MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It is known (Senge and Straus, 1971, see also C.L.Stewart, 1980) that for every natural $a$, not a power of 10, and every natural $s$, there are only finitely many $k$ such that the sum of decimal digits of $a^k$ does not exceed $s$. So let $f(s)$ be the largest $k$ with this property. What is the growth rate of $f$? In particular, is it always at most linear?

Update 1: Conjecture. $\liminf S_{10}(a^k)/k > \log_2(a)$. This would imply that $f$ is bounded by a linear function. Here $S_{10}(u)$ is the sum of decimal digits of $u$.

Update 2: As far as I know the best proved estimate of $f$ is double exponential (C.L. Stewart).

Update 3: Since somebody erased my comments below, I add it here. The problem is related to the exponential Diophantine equation $10^{k_1}+...+10^{k_s}=a^k$. See the book Shorey, T. N.; Tijdeman, R. Exponential Diophantine equations. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 87. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986.

Update 4: Possibly a better conjecture than in Update 1. The distribution of digits in $a^k$ should be very close to uniform. Hence $\liminf S_{10}(a^k)/k\approx 4.5\log_{10} a$.

share|cite|improve this question
    
@Mark: Just for my own education, could you identify in which Shorey-Tijdeman paper this is established? They have written quite a few papers together... – Joseph O'Rourke Sep 16 '10 at 16:05
    
By the way, for $a=2$ or $5$, there is an old result of A. Schinzel, which is included in SierpiƄski's "250 problems in elementary number theory". If I remember the proof correctly, this result shows that in this case $f$ grows at most linearly. – Mark Sapir Sep 16 '10 at 16:52
    
@Joseph: I changed the references. – Mark Sapir Sep 18 '10 at 16:34
2  
The references in full: C L Stewart, On the representation of an integer in two different bases, J Reine Angew Math 319 (1980) 63-72, MR 81j:10012; H G Senge, E G Straus, PV-numbers and sets of multiplicity, Proceedings of the Washington State University Conference on Number Theory (1971) 55-67, MR 47 #8452. – Gerry Myerson Sep 20 '10 at 1:07
    
@Gerry: Yes, it is correct according to MathSci. Also you may find in Stewart's paper a double exponential estimate for $f$. I have not been able to find better estimates in the literature although there exist much more recent papers on the subject generalizing Stewart's results, in particular. Calculations suggest a linear bound. – Mark Sapir Sep 20 '10 at 2:28

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.