15
$\begingroup$

In this question it is discussed that for a set $$A=\{2^n3^m| n,m=0,1,2,\ldots\}$$ there exists an irrational number $\alpha$ such that the set $\alpha\cdot A$ (being naturally enumerated) is not uniformly distributed modulo 1. For which general conditions on $A$ does such $\alpha$ exist? For example, is it sufficient that $|A\cap [y,y+x]|=O(x^c)$ for every $c>0$ uniformly by $y$? (By Weyl theorem we can not hope for better density condition: the sequence $\alpha\cdot n^d$ is equidistributed modulo 1 for all positive integer $d$ and all irrational $\alpha$. As noted by user42355 in the comment, considering only $y=0$ can not be enough, as the set $\sqcup [a_n, a_n+n]$ for rapidly increasing $(a_n)$ shows.)

$\endgroup$
12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ primes? ${}{}{}$ $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 8:00
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @CommandMaster Not if you make them grow exponentially with base greater than $4$, say. Then you can find irrational $\alpha$ such that all the fractional parts are between $\frac{1}{3}$ and $\frac{2}{3}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 8:53
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Could we just take some consecutive integers, then make a big jump, then take a lot more consecutive integers, then make a much bigger jump, etc.? I think any upper bound on $|A \cap [0,x]|$ alone might not be enough. $\endgroup$
    – user42355
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 9:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @FedorPetrov Fix any irrational $\alpha$, and use Weyl's criterion for equidisitribution (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…), and the triangle inequality. In the case of arithmetic progressions the bounds for the exponential sums are very simple, they basically only depend on the distance of $l \alpha$ from the nearest integer, so we have basically uniform bounds in $\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – user42355
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 9:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What about taking $ \{ a_k + b^k \mid b\in \{1,\dots, c_k\} \}$ for a somewhat fast-growing sequence $c_k$ and much faster-growing sequence $a_k$? The set of elemenets of the sequence $<N$ would always be dominated by one or two values of $k$ and then you can apply Weyl's criterion to these values of $k$. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 15:40

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

Consider a random set $A$ where $n\in A$ with probability $f(n)/n$ for $f$ a function going to $\infty$ arbitrarily slowly. Then I think $A$ has $\alpha \cdot A$ uniformly distributed for all nonzero $\alpha$ with probability $1$. Equivalently $$\sum_{ n \in A, n \leq N} e( n \alpha ) = o ( f(N) \log N) $$ for all $\alpha \neq 0$.

The idea is that $$\sum_{ n \in A, n \leq N} e( n \alpha )$$ has mean $0$ and variance $f(N) \log N$ so it can probably be well-approximated by a Gaussian with mean $0$ and variance $f(N) \log N$, in which case the probability that it is $> \delta f(N) \log N$ is $$\leq e^{ - \frac{ \delta (f(N) \log N )^2}{ 2f(N) \log N } } =e^{ - \frac{ \delta f(N)}{2} \log N} = N^{- \frac{\delta f(N)}{2}}$$ which choosing $\delta$ a bit smaller than $2/f(N)$ is $N^{-1-\epsilon}$.

Now break $[0,1]$ into $N^{1+\epsilon}$ intervals of length $N^{-1 -\epsilon}$. Changing $\alpha$ from one point in the interval to the other changes the value of the sum $\sum_{ n \in A, n \leq N} e( n \alpha )$ by at most $$N^{-\epsilon} f(N) \log N = o(f (N)\log N)$$ so it suffices to check that $$\sum_{ n \in A, n \leq N} e( n \alpha ) = o ( f(N) \log N)$$ for $\alpha$ the midpoint of each interval. There are $N^{1+\epsilon}$ such $\alpha$ and each one has probability $N^{-1-\epsilon}$ so we win by the union bound.

If this exists then even very sparse sets with no hidden structure may not have an irrational $\alpha$ with this property.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

Perhaps the most elementary example of an $(\alpha,A)$ pair like this is $A=\{ F_0,F_1,\ldots \}$, the Fibonacci numbers, $\alpha=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$, the golden ratio. Then $\alpha\ast A \pmod{1}$ has a single limit point (or two, if you think 0 and 1 are different limits modulo 1).

In Representing Ordinal Numbers with Arithmetically Interesting Sets of Real Numbers, Joel Hamkins, Dakota Blair, and I considered this problem under the additional constraint that we considered only the order type of $\alpha\ast A$. In a nutshell, we found that for any countable order types $t_1,\dots,t_k$ and any irrationals $x_1,\dots,x_k$ there is a single set $A$ of positive integers with $x_i\ast A$ having order type $t_i$. There are some other relevant results in that paper. For example, if $A$ has positive density and $\alpha$ is irrational, then $\alpha\ast A$ has an interval of limit points.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ In what sense is this the best known example? $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ "widely known" is perhaps better? If you asked 100 students to come with an example of $\alpha,A$, I'm going to guess more than half who succeeded would use this. By the way, this is a special case of the more general PV numbers. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 20:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WillSawin after reading this Kevin's answer three times, I guess that "the best known example" does not mean "the best in certain sense example between all known examples", but "the example which is better known than other examples". $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 21:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, of course! Fedor Petrov explained the source of my confusion. Anyways I am skeptica of your claim about half of the students. I suspect instead you would get a lot of different examples. $A =\{ n! \mid n\in \mathbb N \} , \alpha=e$ might occur for example. I think the "trivial" solution $A = \{ n \in \mathbb N \mid \alpha n \in [0,1/2]\}$ or its variants would be the most common, though. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Nov 9, 2023 at 21:23
  • $\begingroup$ Those are both plausible, Will Sawin! $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 10, 2023 at 0:25

You must log in to answer this question.

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