%%%% THIS FILE IS AUTOMATICALLY GENERATED
%%%% DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE DIRECTLY,
%%%% ONLY EDIT THE SOURCE, tom-7/document.tex.
%%%%
%% Standard package list
\documentclass[letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage[top=3cm, bottom=3cm, left=3.5cm, right=3.5cm]{geometry}
\usepackage[onehalfspacing]{setspace}
\usepackage{amsmath,amssymb,amsthm,wasysym}
\usepackage{nicefrac,booktabs}
\usepackage{mathptmx}
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage[colorlinks=true]{hyperref}

%% Various helpers for Tom's papers
\newcommand{\gs}{\textnormal{gs}}
\newcommand{\ord}{\textnormal{ord}}
\newcommand{\Exp}{\textnormal{Exp}}
\newcommand{\Log}{\textnormal{Log}}
\newcommand{\lcm}{\textnormal{lcm}}
\newcommand{\range}{\textnormal{range}}
\newcommand{\NR}{\textnormal{NR}}
\newcommand{\Mod}[1]{\left(\textnormal{mod}~#1\right)}

\newcommand{\ap}[2]{\left\langle #1;#2 \right\rangle}
\newcommand{\summ}[1]{\sum_{k=1}^m{#1}}
\newcommand{\bt}[1]{{{#1}\mathbb{N}}}
\newcommand{\fp}[1]{{\left\lbrace{#1}\right\rbrace}}
\newcommand{\intv}[1]{{\left[1,{#1}\right]}}


%% Lifted from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2767389/referencing-a-theorem-like-environment-by-its-name
%% This lets me do things like "Theorem A" and have the references work properly.
\makeatletter
\let\@old@begintheorem=\@begintheorem
\def\@begintheorem#1#2[#3]{%
  \gdef\@thm@name{#3}%
  \@old@begintheorem{#1}{#2}[#3]%
}
\def\namedthmlabel#1{\begingroup
   \edef\@currentlabel{\@thm@name}%
   \label{#1}\endgroup
}
\makeatother
% end lift

\newtheoremstyle{namedthrm}
  {}{}{}{}{}{}{ }  % This last space needs to be there
  {\bf\thmname{#1} \thmnote{#3}.}
%% End reference hack


%% Document start
\date{}
\begin{document}

%% Content start


\newcounter{global}
\newtheorem{thrm}[global]{Theorem}
\newtheorem{corl}[global]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{lmma}[global]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{prop}[global]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{defn}[global]{Definition}

\title{Almost disjoint families of 3-term arithmetic progressions}
\author{
Hayri Ardal\footnote{Department of Mathematics, Bo\u{g}azi\c{c}i university, Bebek 80815, Istanbul, Turkey},
Tom C. Brown\footnote{Department of Mathematics, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC Canada V5A 1S6},
Peter A.B. Pleasants\footnote{Department of Mathematics, University of Queensland, QLD 4072, Australia}\\
{\small Communicated by R.L. Graham.}}
\maketitle
\begin{center}{\small {\bf Citation data:} Hayri Ardal, Tom Brown, and Peter~A.B. Pleasants, \emph{Almost disjoint
  families of 3-term arithmetic progressions}, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A
  \textbf{109} (2005), 75--90.}\bigskip\end{center}

\newcommand{\floor}[1]{{\left\lfloor{#1}\right\rfloor}}
\newcommand{\ceil}[1]{{\left\lceil{#1}\right\rceil}}

\begin{abstract}We obtain upper and lower bounds for the size of a largest family of
3-term arithmetic progressions contained in $[0,n-1]$, no two of which intersect
in more than one point. Such a family consists of just under a half of all the
3-term arithmetic progressions contained in $[0,n-1]$.
~\\~\\
MSC: 05D99\\
Keywords: Arithmetic progression, Almost disjoint
\end{abstract}


\section{Introduction}

This paper studies the problem of the maximum size of a family of 3-term
arithmetic progressions of integers from the interval $[0, n - 1]$ such that no
two have more than one integer in common. This seemingly simple problem turns
out to have a lot of interesting structure. To give it some context, it can
be viewed as an extremal set system problem with an arithmetic constraint. A
partial $t$-$(n, k)$-design is a family of $k$-element subsets of $[0, n - 1]$
such that every two have less than $t$ elements in common (see \cite{frankl1995}).
A special case of a more general result of Deza et al. \cite{deza+erdos+frankl1978} (also
\cite[Theorem 6.3]{frankl1995}) is that for large $n$ the number of subsets in a
partial $t$-$(n,k)$-design is at most
\begin{equation} \binom{n}t / \binom{k}t \label{jpmay} \end{equation}
and R\"odl \cite{rodl1985} (also \cite[Theorem 6.4]{frankl1995}) has shown that the maximum
size of a partial $t$-$(n,k)$-design is in fact asymptotic to $\binom{n}t/\binom{k}t$
as $n\to\infty$. These are pure set-theoretic results and we should like to
investigate the effect of introducing some arithmetic constraints. There is
little scope for arithmetic structure in a 2-element set, but a 3-element set
of integers can be given arithmetic structure by insisting it is an arithmetic
progression, that is, it has the form $\{ a,a+d,a+2d\}$, $a,d\in\mathbb{N}$.

We shall use the abbreviation ``AP'' for ``arithmetic progression'' and we
denote a particular 3-term AP $\{ a,a+d,a+2d\}$ more briefly by $\ap{a}{d}$.
The problem of the maximum number of disjoint 3-term APs that can be packed
into an interval $[0,n-1]$ is trivial: obviously the maximum number is $\leq
\floor{n/3}$ and this number is achieved by the family $\ap01, \ap31,
\ldots, \ap{3\floor{n/3} - 3}{1}$. This can be described as the problem of
finding a large partial 1-$(n,3)$-design consisting of APs. The next level
of complexity is to look for large partial 2-$(n,3)$-designs consisting of
APs, which is our problem of finding large families of 3-term APs in $[0,n-1]$
such that no two APs have more than one number in common. We shall call such
a family of 3-term APs \emph{almost disjoint}. We shall show that, as for
unrestricted partial 2-$(n, 3)$-designs, the maximum size of a family of almost
disjoint 3-term APs is asymptotic to a constant multiple of $n^2$, but that the
constant is smaller than the value 1/6 given by \eqref{jpmay} for the
unrestricted case.

The total number of 3-term APs in $[0,n-1]$ is
\begin{equation} \binom{\floor{n/2}}2 + \binom{\ceil{n/2}}2 = \frac{n^2}4 + O(n)
\label{algebraic}\end{equation}
(the number of pairs of integers in $[0,n-1]$ whose difference is even) so we
shall express the sizes of families of 3-term APs in terms of multiples of $n^2
/4$, so that the multiplier tells us what asymptotic proportion of the total
our family is.

Being almost disjoint puts little constraint on a family of 3-term APs because
any AP $\ap{a}d$ has two numbers in common with at most six others, namely
\begin{equation} \ap{a}{d/2}, \ap{a + d}{d/2}, \ap{a-d}{d}, \ap{a + d}{d},
\ap{a - 2d}{2d}, \ap{a}{2d} \label{topology} \end{equation}
(Of these the first two occur only when $d$ is even and some of the others do
not occur when $a < 2d$ or $a\geq n - 4d$.) This immediately shows that any
maximal almost disjoint family in $[0,n-1]$ contains at least 1/7 of all 3-term
APs in $[0,n-1]$, so has size $\geq\frac17(n^2/4)-O(n)$, and this bound can be
increased to $\frac3{14}(n^2/4) - O(n)$ if we also take account of the fact
that a proportion of about 1/12 of the 3-term APs $\ap{a}{d}$ in $[0,n-1]$
(those with $d$ odd, $a < d$ and $a \geq n - 3d$) are completely disjoint from
all others. Similar considerations give an upper bound $\frac{73}{84}(n^2/4)
+ O(n)$ for the size of a maximal almost disjoint family of 3-term APs in $[0,
n-1]$, though this is weaker than the upper bound $\frac23(n^2/4)$ obtained
from the more widely applicable estimate \eqref{jpmay}.

Our main result is to show that the maximum size of an almost disjoint family
of 3-term APs in $[0, n - 1]$ is asymptotic to $C(n^2 /4)$, for some $C$ in the
range $0.476 < C < 0.485$. We also obtain a lower bound of the form $\exp(cn^2)$
for the number of families that achieve this maximum size.

\section{Dyadic APs and the key relation}

A feature that makes our problem tractable (in addition to the fact mentioned
above that a 3-term AP can have two numbers in common with at most six others)
is that (as can be seen from \eqref{topology}) two 3-term APs with two numbers
in common either have the same common difference or else the common difference
of one is exactly twice that of the other. This means that if we partition a
set of 3-term APs into subsets according to the largest odd factor of the common
difference then APs from different subsets never have two members in common,
so that our problem is equivalent to finding the maximum size of an almost
disjoint family within each subset. With this in mind, we call a 3-term AP whose
common difference is a power of 2 \emph{dyadic} and call a collection of dyadic
3-term APs such that each two have at most one number in common an \emph{almost
disjoint dyadic family}.

\begin{defn} Let $A(n)$ be the set of all 3-term APs contained in $[0,n-1]$ and
$A_2(n)$ the set of all dyadic 3-term APs contained in $[0,n-1]$. We denote by
$F(n)$ the maximum size of any almost disjoint family in $A(n)$ and by $f(n)$
the maximum size of any almost disjoint family in $A_2(n)$. We also extend $f$
to non-negative real values of its argument by linear interpolation between its
values at integers.\label{shuffling}\end{defn}

The size of $A(n)$ is given by \eqref{algebraic}, and for the total number
of dyadic 3-term APs in $[0,n-1]$ we have
\[ |A_2(n)| = n\log_2n + O(n) \]
since this is the number of pairs of integers in $[0, n-1]$ whose difference is
a positive power of 2. So we shall express our results for the size of $f(n)$ in
terms of multiples of $n \log_2 n$.

The following proposition gives a key relationship between $F$ and $f$ (and is
the reason why we interpolate $f$ between integers).

\begin{prop} For every positive integer $n$ we have
\begin{equation}
F(n) = f(n) + 3f(n/3) + 5f(n/5) + \cdots. \label{simon}\end{equation}
\end{prop}\label{simonprop}
\begin{proof} We note that the sum on the right is finite, since $f(x) = 0$ for
$x\leq2$, and is an integer, since $f (n/m)$, as a linear interpolation between
integer values at integers, has denominator a divisor of $m$.

We partition $A(n)$ as
\begin{equation}
A(n) = \bigcup_{m\text{ odd}}\bigcup_{a=0}^{m-1} A_{a,m}(n) \label{fraser}
\end{equation}
where $A_{a,m}(n)$ consists of those APs in $[0,n-1]$ whose common difference is
a power of 2 times $m$ and whose first term is congruent to $a$ mod $m$. Then
$A_{0,1}(n) = A_2(n)$ and subtracting $a$ and dividing by $m$ gives a one-one
order-preserving affine map from $A_{a,m}(n)$ to $A_2(v(n,m,a))$, where $v(n,m,a)$
is the number of integers in $[0,n-1]$ congruent to $a$ mod $m$. (So $v(n,m,a)$
is $\ceil{n/m}$ when $a < m\{n/m\}$ and $\floor{n/m}$ when $a\geq m\{n/m\}$,
where $\{x\}$ means the fractional part of $x$.) No two APs from different
subsets $A_{a,m}$ intersect in two points because APs from sets with different
$m$'s have incompatible lengths and APs from sets with the same $m$ but different
$a$'s lie entirely in separate residue classes mod $m$ so do not intersect at
all. Hence, any maximum-sized almost disjoint family in $A(n)$ is a union of
maximum-sized almost disjoint families in the $A_{a,m} (n)$'s and
\[ F(n) = \sum_{m\text{ odd}}\sum_{a=0}^{m-1} f(v(n,m,a)) \]
Since
\begin{equation}
\sum_{a=0}^{m-1} v(n,m,a) = n \label{university}
\end{equation}
and $f$ is defined between $\floor{n/m}$ and $\ceil{n/m}$ by linear interpolation,
the inner sum is $mf(n/m)$, giving \eqref{simon}.
\end{proof}

We end this section with some simply obtained bounds for $f(n)$ and $F(n)$ which
(for $F(n)$) improve the bounds sketched in the introduction but which we shall
further improve to asymptotic formulae later.

\begin{prop}~\\\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\frac12n - 1\leq f(n) < \frac13(n\log_2n)$.
\item[(ii)] $\frac13(n^2/4) - O(n) < F(n) < \frac23(n^2/4)$.
\end{itemize}\label{pinkfloyd}\end{prop}
\begin{proof} The lower bound in (i) is immediate, since the $\ceil{n/2} - 1$
3-term APs $\ap{a}1$ with $a$ an even number in $[0, n - 3]$ are almost disjoint.
In fact, more generally, we clearly have $f (n + 2) \geq f (n) + 1$ for $n\geq1$.

For the upper bound in (i) we count the number of pairs of numbers contained in
all the 3-term APs of a family. A dyadic almost disjoint family of maximum size
in $[0, n - 1]$ contains $3f(n)$ distinct pairs of numbers whose difference is a
power of 2. Since the total number of pairs in $[0, n - 1]$ differing by a power
of 2 is
\[ \sum_{e=0}^{\floor{\log_2n}} (n - 2^e) < n(\log_2n + 1) - n, \]
this gives (i).

The proof of the upper bound in (ii) is the same, but we drop the restriction
that the pairs differ by a power of 2 and note that the total number of pairs
in $[0, n - 1]$ is $\binom{n}2 < n^2 /2$.

For the lower bound in (ii), let $S$ be an almost disjoint family in $[0, k - 1]$
of maximum size and consider what 3-term APs from $[0, k]$ can be added to it.
If $k/2 \leq i < 2k/3$ then $\{2i - k, i, k\}$ can be added unless $\{2i - k,
(3i - k)/2, i\} \in S$. But in that case $k - i$ is even and $\{(3i - k)/2, i,
(k + i)/2\} \notin S$, so $\{i, (k + i)/2, k\}$ can be added. Hence for every
$i \in [k/2, 2k/3)$ a 3-term AP containing $\{i, k\}$ can be added, and any two
of these AP’s meet only in $k$. So $f(k + 1) - f(k) > k/6 - 1$ and summing from
$k = 2$ to $n - 1$ gives the lower bound in (ii).
\end{proof}

We note that the argument that gives the upper bound in (ii) makes no use of the
fact that the triples are APs and, as a result, gives a bound coinciding with
\eqref{jpmay}, valid for unrestricted partial 2-$(n, 3)$-designs.

For $f(n)$, the lower bound given by this proposition is not of the right order
of magnitude --- we shall see later (Theorem \ref{t9}) that $f(n)$ is in fact asymptotic
to $\frac13 n \log_2 n$. We have already mentioned that $F(n)$ is asymptotic to
$C(n^2 /4)$ with $C$ > 0.476. It is at first sight paradoxical, in view of the
direct relationship \eqref{simon}, that $f(n)$ and $F(n)$ should be asymptotic to
different proportions of the sizes of $A_2 (n)$ and $A(n)$: if, for each $n$,
the maximum number of almost disjoint dyadic 3-term APs in $[0, n - 1]$ is
approximately 1/3 of the total number of dyadic APs and the set of all 3-term
APs in $[0, n - 1]$ is a disjoint union of sets in one-one correspondence with
the set of dyadic APs in $[0, l - 1]$ for some $l\leq n$, then how can
significantly more than 1/3 of the 3-term APs in $[0, n - 1]$ be almost disjoint?
The answer is that a large and non-decreasing proportion of the numbers $l \approx
n/m$ are small enough that $f (l)$ is not yet close to its limiting order of
magnitude; put more concisely, small values of $n/m$ make a major contribution
to sum \eqref{simon}. A simpler example of this phenomenon is the set $P(n)$ of
pairs of numbers in $[0, n - 1]$, which decomposes into disjoint subsets each
in one-one correspondence with a set of dyadic pairs (that is, pairs whose
difference is a power of 2) in such a way that the parity of differences is
preserved. As $n$ tends to infinity the proportion of dyadic pairs in $[0, n-1]$
with odd difference tends to 0. (There are dyadic pairs with odd difference,
but only those with difference 1.) But for every $n$ more than half the general
pairs in $[0, n - 1]$ have odd difference.

\section{The asymptotic formula}

The following lemma enables us to show that $F(n)$ is asymptotically a constant
multiple of $n^2$.

\begin{lmma} Let $\phi(x)$ be any function that is defined for $x > 0$, is linear
between consecutive integer values of $x$, is 0 for $0 < x \leq 1$ and satisfies
$\phi(x) = O(x \ln x)$ as $x\to\infty$. Then the function $\Phi(n)$, defined by
\begin{equation}
\Phi(n) = \sum_{\substack{m=1\\m\text{ odd}}}^\infty m\phi(n/m) \label{concise}
\end{equation}
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\Phi(n) = B(n^2/4) + O(n^{5/3}\ln n), \label{course}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
B = \sum_{k=2}^\infty \frac{2\phi(k)}{k(k^2 - 1)}.\label{stacks}
\end{equation}
If, further, $\phi(x + 1) - \phi(x) = O(\ln x)$ as $x\to\infty$ then the error
term in \eqref{course} can be decreased to $O(n^{3/2}\ln n)$.\label{claudio}\end{lmma}
\begin{proof} Split sum \eqref{concise} into ranges of the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{n}{k+1} < m \leq \frac{n}k \qquad (k=1,2,3,\ldots), \label{western}
\end{equation}
in each of which $\phi(n/m)$ is linear. By the linearity,
\begin{align*}
m\phi(n/m)
&= ((k + 1)m - n)\phi(k) + (n - km)\phi(k+1) \\
&= ((k+1)\phi(k) - k\phi(k + 1))m + (\phi(k +1) - \phi(k))n
\end{align*}
for $m$ in range \eqref{western}. Now summing over all odd $m$ in a given range
gives
% I'm going to split this equation into an align* and equation...a hack I know
% to get the label to hang onto the end.
\begin{align*}
\frac{n^2}4((k + 1)&\phi(k) - k\phi(k+1))\left(\frac1{k^2} - \frac1{(k + 1)^2}\right) \\
&+ O\left(\frac{n}k((k + 1)\phi(k) - k\phi(k + 1))\right) \\
&+ \frac{n^2}2(\phi(k + 1) - \phi(k))\left(\frac1k - \frac1{k+1}\right) + O(n(\phi(k + 1) - \phi(k)))
\end{align*}
\begin{equation}
= \frac{n^2}4\left(\frac{\phi(k)}{k^2(k+1)} + \frac{\phi(k+1)}{k(k + 1)^2}\right) + O\left(n\left(\phi(k + 1) - \phi(k) + \frac{\phi(k)}{k}\right)\right), \label{family}
\end{equation}
where we have used the fact that the sum of an arithmetic progression is equal
to the number of terms times the average of the end terms.

