2
$\begingroup$

The Dedekind sum $s(p,q)$ can be both positive and negative. What are the known lower/upper bounds in terms of p,q? (I would prefer something that grows not faster than q)

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

6
$\begingroup$

For a fixed $q$, the maximum is $$s(1,q)=-{1\over4}+{1\over6q}+{q\over12}$$ and the minimum is $s(q-1,q)=-s(1,q)$.

$\endgroup$
10
  • $\begingroup$ Wow, that's great. And 1/12 is especially delightful. Thanks! Can you also give a reference, what to cite? $\endgroup$ May 4, 2011 at 12:55
  • $\begingroup$ This follows from a finite-Fourier-series version of Cauchy-Schwartz. The earliest reference I'm aware of is H. Rademacher, Zur Theorie der Dedekindschen Summen, Math. Z. 63 (1956) 445-463. With some work, one can obtain even better bounds (see, e.g., <a href="front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.NT/0305421">my paper with S. Robins and S. Zacks</a>). $\endgroup$ May 4, 2011 at 15:26
  • $\begingroup$ $s(p,q)=q^{-2}\sum af(a)$ plus terms not relevant here, where $f(a)$ is the permutation of $1,2,\dots,q-1$ induced by multiplication by $p$ and reduction mod $q$. The maximum over all permutations $f$ (not just those arising from multiplication) of $\sum af(a)$ is attained when $f(a)=a$ for all $a$, and this corresponds to multiplication by 1; the minimum, when $f$ applied to $1,2,\dots,q-1$ gives $q-1,\dots,2,1$, and this corresponds to multiplication by $q-1$. $\endgroup$ May 5, 2011 at 0:20
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a known bound in terms of $s(1,q)$? I'm interested in a bound of the type $|s(a,q)| < c\cdot s(1,q)$, for some constant $c$ and any $1<a<q-1$. $\endgroup$
    – jiyanez
    Jul 5, 2016 at 2:42
  • $\begingroup$ @jiyanez, $c=1$ will do, of course. I think for fixed $q$ large enough and $1<a<q-1$ the maximum value of $|s(a,q)|$ is $s(2,q)$, which is not hard to evaluate. $\endgroup$ Jul 5, 2016 at 6:15
1
$\begingroup$

See

http://www.mathkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/math/38267/upper-bounds-on-Dedekind-sums

(most of the relevant stuff is due to our own @Gerry Myerson)

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I don't see any bound there, only some discussion on properties of the function. I'm completely ignorant in NT, I didn't mean some recent state of art result. There certainly must be some classical rough bound... $\endgroup$ May 4, 2011 at 0:04
  • $\begingroup$ The link seems to be kaput. kb, that's Kevin Brown, now uses mathpages.com/home but I couldn't find the Dedekind sums essay there. $\endgroup$ Jul 5, 2016 at 22:48
  • $\begingroup$ I found a sci.math thread titled "upper bounds on Dedekind sums" at groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.math/… and maybe the kb essay is drawn from it. $\endgroup$ Jul 5, 2016 at 23:00
  • $\begingroup$ That link isn't working for me, but the thread can be accessed by going to groups.google.com/g/sci.math and then searching for "upper bounds on Dedekind sums" (with the quote marks). $\endgroup$ Sep 26, 2021 at 4:03

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.