Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Statement

Notation (p. 34). For real yy, R(y)R(y) is the reduced value of yy modulo 11: 0≤R(y)<10\le R(y)<1 and y−R(y)y-R(y) is an integer. For an interval JJ and an integer x>0x>0, N(J,x)=N(J,x,α)N(J,x)=N(J,x,\alpha) counts the points R(α),R(2α),…,R(xα)R(\alpha),R(2\alpha),\ldots,R(x\alpha) that lie in JJ, and (J)(J) is the length of JJ. Intervals are taken modulo 11, so an interval may contain the point 00 in its interior (p. 35), and an interval always contains its initial point and never its endpoint (footnote 3, p. 35).

Satz I (p. 35, quoted; the footnote mark after Teilintervall is omitted).

I. Ist α\alpha eine beliebige reelle Zahl, JJ ein Teilintervall des Intervalles 0…10\ldots1 von der Länge R(να)R(\nu\alpha), wo ν≷0\nu\gtrless0 ganz ist, so ist für alle ganzen x>0x>0

∣N(J,x)−(J)x∣<∣ν∣.(2)|N(J,x)-(J)x|<|\nu|. \tag{2}

In words: for every real α\alpha, every nonzero integer ν\nu and every interval JJ of length R(να)R(\nu\alpha) modulo 11, in any position, the count of R(mα)R(m\alpha), 1≤m≤x1\le m\le x, in JJ differs from x R(να)x\,R(\nu\alpha) by less than ∣ν∣|\nu|, for every integer x>0x>0. The paper stresses that α\alpha need not be irrational, so the theorem also says something about the residues of papa modulo qq for integers a,p,qa,p,q (p. 35). It credits the theorem to the author's 1927 note (Jber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein. 36, p. 179) and calls it a generalization of Hecke's special case, intervals starting at 00 and irrational α\alpha (Abh. Math. Sem. Hamburg 1 (1922), 73--74).

Further statements of Section III (pp. 39--41). The proof yields more than (2).

  • The left side of (2) is 00 for every position of JJ exactly when xαx\alpha is an integer (p. 39).
  • Statement 1 (p. 40): under arbitrary translations of JJ the difference N(J,x)−(J)xN(J,x)-(J)x ranges over an interval of length at most ∣ν∣|\nu|, whereas (2) alone gives only 2∣ν∣2|\nu|.
  • Statement 2 (p. 40): if the difference does not vanish for every position of JJ, it takes both positive and negative values.
  • Formulas (6), (6') (p. 40). For ν>0\nu>0, with ξ\xi the distance of the endpoint of JJ from 11,
(J)x−N(J,x)=∑n=1ν[R(nα+ξ+xα)−R(nα+ξ)];(J)x-N(J,x)=\sum_{n=1}^{\nu}\bigl[R(n\alpha+\xi+x\alpha)-R(n\alpha+\xi)\bigr];

for ν<0\nu<0, with ξ′\xi' the distance of the initial point of JJ from 11,

(J)x−N(J,x)=∑n=1∣ν∣[R(nα+ξ′)−R(nα+ξ′+xα)].(J)x-N(J,x)=\sum_{n=1}^{|\nu|}\bigl[R(n\alpha+\xi')-R(n\alpha+\xi'+x\alpha)\bigr].

A footnote says the 1927 note proved only (6), and (6') follows by applying (6) to the complementary interval.

  • Bounds (7) (p. 40). Each summand of (6) equals R(xα)R(x\alpha) or R(xα)−1R(x\alpha)-1, so
νR(xα)≥(J)x−N(J,x)≥ν(R(xα)−1)(ν>0),\nu R(x\alpha)\ge(J)x-N(J,x)\ge\nu\bigl(R(x\alpha)-1\bigr)\quad(\nu>0), ν(R(xα)−1)≥(J)x−N(J,x)≥νR(xα)(ν<0).\nu\bigl(R(x\alpha)-1\bigr)\ge(J)x-N(J,x)\ge\nu R(x\alpha)\quad(\nu<0).

The paper notes that (7) gives Statement 1 at once and is an essential sharpening of it, and that for irrational α\alpha and fixed ν\nu there are arbitrarily large xx with N(J,x)=[(J)x]+1N(J,x)=[(J)x]+1, and others with N(J,x)=[(J)x]N(J,x)=[(J)x] (pp. 40--41).

  • Reciprocity (6*), (6*') (p. 41). With S(x)=∑n=1xR(nα+ξ)S(x)=\sum_{n=1}^{x}R(n\alpha+\xi), (6) reads (J)x−N(J,x)=S(x+ν)−S(x)−S(ν)(J)x-N(J,x)=S(x+\nu)-S(x)-S(\nu) for ν>0\nu>0, which is symmetric in xx and ν\nu. Hence (J)x−N(J,x)=(J∗)ν−N(J∗,ν)(J)x-N(J,x)=(J^*)\nu-N(J^*,\nu), where J∗J^* has length R(xα)R(x\alpha) and its endpoint at distance ξ\xi from 11; for ν<0\nu<0 the same holds with ∣ν∣|\nu| in place of ν\nu.

Source. Alexander Ostrowski, Mathematische Miszellen. XVI. Zur Theorie der linearen Diophantischen Approximationen, Jber. Deutsch. Math.-Verein. 39 (1930), 34--46; notation on p. 34, Satz I and equation (2) on p. 35, its proof and Statements 1 and 2 on pp. 39--40, (6), (6') and (7) on p. 40, (6*) on p. 41. The edition read is identified on the source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement, the endpoint convention and the Section III statements were read clause by clause on the page images. The proof was followed but not checked step by step. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Proof pointer

Pp. 39--40. If the first case of Satz II holds for the length ζ=R(να)\zeta=R(\nu\alpha), the difference in (2) is 00. Otherwise Satz II gives intervals J+J_+, J−J_- of that length with positive and negative difference; choose them with the largest count N+N_+ and the smallest count N−N_-, so that it suffices to show N+−N−≤∣ν∣N_+-N_-\le|\nu| (the paper's (5), printed as N+−N−≤νN_+-N_-\le\nu). Slide J+J_+ forward until it reaches J−J_-. When its initial point passes an orbit point R(kα)R(k\alpha), its endpoint passes R((k+ν)α)R((k+\nu)\alpha) at the same moment, so the count drops only for the kk with ν+k\nu+k outside (0,x](0,x], and there are exactly ∣ν∣|\nu| such kk. A second route to Statement 1 is formula (6), carried over from the 1927 proof.

Dependencies

Satz II of the same paper (p. 36), for the first proof; the 1927 formula (6), reconstructed in the corpus as the 1927 note's equation (3) and its proof, for the second.

Bears on

  • Problem 998: for irrational α\alpha and 0≤u<v≤10\le u<v\le1 with v−u=R(jα)v-u=R(j\alpha) for a nonzero integer jj, Satz I bounds the discrepancy of [u,v)[u,v) by ∣j∣|j| at every nn; this is the sufficiency direction of the problem's corrected Statement, the same bound as the 1927 note's equation (3). It says nothing about the converse, which the problem asks.