2
$\begingroup$

enter image description hereThe picture above is what I have, which has an error that is too big.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Indeed, changing the $\lfloor \frac xn \rfloor$ to $\frac xn + O(1)$ will immediately incur an error that is $O\big(\sum_{n\le x} \Lambda(n)\big) = O(x)$.

One can write $\lfloor \frac xn \rfloor$ as the number of integers up to $\frac xn$, which leads to the following manipulation: $$ \sum_{n\le x} \Lambda(n) \frac xn = \sum_{n\le x} \Lambda(n) \sum_{m\le x/n} 1 = \sum_{m\le x} \sum_{n\le x/m} \Lambda(n) = \sum_{m\le x} \psi\bigg(\frac xm\bigg). $$ Unfortunately, each summand has a reasonably large error term, so this doesn't seem like the way to go either. Indeed, to get an error term as small as $O(\log x)$, we don't want to use anything about primes at all—they simply aren't that well distributed.

However, $\Lambda$ is related to the smooth function $\log$ by $\log m = \sum_{n\mid m} \Lambda(n)$; so we should aim to create such a sum. And indeed we can do so, by writing $\lfloor \frac xn \rfloor$ not as the number of integers up to $\frac xn$ but rather as the number of multiples of $n$ up to $x$: $$ \sum_{n\le x} \Lambda(n) \frac xn = \sum_{n\le x} \Lambda(n) \sum_{\substack{m\le x \\ n\mid m}} 1 = \sum_{m\le x} \sum_{\substack{n\le x \\ n\mid m}}\Lambda(n) = \sum_{m\le x} \sum_{n\mid m}\Lambda(n) = \sum_{m\le x} \log m. $$ Now the result follows by comparing this sum with the integral $\int_0^x \log t\,dt$.

$\endgroup$

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.