Why shouldn't this prove the Prime Number Theorem?












3












$begingroup$


Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?






nt.number-theory prime-numbers







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 11




    $begingroup$
    It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Humphries
    5 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    5 hours ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    4 hours ago
















3












$begingroup$


Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?






nt.number-theory prime-numbers







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$








  • 11




    $begingroup$
    It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Humphries
    5 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    5 hours ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    4 hours ago














3












3








3





$begingroup$


Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?






nt.number-theory prime-numbers







share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







$endgroup$




Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?






nt.number-theory prime-numbers




nt.number-theory prime-numbers






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 5 hours ago









Fourton.Fourton.

422




422




New contributor




Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Fourton. is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








  • 11




    $begingroup$
    It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Humphries
    5 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    5 hours ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    4 hours ago














  • 11




    $begingroup$
    It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Humphries
    5 hours ago






  • 11




    $begingroup$
    In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
    $endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    5 hours ago






  • 6




    $begingroup$
    I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
    $endgroup$
    – Gro-Tsen
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    4 hours ago








11




11




$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
It is true that the PNT is equivalent to $sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n} = o(1)$. It is also relatively easy to prove that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = 0$. The hard part is proving that $lim_{s searrow 1} sum_{n = 1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s} = lim_{x to infty} sum_{n leq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}$. This is highly nontrivial!
$endgroup$
– Peter Humphries
5 hours ago




11




11




$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago




$begingroup$
In general, limit of sums of series $neq$ sum of limits of series. In this particular case, the equality does hold, but it requires intricate arguments to prove, which you see in any proof of PNT.
$endgroup$
– Wojowu
5 hours ago




6




6




$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I think this question should be reopened, and the comments made by Peter Humphries and Wojowu posted as an answer. The question might be borderline too elementary for MO but it is natural and I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been confused by this at some (embarrassingly recent) point, it's a bit silly to close when, in effect, the answer is there.
$endgroup$
– Gro-Tsen
4 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago




$begingroup$
I agree with Fourton and have voted accordingly
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
4 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

You ask:




Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?




As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
it is true that the PNT is equivalent to



$$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
and it is relatively easy to prove that



$$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
The real difficulty lies in proving that



$$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$














    Your Answer








    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
    });


    }
    });






    Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f328552%2fwhy-shouldnt-this-prove-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









    2












    $begingroup$

    You ask:




    Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



    Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



    $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



    since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?




    As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
    it is true that the PNT is equivalent to



    $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
    and it is relatively easy to prove that



    $$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
    The real difficulty lies in proving that



    $$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
    lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
    which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      You ask:




      Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



      Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



      $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



      since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?




      As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
      it is true that the PNT is equivalent to



      $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
      and it is relatively easy to prove that



      $$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
      The real difficulty lies in proving that



      $$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
      lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
      which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        You ask:




        Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



        Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



        $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



        since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?




        As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
        it is true that the PNT is equivalent to



        $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
        and it is relatively easy to prove that



        $$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
        The real difficulty lies in proving that



        $$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
        lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
        which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        You ask:




        Denote by $mu$ the Mobius function. It is known that for every integer $k>1$, the number $sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^k}$ can be interpreted as the probability that a randomly chosen integer is $k$-free.



        Letting $krightarrow 1^+$, why shouldn't this entail the Prime Number Theorem in the form



        $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=0,$$



        since the probability that an integer is ``$1$-free'' is zero ?




        As pointed out by the users @wojowu and @PeterHumphries,
        it is true that the PNT is equivalent to



        $$sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n}=o(1),$$
        and it is relatively easy to prove that



        $$lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s}=0.$$
        The real difficulty lies in proving that



        $$lim_{xrightarrow infty} sum_{nleq x} frac{mu(n)}{n}=
        lim_{srightarrow 1^+} sum_{n=1}^{infty} frac{mu(n)}{n^s},$$
        which is highly nontrivial and requires intricate arguments.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        answered 10 mins ago


























        community wiki





        kodlu























            Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













            Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            Fourton. is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















            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%2f328552%2fwhy-shouldnt-this-prove-the-prime-number-theorem%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

            Image
            Knooppunt Holsloot Kenmerken Wegen A37 × N34 Type knooppunt klaverblad Portaal     Verkeer & Vervoer Knooppunt Holsloot is een verkeersknooppunt op de kruising van de autosnelweg A37 en de N34 in Drenthe, tussen Emmen en Coevorden. Oorspronkelijk was deze aansluiting een afritconstructie van het type Haarlemmermeeraansluiting, zoals bij Knooppunt Hooipolder. Sinds 2002 is het knooppunt omgebouwd tot een volledig klaverblad. Als noviteit werd hier voor het eerst gebruikgemaakt van dimbare verlichting in plaats van de normale vaste tijden waarop de verlichting aan en uit gaat, wat een grote kostenbesparing opleverde. [1] Dat Holsloot als volwaardig knooppunt is uitgevoerd, waarbij alle verkeersstromen en afbuigingen ononderbroken kunnen doorgaan, is uitzonderlijk. Het betreft hier namelijk een aansluiting tussen een autosnelweg en niet-snelweg. Een vergelijkbare situatie treft men nabij Hoensbroek bij het knooppunt Ten Esschen.     Aa
            Read more

            Altaar (religie)

            Image
            Deel van de serie over kerkelijk gerei waaronder paramenten en liturgisch vaatwerk gebruikt in de liturgie Liturgisch vaatwerk Vasa sacra Miskelk · Pateen Kelklepeltje Ciborie · Monstrans Pyxis · Custodiale Vasa non sacra Ampullen · Wijwatervat Olievaatje Wierookvat · Ablutievat Paramenten Amict · Albe · Baarkleed · Cingel Tuniek · Dalmatiek · Fanon Kazuifel · Manipel · Stola Gremiale · Benedictievelum Mijter Koorkledij Rochet · Superplie Koorkap · Cappa magna Kovel Kelkgerei Bursa · Kelkvelum Ciborievelum Kerklinnen Corporale · Kelkdoekje Lavabodoekje · Palla Altaardwaal Kerkinterieur Altaar · Ambo Biechtstoel · Communiebank Doksaal · Doopvont Faldistorium Godslamp · Hoogaltaar Heilig Kruisaltaar Katheder · Preekstoel Sedilia Tabernakel · Volksaltaar Liturgische boeken Altaarmissaal Benedictionale · Brevier Evangeliarium · Evangelistarium Graduale · Kyriale Lectionarium Psalter · Rituaal Sacramentarium · Volksmissaal Overige Flambou
            Read more

            Gregoriusmis

            Image
            Een afbeelding van de Gregoriusmis uit een getijdenboek gemaakt in de zuidelijke Nederlanden tussen 1500 en 1525 Gregoriusmis, Meester van het Akense Altaar, ca. 1500-1525. Collectie Museum Catharijneconvent De Gregoriusmis of de Mis van Sint Gregorius is een motief in katholieke kunst, dat het eerst verscheen in de late Middeleeuwen en dat nog steeds werd gebruikt tijdens de contrareformatie. Paus Gregorius I (ca. 540-604) is afgebeeld, de H. Mis opdragend, terwijl Christus als de Man van Smarten verschijnt op het altaar dat voor Sint Gregorius staat. Volgens de legende had St. Gregorius gebeden om een teken voor een betwijfelaar van de transsubstantiatieleer, waarop de lijdende Christus tijdens het opdragen van de Mis verscheen om hem te overtuigen en waarbij zijn bloed in de altaarkelk liep. Vaak zijn ook de passiewerktuigen afgebeeld. Zie de categorie Mass of Saint Gregory van Wikimedia Commons voor mediabestanden over dit onderwerp. This page is onl
            Read more