Advertisement

A Refined Energy Bound for Distinct Perpendicular Bisectors

  • Ben LundEmail author
Article

Abstract

Let \({\mathcal {P}}\) be a set of n points in the Euclidean plane. We prove that, for any \(\varepsilon > 0\), either a single line or circle contains n/2 points of \({\mathcal {P}}\), or the number of distinct perpendicular bisectors determined by pairs of points in \({\mathcal {P}}\) is \(\Omega (n^{52/35 - \varepsilon })\), where the constant implied by the \(\Omega \) notation depends on \(\varepsilon \). This is progress toward a conjecture of Lund, Sheffer, and de Zeeuw, that either a single line or circle contains n/2 points of \({\mathcal {P}}\), or the number of distinct perpendicular bisectors is \(\Omega (n^2)\). The proof relies bounding the size of a carefully selected subset of the quadruples \((a,b,c,d) \in {\mathcal {P}}^4\) such that the perpendicular bisector of a and b is the same as the perpendicular bisector of c and d.

Keywords

Incidences Perpendicular bisectors Distinct distances Energy bound 

Mathematics Subject Classification

52C10 05D99 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I thank Brandon Hanson, Peter Hajnal, Oliver Roche-Newton, Adam Sheffer, and Frank de Zeeuw for many stimulating conversations on perpendicular bisectors and related questions. I thank Luca Ghidelli for pointing out an error in Lemma 7 in an earlier version. I thank the anonymous referees for numerous helpful comments on the writing and presentation of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Eran Agarwal, Pankaj K .and Nevo, János Pach, Rom Pinchasi, Micha Sharir, and Shakhar Smorodinsky. Lenses in arrangements of pseudo-circles and their applications. Journal of the ACM (JACM), 51(2):139–186, 2004.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Boris Aronov and Micha Sharir. Cutting circles into pseudo-segments and improved bounds for incidences. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 28(4):475–490, 2002.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    György Elekes and Micha Sharir. Incidences in three dimensions and distinct distances in the plane. Combina- torics, Probability and Computing, 20(04):571–608, 2011.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paul Erdős. On sets of distances of n points. The American Mathematical Monthly, 53(5):248–250, 1946.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacob Fox, János Pach, Ádám Sheffer, Andrew Suk, and Joshua Zahl. A semi-algebraic version of Zarankiewicz’s problem. Journal of the European Mathematical Society, 19(6):1785–1810, 2017.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larry Guth and Nets Hawk Katz. On the Erdős distinct distances problem in the plane. Annals of Mathematics, 181(1):155–190, 2015.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brandon Hanson, Ben Lund, and Oliver Roche-Newton. On distinct perpendicular bisectors and pinned distances in finite fields. Finite Fields and Their Applications, 37:240–264, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Terry Tao (http://mathoverflow.net/users/766/terrytao). Where did the term “additive energy” originate? MathOverflow. URL:http://mathoverflow.net/q/223962 (version: 2015-11-18).
  9. 9.
    Ben Lund, Adam Sheffer, and Frank De Zeeuw. Bisector energy and few distinct distances. Discrete & Computational Geometry, 56(2):337–356, 2016.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Adam Marcus and Gábor Tardos. Intersection reverse sequences and geometric applications. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 113(4):675–691, 2006.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    E. Szemerédi and W. T. Trotter. Extremal problems in discrete geometry. Combinatorica, 3(3):381–392, 1982.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations