Source. Terence Tao, The convergence of an alternating series of Erdős,
assuming the Hardy--Littlewood prime tuples conjecture, Section 2
(displays (2.1)--(2.3)), physical and printed pp. 3--4 of the sixteen-page
arXiv v3 PDF held by its library card,
Tao (2023).
The source credits the equivalence to an unpublished observation of Said
(its footnote 3 points to MathOverflow question 313999) and supplies the
proof "for the convenience of the reader".
Standing. This is an author-recorded reconstruction of a source
argument. It is not an independent review, changes no status and assigns
no tier. The result is unconditional; its only external input is the prime
number theorem in the form stated below. The source states displays
(2.1)--(2.3), the intermediate displays reproduced in Steps 1--4, 6 and 7,
and the summation-by-parts bound that Step 8 makes explicit; the tail
estimate in Step 4, the explicit constant in Step 5, the calculation in
Step 7, the derivative bound and the integral comparison in Step 8, the
derivation of the prime number theorem form from π(t), and Step 9 are
supplied by this reconstruction where the source writes 'from the prime
number theorem and subdivision of the m variable', 'after some calculation',
'from summation by parts and the prime number theorem' and 'clearly follows'.
Definitions
pn is the nth prime and π(t)=#{p≤t}. For real x≥1 and
y≥2 put
A(x)=n≤x∑pn(−1)nn,B(y)=2≤m≤y∑mlogm(−1)π(m).
Question 1.1 of the source asks whether A(x) converges as x→∞
(this is Problem 15); Question 1.2 asks whether
B(y) converges as y→∞.
Imported input (prime number theorem). For n≥10,
pn=nlogn(1+O(lognloglogn)),
with an absolute implied constant. This follows from
π(t)=logtt(1+O(1/logt)): it gives
pn=nlogpn(1+O(1/logn)), and logpn=logn+O(loglogn). Also
pn/n→∞ and n/pn→0.
Statement
There is an absolute constant C such that
A(x)=21B(xlogx)+C+o(1)(x→∞).(2.1)
Consequently A(x) converges as x→∞ if and only if B(y)
converges as y→∞.
converges absolutely, to a sum D. Then its partial sums up to x are
D+o(1), and Steps 3 and 4 give
A(x)=−41−2C0−2D+21B(xlogx)+o(1),
which is (2.1) with C=−41−2C0−2D. Since
π(m)=n for pn≤m<pn+1, the nth term of the series equals
(−1)n times a real number, and absolute convergence is equivalent to
The starting index 10 is arbitrary (the source's footnote 4); the first
nine terms are finite.
Step 6: the mean value point
The function g(t)=1/(tlogt) is continuous and decreasing on
[2,∞). The average of g over the pn+1−pn integers
m∈[pn,pn+1) lies between g(pn+1−1) and g(pn), so by the
intermediate value theorem there is xn∈[pn,pn+1−1] with
pn≤m<pn+1∑mlogm1=xnlogxnpn+1−pn.
Step 7: comparing 1/(xnlogxn) with n/(pnpn+1)
Let n≥10 and ηn=loglogn/logn. The imported prime number
theorem gives pn=nlogn(1+O(ηn)), and also
pn+1=(n+1)log(n+1)(1+O(ηn+1))=nlogn(1+O(ηn)), since
(n+1)log(n+1)=nlogn(1+O(1/n)) and ηn+1≍ηn. As
pn≤xn<pn+1, also xn=nlogn(1+O(ηn)), and then
logxn=logn+loglogn+O(ηn)=logn(1+O(ηn)). Hence
By Steps 6 and 7 the nth term of (2.3) is
≪wn(pn+1−pn) with wn=loglogn/(nlog3n), so it suffices to
show ∑n≥10wn(pn+1−pn)<∞. Summation by parts gives, for
N≥11,
so ∣wn−wn−1∣≪loglogn/(n2log3n), and with
pn≪nlogn,
n≥11∑∣wn−wn−1∣pn≪n≥11∑nlog2nloglogn<∞,
the last series converging by comparison with
∫tlog2tloglogtdt=∫ue−udu under
u=loglogt. Also wNpN+1≪loglogN/log2N→0. So the partial
sums converge; since the terms wn(pn+1−pn) are nonnegative, the
series converges. This proves (2.3), hence the absolute convergence in
Step 5, hence (2.1).
Step 9: the equivalence
If B(y) converges as y→∞, then (2.1) shows A(x) converges.
Conversely, suppose A(x) converges as x→∞ through the integers.
By (2.1), B(xlogx) converges along the integers x. For real
y→∞ choose the integer x with xlogx≤y<(x+1)log(x+1);
the number of integers m in (xlogx,y] is at most
(x+1)log(x+1)−xlogx+1≪logx, each contributing at most
1/(xlogx⋅log(xlogx)) to B, so
∣B(y)−B(xlogx)∣≪1/(xlogx)→0, and B(y) converges. This proves the
statement.
Boundary. Only the prime number theorem enters, in the form stated
above. The source's Remark 2.1, that the o(1) in (2.1) can be taken to
be O(loglogx/logx), is stated without proof in the source and is not
reconstructed here. The
Theorem 1.4 reconstruction
uses this page only through the equivalence, to pass from Question 1.2 to
Question 1.1.