1

all following content subject to prompt and drastic changes required due to author stupidity and or lazyness

I am trying to rigorously prove / disprove the following lemma, (as labelled $((0.1),(1.1),(1.2))$)

EDIT: 10/10/2018:

The two primary points of concern remaining are:

1) The complete set of factors for the denominator of the expression inside the fractional part brackets of $(1.2)$ and $(2.2)$

2) Most importantly, if any of what I have stated here is to be true, there must be a true statement regarding the number of prime numbers that exist between $\pi(n)+1$ and $\pi(n+1)$ that exists. I haven't been able to work out how to state this, but the assurance it must exist would be a requisite of any of the piece wise evaluations that assert the primality of $n+1$. It will probably be so elementary it's embarrassing.
$$\lambda_0(n)=\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) -\sum _{i=1}^{\pi(n)} \sum _{j=1}^{\pi ( {\lfloor\frac {n}{i}} \rfloor ) } \Bigl\lfloor\frac{ \ln ( {\frac {n}{i}} ) }{ \ln p_{{j}} } \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{j}})\tag{0} $$

$${\Biggl\{(2-\delta(n,1))\frac{n!}{\operatorname{e}^{\lambda_0(n)}}}\Biggr\}=0 \Rightarrow\lambda_0 \left( n \right) =\ln \left( \alpha_0 \left( n \right) \right) \land \left\{ {\frac {n!}{\alpha_0 \left( n \right) }} \right\} =0\tag{0.1} $$

$\delta(x,y)$ is the Kronecker delta function.

${\{x}\}$ is the fractional part of $x$.

$\lambda_1(n)$ is the sum of the products of the natural logarithms of the $k^{th}$ prime numbers and the differences between the $p_{k}$-adic valuations of $((n+1)^2)!)!$ and $((n)^2)!)!$ for $k$ from $\pi(n)+1$ to $\pi(n+1)$ inclusively:

$$\lambda_1(n)=\sum _{k=\pi (n ) +1}^{\pi (n+1 ) }\Biggl(\nu_{{p_{k}}}( ((n+1)^2)! ) -\nu_{{p_{k}}} ( n^2!) \Biggr)\ln(p_{k})\tag{1}$$

$$\lambda_1(n)=0 \operatorname{iff} n+1 \not \in \mathbb P\tag{1.1}$$

$${\Biggl\{\frac{\lambda_1(n)}{({\prod^{\pi(n)}_{j=1}}p_j)^2\ln(p_{\pi(n+1)})}}\Biggr\}=0\tag{1.2}$$

$\lambda_2(n)$ is the sum of the products of the natural logarithms of the $k^{th}$ odd prime numbers and the differences between the $p_{k}$-adic valuations of $(n+1)!!$ and $n!!$ over all $p_{k+1}$ for $k$ from $\pi(n)+1$ to $\pi(n+1)$ inclusively:

$$\lambda_2(n)=\sum _{k=\pi (n ) +1}^{\pi (n+1 ) }\Biggl(\nu_{{p_{k}}}( (n+1)! ) -\nu_{{p_{k}}} ( n!) \Biggr)\ln(p_{k})\tag{2}$$

$$\lambda_2(n)=0 \operatorname{iff} n+1 \not \in \mathbb P\tag{2.1}$$

$${\Biggl\{\frac{\lambda_2(n)}{({\prod^{\pi(n)}_{j=1}}p_j)\ln(p_{\pi(n+1)})}}\Biggr\}=0\tag{2.2}$$

$\lambda_3(n)$ is the sum of the products of the natural logarithms of the $k^{th}$ prime numbers $p_{k}$ and the differences between the $p_{k}$-adic valuations of $(n+1)^2!$ and $n^2!$ for $k$ from $\pi(n)+1$ to $\pi(n+1)$ inclusively:

$$\lambda_3(n)=\sum _{k=\pi (n ) +1}^{\pi (n+1 ) }\Biggl(\nu_{{p_{k}}}( (n+1)^2 ) -\nu_{{p_{k}}} ( n^2) \Biggr)\ln(p_{k})\tag{3}$$

$$\lambda_3(n)=\cases{3\ln(p_{\pi(n+1)})&$\,n+1\in \mathbb P $\cr 0& $n+1\not\in \mathbb P $\cr}\tag{3.1}$$

$\lambda_4(n)$ is the sum of the products of the natural logarithms of the $k^{th}$ odd prime numbers $p_{k}$ and the differences between the $p_{k}$-adic valuations of $(n+1)!$ and $n!$ for $k$ from $\pi(n)+1$ to $\pi(n+1)$ inclusively:

$$\lambda_4(n)=\sum _{k=\pi (n ) +1}^{\pi (n+1 ) }\Biggl(\nu_{{p_{k}}}( (n+1) ) -\nu_{{p_{k}}} ( n) \Biggr)\ln(p_{k})\tag{4}$$

$$\lambda_4(n)=\cases{\ln(p_{\pi(n+1)})&$\,n+1\in \mathbb P $\cr 0& $n+1\not\in \mathbb P $\cr}$$ $$\tag{4.1}$$

So far the current draft of the considerations leading to (0.1),(1.1)&(1.2):

Legendre's formula for the p-adic valuation of the factorial of $n$:

$$\nu_{{p}} \left( n \right) =\sum _{j=1}^{ \lfloor {\frac { \ln n }{\ln \left( p \right) }} \rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor\tag{i}$$

Natural logarithm Sum to product identity:

$$\ln \left( n! \right) =\sum _{j=1}^{n}\ln \left( j \right)\tag{ii} $$

Unique prime factorization Definition of the factorial of $n$:

$$n!=\prod _{k=1}^{\pi \left( n \right) }{p_{{k}}}^{\nu_{{p_{{k}}}} \left( n! \right) } \tag{iii} $$

An identity for the natural logarithm of the factorial of the nearest integer to $x$ in terms of the first Chebyshev function (used in the first line for the proof of Bertrand's Postulate):

$$\ln ( [x] ! ) =\sum _{k=1}^{\pi ( \lfloor x \rfloor ) }\psi \Bigl( {\frac {x}{k}} \Bigr) \tag{iv} $$

$\pi(x)$ is the number of prime numbers less than or equal to $x$.

${\{x}\}$ is the fractional part of $x$.

Collectively the four above lemmas imply the identity:

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) -\sum _{i=1}^{n-1} \sum _{j=1}^{\pi ( {\lfloor\frac {n}{i}} \rfloor ) } \Bigl\lfloor\frac{ \ln ( {\frac {n}{i}} ) }{ \ln p_{{j}} } \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{j}} ) =0\quad\quad\quad(\operatorname{i \land ii \land iii\land iv})$$

I then took the following approach to furthering the above conclusion:

Consider the following identities:

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n +1) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n+1}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) -\sum _{i=1}^{\pi(n)} \sum _{j=1}^{\pi ( {\lfloor\frac {n}{i}} \rfloor ) } \Bigl\lfloor\frac{ \ln ( {\frac {n}{i}} ) }{ \ln p_{{j}} } \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{j}}) =0\tag{v}$$

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n+1 ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n +1) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n+1}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) -\sum _{i=1}^{\pi(n)} \sum _{j=1}^{\pi ( {\lfloor\frac {n}{i}} \rfloor ) } \Bigl\lfloor\frac{ \ln ( {\frac {n}{i}} ) }{ \ln p_{{j}} } \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{j}} ) =\ln(n+1)\tag{vi}$$

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n+1 ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) -\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) =0\tag{vii}$$ $$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}})=\ln(n!)\tag{viii}$$ $$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n+1 ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n+1 ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n+1}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) -\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}}) =\ln(n+1)\tag{ix}$$

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n+1 ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}})=\ln(n!)\tag{x} $$

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n+1 ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n+1}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}})=\ln((n+1)!)\tag{xi} $$

$$\sum _{i=1}^{\pi (n ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n+1 ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n+1}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}})-\sum _{i=1}^{n } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n ) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}})=\sum _{j=1}^{N}\alpha_{g(n,j)}\ln(p _{f(n,j)})\delta\Biggl(\frac{n}{2},\Bigl\lfloor \frac{n}{2}\Bigr\rfloor\Biggr)$$

$${\{g(n,j),f(n,j)}\} \subset \mathbb N\tag{xii}$$

Collectively imply:

$$\sum _{i=\pi (n )+1}^{\pi (n+1 ) } \sum _{j=1}^{ {\bigl\lfloor\frac {\ln ( n +1) }{\ln ( p_{{i}} ) }}\bigr\rfloor +1} \Bigl\lfloor {\frac {n+1}{{p_{{i}}}^{j}}} \Bigr\rfloor \ln ( p_{{i}})=\ln(n+1)\delta(\tau(n+1),2)\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\quad\tag{0.2} $$

$\tau(k)$ is the total number of divisors of $k$.

$\delta(x,y)$ is the Kronecker delta function.

Adam Ledger
  • 1,240
  • is this a question? – Alexander Gruber Oct 04 '18 at 17:08
  • Well yes of course it is, If I simply state what I am attempting, everybody complains that I need to demonstrate that I have made an attempt before posting, so I posted what I had done at the time I made the question – Adam Ledger Oct 05 '18 at 01:05
  • I will admit that since then I have near on almost provided a rigorous enough proof, but there are still holes in it otherwise I would feel comfortable looking at it – Adam Ledger Oct 05 '18 at 01:06
  • Ah for example, the denominators of $(1.2)$ and $(2.2)$ are not the maximal value that will adhere to the divisibility condition, they are only factors of it, there is a big hole right there that needs a plug – Adam Ledger Oct 05 '18 at 01:08
  • Editing a question bumps it, which is a problem when the number of edits is that large. I recommend you use the sandbox at: https://math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4666/sandbox-for-drafts-of-long-complex-posts – Michael Greinecker Oct 05 '18 at 20:31
  • Ok thanks Michael I will take a look and keep this under consideration, however there is a few questions that I posted as far back as two months ago, and still regularly update when I have made progress or have relevant considerations to add, are you sure it is the number of edits that is the issue, or that the edits I make do not consist of a complete solution to the problem? For example this one is a primary example, the part that I am yet to do is between the beginning and the end of what is currently there – Adam Ledger Oct 06 '18 at 07:19
  • so the logical completion of my attempt is not chronological, this maybe a little frustrating from the perspective of others not in pursuit of the same specific problem, I know I wouldn't give me the time of day, but anyway please inform me prior to any deletion so I can copy and store the latex thanks – Adam Ledger Oct 06 '18 at 07:20
  • 1
    @Adam one thing you may want to do is highlight the question part of your post by putting a > in the beginning of the line (see for example this question of mine from years ago). This type of formatting is in no way required, but it can be helpful for getting people to read your question, since it is easier to locate at a glance what the post is about. – Alexander Gruber Oct 08 '18 at 04:20
  • with long proofs like this it can also be helpful to divide it up into separate issues, and ask questions about these different parts in separate questions. SE isn't really very well suited for blog-length posts. You will probably get more help if you're able to write the posts more along the network conventions – Alexander Gruber Oct 08 '18 at 04:25
  • Ok well I'm still not entirely clear on what a blog is, really from my position It's not like I am going to gain anything by figuring it out without someone telling me, nor am I really prepared to pay actual money for any more tertiary education, so Yes ok I will make a note that questions that are likely to be too much content for SE should possibly be shelved, but you have to see the temptation for me to put something up, I am putting things up as I can see them part of the answer, but yep it's not as if anything I have put up is in an unknown – Adam Ledger Oct 10 '18 at 00:09
  • language, I mean, it could be worse, use new symbols in notation every line, new terminology to accompany it. – Adam Ledger Oct 10 '18 at 00:13

0 Answers0