3

Let $\operatorname{rad}(b)$ be the product of all distinct prime factors of $b$. The numbers $\,a,b,c\,$ is a $abc$-triple if they are coprime and $a+b=c$. One version of the abc-conjecture is then:

For all $\varepsilon>0$ the set $E_\varepsilon$ of all $abc$-triplets with $c>\text{rad}(a\cdot b\cdot c)^{1+\varepsilon}$ is finite.

It is known that $E_0$ is infinite. Now, computations suggests that also $\{(a,b,c)\in E_0|\exists p\in\mathbb P\exists k>1:b=p^{k}\}$ is infinite, where $\mathbb P$ is the set of primes, which would be a consequence of the conjecture, reformulated due to a suggestion of igael:

Given a prime $p$, there exist a natural number $n$ and a natural number $a>0$, coprime to $p$ such that $a<p^n$ and $a+p^n\gt\operatorname{rad}(ap^n(a+p^n))=\operatorname{rad}(ap(a+p^n))$.

Can this be proved? It holds for $k=3,\dots,100\,$ that it exists $a$ such that $a+p^4_k>\operatorname{rad}(ap^4_k(a+p^4_k))$. The conjecture also holds for $p=2,\,n=9$ and $p=3,\,n=5$.

If the conjecture is true, one can raise a reduced abc-conjecture for $a<b=p^n$.


There is a site with big files of unusual abc-tripples.

Lehs
  • 14,252
  • 4
  • 28
  • 82
  • @hardmath in short words, can you explain us your thoughts about his problem ? – reuns Sep 04 '16 at 20:30
  • @user1952009: I could not find a short wording, but fortunately igael allowed me to hijack the CW post below to flesh out some connections. – hardmath Sep 05 '16 at 01:52
  • 1
    I made the tests again, this time exactly with the limitations above. For $n = 3$ and $b=41$ or $b=43$, I don't find a solution. But if $n$ is a variable, I get for $(a,b,n)$ : $(49,41,5)$ , $(49,43,5)$ , $(1629,43,7)$ or $(679,41,7)$ –  Sep 05 '16 at 21:12
  • @igael, you are right. I was fooled by a truncation error. I will see if there is something left to save from the conjecture, for example that for all odd primes it exists an $n$ such that $a<b=p^n$ makes an abc-triplet. – Lehs Sep 06 '16 at 01:53
  • yes, it's a good idea to let n computable. The best quality $c$ I found is 1.4266 with $3+5^3=128$ $. We need now to use large digits library to see further. May be a good thing to do a database and to run corellation scripts –  Sep 06 '16 at 02:23

1 Answers1

1

Summary: Tests made with the exact limitations above show no solution for $n=3$ and $p=41$ or $p=43$. Then the original conjecture is not valid "as is".

However, if $n$ is taken as a free variable, perhaps we may always find solutions. For example, the $(a,p,n) \in \{ (49,41,5) , (49,43,5) , (1629,43,7) , (679,41,7) \}$ satisfy the inequality:

$$ a+p^n \gt \operatorname{rad}(a p^n (a+p^n)) $$


Discussion: The unsolved ABC conjecture states :

ABC Conjecture. For every $\varepsilon \gt 0$, there exist only finitely many triples $(A, B, C)$ of coprime positive integers with $A + B = C$, such that:

$$ C \gt \operatorname{rad}(ABC)^{1+\varepsilon} $$

The original form of the Question conjectures that an infinite number of "near counter-examples" could be found: For any prime power $p^n$, $p$ an odd prime and odd $n \ge 3$, there exists $0 \lt a \lt p^n$ and coprime to $p$ such that:

$$ a+p^n \gt \operatorname{rad}(ap^n(a+p^n))$$

We recognize that these assignments:

$$ A=a , B= p^n, C = a+p^n $$

would have the current conjecture contradict the ABC-conjecture if $\varepsilon = 0$ (which of course is not allowed) because it asserts infinitely often (at least once for each odd prime $p$ and each odd $n\ge 3$):

$$ C \gt \operatorname{rad}(ABC) $$

Thus with $\varepsilon=0$, we allow ourselves to say "near counter-example". However other constructions that achieve $C$ an arbitrarily large multiple of $\operatorname{rad}(ABC)$ are already known (see Section Examples of triples with small radical for details), though perhaps not of the exact form described in the Question.

Since $a$ can be any positive integer coprime to $p$ less than $p^n$, i.e. any of $p^{n-1}(p-1)$ choices, there are increasing opportunities for the proposed inequality to be satisfied as $p^n$ grows. Let's give a heuristic argument for why it is not difficult to find such solutions.

If $A=a$ and $B=p^n$ are coprime, automatically $C=a+p^n$ is coprime to both $A,B$. Thus $\operatorname{rad}(ABC) = \operatorname{rad}(A)\cdot \operatorname{rad}(B)\cdot \operatorname{rad}(C)$, and $\operatorname{rad}(B)=p$. What we want to arrange is:

$$ \frac{a+p^n}{\operatorname{rad}(a+p^n)} \gt \operatorname{rad}(a)\cdot p $$

To make the left hand side "big", we want $a+p^n$ to contain either the square of a large factor or a high power of a small factor. Again, we have $p^{n-1}(p-1)$ possible $a$ to choose from.

To make the right hand side "little", we can try choosing $a$ to be a very smooth number, one that has many small redundant prime factors. For example, if $a=2^k$, then $\operatorname{rad}(a) = 2$. The multiplier $\operatorname{rad}(p^n) = p$ is fixed for the purpose of our construction, but since $n \gt 1$, we know at least $p \lt p^n$.

Since the OP has added the restriction $a \lt p^n$, we restrict ourselves to choosing coprime residues $a\bmod p^n$ until we hit upon some $a+p^n$ containing a square factor $s^2$ with $s$ greater than $\operatorname{rad}(a)\cdot p$. Then we would satisfy the current conjecture's inequality, since:

$$ s^2 \mid a+p^n \implies \frac{a+p^n}{\operatorname{rad}(a+p^n)} \ge s \gt \operatorname{rad}(a)\cdot p $$

Note on the algorithm used to check :

It is a brute force algorithm. For each $B$ and a maximal $n$, it computes $B^n$. Aware of overflow, it loops on A from 1 to B , computes the radical of abc and checks the inequality. ( Source available on request , a little big for the page format because it contains a very long list of primes )

Tests and output example :

  • $5 + 28561 = 28566$ , $B = 13$ , $\text{rad}(4079367630) = 8970$ , $n = 4$ | $xto = 2,3,5,13,23$

  • $B=17$ , $break=9321961974893840$ -> overflow, no solution found

  • $1 + 6859 = 6860$ , $B = 19$ , $\text{rad} rad(47052740) = 1330$ , $n = 3$ | $xto = 2,5,7,19$

  • @hardmath. nice post ... Do you agree that finding ( n,a) instead of giving b and n and finding a does the same job ? –  Sep 05 '16 at 12:10
  • Well, it's Lehs who formulated the problem, and he pointed out that $n$ should be odd (so $n \ge 3$), something I'd overlooked. Also in the latest version of the problem to $0 \lt a \lt p^n$, so $n$ plays a role in restricting $a$. – hardmath Sep 05 '16 at 12:15
  • @hardmath I don't find a solution each time with these restrictions. But if $a$ is just a positive coprime and $n > 1$ , solutions come quickly. Must be tested with a big digits library and more primes. For example $B=43$ is dfficult to solve with n until at least $11$. After the brute force, it would be interesting to find convergent sequences to the lowest solution when $\epsilon=0$ unless it is already the role of a function of $n$ –  Sep 05 '16 at 12:32
  • If you find $p^n$ that has no solution $a$ with these restrictions, I'm sure Lehs would be quite interested in that (counterexample to his current conjecture). As I've reworked the inequality, it seems that finding the distinct prime factors of $a+p^n$ will be the main bottleneck, esp. if $a$ is deliberately chosen to provide a small $\operatorname{rad}(a)$. – hardmath Sep 05 '16 at 14:13
  • @hardmath : could you please review the modification and its syntax ? TY! –  Sep 08 '16 at 12:35
  • @hardmath: the script is too long because the prime factorization function enumerates the primes until $101503$. It is the Lehs algo : if searchs A bounded by B looping on n until overflow. If you think it is useful, I may post it in another community post –  Sep 08 '16 at 14:00
  • I'm suggesting you give a brief description of your method, not the code itself. For example, you can say you generated all primes up to $101503$ and factor $a$ and $a+p^n$ using those "trial divisors" to get the radical computations. Some note about how your arithmetic is done would be especially of interest, e.g. the precision supported in a language. – hardmath Sep 08 '16 at 15:08
  • @hardmath : TY for your ( main and ) collaborative work on this community post. –  Sep 08 '16 at 15:39