Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.
Updated
Source. Lemma 2, p. 3, of Gabriel Nivasch, János Pach, Rom Pinchasi and Shira Zerbib, The number of distinct distances from a vertex of a convex polygon, Journal of Computational Geometry 4 (2013), 1--12, arXiv:1207.1266, as named on the source card; labels and pages are those of arXiv:1207.1266v2 (22 March 2013).
Statement
Setting (p. 2). A set of points is in general position if no three of its points are collinear. For a finite planar set , is the number of unordered pairs with distinct and : the number of isosceles triangles determined by , each equilateral triangle counted three times.
Lemma 2 (p. 3). "Suppose that the number of isosceles triangles determined by an -point set (in general position in the plane) satisfies for some . Then contains a point from which there are at least distinct distances."
The paper notes that the lemma can also be found in Dumitrescu's 2006 paper (p. 3). Plugging in Dumitrescu's bound for convex position gives (p. 4). With , the general-position bound gives , the order of Szemerédi's (arithmetic done here; the paper proves Szemerédi's bound directly on p. 3).
Read depth. Claims checked: the statement and its proof were read clause by clause on pp. 3--4. Nothing here is independently reviewed.
Proof pointer
pp. 3--4, in the corpus's words. If every point sees at most distances, Szemerédi's count gives , and one may assume , since otherwise . The number of equal-distance pairs at each point is smallest when the other points lie on exactly circles about it, each holding two or three points, which gives at least such pairs per point and so . Comparing with the assumed upper bound on gives the lemma.
Bears on
- Problem 982: the bridge the paper uses from upper bounds on isosceles triangles in convex position to lower bounds for the problem's quantity; on its own it proves no bound for the problem. The paper's concluding remarks (p. 10) give a convex -point set with and conclude that this method cannot give a lower bound better than for .