After finding a quetsion on Math Stack Exchange, I decided to take a large chunk out of my MS thesis and present it.
Given for a commutative ring , we define
to be the sumset of and .
Similarly,
for .
Theorem 1 : If and are two finite subsets of , then
and the lower bound is sharp iff and are arithmetic progressions of same difference.
Proof : The upper bound is obvious as we can just choose and in such a manner that all the sums of the form are different. One example of such a set is
so that
hence completing the proof.
Denoting and , and noting that the following chain of inequalities
contains different elements of immediately completes the proof of the lower bound.
Now, let us assume that the lower bound is tight. Then, the following chain of inequalities
and the previous one must be the same.
The first and the last terms are clearly equal, the other terms determine the equations
which on rearranging gives
and hence is an arithmetic progression with difference . Since the roles of and are symmetric in the statement, then so must be .
In fact, a more general statement is true.
Theorem 2 : If , are finite subsets of , then
and the lower bound is sharp iff are arithmetic progressions of same difference.
Proof : We proceed by Induction.
The case is precisely the last theorem.
Now, let us assume that the statement is true for .
Let and so that . Using the previous theorem and the Induction Hypothesis, we get
and hence the proof follows.
Now, we just notice that the left inequality can be an equality only if
and
The first relation implies that and hence are arithmetic progressions of same difference, and the second relation implies that is also an arithmetic progression of same difference. This completes the proof.
Corollary 3 : Let be a finite subset of . Then, for an integer , we have
and the lower bound is sharp iff is an arithmetic progression.
However, it should be noted that the upper bound in the last corollary is not sharp. The sharp upper bound is given by the following theorem.
Theorem 4 : Let be a finite subset of . Then,
for any integer .
Proof : The number of ways of choosing unordered -tuples from a set of cardinality is the number of non-zero integer solutions of the equation
which is .
This upper bound is indeed sharp and the case of the sharp upper bound is called a Sidon set.
The moral of Corollary 3 is that if is smallest possible, then has a well defined structure, namely it is an arithmetic progression. We want to understand whether being small, say still implies some structure in . To do that, we investigate some examples now.
Clearly, if is a set of members of an arithmetic progression of length , then is part of an arithmetic progression of length and hence .
Now, considering for some , we see that
and so, if , then , and if , then . The first one is an example of having members of an arithmetic progression of size ( ) such that . And the second one is an example of the same where but cannot be covered with any arithmetic progression of reasonable size.
And next, we consider
where are fixed, and are integers . This is a generalized arithmetic progression of dimension and volume .
Obviously, , and the equality holds only if all the elements are different in which case we call to be proper.
It was Gregori Freiman in the 1960’s who recognized if is small, say , then still has a special structure, though not that strong. Freiman's theorem is one of the deepest results in the theory of sumsets and it is obligatory to state it in a discussion about Additive Combinatorics.
Theorem 5 (Freiman, Ruzsa) : If is a set of positive integers and such that , then there is a generalized AP, with , and for some functions and .
No comments:
Post a Comment