More two-distance counterexamples to Borsuk’s conjecture from strongly regular graphs Thomas Jenrich 2021-06-26 1 Abstract In [1] (2013) and finally [2] Andriy V. Bondarenko showed how to construct a two-distance counterexample to Borsuk’s conjecture from any strongly regular graph whose vertex set is not the union of at most f + 1 cliques (sets of pairwise adjacent vertices) where f is the multiplicity of the second-largest eigenvalue of its adjacency matrix. He applied that construction to those two graphs that he had been able to prove to fulfill the condition: From the G2(4) graph (on 416 vertices) he got a 65-dimensional two-distance counterexample. From the Fi23 graph (on 31671 vertices) he got a 782-dimensional one and, by considering certain induced subgraphs, counterexamples in dimensions 781, 780 and 779. This article presents two other strongly regular graphs fulfilling the condition, on 28431 and on 2401, resp., vertices. It gives dedicated counterexamples in dimensions from 781 down to 764 derived from the bigger graph (that turned out to be an induced subgraph of the Fi23 graph) and a 240- dimensional counterexample derived from the smaller graph. Several contained propositions rely on the results of (often extensive) computations, mainly within the computer algebra system GAP. The source package contains (almost) all used source files. 2 Introduction 2.1 Borsuk’s conjecture In [3] (1933) Karol Borsuk asked whether each bounded set in the n-dimensional Euclidean space can be divided into n + 1 parts of smaller diameter. The diameter of a set is defined as the supremum (least upper bound) of the distances of contained points. Implicitly, the whole set is assumed to contain at least two points. The hypothesis that the answer to that question is positive became famous under the name Borsuk’s conjecture. Beginning with Jeff Kahn and Gil Kalai in 1993, several authors have proved that in certain (almost all) high dimensions such a division is not generally possible. arXiv:2005.12025v5 [math.CO] 26 Jun 2021 2.2 Preliminaries We consider simple loopless finite undirected graphs. For any graph Γ = (V, E), any a ∈ V and W ⊆ V : N(Γ,a,W )= {b ∈ W : (a,b) ∈ E} , n(Γ,a,W )= |N(Γ,a,W )| and Γ[W ] is the subgraph of Γ induced by W , i.e., the graph whose vertex set is W and whose edge set is E ∩ (W × W ). 1 Saying that a vertex j is a non-neighbour of a vertex i means that i and j are neither neighbours nor identical. For a positive integer d and a point set (vector set) X, the propositions “X is in dimension d” and “X is d-dimensional” both mean that the exact affine dimension of X is at most d. 2.3 Strongly regular graphs AgraphΓ = (V, E) is called strongly regular with parameter set (v,k,λ,µ), or shortly a srg(v,k,λ,µ), iff |V | = v and for all i, j ∈ V k if i = j |{h ∈ V : (h,i) ∈ E ∧ (h, j) ∈ E}| = λ if (i, j) ∈ E µ otherwise 2.4 Euclidean representations of strongly regular graphs This construction follows [1]. Let Γ = (V, E) a srg(v,k,λ,µ) and A its (0, 1)-adjacency matrix. Then A has exactly 3 different eigenvalues: k of multiplicity 1, the second-largest eigenvalue of multiplicity 1 2k + (v − 1)(λ − µ) f = v − 1 − , 2 (λ − µ)2 + 4(k − µ)! and the smallest eigenvalue p 1 s = λ − µ − (λ − µ)2 + 4(k − µ) 2 In the remaining part of this article we use thesep notations: I is the identity matrix of size v, y is A − sI, yi, where i ∈ V , are the columns of y, and yi,j , where i, j ∈ V , are the entries of y, and for any W ⊆ V , the corresponding point set P (W ) is {yi : i ∈ W }. Remark: Bondarenko used these yi as intermediate values to derive sets of zi and finally xi by synchronous scaling and moving in order to get all points onto the unit sphere around the origin but this is not necessary (here) and could lead to non-integer coordinate values. The given properties of the eigenvalues imply dim P (V )= f. For i, j ∈ V −s if i = j y = 1 if (i, j) ∈ E i,j 0 otherwise For i ∈ V : y consists of one -s (at position i), k 1’s, and v − k − 1 0’s; its norm is the square root i of s2 + k . For different i, j ∈ V 2 × (k − λ − 1 + (−s − 1)2)=2 × (k − λ + s2 +2s) if (i, j) ∈ E ky − y k2 = i j 2 × (k − µ + s2) otherwise The distance square for the non-adjacent case exceeds the distance square for the adjacent case by 2 × (λ − µ − 2s)=2 × (λ − µ)2 + 4(k − µ) If the graph is not complete, this excess is positive and we can conclude: p For any two different i, j ∈ V , the distance of yi and yj is smaller than the diameter of the complete vector set if and only if i and j are neighbours. Thus, for each W ⊆ V the diameter of the corresponding point set P (W ) is smaller than that of P (V ) if and only if W is a clique. And P (V ) can be divided into x parts of smaller diameter if and only if V can be divided into x cliques. 2 2.4.1 Euclidean representations for vertex subsets We will often consider P (W ) for W ⊂ V . After recognising that P (V ) is a counterexample to Borsuk’s conjecture, we will try to find ones in a smaller dimensions. For that purpose, we will several times prove for subsets W2 ⊂ W1 of V , that dim P (W2) ≤ dim P (W1) − 1. This inequality is fulfilled iff there are x ∈ Rv and c ∈ R such that ∀i ∈ W2 : hx, yii = c and ∃i ∈ W1 : hx, yii 6= c. As it turned out to be useful in several cases, for any i ∈ V its non-neighbourhood {j ∈ V : i 6= j ∧ (i, j) 6∈ E} induces a lower-dimensional vector set because for i, j ∈ V s2 + k if i = j hy ,y i = λ − 2s if (i, j) ∈ E i j µ otherwise 2 and we know from above that λ − 2s − µ= (λ − µ) + 4(k − µ) equals 0 only if the graph is complete (and thus any non-neighbourhood empty). p 2.5 Bondarenko’s concrete results In [1] and [2], A. Bondarenko considered the G2(4) graph, a srg(416, 100, 36, 20), and the Fi23 graph, a srg(31671, 3510, 693, 351), whose corresponding point sets are of dimensions 65 and 782, resp. He proved that the sizes of contained cliques cannot exceed 5 and 23, resp. Because 416/5 > 83 and 31671/23 = 1377, the corresponding point sets cannot be divided into less than 84 and 1377, resp., parts of smaller diameter. For each of those two graphs, he also gave a construction of a family of point sets which are dedicated counterexamples for all dimensions that are larger than that of the respective initial one. In addition, he considered the vertices of the Fi23 graph that are non-neighbours of 1, 2 and 3, resp., pairwise adjacent fixed vertices. The corresponding point sets are in dimensions 781, 780 and 779, resp., contain (at least) 28160, 25344 and 23040, resp., elements, and thus cannot be divided into less than 1225, 1102 and 1002, resp., parts of smaller diameter. Remark: As the reduction of the decrement of the number of remaining vertices indicates, the sizes of the common non-neighbourhoods of 4 and 5, resp., pairwise adjacent vertices are also large enough to provide counterexamples to Borsuk’s conjecture in dimensions 778 and 777, resp., but for the concrete numbers (of points and parts) one would have to do actual countings on the base of actually choosen vertices. 3 Regular partitions and induced subgraphs In the case of the G2(4) graph, the non-neighbourhood of a fixed vertex contains exactly 315 vertices. The corresponding point set is in dimension 64 and cannot be divided into less than 63 parts, but this does not prove the point set to be a counterexample. But, as shown in [9] and [10], one can construct a 64-dimensional counterexample from a certain regular partition of the vertex set of the G2(4) graph. As explained in the following, the Fi23 graph does have the properties needed for an analogous construction, finally allowing to derive more than a dozen different counterexamples in dimensions below of 782. 3.1 A two-step construction of subsets Let Γ = (V, E) a strongly regular graph, A its adjacency matrix, s the smallest eigenvalue of A, y = A − sI, W ⊆ V , {B1,B2,B3, C} a partition of V , (B1 ∪ B2) ∩ W 6= ∅, B3 ∩ W 6= ∅, such that 3 (1) ∀g,h ∈{1, 2, 3} : g 6= h −→ ∀i ∈ Bg : n(Γ,i,Bh)=0 (2) ∀i ∈ C : n(Γ,i,B1)= n(Γ,i,B2)= n(Γ,i,B3) Recall that for i, j ∈ V −s if i = j y = 1 if (i, j) ∈ E i,j 0 otherwise For h ∈{1, 2, 3} let xh the vector with index set V whose entries xh,j , j ∈ V , are 1 if j ∈ Bh and 0 otherwise. Consequently, for any h ∈{1, 2, 3} and i ∈ V n(Γ,i,Bh) − s> 0 if j ∈ Bh hx ,y i = y = n(Γ,i,B ) if j ∈ C h i i,j h j∈Bh n(Γ,i,B )=0 otherwise X h Let p = x1 − x2.