Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

How can we define an infinite subset of primes such that the sum of reciprocals converges?

$S=\{p\in \mathbb{Z}^+ : p\ \text{is prime and some condition on}\ p\}$ s.t. $\sum\limits_{p\in{S}}\frac{1}{p}\neq\infty$

A few options that come to mind for the condition on $p$ are:

  • $\log_2(p+1)\in\mathbb{N}$
  • $\log_2(p-1)\in\mathbb{N}$

But it has not been proved that there are infinite many such primes for either one of these options.

Any ideas?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 22 down vote accepted

For every $n\in \mathbb{N}$ define prime $p_n$ as the smallest of the primes which are greater than $2^n$. Then the set $\{p_n \mid n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ is infinite and

$$\sum_n \frac{1}{p_n} \leq \sum_n \frac{1}{2^n} = 1\text{.}$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice! I was actually hoping for something a little more "concrete" (like, some sort of condition with which you could compute the exact values of the elements in the subset), but this answer is generally correct. – barak manos Aug 29 '14 at 8:08
To be a bit more precise: Define $p_n$ to be a (or: the smallest) prime greater than $2^n$ and greater than $p_0, p_1, \dots, p_{n-1}$. This'll make sure that you'll definitely end up with an infinite collection of primes as your sequence will be well-defined and injective. – Frunobulax Aug 29 '14 at 8:09
@Frunobulax My set is infinite for sure. For example, a subset $A$ of set $\mathbb{N}$ is infinite $\Leftrightarrow$ For every $n\in \mathbb{N}$ there exists $a\in A$ such that $a>n$ ... – JanezNovak Aug 29 '14 at 8:14
@Jaka: I wasn't meaning to say that your set isn't infinite. I just think the construction is more obvious and explicit this way. – Frunobulax Aug 29 '14 at 8:19
@Frunobulax you can remove the condition "and greater than $p_0,p_1,\ldots,p_{n-1}$" I think because of Bertrand's postulate. There always exists a prime between $2^n$ and $2^{n+1}$ and so the least such can be chosen for each $p_n$ without worrying about them coinciding. – Dan Rust Aug 29 '14 at 13:24

Let $p_n$ be a prime divisor of $(n^2)! + 1$. Then we have $p_n > n^2$, which means that $$\sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{1}{p_n} < \sum_{n \geq 1} \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{6} < \infty.$$

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice!!! Thanks. – barak manos Aug 29 '14 at 12:09
You should probably say "the smallest prime divisor" or the largest or something, or else this doesn't uniquely define a sequence $(p_n)_{n\in\Bbb N}$. – Mario Carneiro Aug 30 '14 at 0:29

Take the smallest prime divisor of Fermat numbers $F_n=2^{2^n}+1$
It is wel-known that they are pairwise coprime and that every prime divisor of these numbers is of the form $p=k\cdot 2^{n+2}+1>2^n \Rightarrow \Sigma \frac{1}{p}<\Sigma\frac{1}{2^n}=1$ which proves that the sum of their reciprocals converges.

share|cite|improve this answer
See also OEIS: A093179. – Jeppe Stig Nielsen Aug 29 '14 at 11:08
Nice!!! Thanks. – barak manos Aug 29 '14 at 12:10
This is still way too much machinery for the original question, which doesn't even require using the fact that the numbers are prime. – djechlin Aug 30 '14 at 1:48
@djechlin Because it does not require the fact that the numbers are prime it is not too much machinery – Konstantinos Gaitanas Aug 30 '14 at 8:57

$S=\{p\in \mathbb{Z}^+ : p\ \text{is prime and some condition on}\ p\}$ s.t. $\sum\limits_{p\in{S}}\frac{1}{p}\neq\infty$

Here's an example with a simple explicit condition on $p$.

$$ S= \{p \in \mathbb{Z}^+ | \text{$p$ is prime and there is an $n\in\mathbb{Z}$ such that $2^{n^2-1} \leq p \leq 2^{n^2}$} \}. $$

It is known that there is always a prime between $k$ and $2k$ for each $k\in\mathbb{Z}$. Thus the set is infinite. [Wikipedia]

It is also known that there is a constant $C$ such that the number of primes smaller than an integer $x$, denoted by $\pi(x)$, is less than $C\frac{x}{\ln x}$. [Wikipedia]

Now we can get a very crude upper bound: Because the number of primes between $2^{n^2-1}$ and $2^{n^2}$ is less than $\pi(2^{n^2})$ and their reciprocals are less than $\frac{1}{2^{n^2-1}}$, we get $$ \sum_{p\in{S}}\frac{1}{p} \leq \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{1}{2^{n^2-1}} \pi(2^{n^2}) \leq \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{1}{2^{n^2-1}} C\frac{2^{n^2}}{\ln 2^{n^2}} \leq \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}^+} \frac{2 C}{\ln 2} \frac{1}{n^2} = \frac{2 C}{\ln 2} \frac{\pi^2}{6}. $$

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice!!! Thanks. – barak manos Aug 29 '14 at 12:11

Let $f:\Bbb N\rightarrow\Bbb N$ be such that $\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}1/\!f(n)$ converges (e.g. $f(n)=2^n$). Then the sum of the reciprocals of the $f(n)$th primes ($n=0,1,...$) converges.

share|cite|improve this answer
That's an original one. Thank you. – barak manos Aug 30 '14 at 7:13

I see lots of answers giving subsets of primes yielding different upper bounds on $\sum{\frac{1}{p_n}}$, but none stating explicitly what the bound is. So I thought I'd give a subset for which the exact sum is known.

Let $x$ be any positive real number. Now define $p_n$ to be the smallest prime such that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\frac{1}{p_i}} < x$ and $\forall i<n: p_n \neq p_i$. Then it holds that $\sum_{i=1}^{\infty}{\frac{1}{p_i}} = x$

share|cite|improve this answer
Interesting, thanks... You've managed to define a bound, but it doesn't really provide a concise method for generating the sequence itself. – barak manos Aug 30 '14 at 12:11
@barakmanos I don't believe there could be a concise method for generating such a sequence with a specific bound. The remainder of the sequence has to depend on prior numbers. Coming up with a concise method for producing an infinite sequence of primes is a difficult problem even if there are no constraints on what primes you may chose. – kasperd Aug 30 '14 at 12:23
Yep, I agree on that. I am currently aware of only one simple method for generating primes, which is Rowland's recurring relation ( And even that, as far as I know, doesn't guarantee "when the next prime is going to be found". – barak manos Aug 30 '14 at 12:32
@barakmanos Interesting sequence, but doesn't look like you could compute $a_n$ without first computing all predecessors. – kasperd Aug 30 '14 at 12:37

Define the set of primes as $\{p_n \mid n\in \mathbb{N}\}$ ,where $p_n$ is the smallest prime such that $n^2<p_n$.

share|cite|improve this answer
this doesn't define a unique set of primes so you can't say "the set of primes ..." – mercio Aug 29 '14 at 9:00
ohh. Thanks. I did not see that. I'll edit my answer – Nil Mal Aug 29 '14 at 9:04
Is there always a prime between $n^2$ and $(n+1)^2$? – Najib Idrissi Aug 29 '14 at 9:15
@NajibIdrissi: Thank sir. One of my friend says that it is still an open problem. So once again I have to edit my answer. I have to learn lot of things from you guys. Again thanks. – Nil Mal Sep 1 '14 at 5:48

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.