Kakeya problem: Difference between revisions

From Polymath Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 17: Line 17:
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, but this is superseded by the estimates given below.
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, but this is superseded by the estimates given below.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, etermining this direction. Therefore, <math>\binom{k_n}2\ge 3(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, etermining this direction. Therefore, <math>\binom{k_n}{2}\ge 3\cdot(3^n-1)/2</math>, and hence  


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


One can get essentially the same conclusion using the "bush" argument.  There are <math>N := (3^n-1)/2</math> different directions.  Take a line in every direction, let E be the union of these lines, and let <math>\mu</math> be the maximum multiplicity of these lines (i.e. the largest number of lines that are concurrent at a point).  On the one hand, from double counting we see that E has cardinality at least <math>3N/\mu</math>.  On the other hand, by considering the "bush" of lines emanating from a point with multiplicity <math>\mu</math>, we see that E has cardinality at least <math>2\mu+1</math>.  If we minimise <math>\max(3N/\mu, 2\mu+1)</math> over all possible values of <math>\mu</math> one obtains approximately <math>\sqrt{6N} \approx 3^{(n+1)/2}</math> as a lower bound of |E|, which is asymptotically better than <math>(3/2)^n</math>.
One can get essentially the same conclusion using the "bush" argument.  There are <math>N := (3^n-1)/2</math> different directions.  Take a line in every direction, let E be the union of these lines, and let <math>\mu</math> be the maximum multiplicity of these lines (i.e. the largest number of lines that are concurrent at a point).  On the one hand, from double counting we see that E has cardinality at least <math>3N/\mu</math>.  On the other hand, by considering the "bush" of lines emanating from a point with multiplicity <math>\mu</math>, we see that E has cardinality at least <math>2\mu+1</math>.  If we minimise <math>\max(3N/\mu, 2\mu+1)</math> over all possible values of <math>\mu</math> one obtains approximately <math>\sqrt{6N} \approx 3^{(n+1)/2}</math> as a lower bound of <math>|E|</math>.


Or, we can use the "slices" argument. Let <math>A, B, C \subset ({\Bbb Z}/3{\Bbb Z})^{n-1}</math> be the three slices of a Kakeya set E. We can form a graph G between A and B by connecting A and B by an edge if there is a line in E joining A and B.  The restricted sumset <math>\{a+b: (a,b) \in G \}</math> is essentially C, while the difference set <math>\{a-b: (a-b) \in G \}</math> is all of <math>({\Bbb Z}/3{\Bbb Z})^{n-1}</math>. Using an estimate from [http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.CO/9906097 this paper of Katz-Tao], we conclude that <math>3^{n-1} \leq \max(|A|,|B|,|C|)^{11/6}</math>, leading to the bound <math>|E| \geq 3^{6(n-1)/11}</math>, which is asymptotically better still.
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</math>. Form a graph <math>G</math> between <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> joining <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>.


== General upper bounds ==
== General upper bounds ==
Line 33: Line 33:
since the set of all vectors in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> such that at least one of the numbers <math>1</math> and <math>2</math> is missing among their coordinates is a Kakeya set.  
since the set of all vectors in <math>{\mathbb F}_3^n</math> such that at least one of the numbers <math>1</math> and <math>2</math> is missing among their coordinates is a Kakeya set.  


'''Question''': can the upper bound be strengthened to <math>k_{n+1}\le 2k_n+1</math>?
Another construction uses the "slices" idea and a construction of Imre Ruzsa.  Let <math>A, B \subset [3]^n</math> be the set of strings with <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 1's, <math>2n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 0's, and no 2's; let <math>C \subset [3]^n</math> be the set of strings with <math>2n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 2's, <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 0's, and no 1's, and let <math>E = \{0\} \times A \cup \{1\} \times B \cup \{2\} \times C</math>.  From [[Stirling's formula]] we have <math>|E| = (27/4 + o(1))^{n/3}</math>.  Now I claim that for most <math>t \in [3]^{n-1}</math>, there exists an algebraic line in the direction (1,t).  Indeed, typically t will have <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 0s, <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 1s, and <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 2s, thus <math>t = e + 2f</math> where e and f are strings with <math>n/3 + O(\sqrt{n})</math> 1s and no 2s, with the 1-sets of e and f being disjoint. One then checks that the line <math>(0,f), (1,e), (2,2e+2f)</math> lies in E.


Another construction uses the "slices" idea and a construction of Imre Ruzsa.  Let <math>A, B \subset [3]^n</math> be the set of strings with <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 1's, <math>2n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 0's, and no 2's; let <math>C \subset [3]^n</math> be the set of strings with <math>2n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 2's, <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 0's, and no 1's, and let <math>E = \{0\} \times A \cup \{1\} \times B \cup \{2\} \times C</math>.  From [[Stirling's formula]] we have <math>|E| = (27/4 + o(1))^{n/3}</math>.  Now I claim that for most <math>t \in [3]^{n-1}</math>, there exists an algebraic line in the direction (1,t).  Indeed, typically t will have <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 0s, <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 1s, and <math>n/3+O(\sqrt{n})</math> 2s, thus <math>t = e + 2f</math> where e and f are strings with <math>n/3 + O(\sqrt{n})</math> 1s and no 2s, with the 1-sets of e and f being disjointOne then checks that the line <math>(0,f), (1,e), (2,2e+2f)</math> lies in E.
This is already a positive fraction of directions in <math>E</math>.  One can use the random rotations trick to get the rest of the directions in <math>E</math> (losing a polynomial factor in <math>n</math>).   


This is already a positive fraction of directions in E.  One can use the random rotations trick to get the rest of the directions in E (losing a polynomial factor in n). 
Putting all this together, we seem to have


Putting all this together, I think we have
:<math>(3^{6/11} + o(1))^n \le k_n \le ( (27/4)^{1/3} + o(1))^n</math>
 
:<math>(3^{6/11} + o(1))^n \leq k_n \leq ( (27/4)^{1/3} + o(1))^n</math>


or  
or  


:<math>(1.8207\ldots+o(1))^n \leq k_n \leq (1.88988+o(1))^n</math>
:<math>(1.8207\ldots+o(1))^n \le k_n \le (1.88988+o(1))^n.</math>

Revision as of 11:07, 18 March 2009

Define a Kakeya set to be a subset [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/math] of [math]\displaystyle{ [3]^n\equiv{\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{ a\in{\mathbb F}_3^n }[/math] such that [math]\displaystyle{ a,a+d,a+2d }[/math] all lie in [math]\displaystyle{ A }[/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.

General lower bounds

Trivially,

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

Since the Cartesian product of two Kakeya sets is another Kakeya set, we have

[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.

From a paper of Dvir, Kopparty, Saraf, and Sudan it follows that [math]\displaystyle{ k_n \geq 3^n / 2^n }[/math], but this is superseded by the estimates given below.

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, etermining this direction. Therefore, [math]\displaystyle{ \binom{k_n}{2}\ge 3\cdot(3^n-1)/2 }[/math], and hence

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

One can get essentially the same conclusion using the "bush" argument. There are [math]\displaystyle{ N := (3^n-1)/2 }[/math] different directions. Take a line in every direction, let E be the union of these lines, and let [math]\displaystyle{ \mu }[/math] be the maximum multiplicity of these lines (i.e. the largest number of lines that are concurrent at a point). On the one hand, from double counting we see that E has cardinality at least [math]\displaystyle{ 3N/\mu }[/math]. On the other hand, by considering the "bush" of lines emanating from a point with multiplicity [math]\displaystyle{ \mu }[/math], we see that E has cardinality at least [math]\displaystyle{ 2\mu+1 }[/math]. If we minimise [math]\displaystyle{ \max(3N/\mu, 2\mu+1) }[/math] over all possible values of [math]\displaystyle{ \mu }[/math] one obtains approximately [math]\displaystyle{ \sqrt{6N} \approx 3^{(n+1)/2} }[/math] as a lower bound of [math]\displaystyle{ |E| }[/math].

A 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 }[/math]. Form a graph [math]\displaystyle{ G }[/math] between [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] joining [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].

General 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.

Another construction uses the "slices" idea and a construction of Imre Ruzsa. Let [math]\displaystyle{ A, B \subset [3]^n }[/math] be the set of strings with [math]\displaystyle{ n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 1's, [math]\displaystyle{ 2n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 0's, and no 2's; let [math]\displaystyle{ C \subset [3]^n }[/math] be the set of strings with [math]\displaystyle{ 2n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 2's, [math]\displaystyle{ n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 0's, and no 1's, and let [math]\displaystyle{ E = \{0\} \times A \cup \{1\} \times B \cup \{2\} \times C }[/math]. From Stirling's formula we have [math]\displaystyle{ |E| = (27/4 + o(1))^{n/3} }[/math]. Now I claim that for most [math]\displaystyle{ t \in [3]^{n-1} }[/math], there exists an algebraic line in the direction (1,t). Indeed, typically t will have [math]\displaystyle{ n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 0s, [math]\displaystyle{ n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 1s, and [math]\displaystyle{ n/3+O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 2s, thus [math]\displaystyle{ t = e + 2f }[/math] where e and f are strings with [math]\displaystyle{ n/3 + O(\sqrt{n}) }[/math] 1s and no 2s, with the 1-sets of e and f being disjoint. One then checks that the line [math]\displaystyle{ (0,f), (1,e), (2,2e+2f) }[/math] lies in E.

This is already a positive fraction of directions in [math]\displaystyle{ E }[/math]. 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\ldots+o(1))^n \le k_n \le (1.88988+o(1))^n. }[/math]