OpenAI proved that for every sufficiently large n there are n points in the unit square all of whose triangles have area at least c n^(-2+eta), with an explicit but extremely small eta (of order 10^(-235)). Subsequent public work lowered the cost of the construction, the latest claimed exponent being eta = 2/100866719, about 1.9810^(-8). We introduce two changes. First, the digit base is taken to be a multiple of the label prime r and the main modulus is h = r B^(k-1) instead of B^k; this reduces the ratio h/tau between the modulus and the excluded determinant window from about B to about r, which allows the extension degree d = 3. Second, the norm polynomial is placed in the digits by a digit-wise convolution along the Frobenius expansion of the exponents, with a trace digit in a polynomial basis, giving k = 1440 positions. The result is Delta(n) >= c n^(-2+eta) with eta = 1/177022 > 5.6410^(-6), for every sufficiently large n. The finite identities are checked by exact computation in the ancillary files.
Introduction
For a finite set P⊂[0,1]2 with ∣P∣≥3 let Δ(P) be the least area of a triangle with vertices in P, and let Δ(n) be the maximum of Δ(P) over n-point sets. Komlós, Pintz and Szemerédi proved Δ(n)≫(logn)/n2[4]. OpenAI [1] proved a power improvement Δ(n)≥c1n−2+η with η=2/(45435k+16), k=T2+1, T=(3M), M=(41163), so that η≈10−235.5. Their construction samples integral columns whose residues modulo a main modulus h carry a determinant obstruction coming from a field norm, together with an auxiliary cap modulo a second prime q, and deletes the few bad triples.
Public follow-up work reduced the parameters inside the same framework: Blinov [2] lowered the extension degree to d=5 using row-dependent digit lengths, label tags, a fresh-digit collision bound and a slab version of the auxiliary cap, and the Euler team [3] obtained the claimed exponent η=2/100866719 with k=408781 and a smaller lift box.
Theorem 1.1. There are c>0 and n0 such that for every integer n≥n0,
Δ(n)≥cn−2+η,η=1770221.
The two new ingredients are the following.
Composite modulus. Let r be the label prime and choose the digit base B=rB2 with B2 prime. The main modulus is h=rBk−1. Since B≡0 modulo r, the part of the determinant above the digit position k−1 reduces modulo r to the single designated coefficient, whose residue is the field norm. Distinct labels then exclude every representative of absolute value at most τ≈Bk−1/2, while h/τ≈2r instead of ≈2B. The price of a label collision becomes r2γ⋅r−d and d=3 suffices (§ 6).
Frobenius digits. The norm of the Vandermonde product, N(V)=∏tVrt, has monomials whose exponents have r-adic digits in {0,1,2}, with a coefficient that factors over the digits. We place the monomials in the digit positions by a mixed-radix convolution in which each lower Frobenius digit is handled by a fixed three-row design of radix 6 (Table 1), the most significant digit by a design whose rows 1 and 3 never reach the target together (Table 2), and the descent to Fr by a trace digit of radix 2d−1 in a polynomial basis. With d=3 this uses k=1440 positions.
row
options (x,u,ϵ)
1
(0,1,+), (0,3,+), (1,4,−), (2,0,+)
2
(0,1,+), (1,2,+), (2,0,−)
3
(0,3,−), (0,1,+), (1,4,+), (2,0,+)
Table 1. The digit design D6 (target κ=5).
row
options (x,u,ϵ)
1
(0,4,+), (1,1,−), (2,0,+)
2
(0,5,−), (0,6,−), (1,3,−), (2,1,+)
3
(0,5,−), (0,4,+), (1,2,−), (2,0,−)
Table 2. The top design T7 (target 7).
Everything else follows the framework of [1] with the row-dependent digit lengths and the slab cap of [2] and the smaller lift box of [3]. We give proofs of every statement that changes, citing [1] for the lattice-point counts and the weight bounds of the auxiliary cap, whose proofs apply with the changes indicated.
Conventions.A≪B means ∣A∣≤CB with C depending only on the fixed parameters d=3 and k=1440, never on the growing prime r. Lengths are Euclidean. All logarithms are natural.
Frobenius digits
The digit design
For (x,y,z)∈{0,1,2}3 let w(x,y,z) be the sign of the permutation 0↦x, 1↦y, 2↦z when {x,y,z}={0,1,2}, and w(x,y,z)=0 otherwise. Then, for commuting indeterminates,
A design is a triple of finite lists O1,O2,O3 of options; each option o carries a value x(o)∈{0,1,2}, a height u(o)∈Z≥0 and a sign ϵ(o)∈{±1}. We use the design D6 of Table 1, with target κ=5.
Lemma 2.1. The design D6 has the following properties.
Proof. A finite check of the 4⋅3⋅4=48 option triples; see anc/check_design.py. For example, for (x,y,z)=(0,1,2) the option triples have heights (1,2,0) and (3,2,0); only the second sums to 5, with sign +. For (0,0,0) the triples summing to 5 are (1,1,3) with sign − and (3,1,1) with sign +, which cancel.
For the most significant digit we use the design T7 of Table 2, with target 7.
Lemma 2.2. The design T7 satisfies (D1) with 5 replaced by 7, and moreover:
(T1) no option of row 1 and option of row 3 have heights summing to 7;
(T2) the options of height 0 in rows 1 and 3 have value x=2, and row 2 has no option of height 0.
The rows of D6 have options of height 0 only with value x=2.
Proof. A finite check; see anc/check_design.py. For (T1), the heights in rows 1 and 3 are {0,1,4} and {0,2,4,5}, whose sums avoid 7.
Field, labels and the norm
Fix d=3. Let r>6d be a prime, F=Fr, and K=Frd=F[θ] with θ a root of an irreducible cubic. Write cμ(ξ), μ=0,1,2, for the coordinates of ξ∈K in the basis 1,θ,θ2, and Tr for the trace K→F. For e=(e0,e1,e2)∈{0,1,2}3 put ξ[e]=ξe0+e1r+e2r2=∏t(ξrt)et. For labels ξ1,ξ2,ξ3∈K× let V=(ξ2−ξ1)(ξ3−ξ1)(ξ3−ξ2) and N(V)=∏t<dVrt∈F. Since d is odd, N(−v)=−N(v), so N(V) is alternating in the labels; it is nonzero when the labels are distinct.
Positions and residues
Use the mixed radix with digit weights
Wtr=1,W0=5,W1=30,W2=180,
that is, a trace digit of radix 2d−1=5, two Frobenius digits of radix 6 (digits t=0,1, design D6) and a most significant Frobenius digit (t=2, design T7). Write Oi(t) for the options of row i in the design of digit t. For a row i and an option word o=(o0,o1,o2) with ot∈Oi(t) put
The terms of the three rows, their positions and their functionsK→F are:
row
term
position
function
1
(o1,μ), 0≤μ≤2
μ+H(o1)
ϵ(o1)cμ(ξ[x(o1)])
2
(o2,ν), 0≤ν≤2
ν+H(o2)
ϵ(o2)cν(ξ[x(o2)])
3
(o3,s), 0≤s≤4
4−s+H(o3)
ϵ(o3)Tr(θsξ[x(o3)])
Put
X∗=4⋅Wtr+5W0+5W1+7W2=1439,k=X∗+1=1440.
The largest position is 2+4⋅5+4⋅30+4⋅180=862 in row 1, 2+2⋅5+2⋅30+6⋅180=1152 in row 2 and 4+4⋅5+4⋅30+5⋅180=1044 in row 3, all below k−1=1439. For a label ξ∈K×, a row i and a position 0≤v<k, let ρi,v(ξ)∈F be the sum of the functions of all row-i terms at position v (zero if there are none), except that we add the control
ρ2,0(ξ)=φ(ξ)N(ξ)2,φ(ξ)=c0(ξ);(2)
by (T2) row 2 has no term at position 0. By (T2) and Lemma 2.2, the only terms at position 0 are, in row 1, the word of value (2,2,2) with μ=0, of function c0(ξ[2,2,2])=c0(N(ξ)2)=N(ξ)2, and, in row 3, the word of value (2,2,2) with s=4, of function −Tr(θ4N(ξ)2). Hence
(ρ1,0,ρ2,0,ρ3,0)(ξ)=N(ξ)2(1,φ(ξ),−Tr(θ4)).(3)
Lemma 2.3 (Encoding). For all labels ξ1,ξ2,ξ3∈K×,
in F, the sum running over 0≤pi<k. In particular the left side is nonzero when the labels are distinct.
Proof.Selection. Consider three terms (o1,μ), (o2,ν), (o3,s) of rows 1, 2, 3 with positions summing to X∗. Put δtr=μ+ν−s∈[−4,4] and δt=u(ot1)+u(ot2)+u(ot3)−κt with κ0=κ1=5, κ2=7; by (D2), δ0,δ1∈[−5,5]. Then 0=δtr+5δ0+30δ1+180δ2. Reduction modulo 5 gives δtr=0, then reduction modulo 6 gives δ0=0, then δ1=0, and finally δ2=0. Conversely these equalities give the target. So the contributing triples of terms are exactly those with μ+ν=s and, in each digit t, heights summing to κt.
The control. The control (2) contributes only through triples with p2=0 and p1+p3=X∗, where p1,p3 carry terms of rows 1 and 3 (otherwise a residue is 0). For such terms put δtr′=μ+(4−s)−4∈[−4,2] and δt′=u(ot1)+u(ot3)−κt, with δ0′,δ1′∈[−5,3] because the heights of D6 in rows 1 and 3 lie in [0,4] (D3). As above δtr′=δ0′=δ1′=δ2′=0, so the top heights of rows 1 and 3 would sum to 7, contradicting (T1). Hence the control does not contribute.
Expansion. By multilinearity of the determinant in its rows, the left side of (4) equals
over the contributing triples, where a=x(o1), b=x(o2), c=x(o3). Fix (a,b,c). By (D1) for D6 and T7 applied digit by digit, the total sign of the option words with these values and digit sums κt is ∏tw(at,bt,ct). For fixed (a,b,c) the sum over μ+ν=s is, expanding the determinant over permutations σ,
with α=ξσ(1)[a], β=ξσ(2)[b], γ=ξσ(3)[c], because αβ=∑μ,νcμ(α)cν(β)θμ+ν and the trace is F-linear. Summing over (a,b,c) and using that Frobenius is a ring endomorphism together with (1),
Let B2 be a prime with Q<B2≤2Q, where Q=600k2r2M (it exists for large r by Bertrand’s postulate), and set
B=rB2,h=rBk−1=rkB2k−1,τ=⌊Bk−1/2⌋.(6)
Then B=rB2>600k2r3M=100A0, so B−1≥100A0; also L3<B2, B2=r, and
θ0:=M2B2r≤M22(600k2r2M+1)r≤21.(7)
Moreover B≍r6, with constants depending only on k.
Random columns
A column is drawn as follows. Choose a label ξ uniformly in K×. For rows i=1,2 and every position 0≤v<k, let di,v be the unique integer in [1,r] congruent to ρi,v(ξ) modulo r. For row 3 and every v, choose d3,v uniformly from the M integers in [1,rM] congruent to ρ3,v(ξ), independently. Put ci=∑v<kdi,vBvmodh. Different columns use independent labels and digits. Since B≡0 modulo both primes, ci≡di,0 modulo r and modulo B2. In particular c1≡N(ξ)2=0 (mod r) by (3), and c1≡d1,0∈[1,r] is a unit modulo B2. By (3) the third row of C mod r is a multiple of the first, so C mod r always has rank at most two and r∣detC; this is harmless, since the obstruction below only uses Hi≡0 (mod r) and the divisor E cancels in (11).
Lemma 3.1 (Obstruction). Let C be the residue matrix of three such columns. If the three labels are distinct, then no integer in [−τ,τ] is congruent to detC modulo h.
Proof. Let C be the integer matrix with entries ∑vdi,v(j)Bv and put F(Y)=det(∑vdi,v(j)Yv)=∑eγeYe. For each exponent e and permutation, the positions in two rows determine the third, so ∣γe∣≤A0. Write
Since B≡0(modr), Hi≡γk−1(modr), and since every digit is congruent to its residue, Lemma 2.3 gives γk−1≡18N(V)=0(modr). Every integer t≡detC≡F(B)(modh) has the form
t=L0+Bk−1(Hi+rm)
with m∈Z, and Hi+rm=0. Hence
∣t∣≥Bk−1−∣L0∣>10099Bk−1>τ.
Smith forms modulo h
For a prime p∣h let hp=pkp be the p-part of h (kr=k, kB2=k−1). By the Chinese remainder theorem Z/hZ=Z/hrZ×Z/hB2Z and SL3(Z/hZ)=∏pSL3(Z/hpZ). Since C11 is a unit modulo both primes, [1 Lemma 4.1] applies to C mod hp and gives C≡Ppdiag(1,pbp,pep)Qp with 0≤bp≤ep≤kp, where bp≥j if and only if all 2×2 minors of C vanish modulo pj. Put D=∏ppbp, E=∏ppep and I=DE. Let Λ=ΛC be the set of v∈Z3 whose reduction modulo h lies in the row span of C.
Lemma 3.2.[Z3:Λ]=I, EZ3⊆Λ, and the orbit OC={GC:G∈SL3(Z/hZ)} satisfies
∣OC∣≥6421D3E2h8.
For uniform G, GC is uniform on OC, and all elements of OC have the row span and the determinant of C. Moreover, for x∈Z3 write x⋅Λ=gZ; for every m∣h, m∣g if and only if Cx≡0(modm); and for m=∏ppjp with jp≤ep the proportion of residues x modulo m with Cx≡0(modm) is
p∏p−jp−max(jp−bp,0).
Proof. For p∈{r,B2} put
Λp={v∈Z3:vmodhp∈row span of Cmodhp}.
By the Chinese remainder theorem, Λ=Λr∩ΛB2, and OC is the product of the orbits of C mod hr and C mod hB2. For each prime p, [1 Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.2], which are stated for a prime power modulus and need one unit entry, give: the row span modulo hp has hp3/pbp+ep elements, so
[Z3:Λp]=pbp+ep,pepZ3⊆Λp;
and
∣OCmodhp∣≥6421p3bp+2ephp8.
In the diagonal form, the proportion of x modulo pj, j≤ep, with Cx≡0(modpj) is p−j−max(j−bp,0), as in the proof of [1 Lemma 7.3]. Since the two indices are coprime,
and the proportions multiply. A uniform G∈SL3(Z/hZ) has uniform components, so GC is uniform on OC, and left multiplication by G preserves the row span and the determinant. Finally, for m∣h the reduction of Λ modulo m is the row span of C mod m, because Λ⊇hZ3; hence m∣g, that is x⋅v≡0(modm) for all v∈Λ, holds if and only if x is orthogonal modulo m to the rows of C, that is Cx≡0(modm).
The divisor moment
Lemma 3.3. Fix the three labels. Then
E[D∣labels]≤2+6r1{rank(Cmodr)≤1}.
Proof. Write b=bB2 and b′=br. Since pβ≤∑i=0βpi,
D≤j≥0∑j′≥0∑B2jrj′1{b≥j,b′≥j′}.
Condition on the first column and on the first entries of the second and third columns. As C11 is a unit modulo p, bp≥j implies the two congruences C3v≡C31C11−1C1v(modpj), v=2,3, whose right sides are now fixed. We use only these two bottom entries, which have fresh independent digits.
The prime B2. Modulo B2j only the digits at positions <j of an entry matter. The congruence modulo B2 fixes d3,0 modulo B2, hence fixes d3,0 since 1≤d3,0≤rM<B2. Inductively, given the lower digits, the congruence modulo B2u+1 fixes d3,uB2u=ruB2ud3,u modulo B2u+1, hence d3,u modulo B2 (as r is invertible modulo B2), hence d3,u. Each digit has M equally likely values, so the event b≥j fixes the bottom digits at positions <j of both entries and has probability at most M−2j.
