Topics (318k) Articles (329k) Users (388) Discussions (237) Comments (383) Files (10k) New article
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2008 iii Paper 16 1 Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
We prove the Roth theorem on three-term arithmetic progressions by a density increment on an ordinary integer arithmetic progression. The required increment will be small, but depend only on the current subset density.
First establish the increment step. Suppose has subset density and no nonconstant three-term arithmetic progression. Put , regard as a subset of the cyclic group , and set . Then and . Use the normalized Fourier coefficient on a finite abelian groupThe character orthogonality geometric-series identity for and zero otherwise gives Fourier inversion on a finite group, Parseval identity on a finite group, andSince is odd, multiplication by two permutes its frequencies. If one argument is and the other two have absolute value at most one, Cauchy-Schwarz and the Parseval identity on a finite group give .
A modular arithmetic progression whose three entries lie in satisfies the corresponding integer equation: the absolute value of is less than , so congruence to zero forces equality. Thus , since only constant arithmetic progressions remain. Meanwhile, the choices and give at least arithmetic progressions in for . As , this gives . Expand . The seven terms other than the main term are each bounded by . For ,Consequently a nonzero frequency obeys , where . It is nonzero because .
We turn this coefficient into a local increase. Let . Partition the unit circle into equal intervals and consider the points , , modulo one. Two occupy the same interval, yielding an integer with . Set . If exceeds a sufficiently large absolute multiple of , then and each residue-class arithmetic progression of step in has at least terms. Partition each into pieces of lengths between and , distributing the final remainder among the pieces.
On each such arithmetic progression , the character of a finite abelian group differs from its value at the first point by at most . Write . Thereforeso . But , and hence the sum of the positive is at least . Some piece must consequently satisfy . On that piece,Also, once , . This proves the one-frequency density increment on an integer interval: for absolute constants , if , there is a arithmetic progression of length at least on which the subset density rises by at least . For example one may decrease to and choose large enough for the displayed elementary inequalities.
Now fix and suppose the required conclusion fails. On each new arithmetic progression, identify its points in order with . This affine identification preserves all integer arithmetic progressions, so its copy of is still progression-free. All densities remain at least . Put , , and choose an integer . Every increment raises the subset density by at least and changes the length by . Iterating the latter inequality givesChoose . Then every length up to step exceeds , so every increment is available. After increments the subset density exceeds one, a contradiction. ThusFor there are no sets satisfying the subset density assumption. The argument above proves the substantive case without invoking the theorem being asked for.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2008 iii Paper 14 4 Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
Let , with the two copies of the graph vertex set distinguished. In , the diagonal pairs form an independent set of size : for , their adjacency cannot hold in both a graph and its complement graph. There is another such diagonal set in . These two types lie in different components of , so their set union is independent. Thuswhich proves the printed bound.
A stronger complement-pair capacity gain will make the strict inequality transparent. In words of length , choose a pattern of coordinates from and from . Match the th coordinate of the first type with the th of the second type, and put the same graph vertex label in each pair. This gives independent words for each pattern: if two label tuples differ, their differing pair has a nonedge in one of the two complementary graphs. Codes belonging to distinct patterns are mutually nonadjacent, since some coordinate lies in different components of the disjoint set union. ConsequentlyThe inequalities show that its th root tends to two. ThereforeThis strengthens, rather than changes, the bound requested in the PDF.
For a polynomial representation of a graph over a field , choose points and polynomials , where is a finite-dimensional vector space, such thatNo condition is imposed at adjacent pairs. To bound a strong power, put its polynomials in disjoint variable blocks:They lie in a polynomial space canonically identified with , of dimension . For an independent set of words, evaluation of their polynomials at their associated point tuples is a diagonal matrix with nonzero diagonal: distinct words have a nonedge coordinate, which supplies a zero factor. The polynomials in that independent set are therefore linearly independent, since evaluating any linear relation at each tuple forces its corresponding coefficient to be zero. HenceThis is the polynomial form of the Haemers rank bound, proved here by evaluations and tensor products rather than assumed.
For an explicit counterexample, let the graph vertices of be the five-element subsets of . Join distinct exactly when is odd. There are graph vertices. Over , take andAt the diagonal in the field. At a distinct nonedge the set intersection is even, so . These polynomials lie in the twenty-dimensional space spanned by , proving .
Represent the complement graph over , using the same indicator vectors andIts evaluation at is . The diagonal value is modulo three. Distinct nonedges of are edges of , so the set intersection size is one or three. Their evaluations are respectively zero and modulo three. The polynomials belong to the space spanned by the squarefree quadratic monomials , , of dimension . Therefore .
The graph capacity inequalities are real-number bounds regardless of which field supplies the polynomial representation of a graph. Combining them with the stronger set union lower bound givessince . This proves nonadditivity of Shannon capacity for the graph just defined, with both individual upper bounds calculated explicitly.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2008 iii Paper 14 3 Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-14
All graphs here are finite and simple. For the strong graph product , two distinct graph vertex pairs are adjacent if in each coordinate the entries are equal or adjacent. Use for its strong graph power; the exam's means this product power, not the distance-based graph power. The Shannon capacity of a graph iswhere is the independence number. Products of independent sets are independent, so for . To see why the limit exists, fix and write , . Then , using and , so . Take the supremum over ; the reverse upper bound holds termwise. This proves the required form of Fekete lemma. For the empty graph on no graph vertices one sets graph capacity zero separately.
Associativity of the strong product givesAn orthonormal representation of a graph assigns a real unit vector to each graph vertex, with whenever distinct graph vertices are nonadjacent. Adjacent graph vertices need not receive orthogonal vectors. A handle is a unit vector . The handle formulation of the Lovász theta function iswith a zero denominator giving infinity. Representations may use any finite-dimensional Euclidean space. This is the usual Lovász number in its orthonormal-representation formulation.
For an independent set , the vectors , , are mutually orthonormal. Directly,If is finite, every summand is at least , giving . For a strong power, use the vectors and handleTheir norms are one. Nonadjacency of two distinct words means a coordinate has distinct nonadjacent entries, so the corresponding tensor inner product has a zero factor. The handle inner products satisfyApplying the preceding calculation gives . Taking roots, then the infimum over representations and handles, provesThis is the tensor-product capacity bound from an orthonormal representation, and the displayed projection calculation supplies Bessel inequality explicitly.
For , label graph vertices by , with edges at differences . The five wordsare independent in its strong square: a difference in the first coordinate produces a nonedge difference in the second, while a first-coordinate difference is already a nonedge. Hence .
For the matching upper bound set , , andEach vector is unit. For a nonedge, the angle difference is , andbecause and . Thus these vectors form an orthonormal representation. The handle has , giving . Together the two bounds prove the pentagon capacity code result
Pinned article: Introduction to the OurBigBook Project
Welcome to the OurBigBook Project! Our goal is to create the perfect publishing platform for STEM subjects, and get university-level students to write the best free STEM tutorials ever.
Everyone is welcome to create an account and play with the site: ourbigbook.com/go/register. We belive that students themselves can write amazing tutorials, but teachers are welcome too. You can write about anything you want, it doesn't have to be STEM or even educational. Silly test content is very welcome and you won't be penalized in any way. Just keep it legal!
Intro to OurBigBook
. Source. We have two killer features:
- topics: topics group articles by different users with the same title, e.g. here is the topic for the "Fundamental Theorem of Calculus" ourbigbook.com/go/topic/fundamental-theorem-of-calculusArticles of different users are sorted by upvote within each article page. This feature is a bit like:
- a Wikipedia where each user can have their own version of each article
- a Q&A website like Stack Overflow, where multiple people can give their views on a given topic, and the best ones are sorted by upvote. Except you don't need to wait for someone to ask first, and any topic goes, no matter how narrow or broad
This feature makes it possible for readers to find better explanations of any topic created by other writers. And it allows writers to create an explanation in a place that readers might actually find it.Figure 1. Screenshot of the "Derivative" topic page. View it live at: ourbigbook.com/go/topic/derivativeVideo 2. OurBigBook Web topics demo. Source. - local editing: you can store all your personal knowledge base content locally in a plaintext markup format that can be edited locally and published either:This way you can be sure that even if OurBigBook.com were to go down one day (which we have no plans to do as it is quite cheap to host!), your content will still be perfectly readable as a static site.
- to OurBigBook.com to get awesome multi-user features like topics and likes
- as HTML files to a static website, which you can host yourself for free on many external providers like GitHub Pages, and remain in full control
Figure 2. You can publish local OurBigBook lightweight markup files to either OurBigBook.com or as a static website.Figure 3. Visual Studio Code extension installation.Figure 5. . You can also edit articles on the Web editor without installing anything locally. Video 3. Edit locally and publish demo. Source. This shows editing OurBigBook Markup and publishing it using the Visual Studio Code extension. - Infinitely deep tables of contents:
All our software is open source and hosted at: github.com/ourbigbook/ourbigbook
Further documentation can be found at: docs.ourbigbook.com
Feel free to reach our to us for any help or suggestions: docs.ourbigbook.com/#contact






