Residual $q$-Fano Planes and Related Structures
Tuvi Etzion, Niv Hooker

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new definition for residual $q$-designs, proves the existence of residual $q$-Fano planes for all prime power $q$, and advances understanding of $q$-analog Steiner systems.
Contribution
It presents a novel definition for residual $q$-designs that better reflects their properties and proves the existence of residual $q$-Fano planes for all prime powers.
Findings
Existence of residual $q$-Fano plane for all prime power $q$
New definition of residual $q$-designs that aligns with $q$-analog properties
Progress towards constructing a $q$-Fano plane
Abstract
One of the most intriguing problems, in -analogs of designs, is the existence question of an infinite family of -analog of Steiner systems, known also as -Steiner systems, (spreads not included) in general, and the existence question for the -analog of the Fano plane, known also as the -Fano plane, in particular. These questions are in the front line of open problems in block design. There was a common belief and a conjecture that such structures do not exist. Only recently, -Steiner systems were found for one set of parameters. In this paper, a definition for the -analog of the residual design is presented. This new definition is different from previous known definition, but its properties reflect better the -analog properties. The existence of a design with the parameters of the residual -Steiner system in general and the residual -Fano plane in…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Residual -Fano Planes and Related Structures
Tuvi Etzion Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel, e-mail: [email protected].
Niv Hooker Department of Computer Science, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel, e-mail: [email protected].
Abstract
One of the most intriguing problems, in -analogs of designs, is the existence question of an infinite family of -analog of Steiner systems, known also as -Steiner systems, (spreads not included) in general, and the existence question for the -analog of the Fano plane, known also as the -Fano plane, in particular. These questions are in the front line of open problems in block design. There was a common belief and a conjecture that such structures do not exist. Only recently, -Steiner systems were found for one set of parameters. In this paper, a definition for the -analog of the residual design is presented. This new definition is different from previous known definition, but its properties reflect better the -analog properties. The existence of a design with the parameters of the residual -Steiner system in general and the residual -Fano plane in particular are examined. We construct different residual -Fano planes for all , where is a prime power. The constructed structure is just one step from a construction of a -Fano plane.
Keywords: -analog, spreads, -Fano plane, -Steiner systems, derived design, residual design.
1 Introduction
Let be the finite field with elements and let be the set of all vectors of length over . is a vector space with dimension over . For a given integer , , let denote the set of all -dimensional subspaces (-subspaces in short) of . is often referred to as a Grassmannian. It is well known that
[TABLE]
where is the -binomial coefficient (known also as the Gaussian coefficient [42, pp. 325-332]).
Let be a set with elements. A - design, is a collection of -subsets of , called blocks, such that each -subset of is contained in exactly blocks. A - design with is trivial: it is simply a partition of into -subsets, which exists if and only if divides . A - design with is known as a Steiner system, and usually denoted . Steiner systems are among the most beautiful and well-studied structures in combinatorics. Their history goes back to the work of Plücker [31], Kirkman [26], Cayley [8], and Steiner [35] in the first half of the 19-th century. Today, the significance of Steiner systems extends well beyond combinatorics — they have found applications in many areas, including group theory, finite geometry, cryptography, and coding theory [2, 12, 17]. For example, a finite projective plane of order can be characterized as a Steiner system , with lines as blocks. As another example, the Mathieu groups (which played an important role in the classification of finite simple groups) are most naturally understood as automorphism groups of certain Steiner systems.
A long-standing problem in design theory asks whether nontrivial (meaning ) Steiner systems with exist. Keevash recently announced a resolution of this problem: his breakthrough paper [24] moreover shows that Steiner systems exist for all and all sufficiently large integers that satisfy the necessary divisibility conditions. More recently another (simpler) proof was provided by Glock, Kühn, Lo, and Osthus [22].
The classical theory of q-analogs of mathematical objects and functions has its beginnings in the work of Euler [20, 27]. In 1957, Tits [41] further suggested that combinatorics of sets could be regarded as the limiting case of combinatorics of vector spaces over the finite field . Indeed, there is a strong analogy between subsets of a set and subspaces of a vector space, expounded by numerous authors—see [11, 23, 43] and references therein. It is therefore natural to ask which combinatorial structures can be generalized from sets (the case) to vector spaces over . For -designs and Steiner systems, this question was first studied by Cameron [9, 10] and Delsarte [13] in the early 1970s. Specifically, let be a vector space of dimension over the finite field . Then a - design over is defined in [9, 10, 13] as a collection of -subspaces of , called blocks, such that each -subspace of is contained in exactly blocks. Such -designs over are the -analogs of conventional combinatorial designs. By analogy with the case, a - design over is said to be a -Steiner system, and denoted .
Remark. We observe that -analogs of designs and Steiner systems are not only of interest in their own right, but also arise naturally in other areas, such as network coding [16]. The appropriate code in random network coding is a collection of subspaces of that are well-separated according to a metric defined on the Grassmannian. Consequently, a -Steiner system can be thought of as an optimal code for error-correction in networks. For more details on this, see [17, 28].
Following the work of Cameron [9, 10] and Delsarte [13], the first examples of nontrivial -designs over were found by Thomas [39] in 1987. Today, owing to the efforts of many authors [6, 21, 25, 30, 32, 36, 37, 38, 40], numerous such examples are known.
However, the situation is very different for -Steiner systems. They are known to exist in the trivial cases or , and in the case where and divides . In the latter case, -Steiner systems coincide with the classical notion of spreads in projective geometry [42, Chapter 24]. Some 40 years ago, Beutelspacher [4] asked whether nontrivial -Steiner systems with exist, and this question has tantalized mathematicians ever since. The problem has been studied by numerous authors [1, 18, 29, 33, 39, 40], without much progress toward constructing such -Steiner systems. In particular, Thomas [40] showed in 1996 that certain kinds of -Steiner systems (the smallest possible example) cannot exist. Three years later, Metsch [29] conjectured that nontrivial -Steiner systems with do not exist in general. In contrast to this conjecture, a -Steiner system was constructed recently [5]. In fact, once one such system was found, other nonisomorphic systems with the same parameters were found.
Similarly, to Steiner systems, simple necessary divisibility conditions for the existence of a given -Steiner system were developed [33, 36].
Theorem 1**.**
If a -Steiner system exists, then for each , , a -Steiner system exists.
Corollary 1**.**
If a -Steiner system exists, then for all ,
[TABLE]
must be integers.
Deriving new designs from designs in general and -Steiner systems in particular is an important direction to find new designs and to exclude the possible existence of other designs. Using -analog of the derived design and the residual designs it was proved that sometimes the necessary conditions for the existence of a -Steiner system are not sufficient [25]. The first set of parameters (, , and ) for which the existence question of -Steiner systems is not settled is the parameters for the -analog of the Fano plane, i.e. the -Steiner systems , which will be called also in this paper the -Fano plane. There was a lot of effort to find whether the -Fano plane, especially for , exists or does not exist, e.g. [7, 14, 18, 40]. All these attempts did not provide any answer to the existence question. It was proved recently in [7] that if such system exists for , then its automorphism group has a small order. In [15] a different approach to consider -Steiner systems was given. This approach is based on puncturing a possible existing -Steiner systems and considering the parameters of the structure derived from the punctured systems. Properties of the -Fano plane based on this approach were also discussed. This approach led to the results in the current paper.
In this paper we present a construction for a design with the same parameters as the design derived from a -Fano plane, the residual -Fano plane. The constructed design will be also called the residual -Fano plane. The construction has many places in which there is flexibility for many choices which lead to a construction of many such designs. Our definition for the residual -Steiner system and the derived -Steiner system result in two structures whose union has the same size as the related -Steiner system, which is not the case for the definition given in [25] and other possible definitions. This makes the residual -Fano plane obtained by our construction to be a design which is almost as close as possible to a -Fano plane. This definition of residual -Steiner system and the construction of the residual -Fano plane is a new direction for a research to solve the existence question of -Steiner systems in general and -Fano planes in particular.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we present a definition for a residual -Steiner system, explain why this definition represents the appropriate -analog definition, and compare it to the other definitions. In Section 3 a few combinatorial structures which are used in the construction are defined and some of their properties are discussed. In Section 4 we will discuss representation of subspaces for our construction. In Section 5 it will be explained how to extend and expand the subspaces in to subspaces in . The construction of the residual -Fano plane is presented in Section 6, where its correctness is also proved. Conclusions and future research are discussed in Section 7. In particular we indicate on the points in the construction in which there is flexibility to construct many different residual -Fano planes.
2 Derived and Residual Designs
For a design on a set , and an element , the derived design is defined by
[TABLE]
and the residual design is defined by
[TABLE]
In [25] there is a simple definition for a -analog of the derived design and the residual design. For this definition we choose an element and an -subspace such that , where denote the linear span of . The derived design of a design over , was defined as
[TABLE]
and the residual design of , was defined as
[TABLE]
By these definitions, the derived design and residual design of a -Steiner system are both designs over . This is on the positive side. On the negative side, the size of their union is significantly smaller than the size of the design from which they were derived.
We present now a different definition for the -analog of a derived design and a residual design which solves this problem in the definition of [25]. Let be the unit vector with the unique one in the last coordinate, and V\mbox{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\rm def}}{{=}}}\{(x,0)~{}:~{}x\in\mathbb{F}_{q}^{n-1}\}. Also, for a subspace , let be the subspace obtained from , by removing the last coordinate of all the vectors in . The derived and residual designs are defined by
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
The two definitions of the derived design are equivalent, but there is a significant difference in the two definitions of the residual design. For the new definitions given in (3) and (4), we have that , a property that does not hold for the definitions given in (1) and (2). The fact that the union of the two derived designs has size as the original design is one argument that these definitions serve better as the -analog of the derived design and the residual design. We continue to examine more properties, but the examination will relate only to Steiner systems or only Steiner triple system , which are the topic of this paper (but, these properties are also true for other parameters). Another argument is that the uncovered pairs in a residual Steiner triple system form a perfect matching (known also as a 1-factor or ) (see the work of Spencer [34] for the uncovered pairs of triple systems). The -analog is the uncovered 2-subspaces in a residual design of a -Steimer system . These uncovered pairs form a -Steiner system (known also as a 1-spread). Indeed, the uncovered pairs in the residual -Steiner system defined in (4) are exactly the -analog of the uncovered pairs of the residual Steiner system. This property does not exist in the definition given in (2). A third argument is a consequence of the next theorem.
The union of the derived -Steiner system and the residual -Steiner system was called in [15], the punctured (or 1-punctured) -Steiner system. But, no such system was constructed in [15]. In the exposition given in [15] it was proved that
Theorem 2**.**
If is a -Steiner system , then the derived system contains exactly distinct -subspaces which form a -Steiner system . Each -subspace of which is contained in a -subspace of is not contained in any of the -subspaces of . Each -subspace of which is not contained in a -subspace of , appears exactly times in the -subspaces of .
We will now define any two sets of subspaces which satisfy the properties given in Theorem 2 as the derived design and the residual design for a -Steiner system (but do not depend on the existence of a -Steiner system ). For a -Steiner system these definitions are given as follows:
- •
A derived -Steiner system for a -Steiner system is a -Steiner system .
- •
Let be a -Steiner system . The residual -Steiner system, , for a -Steiner system (which might not exists), , is a set of distinct -subspaces from such that each -subspace of which is not contained in , is contained in exactly -subspaces of .
It should be noted that when , i.e. for a Steiner system based on an -set, each-subset of the -set which is not contained in the derived design, is contained in exactly one -subset of the derived design. This is another indication that our definition for the -analog of the residual design reflects the best transformation from subsets to subspaces.
It is interesting to know if there exists a system with the same properties of the residual design in which each -subspace which is not contained in the derived design, is contained in exactly subspaces of the residual design, where . It is not difficult to prove that this is not possible if is not divisible by (the proof is left for the interested reader), but it is intriguing to know if divisible by is possible.
3 Combinatorial Structures for the Construction
The construction of the residual -Fano plane given in the Section 6 will make use of a few combinatorial structures which are defined, described, and discussed in this section.
The first object is a 1-spread (spread in short) in , where is even. A spread in is a set of 2-subspaces of , such that each nonzero vector of is contained in exactly one 2-subspace of . It is well known that such a spread exists whenever is even.
A 1-parallelism (parallelism in short) in is a partition of the 2-subspaces of into pairwise disjoint spreads. The number of 2-subspaces in such a spread is . It was proved by Beutelspacher [3] that such a parallelism exists whenever is a power of 2.
We will be interested in a parallelism in , i.e. a partition of the 2-subspaces of into disjoint spreads.
We further partition, for our construction of a residual -Fano plane, the pairwise disjoint spreads of any given parallelism into three sets , , and . The set contains one spread. The set contains spreads, and the set contains spreads. Any partition of the spreads is appropriate for this purpose. Such a partition for is given in Table 1.
In the construction, we have another set which contains all the distinct 3-subspaces of . An example for a basis of the fifteen 3-subspaces of is given in Table 2.
Let be a primitive element in . The next structure that has to be considered is a set of different matrices of size over . These matrices must satisfy the following properties:
Let be the consecutive columns of such a matrix. For each , , (a scalar is multiplied by each element of a vector in the product , and the vector addition is performed element by element in .). 2. 2.
The set of matrices form a linear subspace of dimension two over . 3. 3.
For each , , the -th column vectors in the matrices are all distinct, i.e. they consist of all possible column vectors of length 2.
Since these matrices form a linear subspace, it follows that there union is a linear code. In the sequel, this code will be called the extension code.
Lemma 1**.**
For each power of a prime there exists an extension code.
Proof.
We start with two matrices over which will be the basis of the code.
For the first matrix the first column will be {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)} and the second column will be {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)}. The -th column, , is \alpha^{i-3}{\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)}+{\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)}={\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}\alpha^{i-3}\\ 1\end{array}\right)}.
For the second matrix the first column will be {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)} and the second column will be {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ \beta\end{array}\right)}, where . The th column, , is \alpha^{i-3}{\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)}+{\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ \beta\end{array}\right)}={\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ \alpha^{i-3}+\beta\end{array}\right)}. We have to prove that there exists a such that the requirements for the extension code are satisfied.
For this proof we form a matrix whose first row consists of the columns of the matrix in their given order. The other rows are indexed by the elements of . The row which are indexed by has {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)} in the first entry and {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ \beta\end{array}\right)} in the second entry. The -th entry, , will be {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ \alpha^{i-3}+\beta\end{array}\right)}. It is easy to verify that the sub-matrix of defined by removing the first row and first column of is a Latin square (each row and each column is a permutation of the column vectors {\tiny\left(\begin{array}[]{c}1\\ \beta\end{array}\right)}, ). For each , , the element in the -th entry of the first row of appears in the linear span of the -th entry of exactly one row of . Since has rows, it follows that there exists at least one row which share no linearly dependent entry with the first row of . The of such a row is the required for .
The two matrices and are linearly independent. In fact, for each , , the -th columns of the two matrices are linearly independent. Hence, the linear span of and form a linear subspace of dimension two and for the each , , the -th columns of al matrices in the code are distinct. ∎
Next, we consider all matrices which are candidates for the extension code. This set of candidates consists of all the distinct matrices over . If are the consecutive columns of such a matrix, then for each , , . This set of matrices is clearly a linear subspace which will be called the extension space. Since the entries of the first two column vectors can be chosen arbitrarily, it follows that there are matrices in the extension space. Moreover, these matrices form a linear subspace of dimension four over . Since the extension code is a linear subspace of dimension two of the extension space, it follows that we can partition the matrices of the extension space into sets of size having the following properties:
The extension code is the first set. 2. 2.
Let be the consecutive columns of any matrix in any of the codes. For each , , . 3. 3.
For each , , the -th column vectors in the matrices, of any of the sets, are all distinct, i.e. they consist of all possible column vectors of length 2.
An example for an extension space (the extension code and its coset) is given in Table 3.
The construction of the residual -Fano plane will start from sets of subspaces from . The subspaces of these sets will be extended in various ways to 3-subspaces of , in a way that all these extensions will result in the the residual -Fano plane. The extension space will have an important role in these extensions as will be explained in Sections 4 and 6. The methods in which subspaces are extended is explained in Section 4.
We end this section with a connection between the subspaces of and the subspaces of the set .
Lemma 2**.**
A 2-subspace of can be expanded in distinct ways to a 3-subspace of .
Proof.
A 2-subspace has pairwise linearly independent vectors. has pairwise linearly independent vectors. Each one of the pairwise linearly independent vectors not in can be used to for a 3-subspace of . Each 3-subspace contain pairwise linearly independent vectors, i.e. additional vector to . Each one of them will form the same 3-subspace when appended to . Hence can be expanded in distinct ways to a 3-subspace of . ∎
Lemma 3**.**
Each 3-subspace of (also of ) contains a unique 2-subspace of the set .
Proof.
If and is a vector such that , then Y\mbox{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\rm def}}{{=}}}{\left\langle{X\cup\{v\}}\right\rangle} is clearly a 3-subspace of . Since is a 3-subspace and all the 2-subspaces of are pairwise disjoint, it follows that cannot contain two 2-subspaces of .
There are different 3-subspaces which contain , different 2-subspaces in , and hence there are 3-subspaces which contain 2-subspaces from . The total number of different 3-subspace of is . It implies that each 3-subspace of contains a unique 2-subspace of the set . ∎
4 Representation of Subspaces
The construction of the derived -Fano plane and the residual -Fano plane will be presented in Section 6. The construction will start with subspaces from which will consists of the unique 0-subspace of and the subspaces of the sets , , , and . These subspaces will be extended and/or expanded to 2-subspaces in for the derived -Fano plane, and to 3-subspaces in for the residual -Fano plane. Most of these extensions will be performed with the extension space and hence the representations of these subspaces and the matrices of the extension space must be matched in their representation to make sure that the outcome will be subspaces with the required properties. To make these extensions and/or expansions simple to explain we will use certain representations of 2-subspaces and 3-subspaces of , and 2-subspaces and 3-subspaces of . These representations will also help to verify the correctness of the construction. For these representations we form an order between the vectors of length 4 of . For simplicity we will use the standard lexicographic order from the smallest to the largest element.
In the representations which follows we will take only one of the different vectors from which any two are linearly dependent, i.e., vectors for a 2-subspace and vectors for a 3-subspace. W.l.o.g. (without loss of generality) the vectors which will be taken will always be those whose first nonzero element is a one.
Representation of 2-Subspaces of , :
A 2-subspace X of will be presented by an matrix and an expanded representation by an matrix (or ) as follows. The first columns of the matrices ( and ) will be the vectors of length of , where each two columns are linearly independent (let us denote these columns by ), with the following two properties:
- •
Any two columns of the matrix defined by the first 4 rows and the first columns of are linearly independent, and hence form a basis for .
- •
Let be the consecutive columns of the matrix defined by the first four rows and the first columns of . The first two columns are the smallest among the columns in the given lexicographic order and . Furthermore, , .
This completes the definition of . For the definition of , the next column (the-th column) will be an all-zero column. The next (and last) columns will consists of identical copies of .
