8
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\Legendre{\genfrac(){}{}}$Let $p\equiv 1\pmod 4$ be a prime number, and $x_{i}\ge 0$ be such that $$x_{1}+x_{2}+\dotsb+x_{p}=1.$$ Show that $$\sum_{1\le i<j\le p}\Legendre{i-j}{p}x_{i}x_{j}\le\dfrac{p-1}{2p+6}$$

Here $\Legendre\cdot\cdot$ is the Legendre symbol.

This problem was encountered by a colleague of mine when he was writing a paper, and we couldn't prove this inequality. So I ask it. We found the constant in the right-hand side seems to be the best one because when $p = 5$ it can be reached: $$p=5,x_{1}=x_{2}=0.5,x_{3}=x_{4}=\dotsb=0.$$

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What is "this paper"? \\ Also, MO generally better receives questions that are not worded in the imperative (such as "How can one prove this inequality involving Legendre sums?" rather than "Prove this inequality"). \\ Finally, there is a TeX command \genfrac designed for Legendre-symbol-type commands. In this case, \genfrac(){}{}{i - j}p will do it. I have edited accordingly (but not for the title, where I just slightly cleaned up the grammar). $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 0:43
  • $\begingroup$ Preliminary writing, is said to be the study of this quadratic inequality, so the Internet is not yet found, thank you $\endgroup$
    – math110
    Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 0:46
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ To me, this bound seem's likely to be true but not close to tight. The maximum of $\sum_{1 \leq i<j \leq p} x_i x_j$ subject to the same inequalities is $\tfrac{p-1}{2p}$, and I would think you could get more mileage out of the alternation of the Legenrdre symbol than just an $1+O(1/p)$ relative improvement. But I don't have a proof. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 1:35

1 Answer 1

18
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\Legendre{\genfrac(){}{}}$We have $$\sum_{1\le i<j\le p}\Legendre{i-j}{p}x_{i}x_{j} \leq \frac{k-1}{2k }$$ where $k$ is the size of the largest clique in the Paley graph, and this is sharp.

Indeed, if the number of $i$ such that $x_i>0$ is at most $k$ then

$$\sum_{1\le i<j\le p}\Legendre{i-j}{p}x_{i}x_{j} \leq \sum_{1\le i<j\le p}x_{i}x_{j} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i \neq j} x_i x_j =\frac{1 - \sum_i x_i^2}{2} \leq \frac{ 1- k^{-1}}{2} = \frac{k-1}{2k }$$ by Cauchy-Schwarz.

Otherwise, there exist $i_1,i_2 $ with $\Legendre{i_1-i_2}{p} = -1$ and $x_{i_1},x_{i_2}>0$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $$\sum_{j \neq i_1} \Legendre{ i_1 - j}{p} x_j \geq \sum_{j \neq i_2} \Legendre{ i_2 - j}{p} x_j.$$

Let $y_j = x_j$ for $j\not\in\{i_1, i_2\}$, let $y_j = x_{i_1} + x_{i_2} $ for $j=i_1$, and let $y_j=0$ for $j =i_2$. Then $\sum_j y_j = \sum_j x_j=1$ and the number of nonzero $y_j$ is at most the number of nonzero $x_j$. Now, using the $i\neq j$ sum which is twice as large as the $i<j$ sum but much easier to work with, we have

$$\sum_{1\leq i,j \leq p, i \neq j }\Legendre{i-j}{p}y_{i}y_{j} $$ $$= \sum_{1\leq i,j \leq p, i \neq j }\Legendre{i-j}{p}x_{i}x_{j} + 2\sum_{1 \leq j \leq p, j \neq i_1}\Legendre{i_1-j}{p}(y_{i_1}-x_{i_1}) x_{j} + 2\sum_{1 \leq j \leq p, j \neq i_2}\Legendre{i_2-j}{p}(y_{i_2}-x_{i_1}) x_{j} + 2 \Legendre{ i_1 i_2}{p} (y_{i_1} - x_{i_1} ) (y_{i_2} -x_{i_2}) $$

$$= \sum_{1\leq i,j \leq p, i \neq j }\Legendre{i-j}{p}x_{i}x_{j} + 2\sum_{1 \leq j \leq p, j \neq i_1}\Legendre{i_1-j}{p} x_{i_2} x_{j} - 2\sum_{1 \leq j \leq p, j \neq i_2}\Legendre{i_2-j}{p}x_{i_2} x_{j} - 2 \Legendre{ i_1 i_2}{p} x_{i_2}^2 $$

$$ > \sum_{1\leq i,j \leq p, i \neq j }\Legendre{i-j}{p}x_{i}x_{j} .$$

Thus, we have increased your sum while reducing the number of nonzero $x_i$'s. We may keep doing this until the number of nonzero $x_i$'s is at most $k$, proving the claimed upper bound.

Sharpness follows from taking $x_i=1/k$ for $i$ in a clique of size $k$ and $x_i=0$ for all other $i$.

By the recent breakthrough upper bound on the clique number of the Paley graph by Hanson and Petridis, we have $k \leq \lceil \sqrt{p/2} \rceil$. Plugging this in, we obtain your claimed bound for $p=5$ and do better for all larger $p$. (To do better, it suffices to have $k < \frac{p+3}{4}$.)

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps it is wortwhile to note that the eigenvalues of the $p\times p$ matrix with entries $\left(\frac{i-j}{p}\right)$ are $\pm\sqrt{p}$ with multiplicity $(p-1)/2$, and zero. The eigenvectors are $(e_p(n),e_p(2n),...)^T$ for $n\in\{1,\dotsc,p\}$. $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 2:49
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It looks like this has nothing to do with the Paley graph. Let $G$ be any graph on $n$ vertices and let $A$ be a matrix where $A_{ii} =0$, $A_{ij} >0$ if $(i,j)$ is an edge of $G$ and $A_{ij} < 0$ if $(i,j)$ is not an edge of $G$. Consider the problem of maximizing $\vec{x}^T A \vec{x}$ subject to the constraints $\vec{x} \geq 0$, $\sum x_i = 1$. I claim that the maximum occurs on a clique. (continued) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:24
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Proof: Let $\vec{x}$ achieve the maximum and suppose that $x_i x_j \neq 0$ for $(i,j) \not\in G$. Consider varying $x_i$ and $x_j$ linearly while preserving their sum. Then $\vec{x}^T A \vec{x}$ is convex up on this line segment, so the maximum occurs at one of the two endpoints. We can thus improve the maximum while shrinking the support. $\square$ $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:25
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Moreover, if all the $A_{ij}$'s associated to edges are equal, then the optimum comes from taking a maximal clique $K$ and giving all vertices the same weight $|K|^{-1}$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:26
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @DavidESpeyer The trick of using convexity to avoid a careful calculation is nice. And yes, nothing except the very last line is special to the Paley graph. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Apr 12, 2022 at 16:31

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .