arxiv: v3 [math.co] 12 Sep 2015

Transcription

1 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture Guillem Perarnau and Oriol Serra arxiv: v3 [math.co] 2 Sep 205 Departament de Matemàtica Aplicada 4 Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, BarcelonaTech C/ Jordi Girona, -3. Edifici C Barcelona September 5, 205 Abstract The Lonely Runner Conjecture, posed independently by Wills and by Cusick, states that for any set of runners running along the unit circle with constant different speeds and starting at the same point, there is a time where all of them are far enough from the origin. We study the correlation among the time that runners spend close to the origin. By means of these correlations, we improve a result of Chen on the gap of loneliness. In the last part, we introduce dynamic interval graphs to deal with a weak version of the conjecture thus providing a new result related to the invisible runner theorem of Czerwiński and Grytczuk. Keywords: Lonely Runner Conjecture Introduction The Lonely Runner Conjecture was posed independently by Wills [2] in 967 and Cusick [0] in 982. Its picturesque name comes from the following interpretation due to Goddyn [5]. Consider a set of k runners on the unit circle running with different constant speeds and starting at the origin. The conjecture states that, for each runner, there is a time where she is at distance at least /k on the circle from all the other runners. For any real number x, denote by x, the distance from x to the closest integer x = min{x x, x x}, and by {x} = x x, its fractional part. By assuming that one of the runners has zero speed, the conjecture can be easily seen to be equivalent to the following one. Corresponding author

2 G. Perarnau and O. Serra Conjecture (Lonely Runner Conjecture. For every n and every set of nonzero speeds v,..., v n, there exists a time t R such that for every i [n]. t n +, If true, the Lonely Runner Conjecture is best possible: for the set of speeds, = i for every i [n], ( there is no time for which all the runners are further away from the origin than n+. An infinite family of additional extremal sets for the conjecture can be found in [7]. The conjecture is obviously true for n =, since at some point tv = /2, and it is also easy to show that it holds for n = 2. Many proofs for n = 3 are given in the context of diophantine approximation (see [4, 0]. A computer assisted proof for n = 4 was given by Cusick and Pomerance motivated by a view-obstruction problem in geometry [], and later Biena et al. [5] provided a simpler proof by connecting it to nowhere zero flows in regular matroids. The conjecture was proved for n = 5 by Bohmann, Holzmann and Kleitman [6]. Barajas and Serra [3] showed that the conjecture holds for n = 6 by studying the regular chromatic number of distance graphs. In [6], the authors also showed that the conjecture can be reduced to the case where all speeds are positive integers and in the sequel we will assume this to be the case. In particular, we also may assume that t takes values on the (0, unit interval, since if t Z, then t = 0 for all i [n]. Czerwiński [2] proved a strengthening of the conjecture if all the speeds are chosen uniformly at random among all the n-subsets of [N]. In particular, Czerwiński s result implies that, for almost all sets of runners, as N there is a time where all the runners are arbitrarily close to /2. The dependence of N with respect to n for which this result is valid was improved by Alon [] in the context of colorings of Cayley graphs. Dubickas [4] used a result of Peres and Schlag [20] in lacunary integer sequences to prove that the conjecture holds if the sequence of increasing speeds grows fast enough; in particular, for n sufficiently large, if log n n, (2 for every i < n. These results introduce the use of the Lovász Local Lemma to deal with the dependencies among the runners. Another approach to the conjecture is to reduce the gap of loneliness. That is, to show that, for some fixed δ n+ and every set of nonzero speeds, there exists a time t (0, such that t δ for every i [n]. (3 For this approach it is particularly useful to define the following sets, A i = {t (0, : t < δ}. For every t A i, we will say that the i th runner is δ close to the origin at time t. Otherwise, we will say that the runner is δ far from the origin at time t. 2

3 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture The set A i can be thought of as an event in the probability space (0, with the uniform distribution. Notice that we have Pr(A i = 2δ independently from the value of. In this setting, if then, there exists a time t for which (3 holds. ( n Pr A i > 0, (4 Here it is also convenient to consider the indicator random variables X i for the events A i. Let X = n X i count the number of runners which are δ close from the origin at a time t (0, chosen uniformly at random. Then, condition (4 is equivalent to Pr(X = 0 > 0. A first straightforward result in this direction is obtained by using the union bound in (4. For any δ < 2n, we have ( n n Pr A i Pr(A i = 2δn > 0. This result was improved by Chen [7] who showed that, for every set of n nonzero speeds, there exists a time t R such that for every i [n]. t 2n + 2n 3, (5 If 2n 3 is a prime number, then the previous result was extended by Chen and Cusick [8]. In this case, these authors proved that, for every set of n speeds, there exists a time t R such that t 2n 3, for every i [n]. We give a seemingly simpler proof of this result in Section 4. Unfortunately, both proofs strongly use the fact that 2n 3 is a prime. In order to improve (5, we exactly compute the pairwise join probabilities Pr(A i A j, the amount of time that two runners spend close to the origin at the same time. As a corollary, we give the following lower bound on E(X 2. Proposition 2. For every δ such that δ 0 when n +, we have ( ( ( E(X 2 2δn δ + Ω log δ n +. Then, we are able to improve Chen s result on the gap of loneliness around the origin. Theorem 3. For every sufficiently large n and every set v,..., v n of nonzero speeds there exists a time t (0, such that for each i [n]. t 2n 2 + o(, The proof of Theorem 3 uses a Bonferroni type inequality due to Hunter [9] (see Lemma 3 that improves 3

