Skip to main content
$l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ --> $l_{upper}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ since here we are only referring to the solution of the planar case.
Source Link
Marco Ripà
  • 1.5k
  • 5
  • 19

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$$l_{upper}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

fixed broken link
Source Link
HenrikRüping
  • 11.1k
  • 37
  • 72

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paperpaper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Add the standard terminology, known values; simplify the explanation of the recursively constructed upper bound
Source Link
Peter Taylor
  • 7.2k
  • 1
  • 21
  • 29

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is just a setspanning tree of line segments connected to each other sothe original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that none of them is isolated fromwe minimise the resttotal Euclidean length of this rigid structurethe edges in the tree.
Now, our goal is to find Denote the minimum total (Euclidean) length, $l_{min}(k)$ of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) \leq 2 \cdot \sqrt{2}$$l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$$l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees (e.g., from $l_{upper}(3) = 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ we would get the upper bound $l_{upper}(4) = 2 \cdot(4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1)+1$ and so on)$l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a tree, which is just a set of line segments connected to each other so that none of them is isolated from the rest of this rigid structure.
Now, our goal is to find the minimum total (Euclidean) length, $l_{min}(k)$ of these optimal trees, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) \leq 2 \cdot \sqrt{2}$, $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees (e.g., from $l_{upper}(3) = 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ we would get the upper bound $l_{upper}(4) = 2 \cdot(4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1)+1$ and so on).

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

Let $k$ be a given positive integer, and then consider the unit hypercube $\{0, 1\}^k \subset \mathbb{R}^k$ (i.e., a $k$-dimensional "cube" in the well-known Euclidean space).
We need to join all the $2^k$ vertices of the stated hypercube by using a Euclidean Steiner tree, which is a spanning tree of the original vertices plus zero or more new vertices (Steiner points) such that we minimise the total Euclidean length of the edges in the tree. Denote the total length of these optimal trees as $l_{min}(k)$, for any integer $k$ (e.g., $l_{min}(1) = 1$, $l_{min}(2) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$, $l_{min}(3) \approx 6.196$, and so forth).

I wonder if solving the problem for every $k$ would be doable. I can only point out that an upper bound is trivially given by $2^k-1$ and that the trick to join $2^{k-1}$ pairs of opposite vertices does not improve the mentioned trivial solution as $k$ goes above $3$.

The figure below constructively shows that $l_{min}(3) \leq 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$. enter image description here

P.S. For any $k + 1$ we can also recycle our best tree, double it and then spend a unit segment to join the two subtrees, so $l_{min}(k+1) \le 1 + 2 l_{min}(k)$.

P.P.S. The user Noam D. Elkies suggested in a comment of the present thread that $l_{min}(k) < l_{upper}(k)$ holds for every $k>2$ (since my value of $l_{upper}(2)$ is certainly bigger than the optimal solution of the square Steiner tree problem and thus $l_{min}(3) < 4 \cdot \sqrt{2} + 1$ follows). Noam was definitely right since in this paper the solution $l_{upper}(k) = 1 + \sqrt{3}$ is given (see Figure 2 from the Reference above).

there is no group operation here
Source Link
Emil Jeřábek
  • 47.3k
  • 4
  • 150
  • 209
Loading
Fixing the typo k-->3
Source Link
Marco Ripà
  • 1.5k
  • 5
  • 19
Loading
Edited according to the suggestions in the comments and changed the original Figure in order to avoiding confusion about the tree/forest definitions
Source Link
Marco Ripà
  • 1.5k
  • 5
  • 19
Loading
Fixing a typo and adding a P.S.
Source Link
Marco Ripà
  • 1.5k
  • 5
  • 19
Loading
Source Link
Marco Ripà
  • 1.5k
  • 5
  • 19
Loading