On the greatest common divisor of $n$ and the $n$th Fibonacci number
Paolo Leonetti, Carlo Sanna

TL;DR
This paper investigates the set of all gcds of positive integers and their corresponding Fibonacci numbers, establishing their density properties and providing explicit formulas for related prime distributions.
Contribution
It proves that the set of gcds has zero asymptotic density and grows at least as fast as x / log x, using recent results on prime divisibility in Fibonacci sequences.
Findings
The set of gcds has zero asymptotic density.
The number of such gcds up to x is at least proportional to x / log x.
Explicit formulas for prime divisibility related to Fibonacci numbers are utilized.
Abstract
Let be the set of all integers of the form , where is a positive integer and denotes the th Fibonacci number. We prove that for all , and that has zero asymptotic density. Our proofs rely on a recent result of Cubre and Rouse which gives, for each positive integer , an explicit formula for the density of primes such that divides the rank of appearance of , that is, the smallest positive integer such that divides .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On the greatest common divisor of
and the th Fibonacci number
Paolo Leonetti
Università “Luigi Bocconi”
Department of Statistics
Milan, Italy
[email protected] \urlhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-7819-5301 and
Carlo Sanna
Università degli Studi di Torino
Department of Mathematics
Turin, Italy
[email protected] \urlhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2111-7596
Abstract.
Let be the set of all integers of the form , where is a positive integer and denotes the th Fibonacci number. We prove that for all , and that has zero asymptotic density. Our proofs rely on a recent result of Cubre and Rouse [Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), 3771–3785] which gives, for each positive integer , an explicit formula for the density of primes such that divides the rank of appearance of , that is, the smallest positive integer such that divides .
Key words and phrases:
Fibonacci numbers, rank of appearance, greatest common divisor, natural density.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 11B39. Secondary: 11A05, 11N25.
1. Introduction
Let be the sequence of Fibonacci numbers, defined as usual by and , for all positive integers . Moreover, let be the arithmetic function defined by , for each positive integer . The first values of are listed in OEIS A104714 [13].
The set of fixed points of , i.e., the set of positive integers such that divides , has been studied by several authors. For instance, André-Jeannin [2] and Somer [14] investigated the arithmetic properties of the elements of . Furthermore, Luca and Tron [8] proved that
[TABLE]
when , and Sanna [12] generalized their result to Lucas sequences. More generally, the study of the distribution of positive integers dividing the th term of a linear recurrence has been studied by Alba González, Luca, Pomerance, and Shparlinski [1], while, Corvaja and Zannier [4], and Sanna [10] considered the distribution of positive integers such that the th term of a linear recurrence divides the th term of another linear recurrence. Also, it follows from a result of Sanna [11] that the set , i.e., the set of positive integers such that and are relatively prime, has a positive asymptotic density.
Define . Note that, in particular, . The aim of this article is to study the structural properties and the distribution of the elements of . Note that it is not immediately clear whether or not a given positive integer belongs to . To this aim, we provide in §2 an effective criterion which allows us to enumerate the elements of , in increasing order, as:
[TABLE]
Our first result is a lower bound for the counting function of .
Theorem 1.1**.**
, for all .
It is worth noting that it follows at once from Theorem 1.1 and (1) that has zero asymptotic density relative to (we omit the details):
Corollary 1.2**.**
, as .
Our second result is that has zero asymptotic density:
Theorem 1.3**.**
, as .
It would be nice to have an effective upper bound for or, even better, to obtain its asymptotic order of growth. We leave these as open questions for the interested readers.
Notation
Throughout, we reserve the letters and for prime numbers. Moreover, given a set of positive integers, we define for all . We employ the Landau–Bachmann “Big Oh” and “little oh” notations and , as well as the associated Vinogradov symbols and . In particular, all the implied constants are intended to be absolute, unless it is explicitly stated otherwise.
2. Preliminaries
This section is devoted to some preliminary results needed in the later proofs. For each positive integer , let be rank of appearance of in the sequence of Fibonacci numbers, that is, is the smallest positive integer such that divides . It is well known that exists. All the statements in the next lemma are well known, and we will use them implicitly without further mention.
Lemma 2.1**.**
For all positive integer and all prime numbers , we have:
- (i)
* whenever .* 2. (ii)
* if and only if .* 3. (iii)
* whenever .* 4. (iv)
, where is a Legendre symbol.
For each positive integer , define . The next lemma shows some elementary properties of the functions , , , and their relationship with .
Lemma 2.2**.**
For all positive integer and all prime numbers , we have:
- (i)
* whenever .* 2. (ii)
* if and only if .* 3. (iii)
* if and only if .* 4. (iv)
* whenever and .* 5. (v)
* whenever , and .* 6. (vi)
* if and for all prime numbers .*
Proof.
Facts (i) and (ii) follow easily from the definitions of and and the properties of . To prove (iii), note that divides both and hence for all positive integers . Conversely, if , then for some positive integer . In particular, which is equivalent to by (ii). Therefore , thanks to (i), and in conclusion . Fact (iv) follows at once from (ii) and (iii).
A quick computation shows that , while for all prime numbers we have , since , so that , and this proves (v).
