arxiv: v2 [math.nt] 15 Oct 2017

Transcription

1 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO arxiv:503.05v [math.nt] 5 Oct 07 Abstract. Let λ denote the Liouville function. A well known conjecture of Chowla asserts that for any distinct natural numbers h,..., h k, one has λ(n + h ) λ(n + h k ) = o(x) as X. This conjecture remains unproven for any h,..., h k with k. In this paper, using the recent results of the first two authors on mean values of multiplicative functions in short intervals, combined with an argument of Katai and Bourgain-Sarnak-Ziegler, we establish an averaged version of this conjecture, namely λ(n + h ) λ(n + h k ) = o(hk X) h,...,h k H as X whenever H = H(X) X goes to infinity as X, and k is fixed. elated to this, we give the exponential sum estimate X λ(n)e(αn) dx = o(hx) 0 x n x+h as X uniformly for all α, with H as before. Our arguments in fact give log log H quantitative bounds on the decay rate (roughly on the order of log H ), and extend to more general bounded multiplicative functions than the Liouville function, yielding an averaged form of a (corrected) conjecture of Elliott.. Introduction Let λ : N {, +} be the Liouville function, that is to say the completely multiplicative function such that λ(p) = for all primes p. The prime number theorem implies that λ(n) = o(x) as X. More generally, a famous conjecture of Chowla [3] asserts that for any distinct natural numbers h,..., h k, one has λ(n + h ) λ(n + h k ) = o(x) (.) as X. Chowla s conjecture remains open for any h,..., h k with k. Our first main theorem establishes an averaged form of this conjecture: See Section.3 below for our asymptotic notation conventions.

2 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO Theorem. (Chowla s conjecture on average). For any natural number k, and any 0 H X, we have ( ) log log H λ(n + h ) λ(n + h k ) k log H + H k X. h,...,h k log /3000 X H (.) In fact, we have the slightly stronger bound ( ) log log H λ(n)λ(n + h ) λ(n + h k ) k log H + H k X. h,...,h k log /3000 X H (.3) In the case k = our result implies that λ(n)λ(n + h) = o(hx) h H provided that H arbitrarily slowly with X (and H X). Note that the k = case of Chowla s conjecture is equivalent to the above asymptotic holding in the case that H is bounded rather than going to infinity. In fact, we have a more precise bound than (.) (or (.3)) that gives more control on the exceptional tuples (h,..., h k ) for which the sums λ(n + h ) λ(n + h k ) are large; see emark 5. below. In particular in the special case k = we get the following result. Theorem.. Let δ (0, ] be fixed. There is a large but fixed H = H(δ) such that, for all large enough X, λ(n)λ(n + h) δx (.4) for all but at most H 5000 integers h H. δ One can also replace the ranges h j H in Theorem. by b j + h j b j + H for any b j = O(X); see Theorem.6 below. The exponents /3000 and /5000 in the above theorems may certainly be improved, but we did not attempt to optimize the constants here. However, our methods cannot produce a gain much larger than, as one would then have to somehow control λ log H on numbers that are not divisible by any prime less than H, at which point we are no longer able to exploit the averaging in the h,..., h k parameters. It would be of particular interest to obtain a gain of more than, as one could then potentially log X localize λ to primes and obtain some version of the prime tuples conjecture when the h,..., h k parameters are averaged over short intervals, but this is well beyond the capability of our methods. (If instead one is allowed to average the h,..., h k over long intervals (of scale comparable to X), one can obtain various averaged forms of the prime tuples conjecture and its relatives, by rather different methods to those used here; see [], [6], [4], [3], [0].) Theorem. is closely related to the following averaged short exponential sum estimate, which may be of independent interest.

3 0 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 3 Theorem.3 (Exponential sum estimate). For any 0 H X, one has X ( ) log log H sup λ(n)e(αn) α dx log H + HX. log /700 X x n x+h Actually, for technical reasons it is convenient to prove a sharper version of Theorem.3 in which the Liouville function has been restricted to those numbers that have typical factorization; see Theorem.3. This sharper version will then be used to establish Theorem.. The relationship between Theorem. and Theorem.3 stems from the following Fourier-analytic identity: Lemma.4 (Fourier identity). If f : Z C is a function supported on a finite set, and H > 0, then f(n)e(αn) dx dα = (H h ) f(n)f(n + h). T x n x+h h H Proof. Using the Fourier identity e(nα) dα = T n=0, we can expand the left-hand side as ( ) ( ) n,n,m,m f(n)f(n )f(m)f(m ) n+m n m =0 x n,n x+h dx n y m,m y+h dy Writing n = n + h, we see that both integrals are equal to H h if h H, and vanish otherwise. The claim follows. Theorem.3 may be compared with the classical estimate sup λ(n)e(αn) A X log A X α of Davenport [5], valid for any A > 0. Indeed, one can view Theorem.3 as asserting that a weak form of Davenport s estimate holds on average in short intervals. It would be of interest to also obtain non-trivial bounds on the larger quantity X sup λ(n)e(αn) dx (.5) 0 α x n x+h but this appears difficult to establish with our methods. As with other applications of the circle method, our proof of Theorem.3 splits into two cases, depending on whether the quantity α is on major arc or on minor arc. In the major arc case we are able to use the recent results of the first two authors [5] on the average size of mean values of multiplicative functions on short intervals. Actually, in order to handle the presence of complex Dirichlet characters, we need to extend the results in [5] to complex-valued multiplicative functions rather than real-valued ones; this is accomplished in an appendix to this paper (Appendix A). In the minor arc case we use a variant of the arguments of Katai [] and Bourgain-Sarnak-Ziegler [] (see also the earlier works of Montgomery-Vaughan [7] and Daboussi-Delange [4]) to obtain the required cancellation. One innovation here is to rely on a combinatorial identity of amaré (also used in [5]) as a substitute for the Turan-Kubilius inequality, as this.

