Equi-distributed property and spectral set conjecture on $\mathbb{Z}_{p^2}\times \mathbb{Z}_{p}$
Ruxi Shi

TL;DR
This paper proves that in the finite abelian group _{p^2} imes \u007_{p}, a set is spectral if and only if it tiles, by establishing an equidistributed property and confirming Fuglede's conjecture for this group.
Contribution
The paper introduces an equidistributed property in rac{p^2}{p} groups and uses it to prove Fuglede's spectral set conjecture in rac{p^2}{p} groups.
Findings
Fuglede's spectral set conjecture holds on rac{p^2}{p} groups.
Established an equidistributed property in rac{p^2}{p} groups.
Spectral sets in rac{p^2}{p} groups are exactly the tiles.
Abstract
In this paper, we show an equi-disctributed property in -dimensional finite abelian groups where is a prime number. By using this equi-disctributed property, we prove that Fuglede's spectral set conjecture holds on groups , namely, a set in is a spectral set if and only if it is a tile.
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.
Equi-distributed property and spectral set conjecture on
Ruxi Shi
Department of Mathematical Sciences, P.O. Box 3000, 90014 University of Oulu, Finland
Abstract.
In this paper, we show an equi-disctributed property in -dimensional finite abelian groups where is a prime number. By using this equi-disctributed property, we prove that Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture holds on groups , namely, a set in is a spectral set if and only if it is a tile.
1. Introduction
Let be a locally compact abelian group. Let be the dual group of which consists of all continuous group characters. Let be a Borel measurable subset in with positive finite Haar measure. The set is called a spectral set if there exists a set which is an Hilbert basis of , and that is called a tile of by translation if there exists a set of translates such that almost surely . In 1974, Fuglede [4] formulated the following so-called spectral set conjecture concerning the equivalence relation between tiles and spectral sets:
A Borel subset of positive and finite Haar measure is a spectral set if and only if it is a tile.
Fuglede’s conjecture has attracted substantial attention over the last decades, especially in the setting . Many positive results towards the conjecture were established before Tao [25] who disproved the conjecture by showing that the direction “Spectral Tiling” is not tenable for when . Now it is known that the conjecture does not hold in both directions for [8, 17, 19, 23]. But the conjecture is still open in lower dimensions and .
In its general setting, few is known about this conjecture, even for finite groups. Hence, the question becomes for which group , the spectral set conjecture holds. For , the ring of integers modulo is denoted by . We only know that Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture holds on [15, 5], [11], with [24], -adic field [5, 6], with different primes [22] and very recently with [13]. Nevertheless, we either know few about for which group, the spectral set conjecture fails. We only know that the direction “spectral sets tiles” fails on [25], [19], when prime and and when prime and [1]; the direction “tiles spectral sets ” fails on [24], , where is prime with gcd [7] and [8]. Actually, these non-tile spectral sets (resp. non-spectral tiles) in finite abelian groups lead to non-tile spectral sets (resp. non-spectral tiles) in euclidean spaces. We remark here that we still don’t know whether there exists non-spectral tiles in for and prime. The following conjecture is therefore proposed:
Conjecture 1.1**.**
Let be a prime. For all , the tiles in the groups are always spectral sets.
As we have mentioned eariler, the known non-tile spectral sets on () are constructed by using the non-tile spectral sets on for some (see [8, 17, 19, 23]). Since Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture is widely open on , it is interesting to know whether Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture holds on -dimensional finite abelian groups for all . In fact, if Fuglede’s conjecture fails on , then the counterexample is probably constructed by a counterexample on for some . We don’t know anything about the conjecture on these groups except that Iosevich, Mayeli and Pakianathan [11] proved that the spectral set conjecture is true on .
In this paper, our main interest is Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture on for . We first show an equi-distribued property in . Then we focus on the groups . Our main result is the following.
Theorem 1.1**.**
A set in is a spectral set if and only if it is a tile of by translation.
Haessig et al. [9] proved that for and , the equation if and only if is equi-distributed on the hyperplanes for . Actually the hyperplanes (for ) form a partition of . Iosevich, Mayeli and Pakianathan [11] used this property to prove Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture valid on . But such property is not true in general or over other fields. Thus we need other kind of equi-distributed property in general case. In this paper, we prove such equi-distributed property in in Lemma 3.1. It is the main tool to prove Theorem 1.1. Actually, Lemma 3.1 shows us that it is not equi-distributed on each set of a certain partition of , but that it is equi-distributed in some chosen planes. This is the main difference between the equi-distributed property in and the one in .
The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss some basic properties of spectral sets and tiles in finite abelian groups. In Section 3, we prove an equi-distributed property for a set in whenever is not empty. In Section 4, we define the compatible value and then discuss some properties of it. In Section 6, we prove the “Tiles Spectral sets” part of Theorem 1.1. In Section 7, we prove the “Spectral sets Tiles” part of Theorem 1.1.
Notation
- •
For , we denote by the cyclic group or sometimes the finite set .
- •
For a finite abelian group , denote by the set of all invertible elements in .
2. Preliminary
In this section, we discuss some basic properties spectral sets and tiles in finite groups.
Let be a finite abelian group. Let be the dual group of . It is well-known that is also a finite abelian group and furthermore isomorphic to . Consequently, we can write
[TABLE]
with the commutative multiplicity
[TABLE]
2.1. Spectral sets in
We recall that a subset is said to be spectral if there is a set such that
[TABLE]
forms an orthogonal basis in . In such case, the set is called a spectrum of and the pair called a spectral pair. Since the dimension of is , the pair being a spectral pair is equivalent to that and meanwhile the set is orthogonal in , that is to say,
[TABLE]
This means that the complex matrix is a complex Hadamard matrix, i.e. where is the transpose of and is the identity matrix. Since , it follows that . This deduces that is a spectral set with spectrum .
Denote by the set of zeros of the Fourier transform of the indicator function . Since
[TABLE]
we restate the above equivalent definition of spectral sets as follows.
Proposition 2.1**.**
Let . The following are equivalent.
- (1)
* is a spectral pair.*
- (2)
* is a spectral pair.*
- (3)
; .
2.2. Tiles in
Recall that a subset is said to be a tile if there is a set such that
[TABLE]
In such case, the set is called a tiling complement of and the pair is called a tiling pair. Using Fourier transform, we have the following equivalent definitions of tiles in .
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be subsets in . Then the following statements are equivalent.
- (1)
* is a tiling pair.*
- (2)
* is a tiling pair.*
- (3)
.
- (4)
* and .*
Proof.
It is trivial to see that . It is sufficient to prove . In fact, the pair being a tiling pair is equivalent to
[TABLE]
that is to say,
[TABLE]
Taking Fourier transformation of both sides of , we get
[TABLE]
which implies and . ∎
3. Equi-distribution on planes
In this section, we prove an equi-distributed property for a set in () whenever is not empty.
Without loss of generality, we assume in this section that . Let be a primitive -th root of unity. For , we define the inner product in by the formula
[TABLE]
We define
[TABLE]
for and . We call such set a plane in .
For and , we define the scalar product by
[TABLE]
where and .
Now we state the main result in this section.
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let and . The following are equivalent.
- (1)
.
- (2)
* for any .*
- (3)
* if .*
Proof.
It is trivial.
Denote by . The fact that is equivalent to
[TABLE]
that is to say,
[TABLE]
It follows from Galois theory that
[TABLE]
which means that
[TABLE]
We obtain that for any .
It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
Then we have
[TABLE]
It follows that is a root of the polynomial
[TABLE]
Recall that the minimal polynomial over of is
[TABLE]
Therefore there exists such that
[TABLE]
Hence, we conclude that if ∎
Remark 3.1**.**
Now we are concerned with the case . By Lemma 3.1 (2), we define the relation if there exists such that . Thus the equivalent classes in by are
[TABLE]
Thus when we study the set of zeros , we only need to consider the elements which have the above forms.
4. Compatible values
In this section, we introduce the notion of the compatible value for pairs. This notion will be helpful to deduce some properties of spectral sets and tiles in , which will be shown in Section 5.
Given pairs , we consider the value such that
[TABLE]
that is to say,
[TABLE]
If it is the case, we call the value compatible with the pairs .
It is not hard to see that for every , each element in is compatible with . However, given some special , we will see that some element in can not be compatible with .
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let . Suppose that for all . Suppose that not all are the same for . Then there exists such that is not compatible with .
Proof.
Without loss of generality, we assume that for all . Let such that and with . Let
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It implies that
[TABLE]
Hence, the value is not compatible with . ∎
The following lemma tells that the optimum in Lemma 4.1 can be achieved in some case.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let . Then the value is compatible with if and only if .
Proof.
We first observe that
[TABLE]
for all . Thus the value is not compatible with .
On the other hand, for , we have and
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Thus, for any , it is compatible with . ∎
5. Properties of spectral sets and tiles
In this section, we show some properties of spectral sets and tiles in . These properties not only have their own interest but also are useful to the proof of Theorem 1.1. The main results in this section are summarized as follows. Let with (we don’t consider the trivial situation where or ). Actually, we have already proved some condition on the cardinality of tiles and spectral sets in previous sections: if is a tile in , then by Lemma 2.2, divides , that is, has to be or ; if is a spectral set in , then by Lemma 3.1, is divided by . In this section, we first show that if , then the set has no chance to be a spectral set (Lemma 5.2). We then prove that if and , then is a tile and meanwhile a spectral set (Proposition 5.3). In the rest of this section, we deal with some special cases: Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5 tells us that if some special elements are contained in , then and meanwhile is a tile and a spectral set; Lemma 5.6 shows that if a tile (resp. a spectral set) is in a proper subgroup of , then it is a spectral set (resp. a tile). Thus for tiles, we only need to focus on the case where ; for spectral sets, we only need to consider the case where . We leave these cases to the next two sections.
For , we are concerned with the difference set in the following lemma. We show that if is large (i.e. ), then each non-trivial direction is contained in .
Lemma 5.1**.**
Let . Suppose . Then for all , we have .
Proof.
Let where and at least one of is non-zero for . We first consider the case where . Let
[TABLE]
It is not hard to see that every element in is a -combination of and w, that is, for any , there exists and in such that
[TABLE]
Since , by pigeonhole principle, there exist x and in such that
[TABLE]
with and . Thus we obtain that
[TABLE]
The proof of the case where or is similar. Thus we complete the proof. ∎
The following lemma shows that for a set , if , then is not a spectral set in .
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let be a spectral set. Suppose . Then .
Proof.
Let be a spectrum of . It follows that and
[TABLE]
By Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 3.1 , we have
[TABLE]
which means that
[TABLE]
By elementary Fourier analysis, we have
[TABLE]
where is a primitive -th root of unity. It follows that
[TABLE]
Since is an indicator of a set, implying that takes value in , we conclude that . Thus, we obtain that the set has to be . ∎
Generally, Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2 are also valid for all -dimensional finite abelian groups ():
Let . Suppose . Then for all , we have . Moreover, if is a spectral set, then .
The proof is similar with the proof of Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2. We leave it to the readers to work out the details.
In what follows, we write simply for every and . Moreover, for any subset , we write
[TABLE]
A simple fact which we will use several times later is that the statement for all and all with implies that for all and all with .
Now we are concerned with the case where .
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let with . Suppose that . Then is a tile and also a spectral set.
Proof.
We first prove that is a spectral set by constructing its spectrum. Suppose that . Define
[TABLE]
Since , we have . It is easy to see that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.1, we obtain that is a spectrum of .
It remains to prove that is a tile. Denote by
[TABLE]
Due to Remark 3.1, we decompose the proof in the following four cases.
Case 1: . We define
[TABLE]
We will prove that is a tiling complement of . It is easy to see that . A simple computation shows that for all and for all , we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by similar computation with , we obtain that for all and ,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
Combining (5.3), (5.4) and Remark 3.1, we get
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.2, we conclude that is a tiling complement of .
Case 2: such that . By Lemma 3.1 and the fact that , we obtain that there exists such that
[TABLE]
Using (5.1), we rewrite (5.5) as follows (taking a permutation of the index set if necessary):
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Thus has to be the form
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
Following the results in [11], the set is a tile. Denoting by a tiling complement of , we define
[TABLE]
It follows that is a tiling complement of . In fact, for any , there exists unique decomposition
[TABLE]
where , and in the unique way according to the tiling pair .
Case 3: such that . We define
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that . The statement that the set is a tiling complement of is a direct consequence by Lemma 2.2 and the following claim.
Claim: .
