Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
Lemma 2 (p. 95). Let and let be a set of integers such that
- (2a) ;
- (2b) for at most one ;
- (2c) for ;
- (2d) for all , , ;
- (2e) for some constant and all .
Then there is a number such that for all there is a set with (2f) , (2g) for every , and (2h) for every , , some has .
Remark (pp. 96--97). The paper's typical application: for a sequence , let run over the representations , . Then (2a) to (2d) hold automatically, and (2e) holds when every large has at least representations with . Deleting from destroys every representation of , while every , , stays in .
Proof pointer
Pp. 95--96. Choose with and with . By Lemma 1, for each at most transversals of meet every set of ; summing over leaves fewer than bad transversals, while (2a) and (2b) give at least transversals in all.
Read depth
Claims checked: the statement and the remark were read clause by clause on the page images of the print, and the proof was followed. Nothing here is independently reviewed.
Dependencies
Source. P. Erdős and M. B. Nathanson, Systems of distinct representatives and minimal bases in additive number theory, in: Number Theory, Carbondale 1979, Lecture Notes in Math. 751, Springer, Berlin, 1979, pp. 89--107 (MR 81k:10089); the edition read is named on the source card.
Bears on
No problem directly. The paper calls it the crucial tool of the paper (p. 96); it drives Theorem 1 and the nonbasis theorems.