ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

Finite field Kakeya and Nikodym sets in three dimensions

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

finite-field-kakeya-and-nikodym-sets-in-three-dimensions-2Representation Theorymath.COmath.RTposed by Ben Lund, Shubhangi Saraf, Charles Wolfrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

If L is a set of lines in Fq3\mathbb{F}_{q}^{3} such that L=Ω(q3)|L|=\Omega(q^{3}) , and such that no plane contains ω(q)\omega(q) lines of L, then P(L)(1o(1))q3|P(L)|\geq(1-o(1))q^{3} .

Context

Candidate 2 of the open problems stated in "Finite field Kakeya and Nikodym sets in three dimensions", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed statement: for a family of line sets LqL_q in affine space Fq3\mathbb F_q^3, if Lq=Ω(q3)|L_q|=\Omega(q^3) and every affine plane contains only O(q)O(q) lines of LqL_q (the standard reading of “no plane contains ω(q)\omega(q) lines”), then the conjecture claims

    P(Lq)=Lq(1o(1))q3.|P(L_q)|=\left|\bigcup_{\ell\in L_q}\ell\right|\ge (1-o(1))q^3 .

    This is the literal quoted conjecture, with P(L)P(L) the union of the lines.

    Result: The conjecture is false, even with at most q+1q+1 lines in every plane.

    Let qq be odd, choose a nonsquare νFq×\nu\in\mathbb F_q^\times, and put

    Q(x,y)=x2νy2.Q(x,y)=x^2-\nu y^2 .

    For each (a,b)Fq2(a,b)\in\mathbb F_q^2 and each projective direction [u:v]P1(Fq)[u:v]\in\mathbb P^1(\mathbb F_q) with Q(u,v)Q(u,v) a nonzero square, define the affine line

    a,b,[u:v]={(a+tu, b+tv, Q(a,b)+2t(auνbv)):tFq}.\ell_{a,b,[u:v]} =\{(a+tu,\ b+tv,\ Q(a,b)+2t(au-\nu bv)):t\in\mathbb F_q\}.

    Let LqL_q be the set of all these lines.

    Since QQ is the norm form N(u+vν)N(u+v\sqrt\nu) from Fq2\mathbb F_{q^2} to Fq\mathbb F_q, each nonzero value has q+1q+1 representations. Hence exactly (q+1)/2(q+1)/2 projective directions have square Q(u,v)Q(u,v). Also each such line meets the paraboloid z=Q(x,y)z=Q(x,y) only at its base point, because

    Q(a+tu,b+tv)(Q(a,b)+2t(auνbv))=t2Q(u,v),Q(a+tu,b+tv)-\bigl(Q(a,b)+2t(au-\nu bv)\bigr)=t^2Q(u,v),

    and Q(u,v)0Q(u,v)\ne0. Thus

    Lq=q2q+12=Ω(q3).|L_q|=q^2\frac{q+1}{2}=\Omega(q^3).

    Every affine plane contains at most q+1q+1 lines of LqL_q. Indeed, a line of LqL_q contained in a plane Π\Pi has its unique tangency point in Π{z=Q(x,y)}\Pi\cap\{z=Q(x,y)\}. If Π\Pi is not the tangent plane at that point, at most one such tangent line arises from that point. If Π\Pi is the tangent plane, anisotropy of QQ gives intersection with the paraboloid only at that point. Finally, any plane intersects the paraboloid in at most q+1q+1 points: vertical planes give qq points, and nonvertical planes reduce after completing the square to Q(X,Y)=cQ(X,Y)=c, which has 11 or q+1q+1 solutions. Hence the plane condition holds.

    Now compute the union. For X=(x,y,z)X=(x,y,z), define

    D(X)=Q(x,y)z.D(X)=Q(x,y)-z.

    On every selected line,

    D(X)=t2Q(u,v),D(X)=t^2Q(u,v),

    so D(X)D(X) is either 00 or a square. Conversely, if D(X)=r20D(X)=r^2\ne0, then XX lies on the selected line with base (xr,y)(x-r,y) and direction [1:0][1:0]; if D(X)=0D(X)=0, then XX lies on the paraboloid and hence on selected tangent lines. Therefore

    P(Lq)={(x,y,z):Q(x,y)z{0}(Fq×)2}.P(L_q)=\{(x,y,z):Q(x,y)-z\in \{0\}\cup(\mathbb F_q^\times)^2\}.

    For each (x,y)(x,y), exactly (q+1)/2(q+1)/2 values of zz occur, so

    P(Lq)=q2q+12=(12+o(1))q3.|P(L_q)|=q^2\frac{q+1}{2} =\left(\frac12+o(1)\right)q^3.

    This contradicts the claimed lower bound (1o(1))q3(1-o(1))q^3.

    Verification audit: the construction works for infinitely many qq tending to infinity, satisfies Lq=Ω(q3)|L_q|=\Omega(q^3), satisfies the plane hypothesis with the explicit bound q+1=O(q)q+1=O(q), and has union density tending to 1/21/2, not 11.

    Citation: No external resolution is invoked; the counterexample above is elementary, using only the standard finite-field norm count.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification KNOWN

      PASS

      The construction is a rigorous counterexample for odd qq. It has L=q2(q+1)/2=Ω(q3)|L|=q^2(q+1)/2=\Omega(q^3), and the plane-count argument is valid: non-tangent planes give at most one selected tangent line per intersection point with the paraboloid, while tangent planes contain only (q+1)/2(q+1)/2 selected lines. The union is exactly the set where Q(x,y)zQ(x,y)-z is 00 or a square, of size q2(q+1)/2=(1/2+o(1))q3q^2(q+1)/2=(1/2+o(1))q^3, contradicting the conjectured (1o(1))q3(1-o(1))q^3 lower bound. I found no matching prior 3D resolution in the literature search.

      Novelty assessment

      KNOWN

      Classification rationale: The accepted counterexample is the affine-coordinate form of a known finite-geometry construction: one quadratic-character half of the tangent lines to an elliptic quadric Q(3,q)PG(3,q)Q^-(3,q)\subset \mathrm{PG}(3,q). Deleting the point/lines at infinity gives exactly the paraboloid tangent-line construction in the solution, with O(q)O(q) lines in each plane and union of density 1/21/2.

      Literature check: I found no explicit later paper saying Lund–Saraf–Wolf’s conjecture is false. However, searches around elliptic quadrics, tangent-line partitions, and Cameron–Liebler line classes lead directly to the Bruen–Drudge construction, which contains the same square/nonsquare tangent-line split and incidence properties. Thus the resolution is already implicit in known literature.

      Citation: A. A. Bruen and K. Drudge, “The Construction of Cameron–Liebler Line Classes in PG(3,q)\mathrm{PG}(3,q),” Finite Fields and Their Applications 5(1):35–45, 1999, doi:10.1006/ffta.1998.0239. See also Blokhuis–De Boeck–D’haeseleer, “Cameron-Liebler sets of kk-spaces in PG(n,q)\mathrm{PG}(n,q),” arXiv:1805.09539.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.