DOCSLIB.ORG

DRESS Code for the Storage Cloud Distributed Replication-Based Exact Simple Storage Salim El Rouayheb EECS Department University of California, Berkeley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRESS Code for the Storage Cloud Distributed Replication-Based Exact Simple Storage Salim El Rouayheb EECS Department University of California, Berkeley DRESS Code For The Storage Cloud Distributed Replication-based Exact Simple Storage Salim El Rouayheb EECS Department University of California, Berkeley Joint work with: Sameer Pawar Nima Noorshams Prof. Kannan Ramchandran Talk Roadmap I Distributed Storage Background Failures & Repairs II & Motivation Reliability & Security Low Complexity Redundancy & Codes DRESS Uncoded repair Projective planes Codes Bins & balls III Malicious attacks Network coding Separation result Security Secure capacity Data Everywhere Coffee shop Airport Office Home • Increasing popularity of data-enabled devices and Hot spots, 4G, Wimax, Wi-fi etc, => “always online” infrastructure. • Truly mobile users • Want to be able to seamlessly access and share data anytime anywhere Off To The Cloud… • Want our files to “follow” us wherever we go Put them in the cloud Get them from the cloud Data Centers P2P Systems Cloud Applications Amazon Web Services Wuala: P2P Cloud Storage • Trade idle local disk space on your computer for online storage • First 1GB is free Cloud storage = local donated storage * percentage of online time 70 GB 100 GB 70% Can We Trust the Cloud? Main Challenge: Cloud is formed of unreliable and untrusted components CloudyDistributed with a Chance Storage of Failure Data center Server Disk failure virus user peer Component failures are the norm rather then exception. • Nodes are unreliable by nature: - Hard disk failure - Network failure Solution: store data - Peer churning redundantly - Malicious nodes Multiple System Considerations Coding for cloud storage Decoding complexity C rate “Traditional” Coding Theory Escher “Impossible” Cube Different Codes for Different Folks Replication (4,2) Erasure code New node New node n n 1 a a 1 a a a b 2MB File 1MB Download a+b n2 a n2 b a b 1 MB Download n n 2MB 3 b 3 a+b n n 4 b 4 a+2b tolerates 1 failure tolerates 2 failures Reliability Bandwidth Complexity/ Disk I/O Reducing Bandwidth Overhead • Repair BW can be reduced from 2 to 1.5 MB • Helper nodes send random linear combinations: random linear network coding .5MB • New data “functionally equivalent” to lost a 1 data. a2 • Repair BW can be reduced from 1.5 MB to a1 a2 b1 b2 1.2 MB if each node is willing to store 20% more. a, b b1 b2 b +b 2MB 1 2 a1+b1 a +b +a +b a2+b2 1 1 2 2 .5MB d=3 .5MB a +2b 1 1 a1+a2 .5MB 2a2+b2 a +2b +2(a +2b ) 1 1 2 2 a1+4a2 Dimakis, Wu & Ramchandran ‘07 Replacement node Fundamental Storage/Bandwidth Tradeoff cost Internet, Wireless MBR Min. Bandwidth Regime Storage Archival applications Min. Storage Regime MSR MDS (Dimakis et al. ’07) Repair BW We Want More: Exact Repair? • We want exact repair: a1 – Maintain a systematic copy of the n 1 a data 2 – Reduce system overhead b1 n2 – Security b2 ? a1 a1+b1 n3 a2 • Exact repair makes the problem 2a2+b2 Exact much harder 2a +b repair n4 1 1 – Relation to non-multicast network a2+b2 coding • Recent important progress: Rashmi et al. (Product-Matrix Codes), Suh & Ramchandran ‘10, Cadambe et al. ‘10 Storage/Bandwidth Tradeoff This Talk cost Min. Bandwidth Regime Recent Result: (Shah et al ’10) MBR Only MBR and MSR points are achievable under exact repair Storage Interference alignment MSR techniques Min. Storage Regime Repair BW Can we also reduce Disk I/O & Energy? Bandwidth-efficiency comes with a price-tag. a 1) Excessive data reading & 1 a computations 2 2) Read/write bandwidth of a hard b1 b +b disk is the bottleneck (100 MB/s vs. b2 1 2 New node network speed ~1000 MB/s) a +2a +b +b a1 a1+b1 1 2 1 2 a2 2a2+b2 Can we have exact codes with minimum overheads of: 2a1+b1 1) Repair bandwidth a2+b2 2) Disk reads 3) Computations? Contributions: Yes We Can • DRESS codes: Exact Repair Minimum disk reads for repair No data processing for repair: uncoded repair Maximum Distance Separable MDS Code Fractional Repetition file Distributed Replication-based Exact Storage Simple Storage Cloud • Surprise: no loss of bandwidth efficiency • Bonus: well-suited for security applications • System price: repair not as flexible w.r.t. who can help Talk Roadmap I Background II & Motivation Uncoded repair DRESS Projective planes Steiner Systems Codes Bins & balls III Security DRESS Code Example d=3MB (n,k)=(7,3) 1 2 3 n Max file size= 6MB: cut-set bound 1" (Dimakis et al.) 3 4 5 n 2" K=3 parity-check File 6 MB 1 5 6 n3" 1 2 3 4 5 6 MDS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Code 1 4 7 n 4" User 2 5 7 Gets 6 different n New parameter 5" packets repetition factor r=3 3 6 7 n6" 2 4 6 n7" n=7 nodes Repairing DRESS Codes failure (n,k)=(7,3) parity-check New node File 6 MB 1 2 3 1 2 3 n1" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3 4 5 n2" ! Repetition r=3can tolerate up to 2 simultaneous 1 5 6 n3" failures ! Table based repair 1 4 7 n4" •! If 3 nodes fail? 2 5 7 –! Download complete file n5" –! Reconstruct the lost data 3 6 7 –! Rare bad even n6" ! Min repair bandwidth 2 4 6 n7" ! Min disk I/O calls ! Uncoded repair Why “Traditional” Repetition Won’t Work? Max file size= 6MB: cut-set bound 1 2 3 (Dimakis et al.) n1" 1 2 3 parity-check n2" File 6 MB 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 n 3" user gets ONLY 3MB 4 5 6 (n,k)=(7,3) n4" repetition factor r=3 4 5 6 n5" 4 5 6 n6" 7 7 7 n7" Smart Packet Placement How should we place the packet replicas? Goal: maximize file size k(k 1) Max file size: C = kd − (Dimakis et al.) − 2 Penalty term due # nodes contacted to intersection by user # packets/node k(k 1) k Rule: Make sure that any − = two nodes have at most one 2 2 packet in common Where Did That Solution Come From? Lines in projective planes 1 2 3 intersect in exactly one point n1" 3 4 5 n2" 1 5 6 n3" 1 4 7 n4" 2 5 7 Fano Plane n5" Projective plane of order 2 3 6 7 n6" Points Packets 2 4 6 n Lines Storage nodes 7" Higher Order Projective Planes order m=2 m=3 m=4 •! Projective planes are guaranteed to exist for any prime power order m. Codes from Projective Planes Projective plane of order m=3 1 12 2 11 3 1 1 Projective Plane Storage System 1 10 13 4 Lines Storage nodes 9 5 Points Packets 8 6 7 Can we have constructions spanning n=13, r=d=4 more system parameters? Theorem 1 (R. & Ramchandran Allerton’10) A projective plane of order m gives DRESS codes with n=m2+m+1 nodes and repetition factor r=repair degree d = m+1. Kirkman’s Schoolgirls Problem “Fifteen young ladies in a school walk out three abreast for seven days in succession; it is required to arrange them daily so that no two shall walk twice abreast.” Kirkman, 1847 •! Fifteen schoolgirls: A, B,…, O •! They always take their daily walks in groups of threes group 1 group 2 group 3 group 4 group 5 Sun ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO Mon ADH BEK MOI FLN GJC … ? ? ? ? ? Sat ? ? ? ? ? •! Arrange them such that any two schoolgirls walk together exactly once a week Why Do We Care? Storage node A solution to Kirkman’s problem Sun ABC DEF GHI JKL MNO Mon ADH BEK CIO FLN GJM Tue AEM BHN CGK DIL FJO 7 days Wed AFI BLO CHJ DKM EGN Thu AGL BDJ CFM EHO IKN Fri AJN BIM CEL DOG FHK Sat AKO BFG CDN EIJ HLM 5 groups •! Think of schoolgirls as packets and groups as storage nodes •! Kirkman’s solution gives an optimal DRESS code for a ! System with n=35 nodes ! Each node stores 3 packets •! What is the repetition factor here? answer=7 Not Your Average Puzzle… •! Kirkman’s schoolgirls problem initiated a branch of combinatorics known now as Design Theory •! Deep connections to other branches in mathematics: Algebra, Geometry, matroid theory… •! Applications: –! Coding Theory –! Cryptography –! Statistics Steiner Systems A Steiner system is a collection of points & lines such that: 1.! There are points in total 2.! Each line contains exactly points We want t=2 3.! There is exactly one line that contains any given