Difference between revisions of "Chebyshev theta function"
m |
m (→Estimates of the function: I didn't know if the slight refinement was due to Chebyshev) |
||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
'''Theorem (Chebyshev).''' If <math>x \ge 0</math>, then <math>\vartheta(x) \le | '''Theorem (Chebyshev).''' If <math>x \ge 0</math>, then <math>\vartheta(x) \le | ||
− | 2x</math>. | + | 2x \log 2</math>. |
''Proof.'' We induct on <math>\lfloor x \rfloor</math>. For our base | ''Proof.'' We induct on <math>\lfloor x \rfloor</math>. For our base | ||
cases, we note that for <math>0 \le x < 2</math>, we have <math>\vartheta(x) = | cases, we note that for <math>0 \le x < 2</math>, we have <math>\vartheta(x) = | ||
− | 0 \le | + | 0 \le 2x \log 2</math>. |
Now suppose that <math>x \ge 2</math>. Let <math>n = \lfloor x \rfloor</math>. Then | Now suppose that <math>x \ge 2</math>. Let <math>n = \lfloor x \rfloor</math>. Then | ||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
\prod_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor < p \le n} p , </cmath> | \prod_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor < p \le n} p , </cmath> | ||
so | so | ||
− | <cmath> | + | <cmath> x \log 2 \ge \sum_{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor < p \le n} \log p |
= \vartheta{x} - \vartheta{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} | = \vartheta{x} - \vartheta{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} | ||
− | \ge \vartheta{x} - 2\lfloor n/2 \rfloor \ge \vartheta{x} - x , </cmath> | + | \ge \vartheta{x} - 2\lfloor n/2 \rfloor \log 2 \ge \vartheta{x} - x \log 2x , </cmath> |
by inductive hypothesis. Therefore | by inductive hypothesis. Therefore | ||
− | <cmath> 2x \ge \vartheta(x), </cmath> | + | <cmath> 2x \log 2 \ge \vartheta(x), </cmath> |
as desired. <math>\blacksquare</math> | as desired. <math>\blacksquare</math> | ||
Revision as of 22:43, 29 March 2009
Chebyshev's theta function, denoted or sometimes , is a function of use in analytic number theory. It is defined thus, for real : where the sum ranges over all primes less than .
Estimates of the function
The function is asymptotically equivalent to (the prime counting function) and . This result is the Prime Number Theorem, and all known proofs are rather involved.
However, we can obtain a simpler bound on .
Theorem (Chebyshev). If , then .
Proof. We induct on . For our base cases, we note that for , we have .
Now suppose that . Let . Then so by inductive hypothesis. Therefore as desired.