19
$\begingroup$

Let $f(n)$ the be largest exponent among exponents of the prime factor of $n$. E.g. $f(80) = 4$ since $80 = 2^4.5$ and the prime factor of $80$ which has the largest exponent is $2$ which occurs with the exponent $4$. Trivially for all square-free numbers $n, f(n) = 1$. Experimental data for $n \le 3.5 \times 10^9$ shows that.

$$ \mu = \lim_{n \to \infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k = 1}^nf(n) \approx 1.784744 $$

Q 1: Does this limit exist and does it have a closed form?

If all positive integers were square-free, the above mean would have been exactly $1$. But this is not the case because there are non-squarefree numbers. Thus, we can say that the square-free numbers contribute exactly $1$ to the above mean value while all numbers which have prime factors with an exponent $> 1$ contribute the remaining $0.784744$.

Using the natural density of $k$-th power free numbers, I can show that

$$ \mu \ge \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty}k \Big(\frac{1}{\zeta(k+1)} - \frac{1}{\zeta(k)}\Big) \approx 1.70521 $$

Q 2: Is it possible to show a weaker result like $\mu < 2$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niven%27s_constant $\endgroup$
    – mathlove
    Dec 25, 2021 at 15:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Here $f(n)$ stands for $\ell^\infty$-norm of $\alpha=(\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...)$,with $n=\Pi p_j^{\alpha_j}$. If we replace $\ell^\infty$-norm by $\ell^1$-norm, the result is here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/4299135/…. So, what if we consider $\ell^p$-norm? $\endgroup$
    – Landau
    Dec 26, 2021 at 5:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @StubbornAtom Okay thanks, I did not know that (I did it while fixing the index). Took it away now. $\endgroup$ Dec 28, 2021 at 21:11

2 Answers 2

16
$\begingroup$

The limit exists, and equals the constant $1.70521...$ by which you've lower bounded it. To show this, we first need a claim which lets us evaluate the sum of $f(k)$.

Claim. Let $s_b(n)$ be the sum of the digits of $n$ when written in base $b$, and let $$g_b(n)=\frac{n-s_b(n)}{b-1}=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left\lfloor\frac{n}{b^k}\right\rfloor.$$ Then, if $\mu$ is the Möbius function, $$\sum_{k=1}^nf(k)=\sum_{q=2}^n(-\mu(q))g_q(n).$$

Proof. For squarefree $q$, define $\nu_q(n)$ to be the largest power of $q$ that divides $n$. Then, since $$\min(\nu_{p_1}(k),\dots,\nu_{p_s}(k))=\nu_{p_1\cdots p_s}(k),$$ the inclusion-exclusion principle gives $$f(k)=\max_{p\text{ prime}}(\nu_p(k))=\sum_{\substack{q\text{ squarefree}\\q\neq 1}}(-\mu(q))\nu_q(k).$$ The sum needs only run up through $k$, since all other terms are $0$ (that is, only finitely many primes need to be considered). Now, the observation that $$g_q(n)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left\lfloor\frac{n}{q^k}\right\rfloor=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \sum_{\substack{1\leq m\leq n\\q^k\mid m}}1=\sum_{m=1}^n\nu_q(m)$$ gives the desired result.


We will also need the following technical lemma.

Lemma. There exists some absolute constant $c$ for which, if $n$ and $k$ are positive integers with $n$ sufficiently large and $k\leq n^{0.1}-1$, then $$\left|\sum_{\frac{n}{k+1}<q\leq\frac nk}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|\leq \frac{cn}{k(k+1)(\log n)^{1/4}}.$$

Proof. The main idea is that $s_q(n)/(q-1)$ changes relatively slowly in $q$ for $q$ somewhat close to $n$. With this, we'll use the following result of Matomäki and Terävainen (the strength of their result is the fact that $0.55$ is small, while we'll only need that it is some fixed constant less than $1$, but this is the first reference I could find):

Fix $\theta>0.55$. For any $\epsilon>0$, and for $x$ large and $H>x^\theta$, $$\left|\sum_{x\leq n\leq x+H}\mu(x)\right|=O\left(\frac H{(\log x)^{1/3-\epsilon}}\right).$$

This allows us to save a log factor on sums of the Möbius function multiplied by some constant. If we split up our sum carefully, we can save this log factor overall.

Note that, since $k\leq \sqrt n-1$, all $q$ in the sum are between $\sqrt n$ and $n$, so $n$ has length $2$ when written in base $q$. The first "digit" is $k$, and the second is $n-kq$. Let $L=\frac{n}{k(k+1)}$, and fix $N=\lfloor n^{0.2}\rfloor $. Now, write $$\sum_{\frac{n}{k+1}<q\leq\frac nk}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}=\sum_{t=1}^N\sum_{\frac{n}{k+1}+\frac{(t-1)L}N<q\leq \frac n{k+1}+\frac{tL}N}\frac{\mu(q)(k+n-kq)}{q-1}.$$ We'll bound the inside sum for fixed $t$. Write $q_1=q_1(t)=\frac{n}{k+1}+\frac{(t-1)L}{N}$ and $q_2=q_2(t)=\frac n{k+1}+\frac{tL}{N}$. Note that, for $q_1<q\leq q_2$, \begin{align*} \left|\frac{k+n-kq_2}{q_2-1}-\frac{k+n-kq}{q-1}\right|&\leq \left|\frac{n}{q_2-1}-\frac n{q-1}\right|\\ &\leq \frac{n(q_2-q_1)}{(q_2-1)(q_1-1)}\leq \frac{n(L/N)}{\left(\frac n{k+1}-1\right)^2}\leq \frac{4(k+1)^2L}{Nn} \end{align*} (the constant $4$ is just for safety; the bound nearly holds if the $4$ is removed, but the $-1$ terms in the denominator mess it up slightly). This means \begin{align*} \left|\left(\sum_{q_1<q\leq q_2}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right)-\left(\left(\frac{n}{q_2-1}-k\right)\sum_{q_1<q\leq q_2}\mu(q)\right)\right| &\leq \sum_{q_1<q\leq q_2}\frac{|\mu(q)|4(k+1)^2L}{Nn}\\ &\leq \frac{4(k+1)^2L^2}{N^2n}=\frac{4n}{N^2k^2}.\tag{1} \end{align*} Now, since $q_2-q_1=L/N\geq n^{0.6}$ and $n^{0.9}\leq q_1<n$, we can apply the result of Matomäki and Terävainen with $\theta=0.6$ and $\epsilon=1/12$ to get that there exists some constant $c_0$ for which $$\left|\sum_{q_1<q\leq q_2}\mu(q)\right|\leq \frac{c_0(L/N)}{(\log q_1)^{1/4}}.$$ From this, since $q_1\geq n^{0.9}$, there is some constant $c_1$ for which (1) gives $$\left|\sum_{q_1<q\leq q_2}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|\leq \frac{4n}{N^2k^2}+\frac{c_1n}{k(k+1)N(\log n)^{1/4}}.$$ Summing over all $N$ values of $t$ gives $$\left|\sum_{\frac{n}{k+1}<q\leq \frac nk}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|\leq \frac{4n}{Nk^2}+\frac{c_1n}{k(k+1)(\log n)^{1/4}}.$$ The fact that $4/N\ll (\log n)^{-1/4}$ finishes the proof. $\square$


We now use our claim and lemma to isolate the "essential part" of the sum of $f(k)$. By the definition of $g_q$, $$\left|\left(\sum_{q=2}^n(-\mu(q))g_q(n)\right)-n\left(\sum_{q=2}^n\frac{-\mu(q)}{q-1}\right)\right|\leq \left|\sum_{q=2}^n\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|.$$ We bound the right side using our lemma. First, since $s_q(n)$ is the sum of at most $\log_qn+1$ digits in base $q$, we have $s_q(n)/(q-1)\leq \log_qn+1$, and so, if $M=\lceil\log^2 n\rceil$, $$\left|\sum_{2\leq q\leq \frac nM}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|\leq \sum_{2\leq q\leq \frac nM}\left(\log_qn+1\right)\leq \frac{n(\log_2 n+1)}{M}=O\left(\frac n{\log n}\right).$$ The remaining sum can be written as $$\sum_{k=1}^{M-1}\sum_{\frac n{k+1}<q\leq \frac nk}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\leq \sum_{k=1}^{M-1}\left|\sum_{\frac n{k+1}<q\leq \frac nk}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|.$$ Each $1\leq k\leq M-1$ satisfies the conditions of the lemma, so there exists some constant $c$ for which $$\left|\sum_{\frac nM<q\leq n}\frac{\mu(q)s_q(n)}{q-1}\right|\leq \sum_{k=1}^{M-1}\frac{cn}{k(k+1)(\log n)^{1/4}}<\frac{cn}{(\log n)^{1/4}}=O\left(\frac n{(\log n)^{1/4}}\right).$$ So, in total, we have $$\boxed{\frac1n\sum_{k=1}^nf(k)=\left(\sum_{q=2}^n\frac{-\mu(q)}{q-1}\right)+O\left(\log^{-1/4}n\right)}.$$


We now finish by investigating the sum $$r_n=\sum_{q=2}^n \frac{(-\mu(q))}{q-1}.$$ Define for $k\geq 1$ the sum $t_{n,k}=\sum_{q=2}^n\frac{(-\mu(q))}{q^k}$; then $$r_n=\sum_{k=1}^\infty t_{n,k}.$$ It is known that $$1-t_{n,k}=\sum_{q=1}^n\frac{\mu(q)}{q^k}$$ converges as $n\to\infty$ (even for $k=1$) to $1/\zeta(k)$ (or $0$ if $k=1$), with $$\left|t_{n,k}-\left(1-\frac1{\zeta(k)}\right)\right|\leq \sum_{q=n+1}^\infty \frac{1}{q^k}\leq \sum_{q=n+1}^\infty \frac{1}{(q-1)^{k-1}}-\frac1{q^{k-1}}=\frac1{n^{k-1}}$$ for $k\geq 2$, and so $$\left|r_n-\left(t_{n,1}+\sum_{k=2}^\infty\left(1-\frac1{\zeta(k)}\right)\right)\right|\leq \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac1{n^{k-1}}=\frac1{n-1}.$$ So, since $t_{n,1}\to 1$ as $n\to\infty$, this shows that $$r_n\to 1+\sum_{k=2}^\infty \left(1-\frac1{\zeta(k)}\right)\approx 1.70521.$$


Letting $\mu_0$ be this sum, $\mu_0$ is the limit of $r_n$, so we conclude that $$\frac1n\sum_{k=1}^n f(k)\to \mu_0.$$

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Very detailed proof. Also it shows that $$ \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{k}{\zeta(k+1)} - \frac{k}{\zeta(k)}\right) = \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left(1-\frac1{\zeta(k)}\right) $$ $\endgroup$ Dec 25, 2021 at 12:10
8
$\begingroup$

There is an elementary solution.

$$\sum_{n=1,f(n)\le k}^\infty n^{-s} = \prod_p (1+\sum_{d=1}^k p^{-sd}) = \frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta((k+1)s)}$$ $$\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n) n^{-s}= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{n=1,f(n)> k}^\infty n^{-s} = \sum_{k=0}^\infty (\zeta(s)-\frac{\zeta(s)}{\zeta((k+1)s)})\\=-1+\zeta(s) \sum_{n=1}^\infty a(m)m^{-s}$$ Where

  • $\sum_{n=1}^\infty a(m)m^{-s}=1+\sum_{k=1}^\infty (1-\frac{1}{\zeta((k+1)s)})$ converges absolutely for $\Re(s) > 1/2$

  • $ \sum_{m\le x} |a(m)|=o(x)$

  • $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{a(m)}{m}\ne 0$

Whence $$\sum_{n\le x} f(n) = -1+ \sum_{m \le x} a(m) \lfloor x/m\rfloor= x\sum_{m \le x} \frac{a(m)}m+O(1+\sum_{m \le x} |a_m|)\\= x \sum_{m=1}^\infty \frac{a(m)}{m}\ +o(x)$$

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Dirichlet series is just elegant to deal with these multiplicative problems. $\endgroup$
    – TravorLZH
    Dec 27, 2021 at 4:12

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.