The prime r. The event b′≥1 is the deterministic event that C mod r has rank at most one. Write d3,u=ρ3,u+rmu; the integers mu range over M consecutive values, and r∣M, so mu mod r is uniform. Since Bu=ruB2u, an entry is ∑ud3,uruB2u=∑uρ3,uruB2u+∑umuru+1B2u. Its residue modulo rt+1 (1≤t≤k−1) is therefore the residue modulo rt+1 of a quantity determined by the residues ρ3,u and the mu with u≤t−2, plus mt−1B2t−1rt. As B2 is invertible modulo r, given the congruence of the entry modulo rt and all mu with u≤t−2, the congruence modulo rt+1 (whose right side is fixed) holds for exactly one value of mt−1 mod r, hence with conditional probability 1/r. The same holds for the second entry, with its own independent mt−1.
Joint bound. Here 0≤j≤k−1 and 0≤j′≤k. The event b≥j depends only on the bottom digits at positions <j and fixes them; it costs at most M−2j, and the congruences modulo rt with t≤j then cost nothing more. Next condition, in the order t=j+1,…,j′−1, on the congruence modulo rt+1: it involves mt−1 with t−1≥j, which is uniform modulo r and independent of the event b≥j and of all digits at positions ≤t−2, so by the previous paragraph each step costs a factor 1/r in each of the two entries. Therefore
Pr(b≥j,b′≥j′)≤1{j′=0 or rank(Cmodr)≤1}M−2jr−2max(j′−1−j,0).
The terms with j′=0 contribute at most ∑j(B2/M2)j≤2. If rank(Cmodr)≤1, the terms with j′≥1 contribute at most
Let J be the event that some integer in [−τ,τ] is congruent to detC modulo h.
Corollary 3.4. For three independent columns, E[D1J]≤33r−3.
Proof. By Lemma 3.1, J requires two equal labels. Exactly two labels coincide with probability at most $3/(r^3-1)\le 4r^{-3}$. By (3) the columns of C mod r are N(ξj)2(1,φ(ξj),−Trθ4)T, two of them equal; the rank is at most one only if the third label has the same value of φ, which has conditional probability at most (r2−1)/(r3−2)≤1/r (the number of ξ=ξ1 with φ(ξ)=φ(ξ1) is r2−1 or $r^2-2). By Lemma 3.3 this case contributes at most 4r−3(2+6r⋅r−1)=32r−3. Three equal labels have probability at most 2r−6 and contribute at most 2r−6(2+6r).
:::
The auxiliary modulus
Put H=2h and choose a prime q with h6<q≤2h6. Let w=⌊q/(1000H2)⌋. Choose a nonsquare ν∈Fq and put
S={(x,y,x2−νy2):0≤x<w,y∈Fq},s=∣S∣=wq.
This is the slab cap of [2]. A line meets the graph of x2−νy2 in at most two points (the restriction is a quadratic with nonzero leading coefficient x02−νy02 for a direction with (x0,y0)=0, and vertical lines meet once), so S has no three collinear points. Since q≥2000H2,
s≥2000H2q2,sq3≤2000H2q=8000h2q.(8)
The allowed shifts A={a∈Fq3:∥ma1∥q>3Hw for 1≤m≤3H}, the random set V=Gq(a+S) with a uniform in A and Gq uniform in GL3(Fq), and the weight
W(A)=(q3/s)3Pr(all columns of Amodq lie in V)
are as in [1 Section 5]; the same analysis for the slab is written out in [3 Section 3.4]. Lemma 5.2 of [1] is stated for S⊂{0,…,w−1}3, but its proof uses the box only through the first coordinate. Indeed: (a) a uniform shift violates the condition for a given m with probability (6Hw+1)/q, so Pr(a∈/A)≤3H(6Hw+1)/q<1/2, which does not involve S; (b) if a+v=0 with v∈S, then ∥a1∥q=∥v1∥q≤w−1, contrary to m=1; (c) a relation ∑ixiu(i)=0 with u(i)=Gq(a+v(i)), 0<∣x∣≤H and m=∑xi=0 gives ma1=−∑ixiv1(i), of absolute value at most 3H(w−1) because 0≤v1(i)<w, again a contradiction; (d) if m=0 the relation contradicts the affine independence of distinct points of V, which follows from the line property. The proof of [1 Proposition 5.3] uses only the affine invariance of the line property, the transitivity of the affine group on affinely independent triples, and ∣S∣=s. We obtain: ∣A∣≥q3/2; 0∈/V; a relation ∑xiuq(i)=0 in Fq3 with 0<∣x∣≤H is impossible for three distinct points of V; and
W(A)≪⎩⎨⎧1q3/s(q3/s)2if the columns of Amodq are affinely independent,if rank(Amodq)≥2,always.(9)
If W(A)>0 then no column of Amodq is zero, and the columns are either affinely independent or two of them are equal.
