New upper bounds for Ramanujan primes
Anitha Srinivasan, Pablo Ar\'es

TL;DR
This paper establishes new upper bounds for Ramanujan primes, showing that for large n, these primes are less than certain prime indices defined by a specific asymptotic formula involving logarithms.
Contribution
It provides a novel asymptotic upper bound for Ramanujan primes using prime index comparisons and logarithmic functions.
Findings
For large n, R_n < p_{[ ext{alpha}]} with specified alpha
The bounds depend on epsilon, j(n), and logarithmic growth rates
The results hold for all sufficiently large n
Abstract
For , the Ramanujan prime is defined as the smallest positive integer such that for all , the interval has at least primes. We show that for every , there is a positive integer such that if , then for all , where is the prime and is any function that satisfies and .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAnalytic Number Theory Research · Advanced Mathematical Identities · Graph theory and applications
New upper bounds for Ramanujan primes
Anitha Srinivasan, Pablo Arés Saint Louis University- Madrid Campus, Avenida del Valle 34, 28003 Madrid, Spain. email: [email protected] Universidad San Pablo CEU, Julián Romea, 23, 28003 Madrid, Spain. email: [email protected]
Abstract
For , the Ramanujan prime is defined as the smallest positive integer such that for all , the interval has at least primes. We show that for every , there is a positive integer such that if , then for all , where is the prime and is any function that satisfies and .
1 Introduction
For , the Ramanujan prime is defined as the smallest positive integer , such that for all , the interval has at least primes. Note that by the minimality condition, is prime and the interval contains exactly primes. Let , where denotes the prime. Sondow [7] showed that for all , and conjectured that for all . This conjecture was proved by Laishram [4], and the upper bound improved by various authors ([1], [8]). Subsequently, Srinivasan [9] and Axler [1] improved these bounds by showing that for every , there exists an integer such that
[TABLE]
Using the method in [9] (outlined below), a further improvement was presented by Srinivasan and Nicholson, who proved that
[TABLE]
for all . The above result follows from a special case of our main theorem given below. Yang and Togbe [11], also used the method in [9], to give tight upper and lower bounds for for large (greater than ). For some interesting generalizations of Ramanujan primes the reader may refer to [2], [5] and [6].
The main idea in [9] is to define a function that is decreasing for and that satisfies . Then, an is found such that for , which would imply that for given the decreasing nature of . We employ a variation of this method, where we first show that is a decreasing function for . Then we find an integer greater than for which , which leads us to the desired result. Our main result is the following.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let and . Let be a function such that and as and let
[TABLE]
Then there exists a positive integer such that for all , we have , where .
In the following corollary we record a bound obtained with , where is chosen so as to minimize the number of calculations. Similar results can be given for smaller values of (with different ) where the determination of depends solely on computational power.
Corollary 1.1**.**
Let . Then for we have , where
[TABLE]
2 The basic functions and lemmas
We will use the following bounds for the prime given by Dusart.
Lemma 2.1**.**
The following hold for the prime .
* for all .* 2. 2.
* for all .*
Proof.
See [3] ∎
Let
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that where . We define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where and is a function that satisfies and as .
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let . Then the following hold.
** 2. 2.
* for all .* 3. 3.
* is a decreasing function for all and for .*
Proof.
For parts 1 and 2 see [9, Lemma 2.1] and [9, Remark 2.1] respectively. For part 3 see [11]. ∎ ∎
The following lemma contains useful results that include an expression for the derivative in terms of the function .
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let . Then the following hold.
* as .* 2. 2.
** 3. 3.
* for .* 4. 4.
.
Proof.
We have
[TABLE]
and hence
[TABLE]
where as . As and , we have .
For the second part of the lemma, , which gives . As , we have
[TABLE]
and the result follows by the definition of .
For part 3 we have
[TABLE]
from which the claim follows as for we have .
For the last part, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
as . ∎ ∎
3 Proofs of main results
The following lemma shows that is a decreasing function for large , which is crucial in the proof of Theorem 1.1.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let and
[TABLE]
where is a function that satisfies and as . Then .
Proof.
We have and therefore as . By our assumption on it follows that which gives (as ). It is easy to see that . It follows that (see equation (1)). Lastly note that as . The result follows now on using all the above and the fact that (Lemma 2.3 part 1) in part 2 of Lemma 2.3. ∎
Proof of Theorem 1.1 We will first show that there exists a positive integer , such that for . We have by the lemma above, which means that if , then there exists an integer , such that for all we have , that is
[TABLE]
for all . Let and be two integers such that . Then . If is fixed, it follows that for large . Therefore there exists a positive integer , such that for all , we have .
We may assume that so that from Lemma 2.2, part 3 we have . Moreover, from the same lemma we have is decreasing for . As and are both bigger than , we have for and the result follows. ∎ ∎
Proof of Corollary
Let . We will first show that for we have .
Let . It is easy to verify that for we have
[TABLE]
It follows that for all
[TABLE]
Next, we will show that .
Using Lemma 2.3, part 4 and Lemma 2.2 part 2, we have
[TABLE]
Observe that for
[TABLE]
as holds if , that is if . The above holds if or .
Computation yields that for
[TABLE]
From equations (3)-(5) we have . From Lemma 2.3 part 3, and hence for we have
[TABLE]
As , equations (2) and (6) give
[TABLE]
From Lemma 2.3, part 2, noting that , we have for all . Also, and hence we conclude that for .
From Lemma 2.2, part 3 we have and is decreasing for . As and are both bigger than , it follows that for . That the result holds for is a simple calculation. ∎
Remark 3.1**.**
Similar results for lower bounds for can be given using instead of .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C . Axler,: Über die Primzahl-Zählfunktion, die n-te Primzahl und verallgemeinerte Ramanujan– Primzahlen, Ph.D. thesis, 2013 (in German), http://docserv.uni-duesseldorf.de/servlets/Document Servlet?id=26247
- 2[2] C . Axler, On generalized Ramanujan primes , Ramanujan journal, 39 (no. 1), (2016), 1–30.
- 3[3] P . Dusart, Estimates of some functions over primes without R.H. , preprint (2010), http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0442
- 4[4] S . Laishram, On a conjecture on Ramanujan primes , Int. J. Number Theory 6 , (2010), 1869–1873.
- 5[5] J . B. Paksoy, Derived Ramanujan primes R n ′ superscript subscript 𝑅 𝑛 ′ R_{n}^{\prime} , http:/arxiv.org/abs/1210.6991
- 6[6] V . Shevelev, Ramanujan and Labos primes, their generalizations and classifications of primes , J. Integer Seq. 15 (2012), Article 12.5.4
- 7[7] J . Sondow, Ramanujan primes and Bertrand’s postulate , Amer. Math. Monthly 116 , (2009), 630–635.
- 8[8] J . Sondow, J. W. Nicholson, T. D. Noe, Ramanujan primes: Bounds, Runs, Twins, and Gaps , Journal of integer sequences 14 , (2011), Article 11.6.2.
