Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-03T19:10:11.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

ON A $\boldsymbol {k}$-ADDITIVE UNIQUENESS SET FOR MULTIPLICATIVE FUNCTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 February 2022

ELCHIN HASANALIZADE*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4, Canada
*
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Let $k\geq 2$ be an integer. We prove that the 2-automatic sequence of odious numbers $\mathcal {O}$ is a k-additive uniqueness set for multiplicative functions: if a multiplicative function f satisfies a multivariate Cauchy’s functional equation $f(x_1+x_2+\cdots +x_k)=f(x_1)+f(x_2)+\cdots +f(x_k)$ for arbitrary $x_1,\ldots ,x_k\in \mathcal {O}$ , then f is the identity function $f(n)=n$ for all $n\in \mathbb {N}$ .

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Australian Mathematical Publishing Association Inc.

1 Introduction

An arithmetic function $f:\mathbb {N}\to \mathbb {C}$ is multiplicative if $f(1)=1$ and $f(mn)=f(m)f(n)$ whenever m and n are relatively prime. Let $\mathcal {M}$ denote the set of complex-valued multiplicative functions.

A set $E\subseteq \mathbb {N}$ is an additive uniqueness set of a set of arithmetic functions $\mathcal {F}$ if there is exactly one element $f\in \mathcal {F}$ that satisfies

$$ \begin{align*} f(m+n)=f(m)+f(n) \quad \text{for all} \ m,n\in E. \end{align*} $$

For example, $\mathbb {N}$ and $\{1\}\cup 2\mathbb {N}$ are trivially additive uniqueness sets of $\mathcal {M}$ .

This concept was introduced by Spiro [Reference Spiro13] in 1992. She proved that the set of primes is an additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {M}_0=\{f\in \mathcal {M} \mid f(p_0)\neq 0 \ \text {for some prime}\ p_0\}$ and asked whether other interesting sets were additive uniqueness sets for multiplicative functions. Spiro’s work has been extended in many directions.

Let $k\geq 2$ be a fixed integer. If there is only one function $f\in \mathcal {F}$ which satisfies ${f(x_1+x_2+\cdots +x_k)=f(x_1)+f(x_2)+\cdots +f(x_k)}$ for arbitrary $x_i\in E$ , $i\in \{1,2,\ldots ,k\}$ , then E is called a k-additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {F}$ .

In 2010, Fang [Reference Fang5] proved that the set of primes is a 3-additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {M}_0$ . In 2013, Dubickas and ${\breve{\mathrm{S}}}$ arka [Reference Dubickas and Šarka4] generalised Fang’s result to sums of arbitrary primes.

In 1999, Chung and Phong [Reference Chung and Phong3] showed that the set of positive triangular numbers $T_n=\tfrac 12n(n+1)$ , $n\in \mathbb {N}$ , and the set of positive tetrahedral numbers ${\textit {Te}}_n=\tfrac 16n(n+1)(n+2)$ , $n\in \mathbb {N}$ , were new additive uniqueness sets for $\mathcal {M}$ . Park [Reference Park11] extended their work to sums of k triangular numbers, $k\geq 3$ .

In 2018, Kim et al. [Reference Kim, Kim, Lee and Park7] proved that the set of generalised pentagonal numbers $P_n=\tfrac 12n(3n-1)$ , $n\in \mathbb {Z}$ , is an additive uniqueness set for $\mathcal {M}$ . Recently, they showed that the set of positive pentagonal numbers and the set of positive hexagonal numbers $H_n=n(2n-1)$ , $n\in \mathbb {N}$ , are new additive uniqueness sets for the collection of multiplicative functions [Reference Kim, Kim, Lee and Park8]. They also conjectured that among the sets of s-gonal numbers, only the sets of triangular, pentagonal and hexagonal numbers are additive uniqueness sets for $\mathcal {M}$ .

Park [Reference Park9] proved that the set of nonzero squares is a k-additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {M}$ for every $k\geq 3$ , although it is not a 2-additive uniqueness set [Reference Chung2]. In 2020, he showed that $\{p-1 \mid p \ \text { is a prime}\}$ is an additive uniqueness set for $\mathcal {M}$ [Reference Park10].

Recently, the author [Reference Hasanalizade6] proved that the set of practical numbers is a k-additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {M}$ for every $k\geq 2$ .

A set $S\subseteq \mathbb {N}$ is called an additive basis (respectively, an asymptotic additive basis) of order j for $\mathbb {N}$ if there is a constant j such that every natural number (respectively, every sufficiently large natural number) can be written as a sum of at most j members of S. For example, the classical Lagrange theorem asserts that the set of squares is an additive basis of order $4$ , and Gauss (1796) proved that the triangular numbers form an additive basis of order $3$ . The famous binary Goldbach conjecture is equivalent to the assertion that the set of primes is an asymptotic additive basis of order $3$ .

A set $S\subseteq \mathbb {N}$ is called k-automatic if there exists a deterministic finite automaton M that recognises the language of base k representations of elements of S [Reference Allouche and Shallit1].

A number is odious if the number of ones in its base 2 representation is odd. The set of odious numbers is 2-automatic. Let $\mathcal {O}$ be the set of odious numbers, that is,

$$ \begin{align*} \mathcal{O}=\{1,2,4,7,8,11,13,14,16,19,21,22,25,26,28,31,\ldots\}. \end{align*} $$

Using automata theory, Rajasekaran et al. [Reference Rajasekaran, Shallit and Smith12] proved the following result.

Theorem 1.1 (Rajasekaran et al., 2020).

A natural number is the sum of exactly two odious numbers if and only if it is not of the form $2\cdot 4^i-1$ for $i\ge 0$ .

The next theorem, also from Rajasekaran et al. [Reference Rajasekaran, Shallit and Smith12], shows that the set of odious numbers is an asymptotic additive basis of order 3.

Theorem 1.2 (Rajasekaran et al., 2020).

Every natural number $N>15$ is the sum of three distinct odious numbers.

We prove the following theorem showing that the set of odious numbers is an additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {M}$ .

Theorem 1.3. Fix $k\geq 2$ . The set $\mathcal {O}$ of odious numbers is a k-additive uniqueness set of $\mathcal {M}$ : if a multiplicative function f satisfies

$$ \begin{align*} f(x_1+x_2+\cdots+x_k)=f(x_1)+f(x_2)+\cdots+f(x_k) \end{align*} $$

for arbitrary $x_1,\ldots ,x_k\in \mathcal {O}$ , then f is the identity function.

It would be interesting to see whether a result similar to Theorem 1.3 holds for other classes of automatic sets.

2 Proof of Theorem 1.3

The proof consists of four parts.

Case I: $k=2$ . It is easy to show by induction that $f(2^k)=2^k$ for all $k\in \mathbb {N}$ , because $f(2)=f(1+1)=2$ and $f(2^{k+1})=f(2\cdot 2^k)=2f(2^k)$ . Suppose that N is an integer such that $f(n)=n$ for all $n\le N$ . We show that $f(N+1)=N+1$ . If $N+1\ne 2\cdot 4^i-1$ for $i\ge 1$ , then by Theorem 1.1 there are two distinct odious numbers $x,y$ such that $N+1=x+y$ and $x,y\le N$ . Thus, $f(N+1)=f(x)+f(y)$ so that $f(N+1)=N+1$ . If $N+1=2\cdot 4^i-1$ for some $i\ge 1$ , then

$$ \begin{align*} 2^{2i+1}=f(2^{2i+1})=f(2\cdot4^i-1+1)=f(N+1)+1, \end{align*} $$

since $2\cdot 4^i-1=2^{2i+1}-1=\underbrace {11\ldots 1}_{2i+1}{}_2\in \mathcal {O}$ . Therefore, $f(N+1)=N+1$ . Note that in this case we do not use the multiplicativity of f.

Case II: $k=3$ . Clearly, $f(3)=3$ and $f(10)=f(2)f(5)=f(2)[2f(2)+1]$ . On the other hand, $f(10)=f(4+4+2)=2f(4)+f(2)$ and $f(4)=f(2+1+1)=f(2)+2$ . Hence, $f^2(2)-f(2)-2=0$ with two solutions $f(2)=-1$ and $f(2)=2$ . The first solution yields $f(4)=1$ , which leads to the contradiction

$$ \begin{align*} f(6)& =f(4+1+1)=f(4)+2=3 \\ & =3f(2)=-3. \end{align*} $$

Therefore, we conclude that $f(2)=2$ . From this, it is easy to check that $f(n)=n$ for $1\leq n\leq 15$ . Assume that $f(n)=n$ for all $n\leq N$ . We have $N\geq 15$ . We show that $f(N+1)=N+1$ . By Theorem 1.2, there exist distinct odious numbers $x,y$ and z such that $N+1=x+y+z$ where $x,y,z<N$ . Hence, the assumption $f(n)=n$ for all $n\leq N$ yields $f(N+1)=f(x+y+z)=f(x)+f(y)+f(z)=x+y+z=N+1$ .

Case III: $k=4$ . By Theorem 1.2 and straightforward calculations, every integer $\ge 4$ can be written as a sum of four odious numbers.

Note that $f(4)=4$ , $f(6)=f(2)f(3)=f(2+2+1+1)=2f(2)+2$ and $f(12)=4f(3)=f(4+4+2+2)=8+2f(2)$ . For convenience, let $a=f(2)$ , $b=f(3)$ . This gives the system of equations

$$ \begin{align*} \begin{cases} ab=2a+2\\ 2b=a+4. \end{cases} \end{align*} $$

We obtain the two solutions $f(2)=-2$ , $f(3)=1$ and $f(2)=2$ , $f(3)=3$ . The first solution yields $f(5)=f(2+1+1+1)=1$ , which leads to the contradiction

$$ \begin{align*} f(10)&=f(4+4+1+1)=10\\ &=f(2)f(5)=-2. \end{align*} $$

Thus, we can conclude that $f(2)=2$ , $f(3)=3$ . So, $f(n)=n$ for $n\leq 4$ , and f must be the identity function by induction.

Case IV: $k\geq 5$ . In this case we follow closely Park’s argument in [Reference Park11]. It is clear that the sum of k odious numbers can represent k but cannot represent any number from 1 to $k-1$ . Since sums of four odious numbers represent all integers $\geq 4$ as in Case III, the sum

(2.1) $$ \begin{align} \underbrace{1+\cdots+1}_{k-4\ \text{times}}+x+y+z+w, \end{align} $$

where $x,y,z,w\in \mathcal {O}$ , can represent all integers $\geq k$ .

Let $k\geq 5$ . Note that

$$ \begin{align*} (k-2)+8&=(k-2)\cdot1+4+4\\ &=(k-2)\cdot1+7+1,\\ (k-3)+18&=(k-3)\cdot1+14+2+2\\ &=(k-3)\cdot1+7+7+4,\\ (k-4)+33&=(k-4)\cdot1+28+2+2+1\\ &=(k-4)\cdot1+14+14+4+1. \end{align*} $$

Let $a=f(2)$ , $b=f(4)$ , $c=f(7)$ . The above equalities give rise to the system of equations

$$ \begin{align*} \begin{cases} 2b=c+1\\ ac+2a=2c+b\\ bc+2a=2ac+b. \end{cases} \end{align*} $$

The solutions are

$$ \begin{gather*} f(2)=\tfrac{1}{4},\ f(4)=\tfrac{1}{2},\ f(7)=0\\ f(2)=f(4)=f(7)=1\\ f(2)=2,\ f(4)=4,\ f(7)=7. \end{gather*} $$

Observe that $f(k+1)=k-1+f(2)$ , $f(k+4)=k-2+f(4)+f(2)$ and $f(k+6)= k-4+f(4)+3f(2)$ .

If $\text {gcd}(4,k+1)=1$ , the equalities

$$ \begin{align*} f(4(k+1))=f(\underbrace{4+\cdots4}_{k-3\ \text{times}}+7+7+2)&=f(4)(k-3)+2f(7)+f(2)\\ &=f(4)f(k+1)=f(4)(k-1+f(2)) \end{align*} $$

exclude the first set of solutions $f(2)=\tfrac 14$ , $f(4)=\tfrac 12$ , $f(7)=0$ .

If $4\nmid k+1$ but $2 \mid k+1$ , then $\text {gcd}(4,k+4)=1$ , and the equalities

$$ \begin{align*} f(4(k+4))=f(\underbrace{4+\cdots4}_{k-3\ \text{times}}+14+7+7)&=f(4)(k-3)+f(2)f(7)+2f(7)\\ &=f(4)f(k+4)=f(4)(k-2+f(4)+f(2)) \end{align*} $$

exclude the first set of solutions.

Finally, if $4 \mid k+1$ , then $\text {gcd}(4,k+6)=1$ , and we consider

$$ \begin{align*} f(4(k+6))=f(\underbrace{4+\cdots4}_{k-3\ \text{times}}+28+7+1)&=f(4)(k-3)+f(4)f(7)+f(7)+1\\ &=f(4)f(k+6)=f(4)(k-4+f(4)+3f(2)), \end{align*} $$

which excludes the first set of solutions.

Now consider the second solution set $f(2)=f(4)=f(7)=1$ . Arrange the odious numbers into an increasing sequence, and let $x_n$ denote the nth term. Then, $f(x_1)=f(x_2)=f(x_3)=f(x_4)=1$ . As seen in Case III, every $x_n$ with $n\geq 3$ can be written as a sum of four odious numbers. From the equality

(2.2) $$ \begin{align} (k-5)+1+2+2+2+x_e =(k-5)+7+x_a+x_b+x_c+x_d \end{align} $$

we infer that $f(x_n)=1$ for all $n\geq 5$ inductively. But for sufficiently large n, $x_n$ can be represented as a sum of k odious numbers by (2.1), so $f(x_n)=k$ , which is a contradiction.

Hence, we conclude that $f(2)=2$ , $f(4)=4$ and $f(7)=7$ . Moreover, (2.2) yields $f(x_n)=x_n$ for every $n\geq 1$ .

If N is a sum of k odious numbers, then $f(N)=N$ . Otherwise, choose an integer $M\geq k$ such that $\text {gcd}(M,N)=1$ . Then, M and $MN$ can be represented as sums of k odious numbers by (2.1). By the multiplicativity of f,

$$\begin{align*}Mf(N)=f(M)f(N)=f(MN)=MN.\end{align*}$$

Therefore, $f(N)=N$ , and this completes the proof.

Acknowledgement

The author would like to thank the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions.

Footnotes

This research was supported by NSERC Discovery grants RGPIN-2020-06731 to Habiba Kadiri and RGPIN-2020-06032 to Nathan Ng.

References

Allouche, J.-P. and Shallit, J., Automatic Sequences: Theory, Applications, Generalizations (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2003).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chung, P. V., ‘Multiplicative functions satisfying the equation $f({m}^2+{n}^2)=f({m}^2)+f({n}^2)$ ’, Math. Slovaca 46(2–3) (1996), 165171.Google Scholar
Chung, P. V. and Phong, B. M., ‘Additive uniqueness sets for multiplicative functions’, Publ. Math. Debrecen 55(3–4) (1999), 237243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubickas, A. and Šarka, P., ‘On multiplicative functions which are additive on sums of primes’, Aequationes Math. 86(1–2) (2013), 8189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fang, J.-H., ‘A characterization of the identity function with equation $f(p+q+r)=f(p)+f(q)+f(r)$ ’, Combinatorica 31(6) (2011), 697701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hasanalizade, E., ‘On multiplicative functions additive on Goldbach-type sets’, Aequationes Math. (2021); doi:10.1007/s00010-021-00849-z.Google Scholar
Kim, B., Kim, J. Y., Lee, C. G. and Park, P.-S., ‘Multiplicative functions additive on generalized pentagonal numbers’, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 356(2) (2018), 125128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, B., Kim, J. Y., Lee, C. G. and Park, P.-S., ‘Multiplicative functions additive on polygonal numbers’, Aequationes Math. 95 (2021), 601621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, P.-S., ‘On $k$ -additive uniqueness of the set of squares for multiplicative functions’, Aequationes Math. 92(3) (2018), 487495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, P.-S., ‘Additive uniqueness of PRIMES-1 for multiplicative functions’, Int. J. Number Theory 16(6) (2020), 13691376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, P.-S., ‘Multiplicative functions which are additive on triangular numbers’, Bull. Korean Math. Soc. 58(3) (2021), 603608.Google Scholar
Rajasekaran, A., Shallit, J. and Smith, T., ‘Additive number theory via automata theory’, Theory Comput. Syst. 64(3) (2020), 542567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spiro, C. A., ‘Additive uniqueness sets for arithmetic functions’, J. Number Theory 42(2) (1992), 232246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar