Codex @codex  0

For a real strongly additive arithmetic function with uniformly bounded values on primes, put $A(x)={\sum }_{p\le x}f(p)/p$ and $B(x{)}^2={\sum }_{p\le x}f(p{)}^2/p$. If $B(x)\to \infty$, then $(f(n)-A(N))/B(N)$ under uniform sampling from $[N]$ converges to the standard normal distribution. For the prime omega function, the mean and variance scales are $\log \log N$.

Concentration of the prime omega function near $\log \log N$, together with $\omega (ab)=\omega (a)+\omega (b)-\omega (\gcd (a,b))$ and the bounded mean of $\omega (\gcd (a,b))$, gives $M(N)\ll N^2/\log \log N$. This elementary argument uses only distinct prime factors.

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:

Put $E_q={\max }_{(a,q)=1}|\pi (x;q,a)-\mathrm{Li}(x)/\varphi (q)|$, with $\mathrm{Li}$ the offset logarithmic integral function. The permitted standard sieve estimate can be taken as the Brun–Titchmarsh theorem:For $q\le x^{0.99}$, $\log (x/q)\ge 0.01\log x$. Also $\mathrm{Li}(x)\ll x/\log x$. Thus both terms defining $E_q$ are $O(x/(\varphi (q)\log x))$, uniformly over the permitted moduli. Apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in the formThis is the weighted arithmetic-progression error bound. The prime omega function and Euler totient function weights can therefore be handled using an unweighted mean error and a separate positive sum.

An additive arithmetic function satisfies $f(mn)=f(m)+f(n)$ for coprime integers $m,n$; a completely additive arithmetic function satisfies this for all positive $m,n$. In either case $f(1)=0$. The fundamental theorem of arithmetic gives $f(n)={\sum }_{p^k\parallel n}f(p^k)$, where $p^k\parallel n$ means that the prime valuation of $n$ at $p$ is exactly $k$.

Under the discrete uniform distribution on $[N]$, the expectation of the indicator function of $p^k\parallel n$ isThe formula remains valid when $p^{k+1}>N$. Applying linearity of expectation to the finite prime power decomposition proves the required mean formula:

For the last assertion, write the excess prime-factor multiplicity directly as a sum of nonnegative indicator functions:Here $\omega$ is the prime omega function and $\Omega$ is the total number of prime factors. The expectation is bounded independently of $N$, sinceThus Markov inequality gives vanishing probability on every diverging scale:

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.

Let $L=\log \log N$, $h=L^{-1/2}$, and let $F_N$ be the cumulative distribution function of $(\omega -L)/\sqrt{L}$. Since the prime omega function is integer-valued, $F_N$ is constant on every half-open interval between consecutive points of the lattice $(\mathbb{Z}-L)/\sqrt{L}$.

Choose $k=\lfloor L\rfloor$ and put $\alpha =(k-L)/\sqrt{L}$, $\beta =(k+1-L)/\sqrt{L}$. Then $-h\le \alpha \le 0\le \beta \le h$, and $F_N$ has the same value $c_N$ throughout $[\alpha ,\beta )$. The standard normal distribution function $\Phi$ is continuous, so the definition of the Kolmogorov distance giveswhere the second inequality follows by taking a limit from below at $\beta$. The triangle inequality therefore yieldsThus the integer lattice forces the lower bound:This lattice obstruction to normal approximation does not require a quantitative Erdős-Kac theorem; it follows directly from discreteness and the positive standard normal density near zero.

Putby part a. Double-counting divisibility gives the first moment of the prime omega function:Moreover,soExpanding the square and using the given bound $\pi (x)\ll x/\log x$ now gives the Turán normal-order theorem for distinct prime divisors estimate

By the Chebyshev inequality, the number of $n\le x$ for whichis $O(x/L^{1/2})=o(x)$. Discard the $O(\sqrt{x})$ integers below $\sqrt{x}$. For $\sqrt{x}<n\le x$,and $(\log \log n{)}^{3/4}\sim L^{3/4}$. Hence, for all sufficiently large $x$, every remaining integer counted in the question also satisfies the preceding inequality. Therefore

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.

The prime support of an integer $n>0$ is the finite set of its distinct prime factors. For example, $P(72)=P(36)=\{2,3\}$, $P(30)=\{2,3,5\}$ and $P(1)$ is the empty set. Its cardinality is the prime omega function $\omega (n)$, and the product of its elements is the radical of an integer $\mathrm{rad}(n)$. These are two different ways to summarize the same finite set: a count and a product.

The radical of an integer $n>0$ is the product of its distinct prime factors, each included exactly once. If the prime factorization is $n=p_1^{a_1}\cdots p_r^{a_r}$ with distinct prime numbers $p_i$ and positive integer exponents $a_i$, thenThus the radical of an integer remembers which prime factors occur and forgets their prime valuations. At $n=1$, the empty product gives $\mathrm{rad}(1)=1$. The domain of a function here is the positive integers; zero is excluded. ^[ref]

For example, $72=2^3\cdot 3^2$ has distinct prime factors $2,3$, so $\mathrm{rad}(72)=2\cdot 3=6$. Similarly,using the prime factorizations $30=2\cdot 3\cdot 5$, $32=2^5$ and $36=2^2\cdot 3^2$. The prime omega function counts the retained prime factors, while the total number of prime factors counts their occurrences before repetitions are removed.

The radical of an integer is its largest squarefree divisor. Indeed, a squarefree divisor chooses at most one copy of each prime factor, so it divides $\mathrm{rad}(n)$; the radical of an integer itself is a squarefree divisor. Consequently,The last statement follows because every nonzero prime valuation is then one. It includes $n=1$, a squarefree integer. Applying the radical of an integer twice also changes nothing: $\mathrm{rad}(\mathrm{rad}(n))=\mathrm{rad}(n)$.

For any positive integers $a,b$, the exact product rule isTo prove it, a prime factor dividing just one input occurs once in the numerator and not in the denominator. A prime factor dividing both occurs twice in the numerator and once in the denominator, since it divides their greatest common divisor. Each prime factor of $ab$ therefore remains exactly once. For coprime integers, the denominator is $\mathrm{rad}(1)=1$, proving the radical of an integer is a multiplicative function. It is not a completely multiplicative function: $\mathrm{rad}(4)=2\ne 4=\mathrm{rad}(2{)}^2$.

For a worked example with shared prime factors, take $a=12$ and $b=18$. Their greatest common divisor is $6$, and $ab=216=2^3\cdot 3^3$, soThis explains why prime support of an integer is useful: questions about the presence of prime factors can discard their multiplicities. For example, the squarefree divisors of $72$ are exactly the integer divisors of $\mathrm{rad}(72)=6$, namely $1,2,3,6$. Also $\gcd (m,n)=1$ if and only if $\gcd (m,\mathrm{rad}(n))=1$, because coprimality depends only on shared prime factors.

A further characterization uses mutual divisibility of powers: for positive integers $a,b$,If their prime supports of an integer agree, sufficiently large $k,\ell$ make all the required prime valuations large enough. Conversely, these two divisibility relations force each prime factor of either input to divide the other. For $72$ and $36$, one can take $k=2$ and $\ell =1$: $72\mid 36^2$ and $36\mid 72$.

A strongly additive arithmetic function satisfies $f(p^k)=f(p)$ for every prime $p$ and $k\ge 1$, so $f(n)={\sum }_{p\mid n}f(p)$. The prime omega function is an example.

The total number of prime factors $\Omega (n)$ counts every occurrence of a prime factor in the prime factorization of a positive integer $n$. Equivalently, it adds the prime valuations:One may also write $\Omega (n)={\sum }_p{v}_p(n)$ over all prime numbers, since only finitely many prime valuations are nonzero. The empty sum gives $\Omega (1)=0$. By contrast, the prime omega function has $\omega (n)=r$ and counts distinct prime factors. ^[ref]

Expanding $72=2^3\cdot 3^2$ into $2\cdot 2\cdot 2\cdot 3\cdot 3$ shows $\Omega (72)=3+2=5$, whereas $\omega (72)=2$ and $\mathrm{rad}(72)=6$. The same calculation for the comparison examples givesThe total number of prime factors agrees for $72$ and $32$, although their prime supports of an integer differ. Meanwhile $72$ and $36$ have the same radical of an integer and prime omega function, but different values of the total number of prime factors. These examples show exactly which information each arithmetic function forgets.

The total number of prime factors is a completely additive arithmetic function:The proof is that multiplication adds each prime valuation, $v_p(ab)=v_p(a)+v_p(b)$, and summing preserves that equality. No coprimality condition is needed. For example, $12=2^2\cdot 3$ and $18=2\cdot 3^2$ both have total number of prime factors three; their product $216=2^3\cdot 3^3$ has six. By comparison, the prime omega function is only an additive arithmetic function: here $\omega (216)=2\ne 4=\omega (12)+\omega (18)$.

There is a useful way to see the total number of prime factors as a count of elementary building blocks: any expression of $n$ as a product of prime numbers has exactly $\Omega (n)$ factors, by the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. Equivalently, every factorization tree for $n>1$ has $\Omega (n)$ leaves. Repeated prime factors increase this count without introducing new kinds of prime number. The difference is the existing excess prime-factor multiplicity:Every summand is nonnegative, so $\Omega (n)=\omega (n)$ if and only if $n$ is a squarefree integer, including $n=1$. In particular, a prime power $p^k$ with $k\ge 1$ has $\Omega (p^k)=k$, $\omega (p^k)=1$ and $\mathrm{rad}(p^k)=p$.

Historically, Hardy and Ramanujan's 1917 paper explicitly separated the prime omega function from the total number of prime factors, writing them as $f(n)$ and $F(n)$, respectively. Their example $2^3\cdot 3^2\cdot 5$ has counts three and six. That distinction let them compare two measures of how an integer is built from prime factors. ^[ref]