Finally, summing from $k = 1$ to $K$ gives
\begin{equation}
\Phi(n) = B(n^2/4) + O\left(\frac{n^2\ln K}{K}\right) + O(nK^2\ln K), \label{coffee}
\end{equation}
where the main term is the sum from 1 to infinity of the main term in
\eqref{family}, the first error term comes from the tail of the series from
$K + 1$ to infinity, and the second error term is the sum from 1 to $K$ of the
error term in \eqref{family}. Now taking $K = \floor{n^{1/3}}$ gives \eqref{course},
where the fact that $\phi(1) = 0$ has been used to put $B$ in form \eqref{stacks}.
When $\phi(x + 1) - \phi(x) = O(\ln x)$ the second error term in \eqref{coffee}
decreases to $O(nK \ln K)$ and taking $K = \floor{n^{1/2}}$ gives an error term
$O(n^{3/2} \ln n)$ in \eqref{course}.\end{proof}

\begin{corl} $F(n) = C(n^2/4) + O(n^{3/2}\ln n)$, where
\begin{equation}
C = \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{2f(k)}{k(k^2 - 1)} \label{microwave}
\end{equation} \label{microcorl}
\end{corl}
\begin{proof} Only the estimate $f(k + 1) - f(k) = O(\ln k)$ remains to be
checked, since this implies that $f(k) = O(k\ln k)$. This is immediate from the
fact that there are only $\floor{\log_2k}$ dyadic 3-term APs in $[0,k]$ whose
last term is $k$.\end{proof}

For later use, we note that two 3-term APs with last term $k$ whose common
differences are consecutive powers of 2 are not almost disjoint, and hence that
\begin{equation}
f(k + 1) - f(k) \leq \ceil{\floor{\log_2k}/2}. \label{stovetop}
\end{equation}
We mentioned earlier, in discussing relation \eqref{simon}, that $F(n)$ for large
$n$, depends heavily on $f(k)$ for small values of $k$. Expression
\eqref{microwave} for the constant $C$ in the asymptotic formula for $F(n)$
shows this dependence very explicitly.

The value of $C$ can be estimated from Proposition \ref{pinkfloyd}(i). For the
lower bound, sum \eqref{microwave} with $f(k)$ replaced by $\ceil{k/2}-1$ can be
explicitly summed to $1 - \ln2 = 0.306\ldots$, weaker than the lower bound $C\geq
\frac13$ implied by the left hand inequality of Proposition \ref{pinkfloyd}(ii).
For the upper bound, we define a function $\phi(k)$ for $k\geq3$ recursively by
\[ \phi(3) = 1, \qquad\phi(k + 1) = \min(\floor{((e + 1)(k + 1) - 2^{e+1} + 1)/2}, \phi(k) + \ceil{e/2}), \]
where $2^e$ is the largest power of 2 that is $\leq k$, the first term in the
minimum comes from the proof of the upper bound in Proposition \ref{pinkfloyd}(i),
and the second term in the minimum comes from \eqref{stovetop}. Now replacing
$f(k)$ in \eqref{microwave} by $\phi(k)$ for $3\leq k \leq4097$ and using the
upper bound $(12 + 1/\ln2)/6144$ for the tail of the series from $k = 4098$
onwards, derived from comparison with
\[ \int_{4096}^\infty \frac{2\log_2xdx}{3x^2} \]
gives $C < 0.506$.

We next improve these estimates for $C$ by computing $f(k)$ exactly for some
small values of $k$.

\section{Particular values of $f(n)$}

There are of the order of $n^n$ families of dyadic 3-term APs in $[0,n-1]$, so
it soon becomes infeasible to look at them all and select the maximum-sized
disjoint families. The number of families we need to look at is vastly reduced
if we know in advance the possible numbers $f_e(n)$ $(e = 0, 1, \ldots, \ceil{\log_2 n}
- 2)$ of APs with common difference $2^e$ in a maximum-sized almost disjoint
family. These numbers satisfy
\begin{equation}
f_e(n)\leq 2^e(\{n/2^e\}\ceil{\ceil{n/2^e}l/2} + (1 - \{n/2^e\})\ceil{\floor{n/2^e}/2} - 1) \label{waterglass}
\end{equation}
for $0\leq e\leq \ceil{\log_2n} - 2$, and
\begin{equation}
f_e(n)\leq n - 2^{e+1} - 2f_{e+1}(n), \label{coffeecup}
\end{equation}
for $0\leq e \leq \ceil{\log_2n} - 3$. Though they look complicated in this
notational form, these inequalities are based on two simple observations. The
first is that the leading terms of the $n - 2^{e+1}$ 3-term APs in $[0, n - 1]$
with common difference $2^e$ fall into $2^e$ residue classes mod $2^e$ and
that consecutive members of the same residue class cannot occur within an almost
disjoint family. (This leads to \eqref{waterglass}.) The second observation is
that each AP with common difference $2^{e+1}$ in an almost disjoint family
excludes two APs with common difference $2^e$ and that the APs excluded by any
two almost disjoint APs with common difference $2{e+1}$ are different. (This
gives \eqref{coffeecup}.) An upper bound for $f(n)$ is given by the maximum,
over all vectors $(f_0(n), f_1(n),\ldots , f_l(n))$ satisfying \eqref{waterglass}
and \eqref{coffeecup}, of the sum $f_0(n) + f_1(n) + \cdots + f_l(n)$. (Here
$l = \ceil{\log_2 n} - 2$.) Table \ref{tabletable} lists the vectors $(f_0(n),
f_1(n), \ldots, f_l (n))$ with maximum sum for $n = 3, \ldots, 15$ and the number
of almost disjoint families corresponding to each vector, computed (for the
larger values of $n$) by a tree-searching algorithm. When there is no such
family we list the vectors of successively smaller sums until we come to one for
which there is an almost disjoint family. The first instance of this is $n = 10$
and the first instance where one of the maximum sum vectors has no corresponding
family is $n = 9$. Beyond 15 the number of maximum sum vectors starts to get
large, so for $n = 16$--$22$, instead of listing the individual vectors, Table
\ref{tabletable} simply lists the number of vectors with the maximum sum and with
each successively smaller sum down to the largest for which there exists a
corresponding almost disjoint family. The first instance of there being no
family corresponding either to the maximum sum or to one less than the maximum
sum is $n = 17$.

