3
$\begingroup$

Is $$1 = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{\pi(p_n^2)-n+2}{p_n^3-p_n},$$ where $\pi$ denotes the prime counting function and $p_n$ denotes the $n$-th prime?

Context:

This question came out as a result in trying to answer this previous question by counting the size of the blocks on the main diagonal of the fractal: How to define a fractal from the lexicographic sorting on the prime factorization of natural numbers?

I have changed the sorting a little bit, without changing the appearance of the fractal:

fractal_on_prime_numbers

The sorting is based on the prime factorization, but now we allow the primes to be counted with multiplicity:

If $m = p_1 p_2 \cdots p_r, n = q_1 q_2 \cdots q_s$ with $p_1 \le p_2 \le \cdots \le p_r, p_i$ prime, and similarily $q_1 \le q_2 \le \cdots \le q_s$ then:

$$m \le n :\iff [p_1,p_2,\cdots,p_r] \le [q_1,q_2,\cdots,q_s]$$

where the right hand side denotes the lexicographic ordering of the two lists.

By sorting the numbers $1,\cdots,n$ and careful counting, we find that the size of the blocks on the main diagonal of the fractal are given by the numbers $a_q(n)$, which are defined as follows, and seem to obey the following formula:

Let $a_q(n):=a_{n,q}$ denote the number of $1 \le k \le n$ such that the minimal prime divisor of $k$ is $q$. Let $\DeclareMathOperator\np{np}\np(n)$ denote the smallest prime $p\ge n+1$. $$ a_{n, q} = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if } 0 \leq n \leq q - 1 \\ 1 & \text{if } q \leq n \leq q^2 - 1 \\ 2 & \text{if } q^2 \leq n \leq q \cdot \text{np}(q) - 1 \\ \pi(\np(\lfloor n/q \rfloor)) - \pi(q) + 1 & \text{if } q \cdot \np(q) \leq n \leq q^3 - 1 \\ a_{n - q^3 + q, q} + \pi(q^2) - \pi(q) + 2 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} $$

Using this (half proven) formula, we can guess what the limit is:

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_p(n)}{n} = \frac{\pi(p^2)-\pi(p)+2}{p^3-p}.$$

From this guessing we deduce the question above.

I am asking if there is some other proof of the formula above, or if the formula is wrong?

Edit: As pointed out by fedja and GHfromMO in the comments, the reason why the formula above is not correct, is that we have instead:

$$\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac{a_p(n)}{n} = \frac{1}{p}\prod_{q<p,q\text{ prime}}(1-\frac{1}{q})$$

Since we have (because the set $\{1,\cdots,n\}$ is divided by the primes $p \le n$ in pairwise disjoint sets of size $a_p(n)$):

$$1 = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}(\frac{1}{n}+\sum_{p \le n} \frac{a_p(n)}{n})$$

we obtain the following formula instead of the one in the title of the question:

$$1 = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{p_n}\prod_{q<p_n,q\text{ prime}}(1-\frac{1}{q})$$

which can also be written as:

$$1 = \frac{1}{2}+(1-\frac{1}{2})\cdot$$ $$(\frac{1}{3}+(1-\frac{1}{3})\cdot$$ $$(\frac{1}{5}+(1-\frac{1}{5})\cdot$$ $$(\frac{1}{7}+(1-\frac{1}{7})\cdot$$ $$(+\ldots+\cdot$$ $$(\frac{1}{p_n}+(1-\frac{1}{p_n})(\frac{1}{p_{n+1}}+(1-\frac{1}{p_{n+1}})(+\ldots)$$

