Abstract
We give an exposition of White’s characterization of empty lattice tetrahedra. In particular, we describe the second author’s proof of White’s theorem that appeared in her doctoral thesis (Rogers in Doctoral dissertation 1993) [7].
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download conference paper PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
1 Introduction
The motivating example is the lattice tetrahedron with vertices \((0,0,0), (1,0,0), (0,1,0)\), and (1, 1, c) with c being an arbitrary positive integer. We denote this tetrahedron as \(T_{1,1,c}\). Regardless of the size of c (and consequently the volume of \(T_{1,1,c}\)), \(T_{1,1,c}\) does not contain any lattice points other than its vertices. This is in surprising contrast to the situation in \(\mathbb R^2\) where a lattice triangle does not contain any lattice points, other than its vertices, if and only if it has area 1/2. (To see this we invoke Pick’s theorem.)
Reeve [4] posed the problem of characterizing such tetrahedra. Some years later, White [10] solved this problem. Over the years, different authors have given proofs of White’s theorem (see [1, 3, 5, 6, 8]). The second author gave a proof of White’s theorem in her doctoral dissertation [7]. In this article, we give a detailed exposition of this proof.
Before stating the relevant theorems, we establish some notation and definitions. Let \(a,b,c \in \mathbb Z\) with \(0\le a,b <c\). We will use d to denote the integer
Furthermore, \(T_{a,b,c}\) will denote the lattice tetrahedron with vertices (0, 0, 0), (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), and (a, b, c).
Definition 1
Following Reznick [6], we call a lattice polyhedron that does not contain any lattice points other than its vertices an empty lattice polyhedron. Such a polyhedron belongs to a larger set of lattice polyhedra that do not contain any lattice points on their boundary other than the vertices. We call such polyhedra clean lattice polyhedra.
We insert a warning about the the terminology, particularly in the case of tetrahedra. Other names in the literature for empty tetrahedra are fundamental, primitive, Reeve.
Definition 2
An affine unimodular map is an affine map
where \(M \in GL_3(\mathbb Z)\), \(\det (M) =\pm 1\) and \(\mathbf {u}\in \mathbb Z^3\).
We now state the two theorems that we will prove.
Theorem 1
Let T be an empty lattice tetrahedron. Then there is an affine unimodular map L such that \(L(T)= T_{a,b,c}\), with \(0\le a,b <c\) and \(\gcd (a,c)=\gcd (b,c)=\gcd (d,c)=1\).
Theorem 2
(White) The lattice tetrahedron \(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty if and only if \(\gcd (a,c)=\gcd (b,c)=\gcd (d,c)=1\) and at least one of the following hold:
We now state definitions and background results that will be used to prove the two theorems.
Definition 3
A set of lattice points \(\{ \mathbf {v}_1, \ldots , \mathbf {v}_k \}\) in \(\mathbb Z^n\) is said to be primitive if it is a basis for the sublattice \(\mathbb Z^n \cap ( \mathbb R\mathbf {v}_1 \oplus \dots \oplus \mathbb R\mathbf {v}_k)\). Geometrically, this means that \(\{ \mathbf {v}_1, \ldots , \mathbf {v}_k \}\) is primitive if and only if the parallelepiped spanned by \(\mathbf {v}_1, \ldots , \mathbf {v}_k \) is empty.
The following is a list of standard results we will use. The proofs can be found in [9, Lectures V, VIII]. However, we have rephrased some of the statements. Consequently, the reader who consults [9] may need to read the relevant material carefully.
Theorem 3
Every lattice has an integral basis.
Theorem 4
The property of being a lattice basis is preserved under the action of any unimodular transformation, that is, if \(\mathbf {v}_1,\mathbf {v}_2,\ldots , \mathbf {v}_n\) is a basis for \(\mathbb Z^n\) and \(T:\mathbb R^n \rightarrow \mathbb R^n\) is an unimodular transformation, then \(T\left( \mathbf {v}_1\right) ,T\left( \mathbf {v}_2\right) ,\ldots , T\left( \mathbf {v}_n\right) \) is also a basis of \(\mathbb Z^n\). Furthermore, given two lattice bases, there is an unimodular transformation that maps one basis into the other.
Theorem 5
Let \(\{\mathbf {v}_1, \ldots , \mathbf {v}_n\}\) be a linearly independent set of elements of \(\mathbb Z^n\), and let \(H=\mathbb Z\mathbf {v}_1\oplus \ldots \oplus \mathbb Z\mathbf {v}_n\). Then the order of the quotient group \(\mathbb Z^n/H\) equals
Theorem 6
Let \(\{\mathbf {v}_1, \ldots , \mathbf {v}_r\}\) be a primitive set of \(\mathbb Z^n\). Then \(\{\mathbf {v}_1, \ldots , \mathbf {v}_r\}\) can be extended to a basis of \(\mathbb Z^n\).
We mention an interesting fact that emerges in the course of proving White’s theorem. From Theorem 5, it follows that if \(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty, then the parallelepiped spanned by (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), (a, b, c) contains \((c-1)\) lattice points in its interior. In the course of proving Theorem 2, we will find that all of these points are coplanar! More precisely, we have the following.
Corollary 1
Let \(P_{a,b,c}\) denote the parallelepiped spanned by (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0), and (a, b, c). If \(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty, then \(P_{a,b,c}\) contains \((c-1)\) lattice points in its interior. If \(a=1\), then all of these lattice points lie on the plane \(x=1\); if \(b=1\), then all of these lattice points lie on the plane \(y=1\); if \(d=1\), then all of these lattice points lie on the plane \(x+y-z=1\).
Warning: The co-planarity of these lattice points was mentioned in an article of the first author [2, Theorem 3.2]. Unfortunately, the description of the planes in [2] is completely incorrect! The author should have done his homework and not just relied on his faulty visualization skills!!
2 Proofs
We begin with some notation. Let \(\mathbf {u}= (u_1,u_2,u_3) \in \mathbb Z^3\). We will denote the integer \(\gcd (u_1,u_2,u_3)\) by \(\gcd (\mathbf {u})\). Occasionally, we will use \(e_1,e_2\), and \(e_3\) to denote the vectors (1, 0, 0), (0, 1, 0) and (0, 0, 1).
Proposition 1
Let \(\mathbf {u}, \mathbf {v}\) be two linearly independent elements in \(\mathbb Z^3\). The following statements are equivalent.
-
1.
P, the parallelogram spanned by \(\mathbf {u}\) and \(\mathbf {v}\) is an empty parallelogram.
-
2.
T, the triangle spanned by \(\mathbf {u}\) and \(\mathbf {v}\) is an empty triangle.
-
3.
\(\gcd (\mathbf {u} \times \mathbf {v})=1\).
Proof
Clearly (1) \(\Rightarrow \) (2). We prove the contrapositive to demonstrate that (2) \(\Rightarrow \) (1). We assume that P contains a lattice point \(\mathbf {x}\) that is not a vertex of P. Then either \(\mathbf {x}\) or \((\mathbf {u}+\mathbf {v}-\mathbf {x})\) lies in T. Since neither lattice point can be a vertex of T, we conclude that T is not an empty triangle.
We now turn to proving that (1) and (3) are equivalent.
(3) \(\Rightarrow \) (1): Since \(\gcd (\mathbf {u}\times \mathbf {v}) =1\), there exists, by the Extended Euclidean algorithm, \(\mathbf {w}\in \mathbb Z^3\) such that \((\mathbf {u}\times \mathbf {v})\cdot \mathbf {w} =1 = \det (\mathbf {u},\mathbf {v},\mathbf {w})\). By Theorem 5, \(\mathbf {u},\mathbf {v},\mathbf {w}\) is a basis of \(\mathbb Z^3\), and consequently they span an empty parallelepiped. We conclude that P is an empty parallelogram.
(1) \(\Rightarrow \) (3): Since P is an empty parallelogram, \(\{\mathbf {u}, \mathbf {v}\}\) is a primitive set of \(\mathbb Z^3\), and consequently by Theorem 6 there is a lattice point \(\mathbf {w}\) such that \(\mathbf {u},\mathbf {v},\mathbf {w}\) is a basis of \(\mathbb Z^3\). Consequently, \(|\det (\mathbf {u},\mathbf {v},\mathbf {w})|=1\). Since \(\det (\mathbf {u},\mathbf {v},\mathbf {w}) = (\mathbf {u}\times \mathbf {v})\cdot \mathbf {w}\), we conclude that \(\gcd (\mathbf {u}\times \mathbf {v}) =1\).
Corollary 2
The tetrahedron \(T_{a,b,c}\) is clean if and only if \(\gcd (a,c)=\gcd (b,c)=\gcd (d,c)=1\).
