Abstract
This paper concerns the number of lattice points in the plane which are visible along certain curves to all elements in some set S of lattice points simultaneously. By proposing the concept of level of visibility, we are able to analyze more carefully about both the “visible” points and the “invisible” points in the definition of previous research. We prove asymptotic formulas for the number of lattice points in different levels of visibility.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
A lattice point \((m,n)\in {\mathbb {N}}\times {\mathbb {N}}\) is said to be visible to the lattice point \((u,v)\in {\mathbb {N}}\times {\mathbb {N}}\) along lines if there are no other integer lattice points on the straight line segment joining (m, n) and (u, v). In 1883, it was showed by Sylvester [15] that the proportion of lattice points that are visible to the origin (0, 0) is \(1/\zeta (2)=6/\pi ^2\approx 0.60793\), where \(\zeta (s)\) is the Riemann zeta function. Since then, the study of the distribution of visible lattice points continues to intrigue mathematicians till now. For example, one may refer to Adhikari and Granville [1], Baker [2], Boca et al. [4], Chaubey et al. [5], Chen [6], Huxley and Nowak [10] for part of related works and some generalizations in recent years.
In 2018, Goins et al. [7] considered the integer lattice points in the plane which are visible to the origin (0, 0) along curves \(y=r x^k\) with \(k\in {\mathbb {N}}\) fixed and some \(r\in \mathbb {Q}\). They showed that the proportion of such integer lattice points is \(1/\zeta (k+1)\). In the same year, Harris and Omar [8] further considered the case of rational exponent k. Recently, Benedetti et al. [3] studied the proportion of visible lattice points to the origin along such curves in higher dimensional space.
All the above results are concerned about the lattice points visible to only one base point. It is natural to consider the distribution of lattice points which are visible to more base points simultaneously. For the case of visibility along straight lines, the earliest work originates from Rearick in 1960s. In his Ph.D. thesis, Rearick [13] first showed that the density of integer lattice points in the plane which are jointly visible along straight lines to N (\(N=2\) or 3) base points is \(\prod _p\left( 1-N/p^2\right) \), where the base points are mutually visible in pairs and the product is over all the primes. Then in [14], he generalized this result to lattice points in higher dimensional space and larger N.
The joint visibility of lattice points along curves has not been considered yet. In this paper, we focus on this topic and we also propose the concept of level of visibility. Level-1 visibility matches the definition of “k-visible” in [7]. We use higher level of visibility to analyze more carefully about the “invisible” points along certain curves. We give asymptotic formulas for the number of lattice points which are visible to a set of N base points along certain curves in different levels of visibility.
1.2 Our results
For any positive integer k and integer lattice points \((u,v),(m,n)\in {\mathbb {N}}\times {\mathbb {N}}\), let \(r\in \mathbb {Q}\) be given by \(n-v=r(m-u)^k\) and \({\mathcal {C}}\) be the curve \(y-v=r(x-u)^k\). If there is no integer lattice points lying on the segment of \({\mathcal {C}}\) between points (m, n) and (u, v), we say (m, n) is (Level-1) k -visible to (u, v). Further, if there is at most one integer lattice points lying on the segment of \({\mathcal {C}}\) between points (m, n) and (u, v), we say point (m, n) is Level-2 k -visible to (u, v).
One can see that k-visibility is mutual. Precisely, if a point (m, n) is Level-1 or Level-2 k-visible to the point (u, v) along the curve \(y-v=r(x-u)^k\), then (u, v) is also Level-1 or Level-2 k-visible to (m, n), respectively, along the curve \(y-n=(-1)^{k+1}r(x-m)^k\).
Throughout this paper, we always assume \({\varvec{S}}\) is a given set of integer lattice points in the plane. We say an integer lattice point (m, n) is Level-1 k-visible to \({\varvec{S}}\) if it belongs to the set
Similarly, we say a point \((m,n)\in \mathbb {N}\times \mathbb {N}\) is Level-2 k-visible to \({\varvec{S}}\) if it belongs to the set
One may define higher Level k-visible points to \({\varvec{S}}\) this way. But in this paper, we focus on Level-1 and Level-2 k-visible points.
