Help me find or prove an obvious (?) lemma

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a lemma related to the growth rates of subsets of natural numbers. Participants explore the conditions under which the ratio of elements from a subset to its superset approaches 1, particularly focusing on the implications of the superset's growth behavior and the density of the subsets involved.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a formalization involving subsets A and B of natural numbers, suggesting that if A contains 'almost all' of B and B has 'nice' growth, then the ratio of their nth elements approaches 1.
  • Another participant references familiarity with similar problems in Number Theory, suggesting that discussions of densities of sets of integers might provide insight.
  • A participant questions the dependency of the ratio a_1/b_1 on n, later correcting themselves to clarify they meant a_n/b_n, emphasizing that if A is almost all of B, their ratio should not diverge significantly.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the proof and hints at a potential reduction involving a theorem, indicating a belief that the result may be more straightforward than it appears.
  • A later contribution discusses the distribution of the parent sequence and introduces a mapping function, suggesting a limit condition that needs to be satisfied to show that a certain function does not grow too large.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach consensus on the existence of a known proof or reference for the proposed lemma. Multiple viewpoints and approaches are presented, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the conditions required for the lemma to hold, particularly regarding the growth behavior of the sequences involved and the implications of the density of the subsets.

CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
I was trying to prove something when I realized that it generalized fairly nicely. The basic idea is that if a subset contains 'almost all' of its superset (both sets inside N), and the superset has 'nice' growth, the ratio between the nth element of the two sets approaches 1 as a limit.

Here's an attempt to formalize:

Given [itex]A\subseteq B\subseteq\mathbb{N}[/itex], with
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{|A\cap\{1,2,\ldots,n\}|}{|B\cap\{1,2,\ldots,n\}|}=1[/tex]
and
[tex]|B\cap\{1,2,\ldots,n\}|\sim n(\log n)^k[/tex] for some k (perhaps this can be weakened to remaining between k1 and k2)
it follows that
[tex]\lim_{n\to\infty}a_n/b_n=1[/tex]
where a_i is the ith largest member of A and likewise for b_i.

1. Is this known? Does it have a name or a standard (textbook?) reference?
2. Failing #1, is there an easy proof for this?
3. Failing #2, is the result -- or something similar -- true?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know a proof, or of a quick method of attack, but this does look familiar as a type of problem I saw in Number Theory many years ago. Look for a discussion of densities of sets of integers in those books - that may be a guide.
Keep checking back - I'm sure someone here, far more knowledgeable about this area than this poor statistician (:smile:) , will soon offer some advice.
 
I don't see how a_1/b_1 depends on n.
 
DeadWolfe said:
I don't see how a_1/b_1 depends on n.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, that should be a_n/b_n.

The intuition here is that if A is almost all of B, their ratio shouldn't get too large if the sequence is well-behaved and grows slowly.
 
statdad said:
I don't know a proof, or of a quick method of attack, but this does look familiar as a type of problem I saw in Number Theory many years ago. Look for a discussion of densities of sets of integers in those books - that may be a guide.

Well, I'm still looking. It does seem a rather familiar result, though, just as you mention... I can't help but think I'm missing something glaringly obvious ('a simple reduction to foo, with a judicious application of Bar's Theorem, shows that this is true for |A| > N for some N...').
 
OK, so here goes.

The parent sequence is distributed so for any [itex]\varepsilon>0[/itex], the nth member [itex]b_n[/itex] is at most [itex]k_\varepsilon n^{1+\varepsilon}.[/itex] The subsequence [itex](a_i)_n[/itex] is such that [itex]f(m)[/itex] that maps m to the unique n such that [itex]a_m=b_n[/itex] has
[tex]\lim_{m\to\infty}f(m)/m=1[/tex]
or alternatively for every M there is a g(M) with
[tex]f(m)\le g(M)m[/tex] for all m > M.

Now I just need to show that g(M) needn't get too big, right?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K