Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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!)

share|improve this question
    
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
1  
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

1 Answer 1

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 $abc$.

share|improve this answer

protected by Todd Trimble Aug 2 at 23:05

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.