Suppose $L$ is a Boolean language, of finite strings over $\{0,1\}$. Let $L_n$ be the number of strings in $L$ with length $n$. For a function $d(n)$ from the positive integers to the positive real numbers, $L$ has upper density $d(n)$ if $L_n \le 2^n d(n)$ for all sufficiently large $n$.
Do any P-complete Boolean languages have upper density $O(1/n)$?
Motivation
PARITY has upper density $1/2$. YES (the language of all finite binary strings) has upper density 1. Any finite language has upper density 0.
A sparse language $L$ has the property that there is a polynomial $p(n)$ such that $L_n - L_{n-1} \le p(n)$ for all $n$. If $L$ is a sparse language, then $L_n \le p_1(n)$ for a polynomial $p_1$ of degree one greater than that of $p$, so the upper density of $L$ is zero.
Jin-Yi Cai and D. Sivakumar showed that a P-complete language cannot be sparse unless P = L (= LOGSPACE). Since P=co-P, any language of which the complement is sparse cannot be P-complete either, unless P=L.
By a simple inequality (see e.g. Corollary 2 of Rosser and Schoenfeld 1962), PRIMES has upper density $(\log_2 e)/n$. Question Are the problems PRIMES, FACTORING known to be P-hard? discusses whether PRIMES is P-hard (this seems to be open currently).
In some sense, the complete (or universal)languages for a complexity class contain all the structure of the class. So my tentative hypothesis, based on a wild extrapolation of Cai and Sivakumar's result, would be that such languages cannot be too sparse. The usual polynomial bound defining sparse languages seems too restrictive, so I'm asking about a bound that is a little less restrictive.
The work on lowness by Fortnow, Hemaspaandra, and others is also possibly related.
The question can be asked of classes other than P, but I can't recall any results that would allow establishing density of, say, $k$-SAT. Pointers to relevant literature would be most welcome.
Acknowledgements
See also related question Conditional density of primes. Thanks to @Tsuyoshi Ito and @Kaveh for helpful comments on an earlier version of this question, which was unfortunately ill-posed.