arxiv: v4 [math.nt] 3 Jul 2012

Transcription

1 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES TERENCE TAO arxiv: v4 [math.nt] 3 Jul 202 Abstract. We prove that every odd number N greater than can be epressed as the sum of at most five primes, improving the result of Ramaréthat every even natural numbercan be epressedasthe sum ofatmost siprimes. We followthe circlemethod of Hardy-Littlewood and Vinogradov, together with Vaughan s identity; our additional techniques, which may be of interest for other Goldbach-type problems, include the use of smoothed eponential sums and optimisation of the Vaughan identity parameters to save or reduce some logarithmic losses, the use of multiple scales following some ideas of Bourgain, and the use of Montgomery s uncertainty principle and the large sieve to improve the L 2 estimates on major arcs. Our argument relies on some previous numerical work, namely the verification of Richstein of the even Goldbach conjecture up to 4 0 4, and the verification of van de Lune and (independently) of Wedeniwski of the Riemann hypothesis up to height Introduction Two of most well-known conjectures in additive number theory are the even and odd Goldbach conjectures, which we formulate as follows : Conjecture. (Even Goldbach conjecture). Every even natural number can be epressed as the sum of at most two primes. Conjecture.2 (Odd Goldbach conjecture). Every odd number larger than can be epressed as the sum of at most three primes. It was famously established by Vinogradov [47], using the Hardy-Littlewood circle method, that the odd Goldbach conjecture holds for all sufficiently large odd. Vinogradov s argument can be made effective, and various eplicit thresholds for sufficiently large have been given in the literature; in particular, Chen and Wang[5] established the odd Goldbach conjecture for all ep(ep(.503)) ep(9902), and Liu & Wang [24]subsequently etended thisresult totherange ep(300). Attheotheretreme, by combining Richstein s numerical verification [4] of the even Goldbach conjecture for with effective short intervals containing primes (based on a numerical verification of the Riemann hypothesis by van de Lune and Wedeniwski [50]), Ramaré and Saouter [40] verified the odd Goldbach conjecture for n ep(28). By using subsequent numerical verifications of both the even Goldbach conjecture and the Riemann hypothesis, it is possible to increase this lower threshold somewhat, but TheoddGoldbachconjectureisalsooftenformulatedinanalmostequivalent(andslightlystronger) fashion as the assertion that every odd number greater than seven is the sum of three odd primes.

2 2 TERENCE TAO there is still a very significant gap between the lower and upper thresholds for which the odd Goldbach conjecture is known 2. To eplain the reason for this, let us first quickly recall how Vinogradov-type theorems are proven. To represent a number as the sum of three primes, it suffices to obtain a sufficiently non-trivial lower bound for the sum Λ(n )Λ(n 2 )Λ(n 3 ) n,n 2,n 3 :n +n 2 +n 3 = where Λ is the von Mangoldt function(see Section 2 for definitions). By Fourier analysis, we may rewrite this epression as the integral S(,α) 3 e( α) dα (.) R/Z where e() := e 2πi and S(,α) is the eponential sum S(,α) := n Λ(n)e(nα). Theobjectiveisthentoobtainsufficiently preciseestimatesons(,α)forlarge. Using the Dirichlet approimation theorem, one can approimate α = a +β for some natural q number q Q, some integer a with (a,q) =, and some β with β, where Q qq is a threshold (somewhat close to N) to be chosen later. Roughly speaking, one then divides into the major arc case when q is small, and the minor arc case when q is large (in practice, one may also subdivide these cases into further cases depending on the precise sizes of q and β). In the major arc case, the sum S(,α) can be approimated by sums such as S(,a/q) = n Λ(n)e(an/q), which can be controlled by a suitable version of the prime number theorem in arithmetic progressions, such as the Siegel-Walfisz theorem. In the minor arc case, one can instead follow the methods of Vinogradov, and use truncated divisor sum identities (such as (variants of) Vaughan s identity, see Lemma 4. below) to rewrite S(, α) into various type I sums such as µ(d) log ne(αdn) and type II sums such as d U d>u w>v n /d µ(d)( b w:b>v Λ(b))e(αdw) (.2) which one then estimates by standard linear and bilinear eponential sum tools, such as the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. 2 We remarkhowever that the odd Goldbach conjecture is known to be true assuming the generalised Riemann hypothesis; see [9].

3 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 3 A typical estimate in the minor arc case takes the form ( ) S(,α) + + 4/5 log 3 ; (.3) q /q see e.g. [9, Theorem 3.6]. An effective version of this estimate (with slightly different logarithmic powers) was given by Chen & Wang [6]; see (.3) below. Note that one cannot hope to obtain a bound for S(,α) that is better than φ(q) without making q progress on the Siegel zero problem (in order to decorrelate Λ from the quadratic character with conductor q); see [35] for further discussion. In a similar spirit, one should not epect to obtain a bound better than unless one eploits a non-trivial error /q term in the prime number theorem for arithmetic progressions (or equivalently, if one shows that L-functions do not have a zero on the line Rs = ), as one needs to decorrelate 3 Λ from Archimedean characters n it with t comparable to /q, (or from combined characters χ(n)n it ). If one combines (.3) with the L 2 bound S(,α) 2 dα log (.4) R/Z arising from the Plancherel identity and the prime number theorem, one can obtain satisfactory estimates for all minor arcs with q log 8 (assuming that Q was chosen to be significantly less than /log 8 ). To finish the proof of Vinogradov s theorem, one thus needs to obtain good prime number theorems in arithmetic progressions whose modulus q can be as large as log 8. While eplicitly effective versions of such theorems eist (see e.g. [27], [23], [39], [], [20]), their error term decays very slowly (and is sensitive to the possibility of a Siegel zero for one eceptional modulus q); in particular, errors of the form O(ep( c log)) for some eplicit but moderately small constant c > 0 are typical. Such errors can eventually overcome logarithmic losses such as log, but only for etremely large, e.g. for much larger than 0 00, which can be viewed as the principal reason why the thresholds for Vinogradov-type theorems are so large. It is thus of interest to reduce the logarithmic losses in (.3), particularly for moderately sized such as 0 30, as this would reduce the range 4 of moduli q that would have to be checked in the major arc case, allowing for stronger prime number theorems in arithmetic progressions to come into play. In particular, the numerical work of Platt 3 Indeed, suppose for sake of heuristic argument that the Riemann zeta function had a zero very close to + i/q, then the von Mangoldt eplicit formula n Λ(n) would contain a term close to n n i/q, which suggests upon summation by parts that S(,α) would contain a term close to n n i/q e(α), which can be of size comparable to / /q when α is close to (say) /q. A similar argument involving Dirichlet L-functions also applies when α is close to other multiples of /q. This suggests that one would need to use zero-free regions for zeta functions and L-functions in orderto improve upon the bound. /q 4 It seems however that one cannot eliminate the major arcs entirely. In particular, one needs to prevent the majority of the primes from concentrating in the quadratic non-residues modulo q for q = 3, q = 4, or q = 5, as this would cause the residue class 0 mod q to have almost no representations as the sum of three primes.

