Probabilistic value-distribution theory ofzeta-functions
Kohji Matsumoto
Graduate School of Mathematics, Nagoya University,
Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan
Abstract
The starting point of the value-distribution theory of zeta-functions is
Bohr’s achievement in the first half of the 20th century, who proved thedenseness results and probabilistic limit theorems on the values of zetafunctions. Later in 1970s, Voronin discovered the universality theorem.
All of those theorems were first proved for the Riemann zeta-function, butnow, similar results are known for many other zeta and L-functions. In
this article the present stage of this value-distribution theory is surveyed.

1

The work of Bohr

We begin with the value-distribution theory of the most classical zeta-function,
the Riemann zeta-function
ζ(s) =

∞
X

n−s .

(1.1)

n=1

Here s = σ + it is a complex variable. The series (1.1) is convergent only in theregion σ = <(s) > 1, but it is well known that ζ(s) can be continued meromorphically to the whole complex plane. If one knows the value of ζ(s) then one
can also know the value of ζ(1 − s) by the functional equation. Therefore we canrestrict our consideration to the half plane σ ≥ 1/2.
When σ > 1, then (1.1) is convergent absolutely, hence the values ζ(σ + it)
for any t are in the disc of radius ζ(σ) whose center is the origin. However thisvalue of radius tends to infinity when σ → 1. H. Bohr [5] studied this situationand proved that ζ(s) takes any non-zero value infinitely many times in the halfplane σ ≥ 1 (1911). Next Bohr proceeded to the study of the behaviour of ζ(s)in the strip 1/2 < σ ≤ 1, and published many results in the first half of 1910s.
Here we mention the following two results.
1

Theorem 1 (Bohr-Courant [7]) For any fixed σ satisfying 1/2 < σ ≤ 1, theset {ζ(σ + it) | t ∈ R} is dense in C.

Theorem 2 (Bohr [6]) For any fixed σ satisfying 1/2 < σ ≤ 1, the set {log ζ(σ+it) | t ∈ R, σ + it ∈ G} is dense in C.
We should decide the branch of log ζ(σ+it) in Theorem 2. From the half planeσ > 1/2, we remove all the points which have the same imaginary part as, andsmaller real part than, one of the possible zeros or the pole of ζ(s) in this region,and the remaining part we denote by G. (We cannot exclude the possibility ofexistence of zeros because we do not assume the Riemann hypothesis.) And wedetermine the value of log ζ(σ + it) for σ + it ∈ G by the analytic continuationfrom the region of absolute convergence along the line which fixes the imaginary
part. Note that Theorem 1 follows immediately from Theorem 2.
The value-distribution theory of the Riemann zeta-function is the lifework ofBohr. His famous theory of almost periodic functions is also motivated by thevalue-distribution theory. In 1930s, Bohr arrived at the following result. Fix arectangle R in the complex plane whose edges are parallel to the axes. Denoteby µ1 (X) the one dimensional Lebesgue measure of the set X. For any fixed
σ > 1/2 and T > 2, let
V (T, R, σ; ζ) = µ1 ({t ∈ [0, T ] | σ + it ∈ G, log ζ(σ + it) ∈ R}).

(1.2)

Then
Theorem 3 (The limit theorem of Bohr-Jessen [9]) For any σ > 1/2, thelimit value
W (R, σ; ζ) = lim T −1 V (T, R, σ; ζ)
T →∞

(1.3)

exists.
The limit value W (R, σ; ζ) may be regarded as the probability how many
values of log ζ(s) on the line <s = σ belong to the rectangle R. Since thistheorem is really fundamental, we sketch the original proof of Bohr-Jessen. First
assume σ > 1. Then ζ(s) has the Euler product expression
∞
Y

n=1

−1
(1 − p−sn ) ,2where pn denotes the nth prime number. Hencelog ζ(s) = −

∞
X

n=1

log(1 − p−σn exp(−it log pn )).

(1.4)

This is approximated by the finite sum
fN (s) = −

N
X

n=1

log(1 − p−σn exp(−it log pn )).

(1.5)

First we prove the analogue of (1.3) for
VN (T, R, σ; ζ) = µ1 ({t ∈ [0, T ] | fN (σ + it) ∈ R}).

(1.6)

For this purpose, putzn (θn ; ζ) = − log(1 − p−σn exp(2πiθn ))for 0 ≤ θn < 1, and define the mapping SN from the N -dimensional torus [0, 1)N
to C bySN (θ1 , . . . , θN ; ζ) =NX

zn (θn ; ζ).

(1.7)

n=1

The important point here is that the quantities log pn (n = 1, 2, . . . , N ), appearing on the right-hand side of (1.5), are linearly independent over the rational
number field Q. This fact, which is equivalent to the uniqueness of decomposition of integers into the product of prime numbers, is the essential reason why
probabilistic statements are valid for ζ(s). Indeed this fact assures that we canuse the Kronecker-Weyl theorem on the theory of uniform distribution to obtainthat there exists the limit value
WN (R, σ; ζ) = lim T −1 VN (T, R, σ; ζ),
T →∞

(1.8)

−1
and that it coincides with the N -dimensional Lebesgue measure µN (SN(R)) of−1
the set SN (R).
The next step is the proof of the existence of the limit value

W (R, σ; ζ) = lim WN (R, σ; ζ).
N →∞

(1.9)

To prove (1.9), Bohr-Jessen used the fact that the points zn (θn ; ζ) describes a
closed convex curve when θn moves from 0 to 1. In their days, under the influenceof Blaschke, the theory of plane convex curves was studied actively; Bohr-Jessen
themselves developed an exquisite geometric theory of sums (in the sense of (1.7))of closed convex curves ([8]), whose results they used in the proof of (1.9).
3

The last step is the proof that the limit value (1.9) is equal to the right-handside of (1.3). When σ > 1 this is clear because the limit of fN (s) when N → ∞is log ζ(s). When 1/2 < σ ≤ 1 such a simple relation does not hold, but in thiscase we can use the fact that fN (s) approximates log ζ(s) in a certain mean value
sense. Bohr had already proved a suitable mean value theorem in a joint work
[10] with Landau. (It is also possible now to quote Carleson’s theorem.) Hence
Bohr-Jessen’s proof of Theorem 3 is finished.
Theorem 3 is the final reaching point of Bohr’s research on the value-distribution
theory, and at the same time, the starting point of many mathematicians afterhim.
It is to be noted here that the situation of value-distribution is completely different on the line σ = 1/2. Concerning this matter, there is an important theory
originated by Selberg, but we do not discuss this theory in the present article.
Also we do not mention many other aspects of probabilistic value-distribution
theory; this article only treats the value-distribution theory of the style of Bohr.
The author expresses his sincere gratitude to Professors A. Laurinčikas, Shinya Koyama, Jun-ichi Tanaka, Hidehiko Mishou, and Hirofumi Nagoshi for valuable comments.

2

Limit theorems for general zeta-functions

When one thinks of the Bohr-Jessen limit theorem, one natural question is
how general this kind of results holds. Look back the sketch of the proof in thepreceding section. It is based on the existence of the Euler product, but thisis not so a serious problem, because many important zeta-functions have Euler
products. A more serious obstacle to generalization is the fact that the curvezn (θn ; ζ) is a closed convex curve, which we used in the course of the proof.
For any positive integer n, we attach positive integers g(n) and f (j, n) (1 ≤j ≤ g(n)). Let an(j) be complex numbers satisfying|g(n)| ≤ Cpαn ,|an(j) | ≤ pβn ,(2.1)

where C > 0, α ≥ 0, β ≥ 0. Define polynomials Φn (X) in X by
Φn (X) =g(n) 

Yj=1



1 − an(j) X f (j,n) ,(2.2)

and consider a general class of zeta-functions which are defined by the Euler
product of the form
ϕ(s) =∞Y−1
Φn (p−s
n ) .

n=1

4

(2.3)

If we try to apply Bohr-Jessen’s argument presented in the preceding section toϕ(s), we find that the quantity corresponding to zn (θn ; ζ) isg(n)zn (θn ; ϕ) = −

X

j=1





log 1 − an(j) pn−f (j,n)σ exp(2πif (j, n)θn ) .

