Solution to Bishnoi's conjecture on minimal t-fold blocking sets of maximal size
Jeroen Schillewaert

TL;DR
This paper proves Bishnoi's conjecture that minimal t-fold blocking sets of maximal size in projective planes are either the entire plane minus one point, the complement of a Baer subplane, or a unital.
Contribution
The paper provides a proof confirming Bishnoi's conjecture, classifying all minimal t-fold blocking sets of maximal size in projective planes.
Findings
Confirmed Bishnoi's conjecture.
Classified maximal minimal t-fold blocking sets.
Established conditions for such sets in projective planes.
Abstract
Bishnoi conjectured that if a minimal t-fold blocking set in a projective plane of prime power order has maximal size then it is either a projective plane minus one point, the complement of a Baer subplane or a unital. In this note we prove this conjecture.
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsLimits and Structures in Graph Theory · Finite Group Theory Research · Graph theory and applications
Solution to Bishnoi’s conjecture on minimal -fold blocking sets of maximal size
J. Schillewaert
Abstract
Bishnoi conjectured that if a minimal -fold blocking set in a projective plane of prime power order has maximal size then it is either a projective plane minus one point, the complement of a Baer subplane or a unital. In this note we prove this conjecture.
A -fold blocking set in a projective plane of order is a set of points such that each line of intersects in at least points and some line of intersects in exactly points. It is called minimal if every point of is contained in a line intersecting in exactly points.
The case is well-studied going back to Bruen and Thas [4]. They have shown that in a finite projective plane of order the size of a (1-fold) minimal blocking set is bounded above by . This bound is sharp in the case when is a square, and is a unital in , i.e. a set of points in such that each line of intersects in 1 or points. An example of a unital in a Desarguesian plane of square order is the point set of a non-degenerate Hermitian variety, i.e. the points satisfying .
Multiple blocking sets were introduced by Bruen in [3] and lower bounds were obtained by Ball in [1]. In [2] Bishnoi proved the first general upper bound on the size of minimal -fold blocking sets extending the result of Bruen and Thas to the case of general . More precisely he proved the following
Theorem** ([2]).**
A minimal -fold blocking set in a finite projective plane of order has size at most
[TABLE]
If the size of is equal to this upper bound, then every line of intersects in exactly or points.
In particular for the case he recovers the result of Bruen and Thas, for the bound is equal to , and is a projective plane minus a point, and when is a square for we obtain the upper bound , in which case is the complement of a Baer subplane. A Baer subplane in is a set of points of such that each line of intersects in 1 or points. For example, in a Desarguesian plane of square order the subplane is a Baer subplane.
Main Theorem** (Bishnoi’s conjecture).**
In case is a prime power the only possible values for for which equality can be reached in Theorem Theorem are
- •
* when is a square, in this case is a unital in .*
- •
* when is a square, in this case is the complement of a Baer subplane in .*
- •
* for any , in this case is the plane with one point removed.*
Proof.
From the expression for we obtain . Also divides , see e.g. Section 2 of [5]. Assume now that , then by we have . Write , with . Hence becomes
[TABLE]
By is a divisor of , hence is a divisor of , so and divides . We will distinguish four cases.
Case I : dividing (1) by implies that divides , a contradiction.
Case II : Then after division of (1) by we obtain
[TABLE]
So and by (*) , and (2) yields after simplification that , hence is a square, and , and is the complement of a Baer subplane.
Case III : Then from (1) we get which implies that is a multiple of . Since we must have . By , so implying and hence is a square, and , and is a unital.
Case IV : Then we have , and is the projective plane with one point removed.
∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. Ball, Multiple blocking sets and arcs in finite planes, J. London Math. Soc. , 54 :581–593, (1996).
- 2[2] A. Bishnoi, Minimal multiple blocking sets, ar Xiv:1703.07843 [math.co]
- 3[3] Arcs and multiple blocking sets, Finite geometries, I.N.D.A.M , (1983).
- 4[4] A.A. Bruen and J.A. Thas, Blocking sets, Geom. Dedicata , 6 :193–203, (1977).
- 5[5] T. Penttila and G. Royle. Sets of type ( m , n ) 𝑚 𝑛 (m,n) in the affine and projective planes of order nine. Des. Codes Cryptogr. , 6 :229–245, (1995).
