7

In number theory the three Mertens' theorems are the following.

Mertens' $1$st theorem. For all $n\geq2$

$$\left\lvert\sum_{p\leqslant n} \frac{\ln p}{p} - \ln n\right\rvert \leq 2.$$

Mertens' $2$nd theroem.

$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\sum_{p\le n}\frac1p -\ln\ln n-M\right) =0,$$

where $M$ is the Meissel–Mertens constant.

Mertens' $3$rd theroem.

$$\lim_{n\to\infty}\ln n\prod_{p\le n}\left(1-\frac1p\right)=e^{-\gamma},$$

where $\gamma$ is the Euler–Mascheroni constant.

What connections are there between in this three theorems, beside that all of them about prime series and products? What relationships are behind the scenes? I know that the $2$nd theorem is connected to prime number theorem, and the other two theorems?

The motivation of the question is this really nice answer.

user153012
  • 12,240

1 Answers1

5

Mertens' third theorem is just the exponentiated version of the second theorem (without the bounds that Mertens proved for his second theorem):

\begin{align} -\ln\Biggl(\ln n\prod_{p\leqslant n}\biggl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\biggr)\Biggr) &= -\ln \ln n - \sum_{p\leqslant n} \ln \biggl(1 - \frac{1}{p}\biggr)\\ &= \Biggl(\sum_{p\leqslant n}\frac{1}{p} - \ln \ln n - M\Biggr) + \Biggl(M - \sum_{p\leqslant n} \biggl(\ln\biggl(1-\frac{1}{p}\biggr) + \frac{1}{p}\biggr)\Biggr), \end{align}

where the first term converges to $0$ by Mertens' second theorem, and the second term converges to $\gamma$ by definition of $M$.

Mertens' bounds in the second theorem and estimates for

$$\sum_{p > n}\biggl(\ln\biggl(1-\frac{1}{p}\biggr)+\frac{1}{p}\biggr)$$

give you bounds for

$$e^\gamma\ln n\prod_{p\leqslant n}\biggl(1-\frac{1}{p}\biggr),\tag{$\ast$}$$

and conversely bounds for that give you bounds for

$$\left\lvert\sum_{p\leqslant n}\frac{1}{p} - \ln \ln n - M\right\rvert,\tag{$\ast\!\ast$}$$

but it is doubtful whether one can directly prove bounds for $(\ast)$ that give you back Mertens' bounds for $(\ast\ast)$.

One can use Mertens' first theorem to derive the second via an integration by parts, Hardy and Wright for example do that, but don't give explicit bounds on $(\ast\ast)$.

For $x > 0$ we define

$$S(x) := \sum_{p\leqslant x} \frac{\ln p}{p}.$$

Mertens' first theorem tells us

$$\lvert S(x) - \ln x\rvert \leqslant 2 + O(x^{-1}),$$

and we can write

$$T(x) := \sum_{p\leqslant x} \frac{1}{p} = \int_{3/2}^x \frac{1}{\ln t}\,dS(t)$$

with a (Riemann/Lebesgue-) Stieltjes integral. Integration by parts yields

\begin{align} T(x) &= \int_{3/2}^x \frac{1}{\ln t}\,dS(t)\\ &= \frac{S(x)}{\ln x} - \frac{S(3/2)}{\ln \frac{3}{2}} - \int_{3/2}^x S(t)\,d\biggl(\frac{1}{\ln t}\biggr)\\ &= \frac{S(x)}{\ln x} + \int_{3/2}^x \frac{S(t)}{t(\ln t)^2}\,dt\\ &= \frac{S(x)}{\ln x} + \int_{3/2}^x \frac{dt}{t\ln t} + \int_{3/2}^x \frac{S(t) - \ln t}{t(\ln t)^2}\,dt\\ &= \ln \ln x + \underbrace{1 - \ln \ln \frac{3}{2} + \int_{3/2}^\infty \frac{S(t) - \ln t}{t(\ln t)^2}\,dt}_M + \underbrace{\frac{S(x)-\ln x}{\ln x} - \int_x^\infty \frac{S(t)-\ln t}{t(\ln t)^2}\,dt}_{O\bigl(\frac{1}{\ln x}\bigr)}. \end{align}

I'm not sure, however, whether one can get exactly Mertens' bounds on $(\ast\ast)$ easily from that.

So in a way, Mertens' first theorem is the most powerful, since it implies the others, at least if we don't need explicit bounds for the differences.

Daniel Fischer
  • 206,697
  • Thank you for your answer. +1. Hardy and Wright means this: Hardy, G. H. and Wright, E. M. An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, 5th ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, p. 351, 1979. ? Furtnermore, Mertens gave explicit bounds on $(**)$, not? This bound: $$\frac 4{\ln(n+1)} +\frac 2{n\ln n}$$ – user153012 Nov 26 '14 at 20:13
  • 1
    Yes, exactly, pp. 350/351, even the edition is the same. – Daniel Fischer Nov 26 '14 at 20:15
  • 1
    Yes, Mertens gave explicit bounds, Hardy/Wright didn't. If you take care, I expect you can get at least similar bounds from the integration by parts method, but I have no idea how hard it would be. Mertens' original proof proceeds in a different way, it is longer and more involved. I have to confess that before I could understand it, I would have to write it on paper and translate it into terminology I can better understand than Mertens' terminology. – Daniel Fischer Nov 26 '14 at 20:19