1. Introduction
Turán-type questions are some of the most well-studied problems in combinatorics. They typically ask how ‘dense’ should an object be in order to guarantee that it contains a certain small substructure. In the setting of graphs, this question asks how many edges an
$n$
-vertex graph should contain in order to force the appearance of some fixed graph
$H$
. For example, a central open problem in this area asks, given a bipartite graph
$H$
, to determine the smallest
$T=T_{H}(\varepsilon )$
so that for every
$n\geq T$
every
$n$
-vertex graph with
$\varepsilon\!\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n\\ 2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$
edges contains a copy of
$H$
(see [Reference Bukh3] for recent progress). A closely related question which also attracted a lot of attention is the supersaturation problem, introduced by Erdős and Simonovits [Reference Erdős and Simonovits5] in the 80s. In the setting of Turán’s problem for bipartite
$H$
, the supersaturation question asks to determine the largest
$T^*_{H}(\varepsilon )$
so that every
$n$
-vertex graph with
$\varepsilon\! \left(\begin{smallmatrix}n\\ 2\end{smallmatrix}\right)$
edges contains at least
$(T^*_{H}(\varepsilon )-o_n(1)) \cdot n^h$
labelled copies of
$H$
, where
$h=|V(H)|$
and
$o_n(1)$
denotes a quantity tending to
$0$
as
$n \rightarrow \infty$
. One of the central conjectures in this area, due to Sidorenko, suggests that
$T^*_{H}(\varepsilon ) = \varepsilon ^{m}$
, where
$m=|E(H)|$
(see [Reference Conlon, Kim, Lee and Lee4] for recent progress).
We now describe two problems in additive number theory, which are analogous to the graph problems described above. We say that a homogenous linear equation
$\sum ^k_{i=1}a_ix_i=0$
is invariant if
$\sum _ia_i=0$
. All equations we consider here will be invariant and homogenous. Given a fixed linear equation
$E$
, the Turán problem for
$E$
asks to determine the smallest
$R=R_{E}(\varepsilon )$
so that for every
$n\geq R$
, every
$S\subseteq [n]\,:\!=\,\{1,\ldots,n\}$
of size
$\varepsilon n$
contains a solution to
$E$
in distinct integers. For example, when
$E$
is the equation
$a+b=2c$
we get the Erdős–Turán–Roth problem on sets avoiding
$3$
-term arithmetic progressions (see [Reference Kelley and Meka7] for recent progress). Continuing the analogy with the previous paragraph, we can now ask to determine the largest
$R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$
so that every
$S \subseteq [n]$
of size
$\varepsilon n$
contains at least
$(R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )-o_n(1)) \cdot n^{k-1}$
solutions to
$E$
, where
$k$
is the number of variables in
$E$
. We now turn to discuss two aspects which make the arithmetic problems more challenging than the graph problems.
Let us say that
$E$
is sparse if there is
$C=C(H)$
so thatFootnote
1
$R_E(\varepsilon ) \leq \varepsilon ^{-C}$
. The first aspect which makes the arithmetic landscape more varied is that while in the case of graphs it is well known (and easy) that for every bipartite
$H$
we have
$T_{H}(\varepsilon )=\text{poly}(1/\varepsilon )$
, this is no longer the case in the arithmetic setting. Indeed, while Sidon’s equation
$a+b=c+d$
is sparse, a well-known construction of Behrend [Reference Behrend1] shows that
$a+b=2c$
is not sparse.Footnote
2
The problem of determining which equations
$E$
are sparse is a wide open problem due to Ruzsa, see Section
$9$
in [Reference Ruzsa9].
Our main goal in this paper is to study another aspect which differentiates the arithmetic and graph-theoretic problems. While it is easy to translate a bound for
$T_{H}(\varepsilon )$
into a bound for
$T^*_{H}(\varepsilon )$
(in particular, establishing that
$T^*_{H}(\varepsilon ) \geq \text{poly}(\varepsilon )$
for all bipartite
$H$
), it is not clear if one can analogously transform a bound for
$R_{E}(\varepsilon )$
into a bound for
$R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$
. The first reason is that while we can average over all subsets of vertices of graphs, we can only average over “structured” subsets of
$[n]$
. This makes is hard to establish a black-box reduction/transformation between
$R_{E}(\varepsilon )$
and
$R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$
. The second complication is that, as we mentioned above, we do not know which equations are sparse. This makes it hard to directly relate these two quantities. Following [Reference Girão, Hurley, Illingworth and Michel6], we say that
$E$
is abundant if
$R^*_{E}(\varepsilon ) \geq \varepsilon ^C$
for some
$C=C(E)$
. Clearly, if
$E$
is abundant then it is also sparse. Girão et al. [Reference Girão, Hurley, Illingworth and Michel6] asked if the converse also holds, that is, if one can transform a polynomial bound for
$R_{E}(\varepsilon )$
into a polynomial bound for
$R^*_{E}(\varepsilon )$
. Our aim in this note is to prove the following.
Theorem 1.1.
If an invariant equation
$E$
in four variables is sparse, then it is also abundant. More precisely, if
$R_{E}(\varepsilon ) \leq \varepsilon ^{-C}$
then
$R^*_{E}(\varepsilon ) \geq \frac 12\varepsilon ^{8C}$
for all small enough
$\varepsilon$
.
Given the above discussion, it is natural to extend the problem raised in [Reference Girão, Hurley, Illingworth and Michel6] to all equations
$E$
.
Problem 1.2.
Is it true that for every invariant equation
$E$
there is
$c=c(E)$
, so that for all small enough
$\varepsilon$
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU1.png?pub-status=live)
It is interesting to note that Varnavides [Reference Varnavides11] (implicitly) gave a positive answer to Problem 1.2 when
$E$
is the equation
$a+b=2c$
. In fact, essentially the same argument gives a positive answer to this problem for all
$E$
in three variables. Hence, Problem 1.2 can be considered as a generalisation of Varnavides’s theorem. Problem 1.2 was also implicitly studied previously in [Reference Bloom2,Reference Kosciuszko8]. In particular, Kosciuszko [Reference Kosciuszko8], extending earlier work of Schoen and Sisask [Reference Schoen and Sisask10], gave direct lower bounds for
$R^*_E$
which, thanks to [Reference Kelley and Meka7], are quasi-polynomially related to those of
$R_E$
.
The proof of Theorem 1.1 is given in the next section. For the sake of completeness, and as a preparation for the proof of Theorem 1.1, we start the next section with a proof that Problem 1.2 holds for equations in three variables. We should point that a somewhat unusual aspect of the proof of Theorem 1.1 is that it uses a Behrend-type [Reference Behrend1] geometric argument in order to find solutions, rather than avoid them.
2. Proofs
In the first subsection below, we give a concise proof of Varnavides’s theorem, namely, of the fact that Problem 1.2 has a positive answer for equations with three variables. In the second subsection, we prove Theorem 1.1.
2.1 Proof of Varnavides’s theorem
Note that for every equation
$E$
, there is a constant
$C$
such that for every prime
$p\geq Cn$
every solution of
$E$
with integers
$x_i \in [n]$
over
$\mathbb{F}_p$
is also a solution over
$\mathbb{R}$
. Since we can always find a prime
$Cn \leq p \leq 2Cn$
, this means that we can assume that
$n$
itself is primeFootnote
3
and count solutions over
$\mathbb{F}_n$
. So let
$S$
be a subset of
$\mathbb{F}_n$
of size
$\varepsilon n$
and let
$R=R_E(\varepsilon/2)$
. For
$b=(b_0,b_1) \in (\mathbb{F}_n)^2$
and
$x \in [R]$
let
$f_{b}(x)=b_1x+b_0$
andFootnote
4
$f_{b}([R])=\{x \in [R]\,{:}\, f_{b}(x) \in S\}$
. Pick
$b_0$
and
$b_1$
uniformly at random from
$\mathbb{F}_n$
and note that for any
$x \in [R]$
the integer
$f_{b}(x)$
is uniformly distributed in
$\mathbb{F}_n$
. Hence,
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU2.png?pub-status=live)
It is also easy to see that for every
$x \neq y$
the random variables
$f_b(x)$
and
$f_b(y)$
are pairwise independent. Hence,
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU3.png?pub-status=live)
Therefore, by Chebyshev’s Inequality we have
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU4.png?pub-status=live)
In other words, at least
$n^2/2$
choices of
$b$
are such that
$|\,f_{b}([R])| \geq \frac{\varepsilon }{2}R$
. By our choice of
$R$
, this means that
$f_{b}([R])$
contains three distinct integers
$x_1,x_2,x_3$
which satisfy
$E$
and such that
$f_{b}(x_i) \in S$
. Note that if
$x_1,x_2,x_3$
satisfy
$E$
, then so do
$f_{b}(x_1),f_{b}(x_2),f_{b}(x_3)$
. Let us denote the triple
$(f_{b}(x_1),f_{b}(x_2),f_{b}(x_3))$
by
$s_{b}$
. We have thus obtained
$n^2/2$
solutions
$s_b$
of
$E$
in
$S$
. To conclude the proof, we just need to estimate the number of times we have double counted each solution
$s_{b}$
. Observe that for every choice of
$s_{b}=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$
and distinct
$x_1,x_2,x_3 \in [R]$
, there is exactly one choice of
$b=(b_0,b_1) \in (\mathbb{F}_n)^2$
for which
$b_1x_i+b_0=s_i$
for every
$1 \leq i \leq 3$
. Since
$[R]$
contains at most
$R^2$
solutions of
$E$
this means that for every solution
$s_1,s_2,s_3 \in S$
, there are at most
$R^2$
choices of
$b$
for which
$s_{b}=\{s_1,s_2,s_3\}$
. We conclude that
$S$
contains at least
$n^2/2R^2$
distinct solutions, thus completing the proof.
2.2 Proof of Theorem 1.1
As in the proof above, we assume that
$n$
is a prime and count the number of solutions of the equation
$E:\,\sum ^4_{i=1}a_ix_i=0$
over
$\mathbb{F}_n$
. Let
$S$
be a subset of
$\mathbb{F}_n$
of size
$\varepsilon n$
, and let
$d$
and
$t$
be integers to be chosen later and let
$X$
be some subset of
$[t]^d$
to be chosen later as well. For every
$b=(b_0,\ldots,b_d)\in (\mathbb{F}_n)^{d+1}$
and
$x=(x_1,\ldots,x_d) \in X$
, we use
$f_b(x)$
to denote
$b_0+\sum ^d_{i=1}b_ix_i$
and
$f_b(X)=\{x \in X\,{:}\,\, f_b(x) \in S\}$
. We call
$b$
good if
$|\,f_b(X)| \geq \varepsilon |X|/2$
. We claim that at least half of all possible choices of
$b$
are good. To see this, pick
$b=(b_0,\ldots,b_{d})$
uniformly at random from
$(\mathbb{F}_n)^{d+1}$
, and note that for any
$x \in X$
the integer
$f_b(x)$
is uniformly distributed in
$\mathbb{F}_n$
. Hence,
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU5.png?pub-status=live)
It is also easy to see that for every
$x \neq y \in X$
the random variables
$f_b(x)$
and
$f_b(y)$
are pairwise independent. Hence,
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU6.png?pub-status=live)
Therefore, by Chebyshev’s Inequality we haveFootnote 5
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqn1.png?pub-status=live)
implying that at least half of the
$b$
’s are good. To finish the proof, we need to make sure that every such choice of a good
$b$
will “define” a solution
$s_b$
in
$S$
in a way that
$s_b$
will not be identical to too many other
$s_{b'}$
. This will be achieved by a careful choice of
$d$
,
$t$
, and
$X$
.
We first choose
$X$
to be the largest subset of
$[t]^d$
containing no three points on one line. We claim that
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqn2.png?pub-status=live)
Indeed, for an integer
$r$
let
$B_r$
be the points
$x \in [t]^d$
satisfying
$\sum ^d_{i=1}x^2_i=r$
. Then every point of
$[t]^d$
lies on one such
$B_r$
, where
$1 \leq r \leq dt^2$
. Hence, at least one such
$B_r$
contains at least
$t^{d-2}/d$
of the points of
$[t]^d$
. Furthermore, since each set
$B_r$
is a subset of a sphere, it does not contain three points on one line.
We now turn to choose
$t$
and
$d$
. Let
$C$
be such that
$R_E(\varepsilon ) \leq (1/\varepsilon )^C$
. Set
$a=\sum ^4_{i=1}|a_i|$
and pick
$t$
and
$d$
satisfying
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqn3.png?pub-status=live)
Taking
$t=2^{\sqrt{\log 1/\varepsilon }}$
and
$d=2C\sqrt{\log 1/\varepsilon }$
satisfiesFootnote
6
the above for all small enough
$\varepsilon$
. Note that by (3) and our choice of
$C$
, we have
$R_E\left (\frac{\varepsilon }{2dt^2a^d}\right ) \leq t^d$
.
Let us call a collection of four vectors
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4 \in X$
helpful if they are distinct, and they satisfy
$E$
in each coordinate, that is, for every
$1 \leq i \leq d$
we have
$\sum ^4_{j=1}a_jx^j_i=0$
. We claim that for every good
$r$
, there are useful
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4 \in f_r(X)$
. To see this let
$M$
denote the integers
$1,\ldots,(at)^d$
and note that (2) along with the fact that
$r$
is good implies that
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqn4.png?pub-status=live)
Now think of every
$d$
-tuple
$x \in X$
as representing an integer
$p(x) \in [M]$
written in base
$at$
. So we can also think of
$f_r(X)$
as a subset of
$[M]$
of density at least
$\varepsilon/2dt^2a^d$
. By (3), we have
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU7.png?pub-status=live)
implying that there are distinct
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4 \in f_r(X)$
for which
$\sum ^4_{j=1}a_j\cdot p(x^j)=0$
. But note that since the entries of
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$
are from
$[t]$
, there is no carry when evaluating
$\sum ^4_{j=1}a_j\cdot p(x^j)$
in base
$at$
, implying that
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$
satisfy
$E$
in each coordinate. Finally, the fact that
$\sum _ja_j=0$
and that
$x_i^1,x_i^2,x_i^3,x_i^4$
satisfy
$E$
for each
$1 \leq i \leq d$
allows us to deduce that
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU8.png?pub-status=live)
which means that
$f_b(x^1),f_b(x^2),f_b(x^3),f_b(x^4)$
forms a solution of
$E$
. So for every good
$b$
, let
$s_b$
be (some choice of)
$f_b(x^1),f_b(x^2),f_b(x^3),f_b(x^4) \in S$
as defined above. We know from (1) that at least
$n^{d+1}/2$
of all choices of
$b$
are good, so we have thus obtained
$n^{d+1}/2$
solutions
$s_b$
of
$E$
in
$S$
. To finish the proof, we need to bound the number of times we have counted the same solution in
$S$
, that is, the number of
$b$
for which
$s_b$
can equal a certain
$4$
-tuple in
$S$
satisfying
$E$
.
Fix
$s=\{s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4\}$
and recall that
$s_{b}=s$
only if there is a helpful
$4$
-tuple
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$
(as defined just before equation (4)) such that
$f_{b}(x^i)=s_i$
. We claim that for every helpful
$4$
-tuple
$x^1,x^2,x^3,x^4$
, there are at most
$n^{d-2}$
choices of
$b=(b_0,\ldots,b_d)$
for which
$s_b=s$
. Indeed recall that by our choice of
$X$
the vectors
$x^1,x^2,x^3$
are distinct and do not lie on one line. Hence, they are affine independentFootnote
7
over
$\mathbb{R}$
. But since the entries of
$x^i$
belong to
$[t]$
and
$t \leq 1/\varepsilon$
, we see that for large enough
$n$
the vectors
$x^1,x^2,x^3$
are also affine independent over
$\mathbb{F}_n$
. This means that the system of three linear equations:
![](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary:20241108160723667-0137:S096354832400018X:S096354832400018X_eqnU9.png?pub-status=live)
(in
$d+1$
unknowns
$b_0,\ldots,b_d$
over
$\mathbb{F}_n$
) has only
$n^{d-2}$
solutions, implying the desired bound on the number of choices of
$b$
. Since
$|X| \leq t^d \leq (1/\varepsilon )^{2C}$
by (3), we see that
$X$
contains at most
$(1/\varepsilon )^{8C}$
helpful
$4$
-tuples. Altogether this means that for every
$s_1,s_2,s_3,s_4 \in S$
satisfying
$E$
, there are at most
$(1/\varepsilon )^{8C}n^{d-2}$
choices of
$b$
for which
$s_b=s$
. Since we have previously deduced that
$S$
contains at least
$\frac 12n^{d+1}$
solutions
$s_b$
, we get that
$S$
contains at least
$\frac 12\varepsilon ^{8C}n^3$
distinct solutions, as needed.
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank Yuval Wigderson and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions.