This post discusses two classic problems in analytic number theory: the Gauss circle problem and the Dirichlet divisor problem.
These problems are known to be related at a deep level, a fact which is often missed at first glance because the obvious/early attacks on them look quite different.
In this post, I compare these “trivial” estimates, and show how Gauss’ estimate can be realized using a few different techniques.
One of the ingredients in a paper that Bram Petri and I submitted in 2016 was a count of integer matrices of determinant 1 with non-negative entries and bounded trace.
Our paper only required an upper bound, but as a number theorist I couldn’t resist the temptation of describing the asymptotics of this function more precisely. In this post we explore do just that, exploring Dirchlet’s hyperbola method along the way.
The Gauss Circle Problem is a classic open problem in number theory concerning the number of lattice points contained in a large circle.
Optimal error bounds are known in these approximations in a generalization of the Gauss Circle Problem to spheres in dimensions four and above.
In this post, I’ll give a purely analytic proof of this result for even dimensions greater than four, and explain why the method fails in the other cases.
Just how good are polynomials at producing primes? Do there exist polynomials that produce primes for arbitrarily many consecutive inputs?
In this post, I’ll give a brief overview of what we expect to be able to prove, and show how interpolating polynomials can produce record-breaking prime-generators. (And then break a record, because why not?)
Our modern calendar, the Gregorian calendar, introduced several changes to the Julian calendar, including the introduction of a three-step algorithm for determining leap years.
But just how accurate is the Gregorian model? Can centuries of mathematics and astronomy lead us to a more accurate calendar?
Classification theorems of Euler, Lagrange, and Legendre describe the sets of integers that can be written as the sum of 2, 3, and 4 squares. In the last two cases, it follows easily that the density of these sets are 5/6 and 1.
The question of density is not so simple in the case of two squares. In this post, we resolve using an unexpected tool — Dirichlet’s theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions.
John Wilson (1741-1793) was a well-known English mathematician in his time, whose legacy lives on in his eponymous result, Wilson’s Theorem.
In this post, we’ll generalize Wison’s Theorem to non-prime modulus (and a few other generalizations) and give credit to Gauss for beating us to it by two hundred years.
The prime number theorem (PNT) was not proven until 1896, but a weaker form (up to constants) was established decades earlier. The earliest proof was due to Chebyshev in 1852, and his work inspired others to take up the mantle and inch towards what they thought would be a proof of the PNT. Here, we show the strength of the Chebyshev method and ask whether it had the power to prove the PNT after all.
This post serves as a follow-up article to “Units Groups and the Infinitude of Primes”, and looks at generalizations of those results to a wide class of commutative rings.
This post concerns generalizations of Euclid’s proof of the infinitude of primes to number fields, where it can be viewed as a relationship between the size of the units group and the number of prime ideals in a ring.
a. w. walker 