This is the Selberg's Formula: $$\psi(x)\log x+\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n)\psi\bigg(\dfrac xn\bigg)=2x\log x+\mathcal O(x).$$ In the book Apostol Analytic Number Theory, the exercise tells me to use this Formula to give an equivalent formula which is $$\psi(x)\log x+\sum_{p\leq x}\psi\bigg(\dfrac xp\bigg)\log p=2x\log x+\mathcal O(x).$$ I spotted the only difference is the sum terms, so I decided to prove that $$\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n)\psi\bigg(\dfrac xn\bigg)-\sum_{p\leq x}\psi\bigg(\dfrac xp\bigg)\log p=\mathcal O(x).$$ Then since the von mangoldt function is nonzero when $n$ is a prime power, I found that the sum over $n\leq x$ can be written as \begin{align*} \sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda (n)\psi\bigg(\dfrac xn\bigg)&=\sum_{m=1}^{\big[\frac{\log x}{\log 2}\big]}\sum_{p^m\leq x} \psi\bigg(\dfrac x{p^m}\bigg)\log p\\ &=\sum_{p\leq x}\psi\bigg(\dfrac xp\bigg)\log p+\sum_{m=2}^{\big[\frac{\log x}{\log 2}\big]}\sum_{p^m\leq x}\psi\bigg(\dfrac x{p^m}\bigg)\log p \end{align*} So the last thing I want to show is that $$\sum_{m=2}^{\big[\frac{\log x}{\log 2}\big]}\sum_{p^m\leq x}\psi\bigg(\dfrac x{p^m}\bigg)\log p =\mathcal O(x)$$ But this is a bit ugly to see, I don't know what should I do next. Any suggestion?
2026-03-29 20:17:38.1774815458
Prove the equivalent form of the Selberg's Formula $\psi(x)\log x+\sum_{p\leq x}\psi\left(\frac xp\right)\log p=2x\log x+\mathcal O(x).$
285 Views Asked by Bumbble Comm https://math.techqa.club/user/bumbble-comm/detail At
1
There are 1 best solutions below
Related Questions in ASYMPTOTICS
- 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
- How to find the asymptotic behaviour of $(y'')^2=y'+y$ as $x$ tends to $\infty$?
- Correct way to prove Big O statement
- Proving big theta notation?
- Asymptotics for partial sum of product of binomial coefficients
- Little oh notation
- Recurrence Relation for Towers of Hanoi
- proving sigma = BigTheta (BigΘ)
- What's wrong with the boundary condition of this $1$st order ODE?
- Every linearly-ordered real-parametrized family of asymptotic classes is nowhere dense?
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 $N\to\infty$
- Analytic function to find k-almost primes from prime factorization
- Easy way to prove that the number of primes up to $n$ is $\Omega(n^{\epsilon})$
- Eisenstein Series, discriminant and cusp forms
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?
In asymptotic formulæ we can often ignore perfect powers — in the sense that including or excluding them doesn't change the formula or error term, so we can include or exclude them at our convenience. Or the formula changes, but in a way that is fully under control. This is because the sum of the reciprocals of the perfect powers converges. More, $$\sum_{n \text{ perfect power}} \frac{1}{n^{\sigma}}$$ converges for $\sigma > \frac{1}{2}$, and hence $$\sum_{n \text{ perfect power}} \frac{f(n)}{n^{\sigma}}$$ converges for $\sigma > \frac{1}{2}$ whenever $f(n) \in O(n^{\varepsilon})$ for every $\varepsilon > 0$, e.g. $f(n) = (\log n)^r$ or $f(n) = \tau(n)^r$ (where $\tau = \sigma_0$ is the divisor counting function).
To see the first assertion, note that every perfect power $n > 1$ has by definition at least one representation $n = m^k$ with $m,k \geqslant 2$, so \begin{align} \sum_{n \text{ perfect power}} \frac{1}{n^{\sigma}} &\leqslant 1 + \sum_{m = 2}^{\infty}\sum_{k = 2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m^{k\sigma}} \tag{repetitions} \\ &= 1 + \sum_{m = 2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m^{2\sigma}(1 - m^{-\sigma})} \\ &\leqslant 1 + \frac{1}{1 - 2^{-\sigma}} \sum_{m = 2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{m^{2\sigma}} \\ &= 1 + \frac{\zeta(2\sigma) - 1}{1 - 2^{-\sigma}} \\ &< +\infty \end{align} for $\sigma > \frac{1}{2}$. A fortiori $$\sum_{p} \sum_{k = 2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{p^{k\sigma}} < +\infty$$ for $\sigma > \frac{1}{2}$, and the convergence remains if we multiply with arbitrary powers of $\log p$.
How much of this is used varies of course. Here we use the convergence of $$\sum_p \sum_{k = 2}^{\infty} \frac{\log p}{p^k}$$ which together with Chebyshev's bound $\psi(y) \leqslant C y$ readily yields $$0 \leqslant \sum_{\substack{p^m \leqslant x \\ m \geqslant 2}} \psi\biggl(\frac{x}{p^m}\biggr)\log p \leqslant Cx \sum_{\substack{p^m \leqslant x \\ m \geqslant 2}} \frac{\log p}{p^m} \leqslant Cx \sum_p\sum_{m = 2}^{\infty} \frac{\log p}{p^m} = K\cdot x\,.$$ We obtain a similar bound (just with a somewhat larger $K$) if we extend the sum to all perfect powers and not just the prime powers, as in reuns' comment.
This option of including or excluding perfect powers can often simplify things. Sometimes it's easier if one only has primes to consider, at other times it is more convenient to include the (proper) prime powers because the von Mangoldt function $\Lambda$ has much nicer arithmetic properties — $1 \ast \Lambda = \log$ — than the prime logarithm $\ell(n) = \vartheta(n) - \vartheta(n-1)$.