arXiv subjects

Alyssa Epstein

Publications and source records attributed to Alyssa Epstein.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2019

On Near Perfect Numbers

The study of perfect numbers (numbers which equal the sum of their proper divisors) goes back to antiquity, and is responsible for some of the oldest and most popular conjectures in number theory. We investigate a generalization introduced by Pollack and Shevelev: $k$-near-perfect numbers. These are examples to the well-known pseudoperfect numbers first defined by Sierpiński, and are numbers such that the sum of all but at most $k$ of its proper divisors equals the number. We establish their asymptotic order for all integers $k\ge 4$, as well as some properties of related quantities.

math.NT↗

arXiv2018

On algorithms to calculate integer complexity

We consider a problem first proposed by Mahler and Popken in 1953 and later developed by Coppersmith, Erdős, Guy, Isbell, Selfridge, and others. Let $f(n)$ be the complexity of $n \in \mathbb{Z^{+}}$, where $f(n)$ is defined as the least number of $1$'s needed to represent $n$ in conjunction with an arbitrary number of $+$'s, $*$'s, and parentheses. Several algorithms have been developed to calculate the complexity of all integers up to $n$. Currently, the fastest known algorithm runs in time $\mathcal{O}(n^{1.230175})$ and was given by J. Arias de Reyna and J. van de Lune in 2014. This algorithm makes use of a recursive definition given by Guy and iterates through products, $f(d) + f\left(\frac{n}{d}\right)$, for $d \ |\ n$, and sums, $f(a) + f(n - a)$, for $a$ up to some function of $n$. The rate-limiting factor is iterating through the sums. We discuss potential improvements to this algorithm via a method that provides a strong uniform bound on the number of summands that must be calculated for almost all $n$. We also develop code to run J. Arias de Reyna and J. van de Lune's analysis in higher bases and thus reduce their runtime of $\mathcal{O}(n^{1.230175})$ to $\mathcal{O}(n^{1.222911236})$. All of our code can be found online at: https://github.com/kcordwel/Integer-Complexity.

math.NT↗

arXiv2018

The Zeckendorf Game

Zeckendorf proved that every positive integer $n$ can be written uniquely as the sum of non-adjacent Fibonacci numbers. We use this to create a two-player game. Given a fixed integer $n$ and an initial decomposition of $n = n F_1$, the two players alternate by using moves related to the recurrence relation $F_{n+1} = F_n + F_{n-1}$, and whoever moves last wins. The game always terminates in the Zeckendorf decomposition, though depending on the choice of moves the length of the game and the winner can vary. We find upper and lower bounds on the number of moves possible. The upper bound is on the order of $n\log n$, and the lower bound is sharp at $n-Z(n)$ moves, where $Z(n)$ is the number of terms in the Zeckendorf decomposition of $n$. Notably, Player 2 has the winning strategy for all $n > 2$; interestingly, however, the proof is non-constructive.

math.NT↗

arXiv2018

The Generalized Zeckendorf Game

Zeckendorf proved that every positive integer $n$ can be written uniquely as the sum of non-adjacent Fibonacci numbers; a similar result, though with a different notion of a legal decomposition, holds for many other sequences. We use these decompositions to construct a two-player game, which can be completely analyzed for linear recurrence relations of the form $G_n = \sum_{i=1}^{k} c G_{n-i}$ for a fixed positive integer $c$ ($c=k-1=1$ gives the Fibonaccis). Given a fixed integer $n$ and an initial decomposition of $n = n G_1$, the two players alternate by using moves related to the recurrence relation, and whomever moves last wins. The game always terminates in the Zeckendorf decomposition, though depending on the choice of moves the length of the game and the winner can vary. We find upper and lower bounds on the number of moves possible; for the Fibonacci game the upper bound is on the order of $n\log n$, and for other games we obtain a bound growing linearly with $n$. For the Fibonacci game, Player 2 has the winning strategy for all $n > 2$. If Player 2 makes a mistake on his first move, however, Player 1 has the winning strategy instead. Interestingly, the proof of both of these claims is non-constructive.

math.NT↗

arXiv2017

Optimal point sets determining few distinct triangles

We generalize work of Erdos and Fishburn to study the structure of finite point sets that determine few distinct triangles. Specifically, we ask for a given $t$, what is the maximum number of points that can be placed in the plane to determine exactly $t$ distinct triangles? Denoting this quantity by $F(t)$, we show that $F(1) = 4$, $F(2) = 5$, and $F(t) < 48(t+1)$ for all $t$. We also completely characterize the optimal configurations for $t = 1, 2$.

math.CO↗