# Does statement (1) imply statement (2)? [closed]

Statement 1 : (Robin) proved that if the R.H. is false then there exist constants $0<\beta <\frac{1}{2}$ and $c>0$ small , such that $\sum \limits_{d|n} d \geq e^\gamma n \ln \ln n+ n\frac{ c \ln \ln n}{\ln^\beta n}$ holds for infinitely many $n$.

Statement 2 : if the R.H. is false then there exist constants $0<\beta <\frac{1}{2}$ and $c>0$ small , such that $\prod \limits_{p \leq n} \frac{p}{p-1} \geq e^\gamma \ln \theta(n)+ \frac{ c \ln \theta(n)}{\theta^\beta(n)}$ holds for infinitely many $n$.

Does Statement 1 imply Statement 2 ?

Update : Posted On MO too, cross-posted

## closed as off-topic by Namaste, Shailesh, Daniel W. Farlow, Leucippus, Claude LeiboviciJul 15 '17 at 6:13

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – Namaste, Shailesh, Daniel W. Farlow, Leucippus, Claude Leibovici
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.