Let \([n]\) be the set \(\{1,\ldots,n\}\). (This is standard.)
Let X be a set of integers. \(X\) is sum-free if there is NO \(x,y,z\in X\) such that \(x+y=z\). (Note that \(x=y\) is allowed.)
Lets try to find a large sum-free set of \([n]\). One obvious candidate is
\(\{1,3^1, 3^2,\ldots,3^{\log_3 n} \}\) (assume \(n\) is a power of 3).
So we can get a \(\log_3 n\) sized sum free set of \([n]\). Can we do better?
YES:
Erdos showed that every set of \(n\) reals has a sum-free subset of size \(n/3\). I have a slightly weaker version of that on slides here.
That result lead to many questions:
a) Find \(f(n)\) that goes to infinity such that every set of \(n\) reals has a sum-free subset of size \( n/3 + f(n)\).
b) Replace reals with other sets closed under addition: naturals, integers, some groups of interest.
c) Just care about \([n]\).
Tao and Vu had a survey in 2016 of sum-free results, see here.
We mention three results from their survey
(0) Eberhard, Green, and Manners showed that the 1/3 cannot be improved (see the survey for a more formal statement of this). So, for example, nobody will ever be able to replace 1/3 with 1/2.9.
(1) Alon and Kleitman modified the prob argument of Erdos (in the slides) and were able to replace \( n/3\) with \( (n+1)/3\).
(2) Bourgain showed, with a sophisticated argument,that \(n/3\) could be replaced by \((n+2)/3\)
I believe that result (2) was the best until a recent paper of Ben Bedert (see here). Did he manage to
push it to \((n+100)/3\)? No. He did much better:
For every set of \(n\) reals there is a sum-free subset of size \(n/3 + c\log\log n\).
Reflections
1) This is a real improvement!
2) Will it stay at \(n/3 + c\log\log n\) or will there NOW be an avalanche of results?
3) Contrast:
Erdos's proof I can (and have) taught to my High School Ramsey Gang (note: you DO NOT want to mess with them).
The proof by Ben Bedert is 36 pages of dense math.
4) This leads to the obvious open question: Is there an elementary proof of some bound of the form \(n/3 + f(n)\) where \(f(n)\) goes to infinity.
In your definition of sum free sets you say that x + y = z, and that x = y is allowed. In the obvious example, for any i, 2^i + 2^i = 2^(i+1). So I am guessing you meant to write x = y is *not* allowed.
ReplyDeleteAH- the literature says x=y is allowed, so whats wrong is my example. Or was my example. I changed it to powers of 3. Thanks!
DeleteTau -> Tao
ReplyDeletethanks, fixed
Delete