Boolean Cube of Primes - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-06-20T03:14:41Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/37739http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/37739/boolean-cube-of-primesBoolean Cube of PrimesAvishay Tal2010-09-04T17:11:00Z2011-06-02T20:48:40Z
<p>For a large enough $n$, and a parameter $ m $ I'm looking for a subset of the prime numbers in the range $[n,2n]$ with a unique structure. I am looking for a prime $p$ and a set of $m$ positive (not necessary different) integers: $\Delta_1,\Delta_2,\ldots,\Delta_m$ such that the following set consists only of prime numbers in the range $[n,2n]$:
$$\{{ p+\sum_{i=1}^{m} a_i \cdot \Delta_i} \mid a_i \in \{0,1\} \}$$
For example, for $n=10$ and $m=2$ there is such a set with parameters:
$$p=11,\quad \Delta_1 = 2,\quad \Delta_2 = 6$$
And the set is:
$$\{11,13,17,19\}
$$
The question is how large can $m$ be asymptotically?
Note that an arithmetic progression of $m+1$ primes is a cube with all $m$ deltas having the same value.
I've managed to prove that $m$ could be $\frac{\log\log(n)}{2}$ though I'm sure my bound is far from tight.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/37739/boolean-cube-of-primes/38199#38199Answer by M.S for Boolean Cube of PrimesM.S2010-09-09T17:02:35Z2010-09-09T21:51:50Z<p>According to ingham's theorem $p_{n+1}-p_n< p_n+Ap_n^{5/8}$ in which $A$ is constant number.</p>
<p>Now let $p_n$ be largest prime less than or equal than $N$ so</p>
<p>$p_n\le N< p_{n+1}< p_n+Ap_n^{5/8}\le N+AN^{5/8}$,</p>
<p>let $p_{n+1}= q_1$,then:</p>
<p>$N< q_1< N+AN^{5/8}$,with above method we have below inequalities:</p>
<p>$N+AN^{5/8}< q_2< (N+AN^{5/8})+A(N+AN^{5/8})^{5/8}< N+A(2^{2}-1)N^{5/8}$ in which</p>
<p>$q_2=p_{n+s_1}$</p>
<p>$N+3AN^{5/8}< q_3< (N+3AN^{5/8})+A(N+3AN^{5/8})^{5/8}< N+A(2^{3}-1)N^{5/8}$ </p>
<p>in which $q_3=p_{n+s_2}$</p>
<p>if we continue so:</p>
<p>$N+A(2^{k-1}-1)N^{5/8}< q_k< N+A(2^{k-1}-1)N^{5/8})+A(N+A(2^{k-1}-1)N^{5/8})^{5/8}< N+A(2^{k}-1)N^{5/8}$ </p>
<p>in which $q_k=p_{n+s_{k-1}}$</p>
<p>then after k step we reach to $2N$ so $N+A(2^{k}-1)N^{5/8}\le 2N< N+A(2^{k+1}-1)N^{5/8}$</p>
<p>we have $m\ge k>(log(N^{3/8}/{A}+1)/log2-1$,for a large $N$</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/37739/boolean-cube-of-primes/38233#38233Answer by gowers for Boolean Cube of Primesgowers2010-09-09T21:49:37Z2010-09-09T21:49:37Z<p>The argument that gives you cubes in dense sets shows roughly speaking (via repeated applications of Cauchy-Schwarz) that the number of k-dimensional cubes in a set of density delta is at least something around $\delta^{2^k}n^{k+1}$, which is the number you would get in a random set. (I am in fact giving the result for the integers mod n, but one can think of a subset of the first n integers of density δ as a subset of $\mathbb{Z}_{2n}$ of density δ/2. So this says that the best dimension should be that k for which $\delta^{2^k}$ is around $n^{-(k+1)}.$ Taking logs twice, that says (ignoring constants) that $k+\log\log(1/\delta)=\log k+\log\log n,$ or roughly $k=\log\log n - \log\log(1/\delta).$ If $\delta=1/\log n,$ then that second term is not making much difference. </p>
<p>The worst case is for random sets. Although the primes are not random, one can make them more random, and denser, by applying the so-called W-trick (roughly speaking, you restrict to an arithmetic progression that contains no multiples of small primes, thereby increasing the chances that a number in that progression is prime). But this does not increase the density by enough to have a significant effect on the estimate you might get for k. If you're interested in $2^k$, then the question becomes more delicate and the W-trick might get you a useful, if smallish, improvement. But basically it looks to me as though your $\log\log n$ estimate for the dimension should be right, up to a constant.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/37739/boolean-cube-of-primes/66768#66768Answer by jcsp for Boolean Cube of Primesjcsp2011-06-02T20:48:40Z2011-06-02T20:48:40Z<p>Elsholtz and Woods have shown that $m\leq (\frac{9}{2}+o(1))\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}$.</p>