3
$\begingroup$

I am able to prove the following two propositions: Recall that the $i$-th successive minimum of $L\in \mathcal L$, denoted $\lambda_i(L)$ is the infimum of the radii of the balls containing $i$-linearly independent vectors in $L$. All norms are Euclidean 2-norm.

Let $\Lambda$ be a lattice $\mathbb R^d$. Assume that $d\le 4$, then there exist a basis $\{v_1,\dots,v_d\}$ of $\Lambda$ such that $$\|v_j\|=\lambda_j(\Lambda), ~\text{for}~ j=\{1,2,\dots,d\}.$$

and

Let $\Lambda$ be a lattice in $\mathbb R^d$. Then there exist a basis $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_d$ of $\Lambda$ such that $$\|v_1\|=\lambda_1(\Lambda),\|v_2\|_d \asymp_d \lambda_2(\Lambda),\dots,\|v_d\| \asymp_d \lambda_d(\Lambda).$$

But I am very puzzled if the follow combination of the above two is true:

Let $\Lambda$ be a lattice in $\mathbb R^d$. Then there exist a basis $v_1,v_2,\dots,v_d$ of $\Lambda$ such that $$\|v_i\|=\lambda_i(\Lambda) (1\le i \le 4),\|v_5\|_d \asymp_d \lambda_5(\Lambda),\dots,\|v_d\| \asymp_d \lambda_d(\Lambda).$$

Is the last statement correct? I don't see how it follows from the previous two statements directly. There is some magic with the dimension 4. The example $\text{Span}\{e_1,e_2,\dots, e_d, \frac{1}{2}(e_1+\dots+e_d)\}$ provides the obstruction for the reduction process for $d\ge 5$.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Jacques Martinet has a paper that proves a result like this "on average". For a lattice $\Lambda$, define $H_b(\Lambda) = \min_{\{v_i\}_i\text{ a basis of }\Lambda}\frac{\prod_{i}^n \lVert v_i\rVert_2}{\det \Lambda}$, $M(\Lambda) = \frac{\prod_{i = 1}^n \lambda_i(\Lambda)}{\det \Lambda}$, and $Q_b(\Lambda) = \frac{H_b(\Lambda)}{M(\Lambda)}$.

Then

Theorem 1.2 For $n\geq 4$, we have that $Q_b(\Lambda) \leq \sqrt{5/4}^{n-4}$

Theorem 1.3 For $4\leq n\leq 8$, we have that $Q_b(\Lambda) \leq\sqrt{n}/2$.

Note that Martinet's quantities are actually the square of what I quote, but his convention is to define things in terms of the squares of the relevant norms.

Anyway, I say this establishes your result "on average" as the two sequences can only differ "on average" by a constant multiplicative factor $\sqrt{5/4}$ on each term.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for pointing out this interesting reference! $\endgroup$
    – taylor
    Oct 23, 2022 at 15:48

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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