r/mathpics

Image 1 — Three Figures from a Vintage Treatise on Early Attempts to Get the Area of a Simply Connected ᐜ Kakeya Needle Set Below ⅛π
Image 2 — Three Figures from a Vintage Treatise on Early Attempts to Get the Area of a Simply Connected ᐜ Kakeya Needle Set Below ⅛π
Image 3 — Three Figures from a Vintage Treatise on Early Attempts to Get the Area of a Simply Connected ᐜ Kakeya Needle Set Below ⅛π

Three Figures from a Vintage Treatise on Early Attempts to Get the Area of a Simply Connected ᐜ Kakeya Needle Set Below ⅛π

A ▘Kakeya needle set▝ is a delineated region of the Euclidean plane in which a unit line segment can be rotated continuously through a half-circle.

There are fabulously elaborate constructions for Kakeya needle sets of arbitrarily small area that ᐞare notᐞ simply connected ᐜ (See this post

https://www.reddit.com/r/mathpics/s/JKcsXGLZ5o

for somewhat about it) ... but for quite a long time the smallest known simply connected one was the thrain-becuspen hypocycloid – ie the shape generated by a point on a circle of radius of ¼ rolling on the inside of a circle of radius ¾ (or ᐞin-generalᐞ those radii scaled-up by aught @all ... but for the purpose of just permitting rotation of a unit line-segment inside it ᐞspecifically exactlyᐞ those radii) the area of which is ⅛π . But then, these three – & indeed successful – attempts to get it down a bit further came-about: the first one down to

2(π-1)/(π+8) ≈ 0.38443205028

, the second down to

(¹¹/₁₂-2log³/₂)π + ε ≈ 0.33218085595 + ε

, & the thriddie one down to

¹/₂₄(5-2√2)π + ε ≈ 0.28425822465 + ε

(cf. ⅛π ≈ 0.3926990817)

... with the second & third having that "+ ε" appent because the value it's appent to is what the area tends to as the number of asperities of the figure it pertains to tends to ∞ .

But in 1971 the goodly Dr Cunningham ᐞjust totally slewᐞ the problem with a mind-bogglingly complex construction that gets the area arbitrarily small, ᐞandᐞ that fits in a unit disc ... ᐞandᐞ - adding a very generous helping of double-cream & maple syrup on-top - ᐞis simply connectedᐞ ᐜ ! And yet: these early probings into the matter, & their associated figures, remain of great mathematical-historical interest. And they also have the charm about them of being instances of squeezing the very-last drop of juice out of relatively ordinary geometrical reasonings, before the juggernaut of fabulous excursionry into totteringly-lofted recursiferous edifices comes a-crashing into the scene.

ᐜ A 'simply connected' region of the Euclidean plane is one in which any closed path in it can be continuously contracted to a point: basically, it has no holes or handles, or any of that sort of thingle-dingle-dongle.

From

——————————————————————

ON THE KAKEYA CONSTANT

by

F CUNNINGHAM JR & IJ SCHOENBERG

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/AE5990C3865179A03147E259B10D3B56/S0008414X00039869a.pdf/on-the-kakeya-constant.pdf

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – ¾㎆ !!

——————————————————————

It has long been known that K < ⅛π , this being the area of a three-cusped hypocycloid inscribed in a circle of radius ¾ . In 1952 R. J. Walker (7) determined by measurement the area of a certain set with a result that suggested that K < ⅛π . In spite of its heuristic value Walker's note has not become well known. Independently of it, but using the same general idea, A. A. Blank (3) exhibited recently certain star-shaped polygons with the Kakeya property, having areas approaching ⅛π , but not smaller than this value. Blank's examples suggested to each of us the possibility of finding Kakeya sets actually having areas smaller than ⅛π, each such set giving an upper estimate for K. In the present note three different kinds of such sets are described. The first two (Part I) are due to Cunningham, the third (Part II) to Schoenberg. Each of these examples is self-contained and may be read independently. They also furnish progressively better estimates, the third example showing that

(1)

K < ¹/₂₄(5-2√2)π = (0.09048 . . .)π .

