Quick description
Suppose one is trying to estimate an expression involving a complicated function
(e.g. something like
). But, one knows or believes that
is somehow "close" (at least "on average") to a simpler quantity
. Then it can often become advantageous to add and subtract
from
, i.e. to substitute
In many cases the term involving
is the "main term", and one can take advantage of the simpler structure of
to continue estimating this portion of the expression. Meanwhile, the term
is often an "error term"; either
is already small, in which case one can hope that the total contribution of this term to the expression one wants to estimate is already small, or
exhibits some sort of cancellation which will also make the final contribution to the original expression small (e.g.◊ by the trick "use integration by parts to exploit cancellation").
For more complicated expressions (e.g. bilinear, multilinear, or nonlinear expressions) it is often useful to give the error term
its own name, e.g.
. Then
, and any multilinear expression involving one or more copies of
will split into a "main term" involving all
's, plus lots of "error terms" involving one or more
's. Often, one treats the error terms by relatively crude upper bound estimates, but works carefully to estimate the main term as accurately as possible.
Typical examples of choices of
include
-
the value
of
at a point
nearby to 
-
the average value
of
on some suitable set
; -
the conditional expectation
of
with respect to some
-algebra
. -
Some sort of regularization, discretization, or other approximation to
(e.g. one could convolve
with an approximation to the identity).
Prerequisites
Undergraduate real analysis
![]() |
Example 1
A classic "
" example: show that if a sequence of continuous functions
converges uniformly to a limit
, then
is also continuous.
To prove this, pick an
and
. The task is to show that if
is sufficiently close to
, then
.
But by hypothesis, we expect
to be close to
, and
to be close to
, for
large. Adding and subtracting these terms, and using the triangle inequality, we are led to the bound
Because of the uniform convergence, we know that for
large enough (independent of
or
- this is important!), we can ensure that
and
. Once we pick such an
, we can then use the fact that
is continuous to conclude that
for
close enough to
, and the claim follows.
Example 2
Let
for some
, and let
be a sequence of approximations to the identity (thus
, and
for all
. Show that the convolutions
converge in
to
.
(Supply proof here)
Example 3
(Calderon-Zygmund theory)
Example 4
(Roth's argument for three-term APs)
General discussion
In some cases, particularly those involving integration by parts or substitution, one wishes to use multiplying and dividing
instead of adding and subtracting. For instance, given an integral involving an expression
, one may wish to multiply and divide by
in order to set up either an integration by parts, or a substitution
.
A more advanced version of this technique is generic chaining.
Tricki
Comments
Inline comments
The following comments were made inline in the article. You can click on 'view commented text' to see precisely where they were made.
Strange elaboration
Thu, 23/04/2009 - 01:08 — JoseBrox"either
is already small, in which case one can hope that the total contribution of this term is already small" sounds a bit strange to me! :D
When I saw the title of this,
Thu, 23/04/2009 - 09:40 — gowersWhen I saw the title of this, I thought it might be an amusing article that gave a surprisingly advanced perspective on addition and subtraction, but now I see that it is doing something else. I wonder if a more specific title such as "Add and subtract something simpler" might be an improvement: I think that captures more what the article is about, and also sticks in the mind as a slogan, which is something I hope will happen a lot with the Tricki. (In general, I prefer titles in the form of commands, though I haven't always managed to come up with such titles myself.)
Later: I did in the end go ahead and change the title.
Post new comment
(Note: commenting is not possible on this snapshot.)