Sets of cardinality 6 are not sum-dominant

From MaRDI portal
Publication:5221076

zbMATH Open1435.11022arXiv1906.00470MaRDI QIDQ5221076FDOQ5221076


Authors: Hùng Viẹt Chu Edit this on Wikidata


Publication date: 24 March 2020

Abstract: Given a finite set AsubseteqmathbbN, define the sum set A+A = {a_i+a_jmid a_i,a_jin A} and the difference set A-A = {a_i-a_jmid a_i,a_jin A}. The set A is said to be sum-dominant if |A+A|>|AA|. Hegarty used a nontrivial algorithm to find that 8 is the smallest cardinality of a sum-dominant set. Since then, Nathanson has asked for a human-understandable proof of the result. However, due to the complexity of the interactions among numbers, it is still questionable whether such a proof can be written down in full without computers' help. In this paper, we present a computer-free proof that a sum-dominant set must have at least 7 elements. We also answer the question raised by the author of the current paper et al about the smallest sum-dominant set of primes, in terms of its largest element. Using computers, we find that the smallest sum-dominant set of primes has 73 as its maximum, smaller than the value found before.


Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.00470




Recommendations




Cites Work


Cited In (3)





This page was built for publication: Sets of cardinality 6 are not sum-dominant

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q5221076)