(2.4)

However this is not always a closed convex curve. In the case of the Riemann zetafunction ζ(s) or the Dirichlet L-function L(s, χ), the corresponding polynomial(2.2) is linear, hence (2.4) is a closed convex curve and Bohr-Jessen’s argument
works. In the case of the Dedekind zeta-function ζF (s) attached to an algebraic
number field F of finite degree, the corresponding polynomial is not linear, but(2.4) is closed convex if F is a Galois number field. The author [60] called ϕ(s)the convex Euler product if the corresponding (2.4) is a closed convex curve. We
can apply Bohr-Jessen’s argument directly to convex Euler products to prove thelimit theorem.
However, Dedekind zeta-functions attached to non-Galois number fields are already non-convex. In general, for many other important classes of zeta-functions
which have Euler products, such as automorphic L-functions, we cannot expect at
all that they are convex Euler products. Can we find some alternative approach
to limit theorems which does not use convexity?
Alternative proofs of Theorem 3 were already published by Jessen-Wintner[27] and Borchsenius-Jessen [11], but their proofs also depend on convexity. The
first proof of a limit theorem without using convexity is, as far as the author
knows, due to Nikishin [73]. Nikishin considered not the probability of log ζ(σ +it) ∈ R, but the probability of |ζ(σ + it)| < C, where C is a positive constant.
Nikishin’s proof is based on the theory of almost periodic functions. As mentioned
before, the theory of almost periodic functions was also cultivated by Bohr. Bohrhimself did not use the theory of almost periodic functions in his proof of Theorem
3. But limit theorems on almost periodic functions were already discussed by
Wintner [90], and the theory of Borchsenius-Jessen [11] is also based on almost
periodic functions. Therefore we can say, as Bohr expected, that the theory ofalmost periodic functions is now a useful tool in value-distribution theory. Notethat there is an incomplete point in Nikishin’s paper, but it can be amended. See
Laurinčikas [43].
Laurinčikas [35] discussed, using the idea of Nikishin [73], limit theorems for
Dirichlet L-functions. Moreover, he obtained the limit theorem of the following
form in [40]. Define the probability measure PT on C by
PT (A; σ, ζ) = T −1 µ1 ({t ∈ [0, T ] | ζ(σ + it) ∈ A}),
where A is any Borel subset of C. Then
Theorem 4 (Laurinčikas [40]) For any σ > 1/2, PT (A; σ, ζ) is convergent
weakly to a certain probability measure Q(A; σ, ζ) as T → ∞.
5

Around 1988, without having known the results mentioned above, the author
searched for an alternative proof of Theorem 3, which can be generalized to someclass of zeta-functions which have non-convex Euler products. The author noticed
that, replacing the original proof of (1.9) by an argument based on Prokhorov’s
theorem in probability theory, one can obtain a proof of Theorem 3 without using
convexity. The author first published this proof for automorphic L-functions
attached to cusp forms with respect to SL(2, Z) and its congruence subgroups([59]), and then wrote down more simplified proof for more general zeta-functions([60]).
The zeta-function ϕ(s) defined by the Euler product (2.3) is, under the condition (2.1), convergent absolutely in the half plane σ > α + β + 1. Hence ϕ(s)is holomorphic and non-vanishing in this region. Let ρ be a number satisfyingρ ≥ α + β + 1/2, and assume that, if ϕ(s) can be continued meromorphically toσ ≥ ρ, then the following conditions hold:(i) All poles of ϕ(s) in the half plane σ ≥ ρ are contained in a certain compactset;(ii) There exists a positive constant C for which |ϕ(σ + it)| = O((|t| + 1)C )holds in the same half plane.
(iii) There is no pole on the line σ = ρ, andZ T
0|ϕ(ρ + it)|2 dt = O(T )(2.5)

holds. (These conditions trivially hold if ρ > α + β + 1.)
Denote by M the family of all functions defined by the Euler product (2.3)
and satisfy the above conditions if continued to σ ≥ ρ. Then the limit theorem
the author proved in [60] is as follows.
Theorem 5 ([60]) For any zeta-function ϕ(s) belonging to the family M, define
V (T, R, σ; ϕ) similarly to (1.2). Then the limit value
W (R, σ; ϕ) = lim T −1 V (T, R, σ; ϕ)
T →∞

(2.6)

exists for any σ > ρ.
Among the above conditions, (i) and (ii) are usually satisfied for typical examples of zeta-functions. The estimate (2.5) in (iii) is an essential condition; forinstance, the Riemann zeta-function does not satisfy (2.5) when σ = 1/2, henceon this line the behaviour is different as was mentioned in the preceding section.
To check (iii), it is sufficient to apply Potter’s general result [75] when ϕ(s) satisfies a functional equation. Therefore M is a wide class which includes rather
general zeta and L-functions having Euler products and functional equations.
6

The author [62] gave another proof of Theorem 5 by using Lévy’s convergence
theorem. This is also a proof without using convexity. In [62] only Dedekind
zeta-functions (of arbitrary number fields of finite order) are treated, but theproof given there can be applied to any ϕ(s) belonging to M, as was remarked
in [63].
Thus now, we can prove limit theorems for fairly general class of zeta-functions
without using convexity. However we are still not completely released from convexity. For instance, the author [58] [62] studied the rate of convergence in (1.3),
and the best estimate at present is given in [23]; a lemma of Jessen-Wintner [27]based on convexity is used in those papers, hence such kind of results has beenobtained only for convex Euler products.

3

Quantitative results

Now let us remind Bohr-Jessen’s limit theorem again. It is a beautiful result,but it is just an existence theorem. To obtain real information on the valuedistribution of zeta-functions, we should refine this theorem quantitatively. With
this motivation in mind, the author had thought about Bohr-Jessen’s theorem
repeatedly from the early 1980s. The theory of uniform distribution is used effectively in the proof of Bohr-Jessen’s theorem, while now we have the quantitative
theory which estimates the discrepancy from uniform distribution. What can we
say if we apply the theory of discrepancy to Bohr-Jessen’s theorem? This is theinitial idea of the author which produced the study of the rate of convergencementioned at the end of the preceding section.
More important is the quantitative study of the limit value W (R, σ; ζ) itself.
To formulate the problem more definitely, we specialize the rectangle R to thesquareR(`) = {z ∈ C | − ` ≤ <z ≤ `, −` ≤ =z ≤ `},centered at the origin. How is the behaviour of W (R(`), σ; ζ) when ` → ∞? In
the region of absolute convergence σ > 1, clearly W (R(`), σ; ζ) = 1 for sufficiently
large `, so the problem is not interesting. But the situation is different in the
strip 1/2 < σ ≤ 1, as we can see from Theorem 2. The only obvious fact in thiscase is that W (R(`), σ; ζ) → 1 when ` → ∞. How is the rate of convergence
here? Thus we can formulate a quantitative problem.
Concerning this problem, already Jessen-Wintner [27] obtained a result. Theirresult says that for any positive a, there exists a positice constant C = C(a, σ)
for which
1 − W (R(`), σ; ζ) ≤ C exp(−a`2 )(3.1)

holds. Nikishin [73] also treated this type of problems. In 1986, Joyner arrived
at the following result.
7

Theorem 6 (Joyner [28]) Let 1/2 < σ < 1. Then there exist positive constants
c1 and c2 with c1 > c2 , depend only on σ, for which the inequality

exp −c1 `1/(1−σ) (log `)σ/(1−σ) ≤ 1 − W (R(`), σ; ζ)≤ exp −c2 `1/(1−σ) (log `)σ/(1−σ)

holds for any sufficiently large `.



(3.2)

This is the first work which gives a lower bound for 1−W (R(`), σ; ζ). Applying
Joyner’s method to the case σ = 1, we obtain
Theorem 7 ([61]) There exist positive constants c3 and c4 with c3 > c4 forwhich
exp (−c3 exp exp(2`(1 + o(1)))) ≤ 1 − W (R(`), 1; ζ)≤ exp −c4 exp exp(2−1 `(1 + o(1)))

holds.

(3.3)

A basic tool of Joyner’s method is a probabilistic lemma due to Montgomery[68] (see also Montgomery-Odlyzko [69]). Let r = {rn } be a sequence of nonnegative numbers, including infinitely many non-zero terms, and satisfying
∞
X

n=1

rn2 < ∞.

For any positive integer N , put
AN (r) =

∞
X

rn2 ,

BN (r) =

N
X

rn .

n=1

n=N +1Let {θn } be a sequence of independent random variables on a certain probability
space (Ω, P), uniformly distributed in [0, 1], and Xn = cos(2πθn ) (or sin(2πθn )).
DefineX=∞X

r n Xn .

n=1

By Kolmogorov’s theorem X is convergent almost surely, and the following inequality holds.
Lemma (Montgomery [68]) (i) For any N , the inequality
3
P(X ≥ 2BN (r)) ≤ exp − BN (r)2 AN (r)−1
4


8



(3.4)

holds. (ii) Moreover, if the sequence r = {rn } is monotonically decreasing, thenthere exist positive constants M1 , M2 , M3 for whichP(X ≥ M1 BN (r)) ≥ M2 exp −M3 BN (r)2 AN (r)−1holds.

(3.5)

In the case of the Riemann zeta-function, we take r = {p−σn }. This is monotonically decreasing, hence we can apply the lemma, and the problem is reduced
to the evaluation of AN (r), BN (r) appearing on the right-hand sides of (3.4),(3.5). It can be easily done by using the prime number theorem, and Theorems
6 and 7 follow.
Now recall Theorem 5 in the preceding section. It asserts the existence of thelimit value W (R, σ; ϕ) for any ϕ(s) ∈ M. Therefore it is a natural question to ask:
can we generalize the above quantitative results to such a general class of zetafunctions? Since it is easy to generalize the inequality (3.1) of Jessen-Wintner tothe case of any ϕ(s) ∈ M ([61]), the main problem is how to generalize Joyner’s
inequality. For Dirichlet L-functions, Joyner himself proved such an inequality
in [28].
When we try to generalize Joyner’s argument to general ϕ(s) ∈ M, we encounter the problem of applying Montgomery’s lemma to the sequencer = r(ϕ) = {rn (ϕ)},

rn (ϕ) =X

an(j) p−σn .

1≤j≤g(n)f (j,n)=1

Since the upper bound part (3.4) of the lemma has no additional assumption,
it can be applied to the general case (as was remarked in [63]), and hence theproblem is, similarly to the above, reduced to the evaluation of AN (r), BN (r) on
the right-hand side of (3.4). Therefore we can show an upper bound inequality of
Joyner’s type if there is some result corresponding to the prime number theorem
which we have used in the case of the Riemann zeta-function. And indeed, by theprime ideal theorem in the case of Dedekind zeta-functions of algebraic number
fields, or by Rankin’s results [76] in the case of the automorphic L-function ϕfattached to a holomorphic cusp form f with respect to SL(2, Z), we can proceedalong this line to obtain upper bound inequalities ([61][63]). Note that in thelatter case, we assume f is a normalized Hecke eigenform of weight κ, because weneed the existence of the Euler product expansion of ϕf . Hereafter in this article
we always keep the above assumptions for f and ϕf . Rankin’s results mentioned
above can be stated as follows. Denote by ã(n) the nth Fourier coefficient of f ,and put a(n) = ã(n)n(1−κ)/2 . Then
X

pn ≤x

|a(pn )|2 =x(1 + o(1))
log x
9

(3.6)

and

√
X
1 x
2+3 6 x√
(1 + o(1)) ≤(1 + o(1)).
|a(pn )| ≤10 log x
2 log x
pn ≤x

(3.7)

However, the situation is quite different if we try to prove lower bound inequalities. It seldom happens that the sequence r(ϕ) completely satisfies the monotonic
decreasing property, which is the assumption of part (ii) of Montgomery’s lemma.
Joyner succeeded in proving upper and lower bounds for Dirichlet L-functions,because in this case r is monotonically decreasing except for finitely many primes
which are divisors of the modulus of the character, hence we can apply the lemma.
As for the case of Dedekind zeta-functions ζF (s), if F is Galois, then the lemma
can be applied because r(ζF ) is monotonically decreasing except for finitely many
primes which are ramified in F . Even in the case of a non-Galois field, we canlift the argument to its Galois closure, and we can prove upper and lower bounds([61]). But such techniques cannot be always useful. In more general cases, suchas the case of automorphic L-functions, it is almost impossible to reduce theproblem to the monotonically decreasing case.
However, it is the inequality (3.5) which is really necessary, and the conditionof monotonic decreasing is just a sufficient condition of (3.5). Actually this is a toostrong condition. In [24] Hattori and the author gave a necessary and sufficientcondition for the validity of (3.5), and using this result, proved upper and lower
bounds of Joyner’s type for the automorphic L-function ϕf . A key fact here is theresult of Ram Murty [70] which asserts that there are sufficiently many |ã(pn )|whose values are not so smaller than Deligne’s upper bound |ã(pn )| ≤ 2p(κ−1)/2.
nThis shows that, different from the results mentioned in the preceding section
which can be treated in a general framework, it is necessary to consider arithmetic
properties of each zeta-function to obtain quantitative results. This makes the
problem more difficult but more interesting.
Now we return to the inequality (3.2) for the Riemann zeta-function. One
may guess from this inequality that there will be a constant A, between c1 andc2 , which will give the real order. Recently Hattori and the author [25] proved
the existence of such a constant A = A(σ).
Theorem 8 ([25]) For any 1/2 < σ < 1, we have



1 − W (R(`), σ; ζ) = exp −A(σ)`1/(1−σ) (log `)σ/(1−σ) (1 + o(1)) ,
where

1−σ
A(σ) = (1 − σ)
σ


Z ∞
0

and I0 is the modified Bessel function.
10log I0 (y

−σ

)dy

− σ

1−σ

(3.8)

The main tool used in the proof of this theorem is the theory of regularly
varying functions, originated by J. Karamata (see Seneta [81]), hence is completely different from that of Joyner. This result has settled the original problem
of determining the order of 1 − W (R(`), σ; ζ) in the case of the Riemann zetafunction.
However, the argument in [25] heavily depends on the properties of regularly
varying functions, hence it is not easy to generalize it. An analogous argument ispossible for Dedekind zeta-functions of Galois fields, and this is discussed in [25].
But for more general zeta-functions, at present we have no idea how to extend theargument in [25]. Furthermore, even in the case of the Riemann zeta-function,
the argument in [25] fails for σ = 1, hence Theorem 7 has not yet been refined toan asymptotic equality similar to (3.8).

4The universality theorem of Voronin

In the rest of this article we discuss another direction of development of Bohr’s
theory, that is the universality theory of zeta-functions. First, let us go back halfa century.
H. Bohr, the originator of the value-distribution theory of zeta-functions, diedin 1951. This is just the year when the famous textbook of Titchmarsh [82] on
the Riemann zeta-function was published. Bohr’s theory is explained in this bookby using a whole chapter.
However, after those days, there came a long inactive period in the study of
the Riemann zeta-function. During about twenty years, we got no harvest except
a very few papers. It was only in 1970s when the research interest in the Riemannzeta-function came to revive. Many mathematicians contributed this revival, but
we should first nominate the name of S. M. Voronin as a mathematician who
revitalized the value-distribution theory.
Voronin, in [83], extended Bohr’s Theorem 1 to the n-dimensional space.
Theorem 9 (Voronin [83]) For any 1/2 < <s ≤ 1, any positive integer n, andany positive number h, the setno(ζ(s + imh), ζ 0 (s + imh), . . . , ζ (n−1) (s + imh)) | m = 1, 2, . . .

is dense in Cn .

In the same paper Voronin also proved that, if s1 , . . . , sn are complex numberswith 1/2 < <sj ≤ 1 (1 ≤ j ≤ n) and different from each other, then the set{(ζ(s1 + imh), ζ(s2 + imh), . . . , ζ(sn + imh)) | m = 1, 2, . . .}is dense in Cn .
11

A natural next step of research is to study the situation on infinite dimensional spaces, that is on function spaces. Concerning this problem, Voronin [84]discovered the following really surprising theorem.
Theorem 10 (Voronin’s universality theorem [84]) Let K be a compact subset of the strip 1/2 < σ < 1 with connected complement. Fix a function h(s) whichis continuous, non-vanishing on K and holomorphic in the interior of K. Forany ε > 0, put()

U (T ; ζ) = U (T, K, h, ε; ζ) = µ1 τ ∈ [0, T ] | sup |ζ(s + iτ ) − h(s)| < ε . (4.1)
s∈KThen we have
lim inf T −1 U (T ; ζ) > 0.
T →∞

(4.2)

This theorem implies roughly that any non-vanishing holomorphic function
h(s) can be approximated uniformly by some translation, parallel to the imaginary axis, of the Riemann zeta-function. Note that the statement in [84] isactually weaker. The above is the formulation of Reich [77].
The word “universality” of this theorem is coming from the similarity withFekete’s old result which asserts the existence of a series such that any continuousfunction on the interval [−1, 1] can be approximated uniformly by some suitablepartial sum of that series. On the other hand, readers will recognize the similarity
between the above theorem and the famous polynomial approximation theoremof Weierstrass. In fact, there is a theorem of Mergelyan [65], a complex analogueof Weierstrass’ theorem. Mergelyan’s theorem asserts that if K is a compact
subset of C with connected complement and h(s) is a function continuous on
Kand holomorphic in the interior of K, then h(s) can be approximated uniformly
on K by polynomials. The similarity between this theorem and Theorem 10 isclear. Moreover, Mergelyan’s theorem plays an important role in the proof of
Theorem 10. But of course, in the theorems of Weierstrass and Mergelyan, thechoice of polynomials depends on the rate of approximation; while in Theorem
10, translations of a single function, the Riemann zeta-function, can approximate
the target function h(s) as close as possible.
Recall that, in the first stage of Bohr-Jessen’s proof of Theorem 3, the logarithm of Euler product expression of ζ(s) was approximated by a finite sum (1.5).
Similarly, to prove Theorem 10, Voronin first considered a finite product whichapproximate the Euler product in some sense, hence reduced the problem to theproof of a certain kind of universality of that finite product. And he proved thelatter universality by using a result of Pecherskiı̆ on rearrangements of sequencesin Hilbert spaces.
12In a few years after Voronin [84], the universality theorem was extended
variously; in particular, the universality of the Dirichlet L-function L(s, χ), of
the Dedekind zeta-function ζF (s), and of the Hurwitz zeta-function ζ(s, α) wereshown. However, since all of the three important papers written in this period,
Voronin [87], Gonek [20], Bagchi [2], are Dr. Sci. theses and remain unpublished,
it is not always easy to say who first proved the obtained results. Voronin [84]already mentioned that similar universality also holds for any L(s, χ). Moreover,the following result holds.
Theorem 11 Let K1 , . . . , Km be compact subsets of the strip 1/2 < σ < 1 withconnected complements. For each Kj , fix a function hj (s) continuous and nonvanishing on Kj and holomorphic in the interior of Kj (1 ≤ j ≤ m). Let
χ1 , . . . , χm be pairwise non-equivalent Dirichlet characters, and ε > 0. Denote by
U (T ; L( , χ1 ), . . . , L( , χm )) the Lebesgue measure of the set of all τ ∈ [0, T ] forwhich
sup |L(s + iτ, χj ) − hj (s)| < εs∈Kjholds simultaneously for 1 ≤ j ≤ m. Then we have
lim inf T −1 U (T ; L( , χ1 ), . . . , L( , χm )) > 0.
T ∈∞

(4.3)

We call this type of results the joint universality theorem. Theorem 11 was
first published by Bagchi [3] (in the case when χ1 , . . . , χm have the same modulus),
but similar results are also given in Voronin [87] and Gonek [20]. See Section 3,
Chapter 7 of the textbook of Karatsuba-Voronin [32].
Concerning Dirichlet L-functions, we also know the χ-universality. In theorems 10 and 11, we fix the zeta (or L)-function and move its imaginary part;but this time we fix the variable s and move characters (among, for example,
all characters whose muduli are powers of a certain fixed prime), then we findthat the corresponding family of L-functions approximate uniformly any given
holomorphic function. This kind of results is treated by Bagchi [2], Gonek [20]and Eminyan [14].
On the universality of Dedekind zeta-functions, there are publications of Reich[78][80]. Gonek [20] also treated this matter, and Voronin [87] discussed the joint
universality of Dedekind zeta-functions.
Some mathematicians tried to find some general class of zeta-functions forwhich universality holds. Reich [77] proved the universality of Euler products
satisfying certain conditions, while Laurinčikas [33][34][36][37] studied the universality of Dirichlet series with multiplicative coefficients.

13

Another interesting result obtained in this period is the universality of the
Hurwitz zeta-function
ζ(s, α) =∞X(n + α)−sn=0(0 < α ≤ 1)

(Bagchi [2], Gonek [20]). In this case it is not necessary to assume that h(s) is
non-vanishing. An interesting point of this result is that Hurwitz zeta-functions
do not have Euler products in general (except for the cases α = 1, 1/2). This fact
tells us that the existence of the Euler product, used in many papers including thepaper of Voronin himself, is not an essential condition. To prove the universalityof Hurwitz zeta-functions, when α = a/b is rational, we use the relation
ζ(s, a/b) =Xbsχ̄(a)L(s, χ)φ(b) χ(mod b)(where φ(b) is Euler’s function) to reduce the problem to the joint universalityof Dirichlet L-functions, and apply Theorem 11. On the other hand, when α
is transcendental, we use the fact that log(n + α) (n = 0, 1, 2, ...) are linearly
independent over Q. Recalling that the proof of the universality of ζ(s) presented
in Section 1 also depends on the linear independence of log pn over Q, we can seethat the essentially important fact is the linear independence of certain quantities
over Q. In fact, when α is algebraic irrational the universality of ζ(s, α) is still
unproved, because the way of reducing the problem to some linear independence
property has not yet been found in this case.
Recently, the universality of Lerch’s zeta-function
L(s, α, λ) =∞X
exp(2πiλn)n=0(n + α)s,(4.4)

which is a generalization of ζ(s, α), has also been studied. Here λ is a real number.
We can prove the universality of (4.4) if α is transcendental (Laurinčikas [48]) or
if α is rational and λ is also rational (Laurinčikas [49]). The joint universality ofseveral Lerch zeta-functions L(s, α1 , λ1 ), . . . , L(s, αm , λm ) is treated in [54] when
α1 , . . . , αm are transcendental and λ1 , . . . , λm are rational.
Various applications of universality theorems are known. Voronin himself
studied the problems of independence (Voronin [83][85]) and of the distributionof zeros (Voronin [86][88][89]). The former is a classical problem from the daysof Hilbert; in the case of the Riemann zeta-function, from the universality (orrather from Theorem 9) it immediately follows that, if Fj (j = 0, 1, . . . , n) arecontinuous functions of m-variables and
n
X

j=0





sj Fj ζ(s), ζ 0 (s), . . . , ζ (m−1) (s) = 0

14

holds for all s, then Fj (j = 0, 1, . . . , n) are identically 0. See Section 6.6 ofLaurinčikas [43]. Generalization to Dedekind zeta-functions are discussed by
Reich [79][80]. The case of Lerch zeta-functions is treated in [19] and [54].
On the distribution of zeros of Hurwitz zeta-functions, there is the following
application.
Theorem 12 If α (6= 1/2, 1) is rational or transcendental, then for any σ1 , σ2with 1/2 < σ1 < σ2 < 1, the function ζ(s, α) has infinitely many zeros in the
strip σ1 < σ < σ2 .
It is a classical theorem of Davenport-Heilbronn [13] that ζ(s, α) for rational ortranscendental α (6= 1/2, 1) has infinitely many zeros in the half plane σ > 1. The
same result is also known to be true even when α is algebraic irrational (Cassels[12]). However, Theorem 12 is based on the universality theorem, hence has been
only proved for rational or transcendental α. This theorem was first announced
by Voronin [88] when α is rational, but the proof (including the transcendentalcase) was given by Bagchi [2] and Gonek [20]. A quantitative result was shownby Laurinčikas [38] for certain type of Lerch zeta-functions. See also Garunkštis[16] for further study in this direction. Voronin [89] obtained a result on the
distribution of zeros of a linear combination of Dirichlet L-functions, and this
topic has been further developed by Laurinčikas [39][51].
Recently Andersson [1] used the universality theorem to disprove a conjectureof Ramachandra on Dirichlet polynomials. The connection between the universality and the quantum chaos is discussed by Gutzwiller [22]. The universality
theorem is also used successfully in the evaluation of certain integrals appearing
in quantum mechanics (Bitar-Khuri-Ren [4]). Dr. H. Nagoshi proposed to investigate the connection between the universality and random matrix theory. These
directions of research will become more important in the future.

5

Limit theorems and the universality

A feature of Voronin’s original proof of the universality theorem on ζ(s) is a
successful application of the theory of Hilbert spaces. Bagchi [2][3] also used thetheory of Hilbert spaces, and added the idea of Reich [77], to develop a method of
deducing the universality theorem from a kind of limit theorem. The details [2]of Bagchi’s theory had been unpublished for a long time, but now we can easily
learn this theory by a detailed account in the book of Laurinčikas [43].
We state Bagchi’s limit theorem in the case of the Riemann zeta-function.
Denote by D the strip 1/2 < σ < 1, and by H(D) the set of all holomorphic
functions on D, equipped with the topology of uniform convergence on compact

15

subsets. The space H(D) is metrizable in a standard way. Let B(H(D)) be thefamily of all Borel subsets of H(D), and put
P̃T (Ã; ζ) = T −1 µ1 ({t ∈ [0, T ] | ζ(s + it) ∈ Ã})

(5.1)

for Ã ∈ B(H(D)). Then P̃T is a probability measure on (H(D), B(H(D))), andTheorem 13 (Bagchi [2]) When T → ∞, the measure P̃T (Ã; ζ) is convergent
weakly to a certain probability measure Q̃(Ã; ζ).
Comparing this theorem with Theorem 4 we can readily see that this theorem
is an analogue of Bohr-Jessen’s limit theorem on function spaces.
Moreover Bagchi constructed the limit measure Q̃ explicitly. Let γ be theunit circle in the complex plane, and consider the infinite product
Ω=

Y

γp ,

p

where the product runs over all primes and γp = γ for any p. By the producttopology and coordinatewise multiplication, Ω becomes a compact Abelian group,
hence there exists a Haar measure mH with mH (Ω) = 1. By B(Ω) we denote thefamily of all Borel subsets of Ω. Then (Ω, B(Ω), mH ) is a probability space. Let
ω(p) be the projection of ω ∈ Ω to the coordinate space γp , and for any positive
integer k we defineω(k) =Y

ω(p)α(p) ,

Y

pα(p)

(5.2)

p

where
p

is the factorization of k into prime divisors (hence only finitely many α(p)s are
not zero). And defineξ(s, ω) =∞X

ω(k)k −s .

k=1

This is an H(D)-valued random element defined on Ω. Bagchi proved that the
distribution of this random element is just the limit measure Q̃, that is
Q̃(Ã; ζ) = mH ({ω ∈ Ω | ξ(s, ω) ∈ Ã}).
Bagchi deduced the universality theorem from his Theorem 13 and the above
explicit expression of Q̃. After his work, this method of Bagchi has been repeatedly used by Laurinčikas, and now it is the most standard method of proving
universality theorems.
16For instance, Laurinčikas-Misevičius [56][57] proved a limit theorem of Bagchi’s
type with weight and the explicit expression of the limit measure, and by using
them, Laurinčikas [42] obtained the universality theorem with weight for the Riemann zeta-function. A limit theorem in the space of continuous functions wasproved, under the assumption of the Riemann hypothesis, by Laurinčikas [41].
This article [41] is also a very nice survey on various limit theorems known before
the publication of it.
Results of Bagchi’s type can be extended to the case of a fairly general class ofzeta-functions. Laurinčikas [44][45] extended all of Theorem 4, Theorem 13 andthe explicit expression of the limit measure in the latter theorem to any elementsof the family M introduced in Section 2, in a generalized form with weight. The
result in [45] can be stated, in the case of the trivial weight, as follows. Let ϕ(s)be an element of M, and by D(ϕ) denote the half plane σ > ρ. Let M (D(ϕ)) be
the space of all meromorphic functions on D(ϕ), and B(M (D(ϕ))) the family of
all Borel subsets of M (D(ϕ)). For Ã ∈ B(M (D(ϕ))), define P̃T (Ã; ϕ) similarly
to (5.1). Also we defineξϕ (s, ω) =∞X

b(k)ω(k)k −s ,

k=1

where

∞
X

b(k)k −sk=1

is the Dirichlet series expansion of ϕ(s). Then ξϕ (s, ω) is an H(D(ϕ))-valued
random element defined on Ω. Denote its distribution by Q̃(Ã; ϕ). Then we have

Theorem 14 (Laurinčikas [45]) When T → ∞, the measure P̃T (Ã; ϕ) is convergent weakly to Q̃(Ã; ϕ).
Recently R. Kačinskaitė obtained discrete limit theorems for elements of M.
Limit theorems of Bagchi’s type can be proved for some kind of zeta-functions
without Euler products. Limit theorems for Lerch zeta-functions are treated by
Garunkštis and Laurinčikas. Laurinčikas [52] studied limit theorems for moregeneral Dirichlet series.
(Note added in the English translation. Kačinskaitė’s results are in [30][31]and her subsequent papers. Limit theorems for Lerch zeta-functions proved by
Garunkštis and Laurinčikas can be seen in [15][17][18][46][47]; a book of them on
Lerch zeta-functions is now in preparation. See also Ignatavičiūtė [26].)
Now we can say that Bagchi’s limit theorem, that is the first half of Bagchi’s
theory, has been generalized very nicely. Is it also possible to generalize thesecond half of his theory, the deduction of the universality theorem from the17limit theorem? Unfortunately the situation here is not so simple. Laurinčikas[50][51] tried to construct such a general theory, but he obtained a proof ofuniversality for ϕ(s) ∈ M only under the assumption that ϕ(s) further satisfies
some strong condition. It is possible to construct explicitly such a ϕ(s); however,for many zeta-functions important in number theory, it is very difficult to verify
that condition. For example, for the automorphic L-function ϕf introduced in
Section 3, that condition is almost impossible to verify. There is a paper ofKačėnas-Laurinčikas [29] on the universality of automorphic L-functions, but thispaper also requires a strong condition. On the other hand, Yu. V. Linnik and I.
A. Ibragimov conjectured that all Dirichlet series, except for trivial exceptions,would have the universality property. To check this conjecture, it is desirable toremove the conditions mentioned above, and to prove the universality theorem
unconditionally for as wide class of zeta-functions as possible. We conclude thisarticle with reporting recent developments in this direction in the next section.

6

The positive density method in the theory of
universality

In the case of the Riemann zeta-function, an important point in Bagchi’sargument of deducing the universality theorem from the limit theorem is the factthat the formula
X1

p≤x p

q

= log log x + a1 + O(exp(−a2 log x))(6.1)

is used essentially. Here x > 1, a1 , a2 are constants, a2 > 0, and the summation
runs over all primes up to x. (See Lemma 4.8 of Bagchi [3], or Theorem 4.14 ofChapter 6 of [43].) The formula (6.1) is a well-known result in the theory of the
distribution of primes, and is actually equivalent with the prime number theorem
with a remainder term. To carry out the proof in the style of Bagchi, such arather sharp asymptotic formula as (6.1) is indispensable.
The automorphic L-function ϕf is an element of M, hence we can apply Theorem 14. Therefore it is natural to expect that we may apply Bagchi’s argumentin this case and deduce the universality theorem from Theorem 14. For thispurpose, corresponding to (6.1), a sharp asymptotic formula forXp≤x|a(p)|/p

is necessary. However such an asymptotic formula is not known, because it is very
difficult to treat sums involving Fourier coefficients of cusp forms. Formula (3.7)
is insufficient at all. This situation implies that the simple analogy of Bagchi’sargument collapses, hence some new idea is required. One possibility is to use
18

(3.6) instead. The conclusion is that it is still insufficient to use only (3.6), but
we can go through the obstacle by using (3.6) combined with (6.1). This is themethod developed in the paper [55] of Laurinčikas and the author, and the result
is the following
Theorem 15 ([55]) Let K be a compact subset of the strip κ/2 < σ < (κ + 1)/2
with connected complement, and h(s) be a function continuous and non-vanishingon K and holomorphic in the interior of K. Define
U (T ; ϕf ) = U (T, K, h, ε; ϕf )(= µ1 τ ∈ [0, T ] | sup |ϕf (s + iτ ) − h(s)| < ε
s∈K

)

(6.2)

for any ε > 0. Then we have
lim inf T −1 U (T ; ϕf ) > 0.
T →∞

(6.3)

That is, the universality property holds for the automorphic L-function ϕf .
The details how to deduce this theorem from (3.6) and (6.1) are rather technical,
but the basic idea is to use the fact that, for any fixed µ with 0 < µ < 1, there aresufficiently many primes p (“positive density” in the set of all primes) for which|a(p)| > µ holds. As explained in Section 3, this idea has already appeared in
the proof of the inequality of Joyner’s type for automorphic L-functions, due toHattori and the author ([24]). We call this idea “the positive density method” inthis article.
A similar argument is also performed in [54], mentioned in Section 4, on the
joint universality of Lerch zeta-functions. In this paper a set of integers, which
has a positive density in the set of all positive integers, is used. This paper treats
the case when α1 , . . . , αm are transcendental and λ1 , . . . , λm are rational. In thecase m = 1, if α1 is transcendental, we can show the universality theorem forany λ1 (Laurinčikas [48]). However for m ≥ 2, we cannot prove the universality
at present if we do not assume the rationality of λ1 , . . . , λm , and moreover, thepositive density method is necessary in the proof. Therefore in this case the joint
universality is essentially more difficult than the universality of a single function.
As for Hecke L-functions for algebraic number fields, when the field is quadratic,a joint universality theorem is announced in Voronin [89]. Joint value-distributionof Hecke L-functions attached to an imaginary quadratic field is also discussed in
Section 4, Chapter 7 of Karatsuba-Voronin [32]. They apply the results proved
there to the study of the distribution of zeros of zeta-functions of quadratic forms(see also Voronin [86][88]).
Recently Mishou [66] proved the universality of Hecke L-functions attached to
any class character of any algebraic field F of finite degree. In Mishou’s paper theuniversality is proved only in the region 1 − max{d, 2}−1 < σ < 1, where d is the19degree of F over Q, because the mean value theorem of the form (2.5) is known
only in the region σ > 1 − max{d, 2}−1 . A set of primes of positive density again
plays an important role in Mishou’s proof. In this case it is the set of primes
which split completely in a certain Galois field, hence is of positive density by
the Artin-Chebotarev theorem. Mishou used this fact and the class field theory
skillfully to obtain the proof. Then in [67], Mishou proceeded further to obtain
the proof of the universality of Hecke L-functions with any Grössencharakter of
any algebraic field of finite degree. This time the set of primes of positive density,used in the proof, is constructed in a more complicated way. Moreover, a delicate
argument based on a result of Mitsui is necessary in the proof; the argument
is divided into three cases according as the field is totally real Galois, totally
imaginary Galois, or non-Galois.
Now return to automorphic L-functions. It is known that the error termon the right-hand side of (3.6) can be improved (Perelli [74]). By using thisrefinement, we can show
X cp

p≤x p

q

= log log x + a3 + O(exp(−a4 log x)),(6.4)

where cn s are the coefficients of the Rankin-Selberg L-function
Z(s) = ζ(2s)

∞
X

a(n)n

n=1

−s

=

∞
X

cn n−sn=1

attached to f . The asymptotic formula (6.4) is exactly an analogue of (6.1).
By using (6.4), the universality of Rankin-Selberg L-functions can be shown (for3/4 < σ < 1) just analogously to the case of the Riemann zeta-function, without
using the positive density method ([64]).
In [55] only holomorphic cusp forms with respect to SL(2, Z) have beentreated, but it is not necessary to restrict our consideration to the case of SL(2, Z),
and it is desirable to prove the joint universality of more general automorphic
L-functions. In this direction, a joint research of Laurinčikas and the author is
now going on.
We mentioned the χ-universality of Dirichlet L-functions in Section 4. Recently Nagoshi [71][72] studied universality properties of automorphic L-functions
with respect to other parameters. Let f be the same as in Section 3, and put
ϕ∗f (s) =∞X

a(n)n−s .

n=1

Then, a result of Nagoshi asserts that, for any h(s) satisfying some conditions
similar to those in Theorem 10, if we search cusp forms of up to sufficiently large
weights, we can always find an f such that ϕ∗f (s) approximates h(s) uniformly,
and moreover, the set of such f s has a positive density in some sense. Nagoshi
20also proved similar kind of universality when we consider a family of normalized
newforms with respect to the congruence subgroup Γ0 (N ) of level N , fix a weightand move levels; and also, when consider a family of L-functions attached to
Maass forms and move eigenvalues of the Laplacian. Nagoshi used the results ofSarnak and of Serre based on the trace formula, and also the spectral large sieve
and the Paley-Wiener theorem in his proof.
We can say from the above results that the range of research of unversality
theorems is now spreading wider and wider. However, many fundamental problems are still unsolved. For instance, it is a natural hope to refine the universality
theorems to more quantitative forms, and indeed there are attempts of Good [21]and Laurinčikas [53], but still this direction is almost uncultivated.
Universality theorems assert that zeta-functions have a kind of ergodic properties on function spaces. So far all proofs of universality theorems are basedon some arithmetical properties. However it is not known whether universality
is a really arithmetical phenomenon or not. It might be the right way of understanding to discuss universality in the framework of complex function theory;or, universality might always appear as a natural property associated with ergodic dynamical systems. A lot of further research is necessary to answer thesequestions in the future.

References[1] J. Andersson, Power sum theory and zeta-functions,atavhandling, Dept. of Math., Stockholm Univ., 1998.

Filosofie Licenti-[2] B. Bagchi, The statistical behaviour and universality properties of the Riemann zeta function and other allied Dirichlet series, Thesis, Indian Statistical Institute, Calcutta, 1981.
[3] B. Bagchi, A joint universality theorem for Dirichlet L-functions, Math. Z.
181 (1982), 319-334.
[4] K. M. Bitar, N. N. Khuri and H. C. Ren, Path integrals and Voronin’s
theorem on the universality of the Riemann zeta function, Ann. Phys. 211(1991), 172-196.
[5] H. Bohr, Über das Verhalten von ζ(s) in der Halbebene σ > 1, Nachr. Akad.
Wiss. Göttingen II Math.-phys. Kl. (1911), 409-428.
[6] H. Bohr, Zur Theorie der Riemann’schen Zetafunktion im kritischen Streifen,
Acta Math. 40 (1915), 67-100.

