# Prove that if $n$ is sufficently large, there is a prime gap $G(p_k, p_{k+1})$ with $p_k \leq n$ and $p_{k+1} - p_k > \frac{1}{2}\ln(n)$

Let $p_k ( k \geq 1)$ be an enumeration of all the positive primes with $p_1 = 2$ and $p_k < p_{k+1}$ for all $k \geq 1$. Prove that if $n$ is sufficiently large, then there is a prime gap $G(p_k, p_{k+1})$ with $p_k \leq n$ and $p_{k+1} - p_k > \frac{1}{2}\ln(n)$.

HINT: Let $m$ be the largest integer with $p_m \leq n$. Consider $\sum_{k=1}^m (p_{k+1} - p_k)$ and apply the Prime Number Theorem to $\pi(x)$.

$\pi(x)$ is defined as the number of positive primes $\leq x$.

The Prime Number Theorem states

$$\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{\pi(n)}{n / \ln(n)} = 1.$$

I'm not sure how to go about doing this. I don't get how the $\frac{1}{2}$ would come into play. Can someone help me please?

• Inceptio's point is that $p_{k+1}-p_k\geq 1 > \frac{1}{2}$ always. – Thomas Andrews May 24 '13 at 15:33
• Kaish, is it your own problem? I'm sure you didn't mean $p_{k+1}-p_k > \dfrac{1}{2}.$ – Inceptio May 24 '13 at 15:51
• @Inceptio Sorry, I completley missed out a bit. It is supposed to have $\ln(n)$ on the end, like I have edited in. – Kaish May 24 '13 at 18:58

So let's apply the hint given. By the definition, $m=\pi(n).$ If each gap $p_{k+1}-p_k\le \frac{1}{2}\ln n$ then the sum $p_m-p_1=\sum_{k=1}^{m-1}(p_{k+1}-p_k)\le m\cdot \frac{1}{2}\ln n=\frac{1}{2}\pi(n)\cdot \ln n.$ Hence, $p_m\le 2+\frac{1}{2}\pi(n)\cdot \ln n.$ Now, by the prime number theorem, starting from $n=n_0$ the quantity $\frac{\pi(n)\cdot \ln n}{n}<(1+\varepsilon),$ or $\pi(n)\cdot \ln n\le (1+\varepsilon)n.$ This can be used to estimate $p_m$ for $n\ge n_0:$ $p_m\le 2+\frac{1}{2}(1+\varepsilon)n.$ This means, that between $2+\frac{1}{2}(1+\varepsilon)n$ and $n$ there is no primes This contradicts some stronger version of Bertand's postulate.