For \(x\ge 2\), we consider visible lattice points along curves in the square \([1,x]\times [1,x]\). Denote
and
An important case is that the points of \({\varvec{S}}\) are pairwise k-visible to each other. The cardinality of such \({\varvec{S}}\) can’t be too large. In fact, we have \(\#{\varvec{S}}\le 2^{k+1}\) by Proposition 2.1 in the next section. For such type of \({\varvec{S}}\), we obtain the following asymptotic formulas for \(N^1_k({\varvec{S}},x)\) and \(N_k^2({\varvec{S}},x)\).
Theorem 1.1
Assume the elements of \({\varvec{S}}\) are pairwise k-visible to each other and \(N=\#{\varvec{S}}< 2^{k+1}\). For any \(k\ge 2\), we have
where p runs over all primes, and
Remark 1
If \(N=\#{\varvec{S}}=2^{k+1}\), by Proposition 2.1, there is no lattice point outside \({\varvec{S}}\) which is (Level-1) k-visible to all elements of \({\varvec{S}}\).
By the above Theorem, the density of (Level-1) k-visible points to every elements of \({\varvec{S}}\) is \(\prod _p \left( 1-N/p^{k+1}\right) \). For \(k=1\), it is done by the work in [14], where the author studied the visible points along straight lines. The special case \(N=1\) for \(k\ge 2\) in Theorem 1.1 covers the result in [7], where only the main term was given.
We also give asymptotic formulas for Level-2 k-visible points. Note that such set actually includes some “invisible” points in the definition of previous research. We are able to analyze more carefully about these “invisible” points.
Theorem 1.2
Assume the elements of \({\varvec{S}}\) are pairwise k-visible to each other and \(N=\#{\varvec{S}}\le 2^{k+1}\). For any \(k\ge 1\), we have
where
Remark 2
Note that when \(N=2^{k+1}\), \(N_k^1({\varvec{S}}, x)=0\), there is no Level-1 k-visible points to \({\varvec{S}}\). But there are still positive proportion of lattice points in the plane which are Level-2 k-visible to \({\varvec{S}}\).
For the special case \(N=1\) and \(k=1\), our problem is the same as the so-called “primitive lattice problem” inside a square. Nowak [12], Zhai [17] and Wu [16] have studied the number of primitive lattice points inside a circle. Primitive lattice points in general planar domains have also been studied by Hensley [9], Huxley and Nowak [10] and Baker [2] etc. Assuming the Riemann hypothesis(RH), they continuously improved the error term of the concerned asymptotic formulas by estimating certain exponential sums. One may wonder how much we can do to improve the estimates of \(E_1(x)\) and \(E_2(x)\) by similar argument under RH. However, we do not focus on pursuing the best possible error term in this paper.
Taking \({\varvec{S}}=\{ (0,0), (1,1)\}\), we did numerical calculations for densities of Level-1 and Level-2 k-visible points for \(x=10{,}000\) and \(k=2, 3, \ldots , 9\) (see Table 1 and Fig. 1). We see that the numerical results match the theoretical predictions very well.
We also calculate the case when \({\varvec{S}}=\{ (0,0), (1,2), (2,1) \}\), and we get the following data for densities of Level-1 and Level-2 k-visible points to \({\varvec{S}}\) (see Table 2 and Fig. 2).
Notations
We use \(\mathbb {Z}\) to denote the set of integers; \({\mathbb {N}}\) to denote the set of positive integers; \(\mathbb {Q}\) to denote the set of rational numbers; \(\# S\) to denote the cardinality of a set S. As usual, we use the expressions \(f=O(g)\) or \(f\ll g\) to mean \(|f|\le Cg\) for some constant \(C>0\). In the case when this constant \(C>0\) may depend on some parameters \(\rho \), we write \(f=O_\rho (g)\) or \(f\ll _\rho g\).
2 Preliminaries
We define the degree-k greatest common divisor of m, \(n\in \mathbb {Z}\) as
Proposition 2.1
For any integer \(k\ge 1\), assume any two distinct elements \((u_i, v_i)\), \((u_j, v_j)\in {\varvec{S}}\) are k-visible to each other, then we have \(\#{\varvec{S}}\le 2^{k+1}\).
Proof
To see this, we consider the map
The size of the image \(\widetilde{{\varvec{S}}}\) is at most \(2^{k+1}\). If \({\varvec{S}}\) has more than \(2^{k+1}\) points, there must be two distinct elements which map to the same element in \(\widetilde{{\varvec{S}}}\), say
Thus we have
and hence \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(u_2-u_1, v_2-v_1)\ge 2\), which contradicts our assumption on \({\varvec{S}}\). \(\square \)
By the definition of k-visible points and elementary argument, we get the following lemma. One may refer to [7] (Proposition 3) for similar argument. Here we omit the proof.
Lemma 2.2
For any \(k\ge 1\), if \(m-u\ne 0\) and \(n-v\ne 0\), we have
-
(i)
Point (m, n) is k-visible to point (u, v) if and only if \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u,n-v)=1\).
-
(ii)
There exists exactly one integer point lying on the segment of the curve \(y-v=r(x-u)^k\) joining (u, v) and (m, n) for some \(r\in \mathbb {Q}\) if and only if \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u,n-v)=2\).
We also need the following well-known result for l-fold divisor function \(\tau _l(n)=\sum _{d_1\cdots d_l=n} 1\).
Lemma 2.3
([11], formula (1.80)) Let \(l\ge 2\) be an integer. For any \(x\ge 2\), we have
3 Proof of Theorem 1.1
Given a set \({\varvec{S}}\), if we shift \({\varvec{S}}\) such that it contains the origin, the error occurs to our counting function is \(O_{{\varvec{S}}}(x)\). Thus, we may assume \((0,0)\in {\varvec{S}}\). Denote the elements of \({\varvec{S}}\) as \((u_j, v_j),\ 0\le j\le N-1\) with \((u_0,v_0)=(0,0)\). By Proposition 2.1, the contribution of points (m, n) with \(m=u_j\) or \(n=v_{j'}\) for some \(j, j'\) is \(O(|{\varvec{S}}|x)=O_k(x)\). Hence, we only need to estimate the contribution of points (m, n) with \(m\ne u_j\) and \(n\ne v_{j'}\) for all \(0\le j, j'\le N-1\). Throughout all our proofs, we implicitly assume the input of \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(*, *)\) has no zero coordinates unless otherwise specified.
By Lemma 2.2 we have
Applying the formula
where \(\mu \) is the Möbius function, we write
Let \(D>0\) be a parameter to be chosen later. Divide the sum over \(d_0,\cdots ,d_{N-1}\) into two parts: \(d_0\cdots d_{N-1}\le D\) and \(d_0\cdots d_{N-1}> D\), and denote their contributions to \({\widetilde{N}}^1_k({\varvec{S}},x)\) by \(\sum _{\le }\) and \(\sum _{>}\), respectively. Then we have
For \(\sum _{\le }\), we change the order of the summation and obtain
Note that \((u_0,v_0)=(0,0)\), then for any given \(d_0\), \(\cdots \), \(d_{N-1}\), the inner sum over m, n in the above formula actually equals
Since the points in \({\varvec{S}}\) are mutually k-visible, then by Lemma 2.2 we have
This implies
It then follows that
Then by Lemma 2.3 we obtain
Writing \(n=d_0\cdots d_{N-1}\), we then have
Using Lemma 2.3, we obtain
-
(i)
If \(1\le N\le k\), then we choose \(D=x\). In this case, since each \(d_j\le x^{1/k}\), \(d_0\cdots d_{N-1}\le x^{N/k}\le x\). Thus the second sum \(\sum _{>}\) in (3.3) is empty since we already exclude zero inputs of \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(*,*)\) in the beginning of the proof. Inserting (3.6) into (3.3) yields (1.1) in Theorem 1.1 with
$$\begin{aligned} E_1(x)\ll _k x\log ^{N}x ~\text {for}~1\le N\le k. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
If \(k<N<2^{k+1}\), we need to make another choice for D, and deal with \({\sum }_{>}\) more carefully. Taking absolute value of \(\mu (d)\), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} {\sum }_{>}=\sum _{m, n\le x}\sum \limits _{\begin{array}{c} d_0\cdots d_{N-1}>D\\ d_j|\gcd _k(m-u_j,n-v_j)\\ 0\le j\le N-1 \end{array}}\mu (d_0)\cdots \mu (d_{N-1})\ll \sum _{m, n\le x}\sum \limits _{\begin{array}{c} d_0\cdots d_{N-1}>D\\ d_j|\gcd _k(m-u_j,n-v_j)\\ 0\le j\le N-1 \end{array}}1, \end{aligned}$$which implies
$$\begin{aligned} {\sum }_{>}\ll \sum _{\begin{array}{c} m, n\le x\\ \prod \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}\gcd _{k}(m-u_j,n-v_j)>D \end{array}}&\tau \big ({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_0,n-v_0)\big )\cdots \\&\tau \big ({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_{N-1},n-v_{N-1})\big ) \end{aligned}$$Using the bounds \(\tau (n)\ll _{\varepsilon }n^{\varepsilon }\) for any \(\varepsilon >0\), \(N<2^{k+1}\) and \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j, n-v_j)\le x^{1/k}\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} {\sum }_{>}\ll _{k, \varepsilon } x^{\varepsilon }\sum _{\begin{array}{c} m, n\le x\\ \prod \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}{\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j,n-v_j)>D \end{array}}1. \end{aligned}$$Since \(\prod \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}\gcd _{k}(m-u_j,n-v_j)>D\) implies \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_{j^*},n-v_{j^*})>D^{1/N}\) for some \(j^*\in \{0,\cdots ,N-1\}\), we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} {\sum }_{>}\ll _{k, \varepsilon } x^{\varepsilon }\sum \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}\sum _{\begin{array}{c} m, n\le x\\ {\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j,n-v_j)>D^{1/N} \end{array}}1. \end{aligned}$$By the definition of \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }\), we have
$$\begin{aligned} {\sum }_{>}\ll _{k, \varepsilon } x^{\varepsilon }\sum \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}\sum \limits _{D^{1/N}<d\le x^{1/k}}\sum _{\begin{array}{c} m, n\le x\\ d\mid m-u_j\\ d^k\mid n-v_j \end{array}}1. \end{aligned}$$It follows that
$$\begin{aligned} {\sum }_{>}\ll _{k, \varepsilon } x^{2+\varepsilon }\sum \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}\sum \limits _{D^{1/N}<d\le x^{1/k}}\frac{1}{d^{1+k}}\ll _{k, \epsilon } x^{2+\varepsilon }D^{-k/N}. \end{aligned}$$(3.7)Collecting all the above gives
$$\begin{aligned} N^1_k({\varvec{S}}, x)=x^2\prod _p \Bigg (1-\frac{N}{p^{k+1}} \Bigg )+O_{k,\epsilon }\big (D\log ^{N-1}D+x^{2+\varepsilon }D^{-k/N}+x\log ^N x\big ). \end{aligned}$$Taking \(D=x^{\frac{2N}{N+k}}\) yields (1.1) with
$$\begin{aligned} E_{1}(x)\ll _{k, \epsilon } x^{2-\frac{2k}{N+k}+\varepsilon } ~\text {for}~k<N<2^{k+1}. \end{aligned}$$
4 Proof of Theorem 1.2
In this section, we also assume \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(*,*)\) does not take any input with zero coordinates.
