Let us fix a prime $\Gamma <p$
We show that for every integer
 NSFPAR ID:
 10305476
 Publisher / Repository:
 Springer Science + Business Media
 Date Published:
 Journal Name:
 Research in Number Theory
 Volume:
 7
 Issue:
 4
 ISSN:
 25220160
 Format(s):
 Medium: X
 Sponsoring Org:
 National Science Foundation
More Like this

Abstract p and a homogeneous system ofm linear equations for$$a_{j,1}x_1+\dots +a_{j,k}x_k=0$$ ${a}_{j,1}{x}_{1}+\cdots +{a}_{j,k}{x}_{k}=0$ with coefficients$$j=1,\dots ,m$$ $j=1,\cdots ,m$ . Suppose that$$a_{j,i}\in \mathbb {F}_p$$ ${a}_{j,i}\in {F}_{p}$ , that$$k\ge 3m$$ $k\ge 3m$ for$$a_{j,1}+\dots +a_{j,k}=0$$ ${a}_{j,1}+\cdots +{a}_{j,k}=0$ and that every$$j=1,\dots ,m$$ $j=1,\cdots ,m$ minor of the$$m\times m$$ $m\times m$ matrix$$m\times k$$ $m\times k$ is nonsingular. Then we prove that for any (large)$$(a_{j,i})_{j,i}$$ ${\left({a}_{j,i}\right)}_{j,i}$n , any subset of size$$A\subseteq \mathbb {F}_p^n$$ $A\subseteq {F}_{p}^{n}$ contains a solution$$A> C\cdot \Gamma ^n$$ $\leftA\right>C\xb7{\Gamma}^{n}$ to the given system of equations such that the vectors$$(x_1,\dots ,x_k)\in A^k$$ $({x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k})\in {A}^{k}$ are all distinct. Here,$$x_1,\dots ,x_k\in A$$ ${x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k}\in A$C and are constants only depending on$$\Gamma $$ $\Gamma $p ,m andk such that . The crucial point here is the condition for the vectors$$\Gamma in the solution$$x_1,\dots ,x_k$$ ${x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k}$ to be distinct. If we relax this condition and only demand that$$(x_1,\dots ,x_k)\in A^k$$ $({x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k})\in {A}^{k}$ are not all equal, then the statement would follow easily from Tao’s slice rank polynomial method. However, handling the distinctness condition is much harder, and requires a new approach. While all previous combinatorial applications of the slice rank polynomial method have relied on the slice rank of diagonal tensors, we use a slice rank argument for a nondiagonal tensor in combination with combinatorial and probabilistic arguments.$$x_1,\dots ,x_k$$ ${x}_{1},\cdots ,{x}_{k}$ 
Abstract We continue the program of proving circuit lower bounds via circuit satisfiability algorithms. So far, this program has yielded several concrete results, proving that functions in
and other complexity classes do not have small circuits (in the worst case and/or on average) from various circuit classes$\mathsf {Quasi}\text {}\mathsf {NP} = \mathsf {NTIME}[n^{(\log n)^{O(1)}}]$ $\mathrm{Quasi}\mathrm{NP}=\mathrm{NTIME}\left[{n}^{{\left(\mathrm{log}n\right)}^{O\left(1\right)}}\right]$ , by showing that$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ admits nontrivial satisfiability and/or$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms which beat exhaustive search by a minor amount. In this paper, we present a new strong lower bound consequence of having a nontrivial# SAT algorithm for a circuit class . Say that a symmetric Boolean function${\mathcal C}$ $C$f (x _{1},…,x _{n}) issparse if it outputs 1 onO (1) values of . We show that for every sparse${\sum }_{i} x_{i}$ ${\sum}_{i}{x}_{i}$f , and for all “typical” , faster$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms for circuits imply lower bounds against the circuit class$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ , which may be$f \circ \mathcal { C}$ $f\circ C$stronger than itself. In particular:$\mathcal { C}$ $C$# SAT algorithms forn ^{k}size circuits running in 2^{n}/$\mathcal { C}$ $C$n ^{k}time (for allk ) implyN E X P does not have circuits of polynomial size.$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$ $(f\circ C)$# SAT algorithms for size$2^{n^{{\varepsilon }}}$ ${2}^{{n}^{\epsilon}}$ circuits running in$\mathcal { C}$ $C$ time (for some$2^{nn^{{\varepsilon }}}$ ${2}^{n{n}^{\epsilon}}$ε > 0) implyQ u a s i N P does not have circuits of polynomial size.$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$ $(f\circ C)$Applying
# SAT algorithms from the literature, one immediate corollary of our results is thatQ u a s i N P does not haveE M A J ∘A C C ^{0}∘T H R circuits of polynomial size, whereE M A J is the “exact majority” function, improving previous lower bounds againstA C C ^{0}[Williams JACM’14] andA C C ^{0}∘T H R [Williams STOC’14], [MurrayWilliams STOC’18]. This is the first nontrivial lower bound against such a circuit class. 
