10
$\begingroup$

I am interested in having an upper bound for the cardinality of

$\#\left\{n\leq x\,:\quad\omega(n)=k, \omega(n+2)=\ell\right\}$ for $k,\ell\geq 1$,

where $\omega(n)=\sum_{p\vert n}1$ counts the number of (distinct) prime factors of the integer $n$.
I would actually like a sharp upper bound (up to a constant) for $k=\ell=\log\log x$. I thought this was known, but I can't find anything in the literature. For $k\ll\sqrt{\log\log x}$ and $\ell\ll\log\log x$ I can have a good upper bound, but I can't reach $k=\ell=\log\log x$.

Does anyone have a reference or an idea please ?

Thank you very much !

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Do you really mean $=\log\log x$ there? The double logarithm is almost always a non-integer, so $\omega(n)$ won't take such value. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Feb 26, 2016 at 12:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hello, thank you for your interest. I actually mean $\lfloor \log\log x\rfloor$. I wrote this because around this integer, $\pi_k(x)\sim\pi_{k+1}(x)$ so we don't really care where $k$ is plus or minus 1. $\endgroup$
    – elie520
    Feb 26, 2016 at 12:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ For each prime $p$ we consider a two-dimensional vector $\xi_p(n)=({\mathbf 1}_{p|n},{\mathbf 1}_{p|n+2})$. Then $(w(n),w(n+2))=\sum_p \xi_p(n)$. Next, if we choose $n\leqslant x$ at random, $\xi_p$ is a random vector with known distribution, and they almost do not correlate. It suggests that their sum satisfies some sort of CLT, as in Erdos-Kac theorem. $\endgroup$
    – Fedor Petrov
    Feb 26, 2016 at 18:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ well, the fact they do not correlate mutually is too weak, but we may compute all moments with high acccuracy, it is already enough for CLT $\endgroup$
    – Fedor Petrov
    Feb 26, 2016 at 19:41
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you. We indeed have "Erdos-Kac"-like theorems for (f(n),g(n+2)) for f, g additive (or maybe strongly additive), but they do not allow, to my knowledge, to recover the local laws. $\endgroup$
    – elie520
    Feb 26, 2016 at 20:11

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
4
$\begingroup$

The problem as been solved (Theorems 3 and 18) and generalized.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Questions that have been answered on this site are not "closed"; rather, the asker can "accept" an answer by clicking the checkmark on the left. $\endgroup$
    – j.c.
    Nov 27, 2017 at 12:56
  • $\begingroup$ This question and its answers need to be locked by permanent theoretical significance so that they could be only voted up or down. $\endgroup$
    – user178594
    Mar 26, 2023 at 11:41

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.