Riemann $zeta$ and Chebyshev's estimates
I would like to shred some light concerning the relations between properties of the Riemann $zeta$ function and the weak version of the Prime Number Theorem proven by Chebyshev. More precisely, we have the following known facts :
- the pole at $s=1$ is equivalent to the infinitude of primes
- the non-existence of zeros on $sigma = 1$ is equivalent to the PNT in the form $pi(x) sim x / log x$
- the known (or conjectured) zero-free region implies estimates for the error term
However, the proofs I find concerning the Chebyshev's result
$$pi(x) asymp frac{x}{log x}$$
do not use any analytic property of the Riemann zeta function but rather computations with orders of arithmetic functions (I do not know whether or not the proof I have in mind is Chebyshev's).
Is there any proof using analytic properties of $zeta$?
My attention has been caught by a remark in Montgomery-Vaughan's book (Multiplicative Number Theory), stating that Chebyshev's estimates have been derived from the behavior of $log zeta(s)$ when $s to 1^{+}$.
number-theory analytic-number-theory
add a comment |
I would like to shred some light concerning the relations between properties of the Riemann $zeta$ function and the weak version of the Prime Number Theorem proven by Chebyshev. More precisely, we have the following known facts :
- the pole at $s=1$ is equivalent to the infinitude of primes
- the non-existence of zeros on $sigma = 1$ is equivalent to the PNT in the form $pi(x) sim x / log x$
- the known (or conjectured) zero-free region implies estimates for the error term
However, the proofs I find concerning the Chebyshev's result
$$pi(x) asymp frac{x}{log x}$$
do not use any analytic property of the Riemann zeta function but rather computations with orders of arithmetic functions (I do not know whether or not the proof I have in mind is Chebyshev's).
Is there any proof using analytic properties of $zeta$?
My attention has been caught by a remark in Montgomery-Vaughan's book (Multiplicative Number Theory), stating that Chebyshev's estimates have been derived from the behavior of $log zeta(s)$ when $s to 1^{+}$.
number-theory analytic-number-theory
Chebyshev's result is $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} in (a,b)$ not $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} to 1$. The upper bound is usually obtained from ${2n choose n} ge prod_{p in (n,2n]} p$. Note if $zeta(s)$ had two zeros on $Re(s) = 1$ we'd have $pi(x) = frac{x}{log x}-2Re(frac{x^{1+it}}{(1+it)log x})+O(frac{x}{log^2x})$
– reuns
Dec 28 '18 at 20:14
1
@reuns I am actually looking for a (maybe not usual proof) using properties of $zeta$ instead of only toying with arithmetic functions
– Desiderius Severus
Dec 30 '18 at 1:09
add a comment |
I would like to shred some light concerning the relations between properties of the Riemann $zeta$ function and the weak version of the Prime Number Theorem proven by Chebyshev. More precisely, we have the following known facts :
- the pole at $s=1$ is equivalent to the infinitude of primes
- the non-existence of zeros on $sigma = 1$ is equivalent to the PNT in the form $pi(x) sim x / log x$
- the known (or conjectured) zero-free region implies estimates for the error term
However, the proofs I find concerning the Chebyshev's result
$$pi(x) asymp frac{x}{log x}$$
do not use any analytic property of the Riemann zeta function but rather computations with orders of arithmetic functions (I do not know whether or not the proof I have in mind is Chebyshev's).
Is there any proof using analytic properties of $zeta$?
My attention has been caught by a remark in Montgomery-Vaughan's book (Multiplicative Number Theory), stating that Chebyshev's estimates have been derived from the behavior of $log zeta(s)$ when $s to 1^{+}$.
number-theory analytic-number-theory
I would like to shred some light concerning the relations between properties of the Riemann $zeta$ function and the weak version of the Prime Number Theorem proven by Chebyshev. More precisely, we have the following known facts :
- the pole at $s=1$ is equivalent to the infinitude of primes
- the non-existence of zeros on $sigma = 1$ is equivalent to the PNT in the form $pi(x) sim x / log x$
- the known (or conjectured) zero-free region implies estimates for the error term
However, the proofs I find concerning the Chebyshev's result
$$pi(x) asymp frac{x}{log x}$$
do not use any analytic property of the Riemann zeta function but rather computations with orders of arithmetic functions (I do not know whether or not the proof I have in mind is Chebyshev's).
