THE BINARY GOLDBACH PROBLEM

By Malvina Baica and Aldo Peretti

ABSTRACT

In this paper the authors will present the results of Baica’s paper “Clarifications of the Author’s
Previous Paper in the Goldbach Conjecture” in a slightly different form and correct some
misprints in it.
1. Introduction
As known, the Goldbach problem admits two different statements:
A) The ternary problem: every odd natural number is the sum of at most three odd primes.
B) The binary problem: every even natural number is the sum of at most two odd primes.
Such decompositions are called Goldbach decompositions.
Concerning the ternary problem, it has been proved (ref. (1)), that if in the original paper of
Hardy-Littlewood (ref. (2)) is assumed the validity of the Extended Riemann Hypothesis
(E.R.H.), then the Goldbach decompositions exists for every odd N > 1,24 x 1050.
This bound was lowered by Lucke in 1926 to N > 1032, and by D. Zinoviev in 1997 to N =
1020.
Finally in 1997 was proved by J.M. Deshouillers that is valid (always under E.R.H.) for every
odd N ≥ 7 (ref. (3)).
Now, very recently, the E.R.H. (together with many others) has been proved in ref. (4), so that
at present the ternary problem can be regarded as completely solved.
As regards the binary problem, the present status is entirely different. As pointed out by Hardy
and Littlewood in their paper above, the circle method is insufficient to prove their conjectural
formula even under the assumption of the E.R.H. , and nobody else, in the intervening 80 years
already past could surmount the difficulties of the method.
In ref. (5) was proved, under the Riemann hypothesis, that every natural number can be written
as a sum of at most four primes; but this is not the binary problem.
According to the six proofs of the Riemann hypothesis given in ref. (4), this is now a new
theorem.
Cleary, it was necessary to develop some new method to deal with the binary problem.
Here, the method of the Laplace transform, developed in several papers along 20 years by one
of the authors of this paper (ref. (6), (7), (8)), has turned out to be a key tool. The results were
shown in ref. (9), and we present them in a slightly different form, correcting by the way some
few misprints and omissions in it.

2. The relation between ϑ ([u]) and v (u).

Starting with Chebishev’s function ϑ ([u]):

ϑ ([u ]) = ∑ log p
(2.1) p ≤ [u ]
where p denotes the prime number, we have:

⎧ log p if [u ] = p
Δ ϑ ([u ]) = ϑ ([u ]) − ϑ ([u − 1]) ⎨
(2.2) ⎩o in any other case

Hence, if we form

v (t) = ∑ Δ ϑ ([u1 ]) Δ ϑ ([u 2 ])

(2.3) t = u1 + u 2

Evidently v(t) is the Hardy – Littlewood function

v (t) = ∑ log p1 . log p 2

(2.4) p1 + p 2 = t

From (2.3) we have:

v (t) = ∑ Δ ϑ ([u1 ]) Δ ϑ ( t - [u1 ])

(2.5) u1 < t

3. Transformation of the sum in (2.5) into an integral.

The Δ ϑ ([u]) function, when is not zero, can be drawn as segments of length 1 at heights log p every
time that u = p. More exactly, we have:

(3.1) Δ ϑ (u) = log p

Whenever p ≤ u < p + 1 (otherwise it is zero)

This is shown as shaded bars in fig. 1. The graph of ϑ ([t-u]) is obtained from that of
ϑ ([u]) by rotating the graph about the axis u = t / 2. In fig. 3 and 4 are shown the cases of y =
ϑ ([12 - u]) - ϑ ([12 - u - 1]) and y = ϑ ([10 - u]) - ϑ ([10 - u - 1]).
Hence the graph of ϑ ([u]) - ϑ ([u - 1]) consists of unitary bars at the right of u = p, and that of ϑ
([t - u]) - ϑ ([t - u - 1]) consists of unitary bars at the left of u = p.
If we form now the product

(3.2) {ϑ ([u]) - ϑ ([u - 1])} { ϑ ([t - u]) - ϑ ([t - u - 1])}

It is zero everywhere, except at the points where u = p1 t – u = p2, where it has the value

log p1 . log p2
It is evident from the graph that if we wish to obtain this value as an area, we must displace the
graph of Δ ϑ ([u]) to the left in one unity, because then:
p
∫ { ϑ ([u + 1]) - ϑ ([u])} { ϑ ([t - u]) - ϑ ([ t − u − 1])} =
p −1

(3.3) = log p . log (t - p)

(The shaded areas of log p1 and log p2 multiply between themselves). This is shown in fig. 2 and
5.
The integrand in (3.3) vanishes if u < 0 or u > t
Hence, we have that
t
v (t) = ∫ Δ ϑ ([u] + 1) Δ ϑ ([t - u]) du
(3.4) o

This is nothing but the convolution of the two functions that appear at right.
Consequently, if we take the Laplace transform of both sides we obtain, by known rules:

(3.5) L { v ( t )} = L { Δ ϑ ([u] + 1)} . L { Δ ϑ ([u])}

By the second shift property of the Laplace transform we have:

L { Δ ϑ ([u] + 1)} = es L { Δ ϑ ([u])}

So that (3.5) transforms to

(3.6) L { v ( t )} = e s L2 { Δ ϑ ([u])}

Or also:

(3.7) L { v ( t - 1) } = L2 {Δ ϑ ([u])}

This will be used in § 12 later.

4. The evaluation of L { Δ ϑ [u]}

According to ref. [11] we have:

1 - e -s ∞
L { ϑ ([u]) } = ∑ ϑ (k) e
- ks
(4.1) s k=0

From here follows that

 1 − e −s
L {Δϑ ([u ]) } = ∑ log p . e
− ps

(4.2) s p

(p: prime numbers) on account of (2.2)

By ref. [10], theorem 248 p. 212, we have:

[ n] q μ (q ) e 2 Π i h q
F ( x ) = ∑ log p . x p = ∑ ∑ 2Πi h q
+ An ϑ + 1 4 +ε

(4.3) q =1 h =1 ϕ (q ) ( x − e )
(h.q)=1

As a consequence of this we have that

[ n] q μ (q )
F (s) = ∑ log p . e − ps = ∑ ∑ + An ϑ + 1 4 +ε

(4.4) q =1 h =1 ϕ (q ) (s + 2 Π i h q )
(h.q)=1

(see ref. [6] for a detailed calculation).

This formula is unconditional, and ϑ denotes the upper bound of the real part of the imaginary
zeros of the L – series involved. (Here Re (s) = σ = 1/n: but this restriction does not affect our
further reasoning).
Let us analyze formula (4.4). The function F (s) has a double infinitude of poles on the line σ =
0, whenever s = -2 Πi h/q where 1≤ h ≤ q and 1≤ q ≤ ∞. They form a natural boundary, and the
series at right of (4.4) describes the influence of the poles with q≤[√n], while the other term at
right accounts for the influence of the poles with q>[√n].
It is evident that the better is the knowledge we have about the zeros of the L-series, the smaller
is the remainder term in (4.4). According with ref.(4) we can adopt ϑ = ½ .

5. Use of (4.4)
Replacement of (4.4) in (4.2), and of (4.2) in (3.6) yields:

⎞ ⎧[ n ]
2 2
⎛ 1 − e −s q μ (q ) 4 +ε⎫
L { v (t) } = e ⎜⎜
s ⎟ ⎨∑
⎟ q =1 ∑ + An ϑ + 1 ⎬
(5.1) ⎝ s ⎠ ⎩ h =1 ϕ (q ) (s + 2 Π i h q ) ⎭

or
 ⎧ 1 - e-s ⎞ 2 [ n ]
v (t - 1 + 0) + v (t - 1 - 0) -1 ⎪⎛ μ 2 (q)
q
(5.2) v m (t - 1) = = L ⎨⎜⎜ ⎟ +
2 s ⎟ ∑ ∑ 2
h = 1 ϕ (q) (s + 2 πi h q )
2
⎪⎩⎝ ⎠ q
2
⎛ 1 - e-s ⎞ μ (q1 ) μ (q 2 )
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
⎟ +
⎝ s ⎠ q1 ≠ q 2 ϕ(q1 ) ϕ(q 2 ) (s + 2 πi h1 q1 ) (s + 2 πi h 2 q 2 )

⎛ 1 - e -s ⎞
+ ⎜⎜ ⎟
2
[ n]
∑ ∑
( )
μ(q) 2 An ϑ + 1/4 + ε ⎛ 1 - e - s ⎞
+ ⎜ ⎟
2

An 4
⎫
2ϑ + 2 + 2 ε ⎪
⎬=
s ⎟ ϕ(q )(s + 2 πi h q ) ⎜⎝ s ⎟⎠
⎝ ⎠ q =1 h ⎪⎭

⎧⎛ 1 - e - s ⎞ 2 ⎧[ n ] μ 2 (q)
⎪
= L ⎨⎜⎜
-1 ⎟ +
s ⎟ ⎨ q∑ ∑ 2
h ϕ (q) (s + 2 πi h q )
2
⎪⎩⎝ ⎠ ⎩ =1
[ n] [ n] μ (q1 ) μ (q 2 )
+ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ +
q1 h 1 q 2 h 2 ϕ(q1 ) ϕ(q 2 ) (s + 2 πi h1 q1 ) (s + 2 πi h 2 q 2 )
ϑ+ 1 +ε μ(q) ⎫
+ 2An n
∑∑ ⎬+
ϕ(q) (s + 2 πi h q ) ⎭
⎧⎛ 2 ⎫
⎪⎜ 1 - e - s ⎞⎟ 2 2ϑ + 1/2 + 2 ε ⎪
-1
+ L ⎨⎜
s ⎟ A n ⎬=
⎪⎩⎝ ⎠ ⎪⎭

⎧⎛ 2 ⎫
⎪⎜ 1 - e - s ⎞⎟ ⎪
(5.3) L ⎨⎜ -1
s ⎠ ⎟ {T1 (s) + T2 (s) + T3 (s)}⎬ + T3
⎪⎩⎝ ⎪⎭

By reasons that will become evident in § 10, we shall evaluate in first place
L-1 {T1(s)} and L-1{T2(s)}.
According to the evaluations performed in ref. [10] we can adopt for A the value

(5.4) A = 80

(This value however is not relevant for what follows)

6. Evaluation of L-1 {T1(s)}

Appealing to tables we have:

⎧ N μ 2 (q) ⎫
L {T1 (s)} = L ⎨ ∑ ∑ 2
−1 −1
2⎬
⎩ q = 1 h ϕ (q ) (s + 2 πi h/q ) ⎭
 N q -1μ 2 (q ) - 2 πi ht/q N μ 2 (q )
= ∑ ∑ 2 e t = ∑ 2 C q (t) . t
(6.1) q =1 h = q ϕ (q ) q = 1 ϕ (q )

where
q -1
- 2 πi h t/q
Cq (t ) = ∑ e
h=0
(h.q) =1

is Ramanujan’s function, and N = [√n]

According to Lemma 1 we have

μ 2 (q ) 3 γ (log log n)
2
∑ C q ( t ) < d(t) e log log t
q>n ϕ 2 (q ) N

Hence in (6.1) we can put

∞ μ 2 (q )
L−1 {T1 (s)} = ∑ Cq (t ) . t +
q =1 ϕ 2 (q )

(log log N) 2
+ δ1 e 3γ d(t) log log t . t
(6.2) N

Now the singular series

∞ μ 2 (q )
S( t ) = ∑ 2
Cq (t)
(6.3) q = 1 ϕ (q )

vanishes for odd t, and for even t can be transformed into an infinite product.
(ref. [14]).

∞ ⎛ ⎞ p -1 p -1
S( t ) = 2Π ⎜⎜1 - 1 2 ⎟⎟ Π t = 1,3203 Π . t = P (t) . t
(6.4)
p =3
⎝ (p - 1) ⎠ p| t p - 2 p| t p - 2

wich puts in evidence that S(t) is a discontinuous function.

We have computed thus the influence of the infinitude of double poles in (5.2)
7. Evaluation of L-1 {T2(s)}

According to tables we have:

⎧ N N μ(q1 ) μ(q 2 ) ⎫
F5 (t) = L-1 {T2 (s)} = L-1 ⎨ ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ ⎬=
⎩ 1
q =1 h 1 q 2 = 2 h 2
ϕ( q1 ) ϕ( q 2 ) (s + 2 πi h /q
1 1 )(s + 2 πi h /q )
1 1 ⎭

N N μ(q1 ) μ(q 2 ) (e − A1 t − e − A 2 t )
= ∑ ∑ ∑ ∑
(7.1) q 1 =1 h 1 q 2 = 2 h2 ϕ(q1 ) ϕ(q 2 ) A 2 - A1

(A2 = 2 πi h2/q2 A1 = 2 πi h1/q1)

Taking into account Lemma 2, we have:

δ2 2
L-1 {T2 (s) } = N (N + 1) 2
(7.2) 4π

We have computed thus the influence of the simple poles with q ≤ N multiplied by themselves.

