Let A = p ≤ n ∏ p and B = 4 n , where p is a prime and n > 1 0 2 0 1 7 is an integer.
Which one is bigger, A or B ?
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Since ln A ( n ) = p ≤ n ∑ ln p ≤ ψ ( n ) where ψ is the second Chebyshev function, and the Prime Number Theorem is equivalent to the statement that n − 1 ψ ( n ) → 1 as n → ∞ , we deduce that lim sup n − 1 ln A ( n ) ≤ 1 < ln 4 , and so lim n → ∞ B ( n ) A ( n ) = 0 .
This is a far weaker statement than what is asked in the problem.
Log in to reply
Well, no. I have shown that A ( n ) < B ( n ) for large enough n . All I gave omitted is that n > 1 0 2 0 1 7 is large enough. If you look up the asymptotics of the Chebyshev function, this is not a problem.
Actually, I have proved more than the question, since I have also shown that (for example) 1 0 2 0 1 7 A ( n ) < B ( n ) for large enough n .
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
We are going to prove that B is always greater than A whenever n > 1 .
For the proof we are using induction on n . The base case n = 2 is clear, so assume we have already proven the statement for every 2 ≤ m < n integer.
If n is an even number, it is certain that \substack p ≤ n − 1 p p r i m e ∏ p = \substack p ≤ n p p r i m e ∏ p , so according to the induction step \substack p ≤ n p p r i m e ∏ p = \substack p ≤ n − 1 p p r i m e ∏ p < 4 n − 1 < 4 n which verifies the induction statement for n . Therefore we can suppose that n is odd, hence it is in the form of 2 k + 1 for k being a positive integer.
Firstly, notice that our product can be split in the following way:
\substack p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p = \substack p ≤ k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p ⋅ \substack k + 2 ≤ p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p
Next recall the well known fact that if a ∣ b , g cd ( a , c ) = 1 and c b is an integer, we have a ∣ c b . From this we obtain
\substack k + 2 ≤ p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p ∣ k ⋅ ( k − 1 ) ⋅ … ⋅ 2 ⋅ 1 ( 2 k + 1 ) ⋅ 2 k ⋅ ( 2 k − 1 ) ⋅ … ⋅ ( k + 2 ) = ( k 2 k + 1 )
since \substack k + 2 ≤ p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p ∣ ( 2 k + 1 ) ⋅ 2 k ⋅ ( 2 k − 1 ) ⋅ … ⋅ ( k + 2 ) , g cd ( \substack k + 2 ≤ p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p , k ⋅ ( k − 1 ) ⋅ … ⋅ 2 ⋅ 1 ) = 1 and ( k 2 k + 1 ) is clearly an integer.
Hence it follows that \substack k + 2 ≤ p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p ≤ ( k 2 k + 1 ) .
Furthermore consider the following binomial expansion:
2 ⋅ 4 k = 2 2 k + 1 = ( 1 + 1 ) 2 k + 1 = ( 0 2 k + 1 ) + ( 1 2 k + 1 ) + … + ( k 2 k + 1 ) + ( k + 1 2 k + 1 ) + … + ( 2 k + 1 2 k + 1 ) > ( k 2 k + 1 ) + ( k + 1 2 k + 1 ) = 2 ⋅ ( k 2 k + 1 )
hence 4 k > ( k 2 k + 1 ) , which holds for any k > 0 integer.
From this and the induction step we can conclude that
\substack p ≤ n p p r i m e ∏ p = \substack p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p = \substack p ≤ k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p ⋅ \substack k + 2 ≤ p ≤ 2 k + 1 p p r i m e ∏ p < 4 k + 1 ⋅ ( k 2 k + 1 ) < 4 k + 1 ⋅ 4 k = 4 2 k + 1 = 4 n .
Henceforth our induction is complete.