English

When Sets Are Not Sum-dominant

Number Theory 2019-09-06 v2

Abstract

Given a set AA of nonnegative integers, define the sum set A+A={ai+ajai,ajA}A+A = \{a_i+a_j\mid a_i,a_j\in A\} and the difference set AA={aiajai,ajA}.A-A = \{a_i-a_j\mid a_i,a_j\in A\}. The set AA is said to be sum-dominant if A+A>AA|A+A|>|A-A|. In answering a question by Nathanson, Hegarty used a clever algorithm to find that the smallest cardinality of a sum-dominant set is 88. Since then, Nathanson has been asking for a human-understandable proof of the result. We offer a computer-free proof that a set of cardinality less than 66 is not sum-dominant. Furthermore, we prove that the introduction of at most two numbers into a set of numbers in an arithmetic progression does not give a sum-dominant set. This theorem eases several of our proofs and may shed light on future work exploring why a set of cardinality 66 is not sum-dominant. Finally, we prove that if a set contains a certain number of integers from a specific sequence, then adding a few arbitrary numbers into the set does not give a sum-dominant set.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1903.03533,
  title  = {When Sets Are Not Sum-dominant},
  author = {Hung Viet Chu},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1903.03533},
  year   = {2019}
}

Comments

16 pages, published in J. Integer Seq

R2 v1 2026-06-23T08:02:27.415Z