arXiv++ Combinatorics

In this paper, we prove that for every integer $k\geq2$ and every $c>1$ sufficiently close to $1$, there is $κ>0$ such that every sufficiently large subset of $\{1,\ldots,N\}$ of density at least $(\log\log N)^{-κ}$ contains \[ x,\quad x+\lfloor n^c\rfloor,\quad x+\lfloor n^c\rfloor^2, \quad\ldots,\quad x+\lfloor n^c\rfloor^k. \] We also prove pointwise almost-everywhere convergence of the associated multiple ergodic averages.

We prove quantitative polynomial Szemerédi-type theorems involving polynomial progressions with shift parameter restricted to the set of shifted primes $\mathbb{P}-1$. The types of configurations covered are distinct degree progressions and progressions involving integer multiples of a fixed polynomial. For nonlinear configurations of length at least three, these results provide the first quantitative versions of such theorems. In the linear case, our results improve on work by the last two authors. Our density bounds are strongest in the case of distinct degree polynomials, where they give polylogarithmic bounds, of the same shape as recent bounds by Shao and Wang with integer shifts. The proofs combine recent quantitative results for polynomial configurations in the integers with quantitative Gowers uniformity bounds of the primes. For multiples of a fixed polynomial, we adapt a comparison argument of Altman and Sawhney to obtain uniformity over the polynomial families produced by the $W$-trick. For distinct degree progressions, we establish a comparison between prime-weighted and unweighted polynomial counts that is uniform throughout the density increment argument and accounts for a possible Siegel zero.

We show that for every $r \geq 1$, and all $r$ distinct (sufficiently large) primes $p_1,..., p_r > p_0(r)$, there exist infinitely many integers $n$ such that ${2n \choose n}$ is divisible by these primes to only low multiplicity. From a theorem of Kummer, an upper bound for the number of times that a prime $p_j$ can divide ${2n \choose n}$ is $1+\log n / \log p_j$; and our theorem shows that for every $\varepsilon > 0$, $r \geq 1$, and any sufficiently large primes $p_1,...,p_r > p_0(\varepsilon,r)$, we can find integers $n$ where for $j=1,...,r$, $p_j$ divides ${2n \choose n}$ with multiplicity at most $\varepsilon \log n/\log p_j$. We connect this result to a famous conjecture by R. L. Graham on whether there are infinitely many integers $n$ such that ${2n \choose n}$ is coprime to $105$.

Following attempts at an analytic proof of the Pentagonal Number Theorem, we report on the discovery of a general principle leading to an unexpected cancellation of oscillating sums. After stating the motivation, and our theorem, we apply it to prove several results on the Prouhet-Tarry-Escott Problem, integer partitions, and the distribution of prime numbers. Regarding the Prouhet-Tarry-Escott problem, we show that \begin{align*} \sum_{|\ell|\leq x}(4x^2-4\ell^2)^{2r}-\sum_{|\ell|<x}(4x^2-(2\ell+1)^2)^{2r}=\text{polynomial w.r.t. } x \text{ with degree }2r-1. \end{align*} This can perhaps be proved using properties of Bernoulli polynomials, but the claim fell out of our method in a more natural and motivated way. Using this result, we solve an approximate version of the PTE Problem, and in doing so our work in the approximate case exceeds the bounds one can prove using a pigeonhole argument, which seems remarkable. Also, we prove that $$ \sum_{\ell^2 < n} (-1)^\ell p(n-\ell^2)\ \sim\ (-1)^n 2^{-3/4} n^{-1/4} \sqrt{p(n)}, $$ where $p(n)$ is the usual partition function. We get the following "Weak pentagonal number theorem", in which we can replace the partition function $p(n)$ with Chebyshev $Ψ$ function: $$ \sum_{0 < \ell < \sqrt{xT}/2} Ψ([e^{\sqrt{x - \frac{(2\ell)^2}{T}}},\ e^{\sqrt{x - \frac{(2\ell-1)^2}{T}}}])\ =Ψ(e^{\sqrt{x}})\left(\frac{1}{2} + O\left (e^{-0.196\sqrt{x}}\right)\right), $$ where $T=e^{0.786\sqrt{x}}$, where $Ψ([a,b]) := \sum_{n\in [a,b]} Λ(n)$ and $Ψ(x) = Ψ([1,x])$, where $Λ$ is the von Mangoldt function. Note that this last equation (sum over $\ell$) is stronger than one would get using a strong form of the Prime Number Theorem and also a naive use of the Riemann Hypothesis in each interval, since the widths of the intervals are smaller than $e^{\frac{1}{2} \sqrt{x}}$, making the RH estimate ``trivial".