Chapter 1

Introduction to prime number

theory

1.1 The Prime Number Theorem

In the first part of this course, we focus on the theory of prime numbers. We use
the following notation: we write f (x) ∼ g(x) as x → ∞ if limx→∞ f (x)/g(x) = 1,
and denote by log x the natural logarithm. The central result is the Prime Number
Theorem:
Theorem 1.1.1 (Prime Number Theorem, Hadamard, de la Vallée Poussin, 1896).
let π(x) denote the number of primes 6 x. Then
x
π(x) ∼ as x → ∞.
log x

The Prime Number Theorem was conjectured by Legendre in 1798. In 1851/52,

Chebyshev proved that if the limit limx→∞ π(x) log x/x exists, then it must be equal
to 1, but he couldn’t prove the existence of the limit. However, Chebyshev came
rather close, by showing that there is an x0 , such that for all x > x0 ,
x x
0.921 < π(x) < 1.056 .
log x log x

In 1859, Riemann published a very influential paper (B. Riemann, Über die
Anzahl der Primzahlen unter einer gegebenen Große, Monatshefte der Berliner

61
Akademie der Wissenschaften 1859, 671–680; also in Gesammelte Werke, Leipzig
1892, 145–153; English translation available on internet) in which he related the
distribution of prime numbers to properties of the function in the complex variable
s,
X∞
ζ(s) = n−s
n=1

(nowadays called the Riemann zeta function). It is well-known that ζ(s) converges
absolutely for all s ∈ C with Re s > 1, and that it diverges for s ∈ C with Re s 6 1.
Moreover, ζ(s) defines an analytic (complex differentiable) function on {s ∈ C :
Re s > 1}. Riemann showed that ζ(s) has an analytic continuation to C \ {1},
that is, he obtained another expression, which coincides with ∞ −s
P
n=1 n on {s ∈
C : Re s > 1}, but which is defined everywhere on C \ {1} and defines an analytic
function on this set. In fact it can be shown that it is the only analytic function
on C \ {1} that coincides with ∞ −s
P
n=1 n on {s ∈ C : Re s > 1}. This analytic
continuation is also denoted by ζ(s). Riemann proved the following properties of
ζ(s):

ˆ ζ(s) has a pole of order 1 in s = 1 with residue 1, that is, lims→1 (s−1)ζ(s) = 1;

ˆ ζ(s) satisfies a functional equation that relates ζ(s) to ζ(1 − s);

ˆ ζ(s) has zeros in s = −2, −4, −6, . . . (the trivial zeros). The other zeros lie in
the critical strip {s ∈ C : 0 < Re s < 1}.

62
 Riemann stated (in another but equivalent
form) the following still unproved conjecture:
Riemann Hypothesis (RH).
All zeros of ζ(s) in the critical strip lie on the
axis of symmetry of the functional equation,
i.e., the line Re s = 21 .

Riemann made several other conjectures about the distribution of the zeros of
ζ(s), and further, he stated without proof a formula that relates
X
θ(x) := log p (sum over all primes 6 x)
p6x

to the zeros of ζ(s) in the critical strip. These other conjectures of Riemann were
proved by Hadamard in 1893, and the said formula was proved by von Mangoldt in
1895.
Finally, in 1896, Hadamard and de la Vallée Poussin independently proved the
Prime Number Theorem. Their proofs use a fair amount of complex analysis. A
crucial ingredient for their proofs is, that ζ(s) 6= 0 if Re s = 1 and s 6= 1. In 1899, de
la Vallée Poussin obtained a much sharper version of the Prime Number Theorem,
where he approximated π(x) by the function
Z x
dt
Li(x) := .
2 log t

In fact, one has Li(x) ∼ logx x as x → ∞ (as will follow from an exercise) but it is
much closer to π(x) than logx x . In fact, de la Vallée Poussin proved the following
Prime Number Theorem with error term. There is a constant c > 0 such that
 √ 
(1.1.1) π(x) = Li(x) + O xe−c log x as x → ∞,

63
in other words, there are constants c > 0, C > 0 and x0 such that
√
|π(x) − Li(x)| 6 C · xe−c log x
for x > x0 .

In an exercise you will be asked to prove that

x x
π(x) − ∼ as x → ∞.
log x (log x)2
Together with (1.1.1) this implies that
√
π(x) − Li(x)  xe−c log x   √ 
2 log log x−c log x
=O =O e → 0 as x → ∞,
π(x) − x/ log x x(log x)−2

which shows that indeed, Li(x) is a much better approximation to π(x) than logx x .

In his proof of (1.1.1), de la Vallée Poussin

used that for some constant c > 0,

ζ(s) 6= 0
c
for all s with Re s > 1 − .
log(|Im s| + 2)

A zero free region for ζ(s) is a subset S of the

critical strip of which it is known that ζ(s) 6=
0 on S. In general, a larger provable zero free
region for ζ(s) leads to a better estimate for
π(x) − Li(x).

In 1958, Korobov and I.M. Vinogradov independently showed that for every
α > 32 there is a constant c(α) > 0 such that

c(α)
ζ(s) 6= 0 for all s with Re s > 1 − .
(log(|Im s| + 2))α

From this, they deduced that for every β < 53 there is a constant c0 (β) > 0 with
 0 β

π(x) = Li(x) + O xe−c (β)(log x) as x → ∞

64
(i.e., for every β < 35 there are c0 (β) > 0, C(β) > 0 and x0 (β) > 0 such that
0 β
|π(x) − Li(x)| 6 C(β) · xe−c (β)(log x) for x > x0 (β)). This has not been improved so
far.
On the other hand, in 1901 von Koch proved that the Riemann Hypothesis is
equivalent to √ 
π(x) = Li(x) + O x log x as x → ∞,
which is of course much better than the result of Korobov and Vinogradov.
After Hadamard and de la Vallée Poussin, several other proofs of the Prime
Number theorem were given, all based on complex analysis. In the 1930s, Wiener
and Ikehara proved a general so-called Tauberian theorem (from functional analysis)
which implies the Prime Number Theorem in a very simple manner. In 1948, Erdős
and Selberg independently found an elementary proof, “elementary” meaning that
the proof avoids complex analysis or functional analysis, but definitely not that the
proof is easy! In 1980, Newman gave a new, simple proof of the Prime Number
Theorem, based on complex analysis. Korevaar observed that Newman’s approach
can be used to prove a simpler version of the Wiener-Ikehara Tauberian theorem
with a not so difficult proof based on complex analysis alone and avoiding functional
analysis. In this course, we prove the Tauberian theorem via Newman’s method,
and deduce from this the Prime Number Theorem as well as the Prime Number
Theorem for arithmetic progressions (see below).

1.2 Primes in arithmetic progressions

In 1839–1842 Dirichlet (the founder of analytic number theory) proved that every
integer q > 2 and every integer a with gcd(a, q) = 1, there are infinitely many primes
p such that
p ≡ a (mod q).
His proof is based on so-called L-functions. To define these, we have to introduce
Dirichlet characters. A Dirichlet character modulo q is a function χ : Z → C with
the following properties:

ˆ χ(1) = 1;

ˆ χ(b1 ) = χ(b2 ) for all b1 , b2 ∈ Z with b1 ≡ b2 (mod q);

65
 ˆ χ(b1 b2 ) = χ(b1 )χ(b2 ) for all b1 , b2 ∈ Z;

ˆ χ(b) = 0 for all b ∈ Z with gcd(b, q) > 1.

The principal character modulo q is given by

(q) (q)
χ0 (a) = 1 if gcd(a, q) = 1, χ0 (a) = 0 if gcd(a, q) > 1.

Example. Let χ be a character modulo 5. Since 24 ≡ 1 (mod 5) we have χ(2)4 = 1.

Hence χ(2) ∈ {1, i, −1, −i}. In fact, the Dirichlet characters modulo 5 are given by
χj (j = 1, 2, 3, 4) where

χ(b) = 1 if b ≡ 1 (mod 5),

χ(b) = i if b ≡ 2 (mod 5),
χ(b) = −1 if b ≡ 4 ≡ 22 (mod 5),
χ(b) = −i if b ≡ 3 ≡ 23 (mod 5),
χ(b) = 0 if b ≡ 0 (mod 5).

In general, by the Euler-Fermat Theorem, if b, q are integers with q > 2 and

gcd(b, q) = 1, then bϕ(q) ≡ 1 (mod q), where ϕ(q) is the number of positive inte-
gers a 6 q that are coprime with q. Hence χ(b)ϕ(q) = 1.
The L-function associated with a Dirichlet character χ modulo q is given by
∞
X
L(s, χ) = χ(n)n−s .
n=1

Since |χ(n)| ∈ {0, 1} for all n, this series converges absolutely for all s ∈ C with
Re s > 1. Further, many of the results for ζ(s) can be generalized to L-functions:

ˆ if χ is not a principal character, then L(s, χ) has an analytic continuation to

(q)
C, while if χ = χ0 is the principal character modulo q it has an analytic
(q)
continuation to C \ {1}, with lims→1 (s − 1)L(s, χ0 ) = p|q (1 − p−1 ).
Q

ˆ there is a functional equation, relating L(s, χ) to L(1 − s, χ), where χ is the

complex conjugate character, defined by χ(b) := χ(b) for b ∈ Z.

Furthermore, there is a generalization of the Riemann Hypothesis:

66
Generalized Riemann Hypothesis (GRH): Let χ be a Dirichlet character mod-
ulo q for any integer q > 2. Then the zeros of L(s, χ) in the critical strip lie on the
line Re s = 21 .
De la Vallée Poussin managed to prove the following generalization of the Prime
Number Theorem, using properties of L-functions instead of ζ(s):

Theorem 1.2.1 (Prime Number Theorem for arithmetic progressions). let q, a be

integers with q > 2 and gcd(a, q) = 1. Denote by π(x; q, a) the number of primes p
with p 6 x and p ≡ a (mod q). Then
1 x
π(x; q, a) ∼ · as x → ∞.
ϕ(q) log x
Corollary 1.2.2. Let q be an integer > 2. Then for all integers a coprime with q
we have
π(x; q, a) 1
lim = .
x→∞ π(x) ϕ(q)

This shows that in some sense, the primes are evenly distributed over the prime
residue classes modulo q.

1.3 An elementary result for prime numbers

We finish this introduction with an elementary proof, going back to Erdős, of a
weaker version of the Prime Number Theorem.

Theorem 1.3.1. We have

1 x x
2 · 6 π(x) 6 2 · for x > 3.
log x log x

The proof is based on some simple lemmas. For an integer n 6= 0 and a prime
number p, we denote by ordp (n) the largest integer k such that pk divides n.
Further, we denote by [x] the largest integer 6 x.

Lemma 1.3.2. Let n be an integer > 1 and p a prime number. Then

∞  
X n
ordp (n!) = j
.
j=1
p

67
Remark. This is a finite sum.

Proof. We count the number of times that p divides n!. Each multiple of p that
is 6 n contributes a factor p. Each multiple of p2 that is 6 n contributes another
factor p, each multiple of p3 that is 6 n another factor p, and so on. Hence
∞ ∞  
X
j
X n
ordp (n!) = (number of multiples of p 6 n) = .
j=1 j=1
pj

Lemma 1.3.3. Let a, b be integers with a > 2b > 0. Then

 
Y a
p divides .
a−b+16p6a
b

Proof. We have
 
a a(a − 1) · · · (a − b + 1)
= , a − b + 1 > b.
b 1 · 2···b
Hence any prime with a − b + 1 6 p 6 a divides the numerator but not the denom-
inator.

Lemma 1.3.4.

Let a, b be integers with a > b > 0. Suppose that some prime power
a
p divides b . Then pk 6 a.
k

Proof. Let p be a prime. By Lemma 1.3.2 we have

   
a a!
ordp = ordp
b b!(a − b)!
∞      
X a a−b b
= j
− j
− j
.
j=1
p p p

Each summand is either 0 or 1. Further, each summand with pj > a is 0. Hence

a



ordp b 6 α, where α is the largest j with pj 6 a. This proves our lemma.

Lemma 1.3.5. Let n be an integer > 1. Then

2n
 
n
6 6 2n−1 .
n+1 [n/2]

68
 n n n




Proof. [n/2] is the largest among the binomial coefficients 0 , . . . , n . Hence
n    
n
X n n
2 = 6 (n + 1) .
j=0
j [n/2]
n


This establishes the lower bound for [n/2] . To prove the upper bound, we distin-
guish between the cases n = 2k + 1 odd and n = 2k even. First, let n = 2k + 1 be
odd. Then
       
n 2k + 1 1 2k + 1 2k + 1
= = +
[n/2] k 2 k k+1
2k+1  
1 X 2k + 1
6 = 22k = 2n−1 .
2 j=0 j

2k 2k 2k




Now, let n = 2k be even. Then since k+1 = k−1 > 12 k for k > 1,
         
n 2k 1 2k 2k 2k
= 6 + +
[n/2] k 2 k−1 k k+1
2k  
1 X 2k
6 = 22k−1 = 2n−1 .
2 j=0 j

Proof of π(x) > 12 x/ log x. It is easy to check that π(x) > 21 x/ log x for 3 6 x 6 100.
Assume that x > 100. Let n := [x]; then n 6 x < n + 1.
n


Write [n/2] = pk11 · · · pkt t , where the pi are distinct primes, and the ki positive
integers. By Lemma 1.3.4 we have pki i 6 n for i = 1, . . . , t. Then also pi 6 n for
i = 1, . . . , t, hence t 6 π(n). It follows that
 
n
6 nπ(n) .
[n/2]
So by Lemma 1.3.5, nπ(n) > 2n /(n + 1). Consequently,
n log 2 − log(n + 1)
π(x) = π(n) >
log n
(x − 1) log 2 − log(x + 1) x
> > 21 for x > 100.
log x log x

69
Proof of π(x) 6 2x/ log x. Let again n = [x]. Since t/ log t is an increasing function
of t for t > 3, it suffices to prove that π(n) 6 2 · n/ log n for all integers n > 3. We
proceed by induction on n.
It is straightforward to verify that π(n) 6 2 · n/ log n for 3 6 n 6 200. Let
n > 200, and suppose that π(m) 6 2 · m/ log m for all integers m with 3 6 m < n.
If n is even, then we can use π(n) = π(n − 1) and that t/ log t is increasing. Assume
that n = 2k + 1 is odd. Then by Lemma 1.3.3, we have
 
2k + 1 Y
> p > (k + 2)π(2k+1)−π(k+1) .
k k+26p62k+1

Using Lemma 1.3.5, this leads to (k + 2)π(2k+1)−π(k+1) 6 22k , or

2k log 2
π(2k + 1) − π(k + 1) 6 .
log(k + 2)
Finally, applying the induction hypothesis to π(k +1) and using k +2 > k +1 > n/2,
we arrive at
2k log 2 2(k + 1)
π(n) = π(2k + 1) 6 +
log(k + 2) log(k + 1)
(log 2 + 1)n + 1 n
< <2 for n > 200.
log(n/2) log n

1.4 Exercises
Exercise 1.1. a) Let f (n), g(n) be two functions on the positive integers, both
increasing to infinity and let A > 0. Prove that
f (n)
f (n) ∼ g(n)(log g(n))A as n → ∞ ⇐⇒ g(n) ∼ as n → ∞.
(log f (n))A

b) Assuming the Prime Number Theorem, prove that pn ∼ n log n as n → ∞.

Exercise 1.2. Using the Prime Number Theorem prove the following:
for every positive integer r and every real ε > 0, there is n0 (r, ε) such that for every
integer n > n0 (r, ε), the interval (n, (1 + ε)n] contains at least r primes.

70
Exercise 1.3. a) Prove that for every real A > 0,
Z x
dt  x 
A
= O as x → ∞,
2 (log t) (log x)A
where the constant implied by the O-symbol may depend on A (in other words,
Rx
there are C > 0, x0 > 0, possibly depending on A, such that | 2 (logdtt)A | 6
C · x/(log x)A for x > x0 ).
Hint. Choose an appropriate function f (x) with 2 < f (x) < x, split the inte-
R f (x) R x Rb
gral into 2 + f (x) and estimate both integrals from above, using | a g(t)dt| 6
(b − a) maxa6t6b |g(t)|.

b) Prove that for every integer n > 1,

x x x  x 
Li(x) = + 1! + · · · + (n − 1)! +O as x → ∞,
log x (log x)2 (log x)n (log x)n+1
where the constant implied by the O-symbol may depend on n.
Hint. Use repeated integration by parts.

c) Using a), b) and (1.1.1), prove that

x x  x  x
π(x) − = 2
+ O 3
∼ as x → ∞.
log x (log x) (log x) (log x)2
Exercise 1.4. In this exercise you are asked to work out a proof of Bertrand’s
postulate: for every positive integer n there is a prime number p with n < p 6 2n.
You have to use Theorem 1.3.1 and the subsequent lemmas.

a) Prove that for every real x > 2 one has p6x p 6 4x (product taken over all
Q

prime numbers 6 x).

Hint. Let m := [x], and proceed by induction on m. If m is even, you can
immediately apply the induction hypothesis. Assume that m = 2k + 1 is odd
Q
and consider k+1<p62k+1 p.

It suffices to prove Bertrand’s postulate for n > 1000 since the remaining cases
can be verified by straightforward computation. In b), c), d) below let n be an
integer > 1000, and assume that there is no prime p with n < p 6 2n.
2n


b) Prove that the binomial coefficient n is not divisible by any prime p with
2
3n < p 6 n.
2n



Hint. Compute ordp n .

71
 √
2n


c) Prove that n 6 (2n)π( 2n)
· 42n/3 .
2n


Hint. Write n = pk11 · · · pkt t with pi distinct primes and ki > 0 and split
√ √
into primes pi with pi 6 2n and pi > 2n; for the latter, ki = 1.

d) Derive a contradiction.

Exercise 1.5. Prove that there is a constant c1 > 1 such that lcm(1, . . . , n) 6 cn1
for all integers n > 1 (use Theorem 1.3.1).

p > cx2 for all

Q
Exercise 1.6. Prove that there is a constant c2 > 1 such that p6x
Q
reals x > 2 (consider √x<p6x p and apply Theorem 1.3.1).

Exercise 1.7. a) Let p be a prime with p ≡ 3 (mod 4). Show that there is no
integer x with x2 ≡ −1 (mod p).
Hint. Suppose there does exist such an integer x. Consider the order of x (mod
p) in the multiplicative group (Z/pZ)∗ of non-zero residue classes modulo p;
recall that this group is cyclic of order p − 1.

b) Let p be a prime with p ≡ 3 (mod 4). Prove that there are no integers x, y such
that x2 + y 2 ≡ 0 (mod p) and x2 + y 2 6≡ 0 (mod p2 ).

c) Determine all positive integers n such that x2 + y 2 = n! has a solution in

integers x, y.
You can use without proof the following variation on Bertrand’s postulate, due
to Erdős: for every integer n > 7 there is a prime p with p ≡ 3 (mod 4) and
1
2
n < p 6 n.

Exercise 1.8. For a positive integer n we denote by ω(n) the number of distinct
primes dividing n. For instance ω(360) = 3, since 360 = 23 · 32 · 5.

a) Let ω(n) = t. Prove that n > t! > (t/e)t , where e = 2.7182.... You may
prove the last inequality by induction, where you may use without proof that
(1 + t−1 )t 6 e for every positive integer t.
 log n 
b) Prove that ω(n) = O as n → ∞.
log log n

c) Denote by pt the t-th prime. Prove that pt 6 t2 for t > 1.

72
 d) Let nt := p1 · · · pt be the product of the first t primes. Prove that there are
log n
constants c1 , c2 > 0 such that t = ω(nt ) > c1 log log tn for t > c2 .
t

Remark. The above exercise implies that ω(n) is of order of magnitude at most
log n/ log log n and that there are infinitely many integers n for which ω(n) is of
order of magnitude precisely log n/ log log n. On the other hand, in 1917, Hardy and
Ramanujan proved that for most integers n, the number ω(n) is close to log log n.
More precisely, they showed that for every increasing function ψ(n) of n, one has
1 n p o
lim · n 6 x : |ω(n) − log log n| > ψ(n) log log n = 0.
x→∞ x

In 1940, Erdős and Kac proved the following much more precise result, which more
√
or less states that (ω(n) − log log n)/ log log n behaves like a random variable with
standard normal distribution, more precisely, for every a, b ∈ R with a < b one has
  Z b
1 ω(n) − log log n 1 2
lim · n 6 x : a 6 √ 6b = √ e−t /2 dt.
x→∞ x log log n 2π a
See for more information the Wikipedia page on the Erdős-Kac Theorem or search
on google for the Erdős-Kac Theorem.

Exercise 1.9. Euclid’s idea to show that there are infinitely many primes is as
follows. Suppose there are only finitely many primes, p1 , p2 , . . . , pn , say. Consider
the number P := p1 p2 · · · pn + 1. Then either P itself is a prime or P is divisible
by a prime but in both cases, this prime must be different from p1 , . . . , pn . Thus we
arrive at a contradiction.
One may try to give a similar proof for the fact that there are infinitely many
primes p with p ≡ a (mod q): assume there are only finitely many such primes,
p1 , . . . , pn , say, and construct a function P (p1 , . . . , pn ) which is divisible by a prime
which is congruent to a modulo q but which is different from p1 , . . . , pn .
For instance, suppose there are only finitely many primes p with p ≡ 1 (mod 4),
say p1 , . . . , pn . Consider P (p1 , . . . , pn ) = 4(p1 p2 · · · pn )2 + 1. By Exercise 1.7 a), this
quantity is composed of primes p with p ≡ 1 (mod 4), which are all different from
p1 , . . . , pn . This gives a contradiction.
In this exercise you are asked to work out a few other cases using the approach
sketched above. You have to find yourself a suitable expression P (p1 , . . . , pn ).

73
a) Show that there are infinitely many primes p with p ≡ 3 (mod 4).

b) Let q be an integer > 3. Prove that there are infinitely many primes p with
p 6≡ 1 (mod q).

c) Let p, q be distinct prime numbers with q > 3, p 6≡ 1 (mod q). Prove that there
is no integer x with 1 + x + x2 + · · · + xq−1 ≡ 0 (mod p).
Then prove that there are infinitely many primes p with p ≡ 1 (mod q).

74