6
$\begingroup$

The function $\text{Li}$ (logarithmic integral) is defined for $x>0$ by $$ \text{Li}(x)=\int_2^{x}\frac{dt}{\ln t}. $$ The prime number theorem, proven by Hadamard and de la Vallée-Poussin in 1896 asserts that $π(x) \sim \text{Li}(x)$ when $x$ goes to $+\infty$ where $ π(x)=\text{Card}\{2\le p\in \mathbb N, \text{ $p$ is prime}\}. $ It was proven by J. Littlewood in 1914 that the difference $d(x)=\text{Li}(x)-π(x)$ changes sign an infinite number of times, although for $x\le 10^{25}$, $d(x)>0$. (I guess that the $10^{25}$ could be enlarged.) I think that it is also known that for $x$ quite large, say in the interval $[10^{300}, 10^{500}]$, there exists $x$ such that $d(x)<0$. Thanks to the answers below, I have understood that there is no explicit value of $x$ for which we know that $d(x)<0$.

A related question: is it true that for $x$ large enough $$ π(x)\ge \frac{x}{\ln x}? $$

$\endgroup$
2

3 Answers 3

7
$\begingroup$

No explicit values are known.

For a recent reference, see "A still sharper region where $π(x) − \text{li}(x)$ is positive", by Y. Saouter, T.S. Trudgian and P. Demichel (2014). An extract from the last section of the paper:

The last point we shall address is the existence of smaller values of $x$ for which $π(x)>\text{li}(x)$. The is no practical way to test an isolated value of $x$. Analytical methods, such as the one described here, can only give intervals of positivity.

PS. Yes, $ π(x)\ge \frac{x}{\ln x}$ for all $x\geq17$. See "Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers" by Rosser and Schoenfeld, page 6, for example.

$\endgroup$
0
6
$\begingroup$

To your added question: yes, $\pi(x)\ge \frac{x}{\ln x}$ certainly holds for $x\geq 59$ by Theorem 1 in Rosser-Schoenfeld: Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Just to address the question $\pi(X) \geq \frac{X}{\log X}$? The above answers are sufficient -- let's just see why that is elementarily.

Let's assume RH just to illustrate the following idea/approximation for $\pi(X)$. Thus, we have $\pi(X) = Li(X) + O(X^{\frac{1}{2} + \varepsilon})$. If we rewrite $Li(X)$ via integration by parts, we see $Li(X) = \frac{X}{\log X} + \int_2^{X} \frac{1}{\log^2 t} dt + O(1) = \frac{X}{\log X} + \frac{X}{\log^2 X} + O\left(\frac{X}{\log^3 X}\right)$. Thus, $\pi(X) - \frac{X}{\log X} \sim \frac{X}{\log^2 X}$; now just take $X$ sufficiently large!

Note: one can iteratively expand via integration by parts, and the RH assumption emphasizes no term $\frac{X}{\log^N X}$ is outraced by the error term. However, it is overkill as the classical PNT estimate is also small enough.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.