Along the lines of thought given here, is it in general possible to substitute a summation over a function $f$ of primes like the following: $$ \sum_{p\le x}f(p)=\int_2^x f(t) d(\pi(t))\tag{1} $$ and further $$ \int_2^x f(t) d(\pi(t))=f(t)\pi(t)\biggr|_2^{x}-\int_2^{x}f'(t)\pi(t)dt\tag{2}. $$

If it's possible only for some cases, how can one specify them? answered in the comments

Let's continue from $(2)$ with an representation of the prime counting function: $$ \pi(t) = \operatorname{R}(t^1) - \sum_{\rho}\operatorname{R}(t^{\rho}) \tag{3} $$ with $ \operatorname{R}(u) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \frac{ \mu (n)}{n} \operatorname{li}(u^{1/n})$ (the so-called Riemann's ${\rm R}$ Function, see e.g. $(11)$ here) and $\rho$ running over all the zeros (trivial and non-trivial) of $\zeta$ function. $\operatorname{li}(\cdot)$ is the logarithmic integral.

So we have $$ \begin{eqnarray} &=&f(t)\pi(t)\biggr|_2^{x}-\int_2^{x}f'(t)\pi(t)dt\\ &=&f(t)\left(\operatorname{R}(t^1) - \sum_{\rho}\operatorname{R}(t^{\rho})\right)\biggr|_2^{x} -\int_2^{x}f'(t)\left(\operatorname{R}(t^1) - \sum_{\rho}\operatorname{R}(t^{\rho})\right)dt \phantom{somemorerspace}\\ &\phantom{AA}&\\ &=&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{ \mu (n)}{n}\Big\{\left[f(t)\left( \sum_{z\in\{1,\rho\}} (-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}} \operatorname{li}(t^{z/n})\right)\right]_2^{x}\\ &&- \int_2^{x}f'(t)\left( \sum_{z\in\{1,\rho\}} (-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}} \operatorname{li}(t^{z/n})\right)dt\Big\}\\ &\phantom{AA}&\\ &=&\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{ \mu (n)}{n}\sum_{z\in\{1,\rho\}}(-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}}\left\{\left[f(t)\left( \operatorname{li}(t^{z/n})\right)\right]_2^{x} - \int_2^{x}f'(t)\left( \operatorname{li}(t^{z/n})\right)dt\right\}\hskip0.9in(4) \end{eqnarray} $$ where I tried to combine the sum a little without introducing to much confusion by using $$ (-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}}= \cases{ +1&$ \text{if } z=1$\\ -1&$ \text{if } z=\rho$\\ } $$

Now, what if we just take an approximation $\tilde{\pi}(t)$, where the sums over $n$ and $\rho$ are truncated. Is this approach still valid? I'm worried because $\tilde{\pi}(t)$ might not be monotone, which is a prerequisite of the Lebesgue-Stieltjes integration. Let's work out the last integral, by parts: We use $$ \int_2^{x}f'(t) \operatorname{li}(t^{w})dt =\left[ f(t)\operatorname{li}(t^{w}) \right]_2^x - \int_2^x \frac{f(t)wt^{w-1}}{\ln(t^w)}dt \tag{5} $$ which gives a nice result when $f(t)=t^{-s}$, see here: $$ \int_2^{x}(-st^{-s-1}) \operatorname{li}(t^{w})dt =\left[ t^{-s}\operatorname{li}(t^{w}) \right]_2^x - \int_2^x \frac{t^{-s}t^{w-1}}{\ln(t)}dt =\left[ t^{-s}\operatorname{li}(t^{w}) \right]_2^x - \left[{\rm li}(t^{w-s})\right]^x_2. $$

So overall we get $$ \sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{ \mu (n)}{n}\sum_{z\in\{1,\rho\}}(-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}}\left\{\left[f(t) \operatorname{li}(t^{z/n})\right]_2^{x}- \left[ f(t)\operatorname{li}(t^{z/n}) \right]_2^x +\int_2^x \frac{zf(t)t^{z/n-1}}{n\ln(t^{z/n})}dt \right\}\\ =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{ \mu (n)}{n}\sum_{z\in\{1,\rho\}}(-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}}\left\{\int_2^x \frac{f(t)t^{z/n-1}}{\ln(t)}dt \right\}\tag{6}\\ $$ and in the special case $f(t)=t^{-s}$ this simplifies to $$ P_\color{red}x(\color{blue}s)=\sum_{p<\color{red}x} \frac{1}{p^s} =\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{ \mu (n)}{n}\sum_{z\in\{1,\rho\}}(-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}} \left[ {\rm li}(t^{\frac zn-\color{blue}s}) \right]^{\color{red}x}_2 \tag{7} $$

(for the interested reader: the story continues here...)

If anybody could confirm this, it would be ever so cool.

Thanks for your help and your time for reading all this,

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Under some mild conditions on $f$ and assuming that $\pi(t)$ is right-continuous, i.e. $$ \pi(t) = \#\{\text{primes }p:p\leq t\} $$ the integral here is well-defined in the Lebesgue-Stieltjes sense. See the integration by parts formula in the linked article. $\endgroup$ – Ilya Mar 1 '12 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Ilya Thanks a lot. A $\displaystyle\lim_{x\to\infty}$ in front of the sum/integral would also not hurt, I think/hope? $\endgroup$ – draks ... Mar 1 '12 at 14:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I understand you. If you mean $$ \lim\limits_{x\to\infty}\sum\limits_{p\leq x}f(p) = \lim\limits_{x\to\infty}\int\limits_0^tf(t)d\pi(t) $$ then it holds: you have just both functions the same at each $x\geq 1$. Provided that, say $f(t)$ is finite and measurable on any interval $[1,x]$ $\endgroup$ – Ilya Mar 1 '12 at 14:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, there are different kinds of integrals but the wast majority of them agrees that $\int_0^t f(s)\mathrm dg(s)$ exists at least whenever $f$ is continuous, $g$ is $C^1$. Moreover, the also give the same value to this integral. $\endgroup$ – Ilya Jan 14 '13 at 10:25
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @draks...$$\sum_{p\leq n}f(p)=\sum_{k=1}^n\omega(k) \sum_{j=1}^{[\frac{n}{k}]}f(jk)\mu(j)$$ $\endgroup$ – Ethan Jan 19 '13 at 5:47

If your function $f$ is smooth and compactly supported then the formula you are looking for already exists, and is called the "explicit formula". See for example Lemma 1 in http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0511092.

If you want to apply this lemma in the direction "primes to zeros" then you should "swap the hats" over $h$. Basically, once you have specified $\hat{h}$ to be a smooth compact function of your choice, the resulting function $h$ will be entire and you will be able to apply the lemma 1 to $h$, getting the desired formula a sum over the primes weighted by $\hat{h}$.

  • $\begingroup$ hmm, so you say that i. $f$ could be $t^{-s}$ and ii. $(-1)^{1-\delta_{1z}} \left\{ \left[ {\rm li}(t^{\frac zn-\color{blue}s}) \right]^{\color{red}x}_2 -\left[t^{-\color{blue}s}\operatorname{li}(t^{\frac zn}) \right]_2^\color{red}x \right\}$ corresponds to $h$ right? If not could you work it out a bit, please? and +1 for the ref. $\endgroup$ – draks ... Jan 18 '13 at 11:38
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe you could also help solving this follow-on puzzle? I would be glad, if you could have a look... $\endgroup$ – draks ... Jan 18 '13 at 13:15

An effective form of the Riemann explicit formula is $$\psi(n+1/2) =\sum_{p^k \le n+1/2} \log p = n+1/2- \sum_{|\Im(\rho)| < T} \frac{(n+1/2)^\rho}{\rho}-\log 2\pi + \mathcal{O}(\frac{n \log n}{T})$$ (where $n+1/2$ is for avoiding the Gibbs phenomenom at integer values)

Thus $$\sum_{p^k \le N} f(p^k) \log p = \sum_{n = 1}^N f(n) (1- \sum_{|\Im(\rho)| < T} \frac{(n+1/2)^\rho-(n-1/2)^\rho}{\rho}) + \mathcal{O}(\sum_{n=1}^N |f(n)|\frac{n \log n}{T})$$ The same idea can be adapted to explicit formulas for $J(x) = \sum_{p^k \le x} \frac{1}{k}$ and $\pi(x) = \sum_{p \le x } 1 = \sum_{m=1}^x \frac{\mu(m)}{m} J(x^{1/m})$

Summing by parts you'll improve the error term to $\mathcal{O}( |f(N)|\frac{N \log N}{T})+\mathcal{O}(\sum_{n=1}^N |f(n)-f(n+1)|\frac{n \log n}{T})$


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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