Lastly, let us suppose that is a prime number such that for all prime numbers . In particular, since , by (v). Also, the claim (vi) is easily seen to hold for . Hence, let us suppose hereafter that . Since , it easily follows that . At this point, if for some prime , then thanks to (ii). But , hence so that . Similarly, implies . Hence , which is impossible since . Therefore , with the consequence that , i.e., by (iii). This concludes the proof of (vi). ∎
It is worth noting that Lemma 2.2(iii) provides an effective criterion to establish whether a given positive integer belongs to or not. This is how we evaluated the elements of listed in the introduction.
It follows from a result of Lagarias [6, 7], that the set of prime numbers such that is even has a relative density of in the set of all prime numbers. Bruckman and Anderson [3, Conjecture 3.1] conjectured, for each positive integer , a formula for the limit
[TABLE]
Their conjecture was proved by Cubre and Rouse [5, Theorem 2], who obtained the following result.
Theorem 2.3**.**
For each prime number and each positive integer , we have
[TABLE]
while for any positive integer , we have
[TABLE]
Note that the arithmetic function is not multiplicative. However, the restriction of to the odd positive integers is multiplicative. This fact will be useful later.
Let be the Euler’s totient function. We need the following technical lemma.
Lemma 2.4**.**
We have
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof.
For , put . Clearly,
[TABLE]
from which it follows that .
Fix also . For the rest of this proof, all the implied constants may depend on and . Since for all positive integers [15, Ch. I.5, Theorem 4], while, by Lemma 2.2(v), for all prime numbers , we have
[TABLE]
for all .
On the one hand, again by Lemma 2.2(v),
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by partial summation,
[TABLE]
The claim follows by putting together (2), (3), and (2), and by choosing and . ∎
Lastly, for all relatively prime integers and , define
[TABLE]
We need the following version of the Brun–Titchmarsh theorem [9, Theorem 2].
Theorem 2.5**.**
If and are relatively prime integers and , then
[TABLE]
for all .
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
First, since , it is enough to prove the claim only for all sufficiently large . Let be a real number to be chosen later. Define the following sets of primes:
[TABLE]
We have . Indeed, since and for each prime number , it follows easily that if then for all prime numbers , which, by Lemma 2.2(vi), implies that or .
Now we give a lower bound for . Let be the product of all prime numbers in , and let be the Möbius function. By using the inclusion-exclusion principle and Theorem 2.3, we get that
[TABLE]
where we also made use of the fact that the restriction of to the odd positive integers is multiplicative.
As a consequence, for all sufficiently large depending only on , let say , we have
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from Mertens’ third theorem [15, Ch. I.1, Theorem 11].
We also need an upper bound for . Since for all primes , we have
[TABLE]
for all , where, for the sake of brevity, we put
[TABLE]
On the one hand, by Theorem 2.5 and Lemma 2.4, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by the trivial estimate for and Lemma 2.4, we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, putting together (5), (6), and (7), we find that
[TABLE]
In conclusion, there exist two absolute constants such that
[TABLE]
for all .
Finally, we can choose to be sufficiently large so that
[TABLE]
Hence, from (8) it follows that , for all sufficiently large .
4. Proof of Theorem 1.3
Fix and pick a prime number such that . Let be the set of prime numbers such that . By Theorem 2.3, we know that has a positive relative density in the set of primes. As a consequence, we can pick a sufficiently large so that
[TABLE]
Let be the set of positive integers without prime factors in . We split into two subsets: and . If then has a prime factor such that . Hence, and, by Lemma 2.2(iv), we get that , so all the elements of are multiples of . In conclusion,
[TABLE]
and, by the arbitrariness of , it follows that has zero asymptotic density.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. J. Alba González, F. Luca, C. Pomerance, and I. E. Shparlinski, On numbers n 𝑛 n dividing the n 𝑛 n th term of a linear recurrence , Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. (2) 55 (2012), no. 2, 271–289.
- 2[2] R. André-Jeannin, Divisibility of generalized Fibonacci and Lucas numbers by their subscripts , Fibonacci Quart. 29 (1991), no. 4, 364–366.
- 3[3] P. S. Bruckman and P. G. Anderson, Conjectures on the Z 𝑍 Z -densities of the Fibonacci sequence , Fibonacci Quart. 36 (1998), no. 3, 263–271.
- 4[4] P. Corvaja and U. Zannier, Finiteness of integral values for the ratio of two linear recurrences , Invent. Math. 149 (2002), no. 2, 431–451.
- 5[5] P. Cubre and J. Rouse, Divisibility properties of the Fibonacci entry point , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 11, 3771–3785.
- 6[6] J. C. Lagarias, The set of primes dividing the Lucas numbers has density 2 / 3 2 3 2/3 , Pacific J. Math. 118 (1985), no. 2, 449–461.
- 7[7] J. C. Lagarias, Errata to: “The set of primes dividing the Lucas numbers has density 2 / 3 2 3 2/3 ” [Pacific J. Math. 118 (1985), no. 2, 449–461] , Pacific J. Math. 162 (1994), no. 2, 393–396.
- 8[8] F. Luca and E. Tron, The distribution of self-Fibonacci divisors , Advances in the theory of numbers, Fields Inst. Commun., vol. 77, Fields Inst. Res. Math. Sci., Toronto, ON, 2015, pp. 149–158.