$\endgroup$
14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ When summed up to n=16000, the sum is around 0.95228. It seems hard to tell from the slow growth rate if it is likely to go beyond 1 or stay below 1. $\endgroup$
    – JoshuaZ
    Commented Nov 26, 2023 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's sensitive to the choice of enumeration of primes which makes it very unlikely (and makes the sum of little relevance). Apparently there's no serious indication at all that this should hold. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Nov 26, 2023 at 21:14
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps I misunderstand your definition of $a_p(n)$, but, as written, the limit of the ratio $a_{p}(n)/n$ is, clearly, not what you wrote but $\frac 1p\prod_{q<p, q\text{ prime}}(1-\frac 1q)$, isn't it? $\endgroup$
    – fedja
    Commented Nov 26, 2023 at 21:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GHfromMO: Thanks again for the answer. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 1:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mathoverflowUser fedja's formula follows from the Chinese Remainder Theorem. Indeed, the integers counted by $a_p(n)$ have zero residue modulo the prime $p$, and nonzero residue modulo any prime $q<p$. Hence these integers have $\prod_{q<p}(q-1)$ possible residues modulo $p\prod_{q<p}q$. The result follows by decomposing $\{1,\dotsc,n\}$ into these admissible residue classes modulo $p\prod_{q<p}q$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 1:27

1 Answer 1

18
$\begingroup$

The sum is less than $1$. First of all, Mathematica and SAGE independently tell me that $$\sum_{n=1}^{10000} \frac{\pi(p_n^2)-n+2}{p_n^3-p_n}=0.950344\dots.\tag{1}\label{1}$$ We estimate the tail sum by applying estimates from the classical paper Rosser–Schoenfeld: Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers, Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962), 64–94. By (3.2) in this paper, $$\frac{\pi(p_n^2)}{p_n^2}<\frac{1}{2\log p_n}+\frac{3}{8\log^2 p_n}.$$ Using also (3.10) in the paper, that is the bound $$p_n>n(\log n+\log\log n-3/2),$$ we can infer that $$\frac{\pi(p_n^2)}{p_n^2}<\frac{p_n-p_n^{-1}}{2n\log^2 n},\qquad n>10^4,$$ with an extra factor of $0.8272$ on the right-hand side for $n\leq 10^8$. Therefore, $$\sum_{n=10001}^\infty\frac{\pi(p_n^2)-n+2}{p_n^3-p_n} <\sum_{n=10001}^\infty\frac{\pi(p_n^2)}{p_n^3-p_n}<\sum_{n=10001}^{10^8}\frac{0.8272}{2n\log^2 n}+\sum_{n>10^8}\frac{1}{2n\log^2 n}.$$ It follows that $$\sum_{n=10001}^\infty\frac{\pi(p_n^2)-n+2}{p_n^3-p_n} <\int_{10^4}^{10^8}\frac{0.8272}{2x\log^2 x}dx+\int_{10^8}^\infty\frac{1}{2x\log^2 x}dx=0.049596\dots.\tag{2}\label{2}$$ From \eqref{1} and \eqref{2}, we see that the OP's sum is less than $0.999942$.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the clarification and the calculation. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 1:01
  • $\begingroup$ Does the sum converge to $1$ if we replace the limit of $a_p(n)/n$ with fedjas formula? $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 1:45
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mathoverflowUser Yes. This follows from the fact that these limits are densities of pairwise disjoint sets whose union is the set of integers exceeding one. One can also establish the sum formula directly, namely by induction it follows that $\sum_{n=1}^N \frac{1}{p_n}\prod_{m=1}^{n-1}\left(1-\frac{1}{p_m}\right)$ equals $1-\prod_{m=1}^n\left(1-\frac{1}{p_m}\right)$. Of course in the second proof one needs that $\prod_{m=1}^\infty\left(1-\frac{1}{p_m}\right)=0$. This can be proved in many independent ways, and in fact the first proof establishes this relation as well. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 2:05
  • $\begingroup$ @mathoverflowUser I continue. The precise decay of $\prod_{m=1}^n\left(1-\frac{1}{p_m}\right)$ was established by Mertens. This is Mertens' third theorem. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 2:11
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your explanation $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 27, 2023 at 6:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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