1. Introduction
A permutation is said to be m-smooth if it has no cycles of length greater than m. Let
be the probability that a permutation from $S_n$ chosen uniformly at random is m-smooth. Let
and let $\rho\colon [0,\infty) \to (0,\infty)$ be the Dickman function, defined via the delay differential equation $t\rho'(t)+\rho(t-1) =0$ for $t \gt 1$ with initial conditions $\rho(t)=1$ for $t \le 1$ . It is weakly decreasing, and de Bruijn proved that it satisfies
for $u \ge 3$ [ Reference de Bruijn2 ]. Goncharov [ Reference Goncharov7 ] established a connection between $p_{n,m}$ and $\rho$ , showing that $p_{n,m} \sim \rho(u)$ as $n \to \infty$ and $u = O(1)$ . In an impressive work, Manstavičius and Petuchovas [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 ] established asymptotic estimates for $p_{n,m}$ in the entire range $1 \le m \le n$ , including the estimate [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorem 4]
which holds for $n \ge m \ge \sqrt{n \log n}$ . Recently, Ford [ Reference Ford6 , theorem 1·17] proved that
holds uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ . This almost immediately leads to
holding in $n \ge m \ge 1$ [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , proposition 1·8], extending (1·2). Theorems 1·1–1·2 below, whose proofs borrow heavily from [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 ], improve on (1·4).
Theorem 1·1. Uniformly for $n \ge m \ge \sqrt{n \log n}$ we have
Uniformly for $\sqrt{n\log n} \ge m \ge 1$ we have
We may combine both parts of Theorem 1·1 as
uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ . We see $p_{n,m} \sim \rho\left({n}/({m+\frac{1}{2}})\right)$ holds when $m/(n^{1/3}(\log n)^{2/3})$ $\to \infty$ .
The error term $O(\log(u+1)/m)$ in (1·5) is of particular importance, as we now explain. We say that a positive integer is y-smooth if all its prime factors are at most y, and we denote
Setting $n'\;:\!=\;\log x$ , $m'\;:\!=\;\log y$ and $u'\;:\!=\;n'/m'$ , de Bruijn [ Reference de Bruijn4 ] showed that, in the range $n' \ge m' \ge n'^{5/8+\varepsilon}$ , the estimate
holds. This error term, $O_{\varepsilon}\left({\log (u'+1)}/{m'}\right)$ , is analogous to (1·5).
Remark 1. The main term $\rho\left({n}/({m+\frac{1}{2}})\right)$ of Theorem 1·1 arises indirectly. We first prove an estimate with a more complicated main term, see Proposition 3·1. This term originally appeared in [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , corollaries 3, 5], where it serves as an approximation to $p_{n,m}$ in a narrow range and with a worse error term compared to Theorem 1·1. In Lemma 3·2 we simplify the complicated main term and show it may be replaced by $\rho\left({n}/(m+(\frac{1}{2})\right)$ at a negligible cost.
Remark 2. Ford’s proof of (1·3) avoids complex analysis and it will be interesting to have a similar argument estimating $p_{n,m}$ relative to $\rho\left({n}/({m+\frac{1}{2}})\right)$ .
Theorem 1·1 is weaker than (1·4) when $m=o(\log n)$ . We complement it with
Theorem 1·2. If $2\le m\le n$ satisfies $m=O(\log n)$ then
The proof of Theorem 1·2 relies on estimates from [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 ]. Theorem 1·2 is only claimed for $m \ge 2$ , as it gives a wrong estimate if applied with $m=1$ . By Stirling’s approximation, $p_{n,1}=1/n! \asymp (e/n)^n n^{-1/2}$ if $m=1$ .
From (1·4) and Theorem 1·2 we see that $\log p_{n,m} \sim \log \rho(u)$ holds as $n\to \infty$ . Using Theorems 1·1–1·2 we determine the order of magnitude of $\log(p_{n,m}/\rho(u))$ :
Corollary 1·3. Define A via $p_{n,m}=\rho(u)\exp(A)$ . Uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ ,
1·1. Results for smooth polynomials
A polynomial over a finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$ is said to be m-smooth if all its irreducible factors have degrees at most m. Let $\mathcal{M}_{n,q}$ be the set of monic polynomials of degree n over $\mathbb{F}_q$ . We write $p_{n,m,q}$ for the probability that a polynomial from $\mathcal{M}_{n,q}$ chosen uniformly at random is m-smooth. Manstavičius [ Reference Manstavichyus11 , theorem 2] proved that
holds in range $n\ge m \ge \sqrt{n\log n}$ . Recently, the author proved that for fixed $\varepsilon \gt 0$ , the ratio $p_{n,m,q}/p_{n,m}$ satisfies
for $n \ge m \ge (2+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , theorems 1, 2]. The implied constant does not depend on q. From (1·6) and Theorem 1·1 we immediately obtain
Corollary 1·4. Uniformly for $n\ge m\ge \sqrt{n\log n}$ we have
Fix $\varepsilon \gt 0$ . Uniformly for $\sqrt{n\log n}\ge m \ge (2+\varepsilon)\log_q n $ we have
The rest of our results concern $p_{n,m,q}/p_{n,m}$ . To obtain estimates with better range and error than (1·6) we introduce a function $G_q(z)$ . The generating function of $\{p_{n,m,q}\}_{n \ge 0}$ is
where $\mathcal{P}=\mathcal{P}_{q}$ is the set of monic irreducible polynomials over $\mathbb{F}_q$ . It is analytic in $|z| \lt q$ . The generating function of $\{p_{n,m}\}_{n \ge 0}$ is the entire function [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 ]
For $|z| \lt q$ we define
The function $G_q$ is studied in [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , lemma 2·1]. By [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , theorem 1·3] we have
in the range $n/(\log n \log^3 \log(n+1)) \ge m \ge (2+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ , where $x=x_{n,m}$ is the unique positive solution to
In that range, $G_q(x)$ is very close to 1, see [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , lemmas 5·3-5·4]. We complement (1·10) with a result for large m. We define $\xi(u)\ge 0$ by $e^{\xi(u)} = 1+u\xi(u)$ .
Theorem 1·5. If $n \ge m\ge \sqrt{10n \log n}$ then
Using Theorem 1·5 we are able to drop the condition $n/(\log n\log^3 \log(n+1)) \ge m$ present in (1·10):
Corollary 1·6. The estimate (1·10) holds uniformly for $n \ge m \ge (2+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ .
We turn to smaller m. In the range $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \ge (1+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ ,
see [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , lemma 5·4]. In [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , theorem 1·3] it is shown that $p_{n,m,q}/p_{n,m} \sim G_q(x)$ holds as $n \to \infty$ as long as $m \ge (3/2+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ . Our next result shows that $p_{n,m,q}/p_{n,m}$ experiences a transition when m is close to $(3/2)\log_q n$ .
Theorem 1·7. Fix a prime power q and $\varepsilon \gt 0$ . There is a quantity $A \gt 0$ of order
such that, for $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \ge (1+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ we have, as $n \to \infty$ ,
In particular, if $q^m=n^{\tau}$ where $\tau\in(1,2)$ then $A\asymp_{q,\varepsilon} ({n^{3-2\tau}}/{\log n})$ and so $A\gg_{q,\varepsilon}1$ if $q^m =O( n^{3/2}/(\log n)^{1/2})$ .
Conventions. The letters C,c shall denote absolute positive constants which may change between different instances. The notation $A \ll B$ means $|A| \le C B$ for some absolute constant C, while $A\ll_{a,b,\ldots} B$ means C may depend on the parameters in the subscript. We write $A\asymp_{a,b,\ldots}B$ to indicate $cB \le A \le C B$ holds for $C,c \gt 0$ that may depend on $a,b,\ldots$ .
2. Auxiliary estimates and functions
2·1. Saddle point review
By [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorem 2 and corollary 5], uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ we have
where $x=x_{n,m}$ is the saddle point defined as the unique positive solution to (1·11), and $\lambda=\lambda_{n,m}$ is defined as
Lemma 2·1. Uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ , the following estimates hold: $n^{1/m} \ge x \gg n^{1/m}$ , $nm \ge \lambda \gg nm$ and $\lambda= nm( 1+ O(1/\max\{ \log u,n^{1/m}\}))$ .
Proof. We study x. Considering only the $i=m$ term in (1·11) gives $x \le n^{1/m}$ . If $x \lt 1$ then $\sum_{i=1}^m x^i \lt m \le n$ , a contradiction, hence $x \ge 1$ . Consequently, by the definition of x, $mx^m \ge n$ holds, which implies
We turn to $\lambda$ . We have $\lambda \le m \sum_{i=1}^{m} x^i = nm$ . By [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , lemma 9],
uniformly for $u \gt 1$ . We also have $x^m \le n=\sum_{i=1}^{m} x^i \lt x^m/(1-x^{-1})$ and so
implying $\lambda=nm(1+O(x^{-1}))=nm(1+O(n^{-1/m}))$ . The estimate (2·3) already shows $\lambda \gg nm$ when $u \ge C$ . If $u \lt C$ then, since $x \ge 1$ , we find $\lambda \ge \sum_{i=1}^{m} i \gg nm$ .
2·2. Dickman function review
We define $\xi \colon [1,\infty) \to [0,\infty)$ , a function of variable $u\ge 1$ , by
Lemma 2·2 [ Reference Hildebrand9 , lemma 1]. We have $\xi \sim \log u$ as $u \to \infty$ , and $\xi'=u^{-1}(1+O(1/\log u))$ for $u \ge 2$ .
Lemma 2·3 [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , lemma 6]. If $u \gt 1$ we have $\log u \lt \xi \le 2 \log u$ .
Let
which defines an entire function. Observe that
and a short computation shows $I''(\xi)=1/\xi'$ . The following lemma is proved by induction.
Lemma 2·4. For any $k \ge 1$ we have $I^{(k)}(s) = (e^s P_{k-1}(s)-(\!-\!1)^{k-1} (k-1)!)/s^k$ for a monic polynomial $P_{k-1}$ of degree $k-1$ .
It has the following direct consequence.
Corollary 2·5. For any fixed $k \ge 1$ we have $I^{(k)}(\xi) =(1+O_k(1/\log u))({e^{\xi}}/{\xi})\sim u$ as $u \to \infty$ , and $I^{(k)}(\xi+it) \ll_k \min\{u, e^{\xi(u)}/|\xi+it|\}$ uniformly for $t \in \mathbb{R}$ .
The function I arises when studying $\rho$ and its Laplace transform.
Lemma 2·6. [ Reference de Bruijn3 , equation (1·9)] [ Reference Alladi1 , equation (3·9)]. Let $\gamma$ be the Euler–Mascheroni constant. We have
for $s \in \mathbb{C}$ . Uniformly for $u \ge 1$ ,
We have the following bounds on $\hat{\rho}$ .
Lemma 2·7. [ Reference Hildebrand and Tenenbaum10 , lemma 2·7] The following bounds hold for $s=-\xi(u)+it$ :
2·3. T
We define the following function, holomorphic in the strip $|\Im s | \lt 2\pi m$ :
The Bernoulli numbers $B_i$ are defined by
This series converges for $|\Im s| \lt 2\pi$ . It is known that $B_i \ll i!/(2\pi)^i$ . It is then easy to see, from the estimate $\int_{0}^{s} (e^t-1)t^{i-1} {\textrm{d}}t \ll |s|^{i-1} (|e^s|+|s|)$ which holds for $\Re s \ge 0$ and $i \ge 1$ , that
holds for $k \ge 0$ and $s=\sigma+it$ with $\sigma \in [0,\pi m]$ and $t \in [\!-\pi m,\pi m]$ . Applying (2·5) with $k=1$ we obtain
Corollary 2·8. [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , lemma 11]. For $s=\sigma+it$ with $\sigma\in [0,\pi m]$ and $t\in [\!-\pi m,\pi m]$ ,
Applying (2·5) with $k=2$ and $s=\xi=\xi(u)$ we obtain
when $\xi(u) \le \pi m$ holds.
Lemma 2·9. Suppose $\xi=\xi(u) \le \pi m$ . For any $k \ge 1$ we have
If additionally $t \in [\!-\pi m, \pi m]$ then $T^{(k)}(\xi+it) \ll_k e^{\xi(u)}/m$ .
Proof. We have $T'(s) = I'(s) g(s/m)$ for $g(z)\;:\!=\;z/(1-e^{-z}) - 1$ . Repeated differentiation shows
We suppose that $s=\xi(u) + it$ and that the inequalities $\xi(u)\le \pi m$ and $|t|\le \pi m$ are satisfied. From (2·8),
as our assumptions on s guarantee that $g^{(i)}(s/m)\ll_i 1$ . We first suppose $t=0$ and establish (2·7). Using (2·9) and the definition of g, the first equality in (2·7) will follow if we show that $I^{(k-i)}(\xi(u)) \ll_k I^{(k)}(\xi(u))$ , which is a consequence of Corollary 2·5. The second equality in (2·7) follows from another application of Corollary 2·5. Finally, the claim for $T^{(k)}(s)$ (when $|t|\le \pi m$ ) follows from (2·9) since $|I^{(k)}(s)| \ll_k e^{\xi(u)}/|s|$ and $|I^{(k-i)}(s)| \ll_k u$ ( $1\le i \le k-1$ ) by Corollary 2·5 and $|g(s/m)| \ll |s|/m$ .
2·4. $H_n$
Let $H_n\;:\!=\; \sum_{i=1}^{n} ({1}/{i})$ be the nth harmonic sum. By the Euler–Maclaurin formula,
3. Proof of Theorem 1·1
We break the theorem into a proposition and a lemma.
Proposition 3·1. Uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ we have
If $\sqrt{n \log n}=O(m)$ then
In [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , corollaries 3, 5], (3·1) is proved in the narrower range $n \ge m \ge n^{1/3}(\log n)^{2/3}$ .
Lemma 3·2. Uniformly for $n \ge m \ge 1$ we have
and
We prove (3·1) in Section 3·1, and (3·2) in Sections 3·2–3·3. The proof of Lemma 3·2 is given in Section 3·4. To deduce Theorem 1·1, we combine (3·2) and Lemma 3·2 if $m \ge \sqrt{n\log n}$ , and (3·1) and Lemma 3·2 if $m\le \sqrt{n\log n}$ . Here we use ${u}/{m^2}+{1}/{m} +{u\log(u+1)}/{m^2}\ll {\log(u+1)}/{m}$ when $m\ge \sqrt{n\log n}$ and ${1}/{u} + {u}/{m^2}+{1}/{m} +{u\log(u+1)}/{m^2}\ll {u\log^2(u+1)}/{m^2}$ when $m\le \sqrt{n\log n}$ .
3·1. Proof of the first part of Proposition 3·1
Here we prove (3·1). If $m=O(\log (u+1))$ then (3·1) follows from (1·4). Hence we suppose that $m \ge C \log (u+1)$ from now on. Similarly, if $u =O(1)$ then (3·1) is already in (1·4), so we suppose $u \ge C$ . We define a function
so that x defined in (1·11) solves $D'(z)=0$ , and (2·1) can be written as
We can write $\log D(x)$ as
see [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , equation (40)] for the details. We set
and define $\widetilde{u} \ge 1$ as
In this notation, (3·5) implies (using (2·4) with $\widetilde{u}$ in place of u, and (2·10)) that
for $u \ge C$ . A short computation shows that $u=I'(\xi)=(I+T)'(\widetilde{\xi})$ holds by the definition of $\xi$ , $\widetilde{\xi}$ and x. Since $T'(t) \ge 0$ for $t \ge 0$ we have $\widetilde{\xi}\le \xi$ and so, by the monotonicity of $I'(t)=(e^t-1)/t$ , it follows that
By [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , equation (22)],
uniformly in $m \ge \log u \gt 0$ . From (3·6) we see that, uniformly in $m \ge \log u \gt 0$
We will be using (3·6) and (3·7) frequently. For $m \ge \log u \gt 0$ we have
by [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , equation (23)]. Hence, since $I''(\xi(u))=1/\xi'(u)$ ,
for $m \ge C\log (u+1) \gt 0$ . Since $\xi'(t)\asymp 1/t$ and $\xi''(t) =-\xi'(t)I^{(3)}(\xi(t))/I''(\xi(t))^2 \ll 1/t^2$ for $t \ge C$ ,
holds for $m \ge C\log (u+1) \gt 0$ and $u \ge C$ and so
when $m \ge C\log (u+1) \gt 0$ and $u \ge C$ . At this point, we have established that
holds in our range. We have $\widetilde{\xi} \le \xi \le 2\log u \le \pi m$ by Lemma 2·3 and our assumption $m \ge C\log(u+1)$ . By (2·6), (3·6) and (3·7),
in this range. We now have
for $m \ge C\log (u+1)$ , $u \ge C$ . Let $r(t)=-\rho'(t)/\rho(t)$ be the negative of the logarithmic derivative of $\log \rho$ . We have
By integration by parts, we may write the integral in the exponent as
By [ Reference de la Bretèche and Tenenbaum5 , lemma 3·7], the estimates
hold uniformly for $v \ge 1$ . Hence, using (3·6) and (3·7),
To conclude the proof, it remains to bound $\int_{\widetilde{u}}^{u}(t-\widetilde{u})\xi'(t){\textrm{d}}t$ . Since $\xi'(t) \ll 1/t$ ,
if $m \ge C\log (u+1)$ , using (3·6) and (3·7). The proof of (3·1) is completed.
3·2. Preliminary lemmas for second part of Proposition 3·1
The following consequence of Cauchy’s integral formula is implicit in the proofs of [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorems 2,4].
Lemma 3·3. We have
The following lemma is implicit in the proof of [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorem 4].
Lemma 3·4. Suppose $\sqrt{n\log n}=O(m)$ . Then
A variant of the next lemma is implicit in the proof of [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorem 2].
Lemma 3·5. Suppose $\sqrt{n\log n}=O(m)$ and $1+u\xi \le A \le m\pi$ . Then
The same bound holds if we integrate from $-\xi-im\pi$ to $-\xi-iA$ .
Proof. We have $\hat{\rho}'(s) = \rho(s) (e^{-s}-1)/s$ . Integration by parts shows that the integral is equal to
By Corollary 2·8, $T(-s)-T(\xi)$ is bounded in our range of integration. In fact, $T(-s)-T(\xi) \ll (e^{\xi}+|\Im s|)/m$ . Hence, the third case of Lemma 2·7 shows that
which is acceptable. As for the integral, we rearrange it using the definition of T:
By Corollary 2·8 and the Taylor expansion $z/(1-e^{-z})=1+z/2+O(z^2)$ ,
in our range of integration. By the triangle inequality, the last integral is
where in the second inequality we used the third case of Lemma 2·7.
Lemma 3·6. Suppose $0 \le B \le A$ . Then, for every $k \ge 0$ ,
The same is true if we integrate from $-\xi-iA$ to $-\xi-iB$ . In particular, for $B=0$ and $A\le \exp(c_k u/(\log (u+1))^2)$ ,
Proof. Using the first two parts of Lemma 2·7, the triangle inequality shows that the integral is
and we now use (2·4).
