Divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the

primes
The sum of the reciprocals of all prime numbers
diverges; that is:

The sum of the reciprocal of the primes increasing

without bound. The x axis is in log scale, showing
that the divergence is very slow. The red function
is a lower bound that also diverges.

This was proved by Leonhard Euler in 1737,[1] and strengthens (i.e. it gives more information than) Euclid's
3rd-century-BC result that there are infinitely many prime numbers.

There are a variety of proofs of Euler's result, including a lower bound for the partial sums stating that

for all natural numbers n . The double natural logarithm (log log) indicates that the divergence might be very
slow, which is indeed the case. See Meissel–Mertens constant.

Contents
The harmonic series
Proofs
Euler's proof
Erdős's proof by upper and lower estimates
Proof that the series exhibits log-log growth
Proof from Dusart's inequality
Geometric and Harmonic Series Proof
Partial sums
See also
References
External links

The harmonic series

First, we describe how Euler originally discovered the result. He was considering the harmonic series

He had already used the following "product formula" to show the existence of infinitely many primes.

Here the product is taken over the set of all primes.

Such infinite products are today called Euler products. The product above is a reflection of the fundamental
theorem of arithmetic. Euler noted that if there were only a finite number of primes, then the product on the
right would clearly converge, contradicting the divergence of the harmonic series.

Proofs

Euler's proof

Euler considered the above product formula and proceeded to make a sequence of audacious leaps of logic.
First, he took the natural logarithm of each side, then he used the Taylor series expansion for log x as well as
the sum of a converging series:

for a fixed constant K < 1 . Then he invoked the relation

which he explained, for instance in a later 1748 work,[2] by setting x = 1 in the Taylor series expansion

This allowed him to conclude that

It is almost certain that Euler meant that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes less than n is asymptotic to
log log n as n approaches infinity. It turns out this is indeed the case, and a more precise version of this fact
was rigorously proved by Franz Mertens in 1874.[3] Thus Euler obtained a correct result by questionable
means.

Erdős's proof by upper and lower estimates

The following proof by contradiction is due to Paul Erdős.

Let p i denote the ith prime number. Assume that the sum of the reciprocals of the primes converges

Then there exists a smallest positive integer k such that

For a positive integer x, let Mx denote the set of those n in {1, 2, …, x} which are not divisible by any
prime greater than p k (or equivalently all n ≤ x which are a product of powers of primes p i ≤ p k). We will
now derive an upper and a lower estimate for |Mx |, the number of elements in Mx. For large x, these bounds
will turn out to be contradictory.

Upper estimate:

Every n in Mx can be written as n = m2r with positive integers m and r, where r is square-
free. Since only the k primes p 1, …, p k can show up (with exponent 1) in the prime
factorization of r, there are at most 2 k different possibilities for r. Furthermore, there are at
most √x possible values for m. This gives us the upper estimate

Lower estimate:

The remaining x − |Mx | numbers in the set difference {1, 2, …, x} \ Mx are all divisible by
a prime greater than p k. Let Ni,x denote the set of those n in {1, 2, …, x} which are divisible
by the ith prime p i. Then
 x
Since the number of integers in Ni,x is at most p (actually zero for p i > x), we get
i

Using (1), this implies

This produces a contradiction: when x ≥ 2 2k + 2, the estimates (2) and (3) cannot both hold, because
x k
2 ≥ 2 √x .

Proof that the series exhibits log-log growth

Here is another proof that actually gives a lower estimate for the partial sums; in particular, it shows that these
sums grow at least as fast as log log n . The proof is due to Ivan Niven,[4] adapted from the product
expansion idea of Euler. In the following, a sum or product taken over p always represents a sum or product
taken over a specified set of primes.

The proof rests upon the following four inequalities:

Every positive integer i can be uniquely expressed as the product of a square-free integer and
a square as a consequence of the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Start with:

where the βs are 0 (the corresponding power of prime q is even) or 1 (the corresponding power of prime q is
odd). Factor out one copy of all the primes whose β is 1, leaving a product of primes to even powers, itself a
square. Relabeling:

where the first factor, a product of primes to the first power, is square free. Inverting all the is gives the
inequality

To see this, note that

where
That is, is one of the summands in the expanded product A. And since is one of the
summands of B, every i is represented in one of the terms of AB when multiplied out. The inequality follows.

The upper estimate for the natural logarithm

The lower estimate 1 + x < exp(x) for the exponential function, which holds for all x > 0 .
Let n ≥ 2 . The upper bound (using a telescoping sum) for the partial sums (convergence is all
we really need)

Combining all these inequalities, we see that

Dividing through by 53 and taking the natural logarithm of both sides gives
as desired. ∎

Using

5
(see the Basel problem), the above constant log = 0.51082… can be improved to
3
2
log π6 = 0.4977…; in fact it turns out that

where M = 0.261497… is the Meissel–Mertens constant (somewhat analogous to the much more famous
Euler–Mascheroni constant).

Proof from Dusart's inequality

From Dusart's inequality, we get

Then

by the integral test for convergence. This shows that the series on the left diverges.

Geometric and Harmonic Series Proof

Suppose for contradiction the sum converged. Then, there exists such that . Call this sum .

Now consider the convergent geometric series .

This geometric series contains the sum of reciprocals of all numbers whose prime factorization contain only
primes in the set .
Consider the subseries . This is a subseries because is not

divisible by any .

However, by the Limit comparison test, this subseries diverges by comparing it to the harmonic series. Indeed,

Thus, we have found a divergent subseries of the original convergent series, and since all terms are positive,
this gives the contradiction. We may conclude diverges.

Partial sums
While the partial sums of the reciprocals of the primes eventually exceed any integer value, they never equal an
integer.

One proof[5] is by induction: The first partial sum is 12 , which has the form even
odd
. If the n th partial sum (for
odd
n ≥ 1) has the form even , then the (n + 1)st sum is

odd
as the (n + 1)st prime p n + 1 is odd; since this sum also has an even form, this partial sum cannot be an
integer (because 2 divides the denominator but not the numerator), and the induction continues.

Another proof rewrites the expression for the sum of the first n reciprocals of primes (or indeed the sum of the
reciprocals of any set of primes) in terms of the least common denominator, which is the product of all these
primes. Then each of these primes divides all but one of the numerator terms and hence does not divide the
numerator itself; but each prime does divide the denominator. Thus the expression is irreducible and is non-
integer.

See also
Euclid's theorem that there are infinitely many primes
Small set (combinatorics)
Brun's theorem, on the convergent sum of reciprocals of the twin primes
List of sums of reciprocals

References
1. Euler, Leonhard (1737). "Variae observationes circa series infinitas" [Various observations
concerning infinite series]. Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae. 9: 160–188.
2. Euler, Leonhard (1748). Introductio in analysin infinitorum. Tomus Primus [Introduction to
Infinite Analysis. Volume I]. Lausanne: Bousquet. p. 228, ex. 1.
3. Mertens, F. (1874). "Ein Beitrag zur analytischen Zahlentheorie" (http://gdz.sub.uni-goettingen.d
e/dms/resolveppn/?PPN=GDZPPN002155656). J. Reine Angew. Math. 78: 46–62.
 4. Niven, Ivan, "A Proof of the Divergence of Σ 1/p ", The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 78,
No. 3 (Mar. 1971), pp. 272-273. The half-page proof is expanded by William Dunham in Euler:
The Master of Us All, pp. 74-76.
5. Lord, Nick (2015). "Quick proofs that certain sums of fractions are not integers". The
Mathematical Gazette. 99: 128–130. doi:10.1017/mag.2014.16 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2Fma
g.2014.16).

Sources

Dunham, William (1999). Euler The Master of Us All (https://archive.org/details/eulermasterofus

a0000dunh). MAA. pp. 61–79 (https://archive.org/details/eulermasterofusa0000dunh/page/61).
ISBN 0-88385-328-0.

External links
Caldwell, Chris K. "There are infinitely many primes, but, how big of an infinity?" (http://www.ut
m.edu/research/primes/infinity.shtml).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Divergence_of_the_sum_of_the_reciprocals_of_the_primes&oldid=1000145937"

This page was last edited on 13 January 2021, at 20:28 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this
site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.