Showing posts with label Dirichlet. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dirichlet. Show all posts

Sunday, 20 December 2020

Feynman Integration

Figure 1 shows a graphic in a tweet by Cliff Pickover that caught my attention recently:

Figure 1

It turns out that the denominator of \(x^2+1)^2\) gives the same result for \(x^2+1\) so in this video I'll just be considering the integral:$$\text{I}=\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{\cos x}{x^2+1} \text{ d}x$$It's such an aesthetic result that I thought I'd investigate how the result was arrived at. Flammable Maths YouTube channel solves this definite integral in three different ways, although in this post I'll only be looking at the Feynman method. I'll be simply reproducing the steps outlined in the video that is shown below. It's a good opportunity to practise my LaTeX.


The first step is to introduce a variable \(t\) into the integral:$$\text{I}(t)=\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{\cos (t \, x)}{x^2+1} \text{ d}x$$When \(t=1\), we have \(\text{I}(1)=\text{I}\). Now we'll determine the first and second derivatives. Let's start with the first derivative:$$\text{I'}(t)=\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \partial_t \,\frac{\cos (t \, x)}{x^2+1} \text{ d}x=\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{1}{x^2+1} \, -x \sin (t \, x) \text{ d}x$$Now we multiply top and bottom by \(x\) and add \(0\) in the form of \(+1 + -1\):$$\text{I'}(t)=-\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{(x^2+1-1) \, \sin (t \, x)}{x \,(x^2+1)} \text{ d}x$$We can now split the integral into two parts thanks to our \(+1 + -1\) trick:$$\text{I'}(t)=-\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{(x^2+1) \, \sin (t \, x)}{x \,(x^2+1)} \text{ d}x+\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{ \sin (t \, x)}{x \,(x^2+1)} \text{ d}x$$The first part of the integral simplifies to:$$-\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{ \sin (t \, x)}{x} \text{ d}x=-\pi $$We'll just accept that result for the moment and so we have the following result for the first derivative:$$\text{I'}(t)=-\pi+\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{ \sin (t \, x)}{x \,(x^2+1)} \text{ d}x$$Now we'll find the second derivative:$$\text{I''}(t)=\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \partial_t \frac{ \sin (t \, x)}{x \,(x^2+1)} \text{ d}x=\int_{-\infty} ^{\infty} \frac{ \cos (t \, x)}{(x^2+1} \text{ d}x=\text{I}(t) $$The fact the the second derivative of the function is equal to the original function means that we have a second order linear differential equation of the form:$$\text{I''}(t)-\text{I}(t)=0 \text{ where we'll assume that I}(t)=c \, e^{\, \lambda \,t}$$This means that \(\text{I''}(t)=\lambda^2 \,c\,e^{\, \lambda \, t}\) and substituting this into the differential equation we get:$$\lambda^2 \,c\,e^{\, \lambda \, t}-c \, e^{\, \lambda \,t}=0 \implies c \, e^{\, \lambda \,t}(\lambda^2-1)=0 \text{ and }\lambda=\pm1$$Thus we have: $$ \text{I}(t)=c_1 \,e^{\, t}+c_2 \,e^{-t} \text{ and }\text{I'}(t)=c_1 \,e^{\, t}-c_2 \,e^{-t}$$$$\text{I}(0)=\pi=c_1+c_2 \text{ and } \text{I'}(0)=-\pi =c_1-c_2 \implies c_1=0 \text{ and }c_2=\pi$$ $$ \text{I}(t)=\pi \,e^{-t} \text{ and thus }\text{I}(1)=\text{I} =\frac{\pi}{e}$$.Figure 2 shows a graph of the function:

Figure 2

Clearly there are negative areas under the curve that will cancel with the positive areas but the bulk of the area lies between \( \frac{-\pi}{2} \) and \(\frac{\pi}{2}\).

Here are some links that Flammable Maths provides for some of the techniques used in this video:
There are lots of interesting integrals like the one we have just dealt with and I am certainly out of practice in dealing with them. I should make posts like this more frequently. Looking back over my previous posts, I notice that I've made the following integration-related posts:

Saturday, 21 March 2020

Highly Factorable Numbers

The number of OEIS (Online Encyclopaedia of Integer Sequences) entries for number close to 26000 are not numerous (typically no more than ten). So I was surprised today, having turned 25920 days old, to discover that there were 184 entries in the OEIS for the number 25920. Amongst its many properties was the following(OEIS A0338833):


    A033833

Highly factorable numbers: numbers with a record number of proper factorisations.


The sequence, up to and including 25920, runs as follows:
1, 4, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, 192, 216, 240, 288, 360, 432, 480, 576, 720, 960, 1080, 1152, 1440, 2160, 2880, 4320, 5040, 5760, 7200, 8640, 10080, 11520, 12960, 14400, 15120, 17280, 20160, 25920
It's easy at first sight to confuse highly factorable with highly composite. However, the terms are not the same. WolframMathWorld defines the latter as:
Highly composite numbers are numbers such that the divisor function$$d(n)=\sigma_0(n)$$In other words, the number of divisors of \(n\) is greater than for any smaller \(n\). 
Figure 1 shows a list of the first 38 highly factorisable numbers and their factorisation. Double click the image to enlarge it.

Figure 1

As can be seen, 25920 does not appear on the list. This is because highly factorable numbers are characterised by the size of their multiplicative partitions (the number of ways in which a positive integer n can be expressed as a product of integers (each greater than 1). The OEIS comments for the sequence A033833 give examples for the initial terms. See Figure 2.

Figure 2

Clearly there is an overlap between between the highly composite and highly factorable numbers but notice that 2 and 6 are missing in the latter. Figure 3 shows a more comprehensive list of the initial highly factorable numbers and their factorisations, obtained from a 1981 paper with Paul Erdos as one of the three contributing authors.

Figure 3

Looking at Figure 3, it can be seen that 25920 sets a record as being able to be represented in 1386 different ways. In other words the size of its multiplicative partition is 1386. This article titled "Additive and Multiplicative Partitions" looks, as its title suggests, at the both types of partitions but no formula for calculating the size of multiplicative partitions emerged. This article title "Multiplicative Partitions" attempts an explanation of the topic and begins:
A phenomenal amount of research has been conducted on the additive partition function  over  the  last  100  years,  with  striking  classical  results  due  to  Hardy, Ramanujan, and others.  In contrast,  the topic of multiplicative partitions — sometimes referred to as  “factorisatio  numerorum”  —  has  received  little  attention.   Counting  the  number  of multiplicative partitions is a natural question since it lies between the two most common questions concerning primes:  “Is \(n\) prime?” and “What is the prime factorization of \(n\)?” 
However, the algorithms that the paper came up with were a little beyond my comprehension. I was hoping to find a SageMath or a Python program that would generate the size of the multiplicative partition of any given integer. In my post of Monday, 11th November 2019, I made mention of these sorts of partitions in the context of Bell numbers:
Factorisations 
If a number \(N\) is a square-free positive integer (meaning that it is the product of some number \(n\) of distinct prime numbers), then Bn gives the number of different multiplicative partitions of \(N\). These are factorisations of N into numbers greater than one, treating two factorisations as the same if they have the same factors in a different order. For instance, 30 is the product of the three primes 2, 3, and 5, and has \(B_3\) = 5 factorisations: 30 = 2×15 = 3×10 = 5×6 = 2×3×5
That works for numbers like 30 but it's no good when the factors are not square free as in 25920. There is a Dirichlet series generating function \(f(s)\) that can be used for this purpose but I don't understand it: $$f(s)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{a_n}{n^s}=\prod_{k=2}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-k^{-s}}$$I guess I'll keep investigating this matter and more to this post, if and when I discover something.

Saturday, 25 August 2018

Quadratic Reciprocity

I just read a most interesting article in Quanta Magazine about the new Fields medallist Peter Scholze. His discoveries are quite beyond my comprehension but in the article mention is made of quadratic reciprocity. I've come across the concept repeatedly but have always avoided taking the time to understand it. However, in this article it was explained simply and clearly. 
Reciprocity laws are generalisations of the 200-year-old quadratic reciprocity law, a cornerstone of number theory and one of Scholze’s personal favourite theorems. The law states that given two prime numbers p and q, in most cases p is a perfect square on a clock with q hours exactly when q is a perfect square on a clock with p hours. For example, five is a perfect square on a clock with 11 hours, since \(5 = 16 = 4^2 \), and 11 is a perfect square on a clock with five hours, since \(11 = 1 = 1^2 \).
Here is a more detailed explanation of quadratic reciprocity (source):
It's easy to find integer solutions of the equation \( y^2 = 2x^2 + 7k \), but there are no integer solutions at all of the seemingly similar equation \( y^2 = 3x^2 + 7k \).  This is the sort of thing that experienced number theorists can tell at a glance, simply by noting that the equations written modulo 7 are \( y^2 = 2x^2 \) and \( y^2 = 3x^2 \) respectively, and since division is unique in the field of integers (mod p) we have \( (y/x)^2 \equiv n \pmod{p} \), which implies that n must be the square of some element of the field of integers modulo p.  But the integers mod 7 are just 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, whose squares (mod 7) are 0, 1, 4, 2, 2, 4, 1. Thus the equation \( y^2 = nx^2 + 7k \) can have integer solutions only if n is congruent to 0, 1, 2, or 4 (mod 7).  These are called the quadratic residues (mod 7), and the remaining numbers 3, 5, 6 are called the non-quadratic residues.  
It's often extremely important when dealing with problems in number theory to know whether a certain prime p is a square (i.e., a quadratic residue) modulo some other particular prime q. Legendre defined a symbol to represent this information, which we will denote as
This is a remarkable fact, and not at all self-evident.  Legendre succeeded in proving some special cases of this, and also gave what he thought was a complete proof, but his argument relied on the premise that every arithmetic progression contains infinitely many primes. This is in fact true, as subsequently shown by Dirichlet, but at the time of Legendre's proof it wasn't known, so Gauss pointed out that Legendre's proof was incomplete. Gauss went even further, and gave several (valid) proofs of this remarkable theorem, which he called the Fundamental Theorem of number theory.
Thus [p\q] equals either +1 or -1 depending on whether p is or isn't a square modulo q. From examining many individual cases, Euler had previously noticed a striking relationship between the [p\q] and [q\p].  Specifically, he noticed that [p\q] = [q\p] except when p and q are both of the form 4k-1, in which case [p\q] = -[q\p]. 
Let's take a specific example. Yesterday I turned 25339 days old. The previous prime is 25321. It can seen that \( 25339 \equiv 18 \pmod{25321} \) and \( 25321 \equiv 25321 \pmod{253339} \), neither residue being square. Therefore \([25339\25321] = [25321\25339] = -1\). Note that 25321 is a 4k+1 prime while 25339 is a 4k-1 prime, which is in accord with the theorem.



I've download a PDF titled Quadratic Residues and Non-Residues Selected Topics by Steve Wright from the Department of Mathematics and Statistics Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan and dated 21st October 2106. It's freely available here. I'll have a read over this and see if I can deepen my understanding of this topic.

Here are some SAGE commands that can be used when dealing with quadratic residues (double click to enlarge):


Source: http://doc.sagemath.org/html/en/constructions/number_theory.html
ADDENDUM:

When trying to tackle the above Quadratic Residues and Non-Residues Selected Topics, I quickly realised that my foundations in modular arithmetic were a little shaky and needed to be reinforced a little. I began watching a series of videos by Polar Pi on YouTube, beginning with this video on a linear congruence equation with one solution:



The next video in this series relates to linear congruence equations with multiple solutions and the third of the three videos looks at linear congruence equations with no solutions.

The YouTube channel blackpenredpen has some videos on modular arithmetic as well:
  • What does a ≡ b (mod n) mean? Basic Modular Arithmetic, Congruence? Link
  • Solving congruences, 3 introductory examples. Link
  • System of congruences, modular arithmetic. Link