1
$\begingroup$

Consider $\Psi(x)$ to be the Chebyshev function given by

$$\Psi(x)=\sum_{n\leq x} \Lambda(n)$$

where $\Lambda(n)$ is the Mangoldt function which is equal 0 unless $n $ is prime power, and let $(E)$ be the following equation:

$$\Psi(n!)=\Psi(A) + \Psi(A+2) \tag E \, ,$$

where $n , A $ are integers and $A$ is even.

Can $(E)$ have integer solution or not? Can we relate it with other conjectures or open problems in number theory?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Taking exponentials, we get $l(n!)=l(A)l(A+2)$, where $l(x)$ is the least common multiple of all natural numbers below $x$. We have $A\approx n!/2$, so there will be a prime $p$ between $A+2$ and $n!$ by Bertrand for large $n$. But then $p\mid l(n!)$ and $p\nmid l(A)l(A+2)$. If anyone feels like writing up the exact bounds, feel free to turn this into an answer. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ Exact bound of what can you explain more $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 11:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Exact bound on how large $n$ has to be so that $n! > 2(A+2)$, so that Bertrans can be applied. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ So if we find this bound that mean when take a n and A greater than this bound the equation E does not has integers solution $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 7, 2020 at 12:05

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

This solution builds on @Wojowu's comment. The Mangoldt function $\Lambda(n)$ is defined as $\log p$ if $n=p^k$ is a prime power and as zero otherwise. The Chebyshev function $$ \Psi(x)=\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n) $$ is thus the logarithm of the least common multiple of $1,2,\dots,\lfloor x\rfloor$ because it could be written as $\sum_{p\leq x\text{ prime}}\lfloor\log_{p}x\rfloor\log p$. Its exponential $l:={\rm{e}}^{\Psi}$ is given by $l(x)=\log\big({\rm{lcm}}(1,\dots,\lfloor x\rfloor)\big)$.

I consider the more general equation $$\Psi(m)=\Psi(A) + \Psi(A+2) \tag {E1},$$ where $A$ and $m$ are positive integers. Exponentiating, one needs to solve $$l(m)=l(A)\,l(A+2)\tag {E2}.$$ If $A+2\leq\frac{m}{2}$, there is no solution: By Bertrand's Postulate (a.k.a Chebyshev's Theorem) there is a prime $p$ with $\frac{m}{2}<p<m$ unless $m\leq 2$. Such a prime divides the LHS of (E2) but neither of $l(A)$ and $l(A+2)$ on the RHS since $p>A+2$. It is easy to directly check that there is no solution with $m=1$.

So suppose $A+2>\frac{m}{2}$. The exponent of $2$ in the prime factorization of $l(m)$ is $\lfloor\log_2 m\rfloor$ while the same numbers for $l(A)$ and $l(A+2)$ are given by $\lfloor\log_2 A\rfloor$ and $\lfloor\log_2 (A+2)\rfloor$ respectively. Therefore, (E2) implies $$\lfloor\log_2 m\rfloor=\lfloor\log_2 A\rfloor+\lfloor\log_2 (A+2)\rfloor.$$ But, in view of $A+2>\frac{m}{2}$: $$ \lfloor\log_2 (A+2)\rfloor\geq \left\lfloor\log_2 \frac{m}{2}\right\rfloor= \lfloor\log_2 m\rfloor-1; $$ which requires $\lfloor\log_2 A\rfloor$ to be not greater than $1$. Hence the only choices for $A$ are $1,2,3$. Directly checking them, we observe that the only solutions to (E1) is $A=1,m=3$.

Added: Changing $A+2$ to $B$ in (E1), the same idea could be used to study the equation $$ \Psi(m)=\Psi(A) + \Psi(B) $$ where $A\leq B$. Again, $B>\frac{m}{2}$ (unless $A=B=m=1$) which implies $\lfloor\log_2 A\rfloor\leq 1$. So $A\in\{1,2,3\}$.

  1. If $A=1$, then $\Psi(A)=0$ and there are infinitely many solutions, e.g. by setting $m=B$.
  2. If $A=2$, then $\Psi(A)=\log 2$. The equation $\Psi(m)=\Psi(A)+\log 2$ admits infinitely many solutions; for instance, $m=2^k, A=2^k-1$ yields a solution since $${\rm{lcm}}(1,\dots,2^k)=2\times{\rm{lcm}}(1,\dots,2^k-1).$$
  3. There exist solutions when $A=3$. For instance: $$\Psi(4)=\log 12=\log 2+\log 6=\Psi(2)+\Psi(3);$$ $$\Psi(10)=\Psi(9)=\log 2520=\log 420+\log 6=\Psi(7)+\Psi(3).$$ In general, solutions $(A=3,B,m)$ could be characterized with $B>\frac{m}{2}$ and the property that there should be exactly two prime powers in $\{B+1,\dots,m\}$, one in the form of $3^j$ and the other in the form of $2^k$.
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Very nice! I was thinking of a size argument, using some form of PNT, but your argument using the $2$-adic valuation is definitely nicer (and more elementary) $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Apr 8, 2020 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Wojowu Thanks! The key idea was yours. $\endgroup$
    – KhashF
    Commented Apr 8, 2020 at 17:08
  • $\begingroup$ If p between $m$ and $2m$ how do you garante that p divide $m$ $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 8, 2020 at 17:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Abdallahchaibeddrraa I am talking about the divisibility of $l(m)$ by $p$; recall that it is the l.c.m of integers $1,\dots,m$. $\endgroup$
    – KhashF
    Commented Apr 8, 2020 at 17:28

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .