23
$\begingroup$

This question was posted in MSE. It got many upvotes but no answer hence posting it in MO.


A number is either prime or composite, hence primality is a binary concept. Instead I wanted to put a value of primality to every number using some function $f$ such that $f(n) = 1$ iff $n$ is a prime otherwise, $0 < f(n) < 1$ and as the number divisors of $n$ increases, $f(n)$ decreases on average. Thus $f(n)$ is a measure of the degree of primeness of $n$ where 1 is a perfect prime and 0 is a hypothetical perfect composite. Hence $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{r \le N} f(r)$ can be interpreted as a the average primeness of the first $N$ integers.

After trying several definitions and going through the ones in literature, I came up with:

Define $f(n) = \dfrac{2s_n}{n-1}$ for $n \ge 2$, where $s_n$ is the standard deviation of the divisors of $n$.

One reason for using standard deviation was that I was already studying the distribution of the divisors of a number.

Question 1: Does the average primeness tend to zero? i.e. does the following hold?

$$ \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{1}{N}\sum_{r = 2}^N f(r) = 0 $$

Question 2: Is $f(n)$ injective over composites? i.e., do there exist composites $3 < m < n$ such that $f(m) = f(n)$?


My progress

  • $f(4.35\times 10^8) \approx 0.5919$ and decreasing so the limit if it exists must be between 0 and 0.5919.
  • For $2 \le i \le n$, computed data shows that the minimum value of $f(i)$ occurs at the largest highly composite number $\le n$.

Note: Here standard deviation of $x_1, x_2, \ldots , x_n$ is defined as $\sqrt \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n}$. Also notice that even if we define standard deviation as $\sqrt \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n-1}$ our questions remain unaffected because in this case in the definition of $f$, we will be multiplying with $\sqrt 2$ instead of $2$ to normalize $f$ in the interval $(0,1)$.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero. $\endgroup$
    – lcv
    Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 10:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 10:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ "...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind. $\endgroup$
    – user74900
    Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000. $\endgroup$
    – user44143
    Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 14:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @NilotpalKantiSinha - This may be interesting for you. Have a look at this question. There is a definition of "compositeness" of a number. Here, the value approaches zero as numbers become more prime-like, and approaches infinity as they become more composite. $\endgroup$
    – swami
    Commented Dec 1, 2021 at 5:51

1 Answer 1

23
$\begingroup$

The answer to Question 1 is "yes". To see this, notice that $s_n$ is at most square root of the average square of divisor, i.e. $$ s_n\leq \sqrt{\frac{\sum_{d\mid n}d^2}{\sum_{d\mid n} 1}}=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma_2(n)}{\sigma_0(n)}}, $$

where $\sigma_k(n)$ is the sum of $k$-th powers of divisors of $n$. Now,

$$ \sigma_2(n)=n^2\sigma_{-2}(n), $$

so

$$ \sigma_2(n)<\frac{\pi^2}{6}n^2 $$

for all $n$. Therefore we have

$$ f(n)\leq \frac{2}{n-1} \sqrt{\frac{\pi^2}{6}n^2/\sigma_0(n)}\leq \frac{5.14}{\sqrt{\sigma_0(n)}} $$

for all $n$. Now, almost all $n\leq N$ have at least $0.5\ln\ln N$ distinct prime factors. In particular, for almost all $n\leq N$ we have $\sigma_0(n)\geq 0.5\ln\ln N$. Therefore, our bound for $f(n)$ together with the trivial observation that $0\leq f(n)\leq 1$ gives

$$ \sum_{n\leq N} f(n)\leq \sum_{n\leq N, \sigma_0(n)\geq 0.5\ln\ln N} \frac{5.14}{\sqrt{\sigma_0(n)}}+\sum_{n\leq N, \sigma_0(n)<0.5\ln\ln N} 1= o(N), $$

as needed.

Using contour integration method one can even prove something like

$$ \sum_{n\leq N} f(n)=O(N(\ln N)^{1/\sqrt{2}-1}) $$

$\endgroup$
4
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $\log(\text{anything})^{1/\sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong." $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 18:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $\log(anything)^e$ not $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity. $\endgroup$
    – Yakk
    Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 19:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $\pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(\log x)^{1/\pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{\frac{1}{4\sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2019 at 20:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k \ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $\le k$ factors should decrease $\endgroup$
    – Space
    Commented Apr 9, 2019 at 6:11

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .