---
author:
- 'Michel Laurent $\&$ Arnaldo Nogueira'
date:  
title:  Inhomogeneous approximation with coprime integers and lattice orbits
---

[^1]

ABSTRACT – Let $(\xi,y)$ be a point in $\bR^2$ and $\psi : \bN \rightarrow \bR^+$ a function. We investigate the problem of the existence of infinitely many pairs $p, q$ of coprime integers such that $$| q \xi +p -y | \le \psi( | q|).$$ We prove that the existence is ensured for every point $(\xi,y)$ whose coordinate $\xi$ is irrational when $
\psi(| q|) = c| q|^{-1/2} 
$ for some suitable coefficient $
c= c(\xi,y).
$ An optimal metrical statement is also established. We link the subject with density exponents of lattice orbits in $\bR^2$.

 Introduction and results
=========================

Minkowski has proved that for every real irrational number $\xi$ and every real number $y$ not belonging to $\bZ \xi + \bZ$, there exist infinitely many pairs of integers $p, q$ such that $$| q \xi + p - y | \le { 1 \over 4  | q| }. \leqno{(1)}$$ See for instance Theorem II in Chapter 3 of Cassels' monograph @Cas. The statement is optimal in the sense that the approximating function $\ell \mapsto  (4 \ell  )^{-1}$ cannot be decreased. Note that the restriction $y \notin \bZ \xi +\bZ$ can be dropped at the cost of replacing the upper bound $ (4| q|)^{-1}$ by $ c | q|^{-1}$ for any constant $c$ greater than $1/\sqrt{5}$. When $y=0$, the primitive point $({p\over \gcd(p,q)},{q\over \gcd(p,q)})$ remains a solution to (1), therefore we may moreover require that the pair of integers $p,q$ satisfying (1) be coprime. However, for a non-zero real number $y$, this extra requirement is far from being obvious to satisfy. We obtain such a result with a weaker accuracy of order $1/\sqrt{|  q |}$.

Let $\xi$ be an irrational real number and $y$ a real number. There exist infinitely many pairs of coprime integers $(p,q)$ such that $$| q \xi + p - y | \le { c  \over   \sqrt{| q |}} \quad { \rm with} \quad c = 2 \sqrt{3} \max(1, | \xi|)^{1/2}| y|^{1/2}. \leqno{(2)}$$

Theorem 1 will be deduced in Section 2 from our results @LN of effective density for $SL(2,\bZ)$-orbits in $\bR^2$. However, it will clearly appear that our method for proving Theorem 1 provides more than necessary. Theorem 1 may probably be improved. We address the following

Can we replace the approximating function $\psi(\ell) = c \, \ell^{-1/2}$ occurring in Theorem 1 by a smaller one, possibly $\psi(\ell ) = c\, \ell^{-1}$ ?

We shall further discuss this problem in Section 4 for the function $\psi(\ell) = 2 \, \ell^{-1}$, offering some hints and indicating the difficulties which then arise. It turns out that the approximating function $\psi(\ell) = \ell^{-1}$ is permitted for almost all pairs $(\xi,y)$ of real numbers relatively to Lebesgue measure and that $-1$ is the critical exponent. The last assertion follows from the following metrical statement:

Let $\psi : \bN \mapsto \bR^+$ be a function. Assume that $\psi$ is non-increasing, tends to $0$ at infinity and that for every positive integer $c$ there exist positive real numbers $c_1<c_2$ satisfying $$c_1 \psi(\ell) \le \psi(c \, \ell) \le c_2  \psi(\ell) ,  \quad \forall  \ell \ge 1. \leqno{(3)}$$ Assume furthermore that $$\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \psi(\ell) = + \infty.$$ Then, for almost all pairs $(\xi,y)$ of real numbers there exist infinitely many primitive points $(p,q)$ such that $$q \ge 1 \quad {\rm and}\quad | q \xi + p - y | \le \psi( q).  \leqno{(4)}$$ If $
\sum_{\ell \ge 1} \psi(\ell) 
$ converges, the pairs $(\xi,y)$ satisfying $(4)$ for infinitely many primitive points $(p,q)$ form a set of null Lebesgue measure.

Note that $(4)$ gives an additional information on the sign of $q$, and that we could have equivalently required that $q$ be negative. Such a refinement could as well be achieved in the frame of Theorem 1, with a weaker approximating function of the form $\psi(\ell) = \ell^{-\mu}$ for any given real number $\mu <1/3$, by employing alternatively Theorem 5 in Section 9 of @LN. We leave the details of proof to the interested reader, arguing as in Section 2. For questions of density involving signs, see also @DaNo.

The proof of Theorem 2 is given in Section 3. It combines standard tools from metrical number theory with the ergodic properties of the linear action of $SL(2,\bZ)$ on $\bR^2$ @Mo. We refer to Harman's book @Har for closely related results. See also the recent overview @BBDV and the monographs @Sc, @Sp.

Theorem 2 is a metrical statement about pairs $(\xi,y)$ of real numbers. A natural question is to understand what happens on each fiber when we fix either $\xi$ or $y$. In this direction, here is a partial result which will be deduced from the explicit construction displayed in Section 4.

Let $\xi$ be an irrational number and let $(p_k/q_k)_{k\ge 0}$ be the sequence of its convergents. Assume that the series $$\sum_{k\ge 0} { 1\over \max(1,\log q_k)} \leqno{(5)}$$ diverges. Then for almost every real number $y$ there exist infinitely many primitive points $(p,q)$ satisfying $$| q \xi  + p -y | \le { 2 \over | q |  }.$$ Moreover the series $(5)$ diverges for almost every real number $\xi$.