For all values of $n$ covered by the table $f(n) = g(n)$, where $g(n)$, defined
in Definition \ref{d6} in the next section, is an easily computed function. This
continues to hold at least up to $n = 29$, as we have verified by using the
methods of this section to check that there are no almost disjoint dyadic
families of size $g(n) + 1$. (By Theorem \ref{t7}, $f(n)\geq g(n)$.) The extra values
of $f$ are
\[ f(23) = 26, f(24) = 27, f(25) = 29, f(26) = 30 \]
\[ f(27) = 32, f(28) = 33, f(29) = 34. \]
By using the exact values of $f$ for $n\leq29$ in \eqref{microwave}, we
obtain the improved estimate
\[ 0.419 < C < 0.485 \]
where for $n > 29$ in the lower bound we have used the estimate $f(n)\geq f(n-2)
+ 1$ (mentioned in the proof of Proposition \ref{pinkfloyd}) and in the upper
bound we have estimated the tail of the series as in the previous section.

\section{The standard families \label{sectionsection}}

To get a better lower bound for C we need a good lower bound for $f(k)$, which
we find by identifying, for each $k$, a large ``standard'' almost disjoint
family of 3-term APs. We shall see later that these ``standard'' families are
those that are produced by certain greedy algorithms. They are maximum-sized for
$n$ up to 29 at least, and they enable us to improve the lower bound for $f(n)$
in Proposition \ref{pinkfloyd}(i).

\begin{table}
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{4em}}llllll}
\multicolumn{6}{l}{Vectors with large sums satisfying \eqref{waterglass} and
\eqref{coffeecup} and the number of almost disjoint dyadic
families}\\
\multicolumn{6}{l}{corresponding to them}\\
\toprule
$n$ &3 &4 &5 &6 &7\\
\midrule
&(1) 1 &(1) 2 &(1,1) 1 &(2,1) 2 &(3,1) 1\\
& & &(2,0) 1 & & \\
\midrule
$n$ &8 &9 &10 &11 &12\\
\midrule
&(2,2) 2 &(3,2,1) 0 &(4,2,2) 0 &(5,1,3) 1 &(5,2,3) 6\\
&(3,1) 6 &(4,1,1) 2 &(3,2,2) 0 &(5,2,2) 1 & \\
& & &(4,1,2) 4 & & \\
& & &(4,1,2) 4 & & \\
& & &(4,2,1) 2 & & \\
\midrule
$n$ &13 &14 &15 &16 &17\\
\midrule
&(5,3,3) 3 &(6,2,4) 3 &(7,3,4) 0 &14;2 0 &17;1 0\\
&(6,1,4) 0 &(6,3,3) 6 &(6,3,4) 0 &13;5 222 &16;5 0\\
&(6,2,3) 4 & &(7,2,4) 0 & &15;13 60\\
& & &(7,3,3) 4 & & \\
\midrule
$n$ &18 &19 &20 &21 &22\\
\midrule
&19;1 0 &21;1 0 &22;1 0 &23;5 0 &25;1 0\\
&18;5 0 &20;6 0 &21;7 0 &22;18 50 &24;7 24\\
&17;14 24 &19;17 8 &20;21 124 & & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small For $n\geq16$, $s;v$ $f$ indicates a set of $v$ vectors of sum $s$
with a total of $f$ corresponding families. For $n = 3,\ldots,15$,
the vector listed last is the vector for the standard dyadic family,
described in Section \ref{sectionsection}.}
\label{tabletable}
\end{table}

\begin{defn} The \emph{standard dyadic family} $S_2(n)$ in $A_2(n)$ is the
family of 3-term dyadic APs $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}$ in $[0,n-1]$ such that the final
$e$ binary digits of $a$ begin with a string of 0's of odd length. We write
$g(n) = |S_2(n)|$. Again we extend the function $g$ to $\mathbb{R}^+$ by
linear interpolation between integers.\label{d6}\end{defn}

\begin{thrm} The standard dyadic family is almost disjoint. Hence
$g(n)\leq f(n)$.\label{t7}\end{thrm}
\begin{proof} Let $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}} \in S_2(n)$. The six 3-term APs that,
according to \eqref{topology}, are candidates for having two numbers in common
with this one are
\[ \ap{a}{2^{e-2}}, \ap{a + 2^{e-1}}{2^{e-2}}, \ap{a - 2^{e-1}}{2^{e-1}},
\ap{a + 2^{e-1}}{2^{e-1}}, \ap{a - 2^e}{2^e}, \ap{a}{2^e} \]
(The first two do not exist when $e = 1$, and some of the last four may be
out of range, depending on the values of $a$, $e$ and $n$.) It is easily
checked that none of these is in $S_2(n)$: for the first two, $a$ and $a
+2^{e-1}$ agree with $a$ in their last $e - 1$ digits, which therefore begin
with a string of 0's of even length (possibly empty); for the next two, the
last $e$ digits of $a\pm2^{e-1}$ begin with a 1; and for the last two, $a-2^e$
and $a$ agree with $a$ in their last $e$ digits so their last $e+1$ digits
either begin with 1 or a string of 0's of even length.\end{proof}

