Revisiting Generalized Bertand's Postulate and Prime Gaps

Abstract: It is a well-known fact that for any natural number $n$, there always exists a prime in $[n, 2n]$. Our aim in this note is to generalize this result to $[n, kn]$. A lower as well as an upper bound on the number of primes in $[n, kn]$ were conjectured by Mitra et al. [Arxiv 2009]. In 2016, Christian Axler provided a proof of the lower bound which is valid only when $n$ is greater than a very large threshold. In this paper, after almost a decade, we for the first time provide a direct proof of the lower bound that holds for all $n \geq 2$. Further, we show that the upper bound is a consequence of Firoozbakht's conjecture. Finally, we also prove a stronger version of the bounded gaps between primes.

\section{Introduction}
A branch of number theory studying distribution laws of prime numbers among natural numbers. The Prime Number Theorem~\cite{pnt} describes the asymptotic distribution of prime numbers. It gives us a general view of how primes are distributed amongst positive integers and also states that the primes become less common as they become larger.

In 1845, Joseph Bertrand postulated~\cite{bp} that, there is always a prime between $n$ and $2n$, and he verified this for $n < 3 \times 106$. Tchebychev gave an analytic proof of the postulate in 1850, and a short but advanced proof was given by Srinivasa Ramanujan~\cite{ram}. An elementary proof is due to Paul Erd{\"o}s~\cite{erdos}, and totally there are eighteen different proofs of Bertrand Postulate.

In 2009, Mitra, Paul, and Sarkar~\cite{mps} had generalized the Bertrand's postulate to conjecture that for any integers $n$, $a$ and $k$, where $a=\lceil 1.1 \ln (2.5k) \rceil$, there are at least $k-1$ primes between $n$ and $kn$ when
$n \geq a$. In 2016, Christian Axler provided a proof~\cite{ca} of this conjecture using an application of generalized Ramanujan primes. However, his proof works for sufficiently large positive integers. In this paper, for the first time, we provide a direct proof (Theorem~\ref{thm1}) of the generalized Bertrand's postulate for all positive integers $n \geq 2$. {\bf This is the main contribution of our work}.

By the Bertrand Postulate, we know about the minimum number of primes in certain intervals. Now, there is an important question: what about the upper bound on the number of primes in similar interesting intervals. In the same 2009 paper, Mitra, Paul, and Sarkar~\cite{mps} had also conjectured that the upper bound of the number of primes in $[n,kn]$ is $\frac{kn}{n}+k^2$. In this paper, we provide a proof this conjecture. However, for this proof, we need a lower bound of the prime gap function, i.e., the gap $g_n$ between consecutive primes $p_n$ and $p_{n+1}$. Prime number theorem formalizes the intuitive idea that primes become less common as they become larger by precisely quantifying the rate at which this occurs. If we notice on the prime gap function, the first, smallest, and the only odd prime gap is the gap of size 1 between 2, the only even prime number, and 3, the first odd prime. There is only one pair of consecutive gaps having length 2: the gaps $g_2$ and $g_3$ between the primes 3, 5, and 7. All other prime gaps are even. For any integer $n$, the factorial $n!$ is the product of all positive integers up to and including $n$. Then in the sequence
\begin{equation*}
 n! + 2 , n ! + 3 , \ldots, n ! + n
\end{equation*}
the first term is divisible by 2, the second term is divisible by 3, and so on. Thus, this is a sequence of $n-1$ consecutive composite integers, and it must belong to a gap between primes having length at least $n-1$.

It follows that there are gaps between primes that are arbitrarily large, that is, for any integer $N$, there is an integer $m$ with $g_m \geq N$. As of March 2017, the largest known prime gap with identified probable prime gap ends has length 5103138, with 216849-digit probable primes found by Robert W. Smith~\cite{trn}. The largest known prime gap with identified proven primes as gap ends has length 1113106, with 18662-digit primes found by P. Cami, M. Jansen and J. K. Andersen~\cite{and}~\cite{primegap}.

We also study the upper as well as the lower bound of the prime gap function and show how can we apply it to prove the upper bound on the number of primes in the interval $[n, kn]$ for any positive integer $n$ and $k$ $\geq 1$ (Theorem~\ref{thm2}). Note that this result is dependent on the validity of Firoozbakht's conjecture~\cite{fir1,fir2}. However, this is not the main contribution of our work, as is Theorem~\ref{thm1}.

As a third contribution, we give a refinement for the bounded gaps between primes. This result is stronger than Bertrand Postulate and J Nagura's Theorem~\cite{nagura}.
In this context, one should note that there exist some results that are better than Bertrand's Postulate, but they hold for sufficiently large values of $n$. In particular, here is a summary of them.
\begin{enumerate}
\item From the prime number theorem it follows that  for any real $\varepsilon> 0$ there is a $n_0 > 0$ such that for all $n > n_0$ there is a prime $p$ such $n < p < ( 1 + \varepsilon ) n$. It can be shown, for instance, that
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to\infty}  \frac{\pi((1+\varepsilon)n)-\pi(n)}{n / \log n} = \varepsilon.
\end{align*}
which implies that  $\pi( ( 1 + \varepsilon ) n )-\pi ( n )$ goes to infinity~\cite{res1}(and, in particular, is greater than 1 for sufficiently large $n$).
\item Non-asymptotic bounds have also been proved. In 1952, Jitsuro Nagura~\cite{res2} proved that for $n \geq 25$, there is always a prime between $n$ and $(1 + 1/5)n$.
\item In 1976, Lowell Schoenfeld~\cite{res3} showed that for $n \geq 2010760$, there is always a prime between $n$ and $(1 + 1/16597)n$.
\item In 1998, Pierre Dusart~\cite{res4} improved the result in his doctoral thesis, showing that for $k \geq 463$, $p_{k+1} \leq (1 + 1/(\ln^2p_k))p_k$, and in particular for $n \geq 3275$, there exists a prime number between $n$ and $(1 + 1/(2\ln^2n))n$.
\item In 2010, Pierre Dusart~\cite{res5} proved that for $n \geq 396738$ there is at least one prime between $n$ and $(1 + 1/(25 \ln^2n))n$.
\item In 2016, Pierre Dusart~\cite{res6} improved his result from 2010, showing that for $n \geq 468991632$ there is at least one prime between $n$ and $(1 + 1/(5000 \ln^2n))n$.
\item Baker, Harman and Pintz~\cite{res7} proved that there is a prime in the interval $\left[n, n+O\left(n^{21/40}\right)\right]$ for all large $n$.
\end{enumerate}
Our work is a contribution on existence of a prime in the interval $(n, g(n))$, where $g(n) = n+\frac{n}{\lceil{1.1 \ln (2.5n)}\rceil}$ for all $n \geq 2$. Note that, in contrast to the interval $\left[n, n+O\left(n^{21/40}\right)\right]$, our result holds for $n \geq 2$ (Theorem~\ref{gapthm}).

In this connection, one may note that there are several recent works~\cite{rel1, rel2, rel3, rel4, rel5, rel6, rel7, rel8, rel9} on ``Bounded gaps between primes" for \textit{sufficiently large primes}. However, our work holds for all positive integers greater than equal to 2 and hence the above works are not comparable with ours.

\section{Preliminaries}
In this section we discuss some well-known facts, which play a critical role to prove our main result.
\begin{prop}\label{prop1}
\textbf{(Bertrand's Postulate):} For any integer $n > 3$  there always exists at least one prime number $p$ with, $n < p < 2 n$.
\end{prop}
On this notation we state some sets and functions.
\begin{defin}\label{def1}
\textbf{(Prime gap function):} A prime gap is the difference between two successive prime numbers. The $n$-th prime gap, denoted by $g_n$ or $g(p_n)$ is the difference between the $(n + 1)$-th and the $n$-th prime numbers, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
g_n = p_{n+1} - p_n.
\end{equation*}
The function is neither multiplicative nor additive.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}\label{def2}
\textbf{(Prime counting function):} The prime-counting function is the function counting the number of prime numbers less than or equal to some real number $x$. It is denoted by $\pi(x)$.
\end{defin}
\begin{prop}\label{prop2}
\textbf{(Prime Number Theorem):} The prime number theorem~\cite{pnt} states that $\frac{x}{\log x}$ is a good approximation to $\pi(x)$, in the sense that the limit of the quotient of the two functions $\pi(x)$ and $\frac{x}{\log x}$ as $x$ increases without bound is 1:
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{x\to\infty} \frac{\pi(x)}{\frac{x}{\log x}} = 1.
\end{equation*}
known as the asymptotic law of distribution of prime numbers. Using asymptotic notation this result can be restated as
\begin{equation*}
\pi(x) \sim \frac{x}{\ log x} .
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{corollary}\label{cor1}
\textbf{(Bound for the $n$-th prime $p_n$):} The $n$-th prime number $p_n$ satisfies, $p_n \sim n \log n$ and the bound for the $n$-th prime number $p_n$ is~\cite{bnd}\cite{bnd2},
\begin{align*}
&n \ln n + n(\ln \ln n -1) < p_n < n \ln n + n(\ln \ln n)
\end{align*}
\begin{align}\label{eq1}
&\implies n\left( \ln \frac{n \ln n}{e} \right) < p_n < n \ln (n \ln n).
\end{align}
\end{corollary}
Now, we will state some important results of number theory which will help us to prove our main result.

{\bf Firoozbakht’s conjecture:} The conjecture~\cite{fir1,fir2} states that ${p_n}^{1/n}$ (where $p_n$ is the $n$th prime) is a strictly decreasing function of $n$, i.e.,
\begin{align*}
\sqrt[n+1]{p_{n+1}} < \sqrt[n]{p_n} \text{ for all } n\geq1.
\end{align*}
Equivalently:
\begin{align*}
p_{n+1} < {p_n}^{1+\frac{1}{n}} \text{ for all } n\geq1.
\end{align*}
Farideh Firoozbakht verified her conjecture up to $4.444×10^{12}$. Alexei Kourbatov~\cite{fir3} has verified the same for all primes below $10^{19}$.

\begin{corollary}\label{prop3} \textbf{(Upper bound of the Prime gap function):}
If Firoozbakht conjecture is true then the prime gap function $g_n$ would satisfy~\cite{fir4}
\begin{align*}
 g_n < ( \log  p_n )^2 - \log  p_n  \text{ for all } n > 4.
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}

\begin{prop}\label{prop4}
Let $p_n$ be the $n$-th prime where $n \geq 1$. Then the following inequality is true:
\begin{align*}
n+1 \leq p_n.
\end{align*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We proof this inequality, by the method of Mathematical Induction.
For $n = 1$, $p_1 = 2$, then equality holds. For, $n < 4$ this inequality holds trivially.
Now, let us assume that this inequality is true for $n-1$. So, we can write,
\begin{align*}
(n-1)+1 = n < p_{n-1}, \forall n \geq 4.
\end{align*}
 Now, for the $n$-th prime $p_n$,
\begin{align*}
&n < n+1 \leq p_{n-1} < p_n, \forall n \geq 4 \\
\implies & n+1 \leq p_n.
\end{align*}
So, by the Induction Hypothesis this inequality holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{prop}\label{prop5}
\textbf{ (Lower Bound of the Prime gap function):} Corollary~\ref{prop3} implies a strong form of Cramer's conjecture~\cite{crcn}\cite{crcn1}~\cite{crcn2} but is inconsistent with the heuristics of Granville and Pintz which suggests that,
\begin{equation*}
g_n > \frac{2- \varepsilon}{e^\gamma}(\log p_n)^2.
\end{equation*}
infinitely often for any $\varepsilon > 0$, where $\gamma$ denotes the Euler Mascheroni constant.
\end{prop}

\begin{defin}\label{def5}
\textbf{ (Primorial):} For the nth prime number $p_n$, the primorial $p_n\#$ is defined as the product of the first $n$ primes
\begin{align*}
p_n \# = \prod_{k=1}^{n} p_k,
\end{align*}
where $p_k$ is the $k$-th prime number.
\end{defin}
In the classic proof of $Bertrand$ $Postulate$ by Paul Erd{\"o}s~\cite{erdos},
it is shown that,
\begin{align*}\label{eq8}
x\#<4^x,
\end{align*}
where $x\#$ is the primorial for $x$.
\begin{prop}\label{prop6}
For all $n \geq 2$, $n\# = {\prod_{p \leq n}} p \leq 4^n$, where the product is over primes.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We proceed by induction on $n$. For small values of $n$, the claim is easily verified. For larger even $n$ we have
\begin{align*}
 {\prod_{p \leq n}} p =  {\prod_{p \leq n}} p \leq 4^{n-1} \leq 4^n,
\end{align*}
the equality following from the fact that, $n$ is even and so not a prime, and the first inequality following from the inductive hypothesis. For larger odd $n$ say $n = 2m+1$, we have
\begin{align*}
&{\prod_{p \leq n}} p =  {\prod_{p \leq m+1}} p  {\prod_{m+2 \leq p \leq 2m+1}} p \\
\leq& 4^{m+1} \binom{2m+1}{m}\\
\leq&4^{m+1}2^{2m} = 4^{2m+1} = 4^n.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\section{Generalization of Bertrand's Postulate}
In this section our aim is to prove the Generalization of Bertrand's Postulate. Before proving that, we discuss some intermediate results that will lead to our first main result.
\begin{defin}
For the positive integer $a$ and $b$ we denote the set of integers $a, a+1, \ldots, b$ by $[a, b]$.
\end{defin}
\begin{defin}\label{def6}
Define the set $S_i$, as
\begin{equation}\label{eq2}
S_i = \{k : f(k) = i+1\},
\end{equation}
where $f(k) = \lceil 1.1 \ln(2.5k) \rceil$ and $k \in \mathbb{N}$.
\end{defin}
\begin{prop}
For all values of $k \geq 2$,
\begin{equation*}
f(k+1) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
   either f(k) & \\or,f(k)+1; \\
  \end{array} \right.
\end{equation*}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof} Definition~\ref{def6} makes this result obvious. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem1} Let, $f(k) = \lceil 1.1 \ln(2.5k) \rceil$, then the inequality,
 \begin{equation}\label{eq3}
\left|{\left(\log{p_{\left(f(k)+k-3\right)}}\right)}^2 - \left(\log{p_{(f(k)+k-3)}}\right)\right| \ < \left(k+1)(f(k)+1\right) - p_{\left(f(k)+k-3\right)}.
\end{equation}
holds for all $k \geq 5$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us consider that $n$ = $f(k)+k-3$, $\forall k \geq 5$. Now, $k$ is an integer, so we can reduce the inequality in terms of $k$ and $n$, which is,
\begin{equation}\label{eq4}
\left|(\log p_n)^2 - (\log p_n)\right| <  (k+1)(n+3-k) - p_n.
\end{equation}
We will use the bound for the $n$-th prime $p_n$ as stated in Corollary~\ref{cor1}. So from inequality~\eqref{eq1}, the inequality~\eqref{eq4} become,
\begin{align*}
&\left|(\log p_n)^2 - (\log p_n)\right| \\
<& \left|\left(\log {(n \ln (n \ln n)}\right)^2 - \left(\log n  \left(\ln\frac{n \ln n}{e}\right)\right)\right| \\
<& (k+1)(n+3-k) - n \left(\ln\frac{n \ln n}{e}\right) \\
<& (k+1)(n+3-k) - p_n.
\end{align*}
If we can prove the inequality,
\begin{equation}\label{eq5}
 \left|\left(\log {(n \ln (n \ln n)}\right)^2 - \left(\log n  \left(\ln\frac{n \ln n}{e}\right)\right)\right| < (k+1)(n+3-k) - n \left(\ln\frac{n \ln n}{e}\right), \forall k \geq 5.
\end{equation}
then we are done.\\
By our assumption, $n = f(k)+k-3$, $n \geq k$.\\
Therefore, $n \ln (n \ln n) < n + 3 - k$ holds, $\forall n$ and $k$. Now,
\begin{align*}
&\left(\log {\left(n \ln (n \ln n)\right)}\right)^2
<\log {(n \ln (n \ln n)}) (k+1) \\
&<(n + 3 - k) (k+1).
\end{align*}
Again, we have,$\big(\log ( n \ln (n \ln n)\big) < n \left(\ln\frac{n \ln n}{e}\right)$.
From this we can conclude the inequality~\eqref{eq5}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem2}
Let, $f(k) = \lceil 1.1 \ln(2.5k) \rceil $, then the inequality,
\begin{equation}\label{eq6}
\left|{\left(\log{p_{(f(k)+k +r)}}\right)}^2 - \left(\log{p_{(f(k)+k +r)}}\right)\right| \ < \ (k+4+r)(f(k)+1) - p_{(f(k)+k +r)}.
\end{equation}
holds for all $k \geq 5$, where $r \in [-2, \infty) \in \mathbb{Z}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We will prove this inequality, by induction on $r$.

For the base case, we have to show that for $r = -2$, this inequality,
\begin{equation}\label{eq7}
\left|{\left(\log{p_{(f(k)+k -2)}}\right)}^2 - \left(\log{p_{(f(k)+k -2)}}\right)\right| \ < \ (k+2)(f(k)+1) - p_{(f(k)+k -2)}.
\end{equation}
holds.
As we proof the inequality in Lemma~\ref{lem1}, we can prove this by the similar argument, where $n = f(k)+k-2$.

Let us assume that the inequality~\eqref{eq7} is true for $r$, where $n = f(k)+k+r$.
Now, for $r+1$, we have $n+1 = f(k)+k+r+1$. The inequality becomes,
\begin{align*}
&\left|\left(\log {((n+1) \ln ((n+1) \ln (n+1))}\right)^2 - \left(\log (n+1) \ln \frac{(n+1) \ln (n+1)}{e}\right)\right|\\
<&(k+4+r+1)(n-k-r) - (n+1) (\ln\frac{(n+1) \ln (n+1)}{e}).
\end{align*}
As we proved the inequality~\eqref{eq3}, in Lemma~\ref{lem1}, we can prove this by the similar argument.
So, by the Induction Hypothesis, the inequality~\eqref{eq6} holds.
\end{proof}
Now we are in a position to prove our first main result.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
For any integers $n$ and $k$, where $f(k) = \lceil 1.1 \ln(2.5k) \rceil$, then there are at least $(k-1)$ primes between $n$ and $kn$, when $n \geq f(k)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on the number of elements $k \in S_i$ and on $i$, index of the set $S_i$. We divide this proof into two parts.

\textbf{{First part:}} In this part we prove that this theorem is true for all $k \in S_i$.
To prove this, take any set $S_i$, $\forall i = 1, 2, \ldots$.\\
For the base step of the induction, consider $min\{S_i\} = k_{min}$.
We have to prove that there are at least $\left(min\{S_i\}\right)-1$ primes between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[f\left(min\{S_i\}\right), \left(min\{S_i\} \times f\left(min\{S_i\}\right)\right)\right].
\end{align*}
For this gap we start our prime counting from $p_i$, and clearly,
\begin{align*}
 p_i \in \left[f\left(min\{S_i\}\right), \left(min\{S_i\} \times f\left(min\{S_i\}\right)\right) \right].
\end{align*}
Now, we have to prove that,
\begin{align*}
p_{i+(min\{S_i\})-2} \in \left[f\left(min\{S_i\}\right), \left(min\{S_i\} \times f\left(min\{S_i\}\right)\right) \right].
\end{align*}
Since, we have $i = f(min\{S_i\})-1$, so now if we able prove that,
\begin{align*}
p_{(f(min\{S_i\})+min\{S_i\}-3)} \in \left[f\left(min\{S_i\}\right), \left(min\{S_i\} \times f\left(min\{S_i\}\right)\right)\right],
\end{align*}
then we are done. Thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem2}, this result holds.
Now we start our inductive argument to prove that if this theorem is true for $min\{S_i\}$, then it is also true for all elements of $\{S_i\}$. Let us assume that this theorem is true for an element $k \in S_i$ and $k \ne max\{S_i\}$. Since, by our assumption we can say that there exist $k-1$ primes between the gap
\begin{align*}
\left[f(k), \left(k\times f(k)\right)\right].
\end{align*}
By the definition of the set $S_i$, $f(k)$ remains same for all $k \in S_i$. To prove, the $first$ $part$ of this theorem we have to prove that there exist $k$ primes between the gap
\begin{align*}
\left[f(k+1), \left(k+1\times f(k+1)\right)\right].
\end{align*}
So, we can start our prime counting from $p_i$. We have to prove that, there exists at least one prime between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[k\times f(k), k+1 \times f(k)\right].
\end{align*}
By the Lemma~\ref{lem2}, which is true.

So, Induction shows that this theorem is true for all $k \in S_i$.

\textbf{Second part:} In the $second$ $part$ of the proof we prove that this theorem is true for all such set $S_i, \forall i = 1, 2, \ldots$. We proceed by induction on $i$.

For the base step of the induction we have $S_1 = \{2\}$ and $f(2) = 2$. Clearly, $2 < 3 < 4$, here 3 is the required prime.

Now,  we start our prime counting for the set $S_i$, from, $p_i$, where $p_i$ is the $i$-th prime. Clearly,
\begin{align*}
p_i \in \left[f(k), kf(k)\right].
\end{align*}

Let us assume that this theorem is true for the set $S_{i-1}, \forall i \geq 1$. Then by the $first$ $part$ of the proof we can say that for all elements of $S_{i-1}$ this theorem holds.
By the $first$ $part$ of the proof this theorem holds for $max\{S_{i-1}\}$. Now, we show that this also holds for $min\{S_i\}$.

For the set $S_i$,
\begin{align*}
f(min\{S_i\}) = i+1 \implies i = f(min\{S_i\}) -1.
\end{align*}
We have started, the counting of primes for the set $S_i$ from $p_i$, where $p_i$ is the $i$-th prime.\\
Then for the set $S_{i-1}$ we count $max\{S_{i-1}\}-1$ primes from $p_{i-1}$. So, clearly between the gap
\begin{align*}
\left[f(min\{S_i\}) = f(max\{S_{i-1}\})+1, max\{S_{i-1}\} \times f(max\{S_{i-1}\})\right],
\end{align*}
there are at least $max\{S_{i-1}\}-2$ primes.

Now, we have to show that there are at least 2-primes between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[max\{S_{i-1}\}f(max\{S_{i-1}\}), (max\{S_{i-1}\}+1)f(max\{S_{i-1}\}+1)\right].
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{align*}
max\{S_{i-1}\}+1 = min\{S_i\}
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
f(max\{S_{i-1}\})+1 = f(min\{S_i\}).
\end{align*}
By the prime gap function $g_n$, and Lemma~\ref{lem1}, we have proved that there are at least 2-primes between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[max\{S_{i-1}\}f(max\{S_{i-1}\}), (max\{S_{i-1}\}+1)f(max\{S_{i-1}\}+1)\right].
\end{align*}
Induction shows that this conjecture is true for all set $S_i$.
From the $first$ and $second$ part of this proof we can say that this theorem is true for all elements of the set $S_i$, and it is also true for all such set $S_i, \forall i = 1, 2, \ldots$, which implies that there are at least $(k-1)$ primes between $n$ and $kn$, when $n \geq f(k)$, where $f(k) = \lceil 1.1 \ln(2.5k)\rceil$ and $k \in \mathbb{Z}$.

We have proved the $Generalization$ $of$ $Bertrand's$ $Postulate$.
\end{proof}

\section{Upper bound on the number of primes}
In this section, we prove the upper bound on the number of primes for the interval $[n,kn]$, where $n, k$ are positive integers greater than equal to 2. To prove our main result of this section, first we state and prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem3}
Let $n$ be a non-zero positive integer $\geq 5$. Then the inequality
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{2n}{9}+4\right) \times \left(\log n \ln (n \ln n)\right)^2 > n
\end{align*}
holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on $n$.

For the base step of the induction consider $n = 5$, we can write,
\begin{align*}
&\left(\frac{2 \times 5}{9}+4\right) \times \left(\log 5 \ln (5 \ln 5)\right)^2 \\
&=  5.111 \times 0.018 = 5.202 > 5.
\end{align*}
So, the base case holds.\\
Now, let us assume that this inequality is true for some $n$. We have,
\begin{align*}
&\left(\frac{2n}{9}+4\right) \times \left(\log n \ln (n \ln n)\right)^2 > n
\end{align*}

Now,

\begin{align*}
&\left(\frac{2n}{9}+4\right) \times \left(\log (n+1) \ln ((n+1) \ln (n+1)\right)^2 +\\
&\frac{2}{9} \times  \left(\log (n+1) \ln ((n+1) \ln (n+1)\right)^2\\
>&n+  \frac{2}{9} \times  \left(\log (n+1) \ln ((n+1) \ln (n+1)\right)^2\\
>&n+1.
\end{align*}
This implies, the inequality holds for $(n+1)$ as well.
\end{proof}

Now we prove our second main result~\cite{mps}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Given a positive integer $k$, then the number of primes between $n$ and $kn$, for any positive integer $n$, is bounded by $\frac{kn}{9}+k^2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on $k$.

For the base step of the induction consider $k = 2$, the upper bound on the number of primes between the gap $[n, 2n]$ is $\frac{2n}{9}+4$.
To prove this we use the lower bound of the prime gap function $g_n$, given by Proposition~\ref{prop5}, as Corollary~\ref{prop3} implies a strong form of Cramer's conjecture~\cite{crcn}\cite{crcn1}\cite{crcn2}, but is inconsistent with the heuristics of Granville and Pintz which suggests the following:
\begin{equation*}
g_n > \frac{2- \varepsilon}{e^\gamma}(\log p_n)^2.
\end{equation*}
infinitely often for any $\varepsilon > 0$, where $\gamma$ denotes the Euler Mascheroni constant.
We can approximate the part
\begin{align*}
\frac{2-\varepsilon}{e^\gamma}.
\end{align*}
Since, $g_n$ is a prime gap function, so it can not be negative. The maximum possible value of $\varepsilon$ is 2.

As we know the value of
\begin{align*}
&e \approx 2.718 \ldots, \text{ and } \gamma \approx 1.781062\ldots\\
\implies & \frac{2-\varepsilon}{e^\gamma} \approx 0.561 \ldots \approx 1.
\end{align*}
We are using the counting method to prove this upper bound. If we take the minimum gaps between primes that is the lower bound of prime gap function, then we can count the maximum number of primes for any interval.
To do so we have to prove the inequality,
\begin{align*}
\frac{2n}{9}+4 \times (\log p_n)^2 > 2n - n = n.
\end{align*}
We will use the upper bound of the $n$-th prime $p_n$, which we have stated in the section of known result. So, the inequality becomes,
\begin{align*}
\frac{2n}{9}+4 \times \left(\log n \ln (n \ln n)\right)^2 > 2n - n = n.
\end{align*}

Thanks to  Lemma~\ref{lem3} base case holds.  we can now modify the proof of this theorem inductively. Now let us assume that the inequality,
\begin{align*}
\left(\frac{kn}{9}+k^2\right) \times \left(\log (n \ln (n \ln n)) \right)^2 > kn - n = (k-1)n.
 \end{align*}
is true. So, we can write,
\begin{align*}
&\left(\frac{kn}{9}+k^2\right) \times  \left(\log (n \ln (n \ln n)) \right)^2 + \left(\frac{n}{9} + 2k + 1\right) \times  \left(\log (n \ln (n \ln n)) \right)^2\\
=&\left(\frac{(k+1)n}{9}+(k+1)^2\right) \times  \left(\log (n \ln (n \ln n)) \right)^2 \\
>& \left((k-1)n\right) +  \left(\frac{n}{9} + 2k + 1\right) \times  \left(\log (n \ln (n \ln n)) \right)^2\\
>& (k-1)n + n\\
=& kn.
\end{align*}
Induction shows that for a given  positive integer $k$, the number of primes between $n$ and $kn$, for any positive integer $n$, is bounded by $\frac{kn}{9}+k^2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Gaps between Primes}
In this section, we construct the interval $[n, g(n)]$, for $g(n) = n+\frac{n}{\lceil{1.1 \ln (2.5n)}\rceil}$, containing at least one prime. This is our third main result and it is stronger than Bertrand's Postulate and J. Nagura's Theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{gapthm}
There exist at least one prime number $p$ with,\\ $kf(k) <p < k(f(k)+1)$, where $f(k) =  \lceil 1.1 \ln(2.5k)\rceil$ and $k \in \mathbb{Z}^+$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on $k$. We prove this theorem into two parts. For the $first$ $part$, we use inductive argument on $k$, for which $f(k)$ is same. In the $second$ $part$, we use inductive argument on $k$, for which $f(k+1) = f(k)+1$.

\textbf{ First Part:} In this part we prove that this theorem is true for all $k$, such that $f(k+1) = f(k)$.
For the base step of the induction consider, $k = 2$ and $f(2) = 2$. Trivially, we can write, $4 < 5 < 6$, where $p_3 = 5$.
To complete our inductive argument now let us assume that, there exist a prime $p_m$ between the gap
\begin{align*}
\left[kf(k), k(f(k)+1)\right],
\end{align*}
for some integer $m$, and $p_m$ is the $m$-th prime. Then we have to prove that, there exist at least one prime between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[(k+1)f(k), (k+1)(f(k)+1)\right].
\end{align*}
Trivially, we can write $m < kf(k)$. So, if we can prove that,
\begin{align*}
p_{m+r} \in \left[(k+1)f(k), (k+1)(f(k)+1)\right],
\end{align*}
for some integer $r \geq 1$ then we are done. By our assumption,
\begin{equation*}
 kf(k) < p_m < kf(k)+k,
\end{equation*}
this inequality holds. Then we have to prove that there exist at least one prime between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[(k+1)f(k), (k+1)(f(k)+1)\right].
\end{align*}
There are two possible cases to consider.

\textbf{Case (i):} If $p_m > (k+1)f(k)$, then there is nothing to prove.

\medskip

\textbf{Case (ii):} If $p_m < (k+1)f(k)$, then we have to show that
\begin{align*}
p_{m+r} < (k+1)(f(k+1)),
\end{align*}
for some integer $r \geq 1$. So we can write,
\begin{align*}
&p_{m+r} = p_m+\sum_{i=1}^{r} g_{m+i} < (k+1)f(k)+\sum_{i=1}^{r} \left(\left(\log p_{m+i}\right)^2-\log p_{m+i}\right)\\
\implies&p_m+\sum_{i=1}^{r} g_{m+i} < (k+1)f(k)+\sum_{i=1}^{r} \left(\log p_{m+i}\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^{r} \left(\log p_{m+i}\right)\\
=&(k+1)f(k)+\left(\log p_{m+1}+ \ldots +\log p_{m+r}\right)^2-\left(\log p_{m+1}+ \ldots +\log p_{m+r}\right)\\
=&(k+1)f(k)+\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right)^2-\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right).\\
\end{align*}
From the proposition~\ref{prop6}, we can write,
\begin{align*}
&(k+1)f(k)+\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right)^2-\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right)\\
<&(k+1)f(k)+\left(\log {\frac{4^{p_{m+r}}}{4^{p_m}}}\right)^2-\left(\log {\frac{4^{p_{m+r}}}{4^{p_m}}}\right)\\
<&(k+1)f(k)+\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \log 4\right)^2-\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \log 4\right)\\
=&(k+1)f(k)+\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \times 0.6020\right)^2-\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \times 0.6020\right)\\
<&(k+1)f(k)+\left((p_{m+r}-(k+1)f(k)) \times 0.6020\right)^2-\left((p_{m+r}-(k+1)f(k)) \times 0.6020\right)\\
<&(k+1)f(k)+(k+1) = (k+1)(f(k)+1).
\end{align*}
So, Induction shows that there exists a prime between the gap
\begin{align*}
\left[(k+1)f(k), (k+1)(f(k)+1)\right].
\end{align*}
\textbf{ Second Part:} In this part we prove that this theorem is true $k$, such that $f(k+1) = f(k)+1$.

For the base step of the induction, $k = 2$ and $f(2) = 2$. The desired inequality holds trivially.

Now we start our inductive argument. Let us assume that there exists a prime $p_m$ between the gap $kf(k)$ and $k(f(k)+1)$, for some integer $m$, and $p_m$ (the $m$-th prime). Then we have to show that there exist one prime between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[(k+1)(f(k)+1), (k+1)(f(k)+2)\right].
\end{align*}
So, if we can prove that
\begin{align*}
p_{m+r} \in \left[(k+1)(f(k)+1), (k+1)(f(k)+2)\right],
\end{align*}
for some integer $r \geq 1$, then we are done. By our assumption,
\begin{equation*}
 kf(k) < p_m < kf(k)+k,
\end{equation*}
holds. Then we have to prove that there exist at least one prime between the gap
\begin{align*}
\left[(k+1)(f(k)+1), (k+1)(f(k)+2)\right].
\end{align*}
There are two possible cases.

\textbf{ Case (i):} If $p_m > (k+1)(f(k)+1)$, then there is nothing to prove.

