Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Below is a introduction that contains some background to my question. The question is found at the bottom.

By calculating the eigenvalues of the matrix defined by the recurrence:

$\displaystyle T(n,1)=1, T(1,k)=1, n \geq k: -\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1} T(n-i,k), n<k: -\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} T(k-i,n)$

mentioned in: Do these series converge to the Mangoldt function? we get eigenvalues whose signs appear to be equal to a rearrangement of the Möbius function but whose magnitudes differ:

Example: The $6 \times 6$ determinant equal to zero:

$$\begin{vmatrix} 1-\lambda&1&1&1&1&1 \\ 1&-1-\lambda&1&-1&1&-1 \\ 1&1&-2-\lambda&1&1&-2 \\ 1&-1&1&-1-\lambda&1&-1 \\ 1&1&1&1&-4-\lambda&1 \\ 1&-1&-2&-1&1&2-\lambda \end{vmatrix}=0$$

gives eigenvalues:

{-5.2439, -3.4641, 3.4641, 2.5169, -2.2730, 0}

Compare this with the eigenvalues from the $7$x$7$ determinant:

{-6.8444, -5.2217, -3.4641, 3.4641, 3.0150, -1.9489, 0}

From Todd Timberlake's paper "Random numbers and random matrices: Quantum chaos meets number theory" (2005-2006) I learned that one needs to unfold the eigenvalues in order to plot their distribution. I did not understand the unfolding process so I asked Todd Timberlake via email how to do it for a finite list of eigenvalues (all in all $11$ eigenvalues in my mail). In the answer he said that the unfolding approximation method should not be applied to only $11$ eigenvalues.

From his paper I also read the following sentence:

"Furthermore, it indicates that if the prime numbers are eigenvalues of some quantum system, then the classical counterpart of that system should be integrable."

Putting the lambdas "$\lambda$" along the diagonal rarely seems to give integer values. Instead we can try putting them at all elements:

$$\begin{vmatrix} 1-\lambda&1-\lambda \\ 1-\lambda&-1-\lambda \end{vmatrix}=0$$

This gives the equation:

$$-2 + 2 \lambda = 0$$

and we see that $\lambda$ is integer.

Now this works up to a $4$x$4$ matrix or so, after that the $\lambda$:s become zero. But this is not the right thing to do as this is like taking the determinant of the original matrix. And because $\lambda$ is not an eigenvalue anymore we will instead of $\lambda$ use $x$.

Another option is to insert the $-x$ into the recurrence instead. Now this gives the sequence of real numbers I am going to ask a question about, but with negative signs. Because I want the sequence to be positive I therefore insert "$x$" into the recurrence which then becomes:

$\displaystyle T(n,1)=1, T(1,k)=1, n \geq k: x -\sum\limits_{i=1}^{k-1} T(n-i,k), n<k: x -\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} T(k-i,n)$

This then gives a matrix that starts as this $6$x$6$ determinant equal to zero:

$$\begin{vmatrix}1&1&1&1&1&1 \\ 1&-1+x&1&-1+x&1&-1+x \\ 1&1&-2+x&1&1&-2+x \\ 1&-1+x&1&-1&1&-1+x \\ 1&1&1&1&-4+x&1 \\ 1&-1+x&-2+x&-1+x&1&2-2x \end{vmatrix} = 0$$

which results in the equation:

$\displaystyle 180 x - 306 x^2 + 184 x^3 - 46 x^4 + 4 x^5 = 0$

for which the $5$ solutions are:

$\displaystyle x=0,\; x=3/2,\; x=2,\; x=3,\; x=5$

The polynomials for the $1$ x $1$ to $n$ x $n$ determinants start:

$\displaystyle \begin{align*} &1=0\\ &-2+x=0\\ &6-5 x+x^2=0\\ &-6 x+5 x^2-x^3=0\\ &30 x-31 x^2+10 x^3-x^4=0\\ &180 x-306 x^2+184 x^3-46 x^4+4 x^5=0\\ &-1260 x+2322 x^2-1594 x^3+506 x^4-74 x^5+4 x^6=0\\ &1260 x^2-2322 x^3+1594 x^4-506 x^5+74 x^6-4 x^7=0\\ &-2520 x^3+4644 x^4-3188 x^5+1012 x^6-148 x^7+8 x^8=0\\ &-25200 x^3+61560 x^4-59744 x^5+29248 x^6-7552 x^7+968 x^8-48 x^9=0 \end{align*}$

The $n$:th polynomial appears to have $n-1$ solutions, when counting solutions equal to zero, and $n$:th polynomial also appears to have those $n-1$ solutions in common with the $n+1$:th polynomial. This allows us to order the solutions which then become the following infinite sequence $a_n$ starting:

$\displaystyle a_n = (), 2,3,0,5,\frac{3}{2},7,0,0,\frac{5}{3},11,0,13,\frac{7}{4},\frac{15}{7},0,17,0,19,0,\frac{7}{3},\frac{11}{6},23,0,0,\frac{13}{7},0,0,29,\frac{15}{11},31...$

The number of distinct primes dividing the number $n$, $\omega(n)$, appears to describe this sequence and there are similarities with the Möbius function. But I find it difficult to understand $\dfrac{15}{7}$, for example.

The Mathematica program for printing the matrix for the determinant with its polynomial and solutions is:

Clear[nn, t, n, k, M, x];
nn = 12; (*size of matrix*)
t[n_, 1] = 1;
t[1, k_] = 1;
t[n_, k_] := 
  t[n, k] = 
   If[n < k, 
    If[And[n > 1, k > 1], x - Sum[t[k - i, n], {i, 1, n - 1}], 0], 
    If[And[n > 1, k > 1], x - Sum[t[n - i, k], {i, 1, k - 1}], 0]];
M = Table[Table[t[n, k], {k, 1, nn}], {n, 1, nn}];
MatrixForm[M]
Det[M] (*polynomial*)
Solve[Det[M] == 0, x] (*solutions to the polynomial*)

My question is: Are all the primes found among the solutions to the polynomials above? And can you describe the sequence of solutions $a_n$ using $\omega(n)$?


Edit: 16.9.2011

Plot of the 32:nd polynomial:

Plot of the 32:nd polynomial


Edit 2: 16.9.2011

The Mathematica code for the plot is:

Clear[nn, t, n, k, M, x];
nn = 32;(*size of matrix*)t[n_, 1] = 1;
t[1, k_] = 1;
t[n_, k_] := 
  t[n, k] = 
       If[n < k, 
    If[And[n > 1, k > 1], x - Sum[t[k - i, n], {i, 1, n - 1}], 0], 
    If[And[n > 1, k > 1], x - Sum[t[n - i, k], {i, 1, k - 1}], 0]];
M = Table[Table[t[n, k], {k, 1, nn}], {n, 1, nn}];
MatrixForm[M];
Plot[{Log[Det[M]], -Log[-Det[M]]}, {x, 0, nn + 2}, Filling -> Axis]

Edit 18.11.2012: It appears that by using the formula by Wolfgang Schramm, one gets the terms of the sequence $a_n$ as solutions to much simpler polynomials that have the form:

$$\sum\limits_{k=1}^{k=n} T(n,k) \cdot \cos(-2 \pi i \frac{k}{n}) = 0$$

But this way there is only one solution per polynomial compared to the determinant polynomial that gives n-1 consecutive terms of the sequence $a_n$ as its solutions.

share|improve this question
    
"But I find it difficult to understand \frac{15}{7}, for example." Why $\frac{15}{7}$? Is there an explanation for $\frac{3}{2}$ or $\frac{7}{4}$ preceding it? (I am still trying to understand the question, so this clarification may not make any sense :-)) –  Srivatsan Sep 13 '11 at 14:34
    
@Srivatsan Narayanan: Here is how I reasoned: $\frac{3}{2}=\frac{6}{6/2+1}$ where $6/2$ in the denominator is $6$ divided by the number of distinct primes dividing $6$. Similarly: $\frac{5}{3}=\frac{10}{10/2+1}$ and $\frac{7}{4}=\frac{14}{14/2+1}$. –  Mats Granvik Sep 13 '11 at 14:45
2  
I just have an observation. If you build up the fractions in your sequence, you obtain fractions with numerators that fall in sequence between the primes. $2,3,0,5,\frac{6}{4},7,0,0,\frac{10}{6},11,0,13,\frac{14}{8},\frac{15}{7},0,17,0‌​,19,0,\frac{21}{9},\frac{22}{12},23,0,0,\frac{26}{14},0,0,29,\frac{30}{22},31...$ And the zeros appear where non-square-free integers would lie. –  alex.jordan Sep 13 '11 at 14:56
2  
@Mats: Funny, I saw the top page of this post and thought, "Hmm, this must be by Mats Granvik" :-) –  joriki Sep 13 '11 at 18:08
2  
@Eric Naslund and Brian M. Scott: I have put the 250 first terms of the sequence here on my blog: sequence from question on math stackexchange It took me a while to sort the values. –  Mats Granvik Sep 14 '11 at 11:49
show 4 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Your sequence is

$$a_n=\mu(n)^2\frac{n}{n-\phi(n)}.$$

I will try thinking of a proof in a bit.

Note: I deleted my other answer with the extremely long and roundabout way I used to come up with this.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.