1 Introduction
Let
$\mathbb {N}$
be the set of nonnegative integers and let A be a subset of nonnegative integers. We use
$A^n$
to denote the Cartesian product of n sets A, that is,

Let



where
$|\cdot |$
denotes the cardinality of a finite set. We say that
$R_{A,k}(n)$
is monotonically increasing in n from a certain point on (or eventually monotone increasing) if there exists an integer
$n_{0}$
such that
$R_{A,k}(n+1) \ge R_{A,k}(n)$
for all integers
$n\ge n_0$
. We define the monotonicity of the other two representation functions
$R^{<}_{A,k}(n)$
and
$R^{\le }_{A,k}(n)$
in the same way.
We denote the counting function of the set A by

We define the lower asymptotic density of a set A of natural numbers by

and the asymptotic density by

whenever the limit exists. The generating function of a set A of natural numbers is denoted by

Obviously, if
$\mathbb {N}\setminus A$
is finite, then each of the functions
$R_{A,2}(n), R^{<}_{A,2}(n)$
and
$R^{\le }_{A,2}(n)$
is eventually monotone increasing. In [Reference Erdős, Sárközy, Sós and Alladi4, Reference Erdős, Sárközy and Sós5], Erdős et al. investigated whether there exists a set A for which
$\mathbb {N}\setminus A$
is infinite and the representation functions are monotone increasing from a certain point on. They proved the following theorems.
Theorem A. The function
$R_{A,2}(n)$
is monotonically increasing from a certain point on if and only if the sequence A contains all the integers from a certain point on, that is, there exists an integer
$n_{1}$
with

Theorem B. There exists an infinite set
$A\subseteq \mathbb {N}$
such that
$A(n) < n - cn^{1/3}$
for
$n> n_{0}$
and
$R^{<}_{A,2}(n)$
is monotone increasing from a certain point on.
Theorem C. If

then the functions
$R^{<}_{A,2}(n)$
and
$R^{\le }_{A,2}(n)$
cannot be monotonically increasing in n from a certain point on.
Theorem D. If
$A\subseteq \mathbb {N}$
is an infinite set with

then
$R^{\le }_{A,2}(n)$
cannot be monotone increasing from a certain point on.
The last theorem was proved independently by Balasubramanian [Reference Balasubramanian1]. Very little is known when
$k> 2$
. The following result was proved many years ago in [Reference Tang8] and independently in [Reference Kiss6].
Theorem E. If k is an integer with
$k> 2$
,
$A \subseteq \mathbb {N}$
and
$R_{A,k}(n)$
is monotonically increasing in n from a certain point on, then

cannot hold.
Dombi [Reference Dombi3] constructed sets A of asymptotic density
$\tfrac 12$
such that for
$k> 4$
, the function
$R_{A,k}(n)$
is monotone increasing from a certain point on. His constructions are based on the Rudin–Shapiro sets and Thue–Morse sequences. However, Dombi gave the following conjecture.
Dombi’s conjecture. If
$\mathbb {N}\setminus A$
is infinite, then
$R_{A,k}(n)$
cannot be strictly increasing.
For
$k \ge 3$
, Bell and Shallit [Reference Bell and Shallit2] recently gave a counterexample of Dombi’s conjecture by applying tools from automata theory and logic. They also proved the following result.
Theorem F. Let k be an integer with
$k\ge 3$
and let
$F\subseteq \mathbb {N}$
with
$0\notin F$
. If
$F(n) = o(n^{\alpha })$
for
$\alpha < (k-2)/k$
and
$A = \mathbb {N}\setminus F$
, then
$R_{A,k}(n)$
is eventually strictly increasing.
In this paper, we improve this result in the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1. Let k be an integer with
$k\ge 3$
. If
$A \subseteq \mathbb {N}$
satisfies

for all sufficiently large integers n, then
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n)$
is eventually strictly increasing.
In particular, for
$k = 3$
, this gives the following corollary.
Corollary 1.2. If
$A \subseteq \mathbb {N}$
satisfies
$A(n) \leqslant \sqrt {n} - 2$
for all sufficiently large integers n, then
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,3}(n)$
is eventually strictly increasing.
After we uploaded our paper to arXiv, we were informed that Mihalis Kolountzakis proved in an unpublished note that if
$A \subseteq \mathbb {N}$
satisfies
$A(n) \leqslant c\sqrt {n}$
for a sufficiently small positive constant c, then
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,3}(n)$
is eventually strictly increasing. We improve the constant factor in the following result.
Theorem 1.3. If
$A \subseteq \mathbb {N}$
satisfies
$A(n) \leqslant ({2}/{\sqrt {3}}) \sqrt {n}-2$
for all sufficiently large integers n, then
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,3}(n)$
is eventually strictly increasing.
It turns out from the next theorem that the upper bound for the counting function of A in Theorem 1.1 is tight up to a constant factor.
Theorem 1.4. Suppose that
$f(n)$
is a function satisfying
$f(n)\rightarrow \infty $
as
$n\rightarrow \infty $
. Then there is a set
$A\subseteq \mathbb {N}$
such that
$A(n)<\!\!\sqrt [k-1]{k-1}\cdot n^{{(k-2)}/{(k-1)}}+f(n)$
for all sufficiently large integers n and
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n)<R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n-1)$
for infinitely many positive integers n.
Shallit [Reference Shallit7] recently constructed a set A with positive lower asymptotic density such that the function
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,3}(n)$
is strictly increasing.
2 Proofs
The proofs of the theorems are based on the next lemma, coming from Bell and Shallit’s paper [Reference Bell and Shallit2] although not explicitly stated there.
Lemma 2.1. For any positive integers n and k with
$k\ge 3$
,

Proof. Observe that

However,

It is well known that

It follows that

By comparing the coefficient of
$x^{n}$
on both sides of this equation, Lemma 2.1 follows immediately.
Proof of Theorem 1.1.
Clearly,

By Lemma 2.1, there exist constants
$c_{1},c_{2},c_{3}, c_{4}$
only depending on k such that

Hence,
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n)-R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n-1)>0$
when n is large enough.
Lemma 2.2. For any set A of natural numbers and for any natural number n, one has
$R_{A, 3}(n) \leqslant \tfrac 34 A(n)^2+\{\tfrac 14A(n)^{2}\},$
where
$\{x\}$
denotes the fractional part of x.
Note that Lemma 2.2 is sharp: if
$A = \{0,1,\dots {} ,m\}$
, then

where
$\lfloor y\rfloor $
denotes the maximal integer not greater than y.
Proof of Lemma 2.2.
Fix a natural number n. Let
$A \cap [1, n]=\{a_1<a_2<\cdots <a_m\}$
and
$\overline {A}=\{n-a_m<n-a_{m-1}<\cdots <n-a_1\}$
. For
$i=1,2,\ldots ,m$
, we define

Clearly,

Proof of Theorem 1.3.
Applying Lemma 2.1 for
$k = 3$
,

Hence, by Lemma 2.2,

which completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem 1.4.
We may suppose that
$f(n)<\!\!\sqrt [k-1]{k-1}\cdot n^{{(k-2)}/{(k-1)}}$
. We define an infinite sequence of natural numbers
$N_{1}, N_{2}, \dots {}$
by induction. Let
$N_{1} = 100k^4$
. Assume that
$N_{1}, \dots {} ,N_{j}$
are already defined. Let
$N_{j+1}$
be an even number with
$N_{j+1}> 100k^4N_{j}^{k-1}$
and
$f(n)> (k-1)(N_{1}^{k-2} + \cdots {} + N_{j}^{k-2})$
for every
$n \ge N_{j+1}$
. We define the set A by

First, we give an upper estimation for
$A(n)$
. Let
$n\ge 100k^4$
. Then there exists an index j such that
$N_{j} \le n < N_{j+1}$
. Define l as the largest integer with
$l \le (k-1)N_{j}^{k-2}$
and
$lN_{j} \le n$
. Then,

which implies that

Next, we shall prove that there exist infinitely many positive integers n such that
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n)<R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(n-1)$
. To prove this, we divide into two cases according to the parity of k.
Suppose that k is an odd integer. For
$j=1,2,\ldots ,$
we define

Now, we show that
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(u_j) < R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(u_j-1)$
when j is large enough.
Since all the elements of A are even and
$u_j-1$
is odd, it follows that
$R_{A,k}(u_j-1)=0$
. By Lemma 2.1,

Next we shall give a bound for each term of the right-hand side of (2.1). There exists a constant
$c_5$
only depending on k such that

and

Furthermore,

where
$c_{6}, c_{7}$
and
$c_{8}$
are constants only depending on k. Moreover,

Obviously,

We see that

where
$c_{9}$
is a constant only depending on k, and

The last equality holds because if
$y_{1} + \cdots {} + y_{k} = {u_j}/{N_j}$
with
$y_{t}> (k-1)N_{j}^{k-1}$
, then

where every term is positive. Furthermore, if
$z_{1} + \cdots {} + z_{k} = 100(k-2)(k-1)^3N_{j}^{k-3}$
,
$z_{i}\in \mathbb {Z}^{+}$
, then one can create k different sums of the form
$ y_{1} + \cdots {} + y_{k} = {u_j}/{N_j}$
with
$y_{i} = z_{i}$
if
$i\neq t$
and
$y_{t} = z_{t} + (k-1)N_{j}^{k-2}$
. Therefore,

where
$c_{10}$
is a constant. In view of (2.1)–(2.6),

where
$c_{11}$
is a constant. Thus, we have
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(u_j) < R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(u_j-1)$
when j is large enough.
If k is even, then the same argument shows that
$R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(u_j+1) < R_{\mathbb {N}\setminus A,k}(u_j)$
when j is large enough.