Just a quick post to help popularise a useful lemma which seems to be well known to researchers but not to undergraduates, known variously as Fekete’s lemma or the subadditive lemma. It would make for a good Analysis I exercise. Let exclude
for the purpose of this post.
Lemma 1 (Fekete’s lemma) If
satisfies
for all
then
.
Proof: The inequality is immediate from the definition of
, so it suffices to prove
for each
. Fix such a
and set
. Set
. Now for a given
choose
so that
. Then
so .
Here is an example. For let
denote the largest
such that every set of
nonzero real numbers contains a subset of size
containing no solutions to
. We call such a subset sum-free.
Proposition 2
converges as
.
Proof: Let be a set of size
containing no sum-free subset of size larger than
, and
a set of size
containing no sum-free subset of size larger than
. Then for large enough
, the set
is a set of size
containing no sum-free subset of size larger than
, so
. Thus by Fekete’s lemma
converges to
.
The value of not easy to compute, but certainly
. A famously simple argument of Erdos shows
: Fix a set
, and for simplicity assume
. For
consider those
such that the fractional part of
lies between
and
. This set
is sum-free, and if
is chosen uniformly at random then
has size
on average.
The example , due to Malouf, shows
. The current record is due to Lewko, who showed by example
. Since these examples are somewhat ad hoc, while Erdos’s argument is beautiful, one is naturally led to the following conjecture (indeed many people have made this conjecture):
Conjecture 3
.
Ben Green, Freddie Manners, and I have just proved this conjecture! See our preprint.
A great use of the lemma. Congratulations
LikeLike