Estimate the product!

Let A = p n p A =\displaystyle \prod_{p \le n} p and B = 4 n B=4^n , where p p is a prime and n > 1 0 2017 n>10^{2017} is an integer.

Which one is bigger, A A or B B ?

B B Can't be determined A A

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.

2 solutions

Sándor Daróczi
Aug 21, 2017

We are going to prove that B B is always greater than A A whenever n > 1 n > 1 .

For the proof we are using induction on n n . The base case n = 2 n=2 is clear, so assume we have already proven the statement for every 2 m < n 2 \leq m < n integer.

If n 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 \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq n-1 \\ p \ prime}} p = \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq n \\ p \ prime}} 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 \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq n \\ p \ prime}} p = \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq n-1 \\ p \ prime}} p < 4^{n-1} < 4^n which verifies the induction statement for n n . Therefore we can suppose that n n is odd, hence it is in the form of 2 k + 1 2k+1 for k 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 \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p = \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p \ \cdot \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{k+2 \leq p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p

Next recall the well known fact that if a b a | b , gcd ( a , c ) = 1 \gcd(a,c)=1 and b c \frac{b}{c} is an integer, we have a b c a | \frac{b}{c} . From this we obtain

\substack k + 2 p 2 k + 1 p p r i m e p ( 2 k + 1 ) 2 k ( 2 k 1 ) ( k + 2 ) k ( k 1 ) 2 1 = ( 2 k + 1 k ) \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{k+2 \leq p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p \ | \ \frac{(2k+1) \cdot 2k \cdot (2k-1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (k+2)}{k \cdot (k-1) \cdot \ldots \cdot 2 \cdot 1} = {2k+1 \choose k}

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 ) \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{k+2 \leq p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p | (2k+1) \cdot 2k \cdot (2k-1) \cdot \ldots \cdot (k+2) , gcd ( \substack k + 2 p 2 k + 1 p p r i m e p , k ( k 1 ) 2 1 ) = 1 \gcd(\displaystyle \prod_{\substack{k+2 \leq p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p \ , \ k \cdot (k-1) \cdot \ldots \cdot 2 \cdot 1)=1 and ( 2 k + 1 k ) {2k+1 \choose k} is clearly an integer.

Hence it follows that \substack k + 2 p 2 k + 1 p p r i m e p ( 2 k + 1 k ) \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{k+2 \leq p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p \leq {2k+1 \choose k} .

Furthermore consider the following binomial expansion:

2 4 k = 2 2 k + 1 = ( 1 + 1 ) 2 k + 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 ( 2 k + 1 k ) 2 \cdot 4^k = 2^{2k+1} = (1+1)^{2k+1} = {2k+1 \choose 0} + {2k+1 \choose 1} + \ldots + {2k+1 \choose k} + {2k+1 \choose k+1} + \ldots + {2k+1 \choose 2k+1} > {2k+1 \choose k} + {2k+1 \choose k+1} = 2 \cdot {2k+1 \choose k}

hence 4 k > ( 2 k + 1 k ) 4^k > {2k+1 \choose k} , which holds for any k > 0 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 ( 2 k + 1 k ) < 4 k + 1 4 k = 4 2 k + 1 = 4 n \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq n \\ p \ prime}} p = \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p = \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{p \leq k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p \ \cdot \displaystyle \prod_{\substack{k+2 \leq p \leq 2k+1 \\ p \ prime}} p < 4^{k+1} \cdot {2k+1 \choose k} < 4^{k+1} \cdot 4^k = 4^{2k+1} = 4^n .

Henceforth our induction is complete.

Mark Hennings
Aug 21, 2017

Since ln A ( n ) = p n ln p ψ ( n ) \ln A(n) \; = \; \sum_{p \le n} \ln p \; \le \; \psi(n) where ψ \psi is the second Chebyshev function, and the Prime Number Theorem is equivalent to the statement that n 1 ψ ( n ) 1 n^{-1}\psi(n) \to 1 as n n \to \infty , we deduce that lim sup n 1 ln A ( n ) 1 < ln 4 \lim\,\sup\,n^{-1}\ln A(n) \,\le \, 1 \, < \, \ln4 , and so lim n A ( n ) B ( n ) = 0 \lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{A(n)}{B(n)} = 0 .

This is a far weaker statement than what is asked in the problem.

Abhishek Sinha - 3 years, 9 months ago

Log in to reply

Well, no. I have shown that A ( n ) < B ( n ) A(n)<B(n) for large enough n n . All I gave omitted is that n > 1 0 2017 n >10^{2017} 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 2017 A ( n ) < B ( n ) 10^{2017}A(n)<B(n) for large enough n n .

Mark Hennings - 3 years, 9 months ago

0 pending reports

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...