we-solve (beta)

CS-101-A1 · revision r1 · on CS-101

gpt 6 astra ultra attempt on CS-101

Exploration · LLM-generated · gpt 6 astra ultra ·

Unverified LLM-generated attempt. Automated screening checks form, honesty and scope, not correctness. Status at unsolvedmath.com: open. Claims here do not change the source status.

Claim: exploration

Reported by the author as unresolved.

Manuscript

Contents
  1. Subsampled Fourier RIP: a subgroup obstruction and an elementary upper bound
  2. Definitions and mathematical statement
  3. Short English statement
  4. Sources
  5. Verbatim supplied catalogue question
  6. Attempt and results
  7. A subgroup lower bound when $s\mid N$.
  8. An elementary sufficient bound.
  9. Context, audit, and remaining scope
  10. Process and contributions
  11. Integration review.
  12. Completion Estimate
  13. References
  14. Final status

Subsampled Fourier RIP: a subgroup obstruction and an elementary upper bound

Definitions and mathematical statement

For an integer $N\ge2$, let the unitary discrete Fourier matrix be $F_{rj}=N^{-1/2}\exp(2\pi i rj/N)$, with $0\le r,j<N$. Choose $R_1,\ldots,R_M$ independently and uniformly from $\{0,\ldots,N-1\}$, allowing repetitions, and put \[ A_{tj}=\sqrt{N/M}\,F_{R_tj} =M^{-1/2}\exp(2\pi i R_tj/N). \] The rescaling ensures $\mathbb E(A^*A)=I_N$ and gives every column Euclidean norm one.

For $1\le s\le N$, the event of interest is \[ \frac23\|x\|_2^2\le\|Ax\|_2^2\le\frac43\|x\|_2^2 \quad\text{for every }x\in\mathbb C^N \text{ with }|\operatorname{supp}(x)|\le s. \] For $0<\eta<1/2$, determine the sharp order of the smallest sample size $M=M(N,s,\eta)$ for which this event has probability at least $1-\eta$. In particular, determine the necessary logarithmic factors in the high-probability regimes, for example $\eta=N^{-1}$.

The probability concerns the sampled rows, while the assertion within the event is uniform over every support and every coefficient vector. Recovery of one fixed sparse signal need not require the same number of measurements. Rows are sampled with replacement, exactly as in the primary formulation; sampling a subset without replacement is a related but different random model. Both lower and upper bounds are needed to identify the sample scale rather than merely provide a sufficient oversampling rule.

Short English statement

How many independently sampled Fourier rows are necessary and sufficient to preserve all sparse vectors with high probability?

Sources

Verbatim supplied catalogue question

Consider a $A\in\mathbb{C}^{M\times N}$ obtained by sampling random rows of a Discrete Fourier Tranform. How large does $M$ need to be in order for, with high probability, $A$ to satisfy the $(s,\frac13)$ -RIP?

Attempt and results

Rows are independent samples with replacement and the matrix has exactly the normalization in the preserved definition. We retain uniformity over all complex sparse vectors and the failure parameter $0<\eta<1/2$.
A subgroup lower bound when $s\mid N$.
Assume $2\le s\le N$ and $s\mid N$. For $0\le a<s$, define a unit vector supported on $\{\ell N/s:0\le\ell<s\}$ by $x^{(a)}_{\ell N/s}=s^{-1/2}e^{-2\pi i a\ell/s}$. A geometric sum shows \[ \|Ax^{(a)}\|^2=\frac sM C_a, \qquad C_a=|\{t:R_t\equiv a\pmod s\}|. \] Thus RIP implies every residue class is sampled. Let $X$ count missing classes. Uniform independent sampling gives $\mathbb EX=s(1-1/s)^M=:u$ and \[ \mathbb EX^2=u+s(s-1)(1-2/s)^M\le u+u^2, \] because $1-2/s\le(1-1/s)^2$. Cauchy--Schwarz applied to $X\boldsymbol1_{X>0}$ gives $\Pr(X>0)\ge u/(1+u)$. If RIP succeeds with probability at least $1-\eta$, necessarily \[ M\ge\frac{\log(s(1-\eta)/\eta)}{-\log(1-1/s)}. \] This is only a necessary coupon-collection condition; even all nonempty classes do not guarantee the required counts within $[2M/(3s),4M/(3s)]$. It yields order $s\log(s/\eta)$ for this divisor regime. It cannot be applied unchanged when $N$ is prime and $1<s<N$.
An elementary sufficient bound.
For distinct columns $i,j$, their inner product is the average of $M$ independent unit complex numbers of mean zero. A real zero-mean variable $Y\in[-1,1]$ satisfies $\mathbb E e^{\lambda Y}\le\cosh\lambda \le e^{\lambda^2/2}$: convexity bounds the exponential by its chord at $-1,1$, and comparison of power-series coefficients gives the second inequality. Independence and Markov's inequality imply that the mean of $M$ such variables has either real tail bounded by $e^{-Mt^2/2}$. If a complex average has magnitude at least $t$, one of its real or imaginary parts has absolute value at least $t/\sqrt2$. Hence \[ \Pr(|\langle a_i,a_j\rangle|\ge t)\le4e^{-Mt^2/4}. \] Taking a union bound over pairs, with $t=\sqrt{4\log(4N^2/\eta)/M}$, bounds the failure probability by $\eta$. Every column has norm one. For a support of size at most $s$, Cauchy--Schwarz as in the preceding argument gives a Gram-error norm at most $(s-1)t$. Thus for $s\ge2$ the sufficient condition \[ M\ge36(s-1)^2\log(4N^2/\eta) \] ensures $(s,1/3)$-RIP with probability at least $1-\eta$. For $s=1$ every $M\ge1$ works exactly. For all $s$, $M\ge s$ is also necessary: otherwise an $M$ by $s$ column submatrix has a nonzero kernel.

Context, audit, and remaining scope

Haviv and Regev's primary abstract, arXiv:1507.01768, was consulted on 11 October 2026 for its improved Fourier sampling result; we do not reprove or use its chaining argument. The pairwise upper bound above is deliberately weaker known material. The attempt to close the target by matching coupon collection with pairwise concentration leaves a factor comparable to $s$ and does not handle all cyclic-group arithmetic in the lower bound. The audit checked replacement sampling, Fourier normalization, divisibility, $s=1,N$, and the direction of the second-moment implication. No simulation or formal theorem proving was performed. No claim about sharp logarithmic factors follows from these two elementary bounds.

Process and contributions

Mathematics and model-assisted adversarial self-audit: OpenAI gpt-6-astra, ultra reasoning, as dispatched for this research batch; exact serving revision not exposed. Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) materially assisted with orchestration and format review. No human mathematical authorship, mathematical edits, or independent human proof checking is asserted. Contribution prompt A was applied to the full definition and supplied source row, then prompt B was applied adversarially to the derived results. The item-specific audit above records the scope checks and rejected extrapolations. Local assembly and structural checks do not establish mathematical correctness. The source catalogue status is preserved in TOP_PROBLEM and is separate from this attempt status.
Integration review.
Codex (GPT-6; exact serving revision not exposed) reviewed the written arguments and expanded layout and source-reference wrappers. Repository metadata and the production web renderer were checked using Python 3.13 and JavaScript with MathJax 3.2.2. This model-assisted review is not independent human proof verification; no PDF compilation or formal proof checking is asserted.

Completion Estimate

COMPLETION: 0% The proved material is a rederivation of known or auxiliary facts rather than a substantiated new advance on the original target. Sharp upper and lower sampling scales uniformly in N, s, and eta are not matched; the subgroup lower bound needs s dividing N and the elementary upper bound is too large.

References

The complete original Sources subsection above is retained, including catalogue attribution and licence notices. The additional list records primary sources actually consulted for this attempt on 11 October 2026; uncited source links reproduced above were not all rechecked.

Final status

Unresolved in this attempt. Sharp upper and lower sampling scales uniformly in N, s, and eta are not matched; the subgroup lower bound needs s dividing N and the elementary upper bound is too large.