Maximal independent sets and separating covers

Abstract: In 1973, Katona raised the problem of determining the maximum number of subsets in a separating cover on n elements. The answer to Katona's question turns out to be the inverse to the answer to a much simpler question: what is the largest integer which is the product of positive integers with sum n? We give a combinatorial explanation for this relationship, via Moon and Moser's answer to a question of Erdos: how many maximal independent sets can a graph on n vertices have? We conclude by showing how Moon and Moser's solution also sheds light on a problem of Mahler and Popken's about the complexity of integers.

\section{Introduction}

We begin with a simply stated problem, which has made numerous appearances in mathematics competitions:%
\footnote{In particular, the 1976 IMO asked for the $n=1976$ case, the 1979 Putnam asked for the $n=1979$ case, and on April 23rd 2002, the 3rd Community College of Philadelphia Colonial Mathematics Challenge asked for the $n=2002$ case.} %
what is the largest number which can be written as the product of positive integers that sum to $n$?

We denote this number by $\ell(n)$.  A moment's thought shows that one should use as many $3$s as possible; if $m\ge 5$ appears in the product then it can be replaced by $3(m-3)>m$, and while $2$s and $4$s can occur in the product, the latter can occur at most once since $4\cdot 4<2 \cdot 3 \cdot 3$ and the former at most twice since $2 \cdot 2 \cdot 2<3 \cdot 3$.  This shows that for $n\ge 2$,
$$
\ell(n)
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
3^i
&
\mbox{if $n=3i$,}\\
4 \cdot 3^{i-1}
&
\mbox{if $n=3i+1$,}\\
2 \cdot 3^i
&
\mbox{if $n=3i+2$,}\\
\end{array}
\right.
$$
while $\ell(1)=1$.  Note that it follows from the combinatorial definition of $\ell$ that this function is strictly increasing and {\it super-multiplicative\/}, meaning that it satisfies $\ell(n_1)\ell(n_2)\le\ell(n_1+n_2)$.

In 1973, G. O. H. Katona~\cite[Problem 8, p. 306]{katona:combinatorial-s:} posed a problem which looks completely unlike the determination of $\ell(n)$.  A {\it separating cover\/}%
\footnote{We make this slight deviation from Katona's original formulation so that $s(1)=1$.}
over the ground set $X$ is a collection $\S$ of subsets of $X$ which satisfies two properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item the union of the sets in $\S$ is all of $X$, and
\item for every pair of distinct elements $x,y\in X$ there are disjoint sets $S,T\in\S$ with $x\in S$ and $y\in T$.
\end{itemize}
Katona asked about the function
$$
s(m)=\min\{n : \mbox{there is a separating cover on $m$ elements with $n$ sets\}}.
$$
M.-C. Cai and A. C. C. Yao gave independent solutions several years later.

\begin{theorem}[Cai~\cite{cai:solutions-to-ed:} and Yao~\cite{yao:on-a-problem-of:}, independently]\label{sss}
For all $m\ge 2$,
$$
s(m)
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
3i
&
\mbox{if $2 \cdot 3^{i-1}<m\le 3^i$,}\\
3i+1
&
\mbox{if $3^i<m\le 4 \cdot 3^{i-1}$,}\\
3i+2
&
\mbox{if $4 \cdot 3^{i-1}<m\le 2 \cdot 3^i$,}\\
\end{array}
\right.
$$
while $s(1)=1$.
\end{theorem}

Thus $s(\ell(n))=n$ for all positive integers $n$ --- in other words, $s$ is a left inverse of $\ell$.  Ironically, the question we began with appears at the beginning of R. Honsberger's {\it Mathematical Gems III\/}~\cite{honsberger:mathematical-ge:}, while Katona's problem occurs at the end, where Honsberger describes the proof as ``long and much more complicated than the arguments in the earlier chapters.''  We present a short combinatorial explanation for the equivalence of these two problems.

\section{A Combinatorial Interpretation of ${\ell}$}
In order to give a combinatorial explanation for why $s(\ell(n))=n$, we first need a combinatorial interpretation of $\ell$.  We use a graph-theoretic interpretation, although several others are available.%
\footnote{Another --- in terms of integer complexity --- is given later in this note.  Additionally, $\ell(n)$ is the order of the largest abelian subgroup of the symmetric group of order $n$; see Bercov and Moser~\cite{bercov:on-abelian-perm:}.} %
Let $G$ be a  graph over the vertex set $V(G)$.  A subset $I\subseteq V(G)$ is {\it independent\/} if there is no edge between any two vertices of $I$, and it is a {\it maximal independent set (MIS)\/} if it is not properly contained in any other independent set.  In the 1960s, P. Erd\H{o}s asked how many MISes a graph on $n$ vertices could have, which we define as
$$
g(n)=\max\{m : \mbox{there is graph on $n$ vertices with $m$ MISes\}}.
$$
Let us denote by $m(G)$ the number of MISes in the graph $G$.  This quantity is particularly easy to compute when $G$ is a disjoint union:

\begin{proposition}\label{mis-product}
The disjoint union of the graphs $G$ and $H$ has $m(G)m(H)$ MISes.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For any MIS $M$ of this union, $M\cap V(G)$ must be an MIS of $G$ and $M\cap V(H)$ must be an MIS of $H$.  Conversely, if $M_G$ and $M_H$ are MISes of $G$ and $H$, respectively, then $M_G\cup M_H$ is an MIS of the disjoint union of $G$ and $H$.
\end{proof}

Because the complete graph on $n$ vertices has $n$ MISes, Proposition~\ref{mis-product} implies that $g(n)\ge\ell(n)$ for all positive integers $n$; we need only take a disjoint union of edges, triangles, and complete graphs on $4$ vertices to achieve this lower bound.  In 1965, J. W. Moon and L. Moser proved that this is best possible.

\begin{theorem}[Moon and Moser~\cite{moon:on-cliques-in-g:}]\label{mis}
For all positive integers $n$, $g(n)=\ell(n)$.
\end{theorem}

Indeed, Moon and Moser showed that the only extremal graphs (the graphs with $g(n)$ MISes) are those built by taking disjoint copies of edges, triangles, and complete graphs on $4$ vertices in the quantities suggested by the formula for $\ell$.  (In the case $n=3i+1\ge 4$ there are two extremal graphs, one with $i-1$ triangles and two disjoint edges, the other with $i-1$ triangles and a complete graph on $4$ vertices.)

\section{A Short Proof of Theorem~\ref{mis}}
Before demonstrating the relationship between MISes and separating covers, we pause to present a short proof of Moon and Moser's theorem.  First we need a definition: for a set $X\subseteq V(G)$, we denote by $G-X$ the graph obtained by removing the vertices $X$ from $G$ and all edges incident to vertices in $X$.  When $X=\{v\}$, we abbreviate this notation to $G-v$.  Our proof makes extensive use of the following upper bound.

\begin{proposition}\label{mis-recurse}
For any graph $G$ and vertex $v\in V(G)$, we have
$$
m(G)\le m(G-v)+m(G-N[v]),
$$
where $N[v]$ denotes the {\it closed neighborhood\/} of $v$, i.e., $v$ together with its neighbors.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The map $M\mapsto M-v$ gives a bijection between MISes of $G$ containing $v$ and MISes of $G-N[v]$.  The proof is completed by noting that every MIS of $G$ that does not contain $v$ is also an MIS of $G-v$.
\end{proof}

\newenvironment{mis-proof}{\medskip\noindent {\it Proof of Theorem~\ref{mis}.\/}}{\qed\bigskip}
\begin{mis-proof}
Our proof is by induction on $n$, and we prove the stronger statement which characterizes the extremal graphs.  It is easy to check the theorem for graphs with five or fewer vertices, so take $G$ to be a graph on $n\ge 6$ vertices, and assume the theorem holds for graphs with fewer than $n$ vertices.

If $G$ contains a vertex of degree $0$, that is, an isolated vertex, then clearly $m(G)\le g(n-1)=\ell(n-1)<\ell(n)$.  If $G$ contains a vertex $v$ of degree $1$ then, letting $w$ denote the sole vertex adjacent to $v$, we have by Proposition~\ref{mis-recurse} that
$$
m(G)
\le
m(G-w)+m(G-N[w])
\le
2\ell(n-2)
=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
8\cdot 3^{i-2}&\mbox{if $n=3i$,}\\
4\cdot 3^{i-1}&\mbox{if $n=3i+1$,}\\
2\cdot 3^{i}&\mbox{if $n=3i+2$.}
\end{array}\right.
$$
In all three cases we have an upper bound of at most $\ell(n)$, with equality if and only if $n=3i+1$ and $G$ is a disjoint union of $i-1$ triangles and two edges, or $n=3i+2$ and $G$ is a disjoint union of $i$ triangles and an edge.

If $G$ contains a vertex $v$ of degree $3$ or greater, then we have
$$
m(G)
\le
m(G-v)+m(G-N[v])
\le
\ell(n-1)+\ell(n-4)
=
\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
8\cdot 3^{i-2}&\mbox{if $n=3i$,}\\
4\cdot 3^{i-1}&\mbox{if $n=3i+1$,}\\
16\cdot 3^{i-2}&\mbox{if $n=3i+2$.}
\end{array}\right.
$$
Again, all three cases give an upper bound of at most $\ell(n)$, with equality if and only if $n=3i+1$ and $G$ is a disjoint union of $i-1$ triangles together with a complete graph on $4$ vertices.

This leaves us to consider the case where every vertex of $G$ has degree $2$, which implies that $G$ consists of a disjoint union of cycles.  If each of these cycles is a triangle, then $n=3i$ and $G$ is a disjoint union of $i$ triangles, as desired.  Thus we may assume that at least one connected component of $G$ is a cycle of length $j\ge 4$, which we denote by $C_j$.  Our goal in this case is to show that $G$ is not extremal (i.e., $m(G)<\ell(n)$), and by the super-multiplicativity of $\ell$, it suffices to show that this single cycle of length $j$ is not extremal.  It is easy to check that $m(C_4)=2<4=\ell(4)$ and $m(C_5)=5<6=\ell(5)$, it therefore suffices to show that $m(C_j)<\ell(j)$ for $j\ge 6$.  (In fact, F\"uredi~\cite{furedi:the-number-of-m:} found $m(C_j)$ exactly --- it is the $j$th Perrin number.)  Label the vertices of our cycle on $j\ge 6$ vertices as $u,v,w,\dots$ so that $u$ is adjacent to $v$ which is in turn adjacent to $w$.  By applying Proposition~\ref{mis-recurse} twice, we see that for $j\ge 6$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
m(C_j)
&\le&
m(C_j-w)+m(C_j-N[w])\\
&\le&
m(C_j-w-u)+m(C_j-w-N[u])+m(C_j-N[w])\\
&\le&
2\ell(j-3)+\ell(j-4),
\end{eqnarray*}
which is strictly less that $3\ell(j-3)=\ell(j)$, completing the proof.
\end{mis-proof}

\section{A Combinatorial Explanation for ${s(\ell(n))=n}$}
With Moon and Moser's Theorem~\ref{mis} proved, we are now ready to explain the connection to separating covers.  Propositions~\ref{mis2sss} and \ref{sss2mis} illuminate the connection between separating covers and MISes, and then Proposition~\ref{main} gives a combinatorial explanation for why $s$ is a left inverse of $\ell=g$.

\begin{proposition}\label{mis2sss}
From a graph on $n$ vertices with $m$ MISes one can construct a separating cover on $m$ elements with at most $n$ sets.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Take $G$ to be a graph with $n$ vertices and $m$ MISes and let $\mathcal{M}$ denote the collection of MISes in $G$.  The separating cover promised consists of the family of sets $\{S_v : v\in V(G)\}$ where
$$
S_v=\{M\in\mathcal{M} : v\in M\}.
$$
Clearly this is a family with $m$ elements (the MISes $\mathcal{M}$) and $n$ (not necessarily distinct) sets (one for each vertex of $G$), and this family covers the set $\mathcal{M}$ because each MIS lies in at least one $S_v$, so it remains to check only that it is separating.  Take distinct sets $M, N\in\mathcal{M}$.  Because $M$ and $N$ are both maximal there is some vertex $u\in M\setminus N$ .  By the maximality of $N$, it must contain a vertex $v$ adjacent to $u$.  Therefore $M\in S_u$, $N\in S_v$, and because $u$ and $v$ are adjacent, $S_u\cap S_v=\emptyset$, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{sss2mis}
From a separating cover on $m$ elements with $n$ sets one can construct a graph on $n$ vertices with at least $m$ MISes.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\S$ be such a cover over the ground set $X$.  We define a graph $G$ on the vertices $\S$ where $S\in\S$ is adjacent to $T\in\S$ if and only if they are disjoint.  For each $x\in X$, the set
$$
I_x=\{S\in\S : x\in S\}
$$
is an independent set in $G$.  For each $x\in X$, choose an MIS $M_x\supseteq I_x$.  We have only to show that these MISes are distinct.  Take distinct elements $x,y\in X$.  Because $\S$ is separating, there are disjoint sets $S,T\in\S$ with $x\in S$ and $y\in T$.  Therefore $S\in M_x$, $T\in M_y$, and since $S$ and $T$ are disjoint they are adjacent in $G$, so $T\notin M_x$, and thus $M_x\neq M_y$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{main}
For all positive integers $m$ and $n$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
s(m)&=&\min\{n : g(n)\ge m\},\\
g(n)&=&\max\{m : s(m)\le n\}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
First observe that $s$ and $g$ are both nondecreasing.  The proof then follows from the two claims
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] If $s(m)\le n$ then $g(n)\ge m$, and
\item[(2)] If $g(n)\ge m$ then $s(m)\le n$
\end{enumerate}

To prove (1), suppose that $s(m)\le n$.  Then there is a separating cover with $m$ elements and at most $n$ sets, so by Proposition~\ref{sss2mis}, there is a graph with at most $n$ vertices and at least $m$ MISes.  This and the fact that $g$ is nondecreasing establish that $g(n)\ge m$.

Now suppose that $g(n)\ge m$.  Then there is a graph with $n$ vertices and at least $m$ MISes, so by Proposition~\ref{mis2sss}, there is a separating cover with at least $m$ elements and at most $n$ sets.  Because $s$ is nondecreasing, we conclude that $s(m)\le n$, proving (2).
\end{proof}

\section{Integer Complexity}
We conclude with another appearance of $g$.  The {\it complexity\/}, $c(m)$, of the integer $m$ is the least number of $1$s needed to represent it using only $+$s, $\cdot$s, and parentheses.  For example, the complexity of $10$ is $7$, and there are essentially three different minimal expressions:
$$
10=(1+1+1)(1+1+1)+1=(1+1)(1+1+1+1+1)=(1+1)((1+1)(1+1)+1),
$$
Figure~\ref{fig-complexity} shows a plot of the complexities of the first $1000$ integers.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\savedata{\plotdata}[{{1,1},{2,2},{3,3},{4,4},{5,5},{6,5},{7,6},{8,6},{9,6},{10,7},{11,8},{12,7},{13,8},{14,8},{15,8},{16,8},{17,9},{18,8},{19,9},{20,9},{21,9},{22,10},{23,11},{24,9},{25,10},{26,10},{27,9},{28,10},{29,11},{30,10},{31,11},{32,10},{33,11},{34,11},{35,11},{36,10},{37,11},{38,11},{39,11},{40,11},{41,12},{42,11},{43,12},{44,12},{45,11},{46,12},{47,13},{48,11},{49,12},{50,12},{51,12},{52,12},{53,13},{54,11},{55,12},{56,12},{57,12},{58,13},{59,14},{60,12},{61,13},{62,13},{63,12},{64,12},{65,13},{66,13},{67,14},{68,13},{69,14},{70,13},{71,14},{72,12},{73,13},{74,13},{75,13},{76,13},{77,14},{78,13},{79,14},{80,13},{81,12},{82,13},{83,14},{84,13},{85,14},{86,14},{87,14},{88,14},{89,15},{90,13},{91,14},{92,14},{93,14},{94,15},{95,14},{96,13},{97,14},{98,14},{99,14},{100,14},{101,15},{102,14},{103,15},{104,14},{105,14},{106,15},{107,16},{108,13},{109,14},{110,14},{111,14},{112,14},{113,15},{114,14},{115,15},{116,15},{117,14},{118,15},{119,15},{120,14},{121,15},{122,15},{123,15},{124,15},{125,15},{126,14},{127,15},{128,14},{129,15},{130,15},{131,16},{132,15},{133,15},{134,16},{135,14},{136,15},{137,16},{138,15},{139,16},{140,15},{141,16},{142,16},{143,16},{144,14},{145,15},{146,15},{147,15},{148,15},{149,16},{150,15},{151,16},{152,15},{153,15},{154,16},{155,16},{156,15},{157,16},{158,16},{159,16},{160,15},{161,16},{162,14},{163,15},{164,15},{165,15},{166,16},{167,17},{168,15},{169,16},{170,16},{171,15},{172,16},{173,17},{174,16},{175,16},{176,16},{177,17},{178,17},{179,18},{180,15},{181,16},{182,16},{183,16},{184,16},{185,16},{186,16},{187,17},{188,17},{189,15},{190,16},{191,17},{192,15},{193,16},{194,16},{195,16},{196,16},{197,17},{198,16},{199,17},{200,16},{201,17},{202,17},{203,17},{204,16},{205,17},{206,17},{207,17},{208,16},{209,17},{210,16},{211,17},{212,17},{213,17},{214,18},{215,17},{216,15},{217,16},{218,16},{219,16},{220,16},{221,17},{222,16},{223,17},{224,16},{225,16},{226,17},{227,18},{228,16},{229,17},{230,17},{231,17},{232,17},{233,18},{234,16},{235,17},{236,17},{237,17},{238,17},{239,18},{240,16},{241,17},{242,17},{243,15},{244,16},{245,17},{246,16},{247,17},{248,17},{249,17},{250,17},{251,18},{252,16},{253,17},{254,17},{255,17},{256,16},{257,17},{258,17},{259,17},{260,17},{261,17},{262,18},{263,19},{264,17},{265,18},{266,17},{267,18},{268,18},{269,19},{270,16},{271,17},{272,17},{273,17},{274,18},{275,17},{276,17},{277,18},{278,18},{279,17},{280,17},{281,18},{282,18},{283,19},{284,18},{285,17},{286,18},{287,18},{288,16},{289,17},{290,17},{291,17},{292,17},{293,18},{294,17},{295,18},{296,17},{297,17},{298,18},{299,19},{300,17},{301,18},{302,18},{303,18},{304,17},{305,18},{306,17},{307,18},{308,18},{309,18},{310,18},{311,19},{312,17},{313,18},{314,18},{315,17},{316,18},{317,19},{318,18},{319,19},{320,17},{321,18},{322,18},{323,18},{324,16},{325,17},{326,17},{327,17},{328,17},{329,18},{330,17},{331,18},{332,18},{333,17},{334,18},{335,19},{336,17},{337,18},{338,18},{339,18},{340,18},{341,19},{342,17},{343,18},{344,18},{345,18},{346,19},{347,20},{348,18},{349,19},{350,18},{351,17},{352,18},{353,19},{354,18},{355,19},{356,19},{357,18},{358,19},{359,20},{360,17},{361,18},{362,18},{363,18},{364,18},{365,18},{366,18},{367,19},{368,18},{369,18},{370,18},{371,19},{372,18},{373,19},{374,19},{375,18},{376,19},{377,19},{378,17},{379,18},{380,18},{381,18},{382,19},{383,20},{384,17},{385,18},{386,18},{387,18},{388,18},{389,19},{390,18},{391,19},{392,18},{393,19},{394,19},{395,19},{396,18},{397,19},{398,19},{399,18},{400,18},{401,19},{402,19},{403,19},{404,19},{405,17},{406,18},{407,19},{408,18},{409,19},{410,18},{411,19},{412,19},{413,20},{414,18},{415,19},{416,18},{417,19},{418,19},{419,20},{420,18},{421,19},{422,19},{423,19},{424,19},{425,19},{426,19},{427,19},{428,20},{429,19},{430,19},{431,20},{432,17},{433,18},{434,18},{435,18},{436,18},{437,19},{438,18},{439,19},{440,18},{441,18},{442,19},{443,20},{444,18},{445,19},{446,19},{447,19},{448,18},{449,19},{450,18},{451,19},{452,19},{453,19},{454,20},{455,19},{456,18},{457,19},{458,19},{459,18},{460,19},{461,20},{462,19},{463,20},{464,19},{465,19},{466,20},{467,21},{468,18},{469,19},{470,19},{471,19},{472,19},{473,20},{474,19},{475,19},{476,19},{477,19},{478,20},{479,21},{480,18},{481,19},{482,19},{483,19},{484,19},{485,19},{486,17},{487,18},{488,18},{489,18},{490,19},{491,20},{492,18},{493,19},{494,19},{495,18},{496,19},{497,20},{498,19},{499,20},{500,19},{501,20},{502,20},{503,21},{504,18},{505,19},{506,19},{507,19},{508,19},{509,20},{510,19},{511,19},{512,18},{513,18},{514,19},{515,20},{516,19},{517,20},{518,19},{519,20},{520,19},{521,20},{522,19},{523,20},{524,20},{525,19},{526,20},{527,20},{528,19},{529,20},{530,20},{531,20},{532,19},{533,20},{534,20},{535,21},{536,20},{537,21},{538,21},{539,20},{540,18},{541,19},{542,19},{543,19},{544,19},{545,19},{546,19},{547,20},{548,20},{549,19},{550,19},{551,20},{552,19},{553,20},{554,20},{555,19},{556,20},{557,21},{558,19},{559,20},{560,19},{561,20},{562,20},{563,21},{564,20},{565,20},{566,21},{567,18},{568,19},{569,20},{570,19},{571,20},{572,20},{573,20},{574,19},{575,20},{576,18},{577,19},{578,19},{579,19},{580,19},{581,20},{582,19},{583,20},{584,19},{585,19},{586,20},{587,21},{588,19},{589,20},{590,20},{591,20},{592,19},{593,20},{594,19},{595,20},{596,20},{597,20},{598,20},{599,21},{600,19},{601,20},{602,20},{603,20},{604,20},{605,20},{606,20},{607,21},{608,19},{609,20},{610,20},{611,21},{612,19},{613,20},{614,20},{615,20},{616,20},{617,21},{618,20},{619,21},{620,20},{621,20},{622,21},{623,21},{624,19},{625,20},{626,20},{627,20},{628,20},{629,20},{630,19},{631,20},{632,20},{633,20},{634,21},{635,20},{636,20},{637,20},{638,21},{639,20},{640,19},{641,20},{642,20},{643,21},{644,20},{645,20},{646,20},{647,21},{648,18},{649,19},{650,19},{651,19},{652,19},{653,20},{654,19},{655,20},{656,19},{657,19},{658,20},{659,21},{660,19},{661,20},{662,20},{663,20},{664,20},{665,20},{666,19},{667,20},{668,20},{669,20},{670,21},{671,21},{672,19},{673,20},{674,20},{675,19},{676,20},{677,21},{678,20},{679,20},{680,20},{681,21},{682,21},{683,22},{684,19},{685,20},{686,20},{687,20},{688,20},{689,21},{690,20},{691,21},{692,21},{693,20},{694,21},{695,21},{696,20},{697,21},{698,21},{699,21},{700,20},{701,21},{702,19},{703,20},{704,20},{705,20},{706,21},{707,21},{708,20},{709,21},{710,21},{711,20},{712,21},{713,22},{714,20},{715,20},{716,21},{717,21},{718,22},{719,23},{720,19},{721,20},{722,20},{723,20},{724,20},{725,20},{726,20},{727,21},{728,20},{729,18},{730,19},{731,20},{732,19},{733,20},{734,21},{735,20},{736,20},{737,21},{738,19},{739,20},{740,20},{741,20},{742,21},{743,22},{744,20},{745,21},{746,21},{747,20},{748,21},{749,22},{750,20},{751,21},{752,21},{753,21},{754,21},{755,21},{756,19},{757,20},{758,20},{759,20},{760,20},{761,21},{762,20},{763,20},{764,21},{765,20},{766,21},{767,22},{768,19},{769,20},{770,20},{771,20},{772,20},{773,21},{774,20},{775,21},{776,20},{777,20},{778,21},{779,21},{780,20},{781,21},{782,21},{783,20},{784,20},{785,21},{786,21},{787,22},{788,21},{789,22},{790,21},{791,21},{792,20},{793,21},{794,21},{795,21},{796,21},{797,22},{798,20},{799,21},{800,20},{801,21},{802,21},{803,21},{804,21},{805,21},{806,21},{807,22},{808,21},{809,22},{810,19},{811,20},{812,20},{813,20},{814,21},{815,20},{816,20},{817,21},{818,21},{819,20},{820,20},{821,21},{822,21},{823,22},{824,21},{825,20},{826,21},{827,22},{828,20},{829,21},{830,21},{831,21},{832,20},{833,21},{834,21},{835,22},{836,21},{837,20},{838,21},{839,22},{840,20},{841,21},{842,21},{843,21},{844,21},{845,21},{846,21},{847,21},{848,21},{849,22},{850,21},{851,22},{852,21},{853,22},{854,21},{855,20},{856,21},{857,22},{858,21},{859,22},{860,21},{861,21},{862,22},{863,23},{864,19},{865,20},{866,20},{867,20},{868,20},{869,21},{870,20},{871,21},{872,20},{873,20},{874,21},{875,21},{876,20},{877,21},{878,21},{879,21},{880,20},{881,21},{882,20},{883,21},{884,21},{885,21},{886,22},{887,23},{888,20},{889,21},{890,21},{891,20},{892,21},{893,22},{894,21},{895,22},{896,20},{897,21},{898,21},{899,22},{900,20},{901,21},{902,21},{903,21},{904,21},{905,21},{906,21},{907,22},{908,22},{909,21},{910,21},{911,22},{912,20},{913,21},{914,21},{915,21},{916,21},{917,22},{918,20},{919,21},{920,21},{921,21},{922,22},{923,22},{924,21},{925,21},{926,22},{927,21},{928,21},{929,22},{930,21},{931,21},{932,22},{933,22},{934,23},{935,21},{936,20},{937,21},{938,21},{939,21},{940,21},{941,22},{942,21},{943,22},{944,21},{945,20},{946,21},{947,22},{948,21},{949,21},{950,21},{951,22},{952,21},{953,22},{954,21},{955,22},{956,22},{957,22},{958,23},{959,22},{960,20},{961,21},{962,21},{963,21},{964,21},{965,21},{966,21},{967,22},{968,21},{969,21},{970,21},{971,22},{972,19},{973,20},{974,20},{975,20},{976,20},{977,21},{978,20},{979,21},{980,21},{981,20},{982,21},{983,22},{984,20},{985,21},{986,21},{987,21},{988,21},{989,22},{990,20},{991,21},{992,21},{993,21},{994,22},{995,22},{996,21},{997,22},{998,22},{999,20},{1000,21}}]
\psset{xunit=0.00474525in, yunit=0.0520833in}
\begin{pspicture}(0,-3)(1053.684211,28.80000000)
\psaxes[dy=5,Dy=5,dx=100,Dx=100,showorigin=false](0,0)(999,23)
\rput[c](0,25.4){$c(m)$}
\rput[l](1026.34,0){$m$}
\dataplot[plotstyle=dots,dotstyle=*,dotsize=3\psxunit]{\plotdata}
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The complexities of the first 1000 integers.}\label{fig-complexity}
\end{figure}

This definition was first considered by Mahler and Popken~\cite{mahler:on-a-maximum-pr:}, and while a straightforward recurrence,
$$
c(m)=\min \{c(d)+c(m/d) : d\divides m\}\cup\{c(i)+c(m-i) : 1\le i\le m-1\},
$$
is easy to verify, several outstanding conjectures and questions remain, for which we refer to R. K. Guy~\cite{guy:unsolved-proble:}.  In that article, Guy mentions that J. Selfridge gave an inductive proof of the following result.

\begin{proposition}[Selfridge~{[unpublished]}]\label{prop-integer-complexity}
The greatest integer of complexity $n$ is $g(n)$.
\end{proposition}

One direction of Selfridge's proposition is clear: the problem we began with shows that $\ell(n)=g(n)$ has complexity at most $n$.  In a final demonstration of the surprising versatility of Moon and Moser's Theorem~\ref{mis}, we show how it implies the other direction, via the following construction.

\begin{proposition}\label{comp2mis}
From an expression of the integer $m$ with $n$ $1$s one can construct a graph on $n$ vertices with $m$ MISes.
\end{proposition}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psset{xunit=0.007in, yunit=0.007in}
\psset{linewidth=0.02in}
\begin{pspicture}(0,0)(120,80)
\pscircle*(0,20){0.04in}
\pscircle*(0,60){0.04in}
\pscircle*(40,20){0.04in}
\pscircle*(40,60){0.04in}
\pscircle*(80,40){0.04in}
\pscircle*(120,20){0.04in}
\pscircle*(120,60){0.04in}
\psline(0,20)(0,60)
\psline(40,20)(40,60)
\psline(40,20)(120,60)
\psline(40,60)(120,20)
\psline(120,20)(120,60)
\end{pspicture}
\end{center}
\caption{The construction described in the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop-integer-complexity}, applied to the expression
$$
10=(1+1)((1+1)(1+1)+1).
$$
There are graphs on $7$ vertices with more MISes than the graph shown because $10$ is not the greatest integer of complexity $7$ ($12$ is).}
\label{prop-integer-complexity-figure}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
Before describing our inductive construction we need a definition.  Given graphs $G$ and $H$, their {\it join\/} is the graph $G+H$ obtained from their disjoint union $G\cup H$ by adding all edges connecting vertices of $G$ with vertices of $H$.  We know already from Proposition~\ref{mis-product} that $m(G\cup H)=m(G)m(H)$, and a similar formula for joins is easy to verify: $m(G+H)=m(G)+m(H)$ because every MIS in $G+H$ is either an MIS of $G$ or an MIS of $H$.

Now suppose we have an expression of the integer $m$ with $n$ $1$s.  If $n=1$, then there is only one such expression, $1$, and we associate to this expression the one vertex graph.  If $n\ge 2$, then any such expression must decompose as either $e_1+e_2$ or $e_1e_2$, where $e_1$ and $e_2$ are expressions with fewer $1$s.  If our expression is $e_1+e_2$ then we associate it to the join of the graphs associated to $e_1$ and $e_2$, and if our expression is $e_1e_2$ then we associate it to the disjoint union of the graphs associated to $e_1$ and $e_2$.  Figure~\ref{prop-integer-complexity-figure} shows an example.  It follows that the resulting graph has precisely as many vertices as the expression has $1$s, and precisely $m$ MISes.
\end{proof}

\minisec{Acknowledgements}
I am grateful to the referees for their detailed and insightful comments.  In particular, the change from ``separating families'' to ``separating covers,'' which simplified many of these results, was suggested by one of the referees.

\bibliographystyle{acm}


Remark on the Chain rule of fractional derivative in the Sobolev framework

Abstract: A chain rule for power product is studied with fractional differential operators in the framework of Sobolev spaces. The fractional differential operators are defined by the Fourier multipliers. The chain rule is considered newly in the case where the order of differential operators is between one and two. The study is based on the analogy of the classical chain rule or Leibniz rule.

\section{Introduction}
\section{Introduction}
The chain rule or Leibniz rule is an essential tool
to study nonlinear differential equations.
In the study of nonlinear partial differential equations(PDEs),
fractional differential operators are also known as powerful tools.
So, in order to analyze nonlinear PDEs,
chain rules for fractional differential operators are naturally required.
Even though fractional differential operators may be non-local unlike classical operators,
estimates for fractional derivative has been studied
on the analogy of classical chain rules.
The history of this study can go back at least to the work of Kato and Ponce \cite{KP88}.

In this paper,
we consider a chain rule corresponding to the identity:
	\[
	\frac{d}{dx} F(u) = F'(u) u',
	\]
in the framework of Riesz potential space $\dot H_p^s = D^{-s} L^p(\mathbb R^d)$,
where $s \in \mathbb R$, $d \geq 1$, and $L^p$ is the usual Lebesgue space.
$\dot H_p^s$ is also called as homogeneous Sobolev space.
The fractional differential operator $D^s = (-\Delta)^{s/2}$ is recognized as a Fourier multiplier by
$D^{s} = \mathfrak F^{-1} |\cdot|^s \mathfrak F$,
where $\mathfrak F$ is the standard Fourier transform.
Especially, we study the case where $F$ behaves like power product, that is,
$F(z) \sim |z|^{p-1} z$.

In \cite{CW91}, Christ and Weinstein showed the following estimate:
\begin{Proposition}[{\cite[Proposition:3.1]{CW91}}]
\label{Proposition:1.1}
Let $d \geq 1$ and $s \in (0,1)$.
Let $F \in C(\mathbb C)$ and $G \in C(\mathbb C:[0,\infty))$ satisfy
	\[
	|F(u) - F(v)|
	\leq (G(u)+G(v))|u-v|.
	\]
Let $1 \leq p < \infty$, $1 < r, q < \infty$ satisfy
	\begin{align}
	\frac 1 p = \frac 1 q + \frac 1 r.
	\label{eq:1.1}
	\end{align}
The estimate
	\[
	\| F(u) \|_{\dot H_p^s}
	\leq \| G(u) \|_{L^q} \| u \|_{\dot H_r^s}.
	\]
holds for any $u \in \dot H_r^s$ with $G(u) \in L^q$.
\end{Proposition}
Roughly speaking, Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} asserts that
$D^s F(u)$ behaves like $F'(u) D^s u$.
Since the Riesz operator $R = D^{-1} \nabla$ is bounded on $L^p$ when $p \in (1,\infty)$,
$\| F(u) \|_{\dot H_p^s}$ may be estimated even when $s \geq 1$
by combining the classical chain rule, Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1}, and the H\"older inequality.

On the other hand, when $F(z) = |z|^{\rho-1} z$,
Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} may be insufficient to handle general cases.
For example, when $\rho \in (1,2)$ and $s \in (1,\rho)$,
one may regard
	\[
	D^s F(u) \sim D^{s-1} (|u|^{\rho-1} \nabla u).
	\]
By using the fractional Leibniz rule
(for example, see \cite[Theorem 1]{GO14}, \cite{ES20}, \cite{FGO18}, and references therein),
one can distribute $D^{s-1}$ like $\nabla$ to $\nabla u$ and $|u|^{\rho-1}$.
Since $f(z) = |z|^{\rho-1}$ is not differentiable,
one cannot control $D^{s-1} |u|^{\rho-1}$ by applying Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} directly.
However, on the analogy of the fact that $f^\rho \in C^1$ when $f \in C^{\lceil \rho \rceil}$,
$D^s (|u|^{\rho-1} u)$ is expected to be controlled similarly when $s < \rho$.
Here $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ is the ceiling function
defined by $\lceil s \rceil = \min\{m \in \mathbb Z, m \geq s\}$.
In order to see this natural expectation,
one may need to extend Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} with $s \in (1,2)$.