Is there any proof using analytic properties of $zeta$?
My attention has been caught by a remark in Montgomery-Vaughan's book (Multiplicative Number Theory), stating that Chebyshev's estimates have been derived from the behavior of $log zeta(s)$ when $s to 1^{+}$.
number-theory analytic-number-theory
number-theory analytic-number-theory
edited Jan 2 at 0:49
asked Dec 28 '18 at 9:44
Desiderius Severus
880620
880620
Chebyshev's result is $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} in (a,b)$ not $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} to 1$. The upper bound is usually obtained from ${2n choose n} ge prod_{p in (n,2n]} p$. Note if $zeta(s)$ had two zeros on $Re(s) = 1$ we'd have $pi(x) = frac{x}{log x}-2Re(frac{x^{1+it}}{(1+it)log x})+O(frac{x}{log^2x})$
– reuns
Dec 28 '18 at 20:14
1
@reuns I am actually looking for a (maybe not usual proof) using properties of $zeta$ instead of only toying with arithmetic functions
– Desiderius Severus
Dec 30 '18 at 1:09
add a comment |
Chebyshev's result is $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} in (a,b)$ not $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} to 1$. The upper bound is usually obtained from ${2n choose n} ge prod_{p in (n,2n]} p$. Note if $zeta(s)$ had two zeros on $Re(s) = 1$ we'd have $pi(x) = frac{x}{log x}-2Re(frac{x^{1+it}}{(1+it)log x})+O(frac{x}{log^2x})$
– reuns
Dec 28 '18 at 20:14
1
@reuns I am actually looking for a (maybe not usual proof) using properties of $zeta$ instead of only toying with arithmetic functions
– Desiderius Severus
Dec 30 '18 at 1:09
Chebyshev's result is $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} in (a,b)$ not $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} to 1$. The upper bound is usually obtained from ${2n choose n} ge prod_{p in (n,2n]} p$. Note if $zeta(s)$ had two zeros on $Re(s) = 1$ we'd have $pi(x) = frac{x}{log x}-2Re(frac{x^{1+it}}{(1+it)log x})+O(frac{x}{log^2x})$
– reuns
Dec 28 '18 at 20:14
Chebyshev's result is $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} in (a,b)$ not $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} to 1$. The upper bound is usually obtained from ${2n choose n} ge prod_{p in (n,2n]} p$. Note if $zeta(s)$ had two zeros on $Re(s) = 1$ we'd have $pi(x) = frac{x}{log x}-2Re(frac{x^{1+it}}{(1+it)log x})+O(frac{x}{log^2x})$
– reuns
Dec 28 '18 at 20:14
1
1
@reuns I am actually looking for a (maybe not usual proof) using properties of $zeta$ instead of only toying with arithmetic functions
– Desiderius Severus
Dec 30 '18 at 1:09
@reuns I am actually looking for a (maybe not usual proof) using properties of $zeta$ instead of only toying with arithmetic functions
– Desiderius Severus
Dec 30 '18 at 1:09
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
How about this for a start? It shows $limsup_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log x} ge 1$.
For $sigma > 1$, $$log zeta(s) = log prod_p (1-p^{-s})^{-1} = sum_p sum_{m ge 1} frac{1}{mp^{ms}} = sum_p frac{1}{p^s}+O_{s to 1}(1).$$ Now let $s=1+epsilon$ for small $epsilon > 0$. Then $$log frac{1}{epsilon} sim log zeta(s) = sum_p frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{p le x} frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x^s}+sint_1^x frac{pi(t)}{t^{s+1}}dt = (1+epsilon)int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt.$$
Now if there were some $delta > 0$ so that $pi(t) le (1-delta)frac{t}{log t}$ for all large $t$, then $$1 = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{log(1/epsilon)}{log(1/epsilon)} = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt le lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}(1-delta)int_2^infty frac{1}{t^{1+epsilon}log(t)}dt = 1-delta,$$ a contradiction.
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
add a comment |
A simple Google search for
"proof of prime number theorem"
turned up this,
which appears to be what you want:
/https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.2307/2975232/fulltext.pdf
Here is the title
and first paragraph:
Newman's Short Proof of the Prime Number Theorem
D. Zagier
Dedicated to the Prime Number Theorem on the occasion of its 100th birthday
The prime number theorem, that the number of primes < x is asymptotic to x/log x, was proved (independently) by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin in 1896. Their proof had two elements: showing that Riemann's zeta function $zeta(s)$ has no zeros with Re(s) = 1, and deducing the prime number theorem from this. An ingenious short proof of the first assertion was found soon afterwards by the same authors and by Mertens and is reproduced here, but the deduction of the prime number theorem continued to involve difficult analysis. A proof that was elementary in a technical sense-it avoided the use of complex analysis-was found in 1949 by Selberg and Erdos, but this proof is very intricate and much less clearly motivated than the analytic one. A few years ago, however, D. J. Newman found a very simple version of the Tauberian argument needed for an analytic proof of the prime number theorem. We describe the resulting proof, which has a beautifully simple structure and uses hardly anything beyond Cauchy's theorem.
1
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
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%2f3054733%2friemann-zeta-and-chebyshevs-estimates%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
How about this for a start? It shows $limsup_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log x} ge 1$.
For $sigma > 1$, $$log zeta(s) = log prod_p (1-p^{-s})^{-1} = sum_p sum_{m ge 1} frac{1}{mp^{ms}} = sum_p frac{1}{p^s}+O_{s to 1}(1).$$ Now let $s=1+epsilon$ for small $epsilon > 0$. Then $$log frac{1}{epsilon} sim log zeta(s) = sum_p frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{p le x} frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x^s}+sint_1^x frac{pi(t)}{t^{s+1}}dt = (1+epsilon)int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt.$$
Now if there were some $delta > 0$ so that $pi(t) le (1-delta)frac{t}{log t}$ for all large $t$, then $$1 = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{log(1/epsilon)}{log(1/epsilon)} = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt le lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}(1-delta)int_2^infty frac{1}{t^{1+epsilon}log(t)}dt = 1-delta,$$ a contradiction.
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
add a comment |
How about this for a start? It shows $limsup_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log x} ge 1$.
For $sigma > 1$, $$log zeta(s) = log prod_p (1-p^{-s})^{-1} = sum_p sum_{m ge 1} frac{1}{mp^{ms}} = sum_p frac{1}{p^s}+O_{s to 1}(1).$$ Now let $s=1+epsilon$ for small $epsilon > 0$. Then $$log frac{1}{epsilon} sim log zeta(s) = sum_p frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{p le x} frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x^s}+sint_1^x frac{pi(t)}{t^{s+1}}dt = (1+epsilon)int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt.$$
Now if there were some $delta > 0$ so that $pi(t) le (1-delta)frac{t}{log t}$ for all large $t$, then $$1 = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{log(1/epsilon)}{log(1/epsilon)} = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt le lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}(1-delta)int_2^infty frac{1}{t^{1+epsilon}log(t)}dt = 1-delta,$$ a contradiction.
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
add a comment |
How about this for a start? It shows $limsup_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log x} ge 1$.
For $sigma > 1$, $$log zeta(s) = log prod_p (1-p^{-s})^{-1} = sum_p sum_{m ge 1} frac{1}{mp^{ms}} = sum_p frac{1}{p^s}+O_{s to 1}(1).$$ Now let $s=1+epsilon$ for small $epsilon > 0$. Then $$log frac{1}{epsilon} sim log zeta(s) = sum_p frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{p le x} frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x^s}+sint_1^x frac{pi(t)}{t^{s+1}}dt = (1+epsilon)int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt.$$
Now if there were some $delta > 0$ so that $pi(t) le (1-delta)frac{t}{log t}$ for all large $t$, then $$1 = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{log(1/epsilon)}{log(1/epsilon)} = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt le lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}(1-delta)int_2^infty frac{1}{t^{1+epsilon}log(t)}dt = 1-delta,$$ a contradiction.
How about this for a start? It shows $limsup_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log x} ge 1$.
For $sigma > 1$, $$log zeta(s) = log prod_p (1-p^{-s})^{-1} = sum_p sum_{m ge 1} frac{1}{mp^{ms}} = sum_p frac{1}{p^s}+O_{s to 1}(1).$$ Now let $s=1+epsilon$ for small $epsilon > 0$. Then $$log frac{1}{epsilon} sim log zeta(s) = sum_p frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{p le x} frac{1}{p^s} = lim_{x to infty} frac{pi(x)}{x^s}+sint_1^x frac{pi(t)}{t^{s+1}}dt = (1+epsilon)int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt.$$
Now if there were some $delta > 0$ so that $pi(t) le (1-delta)frac{t}{log t}$ for all large $t$, then $$1 = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{log(1/epsilon)}{log(1/epsilon)} = lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}int_1^infty frac{pi(t)}{t^{2+epsilon}}dt le lim_{epsilon downarrow 0} frac{1}{log(1/epsilon)}(1-delta)int_2^infty frac{1}{t^{1+epsilon}log(t)}dt = 1-delta,$$ a contradiction.
answered yesterday
mathworker21
8,7521928
8,7521928
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
Thanks a lot, that was only a slightly more computational argument compared to Euler's proof of the infinity of primes. Do you know whether or not Chebyshev used these kind of arguments? Or did he "only" smartly toyed with arithmetic functions and combinatorial arguments?
– Desiderius Severus
6 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
@DesideriusSeverus I have no idea
– mathworker21
5 hours ago
add a comment |
A simple Google search for
"proof of prime number theorem"
turned up this,
which appears to be what you want:
/https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.2307/2975232/fulltext.pdf
Here is the title
and first paragraph:
Newman's Short Proof of the Prime Number Theorem
D. Zagier
Dedicated to the Prime Number Theorem on the occasion of its 100th birthday
The prime number theorem, that the number of primes < x is asymptotic to x/log x, was proved (independently) by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin in 1896. Their proof had two elements: showing that Riemann's zeta function $zeta(s)$ has no zeros with Re(s) = 1, and deducing the prime number theorem from this. An ingenious short proof of the first assertion was found soon afterwards by the same authors and by Mertens and is reproduced here, but the deduction of the prime number theorem continued to involve difficult analysis. A proof that was elementary in a technical sense-it avoided the use of complex analysis-was found in 1949 by Selberg and Erdos, but this proof is very intricate and much less clearly motivated than the analytic one. A few years ago, however, D. J. Newman found a very simple version of the Tauberian argument needed for an analytic proof of the prime number theorem. We describe the resulting proof, which has a beautifully simple structure and uses hardly anything beyond Cauchy's theorem.
1
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
add a comment |
A simple Google search for
"proof of prime number theorem"
turned up this,
which appears to be what you want:
/https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.2307/2975232/fulltext.pdf
Here is the title
and first paragraph:
Newman's Short Proof of the Prime Number Theorem
D. Zagier
Dedicated to the Prime Number Theorem on the occasion of its 100th birthday
The prime number theorem, that the number of primes < x is asymptotic to x/log x, was proved (independently) by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin in 1896. Their proof had two elements: showing that Riemann's zeta function $zeta(s)$ has no zeros with Re(s) = 1, and deducing the prime number theorem from this. An ingenious short proof of the first assertion was found soon afterwards by the same authors and by Mertens and is reproduced here, but the deduction of the prime number theorem continued to involve difficult analysis. A proof that was elementary in a technical sense-it avoided the use of complex analysis-was found in 1949 by Selberg and Erdos, but this proof is very intricate and much less clearly motivated than the analytic one. A few years ago, however, D. J. Newman found a very simple version of the Tauberian argument needed for an analytic proof of the prime number theorem. We describe the resulting proof, which has a beautifully simple structure and uses hardly anything beyond Cauchy's theorem.
