English

Union of Two Arithmetic Progressions with the Same Common Difference Is Not Sum-dominant

Number Theory 2020-01-22 v2

Abstract

Given a finite set ANA\subseteq \mathbb{N}, 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|. We prove the following results. 1) The union of two arithmetic progressions (with the same common difference) is not sum-dominant. This result partially proves a conjecture proposed by the author in a previous paper; that is, the union of any two arbitrary arithmetic progressions is not sum-dominant. 2) Hegarty proved that a sum-dominant set must have at least 88 elements with computers' help. The author of the current paper provided a human-verifiable proof that a sum-dominant set must have at least 77 elements. A natural question is about the largest cardinality of sum-dominant subsets of an arithmetic progression. Fix n16n\ge 16. Let NN be the cardinality of the largest sum-dominant subset(s) of {0,1,,n1}\{0,1,\ldots,n-1\} that contain(s) 00 and n1n-1. Then n7Nn4n-7\le N\le n-4; that is, from an arithmetic progression of length n16n\ge 16, we need to discard at least 44 and at most 77 elements (in a clever way) to have the largest sum-dominant set(s). 3) Let RNR\in \mathbb{N} have the property that for all rRr\ge R, {1,2,,r}\{1,2,\ldots,r\} can be partitioned into 33 sum-dominant subsets, while {1,2,,R1}\{1,2,\ldots,R-1\} cannot. Then 24R14524\le R\le 145. This result answers a question by the author et al. in another paper on whether we can find a stricter upper bound for RR.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1906.03793,
  title  = {Union of Two Arithmetic Progressions with the Same Common Difference Is Not Sum-dominant},
  author = {Hung Viet Chu},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.03793},
  year   = {2020}
}

Comments

12 pages. arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1906.00470

R2 v1 2026-06-23T09:48:26.582Z