We address here a MathOverflow query, given here. (Since clicking the link produces “404 Page Not Found”, I’ll reproduce the post here.)
I have a question regarding whether or not encodes the sequence of primer numbers. It is common knowledge that
Now let denote the set of all ascending sequences of natural numbers , so, for instance, the complete sequence is an element of , just as the sequence of prime numbers . Now consider the function , given by
So we know that for the sequence of primes, the value of is . My question is now: Is the sequence of primes the only element of for which the value of is ? Or in other words: Is ?
As Gerald Edgar said below the query: “of course not”. But let us give a more constructive answer (at least more constructive in a technical sense). We describe first a very general result on sequences and series, after which the answer to the query falls out as a special case.
Let be a function that decreases to , and suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:
For some finite set , ,
,
For every , we have .
Define by recursion an increasing infinite sequence where and for all , we have that is the least integer greater than such that . (Note that exists at each step since the decrease to .) In other words, if we put , then by construction:
Lemma
For , we have if and only if .
Proposition
Proof
We first note that is infinite. To see this, observe that by condition 2, has an element greater than . If were finite, then there exists a maximal , so that . Then we have
(since for all finite partial sums we have );
therefore ;
hence (by condition 3);
hence by the lemma, contradicting .
Now we show . Suppose instead that . Pick so large that . Then also , but this implies by the lemma, contradiction.
Application
There are multiple infinite sets of integers greater than such that
One such set is the set of primes. But there are many such sets. For example, putting , , and , we have
and then, proceeding recursively, for we define to be the least integer greater than such that
This places us essentially in the situation of the preceding section, by putting and . All we need to check is condition 3, which here boils down to the statement that for we have
which follows from the elementary inequality that
for .
Revised on April 16, 2016 at 22:32:01
by
Todd Trimble