Does there exist a function $f$ that is a lower bound of the prime number function $\pi$ with $f \sim \pi$?
-
6Just to be a little puckish, I will note that $$f(x)=\pi(x)-1$$ satisfies your requirements :) – Zev Chonoles Aug 23 '11 at 18:10
-
Yep, thanks. My wording should be more precise... – Aug 23 '11 at 18:36
-
$pi(x)$ is the prime number counting function, not the prime number function – Smiley1000 Apr 23 '20 at 15:29
2 Answers
This segment of the Wikipedia article mentions a few such bounds. In all cases, the bounds hold from a certain explicit $N$ on. They can be easily be made unconditional without changing the asymptotic behaviour by suitably redefining the functions for $x \lt N$.
For instance, the article mentions the bounds $$\frac{x}{\ln x+2}<\pi(x)<\frac{x}{\ln x-4},$$ valid for $x \ge 55$, as well as much stronger bounds by Pierre Dusart. Since $\pi(x)$ is asymptotically $x/\ln x$, the two bounds above have the right asymptotic properties. Tweaking the lower bound so that it is valid below $55$ is easy. The crudest method is to use the function which is $-1$ for $x \lt 55$, and $x/(\ln x +2)$ for $x \ge 55$. Asymptotic behaviour is unaffected.

- 507,029
-
1See also http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/54312/non-trivial-upper-bound-for-the-number-of-primes-less-or-equal-to-n/54325#54325. – lhf Aug 23 '11 at 18:20
-
1
-
I found a more 'elegant' lower bound:
$$ \frac{n}{\log\,n} - 2 \leq \pi(n), \; n \geq 2 $$ Primality Testing in Polynomial Time

- 795
-
There is a proof on page 46: http://www.springerlink.com/content/p9rft7x5nkbwjkq6/ – Sep 24 '11 at 01:41
-
Sorry, was thinking of $\text{li}(x)$, that bounces back and forth from below $\pi(x)$ to above. – André Nicolas Sep 24 '11 at 01:49
-
Although, I am not sure what is meant by $\log$ in the paper. The author distinguishes between $\ln$ (natural logarithm) and $\log$ (base 2 or base 10, maybe?)... – Sep 24 '11 at 01:57
-
On second or third thought, I am again very surprised at the result, and doubtful. Maybe there is confusion with estimates of $p_n$. I do not trust Wolfram Mathworld assertions, they are often wrong. – André Nicolas Sep 24 '11 at 06:18
-