+ All Categories
Home > Documents > N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA...

N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA...

Date post: 18-Jul-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
5
NUMBER OF MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS NOT DIVISIBLE BY A PRIME Nikolai A. Volodin The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited, Camberwell 3124, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (Submitted March 1993) We consider the n th row of multinomial coefficients of the order £: Ui> Ji> •"•> Ju , . , . i •> JvJi- -Ji- where j t >0,i = 1,..., £, and n = j l +j 2 + ••• +j t . The number of multinomial coefficients not divisible by p N , where/? is prime and Nis a fixed whole integer, for various £, p, and JVwas studied by L. Carlitz [1], [2], F. T. Howard [3], [4], [5], [12], R. J. Martin and G. L. Mullen [6], and the author [7]. Let g(n, £, p N ) be a number of multinomial coefficients in the rfl* row of order £ not divisible by p N , and k=l G(n,£,p») = Yg(kJ,P N )- In the general case, an exact formula for g(n, £, p N ) was obtained by F. T. Howard [5] for N= 1, 2, 3 and by the author [7] for N= 1, 2. It is not difficult to show that the behavior or g(n, £, p N ) is very irregular and from that point of view it is better to study G(/i ? £, p N ) which changes more regularly. The function G(n, £, p N ) was studied by K. B. Stolarsky [8], [9] and H. Harborth [10] for N = 1, £ = p = 2; by A. H. Stein [11] for N = 1, £ = 2, and arbitrary p; and by the author [7] for arbitrary £ and p. More precisely, the following exact formula was obtained in [7]: m n m Ar=0 l i=k where n - 1 = a Q + a x p + • • • + a m p m . It is not difficult to show that G(n, £, p) is of the order n e \ where 0 = log p (/, p-l). The following theorem gives a more exact result. Theorem 1: a = lim sup G(n, £,p)l n 6 - 1. n—>oo Unfortunately, there are no similar results for J3 = lim inf G(n, £, p)ln e even in particular cases. In the general case, only the following elementary estimate is known: (3>{£,p-1)" 1 . In the particular case/? = 2 (following H. Harborth [10]), we are able to prove the following result. * This research was undertaken while the author was in the Statistical Department of the University of Melbourne. 402 [Nov.
Transcript
Page 1: N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S N O T DIVISIBL E B Y A P R IM E Theorem 2: If w e consider

NUMBER OF MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS NOT DIVISIBLE BY A PRIME

Nikolai A. Volodin The Australian Council for Educational Research Limited,

Camberwell 3124, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (Submitted March 1993)

We consider the nth row of multinomial coefficients of the order £:

Ui> Ji> •"•> Ju — • , . , . i •> JvJi- -Ji-

where jt >0,i = 1,..., £, and n = jl +j2 + ••• +jt. The number of multinomial coefficients not divisible by pN, where/? is prime and Nis a fixed

whole integer, for various £, p, and JVwas studied by L. Carlitz [1], [2], F. T. Howard [3], [4], [5], [12], R. J. Martin and G. L. Mullen [6], and the author [7]. Let g(n, £, pN) be a number of multinomial coefficients in the rfl* row of order £ not divisible by pN, and

k=l G(n,£,p») = Yg(kJ,PN)-

In the general case, an exact formula for g(n, £, pN) was obtained by F. T. Howard [5] for N= 1, 2, 3 and by the author [7] for N= 1, 2. It is not difficult to show that the behavior or g(n, £, pN) is very irregular and from that point of view it is better to study G(/i? £, pN) which changes more regularly. The function G(n, £, pN) was studied by K. B. Stolarsky [8], [9] and H. Harborth [10] for N = 1, £ = p = 2; by A. H. Stein [11] for N = 1, £ = 2, and arbitrary p; and by the author [7] for arbitrary £ and p.

