Does the average primeness of natural numbers tend to zero?












17












$begingroup$


This question was posted in MSE. It got many upvotes but no answer hence posting it in MO.





A number is either prime or composite, hence primality is a binary concept. Instead I wanted to put a value of primality to every number using some function $f$ such that $f(n) = 1$ iff $n$ is a prime otherwise, $0 < f(n) < 1$ and as the number divisors of $n$ increases, $f(n)$ decreases on average. Thus $f(n)$ is a measure of the degree of primeness of $n$ where 1 is a perfect prime and 0 is a hypothetical perfect composite. Hence $frac{1}{N}sum_{r le N} f(r)$ can be interpreted as a the average primeness of the first $N$ integers.



After trying several definitions and going through the ones in literature, I came up with:




Define $f(n) = dfrac{2s_n}{n-1}$ for $n ge 2$, where $s_n$ is the
standard deviation of the divisors of $n$.




One reason for using standard deviation was that I was already studying the distribution of the divisors of a number.



Question 1: Does the average primeness tend to zero? i.e. does the following hold?



$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N}sum_{r = 2}^N f(r) = 0
$$



Question 2: Is $f(n)$ injective over composites? i.e., do there exist composites $3 < m < n$ such that $f(m) = f(n)$?





My progress





  • $f(4.35times 10^8) approx 0.5919$ and decreasing so the limit if it exists must be between 0 and 0.5919.

  • For $2 le i le n$, computed data shows that the minimum value of $f(i)$ occurs at the largest highly composite number $le n$.


Note: Here standard deviation of $x_1, x_2, ldots , x_n$ is defined as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n}$. Also notice that even if we define standard deviation as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n-1}$ our questions remain unaffected because in this case in the definition of $f$, we will be multiplying with $sqrt 2$ instead of $2$ to normalize $f$ in the interval $(0,1)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – lcv
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt F.
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AknazarKazhymurat I have reworded that line. Hope it is clearer now?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday
















17












$begingroup$


This question was posted in MSE. It got many upvotes but no answer hence posting it in MO.





A number is either prime or composite, hence primality is a binary concept. Instead I wanted to put a value of primality to every number using some function $f$ such that $f(n) = 1$ iff $n$ is a prime otherwise, $0 < f(n) < 1$ and as the number divisors of $n$ increases, $f(n)$ decreases on average. Thus $f(n)$ is a measure of the degree of primeness of $n$ where 1 is a perfect prime and 0 is a hypothetical perfect composite. Hence $frac{1}{N}sum_{r le N} f(r)$ can be interpreted as a the average primeness of the first $N$ integers.



After trying several definitions and going through the ones in literature, I came up with:




Define $f(n) = dfrac{2s_n}{n-1}$ for $n ge 2$, where $s_n$ is the
standard deviation of the divisors of $n$.




One reason for using standard deviation was that I was already studying the distribution of the divisors of a number.



Question 1: Does the average primeness tend to zero? i.e. does the following hold?



$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N}sum_{r = 2}^N f(r) = 0
$$



Question 2: Is $f(n)$ injective over composites? i.e., do there exist composites $3 < m < n$ such that $f(m) = f(n)$?





My progress





  • $f(4.35times 10^8) approx 0.5919$ and decreasing so the limit if it exists must be between 0 and 0.5919.

  • For $2 le i le n$, computed data shows that the minimum value of $f(i)$ occurs at the largest highly composite number $le n$.


Note: Here standard deviation of $x_1, x_2, ldots , x_n$ is defined as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n}$. Also notice that even if we define standard deviation as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n-1}$ our questions remain unaffected because in this case in the definition of $f$, we will be multiplying with $sqrt 2$ instead of $2$ to normalize $f$ in the interval $(0,1)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – lcv
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt F.
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AknazarKazhymurat I have reworded that line. Hope it is clearer now?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday














17












17








17


8



$begingroup$


This question was posted in MSE. It got many upvotes but no answer hence posting it in MO.





A number is either prime or composite, hence primality is a binary concept. Instead I wanted to put a value of primality to every number using some function $f$ such that $f(n) = 1$ iff $n$ is a prime otherwise, $0 < f(n) < 1$ and as the number divisors of $n$ increases, $f(n)$ decreases on average. Thus $f(n)$ is a measure of the degree of primeness of $n$ where 1 is a perfect prime and 0 is a hypothetical perfect composite. Hence $frac{1}{N}sum_{r le N} f(r)$ can be interpreted as a the average primeness of the first $N$ integers.



After trying several definitions and going through the ones in literature, I came up with:




Define $f(n) = dfrac{2s_n}{n-1}$ for $n ge 2$, where $s_n$ is the
standard deviation of the divisors of $n$.




One reason for using standard deviation was that I was already studying the distribution of the divisors of a number.



Question 1: Does the average primeness tend to zero? i.e. does the following hold?



$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N}sum_{r = 2}^N f(r) = 0
$$



Question 2: Is $f(n)$ injective over composites? i.e., do there exist composites $3 < m < n$ such that $f(m) = f(n)$?





My progress





  • $f(4.35times 10^8) approx 0.5919$ and decreasing so the limit if it exists must be between 0 and 0.5919.

  • For $2 le i le n$, computed data shows that the minimum value of $f(i)$ occurs at the largest highly composite number $le n$.


Note: Here standard deviation of $x_1, x_2, ldots , x_n$ is defined as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n}$. Also notice that even if we define standard deviation as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n-1}$ our questions remain unaffected because in this case in the definition of $f$, we will be multiplying with $sqrt 2$ instead of $2$ to normalize $f$ in the interval $(0,1)$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This question was posted in MSE. It got many upvotes but no answer hence posting it in MO.





A number is either prime or composite, hence primality is a binary concept. Instead I wanted to put a value of primality to every number using some function $f$ such that $f(n) = 1$ iff $n$ is a prime otherwise, $0 < f(n) < 1$ and as the number divisors of $n$ increases, $f(n)$ decreases on average. Thus $f(n)$ is a measure of the degree of primeness of $n$ where 1 is a perfect prime and 0 is a hypothetical perfect composite. Hence $frac{1}{N}sum_{r le N} f(r)$ can be interpreted as a the average primeness of the first $N$ integers.



After trying several definitions and going through the ones in literature, I came up with:




Define $f(n) = dfrac{2s_n}{n-1}$ for $n ge 2$, where $s_n$ is the
standard deviation of the divisors of $n$.




One reason for using standard deviation was that I was already studying the distribution of the divisors of a number.



Question 1: Does the average primeness tend to zero? i.e. does the following hold?



$$
lim_{N to infty} frac{1}{N}sum_{r = 2}^N f(r) = 0
$$



Question 2: Is $f(n)$ injective over composites? i.e., do there exist composites $3 < m < n$ such that $f(m) = f(n)$?





My progress





  • $f(4.35times 10^8) approx 0.5919$ and decreasing so the limit if it exists must be between 0 and 0.5919.

  • For $2 le i le n$, computed data shows that the minimum value of $f(i)$ occurs at the largest highly composite number $le n$.


Note: Here standard deviation of $x_1, x_2, ldots , x_n$ is defined as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n}$. Also notice that even if we define standard deviation as $sqrt frac{sum_{i=1}^{n} (x-x_i)^2}{n-1}$ our questions remain unaffected because in this case in the definition of $f$, we will be multiplying with $sqrt 2$ instead of $2$ to normalize $f$ in the interval $(0,1)$.







nt.number-theory real-analysis analytic-number-theory prime-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday







Nilos

















asked yesterday









NilosNilos

1,4561834




1,4561834












  • $begingroup$
    From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – lcv
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt F.
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AknazarKazhymurat I have reworded that line. Hope it is clearer now?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday


















  • $begingroup$
    From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero.
    $endgroup$
    – lcv
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind.
    $endgroup$
    – Aknazar Kazhymurat
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000.
    $endgroup$
    – Matt F.
    yesterday










  • $begingroup$
    @AknazarKazhymurat I have reworded that line. Hope it is clearer now?
    $endgroup$
    – Nilos
    yesterday
















$begingroup$
From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero.
$endgroup$
– lcv
yesterday




$begingroup$
From the linked question it seems that $s_n$ grows faster than $n$ so that $f(n)$ doesn't go to zero.
$endgroup$
– lcv
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at?
$endgroup$
– Nilos
yesterday




$begingroup$
@lcv No $s_n$ doesn't grow faster than $n$. What are you looking at?
$endgroup$
– Nilos
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
"...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind.
$endgroup$
– Aknazar Kazhymurat
yesterday




$begingroup$
"...I wanted to have a continuous function...". In what topology is $f$ continuous? If you put discrete topology on natural numbers, then any function is continuous so you probably have something else in mind.
$endgroup$
– Aknazar Kazhymurat
yesterday












$begingroup$
I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
yesterday




$begingroup$
I have verified that $f$ is injective over composites less than 10,000,000.
$endgroup$
– Matt F.
yesterday












$begingroup$
@AknazarKazhymurat I have reworded that line. Hope it is clearer now?
$endgroup$
– Nilos
yesterday




$begingroup$
@AknazarKazhymurat I have reworded that line. Hope it is clearer now?
$endgroup$
– Nilos
yesterday










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















22












$begingroup$

The answer to Question 1 is "yes".
To see this, notice that $s_n$ is at most square root of the average square of divisor, i.e.
$$
s_nleq sqrt{frac{sum_{dmid n}d^2}{sum_{dmid n} 1}}=sqrt{frac{sigma_2(n)}{sigma_0(n)}},
$$



where $sigma_k(n)$ is the sum of $k$-th powers of divisors of $n$. Now,



$$
sigma_2(n)=n^2sigma_{-2}(n),
$$



so



$$
sigma_2(n)<frac{pi^2}{6}n^2
$$



for all $n$. Therefore we have



$$
f(n)leq frac{2}{n-1} sqrt{frac{pi^2}{6}n^2/sigma_0(n)}leq frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}
$$



for all $n$. Now, almost all $nleq N$ have at least $0.5lnln N$ distinct prime factors. In particular, for almost all $nleq N$ we have $sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N$. Therefore, our bound for $f(n)$ together with the trivial observation that $0leq f(n)leq 1$ gives



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)leq sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N} frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}+sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)<0.5lnln N} 1= o(N),
$$



as needed.



Using contour integration method one can even prove something like



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)=O(N(ln N)^{1/sqrt{2}-1})
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
    $endgroup$
    – Asymptotiac K
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
    $endgroup$
    – Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
    19 hours ago












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: "504"
};
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
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327472%2fdoes-the-average-primeness-of-natural-numbers-tend-to-zero%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









22












$begingroup$

The answer to Question 1 is "yes".
To see this, notice that $s_n$ is at most square root of the average square of divisor, i.e.
$$
s_nleq sqrt{frac{sum_{dmid n}d^2}{sum_{dmid n} 1}}=sqrt{frac{sigma_2(n)}{sigma_0(n)}},
$$



where $sigma_k(n)$ is the sum of $k$-th powers of divisors of $n$. Now,



$$
sigma_2(n)=n^2sigma_{-2}(n),
$$



so



$$
sigma_2(n)<frac{pi^2}{6}n^2
$$



for all $n$. Therefore we have



$$
f(n)leq frac{2}{n-1} sqrt{frac{pi^2}{6}n^2/sigma_0(n)}leq frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}
$$



for all $n$. Now, almost all $nleq N$ have at least $0.5lnln N$ distinct prime factors. In particular, for almost all $nleq N$ we have $sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N$. Therefore, our bound for $f(n)$ together with the trivial observation that $0leq f(n)leq 1$ gives



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)leq sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N} frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}+sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)<0.5lnln N} 1= o(N),
$$



as needed.



Using contour integration method one can even prove something like



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)=O(N(ln N)^{1/sqrt{2}-1})
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
    $endgroup$
    – Asymptotiac K
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
    $endgroup$
    – Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
    19 hours ago
















22












$begingroup$

The answer to Question 1 is "yes".
To see this, notice that $s_n$ is at most square root of the average square of divisor, i.e.
$$
s_nleq sqrt{frac{sum_{dmid n}d^2}{sum_{dmid n} 1}}=sqrt{frac{sigma_2(n)}{sigma_0(n)}},
$$



where $sigma_k(n)$ is the sum of $k$-th powers of divisors of $n$. Now,



$$
sigma_2(n)=n^2sigma_{-2}(n),
$$



so



$$
sigma_2(n)<frac{pi^2}{6}n^2
$$



for all $n$. Therefore we have



$$
f(n)leq frac{2}{n-1} sqrt{frac{pi^2}{6}n^2/sigma_0(n)}leq frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}
$$



for all $n$. Now, almost all $nleq N$ have at least $0.5lnln N$ distinct prime factors. In particular, for almost all $nleq N$ we have $sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N$. Therefore, our bound for $f(n)$ together with the trivial observation that $0leq f(n)leq 1$ gives



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)leq sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N} frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}+sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)<0.5lnln N} 1= o(N),
$$



as needed.



Using contour integration method one can even prove something like



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)=O(N(ln N)^{1/sqrt{2}-1})
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
    $endgroup$
    – Asymptotiac K
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
    $endgroup$
    – Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
    19 hours ago














22












22








22





$begingroup$

The answer to Question 1 is "yes".
To see this, notice that $s_n$ is at most square root of the average square of divisor, i.e.
$$
s_nleq sqrt{frac{sum_{dmid n}d^2}{sum_{dmid n} 1}}=sqrt{frac{sigma_2(n)}{sigma_0(n)}},
$$



where $sigma_k(n)$ is the sum of $k$-th powers of divisors of $n$. Now,



$$
sigma_2(n)=n^2sigma_{-2}(n),
$$



so



$$
sigma_2(n)<frac{pi^2}{6}n^2
$$



for all $n$. Therefore we have



$$
f(n)leq frac{2}{n-1} sqrt{frac{pi^2}{6}n^2/sigma_0(n)}leq frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}
$$



for all $n$. Now, almost all $nleq N$ have at least $0.5lnln N$ distinct prime factors. In particular, for almost all $nleq N$ we have $sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N$. Therefore, our bound for $f(n)$ together with the trivial observation that $0leq f(n)leq 1$ gives



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)leq sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N} frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}+sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)<0.5lnln N} 1= o(N),
$$



as needed.



Using contour integration method one can even prove something like



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)=O(N(ln N)^{1/sqrt{2}-1})
$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The answer to Question 1 is "yes".
To see this, notice that $s_n$ is at most square root of the average square of divisor, i.e.
$$
s_nleq sqrt{frac{sum_{dmid n}d^2}{sum_{dmid n} 1}}=sqrt{frac{sigma_2(n)}{sigma_0(n)}},
$$



where $sigma_k(n)$ is the sum of $k$-th powers of divisors of $n$. Now,



$$
sigma_2(n)=n^2sigma_{-2}(n),
$$



so



$$
sigma_2(n)<frac{pi^2}{6}n^2
$$



for all $n$. Therefore we have



$$
f(n)leq frac{2}{n-1} sqrt{frac{pi^2}{6}n^2/sigma_0(n)}leq frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}
$$



for all $n$. Now, almost all $nleq N$ have at least $0.5lnln N$ distinct prime factors. In particular, for almost all $nleq N$ we have $sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N$. Therefore, our bound for $f(n)$ together with the trivial observation that $0leq f(n)leq 1$ gives



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)leq sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)geq 0.5lnln N} frac{5.14}{sqrt{sigma_0(n)}}+sum_{nleq N, sigma_0(n)<0.5lnln N} 1= o(N),
$$



as needed.



Using contour integration method one can even prove something like



$$
sum_{nleq N} f(n)=O(N(ln N)^{1/sqrt{2}-1})
$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited yesterday

























answered yesterday









Asymptotiac KAsymptotiac K

1,5341314




1,5341314








  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
    $endgroup$
    – Asymptotiac K
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
    $endgroup$
    – Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
    19 hours ago














  • 5




    $begingroup$
    That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Seifert
    yesterday








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
    $endgroup$
    – Yakk
    yesterday








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
    $endgroup$
    – Asymptotiac K
    yesterday






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
    $endgroup$
    – Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
    19 hours ago








5




5




$begingroup$
That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
yesterday






$begingroup$
That last expression reminds me an XKCD alt-text: "If you ever find yourself raising $log(text{anything})^{1/sqrt{2}}$, set down the marker and back away from the whiteboard; something has gone horribly wrong."
$endgroup$
– Michael Seifert
yesterday






2




2




$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
yesterday






$begingroup$
@MichaelSeifert Bah, it was $log(anything)^e$ not $frac{1}{sqrt{2}}$. Log to the power of one over the sqrt of 2 is mundane; log of something to the power e is a sign of insanity.
$endgroup$
– Yakk
yesterday






1




1




$begingroup$
@Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
$endgroup$
– Asymptotiac K
yesterday




$begingroup$
@Yakk Yeah, but Randall also says that taking $pi$-th root of anything is insane. However, the paper "Mean values of multiplicative functions" by Montgomery and Vaughan, Theorem 5, contains $(log x)^{1/pi-1}$ and is totally fine! (P.S. Is inequality $n_p<p^{frac{1}{4sqrt{e}}+o(1)}$ ok?..)
$endgroup$
– Asymptotiac K
yesterday




1




1




$begingroup$
@AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
$endgroup$
– Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
19 hours ago




$begingroup$
@AsymptotiacK: Thanks for the good answer to Question 1. I think that in general if $f(n)$ is any function who value decreases from 1 to zero as its defined measure of primness decreases then the mean value of $f$ must tend to zero because as we go higher up the number line, for any $k ge 2$, the probability of of finding numbers with $le k$ factors should decrease
$endgroup$
– Nilotpal Kanti Sinha
19 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


  • 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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f327472%2fdoes-the-average-primeness-of-natural-numbers-tend-to-zero%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

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







Popular posts from this blog

Knooppunt Holsloot

Altaar (religie)

Gregoriusmis