A={1,2} Density Grows Logarithmically, Not Power-Law
The Finding
For the digit set (Hausdorff dimension , barely above the critical threshold ), the Zaremba density as a function of range fits a logarithmic model almost exactly:
| Range | Observed density | Predicted (log model) | Residual |
|---|---|---|---|
| 57.98% | 57.96% | -0.02% | |
| 72.06% | 71.97% | +0.09% | |
| 76.55% | 76.62% | -0.07% | |
| 80.75% | 80.64% | +0.11% | |
| 84.58% | 85.10% | -0.52% |
With five data points spanning 6 decades (all five are empirical measurements at , , , , and ), the logarithmic fit is:
Predictions
| Range | Predicted density |
|---|---|
| 89.6% | |
| 94.0% | |
| 98.5% | |
| 100% at |
The logarithmic model has held across 5 data points. Full density at remains the prediction.
Why This Matters
Relationship to BK Framework
The Bourgain-Kontorovich transfer operator framework predicts the representation count grows as . For :
Important distinction: the exponent 0.062 describes the growth of (how many CF representations each has), not the rate at which density (the fraction of with ) converges to 100%. Density convergence depends on the full distribution of across integers, not just its mean growth. These are related but different quantities.
Our density data fits a logarithmic model (R² = 0.9984 across 5 points), but this cannot definitively rule out other functional forms (e.g., power-law with logarithmic corrections). The 5-point fit predicted 85.1% at ; the measured value is 84.58%, a residual of −0.53% — the largest deviation so far, possibly signaling the onset of sub-logarithmic curvature.
What this could mean
-
Pre-asymptotic regime: At , the system hasn’t yet reached the true asymptotic behavior. The logarithmic fit may break down at and transition to the slower power-law predicted by BK.
-
Corrections to the leading term: The BK counting formula has error terms. If the error term is with small, the effective growth rate could appear faster than the leading exponent suggests.
-
Logarithmic corrections: Some number-theoretic counting functions have corrections. If for some , this could produce the observed logarithmic density growth.
Testable prediction
The model makes a sharp prediction: density at should be ~85.9%. If the observed density at is significantly different (e.g., 82% or 89%), it would distinguish between logarithmic and power-law convergence.
Computing at requires ~100× more work than (about 10 hours on B200). This is a feasible next experiment.
The Digit 1 Advantage: A Sigmoid
Our complete density sweep of all 1,023 subsets of at reveals that digit 1’s advantage follows a sigmoid that peaks at cardinality 4. Full results: density_all_subsets_n10_1e6.csv (SHA-256: 4b052ecb952b..., 1,023 rows).
| Cardinality | Avg density (with 1) | Avg density (without 1) | Gap |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 11.0% | 0.1% | 10.9 pp |
| 3 | 58.9% | 1.8% | 57.1 pp |
| 4 | 92.1% | 12.7% | 79.4 pp |
| 5 | 99.5% | 39.4% | 60.0 pp |
| 6 | 100.0% | 70.9% | 29.1 pp |
| 7 | 100.0% | 91.8% | 8.2 pp |
| 8 | 100.0% | 99.2% | 0.8 pp |
At cardinality 4, digit 1 is worth 79 percentage points of density. By cardinality 8, the advantage shrinks to under 1 point — enough other digits compensate.
Exception Scaling: {1,2,k}
For the family at , the number of uncovered integers grows rapidly with . A log–log OLS regression gives exponent (95% CI: [5.80, 7.04], ), i.e., exceptions . The fit is good but the consecutive ratios fluctuate (1.5–5.8), indicating the power law is approximate:
| Exceptions | Ratio to | |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | 27 | — |
| 4 | 64 | 2.4 |
| 5 | 373 | 5.8 |
| 6 | 1,720 | 4.6 |
| 7 | 5,388 | 3.1 |
| 8 | 11,746 | 2.2 |
| 9 | 21,796 | 1.9 |
| 10 | 33,025 | 1.5 |
Adding larger third digits helps rapidly less. The “sweet spot” is (27 exceptions) — adding digit 4 gives 64 exceptions (2.4×), but adding digit 10 gives 33,025 (1,223×).
Reproduce
git clone https://github.com/cahlen/idontknow
cd idontknow
# GPU computation
nvcc -O3 -arch=sm_100a -o zaremba_density_gpu scripts/experiments/zaremba-density/zaremba_density_gpu.cu -lm
./zaremba_density_gpu 10000000000 1,2 # A={1,2} at 10^10
./zaremba_density_gpu 1000000 1,2,3 # A={1,2,3} at 10^6
Verification Hashes and Timing
All raw GPU output logs are committed to the repository. SHA-256 digests and wall-clock times:
| Covered | Density | GPU time | Log file SHA-256 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 579,820 | 57.982% | < 1 s (CPU) | 14c69b3c0885... | |
| 720,615,327 | 72.062% | 28.0 s | ecc0c96d5817... | |
| 7,654,868,191 | 76.549% | 88.4 s | 68a9512d8147... | |
| 80,754,334,638 | 80.754% | 1,012 s | bd5e57d5ef20... | |
| 845,791,333,633 | 84.579% | 12,375 s | 5115d64d8c6b... |
Full hashes: sha256sum scripts/experiments/zaremba-density/results/gpu_A12_*.log scripts/experiments/zaremba-density/results/density_A12_*.log
References
- Bourgain, J. and Kontorovich, A. (2014). “On Zaremba’s conjecture.” Annals of Mathematics, 180(1), pp. 137–196.
- Hensley, D. (1996). “A polynomial time algorithm for the Hausdorff dimension of continued fraction Cantor sets.” J. Number Theory, 58(1), pp. 9–45.
- Jenkinson, O. and Pollicott, M. (2001). “Computing the dimension of dynamically defined sets.” Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 21(5), pp. 1429–1445.
Computed 2026-04-01 on 8× NVIDIA B200. This work was produced through human–AI collaboration (Cahlen Humphreys + Claude). Not independently peer-reviewed. All code and data open for verification.
Caveat: Three data points make a fit, not a proof. The logarithmic model needs confirmation at and beyond. The prediction of 100% at is speculative until more data points are collected.