Hi I want to evaluate the following sum :


My try :

Using a well know trick we have :


Now we see a link between $S$ and the truncated function Zeta .

As I'm stuck now so I propose an crude estimation of the sum $S$:

Since $$\ln(n)\leq n-1$$ for $n\geq 1$ a natural number we have $$n\leq S_n$$

We can do better since $\ln(n)\leq q(n^\frac{1}{q}-1)$ for $n\geq 1$ and $q\geq 1$

An obvious upper bound is :

$$S_n\leq \frac{n(n+1)}{2}$$ for $n\geq 3$

Finally I make the following conjecture :

There is always a prime number between $S_n$ and $S_{n+2}$

My questions

Can someone improve the bound or give a theoretic representation ?

Have you an counter-example ?

Any helps is greatly appreciated..

...Thanks in advance for all your contributions.

Update :

I propose The following conjecture for $n\geq 100$

There is always a prime number between $S_n$ and $S_{n+1}$

Maybe it's stronger than the Firoozbakht's conjecture


An upper bound can be given since $$S_n <\int_1^n {x \over \ln(x+1)} dx=li((n+1)^2)-2li(n+1)+li(2)-li(4)$$ In a very similar way you can obtain a lower bound, which is: $$ \int _1^n {{x-1} \over ln(x) } = li(n^2)-li(n)-\ln(2)$$

I don't know if the sum has a closed form.


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.