problems / thin-cyclic-bases

Also in this folder: compute/

Walkthrough — Thin cyclic additive bases

0. What was actually missing

The counting degree of freedom is real: unordered pairs plus doubles give at most (m+12)\binom{m+1}{2} sums, so any sum cover has m≥(2+o(1))qm\ge(\sqrt2+o(1))\sqrt q. Difference covers already meet the companion bound m∼qm\sim\sqrt q along Singer and Bose orders (Banakh–Gavrylkiv). The missing object is a sum packing that is also a cover — a Sidon-like set of size 2q\sqrt{2q} whose pairwise sums hit every residue, or a structured thickening of a known Sidon set that adds only (2−1)q(\sqrt2-1)\sqrt q extra points.

Green’s parabola remark makes the same gap geometric: on y=x2y=x^2, slopes are pairwise sums. A subset of the parabola of size 2p\sqrt{2p} determines every finite direction if and only if those sums exhaust Fp\mathbb F_p.

1. False starts (named obstacles)

2. The useful failure

Singer is the right shape of seed — a perfect sum packing of size q\sqrt q — and the first-order counting for a repair set BB of size αq\alpha q says α≥2−1≈0.414\alpha\ge\sqrt2-1\approx0.414 is enough if D+BD+B and B+BB+B tile the missed half. The gain histogram kills the fantasy. Each new point realises only ∼∣D∣/2\sim|D|/2 missed sums, so a hitting-set estimate wants α∼1\alpha\sim1 and the completed ratio drifts back to 2. Random BB is worse: D+BD+B hits each missed residue with probability 1−e−α1-e^{-\alpha}, and a union bound forces an extra log⁡q\sqrt{\log q} .

The same arithmetic explains why BEL stops at 3/83/8. A diameter-2 generating set in Zr1×Zr2×Zw\mathbb Z_{r_1}\times\mathbb Z_{r_2}\times\mathbb Z_w needs a 4-element strict sum cover of Zw\mathbb Z_w. The largest such ww is 6. That pair (∣B∣,w)=(4,6)(|B|,w)=(4,6) maximises w/∣B∣2w/|B|^2 among Haanpää’s table. Larger BB loses.

3. The click

There was no construction click. The organisational click was to stop treating “small nn below 8/3\sqrt{8/3}” as progress and to name the published infinite-family constant correctly: Bevan–Erskine–Lewis, Corollary 18, lim inf⁡SS(n,2)/n≤8/3\liminf \mathrm{SS}(n,2)/\sqrt n\le\sqrt{8/3}, not Jia–Shen’s 3+ε\sqrt3+\varepsilon (which is the all-nn bound). A new bound tonight is a family with a strictly smaller liminf, or a proof that the liminf is 2\sqrt2.

4. The argument, in the order it was found

Green #33, then Croot–Lev 5.2, then Caprace–de la Harpe’s npn_p, then Bajnok’s φ(Zn,[0,2])\varphi(\mathbb Z_n,[0,2]), then Jia–Shen 3\sqrt3 for every large nn, then BEL’s directed circulant template. The last of these is the live record for infinitely many nn.

The template, for q≥7q\ge7 and q≡1(mod6)q\equiv1\pmod6:

Lemma 6 of BEL guarantees directed diameter 2, hence A+A=TA+A=T. CRT writes AA as a subset of Z/nZ\mathbb Z/n\mathbb Z. Independently, compute/verify.py recomputes the cyclic sumset from the listed residues and checks ∣A+A∣=n|A+A|=n.

Replayable:

python3 compute/make_bel_certs.py
python3 compute/haanpaa_replay.py
python3 compute/verify.py

BEL certificates through q=61q=61 (n=21594n=21594, ratio 1.6601.660) all verify. Haanpää’s twelve cyclic table rows all verify. Search logs: linear_family_hits.json (0 hits), three_ap_wide.json (0 hits), sidon_repair.json (no interval/AP completion), greedy_singer.json (unstructured extras, ratio ≥1.62\ge1.62), two_ap_prune.json (almost nothing drops), algebraic_eval.json (no thin prime-field cover).

6. What is proved vs still open

Proved here: the BEL family really does give cyclic sum covers of size (4+o(1))q(4+o(1))q in order 6q(q−2)6q(q-2), hence SS(n,2)≤(8/3+o(1))n\mathrm{SS}(n,2)\le(\sqrt{8/3}+o(1))\sqrt n along n=6q(q−2)n=6q(q-2), q≡1(mod6)q\equiv1\pmod6. This is the published statement, independently checked, not a new constant.

Still open: Green’s 2+o(1)\sqrt2+o(1) for infinitely many qq; any liminf strictly below 8/3\sqrt{8/3}; Jia–Shen’s challenge of a universal constant below 3\sqrt3. Isolated Haanpää-scale tables do not move any of those.