How correct an estimate for twin primes obtained from the Rosser-Iwaniec sieve and Prime number theorem for...
$begingroup$
Let $P$ be the set of primes $p$, $x geq D geq z^2 geq 2$, and let $A⊂[1,x]$ be a set of integers. Suppose $A_{d}=|A| frac{v(d)}{d}+R_{d}$ for square free d with $v$ being multiplicative and $v(p)$ has an average). Then, according to the Rosser-Iwaniec sieve,
$$S(A,P,z) leq |A|e^{γ}W(z)(1+O(log_{3}D)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{d leq D,μ(d)≠0}{|R_{d}|})⎟$$
where $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{v(p)}{p})}$ and $log_{3}$ is the third iterated logarithm.
Considering primes less that $x$ that can not be found in certain arithmetic progressions modulo primes less than $z$, we have according to the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions that they are asymptotic to
$$pi(A,p;a=p-2)= Li(x)∏_{p≤z}{(1- frac{1}{phi(p)})} + E_{p}$$
where $Li(x)$ is the Logarithm integral which may be approximated by $frac{x}{log x}$ and $E_{p}$ (the sum of errors involved in our calculations) is guaranteed to be small with respect to the improved Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem for $p < x^{frac{1}{2}- epsilon}$ with $epsilon > 0$. Noting that one can take $frac{1}{2}- epsilon$ close to $frac{1}{2}$ but $neq frac{1}{2}$.
Using the result above and the $Rosser-Iwaniec$ sieve result, defining $A$ as $A={2<p+2 leq x:p+2∈P}$, setting $D = x$ and $z=x^{frac{1}{2}}$ and taking $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{1}{phi(p)})} = frac{2ke^{-γ}}{logz}$, one obtains
$$S(A,P,x^{frac{1}{2}}) leq frac{4kLi(x)}{log x}(1+O(log_{3}x)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{p leq x,μ(p)≠0}{|R_{p}|})⎟$$
where $k$ is the "twin prime constant".
Now, my questions are:
(1) What is wrong with this derivation?
(2) If nothing is wrong with it, why is it(something like it) not yet in literature?
I have searched but could not get anything on it and that keeps telling me that something is wrong with the result.
asymptotics analytic-number-theory sieve-theory
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $P$ be the set of primes $p$, $x geq D geq z^2 geq 2$, and let $A⊂[1,x]$ be a set of integers. Suppose $A_{d}=|A| frac{v(d)}{d}+R_{d}$ for square free d with $v$ being multiplicative and $v(p)$ has an average). Then, according to the Rosser-Iwaniec sieve,
$$S(A,P,z) leq |A|e^{γ}W(z)(1+O(log_{3}D)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{d leq D,μ(d)≠0}{|R_{d}|})⎟$$
where $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{v(p)}{p})}$ and $log_{3}$ is the third iterated logarithm.
Considering primes less that $x$ that can not be found in certain arithmetic progressions modulo primes less than $z$, we have according to the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions that they are asymptotic to
$$pi(A,p;a=p-2)= Li(x)∏_{p≤z}{(1- frac{1}{phi(p)})} + E_{p}$$
where $Li(x)$ is the Logarithm integral which may be approximated by $frac{x}{log x}$ and $E_{p}$ (the sum of errors involved in our calculations) is guaranteed to be small with respect to the improved Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem for $p < x^{frac{1}{2}- epsilon}$ with $epsilon > 0$. Noting that one can take $frac{1}{2}- epsilon$ close to $frac{1}{2}$ but $neq frac{1}{2}$.
Using the result above and the $Rosser-Iwaniec$ sieve result, defining $A$ as $A={2<p+2 leq x:p+2∈P}$, setting $D = x$ and $z=x^{frac{1}{2}}$ and taking $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{1}{phi(p)})} = frac{2ke^{-γ}}{logz}$, one obtains
$$S(A,P,x^{frac{1}{2}}) leq frac{4kLi(x)}{log x}(1+O(log_{3}x)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{p leq x,μ(p)≠0}{|R_{p}|})⎟$$
where $k$ is the "twin prime constant".
Now, my questions are:
(1) What is wrong with this derivation?
(2) If nothing is wrong with it, why is it(something like it) not yet in literature?
I have searched but could not get anything on it and that keeps telling me that something is wrong with the result.
asymptotics analytic-number-theory sieve-theory
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@reuns I didn't get what you meant by "It's hard to follow".
$endgroup$
– Nwik
Dec 3 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
It's hard to follow because you are trying to refer to complicated general results instead of making things as simple as possible for the special case "counting the twin primes", where $|A_d|,|A|, v(d), R_d$, the $O$ constant can be made explicit. Brun's theorem and brun's sieve are in the litterature, those should be the best possible sieve for twin primes.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 20:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $P$ be the set of primes $p$, $x geq D geq z^2 geq 2$, and let $A⊂[1,x]$ be a set of integers. Suppose $A_{d}=|A| frac{v(d)}{d}+R_{d}$ for square free d with $v$ being multiplicative and $v(p)$ has an average). Then, according to the Rosser-Iwaniec sieve,
$$S(A,P,z) leq |A|e^{γ}W(z)(1+O(log_{3}D)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{d leq D,μ(d)≠0}{|R_{d}|})⎟$$
where $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{v(p)}{p})}$ and $log_{3}$ is the third iterated logarithm.
Considering primes less that $x$ that can not be found in certain arithmetic progressions modulo primes less than $z$, we have according to the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions that they are asymptotic to
$$pi(A,p;a=p-2)= Li(x)∏_{p≤z}{(1- frac{1}{phi(p)})} + E_{p}$$
where $Li(x)$ is the Logarithm integral which may be approximated by $frac{x}{log x}$ and $E_{p}$ (the sum of errors involved in our calculations) is guaranteed to be small with respect to the improved Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem for $p < x^{frac{1}{2}- epsilon}$ with $epsilon > 0$. Noting that one can take $frac{1}{2}- epsilon$ close to $frac{1}{2}$ but $neq frac{1}{2}$.
Using the result above and the $Rosser-Iwaniec$ sieve result, defining $A$ as $A={2<p+2 leq x:p+2∈P}$, setting $D = x$ and $z=x^{frac{1}{2}}$ and taking $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{1}{phi(p)})} = frac{2ke^{-γ}}{logz}$, one obtains
$$S(A,P,x^{frac{1}{2}}) leq frac{4kLi(x)}{log x}(1+O(log_{3}x)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{p leq x,μ(p)≠0}{|R_{p}|})⎟$$
where $k$ is the "twin prime constant".
Now, my questions are:
(1) What is wrong with this derivation?
(2) If nothing is wrong with it, why is it(something like it) not yet in literature?
I have searched but could not get anything on it and that keeps telling me that something is wrong with the result.
asymptotics analytic-number-theory sieve-theory
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
$endgroup$
Let $P$ be the set of primes $p$, $x geq D geq z^2 geq 2$, and let $A⊂[1,x]$ be a set of integers. Suppose $A_{d}=|A| frac{v(d)}{d}+R_{d}$ for square free d with $v$ being multiplicative and $v(p)$ has an average). Then, according to the Rosser-Iwaniec sieve,
$$S(A,P,z) leq |A|e^{γ}W(z)(1+O(log_{3}D)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{d leq D,μ(d)≠0}{|R_{d}|})⎟$$
where $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{v(p)}{p})}$ and $log_{3}$ is the third iterated logarithm.
Considering primes less that $x$ that can not be found in certain arithmetic progressions modulo primes less than $z$, we have according to the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions that they are asymptotic to
$$pi(A,p;a=p-2)= Li(x)∏_{p≤z}{(1- frac{1}{phi(p)})} + E_{p}$$
where $Li(x)$ is the Logarithm integral which may be approximated by $frac{x}{log x}$ and $E_{p}$ (the sum of errors involved in our calculations) is guaranteed to be small with respect to the improved Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem for $p < x^{frac{1}{2}- epsilon}$ with $epsilon > 0$. Noting that one can take $frac{1}{2}- epsilon$ close to $frac{1}{2}$ but $neq frac{1}{2}$.
Using the result above and the $Rosser-Iwaniec$ sieve result, defining $A$ as $A={2<p+2 leq x:p+2∈P}$, setting $D = x$ and $z=x^{frac{1}{2}}$ and taking $W(z) = ∏_{p≤z}{(1− frac{1}{phi(p)})} = frac{2ke^{-γ}}{logz}$, one obtains
$$S(A,P,x^{frac{1}{2}}) leq frac{4kLi(x)}{log x}(1+O(log_{3}x)^{−1})+O(⎜sum_{p leq x,μ(p)≠0}{|R_{p}|})⎟$$
where $k$ is the "twin prime constant".
Now, my questions are:
(1) What is wrong with this derivation?
(2) If nothing is wrong with it, why is it(something like it) not yet in literature?
I have searched but could not get anything on it and that keeps telling me that something is wrong with the result.
asymptotics analytic-number-theory sieve-theory
asymptotics analytic-number-theory sieve-theory
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
edited Dec 3 '18 at 10:32
Nwik
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
asked Dec 3 '18 at 6:08
NwikNwik
12
12
$begingroup$
@reuns I didn't get what you meant by "It's hard to follow".
$endgroup$
– Nwik
Dec 3 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
It's hard to follow because you are trying to refer to complicated general results instead of making things as simple as possible for the special case "counting the twin primes", where $|A_d|,|A|, v(d), R_d$, the $O$ constant can be made explicit. Brun's theorem and brun's sieve are in the litterature, those should be the best possible sieve for twin primes.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 20:51
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@reuns I didn't get what you meant by "It's hard to follow".
$endgroup$
– Nwik
Dec 3 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
It's hard to follow because you are trying to refer to complicated general results instead of making things as simple as possible for the special case "counting the twin primes", where $|A_d|,|A|, v(d), R_d$, the $O$ constant can be made explicit. Brun's theorem and brun's sieve are in the litterature, those should be the best possible sieve for twin primes.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 20:51
$begingroup$
@reuns I didn't get what you meant by "It's hard to follow".
$endgroup$
– Nwik
Dec 3 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
@reuns I didn't get what you meant by "It's hard to follow".
$endgroup$
– Nwik
Dec 3 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
It's hard to follow because you are trying to refer to complicated general results instead of making things as simple as possible for the special case "counting the twin primes", where $|A_d|,|A|, v(d), R_d$, the $O$ constant can be made explicit. Brun's theorem and brun's sieve are in the litterature, those should be the best possible sieve for twin primes.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 20:51
$begingroup$
It's hard to follow because you are trying to refer to complicated general results instead of making things as simple as possible for the special case "counting the twin primes", where $|A_d|,|A|, v(d), R_d$, the $O$ constant can be made explicit. Brun's theorem and brun's sieve are in the litterature, those should be the best possible sieve for twin primes.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 20:51
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One of your problems is that you are going to find it hard to control the $R_p$ error sum in your final inequality. Calculations of this form were used as long ago as 1973 to establish Chen's improvement on the sum of odd primes problem (my memory is a little fuzzy - I haven't done any number theory for a long time). A reference I used a lot when thinking about this stuff was Halberstam and Richert's Sieve Methods, which may not be in print these days.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023706%2fhow-correct-an-estimate-for-twin-primes-obtained-from-the-rosser-iwaniec-sieve-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
One of your problems is that you are going to find it hard to control the $R_p$ error sum in your final inequality. Calculations of this form were used as long ago as 1973 to establish Chen's improvement on the sum of odd primes problem (my memory is a little fuzzy - I haven't done any number theory for a long time). A reference I used a lot when thinking about this stuff was Halberstam and Richert's Sieve Methods, which may not be in print these days.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of your problems is that you are going to find it hard to control the $R_p$ error sum in your final inequality. Calculations of this form were used as long ago as 1973 to establish Chen's improvement on the sum of odd primes problem (my memory is a little fuzzy - I haven't done any number theory for a long time). A reference I used a lot when thinking about this stuff was Halberstam and Richert's Sieve Methods, which may not be in print these days.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One of your problems is that you are going to find it hard to control the $R_p$ error sum in your final inequality. Calculations of this form were used as long ago as 1973 to establish Chen's improvement on the sum of odd primes problem (my memory is a little fuzzy - I haven't done any number theory for a long time). A reference I used a lot when thinking about this stuff was Halberstam and Richert's Sieve Methods, which may not be in print these days.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
$endgroup$
One of your problems is that you are going to find it hard to control the $R_p$ error sum in your final inequality. Calculations of this form were used as long ago as 1973 to establish Chen's improvement on the sum of odd primes problem (my memory is a little fuzzy - I haven't done any number theory for a long time). A reference I used a lot when thinking about this stuff was Halberstam and Richert's Sieve Methods, which may not be in print these days.
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
answered Dec 12 '18 at 15:51
EtukaEtuka
111
111
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023706%2fhow-correct-an-estimate-for-twin-primes-obtained-from-the-rosser-iwaniec-sieve-a%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
@reuns I didn't get what you meant by "It's hard to follow".
$endgroup$
– Nwik
Dec 3 '18 at 7:53
$begingroup$
It's hard to follow because you are trying to refer to complicated general results instead of making things as simple as possible for the special case "counting the twin primes", where $|A_d|,|A|, v(d), R_d$, the $O$ constant can be made explicit. Brun's theorem and brun's sieve are in the litterature, those should be the best possible sieve for twin primes.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Dec 3 '18 at 20:51