Abstract We construct an example of a group
for a finite abelian group$$G = \mathbb {Z}^2 \times G_0$$ $G={Z}^{2}\times {G}_{0}$ , a subset$$G_0$$ ${G}_{0}$E of , and two finite subsets$$G_0$$ ${G}_{0}$ of$$F_1,F_2$$ ${F}_{1},{F}_{2}$G , such that it is undecidable in ZFC whether can be tiled by translations of$$\mathbb {Z}^2\times E$$ ${Z}^{2}\times E$ . In particular, this implies that this tiling problem is$$F_1,F_2$$ ${F}_{1},{F}_{2}$aperiodic , in the sense that (in the standard universe of ZFC) there exist translational tilings ofE by the tiles , but no periodic tilings. Previously, such aperiodic or undecidable translational tilings were only constructed for sets of eleven or more tiles (mostly in$$F_1,F_2$$ ${F}_{1},{F}_{2}$ ). A similar construction also applies for$$\mathbb {Z}^2$$ ${Z}^{2}$ for sufficiently large$$G=\mathbb {Z}^d$$ $G={Z}^{d}$d . If one allows the group to be nonabelian, a variant of the construction produces an undecidable translational tiling with only one tile$$G_0$$ ${G}_{0}$F . The argument proceeds by first observing that a single tiling equation is able to encode an arbitrary system of tiling equations, which in turn can encode an arbitrary system of certain functional equations once one has two or more tiles. In particular, one can use two tiles to encode tiling problems for an arbitrary number of tiles. 
Abstract We study the classical Hénon family
,$$f_{a,b}:(x,y)\mapsto (1ax^2+y,bx)$$ ${f}_{a,b}:(x,y)\mapsto (1a{x}^{2}+y,bx)$ ,$$0$0<a<2$ , and prove that given an integer$$0$0<b<1$ , there is a set of parameters$$k\ge 1$$ $k\ge 1$ of positive twodimensional Lebesgue measure so that$$E_k$$ ${E}_{k}$ , for$$f_{a,b}$$ ${f}_{a,b}$ , has at least$$(a,b)\in E_k$$ $(a,b)\in {E}_{k}$k attractive periodic orbits and one strange attractor of the type studied in Benedicks and Carleson (Ann Math (2) 133(1):73–169, 1991). A corresponding statement also holds for the Hénonlike families of Mora and Viana (Acta Math 171:1–71, 1993), and we use the techniques of Mora and Viana (1993) to study homoclinic unfoldings also in the case of the original Hénon maps. The final main result of the paper is the existence, within the classical Hénon family, of a positive Lebesgue measure set of parameters whose corresponding maps have two coexisting strange attractors. 
Abstract We present the first unquenched latticeQCD calculation of the form factors for the decay
at nonzero recoil. Our analysis includes 15 MILC ensembles with$$B\rightarrow D^*\ell \nu $$ $B\to {D}^{\ast}\ell \nu $ flavors of asqtad sea quarks, with a strange quark mass close to its physical mass. The lattice spacings range from$$N_f=2+1$$ ${N}_{f}=2+1$ fm down to 0.045 fm, while the ratio between the light and the strangequark masses ranges from 0.05 to 0.4. The valence$$a\approx 0.15$$ $a\approx 0.15$b andc quarks are treated using the Wilsonclover action with the Fermilab interpretation, whereas the light sector employs asqtad staggered fermions. We extrapolate our results to the physical point in the continuum limit using rooted staggered heavylight meson chiral perturbation theory. Then we apply a modelindependent parametrization to extend the form factors to the full kinematic range. With this parametrization we perform a joint latticeQCD/experiment fit using several experimental datasets to determine the CKM matrix element . We obtain$$V_{cb}$$ ${V}_{\mathrm{cb}}$ . The first error is theoretical, the second comes from experiment and the last one includes electromagnetic and electroweak uncertainties, with an overall$$\left V_{cb}\right = (38.40 \pm 0.68_{\text {th}} \pm 0.34_{\text {exp}} \pm 0.18_{\text {EM}})\times 10^{3}$$ $\left({V}_{\mathrm{cb}}\right)=(38.40\pm 0.{68}_{\text{th}}\pm 0.{34}_{\text{exp}}\pm 0.{18}_{\text{EM}})\times {10}^{3}$ , which illustrates the tensions between the experimental data sets, and between theory and experiment. This result is in agreement with previous exclusive determinations, but the tension with the inclusive determination remains. Finally, we integrate the differential decay rate obtained solely from lattice data to predict$$\chi ^2\text {/dof} = 126/84$$ ${\chi}^{2}\text{/dof}=126/84$ , which confirms the current tension between theory and experiment.$$R(D^*) = 0.265 \pm 0.013$$ $R\left({D}^{\ast}\right)=0.265\pm 0.013$