Lemma 3·7. Fix $k\ge 0$ . Let $\mu_m\;:\!=\;m!/((m/2)!2^{m/2})$ for even m. Suppose $\sqrt{n\log n}=O(m)$ and $C_k\sqrt{\log(u+1)/u}\le A \le \exp(c_ku/(\log (u+1))^2)$ . Then, for even k,
and for odd k,
Proof. The contribution of $A \ge |\Im s| \ge C_k\sqrt{\log (u+1)/u}$ is acceptable by Lemma 3·6. We may now assume that $A=C_k\sqrt{\log (u+1)/u}$ . Recall $\hat{\rho}(s)=\exp(\gamma+I(-s))$ . We may Taylor-expand $I(\xi+it)$ using Corollary 2·5, obtaining that
Substituting $t^2 I''(\xi)=v^2$ , recalling $I''(\xi(u))=1/\xi'(u)$ and using (2·4), the last expression can be written as
To conclude we apply estimates of gaussian integrals: $\int_{-R}^{R} v^{2k+1}\exp(\!-v^2/2){\textrm{d}}v$ is 0, $\int_{\mathbb{R}}|v|^k \exp(\!-v^2/2){\textrm{d}}v \ll_k 1$ and $\int_{-R}^{R}v^{2k}\exp(\!-v^2/2){\textrm{d}}v =\sqrt{2\pi}\mu_{2k} + O_k(\exp(\!-R^2/4))$ .
3·3. Proof of the second part of Proposition 3·1
Here we prove (3·2) using the material in Section 3·2. If $1+u\xi \gt m \pi$ the result is already included in the first part of Proposition 3·1, so we assume from now on that $1+u\xi \le m \pi$ . From Lemma 3·3 we have
We have $\exp(H_m-\gamma)/m =1+1/(2m)+O(m^{-2})$ by (2·10), and
by (2·6). Hence,
We separate the integral into 3 parts, $S_1+S_2+S_3$ , where
The integral $S_1$ was estimated in Lemma 3·4 and it gives the main term $\rho(u)$ as well an absolute error of size $\ll e^{-(u-1)\xi}/n \ll e^{-u\xi} \log(u+1)/m$ . The integral $S_3$ was estimated in Lemma 3·5 and it contributes $\ll e^{-u\xi}\log(u+1)/m$ . We now study $S_2$ . We use Lemma 2·9 to Taylor-expand $e^{T(-s)-T(\xi)}-1=e^{T(\xi-it)-T(\xi)}-1$ at 0:
for $|\Im s| \le 1+u\xi$ . Applying Lemma 3·6 with $k=4$ , $B=0$ and Lemma 3·7 with $k=1,2,3$ and collecting the terms gives
All in all, since $T'(\xi)$ and $T''(\xi)$ are both $({u\log(u+1)}/{2m}) (1+o_{u\to\infty}(1))$ in our range by Lemma 2·9,
We are done, as we established, in stronger form, the second part of Proposition 3·1.
3·4. Proof of Lemma 3·2
We first show (3·3). Let $r(t)=-\rho'(t)/\rho(t)\ge 0$ . We have
If u is bounded then the bound $r(t)\ll 1$ for $t \ll 1$ finishes the proof. If $u \ge C$ we may differentiate r (it is differentiable for $t \ge 2$ ) and obtain
by integration by parts. To conclude, we use (3·8) to find
It remains to show (3·4). Set $t_1 = n/(m+1/2)$ and $t_2=u-u/(2m)$ . It suffices to bound $\log (\rho(t_2)/\rho(t_1))$ . Observe $t_1\ge t_2$ . We have
since $r(t)\ll \log(t+1)$ by (3·8) and Lemma 2·2. This completes the proof.
4. Proof of Theorem 1·2 and Corollary 1·3
Let
Lemma 4·1. The estimate
holds uniformly for $n \gt m \ge 1$ , where E is a quantity satisfying
Lemma 4·1 is a minor improvement on [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorem 1], which treats $m\le \log n$ .
Proof. Recall the definitions of x and $\lambda$ given in (1·11) and (2·2). Following the proof of [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , theorem 1]Footnote 1 we have, borrowing the notation of [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , section 5],
for $E= R\big(n^{-\frac{1}{m}}\big)$ where
for certain coefficients $h_i$ and $b_i$ defined in [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , lemma 13] and estimated in [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , lemma 15]. In particular,
for $i \ge 1$ and
for $i \ge 1$ . In the first displayed equation of [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , lemma 15] it is shown that $b_i \ll i^{\frac{i}{m}-1}/m$ for $m+1 \le i \le 2m-1$ . It implies
in the same range. Hence
It follows that
To conclude, we input the estimates for $\lambda/(nm)$ given in Lemma 2·1.
