Kakeya problem: Difference between revisions

From Polymath Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
A '''Kakeya set''' in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^r</math> is a subset <math>E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> that contains an [[algebraic line]] in every direction; that is, for every <math>d\in{\mathbb F}_3^n</math>, there exists <math>e\in{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> such that <math>e,e+d,e+2d</math> all lie in <math>E</math>.  Let <math>k_n</math> be the smallest size of a Kakeya set in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math>.
A '''Kakeya set''' in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> is a subset <math>E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> that contains an [[algebraic line]] in every direction; that is, for every <math>d\in{\mathbb F}_3^n</math>, there exists <math>e\in{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> such that <math>e,e+d,e+2d</math> all lie in <math>E</math>.  Let <math>k_n</math> be the smallest size of a Kakeya set in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math>.


Clearly, we have <math>k_1=3</math>, and it is easy to see that <math>k_2=7</math>. Using a computer, it is not difficult to find that <math>k_3=13</math> and <math>k_4\le 27</math>. Indeed, it seems likely that <math>k_4=27</math> holds, meaning that in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^4</math> one cannot get away with just <math>26</math> elements.
Clearly, we have <math>k_1=3</math>, and it is easy to see that <math>k_2=7</math>. Using a computer, it is not difficult to find that <math>k_3=13</math> and <math>k_4\le 27</math>. Indeed, it seems likely that <math>k_4=27</math> holds, meaning that in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^4</math> one cannot get away with just <math>26</math> elements.
Line 9: Line 9:
:<math>k_n\le k_{n+1}\le 3k_n</math>.
:<math>k_n\le k_{n+1}\le 3k_n</math>.


Since the Cartesian product of two Kakeya sets is another Kakeya set, we also have
Since the Cartesian product of two Kakeya sets is another Kakeya set, the upper bound can be extended to


:<math>k_{n+m} \leq k_m k_n</math>;
:<math>k_{n+m} \leq k_m k_n</math>;


this implies that <math>k_n^{1/n}</math> converges to a limit as <math>n</math> goes to infinity.
this implies that <math>k_n^{1/n}</math> converges to a limit as <math>n</math> goes to infinity.  


== Lower bounds ==
== Lower Bounds ==
 
From a paper of [http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2529 Dvir, Kopparty, Saraf, and Sudan] it follows that <math>k_n \geq 3^n / 2^n</math>, but this is superseded by the estimates given below.


To each of the <math>(3^n-1)/2</math> directions in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> there correspond at least three pairs of elements in a Kakeya set, determining this direction. Therefore, <math>\binom{k_n}{2}\ge 3\cdot(3^n-1)/2</math>, and hence  
To each of the <math>(3^n-1)/2</math> directions in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> there correspond at least three pairs of elements in a Kakeya set, determining this direction. Therefore, <math>\binom{k_n}{2}\ge 3\cdot(3^n-1)/2</math>, and hence  


:<math>k_n\gtrsim 3^{(n+1)/2}.</math>
:<math>k_n\ge 3^{(n+1)/2}.</math>


One can derive essentially the same conclusion using the "bush" argument, as follows. Let <math>E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> be a Kakeya set, considered as a union of <math>N := (3^n-1)/2</math> lines in all different directions. Let <math>\mu</math> be the largest number of lines that are concurrent at a point of <math>E</math>. The number of point-line incidences is at most <math>|E|\mu</math> and at least <math>3N</math>, whence <math>|E|\ge 3N/\mu</math>. On the other hand, by considering only those points on the "bush" of lines emanating from a point with multiplicity <math>\mu</math>, we see that <math>|E|\ge 2\mu+1</math>. Comparing the two last bounds one obtains  
One can derive essentially the same conclusion using the "bush" argument, as follows. Let <math>E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> be a Kakeya set, considered as a union of <math>N := (3^n-1)/2</math> lines in all different directions. Let <math>\mu</math> be the largest number of lines that are concurrent at a point of <math>E</math>. The number of point-line incidences is at most <math>|E|\mu</math> and at least <math>3N</math>, whence <math>|E|\ge 3N/\mu</math>. On the other hand, by considering only those points on the "bush" of lines emanating from a point with multiplicity <math>\mu</math>, we see that <math>|E|\ge 2\mu+1</math>. Comparing the two last bounds one obtains  
<math>|E|\gtrsim\sqrt{6N} \approx 3^{(n+1)/2}</math>.
<math>|E|\gtrsim\sqrt{6N} \approx 3^{(n+1)/2}</math>.


A better bound follows by using the "slices argument". Let <math>A,B,C\subset{\mathbb F}_3^{n-1}</math> be the three slices of a Kakeya set <math>E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n</math>. Form a bipartite graph <math>G</math> with the partite sets <math>A</math> and <math>B</math> by connecting <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> by an edge if there is a line in <math>E</math> through <math>a</math> and <math>b</math>. The restricted sumset <math>\{a+b\colon (a,b)\in G\}</math> is contained in the set <math>-C</math>, while the difference set <math>\{a-b\colon (a,b)\in G\}</math> is all of <math>{\mathbb F}_3^{n-1}</math>. Using an estimate from [http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.CO/9906097 a paper of Katz-Tao], we conclude that <math>3^{n-1}\le\max(|A|,|B|,|C|)^{11/6}</math>, leading to <math>|E|\ge 3^{6(n-1)/11}</math>. Thus,
The better estimate
 
:<math>k_n\ge (9/5)^n</math>
 
is obtained in [http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.2529 a paper of Dvir, Kopparty, Saraf, and Sudan]. (In general, they show that a Kakeya set in the <math>n</math>-dimensional vector space over the <math>q</math>-element field has at least <math>(q/(2-1/q))^n</math> elements).
 
A still better bound follows by using the "slices argument". Let <math>A,B,C\subset{\mathbb F}_3^{n-1}</math> be the three slices of a Kakeya set <math>E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n</math>. Form a bipartite graph <math>G</math> with the partite sets <math>A</math> and <math>B</math> by connecting <math>a</math> and <math>b</math> by an edge if there is a line in <math>E</math> through <math>a</math> and <math>b</math>. The restricted sumset <math>\{a+b\colon (a,b)\in G\}</math> is contained in the set <math>-C</math>, while the difference set <math>\{a-b\colon (a,b)\in G\}</math> is all of <math>{\mathbb F}_3^{n-1}</math>. Using an estimate from [http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.CO/9906097 a paper of Katz-Tao], we conclude that <math>3^{n-1}\le\max(|A|,|B|,|C|)^{11/6}</math>, leading to <math>|E|\ge 3^{6(n-1)/11}</math>. Thus,


:<math>k_n \ge 3^{6(n-1)/11}.</math>
:<math>k_n \ge 3^{6(n-1)/11}.</math>


== Upper bounds ==
== Upper Bounds ==


We have
We have

Latest revision as of 23:35, 4 June 2009

A Kakeya set in [math]\displaystyle{ {\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] is a subset [math]\displaystyle{ E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] that contains an algebraic line in every direction; that is, for every [math]\displaystyle{ d\in{\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math], there exists [math]\displaystyle{ e\in{\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] such that [math]\displaystyle{ e,e+d,e+2d }[/math] all lie in [math]\displaystyle{ E }[/math]. Let [math]\displaystyle{ k_n }[/math] be the smallest size of a Kakeya set in [math]\displaystyle{ {\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math].

Clearly, we have [math]\displaystyle{ k_1=3 }[/math], and it is easy to see that [math]\displaystyle{ k_2=7 }[/math]. Using a computer, it is not difficult to find that [math]\displaystyle{ k_3=13 }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ k_4\le 27 }[/math]. Indeed, it seems likely that [math]\displaystyle{ k_4=27 }[/math] holds, meaning that in [math]\displaystyle{ {\mathbb F}_3^4 }[/math] one cannot get away with just [math]\displaystyle{ 26 }[/math] elements.

Basic Estimates

Trivially, we have

[math]\displaystyle{ k_n\le k_{n+1}\le 3k_n }[/math].

Since the Cartesian product of two Kakeya sets is another Kakeya set, the upper bound can be extended to

[math]\displaystyle{ k_{n+m} \leq k_m k_n }[/math];

this implies that [math]\displaystyle{ k_n^{1/n} }[/math] converges to a limit as [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math] goes to infinity.

Lower Bounds

To each of the [math]\displaystyle{ (3^n-1)/2 }[/math] directions in [math]\displaystyle{ {\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] there correspond at least three pairs of elements in a Kakeya set, determining this direction. Therefore, [math]\displaystyle{ \binom{k_n}{2}\ge 3\cdot(3^n-1)/2 }[/math], and hence

[math]\displaystyle{ k_n\ge 3^{(n+1)/2}. }[/math]

One can derive essentially the same conclusion using the "bush" argument, as follows. Let [math]\displaystyle{ E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] be a Kakeya set, considered as a union of [math]\displaystyle{ N := (3^n-1)/2 }[/math] lines in all different directions. Let [math]\displaystyle{ \mu }[/math] be the largest number of lines that are concurrent at a point of [math]\displaystyle{ E }[/math]. The number of point-line incidences is at most [math]\displaystyle{ |E|\mu }[/math] and at least [math]\displaystyle{ 3N }[/math], whence [math]\displaystyle{ |E|\ge 3N/\mu }[/math]. On the other hand, by considering only those points on the "bush" of lines emanating from a point with multiplicity [math]\displaystyle{ \mu }[/math], we see that [math]\displaystyle{ |E|\ge 2\mu+1 }[/math]. Comparing the two last bounds one obtains [math]\displaystyle{ |E|\gtrsim\sqrt{6N} \approx 3^{(n+1)/2} }[/math].

The better estimate

[math]\displaystyle{ k_n\ge (9/5)^n }[/math]

is obtained in a paper of Dvir, Kopparty, Saraf, and Sudan. (In general, they show that a Kakeya set in the [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math]-dimensional vector space over the [math]\displaystyle{ q }[/math]-element field has at least [math]\displaystyle{ (q/(2-1/q))^n }[/math] elements).

A still better bound follows by using the "slices argument". Let [math]\displaystyle{ A,B,C\subset{\mathbb F}_3^{n-1} }[/math] be the three slices of a Kakeya set [math]\displaystyle{ E\subset{\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math]. Form a bipartite graph [math]\displaystyle{ G }[/math] with the partite sets [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ B }[/math] by connecting [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math] by an edge if there is a line in [math]\displaystyle{ E }[/math] through [math]\displaystyle{ a }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ b }[/math]. The restricted sumset [math]\displaystyle{ \{a+b\colon (a,b)\in G\} }[/math] is contained in the set [math]\displaystyle{ -C }[/math], while the difference set [math]\displaystyle{ \{a-b\colon (a,b)\in G\} }[/math] is all of [math]\displaystyle{ {\mathbb F}_3^{n-1} }[/math]. Using an estimate from a paper of Katz-Tao, we conclude that [math]\displaystyle{ 3^{n-1}\le\max(|A|,|B|,|C|)^{11/6} }[/math], leading to [math]\displaystyle{ |E|\ge 3^{6(n-1)/11} }[/math]. Thus,

[math]\displaystyle{ k_n \ge 3^{6(n-1)/11}. }[/math]

Upper Bounds

We have

[math]\displaystyle{ k_n\le 2^{n+1}-1 }[/math]

since the set of all vectors in [math]\displaystyle{ {\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] such that at least one of the numbers [math]\displaystyle{ 1 }[/math] and [math]\displaystyle{ 2 }[/math] is missing among their coordinates is a Kakeya set.

This estimate can be improved using an idea due to Ruzsa (seems to be unpublished). Namely, let [math]\displaystyle{ E:=A\cup B }[/math], where [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] is the set of all those vectors with [math]\displaystyle{ r/3+O(\sqrt r) }[/math] coordinates equal to [math]\displaystyle{ 1 }[/math] and the rest equal to [math]\displaystyle{ 0 }[/math], and [math]\displaystyle{ B }[/math] is the set of all those vectors with [math]\displaystyle{ 2r/3+O(\sqrt r) }[/math] coordinates equal to [math]\displaystyle{ 2 }[/math] and the rest equal to [math]\displaystyle{ 0 }[/math]. Then [math]\displaystyle{ E }[/math], being of size just about [math]\displaystyle{ (27/4)^{r/3} }[/math] (which is not difficult to verify using Stirling's formula), contains lines in a positive proportion of directions: for, a typical direction [math]\displaystyle{ d\in {\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] can be represented as [math]\displaystyle{ d=d_1+2d_2 }[/math] with [math]\displaystyle{ d_1,d_2\in A }[/math], and then [math]\displaystyle{ d_1,d_1+d,d_1+2d\in E }[/math]. Now one can use the random rotations trick to get the rest of the directions in [math]\displaystyle{ E }[/math] (losing a polynomial factor in [math]\displaystyle{ n }[/math]).

Putting all this together, we seem to have

[math]\displaystyle{ (3^{6/11} + o(1))^n \le k_n \le ( (27/4)^{1/3} + o(1))^n }[/math]

or

[math]\displaystyle{ (1.8207+o(1))^n \le k_n \le (1.8899+o(1))^n. }[/math]