Restricted Coprime Representations Modulo 6P: Exact CRT Formulas and Positivity Thresholds

By (?),

Since p\nmid6 and p\mid6a(p)+1, one has p\mid6z+1 if and only if p\mid z-a(p), which proves (2.1). The second equivalence follows from (?) in the same way.

Every integer coprime to 6 has canonical remainder 1 or 5 under \delta_6. Since

the only possible pairs of canonical residues of two summands coprime to 6 are

respectively.

If \delta_3(n)=0, exactly one summand has canonical remainder 1 under \delta_6. Writing that summand uniquely as 6z+1 gives the first row of (?). The positivity conditions give precisely z\in\mathcal Z(n). Hence every unordered representation occurs exactly once.

If \delta_3(n)=1, both summands have canonical remainder 1. If \delta_3(n)=2, both have canonical remainder 5. In either case,

Thus interchanging the summands corresponds exactly to replacing z by m(n)-z, and the fibers are the orbits of \tau_n.

A fixed parameter satisfies

or equivalently 2z=m(n). At such a parameter, (?) gives

Suppose first that e(n)=0. By (?), equality of the two canonical residues is equivalent to

Using (?) and a_i+b_i=p_i-1, this is equivalent to

Since

and p_i\neq3, the last condition is equivalent to \delta_{p_i}(n)=0.

Suppose now that e(n)=1. Equality of the excluded residues is equivalent to

Since n=3m(n)+1,

By (?), the quantity 6a_i+1 is divisible by p_i. Hence

Finally, suppose that e(n)=2. Equality is now equivalent to

Because n=3m(n)+5,

The quantity 6b_i+5 is divisible by p_i by (?). Therefore,

This completes the proof.

If a\leq m, the integers being counted are

up to m, which gives the stated formula.

If a>m, then

Consequently,

This includes m=-1, for which the interval \{z\in\mathbb Z:0\leq z\leq m\} is empty.

For z\in\mathcal Z(n), define

By (?),

exactly when

Therefore,

Expanding each factor by means of (?) gives

For \boldsymbol\alpha=\boldsymbol0, this indicator is identically 1 because

Summing the expansion over z\in\mathcal Z(n) and applying Lemma 3.2 gives (3.3).

Suppose that \delta_3(n)=0. By Proposition 2.2, every admissible parameter corresponds to exactly one unordered representation. Hence

Suppose now that \delta_3(n)\in\{1,2\}. The involution

preserves admissibility because it interchanges H_z(n) and K_z(n). Burnside’s lemma gives

provided that F_P(n) is exactly the number of admissible fixed parameters. We now verify this identification.

A fixed parameter exists exactly when m(n) is even. In the two cases under consideration,

Since both constant terms are odd, m(n) is even exactly when n is odd. If \gcd(n,6P)=1, then n is odd, so the fixed parameter

exists and gives H_z(n)=K_z(n)=n. It is admissible. Conversely, every admissible fixed parameter gives the decomposition 2n=n+n and therefore requires \gcd(n,6P)=1. Hence the number of admissible fixed parameters is exactly F_P(n), which proves (3.3).

When r=1, the three possible values of \alpha_1 are 0, 1, and 2, with respective weights

The term corresponding to \alpha_1=0 is

Let q be a prime divisor of M. The two local coprimality conditions exclude the residues

under \delta_q. They coincide exactly when q\mid2n. Hence the number of allowed residues is q-1 in the collision case and q-2 otherwise. The factor at q=2 is 1, the factor at q=3 is 1+\mathbf 1_{\{\delta_3(n)=0\}}, and the factor at q=p_i is p_i-2+\varepsilon_i(n). Since M is squarefree, the Chinese remainder theorem gives the product (?).

By Proposition 4.1,

whereas

Factoring the square of the latter local term proves the identity.

Neither 0 nor 2n belongs to \widetilde{\mathcal R}_P(n). The involution a\mapsto2n-a pairs the remaining elements in [1,2n], except for the fixed point a=n, which is present exactly when F_P(n)=1. The resulting orbits are precisely the unordered admissible decompositions counted by g_P(2n), proving (4.3).

The interval [1,2n] contains \lfloor2n/M\rfloor disjoint complete blocks of length M. Each contains \kappa_P(n) elements of the lift. Applying (4.3) and discarding the nonnegative term F_P(n) gives (4.3).

The shift n\mapsto n+3P changes 2n by M=6P. Thus the periodic lifts are identical, while the interval in (4.3) gains exactly one complete block of M integers. This block contains \kappa_P(n) admissible integers. Subtracting the two reflection identities proves the formula.

The sets \widetilde{\mathcal R}_P(n+M) and \widetilde{\mathcal R}_P(n) are identical, because \delta_M(2M)=0. Enlarging [1,2n] to [1,2n+2M] adds two complete periods and therefore 2\kappa_P(n) elements. Moreover F_P(n+M)=F_P(n). Subtracting the two instances of (4.3) gives the result.

Iterate Theorem 4.5 and use \kappa_P(a+jM)=\kappa_P(a).

Put n=tP. Formula (?) gives

For every prime p_i\mid P,

Therefore,

The same equivalence holds for the prime 2. Only the restriction contributed by the prime 3 depends on \delta_3(t).

Suppose first that \delta_3(t)=0. Write t=3u. Then

so

Consequently, g_P(2tP) is the number of integers coprime to M in the interval

The reduced residues under \delta_M occur in pairs

There is no fixed point: M/2=3P is not coprime to M. Exactly one member of each pair lies in [1,M/2]. Hence

Here \varphi(M)=2\varphi(P) because M=6P and \gcd(P,6)=1. Dividing the interval [1,uM/2] into complete periods and, when necessary, one half-period gives

This is the first term of (4.7), while the character term vanishes because \chi_3(t)=0.

Suppose now that \delta_3(t)\neq0. Since P is coprime to 3, one also has \delta_3(tP)\neq0. The restrictions at the primes 2 and 3 are equivalent to

Indeed, the first condition says that h is odd. Under \delta_3, the two excluded residues are 0 and \delta_3(2tP). If \delta_3(tP)=1, the remaining residue is 1, and if \delta_3(tP)=2, the remaining residue is 2.

Let \mu denote the Möbius function. Applying Möbius inversion to the condition \gcd(h,P)=1 gives

Write

Every divisor d of P is coprime to 6. In particular, d is odd, so the condition under \delta_2 becomes \delta_2(\ell)=1. Moreover, tP=dX_d, and multiplication by d is invertible under \delta_3. The second condition in (?) therefore becomes

For every positive integer X satisfying \delta_3(X)\neq0, define

The four possible canonical residues of X under \delta_6 give

and hence

Since P/d is odd for every d\mid P, one has

Substitution of (?) therefore gives

Since P>1,

Also,

and the multiplicativity of \chi_3 gives

Combining these three identities proves (4.7).

From the local weights,

Separating the mean term from each summand of (3.3) gives (5.1).

For a nonzero \boldsymbol\alpha, write

If s=0, every residue class occurs exactly v times in the parameter interval, so its discrepancy from the mean is zero. If s>0, each residue class occurs either v or v+1 times, and its discrepancy from the mean has absolute value smaller than 1. Therefore

Finally,

and the triangle inequality proves (5.1).

Write m+1=vq+s, where 0\leq s<q. If s=0, the discrepancy of each residue count is zero. Otherwise it is either -s/q or 1-s/q. Hence, for all integers m\geq-1, q\geq1, and 0\leq a<q,

Consequently, the triangle inequality gives

The equality follows by factoring the two sums of absolute weights. The term with \boldsymbol\alpha=\boldsymbol0 contributes zero. Since r\geq1, the second product defining D_P^{\mathrm{ref}}(n) is strictly greater than 1, proving the strict inequality.

If \delta_3(n)=0, then m(n)+1=n/3, \kappa_P(n)=2A_P(n), and g_P(2n)=\mathcal C_P(n), which gives the first branch.

If \delta_3(n)=1, then m(n)+1=(n+2)/3 and \kappa_P(n)=A_P(n). Combining (3.3) and (5.1) gives the second branch. The case \delta_3(n)=2 is identical with m(n)+1=(n-2)/3 and gives the third branch.

The bound follows from (5.1). In the two latter cases,

because 0<A_P(n)/P<1 and r\geq1.

The last equivalence follows directly from (?). If \delta_3(n)=0, the first equivalence follows from g_P(2n)=\mathcal C_P(n). If \delta_3(n)\in\{1,2\}, then g_P(2n)=(\mathcal C_P(n)+F_P(n))/2. Whenever F_P(n)=1, the central parameter z=m(n)/2 is admissible, so \mathcal C_P(n)\geq1. Hence \mathcal C_P(n)=0 forces F_P(n)=0, which proves the first equivalence.

By Proposition 5.1, the strict bound (5.1) and hypothesis (5.6) give \mathcal C_P(n)>0. Proposition 5.5 then gives the result.

Since 2n\geq M, one has \lfloor2n/M\rfloor\geq1. Apply (4.3) and the definition of \kappa_P(n).

For every n,

while \prod_i(3-\varepsilon_i(n))-1\leq3^r-1. Thus n\geq T^*(P) implies (5.6).

For the second assertion, let A_0=\prod_i(p_i-2). Since A_0\geq3^r,

Also P\geq5^r\geq2\cdot3^{r-1}, so the right-hand side is at most 3P.

If P\geq7, then n\geq P^2/2\geq3P\geq T^*(P). For P=5, the hypothesis gives n\geq13, while T^*(5)=12. Corollary 5.9 applies in both cases.

Write P'=q_1\cdots q_s. Since s\leq r_p and every factor q/(q-2) is larger than 1,

Thus 2n\geq\mathcal N(p) implies n\geq T^*(P'), and Corollary 5.9 applies.

For every prime q\geq5,

Mertens’ product theorem [HardyWright2008] and the definition of C_2 give

Taking reciprocals in this relation and substituting into (5.11) proves (5.12). The prime number theorem, \pi(p)\sim p/\log p, then gives (5.12).

Every representation whose summands are coprime to 6Q also has both summands coprime to 6P. Hence the set counted by g_Q(2n) is contained in the set counted by g_P(2n), which proves (6.1). Under the stated cutoff on the prime factors, one has P\mid\Pi(n), and (6.1) follows.

For the final assertion, positivity at the complete cutoff implies positivity for every such P by (6.1). The converse follows by taking P=\Pi(n).

Suppose that u is composite. Then u has a prime divisor q satisfying

If q\in\{2,3\}, then

If q\geq5, then q occurs among the prime factors of \Pi(n), which gives the same contradiction. Therefore u is prime.

It remains to locate this prime. If u\leq\sqrt{2n}, then u itself occurs among the prime factors of 6\Pi(n). This again contradicts the coprimality hypothesis. Hence u>\sqrt{2n}.

An admissible representation with smaller summand 1 must be 1+(2n-1). By Proposition 6.2, it is admissible exactly when 2n-1 is prime: in that case 2n-1>\sqrt{2n}. Every other admissible representation has both summands at least 2. The same proposition shows that both are primes exceeding \sqrt{2n}. Conversely, any such pair consists of two integers coprime to 6\Pi(n). These two disjoint classes of representations give (6.3), and the positivity equivalence follows.