PRIMES IN ARITHMETIC PROGRESSIONS TO LARGE MODULI

AND SHIFTED PRIMES WITHOUT LARGE PRIME FACTORS

JARED DUKER LICHTMAN

arXiv:2211.09641v1 [math.NT] 14 Nov 2022

Abstract. We prove the infinitude of shifted primes p − 1 without prime factors above
p0.2844 . This refines p0.2961 from Baker and Harman in 1998. Consequently, we obtain an
improved lower bound on the the distribution of Carmichael numbers.
Our main technical result is a new mean value theorem for primes in arithmetic pro-
gressions to large moduli. Namely, we estimate primes of size x with quadrilinear forms of
moduli up to x17/32 . This extends moduli beyond x11/21 , recently obtained by Maynard,
improving x29/56 from well-known 1986 work of Bombieri, Friedlander, and Iwaniec.

1. Introduction
Let P + (n) denote the largest prime factor of an integer n > 1. Following an old conjecture
of Erdős [11, 12], we expect there are infinitely many primes p with P + (p − a) 6 pε , for any
ε > 0. We prove the infinitude of primes p with P + (p − a) 6 p0.2844 , from the following
quantitative result.
√
Theorem 1.1. For fixed nonzero a ∈ Z and β > 15/32 e = 0.2843 · · · , there exists C >1
such that
X x
(1.1) 1 ≫ C
.
x<p 62x
(log x)
P + (p−a) 6xβ

The exponent 0.2844 in Theorem 1.1 gives a roughly 4% refinement over the previous
record exponent 0.2961 of Baker and Harman [2]. The table below gives a chronology of the
known lower bounds on β.
Year Author(s) β>
1998 Baker–Harman [2] 0.2961 √
1989 Friedlander [16] 0.3032 · · · = 1/2 e
1986 Fouvry–Grupp [15] 0.3174 · · · = 3/7e.3
1983 Balog [3] 0.35
1980 Pomerance [24] 0.4490 · · · = 625/512e
√
1979 Wooldridge [28] 0.8284 · · · = 2( 2 − 1)
1935 Erdős [11] 1 − δ for some δ > 0
In recent decades, this problem has attracted increased attention, due in part to applica-
tions to cryptography (see [8] [17] [25] for further discussion). Moreover, this problem is of

Date: November 4, 2022.

2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 11N35, 11N36; Secondary 11N05.
1
independent interest as it sheds light on the subtle interplay between addition and multi-
plication. Indeed, long before connections to cryptography, in 1935 Erdős [11] showed the
existence of some δ > 0 for which infinitely many primes p satisfy P + (p − 1) 6 p1−δ .
Theorem 1.1 implies the following lower bound on the distribution of Carmichael numbers.
Recall a composite number n is a Carmichael number if n is a pseudoprime to every base b,
that is, bn−1 ≡ 1 (mod n) for all coprime (b, n) = 1.
Corollary 1.2. There are at least x0.3389 Carmichael numbers up to x, sufficiently large.
The infinitude of Carmichael numbers we first proven in the landmark result of Alford–
Granville–Pomerance [1]. Moreover, their argument gave the quantitative lower bound
5
x 12 (1−β) , for β > 0 satisfying (1.1). The current record is x0.4736(1−β) due to Harman
[19]. Corollary √ 1.2 then follows by combining this with Theorem 1.1. Note the exponent
.4736(1 − 15/32 e) = .3389 · · · in Corollary 1.2 improves on .4736(1 − .2961) = .3333 · · ·
from Harman [19].
In addition, we deduce the following consequence on the distribution of values of the Euler
ϕ function.
Corollary 1.3. Denote by m1 < m2 < · · · the integers m ∈ Z for which m = ϕ(n) admits
at least m0.7156 solutions n ∈ Z. Then the sequence (mi ) is infinite, and satisfies
log mi+1
lim = 1.
i→∞ log mi

Corollary 1.3 follows directly by Theorem 1.1, from

√ the well-established method of Erdős
and Pomerance [12, 24]. Note the exponent 1−15/32 e = .7156 · · · in Corollary 1.3 improves
on 1 − .2961 = .7039 from Harman [19].
1.1. Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli. As the main technical re-
sult of the article, we establish a new estimate for primes in arithmetic progressions with
quadrilinear forms of moduli. Let τ (q) denote the divisor function, and π(x; q, a) the count
of primes up to x congruent to a (mod q).
Theorem 1.4. Fix nonzero a ∈ Z. Let ε > 0 and let Q, R, S satisfy
(1.2) QR < x1/2+ε , QS 2 < x1/2−2ε S 2 < R < x1/32−ε .
Let λq , νq , ηq , µq be complex sequences with , |λq |, |νq |, |ηq |, |µq | 6τ (q)B0 . Then for every A > 0
we have 
X XXX π(x)  x
λq νr ηs µt π(x; qrst, a) − ≪a,ε,A A
.
q 6Q r 6R s 6S t 6S
ϕ(qrst) (log x)
(qrst,a)=1

Theorem 1.4 may handle quadrilinear forms of moduli up to x17/32−ε , for the choices
(Q, R, S) = (x15/32+2ε , x1/32−ε , x1/64−2ε ). Specifically, for the application to our main Theo-
rem 1.1 we use
(1.3)
X X X X  π(x)  x
λq νr ηs µt π(x; qrst, a) − ≪a,ε,A .
15/32+2ε 1/32−ε 1/64−2ε 1/64−2ε
ϕ(qrst) (log x)A
q 6x r 6x s 6x t 6x
(qrst,a)=1
2
 Previously, the strongest results for these applications had involved bilinear forms. In their
celebrated 1986 work, Bombieri, Friedlander, and Iwaniec [5, Theorem 8] handled bilinear
forms of moduli up to x29/56 , showing
XX  π(x)  x
(1.4) λq νr π(x; qr, a) − ≪a,ε,A
q 6Q r 6R
ϕ(qr) (log x)A
(qr,a)=1

with Q < x1/3 , R < x1/5 , Q5 R2 < x2 , and QR < x29/56 . This bilinear estimate was
only recently extended to moduli up to x11/21−ε by Maynard [22, Theorem 1.1], deducing
(1.4) with (Q, R) = (x10/21 , x1/21−ε ) (even with weights replaced by absolute values) Note
29/56 = .5178 · · · , 11/21 = .5238 · · · , and 17/32 = 0.5313 · · · .
In context, Theorem 1.4 may be viewed as an interpolating result between [22, Theorem
1.1] and [23, Theorem 1.1]. Namely, the quadrilinear weights in Theorem 1.4 are more
flexible than the absolute values appearing in [22, Theorem 1.1], but appear more rigid than
the ‘triply well-factorable’ weights in [23, Theorem 1.1]. As such, the size of moduli x17/32−ǫ
in Theorem 1.4 exceeds x11/21−ǫ in [22, Theorem 1.1], while not to the full extent of x3/5−ǫ
in [23, Theorem 1.1]. The balance of flexibility and strength in Theorem 1.4 is molded to
our application to Theorem 1.1. Whereas, the shifted primes problem appears too rigid for
[23, Theorem 1.1] to be applicable.

2. Proof outline
In this section we outline the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.4.
Following the previous method of Baker–Harman [2], we restrict our attention to special
factorizations p − a = lp0 mn with l ∼ x2θ−1 smooth, p0 prime, and p0 m, n ∼ x1−θ . We
aim to take θ > 1/2 as large as possible. An inclusion-exclusion argument then reduces the
problem to estimating primes in arithmetic progressions of the form
XXX π(x) 
(2.1) π(x; a, lp0 m) − .
l p m
ϕ(lp0 m)
0

The desired bound x/(log x)A for (2.1) above follows from [22, Theorem 1.1] when θ =
11/21, by grouping p0 ,m together and inserting absolute values (this would already give
some improvement over Baker–Harman). We can hope to do better by exploiting the fact
we don’t need absolute values. That is, the argument for [22, Theorem 1.1] was limited by
θ 611/21 only for very specific terms in the decomposition of primes. Namely, when one
factor in the decomposition is of size x1/7 , the ‘Fouvry-style’ estimate [22, Proposition 12.1]
break down. When the coefficients factor as cq,r = λq νr , we may use a stronger result of
Iwaniec–Pomykala [21] in this critical case.
In addition, we strengthen the ‘Zhang-style’ estimate [22, Proposition 8.2] in the case of
trilinear forms of moduli. Lastly, to combine these ‘Fouvry-style’ and ‘Zhang-style’ trilinear
estimates in a compatible manner, we take a common refinement of the corresponding sys-
tems of conditions. This leads to the single system (1.2) for the final quadrilinear estimate.
When combined with other estimates of Maynard [22], this establishes the main Theorem
1.4 with θ = 17/32.
3
 Roughly speaking, the Zhang-style argument handles sums of the form
XX X X  1 
cq,r αn βm 1nm≡a(qr) − .
q r n m
ϕ(qr)

We apply Cauchy-Schwarz in the q, m variables (smoothing the m-summation), use Poission

summation in the m variable, and simplify the exponential sums to roughly give
XX X X  n r n2 r1 q 
1 2
cq,r1 cq,r2 αn 1 αn 2 e ah + .
q r ,r n ,n 2
qr 1 r 2
1 2 1 2 h<QR N/x

Then we want to apply Cauchy-Schwarz in the q, n1 , n2 variables to eliminate the unknown

coefficients αn . Then applying Poisson summation in the n1 , n2 variables (inserting a smooth
majorant) leads to sums of Kloosterman sums, which may be handled by the Weil bound.
In our case of trilinear forms of moduli, we may restrict to those r which factor and consider
the coefficients cq,rs = λq νr ηs . In this situation, we may also apply Cauchy-Schwarz in in the
s1 , s2 variables. This new situation has the significant benefit of fewer off-diagonal terms,
and the remaining diagonal terms have less sparse summations in auxiliary variables. This
allows for improved estimates in this critical case, and leads to θ = 17/32 when combined
with the other estimates.
Remark 2.1. The previous argument of Baker–Harman [2] proceeds by estimating primes in
arithmetic progressions of the form
XXX
(2.2) π(x; a, lp0 m)
l p0 m

in two regimes, using the following ingredients:

(a) a mean value theorem of Bombieri–Friedlander–Iwaniec [5, Theorem 9] to get asymp-
totics for (2.2) in the range xβ < p0 < x1/3 .
(b) a Harman’s sieve argument to get weaker bounds for (2.2) in the range x1/3 6p0 62x1−θ ,
by focusing on the most amenable parts of the decomposition of the primes.
Now using Theorem 1.4 we upgrade (a) above, which already achieves a superior result
for shifted primes without appealing to part (b). In principle, one could obtain some further
improvements using a similar argument as in (b). In the interest of clarity of presentation
we do not pursue this.

