Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
For positive integers let (display (1.1), p. 1).
Proposition 1.1 (p. 2). There is a subset with such that
The print leaves the quantifier on implicit (the statement is read as holding for each large ) and does not make the constant explicit. The paper says the proposition improves upon Kolountzakis's construction (1.7), which has and .
The same result is stated and proved in section 2 as Proposition 2.2 (p. 5), with the roles of the letters exchanged: a subset of size with $\bigl|\prod_{k=1}^m|1-z^{a_k}|\bigr|_{L^\infty(|z|=1)}\le e^{c\sqrt n\sqrt{\log n}(\log\log n)}$ (2.4). The remark after it (p. 5) calls (2.4) a slight improvement of the bound that follows from a construction of Kolountzakis (Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (1994), p. 162) together with Lemma 2.1.
Source. J. Bourgain and M.-C. Chang, On a paper of Erdős and Szekeres, J. Anal. Math. 136 (2018), 253--271; Proposition 1.1 on p. 2 and Proposition 2.2 on p. 5 of the arXiv version arXiv:1509.08411v2, whose labels and pages are used here; the source card records the edition.
Read depth. Claims checked: the statements of Propositions 1.1 and 2.2 and the remark after 2.2 were read clause by clause on the page images. The proof was read for its structure only (below); no step was checked, and nothing here is independently reviewed.
Proof pointer
The proof of Proposition 2.2 (pp. 6--10) chooses the exponents at random: independent selectors , , with mean , so that the expected cosine sum of the chosen set is a Fejér kernel (2.5). Lemma 2.1 (p. 4) bounds the logarithm of the product above by a weighted cosine sum; the mean part contributes at most because the Fejér kernel is nonnegative, and the random part is bounded with large probability by the probabilistic Salem--Zygmund inequality (2.10), which leaves a square sum (2.12) to estimate. That sum is bounded by for every except those with for and a small denominator (2.20), which are handled by comparing the random product with its expectation and evaluating the resulting product over residues mod with Lemma 2.1 again (displays (2.21)--(2.26), pp. 9--10).
Dependencies
Lemma 2.1 (p. 4), whose proof rests on a calculation in Odlyzko's Proposition 1 (J. London Math. Soc. (2) 26 (1982), 412--420), display (2.4) there; the probabilistic Salem--Zygmund inequality, cited from Kolountzakis's survey (Number theory, New York Seminar 1991--1995, Springer, 1996, 229--251). Neither was checked here.
Bears on
- Problem 256: the proposition gives sets of distinct exponents whose maximum is at most , and since $f(n)\le f_*(n)\le M(a_1,\dots,a_n)$ it bounds , and hence , from above for the sizes it produces. The paper states no new bound for at every . It does not touch the question whether , which the bound of Belov and Konyagin answers.