5
$\begingroup$

Pillai showed in 1929 that the function $A(n)$ giving the number solutions of the equation $\phi(x)=n$ is unbounded in (S. Pillai, On some functions connected with $\varphi(n)$, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 35 (1929), 832–836). I'm interested to know about bounds on solutions of $\phi(x)=n!$ which is assigned A055506 in OEIS, where it is claimed that if $\phi(x) = n!$, then $x$ must be a product of primes $p$ such that $p - 1$ divides $n!$. It is unclear to me if this allows me to prove that there are finitely many solutions of the equation $\phi(x) = n!$. Probably an equivalent question is to ask: is the number of solutions of $\phi(x)=n!$ bounded? If yes, what is its bound ?

Related question: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/3747571/156150

$\endgroup$
4
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ For any fixed $n$, the number of solutions to $\phi(x)=n!$ is bounded, since $\phi(x)$ tends to infinity. However, this number is probably not bounded independently of $n$. $\endgroup$
    – Wojowu
    Commented Jul 7, 2020 at 11:28
  • $\begingroup$ Quotes from A055506 and A055487 respectively: "All solutions to $\phi(x) = n!$ are in the interval $[n!,(n+1)!]$", and "According to Tattersall, in 1950 H. Gupta showed that $\phi(x) = n!$ is always solvable". The first gives a bound for fixed $n$, while the latter says that there exists a solution for any $n$. (I do not know arguments backing up either claim.) $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 2:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Actually Gupta proves that the number of solutions goes to infinity with $n$, see Hansraj Gupta, The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 57, No. 5 (May, 1950), pp. 326-329. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 10:04
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reference , I will check it $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 10:06

3 Answers 3

8
$\begingroup$

UPD. Bound simplified.

Here is a constructive bound for the number of solutions to $\phi(x)=m$.

Let $\varphi(a) = m$. If $p^k\mid a$ for some $k\geq 1$, then $p^{k-1}(p-1)\mid m$, and thus $k\leq 1+\frac{\log(m)}{\log(p)}\leq 1+\frac{\log(m)}{\log(2)}$. Then the number of such $a$ is bounded by $$\prod_{d\mid m} (2+\frac{\log(m)}{\log(2)}) = (2+\frac{\log(m)}{\log(2)})^{\tau(m)}.$$

For $m>40$, we have $2+\frac{\log(m)}{\log(2)}\leq 2\log(m)$, and thus we generously bound the number of solutions by $$(2\log(m))^m.$$

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ I don't understand the upper bound on E. The integral from 2 to m is lower bounded by m/log m. Even if you don't do the integration but estimate the sum over divisors, I am not seeing your power of log as an upper bound. Gerhard "Am I Adding This Wrong?" Paseman, 2020.07.07. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 2:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman: Nice catch! That was the price of blindly copying bounds from Wikipedia (it seems that $\exp(x/2)$ factor is lost in the bounds for $\mathrm{Ei}(x)$ there). Anyway, this approach was somewhat overengineered, and I've replaced it with a simpler one. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 2:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Indeed. However you can replace the exponent with 2sqrt(m) , and if you look at divisor pairs, you can make the base smaller also. Gerhard "Likes To Improve Through Simplification" Paseman, 2020.07.07. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 2:53
  • $\begingroup$ I think you also have to worry about one divisor of m corresponding to two different primes p. Gerhard "Maybe Leave Exponent At M" Paseman, 2020.07.07. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 3:01
  • $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman: One divisor cannot correspond to different $p$, since $d$ in my answer essentially stands for $p-1$ (and different divisors give different $p$'s). I did not attempt to make the bound as small as possible -- that's a separate question. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 3:19
3
$\begingroup$

We have $$\frac n{\varphi(n)}=\prod_{p\mid n}\bigl(1-p^{-1}\bigr)^{-1} \le2\prod_{\substack{p\mid n\\p\ge3}}\frac32 =2\prod_{\substack{p\mid n\\p\ge3}}3^{\log_3(3/2)} \le2\prod_{\substack{p\mid n\\p\ge3}}p^{\log_3(3/2)} \le2n^{\log_3(3/2)}$$ (where $p$ runs over primes), hence $$\varphi(n)\le m\implies n\le(2m)^{(1-\log_3(3/2))^{-1}}=(2m)^{\log_23}.$$ Using a larger cut-off $k$ in place of $3$, the same argument gives $$\varphi(n)\le m\implies n\le(c_km)^{\log_{k-1}k},$$ where $$c_k=\prod_{p<k}\bigl(1-p^{-1}\bigr)^{-1}.$$ Notice that $\log_{k-1}k\approx1+\frac1{k\log k}$ for large $k$.