3. Shifted primes without large prime factors

In this section we deduce Theorem 1.1 from √ Theorem 1.4.
Let θ = 17/32 − ε and take β > (1 − θ)/ e. Define the integer H = ⌈(2θ − 1)/ε⌉. In
2θ−1
particular 2θ−1
H
∈ [ε/2, ε]. Denote the dyadic subset L = {l ∼ x H : (l, a) = 1} and define
the sequence G = {l1 · · · lH : li ∈ L}, so that l ≍ x2θ−1 for all l ∈ G, and
|G| = |L|H ≫ x2θ−1
Consider

(3.1) N = (p, l, m, n) : p − a = lmn, l ∈ G, m, n ∼ x1−θ , (m, a) = 1, p ∼ x

(3.2) N ′ = (p, l, m, n) ∈ N : P + (p − a) 6xβ
4
Observe that it suffices to prove
x
(3.3) |N ′ | ≫ .
log x
P
Indeed, letting Γ(p) = |{(l, m, n) : (p, l, m, n) ∈ N ′}|, we have |N ′ | = p∼x Γ(p). By
Cauchy-Schwarz,
X 2 X X
′ 2
|N | = Γ(p) 6 Γ(p)2 · 1.
p∼x p∼x p∼x
Γ(p)>0
P
Also Γ(p) 6τ (p − a)B0 so by a divisor bound p∼x Γ(p)2 ≪ |N ′|(log x)B , and so

X X |N ′| x
1> 1≫ ≫
p∼x p∼x (log x)B (log x)B+1
P + (p−a) 6xβ Γ(p)>0

by (3.3), as desired. Thus to establish Theorem 1.1, it suffices to show (3.3).

Next define
N1 = {(p, l, p0 m, n) ∈ N : xβ < p0 62x1−θ }
N2 = {(p, l, m, p0 n) ∈ N : xβ < p0 62x1−θ }

and note by symmetry |N1 | = |N2 |. We have

(3.4) |N ′| >|N | − |N1 | − |N2 | = |N | − 2|N2 |.

Recall by definition of l ∈ G we have l ≍ x2θ−1 = x1/16−2ε and l = l1 · · · lH for li ∼

x(1/16−2ε)/H . We therefore may split l = l1 rst where s = l2 · · · lH/4−1 , t = lH/4 · · · lH/2−1 , and
r = lH/2 · · · lH . Thus s, t 6x1/64−2ε and r 6x1/32−ε . And letting q = l1 mp0 6x15/32+2ε , we
obtain
X X X X
|N1 | = 1
l∈G xβ <p0 62x1−θ m∼x1−θ /p0 p≡a (mod lmp0 )
(m,a)=1 p∼x
X X X X X
(3.5) = λq νr ηs µt 1.
q 6x15/32+2ε r 6x1/32−ε s 6x1/64−2ε t 6x1/64−2ε p≡a (mod qrst)
p∼x
(qrst,a)=1

for the choice of coefficients λq , νr , ηs , µt ,

X X X
λq = 1, νr = 1,
l1 ∼x(2θ−1)/H xβ <p 0 62x1−θ r=lH/2+1 ···lH
q=l1 mp0 li ∼x(2θ−1)/H
X X
ηs = 1, µt = 1.
s=l2 ···lH/4 t=lH/4+1 ···lH/2
li ∼x(2θ−1)/H li ∼x(2θ−1)/H
5
 Now we apply the key mean value theorem in Theorem 1.4, specifically (1.3). Thus (3.5)
becomes

X X X X π(x)
1 + O(L−A ) |N1 | = λq νr ηs µt
15/32 3/64 1/64−ε 1/64−ε
ϕ(qrs)
q 6x r 6x s 6x t 6x
(qrst,a)=1
X X X π(x)
= .
l∈G xβ <p0 62x1−θ m∼x1−θ /p0
ϕ(lmp0 )
(m,a)=1

Note by an elementary argument,

X ϕ(l)

= Gl log 2 + O τ (a)(log x)/M ,
m∼M
ϕ(lm)
(m,a)=1
Q  
ϕ(a) 1
where Gl = a p∤al 1+ p(p−1)
. Note Gl ≫a 1. Hence we obtain

X Gl X 1
(3.6) |N1 | = 1 + O(L−1 ) π(x) log 2 .
l∈G
ϕ(l) p0
xβ <p0 62x1−θ

By an analogous (simpler) argument, we have

X X X
X Gl
(3.7) |N | = 1 = 1 + O(L−1) π(x) log 2
l∈G 1−θ p∼x l∈G
ϕ(l)
m∼x
(m,a)=1 p≡a (lm)

Indeed, this is [2, (2.6)] which follows already by [5, Theorem 9]. In particular |N | ≫ x/ log x.
From (3.6), (3.7) we see

X 1  
−A
|N1 | = 1 + O(L ) |N | = (1 + o(1))|N | · log 1−θ
β
.
β 1−θ
p 0
x <p0 62x

Hence plugging back into (3.4), we conclude

 
x
|N ′ | >|N | − 2|N1 | = (1 + o(1))|N | 1 − 2 log 1−θ
β
≫ |N | ≫
log x
√
by assumption β > (1 − θ)/ e. This gives (3.3), and completes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

4. Notation
We will use the Vinogradov ≪ and ≫ asymptotic notation, and the big oh O(·) and
o(·) asymptotic notation. f ≍ g will denote the conditions f ≪ g and g ≪ f both hold.
Dependence on a parameter will be denoted by a subscript.
We will view a (the residue class we count arithmetic functions in to different moduli q)
as a fixed positive integer throughout the paper, and any constants implied by asymptotic
notation will be allowed to depend on a from this point onwards. Similarly, throughout the
paper, we will let ε be a single fixed small real number; ε = 10−100 would probably suffice.
Any bounds in our asymptotic notation will also be allowed to depend on ε.
The letter p will always be reserved to denote a prime number. We use ϕ to denote
the Euler totient function, e(x) := e2πix the complex exponential, τk (n) the k-fold divisor
6
function, µ(n) the Möbius function. We let P − (n), P + (n) denote the smallest and largest
prime ˆ ˆ
R ∞ factors of n respectively, and f denote the Fourier transform of f over R - i.e. f (ξ) =
−∞
f (t)e(−ξt)dt. We use 1 to denote the indicator function of a statement. For example,
(
1, if n ≡ a (mod q),
1n≡a (mod q) =
0, otherwise.
We will use (a, b) to denote gcd(a, b) when it does not conflict with notation for ordered
pairs. For (n, q) = 1, we will use n to denote the inverse of the integer n modulo q; the
modulus will be clear from the context. For example, we may write e(an/q) - here n is
interpreted as the integer m ∈ {0, . . . , q − 1} such that mn ≡ 1 (mod q). Occasionally
we will also use λ to denote complex conjugation; the distinction of the usage should be
clear from
P the context. For a complex sequence αn1 ,...,nk , kαk2 will denote the ℓ2 norm
kαk2 = ( n1 ,...,nk |αn1 ,...,nk |2 )1/2 .
Summations assumed to be over all positive integers unless noted otherwise. We use the
notation n ∼ N to denote the conditions N < n 62N.
3
We will let z0 := x1/(log log x) and y0 := x1/ log log x two parameters depending on x, which
we will think of as a large quantity. We will let ψ0 : R → R denote a fixed smooth function
supported on [1/2, 5/2] which is identically equal to 1 on the interval [1, 2] and satisfies
(j)
the derivative bounds kψ0 k∞ ≪ (4j j!)2 for all j >0. (See [6, Page 368, Corollary] for the
construction of such a function.)
Definition 4.1 (Siegel-Walfisz condition). We say that a complex sequence αn satisfies the
Siegel-Walfisz condition if for every d >1, q >1 and (a, q) = 1 and every A > 1 we have
X 1 X Nτ (d)B0
(4.1) αn − αn ≪ A .
n∼N
ϕ(q) n∼N (log N)A
n≡a (mod q) (n,dq)=1
(n,d)=1

We note that αn certainly satisfies the Siegel-Walfisz condition if αn = 1, if αn = µ(n) or

if αn is the indicator function of the primes.

5. Main propositions
In this section we prove Theorem 1.4 assuming four new technical propositions, which we
will then establish over the rest of the paper. We do this by applying a sieve decomposition
to break the count of primes in arithmetic progressions into counts of integers with particular
prime factorizations, which can then be estimated using the relevant proposition. The sieve
decomposition is based on ideas based on Harman’s sieve (see [18]), but we could have used
the Heath-Brown identity and some combinatorial lemmas as an alternative.
Define Sn and Sd (z) (depending on integers a, q satisfying (a, q) = 1 which we suppress
for convenience) for integers n, d and a real z by
1
Sn := 1n≡a (mod q) − 1(n,q)=1 ,
ϕ(q)
X
Sd (z) := Sdn
n∼x/d
P − (n)>z
7
where the modulus is understood q = q1 q2 or q = q0 q1 q2 , in context. With this notation, we
may now state our main propositions.
The first result is a variant of [22, Proposition 7.1] for trilinear forms of moduli. We prove
this in Section 9.
Proposition 5.1 (Type II estimate). Let A > 0 and let Q1 , Q2 , Q3 satisfy
(5.1) Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε , Q1 Q3 < x1/2−2ε , Q3 < Q2 < x1/32−ε .
Let P1 , . . . , PJ >x1/7+10ε be such that P1 · · · PJ ≍ x and
Y
x3/7+ε 6 Pj 6x4/7−ε
j∈J

for some subset J ⊆ {1, . . . , J}. Let λq , νq , ηq be complex sequences with |λq |, |νq |, |ηq | 6τ (q)B0 .
Then we have
X X X X∗ x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 Sp1 ···pJ (pJ ) ≪A .
q ∼Q q ∼Q q ∼Q p1 ,...,pJ (log x)A
1 1 2 2 3 3
pi ∼Pi ∀i
(q1 q2 q3 ,a)=1
P∗
Here indicates that the summation is restricted by O(1) inequalities of the form pα1 1 · · · pαJ J 6B.
The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi , but none of the quantities B.
The second result is a variant of [22, Proposition 7.2] for quadrilinear forms of moduli.
We prove this in Section 11.
Proposition 5.2 (Sieve asymptotics). Let A > 0. Let x3/7+ε >P1 > . . . >Pr >x1/7+10ε be
such that P1 · · · Pr 6x2/3 and such that either r = 1 or Pr 6x1/4+ε . Let Q1 , Q2 , Q3 satisfy
(5.2) Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε , Q1 Q23 < x1/2−2ε , Q23 < Q2 < x1/32−ε .
Let ηq , λq , νq , µq be complex sequences with |ηq |, |λq |, |νq |, |µq | 6τ (q)B0 .
Then we have
X X X X∗ x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 µq4 Sp1 ···pr (x1/7+10ε ) ≪A .
q1 ∼Q1 q2 ∼Q2 q3 ,q4 ∼Q3 p1 ,...,pr (log x)A
pi ∼Pi ∀i
(q1 q2 q3 q4 ,a)=1
P
Here ∗ means that the summation is restricted to O(1) inequalities of the form pα1 1 · · · pαr r 6B
for some constants α1 , . . . αr . The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi ,
but none of the quantities B.
Moreover, we also have the related estimate
X X X x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 µq4 S1 (x1/7+10ε ) ≪A .
q ∼Q q ∼Q q ,q ∼Q
(log x)A
1 1 2 2 3 4 3
(q1 q2 q3 q4 ,a)=1

The third result is a variant of [22, Proposition 7.3] for trilinear forms of moduli. We prove
this in Section 10.
Proposition 5.3 (Numbers with 4 or more prime factors). Let A > 0. Let J >4 and
P1 > . . . >PJ >x1/7+10ε with P1 · · · PJ ≍ x. Let Q1 , Q2 , Q3 satisfy
Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε , Q1 Q3 < x1/2−2ε , Q3 < Q2 < x1/32−ε .
8
Let ηq , λq , νq be complex sequences with |ηq |, |λq |, |νq | 6τ (q)B0 .
Then we have
X X X X∗ x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 Sp1 ···pJ ≪A .
q1 ∼Q1 q2 ∼Q2 q3 ∼Q3 p1 ,...,pJ (log x)A
pi ∼Pi ∀i
(q1 q2 q3 ,a)=1
P
Here ∗ indicates that the summation is restricted by O(1) inequalities of the form pα1 1 · · · pαJ J 6B.
The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi , but none of the quantities B.
The final result is a variant of [22, Proposition 7.4]. We prove this in Section 12.
Proposition 5.4 (Numbers with three prime factors). Let A > 0 and let P1 , P2 , P3 ∈
[x1/4 , x3/7+ε ] with P1 P2 P3 ≍ x. Let Q1 , Q2 , Q3 satisfy
(5.3) Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε , Q1 Q23 < x1/2−2ε , Q23 < Q2 < x1/32−ε .
Let ηq , λq , νq , µq be complex sequences with |ηq |, |λq |, |νq |, |µq | 6τ (q)B0 . Then we have
X X X X∗ x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 µq4 Sp 1 p 2 p 3 ≪ A A
.
q ∼Q q ∼Q q ,q ∼Q p 1 ,p 2 ,p 3
(log x)
1 1 2 2 3 4 3
pi ∼Pi ∀i
(q1 q2 q3 q4 ,a)=1
P
Here ∗ means that the summation is restricted to O(1) inequalities of the form pα1 1 pα2 2 pα3 3 6B
for some constants α1 , α2 , α3 . The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi ,
but none of the quantities B.
Proof of Theorem 1.4 assuming Propositions 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. This follows just as in the
proof of [22, Theorem 1.1], except for (Q1 , Q2 ) replaced by (Q2 Q3 Q4 , Q1 ), and with quadri-
linear weights λq1 νq2 ηq3 µq4 instead of absolute values. In this case, the Type II estimate and
sieve asymptotics in Propositions 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 replace that of [22, Propositions 7.1, 7.2, 7.4],
respectively. 

6. Preliminary Lemmas
In this section, we collect statements of some preliminary lemmas, which will be of use
moving forward.
Lemma 6.1 (Divisor function bounds). Let |b| < x − y and y >qxε . Then we have
X y
τ (n)C τ (n − b)C ≪ (τ (q) log x)OC (1) .
x−y 6n 6x
q
n≡a (mod q)

Proof. This follows from Shiu’s Theorem [26], and is given in [6, Lemma 12]. 
Lemma 6.2 (Small sets contribute negligibly). Let δ > 0, Q 6x1−ε and let A ⊆ [x, 2x].
Then we have
X X 1 X
τ (q) 1− 1 ≪ xδ #A1−δ (log x)Oδ (1) .
q∼Q n∈A
ϕ(q) n∈A
n≡a (mod q) (n,q)=1

Proof. See [22, Lemma 8.9]. 

9
Lemma 6.3 (Separation of variables from inequalities). Let Q1 Q2 6x1−ε . Let N1 , . . . , Nr >z0
satisfy N1 · · · Nr ≍ x. Let αn1 ,...,nr be a complex sequence with |αn1 ,...,nr | 6(τ (n1 ) · · · τ (nr ))B0 .
Then, for any choice of A > 0 there is a constant C = C(A, B0 , r) and intervals I1 , . . . , Ir
with Ij ⊆ [Pj , 2Pj ] of length 6Pj (log x)−C such that
X X X∗
αn1 ,...,nr Sn1 ···nr
q1 ∼Q1 q2 ∼Q2 n1 ,...,nr
(q1 q2 ,a)=1 ni ∼Ni ∀i
x X X X
rC
≪r + (log x) αn1 ,...,nr Sn1 ···nr .
(log x)A q ∼Q q2 ∼Q2 n1 ,...,nr
1 1
(q1 q2 ,a)=1 ni ∈Ii ∀i
P
Here ∗ means that the summation is restricted to O(1) inequalities of the form nα1 1 · · · nαr r 6B
for some constants α1 , . . . αr and some quantity B. The implied constant may depend on all
such exponents αi , but none of the quantities B.
Proof. See [22, Lemma 8.10]. 
Lemma 6.4. Let C, B > 0 be constants and let αn be a sequence satisfing the Siegel-
3
Walfisz condition (4.1), supported on n 62x with P − (n) >z0 = x1/(log log x) and satisfying
|αn | 6τ (n)B . Then 1τ (n) 6(log x)C αn also satisfies the Siegel-Walfisz condition.
Proof. See [22, Lemma 13.7]. 
Lemma 6.5 (Most moduli have small z0 -smooth part). Let Q < x1−ε . Let γb , cq be complex
1/(log log x)3
sequences with |γb |, |cb| 6τ (n)B0 and recall z0 := xQ and y0 := x1/ log log x . Let sm(n; z)
νp (n)
denote the z-smooth part of n. (i.e. sm(n; z) = p 6z p ). Then for every A > 0 we have
that
X X  1(b,q)=1  x
cq γb 1b≡a (mod q) − ≪A,B0 .
q∼Q
ϕ(q) (log x)A
b 6x
sm(q;z0 ) >y0

Proof. See [22, Lemma 13.10]. 

Lemma 6.6 (Splitting into coprime sets). Let N ⊆ Z2>0 be a set of pairs (a, b) satisfying:
(1) a, b 6xO(1) ,
(2) gcd(a, b) = 1,
(3) The number of prime factors of a and of b is ≪ (log log x)3 .
Then there is a partition N = N1 ⊔ N2 ⊔ · · · ⊔ NJ into J disjoint subsets with
 
J ≪ exp O(log log x)4 ,

such that if (a, b) and (a′ , b′ ) are in the same set Nj , then gcd(a, b′ ) = gcd(a′ , b) = 1.
Proof. This follows immediately from [13, Lemme 6]. Also see [22, Lemma 13.2] 

7. Exponential sum estimates

In this section, we cite important estimates for several exponential sums.
10
Lemma 7.1 (Weil bound for Kloosterman sums). Let S(m, n; c) be the Kloosterman sum

X  mb + nb 
S(m, n; c) := e .
c
b (mod c)
(b,c)=1

Then we have that

S(m, n; c) ≪ τ (c)c1/2 gcd(m, n, c)1/2 .

Proof. This is [20, Corollary 11.12]. Also see [22, Lemma 13.3] 

Lemma 7.2 (Completion of inverses). Let C > 0 and f : R → R be a smooth function which
is supported on [−10, 10] and satisfies kf (j) k∞ ≪j (log x)jC for all j >0. Let (d, q) = 1. Then
we have for any H >xε dq/N

X  n   bn  N fˆ(0) X  bc 
f e = e
N q dq q
(n,q)=1 (c,q)=1
n≡n0 (mod d)

N X  hN   n qh  X  bdc + hc 
ˆ 0
+ f e e + OC (x−100 ).
dq dq d q
1 6|h| 6H c (mod q)
(c,q)=1

Moreover, if kf (j) k∞ ≪ ((j+1) log x)jC then we have the same result for any H >(log x)2C+1 dq/N.

Proof. See [22, Lemma 13.5] 

Proposition 7.3 (Reduction to exponential sums). Let αn , βm , γq,d, λq,d,r be complex se-
quences with |αn |, |βn | 6τ (n)B0 and |γq,d| 6τ (qd)B0 and |λq,d,r | 6τ (qdr)B0 . Let αn and λq,d,r
be supported on integers with P − (n) >z0 and P − (r) >z0 , and let αn satisfy the Siegel-Walfisz
condition (4.1). Let

X X X X X  1(mn,qrd)=1 
S := λq,d,r γq,d βm αn 1mn≡a (mod qrd) − .
d∼D q∼Q r∼R m∼M n∼N
ϕ(qrd)
(d,a)=1 (q,a)=1 (r,a)=1

Let A > 0, 1 6E 6x and C = C(A, B0 ) be sufficiently large in terms of A, B0 , and let N, M

satisfy

N > QDE(log x)C , M > (log x)C .

Then we have
x  
1/2 1/2 OB0 (1) 1/2 1/2
|S| ≪A,B0 + MD Q (log x) |E1 | + |E2| ,
(log x)A
11
where
X X X X q λ
q,d,r1 λq,d,r2
E1 := µ2 (e) ψ0
e∼E q d∼D r1 ,r2 ∼R
Q ϕ(qder2 )qdr1
(q,a)=1 (d,a)=1 (r1 r2 ,a)=1
X X  hM   ahn 
1
× αn 1 αn 2 ψ̂0 e ,
n1 ,n2 ∼N
qdr1 qdr1
1 6|h| 6H1
(n1 ,qder1 )=1
(n2 ,qder2 )=1
X X q X X λq,d,r1 λq,d,r2
E2 := µ2 (e) ψ0
e∼E q Q d∼D r1 ,r2 ∼R
qdr1 r2
(q,a)=1 (d,a)=1 (r1 ,ar2 )=1
(r2 ,aqdr1 )=1
X X  hM   ahn r ahn2 qdr1 
1 2
× αn 1 αn 2 ψ̂0 e + ,
n1 ,n2 ∼N
qdr1 r2 qdr1 r2
1 6|h| 6H2
n1 ≡n2 (mod qde)
(n1 ,n2 eqdr1 )=1
(n2 ,n1 eqdr2 )=1
|n1 −n2 | >N/(log x)C
QDR
H1 := log5 x,
M
QDR2
H2 := log5 x.
M
Proof. This is [22, Theorem 14.4]. 
Lemma 7.4 (Simplification of exponential sum). Let N, M, Q, R, S 6x with NM ≍ x and
(7.1) QR < x2/3 ,
(7.2) QR2 < Mx1−2ε .
Let λq,r and αn be complex sequences supported on P − (n), P − (r) >z0 with |λq,r | 6τ (qr)B0
2
and |αn | 6τ (n)B0 . Let H := QR
M
log5 x and let
X q X λq,r1 λq,r2 X
E := ψ0 αn 1 αn 2
Q r1 ,r2 ∼R
qr1 r2 n1 ,n2 ∼N
(q,a)=1
(r1 ,ar2 )=1 n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(r2 ,aqr2 )=1 (n1 ,n2 qr1 )=1
(n2 ,n1 qr2 )=1
|n1 −n2 | >N/(log x)C
X  hM   ahn r ahn2 qr1 
1 2
× ψ̂0 e + .
qr1 r2 qr1 r2
1 6|h| 6H

Then we have (uniformly in C)

N2
E ≪B0 exp (log log x)5 sup |E ′ | + ,
H ′ 6H Qxε
Q′ 62Q
R1 ,R2 62R
12
where
X X λq,r1 λq,r2 X X  ahn qr (n − n ) 
′ 2 1 1 2
E = αn 1 αn 2 e ,
qr1 r2 n1 ,n2 ∼N
n1 r2
Q 6q 6Q′ R 6r1 6R1 1 6|h| 6H ′
(q,a)=1 R 6r2 6R2 n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(r1 ar2 )=1 (n1 ,qr1 n2 )=1
(r2 ,aqr1 )=1 (n2 ,qr2 n1 )=1
(n1 r2 ,n2 )∈N
|n1 −n2 | >N/(log x)C

and N is a set with the property that if (a, b) ∈ N and (a′ , b′ ) ∈ N then we have gcd(a, b′ ) =
gcd(a′ , b) = 1.
Proof. This is [22, Theorem 14.5]. 
Lemma 7.5 (Deshouillers–Iwaniec). Let bn,r,s be a 1-bounded sequence and R, S, N, D, C ≪
xO(1) . Let g(c, d) = g0 (c/C, d/D) where g0 is a smooth function supported on [1/2, 5/2] ×
[1/2, 5/2]. Then we have
X X X X X  ndr  X X X 1/2
bn,r,s g(c, d)e ≪g0 xε |bn,r,s |2 J.
r∼R s∼S n∼N d∼D c∼C
cs r∼R s∼S n∼N
(r,s)=1 (rd,sc)=1

where p
J 2 = CS(RS + N)(C + DR) + C 2 DS (RS + N)R + D 2 NR.
Proof. This is [22, Theorem 15.1]. Also see [9, Theorem 12] (correcting a minor typo in the
last term of J 2 which had erroneously written D 2 NR/S). 

8. Zhang-style estimates
In this section we establish a new Zhang-style exponential sum estimate.
Lemma 8.1 (Zhang exponential sum estimate). Let Q, R, S, M, N satisfy NM ≍ x and
7 12 10 4−18ε x1−5ε
QR S <x , Q<N < ,
QS 2
and let H ≪ QNR2 S 2 /x1−ε . Let λq,s , νr and αn be 1-bounded complex sequences supported
on r, s with P − (rs) >z0 . Let
X X X X αn1 αn2 λq,s1 νr1 λq,s2 νr2
Z :=
q∼Q s1 ,s2 ∼S r1 ,r2 ∼R n1 ,n2 ∼N
qr1 r2 s1 s2
(q,a)=1 (r1 s1 ,ar2 s2 )=1 n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(r2 s2 ,aqr1 s1 )=1 (n1 ,qr1 s1 n2 )=1
(n2 ,qr2 s2 n1 )=1
|n1 −n2 | >N/(log x)C
X  hM    n1 r2 s2 n2 qr1 s1 
× ψˆ0 e ah + ,
qr1 r2 s1 s2 qr1 s1 r2 s2
1 6|h| 6H

Then we have
N2
Z≪ .
Qxε
13
Proof. We assume throughout that H ≪ QR2 S 2 N/x1−ε and that Q ≪ N, and deduce the
other conditions are sufficient to give the result.
Since we only consider r1 , r2 , s1 , s2 with P − (r1 r2 s1 s2 ) >z0 , we see r1 , r2 , s1 , s2 have at most
(log log x)3 prime factors. Therefore, by Lemma 6.6, there are O(exp(log log x)5 )) different
sets N1 , N2 , . . . which cover all possible pairs (r1 s1 , r2 s2 ), and such that if (r1 s1 , r2 s2 ) and
(r1′ s1 , r2′ s2 ) ∈ Nj then gcd(r1 s1 , r2′ s2 ) = gcd(r1′ s1 , r2 s2 ) = 1. Taking the worst such set N ,
we see that

X X X X αn1 αn2 λq,s1 νr1 λq,s2 νr2
Z ≪ exp (log log x)5
q∼Q s ,s ∼S r ,r ∼R n ,n ∼N
qr1 r2 s1 s2
1 2 1 2 1 2
(q,a)=1 (r1 s1 ,ar2 s2 )=1 n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(r2 s2 ,aqr1 s1 )=1 (n1 ,qr1 s1 n2 )=1
(r1 s1 ,r2 s2 )∈N (n2 ,qr2 s2 n1 )=1
|n1 −n2 | >N/(log x)C
X  hM    n1 r2 s2 n2 qr1 s1 
× ψˆ0 e ah + .
qr1 r2 s1 s2 qr1 s1 r2 s2
1 6|h| 6H

We now Cauchy in n1 , n2 , s1 , s2 , q to eliminate the αn , λq,s coefficients and insert a smooth

majorant for the n1 and n2 summations. This gives (using Q ≪ N)

X X X 1  xε N 2
Z 2 ≪ exp 2(log log x)5 2
|Z2 | ≪ 2S2
|Z2 |,
q∼Q s ,s ∼S n ,n ∼N
(qs 1 s2 ) Q
1 2 1 2
n1 ≡n2 (mod q)

where
X X X n  n 
1 2
Z2 := ψ0 ψ0
q∼Q s1 ,s2 ∼S n1 ,n2 N N
(q,a)=1 (n1 n2 ,q)=1
X νr1 νr2 X  hM    n1 r2 s2 n2 qr1 s1  2
× ψˆ0 e ah + .
r1 ,r2 ∼R
r1 r2 qr1 r2 s1 s2 qr1 s1 r2 s2
1 6|h| 6H
(r1 s1 ,ar2 s2 n1 )=1
(r2 s2 ,aqr1 s1 n2 )=1
(r1 s1 ,r2 s2 )∈N

Note Z2 6|Z3 |/R4 for

X X X X X n  n   c n c2 n2 
1 2 1 1
Z3 := ψ0 ψ0 e + ,
q∼Q s1 ,s2 ∼S r1 ,r1′ ,r2 ,r2′ ∼R 1 6|h|,|h′| 6H n1 ,n2 N N qr1 r1′ s1 r2 r2′ s2
(qr1 r1′ ,r2 r2′ )=1 n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(n1 ,qr1 r1′ s1 )=1
(n2 ,r2 r2′ s2 )=1

and where c1 (mod qr1 r1′ s1 ) and c2 (mod r2 r2′ s2 ) are given by
c1 = a(hr1′ r2′ − h′ r1 r2 )r2 r2′ s2 ,
c2 = a(hr1′ r2′ − h′ r1 r2 )qr1 r1′ s1 .
(Here we used the fact that (r1 s1 , r2 s2 ), (r1′ s1 , r2′ s2 ) ∈ N to conclude (r1 s1 , r2′ s2 ) = (r1′ s1 , r2 s2 ) =
1.) In order to establish the desired bound Z ≪ N 2 /(xε Q), it suffices to show Z2 ≪
N 2 S 2 /x3ε , and so it suffices to prove
N 2 S 2 R4
(8.1) Z3 ≪ .
x3ε
14
We separate the diagonal terms Z= with hr1′ r2′ = h′ r1 r2 and the off-diagonal terms Z6= with
hr1′ r2′ 6= h′ r1 r2 .

(8.2) Z3 ≪ Z= + Z6= .

We first consider the diagonal terms Z= . Given a choice of h, r1′ , r2′ there are xo(1) choices of
h′ , r1 , r2 by the divisor bound. Thus, estimating the remaining sums trivially we have (using
Q ≪ N and H ≪ NQ(RS)2 /x1−ε )

N  N 3 Q(RS)4
(8.3) Z= ≪ xo(1) Q(RS)2 HN +1 ≪ .
Q x1−2ε

Now we consider the off-diagonal terms Z6= . By Lemma 7.2, we have that

X n   c n 
2 2 2
ψ0 e
N r2 r2′ s2
n2 ≡n1 (mod q)
(n2 ,r2 r2′ s2 )=1

N X  ℓN   ℓ n r r′ s 
2 2 1 2 2 2
= ψˆ0 S(c ,
2 2ℓ q; r r ′
2 2 2s )e + O(x−100 ).
qr2 r2′ s2 ′
qr2 r2 s2 q
|ℓ2 | 6xε QSR2 /N

here S(m, n; c) is the standard Kloosterman sum. By Lemma 7.2 again, we have that

X  n   c n + ℓ r r′ s n r r′ s 
1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2
ψ0 e
N qr1 r1′ s1
(n1 ,qr1 r1′ s1 )=1

N X  
= ψˆ0 ℓ1 N S(c1 , ℓ1 q; r1 r ′ s1 )S(c1 , ℓ1 r1 r ′ s1 + ℓ2 r2 r ′ s2 ; q) + O(x−100 ).
1 1 2
qr1 r1′ s1 ε 2
qr1 r1′ s1
|ℓ1 | 6x QSR /N

Thus, we see that Z3 is a sum of Kloosterman sums. By the standard Kloosterman sum
bound of Lemma 7.1 S(m, n; c) ≪ τ (c)c1/2 (m, n, c)1/2 ≪ c1/2+o(1) (m, c)1/2 , the inner sum has
the bound
X n  n   c n c2 n2 
1 2 1 1
ψ0 ψ0 e +
n1 ,n2 N N qr1 r1′ s1 r2 r2′ s2
n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(n1 ,qr1 r1′ s1 )=1
(n2 ,r2 r2′ s2 )=1

xo(1) N 2 X
≪ (QR4 S 2 )1/2 · (c2 , r2 r2′ s2 )1/2 (c1 , qr1 r1′ s1 )1/2
Q2 S 2 R4
|ℓ1 | 6xε QSR2 /N
|ℓ2 | 6xε QSR2 /N

≪ x3ε Q1/2 R2 S · (hr1′ r2′ − h′ r1 r2 , qr1 r1′ r2 r2′ s1 s2 )1/2

15
Substituting this into our expression for Z6= gives
X X X X X
Z6= ≪ x3ε Q1/2 R2 S (hr1′ r2′ − h′ r1 r2 , qr1 r1′ r2 r2′ s1 s2 )1/2
s1 ,s2 ∼S r1 ,r1′ ∼R r2 ,r2′ ∼R 1 6|h|,|h′| 6H q∼Q
hr1′ r2′ 6=h′ r1 r2

≪ x3ε Q1/2 R2 S (xε S 2 R4 H 2 Q) = x4ε Q3/2 R6 S 3 H 2

N 2 Q7/2 R10 S 7
(8.4) ≪ .
x2−6ε
Substituting (8.3) and (8.4) into (8.2) then gives
N 3 QR4 S 4 N 2 Q7/2 R10 S 7
Z3 ≪ + .
x1−2ε x2−6ε
This gives the desired bound (8.1) provided we have
x1−5ε
(8.5) N< ,
QS 2
(8.6) Q7 R12 S 10 < x4−18ε .
This gives the result. 
Lemma 8.2 (Second exponential sum estimate). Let Q, R, M, N 6xO(1) satisfy NM ≍ x
and
NQ < x1−4ε , NQ5/2 R3 < x2−4ε , N 2 QR < x2−4ε .
Let αn , λq,r be 1-bounded complex sequences, H1 = (QR log5 x)/M and
X X λq,r λq,r X X  hM   ahn 
e 1 2 1
Z := αn 1 αn 2 ψ̂0 e .
q∼Q r ,r ∼R
ϕ(qr2 )qr1 n ,n ∼N qr1 qr1
1 2 1 2 1 6|h| 6H1
(q,a)=1 (r1 r2 ,a)=1 (n1 ,qr1 )=1
(n2 ,qr2 )=1

Then we have
2
e ≪ N .
Z
Qxε
Proof. See [22, Lemma 17.2] 
We are now able to establish the following Zhang-style estimate. This is a variant of [22,
Proposition 8.2].
Proposition 8.3 (Zhang-style estimate). Let A > 0. Let N, M, Q1 , Q2 , Q3 >1 with NM ≍ x
be such that
x1−6ε
Q71 Q12
2 Q10
3 < x4−20ε
, Q 2 < Q Q3
1 3 , xε
Q1 < N < .
Q1 Q23
Let βm , αn be complex sequences such that |αn |, |βn | 6τ (n)B0 and such that αn satisfies the
Siegel-Walfisz condition (4.1) and αn is supported on n with all prime factors bigger than
3
z0 = x1/(log log x) . Let λq , νq , ηq be 1-bounded complex sequences
X X  1(mn,q)=1 
∆(q) := αn βm 1mn≡a (mod q) − .
m∼M
ϕ(q)
n∼N
16
Then we have X X X x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 ∆(q1 q2 q3 ) ≪A,B0 .
q1 ∼Q1 q2 ∼Q2 q3 ∼Q3
(log x)A
(q1 q2 q3 ,a)=1

Proof. First we note that by Lemma 6.1 the set of n, m with max(|αn |, |βm |) >(log x)C has
size ≪ x(log x)OB0 (1)−C , so by Lemma 6.2 these terms contribute negligibly if C = C(A, B0 )
is large enough. Thus, by dividing through by (log x)2C and considering A + 2C in place
of A, it suffices to show the result when all the sequences are 1-bounded. (αn still satisfies
(4.1) by Lemma 6.4.)
We factor q1 = d1 q, q2 = d2 r, q3 = d3 s into parts with large and small prime factors. By
putting these in dyadic intervals, we see that it suffices to show for every A > 0 and every
choice of D1 Q ≍ Q1 , D2 R ≍ Q2 , D3 S ≍ Q3 that
XXX X X X x
λqd1 νrd2 ηsd3 ∆(qrsd1d2 d3 ) ≪A A
.
q∼Q r∼R s∼S d ∼D d ∼D d ∼D
(log x)
1 1 2 2 3 3
P − (qrs)>z0 z0 >P + (d1 d2 d3 )
(qrs,a)=1

By Lemma 6.5 we have the result unless D1 , D2 , D3 6y0 = x1/ log log x , may assume that
Q = Q1 x−o(1) , R = Q2 x−o(1) , S = Q3 x−o(1) , . We let d = d1 d2 d3 , and extend the summa-
tion over d1 , d2 , d3 to only have the constraint d 6y03 and then insert some divisor-bounded
coefficients cd to absorb the conditions z0 >P + (d), d ∼ D. Also we modify the coefficients
λ′q = λq 1P − (q)>z0 , and similarly for νr′ , ηs′ . Thus it suffices to show that
X XXX x
ηs′ νr′ λ′q cd ∆(qrsd) ≪A .
3 s∼S r∼R q∼Q
(log x)A
d 6y0
(d,a)=1 (qrs,a)=1

If we let
X
λb1 ,b2 ,b3 = 1b1 =1 λ′q νr′ ηs′ cb2
qrs=b3

then we see that we have a sum of the type considered in Proposition 7.3 (taking ‘R’ to be
QR, ‘Q’ to be D and ‘E’ to be 1). By the assumptions of the proposition, we have that
NQRS 6NQ1 Q2 Q3 < x−o(1) , so we have H1 = (QDRS log5 x)/M < 1 and so the sum E1 of
Proposition 7.3 vanishes. Therefore, by Proposition 7.3, it suffices to show that
N2
E2 ≪ ,
Qxε
where H2 = (QR2 S 2 log5 x)/M and where
X q X X c X
q,r1 ,s1 cq,r2 ,s2
E2 := ψ0 αn 1 αn 2
Q r ,r ∼R s ,s ∼S qr1 r2 s1 s2 n1 ,n2 ∼N
(q,a)=1 1 2 1 2
(r1 s1 ,ar2 s2 )=1 n1 ≡n2 (mod q)
(r2 s2 ,aqr1 s1 )=1 (n1 ,n2 qr1 )=1
(n2 ,n1 qr2 s2 )=1
|n1 −n2 | >N/(log x)C
X  hM   ahn1 r2 s2 ahn2 qr1 s1 
× ψ̂0 e + .
qr1 r2 s1 s2 qr1 s1 r2 s2
1 6|h| 6H2
17
Now absorbing the ψ0 (q/Q) factors into the coefficients cq,r,s , we see these are precisely the
sums Ze and Z considered in Lemma 8.1 and Lemma 8.2. Thus, these lemmas give the result
provided we have
x1−5ε
(8.7) Q7 R12 S 10 < x4−18ε , Q<N < ,
QS 2
and
(8.8) NQ < x1−4ε , NQ5/2 (RS)3 < x2−4ε , N 2 Q(RS) < x2−4ε .
Recalling that Q = Q1 xo(1) , R = Q2 x−o(1) , S = Q3 x−o(1) , observe (8.7) holds by assumption.
Next, the first inequality in (8.8) follows from the second in (8.7), as N < x1−5ε /QS 2 <
x1−4ε /Q. The second inequality in (8.8) follows, since (8.7) implies Q3/2 R3 S < x1−4ε and
so NQ5/2 (RS)3 < (x1−5ε /QS 2 )Q5/2 (RS)3 = x1−5ε Q3/2 R3 S < x2−9ε . The third inequality in
(8.8) follows, since N 2 QRS < (x1−5ε /QS 2 )2 QRS = x1−10ε R/QS 3 < x2−9ε by assumption
R < QS 3 . (Throughout we may assume QRS >x1/2−ε or else the result follows from the
Bombieri-Vinogradov theorem). This completes the proof. 

9. Proof of Proposition 5.1 (type II estimate)

In this section we prove Proposition 5.1 using the new Zhang-style estimate from the prior
section, via the type II estimates below. We recall that Sn is defined by
1
Sn := 1n≡a (mod q) − 1(n,q)=1 ,
ϕ(q)
where the modulus q (or qr, qrs) is understood in context.
Lemma 9.1 (Type II estimate away from x1/2 ). Let A > 0 and QR 6x127/224−ε , and let
P1 , . . . , PJ >x1/7+10ε be such that P1 · · · PJ ≍ x and
Y
xε QR < Pj < x4/7−ε
j∈J

for some subset J ⊆ {1, . . . , J}.

Then we have X X X∗ x
Sp1 ···pJ ≪A .
q∼Q r∼R p1 ,...,pJ
(log x)A
(qr,a)=1 pi ∼Pi ∀i
P
Here ∗ indicates that the summation is restricted by O(1) inequalities of the form pα1 1 · · · pαJ J 6B.
The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi , but none of the quantities B.
Proof. This is [22, Propositon 8.12]. 
Lemma 9.2 (Type II estimate near x1/2 ). Let A > 0 and let Q, R, S satisfy
(9.1) R < QS 3 ,
(9.2) QS 2 < x1/2−20ε ,
(9.3) Q2 RS < x1−20ε ,
(9.4) Q7 R12 S 10 < x4−20ε .
18
Let P1 , . . . , PJ >x1/7+10ε be such that P1 · · · PJ ≍ x and
x1−ε Y
6 Pj 6xε QRS,
QRS j∈J

for some subset J ⊆ {1, . . . , J}.

Let λq , νq , ηq be complex sequences with |λq |, |νq |, |ηq | 6τ (q)B0 . Then we have
XXX X∗ x
λq νr ηs Sp1 ···pJ ≪A A
.
q∼Q r∼R s∼S p 1 ,...,p J
(log x)
pi ∼Pi ∀i
(qrs,a)=1
P
Here ∗ indicates that the summation is restricted by O(1) inequalities of the form pα1 1 · · · pαJ J 6B.
The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi , but none of the quantities B.
Proof. This follows quickly from Proposition 8.3. Indeed, by Lemma 6.3, it suffices to show
that XX X X x
λq νr ηs Sp1 ···pJ ≪B .
q∼Q r∼R s∼S p1 ,...,pJ (log x)B
(qrs,a)=1 pi ∈Ii ∀i

for every B > 0 and every choice of intervals I1 , . . . , IJ with Ij ⊂ [Pj , 2Pj ]. By reordering
Q Q
the indices, we may assume J = {1, . . . , k}. We now take N ≍ kj=1 Pj , and M ≍ Jj=k+1 Pj
and X X
αn := 1, βm := 1,
n=p1 ···pk m=pk+1 ···pJ
pi ∈Ii pi ∈Ii

Thus since Q7 R12 S 10 < x4−20ε , we see that Proposition 8.3 gives the result in the range
x1−7ε
Qxε < N <
QS 2
Importantly, we also have the result in the mirrored range QS 2 x7ε < N < x1−7ε /Q, by
swapping the roles of N, M. And since QS 2 < x1/2−20ε , together these cover the symmetric
range
x1−7ε
Qx7ε < N < .
Q
Finally since Q2 RS < x1−20ε , this covers the desired range
x1−ε
< N 6xε QRS.
QRS

Proof of Proposition 5.1. We note that Sp1 ···pJ (pJ ) is a weighted sum over integers p1 · · · pJ n ∼
x with P − (p1 . . . pJ n) >x1/7+10ε , and so with at most 6 prime factors. Expanding this into
separate terms according to the exact number of prime factors, it suffices to show
X X X X∗ x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 Sp1 ···pJ ≪A A
.
q ∼Q q ∼Q q ∼Q p 1 ,...,p J
(log x)
1 1 2 2 3 3
(q1 q2 q3 ,a)=1 pi ∼Pi ∀i
19
 Q Q
But this now follows from Lemma 9.1 and Lemma 9.2: Indeed, if J Pj or J Pj lies in
[xε Q1 Q2 Q23 , x4/7−ε ] then Lemma 9.1 with (Q, R) = (Q1 Q23 , Q2 ) gives the result, since by (5.1)
QR = (Q1 Q23 )Q2 < (x1/2+ε )(x1/32−ε ) = x17/32 < x127/224−ε .
Q Q
And if J Pj or J Pj lies in [x1/2 , xε Q1 Q2 Q23 ] then Lemma 9.2 with (Q, R, S) = (Q1 , Q2 Q3 , Q3 )
gives the result, since by (5.1) we deduce (9.1)—(9.4). Indeed,
QS 2 = Q1 Q23 < x1/2−2ε
Q2 RS = Q21 Q2 Q23 = (Q1 Q2 )(Q1 Q23 )
< (x1/2+ε )(x1/2−2ε ) < x1−ε
Q7 R12 S 10 = Q71 Q12 22 7 23 7 16
2 Q3 < Q1 Q2 = (Q1 Q2 ) Q2

< (x1/2+ε )7 (x1/32−ε )16 < x4−9ε ,

as well as
x1/16 x1/2
R = Q2 Q3 < Q3 < Q3 < Q1 Q33 = QS 3 .
Q2 Q2
Here we used x1/2 < Q1 Q2 Q23 , since otherwise the result follows by the Bombieri–Vinogradov
Theorem. This completes the proof. 

10. Proof of Proposition 5.3 (4 prime factors)

In this section we prove Proposition 5.3. We recall the following estimate for triple con-
volutions.
Proposition 10.1 (Estimate for triple convolutions). Let A, B0 > 0, KLM ≍ x, min(K, L, M) >
xε , a 6= 0 and x7/10−ε > Q > x1/2 (log x)−A . Let L, K satisfy
Qxε < KL,
QK < x1−2ε ,
x153/224−10ε
KL < ,
Q1/7
x57/32−10ε
KL4 < .
Q
Let ηk , λℓ , βm be complex sequences such that |ηn |, |λn |, |βn | 6τ (n)B0 and such that ηk satisfies
the Siegel-Walfisz condition (4.1), and such that ηk , λℓ be supported on integers with all prime
factors bigger than z0 . Let
XX X  1(kℓm,q)=1 
∆B (q) := ηk λℓ αm 1kℓm≡a (mod q) − .
k∼K ℓ∼L m∼M
ϕ(q)
Then we have X x
|∆B (q)| ≪A,B0 .
q∼Q
(log x)A
(q,a)=1

Proof. This is [22, Proposition 8.3]. 

20
Proof of Proposition 5.3 from Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 10.1. This follows just as in
the proof of [22, Proposition 7.3], except for (Q1 , Q2 ) replaced by (Q2 Q3 , Q1 ), and trilinear
weights λq1 νq2 ηq3 instead of absolute values. 

11. Proof of Proposition 5.2 (sieve asymptotics)

In this section we prove Proposition 5.2 using the following Fouvry-style and small divisor
estimates.
Proposition 11.1 (Fouvry-style estimate). Let A > 0 and C = C(A) be sufficiently large
in terms of A. Assume that N, M, Q, R satisfy NM ≍ x and
(11.1) xε Q < N,
(11.2) N 6 Q4 R8 < x5−ε ,
(11.3) QR2 < x1−ε N.
Let βm , αn be complex sequences such that |αn |, |βn | 6τ (n)B0 and such that αn satisfies the
Siegel-Walfisz condition (4.1) and αn is supported on n with all prime factors bigger than
3
z0 := x1/(log log x) . Let
X X  1(mn,q)=1 
∆(q) := αn βm 1mn≡a (mod q) − .
m∼M
ϕ(q)
n∼N
Then we have XX x
λq νr ∆(qr) ≪A,B0 .
q∼Q r∼R
(log x)A
(qr,a)=1

Proof. This appears as [21, Proposition p.243], noting the condition therein xε (Q+QR2 /x) <
N < x5/6−ε /(QR2 )2/3 is equivalent to (11.1)—(11.3). Also see [22, Proposition 12.1]. 
Proposition 11.2 (Small divisor estimate). Let A > 0 and C = C(A) be sufficiently large
in terms of A. Assume that N, M, Q, R satisfy NM ≍ x and
N 6 Q8 R7 < x4−13ε ,
QR2 < x1−7ε N.
Let βm , αn be complex sequences such that |αn |, |βn | 6τ (n)B0 and such that αn satisfies the
Siegel-Walfisz condition (4.1) and αn is supported on n with all prime factors bigger than
3
z0 := x1/(log log x) . Let
X X  1(mn,q)=1 
∆(q) := αn βm 1mn≡a (mod q) − .
m∼M
ϕ(q)
n∼N
Then we have XX x
|∆(qr)| ≪A,B0 .
q∼Q r∼R
(log x)A
(qr,a)=1

Proof. This is [22, Proposition 12.2]. 

By combining the two results above, we now prove a small factor type II estimate for
convolutions. This is a variant of [22, Lemma 12.3].
21
Lemma 11.3 (Small Factor Type II estimate for convolutions). Let Q1 , Q2 , Q3 satisfy
(11.4) Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε
(11.5) Q21 Q2 Q3 < x1−10ε
8/7
(11.6) Q1 Q2 Q23 < x4/7−10ε
(11.7) (Q1 Q2 )2 Q3 < x29/28−10ε
Let N, M be such that NM ≍ x and
xε < N < x1/7+10ε .
Let βm , αn be complex sequences such that |αn |, |βn | 6τ (n)B0 and such that αn satisfies the
Siegel-Walfisz condition (4.1) and αn is supported on n with all prime factors bigger than
3
z0 := x1/(log log x) . Let
X X  1(mn,q)=1 
∆(q) := αn βm 1mn≡a (mod q) − .
m∼M
ϕ(q)
n∼N

Let λq , νq , ηq be complex sequences supported on P − (q) >z0 with |λq |, |νq |, |ηQ | 6τ (q)B0 . Then
we have
X X X x
λq1 νq2 ηq3 ∆(q1 q2 q3 ) ≪A,B0 A
.
q ∼Q q ∼Q q ∼Q
(log x)
1 1 2 2 3 3
(q1 q2 q3 ,a)=1

Proof of Lemma 11.3 from Proposition 11.1. It suffices to consider Q1 Q2 Q3 >x1/2−ε , because
otherwise the result follows from the Bombieri-Vinogradov Theorem. Proposition 11.1 with
(Q, R) = (Q3 , Q1 Q2 ) gives the result when N lies in the range
 (Q Q )2 Q  x5/6−5ε
1 2 3
(11.8) Q3 x2ε = max , Q3 x2ε
< N < .
x1−ε ((Q1 Q2 )2 Q3 )2/3
Here the max in the lower bound equals Q3 x2ε since Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε by assumption (11.4).
Next, Proposition 11.2 with (Q, R) = (Q2 Q3 , Q1 ) gives the result when N lies in one of the
ranges
Q21 Q2 Q3 x2/3−3ε
(11.9) < N <
x1−7ε 7/6
Q1 (Q2 Q3 )8/6
The ranges (11.8) and (11.9) overlap provided

ε x2/3−3ε
Q3 x < 7/6
.
Q1 (Q2 Q3 )8/6
8/7
This holds since Q1 Q2 Q23 < x4/7−5ε by assumption.
Hence the result holds in the combined ranges (11.8), (11.9), that is,
Q21 Q2 Q3 x5/6−5ε
(11.10) < N <
x1−7ε ((Q1 Q2 )2 Q3 )2/3
22
Note the lower bound in (11.10) implies N > xε >Q21 Q2 Q3 /x1−7ε by assumption. Moreover,
the upper bound in (11.10) implies N < x1/7+10ε as desired, provided
x5/6−5ε
x1/7+10ε < .
((Q1 Q2 )2 Q3 )2/3
This in turn follows from (Q1 Q2 )2 Q3 < x29/28−10ε , which completes the proof. 
Using Lemma 11.3, we deduce the following consequence. This is a variant of [22, Propo-
sition 10.1]. Recall that Sn is defined by
1
Sn := 1n≡a (mod q) − 1(n,q)=1 .
ϕ(q)
where the modulus q (or qrs) is understood in context.
Proposition 11.4 (Consequence of small factor type II estimate). Let Q, R, S satisfy
(11.11) QR < x1/2+ε
(11.12) Q2 RS < x1−10ε
(11.13) QR8/7 S 2 < x4/7−10ε
(11.14) (QR)2 S < x29/28−10ε
Let αd , βe , γm complex sequences with |αn |, |βn |, |γn | 6τ (n)B0 and such that γm satisfies the
Siegel-Walfisz condition (4.1). Assume that
D, E, P ∈ [xε , x1/7+10ε ]
and let MNDEP ≍ x. Let λq , νq , ηq be complex sequences supported on P − (q) >z0 with
|λq |, |νq |, |ηq | 6τ (q)B0 . Then we have for every A > 0
XX X XXX X ∗
X x
λq νr ηs αd βe γm Snmpde ≪A,B0 .
q∼Q r∼R s∼S d∼D e∼E p∼P m∼M n∼N
(log x)A
(qrs,a)=1 P − (d),P − (n) >p
P
Here ∗ indicates that the summation is restricted by O(1) inequalities of the form
pα1 dα2 eα3 mα4 nα5 6B. The implied constant may depend on all such exponents αi , but none
of the quantities B.
Proof of Proposition 11.4 from Proposition 11.1. This follows just as in the proof of [22,
Proposition 10.1], except with trilinear weights λq νr ηs instead of absolute values. In this
case, the small factor type II convolution estimate in Lemma 11.3 replaces that of [22,
Lemma 12.3], and consequently the range xε < N < x1/7+ε in Lemma 11.3 leads to the
result under the assumption D, E, P ∈ [xε , x1/7+10ε ]. 
We are now in a position to prove the sieve asymptotics in Proposition 5.2.
Proof of Proposition 5.2 from Proposition 5.1 and Proposition 11.4. This follows just as in
the proof of [22, Proposition 7.2], except for Q1 replaced by Q1 Q2 Q23 , and quadrilinear
weights λq1 νq2 ηq3 µq4 instead of absolute values. In this case, the small factor type II estimate
in Proposition 12.2 replaces that of [22, Proposition 10.1], and consequently we use the cutoff
y1 := xε instead of y1 := x1−ε /(Q1 Q2 Q23 )15/8 .
23
 Note we may apply Proposition 11.4, since (5.2) implies (11.11) with (Q, R, S) = (Q1 , Q2 , Q23 ),

QR = Q1 Q2 < x1/2+ε ,
Q2 RS = Q21 Q2 Q23 = (Q1 Q2 )(Q1 Q23 )
< (x1/2+ε )(x1/2−2ε ) < x1−ε ,
Q2 R2 S = Q21 Q22 Q23 = (Q1 Q2 )(Q1 Q23 )Q2
< (x1/2+ε )(x1/2−2ε )x1/32−ε = x33/32 < x29/28−ε ,
8/7 15/7
QR8/7 S 2 = Q1 Q2 Q43 < (Q1 Q2 )Q2
< (x1/2+ε )(x1/32−ε )15/7 < x127/224 < x4/7−ε .


