Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Statement
Setting (p. 2). A set is a perfect difference set if every non-zero integer is uniquely a difference of two elements of . is the counting function (p. 5).
Construction (Section 3, pp. 4--5, unnumbered). Start from and at step put , where is the smallest integer, printed as "non-negative", not representable as with , and is chosen so that and no non-trivial equality with is created. The paper presents this as the simplification of the proof of Theorem 3 to a single perfect difference set .
Bounds (p. 5). The paper states that these conditions exclude choices of and that , so that "the th element of the resulting set is " (p. 5, quoted), and hence . It adds, as easily seen, that every perfect difference set has (p. 5).
With read as non-negative, represents no difference, so and the first step adds the single number ; from then on is represented and every is positive. What the paper's count bounds is the pair of numbers added at step ; it gives no explicit constant.
Problem 1 (p. 5). The paper then asks whether some perfect difference set has ; if not, whether for every some has ; if not, how large can be for a perfect difference set .
Source. Vsevolod F. Lev, Reconstructing integer sets from their representation functions, Electron. J. Combin. 11 (2004), no. 1, Research Paper 78, 6 pp., doi:10.37236/1831: the construction on pp. 4--5 and Problem 1 on p. 5, in Section 3 (pp. 4--6). The edition read is identified on the source card.
Read depth. Claims checked: the construction and the stated bounds were read clause by clause on the printed pages. The paper gives the counts and without proof; the outline under Proof pointer is this page's, not the paper's. Nothing here is independently reviewed.
Proof pointer
P. 5 gives only the two counts above, with no argument. They follow from a count the paper does not print: has at most elements, so it has differences and ; each forbidden coincidence fixes in terms of and at most three elements of , which leaves excluded values, so some admissible is .
Dependencies
The method of the proof of Theorem 3 (pp. 3--4).
Bears on
- Problem 1194: the problem asks, for a set in which every positive integer is uniquely , how fast must grow. The construction gives such a set, and the paper states that its th element is , from counts that bound the two numbers added at step . The problem's claim page derives from this that for this set, so need not grow faster than ; the paper states its bound for the elements of the set, not for , and gives no lower bound for .