- Whoops!

Of course those inequalities are the other way around!!

One overestimates the tail end of the sum:

sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, t prime) < sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, all t,

prime or not) < int(log(t)/t^2,t=p-1 to 00, any t).... etc.

Adam

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <a_math_guy@...> wrote:

>

> Using a similar trick, one can verify the sum over the primes is

> strictly less than 0.5. One overestimates the tail end of the sum:

> sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, t prime) > sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, all

t,

> prime or not) > int(log(t)/t^2,t=p-1 to 00, any t). If you use

> p=1009 then the initial segment sum is

> about .4921002678856370264032818 while the error term (integral) is

> about .007852900246658049529330132 and these add to (and form an

> upper bound of) .4999531681322950759326119. So the sum over all

> primes is strictly less than 0.5.

>

> Adam

>

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kosinar <goober@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello,

> >

> > > Can sum(ln(n)/n^2 ~ 0.93 reach 1?

> >

> > Consider the inequality

> >

> > sum(ln(k)/k^2, k=A+1..infinity) < integral(ln(k)/k^2,

> k=A..infinity)

> >

> > The right-hand side can be evaluated as (ln(A)+1)/A. Taking A=2

> yields

> > sum(ln(k)/k^2, k=4..infinity) < (ln(3)+1)/3 < 0.700

> > Clearly,

> > sum(ln(k)/k^2, k=1..3) = ln(2)/4 + ln(3)/9 < 0.296

> >

> > Summing these two inequalities shows that your sum is bounded

above

> by

> > 0.996. This estimate is quite rough, though; the actual value of

> the

> > infinite sum seems to be around 0.9375...

> >

> > > Can sum(ln(p)/p^2 ~ 0.49 reach 0.5?

> >

> > Unfortunately, I don't know a nice trick for this one :-)

> >

> > Peter

> >

> > --

> > [Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ]

> 134813278

> >

> - Fine trick, but what makes you sure the integral is not e.g. = 0.008?

Didn't you only shift the problem upon the integral?

Werner

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" <a_math_guy@...> wrote:

>

> Whoops!

>

> Of course those inequalities are the other way around!!

>

> One overestimates the tail end of the sum:

> sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, t prime) < sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, all t,

> prime or not) < int(log(t)/t^2,t=p-1 to 00, any t).... etc.

>

> Adam

>

> --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Adam" a_math_guy@ wrote:

> >

> > Using a similar trick, one can verify the sum over the primes is

> > strictly less than 0.5. One overestimates the tail end of the sum:

> > sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, t prime) > sum(log(t)/t^2,t=p to 00, all

> t,

> > prime or not) > int(log(t)/t^2,t=p-1 to 00, any t). If you use

> > p=1009 then the initial segment sum is

> > about .4921002678856370264032818 while the error term (integral) is

> > about .007852900246658049529330132 and these add to (and form an

> > upper bound of) .4999531681322950759326119. So the sum over all

> > primes is strictly less than 0.5.

> >

> > Adam

> >

> > --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kosinar <goober@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Hello,

> > >

> > > > Can sum(ln(n)/n^2 ~ 0.93 reach 1?

> > >

> > > Consider the inequality

> > >

> > > sum(ln(k)/k^2, k=A+1..infinity) < integral(ln(k)/k^2,

> > k=A..infinity)

> > >

> > > The right-hand side can be evaluated as (ln(A)+1)/A. Taking A=2

> > yields

> > > sum(ln(k)/k^2, k=4..infinity) < (ln(3)+1)/3 < 0.700

> > > Clearly,

> > > sum(ln(k)/k^2, k=1..3) = ln(2)/4 + ln(3)/9 < 0.296

> > >

> > > Summing these two inequalities shows that your sum is bounded

> above

> > by

> > > 0.996. This estimate is quite rough, though; the actual value of

> > the

> > > infinite sum seems to be around 0.9375...

> > >

> > > > Can sum(ln(p)/p^2 ~ 0.49 reach 0.5?

> > >

> > > Unfortunately, I don't know a nice trick for this one :-)

> > >

> > > Peter

> > >

> > > --

> > > [Name] Peter Kosinar [Quote] 2B | ~2B = exp(i*PI) [ICQ]

> > 134813278

> > >

> >

>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > Fine trick, but what makes you sure the integral is not e.g. = 0.008?

The integral can be evaluated explicitly, exactly as I did in my original

> Didn't you only shift the problem upon the integral?

post. I just didn't find this method "nice trick"-y enugh, as it required

adding 168 terms first (as opposed to the two terms in the other sum).

It's easy to check that the integral int(log(t)/t^2, t=A..infinity) is

equal to (ln(A)+1)/A.

Adam first added all the terms corresponding to primes smaller than 1000,

which resulted in roughly 0.4921003 and then bounded the remaining terms

by the value of the integral corresponding to p=1009 (which means

A = p-1 = 1008). It's easy to see that (ln(1008)+1)/1008 < 0.007853.

These two values add up to 0.4999533, which is strictly less than 0.5.

Peter- --- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kosinar <goober@...> wrote:
>

0.008?

> > Fine trick, but what makes you sure the integral is not e.g. =

> > Didn't you only shift the problem upon the integral?

original

>

> The integral can be evaluated explicitly, exactly as I did in my

> post. I just didn't find this method "nice trick"-y enugh, as it

required

> adding 168 terms first (as opposed to the two terms in the other

sum).

> It's easy to check that the integral int(log(t)/t^2, t=A..infinity)

is

> equal to (ln(A)+1)/A.

1000,

>

> Adam first added all the terms corresponding to primes smaller than

> which resulted in roughly 0.4921003 and then bounded the remaining

terms

> by the value of the integral corresponding to p=1009 (which means

0.5.

> A = p-1 = 1008). It's easy to see that (ln(1008)+1)/1008 < 0.007853.

> These two values add up to 0.4999533, which is strictly less than

>

You are quite right. I integrated only numerically. Everything clear.

> Peter

Thanks to you both.

Werner>

- Hi, I'm not sure if my email got through to you so I'll post here.

I put a message on usenet a few years back

http://groups.google.com.au/group/sci.math.num-analysis/browse_thread/thread/d3f192b37f229eb3/ec74e93bc38819c3?lnk=st&q=walker+prime+sums&rnum=2#ec74e93bc38819c3

with possible expansions for some prime sums, all unproven!

You should also check Henri Cohen's paper (a dvi file)

I linked to

http://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/~cohen/hardylw.dvi

which has some evaluations, especially the last one!

Andrew

--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, "Werner D. Sand"

<Theo.3.1415@...> wrote:>

>

> Who can help me calculating up to 10 exact decimal places

>

>

>

> sum (1/n^(1-1/n) - 1/n)

>

> sum (1/p^(1-1/p) - 1/p)

>

> sum (ln(n) / n^2)

>

> sum (ln(p) / p^2)

>

>

>

> n=positive integer, p=prime, each from 1(2) to infinity?

>

>

>

> WDS

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>