (of course, d < m

). Then a is a root of both reductions

n
(X) and
d
(X) mod p. It follows
from (2.2) that a is a multiple root of X
m
1. But since p m, the latter has no multiple roots. A
contradiction, proving that the order of a is exactly m.
Proof of Theorem 4. First, let us show that for a prime p m, the conditions p[
m
(a) and p
1(mod m) are equivalent (Problem 21(b) in [La], Ch. VI). Indeed, if p[
m
(a) then by Lemma 5,
the order of a is m. Thus, (Z/pZ)

contains an element of order m, and therefore its order p 1 is

divisible by m, i.e. p 1(mod m). Conversely, suppose p 1(mod m). Since the group (Z/pZ)

is
cyclic of order p 1, it contains an element a of order m. Then by Lemma 5, p[
m
(a).
Now, by Lemma 2, the values
m
(a) with a Z are divisible by innitely many primes. As we
have seen, all these primes belong to P
1(m)
, implying that P
1(m)
itself is innite.
Since cyclotomic polynomials can be described explicitly (see [La], pg. 280), one can use Propo-
sition 3 to nd, for given m and r, a natural number d such that among prime divisors of the integers

m
(1), . . . ,
m
(d) there are at least r distinct primes 1(mod m). For example, if m is a prime
then the cyclotomic polynomial
m
(X) has degree n = m1 and the maximum of its coefcients is
M = 1. So, if we choose N so that
N
1/(m1)
2(m1)
2 > (log
2
N + 1)
r
and dene d by (2.1) then the prime divisors ,= m of the numbers
m
(1), . . . ,
m
(d) yield at least r
distinct primes in P
1(m)
.
2.2 The idea of the proof of Dirichlets Theorem
The idea of Dirichlets proof of the Prime Number Theorem can be traced back to Eulers proof of the
fact that there exist innitely many primes. Euler considered the generalized harmonic series

1
n
s
. (2.4)
For s C, we have [n
s
[ = n
Re s
, so it follows that (2.4) converges whenever Re s > 1. (In fact, it
converges absolutely, implying in particular that the series obtained by any permutation of the terms of
(2.4) converges to the same number, see [Ru], Theorem 3.55.) The sum of (2.4) for s C such that
Re s > 1 is denoted (s), and the correspondence s (s) is called the (Riemann) zeta function.
The key step in Eulers proof is the following.
Lemma 6. For s C, Re s > 1, we have
(s) =

pP
1
1 p
s
, (2.5)
where P is the set of all primes.
Proof. We recall that we write a =

n=1
a
n
if lim
d
d

n=1
a
n
= a. In (2.5), we consider the natural order
on P = p
1
, . . . , p
d
, . . ., so that

pP
1
1 p
s
=
|P|

i=1
1
1 p
s
i
18
where the cardinality [P[ is either a nite (natural) number or innity (in fact, the order on P doesnt
matter). Fix d 1, and let N
d
denote the set of natural numbers whose prime factors belong to
p
1
, . . . , p
d
. Since
1
1 p
s
=

n=0
1
p
ns
and the geometric series in the right-hand side is absolutely convergent, we have
d

i=1
1
1 p
s
i
=

nN
d
1
n
s
, (2.6)
as absolutely convergent series can be multiplied term-by-term (cf. [Ru], Theorem 3.50). Notice that
the order of summation in the right-hand side of (2.6) doesnt matter as the series converges absolutely.
Now, we have
(s)
d

i=1
1
1 p
s
i
=

nNN
d
1
n
s
.
Clearly, any number in N N
d
is strictly greater than p
d
d, so

nNN
d
1
n
s

n=d+1
1
n
Re s
0 as d ,
and (2.5) follows.
Now, suppose that P is nite. Then

pP
1
1 p
1
is a nite number, say A. For any s R, s > 1,
we have
(s) =

pP
1
1 p
s

pP
1
1 p
1
= A;
i.e. (s) is bounded above by A as s 1
+
. Let us show that this is not the case. For any d N, we
have
d

n=1
1
n
s
(s) A.
Taking the limit as s 1
+
, we get
d

n=1
1/n A for all d. This implies that the harmonic series

n=1
1/n converges, a contradiction. Thus, P is innite. Using a bit more analysis, we can derive the
following stronger statement, which is crucial for Dirichlets Theorem.
Proposition 7. For s C, Re s > 1, let
(s) =

pP
1
p
s
.
Then (s) is unbounded as s 1
+
in R, and consequently the series

pP
1/p diverges.
19
Proof. Since (s) > 0 for s > 1, we derive from (2.5) that
ln(s) =

pP
ln
_
1 p
s
_
. (2.7)
Using the expansion
ln(1 +x) = x
x
2
2
+
x
3
3
for [x[ < 1,
we get
ln
_
1 p
s
_
=
1
p
s
+
1
2p
2s
+
1
3p
3s
+ . (2.8)
Let
g
p
(s) =
1
2p
2s
+
1
3p
3s
+ .
Clearly, for any s > 1 we have
0 < g
p
(s)
1
2p
2s
_
1 +
1
p
s
+
1
p
2s
+
_
=
1
p
2s

1
2(1 p
s
)

1
p
2s
.
It follows that for any d,
d

i=1
g
p
i
(s)
d

i=1
1
p
2s
i

n=1
1
n
2
= (2).
So, for any s > 1, the series

pP
g
p
(s) converges and its sum g(s) satises 0 g(s) (2); in
particular g(s) remains bounded as s 1
+
. On the other hand, by combining (2.7) and (2.8), we
obtain
ln(s) = (s) +g(s).
Since (s) is unbounded and g(s) is bounded as s 1
+
, we conclude that (s) is unbounded.
Now, suppose the series

pP
1/p converges, say to B. Then for any s > 1 and any m N we
have
m

i=1
1
p
s
i

i=1
1
p
i
B.
Taking the limit as m , we get (s) B, a contradiction.
The idea of the proof of Dirichlets Theorem is to establish an analog of Proposition 7 for the
function which is dened just like , but using, instead of all primes, only those primes that occur in a
given arithmetic progression. More precisely, for s C, Re s > 1, dene

a(m)
(s) =

pP
a(m)
1
p
s
.
Then to prove that P
a(m)
is innite (which is what Dirichlets theorem claims) it is enough to show
that
a(m)
(s) is unbounded as s 1
+
. In the remaining part of this section we will show (following
[IR], Ch. 16, Sec. 2 and [Kn], Ch. VII, Sec. 1) how this idea can be implemented for m = 4; in other
words, we will show that P
1(4)
and P
3(4)
are innite.
We obviously have
(s) = 2
s
+
1(4)
(s) +
3(4)
(s),
so it follows from Proposition 7 that the function

+
(s) =
1(4)
(s) +
3(4)
(s)
20
is unbounded as s 1
+
, and therefore at least one of the functions
1(4)
(s) or
3(4)
(s) has this
property. What we want to show is that both functions have this property. For this we need to identify
the contributions of
1(4)
(s) and
3(4)
(s) to
+
(s) separately. The sets P
1(4)
and P
3(4)
can be separated
by the following function dened on Z :
(n) =
_

_
0 n 0 (mod 2),
1 n 1 (mod 4),
1 n 3 (mod 4).
Consider

(s) =

pP
(p)
p
s
.
(Notice that this series absolutely converges for all s C, Re s > 1.) Clearly,

1(4)
(s) =
1
2
(
+
(s) +

(s)) and
3(4)
(s) =
1
2
(
+
(s)

(s)).
So, since
+
(s) is unbounded as s 1
+
, to prove that both
1(4)
(s) and
3(4)
(s) have this property, it
is enough to show that

(s) remains bounded.

Proposition 8. The function

(s) remains bounded as s 1

+
.
Proof. Consider the series
L

(s) =

n=1
(n)
n
s
.
This series converges absolutely for all s C, Re s > 1, but its real advantage over

(s) is that it is
alternating, and therefore its sum can be easily estimated (notice that

(s) = 3
s
+ 5
s
7
s

11
s
+ is not alternating). We have
L

(s) = 1 3
s
+ 5
s
7
s
+ = (1 3
s
) + (5
s
7
s
) +
from which it follows that L

(s) > (1 3
s
) > 2/3 for all s > 1. Similarly, from
L

(s) = 1 (3
s
5
s
) (7
s
9
s
)
we conclude that L

(s) < 1 for all s > 1. To connect L

(s) and

(s), we observe that the function

is a multiplicative homomorphism, using which and repeating the proof of Lemma 6 word-for-word,
one proves that
L

(s) =

pP
1
1 (p)p
s
(see Proposition 16(i) for a general statement). Then proceeding as in the proof of Proposition 7, we
see that
lnL

(s) =

pP
ln(1 (p)p
s
)
and
ln(1 (p)p
s
) =
(p)
p
s
+
(p)
2
2p
2s
+
(p)
3
3p
3s
+
It follows that
lnL

(s) =

(s) +h(s)
where h(s) is a function that remains bounded as s 1
+
. We showed above that 2/3 < L

(s) < 1
for all s > 1, so the boundedness of

(s) as s 1
+
follows.
21
2.3 The proof of Dirichlets Theorem
The function used in Section 2.2 to separate P
1(4)
and P
3(4)
can be viewed as a character of (Z/4Z)

extended by 0 on the numbers (or classes of numbers mod 4) that are not relatively prime to 4. So,
it is not surprising that the proof of Dirichlets theorem for arbitrary m uses characters of (Z/mZ)

extended to Z/mZ by 0 on the classes that are not relatively prime to m. For this reason, we begin with
a brief discussion of characters of nite abelian groups, following [Se], Ch. VI, Sec. 1.
Let Gbe a nite abelian group. By a character of Gwe mean a group homomorphism: G C

.
All characters of G form a group under the operation (
1

2
)(g) =
1
(g)
2
(g), which will be denoted

G and called the dual of G.

Example 2.3.1. Let G = Z/nZ. Then any

G is completely determined by its value (

1). Since

1 has order n, we get (

1)
n
= 1, i.e. (

1) belongs to the group

n
of n-th roots of unity. Conversely,
given any
n
, the correspondence : a
a
is a character of G such that (

1) = . Thus, the
map

G (

1)
n
is a bijection. Moreover, the equation (
1

2
)(

1) =
1
(

1)
2
(

1) tells us that this map is a group

homomorphism, hence in fact a group isomorphism. Thus, in this example

G
n
(noncanonically),
which means that a nite cyclic group is isomorphic to its group of characters. Furthermore, if
n
=
cos(2/n) + i sin(2/n) then the corresponding character ( a) =
a
n
has the property ( a) ,= 1
whenever a ,=

0, so for any nontrivial element of a cyclic group there is a character that does not
vanish on this element.
We will now extend these observations to arbitrary nite abelian groups.
Proposition 9. Let G be a nite abelian group. Then
(i) G

G (noncanonically), in particular, [G[ = [

G[;
(ii) for any g G, g ,= e, there exists

G such that (g) ,= 1.
Proof. We rst observe that if G = G
1
G
2
then the correspondence

G
1

G
2
, ([G
1
, [G
2
),
is an isomorphism of groups. Indeed, it follows from the denition of multiplication on the character
group that is a group homomorphism. Since G
1
and G
2
generate G, is injective. Finally, given
(
1
,
2
)

G
1


G
2
, the map : G C

dened by (g) =
1
(g
1
)
2
(g
2
) if g = (g
1
, g
2
) is a
character of G which restricts to
1
and
2
on G
1
and G
2
respectively, proving that is surjective.
By the structure theorem for nite abelian groups (see [Ar], Theorem 12.6.4), G G
1
G
r
,
where G
i
are cyclic groups. Then it follows by induction from the above remark that the correspon-
dence

G
1

G
r
, ([G
1
, . . . , [G
r
),
is a group isomorphism. According to the example,

G
i
G
i
for all i = 1, . . . , r, yielding (i). If now
g G is a nontrivial element then g = (g
1
, . . . , g
r
) and there exists an i such that g
i
is nontrivial. As
we observed in the example, there exists
i


G
i
such that
i
(g
i
) ,= 1. Then the character

G
corresponding under to the r-tuple (
01
, . . . ,
i
, . . . ,
0r
), where
0j
is the trivial character of G
j
,
has the property (g) ,= 1.
Corollary 10. Let H be a subgroup of G, and let

G

H be the homomorphism given by restriction.
Then is surjective.
22
Proof. Assume the contrary. Since [

G[ = [G[ and [

H[ = [H[, this means that [ ker [ > [G : H]. But

any ker , having trivial restriction to H, induces a character of

G/H dened by (gH) =
(g). Clearly, the map ker

G/H, , is injective, so we obtain [G/H[ = [

G/H[ > [G : H],

a contradiction.
For a xed g G, the map
g
:

G C

,
g
() = (g), is a character of

G. Moreover, the map
: G

G, g
g
is a group homomorphism.
Corollary 11. is a group isomorphism. Thus, G is (canonically) isomorphic to its second dual

G.
Indeed, it follows from (ii) that is injective. On the other hand, by (i), [G[ = [

G[ = [

G[, whence
is an isomorphism.
The following proposition and especially its corollaries play a crucial role in the proof of Dirichlets
theorem.
Proposition 12. (i) Let

G. Then

xG
(x) =
_
[G[ is trivial,
0 otherwise.
(ii) Let x G. Then

G
(x) =
_
[G[ x = e,
0 x ,= e.
Proof. (i): The rst assertion is clear. To prove the second, pick y G so that (y) ,= 1. Then

xG
(x) =

xG
(xy) =
_

xG
(x)
_
(y)
It follows that
((y) 1)

xG
(x) = 0,
and therefore

xG
(x) = 0.
(ii): In the notations introduced prior to Corollary 11,

G
(x) =

x
().
Since
x
= 1 x = 1, our claim follows from part (i) applied to

G.
Corollary 13. For x, y G we have

G
(x)
1
(y) =
_
[G[ x = y,
0 x ,= y.
Indeed,

G
(x)
1
(y) =

G
(x
1
y), so we can apply (ii).
Now, x m 1 and let G
m
= (Z/mZ)

; clearly, [G
m
[ = (m). Given

G
m
, we extend it to a
function on all of Z/mZ by dening its value to be 0 on classes mod m that are not relatively prime to
23
m. Composing this function with the canonical homomorphismZ Z/mZ we obtain a function on Z
that will be denoted by the same letter . Notice that (ab) = (a)(b) for all a, b Z. A special role
in the proof is played by (the function on Z obtained from) the trivial character
0
which in this context
is called the principal character. Thus,
0
(a) = 1 if a is relatively prime to m, and 0 otherwise. For
each

G
m
, we dene
(s, ) =

pP
(p)
p
s
.
Since [(a)[ 1 for all a Z, the series in the right-hand side absolutely converges for all s C,
Re s > 1.
Corollary 14. In the notations introduced in Section 2.2, for any integer a prime to m we have

a(m)
(s) =
1
(m)

G
m
(a)
1
(s, )
for any s C, Re s > 1.
Indeed, using the denition of (s, ) we obtain

G
m
(a)
1
(s, ) =

G
m
(a)
1

pP
(p)
p
s
=

pP

G
m
(a)
1
(p)
p
s
=

pP
a(m)
(m)
p
s
= (m)
a(m)
(s)
as

G
m
(a)
1
(p) =
_
(m) p a (mod m),
0 x ,= otherwise.
according to Corollary 13.
The following theorem comprises the most technically complicated part of the proof of Dirichlets
theorem.
Theorem 15. (i) The function (s,
0
) is unbounded as s 1
+
.
(ii) For ,=
0
, the function (s, ) remains bounded as s 1
+
.
Theorem 15 in conjunction with Corollary 14 immediately implies Dirichlets theorem. Indeed,
Theorem 15 implies that the function

a(m)
(s) =
1
(m)

G
m
(a)
1
(s, )
is unbounded as s 1
+
. Since

a(m)
(s) =

pP
a(m)
1
p
s
,
this implies that the set P
a(m)
is innite.
The remaining part of this section is devoted to proving Theorem 15. Assertion (i) is easy: we
obviously have
(s) =

p|m
1
p
s
+(s,
0
),
24
so the required fact immediately follows from Proposition 7. On the contrary, assertion (ii) is very
difcult. First, as we have already seen in the proof of Proposition 8, it may be easier to work instead
of (s, ) with a similar expression in which the summation runs over all natural numbers instead of
just primes:
L(s, ) =

n=1
(n)
n
s
.
This series absolutely converges for s C, Re s > 1 and denes a function in this domain which
is called the Dirichlet L-function corresponding to the character . The following proposition relates
L(s, ) and (s, ).
Proposition 16. For any character mod m and any s C, Re s > 1, we have the following:
(i) L(s, ) =

pP
1
1 (p)p
s
;
(ii) lnL(s, ) = (s, ) +g(s, ) where g(s, ) is bounded as s 1
+
.
Proof. (i): We will imitate the proof of Lemma 6. Again, let N
d
denote the set of natural numbers
whose prime factors are among the rst d primes p
1
, . . . , p
d
. For a xed prime p we have
1
1 (p)p
s
= 1 +
(p)
p
s
+
_
(p)
p
s
_
2
+
= 1 +
(p)
p
s
+
(p
2
)
p
2s
+ .
It follows that
d

i=1
1
1 (p
i
)p
s
i
=
d

i=1
_
1 +
(p
i
)
p
s
i
+
(p
2
i
)
p
2s
i
+
_
=

nN
d
(n)
n
s
because
(p
1
)

1
p

1
1

(p
d
)

d
p

d
d
=
(p

1
1
p

d
d
)
p

1
1
p

d
d
.
Now,
L(s, )
d

i=1
1
1 (p
i
)p
s
i
=

nNN
d
(n)
n
s
.
Since any n N N
d
is d, we have

nNN
d
(n)
n
s

n=d+1
1
n
Re s
0 as d ,
proving (i).
(ii): Here the argument is similar to the proof of Proposition 7. From (i) we derive that
lnL(s, ) =

pP
ln(1 (p)p
s
)
On the other hand,
ln(1 (p)p
s
) =
(p)
p
s
+
(p)
2
2p
2s
+
(p)
3
3p
3s
+ =
(p)
p
s
+g
p
(s, )
25
where
g
p
(s, ) :=
(p)
2
2p
2s
+
(p)
3
3p
3s
+ .
Then
[g
p
(s, )[
1
2p
2s
+
1
3p
3s
+
1
p
2s
as we have seen in the proof of Proposition 7. Then for any d,
d

i=1
[g
p
i
(s, )[
d

i=1
1
p
2s
i

n=1
1
n
2
= (2).
This means that for any s > 1, the series

pP
g
p
(s, ) absolutely converges, and its sum g(s, )
satises [g(s, )[ (2), hence remains bounded as s 1
+
. Since lnL(s, ) = (s, ) + g(s, ),
(ii) is proven.
It follows from Proposition 16(ii) that to complete the proof of Theorem 15 one needs to show that
if ,=
0
, L(s, ) approaches some nonzero number as s 1
+
. This part of the argument heavily
relies on complex analysis. Let

m
(s) =

G
m
L(s, ).
Proposition 17. (i) L(s,
0
) extends meromorphically to the domain D = s C [ Re s > 0 with
the only pole at s = 1, and this pole is simple.
(ii) For ,=
0
, L(s, ) extends holomorphically to D.
(iii)
m
(s) extends meromorphically to D with a pole at s = 1.
Assume for now Proposition 17. Then for ,=
0
,
lim
s1
+
L(s, ) = L(1, ),
which is a nite number. Suppose L(1, ) = 0 for at least one character ,=
0
. Then in the product
L(s,
0
)L(s, ) the zero of L(s, ) would annihilate the pole of L(s,
0
) at s = 1, implying that
the product is actually holomorphic at s = 1. Since the L-functions for all other characters are also
holomorphic at s = 1, we would get that
m
(s) is holomorphic at s = 1, which contradicts Proposition
17(iii).
Analyticity in parts (i) and (ii) is derived from the following general statement.
Lemma 18. Let U be an open set of C and let f
n
be a sequence of holomorphic functions on U
which converges uniformly on every compact subset of U to a function f. Then f is holomorphic in U.
Proof. See [Se], pg. 64-65.
Proof of Proposition 17(i). First, we will show (s) extends to a meromorphic function on D with a
simple pole at s = 1. For s > 1 we have
1
s 1
=
_

