alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

No lattice tiling of Z35\mathbb{Z}^{35} or Z805\mathbb{Z}^{805} by Lee balls of radius three

AI contributions
  • Anthropic Claude Code Opus 5.5 Ultracode
View details
Ancillary data
1 data link
View

Abstract

We prove that there is no lattice tiling of Z35\mathbb{Z}^{35} or of Z805\mathbb{Z}^{805} by Lee balls of radius three. These were the only cases left open by Xiao and Zhou among the Lee balls of dimension at least three and radius at least two with fewer than 2302^{30} points, so the lattice Golomb–Welch conjecture holds for all of them.

Introduction

For integers n≥1n \ge1 and r≥0r \ge0 the Lee ball of radius rr in Zn\mathbb{Z}^n is

Bn(r)={a∈Zn:∣a1∣+⋯+∣an∣≤r}.B^n(r) = \{a \in\mathbb{Z}^n : |a_1| + \cdots+ |a_n| \le r\}.

A tiling of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n by Bn(r)B^n(r) is a set T⊂ZnT \subset\mathbb{Z}^n such that the translates t+Bn(r)t + B^n(r) with t∈Tt \in T partition Zn\mathbb{Z}^n, and it is a lattice tiling if TT is a subgroup of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n. Such tilings exist when n≤2n \le2 and when $r = 1.1$ Golomb and Welch [6] conjectured that these are the only cases.

Conjecture A (Golomb–Welch). For n≥3n \ge3 and r≥2r \ge2 there is no tiling of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n by Bn(r)B^n(r).

The conjecture is open, and so is its lattice form, in which only lattice tilings are considered. It holds for 3≤n≤53 \le n \le5 [7, 8] and for radii that are large compared with the dimension [15, 10]; the lattice form holds for radius two in every dimension [13]. We refer to the survey of Horak and Kim [10] for the history. A lattice tiling is the same thing as a perfect code in a finite abelian group [9], and in this form many further dimensions have been excluded for small radii by the polynomial method and by group-ring equations [11, 19, 21, 16, 20]. Xiao and Zhou [18] recently combined all these criteria with new ones and applied them to every pair (n,r)(n, r) with n≥3n \ge3, r≥2r \ge2 and ∣Bn(r)∣<230|B^n(r)| < 2^{30}. Of the 1358 such pairs they excluded 1356, and the two that remained are (n,r)=(35,3)(n, r) = (35, 3) and (805,3)(805, 3) [18 Theorem 5.1]. We settle both.

Theorem 1.1. There is no lattice tiling of Z35\mathbb{Z}^{35} by B35(3)B^{35}(3), and there is no lattice tiling of Z805\mathbb{Z}^{805} by B805(3)B^{805}(3).

2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 52C22; Secondary 05B45, 94B25, 05C25.

Key words and phrases. Golomb–Welch conjecture, Lee metric, perfect code, lattice tiling, group ring.

Corresponding author: Deep Bhattacharjee.

Corollary 1.2. If n≥3n \ge3, r≥2r \ge2 and ∣Bn(r)∣<230|B^n(r)| < 2^{30}, then Zn\mathbb{Z}^n has no lattice tiling by Bn(r)B^n(r).

Proof. This is Theorem 1.1 together with [18 Theorem 5.1]. □

The balls in question have

∣B35(3)∣=59711=292⋅71,∣B805(3)∣=696845031=3⋅292⋅179⋅1543.|B^{35}(3)| = 59711 = 29^2 \cdot71,\qquad|B^{805}(3)| = 696845031 = 3 \cdot29^2 \cdot179 \cdot1543.

Neither number is prime, so the theorem of Szegedy [17], which turns the nonexistence of lattice tilings into the nonexistence of all tilings when ∣Bn(r)∣|B^n(r)| is prime, does not apply, and Theorem 1.1 says nothing about tilings that are not lattice tilings. In the language of the degree–diameter problem [5], Theorem 1.1 says that no abelian group of order 59711 is generated by 35 elements in such a way that each of its elements is a sum of at most three of these generators and their negatives, and likewise for order 696845031 and 805 generators; in other words the abelian Cayley–Moore bound is not attained in degree 70 or in degree 1610 at diameter three (compare [18 Section 1]).2

The method

A lattice tiling of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n by Bn(3)B^n(3) gives a finite abelian group GG of order ∣Bn(3)∣|B^n(3)| and elements g1,…,gng_1,\ldots,g_n such that a↦∑jajgja \mapsto\sum_j a_jg_j maps Bn(3)B^n(3) bijectively onto GG (Lemma 2.2). Summing a character over the ball gives a cubic identity in a group ring (Proposition 2.3), and projecting GG onto Z/p\mathbb{Z}/p for a prime pp dividing ∣G∣|G| turns it into conditions on the images of the gjg_j. This is the setting of [21, 18], and two features of the present cases defeat the projections used so far.

For n=805n=805 the conditions modulo p=29p=29 leave a very large number of possible distributions of the images, whose examination Xiao and Zhou estimated would take about two months of exhaustive search [18 Example 5.13]. We read off the coefficient of the identity element modulo 29229^2 instead; it excludes all of them by one congruence (Section 5).

For n=35n=35 Xiao and Zhou found, for each of the two primes 71 and 29, a distribution of the images that satisfies every condition coming from that prime alone [18 Example 5.14]. We project onto Z/71×Z/29\mathbb{Z}/71 \times\mathbb{Z}/29 at once, through a character with values in the dual numbers over the group ring F71[Z/29]\mathbb{F}_{71}[\mathbb{Z}/29]. The first-order part of the identity couples the two distributions and leads to a circulant linear system over F71\mathbb{F}_{71} whose only solution is zero (Section 6). Figure 1 shows the order of the argument.

Image not extracted

Figure 1. The order of the proof. Arrows point from a result to the results that use it.

Theorem 1.1, with every step of Sections 2–6, has been formalized in the Lean 4 proof assistant (Section 7).

Perfect codes and the ball identity

All groups in this paper are abelian and written additively, except the groups of units of rings. For a∈Zna \in\mathbb{Z}^n we write ∣a∣=∣a1∣+⋯+∣an∣|a|=|a_1|+\cdots+|a_n|, and Bn=Bn(3)B^n=B^n(3).

Definition 2.1. Let GG be a finite group and g=(g1,…,gn)∈Gng=(g_1,\ldots,g_n)\in G^n. Put φg(a)=∑jajgj\varphi_g(a)=\sum_j a_jg_j for a∈Zna\in\mathbb{Z}^n. We call gg a perfect code in GG if φg\varphi_g maps BnB^n bijectively onto GG.

Lemma 2.2. Let L⊆ZnL \subseteq\mathbb{Z}^n be a subgroup such that the translates l+Bnl + B^n, l∈Ll \in L, partition Zn\mathbb{Z}^n. Let e1,…,ene_1,\ldots,e_n be the unit vectors. Then G=Zn/LG = \mathbb{Z}^n/L is finite, (e1+L,…,en+L)(e_1 + L,\ldots,e_n + L) is a perfect code in GG, and ∣G∣=∣Bn∣|G| = |B^n|.

Proof. Here φg(a)=a+L\varphi_g(a) = a + L. Every x∈Znx \in\mathbb{Z}^n lies in a translate l+Bnl + B^n with l∈Ll \in L, and then a=x−l∈Bna = x - l \in B^n satisfies φg(a)=x+L\varphi_g(a) = x + L; so φg\varphi_g maps BnB^n onto GG, and GG is finite. If a,b∈Bna,b \in B^n and a−b∈La-b \in L, the point aa lies in 0+Bn0 + B^n and in (a−b)+Bn(a-b) + B^n, because a−(a−b)=b∈Bna-(a-b)=b \in B^n. The translates are disjoint, so a−b=0a-b=0. Hence φg\varphi_g is injective on BnB^n, and ∣G∣=∣Bn∣|G| = |B^n|.

Figure 2 shows the ball B3(3)B^3(3), the tile of the three-dimensional case.

Image not extracted

Figure 2. The Lee ball B3(3)B^3(3): the 63 points of Z3\mathbb{Z}^3 in the octahedron ∣a1∣+∣a2∣+∣a3∣≤3|a_1|+|a_2|+|a_3|\le3, shaded by ∣a∣|a|. A lattice tiling translates it by the points of a subgroup LL; the quotient Z3/L\mathbb{Z}^3/L then has one element for each point of the ball.

The next identity is the source of all the conditions used below. Let fnf_n be the polynomial

fn(X)=X3+3X2+2X−6nX=X(X+1)(X+2)−6nX.f_n(X)=X^3+3X^2+2X-6nX=X(X+1)(X+2)-6nX.

Proposition 2.3. Let RR be a commutative ring, Γ\Gamma a group, χ:Γ→R×\chi:\Gamma\to R^\times a homomorphism, and z1,…,zn∈Γz_1,\ldots,z_n\in\Gamma. For i=1,2,3i=1,2,3 put Ti=1+∑j(χ(izj)+χ(−izj))T_i=1+\sum_j\left(\chi(iz_j)+\chi(-iz_j)\right). Then

6∑a∈Bnχ(∑jajzj)=T13+3T1T2+2T3−6nT1.(1)6\sum_{a\in B^n}\chi\left(\sum_j a_jz_j\right)=T_1^3+3T_1T_2+2T_3-6nT_1. \tag*{(1)}

Proof. Put uj=χ(zj)u_j=\chi(z_j) and vj=χ(−zj)v_j=\chi(-z_j), so that ujvj=1u_jv_j=1 and χ(∑jajzj)=∏jujaj\chi\left(\sum_j a_jz_j\right)=\prod_j u_j^{a_j}, where uj−1=vju_j^{-1}=v_j. Consider multisets of the letters u1,…,unu_1,\ldots,u_n and v1,…,vnv_1,\ldots,v_n, and say that a multiset contains a pair if it contains both uju_j and vjv_j for some jj. A multiset MM of size kk without a pair corresponds to the point a∈Zna\in\mathbb{Z}^n with aja_j equal to the multiplicity of uju_j minus that of vjv_j; this is a bijection onto the points with ∣a∣=k|a|=k, and the product of the elements of MM is ∏jujaj\prod_j u_j^{a_j}.

Let hkh_k be the sum, over all multisets MM of size kk, of the product of the elements of MM, and let pi=∑j(uji+vji)p_i=\sum_j(u_j^i+v_j^i). The multisets of size 2 with a pair are the nn multisets {uj,vj}\{u_j,v_j\}, each with product 1. A multiset of size 3 with a pair is {uj,vj,w}\{u_j,v_j,w\} for one index jj and one letter ww, these are distinct for distinct (j,w)(j,w), and the product is ww. Hence

∑a∈Bn∏jujaj=1+p1+(h2−n)+(h3−np1).\sum_{a\in B^n}\prod_j u_j^{a_j}=1+p_1+(h_2-n)+(h_3-np_1).

Newton’s identities give 2h2=p12+p22h_2=p_1^2+p_2 and 6h3=p13+3p1p2+2p36h_3=p_1^3+3p_1p_2+2p_3 in the polynomial ring over Z\mathbb{Z} in the 2n2n letters, hence in RR. Six times the right side above is therefore

6+6p1+3p12+3p2−6n+p13+3p1p2+2p3−6np1,6+6p_1+3p_1^2+3p_2-6n+p_1^3+3p_1p_2+2p_3-6np_1,

which is T13+3T1T2+2T3−6nT1T_1^3+3T_1T_2+2T_3-6nT_1 for Ti=1+piT_i=1+p_i.

With Γ\Gamma trivial, (2.1) reads 6∣Bn∣=fn(2n+1)6|B^n|=f_n(2n+1). For instance ∣B35∣=f35(71)/6=59711|B^{35}|=f_{35}(71)/6=59711 and ∣B805∣=f805(1611)/6=696845031|B^{805}|=f_{805}(1611)/6=696845031.

Lemma 2.4. Let gg be a perfect code in GG, let ψ:G→Γ\psi:G\to\Gamma be a surjective homomorphism onto a finite group Γ\Gamma, and let F:Γ→MF:\Gamma\to M be a map to a group MM. Then

∑a∈BnF(∑jajψ(gj))=∣G∣∣Γ∣∑γ∈ΓF(γ).\sum_{a\in B^n}F\left(\sum_j a_j\psi(g_j)\right)=\frac{|G|}{|\Gamma|}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}F(\gamma).

Proof. The argument of FF is ψ(φg(a))\psi(\varphi_g(a)), and φg\varphi_g maps BnB^n bijectively onto GG, so the left side is ∑x∈GF(ψ(x))\sum_{x\in G}F(\psi(x)). Each fibre of ψ\psi has ∣G∣/∣Γ∣|G|/|\Gamma| elements.

For a commutative ring kk and a finite group Γ\Gamma we write k[Γ]k[\Gamma] for the group ring, with basis elements [γ][\gamma], γ∈Γ\gamma\in\Gamma, multiplied by [γ][γ′]=[γ+γ′][\gamma][\gamma']=[\gamma+\gamma']. Its unit element is [0][0], and we write SΓ=∑γ∈Γ[γ]S_\Gamma=\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}[\gamma]. For F∈k[Γ]F\in k[\Gamma] we write F(γ)F(\gamma) for the coefficient of [γ][\gamma].

Corollary 2.5. Let gg be a perfect code in GG, let ψ:G→Γ\psi:G\to\Gamma be surjective, and put xj=ψ(gj)x_j=\psi(g_j).

(1) If χ:Γ→R×\chi:\Gamma\to R^\times is a homomorphism into the units of a commutative ring and Ti=1+∑j(χ(ixj)+χ(−ixj))T_i=1+\sum_j(\chi(ix_j)+\chi(-ix_j)), then

6∣G∣∣Γ∣∑γ∈Γχ(γ)=T13+3T1T2+2T3−6nT1.(2)6\frac{|G|}{|\Gamma|}\sum_{\gamma\in\Gamma}\chi(\gamma)=T_1^3+3T_1T_2+2T_3-6nT_1. \tag*{(2)}

(2) In k[Γ]k[\Gamma], with Ti=[0]+∑j([ixj]+[−ixj])T_i=[0]+\sum_j([ix_j]+[-ix_j]),

6∣G∣∣Γ∣SΓ=T13+3T1T2+2T3−6nT1.(3)6\frac{|G|}{|\Gamma|}S_\Gamma=T_1^3+3T_1T_2+2T_3-6nT_1. \tag*{(3)}

Proof. Apply Proposition 2.3 with zj=xjz_j=x_j and then Lemma 2.4 with F=χF=\chi. Part (2) is the case R=k[Γ]R=k[\Gamma], χ(γ)=[γ]\chi(\gamma)=[\gamma].

Lemma 2.6. If a prime pp divides ∣G∣|G|, there is a surjective homomorphism G→Z/pG\to\mathbb{Z}/p.

Proof. Write GG as a direct sum of cyclic groups of prime power order. Since pp divides ∣G∣|G|, one summand is Z/pe\mathbb{Z}/p^e with e≥1e\ge1; project onto it and reduce modulo pp.

Power sums modulo a prime

Throughout this section gg is a perfect code in a group GG with ∣G∣=∣Bn∣|G|=|B^n|, pp is a prime dividing ∣G∣|G|, and ψ:G→Fp=Z/p\psi:G\to\mathbb{F}_p=\mathbb{Z}/p is surjective. We put

xj=ψ(gj),m=∣G∣p,c(h)=#{j:xj=h}(h∈Fp),x_j=\psi(g_j),\qquad m=\frac{|G|}{p},\qquad c(h)=\#\{j:x_j=h\}\quad(h\in\mathbb{F}_p),
Pk=∑j(xjk+(−xj)k)∈Fp,P_k=\sum_j\left(x_j^k+(-x_j)^k\right)\in\mathbb{F}_p,

with 00=10^0=1. For odd kk the two terms of each summand cancel, so Pk=0P_k=0. For F∈FpFpF\in\mathbb{F}_p^{\mathbb{F}_p} and k≥0k\geq0 we define the moment Mk(F)=∑h∈FpF(h)hk∈FpM_k(F)=\sum_{h\in\mathbb{F}_p}F(h)h^k\in\mathbb{F}_p. Expanding (h+h′)k(h+h')^k gives

Mk(FF′)=∑i=0k(ki)Mi(F)Mk−i(F′).(4)M_k(FF')=\sum_{i=0}^{k}\binom{k}{i}M_i(F)M_{k-i}(F'). \tag*{(4)}

For Ti=[0]+∑j([ixj]+[−ixj])T_i=[0]+\sum_j([ix_j]+[-ix_j]) we have M0(Ti)=2n+1M_0(T_i)=2n+1 and Mk(Ti)=ikPkM_k(T_i)=i^kP_k for k≥1k\geq1.

Proposition 3.1. Let v≥1v\geq1, and suppose that Pk=0P_k=0 for 1≤k<v1\leq k<v. Then κn(v)Pv=6m∑h∈Fphv\kappa_n(v)P_v=6m\sum_{h\in\mathbb{F}_p}h^v, where

κn(v)=3(2n+1)2+3(2n+1)(1+2v)+2⋅3v−6n.\kappa_n(v)=3(2n+1)^2+3(2n+1)(1+2^v)+2\cdot3^v-6n.

Proof. Call FF flat if Mk(F)=0M_k(F)=0 for 1≤k<v1\leq k<v. By (4) a product of flat elements is flat, and for flat F,F′F,F' we have Mv(FF′)=M0(F)Mv(F′)+Mv(F)M0(F′)M_v(FF')=M_0(F)M_v(F')+M_v(F)M_0(F'). The TiT_i are flat by hypothesis, so

Mv(T13)=3(2n+1)2Pv,Mv(T1T2)=(2n+1)(1+2v)Pv,M_v(T_1^3)=3(2n+1)^2P_v,\qquad M_v(T_1T_2)=(2n+1)(1+2^v)P_v,
Mv(T3)=3vPv,Mv(T1)=Pv.M_v(T_3)=3^vP_v,\qquad M_v(T_1)=P_v.

Apply MvM_v to (3) with k=Γ=Fpk=\Gamma=\mathbb{F}_p; the left side becomes 6m∑hhv6m\sum_h h^v.

Lemma 3.2. ∑h∈Fphv=0\sum_{h\in\mathbb{F}_p}h^v=0 for 1≤v<p−11\leq v<p-1, and ∑h∈Fphp−1=−1\sum_{h\in\mathbb{F}_p}h^{p-1}=-1.

Proof. If 1≤v<p−11\leq v<p-1, a generator uu of the cyclic group Fp×\mathbb{F}_p^\times has uv≠1u^v\ne1, and ∑hhv=∑h(uh)v=uv∑hhv\sum_h h^v=\sum_h(uh)^v=u^v\sum_h h^v. If v=p−1v=p-1, then hv=1h^v=1 for h≠0h\ne0.

Corollary 3.3. Let 2≤L≤p−12\leq L\leq p-1, and suppose that κn(v)≠0\kappa_n(v)\ne0 in Fp\mathbb{F}_p for every even vv with 2≤v<L2\leq v<L. Then Pk=0P_k=0 for 1≤k<L1\leq k<L.

Proof. By induction on kk. For odd kk we have seen that Pk=0P_k=0. For even k<Lk<L, Proposition 3.1 with v=kv=k and Lemma 3.2 give κn(k)Pk=0\kappa_n(k)P_k=0.

When all power sums below p−1p-1 vanish, the distribution of the xjx_j is almost determined.

Lemma 3.4. Suppose that Pk=0P_k=0 for 1≤k<p−11\leq k<p-1, and let D∈{0,…,p−1}D\in\{0,\ldots,p-1\} be the integer with D≡−Pp−1(modp)D\equiv-P_{p-1}\pmod p.

(1) c(h)+c(−h)≡D(modp)c(h)+c(-h)\equiv D\pmod p for every h≠0h\ne0, and 2c(0)≡2n+D(modp)2c(0)\equiv2n+D\pmod p.

(2) (p−1)D+2c(0)≤2n(p-1)D+2c(0)\leq2n, and if equality holds, then c(h)+c(−h)=Dc(h)+c(-h)=D for every h≠0h\ne0.

Proof. (1) Let F=T1−(2n+1)[0]F=T_1-(2n+1)[0], so that F(h)=c(h)+c(−h)−2nδh,0F(h)=c(h)+c(-h)-2n\delta_{h,0}, M0(F)=0M_0(F)=0 and Mk(F)=PkM_k(F)=P_k for k≥1k\geq1. Fix h∈Fph\in\mathbb{F}_p. Expanding (h′−h)p−1(h'-h)^{p-1} by the binomial theorem gives

∑h′F(h′)(h′−h)p−1=∑i=0p−1(p−1i)(−h)p−1−iMi(F)=Mp−1(F)=Pp−1.\sum_{h'}F(h')(h'-h)^{p-1}=\sum_{i=0}^{p-1}\binom{p-1}{i}(-h)^{p-1-i}M_i(F)=M_{p-1}(F)=P_{p-1}.

On the other hand (h′−h)p−1(h'-h)^{p-1} is 11 for h′≠hh'\ne h and 00 for h′=hh'=h, so the left side is M0(F)−F(h)=−F(h)M_0(F)-F(h)=-F(h). Thus F(h)≡DF(h)\equiv D for every hh, which is (1).

(2) Every jj with xj≠0x_j\ne0 is counted in exactly two of the numbers c(h)+c(−h)c(h)+c(-h) with h≠0h\ne0, so these p−1p-1 numbers add up to 2n−2c(0)2n-2c(0). Each of them is a

::: nonnegative integer congruent to DD modulo pp, and 0≤D<p0 \le D < p, so each is at least DD. □

The constant term modulo pp squared

The identity (3) holds over Z\mathbb{Z}, so it can be read modulo p2p^2. When the pair counts are divisible by pp, its coefficient at [0][0] gives one more congruence.

Lemma 4.1. Keep the notation of § 3, and assume p≥5p \ge5. If pp divides c(h)+c(−h)c(h)+c(-h) for every h≠0h \ne0, then

6m≡fn(1+2c(0))(modp2).6m \equiv f_n(1+2c(0)) \pmod{p^2}.

Proof. Work in (Z/p2)[Fp](\mathbb{Z}/p^2)[\mathbb{F}_p]. As p≥5p \ge5, the numbers i=1,2,3i=1,2,3 are invertible modulo pp, and the coefficient of TiT_i at hh is δh,0+c(i−1h)+c(−i−1h)\delta_{h,0}+c(i^{-1}h)+c(-i^{-1}h). At h=0h=0 this is A=1+2c(0)A=1+2c(0), and at h≠0h \ne0 it is divisible by pp. Hence Ti=A[0]+pWiT_i=A[0]+pW_i with Wi(0)=0W_i(0)=0. Since p2=0p^2=0,

T13+3T1T2+2T3−6nT1=fn(A)[0]+p((3A2+3A−6n)W1+3AW2+2W3).T_1^3+3T_1T_2+2T_3-6nT_1=f_n(A)[0]+p\bigl((3A^2+3A-6n)W_1+3AW_2+2W_3\bigr).

and the second term has coefficient 00 at [0][0]. The left side of (2.3) is 6mSFp6mS_{\mathbb{F}_p}, whose coefficient at [0][0] is 6m6m. □

Dimension 805

Proof of Theorem 1.1 for n=805n=805. Suppose that a lattice tiling exists. Lemma 2.2 gives a perfect code gg in a group GG of order 696845031, and Lemma 2.6 gives a surjection ψ:G→F29\psi:G\to\mathbb{F}_{29}. We use the notation of § 3 with p=29p=29, so m=∣G∣/29=24029139=29⋅828591m=|G|/29=24029139=29\cdot828591.

Step 1: Pk=0P_k=0 for 1≤k≤281\le k\le28. Modulo 29 we have n≡22n\equiv22, 2n+1≡162n+1\equiv16 and 3≡253\equiv2^5, so with z=2vz=2^v,

κ805(v)≡3⋅162+3⋅16(1+z)+2z5−6⋅22≡2z5+19z+17(mod29).\kappa_{805}(v)\equiv3\cdot16^2+3\cdot16(1+z)+2z^5-6\cdot22\equiv2z^5+19z+17\pmod{29}.

Table 1 lists these values for even v≤28v\le28; none is zero. Corollary 3.3 with L=28L=28 gives Pk=0P_k=0 for 1≤k<281\le k<28. Proposition 3.1 with v=28v=28 and Lemma 3.2 give 9P28=−6m=09P_{28}=-6m=0, since 29 divides mm. Hence P28=0P_{28}=0.

Step 2: the counts. Lemma 3.4 applies with D=0D=0: 29 divides c(h)+c(−h)c(h)+c(-h) for every h≠0h\ne0, and 2c(0)≡2n2c(0)\equiv2n, so c(0)≡22(mod29)c(0)\equiv22\pmod{29}. Since 0≤c(0)≤805=22+29⋅270\le c(0)\le805=22+29\cdot27, we can write c(0)=22+29kc(0)=22+29k with 0≤k≤270\le k\le27.

Step 3: modulo 29229^2. By Lemma 4.1, 6m≡f805(A)(mod292)6m\equiv f_{805}(A)\pmod{29^2} with A=1+2c(0)=45+58kA=1+2c(0)=45+58k. For integers aa and yy,

fn(a+y)=fn(a)+yfn′(a)+y2(3a+3)+y3,fn′(X)=3X2+6X+2−6n.f_n(a+y)=f_n(a)+y f_n'(a)+y^2(3a+3)+y^3,\qquad f_n'(X)=3X^2+6X+2-6n.

Take a=45a=45 and y=58ky=58k; the last two terms are divisible by 29229^2. Here f805(45)=−120060≡29⋅7f_{805}(45)=-120060\equiv29\cdot7 and f805′(45)=1517≡9(mod29)f'_{805}(45)=1517\equiv9\pmod{29}, so f805(A)≡29(7+18k)(mod292)f_{805}(A)\equiv29(7+18k)\pmod{29^2}. On the other side 6m=29⋅49715466m=29\cdot4971546 with 4971546≡18(mod29)4971546\equiv18\pmod{29}. Therefore 7+18k≡187 + 18k \equiv18, that is 18k≡11(mod29)18k \equiv11 \pmod{29}. As 18⋅21≡118 \cdot21 \equiv1, this gives k≡11⋅21≡28(mod29)k \equiv11 \cdot21 \equiv28 \pmod{29}, which contradicts 0≤k≤270 \le k \le27. □

Without the bound c(0)≤nc(0) \le n the congruence of Step 3 has the solution c(0)=834c(0) = 834; it is the size of GG relative to nn, through c(0)≤nc(0) \le n, that closes the case.

Dimension 35

Suppose that a lattice tiling of Z35\mathbb{Z}^{35} by B35(3)B^{35}(3) exists. By Lemma 2.2 there is a perfect code gg in a group GG of order 59711=71⋅29259711 = 71 \cdot29^2, and by Lemma 2.6 there are surjections ψ1:G→F71\psi_1 : G \to\mathbb{F}_{71} and ψ2:G→F29\psi_2 : G \to\mathbb{F}_{29}. We put

xj=ψ1(gj)∈F71,yj=ψ2(gj)∈F29,x_j = \psi_1(g_j) \in\mathbb{F}_{71}, \qquad y_j = \psi_2(g_j) \in\mathbb{F}_{29},

c71(h)=#{j:xj=h},c29(t)=#{j:yj=t}.c_{71}(h) = \#\{j : x_j = h\}, \qquad c_{29}(t) = \#\{j : y_j = t\}.

The prime 71

Lemma 6.1. c71(0)=0c_{71}(0) = 0, and c71(h)+c71(−h)=1c_{71}(h) + c_{71}(-h) = 1 for every h≠0h \ne0. Consequently xj≠0x_j \ne0 for every jj, and xj≠±xkx_j \ne\pm x_k for j≠kj \ne k.

Proof. We apply § 3 with p=71p = 71 and m=841m = 841. Since 2n+1=712n + 1 = 71 and 6n=210≡−3(mod71)6n = 210 \equiv-3 \pmod{71}, we have κ35(v)≡2⋅3v+3=3(2⋅3v−1+1)\kappa_{35}(v) \equiv2 \cdot3^v + 3 = 3(2 \cdot3^{v-1} + 1). If this vanished, then 3v−1≡−2−1≡−36=−623^{v-1} \equiv-2^{-1} \equiv-36 = -6^2. But 33 is a square modulo 7171, because (371)=−(713)=−(23)=1\left(\frac{3}{71}\right) = -\left(\frac{71}{3}\right) = -\left(\frac{2}{3}\right) = 1, while −1-1 is not, because 71≡3(mod4)71 \equiv3 \pmod{4}. So κ35(v)≠0\kappa_{35}(v) \ne0 for every v≥1v \ge1, and Corollary 3.3 with L=70L = 70 gives Pk=0P_k = 0 for 1≤k<701 \le k < 70. For v=70v = 70 we have κ35(70)≡2+3=5\kappa_{35}(70) \equiv2 + 3 = 5 by Fermat’s theorem, and 6m=5046≡56m = 5046 \equiv5, so Proposition 3.1 and Lemma 3.2 give 5P70=−55P_{70} = -5, that is P70=−1P_{70} = -1 and D=1D = 1.

By Lemma 3.4, 2c71(0)≡2n+1=71≡02c_{71}(0) \equiv2n + 1 = 71 \equiv0, and c71(0)≤35c_{71}(0) \le35, so c71(0)=0c_{71}(0) = 0. Then (p−1)D+2c71(0)=70=2n(p - 1)D + 2c_{71}(0) = 70 = 2n, and the equality case of Lemma 3.4 gives c71(h)+c71(−h)=1c_{71}(h) + c_{71}(-h) = 1 for h≠0h \ne0. If xj=±xkx_j = \pm x_k for some j≠kj \ne k, then h=xj≠0h = x_j \ne0 has c71(h)+c71(−h)≥2c_{71}(h) + c_{71}(-h) \ge2, since h≠−hh \ne-h. □

The prime 29

Lemma 6.2. One of the following holds.

(a) 2929 divides c29(t)+c29(−t)c_{29}(t) + c_{29}(-t) for every t≠0t \ne0, and c29(0)∈{6,35}c_{29}(0) \in\{6, 35\}.

(b) c29(t)+c29(−t)=1c_{29}(t) + c_{29}(-t) = 1 for every t≠0t \ne0, and c29(0)=21c_{29}(0) = 21.

(c) c29(t)+c29(−t)=2c_{29}(t) + c_{29}(-t) = 2 for every t≠0t \ne0, and c29(0)=7c_{29}(0) = 7.

Proof. We apply § 3 with p=29p = 29 and m=2059=29⋅71m = 2059 = 29 \cdot71. Modulo 2929 we have 2n+1≡132n + 1 \equiv13 and 6n≡76n \equiv7, so with z=2vz = 2^v,

κ35(v)≡3⋅132+3⋅13(1+z)+2z5−7≡2z5+10z+17(mod29)\kappa_{35}(v) \equiv3 \cdot13^2 + 3 \cdot13(1 + z) + 2z^5 - 7 \equiv2z^5 + 10z + 17 \pmod{29}.

By Table 1 these values are nonzero for even v≤26v \le26, so Corollary 3.3 with L=28L = 28 gives Pk=0P_k = 0 for 1≤k<281 \le k < 28. (The value at v=28v = 28 is zero, so P28P_{28} is not determined.) Let DD be as in Lemma 3.4. Then 28D+2c29(0)≤7028D + 2c_{29}(0) \le70, so D≤2D \le2, and 2c29(0)≡70+D(mod29)2c_{29}(0) \equiv70 + D \pmod{29}.

vv246810121416182022242628
κ805(v)\kappa_{805}(v) mod 2924192323248251015111110269
κ35(v)\kappa_{35}(v) mod 29172027101351714724420

Table 1. The values of κ805(v)\kappa_{805}(v) and κ35(v)\kappa_{35}(v) modulo 29 for even vv.

If D=0D = 0, then c29(0)≡35≡6c_{29}(0) \equiv35 \equiv6 and c29(0)≤35c_{29}(0) \le35, which is (a). If D=1D = 1, then 2c29(0)≡132c_{29}(0) \equiv13, so c29(0)≡21c_{29}(0) \equiv21, while 2c29(0)≤422c_{29}(0) \le42; hence c29(0)=21c_{29}(0) = 21, equality holds in Lemma 3.4(2), and we are in (b). If D=2D = 2, then 2c29(0)≡142c_{29}(0) \equiv14, so c29(0)≡7c_{29}(0) \equiv7, while 2c29(0)≤142c_{29}(0) \le14; hence c29(0)=7c_{29}(0) = 7 and we are in (c). □

Figure 3 shows the distributions of Lemma 6.1 and of case (c).

Image not extracted

Figure 3. Left: the 35 residues xjx_j in F71\mathbb{F}_{71}; each pair {h,−h}\{h,-h\} with h≠0h \ne0 carries exactly one of them (Lemma 6.1). Right: the residues yjy_j in F29\mathbb{F}_{29} in case (c) of Lemma 6.2; 0 carries seven of them and each pair {t,−t}\{t,-t\} with t≠0t \ne0 carries two. Each picture alone is compatible with the projected identity (3) (Remark 6.3).

Case (a)

By Lemma 4.1 with p=29p=29, 6m=12354≡580(mod841)6m=12354\equiv580\pmod{841} would be congruent to f35(1+2c29(0))f_{35}(1+2c_{29}(0)). But f35(13)=13⋅14⋅15−210⋅13=0f_{35}(13)=13\cdot14\cdot15-210\cdot13=0 and f35(71)=71(72⋅73−210)=6⋅71⋅841≡0f_{35}(71)=71(72\cdot73-210)=6\cdot71\cdot841\equiv0. Since 580≢0(mod841)580\not\equiv0\pmod{841}, case (a) is impossible.

The joint projection

In cases (b) and (c) we have c29(t)+c29(−t)=Dc_{29}(t)+c_{29}(-t)=D for every t≠0t\ne0, with D=1D=1 and c29(0)=21c_{29}(0)=21, or D=2D=2 and c29(0)=7c_{29}(0)=7. Let Γ=F71×F29\Gamma=\mathbb{F}_{71}\times\mathbb{F}_{29} and ψ=(ψ1,ψ2):G→Γ\psi=(\psi_1,\psi_2):G\to\Gamma. The image of ψ\psi is a subgroup of the cyclic group Γ\Gamma of order 20592059 whose order is divisible by 7171 and by 2929, because both projections are onto; so ψ\psi is surjective and ∣G∣/∣Γ∣=29|G|/|\Gamma|=29.

Let R0=F71[F29]R_0=\mathbb{F}_{71}[\mathbb{F}_{29}] and let Λ=R0[ε]/(ε2)\Lambda=R_0[\varepsilon]/(\varepsilon^2) be the ring of dual numbers over R0R_0. The map

χ(s,t)=[t](1+sε)=[t]+s[t]ε,(s,t)∈Γ,\chi(s,t)=[t](1+s\varepsilon)=[t]+s[t]\varepsilon,\qquad(s,t)\in\Gamma,

is a homomorphism Γ→Λ×\Gamma\to\Lambda^\times, because (1+sε)(1+s′ε)=1+(s+s′)ε(1+s\varepsilon)(1+s'\varepsilon)=1+(s+s')\varepsilon. The left side of (2.2) is

6⋅29∑t∈F29[t](71+(∑s∈F71s)ε)=0,6\cdot29\sum_{t\in\mathbb{F}_{29}}[t]\left(71+\left(\sum_{s\in\mathbb{F}_{71}}s\right)\varepsilon\right)=0,

because 71=071=0 and ∑s∈F71s=71⋅35=0\sum_{s\in\mathbb{F}_{71}}s=71\cdot35=0 in F71\mathbb{F}_{71}. On the right side Ti=Ui+NiεT_i=U_i+N_i\varepsilon with

Ui=[0]+∑j([iyj]+[−iyj]),Ni=i∑jxj([iyj]−[−iyj])in R0.U_i=[0]+\sum_j\left([iy_j]+[-iy_j]\right),\qquad N_i=i\sum_jx_j\left([iy_j]-[-iy_j]\right)\quad\text{in }R_0.

Taking the coefficient of ε\varepsilon in (2.2) gives

3U12N1+3(U1N2+U2N1)+2N3−6nN1=0.(5)3U_1^2N_1+3(U_1N_2+U_2N_1)+2N_3-6nN_1=0. \tag*{(5)}

The coefficient of UiU_i at tt is δt,0+c29(i−1t)+c29(−i−1t)\delta_{t,0}+c_{29}(i^{-1}t)+c_{29}(-i^{-1}t), which equals 1+2c29(0)1+2c_{29}(0) at t=0t=0 and DD at t≠0t\ne0. Hence Ui=A[0]+DSU_i=A[0]+DS with S=SF29S=S_{\mathbb F_{29}} and A=1+2c29(0)−DA=1+2c_{29}(0)-D. Since S[t]=SS[t]=S for every tt, we get SNi=0SN_i=0, and (6.1) becomes

(3A2+3A−6n)N1+3AN2+2N3=0.(6)(3A^2+3A-6n)N_1+3AN_2+2N_3=0. \tag*{(6)}

For t∈F29t\in\mathbb F_{29} put

s(t)=∑j:yj=txj−∑j:yj=−txj∈F71.s(t)=\sum_{j:y_j=t}x_j-\sum_{j:y_j=-t}x_j\in\mathbb F_{71}.

The coefficient of NiN_i at tt is i s(i−1t)i\,s(i^{-1}t). In F29\mathbb F_{29} we have 2−1=152^{-1}=15 and 3−1=103^{-1}=10, so (6.2) says that

(3A2+3A−6n)s(t)+6A s(15t)+6s(10t)=0for every t∈F29.(7)(3A^2+3A-6n)s(t)+6A\,s(15t)+6s(10t)=0 \qquad\text{for every }t\in\mathbb F_{29}. \tag*{(7)}

In case (b), A=42A=42, and the coefficients are 5208≡255208\equiv25, 252≡39252\equiv39 and 66 modulo 7171. In case (c), A=13A=13, and they are 336≡52336\equiv52, 78≡778\equiv7 and 66. Multiplying by 12=6−112=6^{-1} in F71\mathbb F_{71}, we obtain

a s(t)+b s(15t)+s(10t)=0for every t∈F29,(8)a\,s(t)+b\,s(15t)+s(10t)=0 \qquad\text{for every }t\in\mathbb F_{29}, \tag*{(8)}

with (a,b)=(16,42)(a,b)=(16,42) in case (b) and (a,b)=(56,13)(a,b)=(56,13) in case (c).

A circulant system

The residue 22 is a primitive root modulo 2929: 24=16≠12^4=16\ne1, 27=128≡122^7=128\equiv12 and 214≡144≡−12^{14}\equiv144\equiv-1, so the order of 22 divides 2828 but not 1414 or 44. Hence 15=2−115=2^{-1} has order 2828, 1514=−115^{14}=-1, and 155=2−5=3−1=1015^5=2^{-5}=3^{-1}=10, since 25=32≡32^5=32\equiv3. Put μk=s(15k)\mu_k=s(15^k) for k∈Zk\in\mathbb Z. Then μk+28=μk\mu_{k+28}=\mu_k, and since s(−t)=−s(t)s(-t)=-s(t), also μk+14=−μk\mu_{k+14}=-\mu_k. Taking t=15kt=15^k in (6.4) gives

aμk+bμk+1+μk+5=0for every k.(9)a\mu_k+b\mu_{k+1}+\mu_{k+5}=0 \qquad\text{for every }k. \tag*{(9)}

Figure 4 shows these relations on the orbit of 1.

Let VV be the F71\mathbb F_{71}-vector space of sequences (μk)k∈Z(\mu_k)_{k\in\mathbb Z} of period 2828, and let σ\sigma be the shift, (σμ)k=μk+1(\sigma\mu)_k=\mu_{k+1}. It is invertible, with σ−1=σ27\sigma^{-1}=\sigma^{27}. For our μ\mu the set II of polynomials Q∈F71[X]Q\in\mathbb F_{71}[X] with Q(σ)μ=0Q(\sigma)\mu=0 is an ideal. It contains Q=X5+bX+aQ=X^5+bX+a by (6.5), and X14+1X^{14}+1. Applying σ5μ=−(a+bσ)μ\sigma^5\mu=-(a+b\sigma)\mu three times gives σ15μ=−(a+bσ)3μ\sigma^{15}\mu=-(a+b\sigma)^3\mu, while σ15μ=σσ14μ=−σμ\sigma^{15}\mu=\sigma\sigma^{14}\mu=-\sigma\mu. So II also contains C=(a+bX)3−XC=(a+bX)^3-X. All congruences below are modulo 7171.

In case (b), C=35X3−31X2+21X−22C=35X^3-31X^2+21X-22 and II contains C~=−2C=X3−9X2+29X−27\widetilde C=-2C=X^3-9X^2+29X-27. Division with remainder gives

Q=(X2+9X−19)C~+21X(X+6),C~=(X−15)X(X+6)−23(X−5).Q=(X^2+9X-19)\widetilde C+21X(X+6),\qquad \widetilde C=(X-15)X(X+6)-23(X-5).

Hence X(X+6)∈IX(X+6)\in I, and then X−5∈IX-5\in I. As σ\sigma is invertible, (σ+6)μ=0(\sigma+6)\mu=0 and (σ−5)μ=0(\sigma-5)\mu=0; subtracting, 11μ=011\mu=0, so μ=0\mu=0.

In case (c), C=−4X3−8X2−30X+33C=-4X^3-8X^2-30X+33 and II contains C~=−18C=X3+2X2−28X−26\widetilde C=-18C=X^3+2X^2-28X-26. Here

Q=(X2−2X+32)C~−23(X−14)2,C~=(X+30)(X−14)2−23(X+16).Q=(X^2-2X+32)\widetilde C-23(X-14)^2,\qquad \widetilde C=(X+30)(X-14)^2-23(X+16).

Hence (X−14)2∈I(X-14)^2\in I, and then X+16∈IX+16\in I. So σμ=−16μ\sigma\mu=-16\mu, and 0=(σ−14)2μ=302μ=48μ0=(\sigma-14)^2\mu=30^2\mu=48\mu; again μ=0\mu=0.

Image not extracted

Figure 4. The cyclic group F29×\mathbb{F}_{29}^{\times} as the orbit 15k15^k, 0≤k<270 \le k < 27. Each relation (6.5) joins the values of ss at 15k15^k, 15k+1=2−1⋅15k15^{k+1}=2^{-1}\cdot15^k and 15k+5=3−1⋅15k15^{k+5}=3^{-1}\cdot15^k (one instance drawn), and opposite points 15k15^k and 15k+14=−15k15^{k+14}=-15^k carry opposite values of ss.

End of the proof

Proof of Theorem 1.1 for n=35n=35. Cases (a), (b) and (c) of Lemma 6.2 exhaust the possibilities. Case (a) is impossible, and in cases (b) and (c) we have shown that μ=0\mu=0, in particular s(1)=μ0=0s(1)=\mu_0=0. The set J={j:yj=±1}J=\{j:y_j=\pm1\} has c29(1)+c29(−1)=Dc_{29}(1)+c_{29}(-1)=D elements, and s(1)=∑j∈J±xjs(1)=\sum_{j\in J}\pm x_j. If D=1D=1, then s(1)=±xjs(1)=\pm x_j for one jj, which is nonzero by Lemma 6.1. If D=2D=2, then s(1)=±xj±xks(1)=\pm x_j\pm x_k with j≠kj\ne k, which is nonzero because xj≠±xkx_j\ne\pm x_k by Lemma 6.1. Either way s(1)≠0s(1)\ne0, a contradiction. □

Remark 6.3. Case (b) can also be excluded without the prime 71. In cases (b) and (c) the element TiT_i of (2.3) for Γ=F29\Gamma=\mathbb{F}_{29} is A[0]+DSA[0]+DS with integer coefficients, and S2=29SS^2=29S, so the right side of (2.3) is f35(A)[0]f_{35}(A)[0] plus an integer multiple of SS. Comparing the coefficients at [0][0] and [1][1] with those of the left side 6mS6mS gives f35(A)=0f_{35}(A)=0. For A>0A>0 this means (A+1)(A+2)=210(A+1)(A+2)=210, that is A=13A=13, which rules out case (b), where A=42A=42. Case (c) passes: with A=13A=13 and D=2D=2 the right side is exactly 12354S=6mS12354S=6mS. Likewise the distribution of Lemma 6.1 gives Ti=SF71T_i=S F_{71} and a right side 5046SF71=6⋅841SF715046S F_{71}=6\cdot841S F_{71}, as required. So each of the two distributions of Figure 3 satisfies the projected identity (2.3) exactly, as Xiao and Zhou observed [18 Example 5.14], and only the joint projection of Section 6.4 sees that they cannot occur together.

Formal verification

Theorem 1.1 has been formalized in Lean 4 [12] with the Mathlib library [14]. The formal statement defines a lattice tiling of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n by Bn(r)B^n(r) as a subgroup LL of Zn\mathbb{Z}^n such that every x∈Znx\in\mathbb{Z}^n has exactly one l∈Ll\in L with ∑j∣xj−lj∣≤r\sum_j|x_j-l_j|\le r, and it asserts that no such subgroup exists for (n,r)=(35,3)(n,r)=(35,3) or (805,3)(805,3). The proof follows § 2–§ 6. Lemma 2.2, Proposition 2.3 for an arbitrary commutative ring, Lemmas 2.4 and 2.6, Proposition 3.1, Lemmas 3.2 and 3.4, Lemma 4.1 for p=29p=29, and the arguments of § 5 and § 6 are proved there, and the finite computations in F29\mathbb{F}_{29}, F71\mathbb{F}_{71} and Z/841\mathbb{Z}/841, among them Table 1, are checked by the kernel. Two steps are argued differently there: the left side of (2) in § 6.4 is shown to vanish by pairing each element xx of a fibre of ψ2\psi_2 with 2x0−x2x_0-x for a fixed x0x_0 in that fibre, and the system (9) is solved by an explicit linear combination of its twenty-eight equations. Both theorems depend only on the standard axioms of Lean, namely propositional extensionality, choice and quotient soundness. The numbers in § 5 and § 6 were also recomputed independently by the programs archived with the formalization [2].

Data and code availability

The \LaTeX source of the paper, the Lean 4 formalisation of Theorem 1.1 described in § 7, and the C, C++, Python, Julia and shell programs that recompute the finite quantities of § 5 and § 6 are archived at Zenodo under doi:10.5281/zenodo.23398805 [2]; the paper is available at https://github.com/creelie/refactored-waddle/blob/main/preprintGolombWelchRadiusThree/GolombWelchRadiusThree.pdf. Deep Bhattacharjee carried out the computations and the Lean, Julia, C, C++, Python and shell verifications, and the proofs and the text were drafted, with AI assistance (Claude, Anthropic); both authors approved the final version.

Ethical declarations

Funding: none. Competing interests: none.

Formerly, Electro-Gravitational Space Propulsion Laboratory (EGSPL), Bhubaneswar, Odisha 751030, India; Formerly, University of Calcutta, Senate House, 87/1 College Street, Kolkata 700073, West Bengal, India

Email address: [email protected]

Email address: [email protected]

URL: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-750X

Formerly, National Taiwan University, Taipei 106319, Taiwan

Email address: [email protected]

URL: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2254-3914

References

  1. [1]D. Bhattacharjee, Establishing equivariant class [O] for hyperbolic groups, Asian Res. J. Math. 18 (2022), no. 11, 362–369, doi:10.9734/arjom/2022/v18i116115.
  2. [2]D. Bhattacharjee and U. Bhattacharya, No lattice tiling of Z^35 or Z^805 by Lee balls of radius three: Lean formalization and programs, Zenodo, 2026, doi:10.5281/zenodo.23398805.
  3. [3]D. Bhattacharjee, U. Bhattacharya and S. Bhattacharya, The sphere packing problem in dimension 4, Preprints.org, 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202606.0856.v11.DOI
  4. [4]D. Bhattacharjee, U. Bhattacharya and S. Bhattacharya, The sphere packing problem in dimension 7, Preprints.org, 2026. doi:10.20944/preprints202606.1534.v9.DOI
  5. [5]R. Dougherty and V. Faber, The degree-diameter problem for several varieties of Cayley graphs I: the abelian case, SIAM J. Discrete Math. 17 (2004), 478–519, doi:10.1137/S0895480100372899.DOI
  6. [6]S. W. Golomb and L. R. Welch, Perfect codes in the Lee metric and the packing of polyominoes, SIAM J. Appl. Math. 18 (1970), 302–317, doi:10.1137/0118025.DOI
  7. [7]S. Gravier, M. Mollard and C. Payan, On the non-existence of 3-dimensional tiling in the Lee metric, European J. Combin. 19 (1998), 567–572, doi:10.1006/eujc.1998.0211.DOI
  8. [8]P. Horak, Tilings in Lee metric, European J. Combin. 30 (2009), 480–489, doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2008.04.007.DOI
  9. [9]P. Horak and B. F. AlBdaiwi, Diameter perfect Lee codes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 58 (2012), 5490–5499, doi:10.1109/TIT.2012.2196257.DOI
  10. [10]P. Horak and D. Kim, 50 years of the Golomb–Welch conjecture, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 64 (2018), 3048–3061, doi:10.1109/TIT.2017.2786675.DOI
  11. [11]D. Kim, Nonexistence of perfect 2-error-correcting Lee codes in certain dimensions, European J. Combin. 63 (2017), 1–5, doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2017.01.007.DOI
  12. [12]L. de Moura and S. Ullrich, The Lean 4 theorem prover and programming language, in: Automated Deduction – CADE 28, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 12699, Springer, 2021, pp. 625–635, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-79876-5_37.DOI
  13. [13]K. H. Leung and Y. Zhou, No lattice tiling of Z^n by Lee sphere of radius 2, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 171 (2020), 105157, doi:10.1016/j.jcta.2019.105157.
  14. [14]The mathlib Community, The Lean mathematical library, in: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Certified Programs and Proofs (CPP 2020), ACM, 2020, pp. 367–381, doi:10.1145/3372885.3373824.DOI
  15. [15]K. A. Post, Nonexistence theorems on perfect Lee codes over large alphabets, Inform. and Control 29 (1975), 369–380, doi:10.1016/S0019-9958(75)80005-2.DOI
  16. [16]C. Qureshi, The non-existence of linear perfect Lee codes: the Zhang–Ge condition and a new polynomial criterion, European J. Combin. 83 (2020), 103022, doi:10.1016/j.ejc.2019.103022.DOI
  17. [17]M. Szegedy, Algorithms to tile the infinite grid with finite clusters, in: Proceedings of the 39th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS 1998), IEEE, 1998, pp. 137–145, doi:10.1109/SFCS.1998.743437.
  18. [18]A. Xiao and Y. Zhou, On the lattice tilings by Lee balls: Q-polynomials, group-ring equations, and a decision algorithm, arXiv:2610.19775, 2026.arxiv.org/abs/2610.19775
  19. [19]T. Zhang and G. Ge, Perfect and quasi-perfect codes under the l_p metric, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 63 (2017), 4325–4331, doi:10.1109/TIT.2017.2685424.DOI
  20. [20]T. Zhang and G. Ge, On linear diameter perfect Lee codes with distance 6, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 201 (2024), 105816, doi:10.1016/j.jcta.2023.105816.DOI
  21. [21]T. Zhang and Y. Zhou, On the nonexistence of lattice tilings of Z^n by Lee spheres, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 165 (2019), 225–257, doi:10.1016/j.jcta.2019.02.008.DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_gknjuw8a
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

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

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Anthropic Claude Code Opus 5.5 Ultracode · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents