Rado’s criterion over squares and higher powers

We are assuming that \sum_{i \in I} c_i = 0 for some I \neq \emptyset, and this forces s \geqslant 2. If s = 2 then we are counting monochromatic solutions to x_1 - x_2 = 0, for which we have the lower bound |S(N; R)| \geqslant |S(N; R)|^2 N^{-1}.

Let us therefore assume that s \geqslant 3. Provided that R \geqslant \log^CN we have that \nu satisfies a p = 2.995 restriction estimate with constant K = O(1). Applying Proposition 15.1 with these parameters, there exist N_0, M, c_0 >0 such that (1.7) holds, provided that \nu has Fourier decay of level M^{-1}. This can be guaranteed on employing Lemma 17.2 and ensuring that

where C = C(r, {\mathbf{c}}) is sufficiently large.

Let K denote the absolute constant implicit in Lemma 6.4 when p = 4.995. Let N_0 and \theta denote the parameters occurring in Theorem 5.5 with respect to a density of \delta^2/256, restriction constant K and homogeneity of level M. Employing Lemma 6.3, we may choose w = w({\delta}, M) sufficiently large to ensure that \nu has Fourier decay of level \theta with respect to 1_{[X]}. Setting f = \nu 1_{A_1} in Theorem 5.5 yields

Hence by (?) we obtain

This inequality completes the proof of Theorem 2.3 on noting that X \gg_{\delta, M} N^2 and \left\| \nu\right\|_\infty \ll N.

Let us assume that A \subset [N]^d has size at least \delta N^d and lacks solutions to (7.1) with y_i \in B_i, where the B_i are M-homogeneous sets. Setting A_0 := A, we iteratively apply Lemma 7.1 to obtain a sequence of sets A_0, A_1, A_2, \dots, each contained in an ambient grid [N_n]^d with

If this iteration continues until n is sufficiently large in terms of d,\delta, M, we obtain a density exceeding 1, which would be impossible. Hence for some n \ll_{d, \delta, M} 1 the inequality (7.1) is satisfied with N_n in place of N therein. Therefore

We proceed by a variant of Varnavides averaging [varnavides]. For each q \leqslant N/M the definition of homogeneity gives

Summing over q then yields

Interchanging the order of summation, we see that

The result follows on noting that

Let A = \{ x \in [N]: f(x) \geqslant {\delta}/2 \}. As \|f\|_1 \geqslant {\delta} N and f \leqslant 1, we have |A| \geqslant {\delta} N / 2. Since f \geqslant {\delta} 1_A / 2, we deduce that

and an application of Theorem 2.4 completes the proof.

Since \nu has Fourier decay of level \theta, we may apply the dense model lemma recorded in [FourVariants, Theorem 5.1], rescaling as appropriate, to conclude the existence of g: {\mathbb Z} \to {\mathbb C} satisfying 0 \leqslant g \leqslant 1_{[N]} and

Provided that \theta \leqslant \exp(-C\delta^{-1}) with C a large positive constant, we can compare Fourier coefficients at 0 to deduce that \left\| g\right\|_1 \gg \delta N. Applying Lemma 5.2 then gives

Let h denote the indicator function of the set \{x^2 : x \in B\cap [\sqrt{N}]\}. Then for functions h_1, h_2 : [N] \to \mathbb{C} we have

The function h is majorised by the indicator function of the set

which, by Lemma B.3, satisfies a 4.995-restriction estimate with constant O(1).

The function g is majorised by 1_{[N]}, which satisfies a 4.995-restriction estimate with constant O(1). Employing the generalised von Neumann lemma (Lemma C.3), together with (Proof) and (?), we deduce that

Combining this with (Proof) and choosing \theta \leqslant {\theta}_0({\delta}, M, K) completes the proof.

For N sufficiently large in terms of \delta and w the estimate (?) holds so, with Z > 0 a parameter, we have

Therefore

Choosing Z = \tfrac{\delta N}{16\zeta W} gives

An application of (?) completes the proof.

It suffices to prove the result for d = 1, since

If y \in \left[ \sqrt{N/2} \right] then y^2 \in [N/2], so for y in this interval we have

Summing over y lying in the intersection of this interval with a homogeneous set B, we apply Lemma 4.2 to deduce that

The result follows provided that N is sufficiently large.

We prove the result for i = 1, the other case being similar. For {\alpha} = ({\alpha}_1, \ldots, {\alpha}_d) \in {\mathbb T}^d, define

By orthogonality and Hölder’s inequality, we have

The result now follows on incorporating Parseval’s identity

together with the estimate

The latter mean value estimate follows from orthogonality and Theorem B.1.

By a weak form of a result of Heilbronn [heilbronn], there are q_1, \dots, q_d \leqslant Q such that

We partition \mathbb{Z}^d into congruence classes of the form

then partition each copy of \mathbb{Z} appearing in this product into a union of intervals of the form 2nP + (-P,P] with n \in \mathbb{Z}. This yields a partition of \mathbb{Z}^d into sets R of the form (7.4).

If x, x' lie in the same R then x - x' = (q_1^2 y_1, \dots, q_d^2 y_d) for some y \in (-P, P]^d, and so

It then follows from the triangle inequality that

For q, n \in \mathbb{Z}^d write q^{\otimes 2} \otimes n for the tuple (q_1^2 n_1, \dots, q_d^2n_d) and write q^{\otimes2} \otimes [N]^d for the set

Let N_0 = N_0(\delta/2^{1+d}, d, M) be the quantity given by Theorem 2.5. Suppose that N \geqslant N_0 and write Q := \left\lfloor \sqrt{N/N_0} \right\rfloor. Averaging, we have

By the definition of Q, there are at most (2N)^d choices for z for which there exists q \in [Q]^d such that

Hence there are at least \tfrac{1}{2} \delta (NQ)^{d} choices for (z, q) \in \mathbb{Z}^d \times \mathbb{N}^d for which

Call each such choice of (z, q) a good tuple. Define

If (z,q) is good then |A_{z, q}| \geqslant 2^{-1-d} \delta N_0^d. Applying Theorem 2.5 we see that there exist x, x' \in A_{z, q} satisfying (2.5) with the y_i restricted to the M-homogeneous sets

Translating and dilating, we deduce that each set A \cap \left( z + q^{\otimes2} \otimes [N_0]^d \right)) satisfying (Proof) contains a solution to (2.5) with y_i \in B_i.

For fixed (x,y) \in \mathbb{Z}^d \times \mathbb{N}^d define R(x,y) to be the quantity

To see this, observe that if \left\{x,\ x+y^{\otimes 2}\right\} \subset z + q^{\otimes 2} \otimes [N_0]^{d} then for each i there exists m_i \in [N_0] such that y_i^{2} = q_i^2 m_i. As there are at most N_0 choices for m_i for fixed y_i, there are at most N_0^d choices for q. Once one has fixed this choice of q we have

so there are at most N_0^d choices of z for fixed x. This establishes the claim.

Invoking the claim gives

Next we interchange the order of summation to find that

It follows that

The result follows since N_0 \ll_{\delta, d, M} 1.

We prove a more general result for sums of d squares. First note that, by translation, Proposition 8.1 remains valid for dense subsets of [-N, N]^d. Given A \subset [N] of density at least \delta, define

For every element n of [-N, N] there are at least N pairs (n_1, n_2) \in [-N, N]^2 such that n = n_1 + n_2. An induction then shows that for each n \in [-N, N] we have

Consequently

Applying Proposition 8.1 with B_i := B for all i, we deduce that there are at least c_0 N^{3d/2} tuples (x, y) \in A' \times B^d such that x + (y_1^2, \dots, y_d^2) \in A'. For each such tuple the sum x = x_1 + \dots +x_d is an element of the one-dimensional set A, as is x + y_1^2 + \dots + y_d^2. As each element of A has at most (2N+1)^{d-1} representations of the form x_1 + \dots + x_d, it follows that the number of solutions to

is at least

as required.

Let K := \prod_i k_i and consider the finite set

By the Bergelson–Leibman theorem, provided that N \gg_{M, K, F, \delta} 1, there exist x \in \mathbb{Z}^d and t \in \mathbb{N} such that

The result follows if the progression t^K \cdot [M^K] contains an element of the form y_i^{k_i} for some y_i \in B_i.

Let z_i := t^{K/k_i}. Then

Since each B_i is M-homogeneous, it intersects the set z_i \cdot [M].

Increasing the size of F if necessary, we may assume that F contains two elements which differ in the ith coordinate for each i \in [d]. Let N_0 be the quantity given by Corollary 9.1 with respect to the density \delta/ 2^{d+1}. Suppose that

and define the following sets of smooths:

Interchanging the order of summation, we have

Notice that there are at most (2N)^{d} choices for z for which there exists q \in S_1\times \dots \times S_d such that

Hence there are at least \tfrac{1}{2} \delta N^{d}|S_1|\dotsm |S_d| choices for (z,q) \in \mathbb{Z}^{d}\times \prod_i S_i for which

Call such a choice of (z,q) a good tuple.
Claim 1. For each good tuple (z,q) the set A \cap \left( z + q^{\otimes k} \otimes [N_0]^{d} \right) contains a configuration of the form x+y^{\otimes k}\otimes F for some x \in {\mathbb Z}^d and some y \in B^d.

To see this, define

Then |A_{z, q}| \geqslant 2^{-d-1} \delta N_0^{d}. Let

Using the fact that B is N^\eta-smoothly M-homogeneous, together with (Proof), one can check that each B_i is M-homogeneous (not just smoothly homogeneous).

Invoking Corollary 9.1, we see that there exist x \in \mathbb{Z}^{d} and y \in B_1\times \dots \times B_d such that

Translating and dilating, we deduce that A \cap \left( z + q^{\otimes k} \otimes [N_0]^{d} \right) contains a configuration of the form x'+(q\otimes y)^{\otimes k}\otimes F. By definition of the B_i and the fact that F is non-constant in each coordinate, we see that y\in [N_0]^d and thus each coordinate of q\otimes y lies in B. This establishes Claim 1.

For fixed (x,y) \in \mathbb{Z}^d \times \mathbb{N}^d let G(x,y) denote the number of tuples (z,q) \in \mathbb{Z}^d \times \mathbb{N}^d satisfying

Define

Then interchanging the order of summation shows that the sum \sum_{(x,y) \in \mathcal{A}}G(x,y) is at least

Applying Lemma A.2 (for N sufficiently large) we deduce that

Since the theorem asserts a lower bound on the size of \mathcal{A}, the result is proved provided we have the following upper bound on G(x,y).
Claim 2. Suppose that F contains two elements which differ in the ith coordinate for each i \in [d]. Then G(x,y) \leqslant N_0^{2d}.

To see this, first note that if x+y^{\otimes k}\otimes F \subset z + q^{\otimes k} \otimes [N_0]^{d} then, since F contains two elements differing in their ith coordinate, there exist integers f_i < f_i' such that

Subtracting these elements, we deduce that there exists n_i \in [N_0] for which

As there are at most N_0 choices for n_i, and y_i is fixed, there are at most N_0^d choices for q. Once one has fixed this choice of q, for any f \in F we have

so there are at most N_0^d choices for z. In summary G(x,y) \leqslant N_0^{2d}, which establishes Claim 2.

Let A = \{ x \in [N]: f(x) \geqslant {\delta}/2 \}. As \|f\|_1 \geqslant {\delta} N, we must necessarily have |A| \geqslant {\delta} N / 2. Since f \geqslant {\delta} 1_A / 2, we deduce that

and an application of Theorem 10.1 completes the proof.

By replacing B with B \cap S(N^{1/k}; N^\eta), we may freely suppose that B \subset S(N^{1/k}; N^\eta). Deploying the dense model lemma [FourVariants, Theorem 5.1], there exists g: {\mathbb Z} \to {\mathbb C} satisfying 0 \leqslant g \leqslant 1_{[N]} and

Provided that \theta \leqslant \exp(-C\delta^{-1}) with C a large positive constant, we can compare Fourier coefficients at 0 to deduce that \left\| g\right\|_1 \gg \delta N. Lemma 11.3 then gives

Let h denote the indicator function of the set \{x^k : x \in B \}. Then for functions h_1, \dots, h_s : [N] \to [0,\infty) we have

The function h is majorised by the indicator function of the set

which, by Lemma B.3, satisfies an (s+t-10^{-8})-restriction estimate with constant O_\eta(1).

