Misplaced Pages

Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:46, 24 June 2013 editIncnis Mrsi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,646 editsm Reverted edits by Pirokiazuma (talk) to last version by Quondum← Previous edit Revision as of 06:37, 24 June 2013 edit undoPirokiazuma (talk | contribs)20 edits This is much more easy to read and understand.Next edit →
Line 88: Line 88:
:<math>\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty {1\over p_i} < {1\over 2} \qquad(1)</math> :<math>\sum_{i=k+1}^\infty {1\over p_i} < {1\over 2} \qquad(1)</math>


For a positive integer ''x'' let ''M<sub>x</sub>'' denote the set of those ''n'' in {1,&nbsp;2, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.,&nbsp;''x''} which are not ] by any prime greater than ''p<sub>k</sub>''. We will now derive an upper and a lower estimate for the ] |''M<sub>x</sub>''| of elements in ''M<sub>x</sub>''. For large&nbsp;''x'', these bounds will turn out to be contradictory. Let ''M<sub>65</sub>'' denote the set of those ''n'' in {1,&nbsp;2, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.,&nbsp;65} which are not ] by any prime greater than 3.


The 65&nbsp;−&nbsp;|''M<sub>65</sub>''| numbers in the ] {1, 2, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.,&nbsp;65} \ ''M<sub>65</sub>'' are all divisible by a prime greater than 3. Let ''N<sub>i,65</sub>'' denote the set of those ''n'' in {1,&nbsp;2, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.,&nbsp;65} which are divisible by the ''i''<sup>th</sup> prime ''p<sub>i</sub>''. Then
====Upper estimate====
Every ''n'' in ''M<sub>x</sub>'' can be written as ''n''&nbsp;=&nbsp;''r&nbsp;m''<sup>2</sup> with positive integers ''m'' and ''r'', where ''r'' is ]. Since only the ''k'' primes ''p''<sub>1</sub>,&nbsp;…,&nbsp;''p<sub>k</sub>'' can show up (with exponent&nbsp;1) in the ] of&nbsp;''r'', there are at most 2<sup>''k''</sup> different possibilities for&nbsp;''r''. Furthermore, there are at most √''x'' possible values for&nbsp;''m''. This gives us the upper estimate


:<math>|M_x| \le 2^k\sqrt{x} \qquad(2)</math> :<math>\{1,2,\ldots,65\}\setminus M_{65}=\bigcup_{i=3}^\infty N_{i,65}</math>


We get
====Lower estimate====
The remaining ''x''&nbsp;−&nbsp;|''M<sub>x</sub>''| numbers in the ] {1, 2, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.,&nbsp;''x''} \ ''M<sub>x</sub>'' are all divisible by a prime greater than ''p''<sub>''k''</sub>. Let ''N<sub>i,x</sub>'' denote the set of those ''n'' in {1,&nbsp;2, .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.,&nbsp;x} which are divisible by the ''i''<sup>th</sup> prime ''p<sub>i</sub>''. Then


:<math>\{1,2,\ldots,x\}\setminus M_x=\bigcup_{i=k+1}^\infty N_{i,x}</math> :<math>65-|M_{65}| < \sum_{i=3}^\infty {65\over p_i}</math>

Since the number of integers in ''N<sub>i,x</sub>'' is at most ''x''/''p<sub>i</sub>'' (actually zero for ''p<sub>i</sub>'' > ''x''), we get

:<math>x-|M_x| \le \sum_{i=k+1}^\infty |N_{i,x}|< \sum_{i=k+1}^\infty {x\over p_i}</math>


Using (1), this implies Using (1), this implies


:<math>{x\over 2} < |M_x| \qquad(3)</math> :<math>32 < |M_{65}| \qquad(3)</math>


====Contradiction==== ====Contradiction====
:<math> |M_{65}| = 17</math>
For every integer ''x''&nbsp;≥&nbsp;2<sup>2''k''&nbsp;+&nbsp;2</sup>, the estimates (2) and (3) cannot hold simultaneously.


===Third === ===Third ===

Revision as of 06:37, 24 June 2013

The sum of the reciprocal of the primes increasing without bound. The x axis is in log scale, showing that the divergence is very slow. The purple function is a lower bound that also diverges.

