I know about
"Simple analytic proof of the prime number theorem" Newman, 1980
However, is there a proof of the Prime Number Theorem without the use of complex analysis? (Real analysis is fine).
Thanks!
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
4
-
1$\begingroup$ Check this out: jstor.org/pss/1969455 Erdos and Selberg have an elementary proof. $\endgroup$– Jon BannonApr 4, 2011 at 20:54
-
1$\begingroup$ Yes. Do a net search. Erdos and Selberg (if memory serves) each did a mostly non-analytic version. Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.04.04 $\endgroup$– Gerhard PasemanApr 4, 2011 at 20:55
-
11$\begingroup$ Indeed, Erdos and Selberg are cited in the second sentence of Newman's paper... jstor.org/stable/2321853 $\endgroup$– j.c.Apr 4, 2011 at 21:17
-
$\begingroup$ It is worthwhile to note that the Erdős-Selberg proof is nicely explained in Hardy-Wright: An introduction to the theory of numbers. See sections 22.14-22.16 there, especially Theorems 430 and 434. $\endgroup$– GH from MOApr 4, 2011 at 21:18
Add a comment
|
5 Answers
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
1
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~goldfeld/ErdosSelbergDispute.pdf explains the classic proof in context (there is what amounts to a priority dispute).
answered Apr 4, 2011 at 21:12
-
2$\begingroup$ For Selberg's side of the story, see the interview with him in BAMS 2008#4. dx.doi.org/10.1090/S0273-0979-08-01223-8 $\endgroup$ Apr 5, 2011 at 9:39
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
Another exposition of an elementary proof (that is, a proof not using complex analysis) is in Gerald Tenenbaum and Michel Mendes France, The Prime Numbers and Their Distribution, which is Volume 6 of the Student Mathematical Library, published by the American Mathematical Society. The proof they give is due to Daboussi, from 1984.
answered Apr 5, 2011 at 0:06
-
$\begingroup$ Somehow, I thought there is essentially just one "elementary" proof known, that due to Erdős and Selberg; do you mean, the proof you mention is substantially different? $\endgroup$– SevaApr 5, 2011 at 7:44
-
1$\begingroup$ @Seva: From the MR review of Daboussi's paper (written by Diamond): "This paper gives an elementary proof of the PNT that is remarkable in that it makes no use of Selberg's now famous formula." Here is a link to the original paper of Daboussi math.jussieu.fr/~allouche/20060929144515189.pdf (And then there are the other devlopments improving on the error term, Diamon-Steinig and so on.) $\endgroup$– user9072Apr 5, 2011 at 9:30
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
There is a terrific exposition of the elementary proof by Terry Tao, available as the file prime.dvi here. A more traditional exposition is available in Edwards's book Riemann's zeta function.
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
If you just want $\pi(n) = \Omega \left( \frac{n}{\log n} \right)$, good enough for many applications, here is a quick proof: The highest power of a prime $p$ dividing $2n \choose n$ is at most $2n$ -- you get at most one more factor of $p$ in the numerator than denominator for each power $p^i \leq 2n$. This tells you that ${2n \choose n} \leq (2n)^{\pi(2n)}$. So $\pi(2n) \geq \frac{\log_2 {2n \choose n}}{\log_2 (2n)} \geq \frac{n}{\log_2 (2n)}$.
answered Jul 8, 2011 at 17:36
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
A nice exposition of an Erdos/Selberg-type elementary proof is given by Levinson in Amer. Math. Monthly 76 (1969) 225–245.
The proof by Daboussi as written up by Tenenbaum and Mendes-France was already mentioned.
Yet another one is due to Hildebrand in Mathematika 33 (1986) 23–30.
