In a couple of web pages, I see that Legendre's constant is defined to be $\lim_{n \to \infty} (\pi(n) - (n/\log(n)))$ (for example, here and here).

Actually the first uses $\lim_{n \to \infty} (\log(n) - (n/\pi(n)))$, but I have the same question in either case.

To be honest, I just assumed that this was a typo for $\lim_{n \to \infty} (\pi(n) / (n/\log(n)))$ (that is, the prime number theorem). However, in both pages it looks to me as if the claim really is that $\lim_{n \to \infty} (\pi(n) - (n/\log(n)))$ exists and is $1$. Really?

I don't know whether to be more surprised that the limit exists or that its value is 1

Does anyone else find it surprising?

  • 6
    $\begingroup$ of course $f(n)=\pi(n) - (n/\log(n))$ does not have a limit, since $f(n+1)-f(n)$ does not have a limit $\endgroup$ – Fedor Petrov Jun 29 '17 at 19:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoséHdz.Stgo. Would you care to elaborate what did “Wikipedians get wrong”? I don’t see anything wrong at either en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Legendre%27s_constant.svg or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legendre%27s_constant . Wikipedia is not mentioned at the page you link to, nor does it seem to contradict it. $\endgroup$ – Emil Jeřábek Jul 6 '17 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek: I stand corrected. $\endgroup$ – José Hdz. Stgo. Jul 6 '17 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ So just to summarize: $$\lim_{n \to \infty} (log(n) - (n/\pi(n)))$$ exists and is equal to $1$, whereas: $$\lim_{n \to \infty} (\pi(n) - (n/log(n)))$$ does not exist. I am still surprised at the former - it seems a better convergence than could be expected, but GH shows below how it comes about! $\endgroup$ – user304582 Jul 10 '17 at 22:30

1. The prime number theorem in the form $$\pi(n)=\mathrm{li}(n)+O(ne^{-c\sqrt{\log n}})$$ combined with the approximation $$\mathrm{li}(n)=\frac{n}{\log n}+\frac{n}{\log^2 n}+O\left(\frac{n}{\log^3 n}\right)$$ shows that $$\pi(n)-\frac{n}{\log n}=\frac{n}{\log^2 n}+O\left(\frac{n}{\log^3 n}\right).$$ So the left hand side tends to infinity quite rapidly, it has no finite limit.

2. The correct definition of Legendre's constant is $$A:=\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\log n-\frac{n}{\pi(n)}\right),$$ and the third display above shows that it equals $1$: \begin{align*}\log n-\frac{n}{\pi(n)} &=\log n-\frac{n}{\frac{n}{\log n}+\frac{n+o(n)}{\log^2 n}}\\ &=\log n-\frac{\log n}{1+\frac{1+o(1)}{\log n}}\\ &=(\log n)\left(1-\frac{1}{1+\frac{1+o(1)}{\log n}}\right)\\ &=(\log n)\left(1-1+\frac{1+o(1)}{\log n}\right)\\ &=(\log n)\frac{1+o(1)}{\log n}\\ &=1+o(1).\end{align*}


I'll stay clear from the infamous $B_L'$ notation.

Legendre's original (correct) statement is that

$$\pi(x)=\frac{Bx}{\log x-A+o(1)}$$

where the so-called "Legendre's constant" is $A$. The incorrect part was that he guessed that $A=1.08366$

As pointed out by Fedor Petrov, the definition with $\pi(n) - (n/\log(n))$ is clearly wrong.

Note. Using de la Vallée Poussin to disprove Legendre's conjecture is actually an overkill. This elementary argument is due to Pintz.


$$\Psi(x)=Cx+\frac{(D+o(1))x}{\log x}$$

with some constants $C$ and $D$. Using Stirling and Legendre's formula,

\begin{equation*} \begin{split} \log x+O(1) &= \frac{\log [x]!}{x}=\frac{1}{x} \sum_{n\leq x} \Lambda (n) \left[ \frac{x}{n} \right]\\ & = \sum_{n\leq x} \frac{\Lambda (n)}{n}+\frac{1}{x} \sum_{n\leq x} \Lambda (n)O(1)\\ & = \int_2^x \frac{\Psi(t)}{t^2}dt+\frac{\Psi(x)}{x}+O\left( \frac{\Psi(x)}{x}\right)\\ & = \int_2^x \frac{C+\frac{D+o(1)}{\log t}}{t}dt+O(1)\\ & = C\log x + (D+o(1))\log\log x. \end{split} \end{equation*}

Therefore $C=1$ and $D=0$, that is,

$$\Psi(x)=x\left(1+\frac{o(1)}{\log x}\right).$$

And by partial summation we finally get $A=B=1$ in Legendre's formula.

  • $\begingroup$ Wait... legendres conjecture is known to be false? D: I love trying to come up with tactics to prove it. Thanks for ruining the fun. $\endgroup$ – user64742 Jun 30 '17 at 2:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Typhon The conjecture is true, it's just that $A=1$ exactly. $\endgroup$ – Wojowu Jun 30 '17 at 7:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Typhon no the same "Legrende's conjecture", I think... This is not the same one as in Landau's problems. $\endgroup$ – Myshkin Jun 30 '17 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Wojowu the conjecture is the formula? I thought we were referring to the whole "primes between any two squares" thing. $\endgroup$ – user64742 Jun 30 '17 at 16:18
  • $\begingroup$ @Typhon We are talking about a completely different here. $\endgroup$ – Wojowu Jun 30 '17 at 16:19

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.