Confusing proof of brun's theorem?
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I read Brun's proof of Brun's theorem here :
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f110.image
(and the following pages)
and here
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f138.image
(and the following pages)
But I was unsatisfied. I did not understand it and I did not even get the notation he used. It seems like " some statistical arguments " because of the infinite products used.
Could someone please explain the proof to me step by step? I understand that Brun's constant converges if the prime twins are $O(dfrac{x}{ln(x)^2})$ or $O(dfrac{xcdot ln(ln(x))}{ln(x)^2})$, but apart from that he lost me from the beginning. Also I did not see a sieve or should I have seen it ? I'm new to sieve theory.
Edit
I would like to add that the conditions for the sieve are also very important to me; they need to be proven. A proof without a sieve would also be nice if possible.
I want an independent proof, so NO "if Riemann Hypothesis is correct then" or such.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers sieve-theory
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I read Brun's proof of Brun's theorem here :
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f110.image
(and the following pages)
and here
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f138.image
(and the following pages)
But I was unsatisfied. I did not understand it and I did not even get the notation he used. It seems like " some statistical arguments " because of the infinite products used.
Could someone please explain the proof to me step by step? I understand that Brun's constant converges if the prime twins are $O(dfrac{x}{ln(x)^2})$ or $O(dfrac{xcdot ln(ln(x))}{ln(x)^2})$, but apart from that he lost me from the beginning. Also I did not see a sieve or should I have seen it ? I'm new to sieve theory.
Edit
I would like to add that the conditions for the sieve are also very important to me; they need to be proven. A proof without a sieve would also be nice if possible.
I want an independent proof, so NO "if Riemann Hypothesis is correct then" or such.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers sieve-theory
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
1
Hmmm... This is the second part only. The first is a little earlier page 100 and starts with the sieve ('crible' in french).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 17 '13 at 23:00
@RaymondManzoni still confused.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:00
Maybe stuff about this "merlin sieve" would help.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:02
I own a book by Tenenbaum who should make these things clearer (but I didn't read it yet so that I'll be of little help here... :-)). The book is Tenenbaum's 'Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory' (the french edition is much cheaper...) and most of the number theory stuff required is introduced at the start (Möbius inversion and so on..). You may try to start too with Wikipedia, Sebah and Gourdon's paper at the end (without the details of the not so easy proof I fear...).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:24
A cheaper book is LeVeque's 'Fundamentals of Number Theory' and the proof starts here.
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:26
|
show 5 more comments
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I read Brun's proof of Brun's theorem here :
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f110.image
(and the following pages)
and here
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f138.image
(and the following pages)
But I was unsatisfied. I did not understand it and I did not even get the notation he used. It seems like " some statistical arguments " because of the infinite products used.
Could someone please explain the proof to me step by step? I understand that Brun's constant converges if the prime twins are $O(dfrac{x}{ln(x)^2})$ or $O(dfrac{xcdot ln(ln(x))}{ln(x)^2})$, but apart from that he lost me from the beginning. Also I did not see a sieve or should I have seen it ? I'm new to sieve theory.
Edit
I would like to add that the conditions for the sieve are also very important to me; they need to be proven. A proof without a sieve would also be nice if possible.
I want an independent proof, so NO "if Riemann Hypothesis is correct then" or such.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers sieve-theory
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
I read Brun's proof of Brun's theorem here :
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f110.image
(and the following pages)
and here
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k486270d/f138.image
(and the following pages)
But I was unsatisfied. I did not understand it and I did not even get the notation he used. It seems like " some statistical arguments " because of the infinite products used.
Could someone please explain the proof to me step by step? I understand that Brun's constant converges if the prime twins are $O(dfrac{x}{ln(x)^2})$ or $O(dfrac{xcdot ln(ln(x))}{ln(x)^2})$, but apart from that he lost me from the beginning. Also I did not see a sieve or should I have seen it ? I'm new to sieve theory.
Edit
I would like to add that the conditions for the sieve are also very important to me; they need to be proven. A proof without a sieve would also be nice if possible.
I want an independent proof, so NO "if Riemann Hypothesis is correct then" or such.
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers sieve-theory
elementary-number-theory prime-numbers sieve-theory
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
edited Nov 21 at 11:59
amWhy
191k27223438
191k27223438
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
asked Jun 17 '13 at 21:38
mick
5,02822063
5,02822063
1
Hmmm... This is the second part only. The first is a little earlier page 100 and starts with the sieve ('crible' in french).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 17 '13 at 23:00
@RaymondManzoni still confused.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:00
Maybe stuff about this "merlin sieve" would help.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:02
I own a book by Tenenbaum who should make these things clearer (but I didn't read it yet so that I'll be of little help here... :-)). The book is Tenenbaum's 'Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory' (the french edition is much cheaper...) and most of the number theory stuff required is introduced at the start (Möbius inversion and so on..). You may try to start too with Wikipedia, Sebah and Gourdon's paper at the end (without the details of the not so easy proof I fear...).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:24
A cheaper book is LeVeque's 'Fundamentals of Number Theory' and the proof starts here.
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:26
|
show 5 more comments
1
Hmmm... This is the second part only. The first is a little earlier page 100 and starts with the sieve ('crible' in french).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 17 '13 at 23:00
@RaymondManzoni still confused.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:00
Maybe stuff about this "merlin sieve" would help.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:02
I own a book by Tenenbaum who should make these things clearer (but I didn't read it yet so that I'll be of little help here... :-)). The book is Tenenbaum's 'Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory' (the french edition is much cheaper...) and most of the number theory stuff required is introduced at the start (Möbius inversion and so on..). You may try to start too with Wikipedia, Sebah and Gourdon's paper at the end (without the details of the not so easy proof I fear...).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:24
A cheaper book is LeVeque's 'Fundamentals of Number Theory' and the proof starts here.
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:26
1
1
Hmmm... This is the second part only. The first is a little earlier page 100 and starts with the sieve ('crible' in french).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 17 '13 at 23:00
Hmmm... This is the second part only. The first is a little earlier page 100 and starts with the sieve ('crible' in french).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 17 '13 at 23:00
@RaymondManzoni still confused.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:00
@RaymondManzoni still confused.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:00
Maybe stuff about this "merlin sieve" would help.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:02
Maybe stuff about this "merlin sieve" would help.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:02
I own a book by Tenenbaum who should make these things clearer (but I didn't read it yet so that I'll be of little help here... :-)). The book is Tenenbaum's 'Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory' (the french edition is much cheaper...) and most of the number theory stuff required is introduced at the start (Möbius inversion and so on..). You may try to start too with Wikipedia, Sebah and Gourdon's paper at the end (without the details of the not so easy proof I fear...).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:24
I own a book by Tenenbaum who should make these things clearer (but I didn't read it yet so that I'll be of little help here... :-)). The book is Tenenbaum's 'Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory' (the french edition is much cheaper...) and most of the number theory stuff required is introduced at the start (Möbius inversion and so on..). You may try to start too with Wikipedia, Sebah and Gourdon's paper at the end (without the details of the not so easy proof I fear...).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:24
A cheaper book is LeVeque's 'Fundamentals of Number Theory' and the proof starts here.
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:26
A cheaper book is LeVeque's 'Fundamentals of Number Theory' and the proof starts here.
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:26
|
show 5 more comments
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f423125%2fconfusing-proof-of-bruns-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
Hmmm... This is the second part only. The first is a little earlier page 100 and starts with the sieve ('crible' in french).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 17 '13 at 23:00
@RaymondManzoni still confused.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:00
Maybe stuff about this "merlin sieve" would help.
– mick
Jun 18 '13 at 0:02
I own a book by Tenenbaum who should make these things clearer (but I didn't read it yet so that I'll be of little help here... :-)). The book is Tenenbaum's 'Introduction to Analytic and Probabilistic Number Theory' (the french edition is much cheaper...) and most of the number theory stuff required is introduced at the start (Möbius inversion and so on..). You may try to start too with Wikipedia, Sebah and Gourdon's paper at the end (without the details of the not so easy proof I fear...).
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:24
A cheaper book is LeVeque's 'Fundamentals of Number Theory' and the proof starts here.
– Raymond Manzoni
Jun 18 '13 at 21:26