Difference between revisions of "Brun's constant"
(added a proof of Brun's theorem) |
m (→Proof of convergence) |
||
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
Everywhere below <math>p</math> will stand for an odd [[prime number]]. Let | Everywhere below <math>p</math> will stand for an odd [[prime number]]. Let | ||
− | <math>\pi_2(x)=\#\{p:p+2\mathrm{\ is\ also\ prime\,}\}</math>. We shall prove that <math>\pi_2(x)\le C\frac{x}{(\ln x)^2}(\ln\ln x)^2</math> for large <math>x</math> with some absolute constant <math>C<+\infty</math>. | + | <math>\pi_2(x)=\#\{p\le x:p+2\mathrm{\ is\ also\ prime\,}\}</math>. We shall prove that <math>\pi_2(x)\le C\frac{x}{(\ln x)^2}(\ln\ln x)^2</math> for large <math>x</math> with some absolute constant <math>C<+\infty</math>. |
The technique used in the proof is a version of the [[PIE|inclusion-exclusion principle]] and is known nowadays as '''Brun's simple pure sieve'''. | The technique used in the proof is a version of the [[PIE|inclusion-exclusion principle]] and is known nowadays as '''Brun's simple pure sieve'''. | ||
====Lemma==== | ====Lemma==== |
Revision as of 20:19, 2 July 2006
Definition
Brun's constant is the (possibly infinite) sum of reciprocals of the twin primes . It turns out that this sum is actually convergent. Brun's constant is equal to approximately
.
Proof of convergence
Everywhere below will stand for an odd prime number. Let
. We shall prove that
for large
with some absolute constant
.
The technique used in the proof is a version of the inclusion-exclusion principle and is known nowadays as Brun's simple pure sieve.
Lemma
Let .
Let
be the
-th symmetric sum of the numbers
. Then
for every odd
and even
.
Proof of Lemma
Induction on .
Now take a very big and fix some
to be chosen later. For each odd prime
let
Clearly, if , and
for some
, then either
or
is
not prime. Thus, the number of primes
such that
is also prime does not exceed
.
Let now be an even number. By the inclusion-exclusion principle,
Let us now estimate .
Note that the condition
depends only on the remainder of
modulo
and that, by the Chinese Remainder Theorem, there are exactly
remainders that satisfy this condition (for each
, we must have
or
and the remainders for different
can be chosen independently). Therefore
where .
It follows that
where is the
-th symmetric sum of the set
. Indeed, we have not more than
terms in the inclusion-exclusion formula above and each term is estimated with an error not greater than
.
Now notice that
by the lemma.
The product does not exceed
(see the prime number article), so it remains to estimate
. But we have
This estimate yields the final inequality
It remains to minimize the right hand side over all possible choices of
and
. We shall choose
and
. With this choice, every term on the right does not exceed
and we are done.