Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Laczkovich (1984), printed pp. 112 and 114 (PDF pp. 4–6). The proof expands the source's finite-witness characterization and the use of that characterization in Theorem 2.
Statement
Fix an integer and . A set is -closed if
for all real . Let be the intersection of all -closed sets containing .
Then if and only if there is a finite list such that each is either in , or has among earlier entries for all , for some .
If lies in an additive subgroup , then , and every step in such a witness also lies in . Consequently, if satisfies (K) and on , then on .
There is also a useful finite-seed observation. If contains consecutive points
then contains every for integers .
Dependencies. The group and inequality conventions are in Definitions. Only finite induction is needed.
Bears on. Problem 1125, through Lemma 2 and Theorem 2.
Proof
Put , and let be together with every point whose later equally spaced points all lie in . The union is -closed. Indeed, the finitely many later points in (1) belong to finitely many stages; their largest stage contains all of them, so the next stage contains .
Every -closed set containing contains every , by induction. Thus . A point in has a finite witness list: for a new point, concatenate finite witness lists for its parents and append the point. Repetition of entries is harmless. Conversely, any such list lies in every -closed superset of , by induction along the list. This proves the characterization, including , whose closure is empty.
An additive subgroup is -closed because the first two later points give
Hence . The same two identities show that the steps in a finite witness list lie in . Starting with on , induction along the list now gives
at every new point. This uses only the first two parents, even when .
Finally, the displayed consecutive seed points yield by taking . The last known consecutive points then yield , and induction yields every point claimed. The restriction is essential for the subgroup assertion: one later point alone does not determine a step in .