4 4 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO leads to superior quantitative estimates (particularly if one first restricts the variable n to have a typical prime factorization)... Extension to more general multiplicative functions. Define a -bounded multiplicative function to be a multiplicative function f : N C such that f(n) for all n N. Given two -bounded multiplicative functions f, g and a parameter X, we define the distance D(f, g; X) [0, + ) by the formula ( ) / e(f(p)g(p)) D(f, g; X) :=. p p X This is known to give a (pseudo-)metric on -bounded multiplicative functions; see [9, Lemma 3.]. We also define the asymptotic counterpart D(f, g; ) [0, + ] by the formula ( ) / e(f(p)g(p)) D(f, g; ) :=. p p We informally say that f pretends to be g if D(f, g; X) (or D(f, g; )) is small (or finite). For any -bounded multiplicative function g and real number X >, we introduce the quantity M(g; X) := inf D(g, n t X nit ; X), (.6) and then the more general quantity M(g; X, Q) := inf M(gχ; X) q Q;χ (q) = inf t X;q Q;χ (q) D(g, n χ(n)nit ; X), where χ ranges over all Dirichlet characters of modulus q Q. Informally, M(g; X) is small when g pretends to be like a multiplicative character n n it, and M(g; X, Q) is small when g pretends to be like a twisted Dirichlet character of modulus at most Q and twist of height at most X. We also define the asymptotic counterpart M(g;, ) = inf χ,t D(g, n χ(n)nit ; ) where χ now ranges over all Dirichlet characters and t ranges over all real numbers. In [6, Conjecture II], Elliott proposed the following more general form of Chowla s conjecture, which we phrase here in contrapositive form. Conjecture.5 (Elliott s conjecture). Let g,..., g k : N C be -bounded multiplicative functions, and let a,..., a k, b,..., b k be natural numbers such that any two of the (a, b ),..., (a k, b k ) are linearly independent in Q. Suppose that there is an index j 0 k such that M(g j0 ;, ) =. (.7) Then as X. j= g j (a j n + b j ) = o(x) (.8)

5 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 5 Informally, this conjecture asserts that for pairwise linearly independent (a, b ),..., (a k, b k ) and any -bounded multiplicative g,..., g k, one has the asymptotic (.8) as X, unless each of the g j pretends to be a twisted Dirichlet character n χ j (n)n it j. Note that some condition of this form is necessary, since if g(n) is equal to χ(n)n it then g(n)g(n + h) will be biased to be positive for large n, if h is fixed and divisible by the modulus q of χ; one also expects some bias when h is not divisible by this modulus since the sums n Z/qZ χ(n)χ(n + h) do not vanish in general. From the prime number theorem in arithmetic progressions it follows that M(λ;, ) =, so Elliott s conjecture implies Chowla s conjecture (.). When one allows the functions g j to be complex-valued rather than real-valued, Elliott s conjecture turns out to be false on a technicality; one can choose -bounded multiplicative functions g j which are arbitrarily close at various scales to a sequence of functions of the form n n itm (which allows one to violate (.8)) without globally pretending to be n it (or χ(n)n it ) for any fixed t; we present this counterexample in Appendix B. However, this counterexample can be removed by replacing (.7) with the stronger condition that M(g j0 ; X, Q) (.9) as X for each fixed Q. In the real-valued case, (.9) and (.7) are equivalent by a triangle inequality argument of Granville and Soundararajan which we give in Appendix C. As evidence for the corrected form of Conjecture.5 (in both the real-valued and complex-valued cases), we present the following averaged form of that conjecture: Theorem.6 (Elliott s conjecture on average). Let 0 H X and A. Let g,..., g k : N C be -bounded functions, and let a,..., a k, b,..., b k be natural numbers with a j A and b j AX for j =,..., k. Let j 0 k, and suppose that g j0 is multiplicative. Then one has g j (a j n + b j + h j ) (.0) h,...,h k H j= ( ) A log log H k exp( M/80) + log H + H k X log /3000 X where and M := M(g j0 ; 0AX, Q) Q := min(log /5 X, log 0 H). In fact, we have the slightly stronger bound g (a n + b ) g j (a j n + b j + h j ) h,...,h k H j= ( ) A log log H k exp( M/80) + log H + H k X. log /3000 X (.)

6 6 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO Note that if a,..., a k, b,..., b k are fixed, g j0 is independent of X and obeys the condition (.9) for any fixed Q, and H = H(X) is chosen to go to infinity arbitrarily slowly as X, then the quantity M in the above theorem goes to infinity (note that M(g; X, Q) is non-decreasing in Q), and (.) then implies an averaged form of the asymptotic (.8). Thus Theorem.6 is indeed an averaged form of the corrected form of Conjecture.5. (We discovered the counterexample in Appendix B while trying to interpret Theorem.6 as an averaged version of the original form of Conjecture.5.) Interestingly, only one of the functions g,..., g k in Theorem.6 is required to be multiplicative ; one can use a van der Corput argument to reduce matters to obtaining cancellation for a sum roughly of the form h H g j 0 (n)g j0 (n + h), which can then be treated using Lemma.4. For g(n) = λ(n) and X, Q, M as in the above theorem, one obtains, for every ε > 0, the bound ( ) + e χ(p)p it M inf t X;q Q;χ (q) p 3 ε log log X + O() exp((log X) /3+ε ) p X (.) where the last inequality is established via standard methods from the Vinogradov- Korobov type zero-free region { σ + it : σ > c max{log q, (log(3 + t )) /3 (log log(3 + t )) /3 } for L(s, χ) and some absolute constant c > 0, which applies since χ has conductor q (log X) /5 (so that there are no exceptional zeros), see [8, 9.5]. Hence Theorem.6 implies Theorem.. The same argument gives Theorem. when the Liouville function λ is replaced by the Möbius function µ. We remark that as our arguments make no use of exceptional zeroes, all the implied constants in our theorems are effective. We also have a generalized form of Theorem.3: Theorem.7 (Exponential sum estimate). Let X H 0 and let g be a -bounded multiplicative function. Then X g(n)e(αn) dx sup α T where 0 x n x+h ( ) log log H exp( M(g; X, Q)/0) + log H + HX log /700 X Q := min(log /5 X, log 5 H). By (.), Theorem.7 implies Theorem.3. emark.8. In the recent preprint [7], a different averaged form of Elliott s conjecture is established, in which one uses fewer averaging parameters h i than in Theorem.6 (indeed, one can average over just a single such parameter, provided that the linear parts of the forms are independent), but the averaging parameters range over a long range (comparable to X) rather than on the short range given here. The methods of We thank the referee for observing this fact. In a previous version of this paper, all of the g j were required to be multiplicative. }

