Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 2 cited by

Ergodic averages and the large intersection property along IP sets

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read IP averages with rational spectrum are controlled by nilsystems and force large intersections of size d(E)^3 and d(E)^4.

desk verdict The IP machinery is real and interesting, but a false identity in Lemma 5.4 undercuts the paper's main large-intersection theorem. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17771 v1 pith:FLNPE5ZX submitted 2025-06-21 math.DS math.CO

Bryna Kra , Or Shalom This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.DSmath.CO MSC 37A1511B3028D1537A35
keywords multipleergodicaverageIP-setnilsystemrationalspectrumlargeintersectionpropertyHost-KrafactorFølnersequenceIPconvergence
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper develops convergence theory for ergodic averages taken over IP sets—all finite sums of a fixed sequence $(n_j)$—and uses it to prove large-intersection results along such sets. The main structural claim is that when $(n_j)$ has rational spectrum, the same Host–Kra factors and nilmanifold limits that govern ordinary multiple averages also govern IP averages. From this, the paper derives limit formulas for multiple weighted averages and, as a consequence, positive-IP-density lower bounds for three- and four-term correlations: for any set $E$ of positive upper Banach density, the overlaps exceed $d^*(E)^3-\varepsilon$ and $d^*(E)^4-\varepsilon$ on a positive-density subset of the IP. A separate example shows that without the rational-spectrum assumption, large intersections can fail even for very strong notions of largeness.

What carries the argument

The engine is the rational IP Gowers–Host–Kra seminorm $\|\cdot\|_{U^k_{\mathrm{IP}}}$, built from relatively independent joinings over the rational Kronecker factor $K_{\mathrm{rat}}(X)$ instead of the invariant factor, together with the associated IP cubic measures $\tilde{\mu}^{[k]}$. An IP version of the van der Corput lemma (Lemma 4.3) transfers control of the multiple average to these seminorms; Proposition 4.9 bounds the average by the seminorms, and Lemma 4.10 identifies their kernel with the Host–Kra factor $Z_{k-1}(X)$, proving Theorem 4.2. The limit formulas then pass through nilsystems: Theorem 5.3 gives pointwise convergence for a dense class of functions when spectra are disjoint, and Corollary 5.8 supplies the weighted limit on synchronized nilsystems that Theorems 6.2 and 6.4 use.

