Convergence of a sum over primes

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the convergence of a sum over prime indices of a nonincreasing sequence of positive numbers. Participants explore the relationship between the convergence of the sum \(\sum_{p}a_p\) and the series \(\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{\log(n)}\), examining methods to prove this relationship and the implications of the Prime Number Theorem.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims that \(\sum_{p}a_p\) converges if and only if \(\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{\log(n)}\) converges, proposing to use the integral test to relate the two sums.
  • Another participant suggests defining \(\pi(x)\) for non-integer \(x\) through linear interpolation between neighboring integer values to give meaning to the derivative.
  • A participant raises concerns about proving that the slopes of the linear interpolation of \(\pi(x)\) grow with order \(1/\log(x)\), noting that \(\pi(x)\) is constant except at primes where it jumps.
  • Discussion includes the observation that the slope of the linearly interpolated \(\pi(x)\) is \(1/(p(n+1) - p(n))\), with a participant questioning whether the twin prime conjecture affects the order of the slope.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the behavior of the derivative of \(\pi(x)\) and the implications for the convergence proof. There is no consensus on the rigorous proof of the intuitive steps or the order of the slopes in the linear interpolation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the derivative of \(\pi(x)\) and the implications of the twin prime conjecture on the slopes of the linear interpolation.

Boorglar
Messages
210
Reaction score
10
I am trying to understand a condition for a nonincreasing sequence to converge when summed over its prime indices. The claim is that, given a_n a nonincreasing sequence of positive numbers,
then \sum_{p}a_p converges if and only if \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{\log(n)} converges.

I have tried various methods to prove this but my error estimates are always too large.
The closest I came to a proof is this: first, extend the sequence a_n = a(n) to positive reals by "connecting the dots" (interpolating by some nondecreasing function that takes on the same values as a_n on the integers. Then, do the same for \pi(x) (prime counting function) and p(x) (the n-th prime). The goal is to use the integral test to relate the two sums.

So \sum_{p}a_p converges if and only if \int_{1}^{\infty}a(p(x))dx converges.
Using the substitution t = p(x) (so x = \pi(t), dx = \pi'(t)dt), the second integral equals \int_{2}^{\infty}a(t)\pi'(t)dt. By the Prime Number Theorem, \pi(t) = \frac{t}{\log(t)} + O\left(\frac{t}{\log^2(t)}\right), so the derivative is (intuitively) \pi'(t) = \frac{1}{\log(t)} + O\left(\frac{1}{\log^2(t)}\right). So, assuming this "intuition" is correct, the integral is \int_{2}^{\infty}\frac{a(t)}{\log(t)}dt + ... where the ellipsis are terms of lower order than the main term. This integral converges if and only if \sum_{n=2}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{\log(n)} converges.

That would be good, but I am unable to prove the "intuitive" step. I need some estimate on the order of the derivative of \pi(x), but the only information I have is the big-Oh of the function, not its derivative.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
can pi(x) be defined for non integer x as the linear interpolation between neighboring integer values? then the derivative has some meaning and the proof looks pretty convincing
 
Well, that's what I want to do. My problem is how to rigorously prove that the slopes of the linear interpolation grow with order 1/log(x). The main issue is that pi(x) will be constant most of the time, except at the primes where it jumps by 1, so there will be infinitely many points where the slope will be 1, so it can't be O(1/log(x)).
 
pi(x) , meaning the linearly interpolated version, has a slope of 1/distance between neighboring primes, doesn't it?
 
Oh oops. Yeah it would be 1 / (p(n+1) - p(n)). But still, assuming the twin prime conjecture is true, there would be infinitely many cases where the slope is 1/2... Clearly this happens rarely, but does it compensate for the desired O(1/log x) order?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K