arXiv++ Combinatorics

There has been much work on the following question: given n how large can a subset of {1,...,n} be that has no arithmetic progressions of length 3. We call such sets 3-free. Most of the work has been asymptotic. In this paper we sketch applications of large 3-free sets, review the literature of how to construct large 3-free sets, and present empirical studies on how large such sets actually are. The two main questions considered are (1) How large can a 3-free set be when n is small, and (2) How do the methods in the literature compare to each other? In particular, when do the ones that are asymptotically better actually yield larger sets? (This paper overlaps with our previous paper with the title { Finding Large 3-Free Sets I: the Small n Case}.)

We present an exposition of the proof of the induced bipartite Ramsey Theorem.

We created and parallelized two SAT solvers to find new bounds on some Ramsey-type numbers. For $c > 0$, let $R_c(L)$ be the least $n$ such that for all $c$-colorings of the $[n]\times [n]$ lattice grid there will exist a monochromatic right isosceles triangle forming an $L$. Using a known proof that $R_c(L)$ exists we obtained $R_3(L) \leq 2593$. We formulate the $R_c(L)$ problem as finding a satisfying assignment of a boolean formula. Our parallelized probabilistic SAT solver run on eight cores found a 3-coloring of $20\times 20$ with no monochromatic $L$, giving the new lower bound $R_3(L) \geq 21$. We also searched for new computational bounds on two polynomial van der Waerden numbers, the "van der Square" number $R_c(VS)$ and the "van der Cube" number $R_c(VC)$. $R_c(VS)$ is the least positive integer $n$ such that for some $c > 0$, for all $c$-colorings of $[n]$ there exist two integers of the same color that are a square apart. $R_c(VC)$ is defined analogously with cubes. For $c \leq 3$, $R_c(VS)$ was previously known. Our parallelized deterministic SAT solver found $R_4(VS)$ = 58. Our parallelized probabilistic SAT solver found $R_5(VS) > 180$, $R_6(VS) > 333$, and $R_3(VC) > 521$. All of these results are new.

Ramsey's theorem states that for all finite colorings of an infinite set, there exists an infinite homogeneous subset. What if we seek a homogeneous subset that is also order-equivalent to the original set? Let $S$ be a linearly ordered set and $a \in N$. The big Ramsey degree of $a$ in $S$, denoted $T(a,S)$, is the least integer $t$ such that, for any finite coloring of the $a$-subsets of $S$, there exists $S'\subseteq S$ such that (i) $S'$ is order-equivalent to $S$, and (ii) if the coloring is restricted to the $a$-subsets of $S'$ then at most $t$ colors are used. Mašulović \& Šobot (2019) showed that $T(a,ω+ω)=2^a$. From this one can obtain $T(a,ζ)=2^a$. We give a direct proof that $T(a,ζ)=2^a$. Mašulović and Šobot (2019) also showed that for all countable ordinals $α< ω^ω$, and for all $a \in N$, $T(a,α)$ is finite. We find exact value of $T(a,α)$ for all ordinals less than $ω^ω$ and all $a\in N$.

Let A be a finite subset of the naturals and let n be a natural. Let NIM(A;n) be the two player game in which players alternate removing $a\in A$ stones from a pile with $n$ stones; the first player who cannot move loses. This game has been researched thoroughly. We discuss a variant of NIM in which Player 1 and Player 2 start with d and e dollars, respectively. When a player removes a stones from the pile, he loses a dollars. The first player who cannot move loses, but this can now happen for two reasons: (1) The number of stones remaining is less than min(A), (2) The player has less than min(A) dollars. This game leads to much more interesting win conditions than regular NIM. We investigate general properties of this game. We then obtain and prove win conditions for the sets A={1,L} and $A={1,L,L+1}.

You have $m$ muffins and $s$ students. You want to divide the muffins into pieces and give the shares to students such that every student has $\frac{m}{s}$ muffins. Find a divide-and-distribute protocol that maximizes the minimum piece. Let $f(m,s)$ be the minimum piece in the optimal protocol. We prove that $f(m,s)$ exists, is rational, and finding it is computable (though possibly difficult). We show that $f(m,s)$ can be derived from $f(s,m)$; hence we need only consider $m\ge s$. We give a function $FC(m,s)$ such that, for $m\ge s+1$, $f(m,s)\le FC(m,s)$. It is often the case that $f(m,s)=FC(m,s)$. More formally, for all $s$, for all but a finite number of $m$, $f(m,s)=FC(m,s)$. This leads to a nice formula for $f(m,s)$, though there are exceptions to it. We give a formula $INT(m,s)$, which has 6 parts, such that for many of the exceptional $m$, $f(m,s)=INT(m,s)<FC(m,s)$. This works for most of the exceptional $m$ where ceil${2m/s}\ge 4$. There are still some exceptional $m$ with ceil${2m/s}=3$ (if its $\le 2$ then the problem is trivial). For these cases we have a way to {\it generate theorems}. For $1\le d\le 7$ we have generated formulas for $f(s+d,s)$. We do not have a theorem here but we do have a methodology which leads to, for some of the $m$, a value $BM(m,s)$ such that often $f(m,s)=BM(m,s)<INT(m,s)<FC(m,s)$. So far it seems like, for $m\ge s$, $f(m,s) = \min\{FC(m,s), INT(m,s), BM(m,s) \}$, though we have not prove this. For $1\le s\le 50$ and $s\le m\le 60$ we have obtained $f(m,s)$ for all but 20 values.

Let A be a finite subset of $\nat$. Then NIM(A;n) is the following 2-player game: initially there are $n$ stones on the board and the players alternate removing $a\in A$ stones. The first player who cannot move loses. This game has been well studied. We investigate an extension of the game where Player I starts out with d dollars, Player II starts out with e dollars, and when a player removes a\in A he loses a dollars. The first player who cannot move loses; however, note this can happen for two different reasons: (1) the number of stones is less than min(A), (2) the player has less than $\min(A)$ dollars. This game leads to more complex win conditions then standard NIM. We prove some general theorems from which we can obtain win conditions for a large variety of finite sets A. We then apply them to the sets A={1,L}, and A={1,L,L+1}.

Assume you an infinite supply of pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters (or some other finite set of denominations which are relatively prime). Let CH(n) be the number of ways to make change of n cents. We present a simple unified exposition of three know theorems about CH(n). Let M be the LCM of a1,...,aL. Let M' be the LCM of the GCD of all pairs of ai's. (1) If 0\le r\le M-1 then CH(n) restricted to n \equiv r mod M is a poly, (2) If 0\le r\le M'-1 then CH(n) restricted to n\equiv r mod M' is a poly except for the constant term, (3) CH(n) is n^{L-1}/(L-1)!a1a2...aL + O(n^{L-2}). Part (3) is known as Schur's theorem.

Let COLk be the set of all k-colorable graphs. It is easy to show that if a<b then COLa \le COLb (poly time reduction). Using the Cook-Levin theorem it is easy to show that if 3 \le a< b then COLb \le COLa. However this proof is insane in that it translates a graph to a formula and then the formula to a graph. We give a simple proof that COLk \le COL3.

Given a dollar, how many ways are there to make change using pennies, nickels, dimes, and quarters? What if you are given a different amount of money? What if you use different coin denominations? This is a well known problem and formulas are known. We present simpler proofs in several cases. We use recurrences to derive formulas if the coin denominations are {1,x,kx,rx}, and we use a simple proof using generating functions to derive a formula for any coin set.

Suppose that $a$ and $d$ are positive integers with $a \geq 2$. Let $h_{a,d}(n)$ be the largest integer $t$ such that any set of $n$ points in $\mathbb{R}^d$ contains a subset of $t$ points for which all the non-zero volumes of the ${t \choose a}$ subsets of order $a$ are distinct. Beginning with Erdős in 1957, the function $h_{2,d}(n)$ has been closely studied and is known to be at least a power of $n$. We improve the best known bound for $h_{2,d}(n)$ and show that $h_{a,d}(n)$ is at least a power of $n$ for all $a$ and $d$.

Let P be a set of n points in R^d. How big is the largest subset X of P such that all of the distances determined between pairs are different? We show that X is at at least Omega(n^{1/6d}) This is not the best known; however the technique is new. Assume that no three of the original points are collinear. How big is the largest subset X of P such that all of the areas determined by elements of all triples are different? We show that, if d=2 then X is at least Omega((log log n)^{1/186}) and if d=3 then X is at least Omega((log log n)^{1/396}). We also obtain results for countable sets of points in R^d. All of our proofs use variants of the canonical Ramsey theorem and some geometric lemmas.

If E is a linear homogenous equation and c a natural then the Rado number $R_c(E)$ is the least N so that any c-coloring of the positive integers from 1 to N contains a monochromatic solution. Rado characterized for which E R_c(E) always exists. The original proof of Rado's theorem gave enormous bounds on R_c(E) (when it existed). In this paper we establish better upper bounds, and some lower bounds, for R_c(E) for some c and E. In the appendix we use some of our theorems, and ideas from a probabilistic SAT solver, to find many new Rado Numbers.

Ramsey, Erdos-Rado, and Conlon-Fox-Sudakov have given proofs of the 3-hypergraph Ramsey Theorem with better and better upper bounds on the 3-hypergraph Ramsey Number. Ramsey and Erdos-Rado also prove the a-hypergraph Ramsey Theorem. Conlon-Fox-Sudakov note that their upper bounds on the 3-hypergraph Ramsey Numbers, together with a recurrence of Erdos-Rado (which was the key to the Erdos-Rado proof), yield improved bounds on the a-hypergraph Ramsey numbers. We present all of these proofs and state explicit bounds for the 2-color case and the c-color case. We give a more detailed analysis of the construction of Conlon-Fox-Sudakov and hence obtain a slightly better bound.

It is known that, for any finite coloring of the naturals, there exists distinct naturals $e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4$ that are the same color such that $e_1+e_2=e_3+e_4$. Consider the following statement which we denote S: For every $\aleph_0$-coloring of the reals there exists distinct reals $e_1,e_2,e_3,e_4$ such that $e_1+e_2=e_3+e_4$?} Is it true? Erdos showed that S is equivalent to the negation of the Continuum Hypothesis, and hence S is indepedent of ZFC. We give an exposition of his proof and some modern observations about results of this sort.

Many programs allow the user to input data several times during its execution. If the program runs forever the user may input data infinitely often. A program terminates if it terminates no matter what the user does. We discuss various ways to prove that program terminates. The proofs use well orderings, Ramsey Theory, and Matrices. These techniques are used by real program checkers.

The van der Waerden number W(k,2) is the smallest integer n such that every 2-coloring of 1 to n has a monochromatic arithmetic progression of length k. The existence of such an n for any k is due to van der Waerden but known upper bounds on W(k,2) are enormous. Much effort was put into developing lower bounds on W(k,2). Most of these lower bound proofs employ the probabilistic method often in combination with the Lovász Local Lemma. While these proofs show the existence of a 2-coloring that has no monochromatic arithmetic progression of length k they provide no efficient algorithm to find such a coloring. These kind of proofs are often informally called nonconstructive in contrast to constructive proofs that provide an efficient algorithm. This paper clarifies these notions and gives definitions for deterministic- and randomized-constructive proofs as different types of constructive proofs. We then survey the literature on lower bounds on W(k,2) in this light. We show how known nonconstructive lower bound proofs based on the Lovász Local Lemma can be made randomized-constructive using the recent algorithms of Moser and Tardos. We also use a derandomization of Chandrasekaran, Goyal and Haeupler to transform these proofs into deterministic-constructive proofs. We provide greatly simplified and fully self-contained proofs and descriptions for these algorithms.

A two-dimensional \emph{grid} is a set $\Gnm = [n]\times[m]$. A grid $\Gnm$ is \emph{$c$-colorable} if there is a function $χ_{n,m}: \Gnm \to [c]$ such that there are no rectangles with all four corners the same color. We address the following question: for which values of $n$ and $m$ is $\Gnm$ $c$-colorable? This problem can be viewed as a bipartite Ramsey problem and is related to a the Gallai-Witt theorem (also called the multidimensioanl Van Der Waerden's Theorem). We determine (1) \emph{exactly} which grids are 2-colorable, (2) \emph{exactly} which grids are 3-colorable, and (3) \emph{exactly} which grids are 4-colorable. We use combinatorics, finite fields, and tournament graphs.

A set A is square-difference free (henceforth SDF) if there do not exist x,y\in A, x\ne y, such that |x-y| is a square. Let sdf(n) be the size of the largest SDF subset of {1,...,n}. Ruzsa has shown that sdf(n) = Ω(n^{0.5(1+ \log_{65} 7)}) = Ω(n^{0.733077...}) We improve on the lower bound by showing sdf(n) = Ω(n^{0.5(1+ \log_{205} 12)})= Ω(n^{.7443...}) As a corollary we obtain a new lower bound on the quadratic van der Waerden numbers.