Point distribution and perfect directions in $F_p^2$
Vsevolod F. Lev

TL;DR
This paper investigates the distribution of points and directions in finite fields, establishing sharp bounds on directions with uniform sums over lines, and applies these results to finite affine plane geometry.
Contribution
It introduces a new bound on the number of directions with uniform line sums in finite fields, extending previous uncertainty inequalities and providing a new proof for a classical geometric result.
Findings
Maximum of half the set size for directions with uniform sums
Bound is sharp, with equality cases characterized
Application to finite affine plane geometry
Abstract
Let be a prime, a nonempty set, and a function with . Applying an uncertainty inequality due to Andr\'as Bir\'o and the present author, we show that there are at most directions in such that for every line in any of these directions, one has except if itself is a line and is constant on (in which case all, but one direction have the property in question). The bound is sharp. As an application, we give a new proof of a result of R\'edei-Megyesi about the number of directions determined by a set in a finite affine plane.
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 Approximation and Integration · Point processes and geometric inequalities · Analytic Number Theory Research
Point distribution
and perfect directions in
Vsevolod F. Lev
Department of Mathematics, The University of Haifa at Oranim, Tivon 36006, Israel
Abstract.
Let be a prime, a nonempty set, and a function with . Applying an uncertainty inequality due to András Biró and the present author, we show that there are at most directions in such that for every line in any of these directions, one has
[TABLE]
except if itself is a line and is constant on (in which case all, but one direction have the property in question). The bound is sharp.
As an application, we give a new proof of a result of Rédei-Megyesi about the number of directions determined by a set in a finite affine plane.
1. Introduction
Let be an odd rational prime, and let denote the -element field. A direction in the affine plane is a pencil of parallel lines; thus, there are distinct directions.
Given a function (which can be thought of as a weight assignment), we say that a direction is perfect with respect to if every line in this direction gets its exact share of the total mass of ; that is, for every line in the direction in question, we have
[TABLE]
Write . Choosing a line uniformly at random and considering the variance of the random variable , it is easy to show that for all directions to be perfect it is necessary and sufficient that be a constant function. Consequently, if all directions are perfect, then either , or . In a similar way one can show that a necessary and sufficient condition for all, but exactly one direction to be perfect is that is constant on any line in the unique “imperfect” direction; in this case is a union of parallel lines, and therefore .
How many perfect directions can there be given that is small (but nonempty)? One easily verifies that if is sufficiently large, then for there cannot be any perfect directions, for and there is at most one perfect direction, while for there can be two perfect directions. The goal of this note is to show that, generally, the number of perfect directions cannot exceed .
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a prime. If is nonempty, then for any function with there are at most perfect directions, unless is a line and is constant on (in which case there are perfect directions).
A set is said to determine a direction if there is a line in this direction containing at least two points of . If and is the indicator function of , then any direction not determined by is perfect. Thus, by Theorem 1, if and is not a line, then there are at most directions not determined by . It follows that any set of size determines at least directions, unless is a line. This is a well-known result due to Rédei and Megyesi [R73], with alternative proofs given by Lovász and Schrijver [LS83], and by Dress, Klin, and Muzichuk [DKM92]. Our Theorem 1 thus supplies yet another proof of this result. In contrast with other proofs, our argument does not rely on the polynomial method, employing Fourier analysis instead.
We refer the reader to [G03] for a historical account and summary of related results.
The following examples show that the estimate of Theorem 1 is, in a sense, best possible.
Example 1*.*
The special orthogonal group is cyclic of order , where is the Legendre symbol. Assuming that is an even integer dividing , let be the subgroup of order , and let be the subgroup of of order . Fix arbitrarily a nonzero point , define to be the orbit of under the action of , and for let if actually belongs to the orbit of under the action of , and otherwise. We leave it to the reader to verify that there are directions determined by the pairs with , and that all these directions are perfect.
The next example originates, essentially, from Lovász-Schrijver [LS83].
Example 2*.*
Let be the graph of the function ; that is, . Then determines directions, and since , the undetermined directions are perfect with respect to the indicator function of .
Example 3*.*
If are nonparallel lines, and is the difference of the indicator functions of these lines, then , , and there are perfect directions. Similarly, if is a union of two parallel lines, and is constant and nonzero on each of these lines, then and there are perfect directions.
We prove Theorem 1 in the next section, and discuss related open problems in the concluding Section 3.
2. The proof of Theorem 1
We begin with setting up the notation and recalling basic facts and properties of the Fourier transform on finite abelian groups.
For a subfield of the field and a finite, nonempty set , by we denote the space of all functions from to with the inner product defined by
[TABLE]
the overline denoting the complex conjugation.
Suppose that is a finite abelian group. Dual to is the group of all homomorphisms from to . The dual group is denoted , its elements are called characters, the identity element of is the principal character. The Fourier transform of a function is the function defined by
[TABLE]
The function is constant if and only if its Fourier transform is zero or supported on the principal character.
For a subgroup , the set of all characters containing in their kernel is a subgroup of , denoted ; thus,
[TABLE]
If is nonzero and proper, then so is . Writing and for the indicator functions of and , respectively, we have .
For a function and an element , let be defined by
[TABLE]
The convolution of functions is the function
[TABLE]
The Fourier transform of a convolution is the product of Fourier transforms:
[TABLE]
Our argument relies on the following uncertainty inequality for the rational-valued functions on the finite affine plane.
Theorem 2** ([BL, Theorem 1]).**
For any prime and any function , either
[TABLE]
or there is a direction in such that is constant on every line in this direction.
We now turn to the proof of Theorem 1.
If is a constant function, then and the assertion is immediate; assume thus that is not constant. The case is easy to verify, and we further assume that .
By the Dirichlet simultaneous approximation theorem, there exist arbitrarily large integers , along with the corresponding integer-valued functions on , such that
[TABLE]
As a result, if is sufficiently large, then , and for we have if and only if ; also, a direction is perfect with respect to if and only if it is perfect with respect to . Consequently, passing from to , we can ensure that, in addition to being nonconstant, is also integer-valued.
To every direction in there corresponds a nonzero, proper subgroup ; specifically, the subgroup represented by the line through the origin in the corresponding direction. As an immediate corollary from the definitions, the direction corresponding to a subgroup is perfect if and only if the convolution is a constant function; that is, the product vanishes at every nonprinciple character; in other words, vanishes on every character from with the possible exception of the principle character.
Denote the number of perfect directions by , so that the number of imperfect directions is . The group is a union of its nonzero, proper subgroups, with every nonprincipal character lying in exactly one subgroup, and the principal character lying in all subgroups. Therefore, since vanishes on the subgroups corresponding to the perfect directions, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, applying Theorem 2 to the function , we conclude that either
[TABLE]
or there is a direction such that is constant on every line in this direction. In the former case, combining (2) and (1), and recalling that , we get
[TABLE]
implying . In the latter case, denoting by the number of lines in the direction on which is nonzero, we have , while (all directions except are perfect). Consequently, , unless , meaning that there is a line on which is constant and nonzero, and outside of which vanishes.
This completes the proof of Theorem 1.
3. Open problems: restricting the weights
Suppose that is not constant, and let . If , then in every direction there is a line disjoint from ; hence, for perfect directions to exist, the average value of on must be zero. This suggests the following problem: how many perfect directions can there be for a function with a small support given that the average of is nonzero?
As we have just saw, one needs in order to have any perfect directions at all.
If , then for any direction determined by there is a line in this direction disjoint from ; therefore, none of the directions determined by is perfect. On the other hand, if is constant on , then any direction not determined by is perfect. It follows that the largest possible number of perfect directions is equal to the largest possible number of undetermined directions, which is less the smallest possible number of determined directions. Apart from the trivial case where is a line, the smallest possible number of determined directions is by the of Rédei-Megyesi result; thus, the largest possible number of perfect directions (for not being a line, , and the average of nonzero) is .
For , one perfect direction is very easy to arrange, and a simple combinatorial argument shows that there cannot be two or more perfect directions. Notice that this contrasts sharply the situation where .
For one can have two perfect directions (set for , and for with ); however, it is not clear to us whether there can be three or more perfect directions, nor what happens for .
Replacing the nonzero average assumption with the stronger assumption that attains real nonnegative values seems to result in an equally interesting problem.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BL] A. Biro and V. Lev , Uncertainty in finite planes, Submitted .
- 2[DKM 92] A. W. M. Dress, M. H. Klin , and M. E. Muzichuk , On p 𝑝 p -configurations with few slopes in the affine plane over 𝔽 p subscript 𝔽 𝑝 \mathbb{F}_{p} and a theorem of W. Burnside’s, Bayreuth. Math. Schr. 40 (1992), 7–19.
- 3[G 03] A. Gács , On a generalization of Rédei’s theorem, Combinatorica 23 (4) (2003), 585–598.
- 4[LS 83] L. Lovász and A. Schrijver , Remarks on a theorem of Rédei, Studia Sci. Math. Hungar. 16 (3–4) (1983), 449–454.
- 5[R 73] L. Rédei , Lacunary polynomials over finite fields , North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-London; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1973.