More precisely, the following exact formula was obtained in [7]: m n m

Ar=0 l i=k

where n - 1 = aQ + axp + • • • + ampm. It is not difficult to show that G(n, £, p) is of the order ne\ where 0 = logp(/, p-l). The following theorem gives a more exact result.

Theorem 1: a = lim sup G(n, £,p)l n6 - 1. n—>oo

Unfortunately, there are no similar results for J3 = lim inf G(n, £, p)lne even in particular cases.

In the general case, only the following elementary estimate is known: (3>{£,p-1)"1.

In the particular case/? = 2 (following H. Harborth [10]), we are able to prove the following result.

* This research was undertaken while the author was in the Statistical Department of the University of Melbourne.

402 [Nov.

Page 2: N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S N O T DIVISIBL E B Y A P R IM E Theorem 2: If w e consider

NUMBER OF MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS NOT DIVISIBLE BY A PRIME

Theorem 2: If we consider the sequence qr = G(nn £, 2) / n°r with nr = 2nr_x ± 1, nQ = 1, where + or - is chosen so that qr becomes minimal, then {qr} is strictly decreasing.

This theorem is a generalization of the lemma from [10] for the case of binomial coefficients to the case of multinomial coefficients. We should also note that the sequence {nr} is not the same for different i . In Table 1 the values of nr for various r and I are given.

TABLE 1

* 2 3 4 5 10

1

3 3 3 3 3

2

5 7 7 7 7

3

11 13 13 13 13

4

21 27 27 27 27

5

43 53 55 55 55

6

87 107 109 109 111

r

7

173 215 219 219 221

8

347 429 439 439 443

9

693 859 877 877 887

10

1387 1719 1755 1755 1775

15

44395 54999 56171 56173 56795

30

1454730075 1802202477 1840625371 1840700855 1861082589

In Table 2 we give values of nr and qr = G(nr, 2,2) / nr.

TABLE 2

r

r 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

"r

1 3 5 11 21 43 87 173 347 693

1387 2775 5549 11099 22197 44395 88789 177579 355159 710317 1420635 2841269 5682539 11365079 22730157

Ir 1.000000 0.876497 0.858126 0.827243 0.826359 0.816719 0.815382

0.813788222 0.813086063 0.812934013 0.812675296 0.812657623 0.812592041 0.812575228 0.812567096 0.812560137 0.812559941 0.812557589 0.812557229 0.812556865 0.812556846 0.812556653 0.812556588 0.812556582 0.812556563

r ~26~ 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

nr

45460315 90920629 181841259 363682519 727365037 1454730075 2909460149 5818920299 11637840597 23275681195 46551362391 93102724781 186205449563 372410899125 744821798251 1489643596503 2979287193005 5958574386011 11917148772021 23834297544043 47668595088085 95337190176171 190674380352343 381348760704685 762697521409371

9r 0.812556563402 0.812556561634 0.812556559863 0.812556559862 0.812556559272 0.812556559174 0.812556559092

0.8125565590457850017 0.8125565590398820396 0.8125565590234059925 0.8125565590216437317 0.8125565590182076960 0.8125565590170475496 0.8125565590166681715 0.8125565590162182798 0.8125565590162065045 0.8125565590160702999 0.8125565590160436690 0.8125565590160253147 0.8125565590160134328 0.8125565590160123562 0.8125565590160082524 0.8125565590160076856 0.8125565590160069672 0.8125565590160066187

On the other hand, if we consider the case £ - 2, p = 3,5, 7, then there exist increasing sequences {nr} such that G(nr, 2, p)/n® < G(nr_h 2, p)Ine

r_v Calculations give us the following sequences:

1994] 403

Page 3: N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S N O T DIVISIBL E B Y A P R IM E Theorem 2: If w e consider

NUMBER OF MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS NOT DIVISIBLE BY A PRIME

fy = 0, nr = 3«r_i +1, for/? = 3, /% = 0, nr = 5nr_x + 2, forp - 5, i\ = 0, nr - lnr_x + 3, for p = 7.