1
t
s
dt =

n=1
_
n+1
n
t
s
dt.
Hence we can write
(s) =
1
s 1
+

n=1
_
1
n
s

_
n+1
n
t
s
dt
_
=
1
s 1
+

n=1
_
n+1
n
(n
s
t
s
)dt.
26
Set now

n
(s) =
_
n+1
n
(n
s
t
s
)dt and (s) =

n=1

n
(s).
Our goal is to show that (s) is dened and analytic in D; then 1/(s 1) + (s) will be the required
meromorphic extension of (s). Since each of the functions
n
(s) is analytic in D, the analyticity of
will follow from Lemma 18 if we can show that the series

n
(s) converges uniformly on every
compact subset of D. But any compact subset of D is contained in
K
,c
= s C [ Re s , [s[ c
for some c, > 0. Let
n,s
(t) = n
s
t
s
. Then for any t
0
[n, n + 1] we have
[
n,s
(t
0
)[ = [
n,s
(t
0
)
n,s
(n)[
max
t[n,n+1]
[

n,s
(t)[ [t
0
n[
max
t[n,n+1]

s
t
s+1

=
[s[
n
Re s+1
.
So, for s K
,c
, we have
[
n
(s)[ max
t[n,n+1]
[
n,s
(t)[
[s[
n
Re s+1

c
n
+1
.
Since the series

c
n
+1
converges, the series

n
(s) uniformly converges on K
,c
by the Weierstrass
M-test (cf. [Ru], Theorem 7.10).
Now, it remains to relate (s) and L(s,
0
). Suppose m = q

1
1
q

r
r
. Let N

be the set of all

natural numbers of the form q

1
1
q

r
r
, and let N

be the set of all natural numbers that are relatively

prime to m. Then any n N can be uniquely written in the form n = n

with n

, n

. It
follows that
(s) =

nN
1
n
s
=
_

nN

1
n
s
__

nN

1
n
s
_
But

nN

1
n
s
= L(s,
0
)
and

nN

1
n
s
=
_
1 +
1
q
s
1
+
1
q
2s
1
+
_

_
1 +
1
q
s
r
+
1
q
2s
r
+
_
=
r

i=1
1
1 q
s
i
.
So, L(s,
0
) = (s)F(s), where F(s) =
r

i=1
(1 q
s
i
). Since F(s) is holomorphic and has no zeroes
in D, we obtain our claim.
Proof of Proposition 17(ii). We will prove analyticity of L(s, ) in D for ,=
0
by showing that the
series

n=1
(n)
n
s
converges uniformly on compact subsets of D. The proof imitates the proof of Abels and Dirichlets
test for convergence of series of the form

a
n
b
n
(cf. [Ru], Theorem 3.41). Let a
n
= (n), b
n
= n
s
.
To apply the Cauchy criterion, we need to showthat [

