Bertrand’s conjecture, proof of


This is a version of Erdős’s proof as it appears in Hardy and Wright.

We begin with the following lemma.

Lemma.

Let n be a positive integer and p be a prime. The highest power of p dividing n! is ∑j⌊npj⌋, where ⌊x⌋ is the floor of x.

Proof.

Let pk divide n! with k as large as possible. Every pth term of the sequenceMathworldPlanetmath 1,…,n is divisible by p, so contributes a factor to pk. There are ⌊np⌋ such factors. Every p2th term contributes an extra factor above that, providing ⌊np2⌋ new factors. In general, the pjth terms contribute ⌊npj⌋ extra factors to pk. So the highest power of p dividing n! is ∑j⌊npj⌋. ∎

We now prove the theoremMathworldPlanetmath.

Bertrand’s conjecture.

Let n>2 be a minimal counterexample to the claim. Thus there is no prime p such that n<p<2⁢n.

In the sequence of primes

2,3,5,7,13,23,43,83,163,317,631,1259,2503,

each succeeding term is smaller than the double of its predecessor. This shows that n≥2503.

The binomial expansion (http://planetmath.org/BinomialTheorem) of (1+1)2⁢n has 2⁢n+1 terms and has largest term (2⁢nn). Hence

(2⁢nn)≥4n2⁢n+1≥4n(2⁢n)2.

For a prime p define r⁢(p,n) to be the highest power of p dividing (2⁢nn). To compute r⁢(p,n), we apply the lemma to (2⁢n)! and n!. We get that

r⁢(p,n)=∑j≥1⌊2⁢npj⌋-2⁢∑j≥1⌊npj⌋=∑j≥1(⌊2⁢npj⌋-2⁢⌊npj⌋).

The terms of the sum are all 0 or 1 and vanish when j>⌊log⁡(2⁢n)log⁡p⌋, so r⁢(p,n)≤⌊log⁡(2⁢n)log⁡p⌋, that is, pr⁢(p,n)≤2⁢n.

Now (2⁢nn)=∏ppr⁢(p,n). By the inequalityMathworldPlanetmath just proved, primes larger than 2⁢n do not contribute to this productPlanetmathPlanetmath, and by assumptionPlanetmathPlanetmath there are no primes between n and 2⁢n. So

(2⁢nn)=∏1≤p≤np⁢ primepr⁢(p,n).

For n>p>2⁢n3, 32>np>1 and so for p>2⁢n3>2⁢n we can apply the previous formulaMathworldPlanetmathPlanetmath for r⁢(p,n) and find that it is zero. So for all n>4, the contribution of the primes larger than 2⁢n3 is zero.

If p>2⁢n, all the terms for higher powers of p vanish and r⁢(p,n)=⌊2⁢np⌋-2⁢⌊np⌋. Since r⁢(p,n) is at most 1, an upper boundMathworldPlanetmath for the contribution for the primes between 2⁢n and 2⁢n3 is the product of all primes smaller than 2⁢n3. This product is exp⁡(ϑ⁢(2⁢n3)), where ϑ⁢(n) is the Chebyshev functionMathworldPlanetmath

ϑ⁢(n)=∑p≤np⁢ primelog⁡p.

There are at most 2⁢n primes smaller than 2⁢n and by the inequality pr⁢(p,n)≤2⁢n their product is less than (2⁢n)2⁢n. Combining this information, we get the inequality

4n(2⁢n)2≤(2⁢nn)≤(2⁢n)2⁢n⁢exp⁡(ϑ⁢(2⁢n3)).

Taking logarithms and applying the upper bound of n⁢log⁡4 for ϑ⁢(n) (http://planetmath.org/UpperBoundOnVarthetan), we obtain the inequality n3⁢log⁡4≤(2⁢n+2)⁢log⁡(2⁢n), which is false for sufficiently large n, say n=211. This shows that n<211.

Since the conditions n≥2503 and n<211 are incompatible, there are no counterexamplesMathworldPlanetmath to the claim. ∎

References

  • 1 G.H. Hardy, E.M. Wright, An Introduction to the Theory of Numbers, Oxford University Press, 1938.
Title Bertrand’s conjecture, proof of
Canonical name BertrandsConjectureProofOf
Date of creation 2013-03-22 13:18:55
Last modified on 2013-03-22 13:18:55
Owner CWoo (3771)
Last modified by CWoo (3771)
Numerical id 15
Author CWoo (3771)
Entry type Proof
Classification msc 11N05