# Upper bound for the quality of an $abc$-triple

A triple of positive integers $(a,b,c)$ is an $abc$-triple if $a$ and $b$ are coprime and $c = a + b$. Define the quality or power of an $abc$-triple as $P(a,b,c) = \frac{\log c}{\log \text{rad}(abc)}$, where $\text{rad}(k)$ denotes the product of distinct prime divisors of $k$.

One version of the $abc$-Conjecture is that for each $\varepsilon > 0$, there are finitely many $abc$-triples such that $P(a,b,c) > 1 + \varepsilon$.

There are finitely many known triples satisfying $P > 1.4$, the so called good triples, and the largest (quality) is $P(2,3^{10} \cdot 109, 23^{5}) = 1.629911684 \dots$ (discovered by E. Reyssat).

Question: Are there any known upper bounds for $P(a,b,c)$ sharper than $\log_{p^{n}} c$, where $p$ is the minimum prime dividing $abc$ and $n$ is the number of distinct prime divisors of $abc$?

Question: Is there an absolute upper bound for $P(a,b,c)$ so that no triple has higher quality?

Best Answer: If there were such a bound, asymptotic FLT would be in hand. (Thanks Ace of Base!)

-
Is there someplace that catalogs the good tirples all the way down to 1? Is it even known that there are infinitely many triples with $P>1$? – Kevin O'Bryant Nov 3 '10 at 19:50
It is known that there are infinitely many triples with $P > 1$; Set $a=1$, $b=3^{2^n}-1$, $c= 3^{2^n}$ and note that, by Euler's Theorem, $2^{n+1}$ divides $b$. So we now have $rad(abc) \le \dfrac{3c}{2^{n+1}} < c$. – Woett Apr 5 '11 at 19:46
Does Dimitrov's recent preprint at arxiv.org/pdf/1601.03572.pdf have implications for this question and asymptotic FLT? – ThiKu Jan 19 at 19:05

## 1 Answer

BTW, the smallest prime dividing $abc$ is $2$.

The wikipedia page gives an estimate of the form $c \le \exp(K \cdot \mathrm{rad}(abc)^{1/3 + \epsilon})$ where it is stated that the (implied) constants are effective. This leads to an estimate $$P(a,b,c) \le \frac{C \cdot \log(c)}{\log \log(c)}$$ for $c \ge 3$ and some effectively computable constant $C$. Your "trivial" bound is not so trivial (in some sense) because it pre-supposes a knowledge of the number of distinct prime factors of $abc$.

-

## protected by Todd Trimble♦Aug 2 '14 at 23:05

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?