arxiv: v2 [math.nt] 21 Mar 2018

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "arxiv: v2 [math.nt] 21 Mar 2018"

Malcolm Price
5 years ago
Views:

1 PROOF OF BERTRAND S POSTULATE FOR n 6 MANOJ VERMA arxiv:40.468v [math.nt] Mar 08 Abstract. We add a few ideas to Erdős s proof of Bertrand s Postulate to produce one using a little calculus but requiring direct check only for n 5 and one without using calculus and requiring direct check only for n. The proofs can be presented to high school students. In 845 J. F. L. Bertrand conjectured that for any real number x > there is a prime number p satisfying x < p < x. It is equivalent to the same statement restricted to natural numbers n > or to primes. Given x, let q be the largest prime less than or equal to x and let p be the prime satisfying q < p < q. Then p > x by maximality of q and p < q x. For < x <, take p.) It was first proved by Chebyshev in 85. In 9 Paul Erdős [] gave a proof that does not require calculus. He showed that if there is no prime between n and n then we must have n/ < n) + n and proved that this cannot hold for n Indeed, this inequality holds for n 467 but does not hold for n 468. Bertrand s postulate can be checked to be true for n 999 using the primes,, 5, 7,,, 4, 8, 6, 7, 6, 59, 509 and 400, each prime in the sequence being less than twice the previous one. The proof of Bertrand s postulate given in the widely used Number Theory textbook by Niven, Zuckerman and Montgomery [] uses calculus and requires direct check for n 599. By adding a few simple observations to Erdős s proof, we give a proof using a little calculus that requires direct check only for n 5 and knowing that,, 5 and 7 are primes while 4, 6 and 8 are not and no knowledge of primality of any other number. We also give a proof without calculus that requires direct check only for n and knowing that,, 5, 7 and are primes while 4, 6, and 8 are not and no knowledge of primality of any other number. For a real number x, define πx) to be the number of primes less than or equal to x and denote by [x] the greatest integer less than or equal to x. Lemma We have the following bounds for n) n n)! 4 n 4 n ) n n)! 4 n n+ n n!n! 8 9 n n+ 4 5 n!n! : 4n 4n with equality iff n. 4 Proof Consider the expression n xn+y. It equals n n) when n if x + y 4. For n, on increasing n by it gets multiplied by 4 xn+y xn+x+y while n n) gets multiplied by n+)n+) n+) according as n+) n+. Now 4 xn+y xn+x+y > or or < n+) n+ 4xn+y)n+) > or or < n+) xn+x+y).

2 MANOJ VERMA The left hand side equals 4xn +8x+4y)n +4x+8y)n+4y while the right hand side equals 4xn +8x +4y)n +5x +4y)n+x+y. The left hand side is greater than the right hand side for n provided 4y x)n+y x 4y x)n )+7y x 0 for n so we can take x 8/9,y 8/9 or x,y ). The left hand side is less than the right hand side for n provided 4y x)n+y x 4y x)n )+7y x 0 for n so we can take x /5,y 8/5 or x 4,y 0). This completes the proof. Lemma We have p x p < 4x 6x for any real number x 4. Proof For 4 x < 5, we have p x p 6 < 8 44 number x we have 4 x+ < 4x 6x+. Note that for any real 4x 6x+ )+ 6x+6x+4)/6x +) > 4x 6x+ since 6x+4 6x+ + x < 4. It follows that for any natural number n 4 n 6n+ < 4 n+ 4 / 6n+ )+ < 4 n+ 6n+ )+ < 4 n+ 6n+)+. If we prove that p < 4n 6n+ for all natural numbers n 5, it would follow that p xp p < 4n 6n+ < 4x 6x for n 5 and n x n+, and p xp p < 4n 6n+ < 4n+ 6n+4 < 4x 6x for n 5 and n+ x n+, p xp p < 4n 6n+ < 4n+ 6n+6 < 4x 6x for n 5 and n+ x n+ completing the proof of the proposition. If we use calculus, we just note that the right-hand-side of the inequality is an increasing function of x for x as its derivative 4 x /6x)log4 /x) is positive for x. Thus it is enough to prove that p < 4n 6n for any natural number n 4 as then it will follow for any real number x 4 that p p < 4[x] 6[x] 4x 6x. p x p [x] We shall use induction in the following form: Let n 0 be a natural number. If a statement Pn) about natural numbers n is true for n 0 n n 0 and Pn ) and Pn) are true whenever n n 0 and Pn) is true, then Pn) is true for all n n 0. The inequality p < 4n 6n+ can be checked directly for 5 n 8: p 5p p 6 p 0 < 45 < 46 8

3 PROOF OF BERTRAND S POSTULATE FOR n 6 and p 7p p 0 < < p 8 Assuming it true for n m 5 we shall prove that it holds for n m and n m as well, completing the proof by induction. Since ) m m+)m+)...m ) ) m m... m ) m is a positive integer divisible by any prime p with m+ p m, it is greater than or equal to the product of primes p with m+ p m. Hence, for m 5, we have p ) m p ) m 4 m < m m m+ 4m p m p m and thus using the induction hypothesis p p < 4m 6m+ 4m 4m m+4 < min This completes the proof. 4 m 6m )+, 4 m ). 6m)+ We recall Legendre s formula for the highest power of a prime p dividing a factorial n!: n! p r p ap where a p [n/p i ] [n/p i ] where r p is the largest integer r such that p r n. We rephrase Bertrand s postulate. i Bertrand Postulate For any natural number m, p >. ProofFromLegendre sformulafortheexponentofthehighestpowerofaprimepdividing a factorial and Lemma we have m m)! m m!m! rp [ ] [ m i p p i m p ]). i p m where r p is the largest integer r such that p r m. For any real number x we have [x] [x] 0 or. We note that for m + p m there is only one term in the sum and it equals. For m 5, m/) > m so there is only one term in the sum; for m/ < p m, it is 0, for m < p m/ it is at most. For p m the exponent is at most r p and the corresponding factor is still at most m. Hence, for m 5, we have m m)! m m!m! p p p m) πm). Thus p m m p m/ p m/ p p m i p m p m) πm).

4 4 MANOJ VERMA Now p m/ p < 4m/ 4m byproposition provided m/ 4, i.e., m 6and p m p πm). Thus, for m 6, we have p > m/)+ m m πm). Since is not a prime and all the primes except or odd, πx) number of odd natural numbers x) number of even natural numbers x + ) [x +)/] x +)/. Thus p > m+)/ m m m+)/ m+)/ m m/. ) Thus p > provided m 4m+6) m m+ 6 m, i.e., m) 6 < m+ 6 m +. ) This inequality holds for all m Lemma below) but we assumed m 6 in an earlier step. For m 5 we can check the postulate directly by using the primes,, 5 and 7. For m take p ; for m,4 take p 5; for m 5 take p 7. p 7 works for m 6 as well.) Lemma For any real number x > 0 we have x 0 x 6 < x++ 6 x. ) Proof Using calculus) The inequality is equivalent to x x 6logx log > 0 for x > 0. The function f α x) αx++ 6 x 6logx log has the derivative α 6 x 6 xlog which increases steadily with x and becomes zero at x x 0 where x 0 is the solution of the equation α x x 0 0 log and thus f α attains at x x 0 its minimum value of ) x logx 0 x 0 log x 0 log + 6 x 0 log + 6logx 0 log. Since x x 6logx log α)x + f α x), the inequality required would follow if we could choose x 0 such that α and the minimum value attained by f α is positive. Taking x 0 5 we have α log < and the minimum value of f α is f α 5) log5 log + log > 0. This completes the proof of Bertrand s postulate using calculus. One salient feature of Erdős s original proof of Bertrand s postulate is that it does not use caluculus. We can prove the inequality ) without using calculus for all x > 0 if we are willing to do some computation to verify the inequality for small values of x as in Proof 4 below. Alternatively, we note that the inequality ) for x x 0 implies the inequality ) for m x 0 / and we can check ) or Bertrand s postulate directly for the smaller values of m. We shall use the following variation of induction: Let α be a positive real number. If a statement Px) about real numbers x is true for x 0 x < x 0 +α and Px+α) is true whenever x x 0 and Px) is true, then Px) is true for all real numbers x x 0. We observe that for x, x 4 > 6/x, x increases while 6/x decreases as x increases hence x 6/x)+ x 6/x) + + increases with x.

5 PROOF OF BERTRAND S POSTULATE FOR n 6 5 For n, we observe that + n) n > + ) + ) + ) n n+ n and + n Hence n+ n n+ n+ n n ) n < + ) + n n n n n n+. n n + n < + n n + n ) + ) n with equality iff n. Proof Without calculus) For 5 x 5. we have x 6 5.) 6 5.) ) < 7. ) 4. 5)++6 5 x++ 6 x since > 8+ 0 ) > while ) ) < For x 5, on increasing x by 0., x 6 increases by a factor of x+0.) 6 x ) 6 + ) 6 x 50 while x++ 6 x increases by a factor of As + 50 x+0.)++ 6 x+0. x++6 x ) 6 ) xx+0.) 55.) ) ) + 50 ) 50 < + 44 e < 45 ) < 44) 4 8, the inequality ) holds for x 5 by induction and the inequality ) holds for m 5 /.5, i.e. for m. For 7 m, take p. Here, we have used the following. For any real number x > 0, e x + x + x! +... > + x hence + x) x < e. In particular, + n n) < e for any natural number n. Also, e +! +! +! +... < +! +! ) Proof Without calculus or the infinite series for e x ) For 5.8 x 6 we have x <.6 ) ) ) x++ 6 x as.6 ) 5 89 > For x 5.8, on increasing x by 0., x 6 increases by a factor of x+0.) 6 x ) 6 + ) 6 < 0 x while x++ 6 x increases by a factor of x+0.)++ 6 x+0. x++6 x xx+0.) 5.8)6.0) 5 9. Now 5 4 ) < while 5 9) 5 4 9) 5 > 4 5 > ) Hence the inequality ) holds for x 5.8 by induction and the inequality ) holds for m 5.8 / 6.8, i.e. for m 7. For 7 m take p ; for m 6 take p 7.

6 6 MANOJ VERMA Proof 4 Without calculus but with some calculation) For 0 < x, x x + < x+6 x +. For x, x < 04 0 )+6 + x+ 6 x +. For x.5, x 6.5) ) < < 048 )+6 + x+ 6 x +. For.5 x.75, x 6.75) ) < < 88.4))00) < < 8/7.5) x+ 6 x +. For.75 x 4, x <..75) < x+6 x +. In the same way we can verify the inequality for 4 x 6 by partitioning the interval 4 x 6 using the points 4, 4., 4.4, 4.55, 4.7, 4.85, 5, 5.5, 5., 5.45, 5.6, 5.8 and 6 using a calculator. For x 4.5 on increasing x by.5, x 6 increases by a factor of x+.5) 6 x ) ) 6 ) x < 6. while x++ 6 x increases by a factor of x+.5)+ 6 x x+ 6 xx+.5) 9 4.5)6) 8 x + 56 > 6 6. Hence the inequality holds for x 6 as well by induction. Remark From ), for m 6, p > m provided m+)/ m m/ m, ) mlog i.e., + m logm 0. The function fx) xlog ) + x logx is positive at x 5 and its derivative log logx x x x increases steadily for x e and is positive at x 9. By a direct check for x < 5 for x in the interval [.5, ),[.5, 5),[5.5, 7),[7, ),[, 7),[7, 9),[9, 47),[47, 8) respectively, take the prime pair to be {,5},{5,7},{7,},{,},{7,9},{9,},{47,5},{8,89} respectively), we see that for any real number x [.5,) [.5,5) [5.5, ) there are at least two primes p satisfying x < p x. For m 4 and m 6 there are at least two primes p satisfying m < p < m and henceat least one primepsatisfying m < p m. Remark From ), the number of primes p satisfying m < p m is > m+)log mlogm logm logm > mlog mlogm logm logm mlog logm ) logm mlog and thus at least 0.m logm for m 000 and at least 0.4m logm for m 9. References [] P. Erdős, Beweis eines Satzes von Tschebyschef, Acta Lit. ac Sci. Regiae Universitatis Hungaricae Franscisco Josephinae 59), [] I. Niven, H. S. Zuckerman and H. L. Montogmery, An introduction to the theory of numbers, 5th ed., John Wiley, New York, 99. MANOJ VERMA: School of Physical Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 0067 India address: m.infinite@gmail.com

and ttuu ee 2 (logn loglogn) 1 J

and ttuu ee 2 (logn loglogn) 1 J 282 ON THE DENSITY OF THE ABUNDANT NUMBEBS. But, by Lemma 3, b v a(6 M )^ 2 which is a contradiction. Thus the theorem is established. 4. It will be seen that the method used in this paper leads immediately