If elements of \({\varvec{S}}\) are pairwise k-visible to each other, then for any \((m,n)\in {\varvec{V}}_k^2({\varvec{S}})\), there exists at most one \((u,v)\in {\varvec{S}}\) such that \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u, n-v)=2\). Indeed, suppose \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_1, n-v_1)={\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_2, n-v_2)=2\) for some \((u_1, v_1)\ne (u_2, v_2)\in {\varvec{S}}\), then we have
Thus, \(2|(u_2-u_1)\) and \(2^k|(v_2-v_1)\), which contradicts the assumption \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(u_2-u_1, v_2-v_1)=1\).
By the above argument, we write
Without loss of generality, we may assume \((u_0, v_0)=(0,0)\). We only need to estimate the inner sum of the second term in (4.1) for \(l=0\), other cases are similar. Denote
We have
By changing the order of summation and making the substitutions \(m=2d_0s\) and \(n=(2d_0)^kt\), we obtain
In order to get estimates of I(x), we need to analyze the conditions in the inner sum. Fix \(d_0, \cdots , d_{N-1}\), in order for those congruence equations having solutions, we need
for \(1\le j\le N-1\). Since points \((u_j,v_j)\) are k-visible to point \((u_0,v_0)\), then Lemma 2.2 gives \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(u_j, v_j)=1\). It follows that \( \gcd (2d_0, d_j)=1\) for \(1\le j\le N-1\). Moreover, in order for those congruence equations having solutions, we also need the following equations
have solutions for any \(d_{j_1}\) and \(d_{j_2}\) with \(1\le j_1\ne j_2\le N-1\). This implies
for \(1\le j_1\ne j_2\le N-1\). By the assumption of pairwise k-visibility of elements of \({\varvec{S}}\), we have \({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(u_{j_2}-u_{j_1}, v_{j_2}-v_{j_1})=1\), and thus \(\gcd (d_{j_1}, d_{j_2})=1\) for any \(1\le j_1\ne j_2\le N-1\).
As what we did in Sect. 3, we divide the sum over \(d_0,\cdots ,d_{N-1}\) into two parts according to \(d_0\cdots d_{N-1}\le D\) or not. Denote them by \(I_{\le }\) and \(I_{>}\), respectively, then
For \(I_{\le }\), we have
and by Lemma 2.3, we get
Making the substitution \(n=d_0\cdots d_{N-1}\), we obtain
where
Extending the sum over n and using the bound \(h(n)\le \tau _{N}(n)\), and by Lemma 2.3, we derive
Note that h(n) is multiplicative with \(h(2)=1\) and \(h(p)=N\) for \(p> 2\) prime. Thus
-
(i)
If \(1\le N\le k\), then we choose \(D=x\). In this case, since each \(d_j\le x^{1/k}\), \(d_0\cdots d_{N-1}\le x^{N/k}\le x\). Thus the second term \(I_{>}\) in (4.4) is empty. Inserting (4.5) into (4.4) yields (1.2) in Theorem 1.2 with
$$\begin{aligned} E_1(x)\ll _k x\log ^{N}x \quad \text {for}~1\le N\le k. \end{aligned}$$ -
(ii)
If \(k<N\le 2^{k+1}\), we need to make another choice for D and deal with \(I_{>}\). By similar argument as before, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} I_{>}\ll \sum _{\begin{array}{c} m,n\le x\\ 2\mid m,2^k\mid n \end{array}}\sum _{\begin{array}{c} d_0\cdots d_{N-1}>D\\ d_0\mid {\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m/2, n/2^k)\\ d_j\mid {\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j, n-v_j)\\ 1\le j\le N-1 \end{array}} 1, \end{aligned}$$which gives
$$\begin{aligned} I_{>}&\ll \sum \limits _{\begin{array}{c} m,n\le x\\ 2\mid m,2^k\mid n\\ \prod \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}{\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j,n-v_j)>D \end{array}}\tau ({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m/2,n/2^k)) \\&\quad \times \prod \limits _{1\le j\le N-1}\tau ({\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j,n-v_j)). \end{aligned}$$Using the bound \(\tau (n)\ll _{\varepsilon } n^{\varepsilon }\) for any \(\varepsilon >0\), by a similar argument as in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we obtain
$$\begin{aligned} I_{>}\ll _{\varepsilon } x^{\varepsilon }\sum \limits _{\begin{array}{c} m,n\le x\\ \prod \limits _{0\le j\le N-1}{\mathrm{gcd}_k }(m-u_j,n-v_j)>D \end{array}}1\ll _{\varepsilon } x^{2+\varepsilon }D^{-k/N}. \end{aligned}$$
Hence, combining all the estimates and taking \(D=x^{\frac{2N}{N+k}}\) yields
Plugging this into (4.1), we obtain (1.2) in Theorem 1.2 with
Change history
27 July 2021
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139-021-00487-8
References
Adhikari, S.D., Granville, A.: Visibility in the plane. J. Number Theory 129(10), 2335–2345 (2009)
Baker, R.C.: Primitive lattice points in planar domains. Acta Arith. 142(3), 267–302 (2010)
Benedetti, C., Estupiñán, S., Harris, P.E.: Generalized Lattice Point Visibility. Preprint. https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.07826
Boca, F.P., Cobeli, C., Zaharescu, A.: Distribution of lattice points visible from the origin. Commun. Math. Phys. 213(2), 433–470 (2000)
Chaubey, S., Tamazyan, A., Zaharescu, A.: Lattice point problems involving index and joint visibility. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 147(8), 3273–3288 (2019)
Chen, Y.-G., Cheng, L.-F.: Visibility of lattice points. Acta Arith. 107(3), 203–207 (2003)
Goins, E.H., Harris, P.E., Kubik, B., Mbirika, A.: Lattice point visibility on generalized lines of sight. Am. Math. Mon. 125(7), 593–601 (2018)
Harris, P.E., Omar, M.: Lattice point visibility on power functions. Integers 18(A90), 1–7 (2018)
Hensley, D.: The number of lattice points within a contour and visible from the origin. Pac. J. Math 166, 295–304 (1994)
Huxley, M.N., Nowak, W.G.: Primitive lattice points in convex planar domains. Acta Arith. 76(3), 271–283 (1996)
Iwaniec, H., Kowalski, E.: Analytic Number Theory, vol. 53. Colloquium Publications, American Mathematical Society, Providence (2004)
Nowak, W.G.: Primitive lattice points in rational ellipses and related arithmetic functions. Monatsh. Math. 106(1), 57–63 (1988)
Rearick, D.F.: Some visibility problems in point lattices. PhD Dissertation, California Institute of Technology 1960). http://resolver.caltech.edu/CaltechETD: etd-06232006-133908
Rearick, D.F.: Mutually visible lattice points. Norske Vid. Selsk. Forh. (Trondheim) 39, 41–45 (1966)
Sylvester, J.J.: Sur le nombre de fractions ordinaires inegales quonpeut exprimer en se servant de chiffres qui nexcedent pas unnombre donne, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris XCVI, 409–413 (1883). Reprinted in Baker, H.F. (ed.) The Collected Mathematical Papers of James Joseph Sylvester, vol. 4. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 86
Wu, J.: On the primitive circle problem. Monatsh. Math. 135(1), 69–81 (2002)
Zhai, W.: On primitive lattice points in planar domains. Acta Arith. 109(1), 1–26 (2003)
Acknowledgements
Both authors thank the anonymous referee for valuable suggestions.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this article was revised due to a retrospective Open Access order.
Kui Liu is partially supported by Shandong Provincial Natural Science Foundation (Grant No. ZR2019BA028). Xianchang Meng is partially supported by the Humboldt Professorship of Professor Harald Helfgott.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Liu, K., Meng, X. Visible lattice points along curves. Ramanujan J 56, 1073–1086 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139-020-00302-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139-020-00302-w