3
$\begingroup$

A recent question on math overflow on sums of the primes squared was answered/put on hold by pointing to an old paper by T. Šalát and S. Znám, On the sums of the prime powers. Šalát and Znám's (SZ) asymptotic formula for $ S(n, k) = 2^k + 3^k + 5^k + \ldots p_n^k$ is $n^{k+1}(\ln(n))^{k}/(k+1)$

Coding this result up, I found that this result was always smaller by a factor that grows to around 8% (for $n < 78498$) than the real sum. So I decided to try a different approach inspired by Dusart who has a better approximation for the $n$-th prime as $n (\ln n + \ln \ln n - 1)$. So I (heuristically) replaced $\ln n$ in the SZ formula by $(\ln n + \ln \ln n - 1)$. But then I found that the approximate sums now were too large (by sometimes as much as the values were too small for the SZ formula). So I decided to balance between these two extremes using a factor $c$ as in $\ln n + c ( \ln \ln n - 1)$. I found for the prime sums that $c = 0.6$ seemed to work very well, but for the squares, I found $c = 0.7$ seemed to work well and for the cubes $c = 0.8$ worked well. So I wonder if the "best" constant (i.e. value of $c$) was approaching $1$ for larger powers. The results for prime sums, for example, had errors less than 2% for sums over 100 primes (and less than 1% for $1959 < n < 78498$) whereas either the SZ or Dusart methods had errors of over 10% at times. Of course, the idea of a best constant $c$ is vague: the errors in my data go up and down as one advances through the primes and oscillates between overestimating and underestimating the real sum (for example, at $n = 15885$ for $k = 1$ and $c = 0.6$).

So just as there is a great deal of error analysis for the N-th prime (e.g., Rosser and Schoenfield, Approximate Formulas for some functions of prime numbers, Dusart etc.) is there some reason why:

$S(n, k)$ is approximated well by $n^{k+1}(\ln(n) + c_k \ln (\ln (n) - c_k)^{k}/(k+1)$ for values of $c_1 \approx 0.6$ and $c_2 \approx 0.7$ and where $c_k$ seems to approach $1$ as $k$ gets larger,

(where "approximated well" needs a definition :=)) Note: The sum of primes is A007504 in the OEIS; there is a more refined error analysis for $k=1$ by Shevelev of $S(n) \le n(n+1)(\ln(n) + \ln(\ln(n))+ 1)/2$ but even this upper bound is closer to the Dusart-based approximation. There is a similar error analysis by Shevelev for the case of $k = 2$ in A024450 but again this does not seem to answer the question above.

$\endgroup$

closed as unclear what you're asking by GH from MO, RP_, Stefan Kohl, Chris Godsil, Yoav Kallus Jun 6 '17 at 1:50

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What is your question? (Oh, I just see this "question" is 3 years old. I will vote to delete it.) $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Jun 5 '17 at 18:42