Proof of Mobius inversion formula - the other direction












3












$begingroup$


The Mobius inversion formula states that if we define $f$ as $$f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)$$ then $$g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)$$



We know that the other direction is also true: if we define $g$ as above, then $f$ also satisfies the above.



I've searched for the proof, but failed to find any that does not rely on convolutions. My question is whether there is a proof that relies on manipulating sums that proves the second direction of the theorem.






elementary-number-theory mobius-inversion







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How about just doing it? Put the second into the first, and hack away....
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 27 at 10:41










  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown not sure how I would do that, sorry
    $endgroup$
    – windircurse
    Jan 27 at 10:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's kind of hard to avoid using convolutions when there's one in the problem's statement.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 27 at 10:57
















3












$begingroup$


The Mobius inversion formula states that if we define $f$ as $$f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)$$ then $$g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)$$



We know that the other direction is also true: if we define $g$ as above, then $f$ also satisfies the above.



I've searched for the proof, but failed to find any that does not rely on convolutions. My question is whether there is a proof that relies on manipulating sums that proves the second direction of the theorem.






elementary-number-theory mobius-inversion







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How about just doing it? Put the second into the first, and hack away....
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 27 at 10:41










  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown not sure how I would do that, sorry
    $endgroup$
    – windircurse
    Jan 27 at 10:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's kind of hard to avoid using convolutions when there's one in the problem's statement.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 27 at 10:57














3












3








3


1



$begingroup$


The Mobius inversion formula states that if we define $f$ as $$f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)$$ then $$g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)$$



We know that the other direction is also true: if we define $g$ as above, then $f$ also satisfies the above.



I've searched for the proof, but failed to find any that does not rely on convolutions. My question is whether there is a proof that relies on manipulating sums that proves the second direction of the theorem.






elementary-number-theory mobius-inversion







share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




The Mobius inversion formula states that if we define $f$ as $$f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)$$ then $$g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)$$



We know that the other direction is also true: if we define $g$ as above, then $f$ also satisfies the above.



I've searched for the proof, but failed to find any that does not rely on convolutions. My question is whether there is a proof that relies on manipulating sums that proves the second direction of the theorem.






elementary-number-theory mobius-inversion




elementary-number-theory mobius-inversion






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jan 27 at 10:39









windircursewindircurse

1,154820




1,154820








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How about just doing it? Put the second into the first, and hack away....
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 27 at 10:41










  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown not sure how I would do that, sorry
    $endgroup$
    – windircurse
    Jan 27 at 10:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's kind of hard to avoid using convolutions when there's one in the problem's statement.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 27 at 10:57














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    How about just doing it? Put the second into the first, and hack away....
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Jan 27 at 10:41










  • $begingroup$
    @LordSharktheUnknown not sure how I would do that, sorry
    $endgroup$
    – windircurse
    Jan 27 at 10:54






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    It's kind of hard to avoid using convolutions when there's one in the problem's statement.
    $endgroup$
    – jmerry
    Jan 27 at 10:57








1




1




$begingroup$
How about just doing it? Put the second into the first, and hack away....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 27 at 10:41




$begingroup$
How about just doing it? Put the second into the first, and hack away....
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Jan 27 at 10:41












$begingroup$
@LordSharktheUnknown not sure how I would do that, sorry
$endgroup$
– windircurse
Jan 27 at 10:54




$begingroup$
@LordSharktheUnknown not sure how I would do that, sorry
$endgroup$
– windircurse
Jan 27 at 10:54




2




2




$begingroup$
It's kind of hard to avoid using convolutions when there's one in the problem's statement.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 27 at 10:57




$begingroup$
It's kind of hard to avoid using convolutions when there's one in the problem's statement.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
Jan 27 at 10:57










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

We assume
begin{align*}
g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)tag{1}
end{align*}
and show the validity of
begin{align*}
f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)tag{2}
end{align*}



It is convenient to use the unit-function $u$ defined as $u(n)=1, ngeq 1$.




We start with the right-hand side of (2) and obtain
begin{align*}
color{blue}{sum_{m|n}g(m)}&=sum_{m|n}left(sum_{d|m}fleft(frac {m}{d}right)mu(d)right)uleft(frac{n}{m}right)tag{3}\
&=sum_{acdot m=n}left(sum_{bcdot d=m}f(b)mu(d)right)u(a)\
&=sum_{acdot bcdot d=n}f(b)mu(d)u(a)\
&=sum_{bcdot m=n}f(b)left(sum_{acdot d=m}mu(d)u(a)right)\
&=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)left(sum_{d|m}mu(d)uleft(frac{m}{d}right)right)\
&=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)sum_{d|m}mu(d)\
&=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloortag{4}\
&,,color{blue}{=f(n)}tag{5}
end{align*}



and the claim (2) follows.




Comment:




  • In (3) we use the identity (1) and multiply for convenience only with $1=uleft(frac{n}{m}right)$.


  • In (4) we use the identity $sum_{d|m}mu(d)=leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloor=begin{cases}1&m=1\0&m>1end{cases}$.


  • In (5) we obtain $f(n)$ since all other summands with $m>1$ in (4) give zero.



Note: We can omit the usage of $u$ in the derivation, but this might reduce readability.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3089392%2fproof-of-mobius-inversion-formula-the-other-direction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    We assume
    begin{align*}
    g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)tag{1}
    end{align*}
    and show the validity of
    begin{align*}
    f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)tag{2}
    end{align*}



    It is convenient to use the unit-function $u$ defined as $u(n)=1, ngeq 1$.




    We start with the right-hand side of (2) and obtain
    begin{align*}
    color{blue}{sum_{m|n}g(m)}&=sum_{m|n}left(sum_{d|m}fleft(frac {m}{d}right)mu(d)right)uleft(frac{n}{m}right)tag{3}\
    &=sum_{acdot m=n}left(sum_{bcdot d=m}f(b)mu(d)right)u(a)\
    &=sum_{acdot bcdot d=n}f(b)mu(d)u(a)\
    &=sum_{bcdot m=n}f(b)left(sum_{acdot d=m}mu(d)u(a)right)\
    &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)left(sum_{d|m}mu(d)uleft(frac{m}{d}right)right)\
    &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)sum_{d|m}mu(d)\
    &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloortag{4}\
    &,,color{blue}{=f(n)}tag{5}
    end{align*}



    and the claim (2) follows.




    Comment:




    • In (3) we use the identity (1) and multiply for convenience only with $1=uleft(frac{n}{m}right)$.


    • In (4) we use the identity $sum_{d|m}mu(d)=leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloor=begin{cases}1&m=1\0&m>1end{cases}$.


    • In (5) we obtain $f(n)$ since all other summands with $m>1$ in (4) give zero.



    Note: We can omit the usage of $u$ in the derivation, but this might reduce readability.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      1












      $begingroup$

      We assume
      begin{align*}
      g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)tag{1}
      end{align*}
      and show the validity of
      begin{align*}
      f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)tag{2}
      end{align*}



      It is convenient to use the unit-function $u$ defined as $u(n)=1, ngeq 1$.




      We start with the right-hand side of (2) and obtain
      begin{align*}
      color{blue}{sum_{m|n}g(m)}&=sum_{m|n}left(sum_{d|m}fleft(frac {m}{d}right)mu(d)right)uleft(frac{n}{m}right)tag{3}\
      &=sum_{acdot m=n}left(sum_{bcdot d=m}f(b)mu(d)right)u(a)\
      &=sum_{acdot bcdot d=n}f(b)mu(d)u(a)\
      &=sum_{bcdot m=n}f(b)left(sum_{acdot d=m}mu(d)u(a)right)\
      &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)left(sum_{d|m}mu(d)uleft(frac{m}{d}right)right)\
      &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)sum_{d|m}mu(d)\
      &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloortag{4}\
      &,,color{blue}{=f(n)}tag{5}
      end{align*}



      and the claim (2) follows.




      Comment:




      • In (3) we use the identity (1) and multiply for convenience only with $1=uleft(frac{n}{m}right)$.


      • In (4) we use the identity $sum_{d|m}mu(d)=leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloor=begin{cases}1&m=1\0&m>1end{cases}$.


      • In (5) we obtain $f(n)$ since all other summands with $m>1$ in (4) give zero.



      Note: We can omit the usage of $u$ in the derivation, but this might reduce readability.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        We assume
        begin{align*}
        g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)tag{1}
        end{align*}
        and show the validity of
        begin{align*}
        f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)tag{2}
        end{align*}



        It is convenient to use the unit-function $u$ defined as $u(n)=1, ngeq 1$.




        We start with the right-hand side of (2) and obtain
        begin{align*}
        color{blue}{sum_{m|n}g(m)}&=sum_{m|n}left(sum_{d|m}fleft(frac {m}{d}right)mu(d)right)uleft(frac{n}{m}right)tag{3}\
        &=sum_{acdot m=n}left(sum_{bcdot d=m}f(b)mu(d)right)u(a)\
        &=sum_{acdot bcdot d=n}f(b)mu(d)u(a)\
        &=sum_{bcdot m=n}f(b)left(sum_{acdot d=m}mu(d)u(a)right)\
        &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)left(sum_{d|m}mu(d)uleft(frac{m}{d}right)right)\
        &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)sum_{d|m}mu(d)\
        &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloortag{4}\
        &,,color{blue}{=f(n)}tag{5}
        end{align*}



        and the claim (2) follows.




        Comment:




        • In (3) we use the identity (1) and multiply for convenience only with $1=uleft(frac{n}{m}right)$.