Proof
Let \(\triangle _1,\triangle _2,\triangle _3,\triangle _4\) denote the faces of \(T_{a,b,c}\) where \(\triangle _1\) is the triangle spanned by \(e_1\) and \(e_2\); \(\triangle _2\) is the triangle spanned by \(e_1\) and (a, b, c); \(\triangle _3\) is the triangle spanned by \(e_2\) and (a, b, c); and \(\triangle _4\) is the triangle spanned by \((e_2-e_1)\) and \(((a,b,c)-e_1)\). \(T_{a,b,c}\) is a clean tetrahedron if and only if \(\triangle _1,\triangle _2,\triangle _3\), and \(\triangle _4\) are all empty lattice triangles. Clearly \(\triangle _1\) is an empty triangle. By Proposition 1, the triangles \(\triangle _2,\triangle _3,\triangle _4\) are empty if and only if
that is, \(\gcd (b,c)=\gcd (a,c)=\gcd (d,c)=1.\)
Proof
(Proof of Theorem 1 ) Let T be an empty lattice tetrahedron in \(\mathbb R^3\). Without loss of generality we may assume that the origin is one of the vertices and the other 3 vertices are \(\mathbf {u}, \mathbf {v}\) and \(\mathbf {w}\). Since the triangle spanned by \(\mathbf {u}\) and \(\mathbf {v}\) is empty, by Proposition 1, the same holds for the parallelogram spanned by \(\mathbf {u}\) and \(\mathbf {v}\). Therefore, \( \{\mathbf {u}, \mathbf {v} \} \) is a primitive set of \(\mathbb Z^3\), and by Theorem 6 can be extended to a basis of \(\mathbb Z^3\), \(\mathbf {u},\mathbf {v}, \mathbf {x}\). Now by Theorem 4, we have a unimodular transformation \(L_1\) such that \(L_1(\mathbf {u})=e_1\), \(L_2(\mathbf {v})=e_2\), and \(L_3(\mathbf {x})=e_3\). Under this transformation, we see that the tetrahedron T is equivalent to the tetrahedron \(T_1\) with vertices \(0, e_1, e_2\) and (A, B, c) where \(A,B,c \in \mathbb Z\) and \(\text {vol}(T)=|c/6|\). If \(c<0\), we can compose \(L_1\) with the unimodular transformation
Consequently, we can assume that \(c >0\). We now use the division algorithm to express
By acting on \(T_1\) by the unimodular transformation
we get that T is equivalent to the tetrahedron \(T_2\) with vertices \(0,e_1,e_2\) and (a, b, c). Since \(T_2\) is a clean tetrahedron, we invoke Corollary 2 to conclude that \(\gcd (a,c)=\gcd (b,c)=\gcd (d,c)=1.\)
We now turn to the proof of White’s theorem. Our proof is arranged in four parts. These are as follows:
-
Part 1:
We prove that the tetrahedron \(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty if and only if a system of equations involving a, b, d hold.
-
Part 2:
This system of equations give an immediate proof of the \((\Leftarrow )\) direction of White’s theorem.
-
Part 3:
The proof of the \((\Rightarrow )\) direction of White’s theorem is considerably more involved. We first develop a slight modification of the system of equations. This then leads us to define a finite set of arithmetic functions \(f_n\). We then state and prove certain properties of these functions.
-
Part 4:
We use the properties of \(f_n\) to complete the proof.
We will invoke the following identity in several places
Lemma 1
Let \(x\in \mathbb R\). If \(x\not \in \mathbb Z\), then
We will typically invoke this identity in the following form:
for \(0< l < c, \gcd (l,c)=1, \text { and } k=1,\ldots , c-1.\)
Proposition 2
Let \(c\in \mathbb Z\) with \(c>1\) and let \(T_{a,b,c}\) be a clean lattice tetrahedron. Then, \(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty if and only if
holds for \(k=1, \ldots , c-1\).
Proof
(Proof of Part 1) Let P denote the parallelepiped spanned by \(e_1, e_2\) and (a, b, c). Since \(\text {volume}(P)=c\) and the faces of P are empty lattice parallelograms, we infer that P contains \((c-1)\) lattice points in its interior. These lattice points are
with \(k=1,\ldots ,c-1\).
\(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty if and only if
for \(k=1,\ldots , c-1.\) Some algebraic manipulation in conjunction with identity (1) gives the system of inequalities
for \(k=1,\ldots , c-1.\) We now observe that
for \(k=1,\ldots , c-1.\) Since both sides of the congruence are between 0 and 1, we conclude that we have a system of equalities
for \(k=1,\ldots , c-1.\) After a little more algebraic manipulation, we conclude that \(T_{a,b,c}\) is empty if and only if
for \(k=1,\ldots ,c-1\).
We can now easily prove \((\Leftarrow )\) direction of White’s theorem. The system of equations (3) in conjunction with the system of identities (2) allow us to conclude that the following tetrahedra are empty.
Corollary 3
Let \(\gcd (a,c)=1\). Then the tetrahedra \(T_{1,a,c}\) and \(T_{a,c-a,c}\) are empty.
To prove the \((\Rightarrow )\) direction of White’s theorem, we will work with a modification of (3). Define a set of arithmetic functions \(f_n\) for \(n\in \mathbb Z^+, n < c\) and \(\gcd (n,c)=1\),
via
From (3), we obtain the system of equations
for \(k=1,\ldots , c-2\). We now look at the case of \(k=1\) in (3) which shows that
Thus, we can rewrite (7) as the system of equations
for \(k=1,\ldots ,c-2.\) We will work with this system (8) in conjunction with the properties of \(f_n\) to arrive at a proof of White’s theorem.
Proposition 3
The function \(f_n\) has the following properties.
-
(i)
\(f_1^{-1}(\{1\}) =\emptyset .\)
-
(ii)
For \(n >1\),
$$f_n^{-1}(\{1\}) = \left\{ \,\left[ kc/n \right] : k=1,\ldots , n-1 \right\} . $$ -
(iii)
\(f_{c-n} =1-f_n\).
Proof
For \(k=1,\ldots ,c-2\),
which proves (i).
We now prove statement (ii). If \(l \in f_n^{-1}(\{1\})\) then there exists \(k \in \mathbb Z^{+}\) such that
It follows that \(l = [kc/n].\) Conversely, if \(l = [kc/n]\) for some integer k, with \(1 \le k \le n-1\), then we have that
We now obtain that
and consequently \(l \in f_n^{-1}(\{1\})\).
Statement (iii) is a consequence of identity (2).
We now complete the proof of White’s theorem.
Proof
(Proof of Part 3) Let \(T_{a,b,c}\) be an empty tetrahedron with \(c \ge 2\). We want to prove that either \(a=1\) or \(b=1\) or \(d=1\). We will argue by contradiction. So we assume that \(a,b,d\ge 2\). Consequently none of the sets \(f^{-1}_a(\{1\})\), \(f^{-1}_b(\{1\})\), \(f^{-1}_d(\{1\})\) are empty. Since
can infer that a, b and d are distinct integers, and the sets
are pairwise disjoint. (Spoiler alert: Our argument hinges crucially on the fact that \(f_b^{-1}(\{1\})\cap f_d^{-1}(\{1\}) = \emptyset .\)) Without loss of generality, we can assume that \(a> b > d.\) It follows that \(1 \in f_a^{-1}(\{1\})\), and consequently \(1\not \in \left( f_b^{-1}(\{1\}) \cup f_d^{-1}(\{1\}) \right) \). We now have that
and consequently
that is,
We now compare the smallest and largest elements in each of the 3 sets. Since \(b > d \ge 2\) and \(1\not \in f_{c-a}^{-1}(\{1\})\), we have that
We remark that the strict inequalities occur since
Let s be the positive integer such that
We now obtain that
Combining these two observations, we get
which implies the inequality
This leads to the contradiction that
and consequently our assumption that \(a,b,d \ge 2\) is false.
Proof
(Proof of Corollary 1) Let \(T_{a,b,c}\) be empty, with \(c>1\). By Theorem 2, we have that either \(a=1\) or \(b=1\) or \(b=c-a\). If \(a=1\), then by replacing a by 1 in (4), we see that the x co-ordinate of each lattice point inside \(P_{1,b,c}\) equals 1. The same argument works if \(b=1\). The only case that needs a little more work is, if \(b=c-a\). In this case, (4) becomes
If we now add the x and y co-ordinates and subtract the z co-ordinate, we get
We now invoke the identities (2) to conclude that the RHS equals 1.
References
F. Breuer, F. von Heymann, Staircases in \({\mathbb{Z}^2}\). Integers 10, 807–847 (2010)
M.R. Khan, A counting formula for primitive tetrahedra in \({\mathbb{Z}^3}\). Am. Math. Mon. 106(6), 525–533 (1999)
D.R. Morrison, G. Stevens, Terminal Quotient Singularities in dimensions three and four. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 90(1), 15–20 (1984)
J.E. Reeve, On the volume of lattice tetrahedra. Proc. London, Math. Soc. 7(3) 378–395 (1957)
B. Reznick, Lattice point simplices. Discrete Math. 60, 219–242 (1986)
B. Reznick, Clean lattice tetrahedra (preprint)
K.M. Rogers, Primitive simplices in \({\mathbb{Z}^3}\) and \({\mathbb{Z}^4}\), Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1993
H.E. Scarf, Integral polyhedra in three space. Math. Oper. Res. 10, 403–438 (1985)
C.L. Siegel, Lectures on the Geometry of Numbers, (Springer-Verlag, 1989)
G.K. White, Lattice Tetrahedra. Canad. J. Math 16, 389–396 (1964)
Acknowledgements
This article is a variant of an earlier manuscript drafted and submitted in the early 1990s. It was written in collaboration with Therese Hart who did the initial calculations that led us to discover White’s result. We withdrew the article after discovering that White had anticipated our main discovery three decades previously. We would like to express our gratitude to Mel Nathanson who encouraged us to write this expository piece.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Khan, M.R., Rogers, K.M. (2017). White’s Theorem. In: Nathanson, M. (eds) Combinatorial and Additive Number Theory II. CANT CANT 2015 2016. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 220. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68032-3_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68032-3_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-68030-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-68032-3
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)