4·1. Proof of Theorem 1·2
Let
In view of Lemma 4·1 we have
when $m=O(\log n)$ , and it remains to estimate S. We have
uniformly for $1 \le i \le m-1$ . The estimate $\Gamma(x+y)/\Gamma(x) \in [x(x+y)^{y-1},x^y]$ for $y \in (0,1)$ [ Reference Wendel14 , equation (7)] implies
Hence,
Since $i^{i/m}=1+O({i\log i}/{m})$ if $i \lt m/\log (m+1)$ , we may write S as $S= u(S_1+O(S_2+S_3))$ , where
We have
by bounding the tail of the Taylor series of $-\log(1-n^{-1/m})$ by a geometric series with ratio $n^{-1/m}$ . Similarly,
because the contribution of $i \in [2^k,2^{k+1})$ to $S_2$ is $\ll (k+1)n^{-2^k/m}/(m(1-n^{-1/m}))$ and $\sum_{k \ge 0}(k+1)n^{-2^k/m}\ll n^{-1/m}$ when $m\ll \log n$ . As for $S_3$ ,
since $i\mapsto (i/n)^{i/m}$ decreases for $i \le n/e$ . Both $S_3$ and the error term in $S_1$ are dominated by our bound for $S_2$ . It follows that
The error $O(\log n)$ in (4·1) is absorbed in the error term in S when $m \gt 1$ , and we are done.
4·2. Proof of Corollary 1·3
We first consider $n \ge m \gt n/2$ . For $m=n$ , $p_{n,n}=\rho(1)=1$ , so we may assume $m\le n-1$ . We have exact formulas: $p_{n,m}=1-\sum_{i=m+1}^{n}1/i$ and $\rho(u)=1-\log u$ . Hence
We are done since, in our range,
We now suppose $n/2 \ge m \ge C \log n$ . We shall need the lower bound [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , theorem A·1]
which holds uniformly for $n/2 \ge m \ge 1$ . We may assume $n\ge C$ , since for bounded n we just want to show $B_2\rho(u) \ge p_{n,m}\ge B_1\rho(u)$ for constants $B_2\ge B_1 \gt 1$ which follows from (4·2) and (1·4). If u is sufficiently large then it follows from Proposition 3·1 that, using the same definition for A as in the statement of the corollary,
as needed. If $u=O(1)$ then the same argument establishes $A \le Cu\log ( 1+ (\log u)/m)$ and a matching lower bound in this range follows from (4·2).
Finally we suppose $m=O(\log n)$ . From (1·1) we have
If n is sufficiently large and $1\le m\le C\log n$ ,
since $t/(1-e^{-t}) \ge 1+c$ when $t=(\log n)/m\ge 1/C$ . This finishes the proof.
Remark 3. When $m=O(\log n)$ the proof above shows more: setting $t\;:\!=\;(\log n)/m$ ,
holds, where A is as in the statement of Corollary 1·3.
5. Proofs of results in the polynomial setting
We recall we can write $G_q$ as
where $a_{i}$ are nonnegative numbers, depending on q, that are described in [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , lemma 2·1] and satisfy
5·1. Proof of Theorem 1.5
We suppose that $n \ge m \ge \sqrt{10n\log n}$ . This guarantees $2^{m/3} \gt 1+ m(\log 2)/3 \ge 1 + 2u\log u \ge 1+u\xi = e^{\xi}$ , where we used Lemma 2·3 in the last inequality. Hence
An application of Cauchy’s integral formula allows us to express $p_{n,m}$ as
see [ Reference Manstavičius and Petuchovas13 , section 4]. In the same way,
see e.g. [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , section 4]. Since $G_q$ has radius of convergence equal to q, we must ensure that $e^{\xi/m} \lt q$ in order for the last integral to be valid, and this holds by (5·3). By taking a linear combination of (5·4) and (5·5), and using (2·10) we have
for
Since $p_{n,m} \gg \rho(u)$ for $m \ge \sqrt{10n\log n}$ by (1·4), it follows that
We must show $X \ll \rho(u) \log(u+1)/(mq^{\lceil(m+1)/2\rceil})$ . To bound X, we consider separately the contribution of $|\Re s| \le 1+u\xi$ and $m\pi \ge |\Re s| \ge 1+u\xi$ . We start with $|\Re s | \le 1+u\xi$ . Let
so that the integrand in X is $\hat{\rho}(s) e^{us} H_T(s)$ . We Taylor-expand $H_T(s)$ at $s=-\xi$ , where it attains 0: $H_T(s) = (s+\xi)b_1 + O(|s+\xi|^2 b_2)$ for
Applying Lemma 3·6 with $k=2$ , $B=0$ and Lemma 3·7 with $k=1$ , it follows that
We now consider the contribution of $\pi m \ge |\Re s| \ge 1+u\xi$ . We focus on $m\pi \ge \Re s \ge 1+u\xi$ , and negative $\Re s$ is handled the same say. We have $\hat{\rho}(s) = 1/s + O(u\log (u+1) /|s|^2)$ in this range by the third part of Lemma 2·7. The contribution of $O(u\log (u+1)/|s|^2)$ is
where
We study the last piece of the integral,
We write $e^{T(-s)}$ as $1+(e^{T(-s)}-1)$ . When $s=-\xi+it$ for $1+u\xi \le t \le \pi m$ we have $e^{T(-s)}-1=O(|s|/m + |s|^2/m^2)$ by Corollary 2·8. Applying the triangle inequality we get
where
We estimate
Using the notation in (5·1) and the bound in (5·2), it follows that
Hence the integral in (5·6) equals
If $u \lt 3$ then $G_q(e^{\xi/m})-1\ll 1/(mq^{\lceil (m+1)/2\rceil})$ , implying Theorem 1·5 is already in (1·6). From now on we assume $u \ge 3$ . We have the estimate
which is valid for all $2m\ge j \ge 0$ and $u \ge 3$ , and is established by integration by parts. It follows that the integral (5·6) contributes
Collecting the estimates,
Recall we want to show $X \ll \rho(u) \log(u+1)/(mq^{\lceil(m+1)/2\rceil})$ . We have $e^{-u\xi}\ll_k \rho(u) u^{-k}$ for any k by (2·4), showing that the last term in (5·8) is acceptable and that it suffices to show $b_i \ll u\log(u+1)/(mq^{\lceil(m+1)/2\rceil})$ for $i=1,2,3,4$ .
Since $T(-\xi+it)$ is bounded when $|t|\le \pi m$ by Corollary 2·8, it follows that $b_3 \ll b_4$ . By (5·7) and the triangle inequality, $b_4 \ll u\log(u+1)/(mq^{\lceil(m+1)/2\rceil})$ . To bound $b_1$ and $b_2$ we use the fact that T and its derivatives are bounded by Lemma 2·9 in order to reduce the problem to showing
holds for $i=0,1,2$ . For $i=0$ this is in (5·7), for $i=1$ we have
and a similar computation holds for $i=2$ . This completes the proof of Theorem 1·5.
5·2. Proof of Corollary 1·6
Fix $\varepsilon \gt 0$ . We assume $n \ge m \ge (2+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ and we want to establish (1·10) in this range. We already know (1·10) holds in $n/(\log n \log^3\log(n+1)) \ge m \ge (2+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ , so we may suppose $n \ge m \gt n/(\log n \log^3\log(n+1))$ .
If $n=O(1)$ then (1·10) becomes $p_{n,m,q}=p_{n,m}G_q(x) + O_{n,\varepsilon}(G_q(x)/q^{\lceil (m+1)/2\rceil})$ . To establish this, recall $p_{n,m,q}=p_{n,m} + O(1/q^{\lceil (m+1)/2\rceil})$ by [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , proposition 1·5] and observe that $G_q(x) = 1+O_{n,\varepsilon}(1/q^{\lceil (m+1)/2\rceil})$ by (5·1) and (5·2).
From now on we may suppose n is sufficiently large. In particular, $n \gt \sqrt{10 n \log n}$ holds, and $n \ge m \gt n/(\log n \log^3\log(n+1))$ implies $n \ge m \ge \sqrt{10 n \log n}$ . We apply Theorem 1·5, and see that it suffices to show that
holds for $n\ge m \ge \sqrt{10 n \log n}$ . First we verify that $x \lt \sqrt[3]{2}$ . Since $x \le n^{1/m}$ , it suffices to show that $2^m \gt n^3$ , which follows from $n \ge m \ge \sqrt{10n\log n}$ . Now that we know $G_q$ converges absolutely at x we proceed. The relation $x^m = e^{\xi}(1+O(\log(u+1)/m))$ from (3·6) implies
5·3. Auxiliary computation
Recall $F_q$ defined in (1·7). We define $x_q\;:\!=\;x_{n,m,q} \lt q$ as the unique positive solution to $z F_q'(z)/F_q(z) = n$ . The next lemma gives precise results on $x-x_q$ in certain ranges.
Lemma 5·1. If $n \ge m \ge 1$ then $x_q \le x$ . Fix q and $\varepsilon \gt 0$ . For $n \ge C_{q,\varepsilon}$ and $m \in [(3/4)\log_q n, (2-\varepsilon)\log_q n]$ ,
Proof. We shall use the form of $G_q$ given in (5·1). Let $f(z)\;:\!=\;z(\log F(z))' = \sum_{i=1}^{m} z^i$ and $g_q(z) \;:\!=\; z(\log G_q(z))'= \sum_{i=m+1}^{\infty}a_i z^i$ . By definition,
Since f and $g_q$ have nonnegative coefficients, the first part of the lemma follows at once. We now assume $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \ge (3/4)\log_q n $ . We use (5·10) to determine the size of $x-x_q$ . By the mean value theorem,
for some $t \in [0,g_q(x_q)]$ , where $f^{-1}$ is the inverse of f. Since $f^{-1}$ and f’ are monotone increasing we have $f'(f^{-1}(n-t)) \in [f'(x_q), f'(x)]$ and so
We have the trivial bounds $1 \le x\le n^{1/m} \ll_q 1$ and so $f'(x) = \lambda/x \asymp_q nm$ by Lemma 2·1. We also have
since $a_i \ge 0$ and $a_{2m} \gg q^{-m}$ by [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , lemma 2·1]. It follows that
[ Reference Manstavičius12 , lemma 2 and theorem 2] estimate $x_q$ and yield that, when $2\log_q n \ge m \ge (3/4)\log_q n$ ,
implying the desired lower bound on $x-x_q$ . To prove the upper bound, first observe that $m \le (2-\varepsilon)\log_q n$ implies, via (5·11), that $x_q \ge q^{1/2}(1+c_{q,\varepsilon})$ if n is sufficiently large, and so
using the bounds in (5·2). To conclude we need to lower bound $f'(x_q)$ . We have $f'(x_q) = x_q^{-1} \sum_{i=1}^{m} i x_q^i \gg_{q} m x_q^m$ .
5·4. Proof of Theorem 1·7
Recall the functions F, $F_q$ and $G_q$ are defined in (1·8), (1·7) and (1·9). If $m \to \infty$ and $u\ge (\log \log m)^3 \log m$ , Manstavičius proved in [ Reference Manstavichyus11,Reference Manstavičius12 ] that
where
We divide (5·12) by (2·1), and use the fact that $\lambda$ is asymptotic to nm by Lemma 2·1 as long as $u \to \infty$ , and
by [ Reference Manstavičius12 , theorem 2] as long as $u \to \infty$ and $m \to \infty$ , to obtain
as $n \to \infty$ if $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \gt \log_q n$ . Letting
we can write (5·14) as
By definition, $H'_q(x_q)=0$ . By Taylor-expanding $H_q$ at $x_q$ ,
for some $t \in [x_q,x]$ (recall $x_q \le x$ by Lemma 5·1). In the range $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \gt \log_q n$ we have $x\asymp_q x_q \asymp_q 1$ by Lemma 2·1 and (5·11). In the notation of (5·1),
is increasing for $t \gt 0$ since $a_i \ge 0$ . It follows that
A short computation shows that $x_q^2 H_q''(x_q)=\lambda_q$ holds by the definition of $x_q$ and $\lambda_q$ . By (5·13) it then follows that $x_q^2 H_q''(x_q) \asymp_q nm$ when $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \gt \log_q n$ . In the same range we find that $x^2 H_q''(x) = \lambda +\sum_{i=m+1}^{\infty}(i-1)a_i x^i \ll_{q,\varepsilon} nm$ using Lemma 2·1 and the bounds in (5·2). Hence $H_q''(t) \asymp_{q,\varepsilon} nm$ and
where we used Lemma 5·1 in the second estimate. Plugging this estimate in (5·15), and observing that $(1+ ({n}/{q^m})(1-{1}/{q}))^{-1/2} \sim 1$ holds in the range $m\ge (1+\varepsilon)\log_q n$ considered in Theorem 1·7, concludes the proof.
5·5. A variant
We prove a variant of Theorem 1·7 with the main term $G_q(x)$ replaced by $G_q(x_q)$ .
Theorem 5·2. Fix q and $\varepsilon \gt 0$ . For $m \in [(3/4)\log_q n, (2-\varepsilon)\log_q n]$ we have
as $n \to \infty$ . If furthermore $n \ge C_{q,\varepsilon}$ then
Proof. In very much the same way (5·14) is proved, we also have
if $u \ge (\log \log m)^3 \log m$ and $m\to\infty$ . Letting
we can write (5·17) as
By definition, $H'(x) = 0$ . By Taylor-expanding H at x,
for some $t \in [x_q,x]$ . Since $t^2 H''(t) = \sum_{i=2}^{m} (i-1)t^i +n$ is increasing in t, and $x \asymp_q x_q \asymp_q 1$ by Lemma 2·1 and (5·11), it follows that
We have $x^2 H''(x)=\lambda \asymp nm$ by Lemma 2·1 when $(2-\varepsilon)\log_q n \ge m \ge (3/4)\log_q n$ . Lemma 5·1 bounds $x-x_q$ . This gives the first part of (5·16) (we bound the factor $(1+ ({n}/{q^m})(1-{1}/{q}))^{-1/2}$ by 1). We have $x_q^2 H''(x_q) \ge (m-1)x_q^m \gg_q m \min\{n,q^m\}$ by (5·11), which leads to the second part of (5·16) (we absorb $(1+ ({n}/{q^m})(1-{1}/{q}))^{-1/2}$ in the exponential factor in right-hand side of (5·16)).
It remains to estimate $G_q(x_q)$ . For a lower bound we use $\log G_q(x_q) \ge a_{2m} x_q^{2m}/(2m) \gg x_q^{2m}/(mq^m)$ . Here we used $a_i \ge 0$ and $a_{2m} \asymp q^{-m}$ [ Reference Gorodetsky8 , lemma 2·1]. This is simplified using (5·11). For the upper bound we use $a_{i} \ll \min\{q^{-\lceil i/2\rceil},q^{m-i}\}$ and $x_q \ge q^{1/2}(1+c_{q,\varepsilon})$ to obtain $\log G_q(x_q) \ll_{q,\varepsilon} x_q^{2m}/( mq^m(1-x_q/q))$ . We again simplify $x_q^m$ using (5·11).
Acknowledgements
We thank Andrew Granville for valuable comments on the presentation. We are grateful to the anonymous referees for helpful comments on exposition as well as a simplification of the proof of Lemma 2·1. This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 851318).