Two Subsets of Squares of Reciprocals of Primes with Equal Sums
$begingroup$
Let $$A={frac{1}{2^2},frac{1}{3^2},frac{1}{5^2},...}$$ be the set of squares of the reciprocals of prime numbers.
We have
$$sum_{xin A}x < infty$$
Do there exist $B subset A$, $C subset A$, $B cap C = emptyset$, such that
$$sum_{xin B}x = sum_{xin C}x ?$$
It is important that we deal with primes and not with all natural numbers, otherwise we would have infinitely many solutions, as described in Wikipedia.
number-theory prime-numbers
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $$A={frac{1}{2^2},frac{1}{3^2},frac{1}{5^2},...}$$ be the set of squares of the reciprocals of prime numbers.
We have
$$sum_{xin A}x < infty$$
Do there exist $B subset A$, $C subset A$, $B cap C = emptyset$, such that
$$sum_{xin B}x = sum_{xin C}x ?$$
It is important that we deal with primes and not with all natural numbers, otherwise we would have infinitely many solutions, as described in Wikipedia.
number-theory prime-numbers
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
The answer is pathologically yes; take $B=C=varnothing$. These are the only finite sets with this property. There are infinitely many solutions with $B$ and $C$ infinite.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Let $$A={frac{1}{2^2},frac{1}{3^2},frac{1}{5^2},...}$$ be the set of squares of the reciprocals of prime numbers.
We have
$$sum_{xin A}x < infty$$
Do there exist $B subset A$, $C subset A$, $B cap C = emptyset$, such that
$$sum_{xin B}x = sum_{xin C}x ?$$
It is important that we deal with primes and not with all natural numbers, otherwise we would have infinitely many solutions, as described in Wikipedia.
number-theory prime-numbers
$endgroup$
Let $$A={frac{1}{2^2},frac{1}{3^2},frac{1}{5^2},...}$$ be the set of squares of the reciprocals of prime numbers.
We have
$$sum_{xin A}x < infty$$
Do there exist $B subset A$, $C subset A$, $B cap C = emptyset$, such that
$$sum_{xin B}x = sum_{xin C}x ?$$
It is important that we deal with primes and not with all natural numbers, otherwise we would have infinitely many solutions, as described in Wikipedia.
number-theory prime-numbers
number-theory prime-numbers
edited 12 hours ago
co.sine
asked 13 hours ago
co.sineco.sine
372112
372112
1
$begingroup$
The answer is pathologically yes; take $B=C=varnothing$. These are the only finite sets with this property. There are infinitely many solutions with $B$ and $C$ infinite.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
The answer is pathologically yes; take $B=C=varnothing$. These are the only finite sets with this property. There are infinitely many solutions with $B$ and $C$ infinite.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
The answer is pathologically yes; take $B=C=varnothing$. These are the only finite sets with this property. There are infinitely many solutions with $B$ and $C$ infinite.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
The answer is pathologically yes; take $B=C=varnothing$. These are the only finite sets with this property. There are infinitely many solutions with $B$ and $C$ infinite.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The answer is negative. Let $C=sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}$. This constant is approximately $frac{1}{2}logfrac{5}{2}$ due to Euler's product, leading to:
$$ sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}approx sum_pfrac{1}{2}logleft(frac{1+frac{1}{p^2}}{1-frac{1}{p^2}}right)=frac{1}{2}logfrac{zeta(2)^2}{zeta(4)}. $$
Assume that the set of prime numbers can be partitioned as $Ucup V$ with $Ucap V=emptyset$ and $U,Vneqemptyset$.
We may assume without loss of generality that $2in U$, hence
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}geq frac{1}{4} > frac{1}{2}sum_{pin Ucup V}frac{1}{p^2}=frac{C}{2} $$
which contradicts
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}=sum_{pin V}frac{1}{p^2}.$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming that $B$ and $C$ (are finite and) have the required property, denote by $P$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in B$, and by $Q$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in C$. Then the LHS of $sum_{xin B}x=sum_{xin C}x$ would be a rational number which, reduced to its lower terms, has its denominator equal to $prod_{pin P} p^2$, while the RHS has the denominator equal to $prod_{pin Q}p^2$. By the uniqueness of prime decomposition, we would then have $P=Q$, a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3113041%2ftwo-subsets-of-squares-of-reciprocals-of-primes-with-equal-sums%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The answer is negative. Let $C=sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}$. This constant is approximately $frac{1}{2}logfrac{5}{2}$ due to Euler's product, leading to:
$$ sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}approx sum_pfrac{1}{2}logleft(frac{1+frac{1}{p^2}}{1-frac{1}{p^2}}right)=frac{1}{2}logfrac{zeta(2)^2}{zeta(4)}. $$
Assume that the set of prime numbers can be partitioned as $Ucup V$ with $Ucap V=emptyset$ and $U,Vneqemptyset$.
We may assume without loss of generality that $2in U$, hence
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}geq frac{1}{4} > frac{1}{2}sum_{pin Ucup V}frac{1}{p^2}=frac{C}{2} $$
which contradicts
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}=sum_{pin V}frac{1}{p^2}.$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The answer is negative. Let $C=sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}$. This constant is approximately $frac{1}{2}logfrac{5}{2}$ due to Euler's product, leading to:
$$ sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}approx sum_pfrac{1}{2}logleft(frac{1+frac{1}{p^2}}{1-frac{1}{p^2}}right)=frac{1}{2}logfrac{zeta(2)^2}{zeta(4)}. $$
Assume that the set of prime numbers can be partitioned as $Ucup V$ with $Ucap V=emptyset$ and $U,Vneqemptyset$.
We may assume without loss of generality that $2in U$, hence
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}geq frac{1}{4} > frac{1}{2}sum_{pin Ucup V}frac{1}{p^2}=frac{C}{2} $$
which contradicts
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}=sum_{pin V}frac{1}{p^2}.$$
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The answer is negative. Let $C=sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}$. This constant is approximately $frac{1}{2}logfrac{5}{2}$ due to Euler's product, leading to:
$$ sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}approx sum_pfrac{1}{2}logleft(frac{1+frac{1}{p^2}}{1-frac{1}{p^2}}right)=frac{1}{2}logfrac{zeta(2)^2}{zeta(4)}. $$
Assume that the set of prime numbers can be partitioned as $Ucup V$ with $Ucap V=emptyset$ and $U,Vneqemptyset$.
We may assume without loss of generality that $2in U$, hence
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}geq frac{1}{4} > frac{1}{2}sum_{pin Ucup V}frac{1}{p^2}=frac{C}{2} $$
which contradicts
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}=sum_{pin V}frac{1}{p^2}.$$
$endgroup$
The answer is negative. Let $C=sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}$. This constant is approximately $frac{1}{2}logfrac{5}{2}$ due to Euler's product, leading to:
$$ sum_{p}frac{1}{p^2}approx sum_pfrac{1}{2}logleft(frac{1+frac{1}{p^2}}{1-frac{1}{p^2}}right)=frac{1}{2}logfrac{zeta(2)^2}{zeta(4)}. $$
Assume that the set of prime numbers can be partitioned as $Ucup V$ with $Ucap V=emptyset$ and $U,Vneqemptyset$.
We may assume without loss of generality that $2in U$, hence
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}geq frac{1}{4} > frac{1}{2}sum_{pin Ucup V}frac{1}{p^2}=frac{C}{2} $$
which contradicts
$$ sum_{pin U}frac{1}{p^2}=sum_{pin V}frac{1}{p^2}.$$
edited 11 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
Jack D'AurizioJack D'Aurizio
290k33282662
290k33282662
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@co.sine: actually I was completely wrong before, I have fixed the answer.
$endgroup$
– Jack D'Aurizio
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
BRILLIANT, Jack D'Aurizio. For the constant $C$: mathoverflow.net/a/53444/102549
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
What about the case $U cup V subsetneq {text{primes}}$?
$endgroup$
– co.sine
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
I'd rather lean to believe your original answer: we do not have to partition the set of all primes, but only want to find two disjoint subsets thereof.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
For $U$, the sum must be at least $1/4$. $C<1/2$, so the maximum sum for $V$ must be less than $1/4$.
$endgroup$
– qwr
8 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming that $B$ and $C$ (are finite and) have the required property, denote by $P$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in B$, and by $Q$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in C$. Then the LHS of $sum_{xin B}x=sum_{xin C}x$ would be a rational number which, reduced to its lower terms, has its denominator equal to $prod_{pin P} p^2$, while the RHS has the denominator equal to $prod_{pin Q}p^2$. By the uniqueness of prime decomposition, we would then have $P=Q$, a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming that $B$ and $C$ (are finite and) have the required property, denote by $P$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in B$, and by $Q$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in C$. Then the LHS of $sum_{xin B}x=sum_{xin C}x$ would be a rational number which, reduced to its lower terms, has its denominator equal to $prod_{pin P} p^2$, while the RHS has the denominator equal to $prod_{pin Q}p^2$. By the uniqueness of prime decomposition, we would then have $P=Q$, a contradiction.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Assuming that $B$ and $C$ (are finite and) have the required property, denote by $P$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in B$, and by $Q$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in C$. Then the LHS of $sum_{xin B}x=sum_{xin C}x$ would be a rational number which, reduced to its lower terms, has its denominator equal to $prod_{pin P} p^2$, while the RHS has the denominator equal to $prod_{pin Q}p^2$. By the uniqueness of prime decomposition, we would then have $P=Q$, a contradiction.
$endgroup$
Assuming that $B$ and $C$ (are finite and) have the required property, denote by $P$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in B$, and by $Q$ the product of all primes $p$ with $1/p^2in C$. Then the LHS of $sum_{xin B}x=sum_{xin C}x$ would be a rational number which, reduced to its lower terms, has its denominator equal to $prod_{pin P} p^2$, while the RHS has the denominator equal to $prod_{pin Q}p^2$. By the uniqueness of prime decomposition, we would then have $P=Q$, a contradiction.
edited 12 hours ago
answered 12 hours ago
W-t-PW-t-P
1,102610
1,102610
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
What if $B$ and $C$ are empty or infinite? The latter is the interesting part of the question really, as your argument shows.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Servaes: I believe that in this case equality is possible, but this would be a little technical to explain in details.
$endgroup$
– W-t-P
12 hours ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3113041%2ftwo-subsets-of-squares-of-reciprocals-of-primes-with-equal-sums%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
$begingroup$
The answer is pathologically yes; take $B=C=varnothing$. These are the only finite sets with this property. There are infinitely many solutions with $B$ and $C$ infinite.
$endgroup$
– Servaes
12 hours ago