\section{0pt}{12pt plus 4pt minus 2pt}{0pt plus 2pt minus 2pt}

\newtheoremstyle{exampstyle}
  {10pt}
  {\topsep}
  {}
  {}
  {\bfseries}
  {.}
  {.5em}
  {}

\theoremstyle{exampstyle} \newtheorem{thm}{Theorem}[section]
\newtheorem{lem}[thm]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}[thm]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{cor}[thm]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{conj}[thm]{Conjecture}

\DeclareMathOperator{\id}{id}

\newcommand{\bd}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}
\newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}}
\newcommand{\ZZ}{\mathbb{Z}}
\newcommand{\col}[1]{\left[\begin{matrix} #1 \end{matrix} \right]}
\newcommand{\comb}[2]{\binom{#1^2 + #2^2}{#1+#2}}

\begin{document}
\title{An improved bound for disjoint directed cycles}
\author{Matija Buci\'c}
\affil{University of Cambridge}
\date{}
\maketitle

\begin{abstract}
We show that every directed graph with minimum out-degree at least $18k$ contains at least $k$ vertex disjoint cycles. This is an improvement over the result of Alon who showed this result for digraphs of minimum out-degree at least $64k$. The main benefit of the argument is that getting better results for small values of $k$ allows for further improvements to the constant.
\end{abstract}

\section {Introduction}
In this paper all digraphs are considered to contain no parallel edges, but loops and bidirectional edges (pairs of edges which join two vertices in opposite directions) are allowed, but considered as cycles of length $1$ and $2$ respectively. Throughout this paper by a cycle we mean a directed cycle.

We define $f(k)$ to be the minimal integer $d$ for which any digraph $G,$ with all vertices having at least $d$ outgoing edges, contains $k$ pairwise vertex disjoint cycles as subgraphs, if such a $d$ does not exist we set $f(k)=\infty.$

The study of $f(k)$ was initiated by Bermond and Thomassen \cite{Ber_Tho81} who observed that as the complete directed graph\footnote{A complete digraph has no loops, and between any two vertices, contains a bidirectional edge.} on $2k-1$ vertices has out-degree $2k-2$ and contains at most $k-1$ disjoint cycles, it follows that $f(k) \ge 2k-1.$ They also conjecture that this is in fact tight, so that $f(k)=2k-1$.

There has been plenty of work around this conjecture. Thomassen \cite{Tho83} showed that $f(2)=3$ and that $f(k)$ is always finite. In particular, he showed $f(k) \le (k+1)!$. Almost 15 years later Alon \cite{Alon96} improved significantly on this bound and showed that $f(k) \le 64k$. More recently P\'or and Sereni \cite{k=3} showed that $f(3)=5.$ The conjecture has received attention even in the case when the digraph in question is restricted to be a tournament, with Bessy,  Lichiardopol and Sereni \cite{tournaments1} showing that it holds for tournaments with bounded minimum in-degree and later completely resolved, in case of tournaments, by Bang-Jensen, Bessy and Thomass\'e \cite{tournaments2}

We improve on this bound to show $f(k) \le 18k$. Our proof follows closely that of Alon \cite{Alon96}, our main improvement is based on exploiting the fact that $f(3)=5$, due to P\'or and Sereni \cite{k=3}, which allows for significantly better bounds in a part of the argument.

\subsection{Definitions and notation}
For a vertex $v$ of an undirected graph $G$ we denote by $d_G(v)$ its degree and by $N_G(v)$ the set of its neighbours.

Given a digraph $G(V,E),$ for $x,y \in V$ we denote by $xy$ the edge from $x$ to $y$. If edge $xy$ exists we say $x$ is a \emph{parent} of $y$ and $y$ is a \emph{child} of $x$. If both edges $xy$ and $yx$ exist we say there is a \emph{bidirectional} edge joining $x$ and $y$.

We define the \emph{out-degree} of a vertex $v$ of a digraph $G$ as the number of children of $v$ in $G$ and denote it as $d^+_G(v)$. We denote by $N_G^{+}(v)$ the set of children of $v$ in $G$. We define the \textit{in-degree} of a vertex $v$ as the number of parents of $v$ in $G$ and denote it by $d^-_G(v)$ and we denote the set of these parents as $N_G^{-}(v).$ The index digraph $G$ is omitted whenever there is no chance of confusion in regards to which graph is being referred to.

We say a digraph $G$ is \textit{$k$-out} if every vertex in $G$ has out-degree at least $k$. A digraph is said to be \textit{exactly $k$-out} if each out-degree in the graph equals $k.$ \textit{$k$-in} and \textit{exactly $k$-in} graphs are defined analogously.

We denote by $V(G)$ the set of vertices of a (directed) graph $G$, for any $X \subseteq V(G)$ we denote by $G[X]$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $X$.

\section{Preliminary results}

We start by proving $f(2)=3$, first proved by Thomassen \cite{Tho83}. We present a similar proof of this result in order to illustrate some of the ideas, which we will reuse later in the proof of our main result.

\begin{lem} \label{lem:one_one}
$f(2)=3$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof} A complete digraph on $3$ vertices does not contain $2$ disjoint cycles, implying $f(2)\ge 3$.

We now prove that any $3$-out digraph contains $2$ disjoint cycles. We proceed by induction on $n$, the number of vertices. For the base case we consider $n=4$ where the only possible digraph is the complete digraph which contains $2$ disjoint cycles of length $2$. We now assume that any $3$-out digraph, with $n-1 \ge 4$ vertices, contains $2$ disjoint cycles.

Assuming there is a digraph on $n$ vertices failing our assumption, we can remove some of its edges to make it exactly $3$-out, such new digraph still does not contain $2$ disjoint cycles. We call this digraph $G$.

$G$ has no bidirectional edges. If $uw$ is a bidirectional edge then $G-\{u,w\}$ is still $1$-out so it contains a cycle, which paired with the $2$-cycle made by the bidirectional edge $uw$ gives the desired disjoint cycles.

The main idea allowing us to prove the result is using edge contractions. If there is an edge $uv$ such that $u,v$ have no common parent, we can modify $G$ to a new digraph $G'$ by removing $u$ and $v$ and adding a vertex $w$ having $N_{G'}^{+}(w)\equiv N_{G}^{+}(v)$ and $N_{G'}^{-}(w)\equiv N_{G}^{-}(u) \cup N_{G}^{-}(v)$. $G'$ has $n-1$ nodes and is still $3$-out, as $u$,$v$ had no common parent, so by the inductive assumption $G'$ contains $2$ disjoint cycles. If $w$ is not in any of the cycles they were contained in $G$ to start with and we are done. The other option is that $w$ is contained in one of the cycles, this implies the other cycle is in $G$. We distinguish the cases when the cycle in-edge of $w$ comes from $u$'s in-edge or from $v$'s in-edge. Replacing $w$ in the first case by $uv$ and in the second by $v$ we get the other cycle in $G$ and we are done.

The only remaining option is when every edge of $G$ has a \textit{witness} (defined as common parent to both its end-vertices).

Let $v$ be a vertex having the smallest in-degree. As there are $3n$ edges in total we have $d^-(v) \le 3.$

\begin{itemize}
	\item Case $1$: $d^-(v)=0$
	Then $G-\{v\}$ is $3$-out and has $n-1$ vertices so inductively we can find disjoint cycles which are also contained in $G$.

\item Case $2$: $d^-(v)=1$
	The edge ending in $v$ has no witnesses.

\item Case $3$: $d^-(v)=2$
	Let $N^{-}(v)\equiv \{u,w\}$. $u$ has to be the witness to $wv$ and $w$ to $uv$ implying $uw$ is a bidirectional edge which is a contradiction.

\item Case $4$: $d^-(v)=3$
	By our choice of $v,$ for all $x\in V(G)$ we have $d^-(x)\ge d^-(v)=3$ and $3n=\sum_{x \in V(G)} d^-(x) \ge nd^-(v)=3n$ so we need to have equality in $d^-(x)\ge d^-(v)$ for all $x$ implying all vertices have in-degree $3$.

	Given a vertex $x$ and its parents $u,v,w$ we show that $u,v,w$ make a $3$-cycle. Indeed, we notice that each of the witnesses of $ux,vx,wx$ must be among $u,v,w$ implying that the $u,v,w$ induced subgraph is $1$-in. This combined with the fact bidirectional edges do not exist, we conclude that $u,v,w$ make a $3$-cycle as claimed.

	If we reverse the edges of $G$ we notice that all the above arguments still apply, as $G$ is both exactly $3$-out and exactly $3$-in, so children of $x$ also form a $3$-cycle. As there are no bidirectional edges, the children and parents of $x$ are disjoint and give $2$ disjoint $3$-cycles.
\end{itemize}

\vspace{-0.77 cm}

\end{proof}

\section{The main result}

As noted before considering the complete digraph on $2k-1$ vertices we have $f(k) \ge 2k-1$.

We start by defining a class of, in some sense, minimal counterexamples to the Bermond-Thomassen conjecture. The main reason for this is to fix a minor flaw in the way the argument of Alon in \cite{Alon96} is written, where he looks at a minimal counterexample to $f(k)\le 64k$ and shows Proposition \ref{critical} for it, but then also uses this proposition for graphs which are minimal counterexamples to different inequalities and as a consequence omits a rather easy case, specifically the second case of Corollary. \ref{cor:recursion}.

We now define digraphs which act as  For positive integers $r,k$ we say a digraph $G$ is \emph{$(k,r)$-critical} if the following properties hold:
\begin{enumerate}[label=\arabic*)]
\item $G$ is $r$-out,
\item $G$ does not contain $k+1$ disjoint cycles,
\item Subject to properties $1)$ and $2)$ $G$ has the smallest number of vertices and
\item Subject to properties $1),2)$ and $3)$ $G$ has the smallest possible number of edges.
\item Any $(r-2)$-out digraph contains $k$ disjoint cycles.
\end{enumerate}
Note that existence of critical graphs for any $r,k$ is not a given, in fact such a graph exists if and only if the Bermond-Thomassen conjecture fails.

As the complete digraph on $r-1$ vertices is $(r-2)$-out and contains at most $(r-1)/2$ disjoint cycles, it follows by Property $5)$ that if a $(k,r)$-critical digraph exists we have $r-1 \ge 2k$.

A $(k,r)$-critical digraph $G$ can not have a bidirectional edge, as else it would contain $k+1$ disjoint cycles, one made by the bidirectional edge and $k$ given by the assumption on $r,k$ for the $(r-2)$-out digraph $G$ with the vertices of the bidirectional edge removed and this would contradict Property $2)$. Similarly a $(k,r)$-critical digraphs can not contain any loops.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:in-nbor}
Let $G(V,E)$ be a $(k,r)$-critical digraph. For any $v\in V$, $G[N^{-}(v)]$ is a $1$-out digraph.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
For every edge, its endpoints need to have a witness, as else we can contract along this edge which would contradict Property $3$ of $G$ being critical.

Given any vertex $u\in N^{-}(v)$, if the edge $uv$ has a witness $w$ we must have $w \in N^{-}(v)$ and $w$ is a parent of $u$ so $G[N^{-}(v)]$ is $1$-in and consequently contains a cycle.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{critical}
Let $G(V,E)$ be a $(k,r)$-critical digraph then $k(r^2-r+1) \ge |V|$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We note that by Property $4$, of $G$ being critical, we can deduce that $d^+(v)=r$ for all $v$. Also from the previous proposition any edge needs to have a witness.

We build an undirected graph $H$ with the set of vertices $V$ and with $u,v \in V$ joined by an edge if and only if they have a common parent in $G$. For $v \in V$ we have $d_H(v) \le d^{-}_G(v)(r-1)$ as any potential witness of an edge ending in $v$ must be in $N^{-}(v)$ and each of these $d^{-}_G(v)$ vertices have $r-1$ children apart from $v$.

Turan's Theorem (Theorem $1$, page 95 of \cite{Alon_Spen92}) states that in any undirected graph $K$ there is an independent set of size at least $\sum_{v \in V(K)}{\frac{1}{d_K(v)+1}}.$ Applying this result to $H$ we obtain that there is a set of independent vertices of $H$ with size at least:
$$\sum_{v \in V}{\frac{1}{d_H(v)+1}} \ge \frac{n^2}{\sum_{v \in V}{d_H(v)}+n} \ge \frac{n^2}{(r-1)\sum_{v \in V}{d^{-}_G(v)}+n}=\frac{n^2}{(r-1)rn+n}=\frac{n}{r^2-r+1},$$
where in the first inequality we used Jensen's inequality. Note that an independent set of $m$ vertices in $H$ corresponds to a set of vertices having disjoint in-neighbourhoods so by Proposition \ref{prop:in-nbor} we can find $m$ disjoint cycles in $G$. As $G$ does not contain $k+1$ disjoint cycles we have $m \le k$ so $k(r^2-r+1) \ge |V|$ as desired.
\end{proof}

The following proposition is our main improvement over the result of Alon \cite{Alon96}. We will use it with $t=3$ for which $f(3)=5$ was proved in \cite{k=3}.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:upper_bound_small_general}
Assuming $f(t)=2t-1$ for some $t,$ let $l=\left\lceil \frac{k+1}{t} \right\rceil$, if there exists a $(k,r)$-critical digraph then:
$$  k(r^2-r+1)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{2t-2} \binom{r}{i}\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-i}\right)+l\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1} \ge 1.$$
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Let us assume the contrary, so $$  k(r^2-r+1)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{2t-2} \binom{r}{i}\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-i}\right)+l\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1} < 1.$$
Let $G$ be a $(k,r)$ critical digraph. We colour the vertices of $G$ with $l$ colours, chosen uniformly at random and independently between vertices. Let $A_v$ be the event that less than $2t-1$ children of $v$ are of the same colour as $v$. Let $B_i$ be the event that there are no vertices of colour $i \le l$. We have $\mathbb{P}(A_v)= \sum_{i=0}^{2t-2} \binom{r}{i}\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-i}$ where term corresponding to $i$ in the sum represents the probability of $v$ having exactly $i$ children of the same colour as it. For each colour $i$ we have $\mathbb{P}(B_i)=\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^n \le \left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1}$. Now using the union bound and $|V|\le k(r^2-r+1)$ given by Proposition \ref{critical} we obtain:
$$ \mathbb{P}\left(\bigcup_{v \in V} A_v \cup \bigcup_{i=1}^{l} B_i\right) \le \sum_{v \in V} \mathbb{P}(A_v)+ \sum_{i=1}^{l} \mathbb{P}(B_i)=$$
$$  |V|\left(\sum_{i=0}^{2t-2} \binom{r}{i}\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-i}\right)+l\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1} < $$
$$k(r^2-r+1)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{2t-2} \binom{r}{i}\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-i}\right)+l\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1} < 1.$$

So there is a colouring in which vertices of each colour define a non-empty $2t-1$-out digraph which by the assumption of $f(t)=2t-1$ means we find $t$ disjoint cycles in each colour. As there are $l$ colours we get $tl \ge k+1$ disjoint cycles, a contradiction to $G$ being $(k,r)$-critical.
\end{proof}

The following proposition is an approximate version of Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small_general} in the case $t=3.$

\begin{prop} \label{prop:upper_bound_small}
Let $l=\left\lceil \frac{k+1}{3} \right\rceil$, if there exists a $(k,r)$-critical digraph then:
$$ e^{\frac{r-4}{l}} \le \left( \frac{r^6}{8l^3}+\frac{3r^5}{l^2}\right)  .$$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small_general} applies for $t=3$ as $f(3)=5$ (proved in \cite{k=3}) giving:

\begin{align*}
1 & \le k(r^2-r+1)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{4} \binom{r}{i}\left(\frac{1}{l}\right)^{i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-i}\right)+l\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1}  \\
& \le 3l(r^2-r+1)\left(\sum_{i=0}^{4}  \frac{r^i}{i!(l-1)^i}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r}\right)+l\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r+1}  \\
& \le 3lr^2\left(\sum_{i=0}^{4} \frac{r^i}{(l-1)^ii!}\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r}\right)   \\
& = 3lr^2\left(\sum_{i=0}^{3} \frac{1}{i!}\left(\frac{r}{l-1}\right)^i+\frac{r^4}{24(l-1)^4}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r}   \\
& \le 3lr^2\left(\sum_{i=0}^{3} \frac{1}{i!}\frac{1}{4^{3-i}}\left(\frac{r}{l-1}\right)^3+\frac{r^4}{24(l-1)^4}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r}   \\
& = 3lr^2\left(\sum_{i=0}^{3} \frac{4^i}{i!}\left(\frac{r}{4(l-1)}\right)^3+\frac{r^4}{24(l-1)^4}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r}   \\
& \le 3lr^2\left(\frac{e^4}{64}\left(\frac{r}{l-1}\right)^3+\frac{r^4}{24(l-1)^4}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r}  \\
& \le \left(\frac{3r^5}{(l-1)^2}+\frac{r^6}{8(l-1)^3}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-1}  \\
& \le \left(\frac{3r^5}{l^2}+\frac{r^6}{8l^3}\right)\left(1-\frac{1}{l}\right)^{r-4}  \\
& \le \left( \frac{r^6}{8l^3}+\frac{3r^5}{l^2}\right) e^{-\frac{r-4}{l}}.
\end{align*}
where in the 3rd inequality we used $r \ge 2$ and in the 4th inequality we used $1<r/(4(l-1))$ which follows as $r\ge 2k+1 > 4(l-1).$
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
$f(k)$ is finite for all values of $k$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Let us assume the opposite and let $k$ be the smallest integer such that $f(k+1)$ is not finite. Hence for any $r$ this implies that there is an $r$-out digraph not containing $k+1$ cycles, taking one with minimal number of vertices and among such graphs minimal number of edges gives a graph satisfying properties $1)-4)$ of $(k,r)$-criticallity. Assuming $r\ge f(k)+2,$ gives that any graph on $r-2$ vertices contains $k$ disjoint cycles giving property $5)$. This shows that for any $r\ge f(k)+2,$ there is an $(k,r)$-critical digraph. This contradicts Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small} as there the $LHS$ is exponential in $r$ while the $RHS$ is a polynomial. \end{proof}

A more careful bounding in the above derivation would in fact give us $f(k+1) \le (1+o(1))k\log_{e}(k)$.

The following proposition is slightly technical as we try to stay very close to equality in various inequalities we use, which makes the calculations slightly awkward.

\begin{prop}\label{prop:small-cases}
For $k < 2^{13}$ we have $f(k) \le 15k+30$ and for $k\le 10$ we have $f(k)\le 12k$.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Let $k$ be the smallest integer for which $f(k+1)>15(k+1)+30$. Let $r=f(k+1)-1,$ as $f(k)\le 15k+30$ we have that $r-2 \ge f(k)$ so there exists a $(k,r)$ critical digraph and Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small} applies. Denoting $x=r/l$ it implies $l^3e^{\frac{4}{l}} \ge \frac{e^x}{x^6/8+3x^5}$. The right hand side is an increasing function on $x \ge 4$ and the left hand side is increasing in $l$ for $l \ge 2$. If $x \ge 45$ by using $l\le \frac{k}{3}+1 \le 2^{13}/3+1$ we get $21 \cdot 10^{9}  > l^3e^{\frac{4}{l}} \ge \frac{e^{45}}{45^6/8+3\cdot45^5} > 21 \cdot 10^{9},$ so a contradiction. Hence, $f(k+1)-1 < 45l=45 \left\lceil \frac{k+1}{3} \right\rceil  \le 15(k+1)+30,$ also a contradiction completing the proof of the first claim.

For the second claim, the results holds when $k\le 3$ as $f(k)=2k-1<=12k$ in this case, so we assume $k \ge 4.$ We repeat the argument with $12k$ in place of $15k+30$, now $k\le 10$ implies $l < 4,$ so if $x \ge 24$ we obtain $200>l^3e^{\frac{4}{l}} \ge \frac{e^x}{x^6/8+3x^5}>200,$ so a contradiction. Hence, $f(k+1)-1 < 24l=24 \left\lceil \frac{k+1}{3} \right\rceil  \le 8(k+1)+16\le 12k.$ Completing the proof.
\end{proof}

The main idea which enables us to find a linear bound, due to Alon \cite{Alon96}, is based on an extension of the probabilistic ideas introduced in the proof of Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small} and it relies on the following bound.

\begin{prop}
Assuming $r \ge 2^{15}$ one can split an $(k,r)$-critical digraph $G$ into $2$ disjoint $\frac{r}{2}-\frac{r^{2/3}}{ \sqrt{2}}$-out digraphs.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We colour the vertices of $G$ into $2$ colours uniformly at random. Let $A_v$ be the event that $v$ has less than $t=\frac{r}{2}-\frac{r^{2/3}}{\sqrt{2}}$ children of the same colour. Let $X_v$ be a random variable counting the number of children of $v$ having the same colour as $v$. We have $X_v \sim \text{Bin}(r, 1/2)$ and $A_v$ is equivalent to $X_v<t$. Now using the bound of Chernoff for the tail of the binomial random variable, given in \cite{Alon_Spen92} Appendix A, we have $\mathbb{P}(A_v) \le e^{-r^{1/3}}$.

Now, $r \ge 2k+1$ and Proposition \ref{critical} give us $|V|<\frac{r^3}{2}$, and $G$ being $r$-out implies $|V| \ge r+1,$ these inequalities imply $2\cdot 2^{-|V|}+\frac{r^3}{2}e^{-r^{1/3}}<1,$ using $r \ge 2^{15},$ so there is a colouring of the vertices such that each colour occurs and represents a disjoint $t$-out subgraph.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{cor:recursion}
Given $f(h)>2^{15}$ we have:
$$f(h)-\sqrt{2}(f(h))^{2/3} \le 2f\left(\lceil h/2\rceil\right) \text{ or}$$
$$f(h) \le f(h-1)+2$$
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
Let us assume the second inequality fails, so $f(h)>f(h-1)+2.$ Let $h=k+1$, $r=f(k+1)-1 \ge f(k)+2,$ so that any $r-2$-out digraph contains $k$ disjoint cycles and there is an $r$-out digraph which does not contain $k+1$ disjoint cycles, implying there exists an $(k,r)$-critical graph $G$. By the previous proposition $G$ contains $2$ disjoint $t=\left \lceil r/2-r^{2/3}/ \sqrt{2}\right \rceil$-out subgraphs. We must have $t<f\left(\left\lceil\frac{k+1}{2}\right\rceil\right)$ as else we can find $k+1$ disjoint cycles. Hence,
$$\frac{f(h)-1}{2}-\frac{(f(h))^{2/3}}{\sqrt{2}} \le  \frac{f(h)-1}{2}-\frac{(f(h)-1)^{2/3}}{\sqrt{2}}=\frac{r}{2}-\frac{r^{2/3}}{\sqrt{2}} \le f\left(\lceil h/2\rceil\right)-1.$$
Which implies the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{lem:big-cases}
For $h \ge 2^{12}$ we have $f(h) \le 18h-45h^{2/3}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Notice that for $2^{12} \le h < 2^{13}$ the result holds as a consequence of Proposition \ref{prop:small-cases} as in this range:
$$f(h) \le 15h+30 \le 18h-45h^{2/3}.$$
Let us assume for the sake of contradiction that the Lemma fails and Let $h$ be the smallest integer for which the Lemma fails, so
\begin{equation}\label{equ:1}
f(h)>18h-45h^{2/3}
\end{equation}
and for all $t<h$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{equ:2}
f(t) \le 18t-45t^{2/3}.
\end{equation}
By above consideration $h \ge 2^{13},$ so if $f(h) \le 2^{15}$ then $f(h) \le 4h \le 18h-45h^{2/3}.$ Hence, we may and will assume that $f(h) > 2^{15}$. This allows us to apply Corollary \ref{cor:recursion} for $f(h)$ implying that $f(h)-\sqrt{2}f(h)^{2/3} \ge f\left(\lceil h/2 \rceil\right)$ or $f(h) \le f(h-1)+2.$ In the latter case
\begin{align*}
f(h) & \le f(h-1)+2 \\
& \le 18(h-1)-45(h-1)^{2/3}+2 \\
& = 18h-45h^{2/3}+45(h^{2/3}-(h-1)^{2/3})-16 \\
& < 18h - 45h^{2/3},
\end{align*}
where we used (\ref{equ:2}) for $t=h-1<h$ and $h^{2/3}-(h-1)^{2/3} < 1/3,$ which holds for $h \ge 2^5.$ This gives a contradiction.

If the former case  we have
\begin{align*}
f(h)-\sqrt{2}f(h)^{2/3} & \le 2f\left(\lceil h/2\rceil\right) \\
 & \le 2\left(18\lceil h/2\rceil-45 \left(\lceil h/2\rceil\right)^{2/3}\right) \\
 & \le 2\left(18(h+1)/2-45 ( (h+1)/2)^{2/3}\right)\\
 & =18h+18-2^{1/3}45(h+1)^{2/3}.
\end{align*}
Where we used (\ref{equ:2}) for $t=\lceil h/2\rceil$, and the fact $g(x)=18x-45x^{2/3}$ is increasing for $x \ge 5.$

Using that $g(x)=x-\sqrt{2}x^{2/3}$ is increasing for $x \ge 2^{3/2} $ and (\ref{equ:1}) we obtain:
\begin{align*}
f(h)-\sqrt{2}f(h)^{2/3} & \ge 18h-45h^{2/3} - \sqrt{2} (18h-45h^{2/3})^{2/3} \\
& \ge 18h-45h^{2/3}- \sqrt{2} (18h)^{2/3},
\end{align*}
implying in turn $18+\sqrt{2}\cdot(18h)^{2/3} > (2^{1/3}-1)45h^{2/3}.$ Using $h \ge 2^{12}$ we get $1+10 > 18h^{-2/3}+\sqrt{2}\cdot18^{2/3} > (2^{1/3}-1)\cdot 45>11,$ where we used $10>\sqrt{2}\cdot18^{2/3}$ and $2^{1/3}>5/4,$ giving us a contradiction and completing the proof.
\end{proof}
\section{Concluding remarks}
Combining results of Propositions \ref{prop:small-cases} and Lemma \ref{lem:big-cases} we obtain the following result.
\begin{thm}
$$2k-1 \le f(k) \le 18k.$$
\end{thm}
\vspace{-2mm}
Optimising various constants and inequalities used above and using a computer together with Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small_general} in place of Proposition \ref{prop:small-cases} the constant can be improved to close to $16$ but we believe that without introducing some new ideas, the exact method given above is unlikely to bring the constant much lower than $16$.

The main benefit of Proposition \ref{prop:upper_bound_small_general} is that it allows further improvement of the constant, provided we could prove $f(k)=2k-1$ for more small values of $k$. Unfortunately, this is still an open problem for all $k \ge 4$. We do however note that Proposition \ref{critical} shows that if for a fixed $k$ the conjecture $f(k)=2k-1$ is false then there needs to exist a counterexample having at most $4k^3$ vertices, in particular testing the conjecture for small values of $k$ can be done in a finite time, albeit still prohibitively large, even for $k=4$.

\vspace{-2mm}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
I am very grateful to Prof. Imre Leader for his support and useful discussions.

\noindent I was provided financial support by Trinity College, Cambridge for which I am also grateful.

I owe a great debt to the anonymous referees, whose excellent and insightful comments vastly improved presentation of the paper. Specifically, a referee brought to my attention the reference \cite{k=3}, using which allowed for an improvement to the main result.

\vspace{-2mm}


Abstract: In this paper, we compute the natural density of the set of k x n integer matrices that can be extended to an invertible n x n matrix over the integers. As a corollary, we find the density of rectangular matrices with Hermite normal form [O Id]. Connections with Cesaro's Theorem on the density of coprime integers and Quillen-Suslin's Theorem are also presented.

\section{#1}}

\newcommand{\noproof}{\hspace*{1cm}\hspace*{\fill}\openbox
  \medskip\endtrivlist}

\newcommand{\openbox}{\leavevmode
  \hbox to.77778em{%
    \hfil\vrule
  \vbox to.675em{\hrule width.6em\vfil\hrule}%
  \vrule\hfil}}
\newcommand{Proof}{Proof}

\newenvironment{proof}[1][Proof]{\par\normalfont
  \trivlist\item[\hskip\labelsep\itshape #1:]\ignorespaces
  }{\hspace*{1cm}\hspace*{\fill}\openbox \medskip\endtrivlist}

\newenvironment{proofs}[1][Sketch of Proof]{\par\normalfont
  \trivlist\item[\hskip\labelsep\itshape #1:]\ignorespaces
  }{\hspace*{1cm}\hspace*{\fill}\openbox \medskip\endtrivlist}

\newenvironment{proofofthm}[1][Proof of Proposition \ref{prop}]{\par\normalfont
  \trivlist\item[\hskip\labelsep\itshape #1:]\ignorespaces
  }{\hspace*{1cm}\hspace*{\fill}\openbox \medskip\endtrivlist}

\title{Natural Density of Rectangular Unimodular Integer Matrices
  \footnote{Partially supported by SNF grant No. 121874 and Armasuisse.}
}%
\date{\today}
\author{G\'erard Maze, Joachim Rosenthal and Urs Wagner\\
{\small {\em e-mail:\/} \{gmaze,rosen,urs.wagner\}@math.uzh.ch \vspace{-1mm} }\\
{\small Mathematics Institute\vspace{-1mm}}\\
{\small University of Z\"urich\vspace{-1mm}}\\
{\small Winterthurerstr 190, CH-8057 Z\"urich, Switzerland }
\vspace{3mm} }

\begin{document}\maketitle
\thispagestyle{empty}
\begin{abstract}
  In this paper, we compute the natural density of the set of $k
  \times n$ integer matrices that can be extended to an invertible $n
  \times n$ matrix over the integers. As a corollary, we find the
  density of rectangular matrices with Hermite normal form $\left[
    O_{k\times (n-k)} \, I_k \right]$. Connections with
  Ces\`aro's Theorem on the density of coprime integers and
  Quillen-Suslin's Theorem are also presented.
\end{abstract}

\vspace{3mm}
\noindent{\bf Key Words:} Natural density, unimodular matrices,
Ces\`aro's Theorem,
Quillen-Suslin's Theorem\\
\noindent{\bf Subject Classification:} 15B36; 11C20
\vspace{3mm}

\Section{Introduction and Main Result}

Given a commutative ring $R$ with 1, the notion of invertible $n
\times n$ matrix is well defined, and can be characterized by the
condition that the determinant of such a matrix is a unit in $R$.
Given a $k \times n$ matrix $A$, the question of whether it can
be completed by an $(n-k) \times n$ matrix into an $n \times n$
invertible matrix over $R$ has raised several interesting
problems in the past. For instance, the celebrated Quillen-Suslin
Theorem \cite{quillen,suslin}, previously known under the name
Serre Conjecture, deals with the case when $R=\mathbb{F}[x_1,...,x_l]$,
with $\mathbb{F}$ a field and $k=1$. It can be shown that this case also
contains in essence the general case $1 \leq k \leq n$, see
\cite{youla}. The theorem states that over this ring, the
following three properties are equivalent
\cite{quillen,suslin,youla}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item  $A$ can be completed into an $n \times n$ invertible matrix,
\item there exists an  $n \times k$ matrix $B$ such that $AB= I_k$,
  where $I_{k}$ is the $k \times k$ identity matrix,
\item the $k \times k$ minors of $A$ have no common zeros.
\end{enumerate}

When the ring $R$ is a PID it is a direct consequence of the
Smith normal form (see e.g.~\cite{macduffee}) that Conditions 1.
and 2. are again equivalent and these conditions are equivalent
to the fact that the gcd of the $k\times k$ minors is equal to 1.

In the sequel we will adopt the usual convention and call a
$k\times n$ matrix $A$ over some ring $R$  {\it unimodular} as
soon as $A$ can be extended to $n\times n$ invertible matrix.

Over the ring of integers various related results on unimodular
matrices are known in the literature. E.g. Zhan~\cite{zhan} showed
that any partial $n\times n$ matrix with $n$ given entries not lying
on the same row or column can be completed into a unimodular matrix.
Another result is due to Fang~\cite{fa} who showed that, if the
diagonal of a square matrix is let free, then it can be completed into
a unimodular one.

Our focus in this paper will be on the ``probability'' that a random
$k\times n$ integer matrix is unimodular. Related to our problem is a
classical result due to Ces\`aro~\cite{cesaro1,cesaro2,cesaro3} (see
also \cite{sylvester1,sylvester2} and the historical remarks below)
which states that the ``probability'' that two randomly chosen
integers are coprime is $\frac{1}{\zeta(2)}=\frac{6}{\pi^2}$, where
$\zeta$ denotes Riemann's zeta function. A re-statement of Ces\`aro's
result is then: the probability that a random $1\times 2$ integer
matrix is unimodular is $\zeta(2)^{-1}$.

In order to make the notion of probability precise we first remark
that the uniform distribution over the set $\mathbb{Z}^m$ has little
meaning. For this reason researchers often use the concept of {\em
  natural density} when stating probability results in $\mathbb{Z}^m$ or more
general infinite modules $R^m$. In the following we briefly explain
this concept. Let $S\subset \mathbb{Z}^m$ be a set. Define the upper
(respectively lower) natural density as
\[
\overline{\mathbb{D}}(S)=\limsup_{B \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|S \cap
\left[-B,B\right[^m|}{(2B)^m} \; \; , \;\;
\underline{\mathbb{D}}(S)=\liminf_{B \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|S \cap
\left[-B,B\right[^m|}{(2B)^m}.
\]
When both limits are equal one defines the natural density of the
set $S$ as:
\begin{equation}
  \mathbb{D}(S):=\overline{\mathbb{D}}(S)=\underline{\mathbb{D}}(S).
\end{equation}

The following properties of natural density are readily verified: If
$S^c$ denotes the complement of $S$ then $\mathbb{D}(S^c)=1-\mathbb{D}(S)$, whenever
$S$ has a well-defined density. Similarly if $\{S_i\}_{i\in I}$ is a
set of subsets of $\mathbb{Z}^m$ with well defined densities $\mathbb{D}(S_i)$ and if $S =
\cup_{i \in I} S_i$, then:
\begin{equation}
\overline{\mathbb{D}}(S) \leq \sum_{i \in I}\mathbb{D}(S_i).
\end{equation}
Readers interested in more background on the notion of natural
densities of sets of integer matrices are referred to~\cite{hetzel},
even though this paper attributes the result of Ces\`aro to Mertens,
something which was probably triggered by a remark in~\cite{hardy}.

In fact the exact fatherhood of the result of Ces\`aro appears to be
inexactly described in several occasions in the literature. The story
behind this historical misunderstanding seems to be the following. The
problem of evaluating the probability that two random integers are
coprime appears in a 1881 question raised by Ces\`aro
\cite{cesaro1}. Two years later, Sylvester \cite{sylvester1} and
Ces\`aro \cite{cesaro2} independently publish their
solutions. Interestingly, two proofs are presented in
\cite{sylvester1}: Sylvester's own argument is based on Farey series, and
a more ``probabilistic'' argument of Franklin is also presented with
his permission. In the footnote of a 1888 paper \cite{sylvester2},
Sylvester publishes a similar proof, and mentions that Ces\`aro
``claimed the prior publication`` of the result. Sylvester's argument
is based on Farey series, and the remark in~\cite{hardy} makes a
connection between an earlier work of Mertens~\cite{mertens} of 1874
on the average value of Euler $\varphi$ function and Farey series,
which probably triggered the remark in~\cite{hetzel} but at no point
in~\cite{hardy} the result is attributed to Mertens. If we want to
associate the aforementioned probability with the average value of
$\varphi$, then it is legitimate to go back to an 1849 paper of
Dirichlet \cite{dirichlet} where the value $\frac{6}{\pi^2}$ appears
for the first time. The case of $k$ coprime integers, $k>2$, is also
presented for first time by Ces\`aro in 1884 \cite{cesaro3}. The
result is rediscovered in 1900 by D.N.Lehmer \cite{lehmer}, apparently
independently (see also \cite{nymann}).

The major result of our paper is a matrix version of Ces\`aro's
theorem:

\begin{pr}  \label{prop}
  Let $1 \leq k < n$ be integers. The natural density $\mathrm{d}_{k,n}$ of
  $k \times n$ unimodular matrices with integer entries is given by
  $$
  \mathrm{d}_{k,n} = \left( \prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \zeta(j) \right)^{-1}.
  $$
\end{pr}
In other words, the ``probability'' that a ``random'' $k \times n$
integer matrix can be extended into a matrix in $\mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Z})$ is
given by $\left( \zeta(n)\cdot \ldots \cdot \zeta(n-k+1)
\right)^{-1}$. Since $\zeta(n)$ converges rapidly towards 1, if
$k=n-d$, the above density converges rather fast to the limit
$\mathrm{d}_{d}$ with
\[
\mathrm{d}_1 = \left( \prod_{j=2}^{\infty} \zeta(j) \right)^{-1}
=0.43575707677... \;\; \mbox{ and } \;\; \mathrm{d}_2 = \zeta(2) \cdot \mathrm{d}_1
, \; \mathrm{d}_3 = \zeta(2) \cdot \zeta(3) \cdot \mathrm{d}_1 \ldots
\]
When $n$ is not too small, say $n>4$, $\mathrm{d}_1$ is a good approximation
of the proportion of integer matrices that can be completed by a row
into an invertible matrix. We would like to point out that the proof
of the above proposition is independent from the result of Ces\`aro
and as such a new proof of his theorem is given when the above
proposition is considered with $k=1$. Proposition~\ref{prop} above
gives a probabilistic extension of the simplest case of the
Quillen-Suslin Theorem. The concept of natural density does not extend
naturally to the ring $\mathbb{F}[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and thus the existence of a
direct extension of our result to the general case is unclear. In the
next section we will prove Proposition~\ref{prop}.

\section{Proof of the Main Result}

Let us fix some notations for the rest of the article. Let $1 \leq t
\leq k < n$ be integers. Given a $k \times n$ matrix $A$ with
integer entries, the determinants of the $\binom{n}{t} \binom{k}{t}$
$t \times t$ submatrices of $A$ formed by the intersection of any
subset of $t$ column and $t$ row vectors of $A$ are called the
$t$-minors of $A$. When $t=k$, they are called the full rank minors of
$A$. The set of primes is denoted by $\mathbb{P}$ and when no
confusion is possible, the set $\mathbb{Z}^{k\times n}$ will be identified
with $\mathbb{Z}^{kn}$.\\

The strategy of the proof of the above proposition is to localize the
computation of the density at every prime, and then lift the
information up in order to extract the exact density over $\mathbb{Z}^{kn}$.
The proof of the above proposition relies on the next lemmas. As noted
before, the PID version of Quillen-Suslin's Theorem gives directly
the following lemma:

\begin{lem}                       \label{lem1}
  A $k \times n$ matrix $A$ with integer entries is unimodular if and
  only if the full-rank minors of $A$ are coprime.
\end{lem}

Over a field $\mathbb{F}$, the rank of a $k \times n$ matrix, i.e., the
maximal number of rows that are linearly independent over $\mathbb{F}$, is
equal to the largest integer $t$ such that there exists a non-zero $t
\times t$ minor. A classical computation shows that over the prime
finite field $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}$, if $F_p$ is the set of full rank $k \times
n$ matrices, its cardinality satisfies $|F_p| = \prod_{j=0}^{k-1}
(p^n-p^j)$. See \cite{lidl} for the details. This can be extended as
follows:

\begin{lem}                             \label{lem2}
  Let $S$ be a finite set of prime numbers. The density of $k \times n$
  matrices with integer entries for which the $\gcd$ of the full rank
  minors are coprime to all primes in $S$ is given by
  \[
  \prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \prod_{p \in S} \left( 1-\frac{1}{p^j} \right).
  \]
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
  Let us call $E_S \subset \mathbb{Z}^{kn}$ the set of $k \times n$
  matrices for which the gcd of the full rank minors are coprime
  to all primes in $S$. Let $N=\prod_{p \in S} p$ and recall the
  Chinese remainder theorem $\left( \mathbb{Z} / N \mathbb{Z} \right)\cong
  \prod_{p \in S} \left( \mathbb{Z} / p \mathbb{Z} \right)$.  Let $B$ be an
  integer that will go to infinity in the sequel. Write $B=qN+r$,
  with $q,r \in \mathbb{N}$, $0 \leq r < N$ and consider the map $\phi$
  obtained as the composition of maps
  \[
  \lbrack -qN,qN \lbrack^{kn} \longrightarrow \left( \mathbb{Z} / N \mathbb{Z} \right)^{kn}
  \longrightarrow  \prod_{p \in S} \left( \mathbb{Z} / p \mathbb{Z} \right)^{kn}
  \]
  where the first map is the quotient modulo $N$ and the second is the
  induced homomorphism given by the Chinese remainder theorem. Because
  of the above remark we have
  \[
  \phi(E_S \cap \lbrack  -qN,qN \lbrack^{kn} ) = \prod_{p \in S} F_p.
  \]
  The first map is a $(2q)^{kn}$-to-$1$ map, i.e., each fiber contains
  exactly $(2q)^{kn}$ elements, and the second map is an isomorphism. Thus
  \[
  |E_S \cap \lbrack-qN,qN\lbrack^{kn}| = (2q)^{kn} \cdot  \prod_{p \in S} |F_p|.
  \]
  We have the disjoint union $\lbrack-B,B\lbrack^{kn} =
  \lbrack-qN,qN\lbrack^{kn} \sqcup \left( \lbrack-B,B\lbrack^{kn}
  \setminus \lbrack-qN,qN\lbrack^{kn} \right)$. The difference of
  hypercubes has a volume bounded by the volume of $2kn$
  hyper-rectangles of side area $B^{kn-1}$ and height $r$ which gives
  $0 \leq | \lbrack-B,B\lbrack^{kn} \setminus
  \lbrack-qN,qN\lbrack^{kn} | < 2knrB^{kn-1}$ and therefore we have
  \[
  |E_S \cap \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^{kn}| = |E_S \cap \lbrack-qN,qN \lbrack^{kn}| + \rho
  \]
  with $0 \leq \rho < 2knrB^{kn-1}$. Thus
  \begin{eqnarray*}
    \frac{|E_S \cap [-B,B[^{kn}|}{(2B)^{kn}} & = & \frac{ |E_S \cap
          [-qN,qN[^{kn}| }{(2qN)^{kn}} \frac{(2qN)^{kn}}{(2B)^{kn}} +
            \frac{\rho}{(2B)^{kn}}\\
            & = &  \prod_{p \in S} \frac{|F_p|}{p^{nk}} \cdot
            \left(1-\frac{r}{B} \right)^{kn}+ O(1/B).
  \end{eqnarray*}
  Finally, we have
  \[
  \mathbb{D}(E_S) = \lim_{B \rightarrow \infty}  \prod_{p \in S} \frac{|F_p|}{p^{nk}} \cdot
  \left(1-\frac{r}{B} \right)^{kn}+ O(1/B) =
  \prod_{p \in S} \frac{|F_p|}{p^{nk}} = \prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \prod_{p
    \in S} \left( 1-\frac{1}{p^j} \right).
  \]
\end{proof}

Extending the definition of $E_S$, let us call $E_t \subset \mathbb{Z}^{kn}$
the set of $k \times n$ matrices for which the gcd of the full rank
minors are coprime with the first $t$ primes $2,3,\ldots,p_t$. Note
that the sequence $E_t$ is a decreasing sequence of sets, i.e., $E_i
\subset E_j$ if $i \geq j$ and if $E = \cap_{t\in \mathbb{N}} E_t$, then Lemma
\ref{lem1} implies that $E$ is the set of $k \times n$ unimodular
matrices with integer entries. In order to prove Proposition
\ref{prop}, we have to prove that $\mathbb{D}(E)$ exists and compute its value
$\mathrm{d}_{k,n} = \mathbb{D}(E)$. Since we know $\mathbb{D}(E_t)$ for all $t$, it is
tempting to prove the proposition by simply letting $t$ going to
infinity in the expression given by Lemma \ref{lem2}, but this is an
invalid argument in general. Indeed the example of $E_t = \lbrack t,
\infty \lbrack$ with $E = \emptyset$ shows that it is possible to have
a sequence of sets $E_i \subset E_j$ if $i \geq j$ with $E =
\cap_{t\in \mathbb{N}} E_t$ and $\mathbb{D}(E)=0 \neq 1 = \lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
\mathbb{D}(E_t)$ since $\mathbb{D}(E_t) = 1$, $\forall t$. The next lemma describes
how to avoid this pathological case. Let us recall that for any real
sequences $a_n,b_n$, $\liminf a_n + \liminf b_n \leq \liminf (a_n +
b_n)$ and $\limsup (a_n + b_n) \leq \limsup a_n + \limsup b_n$ and
$\limsup -a_n = - \liminf a_n$.

\begin{lem}\label{lem3}
  Let $E_t$ be a sequence of decreasing sets in $\mathbb{Z}^m$ such that
  $\mathbb{D}(E_t)$ exists for all $t$ and converges to $\mathrm{d}$. Let $E =
  \cap_{t\in \mathbb{N}} E_t$. If $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
  \overline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t \setminus E) = 0$, then $\mathbb{D}(E)$ exists and is
  equal to $\mathrm{d}$.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
  We will use the disjoint union $E_t = E \sqcup (E_t \setminus
  E)$. Since
  \[
  |E_t \cap \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^m| = |E \cap
    \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^m| +|(E_t \setminus E) \cap
    \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^m|,
  \]
  we have
  \[
  \frac{|E \cap \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^m|}{(2B)^m} = \frac{|E_t \cap
    \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^m|}{(2B)^m} + \frac{-|(E_t \setminus E) \cap
    \lbrack-B,B \lbrack^m|}{(2B)^m}.
  \]
  Taking the $\liminf$ and the $\limsup$, and since $\lim_{B
    \rightarrow \infty} \frac{|E_t \cap \lbrack-B,B
    \lbrack^m|}{(2B)^m}=\mathbb{D}(E_t)$, we have
  \[
  \mathbb{D}(E_t) - \overline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t \setminus E) =  \underline{\mathbb{D}}(E) \leq
  \overline{\mathbb{D}}(E) = \mathbb{D}(E_t) - \underline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t \setminus E).
  \]
  The result follows when $t \rightarrow \infty$ since $0 \leq
  \underline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t \setminus E) \leq \overline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t \setminus E)
  \longrightarrow 0$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proofofthm}
  We will use the previous lemma. The set $E_t \setminus E$ is the set
  of $k \times n$ matrices $A$ for which there exists a prime $p$ with
  $p>p_t$ so that $p$ divides the gcd of the full rank minors of
  $A$. For each prime $p$, let us define $H_p$ to be the set of $k
  \times n$ matrices whose gcd of the full rank minors is divisible by
  $p$. Then $ E_t \setminus E = \cup_{p > p_t} H_p$. Note that Lemma
  \ref{lem2} applied to $S=\{p\}$ implies that $H_p$ has a density
  equal to
  \[
  \mathbb{D}(H_p) = 1-\mathbb{D}(H_p^c) = 1-\prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \left(1-\frac{1}{p^j}\right).
  \]
  By induction on the number of factors, one readily verifies that for
  real numbers $0<x_j<1$, we have the inequality $\prod_{j=0}^{n}
  (1-x_j) > 1- \sum_{j=0}^{n} x_j$, which applied to the above product
  gives
  \[
  \mathbb{D}(H_p) = 1-\prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \left(1-\frac{1}{p^j}\right) < \sum_{j=n-k+1}^{n}
  \frac{1}{p^j} < \frac{1}{p^{n-k}(p-1)} < \frac{2}{p^2}.
  \]
  Finally, we have
  \[
  \overline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t \setminus E) = \overline{\mathbb{D}}(\cup_{p > p_t} H_p)
  \leq \sum_{p > p_t} \mathbb{D}(H_p) < \sum_{p > p_t} \frac{2}{p^2}
  \]
  which shows that $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} \overline{\mathbb{D}}(E_t
  \setminus E) = 0$ since the last series is the tail of the
  convergent series $ \sum_{p \in \mathbb{P}} \frac{2}{p^2}$. We can
  therefore apply the previous lemma and conclude that
  $\mathrm{d}_{k,n}=\mathbb{D}(E)$ exists and is equal to
  \[
  \mathrm{d}_{k,n}=\mathbb{D}(E) = \prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \prod_{p \in \mathbb{P}}
  \left(1-\frac{1}{p^j}\right) = \prod_{j=n-k+1}^{n} \zeta(j)^{-1}.
  \]

\end{proofofthm}

\section{Concluding Remarks and Further Results}

Proposition~\ref{prop}  does not cover the square
case $k=n$. Indeed, the zeta function is not defined when $n-k+1=1$
since $\zeta$ has a pole of order 1 at $x=1$. The following
result covers the square case.
\begin{lem}
The natural density of $n\times n$ unimodular matrices is
$\mathrm{d}_{n,n}=0$.
\end{lem}
Before we give a proof we remark that the product formula in
Proposition~\ref{prop} naturally has an extension to zero as
 $\lim_{x\rightarrow 1} (\zeta(x))^{-1}=0$.
\begin{proof}
  Each $n \times n$ matrix with $n^2-1$ entries in the range
  $\lbrack-B,B \lbrack$ can be completed by at most two values in
  order for this matrix to be unimodular, due to the Lagrange
  expansion of the determinant, which must be $\pm 1$. As such
  there are at most $2(2B)^{n^2-1}$ unimodular matrices with
  entries in $\lbrack-B,B \lbrack$.  The conclusion follows since
  $\mathrm{d}_{n,n} \leq \lim_{B \rightarrow \infty} 2(2B)^{n(n-1)} /
  (2B)^{n^2} = 0$.
\end{proof}

The result of Proposition~\ref{prop} can also be used in the
determination of the natural density of $k \times n$ matrices whose
Hermite normal form (HNF) is very simple. Recall that the HNF of a $k
\times n$ matrix $A$ is the unique $k \times n$ matrix $H$ of the
following form
\[
\left(
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & h_1 & h_{1,2} & \ldots & h_{1,n-k} \\
0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0 & h_2 &  \ldots & h_{2,n-k}\\
\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots &  \ddots &  \ddots &
\vdots\\
0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & 0 & \ldots & 0 & h_{k}
\end{array}
\right)
\]
where $0 \leq h_{i,j} < h_i$, such that there exists $U \in
\mbox{Gl}_n (\mathbb{Z})$ with $A=HU$, see e.g. \cite{cohen}. We have then the
following result.

\begin{thm}
  The density of $k \times n$ matrices whose Hermite normal form is
  the block matrix $\lbrack O_{k\times (n-k)} \, I_k \rbrack$ is
  $\mathrm{d}_{k,n}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The result follows from the fact that the set $E$ of $k \times n$
unimodular matrices over $\mathbb{Z}$ is the equal to the set $L$ of $k \times
n$ matrices whose HNF is the block matrix $\lbrack O_{k\times (n-k)}
\, I_k \rbrack$. Let us show that $E \subset L$. If $A \in E$
then there exists a unimodular square matrix $B$ such that $A$
consists in the last $k$ rows of $B$. The HNF of $B$ is the identity
matrix $I_n$. Indeed, it is a upper diagonal square matrix with
integer entries whose determinant is 1, which forces the diagonal
entries to be 1. The size condition of the coefficient of the HNF
forces the entries above the diagonal to be 0. Thus we have
$BU^{-1}=I_n$ for some $U \in \mbox{Gl}_n (\mathbb{Z})$, which gives
$AU^{-1}=\lbrack O_{k\times (n-k)} \, I_k \rbrack$. The
uniqueness of the HNF shows that $A \in L$. Let us show now that $L
\subset E$ by showing that the gcd of the $k \times k$ minors of a
matrix in $L$ are coprime. The equation $A = \lbrack O_{k\times (n-k)}
\, I_k \rbrack U$ shows that the $k \times k$ minors of $A$
are equal to the $k \times k$ minors of $\lbrack O_{k\times (n-k)} \,
I_k \rbrack$ which are 0 or 1, and thus coprime. This finishes
the proof of the corollary.
\end{proof}

Taking into account that the Smith normal form of a matrix
\cite{cohen} is obtained from the Hermite normal form via row
operations, an immediate consequence of this theorem is:

\begin{co}
The density of $k \times n$ matrices whose Smith normal form is the
block matrix $\lbrack O_{k\times (n-k)} \, I_k \rbrack$ is
$\mathrm{d}_{k,n}$.
\end{co}

Number Theory (math.NT); Rings and Algebras (math.RA)