Consecutive tuples of multiplicatively dependent integers

DOI10.1016/J.JNT.2021.07.021MaRDI QIDQ2116756zbMATH OpenOpenAlexWikidataFDO

Authors Ingrid Vukusic, Volker Ziegler

Publication date 18 March 2022

Published in Journal of Number Theory (Search for Journal in Brave)

Copyright license Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International

Full work available at URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.08542

zbMATH Keywords

\(S\)-unit equationslinear forms in logarithmsmultiplicative dependencemultiplicative independencePillai's problem

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Exponential Diophantine equations (11D61) Linear forms in logarithms; Baker's method (11J86) Distribution of integers with specified multiplicative constraints (11N25)

Abstract: This paper is concerned with the existence of consecutive pairs and consecutive triples of multiplicatively dependent integers. A theorem by LeVeque on Pillai's equation implies that the only consecutive pairs of multiplicatively dependent integers larger than 1 are $(2,8)$ and $(3,9)$. For triples, we prove the following theorem: If $aotin2,8$ is a fixed integer larger than 1, then there are only finitely many triples $(a,b,c)$ of pairwise distinct integers larger than 1 such that $(a,b,c)$, $(a+1,b+1,c+1)$ and $(a+2,b+2,c+2)$ are each multiplicatively dependent. Moreover, these triples can be determined effectively.

Review text

In this paper the authors study the \(n\)-tuples of multiplicatively dependent integers \((a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n)\), where \(1<a_1<\dots<a_n\), for which their shifts \((a_1+j,a_2+j,\dots,a_n+j)\) are also multiplicatively dependent for \(j=1,\dots,k\). In case \(n=2\) and \(k=1\) it is shown that \((2,8)\) and \((3,9)\) is the only pair of consecutive multiplicatively dependent pairs. The authors also construct some infinite series of integer triplets \((a,b,c)\), where \(1<a<b<c\), for which their shifts \((a+1,b+1,c+1)\) are also multiplicatively dependent. Their main result is the following. Let \(a \ne 1,2,8\) be a fixed integer. Suppose that \(b, c \notin \{1,a\}\) are distinct integers larger than \(1\) such that \((a, b, c)\), \((a + 1, b + 1, c + 1)\) and \((a + 2, b + 2, c + 2)\) are each multiplicatively dependent. Then, there is an effectively computable constant \(C=C(a)\) such that \(\max\{a, b, c\} < C\). One of the main ingredients in the proof is a lower bound for the linear form in logarithms.

Recommendations

• Multiplicative dependence of the translations of algebraic numbers
• Multiplicatively dependent triples of Tribonacci numbers
• Multiplicative dependence of two integers shifted by a root of unity
• Multiplicative dependence of quadratic polynomials
• Multiplicative Diophantine equations with factors from different Lucas sequences

Cites work

• An explicit lower bound for a homogeneous rational linear form in logarithms of algebraic numbers. II
• Differences between Perfect Powers
• scientific article; zbMATH DE number 3979149 (Why is no real title available?)
• Linear forms in two logarithms and interpolation determinants II
• Multiplicative dependence of the translations of algebraic numbers
• On some exponential equations of S. S. Pillai
• On the Equation a x - b y = 1
• On the number of solutions of linear equations in units of an algebraic number field
• Primary cyclotomic units and a proof of Catalans conjecture

Cited in

(6)

• Multiplicative dependence of the translations of algebraic numbers
• Multiplicative dependence of two integers shifted by a root of unity
• Consecutive Integers with Close Kernels
• Multiplicative dependence of translated vectors with integer coordinates
• More on consecutive multiplicatively dependent triples of integers
• Multiplicatively dependent integer vectors on a hyperplane

This page was built for publication: Consecutive tuples of multiplicatively dependent integers

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2116756)