KNOWPIA
WELCOME TO KNOWPIA

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

This was proved by Leonhard Euler in 1737,^{[1]} and strengthens Euclid's 3rd-century-BC result that there are infinitely many prime numbers and Nicole Oresme's 14th-century proof of the divergence of the sum of the reciprocals of the integers (harmonic series).

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.

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.

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.

The following proof by contradiction comes from 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 M_{x} 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}* ≤

- Upper estimate
- Every n in M
_{x}can be written as*n*=*m*^{2}*r*with positive integers m and r, where r is square-free. Since only the k primes*p*_{1}, ...,*p*can show up (with exponent 1) in the prime factorization of r, there are at most 2_{k}^{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*− |*M*| numbers in the set difference {1, 2, ...,_{x}*x*} \*M*are all divisible by a prime greater than p_{x}_{k}. Let*N*_{i,x}denote the set of those n in {1, 2, ...,*x*} which are divisible by the ith prime p_{i}. Then - Since the number of integers in
*N*_{i,x}is at most*x*/*p*(actually zero for_{i}*p*>_{i}*x*), we get - Using (1), this implies

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

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
*β*s 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:

To see this, note that

- 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 5/3 and taking the natural logarithm of both sides gives

as desired. Q.E.D.

Using

(see the Basel problem), the above constant log 5/3 = 0.51082... can be improved to log π^{2}/6 = 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).

From Dusart's inequality, we get

Then

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. Q.E.D.

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 1/2, which has the form odd/even. If the nth partial sum (for *n* ≥ 1) has the form odd/even, then the (*n* + 1)st sum is

as the (*n* + 1)st prime *p*_{n + 1} is odd; since this sum also has an odd/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.

- 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

**^**Euler, Leonhard (1737). "Variae observationes circa series infinitas" [Various observations concerning infinite series].*Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Petropolitanae*.**9**: 160–188.**^**Euler, Leonhard (1748).*Introductio in analysin infinitorum. Tomus Primus*[*Introduction to Infinite Analysis. Volume I*]. Lausanne: Bousquet. p. 228, ex. 1.**^**Mertens, F. (1874). "Ein Beitrag zur analytischen Zahlentheorie".*J. Reine Angew. Math.***78**: 46–62.**^**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.**^**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. S2CID 123890989.

**Sources**

- Dunham, William (1999).
*Euler: The Master of Us All*. MAA. pp. 61–79. ISBN 0-88385-328-0.

- Caldwell, Chris K. "There are infinitely many primes, but, how big of an infinity?".