ProofComplete

Distribution of Primes - Key Proof

We present Chebyshev's proof of bounds on Ο€(x)\pi(x) and sketch the proof of Bertrand's Postulate. These classical results use elementary methods to establish fundamental properties of prime distribution.

ProofChebyshev's Upper Bound

We prove Ο€(x)<2xlog⁑x\pi(x) < 2\frac{x}{\log x} for sufficiently large xx.

Key lemma: For the central binomial coefficient: (2nn)<4nn\binom{2n}{n} < \frac{4^n}{\sqrt{n}}

Consider the prime factorization of (2nn)\binom{2n}{n}. For prime pp, the exponent of pp in n!n! is: βˆ‘k=1∞⌊npkβŒ‹\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left\lfloor \frac{n}{p^k} \right\rfloor

The exponent of pp in (2nn)=(2n)!n!2\binom{2n}{n} = \frac{(2n)!}{n!^2} is: βˆ‘k=1∞(⌊2npkβŒ‹βˆ’2⌊npkβŒ‹)\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left( \left\lfloor \frac{2n}{p^k} \right\rfloor - 2\left\lfloor \frac{n}{p^k} \right\rfloor \right)

Each term is 0 or 1, and only terms with pk≀2np^k \leq 2n contribute.

Therefore: (2nn)=∏p≀2npep\binom{2n}{n} = \prod_{p \leq 2n} p^{e_p} where ep≀log⁑p(2n)e_p \leq \log_{p}(2n).

Taking logarithms: log⁑(2nn)=βˆ‘p≀2neplog⁑pβ‰€βˆ‘p≀2nlog⁑pβ‹…log⁑p(2n)\log \binom{2n}{n} = \sum_{p \leq 2n} e_p \log p \leq \sum_{p \leq 2n} \log p \cdot \log_{p}(2n)

Since log⁑p(2n)=log⁑(2n)log⁑p\log_{p}(2n) = \frac{\log(2n)}{\log p}: βˆ‘p≀2nlog⁑p=ΞΈ(2n)\sum_{p \leq 2n} \log p = \theta(2n)

From the lemma: log⁑(2nn)<nlog⁑4βˆ’12log⁑n\log \binom{2n}{n} < n \log 4 - \frac{1}{2}\log n.

Combining: θ(2n)<nlog⁑4\theta(2n) < n \log 4.

Using ΞΈ(x)βˆΌΟ€(x)log⁑x\theta(x) \sim \pi(x) \log x (which can be shown separately), we get: Ο€(x)log⁑xβͺ…ΞΈ(x)<xlog⁑42\pi(x) \log x \lessapprox \theta(x) < \frac{x \log 4}{2}

Therefore: Ο€(x)<xlog⁑42log⁑xβ‰ˆ0.69xlog⁑x\pi(x) < \frac{x \log 4}{2\log x} \approx 0.69 \frac{x}{\log x} for large xx.

More careful analysis gives the bound Ο€(x)<1.11xlog⁑x\pi(x) < 1.11\frac{x}{\log x}.

β– 
ProofBertrand's Postulate

We prove that for nβ‰₯1n \geq 1, there exists a prime pp with n<p<2nn < p < 2n.

Proof using binomial coefficients:

Consider (2nn)\binom{2n}{n}. We analyze its prime factorization carefully.

Claim 1: Every prime pp with 2n3<p≀n\frac{2n}{3} < p \leq n appears exactly once in (2nn)\binom{2n}{n}.

Proof: For such pp, we have p≀n<2pp \leq n < 2p, so ⌊2npβŒ‹=1\lfloor \frac{2n}{p} \rfloor = 1 and ⌊npβŒ‹=0\lfloor \frac{n}{p} \rfloor = 0.

Thus, the exponent is 1βˆ’2β‹…0=11 - 2 \cdot 0 = 1.

Claim 2: Every prime p>2np > 2n does not divide (2nn)\binom{2n}{n}.

Claim 3: For 2n<p≀2n3\sqrt{2n} < p \leq \frac{2n}{3}, the exponent of pp is at most 1.

Proof: If p2>2np^2 > 2n, then at most one power of pp appears.

Lower bound: From the binomial theorem: 4n=(1+1)2n=βˆ‘k=02n(2nk)>(2nn)4^n = (1 + 1)^{2n} = \sum_{k=0}^{2n} \binom{2n}{k} > \binom{2n}{n}

Upper bound: Combining all primes: (2nn)β‰€βˆp≀2n(2n)log⁑(2n)/log⁑pβ‹…βˆ2n<p≀2np\binom{2n}{n} \leq \prod_{p \leq \sqrt{2n}} (2n)^{\log(2n)/\log p} \cdot \prod_{\sqrt{2n} < p \leq 2n} p

The first product is bounded by (2n)2n(2n)^{\sqrt{2n}} (summing over Ο€(2n)\pi(\sqrt{2n}) terms).

If there were no primes in (n,2n](n, 2n], the second product would cover only primes up to nn: (2nn)≀(2n)2nβ‹…βˆp≀np<(2n)2nβ‹…4n\binom{2n}{n} \leq (2n)^{\sqrt{2n}} \cdot \prod_{p \leq n} p < (2n)^{\sqrt{2n}} \cdot 4^n

For large nn, this contradicts (2nn)β‰₯4n2n\binom{2n}{n} \geq \frac{4^n}{2n} (from Stirling).

Therefore, there must be a prime in (n,2n](n, 2n].

β– 
Remark

ErdΕ‘s gave an elegant elementary proof using only properties of binomial coefficients. The proof shows that the existence of primes in (n,2n)(n, 2n) is intimately connected to the growth rate of central binomial coefficients.

Later improvements (Ramanujan, Chebyshev) showed there's always a prime in [n,n+n/log⁑n][n, n + n/\log n] for large nn, demonstrating primes are even denser than Bertrand's result requires.

ProofSketch of Prime Number Theorem

The analytic proof of the PNT uses the Riemann zeta function: ΞΆ(s)=βˆ‘n=1∞1ns=∏p11βˆ’pβˆ’s\zeta(s) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^s} = \prod_p \frac{1}{1 - p^{-s}}

Key steps:

  1. Show ΞΆ(s)\zeta(s) has an analytic continuation to β„œ(s)>0\Re(s) > 0 except for a simple pole at s=1s = 1
  2. Prove ΞΆ(s)β‰ 0\zeta(s) \neq 0 on the line β„œ(s)=1\Re(s) = 1
  3. Use contour integration to relate ψ(x)\psi(x) to ΞΆ(s)\zeta(s): ψ(x)=12Ο€i∫cβˆ’i∞c+iβˆžβˆ’ΞΆβ€²(s)ΞΆ(s)xssds\psi(x) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{c - i\infty}^{c + i\infty} -\frac{\zeta'(s)}{\zeta(s)} \frac{x^s}{s} ds
  4. Shift the contour left; the residue at s=1s = 1 gives the main term xx
  5. Control error terms using bounds on ΞΆ(s)\zeta(s)

The result: ψ(x)∼x\psi(x) \sim x, which implies Ο€(x)∼xlog⁑x\pi(x) \sim \frac{x}{\log x}.

The proof requires deep results from complex analysis, including properties of the logarithmic derivative of ΞΆ(s)\zeta(s) and careful analysis near the critical line.

β– 

These proofs showcase both elementary ingenuity (Chebyshev, Bertrand) and analytical sophistication (PNT), demonstrating the diverse methods used to understand prime distribution.