Since the dyadic family $S_2(n)$ is almost disjoint for all $n$ so is the
family
\[ S(n) = \bigcup_{m\text{ odd}}\bigcup_{a=0}^{m-1}(mS_2(v(n,m,a)) + a)
\subset \bigcup_{m\text{ odd}}\bigcup_{a=0}^{m-1}A_{a,m}(n) = A(n) \]
We call this simply the \emph{standard family} in $[0,n-1]$ and denote its
size by $|S(n)| = G(n)$. An alternative description of it is that it is the
family of all 3-term APs $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}m}\in A(n)$ with $m$ odd and the
final $e$ binary digits of $\floor{a/m}$ beginning with a string of 0's of
odd length. Clearly $G(n)\leq F(n)$ and, by the same argument as in the
proof of Proposition \ref{simonprop}, we have
\begin{equation}
G(n) = g(n) + 3g(n/3) + 5g(n/5) + \cdots \label{procesi}
\end{equation}
In view of \eqref{procesi} and the fact, mentioned in the proof of Corollary
\ref{microcorl}, that there are only $\floor{\log_2k}$ dyadic 3-term APs in
$[0,k]$ with last term $k$, the strong form of Lemma \ref{claudio} is
applicable with $g$ and $G$ in place of $\phi$ and $\Phi$, and we have:

\begin{thrm} The function $G(n)$ satisfies
\begin{equation} G(n) = D(n^2/4) + O(n^{3/2}\ln n) \label{sotired} \end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
D = \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{2g(k)}{k(k^2 - 1)} \label{oftyping}
\end{equation}
\end{thrm}

Since $G(n)\leq F(n)$ for all $n$, $D\leq C$. In the next section, we obtain
a remarkable explicit formula for $D$ that enables us to significantly improve
our lower bound for $C$.

The standard dyadic families are large enough to give the correct asymptotic
size of $f(n)$.

\begin{thrm}\label{t9} The function $f(n)$ satisfies
\[ f(n) = \frac13n\log_2n + O(n) \]
\end{thrm}
\begin{proof} The upper bound has already been established in Proposition
\ref{pinkfloyd} and the lower bound comes from bounding below the size of
$S_2(n)$. For a given $e$, the numbers $a$ whose last $e$ binary digits begin
with a string of 0's of odd length have period $2^e$ and there are $(2^e - (-1)^e)
/3$ of them per period, since this is the number of $e$-digit binary numbers
with an odd number of leading 0's. All such $a$'s in the range $0\leq a < n -
2^e$ give APs $\ap{a}{2^e-1}$ in $S_2(n)$, so the number of these is
\[ \geq \frac13(2^e - 1)(\floor{n/2^e} - 1) > \frac13n(1 - 2^{-e}) - \frac132^{e+1}. \]
Now summing from $e = 1$ to $\floor{\log_2n}$ gives $f(n) > \frac13n\log_2n -
O(n)$.\end{proof}

\section{The value of $D$}

We now show how to obtain a remarkably simple expression for $D$ as a sum
involving values of the Riemann $\zeta$-function. This makes it easy to
approximate $D$ extremely accurately and hence get a good numerical lower bound
for $C$.

Let $g_e(k)$\footnote{This differs from the analogous notation $f_e$ in Section
4 in that the common difference was $2^e$ but here, in order to keep formulae
short, we take it to be $2^{e-1}$.} be the number of APs in the standard
dyadic family $S_2(k)$ with common difference $2^{e-1}$. We shall calculate
sum \eqref{oftyping} by replacing $g(k)$ by $g_e(k)$ and then summing over
$e$. Let $\chi_e$, for $e\geq 1$, be the characteristic function of the set of
non-negative integers whose final $e$ binary digits begin with a string of
0's of odd length. Clearly $\chi_e$ has period $2^e$, and in the range $[0,2^e]$
it changes value only at powers of 2. By the definition of the standard dyadic
family, $g_e(k)$ is the sum of $\chi_e(j)$ over $j\in[0,k-2^e)$, which by the
periodicity of $\chi_e$ is the same as the sum over $j\in[2^e,k)$. Thus
\begin{equation}
\sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{2g_e(k)}{k(k^2 - 1)} = \sum_{k=2^e}^\infty
\frac2{k(k^2 - 1)}\sum_{j=2^e}^{k-1} \chi_e(j). \label{representations}
\end{equation}
Since $1/k(k^2-1)$ is a second difference of the sequence $1/k$ and $\chi_e$
is constant over long ranges, the sum on the right can be greatly simplified
by partial summation in the form
\[ \sum_{k=K}^\infty(a_{k-1} - a_k)b_k = a_{K-1}b_K + \sum_{k=K}^\infty a_k(b_{k+1}-b_k). \]
With $a_k = 1/k(k+1)$ and $K = 2^e$ the right hand side of \eqref{representations}
becomes
\begin{equation} \sum_{k=2^e}^\infty\frac{\chi_e}{k(k+1)}. \label{approach}
\end{equation}

To carry out a second partial summation we write $k = 2^eq + r$, with $0\leq r
<2^e$, and note that
\[ \chi_e(k) - \chi_e(k - 1) = \left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\bar{e} &\text{if }r =0,\\
(-1)^{e-i} &\text{if }r=2^i\text{ with }0\leq i < e,\\
0 &\text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right. \]
where $\bar{e}\in\{0,1\}$ is the residue of $e$ modulo 2. Now partial summation
with $a_k = \chi_e(k)$, $b_k = 1/k$ and $K = 2^e$ transforms \eqref{approach}
into
\[ \sum_{q=1}^\infty\left(\frac{\bar{e}}{2^eq} + \sum_{i=0}^{e-1}\frac{(-1)^{e-i}}{2^eq + 2^i}\right)
= \sum_{q=1}^\infty\sum_{i=0}^{e-1}\frac{(-1)^{e-i}}{2^i}\left(\frac1{2^{e-i}q + 1} - \frac1{2^{e-i}q}\right). \]
Summing over $e$ from 1 to infinity gives an absolutely convergent double sum
for $D$, which can be evaluated by making the substitution $e' = e - i$ and
inverting the order of summation to get
\[ D
= \sum_{q=1}^\infty \sum_{i=0}^\infty \frac1{2^i}\sum_{e'=1}^\infty
\frac{(-1)^{e'+1}}{2^{e'}q(2^{e'}q + 1)}
= 2\sum_{q=1}^\infty\sum_{e=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{e'+1}}{2^eq(2^eq + 1)} \]
where at the final step we have renamed the variable $e'$ as $e$.

