Help me find or prove an obvious (?) lemma

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
5 replies · 3K views
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?