On proving an Inequality of Ramanujan using Explicit Order Estimates of the Mertens Function
Abstract
This research article provides an unconditional proof of an inequality proposed by Srinivasa Ramanujan involving the Prime Counting Function ,
for every real , using specific order estimates of the Mertens Function, . The proof primarily hinges upon investigating the underlying relation between and the Second Chebyshev Function, , in addition to applying the meromorphic properties of the Riemann Zeta Function, with an intention of deriving an improved approximation for .
Keywords and Phrases: Riemann Zeta Function, Mertens Function, Chebyshev Function, Arithmetic Function, Error Estimates, Perron’s Formula, Mbius Inversion Formula, Dirichlet Partial Summation Formula.
2020 MSC: Primary 11A41, 11A25, 11N05, 11N37, 11N56 .
Secondary 11M06, 11M26 .
Contents
1 Introduction and Motivation
The motivation for investigating the distribution of prime numbers over the real line first reflected in the writings of famous mathematician Ramanujan, as evident from his letters [23, pp. xxiii-xxx , 349-353] to one of the most prominent mathematiciana of century, G. H. Hardy during the months of Jan/Feb of , which are testaments to several strong assertions about prime numbers, especaially the Prime Counting Function, [ref. (2.1.1)].
In the following years, Hardy himself analyzed some of thoose results [24] [25, pp. 234-238], and even wholeheartedly acknowledged about them in many of his publications, one such notable result is the Prime Number Theorem [ref. (2.1.1)].
Ramanujan provided several inequalities regarding the behaviour and the asymptotic nature of . One of such relation can be found in the notebooks written by Ramanujan himself has the following claim.
Theorem 1.0.1.
(Ramanujan’s Inequality) For sufficiently large, we shall have,
(1.1) |
Worth mentioning that, Ramanujan indeed provided a simple, yet unique solution in support of his claim. Furthermore, it has been well established that, the result is not true for every positive real . Thus, the most intriguing question that the statement of Theorem (1.0.1) poses is, is there any such that, Ramanujan’s Inequality will be unconditionally true for every ?
A brilliant effort put up by F. S. Wheeler, J. Keiper, and W. Galway in search for such using tools such as : Mathematica went in vain, although independently Galway successfully computed the largest prime counterexample below at . However, Hassani [22, Theorem 1.2] proposed a more inspiring answer to the question in a way that, such with (1.1) being satisfied for every , but one has to neccesarily assume the Riemann Hypothesis. In a recent paper by A. W. Dudek and D. J. Platt [2, Theorem 1.2], it has been established that, ramanujan’s Inequality holds true unconditionally for every . Although this can be considered as an exceptional achievement in this area, efforts of further improvements to this bound are already underway. For example, one recent result by Axler [26] suggests that, the lower bound for , namely can in fact be further improved upto using similar techniques as described in [2], although modifying the error term accordingly.
This article shall provide in detail, a new proof of Ramanujan’s Inequality, using a completely different technique by introducing the notion of Mertens Function. We shall utilize one of the most significant order properties of , namely, in order to find an improved estimate for [ref. Section 3.3]. Thus in turn, we shall verify the inequality in the final part of the article [ref. Section 4]. As an application to this method, we shall be able to refine the lower bound for even further in order for Theorem (1.0.1) to hold true without any further assumptions.
2 Arithmetic Functions
As for definition, Arithmetic Functions are in fact complex-valued functions on the set of Natural Numbers .
For the convenience of the readers, let us first introduce some notations, under standard assumption that, .
Definition 2.0.1.
We say is asymptotic to , and denote it by, if, .
Definition 2.0.2.
(Big Notation) Given , the notation, implies that, the quotient, is bounded for all ; i.e., a constant such that,
.
In this section, we shall discuss about a few specific important such type of arithmetic functions pertaining to the context of the paper and the proof of the original result.
2.1 Prime Counting Function
Definition 2.1.1.
For each ,we define,
The number of primes .
The most important contribution of is undoubtedly to the Prime Number Theorem, which can be stated as follows.
Theorem 2.1.1.
For every real , the following estimate is valid.
(2.1) |
Equivalently,
(2.2) |
.
For an elementary proof of above, readers can refer to [20].
2.2 Chebyshev Function
Chebyshev Function has the following definition.
Definition 2.2.1.
For each , we define,
,
Where ,
(2.5) |
is said to be the ”Mangoldt Function” .
An important observation is,
(2.6) |
In fact, one can use the function in order tosimplify the statement of the Prime Number Theorem (2.1.1). In other words, one can deduce that, proving the theorem is equivalent to proving the following statement,
(2.7) |
2.3 Mbius Function
We start with the formal definition.
Definition 2.3.1.
(Mbius Function) is defined as follows:
One can in fact use definition (2.3.1) to deduce the following property regarding the Mbius Function.
Proposition 2.3.1.
[17, Theorem 2.1 , pp. 25]
(2.8) |
2.4 Mertens Function
Definition 2.4.1.
The Mertens Function has the representation,
(2.9) |
Remark 2.4.1.
In general, there’s a notion of the Extended Mertens Function,
,
In his paper [4], Mertens conjectured that, for all with , we shall have,
(2.10) |
This is also known as the Mertens Hypothesis. [ Interested readers can refer to [3, Theorem 14.28, pp. 374] ]
Extending Mertens’ results further upto , Sterneck [5] conjectured that,
, .
The primary objective for Mertens behind introducing the function (As defined in (2.4.1)) was its underlying relation to the location of the zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function , the reason being largely due to it’s consequences for the distribution of the primes, also hailed as one of the most important unsolved problems in Analytic Number Theory. We shall be working with a particular order estimate of in later sections of the text, although readers are encouraged to consult [9], [11], [15] and [16] for further details.
2.5 Some Necessary Derivations
Proposition 2.5.1.
The Dirichlet Series Representation [3, Theorem 3.13 , pp. 62] for is given by:
(2.11) |
denoting the Riemann Zeta Function.
Proposition 2.5.2.
The following order estimates hold true:
Proof.
-
Near , we have the expansion for :
Where, denotes the Euler Constant. Thus,
Using Perron’s Formula, we have:
(2.12) where and is a parameter to be chosen later.
We evaluate the integral using the following steps.
Step 1: Integral around
Consider a small semicircle (say) of radius around having the following parametrization, , .
In this region,
and,
Thus, the integrand becomes:
Therefore,
Again, the integral of over a symmetric interval around zero is zero. Therefore, the integral around the small semicircle contributes a negligible amount of .
Step 2: Integral along the vertical line
For the part of the integral along the vertical line, say, : , , where , i.e.,
It can indeed be verified that, is bounded on as, does not have any pole for . Specifically, for with , is bounded away from zero, so is bounded.
An appropriate choice of gives us a bound on the integral:
Since is bounded by some constant and . Subsequently,
Since , , and for large , this term is small.
Step 3: Error term from the integral
The total error term combining both parts is:
It can be observed that, the residue term around contributes to , and the error terms contribute to .
Choosing small enough (such as ),
Thus, combining all terms and dividing by to normalize, we obtain.
-
As for the proof, we can use Perron’s formula for any arithmetic function ,
(2.13) where and be a suitably chosen parameter.
We thus study the following integral,
using following steps.
Step 1: Integral around
Consider a small semicircle (say) of radius around having the following parametrization, , , and a priori from the fact that, near ,
and,
Thus, on , we have,
Hence, the integrand becomes,
( Expanding and simplifying, the leading term integrates to zero due to symmetry of the integrand around zero ).
Step 2: Integral along the vertical line
For the part of the integral along the vertical line, say, : , , where , i.e.,
It can be checked that, is bounded on . Specifically, for with , both and are bounded, so is bounded by some constant . Hence,
Choosing ,
Since , , and for large , this term is small.
Step 3: Error term from the integral
The total error term combining both parts is:
Important to note that the residue term around contributes negligibly as , and the error terms contribute upto . (This can be achieved by considering small enough (such as ). Therefore, we conclude that,
-
A priori from the definition of and applying Perron’s Formula for yields,
(2.14) As for computing the integral in (2.14) over the vertical line : , , where , our aim is to try shifting the contour of integration to a vertical line closer to the critical strip. For our convenience, we choose where, . Using the fact that has no zeros for , we intend on obtaining a suitable bound for in this region.
Observe that for , is bounded away from zero, implying is also bounded. Specifically, for ,
for some constant . On the other hand,
Subsequently, the error term from the vertical line integral can be estimated as, , for any small .
Hence, we need to choose appropriately to control the error term in Perron’s formula. Using the Cauchy Residue Theorem [21, Chapt. 5.1 , pp. 120] and estimating the integral, we set and consider the main term and error terms:
This ensures that the main contribution comes from the vertical integral and the error terms are bounded appropriately. Accordingly,
By choosing sufficiently small, we can make the bound as close to as desired.
∎
3 Order Estimates involving
In this section, we shall apply the definitions of Chebyshev Function, in order to come up with a suitable estimate for in terms of the Mertens Function, .
3.1 Relation between and
Theorem 3.1.1.
The following holds true for the Chebyshev function, :
(3.1) |
Proof.
A proiori from the definition of involving the Von Mangoldt Function, , we apply the Mbius Inversion Formula [17, Section 14.1 , pp. 30] on to obtain,
(3.2) |
(3.3) |
Remark 3.1.2.
Here, we set , so that the inner sum is over with .
We approximate the sum of by integrating the logarithm function from 1 to , and then applying Integration by Parts.
Subsequently, from (3.3) we get,
Distributing and separating the main terms from the error term,
A priori using the results obtained in proposition (2.5.2),
(3.4) |
Furthermore,
Hence,
(3.5) |
Combining (3.4) and (3.5) yields,
Since dominates , we conclude that,
And the proof is thus complete. ∎
3.2 An important approximation for
A tricky application of the famous Prime Number Theorem (2.1.1) yields the following estimate,
(3.6) |
or some constant . However, it is indeed possible to obtain a simpler, and more effective bound for the Chebyshev Function.
Lemma 3.2.1.
We have,
(3.7) |
Proof.
This proof thouroughly utilizes results from Analytic Number Theory, specifically the properties of the Chebyshev function and the distribution of primes. We shall also leverage results from the analytic properties of the Riemann zeta function .
Important to note that, the proof relies on properties of the Riemann zeta function and its non-trivial zeros. However, we do not assume the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) here explicitly.
The explicit formula for involves the zeros of :
where the sum is over the non-trivial zeros of , and the term arises due to the existence of pole at .
The critical line plays a key role. Let be a non-trivial zero of with and .
The zeros are symmetric about the real axis, so we consider only the upper half-plane. For each zero of , the term contributes to . To estimate the error term, consider the sum over the non-trivial zeros :
In addition to above, we use the fact that the zeros have . The contribution of each such can be bounded by,
For zeros with , . Hence, the number of zeros with is . We choose to cover the relevant range of zeros.
Combining these estimates, we obtain,
(3.8) |
Including the logarithmic term from the pole at , the error term in becomes,
Since we know that the error term actually involves due to the density of the zeros of and more refined estimates, thus, we can further improve our estimate to,
∎
As the title of this section suggests, we shall now proceed towards understanding how we can approximate using properties of .
Theorem 3.2.2.
The following holds for the Prime counting function, :
(3.9) |
Proof.
Before we delve into the proof, notice that is zero except when is a power of a prime, specifically . We can hence rewrite as,
Further simplification yields,
(3.10) |
The error term in (3.10) comes from the higher powers of primes,
For , the sum is,
Whereas, for higher values of , the sums are even smaller,
Therefore, the error term is dominated by the term corresponding to , in other words,
Combining the main term and the error terms,
(3.11) |
On the other hand, applying the statement of Prime Number Theorem, we can have the following approximation,
More precisely,
(3.12) |
Given our earlier discussion, the error term, can be bounded by,
To isolate from (3.12), we divide both sides by ,
Substituting the error term bound:
From (3.7) in Lemma (3.2.1), we can further refine,
Combining the error terms, and applying Theorem (2.1.1) again enables us to assert that,
∎
3.3 An improved estimate for
First, let us recall that, (3.1) in Theorem (3.1.1) gives us an order estimate for in terms of , whereas, we have derived a unique representation of applying properties of , and analytic properties of the Riemann Zeta Function , as mentioned in (3.9) in Theorem (3.2.2).
We substitute (3.1) into (3.9) to obtain,
Combining the error terms,
(3.13) |
Note that is asymptotically smaller than , so the dominant error term is . Therefore, we have the following improved estimate for as follows.
Theorem 3.3.1.
(3.14) |
4 Proving Ramanujan’s Inequality
In order to prove Ramanujan’s Inequality, our primary intention will be to investigate the sign of the function,
(4.1) |
for large values of using the relationship between and the Mertens function . Given the complexity of the order relations an the extent of robust computations involving these functions as discussed in the previous section, we’ll have to analyze the expressions and error terms cautiously.
4.1 An order expression for
4.2 Asymptotic Behavior of indivudual Terms
A priori using involving the Mertens function ,
(4.6) |
So, we can further approximate each term of (4.5) as follows,
As a consequence,
(4.7) |
For sufficiently large values of . Therefore, we conclude that, , for large values of , and this concludes our proof of the inequality.
later, we shall try to establish a better range of the values of for which Ramanujan’s inequality does hold true.
5 A modified Bound for
The derivations which we’ve made in the previous sections yielded several order estimates involving , and especially . In this section, we shall discuss how this method enables us to find more optimal bounds for .
5.1 Upper Bound for
5.2 Lower Bound for
A priori using the estimate, ,
Using the approximation, gives,
Thus,
Therefore, applying the above derivation to (3.14) in Theorem (3.3.1), we assert that,
(5.3) |
for some positive constant . Hence, (5.2) and (5.3) allows us to state the following.
Theorem 5.2.1.
The following bounds on is valid for sufficiently large values of :
(5.4) |
for positive constants .
6 An improved condition for Ramanujan’s Inequality
A priori adopting Sterneck’s deduction [5], as mentioned in section of this text, we shall investigate the function for its sign for large values of , with every intention of improving the claim made by Dudek and Platt [2, ref. Theorem 2].
6.1 Monotonicity of the function
Our aim in this section is to establish the following claim.
Proposition 6.1.1.
The function as defined in (4.1) is monotone decreasing for .
Proof.
We intend on verifying that, for every large and for every arbitraily chosen.
Observe from definition that the difference,
(6.1) |
Now we evaluate,
(6.2) |
Using the explicit forms (3.14):
Therefore,
(6.3) |
For small , we use the linear approximation:
And,
Thus, we can compute further in (6.3) as follows,
(6.4) |
Similarly,
(6.5) |
Combining (6.4) and (6.5) yields,
(6.6) |
As for the second term in (6.1),
[Using the earlier approximations for and ]
(6.7) |
Hence, substituting (6.6) and (6.7) in (6.1) and simplifying,
(6.8) |
We utilize Sterneck’s conjecture,
to bound the difference as follows,
(6.9) |
Subsequently, enables us to conclude from (6.8) and (6.9),
(6.10) |
Since for any and the error term is smaller, it implies,
Thus, is monotone decreasing for large such that, .
∎
Remark 6.1.2.
Note that, Sterneck’s Conjecture only establishes the fact that,
where, . But in this case, since, we’re dealing with , hence, we’ve modified the lower bound for accordingly.
6.2 A better range for the values of
Just to recall, Proposition (6.1.1) comments on the monotonicity of for within a certain interval. Thus for every sufficiently large , we must have,
provided, , i.e., . Therefore, we have our following improved bound on in order to satisfy (1.1).
Theorem 6.2.1.
The Ramanujan’s Inequality (1.1) is unconditionally true for every .
Acknowledgments
I’ll always be grateful to Prof. Adrian W. Dudek ( Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics and Physics, University of Queensland, Australia ) for inspiring me to work on this problem and pursue research in this topic. His leading publications in this area helped me immensely in detailed understanding of the essential concepts.
References
- [1] Ramanujan Aiyangar, Srinivasa, and Bruce C Berndt, Ramanujan’s Notebooks: Part IV, New York: Springer-Verlag, 1994.
- [2] Adrian W. Dudek, David J. Platt, On Solving a Curious Inequality of Ramanujan, Experimental Mathematics, 24:3, 289-294, DOI: 10.1080/10586458.2014.990118, 2015.
- [3] E. C. Titchmarsh, The Theory of the Riemann Zeta-function, Oxford University Press, 1951. Second edition revised by D. R. Heath-Brown, published by Oxford University Press, 1986.
- [4] F. Mertens, ber eine zahlentheoretische Funktion, Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien 106(IIa) (1897) 761-830 .
- [5] R. D. von Sterneck, Die zahlentheoretische Funktion bis zur Grenze , Sitzungsber. Akad. Wiss. Wien 121(IIa) (1912) 1083-1096 .
- [6] De, Subham, ”On the Order Estimates for Specific Functions of and its Contribution towards the Analytic Proof of The Prime Number Theorem.”, arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.16303 (2023).
- [7] L. Schoenfeld, Sharper bounds for the Chebyshev Functions and . II, Mathematics of Computation, vol. 30, no. 134, pp. 337-360; DOI: 10.2307/2005976.
- [8] A. E. Ingham, The distribution of prime numbers, Cambridge University Press, 1932. Reprinted by Stechert-Hafner, 1964, and (with a foreword by R. C. Vaughan) by Cambridge University Press, 1990.
- [9] R. A. MacLeod, A new estimate for the sum , Acta Arith. 13 (1967) 49-59. Erratum, ibid. 16 (1969) 99-100.
- [10] F. Dress, Majorations de la fonction sommatoire de la fonction de Mbius, Bull. Soc. Math. Fr., Suppl., Mem. 49-50 (1977) 47-52.
- [11] H. G. Diamond, K. S. McCurley, Constructive elementary estimates for , In M. I. Knopp, editor, Analytic Number Theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 899, pp. 239-253, Springer, 1982.
- [12] N. Costa Pereira, Elementary estimate for the Chebyshev function and the Mbius function , Acta Arith. 52 (1989) 307-337.
- [13] F. Dress, M. El Marraki, Fonction sommatoire de la fonction de Mobius. 2, Majorations asymptotiques elementaires, Exp. Math. 2 (1993) 99-112.
- [14] E. Landau, Handbuch der Lehre von der Verteilung der Primzahlen, Vol. 2 (of 2), Teubner, 1909. Reprinted by Chelsea, 1953.
- [15] De, Subham, ”On the Order Estimate of the Mertens Function and its Relation to the Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function”, Preprints 2023, 2023090723. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202309.0723.v1
- [16] T. Kotnik, J. van de Lune, On the order of the Mertens function, experimental mathematics, Vol. 13 (2004), pp. 473-481.
- [17] T. M. Apostol, Introduction to Analytic Number Theory, Springer, 1976.
- [18] G.J.O. Jameson, The Prime Number Theorem, Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University Press, London Mathematical Society student texts, Vol. 53, 2003.
- [19] Olver, F. W. J., Asymptotics and Special Functions, Academic Press, New York, 1974.
- [20] De, Subham, On the proof of the Prime Number Theorem using Order Estimates for the Chebyshev Theta Function, International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), Vol. 12 Issue 11, Nov. 2023, pp. 1677-1691.
- [21] L Ahlfors, Complex Analysis, McGraw-Hill Education , edition , Jan. 1, 1979 .
- [22] Mehdi Hassani, “On an Inequality of Ramanujan Concerning the Prime Counting Function”, Ramanujan Journal 28 (2012), 435–442.
- [23] Ramanujan, S, “Collected Papers”, Chelsea, New York, 1962.
- [24] Hardy, G. H., A formula of Ramanujan in the theory of primes, 1. London Math. Soc. 12 (1937), 94-98.
- [25] Hardy, G. H., Collected Papers, vol. II, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1967.
- [26] Axler, Christian, On Ramanujan’s prime counting inequality,arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.02486 (2022).