3
$\begingroup$

In 1933 Karol Borsuk conjectured the following

Can every bounded subset $E$ of $\mathbb{R}^d$ be partitioned into $(d+1)$ sets, each of which has a smaller diameter than $E$?

Whilst new to this field of geometry I still have some open/unclear questions on this topic.

Early in game (to my knowledge even before any counter-example were known) Larman suggested investigating the problem when $E$ is a two-distance set. As a result of this suggestion many counter-examples emerged. Most recently the counter-example of Bondarenko in Dimension 64 using strongly regular graphs which form a two distance set on a sphere.

My question to this is:

How did Larmann come up with two-distance set? Why is it reasonable to think that those kind of sets contain many difficulties intrinsic to the general problem? What are those difficulties?

Another question emerges from a result by Hao Chen on Ball packings with high chromatic numbers from strongly regular graphs. Most likely it seems that this publication emerged from another MathOverflow question by Cantwell. Namely: Chromatic number of graphs of tangent closed balls .

Just as Bondarenko, Chen uses strongly regular graphs to form a spherical two-distance set to construct a ball-packing whose tangency graph is highly chromatic.

My question regards the part where Chen wants to link Borsuk's conjecture to the ball packing problem. As written:

The finite version of the Borsuk conjecture can be formulated as follows: the chromatic number of the unit-distance graph for a set of points with maximum distance $1$ is at most $d+1$. So the chromatic number problem for unit ball packings is the “opposite” of the Borsuk conjecture.

Why can Borsuk's conjecture be regarded as Chen names it. Somehow I don't get the connection between the "classic" conjecture by Borsuk and Chens version.

How is the coloring of tangency graphs of ball-packings connected to Borsuk's conjecture? Why can the chromatic number problem for unit packings be regarded as the "opposite" of Borsuk conjecture? What opposite?

I will be thankful for every kind of advice or tip to my questions.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have no specific knowledge about this problem or its history, but this is my guess: you have a problem about distances between points, and what could be a simpler test case than a set in which only two distances exist. If you find no counterexamples among them, then maybe you might be able to prove that the conjecture is true for these kinds of sets. It is worth to take a look. $\endgroup$
    – M. Winter
    Commented Sep 3, 2020 at 19:55

0

You must log in to answer this question.