BK:Section 3: Difference between revisions
Rephrasing statement and shortening proof to illustrate link with Sanders's Lemma 2.8 more clearly |
Added relation to the Parseval bound, Chang's theorem and a few words on the significance. More work needed. |
||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
One of the take-away results from Section 3 of the Bateman-Katz paper is Proposition 3.1, an important part of which is in some places referred to as the "nd-estimate". The rough reason for this terminology is that it says that a set <math>A</math> in <math>\mathbb{F}_3^n</math> of density about <math>1/n</math> either has a `good' density increment on a subspace of codimension <math>d</math>, or else the <math>(1/n)</math>-large spectrum of <math>A</math> intersects any <math>d</math>-dimensional subspace in at most about <math>nd</math> points. We shall say later on why this is significant. | One of the take-away results from Section 3 of the Bateman-Katz paper is Proposition 3.1, an important part of which is in some places referred to as the "nd-estimate". The rough reason for this terminology is that it says that a set <math>A</math> in <math>\mathbb{F}_3^n</math> of density about <math>1/n</math> either has a `good' density increment on a subspace of codimension <math>d</math>, or else the <math>(1/n)</math>-large spectrum of <math>A</math> intersects any <math>d</math>-dimensional subspace in at most about <math>nd</math> points. We shall say later on why this is significant. | ||
==The nd-estimate== | |||
Here is the precise result, stated in slightly different terms to the paper in order to illustrate how it relates to other results. For a subspace <math>V \leq \mathbb{F}_3^n</math> we write | Here is the precise result, stated in slightly different terms to the paper in order to illustrate how it relates to other results. For a subspace <math>V \leq \mathbb{F}_3^n</math> we write | ||
Line 9: | Line 11: | ||
:'''Proposition 1''' Let <math>A \subset \mathbb{F}_3^n</math> be a set with density <math>\alpha</math>, and let <math>0 \leq \delta, \eta \leq 1</math> be parameters. Set | :'''Proposition 1''' Let <math>A \subset \mathbb{F}_3^n</math> be a set with density <math>\alpha</math>, and let <math>0 \leq \delta, \eta \leq 1</math> be parameters. Set | ||
:<math>\Delta = \{ \gamma \in \widehat{G} : | \widehat{1_A}(\gamma) | \geq \delta \alpha \} \setminus \{ 0_{\widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n}} \}</math>. | :<math>\Delta = \{ \gamma \in \widehat{G} : | \widehat{1_A}(\gamma) | \geq \delta \alpha \} \setminus \{ 0_{\widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n}} \}</math>. | ||
Suppose <math>V \leq \mathbb{F}_3^n</math> be a subspace. Then | :Suppose <math>V \leq \mathbb{F}_3^n</math> be a subspace. Then | ||
* either <math>A</math> has density at least <math>\alpha(1 + \eta)</math> on <math>V</math>, | :* either <math>A</math> has density at least <math>\alpha(1 + \eta)</math> on <math>V</math>, | ||
* or <math>|\Delta \cap V^{\perp}| \leq 3\eta \delta^{-2}</math>; in fact <math>\sum_{\gamma \in V^{\perp}} |\widehat{(1_A - \alpha)}(\gamma)|^2 \leq 3\eta \alpha^2</math>. | :* or <math>|\Delta \cap V^{\perp}| \leq 3\eta \delta^{-2}</math>; in fact <math>\sum_{\gamma \in V^{\perp}} |\widehat{(1_A - \alpha)}(\gamma)|^2 \leq 3\eta \alpha^2</math>. | ||
'''Proof''': | '''Proof''': | ||
Let us write <math>\mu_V = \frac{|\mathbb{F}_3^n|}{|V|}1_V</math> for the indicator function of <math>V</math> normalized so that <math>\mathbb{E}_x \mu_V(x) = 1</math>. If | Let us write <math>\mu_V = \frac{|\mathbb{F}_3^n|}{|V|}1_V</math> for the indicator function of <math>V</math> normalized so that <math>\mathbb{E}_x \mu_V(x) = 1</math>. If | ||
Line 21: | Line 23: | ||
which proves the result. | which proves the result. | ||
==Comparison with other results about the large spectrum of a set== | |||
The main ingredient in deriving the nd-estimate is Parseval's identity. This identity also has the following useful consequence: letting <math>\Delta</math> be as above, we have | |||
:<math>|\Delta| \delta^2 \alpha^2 \leq \sum_{\gamma \in \widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n}} |\widehat{1_A}(\gamma)|^2 = \mathbb{E}_x 1_A(x)^2 = \alpha</math>, | |||
whence | |||
:<math>|\Delta| \leq \alpha^{-1} \delta^{-2}</math>, | |||
which should be compared to the bound on <math>| \Delta \cap V^{\perp} |</math> given by the nd-estimate. | |||
There is another useful result about the large spectrum of a set known as Chang's theorem. Informally, this says that the largest size of a linearly independent set in large spectrum <math>\Delta</math> cannot be too large. Unfortunately, with the parameters needed for the Bateman-Katz paper, Chang's theorem reduces to a trivial statement. (Nevertheless, there is [http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0605689 a generalization of Chang's theorem due to Shkredov] that gives a lower bound for the number of additive <math>(2m)</math>-tuples in the large spectrum of a set, which is used in [[BK:Section 4|Section 4]] of the Bateman-Katz paper.) | |||
By contrast, the nd-estimate is something like a statement in the opposite direction: it says that there are quite a lot of linearly independent characters in <math>\Delta</math>, or else there is a density increment. Specifically, if we have picked <math>\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_d</math> from <math>\Delta</math>, then | |||
:<math>| \Delta \cap \langle \gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_d \rangle | \leq 3\eta \delta^{-2}</math> | |||
unless we get a density increment on a (particular) subspace of codimension at most <math>d</math>. | |||
For suitable parameter choices, this says that there are a lot of characters in the large spectrum that are linearly independent of <math>\gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_d</math>, which is very important in [[BK:Section 5|Section 5]] of the paper. | |||
==Relation to Lemma 2.8 in Sanders's paper== | |||
Revision as of 12:22, 6 February 2011
Parent page: Improving the bounds for Roth's theorem
One of the take-away results from Section 3 of the Bateman-Katz paper is Proposition 3.1, an important part of which is in some places referred to as the "nd-estimate". The rough reason for this terminology is that it says that a set [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] in [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbb{F}_3^n }[/math] of density about [math]\displaystyle{ 1/n }[/math] either has a `good' density increment on a subspace of codimension [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math], or else the [math]\displaystyle{ (1/n) }[/math]-large spectrum of [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] intersects any [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]-dimensional subspace in at most about [math]\displaystyle{ nd }[/math] points. We shall say later on why this is significant.
The nd-estimate
Here is the precise result, stated in slightly different terms to the paper in order to illustrate how it relates to other results. For a subspace [math]\displaystyle{ V \leq \mathbb{F}_3^n }[/math] we write
- [math]\displaystyle{ V^{\perp} = \{ \gamma \in \widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n} : \gamma(x) = 1 \ \forall x \in V \} }[/math]
for its annihilator (cf. the section on Bohr sets).
- Proposition 1 Let [math]\displaystyle{ A \subset \mathbb{F}_3^n }[/math] be a set with density [math]\displaystyle{ \alpha }[/math], and let [math]\displaystyle{ 0 \leq \delta, \eta \leq 1 }[/math] be parameters. Set
- [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta = \{ \gamma \in \widehat{G} : | \widehat{1_A}(\gamma) | \geq \delta \alpha \} \setminus \{ 0_{\widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n}} \} }[/math].
- Suppose [math]\displaystyle{ V \leq \mathbb{F}_3^n }[/math] be a subspace. Then
- either [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] has density at least [math]\displaystyle{ \alpha(1 + \eta) }[/math] on [math]\displaystyle{ V }[/math],
- or [math]\displaystyle{ |\Delta \cap V^{\perp}| \leq 3\eta \delta^{-2} }[/math]; in fact [math]\displaystyle{ \sum_{\gamma \in V^{\perp}} |\widehat{(1_A - \alpha)}(\gamma)|^2 \leq 3\eta \alpha^2 }[/math].
Proof: Let us write [math]\displaystyle{ \mu_V = \frac{|\mathbb{F}_3^n|}{|V|}1_V }[/math] for the indicator function of [math]\displaystyle{ V }[/math] normalized so that [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbb{E}_x \mu_V(x) = 1 }[/math]. If
- [math]\displaystyle{ 1_A*\mu_V(x) \gt \alpha(1 + \eta) }[/math]
for some [math]\displaystyle{ x \in \mathbb{F}_3^n }[/math] then we are in the first case, so let us assume that [math]\displaystyle{ 1_A*\mu_V \leq \alpha(1+\eta) }[/math]. Write [math]\displaystyle{ f = 1_A - \alpha }[/math] for the balanced function of [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math]. Then
- [math]\displaystyle{ | \Delta \cap V^{\perp} | \delta^2 \alpha^2 \leq \sum_{\gamma \in V^{\perp}} |\widehat{f}(\gamma)|^2 = \sum_{\gamma \in \widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n}} |\widehat{f}(\gamma)|^2 |\widehat{\mu_V}(\gamma)|^2. }[/math]
By Parseval's identity, this equals
- [math]\displaystyle{ \mathbb{E}_{x \in \mathbb{F}_3^n} f*\mu_V(x)^2 = \mathbb{E}_{x \in \mathbb{F}_3^n} 1_A*\mu_V(x)^2 - \alpha^2 \leq \alpha^2(2\eta + \eta^2), }[/math]
which proves the result.
Comparison with other results about the large spectrum of a set
The main ingredient in deriving the nd-estimate is Parseval's identity. This identity also has the following useful consequence: letting [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta }[/math] be as above, we have
- [math]\displaystyle{ |\Delta| \delta^2 \alpha^2 \leq \sum_{\gamma \in \widehat{\mathbb{F}_3^n}} |\widehat{1_A}(\gamma)|^2 = \mathbb{E}_x 1_A(x)^2 = \alpha }[/math],
whence
- [math]\displaystyle{ |\Delta| \leq \alpha^{-1} \delta^{-2} }[/math],
which should be compared to the bound on [math]\displaystyle{ | \Delta \cap V^{\perp} | }[/math] given by the nd-estimate.
There is another useful result about the large spectrum of a set known as Chang's theorem. Informally, this says that the largest size of a linearly independent set in large spectrum [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta }[/math] cannot be too large. Unfortunately, with the parameters needed for the Bateman-Katz paper, Chang's theorem reduces to a trivial statement. (Nevertheless, there is a generalization of Chang's theorem due to Shkredov that gives a lower bound for the number of additive [math]\displaystyle{ (2m) }[/math]-tuples in the large spectrum of a set, which is used in Section 4 of the Bateman-Katz paper.)
By contrast, the nd-estimate is something like a statement in the opposite direction: it says that there are quite a lot of linearly independent characters in [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta }[/math], or else there is a density increment. Specifically, if we have picked [math]\displaystyle{ \gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_d }[/math] from [math]\displaystyle{ \Delta }[/math], then
- [math]\displaystyle{ | \Delta \cap \langle \gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_d \rangle | \leq 3\eta \delta^{-2} }[/math]
unless we get a density increment on a (particular) subspace of codimension at most [math]\displaystyle{ d }[/math]. For suitable parameter choices, this says that there are a lot of characters in the large spectrum that are linearly independent of [math]\displaystyle{ \gamma_1, \ldots, \gamma_d }[/math], which is very important in Section 5 of the paper.