Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Source. Section 4.2, printed pp. 387–388 (PDF pp. 7–8). The argument expands the residue, coprimality and termination details implicit in the published chain.

Statement and invariants

Let Q′\mathcal Q' be a nonempty finite family of distinct moduli greater than one, with pairwise disjoint classes aq(modq)a_q\pmod q, distinct square-free kernels, and one common value ω(q)=K≥1\omega(q)=K\ge1. There exist positive integers R≤KR\le K, pairwise coprime integers P1,…,PR>1P_1,\ldots,P_R>1, and nested nonempty families

Q′=Q0′⊇Q1⊇Q1′⊇⋯⊇QR⊇QR′\mathcal Q'=\mathcal Q'_0\supseteq\mathcal Q_1\supseteq\mathcal Q'_1 \supseteq\cdots\supseteq\mathcal Q_R\supseteq\mathcal Q'_R

with Sr′=∣Qr′∣S'_r=|\mathcal Q'_r|, Sr=∣Qr∣S_r=|\mathcal Q_r|, such that, writing Dr=P1⋯PrD_r=P_1\cdots P_r and wr=ω(Pr)w_r=\omega(P_r),

wr≥1,∑r=1Rwr=K,QR′={DR},(1)w_r\ge1,\qquad \sum_{r=1}^R w_r=K,\qquad \mathcal Q'_R=\{D_R\}, \tag{1}

and for every stage,

Sr≥Sr−1′7wrKwr−1h(Pr)2,Sr′≥Sr/Pr.(2)S_r\ge\frac{S'_{r-1}}{7^{w_r}K^{w_r-1}h(P_r)^2}, \qquad S'_r\ge S_r/P_r. \tag{2}

Every q∈Qrq\in\mathcal Q_r is divisible by DrD_r and satisfies gcd⁡(Dr,q/Dr)=1\gcd(D_r,q/D_r)=1. On Qr′\mathcal Q'_r, all residues aqa_q agree modulo each PjP_j, 1≤j≤r1\le j\le r, hence modulo DrD_r.

Why the residual family intersects

Suppose stages through r−1r-1 have been constructed, put D=Dr−1D=D_{r-1}, and consider

Br={q/D:q∈Qr−1′}.\mathcal B_r=\{q/D:q\in\mathcal Q'_{r-1}\}.

All its members have exactly K−∑j<rwjK-\sum_{j<r}w_j prime factors and are coprime to DD. If this number is zero, every residual modulus is one, so Qr−1′={D}\mathcal Q'_{r-1}=\{D\} and the process stops. Otherwise every residual modulus exceeds one.

For distinct residual moduli B,B′B,B', if gcd⁡(B,B′)=1\gcd(B,B')=1 then gcd⁡(DB,DB′)=D\gcd(DB,DB')=D. Their original residues agree modulo DD, so the generalized Chinese remainder theorem makes the progressions intersect, a contradiction. Thus the residual prime supports form an intersecting family. They are distinct because the original kernels were distinct and the same prime support of DD was removed from each. A singleton residual family with positive support also satisfies this condition; it is not stopped prematurely.

Choosing a core and its complete exponents

Apply Lemma 3.5 to the residual kernels. It produces a set-minimal intersecting family Cr\mathcal C_r of square-free cores, and every B∈BrB\in\mathcal B_r is divisible by a core. Fix one such core C(B)C(B) for every BB, for example the least one. Since ∑w≥12−w=1\sum_{w\ge1}2^{-w}=1, some integer w≥1w\ge1 has

#{B:ω(C(B))=w}≥Sr−1′/2w.\#\{B:\omega(C(B))=w\}\ge S'_{r-1}/2^w.

The sum need only range over the finitely many occurring sizes, a nonempty set. If every such class were smaller than its displayed share, their total would be smaller than Sr−1′S'_{r-1}. By Lemma 3.4, there are at most wKw−1wK^{w-1} cores of size ww. Some one core CC therefore divides at least

N≥Sr−1′2wwKw−1≥Sr−1′4wKw−1(3)N\ge\frac{S'_{r-1}}{2^w wK^{w-1}} \ge\frac{S'_{r-1}}{4^wK^{w-1}} \tag{3}

assigned residual moduli; we used w≤2ww\le2^w.

Write the primes of CC as p1,…,pwp_1,\ldots,p_w. Partition those NN moduli by their positive exponent tuples (ν1,…,νw)(\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_w) at these primes. The sum of the weights ∏iνi−2\prod_i\nu_i^{-2} over all positive tuples is ζ(2)w\zeta(2)^w. Weighted pigeonholing gives an occurring tuple with class size at least

Nζ(2)w(ν1⋯νw)2.\frac{N}{\zeta(2)^w(\nu_1\cdots\nu_w)^2}.

Set Pr=∏ipiνiP_r=\prod_i p_i^{\nu_i}. These are the full exponents of the selected primes in each residual modulus of the class. Thus Pr∣BP_r\mid B, gcd⁡(Pr,B/Pr)=1\gcd(P_r,B/P_r)=1, and h(Pr)=∏iνih(P_r)=\prod_i\nu_i. The bound ζ(2)<1+1/4+∫2∞t−2 dt=7/4\zeta(2)<1+1/4+\int_2^\infty t^{-2}\,dt=7/4 and (3) give the first inequality in (2) for the corresponding original moduli, which define Qr\mathcal Q_r.

All selected primes lie outside DD, so PrP_r is coprime to the earlier blocks. The full-exponent property also proves gcd⁡(DPr,q/(DPr))=1\gcd(DP_r,q/(DP_r))=1 on Qr\mathcal Q_r. This is stronger than merely choosing the square-free product CC.

Residues and termination

Partition Qr\mathcal Q_r by aq(modPr)a_q\pmod{P_r}. There are PrP_r residue classes, so some nonempty class Qr′\mathcal Q'_r has at least Sr/PrS_r/P_r members. Previously fixed residues remain fixed under restriction. This gives the second inequality in (2) and restores every invariant at stage rr.

Each stage removes wr≥1w_r\ge1 prime supports from every remaining modulus. The process can therefore continue for at most KK stages. It stops exactly when no residual support remains, at which point each remaining modulus equals DRD_R. Distinctness of the moduli and nonemptiness then give QR′={DR}\mathcal Q'_R=\{D_R\} and (1).

Source precision. The introductory example on p. 386 says that agreement modulo 6 for moduli divisible by 2 and 3 forces a shared prime other than 2 and 3. Without controlling the full exponents, that is false: 0(mod12)0\pmod{12} and 6(mod36)6\pmod{36} are disjoint, their residues agree modulo 6, and their moduli use only 2 and 3. The full-block invariant above is the one actually needed and produced by Section 4.2. The October 2012 manuscript explicitly lists the previous residue agreements in condition (2); the journal list omits that clause, but the nested construction preserves it.

Use. The full upper-bound computation is in Theorem 1. Theorem 2 changes only the core-frequency step under its separate conjectural input.