7 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 7 proof are rather different (in particular, the arguments in [7] rely on higher order Fourier analysis). In the long-range averaged situation considered in [7], the counterexample in Appendix B does not apply, and one can use the original form of Elliott s conjecture in place of the corrected version. It may be possible to combine the results here with those in [7] to obtain an averaged version of the Chowla or Elliott s conjecture in which the number of averaging parameters is small, and the averaging is over a short range, but this seems to require non-trivial estimates on quantities such as (.5), which we are currently unable to handle. emark.9. Theorem.6 suggests that in order to make the correlation g j (a j n + b j ) j= significantly smaller than X, one should have M(g j0 ; AX, A) large for some moderately large A and some j 0 k. This appears to be the right condition when k =, but for larger values of k it appears that one in fact should require that M(g j0 ; AX k, A) is large; that is to say, one may conjecture the bound g j (a j n + b j ) εx j= whenever M(g j0 ; AX k, A) A for some A sufficiently large depending on ε, k, and the a j, b j, assuming that X is sufficiently large depending on A, ε, k, a j, b j, that one has a i b j a j b i 0 for all i j, and the g j are all -bounded multiplicative functions. For instance, consider the k = 3 correlation g (n)g (n + )g 3 (n + ). This sum is large in the case g (n) := n it, g (n) := n it, g 3 (n) := n it for t = o(x ), as can be seen by applying Taylor expansion to second order to the function x t log x around x = n. If t is much larger than X, then the quantities M(g j0 ; AX, A) are large for j 0 =,, 3, but M(g j0 ; AX, A) are small, and so needs a lower bound on M(g j0 ; AX, A) rather than M(g j0 ; AX, A) to ensure the smallness of this correlation. A similar example can be constructed for higher values of k. A related computation also shows that if one wishes to move the supremum in α in Theorem.7 inside the integration in x (as in (.5)), one will need a lower bound on M(g; X, Q) rather than just M(g; X, Q)... Acknowledgments. TT was supported by a Simons Investigator grant, the James and Carol Collins Chair, the Mathematical Analysis & Application esearch Fund Endowment, and by NSF grant DMS The authors thank Andrew Granville and the anonymous referee for useful comments and corrections..3. Notation. Our asymptotic notation conventions are as follows. We use X Y, Y X, or X = O(Y ) to denote the estimate X CY for some absolute constant C. If x is a parameter going to infinity, we use X = o(y ) to denote the claim that X c(x)y for some quantity c(x) that goes to zero as x (holding all other parameters fixed).

8 8 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO Unless otherwise specified, all sums are over the integers, except for sums over the variable p (or p, p, etc.) which are understood to be over primes. We use T := /Z to denote the standard unit circle, and let e : T C be the standard character e(x) := e πix. We use S to denote the indicator of a predicate S, thus S = when S is true and S = 0 when S is false. If A is a set, we write A (n) for n A, so that A is the indicator function of A.. estricting to numbers with typical factorization To prove Theorem.6 and Theorem.7 (and hence Theorem. and Theorem.3), it is technically convenient (as in the previous paper [5] of the first two authors) to restrict the support of the multiplicative functions to a certain dense set S of natural numbers that have a typical prime factorization in a certain specific sense, in order to fully exploit a useful combinatorial identity of amaré (see (3.) below). This will lead to improved quantitative estimates in the arguments in subsequent sections of the paper. More precisely, we introduce the following sets S of numbers with typical prime factorization, which previously appeared in [5]. Definition.. Let 0 < P < Q X and X X 0 X be quantities such that Q exp( log X 0 ). We then define P j, Q j for j > by the formula P j := exp(j 4j (log Q ) j log P ); Q j := exp(j 4j+ (log Q ) j ). for j > ; note that the intervals [P j, Q j ] are disjoint and increase to infinity, indeed one easily verifies that P < Q < exp( 8 log Q log P ) = P and P j < exp(j 4j (log Q ) j ) < Q j < exp((j + ) 4(j+) (log Q ) j ) < P j+ for all j >. Let J be the largest index such that Q J exp( log X 0 ). Then we define S P,Q,X 0,X to be the set of all the numbers n X which have at least one prime factor in the interval [P j, Q j ] for each j J. In practice X will be taken to be slightly smaller than X 0. The need to have two parameters X, X 0 instead of one is technical (we need to have the freedom later in the argument to replace X with a slightly smaller quantity X/d without altering J), but the reader may wish to pretend that X 0 = X for most of the argument. This set is fairly dense if P and Q are widely separated: Lemma.. Let 0 < P < Q X and X X 0 X be such that Q exp( log X 0 ). Then, for every large enough X, #{ n X : n S P,Q,X 0,X} log P X. log Q Proof. From the fundamental lemma of sieve theory (see e.g. [8, Theorem 6.7]) we know that, for any j J and large enough X, the number of n X that are not divisible by any prime in [P j, Q j ] is at most X P j p Q j ( p ) log P j log Q j X = j log P log Q X.

9 Summing over j, we obtain the claim. AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 9 Both Theorem.6 and Theorem.7 will be deduced from the following claim. Theorem.3 (Key exponential sum estimate). Let X, H, W 0 be such that (log H) 5 W min{h /50, (log X) /5 } and let g be a -bounded multiplicative function such that W exp(m(g; X, Q)/3). (.) Set S := S P,Q, X,X where P := W 00 ; Q := H/W 3. Then for any α T, one has S (n)g(n)e(αn) dx (log H)/4 log log H HX. (.) W /4 x n x+h In Section 5 we will show how this theorem implies Theorem.6. For now, let us at least see how it implies Theorem.7: Proof. (Proof of Theorem.7 assuming Theorem.3) We may assume that X, H, and M(g; X, Q) are larger than any specified absolute constant, as if one of these expressions are bounded, then so is W, and the claim (.) is then trivial with a suitable choice of implied constant (discarding the (log H) /4 log log H factor). Choose H 0 such that ( ) log H 0 := min log /700 X log log X, exp(m(g; X, Q)/0)M(g; X, Q). We divide into two cases: H H 0 and H > H 0. First suppose that H H 0. Then if we set W := log 5 H, one verifies that all the hypotheses of Theorem.3 hold, and hence X 0 x n x+h S (n)g(n)e(αn) log log H dx log H HX. On the other hand, from Lemma., the choice of W, P, Q, and the bound on H we see that log log H #{ n X + H : n S} log H X and thus by Fubini s theorem and the triangle inequality X log log H ( S (n))g(n)e(αn) dx log H HX. 0 x n x+h Summing, we obtain Theorem.7 in this case. Now suppose that H > H 0. Covering [0, H] by O(H/H 0 ) intervals of length H 0, we see that X g(n)e(αn) 0 dx H X+H g(n)e(αn) H 0 x n x+h 0 dx. x n x+h 0

10 0 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO log log H + log H Also, observe from the choice of H 0 that the quantity exp( M(g; X, Q)/0) + is unchanged up to multiplicative constants if one reduces H to H log /700 X 0. Finally, from Mertens theorem we see that M(g; X + H, Q) = M(g; X, Q) + O(). The claim then follows from the H = H 0 case (after performing the minor alteration of replacing X with X + H). We now begin the proof of Theorem.3. The first step is to reduce to the case where g is completely multiplicative rather than multiplicative. More precisely, we will deduce Theorem.3 from Proposition.4 (Completely multiplicative exponential sum estimate). Let X, H, W 0 be such that (log H) 5 W min{h /50, (log X) /5 }, and let g be a -bounded completely multiplicative function such that Let d be a natural number with d < W. Set where W exp(m(g; X, W )/3). (.3) S := S P,Q, X,X/d P := W 00 ; Q := H/W 3. Then for any α T one has S (n)g(n)e(αn) dx (log H) /4 log log H HX. (.4) d 3/4 W /4 x/d n x/d+h/d Let us explain why Theorem.3 follows from Proposition.4. Let the hypotheses and notation be as in Theorem.3. The function g is not necessarily completely multiplicative, but we may approximate it by the -bounded completely multiplicative function g : N C, defined as the completely multiplicative function with g (p) = g(p) for all primes p. By Möbius inversion we may then write g = g h where denotes Dirichlet convolution and h is the multiplicative function h = g µg. Observe that for all primes p, h(p) = 0 and h(p j ) for j. We now write x n x+h SP,Q, g(n)e(αn) = h(d) X,X d= x/d m x/d+h/d SP,Q, X,X (dm)g (m)e(dαm) and so by the triangle inequality we may upper bound the left-hand side of (.) by h(d) SP,Q, (dm)g X,X (m)e(dαm) dx. d= x/d m x/d+h/d Let us first dispose of the contribution where d W. Here we trivially bound this contribution by h(d) O(H) d W m (X+H)/d

11 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE (after moving the absolute values inside the m summation and then performing the integration on x first). We can bound this in turn by HX h(d) W /4 d. 3/4 From Euler products we see that h(d) d= = O(), so the contribution of this case is d acceptable. 3/4 Now we consider the contribution d < W < P. In this case we may reduce d= SP,Q, X,X (dm) = S P,Q, X,X/d (m) and so this contribution to (.) can be upper bounded by h(d) SP,Q, (m)g X,X/d (m)e(dαm) dx. d<w x/d m x/d+h/d By Proposition.4, this is bounded by h(d) (log H) /4 log log H HX. d 3/4 W /4 d= As before we have h(d) d= = O(), and Theorem.3 follows. d It remains to prove Proposition 3/4.4. For any α T, we know from the Dirichlet approximation theorem that there exists a rational number a with (a, q) = and q q H/W such that α a q W qh q. In the next two sections, we will apply separate arguments to prove Proposition.4 in the minor arc case q > W and the major arc case q W. 3. Proof of minor arc estimate We now prove Proposition.4 in the minor arc case q > W. It suffices to show that θ(x) S (n)g(n)e(αn) dx (log H) /4 log log H HX (3.) d 3/4 W /4 x/d n x/d+h/d whenever θ : C is measurable with θ(x) for all x and supported on [0, X]. We will now use a variant of an idea of Bourgain-Sarnak-Ziegler [] (building on earlier works of Katai [], Montgomery-Vaughan [7] and Daboussi-Delange [4]). Let P be the set consisting of the primes lying between P and Q. Then, notice that each n S has at least one prime factor from P. Furthermore, if n = mp for some prime p P, then the number of primes in P dividing n is equal to the number of primes in P dividing m, plus 3 p m. This leads to the following variant of amaré s identity (see [8, Section 7.3]): S (n) = p P,m:mp=n S (mp) p m + #{q m : q P}, (3.) 3 In the published version of this paper, the term p m was incorrectly expressed as, leading to a slight gap in the arguments. We thank Ke Wang for drawing this issue to our attention.

12 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO where S is the set of all n X/d that have at least one prime factor in each of the intervals [P j, Q j ] for j ; the constraint n X/d arises from the corresponding constraint in the definition of S. Using this identity, we may write the left-hand side of (3.) as p P m S (mp)g(mp)e(mpα) p m + #{q m : q P} θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx. As g is completely multiplicative, g(mp) = g(m)g(p). Thus it suffices to show that S (mp)g(m)g(p)e(mpα) θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx p m + #{q m : q P} p P m (log H)/4 log log H HX. d 3/4 W /4 We can cover P by intervals [P, P ] with P P Q and P a power of two, and observe that log P log log Q log log P log log H, p P:P p P m P P Q P = j so by the triangle inequality it suffices to show that S (mp)g(m)g(p)e(mpα) θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx p m + #{q m : q P} (log H)/4 d 3/4 W /4 log P HX for each such P. Fix P. At this point it becomes convenient to replace the p m term by. Since the integral θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx is O(H) by the triangle inequality, and all the other factors in the summand are O(), and the term S (mp) vanishes unless m X/dP, the error incurred in making this substitution may be bounded in magnitude by O p P:P p P m X/dP :p m H = O ( P X dp H ) = O ( HX dp which is acceptable. Thus it will suffice to show that S (mp)g(m)g(p)e(mpα) θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx + #{q m : q P} p P:P p P m We can rearrange the left-hand side as g(m) mp X/d g(p)e(mpα) + #{q m : q P} m S p P:P p P ), (log H)/4 d 3/4 W /4 log P HX. θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx. As before, the summand vanishes unless m X g(m). Crudely bounding4 dp magnitude by, we may bound the previous expression in magnitude by mp X/d g(p)e(mpα) θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx. m X/dP p P:P p P +#{q m:q P} in 4 By using the Turan-Kubilius inequality here one could save a factor of log log H, but such a gain will not make a significant impact on our final estimates.

