ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

The number of non-homogeneous lattice points in subsets of R^n

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.

the-number-of-non-homogeneous-lattice-points-in-subsets-of-r-nGroup Theorymath.COmath.GRposed by E. S. Barnes, Michael Matherrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

φ(n, m) = n(m-1) + 1.

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "The number of non-homogeneous lattice points in subsets of R^n", 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 n,m1n,m\ge1, let ϕ(n,m)\phi(n,m) be the minimum size of a finite set SZnS\subset \mathbb Z^n meeting every coset a+La+L of every index-mm sublattice LZnL\le \mathbb Z^n; equivalently, every determinant-mm subgrid of the standard grid. Barnes--Mather’s Conjecture 1 asserts

    ϕ(n,m)=n(m1)+1.\phi(n,m)=n(m-1)+1.

    This matches their grid terminology AZn+cAZ^n+c and the standard finite blocking-set reduction.

    Result: The conjecture is false. In fact ϕ(3,4)8<10=3(41)+1\phi(3,4)\le 8<10=3(4-1)+1.

    Work in G=(Z/4Z)3G=(\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z)^3. Let

    B={(0,0,2),(0,0,3),(0,1,2),(2,1,1),(1,2,2),(3,0,3),(1,1,0),(1,3,3)}.B=\{(0,0,2),(0,0,3),(0,1,2),(2,1,1), (1,2,2),(3,0,3),(1,1,0),(1,3,3)\}.

    We show that BB meets every coset of every index-44 subgroup of GG.

    Each index-44 quotient of GG is either C4C_4 or C22C_2^2. If the quotient is C22C_2^2, its kernel contains 2G2G. Since BB contains exactly one point in each parity class modulo 22, it meets every coset.

    For a cyclic quotient, the cosets are fibres of a primitive linear form

    (x,y,z)=ax+by+cz(mod4),\ell(x,y,z)=ax+by+cz\pmod 4,

    with at least one of a,b,ca,b,c odd. Write a,b,c=α+2βa,b,c=\alpha+2\beta, where αF23{0}\alpha\in\mathbb F_2^3\setminus\{0\}, βF23\beta\in\mathbb F_2^3. The set BB can be written as

    B={p+2f(p):pF23},B=\{p+2f(p):p\in\mathbb F_2^3\},

    where

    f(x,y,z)=(xz+yz, x+xz+xy, 1+yz+xy).f(x,y,z)=(xz+yz,\ x+xz+xy,\ 1+yz+xy).

    A direct substitution gives

    (p+2f(p))t+2(βp+hα(p))(mod4),t=αp,\ell(p+2f(p))\equiv t+2\bigl(\beta\cdot p+h_\alpha(p)\bigr)\pmod4, \quad t=\alpha\cdot p,

    with

    hα(p)=i<jαiαjpipj+αf(p).h_\alpha(p)=\sum_{i<j}\alpha_i\alpha_jp_ip_j+\alpha\cdot f(p).

    For the seven nonzero α\alpha, the weights of hαh_\alpha on the two planes αp=0,1\alpha\cdot p=0,1 are

    α001010011100101110111t=03131313t=13131333\begin{array}{c|ccccccc} \alpha&001&010&011&100&101&110&111\\ \hline t=0&3&1&3&1&3&1&3\\ t=1&3&1&3&1&3&3&3 \end{array}

    all odd. Adding the affine function βp\beta\cdot p cannot make the restriction constant on a four-point affine plane, since affine functions there have even weight. Hence for each t=0,1t=0,1, both possible second bits occur, so (B)=Z/4Z\ell(B)=\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z. Thus BB meets every cyclic index-44 coset as well.

    Lift BB to the same eight representatives in Z3\mathbb Z^3. If LZ3L\le\mathbb Z^3 has index 44, then 4Z3L4\mathbb Z^3\subseteq L, so reduction mod 44 gives an index-44 subgroup of GG. Since BB meets every coset modulo 44, the lifted set meets every coset of LL. Therefore ϕ(3,4)8\phi(3,4)\le8, contradicting the conjectured value 1010.

    Citation: No known published citation is used for this counterexample. Context: E. S. Barnes and Michael Mather, “The number of non-homogeneous lattice points in subsets of RnR^n,” Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 82 (1977), 265–268, doi:10.1017/S0305004100053883.

    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 TYPE1

      PASS

      The proposed counterexample attacks the correct Barnes–Mather subgrid/coset formulation of ϕ(n,m)\phi(n,m). The reduction to (Z/4Z)3(\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z)^3 is valid because every index-4 sublattice of Z3\mathbb Z^3 contains 4Z34\mathbb Z^3. The classification of index-4 quotients as C4C_4 or C22C_2^2 is correct, and the parity argument handles the C22C_2^2 quotients. For cyclic quotients, the displayed Boolean computation and odd-weight table rigorously show every primitive linear form mod 4 takes all four values on BB. Thus the lifted 8-point set meets every determinant-4 subgrid, giving ϕ(3,4)8<10\phi(3,4)\le 8<10, a valid disproof of the conjectured formula. I found no accessible prior publication of this specific counterexample.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result appears genuinely new, but it is a very small explicit counterexample: an 8-point set in (Z/4Z)3(\mathbb Z/4\mathbb Z)^3 showing ϕ(3,4)8<10\phi(3,4)\le 8<10. It is a useful correction to Barnes–Mather’s conjecture, but by itself is more a short note/computational construction than a substantial standalone combinatorics paper.

      Literature check: I found no prior publication of this (n,m)=(3,4)(n,m)=(3,4) counterexample or a stronger disproof. Cambridge Core/Crossref lists only three citations to Barnes–Mather: Mather’s plane case, Gruber’s 1979 contribution, and Geometry of Numbers (1987). Searches around “non-homogeneous lattice points,” “subgrids,” determinant-index blocking sets, finite-field blocking sets, and finite-ring/Hjelmslev blocking sets did not reveal this Z/4\mathbb Z/4 construction.

      Citation: E. S. Barnes and Michael Mather, “The number of non-homogeneous lattice points in subsets of RnR^n,” Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 82 (1977), 265–268, doi:10.1017/S0305004100053883.

      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.