The minimal $k$-dispersion of point sets in high-dimensions

Abstract: In this manuscript we introduce and study an extended version of the minimal dispersion of point sets, which has recently attracted considerable attention. Given a set $\mathscr P_n=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}\subset [0,1]^d$ and $k\in\{0,1,\dots,n\}$, we define the $k$-dispersion to be the volume of the largest box amidst a point set containing at most $k$ points. The minimal $k$-dispersion is then given by the infimum over all possible point sets of cardinality $n$. We provide both upper and lower bounds for the minimal $k$-dispersion that coincide with the known bounds for the classical minimal dispersion for a surprisingly large range of $k$'s.

\section{Introduction and main results}

A classical problem in computational geometry and complexity asks for the size of the largest empty and axis-parallel box given a point configuration in the cube $[0,1]^2$. From a complexity point of view this \emph{maximum empty rectangle problem} was already studied by Naamad, Lee, and Hsu \cite{NLH1984} who provided an $\mathcal O(n^2)$-time algorithm as well as an $\mathcal O(n\log^2(n))$-expected-time algorithm (when the points are drawn independently and uniformly at random) to actually find such a rectangle. Further results in this direction have been obtained by Chazelle, Drysdale, and Lee in \cite{CDL1986}.

In the last decade the study of high-dimensional (geometric) structures has become increasingly important and it has been realized by now that the presence of high dimensions forces a certain regularity in the geometry of the space while, on the other hand, it unfolds various rather unexpected phenomena. The maximum empty rectangle problem studied in \cite{NLH1984} has its natural multivariate counterpart. Let $d,n\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ and denote by $\mathscr B^d_{\text{ax}}$ the collection of axis-parallel boxes in $[0,1]^d$. Then the ($n$-th) minimal dispersion is defined to be the quantity
\begin{equation}\label{eq:min:1}
\disp^*(n,d) := \inf_{\mathscr P\subset[0,1]^d\atop{\#\mathscr P=n}}\,\sup_{\mathbb B\in\mathscr B_{\text{ax}}\atop{\mathbb B\cap \mathscr  P=\emptyset}} \mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B),
\end{equation}
where $\#$ denotes the cardinality of a set and $\mathrm{vol}_d(\cdot)$ the $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure. In other words, the minimal dispersion depicts the size of the largest empty, axis-parallel box amidst \emph{any} point set of cardinality $n$ in the $d$-dimensional cube. The interest in this notion is in parts motivated by applications in approximation theory, more precisely, in problems concerning the approximation of high-dimensional rank one tensors \cite{BDDG2014,NR2016} and in Marcinkiewicz-type discretizations of the uniform norm of multivariate trigonometric polynomials \cite{T2018}. Even though the minimal dispersion is conceptually quite simple and the problem of determining (or estimating) its order attracted considerable attention in the past $3$ years (see, e.g., \cite{AHR17, DJ2013, K2018, R2018,S2018,U2018, UV2018}), its behavior, simultaneously in the number of points $n$ and in the dimension $d$, is still not completely understood.

Let us briefly describe the current state of the art. Aistleitner, Hinrichs, and Rudolf proved in \cite[Theorem 1]{AHR17} that, for all $d,n\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$,
\[
\disp^*(n,d) \geq \frac{\log_2(d)}{4(n+\log_2(d))}\,.
\]
In particular, this shows that the volume of the largest empty box increases with the dimension $d$. In the same paper, the authors communicate an upper bound, which is attributed to Larcher (see \cite[Section 4]{AHR17}) and shows that
\[
\disp^*(n,d) \leq \frac{2^{7d+1}}{n}\,.
\]
This improves upon a bound of Rote and Tichy \cite[Proposition 3.1]{RT1996} when $d\geq 54$. Under the assumption that the number of points satisfies $n> 2d$, it was recently proved by Rudolf \cite[Corollary 1]{R2018} that
\[
\disp^*(n,d) \leq  \frac{4d}{n} \log_2\Big(\frac{9n}{d}\Big)\,.
\]

In contrast to the probabilistic methods, several authors then provided explicit constructions of sets with small dispersion and small number of points.
For example, Krieg \cite[Theorem]{K2018} shows that for $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$ and $d\ge 2$ there is a sparse grid with the number of points
bounded by $(2d)^{\log_2(1/\varepsilon)}$ and dispersion at most $\varepsilon$.
Temlyakov proved in \cite[Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 4.1]{T2018'} that Fibonacci and
Frolov point sets achieve the dispersion of optimal order $n^{-1}$,
but without paying extra attention to the dependence on $d$,
see also~\cite{U2018b}.

An essential breakthrough was achieved by Sosnovec in \cite[Theorem 2]{S2018}. He provided a randomized construction of a set with at most
$c_\varepsilon \log_2(d)$ points in $[0,1]^d$ with dispersion at most $\varepsilon\in(0,1/4]$. Here, $c_\varepsilon\in(0,\infty)$
is a quantity depending only on $\varepsilon.$ The $\varepsilon$-dependence was then refined by the third and fourth author in \cite[Theorem 1]{UV2018}. More precisely, for every $\varepsilon\in (0,1/2)$ and $d\ge 2$, they provided a randomized construction of a point set $\mathscr P$ with
$$
\#{\mathscr P}\le 2^7\frac{(1+\log_2(\varepsilon^{-1}))^2}{\varepsilon^2}\log_2 (d)
$$
and dispersion at most $\varepsilon$. This result can be also reformulated as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:UV}
\disp^*(n,d)\le c\log_2(n)\sqrt{\frac{\log_2(d)}{n}}
\end{equation}
for $n,d\ge 2$ and some absolute constant $c\in(0,\infty)$.

In this manuscript, we generalize the notion of dispersion by introducing a quantity, which  measures the size of the largest box amidst a point
set containing \emph{at most} $k$ points. The minimal dispersion \eqref{eq:min:1} then corresponds to the case $k=0$.

For $d,n\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ and $k\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}\cup \{0\}$, we define the $k$-dispersion of a point set
$\mathscr P_n=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}\subset [0,1]^d$ to be the quantity
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}(\mathscr P_n,d) := \sup\Big\{\mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B)\,\colon\, \mathbb B\in \mathscr B_{\text ax}^d \text{ with }\# (\mathscr P_n\cap \mathbb B)\leq k\Big\},
\]
where $\mathscr B_{\text ax}^d$ is the collection of all axis-parallel boxes inside the $d$-dimensional cube $[0,1]^d$.

The minimal $k$-dispersion
is defined to be the infimum
over all possible point sets of cardinality $n$, i.e.,
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d) := \inf_{\substack{\mathscr P_n\subset [0,1]^d\\ \#\mathscr P_n=n}} k\!\operatorname{-disp}(\mathscr P_n,d).
\]

Our first main result provides an upper bound on the minimal $k$-dispersion.

\begin{thmalpha}\label{thm:main 1}
There exists a constant $C\in(0,\infty)$ such that for any $d\geq 2$ and all $k,n\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ with $k<n/2$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dispk}
k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d) \,\le\, C\,\max\left\{\log_2 (n)\sqrt{\frac{\log_2 (d)}{n}},\,
	k\,\frac{\log_2(n/k)}{n}\right\}.
\end{equation}
\end{thmalpha}

\begin{remark} The minimal $k$-dispersion is easily seen to be non-decreasing in $k$. On the other hand,
a comparison of \eqref{eq:UV} and \eqref{eq:dispk} reveals that the upper bound of minimal dispersion and minimal $k$-dispersion
are of the same order for a large range of $k$'s. Indeed, if $k=k(n,d)$ increases with the number of points $n$ and the dimension $d$ while satisfying
\[
k(n,d) \leq c \sqrt{n\cdot\log_2(d)}\,,
\]
for some absolute constant $c\in(0,\infty)$, then \eqref{eq:UV} and \eqref{eq:dispk} provide the same order in $n$ and $d$. Motivated by this result, we conjecture that \eqref{eq:UV} actually offers a lot of space for improvement.
\end{remark}

The second result establishes the following lower bound on the minimal $k$-dispersion.

\begin{thmalpha}\label{thm:main 2}
Let $k,n,d\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$. Then
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d) \,\ge\, \frac18\,\min\left\{1, \frac{k+\log_2(d)}{n}\right\}.
\]
\end{thmalpha}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main 1} -- the upper bound}\label{sec:thm1-multi}

We shall present here the proof for the upper bound of the minimal $k$-dispersion.
In the proof, we modify the ideas developed in \cite{S2018} and \cite{UV2018} to our setting.

\subsection{The idea of proof}

Before we start let us briefly discuss the strategy of the proof. For every $\varepsilon\in(0,1/4)$,
we construct a set ${\mathbb X}=\{x^1,\dots,x^n\}\subset[0,1]^d$ with a small number of elements and small $k$-dispersion.
This set is constructed (similarly to \cite{S2018} and \cite{UV2018}) by random sampling from a discrete mash in $[0,1]^d$.
To allow for independence across the steps of this sampling, it might happen that some points of the mash are actually
sampled more than once. Such points were naturally discarded in \cite{UV2018}, because they could not influence if a box ${\mathbb B}\subset[0,1]^d$
intersects ${\mathbb X}$, or not.

Here, we need to keep a more detailed track of the intersection of boxes with ${\mathbb X}$. Therefore, we allow for repeated sampling,
and ${\mathbb X}$ will actually be a multiset. In Section \ref{subsec:multiset}, we argue in detail that this modification does not alter
the minimal $k$-dispersion. It is then not difficult to see that each box of large enough volume contains indeed at least $k$ points
from the multiset ${\mathbb X}$ with high probability. Unfortunately, this is still not enough to apply the union bound, as there are infinitely many
boxes with large volume. We will therefore divide them into finitely many groups (called $\Omega_{m}(s,p)$ later on), and show that even the intersection
of all boxes included in $\Omega_m(s,p)$ still contains at least $k$ points from ${\mathbb X}$ with high probability. At long last, we can apply the union
bound over all admissible parameter pairs $(s,p)$.

\subsection{A random multiset}\label{subsec:multiset}

Let $\varepsilon\in (0,1/4)$ be fixed and put $m=\lceil\log_2(1/\varepsilon)\rceil$.
We define a one-dimensional set via
\[
\mathbb M_m:=\left\{\frac{1}{2^{m}},\dots,\frac{2^{m}-1}{2^{m}}\right\}\subset [0,1].
\]
For $n\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$, we construct a random multiset
$\mathbb X=\{x^1,\dots,x^n\}$ by sampling independently and uniformly at random from
the points in $\mathbb M_m^d$, where $n$ will later be the number of points in Theorem \ref{thm:main 1}.
Note that a multiset $\mathbb X$ in the cube $[0,1]^d$ is naturally identified
with the \emph{multiplicity function} $\mathbb X\colon [0,1]^d\to \ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}_0$,
where $\mathbb X(z)$ gives the multiplicity of $z\in [0,1]^d$ in $\mathbb X$.
For ${\mathbb B}\in {\mathscr B}_{ax}$, we define
\[
\#\bigr(\mathbb X \cap {\mathbb B}\bigl) \,:=\, \sum_{z\in {\mathbb B}} \mathbb X(z)\quad\text{and}\quad
\#{\mathbb X} \,:=\, \sum_{z\in[0,1]^d} \mathbb X(z)\,,
\]
and the $k$-dispersion of the multiset ${\mathbb X}$ as
$$
k\!\operatorname{-disp}_m({\mathbb X},d):= \sup\Big\{\mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B)\,\colon\, \mathbb B\in \mathscr B_{\text ax}^d \text{ with }\# ({\mathbb X}\cap \mathbb B)\leq k\Big\}.
$$
Finally, we take the infimum over all possible multisets of cardinality $n$ and obtain
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}_m^*(n,d) := \inf_{\substack{{\mathbb X}\subset [0,1]^d\\ \#{\mathbb X}=n}} k\!\operatorname{-disp}_m({\mathbb X},d).
\]
As each classical set ${\mathscr P}\in[0,1]^d$ is also a multiset (with the multiplicity function bounded by one), we immediately obtain that
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}_m^*(n,d)\le k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d).
\]
On the other hand, if ${\mathbb X}=\{x^1,\dots,x^n\}\subset [0,1]^d$ is a multiset,
then we consider the sets $\{x^1+\xi^1,\dots,x^n+\xi^n\}$ with $\|\xi^j\|_\infty\le \delta$ (for $\delta\in(0,\infty)$), where $\xi^1,\dots,\xi^n$ are independent random vectors which are uniformly distributed over $[-\delta,\delta]^d$. If we then let $\delta\to 0$, it follows that $k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d)\le k\!\operatorname{-disp}_m^*(n,d)$.

\subsection{The partitioning scheme}\label{subsec:partition}

We now introduce a set $\Omega_m$ containing all those boxes $\mathbb B$ with
`large' volume. For $m\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$, we define
\[
\Omega_m:=\Big\{\mathbb B=I_1\times\dots\times I_d\subset[0,1]^d\,\colon\,\mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B)>\frac{1}{2^m}\Big\}\,.
\]
As already described before, our approach will later be based on a union bound over all the boxes $\mathbb B\in\Omega_m$. As there are infinitely many of those boxes, we first divide $\Omega_m$ into finitely many `suitable' subsets.
This is done as follows: for $s=(s_1,\dots,s_d)\in\{0,1,\dots,2^{m}-1\}^d$ and
$p=(p_1,\dots,p_d)\in\{1/2^{m},\dots,1-1/2^{m}\}^d$, we define the collection
$\Omega_m(s,p)$ of subsets of $\Omega_m$ to be
\begin{align*}
\Omega_m(s,p)&:=\bigg\{\mathbb B=I_1\times\dots\times I_d\in\Omega_m \,\colon\,
\forall \ell\in\{1,\dots,d\}: \frac{s_\ell}{2^{m}}<\mathrm{vol}(I_\ell) \le \frac{s_\ell+1}{2^{m}}\\
&\qquad\qquad \text{and}\quad\inf I_\ell\in \Big[p_\ell-\frac{1}{2^{m}},p_\ell\Big)\bigg\}.
\end{align*}
We first observe that $\Omega_m(s,p)=\emptyset$ if the choice of $s$ does not
allow $\Omega_m(s,p)$ to contain any box $\mathbb{B}$ with $\mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B)>2^{-m}$.
This holds, e.g., if $s_{\ell_0}=0$ for some $\ell_0\in\{1,\dots,d\}$.
We define the index set
\[
\mathbb I_m \,:=\, \Bigl\{(s,p)\,\colon\, \Omega_m(s,p)\neq\emptyset\Bigr\},
\]
which contains those indices $(s,p)$ that are needed for the following considerations,
and we bound its cardinality. Let
\[
A_m(s) := \# \Big\{\ell\in\{1,\dots,d\}\,\colon\, s_\ell <  2^m-1 \Big\}
\]
and observe that, by definition, any $\mathbb B\in\Omega_m(s,p)$ must satisfy
$$
\frac{1}{2^m} \,<\, \mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B)
\,\le\, \prod_{\ell=1}^d\frac{s_\ell+1}{2^{m}}
\,\le\, \Bigl(1-\frac{1}{2^{m}}\Bigr)^{A_m(s)}.
$$
This is a contradiction if $A_m(s)>\log(2)\, m 2^m$.
Therefore, $\Omega_m(s,p)\neq\emptyset$ implies that
\begin{equation*}
A_m(s) \,\le\, \min\Bigl\{\lfloor\log(2)\, m 2^m\rfloor,\, d\Bigr\} \,=:\, A_m,
\end{equation*}
i.e., there are at most $A_m$ choices of $\ell$ with $s_\ell<2^m-1$.
Clearly, there are at most $\binom{d}{A_m} 2^{m A_m}$
choices for $s\in\{0,1,\dots,2^{m}-1\}^d$ with $A_m(s)\le A_m$.
Moreover, for given $s$,
there are at most $2^{m A_m(s)}$ choices for $p$ with
$\Omega_m(s,p)\neq\emptyset$.
This follows from the fact that for each $\ell\in\{1,\dots,d\}$,
we have at most $2^m-1$ choices for $p_\ell$ (by definition) and,
if $s_{\ell_0}=2^m-1$ for some $\ell_0\in\{1,\dots,d\}$,
then we have $\Omega_m(s,p)=\emptyset$ unless $p_{\ell_0}=2^{-m}$.
For other $p_{\ell_0}$ the boxes cannot be contained in the unit cube.

For $m$ such that $A_m<d$, we obtain
\begin{equation*
\begin{split}
\#\mathbb I_m \,&<\, \binom{d}{A_m} \, 2^{2m A_m}
\,<\, \biggl(\frac{ed}{A_m}\cdot 2^{2m}\biggr)^{A_m} \\
&<\, \biggl(\frac{4d2^{m+1}}{m}\biggr)^{A_m}
\,\le\, \exp\Bigl(m2^{m}\log(2^{m+3}d)\Bigr),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
where we used that $\log(2)m 2^{m-1}< A_m\le \log(2) m 2^{m}$ for $m\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ and
$e/\log(2)< 4$.

On the other hand, if $A_m=d$, i.e., if $d<\log(2)m2^m$, then we obtain
$$
\#\mathbb I_m\le 2^{md}\cdot 2^{md}\le \exp\Big(\log^2(2)\cdot2m2^m\Big).
$$

Therefore, for arbitrary $m\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq:card}
\#\mathbb I_m \,\le\, \exp\Bigl(m2^{m}\log(2^{m+3}d)\Bigr).
\end{equation}
\medskip

\subsection{The proof}

We shall now present the proof of the upper bound on the minimal
$k$-dispersion. We do this by proving that our random multiset has small
$k$-dispersion with positive probability, which proves the existence of a
`good' multiset.

The following result is from \cite[Lemma 3]{UV2018}. Note that
it is stated there in a different way, but (the end of) its proof clearly shows
this variant.
For $(s,p)\in\mathbb I_m$, let
\[
\mathbb B_m(s,p)  \,:=\, \bigcap_{\mathbb B\in \Omega_m(s,p)} \mathbb B
\,=\, \prod_{\ell=1}^d \Bigl[p_\ell,p_\ell+\frac{s_\ell-1}{2^{m}}\Bigr].
\]

\begin{lem}\label{lem:discrete}
Let $m\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$, $(s,p)\in\mathbb I_m$ and
$z$ be uniformly distributed in $\mathbb M_m^d$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(z\in \mathbb B_m(s,p)\big)\ge \frac{1}{2 ^{m+4}}\,.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}

\medskip

For the random multiset as constructed in Section~\ref{subsec:multiset}, we now estimate the probability that the number of points in
$\mathbb X\cap \mathbb B_m(s,p)$ does not exceed $k\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$, where $k<\frac{n}{2}$ (for the case $k=0$ see~\cite{UV2018}).
Let us consider two cases.
\vskip 1mm
\emph{Case 1:} Assume that $\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\in \mathbb B_m(s,p)\big)\le 1/2$.
Then we use Lemma~\ref{lem:discrete} and obtain the estimate
\[\begin{split}
\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(\#(\mathbb X & \cap \mathbb B_m(s,p))\le k\big)
\,=\, \sum_{\ell=0}^k {n\choose \ell} \ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\in \mathbb B_m(s,p)\big)^{\ell}\ \ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\not\in \mathbb B_m(s,p)\big)^{n-\ell}\\
&\le\, (k+1){n\choose k}\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\not\in\mathbb  B_m(s,p)\big)^{n}
\,\le\, 2k \,\frac{n^k}{k!}\,\Bigl(1-\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\in\mathbb B_m(s,p)\big)\Bigr)^n\\
&\le\, \frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!}\,\Bigl(1-\frac{1}{2^{m+4}}\Bigr)^n
\,\le\, \frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!}\, \exp\Big(-\frac{n}{2^{m+4}}\Big).
\end{split}\]
\vskip 1mm
\emph{Case 2:} Assume $\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}(x^1\in\mathbb  B_m(s,p))>1/2$. Then
\begin{align*}
\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}(\#(\mathbb X & \cap \mathbb B_m(s,p))\le k)
\,=\, \sum_{\ell=0}^k {n\choose \ell} \ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\in \mathbb B_m(s,p)\big)^{\ell}\ \ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(x^1\not\in\mathbb  B_m(s,p)\big)^{n-\ell}\\
&\le\, (k+1){n\choose k} \frac{1}{2^{n-k}}
\,\le\, \frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!\, 2^{n-k}}
\,\le\, \frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!}\exp\Big(-\frac{n}{2^{m+4}}\Big),
\end{align*}
where the last inequality follows from the fact that
\[
(n-k)\log(2) > \frac{n}{2}\log(2)\ge \frac{n}{2^{4}}\ge \frac{n}{2^{m+4}}.
\]
\vskip 2mm
Putting both cases together, we see that
\begin{align}\label{ineq:prob}
\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(\#(\mathbb X\cap \mathbb B_m(s,p))\le k\big)
\,\le\, \frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!}\exp\Big(-\frac{n}{2^{m+4}}\Big).
\end{align}
\smallskip

Recall from Section~\ref{subsec:partition} that
\[
\Omega_m \,=\, \bigcup_{(s,p)\in\mathbb I_m} \Omega_m(s,p).
\]
Combining the upper bound \eqref{eq:card} on the cardinality of $\mathbb I_m$
with the estimate in Lemma~\ref{lem:discrete}, we obtain by a union bound that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(\exists \mathbb B\in\Omega_m\,:\,\#(\mathbb X\cap \mathbb B)\le k\big)
& \le &\sum_{(s,p)\in\mathbb I_m} \ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(\exists \mathbb B\in\Omega_m(s,p)\,:\,\#(\mathbb X\cap \mathbb B)\le k\big)\\
&\le&\sum_{(s,p)\in\mathbb I_m} \ensuremath{{\mathbb P}}\big(\#(\mathbb X\cap \mathbb B_m(s,p))\le k\big)\\
&<& \frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!}\,\exp\Bigl(m2^{m}\log(2^{m+3}d)-n2^{-m-4}\Bigr)\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
The last expression will be smaller than or equal to $1$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eq:condition}
\begin{split}
n2^{-m-4} \,&\geq m2^{m}\log(2^{m+3}d) +\log\Big(\frac{2n^k}{(k-1)!}\Big) \\
\,&= \, m2^{m}\log(2^{m+3}d) + k\, \log\Big(c_k \frac{n}{k}\Big)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
with $c_k:=k\bigl(\frac{2}{(k-1)!}\bigr)^{1/k}$. Note that by Stirling's formula,
$c_k\uparrow e$ as $k\to\infty$.

To guarantee \eqref{eq:condition}, it is enough to assume that
\[
n\geq m 2^{2m+5}\log(2^{m+3}d) \qquad\text{and}\qquad
n\geq 2^{m+5}\,k\, \log\Big(e\frac{n}{k}\Big).
\]
It is easy to prove that the second inequality is implied by
$n\ge k m 2^{m+9}> e k (m+5) 2^{m+5}$.
Hence, we find an $n\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ with \eqref{eq:condition} such that
\[
n \,\le\, C\,m\, 2^m\, \max\Bigl\{2^{m}\,\log(2^m d),\, k  \Bigr\}
\]
for some constant $C\le2^9$.
This ensures that there exists a realization of the multiset $\mathbb X$
with cardinality $n$
such that, for all boxes $\mathbb B$ with $\mathrm{vol}_d(\mathbb B)>2^{-m}$, we have
$\#(\mathbb B\cap \mathbb X)>k$.

Using the argument of Section \ref{subsec:multiset}, we obtain
\begin{align*}
N(2^{-m},d) & := \min \Big\{N\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}\,:\, k\!\operatorname{-disp}(N,d)\leq 2^{-m} \Big\} \\
& \leq C\,m\, 2^m\, \max\Bigl\{2^{m}\,\log(2^m d),\, k  \Bigr\}.
\end{align*}

To finish the proof, let $\varepsilon\in(0,\frac{1}{4})$ and denote by
$m:=m_\varepsilon\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ the unique integer satisfying
\[
\frac{1}{2^m}\le\varepsilon< \frac{1}{2^{m-1}}\,,
\]
i.e., $m=\lceil\log_2(1/\varepsilon)\rceil$.
By this choice of $m$,
\begin{align*}
 m 2^{2m}\log(2^{m}d) \,<\, c_1\,\log_2(d)\bigg(\frac{\log_2(1/\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}\bigg)^2,
\end{align*}
and
\[
m 2^{m}\,k \,<\, c_2\, \frac{k\cdot\log_2(1/\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}
\]
for some constants $c_1,c_2\in(0,\infty)$.
This means that, since $N(\cdot,d)$ is decreasing in the first argument,
\[
N(\varepsilon,d)
\,\le\, C\cdot \max\left\{\log_2(d)\bigg(\frac{\log_2(1/\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon}\bigg)^2,\,
\frac{k\cdot\log_2(1/\varepsilon)}{\varepsilon} \right\}
\]
for some constant $C\in(0,\infty)$.
We therefore conclude that
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}(n,d) \,\le\, C'\,\max\left\{\log_2(n)\sqrt{\frac{\log_2(d)}{n}},\,
	\frac{k\cdot\log_2(n/k)}{n}\right\}
\]
with an absolute constant $C'\in(0,\infty)$.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main 2} -- the lower bound}\label{sec:thm2}

The proof is very much inspired by the proof of the lower bound on the dispersion
of Aistleitner, Hinrichs and Rudolf \cite{AHR17}.
We recall their argument in a slightly modified form.

Given a point set $\mathscr P_n=\{x_1,\dots,x_n\}$ with
$x_i=(x_{i,1},\dots,x_{i,d})\in[0,1]^d$,
we define the matrix $A=A(\mathscr P_n)\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb R}}^{n\times d}$ by
\[
A_{i,j} \,=\, \begin{cases}
1 & :\, x_{i,j} \ge 1/2\,; \\
0 & \,\text{ otherwise},
\end{cases}
\]
with $i=1,\dots,n$ and $j=1,\dots,d$.
Note that
if $A$ contains two equal columns, then the projection of the point set on
the two coordinates corresponding to these columns is contained in the
union of the lower-left and the upper-right quarter of the unit square.
Therefore, the dispersion is at least $1/4$.
Likewise, if two columns $c_1,c_2\in\{0,1\}^{n}$ of $A$ satisfy $c_1=1-c_2$,
then the projection is contained in the upper-left and the lower-right quarter
and the dispersion is at least $1/4$.
Recall that $A$ has $d$ columns.
It is clear from the pigeon hole principle that there must be two columns
that satisfy one of the above conditions whenever $d>2^{n-1}$.
This implies
\[
0\!\operatorname{-disp}^*\!\big(\lceil\log_2 d\rceil, d\big) \,\ge\, 1/4.
\]

We now consider the $k$-dispersion for $k\ge1$.
Following the above arguments, if there are two columns $c_1,c_2$ of $A$ that
agree (or disagree) in all but $k$ entries, then there exists a box of
volume $1/4$ that contains at most $k$ points.
Again, from the pigeon hole principle
(and just ignoring $k$ rows), we obtain that such columns exist
whenever $d>2^{n-k-1}$. This implies
\begin{equation}\label{eq:init}
k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*\!\big(k+\lceil\log_2 d\rceil, d\big) \,\ge\, 1/4.
\end{equation}

Finally, note that Lemma~1 from \cite{AHR17} holds also for the $k$-dispersion,
i.e., for all $n,k,d,\ell\in\ensuremath{{\mathbb N}}$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rec}
k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d) \,\ge\, \frac{(\ell+1)\, k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(\ell,d)}{n+\ell+1}.
\end{equation}

From this we conclude Theorem \ref{thm:main 2}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main 2}]
For $n\le k+\log_2(d)$, we use \eqref{eq:init} and obtain
$k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d)\ge1/4\ge1/8$. For $n> k+\log_2(d)$, we use \eqref{eq:rec}
with $\ell=k+\lceil\log_2(d)\rceil\le n$ and obtain
\[
k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(n,d) \,\ge\, \frac{(\ell+1)\, k\!\operatorname{-disp}^*(\ell,d)}{n+\ell+1}
\,\ge\, \frac14\,\frac{(\ell+1)}{n+\ell+1}
\,\ge\, \frac{k+\log_2(d)}{8n}.
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
As the method to obtain \eqref{eq:init} is clearly related to packing numbers
on the discrete cube $\{0,1\}^n$ with respect to the Hamming metric,
one could try to apply more involved methods to obtain better bounds.
For example, the well-known \emph{sphere-packing bound}
(also known as Hamming bound), see \cite[Theorem 5.2.7]{Lint1992}, states that the maximal size of a $k$-packing
of the cube, say $M(n,k)$, satisfies
\[
M(n,k) \,\le\, \frac{2^n}{\sum_{t=0}^{\lfloor(k-1)/2\rfloor}\binom{n}{t}}.
\]
However, using this bound does not lead to any significant improvement.
\end{remark}

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}

Numerical Analysis (math.NA); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA)


Electrostatic Interpretation of Zeros of Orthogonal Polynomials

Abstract: We study the differential equation $ - (p(x) y')' + q(x) y' = \lambda y,$ where $p(x)$ is a polynomial of degree at most 2 and $q(x)$ is a polynomial of degree at most 1. This includes the classical Jacobi polynomials, Hermite polynomials, Legendre polynomials, Chebychev polynomials and Laguerre polynomials. We provide a general electrostatic interpretation of zeros of such polynomials: the set of real numbers $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$ satisfies $$ p(x_i) \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k - x_i}} = q(x_i) - p'(x_i) \qquad \mbox{for all}~ 1\leq i \leq n$$ if and only if they are zeros of a polynomial solving the differential equation. We also derive a system of ODEs depending on $p(x),q(x)$ whose solutions converge to the zeros of the orthogonal polynomial at an exponential rate.

\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Introduction.}
We start by describing an 1885 result of Stieltjes for Jacobi polynomials \cite{stieltjes}. Jacobi polynomials $P_n^{\alpha, \beta}(x)$, for real $\alpha, \beta > -1$, are the unique (up to a constant factor) solutions of the equation
$$ (1 - x^2 ) y''(x) - \left( \beta - \alpha - (\alpha + \beta + 2)x\right)y'(x)  = n(n + \alpha + \beta + 1) y(x)$$
where $n \in \mathbb{N}$. The solution is a polynomial of degree $n$ having all its zeros in $(-1,1)$.  Stieltjes defined a notion of energy for any set $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n \right\} \subset (-1,1)$ as
$$ E = - \sum_{i,j = 1 \atop i \neq j}^{n}{\log{|x_i - x_j|}} - \sum_{i=1}^{n}{\left( \frac{\alpha+1}{2}\log{|x-1|} + \frac{\beta+1}{2}\log{|x+1|}\right)}$$
and showed that the minimal energy is exactly given by the zeros of the Jacobi polynomial. Differentiating this expression in all the $n$ variables leads to
a system of equations describing an electrostatic equilibrium
$$ \sum_{k=1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{ \frac{1}{x_k - x_i} } =  \frac{1}{2}\frac{\alpha+1}{x_i - 1} + \frac{1}{2} \frac{\beta + 1}{x_i + 1} \qquad \mbox{for all}~1 \leq i \leq n.$$
A traditional application of the formula is to establish monotonicity of zeros with respect to the parameters $\alpha, \beta$. This argument can be found in Szeg\H{o}'s book \cite{szeg} who also discusses Laguerre and Hermite polynomials. These types of questions have been studied by a large number of people, we refer to \cite{ahmed, dimitrov, hendriksen, ismail}, the survey \cite{survey},
the 1978 survey and 2001 book by F. Calogero \cite{calogero, calogero2}, the more recent papers of F. A. Gr\"unbaum \cite{grunbaum, grunbaum2}
and M. E. H. Ismail \cite{ismail, ismail2} and references therein.

\subsection{Equilibrium.}
The purpose of this paper is to prove a simple general result that characterizes zeros of orthogonal polynomials. The statement
itself is a bit more general but most interesting when applied to the classical orthogonal polynomials. We first discuss
 second order equations, then describe system of ODEs converging to zeros and conclude with a short remark on higher order equations.

\begin{theorem}  Let $p(x), q(x)$ be polynomials of degree at most 2 and 1, respectively. Then the set $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$, assumed to be in the domain of definition, satisfies
$$   p(x_i)  \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k - x_i}} = q(x_i) -  p'(x_i) \qquad \mbox{for all} \quad 1\leq i \leq n$$
if and only if
$$y(x) = \prod_{k=1}^{n}{(x-x_k)} \quad \mbox{solves} \quad - (p(x) y')' + q(x) y' = \lambda y \quad \mbox{for some} ~~ \lambda \in \mathbb{R}.$$
\end{theorem}
In classical applications, there is a unique polynomial solution of fixed degree corresponding to a fixed value of $\lambda$. This removes $\lambda$ as a variable and leads to a complete characterization.
One direction of the statement (zeros of a polynomial solutions satisfy the system of equations) is a fairly straightforward computation and the outline of the argument can be found, for example, in \cite{grunbaum} or, as a remark, in \cite[\S 3]{ismail}. Moreover, results in this direction can be obtained for much more general differential equations of higher order (see, for example,  \cite{calogero, calogero2,avila}). Arguments in the other direction seem to exist only in special cases, as in the work of Stieltjes, and are based on interpreting the system of equations as the critical point of an associated energy functional (see e.g. \cite{ismail, survey}). Our argument proceeds by a different route and bypasses considerations of an underlying energy.\\

We remark that there is no assumption of orthogonality nor is there any restriction on the domain which may be either bounded or unbounded but we do assume that the $n$ points are contained in the domain of definition. Let us quickly consider two special cases: we start with the Hermite differential equation
$$ -y'' + x y' = \lambda y.$$
This corresponds to $p(x) \equiv 1$ and $q(x) \equiv x$. We deduce from Theorem 1 that the zeros of the $n-$th solution satisfy a relationship also going back to Stieltjes, see \cite{ahmed1},
$$     \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k - x_i}} = x_i \qquad \mbox{for all}~1 \leq i \leq n.$$
Returning to a special case of Jacobi polynomials $\alpha = 0 = \beta$ (for simplicity of exposition), we obtain $p(x) = x^2 -1$, $q(x) = 0$ and thus
$$   (x_i^2-1)  \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k - x_i}} = 2x_i \qquad \mbox{for all} \quad 1\leq i \leq n$$
which is easily seen to be equivalent to Stieltjes' electrostatic equilibrium.

\subsection{A System of ODEs.} One interesting byproduct of our approach is a procedure that allows for the computation of zeros without ever computing the polynomial.
More precisely, for any given set $x_1(0) < x_2(0) < \dots < x_n(0)$ (assumed to be in the domain of definition), we consider the system of ordinary differential equations
$$    \frac{d}{dt} x_i(t) =  -p(x_i) \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k(t) - x_i(t)}} +  p'(x_i(t)) -  q(x_i(t))   \qquad \qquad (\diamond)$$
The result above implies that the unique stationary point of this system of ODEs is given by the $n$ zeros of a polynomial solution of degree $n$.
We will now show that under standard assumptions on the equation $ - (p(x) y')' + q(x) y' = \lambda y,$ the system converges to this fixed point at an exponential rate.
We require somewhat stronger assumptions than we do for Theorem 1 and ask that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the equation  $ - (p(x) y'(x))' + q(x) y'(x) = \lambda y(x)$ is a Sturm-Liouville problem with a discrete set of solutions indexed by $0 = \lambda_0 < \lambda_1 < \lambda_2 < \dots$  and
\item the solution corresponding to $y_n$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$
\end{enumerate}
These assumptions cover the classical polynomials but are fairly strong, we refer to Bochner's theorem and its nice exposition in \cite[\S 20]{ismail3}.
\begin{theorem}
The system $(\diamond)$ converges for all initial values $x_1(0) < \dots < x_n(0)$ to the zeros $x_1 < \dots < x_n$ of the degree $n$ polynomial solving the equation. Moreover,
$$ \max_{1 \leq i \leq n}{ |x_i(t) - x_i|} \leq c e^{- \sigma_n t},$$
where $c > 0$ depends on everything and $\sigma_n \geq \lambda_n - \lambda_{n-1}$.
\end{theorem}
We are not aware of any result of this type being known; the connection between partial differential equations and zeros of polynomials (or poles of rational functions) is, of course classical, we refer to the extensive
survey of Calogero \cite{calogero} and his more recent book \cite{calogero2}. Our underlying dynamical system is the \textit{backward} heat equation (well-posed for algebraic reasons) and existence
of a solution for all time is a consequence of Sturm-Liouville theory.
We assume that the initial values are all contained in the domain where the solution is defined. For classical Sturm-Liouville problems, the Weyl law suggests
$\lambda_{n} - \lambda_{n-1} \sim n$. The rapid convergence can be easily observed in examples.
The assumptions are satisfied for all classical polynomials. We consider, as a specific example, the Laguerre polynomials satisfying
$$ - x y'' + (x-1)y' = ny $$
or, in our notation, $p(x) = x = q(x)$. Theorem 2 then implies that for any choice of initial values $x(0) < y(0) < z(0)$, the system of ordinary differential equations
\begin{align*}
\dot x(t) &= \frac{2x(t)}{x(t) - y(t)} + \frac{2x(t)}{x(t) - z(t)} +1 - x(t) \\
\dot y(t) &= \frac{2y(t)}{y(t) - x(t)} + \frac{2y(t)}{y(t) - z(t)} +1 - y(t) \\
\dot z(t) &= \frac{2z(t)}{z(t) - x(t)} + \frac{2z(t)}{z(t) - y(t)} +1 - z(t)
\end{align*}
has a solution for all $t > 0$.  As $t \rightarrow \infty$, the solutions converge to the zeros of the third Laguerre polynomial
$$ L_3(x) = x^3 - 9x^2 + 18x - 6$$
and thus
$$ x(t) \rightarrow 0.4157\dots,~ y(t) \rightarrow 2.2942\dots \quad \mbox{and} \quad z(t) \rightarrow 6.2899\dots.$$
Moreover, this convergence happens at an exponential rate (roughly with speed $e^{-t}$).
We consider a large-scale example (see Fig. 1) next. The equation
$$- \frac{d}{dx}\left( (1-x^2) \frac{d}{dx}y(x)\right) = n(n+1) y(x)$$
is solved by the Legendre polynomials $P_n$ defined on $(-1,1)$. In our notation, we have $p(x) = 1- x^2$ and $q(x) = 0$. We simulate
the system of ODEs
 $$    \frac{d}{dt} x_i(t) =  -(1-x_i(t))^2 \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k(t) - x_i(t)}} - 2x_i(t)$$
for $n=100$ equations. The initial values $\left\{x_1(0), \dots, x_{100}(0)\right\}$ are chosen as uniform random variables
in the interval $(-0.1, 0.1)$. Figure 1 shows the evolution of the system and convergence to the zeros of the
Legendre polynomial of degree 100.
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw [thick, ->] (-4.3,-3) -- (-4.3,3);
\draw [thick, ->] (4.3,-0.2) -- (4.7,-0.2);
\node at (4.6, -0.5) {$t$};
\filldraw (-4.3, 2.6) circle (0.05cm);
\draw [dashed] (-4.3,2.65) -- (4.7,2.65);
\draw [dashed] (-4.3,-2.65) -- (4.7,-2.65);
\node at (-4.5, 2.6) {1};
\filldraw (-4.3, -2.6) circle (0.05cm);
\node at (-4.5, -2.6) {-1};
\node at (-.010,0) {\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{bigsample.pdf}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Evolution of the system of ODEs for $0 \leq t \leq 0.01$ approaches the zeros of the Legendre polynomial $P_{100}$ in $(-1,1)$.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{-20pt}

As indicated in the Theorem, the constant determining the speed of exponential
convergence grows linearly in $n$: this is reflected in the rather short time-scale $(0 \leq t \leq 0.01)$ in the picture.

\subsection{Higher order equations} Theorem 1 as well as its proof immediately generalizes to polynomial solutions of the equation
$$ a_n(x) y^{(n)}(x) + a_{n-1}(x) y^{(n-1)}(x) + a_{1}(x)y'(x)  = \lambda y(x),$$
where $a_n$ is a polynomial of degree at most $n$ and the solution $y$ is assumed to only have single zeros: one half
of the statement can be found in \cite[Proposition 1]{avila}, the other direction follows from our approach.
We are not aware of an extension of Theorem 2 since our
proof relies on Sturm-Liouville theory.

\section{Proofs}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem 1.}
\begin{proof}
One direction of the argument, showing that the zeros of any polynomial solution of the equation is in the desired electrostatic equilibrium, is a simple computation and known in greater generality \cite{ahmed1,ahmed}. However, it also follows immediately from our argument and is, for completeness sake, sketched at the end of the proof.
We assume that the system of equations is satisfied and will prove that the associated polynomial solves the differential equation. Fix $x_1, \dots, x_n$
and consider the candidate polynomial
$$ f(x) = \prod_{k=1}^{n}{(x - x_k)}.$$
We want to show that this polynomial satisfies the differential equation
$$- (p(x) f')' + q(x) f' = \lambda f \qquad \mbox{for some}~\lambda \in \mathbb{R}.$$
We introduce the function
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} u(t,x) &=  \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( p(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} u(t,x) \right) - q(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} u(t,x) \\
u(0,x) &= f(x)
\end{align*}
This is a parabolic partial differential equation. Generally, unless we specify the sign of $p$, it might be an inverse heat equation and the solution of such an equation need not even exist for a short amount of time. Here, however, since $p$ is at most a polynomial
of degree 2 and $q$ is a polynomial of degree at most 1, we see that the right-hand side is always a polynomial of degree at most $n$. In particular, we can rewrite the partial
differential equation as a linear system of $n+1$ ordinary differential equations and this guarantees existence for all $t>0$.
Suppose $f(x)$ is not a solution of the differential equation. Then
$$u_t(0,x) =  \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( p(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} f(x) \right) - q(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} f(x)$$
 is a polynomial of degree at most $n$ and not identically 0 (since otherwise $f$ would solve the differential equation for $\lambda = 0$). We observe that if this polynomial vanishes in
exactly $\left\{x_1, \dots, x_n\right\}$, then it has to be a multiple of $f$ and we have obtained the desired result for some $\lambda \neq 0$. If this is not the case, then $u_t(x_i,0) \neq 0$ for at least one $1 \leq i \leq n$.
We fix this value of $i$. Moreover, we note
$$f'(x_i) =  \prod_{k=1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{(x_i - x_k)} \neq 0.$$
The implicit function theorem implies that there is a neighborhood of 0 for which there is a function $x_i(t)$ such that
$$ u( t, x_i(t)) = 0 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \frac{\partial}{\partial t} x_i(t) \big|_{t = 0} \neq 0.$$
We now compute the expression. Differentiation implies
$$ 0 = \frac{\partial}{\partial t} u(t,x_i(t))\big|_{t=0} = u_x(0,x_i)\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t} x_i(t) \big|_{t=0}\right)  + u_t(0,x_i).$$
We are interested in the first term, already computed the second term $u_x(x_i,0) = f'(x_i)$ and thus only need to compute the third term. A simple computation shows
\begin{align*}
u_t(t,x_i)\big|_{t=0} &=  \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( p(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} f(x) \right) - q(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x}  f(x) \big|_{x=x_i} \\
&=  p(x) \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} f(x) + (p'(x) - q(x))\frac{\partial}{\partial x}  f(x) \big|_{x=x_i}.
\end{align*}
The first term simplifies to
$$ \frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2} f(x) \big|_{x=x_i} = 2 \sum_{k =1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{ \prod_{j = 1 \atop  j \notin \left\{i, k\right\}}^{n}{(x_i - x_j)}}$$
and altogether we obtain
$$ 0 \neq \frac{\partial}{\partial t} x_i(t) \big|_{t = 0} = p(x_i)  \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k - x_i}} + p'(x_i) - q(x_i)$$
which is a contradiction. Conversely, if $f$ is indeed a solution of the equation, then
$$ u(t,x) = e^{\lambda t} f(x) \qquad \mbox{and thus} \qquad \frac{\partial}{\partial t} x_i(t) \big|_{t = 0} = 0$$
for all $1 \leq i \leq n$ which implies that the equations are satisfied.
\end{proof}

\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1]
\draw [thick, ->] (-4.3,-3) -- (-4.3,3);
\node at (4.7, -2.8) {$t$};
\filldraw (-4.3, 2.6) circle (0.05cm);
\draw [thick, ->] (-4.3,-2.6) -- (4.7,-2.6);
\node at (-4.7, 2.6) {371};
\filldraw (-4.3, -2.6) circle (0.05cm);
\filldraw (4.1, -2.6) circle (0.05cm);
\node at (4.1, -2.8) {4};
\node at (-4.1, 2.9) {$x$};
\node at (-4.6, -2.6) {0};
\node at (-0.02,0.04) {\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{laguerre.pdf}};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Another example: starting with initial values $x_i(0) = i$ for $1 \leq i \leq 100$, the associated system of ODEs approaches the zeros of the Laguerre polynomial $L_{100}$. }
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\vspace{-10pt}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem 2.}
\begin{proof} We assume that the solutions $y_0, y_1, \dots, y_{n-1}, y_n$ satisfy $\mbox{deg} (y_i) = i$ for all $0 \leq i \leq n$. We assume that $p, q$ and the domain of definition are such that classical
Sturm-Liouville theory applies. Then the polynomial $y_j$ has exactly $j$ zeros all of which are simple. Suppose
$$ x_1(0) < x_2(0) < \dots < x_n(0)$$
is given. We define the function
$$ f(x) = \prod_{k=1}^{n}{(x - x_k(0))} \quad \mbox{and write it as} \quad f(x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n}{a_k y_k(x)}$$
for some coefficients $a_0, \dots, a_n$.
This is possible because of the assumption on the degrees (an upper triangular matrix is invertible).
The strong form of the Sturm Oscillation Theorem, that is not very widely known, states that, as long as not all coefficients $b_i$ vanish, any function of the form
$$ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{b_k y_k(x)} \qquad \mbox{has at most}~n-1~\mbox{zeros.}$$
We refer to B\'erard \& Helffer \cite{berard} and L\"utzen \cite{lutzen} for the history of this remarkable Theorem that seems to have been forgotten (\cite{berard} gives rigorous proofs in modern language,  \cite{stein}
gives a quantitative form). Since $f(x)$ has $n$ zeros, the Sturm Oscillation Theorem implies that $a_n \neq 0$. We now define $u(t,x)$ as the solution of the \textit{backward} heat equation
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t} u(t,x) &= - \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left( p(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} u(t,x) \right) + q(x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x} u(t,x) \\
u(0,x) &= f(x)
\end{align*}
and observe that, as explained in the proof of Theorem 1, this equation is well-posed for all $t>0$ since it can be rewritten as a linear system of $n+1$ ordinary differential equations. Linearity implies that the solution is given by
$$ u(t,x) = \sum_{k=0}^{n}{a_k e^{\lambda_k t}  y_k(x)}.$$
At the same time, as long as the zeros do not collide, we can write
$$ u(t,x) =  h(t)\prod_{i=1}^{n}{(x - x_i(t))},$$
where $h(t) \neq 0$ for all $t>0$ and the functions $x_i(t)$ satisfy, following the computation done in the proof of Theorem 1 and reversing the sign, the system of ordinary differential equations
$$    \frac{d}{dt} x_i(t) =  -p(x_i) \sum_{k = 1 \atop k \neq i}^{n}{\frac{2}{x_k(t) - x_i(t)}} +  q(x_i(t)) -  p'(x_i(t)) \quad \mbox{for all}~1 \leq i \leq n.$$
It is a property of Sturm-Liouville problems that the number of distinct zeros is nonincreasing in time under the forward heat equation; since we are
dealing with the backward heat equation, we see that the number of distinct zeros is nondecreasing. Moreover, since we start with a polynomial of degree
$n$ and the solution is always a polynomial of degree at most $n$, this implies that zeros can never collide (and that the solution is always exactly of degree $n$). This shows that
$$ e^{-\lambda_n t} h(t)\prod_{i=1}^{n}{(x - x_i(t))} = a_n y_n(t) +  \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}{a_k e^{(\lambda_k - \lambda_n) t}  y_k(x)}.$$
All zeros of $y_n$ are simple, the Inverse Function Theorem now implies that the zeros of $u(t,x)$ converge to the zeros of $y_n$ exponentially
quickly in $t$. The speed of convergence depends on the size of $\lambda_{n-1} - \lambda_n$ and the size of $y_n'$ at its zeros; the constant in front will depend on the precise values of the coefficients $\left\{a_0, a_1, \dots, a_n\right\}$. If $a_{n-1} = 0$ or more of the leading terms vanish, then convergence would be even faster.
\end{proof}

\vspace{-15pt}

Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA); Spectral Theory (math.SP)


Factoring Permutation Matrices Into a Product of Tridiagonal Matrices

Abstract: Gilbert Strang posited that a permutation matrix of bandwidth $w$ can be written as a product of $N < 2w$ permutation matrices of bandwidth 1. A proof employing a greedy ``parallel bubblesort'' algorithm on the rows of the permutation matrix is detailed and further points of interest are elaborated.

\section{Conjecture and Outline}\label{conjover}
This section states the problem, starting with some necessary definitions.  As a convention, $M'$ will denote the transpose of a matrix $M$ and $I$ is the identity matrix.
\begin{definition}\label{permmatrix}
	An $n \times n$ \emph{permutation matrix} $P$ contains only 0s and 1s, with only one 1 per row and column.  The permutation of a column vector $\vec{x}$, where $\vec{x}' = [1\ 2\ \cdots\ n]$, is the column vector $P\vec{x}$.

	A matrix $M = [m_{ij}]$ is said to be \emph{of bandwidth $w$}, denoted by $\bandwidth{P} := w$, if $m_{ij} = 0$ whenever $|i - j| > w$.
\end{definition}
The value of $\bandwidth{M}$ is 0 if $M$ is diagonal, 1 if $M$ is tridiagonal and 2 if $M$ is pentadiagonal.

Gilbert Strang posed the following conjecture \cite{Strang
:
\begin{conjecture}[Strang]\label{strangconjmat}
	A finite permutation matrix of bandwidth $w > 0$ can be written as the product of at most $2w - 1$ bandwidth--1 permutation matrices.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{example}\label{examplep}
\begin{displaymath}
	P =
	\begin{bmatrix}
		0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
		1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
		0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
		0 & 1 & 0 & 0
	\end{bmatrix}
	=
	\begin{bmatrix}
		0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
		1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
		0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
		0 & 0 & 1 & 0
	\end{bmatrix}
	\begin{bmatrix}
		1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
		0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
		0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
		0 & 0 & 0 & 1
	\end{bmatrix} = R_1R_2.
\end{displaymath}
\end{example}

This paper aims to prove Conjecture~\ref{strangconjmat} and explore topics opened during the development of this proof.  The next three sections (Sections~\ref{canonperms},~\ref{overtake}, and \ref{proveconj})
will cover the proof of the conjecture, outlining a greedy ``parallel bubblesort''\cite{Strang} strategy to determine a factor per iteration,
starting from a specific key class of permutation matrices through progressively larger classes of permutation matrices.  Section~\ref{furtherpoints} concludes the paper with some points of further interest.

\section{Strang Canonical Matrices}\label{canonperms
This section performs three tasks.  First, it outlines the general ``parallel bubblesort'' algorithm.  Second, it introduces two classes of permutation matrices: Strang canonical matrices and settled matrices.  Third, Theorem~\ref{solidrepthm}, the main result of this section, establishes that Conjecture~\ref{strangconjmat} holds for tracefree settled Strang canonical matrices with so-called reducing matrix factors.
\begin{definition}
	If $P$ is an $n \times n$ permutation matrix, then the $m$th row of $P$, $1 \leq m \leq n$ is $\rowindexed{m}{P}$, the $m$th column of $P$ is $\colindexed{m}{P}$ and $[\columnone{1}{P}\ \cdots\ \columnone{n}{P}] := (P\vec{x})'$ where $\vec{x}' = [1\ \cdots\ n]$.

	If $1 \leq i < j \leq n$, $\rowindexed{i}{P}$ and $\rowindexed{j}{P}$ are an \emph{inverted pair} if $\columnone{i}{P} > \columnone{j}{P}$ and are a \emph{contented pair}
	otherwise.

	If $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m T_k$, where $T_k$ are bandwidth--1 permutation matrices, then $\numfactors{P} := m$.
\end{definition}
If an $n \times n$ permutation matrix $P$ represents a permutation $\sigma$, then $\columnone{i}{P} = \sigma(i)$ for $1 \leq i \leq n$, and each inverted pair of $P$ represents an inversion of $\sigma$.  Also, $\bandwidth{P} = \max_{1 \leq i \leq n}|\columnone{i}{P} - i|$.
\begin{remark}\label{existproduct}
	The bubblesort algorithm \cite[p.~40]{Algo} shows that each permutation $\sigma$ is the product of transposition of adjacent elements, $\sigma = \prod \tau_i$.  Let $P_\rho$ be the permutation matrix representing $\rho$.  Then $P_{\tau_i}$ are all bandwidth--1 permutation matrices, and $P_\sigma = \prod P_{\tau_i}$.  Thus, a permutation matrix can always be written as a product of bandwidth--1 permutation matrices.

	Let $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m T_k$ be a permutation matrix where $T_k$ are bandwidth--1 permutation matrices.  Since permutation matrices are unitary and bandwidth--1 permutation matrices are inversions, $${T_k}^2 = I \text{ implies } T_k' = {T_k}^{-1} = T_k \text{ and } P^{-1} = \left(\prod_{k = 1}^m T_k\right)^{-1} = \prod_{k = 1}^m {T_{m + 1 - k}}^{-1} = \prod_{k = 1}^m T_{m + 1 - k} = P'.$$  Thus, $\numfactors{P} = \numfactors{P^{-1}}$.  Whenever such a product is defined, denote the indexed matrices $P_0 = P$ and $P_k = T_kP_{k - 1} = \left(\prod\limits_{i = 1}^k T_{k + 1 - i}\right)P$.
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}\label{algoterm}
	If $P = P_0$ is a finite permutation matrix, and $P_k = B_kP_{k - 1}$ where $B_k$ is a nonidentity permutation matrix that performs swaps only on inverted pairs of $P_{k - 1}$, then there is a number $m$ such that $P_m = I$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
	Since $B_k$ makes some inverted pairs of $P_{k - 1}$ contented, the number of inverted pairs of $P_k$ is less than that of $P_{k - 1}$.  Since the number of inverted pairs of $P$ is finite, there must be a number $m$ such that $P_m = I$.
\end{proof}
When $B_k$ only swaps adjacent rows, Lemma~\ref{algoterm} describes ``parallel bubblesorting'', as each bubblesort iteration reduces the number of inversions of a permutation, and $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m B_k$ is the required decomposition.  The rest of the paper investigates the greedy selection operation
$\{B_k\}$ to ensure that $m = \numfactors{P} < 2w$ where $w = \bandwidth{P}$.

Given $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m B_k$ as in Lemma~\ref{algoterm}, for $0 \leq i, j \leq m$, $\rowindexed{m_i}{P_i} = \rowindexed{m_j}{P_j}$ if $\columnone{m_i}{P_i} = \columnone{m_j}{P_j}$.
\begin{definition}
	Treating $P$ as a block diagonal matrix with the finest partition, each diagonal matrix is called a \emph{section} of $P$.  A $1 \times 1$ section is \emph{trivial}.

	A row of a permutation matrix is said to be \emph{positive} (\emph{negative}, \emph{neutral}) if the 1 is to the right of (to the left of, on, respectively) the diagonal.  A column of a permutation matrix is said to be \emph{positive} (\emph{negative}, \emph{neutral}) if the 1 is above (below, on, respectively) the diagonal.
\end{definition}
Each section $S_1, \dots, S_k$ of a permutation matrix $P$ is a permutation matrix, and $\numfactors{P} = \max\{\numfactors{S_1}, \dots, \numfactors{S_k}\}$.
\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
		\begin{picture}(55,55)(-30,-30)
			\put(-20,-20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(-20,-10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(-20,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$1$}}
			\put(-20,10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(-10,-20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$1$}}
			\put(-10,-10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(-10,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(-10,10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(0,-20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(0,-10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(0,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(0,10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$1$}}
			\put(10,-20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(10,-10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$1$}}
			\put(10,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(10,10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$0$}}
			\put(20,-20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$-$}}
			\put(20,-10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$+$}}
			\put(20,0){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$-$}}
			\put(20,10){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$+$}}
			\put(-20,20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$-$}}
			\put(-10,20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$-$}}
			\put(0,20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$+$}}
			\put(10,20){\makebox(0,0)[c]{$+$}}
			\multiput(-25,-25)(40,0){2}{\line(0,1){40}}
			\multiput(-25,-25)(37,0){2}{\multiput(0,0)(0,40){2}{\line(1,0){3}}}
		\end{picture}
		\caption{Signs of rows and columns of $P$}
		\label{chargetargetex}
	\end{center}
\end{figure}
Each nontrivial section has a positive top row, a negative bottom row, a negative leftmost column and a positive rightmost column.
\begin{remark}\label{signcount}
	Each 1 on the diagonal of a permutation matrix $P$ determines a neutral row and column.  Observe that the number of 1s in the upper triangle of $P$ is the sum of the number of its positive and neutral rows, and the sum of the number of its positive and neutral columns.  Thus, $P$ has the same number of positive rows and columns.  Observing the number of 1s in the lower triangle of $P$ similarly shows that $P$ has the same number of negative rows and columns.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
	Two permutation matrices are \emph{row-sign-equivalent} (\emph{column-sign-equivalent}) if the signs of their rows (columns) are the same.

	A section is \emph{row-settled} if all of its positive rows are above its negative rows, \emph{column-settled} if all of its negative columns are to the left of its positive columns and \emph{settled} if it is either row-settled or column-settled.

	A row-settled (column-settled) matrix has only row-settled (column-settled) sections, and a settled matrix is either row-settled or column-settled.

	A section is \emph{upper-canonical} (\emph{lower-canonical}), or in \emph{upper-canonical form} (\emph{lower-canonical form}), if its positive (negative) rows are pairwise contented.  A section is \emph{Strang canonical} (\emph{half-canonical}), or in \emph{Strang canonical form} (\emph{half-canonical form}), if it is in both (either) upper-canonical and (or) lower-canonical form.

  A permutation matrix is upper-canonical (lower-canonical), or in upper-canonical form (in lower-canonical form) if all of its sections are in upper-canonical (lower-canonical) form.  A permutation matrix is Strang canonical (half-canonical), or in Strang canonical (half-canonical) form, if it is in both (either) upper-canonical and (or) lower-canonical form.
\end{definition}
The inverse of a row-settled matrix is a column-settled matrix, and vice-versa.  The inverse of an upper-canonical matrix is a lower-canonical matrix, and vice versa.

If $U$ is an upper-canonical matrix and the 1s in its upper triangle excluding its diagonal are in rows $p_1, \dots, p_k$ such that $p_i < p_{i + 1}$, then $\columnone{p_i}{U} < \columnone{p_{i + 1}}{U}$ for $1 \leq i < k$.  If $L$ is a lower-canonical matrix and the 1s in its lower triangle excluding its diagonal are in rows $n_1, \dots, n_\ell$ such that $n_i < n_{i + 1}$, then $\columnone{n_i}{L} < \columnone{n_{i + 1}}{L}$ for $1 \leq i < \ell$.
\begin{example}
	The only $n \times n$, $n \leq 4$, sections that are not in Strang canonical form are
	\begin{displaymath}
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix} \text{ and }
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}.
	\end{displaymath}
	The eight $4 \times 4$ tracefree settled sections are the above three matrices and
	\begin{displaymath}
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0
		\end{bmatrix},
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix} \text{ and }
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}.
	\end{displaymath}
\end{example}
\begin{remark}\label{uniqcanonsign}
	A Strang canonical matrix is uniquely determined by the signs of its rows and columns.  The $m$th 1 on its diagonal is at the intersection of its $m$th neutral row and $m$th neutral column.  The $m$th 1 in its upper triangle, excluding the diagonal, is at the intersection of its $m$th positive row and $m$th positive column.  The $m$th 1 in its lower triangle, excluding the diagonal, is at the intersection of its $m$th negative row and $m$th negative column.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
	A \emph{reducing swap} $\hat{R}$ of a permutation matrix $P$ is an elementary matrix that swaps adjacent rows of $P$ where the upper row is positive and the lower row is negative.  The pair of rows are \emph{reduced} by the swap.  The \emph{reducing matrix} $R$ of permutation matrix $P$ is $R = \prod \hat{R}$ over all possible reducing swaps $\hat{R}$ of $P$, and the \emph{reduction} of $P$ is $\reducemat{P} := RP$.
\end{definition}
Each reducing swap makes an inverted pair contented, and if $R$ is the reducing matrix of a nonidentity permutation matrix, $\bandwidth{R} = 1$.
\begin{example}
	In Example~\ref{examplep}, $P = R_1R_2$, where $R_1$ is the reducing matrix of $P$ and $\reducemat{P} = P_1 = R_1P = R_2$.
\end{example}
\begin{lemma}\label{canonderangeredlemma}
	If $P$ is a Strang canonical matrix whose nontrivial sections are tracefree, then $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m R_k$, where $R_k$ is the reducing matrix of $P_{k - 1}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}\label{canonderangeredproof}
	The permutation matrix $P$ and $\reducemat{P}$ have the same Strang canonicity, since reducing swaps only exchange the positions of a positive row and a negative row, so each $P_k$ is Strang canonical.

	Since the nontrivial sections of $P = P_0$ are tracefree, the only neutral rows of $P$ are in trivial sections.  Let $$P_k = \begin{bmatrix}A_k & 0 & B_k\\0 & 1 & 0\\C_k & 0 & D_k\end{bmatrix}, k > 0 \text{ and } P_{k - 1} = \begin{bmatrix}A_{k - 1} & B_{k - 1}\\C_{k - 1} & D_{k - 1}\end{bmatrix}.$$  The indicated neutral row of $P_k$ is in a trivial section if $B_k$ and $C_k$ are zero matrices.  Let $A_k$ be $(m - 1) \times (m - 1)$ and $\rowindexed{m}{P_{k - 1}}$ be signed.

	If $\rowindexed{m}{P_{k - 1}}$ is negative, let $A_{k - 1}$ be $m \times m$.  Since $P_{k - 1}$ is Strang canonical, every negative $\rowindexed{m'}{P_{k - 1}}$ with $m' < m$ has its 1 in $A_{k - 1}$.  Then $\rowindexed{m - 1}{P_{k - 1}}$ is positive with $\columnone{m - 1}{P_{k - 1}} = m$ and every positive $\rowindexed{m'}{P_{k - 1}}$ with $m' < m$ has its 1 in $A_{k - 1}$.  Since each neutral $\rowindexed{m'}{P_{k - 1}}$ with $m' < m$ has its 1 in $A_{k - 1}$, both $B_{k - 1}$ and $C_{k - 1}$ are zero matrices, so $B_k$ and $C_k$ are zero matrices.

	If $\rowindexed{m}{P_{k - 1}}$ is positive, let $A_{k - 1}$ be $(m - 1) \times (m - 1)$, and it similarly follows that $B_{k - 1}$, $C_{k - 1}$, $B_k$ and $C_k$ are zero matrices.

	Thus, $P$ and $\reducemat{P}$ are Strang canonical matrices with tracefree nontrivial sections, and the conclusion follows from Lemma~\ref{algoterm}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{solidrepthm}
	A tracefree settled Strang canonical matrix of bandwidth $w$ can be written as the product of less than $2w$ bandwidth--1 matrices.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
	Let $P$ be a row-settled Strang canonical matrix with $\tracemat{P} = 0$ and $\bandwidth{P} = w$.  Thus, it has an $n \times n$ row-settled Strang canonical section $S$ with $\tracemat{S} = 0$ and $\bandwidth{S} = w$.  Let $\columnone{m}{S} = n$.  Then the upper $m$ rows of $S$ are positive, and the rest are negative, with $\columnone{m + 1}{S} = 1$.  From Lemma~\ref{canonderangeredlemma}, a row-settled Strang canonical section is the product of reducing matrices:
	once a row is reduced, it is reduced by the next reducing matrix, until it is in a trivial section.  Hence,
	\begin{equation}
		\numfactors{S} = \max_{1 \leq i \leq m} \{\columnone{i}{S} + m - 2 * i\} = \max_{m < i \leq n} \{2 * i - m - 1 - \columnone{i}{S}\}\label{settledcount}\tag{*}
	\end{equation}
	$|\columnone{i}{S} - i| \leq w$ indicates the \emph{swap count}, which is the number of reducing swaps for $\rowindexed{i}{S}$ to be placed in the $\columnone{i}{S}$th row, and $m - i$, if $i \leq m$, ($i - (m + 1)$, if $i > m$) is the \emph{delay count}, which is the number of positive (negative) rows that must be reduced before the positive (negative) $\rowindexed{i}{S}$ is first reduced.

	Since $\columnone{m}{S} = n$, $S$ has $n - m = \columnone{m}{S} - m \leq w$ negative rows; since $\columnone{m + 1}{S} = 1$, $S$ has $m = m + 1 - \columnone{m + 1}{S} \leq w$ positive rows.  Thus, if $\bandwidth{S} = w$, then $\numfactors{S} \leq w - 1 + w = 2w - 1$.

	Since a column-settled Strang canonical matrix $P$ is the inverse of a row-settled Strang canonical matrix $P^{-1}$ and, by Remark~\ref{existproduct}, $\numfactors{P} = \numfactors{P^{-1}}$, the conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{eventight}
	If $C$ is an $n \times n$ circulant nonidentity permutation matrix, then it is Strang canonical, row-settled and column-settled, with $\tracemat{C} = 0$ and $\numfactors{C} = n - 1$, all reducing matrices.  Moreover, for some $k$, $1 < k \leq n$, it follows that $\columnone{m}{C} = ((k + m - 2) \bmod n) + 1$, $$\bandwidth{C} = \max\{\columnone{1}{C} - 1, n - \columnone{n}{C}\} = \left\{\begin{array}{cl}k - 1, & \text{ if } k - 1 \geq n / 2\\n - k + 1, & \text{ if } k - 1 \leq n / 2\end{array}\right.,$$ $\colindexed{k}{C}$ is its first positive column and $\rowindexed{n - k + 2}{C}$ is its first negative row.  $\numfactors{C}$ is tight with Strang's bound if $n = 2w$ and $w = \bandwidth{C}$.
\end{remark}
\begin{corollary}\label{circbound}
	Let $C$ be a circulant matrix, $R$ be a row-settled Strang canonical matrix which is row-sign-equivalent to $C$ and $P$ be a column-settled Strang canonical matrix which is column-sign-equivalent to $C$.  Then $\numfactors{C} \geq \numfactors{R}, \numfactors{P}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
	From Theorem~\ref{solidrepthm}, for each row of $R$ and $C$ with the same index, the delay count is the same, but the swap count is maximum for $C$.  So, from Equation~\eqref{settledcount}, $\numfactors{C} \geq \numfactors{R}$.  Since $P^{-1}$ is row-settled and Strang canonical and $C^{-1}$ is circulant, $\numfactors{C} = \numfactors{C^{-1}} \geq \numfactors{P^{-1}} = \numfactors{P}$ by Remark~\ref{existproduct}.
\end{proof}

\section{Overtaking Swaps}\label{overtake}
Theorem~\ref{solidrepessthm}, the main result in this section, establishes that Conjecture~\ref{strangconjmat} holds for settled Strang canonical matrices by a comparison with tracefree matrice
.
\begin{remark}\label{notfixedonly}
	Since the neutral rows of a permutation matrix $P = P_0$ are pairwise contented, if $P_k = B_kP_{k - 1}$ as in Lemma~\ref{algoterm} and all the signed rows of $P$ are neutral in $P_m$, then $P_m = I$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
	An \emph{overtaking swap} of a permutation matrix $P$ is an elementary matrix that swaps an adjacent inverted pair of $P$ where either the upper row is not positive or the lower row is not negative.  The upper positive row or the lower negative row \emph{overtakes} the other row by the swap.
	\begin{align*}
		\text{If } P = \begin{bmatrix}A & B\\C & D\end{bmatrix} & \text{ where
	A\text{ is } (m - 1) \times (m - 1), \text{ define } \insertfix{m}{P} := \begin{bmatrix}A & 0 & B\\0 & 1 & 0\\C & 0 & D\end{bmatrix}\\
	& \text{ and } \insertfix{m_1, \dots, m_k}{P} := \insertfix{m_k}{\cdots\left(\insertfix{m_1}{P}\right)}.\\
		\text{If } P = \begin{bmatrix}A & 0 & B\\0 & 1 & 0\\C & 0 & D\end{bmatrix} & \text{ where
	A \text{ is } (m - 1) \times (m - 1), \text{ define } \deletefix{m}{P} := \begin{bmatrix}A & B\\C & D\end{bmatrix}\\
	& \text{ and } \deletefix{m_1, \dots, m_k}{P} := \deletefix{m_k}{\cdots\left(\deletefix{m_1}{P}\right)}.
	\end{align*}
	If $P$ is a nonidentity permutation matrix whose neutral rows have indices $r_1, \dots, r_k$, $r_i > r_{i + 1}$, $\essence{P} := \deletefix{r_1, \dots, r_k}{P}$ is the \emph{essential form} or \emph{essence} of $P$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{fixedinserteffect}
	If $P$ is an $n \times n$ permutation matrix and $1 \leq m \leq n$, then $\bandwidth{\insertfix{m}{P}} \leq \bandwidth{P} + 1$.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}\label{transpex}
	To demonstrate the effect of inserting neutral rows on the number of factors, consider $T_1 = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 1\\1 & 0\end{bmatrix}$, the unique bandwidth--1 section.  The factorization of $T_k = \insertfix{2}{T_{k - 1}}$, with matrices containing overtaking swaps underline
	\ is as follows:
	\begin{align*}
		T_2 & = \insertfix{2}{T_1} =
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix} =
		\underline{
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1
		\end{bmatrix}}
		\begin{bmatrix}
			1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 1 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1
		\end{bmatrix};\\
		T_3 & = \insertfix{2}{T_2}
		=
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}
		 =
		\underline{
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}}
		\begin{bmatrix}
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1
		\end{bmatrix}
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0
		\end{bmatrix};\text{ and }\\
		T_4 & = \insertfix{2}{T_3} =
		\begin{bmatrix}
			0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
			0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
			0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
			1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0
		\end{bmatrix}
		= \underline{O_1O_2}R_1R_2R_3,
	\end{align*}
	where $O_1$ swaps the first and last pairs of rows of $T_4$ and $O_2$ swaps the middle row of $O_1T_4$.
\end{example}
When a neutral row is overtaken, it assumes the sign of the overtaking row.
\begin{theorem}\label{solidrepessthm}
	A settled Strang canonical matrix of bandwidth $w$ can be written as the product of less than $2w$ bandwidth--1 matrices.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
	To show the result for a settled Strang canonical matrix $P$, a circulant matrix $C$ will be used to determine an upper bound for $\numfactors{P}$.

	Let $C$ be $n \times n$ with $\colindexed{c}{C}$ as its first positive column and $\rowindexed{r}{C}$ as its first negative row.  From Remark~\ref{eventight}, $C = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^{n - 1} R_k$ where $R_k$ is the reducing matrix of $C_{k - 1}$.

	For $P = \insertfix{m}{C}$, let $w = \bandwidth{P} = \bandwidth{C} + 1$.  If $m = r$, the neutral row is inserted between the positive and negative rows.  The initial reduction $C_1$ is delayed by an overtake of the neutral row by $\rowindexed{m'}{P}$.  If $2m < n$, the neutral row is closer to $\rowindexed{1}{P}$.  If $2m > n$, it is closer to $\rowindexed{n + 1}{P}$.  So the neutral row is overtaken toward whichever row between $\rowindexed{1}{P}$ and $\rowindexed{n + 1}{P}$ it is closer to, or either if $2m = n$, and $\rowindexed{m'}{P}$ has the sign of $n - 2m$.  Let the overtaking swap be $O$ and $OP$ replace $P$.
	\begin{enumerate}[\text{Step} 1]
		\item If $\rowindexed{r'}{P}$ is first negative row of $P$, then $r' \in \{r, r + 1\}$.  Let $k = \min\{r' - 1, n + 1 - r'\}$ and $e = |r' - k| \in \{1, n + 1\}$.  For the matrices $O_q$ with $1 \leq q \leq k$, if $\columnone{m_q}{P_{q - 1}} = m$, then $O_q = \insertfix{m_q}{R_q}\hat{O}_q$ with $\hat{O}_q = I$ if $P_{q - 1}$ is Strang canonical or $\hat{O}_q$ is the overtaking swap of $\rowindexed{m_q}{P_{q - 1}}$ otherwise.
		\item $P_k$ is Strang canonical and $\rowindexed{e}{P_k}$ is neutral.  For $q > k$, $O_q$ can be determined by showing that $P_k = \insertfix{e}{\hat{C}_{k - 1}}$ where:
		\begin{enumerate}[\text{Case} 1]
			\item If $\rowindexed{m}{P_k}$ is neutral, then $P_k = \insertfix{e, e}{\bar{C}_{k - 1}}$, so $\hat{C} = \insertfix{e}{\bar{C}}$, where
$\bar{C}$ is an $n - 1 \times n - 1$ circulant matri
.
			\item If $m$ is between $c$ and $r$ or $m = c$, then $P_k = \insertfix{e}{C_{k - 1}}$, so $\hat{C} = C$.
			\item Otherwise,
$\hat{C}$ is a row-settled Strang canonical matrix which is row-sign-equivalent to $C
.
		\end{enumerate}
		Then, for $k \leq q \leq \numfactors{\hat{C}}$, $O_{q + 1} = \insertfix{e}{\hat{R}_q}$, where $\hat{R}_q$ is the reducing matrix of $\hat{C}_{q - 1}$ and, from Corollary~\ref{circbound}, $\numfactors{P} = \numfactors{\hat{C}} + 1 \leq n + 1$.
	\end{enumerate}
	Upon the completion of the above steps, it can be determined that $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^q \bar{O}_k$ where $\bandwidth{\bar{O}_k} = 1$.  If $m = r = c$, then $n = 2(m - 1)$ and $\bandwidth{C} = m - 1$.  Thus, $\bandwidth{P} = m = w$, $q = n + 1 = 2w - 1$, $\bar{O}_1 = O$ and $\bar{O}_{k + 1} = O_k$ for $1 \leq q \leq n$.  Otherwise, $q \in \{n - 1, n\}$ and, by Remark~\ref{eventight}, $2(w - 1) - 1 \geq n - 1$ making $2w - 1 \geq n + 1 > q$.  Therefore, for $P = \insertfix{m}{C}$, $\numfactors{P} < 2w$, and this bound is tight only when $m = \frac{n}{2} + 1$.

	As seen in Example~\ref{transpex}, the parity of the number of neutral rows inserted as a block, say $P = \insertfix{m, \dots, m}{C}$, whether it is an odd or an even number, may affect $\numfactors{P}$ differently.  In particular, when $m = \frac{n}{2} + 1$, $\numfactors{\insertfix{m, m}{C}} = \numfactors{\insertfix{m}{C}}$ and $\bandwidth{\insertfix{m, m}{C}} = \bandwidth{\insertfix{m}{C}} + 1$.  For $m_1, \dots, m_\ell$ such that $1 < m_{i + 1} < m_i \leq n$, $$\numfactors{\insertfix{m_1, \dots, m_\ell}{C}} - \numfactors{C} = \sum\limits_{i = 1}^\ell \left(\numfactors{\insertfix{m_i}{C}} - \numfactors{C}\right).$$

	Multiple blocks of neutral rows inserted to produce $P$ occasionally add a single bandwidth--1 factor, whenever $P_q$ contains a neutral row between rows of the opposite sign, such as, if $r' > r$, for $\insertfix{r, r + 2, r + 2, r + 2}{C}$ and for $\insertfix{r' - r, \dots, r' - r}{C}$ where there are $r + 1$ neutral rows inserted.

	Therefore, for any circulant nonidentity permutation matrix $C$, given the class $\mathcal{C}_C = \{P : \essence{P} = C\}$, if
	$d_P = 2\bandwidth{P} - 1 - \numfactors{P}$, then $d_C \geq 0$, $d_C = d_P$ when $C$ is a $2m \times 2m$ matrix and $P = \insertfix{m + 1}{C}$, otherwise $d_P > d_C$ whenever $P \neq C$,.

	Finally, if $R$ is a row-settled Strang canonical matrix which is row-sign-equivalent to $C$, from Corollary~\ref{circbound} and by following the previous arguments, for every set $\{m_1, \dots, m_t\}$, $\bandwidth{\insertfix{m_1, \dots, m_t}{R}} = \bandwidth{\insertfix{m_1, \dots, m_t}{C}}$ and $\numfactors{\insertfix{m_1, \dots, m_t}{R}} \leq \numfactors{\insertfix{m_1, \dots, m_t}{C}}$.  The argument holds for column-settled Strang canonical $R^{-1}$, and the conclusion follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}\label{fixedlowbound}

	If $P$ is a settled Strang canonical matrix with $\bandwidth{P} = w$ and $f$ neutral rows, then $\numfactors{P} < 2w - f$, by the proof of Theorem~\ref{solidrepessthm}, noting the tight-bound exception.
\end{remark}

\section{Opportunistic Overtaking}\label{proveconj}
The main result of this section is the completion of the proof of Conjecture~\ref{strangconjmat} with opportunistic-overtaking matrices---a greedy generalization of reducing matrices---along the construction used in Theorem~\ref{solidrepessthm
.
\begin{definition}
	If $P$ is a permutation matrix, then $\invertrows{m}{P}$ is the minimal submatrix containing only consecutive rows of $P$ such that $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ and all of the rows of $P$ that are pairwise inverted with $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ are in $\invertrows{m}{P}$.

	An \emph{inverted block} of a permutation matrix is a maximal submatrix containing only consecutive rows such that all the rows are pairwise inverted.

	An \emph{opportunistic-overtaking matrix} $O$ of a permutation matrix $P$ is the product of the reducing matrix of $P$ and the overtaking swaps of $P$ such that, for every inverted block of $P$, the only rows that $O$ can leave unswapped are the first and the last rows of the block.  The collection of all products of $P$ with any of its opportunistic-overtaking matrices $O$ is denoted by $\oomat{P} \ni OP$.

	Given a signed $\rowindexed{m}{P}$, \emph{removing its sign} produces a matrix $P' := \unsignrow{m}{P}$.  If $m'$ is such that $\columnone{m'}{P} = m$, then: $\rowindexed{k}{P'} = \rowindexed{k}{P}$ when $k \neq m, m'$; $\rowindexed{m'}{P'} = \rowindexed{m}{P}$; and $\rowindexed{m}{P'}$ is neutral.
\end{definition}

For every $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ not in a trivial section, the top row of $\invertrows{m}{P}$ is positive and the bottom row of $\invertrows{m}{P}$ is negative.  If $P$ is upper-canonical and $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ is positive, it is the top row of $\invertrows{m}{P}$.  If $P$ is lower-canonical and $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ is negative, it is the bottom row of $\invertrows{m}{P}$.

If the rows of an $n \times n$ permutation matrix $P$, from $\rowindexed{i}{P}$ to $\rowindexed{j}{P}$, form an inverted block, then
\begin{itemize}
	\item either $i = 1$ or $\rowindexed{i - 1}{P}$ and $\rowindexed{i}{P}$ are a contented pair, and
	\item either $j = n$ or $\rowindexed{j}{P}$ and $\rowindexed{j + 1}{P}$ are a contented pair.
\end{itemize}

If $P$ is a nonidentity permutation matrix and $O$ is any of its opportunistic-overtaking matrices, then $\bandwidth{O} = 1$ and $O$ satisfies the ``parallel bubblesort'' condition of $B_k$ from Lemma~\ref{algoterm}, while providing a locally-optimal, i.e. greedy, condition to determine the next bandwidth--1 factor, in that $P$ and $OP \in \oomat{P}$ share no inverted pairs.

The only inverted blocks that a Strang canonical matrix has are reducible pairs and neutral rows with a positive and/or a negative row to overtake it.  The product of any permutation matrix and any of its opportunistic-overtaking matrices is a permutation matrix whose inverted blocks have no more than three rows.

A permutation matrix $P$ always has a unique reducing matrix.  $P$ has a unique opportunistic-overtaking matrix only if each inverted block of $P$ that has more than two rows has a reducible pair, otherwise that block can have two choices of overtaking swaps.

An algorithm for determining an opportunistc-overtaking matrix of $P$ is given in the Appendix.
\begin{example}
	If, as in Theorem~\ref{solidrepthm} and the sections in Lemma~\ref{canonderangeredlemma}, $P$ is Strang canonical and $\tracemat{P} = 0$, then its reducible pairs are inverted blocks and $\oomat{P} = \{\reducemat{P}\}$.  In the proof of Theorem~\ref{solidrepessthm}, $P_q \in \oomat{P_{q - 1}}
	.
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}\label{strangthm}
	A permutation matrix of bandwidth $w$ can be written as the product of less than $2w$ bandwidth--1 permutation matrices.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Conjecture~\ref{strangconjmat}]
	The proof will relax the conditions on the permutation matrix and prove that the conjecture holds for each relaxation.

	Let $P$ be a lower-canonical matrix with $\bandwidth{P} = w$ and $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^q O_k$ where $O_kP_{k - 1} = P_k \in \oomat{P_{k - 1}}$.
A negative row of $P$ will be in a trivial section in some $P_k$ only by being swapped by $O_k$ with a positive row of $P$.  So, let $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ be positive.
	\begin{enumerate}[\text{Case} 1]
		\item If $\rowindexed{m}{P} = \rowindexed{m_k}{P_k}$ is never overtaken in $\{O_k\}$, the plan is to localize the determination of the swaps that move $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ in $\{O_k\}$.

		First, determine $\tilde{P}^m$ such that, through removing the signs of the positive rows that are overtaken by $\rowindexed{m}{P}$.  $\tilde{P}^m$ has no such positive row.

		Next, determine the matrix $P^m$ localizing to the swaps of $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ and the rows that are inverted with it.
		Then, $P^m$ is column-settled and Strang canonical whose only nontrivial section is from $\rowindexed{m}{P^m}$ to $\rowindexed{\ell_m}{P^m}$, which is row-sign-equivalent to $\invertrows{m}{\tilde{P}^m}$.

		If, by Theorem~\ref{solidrepessthm}, $P^m = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^{\bar{q}_m} T^m_k$, with $\hat{T}^m_k$ the possibly identity elementary matrix performing the swap in $T^m_k$ that moves $\rowindexed{m_k}{P^m_k} = \rowindexed{m}{P^m}$, can be performed on $\rowindexed{m}{\tilde{P}^m}$, and thus can also be performed on $\rowindexed{m}{P}$.
		\label{overtakecase

		There are two scenarios to consider:
		\begin{enumerate}[\text{Sub-Case} 1]
			\item Assume that there is a reducible pair in $\invertrows{m}{P}$ that is not in $\invertrows{m}{\tilde{P}^m}$.  Since both rows have their signs removed, their reducing swap will be in $O_1$, and $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ will be in a trivial section in $P_{\bar{q}_m + 1}$.  By Remark~\ref{fixedlowbound}, $q_m = \bar{q}_m + 1 < 2w - f_m + 1$ with $f_m > 1$.
			\item Otherwise, $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ will be in a trivial section in $P_{\bar{q}_m}$.  By Remark~\ref{fixedlowbound}, $q_m = \bar{q}_m < 2w - f_m$.\label{canonicalalwayssubcase}
		\end{enumerate}
		\item Let the $m$th row be overtaken in $\{O_k\}$.  From the previous cas
		, for each $\rowindexed{r'}{P}$ overtaking $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ in $\{O_k\}$, $\rowindexed{r'}{P}$ is in a trivial section in $P_{q_{r'}}$ with $q_{r'} < 2w - f_{r'}$ where $f_{r'}$ is the number of nonnegative rows in $\invertrows{r'}{P}$.  Again, there are two scenarios to consider:
		\begin{enumerate}[\text{Sub-Case} 1]
			\item If the final swap of $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ in $\{O_k\}$ is with one of the rows overtaking it, say $\rowindexed{r'}{P}$, then $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ is in a trivial section in $P_{q_m}$, where $q_m \leq q_{r'} < 2w - f_{r'}$.
			\item Otherwise,
			$\rowindexed{m}{P}$ is positive just before it is in a trivial section, and all rows that can overtake it have overtaken it before it is swapped into a trivial section.  Thus, after the last row overtakes it in $P_k$, $\rowindexed{m}{P} = \rowindexed{m_k}{P_k}$ is above its overtaking row $\rowindexed{r_k}{P_k}$, and once $\rowindexed{r_k}{P_k}$ swaps with a row below it, $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ can swap with the row it was overtaken by unless it was first overtaken by $\rowindexed{r_k}{P_k}$ and is contented with $\rowindexed{m}{P}$.  Then $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ has a delay count trailing $\rowindexed{r_k}{P_k}$ of at most $f_{r_k}$ and $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ is in a trivial section in $P_{q_m}$, where $q_m \leq q_{r_k} + f_{r_k} < 2w$.
		\end{enumerate}
	\end{enumerate}
	Since $\numfactors{P} = q = \max_{\columnone{m}{P} \neq m} q_m$, then $q < 2w$ and the conjecture holds for lower-canonical matrices.  Since an upper-canonical matrix is the inverse of a lower-canonical matrix, the same conclusion follows from Remark~\ref{existproduct}.

	If $P$ is not half-canonical, $P^m$ can be replaced in Case~\ref{overtakecase} by a column-settled upper-canonical matrix, where the same negative rows of $P^m$ and $P$ constitute an inverted pair, and the results will similarly follow.
\end{proof}
If, in the above proof, $P$ is Strang canonical, then only Sub-Case~
\ of Case~\ref{overtakecase} holds for each signed row $\rowindexed{m}{P}$.

\section{Further Points for Analysis}\label{furtherpoints}

	Panova \cite{Panova} proved Conjecture~\ref{strangconjmat} through the use of wiring diagrams.  This approach is similar to determining \emph{multi-braids
	.  From braid theory, by the Artin relations \cite[Eq.~18, 19]{Braid}, braids that do not share a thread commute: here, any number of commuting braids can be combined, without ambiguity, into a single multi-braid.  It is of interest to compare the factors derived from the approach in \cite{Panova}, as with the method of Albert, Li and Yu \cite[Sec.~4]{Strang}, which is not yet readily available, with the opportunistic-overtaking matrices approach.
\begin{definition}
	The \emph{distance table} of an $n \times n$ permutation matrix $P$ is $\disttable{P} := (P - I)\vec{x}$ where $\vec{x}' = [1\ \dots\ n]$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{totswapcount}
	The total number of reducing and overtaking swaps in the factors of a permutation matrix is the number of inverted pairs of that matrix.  This number is also half the sum of absolute values of the entries of its distance table, plus the number of rows that can overtake each signed row and half the number of rows that can overtake each neutral row.

	Given $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m B_k$, as in Lemma~\ref{algoterm}, if the distance tables are taken as sequences, then, for the following standard norms,
	\begin{align*}
		                       \norm[\ell_1]{\disttable{P_k}} & \leq \norm[\ell_1]{\disttable{P_{k - 1}}},\\
		\bandwidth{P_k} = \norm[\ell_\infty]{\disttable{P_k}} & \leq \norm[\ell_\infty]{\disttable{P_{k - 1}}} = \bandwidth{P_{k - 1}},\\
		                       \norm[\ell_2]{\disttable{P_k}} & < \norm[\ell_2]{\disttable{P_{k - 1}}},
	\end{align*}
	indicating that the Manhattan and Chebychev distances cannot increase and that the Euclidean distance always decrease
	.
\end{remark}

The previous remark indicates that the subproducts $P_k$ of a given permutation matrix $P$ are ``diffusions'' of the initial state $\disttable{P}$, where a ``parallel bubblesort'' iteration is performed in each ``time-step''.  This may be better analyzed if a relevant basis can be found.

\begin{definition}
	A \emph{greedy bubble matrix} $G$ of a permutation matrix $P$ is a product of reducing and overtaking swaps of $P$ such that $P$ and $GP$ have no common inverted pairs.  The collection of all products of $P$ with any of its greedy bubble matrices $G$ is denoted by $\greedymat{P} \ni GP$.

	An \emph{optimal factorization} of a permutation matrix $P$ is $\prod\limits_{k = 1}^m T_k = P$ where $\bandwidth{T_k} = 1$ and each other factorization of $P$ into bandwidth--1 matrices cannot have less factors than $\opfactors{P} := m$.
\end{definition}
$\oomat{P} \subseteq \greedymat{P}$, but a greedy bubble matrix of $P$ need not include reducing swaps of $P$.

A breadth-first spanning-tree algorithm \cite[Sec.~22.2]{Algo} rooted in the identity matrix applied to the Cayley graph of the symmetric group of length $n$, corresponding to set of $n \times n$ permutation matrices,
whose connection set is the set of all permutations represented by bandwidth--1 matrices \cite{Cayley} can be used to determine $\opfactors{P}$ for any $n \times n$ permutation matrix $P$.
\begin{remark}
	The number of $n \times n$ permutation matrices of bandwidth $w$, $w \leq 1$, is the $n$th Fibonacci number, $F_n$, where $F_0 = F_1 = 1$.
\end{remark}
In testing $n \times n$, $n \leq 9$, permutation matrices, the following were observed for every permutation matrix $P$: there is an optimal factorization $P = \prod\limits_{k = 1}^m G_k$, such that $P_k \in \greedymat{P_{k - 1}}$ and $\opfactors{P} \leq n$.

The former observation suggests that a greedy algorithm \cite[Ch.~16]{Algo} can determine $\opfactors{P}$;  Remark~\ref{totswapcount} indicates that the use of greedy bubble matrices is advantageou
.  Further observation leads to the following conjecture:

\begin{conjecture}\label{greedyconj}
	A finite permutation matrix of bandwidth $w > 0$ is the product of less than $2w$ greedy bubble matrices.
\end{conjecture}
Conjecture~\ref{greedyconj} asserts that, if $P_0 = P$ and $P_k \in \greedymat{P_{k - 1}}$, then, for some $m < 2w$, $P_m = I$.

Of the tested greedy algorithms on $n \times n$ permutation matrices, $n \leq 9$, $\numfactors{P} \leq \opfactors{P} + \lfloor n / 3\rfloor$.

The latter observation seems provable from Theorem~\ref{strangthm} where, if $P$ is a permutation matrix, $\bandwidth{P} = w$, then for every signed $\rowindexed{m}{P}$, $\invertrows{m}{P}$ has at most $2w$ rows.  A.~M.~Bruckstein suggests using the sequence of adjacent transpositions to exhaustively generate all permutations of a given length, such the (Steinhaus-)Johnson-Trotter algorithm \cite{SJT}, as suggested in \cite{Even} or in \cite[Table~5]{Thesis}, and the Artin relations \cite{Braid}.

D.~Pasechnik suggests that the conjecture does not hold for infinite matrices.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank Alfred Bruckstein and Fr\'{e}d\'{e}rique Oggier for suggesting the use of matrices instead of permutations and their supervision in the editing and reading of the drafts, Dmitrii Pasechnik and Radu Stancu for suggestions that were used in the permutation-oriented drafts, and Li-Lian Wang and Gilbert Strang for their advice and support.

\section*{Appendix: Opportunistic-Overtaking Matrix Algorithm}
Given: a permutation matrix $P$\\
Output: an opportunistic-overtaking matrix $O$ of $P$
\begin{itemize}
	\item Initialize $O = I$ and determine the inverted blocks of $P$, $B_1$, $B_2$, \dots, $B_k$
	\item For each inverted block of $P$, $B_i$, $1 \leq i \leq k$
	\begin{itemize}
		\item If $B_i$ has a reducible pair, $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ and $\rowindexed{m + 1}{P}$:
		\item[true:] While $\rowindexed{m - 2}{P}$ is in $B_i$, set $m$ to $m - 2$
		\item[false:] Let $\rowindexed{m}{P}$ be the top row of $B_i$
		\item While $\rowindexed{m + 1}{P}$ is in $B_i$, swap $\rowindexed{m}{O}$ and $\rowindexed{m + 1}{O}$, then set $m$ as $m + 2$
	\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}