2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading Wright's A simple proof of a theorem of Landau in which the core argument is a proof by induction and I find myself stuck on a major point. I must be misunderstanding notation or something else, because what I understand is clearly wrong.

For the base case, he writes:

But, for $k=1,$ (6) is equivalent to (2).

where (2) is a form of the Prime Number Theorem, $$ \vartheta(x)=\sum_{p\le x}\log p\sim x $$

and (6) is $$ \phi_k(x)=o\left\{(\log\log x)^{k-1}\right\} $$

The relevant definitions: $$ \begin{align} \phi_k(x)&=\vartheta_k(x)-kx\Omega_{k-1}(x)\\ \vartheta_k(x)&=\sum_{p_1\cdots p_k\le x}\log(p_1\cdots p_k)\\ \Omega_0(x)&=1\\ \Omega_k(x)&=\sum_{p_1\cdots p_k\le x}\frac{1}{p_1\cdots p_k}\text{ for }k>0\\ \end{align} $$ (where both $\vartheta_k$ and $\Omega_k$ count their sums with multiplicity) and so $$ \phi_1(x)=\vartheta(x)-x $$ but $|\psi(x)-x|\ne o(\sqrt x\log\log\log x)$ and $\psi(x)-\vartheta(x)=O(\sqrt x)$ hence $|\vartheta(x)-x|\ne o(\sqrt x\log\log\log x),$ and so $\phi_1(x)=\vartheta(x)-x\ne o(1)$ as required. (In any case it can't be $o(1)$ since there are arbitrarily long gaps in the primes.) What am I missing?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Reading the title I thought it was about Landau's Theorem on Dirichlet series. Perhaps you should give a more thorough background for what you exactly want. $\endgroup$ – Timbuc Jul 16 '15 at 18:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Timbuc: the proof seems to assume that theta(x) - x goes to 0, but it doesn't. What don't I get? $\endgroup$ – Charles Jul 16 '15 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ You didn't define $\Omega_k(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Eric Naslund Jul 16 '15 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ @EricNaslund: Yes, only $\Omega_0(x),$ because that's all that's used in the question. I can copy the full definition for you if you're interested. $\endgroup$ – Charles Jul 16 '15 at 20:33
  • $\begingroup$ @Charles: Well, yes, it's definitely relevant since this looks like a typo. $\endgroup$ – Eric Naslund Jul 16 '15 at 20:42
2
$\begingroup$

It looks like a typo to me, and that equation $(6)$ should read $$\phi_k(x)=o\left(x\left(\log \log x\right)^{k-1}\right).$$

Knowing how the author defines $\Omega_{k-1}(x)$ for other values of $k$ would help confirm this.

$\endgroup$

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.