Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

In the Wikipedia entry for Waring's problem, the section on $G(k)$ starts as: “From the work of Hardy and Littlewood, more fundamental than $g(k)$ turned out to be $G(k)$, which is defined...” There is no real justification or citations.

Do you believe this? Is there a specific, objective sense in which $G(k)$ is more fundamental? My answer is that the Hardy-Littlewood method itself works only for sufficiently large $x$ (let's say you are interested in density of subsets of $\mathbf N$ in the interval $[1;x]$), so it's better suited to handle $G(k)$ than $g(k)$. Is there a better answer?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Most often in analytic number theory one is interested in asymptotic behavior. The function $G(k)$ reflects that -- i.e., it ignores a finite number of exceptions. If you actually try to compute the function $g(k)$, you find that it can be quite a bit larger than $G(k)$ but for reasons which feel somewhat "accidental": that is, you are focusing on the difficulty of representing very small numbers.

[Incidentally, I surmise that both the wikipedia article and the paragraph above are influenced by the passage on this in Hardy and Wright's Introduction to the Theory of Numbers. I think that Hardy and Wright said it better than both wikipedia and me, and I recommend you look to see what they said.]

Anyway, notice that whether one quantity is "more fundamental" than another is not a mathematical statement per se: it is a statement of opinion, aesthetic and experience. One would be well within their rights to be more interested in the function $g(k)$ than $G(k)$: maybe the intricate, chaotic-looking behavior of small numbers appeals to you.

share|cite|improve this answer

The number $g(k)$ depends only on a "small" prefix of the integers, as the Wikipedia page indicates: the worst-possible number is a rather small one, whose best representation uses $k$th powers of $1,2,3,4$. So $g(k)$ is determined by some small "exceptional" number.

On the contrary, $G(k)$ really depends on all integers. There are other ways to "ignore" exceptional cases, for example we can find the number of powers which suffices for almost all integers, or a positive fraction of the integers, and so on.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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