Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Borsuk's conjecture

Can every bounded subset of Rn be partitioned into (n+1) smaller diameter sets? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Borsuk's conjecture
Remove ads

The Borsuk problem in geometry, for historical reasons[note 1] incorrectly called Borsuk's conjecture, is a question in discrete geometry. It is named after Karol Borsuk.

Thumb
An example of a hexagon cut into three pieces of smaller diameter.
Unsolved problem in mathematics
What is the lowest n such that not every bounded subset E of the space can be partitioned into (n + 1) sets, each of which has a smaller diameter than E?
Remove ads

Problem

Summarize
Perspective

In 1932, Karol Borsuk showed[2] that an ordinary 3-dimensional ball in Euclidean space can be easily dissected into 4 solids, each of which has a smaller diameter than the ball, and generally n-dimensional ball can be covered with n + 1 compact sets of diameters smaller than the ball. At the same time he proved that n subsets are not enough in general. The proof is based on the Borsuk–Ulam theorem. That led Borsuk to a general question:[2]

Die folgende Frage bleibt offen: Lässt sich jede beschränkte Teilmenge E des Raumes in (n + 1) Mengen zerlegen, von denen jede einen kleineren Durchmesser als E hat?

The following question remains open: Can every bounded subset E of the space be partitioned into (n + 1) sets, each of which has a smaller diameter than E?

Drei Sätze über die n-dimensionale euklidische Sphäre

The question was answered in the positive in the following cases:

  • n = 2 — which is the original result by Karol Borsuk (1932).
  • n = 3 — shown by Julian Perkal (1947),[3] and independently, 8 years later, by H. G. Eggleston (1955).[4] A simple proof was found later by Branko Grünbaum and Aladár Heppes.
  • For all n for smooth convex fields — shown by Hugo Hadwiger (1946).[5][6]
  • For all n for centrally-symmetric fields — shown by A.S. Riesling (1971).[7]
  • For all n for fields of revolution — shown by Boris Dekster (1995).[8]

The problem was finally solved in 1993 by Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai, who showed that the general answer to Borsuk's question is no.[9] They claim that their construction shows that n + 1 pieces do not suffice for n = 1325 and for each n > 2014. However, as pointed out by Bernulf Weißbach,[10] the first part of this claim is in fact false. But after improving a suboptimal conclusion within the corresponding derivation, one can indeed verify one of the constructed point sets as a counterexample for n = 1325 (as well as all higher dimensions up to 1560).[11]

Their result was improved in 2003 by Hinrichs and Richter, who constructed finite sets for n ≥ 298, which cannot be partitioned into n + 11 parts of smaller diameter.[1]

In 2013, Andriy V. Bondarenko had shown that Borsuk's conjecture is false for all n ≥ 65.[12] Shortly after, Thomas Jenrich derived a 64-dimensional counterexample from Bondarenko's construction, giving the best bound up to now.[13][14]

Apart from finding the minimum number n of dimensions such that the number of pieces α(n) > n + 1, mathematicians are interested in finding the general behavior of the function α(n). Kahn and Kalai show that in general (that is, for n sufficiently large), one needs many pieces. They also quote the upper bound by Oded Schramm, who showed that for every ε, if n is sufficiently large, .[15] The correct order of magnitude of α(n) is still unknown.[16] However, it is conjectured that there is a constant c > 1 such that α(n) > cn for all n ≥ 1.

Oded Schramm also worked in a related question, a body of constant width is said to have effective radius if , where is the unit ball in , he proved the lower bound , where is the smallest effective radius of a body of constant width 2 in and asked if there exists such that for all ,[17][18] that is if the gap between the volumes of the smallest and largest constant-width bodies grows exponentially. In 2024 a preprint by Arman, Bondarenko, Nazarov, Prymak, Radchenko reported to have answered this question in the affirmative giving a construction that satisfies .[19][20][21]

Remove ads

See also

Note

  1. As Hinrichs and Richter say in the introduction to their work,[1] the "Borsuk's conjecture [was] believed by many to be true for some decades" (hence commonly called a conjecture) so "it came as a surprise when Kahn and Kalai constructed finite sets showing the contrary". However, Karol Borsuk has formulated the problem just as a question, not suggesting the expected answer would be positive.

References

Further reading

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads