For $M \subset \mathbb{N}$ (in this post I follow the convention $\min \mathbb{N} = 1$) and $\alpha \in [0,1]$ define

$$S_{M,\alpha}(x) = \sum_{\substack{n\in M \\ n \leqslant x}} \frac{1}{n^{\alpha}}$$

on $[1,+\infty)$. For sets $A \subset B \subset \mathbb{N}$ with $S_{B,\alpha}(x) \to +\infty$ as $x\to +\infty$, we define the upper $\alpha$-density of $A$ in $B$ as

$$\overline{D}_{\alpha}(A;B) = \limsup_{x\to +\infty} \frac{S_{A,\alpha}(x)}{S_{B,\alpha}(x)}.$$

The lower $\alpha$-density $\underline{D}_{\alpha}(A;B)$ is defined analogously (using $\liminf$ instead of $\limsup$). We say that $A$ has an $\alpha$-density in $B$ if $\overline{D}_{\alpha}(A;B) = \underline{D}_{\alpha}(A;B)$, and then denote that value with $D_{\alpha}(A;B)$. For $\alpha = 0$ we have the familiar natural density (also called asymptotic density) and for $\alpha = 1$ the logarithmic density. The cases $\alpha \in (0,1)$ shall be called "power densities".

Via summation by parts, it is straightforward to show that when $B$ is substantial, i.e. $\lim\limits_{x\to +\infty} S_{B,1}(x) = +\infty$,

$$\underline{D}_{\alpha}(A;B) \leqslant \underline{D}_{\beta}(A;B) \leqslant \overline{D}_{\beta}(A;B) \leqslant \overline{D}_{\alpha}(A;B)$$

for all $A \subset B$ and $0 \leqslant \alpha < \beta \leqslant 1$. So if $A$ has an $\alpha$-density in $B$ for some $\alpha < 1$, then $D_{\beta}(A;B)$ exists for all $\beta \in [\alpha,1]$ and all these densities coincide. And for example the set $A_1$ of positive integers whose first (decimal) digit is $1$ has logarithmic density $\frac{\log 2}{\log 10}$ in $\mathbb{N}$, but $\underline{D}_{\alpha}(A_1;\mathbb{N}) < \overline{D}_{\alpha}(A_1;\mathbb{N})$ for all $\alpha \in [0,1)$.

So the question arises whether there is a substantial set $B$ and a subset $A$ such that $A$ has no natural density in $B$, but $D_{\alpha}(A;B)$ exists for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$.

Again via summation by parts it is easy to see that for well-behaved $B$ - e.g. $\underline{D}_0(B;\mathbb{N}) > 0$, or such that $\frac{S_{B,0}(x)}{x}$ tends to $0$ in a nice fashion, like for the set of primes - the existence of $D_{\alpha}(A;B)$ for an $\alpha < 1$ implies the existence of $D_0(A;B)$.

But I did not find a proof of that for arbitrary substantial $B$, nor did I manage to find an example where $D_{\alpha}(A;B)$ exists for some $\alpha \in (0,1)$ and $D_0(A;B)$ doesn't exist. So:

Do there exist $A \subset B \subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $B$ is substantial, $A$ doesn't have a natural density in $B$ and $D_{\alpha}(A;B)$ exists for an $\alpha \in (0,1)$?

  • $\begingroup$ Why do you exclude $\alpha = 1$ from the boxed question? $\endgroup$ – mathworker21 Nov 11 '17 at 2:10
  • $\begingroup$ The case $\alpha = 1$, the logarithmic density, is no problem. It's easy to find such examples. The difficulty is with $D_{\alpha}$ for $0 < \alpha < 1$. Of course such an $A$ must have logarithmic density in $B$, but the problem is to get below $\alpha = 1$ without having a natural density. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Nov 11 '17 at 11:43

Yes, we can!

For $k \in \mathbb{N}$, let $a_k = \bigl((2k-1)!\bigr)^2$, $b_k = \bigl((2k)!\bigr)^2$ and $c_k = (1 + \varepsilon_k)a_k$, where $\varepsilon_1 = 1$ and $\varepsilon_k = \frac{1}{k\log k}$ for $k > 1$, and

$$B = \bigcup_{k = 1}^{\infty} [a_k, b_k),\quad A = \bigcup_{k = 1}^{\infty} [a_k, c_k)\,.$$

Then $A$ - and a fortiori $B$ - is substantial:

$$\sum_{k = 1}^K \Biggl(\sum_{a_k \leqslant n < c_k} \frac{1}{n}\Biggr) > \sum_{k = 1}^K \log (1 + \varepsilon_k) > \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k = 1}^K \varepsilon_k > \frac{1}{4} \log \log K\,.$$

$A$ has no natural density in $B$:

For $k \geqslant 2$ we have $S_{A,0}(c_k) \geqslant \varepsilon_k a_k$ and $S_{B,0}(c_k) \leqslant b_{k-1} + \varepsilon_k a_k < \frac{k+\log k}{k^2\log k} a_k$, so

$$\frac{S_{A,0}(c_k)}{S_{B,0}(c_k)} \geqslant \frac{k}{k+\log k}$$

and hence $\overline{D}_0(A;B) = 1$. But $\underline{D}_0(A;B) = 0$ since

$$\frac{S_{A,0}(b_k)}{S_{B,0}(b_k)} \leqslant \frac{(1+\varepsilon_k)a_k}{b_k - a_k} = \frac{1+\varepsilon_k}{4k^2-1}\,.$$

And we have $D_{\frac{1}{2}}(A;B) = 0$ since for $a_{k+1} \leqslant m < a_{k+2}$

$$S_{B,\frac{1}{2}}(m) \geqslant \sum_{n = a_{k}}^{b_{k}-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} > 2\sum_{n = a_k}^{b_k-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n+1} + \sqrt{n}} = 2(\sqrt{b_k} - \sqrt{a_k}) = (4k-2)\cdot (2k-1)! \geqslant (2k)!$$


$$S_{A,\frac{1}{2}}(m) \leqslant \sum_{n = 1}^{c_k-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} + \sum_{n = a_{k+1}}^{c_{k+1}-1} \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} < 2\sqrt{c_k} + \varepsilon_{k+1} \sqrt{a_{k+1}} < 3(2k-1)! + \frac{(2k+1)!}{(k+1)\log (k+1)}$$


$$\frac{S_{A,\frac{1}{2}}(m)}{S_{B,\frac{1}{2}}(m)} < \frac{3}{2k} + \frac{2}{\log (k+1)}\,.$$

It is not hard to modify the example to get $0 < D_{\frac{1}{2}}(A';B) < 1$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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