This paper investigates the maximum number of points on a discrete torus with no three collinear points, proving periodicity of certain sequences and providing bounds on their periods, extending known results in combinatorial geometry.
Contribution
It generalizes tools for determining u_{m,n} and proves the periodicity of the sequence u_{z,n} for fixed z > 1, with bounds on the period when z is a prime power.
Findings
01
u_{m,n} is known when d(m,n) is prime.
02
The sequence (u_{z,n}) is periodic for fixed z > 1.
03
Bounds on the period are established for prime power cases.
Abstract
Let τm,n denote the maximal number of points on the discrete torus (discrete toric grid) of sizes m×n with no three collinear points. The value τm,n is known for the case where gcd(m,n) is prime. It is also known that τm,n≤2gcd(m,n). In this paper we generalize some of the known tools for determining τm,n and also show some new. Using these tools we prove that the sequence (τz,n)n∈N is periodic for all fixed z>1. In general, we do not know the period; however, if z=pa for p prime, then we can bound it. We prove that τpa,p(a−1)p+2=2pa which implies that the period for the sequence is pb where b is at most (a−1)p+2.
Figures6
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Tables2
Table 1. Table 1: Initial values of τ z , n subscript 𝜏 𝑧 𝑛 \tau_{z,n} .
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20 …
2
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4 …
3
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
6
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
6
2
2 …
4
2
4
2
6
2
4
2
8
2
4
2
6
2
4
2
8
2
4
2
6 …
5
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
6 …
6
2
4
4
4
2
8
2
4
6
4
2
8
2
4
4
4
2
10
2
4 …
Table 2. Table 2: Values of σ 6 ( n ) subscript 𝜎 6 𝑛 \sigma_{6}(n) according to gcd ( n , 2 2 ⋅ 3 3 ) = 2 i ⋅ 3 j 𝑛 ⋅ superscript 2 2 superscript 3 3 ⋅ superscript 2 𝑖 superscript 3 𝑗 \gcd(n,2^{2}\cdot 3^{3})=2^{i}\cdot 3^{j} .
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.
Full text
No-three-in-line problem on a torus: periodicity
Michael Skotnica
Department of Applied Mathematics, Charles University in Prague, Malostranské náměstí 25, 118 00, Praha 1.
[email protected]
Abstract
Let τm,n denote the maximal number of points on the discrete torus (discrete toric grid)
of sizes m×n with no three collinear points. The value τm,n is known for the case where
gcd(m,n) is prime. It is also known that τm,n≤2gcd(m,n).
In this paper we generalize some of the known tools for determining τm,n and also show some new.
Using these tools we prove that the sequence (τz,n)n∈N is
periodic for all fixed z>1. In general, we do not know the period; however, if z=pa for p prime, then we can bound it. We prove that τpa,p(a−1)p+2=2pa
which implies that the period for the sequence is pb, where b is at most (a−1)p+2.
1 Introduction
In 1917, Dudeney introduced the No-three-in-line-problem (see problem 317 in [Dud17]).
The goal of this problem is to place as many points as possible on an n×n grid so that no three points are collinear.
This problem is still not solved for all n∈N.
In 2012, Fowler, Groot, Pandya and Snapp introduced a modification of this problem:
No-three-in-line-problem on a torus (see [FGPS12]). The purpose is to place as many points as possible on a discrete
torus of size m×n, where m,n∈N so that no three of these points are collinear.
We consider the discrete torus as a Cartesian product {0,…,m−1}×{0,…,n−1}⊂Z2 and we denote it Tm×n.
A line on this torus is an image of a line ℓ in Z2
under a mapping πm,n which maps a point (x,y)∈Z2 to the point (xmodm,ymodn).111
As a line in Z2 we consider ℓR2∩Z2, where ℓR2 is a line in R2 which
contains at least two points of integer coordinates.
We are interested in estimating the quantity τm,n which denotes the maximal number of points that can be placed on the torus Tm×n so that
no three of these points are collinear.222From another point of view, we may identify Tm×n with the group
Zm×Zn. Then lines are cosets of cyclic subgroups Zm×Zn generated by (x,y) where x,y are relatively
prime.
Fowler et al. in [FGPS12] proved that τp,p=p+1 and τp,p2=2p where p is an odd prime. They also showed τm,n=2
whenever gcd(m,n)=1, where gcd denotes the greatest common divisor. This fact follows directly from the Chinese remainder theorem.
These results were generalized by Misiak, Stȩpień, A. Szymaszkiewicz, L. Szymaszkiewicz and Zwierzchowski [MSS*+*16] who determined τm,n
whenever gcd(m,n)=p is a prime. More concretely, they have shown in this case that τm,n=2p if m or n is divisible by p2 or if p=2 and
that τm,n=p+1 if neither m nor n is divisible by p2 and p is an odd prime; see Theorem 1.2. in [MSS*+*16].
Misiak et al. also provided a useful general upper bound for τm,n.
We contribute to the study of τm,n by showing that once we fix one of the coordinates, then we get a periodic sequence. Namely,
for a positive integer z, we define the sequence σz=(σz(n))n=1∞ by setting σz(n):=τz,n.
Note that σz(n)≤2n for arbitrary n by Theorem 1. In particular, σz attains only finitely many values. We get following:
Theorem 2**.**
The sequence σz is periodic for all positive integers z greater than 1.
Theorem 2 in principle allows to determine the values τz,n for arbitrary big n from several initial values of n (the number of initial values for n
depends on z, of course). Unfortunately, for a general z we do not know what is the period. Our proof is purely existential. However, if z is a power
of a prime, we can say more. We show that in such case the sequence reaches its potential maximum 2z=2pa for a∈N and a prime p.
Theorem 3**.**
Let Tpa×p(a−1)p+2 be a torus where p is a prime and a∈N. Then τpa,p(a−1)p+2=2pa.
We can also determine the period of σpa.
Theorem 4**.**
Let p be a prime, a∈N. Let us denote m:=min{x;σpa(x)=2pa}. Then m=pb for some b≥a and the sequence σpa is
periodic with the period m.
Note that Theorem 3 implies that such an m exists. In fact, we show that each x such that σpa(x)=2pa is a period
for σpa. Therefore, from these two theorems above we get that σpa is periodic with the (not necessarily least) period p(a−1)p+2.
Tools.
A useful tool for determining τm,n is to find out for which values m,n,x,y∈N we have τm,n=τxm,yn. Misiak
et al. showed τp,p=τxp,yp if p is odd prime, x,y are relatively prime and neither x nor y is divisible by p. In other
words τp,p=τa,b if gcd(a,b)=p and neither a nor b is divisible by p2; see Theorem 4.5 in [MSS*+*16].
We generalize this result to the following one.
Theorem 5**.**
Let m,n,x,y be positive integers such that m,n are not both 1 and gcd(x,y)=gcd(m,y)=gcd(n,x)=1.
Then τxm,yn=τm,n.
Misiak et al. used the following idea in [MSS*+*16]. Let us consider tori Txm×yn and Tm×n,
where m,n,x,y∈N, a mapping f:Txm×yn→Tm×n defined by
f((a1,a2))=(a1modm,a2modn), and the mappings πxm,yn, πm,n defined above from Z2 to
Txm×yn, Tm×n, respectively. Then πm,n=f∘πxm,yn. Hence the image of every line on Txm×yn
under the mapping f is a line on Tm×n.
Consequently, a set of points on Tm×n such that no three are collinear can be also used on Txm×yn. Indeed,
if such points were collinear on Txm×yn they would be collinear also on Tm×n since the image of every line
on Txm×yn is a line on Tm×n. This leads to the following result.
Let m,n,x,y be positive integers. Then τxm,yn≥τm,n.
Theorem 5 and Lemma 6 are our main tools for proving Theorem 2 and Theorem 4.
Small values of the sequence σz(n).
For sake of example, we present here few initial values of τz,n, our
table is analogous to the table in [FGPS12]. See Table 1.
The values σp(n) for a prime number p can be fully determined
from Theorem 1.2 in [MSS*+*16]. In general, it follows from their
result that the sequence σp(n) is periodic with the period p2 for a
prime number p.
Considering σ4(n), we can determine the values σ4(n) again by Theorem 1.2 in [MSS*+*16] for n∈{1,2,3,5,6,7}.
We also have a computer assisted proof that σ4(4)=6.333[FGPS12] also claim this value without a detailed proof;
with a moderate effort it is also possible to get a computer-free proof.
In particular, a configuration of points showing σ4(4)≥6 is shown in Figure 1.
We can also easily deduce that σ4(8)=8: due to Theorem 1, it
is sufficient to show that σ4(8)≥8 which follows from the example in Figure 1. Given that σ4(n)=8,
Theorem 4 implies that σ4(n) is periodic with the period 8.
Regarding the values presented in the table (Table 1), we can determine exactly σ6(n) for n≡0(mod6) due to
Misiak et al. (see [MSS*+*16]). For other values we rely on the computer proof. It also gives that σ6(36)=σ6(54)=12, which is the maximum
of σ6(n) by Theorem 1, and σ6(24)=8.
Unfortunately, we are not able to determine the least period for σ6(n). However, we conjecture σ6(2k⋅3)=8
for all k∈N.444We are able to prove it is true for k≤5 using computer.
If it is true then we can determine all values of σ6(n) and the least period is 22⋅33=108;
See Table 2.
Indeed, by Theorem 5, Lemma 6 and by known initial values we get σ6(n)=2 whenever gcd(n,22⋅33)=1,
σ6(n)=4 whenever gcd(n,22⋅33)=31,21,22 or 23, σ6(n)=6 whenever gcd(n,22⋅33)=32 or 33,
σ6(n)=10 whenever gcd(n,22⋅33)=2⋅32, σ6(n)=12 whenever gcd(n,22⋅33)=22⋅32,2⋅33
or 22⋅33. Finally, σ6(n)=8 whenever gcd(n,22⋅33)=2⋅3,22⋅3 by our conjecture.
Let a,b be positive relatively prime integers. Then there are infinitely many primes of the form a+nb, where n is a non-negative
integer.
We again use the idea of Misiak et al.
Lemma 9** (essentially Lemma 4.1(2) in [MSS*+*16]).**
Let Txm×yn, Tm×n be tori, where m,n,x,y∈N and m,n are not both 1. Let
f:Txm×yn→Tm×n be a mapping defined by f((a1,a2))=(a1modm,a2modn).
If the preimage of every line on Tm×n is a line on Txm×yn, then τxm,yn=τm,n.
Proof.
The Lemma follows from Lemma 6 if τxm,yn=2. Suppose τxm,yn>2. Let M⊂Txm×yn be a maximal set such that no three points from M are collinear.
We show that the image f(M) on Tm×n also satisfies
the no-three-in-line condition.
First of all, note that ∣M∣=∣f(M)∣. Indeed, if f(A)=f(B) for two distinct A,B∈M, then
A,B and C would be collinear for some point C∈M∖{A,B}.
Now, let us consider three distinct points from f(M). If they were collinear, their preimages would be also collinear
since the preimage of every line on Tm×n is a line on Txm×yn.
Consequently, we have τxm,yn≤τm,n and by Lemma 6 we have τxm,yn≥τm,n.
∎
Now, we generalize Lemmas 4.3 and 4.4 from [MSS*+*16].
Lemma 10**.**
Let x,y,m,n∈N such that gcd(x,y)=gcd(m,y)=gcd(n,x)=1.
Let Txm×yn, Tm×n be tori and let f:Txm×yn→Tm×n be
a mapping defined by f((a1,a2))=(a1modm,a2modn). Then the preimage of every line on Tm×n is a line on Txm×yn.
Proof.
First, note that it is sufficient to consider only lines which contain the origin.
The other lines are just translations of such lines.
Let ℓ be a line on Tm×n which contains the origin. We can express it as
ℓ={πm,n(k(u,v));k∈Z} where gcd(u,v)=1.
We have to find u∗,v∗∈N0 such that gcd(u∗,v∗)=1 defining the line
ℓ∗={πxm,yn(k(u∗,v∗));k∈Z} on Txm×yn
which it is the preimage of ℓ.
In other words, for every point (a1,a2) from ℓ∗ its image f((a1,a2)) belongs to ℓ and for every point (b1,b2) from f−1(ℓ)
the following equations have solution.
[TABLE]
Let us denote gu,m:=gcd(u,m) and gv,n:=gcd(v,n).
Since gu,mu and gu,mm are relatively prime, by the Dirichlet’s Theorem (Theorem 8)
there is i defining a prime pu=gu,mu+igu,mm which is greater than mnxy.
At the same way, we can get j defining another prime pv=gv,nv+jgv,nn greater than mnxy
such that pv=pu. This does not work if either u or v is zero (one of them is
always non-zero). In such case, we set i:=1 or j:=1, respectively, and hence pu=1 or pv=1, respectively. Now, we set
[TABLE]
Note that gcd(gu,m,gv,n)=1 and, therefore, gcd(u∗,v∗)=1. Indeed, gu,m divides u, gv,n divides v
and gcd(u,v)=1.
Since u∗=u+im and v∗+jn, the image f((a1,a2)) belongs to ℓ for every (a1,a2) from ℓ∗.