4 4 TERENCE TAO [33] has established zero-free regions for Dirichlet L-functions of conductor up to 0 5 (building upon earlier work of Rumely [39] who obtained similar results up to conductor 0 2 ), and it is likely that such results would be useful in future work on Goldbach-type problems. Several improvements or variants to (.3) are already known in the literature. For instance, prior to the introduction of Vaughan s identity in [46], Vinogradov [48] had already established a bound of the shape S(,α) ( q + /q +ep( 2 log) ) log /2 by sieving out small primes. This was improved by Chen [4] and Daboussi [7] to obtain ( ) S(,α) + +ep( q /q 2 log) log 3/4 (loglog) /2 and the constants made eplicit (with some slight degradation in the logarithmic eponents) by Daboussi and Rivat [8]. Unfortunately, due to the slow decay of the ep( 2 log) term, this estimate only becomes non-trivial for 0 84 (see [8, 8]), and is thus not of direct use for smaller values of. In [2], Buttkewitz obtained the bound S(,α) A q log /4 + /q logloglog+ log A (.5) for any A (assuming β etremely small), using Lavrik s estimate [22] on the average error term in twin prime type problems, but the constants here are ineffective (as Lavrik s estimate uses the Siegel-Walfisz theorem). Finally, in the weakly minor arc regime logq 50 log/3, Ramaré [37] used the Bombieri sieve to obtain an effective bound of the form S(,α) q (.6) φ(q) which, as mentioned previously, is an essentially sharp effective bound in the absence of any progress on the Siegel zero problem. Unfortunately, the constants in [37] are not computed eplicitly, and seem to be far too large to be useful for values of such as In this paper we will not work directly with the sums S(,α), but instead with the smoothed out sums S η,q0 (,α) := n Λ(n)e(αn) (n,q0 )=η(n/) for some (piecewise) smooth functions η :R C and a modulus q 0. The modulus q 0 is only of minor technical importance, and should be ignored at a first reading (see Lemma 4. for a precise version of this statement). For sake of eplicit constants we will often work with a specific choice of cutoff η, namely the cutoff η 0 (t) := 4(log2 log2t ) +, (.7)

5 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 5 which is a Lipschitz continuous cutoff of unit mass supported on the interval [/4, ]. The use of smooth cutoffs to improve the behaviour of eponential sums is of course well established in the literature (indeed, the original work of Hardy and Littlewood [6] on Goldbach-type problems already used smoothed sums). The reason for this specific cutoff is that one has the identity η 0 (dw/) = 4 0 [ 2W, W ] (d) [ W 2,W](w) dw W (.8) for any d,w, > 0, which will be convenient for factorising the Type II sums into a tractable form. In some cases we will take q 0 to equal 2, in order to restrict all sums to be over odd numbers, rather than all natural numbers; this has the effect of saving a factor of two in the eplicit constants. Because of this, though, it becomes natural to approimate 4α by a rational number a/q, rather than α itself. Our main eponential sum result can be stated as follows. Theorem.3 (Eponential sum estimate). Let 0 20 be a real number, and let 4α = a + β for some natural number 00 q /00 with (a,q) = and some q β [ /q 2,/q 2 ]. Let q 0 be a natural number, such that all prime factors of q 0 do not eceed. Then ( ) S η0,q 0 (,α) /5 log(log+.3) (.9) q /q If q /3, one has the refinement S η0,q 0 (,α) 0.5 q (log2)(log2+5)+0.3 q logq(logq +8.9) (.0) and similarly when q 2/3, one has the refinement S η0,q 0 (,α) 3.2 /q (log2)(logq+8)+.9 log /q q (log +2.3). (.) q If q 2/3 and a = ±, one has the further refinement S η0,q 0 (,α) 9.73 (/q) 2 log2 +.2 log /q q (log q +2.4). (.2) The first estimate (.9) is basically a smoothed out version of the standard estimate (.3), with the Lipschitz nature of the cutoff η 0 being responsible for the saving of one logarithmic factor, and will be proven by basically the same method (i.e. Vaughan s identity, followed by linear and bilinear sum estimates of Vinogradov type); it can be compared for instance with the eplicit estimate S [0,],(,4α) 0.77 log log /5 log 2.2 (.3) q /q of Chen & Wang [6], rewritten in our notation. In practice, for of size 0 30 or so, the estimate (.3) improves upon the Chen-Wang estimate by about one to two orders of magnitude, though this is admittedly for a smoothed version of the sum considered in [6].

6 6 TERENCE TAO The estimate (.9) is non-trivial in the regime log 4 q /log 4. The key point, though, is that one can obtain further improvement over (.9) in the most important regimes when q is close to or to, by reducing the argument of the logarithm (or by squaring the denominator); indeed, (.9) when combined with (.0), (.) is now non-trivial in the larger range log 2 q /log 2, and with (.2) one can etend the upper threshold of this range from /log 2 to /log, at least when a = ±. The bounds in Theorem.3 are basically achieved by optimising in the cutoff parameters U,V in Vaughan s identity, and (in the case of (.2)) a second integration by parts, eploiting thefactthatthederivative ofη 0 hasboundedtotalvariation. Asymptotically, the bounds here are inferior to those in (.5), (.6), but unlike those estimates, the constants here are reasonable enough that the bounds are useful for medium-sized values of, for instance for between 0 30 and There is scope for further improvement 5 in the eponential sum bounds in these ranges by eliminating or reducing more of the logarithmic losses (and we did not fully attempt to optimise all the eplicit constants), but the bounds indicated above will be sufficient for our applications. We will actually prove a slightly sharper (but more technical) version of Theorem.3, with two additional parameters U and V that one is free to optimise over; see Theorem 5. below. As an application of these eponential sum bounds, we establish the following result: Theorem.4. Every odd number larger than can be epressed as the sum of at most five primes. This improves slightly upon a previous result of Ramaré [35], who showed (by a quite different method) that every even natural number can be epressed as the sum of at most si primes. In particular, as a corollary of this result we may lower the upper bound on Shnirelman s constant (the least number k such that all natural numbers greater than can be epressed as the sum of at most k primes) from seven to si (note that the even Goldbach conjecture would imply that this constant is in fact three, and is in fact almost equivalent to this claim). We remark that Theorem.4 was also established under the assumption of the Riemann hypothesis by Kaniecki [2] (indeed, by combining his argument with the numerical work in [4], one can obtain the stronger claim that any even natural number is the sum of at most four primes). Our proof of Theorem.4 also establishes that every integer larger than can be epressed as the sum of three primes and a natural number between 2 and ; see Theorem 8.2 below. 5 Indeed, since the release of an initial preprint of this paper, such improvementsto the abovebounds have been achieved in [8]. The author epects however that in the case of most critical interest, namely when q is very close to or to, the Vaughan identity-based methods in the above theorem are not the most efficient way to proceed. Thus, one can imagine in future applications that Theorem.3 (or variants thereof) could be used to eliminate from consideration all values of q ecept those close to and, and then other methods (e.g. those based on the zeroes of Dirichlet L-functions, or more efficient identities than the Vaughan identity) could be used to handle those cases.

7 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 7 To prove Theorem.4, we will also need to rely on two numerically verified results in addition to Theorem.3: Theorem.5 (Numerical verification of Riemann hypothesis). Let T 0 := Then all the zeroes of the Riemann zeta function ζ in the strip {s : 0 < R(s) < ;0 I(s) T 0 } lie on the line R(s) = /2. Furthermore, there are at most 0 0 zeroes in this strip. Proof. This was achieved independently by van de Lune (unpublished), by Wedeniwski [50], by Gourdon [4], and by Platt [34]. Indeed, the results of Wedeniwski allow one to take T 0 as large as , and the results of Gourdon allow one to take T 0 as large as ; using interval arithmetic, Platt also obtained this result with T 0 as large as (Of course, in these latter results there will be more than 0 0 zeroes.) However, we will use the more conservative value of T 0 = in this paper as it suffices for our purposes, and has been verified by four independent numerical computations. Theorem.6 (Numerical verification of even Goldbachconjecture). Let N 0 := Then every even number between 4 and N 0 is the sum of two primes. Proof. This is the main result of Richstein [4]. A subsequent (unpublished) verification of this conjecture by the distributed computing project of Oliveira e Silva [32] allows one to take N 0 as large as (with the value N 0 = 0 7 being double-checked), but againwe shall usethe moreconservative valueof N 0 = inthispaper asit suffices for our purposes, and has been verified by three independent numerical computations. The proof of Theorem.4 is given in Section 8 proceeds according to the circle method with smoothed sums as discussed earlier, but with some additional technical refinements which we now discuss. The first refinement is to take advantage of Theorem.6 to reduce the five-prime problem to the problem of representing a number as the sum of three primes n,n 2,n 3 and a number between 2 and N 0. As far as the circle method is concerned, this effectively restricts the frequency variable α to the arc {α : α R/Z /N 0 }. At the other end of the spectrum, by using Theorem.5 and the von Mangoldt eplicit formula one can control quite precisely the contribution of the major arc {α : α R/Z T 0 /}; see Proposition 7.2. Thus leaves only the minor arc that remains to be controlled. T 0 α R/Z N 0 (.4) By using Theorem.6 and Theorem.5 (or more precisely, an effective prime number theorem in short intervals derived from Theorem.5 due to Ramaré and Saouter [40]), we will be able to assume that is moderately large (and specifically, that ). By using eisting Vinogradov-type theorems, we may also place a large upper bound on ; we will use the strongest bound in the literature, namely the bound

8 8 TERENCE TAO ep(300) of 6 Liu & Wang [24]. In particular, log is relatively small compared to the quantities N 0 and T 0, allowing one to absorb a limited number of powers of log in the estimates. It remains to obtain good L 2 and L estimates on the minor arc region (.4). We will of course use Theorem.3 for the L estimates. A direct application of the Plancherel identity would cost a factor of log in the L 2 estimates, which turns out to be unacceptable. One can use the uncertainty principle of Montgomery [28] to cut this loss down to approimately 2 log logn 0 (see Corollary 4.7), but it turns out to be more efficient still to use a large sieve estimate of Siebert [45] on the number of prime pairs (p,p+h) less than for various h to obtain an L 2 estimate which only loses a factor of 8 (see Proposition 4.0). In order to nearly eliminate some additional Archimedean losses arising from convolving together various cutoff functions η on the real liner, we will use a trick of Bourgain [3], and restrict one of the three summands n,n 2,n 3 to a significantly smaller order of magnitude (of magnitude /K instead of for some K, which we will set to be 0 3, in order to be safely bounded away from both and T 0 ). By estimating the eponential sums associated to n,n 2 in L 2 and the sum associated to n 3 in L, one can avoid almost all Archimedean losses. As it turns out, the combination of all of these tricks, when combined with the eponential sum estimate and the numerical values of N 0 and T 0, are sufficient to establish Theorem.4. However, there is one final trick which could be used to reduce certain error terms further, namely to let K vary over a range (e.g. from 0 3 to 0 6 ) instead of being fied, and average over this parameter. This turns out to lead to an additional saving (of approimately an order of magnitude) in the weakly minor arc case when α is slightly larger than T 0 /. While we do not actually utilise this trick here as it is not needed, it may be useful in other contets, and in particular in improving the known upper threshold for Vinogradov s theorem..7. Acknowledgments. The author is greatly indebted to Ben Green and Harald Helfgott for several discussions on Goldbach-type problems, and to Julia Wolf, Westin King, Mark Kerstein, and several anonymous readers of my blog for corrections. The author is particularly indebted to the anonymous referee for detailed comments, corrections, and suggestions. The author is supported by NSF grant DMS The numerology in our argument is such that one could also use the weaker bound ep(ep(.503)) provided by Chen & Wang [5], provided one assumed the even Goldbach conjecture to be verified up to N 0 = 0 7, a fact which has been double-checked in [32]. Alternatively, if one uses the very recent minor arc bounds in [8] that appeared after the publication of this paper, then no Vinogradov type theorem is needed at all to prove our result, as the bounds in [8] do not contain any factors of log that need to be bounded.

