31

I'm trying to analyse the primes with the following point of view

Consider the following partial sum :

$$S(p)=\sum_{n=2}^p\sin^2\left(\frac{π\Gamma(n)}{2n}\right)$$

The summand is zero for non-primes greater than 5 , and finite and non-decreasing for primes (see Connes paper on Wilson's theorem)

I treated this sum with Finite version Abel-Plana Summation Formula (APSF) (as in Olver's book "Asymptotics and special functions")

\begin{align}f(x) = {} & \sin^2\left(\frac{π\Gamma(x)}{2x}\right)\\ \sum_{k=2}^p f(k)= {} & \frac{f(2) +f(p)}2 + \int_2^p f(x) \, dx \\ & {}+ i\int_0^∞\frac{f(2+iy) − f(2−iy)}{e^{2πy }− 1} \, dy +i \int_0^∞\frac{f(p-iy) − f(p+iy)}{e^{2πy }− 1} \, dy \end{align}

Here the first integral $\int_2^p f(x) \,dx$ is okay (highly oscillatory but we can do something: at least numerically) ( numerical analysts are welcome to provide graphs of this for large ( at least $10^4$) $p$. I am unable to do so in Mathematica.)

See on computational science SE

$$i \int_0^∞\frac{f(p-iy) − f(p+iy)}{e^{2πy }− 1} \,dy$$

This integral is very tricky, I tried to get growth condition , upper and lower bounds on it but in vain.

Then, I tried to attach a weight such that:

$$F(z) = \omega(z)\sin^2\left(\frac{π\Gamma(z)}{2z}\right)$$

Here, $\omega(z)$ is a weight we have to construct .

The following three condition should hold for $\omega(z)$ :

  1. $$\omega(z)>\frac{1}{z},\ \forall z\in\mathbf{R}$$

( More generally this condition is added for divergence of $\int_0^\infty F(x)dx$ So , $\omega(z)$ can even be complex valued for real domain as long as the given integral is divergent )

  1. $$\lim_{ y→∞}|F(x ± iy)|e^{−2πy }= 0$$

  2. $$\int_0^\infty |F(x + iy) − F(x − iy)|e^{−2πy} \,dy<+\infty$$ for every $x≥1$ and tends to zero as $x\to\infty$.

This is to eliminate the tricky 2nd integral in the formula.

I can't find a weight that satisfies this; nor do I know if it is even possible to find one (!?)

(1) Is there any other way to eliminate this second integral as $p\rightarrow\infty$?

(2) Is there a better summation technique to analyse this (type of) problem?

(3) Can we twist (the frequency part of)/change $F(x)$ to make the second integral more sane? (i.e. to make the magnitude of $f$'s imaginary part satisfy condition 3)

Note : I know these type of trig primality-tests are not practical but this one interests me so .....( interest is due to the fact that $\Gamma$ is nicely analytic).

Also this could provide a new insights to deal with primes ( if it's workable at all).

If argument can't work please explain why(?).

UPDATE :

Instead of finding the weight ; I considered $\sin^2$ term as function of some other function such that:

Construct a generalized function such that:

$$ F_*(z, s) = \dfrac{\phi(\sin^2[π\Gamma(z)/(2z)])}{z^s} $$

(1) $\phi(x) =0$ if $x$ is zero ; and 'suitably' finite otherwise

(Here , 'suitably' means a value which guarantees the expected divergence of sum (very close to 1 or greater than or equal to 1) )

(2) condition (3) holds for such function

A very 'close' example :

$$ F(z, s) = \dfrac{\sinh(\sin^2[π\Gamma(z)/(2z)])}{z^s} $$

Let us restrict $s\in[0,1]$

Hence ,

Now ,

$$ I(x,s) =\int_0^\infty\mathrm dy \frac{F(x + \mathrm iy, s) − F(x −\mathrm iy, s)}{\mathrm e^{2πy}-1}, $$

Questions remain:

Can we get 'sharp' numerical asymptotic of $I(x)$ as as $x\rightarrow \infty$?

Also, can we get quantitative upper and lower bound estimations on the functional ?

Also, other possible candidates for $\phi$? And henceforth the above analogous analysis as above ?

See: https://mathoverflow.net/q/354962/145581

Related Question : Infinitude of primes using series introduced in Connes' paper on Wilson's theorem

Possible Unified Applications: We can apply it to other primes of special forms whose Infinitude is unknown. (as Γ is nicely analytic).

$$S_2(p)=\sum_{n=2}^p\sin^2\left(\frac{π\Gamma(n)}{2n}\right)\sin^2\left(\frac{π\Gamma(n+2)}{2(n+2)}\right)$$

For more details see : On a growth condition satisfied by given functional : Also in this post there is list of values of functional for small X's .

Any Comments from numerical methods- experts are welcome (numerical analysis of first and second integral for large (at least $10^2$) values of respective variable ):

See related numerical-method based question : Comparison of integrals with a function (at least numerically):

One sentence summary question: How to get hold of second integral ( growth conditions, roots and other properties ) so that we can use it for our purpose?

Or

How to get rid of second integral using a weight or composite function method described above ?

I modified second integral to various forms to make it workable with given conditions . But if you have a version that works with given conditions as mentioned please add and explain .

As one can see I have various doubt about this approach. But I need some expert comments with technical details why this approach is less likely workable.

bambi
  • 916
  • 56
    Make sure that none of the required theorems rely on the infinitude of the primes ;-) –  Mar 05 '20 at 19:50
  • 4
    @YvesDaoust thank you for the comment . Is any of the above analysis rely on infinitude of primes ? I don't think so. If there's any please mention (anyone). – bambi Mar 15 '20 at 18:32
  • 8
    For those who are downvoting , please mention the reason what's wrong with the argument; it'll save my time and useful for me . – bambi May 04 '20 at 04:46
  • 25
    I did NOT downvote. Nevertheless, either have a simple proof or aim at a much harder result when you're using your heavy cannons. – Wlod AA May 04 '20 at 19:10
  • 9
    @WlodAA thank you for the comment; but the argument ( if worked) could have potential application in some of the unsolved problems in prime number theory ; even though this (question) is like using shotgun to kill a rat. – bambi May 04 '20 at 19:20
  • 4
    @WlodAA I mentioned the possible applications – bambi May 09 '20 at 18:57
  • About this: "The summand is zero for non-primes". I think it becomes true if edited: "The summand is zero for non-primes greater than $8$". – 2'5 9'2 May 10 '20 at 17:16
  • 8
    I answered every doubt and details as asked by people in comments and answers ( after that they deleted it ) . Asked me about applications, I added ; about applicability of Abel plana, I explained . Then again I'm getting downvotes. The problem is not the downvotes but them being without any reasoning comment. Just see the unified applications if such result is possible .( And I'm working on it until and unless I see some firm reason to deny it) – bambi May 11 '20 at 19:19
  • 15
    You should limit how frequently you edit posts, especially for such minor edits. It artificially draws attention to your post because it bumps your post to the top because of the way the Stack Exchange network operates. – Cameron L. Williams May 12 '20 at 15:45
  • 1
    @CameronWilliams sorry, I'll keep that in mind – bambi May 12 '20 at 16:10
  • 3
    The number of your edits keeps being way too high. For the time being the question is locked to prevent further edits. – quid May 31 '20 at 16:58
  • 4
    it would be much better to post this on mathoverflow, much higer chances of replies and answers – Arjun Jun 08 '20 at 06:00
  • 4
    @ArjunRana already did , but closed and then deleted as not up to research level !? – bambi Jun 08 '20 at 08:20
  • 2
    I didn't downvote, but your comments on this question (and on the deleted answer) evince a kind of defensiveness that might turn people off. Also, it might be hard to tell what the motivation is to prove the infinitude of primes in this fashion. But don't worry about the downvotes; they really don't matter at this point... – Brian Tung Jul 11 '20 at 05:06
  • 2
    @BrianTung Thank you for the comment, sir and sorry if I'm (seem to) being rude. There might be two possible reasons for this : first one that my English is not that good and second one is there is very severe initial criticism on this question without reading the question fully ( by seeing only the elementary trigonometric primality test ). Also, I already mentioned the possible application at the end; which could be a very strong motivation to prove infinitude of primes this way . Again thank you! – bambi Jul 11 '20 at 05:46
  • 12
    @Bambi The endless minor edits might be one cause - this question is now on its seventy fifth version. – Noah Schweber Jul 12 '20 at 12:20
  • @NoahSchweber apologies – bambi Jul 12 '20 at 15:20
  • Bambi: This question was locked for a period of time at the end of May because of your excessive editing. Please, figure out what you are going to say, write it up, and then stop editing. If these numerous small edits persist, this question will be locked again. – Xander Henderson Aug 18 '20 at 01:12
  • Having spent some time reading your post, I am having trouble understanding what your actual question is. There are (at least) 9 question marks in your post. Such broad questions are generally not a good fit for the Math SE format. Can you give a one sentence summary of what it is that you are after? What would a good answer look like? – Xander Henderson Aug 18 '20 at 01:22
  • 4
    @XanderHenderson IMHO I don't think it's that easy. But I tried to give a "one sentence summary question" – bambi Aug 18 '20 at 09:12
  • @Bambi You say that "I don't think that it's that easy" to give a one sentence summary. If you can't do that, then the question is likely too broad for Math SE, and should be closed as such. Math SE is meant for narrowly focused questions where the asker knows a priori what a good answer will look like (for example, if an asker is trying to prove a particular theorem, they know that a good answer will consist of a proof which they can follow). Now, before you edit your question again, let's see if we can figure out what you are after. – Xander Henderson Aug 18 '20 at 13:39
  • 2
    In one sentence, what is your question? In one additional sentence, what will a good answer look like? What are you hoping to get from this post on Math SE? – Xander Henderson Aug 18 '20 at 13:40
  • @XanderHenderson I mentioned both of the things in the edit . I want a growth condition on sharp upper bound of second integral. – bambi Aug 18 '20 at 13:42
  • The formatting you're using makes the question somewhat difficult to read. It would be more parsable for most readers if you replaced some of the >> with headings #, subheadings ##, or quote boxes >. – Alexander Gruber Aug 20 '20 at 07:55
  • 3
    @Bambi You have been repeatedly asked to narrow the focus of your question, and to stop making small, incremental edits (one big edit which clarifies your question would be welcome, but it seems that such an edit is not forthcoming). I am closing this question. – Xander Henderson Oct 09 '20 at 00:50
  • Anything new on the question/s? If the approach is (totally) worthless please say so and it's an honest request to explain why it's worthless because I honestly can't see it. – bambi Jan 23 '21 at 06:29
  • 1
    @Bambi "The summand is zero for non-primes greater than 5" - Is it? I have computed some values and found this. I don't know If I am mistaken tho, it could be the case you mean something else with that. – Red Banana Jan 23 '21 at 06:38
  • @BillyRubina thank you for the comment but I know that already – bambi Jan 23 '21 at 16:47
  • 1
    Also, I honestly want to ask about close votes. – bambi Jan 23 '21 at 17:44
  • @Bambi As I indicated above, when I closed your question, your continued edits make it hard to understand what you are after-the question is unclear. Moreover, you seem to be asking at least three questions related to a the work at the top. Questions on Math SE should be narrowly focused-you should be asking one question which admits an authoritative answer. You should be able to summarize your entire post into one or two sentences. This question seems like it was written more to generate discussion than to elicit an authoritative answer, hence some users understandably feel it is off-topic. – Xander Henderson Jan 23 '21 at 20:09
  • 4
    @XanderHenderson I completely agree with you sir. I also tried to give one sentence summary of the question. But I'm really unable to understand what really is expected from me. How should I update my question further to make it good and not to be closed? – bambi Jan 25 '21 at 03:10
  • 1
    Also I want to mention, edits are intended to correct my mistakes as I understood about them in time. – bambi Jan 28 '21 at 10:59
  • Your most recent edit was completely trivial, and only served to bump this question to the front page. – Noah Schweber Jun 25 '23 at 18:02

0 Answers0