Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Statement

Theorem (p. 131, unnumbered), quoted: "Let PP be a polynomial of degree k⩾2k\geqslant2 with nonnegative coefficients. Let BB be a set of nonnegative numbers such that every integer n⩽Nn\leqslant N can be written as n=b+P(λ)n=b+P(\lambda) for some integer λ\lambda and some bb in BB. Then given ε>0\varepsilon>0, we have

∣B∣ P−1(N)>((1−1k)−1sin⁡(π/k)π/k−ε)N,\lvert B\rvert\,P^{-1}(N)>\left(\Bigl(1-\frac1k\Bigr)^{-1} \frac{\sin(\pi/k)}{\pi/k}-\varepsilon\right)N,

for all sufficiently large NN."

Here ∣B∣\lvert B\rvert is the cardinality of BB and P−1P^{-1} the inverse function of PP (p. 130); Section 2 (p. 131) notes that PP is strictly increasing on [0,+∞)[0,+\infty) and so maps it one-to-one onto [P(0),+∞)[P(0),+\infty), with P−1P^{-1} strictly increasing. The proof (pp. 131--134) uses the covering hypothesis only for the integers 0≤n≤N0\le n\le N. The abstract (p. 130) states the same theorem with the same hypotheses. The introduction (p. 130) poses the problem for nonnegative integer coefficients and a set BB of integers, where the hypothesis gives at once ∣B∣(P−1(N)+1)⩾N\lvert B\rvert(P^{-1}(N)+1)\geqslant N; the theorem drops both integrality conditions and asks instead that BB consist of nonnegative numbers.

The constant. The paper writes

Ck=(1−1k)−1sin⁡(π/k)π/kC_k=\Bigl(1-\frac1k\Bigr)^{-1}\frac{\sin(\pi/k)}{\pi/k}

(p. 134), as the ratio of ∫01(1−t)−1/k dt\int_0^1(1-t)^{-1/k}\,dt to ∫01(1−tk)−1/k dt\int_0^1(1-t^k)^{-1/k}\,dt, the latter evaluated by Euler's beta integral as (π/k)/sin⁡(π/k)(\pi/k)/\sin(\pi/k).

Applications (Section 4, p. 134). For k=2k=2 the bound is C2=4/π=1.2732…C_2=4/\pi=1.2732\ldots, which the paper says improves the bound 1.2451.245 of Balasubramanian and Soundararajan; for k=3k=3 it is C3=93/(4π)=1.24049…C_3=9\sqrt3/(4\pi)=1.24049\ldots, improving Balasubramanian's (1.5)1/3=1.14471…(1.5)^{1/3}=1.14471\ldots. The paper states that CkC_k is always greater than (2−2/(k+1))1/k(2-2/(k+1))^{1/k}, Balasubramanian's general constant, so the theorem improves that result for every kk; it gives no proof of this comparison. The introduction (pp. 130--131) lists the earlier bounds it improves: Moser's ∣B∣>1.06N1/2\lvert B\rvert>1.06N^{1/2} for P(x)=x2P(x)=x^2, Donagi and Herzog's ∣B∣P−1(N)>(1+(k−1)/(2k2)+o(1))N\lvert B\rvert P^{-1}(N)>(1+(k-1)/(2k^2)+o(1))N, Balasubramanian's ((2−2/(k+1))1/k+o(1))N((2-2/(k+1))^{1/k}+o(1))N, and Balasubramanian and Soundararajan's ∣B∣>1.245N1/2\lvert B\rvert>1.245N^{1/2} for P(x)=x2P(x)=x^2.

Remarks (p. 135). The paper records Balazard's observation that a set of the form {0,1,…,n}\{0,1,\ldots,n\} gives an additive completion of the values P(λ)P(\lambda) on {0,…,N}\{0,\ldots,N\} of size asymptotic to kN/P−1(N)kN/P^{-1}(N), and asks for smaller examples or a proof that the constant kk is optimal. A note added in proof states that Cilleruelo (J. Number Theory 44 (1993), 237--243) proved the case P(x)=xkP(x)=x^k, k⩾2k\geqslant2 an integer, independently.

Source. Laurent Habsieger, On the additive completion of polynomial sets, J. Number Theory 51 (1995), no. 1, 130--135, doi:10.1006/jnth.1995.1039: the theorem on p. 131, Lemmas 1--3 on pp. 131--133, the proof in Section 3 on pp. 133--134, and Section 4 (applications and remarks) on pp. 134--135, read on the page images of the edition identified on the source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement, its hypotheses, the constant and the Section 4 values were read clause by clause on the page images. The proof was read but not checked step by step. Nothing here is independently reviewed.

Proof pointer

Pp. 131--134. Fix mm of order P′(P−1(N))P'(P^{-1}(N)), so m=O(N1−1/k)m=O(N^{1-1/k}), and let YY be the set of ratios P−1(N−b)/P−1(N)P^{-1}(N-b)/P^{-1}(N) for b∈Bb\in B with 0≤b≤N−m0\le b\le N-m; then Y⊆(0,1]Y\subseteq(0,1] and ∣Y∣≤∣B∣\lvert Y\rvert\le\lvert B\rvert. Lemma 1 (p. 131) gives a constant C≥0C\ge0, which the paper calls absolute and whose value in the proof (p. 132) is built from the coefficients of PP, with uk≤P(uA)/P(A)≤(u+C/A)ku^k\le P(uA)/P(A)\le(u+C/A)^k for u∈[0,1]u\in[0,1] and A>0A>0. Lemma 2 (p. 132) bounds ∑0≤n≤N−mf(n/N)\sum_{0\le n\le N-m}f(n/N), for a nonnegative ff on [0,1)[0,1), by a sum over YY of a function FF; Lemma 3 (p. 132) controls the range of λ\lambda in each term. With f(x)=(1−x)−1/kf(x)=(1-x)^{-1/k} the left side is at least N(∫01(1−x)−1/kdx+o(1))N(\int_0^1(1-x)^{-1/k}dx+o(1)) and each F(y)F(y) is at most P−1(N)∫01(1−tk)−1/kdtP^{-1}(N)\int_0^1(1-t^k)^{-1/k}dt, which gives N(Ck+o(1))≤∣Y∣P−1(N)N(C_k+o(1))\le\lvert Y\rvert P^{-1}(N). The paper explains the gain over Balasubramanian's method by this choice of ff, for which FF is almost constant on YY (p. 134).

Bears on

  • Problem 33: the problem asks whether every A⊂NA\subset\mathbb N such that every large integer is n2+an^2+a with a∈Aa\in A, n≥0n\ge0, has lim inf⁡∣A∩{1,…,N}∣/N1/2>1\liminf\lvert A\cap\{1,\ldots,N\}\rvert/N^{1/2}>1. If every integer above n0n_0 is so written, then for each NN the set B=(A∪{0,…,n0})∩{0,…,N}B=(A\cup\{0,\ldots,n_0\})\cap\{0,\ldots,N\} completes the squares on {0,…,N}\{0,\ldots,N\} and has ∣B∣≤∣A∩{1,…,N}∣+n0+1\lvert B\rvert\le\lvert A\cap\{1,\ldots,N\}\rvert+n_0+1, so the theorem with P(x)=x2P(x)=x^2 gives a liminf of at least 4/π>14/\pi>1, answering that question yes. On the limsup it gives only the same lower bound 4/π4/\pi; it does not determine the smallest limsup.