Sets of Cardinality 6 Are Not Sum-dominant

Abstract

Given a finite set $A\subseteq \mathbb{N}$, define the sum set $$A+A = \{a_i+a_j\mid a_i,a_j\in A\}$$ and the difference set $$A-A = \{a_i-a_j\mid a_i,a_j\in A\}.$$ The set $A$ is said to be sum-dominant if $|A+A|>|A-A|$. Hegarty used a nontrivial algorithm to find that $8$ is the smallest cardinality of a sum-dominant set. Since then, Nathanson has asked for a human-understandable proof of the result. However, due to the complexity of the interactions among numbers, it is still questionable whether such a proof can be written down in full without computers' help. In this paper, we present a computer-free proof that a sum-dominant set must have at least $7$ elements. We also answer the question raised by the author of the current paper et al about the smallest sum-dominant set of primes, in terms of its largest element. Using computers, we find that the smallest sum-dominant set of primes has $73$ as its maximum, smaller than the value found before.