Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T20:39:47.685Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sphere tangencies, line incidences and Lie’s line-sphere correspondence

Part of: Discrete geometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 March 2021

JOSHUA ZAHL
JOSHUA ZAHL*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of British Columbia, 1984 Mathematics Road, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z2, Canada. e-mail: jzahl@math.ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two spheres with centers p and q and signed radii r and s are said to be in contact if |p–q|2=(r–s)2. Using Lie’s line-sphere correspondence, we show that if F is a field in which –1 is not a square, then there is an isomorphism between the set of spheres in F3 and the set of lines in a suitably constructed Heisenberg group that is embedded in (F[i])3; under this isomorphism, contact between spheres translates to incidences between lines.

In the past decade there has been significant progress in understanding the incidence geometry of lines in three space. The contact-incidence isomorphism allows us to translate statements about the incidence geometry of lines into statements about the contact geometry of spheres. This leads to new bounds for Erdős’ repeated distances problem in F3, and improved bounds for the number of point-sphere incidences in three dimensions. These new bounds are sharp for certain ranges of parameters.

MSC classification

Primary: 52C10: Erdős problems and related topics of discrete geometry
Type
Research Article
Information
Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , Volume 172 , Issue 2 , March 2022 , pp. 401 - 421
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Cambridge Philosophical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Apfelbaum, R. and Sharir, M.. Non-degenerate spheres in three dimensions. Combin. Probab. Comput. 20 (2011), 503–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bombieri, E. and Pila, J.. The number of integral points on arcs and ovals. Duke Math. J. 59 (1989), 337–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cecil, T. E.. Lie Sphere Geometry (Springer, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarkson, K., Edelsbrunner, H., Guibas, L., Sharir, M. and Welzl, E.. Combinatorial complexity bounds for arrangements of curves and surfaces. Discrete Comput. Geom. 5 (1990), 99–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Zeeuw, F.. A short proof of Rudnev’s point-plane incidence bound. arXiv:1612.02719 (2016).Google Scholar
Dvir, Z.. On the size of Kakeya sets in finite fields. J. Amer. Math. Soc. 22 (2009), 1093–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elekes, G. and Tóth, C. D.. Incidences of not too degenerate hyperplanes. In Proc. 21st Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom. (2005), 16–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erdős, P.. On sets of distances of n points in Euclidean space. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Matematikai Kutató Intézet Kőzleményei 5 (1960), 165–169.Google Scholar
Guth, L.. Polynomial partitioning for a set of varieties. Math. Camb. Phil. Soc. 159 (2015), 459–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, L.. Polynomial methods in combinatorics. Amer. Math. Soc. (2018).Google Scholar
Guth, L. and Katz, N.. Algebraic methods in discrete analogs of the Kakeya problem. Adv. Math. 225 (2010), 2828–2839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guth, L. and Zahl, J.. Algebraic curves, rich points and doubly-ruled surfaces. Amer. J. Math. 140 (2018) 1187–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, H., Matoušek, J., Safernová, Z. and Sharir, M.. Unit distances in three dimensions. Combin. Probab. Comput. 21 (2012), 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, H., Sharir, M. and Shustin, E.. On lines and joints. Discrete. Comput. Geom. 44 (2010), 838–843.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, N., I. łaba, and T. Tao. An improved bound on the Minkowski dimension of Besicovitch sets in 3. Ann. of Math. 152 (2000), 383–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, N. and Zahl, J.. An improved bound on the Hausdorff dimension of Besicovitch sets in 3. J. Amer. Math. Soc., 32 (2019), 195–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollár, J.. Szemerédi–Trotter-type theorems in dimension 3. Adv. Math., 271 (2015), 30–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milson, R.. An overview of Lie’s line-sphere correspondence. In Leslie, J. and Robart, T., editors, The geometrical study of differential equations. Amer. Math. Soc. (2001), 129–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mockenhaupt, G. and Tao, T.. Restriction and Kakeya phenomena for finite fields. Duke Math. J. 121 (2004), 35–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnev, M.. On the number of incidences between points and planes in three dimensions. Combinatorica, 38 (2018), 219–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudnev, M.. Point-plane incidences and some applications in positive characteristic. In Schmidt, K. and Winterhof, A., editors, Combinatorics and Finite Fields: Difference Sets, Polynomials, Pseudorandomness and Applications, pages 211–240 (De Gruyter, 2019).Google Scholar
Rudnev, M. and Selig, J.. On the use of Klein quadric for geometric incidence problems in two dimensions. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 30 (2014), 934–954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharir, M. and Zlydenko, O.. Incidences between points and curves with almost two degrees of freedom. In Proc. 36th Annu. ACM Sympos. Comput. Geom. (2020).Google Scholar
Tao, T.. Stickiness, graininess, planiness, and a sum-product approach to the kakeya problem. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2014/05/07/stickiness-graininess-planiness-and-a-sum-product-approachto-the-kakeya-problem (2014).Google Scholar
Zahl, J.. An improved bound on the number of point-surface incidences in three dimensions. Contrib. Discrete Math. 8 (2013), 100–121.Google Scholar
Zahl, J.. Breaking the 3/2 barrier for unit distances in three dimensions. Int. Math. Res. Not. 2019 (2019), 6235–6284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar