Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated


Claim. Let F(N)F(N) be the least size of a set A⊆{0,1,…,N}A\subseteq\{0,1,\ldots,N\} with {0,1,…,N}⊆A−A\{0,1,\ldots,N\}\subseteq A-A, the quantity Problem 170 asks about. Then F(N)/NF(N)/\sqrt N converges as N→∞N\to\infty. This is part 1∘1^\circ of the Theorem of P. Erdős and I. S. Gál, On the representation of 1,2,…,N1,2,\ldots,N by differences, Nederl. Akad. Wetensch., Proc. 51 (1948), no. 9, 1155--1158, reprinted as Indag. Math. 10 (1948), fasc. 5, 379--382, communicated at the meeting of 30 October 1948, cited as [ErGa48] on the problem page (card). The paper's n0=min⁡l(n)n_0=\min l(n), the least number of terms of a restricted difference basis with respect to nn in Brauer's sense, is F(n)F(n), and the convergence of n0/nn_0/\sqrt n is the question Rédei asked, as the paper and the site's commentary record. The proof covers {0,…,N}\{0,\ldots,N\} by the differences of a union of two sets, a dilated copy of a minimal basis for a smaller nn with a Singer perfect difference set modulo p2+p+1p^2+p+1 added, and two short tails, 0,1,…,[M]0,1,\ldots,[\sqrt M] at the bottom end and N,N−[M],…,N−([M]+1)[M]N,N-[\sqrt M],\ldots,N-([\sqrt M]+1)[\sqrt M] at the top end, and chooses the prime pp by the prime number theorem; the same construction, with the restriction 0≤ai≤n0\le a_i\le n dropped, gives the paper's new proof of Rédei and Rényi's results for unrestricted bases.

The Theorem has two further parts, which this page does not cover. Part 2∘2^\circ asserts lim⁡n0/n=inf⁡nn0/n\lim n_0/\sqrt n=\inf_n n_0/\sqrt n, and part 3∘3^\circ, through 2∘2^\circ and the basis {0,1,4,6}\{0,1,4,6\} for n=6n=6, asserts 2+4/(3π)≤lim⁡n0/n≤8/3\sqrt{2+4/(3\pi)}\le\lim n_0/\sqrt n\le\sqrt{8/3}. The printed argument has a slip: on p. 1157 the covering step sets N−M+1=nm+1N-M+1=nm+1, while the paper's own equation (2), M=N−(n+1)(p2+p+1)M=N-(n+1)(p^2+p+1) with m=p2+p+1m=p^2+p+1, gives N−M+1=(n+1)m+1N-M+1=(n+1)m+1, so the differences strictly between nmnm and (n+1)m(n+1)m are not shown to be represented. The slip sits in the argument the paper gives for 1∘1^\circ and 2∘2^\circ together. The identification in 2∘2^\circ would put the limit at most 4/6=8/3=1.633…4/\sqrt6=\sqrt{8/3}=1.633\ldots, below Wichmann's upper bound 3\sqrt3 ([[problems/additive_combinatorics/E0170/claims/1963_01_01_wichmann|his claim page]]) and against the computational evidence the site records that 3\sqrt3 is the value. The existence of the limit is the part the site's commentary and the formal-conjectures catalog credit to the paper, and it is the only part recorded here.

Covers. The existence of lim⁡N→∞F(N)/N\lim_{N\to\infty}F(N)/\sqrt N, Rédei's question. Not covered: the value of the limit, which the problem asks for; the paper's identification of the limit with inf⁡nn0/n\inf_n n_0/\sqrt n; and its numerical bounds 2+4/(3π)\sqrt{2+4/(3\pi)} and 8/3\sqrt{8/3}, which rest on that identification.

Depends on. Nothing in this wiki: the construction is the paper's own, with Singer's perfect difference sets and the prime number theorem as its cited inputs.

Acceptance. Refereed: the paper appeared in the Proceedings of the Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, volume 51 (1948), no. 9, 1155--1158, and in Indagationes Mathematicae, volume 10 (1948), fasc. 5, 379--382, the Rényi Institute's copy linked above; the corpus treats Indagationes Mathematicae (Proceedings) as a journal publication, and the page is named by the communication date the paper prints. Reviewed is not listed: the site labels the problem OPEN, and its commentary crediting the existence of the limit to Erdős and Gál is commentary on an open problem, not acceptance of a solution. Formalized is not listed: the formal-conjectures catalog states the existence of the limit, within Leech's and Wichmann's bounds, as the lemma erdos170.existing_bounds of its file for the problem, pinned above, and marks it research solved, but states it without a proof, and this corpus has built no proof of it.