2
$\begingroup$

This is a continuation of my former question: On the class number

It appears that the problem of showing that every positive integer is the class number of some quadratic number field seems rather intractable, despite the wide belief that it is true.

So I ask an easier question: For each positive number $x$, let $\rho(x)$ denote the number of positive integers $n \leq x$ such that $n$ cannot be realized as the class number of a quadratic number field. Then is it possible to show that $\rho(x)/x$ tends to 0? Better yet, is it possible to show that $\rho(x) \ll x^\delta$ for some $0 < \delta < 1$?

If $\rho(x) \ll x^\delta$ isn't a 'natural' upperbound, then what would be? Can one expect a better or worse upper bound? Can a bound of the form $\rho(x) \ll x/(\log x)^A$ for some $A > 0$ be likely?

Thanks for any information.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Seems very doubtful to me that you could prove any of this using current techniques. Of course, I would be very happy to be demonstrated wrong! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 18:02
  • $\begingroup$ Is it plausible to use the theory of Hilbert class fields to construct a number field with a given class number? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 28, 2012 at 23:11
  • $\begingroup$ Observe that if you replace the word "number" by "group", the answer is unknown (see Washington's book, second edition, page 27, last two lines). But if you jus want \emph{a bound}, you can certainly do, as in Corollary 3.9 (same book, same page). $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 6, 2012 at 9:59

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.