This paper calculates the density of visible points in the Ammann-Beenker point set, extending known lattice results to a quasicrystal structure using Dedekind's zeta function over a quadratic field.
Contribution
It provides a formula for the density of visible points in the Ammann-Beenker set, linking it to Dedekind's zeta function, a novel extension of lattice point density results.
Findings
01
Density of visible points in Ammann-Beenker set is 2(√2-1)/ζ_K(2)
02
Connects quasicrystal point set density to algebraic number theory
03
Extends lattice point density results to a non-periodic structure
Abstract
The relative density of visible points of the integer lattice Zd is known to be 1/ζ(d) for d≥2, where ζ is Riemann's zeta function. In this paper we prove that the relative density of visible points in the Ammann-Beenker point set is given by 2(2−1)/ζK(2), where ζK is Dedekind's zeta function over K=Q(2).
μ(I)={0(−1)ω(I) if ∃π∈P such that I⊂π2OK, otherwise.
μ(I)={0(−1)ω(I) if ∃π∈P such that I⊂π2OK, otherwise.
ζK(s)=P◃OK,Pprime∏1−N(P)−s1
ζK(s)=P◃OK,Pprime∏1−N(P)−s1
ζK(s)1=I◃OK∑N(I)sμ(I).
ζK(s)1=I◃OK∑N(I)sμ(I).
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
TopicsMathematical Dynamics and Fractals · Analytic Number Theory Research · Limits and Structures in Graph Theory
Full text
The density of visible points in the Ammann-Beenker point set
Gustav Hammarhjelm
Abstract
The relative density of visible points of the integer lattice Zd is known to be 1/ζ(d) for d≥2, where ζ is Riemann’s zeta function. In this paper we prove that the relative density of visible points in the Ammann-Beenker point set is given by 2(2−1)/ζK(2), where ζK is Dedekind’s zeta function over K=Q(2).
1 Introduction
A locally finite point set P⊂Rd has an asymptotic density (or simply density) θ(P) if
[TABLE]
holds for all Jordan measurable D⊂Rd. The density of a set can be interpreted as the asymptotic number of elements per unit volume. For instance, for a lattice L⊂Rd we have θ(L)=vol(Rd/L)1. Let
P={x∈P∣tx∈/P,∀t∈(0,1)} denote the subset of the visible points of P. If P is a regular cut-and-project set (see 3.1 below) then it is known that θ(P) exists. In [5, Theorem 1], J. Marklof and A. Strömbergsson proved that θ(P) also exists and that 0<θ(P)≤θ(P) if θ(P)>0. In particular, for such P the relative density of visible pointsκP:=θ(P)θ(P) exists, but is not known explicitly in most cases.
For d≥2 we have Zd={(n1,…,nd)∈Zd∣gcd(n1,…,nd)=1} and θ(Zd)=1/ζ(d) gives the probability that d random integers share no common factor. This can be derived in several ways, see for instance [6]; we sketch another proof in Section 2 below. More generally, θ(L)=vol(Rd/L)ζ(d)1 for a lattice L⊂Rd, see e.g. [3, Prop. 6].
A well-known point set, which can be realised both as the vertices of a substitution tiling and as a cut-and-project set, is the Ammann-Beenker point set. The goal of this paper is to prove that the relative density of visible points in the Ammann-Beenker point set is 2(2−1)/ζK(2). This density was computed by B. Sing in the presentation [7], but he has not published a proof of this result.
2 The density of the visible points of Zd
In this section we show that θ(Zd)=1/ζ(d). We shall see that a lot of inspiration can be drawn from this example when calculating the density of the visible points in the Ammann-Beenker point set.
Fix R>0, a Jordan measurable D⊂Rd and let P⊂Z>0 denote the set of prime numbers. For each invisible point n∈Zd∖Zd, there is p∈P such that pn∈Zd. Setting Z∗d=Zd∖{(0,…,0)} there are only finitely many p1,…,pn∈P such that piZ∗d∩RD=∅. By inclusion-exclusion counting we have
[TABLE]
The last sum can be rewritten to
[TABLE]
where μ is the Möbius function. Hence
[TABLE]
Letting R→∞, switching order of limit and summation (for instance justified by finding a constant C depending on D such that #(Z∗d∩RD)≤Cvol(RD) for all R), using θ(Z∗d)=1 and 1/ζ(s)=∑n∈Z>0nsμ(n) for s>1, we find that
[TABLE]
3 Cut-and-project sets and the Ammann-Beenker point set
The Ammann-Beenker point set can be obtained as the vertices of the Ammann-Beenker tiling, a substitution tiling of the plane using a square and a rhombus as tiles, see e.g. [2, Chapter 6.1]. In this paper however, the Ammann-Beenker set is realised as a cut-and-project set, a certain type of point set which we will now define. Cut-and-project sets are sometimes called (Euclidean) model sets. We will use the same notation and terminology for cut-and-project sets as in [4, Sec. 1.2]. For an introduction to cut-and-project sets, see e.g. [2, Ch. 7.2].
If Rn=Rd×Rm, let
[TABLE]
denote the natural projections.
Definition 3.1**.**
Let L⊂Rn be a lattice and W⊂πint(L) be a set. Then the cut-and-project set of L and W is given by
P(W,L)={π(y)∣y∈L,πint(y)∈W}.
If ∂W has measure zero with respect to any Haar measure on πint(L) we say that P(W,L) is regular.
If the interior of W (the window) is non-empty, P(W,L) is relatively dense and if W is bounded, P(W,L) is uniformly discrete (cf. [4, Prop. 3.1]). To realise the Ammann-Beenker point set in this way, let K be the number field Q(2), with algebraic conjugation x↦x (we will also write x=(x1,…,xn) for x=(x1,…,xn)∈Kn) and norm N(x)=xx. The ring of integers OK=Z[2] of K is a Euclidean domain with fundamental unit λ:=1+2. With ζ:=e4πi and ⋆:K⟶K, x↦x⋆ the automorphism generated by ζ↦ζ3, the Ammann-Beenker point set is in [2, Example 7.7] realised as
[TABLE]
where W8⊂C is the regular octagon of side length 1 centered at the origin, with sides perpendicular to the coordinate axes.
Let
[TABLE]
be the Minkowski embedding of OK2 and let
[TABLE]
Then, after a straight-forward translation it is seen that the Ammann-Beenker point set A can be realised in R2 as
A=21P(WA,L),
where WA:=2W8, i.e. A is the scaling of a cut-and-project set according to 3.1.
4 The density of visible points of A
All notation used in this section is defined in and taken from Section 3. Since, for any P⊂Rd whose density exists, and any c>0 it holds that θ(cP)=c−dθ(P) and cP=cP, finding θ(A′) with A′:=2A=P(WA,L) will give the value of θ(A). As a first step, in Section 4.1, the asymptotic density of the visible points of the simpler set B=P(WA,L)={x∈OK2∣x∈WA}⊂OK2 will be calculated. In Section 4.2 this result will be used to obtain θ(A).
4.1 The density of visible points of B
The following general counting formula for bounded subsets of visible points of a point set P will be needed. Let P∗=P∖{(0,…,0)}.
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let P⊂Rd be locally finite and fix a set C⊂R>1 such that for each x∈P∖P there exists c∈C with x/c∈P. Let R>0 and a bounded set D⊂Rd be given. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
The set CR:={c∈C∣P∗∩cP∗∩RD=∅} is finite. Indeed, suppose this is not true and pick distinct c1,c2,…∈CR and corresponding xi∈P∗∩ciP∗∩RD. Since P is locally finite, the sequence x1,x2,… contains only finitely many distinct elements. Thus, a subsequence xk1,xk2,… which is constant can be extracted, so that xki/cki∈P∗∩ckiRD⊂P∗∩RD are all distinct, contradiction to P being locally finite. Thus, we can write CR={c1,…,cn} for some c1,…,cn∈C. Then
[TABLE]
from which the result follows from the inclusion-exclusion counting formula for finite unions of finite sets.
∎
A set C as in 4.1 for B will be needed, and to this end a visibility condition for the elements of B is required. Given x1,x2∈OK, let gcd(x1,x2) be a fixed generator of the ideal generated by x1,x2 and write gcd(x1,x2)=1 when x1,x2 are relatively prime. In the following proposition a visibility condition of the complex realisation of the Ammann-Beenker point set given in [1, p. 477] is adapted to our situation.
Proposition 4.2**.**
The visible points of B are given by
[TABLE]
Proof.
First the necessity of the visibility conditions is established. Take x=(x1,x2) and suppose that gcd(x1,x2)=1 so that there exists c∈OK with ∣N(c)∣>1 and c∣x1,x2. Scaling c by units we may assume that 1<c<λ. Suppose first that ∣N(c)∣=∣c∣c≥3, which implies ∣c∣>1. By noting that WA is star-shaped with respect to the origin and WA=−WA it follows that x/c∈B, so x is invisible. If ∣N(c)∣=2, then each prime factor of c must divide 2=2⋅2, so it can be assumed that c=2 and hence x is occluded by x/2. If λx∈WA it follows immediately that x/λ∈B.
We now turn to the sufficiency of the visibility conditions. Take x=(x1,x2)∈B∖B and c>1 such that x/c∈B. As B is uniformly discrete, we may assume that y:=x/c∈B. This implies, by necessity above, that gcd(y1,y2)=1. Now, since xi=cyi it follows that c∈K. Write c=a/b with a,b∈OK relatively prime. If b is not a unit, gcd(y1,y2)=1 is contradicted, hence c∈OK.
If ∣N(c)∣=1 then gcd(x1,x2)=1. Otherwise, c>1 is a unit, i.e. c=λk for some integer k>0. Thus cx=λkx∈WA. Since λ1=−λ we get (−λ)kx∈WA and thus also λx∈WA as WA is star-shaped with respect to the origin and −WA=WA. This establishes sufficiency of the visibility conditions. ∎
Remark*.*
Note that the proof works just as well for more general windows, that is, P(W,L)={x∈P(W,L)∣gcd(x1,x2)=1,λx∈/W} if W⊂R2 is bounded with non-empty interior, star-shaped with respect to the origin and −W=W.
Let now
[TABLE]
so that P is a set that contains precisely one associate of every prime of OK.
Then we have the following proposition.
Proposition 4.3**.**
For each x∈B∖B there is c∈C such that x/c∈B.
Proof.
Fix x∈B∖B.
As seen in the proof of 4.2 there is c∈OK, c>1, such that x/c∈B. If c is not a unit, fix π∈P so that π∣c. It can be verified by hand that {(x,x)∣x∈OK}∩((1,λ)×(−1,1))=∅, hence ∣π∣>1 and x/π∈B. If c is a unit, x/λ∈B is immediate.
∎
Given a finite set F⊂OK let IF be the (principal) ideal generated by the elements of F if F=∅ and IF=OK otherwise. Let ℓF denote a fixed least common multiple of F, that is, a generator of the ideal ⋂c∈FcOK. Let also mF=min{1,minc∈F∣c∣} and LF={(ℓFx,ℓFx)∣x∈OK2}. Write I◃OK when I⊂OK is an ideal and define the absolute normN(I) of I by ∣N(x)∣, where x is any generator of I. Recall Dedekind’s zeta functionζK(s)=∑I◃OKN(I)s1 for s∈C with Re(s)>1.
Given a finite set F⊂C it is verified that B∗∩⋂c∈FcB∗=P(mFWA,LF)∖{0}. For any R>0 and bounded D⊂R2, Propositions 4.1, 4.3 imply that
[TABLE]
Since ℓFOK2⊂πint(LF)⊂R2 is dense we have
[TABLE]
from [4, Prop. 3.2]. Dividing (1) by vol(RD), letting R→∞ and switching order of limit and summation (to be justified in 4.6 below) we find that
[TABLE]
since vol(WA)=4(1+2) and vol(R4/LF)=8N(ℓF)2.
The value of the right hand sum will be shown to be 1/ζK(2) in 4.7 below. The following lemma gives a bound on the number of points in the intersection of a lattice and a box in terms of the volume of the box, provided that the box is ”not too thin”.
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let L⊂Rd be a lattice and let c>0 be given. For any ai,bi∈R with bi−ai>c set B=∏i=1d[ai,bi]. Then there is a constant L depending only on L and c such that #(B∩L)≤Lvol(B).
Proof.
Let ni=⌈cbi−ai⌉∈Z+. Then
cbi−ai≤ni<cbi−ai+1=cbi−ai+c<c2(bi−ai).
Hence, with n=∏i=1dni it follows that n≤cd2dvol(B). From bi≤ai+cni also
B⊂∏i=1d[ai,ai+cni].
Let a=(a1,…,ad) and
consider −a+∏i=1d[ai,ai+cni]=∏i=1d[0,cni]. We have
∏i=1d[0,cni]=⋃m∈Nd,0≤mi<ni(mc+[0,c]d).
Hence, B⊂⋃m∈Nd,0≤mi<ni(a+mc+[0,c]d)=:B′. Find now D>0 depending on L and c such that supt∈Rd#(L∩(t+[0,c]d))=D. Hence
#(B∩L)≤#(B′∩L)≤nD≤cd2dDvol(B), so one can take L=cd2dD.
∎
The following bound will be crucial in the justification of interchanging limit and summation in (1) after division by vol(RD).
Lemma 4.5**.**
Let D⊂R2 be Jordan measurable.
Then there is a constant L>0 depending only on D such that for every R>0 and F⊂C with #F<∞,
[TABLE]
Proof.
By definition
[TABLE]
Note that this number is independent of the choice of ℓF. There is a bijection
[TABLE]
given by x↦ℓFx, so it suffices to estimate the number of elements in the latter set. Since mF≤1 it follows that (L∩(ℓFRD×∣ℓF∣mFWA))∖{0}⊂(L∩(ℓFRD×∣ℓF∣WA))∖{0}. Fix real numbers m1,m2>1 so that D⊂[−m1,m1]2=:B1 and WA⊂[−m2,m2]2=:B2.
Fix a number c so that c′<c implies (L∩(λD×c′WA))∖{0}=∅. This can be done, for otherwise (L∩(λD×c′WA))∖{0} would be non-empty for each c′>0, hence L∩(λD×WA) would contain infinitely many points, contradiction, since L is a lattice and λD×WA is bounded.
Suppose first that ∣ℓFℓF∣R<c. Scale ℓF by units so that 1≤ℓFR<λ which gives ∣ℓF∣1<c. Hence
(L∩(ℓFRD×∣ℓF∣WA))∖{0}⊂(L∩λD×(∣ℓF∣WA))∖{0}=∅
and therefore #((L∩(ℓFRD×∣ℓF∣WA))∖{0})=0.
Suppose now that ∣ℓFℓF∣R≥c. Scale ℓF so that c≤ℓFR<λc. This implies that ∣ℓF∣1≥λ1c>c. Thus, [0,c]4⊂ℓFRBD×∣ℓF∣BW=:B. From 4.4 we get a constant L only depending on L, c such that #(B∩L)≤Lvol(B)=L⋅16m12m22N(ℓF)2R2.
Now, since ℓFRD×∣ℓF∣WA⊂B we get that
[TABLE]
with L:=16m12m22L.
∎
Proposition 4.6**.**
The equality
[TABLE]
holds for all Jordan measurable D⊂R2.
Proof.
For a finite F⊂C let N(R,F)=#((P(mFWA,LF)∖{0})∩RD). We know that R→∞limvol(RD)N(R,F)=2N(ℓF)2mF2(1+2) so
hence the sums of both sides of (2) are absolutely convergent.
Fix Δ>0. We claim that there is only a finite number of non-empty F⊂C, #F<∞, such that ∣N(ℓF)∣<Δ. Given such F let ℓF=∏c∈Fc>1. Also, since ∣π∣>1 for all π∈P we have ∣ℓF∣≥∣λ∣. Hence, ∣N(ℓF)∣=ℓF∣ℓF∣≤Δ implies ℓF≤∣ℓF∣Δ≤λΔ and ∣ℓF∣≤ℓFΔ≤Δ<λΔ so (ℓF,ℓF)∈{(x,x)∣x∈OK}∩λ[−Δ,Δ]2 which is a finite set, thus elements of F can only contain prime factors that occur as factors in the components of elements in this finite set, giving only finitely many possibilities for F.
It follows that
[TABLE]
where the right hand side tends to [math] as Δ→∞ since F⊂C,#F<∞,∣N(ℓF)∣≥Δ∑N(ℓF)21 is the tail of an absolutely convergent sum, hence (2) has been justified.
∎
From 4.6 it follows that θ(B)=∑F⊂C#F<∞2N(ℓF)2(−1)#FmF2(1+2), and it will now be shown that the right hand side is equal to 1/ζK(2). Define the function ω:OK⟶C, ω(x)=#{π∈P∣x/π∈OK}, so that ω(x) is the number of non-associated prime divisors of x. Given I◃OK, let ω(I)=ω(x) for any generator x of I and define a Möbius function on the ideals of OK by
[TABLE]
One verifies that μ(I1I2)=μ(I1)μ(I2) for relatively prime ideals I1,I2. The function ζK can be expressed as an Euler product for s with Re(s)>1 as
[TABLE]
and in analogy with the reciprocal formula for Riemann’s zeta function we have
Splitting the sum into two depending on whether λ∈F or not, and using that mF is 1 unless λ∈F, in which case mF=∣λ∣=2−1, we get
[TABLE]
last equality by (3). From [8, Theorem 4.2] one can calculate ζK(−1)=121 and by the functional equation for Dedekind’s zeta function (cf. e.g. [8, p. 34]) one finds that ζK(2)=482π4 which proves the claim.
∎
4.2 The density of visible points of A
Observe that A′=2A⊂B. It is now shown that C is also an occluding set for A′.
Proposition 4.8**.**
For each x∈A′∖A′ there is c∈C such that x/c∈A′.
Proof.
Since A′⊂B we have A′∖A′⊂B∖B and so for each x∈A′∖A′ there exists c∈C such that x/c∈B. If c=2 then 2∣cx1−x2 so x/c∈A′.
Take now x∈A′∖A′ such that for all c∈C∖{2} we have x/c∈/B. Then x/2∈B, hence gcd(x1,x2)=2n for some n≥1. Since x∈A′∖A′ there is c∈Q(2)∩R>1 such that x/c∈A′. Writing c=a/b with gcd(a,b)=1, the only possible π∈P with π∣a is π=2. If 2∣a, then it follows that x/2∈A′.
It remains to check the case where a is a unit, i.e. c=∏p∈Pπm(π)λn for some m:P⟶Z≥0 with finite support. The facts that c>1 and π>1 for all π∈P imply n>0. We have x/λ∈/B, hence x∈/∣λ∣WA. Since x/c∈2A it follows that x∈∣c∣WA and hence ∣c∣>∣λ∣. However
and it is straight-forward to verify that A∗′∩⋂c∈FcA∗′=P(mFWA,LF)∖{0} with LF={(ℓFx,ℓFx)∣x∈OK2,(x1−x2)/2∈OK} a sublattice of LF of index 2. Hence, by [4, Prop. 3.2], when letting R→∞ inside the sum (4) one obtains
[TABLE]
whence θ(2A)=2ζK(2)1 follows by 4.6 and 4.7, and the other result is immediate as 2A=A′.
∎
Remark*.*
The data of Table 2 of [1] shows that #(A∩RD)/#(A∩RD)≈0.577 for a particular D and fairly large R. This agrees with our results, since
[TABLE]
Bibliography8
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] M. Baake, F. Götze, C. Huck, and T. Jakobi , Radial spacing distributions from planar point sets. , Acta crystallographica. Section A, Foundations and advances, 70 (2014), pp. 472–482.
2[2] M. Baake and U. Grimm , Aperiodic Order , vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 2013.
3[3] M. Baake, R. V. Moody, and P. A. Pleasants , Diffraction from visible lattice points and kth power free integers , Discrete Mathematics, 221 (2000), pp. 3–42.
4[4] J. Marklof and A. Strömbergsson , Free path lengths in quasicrystals , Communications in mathematical physics, 330 (2014), pp. 723–755.
5[5] , Visibility and directions in quasicrystals , International mathematics research notices, 2015 (2014), pp. 6588–6617.
6[6] J. Nymann , On the probability that k positive integers are relatively prime , Journal of number theory, 4 (1972), pp. 469–473.
7[7] B. Sing , Visible Ammann-Beenker points . http://www.bb-math.com/bernd/pub/bcc.pdf , 2007.
8[8] L. C. Washington , Introduction to cyclotomic fields , vol. 83, Springer Science & Business Media, 1997.