A power saving for square-difference-free sets

OpenAI

There are absolute constants c>0 and C such that every A⊆{1,…,N} with no nonzero square difference satisfies |A|≤CN^(1−c) for all N≥1. The source gives no useful numerical value for c.

Sources for this record

What was already known

The strongest cited upper bound was of stretched-exponential form, N exp(−c√log N); a fixed-power saving remained open.

AI involvement AI-led

OpenAI is credited as author and identifies this ordinary manuscript as internal-model output. The release does not establish complete autonomy for this result.

Institutional AI authorship and the collection's model-production account establish central AI work, without proving complete autonomy from human task choice.

Importance Major

Improves the classical Furstenberg–Sárközy upper bound to a fixed power saving.

Limitations

The Lean theorem and matching comparator cover this upper bound; later lower-bound constructions and companion polynomial-difference results are separate.

Technical verification Formal (Lean 4 with Comparator statement and permitted-axiom mapping)

The released repository provides an actual Lean theorem with the matching uniform power-saving statement and a Comparator mapping, and its scope note reports a formalization of that result. The challenge template's sorry is a specification placeholder; the solution module contains a proof. This is a source-reported machine check.

Formal checking

The released repository provides an actual Lean theorem with the matching uniform power-saving statement and a Comparator mapping, and its scope note reports a formalization of that result. The challenge template's sorry is a specification placeholder; the solution module contains a proof. This is a source-reported machine check.

Checker
Lean kernel through OAI.Combinatorics.SquareDifference.Main, as reported by OpenAI
Scope
Existence of absolute c > 0 and C with |A| <= C N^(1-c) for every square-difference-free A subset {1,...,N}
Basis
Reported by the linked checker
Evidence source

Checking a formal statement does not establish that it matches the original problem.

Human understanding Few

No named human explanation of the new finite-field tuple law and contraction proof is documented; the model-produced manuscript alone does not establish human understanding.

Correction and publication history