9 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 9 2. Notation All summations in this paper will be over the natural numbers N = {,2,3,...} unless otherwise indicated, with the eceptions of sums over the inde p, which are always understood to be over primes. We use (a,b) to denote the greatest common divisor of two natural numbers, and [a,b] for the least common multiple. We write a b to denote the assertion that a divides b. Given a statement E, we use E to denote its indicator, thus E equals when E is true and 0 otherwise. Thus, for instance (n,q)= is equal to when n is coprime to q, and equal to 0 otherwise. We will use the following standard arithmetic functions. If n is a natural number, then Λ(n) is the von Mangoldt function of n, defined to equal logp when n is a power of a prime p, and zero otherwise. µ(n) is the Möbius function of n, defined to equal ( ) k when n is the product of k distinct primes, and zero otherwise. φ(n) is the Euler totient function of n, defined to equal the number of residue classes of n that are coprime to n. ω(n) is the number of distinct prime factors of n. Given two arithmetic functions f,g :N C, we define the Dirichlet convolution f g : N C by the formula f g(n) := f(d)g( n d ), d n thus for instance µ (n) = n=0, Λ (n) = log(n), and µ log(n) = Λ(n). Given a positive real Q, we also define the primorial Q of Q to be the product of all the primes up to Q: Q := p Qp. Thus, for instance (n,q )= equals precisely when n has no prime factors less than or equal to Q. We use the usual L p norms ( f L p (R) := R ) /p f() p d for p <, with f L (R) denoting the essential supremum of f. Similarly for other domains than R which have an obvious Lebesgue measure; we define the l p norms for discrete domains (such as the integers Z) in the usual manner. We use R/Z to denote the unit circle. By abuse of notation, any -periodic function on R is also interpreted as a function on R/Z, thus for instance we can define sin(πα) for

10 0 TERENCE TAO any α R/Z. We let α R/Z be the distance to the nearest integer for α R, and this also descends to R/Z. We record the elementary inequalities 2 α R/Z sin(πα) π α R/Z tan(πα), (2.) valid for any α R/Z. In a similar vein, if a Z/qZ, we consider a as an element of q R/Z. When considering a quotient X with a non-negative denominator Y, we adopt the Y convention that X = + when Y is zero. Thus for instance is equal to + Y α Ê/ when α is an integer. We will occasionally use the usual asymptotic notation X = O(Y) or X Y to denote the estimate X CY for some unspecified constant C. However, as we will need eplicit bounds, we will more frequently (following Ramaré [35]) use the eact asymptotic notation X = O (Y) to denote the estimate X Y. Thus, for instance, X = Y +O (Z) is synonymous with X Y Z. If F : R C is a smooth function, we use F,F to denote the first and second derivatives of F, and F (k) to denote the k-fold derivative for any k 0. If is a real number, we denote e() := e 2πi, we denote + := ma(,0), and we denote to be the greatest integer less than or equal to. We interpret the + operation to have precedence over eponentiation, thus for instance 2 + denotes the quantity ma(,0) 2 rather than ma( 2,0). If E is a finite set, we use E to denote its cardinality. If I is an interval, we use I to denote its length. We will also occasionally use translations I + := {y + : y I} and dilations λi := {λy : y I} of such an interval. The natural logarithm function log takes precedence over addition and subtraction, but not multiplication or division; thus for instance log2+5 = (log(2)) Eponential sum estimates We now record some estimates on linear eponential sums such as F(n)e(αn) n Z for various smooth functions F :R C, as well as bilinear eponential sums such as a n b m e(αnm) n Z m Z for various sequences (a n ) n Z and (b m ) m Z. These bounds are standard (at least if one is only interested in bounds up to multiplicative constants), but we will need to make all constants eplicit. Also, in order to save a factor of two or so in the eplicit bounds,

11 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES we will frequently restrict the summation to odd integers by inserting weights such as (n,2)=, and will therefore need to develop variants of the standard bounds for this purpose. We begin with some standard bounds on linear eponential sums with smooth cutoffs. Lemma 3.. Let α R/Z, and let F : R C be a smooth, compactly supported function. Then we have the bounds F(n) = F(y) dy+o ( ) 2 F L (R) (3.) and and n Z R F(n)e(αn) F(n) F L (R) + 2 F L (R) (3.2) n Z n F(n)e(αn) 2sin(πα) k F(k) L (R) (3.3) n Z for all natural numbers k. Proof. These bounds appear in [3] and in [29, Lemma.], but we reproduce the proof here for the reader s convenience. From the fundamental theorem of calculus one has ( ) n+/2 F(n) = F(y)+O F (t) dt for all y [n,n+/2] and F(n) = F(y)+O ( n n /2 n n /2 ) F (t) dt for all y [n /2,n]; averaging over y, we conclude that ( n+/2 ) n+/2 F(n) = F(y) dy + 2 O F (t) dt. n /2 Summing over n, we obtain (3.). Taking l norms instead, one obtains F(n) F L (R) + 2 F L (R) giving (3.2). n Z Now we obtain the k = case of (3.3). We may assume α 0. By summation by parts, one has = n Z(F(n+) F(n))e(αn) ( e( α)) F(n)e(αn) n Z and thus F(n)e(αn) = 2 sin(πα) (F(n+) F(n))e(αn). (3.4) n Z n Z

12 2 TERENCE TAO Since F(n+) F(n) 0 F (n+t) dt, we obtain the k = case of (3.3). To obtain the higher cases, observe from (3.4), the fundamental theorem of calculus F(n+) F(n) = 0 F (n+t) dt and Minkowski s inequality that n Z F(n)e(αn) 2 sin(πα) n Z F (n+t)e(αn) for some 0 t <. One can now deduce (3.3) for general k from the k = case by induction. We can save a factor of two by restricting to odd numbers: Corollary 3.2. With the same hypotheses as Lemma 3., we have n Z F(n)e(αn) (2,n)= 2 F L (R) + 2 F L (R) and n Z F(n)e(αn) (2,n)= 2 sin(2πα) k F(k) L (R) for all k. Proof. We can rewrite n Z F(n)e(αn) (2,n)= = e(α) n Z F(2n+)e(2αn). Applying the previous lemma with α replaced by 2α, and F() replaced by F(2+), we obtain the claim. We also record a continuous variant: Lemma 3.3. Let F :R C be a smooth, compactly supported function. Then one has F(y)e(αy) dy F(k) L (R) (2π α ) k for any k 0 and α R. R Proof. Theclaimistrivialfork = 0. Forhigherk, wemayassume α 0. Byintegration by parts, we have F(y)e(αy) dy = F (y)e(αy) dy, 2πiα R and the claim then follows by induction. R In order to sum the bounds arising from Corollary 3.2 (particularly when k = ), the following lemma is useful.

