The Arithmetic Kakeya Conjecture

Improve best-known upper bounds by constructing specific combinatorial objects.

Unsolved Number Theory
Solid result

Contributor: Thomas Bloom

Royal Society University Research Fellow, University of Manchester

A Kakeya set in \(\mathbb{R}^d\) is a bounded set which contains a unit line segment in every direction. Such sets can have measure zero, but the Kakeya conjecture posits that they always have (Minkowski and Hausdorff) dimension \(d\). It remains open for \(d \ge 4\).

A related conjecture is the arithmetic Kakeya conjecture, which can be formulated as stating that a property, \(AK(\cdot)\) holds of a real number \(\alpha\). It is trivial that \(AK(2)\) holds. The arithmetic Kakeya conjecture is that \(AK(1)\) holds, and this is known to imply the Kakeya conjecture. The current state-of-the-art is \(AK(\gamma)\) where \(\gamma \approx 1.675\) is the largest root of \(x^3 − 4x + 2\).

Due to work of Katz and Tao, it is possible to establish \(AK(\alpha)\) for particular values of \(\alpha\) by constructing certain finite, combinatorial objects. This method is responsible for the current state-of-the-art result. The goal of this problem is to improve on that, i.e. to exhibit such an object that establishes \(AK(\alpha)\) for \(\alpha < \gamma\). There are limits known to this method: it cannot work for \(\alpha < \frac{3}{2}\). Thus, this problem cannot establish the full Kakeya conjecture.

See the write-up for full definitions and additional background.

Warm-up: we ask for a construction that replicates a known bound.

This machinery also facilitates posing a problem asking for an improved upper bound on the sum-difference constant. The best-known bound is 11/6 and any improvement is probably at least moderately interesting.

Attempts by AI

We have evaluated the following models on this problem. “Warm-up” refers to an easier variant of the problem with a known solution.

AI Prompts

Change the value in the second-to-last paragraph to set the difficulty level. The best-known current value is slightly greater than 1.675, derived from an intricate construction. An easier, but non-trivial construction gives 1.75, which is what we use for the warm-up below.

Warm-up

Please solve the problem formulated at the end of this write-up.

\section{Introduction}

A Kakeya set in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a bounded set which contains a unit line segment in every direction. While such sets can have measure zero, the Kakeya conjecture posits that they always have the maximal possible (Minkowski and Hausdorff) dimension $d$. The arithmetic Kakeya conjecture was implicitly formulated by Katz and Tao, as a statement strong enough to imply (a form of) the Kakeya conjecture, but which can be formulated as a purely additive combinatorics statement.

One way to state the arithmetic Kakeya problem is the following: we say that $\mathrm{AK}(\alpha)$ holds if for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a finite set $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $r_1+r_2\neq 0$ for all $\mathbf{x}\in X$, and for all finite $G\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$,
\[\lvert(1,-1)\cdot G\rvert\ll_\epsilon \max_{\mathbf{x}\in X} \lvert\mathbf{x}\cdot G}^{\alpha+\epsilon\rvert,\]
where we write
\[\mathbf{x}\cdot G = \{ x_1g_1+x_2g_2 : (g_1,g_2)\in G\}.\]
Note that we are not interested in the size or nature of $X$ itself -- for the applications to the Kakeya conjecture itself, all that matters is the exponent $\alpha$.

It is trivial that $\mathrm{AK}(2)$ holds (for example by taking $X$ to be any two linearly independent vectors in $\mathbb{Z}^2$, as then $(1,-1)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of these two). The arithmetic Kakeya conjecture itself is the following.
\begin{conjecture}[Arithmetic Kakeya conjecture]
$\mathrm{AK}(1)$ holds.
\end{conjecture}

The relation to the Kakeya problem is the following.
\begin{theorem}
If $\mathrm{AK}(\alpha)$ holds then, for all $d\geq 2$, if $E\subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ is a Kakeya set (a bounded set containing a unit line segment in every direction) then the Hausdorff dimension of $E$ is at least
\[\alpha^{-1}d+1-\alpha^{-1}.\]
\end{theorem}
This was implicitly established by Bourgain using the `method of slices', although Bourgain only established this for the Minkowski dimension. The stronger statement that this same bound holds for the Hausdorff dimension is a consequence of combining Bourgain's argument  with recent progress on Szemer\'{e}di's theorem by Leng, Sah, and Sawhney.