7 Bis. Evaluation of L {T3 (s) }

-1

We have
μ(q)
T3 (s) = 2An ϑ +1 4 + ε L-1 ∑ ∑ =
ϕ(q)(s + 2πi h q )
N μ(q )
= 2An ϑ +1 4 + ε ∑ ∑e
− 2 π i h/q t
=
q ϕ(q) h
N μ(q )
= 2An ϑ +1 4 + ε ∑ Cq (t)
q =1 ϕ(q)

By Lemma 3, we know that

N μ(q )
Δϑ( t ) = Δ{ϑ( t ) − ϑ( t − 1)} ~ ∑ C q (t)
1 ϕ(q )
Hence

L−1 T3 (s) ≤ 2An ϑ +1/4 + ε Log t = 2AN 2ϑ +1/2 + ε Log t

(7 bis. 1)
8. Evaluation of T3
We have:
2
2 ϑ + 1/2 + 2 ε ⎛ 1 - e -s ⎞
T3 = An . L ⎜⎜
-1 ⎟
⎟
⎝ s ⎠
(8.1)
According to tables (ref. [11]), we have:

2 ⎧t if 0 < t < 1
⎛ 1 - e-s ⎞ ⎪
F(t) = L ⎜⎜-1 ⎟ = ⎨2 - t if 1 < t < 2
s ⎟
⎝ ⎠ ⎪0 otherwise
(8.2) ⎩
Hence:

⎜F (t) ⎜ ≤ 1 for every t, and as it zero for t > 2, we can leave aside the influence of T3.

9. Return to (5.3)
We must evaluate now
⎧⎛ 1 - e - s ⎞ 2 ⎫
⎪⎜ -1 ⎟ T1 (s)⎪⎬
F1 (t) = L ⎨⎜ ⎟
(9.1) ⎪⎩⎝ s ⎠ ⎪⎭
and
⎧⎛ 1 - e - s ⎞ 2 ⎫
⎪⎜ -1 ⎟ ⎪
F2 (t) = L ⎨⎜ ⎟ T2 (s)⎬
(9.2) ⎪⎩⎝ s ⎠ ⎪⎭

10. Evaluation of F1(t) in (9.1)

According to formula (6.2) F4(t) = L-1 {T1(s)} is the sum of a dominant term D(t):
p -1
D ( t ) = 1,3203 Π t
(10.1) p| t p-2
which we write as:

(10.2) D ( t ) = P (t) . t
where
p -1
P ( t ) = 1,3203 Π
(10.3) p| t p-2
is a discontinuous step function of (t), plus a remainder term R(t), given by:

(log log N) 2
R (t) = t δ3 e 3γ d(t) log log t
(10.4) N
that contains a discontinuous factor d(t), so that
(10.5) F4 (t) = D (t) + R (t)
Now, the convolution theorem for the inverse Laplace transform states that if

(10.6) F3 (t) = L-1 { f3 (s)} and F4 (t) = L-1 { f4 (s)}

then
t
L−1 {f 3 (s) f 4 (s)} = ∫ F3 (u ) F4 ( t − u ) du
(10.7) 0

In (10.6) we choose now

2
⎛ 1 - e-s ⎞
f 3 (s) = ⎜⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎝ s ⎠
so that F3 (t) is the F (t) of (8.2) and
f4 (s) = T1 (s)
then F4 (t) = L-1{T1(s)} is the function in (10.5)

It follows that
⎧⎛ 1 - e - s ⎞ 2 ⎫
⎪ ⎟ T1 (s)⎪⎬ =
F1 ( t ) = L {f 3 (s) f 4 (s)} = L ⎨⎜⎜
-1 -1
s ⎟
(10.8) ⎪⎩⎝ ⎠ ⎪⎭
t 1 1
= ∫ F(u) F4 (t - u) du = ∫ u F4 (t - u) du + ∫ (2 - u ) F4 (t - u) du
0 0 0

Now:
1 1 1
∫ u F4 (t - u) du = ∫ u (t - u) du . P (t - 0) + ∫ u R (t - u) du
0 0 0

⎧ t 1⎫
= P (t - 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + δ 4 R (t - δ 5 )
(10.9) ⎩ 2 3⎭ 0 < δ4, δ5 < 1
2 2 2
∫ (2 - u) F4 (t - u) du = ∫ (2 - u) (t - u) du . P (t - 1 + 0) + ∫ (2 - u ) R (t - u) du
1 1 1

⎧ t 2⎫
= P (t - 1 + 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + δ 6 R (t - δ 7 )
(10.10) ⎩2 3⎭ 1 < δ6, δ7 < 2
Hence:
⎧ t 1⎫ ⎧ t 2⎫
F1 (t) = P (t - 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + P (t - 1 + 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + δ 4 R (t - δ 5 ) + δ 6 R (t - δ 7 )
(10.11) ⎩ 2 3⎭ ⎩2 3⎭

11. Evaluation of F2 (t) in (9.2)

We had:

⎧⎛ 1 − e - s ⎞ 2 ⎫
⎪⎜ ⎪
-1
F2 ( t ) = L ⎨⎜ ⎟
⎟ T2 (s )⎬
⎪⎩⎝ s ⎠ ⎪⎭
But according to the convolution theorem (10.6) – (10.7)
t
F2 (t) = ∫ F(u) . L-1 {T2 (s)} du
0

where F(u) is the function of (8.2) and L-1 {T2 (s)} was calculated in (7.2).
We deduce:
2
F2 (t) = L-1 {T2 (s)} ∫ F(u) du = L-1 {T2 (s)} =
0

δ2 2
= N (N + 1) 2
(11.1) 4π

⎧⎛ 2 ⎫
⎪⎜ 1 − e - s ⎞⎟ ⎪
F5 ( t ) = L ⎨⎜ s ⎟ T3 (s )⎬
-1

11 bis. Evaluation of ⎪⎩⎝ ⎠ ⎪⎭

This is a small term and does not need to be evaluated accurately. By the Tauberian theorem of Lemma
3, this is asymptotically equal to L-1 {T3(s)}, that according to (7 bis 1) is equal to

(11 bis 1) F5 (t) ~ δ2AN 2ϑ + 1/2 + ε Log t

12. The value of v(t)

According to (5.3) we had:

⎧ −s ⎞2 ⎫
-1 ⎪⎛
⎜
1− e
⎟ {T1 (s) + T2 (s) + T3 (s) }⎪⎬
v m ( t − 1) = L ⎨⎜ ⎟
⎪⎩⎝ s ⎠ ⎪⎭
= F1 (t) + F2 ( t ) + 2δAN 2ϑ + 1/2 + ε Log t

due to (10.11), (11.1) and (11 bis 1)

Hence:
⎧ t 1⎫ ⎧ t 2⎫
v m (t - 1) = P (t - 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + P (t - 1 + 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + δ 4 R (t - δ 5 ) + δ 6 R (t - δ 7 )
⎩ 2 3⎭ ⎩2 3⎭
δ2 2
+ N (N + 1) 2 + 2δAN 2ϑ +1/2 + ε Log t
4π
⎧ t 1⎫ ⎧ t 2⎫
= P (t - 0) ⎨ - ⎬ + P (t - 1 + 0) ⎨ - ⎬ +
(12.1) ⎩ 2 3⎭ ⎩2 3⎭
 (log log N) 2 (log log N) 2
t δ 4 δ3e 3γ d(t - δ5 ) log log (t - δ3 ) + δ 6 δ3e 3γ t d(t - δ 7 ) log log (t - δ 7 )
N N
δ
+ 2 N 2 (N + 1) 2 + 2δAN 2ϑ +1/2 + ε Log t
4π
v (t - 1 + 0) + v (t - 1 - 0)
=
2

Changing t – 1 by t, and equating terms in t ± 0 both sides we deduce:

(log log N) 2
v( t ) = P(t) (t + 1) + δ3 2δ 4 e 3γ t d(t) log log (t + 1 - δ5 )
N
2 δ
− P( t ) + 2 N 2 (N + 1) 2 + 4δAN 2ϑ + 1/2 + ε Log t
(12.2) 3 2Π

The terms in P(t) only can be absorbed changing slightly the values of δ2 and δ3, so we ignore them in
what follows.
As in (12.2) we assume P(t) ≠ 0, then, according to (6.3) and (6.4) we must assume, in what follows, that
t is an even number.

13. Choosing N as a function of t

We choose now:
1
5
(13.1) t=N N= t5

Then
v( t ) = P .(t) .t + δ8 2e 3γ d(t) (log log t) 3 t 4 /5
2ϑ 1
1 54 +
+ δ2 t − 2At 5 10 Log t
(13.2) 2Π

The last term is negligible with respect to the preceding ones, and we obtain roughly:

v( t ) > P (t) .t - 2e3γ d(t) (log log t)3 t 4 /5

4
1 5
− t
(13.3) 2Π

(13.2) proves unconditionally the truth of the Hardy – Littlewood conjectural formula for the binary
Goldbach problem, that

v (t) ~ P (t) . t
14.Miscellaneous bounds and majorations

We have evidently, from (6.4)

(14.1) min D(t) ≥ 1,3203 t

As concerns d(t) we have:

log 2
log log t
lim sup d(t) = d o (t) = t (ref. [12])
(14.2) t →∞

We shall use in what follows very large values of t, so that we adopt the right hand side as an upper
bound for d (t).
Furthermore, the greatest value that v(t) can assume in the case that there is only one solution is 2 log2
t/2 (as was indicated in ref. [9]).
Consequently, if we know that

(14.3) v( t ) > 2 log 2 t /2

we can be sure that there is at least one solution

Combining (13.2) and (14.3), must hold that

v( t ) > 1,3203 t - 2 e 3γ d(t).(log log t)3 . t 4/5

1 t 4/5 > 2 log 2 t /2

−π
(14.4)
Solving for d (t), this holds roughly if

1,3203 t1/5
d( t ) <
(14.5) e 3γ (log log t ) 3

or if

d( t ) < 0,1168 t 1/5

(14.6) (log log t) 3

From (14.6) and (14.2) follows that the Goldbach hypothesis is valid for every value of t such that

(14.8) d (t) ≥ d o ( t )
If we adopt the equality sign, we have an equation whose root is

(14.9) t = to ~ 10B 50 < B < 60

Hence, the binary hypothesis is true for even t > 10B.

For t < 10B, it is valid for every even t that fulfills (14.7), that is to say, for the vast majority of them.
In ref. (5) it is proved that the binary Goldbach conjecture is valid up to t = 1014, and for the following
intervals of t:

(1015; 1015 + 108) (10200; 10200 + 109)

(1016; 1016 + 108) (10210; 10210 + 109)
… …

(10100; 10100 + 108) (10300; 10300 + 109)

The second column now turns out to be superfluous.

Improved Lemma 1

According to ref. [9] we have:

∞ μ 2 (q ) μ 2 (d ) μ (q )
∑ C q (t) = ∑ ∑
q>N ϕ 2 (q ) d t ϕ(d ) N d<q ϕ 2 (q )
(L1) ( q , t ) =1

Now

μ (q) 1 1
∑ < ∑ < ∑
N d<q ϕ 2 (q ) N d<q
2
ϕ (q ) N d<q
2
ϕ (q )
(L2) ( q , t ) =1 ( q , t ) =1

But for ϕ (n) we have the bound

n 5
≤ e γ log log n +
(L3) ϕ(n ) 2 log log n (ref. [13])

valid for every n ≥ 3 (whit one exception), so that

2
1 < 2 γ (log log n) 1
∑ ∑ e +5 ∑
N d<q
2
ϕ (q ) N d < q n 2 2 N d < q n log log n
2
 ∞ (log log u) 2 5
∞ du
< e2γ ∫ du + ∫
N d −1 u2 2 N d −1 u 2 log log u

(log log N / d ) 2 5 1
~ e2γ +
(L4) ( N / d) 2 log log N / d ⋅ N / d

Replacing in (L2) we obtain:

2
μ (q) 2 γ (log log N / d ) 5 d
∑ < e ⋅d +
N d<q
2
ϕ (q ) N 2 log log N / d ⋅ N
(L5) ( q , t ) =1

Replacing in (L1)

μ 2 (q ) μ 2 (d ) ⎧ 2 γ (log log N/d ) 2 d 5 d ⎫

∑ C q (t) < ∑ ⎨e + ⎬
d t ϕ(d ) ⎩
2
q>N ϕ (q ) N 2 N log log N/d ⎭

2γ (log log N/d ) 2 γ ⎛ 5 ⎞

< ∑e e ⎜⎜ log log d + ⎟
dt N ⎝ 2 log log d ⎟⎠

(log log N) 2
< d(t) e 3γ log log t
N

μ(q1 ) μ(q 2 ) e -A1 t − e − A 2 t

∑∑∑∑ ⋅
Lemma 2. Evaluation of ϕ( q1 ) ϕ(q 2 ) A 2 − A1

We have that

1 1 1 q1 q 2
= =
A 2 − A1 2 πi h 2 − h1 2 πi (h 2 q1 - h1 q 2 )
q 2 q1

Hence

1 q1 q 2 q q
= ≤ 1 2
A 2 − A1 2 π h 2 q1 - h1 q 2 2π

because ⏐h2 q1 – h1 q2⏐is an integer whose least value is 1.

Furthermore

e -A1 t − e − A 2 t ≤ 2

so that

e -A1 t − e − A 2 t q q
≤ 1 2
A 2 - A1 π

and

q 1 −1 q 2 -1 μ(q1 ) μ(q 2 ) e -A1 t − e − A 2 t q1 q 2

∑ ∑ ≤
h1 =0 h 2 =0 ϕ(q1 ) ϕ(q 2 ) A 2 - A1 π

because the double sum has ϕ (q1) ϕ (q2) terms.

It follows that

N q 1 −1 N q 2 -1 μ(q1 ) μ(q 2 ) e -A1 t − e − A 2 t

∑ ∑ ∑ ∑ <
q 1 =1 h 1 = 0 q 2 =1 h 2 = 0 ϕ(q1 ) ϕ(q 2 ) A 2 - A1

1 N N
1 N (N + 1) N ( N + 1) N 2 (N + 1) 2
< q q = π =
π q∑=1 q∑=1 1 2 2 2 4π
1 2

Lemma 3.

The following tauberian theorem can be found in ref.(15) page 366.

Let be F(t) and G(t) two non decreasing functions that fulfill the following condition:

lim sup F (λ t) / F (λ) < ∞ for all t > 0

λ →∞
and such that
L{F(u )} ~ L{G (u )} as s → 0
Then the exact condition that they must fulfill in order that hold that

F( t ) ~ G ( t ) as t → ∞
is that

lim sup F (λ t) / F (λ)

[A] λ →∞

be continuous at t = 1.
By (4.2) we have:
1 − e −s
f (s) = L{Δϑ([u ])} = − ps
∑ log p ⋅ e =
s p

1 − e−s ⎧ N q μ(q)e 2 πi h/q ⎫

= ⎨∑ ∑ + An ϑ +1 / 4 + ε ⎬ =
s ⎩q =1 h =1 ϕ(q)(s + 2πi h/q) ⎭
1 − e−s 1 − e−s
= g N (s) + An ϑ +1 / 4 + ε
s s
or
−s
−1 ⎧1 − e ⎫ ϑ +1 / 4 + ε −1 ⎛ 1 − e −s ⎞
Δϑ([u ]) = L ⎨ g N (s)⎬ + An L ⎜ ⎜ ⎟
s s ⎟
⎩ ⎭ ⎝ ⎠
As the second term at right vanishes for t > 1, we have:

−s ⎫
−1 ⎧1 − e
Δϑ([u ]) = L ⎨ g N (s) ⎬
⎩ s ⎭
and
1 − e −s
L{Δϑ([u ])} = g N (s)
s
This is asymptotically equal to gN(s) as s→0, and besides, Δϑ([u]) fulfills condition [A]. Hence

N μ(q )
Δϑ([u ]) ~ L−1{g N (s)} = ∑ Cq (t)
q =1 ϕ(q )
This is the result used in § 7 bis.

REFERENCES:

(1). G. Effinger. Some numerical implications of the Hardy-Littlewood analysis of the 3-

prime problem. Ramanujan J. (1999) Nº3, p. 239-280.

(2). G. H. Hardy and J. E. Littlewood – Partitio Numerorum III – On the sum of a

number as two primes. Acta Math. 44 (1923), p. 1-70.

(3). J. M. Deshouillers, G. Effinger, H. te Riele: A complete Vinogradov 3-prime

theorem under the Riemann hypothesis – Electronic Research Announc. A.M.S. 3
(1997) p. 99-104.

(4). A. Peretti. The Riemann hypothesis. – www.peretti.da.ru

(5). J. M. Deshouilleers, H. J. te Riele, Y. Saouter – New experimental results

concerning the Goldbach conjecture. Algorithmic number theory.
(Portland, OR 1998) 204-215. – Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 1423, Springer,
Berlin 1998 –.
 (6). A. Peretti. The solution of Diophantine equations by means of the Laplace
transform. Bull, Numb. Theory, Vol. II April 1977 Nº1, p. 1-11
- Idem, Vol. II dec 1977 Nº2, p. 15-20.
- Idem, Vol. V april 1980 Nº1, p. 7-9.

(7). A. Peretti. The Goldbach problem (I). Notes on Number Theory and Discrete Math.
– Vol. 2 (1996) Nº1, p. 53-68.
- Idem, Vol. 2 (1996) Nº2, p. 1-26.
- Idem, Vol. 3 (1980) Nº4, p. 194-204.

(8). A. Peretti. Application of the Laplace transform to the solution of Diophantine

equations. Notes on Numb. Theory and Discrete Math. Vol. 3 (1997) Nº2, p. 75-101.

(9). M. Baica. Clarifications of the author’s previous paper in the Goldbach conjecture –
Buletinul Stiintific Al Universitati “Politehnika” Din Timisoara – Tom 47 (61) 1
(2002).

(10). E. Landau. Vorlesungen über Zahlentheorie. S. Hirzel (1927) Vol. II.

(11). A. Prudnikov, Yu. Brychkov, O. Marichev. Integrals and Series. Vol. 4. Direct
Laplace Transforms – Vol. 5: Inverse Laplace transforms Gordon and Breach
Science Publishers (1992).

(12). E. Landau. Handbuch der Verteilung der Primzahlen (1909) Leipzig.

(13). J. B. Rosser. L. Schoenfeld. Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962) p. 64-94.

(14). R. Vaughan. The Hardy – Littlewood method – Cambridge Univ. Press. 1982-1997.

(15). U. Stadtmüller, R. Trautner. Ratio Tauberian theorems for Laplace transforms

without monotonicity assumptions.
Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2), 36 (1985) P. 363-381.
E-mail of the authors:
Malvina Baica: baicam@post.uww.edu
Aldo Peretti: aldo_aperetti@yahoo.es

Fig. 1
ϑ ([u]) – ϑ ([u – 1])
4

3 log 13
log 7 log 11
2
log 5
log 2 log 3
1

0
1 2 l o g 23 l o g 34 5 lo g 5 6 7 lo g 7 8 9 10 11lo g 1112 13
lo g 13 14 15
 Fig. 2
ϑ ([u + 1]) – ϑ ([u])
4

3
log 13
log 7 log 11
2
log 5
log 2 log 3
1

0
1 l o g 22 l o g 33 4 lo g 55 6 lo g 7 7 8 9 10l o g 11 11 12lo g 13 13 14 15

Fig. 3
ϑ ([12 – u]) – ϑ ([12 – u – 1])
4

3
log 11 log 7
2
log 5
log 3 log 2
1

0
l o g 11 lo g 7 lo g 5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8l o g 3
9 lo g 2 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig. 4
ϑ ([10 – u]) – ϑ ([10 – u – 1])
4

3
log 7
2
log 5
log 3 log 2
1

0
1 2 l o g 73 4 lo g 5 5 6 lo g 3 7 lo g 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Fig. 5
{ϑ ([u + 1]) – ϑ ([u])} {ϑ ([12 – u]) – ϑ ([12 – u – 1])}
4
log 7 . log 5 log 7 . log 5
3

1 2 3 4 lol ogg 755. 6 l lo

og 7 .
g 5
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15