Reminder: The OEIS is hiring a new managing editor, and the application deadline is January 26.
A set S of positive integers is called double-free if, for any integer x, the set . Equivalently, S is double-free if implies .
Consider the function
that is, the maximum cardinality of double-free sets with no element
exceeding n. It is not difficult to prove that
in words, the asymptotic maximal density of double-free sets is 2/3. Here are
details of the proof. Wang [1] obtained both
recursive and closed-form expressions for r(n) and, moreover, demonstrated
that
as n approaches infinity.
Let us now discuss a much harder problem. Define a set S of positive integers to be
Consider the functions
The second of these, q(n), has not attracted as much attention as the
first. Eppstein pointed out to me in spring, 1996 that evaluating q(n) can be
rephrased as finding the independence numbers of certain grid graphs.
From here, Zimmermann computed an estimate of the
strongly triple-free set constant:
Here are more details. Zimmermann's
computation was based on a theorem proved by Cassaigne, and they
subsequently prepared a joint report [2].
Graham, Spencer & Witsenhausen [3,4] studied, among many things, the function
p(n). They were concerned with general conditions on sets, contained in
{1,2,...,n}, that avoid the values of linear forms
. Starting from a table of relevant
coefficients in [3], Cassaigne proved a lower bound on the weakly
triple-free set constant:
Here are more details. Direct computation
of this constant requires extension of the table in [3], a time-consuming
task. In a recent e-message, Graham told me that he, Erdös and
others at AT&T estimated the constant to good accuracy in
summer, 1996. A report of their work is expected soon.
Given fixed s>1, consider sets S of positive integers
for which for all integers x.
Denote the corresponding asymptotic maximal density by
. What can be said about the
asymptotics of
as s approaches infinity?
Spencer & Erdös [5] proved that there exist constants c and C for
which
for all suitably large s, although specific numerical values were not presented.
I now have many results concerning the {x,2x,3x} and related problems. The critical density for this set (i.e., the density of the smallest subset of {1,2,...,n} which hits every subset of this form is at most 0.1999914524 and at least 0.199039. If a reasonable geometrical hypothesis holds, then I can show that this density is 0.19968056197... It is interesting that for the related question of hitting all subsets of the form (x,2x,3x,6x), the correct value of the critical density is exactly 1/12. On the other hand, if you want to hit all the real subsets of [0,1] with a set X, then X must have measure at least 1/11 (and similarly, for the real case of {x,2x,3x} in [0,1], X must have measure at least 1/5 = 0.200000... ).All interested parties will watch for conference proceedings based on [6].
Therefore a 2-fold-free set is the same as a double-free set, but a 3-fold-free set is not a triple-free set (in either sense). The maximum cardinality of r-fold-free sets was straightforwardly calculated by Reznick & Holzager [9]. A problem in [10] involves 3-fold-free sets. The asymptotic maximal density of 3-fold-free sets is 3/4 and, more generally [3], the asymptotic maximal density of r-fold-free sets is r/(r+1).
Various entries in Sloane's integer sequence database are directly relevant:
References
Copyright (c) 2002 Steven R. Finch.
All rights reserved.