Curves on the torus intersecting at most k times

Abstract: We show that any set of distinct homotopy classes of simple closed curves on the torus that pairwise intersect at most $k$ times has size $k + O(\sqrt{k} \log k)$. Prior to this work, a lemma of Agol, together with the state of the art bounds for the size of prime gaps, implied the error term $O(k^{21/40})$, and in fact the assumption of the Riemann hypothesis improved this error term to the one we obtain $O(\sqrt{k} \log k)$. By contrast, our methods are elementary, combinatorial, and geometric.

\section{Introduction}

Let $T \approx \mathbb{R}^2/\mathbb{Z}^2$ be the closed oriented surface of genus one.
We indicate the homotopy class of an embedding of $S^1$ briefly by `curve'.
By pulling a curve tight and lifting it to the universal cover, the collection of curves on $T$ is in one-to-one correspondence with slopes $\mathbb{Q} \cup \{\infty\}$.
From this vantage point, the \emph{intersection number} of a pair of curves on $T$ (that is, the minimum possible number of intersection points among representatives from the pair of homotopy classes) can be computed explicitly via
\[
\iota\left( \frac pq , \frac ab\right) = \ | \ pb-qa \ | \ ~.
\]
A collection of curves is called a \emph{$k$-system} when any pair of curves has intersection number at most $k$.

Let $\eta_S(k)$ equal the maximum size of a $k$-system on the closed surface $S$.
It was first shown by \cite{JMM} that $\eta_S(k)$ goes to infinity with $k$.
The determination of the growth rate of $\eta_S(k)$, as a function of both $k$ and the genus $g$ of $S$, is a subtle counting problem, about which much remains unknown \cite{Przytycki, Aougab, ABG, Greene1, Greene2}.
Notably, Greene has used probabilistic methods, leveraging the hyperbolic geometric bounds of Przytycki, to obtain $\eta_S(k) =O( g^{k+1}\log g)$, when $k$ is fixed and $g$ grows \cite[Thm.~3]{Greene2}.

For the study of $\eta_S(k)$ with $g$ fixed, the simplest nontrivial case is evidently $S=T$.
While studying Dehn filling slopes of 3-manifolds, Agol observed that $\eta_T(k)$ is at most one more than the smallest prime greater than $k$ \cite{Agol}, and via the Prime Number Theorem this implies $\frac{\eta_T(k)}k \to 1$ as $k\to \infty$ \cite{Agol-unpub}.

More can be said.
The size of prime gaps, large and small, is a major field of study.
The currently best upper bound is due to Baker-Harman-Pintz, which, together with Agol's observation, implies that $\eta_T(k) = k+O(k^{21/40})$ \cite{BHP}.
Cram\'er showed that a positive resolution of the Riemann hypothesis would provide $\eta_T(k) = k + O(\sqrt k \log k)$ \cite{Cramer1}, and he formulated a stronger conjecture that would imply $\eta_T(k) = k+O((\log k)^2)$ \cite{Cramer2}; although there seems to be general suspicion in the analytic number theory community that Cram\'er's error term should be replaced by $O((\log k)^{2+\epsilon})$ \cite{Granville, OSS}.

All of these estimates pass through Agol's remarkable prime number bound, but it is reasonable to be skeptical about whether estimation of $\eta_T(k)$ should depend on such notoriously subtle and difficult questions.
The purpose of this note is to sharpen currently available estimates, without reference to fine data about the distribution of the primes.
Our methods are elementary, combinatorial, and hyperbolic.

\begin{theorem}
\label{main thm}
There is a constant $C>0$ so that $\eta_T(k)\le k+C\sqrt k \log k$.
\end{theorem}

As for sharpness, it deserves remarking that there is a dearth of nontrivial lower bounds for $\eta_T(k)$.
In fact, we are unaware of any example of a $k$-system of size $k+7$ on the torus.

The function $\eta_T(k)$ admits a dual formulation: let $\kappa_S(n)$ indicate the minimum, taken over collections of $n$ curves on $S$, of the maximum pairwise intersection.
(For clarity, we will often use `$n$' to indicate the size of a set of curves and `$k$' for an intersection number.)
It is not hard to see that
\[
\eta_S(k) = \max \{ n: \kappa_S(n) \le k\} \ , \text{ and } \
\kappa_S(n) = \min \{k : \eta_S(k)\ge n\}~.
\]
Our path towards \autoref{main thm} will be to first estimate $\kappa_T(n)$ from below.

There is a kind of convexity to exploit in the study of $\kappa_T$, originally observed by Agol.
As remarked above, curves on $T$ are in correspondence with slopes $\mathbb{Q}\cup \{\infty\}$.
The latter form the vertices of the \emph{Farey complex} $\mathcal{F}$, in which a set of slopes form a simplex when they pairwise intersect once.
Any collection of $n$ curves that is maximal with respect to inclusion among $k$-systems determines a collection of vertices in $\mathcal{F}$ so that the induced simplicial complex is a triangulated $n$-gon (see \autoref{lem: convexity} for detail).

Conversely, any triangulation of an $n$-gon can be realized as a subcomplex of $\mathcal{F}$, in a way that is unique up to the action of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z}) \curvearrowright \mathcal{F}$ by simplicial automorphism. As $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ preserves the intersection form, the (multi-)set of pairwise intersection numbers is a well-defined function on the set of triangulations of an $n$-gon.
The set of triangulations of an $n$-gon forms the vertex set of a well-studied simplicial complex in combinatorics called the \emph{associahedron} $\mathcal{A}_n$
(there is a slight indexing issue; the object we refer to as $\mathcal{A}_n$ is the $(n-2)$-dimensional associahedron).
One obtains a `max intersection' function $\kappa: \mathcal{A}_n \to \mathbb{N}$ induced by the intersection form on $\mathcal{F}$,
and the above discussion leads to $\kappa_T(n)=\min \kappa$ (see \autoref{prop:kappa=kappa}).

\autoref{main thm} follows from the following:

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm: kappa}
There is a constant $C>0$ so that, for any $\tau\in \mathcal{A}_n$, we have $\kappa(\tau) \ge n - C \sqrt n \log n $.
\end{theorem}

We briefly describe the proof of this theorem.
The Farey complex $\mathcal{F}$ admits a natural embedding into a compactification of the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}^2 \,\cup\, \partial_\infty \mathbb{H}^2$, so that the vertices of $\mathcal{F}$ embed naturally as $\mathbb{Q} \cup\{\infty\} \hookrightarrow \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\} \approx \partial_\infty \mathbb{H}^2$, with edges between vertices mapping to geodesics.
The hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}^2$ admits a maximal $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$-invariant horospherical packing $\{H_{p/q}: \frac pq \in \mathbb{Q}\cup\{\infty\}\}$, where $H_{p/q}$ is centered at $p/q\in \mathbb{R}\cup\{\infty\}$, so that a set of slopes span a simplex in $\mathcal{F}$ precisely when the corresponding horospheres are pairwise tangent. (The horospheres $\{H_{p/q}\}$ are called \emph{Ford circles} in the literature \cite{Ford, ConwayGuy, BonahonVid}.)

A sketch of our proof of \autoref{thm: kappa} is as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Locate a `nice horoball' $H$ for $\tau$, so that $\mathrm{ht}(\tau,H)$, the \emph{height of $\tau$ relative to $H$}, is $O\left(\sqrt{\kappa(\tau)}\right)$.
See \autoref{def:horoball height width} and \autoref{prop: exists horoball}.

\item Use $H$ to construct a convex combination of pairwise intersection numbers for $\tau$ whose sum is at least $n - O(h \log h)$, where $h= \mathrm{ht}(\tau,H)$.
It follows that there is a pair of horoballs of $\tau$ with intersection number at least $n-O(h \log h)$.
See \autoref{prop: control with height}.

\end{enumerate}
The proof of \autoref{thm: kappa} is now one line: if $\kappa(\tau)\le n$, then $\kappa(\tau) \ge n-C \sqrt n \log n$.

The first step above uses the hyperbolic geometry of $\mathbb{H}^2$ in an essential way, in which we exploit a simple relationship between intersection numbers, hyperbolic geometry, and Ford circles (see \autoref{lem:i vs d}).

\subsection*{Organization}
We describe the reduction from $\kappa_T(n)$ to $\kappa:\mathcal{A}_n\to\mathbb{N}$ in \S\ref{sec:prelim}, analyze several examples in \S\ref{sec:examples}, bound $\kappa(\tau)$ from below in \S\ref{sec:estimating kappa}, locate a good horoball for $\tau$ in \S\ref{sec:controlling height}, and prove \autoref{main thm} in \S\ref{sec:pf of main thm}.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Josh Greene and Ian Agol for valuable feedback on an early draft of this paper. We are especially grateful to Ian Agol for sharing with us an unpublished note that contained \autoref{lem: convexity}, and for suggesting an alternative to our proof of \autoref{prop: exists horoball} (see \autoref{rem: Agol proof}).

\section{Preliminaries}
\label{sec:prelim}

We collect here some useful facts about intersection numbers and the Farey graph $\mathcal{F}$.
For more of the beautiful connections between hyperbolic geometry, the Farey graph, continued fractions, and Diophantine approximation, we suggest the reader consult \cite{Hatcher, Series, Series2, Springborn}.

\subsection{Horoballs in trees, Farey labellings, and intersection numbers}
Dual to a triangulation of an $n$-gon $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$ there is a trivalent tree with $n$ leaves embedded in the plane, which we refer to as $\tau^*$.
Because $\tau^*$ is embedded in the plane, the three edges incident to vertices of $\tau^*$ are cyclically ordered.
Hence any non-backtracking path in $\tau^*$ induces a sequence of left-right turns.

The vertices of $\tau$ (that is, the slopes of the $k$-system) correspond to `horoball' regions in $\tau^*$:

\begin{definition}[`Horoballs in trees']
\label{def:horoball}
A \emph{horoball} of $\tau$ is a union of edges in a path of the dual tree $\tau^*$ that is composed of uni-directional turns (that is, only left or only right turns), which is moreover maximal with respect to inclusion among all such uni-directional subsets of $\tau^*$.
\end{definition}

For any triangulation $\tau$, the dual tree $\tau^*$ admits an orientation-preserving embedding to the regular trivalent tree dual to $\mathcal{F}$.
Any such choice of an embedding determines a map from horoballs of $\tau^*$ to $\mathbb{Q}\cup \{\infty\}$, by recording the center of the corresponding horoball in $\mathbb{H}^2$.

\begin{definition}[`Farey labellings and intersection numbers']
A \emph{Farey labelling} of $\tau$ is the map from horoballs to $\mathbb{Q}\cup\{\infty\}$ obtained from an orientation-preserving embedding from $\tau^*$ to the tree dual to $\mathcal{F}$.
The \emph{intersection number} $\iota(H_1,H_2)$ of a pair of horoballs $H_1$ and $H_2$ is given by the intersection number of the slopes corresponding to $H_1$ and $H_2$ in a Farey labelling of $\tau$.
\end{definition}
\noindent
We leave it as an exercise for the reader to show that intersection numbers in $\tau$ are well-defined.

Farey labellings are especially pleasant because the vertices spanning a simplex of $\mathcal{F}$ satisfy a remarkably simple relationship. Namely, if $\frac pq$ and $\frac ab$ span an edge of $\mathcal{F}$, then the two other vertices of $\mathcal{F}$ that span a triangle with $\frac pq$ and $\frac ab$ are $\frac{p+ a}{q+ b}$ and $\frac{p-a}{q- b}$; this is the `Farey addition' rule.
Farey addition can be used to construct a Farey labelling of $\tau$:
Choose labels $1/0$, $0/1$, and $1/1$ for the three horoballs incident to some vertex of $\tau^*$, and use Farey addition to successively add labels to neighboring horoballs.

\subsection{Monotonicity of intersection numbers and left-right sequences}
\label{subsec:monotonicity}
The intersection number $\iota(H_1,H_2)$ admits a description more intrinsic to the structure of $\tau^*$, which we now describe.
There is a unique (possibly degenerate) non-backtracking path $\sigma$ between the pair of horoballs $H_1$ and $H_2$, and this path determines a sequence of left-right turns $(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,\ell_s)$, where $\sigma$ makes $\ell_1$ turns in the same direction, followed by $\ell_2$ turns in the opposite direction, etc.
The quantity $\iota(H_1,H_2)$ is given by the numerator of the continued fraction with coefficients $(\ell_1,\ell_2,\ldots,\ell_s)$ \cite[Thm.~5.3]{GLRRX}.

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:ambiguity}
Observe that there is ambiguity in this computation of $\iota(H_1,H_2)$.
For one, the non-backtracking path $\sigma$ may go either from $H_1$ to $H_2$, or from $H_2$ to $H_1$.
Moreover, one must declare that $\sigma$ is starting with either `left' or `right' at its origin vertex, so that it can be observed whether $\sigma$ is switching directions or not at later vertices.
These choices may be made arbitrarily and independently, and this ambiguity has no affect on the calculation of $\iota(H_1,H_2)$. See \cite[Fig.~3, Ex.~1]{GLRRX}.
\end{remark}

This viewpoint suggests a certain monotonicity.

\begin{lemma}[`Monotonicity of intersection numbers']
\label{lem:monotonicity}
Suppose that $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$ are non-backtracking paths with respective left-right sequences $(\ell_1,\ldots,\ell_s)$ and $(\ell_1',\ldots,\ell_{s'}')$.
If $s'\ge s$ and $\ell_i'\ge \ell_i$ for each $i=1,\ldots,s$, then the intersection number determined by $\sigma'$ is at least that determined by $\sigma$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
This lemma is almost exactly \cite[Lem.~5.5]{GLRRX}, with the sole difference that we may have $s'>s$.
Therefore to prove the claim we may assume that $\sigma'$ contains $\sigma$ as an initial subpath.

Choose a Farey labelling with label $1/0$ at the horoball forming the origin of $\sigma$ (and $\sigma'$), and labels $0/1$ and $1/1$ at the two neighboring horoballs that intersect $\sigma$.
Compare the denominators of the Farey labels of the horoballs at the terminuses of $\sigma$ and $\sigma'$; because these labels are computed using Farey addition, it is evident that the denominator of the horoball for $\sigma'$ is at least that of $\sigma$.
The intersection number of any horoball with $1/0$ is given by the denominator of its Farey label, so the claim follows.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Intersection numbers and hyperbolic distance}
The quotient of $\mathbb{H}^2$ by $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is a hyperbolic orbifold with one cusp and two orbifold points, one of order $2$ and one of order $3$.
The preimage of the maximal horoball neighborhood of the cusp under the covering projection $\mathbb{H}^2 \to \mathbb{H}^2/\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$ is $\mathcal{H}=\{H_{p/q}:p/q\in\mathbb{Q}\cup\{\infty\}\}$,
a $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$-invariant collection of horoballs centered at the completed rationals.
The following lemma is an exercise in hyperbolic geometry.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:distance from horoball}
Every point in $\mathbb{H}^2$ is within $\log\frac2{\sqrt 3}$ of a horoball in $\mathcal{H}$.
\end{lemma}

There is a simple fundamental relationship between intersection numbers of curves on the torus and hyperbolic distance between the corresponding horoballs.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:i vs d}
We have
$\
\displaystyle d_{\mathbb{H}^2}\left(H_{p/q},H_{a/b} \right) =
2 \log \iota\left( \frac pq , \frac ab \right) ~$
for any $\frac pq, \frac ab \in \mathcal{F}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Applying an element of $\mathrm{PSL}(2,\mathbb{Z})$, we may assume that $p/q=\infty$ in the upper half-plane model for $\mathbb{H}^2 \, \cup \, \partial_\infty \mathbb{H}^2$.
The horosphere $H_{a/b}$ is given by $\{z: \left| z-(\frac1b + \frac i{2b^2}) \right| = \frac1{2b^2}\}$ (see e.g.~\cite{Athreya}), so
\[
d_{\mathbb{H}^2}\left(H_{p/q},H_{a/b} \right) =
d_{\mathbb{H}^2}\left( a/b + \frac i{b^2} , a/b + i\right) = 2\log b = 2 \log \iota\left( \frac pq , \frac ab \right) ~. \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

\subsection{Width and height for horoballs}\label{sec:width/height}
The interior of each edge of $\tau^*$ is incident to exactly two horoball regions.
Thus, for any choice of horoball $H$ in $\tau^*$, there are exactly two other horoball regions, distinct from $H$, that are incident to the interiors of the extreme edges of $H$. Call these $H_1$ and $H_2$.

\begin{definition}
\label{def:horoball height width}
The \emph{width of $\tau$ relative to $H$} is $w = \iota(H_1,H_2)$. The \emph{height of $\tau$ relative to $H$} is
\[
\mathrm{ht}(\tau,H) =
\max\, \{ \ \iota(H, H') \ : H' \text{ is a horoball of }\tau \ \}~.
\]
\end{definition}

For the remainder of this article, we will suppress the difference between the triangulation $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$ and its dual tree $\tau^*$.
The translation between them is quite natural, and the difference can henceforth be understood from context.

\subsection{The two kappas}
Recall from the introduction the quantity $\kappa_T(n)$, which is the minimum, taken over collections $\Gamma$ of $n$ curves on $S$, of the maximum pairwise intersection number of curves in $\Gamma$.
\begin{definition}[`Max Intersection Function']
\label{def:kappa}
The function $\kappa:\mathcal{A}_n\to \mathbb{N}$ is defined by
\[
\kappa(\tau) = \max\{\ \iota(H_1,H_2) : H_1 \text{ and }H_2 \text{ are horoballs of }\tau \ \}~.
\]
\end{definition}
\noindent As noted in the introduction, we claim that $\kappa_T(n)= \min \{ \kappa(\tau): \tau\in \mathcal{A}_n \}$.

That $\kappa_T(n)\le \min \kappa$ is easy: for any $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$, choose a Farey labelling.
The quantity $\kappa(\tau)$ is equal to the maximum pairwise intersection number of the $n$ slopes obtained in this Farey labelling, and $\kappa_T(n)$ is the minimum of the maximum pairwise intersection of any $n$ slopes, so $\kappa_T(n) \le \kappa(\tau)$ for each $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$.

The reverse inequality is slightly less obvious, and relies on a certain convexity of maximal $k$-systems in $\partial_\infty \mathbb{H}^2$.
The following lemma makes this precise.\footnote{We are grateful to Ian Agol for sharing an unpublished note with us which contained \autoref{lem: convexity} \cite{Agol-unpub}.}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem: convexity}
If $\Gamma$ is a $k$-system on $T$ which is maximal with respect to inclusion among $k$-systems, then $\mathcal{F}$ induces a triangulation of the $n$-gon which forms the convex hull of $\Gamma\subset \partial_\infty \mathbb{H}^2$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $g_{ab}$ indicate the geodesic in $\mathbb{H}^2$ with endpoints $a,b\in\partial_\infty \mathbb{H}^2$.
Suppose that $\alpha,\beta\in\Gamma\subset \mathcal{F}$, that $\Delta$ is a Farey triangle intersecting $g_{\alpha\beta}$, and that $\delta$ is a vertex of $\Delta$ (and, hence, of $\mathcal{F}$).
\autoref{lem:monotonicity} implies that both $\iota(\delta,\alpha)$ and $\iota(\delta,\beta)$ are at most $\iota(\alpha,\beta)$, which is at most $k$ by assumption.
For any $\gamma\in\Gamma$, either $g_{\alpha\gamma}$ or $g_{\beta\gamma}$ intersect $\Delta$, so it follows that $\iota(\gamma,\delta)\le k$ as well.
Maximality of $\Gamma$ implies that $\delta\in\Gamma$, so the convex hull of $\Gamma$ is equal to the union of Farey triangles spanning elements of $\Gamma$.
\end{proof}

This demonstrates that $\kappa_T(n) \ge \min \kappa$, so we may conclude:

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:kappa=kappa}
We have $\displaystyle \kappa_T(n) = \min_{\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n} \kappa$.
\end{proposition}

\section{Illustrative examples}
\label{sec:examples}

There are several natural elements of $\mathcal{A}_n$ that we can use to observe $\kappa:\mathcal{A}_n\to \mathbb{N}$.

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:unlabelled}
Technically, the vertices of the associahedron correspond to triangulations of a \emph{labelled} convex polygon.
Notice however that the max intersection function $\kappa:\mathcal{A}_n\to\mathbb{N}$ is invariant under permutation of labels, so we can safely refer to $\kappa(\tau)$ for elements $\tau$ of $\mathcal{A}_n$ without reference to a particular ordering of the horoballs of $\tau$.
\end{remark}

\begin{itemize}

\item The element $\mathrm{ch}(n)\in\mathcal{A}_n$ (for `chain') contains a horoball of width $n$. We have $\kappa(\mathrm{ch}(n))=n$, and the height relative to the horoball of width $n$ is $1$.
\\

\item The element $\mathrm{ach}(n)\in\mathcal{A}_n$ (for `alternating chain') contains a path of length $n-3$ that switches direction $n-4$ times. Here we have $\kappa(\mathrm{ach}(n))=F_n$, the $n$th Fibonacci number, the largest width horoball of $\mathrm{ach}(n)$ is $3$, and the height relative to any horoball is at least $F_{\lfloor \frac n2\rfloor }$.
\\

\item The element $\mathrm{reg}(r)\in\mathcal{A}_n$ (for `regular'), with $n=3\cdot 2^{r-1}$, is formed by choosing the subtree of the homogeneous (infinite) trivalent tree that is induced on all vertices at combinatorial distance at most $r$ from a fixed vertex. The tree $\mathrm{reg}(r)$ contains the alternating chain $\mathrm{ach}(2r+1)$ as a subtree, and in fact we have $\kappa(\mathrm{reg}(r))=\kappa(\mathrm{ach}(2r+1))=F_{2r+1}$.
The largest width of a horoball of $\mathrm{reg}(r)$ is given by $2r-1$, and the height of $\mathrm{reg}(r)$ relative to this horoball is $F_{r+1}$.
\\

\item The element $\mathrm{Far}(h)\in\mathcal{A}_n$ (for the `Farey series'), with $n=2+\sum_{k\le h} \phi(k)$, is the subgraph of $\mathcal{F}$ induced on fractions in $\mathbb{Q}\cap [0,1]$ that can be written with denominator $\le h$, together with $1/0$.
Observe that $\kappa(\mathrm{Far}(h)) =h^2-2h$, the largest width of a horoball of $\mathrm{Far}(h)$ is given by $h$, while the height relative to this horoball is given by $h-1$. \\

\end{itemize}

We collect this information in \autoref{pic:elements} and \autoref{table}.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\vspace{1.5cm}
\begin{minipage}[t][3cm][t]{.2\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{-.7cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{pic-chain.png}
\vspace{1.5cm}
\subcaption{$\mathrm{ch}(n)$}
\label{pic:chain}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t][3cm][t]{.2\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{pic-achain.png}
\vspace{1.5cm}
\subcaption{$\mathrm{ach}(n)$}
\label{pic:achain}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t][3cm][t]{.2\textwidth}
\centering
\vspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{pic-reg.png}
\subcaption{$\mathrm{reg}(r)$}
\label{pic:chain}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\begin{minipage}[t][3cm][t]{.2\textwidth}
\vspace{-1.4cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{pic-Farey.png}
\vspace{.6cm}
\subcaption{$\mathrm{Far}(h)$}
\label{pic:chain}
\end{minipage}\hfill
\caption{Several dual trees of elements in $\mathcal{A}_n$.}
\label{pic:elements}
\end{figure}

\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table}[]
\begin{tabular}
{|
>{\centering}p{.1\textwidth} |
>{\centering}p{0.2\textwidth} |
>{\centering}p{0.3\textwidth} |
>{\centering\arraybackslash}p{0.2\textwidth} |
}
\hline
$\tau$ & $\kappa(\tau)$ & Largest width horoball $H$ & $\mathrm{ht}(\tau,H)$ \\
\hline
\hline
$\mathrm{ch}(n)$ & $n$ & $n-2$ & $1$  \\
\hline
$\mathrm{ach}(n)$ & $ \Phi^n$ & $3$ & $\ge \Phi^{n/2}$  \\
\hline
$\mathrm{reg}(r)$ & $ n^{2\log_2\Phi}$ & $2\log_2n $ & $ n^{\log_2\Phi}$  \\
\hline
$\mathrm{Far}(h)$ & $ \frac{\pi^2}3 n $ & $\sqrt n$  &  $\sqrt n$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{.5cm}
\caption{Some data for attractive elements of $\mathcal{A}_n$.
Some entries include only leading-order terms, ignoring multiplicative constants.
Note that $\Phi = \frac{1+\sqrt 5}2$.
}
\label{table}
\end{table}

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:An diameter}
Observe the large difference between $\kappa(\mathrm{ach}(n))\approx (\frac{1+\sqrt5}2)^n$ and $\kappa(\mathrm{ch}(n))=n$.
Though we have not discussed it, there is a natural simplicial structure on $\mathcal{A}_n$, with edges between triangulations of an $n$-gon that differ by a single diagonal flip.
It is not hard to see that the diameter of $\mathcal{A}_n$ is at most $2n$ (in fact, this quantity can be determined precisely \cite{STT, Pournin}), so it follows that the change in $\kappa$ across an edge of $\mathcal{A}_n$ can be arbitrarily large.
\end{remark}

\section{Estimating kappa using heights}
\label{sec:estimating kappa}

Let $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$.
The strategy to obtain a lower bound for $\kappa(\tau)$ is to find a set of pairwise intersection functions $\{I_\alpha\}$ for $\tau$, and estimate the convex combination
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:goal}
\sum_\alpha r_\alpha I_\alpha \ge n - \epsilon(n)~,
\end{equation}
for some set of non-negative weights $\{r_\alpha\}$ with $\sum r_\alpha =1$, and error term $\epsilon(n)$.
Of course, we have $\kappa(\tau)\ge I_\alpha$ for all $\alpha$, and by convexity we must have $I_\alpha \ge n-\epsilon(n)$ for some $\alpha$.

We will make use of three facts from classical analytic number theory, which we group together in a single lemma for convenience.
Below we indicate the interval $\{1,\ldots,m\}$ by $[m]$ and the subset of $\{1,\ldots,m\}$ relatively prime to $s$ by $[m]_s$, e.g.~Euler's totient function is $\phi(m) = \#[m]_m.$
The number of divisors of $n$ is indicated by $d(n)$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:number theory}
We have the following estimates:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:euler count}
\#[m]_n & = \frac mn \phi(n) + O\left(d(n)\right)~, \\
\label{eq:dirichlet}
\sum_{k\le h} d(k)& = h \log h + O(h)~, \text{ and }\\
\label{eq:walfisz}
\sum_{k\le h} \frac {\phi(k)}k &= O(h)~.
\end{align}
\end{lemma}

The estimate \eqref{eq:euler count} is a standard application of M\"obius inversion \cite[Lem.~3.4]{Cohen}.
The second estimate \eqref{eq:dirichlet} is a weaker version of a famous theorem of Dirichlet \cite[Ch.~3]{Apostol}, and a more precise form of \eqref{eq:walfisz} can be found in \cite{Walfisz}.
(Note that the error term in \eqref{eq:euler count} is in fact $O(\vartheta(n))$, where $\vartheta(n)$ is the number of square-free divisors of $n$.
However, in the sum $\sum_{j\le h} \vartheta(j)$, one finds the same order of growth as $\sum_{j\le h} d(j)$ \cite{Mertens}, so in our application, \autoref{lem:count n}, this improvement is immaterial.)

In this section we will show:

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop: control with height}
Let $H$ be a horoball of $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$, and let $h = \mathrm{ht}(\tau,H)$.
There is a constant $C>0$ so that we have $\kappa(\tau) \ge n - C h \log h$.
\end{proposition}

As in \S\ref{sec:width/height}, let $H_1$ and $H_2$ be the two horoballs that are incident to $H$ along its two extreme edges.
By construction, the non-backtracking path $\sigma$ from $H_1$ to $H_2$ is contained in $H$; we indicate the vertices $\sigma$ passes through in order by $p_1,\ldots,p_w$.
See \autoref{fig:branches}.

\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10.5cm]{pic-branches2.png}
\caption{The horoball $H$ determines branches for $\tau$, and extreme horoballs $H_1$ and $H_2$.}
\label{fig:branches}
\end{figure}

For each $j$, the complement $\tau \setminus p_j$ consists of three components, and we indicate (the closure of) the unique such component that doesn't intersect $H$ as the $j$th \emph{branch} $B(j)$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{pic-numerators.png}
\caption{Each branch has minimal and maximal numerators at height $k$.}
\label{pic:numerators}
\end{figure}

Label $H$ with $1/0$, label the horoball neighboring $H$ along the edge $\overline{p_j p_{j+1}}$ with $0/1$, and label the horoball neighbor of $H$ along $\overline{p_{j-1}p_j}$ with $1/1$. Now Farey addition determines how to fill in labels for the remaining horoballs, and let $\mathrm{ht}_H \, B(j)$ indicate the maximum denominator among Farey labels for horoballs intersecting $B(j)$.
The vertices of $B(j)$ at height $k$ are given by $\frac {a_1}k, \frac{a_2}k,\ldots,\frac{a_{n_k}}k$. The \emph{minimum (resp.~max) numerator at height $k$} of $B(j)$, relative to $H$, is $\min a_i$ (resp.~$\max a_i$). See \autoref{pic:numerators}.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{pic-heights.png}
\caption{The horoballs of $\tau$ may be filtered according to heights from $H$.}
\label{fig:heights}
\end{figure}

Observe that we may count the $n$ horoball regions of $\tau$ by filtering them according to their heights on the branches.
That is, for each $i\in \mathbb{N}$, let $X(k) = \{ j : \mathrm{ht}_H \, B(j) \ge k\}$ (that is, the set of indices $j$ where the $j$th branch has height at least $k$), and let $x_k = \#X(k)$.
See Figure~\ref{fig:heights}.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=10cm]{pic-function.png}
\caption{Extremal horoballs of $\tau$ at height $k$ from $H$.}
\label{fig:function}
\end{figure}

Consider $j_k^+$ (resp.~$j_k^-$), the maximal (resp.~minimal) index of $X(k)$. Let $\ell_k$ be the maximal numerator of $B(j_k^-)$ and let $r_k$ be the minimal numerator of $B(j_k^+)$.
See \autoref{fig:function}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:count n}
We have
\[
\sum_{k=1}^h \phi(k)x_k \ge n + \sum_{k=1}^h \phi(k)
+ \sum_{k=1}^h \frac{\phi(k)}k (r_k - \ell_k)
- O\left( h \log h\right)~.
\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Observe that the sum of the number of horoballs of $\tau$ at height $k$ relative to $H$, as $k$ goes from $1$ to $h$, is exactly $n-2$.

The horoballs of $B(j)$ at height $k$ relative to $H$ have size at most $\phi(k)$, so the total number of horoballs of $\tau$ at height $k$ from $H$ is at most $\phi(k) x_k$. Observe that we may count the vertices of $B(j_k^-)$ and $B(j_k^+)$ with slightly more care: When the maximal and minimal numerators of $B(j)$ at height $k$ are $\ell$ and $r$, the horoballs of $B(j)$ at height $k$ relative to $H$ are at most $\phi(k)-\#[r-1]_k$, and at most $\#[\ell]_k$.
Therefore the total number of horoballs of $\tau$ at height $k$ relative to $H$ are at most
\[
\phi(k)x_k - (\underbrace{\phi(k)-\#[\ell_k]_k}_{\text{overcount in }B(j_k^-)} ) - \underbrace{\#[r_k-1]_k}_{\text{overcount in }B(j_k^+)} ~.
\]
By \eqref{eq:euler count}, the latter is at most
\[
\phi(k)x_k   - \phi(k) + \frac{\ell_k}k \phi(k) - \frac{r_k-1}k \phi(k) + O(d(k))~.
\]
The sum of this expression as $k$ goes from $1$ to $h$ is at least $n-2$, so rearranging we find that
\[
\sum_{k=1}^h \phi(k)x_k \ge n +\sum_{k=1}^h \phi(k) + \sum_{k=1}^h \frac{\phi(k)}k (r_k-\ell_k) - 2- \sum_{k=1}^h \frac{\phi(k)}k - C\sum_{k=1}^h d(k)~.
\]
By \eqref{eq:dirichlet} and \eqref{eq:walfisz}, the last three terms can be replaced by $O(h\log h)$.
\end{proof}

The reader may observe how \autoref{lem:count n} is somewhat suggestive of \eqref{eq:goal}.

Given heights $k$ and $k'$, consider the intersection $I_{kk'}$ between the horoball of $B(j_k^-)$ with maximal numerator $\ell_k$ and the horoball of $B(j_{k'}^+)$ of minimal numerator $r_{k'}$.
We may compute:
\begin{equation*}
I_{kk'} = kk'
|j_{k'}^+ - j_k^-|
+ k'\ell_k - kr_{k'}~
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we have
\begin{equation*}
I_{kk'}+I_{k'k} = kk'\left( \big| j_{k'}^+-j_k^-\big| + \big| j_{k}^+-j_{k'}^-\big| \right) + (k'\ell_k - kr_{k'} + k\ell_{k'}-k'r_k)~.
\end{equation*}
Notice that $\big| j_{k'}^+-j_k^-\big| + \big| j_{k}^+-j_{k'}^-\big| \ge x_k+x_{k'}-2$, so dividing by $kk'$ we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sum of Is}
\frac1{kk'} \left(I_{kk'} + I_{k'k}\right) \ge x_k+x_{k'} - 2 + \left(\frac{\ell_k}k- \frac{r_k}k\right) + \left(\frac{\ell_{k'}}{k'}  - \frac{r_{k'}}{k'}\right)~.
\end{equation}

With \autoref{lem:count n} in mind, we would like to choose pairs $\{k,k'\}\subset [h]$ so that the sum over the choices made of the terms `$x_k+x_{k'}$' on the righthand side of \eqref{eq:sum of Is} is equal to $\sum \phi(k)x_k$.
The following proposition makes this idea feasible.

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:Gammas}
For each $h\in \mathbb{N}$, there is a graph $\Gamma_h$ satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
The vertex set of $\Gamma_h$ is given by $\{1,\ldots, h\}$.
\item \label{item:valence}
The valence of vertex $k$ is $\phi(k)$.
\item \label{item:weights}
The sum $\displaystyle \sum_{k\sim k'} \frac2{kk'}$ over the edges of $\Gamma_h$ is equal to $1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

See \autoref{pic:graph} for a picture of $\Gamma_6$.

\begin{proof}
Declare $k\sim k'$ when $\gcd(k,k')=1$ and $k+k'>h$.

For property~\eqref{item:valence}, choose a vertex $k$.
Each integer $i$ relatively prime to $k$ can be shifted by $k$ to $i+k$, another integer relatively prime to $k$.
For $1\le i\le k$, we may choose the maximum $n$ so that $i+nk\le h$.
The result is a bijection of $[k]_k$, the integers in $[k]$ relatively prime to $k$, with the set of integers $k'$, relatively prime to $k$, less than $h$, and so that $k+k'>h$. Therefore the valence of $k$ is $\#[k]_k=\phi(k)$.

For property~\eqref{item:weights}, observe that, to transform $\Gamma_h$ into $\Gamma_{h+1}$, the edges $k\sim k'$ with $k+k'=h+1$ are deleted and replaced by edges $k\sim(h+1)$ and $k'\sim(h+1)$. Because $k+k'=h+1$, the edge weight $\frac2{kk'}$ in $\Gamma_h$ is equal to the sum of edge weights $\frac2{k(h+1)}+\frac2{k'(h+1)}$ in $\Gamma_{h+1}$, so the sum $\sum_{k\sim k'}\frac2{kk'}$ is independent of $h$.
For the base case $h=2$, observe that $\frac2{1\cdot2}=1$.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=7cm]{pic-graph.png}
\caption{The graph $\Gamma_6$ as described in \autoref{prop:Gammas}.
The sum of the edge weights is $1$.}
\label{pic:graph}
\end{figure}

Let $E$ indicate the set of edges of $\Gamma_h$. Now \autoref{prop:Gammas} and \eqref{eq:sum of Is} imply:

\begin{align*}
\sum_E \frac1{kk'} \left(I_{kk'} + I_{k'k}\right)
&\ge \
\sum_E  \ \left( x_k+x_{k'} - 2 + \left(\frac{\ell_k}k- \frac{r_k}k\right) + \left(\frac{\ell_{k'}}{k'}  - \frac{r_{k'}}{k'}\right) \right)  \\
&= \sum_k \phi(k) x_k \ -\  \sum_k \phi(k) \ + \ \sum_k \frac{\phi(k)}k \left( \ell_k  - r_k \right)
\end{align*}
Applying \autoref{lem:count n}, we find that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:convex estimate}
\sum_E \frac1{kk'} \left(I_{kk'} + I_{k'k}\right) \ge n - O\left( h \log h\right)~.
\end{equation}
Because $\sum_E \frac2{kk'} =1$ by \autoref{prop:Gammas}, inequality \eqref{eq:convex estimate} proves \autoref{prop: control with height}.

\section{Finding a horoball of controlled relative height}
\label{sec:controlling height}

For many $\tau\in\mathcal{A}_n$, there exist $H$ so that the $\mathrm{ht}(\tau,H)$ is $O(1)$, so \autoref{prop: control with height} demonstrates that $\kappa(\tau)=n-O(1)$.
However, such a horoball need not exist, e.g.~every horoball of $\mathrm{ach}(n)$ has height at least $\approx (\frac{1+\sqrt 5}2)^{n/2}$.
Nonetheless, $\kappa(\mathrm{ach}(n))$ is quite large (on the order $(\frac{1+\sqrt 5}2)^n$), so one might hope that it is always possible to find horoballs of small height relative to $\kappa(\tau)$.
We show:

\begin{proposition}
\label{prop: exists horoball}
There exists a constant $C>0$ so that, for any $\tau\in \mathcal{A}_n$, there exists a horoball $H$ of $\tau$ so that the height of $\tau$ relative to $H$ is controlled as $\mathrm{ht}(\tau,H) \le C \sqrt{\kappa(\tau)}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{remark}
\label{rem: sharpness heights}
The reader can observe that the conclusion above fits the data in \autoref{table}.
It is tempting to hope for an improvement of \autoref{prop: exists horoball} along the following lines:
as $\kappa(\tau)$ gets closer to $\min \kappa$ (e.g.~if $\kappa(\tau)\le n$), one should be able to find horoballs of $\tau$ with relative heights $\ll \sqrt n$.

On the other hand, the row containing $\tau=\mathrm{Far}(h)$, with $n\approx \frac3{\pi^2}h^2$, makes this hope seem quite remote.
Indeed, $\kappa(\mathrm{Far}(h))$ is greater than $n$ only by the innocuous looking linear factor $\frac {\pi^2}3 \approx 3.3$, and yet every horoball has relative height $\ge h \approx \sqrt n$.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}
Let $K_1,K_2$ be horoballs of $\tau$ so that $\iota(K_1,K_2)=\kappa(\tau)$, and
let $r=\log \kappa(\tau)$.
By \autoref{lem:i vs d}, we have $d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(K_1,K_2) = 2r$.

Let $x\in \mathbb{H}^2$ be the midpoint of the geodesic from $K_1$ to $K_2$.
By \autoref{lem:distance from horoball} there is some Farey horoball $H$ so that $d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(H,x)\le \log \frac2{\sqrt3}$.
The Farey horoball $H$ is incident to the geodesic between $K_1$ and $K_2$, so by convexity it must be a horoball in $\tau$.

\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{pic-thin-triangle2.png}
\caption{Hyperbolicity guarantees that a horoball $K$ far from $x$ is far from some $K_i$ as well.}
\label{fig:pic-thin-triangle}
\end{figure}

We claim that $H$ satisfies the requisite bound.
Let $K$ be any other horoball of $\tau$. Because $\mathbb{H}^2$ is $\delta$-hyperbolic, the point $x$ is within $\delta$ of the geodesic segment between $K$ and $K_i$ for $i$ equal to either $1$ or $2$.
A standard application of the triangle inequality (see \autoref{fig:pic-thin-triangle}) then yields
\[
d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(K,K_i) \ge d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(K,x) + d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(x,K_i) - 2\delta = d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(K,x) + r -2\delta~.
\]
Because $d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(K,K_i)\le 2r$, we conclude that $d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(K,x)\le r+2\delta$, and
\[
d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(H,K)\le d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(H,x) + d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(x,K) \le \log \frac2{\sqrt 3}+  r +2\delta~.
\]
By \autoref{lem:i vs d} we conclude that
\[
\iota(H,K) = e^{\frac12 d_{\mathbb{H}^2}(H,K) }
\le \frac2{\sqrt 3}e^{2\delta} \sqrt{\kappa(\tau)}~. \qedhere
\]
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
\label{rem: Agol proof}
Ian Agol has suggested a slightly different version of the above proof: choose Farey labels for the horoballs in $\tau$, and enlarge the horoballs by $\log \kappa(\tau)+\log\frac2{\sqrt3}$.
A variation on \autoref{lem:distance from horoball} together with \autoref{lem:i vs d} implies that every trio of these horoballs mutually intersect, so by Helly's theorem there is a point $x$ in their common intersection \cite{Helly}, and one may finish as above.
\end{remark}

\section{From kappa to eta}
\label{sec:pf of main thm}

As stated in the introduction, it is an exercise to show that
\begin{equation*}
\label{eq:eta kappa}
\eta_T(k) = \max \{ n: \kappa_T(n)\le k\}~.
\end{equation*}
By \autoref{thm: kappa}, we may conclude $\eta_T(k)\le \max\{n: n-C\sqrt n\log n \le k\}$.

\autoref{main thm} now follows from the following lemma:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:functions}
Suppose that $C>0$ is a constant, and that $f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}$ is an increasing, sublinear function, with $f(x)=o(x)$.
There is a $D>0$ so that for any $k\ge 1$ we have $\max\{ x: x- Cf(x)\le k\} \le k+ D f(k)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Because $f(x)=o(x)$, there is a $C_1>0$ large enough so that $C_1-1>Cf(C_1)$.
Because $f$ is sublinear, for any $k\ge 1$ we have
\[
(C_1-1)k > Ck \, f(C_1) \ge C \, f(C_1k)~.
\]
Adding $k$ to both sides and rearranging we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:too big}
C_1k-C\, f(C_1k) > k~.
\end{equation}

Let $F(k)=\max\{ x: x-Cf(x)\le k\}$.
By \eqref{eq:too big} we have $F(k) < C_1k$.
Of course, by definition of $F(k)$ we have $F(k) - Cf(F(k)) \le k$.
Because $f$ is increasing and sublinear, we find
\[
F(k) \le k+C f(F(k)) \le k+C f(C_1k) \le k+CC_1 f(k)~,
\]
as claimed.
\end{proof}

Because $\sqrt x\log x$ is increasing and sublinear, this completes the proof of \autoref{main thm}.

\begin{remark}
\label{rem:sloppy lemma}
The conclusion of \autoref{lem:functions} holds under much weaker assumptions. For instance, sublinearity of $f$ can be replaced by the assumption that there is some $C_2>0$ so that $f(x+y) $ is at most $C_2 f(x) + C_2 f(y)$.
\end{remark}

\bigskip

\bibliographystyle{alpha}
\newcommand{\etalchar}[1]{$^{#1}$}

Geometric Topology (math.GT); Combinatorics (math.CO)


Covering compact metric spaces greedily

Abstract: A general greedy approach to construct coverings of compact metric spaces by metric balls is given and analyzed. The analysis is a continuous version of Chvatal's analysis of the greedy algorithm for the weighted set cover problem. The approach is demonstrated in an exemplary manner to construct efficient coverings of the n-dimensional sphere and n-dimensional Euclidean space to give short and transparent proofs of several best known bounds obtained from deterministic constructions in the literature on sphere coverings.

\section{Introduction}

Let $X$ be a compact metric space having metric $d$. Given a scalar
$r\in\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ we define the \emph{closed ball} of radius $r$
around center $x \in X$ by
\[
B(x,r) = \{ y \in X : d(x,y) \leq r\}.
\]

The \emph{covering number} of the space $X$ and a positive number $r$
is
\[
\mathcal{N}(X,r) = \min \left\{ |Y| :  Y \subseteq X,\, \bigcup_{y \in Y} B(y,r) = X \right\},
\]
i.e.\ it is the smallest number of balls with radius $r$ one needs to
cover~$X$. Determining the covering number is a fundamental problem in
metric geometry (see for example the classical book by Rogers
\cite{Rogers1964a}) with many applications: compressive sensing
\cite{Foucart2013a}, approximation theory and machine learning
\cite{Cucker2002a} --- to name a few.

\smallskip

In this paper we are concerned with compact metric spaces which carry
a probability measure $\omega$; a Borel measure normalized by
$\omega(X) = 1$. We will assume that this probability measure behaves
homogeneously on balls and is non degenerate, i.e.\ it satisfies the
following two conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(a)] $\omega(B(x,s))=\omega(B(y,s))$ for all $x,y\in X$, and for
 all $s \geq 0$,
\item[(b)] $\omega(B(x,\varepsilon))>0$ for all $x\in X$, and for all $\varepsilon>0$.
\end{enumerate}

By (a) the measure of a ball does only depend on the radius $s$ and not
on the center $x$, so we simply denote $\omega(B(x,s))$ by $\omega_s$
throughout the paper.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Let $(X,d)$ be a compact metric space with probability measure
$\omega$ satisfying conditions~(a) and~(b).  Then for every
$\varepsilon$ with $r/2 > \varepsilon > 0$ the covering number satisfies
\[
\frac{1}{\omega_r} \leq \mathcal{N}(X,r) \leq
\frac{1}{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}
\left(\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}{\omega_\varepsilon}\right)+1\right).
\]
\end{theorem}

The lower bound is obvious (using the $\sigma$-subadditivity of
$\omega$). We give a proof for the upper bound in
Section~\ref{sec:proof}. Our proof is based on a greedy approach to
covering. We iteratively choose balls which cover the maximum measure
of yet uncovered space.

This greedy algorithm has been analyzed in the finite setting of the
\textsc{set cover} problem which is a fundamental problem in
combinatorial optimization. The \textsc{set cover} problem is defined
as follows. Given a collection $S_1, \ldots, S_m$ of the ground set
$\{1, \ldots, n\}$ and given costs $c_1, \ldots, c_m$ the task is find
a set of indices $I \subseteq \{1, \ldots, m\}$ such that
$\bigcup_{i \in I} S_i = \{1, \ldots, n\}$ and $\sum_{i \in I} c_i$ is
as small as possible.

Computationally, the \textsc{set cover} problem is difficult; Dinur
and Steurer \cite{Dinur2014a} showed that for every $\varepsilon > 0$
it is $\mathrm{NP}$-hard to find an approximation to the \textsc{set
  cover} problem within a factor of $(1-\varepsilon) \ln n$.

On the other hand, Chv\'atal \cite{Chvatal1979a} (previously, Johnson
\cite{Johnson1974a}, Stein \cite{Stein1974a} and Lov\'asz
\cite{Lovasz1975a} proved similar results for the case of uniform
costs $c_1 = \ldots = c_m = 1$) showed that the greedy algorithm gives
an $(\ln n + 1)$-approximation for the \textsc{set cover}
problem. More specifically, Chv\'atal showed that the natural linear
programming relaxation of \textsc{set cover}
\[
\begin{split}
\text{minimize } & \;\sum_{i=1}^m c_i x_i\\
\text{subject to } & \; x_1, \ldots, x_m \geq 0\\
& \; \sum_{i : j \in S_i} x_i \geq 1 \text{ for all } j = 1, \ldots, n
\end{split}
\]
is at most a factor of
$H_k = \sum_{n=1}^k \frac{1}{n} \leq \ln k + 1$, with
$k = \max_i |S_i|$, away from an optimal solution of \textsc{set
  cover}. He proved this bound by exhibiting an appropriate feasible
solution of the dual of the linear programming relaxation. The greedy
algorithm is used to construct this feasible solution.

