Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated


Statement

Setting (p. 292). For an integer k≥2k\ge2 and positive integers M≤NM\le N, fk(M,N)f_k(M,N) is the least size of a set A⊂[0,M]A\subset[0,M] such that every positive integer n≤Nn\le N is a+bka+b^k with a∈Aa\in A and bb a positive integer.

Theorem 3 (p. 293). Suppose 0<δ<10<\delta<1 is a fixed real number. There are constants k0=k0(δ)>2k_0=k_0(\delta)>2 and Nk(δ)>2N_k(\delta)>2 such that if N≥Nk(δ)N\ge N_k(\delta) and k≥k0k\ge k_0, then

fk(δN,N)≥C(δ) kΔlog⁡k(1−log⁡(1+1/δ)log⁡k)N1−1/k,f_k(\delta N,N)\ge C(\delta)\,\frac{k^\Delta}{\log k} \Bigl(1-\frac{\log(1+1/\delta)}{\log k}\Bigr)N^{1-1/k},

where

C(δ)=δ ΔΔlog⁡(1+1/δ)(1+Δ)1+Δ,Δ=log⁡1/δlog⁡(1+1/δ).C(\delta)=\frac{\delta\,\Delta^\Delta\log(1+1/\delta)}{(1+\Delta)^{1+\Delta}}, \qquad \Delta=\frac{\log1/\delta}{\log(1+1/\delta)}.

Since 1<1/δ<1+1/δ1<1/\delta<1+1/\delta, the exponent satisfies 0<Δ<10<\Delta<1 (an observation of this page), so for fixed δ\delta the bound grows more slowly in kk than the constant kk of Theorem 1, which needs δ\delta small in terms of kk.

Source. Wenguang Zhai, The additive completion of kkth powers, J. Number Theory 79 (1999), 292--300, doi:10.1006/jnth.1999.2441: the setting on p. 292, Theorem 3 on p. 293, the proof in Section 5 on p. 299. The edition read is identified on the source card.

Read depth. Claims checked: the statement and the constants were read clause by clause on the printed pages. The proof is a sketch in the paper and was not checked; nothing here is independently reviewed.

Proof pointer

Section 5, p. 299. The derivative comparison of the proof of Theorem 1, with δ\delta now fixed, gives (24); bounding the binomial sum by δd(1+k−1(1+1/δ)d)\delta^d(1+k^{-1}(1+1/\delta)^d) when k>2(1+1/δ)dk>2(1+1/\delta)^d gives the lower bound (26) for ∣A∣N1/k−1\lvert A\rvert N^{1/k-1}. The paper then chooses dd of order log⁡k/log⁡(1+1/δ)\log k/\log(1+1/\delta), with a parameter DD printed as "D=1+Δ/ΔD=1+\Delta/\Delta" [sic], and states that Theorem 3 follows from (26); the optimization is not written out.

Dependencies

The argument of Theorem 1 of the same paper, inequalities (6)--(16).

Bears on

  • Problem 33: the theorem needs k≥k0(δ)>2k\ge k_0(\delta)>2, so it does not cover the squares, k=2k=2, that the problem concerns, and it decides neither of the problem's questions.