arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv math/0503014math.NTmath.DS
收藏

Gowers U^3 范数的一个逆定理

An inverse theorem for the Gowers U^3 norm

Ben Green, Terence Tao

AI总结:

本文建立 Gowers U^3 范数的逆结构定理,刻画高 U^3 范数函数并联系遍历理论,进而推广 Gowers 的 Szemerédi 型结果,给出 r_4(G) 的新上界。

摘要:

Gowers U^3 范数是用于研究等差数列的一系列范数之一。若 G 是一个 Abel 群,且 A 是 G 的一个子集,则特征函数 1_A 的 U^3(G) 范数在研究 A 中长度为 4 的等差数列时十分有用。我们对 U^3(G) 范数进行了全面研究,对满足 ||f||_{U^3} 较大的函数 f : G -> C 给出了相当完整的描述,并将其与 Host、Kra 和 Ziegler 近期在遍历理论中的结果联系起来。作为应用,我们推广了 Gowers 关于 Szemerédi 定理的一项结果。记 r_4(G) 为不含四个互异元素构成等差数列的最大集合 A 的大小,我们证明对于某个绝对常数 c,有 r_4(G) << |G|(loglog|G|)^{-c}。在后续论文中,我们将进一步发展这些思想,得到素数中满足 p_1 < p_2 < p_3 < p_4 < N 的 4 项等差数列数量的渐近公式,并得到关于 r_4(G) 的更优界。2023 年 12 月更新:本文中未给出详细证明而陈述的命题 3.2 是不正确的。反例见 Candela、Gonzalez-Sanchez 和 Szegedy 的 arXiv:2311.13899,注记 4.3。命题 3.2 在本文中被引用两次。首先,它在陈述之后立即被用于推导定理 2.3 的第二部分。然而,该定理只涉及有限域上的向量空间;在此情形下,由标准线性代数可知命题 3.2 是正确的。不过,第 3 节末尾关于该论证适用于任意 G 的注记应当删除。第二次应用是在引理 10.6 的证明中。该引理很有可能可以被挽救,尤其是在假设 P 为真(proper)的情况下;但无论如何,它只在命题 10.8 的证明中被应用一次。在那里,P 是真的,而且更重要的是,H = {0} 是平凡的;在此情形下,引理 10.6 及其证明仍然有效。

英文摘要:

The Gowers U^3 norm is one of a sequence of norms used in the study of arithmetic progressions. If G is an abelian group and A is a subset of G then the U^3(G) of the characteristic function 1_A is useful in the study of progressions of length 4 in A. We give a comprehensive study of the U^3(G) norm, obtaining a reasonably complete description of functions f : G -> C for which ||f||_{U^3} is large and providing links to recent results of Host, Kra and Ziegler in ergodic theory. As an application we generalise a result of Gowers on Szemeredi's theorem. Writing r_4(G) for the size of the largest set A not containing four distinct elements in arithmetic progression, we show that r_4(G) << |G|(loglog|G|)^{-c} for some absolute constant c. In future papers we will develop these ideas further, obtaining an asymptotic for the number of 4-term progressions p_1 < p_2 < p_3 < p_4 < N of primes as well as superior bounds for r_4(G). Update, December 2023. Proposition 3.2 in the paper, which is stated without detailed proof, is incorrect. For a counterexample, see Candela, Gonzalez-Sanchez and Szegedy arXiv:2311.13899, Remark 4.3. Proposition 3.2 is invoked twice in the paper. First, it is used immediately after its statement to deduce the second part of Theorem 2.3. However, that theorem concerns only vector spaces over finite fields, and in this setting Proposition 3.2 is correct by standard linear algebra. The remark at the end of Section 3 that the argument works for arbitrary $G$ should, however, be deleted. The second application is in the proof of Lemma 10.6. It may well be possible to salvage this lemma, particularly if $P$ is assumed proper, but in any case it is only applied once, in the proof of Proposition 10.8. There, $P$ is proper and, more importantly, $H = \{0\}$ is trivial; in this setting Lemma 10.6 and its proof remain valid.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