points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Fano plane =S(2, 3, 7) S(2,3,9) # pts on a line Total # points Codes from Steiner Systems Theorem 2: (R. & Ramchandran Allerton’10) A Steiner system gives a capacity-achieving DRESS code with parameters using correspondence lines: nodes, points: packets. DRESS Codes Open problem I ? ? DRESS codes Projective beyond Steiner Steiner Dual planes Systems codes systems? ? ? ? Min Reads Capacity Min Bandwidth Capacity Lookup Minimum k C = k d Repair! reads! × − 2 Open problem II Capacity for minimum reads (and lookup repair)? " Example (n,k,d)=(7,3,3) 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 4 7 7 8 9 2 5 8 3 6 9 • Users contacting any 3 nodes will observe either 9 or 7 packets • This code guarantees a “rate” = 7 to any user • Capacity when repairing from any d nodes = 6 We Want More • Explicit constructions for Steiner systems exist for small values of r=3,4,5 • Existential guarantees for large number of nodes [Wilson 75] • Want more flexibility • Want to “grow”.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Projective Geometry: a Short Introduction
    Projective Geometry: A Short Introduction Lecture Notes Edmond Boyer Master MOSIG Introduction to Projective Geometry Contents 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Objective . .2 1.2 Historical Background . .3 1.3 Bibliography . .4 2 Projective Spaces 5 2.1 Definitions . .5 2.2 Properties . .8 2.3 The hyperplane at infinity . 12 3 The projective line 13 3.1 Introduction . 13 3.2 Projective transformation of P1 ................... 14 3.3 The cross-ratio . 14 4 The projective plane 17 4.1 Points and lines . 17 4.2 Line at infinity . 18 4.3 Homographies . 19 4.4 Conics . 20 4.5 Affine transformations . 22 4.6 Euclidean transformations . 22 4.7 Particular transformations . 24 4.8 Transformation hierarchy . 25 Grenoble Universities 1 Master MOSIG Introduction to Projective Geometry Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Objective The objective of this course is to give basic notions and intuitions on projective geometry. The interest of projective geometry arises in several visual comput- ing domains, in particular computer vision modelling and computer graphics. It provides a mathematical formalism to describe the geometry of cameras and the associated transformations, hence enabling the design of computational ap- proaches that manipulates 2D projections of 3D objects. In that respect, a fundamental aspect is the fact that objects at infinity can be represented and manipulated with projective geometry and this in contrast to the Euclidean geometry. This allows perspective deformations to be represented as projective transformations. Figure 1.1: Example of perspective deformation or 2D projective transforma- tion. Another argument is that Euclidean geometry is sometimes difficult to use in algorithms, with particular cases arising from non-generic situations (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Robot Vision: Projective Geometry
    Robot Vision: Projective Geometry Ass.Prof. Friedrich Fraundorfer SS 2018 1 Learning goals . Understand homogeneous coordinates . Understand points, line, plane parameters and interpret them geometrically . Understand point, line, plane interactions geometrically . Analytical calculations with lines, points and planes . Understand the difference between Euclidean and projective space . Understand the properties of parallel lines and planes in projective space . Understand the concept of the line and plane at infinity 2 Outline . 1D projective geometry . 2D projective geometry ▫ Homogeneous coordinates ▫ Points, Lines ▫ Duality . 3D projective geometry ▫ Points, Lines, Planes ▫ Duality ▫ Plane at infinity 3 Literature . Multiple View Geometry in Computer Vision. Richard Hartley and Andrew Zisserman. Cambridge University Press, March 2004. Mundy, J.L. and Zisserman, A., Geometric Invariance in Computer Vision, Appendix: Projective Geometry for Machine Vision, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992 . Available online: www.cs.cmu.edu/~ph/869/papers/zisser-mundy.pdf 4 Motivation – Image formation [Source: Charles Gunn] 5 Motivation – Parallel lines [Source: Flickr] 6 Motivation – Epipolar constraint X world point epipolar plane x x’ x‘TEx=0 C T C’ R 7 Euclidean geometry vs. projective geometry Definitions: . Geometry is the teaching of points, lines, planes and their relationships and properties (angles) . Geometries are defined based on invariances (what is changing if you transform a configuration of points, lines etc.) . Geometric transformations
    [Show full text]
  • Projective Planarity of Matroids of 3-Nets and Biased Graphs
    AUSTRALASIAN JOURNAL OF COMBINATORICS Volume 76(2) (2020), Pages 299–338 Projective planarity of matroids of 3-nets and biased graphs Rigoberto Florez´ ∗ Deptartment of Mathematical Sciences, The Citadel Charleston, South Carolina 29409 U.S.A. [email protected] Thomas Zaslavsky† Department of Mathematical Sciences, Binghamton University Binghamton, New York 13902-6000 U.S.A. [email protected] Abstract A biased graph is a graph with a class of selected circles (“cycles”, “cir- cuits”), called “balanced”, such that no theta subgraph contains exactly two balanced circles. A 3-node biased graph is equivalent to an abstract partial 3-net. We work in terms of a special kind of 3-node biased graph called a biased expansion of a triangle. Our results apply to all finite 3-node biased graphs because, as we prove, every such biased graph is a subgraph of a finite biased expansion of a triangle. A biased expansion of a triangle is equivalent to a 3-net, which, in turn, is equivalent to an isostrophe class of quasigroups. A biased graph has two natural matroids, the frame matroid and the lift matroid. A classical question in matroid theory is whether a matroid can be embedded in a projective geometry. There is no known general answer, but for matroids of biased graphs it is possible to give algebraic criteria. Zaslavsky has previously given such criteria for embeddability of biased-graphic matroids in Desarguesian projective spaces; in this paper we establish criteria for the remaining case, that is, embeddability in an arbitrary projective plane that is not necessarily Desarguesian.
    [Show full text]
  • COMBINATORICS, Volume
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/pspum/019 PROCEEDINGS OF SYMPOSIA IN PURE MATHEMATICS Volume XIX COMBINATORICS AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Providence, Rhode Island 1971 Proceedings of the Symposium in Pure Mathematics of the American Mathematical Society Held at the University of California Los Angeles, California March 21-22, 1968 Prepared by the American Mathematical Society under National Science Foundation Grant GP-8436 Edited by Theodore S. Motzkin AMS 1970 Subject Classifications Primary 05Axx, 05Bxx, 05Cxx, 10-XX, 15-XX, 50-XX Secondary 04A20, 05A05, 05A17, 05A20, 05B05, 05B15, 05B20, 05B25, 05B30, 05C15, 05C99, 06A05, 10A45, 10C05, 14-XX, 20Bxx, 20Fxx, 50A20, 55C05, 55J05, 94A20 International Standard Book Number 0-8218-1419-2 Library of Congress Catalog Number 74-153879 Copyright © 1971 by the American Mathematical Society Printed in the United States of America All rights reserved except those granted to the United States Government May not be produced in any form without permission of the publishers Leo Moser (1921-1970) was active and productive in various aspects of combin• atorics and of its applications to number theory. He was in close contact with those with whom he had common interests: we will remember his sparkling wit, the universality of his anecdotes, and his stimulating presence. This volume, much of whose content he had enjoyed and appreciated, and which contains the re• construction of a contribution by him, is dedicated to his memory. CONTENTS Preface vii Modular Forms on Noncongruence Subgroups BY A. O. L. ATKIN AND H. P. F. SWINNERTON-DYER 1 Selfconjugate Tetrahedra with Respect to the Hermitian Variety xl+xl + *l + ;cg = 0 in PG(3, 22) and a Representation of PG(3, 3) BY R.
    [Show full text]
  • Octonion Multiplication and Heawood's
    CONFLUENTES MATHEMATICI Bruno SÉVENNEC Octonion multiplication and Heawood’s map Tome 5, no 2 (2013), p. 71-76. <http://cml.cedram.org/item?id=CML_2013__5_2_71_0> © Les auteurs et Confluentes Mathematici, 2013. Tous droits réservés. L’accès aux articles de la revue « Confluentes Mathematici » (http://cml.cedram.org/), implique l’accord avec les condi- tions générales d’utilisation (http://cml.cedram.org/legal/). Toute reproduction en tout ou partie de cet article sous quelque forme que ce soit pour tout usage autre que l’utilisation á fin strictement personnelle du copiste est constitutive d’une infrac- tion pénale. Toute copie ou impression de ce fichier doit contenir la présente mention de copyright. cedram Article mis en ligne dans le cadre du Centre de diffusion des revues académiques de mathématiques http://www.cedram.org/ Confluentes Math. 5, 2 (2013) 71-76 OCTONION MULTIPLICATION AND HEAWOOD’S MAP BRUNO SÉVENNEC Abstract. In this note, the octonion multiplication table is recovered from a regular tesse- lation of the equilateral two timensional torus by seven hexagons, also known as Heawood’s map. Almost any article or book dealing with Cayley-Graves algebra O of octonions (to be recalled shortly) has a picture like the following Figure 0.1 representing the so-called ‘Fano plane’, which will be denoted by Π, together with some cyclic ordering on each of its ‘lines’. The Fano plane is a set of seven points, in which seven three-point subsets called ‘lines’ are specified, such that any two points are contained in a unique line, and any two lines intersect in a unique point, giving a so-called (combinatorial) projective plane [8,7].
    [Show full text]
  • Collineations in Perspective
    Collineations in Perspective Now that we have a decent grasp of one-dimensional projectivities, we move on to their two di- mensional analogs. Although they are more complicated, in a sense, they may be easier to grasp because of the many applications to perspective drawing. Speaking of, let's return to the triangle on the window and its shadow in its full form instead of only looking at one line. Perspective Collineation In one dimension, a perspectivity is a bijective mapping from a line to a line through a point. In two dimensions, a perspective collineation is a bijective mapping from a plane to a plane through a point. To illustrate, consider the triangle on the window plane and its shadow on the ground plane as in Figure 1. We can see that every point on the triangle on the window maps to exactly one point on the shadow, but the collineation is from the entire window plane to the entire ground plane. We understand the window plane to extend infinitely in all directions (even going through the ground), the ground also extends infinitely in all directions (we will assume that the earth is flat here), and we map every point on the window to a point on the ground. Looking at Figure 2, we see that the lamp analogy breaks down when we consider all lines through O. Although it makes sense for the base of the triangle on the window mapped to its shadow on 1 the ground (A to A0 and B to B0), what do we make of the mapping C to C0, or D to D0? C is on the window plane, underground, while C0 is on the ground.
    [Show full text]
  • Matroids You Have Known
    26 MATHEMATICS MAGAZINE Matroids You Have Known DAVID L. NEEL Seattle University Seattle, Washington 98122 [email protected] NANCY ANN NEUDAUER Pacific University Forest Grove, Oregon 97116 nancy@pacificu.edu Anyone who has worked with matroids has come away with the conviction that matroids are one of the richest and most useful ideas of our day. —Gian Carlo Rota [10] Why matroids? Have you noticed hidden connections between seemingly unrelated mathematical ideas? Strange that finding roots of polynomials can tell us important things about how to solve certain ordinary differential equations, or that computing a determinant would have anything to do with finding solutions to a linear system of equations. But this is one of the charming features of mathematics—that disparate objects share similar traits. Properties like independence appear in many contexts. Do you find independence everywhere you look? In 1933, three Harvard Junior Fellows unified this recurring theme in mathematics by defining a new mathematical object that they dubbed matroid [4]. Matroids are everywhere, if only we knew how to look. What led those junior-fellows to matroids? The same thing that will lead us: Ma- troids arise from shared behaviors of vector spaces and graphs. We explore this natural motivation for the matroid through two examples and consider how properties of in- dependence surface. We first consider the two matroids arising from these examples, and later introduce three more that are probably less familiar. Delving deeper, we can find matroids in arrangements of hyperplanes, configurations of points, and geometric lattices, if your tastes run in that direction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Turan Number of the Fano Plane
    Combinatorica (5) (2005) 561–574 COMBINATORICA 25 Bolyai Society – Springer-Verlag THE TURAN´ NUMBER OF THE FANO PLANE PETER KEEVASH, BENNY SUDAKOV* Received September 17, 2002 Let PG2(2) be the Fano plane, i.e., the unique hypergraph with 7 triples on 7 vertices in which every pair of vertices is contained in a unique triple. In this paper we prove that for sufficiently large n, the maximum number of edges in a 3-uniform hypergraph on n vertices not containing a Fano plane is n n/2 n/2 ex n, P G (2) = − − . 2 3 3 3 Moreover, the only extremal configuration can be obtained by partitioning an n-element set into two almost equal parts, and taking all the triples that intersect both of them. This extends an earlier result of de Caen and F¨uredi, and proves an old conjecture of V. S´os. In addition, we also prove a stability result for the Fano plane, which says that a 3-uniform hypergraph with density close to 3/4 and no Fano plane is approximately 2-colorable. 1. Introduction Given an r-uniform hypergraph F,theTur´an number of F is the maximum number of edges in an r-uniform hypergraph on n vertices that does not contain a copy of F. We denote this number by ex(n,F). Determining these numbers is one of the central problems in Extremal Combinatorics, and it is well understood for ordinary graphs (the case r =2). It is completely solved for many instances, including all complete graphs. Moreover, asymptotic results are known for all non-bipartite graphs.
    [Show full text]
  • Finite Projective Geometry 2Nd Year Group Project
    Finite Projective Geometry 2nd year group project. B. Doyle, B. Voce, W.C Lim, C.H Lo Mathematics Department - Imperial College London Supervisor: Ambrus Pal´ June 7, 2015 Abstract The Fano plane has a strong claim on being the simplest symmetrical object with inbuilt mathematical structure in the universe. This is due to the fact that it is the smallest possible projective plane; a set of points with a subsets of lines satisfying just three axioms. We will begin by developing some theory direct from the axioms and uncovering some of the hidden (and not so hidden) symmetries of the Fano plane. Alternatively, some projective planes can be derived from vector space theory and we shall also explore this and the associated linear maps on these spaces. Finally, with the help of some theory of quadratic forms we will give a proof of the surprising Bruck-Ryser theorem, which shows that if a projective plane has order n congruent to 1 or 2 mod 4, then n is the sum of two squares. Thus we will have demonstrated fascinating links between pure mathematical disciplines by incorporating the use of linear algebra, group the- ory and number theory to explain the geometric world of projective planes. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Basic Defintions and results 4 3 The Fano Plane 7 3.1 Isomorphism and Automorphism . 8 3.2 Ovals . 10 4 Projective Geometry with fields 12 4.1 Constructing Projective Planes from fields . 12 4.2 Order of Projective Planes over fields . 14 5 Bruck-Ryser 17 A Appendix - Rings and Fields 22 2 1 Introduction Projective planes are geometrical objects that consist of a set of elements called points and sub- sets of these elements called lines constructed following three basic axioms which give the re- sulting object a remarkable level of symmetry.
    [Show full text]
  • 7 Combinatorial Geometry
    7 Combinatorial Geometry Planes Incidence Structure: An incidence structure is a triple (V; B; ∼) so that V; B are disjoint sets and ∼ is a relation on V × B. We call elements of V points, elements of B blocks or lines and we associate each line with the set of points incident with it. So, if p 2 V and b 2 B satisfy p ∼ b we say that p is contained in b and write p 2 b and if b; b0 2 B we let b \ b0 = fp 2 P : p ∼ b; p ∼ b0g. Levi Graph: If (V; B; ∼) is an incidence structure, the associated Levi Graph is the bipartite graph with bipartition (V; B) and incidence given by ∼. Parallel: We say that the lines b; b0 are parallel, and write bjjb0 if b \ b0 = ;. Affine Plane: An affine plane is an incidence structure P = (V; B; ∼) which satisfies the following properties: (i) Any two distinct points are contained in exactly one line. (ii) If p 2 V and ` 2 B satisfy p 62 `, there is a unique line containing p and parallel to `. (iii) There exist three points not all contained in a common line. n Line: Let ~u;~v 2 F with ~v 6= 0 and let L~u;~v = f~u + t~v : t 2 Fg. Any set of the form L~u;~v is called a line in Fn. AG(2; F): We define AG(2; F) to be the incidence structure (V; B; ∼) where V = F2, B is the set of lines in F2 and if v 2 V and ` 2 B we define v ∼ ` if v 2 `.
    [Show full text]
  • Weak Orientability of Matroids and Polynomial Equations
    WEAK ORIENTABILITY OF MATROIDS AND POLYNOMIAL EQUATIONS J.A. DE LOERA1, J. LEE2, S. MARGULIES3, AND J. MILLER4 Abstract. This paper studies systems of polynomial equations that provide information about orientability of matroids. First, we study systems of linear equations over F2, originally alluded to by Bland and Jensen in their seminal paper on weak orientability. The Bland-Jensen linear equations for a matroid M have a solution if and only if M is weakly orientable. We use the Bland-Jensen system to determine weak orientability for all matroids on at most nine elements and all matroids between ten and twelve elements having rank three. Our experiments indicate that for small rank, about half the time, when a simple matroid is not orientable, it is already non-weakly orientable, and further this may happen more often as the rank increases. Thus, about half of the small simple non-orientable matroids of rank three are not representable over fields having order congruent to three modulo four. For binary matroids, the Bland-Jensen linear systems provide a practical way to check orientability. Second, we present two extensions of the Bland-Jensen equations to slightly larger systems of non-linear polynomial equations. Our systems of polynomial equations have a solution if and only if the associated matroid M is orientable. The systems come in two versions, one directly extending the Bland-Jensen system for F2, and a different system working over other fields. We study some basic algebraic properties of these systems. Finally, we present an infinite family of non-weakly-orientable matroids, with growing rank and co-rank.
    [Show full text]
  • Projective Planes
    Projective Planes A projective plane is an incidence system of points and lines satisfying the following axioms: (P1) Any two distinct points are joined by exactly one line. (P2) Any two distinct lines meet in exactly one point. (P3) There exists a quadrangle: four points of which no three are collinear. In class we will exhibit a projective plane with 57 points and 57 lines: the game of The Fano Plane (of order 2): SpotIt®. (Actually the game is sold with 7 points, 7 lines only 55 lines; for the purposes of this 3 points on each line class I have added the two missing lines.) 3 lines through each point The smallest projective plane, often called the Fano plane, has seven points and seven lines, as shown on the right. The Projective Plane of order 3: 13 points, 13 lines The second smallest 4 points on each line projective plane, 4 lines through each point having thirteen points 0, 1, 2, …, 12 and thirteen lines A, B, C, …, M is shown on the left. These two planes are coordinatized by the fields of order 2 and 3 respectively; this accounts for the term ‘order’ which we shall define shortly. Given any field 퐹, the classical projective plane over 퐹 is constructed from a 3-dimensional vector space 퐹3 = {(푥, 푦, 푧) ∶ 푥, 푦, 푧 ∈ 퐹} as follows: ‘Points’ are one-dimensional subspaces 〈(푥, 푦, 푧)〉. Here (푥, 푦, 푧) ∈ 퐹3 is any nonzero vector; it spans a one-dimensional subspace 〈(푥, 푦, 푧)〉 = {휆(푥, 푦, 푧) ∶ 휆 ∈ 퐹}.
    [Show full text]