MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Imagine I have an infinite lattice of spheres packed in a face centered cubic (fcc) lattice geometry which has the basis: $((-1, -1, 0), (1, -1, 0), (0, 1, -1))$. Here, provided that sphere-sphere intersection is forbidden, the maximum non-intersecting radius of each sphere is $r_c = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$.

Let $R_v > \frac{r_c\sqrt{18}}{\pi}$ be the minimum radius of each sphere in the fcc packing arrangment s.t., allowing for sphere-sphere overlaps, no point in the lattice is outside of a sphere. Here, $\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}=\frac{\pi}{3\sqrt{2}}$ is the maximum possible packing density of non-intersecting spheres as per Hales' proof of the Kepler conjecture.

What is the exact value of $R_v$? Can this value be easily calculated for other sphere packing geometries provided the lattice basis?

Update: Noam D. Elkies answered by question in the comments below. What I'm looking for is the "covering radius" for the lattice. I'm currently searching for this value for the fcc/$A_3$ lattice, but if anyone happens to know it, it would be great if you could help me out!

Update 2: The covering radius for the fcc/$A_3$ lattice appears to simply be $R_v=r_c*\sqrt{2}=1$.

share|cite|improve this question
That's called the covering radius of the lattice. See Conway and Sloane's Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups for more information, including the covering radius of this lattice (which they call $A_3$) and many others. – Noam D. Elkies May 29 '13 at 2:57
@Noam D. Elkies Thanks so much for your response, that more or less answers my question. – RMoser May 29 '13 at 3:05
A caution, SPLAG mostly write the covering radius as a multiple of the packing radius, which you have already scaled as $1/\sqrt 2.$ – Will Jagy May 29 '13 at 4:40

Although not directly answering the question, the discussion here highlights connections between the question of $R_v$ and the Voronoi cell of this lattice. In short, it turns out that $R_v$ is the maximal distance from a lattice point to any of its Voronoi vertices. Computing Voronoi vertices can be done relatively quickly, certainly in 3D.

If the points are not arranged on a lattice, then a "covering radius" of the set of points can be defined as the maximum/supremum over the $R_v$, where $R_v$ can be different for each point. Of course this reduces to the above in the case of lattices, where $R_v$ is identical for all points.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.