alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

A power improvement in the Heilbronn triangle lower bound

AI contributions
  • unreleased internal OpenAI model
View details
Ancillary data
Formal proof, 4 proof or workflow links
View

Abstract

There are absolute constants η,c1>0\eta,c_1\gt 0 such that, for every sufficiently large integer n, one can choose n points in the unit square so that every triangle they determine has area at least c1n−2+ηc_1n^{-2+\eta}. Thus the almost n−2 upper-bound formulation of Heilbronn's triangle problem is false. The exponent η is fixed but extremely small.

Introduction

For three points p,q,r∈R2p,q,r \in\mathbb{R}^2, write

Area⁡(pqr)=12∣det⁡(q−p,r−p)∣.\operatorname{Area}(pqr) = \frac{1}{2} \lvert\det(q-p,r-p) \rvert.

If P⊂[0,1]2P \subset[0,1]^2 is finite and ∣P∣≥3\lvert P\rvert\ge3, define

Δ(P)=min⁡{p,q,r}∈(P3)Area⁡(pqr),Δ(n)=max⁡P⊂[0,1]2∣P∣=nΔ(P).\Delta(P) = \min_{\{p,q,r\}\in\binom{P}{3}} \operatorname{Area}(pqr), \qquad\Delta(n) = \max_{\substack{P\subset[0,1]^2\\ \lvert P\rvert=n}} \Delta(P).

The minimum is over all unordered triples of distinct points. In particular, a collinear triple makes Δ(P)=0\Delta(P)=0. The maximum defining Δ(n)\Delta(n) exists: the minimum area is continuous on the compact space of ordered nn-tuples, it is positive for suitable points on a parabola, and a tuple with a repeated point has minimum area zero.

The original Heilbronn conjecture asked whether Δ(n)=O(n−2)\Delta(n)=O(n^{-2}); see Roth [12], p. 198. Two elementary constructions attain this scale. Erdős’s finite-field parabola, recorded in Roth [12], Appendix, gives a grid configuration whose triangle determinants are nonzero integers before scaling. Random sampling followed by deleting one point from each small triangle also gives Δ(n)≫n−2\Delta(n)\gg n^{-2}. Komlós, Pintz and Szemerédi improved this to Δ(n)≫(log⁡n)/n2\Delta(n)\gg(\log n)/n^2, disproving the original conjecture [10]. Their argument represents the small-area triples in a random point set as edges of a hypergraph, removes short cycles, and uses a stronger independence bound to select a large subset containing none of those triples [10], Section 2.

The almost n−2n^{-2} formulation, discussed in Zakharov’s survey [18], Section 3, asks whether, for every ε>0\varepsilon>0, there are constants CεC_\varepsilon and n0(ε)n_0(\varepsilon) such that

Δ(n)≤Cεn−2+ε(n≥n0(ε)).\Delta(n) \le C_\varepsilon n^{-2+\varepsilon} \qquad(n\ge n_0(\varepsilon)).

We disprove this formulation by a power improvement in the lower bound.

Theorem 1.1. There are absolute constants η\eta, c1>0c_1>0 and an integer n0≥3n_0\ge3 such that

Δ(n)≥c1n−2+ηfor every integer n≥n0.\Delta(n) \ge c_1 n^{-2+\eta} \qquad\text{for every integer } n\ge n_0.

In particular, Δ(n)≥n−2+η/2\Delta(n)\ge n^{-2+\eta/2} for every sufficiently large nn. The ratio of the theorem’s lower bound to n−2+η/2n^{-2+\eta/2} is c1nη/2→∞c_1n^{\eta/2}\to\infty, which contradicts (1.1) at ε=η/2\varepsilon=\eta/2. Section 8 gives an explicit, though extremely small, admissible exponent.

On the upper-bound side, Roth [12] proved the first o(n−1)o(n^{-1}) estimate by a density-increment argument, followed by refinements of Schmidt [16] and Roth [13, 14]. Komlós, Pintz and Szemerédi [9] refined Roth’s analytic method to obtain Δ(n)≪εn−8/7+ε\Delta(n)\ll_\varepsilon n^{-8/7+\varepsilon}. Cohen, Pohoata and Zakharov developed new incidence-geometric approaches, first obtaining Δ(n)≤n−8/7−1/2000\Delta(n)\le n^{-8/7-1/2000} for sufficiently large nn [4], Theorem 1.1, and subsequently proving Δ(n)≪εn−7/6+ε\Delta(n)\ll_\varepsilon n^{-7/6+\varepsilon} for every ε>0\varepsilon>0 [5], Theorem 1.8.

Earlier preprints claim stronger power lower bounds than ours, with unresolved issues in the following versions. Ellmann’s version 12 acknowledges an unproved local uniformity assumption and describes the argument as heuristic [6], p. 3; the deletion estimate uses this assumption [6], Theorem 4, pp. 5–6. In Agama’s version 13, Theorem 4.1 [1], pp. 12–13, counting the center with the boundary points introduces a collinear triple consisting of the two endpoints of a diameter and their midpoint. Omitting the center leaves the every-triple estimate unproved, since the argument estimates triangles formed by the center and adjacent boundary points. These objections concern the cited arguments, not the impossibility of their asserted bounds.

The two congruence conditions

The proof works first with integer columns u=(u1,u2,u3)Tu=(u_1,u_2,u_3)^{\mathsf T} in a box of the form

0≤u1,u2<N,N≤u3<2N.0 \le u_1,u_2 < N,\qquad N \le u_3 < 2N.

Such a column represents the unit-square point π(u)=(u1/u3,u2/u3)\pi(u)=(u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3). Three columns forming a matrix AA give a triangle of area

∣det⁡A∣2A31A32A33.\frac{|\det A|}{2A_{31}A_{32}A_{33}}.

We therefore seek many columns for which proportional pairs and triples with small absolute determinant are sufficiently rare to delete.

The first congruence condition separates most triples before they are lifted to integers. Give each column an independent uniform label ξ∈Frd\xi\in\mathbb{F}_{r^d}, where dd is fixed and odd and the prime rr grows. The columns (1,ξ,ξ2)T(1,\xi,\xi^2)^{\mathsf T} have nonzero determinant whenever their labels are distinct. This is the finite-field parabola underlying Erdős’s construction recorded in Roth [12]. Taking the field norm to Fr\mathbb{F}_r produces an alternating polynomial in three groups of coordinates. We express that polynomial as a sum of monomial determinants and encode it in one designated coefficient of a determinant whose entries are base-BB expansions. Large-base control of carries has classical precedents in the progression-free constructions of Salem and Spencer [15] and Behrend [3]; here it isolates a determinant coefficient. Modulo h=Bkh=B^k, with kk fixed, distinct labels then preclude a small determinant. Independent choices of digits with the prescribed residues leave enough randomness even when labels coincide.

A common random matrix of determinant one mixes the three rows modulo hh without changing their determinant. Conditional on the digit columns, the resulting matrix is uniform on a special-linear orbit. The rows of every integral lift lie in a lattice whose index, together with the orbit size, can be read from a diagonal form. An anisotropic lattice count controls lifts of any fixed nonzero determinant, while a conditional moment bound handles singular digit matrices and repeated labels.

The fixed nonzero-determinant count does not cover determinant zero, where all three rows can lie in one integral plane. We control this case with a second congruence condition. At an independent prime qq, choose residues from a small portion of an affine quadratic surface with no three points on a line. A carefully restricted random translation excludes short integer relations; a random invertible linear map permits uniform counting. The Chinese remainder theorem combines the two congruence conditions, and uniform lifting supplies integer columns in the box.

For a singular lifted matrix with pairwise distinct projected columns, a primitive integer null vector determines a rank-two row lattice. We sum over those vectors, treating equal residue columns and low rank modulo qq separately. This supplies the missing count for collinear projected triples.

The exceptional triples require repeated labels, whose probability provides the saving used in an elementary deletion argument. Thus the improvement comes from the arithmetic distribution of sampled points. Formula (1.2) then transfers the determinant bound to every triangle of the retained point set.

Organization and conventions

Section 2 proves the lattice estimates. Section 3 constructs the norm polynomial and digit distribution, and Section 4 estimates its matrix orbits. Section 5 constructs the auxiliary residues. Sections 6 and 7 count small determinants, including zero. Section 8 completes the deletion and scaling argument and passes to every sufficiently large cardinality. Appendix A gives the elementary prime-interval proof used in the parameter choices and interpolation.

Lengths are Euclidean. A primitive integer vector has coordinates with greatest common divisor one. The covolume of a lattice is measured in its real span. The notation F≪GF \ll G means ∣F∣≤CG\lvert F\rvert\le CG; constants may depend on the fixed construction parameters, but never on the growing prime or on the sampled labels and columns. All logarithms are natural.

Lattice counts with a prescribed determinant

We prove a uniform bound for integer matrices whose rows belong to a fixed lattice and whose determinant is a prescribed nonzero integer. The lattice may have very different scales in different directions, so the proof keeps track of three separate column bounds. We also record the plane counts needed when the determinant is zero.

All lengths in this section are Euclidean. The determinant of a lattice means its covolume in its real span. For a lattice LL of positive rank ss, choose v1,…,vsv_1,\ldots,v_s successively, with viv_i a shortest lattice vector outside span⁡R(v1,…,vi−1)\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb{R}}(v_1,\ldots,v_{i-1}), and put λi=∣vi∣\lambda_i=\lvert v_i\rvert. In particular, 0<λ1≤⋯≤λs0<\lambda_1\le\cdots\le\lambda_s. The notation A≪BA\ll B means A≤CBA\le CB for an absolute constant CC, unless dependence is indicated.

The classical geometry-of-numbers antecedent is Minkowski’s second theorem on successive minima; see Henk [8]. Only the weaker fixed-dimensional Euclidean product bound below is needed here, and we include its proof.

Lemma 2.1 (Successive lengths). For a lattice LL of positive rank ss and the lengths just defined,

det⁡L≤∏i=1sλi≤ss/2det⁡L.\det L \le\prod_{i=1}^{s}\lambda_i \le s^{s/2}\det L.

Consequently, the lattice generated by v1,…,vsv_1,\ldots,v_s has index at most ss/2s^{s/2} in LL.

Proof. The determinant of the lattice generated by the viv_i is an integer multiple of det⁡L\det L and is at most ∏iλi\prod_i\lambda_i. For the reverse bound, choose orthonormal coordinates whose first jj directions span v1,…,vjv_1,\ldots,v_j for each jj. Let

Q={(a1,…,as):∣ai∣<λi/s for every i}.Q=\{(a_1,\ldots,a_s):\lvert a_i\rvert<\lambda_i/\sqrt{s}\text{ for every }i\}.

If a nonzero lattice vector in QQ has last nonzero coordinate jj, it lies outside the preceding span and has length strictly less than λj\lambda_j, a contradiction. The translates of Q/2Q/2 by LL are therefore disjoint. Integrating their indicator functions over a fundamental domain of LL gives vol⁡(Q/2)≤det⁡L\operatorname{vol}(Q/2)\le\det L. Since vol⁡(Q/2)=s−s/2∏iλi\operatorname{vol}(Q/2)=s^{-s/2}\prod_i\lambda_i, the result follows. □

Lemma 2.2 (Points in a plane lattice). Let LL be a rank-two Euclidean lattice with successive lengths λ1≤λ2\lambda_1\le\lambda_2. If R≥λ2R\ge\lambda_2, any translate of LL has at most CR2/det⁡LCR^2/\det L points in any ball of radius RR. If R<λ2R<\lambda_2, the points of LL in the ball of radius RR centered at zero lie in a line and number at most 1+2R/λ11+2R/\lambda_1.

