Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Let $p$ denote a prime, and let $\{x\}$ denote the fractional part of $x$.

Suppose that the following statement is true for all non-integer real numbers $x$: $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{p\leq n}^\ \frac{\ln(p)}{p}\{ px \}}{\sum_{p\leq n}^\ \frac{\ln(p)}{p}}=\frac{1}{2}.$$

Does that imply that $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\sum_{p\leq n}^\ 1\cdot\{ px \}}{\sum_{p\leq n}^\ 1}=\frac{1}{2}?$$

share|improve this question
    
The converse certainly holds, by partial summation. I believe that partial summation cannot prove the implication you want - in the same way we cannot derive the prime number theorem from Mertens's formula. –  Greg Martin Dec 16 '12 at 22:31
2  
On the other hand, your conclusion is true when $x$ is a rational number - it follows from the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions, which tells us that the primes are distributed equally among the reduced resides modulo the denominator of $x$. –  Greg Martin Dec 16 '12 at 22:33
    
Greg If I offer it up as a bounty will you give me a proof that the first one implys the second. I can already prove that the first statement is true. –  Ethan Dec 17 '12 at 0:32
    
I wrote a partial answer below. I can't prove that the first implies the second - although I would be interested in seeing your proof of the first statement: one might be able to modify it to make a proof of the second statement. –  Greg Martin Dec 17 '12 at 3:18
    
To answer the question directly: I don't believe so, or at least not without extra assumptions. I do not think that the first statement implies the second without something stronger. Going the other way however is a standard application of summation by parts. The reason is exactly the same as why Mertens estimate is weaker than the prime number theorem. That is, the statement $\sum_{p\leq n} \frac{\log p}{p} \sim \log n$ is strictly weaker than the PNT $\sum_{p\leq n} 1 \sim \frac{n}{\log n}.$ –  Eric Naslund Dec 17 '12 at 5:35
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

This is only a partial answer, but the conclusion can be proved (directly, without using the hypothesis) when $x$ is a rational number. Suppose $x=a/b$ in lowest terms is fixed. Then $$ \sum_{p\le n} \bigg\{\!\frac{pa}b\!\bigg\} = \sum_{\substack{1\le c\le b \\ (c,b)=1}} \sum_{\substack{p\le n \\ pa\equiv c\!\pmod{\!b}}} \bigg\{\!\frac{pa}b\!\bigg\} + \sum_{p\mid b} \bigg\{\!\frac{pa}b\!\bigg\}, $$ because every prime $p$ either divides $b$ or is relatively prime to $b$, in which case $pa$ is relatively prime to $b$ as well. Since $\{t/b\}$ is periodic modulo $b$, this becomes \begin{align*} \sum_{p\le n} \bigg\{\!\frac{pa}b\!\bigg\} &= \sum_{\substack{1\le c\le b \\ (c,b)=1}} \bigg\{\!\frac{c}b\!\bigg\} \sum_{\substack{p\le n \\ pa\equiv c\!\pmod{\!b}}} 1 + O(1) \\ &= \sum_{\substack{1\le c\le b \\ (c,b)=1}} \frac{c}b \pi(n;b,c) + O(1), \end{align*} and so $$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\sum_{p\le n} \big\{\!\frac{pa}b\!\big\}}{\sum_{p\le n} 1} = \lim_{n\to\infty} \sum_{\substack{1\le c\le b \\ (c,b)=1}} \frac{c}b \frac{\pi(n;b,c)}{\pi(n)}. $$ The prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions tells us that $\pi(n;b,c)/\pi(n)$ tends to $1/\phi(b)$ when $n$ tends to infinity (since $c$ and $b$ are relatively prime); therefore $$ \lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\sum_{p\le n} \big\{\!\frac{pa}b\!\big\}}{\sum_{p\le n} 1} = \frac1{\phi(b)} \sum_{\substack{1\le c\le b \\ (c,b)=1}} \frac{c}b; $$ this can easily be seen to equal $\frac12$ by pairing $c$ with $b-c$ in the sum (which works for all $b\ge3$).

share|improve this answer
    
I appreciate the work you spent, but I was trying not to use dirichlets theorem –  Ethan Dec 17 '12 at 4:32
    
I understand. I'd still be interested in seeing your proof of the first statement. –  Greg Martin Dec 17 '12 at 7:37
    
Greg, I have done alot of work on this and some other related topics , can I send you some of my other work, and you give me advice on it? I can give the limiting difference of the first sum and 1/2ln(n), for all real numbers x, in terms of a complex polylogarithm. If you have an email, I would gladly send you some of my work, I wont include proofs unless you want them. None of the tools I use go beyond the use of several fourier series expansions, and some algebraic manipulation. –  Ethan Dec 17 '12 at 18:01
    
You can reach me at gerg@math.ubc.ca (not a typo). –  Greg Martin Dec 17 '12 at 20:01
    
I sent you 2 papers, id appreciate any advice –  Ethan Dec 17 '12 at 20:22
show 1 more comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.