If we denote pp = lim inf G(n, 2, p) I ne and /?. = lim inf G(nr, 2, p) I n0r, then

/?3 = 2io^2~1 = 0.774281326315 /?5 = 2log53_1 = 0.802518299262 /?7 = ^"g'4-1 = 0.819271977267

(*)

Very probably fip = fip, but at the present time we do not have complete proof of this fact. For that purpose it is necessary to show that the sequences {nr} which were defined earlier have the following property: G(nr, 2, p)lnd

r < min G(n, 2,p)/n0, r = 1,2,..., forp = 2,3,5, and 7. nr_i <n<nr

Proof of Theorem 1: It follows from (1) that

G(pm, I p) I pme = (£,p- l)m lpm6 = l

for all my which gives us a > 1. Furthermore, we will show that

biEzG(ipmJ,p)/(ipm)e<l, when 1 <i<p.

For this purpose, we consider the fraction btJbi+l = c, which, due to (1), is

7 + 1 " l + \f

and we shall show that cx - 2e I (I +1) > 1 or, in other words, that

Since

a we consider, under t > 3, the function

(t,p-l)>(£ + \)logip.

(t,p-lW + T?°*"> = t + l(lt 1 V ̂ p

/+/7-1V *

log2 P

as a function of/> and, taking the derivitave, we find that

<P(P, 0 = <P(P,t) pln2

yi41-^2 t) t + p-l <-

<P(P,t)(, tp\n2 1 — //?ln2\^ / + / ? - ! <0

because tp/(t + p-l) is increased either hyp or by t, and

r/?ln2 t+p-l t=3, p=2

= - l n 2 > l . 2

(2)

(3)

(4)

404 [NOV.

Page 4: N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S N O T DIVISIBL E B Y A P R IM E Theorem 2: If w e consider

NUMBER OF MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS NOT DIVISIBLE BY A PRIME

Hence, <p(j>, I +1) < p(2,£ +1) = 1, and (£, p-!)/(£ + l)log2 p is decreased ml. So

(£,p-l)/(£ + l)lo^p<(3,p-l)/p2<l, when/>3, which proves (4).

As the derivative of the function

, x , x + 1) x y/(x)--l + x

is equal to

n M x J (x + l)(^ + x)2

then i^(x) has only one extreme and, as cx > 1, this extreme is the minimum. As ^ = ftp = 1 for 2 <i <p-1, we have ^ < 1.

From (1) it is easy to prove, for 0 < x < pm, that the following recurrent formula is valid:

G(ampm + x, £, p) = G(ampm, £, p) + (£-1, am)G(x, £, p), (5)

where 1 < am < p -1. We show that

G(ampm+x, £, p)l{ampm + xf < 1 for all x = 0,..., pm -1, m = 0,1,... (6)

is valid. The inequality (6) is evident when m = 0. Let us suppose that (6) is valid in the case of all

positive numbers less than m. Then we will have G(x, £9 p) < xe for 0 < x < pm. Then, from (3) and (5), we have

G(ampm + x, /, p) I (ampm + xf = [G(ampm, £, p) + (£-1, aJG(x, *, /,)] / ( a ^ + xf ^(^pyH^-haJyia^^xf^fixlOKxKpr

In the interval [0, pm] the function / (x) has only one extreme, which is the minimum. So (5) is valid. From (3) and (6), we have a < 1 and, when (2) is added, a = 1. Theorem 1 is proved.

Proof of Theorem 2: We suppose

G(2nr +1, £, 1) / (2«r + if > qr and G(2^ - 1 , £, 1) / (2nr - if > qr. (8)

If we denote a = 2nr and b = £tr I {(I + l)G(nr, £9 2)), then, from the definition of qr and assump-tions (7) and (8), we have

1 + 6 > | 1 + - | and 1 - & > | 1 - -a J V a J

^2 Addition of these two inequalities yields the contradiction 2 > 2 + 9(9 -I) I a + • • > 2. Thus, the inequalities (7) cannot both be true, which proves that the sequence {qr} is strictly decreasing. Theorem 2 is proved.

Returning to formulas (*), it is necessary to note that calculations for/? = 3, 5, 7 are very simple, by using (1). We omit the proof.

1994] 405

Page 5: N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S ... · N U M B E R O F M U L T IN O M IA L C O E F F IC IE N T S N O T DIVISIBL E B Y A P R IM E Theorem 2: If w e consider

NUMBER OF MULTINOMIAL COEFFICIENTS NOT DIVISIBLE BY A PRIME

REFERENCES

1. L. Carlitz. "The Number of Binomial Coefficients Divisible by a Fixed Power of a Prime." Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 16 (1967):299-320.

2. L. Carlitz. "Distribution of Binomial Coefficients." Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma 11 (1970):45-64. 3. F. T. Howard. "The Number of Binomial Coefficients Divisible by a Fixed Power of 2."

Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 29 (1971):236-42. 4. F. T. Howard. "The Number of Binomial Coefficients Divisible by a Fixed Power of a

Prime." Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 37 (1973):358-62. 5. F. T. Howard. "The Number of Multinomial Coefficients Divisible by a Fixed Power of a

Prime." Pacific J. Math. 50 (1974):99-108. 6. R. J. Martin & G. L. Mullen. "Reducing Multinomial Coefficients Modulo a Prime Power."

Computers and Mathematics with Applications 10 (1984): 3 7-41. 7. N. A. Volodin. "Distribution of Polynomial Coefficients Congruent Modulo pN " Mathe-

matical Notes 45 (1989): 195-99. 8. K. B. Stolarsky. "Digital Sums and Binomial Coefficients." Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 22

(1975):A-669. 9. K B . Stolarsky. "Power and Exponential Sums of Digital Sums Related to Binomial Coeffi-

cient Parity." SIAMJ. Appl. Math. 32 (1977):717-30. 10. HHarborth. "Number of Odd Coefficients." Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 62 (1977): 19-22. 11. A. H. Stein. "Binomial Coefficients Not Divisible by a Prime." Number Theory, (New York,

1985/1988), Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1383:170-77 (Berlin-New York: Springer, 1989). 12. F. T. Howard. "Multinomial and 2-Binomial Coefficients Modulo 4 and Modulo p." The

Fibonacci Quarterly 31.1 (1993):53-64.

AMS Classification Numbers: 11B65, 11B50, 05A10

Author and Title Index The AUTHOR, TITLE, KEY-WORD, ELEMENTARY PROBLEMS, and ADVANCED PROBLEMS indices for the first 30 volumes of The Fibonacci Quarterly have been completed by Dr. Charles K. Cook. Publication of the completed indices is on a 3.5-inch, high density disk. The price for a copyrighted version of the disk will be $40.00 plus postage for non-subscribers, while subscribers to The Fibonacci Quarterly need only pay $20.00 plus postage. For additional information, or to order a disk copy of the indices, write to:

PROFESSOR CHARLES K. COOK DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA AT SUMTER 1 LOUISE CIRCLE SUMTER, SC 29150

The indices have been compiled using WORDPERFECT. Should you wish to order a copy of the indices for another wordprocessor or for a non-compatible IBM machine, please explain your situation to Dr. Cook when you place your order and he will try to accommodate you. D O N O T SEND PAYMENT W I T H YOUR ORDER. You will be billed for the indices and postage by Dr. Cook when he sends you the disk. A star is used in the indices to indicate unsolved problems. Furthermore, Dr. Cook is working on a SUBJECT index and will also be classifying all articles by use of the AMS Classification Scheme. Those who purchase the indices will be given one free update of all indices when the SUBJECT index and the AMS Classification of all articles published in The Fibonacci Quarterly are completed.

406 [NOV.


Recommended