30

Although the question might look trivial at first because there are infinitely many prime numbers and for example the ratio of two near prime numbers tends to $1$ at infinity, there is still a point that is missing.

If we define the set $S=\{\, \frac{p_{i}}{p_{j}}\mid i,j\in\Bbb N\,\}$ where $p_i$ is prime number $i$, is it dense in the set of non-negative reals?

If it is, as much as it looks (prevalently) obvious, I am not sure about which precise property is ensuring this, as neither the infinitude of primes nor the limit of ratio of two successive primes reaching $1$ (which is a theorem on its own) looks sufficient individually.

I could imagine something like: the rational set has this property and we can replace each rational number with a ratio of two primes to any desired precision. But, can we?

Maybe I am missing something, but it is not obvious whichever way I look at it.

Theorem that is expected is like:

If $\frac{r_{1}}{s_{1}}>\frac{r_{2}}{s_{2}} > 0$ then there are always two prime numbers $p_{m}$ and $p_{n}$ so that $\frac{r_{1}}{s_{1}}>\frac{p_{m}}{p_{n}}>\frac{r_{2}}{s_{2}}$

if that is to work.

  • Well, your $S$ has the same density as $\aleph_0$, while $R$ has the density of $\aleph$ – Rab Aug 07 '17 at 21:33
  • 5
    @RabMakh $\mathbb Q$ is dense in $\mathbb R$ – Mark Bennet Aug 07 '17 at 21:34
  • I believe it will be dense if you close $S$ to be a group – Yanko Aug 07 '17 at 21:38
  • 1
    You need to allow primes to be negative for this. – Mark Bennet Aug 07 '17 at 21:49
  • 1
    @JuliánAguirre Wow, that is a very non-obvious question to contain the answer to this one :). – Erick Wong Aug 08 '17 at 00:13
  • What does "there is still a point that is missing" mean? My answer shows that the two properties you mention are all that is needed to prove the density of ratios. – Erick Wong Aug 08 '17 at 00:26
  • 5
    I love how this question got three radically different but great answers: "don't care that they're primes", "based on widely known results about primes", and "heavy/esoteric machinery". – R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE Aug 08 '17 at 02:05
  • 1
    @ErickWong Neither/nor meaning individually, I added the clarification. –  Aug 08 '17 at 05:43
  • @alex.peter Thanks, I reworded the first paragraph of my answer to harmonize better with your clarification. – Erick Wong Aug 08 '17 at 05:51
  • You can read Quotients of Primes, by David Hobby and D. M. Silberger. See also https://mathoverflow.net/questions/218914/. – Watson Aug 08 '17 at 09:17
  • As @MarkBennet implies, this set is not dense in the real numbers as it contains no negative numbers. It is silly to propose this as an answer, but I insist that OP change the question to avoid this obvious point, which otherwise all answers should address in order to be correct. – Marc van Leeuwen Aug 08 '17 at 09:33
  • @MarcvanLeeuwen First of all the question says positive, second it is obvious requirement imposed, fourth negative primes are not essential to the question, and third you should not insist on it that much pulling it as if if it is not fixed you will keep nagging. –  Aug 08 '17 at 11:21
  • Don't take the closing of a question as a duplicate as a disqualification of your effort. It is often harder to find a duplicate question than to find an answer, which is one reason this site is full of duplicate questions, not all identified. However, once a duplicate is identified, it is natural that people will close one question as a duplicate of the other, so that different answers to the same problem can be easily found and compared. It is tradition that the newer question is closed as a duplicate of the older one, provided the latter has at least one answer... – Marc van Leeuwen Aug 08 '17 at 18:29
  • 1
    ... This does not exclude the case where the newer question is better stated, or has more answers than the older question as is true in this case. Closing a question keeps the question and the answers, it is just not possible to add more answers (which can be added to the duplicate question). In this case there is no doubt about the two questions being essentially the same; you even stated your question yourself in terms of denseness. Many questions have been marked as duplicate with more substantial differences in formulation. – Marc van Leeuwen Aug 08 '17 at 18:34

4 Answers4

18

Yes, you can. Let $x_0>0$ be a given positive number, and let $p_k$ denote the $k$th prime.

Recall that $p_n \sim n \log n$ as $n \to \infty$ so

$$\lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{p_{\lfloor nx_0 \rfloor}}{p_n} = \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{\lfloor nx_0 \rfloor \log \lfloor nx_0 \rfloor}{n \log n} = \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{\left(nx_0 - \epsilon_n\right)\log (nx_0 - \epsilon_n)}{n \log n}$$

where $\epsilon_n \in [0,1)$ ($\epsilon_n$ depends on $n$).

Since for fixed $x_0>0$, and any sequence $\left\{\epsilon_n\right\} \subset [0,1)$ we have the equivalences $nx_0 - \epsilon_n \sim nx_0 $ and $\log (nx_0 - \epsilon_n) \sim \log(nx_0)$ as $n \to \infty$, we get

$$\lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{\left(nx_0 - \epsilon_n\right)\log (nx_0 - \epsilon_n)}{n \log n} = \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{nx_0\left(\log n + \log x_0\right)}{n \log n} = \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{x_0\left(\log n\right)}{\log n} + \lim_{n \to +\infty} \frac{x_0\log x_0}{\log n} = x_0 $$

This implies any $x_0>0$ can be approximated to arbitrary precision by the sequence $\left\{\frac{p_{\lfloor {nx_0} \rfloor}}{p_n}\right\}_{n \geq 1}$

If you allow negative primes, this means prime ratios are dense in $\mathbb{R}$.

13

As hinted at by the OP, this is implied by the pair of facts that there are infinitely many primes, and the ratio of successive primes converges to $1$. Here is a proof that uses no further properties of the sequence of primes, hence the same result applies to any increasing integer sequence with those two properties (more generally, any sequence of reals that increases to $\infty$ and has ratios converging to $1$).

Let $C>1$ be a positive real to be approximated ($C=1$ is directly implied by our assumptions, and $C<1$ can be handled by taking reciprocals), and suppose we need to find a prime fraction in the range $(C,C + \epsilon)$.

Since $p_{n+1}/p_n \to 1$, we may choose $N$ such that $p_{n+1}/p_n < 1 + \epsilon/C$ for all $n \ge N$. We now take $b = p_N$ as our denominator and choose $a := p_m$ so that $m$ is the least index satisfying $p_m/b > C$. Clearly such an $m$ exists since there are infinitely many primes so arbitrarily large values of $a$ are available.

It is clear that $m > N$ and that $a/b > C$. By our choice of $m$, $p_{m-1}/b \le C$. By our choice of $N$, $p_m/p_{m-1} < 1 + \epsilon/C$. Therefore $a/b = (p_m/p_{m-1})(p_{m-1}/b) < C + \epsilon$.

Erick Wong
  • 25,198
  • 3
  • 37
  • 91
  • The property of $p_{n+1}/p_{n}$ reaching 0 at infinity is not a trivial property, it is a theorem on its own. I have mentioned it not necessarily as a question if precisely these two can be used, more like an illustration over the properties that are in game. –  Aug 08 '17 at 05:50
  • I am slightly puzzled here. You say "the ratio of successive primes converges to 1" but the OP says "the ratio of two near prime numbers tends to 0 at infinity" and Alex just said "$p_{n+1}/p_n$ reaching 0 at infinity". These seem a bit contradictory. – badjohn Aug 08 '17 at 10:57
  • @Marja Thanks. That gives me what Erick says but does not explain the (apparent) contradiction with what alex.peter said. – badjohn Aug 08 '17 at 11:08
  • @badjohn Well, limit is unique. .... and alex just fixed his/her typo. – Marja Aug 08 '17 at 11:11
  • @badjohn sorry corrected, a mental confusion over ratio and ratio towards prime number value –  Aug 08 '17 at 11:11
  • A typo - so a simple explanation. Thanks Marja and Alex. – badjohn Aug 08 '17 at 11:18
12

The set of primes has asymptotic density zero, but $\pi(n)$ is not terribly smaller than $n$, it is about $\frac{n}{\log n}$ by the PNT. Additionally, a result of Ingham ensures the existence of a prime in the interval $[n^3,(n+1)^3]$ for any $n\geq N=\exp\exp(34)$. Let $r\in(1,+\infty)$. For any prime $p>N^3$, there is a prime $q$ in the range $[pr,((pr)^{1/3}+1)^3]$. Obviously $\frac{q}{p}\geq r$, but $$ \frac{q}{p}-r \leq \frac{3(pr)^{2/3}}{p} = \frac{3r^{2/3}}{p^{1/3}} $$ and the RHS tends to zero as $p\to \infty$, hence the ratios of primes are dense in $(1,+\infty)$. By considering reciprocals and opposites it is simple to prove that the ratios of primes are dense in $\mathbb{R}$.


Obviously we do not stricly need the finesse of Ingham's result, something like "for any $n$ large enough, there always is a prime in the interval $[n^{42},(n+1)^{42}]$" would have done the job equally fine. We may also prove the claim by invoking something like

Let $E\subset\mathbb{N}$ the set of natural numbers $n$ with the property that there is a prime in the interval $[n,n+\log(n)^{12}]$. $E$ has a positive asymptotic density.

encoding the fact that moderately large prime gaps are quite rare. Indeed, in the interval $[1,n]$ the average distance between a prime and the next one is around $\log n$, always by the PNT.

Jack D'Aurizio
  • 353,855
0

(I).Theorem. For any $x\in \mathbb R$ there exist infinitely many $(a,b)\in \mathbb Z\times \mathbb N$ such that $|x-\frac {a}{b}|<\frac {1}{b^2\sqrt 5}.$

For convenience we will take the weaker result that $|x-\frac {a}{b}|<\frac {1}{b^2}$ in the above theorem.

(II). An immediate corollary to the Prime Number Theorem: For all $y>0$ there exists $z>0$ such there exists a prime between $n$ and $n(1+y)$ whenever $n>z$.

(III). Let $x>0.$ Given $y>0,$ take $z$ such that there is a prime between $n$ and $n(1+y)$ for all $n\geq z.$ Take $a,b \in \mathbb N$ such that $|x-\frac {a}{b}|<\frac {1}{b^2}$ and $\min (a,b)\geq z$ (which is possible by Theorem (I).) Let $p,q$ be primes with $a<p<a(1+y)$ and $b<q<(1+y)b.$

We have $-aby= ab-ba(1+y)<aq-bp<ab(1+y)-ba=aby.$ That is, $|aq-bp|<aby$.

Also $\frac{a}{b}=|\frac {a}{b}|\leq |\frac {a}{b}-x|+|x|<\frac {1}{b^2}+|x|\leq 1+x.$

Therefore $$\left|x-\frac {p}{q}\right|\leq\left|x-\frac {a}{b}\right|+\left|\frac {a}{b}-\frac {p}{q}\right|<\frac {1}{b^2}+\left|\frac {aq-bp}{bq}\right|<\frac {1}{b^2}+ \frac {aby}{b^2}=\frac {1}{b^2}+y\frac {a}{b}\leq \frac {1}{b^2}+ y(1+x).$$

Since $y$ can be arbitrarily close to $0,$ and $b$ can be arbirtarily large for any given $y,$ we are finished for $x>0.$ For $x=0$ consider $2/p$ for arbitrarily large prime $p.$

Footnote. Theorem (I) is not deep or difficult. The Prime Number Theorem definitely is.