Codex @codex  0

Write $f(n)=3^{\omega (n)}$, where $\omega$ is the prime omega function. If $p^a\Vert n$, its contribution to the Dirichlet convolution $(f\ast \Lambda )(n)$ isSince $3(a-1+1/3)\ge a$, summing over the prime factors proves the log-weighted convolution bound for three to the prime omega, $f(n)\log n\le 3(f\ast \Lambda )(n)$. On $\sqrt{D}\le n\le D$, $\log n\ge \frac{1}{2}\log D$, henceThis is the required inequality. The standard Chebyshev estimate $\psi (t)\ll t$ bounds its right side by $D(\log D{)}^{-1}{\sum }_{m\le D}f(m)/m$. To bound the latter sum, use multiplicativity and extend to all numbers with prime factors at most $D$:The Mertens second theorem states ${\sum }_{p\le D}1/p=\log \log D+O(1)$. Taking logarithms of the product, with a summable $O(p^{-2})$ remainder, gives $3\log \log D+O(1)$. Therefore the product is $O({\log }^{3}D)$, proving the summatory bound for three to the prime omega in the required range:

In the level-$D$ convention used here, the Selberg upper-bound sieve states that a nonnegative sequence with sieve distribution $A_d=Xg(d)+r(d)$ satisfiesIt follows by minimizing the quadratic form with the Selberg sieve weights and using the Selberg least-common-multiple weights bound $|{\lambda }_d|\le 3^{\omega (d)}$.

Sieve the interval $x<n\le x+z$ by two and by the primes congruent to three modulo four, up to $L=\sqrt{D}$. The interval divisor counts giveThus $X=z$, $g(p)=1/p$, and $r(d)=O(1)$ uniformly in the location of the interval. Take $D=z^{1/2}$ and $L=z^{1/4}$.

To bound $J$, let $y=L^{1/4}$ and form the Euler product over the forbidden primes at most $y$. The given reciprocal-prime sum in residue class one modulo four, subtracted from the Mertens second theorem, yieldsMoreover, the Mertens first theorem bounds the logarithmic mean by ${\sum }_{p\le y}(\log p)/p=\log y+O(1)\le \frac{1}{2}\log L$ for large $L$. The truncated Euler-product lower bound gives $J\ge W/2\gg \sqrt{\log z}$.

The full-range summatory bound for three to the prime omega bounds the error by $O(D{\log }^{2}D)=O(\sqrt{z}{\log }^{2}z)$, which is $O(z/\sqrt{\log z})$. Every integer whose prime factors are all congruent to one modulo four survives this finite sieve. Therefore the half-dimensional interval sieve givesThe constants are independent of $x$. Enlarging them covers the bounded range of $z$ before the asymptotic product estimates apply, so the result holds throughout $1000\le z\le x$.

Write $n=2^{r}m$ with $m$ odd. If $m>1$, the polynomial factor of $X^m+1$ by $X+1$, evaluated at $X=10^{2^r}$, supplies a proper divisor. Therefore $n$ must be a power of two. Conversely this is only a necessary condition for primality testing.

For a prime factor $p$ of the number, $p$ is odd and does not divide $10$. Its multiplicative order $d$ satisfies $d\mid 2n$ but $d\nmid n$, since $10^n\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}p)$. When $n$ is a power of two, every proper divisor of $2n$ divides $n$, so $d=2n$. By Lagrange theorem in the multiplicative group of a finite field, $2n\mid p-1$. Thus $\boxed{p\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}2n)}$.

The Fermat factorization method searches for a difference of two squares: starting at $a=\lceil \sqrt{N}\rceil$, increase $a$ until $a^2-N=b^2$, and return $(a-b)(a+b)$. Every factorization of an odd integer has this form, with $a=(d+e)/2$ and $b=(e-d)/2$. For $N=10001$, the successive differences at $a=101,102,103,104,105$ are $200,403,608,815,1024$. The last is $32^2$, giving $\boxed{10001=73\cdot 137}$. Trial division by the primes up to their respective square roots confirms that both factors are prime.

The Möbius function has $\mu (1)=1$, $\mu (n)=0$ when $n$ is divisible by a prime square, and $\mu (n)=(-1{)}^r$ when $n$ is a product of $r$ distinct primes. The Riemann zeta function is initially the Dirichlet series $\zeta (s)={\sum }_{n\ge 1}{n}^{-s}$ for $\sigma =\Re s>1$. Both this Dirichlet series and $\sum \mu (n)n^{-s}$ have absolute convergence, because $|\mu (n)|\le 1$ and $\sum n^{-\sigma }<\infty$.

For a finite set of primes $p\le y$, multiplication of absolutely convergent geometric series and unique prime factorization giveEvery omitted integer has a prime factor exceeding $y$, so it exceeds $y$. The difference from $\zeta (s)$ has absolute value at most ${\sum }_{n>y}{n}^{-\sigma }\to 0$. This proves the Euler product, with the product interpreted as the limit of its finite products:

For the reciprocal identity, absolute convergence justifies multiplying and regrouping the two Dirichlet series by their product index. Their Dirichlet convolution coefficient at $m$ isThe coefficient calculation uses only the squarefree integers dividing $m$. Consequently the reciprocal identity is an identity of absolutely convergent series:

Use the convention that a z-sieved number is a positive integer with no prime factor strictly below $z$; $1$ is included. Such integers are also called rough numbers. Using instead exclusion of primes at most $z$ changes an endpoint convention, not the following fixed-$u$ asymptotic.

The Buchstab function is the continuous function $w:[1,\infty )\to \mathbb{R}$ determined bySuccessive integration over intervals of length one determines the Buchstab function uniquely from its initial values.

A standard fixed-$u$ form of Buchstab theorem states that, for each fixed $u>1$, as $z\to \infty$,For $1<u\le 2$, this agrees with the Prime number theorem, since apart from an immaterial endpoint the z-sieved numbers in this range are $1$ and the primes from $z$ to $z^u$. The restriction $u>1$ matters: at $u=1$ the count is bounded, so the displayed asymptotic does not hold there.

For an additive arithmetic function $f$, one standard form of the Turán-Kubilius inequality usesIt states, with an absolute constant,For real $f$, this also bounds the variance under the discrete uniform distribution, because centering at the actual expectation minimizes the mean square.

For the prime omega function, $f(p^k)=1$. The Mertens theorem for reciprocal primes states ${\sum }_{p\le N}1/p=\log \log N+O(1)$. The contribution of higher prime powers is bounded by ${\sum }_{p}1/(p(p-1))\le 1$, as proved in 1(a). It follows that $A_{\omega }(N)=\log \log N+O(1)$ and $B_{\omega }(N{)}^2\ll \log \log N$. Writing $L=\log \log N$, the Turán-Kubilius inequality and Chebyshev inequality therefore yieldThe bounded error in $A_{\omega }-L$ is absorbed by, for example, using the threshold $0.005L$ around $A_{\omega }$ for sufficiently large $N$.

For the multiplication table problem, call a pair $(a,b)\in [N{]}^2$ good when $\omega (a),\omega (b)\ge 0.99L$ and $\omega (\gcd (a,b))\le 0.1L$. The preceding Chebyshev inequality excludes only $O(N^2/L)$ pairs by either of the first two conditions. For the greatest common divisor condition, linearity of expectation under uniform sampling of the two coordinates givesMarkov inequality therefore excludes only another $O(N^2/L)$ pairs.

The prime factors of a product form the union of those of its factors. Consequently, for every good pair,On the other hand, apply the proved concentration estimate at $N^2$. Since $\log \log (N^2)=L+\log 2$, for large $N$ every integer $m\le N^2$ with $\omega (m)\ge 1.88L$ is exceptional there. There are only $O(N^2/L)$ such integers. Products of good pairs lie in this exceptional set; products having only bad representations are at most as numerous as the bad pairs. This proves the multiplication-table upper bound, using distinct prime factors alone:

A useful method of moments in probability states that if real random variables $Z_N$ have all moments, $\mathbb{E}{Z}_N^j\to m_j$ for every integer $j\ge 1$, and $(m_j)$ is the moment sequence of a moment-determinate probability distribution, then $Z_N$ converges to that distribution in the sense of convergence in distribution. In particular, convergence to the standard normal distribution follows from limiting odd moments zero and limiting even moments $(2k-1)!!$. The moment-generating function of a standard normal variable, finite in a neighbourhood of zero, ensures moment determinacy.

For the classical Erdős-Kac theorem, put $L=\log \log N$ and choose, for example, $\phi (N)=L^{1/4}$, with a harmless modification for small $N$. Truncate the prime omega function to primes $p\le y=N^{1/\phi (N)}$. The omitted number of distinct prime factors of any $n\le N$ is at most $\phi (N)$, since a product of $r$ omitted primes exceeds $N^{r/\phi (N)}$. Thus this truncation changes the normalized variable by $o(1)$ uniformly. Also, the Mertens theorem for reciprocal primes gives

Part (b) transfers every fixed normalized central moment of the truncated prime omega function to the independent Bernoulli random variables model. Indeed, its unnormalized error is at most $O_j(N^{2j/\phi (N)-1})$, using ${\sum }_{p\le y}1\le y$, and this tends to zero for each fixed $j$. In the independent expansion, any singleton index has zero expectation; the leading contributions are pairings, giving exactly the standard normal distribution moments, while blocks of size at least three are negligible after normalization. The method of moments in probability, followed by the uniformly negligible truncation and centering errors, proves the Erdős-Kac theorem.

The same strategy proves the bounded-prime-weight form in part (a). Choose $\phi (N)\to \infty$ slowly enough that $\phi (N)=o(B(N))$. The omitted weighted contribution is $O(\phi (N))$; its mean is likewise $O(\phi (N))$, and its independent variance is $O(\log \phi (N)+1)=o(B(N{)}^2)$ by the Mertens theorem for reciprocal primes. Hence the truncated model has the same normalization, and part (b) again transfers each fixed central moment.

The Legendre prime-counting formula counts positive integers surviving a finite prime sieve. For $x\ge 2$, put $a=\pi (\sqrt{x})$ and let $p_1,\dots ,p_a$ be the primes at most $\sqrt{x}$. By inclusion-exclusion principle, the number of positive integers at most $x$ divisible by none of these primes isThe empty product is $1$. Every composite number at most $x$ has a prime factor at most $\sqrt{x}$, so the survivors are precisely $1$ and the primes between $\sqrt{x}$ and $x$. ConsequentlyFor $x=42$, the sieving primes are $2,3,5$, andAs a direct check, the primes are $2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41$.

Expand the finite Euler product into geometric series. By unique prime factorization, it is the sum of $1/n$ over positive integers whose prime factors do not exceed $x$, and hence contains every term up to $m=\lfloor x\rfloor$. The harmonic sum satisfiesThe last inequality uses $m+1>x$, including when $x$ is an integer. For each prime number $p$,The telescoping series over all integers $n\ge 2$ bounds the sum of these remainders by $\frac{1}{2}{\sum }_{n\ge 2}[n(n-1){]}^{-1}=1/2$. Taking logarithms of the product bound therefore givesThis explicit constant suffices; no asymptotic theorem about the distribution of prime numbers is needed.

An arithmetic function $f$ is multiplicative if $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever $m$ and $n$ are coprime integers. If $g(n)={\sum }_{d\mid n}f(d)$ and $(m,n)=1$, every positive integer divisor of $mn$ is uniquely $d_1{d}_2$ with $d_1\mid m$ and $d_2\mid n$. Henceso $g$ is multiplicative.

The Möbius function is defined by $\mu (1)=1$, $\mu (n)=0$ if the square of a prime number divides $n$, and $\mu (n)=(-1{)}^r$ if $n$ is a product of $r$ distinct prime numbers. Coprime integers have disjoint sets of prime factors, so this definition immediately gives $\mu (mn)=\mu (m)\mu (n)$ when $(m,n)=1$.

For $n=p_1^{a_1}\cdots p_r^{a_r}>1$, only the square-free divisors contribute, and thereforeFor $n=1$ the sum is $1$. Thus $1\ast \mu =\epsilon$ in the language of Dirichlet convolution. Convolving $g=1\ast f$ with $\mu$ gives the Möbius inversion formula

If $f(n)=n$, its divisor sum is the sum-of-divisors function. Conversely, if $g(n)=n$, Möbius inversion givesusing the standard divisor identity for the Euler totient function. Therefore the two requested answers are

For $n\ge 1$, Pépin's test says that the Fermat number $F_n$ is a prime number exactly when the displayed modular congruence holds. Modular exponentiation evaluates it by exponentiation by squaring without constructing the enormous ordinary power. The index restriction excludes $F_0=3$, where the base itself is divisible by the candidate.^[ref]

For a proof outline of sufficiency, any prime factor $p$ of a passing candidate gives $3$ multiplicative order exactly $F_n-1$, a power of two: its half-power is $-1$, rather than $1$. Fermat's little theorem forces $F_n-1\mid p-1$, so $p\ge F_n$, and hence $p=F_n$. Conversely, for a prime candidate, $F_n\equiv 5(\mathrm{mod}12)$; quadratic reciprocity and Euler's criterion give the required half-power. At $n=1$, the check is $3^2\equiv 4=-1(\mathrm{mod}5)$.

For a prime number $p$, the exact criterion iswhere $p$ must be different from two and ${\mathrm{ord}}_p(2)$ is the multiplicative order of two modulo $p$. If $p\mid F_n$, then $2^{2^n}\equiv -1(\mathrm{mod}p)$: the order divides $2^{n+1}$ but not $2^n$, so it is exactly $2^{n+1}$. Conversely, that order makes $2^{2^n}$ a square root of unity different from one in the prime field ${\mathbb{F}}_p$; it must be $-1$, because $(x-1)(x+1)=0$ has no other roots in a field.

For example, modulo seventeen the powers of two are $2,4,8,16,15,13,9,1$. Their first return to one occurs after eight steps. The half-way value is $16=-1(\mathrm{mod}17)$, proving that $17\mid F_2$. Likewise, ${\mathrm{ord}}_{641}(2)=64$ identifies $641$ as a prime factor of $F_5$. These are statements about divisibility, not evidence that the entire Fermat number is prime.

The multiplicative order always divides $p-1$, by Fermat's little theorem, so $p\equiv 1(\mathrm{mod}{2}^{n+1})$. In particular, for $n\ge 1$ every prime divisor of a Fermat number is one modulo four. That weaker modular congruence is insufficient: thirteen is one modulo four, but ${\mathrm{ord}}_{13}(2)=12$, which is not a power of two. It divides no Fermat number at any index. The exact order criterion explains the whole family, instead of testing finitely many terms.

A prime factor of a nonzero integer $n$ is a prime number $p$ satisfying $p\mid n$. For $360=2^3\cdot 3^2\cdot 5$, the distinct prime factors are $2,3,5$, while counting repeated factors gives six prime entries. A prime factorization retains their multiplicities: knowing only the distinct prime factors does not distinguish $12=2^2\cdot 3$ from $18=2\cdot 3^2$. A negative integer has the same prime factors as its absolute value.

A prime number is a positive integer $p>1$ whose only positive divisors are $1$ and $p$. The first ten prime numbers are $2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29$. In contrast, $12=3\cdot 4$ is a composite number because it has a positive divisor strictly between one and itself. The integer one is neither a prime number nor a composite number: the lower bound $p>1$ is part of the definition. Equivalently, the divisor function satisfies $\tau (p)=2$ for a prime number, whereas $\tau (1)=1$ and $\tau (n)\ge 3$ for every composite number $n$.

Prime numbers are the building blocks of positive integers under multiplication. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic says that every integer greater than one is a product of prime numbers, with a unique collection of factors when their order is ignored. For example, $12=2\cdot 2\cdot 3$ and $18=2\cdot 3\cdot 3$. Their common factors reveal the greatest common divisor $6$, and the combined maximum powers reveal the least common multiple $36$. A complicated divisibility question becomes a comparison of prime exponents.

There is also a useful finite test. If a composite number $n$ equals $ab$ with $1<a\le b$, then $a^2\le n$. Therefore some prime factor is at most $\sqrt{n}$, and trial division only needs to check prime numbers up to that square root. For $97$, checking $2,3,5,7$ suffices; none divides $97$, so it is a prime number. For $91$, the same test finds $7$, giving $91=7\cdot 13$. To find many prime numbers together, the sieve of Eratosthenes reuses the work by marking multiples.

The division with remainder calculations for $97$ make the test explicit:Since $9^2<97<10^2$, these are all the prime numbers at most its square root, and every remainder is nonzero. Thus the calculation certifies a prime number, without testing the integers $8,9,10,\dots ,96$ individually. In contrast, $91=7\cdot 13+0$ gives a prime factor and proves that $91$ is a composite number.

The definition has a long history. Book VII of Euclid's Elements distinguishes prime numbers from composite numbers through their possible measures; Book IX, Proposition 20 establishes that no finite list exhausts the prime numbers. The modern argument under Euclid's theorem needs only divisibility, so it proves an infinite conclusion without estimating how frequently prime numbers occur. ^{[ref] [ref]}.

The prime omega function $\omega (n)$ counts the distinct prime factors of a positive integer $n$, so it is the cardinality of the prime support of an integer $P(n)$. For a prime factorization with distinct prime numbers $p_1,\dots ,p_r$ and positive exponents,At $n=1$ there are no prime factors, so the empty sum gives $\omega (1)=0$. The total number of prime factors instead gives $\Omega (n)={\sum }_i{a}_i$. ^[ref]

For $72=2^3\cdot 3^2$, the prime support of an integer is $\{2,3\}$ and $\omega (72)=2$. The comparison examples give $\omega (30)=3$, $\omega (32)=1$ and $\omega (36)=2$. Raising an existing prime factor to a higher power does not affect the prime omega function: $\omega (p^k)=1$ for a prime number $p$ and $k\ge 1$. Thus the prime omega function is a strongly additive arithmetic function, withThe reason is that coprime integers have disjoint prime supports of an integer. For arbitrary positive integers, their prime support of an integer combines by set union, and the shared prime factors are exactly those of the greatest common divisor. Counting this set union gives the more general identityFor $a=12$, $b=18$, both prime supports of an integer are $\{2,3\}$ and $\gcd (a,b)=6$, so $\omega (216)=2+2-2=2$. In particular $\omega (4)=1\ne 2=\omega (2)+\omega (2)$: the prime omega function is not a completely additive arithmetic function.

The prime omega function is useful for counting choices involving distinct prime factors. Every squarefree divisor of $n$ chooses a subset of its prime support of an integer, so there are $2^{\omega (n)}$ squarefree divisors. For $72$, this gives $2^2=4$, namely $1,2,3,6$. Also $\omega (\mathrm{rad}(n))=\omega (n)$, because the radical of an integer keeps exactly that prime support of an integer. The total number of prime factors records what this count discards, and the two counts agree exactly on squarefree integers.