Elementary solution of Waring’s problem

1 Introduction
In 1770, Edmund Waring, in his book “Meditationes Algebraices” made the profound statement
(without proof) that every natural number can be written as a sum of at most four squares,
nine cubes, nineteen fourth powers and so on. More precisely, this observation, called Waring’s
problem, is stated as follows:
Observation 1 [Waring’s problem] For each k ≥ 2, there exists a positive integer g =
g(k) ≥ 2 such that every natural number n can be written as a sum of g(k) k-th powers. That
is, for every n ≥ 1, there exist non-negative integers x1 , x2 , · · · xg such that
n = xk1 + xk2 + · · · xkg .
We note here that g(k) is chosen to be the minimal number with the above property. That is,
one can find at least one n ≥ 1 which cannot be written as a sum of g(k) − 1 k-th powers.
In 1909, Hilbert proved that Waring’s observation is true. Thus, Waring’s statement naturally
leads to the following problems:
1. Can we find a precise formula for g(k) for all k?
2. Can we find a formula for g(k) that works for sufficiently large values of k?
3. Can we determine the asymptotics, lower bound or upper bound for g(k)?
In the context of the first question, we list out some known values of g(k) :
• g(2) = 4 [Lagrange (1770)]
• g(3) = 9 [Wieferich (1909), Kempner (1919)]
• g(4) = 19 [Balasubramanian, Deshouillers, Dress (1986)]
• g(5) = 37 [Chen (1964)]
• g(6) = 73 [Pillai (1940)] etc
In 1772, J.A. Euler conjectured that
3k
 
k
g(k) = 2 + k − 2.
2
In 1936, Pillai showed that Euler’s conjecture is true provided
(  ) "  #
3 k 3 k
2k + ≤ 2k .
2 2
By the work of Mahler in 1956, it is known that there can be at most finitely many values of k
for which the above inequality does not hold. It is conjectured that the above inequality holds
for all k.
An important technique used to attack Waring’s problem is the circle method. This method
was originally developed by Srinivasa Ramanujan to study the asymptotics of the partition
function. It was later used by Hardy and Littlewood to address Waring’s problem.
It is possible to prove the existence of g(k) by using elementary methods. This was first done
by Linnik in 1943 using fundamental ideas of Schnirelmann. In this chapter, we outline Linnik’s
elementary solution of Waring’s problem, combined with a theorem of Hua on exponential sums.

1
2 Schnirelmann density
Let A ⊆ N and for every n ≥ 1, let A(n) = #{a ∈ A : a ≤ n}. We define the Schnirelmann
density of A, denoted δ(A) to be

A(n)
δ(A) := inf n≥1 .
n
We observe that A(n) ≥ δ(A)n for all n ≥ 1. We also observe that 0 ≤ δ(A) ≤ 1 and δ(A) = 1
if and only if A = N.
The Schnirelmann density is different from the asymptotic density σ(A) defined as

A(n)
σ(A) = lim .
n→∞ n

While σ(A) measures the asymptotic behaviour of A(n) n for arbitrarily large values of n, the
Schnirelmann density δ(A) is affected by the first few values of n. For example, if E and O
denote the set of even and odd natural numbers respectively, then δ(E) = 0 and δ(O) = 1/2.
On the other hand, σ(E) = σ(O) = 1/2.
Given two sets A and B of integers, let A + B denote the sumset of A and B, that is,
AS+ B = {a + bS: a ∈ A, b ∈ B}. If A and B are subsets of N, let A ⊕ B denote the sumset of
A {0} and B {0}. That is,
[ [
A ⊕ B := A {0} + B {0}.

The following theorem was proved by Schnirelmann in 1936:

Theorem 2 [Schnirelmann, 1936] For any two subsets A and B of N,

δ(A + B) ≥ δ(A) + δ(B) − δ(A)δ(B).

Proof. Suppose A(n) = r and the elements ai ≤ n of A are ordered as 1 ≤ a1 < a2 < a3 · · · <
ar ≤ n. Let
B1 := {b ∈ B : b < a1 },
Bi := {b ∈ B : ai−1 + b < ai } if 2 ≤ i ≤ r
and
Br+1 := {b ∈ B : ar + b ≤ n}.
Observe that the sets {a1 , a2 . · · · ar } and A + Bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ r + 1 are disjoint subsets of (A ⊕ B),
and each element in these sets is ≤ n. For notational convenience, let us define B(0) = 0. We
have
r+1
X
(A ⊕ B)(n) ≥ A(n) + #Bi
i=1
r
X
≥ A(n) + B(a1 − 1) + B(ai − ai−1 − 1) + B(n − ar ).
i=2

2
Combining the above inequality with the property that B(n) ≥ δ(B)n, we get that for every
n ≥ 1,
r
X
(A ⊕ B)(n) ≥ A(n) + δ(B){a1 − 1 + (ai − ai−1 + 1) + n − ar
i=2
= A(n) + δ(B)(n − r)
= A(n) + δ(B)(n − A(n))
= A(n)(1 − δ(B)) + δ(B)n
≥ δ(A)n(1 − δ(B)) + δ(B)n
= n (δ(A) + δ(B) − δ(A)δ(B)) .

This proves the theorem.



A more general version of Schnirelmann’s theorem can be stated as follows:

Theorem 3 For A1 , A2 , · · · , At ⊆ N,
t
Y
δ(⊕ti=1 Ai ) ≥ 1 − (1 − δ(Ai )).
i=1

Proof. We have already proved this theorem for t = 2. A simple inductive exercise proves it
for all t ≥ 2. 

For any m ∈ N and A ⊆ N, we denote

mA := ⊕m
i=1 A.

Lemma 4 If δ(B) > 1/2 for some B ⊆ N, then δ(2B) = 1. In other words, 2B = N.

Proof. Let n ∈ N. We will show that n ∈ 2B. If n ∈ B, then we are done. If n 6∈ B, let
Bn = {b ∈ B : b < n} and Bn0 = {n − b : b ∈ Bn }. Clearly, #Bn = #Bn0 = B(n), and
Bn ∪ Bn0 ⊆ {1, 2, · · · , n}. Thus, #(Bn ∪ Bn0 ) ≤ n.
Since δ(B) > 1/2, we get
n
#Bn = B(n) = #Bn0 > .
2
Let us assume that Bn and Bn are disjoint. This implies, n < #(Bn ∪ Bn0 ), which contradicts
0

the fact that #(Bn ∪ Bn0 ) ≤ n. Hence, our assumption is false and Bn and Bn0 are not disjoint.
In other words, there exist b1 , b2 < n ∈ B, such that b1 = n − b2 , that is, b1 + b2 = n. This
proves that n ∈ 2B.
This proves the lemma.


The following theorem of Schnirelmann connects the concept of Schnirelmann density with
Waring’s problem:

Theorem 5 If A is a subset of N such that δ(A) > 0, then there exists m ∈ N, such that
δ(mA) = 1.

3
Proof. If δ(A) = 1, we are done. If not, we have 0 < δ(A) < 1. Since 0 < 1 − δ(A) < 1, we
may choose t large enough so that
1
(1 − δ(A))t < .
2
By Theorem 3, we see that
1
δ(tA) ≥ 1 − (1 − δ(A))t > .
2
Theorem 5 follows as a quick application of Lemma 4.


3 Schnirelmann density and Waring’s problem

Let k ≥ 2 and Ak = {xk ; x ∈ N}. We observe that

1 Ak (n) n1/k
≤ ≤ for evey n ≥ 1.
n n n
Thus,
n1/k
δ(Ak ) ≤ σ(Ak ) ≤ lim = 0.
n→∞ n

Thus, δ(Ak ) = 0. In view of Theorem 5 of Schnirelmann, if we could show that δ(mAk ) > 0 for
some m ≥ 2, then for some g = g(k) ≥ 1, ⊕gi=1 Ak = N. This would solve Waring’s problem.
For positive integers g and m, let rg,k (m) denote the number of non-negative integral solu-
tions of the equation xk1 +xk2 +· · · xkg = m. Observe that if this equation holds, then 0 ≤ xi ≤ m1/k
for each 1 ≤ i ≤ g. Thus,
rg,k (m) ≤ (m1/k + 1)g g mg/k .
The following theorem of Linnik, which we will prove in the next section, shows that we can
find some g for which the above estimate for rg,k (m) can be sharpened.

Theorem 6 For any k ∈ N, there exists g ∈ N and a constant c(k) depending only on k such
that for all m ≥ 1, g
rg,k (m) ≤ c(k)m k −1 .

With the help of Linnik’s theorem, we prove the following theorem:

Theorem 7 For any k ∈ N, there exists g ∈ N, such that δ(gAk ) > 0.
Proof. By Theorem 6, there exists g ∈ N such that
n n n
X X g g X
−1 −1
rg,k (m) ≤ c(k)m k ≤ c(k)n k 1. (1)
m=0 m=0 m=0
rg,k (m)6=0 rg,k (m)6=0 rg,k (m)6=0

We also observe that for each 1 ≤ i ≤ g, if

n1/k
0 ≤ xi ≤ ,
g 1/k
then,
g
X
xki ≤ n.
i=1

4
Thus,
X n
X
1≤ rg,k (m). (2)
x1 ,x2 ,··· ,xg m=0
1/k rg,k (m)6=0
0≤xi ≤ n
g 1/k

Observe that " # !g !g

X n1/k n1/k
1= +1 ≥
x1 ,x2 ,··· ,xg g 1/k g 1/k
1/k
0≤xi ≤ n
g 1/k

and
n
X
1 = (gAk )(n).
m=0
rg,k (m)6=0

Combining these observations with the inequalities in (1) and (2), we get
!g
n1/k g

1/k
≤ c(k)n k −1 (gAk )(n) for every n ≥ 1.
g

This implies that there exists a positive constant C(k) > 0 such that for every n ≥ 1,

(gAk )(n) ≥ C(k)n.

Hence, δ(gAk ) > 0. 

Thus, Linnik’s theorem solves Waring’s problem. In the next section, we prove Linnik’s
theorem.

4 Proof of Linnik’s theorem

We start this section with a basic lemma on linear equations.
Lemma 8 For a positive integer n, let q(n) denote the number of integer solutions
(x1 , x2 , y1 , y2 ) of the equation
x1 y1 + x2 y2 = n (3)
such that |xi | ≤ X and |yi | ≤ Y. Then

q(0)  (XY )3/2

and  
X1
q(n)  XY  for n ≥ 1.
d
d|n

Proof. We first consider the case when n = 0. Clearly, x1 , x2 and y1 can take at most 2X +
1, 2X + 1 and 2Y + 1 values respectively. Once these are chosen, y2 can take at most one value.
Thus,
q(0) ≤ (2X + 1)2 (2Y + 1)  X 2 Y.
Similarly, q(0)  XY 2 . Thus,
√
q(0)  min{X 2 Y, XY 2 }  X 2 Y.XY 2  (XY )3/2 .

5
We can do better when n 6= 0. We assume, without loss of generality, that X ≤ Y. Let q1 (n)
be the number of integer solutions to x1 y1 + x2 y2 = n, such that |x2 | ≤ |x1 | ≤ X and |yi | ≤ Y.
This ensures that x1 6= 0. Otherwise, we would get x2 = 0 which implies that n = 0.
Let us start by fixing x1 and x2 and assume that (x1 , x2 ) = 1. Let q(n; x1 , x2 ) be the number
of integral solutions of equation (3). Clearly, q(n; x1 , x2 ) > 0. Given a particular solution (y10 , y20 ),
all solutions of equation (3) are of the form

y1 = y10 + tx2 , y2 = y20 − tx1 , t ∈ Z.

We observe that
|y20 − y2 | 2Y
|t| = ≤ .
|x1 | |x1 |
We conclude
X X  2Y 
q1 (n) ≤ 2 +1
|x1 |
1≤|x1 |≤X |x2 |≤|x1 |
X 2|x1 | + 1
≤ 5Y  XY.
|x1 |
1≤|x1 |≤Y

Thus, equation (3) has  XY integer solutions.

If (x1 , x2 ) = d > 1, equation (3)has an integer solution provided d|n. In this case, we take
x1 0 x2
x01 = , x2 = .
d d
From above, the number of integer solutions to the equation
n
x01 y1 + x02 y2 =
d
XY
is  d . Finally, we conclude that
X1
q(n)  XY .
d
d|n

From the above lemma, we deduce the following:

Lemma 9 Let f (x) be a polynomial of degree 2 with integer coefficients, say, f (x) = a2 x2 +
a1 x + a0 , with a2 = O(1), a1 = O(P ) and a0 = O(P 2 ). The number of solutions in the variables
xi ’s and yi ’s such that 0 ≤ xi , yi ≤ P for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 to the equation

f (x1 ) + f (x2 ) + f (x3 ) + f (x4 ) = f (y1 ) + f (y2 ) + f (y3 ) + f (y4 ) (4)

is  P 6 .

Proof. We observe that

f (xi ) − f (yi ) = (xi − yi )[a2 (xi + yi ) + a1 ].

We put zi = xi − yi and wi = a2 (xi + yi ) + a1 .

The number of solutions of equation (4) is less than or equal to the number of solutions of
the equation
z1 w1 + z2 w2 = −z3 w3 − z4 w4 ,

6
where zi  P and wi  P. By lemma 8, we see that for a fixed n ≥ 0, the number q(n) of
solutions of z1 w1 + z2 w2 = n is
 P 3 if n = 0,
and X1
 P2 if n ≥ 1.
d
d|n

Thus, the number of solutions of the equation

z1 w1 + z2 w2 = −z3 w3 − z4 w4 ,

where zi  P and wi  P is
 2
X X X1
q(n)2  P6 + P 2 
d
|n|P 2 1≤n≤cP 2 d|n
X X 1
 P6 + P4 d2
2 d |n
d1
1≤n≤P 1
d2 |n

X 1 P2
 P6 + P4 d2
d1 [d1 , d2 ]
1≤d1 ≤P 2
1≤d2 ≤P 2

X (d1 , d2 )
 P6 + P 6
(d1 d2 )2
1≤d1 ≤P 2
1≤d2 ≤P 2
∞ X
∞
X 1
 P6 + P6
d1 =1 d2 =1
(d1 d2 )3/2
6
P .

This proves the lemma.



As a precursor to Linnik’s theorem, we now prove the following theorem, due to Hua.

Theorem 10 Let k ≥ 2 and f (x) be a polynomial of degree k with integer coefficients, say,

f (x) = ak xk + ak−1 xk−1 + · · · a1 x1 + a0

such that
ak = O(1), ak−1 = O(P ), · · · , a1 = O(P k−1 ), a0 = O(P k ).
Then
 P
8k−1
Z 1 X  k−1
e2πif (x)α  dα = O(P 8 −k ). (5)
 

0 
x=0


Proof. Let us start with k = 2. Observe that

Z 1 XP
8 P
Z 1 X !4 P
!4
 X
2πif (x)α  2πif (x)α −2πif (x)α
e  dα = e e dα.


0  x=0
 0 x=0 x=0

7
Thus, the integral in question is equal to the number of solutions to equation (4), which is  P 6 .
This proves the lemma for k = 2. We now proceed by mathematical induction and assume that
equation (5) holds when we replace k by k − 1.
Observe that
 P 2 P X P
X  X
e2πif (x)α  = e2πi(f (x1 )−f (x2 ))α
 

 
x=0 x1 =0 x2 =0
P
X P
X −x
−2πif (x)α
= e e2πif (x+h)α
x=0 h=−x
X0 X0
=P +1+ e2πi(f (x+h)−f (x))α ,
0<|h| x

where the dash on top of the summations refers to all those integers h lying between −P and
P and those integers x such that both x + h and x lie between 0 and P. Now,
k
X
f (x + h) − f (x) = aj ((x + h)j − xj )
j=0
j−1  
k X
X j i j−i
= xh .
i
j=0 i=0

Thus, f (x + h) − f (x) = hφ(x, h), where φ(x, h) is a polynomial in h of degree at most k − 1.

Let us define X0
ah = e2πihφ(x,h)α .
x
Then, we have
 2
XP  X0
e2πif (x)α  = P + 1 + ah .
 

 
x=0 h6=0

Raising both sides by the power 8k−2 , we have

 P 2.8k−2
X  X0 k−2
2πif (x)α 
e = (P + 1 + ah )8

 
 
x=0 h6=0
 8k−2
 
k−2  0 
X
 P8 +
 ah  .
 h6=0 

If  
X 
 0 

 ah  ≤ P,
 h6=0 
then
 2.8k−2
XP  k−2
e2πif (x)α   P8 .
 

 
x=0
Hence,
 P
8k−1
Z 1 X  k−2 k−1
e2πif (x)α  dα  P 4.8  P 8 −k ,
 

0 
x=0


8
 P 
since 4.8k−2 ≥ k for all k ≥ 2. This proves the theorem provided  0h6=0 ah  ≤ P.
 
Suppose, now, that  
X 
 0 

 ah  ≥ P.
 h6=0 
Then,
 8k−2  8k−2
0
 0
 X   X 
  
P + 1 +
 ah 
 
 ah  .
 h6=0  0<|h|≤P 
Applying Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have
  3(k−2)−1
X 2 2
 k−2
X 8
 
 0   0 

 ah  =  ah  
 h6=0   h6=0 
  23(k−2)−1
X0
 P  |ah |2  .
h6=0

Since
X0 0
23(k−2)−1 +23(k−2)−2 +···+1 8k−2 23(k−2) −1 k−2
X
P |ah | =P |ah |8 ,
h6=0 h6=0

a repeated application of Cauchy Schwarz inequality leads to an upper bound of the form
 8k−2
 
X0  3(k−2) −1
X0 k−2

 ah   P2 |ah |8 . (6)
 h6=0  h6=0

So, putting it all together,

 P 2.8k−2  8k−2
 
X  X0 
e2πif (x)α 

= P + 1 + ah 
  

 
x=0  h6=0 
 8k−2
 X 
 0 
  ah 
0<|h|≤P 
3(k−2) −1
X0 k−2
 P2 |ah |8 .
h6=0

By raising equation(6) to the fourth power, we immediately deduce,

 8k−1  4
Z P
1 X Z 1 X
0
 k−2 k−2
e2πif (x)α  dα  P 4(8 −1) |ah |8  dα. (7)
  

0 
x=0
 0 h6=0

We write  8k−2
X P 
 0 2πihφ(x,h)α  X

 e 
 = A(n)e2πihnα ,
 x=0  n

9
where
n  max |φ(x, h)|  P k−1 .
0≤x≤P

This gives us

Z  P 8k−2 

 1 X0  
2πiφ(x,h)α  −2πinα

|A(n)| =  e e dα
  
  
 0  
 x=0  
 8k−2
Z 1 X P 
 0 2πiφ(x,h)α 
≤ 
 e 
 dα,
0  x=0 

which, by induction hypothesis is

k−2 −(k−1)
 P8 .
Thus, by equation (7) and the above, we get
 8k−1  4
Z  P
1 X
 Z 1
0 2πif (x)α  k−2 −1)
X0 k−2
 P 4(8 |ah |8


 e  dα   dα
0  x=0  0 h6=0
4(8k−2 −1)
X
P A(n1 )A(n2 )A(n3 )A(n4 )
n1 ,n2 ,n3 ,n4
h1 ,h2 ,h3 ,h4
ni P k−1
0<|hi |≤P
n1 h1 +n2 h2 =−n3 h3 −n4 h4
k−2 −1) k−2 −4(k−1)
 P 4(8 P 3k P 4.8
k−1 −k
 P8 .

This proves the theorem.



Remark 11 Note that in all the above inequalities, the implied constants only depend on k.

The following corollary clearly follows from the above theorem.

Corollary 12 For any k ≥ 1 there exists g ≥ 1 such that

Z 1 XP
g
k

e2πix α  dα ≤ c(k)P g−k ,
 

0  
x=0

where c(k) is a constant depending on k.

We are now ready to prove Theorem 6.

Let k ≥ 1 and g be as in Corollary 12. We have
P
!g P
k k k k
X X
e2πix α = e2πi(x1 +x2 +···xg )α
x=0 x1 ,x2 ,··· ,xg =0
X
= cm e2πimα ,
m≥0

10
where Z !g 
 1 P 
2πixk α
X
−2πimα
cm = rg,k (m) =  e e dα .
 
 0 
x=0

By Corollary 12, we deduce,

 g
Z P
1 X 
2πixk α 
cm ≤ e  dα ≤ c(k)P g−k .


0 
x=0


Choosing h 1i
P = mk ,
we get g
rg,k (m) ≤ c(k)m k −1 ,
which proves Theorem 6.

5 Exercises
Exercises 1 to 14 are aimed at proving Lagrange’s four square theorem.

1. Let p be a prime and a be any integer such that p - a (that is, p does not divide a).
(a) Consider the set {a, 2a, · · · (p−1)a}. Show that this set forms a reduced residue system
modulo p.
(b) Verify that
a.2a.3a · · · (p − 1)a ≡ 1.2. · · · (p − 1) mod p.

(c) Deduce that ap−1 ≡ 1 mod p.

2. Let n be an integer > 1 such that (n − 1)! ≡ −1 mod n. Prove that n is a prime number.

3. Let p be a prime and 1 ≤ a ≤ p − 1.

(a) For each a, there is a unique integer a0 with 1 ≤ a0 ≤ p − 1 such that aa0 ≡ 1 mod p.
(b) Show that a = a0 if and only if a = 1 or a = p − 1.
(c) Keeping aside 1 and p − 1, group the remaining integers between 2 and p − 2 in pairs
such that aa0 ≡ 1 mod p. Prove that

2.3. · · · (p − 2) ≡ 1 mod p.

(d) Finally, conclude that (p − 1)! ≡ −1 mod p. This is known as Wilson’s theorem.
(e) Find the remainders when 15! is divided by 17 and when 2(26)! is divided by 29.

4. Let p be an odd prime.

(a) Let a2 ≡ −1 mod p. Apply Fermat’s theorem to prove that
p−1
1 ≡ (−1) 2 mod p.

From this conclude that p ≡ 1 mod 4.

11
 (b) Prove that
 2
p−1 p−1
(p − 1)! ≡ (−1) 2 ! mod p.
2
(c) Using Problem 3, prove that if p ≡ 1 mod 4, then

p−1 2
 
−1 ≡ ! mod p.
2

From this problem, we deduce that the equation x2 ≡ −1 mod p has a solution if and only
if p ≡ 1 mod 4.

5. If a prime p can be written as a sum of squares of two integers, that is, if p = x2 + y 2 for
some x, y ∈ Z, then p ≡ 1 mod 4. [Hint: What are the possible values of a2 mod 4?]

6. Let m and n be two positive integers which are sums of two squares. Prove that mn is
also a sum of two squares. [Hint: Let z = a + ib and w = c + id be two complex numbers.
Then |z|2 |w|2 = |zw|2 .]

7. In this problem, we prove the converse of Problem 5. We do so using a very interesting

technique discovered by Fermat, known as the method of descent. The idea is that given
integers A, B, M withA2 + B 2 = M p, we can find new integers a, b, m such that a2 + b2 =
mp and m ≤ M − 1. We keep repeating the descent argument until we hit m = 1, that is,
p = x2 + y 2 .
(a) Start by recalling, from the previous question, that

(u2 + v 2 )(A2 + B 2 ) = (uA + vB)2 + (vA − uB)2 .

(b) Let p ≡ 1 mod 4. Show that we can find positive integers A, B, M such that A2 + B 2 =
M p and M < p. [Hint: x2 ≡ −1 mod p. ]
(c) Show that we can find u and v such that u ≡ A mod M, v ≡ B mod M with −M/2 ≤
u, v ≤ M/2. [Recall the notion of balanced residue classes ]
(d) Prove that u2 + v 2 ≡ 0 mod M.
(e) Deduce from (c) and (d) that u2 + v 2 = M r, 1 ≤ r < M.
(f) We now have u2 + v 2 = M r, 1 ≤ r < M and A2 + B 2 = M p. This gives us

(uA + vB)2 + (vA − uB)2 = M 2 rp.

Show that uA + vB ≡ 0 mod M and vA − uB ≡ 0 mod M. From this, find integers a and
b such that a2 + b2 = rp, 1 ≤ r < M.
(g) Convince yourself that one can keep repeating the descent argument until one gets
x2 + y 2 = p.
Combining the above with Problem 5, you now know that an odd prime p can be written
as a sum of two squares if and only if p ≡ 1 mod 4. With some work, one can also show
that the representation of p as a sum of two squares is unique!
(h) In order to practice the descent method, start with (387)2 + 12 = 170.881 and express
881 as a sum of two squares.

8. Show that n is a sum of two squares if and only if each of its prime factors p of the form
4k + 3 occurs to an even power.

12
 9. Show that any odd prime can be uniquely written as a difference of two consecutive
squares.

10. Show that no positive integer of the form 8k + 7 can be represented as a sum of three
squares.
p+1
11. Given a prime p, show that there are exactly 2 squares modulo p.

12. For a fixed prime p, let  

2 p−1
S= x mod p : 0 ≤ x ≤
2
and let  
2 p−1
T = −1 − y mod p : 0 ≤ y ≤ .
2
Show that S and T are not disjoint. From this, we conclude that we can find integers
0 ≤ x, y ≤ (p − 1)/2 such that x2 + y 2 + 1 ≡ 0 mod p.

13. Let A, B, C, D be four complex numbers and consider matrices of the form
   
A −B C −D
and .
B A D C

Find out the product of these matrices. Now, taking determinants, show that

(|A|2 + |B|2 )(|C|2 + |D|2 ) = |AC − BD|2 + |AD + BC|2 .

Using this, if m and n are sums of four squares, express mn as a sum of four squares.

14. For a prime p, let

S = {m ≥ 1 : mp is a sum of four squares}.
(a) Show that S is a non-empty set. [Hint: Use Problem 12]
Let m0 be the least element of S. In the next few steps, we will again use a descent
argument to show that m0 = 1, that is, p is a sum of four squares.
(b) Let us assume that m0 ≥ 2. Show that m0 is odd. [In fact, if m0 is even, we can show
that m0 /2 is also in S, which contradicts the minimality of m0 . ]
(c) We have m0 p = x2 + y 2 + z 2 + w2 . Choose 0 ≤ a, b, c, d < m0 /2 such that x ≡
a mod m0 , y ≡ b mod m0 , z ≡ c mod m0 and w ≡ d mod m0 . Show that

a2 + b2 + c2 + d2 = m1 m0 , with m1 < m0 .

(d) Using Problem 13, express (m0 p)(m0 m1 ) as a sum of four squares r2 + s2 + t2 + v 2
such that r, s, t and v are multiples of m0 .
(e) Deduce that m1 ∈ S. But, since m1 < m0 , this again contradicts the minimality of
m0 . Thus, our assumption in (b) is false and m0 = 1. This shows that every prime can be
expressed as a sum of four squares.
(f) Deduce that every positive integer can be written as a sum of four squares.

13
15. For n ≥ 1, let φ(n) be the number of integers 1 ≤ a ≤ n such that a is coprime to n, that
is, gcd (a, n) = 1.
(a) For any d|n, let Sd = {1 ≤ a ≤ n : (a, n) = d}. Prove that the set {1, 2, · · · , n} is a
disjoint union of Sd ’s for divisors d of n.
(b) Prove that there is a one-to-one correspondence between Sd and the set {1 ≤ b ≤ n :
gcd (b, n/d) = 1}. Let |S| denote the number of elements of a set S. Deduce that
n
|Sd | = φ .
d
P P
(c) Deduce that d|n φ(n/d) = n = d|n φ(d).

16. A number n is said to be squarefree if p2 does not divide n for any prime p. For n ≥ 1,
let ν(n) be the number of distinct prime factors of n. Let us define the Möbius function
µ as follows: (
(−1)ν(n) if n is squarefree,
µ(n) =
0 otherwise.
(a) Prove that (
X 1 if n = 1,
µ(d) =
d|n
0 otherwise.

(b)
P [Möbius inversion formula] Let f and g be arithmetic functions. If g(n) =
d|n f (d), then n
X
f (n) = µ(d)g .
d
d|n
P
(c) Recall that d|n φ(d) = n. From this, deduce that
X µ(d)
φ(n) = n .
d
d|n

(d) For x ≥ 1, let π(x) denote the number of primes less than or equal to x. For any z ≥ 1,
let Y
Pz = p
p≤z

and
π(x, z) = #{n ≤ x : gcd (n, Pz ) = 1.
Prove that X hxi
π(x, z) = µ(d) .
d
d|Pz

(c) Conclude that  

 
X x 
µ(d)  ≤ 2π(z) .

π(x, z) −
 d
 d|Pz )
1
(d) Let z ≤ x. Show that π(x) ≤ π(z) + π(x, z). (e) Put z = 2 log(x). Prove that

π(x, z) X µ(d) 1
− ≤√ .
x d x
d|Pz

14
 (f) Show that
X µ(d)
lim = 0.
x→∞ d
d|Pz

(g) Conclude that

π(x)
lim
= 0.
x→∞ x

(h) Show that the Schnirelmann density of the set of primes is 0.

17. Show that the set of squarefree numbers has density δ(A) > 1/2. Deduce that every n ≥ 1
can be written as a sum of squarefree numbers.

18. Let ak , 1 ≤ k ≤ n and bk , 1 ≤ k ≤ n be arbitrary real numbers. Observe that for any
x ∈ R,
Xn
(ak x + bk )2 ≥ 0.
k=1

The above inequality can be written as

Ax2 + 2Bx + C ≥ 0,

where
n
X n
X n
X
A= a2k , B = ak bk , C = b2k .
k=1 k=1 k=1

(a) If A > 0, show that B2 − AC ≤ 0. [Hint: Make an appropriate choice of x.] This
proves that
n
!2 n n
X X X
ak bk ≤ a2k b2k .
k=1 k=1 k=1
√
(b) For a given complex number x = a + ib, |x| denotes its absolute value a2 + b2 . For
x1 , x2 , · · · xk ∈ C, prove that
n
X n
X
| xk | ≤ |xk |.
k=1 k=1

(c) Deduce that if ak , 1 ≤ k ≤ n and bk , 1 ≤ k ≤ n are arbitrary complex numbers then

 2
n n n
! !
X  X X
2 2
ak bk  ≤ |ak | |bk | .
 

 
k=1 k=1 k=1

This inequality is known as the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

19. Using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, let x1 , x2 , · · · xn be positive real numbers. Prove that
n n
2
X X 1
n ≤ xk .
xk
k=1 k=1

20. Recall the Division Algorithm: Given integers a and b with b > 0, there exist unique
integers q and r satisfying a = qb + r, 0 ≤ r < b.
(a) Let gcd (a, b) denote the greatest common divisor of a and b. Show that there exist
integers x and y such that gcd (a, b) = ax + by.

15
 a b


(b) Show that gcd (a, b) = d if and only if gcd d, d = 1.
(c) Show that if a divides bc with gcd (a, b) = 1, then a divides c.
(d) Prove that the linear equation ax + by = c has an integer solution if and only if
d = gcd (a, b) divides c.
(e) Show that if (x0 , y0 ) is a particular solution of this equation, then all the other solutions
are given by
b a
x = x0 + t, y = y0 − t, t ∈ Z.
d d
21. Show that if [d1 , d2 ] = lcm {d1 , d2 }, and (d1 , d2 ) = gcd (d1 , d2 ), then [d1 , d2 ](d1 , d2 ) = d1 d2 .

22. For real numbers A and B,

k k k
|A + B|2 ≤ ck (|A|2 + |B|2 ),
k −1
where ck = 22 .
p
23. Show that min (|A|, |B|) ≤ |A||B|.

24. If f (α) = M 2πimα . then

P
m=1 cm e
Z 1
cn = f (α)e−2πinα dα.
0

25. Let f (x) = ak xk + ak−1 xk−1 + · · · a1 x + ao ∈ Z[x].

Let ai = O(P k−i ) and h = O(P ). Show that
k−1
X
f (x + h) − f (x) = aj (h)xj , aj (h) = O(P k−j ).
j=0

26. For each k¿1, show that there is a g = g(k) such that every positive rational number can
be written as a sum of g k-th powers of rationals.

16