12. Proof of Proposition 5.4 (3 prime factors)

In this section we prove Proposition 5.4. We begin by recalling the following triple divisor
function estimate.
Lemma 12.1. Let x2ε 6N1 6N2 6N3 and xε 6M and Q1 , Q2 >1 be such that Q1 Q2 6x1−ε ,
N1 N2 N3 M ≍ x and
5/2
MQ1 Q32 x2−15ε
6N3 6 .
x1−15ε Q31 Q22 M
Let αm be a 1-bounded complex sequence, Ij ⊆ [Nj , 2Nj ] an interval and
X X  1(mn1 n2 n3 ,q)=1 
∆K (q) := αm 1mn1 n2 n3 ≡a (mod q) − .
m∼M n ∈I
ϕ(q)
1 1
n2 ∈I2
n3 ∈I3
−
P (n1 n2 n3 ) >z0

Then for every A > 0 we have

X X x
∆K (q1 q2 ) ≪A .
q1 ∼Q1 q2 ∼Q2
(log x)A
(q1 ,a)=1 (q2 ,a)=1

Proof. This is [22, Lemma 20.7] 

We now establish a variant of the triple divisor estimate in [22, Proposition 11.1], under
the weaker constraint M = xε
Proposition 12.2 (Estimate for triple divisor function). Let A > 0. Let Q, R satisfy

Q3 R2 < x11/7−30ε ,
(12.1) Q11 R12 < x6−30ε ,
QR < x8/15−30ε .
24
Let x3/7 >N3 >N2 >N1 >xε =: M satisfy N1 N2 N3 M ≍ x. Let |αm | 6τ (m)B0 be a complex
sequence, let I1 , I2 , I3 be intervals with Ij ⊆ [Nj , 2Nj ], and let
X X  1(mn1 n2 n3 ,q)=1 
∆K (q) := αm 1mn1 n2 n3 ≡a (mod q) − .
m∼M n ∈I
ϕ(q)
1 1
n2 ∈I2
n3 ∈I3
−
P (n1 n2 n3 ) >z0

Then we have
X X x
|∆K (qr)| ≪A .
q∼Q r∼R
(log x)A
(q,a)=1 (r,a)=1

Proof. First we note that by Lemma 6.1 the set of m with |αm | >(log x)C has size ≪
x(log x)OB0 (1)−C , so by Lemma 6.2 these terms contribute negligibly if C = C(A, B0 ) is
large enough. Thus, by dividing through by (log x)C and considering A + C in place of A, it
suffices to show the result when |αm | 61.
Since N1 N2 N3 ≍ x1−ε and N3 >N2 >N1 we have N3 ≫ x1/3−ε . We first apply Lemma 12.1
with M = xε and (Q1 , Q2 ) = (QR, 1). This gives the result provided

Q5/2 R5/2 x2−16ε

(12.2) < N3 < .
x1−12ε Q3 R3
Similarly, we apply Lemma 12.1 with (Q1 , Q2 ) = (Q, R), which gives the result provided

Q5/2 R3 x2−16ε
(12.3) < N3 < .
x1−14ε Q3 R2
These ranges (12.2) and (12.3) overlap, provided

Q5/2 R3 x2−16ε
< ,
x1−14ε Q3 R3
which holds since Q11 R12 < x6−30ε . Thus the result holds in the combined range
Q5/2 R5/2 x2−16ε
(12.4) < N3 < .
x1−12ε Q3 R2
This covers the stated range x1/3−ε < N3 < x3/7+ε , since by assumption

Q3 R2 < x11/7−30ε , QR < x8/15−30ε .

This gives the result. 

Proof of Proposition 5.4 assuming Propositions 5.3 and 11.4. This follows just as in the proof
of [22, Proposition 7.4], except for ‘Q1 ’ replaced by Q2 Q23 , and with quadrilinear weights
λq1 νq2 ηq3 µq4 instead of absolute values. In this case, the triple divisor function estimate in
Proposition 12.2 replaces that of [22, Proposition 11.1], and consequently we use the cutoff
y1 := xε instead of y1 := x1−ε /(Q1 Q2 Q23 )15/8 . Note Proposition 12.2 may be applied here,
25
since (5.3) implies (12.1) with (Q, R) = (Q1 , Q2 Q23 ): Indeed, by (5.3) we have
Q11 R12 = Q11 2 12
1 (Q2 Q3 ) < Q11 24 11 13
1 Q2 = (Q1 Q2 ) Q2

< (x1/2+ε )11 (x1/32−ε )13 = x189/32−2ε < x6−30ε ,

Q3 R2 = Q31 (Q2 Q23 )2 < Q31 Q42 = (Q1 Q2 )3 Q2
< (x1/2+ε )3 (x1/32−ε ) < x49/32+2ε < x11/7−30ε ,
QR = Q1 Q2 Q23 < (Q1 Q2 )Q2
< (x1/2+ε )(x1/32−ε ) = x17/32 < x8/15−30ε .
(Note the optimal triple above is (Q1 , Q2 , Q3 ) = (x15/35+2ε , x1/32−ε , x1/64−2ε )). 

Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to James Maynard and Carl Pomerance for many valuable discus-
sions. The author is supported by a Clarendon Scholarship at the University of Oxford.

References
1. W. R. Alford, A. Granville, C. Pomerance. There are infinitely many Carmichael numbers. Ann. of Math.
139:703–722, 1994.
2. R. C. Baker, G. Harman. Shifted primes without large prime factors. Acta Arith. 83:331–360, 1998.
3. A. Balog. p + a without large prime factors. Sém. Théorie des Nombres Bordeaux (1983-84), exposé 31.
4. E. Bombieri. On the large sieve. Mathematika, 12:201–225, 1965.
5. E. Bombieri, J. Friedlander, and H. Iwaniec. Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli. Acta
Math., 156(3-4):203–251, 1986.
6. E. Bombieri, J. Friedlander, and H. Iwaniec. Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli. II. Math.
Ann., 277(3):361–393, 1987.
7. E. Bombieri, J. Friedlander, and H. Iwaniec. Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli. III. J.
Amer. Math. Soc., 2(2):215–224, 1989.
8. R. Crandall and C. Pomerance. Prime numbers: a computational perspective. Springer-Verlag, New York,
2001.
9. J.-M. Deshouillers and H. Iwaniec. Kloosterman sums and Fourier coefficients of cusp forms. Invent.
Math., 70(2):219–288, 1982/83.
10. P. D. T. A. Elliott and H. Halberstam. A conjecture in prime number theory. In Symposia Mathematica,
Vol. IV (INDAM, Rome, 1968/69), pages 59–72. Academic Press, London, 1970.
11. P. Erdős. On the normal number of prime factors of p − 1 and some related problems concerning Euler’s
ϕ-function. Quart. J. Math., Oxford Ser. 6:205–213, 1935.
12. P. Erdős. On pseudoprimes and Carmichael numbers. Publ. Math. Debrecen, 4:201–206, 1956.
P. Erdős: On pseudoprimes and Carmichael numbers, Publ. Math. Debrecen 4 (1956), 201–206
13. E. Fouvry. Autour du théorème de Bombieri-Vinogradov. Acta Math., 152(3-4):219–244, 1984.
14. E. Fouvry. Autour du théorème de Bombieri-Vinogradov. II. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. (4), 20(4):617–
640, 1987.
15. E. Fouvry, F. Grupp. On the switching principle in sieve theory. J. reine angew. Math. 370:101–125,
1986.
16. J.B. Friedlander. Shifted primes without large prime factors. Number Theory and Applications, Kluwer,
Berlin, 393–401, 1989.
17. A. Granville. Smooth numbers: Computational number theory and beyond. Algorithmic Number Theory
(eds. J. Buhler and P. Stevenhagen), MSRI Publications 44, 2008.
18. G. Harman. Prime-detecting sieves, volume 33 of London Mathematical Society Monographs Series.
Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007.
26
19. G. Harman. Watt’s mean value theorem and Carmichael numbers. Int. J. Number Theory, 4:241–248,
2008.
20. H. Iwaniec and E. Kowalski. Analytic number theory, volume 53 of American Mathematical Society
Colloquium Publications. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2004.
21. H. Iwaniec and J. Pomykala. Sums and differences of quartic norms. Mathematika, 40:233–245, 1993.
22. J. Maynard. Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli I: fixed residue classes. Mem. Amer. Math.
Soc., to appear.
23. J. Maynard. Primes in arithmetic progressions to large moduli II: well-factorable estimates. Mem. Amer.
Math. Soc., to appear.
24. C. Pomerance. Popular values of Euler’s function. Mathematika, 27:84–89, 1980.
25. C. Pomerance and I.E. Shparlinski. Smooth orders and cryptographic applications. Proc. ANTS-V,
Sydney, Australia, Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2369:338–348, 2002.
26. P. Shiu. A Brun-Titchmarsh theorem for multiplicative functions. J. Reine Angew. Math., 313:161–170,
1980.
27. A. I. Vinogradov. The density hypothesis for Dirichet L-series. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 29:903–
934, 1965.
28. K. R. Wooldridge. Values taken many times by Euler’s phi-function. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc, 76:229–234,
1979.
29. Y. Zhang. Bounded gaps between primes. Ann. of Math. (2), 179(3):1121–1174, 2014.

Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK

Email address: jared.d.lichtman@gmail.com

27