A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE

DIFFERENCES
arXiv:2011.13266v1 [math.NT] 26 Nov 2020

THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

Abstract. We show that if A ⊂ {1, . . . , N } has no solutions to a − b = n2

with a, b ∈ A and n ≥ 1 then
N
|A| ≪
(log N )c log log log N
for some absolute constant c > 0. This improves upon a result of Pintz-Steiger-
Szemerédi.

1. Introduction
Answering a question of Lovász, Sárközy [12] and Furstenberg [4] independently
showed that any set of integers whose difference set contains no non-zero squares
must have asymptotic density zero. Sárközy’s proof was based on the circle method,
and actually gave the quantitative bound that if A ⊆ {1, . . . , N } has no non-zero
square differences then |A| ≤ N/(log N )1/3+o(1) , whereas Furstenberg’s result relied
on ergodic theory. There have since been a variety of proofs of the qualitative result
|A| = o(N ); we refer the reader to the introduction of [9] for more details.
Sárközy’s argument was refined by Pintz, Steiger, and Szemerédi [8] who im-
proved the upper bound on the size of A ⊆ {1, . . . , N } with no non-zero square
differences to
N
(1) |A| ≪
(log N )c log log log log N
for some absolute constant c > 0. (Here we use Vinogradov’s notation X ≪ Y to
mean that X ≤ CY for some absolute constant C > 0.) One interesting feature of
(1) is that it is a noticeably stronger bound that what is currently known for Roth’s
Theorem on three term arithmetic progressions [2], despite both proofs following a
Fourier-analytic density increment argument.
In this paper we improve the upper bound (1) for the size of sets of integers with
no square differences.
Theorem 1. Let N be sufficiently large. If A ⊂ {1, . . . , N } has no solutions to
a − b = n2 with a, b ∈ A and n ≥ 1, then
N
|A| ≪
(log N ) log log log N
c

for some absolute constant c > 0.

Our proof of Theorem 1 follows a Fourier-analytic density increment argument
as with previous approaches, but is actually more direct (and, we hope, simpler)
than the approach of Pintz-Steiger-Szemerédi. The key new tool in our work is an
upper bound for the additive energy of sets of rationals with small denominator,
1
2 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

which may be of independent interest. To state this we recall that the 2m-fold
additive energy of a set B is given by
E2m (B) := {(b1 , . . . , b2m ) ∈ B 2m : b1 + · · · + bm = bm+1 + · · · + b2m }.
We also introduce the notation
 
a
Q=q := ∈ [0, 1] : 1 ≤ a ≤ q and gcd(a, q) = 1 ,
q
[
Q≤Q := Q=q ,
1≤q≤Q

to denote the set of reduced rationals in [0, 1] with denominator precisely q, and
for the set of all rationals with denominator at most Q. Our additive energy result
is then the following.
Theorem 2. Let Q, m ≥ 2 and n ≥ 1. Suppose that B ⊂ Q≤Q is such that for any
1 ≤ q ≤ Q we have |B ∩ Q=q | ≤ n. Then we have
m
E2m (B) ≤ (log(mQ))C (Qn)m
for some absolute constant C > 0.
We note that there is a trivial lower bound E2m (B) ≥ m!(|B|−m)m from diagonal
solutions where {b1 , . . . bm } = {bm+1 , . . . , b2m }. If B contains n rationals with
denominator q for each q ∈ [Q/2, Q] then |B| ≫ nQ and we see that Theorem
m
2 gives an upper bound of the form m!|B|m (log |B|)C , and so the contribution
from the diagonal terms is comparable to the whole contribution. Thus sets of
rationals with small distinct denominators have similar additive energy estimates
to dissociated sets where the only solutions to b1 + · · · + bm = bm+1 + · · · + b2m are
the diagonal ones.
Dissociated sets have been used in additive combinatorics since at least the work
of Chang [3], and Theorem 2 allows one to extend Chang’s ideas to sets whose
large Fourier coefficients are close to rationals with small denominators, as is the
key situation in the Furstenberg-Sárközy problem. The original argument of Pintz-
Steiger-Szemerédi can be viewed as showing that there is a lack of additive structure
in the rationals which make up the large Fourier coefficients, but Theorem 2 allows
for a more efficient and direct use of this idea. Indeed, the original argument of
[8] proves (implicitly) a lower bound for the size of the m-fold sumset, namely
something of the strength of |mB| ≫m,ǫ |B|m−ǫ , which follows from Theorem 2 and
|mB| ≫ |B|2m /E2m (B). An important feature of Theorem 2 for our work is that it
remains non-trivial even with m as large as a small multiple of log log Q.
Clearly one can have sets B ⊂ Q≤Q with large additive energy if many elements
of B have the same denominator, and so the restriction |B ∩ Q=q | ≤ n is natural
for this problem.
Other results and generalizations. For comparison, the best known lower bound for
the size r(N ) of largest set A ⊂ {1, . . . , N } with no non-zero square differences is
much smaller than the upper bound in Theorem 1. Ruzsa [10] gives a construction
that shows in particular that r(N ) ≫ N 0.73 . The constant in the exponent here
has been slightly improved by Lewko [5], but even whether r(N ) ≫ N 3/4 is open.
We do not know where the truth lies, and whether the true order of magnitude of
r(N ) is N 1−o(1) or N 1−c for some absolute constant c > 0 remains a fascinating
open problem.
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 3

The method of Pintz, Steiger, and Szemerédi [8] has been generalised to yield
a similar bound for related problems. This was done for sets without differences
of the form nk for any fixed k ≥ 3 by Balog, Pelikan, Pintz, and Szemerédi [1],
and then recently by Rice [9] to differences of the form f (n) where f ∈ Z[x] is
any intersective polynomial1 of degree at least 2. These proofs directly extend the
method of [8], and as such it seems likely that one could combine the ideas of [1] and
[9] with those in this paper to obtain a quantitative bound of strength comparable
to Theorem 1 for these generalisations; we do not address these questions here.
Recent work of the second author [6] showed that any system of polynomials
simultaneously attain values with small fractional parts. There are various simi-
larities with this work (a density increment argument enhanced by there being few
solutions to linear equations involving rationals with small denominator), but there
the problem was more structured which allowed for an almost optimal bound of the
form x1−c , whereas in this situation we are forced to consider much more arbitrary
sets A.
Acknowledgements. T.B. would like to thank Julia Wolf for many helpful discus-
sions regarding the original proof of Pintz, Steiger, and Szemerédi (and recommends
the first chapter of [13] for a very readable exposition), and would also like to thank
Alex Rice for pointing out an error in an earlier draft of this paper. J.M. would
like to thank Ben Green for introducing him to this question. T.B. was supported
by a postdoctoral grant funded by the Royal Society. J.M. was supported by a
Royal Society Wolfson Merit Award, and funding from the European Research
Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation
programme (grant agreement No 851318).

2. Outline
In this section we sketch how Theorem 2 can be used to give Theorem 1. As
mentioned in the introduction, our proof is similar to the original work of Sárközy
[12] (and its later refinements) in that we base our argument on a density increment
argument coming out of the circle method. Our Theorem 2 allows us to show that
no set A can have many large Fourier coefficients which are rationals with small
distinct denominators, and this is the key which allows us to have a more efficient
density increment argument than that of [8].
First we recall the basic setup. If A ⊂ {1, . . . , N } has no non-zero square differ-
ences and density α = |A|/N , then by the circle method
0 = |{(a1 , a2 , n) : a1 − a2 = n2 , a1 , a2 ∈ A, 1 ≤ n ≤ N 1/2 }|
Z 1
= 1A (γ)|2b
|b 1 (γ)dγ,
0
P
where b1A (γ) = a∈A e(aγ) is the Fourier transform of the set A, and similarly b 1
is the Fourier transform of squares in [1, N ]. Comparing this to α2 N 3/2 , which is
the expected count of solutions in a random set of density α, we find
Z 1
gA (γ)|2 |b
|b 1 (γ)|dγ ≫ α2 N 3/2 ,
0

1A polynomial f ∈ Z[x] is intersective if it is non-zero and for every q ∈ N there is n ∈ Z such

that q | f (n).
4 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

where gA = 1A − α1[N ] is the balanced function of A. If γ ≈ a/q then b 1 (γ) ≈

N 1/2 /q 1/2 , and so by the pigeonhole principle there must be some Q for which
Z
α2 N Q1/2
gA (γ)|2 dγ ≫
|b ,
γ≈a/q (log Q)2
Q≤q≤2Q

In particular there must be some parameter B such that there are ‘many’ (≫
Q1/2 B 2 /(log Q)3 ) rationals of a/q with q ∈ [Q, 2Q] for which gbA (a/q) is large
(≫ |A|/B). Parseval’s bound implies that this can only happen if Q ≤ α−O(1) , and
so these rationals have small denominators. The basic density increment strategy
is then to deduce that this implies that there is a large arithmetic progression on
which A has density α + ρα (for some suitable ρ > 0), so this argument can then
be iterated.
If there were at least ρ2 B 2 different rationals γ with the same denominator q
where |bgA (γ)| ≫ |A|/B, then the existence of such an arithmetic progression follows
from
X  |A| 2 X   c 2
|{a ∈ A : a ≡ b (mod q)}| − =q gA
b  ≫ ρ2 q|A|2 .
q q
b (mod q) c (mod q)

Thus we may assume that for any q ∈ [Q, 2Q] there are O(ρ2 B 2 ) rationals γ with
denominator q where |b gA (γ)| ≫ |A|/B. So far our approach has followed previous
works, but now we note that if B is this set of rationals with |b gA (b)| ≫ |A|/B,
then a variation of the proof of Chang’s lemma shows roughly that for any choice
of m ≥ 1
|A| · |B| X
≪ gA (b)| ≤ |A|1−1/2m N 1/2m E2m (B)1/2m .
|b
B
b∈B

In particular, there cannot be a large set B with very small additive energy whilst
also having the Fourier transform bgA of A large on all elements of B. We can now
apply Theorem 2 to bound E2m (B), since B is a set of rationals of small denominator
with O(ρ2 B 2 ) elements having any given denominator. This rearranges to give (for
any choice of m)
m
|B| ≪ ρα−1/2m (log Qm)C mO(1) Q1/2 B 2 .
This contradicts the lower bound |B| ≫ Q1/2 B 2 /(log Q)3 if
α1/2m
ρ≈ .
mO(1) (log Qm)C m (log Q)3
Choosing m = c log log 1/α and recalling Q ≪ α−O(1) , this implies that there is an
arithmetic progression P ⊆ {1, . . . , N } with |P| ≥ αO(1) N on which A has density
α(1 + ρ), where
 log 1/α 
ρ ≈ exp −C
log log 1/α
for some absolute constant C > 0. Iterating this statement then gives Theorem 1.
Theorem 2 is established using a quite separate argument. Although it can
be deduced from a direct combinatorial approach based on splitting according to
suitable greatest common divisors we use an iterative argument which we hope is
cleaner.
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 5

3. Notation
We begin by establishing the basic notation that we will use. For any N ≥ 1
we use [N ] to denote the set {1, . . . , N }. We fix throughout our proof some large
integer N (large enough in particular such that log log log N ≥ 4, say). For functions
f : Z → C we define the Fourier transform fb : [0, 1] → C by
X
fb(γ) = f (n)e(γn),
n∈Z
2πix
where e(x) = e . We define the convolution of two functions f, g : Z → C by
X
(f ∗ g)(n) = f (m)g(n − m)
m∈Z

and use f (∗m) (x) = (f ∗ · · · ∗ f )(x) to denote the m-fold iterated convolution of
f . Without subscript, the notation
P kγk denote the distance of γ ∈ R from the
nearest integer, while kf k2 = ( x∈Z |f (x)|2 )1/2 and kf k∞ = supx∈Z |f (x)| denotes
the usual L2 and L∞ norms. P
We write τ3 (n) to denote the ternary divisor function abc=n 1.

4. Addition of rational numbers and the proof of Theorem 2

In this section we prove Theorem 2. The section is essentially self-contained and
can be read independently of the rest of the paper.
Theorem 2 follows quickly from the more technical Proposition 1. To state this
we require some more notation. For any function ω : N → C we define the maximal
average function of ω by
1X
(2) M (ω; X) := max ω(n),
1≤x≤X x
n≤x

and the logarithmic maximal average by

1 X ω(n)
(3) Mlog (ω; X) := max .
2≤x≤X log x n
n≤x
P
We recall that τ3 (n) is the ternary divisor function abc=n 1. Our technical bound
on the additive energy is then the following.
Proposition 1 (Rationals with small denominators have small additive energy).
Let m ≥ 2. Suppose that B ⊂ Q≤Q is contained in an interval of length at most
1/2m, and n ≥ 1 is such that for any 1 ≤ q ≤ Q we have |B ∩ Q=q | ≤ n. Then we
have the upper bound
E2m (B) ≤ (m log QMlog (τ3m ; 2mQ))O(m) M (τ3m ; 2mQ)(Qn)m .
Proof of Theorem 2 assuming Proposition 1. We first let Bi := B∩[(i−1)/(2m), i/(2m))
so we can split B = B1 ∪ · · · ∪ B2m into at most 2m disjoint subsets each contained
in an interval of length 1/2m. We see that since Q!b ∈ Z for all b ∈ B, by Hölder’s
inequality
Z 1 X 2m Z 1 X 2m
   
