Worked solution: The polynomial method resolves the cap set problem (Croot-Lev-Pach, Ellenberg-Gijswijt, 2016)
Think of the game SET, played on cards described by ternary features: a cap set is a collection of cards with no three that form a legal "set" (the pattern that is forbidden is exactly a 3-term arithmetic progression in ). For decades the best known upper and lower bounds on the largest possible cap set were painfully far apart, leaving open whether cap sets could occupy almost all of or only an exponentially tiny sliver of it.
A cap set is a subset containing no three distinct points with ; since holds only in characteristic , this is exactly the condition that no three distinct elements form an affine line (equivalently, a three-term arithmetic progression with ). Write .
The trivial bound was the only exponential statement available for decades: Meshulam (1995) proved by Fourier analysis on , and Bateman–Katz (2012) pushed this to — still within a polynomial factor of trivial. On the other side, the largest known constructions (Edel, and improvements by Tyrell) gave only about , so even the qualitative question 'is the growth rate strictly less than ?' was open.
Ellenberg–Gijswijt (2017), building on the new polynomial-method breakthrough of Croot–Lev–Pach (2016) for , settle that question: with an explicit . The rest of this proof turns a cap set into a vanishing-polynomial problem and lets a dimension count do the work.
- Cap set
- A subset of containing no three distinct points with , i.e. no non-trivial three-term arithmetic progression.
- Three-term arithmetic progression
- Three elements with the average of and ; over this is exactly the equation .