1
$\begingroup$

This has been moved from math.stackexchange;

I am attempting to prove/disprove convergence of the following sum $$ \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \sum_{p \leq n} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \ln p \left\{\frac{n}{(p-1)p^k} \right\}$$ where $\{ x\}$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.

Let $\epsilon_n$ denote the above double sum. It's a trivial fact $\epsilon_n > 0$, since the summand contains positive terms. On the other hand, it can be shown $\epsilon_n \geq 1$. Using the facts $\{x\} + \{y\} \geq \{x+y\}$, $\{\frac{m}{n}\} \leq 1-\frac{1}{|n|}$, and $\sum_{p \leq n} \ln p \sim n$, we have

$$\epsilon_n = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{p \leq n} \ln p \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left\{\frac{n}{(p-1)p^k} \right\} \geq \frac{1}{n} \sum_{p \leq n} \ln p \left\{\frac{n}{p-1}\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{p^k} \right\} $$

$$= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{p \leq n} \ln p \left\{\frac{np}{(p-1)^2} \right\} \geq \left(\frac{1}{n} \sum_{p \leq n} \frac{-\ln p}{(p-1)^2} +\ln p \right) \sim 1-\frac{C_n}{n} $$

where $C_n = \sum_{p \leq n} \frac{\ln p}{(p-1)^2}$. Now, the limit $C_n$ is known to be convergent (by the limit comparison test to the derivative of the prime zeta function $P(s)$, which is known to be convergent for $\mathrm{Re}(s) > 1$), so $\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{C_n}{n} \to 0$. Thus $\epsilon_n \geq 1$. Perhaps this may not be of help, as I experience difficulty establishing an upper bound.

$\endgroup$
15
  • $\begingroup$ Is $p\leq n$ supposed to be positive integral $p$ at most $n$, or positive integral prime values for $p$? Gerhard "Conventions Unclear For the Unconventional" Paseman, 2016.01.18 $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18, 2016 at 19:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oops. I missed the prime in your comment. Sorry for the confused response. I think then the sum converges, and I will see if I can help you convince others. Gerhard "Wants Confusion Replaced With Conviction" Paseman, 2016.01.18 $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18, 2016 at 20:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For a bound on the limsup, split the sum into k=0 and k>0. For the former use {x}\leq 1 and \sum_{p\leq n} \log{p} ~ n, for the latter use {x}\leq x and \sum_p \log{p}/(p(p-1)) \leq O(1). $\endgroup$
    – alpoge
    Commented Jan 18, 2016 at 20:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, that's why I split off the k=0 term and handled it separately. $\endgroup$
    – alpoge
    Commented Jan 18, 2016 at 22:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And well, it looks that the limit does exist, but I am sleepy now and have to recheck this. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 18, 2016 at 23:05

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

Yes, the limit exists and equals $1-\gamma$. Summation may be taken by all $p$, it gives the same sum.

At first, we estimate the sum over $k>0$. Denote $q=(p-1)p^k$. Estimate from above $\ln p\leqslant \ln q$. We have $$ \sum_{q\leqslant n} \ln q\left\{\frac nq\right\}\leqslant \ln n\sum_{q\leqslant n}1=O(\ln^2 n \cdot\sqrt{n})=o(n), $$ since if $(p-1)p^k\leqslant 1$, we have $k\leqslant \log_2 n$, $p\leqslant \sqrt{n}+1$. For $q>n$ we have $$ \sum_{q>n} \ln q\cdot \frac nq=n\sum_{q\geqslant n} \frac{\ln q}{q}=o(n), $$ since the series $\ln q/q$ converges (for proving these it suffices to partition positive integers into segments $\Delta_N=[2^N,2^{N+1}-1]$, and estimate $$ \sum_{q\in \Delta_N} \frac{\ln q}{q}=O\left(\frac{N}{2^N}\sum_{q<2^{N+1}} 1\right)=O(N^2\cdot 2^{-N/2}) $$ as explained above.

OK, now we have to consider $k=0$, i.e., study $\sum_p \ln p \{\frac{n}{p-1}\}$. At first, it essentially (upto $o(n)$) the same as $\sum_p \ln n \{\frac{n}{p-1}\}$. Indeed, the difference is $$\sum_p \ln \frac{n}p \left\{\frac{n}{p-1}\right\}=O\left(\sum_p \ln \frac{n}p\right)=O\left(\sum_{p\leqslant n/\ln^2n} \ln \frac{n}p\right)+ O\left(\sum_{n+1\geqslant p> n/\ln^2n} \ln \frac{n}p\right)=o(n),$$ since in the first sum we have $O(n/\ln^2 n)$ summands not exceeding $\ln n$, in the second sum we have $O(\pi(n))=O(n/\log n)$ summands not exceeding $\ln\ln n$.

Well, so we have to prove that sum $S(n)=\sum_p \{\frac{n}{p-1}\}$ has asymptotics $c\cdot n/\ln n+o(n/\ln n)$ for $c=1-\gamma$. I write $\pi(n)$ instead of $n/\ln n$ as it is more natural here.

Fix $\varepsilon$ and after that large $M=M(\varepsilon)$ to be specified later. We want to determine $S(n):=\sum_p \{n/(p-1)\}$ with accuracy $\varepsilon \pi(n)$. At first, we have $$ \sum_{p\leqslant n/M} \left\{\frac{n}{p-1}\right\}\leqslant \pi(n/M)<\varepsilon \pi(n)/2 $$ for large enough $M$.

Now consider separately primes $p$ between $n/k$ and $n/(k+1)$ for each specific $k=1,2,\dots,M-1$. We have $$ \sum_{n/k\geqslant p-1> n/(k+1)} \left\{\frac{n}{p-1}\right\}= \sum_{n/k\geqslant p-1> n/(k+1)} \frac{n}{p-1}-k\left(\pi(1+n/k)-\pi(1+n/(k+1))\right) $$ As for the first sum, we have $F(x):=\sum_{p-1\leq x} 1/(p-1)=\ln\ln x+c_0+o(1/\ln x)$, see comments on Mertens theorem here Thus $$F(n/k)-F(n/(k+1))=\ln\frac{\ln n-\ln k}{\ln n-\ln(k+1)}+o(1/\ln n)= \frac{\ln(k+1)-\ln k+o(1)}{\ln n}. $$ Next, ugly expression $k\left(\pi(1+n/k)-\pi(1+n/(k+1))\right)$ is just $\pi(n)/(k+1)+o(\pi(n))$.

Sum up by $k$, we get a limit of $\ln(M+1)-(1/2+1/3+\dots+1/M)$, this limit equals $1-\gamma$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ +1 This is great analysis, Fedor Petrov! $\endgroup$
    – Brian
    Commented Jan 19, 2016 at 18:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Hopefully, now it is not only great, but also correct. Previously I spend a lot of time to estimate the sum of $\pi(n)$ fractional parts with accuracy $o(n)$ :( :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 19, 2016 at 21:36

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.