On two problems of Hardy and Mahler
Patrice Philippon (IMJ-PRG), Purusottam Rath (IPBS)

TL;DR
This paper explores classical problems related to the distribution of powers of algebraic numbers and their approximation properties, comparing Mahler's finiteness result with Hardy's question on convergence, and proposes new related questions.
Contribution
It analyzes the analogue of Hardy's question within Mahler's problem, contrasting known results and proposing new research questions with partial answers.
Findings
Mahler's finiteness result for algebraic numbers greater than one.
Comparison between Mahler's and Hardy's problems.
Partial answer to a new question related to the analogue of Hardy's problem.
Abstract
It is a classical result of Mahler that for any rational number > 1 which is not an integer and any real 0 < c < 1, the set of positive integers n such that n < c n is necessarily finite. Here for any real x, x denotes the distance from its nearest integer. The problem of classifying all real algebraic numbers greater than one exhibiting the above phenomenon was suggested by Mahler. This was solved by a beautiful work of Corvaja and Zannier. On the other hand, for non-zero real numbers and with > 1, Hardy about a century ago asked ''In what circumstances can it be true that n 0 as n ? '' This question is still open in general. In this note, we study its analogue in the context of the problem of Mahler. We first compare and contrast with what is known visa -vis the original question of…
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsAnalytic Number Theory Research · Mathematics and Applications · Limits and Structures in Graph Theory
On two problems of Hardy and Mahler
Patrice Philippon and Purusottam Rath
Institut de Mathématiques de Jussieu, UMR 7586 du CNRS, 4, place Jussieu, 75252 PARIS Cedex 05, France.
Chennai Mathematical Institute, Plot No H1, SIPCOT IT Park, Padur PO, Siruseri 603103, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abstract.
It is a classical result of Mahler that for any rational number which is not an integer and any real , the set of positive integers such that is necessarily finite. Here for any real , denotes the distance from its nearest integer. The problem of classifying all real algebraic numbers greater than one exhibiting the above phenomenon was suggested by Mahler. This was solved by a beautiful work of Corvaja and Zannier. On the other hand, for non-zero real numbers and with , Hardy about a century ago asked
“In what circumstances can it be true that as ? ”
This question is still open in general. In this note, we study its analogue in the context of the problem of Mahler. We first compare and contrast with what is known vis-a-vis the original question of Hardy. We then suggest a number of questions that arise as natural consequences of our investigation. Of these questions, we answer one and offer some insight into others.
Key words and phrases:
Distribution of powers mod , Subspace theorem
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11J87, 11R06
1. introduction
Throughout the paper, and denote the set of non-negative integers and positive integers respectively. Further for any real , denotes its distance from its nearest integer. In other words,
[TABLE]
The growth of the sequence is intricately linked to the famous Waring’s problem. For a positive integer , let denote the minimum number such that every positive integer is expressible as a sum of -th powers of elements in . It is known that for ,
[TABLE]
if .
This was the motivation for Mahler [10] in 1957 to prove that for any , , and any real , the set of such that is finite. Mahler uses Ridout’s theorem which is a -adic extension of the famous theorem of Roth that algebraic irrationals have irrationality measure two.
Mahler ends his paper suggesting that it would be of some interest to know which algebraic numbers have the same property as the non integral rationals, that is to characterise real algebraic numbers such that for any real , the set of such that is finite.
This was answered completely by Corvaja and Zannier [3] who proved the following:
Theorem 1**.**
*( Corvaja and Zannier ) *** Let be a real algebraic number. Then for some , for infinitely many if and only if there exists a positive integer such that is a PV number. In particular, is an algebraic integer.
We recall that a PV number (for Pisot-Vijayaraghavan number) is a real algebraic integer such that:
- •
;
- •
all its other conjugates (over ) have absolute values strictly less than .
On the other hand, for non-zero real numbers and with , Hardy [7] about a century ago asked
“In what circumstances can it be true that as ? ”
This question is still open in general. However, when is further assumed to be algebraic, then the question is easier and can be settled as was shown by Hardy himself. More precisely, one has ( Theorem A in [7]):
Theorem 2**.**
( Hardy )* Let be an algebraic real number and be a non-zero real number. Suppose that as . Then is a PV number, hence an algebraic integer. Further in this case, necessarily lies in and hence is algebraic.*
In this note, we consider the analogue of this question in the context of the problem of Mahler. More precisely, consider the sets
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The goal of our work is to compare and contrast these two sets lying in . Sometimes we refer to these sets as the Hardy set and the Mahler set respectively.
To start with, we note that it is known that the set is countable. See for instance, the pretty book of Salem [12, Chap.1, §4].
On the other hand, the set is uncountable. In fact, for any sequence in not identically [math], set , then lies in .
We also note that Corvaja and Zannier in their paper construct a transcendental real number such that lies in . Further, it follows from a work of Bugeaud and Dubickas [2] that there are uncountably many such that lies in .
In this context, one has the following folklore conjecture, which proposes an answer to Hardy’s question.
Conjecture 3**.**
If , then is a PV number and lies in .
Clearly, this no longer holds for the set as there are transcendental numbers such that lie in .
More interestingly, even if with algebraic, it does not imply that is algebraic. For instance, as remarked before, with the Liouville number . This is in contrast to Theorem 2.
Remark 4**.**
More generally, when is an integer and is a non zero real number, if and only if for some , the sequence of digits of the expansion of in base contains infinitely many blocks of the form consisting only of zeros or only of ’s.
These observations give rise to a number of questions.
Questions:
1. What can be said about where both and are assumed to be algebraic? Can one have a theorem similar to Theorem 2 in this case?
2. Is it possible to derive some diophantine characterisation of transcendental numbers such that for some algebraic ?
3. Is it true that implies that ? This is a consequence of the following.
4. Is it true that ?
5. What is the Hausdorff dimension of the set ?
As introduced in [3], a pseudo-PV number is an algebraic number such that:
- •
,
- •
all its other conjugates have absolute values strictly less than ;
- •
.
Note that a pseudo-PV number is necessarily real; a positive pseudo-PV number which is an algebraic integer is simply a usual PV number.
Here is our first theorem.
Theorem 5**.**
Let and be algebraic numbers such that . Then there exists a positive integer such that is a PV number and hence an algebraic integer.
Furthermore for any , there are infinitely many such that lies in , is a pseudo-PV number whose trace is non-zero and for some .
Proof of this theorem builds upon the techniques developed by Corvaja and Zannier. We also need to prove some further diophantine results on behaviour of powers of Salem numbers (Proposition 16) proof of which requires the -adic subspace theorem.
Recall that a Salem number is a real algebraic integer such that
- •
,
- •
all its other conjugates have absolute values at most ;
- •
at least one conjugate has absolute value equal to
The distribution of exponential sequences is rather mysterious and the few cases where one has some information is when is an algebraic integer and , with , is close to the nearest integer of . This motivates the study of algebraic numbers such that for lying in suitable subsets of .
It is not difficult to see that if is an integer for all , is an algebraic integer. For, the complementary module of the lattice generated by is a finitely generated -module and the hypothesis above implies that contains the ring . Hence is necessarily an algebraic integer.
On the other hand, one has the following nice result of Bart de Smit [4].
Theorem 6**.**
(Bart de Smit )* Let be an algebraic number of degree such that is an integer for all natural numbers with . Then is an algebraic integer.*
The example shows that the above bound is optimal.
On the other hand, a minor modification of the works of Corvaja and Zannier yields the following:
Theorem 7**.**
Let be an algebraic number such that is a non-zero integer for infinitely many . Then is necessarily an algebraic integer.
This is an immediate consequence of Lemma 14 in Section 2.
Note that in the above theorem, the hypothesis that is non zero is necessary. For satisfies for all odd . However, the example of is not generic. More precisely, if is a real algebraic number such that for infinitely many , then is not necessarily the root of a rational number. Here is an example.
Example 8**.**
The roots of the polynomial are the real algebraic numbers . In particular, the splitting field of this polynomial is real and has only two roots of unity . Set the largest root, we check and for . However, is not a root of a rational number.
In this context, we have the following theorem.
Theorem 9**.**
Let be a real, positive algebraic number, be the order of the torsion group of the splitting field of the minimal polynomial of . Then, for infinitely many if and only if does not belong to the field .
We also derive the following theorem which works for more general algebraic numbers.
Theorem 10**.**
Let be a nonzero algebraic number, be the order of the torsion group of the splitting field of the minimal polynomial of and a primitive -th root of unity. Then, for infinitely many if and only if does not belong to the field .
Proof of these results are given in the penultimate section ( Section 4 ) of the paper.
The final theme of the paper which constitutes the last section of our work is devoted to a more careful study of the algebraic elements in the Hardy and Mahler sets. For instance, we give the following more refined description of the pairs of algebraic numbers in the Hardy set .
Theorem 11**.**
The elements of the set precisely consists of all the pairs where is a PV number and with the minimal polynomial of over .
As for algebraic elements in the Mahler set , we can show the following.
Theorem 12**.**
We have if and only if there exists integers and such that is a PV number and belongs to with the minimal polynomial of over .
Remark 13**.**
The above theorems allow us to derive a result (see Corollary 31) which is in the direction of the fourth question. Namely, we show that , which reduces the fourth question to Conjecture 3.
2. Intermediate results
We fix the notion of height of a non-zero algebraic number which we shall be working with. For any number field , let be the set of all inequivalent places of . The corresponding absolute values are normalized so that extends the usual archimedean or -adic absolute value of . Thus, the product formula for reads and the height , defined as
[TABLE]
is unambiguous and does not depend on the choice of containing .
Similarly, for an integer and a non zero vector , we set
[TABLE]
We will need the following lemma, which extends and improves [3, Lemma 4]:
Lemma 14**.**
Let and be algebraic numbers. Let and suppose that the trace is a non-zero integer for infinitely many . Then is necessarily an algebraic integer.
Proof.
The proof follows from that of [3, Lemma 4] with some minor modifications. We just need to work with the field . Finally, an extra argument ensures that cannot be the root of a (non-integral) rational number and hence must be an algebraic integer.
Let be the Galois closure of the extension and the order of the torsion group of . Let be the set of exponents such that is a non-zero integer. Since is infinite, there exists an integer and an infinite set such that for all . Let .
We first deal with the case . Then where and are co-prime integers. We can write
[TABLE]
For we have , thus is a non-zero integer by hypothesis and is a fixed rational number. The above equality implies, as tends to infinity in , and is an algebraic integer (in fact a root of a rational integer).
In the case , let be a complete set of representatives of modulo the subgroup fixing . For , let be a complete set of representatives of modulo the subgroup fixing that coincides with modulo the subgroup fixing . In particular, is a complete set of representatives of modulo the subgroup fixing and we can write
[TABLE]
where we have set . We now proceed by contradiction, assuming for some finite place of . For we have , thus is a non-zero integer by hypothesis, and the coefficients cannot be all zero. Furthermore, for and sufficiently large we have
[TABLE]
Applying Lemma 1 of [3] with and a suitable Galois set of places of such that is an -unit, we obtain a non-trivial equation satisfied by infinitely many
[TABLE]
We may then apply Skolem-Mahler-Lech’s theorem [14, Corollary 7.2, page 193] which entails that
[TABLE]
is a root of unity for two distinct indices . But this ratio must then be because is a root of unity in and is the exponent of the torsion group of . This implies that and coincide on , contradicting their definition. This contradiction shows that for all finite place of , hence is an algebraic integer. ∎
We note that in the above theorem, a priori there need not be any relation between the algebraic numbers and . In particular, need not be in .
Finally, we note the following theorem which we shall need. This is a special case of a deep theorem of Corvaja and Zannier ( [3], see Main Theorem ).
Theorem 15**.**
Let be a finitely generated subgroup of , and be real. Suppose that the following diophantine inequality
[TABLE]
has infinitely many solutions with . Then all but finitely many such are pseudo-PV numbers.
3. Proof of Theorem 5
Proof of Theorem 5 rests on the following intermediate results.
Proposition 16**.**
Let be non-zero algebraic numbers of modulus and be non-zero algebraic numbers. For , assume that there exists an infinite set such that for all , is a real number and
[TABLE]
Then there exists algebraic numbers not all zero such that for infinitely many , one has
[TABLE]
Proof.
We begin by noting that if one of the is a root of unity, the conclusion holds. So we may assume that none of the is a root of unity.
Let denote the integer closest to and observe that takes only finitely many values. Thus, there exists an infinite subset and an integer such that for . Set .
Let be a Galois number field containing and a finite set of absolute values of , containing all the archimedean ones and such that are -units. Let be the (archimedean) absolute value given by the given inclusion of in . If we set and otherwise . We set
[TABLE]
with and for , , . Observe that for each the forms are linearly independent. Then, with and , we have
[TABLE]
since by the product formula, and because the components of are -units.
For we further have and we observe that in any case, thus
[TABLE]
The -adic subspace theorem [13, Chap. V, Thm. 1D’, page 178] then ensures that for all the point lies in the union of finitely many proper subspaces of . One of these must contain infinitely many points for and one of its equations can be written as with not all zero. ∎
Lemma 17**.**
Let be a pseudo-PV or a Salem number and let be its conjugates. For all , not all zero, there are only finitely many such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
The result is clear if , since then the hypothesis is . Otherwise, applying an automorphism of over sending some with to , we get an equation
[TABLE]
But the are independent of and the , , are the conjugates of distinct from , thus of absolute value bounded by . Since , the absolute value of the left-hand side goes to infinity with whereas that of the right-hand side remains bounded. Therefore, the equality can hold only for bounded. ∎
We now have all the ingredients to prove Theorem 5.
Proof of Theorem 5.
Let and be algebraic numbers such that . Thus there exists and infinitely many such that . If for infinitely many , then is necessarily the root of an integer and also for infinitely many .
So we may assume that there are infinitely many such that . Furthermore for large enough, since . Denote the subset of for which these inequalities hold. There exists such that
[TABLE]
for . Thus, by Theorem 15 with the subgroup generated by , is a pseudo-PV number for all in except for a possible finite subset. Let be the infinite subset such that is a pseudo-PV number for every . Since tends to infinity whereas the absolute values of its other conjugates are bounded when tends to infinity, we may as well define the subset so that the trace of the pseudo-PV number is non zero for . Then by Lemma 14, is necessarily an algebraic integer.
Let and such that for and with . The identity map on gives rise to different embeddings of over into . But, with our condition on , the corresponding embeddings of have absolute values greater than . Since is a pseudo-PV number we deduce that and for . In particular, for we have .
Assume a conjugate of distinct from has absolute value strictly greater than . Write and the corresponding conjugates of and . Since is a pseudo-PV number for , we must have for large enough. Forming the quotient of two such equalities for , , we get . Let be the least common multiple of these exponents when runs over all the conjugates of of absolute value strictly greater than . Then has exactly one conjugate of absolute value strictly greater than . Since is an algebraic integer, is either a PV or a Salem number.
Now suppose that is an integer such that is a Salem number. We have that there exists an and infinite set such that for all . Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
for infinitely many . By our earlier argument, we know that is a rational fraction in . Let be the conjugates of of modulus , that is all the conjugates except and , and , , be the corresponding conjugates of . If is the integer closest to and a denominator of , we write
[TABLE]
for some and large enough. Thus,
[TABLE]
for infinitely many . By Proposition 16, there exists , not all zero, such that
[TABLE]
for infinitely many . But by Lemma 17, this is not possible since is a Salem number. This completes the proof of Theorem 5.
4. Proof of Theorems 9 and 10
For an algebraic number , let and let be the degree of . We shall need the following lemma for the proof of Theorem 9.
Lemma 18**.**
Let be a real, positive algebraic number and , then the following three statements are equivalent:
;
- 2)
* is not divisible by .*
- 3)
;
Proof.
Set and let be the smallest positive integer such that . Obviously and for any prime dividing , we have . Otherwise , which is the only real, positive -th root of , would belong to , contradicting the minimality of . Furthermore, if then , because is not a fourth power in . It then follows from [9, Chap.VI, §9, Theorem 9.1, page 297], that the polynomial
[TABLE]
is irreducible in . Now is the only real, positive root and its conjugates over are the numbers , , where is a primitive -th root of unity. Thus, is the degree of the extension and for all we have
[TABLE]
and if and only if , proving that the statements 1 and 2 are equivalent.
Now, since , the condition is equivalent to111Here and later denotes the gcd of and . and by the minimality of this happens if and only if , that is . This shows that the statements 2 and 3 are equivalent, ending the proof of the lemma. ∎
Proof of Theorem 9.
Let be the splitting field of the minimal polynomial of over . So is the order of the torsion group of . Set and .
In one direction, assume that for infinitely many . Since we have and, since is the disjoint union of the congruence classes for , we deduce from the hypothesis that
[TABLE]
for infinitely many and some . Let and be all the embeddings of in over . We express as the -th term of a linear recurrence sequence:
[TABLE]
which vanishes for infinitely many . Observe that the ratios , , are not roots of unity, because being roots of unity and power in they would be but on and we must have . The Skolem-Mahler-Lech’s theorem [14, Corollary 7.2, page 193] implies that and then because
[TABLE]
But then Lemma 18 ensures that and hence in particular .
In the other direction, the same Lemma 18 shows that if , then and
[TABLE]
for all . This completes the proof.
Remark 19**.**
The condition is also equivalent to .
We now prove the following variant of Lemma 18 which we shall require a little later.
Lemma 20**.**
Let be a nonzero algebraic number, and a primitive -th root of unity. Then if and only if .
Furthermore, for all integer not divisible by .
Proof.
Let and , since is a root of the polynomial
[TABLE]
the extension is cyclic of degree , the conjugates of over are , , where is a primitive -th root of unity, and , see [9, Chap.VI, §6, Theorem 6.2, page 289]. Thus, for all we have
[TABLE]
and if and only if . We observe that is the smallest positive integer such that , otherwise another application of ibidem would lead to a contradiction on the degree of the extension . Now, since , the condition is equivalent to and by the minimality of this happens if and only if , that is .
For the last statement, if is not divisible by then
[TABLE]
because by (1). But, and we can further write
[TABLE]
∎
We end with the proof of Theorem 10 which works for general algebraic numbers.
Proof of Theorem 10.
Let be the splitting field of the minimal polynomial of over . So that is the order of the torsion group of and is a primitive -th root of unity. Set , and .
In one direction, assume for infinitely many . Since we have and we deduce from the hypothesis that
[TABLE]
for infinitely many and some . Let and be all the embeddings of in over . We express as the -th term of a linear recurrence sequence:
[TABLE]
which vanishes for infinitely many . Observe that the ratios , , are not roots of unity, because being roots of unity and power in they would be , but on and, since on , we must have . The Skolem-Mahler-Lech’s theorem [14, Corollary 7.2, page 193] implies that and then because
[TABLE]
As before, Lemma 20 ensures that and, in particular, .
In the other direction, Lemma 20 also shows that if , then and
[TABLE]
for all . This completes the proof.
5. Periodicity and description of the set
Let be an algebraic integer, its minimal monic polynomial over and set . Recall from [8, Chap.III, §1, Cor. to Prop.2] that is the complementary module of , that is the set of elements such that . Indeed, without the assumption made in the above cited Corollary, its proof shows the desired equality. Thus for and large enough we have .
The following lemma can also be found in [6, Lemma 2] and [15, Lemma 2].
Lemma 21**.**
Let be an algebraic integer of degree over , and , then the sequence is ultimately periodic and the period has length .
Proof.
Let be the class of modulo and write
[TABLE]
the minimal monic polynomial of over . Let denote the class of modulo . From we deduce
[TABLE]
for all . Since there are finitely many -tuples of elements of , at least one must appear twice as blocks in the sequence . Thus there exists natural numbers such that , …, . It follows inductively from (2) that
[TABLE]
and hence the ultimate periodicity of the sequence. The length of the period divides and since there are at most distinct blocks of elements in , we have that the period has length at most . ∎
Remark 22**.**
If the number is assumed to be a unit, then equation (2) enables one to deduce that the sequence is purely periodic and in particular, if denotes the length of the period, that is the class of modulo for all , see [15, Lemma 2].
Proposition 23**.**
Let be a PV number of degree over , and . There exists an integer and222Here and after stands for the least integer larger or equal to and is the largest integer smaller or equal to (the integer part). such that and with , large enough and some .
Proof.
By Lemma 21, the sequence of classes modulo of is ultimately periodic, with period of length say . We represent the elements of by the integers so that the period of the sequence gives integers lying in satisfying for and large. We then observe
[TABLE]
for some , because is a PV number. It follows that is the integer closest to and . ∎
Remark 24**.**
Observe that is the residue modulo of for all large divisible by . For any , replacing by simply shifts the sequence by steps to the left or right according to the sign of . Thus, with the PV number and the integer fixed, Proposition 23 associates to each , the integer and the vector . This map is a homomorphism of -modules if we define the action of on as the cyclic permutation . In particular, the integer can be chosen independent of , although for some a shorter period may exist.
More generally for any , we choose to be the least positive integer such that and consider the integer and vector associated to . It follows from Proposition 23 that the fractions (lying in ) are the limit points of the sequence .
Corollary 25**.**
Let be a PV number and . Then, [math] is a limit point of the sequence if and only if there exists an integer and such that for large enough or, equivalently, belongs to .
And [math] is the unique limit point of the sequence if and only if .
Proof.
Assume [math] is a limit point of the sequence . Write with and . Set . Since [math] is a limit point of the sequence , it follows that in Proposition 23 some must be [math] and the numbers are divisible by or, equivalently, , for large enough. Thus for some .
Conversely assume . Since is a PV number and is large enough, is a large real number whereas the sum of its conjugates is of absolute values for some . The difference tends to [math] as goes to and thus [math] is a limit point of the sequence .
If [math] is the unique limit point of the sequence , we must have and in Proposition 23. Thus and belongs to the complementary module of , for some . Conversely if (i.e. ), then for all large and the above argument shows that it is the closest integer to , since is a PV number. Then, tends to [math] as goes to . ∎
Corollary 26**.**
Let , then is a PV number, and for large enough.
Proof.
For , we know by Theorem 2 that is a PV number and . We may write for some rational integer and . By Proposition 23, the limit points of the sequence are those rational numbers among for which the numerator is congruent to infinitely many modulo . But, being in , the sequence converges to [math]. Thus, the only possible fraction is [math] and all the numbers must be divisible by and so , for large enough. ∎
We need to introduce the following notation for the purpose of the next proposition. For any set we define .
Proposition 27**.**
Let be a Salem number of degree over , and . There exists an integer and such that for and any . Furthermore, let be the conjugates of and be those of for . Then the set of limit points of each subsequence is , where
[TABLE]
Furthermore, an integer closest to is congruent to modulo for infinitely many if and only if we have or equivalently , for infinitely many . In this case .
Proof.
The first part of the statement follows from Lemma 21 and Remark 22, which asserts that the sequence of classes modulo of is purely periodic, with period of length say . We represent the elements of by the integers so that the period of the sequence gives satisfying for and large. We have
[TABLE]
Let , and such that . Recall that the conjugates of other than and are of the form , . Since are linearly independent over (see [12, page 32]), it follows from Kronecker’s theorem ([12, Appendix 8], see also [15, Lemma 1]) that there exists an infinite subset such that the sequence converges to . Since tends to [math] as goes to and , we deduce from (3)
[TABLE]
for and where converges to [math] as goes to . Thus the limit point of is .
Conversely, by (3) each term of the series can be rewritten with , which satisfies . The integer closest to can take only finitely many values. Thus, if a subsequence ( infinite) converges to a limit , some subsequence ( infinite) converges to a limit . This limit satisfies and , which shows .
If an integer closest to is written , then which entails . In the other direction, if the latter inequality holds, there exists an integer such that which shows that is an integer closest to . If for infinitely many , the sequence has a limit point in which also belongs to . ∎
The above result naturally leads to the following problem:
Problem: For a Salem number , characterise the algebraic numbers such that the sequence () is dense in .
Remark 28**.**
The distribution of the sequence of fractional parts of in is obtained from that of the difference with the nearest integer, by exchanging the subintervals and , while the sequence is the superposition of these two latter intervals head to tail.
We remind the reader that for a Salem number , the sequence is dense, but not uniformly distributed in . In fact, when and the length of each interval is at least and thus the sequence of fractional parts of is dense in , as in [15, Theorem (i)]. Further, Proposition 27 together with Remark 22 also allows us to recover [15, Theorem (ii) and (iii)].
However, when the behaviour of the sequence (as well as the sequence of fractional parts) strongly depends on the period , which is somewhat mysterious. We give below two contrasting examples illustrating this phenomenon.
Example 29**.**
Figure 1 shows the distribution of the numbers in the interval for , where is the Salem number root of the polynomial and . The period is of length . This gives the three intervals , and , which cover the whole set of limit points , with special concentrations on the four values [math], , and .
Similar pictures are obtained for and , but in general the distribution of the numbers is dense in (although not uniformly), as in the next example.
Example 30**.**
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the numbers in the interval for , where is again the Salem number root of the polynomial and . The period involves all the 29 integers between and . This gives intervals , , , , which cover the whole interval , with several special concentrations.
We refer to the interested reader the papers [1] and [5] where other aspects of distribution of powers of Salem numbers is studied. See also the papers [2] and [11] where the set of limit points of the sequences is investigated.
We will now use these periodicity properties to prove Theorem 11 which refines the conclusion of Hardy’s Theorem 2.
Proof of Theorem 11.
When is a PV number and is large enough, then is a large real number whereas the sum of its conjugates is of absolute values for some . Hence we have that the difference tends to [math] as . Further, if belongs to the complementary module of for large enough, then and hence .
In the other direction, it follows from Corollary 26 that if , then is a PV number, and belongs to the complementary module of for large enough. This latter condition can be rewritten .
We now give the proof of Theorem 12 which is an analogus result for Mahler sets.
Proof of Theorem 12.
If , then for infinitely many . By Theorem 5, we know that is a PV number for some . Also because , there exists an integer such that [math] is a limit point of the sequence . It follows from Corollary 25 that there exists integers such that . Setting and proves the assertion, because is again a PV number.
Conversely, if , then for large enough . But, since is a PV number, for large enough and thus .
For and real , let denote the unique real number such that . We now have the following corollary which is a result in the direction of the fourth question indicated in the introduction (see page 3).
Corollary 31**.**
*The following are true.
-
if and only if there exists and such that .
-
If then for all and we have .
-
For any if and only if for every .
-
For any , if and only if there exists such that .*
Proof.
Here is the proof of the above statements.
-
By Theorem 12, belongs to if and only if there exists integers such that is a PV number and , but these are exactly the conditions in Theorem 11 for to belong to .
-
It follows from the previous assertion. For and integers with , let . Then . By the reverse implication in the above proposition, we get .
-
This follows from the definition of since for , each of the following subsequences
[TABLE]
converges to [math] if and only if the sequence converges to [math].
- For any and , there exists an integer such that for infinitely many and thus . Reciprocally, if there exists an integer such that , then for infinitely many and hence . ∎
Acknowledgments. This work was initiated during the visits of the second author to University of Paris VI and the first at IMSc. Both authors are grateful for the support under the MODULI program as well as the Indo-French Program for Mathematics (belonging to CNRS) which facilitated these visits.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. Akiyama and Y. Tanigawa, Salem numbers and uniform distribution modulo 1, Publ. Math. Debrecen 64 (2004), no. 3-4, 329-341.
- 2[2] Y. Bugeaud and A. Dubickas, On a problem of Mahler and Szekeres on approximation by roots of integers. Michigan Math. J. 56 (2008), no. 3, 703-715.
- 3[3] P. Corvaja and U. Zannier, On the rational approximations to the powers of an algebraic number: solution of two problems of Mahler and Mendès France , Acta Math. 193 (2004), no. 2, 175-191.
- 4[4] B. de Smit, Algebraic numbers with integral power traces , J. Number Theory 45 (1993), no. 1, 112-116.
- 5[5] C. Doche, M. Mendès France and J.J. Ruch, Equidistribution modulo 1 and Salem numbers, Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. 39 (2008), part 2,
- 6[6] A. Dubickas, Integer parts of powers of Pisot and Salem numbers , Arch. Math. 79 (2002), 252-257.
- 7[7] G. H. Hardy, A problem of Diophantine approximation , J. Indian Math. Soc. 11 , (1919), 205-243.
- 8[8] S. Lang, Algebraic Number Theory , Graduate Texts in Math. 110 , Spinger, New York (1986).