13 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 3 By Hölder, we may bound this by ( ) 3/4 X 4 dp mp X/d g(p)e(mpα) θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx m X/dP p P:P p P It thus suffices to show that mp X/d g(p)e(mpα) m X/dP p P:P p P θ(x) x/d mp (x+h)/d dx 4 /4 log H W log 4 P H4 XP 3. The left-hand side may be expanded as g(p )g(p )g(p 3 )g(p 4 )θ(x )θ(x )θ(x 3 )θ(x 4 ) p,p,p 3,p 4 P:P p,p,p 3,p 4 P m X/(dp i ),x i /(dp i ) m (x i +H)/(dp i ) i=,,3,4 e(m(p + p p 3 p 4 )α)dx dx dx 3 dx 4. From summing the geometric series, the summation over m is O(min( H, )), P (p +p p 3 p 4 )α where z denotes the distance from z to the nearest integer. Also, the sum vanishes unless we have x = O(X) and x i = x p i /p + O(H) for i =, 3, 4, so there are only O(XH 3 ) quadruples (x, x, x 3, x 4 ) which contribute here. Thus we may bound the previous expression by ( O XH 3 p,p,p 3,p 4 P ( ) ) H min P, (p + p p 3 p 4 )α and so we reduce to showing that ( ) H min P, log H HP 3 (p + p p 3 p 4 )α W log 4 P. (3.3) p,p,p 3,p 4 P The quantity p + p p 3 p 4 is clearly of size O(P ). Conversely, from a standard upper bound sieve 5, the number of representations of an integer n = O(P ) of the form p + p p 3 p 4 with p, p, p 3, p 4 P prime is O( P 3 ). Thus it suffices to show that log 4 P ( ) H min P, log H nα W H. n=o(p ) But from the Vinogradov lemma (see e.g. [, Page 346]), the left-hand side is bounded by (( ) ( )) P H O q + P + q log q H q + P log q + H P + q log q which, since W 00 = P P Q = H/W 3 and W q H/W, 5 For instance, from [9, Theorem 3.3] one sees that any number N = O(P ) has O( N representations as the sum of two primes; since N=O(P ) the claim then follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.. P φ(n) log P ) N φ(n) = O(P ) (see e.g. [9, Exercise..4]),

14 4 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO is bounded by O( log H H) as required. W 4. Proof of major arc estimate We now prove Proposition.4 in the major arc case q W. We will discard the factor d /4 (log H) /4 log log H and prove the following stronger bound S (n)g(n)e(αn) dx HX. (4.) dw /4 x/d n (x+h)/d By hypothesis we have α = a/q + θ with q W and θ = O(W/(Hq)). Integrating by parts we see that S (n)g(n)e(αn) S (n)g(n)e(an/q) x/d n (x+h)/d + W Hq x/d n (x+h)/d H/d 0 S (n)g(n)e(an/q) dh (4.) x/d n x/d+h Thus let us focus on bounding, S (n)g(n)e(an/q) dx (4.3) x/d n x/d+h with 0 H H/d. Splitting into residues classes we see that (4.3) is S (n)g(n) dx b (mod q) x/d n x/d+h n b (mod q) For n b (mod q) we have d 0 := (b, q) n. Therefore let us write b = d 0 b 0, q = d 0 q 0 and n = d 0 m, so that the condition n b (mod q) simplifies to m b 0 (mod q 0 ). In addition, since g is completely multiplicative and d 0 q W P we have S (n)g(n) = g(d 0 ) SP,Q, X,X/(dd 0 ) (m)g(m). Finally we express m b 0 (mod q 0 ) in terms of Dirichlet characters noting that m b0 (mod q 0 )(m) = χ(b 0 )χ(m). ϕ(q 0 ) χ (mod q 0 ) Plugging everything together we see that (4.3) is less than ϕ(q 0 ) b (mod q) χ (mod q 0 ) x/(dd 0 ) m x/(dd 0 )+H /d 0 SP,Q, X,X/(dd0 ) g(m)χ(m) dx In the integral we make the linear change of variable y = x/(dd 0 ), so that the above expression becomes d 0 dy d ϕ(q 0 ) g(m)χ(m) X,X/(dd0 ) (4.4) b (mod q) χ (mod q 0 ) y m y+h /d 0 SP,Q, We bound the part of the integral with y X/W 0 trivially. This produces in (4.3) an error which is X dq W 0 H HX W HX 9 dw 3

15 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 5 since q, d W and H H/d. We split the remaining range X/W 0 y X/(dd 0 ) into dyadic blocks X/W 0 X X/(dd 0 ) with X running through powers of two. Thus the previous expression is d X b (mod q) d 0 ϕ(q 0 ) χ (mod q 0 ) X X y m y+h /d 0 SP,Q, X,X/(dd0 ) g(m)χ(m) dy + HX dw. 3 At this point we apply Theorem A. with η = /0 (note that P (log Q ) 40/η ) to conclude that X (m)g(m)χ(m) X,X/(dd0 ) dy X ( y m y+h /d 0 SP,Q, exp( M(gχ; X ))M(gχ; X ) + (log H /d 0 ) /3 + P /6 /0 Since P = W 00 and H /d 0 H and W log 5 H, we have (log H /d 0 ) /3 P /6 /0 (log H)/3 P /6 /0 W 5/ and certainly (log X ) /50 (log X) /50 W. 5/ From Mertens theorem and definition of M(g, X, W ), and thus by (.3) ) (log X ) / 50 M(gχ; X ) M(gχ; X) O() M(g, X, W ) O() y m y+h /d 0 SP,Q, H X. d 0 exp( M(gχ; X ))M(gχ; X ) W. 5/ Putting all this together, we obtain X X,X/(dd0 X ) (m)g(m)χ(m) dy H X. W 5/ d 0 It follows from Cauchy-Schwarz that X dy (m)g(m)χ(m) X,X/(dd0 ) W 5/4 H X X y m y+h /d 0 SP,Q, Inserting this bound into (4.4) we see that (4.3) is bounded by dq W H 5/4 d X d qhx dw 5/4 Therefore using (4.) and using q W we see that (4.) is qhx ( dw + W 5/4 Hq H ) HX d dw /4 as claimed. d 0

