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

The abc conjecture asserts that whenever $a,b,c$ are pairwise coprime positive integers such that $a + b = c$ and $\epsilon > 0$, there exists a constant $C_\epsilon > 0$ (which depends on $\epsilon$ but not on $a,b,c$) such that if $N(a,b,c) = \displaystyle \prod_{p | abc} p$ is the radical of $a,b,c$, we have

$$\displaystyle c \leq C_\epsilon N(a,b,c)^{1 + \epsilon}.$$

Now, if we define $R(n)$ to be the number of ways of writing $n$ as the sum of two positive integers $a,b$ such that $a,b,n$ are pairwise coprime, then infinitely often (when $n$ is prime) we have $R(n) = n -1$. What if we defined $R_{\epsilon, C}(n)$ to be the number of ways of writing $n = a + b$ and $n > C N(a,b,n)^{1 + \epsilon}$? If the $abc$-conjecture is true then $R_\epsilon(n)/n$ should tend towards 0 (in fact, if the conjecture is true, then $R_\epsilon(n) = 0$ for all $n$ sufficiently large). Of course, this is a much weaker statement (one 'almost' version of $abc$ conjecture if you will) than the full conjecture. Is anything of this sort accomplished?

share|improve this question
7  
You wrote the conjecture in a sloppy way by introducing $a$, $b$, $c$, and $\varepsilon$ all before bringing in the constant $C_\varepsilon$. Since the constant depends only on $\varepsilon$, it would be much better if you wrote it as: for any $\varepsilon > 0$ there is a constant $C_\varepsilon > 0$ such that for all pairwise coprime positive integers $a$, $b$, $c$ satisfying $a + b = c$, we have [inequality here]. –  KConrad Mar 29 '11 at 1:34
1  
I suggest trying Rankin's method: $$ R_{\epsilon,C}(n) = \sum_{a+b=n, \hskip3pt n > CN(a,b,n)^{1+\epsilon}} 1 \le \sum_{a+b=n} \frac n{CN(a,b,n)^{1+\epsilon}}. $$ You then want lower bounds on $N(a,b,n)$, at least on average over $a$. Sorting the right-hand side by $g = {}$gcd$(a,n)$ is one way to proceed. This idea made less immediate progress than I was hoping, but maybe there's some value to it. –  Greg Martin Mar 29 '11 at 18:51
    
Thanks Professor Martin! –  Stanley Yao Xiao Mar 29 '11 at 23:11

1 Answer 1

up vote 8 down vote accepted

For any $n$ the number of relatively prime $a,b<n$ such that $n > ({\rm rad}(ab))^{1+\epsilon}$ is $o(n)$, indeed $o(n^{1-\epsilon'})$ for any $\epsilon' < \epsilon / (1+\epsilon)$. Therefore this bound is true a fortiori of the number of such $a,b$ for which $a+b=n$.

We use the following lemma:

For all $\delta > 0$ there exists $C_\delta$ such that for every $r,n$ the number of solutions of ${\rm rad}(x) = r$ with $x\leq n$ is at most $C_\delta n^\delta$.

Proof: We may assume $r$ squarefree, else the number of solutions is zero. Then (even without the condition $x \leq n$) we compute $$ \sum_{{\rm rad(x)} = r} x^{-\delta} = \prod_{p|r} \, (p^{-\delta} + p^{-2\delta} + p^{-3\delta} + p^{-4\delta} + \cdots) = \prod_{p|r} \frac{p^{-\delta}}{1 - p^{-\delta}}. $$ All summands are positive, and each solution with $x \leq n$ contributes at least $n^{-\delta}$, so the number of $x \leq n$ terms in the sum is at most $n^\delta \prod_{p|r} p^{-\delta} / (1 - p^{-\delta})$. But each factor in this product is less than $1$ except for the finitely primes $p \leq 2^{1/\delta}$. This proves the lemma with $$ C_\delta = \prod_{p \leq 2^{1/\delta}} \frac{p^{-\delta}}{1 - p^{-\delta}}. \qquad \Box $$

Now, given $\epsilon$, the number of pairs $(r,r')$ such that $n > (rr')^{1+\epsilon}$ is asymptotically proportional to $n^{1/(1+\epsilon)} \log n$. By the lemma, each one arises as $({\rm rad}(a), {\rm rad}(b))$ at most $C_d^2 n^{2\delta}$ times with $a,b<n$. The $o(n^{1-\epsilon'})$ claim follows because $\delta$ is an arbitrary positive number.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you very much! –  Stanley Yao Xiao Aug 3 at 0:50

protected by Felipe Voloch Aug 2 at 21:22

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.