Are you an EPFL student looking for a semester project?
Work with us on data science and visualisation projects, and deploy your project as an app on top of Graph Search.
Concept
Bertrand's postulate
Summary
In number theory, Bertrand's postulate is a theorem stating that for any integer , there always exists at least one prime number with
A less restrictive formulation is: for every , there is always at least one prime such that
Another formulation, where is the -th prime, is: for
This statement was first conjectured in 1845 by Joseph Bertrand (1822–1900). Bertrand himself verified his statement for all integers .
His conjecture was completely proved by Chebyshev (1821–1894) in 1852 and so the postulate is also called the Bertrand–Chebyshev theorem or Chebyshev's theorem. Chebyshev's theorem can also be stated as a relationship with , the prime-counting function (number of primes less than or equal to ):
for all .
The prime number theorem (PNT) implies that the number of primes up to x is roughly x/ln(x), so if we replace x with 2x then we see the number of primes up to 2x is asymptotically twice the number of primes up to x (the terms ln(2x) and ln(x) are asymptotically equivalent). Therefore, the number of primes between n and 2n is roughly n/ln(n) when n is large, and so in particular there are many more primes in this interval than are guaranteed by Bertrand's postulate. So Bertrand's postulate is comparatively weaker than the PNT. But PNT is a deep theorem, while Bertrand's Postulate can be stated more memorably and proved more easily, and also makes precise claims about what happens for small values of n. (In addition, Chebyshev's theorem was proved before the PNT and so has historical interest.)
The similar and still unsolved Legendre's conjecture asks whether for every n ≥ 1, there is a prime p such that n2 < p < (n + 1)2. Again we expect that there will be not just one but many primes between n2 and (n + 1)2, but in this case the PNT doesn't help: the number of primes up to x2 is asymptotic to x2/ln(x2) while the number of primes up to (x + 1)2 is asymptotic to (x + 1)2/ln((x + 1)2), which is asymptotic to the estimate on primes up to x2. So unlike the previous case of x and 2x we don't get a proof of Legendre's conjecture even for all large n.
Official source
About this result
This page is automatically generated and may contain information that is not correct, complete, up-to-date, or relevant to your search query. The same applies to every other page on this website. Please make sure to verify the information with EPFL's official sources.