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.

I'm stuck on the following problem.

Use the fact that $$\sum_{p\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log p}{p}=\log (x)+O(1)$$ to show that $$\sum_{n\le x}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{\Lambda(n)}{n}=\log (x)+O(1),$$ where $\Lambda$ is the von Mangoldt function.

It looks like it should be easy. Please help; hints are preferred.

My main set back is figuring out what to do with the powers of primes. Here's what I've got so far.


We have $$O(1)=\sum_{p\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log (p)}{p}-\log (x)$$ so there exists a $\lambda>0$ s.t. for any $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $M_{\varepsilon}>0$ s.t. if $x>M_{\varepsilon}$ then $$\left\lvert\sum_{p\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log (p)}{p}-\log (x)\right\rvert\le\lambda\lvert 1\rvert =\lambda.$$

So let $\varepsilon>0$. Now, by definition of $\Lambda$, we have (for $x>M_{\varepsilon}$) that, with $P(x)$ as "$p^k\le x, p\, \text{prime}, k\in\mathbb{N}\backslash\{1\}$," $$\begin{align}\left\lvert\sum_{p^k\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\frac{\log (p)}{p^k}-\log (x)\right\rvert&\le\left\lvert\sum_{p\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log (p)}{p}-\log (x)\right\rvert +\left\lvert\sum_{P(x)}\frac{\log (p)}{p^k}\right\rvert. \\ &\le\lambda + \left\lvert\sum_{P(x)}\frac{\log (p)}{p^k}\right\rvert \\ &=\lambda + \sum_{p^2\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log p}{p^2}+\sum_{p^3\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log p}{p^3}+\dots \\ &=\lambda +\sum_{k=2}^\infty\underbrace{\sum_{p^k\le x}_{p\,\text{prime}}\frac{\log p}{p^k}}_{\text{Each of these is less than }\lambda.}\tag{1} \\ &\le\sum_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\lambda.\end{align}$$ But there are infinitely many terms in that series of $\lambda$s, so that bound is too crude (of course). The terms in $(1)$ are each bounded by some (minimal) constant $\sigma_{k, x}$ though so I just need to show that $$\sum_{k=2}^\infty\sigma_{k, x}<\infty$$ if at all possible :/

My aim is to bound it all by a constant.


I've tried other things too but - believe it or not - this seems like my best shot.

share|improve this question
    
This was the closest thing I could find: math.stackexchange.com/questions/33980/… –  Shaun Feb 10 at 20:33
    
I spent time on this crap. It's an instance of when one hopes asking the question helps one answer it. –  Shaun Feb 10 at 20:40
2  
Have you tried applying Abel's identity? For an example (and a reference to Abel's identity) see here: math.stackexchange.com/a/12588/1102 –  Aryabhata Feb 10 at 21:08
1  
Just pointing out that you introduced a quantity $\epsilon$ that doesn't get used. You can just directly say: there exists $\lambda$ and $M$ such that for $x>M$, your second displayed equation holds. –  Greg Martin Feb 11 at 7:07
1  
Yep, there's never a need to introduce a quantity you never use. (Math is about verifying truths, not placating an epsilon overlord!) –  Greg Martin Feb 11 at 18:54

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

In the written-out term you can bracket the $\log{p}$'s and you get $$S=\sum\limits_{n\leq x}\frac{\Lambda(n)}{n}=\sum\limits_{p\leq x}\log{p}\left(\sum\limits_{p^i\leq x}\frac{1}{p^i}\right)$$ The term in the bracket is bounded by $$\frac{1}{1-\frac{1}{p}}-1=\frac{1}{p-1}$$ So $$S\leq\sum\limits_{p\leq x}\frac{\log p}{p-1}=\sum\limits_{p\leq x}\frac{\log p}{p}+\sum\limits_{p\leq x}\frac{\log p}{p^2-p}=\log x + O(1)$$ since the last sum converges.

Furthermore, because we add terms to it if using the von Mangoldt function instead of the logs of primes, we obtain $$\log x+O(1)=\sum\limits_{p\leq x}\frac{\log p}{p}\leq S$$ and we see that $S=\log x + O(1)$.

I'm not sure if the last step is correct, because I'm not used to the Big O notation, so please reply if this is invalid.

share|improve this answer
1  
The last is a little abuse-of-notationish, but that's common with big-Oh notation. You could write $$0 \leqslant S - \sum_{p\leqslant x} \frac{\log p}{p} \leqslant C := \sum_{p} \frac{\log p}{p(p-1)} < \infty.$$ –  Daniel Fischer Feb 10 at 22:20
    
Thank you. I wasn't sure about that bound and the convergence of the second sum at first but I think it checks out. And thank you, @DanielFischer, for the clarification :) –  Shaun Feb 11 at 16:41

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.