Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userExistence of ErdH{o}s-Burgess constant in commutative rings
144
0
0.0
(
0
)
Authors
Guoqing Wang
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
Let $R$ be a commutative unitary ring. An idempotent in $R$ is an element $ein R$ with $e^2=e$. The ErdH{o}s-Burgess constant associated with the ring $R$ is the smallest positive integer $ell$ (if exists) such that for any given $ell$ elements (not necessarily distinct) of $R$, say $a_1,ldots,a_{ell}in R$, there must exist a nonempty subset $Jsubset {1,2,ldots,ell}$ with $prodlimits_{jin J} a_j$ being an idempotent. In this paper, we prove that except for an infinite commutative ring with a very special form, the ErdH{o}s-Burgess constant of the ring $R$ exists if and only if $R$ is finite.
rate research
Read More
Given $E subseteq mathbb{F}_q^d times mathbb{F}_q^d$, with the finite field $mathbb{F}_q$ of order $q$ and the integer $d ge 2$, we define the two-parameter distance set as $Delta_{d, d}(E)=left{left(|x_1-y_1|, |x_2-y_2|right) : (x_1,x_2), (y_1,y_2) in E right}$. Birklbauer and Iosevich (2017) proved that if $|E| gg q^{frac{3d+1}{2}}$, then $ |Delta_{d, d}(E)| = q^2$. For the case of $d=2$, they showed that if $|E| gg q^{frac{10}{3}}$, then $ |Delta_{2, 2}(E)| gg q^2$. In this paper, we present extensions and improvements of these results.
In this paper we obtain a new lower bound on the ErdH{o}s distinct distances problem in the plane over prime fields. More precisely, we show that for any set $Asubset mathbb{F}_p^2$ with $|A|le p^{7/6}$, the number of distinct distances determined by pairs of points in $A$ satisfies $$ |Delta(A)| gg |A|^{frac{1}{2}+frac{149}{4214}}.$$ Our result gives a new lower bound of $|Delta{(A)}|$ in the range $|A|le p^{1+frac{149}{4065}}$. The main tools we employ are the energy of a set on a paraboloid due to Rudnev and Shkredov, a point-line incidence bound given by Stevens and de Zeeuw, and a lower bound on the number of distinct distances between a line and a set in $mathbb{F}_p^2$. The latter is the new feature that allows us to improve the previous bound due Stevens and de Zeeuw.
In 1935, ErdH{o}s and Szekeres proved that $(m-1)(k-1)+1$ is the minimum number of points in the plane which definitely contain an increasing subset of $m$ points or a decreasing subset of $k$ points (as ordered by their $x$-coordinates). We consider their result from an on-line game perspective: Let points be determined one by one by player A first determining the $x$-coordinate and then player B determining the $y$-coordinate. What is the minimum number of points such that player A can force an increasing subset of $m$ points or a decreasing subset of $k$ points? We introduce this as the ErdH{o}s-Szekeres on-line number and denote it by $text{ESO}(m,k)$. We observe that $text{ESO}(m,k) < (m-1)(k-1)+1$ for $m,k ge 3$, provide a general lower bound for $text{ESO}(m,k)$, and determine $text{ESO}(m,3)$ up to an additive constant.
Robertson and Seymour proved that the family of all graphs containing a fixed graph $H$ as a minor has the ErdH{o}s-Posa property if and only if $H$ is planar. We show that this is no longer true for the edge version of the ErdH{o}s-Posa property, and indeed even fails when $H$ is an arbitrary subcubic tree of large pathwidth or a long ladder. This answers a question of Raymond, Sau and Thilikos.
The triangle covering number of a graph is the minimum number of vertices that hit all triangles. Given positive integers $s,t$ and an $n$-vertex graph $G$ with $lfloor n^2/4 rfloor +t$ edges and triangle covering number $s$, we determine (for large $n$) sharp bounds on the minimum number of triangles in $G$ and also describe the extremal constructions. Similar results are proved for cliques of larger size and color critical graphs. This extends classical work of Rademacher, ErdH os, and Lovasz-Simonovits whose results apply only to $s le t$. Our results also address two conjectures of Xiao and Katona. We prove one of them and give a counterexample and prove a modified version of the other conjecture.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