4 G. Perarnau and O. Serra the union bound with the knowledge of pairwise intersections. While the improvement of Theorem 3 is modest, we point out that this is the best result up to date on the Lonely Runner Conjecture for a general sequence of speeds (provided that n is large. The bound on δ in Theorem 3 can be substantially improved in the case of sets of speeds taken from a sequence with divergent sum of inverses. More precisely the following result is proven. Theorem 4. For every set v,..., v n of nonzero speeds there exists a time t (0, such that for each i [n]. t ( 2 n, n i=2 The condition (2 of Dubickas [4] implies that the conjecture is true if the speeds grow sufficiently fast. Theorem 4 is interesting in the sense that it provides meaningful bounds for the opposite case, that is when the speeds grow slowly. In particular, if, i n is a sequence of speeds satisfying n = ω(, then there exists a time t (0, such that t 2n ω(, for every i [n]. The last inequality holds under a natural density condition on the set of speeds which covers the more difficult cases where the speeds grow slowly. Another interesting result on the Lonely Runner Conjecture, was given by Czerwiński and Grytczuk [3]. We say that a runner k is almost alone at time t if there exists a j k such that t( v k n +, for every i j, k. If this case we say that j leaves k almost alone. In [3], the authors showed that every runner is almost alone at some time. This means that Conjecture is true if we are allowed to make one runner invisible, that is, there exists a time when all runners but one are far enough from the origin. Theorem 5 ([3]. For every n and every set of nonzero speeds v,..., v n, there exist a time t (0, such that the origin is almost alone at time t. A similar result can be derived by using a model of dynamic circular interval graphs. By using this model we can show that either there is a runner alone at some time or at least four runners are almost alone at the same time. Theorem 6. For every set of different speeds v,..., v n+, there exist a time t (0, such that, at time t, either there is a runner alone or four different runners are almost alone. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we compute the pairwise join probabilities for the events A i and give a proof for Proposition 2. As a corollary of these results, we also prove Theorem 3 and Theorem 4 (Subsection 2.. In Section 3 we introduce an approach on the problem based on dynamic circular interval graphs and prove Theorem 6. Finally, in Section 4 we give some conclusions, discuss some open questions and give a proof of the improved bound /(2n 3 when 2n 3 is a prime which uses a combination of the ideas presented in this paper and a technique from [3]. 4

5 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture 2 Correlation among runners In this section we want to study the pairwise join probabilities Pr(A i A j, for every i, j [n]. Notice first, that, if A i and A j were independent events, then we would have Pr(A i A j = 4δ 2, since Pr(A i = 2δ for every i [n]. This is not true in the general case, but, as we will see later on, some of these pairwise probabilities can be shown to be large enough. For each ordered pair (i, j with i, j [n], we define { } ε ij = gcd(, v j δ, (6 where gcd(, v j denotes the greatest common divisor of and v j and { } is the fractional part. Let us also consider the function f : [0, 2 R, defined by f(x, y = min(x, y + max(x + y, 0 2xy. (7 The proofs of Propositions 7 and 8 below are based on the proofs of lemmas 3.4 and 3.5 in Alon and Ruzsa [2]. Let us start by studying the case when the speeds and v j are coprime. Proposition 7. Let and v j be coprime positive integers and 0 < δ < /4. Then Pr(A i A j = 4δ 2 + 2f(ε ij, ε ji. Proof. Observe that A i and A j can be expressed as the disjoint unions of intervals A i = v i k=0 ( k α, k + α A j = v j l=0 ( l v j β, l + β v j where α = δ/ and β = δ/v j and we consider the elements in [0, modulo. We observe that α + β = δ( + v j / < /2 since δ < /4. Denote by I = ( α, α and J = ( β, β. We have Pr(A i A j = Pr (I + k/ (J + l/v j k,l v j = Pr((I + k/ (J + l/v j k,l v j = Pr(I (J + l/v j k/ k,l v j = v j k=0 Pr (I (J + k/v j, where in the last equality we used the fact that gcd(, v j =. For each /2 < x < /2, define d(x = Pr(I (J + x. Let us assume that v j <. We can write d(x as 5

6 G. Perarnau and O. Serra follows (see Figure : d(x = β + α + x, x [ (β + α, (β α] 2α, x [ (β α, β α] β + α x, x [β α, β + α] 0 otherwise Figure : Plot of d(x in ( /2, /2. By symmetry, we have Pr(A i A j 2 = d(0 2 + ( k d k (β+αv j = α + k (β+αv j min ( 2α, β + α k. Write α = p + ε ji and β = q + ε ij, where p and q are integers and 0 ε ji, ε ij <. Observe that and that ( q p d ( q + p + d { = { = 2(p + ε ji, if ε ji ε ij 2p + ε ji + ε ij, if ε ji > ε ij = 2p + ε ji + min(ε ji, ε ij, 0, if ε ji + ε ij ε ji + ε ij, if ε ji + ε ij > = max(0, ε ji + ε ij. Therefore, Pr(A i A j 2 = p + ε ji + k p+q+ε ji+ε ij min(2(p + ε ji, q + p + ε ji + ε ij k q p = p + ε ji + 2(p + ε ji + 2p + ε ji + min(ε ji, ε ij + p+q k= k=q p+ (q + p + ε ji + ε ij k + max(0, ε ji + ε ij = 2(p + ε ji (q + ε ij + f(ε ji, ε ij. 6

7 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture Thus, Pr(A i A j = 2 (2(p + ε ji (q + ε ij + f(ε ji, ε ij = 4δ 2 + 2f(ε ji, ε ij. Proposition 7 can be easily generalized to pairs of speeds that are not coprime. Proposition 8. Let and v j be positive integers and 0 < δ <. Then Proof. Consider v i = gcd(,v j and v j = Pr(A i A j = 4δ 2 + 2(gcd(, v j 2 f(ε ji, ε ij. tv j < δ}. Observe that Pr(A i A j = Pr(A i A j. v j gcd(v. Define i,v j A i = {t (0, : tv i < δ} and A j = {t (0, : The proof follows by applying Proposition 7 to and v j, which are coprime. Corollary 9. For every and v j we have Pr(A i A j 2δ 2. (8 Moreover, if v j <, then Pr(A i A j gcd(, v j 2δ. (9 Proof. We observe that, for x, y, we have that min(x, y xy and thus f(x, y xy. Therefore Proposition 8 leads to the following lower bound, Pr(A i A j = 4δ 2 + 2(gcd(, v j 2 f(ε ij, ε ji Moreover, if v j <, from the proof of Proposition 7 with v i = / gcd(, v j, Pr(A i A j d(0 = 2δ v i 4δ 2 2(gcd(, v j 2 ε ij ε ji 2δ 2. = 2 gcd(, v j δ. By using (8, we can provide a first lower bound on the second moment of X, E(X 2 = n Pr(A i A j + Pr(A i 2δ 2 n(n + 2δn 2δn(δ(n +. (0 i j We devote the rest of this section to improve (0. Let us first show for which values is f nonnegative. Lemma 0. The function f(x, y is nonnegative in [0, /2] 2 and in [/2, 2. Proof. If 0 x, y /2, then min(x, y 2xy, which implies f(x, y 0. Moreover, f( x, y = min( x, y + max( x y, 0 2( x y + xy 7

8 G. Perarnau and O. Serra = min(y, x + max(0, x + y 2xy = f(x, y. Therefore, we also have f(x, y 0 for all /2 x, y <. The following lemma shows that the error term of Pr(A i A j provided in Proposition 8, cannot be too negative if and v j are either close or far enough from each other. Lemma. Let M 2 be an integer, γ = M > 0 and v j <. If either ( γ v j or γδ v j, then γδ 2. Proof. For the sake of simplicity, let us write / gcd(, v j = kδ +x and v j / gcd(, v j = lδ +y with k and l being nonnegative integers and 0 x, y < δ. In particular, observe that ε ij = xδ and ε ji = yδ. Moreover, we can assume that and v j are such that f (ε ij, ε ji is negative, otherwise, there is nothing to prove. We split the proof in the two different cases each consisting of some other subcases. Figure 2 illustrates the subcase considered in each situation. Case Case A: ( gcd(v i,v j (γδ : This case covers the case when γδ v j, since v j / gcd(, v j and also the case when ( γ v j and Subcase A. (y x: We have, gcd(,v j (γδ. (gcd(, v j 2 (ε ji 2ε ij ε ji = (gcd(, v j 2 (yδ 2xyδ 2 gcd(, v j ( 2xδ δ, where the last inequality holds from the fact that f (ε ij, ε ji < 0 and y v j / gcd(, v j. Recall that / gcd(, v j (γδ = Mδ. Observe also that, since y x and f(ε ij, ε ji is negative, by Lemma 0 we have δ /2 x < δ. Therefore, gcd(, v j ( 2xδ δ 2xδ M δ2 > γδ 2. Subcase A.2 (y > x: Here, (gcd(, v j 2 (ε ij 2ε ij ε ji = (gcd(, v j 2 x( 2yδ δ gcd(, v j ( 2yδ v j where the last inequality holds from the fact that, in this subcase, Mx Mδ / gcd(, v j. As before, since f(ε ij, ε ji is negative, by Lemma 0 we have δ /2 y < δ and v j / gcd(, v j y. Therefore, gcd(, v j ( 2yδ v j δ M 2yδ y δ M > γδ2. δ M, Case B (( γ v j and gcd(v i,v j (γδ v : By Lemma 0 and since i gcd(v i,v j (γδ, we can assume that either k = l, y < δ /2 and x δ /2 (Subcases B. and B.2 or k = l +, y δ /2 and x < δ /2 8

9 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture (Subcases B.3 and B.4. In all these cases, ( γ v j implies y ( γx γkδ. ( Subcase B. (k = l and x + y δ : Since x + y δ, then max(0, ε ij + ε ji = 0. By using / gcd(, v j = kδ + x, v j / gcd(, v j = kδ + y y and the fact that f (ε ij, ε ji < 0 we have = (gcd(, v j 2 (ε ji 2ε ij ε ji By combining ( with x + y δ, we get x +γk 2 γ δ. Thus, for each k 0. Subcase B.2 (k = l and x + y δ : Now, max(0, ε ij + ε ji = (x + yδ. Then, 2xδ k + xδ δ2 = (gcd(, v j 2 y( 2xδ δ 2xδ k + xδ δ2. 2(+γk 2 γ k + +γk 2 γ δ 2 = γδ 2, = (gcd(, v j 2 (yδ + (x + yδ 2xyδ 2 = (gcd(, v j 2 ( 2yδ( xδ δ. It remains to upper bound g(x, y = ( 2yδ( xδ = 2δ 2 (δ /2 y(δ x in the corresponding area. Observe that x g(x, y = 2δ 2 (δ /2 y 0 for every y δ /2. Thus, the local maximum of g(x, y is attained in the line x + y = δ. Observe that this case is covered by Case B.. Following the steps of the previous case, γδ 2. Subcase B.3 (k = l + and x + y δ : Now we have max(0, ε ij + ε ji = 0 and min(ε ij, ε ji = ε ij. Since / gcd(, v j = kδ + x kδ and v j / gcd(, v j = (k δ + y y, v j ( γ implies that y ( γx (γk δ. Then, = (gcd(, v j 2 (ε ij 2ε ij ε ji = (gcd(, v j 2 xδ(2yδ We aim to upper bound g(x, y = δx(2yδ = 2δ 2 x(y δ /2 in the corresponding area. We have that y g(x, y = 2δ 2 x 0 for every x δ /2. Again, the local maximum of g(x, y is attained in the line x+y = δ. A simple computation gives that g(x, δ x attains its maximum in x 0 = δ /4. Subcase B.3. (k γ /2: In this case, the pair (x 0, δ x 0 does not lie in the area. Thus, the maximum is attained, when x 0 is minimized, that is in the point where x + y δ and y = ( γx (γk δ meet. That is ( γk g(x, y g 2 γ δ, 2 (k + γ δ 2 (2k + γ = 2 γ (2 γ 2 γk. 9

10 G. Perarnau and O. Serra Since / gcd(, v j kδ and v j / gcd(, v j (k /2δ, where we used that k. 2 (2k + γ (2 γ 2 (k /2 γδ2 2(2 3γ (2 γ 2 γδ2 γδ 2. Subcase B.3.2 (k γ /2: Using the global maximum of g(x, δ x in x 0 = δ /4, we have that for any (x, y in the area g(x, y g(δ /4, 3δ /4 = /8. Now / gcd(, v j kδ (γδ /2 and v j / gcd(, v j = (k δ + y δ /2, 4γδ 2 8 γδ2. Subcase B.4 (k = l + and x + y δ : We have max(0, ε ij + ε ji = (x + yδ and min(ε ij, ε ji = x. Then, = (gcd(, v j 2 ( 2xδ( yδ. Now g(x, y = δ( 2xδ( yδ = 2δ 2 (δ /2 x(δ y and x g(x, y = 4δ 2 ( yδ 0 for every δ /2 y δ. As usual, the local maximum of g(x, y is attained in the line x + y = δ. Since this case is already covered by Case B.3, we have γδ 2. The following lemma shows that among a large set of positive numbers, there should be a pair of numbers satisfying that they are either close or far enough from each other. Lemma 2. For every c >, T > c and every set x x m+ > 0 of nonnegative numbers, with m log c T, there is a pair i, j [m + ], i < j, such that either x i x j c or x i x j T. Proof. Suppose that for each pair i < j we have x i > cx j. In particular, for each i m, we have x i > cx i+ and x > c m x m+ T x m+. Hence the second possibility holds for i = and j = m +. For any fixed ε > 0, we call a pair i, j [n] ε good if Pr(A i A j ( ε4δ 2. Now we are able to improve the lower bound on the second moment of X given in (0. Proof of Proposition ( 2. Recall that by (8, for any pair i, j [n], we have Pr(A i A j 2δ 2. We will show that at least a Ω fraction of the pairs are ε good. log δ 0

11 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture Figure 2: Different cases in the proof of Lemma. Grey areas correspond to positive values of f (ε ij, ε ji according to Lemma 0. Lemma with M = γ = (2ε implies that every pair v j < with either /v j ( γ or /v j (γδ is a (γ/2 good pair, and thus, also an ε good pair. Consider the graph H on the vertex set V (H = [n], where ij is an edge if and only if ij is ε good. Using Lemma 2, with c = ( γ and T = (γδ we know that there are no independent sets of size larger than log δ m = log c (T = log c + log c γ. Since δ 0 when n +, if n is large enough, there exists some constant c ε that depends only on ε such that m +. Thus, the complement of H, H, has no clique of log δ c ε size m. By the Erdős Stone theorem (see [5], E(H ( + o( m 2 m ε good unordered pairs. n 2 E(H ( + o( 2(m = ( + o( c εn 2 2 log δ, Now, we are able to give a lower bound on the second moment, E(X 2 = ij ε good Pr(A i A j + ij non ε good Pr(A i A j + n 2 2, which implies that there are n Pr(A i

12 G. Perarnau and O. Serra for some c ε that depends only on ε. ( ε4δ 2 c εn 2 log δ + 2δ2 = ( ε4δ 2 c εn 2 + 2δ2 log δ ( ( 2δn δ + c ε log δ (n(n c εn 2 ( c ε n + log δ n, log δ + 2δn n 2 + 2δn Next, we show some applications of our bounds that extend some known results. 2. Improving the gap of loneliness In this subsection we show how to use the result of Proposition 8 on the pairwise join probabilities to prove Theorem 3. To this end we will use the following Bonferroni type inequality due to Hunter [9] (see also Galambos and Simonelli [6] that slightly improves the union bound in the case where the events are not pairwise disjoint. Lemma 3 (Hunter [9]. For any tree T with vertex set V (T = [n], we have ( n n Pr A i Pr(A i + Pr(A i A j. (2 ij E(T As we have already mentioned, Pr(A i = 2δ. Thus, it remains to select a tree T that maximizes ij E(T Pr(A i A j. Lemma 4. For each ε > 0, there exists a tree T on the set of vertices [n] such that Pr(A i A j ( ε 4δ 2 n. ij E(T Proof. Recall that Proposition 8 states that Pr(A i A j = 4δ 2 + 2(, v j 2 f(ε ij, ε ji. Set M to be the largest integer satisfying M = γ < (2ε. We will construct a large forest F on the set of vertices [n], where all the edges ij E(F are ε good. In particular they will satisfy, Pr(A i A j (4 2γδ 2 ( ε 4δ 2. Let us show how to select the edges of the forest by a procedure. Set S 0 = [n] and E 0 =. In the k-th step, we select different i, j S k such that either /v j ( γ or /v j (γδ, and set E k = E k {ij}, S k = S k \ {i}. If no such pair exists, we stop the procedure. Let τ be the number of steps that the procedure runs before being halted. By Lemma 2 with c = ( γ and T = (γδ we can always find such an edge ij, provided that the set S k has size at least log c (γδ. Thus 2

13 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture τ n log c T. Since the size of the sets E k increases exactly by one at each step, we have E τ n log c T = n O(log δ = ( o(n. Besides, by construction E τ is an acyclic set of edges: since we delete one of the endpoints of each selected edge from the set S k, E τ induces a -degenerate graph or equivalently, a forest. By Lemma, for each edge ij in E τ we have Pr(A i A j (4 2γδ 2. Therefore we can construct a spanning tree T on the vertex set [n], that contains the forest F and thus satisfies Pr(A i A j ( o( (4 2γδ 2 n ( ε 4δ 2 n, if n is large enough. ij E(T Let us proceed to prove Theorem 3. Proof of Theorem 3. Given an ε > 0, by Lemma 2 and Lemma 4 with ε = ε/2, we have ( n n Pr A i Pr(A i + Pr(A i A j ij E(T 2δn( 2( ε δ. The expression above is strictly positive for and the theorem follows. δ 2n 2 + 2ε = 2n 2 + ε, Theorem 4 follows from the following Corollary. Corollary 5. For every sufficiently large n and every set of nonzero speeds v,..., v n, such that there exists a tree T, then there exists a time t (0, such that ij E(T t gcd(, v j max(, v j = c, (3 2(n c, for every i [n]. In particular, if n i=2 = c the same conclusion follows. Proof. By using inequality (9 we have ij E(T Pr(A i A j 2δ ij E(T gcd(, v j max(, v j = 2cδ 3

14 G. Perarnau and O. Serra Using Lemma 2 in a similar way as in the proof of Theorem 3, we obtain that Pr ( n A i > 0 for every δ < 2(n c. The last part of the corollary follows by considering T to be the star with center in the smallest of the speeds. 3 Weaker conjectures and interval graphs In this section we give a proof for Theorem 6. The following weaker conjecture has been proposed by Spencer. Conjecture 6 (Weak Lonely Runner Conjecture. For every n and every set of different speeds v,..., v n, there exist a time t R and a runner j [n], such that t( v j n for every i j. For every set S [n], we say that S is isolated at time t if, t( v j n for each i S, j V \ S. (4 Observe that S = {i} is isolated at time t, if and only is lonely at time t. To study the appearance of isolated sets, it is convenient to define a dynamic graph G(t, whose connected components are sets of isolated runners at time t. For each i n and t (0,, define the following dynamic interval in (0, associated to the i-th runner, I i (t = { x (0, : {x t } < }. n In other words, I i (t is the interval that starts at the position of the i-th runner at time t and has length n. Now we can define the following dynamic circular interval graph G(t = (V (t, E(t. The vertex set V (t is composed by n vertices u i that correspond to the set of runners, and two vertices u i and u j are connected if and only if I i (t I j (t (see Figure 3. Observation 7. The graph G(t satisfies the following properties,. G(0 = K n. 2. Each connected component of G(t, correspond to an isolated set of runners at time t. 3. If u i is isolated in G(t, then is alone at time t. 4. All the intervals have the same size, I i (t = /n, and thus, G(t is a unit circular interval graph. We can restate the Lonely Runner Conjecture in terms of the dynamic interval graph G(t. Conjecture 8 (Lonely Runner Conjecture. For every i n there exists a time t such that u i is isolated in G(t. Transmitted to the authors by Jarek Grytczuk. 4

15 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture Figure 3: An instance of the graph G(t. Let µ be the uniform measure in the unit circle. For every subgraph H G(t we define µ(h = µ( ui V (HI i (t, the length of the arc occupied by the intervals corresponding to H. Notice that, if H contains an edge, then µ(h < V (H n, (5 since the intervals I i (t are closed in one extreme but open in the other one. If H consists of isolated vertices, then (5 does not hold. The dynamic interval graph G(t allows us to prove a very weak version of the conjecture. Let us assume that v < v 2 < < v n. Proposition 9. There exist a time t R and a nonempty subset S [n] such that S is isolated at time t. Proof. Let t be the minimum number for which the equation tv n = tv /n holds. This is the first time that the slowest runner v is at distance exactly /n ahead from the fastest runner v n. For the sake of contradiction, assume that there is just one connected component of order n. Note that u u n / E(G(t and since G(t is connected, there exists a path in G(t connecting u and u n. By (5, we have µ(g <. Thus, there is a point x (0, such that x / I i (t for every i [n]. Observe that, at time t, all the intervals I i (t are sorted in increasing order around (0,. Let l [n] be such that x > {tv l } and x < {tv l+ }. Then, {u,..., u l } and {u l+,..., u n } are in different connected components since u u n, u l u l+ / E(G(t. Observe that, if one of the parts in Proposition 9 consists of a singleton, say S = {i}, then Conjecture 6 would be true. Let us show how to use the dynamic graph to prove an invisible lonely runner theorem, similar to Theorem 5. Proposition 20. There exists t (0, such that G(t has either at least one isolated vertex or at least four vertices of degree one. 5

16 G. Perarnau and O. Serra Proof. Define Y : (0, N by, Y (t = E(G(t. Let t (0, be chosen uniformly at random. Then Y (t is a random variable over { 0,,..., ( n 2}. We will show that E(Y (t = n. If we are able to do so, since Y (t is not constant, by a first moment argument, we know that there exists a time t 0 for which Y (t 0 n 2. Then, denoting by d i the degree of u i, we have n d i 2(n 2. Suppose that there are no isolated vertices. Then d i > 0 for i and this ensures the existence of at least 4 vertices of degree one, concluding the proof of the proposition. Now, let us show that E(Y (t (n. We can write Y (t = i<j Y ij(t, where Y ij (t = if u i and u j are connected at time t and Y ij (t = 0 otherwise. Then E(Y (t = i<j E(Y ij = i<j Pr(I i(t I j (t. For the sake of simplicity when computing Pr(I i (t I j (t, we can assume that = 0. Since the intervals are half open, half closed, we have Pr(I i (t I j (t = 2/n, no matter the value of v j. Finally, E(Y (t = i<j 2 n = ( n 2 2 n = n. In the dynamic interval graph setting, an invisible runner is equivalent to a vertex u with a neighbor of degree one, say v. If u is removed, then v becomes isolated in G(t and thus, alone in the runner setting. Thus, Theorem 6 is a direct corollary of Proposition Concluding remarks and open questions. In Proposition 2 we gave a lower bound for E(X 2. We believe that this proof can be adapted to show that E(X 2 is larger. Conjecture 2. For every set of different speeds v,..., v n, and every δ <, we have E(X 2 ( + o(4δ 2 n 2 + 2δn. The proof of this conjecture relies on showing that either most pairs are ε good or the contribution of the positive error terms is larger than the contribution of the negative ones. On the other hand, notice that it is not true that E(X 2 is O(δ 2 n 2. For the set of speeds in (, Cilleruelo [9] has shown that E(X 2 = ( + o( 2 δn log n, (6 π2 which is a logarithmic factor away from the lower bound in Proposition 2, when δ = Θ(n. It is an open question whether (6 also holds as an upper bound for E(X Ideally, we would like to estimate the probabilities Pr( i S A i, for every set S [n] of size k. In general, it is not easy to compute such probability. As in (6, the sum of the k wise join probabilities are not always of 6

17 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture the form O(δ k n k. However it seems reasonable to think that, for every set S, we have Pr( i S A i c k δ k, where c k depends only on k. Moreover, we know that c k 2 k, since this is the case when the speeds { } i S are rationally independent and the conjecture holds (see e.g. Horvat and Stoffregen [8]. The inequality (8 shows that c 2 = 2. In general, we also conjecture that c k = ( + o k (2 k. 3. Below we give a short proof of the result by Chen and Cusick [8] improving the bound on the lonely runner problem with n runners when p = 2n 3 is a prime number. Proposition 22. If 2n 3 is a prime number then, for every set of n speeds, there exists a time t R such that for every i [n]. t 2n 3, Proof. Let p = 2n 3. We may assume p > 7. For a positive integer x let ν p (x denote the smallest power of p in the p adic expansion of x. Set m = max i ν p ( and N = p m+. We consider the problem in the cyclic group Z N. We will show that there is t Z N such that the circular distance to the origin of t to 0 in Z N, denoted by t N, is at least p m = N/p. This clearly implies that t /p and proves the Proposition. If m = 0 then we have p for each i and there is nothing to prove, so assume m > 0. For each positive integer x we denote by π j (x the coefficient of p j in the p adic expansion of the representative in {0,,..., N } of x modulo N. We seek a certain t such that, for each i, π m (t does not belong to {0, p }. This implies that t N p m for each i, which is our goal. Partition the set V = {v,..., v n } of speeds into the sets V j = { : ν p ( = j}, j = 0,,..., m. Since gcd(v = we have A 0. By the definition of m, we also have V m. We consider two cases: Case. V 0 < n. This implies V j < n for each j. For each λ {,..., p } and each V m we have π m (λ = λπ m ( (mod p, which is nonzero. By pigeonhole, there is λ such that π m (λ {0, p } for each V m. (Actually, for speeds in V m it is enough that π m (λ 0. Suppose that there is λ j+ {0,,..., p } such that π m (λ j+ {0, p } for each V j+ V j+2 V m and some j + m. Since V j < n, there is µ {0,,..., p } such that π m (( + µp m j = π m ( + µπ j ( (mod p does not belong to {0, p } for each V j. Moreover, for each l>j V l, π m (( + µp m j λ j+ = π m (λ j+. Therefore, by setting λ j = ( + µp m j λ j+, we have π m (λ j not in {0, p } for each l j V l. Hence the sought multiplier is t = λ 0. 7

18 G. Perarnau and O. Serra Case 2. A 0 = n. Thus V = V 0 V m with V m =, say V m = {v n }. For each λ Z N we have λv n N p m. We may assume that v = (mod N. Let A i = {λ Z N : λ N < p m } denote the set of bad multipliers for. By choosing a multiplier in Z N uniformly at random we have Pr(A i = 2p m (p /p m (p = 2/p. If we show that Pr(A A i > 2/p(p for each i = 2,..., n then, by using Hunter s inequality 3, Pr( n A i Pr( n A i ( n n Pr(A i Pr(A A j i=2 ( > + p p 2 which implies that there is λ Z N such that λ N p m for all i, concluding the proof. 2 = 0, p(p Suppose m 2. Consider the set C = [0, p m ] Z N, so that λ A i if and only if λ C ( C. The pairwise disjoint sets C j = {jp +, 2(jp +,..., (p (jp + }, j = 0,,..., p m 2 +, satisfy C j C, (C j C j \ {0} = C j ( C j and (C j C j (C j C j = {0}, j j. The first inclusion holds because no two elements in C j are congruent modulo p and the largest element in C j is at most (p (p m + p + = p m p m + p 2 < p m if m 3 and (p (p + = p 2 if m = 2. The last two equalities clearly hold. Fix i {2,... n }. We have λ Z N for each λ C j and each C j. By pigeonhole, if λ C ( C for each λ C j then there are distinct λ, λ C j such that λ, λ C + kp m for some k {, 2,..., p 2}. Therefore (λ λ C ( C. Thus, for each j there is µ (C j C j \ {0} such that both µ, µ C ( C. Since (C j C j (C j C j = {0}, we have Pr(B B i 2(pm p m (p > 2 p(p. It remains to consider the case m =. In this case the same argument as above with an only C 0 = {, 2,..., p } suffices to give Pr(B B i /(p. Acknowledgement. The authors would like to thank Jarek Grytczuk for suggesting the use of dynamic graphs in the last part of the paper. This research was supported by the Spanish Research Council under project MTM C03-0 and by the Catalan Research Council under grant 204 SGR 47. References [] N. Alon, The chromatic number of random Cayley graphs, European J. Combin. 34 (203, no. 8, [2] N. Alon and I. Z. Ruzsa, Non-averaging subsets and non-vanishing transversals, J. Comb. Theory, Ser. A 86 (999, no., 3. 8

19 Correlation among runners and some results on the Lonely Runner Conjecture [3] J. Barajas and O. Serra, The lonely runner with seven runners, Electron. J. Combin. 5 (2008, no., Paper 48, 8 pp. [4] U. Betke and J. M. Wills, Untere Schranken für zwei diophantische Approximations-Funktionen, Monatsh. Math. 76 (972, [5] W. Bienia, L. Goddyn, P. Gvozdjak, A. Sebő, and M. Tarsi, Flows, view obstructions, and the lonely runner, J. Combin. Theory Ser. B 72 (998, no., 9. [6] T. Bohman, R. Holzman, and D. Kleitman, Six lonely runners, Electron. J. Combin. 8 (200, no. 2, Paper 3, 49 pp. [7] Y. G. Chen, View-obstruction problems in n-dimensional Euclidean space and a generalization of them, Acta Math. Sinica 37 (994, no. 4, [8] Y. G. Chen and T. W. Cusick, The view-obstruction problem for n-dimensional cubes, J. Number Theory 74 (999, no., [9] J. Cilleruelo, personal communication, 202. [0] T. W. Cusick, View-obstruction problems. II, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 84 (982, no., [] T. W. Cusick and C. Pomerance, View-obstruction problems. III, J. Number Theory 9 (984, no. 2, [2] S. Czerwiński, Random runners are very lonely, Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A 9 (202, no. 6, [3] S. Czerwiński and J. Grytczuk, Invisible runners in finite fields, Inform. Process. Lett. 08 (2008, no. 2, [4] A. Dubickas, The lonely runner problem for many runners, Glas. Matem. 46 (20, no.. [5] P. Erdős and A. H. Stone, On the structure of linear graphs, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc 52 (946, [6] J. Galambos and I. Simonelli, Bonferroni-type inequalities with applications, Probability and its Applications (New York, Springer-Verlag, New York, 996. [7] L. Goddyn and E. B. Wong, Tight instances of the lonely runner, Integers 6 (2006, A38. [8] C. H. Horvat and M. Stoffregen, A solution to the lonely runner conjecture for almost all points, arxiv:03.662v (20. [9] D. Hunter, An upper bound for the probability of a union, Journal of Applied Probability 3 (976, [20] Y. Peres and W. Schlag, Two Erdős problems on lacunary sequences: chromatic number and Diophantine approximation, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 42 (200, no. 2, [2] J. M. Wills, Zwei Sätze über inhomogene diophantische Approximation von Irrationalzahlen, Monatsh. Math. 7 (967,