What would settle it

Expanding the right-hand side of the identity in Lemma 5.4 for $s=1$, $t=0$, $\ell_1=1$, $\ell_2=2$ gives an extra factor $\eta(\pi x)$ that is absent on the left; substituting $f_1=f_2=1$ and any allowed nonconstant weight $\eta$ makes the two sides visibly different whenever $\eta(\pi x)\ne 1$ on a set of positive measure. A direct computation of both sides in this configuration—for example on a rotation with $\eta$ a nonconstant character and the weight normalized so the left side has limit $1$—decides whether the reduction is valid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for an IP sequence with rational spectrum, multiple ergodic averages along the IP behave like ordinary multiple averages: the Host–Kra factor $Z_{k-1}(X)$ is characteristic (Theorem 4.2), and the limit is an integral over a nilmanifold (Theorem 5.2). On the combinatorial side, this gives a large-intersection theorem: for a set $E\subseteq\mathbb{Z}$ of positive upper Banach density, the set of $n$ in the IP for which $d^*(E\cap(E-\ell_1 n)\cap(E-\ell_2 n))>d^*(E)^3-\varepsilon$ has positive IP-density with respect to every increasing Følner sequence, and the four-term analogue holds with $d^*(E)^4-\varepsilon$ (Theorem 1.1). The proof builds IP versions of the van der Corput lemma, Gowers–Host–Kra seminorms, and cubic measures, and obtains pointwise convergence formulas on nilsystems for a dense class of functions. These are the IP counterparts of the classical large-intersection theorems for linear averages.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise of the large-intersection proof is that Lemma 5.4's weighted-average reduction holds, which in the written argument requires the hidden condition $s+t=0$; the paper does not establish that condition.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For base-$a$ digit sequences such as $n_j=10^{j-1}$, the IP averages exist in $L^2$ for every function, and under total ergodicity they converge to the projection onto the invariant functions, giving equidistribution of the IP along toral rotations.
  • The integer form of the large-intersection theorem holds for all sequences with rational spectrum, so in such IPs every positive-density set contains many arithmetic progressions of length 3 and 4 whose common difference lies in the IP.
  • Non-rational IPs can destroy large intersections: the appendix constructs an ergodic system and a positive-measure set for which every central set contains a central subset with no three-term large intersection, showing that the rational-spectrum condition is close to optimal.
  • The weighted nilmanifold limit (Corollary 5.8) gives a computable formula for the asymptotic size of correlations even when the Kronecker part is not disjoint from the sequence's spectrum.
  • The paper leaves open whether the large-intersection sets are syndetic and whether any non-rational IP can support the same conclusion, so the rational-spectrum condition is a natural boundary of the method.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the missing condition in Lemma 5.4 can be supplied—for instance by choosing $s,t$ with $s+t=0$ or by a separate argument for the extra factor $\eta(\pi x)^{s+t}$—then Theorems 6.2 and 6.4 follow as written; otherwise the proof of the large-intersection theorem needs a different bridge from the characteristic-factor theorem to the nilmanifold formula.
  • The same IP seminorm machinery suggests a polynomial IP large-intersection theorem: replacing $\ell_i n$ by integer-valued polynomials should follow with the nilmanifold factor dimension raised accordingly.
  • The optimal constant in the non-IP three-term bound (Question 1.5) is plausibly tied to Behrend-type constructions, since the appendix's counterexample uses Behrend's sets with no three-term progressions; quantifying that connection could decide whether $C(\delta)$ is exponential or subexponential.
  • The pointwise convergence question (Question 1.6) could be attacked by showing that the dense class in Theorem 5.3 is a convergence-determining class, so that pointwise limits on that class pass to all of $L^2$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a theory of multiple ergodic averages sampled along IP sets generated by a sequence (n_j). Section 3 gives spectral criteria for mean convergence and defines the notion of rational spectrum, with a limit formula on the rational Kronecker factor. Section 4 introduces IP versions of the van der Corput lemma, Gowers-Host-Kra seminorms, and cubic measures, and proves that the Host-Kra factors are characteristic for IP averages when the generating sequence has rational spectrum. Section 5 establishes limit formulas in nilsystems, including pointwise convergence for systems with disjoint spectrum and weighted limit formulas on synchronized nilsystems. Section 6 uses these formulas to prove positive IP-density of large intersections for three- and four-term configurations, yielding the headline Theorem 1.1 for sets of positive upper Banach density when the generating sequence has rational spectrum. Appendix B gives a counterexample showing that the large-intersection conclusion fails for arbitrary sequences.

Significance. If the main theorem were correct, it would provide an IP analogue of the Bergelson-Host-Kra large-intersection theorem and would be a substantial contribution to the ergodic theory of IP convergence. The paper contains several independent contributions that appear sound: the spectral characterization in Theorem 3.3, the rational-spectrum limit formula in Corollary 3.8, the IP van der Corput lemma, and the construction of rational IP cubic measures in Proposition 4.7. However, the route from the nilsystem limit formulas to the large-intersection theorems passes through Lemma 5.4, whose main reduction is algebraically invalid. As a result, Theorems 6.2, 6.4, and Theorem 1.1 are not proved as written; the significance of the paper is therefore conditional on a repair of Section 5.2.

major comments (3)
  1. [§5.2, Lemma 5.4] The identity used to absorb the weight η into f1 and f2 is false. For a character η of Z1 with factor map π:X→Z1, after choosing integers s,t with sℓ1+tℓ2=1 and setting f1'=f1 η^s and f2'=f2 η^t, the product on the right contains η(πx+ℓ1na)^s η(πx+ℓ2na)^t, which equals η(πx)^(s+t) η(na). The left-hand side contains only η(na), so the asserted equality of averages omits the factor η(πx)^(s+t). This factor is not identically 1 for arbitrary coprime ℓ1,ℓ2; it is identically 1 only when s+t=0, i.e. when |ℓ1−ℓ2|=1. The claimed equality of the two averages fails already for k=2 with f1=f2=1. Since Lemma 5.4 is the bridge from the Host-Kra characteristic-factor theorem to the weighted nilsystem formulas used in Theorems 6.2 and 6.4, the large-intersection proof does not go through as written.
  2. [§5.2, Lemma 5.4] The same proof contains an incorrect orthogonality assertion: it claims that f_i' is orthogonal to Z_{k-1}(X) if and only if f_i is orthogonal to Z1(X). Because η is measurable with respect to Z1 and Z1 is a subfactor of Z_{k-1}, the conditional expectation satisfies E(f_i' | Z_{k-1}) = η^s E(f_i | Z_{k-1}); hence orthogonality of f_i' to Z_{k-1} is equivalent to orthogonality of f_i to Z_{k-1}, not to Z1. This matters because the subsequent application of Theorem 4.2 requires vanishing conditional expectation on Z_{k-1}, not merely on Z1. Even if the algebraic identity in the previous comment were repaired, this step would need a different justification.
  3. [§5.2, Corollary 5.8] The first sentence of the proof states 'we can absorb η into f1,f2 and so without loss of generality we assume that η=1'. This is precisely the same invalid reduction as in Lemma 5.4 and no alternative argument is supplied. Corollary 5.8 is the weighted nilsystem limit formula invoked in the proofs of Theorems 6.2 and 6.4, so the error is not confined to an auxiliary lemma; it directly affects the derivation of the main combinatorial claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Page 3, first paragraph of §1.1] The heading contains a typo: 'Exmaple 2.4' should be 'Example 2.4'.
  2. [Definition 3.7] The notation σ((n_j)_{k∈N}) uses the wrong index; it should be σ((n_j)_{j∈N}).
  3. [Lemma 5.4 statement] The lemma assumes η:Z1→R is nonnegative and real-valued, but the proof first treats η as a character, which is complex-valued. This mismatch should be clarified even apart from the algebraic error discussed above.
  4. [Proposition 5.7 proof] Near the end of the proof there is an extraneous 'Th' after 'for all rational s∈S1'; it should be removed.
  5. [Appendix A, Lemma A.1] The definition of positive lower IP-density is given with respect to every increasing Følner sequence, but the proof constructs a set using a single union of Følner blocks. The intended notion of density should be stated more explicitly so that the example satisfies the definition.
  6. [Lemma 4.10] The citation 'a theorem of Leibman [6, Theorem 2]' is too imprecise for the reader to verify the claimed equivalence between vanishing of the U^k norm and vanishing of all Host-Kra integrals; a precise statement or a precise reference would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation is structurally self-contained and no prediction reduces to a fitted input; the flagged Lemma 5.4 issue is a non-circular correctness concern.

