Arithmetic regularity as an alternative to transference

Let c = c(\boldsymbol \Psi) be a sufficiently small, positive constant, and put \eta = c {\varepsilon} {\delta}.

By replacing \mathcal F(x) by \max \{ \mathcal F(y): 1 \leqslant y \leqslant x \}, we may assume that \mathcal F is non-decreasing and defined on [1, \infty). Define, for x \in \mathbb N,

We apply Lemma 2.5 to the function g \coloneq 1_{\mathcal A}, with \Phi = \mathbb T\textnormal{-span}(\boldsymbol \Psi), growth function \mathcal F_* and approximation parameter \eta > 0. This yields positive integers d, \tilde d \ll_{\mathcal F,{\varepsilon},{\delta},\boldsymbol \Psi} 1, as well as {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(j)} \in \mathbb T^d and \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(j)} \in \mathbb T^{\tilde d} such that

satisfy

Define f, f_{{\mathrm{unf}}}, g_{{\mathrm{str}}}, g_{{\mathrm{sml}}}: [N] \to [-1,1] by

Then we have

Moreover, Lemma 2.7 provides a 4-Lipschitz function G: \mathbb T^d \to [0,1] such that

Next, we apply Lemma 2.9 with

Thus there is 0\leqslant n \leqslant D and decompositions

such that on setting

we have:

• q \in \mathbb N with q \leqslant Q

• \mathbf a^{(j)} \in \mathbb Z^d

• {\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(j)} \in \mathbb R^d with \| {\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(j)} \|_1 \leqslant Q

• {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(j)} is (\mathcal F_n(d), N^{k_j})-irrational with {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(j)} \in \mathbb T^{c_j} for some c_j \leqslant d

• L_j is a d \times c_j integer matrix whose rows and columns are bounded in L^1 by Q.

We partition [N] into O(qQ/\eta) many arithmetic progressions of common difference q and diameter at most \eta N / Q. By Lemma 2.10, there exists an arithmetic progression \mathcal P \subseteq [N] of common difference q such that

Fix b \in \mathcal P arbitrarily, and define \tilde G: \mathbb T^{c_1} \times \cdots \times \mathbb T^{c_J} \to [0,1] by

Recall that G is 4-Lipschitz so, for n \in \mathcal P,

Moreover \tilde G is 4Q-Lipschitz so, by Lemma 2.8, there exists a trigonometric polynomial

of degree O(Q^2 (Jd)^2 \eta^{-3}) such that \| \tilde G - F \|_\infty \leqslant \eta. We define, for n \in \mathcal P,

Next, we verify the first list of assertions.

1. These hold with the choice M = \lfloor Q^{2} d^2\eta^{-4} \rfloor.

2. This holds because \mathcal F_n(d) \geqslant \mathcal F(M).

3. This holds because |\mathcal P| \gg {\delta} \eta N / (qQ) and c is sufficiently small.

4. The two equations hold by construction.

Finally, we verify the second list of assertions.

1. We have already observed this.

2. This holds because \mathcal F_*(d)\geqslant \mathcal F_n(d) \geqslant \mathcal F(M).

3. As \| f_{\mathrm{sml}} - g_{\mathrm{sml}} \|_{L^\infty(\mathcal P)} \ll_{\boldsymbol \Psi} \eta and \| g_{\mathrm{sml}} 1_{\mathcal P} \|_2 \ll {\delta}^{-1/2} \eta \| 1_\mathcal P \|_2, the triangle inequality implies \| f_{\mathrm{sml}} \|_2 \ll {\delta}^{-1/2} \eta \| 1_{\mathcal P} \|_2. Since c is small and {\delta} \leqslant 1, it follows that \|f_{\mathrm{sml}}\|_2 \leqslant {\varepsilon} \| 1_{\mathcal P} \|_2.

4. As \|f_{\mathrm{str}} - g_{\mathrm{str}}\|_{L^\infty(\mathcal P)} \ll_{\boldsymbol \Psi} \eta and \| g_{\mathrm{str}} 1_{\mathcal P} \|_1 \gg {\delta} |\mathcal P|, the triangle inequality gives \| f_{\mathrm{str}} \|_1 \gg {\delta} |\mathcal P|.

5. The degree is bounded by M because c is sufficiently small.

The map

is continuous. Hence, by compactness of \Phi, there exists \phi \in \Phi such that

Let us choose representatives a, b \in \mathbb R with b - a = {\lambda}(\mathcal I) such that, viewed as subsets of \mathbb T,

For x \in \mathbb T,

Consequently,

The conclusion now follows from the fact that

We perform an iterative procedure. Stage d \geqslant 0 begins with \phi \in \Phi^d such that

We initialise at stage d = 0 with f_0 = \mathbb E_{[N]} f. The process terminates if \| f - f_\phi \|_\Phi \leqslant {\varepsilon} N.

Otherwise \| f - f_\phi \|_\Phi > {\varepsilon} N and, by Lemma 2.2, there exists \phi' \in \Phi such that

where g = 1_{{\alpha}' + [0,1/2)} \circ \phi'. Thus, by the definition (?) of f_\phi, linearity, and the triangle inequality,

Since g and f_\phi^{\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}} are constant on sets of the form B_{\phi, \phi'}^{{\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}, {\alpha}'} ({\boldsymbol {\varepsilon}}, {\varepsilon}'), Lemma 2.1 and Cauchy–Schwarz give

and

Consequently,

A further application of the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality yields

By Lemma 2.1,

Hence, by Pythagoras’s theorem,

Now

so we have (Proof) with f_{\phi, \phi'}^{{\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}, {\alpha}'} in place of f_\phi^{\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}} and d + 1 in place of d, and we proceed to stage d+1.

The left hand side of (Proof) is bounded above by N, so our procedure must terminate at some stage d \leqslant (4/{\varepsilon})^2 with a projection satisfying (2.3).

We carry out the energy increment process used to prove Lemma 2.3, initialising with f_\phi instead of f_0. At each stage, we query whether or not (2.4) holds. If not, then we increase the quantity

by ({\varepsilon}/4)^2 N. Since (Proof) is bounded above by N, this procedure must terminate within d' \leqslant (4/{\varepsilon})^2 many steps.

We apply Lemma 2.3, furnishing d_1 \leqslant 16 \mathcal F(0)^2 and \phi \in \Phi^{d_1} such that

With d_2 = 16 \mathcal F(d_1)^2, Lemma 2.4 gives \phi' \in \Phi^{d_2} such that

Iterating this procedure, at stage j we obtain

such that

By Lemma 2.1 and Pythagoras’s theorem, the quantity

is non-decreasing at each stage of the iteration. As N is an upper bound for this quantity, it follows that at some stage j \ll_{{\varepsilon}} 1,

The result now follows from the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality.

Let us represent each {\gamma}_j \in \mathbb T by a real number {\gamma}_j with |{\gamma}_j| \leqslant 1/2. As 0 < {\varepsilon} \leqslant 1/2,

Next, we bound \operatorname{meas}_{\mathbb R^d} ([0,{\varepsilon})^d \cap ([0,{\varepsilon})^d + {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}})) from below. This intersection is a box whose j^{\mathrm{th}} side has length ({\varepsilon} - |{\gamma}_j|)_+ for each j, with the notation x_+ = \max \{ 0, x \}. Consequently,

We now induct on d to show that this is bounded below by {\varepsilon}^d - {\varepsilon}^{d-1} \displaystyle \sum_{j \in [d]} |{\gamma}_j|. This is clear for d=1. For d \geqslant 2, we compute using the inductive hypothesis that

The upshot is that

The conclusion now follows from the inclusion-exclusion formula for the symmetric difference.

For M \in \mathbb N, we introduce the Fejér kernel

where

This has the following properties:

and

For M = \lceil 1000 (Kd)^2 {\varepsilon}^{-3} \rceil, we choose

By orthogonality,

is a trigonometric polynomial of degree at most M. Moreover, the definition of F_{\varepsilon} as a convolution ensures that if 0 \leqslant F \leqslant 1 then 0 \leqslant F_{\varepsilon} \leqslant 1.

Finally, we bound

Let \eta > 0 be a threshold given by \eta^{-3} = KdM. As F is K-Lipschitz,

By (Proof),

Therefore

The inductive base case D = 0 is vacuously true, upon interpreting R^0 = \{ 0 \} for any ring R. Next, let D \geqslant 1 and assume the conclusion with D - 1 in place of D.

If {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(j)} is (M_0, N_j)-irrational for every j, then we can take

Thus, we may assume instead that there exist i \in [J], as well as \mathbf 0 \ne \mathbf q \in \mathbb Z^{d_i} such that

It follows on viewing {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(i)} as a real vector that

for some a \in \mathbb Z and some {\beta} \in \mathbb R with |{\beta}| \leqslant M_0. Relabelling indices if necessary, we may assume that the first co-ordinate of \mathbf q, denoted q_1, is non-zero. Now

lies in the kernel of the real linear transformation \mathbf v \mapsto \mathbf q \cdot \mathbf v. This kernel is given by L \cdot \mathbb R^{d_i - 1}, where

is a d_i \times (d_i - 1) integer matrix. Thus, we may write

for some \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(i)} \in \mathbb T^{d_i - 1}.

Put \tilde d_i = d_i - 1. Setting \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(j)} = {\boldsymbol{{\alpha}}}^{(j)} and \tilde d_j = d_j for j \ne i, the induction hypothesis — applied to M_1, \ldots, M_D — furnishes decompositions

where, for some 1 \leqslant n \leqslant D and all j \in [J], we have:

1. \tilde q \in \mathbb N with \tilde q \leqslant M_1\cdots M_{n-1}

2. \tilde \mathbf a^{(j)} \in \mathbb Z^{\tilde d_j}

3. \tilde {\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(j)} \in \mathbb R^{\tilde d_j}, where \| \tilde {\boldsymbol{\beta}}^{(j)} \|_1 \leqslant \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}M_1\cdots M_{i}

4. {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(j)} is (M_n, N_j)-irrational with {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(j)} \in \mathbb T^{\tilde c_j} for some 0 \leqslant \tilde c_j \leqslant \tilde d_j

5. \tilde L_j a \tilde d_j \times \tilde c_j integer matrix whose rows and columns are bounded in L^1 by M_1\cdots M_{n-1}.

Now

and the claims follow from the inductive data upon choosing

as well as

Observe that

Thus, by the greedy algorithm, there exists i \in [r] such that

Now

Observe that

for the polynomial h_i given by

where

Suppose

Then for some X\in\{(L-u)/m, (R-u)/m\}, we have

Now, by [Bak1986, Theorem 5.1] applied with M=1 and P=N^{1+ \varepsilon - \Delta/k}, there exist r\in\mathbb N and \boldsymbol{\mathbf{u}}\in\mathbb Z ^{k} for which

and

By the triangle inequality, we have

Set

Then (?) and (?) are satisfied by

so (\alpha, \beta) \in \mathfrak M.

Define

For each natural number t, by orthogonality we may interpret

as counts of solutions to

in \mathcal P^{2t} and in [N]^{2t}, respectively. Noting that s_0 is an odd integer, it follows that

so it suffices to prove the bound with f' in place of f_i.

The case k=2 is a classical result, see for instance Rogovskaya [Rog1986]. When 3\leqslant k \leqslant 6 the result follows from the discussion after [Woo2019, Equation (14.26)]. Finally, when k\geqslant 7, put

Then we have

and since

it is clear that v \geqslant k(k-1) + 2. An application of [Woo2019, Theorem 14.5] now yields

It follows from (?) and (?) that v \leqslant s_0 -1, concluding the proof of the lemma.

By orthogonality,

By orthogonality,

Put t = s_0 -\frac{1}{2}. By Hölder’s inequality,

First, suppose k \geqslant 3. Let \zeta > 0 be small in terms of k, then for each i\in [s],

Observing that s_0 -1 is an even integer, by orthogonality and Lemma 3.3, we get

Moreover, [HH2018, Theorem 1.4] implies

and thus

Therefore

and so

Now suppose instead that k=2. By [Bou1993, Equation (3.115)],

The argument now follows as above.

By symmetry, it suffices to prove this for i=1. Writing (?), Cauchy–Schwarz gives

Inserting (?) now yields

By symmetry, it suffices to prove the result for i=1. We may assume that 0 < {\delta} < 1/2, since otherwise we can argue with {\delta}/3 in place of {\delta}. By the triangle inequality, the assumption implies that

where {\alpha} = {\alpha}_1 and {\beta} = {\beta}_1. Writing

yields

With

we now have

Now [GT2012, Lemma 4.4] furnishes the (O({\delta}^{-O(1)}),|\mathcal P|^k)-rationality of m^k {\alpha}, as well as the (O({\delta}^{-O(1)}),|\mathcal P|)-rationality of km u^{k-1} {\alpha} + m {\beta}. The result now follows from the triangle inequality and the bounds

Let c > 0 be the reciprocal of the largest implied constant appearing in Lemma 6.1, and suppose

Applying Lemma 6.1 with

delivers a contradiction . Thus,

Expanding F as a Fourier series gives

where \mathbf m = (\mathbf m^{(1)}, \mathbf m^{(k)}) with \mathbf m^{(i)} \in \mathbb Z^{d_i}. Note that \mathbf m^{(i)} \cdot {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(i)} is (A/M, N^i)-irrational, for some i. Thus, by Corollary 6.2,

Substituting this into the Fourier expansion above delivers the claimed estimate.

By Lemma 5.1, there exist {\lambda}, \mu \in \mathbb T such that

Now Lemma 6.1 tells us that each a_i {\lambda} + a_i is (O({\delta}^{-O(1)}),N^k)-rational. Thus, by the triangle inequality,

is also (O({\delta}^{-O(1)}),N^k)-rational. The second assertion follows similarly.

Let c > 0 be the reciprocal of the largest implied constant appearing in Lemma 6.4, and suppose

Then Lemma 6.4 yields a contradiction.

Suppose a_j \mathbf m^{(i)} = a_i \mathbf m^{(j)} for all i and j. Then \mathbf m^{(1)}, \ldots, \mathbf m^{(s)} are all proportional to some primitive vector \mathbf m^{(0)} \in \mathbb Z^d. For each i, let c_i \in \mathbb Z be such that \mathbf m^{(i)} = c_i \mathbf m^{(0)}. Then a_j c_i = a_i c_j for all i and j, so \mathbf c = {\lambda} \mathbf a for some {\lambda} \in \mathbb Z. Choosing \mathbf m = {\lambda} \mathbf m^{(0)} yields \mathbf m^{(i)} = a_i \mathbf m for all i.

The converse is clear.

First suppose a_i \mathbf m^{(j)} = a_j \mathbf m^{(i)} for all i,j. Then, by Lemma 6.6, there exists \mathbf m \in \mathbb Z^d such that \mathbf m^{(i)} = a_i \mathbf m for all i. Consequently,

Now suppose instead that there exist i,j with a_i \mathbf m^{(j)} \ne a_j \mathbf m^{(i)}. We claim that there exists \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}} \in \mathcal K(\mathbf a, d) such that \sum_{i \in [s]} \mathbf m^{(i)} \cdot \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}}^{(i)} \ne \mathbf 0 \in \mathbb T^d. Assuming that such a vector \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}} exists, translation-invariance of \mathcal K(\mathbf a, d) and a change of variables give

whereupon \int_{\mathcal K(\mathbf a,d)} e \bigl( \sum_{i \in [s]} \mathbf m^{(i)} \cdot {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}}^{(i)} \bigr) \mathrm{d} {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}} = 0.

It remains to establish the claim. Fixing i and j such that a_i \mathbf m^{(j)} \ne a_j \mathbf m^{(i)}, let k \in [d] be such that a_i m_{j,k} \ne a_j m_{i,k}. Choosing \tilde {\gamma}_{\ell, m} = 0 if \ell \notin \{ i, j \} or m \ne k, it now suffices to find \tilde {\gamma}_{i,k} and \tilde {\gamma}_{j,k} such that

since the first condition ensures that \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}} \in \mathcal K(\mathbf a, d) and the second condition ensures that \sum_{\ell \in [s]} \mathbf m^{(\ell)} \cdot \tilde {\boldsymbol{{\gamma}}}^{(\ell)} \ne \mathbf 0 \in \mathbb T^d. As

is an invertible real matrix, there exist {\alpha}, {\beta} \in \mathbb R such that

Choosing \tilde {\gamma}_{i,k} = {\alpha} \: \mathrm{mod} \: 1 and \tilde {\gamma}_{j,k} = {\beta} \: \mathrm{mod} \: 1 delivers the claim.

Expanding the left hand side into Fourier series gives

As F has degree at most M, we note that if \hat F(\mathbf m^{(i)}, \tilde \mathbf m^{(i)}) \ne 0 then

Observe that if a_j \tilde \mathbf m^{(i)} \ne a_i \tilde \mathbf m^{(j)} then (a_j \tilde \mathbf m^{(i)} - a_i \tilde \mathbf m^{(j)}) \cdot {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(k)} is (A/(CM), N^k)-irrational, and if b_j \mathbf m^{(i)} \ne b_i \mathbf m^{(j)} then (b_j \mathbf m^{(i)} - b_i \mathbf m^{(j)}) \cdot {\boldsymbol{\theta}}^{(1)} is (A/(CM), N)-irrational. Thus, by Corollary 6.5, we have

where \mathcal W is the set of (\mathbf m, \tilde \mathbf m) \in \mathbb Z^{(d_1+d_k)s} such that

Finally, by Lemma 6.7,

We note that the columns of the matrix (?) sum to zero. Furthermore, the greatest common divisor of the 2 \times 2 minors is

Let

Then the measure of \mathcal A is at least \delta/2, and applying Proposition 7.2 with G = \mathbb T^{d+d'} gives

The corollary follows on noting that

and that \ker_G M is isomorphic to K(\mathbf a,d) \times K(\mathbf a', d').