13 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 3 Lemma 3.4 (Vinogradov-type lemma). Let α = a +β for some β = q O (/q 2 ). Then for any < y, A,B > 0, and θ R/Z, we have ( ) ( ) B y min A, + (2A+ 2 sin(παn+θ) q π Bqlog4q). <n y Proof. We may normalise B =. By subdivision of the interval [,y] it suffices to show that min(a, sin(παn+θ) ) 2A+ 2 π qlog4q <n +q for all. The claim then follows from[8, Lemma ]. (Strictly speaking, the phase shift θ is not present in the statement of that lemma, but the proof of the lemma is unchanged with that phase shift. Alternatively, one can perturb α to be irrational, and then by Kronecker s theorem one can obtain a dense set of phase shifts by shifting the interval [,y] by an integer, and the claim for general θ then follows by a limiting argument.) Once again, we can save a factor of two by restricting to odd n: Corollary 3.5 (Restricting to odd integers). Let 2α = a +β for some β = q O (/q 2 ). Then for any < y, A,B > 0, and θ R/Z, we have ( ) ( ) B y min A, (n,2)= + (2A+ 2 sin(παn+θ) 2q π Bqlog4q). <n y Proof. Writing n = 2m+, the epression on the left-hand side is ( ) B min A,. sin(2παm+πα+θ) ( )/2<m (y )/2 The claim then follows from Lemma 3.5. Now we turn to bilinear estimates. A key tool here is Lemma 3.6 (Large sieve inequality). Let ξ,...,ξ R R/Z be such that ξ i ξ j R/Z δ for all i < j R and some δ > 0. Let I = [N,N 2 ] be an interval of length I = N 2 N. Then we have R a n e(ξ i n) 2 ( I +δ ) a n 2 l 2 (Z) i= n I Z for all comple-valued sequences (a n ) n Z. Proof. See [30, Theorem 3] (noting that the number of integer points in I is at most I +). Specialising to ξ j that are consecutive multiples of α and applying the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we conclude

14 4 TERENCE TAO Corollary 3.7 (Special case of large sieve inequality). Let I, J R be intervals of length at least, and let α R/Z. Then one has n I Z m J Z a n b m e(nmα) ( I + inf j J jα R/Z for all comple-valued sequences (a n ) n Z,(b m ) m Z. ) /2 (a n ) n Z l2(z) (b m ) n Z l2(z) Again, we can obtain a saving of a factor of 2 in the main term by restricting n,m to odd numbers: Corollary 3.8 (Restricting to odd numbers). Let I, J R be intervals of length at least 2, and let α R/Z. Then one has n I Z m J Z a n (n,2)= b m (m,2)= e(nmα) for all comple-valued sequences (a n ) n Z,(b m ) m Z. 2 I + inf j 2 J 4jα R/Z /2 (a n ) n Z l 2 (Z) (b m ) n Z Proof. We can rewrite the left-hand side as ã n bm e(4nmα) n 2 I Z m 2 J Z where ã n := a 2n+ e(2nα) and b m := b 2m+ e(2mα), and the claim then follows from Corollary 3.7. The above corollary is useful whenever the 4jα for j J stay far away from the 2 origin. When J is large, this is not always the case, but one can of course rectify this by a subdivision argument: Corollary 3.9 (Subdivision). Let I, J R be intervals of length at least 2, and let α R/Z. Let M. Then one has n I Z m J Z a n (n,2)= b m (m,2)= e(nmα) for all comple-valued sequences (a n ) n Z,(b m ) m Z. ( 2 I + ( J 2M ) /2 inf j M 4jα R/Z /2 +) a n l 2 (Z) b m l 2 (Z). Proof. We subdivide J into intervals J,...,J k of length 2M, where k := J +. The 2M claim then follows by applying Corollary 3.8 to each sub-interval, summing, and using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

15 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 5 4. Basic bounds on S η,q (,α) In all the lemmas in this section, is a real number, α R/Z is a frequency, η : R R + is a bounded non-negative measurable function supported in [0,], and q is a natural number. In some of the lemmas we will also make the additional hypothesis that η is smooth, although in applications one can often rela this regularity requirement by a standard limiting argument. In some cases we will also need η to vanish near zero. The purpose of this section is to collect some basic estimates for manipulating the eponential sums S η,q (,α) := Λ(n)e(αn) (n,q)= η(n/) (4.) n that already appeared in the introduction. We first make the easy observation that S η,q (,α) barely depends on the parameter q. Lemma 4.. We have S η,q (,α) = S η, (,α)+o (ω(q) η L (R)log) In particular, if the largest prime factor of q is at most, then S η,q (,α) = S η, (,α)+o (2.52 η L (R)) In practice, we epect S η,q (,α) to be of size comparable to, and so in practice the error terms here will be utterly negligible in applications, and we will be able to absorb them without any difficulty into a larger error term. Proof. We have S η,q (,α) S η, (,α) η L (R) n :(n,q)> Λ(n). Note that if Λ(n) is non-zero and (n,q) >, then n is a power of a prime p dividing q, thus = n :(n,q)>λ(n) logp. p q Since j:p j j:p j log, the first claim follows. For the second claim, observe that logp ω(q) 2.52 log, p where the last inequality follows from [43, Corollary ]. Net, we make a simple summation by parts observation that allows one to replace η by the sharply truncated cutoff [0,] if desired.

16 6 TERENCE TAO Lemma 4.2. If η is smooth, then one has S η,q (,α) η L (R)sup S [0,],q(y,α). y Proof. Since η(n/) = S η,q (,α) = and thus 0 η (y/) n y dy for all n, we have S η,q (,α) and the claim follows. We trivially have 0 η (y/) Λ(n)e(αn) n y (n,q)= dy n 0 η (y/) S [0,],q(y,α) dy, S η,q (,α) S η,q (,0) (4.2) and we now consider the estimation of the quantity S η,q (,0). Lemma 4.3. We have S η,q (,0) η L (R)S [0,],(,0).04 η L (R). (4.3) If η is smooth and supported on [c,] for some c > 0 with c 0 8, then ( ) S η, (,0) = η L (R)+O 40logc η L (R). (4.4) We remark that sharper estimates can be obtained using the machinery from Section 7, at least when η is fairly smooth, though we will not need such improvements here. Proof. The first inequality of (4.3) is trivial, and the final inequality of (4.3) follows from [43, Theorem 2] (indeed, one can replace the constant.04 with the slightly smaller.03883). For (4.4), we argue as in Lemma 4.2 and write S η, (,0) = c η (y/) n yλ(n) dy. From [44, Theorem 7] (and the hypothesis c 0 8 ) one has ( ) Λ(n) = y +O y 40logc n y

17 and hence EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 7 Using the crude bound the claim follows. S η, (,0) = η (y/)y dy c ( +O 40logc c c η (y/) y dy η L (R) As Λ and η are real, we have the self-adjointness symmetry ) η (y/) y dy. S η,q (, α) = S η,q (,α). (4.5) Also, since e(n(α+/2)) = e(nα) when n is odd, we have the anti-symmetry S η,q (,α+/2) = S η,q (,α) (4.6) whenever q is even. More generally, we have the following inequality of Montgomery [28]: Lemma 4.4 (Montgomery s uncertainty principle). For any q 0 dividing q, we have S η,q(,α+ a 2 ) q 0 µ(q 0) 2 φ(q 0 ) S η,q(,α) 2. a Z/q 0 Z:(a,q 0 )= Proof. We may of course take q 0 to be square-free. Let a n := Λ(n)e(αn) (n,q)= η(n/), S( a q 0 ) := n a ne(an/q 0 ), and Z := n a n, then the inequality reads a Z/q 0 Z:(a,q 0 )= S( a q 0 ) 2 p q 0 (p ) Z 2. But this follows from [28] (particularly equation (0) and the final display in Section 3, and setting ω(p) = for all p q 0 ). Another proof of this inequality may be found in [9, Lemma 7.5]. Now we consider L 2 estimates on S η,q (,α). We have a global estimate: Lemma 4.5 (Global L 2 estimate). We have S η,q (,α) 2 dα S η 2,q(,0)log. R/Z Proof. From the Plancherel identity we have S η,q (,α) 2 dα = R/Z n η(n/) 2 Λ(n) 2 (n,q)=. Bounding Λ(n) 2 Λ(n)log on the support of η(n/) 2, we obtain the claim.

18 8 TERENCE TAO We can largely remove 7 the logarithmic factor in the above lemma by restricting to major arcs: Lemma 4.6 (Local L 2 estimate). Let Q,R, and let Σ R/Z be the set Σ := [ a 0 a q 0 2Q 2 R 2, 0 + q 0 2Q 2 R 2]. If R q, then Σ q 0 Q(a 0,q 0 )= S η,q (,α) 2 dα ( p Q ) p log p logr S η 2,q(,0). (4.7) Proof. From Lemma 4.4 one has µ 2 (q ) S η,q (,α) 2 dα φ(q ) Σ a Z/q Z:(a,q )= Σ+ a q S η,q (,α) 2 dα for any q. Summing over all q R coprime to Q and rearranging, we obtain the bound S η,q (,α) 2 q R:(q,Q )= a Z/q Z:(a,q )= Σ+ a S η,q (,α) 2 dα q dα. Set Σ Observe that and thus G(R) G(R) := q R q R:(q,Q )= q R:(q,Q )= µ 2 (q ) φ(q ) µ 2 (q ) φ(q ) q R:(q,Q )= µ 2 (q ) φ(q ). ( p Q p p Q p G(R) µ 2 (q ) φ(q ) ) + φ(p) Also, from [26] or [3, Lemma 3] one has G(R) logr+.07 for R 6, so by direct computation for R 6 we have G(R) logr for R. To conclude the proof, it thus suffices (in view of Lemma 4.5) to show that the sets Σ+ a q are disjoint up to measure zero sets as a,q vary in the indicated range. Suppose this is not the case, then Σ+ a q and Σ+ a intersect in a positive measure set for some q distinct a,q and a,q in the indicated range. Thus one has a 0 q 0 + a q a 0 q 0 a < q Q 2 R 2 7 A version of this inequality was also obtained in an unpublished note of Heath-Brown, which was communicated to me by Harald Helfgott..

19 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 9 for some q 0,q 0 Q with (a 0,q 0 ) = (a 0,q 0 ) =. The left-hand side is a fraction with denominator at most Q 2 R 2, and therefore vanishes. Since q q is coprime with q 0q 0 we conclude that a, contradiction. The claim follows. q = a q Remark. As pointed out by the anonymous referee, a slightly stronger version of Lemma 4.6 (saving a factor of e γ asymptotically) can also be established by modifying the proof of [38, Theorem 5]; the main idea is to decompose into Dirichlet characters, as in []. There are several effective bounds on the epression p Q appearing in Lemma 4.6; see [43, Theorem 8], [0], [2, Theorem 6.2]. However, in this paper we will only need to work with the Q = case, and so we will not use the above lemma here. Specialising Lemma 4.6 to the case Q =, we conclude Corollary 4.7. If 0 < r < /2 and /2r q, one has S η,q (,α) 2 2 dα α Ê/ r log(2r) log We can complement this upper bound with a lower bound: p p S η 2,q(,0). Proposition 4.8. Let η be smooth and 0 r /2. Then S η,q (,α) 2 dα (S η 2,q(,0) π 2 r η η +ηη L (R)S η,q (,0)) 2 +. η 2 L 2 (R) + ηη L (R) α Ê/ r Ignoring the error terms, this gives a lower bound of S η 2,q(,0), showing that Corollary 4.7 is essentially sharp up to a factor of 2 when r is not too large. Proof. From the Parseval formula, one has S η 2,q(,0) = S η,q (,α)f(α) dα where F(α) := nη(n/)e( αn). In particular, S η,q (,α)f(α) dα S η 2,q(,0) S η,q (,0) α Ê/ r R/Z α Ê/ >r F(α) dα. and thus by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality (S η S η,q (,α) 2 2,q(,0) S η,q (,0) F(α) α Ê/ >r dα)2 + dα. α r R/Z F(α) 2 dα By the Plancherel theorem, one has F(α) 2 dα = η(n/) 2 R/Z n and hence by (3.) R/Z F(α) 2 dα = η 2 L 2 (R) +O ( ηη L (R)).

20 20 TERENCE TAO Similarly, from (3.3) (with k = 2) one has F(α) η +ηη 2 sin(πα) 2 η L (R) for any α and thus Bounding the claim follows. α Ê/ r We can clean up the error terms as follows: F(α) dα cot(πr) π η η +ηη L (R). cot(πr) πr Corollary 4.9. Let η be smooth and supported on [c,] for some c > 0, and suppose that 2 r /2 and q =. We normalise η L 2 (R) =. Assume furthermore that Then one has and c 0 8 (4.8) 0 4 ηη L (R) (4.9) log(c) 5 ηη L (R) (4.0) 0 8 η 4 L (R). (4.) r 20 η η +ηη L (R) η L (R) (4.2) S η 2,q(,0) = (+O (0.02)) (4.3) α r S η,q (,α) 2 dα 0.94 (4.4) Proof. From Lemma 4.3 and (4.8), (4.0) one has S η 2,(,0) = (+O (0.0)) and by Lemma 4. and (4.) we conclude (4.3). Let us denote the quantity S α r η,q(,α) 2 dα by A. By Proposition 4.8, (4.9) and Lemma 4.3 we have ( A η 2 L 2 (R) S η 2,q(,0).04 ) 2 π 2 r η η +ηη L (R) η L (R). + By (4.2), (4.3) we have.04 π 2 r η η +ηη L (R) η L (R) 0.0S η 2,q(,0) and so A 0.97 S η 2,q(,0) 2 and thus by (4.3) A 0.94,

21 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 2 which is (4.4). The estimate in Corollary 4.7 is quite sharp when r is small (of size close to /), but not when r is large. For this, we have an alternate estimate: Proposition 4.0 (Mesoscopic L 2 estimate). Suppose that q =. Let H 0 2, and write D H (α) := H h=e(hα) for the Dirichlet-type kernel. Then we have S η,q (,α) 2 D H (α) 2 dα (+ε) 8H 2 η 2 L (R) R/Z where ε is the quantity ε := 0.3log H + (eγ loglog(2h) H loglog(2h) )log(9h). (4.5) By applying this proposition with H slightly larger than log and using standard lower bounds on D H (α), we conclude that S η,q (,α) 2 dα (8+o()) η 2 α =o( log ) L (R). In comparison, Corollary 4.7 gives an upper bound of (2+o()) log loglog η 2 L 2 (R) for this integral, while Proposition4.8gives alower boundof( o()) η 2 L 2 (R) (ifη issmooth). Thus we see that the bound in Proposition 4.0 is only off by a factor of 8 or so, if η is close to [0,]. It seems of interest to find efficient variants of this proposition in which the D H (α) 2 weight is replaced by a weight concentrated on multiple major arcs, as in Lemma 4.6, as this may be of use in further work on Goldbach-type problems. Proof. We may normalise η L (R) =. By the Plancherel identity, we may write the left-hand side as H H Λ(n)η(n/) (n,q)= Λ(n+h h)η((n+h h)/) (n+h h,q)=. h= h = n The diagonal contribution h = h can be bounded by H Λ(n)η(n/) log n which by Lemma 4.3 is bounded by.04hlog. Now we consider the off-diagonal contribution h h. As Λ(n) (n,q)= is supported on the odd primes p less than or equal to, we restrict attention to the contribution when h h is even, and can bound this contribution by H log 2 {p : p+h h prime,p+h h }, h = h H:h h ;2 h h which by the pigeonhole principle is bounded by H log 2 {p : p+h h prime,p+h h }, (4.6) h H:h h ;2 h h

22 22 TERENCE TAO for some h H, which we now fi. Applying the main result of Siebert [45], we have {p : p+h h prime,p+h h p } 8Si 2 log 2 p 2 p h h ;p>2 where S 2 := 2 p>2 ( ) is the twin prime constant. We can thus bound (4.6) (p ) 2 by p 8S 2 H p 2. If we let f be the multiplicative function then we have h H:h h ;2 h h p h h ;p>2 f(n) := (n,2)= µ 2 (n) p h h ;p>2 p p 2 = p n:p>2 p 2 n H;(n,2)=:n h h f(n) whenever h,h H with h h, so we may bound the preceding epression by 8S 2 H f(n) n H:(n,2)= h H:2n h h. We may bound H + (4.7) 2n h H:2n h h so that (4.6) is then bounded by ( f(n) 8S 2 H H 2n + ) f(n). n= n H By evaluating the Euler product one sees that f(n) 2n = (+f(p)) =. 2 S 2 n= To evaluate the f summation, we observe that 8 We can bound f(n) = (n,2)= µ 2 (n) φ(n) 2 p 2n φ(2n) 2 p n:p>2 ( ( (p ) 2) S 2 p n>2 and from [43, Theorem 5] one has 2n φ(2n) eγ loglog(2n) loglog(2n). (p ) 2). 8 Alternatively, one can sum f directly by using effective bounds on sums of multiplicative functions, as in [35]. This will save a factor of loglogh in the upper bounds, but in our applications this loss is quite manageable.

23 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 23 Since n H and H 0 2, we conclude that 2n φ(2n) eγ loglog(2h)+ log log(2h) for any n H with (n,2) = (the cases when n is so small that e γ loglog(2n) can eceed loglog(2n) eγ loglog(2h) , and specifically when n =,3,5, can be loglog(2h) verified by hand). Thus we may bound ( ) S 2 f(n) e γ µ 2 (n) loglog(2h)+ log log(2h) φ(n). n H Since φ(n) = φ(2n) when n is odd, we have µ 2 (n) φ(n) 2 n H:(n,2)= n 2H µ 2 (n) φ(n) n H:(n,2)= and hence by [35, Lemma 3.5], one has µ 2 (n) φ(n) (log(2h)+.4709) log(9h). 2 2 n H:(n,2)= Combining all these estimates we obtain the claim. Remark. As observed by the anonymous referee, when H is an integer, the second term in (4.5) may be deleted by using [36, Lemma 5.] as a substitute for (4.7) (and retaining the sum over h, rather than working only with the worst-case h ). To deal with S η,q (,α) on minor arcs, we follow the standard approach of Vinogradov by decomposing this epression into linear (or Type I ) and bilinear (or Type II ) sums. We will take advantage of the following variant of Vaughan s identity [46], which we formulate as follows: Lemma 4. (A variant of Vaughan s identity). Let U,V. Then for any function F :Z C supported on the interval (V,UV 2 ), one has n Λ(n)F(n) T I +T II where T I is the Type I sum 9 T I := d UV n (logn+c d logd)f(dn) for some comple coefficients c d (depending on F) with c d, and T II is the Type II sum T II := µ(d)g(w)f(dw) d>u w>v where g(w) is the function g(w) := Λ(b) logw. 2 b w:b>v 9 Strictly speaking, T I is an average of Type I sums, rather than a single Type I sum; however we shall abuse notation and informally refer to T I as a Type I sum.

24 24 TERENCE TAO This differs slightly from the standard formulation of Vaughan s identity, as we have subtracted a factor of logw from the coefficient g(w) of the Type II sum. This has 2 the effect of improving the Type II sum by a factor of two, with only a negligible cost to the (less important) Type I term. Proof. We split µ = µ U +µ >U and Λ = Λ V +Λ >V, where U (n) := n U, and similarly for >U, V, >V. We then have Λ = µ Λ = µ U Λ µ U Λ V +µ >U Λ >V +µ Λ V = µ U log µ U Λ V +µ >U Λ >V +Λ V (4.8) We sum this against F, noting that F vanishes on the support of the final term Λ V, to conclude that Λ(n)F(n) = µ(d) (log n)f(dn) n d U n f(d) F(dn) d UV n + µ(d)(g(w)+ logw)f(dw) 2 d>u w>v where f(d) := µ( d b )Λ(b). b d:d/u b V Observe thatwhen d > U andw > V, thentheterm µ(d)( logw)f(dw)vanishes unless 2 U < d UV. We may thus bound Λ(n)F(n) = (log n)f(dn) n d UV n + f(d) F(dn) d UV n + µ(d)g(w)f(dw). d>u w>v Note that f(d) Λ(b) = logd. b d Since n (logn)f(dn) + n F(dn) logd = n (logn+c d logd)f(dn) for some comple constant c d with c d =, we obtain the claim. Note that as we have the bound 0 Λ(b) Λ(b) = logw b w:b>v b w g(w) logw. (4.9) 2