1
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
add a comment |
A simple Google search for
"proof of prime number theorem"
turned up this,
which appears to be what you want:
/https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.2307/2975232/fulltext.pdf
Here is the title
and first paragraph:
Newman's Short Proof of the Prime Number Theorem
D. Zagier
Dedicated to the Prime Number Theorem on the occasion of its 100th birthday
The prime number theorem, that the number of primes < x is asymptotic to x/log x, was proved (independently) by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin in 1896. Their proof had two elements: showing that Riemann's zeta function $zeta(s)$ has no zeros with Re(s) = 1, and deducing the prime number theorem from this. An ingenious short proof of the first assertion was found soon afterwards by the same authors and by Mertens and is reproduced here, but the deduction of the prime number theorem continued to involve difficult analysis. A proof that was elementary in a technical sense-it avoided the use of complex analysis-was found in 1949 by Selberg and Erdos, but this proof is very intricate and much less clearly motivated than the analytic one. A few years ago, however, D. J. Newman found a very simple version of the Tauberian argument needed for an analytic proof of the prime number theorem. We describe the resulting proof, which has a beautifully simple structure and uses hardly anything beyond Cauchy's theorem.
A simple Google search for
"proof of prime number theorem"
turned up this,
which appears to be what you want:
/https://people.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/zagier/files/doi/10.2307/2975232/fulltext.pdf
Here is the title
and first paragraph:
Newman's Short Proof of the Prime Number Theorem
D. Zagier
Dedicated to the Prime Number Theorem on the occasion of its 100th birthday
The prime number theorem, that the number of primes < x is asymptotic to x/log x, was proved (independently) by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin in 1896. Their proof had two elements: showing that Riemann's zeta function $zeta(s)$ has no zeros with Re(s) = 1, and deducing the prime number theorem from this. An ingenious short proof of the first assertion was found soon afterwards by the same authors and by Mertens and is reproduced here, but the deduction of the prime number theorem continued to involve difficult analysis. A proof that was elementary in a technical sense-it avoided the use of complex analysis-was found in 1949 by Selberg and Erdos, but this proof is very intricate and much less clearly motivated than the analytic one. A few years ago, however, D. J. Newman found a very simple version of the Tauberian argument needed for an analytic proof of the prime number theorem. We describe the resulting proof, which has a beautifully simple structure and uses hardly anything beyond Cauchy's theorem.
answered Jan 2 at 3:40
marty cohen
72.7k549128
72.7k549128
1
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
add a comment |
1
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
1
1
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
Thanks for the answer. I have indeed read this paper, but I am interested in the result of Chebyshev and not the full strength of the prime number theorem. In particular I would like to understand from what (if any) weaker property of the zeta function (then the nonvanishing on Re(s)=1) one could deduce Chebyshev's result.
– Desiderius Severus
Jan 2 at 6:28
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f3054733%2friemann-zeta-and-chebyshevs-estimates%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
Chebyshev's result is $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} in (a,b)$ not $frac{pi(x)}{frac{x}{log x}} to 1$. The upper bound is usually obtained from ${2n choose n} ge prod_{p in (n,2n]} p$. Note if $zeta(s)$ had two zeros on $Re(s) = 1$ we'd have $pi(x) = frac{x}{log x}-2Re(frac{x^{1+it}}{(1+it)log x})+O(frac{x}{log^2x})$
– reuns
Dec 28 '18 at 20:14
1
@reuns I am actually looking for a (maybe not usual proof) using properties of $zeta$ instead of only toying with arithmetic functions
– Desiderius Severus
Dec 30 '18 at 1:09