9

I need an explicit lower bound for Li(x) in terms of x and logx. Say, Wikipedia gives li(x)>xlogx+x(logx)2

for x>e11, see the logarithmic integral entry, and so

Li(x)=li(x)log2>xlogx+x(logx)2log2

but it does not quote any sources. I need a similar bound but with exact quotation.

Of course, I can easily do it myself (and I will if I find nothing to quote) but I prefer having a reference.

Yuri Bilu
  • 1,130
  • 2
    See Rosser and Schoenfeld, Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers, Illinois J. Math 6 (1962), 64-94. The function li(x) is defined in the usual way on p. 66. On p 81, Lemma 4 says for xe5 that x/(logx1/2)<li(x)li(x), so x/(logx1/2)<li(x) for xe5. Is that good enough? – KConrad May 24 '21 at 23:59
  • 2
    The lower bound I gave is weaker than what you mentioned. If you want to know the best bounds of this kind that have been published, consider writing to Tim Trudgian. I suspect he'll know the most recent relevant references. – KConrad May 25 '21 at 00:13
  • Keith, no this bound is perfectly fine. Shame on me, I had to check RS myself: it is one of the files permanently open on my desktop. – Yuri Bilu May 25 '21 at 01:05
  • Handy link for Rosser and Schoenfeld: https://doi.org/10.1215/ijm/1255631807 – David Roberts May 25 '21 at 04:44

1 Answers1

11

Using Li(x):=x2dt/logt, as usual, here is an elementary argument that Li(x)>x/logx for x7, so no need to appeal to a lower bound valid only starting at e5148.4 as in the Rosser-Schoenfeld paper from the comments.

For x>1, let f(x)=Li(x)x/logx. Then f(x)=1logx(logx1(logx)2)=1(logx)2>0,

so f is increasing on (1,). Since f(7).1145, for x7 we have f(x)f(7)>0, so Li(x)>x/logx.

Since f(6).1716, f vanishes somewhere between 6 and 7. That happens slightly below 6.58: from PARI, I find f(6.58).000076.

Similarly, for x>1 let g(x)=Li(x)x/logxx/(logx)2. Then g(x)=2(logx)3

so g is increasing on (1,). From PARI, g(20).044 and g(21).028, so Li(x)>x/(logx)+x/(logx)2 for x21. Since g(20.65).0030005, g vanishes slightly below 20.65.

More generally, from repeated integration by parts Li(x)=Nn=1(n1)!x(logx)n+x2N!dt(logt)N+1+cN

for N0 and x>1, where cN is a constant. Therefore the difference gN(x):=Li(x)Nn=1(n1)!x(logx)n
has gN(x)=N!/(logx)N+1>0, so gN is increasing on (1,). Find an x0 where gN(x0)>0 and then Li(x)>Nn=1(n1)!x/(logx)n for xx0.

KConrad
  • 49,546