Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Source. Theorem 6, p. 458, of Kurt Mahler, On the lattice points on curves of genus 1, Proc. London Math. Soc. (2) 39 (1935), 431--466, the edition named on the source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement was read clause by clause on p. 458. The paper gives no separate proof; it says the theorem follows by specializing the form and the angle in Theorem 5, whose proof was read for its structure. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Statement

Theorem 6 (p. 458). There is an infinite set of positive integers k1,k2,k3,…k_1,k_2,k_3,\ldots with

1≤k1<k2<k3<⋯1\le k_1<k_2<k_3<\cdots

such that the number of representations of kνk_\nu as a sum of two cubes of positive integers is greater than log⁡kν4\sqrt[4]{\log k_\nu}.

The print does not say whether the two orders of the summands count as different representations.

Proof pointer

P. 458. The paper says only that Theorems 6 and 7 follow by specializing FF and GG in Theorem 5. One reading of that step: take F(x,y)=x3+y3F(x,y)=x^3+y^3, which has only simple linear factors, and an angle with 0<A<B0<A<B, so that the solutions in GG have x,yx,y nonzero and of one sign; since F(−x,−y)=−F(x,y)F(-x,-y)=-F(x,y), changing all signs if k<0k<0 gives at least tt representations of ∣k∣|k| by cubes of positive integers. Taking γ<1\gamma<1, the bound ∣k∣≤eγt4|k|\le e^{\gamma t^4} gives t>(log⁡∣k∣)1/4t>(\log|k|)^{1/4}, and letting t→∞t\to\infty gives infinitely many such integers.

Dependencies

Theorem 5.

Bears on

  • Problem 829, as a lower bound for the quantity the problem asks to bound above: with AA the set of cubes, every representation counted in Theorem 6 is a pair of cubes of positive integers summing to kνk_\nu, so 1A∗1A(kν)>(log⁡kν)1/41_A\ast1_A(k_\nu)>(\log k_\nu)^{1/4} for infinitely many ν\nu, whichever way the print counts order. A bound 1A∗1A(n)≪(log⁡n)c1_A\ast1_A(n)\ll(\log n)^{c} would therefore need c≥1/4c\ge1/4. The paper proves no upper bound, which is what the problem asks for.