On the structure of distance sets over prime fields
Thang Pham, Andrew Suk

TL;DR
This paper improves bounds on the structure of distance sets over prime fields, showing that for Cartesian product sets slightly larger than p^{d/2}, the quotient and product sets are large, advancing understanding of finite field distances.
Contribution
The paper demonstrates that the exponent d/2 can be broken for Cartesian product sets over prime fields, providing new bounds on distance set structures.
Findings
Quotient set of distance set has size proportional to p.
Product set of distances also has size proportional to p.
Results do not extend to arbitrary finite fields.
Abstract
Let be a finite field of order and be a set in . The distance set of , denoted by , is the set of distinct distances determined by the pairs of points in . Very recently, Iosevich, Koh, and Parshall (2018) proved that if , then the quotient set of satisfies \[\left\vert\frac{\Delta(\mathcal{E})}{\Delta(\mathcal{E})}\right\vert=\left\vert \left\lbrace\frac{a}{b}\colon a, b\in \Delta(\mathcal{E}), b\ne 0\right\rbrace\right\vert\gg q.\] In this paper, we break the exponent when is a Cartesian product of sets over a prime field. More precisely, let be a prime and . If and for some , then we haveβ¦
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
On the structure of distance sets over prime fields
Thang Pham Department of Mathematics, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093 USA. Supported by Swiss National Science Foundation grant P2ELP2-175050. Email: [email protected] ββ
Andrew Suk Department of Mathematics, University of California at San Diego, La Jolla, CA, 92093 USA. Supported by an NSF CAREER award and an Alfred Sloan Fellowship. Email: [email protected]
Abstract
Let be a finite field of order and be a set in . The distance set of , denoted by , is the set of distinct distances determined by the pairs of points in . Very recently, Iosevich, Koh, and Parshall (2018) proved that if , then the quotient set of satisfies
[TABLE]
In this paper, we break the exponent when is a Cartesian product of sets over a prime field. More precisely, let be a prime and . If and for some , then we have
[TABLE]
Such improvements are not possible over arbitrary finite fields. These results give us a better understanding about the structure of distance sets and the ErdΕs-Falconer distance conjecture over finite fields.
1 Introduction
Let be an odd prime power, and be the finite field of order . For any two points and in , the distance between them is defined by
[TABLE]
This function is not a norm, but it is invariant under translations, rotations, and reflections. Given a set , we define the distance set
[TABLE]
The finite field variant of the ErdΕs distinct distances problem was first studied by Bourgain, Katz, and Tao in [1], who proved the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1** (Bourgain-Katz-Tao, [1]).**
Suppose is a prime. Let be a set in . If with , then we have
[TABLE]
for some positive .
Throughout this paper, we write if there is a positive constant such that , and if .
Iosevich and Rudnev [8] observed that the conclusion of Theorem 1.1 can not be extended to arbitrary finite fields in general. For instance, when is a square, i.e. for some prime , we can choose One can check that in this case, we have . Furthermore, if is a square number in , i.e. for some , then we can choose . This set only gives us the distance zero. In light of these constructions, Iosevich and Rudnev [8] made the following reformulation of the distinct distances problem, in the spirit of the Falconer distance conjecture [6].111The Falconer distance conjecture states that for any compact set with the Hausdorff dimension greater than , the distance set has positive Lebesgue measure.
Problem 1.2**.**
Let be a set in , and be the set of distinct distances determined by the pairs of points in . How large does need to be to guarantee that
This problem is now known as the ErdΕs-Falconer distance problem over finite fields. Using Fourier methods, Iosevich and Rudnev [8] proved that if , then the distance set covers a positive proportion of all elements in , that is, . Hart et al. [7] showed that we can have all distances whenever . They also gave constructions for the sharpness of the exponent in odd dimensions. However, in even dimensions, it is still possible to break the exponent. Chapman et al. [4] made the first step in this direction by showing that if , then the exponent can be decreased to , which is directly in line with Wolffβs result [16] for the Falconer distance problem in . It has been conjectured that in even dimensions, the assumption is sufficient for .
In a recent work, Iosevich, Koh, and Parshall [9] proved that the exponent holds for the quotient set of the distance set, which is defined by
[TABLE]
The statement of their result is as follows.
Theorem 1.3** (Iosevich-Koh-Parshall, [9]).**
Let be a finite field of order , and be a set in .
If is even and , then we have
[TABLE]
- 2.
If is odd and , then we have
[TABLE]
where .
Notice that the condition in Theorem 1.3 is sharp over arbitrary finite fields, even if we wish to cover only a positive proportion of all elements in . Indeed, suppose that for some prime . By setting , we have and . We refer the interested reader to [9] for more discussions.
Let us also remark that it seems difficult apply the methods in [9] to the analogous problem of having the product set of the distance set cover a positive proportion of . Using a different approach, Iosevich and Koh [10] proved that for , if , then
[TABLE]
The main purpose of this paper is to show that if is a Cartesian product of sets over a prime field , we can break the exponent and still guarantee that
[TABLE]
Our first two results are for the case of the quotient set, in even and odd dimensions.
Theorem 1.4**.**
Let be a prime field, and . Then for with , , we have
[TABLE]
whenever with .
Theorem 1.5**.**
Let be a prime field, and . Then for with , , we have
[TABLE]
whenever with .
Our next two theorems are for the case of the product set, in even and odd dimensions.
Theorem 1.6**.**
Let be a prime field, and . Then for with , , we have
[TABLE]
whenever with .
Theorem 1.7**.**
Let be a prime field, and . Then for with , , we have
[TABLE]
whenever with .
Let us remark that it is not possible to break the exponent for both quotient set and product set of the distance set over arbitrary finite fields. For instance, suppose , and with . Then we have and .
2 Proofs of Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 1.5
To prove Theorems 1.4 and 1.5, we make use of the following results. The first result was given by the first author, Vinh and De Zeeuw [13]. The second was given by Balog [2].
Lemma 2.1**.**
Let be a prime field, and be a set in . For , we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be an arbitrary finite field of order , and be sets in . Suppose that and , then we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let be a prime field, and be a set in . For , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first show that . Let be an element in . We now prove that can be presented as a sum of two elements and . Indeed, suppose that
[TABLE]
where . Set and . It is clear that is an element in , is an element in , and . This implies that .
We now prove the inverse direction .
Let be an element in , be an element in . Suppose that is the distance between and , is the distance between and . Then we have is the distance between and . Hence, . In other words, . β
We are ready to prove Theorem 1.4.
Proof of Theorem 1.4:
Let be a subset of such that for any we have . Without loss of generality, we assume that . From Lemma 2.3, we have . Hence,
[TABLE]
Set and . It follows from our setting that . Therefore, applying Lemma 2.2, we have
[TABLE]
whenever . Since , the condition is equivalent to . Lemma 2.1 tells us that
[TABLE]
Hence, by a direct computation, if with , then . So . This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Proof of Theorem 1.5:
Let be a subset of such that and . Let be a subset of such that , , and . We note that the condition can be satisfied since . As in the proof of Theorem 1.4, we have
[TABLE]
The condition holds since and . Lemma 2.2 implies that if , then we have
[TABLE]
Thus, in the rest of the proof, we will clarify the condition . It follows from our setting that . Applying Lemma 2.1, we get
[TABLE]
In other words, if , i.e. with , the condition holds. This completes the proof of the theorem.
3 Proofs of Theorem 1.6 and Theorem 1.7
The ideas in the proofs of Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 are similar to those of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5, except that we will use the following lemma in the place of Lemma 2.2.
Lemma 3.1** (Proof of Theorem F, [12]).**
Let be a prime field of order , and be sets in . Let be the number of -tuples such that . Suppose that , , and , then we have
[TABLE]
Proof of Theorem 1.6:
From Lemma 2.3, we have . Thus
[TABLE]
where .
By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have
[TABLE]
where is defined as in Lemma 3.1.
Lemma 2.1 gives us that
[TABLE]
Since with , which is equivalent with , we obtain . Under this condition and Lemma 3.1, we achieve
[TABLE]
Putting (1) and (2) together, the theorem follows.
Proof of Theorem 1.7:
Since , we have It follows from the proof of Theorem 1.6 that if , then
[TABLE]
Therefore, under the condition with , we obtain
[TABLE]
This completes the proof of the theorem.
4 Concluding remarks
In the setting of arbitrary finite fields , Do and Vinh [5] proved that for with , we have
[TABLE]
One can follow the proofs of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 to show that
[TABLE]
under the condition . This matches Theorem 1.3.
In the proof of Theorem 1.7, one might try to set . This is clear that . However, in Lemma 3.1, in order to get , we need the condition . This implies that . So we get the same condition on the size of as in the proof of Theorem 1.6. One might also try to apply the bound in [15] with or to bound , but the exponents are worse than those of Theorems 1.6 and 1.7.
It is not known if Problem 1.2, the ErdΕs-Falconer distance problem over finite fields, changes over prime fields. As we mentioned in the introduction, the exponent can not be improved for odd dimensions over arbitrary finite fields. The constructions in [7], which demonstrates the sharpness of the exponent , were based on the structures of subfields. However, in light of our results, one may be able to break this exponent over prime fields.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. Bourgain, N. Katz, T. Tao, A sum-product estimate in finite fields, and applications , Geom. Funct. Anal. 14 (2004), 27β57.
- 2[2] A. Balog, Another sum-product estimate in finite fields , Proceedings of the Steklov Institute of Mathematics, 280 (2) (2013): 23β29.
- 3[3] M. Bennett, D. Hart, A. Iosevich, J. Pakianathan, M. Rudnev, Group actions and geometric combinatorics in π½ q d superscript subscript π½ π π {\mathbb{F}}_{q}^{d} , Forum Mathematicum, Volume 29 (2016), Issue 1, pp. 91β110.
- 4[4] J. Chapman, M.B. Erdogan, D. Hart, A. Iosevich, D. Koh, Pinned distance sets, k-simplices, Wolffβs exponent in finite fields and sum-product estimates , Math. Z. 271 (2012) 63β93.
- 5[5] H. Do, L. A. Vinh, On distance sets and product sets in vector spaces over finite rings , Michigan Math. J., 62 (2013), 779β792.
- 6[6] K. J. Falconer, On the Hausdorff dimensions of distance sets , Mathematika, 32 (1985),206β212.
- 7[7] D. Hart, A. Iosevich, D. Koh, M. Rudnev, Averages over hyperplanes, sum-product theory in finite fields, and the ErdΕsβFalconer distance conjecture , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 363 (2011), 3255β3275.
- 8[8] A. Iosevich, M. Rudnev, ErdΕs distance problem in vector spaces over finite fields , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 6127β6142.
