2
$\begingroup$

There is a well-known result about the subsemigroups of $\mathbb{N}$ stating that the additive subsemigroup generated by a (finite) set $A$ of $\mathbb{N}$ is cofinite in $\mathbb{N}$ if and only if $\gcd(A)=1$, or equivalently that the subsemigroup generated by $A$ is cofinite in the non-negative part of the subgroup generated by $A$.

I am curious, whether a similar theorem exists for $n$-ary subsemigroups.

An $n$-ary subsemigroup of $\mathbb{N}$ is a subset which is closed under $n$-fold addition, thus, for $n\geq 3$, it is a weaker requirement than being a subsemigroup, thus in general, stronger requirements than the $\gcd$-condition are necessary.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The 3-ary subsemigroup generated by 1 consists of odd positive numbers, so the statement should be modified in any case. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Jul 21, 2022 at 8:49
  • $\begingroup$ I did not mean that the same theorem applies. It should be clearer now. $\endgroup$
    – AMLimbach
    Commented Jul 21, 2022 at 9:05

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

A description is given by:

Proposition. Let $L$ be a nonempty $n$-ary subsemigroup of $\mathbf{N}$, and generating $\mathbf{Z}$ as a subgroup. Then there exists $k\ge 1$ dividing $n-1$ and $0<\ell<k$ coprime to $k$ such that $L$ is a cofinite subset of the arithmetic progression $k\mathbf{N}+\ell$.

(The condition that $L$ generates $\mathbf{Z}$ is not serious: in general $L$ generates a subgroup of $r\mathbf{Z}$ of $\mathbf{Z}$ and we deduce that $L$ is a cofinite subset in $r(k\mathbf{N}+\ell)$ for some $k$ dividing $n-1$ and $0<\ell<k$ coprime to $k$.)

Lemma 1 Let $L$ be an $n$-ary subsemigroup of $\mathbf{N}$. Then $L$ is ultimately periodic: there exists $k$ such that the symmetric difference of $k$ and $L+k$ is finite, and the projection of $L$ modulo $k$ is an $n$-ary subsemigroup of $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$. Moreover, if $k$ is chosen minimal and $L$ generates $\mathbf{Z}$ as a subgroup, then $k$ divides $n-1$.

Hence, the classification "modulo finite subsets" reduces to the classification of $n$-ary subsemigroups of $\mathbf{Z}/(n-1)\mathbf{Z}$.

Proof of Lemma 1. If $L$ is empty the result is clear; assume otherwise. Choose $k_0$ in $L$. Then $L+(n-1)k_0\subset L$. Hence the sequence indexed by $m$ of projections modulo $n-1$ of $L\cap\{m(n-1)+1,m(n-1)+2,\dots,m(n-1)+n-1\}$ is an ascending sequence of subsets of $\mathbf{Z}/(n-1)\mathbf{Z}$ and hence stabilizes. So $L$ is eventually $(n-1)$-periodic. If $k,k'$ are eventual periods, then clearly so is $\gcd(k,k')$. Let $k$ be the smallest eventual period (so $k$ divides $n-1$). For large enough $m$, the subset $L\cap\{m(n-1)+1,m(n-1)+2,\dots,m(n-1)+n-1\}$ doesn't depend on $m$ and is a $n$-ary subsemigroup $L_k$ of $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$. Moreover if $L$ generates $\mathbf{Z}$, the $L_k$ generates $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$. (Indeed otherwise it would mean that for some prime $p$, $L\smallsetminus p\mathbf{Z}$ is finite. But choosing $n-1$ large elements in $L\cap p\mathbf{Z}$ and one element in $L\smallsetminus p\mathbf{Z}$ yields a large element in $L\smallsetminus p\mathbf{Z}$, contradiction.)

So for each $n$ and $k$ dividing $n-1$, we are reduced to finding the non-empty $n$-ary subsemigroups of $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ that generate $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ (call this $n$-templates), which have no smaller period (i.e. for no strict divisor $\ell$ of $k$ are inverse image of an $n$-template in the quotient $\mathbf{Z}/\ell \mathbf{Z}$.

Lemma 2. Every $n$-template in $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ is reduced to a singleton $\{\ell\}$ with $\ell$ coprime to $k$.

Proof: endow $\mathbf{Z}/k\mathbf{Z}$ with the obvious distance ($d(\ell,\ell')$ is the minimum absolute value of a representative of $\ell-\ell'$). Suppose by contradiction that a template $T$ is not reduced to a singleton and let $a,b$ be at minimal distance, say $k'$ (so $k'\le k/2$). Considering all possible $n$-ary sums of $a$ and $b$, we see that $T$ contains the arithmetic progression of period $b-a$ $\{a,b,2b-a,3b-2a,\dots ,2a-b\}$. Since $k$ is the minimal period for $T$, $T$ cannot be $(b-a)$-periodic and hence there is another element in $T$. But this contradicts the minimality of the distance.

Proof of the proposition: Combining the lemmas shows that $L$ eventually coincides with $k\mathbf{N}+\ell$ for some $k$ dividing $n-1$ and $\ell\in\{0,\dots,k-1\}$ coprime to $k$ (I use the convention $0\in\mathbf{N}$). It remains to show that $L\subset k\mathbf{N}+\ell$. Indeed otherwise there's in $L$ an element of the form $km+\ell'$ with $\ell'\neq \ell$ mod $k$. Taking with $n$-ary sum with $n-1$ large elements in $L\cap (k\mathbf{N}+\ell)$ yields a contradiction.


Examples:

$n$ arbitrary, $k=1$: the only $n$-template in $\mathbf{Z}/1\mathbf{Z}$ is $\mathbf{Z}/1\mathbf{Z}$. This corresponds to the case when $L$ is cofinite. For $n=2$, $k$ divides $n-1=1$ so there is no other case.

$n=2$: here $n-1=1$ so $k=1$ and the only $2$-template in $\mathbf{Z}/1\mathbf{Z}$ is $\mathbf{Z}/1\mathbf{Z}$. It means $L$ is a cofinite subset (classical case).

For $k\neq 1$:

$n=3$: the only nonempty 3-template in $\mathbf{Z}/2\mathbf{Z}$ is $\{1\}$. It corresponds to the case when $L$ eventually consists of all odd numbers.

$n=4$: the only nonempty 4-templates in $\mathbf{Z}/3\mathbf{Z}$ are $\{1\}$ and $\{2\}$. They correspond to the case when $L$ eventually consists of all numbers equal to 1, resp. 2, modulo 3.

$n=5$: either $k=2$ and then $L$ eventually consists of all odd numbers, or $k=4$ and then $L$ eventually consists of all numbers that equal $i$ modulo $4$ (for some fixed $i=1$ or $i=3$).

Etc.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This is pretty insightful. Thank you very much. $\endgroup$
    – AMLimbach
    Commented Jul 21, 2022 at 9:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In other words, the general case is that $L$ is a cofinite subset of $k\mathbb N+l$ for some $k,l$ such that $k\mid(n-1)l$. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 21, 2022 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ @EmilJeřábek it's not a 100% complete solution, because conversely an arbitrary cofinite subset in such an arithmetic progression need not be an $n$-ary subsemigroup. But this is indeed a better way to state the remark following the proposition. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Commented Jul 21, 2022 at 12:00
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that’s what I meant. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 21, 2022 at 12:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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