arxiv: v2 [math.ho] 24 Nov 2014

Transcription

1 arxiv:88.48v2 [math.ho] 24 Nov 24 There are infinitely many rime numbers in all arithmetic rogressions with first term and difference corime. (By Mr. Lejeune-Dirichlet) [Read to the Academy of Sciences the 27th of July, 837] MSC-Class: A55; -3; N3; B25 Observant investigation of the series of rimes will erceive several roerties with a generality that can be lifted to any degree of robability by using continued induction, while the discovery of their roof with all required strictness resents the greatest difficulties. One of the most curious results of this kind aears when we divide the members of the series through an arbitrary number. If we ignore the rimes dividing the divisor, which are among the first members of the series, all other rimes will leave a residue that is corime to the divisor. The main result after continued division is that every residue aears to return infinitely often, and in articular, that the ratio of the values that indicate how often two arbitrary residues have come u until a secific osition is reached will have unity as limit if we continue division indefinitely. After abstracting away the constancy of aearance of single residues and limiting the result to the never ending of the aearance of each residue, we can state the latter as the theorem: that each unlimited arithmetic rogression, with the first member and the difference being corime, will contain infinitely many rimes. No roof existed for this simle theorem until now, however desirable such a roof would have been for the numerous alications that can be made of the theorem. The only mathematician who has tried a justification of this theorem, as far as I know, is LEGENDRE[4], who should not only have been interested in investigating it because the difficulty of the subject would have aealed to him, but esecially also because he used the mentioned roerty of arithmetic rogressions as lemma with some earlier works. LEGENDRE bases a ossible roof on the task to find the longest run of members of an arithmetic rogression that are divisible by given rimes, but he solves it only by induction. If one tries to rove the solution of that task, which was thus found by him and which is highly strange because of its simlicity, then one encounters great difficulties that I did not succeed to overcome. Only after I entirely left the line taken by LEGENDRE I arrived Originally ublished in Abhandlungen der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften von 837, Translated by Ralf Stehan, mailto:ralf@ark.in-berlin.de. The scanned images are available at htt://bibliothek.bbaw.de/bibliothek-digital/digitalequellen/schriften/ anzeige?band=7-abh/837&seite:int=286

2 at a comletely strict roof of the theorem on arithmetic rogressions. The roof so found, which I have the honor to resent to the Academy in this aer, is not fully arithmetical but based artly on the study of continous variables. With the novelty of the alied rinciles it aeared useful to me to start with the treatment of the secial case where the difference of the rogression is an odd rime, before roving the theorem in its entire generality... Let an odd rime and c a rimitive root of it such that the residues of the owers: c, c, c 2,..., c 2, when divided by, and ordered, are identical to the numbers:, 2, 3,...,. Let n a number not divisible by, then, after GAUSS, we will call the exonent γ < which satisfies the congruence c γ n (mod. ) the index of n and, if necessary, denote it as γ n. The choice of the rimitive root shall be arbitrary as long as it is fixed. Regarding the above defined indices the easily rovable theorem holds that the index of a roduct equals the sum of indices of its factors minus the included multile of. Further we notice that always γ =, γ = 2 ( ), as well as γ n is even or odd, according to n being quadratic residue of or not, or alying LEGENDRE s symbol, according to ( n ) = + or ( n ) =. Now let q be a rime different from (not excluding 2) and s a ositive variable greater than unity. Further we denote as ω an arbitrary root of the equation: () ω =, and we construct the geometrical series: (2) = +ω γ ω γ q s + ω2γ + ω3γ +, q2s q3s q s where γ means the index of q. If we substitute for q every rime different from and multily the so formed equations in each other we get a series on the right hand with a structure that is easily erceived. Namely, let n any integer not divisible by, and let n = q m q m..., where q, q,... denote different rimes, then the general term will be of the form: But now it holds that: and because of (): ω m γ q +m γ q + n s. m γ q + m γ q + γ n (mod. ), ω m γ q +m γ q + = ω γ n. 2

3 Therefore we have the equation: (3) ω γ q s = ω γ n s = L, where the multilication sign alies to the whole series of rimes with the only excetion of, while the sum is over all integers from to not divisible by. The letter γ means on the left γ q, but on the right γ n. The equation just found reresents different equations that result if we ut for ω its values. It is known that these different values can be written using owers of the same Ω when it is chosen correctly, to wit: Ω, Ω, Ω 2,..., Ω 2. According to this notation, we will write the different values L of the series or roduct as: (4) L, L, L 2,..., L 2 where it is obvious that L and L 2 ( ) have a meaning indeendent of the choice of Ω and that they relate to ω = and ω =, resectively. Before we go on it is necessary to state the reason for the condition made above, that s > should hold. We can convince ourselves of the necessity of this limitation if we resect the essential difference which exists between two kinds of infinite series. If we regard each value instead of each term or, it being imaginary, its module, then two cases can haen. Either it is ossible to give a finite value which is greater than the sum of any of however many of these values or moduli, or this condition cannot be satisfied by any finite number. In the first case, the series always converges and has a comletely defined sum regardless how the series terms are ordered, be it that they continue to two and more dimensions or that they comrise a double or multile series. In the second case the series can converge too but convergence is essentially deendent on the kind of order of terms. Does convergence hold for a secific order then it can sto when this order is changed, or, if this does not haen, then the sum of the series might become comletely different. So, for examle, of the two series made from the same terms: + + +, , only the first converges while of the following: , , 3

4 both converge, but with different sums. Our infinite series L, as can be easily seen, belongs only then to the first of the classes we just differentiated if we assume s >, such that if we ut, under this condition, L = λ+µ, then λ and µ will get comletely defined finite values. Denoting now with f m + g m the roduct of the first m factors of the form ω γ q s, where the order of the factors may be arbitrary, we can always make m of a size such that among these first m factors will be all those satisfying q < h with h an arbitrary integer. As soon as m reaches this size, each of both differences f m λ, g m µ, will obviously, ignoring the sign, always stay smaller than h + +, s (h+) s however large m may be imagined to grow further. Under the assumtion s > however, the value h + + may shrink arbitrarily small s (h+) s with a corresondingly huge h. Therefore, it is roved that the infinite roduct in (3) has a value equal to the series L, indeendent of the order of factors. With s = or s < however, this roof can be no longer alied and, in fact, the infinite roduct has then in general no longer a definite value, regardless of factor ordering. If we could rove the existence of a limit for the multilication continued to infinity, given a secific ordering of the factors, then the equation (3), understood correctly, would still hold but would have no use for the statement of the value. We would then, q, q, q,... being the values of q according to the assumed ordering, have to view the series L as a multile series that has to be ordered such that first those members would be taken where n only contains the rime factor q, then those of the rest where n has no other factors than q, q and so on. From the necessity to order the members this way the summation of the series would become as difficult as the investigation of the roduct itself already is.. 2. If we ut s = + the equation (3) still holds, however small the ositive value is assumed. We want to study now how the series L in (3) changes if is allowed to become infinitely small. The behaviour of the series with resect to this is quite different, according to ω being equal to ositive unity or having any other value. To begin with the first case, or the investigation of L, we look at the sum: S = k + + (k+) + + +, (k+ 2) + where k denotes a ositive constant. If we substitute in the well-known formula: ( ) x k log dx = Γ(+ ) x k + 4

5 for k sequentially k, k+, k+ 2,... and add, we get: ( ) x k S = log Γ(+ ) x x dx. If we add and subtract at the same time: = Γ( ) Γ(+ ) = ( ) log dx, Γ(+ ) x the equation transforms into: S = + Γ(+ ) ( ) x k x log ( ) log x ( ) dx, x where the second member, for infinitely small, aroaches the finite limit: ( ) x k x log ( ) dx. Regarding instead of the series S the more general one which has two ositive constants a, b: b + + (b+a) + + we need only transform it into: ( a + ( b + + a) ( b a + ) + + x +, (b+2a) + + ) ( b a + 2) + and comare with S to see immediately that it equals to an exression of the following form: a + ϕ( ), where ϕ( ) aroaches a finite limit with becoming infinitely small. The studied series L consists of artial series like: m + + (+m) + + +, (2+m) + where we have to assume successively m =, 2,...,. We have thus: (5) L = + ϕ( ), where again ϕ( ) is a function of that, whenever gets infinitely small, has a finite value which could be easily exressed through a definite integral, given what we found so far. This is not necessary for our task, however. The equation (5) shows that, for infinitely small, L will become such that L remains finite. 5

6 6. 3. After we have found how our series, with ω = assumed, changes with s aroaching unity from above it remains for us to extend the same study to the other roots ω of the equation ω =. Although the sum of the series L is indeendent of the ordering of its members, as long as s >, it will still be of advantage if we imagine the members ordered such that the values of n will continously increase. On this condition, ω γ n s will be a function of s that remains continous and finite for all ositive values of s. Thus the limit that is aroached by the value of the series if s = + and is let become infinitely small, and which is indeendent of the ordering of the members is exressed by: ω γ n which wouldn t necessarily be with a different ordering as ω γ n would then differ from ω γ by a finite amount or might not even have a n + value. To rove the statement just made we denote as h an arbitrary ositive integer and exress the sum of the first h( ) members of the series: ω γ n s with the hel of the formula already used above, which holds for any ositive s: ( ) x n log s dx = Γ(s) x n s by a definite integral. We therefore get for the sum: x f(x) ( ) Γ(s) x logs dx x f(x) ( ) x Γ(s) x xh log s dx x where we have used the abbreviation: f(x) = ω γ x+ω γ 2 x 2 + +ω γ x. If we assume now ω not =, then the olynomial x f(x) is divisible by x because we have: f() = ω γ + ω γ 2 + +ω γ = +ω+ +ω 2 =. If we eliminate thus the factor x from numerator and denominator of the fraction under the integral sign the fraction becomes: t+u + x+ x 2 + +x,