We generalize this expectation slightly.
With $\rho > 1$,
we put $F_\rho \in C^{1}(\mathbb C)$ satisfying $F(0) = F'(0)=0$ and
	\begin{align}
	|F_\rho(u) - F_\rho(v)|
	&\lesssim
	\max(|u|,|v)^{\rho-1} | u - v|,
	\nonumber\\
	|F_\rho'(u) - F_\rho'(v)|
	&\lesssim
	\begin{cases}
	\max(|u|,|v)^{\rho-2} | u - v|
	&\mathrm{if} \quad \rho \geq 2,\\
	| u - v|^{\rho -1}
	&\mathrm{if} \quad \rho < 2,
	\end{cases}
	\label{eq:1.2}
	\end{align}
where
$a \lesssim b$ stands for $a \leq C b$ with some positive constant $C$.
We also denote $a \sim b$ when $a \lesssim b$ and $b \lesssim a$.
We use these notation though this paper.

In \cite{GOV94},
Ginibre, Ozawa, and Velo showed the expectation above in the framework of homogeneous Besov spaces
$\dot B_{p,q}^s$.
\begin{Proposition}[{\cite[Lemma:3.4]{GOV94}}]
\label{Proposition:1.2}
Let $d \geq 1$, $\rho \geq 1$, and $s \in (0,\min(2,\rho))$.
Let $1 \leq p, r \leq \infty$ and $(\rho-1)^{-1} \leq q \leq \infty$ satisfy \eqref{eq:1.1}.
If $u \in \dot B_{r,2}^s \cap L^{(\rho-1)q}$, then
	\begin{align}
	\| F_\rho(u) \|_{\dot B_{p,2}^s}
	\lesssim \| u \|_{L^{(\rho-1)q}}^{\rho-1} \| u \|_{\dot B_{r,2}^s}.
	\label{eq:1.3}
	\end{align}
\end{Proposition}
Since Besov spaces may play a role in useful auxiliary spaces,
Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.2} has been used
to study even $\dot H_p^s$-valued solutions to some nonlinear PDEs.
The advantage to consider the fractional chain rule in the framework of Besov space
is the following representation of homogeneous Besov norms:
	\[
	\| u \|_{\dot B_{r,q}^s}
	\sim
	\bigg(
	\int_0^\infty \lambda^{-s q-1} \sup_{|y| < \lambda} \|(\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) u \|_{L^r}^q d \lambda,
	\bigg)^{1/q},
	\]
where $\tau_y u = u(\cdot + y)$, $s \in (0,2)$, and $1 \leq p, q \leq \infty$
(See \cite[6.2.5. Theorem]{BL}, for example.).
With this representation,
the term $(\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) u$ gives a clear explanation
of the connection between the classical and fractional chain rules.
We remark that
even though the fractional differential operators are defined by Fourier multipliers,
it is nontrivial why $F'(u) \sim |u|^{\rho-1}$ appears as an upper bound of \eqref{eq:1.3}
from the view point Fourier multipliers.
We further remark that when $\rho =2$,
the chain rule may be shown by the argument of Fourier multipliers.
See \cite{FGO18}.

Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.2} is an effective estimate but
it seems more handy to close the argument only with Sobolev spaces.
So one of the main purpose of this paper is to show a similar estimate to Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.2}
in the framework of $\dot H_p^s$.
This is one of the main statement of this paper.
\begin{Proposition}
\label{Proposition:1.3}
Let $\rho > 1$ and $s \in (1,\rho)$.
Let $1 < p, r < \infty$ and $(\rho-1)^{-1} < q < \infty$ satisfy \eqref{eq:1.1}.
The estimate
	\[
	\| F_\rho(u) \|_{\dot H_p^s}
	\lesssim \| u \|_{L^{(\rho-1) q}}^{\rho-1} \| u \|_{\dot H_r^s}
	\]
holds for any $u \in \dot H_r^s \cap L^{(\rho-1)q}$.
\end{Proposition}

We remark that
the case when $p$ or $r=1, \infty$ is included in the assumption of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.2}
but not in that of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.3}.
It is because our proof is based on the boundedness of Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator.
See next section.

The main idea for the proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.3}
is to express $\| F(u) \|_{\dot H_p^s}$ with $(\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) F(u)$
like the proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.2}.
Since $\dot H_p^s$ seems not to be expressed like \eqref{eq:1.3},
we rewrite each dyadic components of $F(u)$ by $(\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) F(u)$.
Namely, the identity
	\begin{align}
	Q_j F(u)(x) = \frac 1 2 \int (\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) F(u)(x) \psi_j(y) dy
	\label{eq:1.4}
	\end{align}
plays a critical role in this paper,
where $Q_j$ is the standard $j$-th Littlewood-Paley dyadic operator
and $\psi_j$ is the corresponding kernel.
The details of $Q_j$ and $\psi_j$ are stated in next section.
We note that the identity
	\[
	Q_j F(u)(x) = \int (\tau_y - 1) F(u)(x) \psi_j(y) dy
	\]
plays an essential role in \cite{CW91} as well.
In this paper,
we deploy a similar but more careful approach with \eqref{eq:1.4}.

Our second purpose is to extend Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4} below
following from Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1}.
Here we put $a_+ = \max(a,0)$ and $a_- = \min(a,0)$ for $a \in \mathbb R$.
\begin{Corollary}
\label{Corollary:1.4}
Let $s \in (0,1)$, $\rho \geq 1$.
Let $1 \leq p < \infty$ and $1 < q, r < \infty$ satisfy
\eqref{eq:1.1}.
Then the estimate
	\begin{align*}
	&\| F_\rho (u) - F_\rho (v) \|_{\dot H^s_p}\\
	&\lesssim (\| u \|_{L^q(\rho-1)} + \| v\|_{L^q(\rho-1)} )^{\rho-1} \| u - v\|_{\dot H_r^s}\\
	&+ (\| u \|_{\dot H_r^s} + \| v\|_{\dot H_r^s} )
	(\| u \|_{L^q(\rho-1)} + \| u \|_{L^q(\rho-1)})^{(\rho-2)_+}
	\| u - v\|_{L^q(\rho-1)}^{\min(\rho-1,1)}
	\end{align*}
holds for any $u \in \dot H_r^s \cap L^{q(\rho-1)}$.
\end{Corollary}

Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4} corresponds to the identity
	\[
	\nabla (u^\rho - v^\rho)
	= \rho u^{\rho-1} \nabla(u-v) + \rho ( u^{\rho-1} - v^{\rho-1} ) \nabla v .
	\]
Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4} is as worthy as Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1}
to show the locally-in-time well-posedness of semilinear PDEs.
We remark that Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4} is not necessarily
to construct solutions with a contraction argument
because one may deploy a contraction argument in the ball of $\dot H_p^s$
with the distance of $L^p$, for example.
However, the proof of the continuous dependence of solution maps for initial data
may require Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4}.

Our second purpose is to extend Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4}
to the case where $s \in (1,2)$.
Namely, the second main statement of this paper is
\begin{Proposition}
\label{Proposition:1.5}
Let $\rho \in (1,2)$ and $s \in (1,\rho)$.
Let $1 \leq p < \infty$, $1 < r < \infty$, $(\rho-1)^{-1} < q < \infty$ satisfy
\eqref{eq:1.1}.
Let $d_{\rho,s} \in (0, \rho - s)$.
Then
	\begin{align*}
	&\| F_\rho (u) - F_\rho (v) \|_{\dot H^s_p}\\
	&\lesssim (\| u \|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}} + \| v\|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}} )^{\rho-1} \| u - v\|_{\dot H_r^s}\\
	&+ (\| u \|_{\dot H_r^s} + \| v\|_{\dot H_r^s} )
	(\| u \|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}} + \| v\|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}} )^{\rho - 1 - d_{\rho,s}}
	\| u - v\|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}}^{d_{\rho,s}}.
	\end{align*}
\end{Proposition}

We note that
an extension of Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4} in the framework of Besov spaces was given in
\cite[Proposition 2.1]{ON99} and \cite[Lemma 6.2]{FIW}.
We remark that
on the analogy of classical chain rules,
it is expected that Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.5} may hold with $d_{\rho,s} = \rho -s$
but a similar technical difficulty arises in both Sobolev and Besov frameworks.
We also remark that the case where $\rho = s$ is hopeless to extend Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.5}
because of the failure of classical analogy, say $|x| \not \in C^1$, for example.

In the next section,
we collect some notation and basic estimates.
In section \ref{section:3},
we revisit the proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} for the completeness.
In section \ref{section:4},
we give the proofs of Propositions \ref{Proposition:1.3} and \ref{Proposition:1.5}

\section{Preliminary}
\subsection{Notation}
Here we collect some notation.

Let $\mathcal S$ be the Schwartz class.
Let $\psi \in \mathcal S$ be radial and satisfy
	\[
	\mathrm{supp} \ \mathfrak F \psi \subset \{ \xi \ \mid \ 1/2 \leq |\xi| \leq 2 \}
	\]
and
	\[
	\sum_{j} \mathfrak F \psi(2^{-j} \xi) = 1
	\]
for $\xi \neq 0$.
For $j \in \mathbb Z$,
let $\psi_j = 2^{jn} \psi(2^{j} \cdot)$ so that $\| \psi_j \|_{L^1} = \| \psi \|_{L^1}$
and let $Q_j = \psi_j \ast$.
We also put $\widetilde Q_j = Q_{j-1} + Q_j + Q_{j+1}$ and $\widetilde \psi_j = \psi_{j-1} + \psi_j + \psi_{j+1}$.
We remark that $\widetilde Q_j Q_j = Q_j$ holds for any $j$.
It is known that
for $s \in \mathbb R$ and $1 < p,q < \infty$,
the homogeneous Sobolev and Triebel-Lizorkin norms are equivalent,
that is,
	\[
	\| f \|_{\dot H_p^s}
	\sim
	\| 2^{js} Q_j f \|_{L^p(\ell^2)}.
	\]
For the details of this equivalence,
we refer the reader to \cite[Theorem 5.1.2]{G}, for example.
For $f \in L_{\mathrm{loc}}^1$, we define the Hardy-Littlewood maximal operator by
	\[
	Mf(x) = \sup_{r > 0} \frac{1}{|B(r)|} \int_{B(r)} |f(x+y)| dy
	\]
and
	\[
	M^{(\eta)} f(x) = M(|f|^\eta)^{1/\eta}
	\]
for $\eta > 0$,
where $B(r) \subset \mathbb R^d$ is the ball with radius $r$ centered at the origin.
It is known that $M$ is bounded operator on $L^p$ and $L^p(\ell^q)$ for $1 < p,q < \infty$
(See \cite[Theorems 2.1.6 and 4.6.6]{G} and reference therein).
Moreover, for $1 \leq p < \infty$,
we define weighted $L^p$ norm with weight function $w$ by
	\[
	\| f \|_{L_w^p} = \bigg( \int |f|^p w dx \bigg)^{1/p}.
	\]

\subsection{Basic Estimates}
Here we collect some estimates.

\begin{Lemma}[{\cite[Theorem :2.1.10]{G}}]
\label{Lemma:2.1}
Let $w \in L^1$ be a positive radially decreasing function.
Then the estimate
	\[
	|w \ast g(x)| \leq \| w \|_{L^1} Mg(x)
	\]
holds for any $x \in \mathbb R^n$.
\end{Lemma}

\begin{Lemma}
\label{Lemma:2.2}
	\begin{align*}
	| \widetilde Q_j g(x+y) - \widetilde Q_j g(x) |
	&\lesssim
	M g(x) + M g(x+y),\\
	| \widetilde Q_j g(x+y) - 2 \widetilde Q_j g(x) + \widetilde Q_j g(x-y) |
	&\lesssim M g(x+y) + Mg(x) + M g(x-y).
	\end{align*}
Moreover, if $|y| < 2^{-j}$, then we have
	\begin{align*}
	| \widetilde Q_j g(x+y) - \widetilde Q_j g(x) |
	&\lesssim
	2^j |y| Mg(x),\\
	| \widetilde Q_j g(x+y) - 2 \widetilde Q_j g(x) + \widetilde Q_j g(x-y) |
	&\lesssim
	2^{2j} |y|^2 Mg(x).
	\end{align*}

\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
The estimates for $| \widetilde Q_j g(x+y) - \widetilde Q_j g(x) |$ is given in \cite{CW91}
but for completeness, we give the proof.

The first two estimate follows directly from Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.1}.

By the fundamental theorem calculus implies that the following identities hold:
	\[
	\psi_j(x+y) - \psi_j(x)
	= \int_0^1 (\nabla \psi)_j(x + \theta y) d \theta \cdot 2^j y
	\]
and
	\begin{align*}
	&\psi_j(x+y) - 2 \psi_j(x) + \psi_j(x-y)\\
	&= \int_0^1 ((\nabla \psi)_j(x+\theta y) - (\nabla \psi)_j(x-\theta y)) d \theta \cdot 2^j y\\
	&= \sum_{|\alpha|=2} \int_0^1 \int_0^1 (\partial^\alpha \psi)_j(x+ (2\theta'-1) \theta y)) d \theta'
	d \theta \cdot 2^{2j} y^2.
	\end{align*}
Since for $|\alpha| \leq 2$, if $|y| < 2^{-j}$,
	\[
	(\partial^\alpha \psi)_j(x+y)
	\lesssim 2^j (2+2^j|x+y|)^{-n-1}
	\leq 2^j (1+2^j|x|)^{-n-1},
	\]
Then the third and fourth estimates are obtained by
combining this and Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.1}.
\end{proof}

\begin{Lemma}
\label{Lemma:2.3}
For $0 < S < S'$, $P \geq 1$, and $a \in \ell^P$,
the following estimate holds:
	\[
	\| 2^{jS} \sum_{k} 2^{(k-j)_-S'} a_k \|_{\ell_j^P}
	\leq \bigg( \frac{1}{2^S-1} + \frac{1}{2^{S'-S}-1} \bigg) \| 2^{ks} a_k \|_{\ell_k^P}.
	\]
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
By the Minkowski inequality, we have
	\begin{align*}
	\| 2^{jS} \sum_{k < j} 2^{(k-j)_-S'} a_k \|_{\ell_j^P}
	&= \| 2^{jS} \sum_{\ell < 0} 2^{\ell s'} a_{\ell + j} \|_{\ell_j^P}
	+ \| 2^{jS} \sum_{\ell \geq 0} a_{\ell + j} \|_{\ell_j^P}\\
	&\leq \sum_{\ell < 0} 2^{\ell (S'-S)} \| 2^{s(\ell+j)} a_{\ell + j} \|_{\ell_j^P}
	+ \sum_{\ell < 0} 2^{- \ell S} \| 2^{S(\ell+j)} a_{\ell + j} \|_{\ell_j^P}\\
	&\leq \frac{2}{2^{S'-S}-1} \| 2^{Sk} a_{k} \|_{\ell_k^P}
	+ \frac{1}{2^S-1} \| 2^{S k} a_{k} \|_{\ell_k^P}.
	\end{align*}
\end{proof}

\begin{Lemma}
\label{Lemma:2.4}
Let $0 < S < 1$ and $1 \leq P,Q < \infty$.
The following estimate holds:
	\begin{align*}
	&\| 2^{jS} \| v(y+x) (u(y + x) - u(x)) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^P} \|_{\ell_j^Q}\\
	& \lesssim M^{(P)} v(x) \| 2^{ks} M Q_k u  \|_{\ell_k^Q}
	+ \| 2^{ks} M^{(P)} (v M Q_k u)(x)  \|_{\ell_k^Q}
	\end{align*}
\end{Lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $w \in L^1$ be smooth radially decreasing function satisfying
	\[
	w(x) \geq (1+|x|)^P |\psi(x)|
	\]
and put $w_j = 2^{jn} w(2^{j} \cdot)$.
Lemmas \ref{Lemma:2.1} and \ref{Lemma:2.2} imply that
we have
	\begin{align*}
	&\| v(y+x) (u(y + x) - u(x)) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^P}\\
	&= \sum_k \| v(y+x)(\widetilde Q_k Q_k u(y + x) - \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x)) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^P}\\
	&\leq \sum_{k < j} 2^{k} \| y v(y+x) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^P} M Q_k u(x)\\
	&+ \sum_{k \geq j} \bigg(
		\| v(y+x) MQ_ku(x+y) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^P} + M Q_k u(x) \| v(y+x) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^P}\bigg)\\
	&\leq \| w \|_{L^1} \sum_{k < j} 2^{k-j} M^{(P)} v(x) M Q_k u(x)\\
	&+ \| w \|_{L^1} \sum_{k \geq j} \bigg( M^{(P)}( v MQ_ku) (x) + M^{(p)} v(x) M Q_k u(x) \bigg).
	\end{align*}
Therefore, Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.4} follows from these estimates above and Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.3}.
\end{proof}

\begin{Corollary}
\label{Corollary:2.5}
Let $0 < S < 1$, $1 \leq P_0 < 2$.
Let $P_0 < P <\infty$ and $1 < Q,R < \infty$ satisfy
	\[
	\frac 1 P = \frac 1 Q + \frac 1 R.
	\]
The estimates
	\[
	\| 2^{jS} \| (u(y + \cdot) - u(\cdot)) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{P_0}} \|_{L^P(\ell_j^2)}
	\lesssim \| u \|_{\dot H_P^s}
	\]
and
	\[
	\| 2^{jS} \| v(y+\cdot) (u(y + \cdot) - u(\cdot)) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{P_0}} \|_{L^P(\ell_j^2)}
	\lesssim \| v \|_{L^Q} \| u  \|_{\dot H_R^S}
	\]
hold.
\end{Corollary}

\begin{proof}
For $P_1 > P_0$,
the boundedness of $M$ implies that we have
	\[
	\| M^{(P_0)} f \|_{L^{P_1}}
	= \| M|f|^{P_0} \|_{L^{P_1/P_0}}^{1/P_0}
	\lesssim \| |f|^{P_0} \|_{L^{P_1/P_0}}^{1/P_0}
	= \| f \|_{L^{P_1}}.
	\]
Since $P_0 < P < Q$,
Corollary \ref{Corollary:2.5} follows from Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.4} and the H\"older inequality.
\end{proof}

\section{Revisit of the Chain rules when $s \in (0,1)$}
\label{section:3}
In this section,
we revisit the proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} and Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4}.
The proofs are essentially given in \cite{CW91} but for completeness,
we give the proofs.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1}]
Since $\int \psi(y) dy = 0$,
the identity
	\[
	Q_j F(u)(x) = \int F(u)(x+y) - F(u)(y) \psi_j(y) dy
	\]
holds for any $x \in \mathbb R^n$ and $j \in \mathbb Z$.
Therefore, Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.1} follows from
Corollary \ref{Corollary:2.5} with $(v,P_0,P,Q,R,S)$ replaced by $(G(u),1,p,q,r,s)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4}]
The identity
	\begin{align*}
	&Q_j F_\rho(u)(x) - Q_j F_\rho(v)(x)\\
	&= \int (F_\rho(u)(x+y) - F_\rho(u)(y) + F_\rho(v)(x+y) - F_\rho(v)(x)) \psi_j(y) dy
	\end{align*}
holds.
The fundamental theorem of calculus implies that the identity
	\begin{align*}
	&F_\rho(u)(x+y) - F_\rho(u)(y) + F_\rho(v)(x+y) - F_\rho(v)(x)\\
	&= \{ (u - v)(x+y) - (u-v)(x) \} \int_0^1 F_\rho'(\theta u(x+y) + (1-\theta) u(x)) d \theta\\
	&+ \{ v(x+y) - v(x) \} \\
	&\cdot \int_0^1 \{ F_\rho'(\theta u(x+y) + (1-\theta) u(x)) - F_\rho'(\theta v(x+y) + (1-\theta) v(x)) \}
	d \theta.
	\end{align*}
holds.
The identity above and \eqref{eq:1.2} imply that the estimate
	\begin{align*}
	&| F_\rho(u)(x+y) - F_\rho(u)(y) + F_\rho(v)(x+y) - F_\rho(v)(x)|\\
	&\lesssim ( |u(x+y)|^{\rho-1} + |u(x)|^{\rho-1}) | (u - v)(x+y) - (u-v)(x) |\\
	&+ ( |u(x+y)| + |u(x)| + |v(x+y)| + |v(x)|)^{(\rho-2)_+}\\
	&\cdot (|(u-v)(x+y)| + |(u-v)(x)|)^{\rho-1}
	| (u - v)(x+y) - (u-v)(x) |
	\end{align*}
holds.
Therefore, Corollary \ref{Corollary:1.4} follows from
Corollary \ref{Corollary:2.5} and the estimates above.
\end{proof}

\section{Proofs of the Chain rules when $s \in (1,2)$}
\label{section:4}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.3}]
We note that
it is shown in \cite[(3.26)]{GOV94} that the estimate
	\begin{align}
	|(\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) F_\rho(u)(x)|
	&\lesssim |u(x)|^{\rho-1} |u(x+y) - 2 u(x) + u(x-y)|
	\nonumber\\
	&+ |u(x+y) - u(x)|^\rho + |u(x-y) - u(x)|^\rho
	\label{eq:4.1}
	\end{align}
holds.
Moreover, the symmetry of $\psi$ and $\int \psi = 0$ imply that we have
	\begin{align}
	Q_j F_\rho(u)(x)
	&= \int F_\rho(u)(x+y) \psi_j(y) dy
	\nonumber\\
	&= \int F_\rho(u)(x-y) \psi_j(y) dy
	\nonumber\\
	&= \frac 1 2 \int (F_\rho(u)(x+y) + F_\rho(u)(x-y)) \psi_j(y) dy
	\nonumber\\
	&= \frac 1 2 \int (\tau_y - 2 + \tau_{-y}) F_\rho(u)(x) \psi_j(y) dy
	\label{eq:4.2}
	\end{align}
From \eqref{eq:4.1} and \eqref{eq:4.2},
the estimate
	\begin{align}
	|Q_j F(u)(x)|
	&\lesssim |u(x)|^{\rho - 1} \int |u(x+y) - 2 u(x) + u(x-y)| | \psi_j(y)| dy
	\nonumber\\
	&+ \int |u(x+y) - u(x)|^p |\psi_j(y)| dy
	\label{eq:4.3}
	\end{align}
follows.
Put $w (x)$ be radially decreasing function with $w(x) \geq (1+|x|^2) |\psi(x)|$.
By Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.2}, when $k<j$,
the first term on the RHS of \eqref{eq:4.3} is estimated by
	\begin{align*}
	&\int_{|y| < C 2^{-k}}
	| \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x+y) - 2 \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x) + \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x-y) |
	|\psi_j(y)| dy\\
	&\leq M Q_k u(x) \int_{|y| < C 2^{-k}} 2^{2(k-j)} \omega_j(y) dy\\
	&\lesssim 2^{2(k-j)} M Q_k u(x).
	\end{align*}
Similarly, when $k \geq j$, it is estimated by
	\begin{align*}
	&\int_{|y| > 2^{-k}}
	| \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x+y) - 2 \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x) + \widetilde Q_k Q_k u(x-y) |
	|\psi_j(y) |dy\\
	&\lesssim 2^{2(k-j)} \int_{|y| > 2^{-k}}
	(2 M Q_k u(x+y) + 2 M Q_k u(x) |
	\omega_j(y) dy\\
	&\lesssim 2^{2(k-j)} (M Q_k u(x) + M^2 Q_k u(x)).
	\end{align*}
Therefore, the estimates above and Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.3} imply that we have
	\begin{align}
	&\| 2^{js} |u|^{\rho-1} \int |u(\cdot+y) - 2 u(\cdot) + u(\cdot-y)| | \psi_j(y)| dy \|_{L^p(\ell^2)}
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim \| 2^{ks} |u|^{\rho-1} (M Q_k u + M^2 Q_k u) \|_{L^p(\ell^2)}
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim \| u \|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}}^{\rho-1} \| u \|_{\dot H_r^s}.
	\label{eq:4.4}
	\end{align}
Moreover, by the Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.4},
the second term of the RHS of \eqref{eq:4.3} satisfy the estimate
	\begin{align}
	\| 2^{js} \|u(\cdot + y) - u(\cdot) \|_{L_{\psi_j}^\rho}^\rho \|_{L^p(\ell^2)}
	&= \| 2^{js/\rho} \|u(\cdot + y) - u(\cdot) \|_{L_{\psi_j}^\rho}\|_{L^{\rho p}(\ell^2)}^{\rho}
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim \| 2^{ks/\rho} M^{(\rho)} Q_k u \|_{L^{\rho p}(\ell^2)}^{\rho}
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim \| u \|_{\dot H_{\rho p}^{s/\rho}}^{\rho}
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim \| u \|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}}^{\rho-1} \| u \|_{\dot H_r^s},
	\label{eq:4.5}
	\end{align}
where we have used the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality to obtain the last estimate.
For the details of the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality,
we refer the reader to \cite[Corollary 2.4]{HMOW11} and reference therein.
Combining \eqref{eq:4.4} and \eqref{eq:4.5},
we obtain Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.3}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition \ref{Proposition:1.5}]
For simplicity, we denote $d_{\rho,s}$ by $d$.
We note that the estimate
	\begin{align}
	&| (\tau_y -2 + \tau_{-y})(F_\rho (u) - F_\rho (v))(x)|
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim \max_{z \in \{x, x+y, x-y\} } |u(z)|^{\rho-1} | (\tau_y -2 + \tau_{-y}) (z-w)(x)|
	\nonumber\\
	& + \max_{z \in \{x, x+y, x-y\}} |u(z)|^{\rho-1} | (\tau_y -2 + \tau_{-y}) w(x)|
	\nonumber\\
	& + (|(\tau_y-1)u(x)| + |(\tau_{-y}-1)u(x)|)^{\rho-1} |(\tau_y-1)(u-v)(x)|
	\nonumber\\
	& + |(\tau_{-y}-1)u(x)| \min( \sigma, \max_{z \in \{x, x+y, x-y\}} |(u-v)(z)| )^{\rho-1}
	\label{eq:4.6}
	\end{align}
holds, where
	\[
	\sigma
	= |(\tau_y-1)u(x)| + |(\tau_{-y}-1)u(x)|
	+|(\tau_y-1)v(x)| + |(\tau_{-y}-1)v(x)|.
	\]
For the details of the estimate above, see \cite[Lemma:A.1]{FIW}.
Therefore,
the proof of proposition \ref{Proposition:1.5},
it is sufficient to show
	\begin{align}
	&\| 2^{js} \| B(u,v)(\cdot,y) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^1} \|_{L^p(\ell^2)}
	\nonumber\\
	&\lesssim
	(\| u \|_{\dot H_r^s} + \| v\|_{\dot H_r^s} )
	(\| u \|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}} + \| v\|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}} )^{\rho - 1 - d_{\rho,s}}
	\| u - v\|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}}^{d_{\rho,s}}.
	\label{eq:4.7}
	\end{align}
where
	\[
	B(u,v)(x,y)
	= | u(x+y) - u(x)| |v(x+y)-v(x)|^{\rho- 1 - d}
	|u(x+y)-v(x+y)|^d.
	\]
The other terms on the RHS of \eqref{eq:4.6}
may be treated like the argument above so we omit the detail.
Put
	\[
	q_0 = q \frac{\rho-1}{d}
	\qquad \mathrm{and} \qquad
	r_0 = \frac{p q_0}{q_0-p}.
	\]
Then the H\"older inequality and Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.1} imply that we have
	\begin{align*}
	&\| B(u,v)(x,y) \|_{L^1_{\psi_j,y}}\\
	&\leq \| |(u-v)(x+y)|^d \|_{L^{q_0/p}_{\psi_j,y}}
	\| |u(x+y)-u(x)| | v(x+y) - v(x)|^{\rho-1 - d} \|_{L^{r_0/p}_{\psi_j,y}}\\
	&\lesssim (M^{(q (\rho-1)/p)}|u-v|(x))^d\\
	&\cdot \| u(x+y)-u(x) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{(\rho-d)r_0/p}}
	\| v(x+y)-v(x) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{(\rho-d)r_0/p}}^{\rho- d-1}.
	\end{align*}
Then Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.1} and Corollary \ref{Corollary:2.5} imply that
the estimates
	\begin{align*}
	&\| 2^{js} \| B(u,v)(\cdot,y) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^1} \|_{L^p(\ell^2)}\\
	&\lesssim \| M^{(q (\rho-1)/p)}|u-v| \|_{L^{dq_0}}^d\\
	&\cdot \| 2^{j s/(\rho-d)}
	\| u(\cdot+y)-u(\cdot) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{(\rho-d)r_0/p}} \|_{L^{r_0(\rho-d)}(\ell^2)}\\
	&\cdot \| 2^{j s/(\rho-d)} \| v(\cdot+y)-v(\cdot) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{(\rho-d)r_0/p}}
	\|_{L^{r_0(\rho-d)}(\ell^2)}^{\rho - d - 1}\\
	&\lesssim \| u-v \|_{L^{q(\rho-1)}}^d
	\| u \|_{\dot H_{r_0(\rho-d)}^{s/(\rho-d)}}
	\| v \|_{\dot H_{r_0(\rho-d)}^{s/(\rho-d)}}^{\rho-d-1}
	\end{align*}
hold.
Then \eqref{eq:4.7} follows from the estimates above and the Gagliardo-Nirenberg inequality.
\end{proof}

\begin{Remark}
In the proof above,
one cannot take $d = \rho - s$
because
	\[
	\| 2^{j} \| u(\cdot+y)-u(\cdot) \|_{L_{\psi_j,y}^{(\rho-d)r_0/p}} \|_{L^{r_0(\rho-d)}(\ell^2)}
	\]
is not controlled by Lemma \ref{Lemma:2.4}.
\end{Remark}

\section*{Acknowledgment}
The author is supported by JSPS Early-Career Scientists 20K14337.


A regular $n$-gon spiral

Abstract: We construct a polygonal spiral by arranging a sequence of regular $n$-gons such that each $n$-gon shares a specified side and vertex with the $(n+1)$-gon in the construction. By offering flexibility for determining the size of each $n$-gon in the spiral, we show that a number of different analytical and asymptotic behaviors can be achieved.

\section{Introduction}

Spirals are pervasive in fluid motion, biological structures, and engineering, affording numerous applications of mathematical spirals in modeling real-world phenomena \cite[ch.~11-14]{Thompson} \cite{Davis, Hammer}. Polygonal spirals are loosely defined as spirals that can be constructed using a sequence of polygons obeying a geometric relation. For example, in Fig. \ref{theo_spiral} we show how to join together right triangles in an infinite sequence to obtain the spiral of Theodorus---one of the oldest and most well-studied polygonal spirals \cite{Brink, Davis}.

\begin{figure}[!htb]
    \begin{centering}
	\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Theodorus_Spiral2.png}
	\caption{Plot of the first 7 triangles in the spiral of Theodorus. The sequence of shared vertex points $\vn{}{n}$ and the interpolation curve proposed by Davis \cite[p.~38]{Davis} are also shown.}
    \label{theo_spiral}
    \end{centering}
\end{figure}
 In Fig. \ref{theo_spiral}, we let $\vn{}{n}$ denote the unique non-origin shared vertex of the triangle with hypotenuse $\sqrt{n}$ and the triangle with hypotenuse $\sqrt{n+1}$. Considerable attention has been given to studying the sequence $\vn{}{n}$ \cite{Brink, Davis, Gautschi, Hlawka}. The \textit{key idea} in the spiral of Theodorus construction is to define a sequence of polygons (i.e., right triangles) such that consecutive polygons share a unique side and at least one unique vertex point. By changing right triangles to similar triangles, or other types of similar polygons, we find that this idea is ubiquitous in the literature on polygonal spirals \cite{Anatriello, Strizhevsky, Yap} \cite[ch.~34]{Hammer}.

In this paper, we make use of this key idea to construct a spiral made out of a sequence of regular $n$-gons. In particular, we start by considering the case where all the $n$-gons are normalized to have perimeter $1$ (see Fig. \ref{lam1}). We begin the construction with an equilateral triangle with side length $\frac{1}{3}$ in the first quadrant of the complex plane. Along the upper right edge of the triangle, we construct a square with side length $\frac{1}{4}$. We continue in this way, following Definition \ref{dcon}, to construct the pentagon, hexagon, etc., leading to the construction shown below.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
    \begin{centering}
	\includegraphics[width= 0.6\textwidth]{spiral_s=1.png}
	\caption{Plot of the first few polygons of the Definition \ref{dcon} construction (choosing $l(n) = \frac{1}{n}$). The shared vertex points $\vn{}{n}$ (see Lemma \ref{lamv}) and a smooth interpolation curve defined in equation \ref{interp} are also shown.}
    \label{lam1}
    \end{centering}
\end{figure}

\noindent We desire to find the $n \to \infty$ limit behavior of the sequence $V(n)$ shown in the Fig. \ref{lam1} construction. In particular, we pose a slightly more general question: if the side length of each $n$-gon in the Fig. \ref{lam1} construction is instead given by $\ell_s(n) = n^{-s}$, for which values of $s \in \mathbb{R}$ does the sequence $\vn{\ell_s}{n}$ converge as $n \to \infty$? The answer to this question is one of the main results of this paper:

\begin{theorem}[Convergence of $\vn{\ell_s}{n}$]
\label{thm1}
\begin{flalign*}
    \text{ As } n \to \infty,  \hspace{1mm} \vn{\ell_s}{n} & \begin{cases}
    \text{converges to a point when } s > 0.\\
    \text{converges to a circular orbit when } s=0.\\
    \text{diverges when } s < 0.
    \end{cases}
\end{flalign*}
\end{theorem}

We conclude the introduction by outlining the rest of the paper. In Section \ref{construct}, we formally define the geometric construction of the $n$-gon spiral (Definition \ref{dcon}) with an arbitrary length function, leading to a formula for the shared polygon vertex points (Lemma \ref{lamv}). In Section \ref{converge}, we use Lemma \ref{lamv} to prove Theorem \ref{thm1}, and then give a corollary to the theorem. In Section \ref{telescoping_spiral}, we introduce a special case of the $n$-gon spiral which admits particularly nice algebraic expressions, including a closed form analytic continuation of the discrete spiral to real values of $n$ (Theorem \ref{thm_analytic}) and an appearance of the golden ratio (Remark \ref{rem1}).

\section{The formal construction}
\label{construct}

\begin{definition}[Construction of the $n$-gon spiral $\pp{l}$]\
\label{dcon}

\begin{enumerate}
    \item Starting with $n=2$, the $n$th polygon in the spiral construction is a regular $n$-gon with side length $l(n)$, where $l: \mathbb{N} \to \mathbb{R}$.