16 6 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO 5. Elliott s conjecture on the average In this section we use Theorem.3 to prove Theorem.6. Theorem.6 will be deduced from the following result (compare also with Theorem.3 and deduction of Theorem.7 from it). For brevity, we write S g for the function n S (n)g(n). Proposition 5. (Truncated Elliott on the average). Let X, H, W, A 0 be such that log 0 H W min{h /500, (log X) /5 }. Let g,..., g k : N C be -bounded multiplicative functions, and let a,..., a k, b,..., b k be natural numbers with a j A and b j 3AX for j =,..., k. Let j 0 k be such that W exp(m(g j0 ; 0AX, Q)/3). Set S = S P,Q, 0AX,0AX where P := W 00 ; Q := H / /W 3. Then S g (a n + b ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) ka W /0 Hk X. (5.) h,...,h k H j= Proof of Theorem.6 assuming Proposition 5.. We may assume that X, H, and M are larger than any specified absolute constant as the claim is trivial otherwise. We first make some initial reductions. The first estimate (.0) of Theorem.6 follows from the second (.) after shifting b by h in (.) and averaging, provided that we relax the hypotheses b j AX slightly to b j AX. Thus it suffices to prove (.) under the relaxed hypotheses b j AX. Let H 0 be such that log H 0 = min{log /3000 X log log X, exp(m(g j0 ; 0AX, Q)/80)M(g j0 ; 0AX, Q)}. (5.) If H H 0 we take W = log 0 H and let S be as in Proposition 5.. All the assumptions of Proposition 5. hold and thus S g (a n + b ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) ka log H Hk X. h,...,h k H j= Furthermore, from Lemma. we have AX log W log H. (5.3) n 0AX:n S From this and the triangle inequality, we have g (a n + b ) g j (a j n + b j + h j ) = j= S g (a n + b ) j= Hence the claim follows in the case when H H 0. ( S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) + O kax log W ). log H (5.4)

17 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 7 If H > H 0, one can cover the summation over the h j indices by intervals of length H 0 and apply Theorem.6 to each subinterval (shifting the b j by at most AX when doing so), and then sum, noting that the quantity exp( M(g j0 ; 0AX, Q)/80) + is essentially unchanged after replacing H with H 0. log log H log H + log /3000 X emark 5.. By using larger choices of W, one can obtain more refined information on the large values of the correlations g (a n + b ) k j= g j(a j n + b j + h j ). For instance, if we take W = H δ log log H for some 0 H H 0 and 0 δ, we see log H 500 from Proposition 5., (5.4), and Markov s inequality that g (a n + b ) g j (a j n + b j + h j ) ka δx j= for all but at most O( Hk ) tuples (h δh δ/0,..., h k ) with h j H for j =,..., k. Thus we can obtain a power saving in the number of exceptional tuples, at the cost of only obtaining a weak bound on the individual correlations g (a n+b ) k j= g j(a j n+ b j + h j ). It remains to prove Proposition 5.. We start by proving the following simpler case to which the general case will be reduced. Proposition 5.3. Let X, H, W 0 be such that log 0 H W min{h /50, (log X) /5 }. Let g : N C be -bounded multiplicative function such that Set W exp(m(g; X, W )/3). where Then h H S = S P,Q, X,X P := W 00 ; Q := H/W 3. S g(n) S g(n + h) HX. (5.5) W /5 To deduce Theorem. we let S be as in this proposition with W := H δ/900. The argument of Lemma. actually gives in this case #{ n X : n S} log P log Q X+ X P, and thus the numbers n with n S or n+h S contribute to the left hand side of (.4) at most 9δ/0. Hence, recalling (.), the claim follows from the previous proposition and Markov s inequality. Proof of Proposition 5.3. The claim follows once we have shown (H h ) S g(n) S g(n + h) W /5 H3 X. n h H

18 8 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO Applying Lemma.4, it will suffice to show that S g(n)e(αn) dx T x n x+h dα W /5 H3 X. From the Parseval identity we have S g(n)e(αn) T x n x+h so it suffices to show that sup α Using the trivial bound we thus reduce to showing sup α x n x+h x n x+h x n x+h dx dα = x n x+h HX S g(n)e(αn) dx W /5 H X. S g(n)e(αn) H S g(n) dx S g(n)e(αn) dx HX. (5.6) W /5 But this follows from Theorem.3 (using the lower bound W log 0 H in the hypotheses of Proposition 5.3 to absorb the log /4 H log log H factors in Theorem.3). Proof of Proposition 5.. We first remove the special treatment afforded to the g factor in (5.). Note that we may assume that and thus W /0 ka (5.7) H W 500 (ka ) 0000 since the claim is trivial otherwise. Set H := H. For any h H /A, we may shift n by h and conclude that = S g (a n + b ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) j= S g (a n + b + a h ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j + a j h ) + O(H ) j= and thus we may write the left-hand side of (5.) as S g (a n + b + a h ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j + a j h ) + O(Hk H ). h,...,h k H j=

19 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 9 If one shifts each of the h j for j =,..., k in turn by a j h = O(H ), we may rewrite this as S g (a n + b + a h ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) +O(Hk H )+O(kH k H X). h,...,h k H j= Averaging in h, and replacing h by a h (crudely dropping the constraint that a h is divisible by a ), we may thus bound the left-hand side of (5.) by A H S g (a n + b + h ) S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) + h H h,...,h k H + H k H + kh k H X. The g term may now be combined with the product over the remaining g j terms to form k j= Sg j (a j n + b j + h j ). The error term H k H + kh k H X is certainly of size O( ka H k X), so it suffices to show that W /0 h H h,...,h k H j= j= S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) A W /0 Hk H X. By covering the ranges h j H by intervals of length H and averaging, it suffices (after relaxing the conditions b j 3AX to b j 4AX) to prove that S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) A W /0 (H ) k X. h,h,...,h k H j= The situation is now symmetric with respect to permuting the indices,..., k, so we may assume that the index j 0 in Proposition 5. is equal to. By the triangle inequality in h,..., h k, it suffices to show that h H j= S g j (a j n + b j + h j ) A W /0 H X for all h,..., h k. Writing G(n) := k j= Sg j (a j n + b j + h j ), it thus suffices to show that S g (a n + b + h )G(n) A W /0 H X h H for any -bounded function G : Z C. We use a standard van der Corput argument. By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, it suffices to show that h H S g (a n + b + h )G(n) A W /0 (H ) X. The left-hand side may be rewritten as G(n)G(n ) S g (a n + b + h ) S g j (a n + b + h ). h H n,n X

