0
$\begingroup$

Please provide assistance for the proof that the error between the function $W(\lambda(\sqrt{n}))$ and the fraction of composite integers in $\mathbb{O}_n$ declines as $n$ increases.

Let $\mathbb{O}_n$ represent the set of odd integers less than or equal to $n$ excluding 1.

$\mathbb{O}_n$ = {3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17,19,…n}

Let the function $l(x)$ equal the largest prime number less than $x$.

For example: $l(10) = 7, l(20) = 19$ and $l(23) = 19$

Let the function $\lambda(x)$ equal the largest prime number less than or equal to $x$.

For example: $\lambda(10) = 7, \lambda(20) = 19$ and $\lambda(23) = 23$

The function $W(\lambda(\sqrt{n}))$ was derived to represent the fraction of composite integers in the set $\mathbb{O}_n$ for large values of $n$.

\begin{eqnarray*} W(\lambda(\sqrt{n})) = \sum_{\substack{p=3\\p\ \text{prime}}}^{\lambda(\sqrt{n})}\left((\frac{1}{p})\prod_{\substack{q=3\\q\ \text{prime}}}^{l(p)}\frac{(q-1)}{q}\right) \end{eqnarray*} or

$W(\lambda(\sqrt{n}))= \frac{1}{3} + (\frac{1}{5})(\frac{2}{3}) + (\frac{1}{7})(\frac{2}{3})(\frac{4}{5}) + ... + (\frac{1}{ \lambda(\sqrt{n})})(\frac{2}{3})(\frac{4}{5})(\frac{6}{7})(\frac{10}{11})...(\frac{(l(\lambda(\sqrt{n})) - 1)}{l(\lambda(\sqrt{n}))})$.\

I have proven that the maximum error between $W(\lambda(\sqrt{n}))$ and the actual fraction of composite integers in the set $\mathbb{O}_n$ declines as $n$ increases in sections 6 and 7 in this paper http://vixra.org/pdf/1901.0436v5.pdf.

Is this proof sufficient? If not, what needs to be done?

Please only post helpful information.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Let me clean it up. Let $lpf(n)$ the least prime factor and $\mu(d)$ the Möbius function and as usual $p,q$ primes then $$\sum_{n \le x, lpf(n)=p} 1 = \sum_{d | \prod_{q < p} q} \mu(d) \lfloor \frac{x}{pd}\rfloor$$

What you did is approximating $\lfloor \frac{x}{pd}\rfloor \approx \frac{x}{pd}$ obtaining $$\sum_{n \le x, lpf(n)=p} 1 \approx \sum_{d | \prod_{q < p} q} \mu(d) \frac{x}{pd}= \frac{x}{p}\sum_{d | \prod_{q < p} q} \frac{\mu(d)}{d}= \frac{x}{p}\prod_{q < p} (1-\frac1q)$$

Then we have $$\lfloor x \rfloor = \sum_{p \le x}\sum_{n \le x, lpf(n)=p} 1$$ $$\lfloor x \rfloor-\pi(x) = \sum_{p \le \sqrt{x}}(-1+\sum_{n \le x, lpf(n)=p} 1)$$

and $$1-\sum_{p \le x} \frac{1}{p}\prod_{q < p} (1-\frac1q) = \prod_{q \le x} (1-\frac1q) $$

$$\sum_p \frac{1}{p}\prod_{q < p} (1-\frac1q)=1$$

To go further you need to estimate those things using the Mertens theorems, the PNT, the RH.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

I identified a flaw in determining the maximum error between the $W()$ function and the fraction of composite numbers less than $n$.

For example, the fraction of odd composite numbers less than $n$ that are divisible by 7 (excluding 7) and not divisible by a lower prime is estimated as (1/7)(2/3)(4/5).

The maximum error due to this estimation was precisely determined for each of the fractions (e1, e2, e3).

1/7 ± e1

2/3 ± e2

4/5 ± e3

These errors were incorrectly combined as:

$e_{max}^7 = (1/7)(2/3)(4/5)(e1/(1/7) + e2/(2/3) + e3/(4/5))$

The correct maximum possible error is for composite numbers divisible by 7 is:

$e_{max}^7 = (1/7 + e1)(2/3+e2)(4/5+e3) - (1/7)(2/3)(4/5)$

The difference in the results due to this error is negligible, but for a mathematical proof, any error is not acceptable. The error was corrected, and a new revision of the paper is now available.

http://vixra.org/pdf/1901.0436v6.pdf

$\endgroup$

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.