    \item Consecutive polygons share a side and at least one vertex. Only consecutive polygons may share a side.

    \item Shared vertices of each polygon are consecutive vertices, and the side connecting two shared vertices is not a shared side.

    \item Consecutive polygons do not overlap (i.e. the shared area between consecutive polygons is 0).

    \item \textit{Notation:} let $\pp{l}$ represent the infinite sequence of polygons defined via $1$--$4$ above.
\begin{itemize}
    \item In this sequence, $\pn{l}{n}$ represents the $n$-gon in $\pp{l}$.
    \item Let $\vv{l}$ denote the infinite sequence of shared vertex points of $\pp{l}$. In this sequence, $\vn{l}{n}$ represents the vertex of $\pn{l}{n}$ and $\pn{l}{n+1}$ that is shared for all choices of $l(n)$.
    \item Let $\cc{l}$ denote the infinite sequence of polygon centers of $\pp{l}$. In this sequence, $\cn{l}{n}$ represents the center of $\pn{l}{n}$.
\end{itemize}

\end{enumerate}

\end{definition}

Once the \textit{length function} $l(n)$ is chosen and the coordinates of the $2$-gon and $3$-gon are given, Definition \ref{dcon} fully determines $\pp{l}$. We will see in the next section that there is an algebraically simplest orientation of the construction in the complex plane, which we will adopt.
With the rules for construction laid out, we desire to obtain a formula for the shared vertex point $\vn{l}{n}$.

We begin by following Definition \ref{dcon} to draw an arbitrary $n$-gon and $(n+1)$-gon in the $\pp{l}$ construction. Using that the interior angles of a regular $n$-gon are $\alpha_n := \frac{\pi(n-2)}{n}$ radians, we want to find the angle with respect to the horizontal ($\theta_n$) that must be followed to get from the shared vertex point $\vn{l}{n-1}$ to $\vn{l}{n}$, pictured in Fig. \ref{angles}. In this diagram, we assume $\theta_n, \theta_{n+1} < \pi$. Equivalent results (mod $2\pi$) are obtained by considering the other relevant cases.

\begin{figure}[!htb]
    \begin{centering}
	\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{geom_deriv.png}
	\caption{$\pp{l}$ angular relationships.}
    \label{angles}
    \end{centering}
\end{figure}

In the Fig. \ref{angles} diagram, we observe that the horizontal (dotted) lines for defining $\theta_n$ and $\theta_{n+1}$ are cut by a transversal (a side of the $n$-gon). Therefore, the angles $\theta_n$ and $\beta = \alpha_n + \alpha_{n+1} - \theta_{n+1}$ in Fig. \ref{angles} are supplementary, which affords an angular recurrence:
\begin{equation}
     \theta_n + \beta = \pi \implies \theta_{n+1} = \theta_{n} + \frac{(n-2)\pi}{n} + \frac{(n-1)\pi}{n+1} - \pi, \hspace{2mm} n > 1. \label{t1_recurrence}
\end{equation}

To solve the recurrence for $\theta_n$, we need a starting value for $\theta_2$---a choice which determines the orientation of $\pp{l}$ in the complex plane. Appealing to simplicity, we find that choosing $\theta_2 = -3 \pi$ ensures that there is no nontrivial constant rotation applied to all elements of $\pp{l}$ (i.e. $\theta_n$ mod $2\pi$ has no constant additive term). This choice affords the orientation shown in Fig. \ref{lam1}.

With $\theta_2$ in hand, we note that (\ref{t1_recurrence}) is a first order linear recurrence, and thus $\theta_{n+1}$ can be rewritten as a sum. Simplification of the resulting sum yields the angular relation for $\pp{l}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{t1}
    \theta_n = 2\pi\Big(\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1}{n}-2 H_n\Big), \hspace{2mm} n > 1,
\end{equation}

\noindent where $H_n$ is the $n$th harmonic number.

Using (\ref{t1}), we are now ready to write down analytical expressions for the shared vertex points $\vn{l}{n}$. Examining Fig. \ref{angles}, we find that each shared vertex point $\vn{l}{n}$ can be written as a the sum over the integers $2 \leq k \leq n$ of the $k$-gon side length $l(k)$ multiplied by the corresponding rotation, $e^{i \theta_k}$. We define $\vn{l}{2} := 0$ to start the spiral from the origin.

\begin{lem}[Expression for shared vertex points of the $n$-gon spiral]\
\label{lamv}
\begin{equation*}
    \vn{l}{n} = \sum_{k=3}^n l(k) \hspace{1mm} e^{i \theta_k} = \sum_{k=3}^n (-1)^k l(k) \hspace{1mm} e^{2 \pi i (\frac{1}{k} - 2H_k)}, \hspace{2mm} n \in \mathbb{N}_{> 1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}

Since $\pp{l}$ consists of regular polygons, there is a natural relationship between the sequences $\pp{l},\vv{l},$ and $\cc{l}$. We can explicitly solve for $\cn{l}{n}$ by constructing the isosceles triangle with vertices $\vn{l}{n-1}$ and $\vn{l}{n}$ and an apex angle of $\frac{2 \pi}{n}$ radians. This recovers the expression for $\vn{l}{n}$ plus a much simpler function, $Q_l(n)$:

\begin{lem}[Expression for polygon centers of the $n$-gon spiral]\
\label{lamc}
\label{centers}
\begin{equation*}
    \cn{l}{n} = \vn{l}{n} + Q_l(n), \hspace{ 2mm} \text{where } Q_l(n) = \frac{(-1)^n l(n) e^{2 \pi i (\frac{1}{n} -2H_n)}}{e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}} - 1}.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}

Lemma \ref{lamc} makes it clear that understanding of the behavior of $\vv{l}$ and $Q_l$ is sufficient for understanding the behavior of $\cc{l}$, and hence $\pp{l}$. \textit{As such, we will frequently refer to the sequence of shared vertex points $\vv{l}$ as ``the $n$-gon spiral."}

\noindent We use the standard technique to obtain a smooth continuation of $\vn{l}{n}$ to real $n$:
\begin{equation}
\label{interp}
    \tilde{V}_l(n) := \sum_{k=3}^{\infty} l(k) \hspace{1mm} e^{i \theta_k} - l(k-2+n) \hspace{1mm} e^{i \theta_{k-2+n}}, \hspace{2mm} n \in \mathbb{R}_{> 1}.
\end{equation}

\section{Spiral convergence}
\label{converge}

As a step toward understanding the convergence properties of the $n$-gon spiral, we will analyze convergence in the case where the length function is $\ell_s(n) = n^{-s}$, $s \in \mathbb{R}$. For conciseness, we assign $W(s) := \lim_{n \to \infty} \vn{\ell_s}{n}$ to denote the desired limit.

\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{subfigure}{0.59\textwidth}
	\centering\captionsetup{width=.9\linewidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{spiral_s=0.png}
	\caption{The first few polygons of the spiral $\pp{\ell_0}$ $(s=0)$ plotted with the sequence of shared vertices $\vv{\ell_0}$ and the interpolation curve given by (\ref{interp}). We observe the convergence of $\vv{\ell_0}$ to a circular orbit (Theorem \ref{thm1}). Using Euler's transform for alternating series, we find numerically that the center of this circular orbit is at $\lim_{s \to 0^+} W(s) = 1.21711960256553... + i \hspace{1mm} 2.68541404871695...$}
	\label{n=0_spiral}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.37\textwidth}
    \centering\captionsetup{width=.94\linewidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{parametric_spiral_med2.png}
	\caption{The  convergence points $W(s)$ for $s \in \mathbb{R}^+$ trace out a curve in the complex plane (black). We also plot ten spirals (from $s=0.0000726$ to $s=1.77$, interpolated by (\ref{interp})) with convergence points that are equally spaced along the curve.}
	\label{conv_curve}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Illustration of Theorem \ref{thm1}.}
	\label{spiral_comparison}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}]

We aim to characterize the limit behavior of the sequence of shared vertex points,
\begin{equation}
    W(s) = \sum_{k=3}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^k e^{2 \pi i (\frac{1}{k} - 2H_k)}}{k^s}.
\end{equation}

\noindent \underline{Case 1: $s < 0$.} The terms of the series do not approach 0, hence $W(s)$ diverges.

\bigskip

\noindent \underline{Case 2: $s > 1$.} $W(s)$ is an absolutely convergent series.

\bigskip

\noindent \underline{Case 3: $0 < s \leq 1$.} Letting $f(k):=\exp\big(2\pi i\big(\frac{1}{k}-2H_k\big)\big)$, we first accelerate convergence of $\vn{\ell_s}{n}$ by adding consecutive pairs of terms:
\begin{equation}
\label{Saccel}
    \vn{\ell_s}{2n} = \sum_{k=3}^{2n} \frac{(-1)^k f(k)}{k^s} = \sum_{j=2}^{n} F(j), \text{ where } F(j) := \frac{(2j-1)^sf(2j)-(2j)^sf(2j-1)}{((2j-1)(2j))^s}
\end{equation}

\noindent We now manipulate $F(j)$ in order to show $\vn{\ell_s}{2n}$ is absolutely convergent. To this end, we invoke the identity $H_{2j-1} = H_{2j} - \frac{1}{2j}$ to write $f(2j-1)$ in terms of $f(2j)$:
\begin{equation}
    f(2j-1) = \exp\Big(2\pi i\Big(\frac{1}{2j-1}+\frac{1}{2j}\Big)\Big) f(2j). \label{f2j-1}
\end{equation}

\noindent Plugging (\ref{f2j-1}) and $(2j-1)^s = (2j)^s(1-\frac{1}{2j})^s$ into $F(j)$, we multiply the numerator and denominator of $F(j)$ by $2j-1$, which affords
\begin{equation}
\label{Fj}
    F(j) = \frac{f(2j)\Big((2j-1)\big(1-\frac{1}{2j}\big)^s - (2j-1) \exp\big(2\pi i\big(\frac{1}{2j-1}+\frac{1}{2j}\big)\big)\Big)}{(2j-1)^{1+s}} =: \frac{T(j)}{(2j-1)^{1+s}}.
\end{equation}

\noindent Since $\sum_{j=2}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(2j-1)^{1+s}}$ is convergent for $s \in (0,1)$, showing $\abs*{T(j)}$ is bounded gives the desired convergence result. By the triangle inequality,
\begin{flalign}
    \abs*{T(j)} & < \max \hspace{1mm}\abs*{ (2j-1)\Big(1-\Big(1-\frac{1}{2j}\Big)^s\Big)} + \max \hspace{1mm}\abs*{-(2j-1)\Big(1-\exp\Big(2\pi i \Big(\frac{1}{2j-1} + \frac{1}{2j}\Big)\Big)\Big)} \nonumber\\
    & =: \max(A(j,s)) + \max(B(j))
    \label{Tj}
\end{flalign}

\begin{lem}
\label{maxA}
\begin{equation*}
    \max(A(j,s)) = \lim_{j\to\infty} A(j,s) = s.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
We obtain the $j \to \infty$ limit by direct calculation. To show this is a maximum, we make use of the following Bernoulli-type inequality (which can be readily proved using the binomial theorem):
\begin{equation}
\label{bern}
    1-sy < (1+y)^{-s} < 1 \text{ for } y \in (0,1), \hspace{1mm} s \in (0,1].
\end{equation}
Plugging $y := \frac{1}{2j-1}$ into (\ref{bern}), we simplify to obtain:
\begin{equation}
\label{bernsimp}
    \frac{s}{2j-1} > 1-\Big(1+\frac{1}{2j-1}\Big)^{-s} > 0.
\end{equation}