Proof. For the first assertion let L0=Zv1+Zv2L_0=\mathbb{Z}v_1+\mathbb{Z}v_2. A half-open fundamental parallelogram for L0L_0 has diameter at most λ1+λ2≤2R\lambda_1+\lambda_2\le2R. For each coset of L0L_0, attach such a parallelogram to every point in the ball. The parallelograms are disjoint and lie in a disk of radius at most 3R3R in the affine span. Thus each coset contributes at most 9πR2/det⁡L09\pi R^2/\det L_0 points. Summing over [L:L0][L:L_0] cosets proves the first assertion. For the second, every lattice vector outside Rv1\mathbb{R}v_1 has length at least λ2\lambda_2. The lattice on Rv1\mathbb{R}v_1 is Zv1\mathbb{Z}v_1, since a shorter generator would contradict the choice of v1v_1. Counting its multiples proves the bound. □

Lemma 2.3 (Covolumes of integral planes). Let y∈Z3y \in\mathbb{Z}^3 be primitive, meaning that its coordinates have greatest common divisor one. Then Ly=Z3∩y⊥L_y = \mathbb{Z}^3 \cap y^\perp has determinant ∣y∣|y|. More generally, if Λ⊆Z3\Lambda\subseteq\mathbb{Z}^3 is a full-rank lattice of index II and y⋅Λ=gZy \cdot\Lambda= g\mathbb{Z} with g>0g > 0, then

det⁡(Λ∩y⊥)=I∣y∣g.\det(\Lambda\cap y^\perp) = \frac{I|y|}{g}.

Proof. Choose u∈Λu \in\Lambda with y⋅u=gy \cdot u = g. The map v↦y⋅v/gv \mapsto y \cdot v/g maps Λ\Lambda onto Z\mathbb{Z}, has kernel Λ∩y⊥\Lambda\cap y^\perp, and splits by 1↦u1 \mapsto u. Hence a basis of the kernel together with uu is a basis of Λ\Lambda. The height of uu above y⊥y^\perp is g/∣y∣g/|y|, which proves the formula. For Λ=Z3\Lambda= \mathbb{Z}^3, primitivity gives g=1g = 1.

We next count matrices with unequal column bounds. The difficult case occurs when the third-column radius reaches only one direction of its integral plane; we count those planes through their shortest vectors.

Lemma 2.4 (Unequal column bounds). Let R1≥R2≥R3≥1R_1 \ge R_2 \ge R_3 \ge1 and let t∈Z∖{0}t \in\mathbb{Z} \setminus\{0\}. The number of triples u1,u2,u3∈Z3u_1, u_2, u_3 \in\mathbb{Z}^3 satisfying ∣uj∣≤Rj|u_j| \le R_j and det⁡(u1,u2,u3)=t\det(u_1,u_2,u_3) = t is at most

C(R1R2R3)2(log⁡(2R1))2.C(R_1R_2R_3)^2(\log(2R_1))^2.

The constant is independent of tt and of the three radii.

Proof. The columns u2,u3u_2,u_3 are independent. Choose a primitive normal yy to their plane, fixing its sign by requiring its first nonzero coordinate to be positive. Then u2×u3=ayu_2 \times u_3 = ay for some nonzero integer aa, so ∣y∣≤R2R3|y| \le R_2R_3. If μ1,μ2\mu_1,\mu_2 are the successive lengths of LyL_y, the columns imply μ1≤R3\mu_1 \le R_3 and μ2≤R2\mu_2 \le R_2.

For fixed u2,u3u_2,u_3, the determinant equation is u1⋅y=t/au_1 \cdot y = t/a. Its integral solutions are either absent or form a translate of LyL_y. By Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3, at most CR12/∣y∣CR_1^2/|y| satisfy the first-column bound; the required hypothesis is μ2≤R2≤R1\mu_2 \le R_2 \le R_1. For a fixed normal yy, there are likewise at most CR22/∣y∣CR_2^2/|y| choices for u2u_2.

First suppose μ2≤R3\mu_2 \le R_3. There are at most CR32/∣y∣CR_3^2/|y| choices for u3u_3. The resulting bound, summed over normals, is

C(R1R2R3)2∑y∈Z30<∣y∣≤R2R3∣y∣−3≪(R1R2R3)2log⁡(2R2R3).C(R_1R_2R_3)^2 \sum_{\substack{y \in\mathbb{Z}^3\\0<|y|\le R_2R_3}} |y|^{-3} \ll(R_1R_2R_3)^2\log(2R_2R_3).

The last estimate follows by splitting the integer vectors into dyadic shells; a shell of radius Y≥1Y \ge1 has O(Y3)O(Y^3) vectors.

It remains to treat μ2>R3\mu_2 > R_3. Group the normals by powers of two U,Z≥1U,Z \ge1 with

U≤μ1<2U,Z≤μ2<2Z.U \le\mu_1 < 2U,\qquad Z \le\mu_2 < 2Z.

Lemma 2.1 gives ∣y∣≍UZ|y| \asymp UZ. There are at most CU4Z2CU^4Z^2 normals in such a group. Indeed, choose a shortest nonzero vector z∈Lyz \in L_y. It is primitive in Z3\mathbb{Z}^3, because division by a common divisor would produce a shorter vector in LyL_y. Its length is in [U,2U)[U,2U), giving O(U3)O(U^3) choices. For each such zz, the possible normals lie in LzL_z and have length less than 4UZ4UZ. If ν1,ν2\nu_1,\nu_2 are the successive lengths of LzL_z, integrality gives ν1≥1\nu_1 \ge1, and the preceding lemmas give

ν2≤ν1ν2≤2∣z∣<4U≤4UZ.\nu_2 \le\nu_1\nu_2 \le2|z| < 4U \le4UZ.

Consequently Lemma 2.2, applied at radius 4UZ4UZ, bounds their number by C(UZ)2/∣z∣≤CUZ2C(UZ)^2/|z| \le CUZ^2. This proves the claimed normal count.

For each of these normals, all eligible third columns lie on the line of a shortest vector. Lemma 2.2 gives at most 1+2R3/μ1≪R3/U1+2R_3/\mu_1 \ll R_3/U choices, since U≤μ1≤R3U \le\mu_1 \le R_3. Thus the contribution of one dyadic group is at most

CU4Z2R12UZR22UZR3U=CR12R22R3U≤C(R1R2R3)2.CU^4Z^2\frac{R_1^2}{UZ}\frac{R_2^2}{UZ}\frac{R_3}{U}=CR_1^2R_2^2R_3U\le C(R_1R_2R_3)^2.

There are O(log⁡(2R3)log⁡(2R2))O(\log(2R_3)\log(2R_2)) groups, since 1≤U≤R31 \le U \le R_3 and 1≤Z≤R21 \le Z \le R_2. Combining both cases proves the assertion.

Proposition 2.5 (A fixed nonzero determinant). Let Λ⊆Z3\Lambda\subseteq\mathbb{Z}^3 have index II, let X≥2X \ge2, and suppose its third successive length satisfies λ3≤X\lambda_3 \le X. For every t∈Z∖{0}t \in\mathbb{Z} \setminus\{0\}, the number of 33 by 33 matrices with rows in Λ\Lambda, row lengths at most XX, and determinant tt is at most

C(log⁡(2X))2X6I2.C(\log(2X))^2\frac{X^6}{I^2}.

The constant is absolute.

Proof. Let VV be the matrix whose rows are the successive shortest vectors v1,v2,v3v_1,v_2,v_3, and let Λ0\Lambda_0 be their integer span. By Lemma 2.1,

m=[Λ:Λ0]=∣det⁡V∣I≤33/2.m=[\Lambda:\Lambda_0]=\frac{|\det V|}{I}\le3^{3/2}.

Since the finite group Λ/Λ0\Lambda/\Lambda_0 has order mm, each u∈Λu\in\Lambda has coordinates in m−1Zm^{-1}\mathbb{Z} relative to this basis. If u=∑jαjvju=\sum_j\alpha_jv_j and ∣u∣≤X|u|\le X, Cramer’s rule gives

∣αj∣≤X∏i≠jλi∣det⁡V∣≤33/2Xλj.|\alpha_j|\le\frac{X\prod_{i\ne j}\lambda_i}{|\det V|}\le3^{3/2}\frac{X}{\lambda_j}.

Thus the map A↦Q=mAV−1A\mapsto Q=mAV^{-1} is injective and takes the matrices under consideration to integral matrices. Their common determinant is m3t/det⁡V≠0m^3t/\det V\ne0. If this number is not an integer, there are no such matrices; otherwise Lemma 2.4 applies.

The jjth column of QQ has length at most Rj=C0X/λjR_j=C_0X/\lambda_j, where C0C_0 is an absolute constant chosen sufficiently large. These radii satisfy R1≥R2≥R3≥1R_1\ge R_2\ge R_3\ge1. Moreover, integrality of Λ\Lambda gives λj≥1\lambda_j\ge1, and Lemma 2.1 gives

Rj≤C0X,R1R2R3=C03X3λ1λ2λ3≤C03X3I.R_j\le C_0X,\qquad R_1R_2R_3=\frac{C_0^3X^3}{\lambda_1\lambda_2\lambda_3}\le\frac{C_0^3X^3}{I}.

The bound in Lemma 2.4 is therefore the claimed one.

A determinant obstruction from field norms

We construct random columns modulo a prime power, each carrying a label in a finite field. Three distinct labels will force the determinant residue to have no small integer representative. The construction first expresses a field norm as a sum of determinants, then places these summands at one specified coefficient in a base expansion.

The norm polynomial

Fix

d=41,M=(4d−1d),T=(M3),k=T2+1.d = 41,\qquad M = \binom{4d-1}{d},\qquad T = \binom{M}{3},\qquad k = T^2 + 1.

Let rr be an odd prime. We recall the elementary finite-field facts needed here; see [11] for background. In a splitting field over Fr\mathbb{F}_r, the roots of Xrd−XX^{r^d}-X form a field: the Frobenius identity shows closure under addition, subtraction and multiplication, and nonzero roots are closed under inversion. The derivative is −1-1, so there are exactly rdr^d distinct roots. This field, denoted K=FrdK=\mathbb{F}_{r^d}, consequently has dimension dd over Fr\mathbb{F}_r. Its automorphism t↦trt\mapsto t^r has ddth power equal to the identity, and its fixed elements are exactly the rr roots of Xr−XX^r-X, namely Fr\mathbb{F}_r. For t∈Kt\in K, the product ∏j=0d−1trj\prod_{j=0}^{d-1}t^{r^j} is therefore fixed by Frobenius and belongs to Fr\mathbb{F}_r; it is nonzero if t≠0t\ne0. Choose an Fr\mathbb{F}_r-basis β1,…,βd\beta_1,\ldots,\beta_d of KK. For a group X=(Xiν)1≤i≤3, 1≤ν≤dX=(X_{i\nu})_{1\le i\le3,\,1\le\nu\le d} of 3d3d variables, define

Z(X)=(∑ν=1dβνX1ν,∑ν=1dβνX2ν,∑ν=1dβνX3ν)T.Z(X)=\left(\sum_{\nu=1}^{d}\beta_\nu X_{1\nu},\sum_{\nu=1}^{d}\beta_\nu X_{2\nu},\sum_{\nu=1}^{d}\beta_\nu X_{3\nu}\right)^{\mathrm T}.

For three disjoint variable groups X(1),X(2),X(3)X^{(1)},X^{(2)},X^{(3)}, put

D=det⁡(Z(X(1)),Z(X(2)),Z(X(3))).\mathcal{D}=\det\left(Z(X^{(1)}),Z(X^{(2)}),Z(X^{(3)})\right).

Let σ\sigma act on this polynomial ring by applying c↦crc\mapsto c^r to coefficients in KK and fixing every variable. Define

N(X(1),X(2),X(3))=∏j=0d−1σj(D).(1)\mathcal{N}(X^{(1)},X^{(2)},X^{(3)})=\prod_{j=0}^{d-1}\sigma^j(\mathcal{D}). \tag*{(1)}

The action of σ\sigma permutes the factors, so N\mathcal{N} has coefficients in Fr\mathbb{F}_r. It is homogeneous of degree dd in each group. At arguments in Fr3d\mathbb{F}_r^{3d}, it evaluates to the field norm of the corresponding determinant:

N(U(1),U(2),U(3))=Nm⁡K/Frdet⁡(Z(U(1)),Z(U(2)),Z(U(3))),\mathcal{N}(U^{(1)},U^{(2)},U^{(3)})=\operatorname{Nm}_{K/\mathbb{F}_r}\det\left(Z(U^{(1)}),Z(U^{(2)}),Z(U^{(3)})\right),
Nm⁡K/Fr(t)=∏j=0d−1trj.\operatorname{Nm}_{K/\mathbb{F}_r}(t)=\prod_{j=0}^{d-1}t^{r^j}.

Indeed, coefficient conjugation commutes with evaluation at such arguments. Transposing two variable groups changes the sign of each factor in (2). Since dd is odd, N\mathcal{N} is alternating.

Lemma 3.1. There exist homogeneous degree-dd polynomials fia∈Fr[X]f_{ia}\in\mathbb{F}_r[X] (allowing the zero polynomial), for 1≤i≤31\le i\le3 and 0≤a<T0\le a<T, such that

N(X(1),X(2),X(3))=∑a=0T−1det⁡(fia(X(j)))1≤i,j≤3.(2)\mathcal{N}(X^{(1)},X^{(2)},X^{(3)})=\sum_{a=0}^{T-1}\det\left(f_{ia}(X^{(j)})\right)_{1\le i,j\le3}. \tag*{(2)}

For each aa, the three polynomials are obtained from three distinct degree-dd monomials by multiplying the first by a scalar that may be zero.

Proof. List the degree-dd monomials in 3d3d variables as m1,…,mMm_1,\ldots,m_M. Expand N\mathcal{N} in products mp(X(1))mq(X(2))ms(X(3))m_p(X^{(1)})m_q(X^{(2)})m_s(X^{(3)}). If two of p,q,sp,q,s coincide, the coefficient equals its negative under the corresponding transposition, and hence is zero because rr is odd. For each p<q<sp<q<s, let cpqsc_{pqs} be the coefficient of mp(X(1))mq(X(2))ms(X(3))m_p(X^{(1)})m_q(X^{(2)})m_s(X^{(3)}). Alternation identifies the other five coefficients with the signs in

cpqsdet⁡(mp(X(1))mp(X(2))mp(X(3))mq(X(1))mq(X(2))mq(X(3))ms(X(1))ms(X(2))ms(X(3))).c_{pqs}\det\begin{pmatrix} m_p(X^{(1)}) & m_p(X^{(2)}) & m_p(X^{(3)}) \\ m_q(X^{(1)}) & m_q(X^{(2)}) & m_q(X^{(3)}) \\ m_s(X^{(1)}) & m_s(X^{(2)}) & m_s(X^{(3)}) \end{pmatrix}.

Enumerate the TT triples p<q<sp<q<s by aa, and take

(f1a,f2a,f3a)=(cpqsmp,mq,ms).(f_{1a},f_{2a},f_{3a})=(c_{pqs}m_p,m_q,m_s).

This argument uses no division by 3!3!, so it applies also when r=3r=3.

For a label ξ∈K\xi\in K, set z(ξ)=(1,ξ,ξ2)Tz(\xi)=(1,\xi,\xi^2)^{\mathsf{T}} and let X(ξ)∈Fr3dX(\xi)\in\mathbb{F}_r^{3d} be its coordinates in the chosen basis, so that Z(X(ξ))=z(ξ)Z(X(\xi))=z(\xi). The Vandermonde determinant gives

N(X(ξ1),X(ξ2),X(ξ3))=Nm⁡K/Fr(∏1≤i<j≤3(ξj−ξi))≠0(3)\mathcal{N}(X(\xi_1),X(\xi_2),X(\xi_3))=\operatorname{Nm}_{K/\mathbb{F}_r}\left(\prod_{1\le i<j\le3}(\xi_j-\xi_i)\right)\ne0 \tag*{(3)}

whenever the three labels are distinct. Although the basis and the coefficients fiaf_{ia} may depend on rr, the numbers d,M,T,kd,M,T,k in (3.1) do not.

Encoding the polynomial in a base expansion

Two prime choices will keep the construction parameters polynomial in rr. We use the following sufficiently-large form of Bertrand’s postulate; Appendix A gives its elementary binomial proof, following Erdős [7].

Lemma 3.2. For every sufficiently large integer nn, there is a prime pp with n<p≤2nn<p\le2n.

Set L=r10L=r^{10}. For all sufficiently large rr, apply Lemma 3.2 with n=100k2L3n=100k^2L^3 to choose a prime BB satisfying

100k2L3<B≤200k2L3,h=Bk,τ=⌊Bk−12⌋,Rh=Z/hZ.(4)100k^2L^3<B\le200k^2L^3,\qquad h=B^k,\qquad\tau=\left\lfloor\frac{B^{k-1}}{2}\right\rfloor,\qquad R_h=\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}. \tag*{(4)}

For 0≤a<T0\le a<T, designate positions in rows 1,2,31,2,3, respectively, by

ia=a,ja=Ta,ℓa=T2−(T+1)a.i_a=a,\qquad j_a=Ta,\qquad\ell_a=T^2-(T+1)a.

These positions lie in {0,…,k−1}\{0,\ldots,k-1\} and are distinct within each row: they lie respectively in the intervals [0,T−1][0,T-1], [0,T2−T][0,T^2-T], and [1,T2][1,T^2]. The only designated positions whose sum is k−1k-1 are the matched triples:

ia+ja′+ℓa′′=k−1⟺a=a′=a′′.i_a+j_{a'}+\ell_{a''}=k-1\quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad a=a'=a''.

To prove the forward implication, rewrite the equation as a+Ta′=(T+1)a′′a+Ta'=(T+1)a''. Reduction modulo TT, together with 0≤a,a′′<T0\le a,a''<T, gives a=a′′a=a''; substitution then gives a′=a′′a'=a''. The reverse implication follows from (3.6).

A random column c=(c1,c2,c3)T∈Rh3c=(c_1,c_2,c_3)^{\mathsf{T}}\in R_h^3 is now defined as follows. First choose ξ\xi uniformly from KK. For each row 1≤i≤31\le i\le3 and each position 0≤v<k0\le v<k, choose an integer digit civ∈{1,…,L}c_{iv}\in\{1,\ldots,L\}. Its required residue modulo rr is f1a(X(ξ))f_{1a}(X(\xi)) when (i,v)=(1,ia)(i,v)=(1,i_a), f2a(X(ξ))f_{2a}(X(\xi)) when (i,v)=(2,ja)(i,v)=(2,j_a), and f3a(X(ξ))f_{3a}(X(\xi)) when (i,v)=(3,ℓa)(i,v)=(3,\ell_a). At every other position its required residue is zero. Conditional on ξ\xi, choose all 3k3k digits independently and uniformly subject to these requirements, and set

ci=∑v=0k−1civBv(modh).c_i=\sum_{v=0}^{k-1}c_{iv}B^v \pmod h.

Every required residue has exactly L/r=r9L/r=r^9 possible digits, including the zero residue. In particular a digit prescribed to be zero modulo rr is still a positive integer. Since L<BL<B, the lowest digit is a unit modulo BB; thus every entry of cc is a unit in RhR_h. Different columns use independent labels and fresh independent digits, even when their labels coincide.

Lemma 3.3 (Determinant obstruction). Let CC be a matrix of three columns constructed by (3.8), with labels ξ1,ξ2,ξ3\xi_1,\xi_2,\xi_3. If these labels are distinct, then the residue det⁡C∈Rh\det C\in R_h has no integer representative in [−τ,τ][-\tau,\tau].

Proof. Write civ(j)c_{iv}^{(j)} for the digit at row ii, position vv, in column jj. Form the integer polynomial

F(Y)=det⁡(∑v=0k−1civ(j)Yv)1≤i,j≤3=∑u=03(k−1)γuYu.F(Y)=\det\left(\sum_{v=0}^{k-1}c_{iv}^{(j)}Y^v\right)_{1\le i,j\le3} =\sum_{u=0}^{3(k-1)}\gamma_uY^u.

For a fixed exponent uu and each of the six determinant permutations, choosing the first two digit positions determines the third. Therefore

∣γu∣≤A0:=6k2L3.(5)\lvert\gamma_u\rvert\le A_0:=6k^2L^3. \tag*{(5)}

Alternatively expanding by rows, γk−1\gamma_{k-1} is the sum of determinants of digit rows at positions whose sum is k−1k-1. Modulo rr, all terms with an undesignated position vanish. By (3.7), the surviving terms are exactly those in (2), evaluated at the three label vectors. Consequently

γk−1≡N(X(ξ1),X(ξ2),X(ξ3))(modr),\gamma_{k-1}\equiv\mathcal{N}(X(\xi_1),X(\xi_2),X(\xi_3))\pmod r,

which is nonzero by (3). In particular ∣γk−1∣≥1\lvert\gamma_{k-1}\rvert\ge1 as an integer.

The integer

SC=∑u=0k−1γuBuS_C=\sum_{u=0}^{k-1}\gamma_uB^u

represents det⁡C\det C modulo hh, because all omitted terms in F(B)F(B) are divisible by BkB^k. Since B−1≥100k2L3B-1\ge100k^2L^3, the coefficient bound gives

∣SC∣≤A0B−1(h−1)≤350(h−1)<h2.(6)\lvert S_C\rvert\le\frac{A_0}{B-1}(h-1)\le\frac{3}{50}(h-1)<\frac{h}{2}. \tag*{(6)}
∣∑u=0k−2γuBu∣≤350(Bk−1−1).(7)\left\lvert\sum_{u=0}^{k-2}\gamma_uB^u\right\rvert\le\frac{3}{50}(B^{k-1}-1). \tag*{(7)}

It follows that

∣SC∣≥Bk−1−350(Bk−1−1)=47Bk−1+350>τ.\lvert S_C\rvert\ge B^{k-1}-\frac{3}{50}(B^{k-1}-1)=\frac{47B^{k-1}+3}{50}>\tau.

By (6), every other representative SC+mhS_C+mh, m∈Z∖{0}m\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus\{0\}, has absolute value greater than h/2>τh/2>\tau. This proves the assertion.

In particular, if G∈SL⁡3(Rh)G\in\operatorname{SL}_3(R_h) and an integer matrix AA satisfies A mod h=GCA\bmod h=GC and ∣det⁡A∣≤τ\lvert\det A\rvert\le\tau, then at least two labels of CC coincide: multiplication by GG preserves its determinant residue. For three independently sampled labels, the probability of such a coincidence is at most 3r−d3r^{-d} by the union bound.

Residue orbits and a conditional divisor estimate

We now describe the lattice of possible rows after a change of coordinates modulo a prime power. The size of the corresponding special-linear orbit will control the probability of a prescribed lifted matrix. Two divisors measure the singularity of the residue matrix; the smaller one has bounded expectation even after all three labels have been fixed.

Throughout this section, let BB be a prime, let k≥1k \ge1 be an integer, and put h=Bkh = B^k and Rh=Z/hZR_h = \mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}. We interpret BkB^k as zero when it occurs as an entry of a matrix over RhR_h, but as the positive integer hh in counting formulas. The row span of a matrix over RhR_h is the RhR_h-submodule generated by its rows.

The diagonal reduction below is the prime-power-ring form of Smith’s normal form; see Smith [17], Articles 12–16 for the classical integer reduction and determinantal divisors. We include the elementary proof needed here, including singular cases.

