Section 3.4 Chebychev's Theorem
Theorem 3.4.1 (Chebyshev's Theorem).
There exist real numbers \(a\) and \(A\) such that for all \(x,\) large enough,
Proof.
Let \(L, l\) be the common upper and lower limits of the three quotients \(\frac{\pi(x)\log(x)}{x},\) \(\frac{\theta(x)}{x}\) and \(\frac{\varphi(x)}{x}.\) Consider
\(N\) is the greatest coefficient of the binomial expansion of \((1 + 1)^{2n},\) so that
Now also \(N\) is divisible by all primes \(p\) in the interval \(n \lt p \leq 2n,\) and so by their product, thus
This combined with (3.4.1) gives
Putting \(n=2^{r-1}\) and summing from \(r = 1\) to \(r = m\) gives
which in turn gives
If \(x\gt 1\) and \(m\) is an integer defined by \(2^{m-1}\leq x\lt 2^m,\) then
Division by \(x\) gives
so that \(L\leq 4\log(2).\)
For the other inequality, note that \(p\vert m!\) exactly \(\sum_{r=1}^{\infty}\left\lfloor\frac{m}{p^r}\right\rfloor\) times. Since
we have
Each of the sums can be terminated at the \(M_p\)th term, where \(M_p=\left\lfloor\frac{\log(2n)}{\log(p)}\right\rfloor\) since for \(0\lt x\lt 1,\) \(\lfloor x\rfloor =0.\) This gives
since \(\lfloor 2x\rfloor-2\lfloor x\rfloor =0\) or \(1.\) Now
so \(N\vert e^{\varphi(2n)}\) and the right inequality of (3.4.1) gives
Now if \(x\gt 2\) and \(n =\left\lfloor\frac{x}{2}\right\rfloor,\) then
Dividing by \(x\) yields
Since \(\frac{x-2}{x}\rightarrow 1\) and \(\frac{1}{x}\log(x-1)\rightarrow \) as \(x\rightarrow \infty,\) we have \(\log(2)\leq l.\) So there exists constants \(L,l,\) such that
Theorem 3.4.2.
The sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges.
Proof using \(\pi(x)\).
Let \(p_n\) be the \(n\)th prime. Chebychev's estimate for the Prime Number Theorem gives, for some \(a\lt 1,\)
for \(x\) sufficiently large. It follows that
for \(n\) sufficiently large. Now \(n^2\gt p_n\) gives \(\log(p_n)\lt 2\log(n),\) so
when \(n\) is large. Inverting and summing gives
and since the series on the right is divergent, by comparison, the sum of the reciprocals of the primes diverges.
Proof using \(\zeta\).
Note that for \(\sigma\gt 1\) we have
so
Since the series converge absolutely the rearrangement is permissible. Now for any prime \(p\) and \(\sigma\geq 1,\) \(1-1/p^{\sigma}\geq 1/2,\) so
which shows that the double sum is bounded for any \(\sigma\geq 1.\) Thus
But \(\log(\zeta(\sigma))\rightarrow\infty\) as \(\sigma\rightarrow 1^{+},\) so that \(\sum_{p}\frac{1}{p^{\sigma}}\rightarrow\infty,\) and so
is divergent.
Lemma 3.4.3.
The product of two or more integers of the form \(4n + 1\) is of the same form.
Proof.
It is sufficient to show this for just two integers of this form. So let \(4n + 1, 4m + 1\in\mathbb{Z}.\) Then
which is what we were trying to show.
Here we note that all odd numbers fall into two classes. They are either of the type \(4n + 1\) or \(4n + 3\) for integers \(n.\) It is interesting question to ask whether there are infinitely many primes of either type. The \(4n + 3\) case is easy enough for us, so we proceed thence.
Theorem 3.4.4.
There are infinitely many primes of the form \(4k + 3.\)
Proof.
This is similar to our previous theorem on the infinitude of primes. Toward a contradiction, suppose that are finitely many primes of the form \(4k + 3,\) say \(q_1, q_2,...,q_s.\) Consider the positive integer
with prime factorization \(n = d_1d_2...d_r.\) Because \(n\) is odd it has no even factors, thus \(d_i\) is odd for each \(i.\) Also, by the lemma if all of the prime factors of \(n\) where of the form \(4k + 1\) then n would be also. Thus there must exist a prime factor of \(n\) with the form \(4k + 3.\) This factor is not one of \(q_1, q_2,...,q_s,\) a contradiction. Thus there are infinitely many primes of the form \(4k + 3.\)
Theorem 3.4.5 (Dirichlet's Theorem).
Let \(a, b\in\mathbb{N}\) with \(\gcd(a, b) = 1.\) Then there are infinitely many primes of the form
where \(n\in\mathbb{N}.\)