Any 2-subspace which cannot be represented in this way will not be considered for this representation (These are 2-subspaces of which have vectors starting with four zeroes.).
The 2-subspaces in Table 1 are represented by this definition.
Representation of 3-Subspaces of , :
A 3-subspace X of will be presented by an matrix as follows. The first columns of will be the vectors of length of a 2-subspace of , where each two columns are linearly independent (let us denote these columns by ), with the following two properties:
- •
The first columns of the matrix defined by the first 4 rows and the first columns of represent a 2-subspace of , whose existence is guaranteed by Lemma 3.
- •
Let be the consecutive columns of the matrix defined by the first four rows and the first columns of . The first two columns are the smallest among the columns in the given order and . Furthermore, , .
The next column of (the -th column) will be a non-zero column vector of length linearly independent of the first columns of (or ). It will be taken as the smallest vector, in the lexicographic order, among the other columns of . The next columns of will consists of matrices, where the -th matrix, , is (the addition of a column vector of length to an matrix is done by adding to each column of .). Hence, any two of the first columns with the -th column form a basis for the 3-subspace.
After describing the representations of 2-subspaces and 3-subspaces, we are in a position to describe how we extend and expand a subspace in to a subspace in , while keeping these representations. To make these extensions and expansions simple, we will give a few properties of our representations whose proofs are trivial. First let (), , be the -th column in the representation of two distinct subspaces.
Lemma 4**.**
In the representation of a 3-subspace , , are linearly independent.
Lemma 5**.**
If for a given 3-subspace and we have , where , then for another subspace (of dimension two or three) we have .
Lemma 6**.**
Any 2-subspace of a 3-subspace contains either all the first columns of or exactly one of the first columns of .
Lemma 7**.**
There exists a set which contains subsets of , each subset is of size , such that the columns of the 2-subspaces of any matrix , , which represents a 3-subspace, are exactly on the coordinates of the subsets of .
5 Extensions and Expansions of Subspaces
The construction of the derived -Fano plane and the residual -Fano plane will start with 2-subspaces and 3-subspaces of . They will be extended and possibly expanded to 3-subspaces of . We start with a formal definition of the expansion, which was mentioned before in the representation of a 2-subspace .
The expansion of an matrix , having columns , with a column vector of length to an matrix as follows. The next column is , and the next columns consists of matrices, where the -th matrix is . We note that if represent a 2-subspace and is linearly independent in the columns of (i.e. ) then represent a 3-subspace. If represents a 2-subspaces we can write instead of .
The following simple lemmas which were also proved in [15] provide some of the foundations for the extensions (with possible expansions).
Lemma 8**.**
Each 2-subspace in has exactly distinct extensions to a 2-subspace in .
Lemma 9**.**
Each 2-subspace in has a unique extension (with expansion) to a 3-subspace in .
Lemma 10**.**
Each 3-subspace in has exactly distinct extensions to a 3-subspace in .
Lemma 11**.**
Each 2-subspace in has exactly distinct extensions to a 2-subspace in . Each such extension is done by a different matrix of the extension space.
In the extensions with possible expansions required in our construction, these lemmas are implemented as follows.
Extension of a 2-subspace from to a 2-subspace of :
Let be any 2-subspace of which is going to be extended to a 2-subspace of . This extension can be done in two steps:
Choose a matrix from the extension space. 2. 2.
Form a representation matrix for a 2-subspace whose first four rows is the matrix representation of and last two rows is .
Lemma 12**.**
A 2-subspace of can be extended in distinct ways to a 2-subspace of .
Proof.
There are distinct ways to choose an extension matrix from the extension space. Each one yields a different 2-subspace of and all extensions can be formed in this way. ∎
Extension of a 2-subspace from to a 3-subspace of :
There are two distinct ways to extend a 2-subspace of to a 3-subspace of .
One way is to extend first to one of the distinct 2-subspaces of and then use a unique extension (with expansion) to a 3-subspace of . This is done by extending to a2-subspace of by appending to any one of the matrices of the extension space whose second row is an all-zero row. The unique 3-subspace of is obtain by expanding with , the unit vector of length 6 with the one in the last position. Hence, the final 3-subspace is . Therefore, there are distinct ways for this extension (with expansion).
The second way is to extend in a unique way (with expansion) to a 3-subspace of . The 3-subspace can be extended in distinct ways to a 3-subspace of . This is done first by appending to an all-zero row and expand is with , the unit vector of length 5 with the one in the last position. There are ways to extend the 3-subspace of to a 3-subspace of . This is done either by using any of the linear combinations of the first five rows to form the 6-th row, or by taking any of the assignments from to positions 1, 2, and , and the other positions are fixed by the linear combinations of the other columns.
Lemma 13**.**
A 2-subspace of can be extended in distinct ways to a 3-subspace of .
Extension of a 3-subspace from to a 3-subspace of :
Let be any 3-subspace of which is going to be extended to a 3-subspace of . This extension can be done in four steps:
Choose a matrix from the extension space. 2. 2.
Choose a column vector of length two over . 3. 3.
Form the expansion . 4. 4.
Form a representation matrix for a 3-subspace whose first four rows is the matrix representation of and last two rows is .
Lemma 14**.**
A 3-subspace of can be extended in distinct ways to a 3-subspace of .
Proof.
There are distinct ways to choose an extension matrix from the extension space and way to choose the vector for . Each such choice will yield a different 3-subspace of since the process starts with a 3-subspace. To complete the proof we note that each extension can be formed in this way. ∎
6 Construction of Residual -Fano Planes
The construction of the derived -Fano plane and the residual -Fano plane is based on extensions and possible expansion of the subspaces in the sets , , , and , which contain 2-subspaces and 3-subspaces of into 3-subspaces in . These extensions and/or expansions and the extension of the null-subspace of will form the residual -Fano plane.
There is one possible way to form a 2-subspace of whose first four rows in the matrix representation corresponds to the 0-subspace of . The set of size one which contains this 2-subspace will be denoted by .
Extension of Type A:
The set of 2-subspaces of contains subspaces. Each one is extended in the possible distinct ways, based on the extension code , to a 2-subspace in . The result is a set with distinct 2-subspaces of . This set will be denoted by .
Lemma 15**.**
The set is a spread in .
Proof.
The set is a spread in by definition. The extension based on is a 2-subspace in . A spread in contains disjoint 2-subspaces. has one 2-subspace and contains 2-subspaces. Hence, to complete the proof it is sufficient to prove that no nonzero vector of appears more than once in a subspaces of . Assume a vector appears in two such subspaces. Let be the prefix vector of length 4 obtained from . By the definition of we have that is either the all-zero vector or it is contained in a unique 2-subspace of . If is the all-zero vector then is contained only in the unique subspace of . If is contained in a unique 2-subspace of , then by the definition of the extension code , each one of the extensions of with the extension code appends a different suffix of length two to and hence cannot appear more than once. ∎
Table 4 presents the 21 2-subspaces of for . The first four rows in the matrix representation is a 2-subspace of and the last two rows are taken from the extension code.
Extension of Type B:
The set of 2-subspaces of contains spreads with a total of subspaces. Each one is extended in all possible distinct ways to a 2-subspace in . Each such 2-subspace of is extended in a unique way to a 3-subspace in . The result is a set with distinct 3-subspaces of . This set will be denoted by . Table 5 presents the forty 3-subspaces of for . Note that the third vector in all the subspaces is the same.
Extension of Type C:
The set of 2-subspaces of contains spreads, each one has subspaces. We further partition into subsets , , where contains spreads.
For each , , the set of 2-subspaces of contains subspaces. Each one is extended in a unique way to a 3-subspace in . Each such 3-subspace of has extensions to a 3-subspace in . Let be the set of these 3-subspaces which have in the 6-th row of the -th column of the matrix representation. This set contains distinct 3-subspaces of since there are distinct ways to choose the pair of symbols in the sixth row for the first two linearly independent vectors of the 3-subspace. If \mathbb{S}_{\cal C}\mbox{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\rm def}}{{=}}}\cup_{\xi\in\mathbb{F}_{q}}\mathbb{S}_{{\cal C}_{\xi}} then clearly contains distinct 3-subspaces.
Table 6 presents the eighty 3-subspaces of for , where the first two spreads in Table 1 are taken as and the other two spreads form . Note, that the third vector in the basis of the subspaces from and the one from differ exactly in the last entry.
Extension of Type D:
First, we partition the cosets of the extension code (all the extension space excluding ) into parts, , each one contains cosets with matrices, i.e. , , contains matrices.
The set of 3-subspaces of has size . By Lemma 3 each 3-subspace of contains a unique 2-subspace from . By Lemma 2 for a given such 2-subspace there are different 3-subspaces of which contain (expanded from , the first vector is defined by the lexicographic order). Let be the subspaces of which contain , where Y_{j}\mbox{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\rm def}}{{=}}}E(X,u) for a column vector .
For any , , we extend the 3-subspace using as follows. For each matrix from the matrices of and for each column vector of length 2 from we form the expanded representation . is extended with , i.e the new 3-subspace is represented by a matrix whose first four rows is the matrix representation of and the last two rows are . The result is a set which contains distinct 3-subspaces ( matrices in , where each matrix is expanded with vectors of length 2).
The set of all 3-subspaces formed from the 2-subspace will be denoted by and its size is . The set of all 3-subspaces formed from will be denoted by and its size is since the size of (from which was taken) is .
Tables 7 and 8 present first forty eight 3-subspaces of for , where is taken as the first 2-subspace of in Table 1 and the cosets of the extension code are taken from Table 3. The 3-subspaces , , and are presented first with their basis as in Table 2 and after that with their matrix representation. Note, that the first four rows of the 3-subspaces in Table 8 form the matrix representation of , , and . The other 192 3-subspaces of are presented in Tables 9, 10, 11, and 12.
Let
[TABLE]
A simple algebraic computation leads to
Lemma 16**.**
[TABLE]
By Lemma 16, the number of subspaces in the sets is the same as the number of3-subspaces in a -Fano plane. Recall, that by Lemma 15 we have that is a spread. Hence, to show that is a residual -Fano plane it is sufficient to prove that either each 2-subspace of which is not contained in is contained in at least subspaces of , or each 2-subspace of which is not contained in is contained in at most subspaces of .
Lemma 17**.**
Each 2-subspace of which can be extended from a 2-subspace of , but not extended to a 2-subspace of the spread , is contained times in the 3-subspaces of .
Proof.
Since the 2-subspaces of are extended only to the spread of , it follows that any 2-subspaces of which can be extended from a 2-subspace of was formed by extending the 3-subspaces of . By Lemma 3 each 2-subspace of is contained in distinct 3-subspaces of . By the definition for the representation of 3-subspaces, this 2-subspace appear in the first four rows and the first column of the 3-subspace representation. Let and let be the subspaces of which contain . By the extensions of , each matrix of the extension space, which is not part of the extension code, is used times to extend , using the matrices , where any column vector of length 2 over is used once as . By lemma 13, these are all the possible extensions of 2-subspaces from (note, that the extensions of subspaces from with the extension code are exactly the 2-subspaces of .). ∎
Lemma 18**.**
Each 2-subspaces of extended from a 2-subspace of is contained exactly once in the 3-subspaces of .
Proof.
Any 2-subspace of is first extended in all the possible distinct ways to a 2-subspace of . Each 2-subspace of these subspaces is extended in a unique way to a 3-subspace . Such a 3-subspace contains all the distinct 2-subspaces of , extended from . ∎
Lemma 19**.**
Each 2-subspaces of extended from a 2-subspace of is contained exactly once in the 3-subspaces of .
Proof.
Any 2-subspace of is first extended in a unique way to a 3-subspace of . Such a 3-subspace contains all the distinct 2-subspaces of , extended from . Each such 3-subspace is extended to (out of the ) distinct 3-subspaces of . All these distinct 3-subspaces have the same symbol in the last row of the -th column, in the matrix representation, which implies that each distinct 2-subspace of is extended in distinct ways to all possible distinct 2-subspaces of extended from . ∎
For the next set of 2-subspaces we need one property of the extension space.
Lemma 20**.**
Let be a coset of the extension code, let and two matrices of , and let and two column vectors of . Let , defined in Lemma 7, and let be a 3-subspace. If and are extensions of with and , respectively, then columns of and define two different 2-subspaces of unless and or and .
Proof.
By the definition of the extension code, the columns of and are distinct in pairs unless . Hence, by Lemma 6 we infer the result in the case that . If then implies that except for the first columns all the columns of and are different in pairs and hence the result follows from Lemma 6. ∎
Since each 2-subspace of either or is contained in 3-subspaces of , it follows as a consequence of Lemma 20 that
Lemma 21**.**
Each 2-subspaces of extended from a 2-subspace of either or is contained exactly times in the 3-subspaces of .
Lemma 22**.**
Each 2-subspace of which contains a vector which start with five zeroes is contained either in or contained times in .
Proof.
The unique 2-subspace in which all vectors start with four or five zeroes is contained in .
Vectors which start with five zeroes are contained in and in the extensions of 2-subspaces from . The reason is that the 2-subspaces of are first extended to 2-subspaces of in distinct ways. Since contains spreads, it follows that each nonzero vector of length 4 is contained times in the 2-subspaces of . Since there are distinct extensions of a 2-subspace of to a 2-subspace of is follows that each vector of length 4 is extended with a symbol to a vector of length 5 exactly times. Hence, each nonzero vector of length 5 appears in the extensions of to 2-subspaces of exactly times. Thus, each vector of length 6 appears exactly times in the extensions (with expansions) of to 3-subspaces in a unique way. Thus, each 2-subspace which contains a vector of length 6 starting with 5 zeroes is contained in distinct 3-subspaces of . ∎
Lemma 23**.**
Each 2-subspace of which contains a vector which start with four zeroes and the 5-th symbol is nonzero, is contained either in or contained times in .
Proof.
The unique 2-subspace in which all vectors start with four zeroes is contained in .
Vectors which start with four zeroes and the 5-th symbol is nonzero, are contained in and in the extensions of subspaces from . Since contains spreads, it follows that each nonzero vector of length 4 is contained times in the 2-subspaces of . Hence, each vector of length 5 appears exactly times in the extensions (with expansions) of to 3-subspaces in a unique way. Thus, each 2-subspace which contains a vector of length 5 starting with 4 zeroes and 5-th nonzero, is contained in distinct 3-subspaces of extended (and expanded) from . For each 2-subspace of which contains a vector which starts with 4 zeroes there are distinct extensions to a 2-subspace of . Each one is considered in the extensions of , , and since each 2-subspace of was contained times, it follows that the same is true for the 2-subspaces of which contain a vector which start with four zeroesand the 5-th symbol is nonzero. ∎
A consequence of Lemmas 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, we have the concluding result.
Theorem 3**.**
* is a derived -Fano plane and is a residual -Fano plane.*
7 Conclusions and Future Research
We have presented a new definition for the residual -design which reflects better the relations between the design on one side and its derived design and residual designs on the other hand. We have constructed designs with the parameters of the residual design of the-Fano plane for each power of a prime . This is the closest as was achieved until today towards a construction of infinite family of -Steiner systems, arguably, the most intriguing open problem in block design today. Our construction is flexible which enable to construct many residual -Fano planes for each . The number of different residual -Fano planes is increased with the increase of . The first point with flexibility is the number of parallelisms in which are generally increasing as get larger. The number of partitions of the spreads in such a parallelism into the sets , , and , is clearly increasing as get larger. Similarly, can be partitions in a few different ways to and the number of such partitions is clearly increasing with . The extension code can be chosen in a few different ways and the number of different ways is also increasing when increases. Finally, there are many different ways to make the extensions of Type D. First, the cosets of the extension code (the extension space without the extension code) can be partitioned in a few different ways (with an exception for ) to and these number of different ways is clearly increasing with the increase of . The matching of the pairs , for the extension of Type D, can be done in different ways and this can be done for each spread in . Hence, we have many different residual -Fano planes for each and each one might have different properties and can be used for different purpose. This is a subject for future research. In particular one can find different residual -Fano planes which differ in a small number of subspaces (by using pairs in the extensions of Type D which differ only in one transposition). One can easily verify that the structure obtained from the dual subspaces of the subspaces in a residual -Fano plane is also a residual -Fano plane. This can lead to other interesting properties of the -Fano plane and this is a topic for future research. Finally, an applications of the new structure in network coding is presented in [19].
The new construction and the new structure open also a sequence of other directions for future research, for which we list a few:
- •
Provide more constructions for residual -Steiner systems with other parameters.
- •
Can a residual -Steiner system exists, while a related -Steiner system does not exist? We conjecture that the answer is positive.
- •
Prove that the residual -Fano plane constructed can be extended or cannot be extended to a -Fano plane. We conjecture that for it cannot be extended, while for some such an extension might be possible.
- •
Examine the properties of the residual -Steiner systems with respect to the possible existence of a related -Steiner systems.
Finally, we note that the subspaces used throughout the construction can be represented by their basis and the same is true for the construction. We believe that with such more natural representation the proof of the main result and its verification will be more complicated and less intuitive. But, the construction can be easily given with basis for subspaces. For 2-subspaces the first columns can be taken as the basis. For 3-subspaces, the -th column can be taken to complete the basis. These three columns for the basis are well defined and hence one can generated the subspaces of the design without generating the matrices.
Acknowledgments
Tuvi Etzion would like to thank Alex Vardy for enormous conversations on the problem during the last ten years.
Appendix
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] R. Ahlswede, H. K. Aydinian, and L. H. Khachatrian, On perfect codes and related concepts, Designs, Codes, and Cryptography, 22 (2001), 221–237.
- 2[2] T. Beth, D. Jungnickel, and H. Lenz , Design Theory, Volume I , 2nd ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999. T. Beth, D. Jungnickel, and H. lenz, Design Theory, Volume I , 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1999.
- 3[3] A. Beutelspacher, On parallelisms in finite projective spaces, Geometriae Dedicata, 3 (1974), 35–40.
- 4[4] A. Beutelspacher , Parallelismen in unendlichen projektiven Raumen endlicher Dimension , Geom. Dedicata 7 (1978) 499–506.
- 5[5] M. Braun, T. Etzion, P. R. J. Östergård, A. Vardy, and A. Wassermann Existence of q 𝑞 q -Analogs of Steiner Systems, Forum of Mathematics, Pi , 4 (2016), 1–14.
- 6[6] M. Braun, A. Kerber and R. Laue, Systematic construction of q 𝑞 q -analogs of t 𝑡 t - ( v , k , λ ) 𝑣 𝑘 𝜆 (v,k,\lambda) -designs, Designs, Codes, and Cryptography 34 (2005) 55–70.
- 7[7] M. Braun, M. Kiermaier, and A. Nakić On the automorphism group of a binary q 𝑞 q -analog of the Fano plane, European Journal of Combinatorics, 51 (2016), 443–457.
- 8[8] A. Cayley , On the triadic arrangements of seven and fifteen things , Philosophical Mag. 37 (1850) 50–53.
