Hi, I don't know if this question is appropriate for Math Overflow but I was wondering if there is anything known about the following: Let 
$$
S(\alpha) = \sum\_{n \leq x}\Lambda(n)e(n\alpha).
$$


Then asymptotically, how small can 
$$
\inf\_{\alpha}\left|S(\alpha)\right|
$$
be relative to $x$? Also, for each $x$, if $\alpha\_x$ is a value at which the sum takes the infimum, then how are the $\alpha\_x$ distributed in $(0,1)$ as $x \rightarrow \infty$?


Ok, thanks.



Infimums of exponential sums involving primes
Timothy,


This is likely to be a pretty difficult question I think. For a random sequence of $\pm 1$s in place of the von Mangoldt function $\Lambda(n)$ the answer is a little surprising: the infimum is basically $1/\sqrt{x}$, a result of Konyagin and Schlag. This is available here: 


www.math.uchicago.edu/~schlag/papers/POLTRAN.pdf


I say surprising because most people, if they were given 10 seconds to guess the answer, would probably go for $\sqrt{x}$ (I certainly would have).


I'm not sure there's any real reason to suppose that the answer for the deterministic function $\Lambda(n)$ will be much different, except perhaps in logarithmic factors. 


I think you have precisely no chance of saying anything useful about the $\alpha\_x$, but maybe someone will prove me wrong! I would be surprised if they were not close to equidistributed, though there may be some repulsion effects away from rationals with small denominator (where $S(\alpha)$ will be large).


EDIT: Thinking about it some more, it's not obvious to me even how one would show that $S(1/x) \neq 0$, though maybe this does follow from some kind of lower bound for linear forms in $\log p$. My point is that if there is deviation from the behaviour for a random sequence I would expect that one would see it near $\alpha = 0$ (and near other rationals with small denominator).


