Is this approach valid for using least common multiple to establish Bertrand's postulate
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $text{lcm}(x)$ be the least common multiple of ${1,2,3,dots,x}$.
Denis Hanson showed that $text{lcm}(x) < 3^x$ and M. Nair showed that $text{lcm}(x) > 2^x$.
Neither used Bertrand's Postulate in their result. Hanson later showed that there is always a prime between $3n$ and $4n$ without using Nair's result.
The argument for Bertrand's Postulate depends on the following idea:
$$text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#}ge frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$$
where $2x#$ and $x#$ are the primorial for $2x$ and for $x$.
Here is the argument:
If a prime $sqrt{2x}<ple x$, then it cancels out in $dfrac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$.
If a prime $x < p le 2x$, then it divides $dfrac{2x#}{x#}$.
If $a ge 2$ and $x < p^a le 2x$, then $p^{a-1} < dfrac{x}{p} < x$ and it divides out and $p^{a+1} > 2x$.
The lemma follows.
Here is the argument for Bertrand's Postulate:
(1) From Hanson and Nair:
$$frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)} > frac{2^{2x}}{3^{x}} = left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(2) Assume that there is no prime between $2x$ and $x$.
(3) Then we have the following:
$$3^{sqrt{2x}} > text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#} > left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(4) Which simplifies to:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} < frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}$$
which is invalid for $x ge 30$ since:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} > 1.26 > frac{30+sqrt{60}}{30} approx 1.258$$
and
$$frac{d}{dx}left(frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}right) = -frac{1}{sqrt{2}x^{3/2}}$$
Am I wrong?
elementary-number-theory proof-verification prime-numbers least-common-multiple
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $text{lcm}(x)$ be the least common multiple of ${1,2,3,dots,x}$.
Denis Hanson showed that $text{lcm}(x) < 3^x$ and M. Nair showed that $text{lcm}(x) > 2^x$.
Neither used Bertrand's Postulate in their result. Hanson later showed that there is always a prime between $3n$ and $4n$ without using Nair's result.
The argument for Bertrand's Postulate depends on the following idea:
$$text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#}ge frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$$
where $2x#$ and $x#$ are the primorial for $2x$ and for $x$.
Here is the argument:
If a prime $sqrt{2x}<ple x$, then it cancels out in $dfrac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$.
If a prime $x < p le 2x$, then it divides $dfrac{2x#}{x#}$.
If $a ge 2$ and $x < p^a le 2x$, then $p^{a-1} < dfrac{x}{p} < x$ and it divides out and $p^{a+1} > 2x$.
The lemma follows.
Here is the argument for Bertrand's Postulate:
(1) From Hanson and Nair:
$$frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)} > frac{2^{2x}}{3^{x}} = left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(2) Assume that there is no prime between $2x$ and $x$.
(3) Then we have the following:
$$3^{sqrt{2x}} > text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#} > left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(4) Which simplifies to:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} < frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}$$
which is invalid for $x ge 30$ since:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} > 1.26 > frac{30+sqrt{60}}{30} approx 1.258$$
and
$$frac{d}{dx}left(frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}right) = -frac{1}{sqrt{2}x^{3/2}}$$
Am I wrong?
elementary-number-theory proof-verification prime-numbers least-common-multiple
The result of Nair is that $ngeq 7implies lcm(n)>2^n$, as stated in your link.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 8:16
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
up vote
2
down vote
favorite
Let $text{lcm}(x)$ be the least common multiple of ${1,2,3,dots,x}$.
Denis Hanson showed that $text{lcm}(x) < 3^x$ and M. Nair showed that $text{lcm}(x) > 2^x$.
Neither used Bertrand's Postulate in their result. Hanson later showed that there is always a prime between $3n$ and $4n$ without using Nair's result.
The argument for Bertrand's Postulate depends on the following idea:
$$text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#}ge frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$$
where $2x#$ and $x#$ are the primorial for $2x$ and for $x$.
Here is the argument:
If a prime $sqrt{2x}<ple x$, then it cancels out in $dfrac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$.
If a prime $x < p le 2x$, then it divides $dfrac{2x#}{x#}$.
If $a ge 2$ and $x < p^a le 2x$, then $p^{a-1} < dfrac{x}{p} < x$ and it divides out and $p^{a+1} > 2x$.
The lemma follows.
