Abstract

Motivated by questions and results of Erdős, Sárközy and Sós (1989), and Khalfalah and Szemerédi (2006), we introduce an ergodic approach to additive problems concerning solutions of equations of the form x+y=⌊α(n)⌋,x,y∈A,n∈N x+y=\lfloorα(n)\rfloor,\quad x,y\in A,n\in\mathbb{N} where α(t)α(t) is a sufficiently regular function, such as a polynomial or a logarithmico-exponential function of polynomial growth (e.g. α(t)=t5/2+t2log⁡tα(t)=t^{5/2}+t^2\log t), and AA is either a given set of positive upper density, or a cell of a prescribed finite partition of N\mathbb{N}. We give a complete description of the Hardy field functions of polynomial growth for which these partition and density problems are always solvable. The ergodic approach also applies to the more general problem of finding x∈A1,y∈A2x\in A_1,y\in A_2, where A1,A2A_1,A_2 are two given sets of positive density. This in turn allows us to treat equations of the form kx+ly=⌊α(n)⌋kx+ly=\lfloorα(n)\rfloor, where k,l∈Zk,l\in\mathbb{Z}. Some of our results also hold true when AA is a subset of the primes with positive relative upper density.

AI-generated audit

Audit summary

Audited against arXiv v2

Not a correctness certificate. A green “no issues found” result may include yellow suspected typos or minor formal issues that do not affect substantive soundness. It means this audit found no unresolved substantive error under the stated criteria; it does not replace expert scrutiny or formal verification.

Current report

Detailed mathematical audit

Generated October 24, 2026
01Statements2 reported findingsNo statement issues found

The Ramsey, density, uniform ergodic, quantitative, prime-set, obstruction, and complete linear-growth classification statements are correct. The proof of the final classification still omits a converse implication in version 2, but an explicit inverse-asymptotic repair verifies the theorem statement.

Theorems 1.2–1.3, 1.6–1.16No issue found

The Hardy-field Ramsey and density conclusions follow from the uniform exponential-sum input

PDF pp. 4–61 · Theorems 1.2–1.16 and §§3–7 · arXiv:2609.20727v2

The uniform Fourier estimate passes through spectral calculus to the ergodic approximation, and the finite-cyclic double counting yields the additive conclusions. The integer-polynomial parity obstruction, Hardy-field type division, coefficient restrictions, positive-density quantifiers, prime transference, and sparse-image counterexamples agree with the arguments used.

Theorem 7.3No issue found

The linear-growth classification admits a complete repair

PDF pp. 61–66 · Theorem 7.3 and equations (81)–(88) · arXiv:2609.20727v2

Set κ=1/γ\kappa=1/\gamma, h(s)=κr(κs)h(s)=\kappa r(\kappa s), and z=α−1z=\alpha^{-1}. The hypotheses give z(s)=κs−h(s)+o(1)z(s)=\kappa s-h(s)+o(1) uniformly. Thus either strict phase inequality forces a sufficiently large integer ss into the image set, supplying the converse absent from the manuscript. A positive-density set has pairs in the two required ratio regimes, and at the boundary Lemma 7.5 supplies three phase pieces while the limiting nonrepresentation inequalities admit at most two values. This proves all three cases without altering the statement.

02Proofs4 reported findingsSuspected incomplete or incorrect proofs

The main analytic, ergodic, and combinatorial chains are verifiable. The printed proof of Theorem 7.3 still uses necessary phase inequalities in the converse direction, requiring the substantive repair above. Four additional local sign, derivative-order, shift, and notation corrections remain in version 2.

Sections 2–6 and Theorem 7.1No issue found in the reviewed proof

The exponential-sum, transference, and superlinear-obstruction arguments close

PDF pp. 11–61 · §§2–7 through Theorem 7.1 · arXiv:2609.20727v2

The sublinear and high- and low-degree special-part cases cover the Hardy-field decomposition, with Weyl-type estimates uniform on the required blocks. Herglotz reduction, cyclic double counting, the W-tricked polynomial construction, lacunary coloring, Bohr sets, and nonsurjective prime residues preserve the exact density and distinctness requirements.

Proof of Theorem 7.3Suspected incomplete as written · an apparently sound repair

Necessary phase bounds are used as though they were sufficient

PDF pp. 63–66 · equations (85)–(88) · arXiv:2609.20727v2

From a representation the paper obtains one of the two bounds in (86). Cases (a) and (c) infer simultaneous complementary bounds from the absence of representations, but the inverse implication is not proved. The inverse expansion and positive-density ratio argument recorded under Statements supplies that implication. Because it is a new proof-critical argument rather than explanatory algebra, the printed proof remains incomplete even though the theorem is verified.

Type-(III) reductionSuspected minor formal issue

The reduction omits negative unbounded remainders

PDF pp. 43 and 49–52 · Theorem 5.9 and its reduction · arXiv:2609.20727v2

The printed condition 1≺rα≪log⁡1\prec r_\alpha\ll\log excludes positive functions such as x2−log⁡log⁡xx^2-\log\log x, although Theorem 1.2 includes them. Use 1≺∣rα∣≪log⁡1\prec|r_\alpha|\ll\log, choose the nearest integer multiple bWbW with either sign, and replace the one-sided estimate on bb by ∣b∣=O(log⁡N)|b|=O(\log N). Translation of the finite set and the boundary loss then work unchanged.

Equations (16), (38), and Corollary 5.10Suspected minor formal issues

Three local formulas require their uniquely determined variants

PDF pp. 11, 31, and 49 · equation (16), definition of λ0\lambda_0, proof of Corollary 5.10 · arXiv:2609.20727v2

Equation (16) needs log⁡∣α(x)∣\log|\alpha(x)| because degree was defined for eventually negative germs too. If pα=0p_\alpha=0, d=deg⁡αd=\deg\alpha need not be integral, so rα(d+1)r_\alpha^{(d+1)} is undefined; set λ0=x1/2\lambda_0=x^{1/2} in that branch, which the later proof already treats separately. Finally, floor follows from the nearest-integer result for α−1/2\alpha-1/2 and ceiling from α+1/2\alpha+1/2, whereas the two signs are printed in the opposite order.

03Novelty0 reported findingsNo novelty concerns found

No non-novelty findings.

Detailed audit reportFull reasoning, manuscript locations, and references.
Open report PDF ↗

Author response

Challenge an audit finding

Local workflow preview

A listed author may submit formal evidence that an audit is inaccurate. The response would be considered in a fresh AI re-evaluation; it would not edit the audit automatically.

Paper
arXiv:2609.20727v2
Authors listed
Vitaly Bergelson, Hao Pan, Saúl Rodríguez Martín
Audit date
October 24, 2026
  1. 01Establish identityMatch an authenticated scholarly identity to this paper.
  2. 02Submit evidenceIdentify the finding and give a formal mathematical response.
  3. 03Re-evaluateA separate agent checks the response and records a disposition.
Recommended production method

Authenticate with ORCID, then require an exact arXiv match

MathAudit should accept the identity only when ORCID OAuth authenticates the claimant's iD and this exact arXiv paper appears in arXiv's public authority feed for that iD. A matching name alone is not sufficient.

ORCID OAuth and arXiv authority-record lookup are not connected in this local prototype.

Email fallback for papers without a linked ORCID

A production fallback could send a one-time link only when the submitted address matches an independently maintained author-contact allowlist for this paper. MathAudit must return the same message for every address so the form cannot reveal which contacts are on that list.

This demonstration does not send, store, or compare the address.

Structured response preview

This form remains unavailable until production identity verification succeeds. Nothing entered here is submitted.

This panel never establishes authorship in the local prototype. A production result should be described narrowly as an authenticated ORCID match or control of a separately allowlisted author-contact mailbox.