Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
For in Lemma 3.1,
The same bound holds with replaced by either or . The common sign calculation below explicitly supplies this part of the later analogues.
Proof. Write and let be one of the three functions. Put for and for . For an admissible representation , coprimality and the fact that has at most two prime factors greater than give
The error is absolute and uniform. For a repeated prime factor of , the formulas for and give the same bound; the totient case is immediate. Moreover , so .
Let be a set on which is nondecreasing. Count all admissible representations for its elements, allowing overcounting. For and , write for the number of these representations with that fixed . Only and can contribute. We prove
There are possible , and , so (3) implies (1).
Fix . Partition into consecutive half-open intervals of ratio , with , truncating the last one. There are intervals. Partition into consecutive intervals of ratio , with , again truncating the last one. There are intervals. Let be the closed convex hull of the numbers having a counted representation with . It may be empty or a singleton, with length zero.
If , counted primes and satisfy . For counted in the same , . Formula (2) therefore shows that the difference between and has the sign of
Indeed its magnitude from this term is at least , whereas the total error is . For all sufficiently large , that error is smaller. All quotients are legitimate because .
Thus for one has , forcing by monotonicity on ; for one has , forcing . Consequently hulls whose indices differ by at least two are strictly separated, in one direction or the other. Within a fixed they overlap at most twice. Hulls for different are disjoint, so
All assertions about empty hulls are vacuous. Strict separation for nonempty hulls follows because they are hulls of finite sets.
For fixed , the number of positive integers with in a hull of length is at most . Dropping the primality condition when bounding the number of in each gives
The main length terms in the count are therefore, by (4), at most . The total of the terms is at most
using the necessary bound . As , these estimates prove (3), including the hulls of length zero.
The original proposition is the totient case. The positive-sign version above supplies the source's stated reversal for and ; it uses no unproved monotonicity of their ratios.
Source. Tao, published paper, published pp.805–808, Proposition 3.3; pp.816–819 for the analogues. This page uses that published version.
Bears on. Problem 49.