N
n=M
a
n
b
n
[ becomes arbitrarily small uniformly
on K
,c
for M < N if M is large enough. Let A
n
=

n
k=1
a
n
. The crucial thing is that the assumption
27
,=
0
implies that [A
n
[ C for some constant C independent of n (which, of course, is false for
=
0
!). Indeed, for any a Z we have (a) = (a + m), and besides it follows from Proposition
12(i) that
m

n=1
(n) = 0.
Thus, if n = dm+r where 0 r < m then
A
n
=
n

k=1
(k) =
dm+r

k=dm+1
(k) =
r

k=1
(k) = A
r
where by convention A
0
= 0. So, C = max[A
1
[, . . . , [A
m1
[ will work.
Substituting a
n
= A
n
A
n1
, we get
N

n=M
a
n
b
n
=
N1

n=M
A
n
(b
n
b
n+1
) +A
N
b
N
A
M1
b
M
. (2.9)
We have seen in the proof of part (i) that
[n
s
(n + 1)
s
[
[s[
n
Re s+1
.
So it follows from (2.9) that

n=M
a
n
b
n

N1

n=M
C[s[
n
Re s+1
+
C
M
Re s
+
C
N
Re s
.
Thus, if s K
,c
then

n=M
a
n
b
n

Cc
N1

n=M
1
n
+1
+
2C
M

.
Since the series

1
n
+1
converges, we see that [

N
n=M
a
n
b
n
[ becomes arbitrarily small uniformly on
K
,c
if M is large enough, completing the proof.
Proof of Proposition 17(iii). We only need to show that
m
(s) cannot be holomorphic at s = 1.
Lemma 19. For an integer a prime to m, let f(a) denote the order of a in G
m
, and let g(a) =
(m)/f(a). If T is a variable then

G
m
(1 (a)T) = (1 T
f(a)
)
g(a)
.
Proof. Let H be the cyclic subgroup of G
m
generated by a; [H[ = f(a). Then the set ( a) [

H
is precisely the set of all f(a)-th roots of unity. It follows that

H
(X (a)) = X
f(a)
1.
Substituting X = T
1
and multiplying by T
f(a)
, we get

H
(1 (a)T) = 1 T
f(a)
.
28
Now, the homomorphism of restriction

G
m


H is surjective (Corollary 11) and its kernel has order
g(a). It follows that

G
m
(1 (a)T) =
_
_

H
(1 (a)T)
_
_
g(a)
= (1 T
f(a)
)
g(a)
.
Using Lemma 19, we can transform the expression for
m
(s) :

m
(s) =

G
m
L(s, ) =

pP
_
_
_

G
m
1
1 (p)p
s
_
_
_
=

(p,m)=1
1
(1 p
f(p)s
)
g(p)
. (2.10)
Since
1
(1 p
f(p)s
)
= 1 +
1
p
f(p)s
+
1
p
2f(p)s
+ ,
it follows from (2.10) that
m
(s) can be written in the form

m
(s) =

n=1
c
n
n
s
(2.11)
(a Dirichlet series) with c
n
0, and the series converges for [s[ > 1. Assume now that
m
(s) is
holomorphic at s = 1. Then
m
(s) is holomorphic everywhere in D. By applying [Se], Prop. 7, Ch.
VI, we conclude that the series in (2.11) converges everywhere in D. To see that this is false, we observe
that
1
(1 p
f(p)s
)
g(p)
= (1 +p
f(p)s
+p
2f(p)s
+ )
g(p)
1 +p
(m)s
+p
2(m)s
+ =
1
1 p
(m)s
.
So,

n=1
c
n
n
s

(p,m)=1
1
1 p
(m)s
=

(n,m)=1
n
(m)s
= L((m)s,
0
).
But we already know that L((m)s,
0
) diverges for s = (m)
1
, so

c
n
n
s
cannot converge for the
same value of s. A contradiction.
This concludes the proof of Dirichlets theorem.
References
[Ar] Michael Artin: Algebra. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1991.
[Co] David A. Cox: Galois Theory. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley-Interscience, 2004.
[IR] Kenneth Ireland and Michael Rosen: A Classical Introduction to Modern Number Theory. New York:
Springer, 1990 (Graduate Texts in Math. 84).
[Kn] Anthony W. Knapp: Elliptic Curves. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ. Press, 1992 (Mathematical Notes 40).
[La] Serge Lang: Algebra. New York: Springer, 2002 (Graduate Texts in Math. 211).
[Ru] Walter Rudin: Principles of Mathematical Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1976.
[Se] Jean-Pierre Serre: A Course in Arithmetic. New York: Springer, 1973 (Graduate Texts in Math. 7).
29