3
$\begingroup$

Considering $p_{n}$ the nth prime number, then compute the limit:

$\lim_{n\to\infty} \left\{ \dfrac{1}{p_{1}} + \frac{1}{p_{2}}+\cdots+\frac{1}{p_{n}} \right\} - \{\log{\log n } \}$ where $\{ x \}$ denotes the fractional part of $x$.

  • 0
    @AlexBecker I'm talking about $o(1)$ here.2012-06-15

2 Answers 2

3

In Wikipedia under Third it is stated that without the fractional part signs the limit is the Meissel–Mertens constant, about $0.261497$. There must be many $n$ for which the first term is greater than some natural and the second term is less than the same and many other $n$ where they are between the same pair of naturals. In the first case the value will be about $0.261497-1$, in the second it will be about $0.261497$, so the limit will not exist.

0

This is by no means a complete answer but a sketch on how to possibly go about. To get the constant, you need some careful computations.

First get an asymptotic for $ \displaystyle \sum_{n \leq x} \dfrac{\Lambda(n)}{n}$ as $\log(x) - 2 + o(1)$.

To get this asymptotic, you need Stirling's formula and the fact that $\psi(x) = x + o(x)$ i.e. the PNT.

Then relate $ \displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\Lambda(p)}{p}$ to $ \displaystyle \sum_{n \leq x} \dfrac{\Lambda(n)}{n}$. Essentially, you can get $ \displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\Lambda(p)}{p} = \displaystyle \sum_{n \leq x} \dfrac{\Lambda(n)}{n} + C + o(1)$ Getting this constant $C$ is also hard. You can try your luck with partial summation.

Then relate $ \displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac1{p}$ to $\displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\Lambda(p)}{p}$ i.e. $\displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac{\log(p)}{p}$ by partial summation to get $\displaystyle \sum_{\overset{p \leq x}{p- \text{prime}}} \dfrac1{p} = \log(\log(x)) + C_1 + o(1)$ You might need to invoke PNT here as well. The $C_1$ here obviously depends on he constant $C$ and constant $2$ before.

EDIT Thinking about it there might be a way to avoid PNT to get the constant.

  • 0
    Correct, although if memory serves it relies on some miraculous identities and/or surprising cancellations. Oh, this [paper](http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0504289v3.pdf) by Mark Villarino discusses Mertens's original proof, very nice!2012-06-16