Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. M. Charalambides, A note on distinct distance subsets, J. Geom. 104 (2013), no. 3, 439--442, DOI 10.1007/s00022-013-0176-0; read in the arXiv preprint arXiv:1211.1776v1, whose labels and page numbers are used here. Proposition 2.1 on p. 1; its proof on pp. 1--2; Remark 2.2 on p. 2. The journal version was not compared. The edition read is identified on the source card.
Statement
Definitions (p. 1): for a finite set , is the largest size of a subset whose pairwise distances are all distinct, and for a positive integer , is the minimum of over all -element sets . The paper uses without defining it; it is read here as meaning for an absolute constant .
Proposition 2.1 (p. 1). ""
Remark 2.2 (p. 2). The paper states that, by scaling the probability in the proof, for every fixed there is a positive integer with
Since is arbitrary, the remark as printed says that . Conlon, Fox, Gasarch, Harris, Ulrich and Zbarsky, in Distinct volume subsets, credit the paper with , noting that the bound stated in the paper is slightly worse and that a careful analysis of its proof gives theirs.
Proof pointer
The proof (pp. 1--2) is Lefmann and Thiele's random selection with deletion. For , keep each point of independently with probability , then delete one point from each surviving isosceles triangle (ordered triples of distinct points with , counted by ) and from each surviving quadruple of distinct points with (counted by ). The inputs are , which Pach and Sharir derived from the Szemerédi--Trotter theorem, and from the Guth--Katz theorem; both are cited, not proved. The choice makes the expected size of the remaining set at least for absolute constants .
Coverage
Claims checked: the definitions, Proposition 2.1 and Remark 2.2 were read clause by clause on the page images of pp. 1--2. The deletion argument was read line by line; the cited bounds of Pach and Sharir and of Guth and Katz were not checked, and Remark 2.2's scaling was not carried out. Nothing here is independently reviewed.
Bears on. #1208, for : is that problem's , so the proposition gives . It does not determine the order of ; the upper bound the paper records is Proposition 1.2.