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

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter A. Bahat
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Sum
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the asymptotic formula for the sum of log(p)/p, specifically the equation \(\sum_{p\leq n}\frac{\log p}{p}=\log n + O(1)\), which can be derived using the Prime Number Theorem (PNT). A participant expresses interest in proving this result independently of PNT, referencing Theorem 8.8 (b) from "An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers" by Niven, Zuckerman, and Montgomery. The conversation highlights the connection between this formula and the proof of \(\sum_{p\leq n}\frac{1}{p}=\log\log n + M + O\left(\frac{1}{\log n}\right)\), which utilizes Abel's summation formula. The discussion concludes with a recommendation to consult the mentioned text for further insights.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of asymptotic notation, specifically O-notation.
  • Familiarity with the Prime Number Theorem (PNT).
  • Knowledge of Abel's summation formula.
  • Basic concepts in number theory, particularly prime number distributions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Prime Number Theorem and its implications on prime distributions.
  • Explore Abel's summation formula and its applications in number theory.
  • Review Theorem 8.8 (b) in "An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers" by Niven, Zuckerman, and Montgomery.
  • Investigate alternative proofs of the asymptotic formula for \(\sum_{p\leq n}\frac{\log p}{p}\) without relying on PNT.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, number theorists, and students interested in prime number theory and asymptotic analysis will benefit from this discussion.

A. Bahat
Messages
150
Reaction score
0
I know that [tex]\sum_{p\leq n}\frac{\log p}{p}=\log n + O(1),[/tex] where [itex]p[/itex] 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 [tex]\sum_{p\leq n}\frac{1}{p}=\log\log n + M + O\left(\frac{1}{\log n}\right)\text{ for some constant }M,[/tex] 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.
 

Similar threads

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