Help me find or prove an obvious (?) lemma

  • Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses a formalization of a problem involving subsets and supersets of natural numbers. The main idea is that if a subset contains almost all of its superset and both sets have nice growth, the ratio between the nth element of the two sets approaches 1 as a limit. The conversation also mentions the possibility of this result being related to densities of sets of integers and suggests looking for a discussion in books on number theory. The conversation concludes with a proposed proof, involving a parent sequence and a subsequence, to show that the ratio between the two sets does not get too large.
  • #1
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
2,845
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:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
I don't see how a_1/b_1 depends on n.
 
  • #4
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.
 
  • #5
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...').
 
  • #6
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?
 

FAQ: Help me find or prove an obvious (?) lemma

What is a lemma?

A lemma is a proven statement or theorem that is used as a stepping stone in the proof of a larger statement or theorem. It is often a smaller, simpler statement that is easy to prove and is used to support the proof of a more complex statement.

How do you find a lemma?

Finding a lemma involves carefully examining the statement or theorem that you are trying to prove and breaking it down into smaller, simpler components. From there, you can use logical reasoning and mathematical techniques to prove these smaller statements and eventually build up to the proof of the larger statement.

Why is it important to find or prove a lemma?

Proving a lemma is important because it provides a solid foundation for the proof of a larger statement or theorem. It also allows for a more streamlined and organized proof, as breaking down a complex statement into smaller lemmas can make the proof more manageable.

How can you tell if a lemma is obvious?

A lemma can be considered obvious if it is a simple statement that is easily understood and accepted by most mathematicians. This can be subjective, as what may seem obvious to one person may not be obvious to another. However, a lemma can also be considered obvious if it is commonly used in mathematical proofs and is well-known in the field.

Are there any tips for finding or proving a lemma?

One tip for finding or proving a lemma is to start by breaking down the larger statement or theorem into smaller, simpler components. Another tip is to look for patterns or connections between these smaller statements that may lead to a proof. Additionally, it can be helpful to consult with other mathematicians or references in the field for guidance and inspiration.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
936
Replies
1
Views
592
Replies
8
Views
686
Replies
2
Views
2K
3
Replies
100
Views
9K
Replies
4
Views
1K
2
Replies
61
Views
7K
Back
Top