For any field and vector subspace , some has at least nonzero coordinates. Choose with largest support of a vector . Restriction from to is injective: a nonzero vector in its kernel of a linear map vanishes on , so adding it to would enlarge . Thus . The argument works over finite fields, where assuming a generic vector avoids finitely many hyperplanes would be invalid.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 129 3 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Work in positive dimension . A cap set has no distinct zero-sum triple. Over the finite field , if two elements of a zero-sum triple agree then all three agree, since . Thus a zero-sum triple in a cap set must be diagonal. We prove the Ellenberg–Gijswijt cap-set bound by the polynomial method in combinatorics, keeping the exponential constant explicit and removing the fixed prefactor.
First prove the needed slice rank of a diagonal tensor over any field. The slice rank of a three-variable tensor is the least number of terms in a decomposition of the forms , , and . A diagonal tensor on a set of cardinality , with every diagonal entry nonzero, has slice rank at most by one slice for each entry. For the reverse inequality, suppose a decomposition has slices in the direction, in the direction, and in the direction, with . LetThe rank-nullity theorem gives . The maximum-support vector in a finite-dimensional subspace lemma supplies with at least nonzero coordinates: choose of maximum support of a vector; restriction must be injective, or adding a nonzero kernel of a linear map element would strictly enlarge that support of a vector. This argument is valid over finite fields, without any assumption that a generic vector avoids all coordinate hyperplanes.
Contract the proposed tensor decomposition in against . The diagonal tensor becomes a diagonal matrix of matrix rank at least . All slices vanish. Each remaining or slice becomes a matrix of matrix rank at most one, so subadditivity of matrix rank gives matrix rank at most , a contradiction. Therefore the slice rank of a diagonal tensor is exactly .
Now, for a cap set , consider the polynomialEach factor is one when its argument is zero and zero otherwise, because the two nonzero elements of have square one. Thus is the indicator function of . Restricted to , it is a diagonal tensor with every diagonal entry one, and its slice rank is .
Every monomial in the expansion has individual exponents at most two and total polynomial degree at most . Consequently at least one of its , , or blocks has polynomial degree at most . Assign each monomial to one such block, breaking ties in a fixed way, and collect assigned terms by the monomial in that block. Each collection is a slice. Ifthere are at most slices in each direction. Thus .
The low-degree monomial count for the cap-set bound follows directly from a weighted sum. Each exponent vector counted by satisfies , soThis supplies its own elementary exponential estimate; no unstated probabilistic estimate is required. Since , we have , but alone would leave a fixed prefactor.
Use Cartesian powers of cap sets to remove that prefactor. The -fold Cartesian product is still a cap set: in each block, a zero-sum triple of its elements must have all three entries equal. Hence . Taking th roots and letting tend to infinity proves the removal of an exponential prefactor by Cartesian powers:The strict middle inequality follows by cubing: . We can therefore takeFor every , a set with cannot be a cap set, and hence contains the required distinct triple. If zero dimension were included, the singleton would be another small-case exception; positive dimension is the convention used here.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 340 4 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Let be the support of a vector . If the columns indexed by were linearly dependent, there would be a nonzero supported in with . For sufficiently small real , the nonzero signs of remain fixed, soBoth positive and negative preserve the residual and hence feasibility, even with noise. A nonzero slope contradicts minimality in one direction. A zero slope gives distinct minimizers, contradicting uniqueness. Thus those columns are linearly independent, andThis proves the sparse vector assertion without assuming a noiseless residual.