After completing this paper we were informed that Melvin Bloom has also found the estimate (1) by exactly the same construction as described in Part II. Since he obtained (1) several months earlier than Schoenberg, the priority belongs to Professor Bloom.

u/Frangifer — 1 day ago

A Figure Illustrating the Goodly Jean-Pierre Kahane's Construction of a Besicovitch Set that *Actually Has* a Lebesgue Measure of Zero Rather than One that's Just Arbitrarily Small

From

——————————————————————

The Kakeya Problem

by

Oliver JD Barrowclough

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Oliver-Barrowclough/publication/269333847\_The\_Kakeya\_Problem/)

——————————————————————

Consider the points in the plane (x, y) such that x ∈ E and y = 0 where E is Kahane’s set. Also consider the parallel set of points (x, y) such that 2(x−ξ) ∈ E and y = 1 for some ξ ∈ ℝ; that is a parallel set of points in E, scaled by 1/2 and translated by some real number 2ξ. Kahane proved that the set F, formed by joining the lines between the parallel sets forms a set of measure zero, with line segments in every direction (at least such a set can be constructed from rotating copies of F, as in the Besicovitch construction). That F is a figure of planar measure zero is a consequence of the Cantor-like set being of linear measure zero. The proof that all directions are preserved in removing sections in the iterated construction of F is a little more involved. Figure 7 shows the line segments joined between the first three iterations in the construction of Kahane’s Cantor-like set E.

For Dr Kahane's original treatise (referenced [17] in the one the figures are from) see

——————————————————————

Trois notes sur les ensembles parfait linaires

by

Jean-Pierre Kahane

https://www.e-periodica.ch/digbib/view?pid=ens-001%3A1969%3A15%3A%3A291

——————————————————————

u/Frangifer — 2 days ago

A Series of Figures from a Treatise on an Algorithm for Solution of the Problem of Finding the Smallest Axis-Aligned Retangle Enclosing k of the Points of an Arbitrary Set of n Points in the Plane

&#x200B;

The statement “… enclosing k points …” means enclosing ᐞsomeᐞ k points, rather than k ᐞparticularᐞ points. If it were the latter, we might-aswell just say “… the smallest axis-aligned rectangle enclosing k arbitrarily-set points in the plane …” , which is trivial: the rectangle having (in standard cartesian coördinates) vertical sides @ (with h ranging from 1 through k)

x=min(xₕ) & x=max(xₕ)

& horizontal sides @

y=min(yₕ) & y=max(yₕ)

. ⚫

From

——————————————————————

Smallest k-Enclosing Rectangle Revisited

by

Timothy M Chan & Sariel Har-Peled

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1903.06785

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 664‧63㎅ !!

——————————————————————

u/Frangifer — 6 days ago

3903 spacefilling polyhedra, data, code and talk

A paper by Moritz W. Schmitt, On Space Groups and Dirichlet–Voronoi Stereohedra, outlines 3903 space-filling polyhedra using Voronoi cells in the 230 space groups. I've long wanted to build them all, and now I've done it.
Code and Data.
Free online talk happens Thursday, April 16, 11AM Chicago time.

u/EdPeggJr — 8 days ago

A Series of Diagrams Explicatory of the Procedure Whereby a 'Complete Congruential Covering System of the Integers' Having Smallest Modulus 42 Might In-Principleᐜ Be Yelt

From

——————————————————————

A Covering System with Minimum Modulus 42

by

Tyler Owens

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?params=/context/etd/article/5328/&path\_info=etd7498.pdf

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 264‧86㎅ !!