20 0 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO By the triangle inequality, it thus suffices to show that S g (a n + b + h ) S g (a n + b + h ) h H n,n X A W /0 H X. To abbreviate notation we now write h = h, g = g, a = a, b = b. By the Cauchy- Schwarz inequality, it suffices to show that S g(an + b + h) S g(an + b + h) A4 W /5 (H ) X. h H n,n X eplacing n, n by an + b, an + b respectively, it suffices to show that S g(n + h) S g(n + h) A4 W /5 (H ) X h H n,n where we have extended S g by zero to the negative integers. The left-hand side can be rewritten as ( H h ) S g(n) S g(n + h), h <H n and the claim follows from Proposition 5.3. Appendix A. Mean values of complex multiplicative functions in short intervals In this section we prove a complex variant of results in [5] in the case that f is not p it pretentious. In particular we show that the mean value of a -bounded nonpretentious multiplicative function is small for most short intervals: Theorem A.. Let f be a -bounded multiplicative function and let M(f; X) be as in (.6). Then, for X h 0, X (log log h) f(n) dx exp( M(f; X))M(f; X) + + X X h (log h) (log X). /50 x n x+h Actually as in [5] and earlier in this paper, one gets better quantitative results if one first restricts to a subset of n with a typical factorization. Let us first define such subset S in this setting. Let η (0, /6), and let X 0 be a quantity with X X 0 X. (The results in [5] used the choice X 0 = X, but for technical reasons we will need a more flexible choice of this parameter.) Consider a sequence of increasing intervals [P j, Q j ], j such that Q exp( log X 0 ). The intervals are not too far from each other, precisely for all j. log log Q j log P j η 4j (A.)

21 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE The intervals are not too close to each other, precisely for all j. η j log P j 8 log Q j + 6 log j (A.) For example, given 0 < η < /6, the sequence of intervals [P j, Q j ] defined in Definition. can be verified to obey the above estimates if exp( log X 0 ) Q P (log Q ) 40/η and P is sufficiently large. Let S be the set of integers X n X having at least one prime factor in each of the intervals [P j, Q j ] for j J, where J is chosen to be the largest index j such that Q j exp((log X 0 ) / ). We will establish the following variant of [5, Theorem 3]. Theorem A.. Let f be a -bounded multiplicative function. Let S be as above with η (0, /6). If [P, Q ] [, h], then for all X > X(η) large enough and h 3, X (log h)/3 f(n) dx exp( M(f; X))M(f; X) + + X X h P /6 η (log X). /50 x n x+h n S The proof of Theorem A. proceeds as the proof of [5, Theorem 3]. The first step is a Parseval bound X +ix/h f(n) dx F (s) X/h +it ds + max F (s) ds. X X h T X/h T +it x n x+h n S This follows exactly in the same way as [5, Lemma 4] but there is no need to split the integral into two parts, and one can just work as for V (x) there. Theorem A. now follows immediately from the following variant of [5, Proposition ]. Proposition A.3. Let f be a -bounded multiplicative function. Let S be as above, and let F (s) = f(n) n. s Then, for any T, T 0 F ( + it) dt X n X n S ( ) ( ) T (log Q ) /3 + + exp( M(f; X))M(f; X) +. X/Q P /6 η (log X) /50 Proof. Since the mean value theorem gives the bound O(T/X + ), we can assume T X/ and M(f; X). Let now t be the value of t which attains the minimum in M(f; X) = inf t X D(g, n nit ; X).

22 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO We split the integration into three ranges: T 0 = {0 t T : t t exp(m(f; X))/M(f; X)} T = {0 t T : exp(m(f; X))/M(f; X) t t (log X) /6 } T = {0 t T : t t (log X) /6 }. Notice that by the definition of t, the triangle inequality and arguing as in (.), for any t X with t t, and any ε > 0, ( D(f, p it ; X) D(f, p it ; X)+D(f, p it log ; X) D(, p i(t t) ) 3 ε) log X+O(), so that by Halasz s theorem, for every t T, F ( + it) (log X) /6 + + t t. In the region t t (log X) /6, the above implies the following in exactly the same way as [5, Lemma 3]. Lemma A.4. Let X Q P. Let t be as above and Then, for any t T, G( + it) G(s) = X n X log Q (log X) /6 log P f(n) n s #{p [P, Q]: p n} +. ( + log X exp log X ) log X log. 3 log Q log Q This was the only part in the proof [5, Proposition ] that needed f to be real-valued and thus we get T F ( + it) dt ( ) ( T (log Q ) /3 + + X/Q P /6 η ). (log X) /50 Using the estimate F ( + it) t t for t T and the estimate F ( + it) exp( M(f; X))M(f; X) coming from Halasz s theorem for t T 0, we obtain T 0 T F ( + it) dt exp( M(f; X))M(f; X), and the claim follows. Proof of Theorem A.. Let η = /, P = (log h) 480, Q = h, let P j and Q j for j be as in Definition., and let S be as above. Then X f(n) dx X f(n) dx+ X X X h X x n x+h X h X X h dx. x n x+h n S x n x+h n S

23 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 3 The contribution from the first integral is acceptable by Theorem A.. We rewrite the second integrand as h = + O(/h) x n x+h h n S x n x+h n S + X h X + O(/h), X n X n S x n x+h n S X n X n S and the claim follows from [5, Theorem 3 with f = ] and Lemma.. Appendix B. Counterexample to the uncorrected Elliott conjecture In this appendix we present a counterexample to Conjecture.5. More precisely: Theorem B. (Counterexample). There exists a -bounded multiplicative function g : N C such that e(g(p)χ(p)p it ) = (B.) p p for all Dirichlet characters χ and t (i.e., one has M(g;, ) = ), but such that g(n)g(n + ) t m (B.) n t m for all sufficiently large m, and some sequence t m going to infinity. Proof. For each prime p, we choose g(p) from the unit circle S := {z : z = } by the following iterative procedure involving a sequence t < t < t 3 <.... () Initialize t := 00 and m :=, and set g(p) := for all p t. () Now suppose recursively that g(p) has been chosen for all p t m. As the quantities log p are linearly independent over the integers, the (continuous) sequence t (t log p mod ) p tm is equidistributed in the torus p t m T; equivalently, the sequence t (p it ) p tm is equidistributed in the torus p t m S. Thus one can find a quantity s m+ > exp(t m ) such that ( ( )) p is m+ = g(p) + O (B.3) for all p t m. (3) Set t m+ := s m+, and then set g(p) := p is m+ for all t m < p t m+. Now increment m to m + and return to step. Clearly the t m go to infinity, so g(p) is defined for all primes p. We then define g(n) := µ(n) p n t m g(p), which is clearly a -bounded multiplicative function. (B.4) (B.5)

24 4 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO Suppose that n t m+ is squarefree. Then n is the product of distinct primes less than or equal to t m+, including at most t m primes less than or equal to t m. From (B.5) we then have ( ( )) O(tm) g(n) = n is m+ + O t m ( ) = n is m+ + O. t m If n is not squarefree, then g(n) of course vanishes. We thus have, for t 3/4 m+ n t m+, ( ) ism+ ( ) n + g(n)g(n + ) = µ (n)µ (n + ) + O = µ (n)µ (n + ) + O n ( ( = µ (n)µ (n + ) + O s m+ t 3/4 m+ t m ), ) t m ( ) + O t m and the claim (B.) then easily follows since the sequence µ (n)µ (n + ) has positive mean value. Now we prove (B.). From (B.4), we have p e(g(p)χ(p)p it ) p e(χ(p)pi(sm+ t) ) p t m<p t m+ e(χ(p)pi(sm+ t) ) p exp((log t m+ ) 5/6 )<p t m+ since exp((log t m+ ) 5/6 ) exp((t m ) 5/6 ) t m. Hence we see as in (.) that the right-hand side goes to infinity as m for any fixed χ, t, and the claim follows. It is easy to see that the function g constructed in the above counterexample violates (.9), and so is not a counterexample to the corrected form of Conjecture.5. It is also not difficult to modify the above counterexample so that the function g is completely multiplicative instead of multiplicative, using the fact that most numbers up to t m+ have fewer than t m prime factors less than t m (counting multiplicity); we leave the details to the interested reader. Appendix C. An argument of Granville and Soundararajan In this appendix we show the equivalence of the hypotheses (.7) and (.9) for Elliott s conjecture in the case that the multiplicative function g j0 is real. The key lemma is the following estimate, essentially due to Granville and Soundararajan. Lemma C.. Let f : N [, ] be a multiplicative function, let x 00, and let χ be a fixed Dirichlet character. For α x, one has D(f, n χ(n)n iα ; x) 4 log log x + Oχ (). (C.)

25 AN AVEAGED FOM OF CHOWLA S CONJECTUE 5 When χ is non-principal, this holds for all α x. If χ is principal (i.e., χ is a quadratic character), then, for α, one has D(f, n χ(n)n iα ; x) D(f, χ; x) + O(). 3 (C.) Proof. To establish (C.), we notice that, by conjugation symmetry and the triangle inequality, D(f, n χ(n)n iα ; x) = (D(f, n χ(n)niα ; x) + D(f, n χ(n)n iα ; x)) D(n χ(n)n iα, n χ(n)n iα ; x) ( ) = / e χ (p)p iα p p x which implies the claim for α or for non-principal χ by the zero-free (and polefree) region for Dirichlet L-functions (see (.) for a related argument). To establish (C.), notice first that since χ is principal, χ is real-valued which implies together with the triangle inequality D(f, n χ(n)n iα ; x) = D(fχ, n n iα ; x) D(, fχ; x) D(, n n iα ; x). Now D(, n n iα ; x) = D(, n n iα ; x) + O() for α, since D(, n n iα ; x) = log(+ α log x)+o() from the prime number theorem, so that the claim follows unless D(, n n iα ; x) D(, fχ; x). But in the latter case, the triangle inequality gives 3 3 D(f, χ; x) = D(, fχ; x) 3 D(, n n iα ; x) and the claim (C.) follows. = D(n n iα, n n iα ; x) D(fχ, n n iα ; x) + D(fχ; n n iα ; x) = D(f, n χ(n)n iα ; x), From this lemma, we see that when g j0 is a real -bounded multiplicative function, then for given Q, the condition (.9) is equivalent to D(g j0, χ; X) when X for all quadratic characters χ of modulus at most Q. But this follows from (.7). The converse implication is trivial. eferences [] Antal Balog. The prime k-tuplets conjecture on average. In Analytic number theory (Allerton Park, IL, 989), volume 85 of Progr. Math., pages Birkhäuser Boston, Boston, MA, 990. [] 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, volume 8 of Dev. Math., pages Springer, New York, 03. [3] S. Chowla. The iemann hypothesis and Hilbert s tenth problem. Mathematics and Its Applications, Vol. 4. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, New York-London-Paris, 965.

26 6 KAISA MATOMÄKI, MAKSYM ADZIWI L L, AND TEENCE TAO [4] Hédi Daboussi and Hubert Delange. On multiplicative arithmetical functions whose modulus does not exceed one. J. London Math. Soc. (), 6():45 64, 98. [5] Harold Davenport. On some infinite series involving arithmetical functions. ii. Quart. J. Math. Oxf., 8:33 30, 937. [6] P. D. T. A. Elliott. On the correlation of multiplicative functions. Notas Soc. Mat. Chile, ():, 99. [7] N. Frantzikinakis and B. Host. Asymptotics for multilinear averages of multiplicative functions. Preprint, available at as arxiv: [math.nt]. [8] J. Friedlander and H. Iwaniec. Opera de cribro, volume 57 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, I, 00. [9] Andrew Granville and K. Soundararajan. Large character sums: pretentious characters and the Pólya-Vinogradov theorem. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 0(): , 007. [0] Benjamin Green and Terence Tao. Linear equations in primes. Ann. of Math. (), 7(3): , 00. [] H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski. Analytic number theory, volume 53 of American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, hode Island, 004. [] I. Kátai. A remark on a theorem of H. Daboussi. Acta Math. Hungar., 47(-):3 5, 986. [3] K. Kawada. A Montgomery-Hooley type theorem for prime k-tuplets. Acta Math. Hungar., 66(3):77 00, 995. [4] Koichi Kawada. The prime k-tuplets in arithmetic progressions. Tsukuba J. Math., 7():43 57, 993. [5] K. Matomäki and M. adziwi l l. Multiplicative functions in short intervals. Preprint, available at as arxiv: [math.nt]. [6] Hiroshi Mikawa. On prime twins in arithmetic progressions. Tsukuba J. Math., 6(): , 99. [7] H. L. Montgomery and. C. Vaughan. Exponential sums with multiplicative coefficients. Invent. Math., 43():69 8, 977. [8] Hugh L. Montgomery. Ten lectures on the interface between analytic number theory and harmonic analysis, volume 84 of CBMS egional Conference Series in Mathematics. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, I, 994. [9] Hugh L. Montgomery and obert C. Vaughan. Multiplicative number theory. I. Classical theory, volume 97 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 007. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Turku, 004 Turku, Finland address: ksmato@utu.fi Department of Mathematics, utgers University, Hill Center for the Mathematical Sciences, 0 Frelinghuysen d., Piscataway, NJ address: maksym.radziwill@gmail.com Department of Mathematics, UCLA, 405 Hilgard Ave, Los Angeles CA 90095, USA address: tao@math.ucla.edu