3
$\begingroup$

Let $K$ be a number field, $\mathcal O_K$ be its ring of integers, and $\mathfrak p$ be a prime ideal of $\mathcal O_K$. Let $x\in \mathbb R^+$, and $N(\mathfrak p)$ be the norm of the prime ideal $\mathfrak p$. We consider the sum $$\sum_{N(\mathfrak p)\leq x}\frac{\log N(\mathfrak p)}{N(\mathfrak p)}\hbox{ and }\sum_{N(\mathfrak p)\leq x}\log N(\mathfrak p).$$ We know $$\left|\sum_{N(\mathfrak p)\leq x}\frac{\log N(\mathfrak p)}{N(\mathfrak p)}-\log x\right|\ll_KO(1)$$ and $$\left|\sum_{N(\mathfrak p)\leq x}\log N(\mathfrak p)-x\right|\ll_Kx\exp\left(-c_K\sqrt{\log x}\right)$$ for a constant depending on $K$. I would like to know whether there are any explicit estimates of the above issue. Attention, I would like an estimate WITHOUT the assumption of the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis, but a worse remainder is OK.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Let $K$ denote any totally imaginary field. Theorem 2 of this paper (Maciej Grześkowiak Explicit Bound for the Prime Ideal Theorem in Residue Classes, (International Conference on Number-Theoretic Methods in Cryptology, NuTMiC 2017: Number-Theoretic Methods in Cryptology pp 48-68)) https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-76620-1_4

contains the estimate for $\left|\sum_{N(p)\leq x}\ \log N(p) -x\right|$ of the type you ask, with explicit constants, (too complicated to state here.) Moreover, it is more general, as it allows residue classes.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your answer. But I would like to know whether we could prove it for an arbitrary number field. Thank you very much. $\endgroup$ – var Mar 19 at 12:46
0
$\begingroup$

Such results follow (after partial summation) from the unconditional effective form of the Chebotarev density theorem due to Lagarias and Odlyzko applied to the trivial Galois extension $K/K$. Various improvements over their work might be easier to access. For the sharpest unconditional error terms in the $x$-aspect, see here. For the sharpest unconditional error terms in the $K$-aspect, see here.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your answer. But I don't think these two papers are explicit enough, compared with the results assuming GRH. $\endgroup$ – var May 17 at 22:06

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.