Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Theorem 1.1, p. 4, with Conjectures 1 to 5 on pp. 2--3 and Conjecture 1' on p. 5, of Ben Green and Imre Z. Ruzsa, On the arithmetic Kakeya conjecture of Katz and Tao, arXiv:1712.02108 (2017); the edition read is named on the source card.
Statement
The five conjectures, in the paper's notation.
- Conjecture 1 (p. 2). For positive integers let be the size of the smallest set of integers that contains, for each , a -term arithmetic progression with common difference . Then
- Conjecture 2 (p. 2). For real-valued random variables taking only finitely many values, and any , there are , none equal to , with , where is the Shannon entropy. A footnote allows the to lie in , with , and says the two versions are equivalent.
- Conjecture 3 (p. 3), the Katz--Tao form. For $A\subset\mathbb Z\times\mathbb Z$ finite and rational write and . For every there are , none equal to , such that for all finite .
- Conjecture 4() (p. 3). For a positive integer and a prime let be the size of the smallest set in containing, for every , a -term progression with common difference . Then . (The displayed limit prints the subscript as .)
- Conjecture 5 (p. 3). Fix a positive integer . Uniformly for all positive integers , all sets of primes and all intervals of length ,
where as .
Theorem 1.1 (p. 4, quoted). "Conjectures 1, 2, 3, 4() (for each ) and 5 are all equivalent."
The paper also uses (p. 5) Conjecture 1': with the size of the smallest containing a -term arithmetic progression with common difference for different values of , .
Remarks the paper attaches (pp. 3--4). Conjecture 3, hence each of the others, is known to imply that every Besicovitch set in has upper Minkowski dimension . The equivalence of Conjectures 2 and 3 is attributed to the second author's earlier work. Erdős and Selfridge asked whether is possible in Conjecture 5; the paper records that the answer is no, with (crediting the second author's reference [16]), and that Proposition 4.1 and Theorem 1.2 together give .
Proof pointer
Section 2 (pp. 5--11) proves Conjectures 1, 1', 2 and 3 equivalent; Proposition 2.1 (p. 6) gives , so Conjectures 1 and 1' are equivalent since . Section 3 (pp. 11--14) brings in the finite field forms Conjecture 4(). Section 4 (pp. 14--16) proves Proposition 4.1, which makes Conjectures 1' and 5 equivalent.
Read depth
Claims checked: the five conjectures, Conjecture 1', Theorem 1.1 and the remarks around them were read clause by clause on the print. The proofs of Sections 2 and 3 were not followed; the proof of Proposition 4.1 was. Nothing here is independently reviewed.
Dependencies
Proposition 4.1 for the equivalence with Conjecture 5.
Bears on
- Problem 1143: Conjecture 5 is a lower bound, for each integer , on that problem's count minimised over primes; Theorem 1.1 makes the bound with equivalent to the arithmetic Kakeya conjecture, which the paper leaves open. It proves no bound on the count.