To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Traditional books on number theory that emphasize the algebraic aspects begin with the subject of modular arithmetic. This is a very powerful technique, based on the work of Fermat, Euler, and Gauss. The idea is to fix an integer, n, and group all the rest of the integers into one of n classes, depending on what remainder you get when you divide by n. A more elegant way of saying this is that two integers, a and b, are in the same class if n divides b − a or, in other words, b − a is an integer multiple of n. In this case, we write a ≡ b mod n. (This is pronounced “a is congruent to b modulo n.”) For example, with n = 6, 5 ≡ 17 mod 6, −2 ≡ 4 mod 6, and even 6 ≡ 0 mod 6. Because there are seven days in a week, the fact that 3 ≡ 10 mod 7 means that the 3rd of the month and the 10th of the month fall on the same weekday.
Example 14.0.1. The following steps show that ≡ is an equivalence relation.
Show that ≡ is reflexive, that is, that a ≡ a mod n.
Show that ≡ is symmetric; that is, if a ≡ b mod n, then b ≡ a mod n.
Show that ≡ is transitive; that is, if a ≡ b mod n and b ≡ c mod n, then a ≡ c mod n.
After this long detour through calculus, we are ready to return to number theory. The goal is to get some idea of how prime numbers are distributed among the integers. That is, if we pick a large integer N, what are the chances that N is a prime? A rigorous answer to this question is hard, so in this section we will only give a heuristic argument. The general idea of an argument based on probability is very old. Not only is it known not to be a proof (Hardy, Littlewood, 1922), but the way in which it fails to be a proof is interesting.
Because this will be an argument about probability, some explanation is necessary. If you flip a fair coin twelve times, you expect heads to come up about 6 = 12 × 1/2 times. You can think of this 6 as 1/2 + 1/2+ ⋯ +1/2, twelve additions. If you roll a fair die twelve times, you expect to roll a five about 2 = 12 × 1/6 times. The 2 is 1/6 added twelve times. This tells us what to do when the probability changes from one trial to the next. Imagine an experiment in which, at the kth trial, the chance of success is 1/k. If you repeat the experiment n times, how many successes do you expect? The answer is 1 + 1/2 + 1/3+ ⋯ +1/n = Hn. Because we already know that the Harmonic number, Hn, is about log(n) in size, we expect log(n) successes after n trials.
The techniques discussed in the previous chapters can be pushed a little further, at the cost of a lot of work. To make real progress, however, we need to study the prime numbers themselves. How are the primes distributed among the integers? Is there any pattern? This is a very deep question, which was alluded to at the beginning of Chapter 3. This Interlude makes a detour away from number theory to explain the ideas from calculus that we will need. It covers things I wish you had learned but, based on my experience, I expect you did not. I can't force you to read it, but if you skip it, please refer back to it later.
Linear Approximations
Although you might not notice, all of differential calculus is about a single idea: Complicated functions can often be approximated, on a small scale anyway, by straight lines. What good is such an approximation? Many textbooks will have a (rather unconvincing) application, something like “approximate the square root of 1.037.” In fact, almost everything that happens in calculus is an application of this idea.
For example, one learns that the graph of function y = f(x) increases at point x = a if the derivative f′(a) is positive. Why is this true? It's because of the linear approximation idea: The graph increases if the straight line approximating the graph increases. For a line, it's easy to see that it is increasing if the slope is positive. That slope is f′(a).
In his Introduction to Arithmetic, Nicomachus wrote the following:
It comes about that even as fair and excellent things are few and easily numerated, while ugly and evil ones are widespread, so also the abundant and deficient numbers are found in great multitude and irregularly placed – for the method of their discovery is irregular – but the perfect numbers are easily enumerated and arranged with suitable order; for only one is found among the units, 6, only one among the tens, 28, and a third in the rank of the hundreds, 496 alone, and a fourth within the limits of the thousands, that is, below ten thousand, 8128.
Nicomachus is clearly implying that the nth perfect number has n digits. We already know this is wrong; we discovered in Chapter 2 that the fifth perfect number is 33550336. According to Dickson, 1999, Iamblichus in his Commentary on Nicomachus states this even more explicitly, and the mistake was subsequently repeated by Boethius in the fifth century. In the twelfth century, Abraham ben Meir ibn Ezra made the same claim in his commentary to the Pentateuch. In the fourteenth century, Thomas Bradwardine, mathematician and physicist, repeated the claim in his book Arithmetica Speculativa. Bradwardine became Archbishop of Canterbury but died shortly after of the Black Death in 1349.
Despite being wrong, this claim by Nicomachus is important because it is the very first of its kind. It examines the distribution of perfect numbers among all the integers. Because of Euler's theorem (see Chapter 2), we know that even perfect numbers correspond to prime Mersenne numbers.
This special issue is devoted to papers from the meeting on Combinatorics, Probability and Computing, held at the Mathematisches Forschungsinstitut in Oberwolfach from the 23$^{\rm rd}$ to the 29$^{\rm th}$ of September 2001. As is typical of meetings at Oberwolfach, this was an exciting and stimulating conference; there was a large number of excellent talks, many of which provoked a great deal of interest and discussion among the participants.
We analyse a randomized pursuit-evasion game played by two players on a graph, a hunter and a rabbit. Let $G$ be any connected, undirected graph with $n$ nodes. The game is played in rounds and in each round both the hunter and the rabbit are located at a node of the graph. Between rounds both the hunter and the rabbit can stay at the current node or move to another node. The hunter is assumed to be restricted to the graph $G$: in every round, the hunter can move using at most one edge. For the rabbit we investigate two models: in one model the rabbit is restricted to the same graph as the hunter, and in the other model the rabbit is unrestricted, i.e., it can jump to an arbitrary node in every round.
We say that the rabbit is caught as soon as hunter and rabbit are located at the same node in a round. The goal of the hunter is to catch the rabbit in as few rounds as possible, whereas the rabbit aims to maximize the number of rounds until it is caught. Given a randomized hunter strategy for $G$, the escape length for that strategy is the worst case expected number of rounds it takes the hunter to catch the rabbit, where the worst case is with regard to all (possibly randomized) rabbit strategies. Our main result is a hunter strategy for general graphs with an escape length of only $\O(n \log (\diam(G)))$ against restricted as well as unrestricted rabbits. This bound is close to optimal since $\Omega(n)$ is a trivial lower bound on the escape length in both models. Furthermore, we prove that our upper bound is optimal up to constant factors against unrestricted rabbits.
In this paper we consider a random star $d$-process which begins with $n$ isolated vertices, and in each step chooses randomly a vertex of current minimum degree $\delta$, and connects it with $d - \delta$ random vertices of degree less than $d$. We show that, for $d \geqslant 3$, the resulting final graph is connected with probability $1 - o(1)$, and moreover that, for suficiently large $d$, it is $d$-connected with probability $1 - o(1)$.
This is a continuation of our work on quasi-random graph properties. The class of quasi-random graphs is defined by certain equivalent graph properties possessed by random graphs. One of the most important of these properties is that, for fixed $\nu$, every fixed sample graph $L_\nu$ has the same frequency in $G_n$ as in the $p$-random graph. (This holds for both induced and not necessarily induced containment.) In [9] we proved that, if the frequency of just one fixed $L_\nu$ – as a not necessarily induced subgraph – in every ‘large’ induced subgraph $F_h\subseteq G_n$ is the same as for the random graphs, then $(G_n)$ is quasi-random. Here we shall investigate the analogous problem for induced subgraphs $L_\nu$. In such cases $(G_n)$ is not necessarily quasi-random.
We shall prove, among other things, that, for every regular sample graph $L_\nu$, $\nu\geqslant 4$, if the number of induced copies of $L_\nu$ in every induced $F_h\subseteq G_n$ is asymptotically the same as in a $p$-random graph (up to an error term $o(n^\nu)$), then $(G_n)$ is the union of (at most) two quasi-random graph sequences, with possibly distinct attached probabilities (assuming that $p\in (0,1)$, $e(L_\nu)>0$, and $L_\nu\ne K_\nu$).
We conjecture the same conclusion for every $L_\nu$ with $\nu\ge 4$, i.e., even if we drop the assumption of regularity.
We shall reduce the general problem to solving a system of polynomials. This gives a ‘simple’ algorithm to decide the problem for every given $L_\nu$.
Suppose $n$ circular arcs of lengths $\len_i \in [0,1],0\leq i<n$, are placed uniformly at random on a unit length circle. We study the maximum overlap, i.e., the number of arcs that overlap at the same position of the circle. In particular, we give almost exact tail bounds for this random variable. By applying these tail bounds we can characterize the expected maximum overlap exactly up to constant factors in lower order terms. We illustrate the strength of our results by presenting new performance guarantees for three algorithmic applications: minimizing rotational delays for disks, scheduling accesses to parallel disks, and allocating memory blocks to limit cache interference misses.
This paper shows that the largest possible contrast $C_{k,n}$ in a $k$-out-of-$n$ secret sharing scheme is approximately $4^{-(k-1)}$. More precisely, we show that $4^{-(k-1)} \leq C_{k,n} \leq 4^{-(k-1)}n^k/(n(n-1)\cdots(n-(k-1)))$. This implies that the largest possible contrast equals $4^{-(k-1)}$ in the limit when $n$ approaches infinity. For large $n$, the above bounds leave almost no gap. For values of $n$ that come close to $k$, we will present alternative bounds (being tight for $n=k$). The proofs of our results proceed by finding a relationship between the largest possible contrast in a secret sharing scheme and the smallest possible approximation error in problems occurring in approximation theory.
The branching random walk on a regular graph turns out to be particularly easy to analyse using results for the corresponding simple random walk. In this way, one can show that there is an intermediate phase of weak survival if and only if the graph is nonamenable. No such simple analysis holds more generally, and it is known that the nonamenability equivalence does not extend to general connected graphs of bounded degree (although we observe that it does hold for such graphs if the branching random walk is modified in a certain natural way). The most important general class of (bounded degree, connected) graphs for which it is thought that the equivalence may hold is that of quasi-transitive graphs: we show that this is indeed the case.
It is known that random $k$-Sat instances with at least $(2^k \cdot \ln 2)\cdot n$ random clauses are unsatisfiable with high probability. This result is simply obtained by showing that the expected number of satisfying assignments tends to $0$ when the number of variables $n$ tends to infinity. This proof does not directly provide us with an efficient algorithm certifying the unsatisfiability of a given random formula. Concerning efficient algorithms, it is essentially known that random formulas with $n^\varepsilon \cdot n^{k/2}$ clauses with $k$ literals can be efficiently certified as unsatisfiable. The present paper is the result of trying to lower this bound. We obtain better bounds for some specialized satisfiability problems. These results are based on discrepancy investigations for hypergraphs.
Further, we show that random formulas with a linear number of clauses can be efficiently certified as unsatisfiable in the Not-All-Equal-$3$-Sat sense. A similar result holds for the non-$3$-colourability of random graphs with a linear number of edges. We obtain these results by direct application of approximation algorithms.