## Re: [PrimeNumbers] Re: 4 limits

Expand Messages
• ... The integral can be evaluated explicitly, exactly as I did in my original post. I just didn t find this method nice trick -y enugh, as it required adding
Message 1 of 9 , Jul 14 7:24 AM
• 0 Attachment
> 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?

The integral can be evaluated explicitly, exactly as I did in my original
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
• ... 0.008? ... original ... required ... sum). ... is ... 1000, ... terms ... 0.5. ... You are quite right. I integrated only numerically. Everything clear.
Message 2 of 9 , Jul 16 12:20 AM
• 0 Attachment
--- In primenumbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kosinar <goober@...> wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
> The integral can be evaluated explicitly, exactly as I did in my
original
> 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

You are quite right. I integrated only numerically. Everything clear.
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
Message 3 of 9 , Jul 28 5:56 PM
• 0 Attachment
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

with possible expansions for some prime sums, all unproven!
You should also check Henri Cohen's paper (a dvi file)
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]
>
Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.