Asymptotic formula for the sum of log(p)/p

  • Thread starter Thread starter A. Bahat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Sum
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the asymptotic formula for the sum of log(p)/p, specifically \sum_{p\leq n}\frac{\log p}{p}=\log n + O(1), which is believed to be provable without the Prime Number Theorem (PNT). A user references an intriguing proof of \sum_{p\leq n}\frac{1}{p}=\log\log n + M + O\left(\frac{1}{\log n}\right), noting it relies on the first equation and uses Abel's summation formula for the error bound. Another participant points out that the first equation is Theorem 8.8 (b) from "An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers" by Niven, Zuckerman, and Montgomery, which does not include a proof of the PNT. The conversation concludes with a user expressing satisfaction in finding the needed reference. The thread highlights the relationship between these mathematical results and the potential for proving them independently of the PNT.
A. Bahat
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
I know that \sum_{p\leq n}\frac{\log p}{p}=\log n + O(1), where p ranges over primes, can be proved using the Prime Number Theorem. However, I was under the impression (which may very well be wrong) that this result is not nearly as deep as PNT and can be proved without it. I ask because I came across an intriguing proof that \sum_{p\leq n}\frac{1}{p}=\log\log n + M + O\left(\frac{1}{\log n}\right)\text{ for some constant }M, using Abel's summation formula to get the error bound, but it depends on this result and applies it without proof. Does anyone know how to prove the first equation without appealing to PNT?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your first equation is Theorem 8.8 (b) in An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers by Niven, Zuckerman and Montgomery. That text doesn't contain a proof of the PNT, so it probably is what you're looking for.
 
Thank you, that's just what I needed.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K