Proof.
According to Remark 3.1, we will prove the following three kinds of zeros are belonging to .
1. . The result is followed directly from Lemma 3.1 and the fact that for ,
[TABLE]
Thus we get .
2. for all . A simple calculation shows that for all and for all , we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1, we obtain that for all .
3. for all . By Lemma 4.2, we obtain that for all and for ,
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1, we have for all . ∎
Case 4: . Define
[TABLE]
We will prove that is a tiling complement of . It is easy to see that . A simple computation shows that for all , we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
On the other hand, we obtain that for all ,
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
Combining (5.6), (5.7) and Remark 3.1, we get
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.2, we conclude that is a tiling complement of .
To sum up, we conclude that the set is a tile in .
∎
According to Remark 3.1, we only need to study some particular zeros. The following lemma shows that if contains two special kinds of zeros, then and has a certain form.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let be a subset of . Suppose that and for some . Then and has the form
[TABLE]
Proof.
By the fact that and Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
We observe that
[TABLE]
In fact, supposing , we obtain that
[TABLE]
which implies
[TABLE]
that is to say, . By the fact that and Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
for all . Combining (5.9) and (5.11), we obtain that is divided by and
[TABLE]
Since , we have and for all . By (5.10), the point lies in the plane if and only if
[TABLE]
Denoting by the only point lying in , we conclude that the set has to have the form (5.8). ∎
We show that the set having the form in Lemma 5.4 is exactly a tile and also a spectral set.
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let be a subset of . Suppose that has the form (5.8). Then is a tile and also a spectral set.
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that . We will prove that is a spectrum of . In fact, a simple computation shows that
[TABLE]
Since , by Lemma 2.1, we conclude that is a spectrum of .
It remains to show that is also a tile. Let be a subset of which has the form
[TABLE]
According to [11], we see that is a tile. Let be a tiling complement of . Let
[TABLE]
We will prove that is actually a tiling complement of . In fact, for any , there exists the unique decomposition
[TABLE]
where , and in the unique way according to the tiling pair .
∎
Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5 gives us a sufficient condition for tiles (or spectral sets) and is useful to handle the case where , which will be shown in Section 6 and Section 7.
We finish this section by the following lemma concerning tiles or spectral sets in a proper subgroup of .
Lemma 5.6**.**
Let be a proper subgroup of . Let . Then is a tile if and only if it is a spectral set.
Proof.
It is not hard to check that up to an isomorphism, the proper subgroups of are
[TABLE]
We know that Fuglede’s spectral set conjecture holds on these groups (see [15], [5] and [11]). Thus we complete the proof. ∎
6. Tiles Spectral sets
Let be a tiling pair in . In this section, we will prove that both and are spectral sets.
If or , then it is easy to see that and are spectral sets. Now suppose that and . Without loss of generality, we may assume that and . Due to Proposition 5.3, we already know that is a spectral set. It remains to prove that is a spectral set.
We observe that and can not be in at the same time. In fact, if , then divides . This is contradict to the hypothesis . By Lemma 2.2, either or is in . We thus decompose the proof into the following three cases.
Case 1: . By Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5, we obtain that is a spectral set.
Case 2: and . It follows that . By Lemma 5.4 and the fact that , we have that for all . It follows that for all .
On the other hand, by Lemma 3.1 and the fact that , we obtain that
[TABLE]
Denote by
[TABLE]
Due to (6.1), we may assume that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
This implies that , for all Thus has to be the form
[TABLE]
We consider the following two cases.
- (1)
All are the same for .
It follows that not all are the same for . By Lemma 3.1, we have . Then . We define
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that and is contained in
[TABLE]
which is a subset of Thus we obtain that is a spectrum of .
- (2)
Not all are the same for .
By Lemma 4.1, there exists such that the value is not compatible with . It follows that not all are the same for . Thus we have . Then we have . Define
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that . A simple computation shows that the set is contained in
[TABLE]
which is a subset of Thus we conclude that is a spectrum of .
Case 3: and . It follows that . According to Case 2 in Proposition 5.3, we obtain that has the form
[TABLE]
for some . If not all are the same for , then by Lemma 4.1, there exists such that the value is not compatible with . It follows that not all are the same for . Thus we have . By Lemma 2.2, we have . By Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5, we obtain that is a spectral set. Now suppose that all are the same for . It is not hard to check that
[TABLE]
for all and all . By Lemma 3.1, we have for all . Then for all . We define
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that and
[TABLE]
Thus we obtain that is a spectrum of .
7. Spectral sets Tiles
Let be a spectral set in . In this section, we will prove that is also a tile.
If or , then is a tile trivially. We suppose that . By Lemma 5.2, we have . Let be a spectrum of . By Lemma 2.1, we have
[TABLE]
Since , we have . By Lemma 3.1, we get . If , then by Proposition 5.3, we know that is a tile. Thus in what follows, we assume that
[TABLE]
By pigeon principle, we have
[TABLE]
The same is for .
Without loss of generality, we assume that and . If or , then we obtain
[TABLE]
It follows that either or is in a non-trivial proper subgroup of . By Lemma 5.6, we deduce that and are tiles.
Now we suppose that and . This implies that there exists such that
[TABLE]
Lemma 7.1**.**
The sets and are as above. Then or .
Proof.
We prove it by contradiction. We assume that and . By (7.1), we have and . If there are two different elements , then
[TABLE]
Since , by Lemma 2.1, we have which is not possible. Thus there exists and such that
[TABLE]
Observe that
[TABLE]
for all . Since , we have that are constant for all . By Lemma 3.1, we obtain that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
This means that
[TABLE]
The same is for , that is to say,
[TABLE]
for some and . Since , we have . It follows that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.1, we have
[TABLE]
This implies that is compatible with for any and for any . For any , since the map is subjective, it is bijective. This is contradict to Lemma 4.1. Therefore, we conclude that or . ∎
Due to Lemma 7.1, without loss of generality, we suppose . Since , by Lemma 5.4 and Lemma 5.5, the set is a tile and . If we also have , then repeating the same reason, we obtain that is a tile, which completes the proof. Now we suppose that . By the proof of Lemma 7.1, we have
[TABLE]
for some with bijective for all . It follows that
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.1, we have
[TABLE]
Since , by pigeon principle, we obtain that
[TABLE]
or there exists such that
[TABLE]
If for some , then we define
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that . Observe that for all . By Lemma 3.1, we have . On the other hand, by Lemma 4.2, the value is compatible with for all with . Then we have for all and for all with . By Lemma 3.1, we have for all with . By Lemma 2.2, we conclude that is a tiling complement of .
If , then we define
[TABLE]
It is easy to see that and for all and all . By Lemma 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 2.2, we conclude that is a tiling complement of . This completes the proof.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C. Aten, B. Ayachi, E. Bau, D. Fitz Patrick, A. Iosevich, H. Liu, A. Lott, I. Mac Kinnon, S. Maimon, S. Nan, J. Pakianathan, G. Petridis, C. Rojas Mena, A. Sheikh, T. Tribone, J. Weill and C. Yu, Tiling sets and spectral sets over finite fields, Journal of Functional Analysis, 2017, 273(8): 2547-2577.
- 2[2] E. M. Coven and A. Meyerowitz, Tiling the integers with translates of one finite set, J. Algebra 212 (1999), no. 1, 161-174
- 3[3] D. E. Dutkay and C-K Lai, Some reductions of the spectral set conjecture to integers, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 156 (2014), no. 1, 123-135.
- 4[4] B. Fuglede, Commuting self-adjoint partial differential operators anda group theoretic problem , J. Funct. Anal., 16 (1974), 101-121.
- 5[5] A. Fan, S. Fan, R. Shi, Characterization of compact open spectral sets in ℚ p subscript ℚ 𝑝 \mathbb{Q}_{p} . Journal of Functional Analysis, 2016, 271(12): 3628-3661.
- 6[6] A. Fan, S. Fan, L. Liao, R. Shi, Fuglede’s conjecture holds in ℚ p subscript ℚ 𝑝 \mathbb{Q}_{p} , ar Xiv:1512.08904.
- 7[7] B. Farkas, R. S. Gy, Tiles with no spectra in dimension 4 . Mathematica Scandinavica, 98 (2006), 44-52.
- 8[8] B. Farkas, M. Matolcsi, P. Mora, On Fuglede’s conjecture and the existence of universal spectra, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 12 (2006), no. 5, 483-494.