It remains to check whether equalities (1), (2) have solution for every point (b1,b2) from f−1(ℓ).
Since (b1,b2)∈f−1(ℓ) there is t∈N0 such that
[TABLE]
By the definition of u∗ and v∗ (see (3), (4)) we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, v∗b1≡u∗b2(modGCD(v∗m,u∗n)).
Again, by the definition of u∗ and v∗ (see (3), (4)) we have
[TABLE]
Hence v∗b1≡u∗b2(modgcd(v∗xm,u∗yn)).
Now, let us consider the following equations.
[TABLE]
Since v∗b1≡u∗b2(modgcd(v∗xm,u∗yn)), these equations have solution
by the Chinese Remainder Theorem (Theorem 7). Since gcd(u∗,v∗)=1, s=u∗v∗k for some k∈Z.
Therefore,
[TABLE]
Consequently, equations (1), (2) have solution and the point (b1,b2)∈f−1(ℓ) lies on ℓ∗. We are done. ∎
Now, we are able to prove Theorem 5 using Lemmas 9 and 10.
Considering a mapping f:Txm×yn→Tm×n defined by f((a1,a2))=(a1modm,a2modn),
the preimage of every line on Tm×n is a line on Txm×yn by Lemma 10. Therefore,
τxm,yn=τm,n by Lemma 9.
∎
3 Periodicity
In this section, we prove that the sequence σz is periodic for all z∈N (Theorem 4 and
Theorem 2).
Before we start, we mention two lemmas which are used
in the proofs of Theorem 4 and 2.
They are special cases of Theorem 5 and Lemma 6, respectively.
Lemma 11**.**
Let z,x,m∈N such that z>1 and gcd(x,z)=1. Then σz(m)=σz(xm).
Proof.
We may use Theorem 5 for the tori Tm×z and Txm×z.
∎
Note that the existence of m=min{x;σpa(x)=2pa} follows from Theorem 3 which is proven in the following section
(Section 4). More precisely, m≤p(a−1)p+2 by Theorem 3.
First, we observe that m=pb for some b∈N.
Indeed, if m were hpb for some h>1 such that p
does not divide h, then σpa(pb)=σpa(hpb) by Lemma 11. This would contradict the minimality of m.
Let us consider an arbitrary x∈{1,…,pb}. We show that σpa(x)=σpa(x+αpb) for any α∈N.
Since x≤pb we can express it as x=rpl, where 0≤l≤b and gcd(r,p)=1.
By Lemma 11σpa(x)=σpa(pl).
We consider two cases:
x<pb.
In this case x+αpb=pl(r+αpb−l). Since b−l≥1, we get gcd(r+αpb−l,p)=1.
Therefore, σpa(pl(r+αpb−l))=σpa(pl)=σpa(x) by Lemma 11.
2. 2.
x=pb.
In this case x+αpb=pb(1+α). Since σpa(pb)=2pa=maxσpa,
Lemma 12 implies σpa(pb)=σpa(hpb) for any h>0
and hence also for h=(1+α).
We proved that σpa(x)=σpa(x+αpb) for any x∈{1,…,pb}.
∎
Now, we prove that the sequence σz(x) is periodic for all z∈N. For this purpose, we use the following observation and lemma.
Observation 13**.**
Every infinite sequence {C(i)}i∈N of n−tuples of natural numbers C(i)∈Nn contains an infinite non-decreasing subsequence,
that is, {C(ti)}i∈N such that Cj(ti)≤Cj(ti+1) for all i,j∈N.
Proof.
It holds trivially for n=1. For n>1 we may proceed by induction.
∎
Lemma 14**.**
Let z∈N and z=∏i∈Ipiai be its prime factorization. There exists mz=∏i∈Ipib,
where b≥ai for each i∈I which satisfies the following condition.
[TABLE]
for arbitrary 0≤ci<bi, di≥b and where J:=I∖J.
Proof.
First, note that the left expression in (5) is always less than or equal to the right expression
by Lemma 12.
The same lemma also implies that if (5) does not hold for some
J⊆I,(ci)i∈J,(di)i∈J
(that is, the right side of (5) is strictly greater than the left side) then it does not hold also for
J⊆I,(ci)i∈J,(δi)i∈J where all δi=max{dj;j∈J}.
