Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Define, for real m and for natural numbers n and k, P k (m,n) as the number of numbers not greater than m with exactly k prime factors, all greater than p n. Furthermore, set P 0 (m,n) = 1. Then (,) = = + (,) where the sum actually has only finitely many nonzero terms. Let y denote an integer such that 3 √ m ≤ y ≤ √ m, and set n = π(y ...
Riemann's original use of the explicit formula was to give an exact formula for the number of primes less than a given number. To do this, take F(log(y)) to be y 1/2 /log(y) for 0 ≤ y ≤ x and 0 elsewhere. Then the main term of the sum on the right is the number of primes less than x.
For example, π(10) = 4 because there are four prime numbers (2, 3, 5 and 7) less than or equal to 10. The prime number theorem then states that x / log x is a good approximation to π(x) (where log here means the natural logarithm), in the sense that the limit of the quotient of the two functions π(x) and x / log x as x increases without ...
where ⌊ x ⌋ is the floor function, which denotes the greatest integer less than or equal to x and the p i run over all primes ≤ √ x. [1] [2] Since the evaluation of this sum formula becomes more and more complex and confusing for large x, Meissel tried to simplify the counting of the numbers in the Sieve of Eratosthenes. He and Lehmer ...
There exists a natural number N such that every even integer n larger than N is a sum of a prime less than or equal to n 0.95 and a number with at most two prime factors. Tomohiro Yamada claimed a proof of the following explicit version of Chen's theorem in 2015: [ 7 ]
where () is the prime-counting function, equal to the number of primes less than or equal to x. The converse of this result is the definition of Ramanujan primes: The n th Ramanujan prime is the least integer R n for which π ( x ) − π ( x / 2 ) ≥ n , {\displaystyle \pi (x)-\pi (x/2)\geq n,} for all x ≥ R n . [ 2 ]
In this example the fact that the Legendre identity is derived from the Sieve of Eratosthenes is clear: the first term is the number of integers below X, the second term removes the multiples of all primes, the third term adds back the multiples of two primes (which were miscounted by being "crossed out twice") but also adds back the multiples ...
The constant C N is not effectively computable because Siegel's theorem is ineffective.. From the theorem we can deduce the following bound regarding the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions: If, for (a, q) = 1, by (;,) we denote the number of primes less than or equal to x which are congruent to a mod q, then