Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Steinerberger 2022 remarks erdos distinct subset sums problem
corollary_1: The integer case of Theorem 1, which the paper credits to Elkies: for positive integers a_1, ..., a_n the integral over [0,1] of the product of cos^2(2 pi a_i x) is at least 2^{-n}, with equality if and only if all subset sums are distinct.
corollary_2: Steinerberger's new proof of the Dubroff--Fox--Xu bound: the largest element of an n-element set of positive reals with 1-separated subset sums, in particular of positive integers with distinct subset sums, is at least (1-o(1)) sqrt(2/pi) 2^n / sqrt(n).
lemma_1: The paper's version of Elkies's estimate: the part of the Theorem 1 integral over |x| <= 1/(4a_n) is at least (1+o(1)) (1/2)(1/a_n)(1/sqrt(pi n)), which with Theorem 1 already gives a_n >= (1+o(1)) 2^n / sqrt(pi n) for 1-separated subset sums.
lemma_2: Steinerberger's new ingredient: for 1-separated subset sums with a_n^2 <= c n^{-2/3-eps} sum a_i^2, the part of the Theorem 1 integral over |x| >= 1/(4a_n) is at least (1+o(1)) (sqrt 2 - 1)/(2 sqrt pi) times (sum a_i^2)^{-1/2}, proved through a two-valued density approximating a Gaussian.
theorem_1: Steinerberger's analytic characterization: for positive reals a_1, ..., a_n the integral of (sin 2 pi x / 2 pi x)^2 times the product of cos^2(2 pi a_i x) is at least 2^{-n-1}, with equality if and only if all subset sums are at distance at least 1 from each other.
theorem_2: Steinerberger's Gaussian comparison: for 1-separated subset sums with a_n^2 <= c n^{-1/2} sum a_i^2, the squared L^2 distance between h * mu and the matching Gaussian density equals the Theorem 1 integral restricted to |x| >= 1/(4a_n), up to an error o(2^{-n}) as n tends to infinity.
Stefan Steinerberger, Some Remarks on the Erdős Distinct Subset Sums Problem. arXiv:2208.12182 (2022).
Reading basis. The statements and mechanisms below were checked against the complete text of arXiv:2208.12182v2 (2 January 2023, 15 pp.), whose section numbers and printed pages are used here. The paper writes for the number of elements; the digest below writes , and the result pages and the Results list keep the paper's . The journal version is Int. J. Number Theory 19 (2023), no. 8, 1783--1800, DOI 10.1142/S1793042123500860 (Crossref record read), not compared. No claim of proof verification is made.
Exact analytic characterization
For positive reals , put
Theorem 1 in §2.1 (p. 2) states
with equality if and only if the subset sums are pairwise at distance at least . The exact equality mechanism is in §3.1, from the opening paragraph through the display ending in : for the signed-sum law and , the density is a sum of translated interval indicators. Its squared norm is at least the sum of the diagonal terms, and equality holds exactly when those intervals do not overlap. Their centres are then -separated, which is equivalent to the original subset sums being -separated. The remainder of §3.1 identifies this norm with the Fourier integral above by Plancherel and .
For positive integers, Corollary 1 in §2.1 (p. 2), which the paper credits to Elkies and proves in §3.2, gives the periodic form
again with equality exactly when all subset sums are distinct. Thus the equality condition is not merely a consequence attached to an estimate: it is an exact Fourier-analytic test for dissociation after the relevant separation normalization.
Signed sums and the near-Gaussian mechanism
Order the steps so that . Let , with independent uniform signs, let be its law, and write . Distinct integer subset sums make the values of distinct and -separated. Consequently takes only the values and , the latter on disjoint intervals of length , while the matching Gaussian has density
Theorem 2 in §2.3 (p. 5) says that, for fixed and positive reals with -separated subset sums and , as ,
The local Fourier comparison behind this identity is Lemma 3 in §3.4; §3.5 then removes the negligible Gaussian tail. Under the stronger hypothesis , §3.6 uses Berry--Esseen convergence on intervals. The two-level density must then imitate the local mass of , forcing the quantitative discrepancy that §3.6 derives from its Proposition:
Through the identity of Theorem 2 this is Lemma 2 in §2.2 (p. 3), the same lower bound for the integral over . Lemma 1 in §2.2 (p. 3), which the paper traces to Elkies, bounds the integral over below by ; its printed statement carries no size condition on , though its proof (p. 8) assumes one, which -separated subset sums supply. Adding the two bounds, using , and comparing with the value that Theorem 1 gives for -separated subset sums yields Corollary 2 in §2.1 (p. 3); the outline on p. 3 leaves aside the case where Lemma 2's size hypothesis fails, which the bound of p. 2 settles at once:
What this supplies for Problem 963
Apply Corollary 2 to a dissociated -element subset . Its largest element is at most , so
After inversion, every such satisfies
Together with the powers-of-two construction, this places the largest dissociated subset of the initial interval between and . In the minimization defining E0963, the initial interval is therefore one admissible competitor and yields an upper benchmark for .
It does not give the requested lower bound for every -element real set. Cardinality alone puts no bound on the magnitudes or span of an arbitrary ambient set, so the inequality for the largest member of a chosen dissociated subset cannot be converted into a bound depending only on . Translation also does not preserve dissociation when the compared subsets have different cardinalities. Most importantly, nothing in the paper proves that an initial interval minimizes the largest dissociated-subset size among all ambient sets. The paper therefore controls interval competitors, not the worst arbitrary ambient set quantified over in E0963.
Source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.12182. The arXiv record names arXiv's non-exclusive distribution license (arXiv:2208.12182), every other right reserved.
Results.
- Theorem 1 (p. 2): the sinc-weighted Fourier integral is at least , with equality exactly for 1-separated subset sums.
- Corollary 1 (p. 2, credited to Elkies): the periodic integer form, with equality exactly for distinct subset sums.
- Corollary 2 (p. 3): for 1-separated subset sums, .
- Lemma 1 (p. 3, after Elkies): the inner part of the integral is at least , under the size condition on that its proof assumes and the printed statement omits.
- Lemma 2 (p. 3), with the Proposition of p. 13: for 1-separated subset sums with , the outer part is at least .
- Theorem 2 (p. 5), with Lemma 3 of p. 9: for 1-separated subset sums with , the squared distance between the smoothed signed-sum law and its Gaussian equals the outer part of the integral up to .
Bears on. Problem 963: Corollary 2 bounds every dissociated subset of the initial interval by elements, as derived above, and says nothing about other sets of reals. And Problem 1, the paper's subject: Corollary 2 gives every -element with distinct subset sums , a bound of order that the paper says is not new and that does not decide the problem's statement.
No file of this source is held: no license on record permits its redistribution, and the card cites the edition it names above.