alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Almost all kk-Markov numbers are unique

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

For every fixed nonnegative integer kk, we prove that almost every positive integral solution of [x^2+y^2+z^2+k(xy+xz+yz)= 3(k+1)xyz]is uniquely determined, up to permutation, by its largest coordinate.

Introduction

The classical Markov equation

x2+y2+z2=3xyzx^2+y^2+z^2=3xyz

arose in Markoff’s study of indefinite binary quadratic forms [15, 16]. His work connects its positive integral solutions with the discrete part of the Markov spectrum and with extremal phenomena in Diophantine approximation. The solutions are generated from (1,1,1)(1,1,1) by permutations and the Vieta involution (x,y,z)↦(x,y,3xy−z)(x,y,z)\mapsto(x,y,3xy-z). This recursive description gives a tree of triples. Frobenius [11] conjectured in 1913 that each triple, after its coordinates have been put in increasing order, is determined by its largest coordinate.

Two lines of work on this problem concern arithmetic restrictions on the largest coordinate and the geometry of the solution tree. Baragar [3], Schmutz [20], and Button [5] obtained uniqueness results in special arithmetic cases. Lang and Tan [14] gave a short proof of uniqueness when the largest coordinate is a prime power, combining congruences with the geometry of the modular torus. A useful arithmetic invariant of a classical triple (a,b,m)(a,b,m) is a root of u2+1≡0(modm)u^2+1\equiv0\pmod{m}, selected by the relation au≡±b(modm)au\equiv\pm b\pmod{m}. The uniqueness of an appropriate representative of this root underlies several of these results.

The geometric interpretation goes back to Cohn [8, 9]. A classical Markov number mm occurs as one third of the trace of a simple closed geodesic on the modular torus; the corresponding length is 2arcosh⁡(3m/2)2\operatorname{arcosh}(3m/2). The uniqueness problem is thereby related to the multiplicity of simple lengths, with the symmetries of the torus taken into account. McShane and Rivin [17] extended the simple length function to a norm on the first homology of a punctured torus and counted simple geodesics by primitive lattice points in its unit ball. In the arithmetic formulation, Zagier [22] had obtained an asymptotic of order (log⁡H)2(\log H)^2 for the number of sorted Markov triples with largest coordinate at most HH. Risager [19] recently improved the error in this classical triple count to o(log⁡H)o(\log H). These asymptotics count each triple. To obtain the same leading term for distinct largest coordinates, one must also control repeated values in the tree.

Gyoda and Matsushita [13] introduced the family

x2+y2+z2+k1yz+k2zx+k3xy=(3+k1+k2+k3)xyz,k1,k2,k3∈Z≥0.x^2+y^2+z^2+k_1yz+k_2zx+k_3xy=(3+k_1+k_2+k_3)xyz,\qquad k_1,k_2,k_3\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}.

in the setting of generalized cluster algebras. They proved that all positive integral solutions are generated from (1,1,1)(1,1,1) by the three Vieta involutions. Their work also shows that unequal parameters can give distinct triples with the same largest coordinate. The equal-parameter family retains the permutation symmetry of the classical equation and is the subject of the present paper:

x2+y2+z2+k(xy+xz+yz)=3(k+1)xyz,k∈Z≥0.(1)x^2+y^2+z^2+k(xy+xz+yz)=3(k+1)xyz,\qquad k\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq0}. \tag*{(1)}

A positive integer appearing in one of its positive integral solutions is called a kk-Markov number.

Gyoda and Maruyama [12 Conjecture 1.8] formulated the largest-coordinate uniqueness conjecture for this family. Their generalized Cohn matrices lead to a criterion involving the roots of u2+ku+1≡0(modm)u^2+ku+1\equiv0\pmod{m}, and to uniqueness results for prime and certain prime-power largest coordinates. The same uniqueness problem appears in Chen and Huang [6 Conjecture 7.3], in their study of mutation-preserving generalized cluster algebras and Laurent mutation invariants. Combinatorial studies include Banaian’s work on orderings of kk-Markov numbers [1], the study by Banaian and Huang of monotonicity along lines for the extended labels [2], and parameter comparisons in [21]. These studies compare values at specified labels or parameters. The counting question considered here asks how often any two distinct triples share their largest coordinate for one fixed parameter.

For the classical equation, Chen [7] proved that almost all represented largest coordinates are unique. His proof uses the geometry of the homology norm to reduce equal lengths to rational linear relations, then combines polynomial dynamics, pp-adic interpolation, and lattice orbit counting. Doan [10] developed this approach for simple lengths on punctured tori and tori with geodesic boundary, and transferred the result to four-cusped spheres. The latter transfer corresponds to the parameter k=2k=2 in (1).

There is also a direct arithmetic explanation of this special parameter. Gyoda and Matsushita [13 Theorem 11] proved that the 2-Markov triples are exactly the coordinatewise squares of classical Markov triples. Indeed, squaring a2+b2+c2=3abca^2+b^2+c^2=3abc gives (1) for (x,y,z)=(a2,b2,c2)(x,y,z)=(a^2,b^2,c^2) and k=2k=2, and

(3ab−c)2=9a2b2−2a2−2b2−c2(3ab-c)^2=9a^2b^2-2a^2-2b^2-c^2

identifies the two mutation rules. Generation from (1,1,1)(1,1,1) gives the converse. Hence the classical density theorem also gives the result for k=2k=2. The new parameter range in the following theorem is k=1k=1 and k≥3k\ge3; the statement and proof treat every fixed nonnegative integer kk together.

For a positive integer mm and a real number H≥1H\ge1, put

rk(m)=#{(x,y)∈Z2:1≤x≤y≤m, (x,y,m) satisfies (1.1)},r_k(m)=\#\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{Z}^2:1\le x\le y\le m,\ (x,y,m)\text{ satisfies }(1.1)\},

and define

Tk(H)=∑m≤Hrk(m),Dk(H)=∑m≤H1rk(m)>0.(2)T_k(H)=\sum_{m\le H}r_k(m),\qquad D_k(H)=\sum_{m\le H}\mathbf{1}_{r_k(m)>0}. \tag*{(2)}

Here 1E\mathbf{1}_E denotes the indicator of a condition EE. Thus TkT_k counts sorted triples and DkD_k counts their distinct largest coordinates. All limits are taken with kk fixed.

Theorem 1.1. For every fixed integer k≥0k\ge0, there is a constant Ck>0C_k>0 such that

Tk(H)∼Dk(H)∼Ck(log⁡H)2,Tk(H)−Dk(H)=ok((log⁡H)2).(3)T_k(H)\sim D_k(H)\sim C_k(\log H)^2,\qquad T_k(H)-D_k(H)=o_k((\log H)^2). \tag*{(3)}

Consequently,

#{m≤H:rk(m)≥2}=ok(Dk(H)),(4)\#\{m\le H:r_k(m)\ge2\}=o_k(D_k(H)), \tag*{(4)}
∑m≤Hrk(m)≥2rk(m)=ok(Tk(H)).(5)\sum_{\substack{m\le H\\r_k(m)\ge2}}r_k(m)=o_k(T_k(H)). \tag*{(5)}

The constant is

Ck=area⁡(Bk)12ζ(2),(6)C_k=\frac{\operatorname{area}(B_k)}{12\zeta(2)}, \tag*{(6)}

where ζ(2)=π2/6\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6 and BkB_k is the unit ball of the norm constructed in § 3.

The first density statement concerns the represented largest coordinates; the second counts all solutions in nonunique fibers, with their multiplicities. The square correspondence above gives T2(H)=T0(H)T_2(H)=T_0(\sqrt{H}) and D2(H)=D0(H)D_2(H)=D_0(\sqrt{H}), so C2=C0/4C_2=C_0/4.

We construct the required norm from the Vieta recursion and Farey labels. Its positive corners at rational directions determine its rational linear isometry group, and its exponentially small variation between consecutive Farey rays confines equal-length pairs to finitely many rational graph planes at each scale. On a fixed graph, integral polynomial dynamics and the interpolation argument of Poonen [18] yield a zero-density statement. The lattice orbit theorem of Burrin–Nevo–Rühr–Weiss [4], with the cusp-width normalization given in Theorem 5.4, converts the finite congruence counts into real counts. A second Farey partition bounds the sum over graphs of growing complexity. Primitive lattice counting then gives (3).

Descent, Farey labels, and polynomial dynamics

Throughout the proof, kk is fixed. The notation ∣v∣|v| denotes the Euclidean norm. Positive constants c,Cc, C may depend on kk and may change from line to line. Put

κ=k(k+2),ν=k2(2k+3),a0=2k+3.(7)\kappa= k(k+2), \qquad\nu= k^2(2k+3), \qquad a_0 = 2k+3. \tag*{(7)}

The symbol Zprim2\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}} denotes the set of nonzero primitive vectors in Z2\mathbb{Z}^2, with both signs included. Set

e1=(1,0),e2=(0,1),C={(p,q)∈R2:p≥q≥0}.e_1=(1,0), \qquad e_2=(0,1), \qquad\mathcal{C}=\{(p,q)\in\mathbb{R}^2:p\ge q\ge0\}.

Lemma 2.1 (Descent and the label tree). Every positive integral solution of (1) descends by Vieta mutation to (1,1,1)(1,1,1). The coordinates of every solution are pairwise coprime. There are integer labels Mv=M−v≥1M_v=M_{-v}\ge1, indexed by v∈Zprim2v\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}}, such that

Mu+v=3(k+1)MuMv−k(Mu+Mv)−Mu−v(∣det⁡(u,v)∣=1),(8)M_{u+v}=3(k+1)M_uM_v-k(M_u+M_v)-M_{u-v}\qquad(|\det(u,v)|=1), \tag*{(8)}

with Me1=Me2=Me1−e2=1M_{e_1}=M_{e_2}=M_{e_1-e_2}=1. Primitive vectors in C\mathcal{C} are in bijection with sorted positive solutions, and MvM_v is the largest coordinate of the corresponding solution.

Proof. For a sorted solution x≤y≤zx\le y\le z, the other root in the last coordinate is

z′=3(k+1)xy−k(x+y)−z=x2+y2+kxyz>0.z'=3(k+1)xy-k(x+y)-z=\frac{x^2+y^2+kxy}{z}>0.

Let PP be the monic quadratic in that coordinate. Then

P(y)=x2+2kxy+{k+2−3(k+1)x}y2.P(y)=x^2+2kxy+\{k+2-3(k+1)x\}y^2.

If x=1x=1, this equals −(y−1)((2k+1)y+1)-(y-1)((2k+1)y+1). If x≥2x\ge2, the inequality x≤yx\le y gives P(y)≤3(k+1)(1−x)y2<0P(y)\le3(k+1)(1-x)y^2<0. Thus 0<z′<y<z0<z'<y<z unless x=y=1x=y=1. In the latter case P(Z)=(Z−1)(Z−k−2)P(Z)=(Z-1)(Z-k-2), so the two possibilities are (1,1,1)(1,1,1) and (1,1,k+2)(1,1,k+2). The mutation of either of the other coordinates is greater than zz: for example, y′=(x2+z2+kxz)/y>zy'=(x^2+z^2+kxz)/y>z. Hence each noninitial sorted solution has a unique descending parent, and descent terminates because the sum of the coordinates decreases.

Pairwise coprimality is preserved along an edge. Indeed, if a prime pp divides both xx and z′z', the mutation formula gives z≡−ky(modp)z\equiv-ky\pmod p. Substitution into the equation modulo pp then gives y2≡0(modp)y^2\equiv0\pmod p, contradicting gcd⁡(x,y)=1\gcd(x,y)=1. The other retained coordinate is treated identically. Starting at (1,1,1)(1,1,1) proves the claim. In particular, equal coordinates greater than 11 cannot occur.

The dual graph of the Farey triangulation is a tree: adjacent unimodular pairs (u,v)(u,v) are refined by their mediant u+vu+v. Starting with the triangle of unoriented directions e1,e2,e1−e2e_1,e_2,e_1-e_2, assign its three labels the value 11 and propagate across its edges by (8). This gives every label unambiguously. Equivalently, in C\mathcal{C} begin with the boundary vectors e1,e1+e2e_1,e_1+e_2, of labels 1,k+21,k+2, and insert mediants. For an explicit description of the parents of (p,q)(p,q), where 0<q<p0<q<p and gcd⁡(p,q)=1\gcd(p,q)=1, choose the unique r∈{1,…,p−1}r\in\{1,\ldots,p-1\} with rq≡1(modp)rq\equiv1\pmod p, and put s=(rq−1)/ps=(rq-1)/p. Then

u=(r,s),v=(p−r,q−s)u=(r,s),\qquad v=(p-r,q-s)

belong to C∩Zprim2C\cap\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}}, have determinant one, and sum to (p,q)(p,q). Their slopes lie on opposite sides of q/pq/p, and these properties uniquely determine r,sr,s. Every integer vector strictly between their rays is a positive integer combination of u,vu,v, so its first coordinate is at least pp. They are therefore consecutive before q/pq/p is inserted. Passage to a parent decreases the first coordinate and ends at e1e_1 or e1+e2e_1+e_2.

At a sorted solution with distinct coordinates, the two upward mutations give distinct children, each with the original triple as its unique descending parent. The triple (1,1,k+2)(1,1,k+2) has one distinct upward child. These rules identify successive mediant insertions with the sorted mutation tree. The two boundary vectors correspond to (1,1,1)(1,1,1) and (1,1,k+2)(1,1,k+2); interior mediants correspond to all remaining solutions. □

Define

R0(p,q)=(p+q,−q),R1(p,q)=(q,p),K=⟨R0,R1⟩⊂GL2(Z).R_0(p,q)=(p+q,-q),\qquad R_1(p,q)=(q,p),\qquad K=\langle R_0,R_1\rangle\subset\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{Z}).

The group KK has order 12, preserves the six vectors {±e1,±e2,±(e1−e2)}\{\pm e_1,\pm e_2,\pm(e_1-e_2)\}, and has CC as a closed fundamental cone. These assertions follow by multiplying the two displayed matrices: R0R1R_0R_1 has order 6 and its cube is −I-I. Both generators preserve the initial unoriented Farey triangle. Uniqueness of the recursion therefore gives

Mgv=Mv(g∈K).(9)M_{gv}=M_v\quad(g\in K). \tag*{(9)}

Every KK-orbit in Zprim2\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}} has exactly one representative in CC.

Lemma 2.2 (An ambient polynomial action). Let Γ=SL2(Z)\Gamma=\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z}) and o=(a0,a0,a0)o=(a_0,a_0,a_0). There is a right action of Γ\Gamma on A3A^3, by integral polynomial automorphisms, and polynomials Pv∈Z[a,b,c]P_v\in\mathbb{Z}[a,b,c] for v∈Zprim2v\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}}, such that

Pv(P∗h)=Phv(P),Pv(o)=Xv:=3(k+1)Mv−k,P−v=Pv.(10)P_v(P*h)=P_{hv}(P),\qquad P_v(o)=X_v:=3(k+1)M_v-k,\qquad P_{-v}=P_v. \tag*{(10)}

The action preserves

Fk(a,b,c)=a2+b2+c2−abc+κ(a+b+c)+ν,(11)F_k(a,b,c)=a^2+b^2+c^2-abc+\kappa(a+b+c)+\nu, \tag*{(11)}

and Fk(o)=0F_k(o)=0.

Proof. Writing a=3(k+1)x−ka=3(k+1)x-k, b=3(k+1)y−kb=3(k+1)y-k, and c=3(k+1)z−kc=3(k+1)z-k gives the identity

Fk(a,b,c)=9(k+1)2(x2+y2+z2+k(xy+xz+yz)−3(k+1)xyz).F_k(a,b,c)=9(k+1)^2\left(x^2+y^2+z^2+k(xy+xz+yz)-3(k+1)xyz\right).

Define

S=(0−110),R=(0−111),S=\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\1&0\end{pmatrix},\qquad R=\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\1&1\end{pmatrix},

and set

(a,b,c)∗S=(b,a,ab−κ−c),(a,b,c)∗R=(b,c,a).(12)(a,b,c)*S=(b,a,ab-\kappa-c),\qquad(a,b,c)*R=(b,c,a). \tag*{(12)}

The two polynomial maps have orders 2 and 3 and preserve FkF_k. The presentation PSL⁡2(Z)≅(Z/2Z)∗(Z/3Z)\operatorname{PSL}_2(\mathbb{Z}) \cong(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) * (\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z}), with factors generated by the classes of SS and RR, defines the claimed action; −I-I acts trivially. The three initial coordinate directions are e1e_1, e2e_2, e1−e2e_1-e_2.

For T=S−1R=(1101)T=S^{-1}R=\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\0&1\end{pmatrix}, direct composition gives

(a,b,c)∗T=(a,ab−κ−c,b),(a,b,c)∗T−1=(a,c,ac−κ−b).(13)(a,b,c)*T=(a,ab-\kappa-c,b),\qquad(a,b,c)*T^{-1}=(a,c,ac-\kappa-b). \tag*{(13)}

In particular, every power of TT fixes the first coordinate identically. Choose gv∈Γg_v\in\Gamma with gve1=vg_ve_1=v, and put Pv(P)=π1(P∗gv)P_v(P)=\pi_1(P*g_v), where π1(a,b,c)=a\pi_1(a,b,c)=a. Any other choice is gvTng_vT^n, so this is well-defined. Replacing gvg_v by hgvhg_v proves equivariance; triviality of −I-I proves P−v=PvP_{-v}=P_v. Finally the polynomial identity across a Farey edge is Pu+v+Pu−v=PuPv−κP_{u+v}+P_{u-v}=P_uP_v-\kappa. At oo this is precisely the affine transform of (8), with the same initial labels. □

The convex norm and exponential Farey estimates

For v∈Zprim2v\in\mathbb{Z}_{\mathrm{prim}}^2, let

ℓv=arcosh⁡(Xv/2)>0.(14)\ell_v=\operatorname{arcosh}(X_v/2)>0. \tag*{(14)}

We construct a norm N=NkN=N_k with N(v)=ℓvN(v)=\ell_v for every primitive integer vector. Its unit ball will be denoted by B=BkB=B_k.

Fan recurrences and convexity

Fix a primitive vector uu, and choose B∈Z2B\in\mathbb{Z}^2 with det⁡(u,B)=1\det(u,B)=1. Set a=Xua=X_u and zn=XB+nuz_n=X_{B+nu}. The Farey recursion gives

zn+1=azn−zn−1−κ,zn=da+A+λan+A−λa−n,(15)z_{n+1}=az_n-z_{n-1}-\kappa,\qquad z_n=d_a+A_+\lambda_a^n+A_-\lambda_a^{-n}, \tag*{(15)}

where

λa=a+a2−42=eℓu,da=κa−2.\lambda_a=\frac{a+\sqrt{a^2-4}}{2}=e^{\ell_u},\qquad d_a=\frac{\kappa}{a-2}.

Substitution into (11), or elimination of z0,z1z_0,z_1, gives

A+A−=Rk(a):=(a+κ)2(a+κ2−2)(a−2)(a2−4)=a2+κa+ν+κ2/(a−2)a2−4>1.(16)A_+A_-=R_k(a):=\frac{(a+\kappa)^2(a+\kappa^2-2)}{(a-2)(a^2-4)}=\frac{a^2+\kappa a+\nu+\kappa^2/(a-2)}{a^2-4}>1. \tag*{(16)}

Indeed, using λa+λa−1=a\lambda_a+\lambda_a^{-1}=a in (15) gives

z02+z12−az0z1+κ(z0+z1)=(2−a)da2+2κda−(a2−4)A+A−=κ2a−2−(a2−4)A+A−.\begin{aligned} z_0^2+z_1^2-az_0z_1+\kappa(z_0+z_1)=(2-a)d_a^2+2\kappa d_a-(a^2-4)A_+A_- \\ &=\frac{\kappa^2}{a-2}-(a^2-4)A_+A_-. \end{aligned}

The cubic identity therefore gives (a2−4)A+A−=a2+κa+ν+κ2/(a−2)(a^2-4)A_+A_-=a^2+\kappa a+\nu+\kappa^2/(a-2), while

(a−2)(a2+κa+ν)+κ2=(a+κ)2(a+κ2−2).(a-2)(a^2+\kappa a+\nu)+\kappa^2=(a+\kappa)^2(a+\kappa^2-2).

Since

a0(a0−2)−4κ=3,0≤da<a0/4,(17)a_0(a_0-2)-4\kappa=3,\qquad0\le d_a<a_0/4, \tag*{(17)}

and z0≥a0≥3z_0\ge a_0\ge3, the sum A++A−=z0−daA_++A_-=z_0-d_a is positive. Thus both coefficients in (15) are positive.

At a mediant insertion inside CC, let a,ba,b be the traces of the two parents, cc the new trace and dd the old trace. Inductively d≤max⁡(a,b)d \le\max(a,b) and c+d=ab−κc+d=ab-\kappa. If a≤ba\le b, then

c−b≥b(a−2)−κ≥a0(a0−2)−κ=3(k+1)2>0.c-b \ge b(a-2)-\kappa\ge a_0(a_0-2)-\kappa=3(k+1)^2>0.

Consequently cc is the larger root. Since 4κ<a02≤ab4\kappa<a_0^2\le ab,

c≥ab−κ2≥38ab,X(p,q)≥83γp((p,q)∈C∩Zprim2),γ=3a08>1.(18)c\ge\frac{ab-\kappa}{2}\ge\frac{3}{8}ab,\qquad X_{(p,q)}\ge\frac{8}{3}\gamma^p\quad((p,q)\in C\cap\mathbb{Z}_{\mathrm{prim}}^2),\qquad\gamma=\frac{3a_0}{8}>1. \tag*{(18)}

For the second inequality, multiply traces by 3/83/8; the first inequality becomes a multiplicative lower bound, and the first coordinates add under mediants. The boundary traces are at least a0a_0, which starts the induction.

For a convex positively homogeneous function NN and x≠0x\ne0, define its set of supporting functionals by

∂N(x)={α∈(R2)∗:α(y)≤N(y) for all y∈R2, α(x)=N(x)}.\partial N(x)=\{\alpha\in(\mathbb{R}^2)^*:\alpha(y)\le N(y)\text{ for all }y\in\mathbb{R}^2,\ \alpha(x)=N(x)\}.

