2
$\begingroup$

Let $a_{1},\dots,a_{n}$ be positive natural numbers ($n>2$) such that $a_{i}\neq a_{j}$ if $i\neq j$. I want to prove that $$ \left\lvert \left\{ p \text{ prime} \; : \; p \mid \sum_{i=1}^n a_{i}^{k} \text{ for some } k\in\mathbb{N} \right\} \right\rvert = \infty . $$ I considered $p > a_{i},\,\forall i=1,\dots,r$ and $k=\frac{p-1}{2}$ so $$ \sum_{i=1}^n a_{i}^{k} \equiv \sum_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{a_{i}}{p}\right) \bmod p $$ where $\left(\frac{*}{*}\right)$ is the Legendre symbol. But now I'm stuck because nothing guarantees that $$\sum_{i=1}^n \left(\frac{a_{i}}{p}\right) \equiv 0 \bmod p . $$ Thanks.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This follows from the finiteness of solutions to the $S$-unit equation. See for example the main theorem in math.uwaterloo.ca/pure-mathematics/sites/ca.pure-mathematics/… . Maybe there's an easier proof ... $\endgroup$ – Lucia Dec 20 '14 at 10:21
  • $\begingroup$ The phrase " narrowness implies uniformity" comes to mind. This may be a result of McKenzie. I will check on it later. $\endgroup$ – The Masked Avenger Dec 20 '14 at 10:36
  • $\begingroup$ @lucia Sorry but I can't see how this can help me... Can you give me an hint? $\endgroup$ – peppo Dec 20 '14 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ Assume that only finitely many primes occur. Let $S$ be the set consisting of those primes together with the prime divisors of the $a_i$. Then $a_i^k$ for all $i$ and $b = a_1^k + \ldots + a_n^k$ are $S$-units, and we have the relation $a_1^k + \ldots + a_n^k - b = 0$. The main result on $S$-unit equations says that there are only finitely many solutions (up to scaling by $S$-units) such that no nontrivial sub-sum vanishes. This condition follows in your case from $a_i > 0$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Stoll Dec 20 '14 at 15:35
  • $\begingroup$ A stronger result for the case $k=3$ seems to be called "Reutter's theorem". A question on MSE asking a reference for it (and a link to AoPS with an elementary proof) can be found here math.stackexchange.com/questions/1475267/… $\endgroup$ – Paolo Leonetti Oct 11 '15 at 20:15
4
$\begingroup$

Without loss of generality, we can assume that there is no prime dividing all $a_i$. For each prime $p$, denote by $n_p$ the number of those $a_i$ not divisible by $p$, and let $v_p$ be the power to which $p$ divides $n_p$. (Notice that $n_p>0$ by the assumption that no prime divides all $a_i$; hence, $v_p$ are well-defined.) By Euler's theorem from the elementary number theory, we have $$ a_i^{p^{v_p}(p-1)}\equiv 1\pmod {p^{v_p+1}} $$ for each $a_i$ not divisible by $p$, implying $$ \sum_{i=1}^n a_i^k\equiv n_p\not\equiv 0\pmod {p^{v_p+1}} $$ whenever $k$ is a multiple of $p^{v_p}(p-1)$. It follows that for every finite set $P$ of primes, if $k$ is divisible by the product $\prod_{p\in P} p^{v_p}(p-1)$, then each prime $p\in P$ divides the sum $\sum_{i=1}^n a_i^k$ to the power not exceeding $v_p\le\log_p n$. Taking $k$ sufficiently large, we see that this sum is just too large to have all its prime divisors in $P$. In other words, for every finite set $P$ of primes, there exists $k$ such that the sum in question has a prime divisor outside of $P$. This shows that the set of all prime divisors of all these sums is infinite.

Incidentally, this argument does not use the fact that all $a_i$ are pairwise distinct; it suffices that not all of them are equal to each other (which is easily seen to be a necessary condition, too).

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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