full rationale

I walked the derivation chain and found no step in which a claimed prediction is equivalent to its inputs by construction. Definition 3.7 defines rational spectrum through tail products, and Theorem 3.6/Corollary 3.8 compute the resulting limits; this is a structural consequence of the definition, not a fitted quantity later renamed as a prediction. The rational IP Gowers-Host-Kra seminorms in Definition 4.5 are defined by suprema over the rational-spectrum class, and Proposition 4.9 is a norm-control inequality rather than a circular derivation: its force comes from the external Host-Kra theory used later, specifically the implication E(f|Z_{k-1})=0 => ||f||_{U^k}=0 imported from [31]. Theorem 4.2 does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from the present authors, and the nilmanifold limit formulas follow published arguments in [8] and [35], which are external checks rather than self-citations carrying the whole claim. Theorem 1.1 is a statement about all positive-density sets and all rational-spectrum IPs; no parameter is fitted and then predicted. The skeptical objection to Lemma 5.4 is real but is not circularity: the asserted identity absorbing eta into f'_1 and f'_2 is an algebraic step that appears to fail for general coprime l1,l2 unless s+t=0, but a false manipulation is not a reduction of the theorem to its own assumptions. Since no circular step is established, the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proof leans on external theorems [31, 8, 36, 5] and on the paper's own rational-spectrum definition. No free parameters fitted to data appear. The main uncharged input is the Host-Kra nilsystem factorization inherited from prior work, plus the correspondence principle that transfers ergodic statements to combinatorics.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Spectral theorem for unitary operators and Lebesgue dominated convergence are used to pass from scalar convergence to operator convergence.
    Used in Theorem 3.1 to reduce convergence of ergodic averages along an IP to convergence of scalar exponential sums.
  • domain assumption Host-Kra theory from Host and Kra 2005: factors Z_{k-1}, Gowers-Host-Kra seminorms, and characteristic factors for standard Følner averages.
    Theorem 4.2, Lemma 4.10, and Section 5 assume [31, Theorem 10.3 and Section 11] and the characteristic-factor results from [31] and [43].
  • domain assumption Nilsystem structure and diagonal ergodicity results from Bergelson-Host-Kra: [8, Corollary 5.5] for the ergodic action on the subgroup manifold, and [8, Proposition 3.1] for the Furstenberg correspondence principle.
    Theorem 5.2 uses [8, Corollary 5.5], and Theorem 1.1 converts the ergodic large-intersection results to statements about upper Banach density via [8, Proposition 3.1].
  • domain assumption Lindenstrauss's measurable cocycle theorem [36, Theorem 3.1] for distal systems.
    Theorem 5.3 applies [36, Theorem 3.1] to replace measurable cocycles with continuous cocycles after passing to an isomorphic model.
  • domain assumption Bergelson's minimal idempotent theorem for p-limits of unitary operators.
    Appendix B uses the result that p-lim_{n} T^n equals the projection onto the Kronecker factor for a minimal idempotent p, as in [5].
  • domain assumption All systems are regular compact metric spaces with Borel sigma-algebra and regular measure.
    Section 2.1 sets this standing assumption; it is standard in the ergodic theory of multiple averages.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ergodic averages and the large intersection property along IP sets." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FLNPE5ZX

@misc{pith2026250617771,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ergodic averages and the large intersection property along IP sets},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FLNPE5ZX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17771}
}
abstract

We study multiple ergodic averages along IP sets, meaning we restrict iterates in the averages to all finite sums of some infinite sequence of natural numbers. We give criteria for convergence and divergence in mean of these multiple averages and derive sufficient conditions for convergence to the projection onto the space of invariant functions. For a class of sequences that, roughly speaking, only have rational obstructions to such a limit, we show that the behavior is controlled by nilsystems. We also consider pointwise convergence, obtaining convergence and a formula for a set of functions on nilsystems that are dense in $L^2$. Finally, we show that certain correlations have optimally large intersections along an IP set

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Pointwise Convergence of Ergodic Averages Along Integer Cantor Sets

    math.DS 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    Ergodic averages along integer Cantor sets converge almost everywhere for L^p functions, p≥2.

  2. $\mathrm{IP}_{\mathrm{rat}}$-polynomial recurrence and large intersections

    math.DS 2026-07 accept novelty 7.0 of 10

    For rationally independent nonlinear polynomials, the set of n giving nearly independent intersections of a positive-density set has positive lower IP_rat density.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Ackelsberg

    E. Ackelsberg. Khintchine-type double recurrence in abelian groups.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 45(1):1–33, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Ackelsberg, V

    E. Ackelsberg, V . Bergelson, and A. Best. Multiple recurrence and large intersections for abelian group actions.Discrete Anal., pages Paper No. 18, 91, 2021

    2021

  3. [3]

    Ackelsberg, V

    E. Ackelsberg, V . Bergelson, and O. Shalom. Khintchine-type recurrence for 3-point configurations.Forum Math. Sigma, 10:Paper No. e107, 57, 2022

    2022

  4. [4]

    Bergelson

    V . Bergelson. Minimal idempotents and ergodic ramsey theory.Topics in dynamics and ergodic theory, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., 310:8–39, 2003

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Bergelson

    V . Bergelson. Minimal idempotents and ergodic Ramsey theory. InTopics in Dynam- ics and Ergodic Theory, London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., volume 310. Cam- bridge Univ. Press, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    Bergelson

    V . Bergelson. Host–Kra and Ziegler factors and convergence of multiple averages. with an appendices by A. Leibman, and by A. Quas and M. Wierdl. In B. Hasselblatt and A. Katok, editors,Handbook of Dynamical Systems, volume 1B, pages 841–855. Elsevier, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Bergelson, A

    V . Bergelson, A. del Junco, M. Lema ´nczyk, and J. Rosenblatt. Rigidity and non- recurrence along sequences.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 34(5):1464–1502, 2014. ERGODIC A VERAGES AND LARGE INTERSECTION PROPERTY ALONG IP SETS 45

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Bergelson, B

    V . Bergelson, B. Host, and B. Kra. Multiple recurrence and nilsequences.Invent. Math., 160(2):261–303, 2005. With an appendix by Imre Ruzsa

    2005

Show all 42 references
  1. [9]

    Bergelson, B

    V . Bergelson, B. Host, R. McCutcheon, and F. Parreau. aspects of uniformity in re- currence.Colloquium Mathematicae, 84/85(2):549–576, 2000

    2000

  2. [10]

    Bergelson and A

    V . Bergelson and A. Leibman. Polynomial extensions of van der Waerden’s and Sze- merédi’s theorems.J. Amer. Math. Soc., 9(3):725–753, 1996

    1996

  3. [11]

    Bergelson and M

    V . Bergelson and M. Randall. An ergodic IP polynomial Szemerédi theorem.Mem- oirs of the AMS, 146, 2000

    2000

  4. [12]

    Boshernitzan, G

    M. Boshernitzan, G. Kolesnik, A. Quas, and M. Wierdl. Ergodic averaging sequences. J. Anal. Math., 95:63–103, 2005

    2005

  5. [13]

    Candela, D

    P. Candela, D. González-Sánchez, and B. Szegedy. Lie-fibered nilspaces, double- coset nilspaces, and gowers norms.Preprint, 2023

    2023

  6. [14]

    Candela and B

    P. Candela and B. Szegedy. Regularity and inverse theorems for uniformity norms on compact abelian groups and nilmanifolds.J. für die Reine und Angew. Math., 789:1– 42, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Candela and B

    P. Candela and B. Szegedy. Nilspace factors for general uniformity seminorms, cubic exchangeability and limits.Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., 287(1425):v+101, 2023

    2023

  8. [16]

    Ferré Moragues

    A. Ferré Moragues. Properties of multicorrelation sequences and large returns under some ergodicity assumptions.Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst., 41(6):2809–2828, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Frantzikinakis

    N. Frantzikinakis. Multiple ergodic averages for three polynomials and applications. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 360(10):5435–5475, 2008

    2008

  10. [18]

    Frantzikinakis

    N. Frantzikinakis. Multiple recurrence and convergence for Hardy sequences of poly- nomial growth.J. Anal. Math., 112:79–135, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    Frantzikinakis, B

    N. Frantzikinakis, B. Host, and B. Kra. The polynomial multidimensional Szemerédi theorem along shifted primes.Israel J. Math., 194(1):331–348, 2013

    2013

  12. [20]

    Frantzikinakis and B

    N. Frantzikinakis and B. Kuca. Joint ergodicity for commuting transformations and applications to polynomial sequences.Inventiones Mathematicae, 239(2):621–706, 2025

    2025

  13. [21]

    Furstenberg

    H. Furstenberg. Ergodic behaviour of diagonal measures and a theorem of Szemerédi on arithmetic progressions.J. Anal. Math., 31:204–256, 1977

    1977

  14. [22]

    Furstenberg.Recurrence in Ergodic Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory

    H. Furstenberg.Recurrence in Ergodic Theory and Combinatorial Number Theory. Princeton Legacy Library. Princeton University Press, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Furstenberg and Y

    H. Furstenberg and Y . Katznelson. An ergodic Szemerédi theorem for commuting transformations.J. Anal. Math., 34:275–291, 1978

    1978

  16. [24]

    Furstenberg and Y

    H. Furstenberg and Y . Katznelson. An ergodic Szemerédi theorem for IP-systems and combinatorial theory.J. Analyse Math., 45:117–168, 1985

    1985

  17. [25]

    Furstenberg and Y

    H. Furstenberg and Y . Katznelson. A density version of the Hales-Jewett theorem. J. Anal. Math., 57:64–119, 1991

    1991

  18. [27]

    Furstenberg and B

    H. Furstenberg and B. Weiss. A mean ergodic theorem for (1/N)PN n=1 f(T nx)g(T n2 x). InConvergence in ergodic theory and probability (Columbus, OH, 1993), volume 5 ofOhio State Univ. Math. Res. Inst. Publ., pages 193–227. de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996

    1993

  19. [28]

    Gutman, F

    Y . Gutman, F. Manners, and P. P. Varjú. The structure theory of nilspaces II: Repre- sentation as nilmanifolds.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 371(7):4951–4992, 2019

    2019

  20. [29]

    Gutman, F

    Y . Gutman, F. Manners, and P. P. Varjú. The structure theory of nilspaces I.J. Anal. Math., 140(1):299–369, 2020. 46 B. KRA AND O. SHALOM

    2020

  21. [30]

    Gutman, F

    Y . Gutman, F. Manners, and P. P. Varjú. The structure theory of nilspaces III: Inverse limit representations and topological dynamics.Adv. Math., 365:107059, 53, 2020

    2020

  22. [31]

    Host and B

    B. Host and B. Kra. Nonconventional ergodic averages and nilmanifolds.Ann. Math., 161(1):397–488, 2005

    2005

  23. [32]

    Host and B

    B. Host and B. Kra.Nilpotent structures in ergodic theory, volume 236 ofMathe- matical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2018

    2018

  24. [33]

    Jamneshan, O

    A. Jamneshan, O. Shalom, and T. Tao. The structure of arbitrary Conze-Lesigne sys- tems.Commun. Am. Math. Soc., 4:182–229, 2024

    2024

  25. [34]

    Jamneshan and T

    A. Jamneshan and T. Tao. The inverse theorem for theU 3 Gowers uniformity norm on arbitrary finite abelian groups: Fourier-analytic and ergodic approaches.Discrete Anal., pages Paper No. 11, 48, 2023

    2023

  26. [35]

    A. Leibman. Polynomial mappings of groups.Israel Journal of Mathematics, 129:29–60, 2002

    2002

  27. [36]

    Lindenstrauss

    E. Lindenstrauss. Measurable distal and topological distal systems.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems., 19(4):1063–1076, 1999

    1999

  28. [37]

    O. Shalom. Multiple ergodic averages in abelian groups and Khintchine type recur- rence.Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 375(4):2729–2761, 2022

    2022

  29. [38]

    O. Shalom. Host-Kra theory for L p∈P Fp-systems and multiple recurrence.Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems, 43(1):299–360, 2023

    2023

  30. [39]

    Szemerédi

    E. Szemerédi. On sets of integers containing nokelements in arithmetic progression. Acta. Arith., 27:199–245, 1975

    1975

  31. [40]

    N. M. Walsh. Norm convergence of nilpotent ergodic averages.Ann. of Math., 175(3):1667–1688, 2012

    2012

  32. [41]

    T. D. Wooley and T. D. Ziegler. Multiple recurrence and convergence along the primes.Amer. J. Math., 134(6):1705–1732, 2012

    2012

  33. [42]

    T. Ziegler. A non-conventional ergodic theorem for a nilsystem.Ergodic Theory and Dynamical Systems, 25 no. 4:1357–1370., 2005

    2005

  34. [43]

    T. Ziegler. Universal characteristic factors and Furstenberg averages. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 20:53–97, 2007. Department ofMathematics, Northwestern university, Ev anston, IL 60208 Email address:kra@math.northwestern.edu Department ofMathematics, BarIlanUniversity, RamatGan, 529...

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.