In view of the somewhat artificial nature of our problem, this expression for $D$
is remarkably simple, but the sum over $q$ converges too slowly to make it easy
to approximate $D$ to any great accuracy. To remedy this we put the expression
in an even more concise and amenable form by expanding each term as a power
series in $1/2^e q$, evaluating the sum over $e$, and reversing the order of
summation in the remaining variables. Explicitly
\begin{align*}
D &= 2\sum_{q=1}^\infty \sum_{e=1}^\infty (-1)^{e+1} \sum_{m=2}^\infty
\left(\frac{-1}{2^eq}\right)^m \\
&= 2\sum_{q=1}^\infty\sum_{m=2}^\infty \frac{(-1)^m}{(2^m+1)q^m}
= 2\sum_{m=2}^\infty \frac{(-1)^m\zeta(m)}{2^m + 1}
\end{align*}
where $\zeta(m) = \sum_{m=1}^\infty1/q^m$ is the Riemann $\zeta$-function. For
even $m$, $\zeta(m)$ can be given explicitly in terms of $\pi$ and the Bernoulli
numbers, and for odd $m$ there are ways of efficiently approximating it. The
sum over $m$ then converges geometrically, and is even alternating and
decreasing in size, allowing simple error bounds and enabling $D$ to be
calculated to almost unlimited accuracy.

As a result of these last three sections we have
\begin{thrm}~\\
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $D = 2\sum_{m=2}^\infty \frac{(-1)^m\zeta(m)}{2^m+1} = 0.47621693\ldots$
\item[(ii)] $D\leq C < 0.485$
\end{enumerate}\end{thrm}

It is of interest to relate the sum in (i) over values of the $\zeta$-function
to binary representations more directly than via the function $g$ that measures
the standard dyadic families. Keeping $k$ fixed and summing $\chi_e(k)$ over
values of $e$ with $1 < 2^e \leq k$ counts the number of 0's in the binary
representation of $k$ that are an odd number of places from the end of a string
of 0's. This number is $\frac12z(k) + \frac12s(k)$, where $z(k)$ is the total
number of 0's in the binary representation of $K$ and $s(k)$ is the number of
strings of 0's of odd length. So summing \eqref{approach} over $e$, inverting
the order of summation on the left and using our previous evaluation on the
right, gives
\[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{z(k)}{2k(k+1)} + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{s(k)}{2k(k+1)} = D. \]
The first of the sums on the left straightforwardly evaluates to $1-\ln 2$, by
partial summation, giving the value of the second sum on the left as $D + \ln 2
- 1$.

\section{The number of maximum-sized families}

We see from Table \ref{tabletable} that maximum-sized almost disjoint families
of dyadic 3-term APs are far from unique in general, and as a consequence the
same applies to unrestricted 3-term APs. In this section, we use Lemma
\ref{claudio} to obtain a reasonably sharp estimate for the number of
maximum-sized almost disjoint families.

\begin{defn} Let $H(n)$ be the number of maximum-sized almost disjoint families
in $A(n)$ and $h(n)$ the number of maximum-sized almost disjoint families in
$A_2(n)$. We extend the function $h$ to $\mathbb{R}^+$ by requiring that $h(x)
= 1$ for $0\leq x\leq 2$ (when the only almost disjoint family is the empty
family!) and that $\ln h(x)$ is linear between integer values of $x$ for $x\geq2$.
\end{defn}

Because an almost disjoint family in $A(n)$ is maximum-sized if and only if its
intersection with each of the parts $A_{a,m}(n)$ in partition \eqref{fraser} is
maximum-sized we have
\begin{equation}
H(n) = \prod_{m\text{ odd}}\prod_{a=0}^{m-1}h(v(n,m,a)
= \prod_{m\text{ odd}} h(n/m)^m \label{universitext}
\end{equation}
where the last step follows from \eqref{university} and the linearity of $\ln h$
between integers. Since
\[ |h(n)|\leq 2^{|A_2(n)|}, \]
Lemma \ref{claudio} with $\phi(x) = \log_2h(x)$ and $\Phi(n) = \log_2H(n)$ gives
\[ \log_2H(n) = E(n^2/4) + O(n^{5/2}\ln n), \]
where
\begin{equation}
E = \sum_{k=3}^\infty \frac{2\log_2h(k)}{k(k^2 - 1)}. \label{anderson}
\end{equation}
Bounds for $E$ can be calculated from the values of $h(k)$ for small $k$, which
are implicit in Table \ref{tabletable}. In Table \ref{tubletuble}, we list these
values explicitly as far as we have calculated them. We have also collected in
Table \ref{tubletuble} the corresponding values of $f$ (implicit in Table
\ref{tabletable} too), of $F$ (calculated from \eqref{simon}) and of $H$
(calculated from \eqref{universitext}).

\begin{table}
\small
\begin{tabular}{@{\extracolsep{7.5em}}ccccc}
\toprule
$n$ &$f(n)$ &$F(n)$ &$h(n)$ &$H(n)$ \\
\midrule
3 &1 &1 &1 &1 \\
4 &1 &1 &2 &2 \\
5 &2 &2 &2 &2 \\
6 &3 &3 &2 &2 \\
7 &4 &5 &1 &1 \\
8 &4 &6 &8 &8 \\
9 &6 &9 &2 &2 \\
10 &7 &10 &6 &12 \\
11 &9 &13 &2 &8 \\
12 &10 &15 &6 &48 \\
13 &11 &18 &7 &56 \\
14 &12 &21 &9 &72 \\
15 &13 &25 &4 &32 \\
16 &13 &27 &222 &3552 \\
17 &15 &31 &60 &1920 \\
18 &17 &35 &24 &1536 \\
19 &19 &40 &8 &512 \\
20 &20 &44 &124 &7936 \\
21 &22 &50 &50 &1600 \\
22 &24 &54 &24 &6144 \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{\small Values of $f(n), F(n), h(n)$ and $H(n)$}
\label{tubletuble}
\end{table}

We have
\[ E\geq\sum_{k=3}^{22}\frac{2\log_2h(k)}{k(k^2-1)} = 0.102555\ldots \]
and
\[ E\leq\sum_{k=3}^{22}\frac{2\log_2h(k)}{k(k^2-1)} + \sum_{k=23}^{513}
\frac{2\log_2\binom{a(k)}{b(k)}}{k(k^2 - 1)} + \frac{9 + 1/\ln2}{256}
- \frac2{257} < 0.447, \]
where
\[ a(k) = \sum_{e=1}^{\floor{\log_2k}} (k - 2^e)\text{ and } b(k) =
\floor{\frac13\sum_{e=0}^{\floor{\log_2k}}(k - 2^e)} \]
are upper bounds for $|A_2(k)|$ and $f(k)$ (derived from the proof of Proposition
\ref{pinkfloyd}(i)), and for the tail of series \eqref{anderson} beyond 513 we
have used the cruder estimate $\log_2h(k) < |A_2(k)|\leq k\log_2k - 2k + 2$. A
more intuitive way of describing these bounds is to say that the number of
maximum-sized almost disjoint families of 3-term APs in $[0, n-1]$ is
asymptotically greater than the 10th root of the total number of families of
3-term APs and asymptotically less than the square root of the total number of
families.

We note that there is a unique maximum-sized almost disjoint family only for
$n=3$ and $n=7$, since for $n\geq10$ there is always an odd $m\geq3$ with $3
<n/m<7$ and then $h(n/m) > 1$.

\section{Greedy Algorithms}

By a \emph{greedy algorithm} for constructing an almost disjoint family we mean
choosing an ordering of $A(n)$ (or $A_2(n)$) then inspecting the members of
$A(n)$ or $A_2(n)$ in order, discarding only those that overlap in at least two
places some member already inspected and not discarded. The following lemma
enables us to see why several different greedy algorithms produce the same
standard families.

\begin{lmma} If $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}$ is a member of $A_2(n)$ that is not in $S_2(n)$
then at least one of $\ap{a}{2^{e-2}}$ and $\ap{a-2^{e-1}}{2^{e-1}}$ is in
$S_2(n)$.\label{almostdone}\end{lmma}
\begin{proof} Since $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}\notin S_2(n)$ the last $e$ binary digits of
$a$ begin with a string of 0's of even length. If this string of 0's is not
empty then $e > 1$ and the last $e - 1$ binary digits of $a$ begin with a string
of 0's of odd length, so $\ap{a}{2^e-2} \in S_2(n)$. On the other hand, if the
digit $e$ from the end of $a$ is 1 then $a\geq2^{e-1}$ and the last $e$ digits
of $a - 2^{e-1}$ begin with a non-empty string of 0's. If this string has odd
length then $\ap{a - 2^{e-1}}{2^{e-1}} \in S_2(n)$ and if it has even length
then $\ap{a}{2^{e-2}} \in S_2(n)$, since $a$ and $a - 2^{e-1}$ have the same
last $e - 1$ digits.\end{proof}

Lemma \ref{almostdone} shows that any greedy algorithm for $A_2(n)$ that always
lists $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}$ before either of $\ap{a + 2^{e-1}}{2^{e-1}}$ or
$\ap{a}{2^e}$ produces precisely the family $S_2(n)$. Since $S_2(n)$ is almost
disjoint no member of $S_2(n)$ will be rejected until at least one AP not in
$S_2(n)$ has been retained. Suppose $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}$ is the first AP not in
$S_2(n)$ to be retained. By Lemma \ref{almostdone}, at least one of
$\ap{a-2^{e-1}}{2^{e-1}}$ and $\ap{a}{2^{e-2}}$ is in $S_2(n)$ so has already
been retained. But both these APs have 2-point intersection with $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}$,
contrary to the supposition that $\ap{a}{2^{e-1}}$ can be retained.

Now expression \eqref{fraser} for $A(n)$ as a union of families, each the image
of some $A_2(v)$ under an order-preserving affine map and with no APs of
different families having 2-point intersection, shows that the standard family
$S(n)$ is produced by any greedy algorithm for $A(n)$ that lists $\ap{a_1}{d}$
before $\ap{a_2}{d}$ whenever $a_1<a_2$ and $\ap{a}{d_1}$ before $\ap{a}{d_2}$
whenever $d_1<d_2$. The following four greedy algorithms are all of this type:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Order the $\ap{a}{d}$'s first on increasing $a$ and then on increasing $d$.
\item Order the $\ap{a}{d}$'s first on increasing $d$ and then on increasing $a$.
\item Order the $\ap{a}{d}$'s first on increasing $a+2d$ (the last term of
$\ap{a}{d}$), then on increasing $a$, then on increasing $d$.
\item Order the $\ap{a}{d}$'s first on increasing $a+2d$, then on increasing $d$,
then on decreasing $a$.
\end{enumerate}

It was noticing that \eqref{jpmay} and \eqref{algebraic} always give the same
family that led us to the description of the standard families. All greedy
algorithms are equally efficient for a single value of $n$, but \eqref{topology}
and \eqref{simon} are better when $S(n)$ is wanted for a range of values of
$n$, since they find $S(3),S(4),S(5),\ldots$ successively on the way to finding
$S(n)$. The proof of the lower bound in Proposition \ref{pinkfloyd}(ii) can be
regarded as a partial analysis of the operation of algorithms \eqref{topology}
and \eqref{simon}.

Although these different algorithms produce the same standard families, we know
that maximum-sized almost disjoint families are not unique for any $n > 7$. In
particular, the standard family has mirror symmetry in the point $(n - 1)/2$
only for $n = 3, 5$ or 7, as can be seen from the pattern of AP's with $d = 4$
(noting that the APs with $d = 3$ exclude the case $n = 11$). Any greedy
algorithm that ordered on increasing $d$ but decreasing $a$ would find the mirror
images of the standard families.

\section{Summary}

In this paper, we have established that the maximum size of an almost disjoint
family of 3-term APs in $[0, n-1]$ is asymptotic to $C(n^2 /4)$ for some constant
$C$ which we have estimated to within 1\% (roughly, $0.476 < C < 0.485$).

We have also shown that the number of families achieving the maximum size is
asymptotically larger than the 10th root of the total number of 3-term APs in
$[0, n-1]$.

In the course of doing this we have stumbled across the following remarkable
identity, where $s(k)$ is the number of strings of 0's in the binary
representation of $k$ that have odd length and $\zeta$ is the Riemann $\zeta$-function:
\[ \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{s(k)}{2k(k+1)} = \ln2 - 1 + 2\sum_{m=2}^\infty
\frac{(-1)^m\zeta(m)}{2^m+1} \]


\bibliographystyle{amsplain}
\bibliography{tom-all}
\end{document}