E2m (B) =  e(Q!bθ) dθ ≪ mO(m) sup  e(Q!bθ) dθ
0 j 0
b∈B b∈Bj
O(m)
=m sup E2m (Bj ).
j
6 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

By Rankin’s trick, we have the standard divisor function bound

Y 1 −3
k
k
M (τ3k ; X) ≪ (log X)Mlog (τ3k ; X) ≪ 1− ≪ (log X)3 .
p
p≤x

Therefore Proposition 1 gives

m
E2m (Bj ) ≪ mO(m) (log(Qm))O(m3 )
(Qn)m .
Substituting this into our bound above and simplifying the exponents gives Theo-
rem 2. 
Proposition 1 will be proved via an iterative application of the following lemma.
Roughly speaking, it says that if B ⊂ Q≤L is spread evenly between different de-
1/2
nominators, then for any functions f, g : Q → C, we have hf, g∗1B i ≪ kf k2 kgk2 |B| .
This should be compared to the trivial bound of kf k2 kgk2 |B|. To attain the quan-
titative strength of Theorem 1 we will take care to prove an explicit weighted form
of this inequality. To state this lemma precisely we make the following definition.
Definition 1. An arithmetic function ω : N → R≥0 is sub-multiplicative if ω(ab) ≤
ω(a)ω(b) for all a, b ∈ N and whenever d | n we have ω(d) ≤ ω(n).
Lemma 1 (Few solutions to linear equations in rationals with small denominators).
Let A ⊂ Q≤K and C ⊂ Q∗ . Suppose that B ⊂ Q≤L is such that, for any 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ L,
we have |B ∩ Q=ℓ | ≤ n. Let ω : N → R≥0 be some sub-multiplicative function.
Then
 1/2
X′ X′ X′
ω(k) ≪ Ln(log L)Mlog (ωτ3 ; L) ω(q)τ3 (q)2 ω(k) .
a/k−b/ℓ=c/q c/q∈C a/k∈A
a/k∈A, b/ℓ∈B, c/q∈C
P′
Here we use to indicate that the fractions a/k, b/ℓ, c/q are all reduced (i.e.
gcd(a, k) = gcd(b, ℓ) = gcd(c, q) = 1).
We notePthat the summation on the left hand side in Lemma 1 can also be
written as x∈C (e ω 1A ∗ 1−B )(x), where ω e (a/q) = ω(q) for gcd(a, q) = 1. If ω ≈ 1
and |B| ≈ Ln then since τ3 is typically quite small the bound on the right hand
side is roughly of size |A|1/2 |B|1/2 |C|1/2 .
P
Proof. Throughout the proof we use ′ to indicate that the fractions in the sum-
mation are reduced.
We claim that for any choice of parameter T > 0, there is a decomposition of
A × B into two sets E1 and E2 such that, if we let
X′
Fi (x) := ω(k)1a/k−b/ℓ=x ,
(a/k,b/ℓ)∈Ei

then we have
X′ c Ln log L X′
(4) F1 ≤ Mlog (ωτ3 ; L) ω(q)τ3 (q)2
q T
c/q∈C c/q∈C

and
X′ c X′
(5) F2 ≤T ω(k).
q
c/q∈C a/k∈A
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 7

The lemma now follows from this claim by choosing

 X′ 1/2
Ln(log L)Mlog (ωτ3 ; L) ω(q)τ3 (q)2
 c/q∈C 
T = X′  ,
ω(k)
a/k∈A

since
X′ X′
ω(k) = (F1 (c/q) + F2 (c/q)) .
a/k−b/ℓ=c/q c/q∈C
a/k∈A, b/ℓ∈B, c/q∈C

Thus we are left to establish the claim by constructing the sets E1 and E2 . We
consider the complete bipartite graph G with vertex sets A and B. We first colour
the edges of G by giving the edge (a/k, b/ℓ) ∈ A × B the colour C(a/k, b/ℓ) =
(d, f ) ∈ Z2 , where
 
aℓ + bk
d = gcd(k, ℓ) and f = gcd ,d .
d
We then say that the colour (d, f ) is ‘popular at a/k’ if
T
|{b/ℓ ∈ B : C(a/k, b/ℓ) = (d, f )}| ≥ .
τ3 (k)
We say that an edge (a/k, b/ℓ) ∈ A × B is ‘popular’ if its colour is popular at a/k,
then let E1 ⊂ A × B be the set of all popular edges, and let E2 be the remaining
edges (A × B)\E1.
The bound in (5) now follows easily. Indeed, if a/k ∈ A has an edge coloured
(d, f ) connected to a/k then f |d|a, so there are at most τ3 (k) possible different
colours of edges connected to a/k. Since E2 only consists of the edges which are
not popular, for any colour (d, f ) there are at most T /τ3 (k) vertices b/ℓ connected
to a/k by an edge of colour (d, k). Thus there are at most T vertices b/ℓ in B
connected to any given vertex in A by an edge in E2 , and so
X′ X′ X′ X′
F2 (c/q) ≤ 1(a/k,b/ℓ)∈E2 < T ω(k).
c/q∈C a/k∈A b/ℓ∈B a/k∈A

This gives (5).

It remains to establish (4). Given a choice of d, f and k, let Rd,f,k count the
number of distinct possibilities for a (mod f ) such that the colour (d, f ) is popular
at some a/k ∈ A. We will first show that, for any pair (d, f ) and k, we have
Ln
(6) Rd,f,k ≤ τ3 (k).
dT
Let Ad,f,k ⊂ A be some subset representing the Rd,f,k different possibilities. There-
fore
(1) The colour (d, f ) is popular at each a/k ∈ Ad,f,k .
(2) If a/k, a′ /k ∈ Ad,f,k then a 6≡ a′ (mod f ).
(3) For each a′ /k ∈ A such that (d, f ) is popular at a′ /k, there is a/k ∈ Ad,f,k
such that a ≡ a′ (mod f ).
(4) Rd,f,k = |Ad,f,k |.
8 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

By the definition of edges being popular at a/k, we have

T X′ X′
Rd,f,k ≤ 1.
τ3 (k)
a/k∈Ad,f,k b/ℓ∈B
C( a b
k , ℓ )=(d,f )

The key observation is that each b/ℓ ∈ B appears at most once in total on the
right-hand side, since if C(a1 /k, b/ℓ) = C(a2 /k, b/ℓ) = (d, f ), then we must have
 a ℓ − bk   a ℓ − bk 
1 2
gcd , d = gcd , d = f, gcd(k, ℓ) = d.
d d
In particular a1 ℓ/d ≡ a2 ℓ/d (mod f ). Since gcd(ℓ, k) = d, we see that gcd(ℓ/d, f ) =
1, and so a1 ≡ a2 (mod f ). It follows that
T X nL
Rd,f,k ≤ |B ∩ Q=ℓ | ≤ ,
τ3 (k) d
ℓ≤L
d|l

and the estimate (6) follows immediately.

We now establish (4) by bounding F1 (c/q) for each c, q separately. Given a
choice of c, q (with gcd(c, q) = 1) we see that if a, k, b, ℓ are such that gcd(a, k) =
gcd(b, ℓ) = 1 and
c a b
= − ,
q k ℓ
then q = ℓ′ k ′ e and c = (aℓ′ − bk ′ )/f , where
k ℓ
k′ = , ℓ′ = , gcd(k, ℓ) = ef, f = gcd(aℓ′ − bk ′ , gcd(k, ℓ)).
gcd(k, ℓ) gcd(k, ℓ)
Thus, given a choice of c, k ′ , ℓ′ , e, f with k ′ ℓ′ e = q and 1 ≤ f ≤ L, we there is a
unique choice of k = k ′ ef and ℓ = ℓ′ ef . Moreover, aℓ′ ≡ cf (mod k ′ ), so a is
fixed (mod k ′ ). There are at most e choices of a (mod e) and at most Ref,f,k′ ef
choices of a (mod f ), so at most eRef,f,k′ ef choices of a (mod k), which uniquely
determines a since A ⊂ (0, 1]. Given such a choice of a, b is uniquely determined
since b = ℓ(c/q − a/k). It follows that
X X
(7) F1 (c/q) ≤ ω(k ′ ef )eRef,f,k′ ef .
k′ ℓ′ e=q 1≤f ≤L

Using (6) and the sub-multiplicativity of ω and τ3 , this is bounded above by

Ln X X ω(f )τ3 (f ) Ln log L
ω(k ′ e)τ3 (k ′ e) ≤ Mlog (ωτ3 ; L)ω(q)τ3 (q)2 .
T ′ ′ f T
k ℓ e=q 1≤f ≤L

Summing this over c/q ∈ C then gives (4), and so completes the proof. 
We will actually use a weighted version of Lemma 1, which follows immediately
by a dyadic decomposition of the support of the weights.
Lemma 2. Let f : Q∗ → Z≥0 and g : Q≤K → Z≥0 be functions with finite support
such that kf k∞ , kgk∞ ≤ X. Suppose that B ⊂ Q≤L is such that, for any 1 ≤ ℓ ≤ L,
we have |B ∩ Q=ℓ | ≤ n. Then, for any sub-multiplicative function ω : N → R≥0 ,
! !
X′ a c X′  c 2 1/2 X′  a 2 1/2
2
ω(k)g f ≪K ω(q)τ3 (q) f ω(k)g ,
k q q k
a/k−b/ℓ=c/q c/q∈C a/k∈A
b/ℓ∈B
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 9

where  1/2
K := (log X) Ln(log L)Mlog (ωτ3 ; L) .
P′
Here we use to indicate that the fractions a/k, b/ℓ, c/q are all reduced (i.e.
gcd(a, k) = gcd(b, ℓ) = gcd(c, q) = 1).
Proof of Lemma 2. We decompose the support of f into Cj for j ≥ 0, where
Cj = {x : 2j ≤ f (x) < 2j+1 },
and similarly decompose the support of g into Ai . Using this decomposition we
have
X′ a c X X′
ω(k)g f ≪ 2i+j ω(k).
k q
a/k−b/ℓ=c/q 0≤i,j≤log X a/k−b/ℓ=c/q
b/ℓ∈B a/k∈Ai , b/ℓ∈B, c/q∈Cj

Applying Lemma 1 to each summand gives the upper bound

 1/2
X X′ X′
≪ 2i+j Ln(log L)Mlog (ωτ3 ; L) ω(q)τ3 (q)2 ω(k) .
0≤i,j≤log X c/q∈Cj a/k∈Ai

Lemma 2 now follows by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. 

The proof of Proposition 1 may now proceed via induction.
P′
Proof of Proposition 1. Again, we use to indicate that the summation is re-
stricted to reduced fractions.
We will prove that whenever we have B ⊂ (0, 1/m) ∩ Q≤Q with |B ∩ Q=q | ≤ n
for all q, we have
(8) E2m (B) ≤ (m log QMlog (τ32m ; Q))O(m) M (τ32m ; Q)(Qn)m .
Proposition 1 follows from this bound, since if B1 ⊂ Q≤Q is contained in an interval
of length at most 1/2m, we can find a rational γ with denominator 2m such that
(B1 − γ) ⊆ (0, 1/m) ∩ Q≤2mQ , and since additive energies are translation invariant
E2m (B1 ) = E2m (B1 − γ). Thus it suffices to show (8).
We will use induction to show that, for any t ≥ 1 and 1 ≤ j ≤ m, we have
X′ (∗j)
X′ (∗j−1)
(9) τ3 (q)2t 1B (c/q)2 ≪ (m log Q)3 (QnM2t+1 ) τ32t+2 (q)1B (c/q)2 ,
c/q∈Q c/q∈Q
(∗m) P
where we recall 1B (x) = x1 +···+xm =x 1B (x1 ) · · · 1B (xm ) is the m-fold convolu-
tion of 1B , and where
Mt := Mlog (τ3t+1 ; Q).
Repeatedly applying (9) m − 1 times gives
X′ (∗m)
E2m (B) = 1B (c/q)2
c/q∈Q
X′
≪ (m log Q)3(m−1) (Qn)m−1 (M1 · · · M2m−3 ) τ3 (q)2m−2 1B (c/q)2 .
c/q∈Q

Since |B ∩ Q=q | ≤ n, we have

X′ X
τ3 (q)2m−2 1B (c/q)2 ≤ n τ3 (q)2m−2 = nQM (τ32m−2 ; Q).
c/q∈Q 1≤q≤Q
10 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

Noting that Mt ≤ M2m = Mlog (τ32m ; Q) for each t ≤ 2m, we see that this gives (8).
Thus we are left to establish (9).
(∗j) P (∗j−1)
We first observe that since 1B (c/q) = b/ℓ∈B 1B (c/q − b/ℓ), we have
X′ (∗j)
X′ (∗j) (∗j−1)
τ3 (q)2t 1B (c/q)2 = τ3 (q)2t 1B (c/q)1B (c′ /q ′ ).
c/q∈Q ′ ′
c/q=c /q +b/ℓ
b/ℓ∈B

(∗j−1) (∗j)
We put f (x) := 1B (x) and g(x) := 1B (x). Note that since B ⊂ (0, 1/m],
if j ≤ m then f and g are only supported on non-zero rational numbers in (0, 1].
Moreover, since B ⊂ Q≤Q we see g is supported on jB ⊂ Q≤Qj . Finally, since
B ⊂ Q≤Q we have |B| ≤ Q2 so kf k∞ , kgk∞ ≪ Q2j . We now apply Lemma 2 with
ω(q) = τ3 (q)2t and this choice of f, g. This gives the upper bound
X′ (∗j)
X′
τ3 (q)2t 1B (c/q)2 = ω(q)g(c/q)f (c′ /q ′ )
c/q∈Q c/q=c′ /q′ +b/ℓ
b/ℓ∈B
 1/2  1/2
X′  c′ 2 X′  c 2
≪ (m log Q)3/2 (QnM2t+1 )1/2  τ3 (q ′ )2t+2 f   τ3 (q)2t g  .
q′ q
c′ /q′ ∈Q c/q∈Q
P 2t 2
The left hand side is c/q∈Q τ3 (q) g(c/q) , so this rearranges to give the claimed
bound (9). 

