MathLabs

Worked solution: Tao's proof of the Erdős discrepancy problem via logarithmically averaged correlations (2015)

Step 8 of 9: The final blow: a base-qq construction makes the disguise collapse
In plain words

The explicit modulo-33 construction from step 2 is only a model. Tao’s final argument handles the character and residual factor supplied by Proposition 1.11 through interval averaging and generalized character-sum estimates; it forces the divergent second moment sup⁡nE∣∑j=1ng(j)∣2=+∞\sup_n\mathbb{E}\left|\sum_{j=1}^n\mathbf{g}(j)\right|^2=+\infty, rather than a pointwise identity for arbitrary qq.

sup⁡nE∣∑j=1ng(j)∣2=+∞\sup_n\mathbb{E}\left|\sum_{j=1}^n\mathbf{g}(j)\right|^2=+\infty
Detailed analysis

Tao’s Section 4 does not assert a literal identity for an arbitrary period qq. After Proposition 1.11 writes g(n)=χ~(n)nith(n)\mathbf{g}(n)=\tilde{\boldsymbol{\chi}}(n)n^{i\mathbf{t}}\mathbf{h}(n) with a residual h\mathbf{h} close to 11, the generalized Borwein–Choi–Coons argument averages over intervals and uses character sums to obtain the probabilistic lower bound sup⁡nE∣∑j=1ng(j)∣2=+∞\sup_n\mathbb{E}\left|\sum_{j=1}^n\mathbf{g}(j)\right|^2=+\infty. This is modeled on the explicit χ~3\tilde\chi_3 construction, but it is not the same pointwise formula for general qq.

Knowledge used in this step