7 where t and u are olynomials with real coefficients. If we write T and U for the largest ossible values of t and u between x = and x = then obviously the real and imaginary arts of the second integral: are smaller than T Γ(s) U Γ(s) Γ(s) x f(x) x xh log s ( ) x h log s dx = x ( ) x h log s dx = x ( x ) dx T (h+) s, U (h+) s, resectively, and so the integral disaears for h =. The series: ω γ n s, with the assumed ordering of its members, converges therefore, and for its sum we have the exression: ω γ n s = x f(x) ( ) Γ(s) x logs dx. x This function of s not only itself remains continous and finite as long as s >, but the same roerty alies also to its derivative with resect to s. To convince oneself of this it is enough to remember that Γ(s), dγ(s) ds, is continous and finite too, and that Γ(s) never disaears as long as s remains ositive. Thus, if we ut: Γ(s) x f(x) x logs ( ) dx = ψ(x)+χ(s), x where ψ(s) und χ(s) are real functions, we have for ositive, after a well known theorem: (6) ψ(+ ) = ψ()+ ψ (+δ ), χ(+ ) = χ()+ χ (+ε ), where we abbreviated: ψ (s) = dψ(s), χ (s) = dχ(s) ds ds and denoted as δ and ε ositive fractions indeendent of. Incidentally, it is easily understandable that with ω = we get: χ(s) =, and that if we go from an imaginary root ω to its conjugate ω then ψ(s) will have the same value while χ(s) will become its negative. 7

8 8. 4. We have to rove now that the finite limit aroached by ω γ, with n + the ositive becoming infinitely small, and given that ω does not mean the root, will be nonzero. This limit is, after the last section ω γ n and exressed by the integral ω γ n = x f(x) x dx which can be easily written using logarithms and circular functions. Let us take an arbitrary linear factor of the denominator x : x e 2mπ, where m is of the series,, 2,...,. If we decomose: x f(x) x into artial fractions then, after known formulae, the numerator of the fraction: is given by the exression: x e 2mπ A m x f(x) x where x = e 2mπ. So we have: A m = ( f ω γ n = f e 2mπ ). If we substitute this value and note that A = we get: (e 2mπ ) dx x e 2mπ where the sum on the right goes from m = to m =. The function: f (e 2mπ ), is well known from cyclotomy and can be easily related to: ( f e 2π ). It namely holds that f (e 2mπ ) = ω γ g e gm 2π, where the sum is from g = to g =. If we substitute for gm the resective residue h modulo then, 2,..., become the different values of h, and we have, because of gm h (mod. ): γ g γ h γ m (mod. ).

9 Thus if we write γ h γ m for γ g, which is allowed because of the equation ω =, then we get: f (e 2mπ ) = ω γ m ω γ h e h 2π ( = ω γ m f e 2π ). The equation above becomes therefore: ω γ n = ( f e 2π ) ω γ m Now, for any ositive fraction α: dx x e 2mπ. dx x e 2απ = log(2 sin απ)+ π 2 ( 2α), therefore: ω γ n = ( f e 2π ) ( ( ω γ m log 2 sin mπ ) + π ( 2m 2 9 ) ). Although this exression is very simle for ω γ n, in general we cannot conclude that ω γ n has a nonzero value. What is missing are fitting rinciles for the statement of conditions under which transcendent comounds containing undefined integers can disaear. But our desired roof succeeds for the secific case where ω =. For imaginary values of ω we will give another method in the following section that, however, cannot be alied to the mentioned secific case. On the condition ω =, and with γ m even or odd according to: ( ) m = + or, and thus ( ) γ m = ( m ), as well as( ) γ n = ( n ), we get as limit of L ( ) for becoming infinitely small: ( ) n n = f (e 2π ) ( ( m log 2 sin )( mπ ) + π ( 2m 2 2 ) ), or more simle, since ( m ) = if we sum from m = to m = : ( ) n n = ( f e 2π ) ( ( m log 2 sin )( mπ ) π ) m We have to distinguish two cases, deending on the rime having the form 4µ+3 or 4µ+. In the first case it holds for two values, like m und m, adding to that: ( m ) ( ) m = and sin mπ ( m)π = sin. Therefore the real art of the sum disaears and we get, denoting with a those values of m for which ( m ) = and with b those for which ( m ) =,.

10 or in other words, a and b denoting the quadratic residues and nonresidues of that are smaller than : ( ) n n = π ( 2 f e 2π ) ( a b ). With = 4µ + the imaginary art of the sum disaears because then ( m ( ) = m ), and we get: ( ) n n = ( f e 2π ) log sin bπ sin aπ, where the multilication extends over all a or b. Notice know that, under ( the assumtion ω =, using well-known formulae[] we get for f e 2π ) in the first case, and in the last, so resectively: ( ) n n = π ( b a), ( ) n n = log sin bπ sin aπ In the case of = 4µ + 3 we see immediately that ( n ) n. is nonzero since a+ b = 2 ( ) is odd and thus a = b cannot hold. To rove the same for = 4µ+ we use the equations which are known from cyclotomy[3] 2 ( x e 2aπ ) = Y Z, 2 ( x e 2bπ ) = Y+Z, where Y and Z are olynomials with integer coefficients. If we substitute in these equations and those following from them: 4 x x = Y2 Z 2 x = and denote then with g and h those integer values taken by Y and Z, we get after several easy reductions: sin aπ = g h, sin bπ = g+h, g 2 h 2 = 4. From the last equation follows that g is divisible by. If we therefore ut g = k and divide the first two [equations] through each other we get: sin bπ sin aπ = k +h k h, h2 k 2 = 4. From the second of these equations, h cannot be zero, thus both sides of the first [equation] are different from unity, from which immediately follows, resecting the exression we obtained above, that: ( n ) n cannot have the value zero, q. e. d.

11 We can add that the sum ( n ) n, because as limit of a roduct of only ositive factors, namely as limit of:, q ( ) q + for becoming infinitely small, it can never become negative, so it will be necessarily ositive. From this statement two imortant theorems follow directly that are robably not rovable otherwise, of which the one related to the case = 4µ+3 is that for a rime of this form b > a always holds. However, we don t want to stay with these results of our method since we will have occasion to get back to the subject with another investigation.. 5. To rove for L m, if m is neither nor 2 ( ), that its limit, which corresonds to being infinitely small, is different from zero we take the logarithm of: ω γ q + and develo the logarithm of each factor using the formula: We so find: ω γ q ω 2γ log( x) = x+ 2 x2 + 3 x3 +. (q 2 ) ω 3γ (q 3 + = log L, ) + where the summation is with reect to q and γ means the index of q. If we substitute for ω its values: add and remember that the sum:, Ω, Ω 2,..., Ω 2, +Ω hγ + Ω 2hγ + + Ω ( 2)hγ always disaears excet when hγ is divisible by but has in this case the value, and that the condition hγ (mod. ) is identical with q h (mod. ), then we get: ( ) ( q q q ) = log(l L... L 2 ), where the first, second,... summation relates to those values of q, the first, second,... owers of which are contained in the form µ +, resectively. Because the left side is real it follows that the roduct under the log sign is ositive, which is also obvious otherwise, and that we have to take for the logarithm its arithmetical value that has no ambiguity. The series on the left

12 hand remains always ositive, and we will show now that the right side to the contrary would be with vanishing, if we would try to assume the limit for L m to disaear. The right side can be written as: log L + log L 2 ( ) + log L L 2 + log L 2 L 3 +, where log L after (5) is equal to the exression: ( log ) + ϕ( ) or: ( ) ( ) log + log + ϕ( ), the second term of which aroaches the finite limit: log ( ) ; likewise, log L 2 ( ) remains finite, since the limit of L 2 ( ) is nonzero with. 4. One of the other logarithms log L m L m, is after. 3: log ( ψ 2 (+ )+χ 2 (+ ) ), which exression, if L m and thus L m too would have zero as limit such that at the same time ψ() =, χ() =, would transform into: log ( 2(ψ 2 (+δ )+χ 2 (+ε ) ) or: ( ) 2 log + log ( ψ 2 (+δ )+χ 2 (+ε ) ). Combining the term 2 log ( ) with the first term of log L, there results: log ( ), which value would become with infinitely small, and it is clear that this infinitely large negative value cannot be cancelled by e.g.: log ( ψ 2 (+δ )+χ 2 (+ε ) ) because this exression either remains finite or itself becomes, namely when simultaneously ψ () =, χ () =. Just as evident is that, would we try to view some other airs of related L than L m and L m as mutually cancelling, the contradiction would be even intensified. Therefore it is roved that the limit of L m for m >, corresonding to infinitely small, is finite and different from zero. Also, L in the same case, becomes from which immediately follows that the series: (7) ω γ q ω 2γ q ω 3γ + = log L q3+3 always aroaches a finite limit if ω not =, but becomes infinitely large for ω = if we let become infinitely small. Would we want to have the limit itself, which is not necessary for our task however, its calculation (for ω not ) using the exression log ( ψ()+ χ() ) would be afflicted with an ambiguity that could be lifted easily 2

13 3 with secialisation, i.e., as soon as and ω is given numerically. If we equal the series (7) with u+v and therefore: u+v = log L = log ( ψ(+ )+χ(+ ) ), we have: u = 2 log( ψ 2 (+ )+χ 2 (+ ) ), ψ(+ ) cos v = ψ2 (+ )+χ 2 (+ ), sin v = χ(+ ) ψ2 (+ )+χ 2 (+ ), and thus the limit of u is no longer ambigous: 2 log( ψ 2 ()+χ 2 () ). To get the same with v we note that the series, however small may be, is continously variable with resect to this value, which can be easily roved. Therefore also v is a continous function of. Because ψ() =, χ() = cannot hold at the same time, it will be ossible to derive from the exressions of ψ(+ ) and χ(+ ) given above as definite integrals always a ositive finite value R of such character that at least one of the functions ψ(+ ), χ(+ ) retains its sign for each smaller than R. Therefore cos v or sin v, as soon as decreases below R, will no longer change signs and thus the continously variable arc v will no longer be able to increase or decreases by π. If we thus determine the finite value of v corresonding to = R, let s call it V, which we can easily find by numerical comutation from the series (7) because [the series] for each finite value of belongs to one of the classes differentiated in. and thus has a comletely defined sum, the limit v of v is given by the equations cos v = ψ() ψ2 ()+χ 2 (), sin v = χ() ψ2 ()+χ 2 (), under the condition that the difference V v, ignoring signs, has to be smaller than π.. 6. We are now able to rove that each arithmetic rogression with difference whose first member is not divisible by contains infinitely many rimes; or, in other words, that there are infinitely many rimes of the form µ+m, where µ is an arbitrary number and m one of the numbers, 2, 3,...,. If we multily the equations contained in (7) that corresond consecutively to the roots:, Ω, Ω 2,..., Ω 2 with:, Ω γ m, Ω 2γ m,..., Ω ( 2)γ m

14 and add we get on the left side: (+Ω γ γ m + Ω 2(γ γ m) + +Ω ( 2)(γ γ m) ) q (+Ω 2γ γ m + Ω 2(2γ γ m) + + Ω ( 2)(2γ γ m) ) + 3 (+Ω 3γ γ m + Ω 2(3γ γ m) + + Ω ( 2)(3γ γ m) ) +, q 2+2 q 3+3 where the summation is over q and γ denotes the index of q. But now it holds that: +Ω hγ γ m + Ω 2(hγ γ m) + +Ω ( 2)(hγ γ m) =, excet when hγ γ m (mod. ), in which case the sum equals. This congruence however is identical with q h m (mod. ). We therefore have the equation: q q q = (log L + Ω γ m log L + Ω 2γ m log L 2 + +Ω ( 2)γ m log L 2 ), where the first summation is over all rimes q of form µ+m, the second over all rimes q with squares of that form, the third over all rimes q with cubes of that form etc. If we assume now becoming infinitely small, the right side will become infinitely large through the term log L. Thus also the left hand has to become infinity. But on this side the sum of all terms, excet the first, remains finite because, as is well-known, 2 q q 3 + is even finite if we substitute for q not certain rimes, as we did, but all integers larger than. Thus the series q + has to grow beyond any ositive limit; it has to have infinitely many terms, that means, there are infinitely many rimes q of form µ+m, q. e. d.. 7. To extend the reviously given roof to arithmetic rogressions with the difference being any comosite integer, several theorems from the theory of residues will be necessary which we want to collect now to be able to refer to them more easily in the following. Justification of these results can be looked u in Disq. arith. sect. III. where the subject is treated in deth. 4

15 I. The existence of rimitive roots is not limited to odd rimes but also alies to any ower π of it. With c a rimitive root for the modulus π, the residues of the owers: c, c, c 2,..., c ( )π with resect to [that modulus] are all mutually different and identical to the series of the numbers smaller than π and corime to π. If we have now an arbitrary number n not divisible by, then the exonent γ n < ( ) π which satisfies the congruence c γ n n (mod. π ) is comletely determined and we shall call it the index of n. Regarding such indices the easy to rove theorems hold that the index of a roduct equals the sum of factor indices minus the largest contained multile of ( ) π, and that γ n is even or odd corresonding to ( n ) = + or. II. The rime number 2 shows an essentially different behaviour in the theory of rimitive roots than the odd rimes, and we note about this rime the following, if we ignore the first ower of 2 which is not imortant here. ) For the modulus 2 2 we have the rimitive root. If we denote the index of an arbitrary odd number n with α n such that then: ( ) α n n (mod. 4), we have α n = oder α n =, according to n having the form 4µ + or 4µ+3, and we get the index of a roduct if we subtract its largest contained even number from the sum of factor indices. 2) For a modulus of the form 2 λ, with λ 3, there does not exist any rimitive root anymore, i.e., there is no number such that the eriod of its ower residues after the divisor 2 λ contains every odd number smaller than 2 λ. It is ossible only to exress one half of these numbers as such residues. If we choose any number of form 8µ+5 or esecially 5 as basis then the residues of the owers 5, 5, 5 2,..., 5 2λ 2 modulo 2 λ are mutually different and coincide with the numbers of form 4µ + and being smaller than 2 λ. If we therefore have a number n of form 4µ+ then the congruence: 5 β n n (mod. 2 λ ) can always be satisfied by exactly one exonent or index β n that should be smaller than 2 λ 2. If n is of form 4µ+3 then this congruence is imossible. Because however on this condition n is of form 4µ + then in general we will denote as the index of an odd number n the comletely defined exonent β n that is smaller than 2 λ 2 and satisfies the congruence: 5 β n ±n (mod. 2 λ ) 5

16 where the uer or lower sign is alied corresonding to n being of form 4µ+ or 4µ+3. Because of this double sign the residue of n modulo 2 λ is thus no longer comletely determined by the index β n, since the same index matches two residues that comlement to 2 λ. For the so defined indices obviously the theorems hold that the index of a roduct equals the sum of factor indices minus the largest multile of 2 λ 2 contained therein, as well as that β n is even or odd according to n being of form 8µ± or 8µ±5. To remove the aforementioned ambiguity it is sufficient to study not only the index β n related to the modulus 2 λ and base 5 but also the index α n related to the modulus 4 and base. In that case, according to α n = or α n =, we will have to aly the uer or lower sign in: 5 β n ±n (mod. 2 λ ). We could join, if we want, both indices into one formula and write: ( ) αn 5 β n n (mod. 2 λ ), by which congruence the residue of n modulo 2 λ will be comletely determined. III. Let now: k = 2 λ π π..., where, as in II. 2, λ 3 and,,... denote mutually different odd rimes. If we take any number n not divisible by the rimes 2,,,... and the indices: α n, β n, γ n, γ n,..., corresonding to the moduli: 4, 2 λ, π, π,... and their rimitive roots:, 5, c, c,... then we have the congruences: ( ) α n n (mod. 4), 5 β n ±n (mod. 2 λ ), c γ n n (mod. π ), c γ n n (mod. π ),..., by which the residue of n modulo k is comletely determined, which follows at once from well-known theorems if we remember that the double sign in the second of these congruences is fixed by the first. We will call the indices α n, β n, γ n, γ n,... or α, β, γ, γ,... the system of indices for the number. Because the Indices: or: α, β, γ, γ,... 2, 2 λ 2, ( ) π, ( ) π,..., 6

17 resectively, can have different values it holds that: (8) 2 2 λ 2 ( ) π ( ) π = k 7 ( )( )( ) 2 = K is the number of ossible systems of this kind, which agrees with the well-known theorem that by K is exressed the number of those numbers smaller than k and corime to k.. 8. When trying to rove the theorem on arithmetic rogressions in its full generality we note that we can, without loss of it, assume the difference k of the rogressions as divisible by 8 and thus of the form included with. 7, III. Is the theorem roven under this condition it will obviously hold as well with the difference odd or only divisible by 2 or 4. Let θ, ϕ, ω, ω,... be any roots of the equations: θ 2 =, ϕ 2λ 2 =, (9) ω ( )π =, ω ( ) π =,..., and let q be an arbitrary rime not equal 2,,,.... If we write the equation: θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ q s = +θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ q s + θ2α ϕ 2β ω 2γ ω 2γ +, q2s where s >, and the system of indices α, β, γ, γ,... is with resect to q, and if we multily all equations of this form, which we get if we substitute for q every rime different from 2,,,..., with each other then we get, remembering the abovementioned roerties of indices and equations (9): () θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ q s = θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ n s = L, where the roduct is over the rimes excet 2,,..., and the sum is over all ositive integers not divisible by the rimes 2,,.... The system of indices α, β, γ, γ,... is on the left side with resect to q, on the right side to n. The general equation (), in which the different roots θ, ϕ, ω, ω,... can be mutually combined arbitrarily, aarently contains a number K of secial equations. To denote the series L corresonding to each of the combinations in a comfortable way we can think of the roots of each of these

18 equations (9) exressed as owers of one of them. Let Θ =, Φ, Ω, Ω,... be roots suitable for that urose, then: where: θ = Θ a, ϕ = Φ b, ω = Ω c, ω = Ω c,..., a < 2, b < 2 λ 2, c < ( ) π, c < ( ) π,... and, using this notation, denote the series L with: () L a,b,c,c. The necessity for the condition s > in the equation () is the same as already develoed in The series denoted with L a,b,c,c, of which the number equals K, can be divided into the following three classes according to the different combinations θ, ϕ, ω, ω,... of their roots. The first class contains only one series, namely L,,,,..., that is, the one where: θ =, ϕ =, ω =, ω =,... holds. The second class shall cover all other series with only real solutions to the equations (9) such that therefore to exress those series we have to combine the signs in: θ = ±, ϕ = ±, ω = ±, ω = ±,... in every ossible way exceting only the combination corresonding to the first class. The third class finally includes all series L where at least one of the roots ϕ, ω, ω,... is imaginary, and it is evident that the series of this class come in airs since the two root combinations: θ, ϕ, ω, ω,... ; θ, ϕ, ω, ω,... are mutually different given the just mentioned condition. We will now have to study the behaviour of those series on substitution of s = + and letting become infinitely small. Let us look first at the series constituting the first class, and clearly, we can see it as sum of K artial series of form: m + + (k+m) + + +, (2k+m) + where m < k and corime to k. Thus the series of this class equals after. 2: (2) K k + ϕ( ), where ϕ( ) remains finite for infinitely small. 8

19 Regarding the series of second or third class we find, if we order their terms such that the values of n are increasing and with s >, for them the equation: (3) θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ n s = Γ(s) θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ... x n x k log s ( ) dx, x where the sum on the right hand is over all ositive integers n smaller than and corime to k, and α, β, γ, γ,... stands for the system of indices for n. We easily rove that the right side has a finite value, because for it we only need to mention that the olynomial θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ... x n involves the factor x, which illustrates immediately that if we ut x = by which the olynomial is transformed to the roduct: (+θ)(+ ϕ+ + ϕ 2λ 2 )(+ω+ +ω ( )π ) (+ω + + ω ( ) π ), at least one of its factors will disaear, which would be imossible with the root combination corresonding to the first class: θ =, ϕ =, ω =, ω =,.... We convince ourselves as easily that the right side of the equation (3), as well as its differential quotient with resect to s, are continous functions of s. It follows at once that, for getting infinitely small, each series of second or third class aroaches a finite limit exressed by: (4) θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ n = θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ... x n x k dx. It remains only to rove that this limit is always nonzero... Although the limit for an L of the second or third class is easily exressed using logarithms and circular functions, like in. 4, such an exression would have no use for the desired roof, also not if L belongs to the second class, even though this case elsewise is mostly analogous to that studied in the last half of. 4. Let us just now assume the mentioned roerty was roved for each L of the second class. We will now show how the same requirement can be satisfied for an L of the third class. To this end we take logarithms of both sides of the equation () and develo; we so get θ α ϕ β ω γ ω γ q θ 2α ϕ 2β ω 2γ ω 2γ + = log L, q2+2 where the indices α, β, γ, γ,... are with resect to q, as well as the sum. If we exress the roots θ, ϕ, ω, ω,... in the way mentioned in. 8 and ut: θ = Θ a, ϕ = Φ b, ω = Ω c, ω = Ω c,..., 9

20 2 then the general term on the left side becomes: h Θ hαa Φ hβb Ω hγc Ω hγ c q h+h, while after () we have to write for the right side: log L a,b,c,c Let now m be an integer smaller than and corime to k. If we multily both sides with: Θ α ma Φ β mb Ω γ mc Ω γ m c and abbreviate the left side to the general term we get: + h Θ (hα αm)a Φ (hβ βm)b Ω (hγ γm)c Ω (hγ γ m)c q h+h + = Θ α ma Φ β mb Ω γ mc Ω γ m c log L a,b,c,c Summing now, to include all root combinations, from: to: a =, b =, c =, c =,... a =, b = 2 λ 2, c = ( ) π, c = ( ) π,..., the general term on the left hand becomes: h W q h+h, where the sum is over all rimes q and W means the roduct of the sums taken over a,b,c,c,... or resectively over: Θ (hα α m)a, Φ (hβ β m)b, Ω (hγ γ m)c, Ω (hγ γ m)c,.... We can now see from. 7 that the first of these sums is 2 or, corresonding to if the congruence hα α m (mod. 2) or, equally, the congruence q h m (mod. 4) holds or not; that the second is 2 λ 2 or corresonding to if the congruence hβ β m (mod. 2 λ 2 ) or, equally, the congruence q h = ±m (mod. 2 λ ) holds or not; that the third is ( ) π or, corresonding to if the congruence hγ γ m (mod. ( ) π ) or, equally, the congruence q h m (mod. π ) holds or not, and so on; that therefore W always disaears excet when the congruence q h m holds modulo each of the modules 2 λ, π, π,..., that is, when q k m (mod. k) holds, in which case W = K. Our equation thus becomes: q q q (5) = K Θ α ma Φ β mb Ω γ mc Ω γ mc log L a,b,c,c, where the summation on the left is over all rimes q the first, second, third owers of which are contained in the form µk+m, while the summation

21 on the right is over a,b,c,c,... and extends between the given limits. For m =, we get α m =, β m =, γ m =, γ m =,..., and the right side reduces to: K log L a,b,c,c. The term of this sum corresonding to the L of the first class, L,,,,..., will, because of the exression (2), contain log ( ). Those terms corresonding to different L of the second class will, on condition of the desired roof above, remain finite for infinitely small. Would the limit for an arbitrary L of the third class be zero the study of the continuity, as in. 5, of the exression (3) for the logarithm of this L, together with its L, would result in the term: ( ) 2 log which, combined with log ( ) in log L,,,,... would result in log ( which would become for infinitely small, while the left side would consist of only ositive terms. Therefore no K of the third class can have the limit zero, and it follows (exceting the missing roof for the series of second class) that: log L a,b,c,c always aroaches a finite limit for infinitely small, excet when simultaneously a =, b =, c =, c =,... in which case the logarithm gets a value that is infinitely large. Alying this result to the general equation (5) we see at once that its right side becomes infinite for infinitely small, namely by the term K log L,,,,... which grows beyond all limits, while all other remain finite. Therefore also the left side must exceed any finite limit, from which follows, as in. 6, that the series q + 2 has infinitely many terms or, in other words, that the number of rimes q of form kµ + m, with µ an arbitrary integer and m a given number corime to k, is infinite q. e. d... Regarding now the demonstration necessary for the comletion of the just develoed roof, it reduces, according to the exression given in (4) for the limit of an L of second or third class, to showing that for any of the root combinations of form: with the only excetion of: the sum: ±, ±, ±, ±,..., +, +, +, +,..., (6) (±) α (±) β (±) γ (±) γ n, )

22 has a nonzero value, where α, β, γ, γ,... means the system of indices for n, and where for n are substituted all ositive integers not divisible by any of the rimes 2,,,,..., ordered by size. In the originally resented aer I roved this roerty using indirect and quite comlicated considerations. Later however I convinced myself that the same object can be reached otherwise far shorter. The rinciles from where we started can be alied to several other roblems, between which and the subject here treated one first would guess to be no connection. For examle, we could solve the very interesting task to determine the number of different quadratic forms which corresond to an arbitrary ositive or negative determinant, and we find that this number (which however is not the end result of this investigation) can be exressed as roduct of two numbers, the first of which is a very simle function of the determinant that has a finite value for every determinant, while the other factor is exressed by a series that coincides with the above (6). From this then follows immediately that the sum (6) never can be zero since otherwise the number of quadratic forms for the resective determinant would reduce to zero, while this number actually always is. For this reason I will omit my earlier roof for the said roerty of the series (6) here, and refer on the subject to the mentioned investigation on the number of quadratic forms. REFERENCES [] DIRICHLET, Peter Gustav Lejeune: Über eine neue Anwendung bestimmter Integrale auf die Summation endlicher oder unendlicher Reihen. Abh. Königl. Pr. Wiss. Berlin (835) 39 ff.; see also Comm. Soc. Gott. Vol.. [2] DIRICHLET, Peter Gustav Lejeune: Sur l usage des séries infinies dans la théorie des nombres, Journ. f. Math. 8 (838) [3] GAUSS, Carl Friedrich: Disquisitiones arithmeticae. Lisiae, Fleischer, 8. art [4] LEGENDRE, Adrien Marie: Théorie des Nombres. Paris, Didot, 3 ième ed.? 83, 4 ième Partie.. IX. 22 Preliminary notice on this can be found in [2] from which emerges the necessary theorem as corollary.