Does this property characterize the odd primes?












6












$begingroup$


Let $P_o$ be the primes excluding $2$. $P_o subset mathbb{N}$ has the following property $Q$:




  • For any $a,b in P_o$, $a + b notin P_o$.

  • For any $a,b in P_o$, $ab notin P_o$.


So both addition and multiplication necessarily leave the set $P_o$.



$P_o$ has natural density $0$.




Q1. Is there a set $S subset mathbb{N}$ with positive density
that satisfies property $Q$?




Answered quickly by @JoséCarlosSantos: Yes.
Permit me then to add a new question:




Q2. What is largest density $S subset mathbb{N}$
that satisfies property $Q$?




Santos's example has density $frac{1}{3}$.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    6












    $begingroup$


    Let $P_o$ be the primes excluding $2$. $P_o subset mathbb{N}$ has the following property $Q$:




    • For any $a,b in P_o$, $a + b notin P_o$.

    • For any $a,b in P_o$, $ab notin P_o$.


    So both addition and multiplication necessarily leave the set $P_o$.



    $P_o$ has natural density $0$.




    Q1. Is there a set $S subset mathbb{N}$ with positive density
    that satisfies property $Q$?




    Answered quickly by @JoséCarlosSantos: Yes.
    Permit me then to add a new question:




    Q2. What is largest density $S subset mathbb{N}$
    that satisfies property $Q$?




    Santos's example has density $frac{1}{3}$.










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      6












      6








      6


      3



      $begingroup$


      Let $P_o$ be the primes excluding $2$. $P_o subset mathbb{N}$ has the following property $Q$:




      • For any $a,b in P_o$, $a + b notin P_o$.

      • For any $a,b in P_o$, $ab notin P_o$.


      So both addition and multiplication necessarily leave the set $P_o$.



      $P_o$ has natural density $0$.




      Q1. Is there a set $S subset mathbb{N}$ with positive density
      that satisfies property $Q$?




      Answered quickly by @JoséCarlosSantos: Yes.
      Permit me then to add a new question:




      Q2. What is largest density $S subset mathbb{N}$
      that satisfies property $Q$?




      Santos's example has density $frac{1}{3}$.










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $P_o$ be the primes excluding $2$. $P_o subset mathbb{N}$ has the following property $Q$:




      • For any $a,b in P_o$, $a + b notin P_o$.

      • For any $a,b in P_o$, $ab notin P_o$.


      So both addition and multiplication necessarily leave the set $P_o$.



      $P_o$ has natural density $0$.




      Q1. Is there a set $S subset mathbb{N}$ with positive density
      that satisfies property $Q$?




      Answered quickly by @JoséCarlosSantos: Yes.
      Permit me then to add a new question:




      Q2. What is largest density $S subset mathbb{N}$
      that satisfies property $Q$?




      Santos's example has density $frac{1}{3}$.







      number-theory elementary-number-theory prime-numbers infinity






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 4 hours ago







      Joseph O'Rourke

















      asked 5 hours ago









      Joseph O'RourkeJoseph O'Rourke

      18.1k349109




      18.1k349109






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          6












          $begingroup$

          What about $S={3n-1,|,ninmathbb N}$? Its natural density is $frac13$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very nice! ${}$
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago



















          4












          $begingroup$

          Let $S = {n : n equiv 2 rm{or} 3 pmod 5}$. This has density $2/5$, which beats $1/3$.



          Incidentally, this sequence can be generated with a greedy algorithm, starting with $S = {2}$ and progressively adding every larger number that maintains the requirement.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
            $endgroup$
            – Théophile
            3 hours ago








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
            $endgroup$
            – Barry Cipra
            1 min ago



















          3












          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but too long for a comment. See this talk by Carl Pomerance, on sum-free sets, and product-free sets. One way to answer the OP (and this is the approach of the other answers) is to choose an $n$, and a subset $S$ of $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$, such that $S$ is both sum-free (if $a,bin S$, then $a+bnotin S$) and product-free (if $a,bin S$, then $abnotin S$) . Then, we take all integers that are congruent to an element of $S$, modulo $n$. The desired asymptotic density is seen to be $frac{|S|}{n}$.



          This might not be a simple question at all. Looking just at the sum-free property , we can easily get asymptotic density $0.5$ by taking the odd numbers. The product-free property is quite subtle: the linked talk gives a construction of a very large $n$ (with over 100 million digits) such that there is an $S$ satisfying $frac{|S|}{n}>0.5003$. In fact, we could raise $0.5003$ to be arbitrarily close to $1$ (although no construction is given in the linked talk). The general approach is to make $n$ have many small primes, to large powers, as factors.



          One would not expect that this product-free set is also sum-free, but we can always remove some elements from it, until we have a subset of $S$ that is both sum-free and product-free. I have no idea how big that resulting subset would be.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            6 mins ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3121694%2fdoes-this-property-characterize-the-odd-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes








          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          6












          $begingroup$

          What about $S={3n-1,|,ninmathbb N}$? Its natural density is $frac13$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very nice! ${}$
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago
















          6












          $begingroup$

          What about $S={3n-1,|,ninmathbb N}$? Its natural density is $frac13$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Very nice! ${}$
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago














          6












          6








          6





          $begingroup$

          What about $S={3n-1,|,ninmathbb N}$? Its natural density is $frac13$.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          What about $S={3n-1,|,ninmathbb N}$? Its natural density is $frac13$.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 5 hours ago









          José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

          163k22130233




          163k22130233












          • $begingroup$
            Very nice! ${}$
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Very nice! ${}$
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago
















          $begingroup$
          Very nice! ${}$
          $endgroup$
          – Joseph O'Rourke
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Very nice! ${}$
          $endgroup$
          – Joseph O'Rourke
          3 hours ago











          4












          $begingroup$

          Let $S = {n : n equiv 2 rm{or} 3 pmod 5}$. This has density $2/5$, which beats $1/3$.



          Incidentally, this sequence can be generated with a greedy algorithm, starting with $S = {2}$ and progressively adding every larger number that maintains the requirement.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
            $endgroup$
            – Théophile
            3 hours ago








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
            $endgroup$
            – Barry Cipra
            1 min ago
















          4












          $begingroup$

          Let $S = {n : n equiv 2 rm{or} 3 pmod 5}$. This has density $2/5$, which beats $1/3$.



          Incidentally, this sequence can be generated with a greedy algorithm, starting with $S = {2}$ and progressively adding every larger number that maintains the requirement.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
            $endgroup$
            – Théophile
            3 hours ago








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
            $endgroup$
            – Barry Cipra
            1 min ago














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          Let $S = {n : n equiv 2 rm{or} 3 pmod 5}$. This has density $2/5$, which beats $1/3$.



          Incidentally, this sequence can be generated with a greedy algorithm, starting with $S = {2}$ and progressively adding every larger number that maintains the requirement.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Let $S = {n : n equiv 2 rm{or} 3 pmod 5}$. This has density $2/5$, which beats $1/3$.



          Incidentally, this sequence can be generated with a greedy algorithm, starting with $S = {2}$ and progressively adding every larger number that maintains the requirement.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 4 hours ago









          ThéophileThéophile

          19.9k12946




          19.9k12946












          • $begingroup$
            This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
            $endgroup$
            – Théophile
            3 hours ago








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
            $endgroup$
            – Barry Cipra
            1 min ago


















          • $begingroup$
            This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            3 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
            $endgroup$
            – Théophile
            3 hours ago








          • 4




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            2 hours ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
            $endgroup$
            – alphacapture
            1 hour ago










          • $begingroup$
            @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
            $endgroup$
            – Barry Cipra
            1 min ago
















          $begingroup$
          This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
          $endgroup$
          – Joseph O'Rourke
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          This feels like it might be the max, because of the greedy property you mentioned.
          $endgroup$
          – Joseph O'Rourke
          3 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
          $endgroup$
          – Théophile
          3 hours ago






          $begingroup$
          @JosephO'Rourke Not necessarily: using a greedy algorithm starting at $1$ instead of $2$ leads to a different sequence that is not as dense: ${1, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 27, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 45, 47, 53, 59, 61, ldots}$. (I'm surprised not to find this on OEIS. You might be interested in adding it there.) Other starting points are similarly bad. But it's interesting that the greedy method starting at $2$ gives a consistent structure, and I agree that it feels like it could be the best result.
          $endgroup$
          – Théophile
          3 hours ago






          4




          4




          $begingroup$
          @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
          $endgroup$
          – alphacapture
          2 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @Théophile Doesn't 1*3=3 violate the constraint?
          $endgroup$
          – alphacapture
          2 hours ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
          $endgroup$
          – alphacapture
          1 hour ago




          $begingroup$
          @Théophile What it looks like you are doing is starting with 3 and running the greedy algorithm while restricting yourself to odd numbers; this will result in the set of odd numbers with an odd number of prime factors
          $endgroup$
          – alphacapture
          1 hour ago












          $begingroup$
          @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
          $endgroup$
          – Barry Cipra
          1 min ago




          $begingroup$
          @alphacapture, indeed, dropping the $1$ and checking OEIS for the rest gives oeis.org/A067019 . (It's generally a good idea to drop a few early terms when checking OEIS, especially $1$'s and $0$'s.)
          $endgroup$
          – Barry Cipra
          1 min ago











          3












          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but too long for a comment. See this talk by Carl Pomerance, on sum-free sets, and product-free sets. One way to answer the OP (and this is the approach of the other answers) is to choose an $n$, and a subset $S$ of $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$, such that $S$ is both sum-free (if $a,bin S$, then $a+bnotin S$) and product-free (if $a,bin S$, then $abnotin S$) . Then, we take all integers that are congruent to an element of $S$, modulo $n$. The desired asymptotic density is seen to be $frac{|S|}{n}$.



          This might not be a simple question at all. Looking just at the sum-free property , we can easily get asymptotic density $0.5$ by taking the odd numbers. The product-free property is quite subtle: the linked talk gives a construction of a very large $n$ (with over 100 million digits) such that there is an $S$ satisfying $frac{|S|}{n}>0.5003$. In fact, we could raise $0.5003$ to be arbitrarily close to $1$ (although no construction is given in the linked talk). The general approach is to make $n$ have many small primes, to large powers, as factors.



          One would not expect that this product-free set is also sum-free, but we can always remove some elements from it, until we have a subset of $S$ that is both sum-free and product-free. I have no idea how big that resulting subset would be.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            6 mins ago
















          3












          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but too long for a comment. See this talk by Carl Pomerance, on sum-free sets, and product-free sets. One way to answer the OP (and this is the approach of the other answers) is to choose an $n$, and a subset $S$ of $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$, such that $S$ is both sum-free (if $a,bin S$, then $a+bnotin S$) and product-free (if $a,bin S$, then $abnotin S$) . Then, we take all integers that are congruent to an element of $S$, modulo $n$. The desired asymptotic density is seen to be $frac{|S|}{n}$.



          This might not be a simple question at all. Looking just at the sum-free property , we can easily get asymptotic density $0.5$ by taking the odd numbers. The product-free property is quite subtle: the linked talk gives a construction of a very large $n$ (with over 100 million digits) such that there is an $S$ satisfying $frac{|S|}{n}>0.5003$. In fact, we could raise $0.5003$ to be arbitrarily close to $1$ (although no construction is given in the linked talk). The general approach is to make $n$ have many small primes, to large powers, as factors.



          One would not expect that this product-free set is also sum-free, but we can always remove some elements from it, until we have a subset of $S$ that is both sum-free and product-free. I have no idea how big that resulting subset would be.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            6 mins ago














          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but too long for a comment. See this talk by Carl Pomerance, on sum-free sets, and product-free sets. One way to answer the OP (and this is the approach of the other answers) is to choose an $n$, and a subset $S$ of $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$, such that $S$ is both sum-free (if $a,bin S$, then $a+bnotin S$) and product-free (if $a,bin S$, then $abnotin S$) . Then, we take all integers that are congruent to an element of $S$, modulo $n$. The desired asymptotic density is seen to be $frac{|S|}{n}$.



          This might not be a simple question at all. Looking just at the sum-free property , we can easily get asymptotic density $0.5$ by taking the odd numbers. The product-free property is quite subtle: the linked talk gives a construction of a very large $n$ (with over 100 million digits) such that there is an $S$ satisfying $frac{|S|}{n}>0.5003$. In fact, we could raise $0.5003$ to be arbitrarily close to $1$ (although no construction is given in the linked talk). The general approach is to make $n$ have many small primes, to large powers, as factors.



          One would not expect that this product-free set is also sum-free, but we can always remove some elements from it, until we have a subset of $S$ that is both sum-free and product-free. I have no idea how big that resulting subset would be.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          This is not an answer, but too long for a comment. See this talk by Carl Pomerance, on sum-free sets, and product-free sets. One way to answer the OP (and this is the approach of the other answers) is to choose an $n$, and a subset $S$ of $mathbb{Z}/nmathbb{Z}$, such that $S$ is both sum-free (if $a,bin S$, then $a+bnotin S$) and product-free (if $a,bin S$, then $abnotin S$) . Then, we take all integers that are congruent to an element of $S$, modulo $n$. The desired asymptotic density is seen to be $frac{|S|}{n}$.



          This might not be a simple question at all. Looking just at the sum-free property , we can easily get asymptotic density $0.5$ by taking the odd numbers. The product-free property is quite subtle: the linked talk gives a construction of a very large $n$ (with over 100 million digits) such that there is an $S$ satisfying $frac{|S|}{n}>0.5003$. In fact, we could raise $0.5003$ to be arbitrarily close to $1$ (although no construction is given in the linked talk). The general approach is to make $n$ have many small primes, to large powers, as factors.



          One would not expect that this product-free set is also sum-free, but we can always remove some elements from it, until we have a subset of $S$ that is both sum-free and product-free. I have no idea how big that resulting subset would be.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 47 mins ago









          vadim123vadim123

          76.1k897190




          76.1k897190












          • $begingroup$
            I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            6 mins ago


















          • $begingroup$
            I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
            $endgroup$
            – Joseph O'Rourke
            6 mins ago
















          $begingroup$
          I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
          $endgroup$
          – Joseph O'Rourke
          6 mins ago




          $begingroup$
          I am glad to know the terms "sum-free" and "product-free." Much more memorable than "property $Q$"!
          $endgroup$
          – Joseph O'Rourke
          6 mins ago


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3121694%2fdoes-this-property-characterize-the-odd-primes%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          香粉寮

          GameSpot