It's a well-known fact that the number of primes among the integers $\{1,\ldots, n\}$ is $\Omega\left({n \over \log n}\right)$, but it's quite difficult to prove. Are there easier proofs of the weaker fact that for some $1 > \epsilon > 0$ the number of primes is $\Omega(n^{\epsilon})$?
2026-02-22 19:54:07.1771790047
Easy way to prove that the number of primes up to $n$ is $\Omega(n^{\epsilon})$
96 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ANALYTIC-NUMBER-THEORY
- Justify an approximation of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty G_n/\binom{\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{2}}{\frac{n}{2}}$, where $G_n$ denotes the Gregory coefficients
- Is there a trigonometric identity that implies the Riemann Hypothesis?
- question regarding nth prime related to Bertrands postulate.
- Alternating sequence of ascending power of 2
- Reference for proof of Landau's prime ideal theorem (English)
- Does converge $\sum_{n=2}^\infty\frac{1}{\varphi(p_n-2)-1+p_n}$, where $\varphi(n)$ is the Euler's totient function and $p_n$ the $n$th prime number?
- On the behaviour of $\frac{1}{N}\sum_{k=1}^N\frac{\pi(\varphi(k)+N)}{\varphi(\pi(k)+N)}$ as $N\to\infty$
- Easy way to prove that the number of primes up to $n$ is $\Omega(n^{\epsilon})$
- Eisenstein Series, discriminant and cusp forms
- Convergence of $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{\mu(n)\chi(n)}{n^s}$ on $\Re{s}=1$
Trending Questions
- Induction on the number of equations
- How to convince a math teacher of this simple and obvious fact?
- Find $E[XY|Y+Z=1 ]$
- Refuting the Anti-Cantor Cranks
- What are imaginary numbers?
- Determine the adjoint of $\tilde Q(x)$ for $\tilde Q(x)u:=(Qu)(x)$ where $Q:U→L^2(Ω,ℝ^d$ is a Hilbert-Schmidt operator and $U$ is a Hilbert space
- Why does this innovative method of subtraction from a third grader always work?
- How do we know that the number $1$ is not equal to the number $-1$?
- What are the Implications of having VΩ as a model for a theory?
- Defining a Galois Field based on primitive element versus polynomial?
- Can't find the relationship between two columns of numbers. Please Help
- Is computer science a branch of mathematics?
- Is there a bijection of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with itself such that the forward map is connected but the inverse is not?
- Identification of a quadrilateral as a trapezoid, rectangle, or square
- Generator of inertia group in function field extension
Popular # Hahtags
second-order-logic
numerical-methods
puzzle
logic
probability
number-theory
winding-number
real-analysis
integration
calculus
complex-analysis
sequences-and-series
proof-writing
set-theory
functions
homotopy-theory
elementary-number-theory
ordinary-differential-equations
circles
derivatives
game-theory
definite-integrals
elementary-set-theory
limits
multivariable-calculus
geometry
algebraic-number-theory
proof-verification
partial-derivative
algebra-precalculus
Popular Questions
- What is the integral of 1/x?
- How many squares actually ARE in this picture? Is this a trick question with no right answer?
- Is a matrix multiplied with its transpose something special?
- What is the difference between independent and mutually exclusive events?
- Visually stunning math concepts which are easy to explain
- taylor series of $\ln(1+x)$?
- How to tell if a set of vectors spans a space?
- Calculus question taking derivative to find horizontal tangent line
- How to determine if a function is one-to-one?
- Determine if vectors are linearly independent
- What does it mean to have a determinant equal to zero?
- Is this Batman equation for real?
- How to find perpendicular vector to another vector?
- How to find mean and median from histogram
- How many sides does a circle have?
Strategy: write some known divergent series in terms of $\pi(x)$ to deduce from the bound on $\pi(x)$ that the series would converge.
Take $\sum\frac1p$. It diverges (Euler), more precisely, Mertens showed that it is $\log\log x+O(1)$, and the (elegant) proof does not use Chebyshev's estimates, only summation by parts. The method below still gives some results when we only assume a weaker form of Mertens' theorem; see bottom.
Summation by parts gives $$\sum_{p\leq x}\frac1p = \frac{\pi(x)}x+ \int_1^x\frac{\pi(t)}{t^2}dt$$ and hence an equivalent form of Mertens' estimate: $$\int_1^x\frac{\pi(t)}{t^2}dt=\log\log x+O(1)$$
Idea: Use this to deduce that at least one $t\in[1..x]$ has to satisfy $\pi(t)\geq t^\epsilon$ for some quantifiable $\epsilon$.
But this only gives a bound of the form $\pi(x) \geq t^\epsilon$. We want $t$ to be relatively large (in particular, $t=1$ wouldn't tell us anything), which is why we study the integral from $y$ to $x$ instead, $y \leq x$.
Let $y \leq x$; then $$\int_y^x\pi(t)t^{-2}dt = \log\log x-\log\log y + O(1)$$ If $\pi(t) \leq t^\epsilon$ for all $t\in[y..x]$, the LHS is $\ll \frac1{1-\epsilon}$. So there exists $t\in[y..x]$ with $$\pi(t) \gg_c t^{1-c/(\log\log x-\log\log y)}$$ for any fixed $c<1$ and $\log\log x-\log\log y \gg 1$, i.e. $y$ is at most some fixed power of $x$.
Now take $y=x^\delta$ with any $\delta <1/e$ so that $1+1/\log \delta>0$, say $\delta = 0.2$ (this is about the optimal value), to get: $$\pi(x) \geq \pi(t) \gg y^{1-c/(\log\log x-\log\log y)} = x^{\delta+c\delta/\log\delta} \geq x^{0.075}$$ by taking $c<1$ large enough.
We get that $$\epsilon = 0.075$$ works.
Using a weaker form of Mertens' theorem. Assuming only $\sum_{p\leq x} \frac1p \asymp \log\log x$, we can do the same with $\log y = (\log x)^\delta$ for some $\delta < 1$ and obtain $$\pi(x) \geq \exp((\log x)^\epsilon)$$ for some $0<\epsilon <1$.
However, I know no proof of $\sum\frac1p\ll \log\log x$ (the nontrivial bound, the other is due to Euler) apart from Mertens' theorem.