        • In (4) we use the identity $sum_{d|m}mu(d)=leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloor=begin{cases}1&m=1\0&m>1end{cases}$.


        • In (5) we obtain $f(n)$ since all other summands with $m>1$ in (4) give zero.



        Note: We can omit the usage of $u$ in the derivation, but this might reduce readability.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        We assume
        begin{align*}
        g(m)=sum_{d|m}fleft(frac mdright)mu(d)tag{1}
        end{align*}
        and show the validity of
        begin{align*}
        f(m)=sum_{d|m}g(d)tag{2}
        end{align*}



        It is convenient to use the unit-function $u$ defined as $u(n)=1, ngeq 1$.




        We start with the right-hand side of (2) and obtain
        begin{align*}
        color{blue}{sum_{m|n}g(m)}&=sum_{m|n}left(sum_{d|m}fleft(frac {m}{d}right)mu(d)right)uleft(frac{n}{m}right)tag{3}\
        &=sum_{acdot m=n}left(sum_{bcdot d=m}f(b)mu(d)right)u(a)\
        &=sum_{acdot bcdot d=n}f(b)mu(d)u(a)\
        &=sum_{bcdot m=n}f(b)left(sum_{acdot d=m}mu(d)u(a)right)\
        &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)left(sum_{d|m}mu(d)uleft(frac{m}{d}right)right)\
        &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)sum_{d|m}mu(d)\
        &=sum_{m|n}fleft(frac{n}{m}right)leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloortag{4}\
        &,,color{blue}{=f(n)}tag{5}
        end{align*}



        and the claim (2) follows.




        Comment:




        • In (3) we use the identity (1) and multiply for convenience only with $1=uleft(frac{n}{m}right)$.


        • In (4) we use the identity $sum_{d|m}mu(d)=leftlfloorfrac{1}{m}rightrfloor=begin{cases}1&m=1\0&m>1end{cases}$.


        • In (5) we obtain $f(n)$ since all other summands with $m>1$ in (4) give zero.



        Note: We can omit the usage of $u$ in the derivation, but this might reduce readability.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 28 at 17:23

























        answered Jan 27 at 23:17









        Markus ScheuerMarkus Scheuer

        63k460150




        63k460150






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid …



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3089392%2fproof-of-mobius-inversion-formula-the-other-direction%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Can a sorcerer learn a 5th-level spell early by creating spell slots using the Font of Magic feature?

            Image
            28 6 $begingroup$ Per the Font of Magic feature, sorcerer can use Flexible Casting to create 5th-level spell slots at level 7, even though they are not typically available until level 9. You can transform unexpended sorcery points into one spell slot as a bonus action on your turn. The Creating Spell Slots table shows the cost of creating a spell slot of [5th level is 7] If such a sorcerer levels up while still having this 5th-level spell slot, can they choose a 5th-level spell as the spell they gain upon levelling up? The Spellcasting feature states: Additionally, when you gain a level in this class, you can choose one of the sorcerer spells you know and replace it with another spell from the sorcerer spell list, which also must be of a level for which you have spell slots.
            Read more

            Does disintegrating a polymorphed enemy still kill it after the 2018 errata?

            Image
            up vote 13 down vote favorite 1 After the 2018 errata, the disintegrate spell description now reads: A creature targeted by this spell must make a Dexterity saving throw. On a failed save, the target takes 10d6 + 40 force damage. The target is disintegrated if this damage leaves it with 0 hit points. If you were to polymorph an enemy into a rat and then disintegrate it, would the enemy be disintegrated or would it just return to its original form? I know that for Druids, it’s not an instant kill anymore, but is this the case for polymorph as well? dnd-5e spells polymorph errata share | improve this question edited 18 hours ago
            Read more

            A Topological Invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$

            Image
            3 3 $begingroup$ Recently, I saw a construction of topological invariant for $pi_3(U(n))$ with $ngeq 2$ : $$ N=frac{1}{24pi^2}int_{S^3} d^3x epsilon^{ijk} Tr[(U^{-1}partial_{x_i}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_j}U)(U^{-1}partial_{x_k}U)] , $$ where $Uin U(n)$ depends on $boldsymbol{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)in S^3$ , $epsilon^{ijk}$ is the Levi-Civita symbol, $i,j,k=1,2,3$ , and the duplicated indexes are summed over. It is claimed that $N$ is an integer, but why? Update 02/02/2019 I think I got an argument for $n=2$ . In this case, $U=e^{i varphi} q$ with $qin SU(2)$ . Due to the trace and the Levi-Civita symbol in $N$ , $varphi$ does not contribute to $N$ . As $Tr[q^{dagger}partial_i q]=0$ and $(q^{dagger}partial_i q)^{dagger}=-q^{dagger}partial_i q$ , $q^{dagger}partial_i q$ in geneeral has the form $q^{dagger}partia
            Read more