\noindent Observing that $(1+\frac{1}{2j-1})^{-s} = (1-\frac{1}{2j})^s$, we multiply (\ref{bernsimp}) by $2j-1$ to afford the desired bound:
\begin{equation}
    s > A(j,s) = (2j-1)\Big(1-\Big(1-\frac{1}{2j}\Big)^s\Big) > 0.
\end{equation}
\end{proof}

\begin{lem}
\label{lemBj}
\begin{equation*}
    \max(B(j)) = \lim_{j \to \infty} B(j) = 4\pi.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The $j \to \infty$ limit is obtained by direct calculation. Defining $x(j):=\pi \big(\frac{1}{2j-1}+\frac{1}{2j}\big)$, we have that $x(j) \in (0, \pi)$ for all $j \geq 2$ since $x(2) < \pi$ and $x(j)$ is a monotonically decreasing function. From this, we can simplify $B(j)$ to obtain
\begin{equation}
    B(j):= \abs*{(2j-1)(1-\exp(2 i x))} = 2(2j-1) \sin(x) \text{ for } j \in [2,\infty).
\end{equation}
Calculation of $B'(j)$ reveals
\begin{equation}
    B'(j) = \frac{\pi}{j^2} + 4(\sin x - x \cos x).
\end{equation}
Since $\sin x - x \cos x$ is positive on $(0, \pi)$, $B(j)$ is increasing for all $j \geq 2$.
\end{proof}

 \noindent Plugging Lemmas \ref{maxA} and \ref{lemBj} into (\ref{Tj}) and (\ref{Fj}) implies
 \begin{equation}
     \sum_{j=2}^{\infty} \abs*{F(j)} < (4 \pi + s)\hspace{1mm} 2^{-1-s}\zeta\Big(1+s,\frac{3}{2}\Big),
 \end{equation}
 hence $\sum_{j=2}^{\infty} F(j)$ is absolutely convergent for $s \in (0,1]$. Since the summand of $\vn{\ell_s}{n}$ vanishes as $n \to \infty$, $\lim_{n \to \infty} \vn{\ell_s}{2n+1} = \lim_{n \to \infty} \vn{\ell_s}{2n} = \sum_{j=2}^{\infty} F(j)$, so $W(s)$ is convergent.

\bigskip

\noindent \underline{Case 4: $s = 0$}. As in Case 3, we accelerate convergence of $\vn{\ell_0}{n}$ by pairing terms:
\begin{equation}
    \vn{\ell_0}{2n} = \sum_{j=2}^{n} \big( f(2j) - f(2j-1) \big) =: U(n), \hspace{1mm}\text{where } f(k) := e^{2\pi i (\frac{1}{k}-2H_k)}. \label{Saccel2}
\end{equation}

Let $r \geq 1$ be a rational constant such that $nr \in \mathbb{N}$. We desire to show that the distance between two arbitrary, evenly indexed spiral points $U(nr)$ and $U(n)$ is a sinusoidal function of $r$ in the $n \to \infty$ limit. Hence, we desire to calculate $B(r) := \lim_{n \to \infty} \abs*{U(nr)-U(n)}$.

 Plugging the asymptotic harmonic series expansion $H_n = \gamma + \log(n) + \frac{1}{2n} + \mathcal{O}(n^{-2})$ into $B(r)$, we simplify and apply the Euler-Maclaurin formula to obtain
\begin{equation}
    B(r) = \lim_{n \to \infty} \Bigg\lvert \int_{n}^{nr} \Big(e^{-4\pi i \log(2x)} - e^{-4\pi i \log(2x-1)}\Big)dx + \text{error terms} \hspace{1mm}\Bigg\rvert. \label{EMbound}
\end{equation}

Using standard bounds \cite{Lehmer}, we show that the error terms vanish as $n \to \infty$. After evaluating the integral in (\ref{EMbound}), we make use of Euler's formula to separate real and imaginary parts. Evaluating the desired limit in Mathematica affords
\begin{equation}
    B(r) = \abs*{\sin(2\pi \log r)}. \label{Blim}
\end{equation}

As claimed, we find that the distance between arbitrary points $U(nr)$ and $U(n)$ in the $n \to \infty$ limit is sinusoidally dependent on the distance parameter $r$ (\ref{Blim}). Since $U(n) = \vn{\ell_0}{2n}$, equation \ref{Blim} shows that all evenly indexed points on the spiral converge to a circle with diameter 1 (Fig. \ref{n=0_spiral}). By explicitly constructing the circle through $\vn{\ell_0}{2n-2}, \vn{\ell_0}{2n},$ and $\vn{\ell_0}{2n+2},$ we can readily show that $\vn{\ell_0}{2n+1}$ is on this circle in the $n \to \infty$ limit, which confirms that the odd spiral points converge to the same circle.

\bigskip

\noindent This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm1}.

\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{thm1} provides the limiting behavior of $\vn{\ell_s}{n}$ for $\ell_s(n) = n^{-s}$, which may be used to find the limiting behavior of $V(n)$ for geometrically significant length functions which are asymptotic to $\ell_s$. For example, we can consider a Definition \ref{dcon} spiral construction where the length function is determined by each $n$-gon being inscribed inside a circle of radius $n^{-s}$, $s \in \mathbb{R}$.

\begin{corollary}[Corollary of Theorem \ref{thm1}]
Let $\pp{insc}$ and $\pp{circ}$ denote the $n$-gon spiral constructions where each $n$-gon is inscribed and circumscribed with respect to a circle of radius $n^{-s}$, $s \in \mathbb{R}$, respectively. Then $\lim_{n \to \infty} \vn{insc}{n}$ and $\lim_{n \to \infty} \vn{circ}{n}$ converge for $s > -1$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
 The side lengths of the inscribed and circumscribed $n$-gons are given by $\ell_{insc}(n) = 2n^{-s} \sin(\frac{\pi}{n}) = \frac{2\pi}{n^{1+s}} + \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{n^{3+s}})$ and $\ell_{circ}(n) = 2n^{-s} \tan(\frac{\pi}{n}) = \frac{2\pi}{n^{1+s}} + \mathcal{O}(\frac{1}{n^{3+s}})$, respectively. The result follows by Theorem \ref{thm1}.
\end{proof}

\noindent A similar result can be shown for the $n$-gon spiral where each $n$-gon has area $n^{-s}$.

\section{The telescoping spiral}
\label{telescoping_spiral}

Here, we present a special choice of the length function that leads to closed form formulae for the discrete spiral points as well as their analytic continuation.

\begin{theorem}[The telescoping spiral]
\label{thm_analytic}\

\noindent The $n$-gon spiral with length function $L(k) = 2 \cos (\frac{2\pi}{k})$ admits the following closed form analytic continuation for $n \in \mathbb{R}_{>1}$:
\begin{flalign}
    \vn{L}{n} & = -1 + (-1)^n e^{-4 \pi i(\gamma + \psi(n+1))}, \nonumber\\
    Q_L(n) & = (-1)^n e^{-4 \pi i(\gamma + \psi(n+1))} \bigg(e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}} + \frac{e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}+1}{e^{\frac{2 \pi i}{n}}-1}\bigg). \nonumber
\end{flalign}

\end{theorem}

\begin{figure}[!h]

\begin{subfigure}{.585\textwidth}
	\centering\captionsetup{width=\linewidth}
	\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{degenerate_spiral_interpolated2.png}
	\caption{Plot of the polygon spiral $\pp{L}$ up to the $12$-gon. $\vn{L}{n}$ (see Theorem \ref{thm_analytic}) traces out the unit circle centered at $-1$. The polygon centers are also marked, with their analytic continuation $\cn{L}{n} = \vn{L}{n} + Q_L(n)$ plotted from $n = 1.05$.}
	\label{degen}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.40\textwidth}
    \centering\captionsetup{width=0.8\linewidth}
	\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Qspiral_1-35.png}
	\caption{$Q_L(n)$ (see Theorem \ref{thm_analytic}) plotted from $n=1.02$ to $n=35$. In the limit as $n \to 1$, Re$(Q_L(n)) \to 4(1-\frac{\pi^2}{6})$.}
	\label{Qspiral}
\end{subfigure}

	\caption{The telescoping spiral construction and analytic continuation.}
	\label{tele_spiral}

\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
Writing $L(k)$ in exponential form, we plug it into Lemma \ref{lamv} and simplify to obtain a telescoping series!
\begin{equation}
\label{tele1}
    \vn{L}{n} = \sum_{k=3}^n (-1)^k \big(e^{-4 \pi i H_{k-1}} + e^{-4 \pi i H_{k}} \big) = -1 + (-1)^n e^{-4 \pi i H_n}
\end{equation}

The harmonic numbers can be analytically continued to complex values of $n$ via $ H_n = \gamma + \psi(n+1)$, where $\psi(x) = \frac{\Gamma'(x)}{\Gamma(x)}$ is the digamma function, and $\gamma = 0.5772...$ is Euler's constant. This provides a direct analytic continuation of $\vn{L}{n}$ to $n \in \mathbb{R}_{>1}$, where $n \leq 1$ is excluded because we cannot construct a $1$-gon to obey Definition \ref{dcon} (and $\cn{L}{1}$ is not defined). By plugging $L(n)$ into Lemma \ref{centers}, we also obtain a closed-form analytic continuation of $Q_L(n)$, and hence $\cn{L}{n}$.

\end{proof}

From Theorem \ref{thm_analytic}, we see that all the values of $\vn{L}{n}$ lie on the unit circle centered at $-1$ (Fig. \ref{degen}), hence $\vn{L}{n}$ forms a degenerate spiral for $n \in (1, \infty)$. On the interval $n \in (1,\infty)$, $L(n)$ is negative for $n \in (\frac{4}{3}, 4)$, zero at $n= \frac{4}{3}, 4$, and positive everywhere else, resulting in 3 regions where the spirals $Q_L(n)$ and $\cn{L}{n}$ exhibit different winding behavior. The $n$-gon centers and vertices coincide at the zeros of $L(n)$ (Fig. \ref{degen}).

\begin{rem}[Golden ratio intersection]
\label{rem1}
In Fig. \ref{degen}, we observe that $\cn{L}{n}$ intersects itself inside the unit disk centered at $-1$. This intersection occurs at $n = \varphi := \frac{\sqrt{5} + 1}{2}$ and $n = \varphi + 1$. At this point, $\cn{L}{\varphi} = -i e^{-\pi i(4(\gamma + \psi(\varphi))+\varphi)} \cot(\pi \varphi) - 1$.
\end{rem}

\section{Further Directions}

There is much additional work to be done toward understanding the $n$-gon spiral introduced here. We showed that the sequence of shared polygon vertex points in Fig. \ref{lam1} converges, but is it possible to find a closed-form expression for this convergence value? Additionally, Theorem \ref{thm1} only describes the $n \to \infty$ behavior of the $n$-gon spiral for a particular family of length functions. Can one develop a convergence condition that applies to arbitrary length functions?

The closed-form analytic continuation of the telescoping spiral (Theorem \ref{thm_analytic}) makes this spiral a particularly attractive choice for further study. How does the asymptotic behavior of the spirals $\cc{L}$ and $Q_L$ compare with classical spirals in the literature? We identified self-intersections of $Q_L(n)$ and $\cn{L}{n}$ at $n = \frac{4}{3}, 4$ and $n = \varphi, \varphi + 1$, respectively---do these spirals have other self-intersections at algebraic values of $n$? Can we use the analytic continuation of $\vv{L}$ and $\cc{L}$ to define a natural, continuous geometric transformation from a regular $n$-gon to a regular $(n+1)$-gon? If so, what would a ``regular polygon'' with a non-integer number of sides look like?

The notion of arranging polygons with increasing numbers of sides is not limited to the polygonal spiral discussed here. In particular, making changes to each of the rules of Definition \ref{dcon} offers flexibility for discovering a range of intriguing polygonal constructions.

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA)

A regular $n$-gon spiral