Ben Green's Open Problem 31: Abelian
It is not known whether, if is an abelian group of size , there always exists a Sidon subset of of size [Gr24].
Questions, not proof records
Each statement record keeps the mathematical question, a dated status source, accessible references, and any pinned Lean formulation separate from proof verification.
sorry marks an admitted statement, not a proof. Source indexing does not mean the formulation has been independently built or certified by Therefore.It is not known whether, if is an abelian group of size , there always exists a Sidon subset of of size [Gr24].
Another very nice old problem is whether there is a Sidon subset of of size , where [Gr24].
Let be a prime and let be a set of size . Is there a dilate of containing a gap of length ?
Even what happens in the regime is unclear [Gr24].
Are there infinitely many for which there is a set , , with ? [Gr24]
Do the following exist, for arbitrarily large ? An abelian group with , together with subsets satisfying and , such that the sets are disjoint from the sets ()?
NOTE: according to [CKS05, 4.1], the conditions should be disjoint from for
. See green_36.variants.cks05.
Variant using the exact simultaneous double product property from [CKS05, 4.1].
Given a natural number N, what is the smallest size of a subset of ℕ that contains, for each d = 1, …, N,
an arithmetic progression of length k with common difference d.
Asymptotic version: determine the asymptotic behavior of m(N, k) as N grows.
The solver should determine what function f : ℕ → ℝ eventually equals (fun N ↦ (m N k : ℝ)).
Determine the asymptotic equivalence class (theta) of m(N, k).
Determine an upper bound (big O) for m(N, k).
Determine a strict upper bound (little o) for m(N, k).
Can we improve the lower bound?
Can we improve the best upper bound?
If is random, , can we almost surely cover with translates of ? [Gr24]
"I do not know how to answer this even with 100 replaced by 1.01." [Gr24]"
Similar questions are interesting with replaced by for any . [Gr24]
NOTE: using translates as stated makes the conjecture trivially false by the pigeonhole principle. Indeed for a set of size , we cover at most elements, which is strictly less than for . We interpret the question as asking whether translates suffice. This generalizes the main conjecture where .
Does ? [Gr24]
The possibility that f(r) = 1 for all r has not been ruled out [Gr24]
It is not known whether f(2) = 1 [Gr24]