\section{Intuitive Set-up}
We will first explicitly define the kind of structure that is required, and what the `score' of such a structure (i.e. what value of $\alpha$ a structure would prove $\mathrm{AK}(\alpha)$ for). In this section we have presented things to be intuitive for the reader; an equivalent, but more opaque, version which is more suitable for verification is given in the second problem statement.

We first define a collection of constructible configurations iteratively.
\begin{definition}
Let $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$. An $X$-constructible graph is a (simple undirected) finite graph, in which each edge is labelled with some $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{Z}^2$, defined in the following iterative fashion.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A single vertex is constructible.
\item If $H$ is constructible then, for any integer $k\geq 1$, if $X_1,\ldots,X_k$ are sets of vertices of $H$, then the following graph is constructible: take $k+1$ disjoint copies of $H$ and then, for each $1\leq i\leq k$ and $x\in X_i$, either identify the vertices corresponding to $x$ in both $H_{i-1}$ and $H_i$, or put an edge between them labelled with some $\mathbf{v}\in X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

We write $\mathbf{x}g$ for the matrix which is zero everywhere except in the column corresponding to $g$, in which it is the column vector $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{Z}^2$.

\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a finite graph with vertex set $V$, such that each edge is labelled with some $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{Z}^2$. An $X$-\emph{forcing pair} for $G$ is a pair of sets $(R,T)$ with $T\subseteq V$ and $R$ a finite collection $2\times \left\lvert V\right\rvert$ integer matrices, with columns indexed by $g\in V$, such that
\[R\subseteq \{ \mathbf{x}g: \mathbf{x}\in X\textrm{ and }g\in V\}\]
such that a finite sequence of the following operations on $(R,T)$ eventually produces $T=V$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $g_1\sim g_2$ is an edge of $G$ labelled $\mathbf{v}$ then add $\mathbf{v}g_1-\mathbf{v}g_2$ to $R$.
\item If $(1,-1)g\in R$ then add $g$ to $T$.
\item Any $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combination of matrices in $R$ can be added to $R$.
\end{enumerate}

\end{definition}

\begin{definition}
Let $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2\backslash \langle (1,-1)\rangle$ be a finite set. A constructible proof of
\[\alpha(X)\leq \frac{m+r}{n-t}\]
is an $X$-constructible graph $G$ with vertex set $V$, with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, for which there is a forcing pair $(R,T)$ with $\left\lvert R\right\rvert=r$ and $\left\lvert T\right\rvert=t$, where $T\subseteq V$ and
\[R\subseteq \{ \mathbf{x}g : \mathbf{x}\in X\textrm{ and }g\in V\}.\]
\end{definition}

\section{Verifiable Set-up}

In this reformulation we write $d_1\times\cdots \times d_k$ for the set of lists of integers $[e_1,\ldots,e_k]$ such that $1\leq e_i\leq d_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$. If $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ is a finite set then an $X$-constructible graph $G$ is a list of non-negative integers $d_1,...,d_k$ together with a list of functions\footnote{The function $f_i$ represents the fact that when constructing the glued graph at stage $i$ we connect the vertices corresponding to $(e_1,\ldots,e_i)$ and $(e_1,\ldots,e_i+1)$ with an edge labelled $f_i(e_1,\ldots,e_i)$.}
\[f_i: d_1\times \cdots \times d_{i-1}\times (d_i-1)\to X\]
for $1\leq i\leq k$. Let $n(G)=d_1\cdots d_k$ and
\[m(G)=\sum_{1\leq i\leq k}\sum_{\mathbf{e}}1_{f_i(\mathbf{e})\neq (0,0)}d_{i+1}\cdots d_k.\]
An $X$-set for $G$ is a pair $(R,T)$ where $T$ is a (possibly empty) list of vertices $\mathbf{e}\in d_1\times \cdots \times d_k$ and $R$ is a list of functions $d_1\times \cdots\times d_k \to X$ such that
\[\#\{ \mathbf{e}\in d_1\times \cdots\times d_k : f(\mathbf{e})\neq (0,0)\}=1\]
for all $f\in R$.

An $X$-set for $G$ is forcing if a finite number of the following operations on $(R,T)$ results in $T=d_1\times \cdots \times d_k$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbf{e}_1,\mathbf{e}_2\in d_1\times \cdots \times d_k$ and $f_i(a_1,\ldots,a_{i})=x$ and the first $i$ coordinates of $\mathbf{e}_1$ are $a_1,\ldots,a_i$ and the first $i$ coordinates of $\mathbf{e}_2$ are $a_1,\ldots,a_i+1$ then add the function which takes $\mathbf{e}_1\mapsto x$ and $\mathbf{e}_2\mapsto -x$ and $\mathbf{g}\mapsto (0,0)$ for every $\mathbf{g}\neq \mathbf{e}_1,\mathbf{e}_2$ to $R$.
\item If there exists $a\neq 0$ and $\mathbf{e}$ such that $f(\mathbf{e})=(a,-a)$ and $f(\mathbf{f})=(0,0)$ for every $\mathbf{f}\not\in T\cup \{\mathbf{e}\}$ then add $\mathbf{e}$ to $T$.
\item If $f,g\in R$ then $f-g$ can be added to $R$.
\end{enumerate}

Given an $X$-constructible graph $G$ with a forcing pair $(R,T)$ its score is
\[S(X,G,R,T)=\frac{m(G)+\left\lvert R\right\rvert}{n(G)-\left\lvert T\right\rvert}.\]

\section{Problem}

Find a finite set $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $(0,0)\in X$ and if $(a,b)\in X\backslash \{(0,0)\}$ then $a+b\neq 0$ and an $X$-constructible graph $G$ with a forcing pair $(R,T)$ with score \leq 1.75.

Return this as a multi-line string. In the first line list the score (as a fraction) together with the parameters $m(G),\left\lvert R\right\rvert,n(G),\left\lvert T\right\rvert$. (This is not used by the verifier code, but is helpful for humans.) In the second line list the elements in $X$ as a list of pairs of integers. In the third line list the integers $d_1,\ldots,d_k$. In the fourth line list the functions $f_1,\ldots,f_k$ that make up $G$, each represented as a dictionary from $d_1\times\cdots \times (d_i-1)\to X$. These can be partial functions: omitted entries are assumed to be assigned $(0,0)$. In the fifth line list the elements of $T$. In the sixth line list the elements of $R$, each of which is a dictionary assigning an element of $X$ to some vertex of $G$.

Full problem

\section{Introduction}

A Kakeya set in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a bounded set which contains a unit line segment in every direction. While such sets can have measure zero, the Kakeya conjecture posits that they always have the maximal possible (Minkowski and Hausdorff) dimension $d$. The arithmetic Kakeya conjecture was implicitly formulated by Katz and Tao, as a statement strong enough to imply (a form of) the Kakeya conjecture, but which can be formulated as a purely additive combinatorics statement.

One way to state the arithmetic Kakeya problem is the following: we say that $\mathrm{AK}(\alpha)$ holds if for any $\epsilon>0$ there exists a finite set $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $r_1+r_2\neq 0$ for all $\mathbf{x}\in X$, and for all finite $G\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$,
\[\lvert(1,-1)\cdot G\rvert\ll_\epsilon \max_{\mathbf{x}\in X} \lvert\mathbf{x}\cdot G\rvert^{\alpha+\epsilon},\]
where we write
\[\mathbf{x}\cdot G = \{ x_1g_1+x_2g_2 : (g_1,g_2)\in G\}.\]
Note that we are not interested in the size or nature of $X$ itself -- for the applications to the Kakeya conjecture itself, all that matters is the exponent $\alpha$.

It is trivial that $\mathrm{AK}(2)$ holds (for example by taking $X$ to be any two linearly independent vectors in $\mathbb{Z}^2$, as then $(1,-1)$ can be expressed as a linear combination of these two). The arithmetic Kakeya conjecture itself is the following.
\begin{conjecture}[Arithmetic Kakeya conjecture]
$\mathrm{AK}(1)$ holds.
\end{conjecture}

The relation to the Kakeya problem is the following.
\begin{theorem}
If $\mathrm{AK}(\alpha)$ holds then, for all $d\geq 2$, if $E\subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ is a Kakeya set (a bounded set containing a unit line segment in every direction) then the Hausdorff dimension of $E$ is at least
\[\alpha^{-1}d+1-\alpha^{-1}.\]
\end{theorem}
This was implicitly established by Bourgain using the `method of slices', although Bourgain only established this for the Minkowski dimension. The stronger statement that this same bound holds for the Hausdorff dimension is a consequence of combining Bourgain's argument  with recent progress on Szemer\'{e}di's theorem by Leng, Sah, and Sawhney.

\section{Intuitive Set-up}
We will first explicitly define the kind of structure that is required, and what the `score' of such a structure (i.e. what value of $\alpha$ a structure would prove $\mathrm{AK}(\alpha)$ for). In this section we have presented things to be intuitive for the reader; an equivalent, but more opaque, version which is more suitable for verification is given in the second problem statement.

We first define a collection of constructible configurations iteratively.
\begin{definition}
Let $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$. An $X$-constructible graph is a (simple undirected) finite graph, in which each edge is labelled with some $\mathbf{v}\in \mathbb{Z}^2$, defined in the following iterative fashion.
\begin{enumerate}
\item A single vertex is constructible.
\item If $H$ is constructible then, for any integer $k\geq 1$, if $X_1,\ldots,X_k$ are sets of vertices of $H$, then the following graph is constructible: take $k+1$ disjoint copies of $H$ and then, for each $1\leq i\leq k$ and $x\in X_i$, either identify the vertices corresponding to $x$ in both $H_{i-1}$ and $H_i$, or put an edge between them labelled with some $\mathbf{v}\in X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

We write $\mathbf{x}g$ for the matrix which is zero everywhere except in the column corresponding to $g$, in which it is the column vector $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{Z}^2$.

\begin{definition}
Let $G$ be a finite graph with vertex set $V$, such that each edge is labelled with some $\mathbf{x}\in \mathbb{Z}^2$. An $X$-\emph{forcing pair} for $G$ is a pair of sets $(R,T)$ with $T\subseteq V$ and $R$ a finite collection $2\times \left\lvert V\right\rvert$ integer matrices, with columns indexed by $g\in V$, such that
\[R\subseteq \{ \mathbf{x}g: \mathbf{x}\in X\textrm{ and }g\in V\}\]
such that a finite sequence of the following operations on $(R,T)$ eventually produces $T=V$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $g_1\sim g_2$ is an edge of $G$ labelled $\mathbf{v}$ then add $\mathbf{v}g_1-\mathbf{v}g_2$ to $R$.
\item If $(1,-1)g\in R$ then add $g$ to $T$.
\item Any $\mathbb{Z}$-linear combination of matrices in $R$ can be added to $R$.
\end{enumerate}

\end{definition}

\begin{definition}
Let $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2\backslash \langle (1,-1)\rangle$ be a finite set. A constructible proof of
\[\alpha(X)\leq \frac{m+r}{n-t}\]
is an $X$-constructible graph $G$ with vertex set $V$, with $n$ vertices and $m$ edges, for which there is a forcing pair $(R,T)$ with $\left\lvert R\right\rvert=r$ and $\left\lvert T\right\rvert=t$, where $T\subseteq V$ and
\[R\subseteq \{ \mathbf{x}g : \mathbf{x}\in X\textrm{ and }g\in V\}.\]
\end{definition}

\section{Verifiable Set-up}

In this reformulation we write $d_1\times\cdots \times d_k$ for the set of lists of integers $[e_1,\ldots,e_k]$ such that $1\leq e_i\leq d_i$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$. If $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ is a finite set then an $X$-constructible graph $G$ is a list of non-negative integers $d_1,...,d_k$ together with a list of functions\footnote{The function $f_i$ represents the fact that when constructing the glued graph at stage $i$ we connect the vertices corresponding to $(e_1,\ldots,e_i)$ and $(e_1,\ldots,e_i+1)$ with an edge labelled $f_i(e_1,\ldots,e_i)$.}
\[f_i: d_1\times \cdots \times d_{i-1}\times (d_i-1)\to X\]
for $1\leq i\leq k$. Let $n(G)=d_1\cdots d_k$ and
\[m(G)=\sum_{1\leq i\leq k}\sum_{\mathbf{e}}1_{f_i(\mathbf{e})\neq (0,0)}d_{i+1}\cdots d_k.\]
An $X$-set for $G$ is a pair $(R,T)$ where $T$ is a (possibly empty) list of vertices $\mathbf{e}\in d_1\times \cdots \times d_k$ and $R$ is a list of functions $d_1\times \cdots\times d_k \to X$ such that
\[\#\{ \mathbf{e}\in d_1\times \cdots\times d_k : f(\mathbf{e})\neq (0,0)\}=1\]
for all $f\in R$.

An $X$-set for $G$ is forcing if a finite number of the following operations on $(R,T)$ results in $T=d_1\times \cdots \times d_k$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\mathbf{e}_1,\mathbf{e}_2\in d_1\times \cdots \times d_k$ and $f_i(a_1,\ldots,a_{i})=x$ and the first $i$ coordinates of $\mathbf{e}_1$ are $a_1,\ldots,a_i$ and the first $i$ coordinates of $\mathbf{e}_2$ are $a_1,\ldots,a_i+1$ then add the function which takes $\mathbf{e}_1\mapsto x$ and $\mathbf{e}_2\mapsto -x$ and $\mathbf{g}\mapsto (0,0)$ for every $\mathbf{g}\neq \mathbf{e}_1,\mathbf{e}_2$ to $R$.
\item If there exists $a\neq 0$ and $\mathbf{e}$ such that $f(\mathbf{e})=(a,-a)$ and $f(\mathbf{f})=(0,0)$ for every $\mathbf{f}\not\in T\cup \{\mathbf{e}\}$ then add $\mathbf{e}$ to $T$.
\item If $f,g\in R$ then $f-g$ can be added to $R$.
\end{enumerate}

Given an $X$-constructible graph $G$ with a forcing pair $(R,T)$ its score is
\[S(X,G,R,T)=\frac{m(G)+\left\lvert R\right\rvert}{n(G)-\left\lvert T\right\rvert}.\]

\section{Problem}

Find a finite set $X\subset \mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $(0,0)\in X$ and if $(a,b)\in X\backslash \{(0,0)\}$ then $a+b\neq 0$ and an $X$-constructible graph $G$ with a forcing pair $(R,T)$ with score \leq 1.675.

Return this as a multi-line string. In the first line list the score (as a fraction) together with the parameters $m(G),\left\lvert R\right\rvert,n(G),\left\lvert T\right\rvert$. (This is not used by the verifier code, but is helpful for humans.) In the second line list the elements in $X$ as a list of pairs of integers. In the third line list the integers $d_1,\ldots,d_k$. In the fourth line list the functions $f_1,\ldots,f_k$ that make up $G$, each represented as a dictionary from $d_1\times\cdots \times (d_i-1)\to X$. These can be partial functions: omitted entries are assumed to be assigned $(0,0)$. In the fifth line list the elements of $T$. In the sixth line list the elements of $R$, each of which is a dictionary assigning an element of $X$ to some vertex of $G$.

Mathematician survey

The author assessed the problem as follows.

Number of mathematicians highly familiar with the problem:

a majority of those working in a subfield (≈100)

Number of mathematicians who have made a serious attempt to solve the problem:

5–10

Rough guess of how long it would take an expert human to solve the problem:

1–4 weeks

Notability of a solution:

a solid result in a subfield

A solution would be published:

in a strong specialty journal

Likelihood of a solution generating more interesting math:

somewhat likely: an especially innovative solution could, but is hardly guaranteed

Probability that the problem is solvable as stated:

40-60%