The number of subsets of integers with no kk-term arithmetic progression

Addressing a question of Cameron and Erd\Ho s, we show that, for infinitely many values of $n$, the number of subsets of $\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$ that do not contain a $k$-term arithmetic progression is at most $2^{O(r_k(n))}$, where $r_k(n)$ is the maximum cardinality of a subset of $\{1,2,\ldots, n\}$ without a $k$-term arithmetic progression. This bound is optimal up to a constant factor in the exponent. For all values of $n$, we prove a weaker bound, which is nevertheless sufficient to transfer the current best upper bound on $r_k(n)$ to the sparse random setting. To achieve these bounds, we establish a new supersaturation result, which roughly states that sets of size $\Theta(r_k(n))$ contain superlinearly many $k$-term arithmetic progressions. For integers $r$ and $k$, Erd\Ho s asked whether there is a set of integers $S$ with no $(k+1)$-term arithmetic progression, but such that any $r$-coloring of $S$ yields a monochromatic $k$-term arithmetic progression. Ne\v{s}et\v{r}il and R\"odl, and independently Spencer, answered this question affirmatively. We show the following density version: for every $k\ge 3$ and $\delta>0$, there exists a reasonably dense subset of primes $S$ with no $(k+1)$-term arithmetic progression, yet every $U\subseteq S$ of size $|U|\ge\delta|S|$ contains a $k$-term arithmetic progression. Our proof uses the hypergraph container method, which has proven to be a very powerful tool in extremal combinatorics. The idea behind the container method is to have a small certificate set to describe a large independent set. We give two further applications in the appendix using this idea.Comment: To appear in International Mathematics Research Notices. This is a longer version than the journal version, containing two additional minor applications of the container metho

Ramsey Theory Problems over the Integers: Avoiding Generalized Progressions

Two well studied Ramsey-theoretic problems consider subsets of the natural numbers which either contain no three elements in arithmetic progression, or in geometric progression. We study generalizations of this problem, by varying the kinds of progressions to be avoided and the metrics used to evaluate the density of the resulting subsets. One can view a 3-term arithmetic progression as a sequence $x, f_n(x), f_n(f_n(x))$, where $f_n(x) = x + n$, $n$ a nonzero integer. Thus avoiding three-term arithmetic progressions is equivalent to containing no three elements of the form $x, f_n(x), f_n(f_n(x))$ with $f_n \in\mathcal{F}_{\rm t}$, the set of integer translations. One can similarly construct related progressions using different families of functions. We investigate several such families, including geometric progressions ($f_n(x) = nx$ with $n > 1$ a natural number) and exponential progressions ($f_n(x) = x^n$). Progression-free sets are often constructed "greedily," including every number so long as it is not in progression with any of the previous elements. Rankin characterized the greedy geometric-progression-free set in terms of the greedy arithmetic set. We characterize the greedy exponential set and prove that it has asymptotic density 1, and then discuss how the optimality of the greedy set depends on the family of functions used to define progressions. Traditionally, the size of a progression-free set is measured using the (upper) asymptotic density, however we consider several different notions of density, including the uniform and exponential densities.Comment: Version 1.0, 13 page