Weighted lattice counts
Fix C with the data D,E,I,Λ of Lemma 3.2, and an integer N≥h with hq∣N. Let B=([0,N)2×[N,2N))∩Z3 and π(u)=(u1/u3,u2/u3).
Proposition 5.1. For every integer t with ∣t∣≤τ, the sum of W(A) over integer matrices A with columns in B, rows in Λ, pairwise distinct projected columns and detA=t is ≪(log2N)2N6/I2.
Proof. If t=0, then 0<∣t∣≤τ<q, so Amodq has rank three and W(A)≪1; every row has length <4N and λ3(Λ)≤E≤h<4N, so [1 Proposition 2.5] with X=4N gives the bound.
Let t=0. We follow the proof of [1 Proposition 7.1]. The matrix has rational rank two, and its primitive null vector x has all coordinates nonzero and ∣x∣≪N2. Put Λx=Λ∩x⊥, x⋅Λ=g(x)Z and Jx=I∣x∣/g(x). Then g(x)∣E, so g(x)3/I≤E2/D≤h2, and Λx reduces onto the plane Πx⊂Fq3 orthogonal to x because q∤E[1 Lemma 7.2]. For a sublattice of index m in Λx, the number of rank-two row triples of length ≤4N is ≪N6/(mJx3).
Moment. For Y≥h, ∑Y≤∣x∣<2Yg(x)3≪Y3I. Indeed g3≤∑m∣gm3 over m=∏ppjp with jp≤ep, and by Lemma 3.2 the vectors with m∣g(x) form a union of residue classes modulo m of proportion ∏pp−jp−max(jp−bp,0); since m≤E≤h≤Y each class has ≪(Y/m)3 vectors of length <2Y. Hence the sum is ≪Y3∏p∑j≤epp2j−max(j−bp,0)≪Y3∏ppbp+ep=Y3I, each inner sum being dominated by its last term.
Split the null vectors into O(log2N) dyadic shells Y≤∣x∣<2Y; for fixed x and index m the count is ≪N6g(x)3/(m3I3Y3). The cases are those of [1 Proposition 7.1], with (8) in place of q3/s≪qh12:
affinely independent residues: ∣x∣>H, so Y>H/2=h; with m=1, W≪1 and the moment bound, the shell contributes ≪N6/I2;
an equal pair i,j with xmodq∈/Fq(ei−ej): rows lie in an index-q sublattice, there are ≪Y3 normals, and with g3≤Ih2 and W≪(q3/s)2 the shell contributes ≪(N6/I2)h2q−3(q3/s)2≪(N6/I2)h6/q≤N6/I2;
an equal pair with xmodq∈Fq(ei−ej): then Y>q/2 and there are ≪Y3/q2 normals; rank ≥2 modulo q gives ≪(N6/I2)h2q−2(q3/s)≪(N6/I2)h4/q, and rank ≤1 (rows in one of q+1 lines, each of index q) gives ≪(N6/I2)h2q−4(q3/s)2≪(N6/I2)h6/q2.
Since q>h6 all contributions are ≪N6/I2 per shell.
Sampling, deletion and the exponent
Sampling
Let s0=479 and
N=Bs0(hq)4=r4k−s0B24(k−1)−s0q4.(10)
This is an integer divisible by hq, and N≥h. Choose Gh uniformly in SL3(Z/hZ) and V as in § 4, independently. Given these shared choices, each sample draws a fresh column c as in § 3, a fresh uniform element of V, and a uniform u∈B with u≡Ghc(modh) and umodq equal to that element. Each prescribed residue pair has exactly (N/(hq))3 lifts. The exact lifting identity [1 Lemma 6.2] holds verbatim: conditional on C and the labels,
Pr(A∈E∣C)=N9∣OC∣h9A∈E,Amodh∈OC∑W(A).
A triple is bad if its projections are pairwise distinct and ∣detA∣≤τ. Since 2τ<h, at most one determinant value in [−τ,τ] is possible, and none unless J occurs. By Lemma 3.2, Proposition 5.1 and Corollary 3.4,
Pr(bad)≪(log2N)2N3hE[D1J]≪(log2N)2N3r3h.(11)
For two samples, Pr(π(u)=π(v))≪(hq)6N−3[1 Lemma 6.1].
Deletion
Fix γ=354042/354043<1, put ar=rγN3/τ, nr=⌊ar⌋, and take 2nr samples. Let Z count the pairs with equal projections and the bad triples. Then
nrEZ≪nrN3(hq)6+nr2(log2N)2N3r3h.
For the first term, N3/2=(hq)6B−3s0/2 and τ≥Bk−1/3, so
because 3s0−(k−1)=1437−1439=−2 and B≫r6. For the second term, nr2≤r2γN3/τ and h/τ≤3r, so it is ≪(log2N)2r2γ−2→0, since log2N≪logr and γ<1. Hence EZ<nr for all large r. Deleting one index from each counted pair or triple leaves at least nr samples whose projections are distinct and whose triples satisfy ∣detA∣>τ. Every coordinate u3 lies in [N,2N), so the projective area identity gives
Given a large n, let y=(n/a0)1/α and choose a prime r∈(y,2y]. Then n≤nr≤C0n with C0=2αb0/a0. Keeping n points of Pr does not decrease the minimum area, so Δ(n)≥Δ(Pr)≥cnr−2+η≥cC0−2+ηn−2+η. This proves Theorem 1.1. □
Remarks
Where the gain comes from. In [1, 2, 3] the modulus is h=Bk and the obstruction excludes [−τ,τ] with h/τ≍B; the collision probability must beat Br2γ, which forces d=5 even with the fresh-digit refinement. With B≡0(modr) the information “γk−1≡0(modr)” already excludes the window for the smaller modulus rBk−1, so only r2γ must be beaten. The digit lengths, the cap and the lift box are unchanged from [2, 3].
The value of γ. Any γ<1 works in the deletion step; the choice γ=354042/354043 gives the clean value 1/177022, and the exponents obtained approach 2/354043. With γ this close to 1 the second term in the deletion step is small only once (logr)2γ−2/354043 is, so n0 is astronomically large; this does not affect the theorem.
Checks. The ancillary files contain: the design check (check_design.py); the exact identity (4) and the column (3) for random labels with d=3, r=23 (check_encoding.py); an end-to-end test that builds the actual integer digit columns with the parameters (3.1)–(3.2) for r=23 and verifies Lemma 3.1 (check_obstruction.py); and the exponent arithmetic (exponent.py).
Status. This note has not been refereed.
References
[1]OpenAI, A power improvement in the Heilbronn triangle lower bound, OpenAI Math Release preprint, September 25, 2026; source commit 1581d4cb.hub.valency.io/works/W_f6yqstan
[2]I. Blinov, Heilbronn triangle bounds: finite packings and improved scales, GitHub research draft (littleBro/heilbronn-triangle-bounds), October 2026.
[3]Euler team (canghaimeng), A smaller lift box in the degree-five Heilbronn construction, GitHub (canghaimeng/openai-math-improvement, bound-191), October 18, 2026.
[4]J. Komlós, J. Pintz and E. Szemerédi, A lower bound for Heilbronn’s problem, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 25 (1982), 13–24.