Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Considering $p_{n}$ the nth prime number, then compute the limit:

$$\lim_{n\to\infty} \left\{ \dfrac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}+\cdots+\frac{1}{p_{n}} \right\} - \{\log{\log n } \}$$ where $\{ x \}$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.

share|cite|improve this question
Do you know that the series diverges like $\log \log n$, for starters? That is $$\sum_{n=1}^n \frac 1 {p_n} \sim \log \log n$$ – Pedro Tamaroff Jun 15 '12 at 22:48
@PeterTamaroff That doesn't really help though. It doesn't even show existence of the limit, e.g. $2^n$ diverges like $2^n+n$. – Alex Becker Jun 15 '12 at 22:50
The limit does exist. However, to get an estimate of the limit you need to prove prime number theorem i.e. for this case we need to prove that $\psi(x) \sim x$. – user17762 Jun 15 '12 at 23:05
@AlexBecker I'm talking about $o(1)$ here. – Pedro Tamaroff Jun 15 '12 at 23:06

In Wikipedia under Third it is stated that without the fractional part signs the limit is the Meissel–Mertens constant, about $0.261497$. There must be many $n$ for which the first term is greater than some natural and the second term is less than the same and many other $n$ where they are between the same pair of naturals. In the first case the value will be about $0.261497-1$, in the second it will be about $0.261497$, so the limit will not exist.

share|cite|improve this answer

This is by no means a complete answer but a sketch on how to possibly go about. To get the constant, you need some careful computations.

First get an asymptotic for $ \displaystyle \sum_{n \leq x} \dfrac{\Lambda(n)}{n}$ as $\log(x) - 2 + o(1)$.

To get this asymptotic, you need Stirling's formula and the fact that $\psi(x) = x + o(x)$ i.e. the PNT.

Then relate $ \displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\Lambda(p)}{p}$ to $ \displaystyle \sum_{n \leq x} \dfrac{\Lambda(n)}{n}$. Essentially, you can get $$ \displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\Lambda(p)}{p} = \displaystyle \sum_{n \leq x} \dfrac{\Lambda(n)}{n} + C + o(1)$$ Getting this constant $C$ is also hard. You can try your luck with partial summation.

Then relate $ \displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac1{p}$ to $\displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\Lambda(p)}{p}$ i.e. $\displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\log(p)}{p}$ by partial summation to get $$\displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac1{p} = \log(\log(x)) + C_1 + o(1)$$ You might need to invoke PNT here as well. The $C_1$ here obviously depends on he constant $C$ and constant $2$ before.

EDIT Thinking about it there might be a way to avoid PNT to get the constant.

share|cite|improve this answer
It's worth pointing out that the asymptotic for $\sum 1/p$ was proved by Mertens long before PNT, including (miraculously) the constant. – Erick Wong Jun 16 '12 at 6:31
@ErickWong So the PNT is not needed in finding the constant? – user17762 Jun 16 '12 at 6:54
Correct, although if memory serves it relies on some miraculous identities and/or surprising cancellations. Oh, this paper by Mark Villarino discusses Mertens's original proof, very nice! – Erick Wong Jun 16 '12 at 7:16

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.