MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2295570425 · doi:10.19086/da990

New bounds on curve tangencies and orthogonalities

2016· article· en· W2295570425 sur OpenAlexafffund
Jordan S. Ellenberg, József Solymosi, Joshua Zahl

Notice bibliographique

RevueDiscrete Analysis · 2016
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Établissements canadiensUniversity of British Columbia
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
Mots-clésCombinatoricsMathematicsDiscrete geometryIncidence (geometry)Plane (geometry)Discrete mathematicsGeometry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

New bounds on curve tangencies and orthogonalities, Discrete Analysis 2016:18, 22 pp. An important subfield of combinatorial geometry is that of _incidence problems_. Typically with such a problem one has two collections $A$ and $B$ of geometrical objects and some notion of incidence concerning them, and one wants to know how many incidences there can be. A fundamental theorem of this kind is the Szemerédi-Trotter theorem, which asserts that given $n$ points and $m$ lines in the plane, the number of incidences between them (that is, the number of pairs $(p,\ell)$ where $p$ is one of the points, $\ell$ is one of the lines, and $p$ is contained in $\ell$) is at most $C(n+m+(mn)^{2/3})$. Another important problem in the area is the _joints problem_, which is now a theorem of Larry Guth and Nets Katz. Given a set $L$ of lines in $\mathbb R^3$, define a _joint_ to be a point $p\in\mathbb R^3$ such that there are three lines $\ell_1,\ell_2$ and $\ell_3$ that meet at $p$ and have linearly independent directions. Guth and Katz proved that $n$ lines can give rise to at most $O(n^{3/2})$ joints, which is best possible, as one can see by taking all axis parallel lines in $\mathbb R^3$ that intersect the grid $\{1,2,\dots,m\}^3$, with $m\sim\sqrt n$. This was part of the proof of their remarkable solution to the Erdős distance problem [2]. This paper is about incidences of a special kind between algebraic curves in the plane. Given a set $C$ of such curves, a _tangency_ is a point $p$ in the plane and a line $\ell$ through $p$ such that at least two curves in $C$ go through $p$ in direction $l$. An _orthogonality_ is a point $p$ and a line $l$ through $p$ such that at least one curve in $C$ goes through $p$ in the direction of $\ell$ and at least one curve in $C$ goes through $p$ in the direction orthogonal to $\ell$. (Throughout, we are assuming that the curves are not singular at $p$.) The first main result of the paper roughly speaking states that a set $\mathcal L$ of $n$ algebraic curves of degree at most $D$ can give rise to at most $C_Dn^{3/2}$ tangencies. A more precise statement is that if you define the _multiplicity_ of a tangency $(p,\ell)$ to be the number of curves in $\mathcal L$ that go through $p$ in direction $\ell$, then the sum of the multiplicities over all the tangencies is at most $C_Dn^{3/2}$. Like Guth and Katz's proof of the joints problem, and Zeev Dvir's famous solution of the finite-field Kakeya problem [1], the proof uses the polynomial method. They also prove the result in arbitrary fields, provided that $|\mathcal L|\leq c_D\chi^2$, where $\chi$ is the characteristic of the field (where this should be interpreted as meaning that there is no restriction if the characteristic is zero). The theorem about orthogonalities is a little more complicated to state. One would like to say that $n$ plane curves of degree $D$ can give rise to at most $C_Dn^{3/2}$ orthogonalities, but that is false: for example, one can take $n/2$ parallel lines and another $n/2$ parallel lines that are orthogonal to the first ones. However, in a certain sense this is the only kind of counterexample. A precise statement can be found as Theorem 2 in the paper, but the rough idea is as follows. We say that $X$ is a _family of curves_ if it can be defined in a polynomial manner. Then if $k$ is a field and $X$ is a family of curves in $k^2$ of degree at most $D$, then one of the following two situations occurs. Either every set $\mathcal L$ of $n$ curves from $X$ gives rise to at most $C_{D,X}n^{3/2}$ orthogonalities or for every $n\leq c_D\chi^2$ one can find $n$ curves in $X$ that give rise to $n^2(1/4-o_{D,X}(1))$ orthogonalities (where $o_{D,X}(1)$ denotes a term that tends to zero as $n$, and hence also the characteristic, tend to infinity while $D$ and the equations that define the family $X$ remain fixed). Both results are proved by first transforming the set of curves into a set of curves in $k^3$ such that tangencies/orthogonalities in the original set correspond to intersections in the new set. A simple example (given in the paper at the end of Section 1.3) shows that the condition that the curves should be algebraic of bounded degree is essential. [1] Zeev Dvir, _On the size of Kakeya sets in finite fields_, JAMS 22 (2009), 1093–1097; [preprint available online](https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~zdvir/papers/Dvir09.pdf) [2] Larry Guth and Nets. Katz, On the Erdo ̋s distinct distance problem in the plane., Ann. of Math. 181 (2015), 155–190; or see [arxiv:1011.4105](https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.4105)

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,024
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,081

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,016
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,002
Bibliométrie0,0070,005
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,006
Communication savante0,0060,024
Science ouverte0,0020,008
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0240,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,012
Tête enseignante GPT0,247
Écart entre enseignants0,234 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreAutre

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations14
Publié2016
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueDiscrete AnalysisMême sujetComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationTravaux en français237 207