——————————————————————

Only the last figure has substantial annotation:

Figure 4.1: The Primes Used in Constructing the Covering System

A complete congruential covering system of the integers is a set of congruences that every integer satisfies. Obviously a trivial one is

0(mod2) & 1(mod2)

... but to keep it interesting the study of these sets of congruences tends to focus on ᐞdistinctᐞ sets, in which no two moduli are the same. There is a little 'annex' of study of 'exact' sets of congruences - ie ones in which each integer satisfies exactly one of the congruences - that aren't trivial ones ... but there's a theorem to the effect that a covering set cannot be both exact & distinct (it says that @the very least the largest modulus in an exact cover occurs twice) ... & by-far the greater part of the attention of the serious geezers & geezrices appears to be on ᐞdistinctᐞ covering sets.

There's also a theorem to the effect that if the number of congruences is <11, then 2 must be amongst the moduli. For sometime it was thought - per a conjecture of the goodly Paul Erdős – that the lower limit on the cardinality of a cover lacking 2 as a modulus was 14, rather, & he exhibitted a 14-congruence set of which the minimum modulus is 3 ᐝ ... but then someone came along & found a set with only 11 congruences & a minimum modulus of 3. See the followingly-lunken-to papers &-or the quotes I've exerpted from them for more details about that.

Also, the number of moduli necessary increases rapidly with stipulated minimum modulus, until eventually ᐞthere is noᐞ covering set of congruences having the stipulated minimum modulus. The first upper bound on the minimum modulus @ which this 'transition' sets-in was @first 10¹⁶ ... but it's since been lowered to 616,000. This also is fullierly dealt with in the followingly-lunken-to papers & quotes from them.

The diagrams sketch-out an algorithm for specifying a set of congruences having a minimum modulus of 42, which is the highest that's been found thus far. ᐜ There is ᐞabsolutely noᐞ chance of explicitly exhibitting the congruences themselves, as the number of them is somewhere in the region of 10⁵⁰ !!

😳😯😵‍💫

——————————————————————

COMPUTATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ON CONGRUENCE COVERING SYSTEMS

by

RAJ AGRAWAL & PRARTHANA BHATIA & KRATIK GUPTA & POWERS LAMB & ANDREW LOTT & ALEX RICE & CHRISTINE ROSE WARD

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2208.09720

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 133‧14㎅ !!

——————————————————————

Covering systems were introduced by Erdős [4] as a component of his proof of a conjecture of Romanoff that there exists an arithmetic progression of odd numbers, none of which take the form 2k + p for k ∈ N and p prime. Specifically, his proof utilized the distinct covering system

(1) {0(mod 2), 0(mod 3), 1(mod 4), 3(mod 8), 7(mod 12), 23(mod 24)} .

Inspired by a possible generalization of his proof, Erdős conjectured that there exist distinct covering systems with arbitrarily large minimum modulus, which became a coveted open problem. Nielsen [12] discovered a distinct covering system with minimum modulus 40, and was the first to entertain in writing the possibility of a negative resolution to Erdős’s conjecture. To date, the largest known minimum modulus of a distinct covering system is 42, discovered by Owens [13]. Nielsen’s suspicion was proven reality by Hough [8] in 2015, who showed that the minimum modulus of a distinct covering system is at most 10¹⁶ . This upper bound has since been lowered all the way to 616000 in work of Balister, Bollobas, Morris, Sahadrabudhe, and Tiba [1].

A notable finding in our classification is that all distinct covering systems with at most ten moduli have minimum modulus 2. When making his aforementioned conjecture on the minimum modulus of distinct covering systems, Erdős [4] provided a distinct covering system with minimum modulus 3, which utilizied 14 moduli, the divisors of 120 that are greater than 2. In [3], he guessed that this system had minimum cardinality amongst distinct covering systems whose moduli are all greater than 2, but this was found to be incorrect by Krukenberg [11], whose thesis included the 11-modulus distinct covering system

(3) {[2, 3], [0, 4], [1, 6], [2, 8], [0, 9], [3, 12], [6, 16], [3, 18], [6, 24], [33, 36], [46, 48]}.

Here and for the remainder of the paper we use the shorthand notation [r, m] for the congruence class r(mod m).

——————————————————————

Covering Systems and the Minimum Modulus Problem

by

Maria Claire Cummings

https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7772&context=etd

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 553‧84㎅ !!

——————————————————————

Problem 1.1.2. For every positive integer c, does there exist a finite covering with distinct moduli and minimum modulus ≥ c?

First posed by Erdős [3], Robert Hough [7] showed to the contrary that the minimum modulus must be ≤ 10¹⁶. This bound has been reduced to 616000 by P. Balister, B. Bollobás, R. Morris, J. Sahasrabudhe, and M. Tiba [2].

——————————————————————

ON THE ERDŐS COVERING PROBLEM: THE DENSITY OF THE UNCOVERED SET

by

PAUL BALISTER & BELA BOLLOBÁS & ROBERT MORRIS & JULIAN SAHASRABUDHE & MARIUS TIBA

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1811.03547

343‧87㎅

——————————————————————

  1. The Minimum Modulus Problem

In this section we improve the bound on the minimum modulus given in [8, Theorem 1].

Theorem 8.1. Let A be a finite collection of arithmetic progressions with distinct moduli

d₁, . . . , dₖ > 616000.

Then A does not cover the integers.

ᐝ I can't seem to find this set of congruences given explicitly. If I find it I'll add it as a comment ... or if someone has it & would put-in with it then that would be highly appreciated.

It seems to me there'd be an integer series (although not an infinite one ^§ ), there: __a(n) =__ minimum number of congruences in a covering set having minimum modulus __n__ .

... eg, per the text above,

__a(3)=11__ & __a(42)≈10⁵⁰__ .

§ ... or infinite if we allow __∞__ as an entry.

u/Frangifer — 7 days ago

Figures from a Treatise in which the Brutally Complicated Process of Constructing a Kakeya Needle Set is Fully Explicitly Setten-Forth ...

... which it took me ᐞagesᐞ to find, it being the more usual practice for authors to baulk @ doing-so: the proceedure being ᐞindeed brutallyᐞ complicated.

... not 'complicated' in the sense of entailing crazy weïrd mathematics, or aught like that: just basic geometry & calculation of delineated areas, that sortof thing ... but ᐞalmost interminableᐞ knots & loops & skeins of it.

From

——————————————————————

The Kakeya Needle Problem

by

Sean Gasiorek & Tina Woolf

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f6c23246ba9a664dd96c4b1/t/5f6d64d7db1e987c6d988122/1601004765874/Senior\_Thesis.pdf

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 792‧58㎅ !!

——————————————————————

ANNOTATIONS RESPECTIVELY

Figure 0: [Frontispiece]

Figure 6: ∆ ∪ J

Figure 7: First Iteration of the Sprouting Process

Figure 8: Three Iterations of the Sprouting Process

Figure 9: Sprouts and Joins

Figure 10: Labeled Sprout Diagram

Figure 11: Estimating the Area of the Sprouts

Figure 12: m Sprouts and m Joins

Figure 13: Sprouting the i_ͭ_ͪ Join

Figure 14: A Second Generation Kakeya Set

u/Frangifer — 11 days ago

A Colouring of the Integers Upthrough 7,824 Such That No Triple of Integers m, n, q Satisfying m²+n²=q² Shall All Have the Same Colour

Apparently, it's been proven that it's possible thus to colour the integers upto 7,824 ... but no-further.

(... & someone got $100 for it, aswell! 😁 )

See

——————————————————————

Wordpress — Bigness (Part 2)

by

John Baez

https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2020/04/13/bigness-part-2/

——————————————————————

, which wwwebarticle article is the source of the image.

u/Frangifer — 15 days ago

A Thoroughly Ingenious Representation of the Finite Affine Plane of Order 4 ...

... although there's a bit of a 'cheat' with it: a red dot & its 'partner' – ie the one lying on the same line through the centre of the figure – are to be dempt a single point. But it's actually a pretty slick way of representing the finite affine plane of order 4: the author claims it's the result of literally ᐞseveral yearsᐞ of contemplation upon ways of representing it!

Image from

——————————————————————

this 'Stackexchange' post.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1925479/affine-plane-of-order-4-picture

——————————————————————

I've actually had this picture for a while ... but for some reason I forgot to post it here.

What these finite 'planes' basically are, @all, is spelt-out in numerous sources, of which the following two are pretty decent, ImO:

——————————————————————

AFFINE SUBPLANES OF FINITE PROJECTIVE PLANES

by

JF RIGBY

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-mathematics/article/affine-subplanes-of-finite-projective-planes/720C7758D24E59D5E8F443CAF9CEBDD6

——————————————————————

&

——————————————————————

The what, how and why of Finite projective planes

by

Markus Höglin

https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/9067379

——————————————————————

. They're basically 'incidence structures' created by taking the axioms of geometry & applying them to a strictly finite collection of lines & points. They needn't really be conceiven-of as 'planes' – in anything like a geometrical sense – ᐞ@allᐞ, but can rather be conceiven-of as ways of attributing elements of a set to subsets in such way that the subsets satisfy certain specifications (the 'incidence relations') as to what elements of the 'mother' set shall be elements of what subsets. Or we could say that a finite plane is in a relation to a plane consisting of a continuum of points (ie a geometrical plane in the customarily received sense) similar to that of a finite field towards the field of continuum numbers ... infact finite planes ᐞare actually generated byᐞ operations on finite fields ... although there may be finite fields ᐞnotᐞ generated that way: it's actually a rather fertile territory for unresolved conjectures.

u/Frangifer — 15 days ago

An Atomic Latin Square of Order 25

An ᐞatomicᐞ latin square is one that, to put it qualitatively, maximally defies having latin subrectangles appearing in it: no-matter how we 'massage' it with permutations of its rows or columns or content, or with transposition between any of those items, we won't find any latin subrectangle appearing.

... or (to broach a geological analogy) it's maximally 'of a single piece' – free of any cleavage lines ... indeed quite literally, really, ᐞatomicᐞ .

An explicit atomic latin square of order 25 is quite a big deal, really: it probably took ᐞan awfulᐞ lot of №-crunching to get that table!

For a more mathematically thorough explication of this concept of 'atomicity' in connection with latin squares, see

——————————————————————

Atomic Latin Squares based on Cyclotomic

Orthomorphisms

by

Ian M Wanless

https://users.monash.edu.au/\~iwanless/papers/cyclatomicv12i1r22.pdf

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 173·43㎅ !!

——————————————————————

(which is the paper the table is actually lifted from), or

——————————————————————

Atomic Latin Squares of Order Eleven

by

Barbara M Maenhaut & Ian M Wanless

https://users.monash.edu.au/\~iwanless/papers/atomic11JCD.pdf

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 200·91㎅ !!

——————————————————————

Also, the following go-into it, aswell ... but also with much diversifying-off into other related matters – most particularly the connection with 1-factorisations of complete & complete bipartite graphs.

——————————————————————

Perfect factorisations of bipartite graphs and Latin squares without proper subrectangles

by

IM Wanless

https://users.monash.edu.au/\~iwanless/papers/perfactv6i1r9.pdf

¡¡ may download without prompting – PDF document – 274·11㎅ !!

——————————————————————

——————————————————————

A Family of Perfect Factorisations of Complete Bipartite Graphs

by

Darryn Bryant & Barbara M Maenhaut & IM Wanless

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0097316501932406?ref=cra\_js\_challenge&fr=RR-1

——————————————————————

u/Frangifer — 17 days ago

Searching for information

This is a physical 1985 mathematical construction (metal on glass) by M. Audier. It represents the geometric projection of a higher-dimensional lattice into a lower dimension to explain non-periodic order. I am curious if anyone can help identify the mathematical "acceptance domain" shown here. Are there other known physical visualizations of this specific 6D-to-3D projection logic?

u/yogi77c — 20 days ago