6
$\begingroup$

If I multiply two integers $x, y $ in $[0,2^L)$, I get an integer in $[0,2^{2L})$. Clearly, this map from $[0,2^L) \times [0,2^L) \to [0,2^{2L})$ is not bijective.

I am interested in the size of the image. It is less $2^{2L}$. By a classical result from Erdös, the size of the image divided by $2^{2L}$ goes to zero.

A simple argument shows that it cannot be much larger than $2^{2L}/2$. Indeed, pick $z$ in the image of this map, if $z$ is not a square (and there are only $2^L$ squares), then there are at least two corresponding distinct pairs of $x,y$ mapping to $z$ since multiplication is commutative.

But, clearly, this bound is naive for $L$ large. We have that the size of the image is much less than $2^{2L}/2$ (it goes to zero). I am looking for a reasonably tight bound. For example, given $L=64$ or $L=128$, I would like to bound (above and below) the size of the image with actual numbers.

The exact answer is known for up to $L=25$: see the OEIS sequence A027417.

$\endgroup$
7
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ This corresponds to a well known problem regarding the size of the general multiplication table. A factor of 1/L should appear in your answer. A search on MathOverflow for erdos reveals among others mathoverflow.net/questions/31663/… . I think Dimitris Koukoulopoulos knows more, including the n dimensional version of this problem. Hopefully he will chime in. Gerhard "Ask Somebody Else About This" Paseman, 2013.12.02 $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3, 2013 at 3:23
  • $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman It is indeed related to Erdös's multiplication table problem, but I am not looking for a growth characterization, I am looking for an actual bound... which I believe Erdös did not provide. $\endgroup$
    – lemire
    Commented Dec 3, 2013 at 3:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, but Ford, Koukoulopoulos, and others have tightened it up. I don't know how good an estimate you need, but I suspect L^\delta (log L)^3/2 will be the denominator, or close to it. I will not hazard a guess as to the value of \delta. Gerhard "Will Wait For Better Responses" Paseman, 2013.12.02 $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3, 2013 at 3:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Gerhard has given you some places to look. Why not try them? $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 3, 2013 at 5:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm willing to believe that the various people who have improved Erdös's bound did not work out explicit constants in their bounds. However, there's no reason in principle that it couldn't be done. You could look at the simplest of these proofs and see if you can work through them with explicit constants. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 2, 2014 at 8:45

0

You must log in to answer this question.