## New nonexistence results on ( m,n )-generalized bent functions

Ka Hin Leung ∗ Department of Mathematics National University of Singapore Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260 Republic of Singapore

## Qi Wang

Department of Computer Science and Engineering Southern University of Science and Technology Shenzhen, Guangdong 518055, China

## Abstract

In this paper, we present some new nonexistence results on ( m,n )-generalized bent functions, which improved recent results. More precisely, we derive new nonexistence results for general n and m odd or m ≡ 2 (mod 4), and further explicitly prove nonexistence of ( m, 3)-generalized bent functions for all integers m odd or m ≡ 2 (mod 4). The main tools we utilized are certain exponents of minimal vanishing sums from applying characters to group ring equations that characterize ( m,n )-generalized bent functions.

Keywords: Exponent, generalized bent function, minimal relation, nonexistence, vanishing sum

∗ Research is supported by grant R-146-000-158-112, Ministry of Education, Singapore

## 1 Introduction

Let m ≥ 2, n be positive integers, and ζ m = e 2 π √ -1 m be a primitive complex m -th root of unity. A function f : Z n 2 → Z m is called an ( m,n ) -generalized bent function (GBF) if

$$| F ( y ) | ^ { 2 } = 2 ^ { n }$$

for all y ∈ Z n 2 , where F y ( ) is defined as

$$F ( y ) \coloneqq & \sum _ { x \in \mathbb { Z } _ { 2 } ^ { n } } \zeta _ { m } ^ { f ( x ) } ( - 1 ) ^ { y \cdot x }, \\ \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \dots \end{$$

and y · x denotes the usual inner product. In particular, when m = 2, the generalized bent functions defined above are simply boolean bent functions introduced by Rothaus [9], whereas the function F : Z n 2 → R in fact becomes the Fourier transform of the boolean function f . In 1985, Kumar, Scholtz, and Welch [3] generalized the notion of boolean bent function by considering bent functions from Z n m to Z m . For recent nonexistence results on such generalized bend functions, see Leung and Schmidt [6]. Schmidt [11] investigated generalized bent functions from Z n 2 to Z m for their applications in CDMA communications. For the boolean case, it is well known that bent function exists if and only if n is even, and many constructions were reported (for a survey see [1]). In the literature, there exist constructions of generalized bent function from Z n 2 to Z m for m = 4 8 2 , , k (for example, see [11, 10, 12, 13]). Very recently, Liu, Feng and Feng [7] presented several nonexistence results on generalized bent functions from Z n 2 to Z m . In this paper, we continue to investigate the nonexistence of such generalized bent functions, and present more new nonexistence results. If m and n are both even or m is divisible by 4, then there exists an ( m,n )-generalized bent function [7]. Therefore, we restrict attention to the following two cases:

- (i) m is odd;
- (ii) n is odd and m ≡ 2 (mod 4).

In the following, we always assume that m is odd or m = 2 m ′ with m ′ odd.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2, we introduce some basic tools and auxiliary results. In Section 3, we give several new nonexistence results of ( m,n )-generalized bent functions, which improve the recent results in [7]. Furthermore, we show that no ( m, 3)-GBF exists for all m odd or m ≡ 2 (mod 4) in Section 4.

## 2 Basic tools and auxiliary results

In this section, we introduce some basic tools and auxiliary results, which will be used in later sections.

## 2.1 Group ring and character theory

It turns out that group ring and characters of abelian groups play an important role in the study of GBFs. Let G be a finite group of order v , R be a ring, and R G [ ] denote the group ring of G over R . For a subset D of a group G , we may identify D with the group ring element ∑ g ∈ G d g g ∈ R G [ ], also denoted by D by abuse of notation, where d g ∈ R and these d g 's are called coefficients of D . Let 1 G denote the identity element of G and let r be an element in R . For simplicity, we write r for the group ring element r 1 G ∈ R G [ ]. For the group ring element D = ∑ g ∈ G d g g ∈ R G [ ], its support is defined as

$$s u p p ( D ) \coloneqq \{ g \in G \, \colon d _ { g } \neq 0 \},$$

/negationslash and we also define | D | := ∑ d g and || D || := ∑ | d g | . Let t be an integer coprime to m . For D = ∑ g ∈ G d g g ∈ Z [ ζ m ][ G ], we write D ( ) t = ∑ d g σ g t , where σ is the automorphism of Q [ ζ m ] determined by ζ σ m = ζ t m .

The group ring notation is very useful when applying characters. A character χ of G is a homomorphism χ : G → C ∗ . The set of all such characters forms a group ˆ G which is isomorphic to G itself, and the identity element of ˆ , G denoted by χ 0 , which maps every element in G to 1 (i.e., χ 0 ( g ) = 1 for all g ∈ G ), is called the principal character of G . It is clear that the character group has the multiplication in ˆ G defined by χτ g ( ) = χ g τ ( ) ( g ) for χ, τ ∈ ˆ . G For D = ∑ g ∈ G d g g ∈ C [ G ] and χ ∈ ˆ , G we have χ D ( ) = ∑ g ∈ G d χ g g ( ). For a subgroup U of the group G , we define a subgroup of ˆ G as U ⊥ := { χ ∈ ˆ : G χ g ( ) = 1 for all g ∈ U } . If χ ∈ U ⊥ , we say that the character χ is trivial on U . It is easy to see that | U ⊥ | = | G / U | | | . The following two results are standard and well-known in character theory.

Fact 1 (Orthogonality relations) . Let G be a finite abelian group of order v with identity 1 G . Then

/negationslash

$$\sum _ { \chi \in \hat { G } } \chi ( g ) = \begin{cases} \begin{array} { c c } 0 & \text{if $g\neq 1_{G}$}, \\ v & \text{if $g=1_{G}$}, \end{array} \end{cases}$$

and

/negationslash

$$\sum _ { g \in G } \chi ( g ) = \begin{cases} \begin{array} { c c } 0 & \text{if $\chi\ne\chi_{0}$}, \\ v & \text{if $\chi=\chi_{0}$}. \end{array} \end{cases} \\ \quad \begin{array} { c c } \longrightarrow \\ \longrightarrow \end{array} \end{cases}$$

Fact 2 (Fourier inversion formula) . Let G be a finite abelian group of order v , let D = ∑ g ∈ G d g g ∈ C [ G ] by abuse of notation and χ D ( ) = ∑ g ∈ G d χ g g ( ) . Then the coefficients in D are determined by

$$d _ { g } = \frac { 1 } { v } \sum _ { \chi \in \hat { G } } \chi ( D g ^ { - 1 } ).$$

## 2.2 Some auxiliary results

We now characterize ( m,n )-generalized bent functions using the group ring equations. Instead of working with additive groups, we use multiplicative notation. We denote the cyclic group of order m by C m , and set G = C n 2 . Whenever s m | , we also denote the subgroup of order s in C m by C s .

Definition 2.1. Let f : G → Z m be a function, and g be a generator of C m . We define an element B f in the group ring Z [ ζ m ][ G ] corresponding to f by

$$B _ { f } \coloneqq & \sum _ { x \in G } \zeta _ { m } ^ { f ( x ) } x. \\. \, & - \. \. \quad.$$

Furthermore, we define an element D f in the group ring Z [ C m ][ G ] by

$$D _ { f } \coloneqq \sum _ { x \in G } g ^ { f ( x ) } x.$$

Remark 2.2. To study ( m,n ) -GBFs, we may assume that C m = 〈{ g f ( x ) : x ∈ G }〉 . By scaling if necessary, we may always assume f (1 G ) = 0 , i.e., g f (1 G ) = g 0 is the identity element of C m . From time to time, we may also interpret Z [ C m ][ G ] as Z [ C m · G ] , where g 0 and 1 G in Z [ C m · G ] both denote the identity element of C m · G .

Let τ be a character that maps g to ζ m , then it is clear that τ ( D f ) = B f . Moreover, every element y ∈ G determines a character χ y of G by

$$\chi _ { y } ( x ) = ( - 1 ) ^ { y \cdot x },$$

for all x ∈ G . It is easily verified that every complex character of G is equal to some χ y with y ∈ G . Note that

$$\chi _ { y } ( B _ { f } ) = \sum _ { x \in G } \zeta _ { m } ^ { f ( x ) } \chi _ { y } ( x ) = \sum _ { x \in G } \zeta _ { m } ^ { f ( x ) } ( - 1 ) ^ { y \cdot x } = F ( y ), \\ \sim \quad. \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \ \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \, \quad \,$$

for all y ∈ G , where F y ( ) is defined in (2). It then follows from (1) and (3) that f is an ( m,n )-GBF if and only if

$$| \chi ( B _ { f } ) | ^ { 2 } = 2 ^ { n },$$

for all χ ∈ ˆ . G We now have the following characterization of ( m,n )-GBFs.

Proposition 2.3. Let f be a function from G to Z m . Then f is an ( m,n ) -GBF if and only if

$$B _ { f } B _ { f } ^ { ( - 1 ) } = 2 ^ { n }.$$

Furthermore, if f ( G ) = 2 Z m , then f can be regarded as an ( m,n ′ ) -GBF, where m = 2 m ′ with m ′ odd.

Proof. From (4) it follows that

$$| \chi ( B _ { f } ) | ^ { 2 } = \chi ( B _ { f } B _ { f } ^ { ( - 1 ) } ) = 2 ^ { n },$$

for all characters χ of G . Using Facts 1 and 2, we are able to determine all the coefficients of B B f ( -1) f , i.e., (4) holds if and only if (5) is satisfied. The last statement follows from the fact that ζ f ( x ) m becomes an m ′ -th root of unity.

Observe that we may write

$$D _ { f } D _ { f } ^ { ( - 1 ) } = \sum _ { x \in G } \sum _ { y \in G } g ^ { f ( y + x ) } g ^ { - f ( y ) } x = \sum _ { x \in G } E _ { x } x, \\.. \. \. \.$$

where E x = ∑ y ∈ G g f ( y + ) x g -f ( y ) ∈ Z [ C m ].

Lemma 2.4. Suppose that f is a GBF from G to Z m . Then

(a) E x = E ( -1) x and the coefficient of g 0 in E x is even for all x ∈ G ;

/negationslash

- (b) For each character τ of order m on C m , we have τ ( E x ) = 0 for all x = 1 G .

/negationslash

/negationslash

Proof. Note that ( D D f ( -1) f ) ( -1) = D D f ( -1) f . Hence, we have E x = E ( -1) x for all x ∈ G . Note that E 1 G = 2 . n Thus, we may consider x = 1 . G Suppose that x = 1 G and ( g x 1 1 )( g x 2 2 ) -1 = g x 0 for some g , g 1 2 ∈ C m and x , x 1 2 ∈ G . Note that x 1 = x 2 and clearly, we have ( g x 2 2 )( g x 1 1 ) -1 = g x 0 as well. This shows that the coefficient of g 0 in E x is even.

For any character τ of order m on C m , we obtain

$$\tau ( D _ { f } ) \tau ( D _ { f } ) ^ { ( - 1 ) } = B _ { f } B _ { f } ^ { ( - 1 ) } = 2 ^ { n } = \sum _ { x \in G } \tau ( E _ { x } ) x. \\ \text{Provention } 0 \text{ } 2 \text{ the connection follow}$$

From (5) in Proposition 2.3, the conclusion follows.

The key in our study of ( m,n )-GBFs is to investigate E x . Lemma 2.4 (b) allows us to define the notion of vanishing sum (v-sum), which was also studied in details in [4]. Another important notion to study v-sum is the idea of exponents and reduced exponents defined in [5]. In Section 3, we will use exponents to derive some new nonexistence results. To this end, we recall some notations defined in [5] and prove some preliminary lemmas.

Let S be a finite index set, and we denote by P ( k ) the set of all prime factors of the integer k .

Definition 2.5. Suppose that X = ∑ i ∈ S a µ i i where µ i 's are distinct roots of unity and all a i 's are nonzero integers. We say that u is the exponent of X if u is the smallest positive integer such that µ u i = 1 for all i . We say that k is the reduced exponent of X if k is the smallest positive integer such that there exists j with ( µ µ i -1 j ) k = 1 for all i .

For example, the exponent of ∑ p -1 i =0 ζ ζ 3 i p is 3 p , whereas the reduced exponent is p . To study vanishing sums, we consider those which are minimal.

/negationslash

Based on the definition of minimal relation, we have the following restriction on the cardinality of the index set S , in terms of the reduced exponents of a minimal vanishing sum.

Definition 2.6. Suppose that X = ∑ i ∈ S a µ i i = 0 where µ i 's are distinct roots of unity and all a i 's are nonzero integers. We say that the relation X = 0 is minimal , if for any proper subset I /subsetnoteql S , ∑ i ∈ I a µ i i = 0 .

Proposition 2.7. [2] Suppose that X = ∑ i ∈ S a µ i i = 0 is a minimal relation with reduced exponent k and all a i 's are nonzero. Then k is square free and

$$| S | \geq 2 + \sum _ { p \in \mathcal { P } ( k ) } ( p - 2 ).$$

/negationslash

For convenience, we define the following notation.

Definition 2.8. For any group H , by N [ H ] we denote

$$\left \{ \sum _ { g \in H } a _ { g } g \colon a _ { g } \in \mathbb { Z } \text{ and } a _ { g } \geq 0 \right \}. \\ \text{ho correnation notion of minimal relation}$$

Now we consider the corresponding notion of minimal relation in N [ C m ]. From now on, we assume that g is a generator of C m . We recall the notion of minimality defined in Section 4 of [4].

/negationslash

Suppose that S ⊆ { 0 , . . . , m -1 } and a i &gt; 0 for all i ∈ S . It is clear that if D = ∑ i ∈ S a g i i is a minimal v-sum by Definition 2.9, then τ ( D ) = ∑ i ∈ S a τ i ( g ) i is a minimal relation by Definition 2.6. We now define the reduced exponent of D as follows.

Definition 2.9. [4] Let D = ∑ m -1 i =0 a g i i ∈ N [ C m ] . We say that D is a v-sum if there exists a character τ of order m such that τ ( D ) = τ ( ∑ m -1 i =0 a g i i ) = 0 . We say that D is minimal if τ ( ∑ m -1 i =0 b g i i ) = 0 whenever 0 ≤ b i ≤ a i for all i and b j &lt; a j for some j .

Definition 2.10. Suppose that D = ∑ m -1 i =0 d g i i ∈ N [ C m ] is a minimal v-sum. We define the reduced exponent k of D as the reduced exponent of the vanishing sum τ ( D ) = ∑ m -1 i =0 d τ i ( g ) i .

Note that the reduced exponent defined above does not depend on the choice of the character τ .

Lemma 2.11. If D ∈ N [ C m ] is a minimal v-sum with reduced exponent k , then D = Dh ′ for some D ′ ∈ N [ C k ] and h ∈ C m .

Proof. Write D = ∑ i ∈ S d g i i and τ ( D ) = ∑ i ∈ S d τ i ( g i ) where S ⊆ { 0 , . . . , m - } 1 . Since k is the reduced exponent of D , by Definition 2.10, the reduced exponent of τ ( D ) is also k . Thus, there exists a j such that ( τ ( g i ) τ ( g -j )) k = 1 for all i ∈ S . It then follows that Dg -j ∈ N [ C k ]. The proof is then completed.

In view of Proposition 2.7, we derive the following result.

Corollary 2.12. Suppose that D = ∑ m -1 i =0 a g i i ∈ N [ C m ] is a minimal v-sum with reduced exponent k . Then k is square free and

$$| | D | | \geq 2 + \sum _ { p \in \mathcal { P } ( k ) } ( p - 2 ).$$

To deal with a v-sum D ∈ N [ C m ] which is not minimal, we first decompose it into sum of minimal v-sums. It is straightforward to prove the following.

Lemma 2.13. Let D ∈ N [ C m ] be a v-sum. Then D can be written as the form D = ∑ D i , where D i 's are minimal v-sums in N [ C m ] .

We aim to find a lower bound of || D || when D is a v-sum. To do so, we need to extend the notion of reduced exponent and then apply Corollary 2.12. Suppose that D = ∑ t i =1 D i and k i is the reduced exponent of D i for each i . We may then define the exponent of D to be lcm( k , . . . , k 1 t ). However, we note that such a decomposition is not necessarily unique. For example, if m = 10 and h is a generator of C 10 , then we have

$$D & = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 9 } h ^ { i } \ = \ ( 1 + h ^ { 5 } ) + ( 1 + h ^ { 5 } ) h + ( 1 + h ^ { 5 } ) h ^ { 2 } + ( 1 + h ^ { 5 } ) h ^ { 3 } + ( 1 + h ^ { 5 } ) h ^ { 4 } \quad \text{and} \\ D & = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { 9 } h ^ { i } \ = \ ( 1 + h ^ { 2 } + h ^ { 4 } + h ^ { 6 } + h ^ { 8 } ) + ( 1 + h ^ { 2 } + h ^ { 4 } + h ^ { 6 } + h ^ { 8 } ) h. \\ \text{Note that } ( 1 + h ^ { 5 } ) h ^ { i } \, \text{and } ( 1 + h ^ { 2 } + h ^ { 4 } + h ^ { 6 } + h ^ { 8 } ) h ^ { j } \, \text{are both minimal} \, v-sums. \ If we use the$$

Note that (1+ h 5 ) h i and (1+ h 2 + h 4 + h 6 + h 8 ) h j are both minimal v-sums. If we use the notion of lcm of each decomposition, we will then get 2 and 5 as the reduced exponents, respectively. Thus, we need to modify the earlier definition of exponent as follows.

Definition 2.14. Suppose that D = ∑ m -1 i =0 d g i i is a v-sum in N [ C m ] . We define the c-exponent of D to be the smallest k such that there exist t minimal v-sums D , . . . , D 1 t in N [ C m ] with D = ∑ t i =1 D i and k = lcm( k , . . . , k 1 t ) , where k i is the reduced exponent of D i for i = 1 , . . . , t .

Note that in the example above, the c-exponent of D is 2.

Lemma 2.15. Suppose that D = ∑ m -1 i =0 d g i i ∈ N [ C m ] is a v-sum with c-exponent k . Write m = ∏ s i =1 p α i i and k = ∏ t i =1 p i . Note that t ≤ s and p i 's are distinct primes. Then we have the followings:

- (a) || D || ≥ 2 + ∑ t i =1 ( p i -2) ;
- (c) Suppose that ∏ t i =1 p α i i | d and d m | . If φ : Z [ C m ] → Z [ C d ] is the natural projection, then χ φ D ( ( )) = 0 whenever ord( χ ) = d .
- (b) D = ∑ t i =1 P E i i , where P i is the subgroup of order p i and E i ∈ Z [ C m ] for all i ;

Proof. By Lemma 2.13, we may assume that D = ∑ t i =1 D i such that each D i is a minimal v-sum. Hence, by Corollary 2.12, we have

$$\text{ry 2.12, we have} \\ \| D \| & = \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { t } | D _ { i } | \\ & \geq \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { t } [ 2 + \sum _ { q \in \mathcal { P } ( k _ { i } ) } ( q - 2 ) ] \\ & \geq 2 + \sum _ { q \in \mathcal { P } ( k ) } ( q - 2 ) \\ & = 2 + \sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { t } ( p _ { i } - 2 ),$$

$$\sum _ { i = 1 } ^ { i } ($$

because P ( k ) = ⋃ t i =1 P ( k i ). By Lemma 2.11, D i = E g i i where E i ∈ N [ C k i ] and g i ∈ C m . Clearly, τ ( E i ) = 0. Therefore, from [4, Theorem 2.2], it follows that E i = ∑ q ∈P ( k i ) Q F q q , where Q q is the subgroup of order q and F q ∈ Z [ C k i ]. Since D = D i , D is of the desired form.

∑ Finally, note that if φ and χ are defined as in (c), then χ φ D ( ( )) = 0 as χ φ P ( ( i )) = χ P ( i ) = 0 for i = 1 , . . . , t .

Next, we record a very useful result from [4, Theorem 4.8, Proposition 6.2].

Proposition 2.16. [4] Let D ∈ N [ C m ] be a minimal v-sum with c-exponent k . Then we have the followings:

- (a) If k = p is prime and P is the subgroup of order p , then D = Ph for some h ∈ C m .
- (b) If k = ∏ t i =1 p i with t ≥ 2 and p 1 &lt; p 2 &lt; · · · &lt; p t are primes, then t ≥ 3 and

$$| | D | | \geq ( p _ { 1 } - 1 ) ( p _ { 2 } - 1 ) + ( p _ { 3 } - 1 ).$$

Moreover, equality holds only if D = ( P P ∗ 1 ∗ 2 + P ∗ 3 ) h for some h ∈ C m . Here P ∗ i = P i -{ } e , and P i is the subgroup of order p i .

Remark 2.17. It follows from Proposition 2.16 that either k is a prime or k has at least three prime factors.

## 3 New nonexistence results of ( m,n ) -GBFs

In this section, we derive some new necessary conditions on ( m,n )-GBFs, and then give new nonexistence results accordingly. First we fix the following notation. As before, we assume that g is the generator of C m , and note that Remark 2.2 holds for any GBF f . To avoid confusion, we set g 0 as the identity element of C m .

The following result is very important, in the sense that it allows to eliminate all prime factors of m greater than 2 n when deriving nonexistence results.

/negationslash

Proposition 3.1. Suppose that f is an ( m,n ) -GBF and m = ∏ s i =1 p α i i where p i 's are distinct primes. Let k x be the c-exponent of E x (as defined by (6)) for each 1 G = x ∈ G . Set

$$I = \{ 1 \leq i \leq s \, \colon p _ { i } \nmid k _ { x } \, \forall x \in G \} \ a n d \, \overline { m } = \prod _ { i \notin I } p _ { i } ^ { \alpha _ { i } }. \\ \colon e x i s t s \ a n \, ( \overline { m }. n ) \text{-} G B F. \ I n \ n a r t i c u l a r. \ i f \, p _ { i } | m \ a n d \, p _ { i } > 2 ^ { n }. \ t h e n \ t h e i$$

Then there exists an ( m,n ) -GBF. In particular, if p i | m and p i &gt; 2 n , then there exists an ( m/p , n i ) -GBF.

Proof. By induction, it suffices to show that if p i ∈ I , then there exists an ( m/p , n i )-GBF. Let η : Z [ 〈 g 〉 ] → Z [ 〈 g p i 〉 ] be the natural projection, it then follows that

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$\eta ( D _ { f } ) \eta ( D _ { f } ) ^ { ( - 1 ) } = 2 ^ { n } + \sum _ { 1 _ { G } \neq x \in G } \eta ( E _ { x } ) x. \\ \intertext { a v _ { c m } } \, \text{$Rv$ environment $n$.} \, d \infty \text{ do so not divide $k$ for}$$

Recall that E x is a v-sum. By assumption p i does not divide k x for all 1 G = x ∈ G . It follows from Lemma 2.15 (c) that τ ( η E ( x )) = 0 if τ is a character of order m/p i . Therefore, τ ( η D ( f )) gives rise to an ( m/p , n i )-GBF.

/negationslash

The last statement is now clear as if p i &gt; 2 , then by Lemma 2.15 (a), n p i does not divide k x for any 1 G = x ∈ G .

We record the following result which will be used from time to time later.

/negationslash

Lemma 3.2. Suppose that f is an ( m,n ) -GBF, and p, q are distinct primes that both divide m . Then there exist y = 1 G and h ∈ supp E ( y ) such that pq | ◦ ( h ) .

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00842v1-figure-22e74e0a-7684-48f7-a531-4d0546a8e82a.jpg)

Proof. As C m = 〈{ g f ( x ) : x ∈ G }〉 , there exist u, v ∈ G such that p |◦ ( g f ( u ) ) and q |◦ ( g f ( v ) ). Since g f (1 G ) = g 0 ∈ C m , we know that g f ( u ) ∈ supp E ( u ) and g f ( v ) ∈ supp E ( v ). We are done if q | ◦ ( g f ( u ) ) or p | ◦ ( g f ( v ) ). Otherwise, ug f ( u ) ( vg -f ( v ) ) ∈ supp E ( uv ) and then clearly pq | ◦ ( g f ( u ) -f ( v ) ). The proof is completed.

Before we proceed, we need a technical result.

Lemma 3.3. Let q , q 1 2 , q 3 be primes that divide m and Q , Q , Q 1 2 3 be subgroups of order q , q 1 2 , q 3 , respectively. Suppose that 4 /notbar m and ∑ t i =1 Q h i i = ∑ t i =1 Q h i -1 i for some h , h , h 1 2 t ∈ C m with t ≥ 2 .

/negationslash

- (a) If q 1 = q 2 and t = 2 , then we may assume h -1 i = h i for i = 1 2 , .

/negationslash

- (b) If q 1 = q 2 = q 3 and t = 3 , then we may assume Q h 2 2 + Q h 2 3 = Q 2 ( h 2 + h -1 2 ) and h 1 = h -1 1 .
- (c) If all q i 's are distinct, then we may assume h i = h -1 i for all i .

Proof. By assumption, we have

$$Q _ { 1 } ( h _ { 1 } - h _ { 1 } ^ { - 1 } ) & = \sum _ { i = 2 } ^ { t } Q _ { i } ( h _ { i } ^ { - 1 } - h _ { i } ). \\. \quad \hat { \ } _ { 1 } \quad \hat { \ } _ { \ } _ { \ } ^ { r \sim } \, \hat { \ } _ { \ } ^ { r \sim } \, \hat { \ } _ { \ } ^ { r \sim } \, \hat { \ } _ { \ } ^ { r \sim } \,.$$

Suppose that q β 1 1 || m . Let φ : Z [ C m ] → C [ C m ] be a ring homomorphism that fixes g m/q β 1 1 and sends g q β 1 1 to an m/q β 1 1 -primitive root of unity. Then, we have φ Q ( i ( h i -h -1 i )) = 0 for i = 2 , . . . , t , which implies that φ Q h ( 1 1 -Q h 1 -1 1 ) = 0. Write h 1 = g h 1 ′ with g 1 ∈ 〈 g m/q β 1 1 〉 and p 1 /notbar ◦ ( h ′ ). Then, we have Q g φ h 1 1 ( ′ ) = Q g 1 -1 1 φ h ( ′-1 ). Hence g 2 1 ∈ Q 1 and φ h ( ′ ) = φ h ( ′-1 ). If q 1 is odd, then g 1 = g 0 . If q 1 = 2, then as 4 /notbar m g , 1 can be taken as g 0 as well. In both cases, we may assume g 1 = g 0 . It follows that φ h ( ′ ) 2 = 1. As φ is of order m/q β 1 1 , h ′ 2 = g 0 . Therefore, g h 1 ′ = ( g h 1 ′ ) -1 . Furthermore, we have

$$\sum _ { i = 2 } ^ { t } Q _ { i } ( h _ { i$$

Now (a) follows easily by applying the same argument on Q 2 .

If t = 3 and q 2 = q 3 , we then obtain Q 2 ( h 2 + h 3 ) = Q 2 ( h -1 2 + h -1 3 ). If Q h 2 2 = Q h 2 -1 2 , then we must have Q h 2 3 = Q h 2 -1 3 . Then, h 2 2 ∈ Q 2 and h 2 3 ∈ Q 2 . Using a similar argument as before, we may assume that h 2 = h 3 = g 0 . If Q h 2 2 = Q h 2 -1 3 , then clearly, we may take h 3 = h -1 2 and we are done.

To obtain (c), we set t = 3. We then get our desired results by applying part (a) to Equation (7).

The proof is then completed.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00842v1-figure-6eddf299-bb00-413e-84d1-77070b6554c7.jpg)

Now we are able to give the following necessary conditions on the existence of ( m,n ) GBFs, where m is odd.

Theorem 3.4. Suppose that m = ∏ s i =1 p α i i , where 3 ≤ p 1 &lt; p 2 &lt; · · · &lt; p s are odd primes and α i 's are all positive integers. If an ( m,n ) -GBF exists, then s ≥ 2 and 3 p 1 + p 2 ≤ 2 n .

/negationslash

/negationslash

Proof. Recall that if 1 G = x ∈ G and χ is a character of order m , then χ E ( x ) = 0. If s = 1, then by Lemma 2.15 (b), E x = P W 1 where P 1 is a subgroup of order p 1 and W ⊆ C m . In other words, 2 n = || E x || = p 1 || W || . This is impossible as p 1 = 2.

Next, we assume that s ≥ 2. As E x ∈ N [ C m ], we may write E x = ∑ D j such that all D j 's are minimal v-sums. Let k j be the reduced exponent of D j . If |P ( k j ) | ≥ 4, then by Corollary 2.12, we have || D j || ≥ 2 + ∑ 4 i =1 ( p i -2) ≥ 3 p 1 + p 2 . Thus, we may assume that |P ( k j ) | ≤ 3. But by Proposition 2.16, |P ( k j ) | = 1 or 3. In case that |P ( k j ) | = 3, || D j || ≥ q 1 ( q 2 -1) + q 3 -q 2 ≥ p 1 ( p 2 -1) + p 3 -p 2 . If p 1 ≥ 5, then clearly, p 1 ( p 2 -1) + p 3 -p 2 ≥ 3 p 1 + p 2 . If p 1 = 3, it then follows that

$$p _ { 1 } ( p _ { 2 } - 1 ) + p _ { 3 } - p$$

as p 2 ≥ 5 and p 3 ≥ 7.

/negationslash

It remains to consider the case |P ( k j ) | = 1, i.e., D j = Q h j i where h i ∈ C m and Q j is a subgroup of order q j . Note that q j 's need not be distinct. Therefore, E x = ∑ t j =1 Q h j j . If all Q j 's are the same, then E x = Q Y 1 for some Y ∈ Z [ C m ]. This is impossible as q 1 /notbar 2 . n In particular, it follows that t ≥ 2 and we may assume Q 1 = Q 2 without loss of generality. Recall that all D i ∈ N [ C m ]. Therefore,

$$2 ^ { n } = | | E _ { x } | | \geq q _ { 1$$

Hence, we are done if t ≥ 4.

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

We first study the case t = 3. As q 1 = q 2 , we may assume q 1 = q 3 as well. Since E ( -1) x = E x and m is odd, we may then assume h 1 = g 0 . Moreover, if Q 2 = Q 3 , then Q h 2 2 + Q h 2 3 = Q 2 ( h 2 + h -1 2 ). Whereas if Q 2 = Q 3 , then h 2 = h 3 = 1 G as m is odd. Therefore, the coefficient of g 0 is either 1 or 3 in both cases. This contradicts Lemma 2.4 (a).

/negationslash

Thus, we may assume t = 2 for all x = 1 G . Moreover, as m is odd, E x is of the form Q 1 + Q 2 . In particular, each non-identity element in supp E ( x ) is of prime order. This contradicts Lemma 3.2.

The proof is then completed.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00842v1-figure-1bcb4b29-76fa-4e64-9675-3c132803787f.jpg)

The theorem above provides an alternative proof of [7, Corollary 2], from which we can have an improved result on the case s = 2.

Corollary 3.5. Suppose that m = ∏ s i =1 p α i i , where p 1 &lt; p 2 &lt; · · · &lt; p s are odd primes and α i 's are all positive integers.

- (a) There is no ( m,n ) -GBF when s = 1 .
- (b) There is no ( m,n ) -GBF if s ≥ 2 and 3 p 1 + p 2 &gt; 2 n .
- (c) There is no ( m,n ) -GBF if there is no ( ∏ r i =1 p α i i , n ) -GBF where p r +1 is the smallest prime such that p 1 + p r +1 &gt; 2 n .

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

Proof. (a) and (b) follow directly from Theorem 3.4. As for (c), it suffices to show that if t ≥ r + 1, then p t does not divide the c-exponent of E x for any x = 1 G . We follow the notation used in the proof of Theorem 3.4. We write E x = ∑ D j such that all D j 's are minimal v-sums. Again, we denote by k j the reduced exponent of D j . Suppose that p t | k 1 . If k 1 = p t , then E x = D 1 as otherwise p t | 2 . n Therefore, || E x || ≥ || D 1 || + || D 2 || ≥ p t + p 1 &gt; 2 . n On the other hand, if k 1 = p t , then as shown before, k 1 is a product of at least three primes. Hence, || D 1 || ≥ p t + p 1 &gt; 2 , which is impossible. n

Remark 3.6. For s = 2 , our result is stronger than [7, Corollary 2].

Now we consider the case when m = 2 m ′ with m ′ odd. If f is a (2 m,n ′ ) GBF, then we define

$$G _ { f } \coloneqq \{ x \in G \, \colon f ($$

Note that a (2 m,n ′ ) GBF is trivially an ( m,n ′ ) GBF if G f = ∅ or G . Multiply f by -1 if necessary, we may always assume | G f | ≤ | G / | 2. Note that G ( -1) f = G f as G is 2-elementary. Apply a homomorphism ψ : Z [ G · C m ] such that ψ fixes every element in G and maps the generator g of C m to -1, then we have

/negationslash

$$\begin{array} {$$

Write

/negationslash

/negationslash

$$G _ { f } ^ { 2 } & = | G _ { f } | + 2 \sum _ { 1 _ { G } \neq x \in G } b _ { x } x. \\ a _ { \dots } \text{ It then follows that for } x \neq 1 _ { \varepsilon }.$$

We denote ψ E ( x ) by a x . It then follows that for x = 1 G ,

$$a _ { x } = | G | - 4 | G _ { f } | + 8 b _ { x }.$$

The following is a consequence of [8, Theorem 1].

Lemma 3.7. If n is odd, then G f is a difference set in G if and only if G f = { 1 G } .

We now give the following nonexistence results on (2 m,n ′ ) GBFs, which are weaker than those in Theorem 3.4.

Theorem 3.8. Let n be odd and m = 2 p α , where α is a positive integer. Suppose that an ( m,n ) -GBF exists. Then p &lt; 2 n -3 unless p = 2 n -2 -1 is a Mersenne prime. In particular, if n ≤ 3 , there is no ( m,n ) -GBF if m = p α or m = 2 p α .

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

Proof. Let P 2 be the subgroup of order 2 and P be a subgroup of order p . For any x = 1 G , we conclude from Lemma 2.15 (b) that E x = P Y 2 x + PZ x for some Y , Z x x ∈ N [ C m ]. Note that ψ E ( x ) = 0 for some x = 1 G . Otherwise, the c-exponent of all E x is 2 and by Proposition 3.1, there exists a (2 , 3)-GBF, which is impossible. Hence, a x = ψ E ( x ) = 0 for some x = 1 G . Therefore, we have ψ P ( ) | ψ E ( x ), i.e., p a | x . Note that in view of Equation (9), 4 p a | x if | G f | is odd and 8 p a | x if | G f | is even. We are done if 8 p a | x as | a x | &lt; 2 . n We may therefore assume that | G f | is odd.

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

Suppose that G f = { 1 G } . Then, a x = 2 n -4 if x = 1 G . Hence, 4 p a | x . It follows that p 1 &lt; 2 n -3 unless 4 p = 2 n -4 which implies that p = 2 n -2 -1 is a Mersenne prime.

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

Suppose that G f = { 1 G } . As G f is not a difference set, there exist two elements x = 1 G and x ′ = 1 G such that b x &gt; b x ′ ≥ 0. Since p a | x and p a | x ′ , it follows that p | ( b x -b x ′ ) and b x -b x ′ = tp for some positive integer t . To get our desired result, we need to find a bound on b x -b x ′ . Note that in view of Equation (8), b x ≤ | G / f | 2 ≤ | G / | 4. Hence, we get our desired result if t ≥ 2. Thus, we may assume that t = 1, i.e., b x = p + b x ′ .

Suppose that G = 〈 x 〉· G ′ , where G ′ is a subgroup of order 2 n -1 in G . As the coefficient of x in G 2 f is 2 b x , there are 2 b x = 2 p +2 b x ′ pairs ( u, v ) of elements in G f × G f such that uv = x . Therefore, there exists a set Y ⊆ G ′ ∩ G f such that Y ∪ ( Y x ) ⊆ G f with | Y | = p + b x ′ . Write G f = ( Y ∪ Z 1 ) ∪ ( Y x ∪ Z x 2 ) such that

$$Z _ { 1 } \subseteq G ^ { \prime }, Z _ { 2 } \subseteq G ^ { \prime }, Y \cap Z _ { 1 } = \emptyset \text{ and } Y \cap Z _ { 2 } = \emptyset.$$

Since b x = | Y | , it follows that Z 1 ∩ Z 2 = ∅ . Moreover, we have

$$G _ { f } ^ { 2 } = [ 2 Y ^ { 2 } + 2 Y ( Z _ { 1 } + Z _ { 2 } ) + Z _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + Z _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ] + [ 2 Y ^ { 2 } + 2 Y ( Z _ { 1 } + Z _ { 2 } ) + 2 Z _ { 1 } Z _ { 2 } ] x.$$

Note that the support of [2 Y 2 + 2 Y ( Z 1 + Z 2 ) + Z 2 1 + Z 2 2 ] is in G ′ and the support of [2 Y 2 +2 Y ( Z 1 + Z 2 ) + 2 Z Z 1 2 ] x is in Gx ′ . We now consider the coefficients of the following group elements

$$Z = [ 2 Y ^ { 2 } + 2 Y ( Z _ { 1 } + Z _ { 2 } ) + Z _ { 1 } ^ { 2 } + Z _ { 2 } ^ { 2 } ] - [ 2 Y ^ { 2 } + 2 Y ( Z _ { 1 } + Z _ { 2 } ) + 2 Z _ { 1 } Z _ { 2 } ] = ( Z _ { 1 } - Z _ { 2 } ) ^ { 2 }.$$

/negationslash

/negationslash

For any 1 G = v ∈ G ′ , the coefficient of v in Z is equal to 2( b v -b vx ). Clearly, the absolute value of the coefficient of v in Z is less than | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | as Z 1 and Z 2 are disjoint. Thus, if there exists v = 1 G in G ′ such that b v -b vx is nonzero, then p | ( b v -b vx ) and we obtain

$$2 p \leq 2 | b _ { v } - b _ { v x } | \leq | Z _ { 1 } | + | Z _ { 2 } | \leq ( | G _ { f } | - 2 b _ { x } ) \leq | G _ { f } | - 2 p.$$

Hence, we get 4 p ≤ | G f | ≤ | G / | 2 and p ≤ 2 n -3 . Thus, it remains to deal with the case ( Z 1 -Z 2 ) 2 = | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | .

If both Z 1 = Z 2 = ∅ , then 2 b x = | G f | . Hence, | G f | is even and as remarked earlier, we are done in this case. Note that as G = C n 2 , all character values of Z 1 -Z 2 are integers. Thus, | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | is a square. Since Z 1 ∩ Z 2 = ∅ , all nonzero coefficients of Z 1 -Z 2 is ± 1. On the other hand, if q is an odd prime divisor or | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | , then q divides the all nonzero coefficients of Z 1 -Z 2 by applying Fourier inversion formula. This is impossible. It follows that | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | = 2 . t Again, we are done if t ≥ 1 as then | G f | = 2 b x + | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | is even. Hence, we may assume that t = 0, i.e., | Z 1 | + | Z 2 | = 1. Note that the coefficient of 1 G in [2 Y 2 +2 Y ( Z 1 + Z 2 )+ Z 2 1 + Z 2 2 ] is | G f | and the coefficient of 1 G in [2 Y 2 +2 Y ( Z 1 + Z 2 ) + 2 Z Z 1 2 ] is the same as the coefficient of x in G 2 f . As Z = 1, it follows that 2 b x = | G f | -1. Hence, a x = | G | -4 | G f | +4( | G f | -1) = 2 n -4. Recall that 4 p a | x . Hence either p = 2 n -2 -1 or p &lt; 2 n -3 .

The proof is then completed.

Corollary 3.9. Let n be odd and m = 2 ∏ s i =1 p α i i , where p 1 &lt; p 2 &lt; · · · &lt; p s are odd primes and α i 's are all positive integers.

- (a) If s = 1 , then there is no ( m,n ) -GBF if one of the following conditions is satisfied:

$$\left ( i \right ) \, p _ { 1 } > 2 ^ { n - 2 } ;$$

- (ii) p 1 is not a Mersenne prime and p 1 &gt; 2 n -3 ;
- (iii) p 1 ≡ 3 , 5 (mod 8) .
- (b) If s ≥ 2 , and r is the least integer such that p r +1 + p 1 &gt; 2 n + 2 , then there is no ( m,n ) -GBF if there is no (2 ∏ r i =1 p α i i , n ) -GBF. In particular, there is no ( m,n ) -GBF if p 1 &gt; 2 n -2 and p 1 + p 2 &gt; 2 n +2 .

Proof. It is easily seen that (i) and (ii) of (a) directly follow from Theorem 3.8. If (iii) holds, it is known that no (2 p α 1 1 , n )-GBF exists.

/negationslash

To prove (b), it is sufficient to show that for i ≥ r +1, p i does not divide the c-exponent of any E x for x = 1 G . As before, we wirte E x = ∑ D j and k j the reduced exponent of D j . We may assume that p i divides k 1 . If k 1 consists of at least three prime factors, then || D i || ≥ 2 + ( p 1 -2) + ( p i -2). Thus, 2 n ≥ p 1 + p i -2 ≥ p 1 + p r +1 -2 &gt; 2 . n This is impossible. Therefore, we have k 1 = p i .

/negationslash

Otherwise, we assume that p i divides the reduced exponent k x of τ ( E x ). If k x = p i , it follows from the argument in (a) that 4 p i ≤ 2 . n This is impossible as 2 n &lt; p 1 + p i &lt; 4 p i . Therefore, p j | k x for some j = i . But then by Proposition 2.16, 2 n ≥ p j + p i -2 &gt; p r +1 + p 1 -2. This is impossible.

Remark 3.10. When compared with [7, Theorem 2], our result in Corollary 3.9 is stronger in all cases quoted in Table 2 [7] therein except for the case that p = 191 .

## 4 Nonexistence results for n = 3

In this section, we show that there in no ( m, 3)-GBF for all m odd or m ≡ 2 (mod 4). By Proposition 3.1, we may assume that all prime factors of m are less than or equal to 7. According to Corollary 3.5, we conclude that there is no ( m, 3)-GBF if m is odd. Therefore, we may write m = 2 · 3 5 7 . a b c For convenience, we fix the following notation. Let g , g 2 3 , g 5 , g 7 be elements of order 2 , 3 5 7, respectively. , , Let P , P , P , P 2 3 5 7 be subgroups of order 2 , 3 5 and 7, respectively. ,

/negationslash

We assume that f is an ( m, 3)-GBF. We first determine what E x is if x = 1 G . As seen before, τ ( E x ) = 0 for any character of order m . Recall that P ( k ) denotes the set of all prime factors of the integer k .

/negationslash

Lemma 4.1. For any x = 1 G , write E x = ∑ D i where each D i is a minimal v-sum with reduced exponent k i . Then P ( k i ) = { } { 2 , 3 } { , 5 } { , 7 } or { 2 3 5 , , } or { 2 3 7 , , } . Moreover,

- (a) If P ( k i ) = { } j for some j ∈ { 2 3 5 7 , , , } , then D i = P h j j for some h j ∈ C 30 .
- (b) If P ( k i ) = { 2 3 7 , , } , then E x = g α 2 ( P ∗ 7 + g P 2 ∗ 3 ) for some integer α .

/negationslash

Proof. Let k x be the reduced exponent of E x . Note that k x = 2 · 3 · 5 · 7, 3 · 5 · 7, or 2 · 5 · 7 as || E x || &gt; (7 -2) + (5 -2) + 2 &gt; 8. Therefore, either |P ( k i ) | = 1, P ( k i ) = { 2 3 7 , , } or { 2 3 5 , , } . (a) then follows from Lemma 2.11.

For (b), note that || D i || ≤ 8. Hence, by Proposition 2.16 (b), D i = h P ( ∗ 7 + g P 2 ∗ 3 ) for some element h ∈ C m . As || E x || = 8, E x = D i . As E x = E ( -1) x , we have h = g α 2 for some integer α .

## Corollary 4.2. If 7 | k x , then E x = g α 2 ( P ∗ 7 + g P 2 ∗ 3 ) .

/negationslash

/negationslash

Proof. We will follow the notation used above. By assumption, 7 | k i for some i . If k i = 7, then D i = P h 7 i . Since || E x || = 8, it follows that || D j || = 1 if j = . This is impossible as i then τ ( D j ) = 0. Hence, k i is not a prime and therefore, k i = 2 · 5 · 7. By Lemma 4.1 (b), our desired result follows.

Let ψ be as defined in Section 3. As we have seen before, a x = ψ E ( x ) ≡ 0 mod 4. With the condition E x = E ( -1) x , this allows us to narrow down the possibilities of E x when 7 does not divide the c-exponent of E x .

Lemma 4.3. If 7 /notbar k x , then E x is in one of the forms below:

- (a) E x = P W 2 and a x = 0 .
- (b) E x = ( P 3 + P 5 ) g α 2 and a x = ± 8 .
- (c) E x = g α 2 [ g 2 ( g 0 + g 5 + g 4 5 )( g 3 + g 2 3 )+( g 2 5 + g 3 5 )] or g α 2 [ g 2 ( g 0 + g 2 5 + g 3 5 )( g 3 + g 2 3 )+( g 5 + g 4 5 )] and a x = ± 4 . In particular, supp E ( x ) ∩ P 2 = ∅ . [Recall that g 0 is the identity of C m . ]

Proof. We continue with the notation used in Lemma 4.1. If all k i 's are prime, then in view of Lemma 4.1,

$$E _ { x } = P _ { 2 } X + P _ { 3 } Y + P _ { 5 } Z,$$

where X,Y,Z ∈ N [ C m ]. As || E x || = 8 and 8 = 2 || X || +3 || Y || +5 || Z || . It is clear that

$$( | | X | |, | | Y | |, | | Z | | ) = ( 4, 0, 0 ), \ ( 1, 2, 0 ), \ \text{ or } ( 0, 1, 1 ).$$

/negationslash

If ( || X , || || Y || , || Z || ) = (1 , 2 0), then , E x = P 2 ( h 1 + h 2 ) + P h 3 3 . In this case, ψ E ( x ) = ± 3. This is impossible. Next, if ( || X , || || Y || , || Z || ) = (4 0 0), , , then (a) holds. If ( || X , || || Y || , || Z || ) = (0 1 1), , , then E x = P h 3 1 + P h 5 2 . By Lemma 3.3 (a), h i = g α i 2 . Note that ψ E ( x ) = ± /negationslash 2 = ± 4 if α 1 = α 2 mod 2. Since a x ≡ 0 mod 4, (b) holds.

/negationslash

$$8 = \sum _ { i = 0 } ^ { 4 } | | A _ { i } | |. \\ \cdot \in \ e \ a \ = \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e \ e$$

As k i 's are not all prime, we may assume that k 1 is not a prime. Then by Lemma 4.1, k 1 = 2 · 3 · 5. But then by Proposition 2.16 (b), || D 1 || ≥ 6. If E x = D 1 , then || D 2 || ≤ 2. Hence D 2 = P h 2 ′ for some h ′ ∈ C m and || D 1 || = 6. Thus, D 1 = ( P P ∗ 2 ∗ 3 + P ∗ 5 ) h for some h ∈ C 30 . Since || E x || = 8, E x = D 1 + D 2 . But ψ E ( x ) = ψ D ( 1 + D 2 ) = ± 2. This is impossible as 4 | a x . Hence, E x is a minimal v-sum and E x = D 1 = Dh for some D ∈ N [ C 30 ]. As E x = E ( -1) x , we have h ∈ C 30 . So, E x ∈ N [ C 30 ]. We may write E x = ∑ 4 i =0 A g i i 5 , where A i ∈ N [ C 6 ]. Clearly,

/negationslash

Let τ be a character of order 30. If A i = 0 for some i , then τ ( A j ) = 0 for all j as τ ( E x ) = 0. Then, E x is not a minimal v-sum unless E x = A j for some j . So, k 1 | 6 and k 1 = 30. This is impossible. Hence, || A i || ≥ 1 for each i .

## Claim. || A j || ≤ 3 for all j = 0 , . . . , 4.

/negationslash

/negationslash

Otherwise, we assume that || A /lscript || ≥ 3 for some /lscript . It then follows that || A j || ≤ 2 if j = /lscript . Since E x = E ( -1) x , we have /lscript = 0. On the other hand, if || A j || = 2 for some j , then again || A t || = 2 whenever t = j . Using the condition E x = E ( -1) x again, we have j = 0. This is impossible. Hence, all other || A j || = 1. Thus we conclude, || A 0 || = 4 and || A i || = 1 if i = 1 2 3 4. , , , Write A 1 = h , where h ∈ C 6 . As τ ( A 0 ) = τ ( h ), we have τ ( A 0 + g h 2 ) = 0. Note that || A 0 + g h 2 || = 5. Since τ ( A 0 + g h 2 ) = 0, we may apply a similar argument as in Lemma 4.1 to conclude that A 0 + g h 2 = P h 2 1 + P h 3 2 for some h , h 1 2 ∈ C 6 . Therefore, A 0 = P h 2 1 + h 3 + h 4 or A 0 = h 3 + P h 3 2 for some h , h 3 4 ∈ C 6 . In either case, it contradicts the assumption that E x is a minimal v-sum.

/negationslash

Hence, we conclude that || A j || ≤ 2 for all j . Using the assumption that E x = E ( -1) x again, we then obtain two possible cases.

$$( i ) \ | | A _ { 0 } | | = | | A _ { 1 } | | = | | A _ { 4 } | | = 2 \text{ and } | | A _ { 2 } | | = | | A _ { 3 } | | = 1 \text{ or }$$

## (ii) || A 0 || = || A 2 || = || A 3 || = 2 and || A 1 || = || A 4 || = 1.

It remains to show that E x is of the desired form when (i) holds. We may assume that A i = h i for some h i ∈ C 6 for i = 2 3. , Since τ ( E x ) = 0 for any character τ of order 30, we set h 2 = h 3 = h . As E x = E ( -1) x , we see that h = g α 2 .

Note that for i = 0 1 4, , , || A i + g h 2 || = 3 and τ ( A i + g h 2 ) = 0. Therefore, A i + g h 2 = P g h 3 2 as g h 2 is in the support of all A i + g h 2 . In other words, A i = P ∗ 3 ( g h 2 ) for i = 0 1 4. , , It is now clear that E x is of desired form. This shows that (c) holds.

Theorem 4.4. There is no ( m, 3) -GBF for any integer m odd or m ≡ 2 (mod 4) .

Proof. Recall that by earlier discussion of this section, we may assume that m = 2 · 3 a · 5 b · 7 . c We first remove the case 7 | m .

/negationslash

/negationslash

We may assume that 7 divides the c-exponent of E x for some x = 1 G . By Lemma 4.3, we see that E x = h α ( P ∗ 7 + hP ∗ 3 ) and ψ E ( x ) = ± 4. It follows from Equation (8) that a v = ± 4 for any v = 1 G . Therefore, E v is of the form in Corollary 4.2 or Lemma 4.3 (c). That means there is no element in supp E ( v ) of order a multiple of 21 for any v . This contradicts Lemma 3.2. Thus, we may assume that 7 does not divide the c-exponent of E x for all x ∈ G . By Proposition 3.1, it remains to show that (2 · 3 a · 5 b , 3)-GBF does not exist.

/negationslash

In view of Lemma 4.3, E x ∈ N [ C 30 ] for all x = 1 G . It follows that supp D ( f ) ⊂ G C · 30 h ′ for some h ′ ∈ C m . After multiplying D f with h ′-1 , we may assume D f ∈ N [ G · C 30 ]. Recall that we may assume that 1 ≤ | G f | ≤ 4. We may assume that 1 G ∈ G f instead of 1 G ∈ G \ G f . We now discuss by cases.

## Case (1) | G f | = 2.

/negationslash

/negationslash

As 1 G ∈ G f , we write G f = { 1 G , v } . Note that a x = 8 or 0. It follows that a v = 8 and a x = 0 if x = 1 G , v . By Lemma 4.3, we have E v = P 5 + P 3 and E x = P W 2 x for some W x ∈ Z [ C 30 ] if x = 1 G , v .

Let η : Z [ G · C 30 ] → Z [ G · C 5 ] be a ring homomorphism such that η g ( 2 ) = -1 and η g ( 3 ) = 1 and η g ( 5 ) = g 5 ; and η x ( ) = 1 for all x ∈ G . Note that η E ( x ) = 0 if a x = 0 as E x = P W 2 x for some W x ∈ N [ C 30 ]. Thus, we get

$$\eta ( D _ { f } ) \eta ( D _ { f } ) ^ { ( - 1 ) } = 1 1 + P _ { 5 }.$$

Write η D ( f ) = ∑ a g i i 5 where a i ∈ Z . Observe that if we further map g 5 to 1, then the resulting map is just ψ . Thus, we have ∑ a i = ψ D ( f ). Then as | G f | = 2, ψ D ( f ) =

∑ a i = 8 - · 2 2 = 4. By considering the coefficient of identity of 11+ P 5 , we get ∑ a 2 i = 12. Thus | a i | ≥ 2 for some i . If the maximum value of | a i | is 2, then there must be two more a j 's with | a j | = 2 and the rest is 0. That is impossible as then 2 divides η D ( f ) but 2 does not divide 11 + P 5 in Z [ P 5 ].

/negationslash

Hence, the maximum value of | a i | is 3. Then there are exactly three a j 's with | a j | = 1. Since ∑ a i = 4, exactly one a i is -1. So we may assume that η D ( f ) = 3 + g 5 + g β 5 -g γ 5 with 1 = β = γ = 1. Clearly, we may assume either β = 4 or γ = 4.

/negationslash

/negationslash

/negationslash

If β = 4, then we may take γ = 2 or 3. Then, the coefficient of g γ 5 is -2, which is impossible. If γ = 4, then β = 2 or 3. In that case, the coefficient of g β 5 is -2, which is also impossible. Therefore, we have | G f | = 2.

Case (2) | G f | = 4. We may assume that G f = { 1 G , v 1 , v 2 , v 3 } .

Subcase (a) v 3 = v v 1 2 and G f is a subgroup of order 4. Hence, G 2 f = 4 G f and ( G -2 G f ) 2 = 8 G f -8 G v f for some nonzero v ∈ G . Therefore, a x = ± 8 for all x ∈ G . In view of Lemma 4.3, E x = g α 2 ( P 3 + P 5 ) for all nonzero x ∈ G . By Lemma 3.2, this is impossible as there is no element in supp E ( v ) which is divisible by 15 for any v .

/negationslash

/negationslash

Subcase (b) v 3 = v v 1 2 . Let H = { 1 G , v 1 , v 2 , v 1 v 2 } be the subgroup of order 4. Then G 2 f = 2 G +2 -2 v v v 1 2 3 . For convenience, we write v = v v v 1 2 3 . Thus, a v = -8 and a x = 0 if x = 1 G or v . As v / H ∈ , there exists a ring homomorphism η ′ that maps H · P 3 to identity, and η ′ ( g 2 ) = η ′ ( v ) = -1. Then as before η ′ ( E x ) = 0 if a x = 0. Hence, we obtain

$$\eta ^ { \prime } ( D _ { f } ) \eta ^ { \prime } ( D _ { f } ) ^ { ( - 1 ) } = 8 + ( - 1 ) ( - 3 - P _ { 5 } ) = 1 1 + P _ { 5 }.$$

Write η ′ ( D f ) = ∑ a g i i 5 . Observe that ∑ a i = η ′ ( G -2 G f ) = -4. As shown above, there is no solution in Z [ P 5 ].

/negationslash

/negationslash

Case (3) | G f | = 1 or 3. Ten a x = ± 4 for all x = 1 G in G . Therefore, by Lemma 4.3 (c), for any E x with 1 G = x ∈ G ,

$$E _ { x } \ = \ g _ { 2 } ^ { \alpha } [ ( g ^ { 0 } + g _ { 5 } + g _ { 5 } ^ { 4 } ) ( g _ { 3 } + g _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } ) + g _ { 2 } ( g _ { 5 } ^ { 2 } + g _ { 5 } ^ { 3 } ) ] \text{ or } \\ g _ { 2 } ^ { \alpha } [ ( g ^ { 0 } + g _ { 5 } ^ { 2 } + g _ { 5 } ^ { 3 } ) ( g _ { 3 } + g _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } ) + g _ { 2 } ( g _ { 5 } + g _ { 5 } ^ { 4 } ) ].$$

Observe that if we write E x = ∑ 4 i =0 W g xi i 5 , then || W x 0 || = 2 and P 2 ∩ supp E ( x ) = ∅ . Write D f = 4 i =0 B g i i 5 where B i ∈ Z [ G ·

C

-

6

]

and

D D

f

(

1)

f

=

4

i

=0

Z g

i

i

5

with

Z

6

N

[

G C

·

i

i

0

i

1

3

i

3

3

ij

2

ij x h

+

].

For each x h

2

∑

2

∑

A

+

x , x

1

2

+

A g and

2

where h , h

1

A

2

∈

P

∈

2

,

N

[

G P

then

·

].

If

-

(

ij

||

A

|| ≥

1)

= 2 +

2, i.e., x x h h

1

2

1

2

A A

ij

+

· · ·

,

i

,

B

=

where

A g

∈

G

i

A

∈

ij

+

=

· · ·

.

1

1

Hence, supp E ( x 1 ) ∩ { g , g 0 2 } /negationslash = ∅ . This contradicts Lemma 4.3 (c). Thus, | A ij | ≤ 1 and || B i || ≤ 3. Note that

/negationslash

$$| | Z _ { 0 } | | = 8 + \sum _ { x \neq 1 _ { G } } | | W _ { x 0 } | | = 8 + 2 \times 7 = 2 2 = \sum _ { i = 0 } ^ { 4 } | | B _ { i } | | ^ { 2 }. \\ \intertext { a n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n i n j }.$$

Observe that not all || B i || ≤ 2. Using the equation above, we may assume that || B i || = || B j || = 3 and || B k || = 2 for some distinct i, j, k . Then we have

$$B _ { i } = \sum _ { t = 0 } ^ { 2 } u _ { t } g _ { 2 } ^ { \alpha _ { i } } g _ { 3 } ^ { t } = u _ { 0 } g _ { 2 } \alpha _ { 0 } ( 1 + u _ { 0 } u _ { 1 } g _ { 2 } ^ { \alpha _ { 1 } - \alpha _ { 0 } } g _ { 2 } g _ { 3 } + u _ { 0 } u _ { 1 } g _ { 2 } ^ { \alpha _ { 2 } - \alpha _ { 0 } } g _ { 3 } ^ { 2 } ). \\ \intertext { t - a b o n d } \omega \, \quad \, \frac { 1 } { 2 } \, \lambda \, \alpha _ { 1 } - \alpha _ { 0 } \, \alpha _ { 1 } \, \lambda \, \alpha _ { 2 } \, \lambda \, \lambda } \,.$$

/negationslash

Let φ be a character on G · C 30 such that φ u u ( 0 1 ) = ( -1) α 1 -α 0 and φ u u ( 0 2 ) = ( -1) α 2 -α 0 . Note that such a φ exists as u u 0 1 = u u 0 2 . Then, it is clear that φ B ( i ) = 0. Thus, | φ D ( f ) | 2 = | φ B ( j ) ζ j 5 + φ B ( k ) ζ k 5 | 2 = 8. In other words, we have

$$| \phi ( B _ { j } ) | ^ { 2 } + | \phi ( B _ { k } ) | ^ { 2 } + \phi ( B _ { j } ) \overline { \phi ( B _ { k } ) } \zeta _ { 5 } ^ { j - k } + \phi ( B _ { k } ) \overline { \phi ( B _ { j } ) } \zeta _ { 5 } ^ { k - j } = 8.$$

/negationslash

This is impossible unless φ B ( j ) = 0 or φ B ( k ) = 0. But then || B k || = 2 and || A kj || ≤ 1 imply that φ B ( k ) = 0. Thus φ B ( j ) = 0 and | φ B ( k ) | 2 = 8. This is impossible as || B k || = 2. This finish showing that | G f | /negationslash = 1 or 3.

The proof is then completed.

![image](https://ac.marcodsn.me/arxiv-markdown-images/1908.00842v1-figure-36f56e3e-d756-4241-8dfc-cd4431838786.jpg)

## References

- [1] C. Carlet. Boolean functions for cryptography and error correcting codes. Boolean models and methods in mathematics, computer science, and engineering , 2:257-397, 2010.
- [2] J. H. Conway and A. J. Jones. Trigonometric Diophantine equations (On vanishing sums of roots of unity). Acta Arith. , 30(3):229-240, 1976.
- [3] P. V. Kumar, R. A. Scholtz, and L. R. Welch. Generalized bent functions and their properties. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 40(1):90-107, 1985.
- [4] T. Y. Lam and K. H. Leung. On vanishing sums of roots of unity. J. Algebra , 224(1):91-109, 2000.

- [5] H. W. Lenstra, Jr. Vanishing sums of roots of unity. In Proceedings, Bicentennial Congress Wiskundig Genootschap (Vrije Univ., Amsterdam, 1978), Part II , volume 101 of Math. Centre Tracts , pages 249-268. Math. Centrum, Amsterdam, 1979.
- [6] K.H. Leung and B. Schmidt. Nonexistence results on generalized bent functions Z m q → Z q with odd m and q ≡ 2 (mod 4). J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 163:1-33, 2019.
- [7] H. Liu, K. Feng, and R. Feng. Nonexistence of generalized bent functions from Z n 2 to Z m . Des. Codes Cryptogr. , 82(3):647-662, 2017.
- [8] H. B. Mann. Difference sets in elementary Abelian groups. Illinois J. Math. , 9:212219, 1965.
- [9] O. S. Rothaus. On 'bent' functions. J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A , 20(3):300-305, 1976.
- [10] K.-U. Schmidt. Z 4 -valued quadratic forms and quaternary sequence families. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 55(12):5803-5810, 2009.
- [11] K.-U. Schmidt. Quaternary constant-amplitude codes for multicode CDMA. IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 55(4):1824-1832, 2009.
- [12] P. St˘nic˘, T. Martinsen, S. Gangopadhyay, and B. K. Singh. Bent and generalized a a bent Boolean functions. Des. Codes Cryptogr. , 69(1):77-94, 2013.
- [13] C. Tang, C. Xiang, Y. Qi, and K. Feng. Complete characterization of generalized bent and 2 -bent Boolean functions. k IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory , 63(7):4668-4674, 2017.
Ka Hin Leung Qi Wang
New nonexistence results on $(m,n)$-generalized bent functions
In this paper, we present some new nonexistence results on
$(m,n)$-generalized bent functions, which improved recent results. More
precisely, we derive new nonexistence results for general $n$ and $m$ odd or $m
\equiv 2 \pmod{4}$, and further explicitly prove nonexistence of
$(m,3)$-generalized bent functions for all integers $m$ odd or $m \equiv 2
\pmod{4}$. The main tools we utilized are certain exponents of minimal
vanishing sums from applying characters to group ring equations that
characterize $(m,n)$-generalized bent functions.