Why shouldn't this prove the Prime Number Theorem? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23,...
Why shouldn't this prove the Prime Number Theorem?
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30 UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?Heuristic argument for the prime number theorem?Why is the Chebyshev function relevant to the Prime Number TheoremWhy could Mertens not prove the prime number theorem?Probability that randomly chosen integers from a restricted set of natural numbers are coprimeCan the following quantitative version of Chen's theorem be obtained?Any way to prove Prime Number Theorem using Hyperbolic Geometry?Any ways to Simplify Daboussi's Argument for Prime Number Theorem?Effective prime number theoremIs the number $sum_{ptext{ prime}}p^{-2}$ known to be irrational?Landau's theorem using nth roots
$begingroup$
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
11
$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
nt.number-theory prime-numbers
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
asked 5 hours ago
Fourton.Fourton.
422
422
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
11
$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago
add a comment |
11
$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago
11
11
$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago
6
6
$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You ask:
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
it is true that the PNT is equivalent to
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
and it is relatively easy to prove that
$$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
The real difficulty lies in proving that
$$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "504"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f328552%2fwhy-shouldnt-this-prove-the-prime-number-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You ask:
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
it is true that the PNT is equivalent to
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
and it is relatively easy to prove that
$$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
The real difficulty lies in proving that
$$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You ask:
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
it is true that the PNT is equivalent to
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
and it is relatively easy to prove that
$$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
The real difficulty lies in proving that
$$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You ask:
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
it is true that the PNT is equivalent to
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
and it is relatively easy to prove that
$$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
The real difficulty lies in proving that
$$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.
$endgroup$
You ask:
Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.
Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$
since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?
As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
it is true that the PNT is equivalent to
$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
and it is relatively easy to prove that
$$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
The real difficulty lies in proving that
$$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.
answered 12 mins ago
community wiki
kodlu
add a comment |
add a comment |
Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f328552%2fwhy-shouldnt-this-prove-the-prime-number-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
11
$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago
11
$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago
6
$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago