Theoretical analysis uncovers a transfer law linking Bailey lattices to prime Euler factors and the von Mangoldt measure, highlighting limits on generating Dirichlet series.
Let (α_n, β_n) be a Bailey pair relative to a with base q, and let G_P(a,q) = Σn≥0 a^n qn² α_n be its α-side generating function. Lovejoy's Bailey-lattice step carries a pair relative to a to a pair P′ relative to aq and depends on an auxiliary parameter b. We make explicit a transfer law implicit in Lovejoy's work: GP′(aq,q) = (aq;q)_∞/(1−aq) · Σn≥0 a^n qn² [q^n(1−b)/(1−bq^n)] β_n, so that GP′(aq,q) = (1−aq)⁻¹ T_b(P;a,q) G_P(a,q) with a pair-dependent factor T_b that is identically 1 exactly when b = ∞. The weights q^n(1−b)/(1−bq^n) are the β-side of Lovejoy's same-parameter companion pair P*, so that T_b(P) G_P(a,q) is the α-generating function of P*; the b = ∞ identity is a summation by parts valid for arbitrary sequences, and the b = ∞ step is the inverse of McLaughlin's parameter-lowering lemma, whose prefactor (1−a) is the Euler factor in plain view. The hypotheses are minimal: Σ_n |a|^n |q|n² |α_n| < ∞, a condition preserved by the lattice step. For the Rogers–Ramanujan pair the finite-b deformation interpolates between the two Rogers–Ramanujan functions (b = ∞ and b = 0) and generates the tower Σ_n qn²+jn/(q;q)_n. Specializing a = 1, q = p⁻ˢ identifies the inverse local Euler factor with the b = ∞ transfer, identifies the m-th step along the unit-pair orbit with the Euler factor at ms, and, since d/ds = −(log p) q ∂_q, recovers the von Mangoldt measure on m log p as the logarithmic derivative of the first step. A separability statement then bounds what the mechanism can produce: the prime enters only through the Euler factor and the evaluation point p⁻ˢ of one fixed function of q, so one lattice step at one base yields, beyond ζ(s), only Dirichlet series of prime-independent multiplicative functions. The operator form on ℓ²(P) is given rigorously. The endpoint number theory is classical and the transfer law is Lovejoy's; the contribution of this note is to make the mechanism, its attribution, and its limits explicit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jeffrey Bachand (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: