Refined bound for sum-free sets in groups of prime order
Improving upon earlier results of Freiman and the present authors, we show that if $p$ is a sufficiently large prime and $A$ is a sum-free subset of the group of order $p$, such that $n:=|A|>0.318p$, then $A$ is contained in a dilation of the interval $[n,p-n]\pmod p$.
\section{Introduction}

The subset $A$ of an additively written semigroup is called \emph{sum-free}
if there do not exist $a_1,a_2,a_3\in A$ with $a_1+a_2=a_3$; equivalently, if
$A$ is disjoint with its \emph{sumset} $A+A:=\{a_1+a_2\colon a_1,a_2\in A\}$.
Introduced by Schur in 1916 (``the set of positive integers cannot be
partitioned into finitely many sum-free subsets''), sum-free sets become now
a classical object of study in additive combinatorics; we refer the reader to
\cite{b:df,b:l2} and the papers, cited there, for the history and overview of
the subject area.

Let $G$ be a finite abelian group. It is easy to see that a randomly chosen
``small'' subset of $G$ is sum-free with high probability, while a randomly
chosen ``large'' subset of $G$ with high probability is \emph{not} sum-free.
Thus, small sum-free subsets of $G$ can be unstructured, whereas large
sum-free subsets possess a rigid structure. Unraveling this structure for
various underlying groups $G$ is a fascinating problem which received much
attention during the last decade.

In the present paper we consider groups of prime order $p$, which we identify
with the quotient group $\Z/p\Z$. Let $\phi_p$ denote the canonical homomorphism
from ${\mathbb Z}$ onto $\Z/p\Z$, and for a set ${\mathcal S}\subseteq{\mathbb Z}$ let ${\mathcal S}_p$ denote the image
of ${\mathcal S}$ under $\phi_p$; here the letter ${\mathcal S}$ will often be substituted by
the interval notation so that, for instance, $[3,6)_{11}=\{-8,4,16\}_{11}$
etc. The well-known Cauchy-Davenport inequality implies readily that if
$A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is sum-free, then $|A|\le\left\lfloor (p+1)/3\right\rfloor$. This estimate is
sharp, as for $u=\left\lfloor(p+1)/3\right\rfloor$ the set $[u,2u-1]_p$, and consequently its
dilates, are sum-free.

The main results of both \refb{l2} and \refb{df} show that in fact for prime
$p$, any large sum-free subset of $\Z/p\Z$ is close to a dilate of
$(p/3,2p/3)_p$. Specifically, it is proved in \refb{l2} for $\alpha_0=0.33$,
and in \refb{df} for $\alpha_0=0.324$ and $p$ large enough that if $A$ is a
sum-free subset of $\Z/p\Z$ with $n:=|A|>\alpha_0 p$, then $A$ is contained in a
dilate of $[n,p-n]_p$. (As shown in \refb{l2}, the interval $[n,p-n]_p$ is
best possible in this context.)

For an integer $d$ and a subset $A$ of an abelian group let
 $d\ast A:=\{d a\colon a\in A\}$. The goal of the present paper is to prove
\begin{theorem}\label{t:main}
Let $p$ be sufficiently large a prime and suppose that $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is
sum-free. If $n:=|A|>0.318 p$, then there exists $d\in{\mathbb Z}$ such that
 $A\subseteq d\ast[n,p-n]_p$.
\end{theorem}

The seemingly modest improvement of the constant from $0.324$ to $0.318$
requires a substantial effort and a number of new ideas,  some at the level
of Fourier analysis and others of a combinatorial nature; we believe that
these ideas may actually be of more general interest than the improvement of
the constant itself.

An example, presented in \refb{l3}, shows that the constant in question
cannot be reduced to below $0.2$. Though the value $0.318$ is not the precise
limit of our method, narrowing significantly the gap between $0.2$ and
$0.318$ seems to be a rather non-trivial and exciting problem.

\section{Some lemmas}\label{s:lemmas}

We gather here several auxiliary results, used in the next section to prove
Theorem \reft{main}.

It is well-known that if a set is sum-free, then its characteristic function
has a large Fourier coefficient. Specifically, let ${\rm e}_p$ denote the
character of the group $\Z/p\Z$, defined by ${\rm e}_p(1):=\exp(2\pi i/p)$, and given
a set $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ and an integer $z$ write ${\widehat A}(z):=\sum_{a\in A} {\rm e}_p(az)$. A
standard argument shows that if $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is sum-free with $|A|>\alpha_0p$,
then there exists $z\in{\mathbb Z}$ with $\phi_p(z)\neq 0$ such that
$|{\widehat A}(z)|>\frac{\alpha_0^2}{1-\alpha_0}\,p$. For $\alpha_0=0.318$ this leads to
$|{\widehat A}(z)|>0.148p$, while the following lemma allows us to get
$|{\widehat A}(z)|>0.152p$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:intrick}
Let $\varkappa>0$ and $\gamma\in(0,1)$ be real numbers, and write
 $K:=\left\lfloor \gamma^{-1/\varkappa}\right\rfloor$. Suppose that $P>K$ is an integer and
$v_1,\ldots, v_P$ are non-negative real numbers, satisfying
  $$ \textstyle
     \sum_{i=1}^P v_i = 1 \quad\text{and}\quad
                          \sum_{i=1}^P v_i^{1+\varkappa} \ge \gamma. $$
Then the equation $Kx^{1+\varkappa}+(1-Kx)^{1+\varkappa}=\gamma$ in the variable $x$ has
exactly one solution in the interval $(1/(K+1),1/K]$, and denoting this
solution by $X$ we have
  $$ \max \{ v_1,\ldots, v_P \} \ge X. $$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The existence and uniqueness of a solution is an immediate consequence of the
intermediate value property: just notice that the function
$f(x):=Kx^{1+\varkappa}+(1-Kx)^{1+\varkappa}$ is continuous and increasing on
$[1/(K+1),1/K]$, and that
  $$ f(1/(K+1)) = \frac1{(K+1)^\varkappa} < \gamma \le \frac1{K^\varkappa} = f(1/K). $$
We now prove the second assertion. Let $W$ denote the set of all those real
vectors $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in{\mathbb R}^P$ with non-negative coordinates, satisfying
  $$ \textstyle \sum_{i=1}^P w_i = 1 \quad\text{and}\quad
                                      \sum_{i=1}^P w_i^{1+\varkappa} \ge \gamma $$
(so that $(v_1,\ldots, v_P)\in W$). Observing that $W$ is compact and
$\max\{w_1,\ldots, w_P\}$ is a continuous function on $W$, set
  $$ \mu := \min \{ \max\{w_1,\ldots, w_P\}
                                      \colon (w_1,\ldots, w_P) \in W \} $$
and
  $$ {\mathcal C} := \{ (w_1,\ldots, w_P) \in W
                                  \colon \max\{w_1,\ldots, w_P\} = \mu \}. $$

We notice that if $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in{\mathcal C}$, then
  $$ \gamma \le \sum_{i=1}^P w_i^{1+\varkappa}
                           \le \mu^{\varkappa} \sum_{i=1}^P w_i = \mu^{\varkappa}, $$
whence
\begin{equation}\label{e:floormu}
  \frac1\mu \le \gamma^{-1/\varkappa} < K+1.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, it is readily verified that if $w_i=1/K$ for $i\in[1,K]$
and $w_i=0$ for $i\in[K+1,P]$, then $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in W$, and hence
 $\mu \le 1/K$, implying $1/\mu\ge K$. Comparing this with \refe{floormu} we
derive that

\begin{equation}\label{e:floor}
  \left\lfloor 1/\mu \right\rfloor = K.
\end{equation}

For $\delta\in{\mathbb R}$ and $i,j\in[1,P]$ with $i\neq j$, define the operator
$T_{ij}^{(\delta)}\colon{\mathbb R}^P\to{\mathbb R}^P$ by
 $T_{ij}^{(\delta)}(w_1,\ldots, w_P)=(w_1',\ldots, w_P')$, where
$w_i'=w_i+\delta,\ w_j':=w_j-\delta$, and $w_k'=w_k$ for $k\in[1,P]\setminus\{i,j\}$.
Observe that if $w_i<w_j$ and $0<\delta<(w_j-w_i)/2$, then $\sum_{i=1}^P
(w_i')^{1+\varkappa}<\sum_{i=1}^P w_i^{1+\varkappa}$.

Note, that if $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in{\mathcal C}$, then not all coordinates $w_i$ are
equal to each other: else they all would be equal to $1/P$, implying
 $\gamma\le P\cdot(1/P)^{1+\varkappa}=P^{-\varkappa}$ and hence contradicting
$P\ge K+1>\gamma^{-1/\varkappa}$.

We claim now that if $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in{\mathcal C}$, then equality holds in
$\sum_{i=1}^P w_i^{1+\varkappa}\ge\gamma$. Indeed, assuming that
 $\sum_{i=1}^P w_i^{1+\varkappa}>\gamma$, find $i,j\in[1,P]$ with $w_i<w_j=\mu$ and
apply to $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)$ the transformation $T_{ij}^{(\delta)}$ with
$\delta\in(0,(w_j-w_i)/2)$ small enough to ensure that the resulting vector
$(w_1',\ldots, w_P')$ satisfies $\sum_{i=1}^P (w_i')^{1+\varkappa}>\gamma$. Repeating
this procedure sufficiently many times, we find eventually a vector
$(u_1,\ldots, u_P)\in W$ with $\max\{u_1,\ldots, u_P\}<\mu$, contradicting the
definition of $\mu$.

Next, we observe that for any $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in{\mathcal C}$ there is at most one
index $i\in[1,P]$ such that $0<w_i<\mu$. For if $0<w_i\le w_j<\mu$, where
$i,j\in[1,P]$ are distinct, then, applying to $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)$ the
transformation $T_{ij}^{(\delta)}$ with $\delta$ negative and sufficiently small
in absolute value, we obtain a vector $(w_1',\ldots, w_P')\in{\mathcal C}$ with
$\sum_{i=1}^P (w_i')^{1+\varkappa}>\gamma$; however, we showed above that this is
impossible.

Fix $(w_1,\ldots, w_P)\in{\mathcal C}$. As it follows from our last observation, there
is an integer $k\in[1,P-1]$ such that, re-ordering the coordinates of
$(w_1,\ldots, w_P)$, if necessary, we can write
  $$ \mu = w_1=\dotsb= w_k > w_{k+1} \ge 0 = w_{k+2}=\dotsb= w_P. $$
From
  $$ k\mu \le \sum_{i=1}^P w_i < (k+1)\mu $$
it follows then that $k\le 1/\mu<k+1$, whence $k=\left\lfloor 1/\mu\right\rfloor=K$ by
\refe{floor}, and consequently $w_{k+1}=1-K\mu$. This yields
  $$ K\mu^{1+\varkappa}+(1-K\mu)^{1+\varkappa}=\gamma, $$
so that in fact $\mu=X$, implying the second assertion of the lemma and
indeed, showing that the estimate of the lemma is sharp.
\end{proof}

As indicated at the beginning of this section, Lemma \refl{intrick} will be
used to show that if $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is sum-free with $|A|>0.318p$, then there
exists $z\in{\mathbb Z}$ with $\phi_p(z)\neq 0$ and such that $|{\widehat A}(z)|>0.152p$. A
well-known result of Freiman leads then to the conclusion that there is an
interval of the form $[u,u+p/2)_p$, with an integer $u$, containing at least
$(|A|+|{\widehat A}(z)|)/2>0.235p$ elements of the dilation $z\ast A$. Our next lemma,
which is a reformulation of \cite[Corollary 2]{b:l1}, allows us to improve
this to $0.238p$.
\begin{lemma}[\protect{\cite[Corollary 2]{b:l1}}]\label{l:frep}
Let $p$ be a positive integer and suppose that $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$. If $n=|A|$ and
$S=\sum_{a\in A} {\rm e}_p(a)$, then there exists an integer $u$ such that
  $$ |A\cap[u,u+p/2)_p| \ge \frac{n}2\,
             + \frac{p}{2\pi}\,\arcsin\Big( |S|\sin \frac\pi{p} \Big). $$
\end{lemma}

For a subset $A$ of an additively written abelian group write
  $$ A-A := \{ a_1-a_2 \colon a_1,a_2\in A \}. $$

The following lemma follows readily from the results of \refb{gaf}; see also
\cite[Theorem~2]{b:ls}.

\begin{lemma}\label{l:3n-3}
Let $\ell$ and $m$ be positive integers and suppose that $A\subseteq[0,\ell]$ is a
set of integers such that $|A|=m,\ 0\in A,\ \ell\in A$, and $\gcd(A)=1$. Then
  $$ |A-A| \ge \min \{ \ell + m, 3m - 3 \}. $$
\end{lemma}

The next two lemmas deal with the structure of the difference set $A-A$ in
the case where $A$ is a dense set of integers.

\begin{lemma}[\protect{\cite[Lemma 2]{b:l2}}]\label{l:dif2}
Let $m$ and $\ell$ be positive integers, satisfying $\ell\le 2m-2$, and
suppose that $A\subseteq[0,\ell]$ is a set of integers such that $|A|=m$. Then for
any integer $k\ge 1$ we have
  $$ \left( \frac{\ell-m+1}k,\,\frac{m}k \right) \subseteq A-A. $$
\end{lemma}

\begin{lemma}[\protect{\cite[Lemma 3]{b:l2}}]\label{l:dif3}
Let $m$ and $\ell$ be positive integers and suppose that $A\subseteq[0,\ell]$ is a
set of integers such that $|A|=m$. If $\ell<\frac{2k-1}k\,m-1$ with an
integer
 $k\ge 2$, then
   $$ \left(-\frac m{k-1},\frac m{k-1}\right) \subseteq A-A. $$
\end{lemma}

We notice that Lemmas \refl{dif2} and \refl{dif3} remain valid if $A$ is a
subset of $\Z/p\Z$ (instead of ${\mathbb Z}$), the condition $A\subseteq[0,\ell]$ is replaced
by $A\subseteq[u,u+\ell]_p$ with integers $u$ and $\ell<p$, and the intervals in
the conclusions of the lemmas are replaced by their images under $\phi_p$.
Similarly, the estimate of Lemma \refl{3n-3} remains valid if
$A\subseteq[u,u+\ell]_p$ with integer $u$ and $\ell<p/2$, and given that the set
$\phi_p^{-1}(A)\cap[u,u+\ell]$ is not contained in an arithmetic progression
of length, smaller than $\ell$.

The next lemma is a restatement of a particular case of a ${\mathbb Z}/p{\mathbb Z}$-version of
\cite[Lemma 3]{b:df}.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:EZ}
Let $p$ be a prime and let $1\le\ell<p$ and $u$ be integers. Suppose that
$A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is sum-free and that $A_0\subseteq[u,u+\ell]_p\cap A$, and write
$m:=|A_0|$. If $\ell\le 2m-2$, then for any integer $a\in[\ell/4,\ell/2]$
with $\phi_p(a)\in A$ we have
  $$ [2a-(2m-\ell-2), 2a+(2m-\ell-2)]_p \cap (A \cup (-A)) = \varnothing. $$
\end{lemma}

For the convenience of the reader we provide a proof.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \refl{EZ}]
Since $|\{z,z+a\}_p\cap A|\le 1$ for any integer $z$, the set $A_0$ has at
most $a$ elements in each of the intervals $[u,u+2a-1]_p$ and
$[u+(\ell-2a+1),u+\ell]_p$, and consequently we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:parti}
  |A_0\cap [u+2a,u+\ell]_p|\ge m-a\quad \text{and}
                                    \quad |A_0\cap [u,u+(\ell-2a)]_p|\ge m-a.
\end{equation}
Assuming now that there exists an integer $x\in
[2a-(2m-\ell-2),2a+(2m-\ell-2)]$ with $\phi_p(x)\in A\cup(-A)$, we will
obtain a contradiction.

Suppose first that $x>2a$ and consider in this case the two-element sets
  $$ \{u,u+x\}_p,\ \{u+1,u+1+x\}_p,\ \ldots,\ \{u+\ell-x,u+\ell\}_p. $$
(We notice that \refe{parti}, along with $a\le \ell/2<m$, implies that
 $m-a\le \ell-2a+1$, whence $\ell\ge a+m-1$ and consequently,
$\ell-x\ge \ell-(2a+(2m-\ell-2))=2(\ell-a-m+1)\ge 0$.) These sets are
pairwise disjoint (as $u+\ell-x<u+x$ in view of $2x>4a\ge \ell$) and they all
are contained in $[u,u+\ell-2a]_p\cup[u+2a,u+\ell]_p$. Since at most one
element out of each of these $\ell-x+1$ sets belongs to $A_0$, we conclude
that
  $$ |[u,u+\ell-2a]_p\setminus A_0| + |[u+2a,u+\ell]_p\setminus A_0| \ge \ell-x+1. $$
Therefore
\begin{align*}
  |[u,u+\ell-2a]_p\cap A_0| + |[u+2a,u+\ell]_p\cap A_0|
    & \le 2(\ell-2a+1)-(\ell-x+1) \\
    & \le \ell-4a + (2a+(2m-\ell-2)) +1 \\
    & = 2(m-a) - 1,
\end{align*}
contradicting \refe{parti}.

Similarly, if $x<2a$, then we obtain a contradiction with \refe{parti}
considering the $l-4a+x+1$ sets
\begin{multline*}
  \{u+2a-x,u+2a\}_p,\ \{u+2a-x+1,u+2a+1\}_p, \\
    \ldots,\ \{u+l-2a,u+l-2a+x\}_p
\end{multline*}
which, again, are pairwise disjoint and contained in
$[u,u+l-2a]_p\cup[u+2a,u+l]_p$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}\label{l:p-n3}
Let $p$ be a prime and suppose that $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is sum-free. Write $n:=|A|$.
If
  $$ [-(p-n+1)/3,(p-n+1)/3]_p \cap A = \varnothing, $$
then $A\subseteq[n,p-n]_p$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Set
\begin{equation}\label{e:mu}
  \mu := \min \{ |z| \colon z\in{\mathbb Z},\,\phi_p(z)\in A \},
\end{equation}
so that $\mu>(p-n+1)/3$. Clearly, for any $a\in[\mu,2\mu)_p\cap A$ we have
$a+\mu\in[2\mu,3\mu)_p\setminus A$, which gives
  $$ |[\mu,3\mu)_p \cap A| \le \mu. $$
Assuming that $\mu<p/4$ we get then
  $$ n \le \mu + |[3\mu,p-\mu]_p| \le \mu + (p-4\mu+1) = p - 3\mu + 1 $$
whence $3\mu\le p-n+1$, contradicting the assumptions. We have therefore
$\mu>p/4$ and then $3\mu>p-\mu$, implying
  $$ n = |A\cap[\mu,3\mu)_p| \le \mu; $$
that is, $[0,n-1]_p\cap A=\varnothing$. In a similar way (or applying the argument
above to the set $-A:=\{-a\colon a\in A\}$) we obtain
 $[p-(n-1),p]_p\cap A=\varnothing$. The result follows.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \reft{main}}\label{s:mainproof}

Suppose that $p$ is a prime and $A\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ is a sum-free set with
$n:=|A|>0.318p$. The computations below tacitly assume that $p$ is
sufficiently large.

Recalling the definition of ${\widehat A}(z)$ from the beginning of Section
\refs{lemmas}, we start with

\begin{claim} There exists an integer $z_0$ with $\phi_p(z_0)\neq 0$ such that
$|{\widehat A}(z_0)|>0.152p$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
Let $\alpha:=n/p$, so that $\alpha>0.318$. By the Parseval identity we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:parseval}
  \sum_{z=1}^{p-1} |{\widehat A}(z)|^2 = \alpha(1-\alpha)p^2.
\end{equation}
Using the fact that $|{\widehat A}(p-z)|=|{\widehat A}(z)|$ for any $z\in{\mathbb Z}$ and letting
$P:=(p-1)/2$ we re-write \refe{parseval} as
  $$ \sum_{z=1}^P \frac{|{\widehat A}(z)|^2}{\alpha(1-\alpha)p^2/2} = 1. $$
On the other hand, since $A$ is sum-free we have
  $$ \sum_{z=0}^{p-1} |{\widehat A}(z)|^2 {\widehat A}(z) = 0, $$
whence
  $$ \sum_{z=1}^{p-1} |{\widehat A}(z)|^3
         \ge - \sum_{z=1}^{p-1} |{\widehat A}(z)|^2{\widehat A}(z)
                                             = |{\widehat A}(0)|^3 = \alpha^3 p^3 $$
and consequently
  $$ \sum_{z=1}^P \left( \frac{|{\widehat A}(z)|^2}{\alpha(1-\alpha)p^2/2} \right)^{3/2}
       \ge \sqrt{2} \left( \frac{\alpha}{1-\alpha} \right)^{3/2} > 0.4502. $$
Applying Lemma \refl{intrick} with $\varkappa=0.5$ and $\gamma=0.4502$ (which leads
to $K=4$), we conclude that there exists $z_0\in[1,P]$ with
  $$ \frac{|{\widehat A}(z_0)|^2}{\alpha(1-\alpha)p^2/2} > 0.2131 $$
and accordingly
  $$ |{\widehat A}(z_0)| > \sqrt{0.2131\,\alpha(1-\alpha)/2} \; p > 0.152p. $$
\end{proof}

Dilating $A$, if necessary, we assume that, in fact,
\begin{equation}\label{e:Ahat1}
   |{\widehat A}(1)| > 0.152p.
\end{equation}

Choose an integer $u_0$ such that
the number of elements of $A$ in
$[u_0,u_0+p/2)_p$ is maximized, set $A_0:=A\cap[u_0,u_0+p/2)_p$ and
$m:=|A_0|$, and let $B_0:=\phi_p^{-1}(A_0)\cap[u_0,u_0+p/2)$. Furthermore,
put $\ell:=\max B_0 - \min B_0$; thus $A_0$ is contained in a block of
$\ell+1$ consecutive elements of $\Z/p\Z$ and
  $$ m = \max \{ |A\cap[u,u+p/2)_p| \colon u\in{\mathbb Z} \}. $$
We notice that the last equality implies that
\begin{equation}\label{e:inhalf}
  n-m \le |A\cap[u,u+p/2)_p| \le m
\end{equation}
for all real $u$.

By Lemma \refl{frep} we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:n0large}
  m \ge \frac n2\, + \frac{p}{2\pi}
      \,\arcsin\Big( |{\widehat A}(1)| \sin \frac\pi{p} \Big)
          > \Big( 0.159 + \frac1{2\pi} \arcsin(0.1519\pi) \Big) p > 0.238 p.
\end{equation}
Since $B_0$ is a subset of an interval of length $\ell<p/2$, this shows that
$B_0$ is not contained in an arithmetic progression with difference greater
than $2$, and we now dispose of the case where $B_0$ is contained in an
arithmetic progression with difference $2$.


\begin{claim}\label{c:gcd2}
If $B_0$ is contained in an arithmetic progression with difference $2$, then
the conclusion of the theorem holds true.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
If $B_0$ is contained in an arithmetic progression with difference $2$, then
there is an integer $u$ and a set $C\subseteq\Z/p\Z$ such that $C\subseteq[u,u+p/4)_p$ and
either $A_0=2\ast C$, or $A_0=2\ast C+1$. Evidently, we have $\left\lfloor
p/4\right\rfloor<\frac32\,m-1$, whence $(-m,m)_p\subseteq C-C$ by Lemma \refl{dif3} (see
also the remark after the lemma), implying $2\ast(-m,m)_p\subseteq A_0-A_0$. Since
$A$ is sum-free, we derive that the set $2\ast(-m,m)_p$ is disjoint with $A$,
and replacing $A$ with its dilation by the factor $(p-1)/2$ we obtain
$A\subseteq[m,p-m]_p$. The assertion now follows from Lemma \refl{p-n3}, as
  $$ (p-n+1)/3 < 0.228 p < m $$
by \refe{n0large}.
\end{proof}

In what follows we assume that $B_0$ is \emph{not} contained in an arithmetic
progression with difference greater than $1$.


Since the sets $A$ and $A-A$ are disjoint, we have
  $$ n \le p - |A-A| \le p - |A_0-A_0|. $$
To estimate $|A_0-A_0|$ we apply Lemma \refl{3n-3}; this gives
\begin{equation}\label{e:diffr}
  p-n \ge |A_0-A_0| \ge \min \{ \ell+m, 3m-3 \}.
\end{equation}
Assuming that $\ell\ge 2m-3$ and using \refe{n0large} we then obtain
  $$ p \ge n + 3m - 3 > (0.318+3\cdot0.238)p - 3 = 1.032p - 3, $$
a contradiction. Thus
\begin{gather}
  \ell \le 2m-4, \label{e:l0small} \\
  |A_0-A_0| \ge \ell+m, \label{e:A0-A0}
\end{gather}
and $p-n \ge \ell+m$ by \refe{diffr}, whence
\begin{equation}\label{e:l0smallprime}
  \ell \le p-n-m.
\end{equation}
We assume, furthermore, that
\begin{equation}\label{e:l032n0}
  \ell \ge \frac32\,m-1;
\end{equation}
for otherwise $(-m,m)_p\cap A=\varnothing$ by Lemma \refl{dif3}, and consequently
$A\subseteq[n,p-n]_p$ (as at the end of the proof of Claim \refc{gcd2}).
Assumption \refe{l032n0} will eventually lead us to a contradiction.

\begin{claim}\label{c:n02excluded}
We have
  $$ A\cap(-m/2,m/2)_p=\varnothing. $$
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
Let $\mu$ be defined by \refe{mu}; we want to show that $\mu\ge m/2$. Notice,
that by \refe{l0small} and Lemma \refl{dif2} we have
$((\ell-m+1)/2,m/2)_p\subseteq A_0-A_0\subseteq A-A$, and consequently
$((\ell-m+1)/2,m/2)_p\cap A=\varnothing$; thus, it actually suffices to prove that
$\mu>(\ell-m)/2$. Assume that this is wrong, and hence
\begin{equation}\label{e:loc20}
  \cos \pi \, \frac\mu p \ge \cos \pi \, \frac{\ell-m}{2p}
        \ge \cos \pi \, \frac{p-n-2m}{2p} = \sin \pi \, \frac{n+2m}{2p}
\end{equation}
holds by \refe{l0smallprime}.

Since $A\cap(A+\mu)=\varnothing$, we have $|A\cup(A+\mu)|=2n$  and
\begin{equation}\label{e:Strick}
   \bigg| \sum_{a\in A\cup(\mu+A)} {\rm e}_p(a) \bigg|
                       = \big|(1+{\rm e}_p(\mu))\,{\widehat A}(1)\big|
                                           = 2 |{\widehat A}(1)|\, \cos\pi\frac\mu p.
\end{equation}
We distinguish two cases. Assume first that $m>0.25p$. From \refe{Strick} we
get
  $$ 2 |{\widehat A}(1)|\, \cos\pi\frac{\mu}{p}
               \le \bigg| \sum_{z=0}^{2n-1} {\rm e}_p(z) \bigg|
                                    = \frac{\sin 2\pi n/p}{\sin \pi/p} $$
which, along with \refe{loc20}, \refe{Ahat1}, and the assumption $m>0.25p$,
implies
\begin{align*}
  \sin2\pi\frac np
    &\ge 2|{\widehat A}(1)|\, \cos\pi\frac{\mu}{p} \,\sin\frac\pi{p} \\
    &>   0.954 \, \frac{|{\widehat A}(1)|}{0.152p} \, \cdot \frac{\sin\pi/p}{3.141/p}
                                               \cdot \cos\pi\frac{\mu}{p} \\
    &>   0.954 \sin \pi \, \frac{n+2m}{2p} \\
    &>   0.954 \sin \frac{\pi}2\left( \frac np+0.5\right).
\end{align*}
It is easy to verify, however, that the function
  $$ \sin 2\pi x - 0.954 \sin \frac{\pi}2\,(x+0.5) $$
is negative for any $x\in(0.318,0.334)$, a contradiction.

Assume now that $m<0.25p$. In this case we apply Lemma \refl{frep} to the set
$A\cup(A+\mu)$, observing that by \refe{inhalf} any interval of the form
$[u,u+p/2)_p$ with integer $u$ contains at most $2m$ elements of this set; in
view of \refe{Strick} this yields
  $$ 2m \ge n + \frac{p}{2\pi}\,
            \arcsin\left( 2|{\widehat A}(1)|\cos\pi\frac\mu p \, \sin\frac\pi p \right)  $$
and hence
  $$ 2\pi\frac{2m-n}p
       \ge \arcsin \left( 2|{\widehat A}(1)|\cos\pi\frac\mu p \, \sin\frac\pi p \right). $$
Since $2\pi(2m-n)/p\le 2\pi m/p<\pi/2$ we obtain
  $$ \sin 2\pi\frac{2m-n}p
                          \ge 2|{\widehat A}(1)|\cos\pi\frac\mu p \, \sin\frac\pi p $$
which, as above, yields
\begin{equation}\label{e:muest}
  \sin 2\pi\frac{2m-n}p > 0.954 \cos\pi\frac\mu p
                                      > 0.954 \sin \pi \, \frac{n+2m}{2p}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, it is not difficult to see that the function
  $$ \sin 2\pi (2y-x) - 0.954 \sin\frac\pi2\,(x+2y) $$
is negative in the region $x\in(0.318,0.334),\,y\in(0.23,0.25)$, a
contradiction again.
\end{proof}

Set
\begin{alignat*}{5}
  A_1^+ &:= A\cap[m/2,\ell-m+1]_p\,,
       &\quad A_2^+ &:= A\cap[m,p/4)_p\,, \\
  A_1^- &:= A\cap[-(\ell-m+1),-m/2]_p\,, &\quad A_2^- &:= A\cap(-p/4,-m]_p\,,
\intertext{and}
  A_1 &:= A_1^+\cup A_1^-\,, &\quad A_2 &:= A_2^+\cup A_2^-,
\end{alignat*}
so that
\begin{equation}\label{e:A1A2}
  A\cap[0,p/4)_p=A_1^+\cup A_2^+\quad \text{and}
                                      \quad A\cap(-p/4,0]_p=A_1^-\cup A_2^-
\end{equation}
by Lemma \refl{dif2} (applied with $k=1$) and Claim \refc{n02excluded};
observe also that $m/2\le \ell-m+1$ by \refe{l032n0}, and that $A_2=\varnothing$ if
$m>0.25p$. For definiteness, we assume for the rest of the proof that
\begin{equation}\label{e:+>-}
  |A_1^+| \ge |A_1^-|
\end{equation}
and hence $A_1^+\neq\varnothing$: otherwise by \refe{inhalf} we would have
  $$ n-m \le |A_2| \le \max \{ 0, p/2-2m \}, $$
leading to either $m=n$ (in which case we are done by Lemma \refl{p-n3}), or
$n+m<p/2$ (which contradicts \refe{n0large}).

Given two subsets $S_1$ and $S_2$ of an additively written semigroup, we
write
  $$ S_1+S_2 := \{ s_1+s_2\colon s_1\in S_1,\,s_2\in S_2 \}. $$
It is well-known and easy to prove that if $S_1$ and $S_2$ are finite
non-empty sets of integers, then $|S_1+S_2|\ge|S_1|+|S_2|-1$ holds. Clearly,
this inequality remains valid also if $S_1$ and $S_2$ are non-empty subsets
of $\Z/p\Z$, contained in two intervals of total length, smaller than $p$.

Our next claim refines the estimate \refe{l0smallprime}.
\begin{claim}\label{c:l0verysmall}
We have
  $$ \ell \le p - n - m - 2|A_2| + 2. $$
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
The assertion follows from the fact that the sets $A$ and
  $$ A_2^++A_2^+ \subseteq [2m,p/2)_p\,,
                \quad A_2^-+A_2^- \subseteq (p/2,p-2m]_p\,,
                                            \quad A_0-A_0\subseteq[-\ell,\ell] $$
are pairwise disjoint, the estimate \refe{A0-A0}, and the observation that
$|A_2^++A_2^+|\ge 2|A_2^+|-1$ and $|A_2^-+A_2^-|\ge 2|A_2^-|-1$.
\end{proof}

Write $I:=[-(2m-\ell-2),2m-\ell-2]_p$ and
 $J:=2\ast A_1^++I$. We observe that
\begin{equation}\label{e:caseI2}
  J \cap A = (-J)\cap A = \varnothing
\end{equation}
by Lemma \refl{EZ} (which is applicable since
$A_1^+\subseteq[m/2,\ell-m+1]_p\subseteq[\ell/4,\ell/2]_p$, as it follows from
\refe{l0small}). Let $k:=|A_1^+|$, write $A_1^+=\{a_1,\ldots, a_k\}$, where the
elements are so numbered that their inverse images in $[m/2,\ell-m+1]$ under
$\phi_p$ form an increasing sequence, and for $i\in[1,k]$ set
$S_i:=2\ast\{a_1,\ldots, a_i\}+I$. We have then $S_1=|I|=4m-2\ell-3$ and
$|S_{i+1}\setminus S_i|\ge 2$ for $i\in[1,k-1]$, and it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{e:Slarge}
   |J| = |S_k| \ge (4m-2\ell-3) + 2(k-1) = 2|A_1^+|+4m-2\ell-5.
\end{equation}

We are now in a position to complete the proof showing that the above-made
assumptions (see the remark following \refe{l032n0}) lead to a contradiction.
We consider separately two cases: $m<0.244p$ and $m>0.244p$.

\subsection*{Case I: $m<0.244p$}
We revisit the proof of Claim \refc{n02excluded}, defining $\mu$ by \refe{mu}
and observing that \refe{muest} gives
\begin{equation}\label{e:arccos}
  \mu > \frac1\pi\, \arccos
                \Big( 1.049 \sin 2\pi\Big( \frac{2m}p-0.318 \Big) \Big) p.
\end{equation}
(This estimate is stronger, than $\mu\ge m/2$, for small values of $m$, and
in particular for $m<0.244p$.)

Since $A_1^+\subseteq[\mu,\ell-m+1]_p$, we have
  $$ J \subseteq [\ell-2m+2\mu+2,\ell]_p, $$
hence \refe{+>-}, \refe{caseI2} and \refe{Slarge} yield
\begin{align*}
  |[\ell-2m+2\mu+2,\ell]_p\setminus A| &\ge 2|A_1^+|+4m-2\ell-5 \\
\intertext{and}
  |[-\ell,-(\ell-2m+2\mu+2)]_p\setminus A| &\ge 2|A_1^+|+4m-2\ell-5 \\
                                      &\ge 2|A_1^-|+4m-2\ell-5.
\end{align*}

Adding up these estimates we obtain
  $$ |[\ell-2m+2\mu+2, p-(\ell-2m+2\mu+2)]_p \setminus A|
                                               \ge 2|A_1|+8m-4\ell-10, $$
and it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{e:caseI5}
  |[\ell-2m+2\mu+2, p-(\ell-2m+2\mu+2)]_p \cap A|
                                           \le p-2|A_1|+2\ell-4m-4\mu+7.
\end{equation}
We notice now that
\begin{multline*}
  \ell - 2m + 2\mu + 1 \le \ell - m + 1 \le p - n - 2m + 1 \\
                                  < (1-0.318-2\cdot 0.238)p + 1 < 0.25p
\end{multline*}
by \refe{l0smallprime} and \refe{n0large}, and consequently
  $$ |[-(\ell-2m+2\mu+1),\ell-2m+2\mu+1]_p\cap A| \le |A_1|+|A_2| $$
holds. Taking the sum of the last inequality and \refe{caseI5}, observing
that $|A_1|+|A_2|\ge n-m$ by \refe{inhalf}, and using the estimate of Claim
\refc{l0verysmall}, we get
\begin{align*}
  n &\le p - |A_1| + |A_2| + 2\ell - 4m - 4\mu + 7 \\
    &\le 3p - |A_1| - |A_2| - 2n -6m - 4\mu + 11 \\
    & \le 3p - 3n - 5m -4\mu + 11.
\end{align*}
This yields
  $$ \frac{4\mu}{p} \le 3 - \frac{4n}p - \frac{5m}p + \frac{11}p
                                               < 1.729-\frac{5m}p, $$
and comparing this with \refe{arccos} we obtain
  $$ \frac4\pi\, \arccos \Big( 1.049
             \sin 2\pi\Big( \frac{2m}p-0.318 \Big) \Big)
                                               < 1.729-\frac{5m}p. $$
However, a routine investigation shows that
  $$ \frac4\pi\, \arccos\big( 1.049\sin 2\pi (2x-0.318) \big) - 1.729 + 5x $$
is positive for $x\in(0.238,0.244)$.

\subsection*{Case II: $m>0.244p$}
Recalling \refe{+>-} we get
\begin{equation}\label{e:A1large}
  |A_1^+| \ge \frac12\,{|A_1|}
               = \frac12\, \big( |(-p/4,p/4)_p\cap A| - |A_2| \big)
                                            \ge \frac12\, ( n-m - |A_2|)
\end{equation}
by \refe{inhalf} and the definitions of $A_1$ and $A_2$. We also observe that
\begin{align}
  |A_1^+| &\le (\ell-m+1) - m/2 + 1 \nonumber \\
          &\le p-n-\frac52\,m + 2 \nonumber \\
          &=   (n-m) - \Big( 2n+\frac32\,m-p \Big) + 2 \nonumber \\
          &<   (n-m) - (2\cdot0.318+1.5\cdot0.244-1)p + 2 \nonumber \\
          &<   n-m \label{e:A1small}
\end{align}
by \refe{l0smallprime}.

Using Claim \refc{l0verysmall} we derive from \refe{A1large} that
\begin{align*}
  |[m/2,\ell-m+1]_p\setminus A_1^+|
     &\le \Big( \ell-\frac32\,m+2 \Big) - \frac12\,(n - m - |A_2|) \\
     &=   \ell - m - \frac12\,n + \frac12\,|A_2| + 2 \\
     &=   2(2m-\ell-2) + 3\ell - 5m - \frac12\,n + \frac12\,|A_2| + 6 \\
     &\le 2(2m-\ell-2) + 3p - 8m - \frac72\,n + 12 \\
     &<   2(2m-\ell-2) - (8\cdot 0.238 + 3.5\cdot 0.318 - 3)p + 12 \\
     &<   2(2m-\ell-2),
\end{align*}
and it follows that the set $J$ is an interval in $\Z/p\Z$. Consequently, by
\refe{inhalf}, Claim \refc{n02excluded}, the definition of $A_1^+$,
\refe{A1A2}, and \refe{caseI2} we have
\begin{align}
  n-m &\le |(-m/2,(p-m)/2)_p\cap A| \nonumber \\
        &=   |A_1^+| + |[m,(p-m)/2)_p\cap A| \nonumber \\
        &\le |A_1^+| + |[m,(p-m)/2)_p\setminus J|. \label{e:stmJ}
\end{align}
Since $J\subseteq[\ell-m+2,\ell]_p$ (as it is immediate from the definitions of
$J$ and $A_1^+$), we have
  $$ |[m,(p-m)/2)_p\setminus J| \le \max \{ |[m,(p-m)/2)_p\setminus J_1|,
                                       \: |[m,(p-m)/2)_p\setminus J_2|\}, $$
where
  $$ J_1 := [\ell-m+2,\ell-m+|J|+1]_p
                          \quad \text{and}\quad J_2 := [\ell+1-|J|,\ell]_p $$
(so that $J_1$ and $J_2$ are subintervals of the interval $[\ell-m+2,\ell]_p$
with $|J_1|=|J_2|=|J|$, adjacent to the endpoints of this interval).
Accordingly, from \refe{stmJ} we deduce that
\begin{equation}\label{e:J12}
  |[m,(p-m)/2)_p\setminus J_i| \ge n-m-|A_1^+|
\end{equation}
holds true with either $i=1$, or $i=2$.

By \refe{A1small}, assuming that \refe{J12} holds with $i=1$ we obtain
  $$ n-m-|A_1^+| < (p-m)/2 - (\ell-m+|J|+1) + 1.  $$
Using \refe{Slarge}, \refe{A1large}, and Claim \refc{l0verysmall} we now get
\begin{gather*}
  |A_1^+| + 4m - 2\ell - 5 \le |J|-|A_1^+|
                                    < 0.5p + \frac32\,m - n - \ell, \\
  |A_1^+| < 0.5p - \frac52\,m - n + \ell + 5
                                 \le 1.5p - \frac72\,m - 2n -2|A_2| + 7, \\
  \frac52\,n + 3m < 1.5p + 7,
\end{gather*}
which is wrong since
  $$ \frac52\,n + 3m > (2.5\cdot0.318+3\cdot0.238)p = 1.509p. $$

Assume now that \refe{J12} holds with $i=2$. Since
  $$ \frac12\,(n-m-|A_2|) \le |A_1^+| \le \ell-\frac32\,m + 2 $$
by \refe{A1large} and the definition of $A_1^+$, we have
  $$ \ell \ge \frac12\,n + m - \frac12\,|A_2| - 2
       = \frac12\,(p-m) + \frac12\,(n + 3m - p - |A_2|) - 2
                                                     > \frac12\,(p-m), $$
as $|A_2|\le\max\{0,0.5p-2m+2\}$ and
\begin{gather*}
  n + 3m > (0.318+3\cdot 0.238)p = 1.032 p, \\
  n + 5m > (0.318+5\cdot0.238)p = 1.508 p.
\end{gather*}
Similarly to the above we now obtain from \refe{J12} and \refe{A1small}
  $$ n - m - |A_1^+| \le (\ell + 1 - |J|) - m + 1 $$
and using \refe{Slarge}, \refe{A1large}, and Claim \refc{l0verysmall} derive
that
\begin{gather*}
  |A_1^+| + 4m - 2\ell - 5 \le |J|-|A_1^+| \le \ell - n + 2, \\
  |A_1^+| \le 3\ell - 4m - n + 7 \le 3p - 7m - 4n -6|A_2| + 13, \\
  3p + 13 \ge \frac92\,n + \frac{13}2\,m
                             > (4.5\cdot 0.318 + 6.5\cdot0.244)p = 3.017p,
\end{gather*}
a contradiction, as wanted.

\section*{Acknowledgement}

The authors are grateful to Dr. K. Srinivas for helpful discussions.


2007-05-31T10:17:01.000
0705
0705.4536
en
https://arxiv.org/abs/0705.4536
Improving upon earlier results of Freiman and the present authors, we show that if $p$ is a sufficiently large prime and $A$ is a sum-free subset of the group of order $p$, such that $n:=|A|>0.318p$, then $A$ is contained in a dilation of the interval $[n,p-n]\pmod p$.
Number Theory (math.NT); Combinatorics (math.CO)
Refined bound for sum-free sets in groups of prime order
Qwen/Qwen-72B
1. YES
2. YES