Here is the argument for Bertrand's Postulate:
(1) From Hanson and Nair:
$$frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)} > frac{2^{2x}}{3^{x}} = left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(2) Assume that there is no prime between $2x$ and $x$.
(3) Then we have the following:
$$3^{sqrt{2x}} > text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#} > left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(4) Which simplifies to:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} < frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}$$
which is invalid for $x ge 30$ since:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} > 1.26 > frac{30+sqrt{60}}{30} approx 1.258$$
and
$$frac{d}{dx}left(frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}right) = -frac{1}{sqrt{2}x^{3/2}}$$
Am I wrong?
elementary-number-theory proof-verification prime-numbers least-common-multiple
Let $text{lcm}(x)$ be the least common multiple of ${1,2,3,dots,x}$.
Denis Hanson showed that $text{lcm}(x) < 3^x$ and M. Nair showed that $text{lcm}(x) > 2^x$.
Neither used Bertrand's Postulate in their result. Hanson later showed that there is always a prime between $3n$ and $4n$ without using Nair's result.
The argument for Bertrand's Postulate depends on the following idea:
$$text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#}ge frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$$
where $2x#$ and $x#$ are the primorial for $2x$ and for $x$.
Here is the argument:
If a prime $sqrt{2x}<ple x$, then it cancels out in $dfrac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)}$.
If a prime $x < p le 2x$, then it divides $dfrac{2x#}{x#}$.
If $a ge 2$ and $x < p^a le 2x$, then $p^{a-1} < dfrac{x}{p} < x$ and it divides out and $p^{a+1} > 2x$.
The lemma follows.
Here is the argument for Bertrand's Postulate:
(1) From Hanson and Nair:
$$frac{text{lcm}(2x)}{text{lcm}(x)} > frac{2^{2x}}{3^{x}} = left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(2) Assume that there is no prime between $2x$ and $x$.
(3) Then we have the following:
$$3^{sqrt{2x}} > text{lcm}(sqrt{2x})frac{2x#}{x#} > left(frac{4}{3}right)^x$$
(4) Which simplifies to:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} < frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}$$
which is invalid for $x ge 30$ since:
$$frac{ln(4)}{ln(3)} > 1.26 > frac{30+sqrt{60}}{30} approx 1.258$$
and
$$frac{d}{dx}left(frac{x+sqrt{2x}}{x}right) = -frac{1}{sqrt{2}x^{3/2}}$$
Am I wrong?
elementary-number-theory proof-verification prime-numbers least-common-multiple
elementary-number-theory proof-verification prime-numbers least-common-multiple
edited Nov 16 at 20:50
asked Nov 16 at 18:31
Larry Freeman
3,24721239
3,24721239
The result of Nair is that $ngeq 7implies lcm(n)>2^n$, as stated in your link.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 8:16
add a comment |
The result of Nair is that $ngeq 7implies lcm(n)>2^n$, as stated in your link.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 8:16
The result of Nair is that $ngeq 7implies lcm(n)>2^n$, as stated in your link.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 8:16
The result of Nair is that $ngeq 7implies lcm(n)>2^n$, as stated in your link.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 8:16
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I think that you are right.
I think that the inequality of the idea is true, but it seems that your proof has an error. The third bullet point looks wrong since $xlt p^ale 2x$ does not imply $p^{a-1}lt frac xplt x$.
You've already dealt with the primes $p$ such that $sqrt{2x}lt ple 2x$ in the first and the second bullet points.
Let us consider the case where $$p^ale sqrt{2x}lt p^{a+1}qquadtext{and}qquad p^ble xlt p^{b+1}$$
Here, $p$ is a prime and $a,b$ are positive integers such that $ale b$.
If $a=b$. Then, we get
$$frac{p^{2a}}{2}le xlt p^{b+1}=p^{a+1}implies p^{a-1}lt 2implies a=b=1$$
So, we have
$$ple sqrt{2x}lt p^{2},qquad ple xlt p^{2},qquad p^2le 2xlt 2p^2le p^3$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
If $bge a+1$, then we get
$$p^{2a}le 2xlt p^{2a+2}$$
and
$$p^ap^bge p^{2a+1}ge p^{2a}$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I think that you are right.
I think that the inequality of the idea is true, but it seems that your proof has an error. The third bullet point looks wrong since $xlt p^ale 2x$ does not imply $p^{a-1}lt frac xplt x$.
You've already dealt with the primes $p$ such that $sqrt{2x}lt ple 2x$ in the first and the second bullet points.
Let us consider the case where $$p^ale sqrt{2x}lt p^{a+1}qquadtext{and}qquad p^ble xlt p^{b+1}$$
Here, $p$ is a prime and $a,b$ are positive integers such that $ale b$.
If $a=b$. Then, we get
$$frac{p^{2a}}{2}le xlt p^{b+1}=p^{a+1}implies p^{a-1}lt 2implies a=b=1$$
So, we have
$$ple sqrt{2x}lt p^{2},qquad ple xlt p^{2},qquad p^2le 2xlt 2p^2le p^3$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
If $bge a+1$, then we get
$$p^{2a}le 2xlt p^{2a+2}$$
and
$$p^ap^bge p^{2a+1}ge p^{2a}$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I think that you are right.
I think that the inequality of the idea is true, but it seems that your proof has an error. The third bullet point looks wrong since $xlt p^ale 2x$ does not imply $p^{a-1}lt frac xplt x$.
You've already dealt with the primes $p$ such that $sqrt{2x}lt ple 2x$ in the first and the second bullet points.
Let us consider the case where $$p^ale sqrt{2x}lt p^{a+1}qquadtext{and}qquad p^ble xlt p^{b+1}$$
Here, $p$ is a prime and $a,b$ are positive integers such that $ale b$.
If $a=b$. Then, we get
$$frac{p^{2a}}{2}le xlt p^{b+1}=p^{a+1}implies p^{a-1}lt 2implies a=b=1$$
So, we have
$$ple sqrt{2x}lt p^{2},qquad ple xlt p^{2},qquad p^2le 2xlt 2p^2le p^3$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
If $bge a+1$, then we get
$$p^{2a}le 2xlt p^{2a+2}$$
and
$$p^ap^bge p^{2a+1}ge p^{2a}$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
I think that you are right.
I think that the inequality of the idea is true, but it seems that your proof has an error. The third bullet point looks wrong since $xlt p^ale 2x$ does not imply $p^{a-1}lt frac xplt x$.
You've already dealt with the primes $p$ such that $sqrt{2x}lt ple 2x$ in the first and the second bullet points.
Let us consider the case where $$p^ale sqrt{2x}lt p^{a+1}qquadtext{and}qquad p^ble xlt p^{b+1}$$
Here, $p$ is a prime and $a,b$ are positive integers such that $ale b$.
If $a=b$. Then, we get
$$frac{p^{2a}}{2}le xlt p^{b+1}=p^{a+1}implies p^{a-1}lt 2implies a=b=1$$
So, we have
$$ple sqrt{2x}lt p^{2},qquad ple xlt p^{2},qquad p^2le 2xlt 2p^2le p^3$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
If $bge a+1$, then we get
$$p^{2a}le 2xlt p^{2a+2}$$
and
$$p^ap^bge p^{2a+1}ge p^{2a}$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
I think that you are right.
I think that the inequality of the idea is true, but it seems that your proof has an error. The third bullet point looks wrong since $xlt p^ale 2x$ does not imply $p^{a-1}lt frac xplt x$.
You've already dealt with the primes $p$ such that $sqrt{2x}lt ple 2x$ in the first and the second bullet points.
Let us consider the case where $$p^ale sqrt{2x}lt p^{a+1}qquadtext{and}qquad p^ble xlt p^{b+1}$$
Here, $p$ is a prime and $a,b$ are positive integers such that $ale b$.
If $a=b$. Then, we get
$$frac{p^{2a}}{2}le xlt p^{b+1}=p^{a+1}implies p^{a-1}lt 2implies a=b=1$$
So, we have
$$ple sqrt{2x}lt p^{2},qquad ple xlt p^{2},qquad p^2le 2xlt 2p^2le p^3$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
If $bge a+1$, then we get
$$p^{2a}le 2xlt p^{2a+2}$$
and
$$p^ap^bge p^{2a+1}ge p^{2a}$$
So, in this case, the inequality holds.
answered Nov 17 at 5:33
mathlove
91.5k881214
91.5k881214
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
add a comment |
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
Thanks very much!
– Larry Freeman
Nov 17 at 12:29
add a comment |
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%2f3001484%2fis-this-approach-valid-for-using-least-common-multiple-to-establish-bertrands-p%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
The result of Nair is that $ngeq 7implies lcm(n)>2^n$, as stated in your link.
– DanielWainfleet
Nov 17 at 8:16