nt.number theory - A result on prime numbers

Disclaimer: I am no specialist in Analytic Number Theory, nor did I read the whole paper under the link. I just looked into the end of the argument, and there is a limit computation (10) there.

From what I know from Analysis, this computation is clearly wrong, not in the sense that the answer is necessarily wrong, but in the sense that the premises do not justify the conclusion. The author attempts to compute the lower limit of the product

$$liminf_{ntoinfty}left(frac{p_n}{log p_n}logfrac{p_{n+1}}{p_n}right)$$
as the product of the limits. He replaces the second factor with $log(1)=0$ and proceeds to claim that the lower limit of the product is $0$. However, even though the (lower) limit of the second factor may well be $0$, the limit of the first factor is clearly $infty$, so one cannot compute the lower limit of the product in this way.

• Next evolution - Population genetics and the fitness probability distribution. Why is the arithmetic mean all we need?
• Previous nt.number theory - Typical value of totient function