20210623, 16:29  #1 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
808_{10} Posts 
A probabilistic measure arising in approximating pi(x) / Question
Given the logarithmic integral
\[Li(x) = \int_2^x \frac{dt}{\log t}\] and the smooth part of Riemann's prime counting formula as the equivalent of the Gram series \[R(x) = 1+\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\log^n x}{n\cdot n!\cdot\zeta(n+1)},\] is there a constant c such that \[c = \lim_{m\rightarrow\infty} \frac{1}{m} \sum_{x=2}^m \log(\lvert\frac{Li(x)\pi(x)}{R(x)\pi(x)}\rvert)\] ? 
20210719, 18:48  #2 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{3}×101 Posts 
Let me admit at this point that I still don't seem to understand how to approximate pi(x) by employing the nontrivial zeta zeroes, specifically how I achieve sufficient convergence of x^(1/2 ± t i) as t gets larger.
I'd like to see how well the above mentioned value c fares when x is large, but for this I need to have a pi(x) approximation that makes use of at least a couple of those zeroes. Are there any freely available programs for this? 
20220305, 21:13  #3 
Aug 2005
171_{8} Posts 
The book Prime Obsession has a wonderful exposition of the method with worked examples.
For a list of zeros I suggest: https://www.lmfdb.org/zeros/zeta/ To compare your results I suggest: http://sweet.ua.pt/tos/primes.html (Estimates of pi(x) for "large" values of x) 
20220308, 21:06  #4  
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{3}·101 Posts 
Quote:
Do you happen to know the author of "Prime obsession"? I'm imagining to get some NSFW results by simply looking for the title... In the past I already worked with some of the data from the links you gave. 

20220308, 23:30  #5 
Aug 2005
171_{8} Posts 
The author's name is John Derbyshire. The book still sells well and has been translated into over a dozen languages. I'll be very interested in your results. What is your favorite programming language? You will probably want to use at least double precision for your calculations.

20220310, 20:20  #6 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{3}·101 Posts 
OK thanks! This calculation doesn't have top priority at the moment, so it will probably take a while until I get results worth mentioning.
My favorite programming language would be the one I'm most familiar with, which is BASIC  I still remember the countless hours on a C128 back in the mid90s... but I'm going to use Pari for this one. First I have to figure out how to get the numbers right, only then I can investigate things like precision and efficiency and tradeoffs. 
20220328, 17:39  #7 
Dec 2008
you know...around...
1450_{8} Posts 
I think I got it now. The paper arXiv: 1407.1914 "On the first sign change of \(\theta\)(x)x" by Platt and Trudgian was in the scope of my knowledge, but it was not until recently I found the focus to put the pieces together to tackle the \(\pi\)(x) approximation. I mean, I've seen the equation on top of page 6 before, but I can't remember what went wrong last time I tried to use it, maybe I was stupid and mistook log(\(\omega\)) for \(\omega\), I don't know...
So from what I've figured out, it appears the constant in my OP exists and it's about 2.32. This finally gives an answer to something I have asked myself for years. Riemann's approximation is, on a logarithmic average scale, about ten times or one significant digit closer to \(\pi\)(x) than Gauss's. Of course now would be the time for more statistics. Like, naïvely speaking, how probable is it that R(x) is 2 or 10 or 100 times closer to \(\pi\)(x) than Li(x), but that's another story for another day. At the very least I have to consult the work of Sarnak and Rubinstein first. I guess it can be interpreted as a good sign that I eventually find the answers to many of my questions on my own. 
20220405, 19:23  #8  
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{3}×101 Posts 
Quote:
That is, until I find the next mistake in my calculations... These numbers may also be dangerously premature (and recklessly worded), but I don't know when I'll be able to verify them: Code:
Li(x) better than R(x) 0.9% of the time R(x) better than Li(x) 99.1% of the time R(x) 2x better than Li(x) 94.0% of the time R(x) 3x better than Li(x) 86.7% of the time R(x) 10x better than Li(x) 35.9% of the time R(x) 100x better than Li(x) 3.7% of the time R(x) 1000x better than Li(x) 0.38% of the time 50% of the time, R(x) is >6.9x better than Li(x) 

20220406, 15:39  #9 
"Tilman Neumann"
Jan 2016
Germany
5×101 Posts 
Are you sure about 2.14?
Then I would try to get it two more digits accurate, it smells like pi1... But it seems that your constant cexpression is prone to approximation errors. You are approximating all of Li(x), R(x) and π(x). If either Li(x)−π(x) or R(x)−π(x) gets very close to 0 by some accidental approximation error, then the logterm of this series element might dominate your series. 
20220407, 15:23  #10  
Dec 2008
you know...around...
2^{3}×101 Posts 
Quote:
So I rather retract my earlier statements about said constant. 

Thread Tools  
Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
No way to measure record prime gaps  Bobby Jacobs  Prime Gap Searches  45  20210902 15:47 
probabilistic number theory  wildrabbitt  Math  57  20150917 18:26 
On a curius sighting of a pair of math constants in the deutrons as measure  Kathegetes  Miscellaneous Math  16  20140713 03:48 
approximating products  only_human  Puzzles  0  20100323 18:49 
Approximating Factoring Speed  hasan4444  Factoring  17  20091028 14:34 