A conjecture on Cesaro summation and primes.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around conjectures related to Cesaro summation and its application to prime numbers and specific series involving the Mertens function. Participants explore the properties of these summations, their definitions, and implications, while engaging in technical reasoning and challenges.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant conjectures that the series of primes summed as \(\sum_{p} p^{k}\) is Cesaro summable for \(C(n,k+1+\epsilon)\) and connects this to the Riemann Hypothesis.
  • Another participant questions the definition of the Mertens function and the concept of Cesaro summability, suggesting that definitions should be provided for clarity.
  • A different participant argues that the proposed series is not Cesaro summable for \(k>1\) and challenges the existence of limits related to the Mertens function, requesting proof or mathematical workings.
  • One participant provides a historical note on Cesaro's summation and offers a link to a definition of the generalized Cesaro summation formula.
  • Another participant points out a misunderstanding regarding the definition of Cesaro summation and emphasizes the need for mathematical support for claims made.
  • A participant introduces an idea based on the growth of sums of powers, suggesting that the mean tends to a finite value as \(n\) approaches infinity.
  • Another participant discusses an inequality involving sums of powers and proposes that certain series are r-Cesaro summable under specific conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the properties of Cesaro summation and its application to the proposed series. There is no consensus on the validity of the conjectures or the definitions being used, and several challenges to the initial claims remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for definitions and mathematical proofs to support claims, indicating a reliance on specific assumptions and the potential for misunderstanding regarding Cesaro summation.

Klaus_Hoffmann
Messages
85
Reaction score
1
After studying Cesaro and Borel summation i think that

sum [tex]\sum_{p} p^{k}[/tex] extended over all primes is summable Cesaro [tex]C(n,k+1+\epsilon)[/tex]

and the series [tex]\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} M(n)[/tex] and [tex]\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \Psi (n)-n[/tex]

are Cesaro-summable [tex]C(n,3/2+\epsilon)[/tex] for any positive epsilon

hence the fact that M(0)+M(1)+M(2)+... is Cearo summable 3/2+e is a consequence of Riemann Hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
M would be what, Jose? The Mertens function perhaps? I doubt anyone here knows the definition of Cesaro summable - if you're going to post more random speculations you could at least offer some definitions.
 
It does not take much insight to see the sequence [tex]a_n = \frac{2+3+5+7+11\cdots p_n}{n}[/tex] is increasing, as the amount you are adding to the numerator with every next value of n, is larger than the amount being added to the numerator, 1. We can see The first sum you propose is not Cesaro Summable for k>1. For k=0, the Cesaro summation is equal to 1. For k<0 the Cesaro sum is 0.

The 2nd series in your post does not make sense, M(0) is undefined...and what makes you think that [tex]\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{ M(1) + M(2)...+ M (n)}{n}[/tex] exists? It looks to be as if it is at best oscillatory. Post a proof or any form of mathematical working...
 
"CESARO, Ernesto (1859-1906). Italian geometer and analyst.

Cesaro's summation formula. A specific method of attributing a sum to certain di­ vergent series. A sequence of partial sums

the method for k-Cesaro sum is given in webpage (for k=1 is the same as usual Cero summation)

http://www.mathdict.com/9.html

Using Binomial coefficient, yes M(x) is the Mertens function
 
The Link you offered gives the definition for the Generalized Cesaro summation formula, my previous post thought otherwise. Either way, you are still yet to show us any mathematical working to support your claim.
 
the idea i got from the fact that the sum of [tex]f(k)=k^{a}[/tex] (a being a positive integer ) from k=1,2,3,...,n is [tex]S(n)=O(n^{a+1})[/tex]

the Binomial coefficient involving n+r and n for r integer are O(n^{r}) then if we put r=a+1 as n--> infinity the mean tends to a finite value.

Also if a function is [tex]O(x^{b}[/tex] then its sum/integral is [tex]O(x^{b+1}[/tex] this is where i got the idea from.
 
Last edited:
Since for even n we got the inequality

[tex]1+2^{k}+3^{k}+...+n^{k} \le C( 1-2^{k+1}+3^{k+1}-...+n^{k+1}[/tex]

and due to the fact that the sum [tex]1-2^{k+1}+3^{k+1}-...[/tex] is summable Cesaro of order (k+1) then i believe that

[tex]1+2^{k}+3^^{k}+...[/tex] is r-Cesaro summable

with [tex]k+1<r\le k+2[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
10K