The sum of the reciprocals of all prime numbers diverges, that is:

p  prime  1 p = 1 2 + 1 3 + 1 5 + 1 7 + 1 11 + 1 13 + 1 17 + = {\displaystyle \sum _{p{\text{ prime }}}{\frac {1}{p}}={\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{7}}+{\frac {1}{11}}+{\frac {1}{13}}+{\frac {1}{17}}+\cdots =\infty }

This was proved by Leonhard Euler in 1737, and strengthens Euclid's 3rd-century-BC result that there are infinitely many prime numbers.

There are a variety of proofs of Euler's result, including a lower bound for the partial sums stating that

p  prime  p n 1 p ln ln ( n + 1 ) ln π 2 6 {\displaystyle \sum _{\scriptstyle p{\text{ prime }} \atop \scriptstyle p\leq n}{\frac {1}{p}}\geq \ln \ln(n+1)-\ln {\frac {\pi ^{2}}{6}}}

for all natural numbers n. The double natural logarithm indicates that the divergence might be very slow, which is indeed the case, see Meissel–Mertens constant.

The harmonic series

First, we describe how Euler originally discovered the result. He was considering the harmonic series

n = 1 1 n = 1 + 1 2 + 1 3 + 1 4 + {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n}}=1+{\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{4}}+\cdots }

He had already used the following "product formula" to show the existence of infinitely many primes.

n = 1 1 n = p 1 1 p 1 = p ( 1 + 1 p + 1 p 2 + ) {\displaystyle \sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n}}=\prod _{p}{\frac {1}{1-p^{-1}}}=\prod _{p}\left(1+{\frac {1}{p}}+{\frac {1}{p^{2}}}+\cdots \right)}

(Here, the product is taken over all primes p; in the following, a sum or product taken over p always represents a sum or product taken over a specified set of primes, unless noted otherwise.)

Such infinite products are today called Euler products. The product above is a reflection of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Of course, the above "equation" is not necessary because the harmonic series is known (by other means) to diverge. This type of formal manipulation was common at the time, when mathematicians were still experimenting with the new tools of calculus.

Euler noted that if there were only a finite number of primes, then the product on the right would clearly converge, contradicting the divergence of the harmonic series. (In modern language, we now say that the existence of infinitely many primes is reflected by the fact that the Riemann zeta function has a simple pole at s = 1.)

Proofs

First

Euler took the above product formula and proceeded to make a sequence of audacious leaps of logic. First, he took the natural logarithm of each side, then he used the Taylor series expansion for ln(1 − x) as well as the sum of a geometric series:

ln ( n = 1 1 n ) = ln ( p 1 1 p 1 ) = p ln ( 1 1 p 1 ) = p ln ( 1 p 1 ) = p ( 1 p + 1 2 p 2 + 1 3 p 3 + ) = ( p 1 p ) + p 1 p 2 ( 1 2 + 1 3 p + 1 4 p 2 + ) < ( p 1 p ) + p 1 p 2 ( 1 + 1 p + 1 p 2 + ) = ( p 1 p ) + ( p 1 p ( p 1 ) ) = ( p 1 p ) + C {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\ln \left(\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n}}\right)&{}=\ln \left(\prod _{p}{\frac {1}{1-p^{-1}}}\right)=\sum _{p}\ln \left({\frac {1}{1-p^{-1}}}\right)=\sum _{p}-\ln(1-p^{-1})\\&{}=\sum _{p}\left({\frac {1}{p}}+{\frac {1}{2p^{2}}}+{\frac {1}{3p^{3}}}+\cdots \right)\\&{}=\left(\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p}}\right)+\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p^{2}}}\left({\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{3p}}+{\frac {1}{4p^{2}}}+\cdots \right)\\&{}<\left(\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p}}\right)+\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p^{2}}}\left(1+{\frac {1}{p}}+{\frac {1}{p^{2}}}+\cdots \right)\\&{}=\left(\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p}}\right)+\left(\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p(p-1)}}\right)\\&{}=\left(\sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p}}\right)+C\end{aligned}}}

for a fixed constant C < 1. Since the sum of the reciprocals of the first n positive integers is asymptotic to ln(n), (i.e. their ratio approaches one as n approaches infinity), Euler then concluded

1 2 + 1 3 + 1 5 + 1 7 + 1 11 + = ln ln ( + ) {\displaystyle {\frac {1}{2}}+{\frac {1}{3}}+{\frac {1}{5}}+{\frac {1}{7}}+{\frac {1}{11}}+\cdots =\ln \ln(+\infty )}

It is almost certain that Euler meant that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes less than n is asymptotic to ln(ln(n)) as n approaches infinity. It turns out this is indeed the case; Euler had reached a correct result by questionable means.

