Source. Theorem 3.1, preprint p. 5; proof pp. 5--6; section
introduction p. 4. Read on the rendered pages.
Statement
Take a monotonic sequence of integers an (n≥1), each greater than
1, and integers bn whose increments satisfy bn+1−bn=o(an+1).
The series
S=n=1∑∞a1⋯anbn
is rational exactly when there are n0 and a constant c with
bn=c(an−1) for every n≥n0.
The statement prints "monotonic"; the section opens (p. 4) with "Let
{an}n=1∞ be a nondecreasing sequence of integers with
an>1 for all n", and the printed proof uses an+1≥an. A
nonincreasing integer sequence bounded below by 2 is eventually
constant, so in either reading an is nondecreasing from some index on,
and the proof works only with indices n≥n1; this observation is
the corpus's, not the paper's. The section
introduction records that Hančl–Tijdeman [5] had the conclusion under (i)
bn=n and an→∞ (their Theorem 6.2), (ii) an=n and
bn+1−bn=o(n) (their Corollary 4.2), or (iii) bn=o(an2), bn≥0,
bn+1−bn<εan for n≥n1(ε); Theorem 3.1
is the common generalization of (i) and (ii), and Theorem 3.2 (p. 6) drops
bn=o(an2) from (iii) for positive bn with
limsup(bn+1−bn)/an≤0.
Proof structure (pp. 5--6)
One direction is Lemma 2.1(i). For the other, suppose S=r/q, so
qRn∈Z for all n, where Rn=∑m≥nbm/(an⋯am)
satisfies (6) Rn+1=anRn−bn and (7) Rn=o(a1⋯an−1).
From (6), (8)
Rn+2−Rn+1=(Rn+1−Rn)an+1+Rn(an+1−an)−(bn+1−bn).
Using an+1≥an, q(Rn+1−Rn)∈Z and
bn+1−bn<an+1/(4q) for n≥n1: if Rm+1>Rm≥0 for some
m≥n1, an induction gives
Rm+r+1−Rm+r>am+1⋯am+r/(2q), so
Rn+1/(a1⋯an) has a nonzero limit, contradicting (7). Hence
Rm+1≤Rm whenever Rm≥0, and by symmetry (bn→−bn)
Rm+1≥Rm whenever Rm≤0, for m≥n1. If Rn is eventually
constant, then bn=(an−1)Rn is eventually a constant multiple of
an−1 (Lemma 2.2 gives rationality; the constancy of bn/(an−1) is
what the theorem asserts). Otherwise Rn changes sign infinitely often;
at a sign change Rm≤0<Rm+1 one gets bm<0, bm+1<am+1/(4q)
and Rm+2−Rm+1>0, and the same induction again contradicts (7).
■
Specialization to factorial series
Take an=n+1 and bn=bn+1′ for a given integer sequence bn′, so
that S=∑n≥2bn′/n!; the hypothesis becomes bn+1′−bn′=o(n)
and the conclusion: ∑bn′/n! is rational exactly when bn′/(n−1)
is eventually constant. For bn′=pn the increment hypothesis is
the gap bound pn+1−pn=o(n) (from the prime number theorem with
remainder, as on the
density page
of the 1958 card), and pn/(n−1)→∞ is not eventually constant; so
∑pn/n! is irrational, the case k=1 of
Erdős 1958.
For bn′=pnk with k≥2 the increments pn+1k−pnk are of order
pnk−1(pn+1−pn), not o(n), so the theorem does not apply. For
an=2 the hypothesis bn+1−bn=o(1) forces eventually constant
bn, so the theorem says nothing about ∑pn/2n.
Bears on. #251 (context: a reproof of
the k=1 theorem cited on the problem page; not applicable to the
problem's series).