Reversing Logarithmic Integral Function

Click For Summary
The logarithmic integral function, li(x), approximates the number of prime numbers less than x and is defined by an infinite series involving the Euler–Mascheroni constant. While it is a continuous function that maps x to li(x) on a one-to-one basis, finding its inverse function poses challenges. The discussion highlights the possibility of calculating values using series expansion and corrections, particularly for computational purposes. Users express interest in avoiding singularities by limiting values below 2. The thread seeks assistance in deriving a usable form for the inverse function suitable for algorithmic implementation.
cameronm
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
The logarithmic integral function, which is what you get by integrating 1/ln(x), is closely linked to prime numbers. It approximates the number of primes smaller than x. Heres an infinite series which describes the function:

li(x)=\gamma+ln(ln(x))+\sum^{\infty}_{n=1}\frac{ln(x)^n}{n*n!}

where \gamma is the Euler–Mascheroni constant.

This infinite series is a continuous function and maps x to li(x) on a 1-to-1 basis.
Therefore, in theory there should be an inverse function of li, right? But I'm having difficulty finding it.

Thanks for any help guys :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As long as you skip values below, say, 2 to avoid the singularity there's an inverse. But I don't know of any nice form for it.

If you want to calculate its value, that's simple enough to do with a series expansion, a calculation of li at that point, and a correction.
 
I'm looking into this for a computer program actually, so I don't need it in mathematical notion - just something I can put into an algorithm :)

Also if its easier with a finite limit on the series then that's ok. I just can't find or work out an inverse of it :S
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
835
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K