least common multiple $limsqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]}=e$
$begingroup$
The least common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ is $[1,2,dotsc,n]$, then
$$lim_{ntoinfty}sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]}=e$$
we can show this by prime number theorem, but I don't know how to start
I had learnt that it seems we can find the proposition in G.H. Hardy's number theory book, but I could not find it.
I am really grateful for any help
number-theory prime-numbers analytic-number-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The least common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ is $[1,2,dotsc,n]$, then
$$lim_{ntoinfty}sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]}=e$$
we can show this by prime number theorem, but I don't know how to start
I had learnt that it seems we can find the proposition in G.H. Hardy's number theory book, but I could not find it.
I am really grateful for any help
number-theory prime-numbers analytic-number-theory
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
Is this homework? This looks like exercise 3.2 in Hildebrands notes, page 103.
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:27
$begingroup$
They are not the same
$endgroup$
– Rene Schipperus
Jun 14 '14 at 19:42
$begingroup$
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%27s_function.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jun 14 '14 at 19:44
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The least common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ is $[1,2,dotsc,n]$, then
$$lim_{ntoinfty}sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]}=e$$
we can show this by prime number theorem, but I don't know how to start
I had learnt that it seems we can find the proposition in G.H. Hardy's number theory book, but I could not find it.
I am really grateful for any help
number-theory prime-numbers analytic-number-theory
$endgroup$
The least common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ is $[1,2,dotsc,n]$, then
$$lim_{ntoinfty}sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]}=e$$
we can show this by prime number theorem, but I don't know how to start
I had learnt that it seems we can find the proposition in G.H. Hardy's number theory book, but I could not find it.
I am really grateful for any help
number-theory prime-numbers analytic-number-theory
number-theory prime-numbers analytic-number-theory
edited Jun 14 '14 at 19:53
Clin
asked Jun 14 '14 at 19:24
ClinClin
1,191518
1,191518
3
$begingroup$
Is this homework? This looks like exercise 3.2 in Hildebrands notes, page 103.
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:27
$begingroup$
They are not the same
$endgroup$
– Rene Schipperus
Jun 14 '14 at 19:42
$begingroup$
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%27s_function.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jun 14 '14 at 19:44
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
Is this homework? This looks like exercise 3.2 in Hildebrands notes, page 103.
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:27
$begingroup$
They are not the same
$endgroup$
– Rene Schipperus
Jun 14 '14 at 19:42
$begingroup$
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%27s_function.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jun 14 '14 at 19:44
3
3
$begingroup$
Is this homework? This looks like exercise 3.2 in Hildebrands notes, page 103.
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:27
$begingroup$
Is this homework? This looks like exercise 3.2 in Hildebrands notes, page 103.
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:27
$begingroup$
They are not the same
$endgroup$
– Rene Schipperus
Jun 14 '14 at 19:42
$begingroup$
They are not the same
$endgroup$
– Rene Schipperus
Jun 14 '14 at 19:42
$begingroup$
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%27s_function.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jun 14 '14 at 19:44
$begingroup$
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%27s_function.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jun 14 '14 at 19:44
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's look how the least common multiple evolves.
If $n > 1$ is a prime power, $n = p^k$ ($k geqslant 1$), then no number $< n$ is divisible by $p^k$, but $p^{k-1} < n$, so $[1,2,dotsc,n-1] = p^{k-1}cdot m$, where $pnmid m$. Then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = p^kcdot m$, since on the one hand, we see that $p^kcdot m$ is a common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$, and on the other hand, every common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ must be a multiple of $p^k$ as well as of $m$.
If $n > 1$ is not a prime power, it is divisible by at least two distinct primes, say $p$ is one of them. Let $k$ be the exponent of $p$ in the factorisation of $n$, and $m = n/p^k$. Then $ 1 < p^k < n$ and $1 < m < n$, so $p^kmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$ and $mmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, and since the two are coprime, also $n = p^kcdot m mid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, which means that then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$.
Taking logarithms, we see that for $n > 1$
$$begin{align}
Lambda (n) &= log [1,2,dotsc,n] - log [1,2,dotsc,n-1]\
&= begin{cases} log p &, n = p^k\ ;: 0 &, text{otherwise}.end{cases}
end{align}$$
$Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function, and we see that
$$log [1,2,dotsc,n] = sum_{kleqslant n} Lambda(k) = psi(n),$$
where $psi$ is known as the second Chebyshev function.
With these observations, it is clear that
$$lim_{ntoinfty} sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]} = etag{1}$$
is equivalent to
$$lim_{ntoinfty} frac{psi(n)}{n} = 1.tag{2}$$
It is well-known and easy to see that $(2)$ is equivalent to the Prime Number Theorem (without error bounds)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} = 1.tag{3}$$
To see the equivalence, we also introduce the first Chebyshev function,
$$vartheta(x) = sum_{pleqslant x} log p,$$
where the sum extends over the primes not exceeding $x$. We have
$$vartheta(x) leqslant psi(x) = sum_{nleqslant x}Lambda(n) = sum_{pleqslant x}leftlfloor frac{log x}{log p}rightrfloorlog p leqslant sum_{pleqslant x} log x = pi(x)log x,$$
which shows - the existence of the limits assumed -
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{psi(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x}.$$
For $n geqslant 3$, we can split the sum at $y = frac{x}{(log x)^2}$ and obtain
$$pi(x) leqslant pi(y) + sum_{y < p leqslant x} 1 leqslant pi(y) + frac{1}{log y}sum_{y < p < x}log p leqslant y + frac{vartheta(x)}{log y},$$
whence
$$frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant frac{ylog x}{x} + frac{log x}{log y}frac{vartheta(x)}{x} = frac{1}{log x} + frac{1}{1 - 2frac{log log x}{log x}}frac{vartheta(x)}{x}.$$
Since $frac{1}{log x}to 0$ and $frac{loglog x}{log x} to 0$ for $xto infty$, it follows that (once again assuming the existence of the limits)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x},$$
and the proof of the equivalence of $(1)$ and $(3)$ is complete.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Not an answer, just a suggestion.)
It would seem that the power of a prime $p$ in $[1,2,dots,n]$ is $$leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor.$$
Start of proof:
$$prod_{pleq n} p^{frac{1}{n}leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor} = e^{frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor}$$
So we need to show that:
$$S_n=frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloorto 1text{ as }ntoinfty$$
The crudest estimate of the terms is:
$$log n - log p < log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor leq log n$$
But that doesn't seem to be good enough. It does show that the limsup is less than $e$.
We can certainly see that $limsup S_nleq 1$ from the prime number theorem, since:
$$S_nleq frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n}log n = frac{pi(n) n}{log n}to 1$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
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
});
}
});
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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f834220%2fleast-common-multiple-lim-sqrtn1-2-dotsc-n-e%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Let's look how the least common multiple evolves.
If $n > 1$ is a prime power, $n = p^k$ ($k geqslant 1$), then no number $< n$ is divisible by $p^k$, but $p^{k-1} < n$, so $[1,2,dotsc,n-1] = p^{k-1}cdot m$, where $pnmid m$. Then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = p^kcdot m$, since on the one hand, we see that $p^kcdot m$ is a common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$, and on the other hand, every common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ must be a multiple of $p^k$ as well as of $m$.
If $n > 1$ is not a prime power, it is divisible by at least two distinct primes, say $p$ is one of them. Let $k$ be the exponent of $p$ in the factorisation of $n$, and $m = n/p^k$. Then $ 1 < p^k < n$ and $1 < m < n$, so $p^kmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$ and $mmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, and since the two are coprime, also $n = p^kcdot m mid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, which means that then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$.
Taking logarithms, we see that for $n > 1$
$$begin{align}
Lambda (n) &= log [1,2,dotsc,n] - log [1,2,dotsc,n-1]\
&= begin{cases} log p &, n = p^k\ ;: 0 &, text{otherwise}.end{cases}
end{align}$$
$Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function, and we see that
$$log [1,2,dotsc,n] = sum_{kleqslant n} Lambda(k) = psi(n),$$
where $psi$ is known as the second Chebyshev function.
With these observations, it is clear that
$$lim_{ntoinfty} sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]} = etag{1}$$
is equivalent to
$$lim_{ntoinfty} frac{psi(n)}{n} = 1.tag{2}$$
It is well-known and easy to see that $(2)$ is equivalent to the Prime Number Theorem (without error bounds)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} = 1.tag{3}$$
To see the equivalence, we also introduce the first Chebyshev function,
$$vartheta(x) = sum_{pleqslant x} log p,$$
where the sum extends over the primes not exceeding $x$. We have
$$vartheta(x) leqslant psi(x) = sum_{nleqslant x}Lambda(n) = sum_{pleqslant x}leftlfloor frac{log x}{log p}rightrfloorlog p leqslant sum_{pleqslant x} log x = pi(x)log x,$$
which shows - the existence of the limits assumed -
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{psi(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x}.$$
For $n geqslant 3$, we can split the sum at $y = frac{x}{(log x)^2}$ and obtain
$$pi(x) leqslant pi(y) + sum_{y < p leqslant x} 1 leqslant pi(y) + frac{1}{log y}sum_{y < p < x}log p leqslant y + frac{vartheta(x)}{log y},$$
whence
$$frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant frac{ylog x}{x} + frac{log x}{log y}frac{vartheta(x)}{x} = frac{1}{log x} + frac{1}{1 - 2frac{log log x}{log x}}frac{vartheta(x)}{x}.$$
Since $frac{1}{log x}to 0$ and $frac{loglog x}{log x} to 0$ for $xto infty$, it follows that (once again assuming the existence of the limits)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x},$$
and the proof of the equivalence of $(1)$ and $(3)$ is complete.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's look how the least common multiple evolves.
If $n > 1$ is a prime power, $n = p^k$ ($k geqslant 1$), then no number $< n$ is divisible by $p^k$, but $p^{k-1} < n$, so $[1,2,dotsc,n-1] = p^{k-1}cdot m$, where $pnmid m$. Then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = p^kcdot m$, since on the one hand, we see that $p^kcdot m$ is a common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$, and on the other hand, every common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ must be a multiple of $p^k$ as well as of $m$.
If $n > 1$ is not a prime power, it is divisible by at least two distinct primes, say $p$ is one of them. Let $k$ be the exponent of $p$ in the factorisation of $n$, and $m = n/p^k$. Then $ 1 < p^k < n$ and $1 < m < n$, so $p^kmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$ and $mmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, and since the two are coprime, also $n = p^kcdot m mid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, which means that then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$.
Taking logarithms, we see that for $n > 1$
$$begin{align}
Lambda (n) &= log [1,2,dotsc,n] - log [1,2,dotsc,n-1]\
&= begin{cases} log p &, n = p^k\ ;: 0 &, text{otherwise}.end{cases}
end{align}$$
$Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function, and we see that
$$log [1,2,dotsc,n] = sum_{kleqslant n} Lambda(k) = psi(n),$$
where $psi$ is known as the second Chebyshev function.
With these observations, it is clear that
$$lim_{ntoinfty} sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]} = etag{1}$$
is equivalent to
$$lim_{ntoinfty} frac{psi(n)}{n} = 1.tag{2}$$
It is well-known and easy to see that $(2)$ is equivalent to the Prime Number Theorem (without error bounds)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} = 1.tag{3}$$
To see the equivalence, we also introduce the first Chebyshev function,
$$vartheta(x) = sum_{pleqslant x} log p,$$
where the sum extends over the primes not exceeding $x$. We have
$$vartheta(x) leqslant psi(x) = sum_{nleqslant x}Lambda(n) = sum_{pleqslant x}leftlfloor frac{log x}{log p}rightrfloorlog p leqslant sum_{pleqslant x} log x = pi(x)log x,$$
which shows - the existence of the limits assumed -
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{psi(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x}.$$
For $n geqslant 3$, we can split the sum at $y = frac{x}{(log x)^2}$ and obtain
$$pi(x) leqslant pi(y) + sum_{y < p leqslant x} 1 leqslant pi(y) + frac{1}{log y}sum_{y < p < x}log p leqslant y + frac{vartheta(x)}{log y},$$
whence
$$frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant frac{ylog x}{x} + frac{log x}{log y}frac{vartheta(x)}{x} = frac{1}{log x} + frac{1}{1 - 2frac{log log x}{log x}}frac{vartheta(x)}{x}.$$
Since $frac{1}{log x}to 0$ and $frac{loglog x}{log x} to 0$ for $xto infty$, it follows that (once again assuming the existence of the limits)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x},$$
and the proof of the equivalence of $(1)$ and $(3)$ is complete.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let's look how the least common multiple evolves.
If $n > 1$ is a prime power, $n = p^k$ ($k geqslant 1$), then no number $< n$ is divisible by $p^k$, but $p^{k-1} < n$, so $[1,2,dotsc,n-1] = p^{k-1}cdot m$, where $pnmid m$. Then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = p^kcdot m$, since on the one hand, we see that $p^kcdot m$ is a common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$, and on the other hand, every common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ must be a multiple of $p^k$ as well as of $m$.
If $n > 1$ is not a prime power, it is divisible by at least two distinct primes, say $p$ is one of them. Let $k$ be the exponent of $p$ in the factorisation of $n$, and $m = n/p^k$. Then $ 1 < p^k < n$ and $1 < m < n$, so $p^kmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$ and $mmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, and since the two are coprime, also $n = p^kcdot m mid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, which means that then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$.
Taking logarithms, we see that for $n > 1$
$$begin{align}
Lambda (n) &= log [1,2,dotsc,n] - log [1,2,dotsc,n-1]\
&= begin{cases} log p &, n = p^k\ ;: 0 &, text{otherwise}.end{cases}
end{align}$$
$Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function, and we see that
$$log [1,2,dotsc,n] = sum_{kleqslant n} Lambda(k) = psi(n),$$
where $psi$ is known as the second Chebyshev function.
With these observations, it is clear that
$$lim_{ntoinfty} sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]} = etag{1}$$
is equivalent to
$$lim_{ntoinfty} frac{psi(n)}{n} = 1.tag{2}$$
It is well-known and easy to see that $(2)$ is equivalent to the Prime Number Theorem (without error bounds)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} = 1.tag{3}$$
To see the equivalence, we also introduce the first Chebyshev function,
$$vartheta(x) = sum_{pleqslant x} log p,$$
where the sum extends over the primes not exceeding $x$. We have
$$vartheta(x) leqslant psi(x) = sum_{nleqslant x}Lambda(n) = sum_{pleqslant x}leftlfloor frac{log x}{log p}rightrfloorlog p leqslant sum_{pleqslant x} log x = pi(x)log x,$$
which shows - the existence of the limits assumed -
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{psi(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x}.$$
For $n geqslant 3$, we can split the sum at $y = frac{x}{(log x)^2}$ and obtain
$$pi(x) leqslant pi(y) + sum_{y < p leqslant x} 1 leqslant pi(y) + frac{1}{log y}sum_{y < p < x}log p leqslant y + frac{vartheta(x)}{log y},$$
whence
$$frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant frac{ylog x}{x} + frac{log x}{log y}frac{vartheta(x)}{x} = frac{1}{log x} + frac{1}{1 - 2frac{log log x}{log x}}frac{vartheta(x)}{x}.$$
Since $frac{1}{log x}to 0$ and $frac{loglog x}{log x} to 0$ for $xto infty$, it follows that (once again assuming the existence of the limits)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x},$$
and the proof of the equivalence of $(1)$ and $(3)$ is complete.
$endgroup$
Let's look how the least common multiple evolves.
If $n > 1$ is a prime power, $n = p^k$ ($k geqslant 1$), then no number $< n$ is divisible by $p^k$, but $p^{k-1} < n$, so $[1,2,dotsc,n-1] = p^{k-1}cdot m$, where $pnmid m$. Then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = p^kcdot m$, since on the one hand, we see that $p^kcdot m$ is a common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$, and on the other hand, every common multiple of $1,2,dotsc,n$ must be a multiple of $p^k$ as well as of $m$.
If $n > 1$ is not a prime power, it is divisible by at least two distinct primes, say $p$ is one of them. Let $k$ be the exponent of $p$ in the factorisation of $n$, and $m = n/p^k$. Then $ 1 < p^k < n$ and $1 < m < n$, so $p^kmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$ and $mmid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, and since the two are coprime, also $n = p^kcdot m mid [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$, which means that then $[1,2,dotsc,n] = [1,2,dotsc,n-1]$.
Taking logarithms, we see that for $n > 1$
$$begin{align}
Lambda (n) &= log [1,2,dotsc,n] - log [1,2,dotsc,n-1]\
&= begin{cases} log p &, n = p^k\ ;: 0 &, text{otherwise}.end{cases}
end{align}$$
$Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function, and we see that
$$log [1,2,dotsc,n] = sum_{kleqslant n} Lambda(k) = psi(n),$$
where $psi$ is known as the second Chebyshev function.
With these observations, it is clear that
$$lim_{ntoinfty} sqrt[n]{[1,2,dotsc,n]} = etag{1}$$
is equivalent to
$$lim_{ntoinfty} frac{psi(n)}{n} = 1.tag{2}$$
It is well-known and easy to see that $(2)$ is equivalent to the Prime Number Theorem (without error bounds)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} = 1.tag{3}$$
To see the equivalence, we also introduce the first Chebyshev function,
$$vartheta(x) = sum_{pleqslant x} log p,$$
where the sum extends over the primes not exceeding $x$. We have
$$vartheta(x) leqslant psi(x) = sum_{nleqslant x}Lambda(n) = sum_{pleqslant x}leftlfloor frac{log x}{log p}rightrfloorlog p leqslant sum_{pleqslant x} log x = pi(x)log x,$$
which shows - the existence of the limits assumed -
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{psi(x)}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x}.$$
For $n geqslant 3$, we can split the sum at $y = frac{x}{(log x)^2}$ and obtain
$$pi(x) leqslant pi(y) + sum_{y < p leqslant x} 1 leqslant pi(y) + frac{1}{log y}sum_{y < p < x}log p leqslant y + frac{vartheta(x)}{log y},$$
whence
$$frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant frac{ylog x}{x} + frac{log x}{log y}frac{vartheta(x)}{x} = frac{1}{log x} + frac{1}{1 - 2frac{log log x}{log x}}frac{vartheta(x)}{x}.$$
Since $frac{1}{log x}to 0$ and $frac{loglog x}{log x} to 0$ for $xto infty$, it follows that (once again assuming the existence of the limits)
$$lim_{xtoinfty} frac{pi(x)log x}{x} leqslant lim_{xtoinfty} frac{vartheta(x)}{x},$$
and the proof of the equivalence of $(1)$ and $(3)$ is complete.
answered Jun 15 '14 at 18:17
Daniel Fischer♦Daniel Fischer
173k16163285
173k16163285
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
Very nice exposition! +1
$endgroup$
– Markus Scheuer
Feb 10 '16 at 18:53
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
$begingroup$
It was a pleasure to read this answer. It is truly a textbook quality work.
$endgroup$
– Prism
Mar 18 '16 at 0:03
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Not an answer, just a suggestion.)
It would seem that the power of a prime $p$ in $[1,2,dots,n]$ is $$leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor.$$
Start of proof:
$$prod_{pleq n} p^{frac{1}{n}leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor} = e^{frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor}$$
So we need to show that:
$$S_n=frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloorto 1text{ as }ntoinfty$$
The crudest estimate of the terms is:
$$log n - log p < log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor leq log n$$
But that doesn't seem to be good enough. It does show that the limsup is less than $e$.
We can certainly see that $limsup S_nleq 1$ from the prime number theorem, since:
$$S_nleq frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n}log n = frac{pi(n) n}{log n}to 1$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Not an answer, just a suggestion.)
It would seem that the power of a prime $p$ in $[1,2,dots,n]$ is $$leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor.$$
Start of proof:
$$prod_{pleq n} p^{frac{1}{n}leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor} = e^{frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor}$$
So we need to show that:
$$S_n=frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloorto 1text{ as }ntoinfty$$
The crudest estimate of the terms is:
$$log n - log p < log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor leq log n$$
But that doesn't seem to be good enough. It does show that the limsup is less than $e$.
We can certainly see that $limsup S_nleq 1$ from the prime number theorem, since:
$$S_nleq frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n}log n = frac{pi(n) n}{log n}to 1$$
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
(Not an answer, just a suggestion.)
It would seem that the power of a prime $p$ in $[1,2,dots,n]$ is $$leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor.$$
Start of proof:
$$prod_{pleq n} p^{frac{1}{n}leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor} = e^{frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor}$$
So we need to show that:
$$S_n=frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloorto 1text{ as }ntoinfty$$
The crudest estimate of the terms is:
$$log n - log p < log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor leq log n$$
But that doesn't seem to be good enough. It does show that the limsup is less than $e$.
We can certainly see that $limsup S_nleq 1$ from the prime number theorem, since:
$$S_nleq frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n}log n = frac{pi(n) n}{log n}to 1$$
$endgroup$
(Not an answer, just a suggestion.)
It would seem that the power of a prime $p$ in $[1,2,dots,n]$ is $$leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor.$$
Start of proof:
$$prod_{pleq n} p^{frac{1}{n}leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor} = e^{frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor}$$
So we need to show that:
$$S_n=frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n} log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloorto 1text{ as }ntoinfty$$
The crudest estimate of the terms is:
$$log n - log p < log p leftlfloor frac{log n}{log p}rightrfloor leq log n$$
But that doesn't seem to be good enough. It does show that the limsup is less than $e$.
We can certainly see that $limsup S_nleq 1$ from the prime number theorem, since:
$$S_nleq frac{1}{n}sum_{pleq n}log n = frac{pi(n) n}{log n}to 1$$
edited Dec 6 '18 at 19:11
answered Jun 14 '14 at 19:52
Thomas AndrewsThomas Andrews
130k11146297
130k11146297
1
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
1
1
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
Psst! Chebyshev says $psi$ could be interesting. Von Mangoldt agrees.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 19:57
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
I remember doing this exercise and struggling with the liminf and limsup too. Can you imagine the frustration? ;-)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:58
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
As Daniel suggested, the limit follows from $theta(n)leqslantSigmacdotsleqslantpi(n)log n$, where $Sigmalog p=theta(x)simpi(x)log xsim x$. (No $psi$ or $Lambda$, however.)
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 20:13
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
$begingroup$
@barto $log [1,2,dotsc,n] = psi(n)$.
$endgroup$
– Daniel Fischer♦
Jun 14 '14 at 20:20
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- 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%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f834220%2fleast-common-multiple-lim-sqrtn1-2-dotsc-n-e%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
3
$begingroup$
Is this homework? This looks like exercise 3.2 in Hildebrands notes, page 103.
$endgroup$
– barto
Jun 14 '14 at 19:27
$begingroup$
They are not the same
$endgroup$
– Rene Schipperus
Jun 14 '14 at 19:42
$begingroup$
See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landau%27s_function.
$endgroup$
– lhf
Jun 14 '14 at 19:44