Lemma 4.1 (Diagonal form and the row lattice). Let C∈M3(Rh)C \in M_3(R_h) have at least one unit entry. There are invertible matrices P,Q∈GL⁡3(Rh)P,Q \in\operatorname{GL}_3(R_h) and integers $0 \le b \le e \le k$ such that

C=Pdiag⁡(1,Bb,Be)Q.C = P \operatorname{diag}(1,B^b,B^e) Q.

Set D=BbD = B^b, E=BeE = B^e, and I=DEI = DE, all as positive integers. The subgroup

ΛC={v∈Z3:v mod h belongs to the row span of C}\Lambda_C = \{v \in\mathbb{Z}^3 : v \bmod h \text{ belongs to the row span of } C\}

is a full lattice satisfying

[Z3:ΛC]=I,EZ3⊆ΛC.(8)[\mathbb{Z}^3 : \Lambda_C] = I, \qquad E\mathbb{Z}^3 \subseteq\Lambda_C. \tag*{(8)}

Moreover, b≥jb \ge j, for 1≤j≤k1 \le j \le k, if and only if every 2×22 \times2 minor of CC vanishes modulo BjB^j.

Proof. Move a unit entry into the first position, scale it to 11, and clear the rest of its row and column by invertible operations. In the remaining 2×22 \times2 block choose a nonzero entry of least BB-adic valuation bb, move it to the first position of that block, and multiply by a unit to make it BbB^b. Every other entry of the block is divisible by BbB^b in RhR_h, so row and column subtraction clear its row and column. The final entry is still divisible by BbB^b; scaling it by a unit makes it BeB^e with b≤e≤kb \le e \le k. If the block is zero, take b=e=kb = e = k. This proves the stated form, including all zero-pivot cases.

Invertible row and column operations preserve the ideal generated by the 2×22 \times2 minors: each new minor is a linear combination of old minors, and the inverse operations give the reverse inclusion. For the diagonal matrix this ideal is BbRhB^bR_h. Its image modulo BjB^j is zero exactly when b≥jb \ge j, proving the last assertion and, in particular, showing that bb is independent of the diagonalization.

Write M\mathcal{M} for the row span of CC. Left multiplication by PP does not change the row span, while multiplication on the right by QQ is an automorphism of Rh3R_h^3. Hence

∣M∣=∣Rh×DRh×ERh∣=hhDhE=h3I.|\mathcal{M}| = |R_h \times DR_h \times ER_h| = h\frac{h}{D}\frac{h}{E} = \frac{h^3}{I}.

The reduction map identifies Z3/ΛC\mathbb{Z}^3/\Lambda_C with Rh3/MR_h^3/\mathcal{M}, which proves the index formula. Since DD divides EE, the diagonal row span contains ERh3ER_h^3. Right multiplication by QQ preserves ERh3ER_h^3, so M\mathcal{M} also contains ERh3ER_h^3. Taking inverse images proves the containment in (4.1). □\square

The preceding description permits singular matrices: either or both of the last two diagonal entries may be zero. The orbit estimate must retain these cases, because zero determinants are included in the triangle problem.

Lemma 4.2 (A special-linear orbit bound). Under the hypotheses and notation of Lemma 4.1, define

OC={GC:G∈SL3(Rh)}.\mathcal{O}_C=\{GC:G\in\mathrm{SL}_3(R_h)\}.

There is an absolute constant c0>0c_0>0 such that

∣OC∣≥c0h8D3E2.(9)|\mathcal{O}_C|\ge c_0\frac{h^8}{D^3E^2}. \tag*{(9)}

For a uniformly chosen G∈SL3(Rh)G\in\mathrm{SL}_3(R_h), the matrix GCGC is uniform on OC\mathcal{O}_C. Every matrix in this orbit has the same row span and determinant as CC.

Proof. Let G=GL3(Rh)\mathcal{G}=\mathrm{GL}_3(R_h), and let H\mathcal{H} be the stabilizer of CC under left multiplication. Conjugation by PP identifies H\mathcal{H} with the stabilizer of diag⁡(1,D,E)\operatorname{diag}(1,D,E) and preserves determinants. An element of this latter stabilizer has first column exactly (1,0,0)T(1,0,0)^{\mathsf T}. Its second column differs from (0,1,0)T(0,1,0)^{\mathsf T} by three entries annihilated by DD, and its third column differs from (0,0,1)T(0,0,1)^{\mathsf T} by three entries annihilated by EE. The respective annihilators have DD and EE elements. Discarding the invertibility condition gives

∣H∣≤D3E3.(10)|\mathcal{H}|\le D^3E^3. \tag*{(10)}

For every unit u∈Rh×u\in R_h^\times with u≡1(modh/E)u\equiv1\pmod{h/E}, the matrix diag⁡(1,1,u)\operatorname{diag}(1,1,u) stabilizes diag⁡(1,D,E)\operatorname{diag}(1,D,E). If e<ke<k, there are exactly EE such units. If e=ke=k, this congruence imposes no restriction, so there are φ(h)=(1−B−1)E\varphi(h)=(1-B^{-1})E of them. Consequently, in all cases,

∣det⁡H∣≥(1−B−1)E,∣det⁡H∣∣Rh×∣≥Eh.(11)|\det\mathcal{H}|\ge(1-B^{-1})E,\qquad\frac{|\det\mathcal{H}|}{|R_h^\times|}\ge\frac{E}{h}. \tag*{(11)}

Here det⁡H\det\mathcal{H} denotes the image of the determinant homomorphism on H\mathcal{H}. The determinant map from G\mathcal{G} onto Rh×R_h^\times has kernel SL3(Rh)\mathrm{SL}_3(R_h). Applying the orbit–stabilizer formula in these two groups gives the exact identity

∣OC∣∣GC∣=∣det⁡H∣∣Rh×∣.\frac{|\mathcal{O}_C|}{|\mathcal{G}C|}=\frac{|\det\mathcal{H}|}{|R_h^\times|}.

Reduction modulo BB shows that

∣G∣=h9(1−B−1)(1−B−2)(1−B−3)≥2164h9.|\mathcal{G}|=h^9(1-B^{-1})(1-B^{-2})(1-B^{-3})\ge\frac{21}{64}h^9.

Together with (4.3) and (4.4), this proves (4.2), for example with c0=21/64c_0=21/64. Every fiber of the map G→GC\mathcal{G}\to GC is a coset of its stabilizer, which proves uniformity. The assertions about row spans and determinants follow directly from invertibility and det⁡G=1\det G=1.

We next estimate the smaller divisor DD for digit columns. Only the independence and number of digit choices matter here; their prescribed residues may be arbitrary functions of the labels.

Lemma 4.3 (Conditional digit estimate). Let r,Lr,L be positive integers with r≥2r\ge2, r∣Lr\mid L, and L<BL<B. Let L\mathcal{L} be a label set, and for each λ∈L\lambda\in\mathcal{L}, 1≤i≤31\le i\le3, and 0≤u<k0\le u<k, prescribe a residue aiu(λ)∈Z/rZa_{iu}(\lambda)\in\mathbb{Z}/r\mathbb{Z}. Fix any three labels λ1,λ2,λ3\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3, allowing repetitions. Independently for every i,j,ui,j,u, choose dijud_{iju} uniformly from

{a∈{1,…,L}:a≡aiu(λj)(modr)},\{a\in\{1,\ldots,L\}:a\equiv a_{iu}(\lambda_j)\pmod r\},

and define C∈M3(Rh)C \in M_3(R_h) by

Cij=∑u=0k−1dijuBu(modh).C_{ij}=\sum_{u=0}^{k-1}d_{iju}B^u \pmod{h}.

Let bb and D=BbD=B^b be as in Lemma 4.1, and put θ=B(r/L)4\theta=B(r/L)^4. Then, for every 1≤j≤k1\le j\le k,

Pr⁡(b≥j∣λ1,λ2,λ3)≤(r/L)4j.(12)\Pr(b\ge j\mid\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3)\le(r/L)^{4j}. \tag*{(12)}

If θ<1\theta<1, then

E[D∣λ1,λ2,λ3]≤1+∑j=1kθj≤11−θ.(13)\mathbb{E}[D\mid\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3]\le1+\sum_{j=1}^{k}\theta^j\le\frac{1}{1-\theta}. \tag*{(13)}

Proof. Every prescribed digit set has exactly L/rL/r elements. Since the lowest digit belongs to {1,…,L}\{1,\ldots,L\} and L<BL<B, every entry of CC is a unit in RhR_h.

In addition to the three labels, condition on the complete first column of CC and the first entries of its other two columns. If b≥jb\ge j, Lemma 4.1 implies, for i,v∈{2,3}i,v\in\{2,3\},

Civ≡Ci1C11−1C1v(modBj).C_{iv}\equiv C_{i1}C_{11}^{-1}C_{1v}\pmod{B^j}.

The right sides are fixed under this conditioning. Each congruence determines the first jj base-BB digits of its entry, since all chosen digits lie between 00 and B−1B-1. It therefore has probability either zero or (r/L)j(r/L)^j. The four entries use disjoint independent digit draws, even if their labels agree. Their joint probability is at most (r/L)4j(r/L)^{4j}. Averaging over the additional conditioning proves (12), including j=kj=k.

Finally, the pointwise identity

Bb=1+∑j=1k(Bj−Bj−1)1{b≥j}B^b=1+\sum_{j=1}^{k}(B^j-B^{j-1})\mathbf{1}_{\{b\ge j\}}

and (12) give (13).

For the parameters L=r10L=r^{10} and B≤200k2L3B\le200k^2L^3 of the digit construction, we have

θ≤200k2r−6.\theta\le200k^2r^{-6}.

Thus, for fixed kk and all sufficiently large rr,

E[D∣λ1,λ2,λ3]≤2for every fixed triple of labels.(14)\mathbb{E}[D\mid\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_3]\le2\quad\text{for every fixed triple of labels}. \tag*{(14)}

In particular, suppose the labels are independent and uniform in a set of size rdr^d, and let E\mathcal{E} be the event that at least two labels coincide. The union bound and conditioning on the labels yield

E[D1E]≤2Pr⁡(E)≤6r−d.(15)\mathbb{E}[D\mathbf{1}_{\mathcal{E}}]\le2\Pr(\mathcal{E})\le6r^{-d}. \tag*{(15)}

This is the estimate needed when the digit obstruction restricts a small determinant to triples with repeated labels.

An auxiliary cap and its inclusion probabilities

The determinant obstruction at the main modulus leaves triples with repeated labels. We now impose an independent restriction at a second prime. This restriction excludes short integer relations among three distinct residue columns and gives bounds for the probability of each remaining triple, including triples with equal residue columns.

Retain the main modulus h≥2h \ge2, and choose a prime qq with

H=h2,h100<q≤2h100,w=⌊q1000H2⌋.H = h^2,\qquad h^{100} < q \le2h^{100},\qquad w = \left\lfloor\frac{q}{1000H^2} \right\rfloor.

Lemma 3.2 supplies such a prime for all sufficiently large hh. These choices imply q≥2000H2q \ge2000H^2, and hence

q2000H2≤w≤q1000H2.\frac{q}{2000H^2} \le w \le\frac{q}{1000H^2}.

We identify the integers 0,…,w−10,\ldots,w-1 with their residues in Fq\mathbb{F}_q.

The following construction uses an affine part of a classical elliptic quadric, a cap with no three collinear points; see Barlotti [2]. The proof also gives the required intersection with a small box.

Lemma 5.1. Let qq be an odd prime and 1≤w≤q1 \le w \le q an integer. There is a set S⊂{0,…,w−1}3⊂Fq3S \subset\{0,\ldots,w-1\}^3 \subset\mathbb{F}_q^3 with ∣S∣≥w3/q|S| \ge w^3/q such that no affine line contains three distinct points of SS.

Proof. Choose a nonsquare ν∈Fq\nu\in\mathbb{F}_q and put

Q(x,y)=x2−νy2,Γ={(x,y,Q(x,y)):x,y∈Fq}.Q(x,y)=x^2-\nu y^2,\qquad\Gamma=\{(x,y,Q(x,y)):x,y\in\mathbb{F}_q\}.

The form QQ vanishes only at (0,0)(0,0). On a line with nonzero direction (v1,v2)(v_1,v_2) in its first two coordinates, the equation defining Γ\Gamma is a quadratic equation in the line parameter with nonzero leading coefficient Q(v1,v2)Q(v_1,v_2). Such a line meets Γ\Gamma at most twice. A line with direction (0,0,v3)(0,0,v_3) meets Γ\Gamma exactly once. Thus Γ\Gamma, and every translate of it, has the asserted line property.

For a uniform b∈Fq3b \in\mathbb{F}_q^3, every point belongs to b+Γb+\Gamma with probability ∣Γ∣/q3=1/q|\Gamma|/q^3=1/q. Therefore the average of ∣(b+Γ)∩{0,…,w−1}3∣|(b+\Gamma)\cap\{0,\ldots,w-1\}^3| is w3/qw^3/q. Choose a translate attaining at least this average and take its intersection with the box. □

Fix one such set SS for the parameters in (5.1), and write s=∣S∣s=|S|. In particular,

s≥w3q≥q220003H6.s \ge\frac{w^3}{q} \ge\frac{q^2}{2000^3H^6}.

The set SS is fixed before any random choices are made.

For t∈Fqt\in\mathbb{F}_q, write ∥t∥q\|t\|_q for the least absolute value of an integer representative of tt. Three distinct cap points already exclude nontrivial relations over Fq\mathbb{F}_q whose coefficients sum to zero. For a shift a∈Fq3a\in\mathbb{F}_q^3, a relation among three points of a+Sa+S with integer coefficients ∣xi∣≤H|x_i|\le H and nonzero sum m=x1+x2+x3m=x_1+x_2+x_3 would force ∥ma1∥q≤3Hw\|ma_1\|_q\le3Hw. We exclude this possibility by defining the set of allowed shifts

A={a∈Fq3:∥ma1∥q>3Hw for every 1≤m≤3H}.(16)A=\{a\in\mathbb{F}_q^3:\|ma_1\|_q>3Hw\text{ for every }1\le m\le3H\}. \tag*{(16)}

Choose aa uniformly from AA, and independently choose GqG_q uniformly from GL⁡3(Fq)\operatorname{GL}_3(\mathbb{F}_q). Our auxiliary set is

V=Gq(a+S).V=G_q(a+S).

Here and below a triple u(1),u(2),u(3)u^{(1)},u^{(2)},u^{(3)} is affinely independent if u(2)−u(1)u^{(2)}-u^{(1)} and u(3)−u(1)u^{(3)}-u^{(1)} are linearly independent. This allows the three columns to have linear rank two.

Lemma 5.2. Let H≥1H \ge1 be an integer, let q≥2000H2q \ge2000H^2 be prime, and put w=⌊q/(1000H2)⌋w = \lfloor q/(1000H^2) \rfloor. Suppose S⊂{0,…,w−1}3S \subset\{0,\ldots,w-1\}^3 contains no three distinct collinear points. The set AA in (16) has at least q3/2q^3/2 elements. For every a∈Aa \in A and every invertible GqG_q, the set VV in (5.4) has ∣S∣|S| elements, does not contain zero, and contains no three distinct collinear points.

Moreover, let x=(x1,x2,x3)∈Z3∖{0}x = (x_1,x_2,x_3) \in\mathbb{Z}^3 \setminus\{0\} satisfy ∣x∣≤H|x| \le H, where ∣x∣|x| is the Euclidean norm. For any u(1),u(2),u(3)∈Vu^{(1)},u^{(2)},u^{(3)} \in V, the relation

x1u(1)+x2u(2)+x3u(3)=0in Fq3(17)x_1u^{(1)}+x_2u^{(2)}+x_3u^{(3)}=0 \quad\text{in } \mathbb{F}_q^3 \tag*{(17)}

is impossible if x1+x2+x3≠0x_1+x_2+x_3 \ne0. If x1+x2+x3=0x_1+x_2+x_3=0, it is impossible whenever the three columns are affinely independent. Consequently, (17) is impossible for three distinct elements of VV.

Proof. For each integer 1≤m≤3H<q1 \le m \le3H < q, multiplication by mm permutes Fq\mathbb{F}_q. Since 3Hw<q/23Hw<q/2, a uniform shift violates the condition for this mm with probability (6Hw+1)/q(6Hw+1)/q. The union bound gives

Pr⁡(a∉A)≤3H(6Hw+1)q≤181000+32000H<12.\Pr(a \notin A) \le\frac{3H(6Hw+1)}{q} \le\frac{18}{1000}+\frac{3}{2000H}<\frac{1}{2}.

Thus the required uniform choice of aa is defined. Invertible affine maps preserve cardinality and the line property. If a+v=0a+v=0 for some v∈Sv \in S, then ∥a1∥q≤w−1≤3Hw\lVert a_1\rVert_q \le w-1 \le3Hw, contrary to the condition with m=1m=1. Hence 0∉V0 \notin V.

Write u(i)=Gq(a+v(i))u^{(i)}=G_q(a+v^{(i)}) with v(i)∈Sv^{(i)}\in S, and let m=x1+x2+x3m=x_1+x_2+x_3. If m≠0m\ne0, then 1≤∣m∣≤3H1\le|m|\le3H. Applying Gq−1G_q^{-1} to (17) and taking first coordinates gives

ma1=−∑i=13xiv1(i).ma_1=-\sum_{i=1}^{3}x_iv_1^{(i)}.

The integer on the right, using the representatives 0≤v1(i)<w0\le v_1^{(i)}<w, has absolute value at most 3H(w−1)3H(w-1). Since ∥ma1∥q=∥∣m∣a1∥q\lVert ma_1\rVert_q=\lVert|m|a_1\rVert_q, this contradicts (16).

If m=0m=0, the coefficients in (17) have sum zero also in Fq\mathbb{F}_q. They are not all zero there, since x≠0x\ne0 and ∣xi∣≤H<q|x_i|\le H<q. Such a relation contradicts affine independence: substituting x3=−x1−x2x_3=-x_1-x_2 would give a nontrivial linear relation between u(1)−u(3)u^{(1)}-u^{(3)} and u(2)−u(3)u^{(2)}-u^{(3)}. Finally, three distinct elements of VV are affinely independent by the line property.

The restricted shift excludes short relations. We next show that this restriction costs only a constant in the inclusion probability of an affinely independent triple, and obtain the weaker bounds needed when residue columns coincide.

For an integer 3×33\times3 matrix AA, define

W(A)=(q3s)3Pr⁡(all columns of A mod q belong to V).(18)W(A)=\left(\frac{q^3}{s}\right)^3\Pr(\text{all columns of }A\mathbin{\bmod}q\text{ belong to }V). \tag*{(18)}

The probability is over aa and GqG_q; SS remains fixed.

Proposition 5.3. For the distribution in (5.4), with s=∣S∣≥1s=|S|\ge1, the following bounds hold with absolute constants:

W(A)≪1if the columns of A mod q are affinely independent,W(A)≪q3/sif rank⁡(A mod q)≥2,W(A)≪(q3/s)2for every A.(19)\begin{aligned} W(A)&\ll1 &&\text{if the columns of } A\mathbin{\bmod}q\text{ are affinely independent},\\ W(A)&\ll q^3/s &&\text{if }\operatorname{rank}(A\mathbin{\bmod}q)\ge2,\\ W(A)&\ll(q^3/s)^2 &&\text{for every } A. \tag*{(19)} \end{aligned}

If W(A)>0W(A)>0, no column of A mod qA\mathbin{\bmod}q is zero, and its columns are either affinely independent or include two equal columns. For an affinely independent triple with W(A)>0W(A)>0, there is no nonzero x∈Z3x\in\mathbb{Z}^3 with ∣x∣≤H|x|\le H and Ax=0(modq)Ax=0\pmod q.

Proof. First replace the allowed shift by an unconditional uniform a∈Fq3a \in\mathbb{F}_q^3. Under this replacement the map v↦Gqv+Gqav \mapsto G_qv + G_qa is uniform in the affine group: conditional on GqG_q, its translation GqaG_qa is uniform. Conditioning back on a∈Aa \in\mathcal{A} increases the probability of any event by at most two, by Lemma [5].

The affine group acts transitively on the ordered affinely independent triples in Fq3\mathbb{F}_q^3, whose number is

q3(q3−1)(q3−q).q^3(q^3-1)(q^3-q).

There are s(s−1)(s−2)s(s-1)(s-2) such triples in SS. Therefore, for an affinely independent triple of columns,

W(A)≤2q9s3s(s−1)(s−2)q3(q3−1)(q3−q)≪1.W(A) \le2\frac{q^9}{s^3}\frac{s(s-1)(s-2)}{q^3(q^3-1)(q^3-q)} \ll1.

For the other two bounds, fix any allowed aa and put Sa=a+SS_a=a+S. If two specified target columns are linearly independent, their inverse images under a uniform GqG_q are uniform among the (q3−1)(q3−q)(q^3-1)(q^3-q) ordered independent pairs. At most s2s^2 of these pairs belong to Sa2S_a^2. Requiring all three columns to belong to GqSaG_qS_a can only reduce this probability. Consequently,

W(A)≤q9s3s2(q3−1)(q3−q)≪q3sW(A) \le\frac{q^9}{s^3}\frac{s^2}{(q^3-1)(q^3-q)} \ll\frac{q^3}{s}

whenever the target matrix has rank at least two. This estimate holds for each allowed shift, so also after averaging over aa.

If any target column is zero, its inclusion probability is zero. Otherwise fix one target column. Its inverse image under GqG_q is uniform among the q3−1q^3-1 nonzero vectors, and SaS_a consists of ss nonzero vectors. Thus

W(A)≤q9s3sq3−1≪(q3s)2.W(A) \le\frac{q^9}{s^3}\frac{s}{q^3-1} \ll\left(\frac{q^3}{s}\right)^2.

This also covers all patterns of equal columns. The remaining assertions follow from the line property and short-relation conclusion in Lemma [5].

In the sampling construction, choose (a,Gq)(a,G_q) independently of all labels, all digit choices, and the random change of coordinates at the main modulus. Given VV, choose the auxiliary residues of the sampled columns independently and uniformly from VV. Since ∣V∣=s|V|=s for every outcome, the probability of any prescribed ordered triple of auxiliary residues is

Pr⁡(all three residues belong to V)s3=W(A)q9,\frac{\Pr(\text{all three residues belong to }V)}{s^3}=\frac{W(A)}{q^9},

where AA is any integer lift of that triple. This identity includes repeated residues and is unchanged on conditioning on any main-modulus data. It is the normalization used when the two residue conditions are combined by the Chinese remainder theorem.

Sampling integral columns

We now combine the two residue constructions and lift them to integral columns. The purpose of this section is to express the probability of a small determinant as a weighted lattice count. The main and auxiliary changes of coordinates are shared by all samples; fresh labels, digits, auxiliary columns, and lifts are chosen for each sample.

Set

N=(hq)10,B=([0,N)2×[N,2N))∩Z3.(20)N=(hq)^{10},\qquad\mathcal{B}=([0,N)^2\times[N,2N))\cap\mathbb{Z}^3. \tag*{(20)}

For u∈Bu\in\mathcal{B}, define its projection by

π(u)=(u1/u3,u2/u3)∈[0,1)2.\pi(u)=(u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3)\in[0,1)^2.

Choose GhG_h uniformly in SL3(Z/hZ)\mathrm{SL}_3(\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}), independently of the auxiliary set VV. Conditional on (Gh,V)(G_h,V), sample columns u∈Bu\in\mathcal{B} independently as follows:

  1. Draw a label uniformly from KK and its digit column cc by the main-modulus construction, using fresh independent digit choices. Prescribe u mod h=Ghcu\bmod h=G_hc.

  1. Independently choose u mod qu\bmod q uniformly from VV.

  1. Among columns with those residues, choose uu uniformly in B\mathcal{B}.

Since hh and qq are coprime and hqhq divides NN, each pair of prescribed residues has exactly (N/(hq))3(N/(hq))^3 lifts. This also shows that the sampling rule is defined for every outcome of the residue choices. The samples need not be independent after averaging over (Gh,V)(G_h,V); all estimates below retain the shared choices.

Lemma 6.1 (Proportional pairs). For two sampled columns u,vu,v, one has

Pr⁡(π(u)=π(v))≪(hq)6N−3.\Pr(\pi(u)=\pi(v))\ll(hq)^6N^{-3}.

Proof. Equality of the projections is equivalent to proportionality of uu and vv, because their third coordinates are positive. Every column in B\mathcal{B} is a positive integer multiple of a unique primitive integral vector zz with z3>0z_3>0. The number of its multiples in B\mathcal{B} is at most 6N/∣z∣\sqrt{6N}/|z|. Therefore the total number of ordered proportional pairs in B2\mathcal{B}^2, including equal columns, is at most

6N2∑0<∣z∣≤6N∣z∣−2≪N3.6N^2\sum_{0<|z|\le\sqrt{6N}}|z|^{-2}\ll N^3.

For the last estimate, dyadic shells of radius RR contain O(R3)O(R^3) integral vectors and contribute O(R)O(R) to the sum.

Condition on both columns’ residues at both moduli and on the shared random choices. Their lifts are independent, each uniform on exactly (N/(hq))3(N/(hq))^3 columns. The preceding count bounds the number of proportional pairs within any two such sets of lifts. Dividing by (N/(hq))6(N/(hq))^6 and averaging proves the claim. □\square

For three samples, write A=(u(1),u(2),u(3))A=(u^{(1)},u^{(2)},u^{(3)}) for the integral matrix of columns, and C=(c(1),c(2),c(3))C=(c^{(1)},c^{(2)},c^{(3)}) for their digit matrix before multiplication by GhG_h. With CC fixed, use Lemma 4.1 to define D,E,I=DED,E,I=DE and the row lattice Λ=ΛC\Lambda=\Lambda_C, and write O=OC\mathcal{O}=\mathcal{O}_C for the orbit in Lemma 4.2. Thus Λ\Lambda is the inverse image in Z3\mathbb{Z}^3 of the row span of CC modulo hh, and O={GC:G∈SL3(Z/hZ)}\mathcal{O}=\{GC:G\in\mathrm{SL}_3(\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z})\}. Recall also the auxiliary weight from (5.6):

W(A)=(q3s)3Pr⁡(u(1),u(2),u(3) mod q∈V).W(A)=\left(\frac{q^3}{s}\right)^3\Pr(u^{(1)},u^{(2)},u^{(3)}\bmod q\in V).

Here the probability defining WW averages only over the auxiliary choices.

Lemma 6.2 (Exact lifting identity). Condition on all three labels and digit columns, hence on CC. For any set E⊆B3\mathcal{E} \subseteq\mathcal{B}^{3} of integral matrices,

Pr⁡(A∈E∣C, labels)=h9N9∣O∣∑A∈EAmodh∈OW(A).(21)\Pr(A \in\mathcal{E} \mid C,\text{ labels}) = \frac{h^{9}}{N^{9}|\mathcal{O}|}\sum_{\substack{A\in\mathcal{E}\\ A\bmod h\in\mathcal{O}}} W(A). \tag*{(21)}

Proof. The matrix GhCG_hC is uniform on O\mathcal{O}, since every point of an orbit has the same number of group elements mapping CC to it. Given VV, the three auxiliary residues are independent and uniform on its ss elements. Consequently, for each specified ordered triple of auxiliary residues, its probability is its inclusion probability in VV, divided by s3s^3. This remains true when some residues coincide. Independence of the main and auxiliary choices and the exact number of lifts give, for each fixed integral AA with A mod h∈OA\bmod h\in\mathcal{O}, the conditional probability

1∣O∣Pr⁡(A mod q has all columns in V)s3(hqN)9=h9N9∣O∣W(A).\frac{1}{|\mathcal{O}|}\frac{\Pr(A\bmod q\text{ has all columns in }V)}{s^3}\left(\frac{hq}{N}\right)^9 = \frac{h^9}{N^9|\mathcal{O}|}W(A).

For other matrices the probability is zero. Summation proves the identity.

We call a sampled triple bad if its projected points are pairwise distinct and ∣det⁡A∣≤τ|\det A|\leq\tau. Every matrix in O\mathcal{O} has determinant det⁡C\det C modulo hh. Since 2τ<h2\tau<h, at most one integer t∈[−τ,τ]t\in[-\tau,\tau] can occur as the determinant of a bad triple with A mod h∈OA\bmod h\in\mathcal{O}. If the labels are all distinct, Lemma 3.3 rules out every such tt.

The following estimate handles the one remaining determinant value. Its nonzero case follows immediately from the lattice count; the zero case requires the auxiliary construction and is proved in the next section.

Proposition 6.3 (Weighted count at a fixed determinant). Fix a digit matrix CC, with row lattice Λ\Lambda of index I=DEI=DE and special-linear orbit O\mathcal{O} modulo hh. For each integer tt with ∣t∣≤τ|t|\leq\tau, let At\mathcal{A}_t consist of the matrices AA whose columns lie in B\mathcal{B}, whose projected columns are pairwise distinct, and which satisfy A mod h∈OA\bmod h\in\mathcal{O} and det⁡A=t\det A=t. Then

∑A∈AtW(A)≪(log⁡(2N))2N6I2.(22)\sum_{A\in\mathcal{A}_t}W(A)\ll(\log(2N))^2\frac{N^6}{I^2}. \tag*{(22)}

Proof. Suppose first that t≠0t\ne0. Since 0<∣t∣≤τ<q0<|t|\leq\tau<q, the reduction of AA modulo qq has rank three. Its columns are therefore affinely independent, and Proposition 5.3 gives W(A)≪1W(A)\ll1. Every row of AA belongs to Λ\Lambda and has norm less than 4N4N. Moreover EZ3⊆ΛE\mathbb{Z}^3\subseteq\Lambda gives λ3(Λ)≤E≤h<4N\lambda_3(\Lambda)\leq E\leq h<4N. Proposition 2.5, applied with X=4NX=4N, proves the estimate.

For t=0t=0, Proposition 7.1 below proves the stronger bound O(log⁡(2N)N6/I2)O(\log(2N)N^6/I^2) for all matrices with rows in Λ\Lambda and pairwise distinct projected columns. The orbit restriction only reduces this set, so it gives the claimed estimate as well.

Corollary 6.4 (Probability of a bad triple). Three sampled columns satisfy

Pr⁡(π(u(1)),π(u(2)),π(u(3)) are pairwise distinct, ∣det⁡A∣≤τ)≪(log⁡(2N))2hN3rd.(23)\Pr\bigl(\pi(u^{(1)}),\pi(u^{(2)}),\pi(u^{(3)})\text{ are pairwise distinct},\ |\det A|\leq\tau\bigr)\ll(\log(2N))^2\frac{h}{N^3r_d}. \tag*{(23)}

Proof. Conditional on the labels and digit matrix CC, the probability is zero when all labels are distinct. Otherwise Lemma 6.2 and Proposition 6.3, together with the bound ∣O∣≫h8/(D3E2)|\mathcal{O}|\gg h^8/(D^3E^2) from (4.2), bound it by

h9N9D3E2h8(log⁡(2N))2N6D2E2≪(log⁡(2N))2hDN3.\frac{h^9}{N^9}\frac{D^3E^2}{h^8}(\log(2N))^2\frac{N^6}{D^2E^2}\ll(\log(2N))^2\frac{hD}{N^3}.

Let FF be the event that two of the three labels agree. The uniform conditional moment estimate (14) gives

E[D1F]=Elabels[1FE(D∣labels)]≪Pr⁡(F)≤3r−d.\mathbb{E}[D1_F]=\mathbb{E}_{\mathrm{labels}}[1_F\mathbb{E}(D\mid\mathrm{labels})]\ll\Pr(F)\le3r^{-d}.

This step uses the moment estimate for every fixed label triple, including repeated labels; the corresponding digit draws remain independent. Averaging the conditional bound proves the corollary.

Counting determinant-zero triples

The remaining part of the weighted count concerns collinear projected points. We organize these triples by their integral linear relation. The auxiliary modulus excludes short relations when the three residues are affinely independent. When two residues coincide, the equality usually imposes an additional lattice condition; the relations for which it does not are sufficiently sparse.

Keep the digit matrix CC fixed, and write Λ=ΛC\Lambda=\Lambda_C for its row lattice from Lemma 4.1. Write

h=Bk,D=Bb,E=Be,I=DE,0≤b≤e≤k.h=B^k,\qquad D=B^b,\qquad E=B^e,\qquad I=DE,\qquad0\le b\le e\le k.

Thus CC has diagonal form (1,D,E)(1,D,E) over Z/hZ\mathbb{Z}/h\mathbb{Z}, [Z3:Λ]=I[\mathbb{Z}^3:\Lambda]=I, and EZ3⊆ΛE\mathbb{Z}^3\subseteq\Lambda. Recall also H=h2H=h^2, q>h100q>h^{100}, the box B=[0,N)2×[N,2N)∩Z3\mathcal{B}=[0,N)^2\times[N,2N)\cap\mathbb{Z}^3, and the weight W(A)W(A) from (18). For a column u∈Bu\in\mathcal{B}, its projection means (u1/u3,u2/u3)(u_1/u_3,u_2/u_3).

Proposition 7.1. For the lattice Λ\Lambda and weight WW above, let Z\mathcal{Z} be the set of integer 3×33\times3 matrices whose columns belong to B\mathcal{B}, whose rows belong to Λ\Lambda, whose determinant is zero, and whose three projected columns are pairwise distinct. Then

∑A∈ZW(A)≪log⁡(2N)N6I2.(24)\sum_{A\in\mathcal{Z}}W(A)\ll\log(2N)\frac{N^6}{I^2}. \tag*{(24)}

The implied constant is independent of the fixed digit matrix CC.

The orbit restriction in Proposition 6.3 only reduces this sum. We first record the lattice estimates needed for the null vectors.

Lemma 7.2. For a primitive vector x∈Z3x\in\mathbb{Z}^3, put

Λx=Λ∩x⊥,x⋅Λ=g(x)Z,Jx=det⁡(Λx),\Lambda_x=\Lambda\cap x^\perp,\qquad x\cdot\Lambda=g(x)\mathbb{Z},\qquad J_x=\det(\Lambda_x),

where g(x)>0g(x)>0. Then

g(x)∣E,Jx=I∣x∣g(x),g(x)3I≤h2.g(x)\mid E,\qquad J_x=\frac{I|x|}{g(x)},\qquad\frac{g(x)^3}{I}\le h^2.

The reduction of Λx\Lambda_x modulo qq is the entire plane

Πx={v∈Fq3:v⋅xˉ=0},xˉ=x mod q≠0.\Pi_x=\{v\in\mathbb{F}_q^3:v\cdot\bar{x}=0\},\qquad\bar{x}=x\bmod q\ne0.

If Γ⊆Λx\Gamma\subseteq\Lambda_x is a sublattice of index mm, the number of ordered triples of vectors in Γ\Gamma, all of length at most 4N4N and spanning a plane over Q\mathbb{Q}, is at most

≪N6(mJx)3.\ll\frac{N^6}{(mJ_x)^3}.

Proof. Primitivity gives x⋅Z3=Zx \cdot\mathbb{Z}^{3} = \mathbb{Z}. Since EZ3⊆ΛE\mathbb{Z}^{3} \subseteq\Lambda, we have EZ⊆g(x)ZE\mathbb{Z} \subseteq g(x)\mathbb{Z}, so g(x)∣Eg(x) \mid E. Lemma 2.3 gives the formula for JxJ_x, and g(x)3/I≤E2/D≤h2g(x)^3/I \le E^2/D \le h^2.

Primitivity also implies xˉ≠0\bar{x} \ne0, with no restriction on the size of xx. To prove surjectivity, choose z∈Z3z \in\mathbb{Z}^{3} with x⋅z=1x \cdot z = 1. If an integral lift vv of a point of Πx\Pi_x has x⋅v=qax \cdot v = qa, then v−qaz∈Z3∩x⊥v-qaz \in\mathbb{Z}^{3} \cap x^\perp is another lift of the same point. Thus Z3∩x⊥\mathbb{Z}^{3} \cap x^\perp reduces onto Πx\Pi_x. Its multiple by EE lies in Λx\Lambda_x and still reduces onto Πx\Pi_x, because q∤Eq \nmid E.

Finally, a triple counted in (7.3) contains two independent vectors of length at most 4N4N. Therefore the second successive minimum of Γ\Gamma is at most 4N4N whenever the count is nonzero. Lemma 2.2 then bounds the choices for each vector by O(N2/det⁡Γ)O(N^2/\det\Gamma), and det⁡Γ=mJx\det\Gamma= mJ_x.

Lemma 7.3. For R≥hR \ge h,

∑x∈Z3R≤∣x∣<2Rprimitiveg(x)3≪R3I.(25)\sum_{\substack{x \in\mathbb{Z}^{3}\\ R \le\lvert x\rvert< 2R\\ \text{primitive}}} g(x)^3 \ll R^3 I. \tag*{(25)}

In particular, this estimate holds when R>H/2R > H/2.

Proof. Since g(x)∣Beg(x) \mid B^e, write g(x)=Ba(x)g(x) = B^{a(x)} with 0≤a(x)≤e0 \le a(x) \le e. For 0≤j≤e0 \le j \le e, the condition Bj∣g(x)B^j \mid g(x) is equivalent to Cx=0(modBj)Cx = 0 \pmod{B^j}. Indeed, if C~\widetilde{C} is any integral lift of CC, then Λ\Lambda is the sum of the integral row span of C~\widetilde{C} and hZ3h\mathbb{Z}^{3}, and Bj∣hB^j \mid h. The diagonal form of CC shows that the fraction of residue classes modulo BjB^j satisfying this congruence is

B−j−max⁡(j−b,0).B^{-j-\max(j-b,0)}.

Indeed, the first diagonal coordinate must vanish, the second must be divisible by Bmax⁡(j−b,0)B^{\max(j-b,0)}, and the third is unrestricted since j≤ej \le e.

Because R≥h≥BjR \ge h \ge B^j, each residue class contains O((R/Bj)3)O((R/B^j)^3) integral vectors of length less than 2R2R. We may discard primitivity for this upper bound. Consequently,

∑x∈Z3R≤∣x∣<2Rprimitiveg(x)3≤∑j=0eB3j#{x∈Z3:∣x∣<2R, Cx=0(modBj)}≪R3∑j=0eB2j−max⁡(j−b,0)≪R3Bb+e=R3I.\begin{aligned} \sum_{\substack{x\in\mathbb{Z}^{3}\\ R\le\lvert x\rvert<2R\\ \text{primitive}}} g(x)^3 \le\sum_{j=0}^{e} B^{3j}\#\{x\in\mathbb{Z}^{3}: \lvert x\rvert<2R,\ Cx=0\pmod{B^j}\} \\ &\ll R^3\sum_{j=0}^{e}B^{2j-\max(j-b,0)} \ll R^3 B^{b+e}=R^3 I. \end{aligned}

The exponents in the last sum strictly increase to b+eb+e, so its bound is uniform in BB. Finally, h≥2h \ge2 implies H/2=h2/2≥hH/2=h^2/2 \ge h.

Proof of Proposition 7.1. Every A∈ZA \in\mathbb{Z} has rational rank two. Indeed, its columns are nonzero, and no two are proportional because their projections are distinct. Its right nullspace therefore has a primitive integral generator xx, unique up to sign. Every coordinate of xx is nonzero: otherwise the relation would make two columns proportional. Taking the cross product of two independent rows and dividing by the gcd of its coordinates gives

Ax=0,x1x2x3≠0,∣x∣≪N2.(26)Ax=0,\qquad x_1x_2x_3\ne0,\qquad\lvert x\rvert\ll N^2. \tag*{(26)}

Every row of AA lies in Λx\Lambda_x and has length at most 4N4N. Thus xx records a relation among the columns, while the rows are lattice vectors perpendicular to xx. We may sum over both choices of sign of xx for an upper bound.

Partition the possible vectors into dyadic shells R≤∣x∣<2RR\le\lvert x\rvert<2R, R=1,2,4,…R=1,2,4,\ldots. By (26), there are O(log⁡(2N))O(\log(2N)) shells. We will bound the weighted contribution of each shell by O(N6/I2)O(N^6/I^2). For a fixed primitive xx in such a shell, a condition confining every row to an index-mm sublattice of Λx\Lambda_x gives at most

≪N6g(x)3m3I3R3\ll\frac{N^6g(x)^3}{m^3 I^3 R^3}

matrices of rational rank two, by (7.3) and Jx=I∣x∣/g(x)J_x=I|x|/g(x). In the affine case we will sum g(x)3g(x)^3 using Lemma 7.3. In the equal-pair cases we instead use g(x)3≤Ih2g(x)^3\le Ih^2, together with an extra row congruence or a smaller number of possible null vectors. The support statement and the three weight bounds in Proposition 5.3 give the following exhaustive cases.

Affinely independent residues. If W(A)>0W(A)>0 and the columns of AA mod qq are affinely independent, Lemma 5.2 excludes the relation Ax=0Ax=0 when ∣x∣≤H|x|\le H. To see both parts of this exclusion, if x1+x2+x3≠0x_1+x_2+x_3\ne0 use the restricted shift; if the sum is zero, use affine independence and xˉ≠0\bar{x}\ne0. Hence a contributing shell satisfies R>H/2R>H/2. Using W(A)≪1W(A)\ll1, (7.6) with m=1m=1, and Lemma 7.3, its contribution is at most

≪N6I3R3∑x primitiveR≤∣x∣<2Rg(x)3≪N6I2.\ll\frac{N^6}{I^3R^3}\sum_{\substack{x\ \mathrm{primitive}\\R\le|x|<2R}}g(x)^3\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}.

An equal pair with an additional equation. Every other matrix of positive weight has two equal columns modulo qq. Fix one pair i<ji<j with this property, and put δ=ei−ej\delta=e_i-e_j, where the eie_i are the standard basis vectors. Summing over the three pairs only changes the implied constant. First suppose that xˉ∉Fqδ\bar{x}\notin\mathbb{F}_q\delta. The functional v↦v⋅δv\mapsto v\cdot\delta is nonzero on Πx\Pi_x: the annihilator of Πx\Pi_x is precisely Fqxˉ\mathbb{F}_q\bar{x}. By Lemma 7.2, the rows of AA therefore belong to the index-qq sublattice

{v∈Λx:vi=vj(modq)}.\{v\in\Lambda_x:v_i=v_j\pmod q\}.

There are O(R3)O(R^3) integral xx in any shell. Using (7.6) with m=qm=q, the pointwise bound g(x)3≤Ih2g(x)^3\le Ih^2, and W(A)≪(q3/s)2W(A)\ll(q^3/s)^2, the contribution is at most

≪N6I2h2q−3(q3/s)2≪N6I2h26q≪N6I2.(27)\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}h^2q^{-3}(q^3/s)^2\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}\frac{h^{26}}{q}\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}. \tag*{(27)}

Here and below we use q3/s≪qH6=qh12q^3/s\ll qH^6=qh^{12} and q>h100q>h^{100}. This argument includes matrices of every rank modulo qq.

An equal pair without an additional equation. It remains to consider xˉ∈Fqδ\bar{x}\in\mathbb{F}_q\delta. The coordinate of xx outside the pair i,ji,j is divisible by qq and, by (7.5), is a nonzero integer. Thus ∣x∣≥q|x|\ge q, and a contributing shell has R>q/2R>q/2. The nonzero multiples of δ\delta give q−1q-1 residue classes for xx modulo qq. Each class contains O((1+R/q)3)O((1+R/q)^3) vectors of length less than 2R2R, so the number of possible xx in this shell is

≪R3/q2.\ll R^3/q^2.

Rank at least two modulo $q. The weight bound W(A)≪q3/sW(A)\ll q^3/s now gives

≪N6I2h2q−2(q3/s)≪N6I2h14q≪N6I2(28)\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}h^2q^{-2}(q^3/s)\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}\frac{h^{14}}{q}\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2} \tag*{(28)}

for the contribution of the shell.

Rank at most one modulo qq. All rows reduce into one of the q+1q+1 one-dimensional linear subspaces of Πx\Pi_x. This also covers the zero row space. For each such line ℓ⊆Πx\ell\subseteq\Pi_x, surjectivity in Lemma 7.2 shows that

{v∈Λx:v mod q∈ℓ}\{v \in\Lambda_x : v \bmod q \in\ell\}

has index qq in Λx\Lambda_x. Formula (7.3) thus bounds the rank-two rational row triples, summed over all these lines, by

≪(q+1)N6(qJx)3≪N6q2Jx3.\ll(q+1) \frac{N^6}{(qJ_x)^3} \ll\frac{N^6}{q^2J_x^3}.

Using (7.9) and the general weight bound, the weighted contribution is at most

≪N6I2h2q−4(q3/s)2≪N6I2h26q2≪N6I2.\ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}h^2q^{-4}(q^3/s)^2 \ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}\frac{h^{26}}{q^2} \ll\frac{N^6}{I^2}.

The affine and equal-pair cases cover the support of WW. Their bounds are uniform over the dyadic shells, so summing over the O(log⁡(2N))O(\log(2N)) shells proves (24).

Deletion and projective normalization

The preceding estimates allow us to remove every repeated projected point and every small triangle while retaining many columns. We first construct a set for each sufficiently large prime rr, compare its area bound with its cardinality, and then pass to every sufficiently large cardinality. All constants below may depend on the fixed integer kk; none depends on the growing prime rr.

This final step is an elementary alteration argument. The earlier probabilistic lower bound of Komlós, Pintz and Szemerédi [10] uses a stronger hypergraph independence lemma; no such lemma is needed below.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Keep the parameters constructed above, with d=41d=41, and set

ar=rN3/τ,nr=⌊ar⌋.a_r=r\sqrt{N^3/\tau}, \qquad n_r=\lfloor a_r\rfloor.

Here k≥2k \ge2 and BB is an odd prime, so τ≥1\tau\ge1. Take 2nr2n_r samples with the shared random choices and independent conditional draws specified in Section 6. Let ZZ count the unordered pairs of sample indices with equal projected points, plus the unordered triples whose projected points are pairwise distinct and whose determinant has absolute value at most τ\tau. Linearity of expectation, Lemma 6.1, and Corollary 6.4 give

EZnr≪nr(hq)6N−3+nr2(log⁡(2N))2hN3rd.(29)\frac{\mathbb{E}Z}{n_r} \ll n_r(hq)^6N^{-3}+n_r^2(\log(2N))^2\frac{h}{N^3r^d}. \tag*{(29)}

No independence between the counted events is needed.