I will not go into details, but it is easy to prove by well-known elementary arguments that $c_k=O(\log k)$, hence if we choose $k\approx\log m$, we obtain $$\varphi(n)\le m\implies n\le c\,m\log\log m$$ for some constant $c$.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ The nice idea you have used is the compositional inverse of Euler totiont function $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 9, 2020 at 16:54
  • $\begingroup$ Um, the argument I present above can be adapted to show that phi(n)=m implies n is at most (k+1)m, where k is the exponent of 2 that divides m. When m has many prime factors, this can be changed to ( Clog k) m using work of Mertens or simpler approximations. Gerhard "Not Quite Gilding The Lily" Paseman, 2020.07.09. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 9, 2020 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ @GerhardPaseman I have no idea what all this talk about lilies is about, but did I just see you include parts of my answer in your answer without as much as a thank you? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 9, 2020 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ I think this could blow up into a major misunderstanding if we aren't careful. It is not clear to me what part for which you want credit. However, the edit I made to my post has an argument similar to the one in my original post. If you need recognition, I need to know more precisely for what. I thought the product over primes had too generous a bound in the first part of your post. Gerhard "Not In It For Points" Paseman, 2020.07.09. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 9, 2020 at 22:20
  • $\begingroup$ If you want credit for writing n/\phi(n), I am willing to recognize you as a recent source of inspiration. Gerhard "Will That Help This Situation?" Paseman, 2020.07.09. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 9, 2020 at 22:25
3
$\begingroup$

Here is a simpler bound, based on the comment of R. van Dobben de Bruyn.

Let a solution of the equation be broken into two parts, c and d, where c is the n-smooth part of the solution, and is coprime to d, which of necessity is square free and has all prime factors bigger than n. (I leave the case n=1 to the reader.) Then c is at most n! (2/1)(3/2)(5/4)...((n+1)/n)which for n greater than three is strictly less than (n+1)n!. So c is less than (n+1)! .

Turning to d, each prime divisor of d contributes at least one power of 2 when subject to Euler's phi, so d has fewer than n prime divisors. So d is less than e times n!.

Since the shrinkage under phi of the product is at most e(n+1), the original solution must be less than 3(n+1)!. This is also a weak upper bound on the total number of solutions, but can probably be improved to show that the number and location of solutions generally is less than (n+1)!, leaving the case of small n to the reader where all creation (counterexamples, arrghh spellcheck!) must lie.

Edit 2020.07.09. GRP:

The argument above for bounding $n$ given $m=\phi(n)$ is made even simpler, as $ n/\phi(n)$ is a product of $k$ many terms of the form $p/(p-1)$ where the $p$ are distinct primes. This bounded above by $(2/1)(3/2 )(5/3)...$, which for all $k$ is less than $k+1$ and for large $k$ grows like $\log k$. Since $k$ is bounded by a function smaller than $\log m$, we can get an upper bound on $n$ that looks like $Cm\log\log m$, likely for $C$ less than 4. Even when $k$ is large, $n$ can't have many more distinct primes than powers of 2 dividing $m$.

Towards the original question, note that there are easy solutions of totient value being a factorial, and that some of them can be extended by replacing certain powers of small primes by a prime $q$ such that $q$ is bigger than the base of the factorial and such that $q-1$ equals the powers of the small primes and $q$ is not already a prime factor of the solution being modified. Thus it seems very likely that the number of solutions is not bounded as the size of the factorial grows.

End Edit 2020.07.09. GRP.

Gerhard "Leaving Hard Work To Others" Paseman, 2020.07.07.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ If we let k be the exponent of the exact power of two dividing m, we get that any solution to the general equation must (for k not too small) be less than 3(k+1)m, giving a weak but non exponential (in m) upper bound on the number of solutions. Gerhard "Really Likes This Re-engineering Stuff" Paseman, 2020.07.07. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ Toward a lower bound, which is the main thrust of the question. Note first that for P the product of the primes at most n one has $\phi((n!)P/\phi(P))=n!$ and one has an alternate representation when n+1 is an odd prime. There also is a representation involving a prime q bigger than n whenever $\phi(q)$ divides $n!/(P\phi(P))$. Proving the existence of $q$ for every sufficiently large n should show the number of solutions grows without bound as $n$ grows. Gerhard "Is Almost Convinced Of Unboundedness" Paseman, 2020.07.07. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 8, 2020 at 5:05

You must log in to answer this question.

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