Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Statement

F(x,A)F(x,A) is the number of n≤xn\le x divisible by no element of AA, and SxS_x is the Schinzel–Szekeres set defined on the page of Lemma 2.1.

Lemma 2.5 (printed p. 263). With a suitable positive constant c3<1c_3<1,

F(x,Sx)≤xlog⁡−c3x.F(x,S_x)\le x\log^{-c_3}x.

The proof bounds the count by O(xlog⁡−βx (log⁡log⁡x)α)O(x\log^{-\beta}x\,(\log\log x)^{\alpha}) with β=1+α−2α\beta=1+\alpha-2^{\alpha} for any 0<α<10<\alpha<1, and names α=−log⁡log⁡2/log⁡2≈0.52876637\alpha=-\log\log2/\log2\approx0.52876637, β≈0.08607133\beta\approx0.08607133 as the best choice (p. 263). The author adds that an asymptotic formula for F(x,Sx)F(x,S_x) would be interesting and that the estimate is far from optimal.

The union bound (2.7) (printed p. 263). For every set AA,

∑a∈A1/a≥1−F(x,A)/x,\sum_{a\in A}1/a\ge1-F(x,A)/x,

so Lemma 2.5 gives ∑a∈Sx1/a≥1−log⁡−c3x\sum_{a\in S_x}1/a\ge1-\log^{-c_3}x. The paper notes that this lower bound is the direction Schinzel and Szekeres needed, and that it needs the opposite one (Lemma 2.10).

Source. I. Z. Ruzsa, On the small sieve. II. Sifting by composite numbers, J. Number Theory 14 (1982), 260–268; Lemma 2.5 and display (2.7) on printed p. 263. The edition is identified in the source digest.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement, the constants of the proof and display (2.7) were read on the page images. The proof was not checked.

Proof pointer

By Lemma 2.2 an unsifted nn with x/log⁡x<n≤xx/\log x<n\le x has τ(n)>log⁡x/log⁡log⁡x\tau(n)>\log x/\log\log x (2.6). The Ramanujan–Wilson asymptotic ∑n≤xτ(n)α∼c(α)xlog⁡2α−1x\sum_{n\le x}\tau(n)^{\alpha}\sim c(\alpha)x\log^{2^{\alpha}-1}x then bounds the number of such nn, and the n≤x/log⁡xn\le x/\log x are few.

Dependencies

  • Lemma 2.2.
  • The asymptotic formula for the moments of τ(n)\tau(n) (Ramanujan, Wilson).

Bears on

  • Problem 542: with Lemma 2.1, Sx⊆(1,x]S_x\subseteq(1,x] has pairwise least common multiples above xx and leaves at most xlog⁡−c3xx\log^{-c_3}x integers up to xx divisible by none of its elements, so no constant c>0c>0 gives cxcx such integers for every set with the hypothesis. That negative answer to the corrected second question is Schinzel and Szekeres's; the lemma gives it with an explicit power of log⁡x\log x.
  • Problem 784: the union bound (2.7) leaves at least (1−C)x(1-C)x integers unsifted when the reciprocal sum is at most C<1C<1.