Observe that g is majorised by 1_{[N]}, which also satisfies an (s+t-10^{-8})-restriction estimate with constant O(1). The generalised von Neumann theorem (Lemma C.3), together with (Proof) and (?), yields

Pairing this with (Proof), and choosing \theta \leqslant {\theta}_0({\delta}, M, K), completes the proof.

We employ Theorem 11.4 with majorant \nu given by (?), homogeneous set B_1 \subset S(X^{1/k}; X^\eta) given by (?), and function f = \nu 1_{A_1} (recall (?)). It is first necessary to check that these choices satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 11.4.

By Lemma 12.5, the function \nu satisfies a (s+t-10^{-8})-restriction estimate with constant K = O_{\eta, k}(1). Let c_{\eta,k} denote the implied constant in (12.3) and set \tilde{\delta} := c_{\eta,k} \delta^k. Theorem 11.4 guarantees the existence of a positive constant

such that provided \nu has Fourier decay of level \theta and \left\| f\right\|_1 \geqslant \tilde\delta \left\| \nu\right\|_1 we may conclude that (11.4) holds. Taking

guarantees sufficient Fourier decay, by Lemma 12.4. We note that this choice of w satisfies w \ll_{\eta, \delta, M} 1, as can be checked by unravelling the dependencies in (?). We obtain \left\| f\right\|_1 \geqslant \tilde\delta \left\| \nu\right\|_1 via Lemma 12.3. This requires us to take N sufficiently large in terms of k, \eta, w and \delta. By our choice of w, this is ensured if N is sufficiently large in terms of \eta, \delta and M (as we may assume).

Applying Theorem 11.4 and (12.2) yields

By (?) and the bound \|\nu\|_\infty \ll_{\eta,{\delta},M} N^{k-1}, we finally have

Throughout the following argument, all implied constants in our asymptotic notation are permitted to depend on k, \eta, w. Bear in mind that \eta \leqslant \eta_k is small.

From the definition

We obtain from the start of the proof of [Vau1989, Lemma 5.4] the fact that if m \leqslant P then

Now partial summation and Lemma A.2 yield

so, by the mean value theorem and the boundedness of \rho', it remains to show that

Integration by parts gives

and the estimate now follows from the boundedness of \rho, \rho'.

We employ (?) in conjunction with (?) to conclude that

Choosing

furnishes

Using Lemma A.2 and recalling (?) we obtain

Taking N sufficiently large, an application of (12.2) completes the proof.

By the pigeonhole principle, for each x \in [N] there exists i \in [r] such that g_i(x) \geqslant 1/r. Let i be minimal with this property, and assign x the colour i. By the result of Frankl, Graham and Rödl, for some such choice of i there are at least c'_0 N^{s-1} tuples \mathbf{x} where each coordinate receives the colour i and such that \mathbf{c} \cdot \mathbf{x} = 0. It follows that

It follows from Rankin’s trick that the number of integers in [N] divisible by a w-smooth number exceeding M is at most

The result follows on noting that 1 + \frac{1}{p^{1/2} -1 } \leqslant 10.

For \zeta, \xi \in {\mathbb N} and T \subseteq \mathbb{Z}, write

Let M = 4({\delta} \eta)^{-2} 10^{2w}, so that N10^w M^{-1/2} = \frac {\delta} 2 \eta N \leqslant \frac {\delta} 2 |S|. By the remarks preceding this lemma, together with Lemma A.3, we have

Therefore

and the pigeonhole principle completes the proof.

By Lemma A.2, we have

The estimate now follows from the mean value theorem, since \rho' is bounded and

The quadratic statement is a direct consequence of [Bou1989, Eq. (4.1)]. Assuming for the time being that k \geqslant 4, write 2t for the smallest even integer greater than or equal to the integer s_0(k) appearing in Theorem B.1. Note that modifying s_0(k) by adding a constant does not affect the veracity of (1.3), and so we will prove the statement for s\geqslant s_0(k)+2 in this case.

By orthogonality, the triangle inequality and Theorem B.1, we have

The trivial estimate \Bigl|\sum_{x \in S(N; N^\eta)} f(x) e({\alpha} x^k) \Bigr| \leqslant N completes the proof when k \geqslant 4.

