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

Hello, maybe this is a naive question, but so far I did not found anything related to the subject.

I would like to consider a subset of integers, say E, such that the set $\{ \frac{x}{y}, x \in E, y \in E, y \neq 0 \}$ is $\mathbb{Q}$.

Do such sets have a particular name? Is anyone known for having studied them? And is it possible to define such a set for which any (positive or non-zero) rational is uniquely represented as a ratio of elements in $E$?

Thanks by advance for your comments!

share|improve this question
4  
The representation cannot be unique for all (non-zero) rational numbers, since $-1 = \frac{x}{y}$ implies $-1 = \frac{y}{x}$. As we must have $x \neq y$, we therefore have (at least) two different representations of $-1$. –  felix May 9 '12 at 11:42
    
This might be a trivial comment, but if you insist on $E\subset \mathbb{Z}$ (it might be better for $E\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$), uniqueness is out of the question: clearly $E$ contains more than one nonzero element, and then $1=x/x = y/y$ for $0\neq x,y\in E$. –  Philip van Reeuwijk May 9 '12 at 11:43
    
Right, I forgot to add these facts, thanks! Anyway the question of uniqueness is not my first concern, mainly I would like to know if for a given set $E$, there are known methods to determine whether the set of quotients is $\mathbb{Q}$. –  Nekochan May 9 '12 at 11:48
    
(or $\mathbb{Q}_+$, or $\mathbb{Q}_+^*$, depends if you choose $E$ as a subset of positive integers or integers). –  Nekochan May 9 '12 at 11:50
    
Is there an example where E doesn't contain all multiples of some natural number? –  Gjergji Zaimi May 9 '12 at 15:17
show 1 more comment

3 Answers

The non-uniqueness of $1 = x/x = y/y$ pointed out by Philip is the only obstruction to uniqueness of representations of positive rationals. To see this, enumerate the rationals in $(0,1)$ as $a_1, a_2, \ldots$. (If we have uniqueness here, then taking reciprocals gives us uniqueness on $(1,\infty)$ as well.) We build up the set $E$ two elements at a time. At any stage we will have achieved unique representation of finitely many rationals in $(0,1)$. Say $a_n$ is the first rational in our list that is not yet represented; we just have to add two natural numbers $x$ and $y$ such that $x/y = a_n$ and the ratios of $x$ and $y$ with previous elements of $E$ don't duplicate any rationals that were already attained. But it's obvious that we can do this by taking $x = ma_n$ and $y = m$ for a large value of $m$; we can ensure that ratios of $x$ and $y$ with previous elements of $E$ are smaller than any rationals that were already attained.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your comment :) –  Nekochan May 11 '12 at 18:16
add comment

This is more of a long comment than an answer.

Let $\{ (p_n,q_n) :n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ be an enumeration of all pairs of integers and let $\{a_n :n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ be any sequence of non-zero integers. Then it is clear that $$E:= \{a_np_n : n \in \mathbb{N} \} \cup \{a_nq_n : n \in \mathbb{N} \}$$ satisfies what you want. The point is that you can inductively define your sequence $\{a_n :n \in \mathbb{N} \}$ in order to make $E$ as scattered as you wish.

For instance (as a reply to a comment of Gjergji Zaimi), you can make $E$ to avoid some multiple of each natural number.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your comment! –  Nekochan May 11 '12 at 18:16
add comment

This should be a comment as it does not answer the question, but I do not have enough points.

A sufficient, and necessary, condition for $E$ to generate $\mathbb{Q}$ is that $0 \in E$ and for every pair of numbers $(p,q)\in \mathbb Z \times \mathbb N^\ast $ such that $gcd(p,q) = 1$, there exists $m \in \mathbb Z^\ast$ such that $pm \in E$ and $qm \in E$. The multiplicities of such $m$ corresponding to the multiplicities of representations, as stated above $p=q=1$ gives non unique solutions, actually an infinite number of them (as E needs to be bigger then the set of prime numbers).

So apart from checking for this, a faster method would depend on how E is defined.

I'm wondering what are the smallests such sets so that every quotient $\frac p q$ admits at least n representations, or what are the smallests sets, if they exist, such that every quotient (apart from the pathological cases 0, 1, -1...) admits exactly n representations?

share|improve this answer
    
One key word in this context is "difference set" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_set ; yet these investigations are typically for finite structures. –  quid May 9 '12 at 16:27
    
I don't think $p\wedge q$ is standard notation in number theory. –  Greg Martin May 9 '12 at 17:21
    
Duly noted, $\wedge$ is the notation I grew up with for g.c.d., but I changed it in the post. Difference sets look quite interesting, thank you quid. –  Marc Chapuis May 10 '12 at 9:36
    
That is a nice question, thanks! –  Nekochan May 11 '12 at 18:17
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

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