\medskip

\textbf{ Case (ii):} If $p_m <(k+1)(f(k)+1)$, then we have to show that,
\begin{align*}
p_{m+r} < (k+1)(f(k+2)),
\end{align*}
for some integer $r \geq 1$. So, we can write,
\begin{align*}
&p_{m+r} = p_m+\sum_{i=1}^{r} g_{m+i} < (k+1)(f(k)+1)+\sum_{i=1}^{r} \left(\left(\log p_{m+i}\right)^2-\log p_{m+i}\right)\\
\implies&p_m+\sum_{i=1}^{r} g_{m+i} < (k+1)(f(k)+1)+\sum_{i=1}^{r} \left(\log p_{m+i}\right)^2-\sum_{i=1}^{r} \left(\log p_{m+i}\right)\\
=&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left(\log p_{m+1}+ \ldots +\log p_{m+r}\right)^2-\left(\log p_{m+1}+ \ldots +\log p_{m+r}\right)\\
=&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right)^2-\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right).\\
\end{align*}
By the Proposition~\ref{prop6}, we can write,
\begin{align*}
&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right)^2-\left(\log {\frac{p_{m+r}\#}{p_m\#}}\right)\\
<&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left(\log {\frac{4^{p_{m+r}}}{4^{p_m}}}\right)^2-\left(\log {\frac{4^{p_{m+r}}}{4^{p_m}}}\right)\\
<&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \log 4\right)^2-\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \log 4\right)\\
=&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \times 0.6020\right)^2-\left((p_{m+r}-p_m) \times 0.6020\right)\\
<&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+\left((p_{m+r}-(k+1)(f(k)+1)) \times 0.6020\right)^2\\
&-\left((p_{m+r}-(k+1)(f(k)+1)) \times 0.6020\right)\\
<&(k+1)(f(k)+1)+(k+1) = (k+1)(f(k)+2).
\end{align*}
Hence, by the Induction Hypothesis we have proved that there exists a prime between the gap,
\begin{align*}
\left[(k+1)(f(k)+1),(k+1)(f(k)+2))\right].
\end{align*}
By the $first$ and $second$ part of the proof and Induction Hypothesis theorem~\ref{gapthm} is true.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
The statement in the Theorem~\ref{gapthm}, states about the gap, between which there exist at least one prime. This gap is smaller than the gap which stated in Bertrand's Postulate and J Nagura's Theorem for all $k \geq 38$. To see this, let
\begin{align*}
&n = k \times f(k), \mbox{where} f(k) = \lceil 1.1\ln(2.5k) \rceil
\implies n \geq k,
\end{align*}
because for all $k \geq 2$, $f(k) \geq 2$. In Bertrand's Postulate, the length of the gap is $n$ and in our result the length of the gap is $k$. Similarly, we can prove that our gap is smaller than that of J Nagura's Theorem.
\end{rem}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\begin{minipage}[t]{1.0\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2,font=\scriptsize]

\begin{axis}[title={\textbf{Graph for the interval $n\in[240,300]$}},xlabel={n \in mathbb{N}},xlabel={$n$},ylabel={$g(n)$},legend style={at={(axis cs:235,550)},anchor=south west}]
\addplot[mark=none,dotted,thick, color=black] table[x index=0,y index=1,col sep=comma] {datax.dat};
\addlegendentry{Bertrand Postulate}

\addplot[mark=none,dashed,thick, color=black] table[x index=0,y index=2,col sep=comma] {datax.dat};
\addlegendentry{J. Nagura's Result

\addplot[mark=none,solid,thick, color=black] table[x index=0,y index=3,col sep=comma] {datax.dat};
\addlegendentry{Our Result}

\end{axis}

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{\scriptsize {Comparing the interval between which a prime must exist, according to Bertrand' Postulate, J. Nagura's theorem and Our Result}}
\label{f3}
\end{minipage}

\end{figure}

In this graph, we have compared the different intervals $(n, g(n))$, where
$g(n) = 2n$ for Bertrand Postulate (dotted line),  $g(n) = \frac{6}{5}n$ for J. Nagura's Theorem (dashed line) and $g(n) = n+\frac{n}{\lceil 1.1\ln(2.5n)\rceil}$ for our Theorem~\ref{gapthm} (solid line). Note that, for $n = 240$, the value of $g(n)$ is
480, 288 and 280 respectively for the three cases.

\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we have proved Generalization of Bertrand's Postulate and upper bound on the number of primes in the interval $n$ and $kn$, for any positive integer $n$ and $k \geq 1$. To derive the lower bound, no unproven conjecture is required. However, to prove the upper bound, we have used the lower bound of the prime gap function, which comes as a consequence of Firoozbakht's conjecture.
Finally, we have also been able to tighten the threshold beyond $n$, before which there must exit at least one prime.

\makeatletter
\renewcommand{\@biblabel}[1]{[#1]\hfill}
\makeatother


Digraphs from Endomorphisms of Finite Cyclic Groups

Abstract: We associate each endomorphism of a finite cyclic group with a digraph and study many properties of this digraph, including its adjacent matrix and automorphism group.

\section{Introduction}

As we all know, we can construct Cayley graphs and Cayley digraphs from a group, and these graphs are vertex-transitive.
In this article, we construct digraphs from a finite cyclic group by using its endomorphisms. In general,
these digraphs are not vertex-transitive. But they have many good properties which may make them into beautiful graphs and may
merit further researches.

Let $H$ be a finite cyclic group with $n$ elements, $n>1$, we treat it as a multiplicative group.
We denote its identity element by $1$ without confusion.
 As we all know, $H$ has $n$ endomorphisms, every endomorphism has a unique form $f:H \to H,x\to x^k,k\in \mathbb{Z}, 1\le k\le n$,
and $f$ is an isomorphism if and only if $n$ and $k$ are coprime.
We can consider the digraph that has the elements of $H$
as vertices and a directed edge from $a$ to $b$ if and only if $f(a)=b$.
Since cyclic groups with the same order are isomorphic, this digraph only depends on $n$ and $k$.
So we can denote this digraph by $G(n,k)$. For example, see Figure 1 in section 4.
\cite{B} studied the digraph from any endomorphism of $\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z}$,
especially the author studied the number of cycles.
\cite{BHM}, \cite{R} and \cite{VS} studied the digraph from the endomorphism $f(x)=x^2$ of $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^{*}$, $p$ is a prime.
In particular, the cycle and tree structures have been classified.
\cite{LMR} generalized those results in \cite{BHM} to the digraph from any endomorphism of $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^{*}$.
\cite{SH} studied some elementary properties of the digraph from any endomorphism of $(\mathbb{F}_{q})^{*}$,
$\mathbb{F}_{q}$ is a finite field with $q$ elements.

In section 2 and section 3, we generalize those results in \cite{LMR} to $G(n,k)$, and we consider many other properties of $G(n,k)$.
In section 4 and section 5, we consider its adjacency matrix and automorphism group respectively,
furthermore we determine its characteristic polynomial and minimal polynomial.

Especially, the results here may have applications to monomial dynamical systems over finite fields, see \cite{SH}.

\section{Basic Properties of $G(n,k)$}

Given two integers $l$ and $m$, we denote their greatest common divisor and least common multiple
by $(l,m)$ and $[l,m]$ respectively.

First we factor $n$ as $tw$ where $t$ is the largest factor of $n$ relatively prime to $k$.
So $(k,t)=1$ and $(w,t)=1$. For any $a\in H$, Let ord$(a)$ denote its order.

 For proceeding further, we need the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{solution}
Let $a\in H$, the equation $x^{k}=a$ has a solution if and only if $a^{\frac{n}{d}}=1$, $d=(n,k)$.
Moreover, if the equation has a solution, it has exactly $d$ solutions.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Applying the same argument as Proposition 7.1.2 in \cite{IR}.
\end{proof}

The following lemma is easy to prove but fundamental to the understanding of the structure of $G(n,k)$.
We omit its proof and refer the readers to \cite{LMR}.
\begin{lem}\label{basic}
We have the following elementary properties of $G(n,k)$.

{\rm(1)} The outdegree of any vertex in $G(n,k)$ is $1$.

{\rm(2)} The indegree of any vertex in $G(n,k)$ is $0$ or $(n,k)$. Moreover, the indegree of $a\in G$ is $(n,k)$ if and only if $a^{\frac{n}{(n,k)}}=1$.

{\rm(3)} $G(n,k)$ has $n$ vertices and $n$ directed edges.

{\rm(4)} Given $a,b\in H$, there exists a directed path from $a$ to $b$ if and only if there exists a positive integer $m$ such that $a^{k^{m}}=b$.

{\rm(5)} Given any element in $G(n,k)$, repeated iteration of $f$ will eventually lead to a cycle.

{\rm(6)} Every component of $G(n,k)$ contains exactly one cycle.

{\rm(7)} The set of non-cycle vertices forms a forest.
\end{lem}

\begin{prop}\label{indegree}
The number of the vertices with indegree $0$ is $\frac{d-1}{d}n$, where $d=(n,k)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{solution}, a vertex $a$ has non-zero indegree if and only if $a^{\frac{n}{d}}=1$.
Hence, the vertices with non-zero indegree form a subset $H_{d}=\{x\in H|x^{\frac{n}{d}}=1\}$.
It is well-known that $H_{d}$ is a cyclic subgroup of $H$ with $\frac{n}{d}$ elements. So we get the desired result.
\end{proof}

As follows, we want to study the cycle structures of $G(n,k)$.

\begin{prop}\label{vertex}
The vertex $a$ is a cycle vertex if and only if ${\rm ord}(a)|t$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $a$ is a cycle vertex. Then there exists a positive integer $m$ such that $a^{k^{m}}=a$.
So ${\rm ord}(a)|(k^{m}-1)$, which implies $({\rm ord}(a),k)=1$. So $({\rm ord}(a),w)=1$.
Note that ${\rm ord}(a)|n$, then ${\rm ord}(a)|t$.

Conversely, suppose ${\rm ord}(a)|t$. Then $({\rm ord}(a),k)=1$. So there exists a positive integer $m$
such that ${\rm ord}(a)|(k^{m}-1)$, which implies $a^{k^{m}}=a$. So $a$ is a cycle vertex.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
There are exactly $t$ cycle vertices in $G(n,k)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
From Proposition \ref{vertex}, the total number of cycle vertices is $\sum\limits_{d|t}\varphi(d)=t$,
where $\varphi$ is the Euler's $\varphi$-function, and $\varphi(d)$ is the number of elements with order $d$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{same order}
Vertices in the same cycle have the same order.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Assume $a$ and $b$ are in the same cycle. So there exists a $m$ such that $a^{k^{m}}=b$, which implies $b^{{\rm ord}(a)}=1$.
So ${\rm ord}(b)|{\rm ord}(a)$. Similarly, we have ${\rm ord}(a)|{\rm ord}(b)$. So ${\rm ord}(a)={\rm ord}(b)$.
\end{proof}

By Proposition \ref{same order}, the notion of the order of a cycle is well-defined.
Let $\ell(d)$ denote the length of a cycle with order $d$, where $d|t$. If two integers $l$ and $m$ are coprime,
let ${\rm ord}_{l}m$ denote the exponent of $m$ modulo $l$.
\begin{prop}\label{cycle}
Let $d$ and $r$ be orders of cycles. Then:

$(1)$ $\ell(d)={\rm ord}_{d}k$.

$(2)$ The longest cycle length in $G(n,k)$ is $\ell(t)={\rm ord}_{t}k$.

$(3)$ There are $\varphi(d)/\ell(d)$ cycles of order $d$.

$(4)$ The total number of cycles in $G(n,k)$ is $\sum\limits_{d|t}\frac{\varphi(d)}{\ell(d)}$.

$(5)$ $\ell([d,r])=[\ell(d),\ell(r)]$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(1) Let $a$ be a vertex in a cycle of order $d$. It is obvious that $\ell(d)$ is the smallest positive integer
such that $a^{k^{\ell(d)}}=a$, that is the smallest positive integer such that $d|(k^{\ell(d)}-1)$. So $\ell(d)={\rm ord}_{d}k$.

(2) By (1) and Proposition \ref{vertex}.

(3) Notice that the number of elements with order $d$ is $\varphi(d)$.

(4) By (3) and Proposition \ref{vertex}.

(5) Since $d|[d,r]$, $\ell(d)|\ell([d,r])$. Similarly, we have $\ell(r)|\ell([d,r])$.
So $[\ell(d),\ell(r)]|\ell([d,r])$. In addition, since $d|(k^{\ell(d)}-1)$, $d|(k^{[\ell(d),\ell(r)]}-1)$.
Similarly, $r|(k^{[\ell(d),\ell(r)]}-1)$. So $[d,r]|(k^{[\ell(d),\ell(r)]}-1)$. Hence, $\ell([d,r])|[\ell(d),\ell(r)]$.
So we have $\ell([d,r])=[\ell(d),\ell(r)]$.
\end{proof}

But $\ell((d,r))=(\ell(d),\ell(r))$ is not always true. For example, let $k=2, d=11$ and $r=15$,
we have $(11,15)=1$ and $\ell(1)=1$, but $(\ell(11),\ell(15))=(10,4)=2$.

\begin{rem}
{\rm Let $\mu$ be M$\ddot{\rm o}$bius function. Similar as Proposition 2.5 in \cite{SH}, the number of cycles with length $r$ is
$\frac{1}{r}\sum\limits_{d|r}\mu(d)(k^{r/d}-1,n)$.}
\end{rem}

\begin{cor}
If a component has a generator of $H$, then its unique cycle has the longest length $\ell(t)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since if a component has a generator of $H$, the order of its unique cycle is $t$.
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}
 Every generator of $H$ has indegree $0$ if and only if $(n,k)\ne 1$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $(n,k)\ne 1$. For any generator $b$ of $H$, if the indegree of $b$ is not 0, then there exists a vertex $a$ such that $a^{k}=b$.
Since $n={\rm ord}(b)=\frac{{\rm ord}(a)}{({\rm ord}(a),k)}$ and ${\rm ord}(a)|n$,
${\rm ord}(a)=n$ and $(n,k)=1$. This leads to a contradiction.

Conversely, if every generator of $H$ with indegree $0$, then generators are not cycle vertices.
By Proposition \ref{vertex}, $t\ne n$. So $(n,k)\ne 1$.
\end{proof}

Hence, if $(n,k)\ne 1$, since $H$ has $\varphi(n)$ generators, by Proposition \ref{indegree},
we have $\varphi(n)\le \frac{d-1}{d}n$, where $d=(n,k)$.

Now we would like to consider which kind of graphs $G(n,k)$ belongs to.
\begin{prop}\label{regular}
The following statements are equivalent.

$(1)$ $G(n,k)$ is regular of degree $1$.

$(2)$ Every component of $G(n,k)$ is a cycle.

$(3)$ $f$ is an automorphism.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that $f$ is an automorphism if and only if $(n,k)=1$, then applying Lemma \ref{basic} (2) and (7).
\end{proof}

\begin{prop}\label{connected}
$G(n,k)$ is connected if and only if there exists a positive integer $m$ such that $n|k^{m}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $n|k^{m}$. Then for any $a\in H$, $a^{k^{m}}=1$. So $G(n,k)$ is connected.

Conversely, suppose $G(n,k)$ is connected. By Lemma \ref{basic} (7), there is only one cycle, that is $\{1\}$.
By Lemma \ref{basic} (6), for any $a\in H$, there is a positive integer $m$ such that $a^{k^{m}}=1$.
If $a$ is a generator of $H$, then $n|k^{m}$.
\end{proof}

Notice that there exists a positive integer $m$ such that $n|k^{m}$ if and only if $t=1$. Hence,
$G(n,k)$ is connected if and only if $G(n,k)$ has only one cycle vertex, that is the identity element.

\begin{prop}
The following statements are equivalent.

$(1)$ $G(n,k)$ is arc-transitive.

$(2)$ $G(n,k)$ is vertex-transitive.

$(3)$ $f$ is the identity.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Note that there exist loops in $G(n,k)$. So $G(n,k)$ is arc-transitive if and only if there are no other edges except loops,
that is for any $a\in G(n,k), f(a)=a$, that is for any $a\in G(n,k), a^{k-1}=1$, that is $n|(k-1)$.

Applying the same argument as the above paragraph, we have $G(n,k)$ is vertex-transitive if and only if $n|k-1$.

Notice that $1\le k\le n$, we get the desired result.
\end{proof}

Since the number of distinct endomorphisms of $H$ is $n$, we attain $n$ distinct digraphs by our manner.
There is an interesting problem that whether there exist isomorphic digraphs among them. In \cite{LMR}, the authors
gave an example $G(10,2)\cong G(10,8)$.

\begin{prop}
If $n$ is a prime, for any $1<k_{1}<k_{2}<n$, $G(n,k_{1})\cong G(n,k_{2})$ if and only if ${\rm ord}_{n}k_{1}={\rm ord}_{n}k_{2}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $(n,k_{1})=1$, by Proposition \ref{regular}, each component of $G(n,k_{1})$ is a cycle.
By Proposition \ref{cycle} (1), there are only two kinds of cycles in $G(n,k_{1})$, one with length $1$,
the other with length ${\rm ord}_{n}k_{1}$. Since $(n,k_{1}-1)=1$, there is only one cycle with length $1$.
By Proposition \ref{cycle} (3), there are $\frac{n-1}{{\rm ord}_{n}k_{1}}$ cycles with length ${\rm ord}_{n}k_{1}$.

We can get similar results for $G(n,k_{2})$. Then we can get the desired result.
\end{proof}

\section{Properties of Trees}

Here we introduce some notations for the tree originating from any given cycle vertex.

For $m\ge 1$, we say a non-cycle vertex $a$ has height $m$ with respect to a cycle vertex $c$
if $m$ is the smallest positive integer such that $a^{k^{m}}=c$.
For $m\ge 1$, let $T_{c}^{m}$ denote the set of non-cycle vertices with height $m$ with respect to the cycle vertex $c$.
Similarly, $T^{m}$ denotes the set of all vertices with height $m$.
For convenience, we put $T_{c}^{0}=\{c\}$ and say $c$ has height 0, $T^{0}$ denotes the set of all cycle vertices.
Let $F_{c}$ be the induced subgraph of $G(n,k)$ with vertices $\bigcup_{m\ge1}T_{c}^{m}$.
In fact, $F_{c}$ is a forest if it is not empty. We can get an induced subgraph of $G(n,k)$ with vertices $\bigcup_{m\ge0}T_{c}^{m}$,
and we delete the loop if it exists, then we get a tree and denote it by $T_{c}$.

All the vertices lie in the trees we define above. As follows, without special instructions,
 the concept of tree means what we define in the above.

We will show that for any cycle vertex $c$, $T_{c}\cong T_{1}$.

\begin{lem}\label{product}
The product of a non-cycle vertex and a cycle vertex is a non-cycle vertex.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Notice that by Proposition \ref{vertex}, the cycle vertices of $G(n,k)$ form a subgroup.
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}\label{product1}
If $a\in T_{1}^{h}, h\ge 1$ and $c$ is a cycle vertex, then $ac\in T_{c^{k^{h}}}^{h}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{product}, $ac\notin T^{0}$. Furthermore, $(ac)^{k^{h}}=c^{k^{h}}$ is a cycle vertex
but $(ac)^{k^{h-1}}$ is a non-cycle vertex because $a^{k^{h-1}}\notin T^{0}$, which implies $ac\in T_{c^{k^{h}}}^{h}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{iso1}
Let $c$ be a cycle vertex, then $F_{c}\cong F_{1}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
First we show that there exists an one to one correspondence between the vertices of $T_{1}^{h}$ and $T_{c}^{h}$ for all heights $h\ge 1$,
and hence between $F_{1}$ and $F_{c}$. Let $h$ be fixed and let $c_{h}$ denote the unique cycle vertex such that
$c_{h}^{k^{h}}=c$. From Lemma \ref{product1}, define $g_{h}:T_{1}^{h}\to T_{c}^{h}$ by $g_{h}(a)=ac_{h}$.

For any $b\in T_{c}^{h}$, $(b\cdot c_{h}^{-1})^{k^{h}}=b^{k^{h}}c^{-1}=1$ and $(b\cdot c_{h}^{-1})^{k^{h-1}}\notin T^{0}$
because $b^{k^{h-1}}\notin T^{0}$. It follows that $b\cdot c_{h}^{-1}\in T_{1}^{h}$. Then $g_{h}(b\cdot c_{h}^{-1})=b$.
So $g_{h}$ is surjective. It is obvious that $g_{h}$ is injective. So $g_{h}$ is one to one.

Combining these $g_{h}$, we get a bijective map $g$ from $F_{1}$ to $F_{c}$.

It remain to show that $g$ is indeed an isomorphism.
For any directed edge of $F_{1}$, it is from some $a\in T_{1}^{h}$ to $a^{k}\in T_{1}^{h-1}$ for some $h$.
We only need to show that there exists a directed edge from $g(a)$ to $g(a^{k})$ in $F_{c}$, that is $(g(a))^{k}=g(a^{k})$,
that is $(g_{h}(a))^{k}=g_{h-1}(a^{k})$. Now $c_{h}^{k^{h}}=c$ implies $(c_{h}^{k})^{k^{h-1}}=c$,
by the uniqueness of $c_{h-1}$, we have $c_{h}^{k}=c_{h-1}$. So $(g_{h}(a))^{k}=(ac_{h})^{k}=a^{k}c_{h-1}=g_{h-1}(a^{k})$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{iso}
Let $c$ be a cycle vertex, then $T_{c}\cong T_{1}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Applying Theorem \ref{iso1} and the relation between $T_{c}$ and $F_{c}$.
\end{proof}

Hence, every tree has the same height, denote it by $h_{0}$, and different trees have the same number of vertices in each height.

\begin{cor}
For any two components $G_{1}$ and $G_{2}$ of $G(n,k)$, $G_{1}\cong G_{2}$ if and only if
the unique cycles in them have the same length.
\end{cor}

There is another property of the map $g_{h}$ in Theorem \ref{iso1}, see the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
If $a\in T_{1}^{h}$ and $b\in T_{c}^{h}$ with $c_{h}$ the cycle vertex such that $b=ac_{h}$,
then ${\rm ord}(b)={\rm ord}(a)\cdot {\rm ord}(c)$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $a^{k^{h}}=1$, ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{h}$. By Proposition \ref{same order}, ${\rm ord}(c_{h})={\rm ord}(c)|t$. So $({\rm ord}(a), {\rm ord}(c_{h}))=1$. It follows that ${\rm ord}(b)={\rm ord}(a)\cdot {\rm ord}(c)$.
\end{proof}

As follows, we would like to study the tree structures by using heights.

For any $a\in H$, denote its order ${\rm ord}(a)$ by $n_{a}$, and factor $n_{a}$ by $t_{a}w_{a}$, where $t_{a}$ is the
largest factor of $n_{a}$ relatively prime to $k$. So $n_{a}|n, t_{a}|t$ and $w_{a}|w$. Similarly, we denote $a$'s height by $h_{a}$.
The next proposition shows that $h_{a}$ only depends on $w_{a}$.

\begin{prop} \label{height1}
For any $a\in H$, $h_{a}$ is the minimal $h$ such that $w_{a}|k^{h}$.
Especially, $h_{0}$ is the minimal $h$ such that $w|k^{h}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $n_{a}\mid t$, then $a$ is a cycle vertex. So $h_{a}=0$. Note that $w_{a}=1$, so the conclusion is correct in this case.

If $n_{a}\nmid t$. Since $h_{a}$ is the minimal $h$ such that $a^{k^{h}}$ is a cycle vertex,
that is the minimal $h$ such that ${\rm ord}(a^{k^{h}})=\frac{n_{a}}{(n_{a},k^{h})}\mid t$, then $h_{a}$ is the minimal $h$ such that
$(n_{a},k^{h})=w_{a}$, that is the minimal $h$ such that $w_{a}\mid k^{h}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{height2}
For any two vertices $a$ and $b$,if $w_{a}=w_{b}$, then they have the same height. Especially, The vertices with the same order
are at the same height.
\end{cor}

But if $a$ and $b$ have the same height, maybe $w_{a}\ne w_{b}$. For example, see Figure 3 in section 5,
let $a=9$ and $b=40$, then $a$ and $b$ have the same height, but $w_{a}=4$ and $w_{b}=2$.

\begin{cor}\label{largest}
For any vertex $a$, if $w_{a}=w$, then $a$ is at the largest height. Especially,
the generators of $H$ must be at the largest height.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
For any vertex $a$, $w_{a}\mid w$, then applying Proposition \ref{height1}, we get the desired result.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor} \label{prime}
If $k$ is a prime, then for any two vertices $a$ and $b$, they have the same height if and only if $w_{a}=w_{b}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $w_{a}=k^{h_{a}}$ and $w_{b}=k^{h_{b}}$ in this case.
\end{proof}

About the heights of the vertices we have the following proposition and corollary.
\begin{prop}\label{height}
Let $a\in T_{c}$, ${\rm ord}(c)=d|t$ and $h\ge 0$. Then ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{h}d$ if and only if $a\in T_{c}^{m}$, for some $m\le h$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Suppose ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{h}d$. Then $(a^{k^{h}})^{d}=1$, which implies ${\rm ord}(a^{k^{h}})|d$.
So $a^{k^{h}}$ is a cycle vertex. Hence, there exists $m\le h$ such that $a\in T_{c}^{m}$.

Conversely, suppose there exists $m\le h$ such that $a\in T_{c}^{m}$. Then $a^{k^{m}}=c$.
So $(a^{k^{m}})^{d}=c^{d}=1$, which implies ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{m}d$. Hence, ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{h}d$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{level}
Let $a\in T_{c}$, ${\rm ord}(c)=d|t$ and $m\ge 1$. Then $a\in T_{c}^{m}$ if and only if ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{m}d$ and ${\rm ord}(a)\nmid k^{m-1}d$.
\end{cor}

For any $d\ge 1$, let $H_{d}$ be the subgroup of $H$ defined by $H_{d}=\{x\in H|x^{d}=1\}$.
It is well-known that $H_{d}$ is cyclic with order $(n,d)$. By Proposition \ref{vertex}, all cycle vertices of $G(n,k)$ form
the subgroup $H_{t}$. By Lemma \ref{solution}, all vertices with non-zero indegree form the subgroup $H_{\frac{n}{(k,n)}}$.
\begin{cor}\label{subgroup}
For any $d|t$ and $h\ge 0$, $\bigcup\limits_{\substack{0\le m \le h\\c\in T^{0},\, {\rm ord}(c)|d}}T_{c}^{m}$ is exactly the subgroup $H_{k^{h}d}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition \ref{height} and the first part of its proof, this union consists of all $a\in H$ with
${\rm ord}(a)|k^{h}d$ . So it is exactly the subgroup $H_{k^{h}d}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
For any $l\ge 1$ and $h\ge 0$, $\bigcup\limits_{\substack{0\le m \le h\\c\in T^{0},\, \ell(c)|l}}T_{c}^{m}$ is exactly the subgroup $H_{k^{h}\cdot(t,k^{l}-1)}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Since $c$ is a cycle vertex, ${\rm ord}(c)|t$. Then $\ell(c)|l$ if and only if $c^{k^{l}}=c$, that is ${\rm ord}(c)|(k^{l}-1)$, that is ${\rm ord}(c)|(t,k^{l}-1)$,
then applying Corollary \ref{subgroup}.
\end{proof}

For any set $X$, denote the number of its elements by $|X|$.
\begin{prop}\label{number}
For any cycle vertex $c$, we have:

$(1)$ $|T_{c}|=w$.

$(2)$ For $m\ge 1$, $|T^{m}|=(n,k^{m}t)-(n,k^{m-1}t)$ and $|T_{c}^{m}|=(w,k^{m})-(w,k^{m-1})$.

$(3)$ If $h_{0}\ge 2$, for $1\le m\le h_{0}-1$, the number of vertices in $T_{c}^{m}$ with indegree 0 is
$|T_{c}^{m}|-\frac{|T_{c}^{m+1}|}{(k,n)}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
(1) Note that there are $t$ cycle vertices and $n=wt$, by Corollary \ref{iso}, we have $|T_{c}|=w$.

(2) In Corollary \ref{subgroup}, fix $d=t$, put $h=m$ and $h=m-1$ respectively, we have
$T^{m}=\bigcup\limits_{\rm{ord}(c)|t}T_{c}^{m}=H_{k^{m}t}\setminus H_{k^{m-1}t}$.
So $|T^{m}|=(n,k^{m}t)-(n,k^{m-1}t)$. Since $|T_{c}^{m}|=\frac{1}{t}|T^{m}|$, we get the other formula.

(3) By Lemma \ref{solution}, the number of vertices in $T_{c}^{m}$ with non-zero indegree is $\frac{|T_{c}^{m+1}|}{(k,n)}$.
\end{proof}

Hence, if the unique cycle in a component of $G(n,k)$ has length $r$, then this component has $rw$ vertices.

\begin{cor}
$|T^{h_{0}}|\ge \frac{n}{2}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $h_{0}$ is the height of the trees.

If $h_{0}=0$, then all vertices are in cycles, so $|T^{h_{0}}|=n \ge \frac{n}{2}$.

If $h_{0}\ge 1$, From Proposition \ref{number} (2), we have $|T^{h_{0}}|=n-(n,k^{h_{0}-1}t)=n-t(w,k^{h_{0}-1})$.
Since $n\nmid k^{h_{0}-1}t$, $w\nmid k^{h_{0}-1}$, which implies $(w,k^{h_{0}-1})\le \frac{w}{2}$.
Hence, we have $|T^{h_{0}}|\ge \frac{n}{2}$.
\end{proof}

In fact, the lower bound in the above corollary is the best one. For example, let $k=6$ and $n=2^{m}$,
where $m\ge 3$, then $t=1$ and $h_{0}=m$, so $|T^{h_{0}}|=n-(n,k^{h_{0}-1}t)=\frac{n}{2}$.

\begin{prop}
If $n\ge 5$ and $n$ is even, then the length of the longest cycle in $G(n,k)$ is less than or equal to $\frac{n-2}{2}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
If $(n,k)\ne 1$, then $h_{0}\ge 1$. By the above corollary, the number of non-cycle vertices is more than or
equal to $\frac{n}{2}$, which implies the number of cycle vertices is less than or equal to $\frac{n}{2}$.
Since the identity element of $H$ is in a loop, the length of the longest cycle in $G(n,k)$ is less than
or equal to $\frac{n}{2}-1=\frac{n-2}{2}$.

If $(n,k)=1$, then all vertices are in cycles and $t=n$. Notice that the length of the longest cycle is
$\ell(t)=\ell(n)={\rm ord}_{n}k$.
We factor $n$ as $2^{r}s$, where $r\ge 1$ and $(2,s)=1$. If $s\ne 1$,
then $\ell(n)\le \varphi(n)=2^{r-1}\varphi(s)< 2^{r-1}s = \frac{n}{2}$.
Since $\ell(n)$ is an integer, $\ell(n)\le \frac{n}{2}-1=\frac{n-2}{2}$.
If $s=1$, that is $n=2^{r}$, since $n\ge 5$, $r>2$, which implies $(\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^{*}$ has no primitive roots,
so $\ell(n)< \varphi(n)=2^{r-1}= \frac{n}{2}$, then $\ell(n)\le \frac{n-2}{2}$.
\end{proof}

Hence, the number of vertices in the largest component is less than or equal to $\frac{n-2}{2}w$.
In fact, the upper bound in the above proposition is the best one. For example, let $k=2$ and $n=2p$, $p$ is an odd prime,
and $2$ is the primitive root of $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^{*}$, then $t=p$ and $\ell(t)={\rm ord}_{p}2=p-1=\frac{n-2}{2}$.

\section{The adjacency matrix of $G(n,k)$}

For any two vertices $u$ and $v$ of $G(n,k)$, if $u^{k}=v$, we call $u$ a child of $v$.

If the vertex-set of $G(n,k)$ is $\{v_{1},v_{2},\cdots,v_{n}\}$, then the adjacency matrix of $G(n,k)$
is a $n\times n\, (0,1)$-matrix with the $(i,j)$-entry equal to the number of directed edges from $v_{i}$ to $v_{j}$,
we denote it by $A(n,k)$.

We label the vertices of $G(n,k)$ as follows. First, we label the vertices component by component, so we can get a block diagonal matrix.
Second, for each component, we label its vertices height by height according to the child relations.
For example, see Fig. 2 in \cite{VS}, let $H=(\mathbb{Z}/29\mathbb{Z})^{*}$ and $k=2$, then there are three components, see Figure 1.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(20,8)

\multiput(0.65,0)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(0.55,-0.15){$7$}
\put(2.25,-0.15){$20$}
\put(4.05,-0.15){$23$}
\multiput(1,0)(1.8,0){2}{\vector(2,0){1.1}}
\put(2.45,-0.35){\oval(3.6,0.8)[b]}
\put(0.65,-0.45){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\multiput(0.65,1.3)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(0.65,0.95)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(0.55,1.2){$6$}
\put(2.25,1.2){$22$}
\put(4.15,1.2){$9$}
\multiput(0.2,2.6)(0.9,0){6}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(0.2,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(2,-3){0.4}}
\multiput(1.1,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(-2,-3){0.4}}
\put(0.1,2.5){$8$}
\put(0.92,2.5){$21$}
\put(1.82,2.5){$14$}
\put(2.72,2.5){$15$}
\put(3.68,2.5){$3$}
\put(4.52,2.5){$26$}

\multiput(6.85,0)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(6.65,-0.15){$16$}
\put(8.45,-0.15){$24$}
\put(10.25,-0.15){$25$}
\multiput(7.2,0)(1.8,0){2}{\vector(2,0){1.1}}
\put(8.65,-0.35){\oval(3.6,0.8)[b]}
\put(6.86,-0.45){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\multiput(6.85,1.3)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(6.85,0.95)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(6.75,1.2){$4$}
\put(8.45,1.2){$13$}
\put(10.35,1.2){$5$}
\multiput(6.4,2.6)(0.9,0){6}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(6.4,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(2,-3){0.4}}
\multiput(7.3,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(-2,-3){0.4}}
\put(6.3,2.5){$2$}
\put(7.12,2.5){$27$}
\put(7.97,2.5){$10$}
\put(8.87,2.5){$19$}
\put(9.83,2.5){$11$}
\put(10.67,2.5){$18$}

\put(5.55,4){\circle{0.7}}
\put(5.45,3.85){$1$}
\put(5.55,3.75){\oval(0.5,0.8)[b]}
\put(5.3,3.65){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\put(5.55,5.3){\circle{0.7}}
\put(5.55,4.95){\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(5.35,5.2){$28$}
\put(5.1,6.25){\vector(2,-3){0.4}}
\put(6.0,6.25){\vector(-2,-3){0.4}}
\multiput(5.1,6.6)(0.9,0){2}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(4.9,6.5){$12$}
\put(5.8,6.5){$17$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\qquad
\caption{The digraph $G(28,2)$}\label{h12}
\end{figure}

We label $G(28,2)$ by $v_{1}=1, v_{2}=28,v_{3}=12,v_{4}=17, v_{5}=7,v_{6}=20,v_{7}=23,v_{8}=6,v_{9}=22,v_{10}=9,v_{11}=8,
v_{12}=21,v_{13}=14,v_{14}=15,v_{15}=3,v_{16}=26, v_{17}=16,v_{18}=24,v_{19}=25,v_{20}=4,v_{21}=13,v_{22}=5,
v_{23}=2,v_{24}=27,v_{25}=10,v_{26}=19,v_{27}=11$ and $v_{28}=18$. Then digraph $G(28,2)$ is given in Figure 2.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(20,8)

\multiput(0.65,0)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(0.5,-0.1){$v_{5}$}
\put(2.25,-0.1){$v_{6}$}
\put(4.05,-0.1){$v_{7}$}
\multiput(1,0)(1.8,0){2}{\vector(2,0){1.1}}
\put(2.45,-0.35){\oval(3.6,0.8)[b]}
\put(0.65,-0.45){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\multiput(0.65,1.3)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(0.65,0.95)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(0.5,1.2){$v_{8}$}
\put(2.25,1.2){$v_{9}$}
\put(4.05,1.2){$v_{10}$}
\multiput(0.2,2.6)(0.9,0){6}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(0.2,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(2,-3){0.4}}
\multiput(1.1,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(-2,-3){0.4}}
\put(0.01,2.5){$v_{11}$}
\put(0.87,2.5){$v_{12}$}
\put(1.77,2.5){$v_{13}$}
\put(2.67,2.5){$v_{14}$}
\put(3.6,2.5){$v_{15}$}
\put(4.47,2.5){$v_{16}$}

\multiput(6.85,0)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(6.65,-0.1){$v_{17}$}
\put(8.45,-0.1){$v_{18}$}
\put(10.25,-0.1){$v_{19}$}
\multiput(7.2,0)(1.8,0){2}{\vector(2,0){1.1}}
\put(8.65,-0.35){\oval(3.6,0.8)[b]}
\put(6.86,-0.45){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\multiput(6.85,1.3)(1.8,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(6.85,0.95)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(6.65,1.2){$v_{20}$}
\put(8.39,1.2){$v_{21}$}
\put(10.25,1.2){$v_{22}$}
\multiput(6.4,2.6)(0.9,0){6}{\circle{0.7}}
\multiput(6.4,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(2,-3){0.4}}
\multiput(7.3,2.25)(1.8,0){3}{\vector(-2,-3){0.4}}
\put(6.2,2.5){$v_{23}$}
\put(7.07,2.5){$v_{24}$}
\put(7.97,2.5){$v_{25}$}
\put(8.87,2.5){$v_{26}$}
\put(9.83,2.5){$v_{27}$}
\put(10.67,2.5){$v_{28}$}

\put(5.55,4){\circle{0.7}}
\put(5.4,3.9){$v_{1}$}
\put(5.55,3.75){\oval(0.5,0.8)[b]}
\put(5.3,3.65){\vector(0,1){0.1}}
\put(5.55,5.3){\circle{0.7}}
\put(5.55,4.95){\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(5.35,5.2){$v_{2}$}
\put(5.1,6.25){\vector(2,-3){0.4}}
\put(6.0,6.25){\vector(-2,-3){0.4}}
\multiput(5.1,6.6)(0.9,0){2}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(4.9,6.5){$v_{3}$}
\put(5.85,6.5){$v_{4}$}

\end{picture}
\end{center}
\qquad
\caption{The digraph $G(28,2)$}\label{h12}
\end{figure}

If we partition $A(28,2)$ according to the components, then we can get a block diagonal matrix
and the main diagonal blocks are square matrixes. The main diagonal blocks are given as follows.
\begin{equation}
\begin{matrix}
B_{1}=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
&v_{1}&v_{2}&v_{3}&v_{4}\\
v_{1}&1 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{2}&1 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{3}&0 &1 &0 &0   \\
v_{4}&0 &1 &0 &0
\end{smallmatrix}\right),&
B_{2}=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
&v_{5}&v_{6}&v_{7}&v_{8}&v_{9}&v_{10}&v_{11}&v_{12}&v_{13}&v_{14}&v_{15}&v_{16}\\
v_{5}&0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{6}&0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{7}&1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{8}&1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{9}&0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{10}&0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{11}&0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0    \\
v_{12}&0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{13}&0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{14}&0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{15}&0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{16}&0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0    \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right),
\end{matrix}
\notag
\end{equation}

\begin{equation}
B_{3}=\left(
\begin{smallmatrix}
&v_{17}&v_{18}&v_{19}&v_{20}&v_{21}&v_{22}&v_{23}&v_{24}&v_{25}&v_{26}&v_{27}&v_{28}\\
v_{17} &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 \\
v_{18} &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{19} &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{20} &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{21} &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{22} &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{23} &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{24} &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{25} &0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{26} &0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0   \\
v_{27} &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
v_{28} &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &1 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0 &0  \\
\end{smallmatrix}\right).
\notag
\end{equation}

Since $B_{2}$ and $B_{3}$ correspond to isomorphic components, $B_{2}=B_{3}$.
If we partition each main diagonal block according to the heights, then we can get a block lower triangular matrix
and its main diagonal blocks are square matrixes, its main diagonal blocks are all equal to $0$ except the $(1,1)$-block.
After partitioning, $B_{1},B_{2}$ and $B_{3}$ have the following form.
\begin{equation}
B_{i}=\begin{pmatrix}
B_{i0} &0 &0 \\
B_{i1} &0 &0 \\
0 &B_{i2} &0
\end{pmatrix},i=1,2,3.
\notag
\end{equation}

We denote the characteristic polynomial and minimal polynomial of a matrix $A$ by $f_{A}(\lambda)$ and $m_{A}(\lambda)$ respectively.
Notice that the characteristic polynomial and minimal polynomial of a $r\times r$ matrix with the following form
\begin{equation}\label{matrix1}
\begin{pmatrix}
0 &1 & \\
 &\ddots &\ddots \\
 & &\ddots&1\\
1 & &&0
\end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
are both $\lambda^{r}-1$.
Hence, $f_{B_{1}}(\lambda)=\lambda^{3}(\lambda-1)$ and
$f_{B_{2}}(\lambda)=f_{B_{3}}(\lambda)=\lambda^{9}(\lambda^{3}-1)$.

\begin{lem}\label{minimal}
If a partitioned matrix $D$ has the following form
\begin{equation}
D=
\begin{pmatrix}
D_{0} & & \\
D_{1} &0 & \\
 &\ddots &\ddots&\\
 & &D_{m}&0
\end{pmatrix},
\notag
\end{equation}
where the main diagonal blocks are all square matrixes, $D_{0}$ is a $r\times r$ matrix with the form as $(\ref{matrix1})$, each $D_{i}$ $(1\le i\le m)$ is non-negative and its $(1,1)$-entry is positive. Then $m_{D}(\lambda)=\lambda^{m}(\lambda^{r}-1)$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is obvious that $\lambda^{r}-1|m_{D}(\lambda)$ and the first row of the partitioned matrix $D^{r}-I$ is zero,
where $I$ is the identity matrix.

Since
\begin{equation}
D^{m}=
\begin{pmatrix}
D_{0}^{m}&0&\cdots&0 \\
D_{1}D_{0}^{m-1} & 0&\cdots&0 \\
D_{2}D_{1}D_{0}^{m-2} &0&\cdots&0  \\
 \vdots& \vdots&&\vdots\\
D_{m}D_{m-1}\times\cdots \times D_{1}&0&\cdots&0
\end{pmatrix},
\notag
\end{equation}
$D^{m}(D^{r}-I)=0$.

Since
\begin{equation}
D^{m-1}=
\begin{pmatrix}
D_{0}^{m-1}&0 &\cdots & 0\\
D_{1}D_{0}^{m-2} & 0&\cdots& 0\\
\vdots& \vdots&&\vdots\\
D_{m-2}D_{m-3}\times \cdots\times D_{0} &0 &\cdots&0\\
D_{m-1}D_{m-2}\times\cdots \times D_{1}&0&\cdots&0\\
0&D_{m}D_{m-1}\times\cdots \times D_{2}&\cdots&0\\
\end{pmatrix},
\notag
\end{equation}
the $(m+1,1)$-entry of the partitioned matrix $D^{m-1}(D^{r}-I)$ is $D_{m}D_{m-1}\times\cdots \times D_{2}\times D_{1}D_{0}^{r-1}$.
Since $D_{0}^{r-1}$ is invertible and non-negative, there exists a positive entry in the first row of $D_{0}^{r-1}$.
Notice that $D_{m}D_{m-1}\times\cdots \times D_{2}D_{1}$ is non-negative and its $(1,1)$-entry is positive. Hence,
$D_{m}D_{m-1}\times\cdots \times D_{2}\times D_{1}D_{0}^{r-1}\ne 0$. So $D^{m-1}(D^{r}-I)\ne 0$.

Hence, we have $m_{D}(\lambda)=\lambda^{m}(\lambda^{r}-1)$.
\end{proof}

So by Lemma \ref{minimal}, $m_{B_{1}}(\lambda)=\lambda^{2}(\lambda-1)$ and $m_{B_{2}}(\lambda)=m_{B_{3}}(\lambda)=\lambda^{2}(\lambda^{3}-1)$.

Recall that $h_{0}$ is the height of the trees. Let $C$ be a component of $G(n,k)$
and the unique cycle in $C$ has length $r$, then $C$ has $rw$ vertices,
the characteristic polynomial and minimal polynomial of $C$ is $\lambda^{rw-r}(\lambda^{r}-1)$ and $\lambda^{h_{0}}(\lambda^{r}-1)$
respectively.

Suppose the components of $G(n,k)$ consist of $m_{1}$ copies of $G_{1}$, $m_{2}$ copies of $G_{2}$, $\cdots$,
$m_{s}$ copies of $G_{s}$, where $G_{1}, G_{2},\cdots, G_{s}$ are pairwise non-isomorphic, the unique cycle in each $G_{i}$ $(1\le i\le s)$
has length $r_{i}$.
Then we get the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
$(1)$ The characteristic polynomial of $G(n,k)$ is $\prod\limits_{i=1}^{s}\big[\lambda^{r_{i}w-r_{i}}(\lambda^{r_{i}}-1)\big]^{m_{i}}$.

$(2)$ The minimal polynomial of $G(n,k)$ is $\lambda^{h_{0}}(\lambda^{\ell(t)}-1)$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The result in $(1)$ is obvious.

By Proposition \ref{vertex} and Proposition \ref{cycle} $(1)$, the length of each cycle divides $\ell(t)$, this yields the result in $(2)$.
\end{proof}

By the discussions in section 2 and section 3, if we specify the values of $n$ and $k$, we can calculate explicitly these data $s,t,w,h_{0}, \ell(t),
m_{i}$ and $r_{i}$ $(1\le i\le s)$.

Since we have determined the characteristic polynomial of $G(n,k)$, it is easy to get the eigenvalues and spectrum of $G(n,k)$.

\section{The Automorphism Group of $G(n,k)$}
For any graph $G$, we denote its automorphism group by Aut$(G)$.
For simplicity, we denote the automorphism group of $G(n,k)$ by Aut$(n,k)$.
Notice that Aut$(G)$ is a permutation group on $\{1,2,\cdots,|G|\}$.

Let $S_{m}$ be the symmetric group on $\{1,2,\cdots,m\}$.
Let $P_{1}$ and $P_{2}$ be two permutation groups on $\{1,2,\cdots, m\}$ and $\{1,2,\cdots, r\}$ respectively.
Recall that the wreath product $P_{1}\wr P_{2}$ is generated by the direct product of $r$ copies of $P_{1}$,
together with the elements of $P_{2}$ acting on these $r$ copies of $P_{1}$.

Using the notations in the above section, we get the following theorem.
\begin{thm}
{\rm Aut}$(n,k)\cong ({\rm Aut}(G_{1})\wr S_{m_{1}})\times ({\rm Aut}(G_{2})\wr S_{m_{2}})\times \cdots \times ({\rm Aut}(G_{s})\wr S_{m_{s}})$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
See Theorem 1.1 in \cite{C}.
\end{proof}

For each component $G_{i}$ $(1\le i \le s)$, its unique cycle has length $r_{i}$, by Corollary \ref{iso}, we have
the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
For each $1\le i \le s$, ${\rm Aut}(G_{i})\cong {\rm Aut}(T_{1})\wr <\sigma_{i}>$, where $\sigma_{i}$ is a $r_{i}$-cycle,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{i}=
\begin{pmatrix}
1&2&3&\cdots &r_{i}\\
2&3&4&\cdots &1
\end{pmatrix}.
\notag
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Notice that the automorphism group of the cycle in $G_{i}$ is exactly the permutation group generated by $\sigma_{i}$.
\end{proof}

Hence, we only need to determine ${\rm Aut}(T_{1})$. If $(n,k)=1$, by Proposition \ref{regular},
we have ${\rm Aut}(T_{1})=\{1\}$. Then we get the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{auto1}
If $(n,k)=1$, then {\rm Aut}$(n,k)=(<\sigma_{1}>\wr S_{m_{1}})\times (<\sigma_{2}>\wr S_{m_{2}})\times \cdots \times (<\sigma_{s}>\wr S_{m_{s}})$.
\end{prop}

\begin{prop}
If $k=1$, then {\rm Aut}$(n,k)=S_{n}$.
\end{prop}

\begin{prop}
If $k=n$, then {\rm Aut}$(n,k)=S_{n-1}$.
\end{prop}

But in general it is difficult to determine ${\rm Aut}(T_{1})$.
Since the vertices with the same height may have different number of children. For example,
let $H=(\mathbb{Z}/41\mathbb{Z})^{*}$ and $k=4$, $T_{1}$ is given as follows.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\setlength{\unitlength}{1cm}
\begin{picture}(20,3)
\put(4.85,0){\circle{0.7}}
\put(4.75,-0.1){$1$}
\multiput(2.85,1.3)(2,0){3}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(2.75,1.2){$9$}
\put(4.65,1.2){$32$}
\put(6.65,1.2){$40$}
\put(2.85, 0.95){\vector(2,-1){1.66}}
\put(4.85, 0.95){\vector(0,-1){0.6}}
\put(6.85, 0.95){\vector(-2,-1){1.66}}
\multiput(5.5,2.6)(0.9,0){4}{\circle{0.7}}
\put(5.4,2.45){$3$}
\put(6.2,2.45){$14$}
\put(7.1,2.45){$27$}
\put(8.0,2.45){$38$}
\put(5.5, 2.25){\vector(3,-2){1.075}}
\put(8.2, 2.25){\vector(-3,-2){1.075}}
\put(6.4, 2.25){\vector(1,-2){0.31}}
\put(7.3, 2.25){\vector(-1,-2){0.31}}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The tree $T_{1}$ for $n=40$ and $k=4$}\label{h12}
\end{figure}

Recall that if $h_{0}$ is the height of $T_{1}$, then the vertices of $T_{1}$ form the subgroup $H_{k^{h_{0}}}$,
that is $H_{w}$. So ${\rm Aut}(H_{w})\subseteq {\rm Aut}(T_{1})$.

As follows we want to determine ${\rm Aut}(T_{1})$ when $k$ is a prime.

For any two vertices $a$ and $b$, if there is a $g\in {\rm Aut}(n,k)$ such that $g(a)=b$, we say $a$ is isomorphic to $b$,
denote it by $a\cong b$.
This is an equivalent relation in $G(n,k)$. We will show that if ${\rm ord}(a)={\rm ord}(b)$, then $a\cong b$.

Suppose that $M$ is a cyclic group with $m$ elements. Given three positive integers $r$, $r_{1}$ and $q$ such that $r|r_{1}|m$
and $r_{1}=rq$.  For any $b\in M, {\rm ord}(b)=r$, put $M_{b}=\{a\in M|a^{q}=b,{\rm ord}(a)=r_{1}\}$.
Then we have the following lemma.

\begin{lem}\label{solution2}
For any $b\in M$ with ${\rm ord}(b)=r$, $|M_{b}|=\frac{\varphi(r_{1})}{\varphi(r)}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix a generator $\zeta$ of $M$ such that $\zeta^{\frac{m}{r}}=b$.
It is easy to see that $\zeta^{\frac{m}{r_{1}}}\in M_{b}$. So $M_{b}$ is not empty.

Every element with order $r_{1}$ has a unique form $\zeta^{\frac{ml_{1}}{r_{1}}}, 1\le  l_{1}\le r_{1}, (l_{1},r_{1})=1$. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\zeta^{(\frac{ml_{1}}{r_{1}})q}=b \Leftrightarrow m|(\frac{ml_{1}}{r}-\frac{m}{r}) \Leftrightarrow r|l_{1}-1.
\notag
\end{equation}
So $|M_{b}|=|\big\{l_{1}|1\le l_{1}\le r_{1}, (l_{1},r_{1})=1,r|l_{1}-1\big\}|$, which implies that
$|M_{b}|$ only depends on $r$ and $r_{1}$ and it is independent of the specified value of $b$.
Hence, given another $b^{'}\in M, {\rm ord}(b^{'})=r$, we have $|M_{b^{'}}|=|M_{b}|$.

Since there are $\varphi(r_{1})$ elements with order $r_{1}$ and $\varphi(r)$ elements with order $r$,
$|M_{b}|=\frac{\varphi(r_{1})}{\varphi(r)}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}\label{solution3}
For any two elements $a,b\in M$, ${\rm ord}(a)={\rm ord}(b), q\ge 1$,
then for each positive integer $r$ such that ${\rm ord}(a)|r$,
$M_{1}=\{x|x^{q}=a\}$ and $M_{2}=\{x|x^{q}=b\}$ have the same number of elements with order $r$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{solution}, $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ have the same number of elements.
Then we can get the desired result by applying Lemma \ref{solution2}.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}\label{iso2}
For any $a,b\in G(n,k)$, if ${\rm ord}(a)={\rm ord}(b)$, then $a\cong b$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By Corollary \ref{height2}, $a$ and $b$ are at the same height. Since for any positive integer $h$,
${\rm ord}(a^{h})={\rm ord}(b^{h})$, then the cycles which they lead to have the same order.
Then the desired result follows from Corollary \ref{solution3}.
\end{proof}

From now on we assume that $k$ is a prime.

For any $a\in T_{1}$, there exists a $h$ such that $a^{k^{h}}=1$, which implies that ${\rm ord}(a)|k^{h}$.
So $w_{a}={\rm ord}(a)$. By Corollary \ref{prime}, we get the following proposition.
\begin{prop}\label{T1}
If $k$ is a prime, for any $a,b\in T_{1}$, $a$ and $b$ are at the same height if and only if ${\rm ord}(a)={\rm ord}(b)$.
\end{prop}

Hence, all the vertices with indegree $0$ of $T_{1}$ are at the largest height $h_{0}$.

Since $k$ is a prime, $(n,k)=1$ or $k$. We have discussed Aut$(n,k)$ on the case $(n,k)=1$, see Proposition \ref{auto1}.

As follows we suppose that $(n,k)=k$. Then the largest height $h_{0}\ge 1$.
For $1\le h\le h_{0}$, let $T_{1h}$ be the tree originating from a vertex with height $h$ in $T_{1}$.
In particular, the vertex set of $T_{1h_{0}}$ contains only one point.
Proposition \ref{T1} and Theorem \ref{iso2} tell us that $T_{1h}$ is well-defined.
Then we get the following proposition.
\begin{prop}
If $k$ is a prime and $(n,k)=k$, then we have
${\rm Aut}(T_{1})\cong {\rm Aut}(T_{11})\wr S_{k-1}$, for any $1\le h< h_{0}$, ${\rm Aut}(T_{1h})={\rm Aut}(T_{1,h+1})\wr S_{k}$,
and ${\rm Aut}(T_{1h_{0}})=\{1\}$.
\end{prop}

\section{Further Problems}
We mention three further problems which may worth studying.

First, it may be interesting to consider other graphic problems for $G(n,k)$,
such as the matching problem and the coloring problem.

Second, it may be interesting to study the asymptotic mean numbers of cycle vertices and cycles.
\cite{CS}, \cite{SH} and \cite{VS} will be helpful.

Third, what will happen if $H$ is not cyclic?
\cite{BHM}, \cite{SK1}, \cite{SK2}, \cite{SK3} and \cite{W}
will be helpful.

\section{Acknowledgment}
We would like to thank Dr. Jingfen Lan for her valuable suggestions.
We also thank the referee for the careful review and the valuable comments.