For k = 3 we require a more elaborate argument to prove that the precise value of s_0(3) = 8 is admissible. In particular, our approach relies on a ‘subconvex’ mean value estimate of Wooley [Woo1995]. Define \phi: {\mathbb Z} \to {\mathbb C} by \phi(n) = f(x) if n = x^3 for some x \in S(N; N^\eta), and zero otherwise. Our objective is to show that

In the present appendix, we let {\delta} denote a parameter in the range

and consider the large spectra

By the dyadic pigeonholing argument in [densesquares, § 6], it suffices to prove that

By orthogonality, Wooley’s estimate [Woo1995, Theorem 1.2] implies that

Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that

Indeed, if {\delta} \leqslant N^{10^{-5} -\frac18} then

Let {\theta}_1, {\theta}_2, \ldots, {\theta}_R be N^{-3}-separated points in \mathcal{R}_{\delta}. As 8-10^{-7}\geqslant 6.3 it suffices to show that

Let \mu(n) = 1 if n = x^3 for some x \in [N], and zero otherwise. For some a_n \in {\mathbb C} with |a_n| \leqslant 1, we then have \phi(n) = a_n \mu(n); this ‘throws away’ smoothness. With {\gamma} = 3.1, the calculation in [densesquares, § 6] yields

Consider the value of {\theta} = {\theta}_r - {\theta}'_r in the right-hand side of (?). Define a set of ‘minor arcs’

In light of (?), the contribution from {\theta} \in {\mathfrak n} to the right-hand side of (?) is o({\delta}^{2{\gamma}} N^{\gamma} R^2), and so

Next, suppose {\theta} \in {\mathbb T} \setminus {\mathfrak n}, and fix a small \varepsilon > 0. By [wps, Lemma 2.3], there exist relatively prime q \in {\mathbb N} and a \in {\mathbb Z} such that

and

With C a large positive constant, put Q= C+{\delta}^{-9}. The contribution to the right-hand side of (?) from denominators q > Q is O(R^2 N^{\gamma} Q^{{\gamma}(\varepsilon - \frac13)}), which is negligible compared to the left-hand side.

Hence

where

The inequality (?) is a cubic version of [Bou1989, Eq. (4.16)]. As {\gamma}(\varepsilon - \frac13) > 1, Bourgain’s argument carries through, and yields (?).

Let s_0(k) be as in Lemma B.3. By the union bound, it suffices to prove an estimate of the required shape for the number of solutions with x_{s-1} = x_s. In this case we are estimating

It may be that c_{s-1} + c_s = 0, so we estimate the contribution from the x_{s-1} variable trivially. Using orthogonality and Hölder’s inequality, it therefore suffices to prove that

Let p = s_0(k) - 10^{-8}. When s-2 \geqslant p, the estimate (Proof) follows from Lemma B.3 and the trivial estimate \Bigl| \sum_{x \in S(N;N^\eta)} e(\alpha x^k) \Bigr| \leqslant N. When s-2 < p, we apply Hölder’s inequality and Lemma B.3 to obtain

It remains to check that s-2 - \frac{k(s-2)}{p} < s- 1 - k, or equivalently that 2 + p(1-\tfrac{1}{k}) < s. Since s > p, this follows if p/k \geqslant 2, which we can certainly ensure without affecting the bound (1.3).

Let |\phi| \leqslant \nu_1 + \nu_2. Then \phi = \psi\times \theta, where \psi : [N] \to [0, \infty) satisfies \psi \leqslant \nu_1 + \nu_2 and \theta : [N] \to \mathbb{C} satisfies |\theta| \leqslant 1. Put \psi_1 := \min\left\{\psi, \nu_1\right\} and \psi_2 := \psi - \psi_1. On setting \phi_i := \psi_i \theta, we have \phi = \phi_1 + \phi_2 with |\phi_i| \leqslant \nu_i. Applying the triangle inequality and restriction estimates for each \nu_i gives

Positivity gives that \left\| \nu_1\right\|_1 + \left\| \nu_2\right\|_1 = \left\| \nu_1 + \nu_2\right\|_1, and the result then follows on taking pth powers.

We prove the upper bound with i =1, the remaining cases following by re-labelling indices. Let p = s - \delta. By orthogonality and Hölder’s inequality, we have

Inequality (C.2) then follows from our p-restriction assumption.

Let p = s - \delta. By Lemma C.1, the weight

satisfies a p-restriction estimate with constant K and majorises the difference

Observing that this weight has L^1 norm equal to two, the lemma follows on applying the telescoping identity

together with Lemma C.2.

The start of the proof of [Vau1989, Lemma 5.4] yields

valid for r \in [q] and m \leqslant P. Therefore

In particular, if {\alpha}(x) equals e \Bigl( \frac a q \cdot \frac{ x^k - \xi^k }{kW} \Bigr) when x \equiv \xi {\,\,\mathrm{mod}\,\,W} is R-smooth and 0 otherwise, then

By partial summation and the boundedness of \rho', we also have

and so

Next, observe that with {\beta} = {\alpha} - a/q we have |{\beta}| = q^{-1} \|q {\alpha} \| and

where

and

Partial summation gives

and with the boundedness of \rho' it also implies that

Meanwhile, Euler–Maclaurin summation [vaughan97, Eq. (4.8)] yields

Substituting these estimates into (?) concludes the proof.

Plainly S_{1,0} = 1, so let q \geqslant 2, and let a \in {\mathbb Z} with (q,a) = 1. The binomial expansion gives

and we note that \frac{{k \choose \ell} W^{\ell - 1}}k \in {\mathbb Z} (1 \leqslant \ell \leqslant k). Write q = uv, where u is w-smooth and (v,W) = 1. Since (u,v) = 1, a standard calculation reveals that

where a_1 = av^{-1} \in ({\mathbb Z} / u {\mathbb Z})^\times and a_2 = au^{-1} \in ({\mathbb Z} / v {\mathbb Z})^\times (see [vaughan97, Lemma 2.10]).

Put u = hu', where h = (u, W/k). Representing r{\,\,\mathrm{mod}\,\,q} as r = r_1 + u' r_2, where 0 \leqslant r_1 < u' and 0 \leqslant r_2 < h, gives

As h divides W/k, the inner sum is

which vanishes unless h \mid a_1 \xi^{k-1}. As (h,a_1) = (h,\xi) = 1, and as

we conclude that

Moreover, note that if 2 \leqslant q \leqslant w then u =q and v = 1. Now (Proof) and (?) complete the proof of (D.2).

Next we prove (D.2). By (Proof) and (?), we may assume u =1. Consider

As (v,W) = 1, we can change variables by t = \xi W^{-1} + r \in {\mathbb Z} / v {\mathbb Z}, which gives

Since \Bigl( v, a_2 \frac{W^{k-1}}k \Bigr) = 1, we may apply [vaughan97, Theorem 4.2], which gives

By (Proof) and (?), we now have S_{q,a} \ll q^{1-1/k}.

By partial summation and (?), it suffices to show that if \sqrt{P} \leqslant m \leqslant P then

To show this, we work through the proof of [VW1991, Lemma 7.2]; the inner sum of Eq. (7.4) therein becomes

where

is an interval of length at most V/p and u_1,u_2,p are the outer summation variables in [VW1991, Eq. (7.4)]. With reference to that proof, we have

and

where

\gcd(a',b',q') = 1 and

Continuing to follow the proof of [VW1991, Lemma 7.2], we now apply [Bak1986, Lemma 4.4] and [vaughan97, Theorems 7.1 and 7.3] in lieu of the more specific [vaughan97, Lemma 2.8 and Theorems 4.1 and 4.2]. One can check that

As |I| \leqslant V/p, this condition enables us to apply [Bak1986, Lemma 4.4], giving

The error term RU^2 q^{\frac12+\varepsilon} in [VW1991, Eq. (7.5)] is enlarged to RU^2 q^{1- \frac1k+ \varepsilon }, and the effect of applying [vaughan97, Theorems 7.1 and 7.3] is to increase the quantity S_3 appearing therein by a multiplicative factor of O_{\varepsilon,k,W}(q^{\varepsilon/8}).

The remainder of the proof of [VW1991, Lemma 7.2] carries through in the present context, mutatis mutandis. The eventual outcome of the changes above is to increase the term q^{1/4} P (R/M)^{1/2} to q^{\frac12 - \frac1{2k}} P (R/M)^{1/2}, and we obtain the asserted bound.

Again we apply partial summation and (?), leaving us to show that if P^{0.99} \leqslant m \leqslant P then

This time we follow the proof of [VW1991, Lemma 8.5]. Writing {\beta} = {\alpha} - a/q, this initially formats our smooth Weyl sum as

where

The calculation by Vaughan and Wooley in the proof of [VW1991, Lemma 8.5] ensures that \Psi(Q,R;d,y,{\gamma}) is, up to a small additive error, independent of y. As m \leqslant P and kW \ll_{k,W}1, the outcome of this calculation is unaffected, and we obtain

where

Our final task is to show that if d \mid kWq then

One may readily verify the usual multiplicativity property: if (Q_1, Q_2) = 1 then

see [Hua, Lemma 8.1]. Next we analyse

when p is prime and p^i \| d. If p > w then p^i \mid tkq, so

using [VW1991, Lemma 8.4]. Meanwhile, if p \leqslant w then we use the identity

where

Since p \leqslant w, we have

so we may use [vaughan97, Eq. (7.9)] to infer that

In both cases we have

and inputting this into (?) reveals that

Apply this with A = a (kWq/d)^{k-1}. With this choice of A, we have

Letting p^i \| d and p^j \| kWq gives

and so

Let {\alpha} \in {\mathfrak m}. If \frac {\alpha} {kW} \in {\mathfrak m}_1, where {\mathfrak m}_1 is as in Lemma D.4 with {\delta} = (4k)^{-1}, then Lemma D.4 applies and is more than sufficient (recall (?)). We may therefore assume that \frac {\alpha} {kW} \notin {\mathfrak m}_1, and then deduce the existence of relatively prime integers q > 0 and a for which q + P^k |q {\alpha} - a| \ll P^{3/4}. If the ‘natural height’ q + P^k |q {\alpha} - a| exceeds (\log P)^{9k}, then an application of Lemma D.6 with M \asymp RP^{3/4} suffices. So we may suppose instead that q + P^k |q {\alpha} - a| \leqslant (\log P)^{9k}. As {\alpha} \notin {\mathfrak M}, we must also have

and now Lemma D.7 delivers the sought inequality.

Rogovskaya [Rogovskaya] showed that the system

has \frac{18}{\pi^2} P^3 \log P + O(P^3) solutions ({\mathbf x}, {\mathbf{y}}) \in [P]^6. By orthogonality, one can deduce from this that

As t \geqslant 6, the lemma now follows from orthogonality, Hölder’s inequality, and the trivial bound \sum_{|x| \leqslant P} e({\alpha}_1 x + {\alpha}_2 x^2) \ll P.

Let

and put

Now {\mathcal N}_1 is greater than or equal to the number of integer solutions

to

with c_1 y_1 + \cdots + c_{t-1} y_{t-1} \equiv 0 \mod c_t. By considering only multiples of c_t, we find that {\mathcal N}_1 is greater than or equal to the number of integer solutions {\mathbf x} \in [-P/C^2,P/C^2]^t to

For the sake of brevity, we appeal to Birch’s very general theorem [Birch, Theorem 1]. The Birch singular locus is the set {\mathcal S} of {\mathbf x} \in {\mathbb C}^t at which the gradient of Q_1 vanishes identically. (In this instance, the Birch singular locus coincides with the usual singular locus.) We compute that

and so

where y_t := -c_t^{-1} (c_1y_1 + \cdots + c_{t-1}y_{t-1}). Therefore

and in particular \dim {\mathcal S} = 1.

As t - \dim {\mathcal S} > 4, Birch’s theorem [Birch, Theorem 1] gives

for some constant {\delta} > 0, where {\mathfrak S} and {\mathfrak J} are respectively the singular series and singular integral arising from the circle method analysis. Birch notes in [Birch, § 7] that {\mathfrak S} is positive as long as Q_1 has a non-singular p-adic zero for each prime p, and that {\mathfrak J} is positive as long as Q_1 has a real zero outside of {\mathcal S}_1. Note that Q has a zero {\mathbf x}^* \in {\mathbb Z}^{t-1} with pairwise distinct coordinates; this follows from [Keil, Theorem 1.1], or from a circle method analysis. Now ({\mathbf x}^*,0) is a real zero of Q_1 outside of {\mathcal S}_1, and is also a non-singular p-adic zero for each p. Hence {\mathfrak S} {\mathfrak J} > 0, and by (?) the proof is now complete.