For integers , we know that the partial sum of their reciprocals grows asymptotically as
Likewise, we know that an analogous result holds for prime numbers :
I'm curious to know if we can go any deeper. I'm looking for a subset of such that, for , we have
Does a set like this exist? Is it a subset of the prime numbers, or are there elements of this set which are not primes? What special properties do these numbers have?
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Maybe the primes whose index is also prime, so:
3(2),5(3),11(5),17(7),31(11),41(13),…
There are lnNN primes up to N∈Z and ln(lnNN)lnNN=(lnN)2−(lnN)⋅(ln(lnN))N of them have a prime index, maybe this helps, but I have no idea how to prove something like that.
Edit:
lnN1 of the integers up to N are primes and lnN1 of them have a prime index, so there are (lnN)21 primes with prime index up to N.
How does this fit with (lnN)2−(lnN)⋅(ln(lnN))N?
Log in to reply
I think your asymptotic formulas are correct - I found this paper which corroborates what you did. It looks like the −lnN⋅ln(lnN)) term is a higher-order correction.
I also found that the series
x=1∑∞x⋅lnx⋅lnlnx1
Will asymptotically grow on the order of lnlnlnx. I'm not sure if the same will hold for the prime-primes, though.
Assuming pn≃n⋅lnn, maybe we can change the sum above to
x=1∑∞px⋅ln(px/x)1
This roughly corresponds to the sequence generated by px⋅⌈ln(px/x)⌉, which I found (using Python) to be
[2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,58,62,74,82,86,94,106,118,122,134,142,146,158,166,178,194,202,206,214,218,226,254,262,274,278,298,302,314, 326,334,346,358,362,382,386,394,398,422,446,454,458,466,478,482,502,514,526,538,542,554,562,566,586,614,622,626,634,662,674,694, 698,706,718,734,746,758,766,778,794,802,818,838,842,862,866,878,886,898,914,922,926,934,958,974,982,998]
Log in to reply
The formula
x=1∑∞x⋅lnx⋅ln(lnx)1
looks like it could be generalized to give an asymptotic growth of
ln(ln(ln(…lnx…))).
About the prime-primes, it was just the first thing that came to my mind and a simple application of the prime number theorem, but of course the growth of prime-primes does not directly connect to the growth of the sum of their reciprocals.
Or does it? Maybe there is a formula that "converts" between these two growth rates...
Log in to reply
n=1∑xn∏i=1kln(k)(n)1≃ln(k+1)(x)
Yeah, it seems likeShould hold for any integer k>0. I think the k=0 case just returns us to the harmonic series.
There might be some way to find the asymptotic density from those growth rates, which will give us information about whether a set is "dense" or not. I'm not entirely sure how to go about that though.
Log in to reply
lnx already grows very slowly.
This is interesting since you can let these sums grow arbitrarily slow but they still converge. It can probably be one of the slowest reciprocal sums sinceI think the best thing is that the formula is so simple, just composed logarithms multiplied.