5. Basic density Increment

In this section we establish a simple L2 density increment lemma, which says
that if there are many large Fourier coefficients which are close to rationals with the
same denominator, then one can find a large arithmetic progression on which the
set has increased density. Statements of this type are standard, and our lemma only
differs cosmetically from similar statements used in [8] or [11]. It may be helpful to
bear in mind that this will applied with some q, K ≪ α−O(1) and ν ≫ αo(1) (where
the o(1) → 0 as α → 0).
We introduce the notation
M( aq ; N, K) := {γ ∈ (0, 1] : kγ − a/qk ≤ K/qN }

to denote the major arcs which appear in the circle method.

Lemma 3 (Large Fourier coefficents of same denominator give density increment).
Let ν, α ∈ (0, 1] and let N, K, q ≥ 1 be such that ναN/(Kq 2 ) is sufficiently large.
Let A ⊂ [N ] be a set with no non-zero square differences and density α = |A| /N ,
and
X Z 
c
2

1A (γ) − α1d
[N ] (γ) dγ ≥ να |A| .
a M( a
q ;N,K)
q ∈Q=q

Then there exists N ′ ≫ ναN/(Kq 2 ) and a set A′ ⊂ [N ′ ] with no non-zero square

differences such that the density α′ = |A′ |/N ′ satisfies
α′ ≥ (1 + ν/20)α.
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 11

Proof. Let P = (q 2 ) · [N ′ ] be an arithmetic progression of difference q 2 and length

N ′ , for some N ′ to be chosen later. If γ ∈ M(a/q; N, K) for some a/q then for any
1 ≤ n′ ≤ N ′ we have
    2 ′
1 − e(γq 2 n′ ) ≪ γq 2 n′ ≤ γq 2 n′ − aqn′  = q 2 n′ |γ − a/q| ≤ q N K .
qN
(We recall that
 k·k is the
 distance to the nearest integer.) In particular we can
ensure that 1 − e(γq 2 k) ≤ 1/2 provided we have
cN
(10) N′ ≤
qK
for some sufficiently small absolute constant c > 0. Thus if γ ∈ M(a/q; N, K) and
(10) holds,  
c  X  
1P (γ) − N ′  ≤ 1 − e(γq 2 n′ ) ≤ N ′ /2,
1≤n′ ≤N ′

and so |1c ′
P (γ)| ≥ N /2. Let g = 1A − α1[N ] be the balanced function of A. It
follows that (using the assumption of the lemma)
X Z 1 Z
2 c 2 2 (N ′ )2 X 2
(1P ∗ g)(x) = |1P (γ)| |b
g (γ)| dγ ≥ |b
g (γ)| dγ
0 4 a M( a ;N,K)
x∈Z q
q ∈Q=q
′ 2
να(N ) |A|
(11) ≥ .
4
On the other hand, recalling that g = 1A − α1[N ] , the left-hand side is equal to
X 2
(12) k1P ∗ 1A k22 − 2α (1P ∗ 1A )(x) · (1P ∗ 1[N ] )(x) + α2 1P ∗ 1[N ] 2 .
x∈Z

The third term of (12) is trivially satisfies

2
(13) α2 1P ∗ 1[N ] 2 ≤ α2 N |P|2 = α |A| (N ′ )2 .
For the second term of (12), we note that
X  X X 
(1P ∗ 1−P ∗ 1[N ] )(x) − (N ′ )2 1[N ] (x) ≤ (1P ∗ 1−P )(y) 1[N ] (x − y) − 1[N ] (x)
x∈Z y∈Z x∈Z
X
≪ (1P ∗ 1−P )(y)|y|
y∈Z

≪ q 2 (N ′ )3 .
In particular,
X X
(1P ∗ 1A )(x) · (1P ∗ 1[N ] )(x) = 1P ∗ 1−P ∗ 1[N ] (y)
x∈Z y∈A

(14) = |A| (N ′ )2 + O(q 2 (N ′ )3 ).

By substituting (13) and (14) into (12), we have
  να(N ′ )2 |A|
2
k1P ∗ 1A k2 ≥ 2α |A| (N ′ )2 + O(q 2 (N ′ )3 ) − α |A| (N ′ )2 + .
4
Provided we have
cνN
(15) N′ ≤
qK
12 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

for some sufficiently small constant c > 0, we see that the O(q 2 (N ′ )3 ) term con-
tributes at most να |A| (N ′ )2 /100 in total, and so
 ν
k1P ∗ 1−A k22 = k1P ∗ 1A k22 ≥ 1 + α |A| (N ′ )2 .
5
Since 1P ∗ 1−A has a support set of size at most 2N , there exists some x ∈ Z such
that  2   
(q · [N ′ ]) ∩ (A + x) = 1P ∗ 1−A (x) ≥ 1 + ν αN ′ .
20
Therefore, if we set
1
A′ := 2 · ((q 2 · [N ′ ]) ∩ (A + x)),
q
then A′ ⊂ [N ′ ], A′ has density α′ ≥ (1 + ν/20)α and A′ has no non-zero square
differences since translating a set by a constant or dilating a set by a square doesn’t
change the number of non-zero square differences. This therefore gives the result
with N ′ = ⌊cναN/(Kq 2 )⌋ for a suitably small absolute constant c > 0 (since this
choice satisfies (10) and (15) and N ′ ≫ ναN/(Kq 2 )). 

6. Large Fourier coefficients at rationals with small denominators

In this section we show how to find many rationals with small denominator in the
large spectrum of A (that is, the set of frequencies with large Fourier coefficient).
This follows standard lines, combining the circle method with classical bounds for
Weyl sums.
Lemma 4 (Bounds for exponential sums over squares). Let 1 ≤ a ≤ q with
gcd(a, q) = 1 and
M( aq ; N, K) := {γ ∈ (0, 1] : kγ − a/qk ≤ K/qN },
(
2m
1/2 , if n = m2 ≤ N,
W (n) := N
0, otherwise.
Then we have the following bounds:
(1) For all β ∈ R we have

c (a/q + β)| ≪ N 1/2

|W + (q log q)1/2 (1 + |β| N ).
q 1/2
(2) If Kq log q ≪ N and K 3 log q ≪ qN then
Z
c (γ)|2 dγ ≪ 1 .
|W
a
M( ;N,K) q
q

Proof. This is standard. By [8, equation 8] (or partial summation) we have

 
c (a/q + β) = S(a; q) W
W c (β) + O (q log q)1/2 (1 + |β| N ) ,
q
P
where S(a; q) := 1≤n≤q e(an2 /q) is the complete Gauss sum. The classical esti-
mate S(a; q) ≪ q 1/2 for gcd(a, q) = 1 now gives (1). Using this estimate again, we
find
Z Z K/qN Z K/qN
c (γ)|2 dγ ≪ 1
|W c (β)|2 dβ + K log q + (q log q)N 2
|W β 2 dβ.
a
M( ) q 0 N 0
q
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 13

The second and third summands contribute

K log q K3 K log q K 3 log q 1

≪ + (q log q)N 2 3 3 ≪ + 2
≪
N q N N q N q

by our assumptions on q and K. By [8, equation 10] and the trivial bound, if
β ≤ N −7/8 then
 −1 
c (β)| ≪ min N 1/2 , β
|W .
N 1/2
(Note that this bound is slightly better than what one gets with the unweighted
sum, but could be improved further with more smoothing.) This gives
Z K/qN Z K/qN
1 c (β)|2 dβ ≪ 1 1
|W β −2 dβ ≪ ,
q 0 qN 1/10N q

as required. 

Lemma 5. Let A ⊂ [N ] be a set of density α = |A| /N ≥ N −1/3 with no square

differences. Then there exist quantities B, Q, K with αO(1) ≪ B, Q, K ≪ α−O(1)
and a set B ⊂ Q≤Q such that

(1) For each a/q ∈ B there exists γa/q ∈ (0, 1] with γa/q − a/q ≪ α−O(1) /N
and
X |A| Q1/2
|1c
A (γa/q )| ≫ B .
a
log(1/α)2
q ∈B

(2) For each a/q ∈ B we have

Z
α |A|
g(γ)|2 dγ ≫
|b .
a
M( q ;N,K) B2

Proof. We first note that, by the estimate of [12], say, we may assume that α ≪
1/(log N )1/4 since A has no non-zero square differences. (This is not essential to
the method, but allows for cleaner bounds in the final statements.) Let
(
2m
N 1/2
if n = m2 ≤ N and
W (n) :=
0 otherwise.

By orthogonality and the fact that A has no non-zero square differences, we have
Z 1 X X Z 1
1c c c
A (γ)1A (γ)W (γ) dγ = W (n2 ) e(γ(a − b + n2 )) dγ
0 a,b∈A 1≤n≤N 1/2 0
X X
= W (n2 )1b−a=n2
a,b∈A 1≤n≤N 1/2

= 0.
14 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

Suppose first that |A ∩ (N/2, N ]| ≥ |A| /2. In this case, if we let g = 1A − α1[N ] ,
then
Z 1 X X X Z 1
gb(γ)1c
A (γ)Wc (γ) dγ = −α W (n 2
) e(γ(y − a + n2 )) dγ
0 a∈A 1≤y≤N 1≤n≤N 1/2 0
X X
= −α W (n2 )11≤a−n2 ≤N
a∈A 1≤n≤N 1/2

≤ − 18 α |A| N 1/2 ,

say, since certainly all a ∈ A ∩ (N/2, N ] and n ≤ (N/2)1/2 will satisfy 1 ≤ a − n2 ≤

N . If |A ∩ [1, N/2]| ≥ |A| /2, then arguing similarly, we have
Z 1
gb(γ)1c c 1
A (γ)W (γ) dγ ≤ − 8 α |A| N
1/2
.
0

Thus in either case, we have

Z 1
(16) g (γ)1c
|b c 1
A (γ)W (γ)| dγ ≥ 8 α |A| N
1/2
.
0

By Dirichlet’s Theorem on Diophantine approximation, given any choice of K ≥ 1,

every γ ∈ [0, 1] satisfies kγ − a/qk < K/(N q) for some 1 ≤ q ≤ N/K and 1 ≤ a ≤ q
with gcd(a, q) = 1. If this holds for some q > K, then by Lemma 4,
 1/2
c (γ)| ≪ N (log N )
|W .
K
If we choose

(17) K := ⌈Cα−2 log N ⌉

for some suitably large absolute constant C > 0, then we see that |W c (γ)| ≤
1/2
αN /32 for such γ. The contribution to (16) from these γ is thus at most
Z Z Z 1  
αN 1/2 1 c αN 1/2  1 c  d 
|b
g(γ)1A (γ)| dγ ≤ 2
|1A (γ)| dγ + α1[N ] (γ)1c
A (γ) dγ
32 0 32 0 0
α |A| N 1/2
(18) ≤ .
16
(Here we used the triangle inequality in the first line, and Cauchy-Schwarz and
Parseval’s identity in the second.) We recall that for gcd(a, q) = 1

M(a/q) = M(a/q; N, K) := {γ ∈ (0, 1] : kγ − a/qk ≤ K/qN },

and note that with our choice K = ⌈Cα−2 log N ⌉ these sets are distinct for q ≤ K
and gcd(a, q) = 1 since α ≥ N −1/3 and N is sufficiently large. Therefore, combining
(16) and (18), we find
X Z α |A| N 1/2
(19) g(γ)1c
|b c
A (γ)W (γ)| dγ ≥ .
a
a
M( ) 16
q
q ∈Q≤K
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 15

By Cauchy-Schwarz and Lemma 4, we have

Z
g (γ)1c
|b c
A (γ)W (γ)| dγ
a
M( q )
Z 1/2 Z   1/2  
2  c 2  
≪ |b
g (γ)| dγ W (γ) dγ sup 1c
A (γ)
M( a M( a a
q) q) γ∈M( q )
Z  
1  2
1/2
 
≪ |b
g(γ)| dγ sup 1c
A (γ) .
q 1/2 M( a
q)
a
γ∈M( q )

Therefore
Z  
X 1  1/2 
 
(20) g (γ)|2 dγ
|b sup 1c
A (γ) ≫ α |A| N
1/2
.
a q 1/2 a
M( q ) a
γ∈M( q )
q ∈Q≤K

Let Γ1 be the set of a/q ∈ Q≤K for which

Z
N
(21) g (γ)|2 dγ ≤ 6 .
|b
a
M( ) K
q

Since |Γ1 | ≤ |Q≤K | ≤ K and |1c 2

A (γ)| ≤ |A|, the contribution to (20) from γ ∈ Γ1
is
X 1 N 1/2 α |A| N 1/2
≪ · · |A| ≪ .
a q 1/2 K 3 log N
q ∈Q≤K

Thus we may restrict our attention to the set Γ2 = Q≤K \Γ1 of a/q ∈ Q≤K for
which (21) does not hold. Indeed, we have
X 1 Z 1/2  



(22) 1/2
g (γ)|2 dγ
|b sup 1cA (γ) ≫ α |A| N
1/2
.
a q a
M( ) a
γ∈M( )
q q
q ∈Γ2

Since |b
g (γ)| ≤ |A| ≤ N and meas(M(a/Q)) ≪ K/N , we see that for any γ ∈ Q≤K
Z 1/2
g (γ)|2 dγ
|b ≪ K 1/2 N 1/2 ,
a
M( q )

and so for γ ∈ Γ2 the quantity above is N 1/2 K O(1) . Therefore, by dyadic pigeon-
holing, there are some quantities B, Q with K −6 ≪ B ≪ K 1/2 and 1 ≤ Q ≤ K
such and a set B ⊂ Γ2 such that
(1) If a/q ∈ B with gcd(a, q) = 1 then q ∈ [Q, 2Q].
(2) For all γ ∈ B we have
αN 1/2 Z 1/2 2αN 1/2
≤ g (γ)|2 dγ
|b ≤ .
B a
M( ) B
q

(3) We have
Z  
X 1  1/2 
  α |A| N 1/2
g (γ)|2 dγ
|b sup 1cA (γ) ≫ .
a q 1/2 a
M( q ) a
γ∈M( )
(log K)2
q ∈B q
16 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

Recalling that K ≪ α−O(1) (since we are assuming that α ≤ 1/(log N )1/3 ), and
letting γa/q be the point in M(a/q) where |1c
A (γ)| attains its maximum, we see that
this gives the result. 

Combining Lemma 5 with Lemma 3 gives the following

Lemma 6. Let ν > 0. Let A ⊂ [N ] be a set of density α = |A| /N ≥ N −1/3 with

no square differences. Then at least one of the following holds:
(1) (A is sparse) log(1/α) ≫ log N .
(2) (There is a density increment) There is some N ′ ≫ ναO(1) N and A′ ⊂ [N ′ ]
with no square differences, which has density
α′ ≥ (1 + ν/20)α.

(3) (There are many large Fourier coefficients close to rationals of different
denominators) There are B, Q ≪ α−O(1) and a set B ⊂ Q≤Q such that
both of the following hold:
(a) For each a/q ∈ B there exists γa/q ∈ (0, 1] such that γa/q − a/q ≪
α−O(1) /N and
X B |A| Q1/2
|1c
A (γa/q )| ≫ .
a log(1/α)O(1)
q ∈B

(b) For every 1 ≤ q ≤ Q we have

|B ∩ Q=q | ≤ νB 2 .

Proof. Assume that neither (1) nor (2) hold, so we wish to establish (3). Since (2)
does not hold, we have that for any q
X Z
d 2 dγ ≤ να |A| .
|g(γ)|
a M( a
q :N,K)
q ∈Q=q

for any K ≪ α−O(1) . Since (1) does not hold, we have α ≥ N −1/3 and so A satisfies
the conditions of Lemma 5. Thus, by Lemma 5 there are B, Q, K ≪ α−O(1) and
B ⊂ Q≤Q such that
X δ −1 |A| Q1/2
|1c
A (γa/q )| ≫
a
∈B
log(1/α)O(1)
q

and for all a/q ∈ B

Z
α |A|
g(γ)|2 dγ ≫
|b .
a
M( q ;N,K) B2

Summing this second inequality over a/q ∈ B ∩ Q=q we see that

α |A| X Z
|B ∩ Q=q | ≪ g(γ)|2 dγ ≪ να |A| .
|b
B2 a
a
M( ;N,K) q
q ∈B∩Q=q

Thus |B ∩ Q=q | ≪ νB 2 , as required. 

 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 17

7. Refined density increment and proof of Theorem 1

We will now show that there cannot be a large set of rationals with distinct
denominators each of which has a large Fourier coefficient. This relies on Theorem
2 which shows that there is a lack of additive structure amongst such rationals,
and a variant of Chang’s lemma [3] (or its predecessors such as the Montgomery-
Halasz method [7]) which shows that any large set of frequencies with large Fourier
coefficients must have some additive structure, and is the key way in which our
argument differs from previous approaches. Ultimately this will show that for a
suitable choice of parameter ν, the third possibility in Lemma 6 cannot occur, and
Lemma 6 can be refined to give a density increment. An iterative application of
this density increment then proves our main result, Theorem 1.
Lemma 7 (Variant of Chang’s Lemma). Let η > 0, let A ⊂ [N ] be a set of density
α = |A| /N and let B ⊂ (0, 1]. Then we have for each m ≥ 1
X
|1c
A (b)| ≪ |A|α
−1/2m
E2m (B; 1/N )1/2m ,
b∈B

where the approximate additive energy E2m (C; δ) is given by

E2m (C; δ) := |{b1 , . . . , b2m ∈ C : |b1 + · · · + bm − bm+1 · · · − b2m | ≤ δ}|.
Proof. Let θb ∈ R be a phase such that e(θb )1c c
A (b) = |1A (b)| ∈ R>0 . Then, by
Holder’s inequality we have
X X X
|1c
A (b)| ≤ e(θb ) e(ab)
b∈B b∈B a∈A
 X 1−1/2m  X  X 2m 1/2m
 
(23) ≤ 1  e(θb + ba) .
a∈A a∈A b∈B
R∞
b =
Let ψ(t) := sin(πt)2 /(πt)2 so that ψ(ξ) −2πiξt b = 1 − |ξ|
−∞ ψ(t)e dt satisfies ψ(ξ)
b
for |ξ| ≤ 1 and ψ(ξ) = 0 for |ξ| > 1. Since ψ(t) ≥ 0 and ψ(t) ≥ 4/π 2 ≥ 1/3 on
[0, 1/2] we see that
X  X 2m
 X  n  X 2m

 e(θb + ba) ≤ 3 ψ  e(θb + ba)
2N
a∈A b∈B n∈Z b∈B
X X  n   

≤3  ψ e n(b1 + · · · + bm − bm+1 · · · − b2m ) 
2N
b1 ,...,b2m ∈B n∈Z

Applying Poisson summation to the inner sum, and recalling that ψ̂ has support
[−1, 1], we see that this is equal to
X X  
 
6 N ψ̂ 2N (b1 + · · · + bm − bm+1 · · · − b2m ) 
b1 ,...,b2m ∈B h∈Z
≪ N |{b1 , . . . , b2m ∈ B : |b1 + · · · + bm − bm+1 · · · − b2m | ≤ 1/N }|.
Substituting this into (23) and rearranging then gives the result. 
Lemma 8. Let A ⊂ [N ] be a set of density α = |A| /N with no non-zero square
differences. There exists an absolute constant c > 0 such that if
 
log(1/α)
ν = exp −c
log log(1/α)
18 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

then either
(1) log(1/α) ≫ log N/ log log N , or
(2) there are N ′ ≫ αO(1) N and A′ ⊂ [N ′ ] with no square differences, which
has density
α′ ≥ (1 + ν/20)α.
Proof. As before, we may assume that log N ≪ α−O(1) , by the result of [12]. We
assume that (1) and (2) do not hold, and hope to arrive at a contradiction.
We apply Lemma 6, and find that we must be in the third case since otherwise
(1) or (2) would hold. Thus there are B, Q ≪ α−O(1) and a set B such that for
each a/q ∈ B there exists γa/q = a/q + O(α−O(1) /N ) satisfying
X B |A| Q1/2
|1c
A (γa/q )| ≫ ,
a log(1/α)O(1)
q ∈B

and for every q ≤ Q we have |B ∩ Q=q | ≤ νB 2 .

Let m ≥ 2 be some integer to be chosen later. We now apply Lemma 7, which
shows that for Γ := {γb : b ∈ B}
B |A| Q1/2
≪ |A| α−1/2m E2m (Γ; 1/N )1/2m .
log(1/α)O(1)
Since B ⊂ Q≤Q , b1 + · · · − b2m is always a rational of denominator at most
Q2m for b1 , . . . , b2m ∈ B. Therefore if b1 + · · · − b2m is not zero then it is at
least Q−2m in absolute value. Furthermore, since |γb − b| ≪ α−O(1) /N , provided
mQO(m) α−O(1) ≫ N , for any γb1 , . . . , γb2 m ∈ Γ either |γb1 + · · · − γb2m | ≥ Q−2m /2
or b1 + · · · − b2m = 0. Therefore provided mQO(m) α−O(1) = o(N ), the approximate
additive energy E2m (Γ; 1/N ) actually only counts the times when the corresponding
sum of rationals is zero, so
E2m (Γ; 1/N ) = E2m (B).
−O(1)
Recalling that Q ≪ α , we have shown that either α−O(m) ≫ N or
 2m
BQ1/2
(24) E2m (B) ≫ α .
log(1/α)O(1)
We impose the condition m ≪ log log(1/α), so that α−O(m) = o(N ) since we are
assuming that (1) does not hold, so we have (24). We now apply Theorem 2 to
bound E2m (B), which shows that for some absolute constant C > 0 we have
 2m
m BQ1/2
(25) mO(m) (log(mQ))C (νB 2 Q)m ≫ α .
log(1/α)O(1)
Here we used the assumption that |B ′ ∩ Q=q | ≤ νB 2 for all q since (2) does not
hold.
The key feature of this bound is that the powers of B and Q exactly cancel, and
in particular the loss in terms of α is only of order α−O(1/m) log(1/α)O(1) . We will
derive a contradiction from this bound with a suitable choice of ν, thereby proving
the lemma. First note that we can rewrite (25) as
 
α1/m m log log(mQ)
ν ≫ O(1) exp −C .
m log(1/α)O(1) m
 A NEW UPPER BOUND FOR SETS WITH NO SQUARE DIFFERENCES 19

Since Q ≪ α−O(1) , if we choose m = ⌈c′ log log(1/α)⌉, for some sufficiently small
constant c′ > 0, then this gives
  
log(1/α)
ν ≫ exp −O ,
log log(1/α)
which gives a contradiction for a suitable choice of the constant c in our defition of
ν. This completes the proof. 

We may now finish the proof of our main theorem with an iterative application
of Lemma 8.

Proof of Theorem 1. Suppose that A ⊂ [N ] has density α = |A| /N and has no

square differences. We wish to show that

log(1/α) ≫ (log log N )(log log log N ).

Let
 
log(1/α)
ν := exp −c
log log(1/α)
be as in Lemma 8. If log(1/α) ≫ log N/ log log N then we are done. Otherwise, by
Lemma 8, there are N ′ ≥ αO(1) N and A′ ⊂ [N ′ ] which has no square differences,
with density
α′ ≥ (1 + ν/20)α.
Repeatedly applying Lemma 8, we obtain some sequence N1 , . . . , Nt of integers and
associated sets At ⊂ [Nt ] such that
(1) Each set At has no non-zero square differences.
(2) At ⊂ [Nt ] has density αt = |At |/Nt ≥ (1 + ν/20)t α.
(3) We have Nt ≥ αO(t) N .
This process can only terminate if Nt < N 1/2 , since otherwise all conditions of
Lemma 8 remain satisfied. However, the density of any set can never exceed 1, so
we must have α(1 + ν/20)t ≤ αt ≤ 1, which implies that

t ≪ ν −1 log(1/α).

Therefore
  
N 1/2 > Nt ≥ αO(t) N ≫ N exp O ν −1 log(1/α)2 .

Thus
log N ≪ ν −1 (log 1/α)2 .
Recalling that log(1/ν) ≪ log(1/α)/ log log(1/α), taking logarithms of both sides
and rearranging yields
log(1/α)
≫ log log N.
log log(1/α)
This implies log(1/α) ≫ (log log N )(log log log N ), which gives the result. 
20 THOMAS F. BLOOM AND JAMES MAYNARD

References
[1] A. Balog, J. Pelikan, J. Pintz, and E. Szemerédi, Difference sets without kth powers, Acta.
Math. Hungar. 65 (2) (1994), 165–187.
[2] T. F. Bloom and O. Sisask, Breaking the logarithmic barrier in Roth’s theorem on arithmetic
progressions, Arxiv preprint available at https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03528.
[3] M.-C. Chang, A polynomial bound in Freiman’s theorem, Duke Math. J. 113 (3) (2002),
399–419.
[4] H. Furstenberg, Ergodic behavior of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemerédi on arith-
metic progressions, J. Analyse Math. 31 (1977), 204–256.
[5] M. Lewko, An improved lower bound related to the Furstenberg-Sárközy theorem, Electron.
J. Combin. 22 (2015), Paper 1.32, 6.
[6] J. Maynard, Fractional parts of polynomials, Axiv preprint available at
https://arxiv.org/abs/2011.12275 .
[7] H. L. Montgomery, Mean and large values of Dirichlet polynomials, Invent. Math. 8 (1969),
334–345.
[8] J. Pintz, W. L. Steiger, and E. Szemerédi, On sets of natural numbers whose difference set
contains no squares, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 37 (1988), 219–231.
[9] A. Rice, A maximal extension of the best-known bounds for the Furstenberg-Sárközy theorem,
Acta Arith. 187 (2019), 1–41.
[10] I. Ruzsa, Difference sets without squares, Period. Math. Hungar. 15 (1984), 205–209.
[11] I. Ruzsa and T. Sanders, Difference sets and the primes, Acta Arith. 131 (3) (2008) 281–301.
[12] A. Sárközy, On difference sets of sequences of integers. I, Acta Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar. 31
(1978), 125–149.
[13] J. Wolf, Arithmetic structure in sets of integers, Doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge,
2008. https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.16214 .