How did Gauss discover the prime number theorem?
$begingroup$
Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$
Any idea how did he reach such result?
prime-numbers math-history
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$
Any idea how did he reach such result?
prime-numbers math-history
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24
1
$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26
2
$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28
$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$
Any idea how did he reach such result?
prime-numbers math-history
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
$endgroup$
Carl Friedrich Gauss conjectured in his early youth that
$$lim_{x rightarrow infty} frac{pi(x)}{x/log(x)} = 1.$$
Any idea how did he reach such result?
prime-numbers math-history
prime-numbers math-history
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
asked Jan 20 '15 at 19:23
imouradimourad
978
978
$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24
1
$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26
2
$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28
$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24
1
$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26
2
$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28
$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31
$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24
$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24
1
1
$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26
$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26
2
2
$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28
$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28
$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29
$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29
1
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31
$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity
$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$
which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.
According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.
According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if
$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.
Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.
By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.
Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
1
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f1112485%2fhow-did-gauss-discover-the-prime-number-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity
$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$
which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.
According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.
According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if
$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.
Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.
By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.
Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
1
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity
$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$
which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.
According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.
According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if
$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.
Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.
By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.
Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
1
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity
$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$
which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.
According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.
According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if
$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.
Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.
By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.
Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
$endgroup$
It is not quite accurate to say that Gauss discovered the prime number theorem. He made tables of the quantity
$$int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}$$
which are reprinted in Harold Edwards' book Riemann's Zeta Function. According to Edwards citing Gauss's Werke, Vol. II Gauss claims (in an 1849 letter) to have conjectured that the density of primes was $1/log x$ around 1792 or 1793.
According to Edwards, Gauss presented no analytic basis for the conjecture but gave empirical data in the form of tables suggesting the relation.
According to the Wiki entry on the PNT Legendre in 1797 or 1798 conjectured a relation of the form $a/(Aln a + B)$ which he later sharpened. Chebyshev subsequently showed something akin to the prime number theorem but shy of it:
that if
$$ lim_{xtoinfty}frac{pi(x)}{int_2^xfrac{dt}{ln t}}$$ exists the limit is 1.
Edwards and one of his sources say that the relation given by Legendre had been around for some time. Since Gauss didn't publish it the original source of the general idea is arguably obscure.
By the time the prime number theorem was finally proven in 1896 by Hadamard and de la Vallee Poussin (separately) is was much more than a guess and not quite a theorem.
Gauss deserves credit for the numerical observation and for the unpublished conjecture because his credibility in matters of priority is high (which Edwards and others discuss). Properly speaking we can give him credit for the prime number conjecture.
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
edited Jan 21 '15 at 14:55
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
answered Jan 20 '15 at 23:03
danieldaniel
6,23722258
6,23722258
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
1
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
1
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
Thanks for such detailed informations.
$endgroup$
– imourad
Jan 21 '15 at 13:14
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
$begingroup$
What you mean with "not quite a theorem"?
$endgroup$
– Billy Rubina
Dec 16 '18 at 1:50
1
1
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
$begingroup$
@BillyRubina: Prior to the proof it was not a theorem. It was widely believed to be true. That two people managed to prove it at the same time with somewhat different approaches suggests (to me) that analysis had matured enough to make a proof more or less inevitable. So "not quite" or "all but" a theorem.
$endgroup$
– daniel
Dec 16 '18 at 7:37
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
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%2f1112485%2fhow-did-gauss-discover-the-prime-number-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
$begingroup$
Probably by counting the number of primes between $1$ and $x$ for many different values of $x$. By the way, I'd use $n$ instead of $x$ here. In any case, this looks more like an opinion-based question. If there is a concise answer to it, then it might be under Guass page on Wikipedia (or some other related source of knowledge).
$endgroup$
– barak manos
Jan 20 '15 at 19:24
1
$begingroup$
...plotting the result of his counting, and making an educated guess about the growth of the resulting curve.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jan 20 '15 at 19:26
2
$begingroup$
what I read was that he counted primes in intervals, not necessarily starting at 1, and found that near some $x$ the percentage of primes was about $1 / log x.$
$endgroup$
– Will Jagy
Jan 20 '15 at 19:28
$begingroup$
Vaguely related: Does the $x/log x$ somehow pop up naturally in the proof or does one get some other expression which is proportional to it first? (e.g. $mathrm{Li}(x)$)
$endgroup$
– user2345215
Jan 20 '15 at 19:29
1
$begingroup$
Do you mean the actual historical reason or some idea how one could come up with it? For the former also consider History of Science and Mathematics site.
$endgroup$
– quid♦
Jan 20 '15 at 19:31