“…If we fix m, k and η P r0, 1q with M k,η ´4m ą 0 (where M k,η is as in (4.3)), and if we assume the remaining hypotheses of Theorem 4.3 hold (disregarding (4.18)), then we can show, for all N ě Npm, k, ǫq, that |Hpnq X P| ě m `1 for at least one n P pN, 2Ns with n " b mod W . This follows from an essentially identical argument to that presented in [13,17], although there are two differences in our setting that potentially affect the argument. Namely, w is considerably larger here than in [13] or [17] (we take w " ǫ log N instead of w " log 3 N), and the elements of H here may vary with N.…”