arxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 20 Sep 2006

Transcription

1 On the aitive theory of prime numbers II Patric Cegielsi, Denis Richar & Maxim Vsemirnov arxiv:math/ v1 [math.lo] 20 Sep 2006 February 2, 2008 Abstract The uneciability of the aitive theory of primes (with ientity) as well as the theory Th(N, +, n p n ), where p n enotes the (n + 1)-th prime, are open questions. As a possible approach, we exten the latter theory by aing some extra function. In this irection we show the uneciability of the existential part of the theory Th(N, +, n p n, n r n ), where r n is the remainer of p n ivie by n in the eucliian ivision. Résumé L inéciabilité e la théorie aitive es nombres premiers ainsi que e la théorie Th(N, +, n p n ), où p n ésigne le (n+1)-ième premier, sont eux questions ouvertes. Nous étenons cette ernière théorie en lui ajoutant une fonction supplémentaire et nous montrons l inéciabilité e la théorie Th(N, +, n p n, n r n ), où r n ésigne le reste e p n e la ivision eucliienne e p n par n, et même e sa seule partie existentielle. Introuction - The aitive theory of primes contains longtime open classical conjectures of Number Theory, as famous Golbach s binary conjecture or twin primes conjecture, an so on. Some authors provie [BJW,BM,LM] conitional proofs (through Schinzel s Hypothesis [SS]) of the uneciability of the aitive theory of primes Th(N, +, P), where P is the set of all primes. Weaening the problem by strengthenning this theory, we introuce [CRV] the theory Th(N,+,n p n ), where p n is the (n + 1)-th prime, an pose the problem of its (un)eciability. As usual for a language containing a function symbol, we suppose it contains ientity. Note that P is existentially efinable within N,n p n, hence Th(N,+, P) is a subtheory of Th(N,+,n p n ). At the moment, the uneciability of the latter theory is still an open question, an our approach in [CRV] was to consier several approximations of the function n p n as, for instance, n log n an on this way we showe the uneciability of theories Th(N,+,nf(n)) for a family of functions f incluing log mentione above. Another approach consists of extening the language {+,n p n } to {+,n p n, n r n }, where r n is the remainer of p n ivie by n. The main result of this paper is the following: Theorem 1 Multiplication is existentially N,+,n p n, n r n -efinable at first-orer. This leas to the following (without use of conjectures) result: LACL, UMR FRE 2673, Université Paris 12, IUT Route Forestière Hurtault F Fontainebleau, - cegielsi@univ-paris12.fr LLAIC1 Université Auvergne, IUT Informatique, B.P. 86, F Aubière Ceex - richar@iut.u-clermont1.fr Stelov Institute of Mathematics (POMI), 27 Fontana St Petersburg, , Russia - vsemir@pmi.ras.ru 1

2 Corollary 1 Th (N,+,n p n, n r n ) is uneciable. Remar Actually all positive integer constants are existentially {+, P}-efinable in the following manner: x = 0 x + x = x; x = 1 y(y = x + x y P); x = 2 y(y = 1 x = y + y);. x = n + 1 y z(y = n z = 1 x = y + z). As we mentione above, P is existentially efinable within the language {+,n p n }, hence all positive integer constants are also existentially {+,n p n }-efinable. Note, that n p nn = pn r n. We inten to efine (section 2, see Lemma 3) p nn from + an n pnn. Then the strategy will be to efine multiplication through the function n cn 2 (where c is a fixe constant), which is to be prove {+, p nn,n pnn }-efinable. Consequently, multiplication will be existentially {+,n p n, n r n }-efinable at first-orer. Remar. In the previous paper [CRV] we consier continuous real strictly increasing functions an their inverses. Since we wor with integer parts we have to introuce pseuoinverses of iscrete functions. For such a iscrete unboune function f from N into N, we efine its pseuo-inverse f 1 from N into N by f 1 (n) = µm[f(m + 1) > n], where µ means the smallest... such that. Due to the unbounness of f such an f 1 is correctly efine. 1) Some preliminary results in Number Theory Contrarily to what happens with log, the behavior of p nn is a priori irregular but we shall prove it is not too much chaotic. Namely, we prove: Proposition 1 Let us enote the mapping n p nn by f. 1) For m > n, we have f(m) f(n) 1; 2) For n 11, we have f 1 (n + 1) f 1 (n) > n. Proof 1) We use the following estimates for p n ([RP], p. 249): p m m log m + m log log m m for m 2; p m m log m + m log log m m for m (1) For m > n 7022, we have f(m) f(n) = p mm pnn pm m pn n 1 log(m n ) log(logm logn ) Hence f(m) f(n) 1 because the sum of the two first terms is positive as is the sum of terms three an four. If n < 7022, one may chec the esire inequality by a irect computation. 2) Let m be f 1 (n). By the very efinition of f 1, the equality m = f 1 (n) is equivalent to the conjunction of the two following conitions: pm+1 n + 1; m + 1 p m n. (2) 2

3 For 7022, the maximum of p is attaine for = 7012 an equal to p < < 11. Consequently, we see that m = f 1 (n) f 1 (11) 7022 an this is the reason why in the hypothesis of Proposition 1, item 2) we assume n 11. To prove the inequality, it is sufficient to prove that for = m + n we have p n + 1, or in other wors, p < n + 2. (3) Note that for m 7022, we have by (2): pm+1 n p m log(m + 1) + log log(m + 1) 0.07 < m. m + 1 m + 1 Consequently it is sufficient an actually more convenient to prove a somehow stronger result, namely the same inequality (3) but for m 7022 an m + 1 2m. From the secon estimate of (1) we have, since m 7022, the following inequalities: p < log + log log log 2m + log log 2m = log m + log log m + log 2 + log(1 + log 2 log m ) ; using the first estimate of (1) an log 2 log m log 2 log7022, we have: consequently: log m + log log m p m m ; p p m log log 2 + log(1 + m log 7022 ) p m m + 1 by an easy computation an finally, ue to (2), we obtain p < n + 2. Item 1) of previous proposition emphasizes on the fact that f : n p nn is almost increasing an item 2) shows that the ifference f 1 (n + 1) f 1 (n) is big enough with respect to n. This suggests to introuce a new class of functions, containing f, for which we prove that the existential part of the theory Th(N,+,n nf(n)) is uneciable. 2) The class C(,, n 0 ) an some its properties 2.1) The class C(,,n 0 ) Let 0 be a fixe nonnegative integer. We shall say f is -almost increasing if an only if y x[f(y) f(x) ]. (4) In this sense 0-almost increasing means increasing (not necessarily strictly) an n p nn is 1-almost increasing (ue to Proposition 1). Still looing at n p nn, we inten to consier functions whose pseuo-inverse is efine an asymptotically increases quicly enough with respect to its argument. Let us say that f 1 has at least (1/)-linear ifference, if n 0 N n n 0 [f 1 (n + 1) f 1 (n) > n ]. (5) In fact, for p nn, the constant is 1 an n0 = 11, but results an proofs hol for an arbitrary (fixe). 3

4 Now let us efinite the class C(,,n 0 ) as the set of functions from N into N satisfying conitions (4) of being -almost increasing an (5) of having its pseuo-inverse with an at least (1/)-linear ifference. In orer to prove funamental lemma of section 3, whose Theorem 1 is a corollary, we show some properties of the class C(,,n 0 ). Firstly, in section 2.2 we present in three lemmas these properties an comment them. Afterwars, in section 2.3, we prove them. 2.2) Properties of C(,,n 0 ) Lemma 1 For any function f C(,,n 0 ) the following items hol: (i) For any n n 0, we have f 1 (n + ) f 1 (n) > n; (ii) For any n n 0 + 1, the set {x N f(x) = n} is nonempty; (iii) For any n n 0 + 1, the equality f(x) = n implies x > 1 [(n 1)(n 2) n 0(n 0 1)]. Lemma 2 If f C(,,n 0 ) an f(x) = n n 0, then for any c such that 1 c n, we have: f(x + c) f(x) +. (6) Lemma 3 For any f C(,,n 0 ), let x 0 = f 1 ( n ). Consier f : [x 0 + 1,+ [ N N with f(x) = f(x). Then f is existentially efinable at first-orer within N,+,1,x xf(x). Remars 1) Item (i) of Lemma 1 provies a linear lower boun of values of f 1 when ifference of arguments is the parameter of the consiere class. Item (ii) of the same lemma insure that f is asymptotically onto, an item (iii) gives a quaraic lower boun for solutions of the equation f(x) = n, that we nee in section 3. 2) Actually, as the reaer will see within the proof, Lemma 1 oes not use conition (4) of being -almost increasing. 3) Lemma 2 provies asymptotical bouns for the ifference of two values of f with arguments taen in a short interval with respect to the values of these arguments. Refering to the previous Lemma 1 we see that n is at most x + n ) Lemma 3 generalizes the situation of the main result of the previous paper [CRV] of the same authors when log n was extracte, i.e. efine, from + an n log n. 2.3) Proofs of the three Lemmas Proof of Lemma 1 (i) By conition (5): f 1 (n + ) f 1 (n) = [f 1 (n + ) f 1 (n + 1)] +[f 1 (n + 1) f 1 (n + 2)] [f 1 (n + 1) f 1 (n)] > n+ 1 > n. 4 + n n

5 (ii) If there was no x such that f(x) = n, we woul have f 1 (n) = f 1 (n 1). But f 1 (n) > f 1 (n 1) accoring to conition (5). (iii) By efinition of f 1), we have: x > f 1 (n 1). As in (i), we have: an the result. f 1 (n 1) f 1 (n 0 ) = [f 1 (n 1) f 1 (n 2)] [f 1 (n 0 + 1) f 1 (n 0 )] > n 2 + n n = (n 2)(n 1) n 0(n 0 +1). Proof of Lemma 2 The left-han sie of the inequality is an immeiate consequence of the very efinition of a -almost increasing function. For proving the right-han sie, note that, using -almost increasing property of f together with f(x) = n, we obtain: max f(y) f(x) + = n +, y x so that f 1 (n + ) x, by the efinition of f 1. By previous Lemma 1, item (i) an the latter inequality, we have: f 1 (n + + ) > f 1 (n + ) + n + x + n + x + n x + c since 1 c n. Using again the efinition of f 1, we see that f(x + c) n + + = f(x) + + an we are one. Proof of Lemma 3 To efine f within the structure N,+,x xf(x) we shall mae use of the inequality: 0 f(x) < x together with the remainer of f(x) moulo x+1, which we must efine in the consiere structure. Fact 1.- f(x) < x. By the efinition of f 1, we have f(x 0 +1) > +2+4+n 2 0 an by the -almost increasing property we euce, for x x 0 + 1, n = f(x) f(x 0 + 1) > n 2 0. (7) Hence n 2 > 2. From (7), we obtain n > n so that by Lemma 1, item (iii), we have: hence: x > 1 [(n 1)(n 2) n 0(n 0 1)], x > 2(n 1) n 0(n 0 1) > 2(n 1) n 2 0 = n + (n 2 n2 0 ) > n = f(x). Fact2.- We have: f(x) (x + 1)f(x + 1) xf(x) (mo x + 1). (8) 5

6 It is sufficient to note that (x + 1)f(x + 1) xf(x) = f(x) + (x + 1)[f(x + 1) f(x)]. We are still unable to efine general congruences, fortunately here the ifference f(x + 1) f(x) is boune, namely, f(x + 1) f(x) +, (9) ue to Lemme 2, with c = 1. This suggests to introuce the notion of a restricte congruence, namely, for a,b,m in N an some fixe integer c, we efine a c b(mo m) by: c {[a = b + } m + {{ + m } ] [b = a + m } + {{ + m } ]}. h=0 h times h times Obviously, the first-orer latter formula is expressible within the structure N,+, since c is fixe. The congruence (8) an inequality (9) provie together the following restricte congruence: f(x) + (x + 1)f(x + 1) xf(x)(mo x + 1), which is a efinition of f(x) within N,+,1,x xf(x) since 1 f(x) < x. Finally, we provie explicitely an existential first-orer efinition of f, namely: [x > x 0 y = f(x)] + {x > x 0 y x [(y + xf(x) = (x + 1)f(x + 1) + (x + 1) + + (x + 1) ) }{{} h=0 h times ((x + 1)f(x + 1) = y + xf(x) + (x + 1) + + (x + 1) )]}. }{{} h times 3) Funamental Lemma an the proof of the Main Theorem In orer to prove the uneciability of Th(N,n p n,n r n ), we prove a more general result, namely: Lemma 4 (Funamental Lemma) For any f C(,,n 0 ) [see 2], multiplication is existentially {+, 1, x xf(x)}-efinable at first-orer. As shown by Y. Matiyasevich, the existential true theory of numbers is exactly the set of arithmetical relations, which are efinable by iophantine equations. Therefore the negative solution of the 10-th Hilbert s problem [MY] implies the following corollary. Corollary 2 The existential theory Th (N, +, 1, x xf(x)) is uneciable. Proof of Lemma 4 It suffices to show that for some constants c an n 1 the function n cn 2 from [n 1,+ [ N into N is {+, 1, x xf(x)}-efinable. More precisely, we shall tae c = 5 an n 1 = 2+5+n 2 0. Consier n n 1. Since n 1 > n 0 + 1, we can apply Lemma 1, item (ii), proving there exists x such that f(x) = 5n. Let x 0 be the same as in Lemma 3, namely x 0 = f 1 ( n ). Let us show x > x 0. Otherwise x x 0, so that by the -almost increasing property f(x) f(x 0 ), implying, by the efinitions of f 1 an x 0, f(x) n < n 1 < 5n 1 5n = f(x), 6

7 which is impossible. Note that 5n is {+}-efinable as the sum of 5 terms equal to n ( is a fixe constant). Now thans to Lemma 3, an x such that f(x) = 5n is {+,1,x xf(x)}-efinable. On the other han: (x+n)f(x+n) xf(x) = (x+n)[f(x+n) f(x)]+nf(x) = (x+n)[f(x+n) f(x)]+5n 2. By Lemma 2 applie to c = n, we have f(x + n) f(x) +, so that: 5n 2 + (x + n)f(x + n) xf(x)(mo x + n). (10) Accoring to Lemma 1 an item (iii) since f(x) = 5n an 5n > n 1 > n the inequalities n n 1 > n 2 0 an: (5n 1)(5n 2) x + n > > 252 n 2 15n n 0(n 0 1) + n > 5n 2 (11) hol. Using (10) an (11), a similar argument as in Lemma 3 shows that the function n 5n 2 = cn 2 with omain [n 1,+ [ N is existentially {+,1,x xf(x)}-efinable. By a routine argument, multiplication is clearly existentially {+, 1, x xf(x)}-efinable. Proof of the Main-Theorem We remin the reaer that 1 was existentially {+, P} an {+, n p n }-efine in the introuction. We also note that n p nn = pn r n an n n p nn belongs to C(1,1,11), the latter ue to Proposition 1, 1. Then Funamental Lemma can be applie an multiplication is existentially {+,n p n,n r n }-efinable. Conclusion: Our main result is absolute in the sense that oes not epen on any conjecture. In orer to she more light on the consiere theories Th (N,+, P) an Th (N,n p n,n r n ), we recall a conitional result of A. Woos. Let us recall that Dicson s conjecture [DL] claims that if a 1,a 2,... a n,b 1,b 2,... b n are integers with all a i > 0 an y 1 x[y (a i x + b i )] 1 i n then there exist infinitely many x such that a i x + b i are primes for all i. Let us call DC this conjecture, then A. Woos prove [WA]: If DC is true then the existential theory Th (N,+, P) is eciable. Now, the question is to now whether there is a gap between Th (N,+,n p n,n r n ) or whether they are exactly the same. In the case of equality between these two theories, DC is false (an hence Schinzel s hypothesis on primes, whose DC is the linear case, is also false). Open problem: Is Th (N,+, P) equal to Th (N,+,n p n,n r n )? References [BJW] P.T. Bateman, C.G. Jocusch an A.R. Woos, Deciability an Uneciability of theories with a preicate for the prime, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 58, 1993, pp

8 [BM] Maurice Boffa, More on an uneciability result of Bateman, Jocusch an Woos, Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 63, 1998, p.50. [CRV] Patric Cegielsi, Denis Richar & Maxim Vsemirnov, On the aitive Theory of Prime Numbers I, Proceeings of CSIT 2003 (Computer Science an Information Technologies), September 22-26, 2003, Yerevan, Armenia, 459 p., pp [DL] L.E. Dicson, A new extension of Dirichlet s theorem on prime numbers, Messenger of Mathematics, vol. 33 ( ), pp [LM] T. Lavenhomme & A. Maes, Note on the uneciability of ω,+,p m,r, Definability in arithmetics an computability, Cahier u Centre e logique, Belgium, 11 (2000). [MY] Yuri Matiyasevich, Hilbert s tenth Problem, The MIT Press, Founations of computing, 1993, XXII+262p. [RP] Paul Ribenboim, The new boo of Prime recors, Springer, 1996, XIV+541p. [SS] A. Schinzel & W. Sierpieńsy, Sur certaines hypothses concernant les nombres premiers, Acta Arithmetica, vol. 4, 1958, an 5, 1959, 259. [WA] Alan Woos, Some problems in logic an number theory, an their connection, Ph.D. thesis, University of Manchester, Manchester,