A variation

ln ( n = 1 1 n ) = ln ( p 1 1 p 1 ) = p ln ( p p 1 ) = p ln ( 1 + 1 p 1 ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}&{}\quad \ln \left(\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n}}\right)=\ln \left(\prod _{p}{\frac {1}{1-p^{-1}}}\right)=\sum _{p}\ln \left({\frac {p}{p-1}}\right)=\sum _{p}\ln \left(1+{\frac {1}{p-1}}\right)\end{aligned}}}

Since

e x = 1 + x + x 2 2 ! + x 3 3 ! + {\displaystyle e^{x}=1+x+{\frac {x^{2}}{2!}}+{\frac {x^{3}}{3!}}+\cdots }

Shows that e x > 1 + x {\displaystyle \scriptstyle e^{x}\,>\,1\,+\,x} therefore ln ( e x ) > ln ( 1 + x ) {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \ln(e^{x})\,>\,\ln(1\,+\,x)}  , so x > ln ( 1 + x ) {\displaystyle \scriptstyle x\,>\,\ln(1\,+\,x)} . So

p 1 p 1 > p ln ( 1 + 1 p 1 ) = ln ( n = 1 1 n ) {\displaystyle \sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p-1}}>\sum _{p}\ln \left(1+{\frac {1}{p-1}}\right)=\quad \ln \left(\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n}}\right)}

Hence p 1 p 1 {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p-1}}} diverges. But 1 p i 1 < 1 p i 1 {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {\frac {1}{p_{i}-1}}\,<\,{\frac {1}{p_{i-1}}}} (consider the i from 3). Where p i {\displaystyle \scriptstyle p_{i}}   is the i prime, (because p i 1 > p i 1 {\displaystyle \scriptstyle {p_{i}-1}\,>\,{p_{i-1}}} ).

Hence p 1 p {\displaystyle \scriptstyle \sum _{p}{\frac {1}{p}}} diverges.

Second

The following proof by contradiction is due to Paul Erdős.

Let pi denote the i prime number. Assume that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes converges; i.e.,

i = 1 1 p i < {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{\infty }{1 \over p_{i}}<\infty }

Then there exists a positive integer k such that

i = k + 1 1 p i < 1 2 ( 1 ) {\displaystyle \sum _{i=k+1}^{\infty }{1 \over p_{i}}<{1 \over 2}\qquad (1)}

Let M65 denote the set of those n in {1, 2, . . ., 65} which are not divisible by any prime greater than 3.

The 65 − |M65| numbers in the set difference {1, 2, . . ., 65} \ M65 are all divisible by a prime greater than 3. Let Ni,65 denote the set of those n in {1, 2, . . ., 65} which are divisible by the i prime pi. Then

{ 1 , 2 , , 65 } M 65 = i = 3 N i , 65 {\displaystyle \{1,2,\ldots ,65\}\setminus M_{65}=\bigcup _{i=3}^{\infty }N_{i,65}}

We get

65 | M 65 | < i = 3 65 p i {\displaystyle 65-|M_{65}|<\sum _{i=3}^{\infty }{65 \over p_{i}}}

Using (1), this implies

32 < | M 65 | ( 3 ) {\displaystyle 32<|M_{65}|\qquad (3)}

Contradiction

| M 65 | = 17 {\displaystyle |M_{65}|=17}

Third

Here is another proof that actually gives a lower estimate for the partial sums; in particular, it shows that these sums grow at least as fast as ln(ln(n)). The proof is an adaptation of the product expansion idea of Euler. In the following, a sum or product taken over p always represents a sum or product taken over a specified set of primes.

