16
$\begingroup$

Helo,

Let $F(n)$ be the $n$th Fibonacci number, if $\left\{ x\right\}$ denotes the fractional part of $x$, how proving

$$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2n}\sum_{k=1}^{2n}\left\{ \frac{F(2n)}{F(k)}\right\} =1-\log\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\right)$$

A lecturer wrote this formula on the board without reference and without proof! Thank you for any hint.

ps: the proposed limit is wrong. See the answer below which proves that the limit does indeed exist but has value $3\log(2)/4$.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ This might be better suited for math.SE; I haven't gone all the way through it but it seems as though it should be fairly straightforward using the usual Fibonacci identities to simplify the fractional-part term and turn it into a Riemann integral limit. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28 at 18:46
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Maybe you should ask the lecturer? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28 at 21:46
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I just asked but as it is a consequence of more general work he does not want to communicate certain results. On the other hand, he finds it normal that people have fun searching. The theme was the Dirichlet divisor problem formulated as: $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left\{ \frac{n}{k}\right\} =\left(1-\gamma\right)n+O\left(n^{\theta+\varepsilon}\right) $$ and for which increasing functions $f$ do we also have: $$\sum_{k=1}^{n}\left\{ \frac{f(n)}{f(k)}\right\} =C_{f}n+O\left(n^{\theta+\varepsilon}\right) $$ and $f(n)=F(n)$ doesn't work since there are two limits for $C_f$. $\endgroup$
    –  Babar
    Commented Mar 28 at 23:31
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand the downotes. This is a rather tricky limit, and it has a different value than stated in the original post. See my response below. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Mar 30 at 19:31
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ More precisely, I don't understand the "close" votes. See my previous comment. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Mar 30 at 20:02

1 Answer 1

21
$\begingroup$

The statement is not correct. The correct statement is: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\frac{1}{2n}\sum_{k=1}^{2n}\left\{ \frac{F(2n)}{F(k)}\right\}=\frac{3\log 2}{4}.$$ That is, the limit is $\approx 0.519860385$ instead of $\approx 0.518788175$. As a numerical verification, for $n=10^6$, the average under the limit is $\approx 0.519853615$ (according to SAGE).

More generally, we shall prove the following. $$\sum_{k=1}^n\left\{\frac{F(n)}{F(k)}\right\}= \begin{cases} \frac{\pi}{8}n+O(\sqrt{n}),&\text{$n$ is odd};\\ \frac{3\log 2}{4}n+O(\sqrt{n}),&\text{$n$ is even}. \end{cases}$$ The idea of the proof is that the fractional part of $F(n)/F(k)$ is typically very close to $0$ or $1$, and the two cases follow a simple pattern. We can restrict to $k\nmid n$ in the sum, because otherwise the fractional part is zero. Accordingly, we shall consider $$n=2mk\pm r\qquad\text{with}\qquad r\in\{1,2,\dotsc,k-1\}.$$

If $L(v)$ denotes the $v$-th Lucas number, then we have the identity $$F(u)L(v)=\begin{cases} F(u+v)+(-1)^v F(u-v),&u\geq v;\\ F(u+v)-(-1)^u F(v-u),&u\leq v. \end{cases}$$ Plugging $(mk,mk\pm r)$ for $(u,v)$, we obtain the following congruences: \begin{alignat*}{2} F(2mk+r)&\equiv F(r)(-1)^{mk}&&\pmod{F(mk)},\\ F(2mk-r)&\equiv F(r)(-1)^{mk-r-1}&&\pmod{F(mk)}. \end{alignat*} These congruences are also valid modulo $F(k)$, because $F(k)$ divides $F(mk)$. We infer that: $$\{F(n)/F(k)\}= \begin{cases} F(r)/F(k),&n=2mk+r,\quad mk\equiv 0\pmod{2};\\ 1-F(r)/F(k),&n=2mk+r,\quad mk\not\equiv 0\pmod{2};\\ 1-F(r)/F(k),&n=2mk-r,\quad mk\equiv n\pmod{2};\\ F(r)/F(k),&n=2mk-r,\quad mk\not\equiv n\pmod{2}.\\ \end{cases}$$ It is now convenient to introduce the notation $$I(n,t):=\mathbb{N}\cap\left(\frac{n}{t+1},\frac{n}{t}\right),$$ because then the cases $n=2mk+r$ correspond to $k\in I(n,2m)$, while the cases $n=2mk-r$ correspond to $k\in I(n,2m-1)$. Then we see that:

  • for odd $m$ the contribution of $k\in I(n,2m)$ is $\frac{1}{2}|I(n,2m)|+O(1)$;
  • for odd $m$ the contribution of $k\in I(n,2m-1)$ is $\frac{1}{2}|I(n,2m-1)|+O(1)$;
  • for even $m$ the contribution of $k\in I(n,2m)$ is $O(1)$;
  • for even $m$ and odd $n$ the contribution of $k\in I(n,2m-1)$ is $O(1)$;
  • for even $m$ and even $n$ the contribution of $k\in I(n,2m-1)$ is $|I(n,2m-1)|+O(1)$.

Now we choose a positive integer $M$, and sum up the contributions of $I(n,2m)$ and $I(n,2m-1)$ for $m\in\{1,2,\dotsc,M\}$. This way we see that $$\sum_{k=\lceil n/(2M+1)\rceil}^{n}\left\{\frac{F(n)}{F(k)}\right\}=\sum_{m=1}^M\sum_{k\in I(n,2m)}\left\{\frac{F(n)}{F(k)}\right\} +\sum_{m=1}^M\sum_{k\in I(n,2m-1)}\left\{\frac{F(n)}{F(k)}\right\}.\tag{$\ast$}$$ If $n$ is odd, then up to an error of $O(M)$, the right-hand side of $(\ast)$ equals $$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq M\\\text{$m$ odd}}}\left(\frac{n}{2m-1}-\frac{n}{2m+1}\right)=\frac{\pi}{8}n+O\left(\frac{n}{M}\right).$$ The contribution of $k<n/(2M+1)$ is $O(n/M)$, hence in fact $$\sum_{k=1}^n\left\{\frac{F(n)}{F(k)}\right\}=\frac{\pi}{8}n+O\left(M+\frac{n}{M}\right).$$ If $n$ is even, then up to an error of $O(M)$, the right-hand side of $(\ast)$ equals $$\frac{1}{2}\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq M\\\text{$m$ odd}}}\left(\frac{n}{2m-1}-\frac{n}{2m+1}\right)+\sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq M\\\text{$m$ even}}}\left(\frac{n}{2m-1}-\frac{n}{2m}\right)=\frac{3\log 2}{4}n+O\left(\frac{n}{M}\right).$$ The contribution of $k<n/(2M+1)$ is $O(n/M)$, hence in fact $$\sum_{k=1}^n\left\{\frac{F(n)}{F(k)}\right\}=\frac{3\log 2}{4}n+O\left(M+\frac{n}{M}\right).$$ In both cases we choose $M=\lfloor\sqrt{n}\rfloor$, and we obtain the claimed asymptotic formula with error term $O(\sqrt{n})$.

$\endgroup$
16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Babar It is not clear why you say "the other limit" as there is only one limit in your post. Of course there is an other limit in your recent comment, but by saying "the other limit" you seem to refer to earlier discussions (where this "other limit" was not present). I guess it is a language problem. Regarding $M$, it is only a technical quantity introduced in the proof (it is not present in the final result). Since the $k$-sum over each $I(r,n)$ converges rapidly, one can take $M$ to be a quantity growing with $n$ slowly, but why would you do that? I have not checked if $M=n^{1/2}$ is OK. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Mar 31 at 21:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Babar Your last formula makes no sense as $n$ is a bound variable on the LHS, but a free variable on the RHS (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_variables_and_bound_variables). The limit in your first comment above makes sense, and I am sure it can be calculated by using the ideas in my post. I have no time to check if it equals $2\log 2-1$, but if you need confirmation, open a new question for it (featuring the limit in your first comment above). Thanks for accepting my answer! $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Mar 31 at 21:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Babar I think your last formula holds with a much better error term than $O(n^{1/2})$. The point is that the $k$-sum over each $I(r,n)$ can be determined with great precision, because the terms in it are exponentially close to $0$ or $1$. For example, for $n=10^6$, the sum is $\approx 1039707.22967$, while $\frac{3\log 2}{2}n\approx 1039720.77084$. So for $n=10^6$ the error is about $13.54117$, which is much smaller than $n^{1/2}$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Mar 31 at 21:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can it be the case that the limit depends on how do you enumerate Fibonacci numbers? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 1 at 10:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SamHopkins Thank you. If you shift the indices by $1$, then the values of the original limit and the one in the "Added" section get flipped. At any rate, it is standard to assume that $F_0=0$, because we want $F_n$ to equal $(\varphi^n-\psi^n)(\varphi-\psi)$, where $\varphi=(1+\sqrt{5})/2$ and $\psi=(1-\sqrt{5})/2$. It serves harmony. Both Mathematica and SAGE think that $F_0=0$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 1 at 12:40

You must log in to answer this question.

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