21

[7] H. Bohr and R. Courant, Neue Anwendungen der Theorie der Diophantischen Approximationen auf die Riemannsche Zetafunktion, J. Reine Angew.
Math. 144 (1914), 249-274.
[8] H. Bohr and B. Jessen, Om Sandsynlighedsfordelinger ved Addition af konvekse Kurver, Dan. Vid. Selsk. Skr. Nat. Math. Afd. (8) 12 (1929), 1-82.
[9] H. Bohr and B. Jessen, Über die Wertverteilung der Riemannschen Zetafunktion, Erste Mitteilung, Acta Math. 54 (1930), 1-35; Zweite Mitteilung,ibid. 58 (1932), 1-55.
[10] H. Bohr and E. Landau, Ein Satz über Dirichlet’sche Reihen mit Anwendung
auf die ζ-Funktion und die L-Funktionen, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 37(1914), 269-272.
[11] V. Borchsenius and B. Jessen, Mean motions and values of the Riemannzeta function, Acta Math. 80 (1948), 97-166.
[12] J. W. S. Cassels, Footnote to a note of Davenport and Heilbronn, J. London
Math. Soc. 36 (1961), 177-184.
[13] H. Davenport and H. Heilbronn, On the zeros of certain Dirichlet series I,
II, J. London Math. Soc. 11 (1936), 181-185, 307-312.
[14] K. M. Eminyan, χ-universality of the Dirichlet L-function, Mat. Zametki
47 (1990), 132-137 (in Russian); Math. Notes 47 (1990), 618-622.
[15] R. Garunkštis, An explicit form of limit distribution with weight for the
Lerch zeta-function in the space of analytic functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. 37(1997), 309-326 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 37 (1997), 230-242.
[16] R. Garunkštis, On the zeros of the Lerch zeta-function II, in “Probability
Theory and Mathematical Statistics”, Proc. 7th Vilnius Conf., B. Grigelionis
et al. (eds.), VSP/TEV, 1999, pp. 267-276.
[17] R. Garunkštis and A. Laurinčikas, On the Lerch zeta-function, Liet. Mat.
Rink. 36 (1996), 423-434 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 36 (1996), 337-346.
[18] R. Garunkštis and A. Laurinčikas, A limit theorem with weight for the Lerch
zeta function in the space of analytic functions, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov.
218 (1997), 109-121 (in Russian); Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 218 (1997),
104-116.
[19] R. Garunkštis and A. Laurinčikas, On one Hilbert’s problem for the Lerch
zeta-function, Publ. Inst. Math. Beograd 65(79) (1999), 63-68.

22[20] S. M. Gonek, Analytic properties of zeta and L-functions, Thesis, Univ. of
Michigan, 1979.
[21] A. Good, On the distribution of the values of Riemann’s zeta-function, Acta
Arith. 38 (1981), 347-388.
[22] M. C. Gutzwiller, Stochastic behavior in quantum scattering, Physica 7D(1983), 341-355.
[23] G. Harman and K. Matsumoto, Discrepancy estimates for the valuedistribution of the Riemann zeta-function IV, J. London Math. Soc. (2)
50 (1994), 17-24.
[24] T. Hattori and K. Matsumoto, Large deviations of Montgomery type andits application to the theory of zeta-functions, Acta Arith. 71 (1995), 79-94.
[25] T. Hattori and K. Matsumoto, A limit theorem for Bohr-Jessen’s probability
measures of the Riemann zeta-function, J. Reine Angew. Math. 507 (1999),219-232.
[26] J. Ignatavičiūtė, On statistical properties of the Lerch zeta-function, Liet.
Mat. Rink. 41 (2001), 424-440 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 41 (2001), 330343.
[27] B. Jessen and A. Wintner, Distribution functions and the Riemann zetafunction, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 38 (1935), 48-88.
[28] D. Joyner, Distribution Theorems of L-functions, Pitman Res. Notes in
Math. Ser. Vol. 142, Longman Sci. & Tech., 1986.
[29] A. Kačėnas and A. Laurinčikas, On Dirichlet series related to certain cusp
forms, Liet. Mat. Rink. 38 (1998), 82-97 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 38(1998), 64-76.
[30] R. Kačinskaitė, A discrete limit theorem for the Matsumoto zeta-function
on the complex plane, Liet. Mat. Rink. 40 (2000), 475-492 (in Russian);
Lith. Math. J. 40 (2000), 364-378.
[31] R. Kačinskaitė, A discrete limit theorem for the Matsumoto zeta-functionin the space of analytic functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. 41 (2001), 441-448 (inRussian); Lith. Math. J. 41 (2001), 344-350.
[32] A. A. Karatsuba and S. M. Voronin, The Riemann Zeta-Function, Walterde Gruyter, 1992.
[33] A. Laurinčikas, Sur les séries de Dirichlet et les polynômes trigonométriques,Sém. Théorie des Nombres, Année 1978/79, exposé no. 24, 13pp.
23

[34] A. Laurinčikas, Distribution des valeurs de certaines séries de Dirichlet, C.
R. Acad. Sci. Paris 289 (1979), 43-45.
[35] A. Laurinčikas, A limit theorem for Dirichlet L-series, Mat. Zametki 25(1979), 481-485 (in Russian); Math. Notes 25 (1979), 251-253.
[36] A. Laurinčikas, Distribution of values of generating Dirichlet series of multiplicative functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. 22 (1982), 101-111 (in Russian); Lith.
Math. J. 22 (1982), 56-63.
[37] A. Laurinčikas, Universality theorem, Liet. Mat. Rink. 23 (1983), 53-62 (inRussian); Lith. Math. J. 23 (1983), 283-289; II, Liet. Mat. Rink. 24 (1984),
113-121 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 24 (1984), 143-149.
[38] A. Laurinčikas, Zeros of certain Dirichlet series, Liet. Mat. Rink. 24 (1984),
116-126 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 24 (1984), 358-365.
[39] A. Laurinčikas, Zeros of linear combinations of Dirichlet series, Liet. Mat.
Rink. 26 (1986), 468-477 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 26 (1986), 244-251.
[40] A. Laurinčikas, Limit theorems for the Riemann zeta-function in the complex
space, in “Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics, Vol. 2”, Proc.
5th Vilnius Conf., B. Grigelionis et al. (eds.), VSP/Mosklas, 1990, pp. 59-69.
[41] A. Laurinčikas, On limit theorems for the Riemann zeta-function in somespaces, in “Probability Theory and Mathematical Statistics”, Proc. 6th
Vilnius Conf., B. Grigelionis et al. (eds.), VSP/TEV, 1994, pp. 457-483.
[42] A. Laurinčikas, On the universality of the Riemann zeta-function, Liet. Mat.
Rink. 35 (1995), 502-507 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 35 (1995), 399-402.
[43] A. Laurinčikas, Limit Theorems for the Riemann Zeta-Function, Kluwer,
1996.
[44] A. Laurinčikas, Limit theorems for the Matsumoto zeta-function, J. Théorie
des Nombres de Borbeaux 8 (1996), 143-158.
[45] A. Laurinčikas, On limit distribution of the Matsumoto zeta-function, Acta
Arith. 79 (1997), 31-39; II, Liet. Mat. Rink. 36 (1996), 464-485 (in Russian);
Lith. Math. J. 36 (1996), 371-387.
[46] A. Laurinčikas, A limit theorem for the Lerch zeta-function in the space ofanalytic functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. 37 (1997), 191-203 (in Russian); Lith.
Math. J. 37 (1997), 146-155.
[47] A. Laurinčikas, On limit distribution of the Lerch zeta-function, in “Analytic
and Probabilistic Methods in Number Theory”, Proc. 2nd Palanga Conf.,
A. Laurinčikas et al. (eds.), VSP/TEV, 1997, pp. 135-148.
24

[48] A. Laurinčikas, The universality of the Lerch zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink.
37 (1997), 367-375 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 37 (1997), 275-280.
[49] A. Laurinčikas, On the Lerch zeta-function with rational parameters, Liet.
Mat. Rink. 38 (1998), 113-124 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 38 (1998), 89-97.
[50] A. Laurinčikas, On the Matsumoto zeta-function, Acta Arith. 84 (1998),1-16.
[51] A. Laurinčikas, On the zeros of linear combinations of the Matsumoto zetafunctions, Liet. Mat. Rink. 38 (1998), 185-204 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J.
38 (1998), 144-159.
[52] A. Laurinčikas, Value-distribution of general Dirichlet series, in “Probability
Theory and Mathematical Statistics”, Proc. 7th Vilnius Conf., B. Grigelionis
et al. (eds.), VSP/TEV, 1999, pp. 405-414; II, Liet. Mat. Rink. 41 (2001),
449-460 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 41 (2001), 351-360; III, (with W.
Schwarz and J. Steuding) preprint.
[53] A. Laurinčikas, On the effectivization of the universality theorem for the
Lerch zeta-function, Liet. Mat. Rink. 40 (2000), 172-178 (in Russian); Lith.
Math. J. 40 (2000), 135-139.
[54] A. Laurinčikas and K. Matsumoto, The joint universality and the functional
independence for Lerch zeta-functions, Nagoya Math. J. 157 (2000), 211227.
[55] A. Laurinčikas and K. Matsumoto, The universality of zeta-functions attached to certain cusp forms, Acta Arith. 98(2001), 345-359.
[56] A. Laurinčikas and G. Misevičius, Weighted limit theorem for the Riemannzeta function in the space of analytic functions, Liet. Mat. Rink. 34 (1994),
211-225 (in Russian); Lith. Math. J. 34 (1994), 171-182.
[57] A. Laurinčikas and G. Misevičius, On limit distribution of the Riemannzeta-function, Acta Arith. 76 (1996), 317-334.
[58] K. Matsumoto, Discrepancy estimates for the value-distribution of the Riemann zeta-function I, Acta Arith. 48 (1987), 167-190; III, ibid. 50 (1988),
315-337.
[59] K. Matsumoto, A probabilistic study on the value-distribution of Dirichlet
series attached to certain cusp forms, Nagoya Math. J. 116 (1989), 123-138.
[60] K. Matsumoto, Value-distribution of zeta-functions, in “Analytic Number
Theory”, K. Nagasaka and E. Fouvry (eds.), Lecture Notes in Math. Vol.
1434, Springer, 1990, pp. 178-187.
25

[61] K. Matsumoto, On the magnitude of asymptotic probability measures of
Dedekind zeta-functions and other Euler products, Acta Arith. 60 (1991),
125-147.
[62] K. Matsumoto, Asymptotic probability measures of zeta-functions of algebraic number fields, J. Number Theory 40 (1992), 187-210.
[63] K. Matsumoto, Asymptotic probability measures of Euler products, in“Proceedings of the Amalfi Conference on Analytic Number Theory”, E.
Bombieri et al. (eds.), Univ. di Salerno, 1992, pp. 295-313.
[64] K. Matsumoto, The mean values and the universality of Rankin-Selberg Lfunctions, in “Number Theory”, M. Jutila and T. Metsänkylä (eds.), Walterde Gruyter, 2001, pp. 201-221.
[65] S. N. Mergelyan, On the representation of functions by series of polynomials on closed sets, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 78 (1951), 405-408 (inRussian); in “Amer. Math. Soc. Transl. Ser. 1, Vol. 3, Series and Approximation”, Amer. Math. Soc., 1962, pp. 287-293.
[66] H. Mishou, The universality theorem for L-functions associated with idealclass characters, Acta Arith. 98 (2001), 395-410.
[67] H. Mishou, The universality theorem for Hecke L-functions, preprint.
[68] H. L. Montgomery, The zeta function and prime numbers, in “Proceedings of
the Queen’s Number Theory Conference, 1979” P. Ribenboim (ed.), Queen’s
Papers in Pure and Appl. Math. Vol. 54, Queen’s Univ., Kingston, Ontario,
Canada, 1980, pp. 1-31.
[69] H. L. Montgomery and A. M. Odlyzko, Large deviations of sums of independent random variables, Acta Arith. 49 (1988), 427-434.
[70] M. Ram Murty, Oscillations of Fourier coefficients of modular forms, Math.
Ann. 262 (1983), 431-446.
[71] H. Nagoshi,
preprint.

The universality of families of automorphic L-functions,[72] H. Nagoshi, The universality of L-functions attached to eigenfunctions for
SL(2, Z), in preparation.
[73] E. M. Nikishin, Dirichlet series with independent exponents and some of
their applications, Mat. Sb. 96(138) (1975), 3-40 (in Russian); Math. USSR
Sb. 25 (1975), 1-36.

26

[74] A. Perelli, On the prime number theorem for the coefficients of certain modular forms, in “Elementary and Analytic Theory of Numbers”, H. Iwaniec(ed.), Banach Center Publ. Vol. 17, PWN-Polish Sci. Publ., 1985, pp. 405410.
[75] H. S. A. Potter, The mean values of certain Dirichlet series I, Proc. London
Math. Soc (2) 46 (1940), 467-478.
[76] R. A. Rankin, Sums of powers of cusp form coefficients II, Math. Ann. 272(1985), 593-600.
[77] A. Reich, Universalle Wertverteilung von Eulerprodukten, Nachr. Akad.
Wiss. Göttingen II Math.-phys. Kl. (1977), Nr.1, 1-17.
[78] A. Reich, Wertverteilung von Zetafunktionen, Arch. Math. 34 (1980), 440451.
[79] A. Reich, Zetafunktionen und Differenzen-Differentialgleichungen, ibid. 38(1982), 226-235.
[80] A. Reich, Zur Universalität und Hypertranszendenz der Dedekindschen Zetafunktion, Abh. Braunschweig. Wiss. Ges. 33 (1982), 197-203.
[81] E. Seneta, Regularly Varying Functions, Lecture Notes in Math. Vol. 508,
Springer, 1976.
[82] E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-function, Oxford, 1951.
[83] S. M. Voronin, On the distribution of nonzero values of the Riemann ζfunction, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. 128 (1972), 131-150 (in Russian); Proc.
Steklov Inst. Math. 128 (1972), 153-175.
[84] S. M. Voronin, Theorem on the “universality” of the Riemann zeta-function,
Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR Ser. Mat. 39 (1975), 475-486 (in Russian); Math.
USSR Izv. 9 (1975), 443-453.
[85] S. M. Voronin, On the functional independence of Dirichlet L-functions,Acta Arith. 27 (1975), 493-503 (in Russian).
[86] S. M. Voronin, On the zeros of zeta-functions of quadratic forms, Trudy
Mat. Inst. Steklov. 142 (1976), 135-147 (in Russian); Proc. Steklov Inst.
Math. (1979), Issue 3, 143-155.
[87] S. M. Voronin, Analytic properties of generating Dirichlet functions of arithmetical objects, Thesis Doctor Phys.-Mat. Nauk, Moscow, 1977 (in Russian).

27

[88] S. M. Voronin, On the zeros of zeta-functions of quadratic forms, Dokl.
Acad. Nauk SSSR 235 (1977), 257-258 (in Russian); Soviet Math. Dokl. 18(1977), 910-911.
[89] S. M. Voronin, Distribution of zeros of some Dirichlet series, Trudy Mat.
Inst. Steklov. 163 (1984), 74-77 (in Russian); Proc. Steklov Inst. Math.
(1985), Issue 4, 89-92.
[90] A. Wintner, On the asymptotic repartition of the values of real almost
periodic functions, Amer. J. Math. 54 (1932), 339-345.

28