The proof rests upon the following four inequalities:

  • Every positive integer i can be uniquely expressed as the product of a square-free integer and a square. This gives the inequality
i = 1 n 1 i p n ( 1 + 1 p ) k = 1 n 1 k 2 {\displaystyle \sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{i}}\leq \prod _{p\leq n}{\left(1+{\frac {1}{p}}\right)}\sum _{k=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{k^{2}}}}
where for every i between 1 and n the (expanded) product contains to the square-free part of i and the sum contains to the square part of i (see fundamental theorem of arithmetic).
ln ( n + 1 ) = 1 n + 1 d x x = i = 1 n i i + 1 d x x < 1 / i < i = 1 n 1 i {\displaystyle \ln(n+1)=\int _{1}^{n+1}{\frac {dx}{x}}=\sum _{i=1}^{n}\underbrace {\int _{i}^{i+1}{\frac {dx}{x}}} _{{}\,<\,1/i}<\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{i}}}
  • Let n ≥ 2. The upper bound (using a telescoping sum) for the partial sums (convergence is all we really need)
k = 1 n 1 k 2 < 1 + k = 2 n ( 1 k 1 2 1 k + 1 2 ) = 1 / ( k 2 1 / 4 ) > 1 / k 2 = 1 + 2 3 1 n + 1 2 < 5 3 {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{k^{2}}}<1+\sum _{k=2}^{n}\underbrace {\left({\frac {1}{k-{\frac {1}{2}}}}-{\frac {1}{k+{\frac {1}{2}}}}\right)} _{=\,1/(k^{2}-1/4)\,>\,1/k^{2}}=1+{\frac {2}{3}}-{\frac {1}{n+{\frac {1}{2}}}}<{\frac {5}{3}}}

Combining all these inequalities, we see that

ln ( n + 1 ) < i = 1 n 1 i p n ( 1 + 1 p ) k = 1 n 1 k 2 < 5 3 p n exp ( 1 p ) = 5 3 exp ( p n 1 p ) {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}{}&{}\ln(n+1)\\<&\sum _{i=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{i}}\\\leq &\prod _{p\leq n}{\left(1+{\frac {1}{p}}\right)}\sum _{k=1}^{n}{\frac {1}{k^{2}}}\\<&{\frac {5}{3}}\prod _{p\leq n}{\exp \left({\frac {1}{p}}\right)}\\=&{\frac {5}{3}}\exp \left(\sum _{p\leq n}{\frac {1}{p}}\right)\end{aligned}}}

Dividing through by 5⁄3 and taking the natural logarithm of both sides gives

ln ln ( n + 1 ) ln 5 3 < p n 1 p {\displaystyle \ln \ln(n+1)-\ln {\frac {5}{3}}<\sum _{p\leq n}{\frac {1}{p}}}

as desired. 

Using

k = 1 1 k 2 = π 2 6 {\displaystyle \sum _{k=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{k^{2}}}={\frac {\pi ^{2}}{6}}}

(see Basel problem), the above constant ln (5⁄3) = 0.51082… can be improved to ln(π⁄6) = 0.4977…; in fact it turns out that

lim n ( p n 1 p ln ln ( n ) ) = M {\displaystyle \lim _{n\to \infty }\left(\sum _{p\leq n}{\frac {1}{p}}-\ln \ln(n)\right)=M}

where M = 0.261497… is the Meissel–Mertens constant (somewhat analogous to the much more famous Euler–Mascheroni constant).

Fourth

From Dusart's inequality, we get

p n < n ln n + n ln ln n for  n 6 {\displaystyle p_{n}<n\ln n+n\ln \ln n\quad {\mbox{for }}n\geq 6}

Then

n = 1 1 p n n = 6 1 p n n = 6 1 n ln n + n ln ln n n = 6 1 2 n ln n = {\displaystyle {\begin{aligned}\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{p_{n}}}&\geq \sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{p_{n}}}\\&\geq \sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{n\ln n+n\ln \ln n}}\\&\geq \sum _{n=6}^{\infty }{\frac {1}{2n\ln n}}\\&=\infty \end{aligned}}}

by the integral test for convergence. This shows that the series on the left diverges.

See also

References

External links

Categories:
Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the primes: Difference between revisions Add topic