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.

  • $\begingroup$ 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 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Jan 18 '16 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 $\endgroup$ – Gerhard Paseman Jan 18 '16 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 Jan 18 '16 at 20:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Yeah, that's why I split off the k=0 term and handled it separately. $\endgroup$ – alpoge Jan 18 '16 at 22:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ And well, it looks that the limit does exist, but I am sleepy now and have to recheck this. $\endgroup$ – Fedor Petrov Jan 18 '16 at 23:05

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 $1-\gamma$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ +1 This is great analysis, Fedor Petrov! $\endgroup$ – Maiyu Jan 19 '16 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 $o(n)$ :( :) $\endgroup$ – Fedor Petrov Jan 19 '16 at 21:36

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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