Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated

Fan: The Hardy--Ramanujan inequality for sifted sets and its applications

../

theorem_1_1: Fan's main inequality: for a nonnegative multiplicative weight f of bounded growth, summed over the integers up to x that avoid at most v nonzero residue classes modulo each prime, the mass of those with exactly k prime factors from a set E of primes is at most of Poisson shape in M_f(x,E), uniformly for k up to a fixed multiple of M_f(x,E).

theorem_1_6: For a nonnegative multiplicative weight f of bounded growth whose sum over the primes up to t is at least a constant times t/log 2t for large t, the f-weighted proportion of n up to x with |omega(s(n)) - log log x| at least c_0 times the square root of (log log x)(log log log log x) tends to zero, for every fixed c_0 > 2.

theorem_1_7: For fixed a nonzero, u at least 1 and v other than -au, the number of primes p up to x for which up+v is divisible by q-a for some prime q with q-a > y is at most a constant times pi(x)/((log y)^eta_0 (log log y)^(1/2)), where eta_0 is the Erdős–Tenenbaum–Ford constant.


The arXiv record (https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.06005, read 2026-10-02) names the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 license.

Kai (Steve) Fan, "The Hardy--Ramanujan inequality for sifted sets and its applications," arXiv:2508.06005 (2025). The copy read for this card is arXiv:2508.06005v3 (18 Dec 2025), whose labels and page numbers the card uses.

Overview

Fan proves a Hardy–Ramanujan inequality for nonnegative multiplicative weights on sets defined by excluded residue classes. The introduction prints Pollack’s cited sifted-set mean-value bound [40, Theorem 1.1] as Theorem A (p. 2) and Fan’s main theorem as Theorem 1.1 (p. 3). In Theorem 1.1, if f∈M(A1,A2)f\in\mathscr M(A_1,A_2), at most vv nonzero residue classes are excluded modulo each prime, and gg is ω\omega or Ω\Omega, the weighted count with g(n,E)=kg(n,E)=k is bounded, for 0≤k≤βMf(x,E)0\le k\le\beta M_f(x,E), by x(Mf(x,E)+O(1))kk!log⁡xexp⁡(Mf(x,Ec)−Mν(x))\frac{x(M_f(x,E)+O(1))^k}{k!\log x}\exp(M_f(x,E^c)-M_\nu(x)). For E=PE=\mathbb P it gives the sharper factorial form with k−1k-1 in place of kk, for k≥1k\ge1. The allowed β\beta is any fixed positive number for ω\omega, and lies in (0,p0)(0,p_0) for Ω\Omega, where p0≤min⁡Ep_0\le\min E. Section 2 proves the theorem using harmonic weighted estimates (Lemmas 2.1–2.2), a weighted Bombieri–Vinogradov type bound (Lemma 2.3), and a sieve after separating small prime factors.

Section 3 turns the inequality into exponential moment and deviation bounds (Lemmas 3.1–3.2). Corollary 1.2 (p. 3) shows that the ff-weighted proportion of n∈Sn\in\mathcal S with ∣g(n,E)−Mf(x,E)∣≥λMf(x,E)|g(n,E)-M_f(x,E)|\ge\lambda\sqrt{M_f(x,E)} is ≪λ−1exp⁡(−λ2/2+O(λ3/Mf(x,E)))\ll\lambda^{-1}\exp(-\lambda^2/2+O(\lambda^3/\sqrt{M_f(x,E)})), with an absolute constant in the OO-term, for x≥x0x\ge x_0 and 0<λ≤Mf(x,E)/20<\lambda\le\sqrt{M_f(x,E)}/2, under further hypotheses that include the prime-weight lower bound (2) for t∈[xθ,x]t\in[x^\theta,x] and the equidistribution hypothesis (3). Corollaries 1.3–1.4 treat integers represented by binary quadratic forms and values of linear forms in a prime variable. Corollary 1.5 gives an upper bound for weighted sifted multiplication tables; the paper explicitly says this argument misses the known orders in its benchmark cases by a factor of log⁡log⁡N\log\log N.

The divisor-sum result is Theorem 1.6 (p. 6, proved in Section 4). If f∈M(A1,A2)f\in\mathscr M(A_1,A_2) and its prime weights satisfy the lower bound (2), ∑p≤tf(p)≥Bt/log⁡2t\sum_{p\le t}f(p)\ge Bt/\log 2t with a constant B>0B>0, for all sufficiently large tt, then, for every fixed c0>2c_0>2, the ff-weighted proportion of n≤xn\le x satisfying ∣ω(s(n))−log⁡log⁡x∣≥c0(log⁡log⁡x)log⁡4x|\omega(s(n))-\log\log x|\ge c_0\sqrt{(\log\log x)\log_4x} tends to zero. The proof writes n=mpn=mp with p=P+(n)p=P^+(n), so that s(n)=s(m)p+σ(m)s(n)=s(m)p+\sigma(m). It applies the polynomial prime-factor bound of Proposition 4.1 through its one-polynomial deviation consequence, Corollary 4.2, to a primitive linear polynomial obtained by dividing s(m)X+σ(m)s(m)X+\sigma(m) by gcd⁡(s(m),σ(m))\gcd(s(m),\sigma(m)). Lemmas 4.3–4.4 control divisibility of σ(m)\sigma(m) and s(m)s(m); Corollary 4.5 bounds the weighted mean of ω(gcd⁡(σ(n),n))\omega(\gcd(\sigma(n),n)). The estimates for integers lacking a suitable largest prime factor and the final summation appear in the proof of Theorem 1.6. Remark 4.1 suggests that the choice λ=c0log⁡4x\lambda=c_0\sqrt{\log_4x} might be relaxed, as a possible direction, not as a result. Section 5 is separate: Theorem 1.7 (p. 7) shows that, for fixed a≠0a\ne0, u≥1u\ge1 and v≠−auv\ne-au, the number of primes p≤xp\le x for which up+vup+v is divisible by some q−a>yq-a>y with qq prime is ≪a,u,vπ(x)/((log⁡y)η0log⁡log⁡y)\ll_{a,u,v}\pi(x)/((\log y)^{\eta_0}\sqrt{\log\log y}) for all x,y≥3x,y\ge3, with η0\eta_0 the constant defined in (4), and Corollary 1.8 applies this to the image of Carmichael’s function.

Relation to E955

This source bears on Problem 955.

For E955, write s−1(A)={n∈N:s(n)∈A}s^{-1}(A)=\{n\in\mathbb N:s(n)\in A\}. Theorem 1.6 is presented as a generalization of Troupe’s result [49, Theorem 1.3]; its case f=1f=1 proves that, for each fixed c0>2c_0>2, the moving target Ax={m:∣ω(m)−log⁡log⁡x∣≥c0(log⁡log⁡x)log⁡4x}A_x=\{m:|\omega(m)-\log\log x|\ge c_0\sqrt{(\log\log x)\log_4x}\} satisfies #{n≤x:s(n)∈Ax}=o(x)\#\{n\le x:s(n)\in A_x\}=o(x). The theorem also gives the stated weighted version for every admissible ff satisfying (2) for large tt. This is a special case of the distributional behavior sought in E955; Theorem 1.6 does not prove that s−1(A)s^{-1}(A) has density zero for every fixed density-zero set AA.

A possible entry point for E955 is the proof of Theorem 1.6: the identity s(mp)=s(m)p+σ(m)s(mp)=s(m)p+\sigma(m) reduces a fiber question to primes in a residue class or to values of a linear polynomial, while Lemmas 4.3–4.4 and Corollary 4.5 limit exceptional gcd and divisibility effects. Proposition 4.1 and Corollary 4.2 then control targets specified by atypical prime-factor counts. Their bounds do not control an arbitrary sparse target AA; natural density zero alone supplies no analogous condition on ω(m)\omega(m) or on the distribution of AA among those linear polynomial values. The paper does not cite E955 by number; its introduction states the Erdős–Granville–Pomerance–Spiro conjecture [12, Conjecture 4], that s−1(A)s^{-1}(A) has density zero whenever AA has density zero, which is the question of E955, and its abstract presents Theorem 1.6 as the weighted version of a special case of that conjecture.

Bears on. #955: Theorem 1.6 with f=1f=1 gives #{n≤x:s(n)∈Ax}=o(x)\#\{n\le x:s(n)\in A_x\}=o(x) for the targets AxA_x above, which move with xx, and its weighted analogue for other admissible ff; it treats no fixed density-zero set and does not settle the problem.

Results.

  • Theorem 1.1 (p. 3): the weighted Hardy–Ramanujan inequality on sifted sets.
  • Theorem 1.6 (p. 6): the weighted normal order of ω(s(n))\omega(s(n)).
  • Theorem 1.7 (p. 7): few shifted primes up+vup+v have a shifted-prime divisor q−a>yq-a>y; its page also states Corollary 1.8 (p. 7) on the image of Carmichael's function.
  • Corollaries 1.2--1.5 (pp. 3--6), the applications of Theorem 1.1 to large deviations on sifted sets, binary quadratic forms, linear forms in a prime variable and sifted multiplication tables, have no result pages; none bears on a problem in the corpus.

Read status. Claims checked: the statements of Theorems 1.1, 1.6 and 1.7 and Corollary 1.8 were read clause by clause on the page images; the proofs were read for structure only. Pages are the printed pages 1--44 of arXiv:2508.06005v3.

No file of this source is held in this folder; the card cites the arXiv version it names above.