We now turn to the second part of the paper devoted to density exponents for lattice orbits in $\bR^2$. As already mentioned, the approximating function $\psi(\ell) = c  \,\ell^{-1/2}$ occurring in Theorem 1 is directly connected to the density exponent $1/2$ for $SL(2,\bZ)$-orbits. We intend to show that this exponent $1/2$ is best possible in general. Thus our method for proving Theorem 1 fails with an approximating function $\ell^{-\mu}$ for $\mu >1/2$.

We work in the more general setting of <span>*lattices*</span> $\Gamma$ in $SL(2,\bR)$. Recall that a lattice $\Gamma$ in $SL(2,\bR)$ is a discrete subgroup for which the quotient $ \Gamma \backslash SL(2,\bR)$ has finite Haar measure. We view $\bR^2$ as a space of column vectors on which the group of matrices $\Gamma$ acts by left multiplication. We equip $\bR^2$ with the supremum norm $|  \, \,\,  |$, and for any matrix $\gamma \in \Gamma$, we denote as well by $|\gamma |$ the maximum of the absolute values of the entries of $\gamma$. Let us first give a

Let $\bx$ and $\by$ be two points in $\bR^2$. We denote by $\mu_\Gamma(\bx,\by)$ the supremum, possibly infinite, of the exponents $\mu$ such that the inequality $$| \gamma\bx - \by | \le | \gamma|^{-\mu} \leqno{(6)}$$ has infinitely many solutions $\gamma \in \Gamma$.

Note that for a fixed $\bx \in \bR^2$, the function $\by \mapsto \mu_\Gamma(\bx,\by)$ is $\Gamma$-invariant. By the ergodicity of the action of $\Gamma$ on $\bR^2$, see @Mo, this function is therefore constant almost everywhere on $\bR^2$. We denote by $\mu_\Gamma(\bx) $ its generic value and we call $\mu_\Gamma(\bx)$ the <span>*generic density exponent*</span> of the orbit $\Gamma\bx$.

The upper bound $
\mu_{\Gamma}(\bx) \le {1/ 2}
$ holds true for any point $\bx\in \bR^2$ such that the orbit $\Gamma \bx$ is dense in $\bR^2$.

In an equivalent way, Theorem 4 asserts that the upper bound $ \mu(\bx,\by) \le 1/2$ holds for almost all points $\by \in \bR^2$. This bound was already known in the case of the unimodular group $\Gamma =  SL(2,\bZ)$ as a consequence of Theorem 3 in @LN.

One may optimistically conjecture that $\mu_{\Gamma}(\bx) = 1/2$ for every point $\bx$ such that $\Gamma \bx$ is dense in $\bR^2$, or at least for almost every point $\bx \in \bR^2$. In this direction, it follows from @LN that the lower bound $$\mu_{SL(2,\bZ)} (\bx) \ge {1\over 3}$$ holds for all points $\bx$ in $\bR^2\setminus\{ {\bf 0} \}$ with irrational slope. Weaker lower bounds can as well be deduced from @MaWe which are valid for any lattice $\Gamma \subset SL(2,\bR)$. Note that the function $\bx \mapsto \mu_\Gamma(\bx)$ is $\Gamma$-invariant since the quantity $\mu_\Gamma(\bx)$ obviously depends only on the orbit $\Gamma\bx$. Thus, the generic density exponent $\mu_\Gamma(\bx)$ takes the same value for almost all points $\bx \in \bR^2$.

 Proof of Theorem 1
===================

We first state a result obtained in @LN. In this section, we denote by $\Gamma $ the lattice ${\rm SL(2,\bZ)}$. For any point $\bx =  \left(\begin
    {matrix} 
     x_1\cr x_2
      \end{matrix}
      \right)$ in $ \bR^2$ with irrational slope $ x_1/x_2$, the orbit $\Gamma \bx$ is dense in $\bR^2$. We have obtained in @LN effective results concerning the density of such an orbit. In particular, our estimates are essentially optimal when the target point $\by$ has rational slope.

Let $\bx$ be a point in $\bR^2$ with irrational slope and $\by =  \left(\begin{matrix}
 y\cr y\cr
 \end{matrix}
 \right)$ a point on the diagonal with $y\not= 0$. Then, there exist infinitely many matrices $\gamma \in \Gamma$ such that $$| \gamma \bx - \by | \le {c \over | \gamma |^{1/2}} \quad {\rm with} \quad  c =   2\sqrt{3} | \bx|^{1/2} | y |^{1/2}.\leqno{(7)}$$

The point $\by$ has rational slope $1$. Apply Theorem 1 (ii) of @LN with $a=b=1$.

Put $\bx =  \left(\begin{matrix}
 \xi\cr 1\cr
 \end{matrix}
 \right)$. The point $\bx$ has irrational slope $\xi$ so that Lemma 1 may be applied. Write $
\gamma =  \left(\begin{matrix}
 q_1 &  p_1\cr  q_2& p_2\cr
 \end{matrix}
 \right)
$ a matrix provided by Lemma 1. Then, the inequality (7) gives $$\begin{aligned}
 \max\left( | q_1 \xi + p_1 -y | ,  | q_2 \xi + p_2 - y | \right) &  \le {c \over \max ( | p_1|, | p_2| , | q_1|, |p_2| )^{1/2}}
 \\
 & \le {c \over \max (  | q_1|, |q_2| )^{1/2}}.
 \end{aligned}$$ Therefore, both points $(p,q) = (p_1,q_1)$ and $(p,q) = (p_2,q_2)$ satisfy (2), and since the determinant $q_1p_2 - q_2 p_1 = 1$, the two integer points $(p_1, q_1) $ and $(p_2,q_2)$ are primitive. As there exist infinitely many matrices $\gamma$ verifying (7), we thus find infinitely many coprime solutions to (2).

<span>**Remark.**</span> The choice of another fixed rational direction would give the same kind of estimate, with a different constant $c$. Notice however that our approach gives more than required, since we get two solutions of (2) forming a matrix $\gamma$ of determinant $1$. A better understanding of the shrinking target problem for the dense orbit $\Gamma \bx$, not to a point $\by$ as in @LN but to a line in $\bR^2$, may possibly lead to the expected exponent $-1$.

 Proof of Theorem 2
===================

It is convenient to view the pairs $(\xi,y)$ occurring in Theorem 2 as column vectors $ \left( \begin{matrix}
\xi \cr y\cr \end{matrix}
\right)$ in $\bR^2$. We are concerned with the set $\cE(\psi)$ of vectors $ \left( \begin{matrix}\xi \cr y\cr\end{matrix}
\right) \in \bR^2$ for which there exist infinitely many primitive integer points $(p,q)$ such that $$q \ge 1 \quad {\rm and}\quad  | q\xi +p -y | \le \psi(  q ) . \leqno{(8)}$$ For fixed $p,q$, denote by $\cE_{p,q}(\psi)$ the strip $$\cE_{p,q}(\psi) :=\Big \{ \left(\begin{matrix}\xi \cr y\cr\end{matrix}
\right) \in \bR^2 ; \quad  | q\xi +p -y | \le \psi(  q )\Big\},$$ and for every positive integer $q$, let $$\cE_q(\psi) : = \bigcup_{ { p\in \bZ\atop \gcd(p,q) =1}} \cE_{p,q}(\psi)$$ be the union of all relevant strips involved in (8) for fixed $q$. Without loss of generality, we shall assume that $\psi( q) \le 1/2$, so that the above union is disjoint. Then $\cE(\psi)$ is equal to the $ \limsup$ set $$\cE( \psi) = \bigcap_{Q \ge 1} \bigcup_{ q  \ge Q} \cE_q(\psi).$$

As usual when dealing with $\limsup$ set in metrical theory, we first estimate Lebesgue measure of pairwise intersections of the subsets $\cE_q(\psi),  q  \ge 1$. We establish next a new kind of zero-one law.

 Measuring intersections
------------------------

In this section, we restrict our attention to points located in the unit square $[0,1]^2$. We denote by $\varphi$ the Euler totient function and by $\lambda$ the Lebesgue measure on $\bR^2$.

Let $\psi : \bN \rightarrow [0,1/2]$ be a function.\
<span>(i)</span> For every positive integer $q$, we have $$\lambda (\cE_q(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2) = { 2 \varphi( q ) \psi( q) \over  q } .$$ <span>(ii)</span> Let $q$ and $s$ be distinct positive integers. Then, we have the upper bound $$\lambda (\cE_q(\psi) \cap \cE_s(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2)  \le 4 \psi(  q   )\psi(  s ).$$

Denote by $\chi_q$ the characteristic function of the interval $
\left[-\psi(  q ),  \psi(  q ) \right].
$ Then the characteristic function $\chi_{\cE_q(\psi)}$ of the subset $\cE_q(\psi) \subset \bR^2$ is equal to $$\chi_{\cE_q(\psi)} (\xi, y) = \sum_{{ p\in \bZ \atop \gcd(p,q) = 1}} \chi_q(q \xi +p - y)= \sum_{{ p\in \bZ \atop \gcd(p,q) = 1}} \chi_q(q \xi -p - y).$$ Observe that if $\left(\begin{matrix}\xi\cr y\end{matrix}\right)$ belongs to $[0,1]^2$, the indices $p$ of non-vanishing terms occurring in the last sum are located in the interval $-1 \le p \le q$. Integrating first with respect to $x$, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda (\cE_q(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2)  & = \int_0^1\int_0^1 \chi_{\cE_q(\psi)} (x, y) dxdy
\\
& =  \sum_{{ p\in \bZ \atop  -1 \le p \le q, \, \gcd(p,q) = 1 }}\int_0^1\int_0^1 \chi_q(q x - p - y)dxdy 
\\
& =
 \int_{1-\psi(q)}^{1 }{-1+y +\psi(q)\over q} dy 
 + \sum_{{1\le  p \le q-2 \atop \gcd(p,q)=1}} \int_0^1{2 \psi(q)\over q}  dy
 \\
 &   \qquad \qquad + \int_0^{1-\psi(q)}{2\psi(q)\over q} dy +  
 \int_{1-\psi(q)}^1{1 -y + \psi(q)\over q}dy
 \\
& = { 2 \varphi( q ) \psi( q) \over  q  }.
\end{aligned}$$ The first term appearing in the third equality of the above formula corresponds to the summation index $p=-1$ and the two last ones to $p=q-1$. We have thus proved (i).

For the second assertion, we majorize $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda (\cE_q(\psi) \cap \cE_s(\psi)&  \cap [0,1]^2)  = \int_0^1\int_0^1 \chi_{\cE_q(\psi)} (x, y)\chi_{\cE_s(\psi)} (x, y) dxdy
\\
& \le  \int_0^1\int_0^1  \left(\sum_{ p\in \bZ } \chi_q(q x +p - y) \right) \left(\sum_{ r\in \bZ } \chi_s(s x +r - y)\right) dxdy
\\
& = \int_0^1\int_0^1\chi_q(\| q x  - y\|) \chi_s(\| s x  - y \|) dx dy ,
\end{aligned}$$ where $\| .  \|$ stands as usual for the distance to the nearest integer. Now, (ii) follows from the probabilistic independence formula $$\int_0^1\int_0^1\chi_q(\| q x  - y\|) \chi_s(\| s x  - y \|) dx dy =  4 \psi(  q   )\psi(  s ),$$ obtained by Cassels on page 124 of @Cas (see Proof $(ii)$).

 A zero-one law
---------------

We say that a subset of $\bR^2$ is a <span>*null*</span> set if it has Lebesgue measure 0. A set whose complementary is a null set is called a <span>*full*</span> set. The goal of this section is to prove the

Let $\psi $ be an approximating function as in Theorem 2. Then the subset $\cE(\psi)$ is either a null set or a full set.

For proving the proposition, it is convenient to introduce the larger subset $$\cE'(\psi ) = \bigcup_{k\ge 1} \cE(k\psi).$$ In other words, $\cE'(\psi)$ is the set of all points $\left(\begin{matrix}
\xi \cr y\cr
\end{matrix}
\right)$ in $\bR^2
$ for which there exist a positive real number $\kappa $, depending possibly on $ \left(\begin{matrix}
\xi \cr y\cr
\end{matrix}
\right) $, and infinitely many primitive points $(p,q)$ satisfying $$q\ge 1 \quad {\rm and}\quad | q\xi +p -y | \le \kappa \psi(q). \leqno{(9)}$$ Observe that $\cE(k\psi) \subseteq \cE(k' \psi)$ if $1 \le k\le k'$. In particular, $\cE(\psi)$ is contained in $\cE'(\psi)$.

Let $\psi : \bN \rightarrow \bR^+$ be a function tending to lisa77@example.net. Then the difference $ \cE'(\psi) \setminus \cE(\psi)$ is a set of null Lebesgue measure.

We show that all sets $ \cE(k\psi),  k\ge 1, $ have the same Lebesgue measure. For every real number $y$, denote by $\cE(\psi, y)\subseteq \bR$ the section of $\cE(\psi)$ on the horizontal line $\bR \times \{ y\}$, i.e. $$\cE(\psi, y) = \left\{ \xi \in \bR \, ;  \,   \left(\begin{matrix} \xi \cr  y \end{matrix}\right) \in \cE(\psi)  \right\}.$$ Then, using $(8)$, we can express $$\cE(\psi,y) = \bigcap_{Q\ge 1}\bigcup_{q\ge Q}\bigcup_{{p\in \bZ\atop\gcd(p,q)=1}}\left[ {-p+ y -\psi(q)\over q},{-p+ y +\psi(q)\over q}\right]$$ as a limsup set of intervals. If we restrict to a bounded part of $\cE(\psi,y)$, the above union over $p$ reduces to a finite one. Observe that the centers ${-p+y\over q}$ of these intervals do not depend on $\psi$, and that their length is multiplied by the constant factor $k$ when replacing $\psi$ by $k\psi$. Appealing now to a result due to Cassels @CasB, we infer that all $\limsup$ sets $\cE(k\psi, y), k\ge 1,$ have the same Lebesgue measure. See also Corollary of Lemma 2.1 on page 30 of @Har. Notice that for fixed $k$, the length ${2k\psi(q)\over q}$ of the intervals $\left[ {-p+ y -k\psi(q)\over q},{-p+ y +k\psi(q)\over q}\right]$ tend to $0$ as $q$ tends to infinity, as required by Lemma 2.1. By Fubini, the fibered sets $$\cE(k\psi ) = \coprod_{y\in\bR} \Big( \cE(k\psi,y)\times \{ y\}\Big), \quad k\ge 1,$$ have as well the same Lebesgue measure in $\bR^2$.

Let $\psi : \bN \rightarrow \bR^+$ be a function satisfying the conditions $(3)$. Then $\cE'(\psi)$ is either a null or a full set.

It is based on the following observation. Let $\left(\begin{matrix}\xi \cr y\cr\end{matrix}\right)$ belong to $\cE'(\psi)$ and let $\gamma = \left(\begin{matrix} a& b\cr c& d\cr\end{matrix}\right)$ be a matrix in $SL(2,\bZ) $ such that $c \xi  +d > 0$. Then the point $
\left(\begin{matrix}\xi' \cr y'\cr\end{matrix}\right)
$ with coordinates $$\xi' = {a\xi + b\over  c\xi +d} \quad {\rm and}\quad y' = {y\over c\xi +d}$$ belongs to $\cE'(\psi)$. Indeed, substituting $$q = a q' +cp' , \quad p = bq' +d p' \leqno{(10)}$$ in $(9)$ and dividing by $c\xi +d$, we obtain the inequalities $$q' \ge 1 \quad{\rm and} \quad  | q'  \xi'  + p' -y' | \le {\kappa\over c\xi +d}  \psi( q) \le  \kappa' \psi(q') , \leqno{(11)}$$ for some $\kappa' >0$ independent of $q'$. The positivity of $q'$ is proved as follows. Note that $(9)$ implies the estimate $$p = -q \xi +\cO_{\xi,y}(1).$$ Then, inverting the linear substitution $(10)$, we find $$q' = d q- cp  = q(c\xi + d) + \cO_{\gamma,\xi,  y}(1).$$ Since we have assumed that $c\xi +d >0$, the term $q(c\xi + d)$ is arbitrarily large when $q$ is large enough. The conditions $(3)$ now show that $\psi(q)\asymp \psi(q')$. Thus $(11)$ is satisfied for infinitely many primitive points $(p',q')$, since the linear substitution $(10)$ is unimodular. We have shown that $\left(\begin{matrix}\xi' \cr y'\cr\end{matrix}\right)$ belongs to $\cE'(\psi)$.

We now prove that the intersection $\cE'(\psi) \cap ( \bR \times \bR^+)$ is either a full or a null subset of the half plane $\bR \times \bR^+$. To that purpose, we consider the map $$\Phi : \bR \times \bR^+ \rightarrow \bR \times \bR^+ ,\quad{ \rm defined \,\,\, by } \quad  \Phi\left(\left(\begin{matrix}x \cr y\cr\end{matrix}\right)\right) 
=\left(\begin{matrix}x/y \cr 1/y\cr\end{matrix}\right).$$ Clearly $\Phi$ is a continuous involution of $\bR \times \bR^+$. The image $$\Omega : = \Phi \Big(\cE'(\psi ) \cap ( \bR\times \bR^+)\Big)$$ is formed by all points of the type $$\left(\begin{matrix}u\cr v\cr\end{matrix}\right)
  = \left(\begin{matrix}{\xi\over y} \cr {1\over y}\cr\end{matrix}\right),$$ where $\left(\begin{matrix}\xi \cr y\cr\end{matrix}\right)$ ranges over $\cE'(\psi ) \cap ( \bR\times \bR^+)$. Now, the above condition $c\xi + d >0 $ is obviously equivalent to $cu+dv >0$ since $y$ is positive. Then, the point $$\Phi \left( \begin{matrix} au+bv \cr cu+dv\cr\end{matrix} \right) = \left(  \begin{matrix} {au+bv\over cu+dv} \cr  {1\over cu+dv}\cr\end{matrix} \right) 
 =  \left(\begin{matrix}{a\xi + b\over c\xi +d}\cr {y\over c\xi +d}\cr\end{matrix} \right)$$ belongs to $\cE'(\psi ) \cap ( \bR\times \bR^+)$, by the preceding observation. Applying the involution $\Phi$, we find that $$\Phi  \left(    \left(\begin{matrix}{a\xi + b\over c\xi +d}\cr {y\over c\xi +d}\cr \end{matrix} \right)   \right) = 
\left(\begin{matrix} au+bv\cr cu+dv\cr \end{matrix}\right)
= \left(\begin{matrix} a& b\cr c& d\cr \end{matrix}\right)\left(\begin{matrix} u\cr v\cr\end{matrix}\right)$$ belongs to $\Omega$. In other words, setting $\Gamma = SL(2,\bZ)$, we have established the inclusion $$(\Gamma \Omega) \cap ( \bR\times \bR^+) \subseteq \Omega.$$ Since the reversed inclusion is obvious, the equality $
\Omega = (\Gamma \Omega) \cap ( \bR\times \bR^+) 
$ holds in fact. Assuming that $\Omega$ is not a null set, the ergodicity of the linear action of $\Gamma$ on $\bR^2$ @Mo shows that $\Gamma \Omega$ is a full set in $\bR^2$. Hence $\Omega $ is a full set in the half plane $\bR\times \bR^+$. Transforming now $\Omega$ by $\Phi$, we find that $$\Phi(\Omega) = \cE'(\psi) \cap ( \bR \times \bR^+),$$ is as well a full set in $\bR\times \bR^+$, thus proving the claim.

We finally use another transformation to carry the zero-one law from the positive half plane $\bR\times \bR^+$ to the negative one $\bR\times \bR^-$. Writing $(9)$ in the equivalent form $$q \ge 1 \quad {\rm and}\quad | q(-\xi) + (-p) -( -y) |  \le \kappa \psi( q),$$ shows that $\cE'(\psi)$ is invariant under the symmetry $ \left( \begin{matrix} \xi \cr y\cr \end{matrix}\right) \mapsto  \left( \begin{matrix}- \xi \cr - y\cr \end{matrix}\right) $ which maps $\bR\times \bR^+$ onto $\bR\times \bR^-$. Therefore $\cE'(\psi) \cap(\bR\times \bR^-)$ is a null or a full set in $\bR\times \bR^-$ when $\cE'(\psi) \cap(\bR\times \bR^+)$ is accordingly a null or a full set in $\bR\times \bR^+$.

Now, the combination of Lemma 3 and Lemma 4 obviously yields our proposition.

Concluding the proof of Theorem 2
---------------------------------

Assume first that $\sum\psi(\ell)$ converges. We have to show that the set $$\cE(\psi) = \limsup_{q \rightarrow + \infty}\cE_q(\psi)$$ has null Lebesgue measure. Lemma 2 shows that the partial sums $$\sum_{q=1}^Q \lambda( \cE_q(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2) = 2 \sum_{q=1}^Q{\varphi(q)\psi(q)\over q} \le 2 \sum_{q=1}^Q\psi(q)$$ converge (\*). [^2] Then, Borel-Cantelli Lemma ensures that the $\limsup$ set $\cE(\psi)\cap[0,1]^2$ is a null set. Thus $\cE(\psi)$ cannot be a full set. Now, the above proposition tells us that $\cE(\psi)$ is a null set.

We now consider the case of a divergent series $\sum\psi(\ell)$. Observe that the estimate $${1\over 2} \sum_{q=1}^Q\psi(q) \le \sum_{q=1}^Q {\varphi(q) \psi (q)\over q} \le \sum_{q=1}^Q \psi(q)
  \leqno{(12)}$$ holds true for any large integer $Q$, since the sequence $\psi(\ell)_{\ell\ge 1}$ is non-increasing. The right inequality is obvious, while the left one easily follows from Abel summation process. See for instance Chapter 2 of @Har, where full details are provided. By Lemma 2 and $(12)$, the sums $$\sum_{q=1}^Q \lambda( \cE_q(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2) = 2 \sum_{q=1}^Q{\varphi(q)\psi(q)\over q} \ge   \sum_{q=1}^Q\psi(q)$$ are then unbounded. Then, using a classical converse to Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we have the lower bound $$\begin{aligned}
   \lambda\Big( \cE(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2\Big) &=  \lambda\Big( \limsup_{q \rightarrow + \infty}(  \cE_q(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2)\Big)
   \\
  & \ge \limsup_{Q \rightarrow + \infty}{ \left( \sum_{q=1}^Q \lambda (  \cE_q(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2) \right)^2
   \over
   \sum_{q=1}^Q\sum_{s=1}^Q  \lambda (  \cE_q(\psi)\cap \cE_s(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2) }.
   \end{aligned}
   \leqno{(13)}$$ See for instance Lemma 2.3 in @Har. Lemma 2 and $(12)$ now show that the numerator on the right hand side of $(13)$ equals $$4  \left( \sum_{q=1}^Q {\varphi(q)\psi(q)\over q} \right)^2
   \ge 
 \left( \sum_{q=1}^Q \psi(q) \right)^2,$$ when $Q$ is large, while the denominator is bounded from above by $$4 \displaystyle \sum_{{q=1,  s=1\atop q\not= s}}^Q \psi(q)\psi(s) + 2 \sum_{q=1}^Q \psi(q) 
  \le 4  \left( \sum_{q=1}^Q \psi(q) \right)^2 +  2 \sum_{q=1}^Q \psi(q).$$ Thus $(13)$ yields the lower bound $$\lambda\Big( \cE(\psi) \cap [0,1]^2\Big) \ge {1\over 4}.$$ Hence $\cE(\psi)$ is not a null set; it is thus a full set according to our proposition.

 An approach to our problem
===========================

In this section, we apply a transference principle between homogeneous and inhomogeneous approximation, as displayed in Chapter V of @Cas and in @BuLa, for constructing explicit integer solutions of the inequality $$| q \xi  + p -y | \le { 2 \over | q |  }. \leqno{(14)}$$

Let $(p_k/q_k)_{k\ge 0}$ be the sequence of convergents to the irrational number $\xi$. The theory of continued fractions, see for instance the monograph @Kh, tells us that $$| q_k \xi -p_k | \le {1 \over   q_{k+1}} \quad {\rm and}\quad  p_kq_{k+1} - p_{k+1}q_k = (-1)^{k+1},  \leqno{(15)}$$ for any $k\ge 0$. Setting $
\nu_k = (-1)^{k+1}q_k y
$, we thus have the relations $$\nu_k q_{k+1} +\nu_{k+1} q_k  =0
\quad {\rm and}\quad
\nu_k(q_{k+1} \xi -p_{k+1} ) + \nu_{k+1} (q_k\xi -p_k) = y . \leqno{(16)}$$ Now, let $n_k$ be anyone of the two integers $\lfloor\nu_k\rfloor$ and $\lceil\nu_k\rceil$ (). [^3] Then, $$| \nu_k - n_k |  <    1, \leqno{(17)}$$ and $n_k$ is either equal to $(-1)^{k+1}\lfloor yq_k\rfloor$ or to $(-1)^{k+1}\lceil yq_k\rceil$. Setting $$p = - n_k p_{k+1} -  n_{k+1} p_k \quad {\rm and}\quad q = n_k q_{k+1} + n_{k+1} q_k,  \leqno{(18)}$$ we deduce from $(16)$ the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
    q  \xi  + p -y     & =    n_k(q_{k+1} \xi -p_{k+1} ) + n_{k+1} (q_k\xi -p_k)-y  
   \\
   & =  (n_k-\nu_k)(q_{k+1} \xi -p_{k+1} ) +(n_{k+1}- \nu_{k+1}) (q_k\xi -p_k)
    \end{aligned}
  \leqno{(19)}$$ and $$q     =  (n_k- \nu_{k})q_{k+1} + (n_{k+1} -\nu_{k+1})q_k  . 
   \leqno{(20)}$$ Recall that $q_k\xi -p_k$ and $q_{k+1}\xi - p_{k+1}$ have opposite signs. Assuming that $n_k-\nu_k$ and $n_{k+1} -\nu_{k+1}$ have the same sign, we infer from the formulas $(19), (20)$ and from $(15), (17)$ that $$| q  \xi  + p -y  | < { 1 \over q_{k+1}} \quad { \rm and} \quad | q | <  2q_{k+1}. 
   \leqno{(21)}$$ Otherwise, we have $$| q  \xi  + p -y  | < { 2 \over q_{k+1}} \quad { \rm and} \quad | q | <  q_{k+1}. 
   \leqno{(22)}$$ The inequalities $(21)$ and $(22)$ obviously imply $(14)$.

Since the linear substitution $(18)$ is unimodular, the integers $p$ and $q$ are coprime if and only if $n_k$ and $n_{k+1}$ are coprime. Recall that the two choices $n_k =\lfloor \nu_k \rfloor$ and $n_k = \lceil \nu_k \rceil $ are admissible, both for $n_k$ and $n_{k+1}$. It thus remains to find indices $k$ for which at least one of the coprimality conditions $$\begin{aligned}
& \gcd(\lfloor y q_k \rfloor, \lfloor y q_{k+1} \rfloor) = 1   \quad{\rm or} \quad     \gcd(\lceil y q_k \rceil , \lceil  y q_{k+1} \rceil) =1  
\\
 \quad {\rm or}\quad  &  \gcd(\lfloor y q_k \rfloor, \lceil  y q_{k+1} \rceil) =1 \quad{\rm or} \quad   
       \gcd(\lceil y q_k \rceil , \lfloor  y q_{k+1} \rfloor) =1, 
       \end{aligned}
       \leqno{(23)}$$ is verified. Note that $(23)$ obviously fails for all $k \ge 0$ when $y$ is an integer not equal to $1$ or to $-1$. Otherwise, the contingent existence of infinitely many indices $k$ satisfying $(23)$ is a non-trivial problem that we leave hanging.

Proof of Theorem 3
------------------

We quote the following metrical result due to Harman (Theorem 8.3 in @Har). Assume that the series $(5)$ diverges. Then for almost all positive real numbers $y$, there exist infinitely many indices $k$ such that the integer part $\lfloor yq_k \rfloor $ is a prime number. These indices $k$ fulfill $(23)$ since, assuming for simplicity that $y$ is irrational, either $\lfloor yq_{k+1}\rfloor$ or $\lceil y q_{k+1} \rceil = \lfloor yq_{k+1}\rfloor +1$ is not divisible by $\lfloor yq_k \rfloor $ and is thus relatively prime with $\lfloor yq_k \rfloor $. Hence $(14)$ has infinitely many coprime solutions $(p,q)$ for almost every positive real number $y$. Writing now $(14)$ in the equivalent form $$| (-q) \xi +(-p) - (-y) | \le {2 \over | q |}$$ shows that, $\xi$ being given, the set of all real numbers $y$ for which $(14)$ has infinitely many coprime solutions is invariant by the symmetry $y\mapsto -y$. The first assertion is thus established. To complete the proof, note that $$\lim_{k \rightarrow +\infty} { \log q_k \over k} = { \pi^2\over 12 \log 2}$$ for almost every $\xi$ by Khintchine-Levy Theorem (see equation (4.18) in @Bi). Thus the series $(5)$ diverges for almost every $\xi$.

 Generic density exponents
==========================

We prove in this section Theorem 4, as a consequence of Borel-Cantelli Lemma combined with the following counting result.

Let $\bx$ be a point in $ \bR^2$ whose orbit $\Gamma \bx$ is dense in $\bR^2$. For every symmetric compact set $\Omega$ in $\bR^2\setminus\{\bf 0\}$ there exists $c > 0$ such that $$\Card \{ \gamma \in \Gamma ; \gamma \bx \in \Omega , | \gamma | \le T \} \le c T$$ for any real number $T \ge 1$.

Ledrappier @Le has shown that the limit formula $$\lim_{T \rightarrow + \infty}{1\over T} {\displaystyle \sum_{\gamma\in \Gamma, | \gamma | \le T}f(\gamma \bx)}
= {4 \over | \bx | \vol(\Gamma \setminus SL(2,\bR))}\int  { f(\by)  \over | \by |} d\by,$$ holds for any even continuous function $f : \bR^2\rightarrow \bR$ having compact support on $\bR^2\setminus\{\bf 0\}$, with a suitable normalisation of Haar measure on $SL(2,\bR)$. Approximating uniformly from above and from below the characteristic function of $\Omega$ by even continuous functions, we deduce that $$\lim_{T \rightarrow + \infty}{\Card \{ \gamma \in \Gamma ; \gamma \bx \in \Omega , | \gamma | \le T \}\over T}
= {4 \over | \bx | \vol(\Gamma \setminus SL(2,\bR))}\int _\Omega { d\by \over | \by |}.$$ Lemma 5 immediately follows.

For any point $\by\in \bR^2$ and any positive real number $r$, we denote by $$B(\by,r) = \{ \bz \in \bR^2 ; | \bz - \by | \le r\}$$ the closed disc centered at $\by$ with radius $r$.

Let $\bx$ be a point in $ \bR^2$ whose orbit $\Gamma \bx$ is dense, $\Omega$ a symmetric compact set in $\bR^2\setminus\{\bf 0\}$ and $\mu$ a real number $> 1/2$. For every integer $n \ge 1$, put $$\cB_n = \bigcup_{{\gamma \in \Gamma \atop | \gamma | = n, \gamma \bx \in \Omega}} B(\gamma \bx , n^{-\mu}).$$ Then the set $$\cB  : = \limsup_{n \rightarrow +\infty} \cB_n = \bigcap_{N\ge 1} \bigcup_{n \ge N}\cB_n = 
 \bigcap_{N\ge 1} \bigcup_{{\gamma \in \Gamma \atop | \gamma | \ge N, \gamma \bx \in \Omega}}B( \gamma \bx, | \gamma |^{-\mu})$$ has null Lebesgue measure.

We apply Borel-Cantelli Lemma and we prove that the series $\sum_{n\ge 1}\lambda(\cB_n)$ converges if $\mu >1/2$.

For every positive integer $n$, set $$M_n =  \Card \{ \gamma \in \Gamma ; \gamma \bx \in \Omega, | \gamma | = n \}.$$ Lemma 5 gives us the upper bound $$M_1 + \cdots + M_n =  \Card \{ \gamma \in \Gamma ; \gamma \bx \in \Omega, | \gamma | \le n \} \le c n  ,  \leqno{(24)}$$ for some $c>0$ independent of $n \ge 1$. Since a ball of radius $r$ has Lebesgue measure $4r^2$, we trivially bound from above $$\lambda( \cB_n) \le  \sum_{{\gamma \in \Gamma \atop | \gamma | = n, \gamma \bx \in \Omega}}4n^{-2\mu} = 4  M_n n^{-2\mu}.$$ Summing by parts, we deduce from $(24)$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{n= 1}^N {M_n \over n^{2\mu}}  & = \sum_{n= 1}^{N-1} (M_1 + \cdots + M_n)\left( {1\over n^{2\mu}}- {1\over (n+1)^{2\mu}}\right) 
+ {M_1+ \cdots + M_N\over N^{2\mu}}
\\
& \le c   \sum_{n=1}^{N-1} n \left( {1\over n^{2\mu}} - {1\over (n+1)^{2\mu}}\right)  +  {c  N \over N^{2\mu}} = c  \sum_{n=1}^{N}  {1\over n^{2\mu}}.
\end{aligned}$$ The partial sums $$\sum_{n=1}^N \lambda(\cB_n) \le 4 \sum_{n= 1}^N {M_n \over n^{2\mu}} \le 4 c \sum_{n=1}^{N}  {1\over n^{2\mu}}$$ thus converge if $\mu > 1/2$.

Proof of Theorem 4
------------------

We argue by contradiction and suppose on the contrary that $\mu_\Gamma(\bx) > 1/2$. Fix a real number $\mu$ with $1/2 < \mu < \mu_\Gamma(\bx)$. Then for almost all points $\by\in \bR^2$, we have $\mu(\bx,\by) > \mu$. This means that there exist infinitely many $\gamma \in \Gamma$ satisfying (6), or equivalently that $\by $ belongs to infinitely many balls of the form $B(\gamma \bx, | \gamma |^{-\mu})$. We now restrict our attention to points $\by$ with $\mu(\bx,\by) > \mu$ lying in an annulus $$\Omega' = \{ \bz \in \bR^2 ; a' \le | \bz | \le b' \},$$ where $b'>a'>0$ are arbitrarily fixed. Since $\by$ belongs to the intersection $
\Omega' \cap B(\gamma \bx, | \gamma |^{-\mu}), 
$ we deduce from the triangle inequality the estimate $$a'-|\gamma|^{-\mu} \le | \gamma \bx | \le b' + |\gamma|^{-\mu}.$$ Fixing $a< a'$ and $b> b'$, the center $\gamma \bx$ then lies in the larger annulus $$\Omega = \{ \bz \in \bR^2 ; a \le | \bz | \le b \},$$ provided that $|\gamma| $ is large enough. It follows that $\by$ falls inside the union of balls $$\bigcup_{{\gamma \in \Gamma \atop | \gamma | \ge N, \gamma \bx \in \Omega}}B( \gamma \bx, | \gamma |^{-\mu})$$ considered in Lemma 6 for every integer $N$ large enough, and thus $\by$ belongs to $\cB$. However, Lemma 6 asserts that $\cB$ is a null set which is a contradiction.

<span>999</span>

V. Beresnevitch, V. Bernik, M. Dodson and S. Velani, <span>*Classical metric diophantine approximation revisited*</span>, in "Analytic Number Theory, essays in honour of Klaus Roth", Cambridge University Press (2009).

P. Billingsley, Ergodic Theory and Information. John Wiley & Sons, 1965.

Y. Bugeaud and M. Laurent, <span>*Exponents of inhomogeneous Diophantine approximation*</span>, Moscow Math. J. <span>**5**</span> (2005), 747–766.

J. W. S. Cassels, An Introduction to Diophantine Approximation. Cambridge Tracts in Math. and Math. Phys., vol. 99, Cambridge University Press, 1957.

J. W. S. Cassels, <span>*Some metrical theorems in Diophantine approximation I*</span>, Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc. <span>**46**</span> (1950), 209–218.

S. G. Dani and A. Nogueira, <span>*On $SL(n,\bZ)_+$-orbits on $\bR^n$ and positive integral solutions of linear inequalities*</span>, J. Number Theory <span>**129**</span> (2009), 2526–2529.

G. Harman, Metric Number Theory. London Mathematical Society Monographs 18, Oxford University Press, 1998.

A. Khintchine, Continued Fractions. Dover Publications, 1997.

M. Laurent and A. Nogueira, <span>*Approximation to points in the plane by $SL(2,\bZ)$-orbits*</span>, to appear in the J. London Math. Soc., (Arxiv : NT/1004.1326v1).

F. Ledrappier, <span>*Distribution des orbites des réseaux sur le plan réel*</span>, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. I. <span>**329**</span> (1999) 61–64.

F. Maucourant and B. Weiss, <span>*Lattice actions on the plane revisited*</span>, to appear in Geometria Dedicata (on line, 4 March 2011).

C. Moore, <span>*Ergodicity of flows on homogeneous spaces*</span>, Amer. J. Math. <span>**88**</span> (1966) 154–178.

W. Schmidt, Diophantine Approximation, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 785, 1980.

V. G. Sprind$\breve{\rm z}$uck, Metric Theory of Diophantine Approximations, V. H. Winston & Sons, 1979.

Institut de Mathématiques de Luminy, Case 907, 163 avenue de Luminy, 13288, Marseille Cédex 9.

<span>lisa77@example.net</span>,

<span>lisa77@example.net</span>

[^1]: 2010 <span>*Mathematics Subject Classification:* </span> 11J20, 37A17.

[^2]: (\*) Here again we assume without loss of generality that $\psi(q) \le 1/2$ for every $q\ge 1$, so that Lemma 2 may be applied.

[^3]: () As usual $\lfloor x \rfloor$ and $\lceil x \rceil$ stand respectively for the integer part and the upper integer part of the real number $x$. Then $\lceil x \rceil = \lfloor x \rfloor + 1$, unless $x$ is an integer in which case $\lfloor x \rfloor = \lceil x \rceil = x$.

{'source': 'arXiv_out/1110'}