We identify linear forms with Euclidean vectors. The set ∂N(x)\partial N(x) is a segment in the line α(x)=N(x)\alpha(x)=N(x). Denote its endpoints by ∇N(x)−\nabla N(x)^- and ∇N(x)+\nabla N(x)^+, ordered so that their difference is a nonnegative multiple of RxRx, where R(p,q)=(−q,p)R(p,q)=(-q,p). They are the extreme supporting gradients on the clockwise and counterclockwise sides of the ray through xx.

Proposition 3.1. There is a KK-invariant strictly convex norm NN on R2\mathbb{R}^2 taking the values (14) on primitive integer vectors. It satisfies c∣v∣≤N(v)≤C∣v∣c|v|\le N(v)\le C|v|. At a primitive vector vv, the difference of the extreme gradients, in counterclockwise order, is

∇N(v)+−∇N(v)−=Jk(Xv)Rv,Jk(a)=log⁡Rk(a)>0.(19)\nabla N(v)^+-\nabla N(v)^-=J_k(X_v)Rv,\qquad J_k(a)=\log R_k(a)>0. \tag*{(19)}

Proof. For a reduced rational q/p∈[0,1]q/p\in[0,1], define f(q/p)=ℓ(p,q)/pf(q/p)=\ell_{(p,q)}/p. Writing η=12log⁡(A+/A−)\eta=\frac{1}{2}\log(A_+/A_-) gives

zn=da+2Rk(a)cosh⁡(nℓu+η)>2cosh⁡(nℓu+η),z_n=d_a+2\sqrt{R_k(a)}\cosh(n\ell_u+\eta)>2\cosh(n\ell_u+\eta),

and hence

ℓB+nu>∣nℓu+η∣.(20)\ell_{B+nu}>|n\ell_u+\eta|. \tag*{(20)}

Suppose V,U,WV,U,W are consecutive vectors in the Farey sequence of a fixed order. Then V+W=mUV+W=mU for a positive integer mm. Expressing V=−B+nUV=-B+nU and W=B+(m−n)UW=B+(m-n)U and applying (20) on the two sides of the fan gives

ℓV+ℓW>∣nℓU−η∣+∣(m−n)ℓU+η∣≥mℓU.\ell_V+\ell_W>|n\ell_U-\eta|+|(m-n)\ell_U+\eta|\ge m\ell_U.

Writing V=(pV,qV)V=(p_V,q_V), U=(pU,qU)U=(p_U,q_U), and W=(pW,qW)W=(p_W,q_W), the difference between the right and left slopes of the polygonal interpolant at qU/pUq_U/p_U is

pU(ℓV+ℓW)−(pV+pW)ℓU=pU(ℓV+ℓW−mℓU)>0.p_U(\ell_V+\ell_W)-(p_V+p_W)\ell_U=p_U(\ell_V+\ell_W-m\ell_U)>0.

Thus the interpolant at every Farey order is convex. A finer interpolant agrees at all previous vertices and, by convexity, lies below each previous chord. The interpolants decrease and are bounded between zero and the endpoint chord. Their limit is finite, convex, and continuous on (0,1)(0,1). Every interpolant of order at least pp takes the value ℓ(p,q)/p\ell_{(p,q)}/p at the reduced fraction q/pq/p, so the limit retains this value. The fan expansions at e1e_1 and e1+e2e_1+e_2 give the endpoint limits along 1/n1/n and n/(n+1)n/(n+1) and finite limits of the corresponding secant slopes. Convexity then gives continuity and finite one-sided derivatives at both endpoints. At u=(p,q)u=(p,q) in the interior, with B=(r,s)B=(r,s) and det⁡(u,B)=1\det(u,B)=1, it gives

ℓB+nu=nℓu+log⁡A++o(1),ℓnu−B=nℓu+log⁡A−+o(1).\ell_{B+nu}=n\ell_u+\log A_++o(1),\qquad\ell_{nu-B}=n\ell_u+\log A_-+o(1).

The two one-sided derivatives therefore satisfy

f+′(q/p)−f−′(q/p)=plog⁡(A+A−)=pJk(Xu).(21)f'_+(q/p)-f'_-(q/p)=p\log(A_+A_-)=pJ_k(X_u). \tag*{(21)}

For instance, the first derivative equals plog⁡A+−rℓup\log A_+-r\ell_u, as is seen by evaluating f((nq+s)/(np+r))f((nq+s)/(np+r)); the second equals −plog⁡A−−rℓu-p\log A_--r\ell_u.

Set N(0)=0N(0)=0 and

N(p,q)=pf(q/p)(p>0, 0≤q≤p).N(p,q)=pf(q/p)\qquad(p>0,\ 0\le q\le p).

Extend by KK-invariance. The unique representative in the closed fundamental cone makes the extension well-defined. It is positively homogeneous and even, since −I∈K-I\in K. We check convexity at the boundary of the cone. At either boundary vector, choose the adjacent vector B=e2B=e_2. The fan traces obey z0=z−1z_0=z_{-1} and hence zn=z−n−1z_n=z_{-n-1}, by the root symmetries. Thus A−=A+/λaA_-=A_+/\lambda_a. The traces at e1e_1 and (1,1)(1,1) are a0a_0 and a1=3k2+8k+6a_1=3k^2+8k+6, respectively. At e1e_1 the inward derivative is f+′(0)=log⁡A+f'_+(0)=\log A_+; at e1+e2e_1+e_2 it is f−′(1)=−log⁡A−f'_-(1)=-\log A_-. Since log⁡A+−log⁡A−=ℓu\log A_+-\log A_-=\ell_u, these identities give

2f+′(0)−f(0)=Jk(a0)>0,f(1)−2f−′(1)=Jk(a1)>0.(22)2f'_+(0)-f(0)=J_k(a_0)>0,\qquad f(1)-2f'_-(1)=J_k(a_1)>0. \tag*{(22)}

At e1e_1, the gradients on the two sides are

(f(0),f(0)−f+′(0)),(f(0),f+′(0)),(f(0),f(0)-f'_+(0)),\qquad(f(0),f'_+(0)),

because the boundary reflection is (p,q)↦(p+q,−q)(p,q)\mapsto(p+q,-q). At e1+e2e_1+e_2, they are

(f(1)−f−′(1),f−′(1)),(f−′(1),f(1)−f−′(1)).(f(1)-f'_-(1),f'_-(1)),\qquad(f'_-(1),f(1)-f'_-(1)).

Their counterclockwise differences are respectively Jk(a0)Re1J_k(a_0)Re_1 and Jk(a1)R(e1+e2)J_k(a_1)R(e_1+e_2). The same property holds at the other cone boundaries by KK-invariance. On a line of direction ww crossing the ray of vv, the derivative jumps by Jk(Xv)∣det⁡(v,w)∣≥0J_k(X_v)|\det(v,w)|\ge0. The restriction of NN to a line not through the origin is convex between its finitely many cone crossings and at each crossing, so it is convex on that line. On a line through the origin, N(tv)=∣t∣N(v)N(tv)=|t|N(v) is convex. Thus NN is globally convex.

The lower bound (18) and the endpoint chord give c∣v∣≤N(v)≤C∣v∣c|v|\le N(v)\le C|v| on rational directions and then everywhere by continuity. Convexity and homogeneity give the triangle inequality, so NN is a norm. Formula (21), the boundary identities, and unimodularity of KK give (19). Finally a line segment on the unit sphere would make NN linear on an open cone. That cone contains a rational ray, contradicting its strictly positive gradient jump. The norm is strictly convex.

The expanding coefficient

We next estimate the full change of gradient within an open Farey sector.

Lemma 3.2. Let a,ba,b be the parent traces of a mediant inside CC, and let cc be the new trace. In the fan centered at the first parent, with z0=bz_0=b, z1=cz_1=c, denote the expanding coefficient by Aa,bA_{a,b}. Then

18λb≤Aa,b≤λb,0≤log⁡λb−log⁡Aa,b≤Cab.(23)\frac{1}{8}\lambda_b \le A_{a,b} \le\lambda_b,\qquad0 \le\log\lambda_b-\log A_{a,b} \le\frac{C}{ab}. \tag*{(23)}

Proof. Set

c^=2cosh⁡(log⁡λa+log⁡λb)=ab+(a2−4)(b2−4)2.\widehat{c}=2\cosh(\log\lambda_a+\log\lambda_b)=\frac{ab+\sqrt{(a^2-4)(b^2-4)}}{2}.

If dd is the old trace, evaluating the quadratic with roots c,dc,d at c^\widehat{c} gives

(c^−c)(c^−d)=4+κ(a+b+c^)+ν.(24)(\widehat{c}-c)(\widehat{c}-d)=4+\kappa(a+b+\widehat{c})+\nu. \tag*{(24)}

Here c^\widehat{c} is to the right of the quadratic’s vertex. Its positive value implies c^>c\widehat{c}>c, and

c^−d≥12(a2−4)(b2−4)≥12(1−4a02)ab.\widehat{c}-d\ge\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(a^2-4)(b^2-4)}\ge\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{4}{a_0^2}\right)ab.

Since c^≤ab\widehat{c}\le ab and a,b≥a0≥3a,b\ge a_0\ge3, it follows that 0<c^−c≤C0<\widehat{c}-c\le C. Solving the two fan initial equations yields

Aa,b=c−b/λa−da(1−1/λa)a2−4=λb−c^−c+da(1−1/λa)a2−4.(25)\begin{aligned} A_{a,b} &=\frac{c-b/\lambda_a-d_a(1-1/\lambda_a)}{\sqrt{a^2-4}}\\ &=\lambda_b-\frac{\widehat{c}-c+d_a(1-1/\lambda_a)}{\sqrt{a^2-4}}. \tag*{(25)} \end{aligned}

In particular 0≤λb−Aa,b≤C/a0\le\lambda_b-A_{a,b}\le C/a.

For a lower bound, use c≥3ab/8c\ge3ab/8, λa≥a−1\lambda_a\ge a-1, and da<a0/4≤b/4d_a<a_0/4\le b/4. The numerator in the first line of (3.12) is at least

b(3a8−1a−1−14)>0(a≥3).b\left(\frac{3a}{8}-\frac{1}{a-1}-\frac{1}{4}\right)>0\qquad(a\ge3).

We may therefore replace its denominator by the larger number aa:

Aa,b≥b(38−1a(a−1)−14a)≥b8≥λb8.A_{a,b}\ge b\left(\frac{3}{8}-\frac{1}{a(a-1)}-\frac{1}{4a}\right)\ge\frac{b}{8}\ge\frac{\lambda_b}{8}.

The middle inequality follows from

38−1a(a−1)−14a−18=(a−3)(a+1)4a(a−1)≥0.\frac{3}{8}-\frac{1}{a(a-1)}-\frac{1}{4a}-\frac{1}{8} =\frac{(a-3)(a+1)}{4a(a-1)}\ge0.

Finally λb≥b−1≥2b/3\lambda_b\ge b-1\ge2b/3, and −log⁡t≤8(1−t)-\log t\le8(1-t) on 1/8≤t≤11/8\le t\le1. These facts prove (23).

:::

Finite fans and small integral normals

Let FH\mathcal{F}_H be the fan obtained by taking the Farey fractions of order ⌊H⌋\lfloor H\rfloor in [0,1][0,1] and their KK-images. Its rays are generated by primitive vectors; an open sector means the open cone between consecutive rays. Increasing the order refines the fan. Every supporting functional α∈∂N(x)\alpha\in\partial N(x) satisfies $c\le|\alpha|\le C.

Proposition 3.3 (Farey estimates). There are positive constants cc, CC, ρ\rho, CsepC_{\mathrm{sep}}, depending only on kk, with the following properties for H≥1H \ge1.

(i) The fan FH\mathcal{F}_H has O(H2)O(H^2) rays, generated by vectors of length at most CHCH.

(ii) In each open sector, all supporting functionals differ by at most Ce−ρHCe^{-\rho H}. The sum over all open sectors of their total normal angular variations is at most Ce−ρHCe^{-\rho H}.

(iii) The full normal angle at each boundary ray is at least ce−CsepHce^{-C_{\mathrm{sep}}H}.

(iv) The total angular width of any mm sectors is at most Cm/HC\sqrt{m}/H.

(v) If α\alpha is a supporting functional at any point of an open sector, then throughout that sector

∣N(v)−α(v)∣≤C∣v∣e−ρH.(26)|N(v)-\alpha(v)| \le C|v|e^{-\rho H}. \tag*{(26)}

Proof. For adjacent fractions q/p<s/rq/p < s/r in the basic cone, let their traces be a,ba,b. The one-sided derivatives computed above show that the total variation of f′f' in the open interval is exactly

p(log⁡λb−log⁡Aa,b)+r(log⁡λa−log⁡Ab,a)≤Cp+rab.(27)p(\log\lambda_b-\log A_{a,b})+r(\log\lambda_a-\log A_{b,a}) \le C\frac{p+r}{ab}. \tag*{(27)}

To check the identity, the inward derivative at the left endpoint is plog⁡Aa,b−rlog⁡λap\log A_{a,b}-r\log\lambda_a, whereas the inward derivative at the right endpoint is plog⁡λb−rlog⁡Ab,ap\log\lambda_b-r\log A_{b,a}; subtract them. This is the entire variation of the monotone derivative, including any continuous part. Since p+r>⌊H⌋p+r>\lfloor H\rfloor, p,r≤Hp,r\le H, and ab≥(8/3)γ2p+rab\ge(8/3)^{\gamma}2^{p+r}, summing over the O(H2)O(H^2) gaps gives CH3γ−HCH^3\gamma^{-H}, up to an absolute factor. For an open gap I=(x,y)I=(x,y), the positive Lebesgue–Stieltjes measure df+′df'_+ has mass f−′(y)−f+′(x)f'_-(y)-f'_+(x). The support curve on the slice (1,t)(1,t) satisfies the vector-valued measure identity

d(f−tf+′,f+′)=(−t,1) df+′,d(f-tf'_+,f'_+) = (-t,1)\,df'_+,

because ff is Lipschitz and df=f+′(t) dtdf=f'_+(t)\,dt. At each jump, include the full segment between the two extreme supports. The complete gradient variation on II is therefore at most

∫I1+t2 df+′(t)≤2(f−′(y)−f+′(x)).\int_I \sqrt{1+t^2}\,df'_+(t)\le\sqrt{2}\bigl(f'_-(y)-f'_+(x)\bigr).

The lower bound on support lengths gives the same estimate, up to a fixed factor, for normal angular variation. The finitely many fixed linear maps in KK change these bounds only by constant factors.

For a boundary vector vv, the absolute determinant of the extreme supports equals N(v)Jk(Xv)N(v)J_k(X_v), by (19). From (16),

Rk(a)−1=κa+ν+4+κ2/(a−2)a2−4.R_k(a)-1=\frac{\kappa a+\nu+4+\kappa^2/(a-2)}{a^2-4}.

For k=0k=0 this is 4a−2+O(a−4)4a^{-2}+O(a^{-4}); for k>0k>0 it is κa−1+Ok(a−2)\kappa a^{-1}+O_k(a^{-2}). Using log⁡(1+s)=s+O(s2)\log(1+s)=s+O(s^2) and 2cosh⁡t=et(1+e−2t)2\cosh t=e^t(1+e^{-2t}) gives

Jk(2cosh⁡t)∼{4e−2t,k=0,k(k+2)e−t,k>0,(t⟶∞).(28)J_k(2\cosh t)\sim \begin{cases} 4e^{-2t}, & k=0,\\ k(k+2)e^{-t}, & k>0, \end{cases} \qquad(t\longrightarrow\infty). \tag*{(28)}

Together with N(v)≤CHN(v)\le CH, positivity on bounded intervals, and c≤∣α∣≤Cc\le|\alpha|\le C, they imply (iii).

For (iv), let rr be the smaller denominator of a Farey gap. Its width is 1/(pr)=O(1/(rH))1/(pr)=O(1/(rH)), because p+r>⌊H⌋p+r>\lfloor H\rfloor. There are O(r)O(r) gaps with smaller denominator rr. Those with r≤mr\le\sqrt{m} have total width O(m/H)O(\sqrt{m}/H); any mm of the others have the same bound. Angular width is comparable to slope width on CC, and the finite KK-images preserve the estimate. Assertion (i) is the elementary Farey count, and (v) follows by comparing α\alpha with a supporting functional at vv.

Strict convexity means that every nonzero linear form β\beta has a unique contact point on ∂B\partial B: the point where it attains its maximum. Its positive ray is called the contact direction of β\beta. The normal directions of supporting functionals run monotonically around the circle; the normals at a corner fill the arc between its two extreme supports. For nonzero vectors x,yx,y, write

∠(x,{y,−y})=arccos⁡∣x⋅y∣∣x∣∣y∣∈[0,π/2]\angle(x,\{y,-y\})=\arccos\frac{|x\cdot y|}{|x||y|}\in[0,\pi/2]

for the smaller angle from xx to the unoriented line through yy.

Lemma 3.4 (Excision of small integral normals). Let L,M≥1L,M\ge1 and H≥Clog⁡(2+M)H\ge C\log(2+M). From {v∈Zprim2:N(v)≤L}\{v\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\rm prim}:N(v)\le L\} remove the rays of FH\mathcal{F}_{H} and every open sector whose closure contains the contact direction of some 0≠β∈Z20\ne\beta\in\mathbb{Z}^{2} with ∣β∣≤M|\beta|\le M. The number removed is at most

C(log⁡(2+M)HL2+Llog⁡2(2+M)+H2).(29)C\left(\frac{\log(2+M)}{H}L^{2}+L\log^{2}(2+M)+H^{2}\right). \tag*{(29)}

For every retained sector, each of its supporting functionals α\alpha satisfies

∠(α,{β,−β})≥ce−CsepH(0<∣β∣≤M, β∈Z2).(30)\angle(\alpha,\{\beta,-\beta\})\ge ce^{-C_{\rm sep}H}\qquad(0<|\beta|\le M,\ \beta\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}). \tag*{(30)}

Proof. Distinct nonparallel integer normals of length at most MM have angular separation at least cM−2cM^{-2}. Choose a preliminary order H0=Cprelog⁡(2+M)H_{0}=C_{\rm pre}\log(2+M), with CpreC_{\rm pre} sufficiently large, so that the normal variation inside any of its open sectors is smaller than this separation. Each such sector then contains at most one distinct contact direction for the specified normals. On a boundary ray several normals may have the same contact, but there are only O(H02)O(H_{0}^{2}) such rays. Thus the number of distinct contact directions is O(log⁡2(2+M))O(\log^{2}(2+M)).

At order HH, each contact direction belongs to the closures of at most two sectors. Proposition 3.3(iv) bounds their total angular width by Clog⁡(2+M)/HC\log(2+M)/H. The intersection of each of these sectors with LBLB is convex, has perimeter O(L)O(L), and has area at most CL2CL^{2} times its angular width. The elementary lattice bound #(Z2∩D)≤area⁡(D)+Cperimeter⁡(D)+C\#(\mathbb{Z}^{2}\cap D)\le\operatorname{area}(D)+C\operatorname{perimeter}(D)+C for a planar convex set proves the first two terms of (3.16). Each boundary ray contains only one primitive integer vector, giving the O(H2)O(H^{2}) term.

By deletion of every sector whose closure contains a contact, there is a full boundary corner between a retained sector and each specified contact direction, in either direction around the circle. Monotonicity of the normal direction and the complete corner bound in Proposition 3.3(iii) yield (3.17). Normals of both signs are included.

Rational linear isometries

Proposition 4.1. The rational linear isometry group of NN is exactly KK:

{G∈GL2(Q):N∘G=N}=K.\{G \in\mathrm{GL}_{2}(\mathbb{Q}) : N \circ G = N\} = K.

Proof. The inclusion of KK follows from Proposition 3.1. Conversely, suppose G∈GL2(Q)G \in\mathrm{GL}_{2}(\mathbb{Q}) preserves NN, and write G=A/dG = A/d with AA integral and dd a positive integer. For v∈Zprim2v \in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}}, write Av=gwAv = gw with w∈Zprim2w \in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}} and g>0g > 0. Since adj⁡(A)Av=(det⁡A)v\operatorname{adj}(A)Av = (\det A)v, we have g∣∣det⁡A∣g \mid|\det A|. Thus the factor r=g/dr = g/d in Gv=rwGv = rw belongs to a fixed finite set.

Let t=N(w)t = N(w), so N(v)=rtN(v) = rt. Positive homogeneity and N∘G=NN \circ G = N give

∂N(v)=GT∂N(Gv)=GT∂N(w).\partial N(v) = G^{\mathsf{T}}\partial N(Gv) = G^{\mathsf{T}}\partial N(w).

The endpoint orders agree when det⁡G>0\det G > 0 and are interchanged when det⁡G<0\det G < 0. Since w=Gv/rw = Gv/r and GTRG=(det⁡G)RG^{\mathsf{T}}RG = (\det G)R, formula (19) yields

Jk(2cosh⁡(rt))Rv=sgn⁡(det⁡G)GT(Jk(2cosh⁡t)Rw)=∣det⁡G∣rJk(2cosh⁡t)Rv.J_k(2\cosh(rt))Rv = \operatorname{sgn}(\det G)G^{\mathsf{T}}\bigl(J_k(2\cosh t)Rw\bigr) = \frac{|\det G|}{r}J_k(2\cosh t)Rv.

Cancelling the nonzero vector RvRv gives

Jk(2cosh⁡(rt))=∣det⁡G∣rJk(2cosh⁡t).(31)J_k(2\cosh(rt)) = \frac{|\det G|}{r}J_k(2\cosh t). \tag*{(31)}

If a fixed r≠1r \ne1 occurred for infinitely many primitive vectors, their associated tt would tend to infinity along a subsequence, whereas

rJk(2cosh⁡(rt))Jk(2cosh⁡t)=∣det⁡G∣.\frac{rJ_k(2\cosh(rt))}{J_k(2\cosh t)} = |\det G|.

By (28), the left side tends to zero for r>1r > 1 and to infinity for r<1r < 1, a contradiction. Hence all sufficiently large primitive vectors have r=1r = 1, and (31) then gives ∣det⁡G∣=1|\det G| = 1.

For two sufficiently large consecutive vectors (n,1),(n+1,1)(n,1),(n+1,1), both images under GG are integral. Their difference shows that Ge1Ge_1 is integral, and then Ge2Ge_2 is integral as well. Therefore G∈GL2(Z)G \in\mathrm{GL}_{2}(\mathbb{Z}). The shortest primitive vectors for NN are precisely ±e1,±e2,±(e1−e2)\pm e_1, \pm e_2, \pm(e_1-e_2), by Lemma 2.1. The full group of linear maps permuting this hexagon is KK: there are six choices for the image of e1e_1 and two compatible choices for the adjacent image of e2e_2, and the twelve elements of KK realize them. Thus G∈KG \in K. □

Zero density on a fixed rational graph

Proposition 5.1. For every fixed G∈GL2(Q)∖KG \in\mathrm{GL}_{2}(\mathbb{Q}) \setminus K,

#{v∈Zprim2:Gv∈Zprim2, N(v)=N(Gv)≤L}=oK,G(L2).(32)\#\{v \in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}} : Gv \in\mathbb{Z}^{2}_{\mathrm{prim}},\ N(v) = N(Gv) \le L\} = o_{K,G}(L^{2}). \tag*{(32)}

Finite orbits and a paired action

Let Γ=SL2(Z)\Gamma= \mathrm{SL}_{2}(\mathbb{Z}) and H=Γ∩G−1ΓGH = \Gamma\cap G^{-1}\Gamma G. For m≥1m \ge1, write

Γ(m)={g∈Γ:g≡I(modm)}.\Gamma(m) = \{g \in\Gamma: g \equiv I \pmod{m}\}.

For a nonzero integral vector b=(b1,b2)b=(b_1,b_2), put cont⁡(b)=gcd⁡(∣b1∣,∣b2∣)\operatorname{cont}(b)=\gcd(\lvert b_1\rvert,\lvert b_2\rvert). Write G=A/dG=A/d, where dd is a positive integer and AA is a nonsingular integral matrix, and set δ=∣det⁡A∣\delta=\lvert\det A\rvert. Then Γ(δ)⊂H\Gamma(\delta)\subset H: for h=I+δBh=I+\delta B, AhA−1=I+sgn⁡(det⁡A)ABadj⁡(A)AhA^{-1}=I+\operatorname{sgn}(\det A)AB\operatorname{adj}(A) is integral. If vv is primitive, cont⁡(Av)\operatorname{cont}(Av) divides both coordinates of adj⁡(A)Av=(det⁡A)v\operatorname{adj}(A)Av=(\det A)v, hence divides δ\delta. It therefore equals gcd⁡((Av)1,(Av)2,δ)\gcd((Av)_1,(Av)_2,\delta) and is determined by vv modulo δ\delta. Thus

Gv∈Zprim2⟺cont⁡(Av)=dGv\in\mathbb{Z}_{\mathrm{prim}}^2 \Longleftrightarrow\operatorname{cont}(Av)=d

is a residue condition. If d∤δd\nmid\delta, there are no feasible vectors.

Primitive vectors in any one residue class modulo δ\delta form one Γ(δ)\Gamma(\delta)-orbit. To see this, complete v,wv,w to matrices Bv,Bw∈ΓB_v,B_w\in\Gamma. If v≡w(modδ)v\equiv w\pmod{\delta}, then Bv−1Bw≡Tb(modδ)B_v^{-1}B_w\equiv T^b\pmod{\delta} for some bb. Choose n≡−b(modδ)n\equiv-b\pmod{\delta}. The matrix BwTnBv−1∈Γ(δ)B_wT^nB_v^{-1}\in\Gamma(\delta) sends vv to ww. The feasible primitive vectors are therefore a finite union of HH-orbits.

Fix an odd prime pp, for example p=3p=3. Write Zp\mathbb{Z}_p for the ring of pp-adic integers and Qp\mathbb{Q}_p for its fraction field. Let vpv_p be the valuation normalized by vp(p)=1v_p(p)=1, and set ∣x∣p=p−vp(x)\lvert x\rvert_p=p^{-v_p(x)} for x≠0x\ne0 and ∣0∣p=0\lvert0\rvert_p=0. Lemma 2.2 gives a right action of HH on the entire Zp6\mathbb{Z}_p^6:

(P,P′)⋆h=(P⋆h,P′⋆(GhG−1)).(33)(P,P')\star h=(P\star h,P'\star(GhG^{-1})). \tag*{(33)}

Take JJ to be the kernel of this action on (Z/p2Z)6(\mathbb{Z}/p^2\mathbb{Z})^6. This is a finite-index normal subgroup of HH; it is finitely generated and contains −I-I. The feasible primitive vectors are still a finite union of JJ-orbits. Fix one such orbit JuJu, put w=Guw=Gu, and define

z0=(o,o),P(P,P′)=Pu(P)−Pw(P′).(34)z_0=(o,o),\qquad\mathcal{P}(P,P')=P_u(P)-P_w(P'). \tag*{(34)}

Equivariance gives the exact identity

P(z0⋆j)=Xju−XGju(j∈J).(35)\mathcal{P}(z_0\star j)=X_{ju}-X_{Gju}\qquad(j\in J). \tag*{(35)}

Analytic interpolation and a zero–one law

The Tate algebra Zp⟨x1,…,xd⟩\mathbb{Z}_p\langle x_1,\ldots,x_d\rangle is the algebra of power series with integral coefficients tending to zero pp-adically; it carries the coefficient supremum norm.

Lemma 5.2 (Interpolation). Suppose an integral polynomial automorphism gg fixes every point of (Z/p2Z)d(\mathbb{Z}/p^2\mathbb{Z})^d, where pp is odd. On each residue ball mathfraka+pZpdmathfrak{a}+p\mathbb{Z}_p^d, its iterates extend to a jointly analytic action of Zp\mathbb{Z}_p.

Proof. Choose a∈Zd\mathfrak{a}\in\mathbb{Z}^d representing the residue ball and use coordinates x=a+pyx=\mathfrak{a}+py. The normalized map ga(y)=(g(a+py)−a)/pg_{\mathfrak{a}}(y)=(g(\mathfrak{a}+py)-\mathfrak{a})/p has the form

ga(y)=y+pR(y),R∈Zp[y]d.(36)g_{\mathfrak{a}}(y)=y+pR(y),\qquad R\in\mathbb{Z}_p[y]^d. \tag*{(36)}

In fact, g(a)−a≡0(modp2)g(\mathfrak{a})-\mathfrak{a}\equiv0\pmod{p^2}. Applying the pointwise congruence also to a+pb\mathfrak{a}+pb, for every b∈(Z/pZ)db\in(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^d, and expanding to first order gives Dg(a)b≡b(modp)Dg(\mathfrak{a})b\equiv b\pmod p for all bb, so Dg(a)≡I(modp)Dg(\mathfrak{a})\equiv I\pmod p. The integral Taylor coefficients of degree j≥2j\ge2 acquire a factor pj−1p^{j-1} after normalization. This proves coefficientwise congruence in (36). Let Δf=f∘ga−f\Delta f=f\circ g_a-f on the Tate algebra. By (36), Δ\Delta maps pmp^m times this algebra into pm+1p^{m+1} times it. Therefore

Φg(s,y)=∑n≥0(sn)Δny(37)\Phi_g(s,y)=\sum_{n\geq0}\binom{s}{n}\Delta^n y \tag*{(37)}

converges in the Tate algebra in (s,y)(s,y): the coefficient valuations of its nnth summand are at least n−vp(n!)≥n(1−1/(p−1))n-v_p(n!)\geq n(1-1/(p-1)), which tend to infinity for odd pp. For every nonnegative integer ss the binomial identity gives Φg(s,y)=gas(y)\Phi_g(s,y)=g_a^s(y). Density of the nonnegative integers in Zp\mathbb{Z}_p and continuity give the group law Φg(s+t,y)=Φg(s,Φg(t,y))\Phi_g(s+t,y)=\Phi_g(s,\Phi_g(t,y)). This is Poonen’s interpolation argument [18 Theorem 1], here with coefficient congruence exponent 1>1/(p−1)1>1/(p-1). Transport the action back by x=a+pyx=a+py, and use Φg\Phi_g for the resulting action on a+pZpa+p\mathbb{Z}_p.

We also recall the elementary zero statement used below. A nonzero one-variable Tate series f(s)=∑ansnf(s)=\sum a_ns^n has only finitely many zeros in Zp\mathbb{Z}_p (Strassmann’s theorem). One proof takes the largest index mm at which ∣am∣p|a_m|_p is maximal. If b∈Zpb\in\mathbb{Z}_p is a zero, division by s−bs-b produces a Tate series whose last maximal index is m−1m-1: its coefficients are cn=∑j≥n+1ajbj−n−1c_n=\sum_{j\geq n+1}a_jb^{j-n-1}, so ∣cm−1∣p=∣am∣p|c_{m-1}|_p=|a_m|_p and ∣cn∣p<∣am∣p|c_n|_p<|a_m|_p for n≥mn\geq m. Induction gives at most mm zeros, counting multiplicity. Scaling coefficients proves the same statement over Qp\mathbb{Q}_p.

Let YY be the closure of z0⋆Jz_0\star J in Zpe\mathbb{Z}_p^e. Each finite residue image of this orbit is a transitive finite JJ-set. Its uniform probability measures are compatible, since the transition maps have equal-size fibers. Their inverse limit is a JJ-invariant probability measure μ\mu of full support on YY. This action is ergodic: if an integrable function is JJ-invariant, its conditional expectation on every finite residue partition is constant, by transitivity. The residue partitions have diameters tending to zero, so their locally constant functions are dense in L1(Y,μ)L^1(Y,\mu). The conditional expectations therefore converge in L1L^1 to the original function, which is constant almost everywhere.

Lemma 5.3 (Zero–one law). For any integral polynomial QQ on the ambient space,

μ{y∈Y:Q(y)=0}∈{0,1}.\mu\{y\in Y:Q(y)=0\}\in\{0,1\}.

Proof. Let E=Y∩{Q=0}E=Y\cap\{Q=0\} and let gg be a generator of JJ. The interpolation of Lemma 5.2 preserves YY: each pp-adic time is a uniform limit of integer times on the compact residue ball. It also preserves μ\mu, first for continuous test functions by that uniform limit, then for all Borel sets. For each y∈Yy\in Y, the function s↦Q(Φg(s,y))s\mapsto Q(\Phi_g(s,y)) is analytic on Zp\mathbb{Z}_p. Its zero set is either all of Zp\mathbb{Z}_p or finite. In either case, with normalized Haar measure dsds,

∫Zp∣1E(Φg(s+1,y))−1E(Φg(s,y))∣ ds=0.\int_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\left|\mathbf{1}_E(\Phi_g(s+1,y))-\mathbf{1}_E(\Phi_g(s,y))\right|\,ds=0.

Integrating over YY, using Fubini, the group law, and preservation of μ\mu by Φg(s,⋅)\Phi_g(s,\cdot), gives

0=∫Zp∫Y∣1E(Φg(s+1,y))−1E(Φg(s,y))∣ dμ(y) ds0=\int_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\int_Y\left|\mathbf{1}_E(\Phi_g(s+1,y))-\mathbf{1}_E(\Phi_g(s,y))\right|\,d\mu(y)\,ds
=∫Zp∫Y∣1E(Φg(1,x))−1E(x)∣ dμ(x) ds=μ(E△g−1E).=\int_{\mathbb{Z}_p}\int_Y\left|\mathbf{1}_E(\Phi_g(1,x))-\mathbf{1}_E(x)\right|\,d\mu(x)\,ds=\mu(E\mathbin{\triangle}g^{-1}E).

This holds for all generators. Ergodicity proves the assertion.

Apply this lemma to P\mathcal{P} from (34). If its zero set has measure one, closedness and full support imply that it vanishes throughout YY. At every actual integral orbit point, (35) is an equality of integers. Injectivity of Z⟶Zp\mathbb{Z} \longrightarrow\mathbb{Z}_p then gives

N(ju)=N(Gju)(j∈J).N(ju)=N(Gju) \qquad(j\in J).

The directions of JuJu are dense in the projective line. Indeed, for a primitive aa the parabolic v↦v+det⁡(a,v)av\mapsto v+\det(a,v)a belongs to Γ\Gamma, and some positive power belongs to the finite-index subgroup JJ. If uu is not parallel to aa, its iterates approach the direction of aa. Omitting the single parallel direction leaves a dense set of rational directions; −I∈J-I\in J supplies both orientations. Continuity and homogeneity of NN would give N∘G=NN\circ G=N, contrary to Proposition 4.1. Its zero set therefore has measure zero. The sets {y∈Y:P(y)≡0(modpn)}\{y\in Y:\mathcal{P}(y)\equiv0\pmod{p^n}\} decrease to {y∈Y:P(y)=0}\{y\in Y:\mathcal{P}(y)=0\}. Continuity of the probability measure from above gives

μ{y∈Y:P(y)≡0(modpn)}⟶0.(38)\mu\{y\in Y:\mathcal{P}(y)\equiv0\pmod{p^n}\}\longrightarrow0. \tag*{(38)}

Lattice orbit counting and cusp widths.

Theorem 5.4 (Finite-index orbit counting). Let V≤ΓV\leq\Gamma have finite index and contain −I-I, and let a∈Zprim2a\in\mathbb{Z}^2_{\mathrm{prim}}. Choose ga∈Γg_a\in\Gamma with gae1=ag_a e_1=a and let ω(a;V)\omega(a;V) be the least positive integer ω\omega such that gaTωga−1∈Vg_aT^\omega g_a^{-1}\in V. Let

Ω={r(cos⁡θ,sin⁡θ):0≤r≤rΩ(θ), 0≤θ<2π},\Omega=\{r(\cos\theta,\sin\theta):0\leq r\leq r_\Omega(\theta),\ 0\leq\theta<2\pi\},

where rΩr_\Omega is a fixed nonnegative 2π2\pi-periodic Lipschitz function. Then

#(Va∩LΩ)=ω(a;V)[Γ:V]area⁡(Ω)ζ(2)L2+oV,a,Ω(L2).(39)\#(Va\cap L\Omega)=\frac{\omega(a;V)}{[\Gamma:V]}\frac{\operatorname{area}(\Omega)}{\zeta(2)}L^2+o_{V,a,\Omega}(L^2). \tag*{(39)}

This follows from [4 Theorem 2.7 and Section 5.2], which applies to every finite-index subgroup of Γ\Gamma. To compute the constant, set ω=ω(a;V)\omega=\omega(a;V) and

σ=ga(ω001/ω).\sigma=g_a\begin{pmatrix}\sqrt{\omega}&0\\0&1/\sqrt{\omega}\end{pmatrix}.

Then σTσ−1=gaTωga−1\sigma T\sigma^{-1}=g_aT^\omega g_a^{-1} and σe1=ωa\sigma e_1=\sqrt{\omega}a. The cusp-normalized disk constant in [4 Section 3.5] is 2/covol⁡(V)2/\operatorname{covol}(V). Rescaling ωa\sqrt{\omega}a to aa multiplies this constant by ω\omega. Since covol⁡(V)=[Γ:V]π/3\operatorname{covol}(V)=[\Gamma:V]\pi/3, the density per unit Euclidean area is

2ωπcovol⁡(V)=ω[Γ:V]ζ(2).\frac{2\omega}{\pi\operatorname{covol}(V)}=\frac{\omega}{[\Gamma:V]\zeta(2)}.

In the orbit-map coordinates of [4 Section 5.2], integration over a fixed stabilizer interval makes the main term proportional to

∫02π∫0LrΩ(θ)r dr dθ=L2area⁡(Ω).\int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{Lr_\Omega(\theta)}r\,dr\,d\theta=L^2\operatorname{area}(\Omega).

The disk constant therefore gives the stated density for every such region. These constants count both signs, consistently with −I∈V-I\in V. The norm ball BB has a Lipschitz radial function: on the Euclidean unit circle it is 1/N1/N, a positive Lipschitz function.

Proof of Proposition 5.1. Continue with the fixed feasible orbit JuJ u. For each nn, let UnU_n be the kernel of the action of JJ on the whole ambient space modulo pnp^n, and write Qn=J/UnQ_n = J/U_n. The group UnU_n is normal in JJ and contains −I-I. The stabilizer of the oriented vector uu in Γ\Gamma is gu⟨T⟩gu−1g_u\langle T\rangle g_u^{-1}, so its stabilizer in JJ is generated by s=guTωgu−1s = g_uT^\omega g_u^{-1}, where ω=ω(u;J)\omega= \omega(u;J). Write jˉ\bar{j} for the image of j∈Jj \in J in QnQ_n, and let rnr_n be the order of sˉ\bar{s}. For j1,j2∈Jj_1,j_2 \in J,

Unj1u=Unj2u⟺j2−1hj1∈⟨s⟩ for some h∈Un⟺jˉ1∈jˉ2⟨sˉ⟩.U_nj_1u = U_nj_2u \Longleftrightarrow j_2^{-1}hj_1 \in\langle s\rangle\text{ for some } h \in U_n \Longleftrightarrow\bar{j}_1 \in\bar{j}_2\langle\bar{s}\rangle.

Thus the UnU_n-orbits correspond to the orbits of right multiplication by ⟨sˉ⟩\langle\bar{s}\rangle in QnQ_n, each of size rnr_n. For juju, use the completion jgujg_u. Normality shows that its cusp width for UnU_n is the least m>0m>0 with guTmgu−1∈Ung_uT^mg_u^{-1}\in U_n. Such an mm is a multiple ωb\omega b, and membership is equivalent to sb∈Uns^b\in U_n, or rn∣br_n\mid b. Every width is therefore ωrn\omega r_n. Each UnU_n-orbit contains both signs, since −I∈Un-I\in U_n.

Set

En={jˉ∈Qn:P(z0⋆j)≡0(modpn)}.E_n=\{\bar{j}\in Q_n:P(z_0\star j)\equiv0\pmod{p^n}\}.

This set is invariant under right multiplication by sˉ\bar{s}: su=usu=u and (GsG−1)w=w(GsG^{-1})w=w, so equivariance fixes the two coordinate polynomials in (34). Moreover,

∣En∣∣Qn∣=μ{P≡0(modpn)}.(40)\frac{|E_n|}{|Q_n|}=\mu\{P\equiv0\pmod{p^n}\}. \tag*{(40)}

Indeed, the orbit map from QnQ_n to the finite residue orbit of z0z_0 has equal-size fibers; its uniform group measure pushes forward to uniform orbit measure.

Every genuine collision belongs to one of the ∣En∣/rn|E_n|/r_n selected UnU_n-orbits. For a fixed nn, apply Theorem 5.4 to each of these finitely many orbits, with Ω=B\Omega=\mathcal{B}. Their total leading coefficient is

∣En∣rnωrn[Γ:J]∣Qn∣area⁡(B)ζ(2).\frac{|E_n|}{r_n}\frac{\omega r_n}{[\Gamma:J]|Q_n|}\frac{\operatorname{area}(\mathcal{B})}{\zeta(2)}.

The factor rnr_n cancels. In particular, if Cu(L)C_u(L) counts collisions in JuJu, then

lim sup⁡L→∞Cu(L)L2≤ω[Γ:J]area⁡(B)ζ(2)∣En∣∣Qn∣.\limsup_{L\to\infty}\frac{C_u(L)}{L^2}\leq\frac{\omega}{[\Gamma:J]}\frac{\operatorname{area}(\mathcal{B})}{\zeta(2)}\frac{|E_n|}{|Q_n|}.

First take L→∞L\to\infty for this fixed nn, and then take n→∞n\to\infty. Equations (38) and (40) give a zero upper bound. Summing over the finitely many feasible JJ-orbits proves (32). □

Uniform summation over rational graphs

We prove that the excess of KK-orbits over distinct norm values is o(L2)o(L^2). All constants in this section depend only on the fixed norm and its Farey estimates, except where additional subscripts are displayed.

Graph complexity and a population bound

For G∈GL⁡2(Q)G\in\operatorname{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q}), put

Λin(G)=Z2∩G−1Z2,Λout(G)=GΛin(G),\Lambda_{\mathrm{in}}(G)=\mathbb{Z}^2\cap G^{-1}\mathbb{Z}^2,\qquad \Lambda_{\mathrm{out}}(G)=G\Lambda_{\mathrm{in}}(G),
Iin(G)=[Z2:Λin(G)],Iout(G)=[Z2:Λout(G)].I_{\mathrm{in}}(G)=[\mathbb{Z}^2:\Lambda_{\mathrm{in}}(G)],\qquad I_{\mathrm{out}}(G)=[\mathbb{Z}^2:\Lambda_{\mathrm{out}}(G)].

and define

J(G)=max⁡{1,Iin(G),Iout(G),h(G)},h(G)=max⁡i,j∣Gij∣.(41)\mathcal{J}(G)=\max\{1,I_{\mathrm{in}}(G),I_{\mathrm{out}}(G),h(G)\},\qquad h(G)=\max_{i,j}|G_{ij}|. \tag*{(41)}

Lemma 6.1. Let G∈GL2(Q)G\in\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q}) and L≥1L\ge1, and let P\mathcal{P} be a set of integral graph points (v,Gv)(v,Gv) with ∣v∣,∣Gv∣≤CL|v|,|Gv|\le CL. Then, uniformly in GG,

#P≤C(L2/J(G)+L+1).(42)\#\mathcal{P}\le C(L^2/\mathcal{J}(G)+L+1). \tag*{(42)}

For Q≥1Q\ge1, there are O(Q9)O(Q^9) rational matrices with J(G)≤Q\mathcal{J}(G)\le Q. Each of their graph planes has two spanning integer vectors of length O(Q2)O(Q^2).

Proof. If the inputs span a space of dimension at most one, they lie in Zu\mathbb{Z}u for some u∈Zprim2u\in\mathbb{Z}^2_{\mathrm{prim}}, taking u=e1u=e_1 if all inputs are zero. An input determines its graph point, so

#P≤2⌊CL∣u∣⌋+1≤2CL+1.\#\mathcal{P}\le2\left\lfloor\frac{CL}{|u|}\right\rfloor+1\le2CL+1.

This proves (42) in this case. Otherwise choose two independent inputs. Rounding coordinates in their basis shows that their generated sublattice has covering radius at most half the sum of their lengths, hence O(L)O(L). The larger lattice Λin(G)\Lambda_{\mathrm{in}}(G) has no greater covering radius. The Voronoi cells centered at the selected inputs have disjoint interiors, area Iin(G)I_{\mathrm{in}}(G), and lie in a disk of radius O(L)O(L). Thus #P≤CL2/Iin(G)\#\mathcal{P}\le CL^2/I_{\mathrm{in}}(G). The same argument on the output lattice gives CL2/Iout(G)CL^2/I_{\mathrm{out}}(G). If a row of GG has length comparable to h(G)h(G), the condition ∣Gv∣≤CL|Gv|\le CL confines the inputs to a strip of width O(L/h(G))O(L/h(G)). Its intersection with the input disk has area O(L2/h(G))O(L^2/h(G)) and perimeter O(L)O(L). The planar lattice bound gives C(L2/h(G)+L+1)C(L^2/h(G)+L+1). Taking the strongest of these bounds, and the trivial disk bound when necessary, proves (42).

Let qq be the least positive integer for which qGqG is integral. It is the exponent of the finite group Z2/Λin(G)\mathbb{Z}^2/\Lambda_{\mathrm{in}}(G), since qZ2⊂Λin(G)q\mathbb{Z}^2\subset\Lambda_{\mathrm{in}}(G) is equivalent to integrality of qGqG. Hence q∣Iin(G)q\mid I_{\mathrm{in}}(G). If J(G)≤Q\mathcal{J}(G)\le Q, write G=A/qG=A/q with q≤Qq\le Q and the four entries of AA bounded by Q2Q^2. There are O(Q9)O(Q^9) such choices. The integer vectors (qei,Aei)(qe_i,Ae_i), i=1,2i=1,2, span its graph plane and have length O(Q2)O(Q^2).

6.2. A first partition and rank reduction. A collision will mean a pair v,w∈Zprim2v,w\in\mathbb{Z}^2_{\mathrm{prim}} satisfying N(v)=N(w)≤LN(v)=N(w)\le L and w∉Kvw\notin Kv. Fix a sufficiently large constant AA, and choose a larger constant BB such that

ρB>CsepA+5.(43)\rho B>C_{\mathrm{sep}}A+5. \tag*{(43)}

Use the coarse fan of order Hc=⌈Alog⁡L⌉H_c=\lceil A\log L\rceil and the fine fan of order Hf=⌈Blog⁡L⌉H_f=\lceil B\log L\rceil. Apply Lemma 3.4 with M=CrankL3M=C_{\mathrm{rank}}L^3 at the coarse order, for a fixed sufficiently large CrankC_{\mathrm{rank}}, and also remove the fine fan rays. The number of primitive vectors removed is at most

CL2/A+OA(Llog⁡2L+log⁡2L).(44)CL^2/A+O_A(L\log^2 L+\log^2 L). \tag*{(44)}

The constants BB and CrankC_{\mathrm{rank}} can be fixed once AA is fixed.

Consider collisions whose two endpoints have survived, in a fixed pair of fine open sectors. Choose supporting functionals λ,λ′\lambda,\lambda' at interior points of these sectors, and put $\ell=(\lambda,-\lambda')\in (R4)∗(\mathbb{R}^{4})^{*}. Every such collision z=(v,w)z=(v,w) satisfies

∣z∣≤CL,∣ℓ(z)∣≤CLe−ρHf,c≤∣ℓ∣≤C.(45)|z|\le CL,\qquad|\ell(z)|\le CLe^{-\rho H_f},\qquad c\le|\ell|\le C. \tag*{(45)}

Every fine sector containing a retained point lies wholly in a retained coarse sector. Thus the chosen supports themselves satisfy the coarse normal separation (30).

We will use the following elementary estimate. If z1,…,zdz_1,\ldots,z_d are linearly independent integral vectors of length at most RR, their dd-dimensional volume is at least one: its square is the sum of the squares of the integral d×dd\times d minors. The largest d−1d-1 singular values of their column matrix are at most dR\sqrt{d}R, so the smallest is at least (dR)−(d−1)(\sqrt{d}R)^{-(d-1)}. Consequently,

∣ℓ(zi)∣≤ε (1≤i≤d)⟹∥ℓ∣span⁡R(z1,…,zd)∥≤dd/2Rd−1ε.(46)|\ell(z_i)|\le\varepsilon\ (1\le i\le d)\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\left\|\ell|_{\operatorname{span}_{\mathbb R}(z_1,\ldots,z_d)}\right\|\le d^{d/2}R^{d-1}\varepsilon. \tag*{(46)}

Lemma 6.2 (Rank reduction). For all sufficiently large LL, the collision vectors in one such pair of fine sectors span a space of dimension at most two.

Proof. Four independent integral collision vectors would have determinant of absolute value at least one. Taking the first coordinate along ℓ/∣ℓ∣\ell/|\ell|, estimate (45) instead bounds it by CL4e−ρHf<1CL^{4}e^{-\rho H_f}<1, a contradiction.

Suppose three independent vectors span WW. Their exterior product is a nonzero integral vector, so their three-dimensional volume is at least one. Since their lengths are O(L)O(L), their smallest singular value is at least cL−2cL^{-2}. It follows that

∥ℓ∣W∥≤CL3e−ρHf.(47)\|\ell|_{W}\|\le CL^{3}e^{-\rho H_f}. \tag*{(47)}

A primitive integral normal to WW has the form (α,β)(\alpha,\beta), of length at most CrankL3C_{\mathrm{rank}}L^{3} after fixing CrankC_{\mathrm{rank}} large enough. If β=0\beta=0, the output coordinate plane is contained in WW, and (47) contradicts ∣λ′∣≥c|\lambda'|\ge c. Otherwise write ℓ=t(α,β)+r\ell=t(\alpha,\beta)+r, with r∈Wr\in W and ∣r∣=∥ℓ∣W∥|r|=\|\ell|_{W}\|. Projecting the output component onto β⊥\beta^\perp gives ∣proj⁡β⊥λ′∣≤∣r∣|\operatorname{proj}_{\beta^\perp}\lambda'|\le|r|. Since ∣λ′∣≥c|\lambda'|\ge c, this yields

∠(λ′,{β,−β})≤CL3e−ρHf.\angle(\lambda',\{\beta,-\beta\})\le CL^{3}e^{-\rho H_f}.

This contradicts the lower bound ce−CsepHcce^{-C_{\mathrm{sep}}H_c} from the coarse excision, by (43). Three independent vectors are therefore impossible as well. □

If a space of dimension at most two has a projection of rank at most one onto one coordinate plane, there are at most two possible primitive vectors at that endpoint. For each, the other endpoint lies on a convex norm circle of radius O(L)O(L), with O(L+1)O(L+1) integer points. Indeed, order these points cyclically along the convex boundary. The arc between consecutive points has length at least their Euclidean distance, which is at least one. Their number is therefore bounded by the perimeter, apart from the harmless cases of zero or one point. There are OA(log⁡4L)O_A(\log^4 L) fine sector pairs, so these degenerate blocks contribute OA(Llog⁡4L)=oA(L2)O_A(L\log^4 L)=o_A(L^2) collisions.

Every remaining two-dimensional space has both projections of rank two. It is the graph w=Gvw=Gv of a unique rational invertible matrix GG, since it is spanned by integral vectors. Necessarily G∉KG\notin K. Lemma 6.1 shows that the blocks with J(G)>(log⁡L)5\mathfrak{J}(G)>(\log L)^5 have total population at most

OA(L2log⁡L+Llog⁡4L)=oA(L2).(48)O_A\left(\frac{L^2}{\log L}+L\log^4 L\right)=o_A(L^2). \tag*{(48)}

A second partition for complexity bands

For integers j≥1j \ge1, put Qj=2jQ_j = 2^j and

Gj={G∈GL2(Q)∖K:Qj<J(G)≤2Qj}.\mathcal{G}_j = \{G \in\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q}) \setminus K : Q_j < \mathcal{J}(G) \le2Q_j\}.

We only need j≤jmax⁡=⌈5log⁡2log⁡L⌉j \le j_{\max} = \lceil5\log_2\log L\rceil. There are at most CQj9CQ_j^9 candidates in a band. By Lemma 6.1, if the sum of two distinct graph planes in this band is three-dimensional, it has a primitive integral normal of length at most

Mj=CbandQj6.(49)M_j = C_{\mathrm{band}}Q_j^6. \tag*{(49)}

Here CbandC_{\mathrm{band}} is a fixed positive constant. Indeed, choose three independent vectors from their integer spanning pairs of length O(Qj2)O(Q_j^2) and take their exterior product.

Fix a sufficiently large integer j0j_0. For each j0≤j≤jmax⁡j_0 \le j \le j_{\max}, apply the excision lemma at coarse order Hj=j3H_j = j^3 with M=MjM = M_j, and remove also the rays of a fine fan of order ⌈B1j3⌉\lceil B_1j^3\rceil. Here B1>1B_1 > 1 is fixed with

ρB1>Csep+1.(50)\rho B_1 > C_{\mathrm{sep}} + 1. \tag*{(50)}

Since log⁡(2+Mj)=O(j)\log(2+M_j) = O(j), all these extra deletions together cost at most

CL2/j0+O(L(log⁡log⁡L)3+(log⁡log⁡L)7).(51)CL^2/j_0 + O\bigl(L(\log\log L)^3 + (\log\log L)^7\bigr). \tag*{(51)}

This follows by summing C(L2/j2+Lj2+j6)C(L^2/j^2 + Lj^2 + j^6). As before, each fine sector with retained points lies in a retained coarse sector at that band.

For this second partition, include all retained collisions on each candidate graph; this contains the blocks assigned by the first partition. For a fixed band and a pair of its fine sectors, call the retained collision block in the graph of G∈GjG \in\mathcal{G}_j large if its population is at least

L2/Qj20.(52)L^2/Q_j^{20}. \tag*{(52)}

In the required range Qj≤C(log⁡L)5Q_j \le C(\log L)^5,

sup⁡j≤jmax⁡Qj20L≤C(log⁡L)100L⟶0.\sup_{j \le j_{\max}} \frac{Q_j^{20}}{L} \le C\frac{(\log L)^{100}}{L} \longrightarrow0.

Thus one sufficiently large LL makes the threshold exceed every fixed multiple of LL, simultaneously for all these bands.

Lemma 6.3 (A large block contains a well-spread pair). The inputs of a large block contain two vectors with

∣det⁡(v1,v2)∣≥L2/(8Qj20),(53)|\det(v_1,v_2)| \ge L^2/(8Q_j^{20}), \tag*{(53)}

*for all sufficiently large LL, uniformly in j≤jmax⁡j \le j_{\max}. *

Proof. Among the inputs choose a pair maximizing the absolute determinant DD. A collinear primitive set has at most two points, so D>0D > 0. Every other input has coordinates in [−1,1]2[-1,1]^2 in this basis, by maximality of DD. Thus all inputs lie in a parallelogram of area 4D4D and perimeter O(L)O(L). Their number is at most 4D+CL+C4D + CL + C. In view of (52) and its uniform domination of LL, inequality (53) follows. □

Lemma 6.4 (One large graph per sector pair). For all sufficiently large fixed j0j_0 and then all sufficiently large LL, each band j0≤j≤jmax⁡j_0 \le j \le j_{\max} and each pair of its fine sectors contain at most one large graph block.

Proof. Choose supports λ,λ′\lambda,\lambda' in the two fine sectors and write ℓ=(λ,−λ′)\ell=(\lambda,-\lambda'). For a large graph GG, put θG=λ−λ′∘G\theta_G=\lambda-\lambda'\circ G. At the two points of Lemma 6.3, the fine approximation gives ∣θG(vi)∣≤CLe−ρB1j3|\theta_G(v_i)|\le CL e^{-\rho B_1j^3}. Their dual basis has length at most CQj20/LCQ_j^{20}/L, so

∣θG∣≤CQj20e−ρB1j3.(54)|\theta_G|\le CQ_j^{20}e^{-\rho B_1j^3}. \tag*{(54)}

If two different large graphs occurred, their sum WW would have dimension d=3d=3 or 44. From their integer spanning vectors of length O(Qj2)O(Q_j^2) choose a basis for WW. On each of these vectors the value of ℓ\ell has absolute value at most CQj22e−ρB1j3CQ_j^{22}e^{-\rho B_1j^3}, by (54). The integer dd-volume is at least one, so the smallest singular value is at least cQj−2(d−1)cQ_j^{-2(d-1)}. Consequently

∥ℓ∣W∥≤CQj28e−ρB1j3=:εj.(55)\|\ell|_W\|\le CQ_j^{28}e^{-\rho B_1j^3}=:\varepsilon_j. \tag*{(55)}

If d=4d=4, this contradicts ∣ℓ∣≥c|\ell|\ge c for sufficiently large jj. If d=3d=3, choose its primitive integral normal (α,β)(\alpha,\beta) as in (49). Here β≠0\beta\ne0: otherwise a linear functional depending only on the input would vanish on a graph with full input projection and hence be zero. Projection onto this normal line and ∣λ′∣≥c|\lambda'|\ge c give

∠(λ′,{β,−β})≤Cεj.\angle(\lambda',\{\beta,-\beta\})\le C\varepsilon_j.

The band excision instead gives the lower bound ce−Csepj3ce^{-C_{\mathrm{sep}}j^3}. These contradict one another since

228je−(ρB1−Csep)j3⟶0.2^{28j}e^{-(\rho B_1-C_{\mathrm{sep}})j^3}\longrightarrow0.

One choice of j0j_0, depending only on the fixed geometry and B1B_1, suffices. □

There are O(j12)O(j^{12}) fine sector pairs in band jj. Summing the small-block bound over its O(Qj9)O(Q_j^9) candidate graphs gives CL2j12Qj−11CL^2j^{12}Q_j^{-11}. By Lemmas 6.4 and 6.1, the large blocks contribute at most Cj12(L2Qj−1+L+1)Cj^{12}(L^2Q_j^{-1}+L+1). Therefore all bands with j≥j0j\ge j_0 together contribute at most

CL2τ(j0)+O(L(log⁡log⁡L)13),τ(j0)=∑j≥j0j12(2−11j+2−j)⟶0.(56)CL^2\tau(j_0)+O\bigl(L(\log\log L)^{13}\bigr),\qquad \tau(j_0)=\sum_{j\ge j_0}j^{12}(2^{-11j}+2^{-j})\longrightarrow0. \tag*{(56)}

The set

{G∈GL2(Q)∖K:J(G)≤2j0+1}\{G\in\mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q})\setminus K:J(G)\le2^{j_0+1}\}

is finite. Proposition 5.1 gives a total contribution oK,j0(L2)o_{K,j_0}(L^2) from its members.

From collision bounds to excess

Let

A(L)=#({v∈Zprim2:N(v)≤L}/K),D(L)=#{N(v):v∈Zprim2, N(v)≤L}.\mathcal{A}(L)=\#\bigl(\{v\in\mathbb{Z}^2_{\mathrm{prim}}:N(v)\le L\}/K\bigr),\qquad \mathcal{D}(L)=\#\{N(v):v\in\mathbb{Z}^2_{\mathrm{prim}},\ N(v)\le L\}.

Define the excess E(L)=A(L)−D(L)\mathcal{E}(L)=\mathcal{A}(L)-\mathcal{D}(L). Discard every complete KK-orbit that meets the deleted set. If d(L)d(L) primitive vectors were deleted, this discards at most d(L)d(L) orbits. Deleting one orbit reduces the excess by at most one. All the remaining vectors satisfy the required geometric conditions.

Within a retained norm fiber containing rr different KK-orbits, the excess r−1r-1 is bounded by the number of non-KK collision pairs. Consequently

E(L)≤d(L)+#{retained collisions}.\mathcal{E}(L) \le d(L) + \#\{\text{retained collisions}\}.

The preceding estimates give

lim sup⁡L→∞E(L)L2≤CA+Cj0+Cτ(j0).(57)\limsup_{L\to\infty} \frac{\mathcal{E}(L)}{L^2} \le\frac{C}{A}+\frac{C}{j_0}+C\tau(j_0). \tag*{(57)}

Here L→∞L\to\infty with A,j0A,j_0 fixed, and the constant on the right is independent of A,j0A,j_0. Letting A,j0→∞A,j_0\to\infty gives

A(L)−D(L)=ok(L2).(58)\mathcal{A}(L)-\mathcal{D}(L)=o_k(L^2). \tag*{(58)}

Completion of the proof

The standard elementary primitive lattice count in a bounded convex body gives

#(Zprim2∩LB)=area⁡(B)ζ(2)L2+Ok(Llog⁡(2+L)).(59)\#(\mathbb{Z}^2_{\mathrm{prim}}\cap L\mathcal{B})=\frac{\operatorname{area}(\mathcal{B})}{\zeta(2)}L^2+O_k(L\log(2+L)). \tag*{(59)}

Indeed, count all nonzero lattice points in tBt\mathcal{B} as area⁡(B)t2+Ok(t+1)\operatorname{area}(\mathcal{B})t^2+O_k(t+1), and apply Möbius inversion to their common coordinate divisor. With μ\mu denoting the Möbius function, the sums ∑d≤CLμ(d)/d2=1/ζ(2)+O(1/L)\sum_{d\le CL}\mu(d)/d^2=1/\zeta(2)+O(1/L) and ∑d≤CL1/d=O(log⁡(2+L))\sum_{d\le CL}1/d=O(\log(2+L)) give (59).

Apart from finitely many primitive vectors, the KK-action is free: any nonidentity element has its fixed vectors on finitely many lines, and each rational ray has just one primitive vector. Consequently

A(L)=area⁡(B)12ζ(2)L2+ok(L2).(60)\mathcal{A}(L)=\frac{\operatorname{area}(\mathcal{B})}{12\zeta(2)}L^2+o_k(L^2). \tag*{(60)}

Combining this with (58) proves the same asymptotic for D(L)\mathcal{D}(L).

By Lemma 2.1, a KK-orbit corresponds to exactly one sorted positive solution, with largest coordinate MνM_\nu. The map

m⟼arcosh⁡((3(k+1)m−k)/2)m\longmapsto\operatorname{arcosh}((3(k+1)m-k)/2)

is strictly increasing. Thus, with

Lk(H)=arcosh⁡((3(k+1)H−k)/2)=log⁡H+log⁡(3(k+1))+o(1),(61)L_k(H)=\operatorname{arcosh}((3(k+1)H-k)/2)=\log H+\log(3(k+1))+o(1), \tag*{(61)}

we have exactly Tk(H)=A(Lk(H))T_k(H)=\mathcal{A}(L_k(H)) and Dk(H)=D(Lk(H))D_k(H)=\mathcal{D}(L_k(H)). Equations (58)–(61) prove (1.3) and (1.6). Finally,

#{m≤H:rk(m)≥2}≤Tk(H)−Dk(H),∑m≤Hrk(m)≥2rk(m)≤2(Tk(H)−Dk(H)),\#\{m\le H:r_k(m)\ge2\}\le T_k(H)-D_k(H), \qquad\sum_{\substack{m\le H\\r_k(m)\ge2}}r_k(m)\le2(T_k(H)-D_k(H)),

because r≤2(r−1)r\le2(r-1) for integers r≥2r\ge2. This proves both density statements in Theorem 1.1. □\square

Zhili College, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Email address: [email protected]

References

  1. [1]E. Banaian, Orderings on k-Markov numbers, Ramanujan J. 71 (2026), Article 12. doi:10.1007/s11139-026-01468-5.DOI
  2. [2]E. Banaian and M. Huang, Orderings of generalized k-Markov numbers, preprint (2026), arXiv:2604.17445v1.arxiv.org/abs/2604.17445
  3. [3]A. Baragar, On the unicity conjecture for Markoff numbers, Canad. Math. Bull. 39 (1996), no. 1, 3–9.DOI
  4. [4]C. Burrin, A. Nevo, R. Rühr, and B. Weiss, Effective counting for discrete lattice orbits in the plane via Eisenstein series, Enseign. Math. 66 (2020), no. 3–4, 259–304. The numbering cited here is that of arXiv:1905.01493v1.DOI
  5. [5]J. O. Button, The uniqueness of the prime Markoff numbers, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 58 (1998), no. 1, 9–17.DOI
  6. [6]Z. Chen and Y. Huang, Mutation-preserving generalized cluster algebras and Laurent mutation invariants, preprint (2026), arXiv:2608.10551v3.arxiv.org/abs/2608.10551
  7. [7]W. Y. Chen, Almost all Markoff numbers are unique, preprint (2026), Hexagon:2610.00281v2.
  8. [8]H. Cohn, Approach to Markoff’s minimal forms through modular functions, Ann. of Math. (2) 61 (1955), no. 1, 1–12.DOI
  9. [9]H. Cohn, Representation of Markoff’s binary quadratic forms by geodesics on a perforated torus, Acta Arith. 18 (1971), 125–136.DOI
  10. [10]N. M. Doan, Almost all simple lengths are unique up to isometry, preprint (2026), Hexagon:2610.00298v1.
  11. [11]G. Frobenius, Über die Markoffschen Zahlen, Sitzungsber. Königl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (1913), 458–487.
  12. [12]Y. Gyoda and S. Maruyama, Uniqueness theorem of generalized Markov numbers that are prime powers, Integers 26 (2026), A91. doi:10.5281/zenodo.21678095.
  13. [13]Y. Gyoda and K. Matsushita, Generalization of Markov Diophantine equation via generalized cluster algebra, Electron. J. Combin. 30 (2023), no. 4, P4.10, 20 pp. doi:10.37236/11420.DOI
  14. [14]M. L. Lang and S. P. Tan, A simple proof of the Markoff conjecture for prime powers, Geom. Dedicata 129 (2007), 15–22.
  15. [15]A. Markoff, Sur les formes quadratiques binaires indéfinies, Math. Ann. 15 (1879), 381–406.DOI
  16. [16]A. Markoff, Sur les formes quadratiques binaires indéfinies, Math. Ann. 17 (1880), 379–399.DOI
  17. [17]G. McShane and I. Rivin, A norm on homology of surfaces and counting simple geodesics, Int. Math. Res. Not. (1995), no. 2, 61–69.
  18. [18]B. Poonen, p-adic interpolation of iterates, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 46 (2014), no. 3, 525–527. Author’s version.DOI
  19. [19]M. S. Risager, Counting Markov triples and simple geodesics, preprint (2026), arXiv:2610.36069v1.arxiv.org/abs/2610.36069
  20. [20]P. Schmutz, Systoles of arithmetic surfaces and the Markoff spectrum, Math. Ann. 305 (1996), 191–203.DOI
  21. [21]Q. Tang, Parameter monotonicity for generalized k-Markov numbers, preprint (2026), Hexagon:2611.00023v1.
  22. [22]D. Zagier, On the number of Markoff numbers below a given bound, Math. Comp. 39 (1982), no. 160, 709–723.DOI

Paper details

vlnc:W_hkksmarc
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — published within the last 30 days

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

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents