Proof of Bertrand's postulate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In mathematics, Bertrand's postulate (actually a theorem) states that for each n ≥ 2 there is a prime p such that n < p < 2n. It was first proven by Pafnuty Chebyshev, and a short but advanced proof was given by Srinivasa Ramanujan. The gist of the following elementary but involved proof by contradiction is due to Paul Erdős; the basic idea of the proof is to show that a certain binomial coefficient needs to have a prime factor within the desired interval in order to be large enough.
Contents |
The argument in the proof establishes a contradiction by comparing two facts:
- The binomial coefficient is "large" in a precise sense (Lemma 1), and
- If Bertrand's postulate fails for n, then all of the prime factors of this binomial coefficient are "small" (a combination of Lemma 3 and the negation of Bertrand's postulate).
It is then shown by some extended computation (relying mostly on Lemma 2 and Lemma 4) that the second fact is inconsistent with the first one. Therefore Bertrand's postulate must hold. In order to present the main argument of the proof intelligibly, these lemmas and a few auxiliary claims are proved separately first.
[edit] Lemmas and computations
[edit] Lemma 1: A lower bound on the central binomial coefficients
Lemma: For any integer n > 0, we have
Proof: Applying the binomial theorem,
Since is the largest term in the sum, we have:
as desired.
[edit] Lemma 2: An upper bound on prime powers dividing central binomial coefficients
For a fixed prime p, define R(p,n) to be the highest natural number x, such that px divides
Lemma: For any p, we have pR(p,n) ≤ 2n.
Proof: The exponent of p in n! is (see Factorial#Number theory):
so we get
But each term of the last summation can either be 0 (if n / pj mod 1 < 1/2) or 1 (if n / pj mod 1 ≥ 1/2) and all terms with j > logp(2n) are 0. Therefore
and we get:
This completes the proof of the lemma.
[edit] Lemma 3: The exact power of a large prime in a central binomial coefficient
Lemma: For we have
Proof: Using the same sum for R(p,n) as in Lemma 2, we see that since p2 > 2n, in fact only the first term is nonzero; this term is exactly the right-hand side of the above equation.
[edit] Lemma 4: An upper bound on the primorial
We estimate the primorial function,
where the product is taken over all prime numbers p less than or equal to n.
Lemma: For all n ≥ 1, we have n# < 4n.
Proof: The proof is by mathematical induction. First the base cases:
- n = 1: n# is the empty product:
- n = 2: 2 is prime:
- n > 2 and n is even: Since every even number greater than 2 is composite, we have by the induction hypothesis:
- n > 2 is odd. Let n = 2m + 1 with m > 0; then since all the terms in the following binomial expansion are positive we have:
-
- Each prime p with m + 1 < p ≤ 2m + 1 divides giving us:
- By induction, (m + 1)# < 4m + 1, so:
Thus the lemma is proved.
[edit] Computations
We collect here four numerical claims which come up in the proof. Here n is always an integer, and t is a real number.
- If n > 5, then
- If n > 0, then 2n + 1 < (2n)2;
- If n > 18, then
- If 2t < 8t, then t < 6.
To prove 1, square both sides and solve:
and if n > 5, both factors are positive, so this is in fact true.
To prove 2, collect the sides together and complete the square:
If n > 0 is an integer, then 2n ≥ 2, so the left-hand side is indeed always positive.
To prove 3, square both sides:
To prove 4, note that 26 = 64 > 48 = 8 × 6, so the inequality is true for t = 6. Now comparing derivatives:
for t > 6, since then the left side is 64 ln 2, or about 44. Thus 2t increases more quickly than 8t as well as beginning greater, so remains greater.
[edit] Proof of Bertrand's Postulate
Assume there is a counterexample: an integer n ≥ 2 such that there is no prime p with n ≤ p < 2n.
If 2 ≤ n < 2048, then p can be chosen from among the prime numbers 3, 5, 7, 13, 23, 43, 83, 163, 317, 631, 1259 and 2503 (each being less than twice its predecessor) such that n < p < 2n. Therefore n ≥ 2048.
There are no prime factors p of such that:
- 2n < p, because 2n is the largest factor;
- n ≤ p ≤ 2n, because we assumed there is no such prime number;
- 2n / 3 < p ≤ n: by computation 1 we have , so Lemma 3 applies, and by rearranging the inequalities 2n / 3 < p and n ≥ p we deduce that n / p ≥ 1 and 2n / p < 3. Combining these results, we get
Therefore, every prime factor p satisfies p ≤ 2n / 3.
When the number has at most one factor of p. By Lemma 2, for any prime p we have pR(p,n) ≤ 2n, so the product of the pR(p,n) over all other primes is at most Then, starting with Lemma 1 and decomposing the right-hand side into its prime factorization, these bounds give:
Using Lemma 4, this simplifies:
Clearing the denominator and applying computations 2 and 3:
Taking the logarithm of both sides:
Substituting 22t for 2n:
This gives us t < 6 by computation 4, and the contradiction:
Thus no counterexample to the postulate is possible. Q.E.D.
[edit] References
This proof of Bertrand's postulate is based on the one in Proofs from THE BOOK.