arXiv:1801.01925v2 [math.NT] 14 Feb 2018 hwdthat showed n ocnie odfiin ubr l fwoepoe iiosa divisors proper whose of all numbers nondeficient so-called consider to one A281505. onigfnto o ns eoigtenme fpnds of number the Denoting upper pnds. small for sufficiently pn a function the determining counting of by sum shown reciprocal was convergence the The that showing on hinged then Erd˝os [7] neeetr rueti rsne oso httedniyo t of density Erd the namely that history, show this to in presented results is earlier argument the elementary of an one Erd˝os–Kac. Erd˝os–Wintner with and concerned of is theorems celebrated the to σ ue’ ucinand function Euler’s at ecet rpretif perfect or deficient, dant, ihwr fShebr 2] aepr 5,adohr h proved who others for and functions [5], Davenport distribution [21], of Schoenberg of work with σ pciey n hnsays then One spectively. c ealdsuyb r˝si 8 on ht o ucetylarge sufficiently con pnds for the that, of found reciprocals [8] of Erd˝os in sum by the study that detailed prove to enough is which where faudn ubr,sot ubr,rcpoa sum. reciprocal numbers, smooth numbers, abundant of ( ( + n n ti ayt e hteeynnecetnme a n iio.T divisor. pnd a has number nondeficient every that see to easy is It h edo rbblstcnme hoygtissati h 90 and 1920s the in start its got theory number probabilisitic of field The ihnmnltr on akt nin ie,anumber a times, ancient to back going nomenclature With 2010 Date e od n phrases. and words Key ) ) H EIRCLSMO RMTV NONDEFICIENT PRIMITIVE OF SUM RECIPROCAL THE o /n /n 1 as (1) c eray1,2018. 12, February : ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics ≥ 1 = hwtercpoa u fpd sbten038ad0.380. and 0.348 between is natura pnds a of have sum numbers abundant reciprocal the the that show prove to used he which bers Abstract. x and 8 = rmtv nondeficient primitive exists. 2 P exp( rpd.I 94 r˝ssoe httercpoa u fpn of sum reciprocal the Erd˝os that 1934, showed In pnds. or , x d | ∞ → n − 1 c /d 1 c eivsiaetercpoa u of sum reciprocal the investigate We p eetnmrcleprmnso iv 2]sgetsc a such suggest [22] Silva of experiments numerical Recent . l utpe of multiples all , 2 log 1 = σ rmtv odfiin ubr,piiieaudn number abundant primitive numbers, nondeficient primitive stesmo-iiosfnto. hsln fwr e up led work of line This function.) sum-of-divisors the is x / 5 rsmbyteei constant a is there Presumably 25. o log log AE UE LICHTMAN DUKER JARED n σ ϕ N ( snnecetif nondeficient is ( n n 1. ( pd ubr.Tesqec fpd sOEIS is pnds of sequence The numbers. (pnd) ) x x ) /n /n ) NUMBERS = ) Introduction ≤ , n sgetrta,ls hn reult ,re- 2, to equal or than, less than, greater is N σ o rmr 16;Scnay11N25. Secondary 11Y60; Primary r lonnecet hsntrlyleads naturally This nondeficient. also are ( ( n 1 x (log ) ) /n ≤ x n iia ucin.(Here, functions. similar and , x x ) exp( 2 σ rmtv odfiin num- nondeficient primitive ( n , − ) /n c 2 p ≥ ≤ log .Frsuch For 2. x n x c by est.We density. l x sconverges, ds o log log h rsn paper present The ssi ob abun- be to said is , uhthat such si convergent. is ds N estof set he egs more A verges. ( x on nthe on bound h existence the o 7,where ˝os [7], x edeficient, re ,tepaper the ), epofof proof he ) , n ,density s, c since , n 1 c , 1930s with ϕ 2 = is c 2 JARED DUKER LICHTMAN may be close to 1. The best that is now known asymptotically is a result of Avidon [1] who showed we may take c1 = √2+ ǫ and c2 =1 ǫ for any fixed ǫ> 0. Once a series is found to converge, it is natural to wonder− what its value may be. For example, by Brun’s Theorem it is known that the reciprocal sum of twin primes converges. This sum, called Brun’s constant, is approximately 1.902160583104, which is found by extrapolating via the Hardy–Littlewood heuristics. However, the best proven upper bound is 2.347, see [4, 11]. Similarly, Pomerance [18] proved that the reciprocal sum of numbers in amicable pairs converges, and work has also been done to determine bounds on this value, the Pomerance constant, the current bounds being 0.0119841556 and 222, see [2, 17]. Given the existing nomenclature, we call the value of the reciprocal sum of pnds the Erd˝os constant. The principal result of this paper is the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1. The Erd˝os constant n is a pnd 1/n lies in the interval P (0.34842 , 0.37937).
The lower bound was obtained by direct calculation of the partial sum over pnds up to 1014, carried out by Silva [22]. For the upper bound, our starting point is an estimate of Erd˝os [8] on the distribution of pnds. We make such estimates explicit, and along the way we sharpen the original argument by leveraging properties of primitive sets, that is, sets of numbers in which none divides any other. We note that a simple-minded application of pnd distribution estimates yields an upper bound greater than 2000. With strategic choices of a smoothness cutoff one may reduce the bound to just over 300. In the author’s thesis [15], the upper bound was reduced to under 19 by drawing on upper bound methods in [6] for the density of abundant numbers, often denoted by ∆. The new, and perhaps surprising, idea to this paper is to replace the latter argument by those inspired by lower bound methods for ∆. From [13], ∆ may be expressed as a convergent series over the pnds, which turns out to have a natural relation with the desired pnd reciprocal sum in an interval. This approach leverages knowledge of ∆ to high precision. Specifically, the abundant density is tightly bounded by 0.2476171 < ∆ < 0.2476475, as shown in [12]. Incorporating these new ideas cuts the final upper bound down to under 0.38. For α 1, the set of numbers n with σ(n)/n > α, the so-called α-abundants, ≥ has a positive density ∆α. The α-perfects and α-deficients are defined similarly. So, an α-pnd is an α-nondeficient number all of whose divisors are α-deficient. The abundant density method in [12] was shown to generalize to α-abundants. For the pnd distribution estimates, by Lemma 2.1 in [14] there is a positive constant cα so that, for sufficiently large x, the number of α-pnds up to x is at most
x/ exp(cα log x log2 x) p if α is not a Liouville number. In particular, by partial summation this implies that the reciprocal sum of α-pnds converges for any non-Liouville α. On the other hand, Erd˝os [9] constructed a family of Liouville numbers α whose α-pnd reciprocal sum diverges. In line with these results, the methods in this paper naturally generalize to the reciprocal sum of α-pnds in the non-Liouville case. THERECIPROCALSUMOFPNDS 3
Notation. We use p and q to denote prime numbers. We write (n,m) to denote the greatest common divisor of n and m. Let h(n)= σ(n)/n. For positive integers n, we let P (n),ω(n) denote the largest prime factor and the number of distinct prime factors of n, respectively. By convention P (1) = 1. We say a positive integer n is y-smooth if P (n) y. We say n is square-full if p2 n for all primes p n. ≤ | | Let γ denote the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Let logk n = log(logk 1 n) denote x dt − the k-fold logarithm. Let Li(x) = 2 log t . In many instances, we take a sum over R ′ certain subsets of pnds, in which cases we use n to denote n is a pnd. P P 2. Setting up the bound To bound the reciprocal sum of pnds, we may first compute the sum directly up to some convienient x Z, so that 0 ∈ 1 1 1 (2.1) ε = ′ = ′ + ′ . n n n Xn nXx0 n>xX0 ≤ 14 Silva [22] computed that for x0 = 10 , 1 (2.2) ′ =0.34842 ..., n n X1014 ≤ as well as that the number of pnds up to 1014 is 870510225.1 Before moving on, we note that we expect this lower bound to well-approximate the entire sum. Indeed, if one approximates the tail by exp( √log x log log x), roughly the asymptotic upper bound, partial summation gives −
′ 1 ∞ dx ∞ √t log t 4 exp( log x log log x)= e− dt < 1.3 10− , n ≈ Z 14 x − Z · n>X1012 10 p 14 log 10 which suggests that the true value of the Erd˝os constant is approximately 0.3485. For the remaining part of the series, we shall split up by y-smoothness, for y to be determined. For the y-smooth contribution, we will adapt an elementary method pioneered by Rankin [19]. See [16] for a more detailed study of explicit estimates for smooth numbers. For the non-y-smooth contribution, we first study the related sum M(x, y)= ′ 1. nXx P (n≤)>y
2.1. An upper bound for M(x, y). Every integer n may be decomposed uniquely into n = qs, where s = s(n) is square-full, q = q(n) is square-free, and (s, q) = 1. We first prove a preliminary lemma for pnds with large square-full part. Lemma 2.1. Let λ = ζ(3/2)/2ζ(3). For x>y> 8, we have
′ 1/2 2/3 B(x, y) := 1 λxy− +2xy− . ≤ nXx s(n≤) y ≥
1Silva [22] provided the first 80 digits of (2.2) to be 0.3484218159391501691221675470639682348139. . . 4 JARED DUKER LICHTMAN
Proof. Denoting K(y) as the number of square-full integers up to y, by (8) in [10] we have ζ(3/2) (2.3) 3√3 y K(y) 2λ√y 0, λ = . − ≤ − ≤ 2ζ(3) For each square-full number s [y, x], the set m [1,x/s]: ms is a pnd is primitive so it contains at most x/∈ 2s + 1 elements.{ Then∈ by partial summation,} x x 1 ′ 1 +1 K(x)+ ≤ 2s ≤ 2 s nXx y
Now to bound M(x, y), we roughly follow the developments in [8], and split up a 1 into two cases. In the first case, suppose s(n) y for some parameter a (0, 3 ) to be determined later. Then by Lemma 2.1, we≥ have ∈
′ a a/2 2a/3 (2.4) 1 1= B(x, y ) λxy− +2xy− . ≤ ≤ n x n x X X a P (n≤)>y s(n)≤ y a s(n) y ≥ ≥ In the second case, we have s(n) Lemma 2.2. Assume x>y> 8. Let n1,...,nm be the set of pnds ni x with {a } ≤ P (ni) >y and square-full part s(ni) 2 log x/ log(y/2) 1 b (2.5) b 0, , 2 2 y− 1+ 2/y . ∈ 2 ≥ − p Then for each n there exists a square-free divisor d n with d [yb/3, 1 y1/2]. i i | i i ∈ √2 b/3 Moreover, n1/d1,...,nm/dm is a set of m distinct integers at most xy− , and therefore { } ′ b/3 (2.6) 1= m xy− . ≤ nXx P (n≤)>y a s(n) Proof. To prove existence, we proceed by contradiction. Take any n = ni, and suppose there is no divisor d q(n) with d [yb/3, 1 y1/2]. Then since s(n) < | ∈ √2 ya = y2b/3, there are no prime divisors p n in the interval [yb/3, 1 y1/2]. We may | √2 therefore decompose n as n = uv where q Thus for all ni,nj we have h(n ) 2+2/y (2.7) i < =1+1/y. h(nj) 2 Suppose ni/di = nj /dj for some i = j. Since ni = nj we have di = dj . Then by multiplicativity, 6 6 6 h(n ) n n h(n ) i = h i = h j = j . h(di) di dj h(dj ) 6 JARED DUKER LICHTMAN Since di and dj are distinct square-free numbers, an elementary argument shows h(d ) = h(d ). Without loss assume h(d ) >h(d ). Then i 6 j i j h(d ) σ(d )d 1 < i = i j h(dj ) σ(dj )di so that σ(d )d σ(d )d + 1. Since d divides the pnd n , d is deficient so i j ≥ j i i i i σ(d ) < 2d . And since d 1 y1/2 we deduce i i i ≤ √2 h(n ) h(d ) σ(d )d 1 i = i = i j 1+ h(nj ) h(dj ) σ(dj )di ≥ σ(dj )di 1 > 1+ > 1+1/y. 2didj contradicting (2.7). Hence each ni/di must be distinct. Combining (2.4) and Lemma 2.2 gives our desired bound on M(x, y). As before, let λ = ζ(3/2)/2ζ(3). Theorem 2.3. Assume x>y> 8. Let b = b(x, y) be defined by 2 log x/ log(y/2) b − (2.8) y− =2 2 1+ 2/y . − p 1 Then so long as 0 ′ b/3 4b/9 (2.9) M(x, y)= 1 (λ + 1)xy− +2xy− . ≤ nXx P (n≤)>y Proof. The definition of b is constructed to satisfy (2.5). By (2.4) and Lemma 2.2 we have M(x, y)= ′ 1+ ′ 1 nXx nXx P (n≤)>y P (n≤)>y a a s(n)>y s(n) y ≤ a/2 2a/3 b/3 λxy− +2xy− + xy− . ≤ The result then follows from a =2b/3. The utility of Theorem 2.3 comes to us as the following Corollary. Corollary 2.4. With b as in Theorem 2.3, for y > 8 we have that ′ 1 b/3 4b/9 (1 + log(x /x ))[(λ + 1)y− +2y− ]. n ≤ 2 1 x1 Xn x2 P≤(n)≤>y b/3 4b/9 Proof. Since C = (λ + 1)y− +2y− is constant with respect to x, by partial summation and Theorem 2.3, x2 ′ 1 M(x2,y) M(x1,y) dx = + M(x, y) 2 n x2 − x1 Zx1 x x1 Xn x2 P≤(n)≤>y x2 dx C + C = (1 + log(x2/x1))C. ≤ Zx1 x THERECIPROCALSUMOFPNDS 7 3. Bounding the tail Recall the contribution of pnds less than 1014 was computed directly. On the other end, we may bound the tail of the reciprocal sum of pnds greater than e5000. In this range, we bifurcate based on the relative size of ω(n) compared to 4log2(n). Note that if ω(n) 4 log (n), then there exists a prime power qa n such that ≤ 2 | log n qa n1/4 log2(n) = exp =: y(n). ≥ 4 log2 n If a = 1, then P (n) is large, and if a 2 then s(n) is large. Thus it suffices to consider the following cases: ≥ (i) ω(n) > 4 log2(n), (ii) P (n) y(n), (iii) s(n) ≥y(n). ≥ In case (i), by Proposition 3.2 in [17], 4 4 1 1 (k + 5) 1 ∞ (t + 5) 4 (3.1) 4 log 4 4 log 4 dt 7.37 10− . n ≤ 24 k ≤ 24 Z5000 t ≤ · n>eX5000 k X5000 ≥ ω(n)>4 log2 n k k k+1 In case (ii), let y = yk = y(e ) = exp 4 log k and define b = bk = b(e ,yk) from Theorem 2.3. A calculation shows that b 0, 1 for k 191. Then by k ∈ 2 ≥ Corollary 2.4 1 1 b/3 4b/9 2 [(λ + 1)y− +2y− ]. n ≤ n ≤ X5000 k X5000 k X k+1 k X5000 n>e ≥ e We may compute this sum directly up to, say, 104, which contributes at most 8 6.8 10− . We bound the remaining series by the integral, · b/3 4b/9 ∞ bt (λ + 1)y− +2y− 2.1 exp − dt. ≤ Z 4 12 log t kX104 10 ≥ k+1 Note that the definition of b = bk in (2.8) using x = e and y = yk ensures b 0.46 for k 104. Then since b 0.46 and k 104, we have .6 log k ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥ log(12/b) + log2 k which implies t (3.2) t0.4 − . − ≥ (12/b) log t Hence we have 1 8 ∞ 0.4 2(6.8 10− )+4.2 exp( t ) dt n ≤ · Z104 − n>eX5000 P (n)>y(n) 8 14 7 (3.3) 2(6.8 10− )+10− 1.4 10− . ≤ · ≤ · 8 JARED DUKER LICHTMAN In case (iii), by partial summation and Lemma 2.1, 1 1 n ≤ n X5000 k X5000 k X k+1 n>e ≥ e n e s(n)>y(n) s≤(n)≤>yk k+1 k+1 k e B(e ,yk) B(e ,yk) dt + B(t,yk) ≤ ek+1 − ek Z k t2 k X5000 e ≥ k e +1 1/2 2/3 dt 1/2 2/3 (λyk− +2yk− ) 1+ 2 (λyk− +2yk− ) ≤ Z k t ≤ k X5000 e k X5000 ≥ ≥ ∞ t ∞ .4 17 (3.4) 2.1 exp − dt 2.1 exp( 3t ) dt 6 10− ≤ Z5000 8 log t ≤ Z5000 − ≤ · by a bound analogous to (3.2). Hence, combining cases (i)-(iii) in equations (3.1)- (3.4), the tail is bounded by ′ 1 4 (3.5) 7.4 10− . n ≤ · n>eX5000 We remark that the above approach used to bound the tail from e5000 is inad- equate to use all the way from 1014. Indeed, the non-smooth contribution alone from 1014 onward is ′ 1 b/3 4b/9 (λ + 1)y− +2y− 2300, n ≤ ≤ n X1014 k 14X log 10 ≥ P (n≥)>y(n) which gives a very large bound (though still on par with the initial literature on the amicable numbers reciprocal sum). A bound of such magnitude reflects that it is insufficient to simply use pnd distribution estimates from [8] (in explicit form). Thus more refined approach is needed in order to obtain good bounds on the reciprocal sum. We are left to deal with the contribution of pnds lying in the intermediate range [1014,e5000]. We further split up the range at e700, and deal with the upper subrange [e700,e5000] in the following section. 3.1. Intermediate Range. In the range [e700,e5000], we implement our bounds in Corollary 2.4 with greater care paid to our choice of smoothness cutoff y. We first estimate the reciprocal sum of smooth numbers. Lemma 3.1. Let x>y 2, u = log x/ log y. For u 10 and s [0,.041], we have ≥ ≥ ∈ 1 s s s s x− exp (1 + ǫ)(Li(y ) Li(2 )+2 / log 2) + 0.35 n ≤ − n>xX P (n) y ≤ 8 where ǫ =2.3 10− . × THERECIPROCALSUMOFPNDS 9 Proof. We have 1 1 s s 1 s s 1 − x− n − = x− 1 p − n ≤ − n>xX n>xX pYy P (n) y P (n) y ≤ ≤ ≤ s 1 s s 1 = x− exp log 1+ x− exp p − +0.35 − p1 s 1 ≤ pXy − pXy ≤ − ≤ since one verifies that for s .041, ≤ s 1 1 log(1 p − ) 0.35. − − p1 s ≤ Xp − s 1 8 Let f(t)= t − / log t and ǫ =2.3 10− . From [3], we have that × (3.6) ϑ(x)= log p< (1 + ǫ)x for x> 0, pXx ≤ The result then follows from partial summation and integration by parts, y s 1 p − = f(p) log p = ϑ(y)f(y) ϑ(t)f ′(t) dt − Z pXy pXy 2 ≤ ≤ y y (1 + ǫ)yf(y) (1 + ǫ) tf ′(t) dt =(1+ ǫ)2f(2)+(1+ ǫ) f(t) dt ≤ − Z2 Z2 = (1+ ǫ)(Li(ys) Li(2s)+2s/ log 2) − using f ′(t) < 0 for t 2. This argument is adapted from [17]. ≥ We apply this bound to with x = ek for each k [700, 5000]. Given k, we find ∈ a reasonable value of u = uk, which determines y = yk = k/u. Note yk here differs from the previous section. Thus by Corollary 2.4 and Lemma 3.1, 1 1 1 ′ ′ + n ≤ k k n k n e700 Xn e5000 700 Xk 5000 e Xn e +1 n>eX ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ P≤(n≤)>y P (n) y ≤ b/3 4b/9 2[(λ + 1)y− +2y− ] + ≤ 700 Xk 5000 ≤ ≤ exp (1 + ǫ)(Li(ys) Li(2s)+2s/ log 2) + .38 sk . − − For each k we choose an optimal value of u, which we found to be u = .006k + 4. γ We also use s = sk = log(e u log u)/ log y, for which one verifies sk .041 at each k. With such choices of u and s, we compute ≤ 1 (3.7) ′ 0.001260+ 0.002237 = 0.00350. n ≤ e700 Xn e5000 ≤ ≤ The remaining range 1014 n e700 is too small for the pnd methods to be effective. Indeed, the above method≤ ≤ starting from 1014 gives a bound of 330, which is orders of magnitude larger. In the next section we take a different approach, inspired by abundant density estimates. 10 JARED DUKER LICHTMAN 4. Abundant density estimates The density of the abundant numbers, denoted ∆, is tightly bounded by (4.1) 0.2476171 < ∆ < 0.2476475, as proved in [12]. Since every abundant number has a unique smallest pnd divisor, one may express the density of abundant numbers as a series over pnds, ∆ = n′ an. Here an is the density of all abundant numbers with smallest pnd divisor nP. The density an may be expressed in full via inclusion-exclusion, see [13], however to calculate an this way quickly becomes unreasonable. Towards an alternate series representation of the abundant density ∆, define the significance of a number n to be sig(n) := max σ(pe): pe n . The ordering on { k } the natural numbers by significance was first introduced in [12]. Then letting bn be the density of abundant numbers with smallest (by significance) pnd divisor n, we have the series representation ∆ = n′ bn. We note that for any x > 0, the partial sum n′ x an dominates n′ x Pbn since there may be some pnd n1 > x ≤ ≤ with significanceP less than that ofP another pnd n2 x, in which case the density of ≤ 2 multiples of lcm(n1,n2) is counted in the an sum but not in the bn sum. Remarkably, when ordered by significance, the density bn factors as a product over a certain set of primes depending on n, see [13], thus enabling rapid computa- tion. In particular, Kobayashi computed up to 4 1010, giving the following. · Theorem 4.1 (Theorem 3 in [13]). We have n′ 4 1010 bn =0.24760444 .... Thus the density of abundant numbers with a pnd divisorP ≤ · below 4 1010 is at least · (4.2) ′ a 0.24760444. n ≥ n X4 1010 ≤ · Note that 0.24760444 is a lower bound for ∆, though the better bound 0.2476171 was obtained in [12] by a different method. Before proceeding, we prove a lemma. Lemma 4.2. The largest prime factor of a pnd n is at most √2n. Proof. Let P (n)= p and suppose pe n. If e 2, then pe n easily gives p √2n. If e = 1, then k ≥ ≤ ≤ 2n σ(n)= σ(p)σ(n/p) (p + 1)(2n/p 1) ≤ ≤ − so p +1 2n/p, and thus p √2n. ≤ ≤ Though bn is easier to compute directly, with an we have the useful inequality 1 (4.3) a (1 1/p) for a pnd n. n ≥ n − p Y√2n ≤ Indeed, consider any number m> 1 whose prime factors are all greater than √2n. The density of such numbers m is (1 1/p). By Lemma 4.2, m is coprime p √2n − to all pnds up to n and so mn is anQ abundant≤ number with smallest pnd divisor n. Thus all such numbers mn contribute to the density an, and so (4.3) follows. Now we recall Theorem 8 in [20], which states e γ 1 1/p − for x 286, − ≥ log x +1/2 log3 x ≥ pYx ≤ 2 ′ b ′ a Conversely, Psig(n)≤x n dominates Psig(n)≤x n. THERECIPROCALSUMOFPNDS 11 and so by (4.3) we may extract a portion of the pnd reciprocal sum, γ ′ ′ 1 ′ 1 e− an (1 1/p) ≥ n − ≥ n log(2n)/2+4/ log3(2n) 4 1010X 0.00004306 = 0.2476475 0.24760444 ∆ ′ a ′ a − ≥ − n ≥ n n X4 1010 4 1010X Theorem 1.1. The Erd˝os constant n′ 1/n lies in the interval (0.34842P , 0.37937). Proof. The lower bound was computed directly up to 1014, as in (2.2). For the upper bound, by computing up to 4 1010 and combining (4.5) with the results in (3.5) and (3.7), · 1 1 1 1 1 ′ = ′ + ′ + ′ + ′ n n n n n Xn n X4 1010 4 1010X Acknowledgments I would like to thank Carl Pomerance for his nondeficient supply of ideas, en- couragement, and attention to detail. I thank Mits Kobayashi for sharing his com- putations, as well as his helpful conversations early on. I also thank Tom´as Silva, who recently extended the reciprocal sum calculation out to 1014. The author was partially supported by a Byrne Scholarship at Dartmouth. References 1. M. Avidon, On the distribution of primitive abundant numbers, Acta Arith. 77(2) (1996), 195–205. 2. J. Bayless, D. Klyve, On the sum of reciprocals of amicable numbers, Integers 11A (2011), Article 5. 3. J. B¨uthe, Estimating π(x) and related functions under partial RH assumptions, Math. Comp. 85 (2016), 2483–2498. 4. R. Crandall, C. Pomerance, Prime Numbers: A Computational Perspective 2nd ed. Springer (2005). 12 JARED DUKER LICHTMAN 5. H. Davenport, Uber¨ numeri abundantes, Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss., Phys.-Math. Kl., 6 (1933), 830–837. 6. M. Del´eglise, Bounds for the density of abundant integers, Experiment. Math. 7(2) (1998), 137–143. 7. P. Erd˝os, On the density of the abundant numbers, J. London Math. Soc., 9 (1934), 278–282. 8. P. Erd˝os, On primitive abundant numbers, J. London Math. Soc., 37 (1935), 49–58. 9. P. Erd˝os, Remarks on number theory. I. On primitive α-abundant numbers. Acta Arith. 5 (1959), 25–33. 10. S. W. Golomb, Powerful numbers, Amer. Math. Monthly 77, (1970), 848–852. 11. D. Klyve, Explicit bounds on twin primes and Brun’s constant, PhD thesis, Dartmouth College (2007). 12. M. Kobayashi, On the density of abundant numbers, PhD thesis, Dartmouth College (2010). 13. M. Kobayashi, A new series for the density of abundant numbers, Int. J. Number Theory, 10 (2014) 73–84. 14. M. Kobayashi, P. Pollack, The error term in the count of abundant numbers, Mathematika 60 (2014), 43–65. 15. J.D. Lichtman, Numbers free of large prime factors, undergraduate thesis, Dartmouth College (2017). 16. J.D. Lichtman, C. Pomerance, Explicit estimates for the distribution of numbers free of large prime factors, J. Number Theory, 183 (2018), 1–23. 17. H. M. Nguyen, C. Pomerance, The reciprocal sum of the amicable numbers, Math. Comp., to appear. 18. C. Pomerance, On the distribution of amicable numbers, II, J. reine angew. Math. 325 (1981), 183–188. 19. R. A. Rankin, The difference between consecutive prime numbers, J. London Math. Soc. 13 (1938), 242–247. 20. J. B. Rosser, L. Schoenfeld, Approximate formulas for some functions of prime numbers, Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962), 64–94. 21. I. Schoenberg, Uber¨ die asymptotische verteilung reeller zahlen mod 1, Math. Z. 28 (1928), 171–199. 22. T. Silva, private communication. Department of Mathematics, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755 E-mail address: [email protected]