Talk:General Dirichlet series

I see that many references are given, but I'm not sure which reference is for which section. Usually not a problem, but I am interested in the exact reference for the line:

"Suppose that a Dirichlet series does not converge at $s=0$, then it is clear that $\sigma _{c}\geq 0$ and $\sum a_{n}$ diverges. On the other hand, if a Dirichlet series converges at $s=0$, then $\sigma _{c}\leq 0$ and $\sum a_{n}$ converges."

Thanks for your help and article.

128.100.216.7 (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

This statement follows from observations that if a Dirichlet series does not converge at $s=0$, then $\sigma _{c}$ cannot be negative, otherwise contradicting the definition of abscissa of convergence. Also, at $s=0$, the Dirichlet series is simplified to $\sum a_{n}e^{0}$. So it follows from assumption that $\sum a_{n}$ diverges.

Strictly increasing or increasing

Do the $\{\lambda _{n}\}$ need to be strictly increasing? According to the definition at PlanetMath, they only need to be increasing. K9re11 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Years late reply, but strictly increasing is just a way to reduce redundancy in the sum. if 2 values of the sequence are the same, that makes the exponential part of their sum terms equivalent. So you can add them together and add the coefficient parts together for a new coefficient sequence.

Strictly increasing also avoids the case of having just an infinite coefficent sum with an exponential common factor, so that's probably why it was favored here. Not sure if that's correct or not though. Docsisbored (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

as in, if strictly increasing is agreed upon or not Docsisbored (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2017 (UTC)