25 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES Minor arcs We now prove the following eponential sum estimate, which will then be used in the net section to derive Theorem.3: Theorem 5. (Bound for minor arc sums). Let 4α = a +β for some natural number q q 4 with (a,q) = and some β = O (/q 2 ). Let < U,V <, and suppose that we have the hypotheses Then one has S η,2 (,α) 0.5 ( 2UV q (log)log q ( ) q /q + UV /4 (5.) UV 2 (5.2) U,V 40. (5.3) ) (UV + 52 ) q (8+logq)log(2) (5.4) (log V )log UV U (5.5) ( ) log U V U. (5.6) Furthermore, if a = ± and UV < q, then we may replace the term (5.4) in the above estimate with 96 4eq log(4)log π 2 (/q) 2 π. (5.7) We now prove Theorem 5.. By Lemma 4., we have S η0,2(,) T I +T II where T I is the Type I sum T I := (logn+c d logd)e(αdn)η 0 (dn/) d UV:(d,2)= n:(n,2)= and T II is the Type II sum T II := µ(d)g(w)e(αdw)η 0 (dw/). d>u:(d,2)= w>v:(w,2)= 5.2. Estimation of the Type I sum. We first bound the Type I sum T I. We begin by estimating a single summand n (logn+c d logd)e(dnα)η 0 (dn/) (n,2)=. (5.8) By Corollary 3.2, we may bound this epression by ( min F 2 L (R) + F ) L 2 F L (R), (R) 2 sin(2πdα), F L (R) 2 sin(2πdα) 2

26 26 TERENCE TAO where F(y) = F d (y) := η 0 (dy/)(logy +c d logd). We have F (y) = d η 0 (dy/)(logy +c dlogd)+ η 0(dy/) y and F (y) = d2 2η 0 (dy/)(logy +c dlogd)+2 d η 0(dy/) η 0(dy/). y y 2 Strictly speaking, F is not infinitely smooth, and so Corollary 3.2 cannot be directly applied; however, we may perform the standard procedure of mollifying η 0 (and thus F) by an infinitesimal amount in order to make all derivatives here well-defined, and then performing a limiting argument. Rather than present this routine argument eplicitly, we shall abuse notation and assume that η 0 has been infinitesimally mollified (alternatively, one can interpret the derivatives here in the sense of distributions, and replace the L norm by the total variation norm in the event that the epression inside the norm becomes a signed measure instead of an absolutely integrable function). Since d U and η is supported on [/4,], η(dy/) is supported on [/4d,/d]. In particular, logy +c d logd log. We thus have F L (R) η 0 L (R) d log F L (R) η 0 L (R)log+ η 0 L (R)log4 F L (R) η 0 L (R) Routine computations using (.7) show that d d log+2 η 0 L (R) log4+ η 4d 0 L (R). η 0 L (R) = (5.9) η 0 L (R) = 4log2 (5.0) η 0 L (R) = 8log2 (5.) η 0 L (R) = 6 (5.2) η 0 L (R) = 48. (5.3) Note that η 0 L (R) and η 0 L (R) can also be interpreted as the total variation of the functions η 0 and η 0 respectively, which may be an easier computation (especially since η 0 is not a function before mollification, but is merely a signed measure). Inserting these bounds, we conclude that We conclude that T I ( (d,2)= min d UV 2 F L (R) d log F L (R) 8(log2)log2 F L (R) 48 d log4. 4(log2)log2 log+4(log2)log2, d sin(2πdα), d 24log4 sin(2πdα) 2 ). (5.4)

27 EVERY ODD NUMBER GREATER THAN IS THE SUM OF AT MOST FIVE PRIMES 27 We first control the contribution to (5.4) when d q/2. In this case, d is not divisible by q; as (a,q) =, this implies that ad is not divisible by q either. We therefore have 4dα R/Z ad/q R/Z d β q q/2 q 2 = 2q (5.5) and thus sin(2πdα) 2q (5.6) sin(π/4q) thanks to (2.). Thus contribution here (5.4) of the d q/2 terms are bounded by 4(log2)log2 (d,2) min(2q, sin(2πdα) ). By Corollary 3.5 one has d Z: q/2 d q/2 d q/2 (d,2) min(2q, sin(2πdα) ) 2 qlog4q +4q π so by symmetry we may thus bound the contribution of the d q/2 terms to (5.4) by 2log2log2( 2 qlog4q +4q). π Nowconsider thecontribution to (5.4)of a block ofthe form2jq+ q < d 2(j+)q+ q 2 2 for a natural number j with j UV. This contribution can be bounded by 2q 4 ) (d,2)= min, 2jq+ q 2 <d 2(j+)q+q 2 ( 2 which by Corollary 3.5 is bounded by which we can crudely bound by 2jq + q 2 log+4(log2)log2, 4(log2)log2 sin(2πdα) 2jq + q log+8(log2)log2+4(log2)log2 2 π qlog4q 2 2jq + q 2 log+4(log2)log2( 2 qlog4q +4q). π Combining all the contributions to (5.4), we obtain the bound T I 2jq + q log 2 0 j UV 2q 4 By the integral test, one has +( UV 2q )(2 qlog4q +4q) 4(log2)log2. π 0 j UV 2q 4 ( 2jq + q ) 2q 2 UV+2q q/2 y dy = 2q log(2uv q +4)

28 28 TERENCE TAO and so We can write and and so T I 2q log(2uv q T I 0.5 q log(2uv q which gives the term (5.4). +4)log+( UV 2q )(2 qlog4q +4q) 4(log2)log2. π 2 π qlog4q +4q 2 π q(8+logq) 2 4log π +4)log+0.89(UV + 5 q)(8+logq)log (5.7) 2 Now suppose that a = ± and UV < q. By the symmetry (4.5) we may take a =, thus α = + 4q O ( ). In particular, for d UV one has d q 2 and 4q 2 4(q ) therefore 0 < 2πdα < π/2. In particular, we have ( ) 2πd sin(2πdα) sin. 4(q ) From (5.4), we conclude that T I 24log4 q 2 d cosec 2 πd 2(q ). d= The function d d cosec 2 πd is conve on [0,π] (indeed, both factors are already 2(q ) conve), and so by the trapezoid rule Using the anti-derivative T I 24log4 we can evaluate the right-hand side as q 3/2 /2 ycosec 2 πy 2(q ) dy. ycosec 2 y dy = log siny ycoty 2(q ) ( ) 224log4 π The function ycoty varies between 0 and on [0,π/2], and thus T I ( which, on bounding cot 2(q ) π π 4(q ) 4(q ) π T I 96 π 2 (log siny ycoty) y=π/2 π/4(q ) y=π/4(q ) ) 224log4 (log cot 4q π which is the alternate contribution (5.7). and 2(q ) π π 4(q ) +) 2q π, gives (/q) log(4)log(4eq 2 π ) (5.8)