Both terms tend to zero. Indeed, N=(hq)10N=(hq)^{10} and τ≥1\tau\ge1 give

nr(hq)6N−3≤rτ−1/2(hq)−9=o(1).n_r(hq)^6N^{-3} \le r\tau^{-1/2}(hq)^{-9}=o(1).

For the other term, the definition of nrn_r gives

nr2(log⁡(2N))2hN3rd≤(log⁡(2N))2hτr2−d.n_r^2(\log(2N))^2\frac{h}{N^3r^d}\le(\log(2N))^2\frac{h}{\tau}r^{2-d}.

Since Bk−1≥3B^{k-1}\ge3, the definition of τ\tau implies τ≥Bk−1/3\tau\ge B^{k-1}/3, and hence h/τ≤3B=Ok(r30)h/\tau\le3B=O_k(r^{30}). The bounds B=Ok(r30)B=O_k(r^{30}), q≤2h100q \le2h^{100}, and N=(hq)10N=(hq)^{10} also give log⁡(2N)=Ok(log⁡r)\log(2N)=O_k(\log r). Thus the second term in (29) is Ok((log⁡r)2r−9)=o(1)O_k((\log r)^2r^{-9})=o(1). Thus EZ=o(nr)\mathbb{E}Z=o(n_r).

For sufficiently large rr, choose an outcome with Z<nrZ<n_r. For each violating pair or triple in that outcome, mark one of its indices for deletion. This marks at most ZZ indices and meets every original violation. After deleting all marked indices, at least nrn_r remain; retain any nrn_r of them. Their projections form a set PrP_r of nrn_r distinct points in [0,1)2[0,1)^2, and every triple of retained columns satisfies ∣det⁡A∣>τ|\det A|>\tau. In particular, the construction excludes every zero-area triple as well.

For a retained triple, divide the jjth column of AA by its positive third coordinate A3jA_{3j}. The resulting columns have the form (pj1,pj2,1)T(p_{j1},p_{j2},1)^{\mathsf T}, so the determinant formula for triangle area gives the exact identity

Area⁡(p1p2p3)=∣det⁡A∣2A31A32A33.\operatorname{Area}(p_1p_2p_3)=\frac{|\det A|}{2A_{31}A_{32}A_{33}}.

Since N≤A3j<2NN\le A_{3j}<2N for each jj, every retained triangle has area at least τ/(16N3)\tau/(16N^3). Consequently

Δ(Pr)≥τ16N3.\Delta(P_r)\ge\frac{\tau}{16N^3}.

Also τ<h\tau<h and N≥h10N\ge h^{10} give ar>rh29/2→∞a_r>rh^{29/2}\to\infty. Hence nr→∞n_r\to\infty and eventually nr≥ar/2n_r\ge a_r/2. Combining this with (8.4) yields

nr2Δ(Pr)≥r264.n_r^2\Delta(P_r)\ge\frac{r^2}{64}.

We now express both the cardinality and the area bound in terms of rr. The parameter choices give

100k2r30<B≤200k2r30,h=Bk,100k^{2}r^{30}<B\le200k^{2}r^{30},\qquad h=B^k,
h100<q≤2h100,N3/2=(hq)15,h^{100}<q\le2h^{100},\qquad N^{3/2}=(hq)^{15},
Bk−1/3≤τ≤Bk−1/2.B^{k-1}/3\le\tau\le B^{k-1}/2.

Consequently, if

β=1515k−k−12=3029k+12,\beta=1515k-\frac{k-1}{2}=\frac{3029k+1}{2},

then

2 rBβ<ar≤2153 rBβ.\sqrt{2}\,rB^\beta<a_r\le2^{15}\sqrt{3}\,rB^\beta.

Since ar/2≤nr≤ara_r/2\le n_r\le a_r for sufficiently large rr, there are fixed constants Ak,Dk>0A_k,D_k>0 such that

Akrα≤nr≤Dkrα,α=1+30β=45435k+16.(30)A_kr^\alpha\le n_r\le D_kr^\alpha,\qquad\alpha=1+30\beta=45435k+16. \tag*{(30)}

for every sufficiently large prime rr. In particular, put

η=2α=245435k+16.(31)\eta=\frac{2}{\alpha}=\frac{2}{45435k+16}. \tag*{(31)}

The upper bound in (30) gives r2≥Dk−ηnrηr^2\ge D_k^{-\eta}n_r^\eta. Combining this with (8.5), we obtain

Δ(Pr)≥c∗nr−2+η,c∗=164Dkη>0.(32)\Delta(P_r)\ge c_*n_r^{-2+\eta},\qquad c_*=\frac{1}{64D_k^\eta}>0. \tag*{(32)}

Thus the same cardinality estimate that will permit interpolation also converts the factor r2r^2 into a fixed power of the number of points.

For a sufficiently large integer nn, put m=⌈(n/Ak)1/α⌉m=\lceil(n/A_k)^{1/\alpha}\rceil. Lemma 3.2 supplies a prime rr with m<r≤2mm<r\le2m. Once (n/Ak)1/α≥1(n/A_k)^{1/\alpha}\ge1, we have m≤2(n/Ak)1/αm\le2(n/A_k)^{1/\alpha}, so (30) gives

n≤nr≤Ckn,Ck=max⁡{1,4αDkAk}.n\le n_r\le C_kn,\qquad C_k=\max\left\{1,\frac{4^\alpha D_k}{A_k}\right\}.

This uses only the two-sided cardinality bounds, not monotonicity of nrn_r. Retain any nn points of PrP_r. Deleting points cannot decrease the minimum triangle area. Since 0<η<20 < \eta< 2, (32) therefore yields

Δ(n)≥c∗nr−2+η≥c∗Ck−2+ηn−2+η.\Delta(n) \ge c_* n_r^{-2+\eta} \ge c_* C_k^{-2+\eta} n^{-2+\eta}.

Taking c1=c∗Ck−2+ηc_1 = c_* C_k^{-2+\eta} proves Theorem 1.1. All constants are absolute because kk is fixed independently of rr and nn. The formula (31) is explicit; no attempt has been made to optimize the construction parameters.

An elementary prime-interval estimate

We prove Lemma 3.2, the form of Bertrand’s postulate used to choose the two moduli and to pass to every sufficiently large cardinality. The argument is the elementary binomial proof of Erdős [7].

Proof of Lemma 3.2. Write P(x)=∏p≤xpP(x) = \prod_{p \le x} p, where the product is over primes. First, P(x)<4xP(x) < 4^x for x≥1x \ge1. It suffices to prove this for integer xx by induction. The cases x=1,2x = 1, 2 are immediate. An even integer x>2x > 2 is composite, so P(x)=P(x−1)P(x) = P(x-1). For x=2m+1x = 2m + 1, every prime in (m+1,2m+1](m+1,2m+1] divides (2m+1m)\binom{2m+1}{m}. The two central binomial coefficients are equal and their sum is strictly less than 22m+12^{2m+1}, whence (2m+1m)<4m\binom{2m+1}{m} < 4^m. Thus

P(2m+1)≤P(m+1)(2m+1m)<42m+1.P(2m+1) \le P(m+1)\binom{2m+1}{m} < 4^{2m+1}.

Suppose now that there is no prime in (n,2n](n,2n]. The largest binomial coefficient in (1+1)2n(1+1)^{2n} gives (2nn)≥4n/(2n+1)\binom{2n}{n} \ge4^n/(2n+1). For any prime pp, its exponent in this coefficient is

∑j≥1(⌊2npj⌋−2⌊npj⌋).\sum_{j \ge1} \left(\left\lfloor\frac{2n}{p^j}\right\rfloor- 2\left\lfloor\frac{n}{p^j}\right\rfloor\right).

Each summand is zero or one, so the entire prime power contributed by pp is at most 2n2n. The primes at most 2n\sqrt{2n} therefore contribute at most (2n)2n(2n)^{\sqrt{2n}}. Larger primes have exponent at most one. Those in (2n/3,n](2n/3,n] have exponent zero, and by assumption there are none in (n,2n](n,2n]. For sufficiently large nn it follows that

4n2n+1≤(2nn)≤(2n)2nP(2n/3)<(2n)2n42n/3.\frac{4^n}{2n+1} \le\binom{2n}{n} \le(2n)^{\sqrt{2n}}P(2n/3) < (2n)^{\sqrt{2n}}4^{2n/3}.

Taking logarithms contradicts (n/3)log⁡4>2nlog⁡(2n)+log⁡(2n+1)(n/3)\log4 > \sqrt{2n}\log(2n) + \log(2n+1) for sufficiently large nn.

References

  1. [1]Theophilus Agama. New bounds for the Heilbronn triangle problem, 2026. arXiv:2006.05269v13, 6 May 2026.
  2. [2]Adriano Barlotti. Un’osservazione sulle k-calotte degli spazi lineari finiti di dimensione tre. Bollettino dell’Unione Matematica Italiana (3), 11(2):248–252, 1956.
  3. [3]F. A. Behrend. On sets of integers which contain no three terms in arithmetical progression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 32(12):331–332, 1946.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16578230
  4. [4]Alex Cohen, Cosmin Pohoata, and Dmitrii Zakharov. A new upper bound for the Heilbronn triangle problem, 2023. arXiv:2305.18253v1, 29 May 2023.arxiv.org/abs/2305.18253
  5. [5]Alex Cohen, Cosmin Pohoata, and Dmitrii Zakharov. Lower bounds for incidences. Inventiones mathematicae, 240:1045–1118, 2025.arxiv.org/abs/2409.07658
  6. [6]Gabor Ellmann. A lower bound for Heilbronn’s triangle-problem, 2025. arXiv:1703.03297v12, 12 November 2025.
  7. [7]Paul Erdős. Beweis eines Satzes von Tschebyschef. Acta Litt. Sci. Szeged, Sect. Sci. Math., 5:194–198, 1932.
  8. [8]Martin Henk. Successive minima and lattice points, 2002. Theorem 1.3 (Minkowski’s second theorem).DOI
  9. [9]János Komlós, János Pintz, and Endre Szemerédi. On Heilbronn’s triangle problem. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2), 24(3):385–396, 1981.DOI
  10. [10]János Komlós, János Pintz, and Endre Szemerédi. A lower bound for Heilbronn’s problem. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2), 25(1):13–24, 1982.DOI
  11. [11]Rudolf Lidl and Harald Niederreiter. Introduction to Finite Fields and their Applications. Cambridge University Press, second edition, 1994.DOI
  12. [12]K. F. Roth. On a problem of Heilbronn. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 26(3):198–204, 1951.DOI
  13. [13]K. F. Roth. On a problem of Heilbronn, II. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (3), 25(2):193–212, 1972.DOI
  14. [14]K. F. Roth. On a problem of Heilbronn, III. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society (3), 25(3):543–549, 1972.DOI
  15. [15]R. Salem and D. C. Spencer. On sets of integers which contain no three terms in arithmetical progression. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 28(12):561–563, 1942.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16588588
  16. [16]Wolfgang M. Schmidt. On a problem of Heilbronn. Journal of the London Mathematical Society (2), 4(3):545–550, 1972.DOI
  17. [17]Henry John Stephen Smith. On systems of linear indeterminate equations and congruences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 151:293–326, 1861.
  18. [18]Dmitrii Zakharov. Small triangles. Journal of the London Mathematical Society, 113(3):e70447, 2026.DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_f6yqstan
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published ·

Usage

views · 3

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

LicenseRef-OpenAI-public

DOI · 10.83295/85n3-vjvy

Original source

  • Mathematics

unreleased internal OpenAI model · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents