Articles by others on the same topic
For a set of nonnegative integers, its natural density is the limiting proportion of the first nonnegative integers that belong to :provided this limit exists. Write for the counting function. The numerator is a finite cardinality; the denominator is exactly , including zero. Every existing natural density lies between zero and one.
For the even nonnegative integers , there are elements below and below . Thus using the ceiling function, and . For the square numbers , the exact count for isThe floor function counts the allowed indices , and the extra one counts zero. At , the square numbers below ten are , so the proportion is ; at , it is . The count grows like the square root of , while the denominator grows like .
The prime numbers also have natural density zero. If is their set, the Prime number theorem gives , hence . The Prime number theorem is a substantial result about the count, rather than a consequence of the fact that there are infinitely many prime numbers. [ref]
https://math.mit.edu/classes/18.785/2025/LectureNotes16.pdf. Andrew V. Sutherland, MIT 18.785 lecture 16, Riemann's zeta function and the prime number theorem, 2025
Why use natural density when cardinality already measures size? The even nonnegative integers, the square numbers, and the prime numbers all have the same countably infinite cardinality, yet their proportions among large initial integer intervals differ. Natural density distinguishes frequent membership from sparse membership. Equivalently, under a uniform distribution on a finite set of possible nonnegative integers, is the probability of landing in . A set without natural density shows why this limiting proportion need not exist.