For a contradiction, let us assume there is no mz which satisfies condition (5). This implies there is an infinite sequence
C of counterexamples
[TABLE]
for all b∈N such that
[TABLE]
Since I is finite, there exists an infinite subsequence C′ of counterexamples whose index sets J(b)⊆I
are equal to some J⊆I. Since σz attains only finitely many values, there exists an infinite subsequence
C′′ of counterexamples from C′
such that the right sides of (6) for them are equal to some S∈N. Finally, Observation 13
implies there exists an infinite subsequence C′′′={C(tb)}b∈N of counterexamples
from C′′ such that {C(tb)}b∈N is a non-decreasing sequence.
Now, let tb≥δ(t1). Then we get
[TABLE]
A contradiction. Note that the first inequality holds by (6). The second inequality holds by Lemma 12
since tb≥δ(t1) and ci(t1)≤ci(tk) for all i∈J.
∎
Finally, we prove Theorem 2 using the lemma above.
Let z=∏i∈Ipiai be the prime factorization of z. We show that σz
is periodic with the period
mz=∏i∈Ipib given by Lemma 14 satisfying condition (5).
We aim to show that σz(x)=σz(x+αmz)
for all x≤mz and for all α∈N0.
We can express x as x=r∏i∈Ipici such that gcd(r,pi)=1 for all i∈I.
Lemma 11 implies σz(x)=σz(∏i∈Ipici). We consider two cases:
ci<b for all i∈I.
In this case x+αmz=∏i∈Ipici(r+α∏i∈Ipib−ci). Therefore,
gcd(r+α∏i∈Ipib−ci,pj)=1 for all j∈I since gcd(r,pj)=1. Lemma 11
implies σz(x+αmz)=σz(∏i∈Ipici)=σz(x).
2. 2.
There is i∈I such that ci≥b.
Let J:={i∈I;ci<b},
K:={i∈I;ci=b} and
L:={i∈I;ci>b}. Then we get
[TABLE]
The expression (r∏i∈Lpici−b+α∏i∈Jpib−ci) is not divisible
by pi for i∈J∪L. However, it could be divisible by pi for i∈K. Therefore,
[TABLE]
for some di≥b where i∈K∪L555In fact, di=b for i∈L. and h∈N
such that gcd(h,pi)=1 for all i∈I=J∪K∪L.
Now, we use the property of mz (see (5)) and Lemma 11:
[TABLE]
where ∗ holds by Lemma 11, ⋆ and △ hold by
the property of mz (see (5))
since ci<b for i∈J, di≥b for i∈K∪L=J (⋆) and
ci≥b for i∈K∪L=J (△).
That is, σz is periodic for all z>1 with the period mz.
∎
Note, that it is Lemma 14 what makes the proof of this theorem existence.
First of all, we need a tool for determining whether three points are collinear. Let A=(a1,a2),B=(b1,b2),C=(c1,c2)
be the points on the torus Tm×n. Let D(A,B,C) denote the following determinant.
Let m,n be positive integers and let A=(a1,a2),B=(b1,b2),C=(c1,c2) be the points on the torus Tm×n.
A,B,C* are not collinear if and only if there exist α1,α2,β1,β2,δ1,δ2,γ1,γ2∈Z
such that D((a1+α1m,a2+α2n),(b1+β1m,b2+β2n),(c1+γ1m,c2+γ2n))=0.*
2. 2.
If A,B,C are collinear then D((a1,a2),(b1,b2),(c1,c2))≡0(modgcd(m,n)).
In our proof of Theorem 3 we will also need to be able to determine the length of a line on a torus.
Lemma 16**.**
Let m,n be positive integers and ℓ={πm,n(A+k(u,v));k∈Z} be a line on Tm×n,
where A,(u,v)∈Tm×n such that gcd(u,v)=1.
Then the length of ℓ is lcm(gcd(m,u)m,gcd(n,v)n).
Proof.
The line ℓ is given by the vector (u,v) and its length is equal to the order of the element (u,v) in
Zm×Zn. Which is
[TABLE]
The order of an element h in the group Zx is
[TABLE]
∎
We also need lemmas about properties of lines on a torus.
Lemma 17**.**
Let m,n be positive integers such that m is divisible by p if and only if n is divisible by p for every prime p.
Let (a1,a2) be a point on Tm×n such that gcd(a1,a2)=1. Then there is exactly one line containing
the origin and (a1,a2).
Proof.
Let ℓ denote the line {πm,n(k(a1,a2));k∈Z}. This line contains the origin and (a1,a2).
Let us assume that there is another line ℓ′={πm,n(k(b1,b2));k∈Z} containing the origin and (a1,a2).
That means there exists k∈Z such that
[TABLE]
Therefore, ℓ⊆ℓ′. Moreover, a1=kb1−s1m and a2=kb2−s2n for some s1,s2∈Z.
Since gcd(m,kb1−s1m)=gcd(m,kb1) and
gcd(n,kb2−s2n)=gcd(n,kb2), the length of the line ℓ is lcm(gcd(m,kb1)m,gcd(n,kb2)n) by Lemma 16.
By the same lemma the length of ℓ′ is lcm(gcd(m,b1)m,gcd(n,b2)n).
Now, we show that gcd(m,kb1)=gcd(m,b1).
For a contradiction, let us assume gcd(m,kb1)>gcd(m,b1). Then there is a prime p which divides both
k and m.
By the assumption p also divides n and thus gcd(a1,a2)=gcd(kb1−s1m,kb2−s2n)≥p=1.
A contradiction. Analogously we get gcd(n,kb2)=gcd(n,b2). Consequently,
ℓ has the same length as ℓ′. Moreover, ℓ=ℓ′ since ℓ⊆ℓ′.
∎
Lemma 18**.**
Let Tpa×pb be a torus where p is a prime, a≤b, and let (x,y) be a point on
Tpa×pb. Let g denote gcd(x,y). If x or y is not divisible by p,
then there is exactly one line between the origin and (x,y).
Proof.
Let ℓ={πpa,pb(k(v1,v2));k∈Z} be a line which contains (x,y). Then for some k∈Z
[TABLE]
Let g denote gcd(x,y). Since gcd(g,p)=1, g has an inverse element modulo pb. Let us denote it g−1. Then
[TABLE]
Hence every line on Tpa×pb contains (x,y) if and only if it contains (gx,gy).
Since gcd(gx,gy)=1, Lemma 17 implies that
there is exactly one line containing the origin and (gx,gy). Consequently, there is exactly one line containing
the origin and the point (x,y).
∎
Corollary 19**.**
Let Tpa×pb be a torus where p is a prime and let A=(a1,a2),B=(b1,b2)∈Tpa×pb be points on that torus
such that a1−b1 is not divisible by p. Then there is exactly one line between A,B and its length is
max{pa,gcd(pb,a2−b2)pb}.
Proof.
The lines between (a1,a2),(b1,b2) are in one-to-one correspondence with the lines between the origin and
P:=πpa,pb(a1−b1,a2−b2). Since a1−b1 is not divisible by p there is exactly one line between the origin and P
by Lemma 18.
Such line is given by the vector πpa,pb(gcd(a1−b1,a2−b2)a1−b1,gcd(a1−b2,a2−b2)a2−b2).
We can express it as (v,wpr), where v,w is not divisible by p and r<b. Moreover,
pr=gcd(pb,gcd(a1−b1,a2−b2)a2−b2)=gcd(pb,a2−b2) since a1−b1 is not divisible by p.
Lemma 16 implies the length of the line between the origin and P is
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 20**.**
Let Tpa×pb be a torus where p is a prime and let A,B,C
be points on it such that πpa−1,pb(A)=πpa−1,pb(B).
If each line ℓ containing
the points A,C on Tpa×pb has the same length as its image ℓ′:=πpa−1,pb(ℓ)
then A,B,C are not collinear. (See Figure 2 for an example.)
Proof.
If there is a line ℓ which contains A,B,C then its image ℓ′
has smaller length since πpa−1,pb(A)=πpa−1,pb(B). However, it is impossible by our assumption.
∎
Lemma 21**.**
Let Tpa×pb be a torus where p is a prime and a≤b. Let
(v1pc,v2pd) be a point on Tpa×pb such that p does not divide
v1 or v2, c<a, d<b and c≤d. Then each line which contains the origin and
(v1pc,v2pd) also contains some point (w1,w2) such that w1,w2 satisfy the following equations.
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let ℓ be a line which contains the origin and (v1pc,v2pd). Then we can express it as
ℓ={πpa,pb(k(u1,u2));k∈Z} such that gcd(u1,u2)=1 and there exists k∈Z
which satisfies the following equations.
[TABLE]
Since gcd(u1,u2)=1, p does not divide u1 or u2. Therefore, pc has to
divide k since c≤d. Consequently,
Theorem 1 implies τpa,p(a−1)p+2≤2pa. Therefore, it is sufficient
to show a construction of 2pa points on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2 where no three of them are collinear.
Let X:={(i,i2p);i∈P} and Y:={(i,i2p+1);i∈P}, where P={0,…,p−1}. Misiak et al.
(see Theorem 1.2(3a) in [MSS*+*16]) proved
that no three points from the set πp,p2(X∪Y) are collinear on the torus Tp×p2.
In this proof, we inductively construct a set Xa∪Ya⊂Z2 by taking multiple copies
of X∪Y and prove by induction
that no three points from πpa,p(a−1)p+2(Xa∪Ya) are collinear on the torus Tpa×p(a−1)p+2.
First, let us define the set Xa∪Ya.
For a=1 we define Xa:=X and Ya:=Y.
2. 2.
For a>1 we take p copies of the set Xa−1∪Ya−1 on Z2 so that
[TABLE]
As an example of the construction see Figures 3 and 4. For a point A∈πpa,p(a−1)p+2(Xa∪Ya) on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2 we call the point A∈Xa∪Ya such that
πpa,p(a−1)p+2(A)=A the preimage of A (see Figure 4).
Now, we inductively prove that πpa,p(a−1)p+2(Xa∪Ya) does not contain three collinear points.
Case a=1 was proved by Misiak et al. (see Theorem 1.2(3a) in [MSS*+*16]).
Let us assume a>1 and
let A,B,C∈πpa,p(a−1)p+2(Xa∪Ya). We have to consider several cases.
First, let us assume that πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(A),πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(B),πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(C)∈Xa−1∪Ya−1 are three distinct points.
In other words, the preimages of A,B,C in Xa∪Ya are copies of three distinct points from Xa−1∪Ya−1.
If A,B,C are collinear on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2, then πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(A), πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(B),
πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(C) are
collinear on Tpa−1×p(a−2)p+2 as well which contradicts the induction hypothesis.
Now, we assume A, B, C satisfy πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(A)=πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(B). In other words,
the preimages of A and B are copies of the same point from Xa−1∪Ya−1.
In the first case, we assume that the preimages of A,B are from Xa and the preimage of C is from Ya.
Therefore,
[TABLE]
for some k,m∈{0,…,p−1}, u∈{1,…,p−1},
for suitable t1,t2,v1,v2,x∈N0, q≥(a−2)p+4≥a and where p does not divide x.
Note that u>0; otherwise A=B.
We may use the translation given by the vector (−t1p,−t2p) and we get
[TABLE]
where s1=v1−t1modpa and s2=v2−t2modp(a−1)p+2. The points At,Bt,Ct are collinear if and only if
A,B,C are collinear.
We compute D(At,Bt,Ct).
[TABLE]
for some R∈Z. Therefore, D(At,Bt,Ct)≡0(modpa) since u>0.
Consequently, A,B,C are not collinear on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2 by Lemma 15 (2).
Similarly, we check the case when the preimages of A,B are from Ya and the preimage of C from Xa.
Hence
[TABLE]
We use the translation given by the vector (−t1p,−t2p) as we did in the previous case:
[TABLE]
and we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, A,B,C are not collinear on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2 by the same lemma.
Now, we check the case when the preimages of all three points are from Xa.
The case where they are all from Ya is just a translation.
We can express the points as follows:
[TABLE]
where p divides s1,s3 and p4 divides s2,s4 by the definition of the construction (the first iteration
for a=2), q∈{p(a−2)p+4,…,p(a−1)p+2}, u≥1 is not divisible by p, x∈{0,1} and
k,m∈{0,…,p−1}.
First, we assume m=k. Let us map these points to the smaller torus Tpa×p(a−2)p+4
using πpa,p(a−2)p+4 and let A′, B′, C′ be the images.
Then
[TABLE]
where p4 divides s2′,s4′. Let us check the line between A′ and C′. Since ((k−m)+s1−s3)
is not divisible by p, Corollary 19 implies there is exactly one line between them and its length is
d=max{pa,gcd(p(a−2)p+4,p(k−m)(k+m)+s2′−s4′)p(a−2)p+4}=max{pa,p(a−2)p+4−h}, where
h∈{1,2} (the sum of k and m may be p).
Now, let us map A′,B′,C′ to the torus Tpa−1×p(a−2)p+4 and let A′′, B′′, C′′ be the images.
We can express them as
[TABLE]
where p divides s1′ a s3′.
Again, by Corollary 19 there is exactly one line between A′′ and C′′ and its length is
d′=max{pa−1,p(a−2)p+4−h}. Since (a−2)p+4−h≥a for a>1,
d′=d and A′,B′,C′ are not collinear by Lemma 20. Therefore, A,B,C
are not collinear on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2.
2. 2.
Let us check the case when k=m. That means πp,p2(A)=πp,p2(C).
First, let us assume that
πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(A)=πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(C). In other words, the preimages of
all three points are copies of the same point from X but they are not copies
of the same point from Xa−1.
We have
[TABLE]
where p divides s1,s3 and p4 divides s2,s4
by the definition of the construction (the first iteration
for a=2), q∈{p(a−2)p+4,…,p(a−1)p+2}, u≥1 is not divisible by p, x∈{0,1}
and k,m∈{0,…,p−1}. We can see that
pa−1 does not divide s1 and p(a−2)p+4 does not divide s2 or
pa−1 does not divide s3 and p(a−2)p+4 does not divide s4; otherwise
πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(A)=πpa−1,p(a−2)p+2(C). Now, we use the translation
given by the vector (−k−s1,−k2p−s2) and we get
[TABLE]
where u,x,v,y are not divisible by p, t≤a−2, r≤(a−2)p+2.
Let us have a look at the images of these points on the torus Tpa×p(a−2)p+4.
We get
[TABLE]
for suitable y′ which is not divisible by p.
Let us compute the length of the lines between A′ a C′. By Lemma 21,
every such line passing through some point (w1,w2) satisfies
[TABLE]
By Corollary 19, there is exactly one line between the origin and such (w1,w2) and its length is max{pa,pr−tp(a−2)p+4}.
Therefore, each line between A′ and C′ has the length d=max{pa,pr−tp(a−2)p+4}.
Let us map A′,B′,C′ to the torus Tpa−2×p(a−2)p+4
and let A′′,B′′,C′′ be the images. We get
[TABLE]
for suitable v′ which is not divisible by p. Similarly, the length d′ of each line between A′′ and
C′′ is d′=max{pa−1,pr−tp(a−2)p+4} by Corollary 19.
Note that the maximal r−t satisfying the definition of the construction equals
maxx∈{1,…,a−2}(xp+2−x)=(a−2)(p−1)+2.
Hence r−t≤(a−2)p−a+4 and (a−2)p+4−(r−t)≥a. Consequently, d=d′ and
Lemma 20 implies that A′,B′,C′
are not collinear and, therefore, A,B,C are not collinear on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2.
Finally, we check the case when all three A,B,C points are copies of one point
from Xa−1 which is without loss of generality the origin.
Otherwise, we use a translation similarly to the previous cases.
Therefore,
[TABLE]
for distinct q,r,s∈{p(a−2)p+4,…,p(a−1)p+2}
and for distinct u,v,w∈{0,…,p−1} satisfying the definition of the construction.
Let us denote b:=(a−1)p+2 and D:=D((upa−1+α1pa,pq+α2pb),(vpa−1+β1pa,pr+β2pb),(wpa−1+γ1pa,ps+γ1pb))
the determinant for A,B,C from Lemma 15 (1), where
α1,α2,β1,β2,γ1,γ2∈Z.
Then
[TABLE]
where Q=D((u,α2),(v,β2),(w,γ2)) and
W=D((α1,α2),(β1,β2),(γ1,γ2)).
Without loss of generality let q be the smallest number of {q,r,s}.
Then indeed q<b and thus we get D=pa+q−1((w−v)+pH) for suitable H∈Z.
Therefore, D=0 and A,B,C are not collinear on Tpa×p(a−1)p+2
by Lemma 15 (1) and we are done.
∎
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank my supervisor Martin Tancer for all his support and advice. I would also like
to thank the anonymous reviewers for valuable advice and remarks.
Bibliography5
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[Dud 17] H. E. Dudeney. Amusements in mathematics . Nelson, Edinburgh, 1917. pp. 94, 222.
2[FGPS 12] J. Fowler, A. Groot, D. Pandya, and B. Snapp. The no-three-in-line problem on a torus. 2012. ar Xiv: 1203.6604.
3[How 02] F. T. Howard. A generalized Chinese remainder theorem. The College Mathematics Journal , 33(4):279–282, 2002.
4[MSS + 16] A. Misiak, Z. Stȩpień, A. Szymaszkiewicz, L. Szymaszkiewicz, and M. Zwierzchowski. A note on the no-three-in-line problem on a torus. Discrete Mathematics , 339(1):217–221, 2016.
5[Sel 49] A. Selberg. An elementary proof of Dirichlet’s theorem about primes in an arithmetic progression. Annals of Mathematics , 50(2):297–304, 1949.