3
$\begingroup$

I don't know if I have misunderstood the information from the section about the heuristic related to Cramér's conjecture and the known facts about Maier's theorem, from the Wikipedia Cramér's conjecture. I would like to know if there is a clear criterion or rule about when one can use the heuristic given by Cramér random model for prime numbers.

Question (Emphasized after I've read the comments). When does a professional number theorist know that can to use Cramer's heuristics, to make a reasoning in his/her work? I mean how to know if in certain situations the heuristic that provide Carmér random model will provide good reasonings about the distribution of primes, versus situations in which this heuristic should be wrong. Many thanks.

If there is a clear discussion about it in the literature feel free to answer as a reference request, and I try to search and read it from the literature. In other case feel free to illustrate different scenarios (I say examples) where it is appropriate or not to use Cramér heuristics in calculations in analytitc number theory.

For the statement of Maier's theorem see [1] or the corresponding Wikipedia.

References:

[1] Helmut Maier, Primes in short intervals, The Michigan Mathematical Journal, 32 (2): pp. 221–225 (1985).

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I was inspired from a comment (of an user) added in an answer of the MathOverflow question 308464 $\endgroup$
    – user142929
    Jan 3, 2020 at 21:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ TL;DR one can always make those heuristics, but one can never be guaranteed they are right. Maier's theorem shows that sometimes they are wrong, and AFAIK there is no condition whatsoever which says they are right. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Jan 6, 2020 at 19:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Many thanks for your contribution @Wojowu , I know that always one can to do a heuristic, but the point is if the heuristic is suitable/right for a given scenario, and to know when this produces reasonable consequences. $\endgroup$
    – user142929
    Jan 6, 2020 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ After reading your comment again, I thank you and I have emphasized my question. If you know typical situations of computations where can to fail Cramér random model for prime numbers, you can to explain why @Wojowu in an answer $\endgroup$
    – user142929
    Jan 6, 2020 at 20:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not a complete answer, but roughly speaking the primary way that the Cramer random model fails is in situations which involve intervals that aren't really tiny and aren't really that big either. In that medium-short range, there's more interaction between whether a given set of numbers is prime, and what that restricts about the divisibility of nearby numbers. If one uses intervals of a fixed size (e.g. twin primes) there's not enough room for substantial interaction, and if one uses really big intervals, then there's enough interaction that they mostly "cancel out." $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Jan 6, 2020 at 20:51

1 Answer 1

4
+50
$\begingroup$

Terry Tao's blog has the following post which discusses Probabilistic models and heuristics for the primes. In particular, it gives examples of the use of Cramer's model, while covering much more. I quote:

.. we do have a number of extremely convincing and well supported models for the primes (and related objects) that let us predict what the answer to many prime number theory questions (both multiplicative and non-multiplicative) should be, particularly in asymptotic regimes where one can work with aggregate statistics about the primes, rather than with a small number of individual primes.

These models are based on taking some statistical distribution related to the primes (e.g. the primality properties of a randomly selected $k$-tuple), and replacing that distribution by a model distribution that is easy to compute with (e.g. a distribution with strong joint independence properties). One can then predict the asymptotic value of various (normalised) statistics about the primes by replacing the relevant statistical distributions of the primes with their simplified models.

In this non-rigorous setting, many difficult conjectures on the primes reduce to relatively simple calculations; for instance, all four of the (still unsolved) Landau problems may now be justified in the affirmative by one or more of these models. Indeed, the models are so effective at this task that analytic number theory is in the curious position of being able to confidently predict the answer to a large proportion of the open problems in the subject, whilst not possessing a clear way forward to rigorously confirm these answers!"

Then comes a warning:

In particular, and in contrast to the other notes in this course, the material here is not directly used for proving further theorems, which is why we have marked it as “optional” material. Nevertheless, the heuristics and models here are still used indirectly for such purposes, for instance by

giving a clearer indication of what results one expects to be true, thus guiding one to fruitful conjectures

I will only add two or three concrete observations from the rest of Tao's blogpost.

First, Tao demonstrates that the "naive Cramer model" can recover the Riemann Hypothesis in the form:

For any fixed $\varepsilon>0,$ one has $$ \sum_{n\leq x} \Lambda(n)=x+O_{\varepsilon}(x^{1/2+\varepsilon}) $$ for $x>1.$ Here $\Lambda(n)$ is the von Mangoldt function.

Then, he points out that the naive Cramer model does not predict the constant $e^{\gamma}$ in the third Mertens theorem.

Further down, he shows that naive Cramer yields the conjecture $$ G(X)=(1+o(1))\log^2 X, $$ as $X\rightarrow \infty,$ where $G(X)$ is the largest prime gap in $[1,X].$ This conjecture is unproved but to the best of my knowledge the following are the best unconditional bounds on $G(X)$ as $X$ gets large: $$ \log X \frac{\log_2 X \log_4 X}{\log_3 X} \ll g(X) \ll \frac{X^{0.525}}{\log X} $$ where $\log_2(\cdot)=\log \log((\cdot))$, etc. See another blogpost by Terry Tao
here for the details.

Finally, Tao also illustrates that using the naive Cramer model for a twin prime asymptotic gives the expected result, but that the same model also predicts an infinite number of primes of the form $(p,p+1)$! The reason is that the set of actual primes are not equidistributed modulo 2 but the naive model assumes this.

He then goes on to extensions of the model, but I will stop here.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Many thanks for this answer! I'm going to study it. $\endgroup$
    – user142929
    Jan 7, 2020 at 10:33
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if it makes sense (in the theory of prime numbers) to study similar quotients than the showed by the Wikipedia Maier's theorem in second paragraph for other arithmetic functions $\pi_C(x)$ counting different prime constellations $C$. I don't know if this question is in the literature, I add it for your attention thanking your excellent answer. I think that that for example the topic of primes in arithmetic progressions (Dirichlet's theorem on arithmetic progressions is important) or Ramanujan primes can be interesting. Isn't required a response of this comment, and good day. $\endgroup$
    – user142929
    Jun 16, 2020 at 9:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There may be a "scale change" phenomenon taking into account the congruence properties of integers as one zooms in from a seemingly continuous set to a fundamentally discrete one, and the lack of relevant "scale change" factor (which may be the meaning of $e^{\gamma}$ in Mertens' theorem) may be the reason why random models of primes sometimes fail. $\endgroup$ Aug 18, 2022 at 11:26

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.