A note on linear forms in two logarithms: the argument of an algebraic power
Tomohiro Yamada

TL;DR
This paper improves the lower bounds for the argument of algebraic numbers with absolute value one that are not roots of unity, advancing understanding in transcendence theory and algebraic number theory.
Contribution
It provides an enhanced lower bound estimate for the argument of algebraic powers, refining previous results in the field.
Findings
New lower bound for the argument of algebraic numbers with absolute value one.
Enhanced understanding of linear forms in two logarithms.
Implications for transcendence and algebraic independence.
Abstract
In this note, we shall give an improved lower bound for the argument of a power of a given algebraic number which has absolute value one but is not a root of unity.
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
TopicsAdvanced Differential Equations and Dynamical Systems · Algebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Polynomial and algebraic computation
A note on Laurent’s paper on linear forms in two logarithms: the argument of an algebraic power
Tomohiro Yamada
* Center for Japanese language and culture
Osaka University
562-8558
8-1-1, Aomatanihigashi, Minoo, Osaka
JAPAN
Abstract.
In this note, we use Laurent’s lower bound for linear forms in two logarithms in [6] to give an improved lower bound for the argument of a power of a given algebraic number which has absolute value one but is not a root of unity.
Key words and phrases:
Linear forms in two logarithms, powers of algebraic numbers
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11J86
1. Introduction
Since Baker [1, 2] found lower bounds for linear forms in logarithms
[TABLE]
with complex algebraic numbers and integers, many authors such as Matveev [8] have given improved lower bounds for linear forms in logarithms of algebraic numbers.
Lower bounds for linear forms in two logarithms
[TABLE]
with two complex algebraic numbers and two positive integers had already been given by Gel’fond [4] and several authors such as Laurent [5, 6] and Laurent, Mignotte and Nesterenko [7] have given improved lower bounds.
For any algebraic number of degree over , we define the absolute logarithmic height of by
[TABLE]
where is the leading coefficient of the minimal polynomial of over and denote the conjugates of in complex numbers.
As an application of their lower bound for linear forms in two logarithms, Laurent, Mignotte and Nesterenko [7] gave an lower bound for the special logarithmic form
[TABLE]
where is an algebraic number of absolute value one but not a root of unity and are positive integers. Putting
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Later, Laurent [6] obtained the stronger lower bound for general linear forms in two logarithms in the following form:
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a linear form of two logarithms with positive integers and complex algebraic number. Put .
Let be an integer and be positive integers. Let and be real numbers with and . Put
[TABLE]
Let be positive real numbers such that
[TABLE]
for . Assume that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where .
Then , where
[TABLE]
However, Laurent has not given an improved lower bound for the special logarithmic form . The purpose of this note is to deduce an improved lower bound for the special logarithmic form from Theorem 1.1.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let
[TABLE]
where are positive integers and is an complex algebraic number of absolute value one but not a root of unity. Put
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
We note that we work a slightly generalized form rather than .
It immediately follow from Theorem 1.2 that if is an complex algebraic number of absolute value one but not a root of unity, is a positive integer and is the nearest integer from , then, under the same notation as in Theorem 1.2 with ,
[TABLE]
2. Preliminaries to the proof
If , then we divide ’s by to have another logarithmic form . If Theorem 1.2 holds for , then this would give the desired lower bound for . Thus we may assume that .
Moreover, we may assume that . Indeed, if , then Liouville’s inequality immediately gives
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
Clearly ’s and ’s satisfy the condition (8) in Theorem 1.1.
Let
[TABLE]
and be the positive real number such that satisfies the quadratic equation , where
[TABLE]
Moreover, we set
[TABLE]
We see that
[TABLE]
where ,
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Using (21), we have
[TABLE]
3. Confirmation of the conditions of Theorem 1.1
In this section, we shall confirm the conditions of Theorem 1.1.
In order to obtain an upper bound for , we follow the proof of Lemme 9 of [7]. We begin by quoting the upper bound
[TABLE]
provided by (5.19) of [7].
As in [7], using the identity , we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
These lower bounds yield that
[TABLE]
Now, (26) gives
[TABLE]
Recalling that and , we have
[TABLE]
Now we follow the proof of Lemme 10 of [7]. From (22) and (24), we see that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence, we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
(24) implies that . Moreover, it follows from (22) that and therefore
[TABLE]
From (30) and (36), we see that the left of (10) is at least
[TABLE]
say.
We can easily see that .
Now we would like to show that . Our argument is similar to the argument in Section 3.2.2 of [6]. We observe that , where
[TABLE]
We recall the assumption that and we observe that and . Thus we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
On the other hand, (24) gives that and, using Feller’s version [3] of Stirling’s formula, we have . This implies that our settings of satisfy (10).
Now we shall confirm (9). Since is not a root of unity, take different values and therefore the former part of (9) holds.
It follows from (25) that and, similarly, . Since we have assumed that , or .
Thus we can see that or . If we have for some integers with , then and . Since we have assumed that , and . If , then . If , then . Hence, we must have and . This yields that take different values. Hence, the latter part of (9) also holds.
Thus we have confirmed that Theorem 1.1 holds with our settings.
4. Computation of the constants
Now we apply Theorem 1.1 to obtain , where
[TABLE]
By (22), we have and . Now Theorem 1.1 gives
[TABLE]
We may assume that .
and .
From and , we see that . Thus, we obtain and therefore .
[TABLE]
This immediately gives that
[TABLE]
This proves Theorem 1.2.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] A. Baker, Linear forms in the logarithms of algebraic numbers, Mathamatika 13 (1966), 204–216.
- 2[2] A. Baker, Linear forms in the logarithms of algebraic numbers, Mathamatika 15 (1968), 204–216.
- 3[3] W. Feller, An Introduction to Probability Theory and Its Applications , Vol. I, Wiley, New York, 1950.
- 4[4] A. O. Gel’fond, On the approximation of transcendental numbers by algebraic numbers (in Russian), Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 2 (1935), 177–182.
- 5[5] Michel Laurent, Linear forms in two logarithms and interpolation determinants, Acta Arith. 66 (1994), 181–199.
- 6[6] Michel Laurent, Linear forms in two logarithms and interpolation determinants II, Acta Arith. 133 (2008), 325–348.
- 7[7] Michel Laurent, Maurice Mignotte and Yuri Nesterenko, Formes linéaires en deux logarithmes et déterminants d’interpolation, J. Number Theory 55 (1995), 285–321.
- 8[8] E. M. Matveev, An explicit lower bound for a homogeneous rational linear form in the logarithms of algebraic numbers. II, Izv. Ross. Akad. Nauk Ser. Mat. 64 (2000), 125–180, Eng. trans., Izv. Math. 64 (2000), 127–169.