In Section~\ref{sec:proof} we transfer Chv\'atal's argument from the
finite \textsc{set cover} setting to the setting of compact metric
spaces. Function $g$ appearing there features the feasible solution of
the dual linear program. This will provide a proof of
Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. In Section~\ref{sec:applications} we apply
Theorem~\ref{thm:main} to three concrete geometric settings and we
retrieve some of the best known asymptotic results, unifying many
results on sphere coverings.

We think that the $\mathrm{NP}$-hardness of getting
$(1-\varepsilon)\ln n$-approximations for the \textsc{set cover}
problem is a natural barrier for getting better asymptotic results for
geometric covering problems. This might serve as an explanation why
progress for example on the sphere covering problem has been very slow
since the initial work of Rogers \cite{Rogers1964a}.

We are not the first observing the strong relation between geometric
covering problems and \textsc{set cover}\footnote{In fact, we realized
  this only after we, in an attempt to understand geometric covering
  problems from an optimization point of view, wrote down the main
  body of this paper.}. In recent papers, Artstein-Avidan and Raz
\cite{Artstein2011a}, Artstein-Avidan and Slomka \cite{Artstein2015a}
and especially Nasz\'odi \cite{Naszodi2016a} used the results of
Lov\'asz \cite{Lovasz1975a} to unify old results and prove new results
on geometric coverings. However, they apply the results from
\textsc{set cover} directly after choosing a finite
$\varepsilon$-net. Since we consider an infinite analogue of
\textsc{set cover} we do not need to use an $\varepsilon$-net and by
this we sometimes get slightly better constants and more importantly
we think that the analysis becomes rather beautiful.

Using the relation between geometric covering problems and \textsc{set
  cover} has already turned out to be fruitful: Prosanov
\cite{Prosanov2017a} found new upper bounds for the chromatic number
of distance graphs on the unit sphere, Nasz\'odi and Polyanskii
\cite{Naszodi2017a} studied multi covers by this approach.

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
\label{sec:proof}

We shall prove that the following greedy algorithm
(Algorithm~\ref{algo:Chvcover}) will provide a covering of $X$ with at
most
\[
\frac{1}{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}
\left(\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}{\omega_\varepsilon}\right)+1\right)
\]
many balls of radius $r$.

\begin{algorithm}[h]
	\caption{Greedy algorithm}\label{algo:Chvcover}
	\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State $i \gets 0$
\State $S_x^i = B(x,r-\varepsilon)$ for all $x\in X$
\While {$\bigcup_{j=1}^i B(y^j,r) \neq X$}
   \State $i \gets i+1$
	\State Choose $y\in X$ with $\omega(S_y^{i-1})\geq \omega(S_x^{i-1})$ for all $x\in X$
	\State $y^i = y$
	\State $S_x^i = S_x^{i-1}\setminus S_y^{i-1}$ for all $x\in X$
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}

We split the proof into three lemmas where the following identity will
become important:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fundamental}
S_x^{i-1} = B(x,r-\varepsilon) \setminus \bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} B(y^j, r-\varepsilon).
\end{equation}

\smallskip

The first lemma states that the step of the algorithm when we want to
choose $y \in X$, with $\omega(S^{i-1}_y) \geq \omega(S^{i-1}_x)$ for
all $x \in X$, is indeed well-defined.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:welldefined}
In every iteration $i$ the supremum $\sup\{\omega(S_x^{i-1}) : x \in X\}$
is attained.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 We shall show that the function $f_i \colon X \to \mathbb{R}$,
 $f_i(x)=\omega(S_x^{i-1})$ is continuous for every iteration
 $i$. This implies that $f_i$ attains its maximum since $X$ is
 compact.

For $x, y \in X$ we have
\[
\begin{split} |f_i(x)-f_i(y)|
& = |\omega(S_x^{i-1}) - \omega(S_y^{i-1})|\\
& = |\omega(S_x^{i-1} \setminus S_y^{i-1}) + \omega(S_x^{i-1}
 \cap S_y^{i-1})\\
& \qquad - (\omega(S_y^{i-1} \setminus S_x^{i-1}) +
 \omega(S_y^{i-1} \cap S_x^{i-1}))|\\
& = |\omega(S_x^{i-1} \setminus S_y^{i-1}) - \omega(S_y^{i-1}\setminus S_x^{i-1})|\\
& \leq \max\{\omega(S_x^{i-1}\setminus S_y^{i-1}), \omega(S_y^{i-1}\setminus S_x^{i-1})\}.
\end{split}
\]
Without loss of generality, the maximum is attained
at $\omega(S_x^{i-1}\setminus S_y^{i-1})$. Then by \eqref{eq:fundamental} we see
\[
S_x^{i-1}\setminus S_y^{i-1} \subseteq B(x,r - \varepsilon) \setminus B(y,r -
\varepsilon).
\]
By the triangle inequality
\[
B(x,r - \varepsilon) \setminus B(y,r -
\varepsilon) \subseteq B(y,r - \varepsilon +d(x,y))\setminus B(y,r - \varepsilon).
\]
Now consider the indicator function
$\mathbbm{1}_{B(y,r - \varepsilon +d(x,y))\setminus B(y,r -
 \varepsilon)}$.
When $y$ tends to $x$, then we have a monotonously decreasing sequence
of measurable functions tending to $0$. By applying the theorem of
monotone convergence we obtain that the integral
\[
\int \mathbbm{1}_{B(y,r - \varepsilon +d(x,y))\setminus B(y,r -
\varepsilon)}(z)\, d\omega(z)
\]
tends to $0$ as well. Hence, $f_i(y)$ tends to $f_i(x)$.
\end{proof}

The second lemma states that the algorithm terminates after finitely
many iterations.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:termination}
 Algorithm \ref{algo:Chvcover} terminates after at most
 $\omega_\varepsilon^{-1}$ iterations and returns a covering.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 Consider the $i$-th iteration of the algorithm and suppose there
 exists $z\in X$ with $z\notin \bigcup_{j=1}^{i-1} B(y^j,r)$. From
 the triangle inequality it follows that
\[
B(z,\varepsilon)\cap B(y^j,r-\varepsilon) = \emptyset.
\]
Together with \eqref{eq:fundamental} it implies that
$B(z,\varepsilon)\subseteq S_z^{i-1}$. Choose $y \in X$ with
$\omega (S^{i-1}_y) \geq \omega (S^{i-1}_x)$ for every $x \in X$. Hence
we have
\[
\omega(S^{i-1}_y) \geq \omega (S^{i-1}_z) \geq
\omega(B(z,\varepsilon)) = \omega_\varepsilon >0,
\]
where $\omega_\varepsilon$ is positive by assumption (b) and thus
\[
1 = \omega(X) \geq \sum_{j=1}^i\omega(S_{y^j}^{j-1})\geq
i\cdot\omega_\varepsilon,
\]
where the first inequality follows because the sets
$S_{y^j}^{j-1}$, with $j = 1, \ldots, i$, are pairwise
disjoint.  So after at most $\omega_\varepsilon^{-1}$
iterations, the algorithm terminates with a covering.
\end{proof}

The third lemma gives the desired upper bound for the covering number.

\begin{lemma}
Algorithm~\ref{algo:Chvcover} terminates after at most
\[
\frac{1}{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}
\left(\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}{\omega_{\varepsilon}}\right)
  + 1\right)
\]
iterations. In particular, this number gives an upper bound for the
covering number $\mathcal{N}(X,r)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
 Let $Y \subseteq X$ denote the covering produced by Algorithm
 \ref{algo:Chvcover} after $|Y|$ iterations.  We shall prove
\begin{equation}
\label{densitystatementm}
\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r - \varepsilon}}{\omega_\varepsilon}\right)+ 1  \geq |Y|\cdot \omega_{r - \varepsilon}.
\end{equation}

For this we define the symmetric kernel $K \colon X\times X \to \mathbb{R}$ by
\[
K(x,y)=
\begin{cases}
1, & \text{if }  y \in B(x,r - \varepsilon)\\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
For every $x\in X$ the following equality
\[
\int K(x,y) \, d\omega(y) = \omega_{r - \varepsilon}
\]
holds because for every fixed $x \in X$ we have
$K(x,y)=\mathbbm{1}_{B(x,r-\varepsilon)}(y)$ for all $y \in X$. We
will exhibit an integrable function
$g \colon X \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{help1m}
\int K(x,y) g(x) \, d\omega(x) \leq \ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r -
   \varepsilon}}{\omega_\varepsilon}\right)+1
\end{equation}
for all $y\in X$ and satisfying
\begin{equation}
\label{help2m}
\int g(x)\, d\omega(x) = |Y|.
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{help1m} and \eqref{help2m}, we get
\[
\begin{split}
\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}{\omega_{\varepsilon}}\right)
 + 1
&  \geq \int \int K(x,y) g(x) \, d\omega(x) d\omega(y)\\
& = \int  g(x) \int K(x,y) \, d\omega(y) d\omega(x) \\
& = \int  g(x) \omega_{r - \varepsilon} \, d\omega(x) \\
& = |Y| \cdot \omega_{r - \varepsilon}
\end{split}
\]
and we have proven~\eqref{densitystatementm}.

\bigskip

Now we only have to exhibit the function $g$.

\smallskip

For brevity, we denote $\omega^{i-1}_y=\omega(S_y^{i-1})$. We define $g$ as follows:
\[
g(x) =
\begin{cases}
(\omega_{y^i}^{i-1})^{-1}, & \text{ if } x\in S_{y^i}^{i-1},\\
0, & \text{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\]
which is a valid definition since the sets $S_{y^i}^{i-1}$ are
pairwise disjoint. Also observe that $g$ is an integrable function on
the compact set $X$.

From this definition of~$g$ we immediately get \eqref{help2m}:
\[
\int g(x)\, d\omega(x) = \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|}
\omega_{y^i}^{i-1} (\omega_{y^i}^{i-1})^{-1} = |Y|,
\]

To prove \eqref{help1m} we fix $y \in X$. We observe the equality
\[
B(y,r - \varepsilon)\cap S_{y^i}^{i-1} = S_y^{i-1}\setminus S_y^i,
\]
which describes which part of $B(y,r - \varepsilon)$ is cut away in iteration
$i$. Then,
\[
\begin{split}
\int K(x,y) g(x) \, d\omega(x)
& = \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} \int K(x,y) \mathbbm{1}_{S_{y^i}^{i-1} }(x) (\omega^{i-1}_{y^i})^{-1} \, d\omega(x)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} \int \mathbbm{1}_{S_y^{i-1}\setminus S_y^i}(x) (\omega^{i-1}_{y^i})^{-1} \, d\omega(x)\\
& = \sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y) (\omega^{i-1}_{y^i})^{-1}
\end{split}
\]
For $y\in X$ consider the last iteration $b$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{help4m}
\omega_{r-\varepsilon} = \omega(B(y,r - \varepsilon)) = \omega_y^0\geq \omega_y^1 \geq \ldots \geq \omega_y^b
\geq \omega(B(y, \varepsilon)) = \omega_{\varepsilon}
\end{equation}
holds (here we used $r/2 > \varepsilon$). Note that $b < |Y|$. Note also that $\omega_y^{i-1} \leq
\omega^{i-1}_{y^i}$ holds. We split the sum above into two parts:
\[
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^{|Y|} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y)
(\omega^{i-1}_{y^i})^{-1}
& = \sum_{i=1}^{b} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y)
(\omega^{i-1}_{y^i})^{-1}
+ \sum_{i=b+1}^{|Y|} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y)
(\omega^{i-1}_{y^i})^{-1}\\
& \leq \sum_{i=1}^{b} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y)
(\omega^{i-1}_{y})^{-1}
+ (\omega^b_y - \omega^{b+1}_y) (\omega^b_y)^{-1} \\
& \qquad + \sum_{i =
 b+2}^{|Y|} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y)
\omega_{\varepsilon}^{-1}\\
& \leq \left(\sum_{i=1}^{b} (\omega^{i-1}_y - \omega^i_y)
(\omega^{i-1}_{y})^{-1} + \frac{\omega^b_y -
 \omega_\varepsilon}{\omega^b_y} \right) \\
& \qquad + \left(\frac{\omega_{\varepsilon} -
   \omega^{b+1}_y}{\omega_{\varepsilon}} + \frac{\omega^{b+1}_y - \omega^{|Y|}_y}{\omega_{\varepsilon}}\right).
\end{split}
\]
The first sum is a lower Riemann sum of the function $x \mapsto \frac{1}{x}$ in
the interval $[\omega_\varepsilon, \omega_{r-\varepsilon}]$
and thus we have $\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r -
   \varepsilon}}{\omega_{\varepsilon}}\right)$ as an
upper bound. The second sum is clearly bounded above by $1$. Hence, \eqref{help1m} holds.
\end{proof}

\section{Applications of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
\label{sec:applications}

\subsection{Covering the $n$-dimensional sphere}
\label{ssec:sphere}

As a first application of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we consider the
problem of covering the $n$-dimensional sphere
\[
X = S^n = \{x \in \mathbb{R}^{n+1} : x \cdot x = 1\},
\]
equipped with spherical distance
\[
d(x,y) = \arccos x \cdot y \in [0,\pi]
\]
and with the rotationally invariant probability measure $\omega$, by
spherical caps / metric balls $B(x,r)$. Clearly, properties (a) and
(b) are satisfied in this setting. Again we set
$\omega_r = \omega(B(x,r))$.

We are especially interested in the covering number
$\mathcal{N}(S^n, r)$ when $0 < r < \pi/2$ or equivalently in the
covering density defined by $\omega_r \cdot \mathcal{N}(S^n,
r)$. Theorem~\ref{thm:main} says that the covering density is at most
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:density-bound}
\frac{\omega_r}{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}} \left(
\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}{\omega_{\varepsilon}}\right) + 1
\right).
\end{equation}
This upper bounds holds for every $\varepsilon$ with
$0 < \varepsilon < r$. By choosing $\varepsilon$ depending on the
dimension $n$ and on the spherical distance $r$ we can find an upper
bound for the covering density which only depends on $n$.

For this we recall a useful estimate of fractions of the form
$\omega_{tr}/\omega_r$ due to B\"or\"ozky~Jr.\ and Wintsche
\cite{Böröczky2003a}:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:bw-bound}
\frac{\omega_{tr}}{\omega_r} \leq t^n \quad \text{whenever } r < tr < \frac{\pi}{2}.
\end{equation}
We set $\varepsilon = r/(\mu n +1)$ with parameter $\mu > 1$ which we
are going to adjust later. Furthermore, we set
\[
t = \frac{r}{r-\varepsilon} = 1 + \frac{1}{\mu n}
\]
and
\[
t' =\frac{r-\varepsilon}{\varepsilon} = \mu n.
\]
By using \eqref{eq:density-bound} and \eqref{eq:bw-bound} we have the
following upper bound for the covering density
\[
\begin{split}
\frac{\omega_r}{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}} \left(
\ln\left(\frac{\omega_{r-\varepsilon}}{\omega_{\varepsilon}}\right) + 1
\right)
& \leq \left( 1 + \frac{1}{\mu n}\right)^n (n \ln \mu n + 1)\\
& \leq e^{1/\mu} (n \ln \mu n + 1)\\
& \leq \left(1 + \frac{1}{\mu - 1}\right)  (n \ln \mu n + 1)
\end{split}
\]

Thus we have proven:

\begin{corollary}
 The covering density of the $n$-dimensional sphere by spherical
 balls is at most
\[
\left(1 + \frac{1}{\mu - 1}\right)  (n \ln \mu n + 1) \text{ for all }
\mu > 1.
\]
In particular, for $\mu = \ln n$, the covering density is at most
\[
n \ln n + n \ln\ln n + n + o(n).
\]
\end{corollary}

In the asymptotic case the best known bound is $(1/2 + o(1)) n \ln n$
due to Dumer \cite{Dumer2007a} which comes from a randomized
construction. Our corollary slightly improves the previously best
known non-asymptotic bound $n \ln n + n \ln\ln n + 2n + o(n)$ by
B\"or\"ozky~Jr.\ and Wintsche \cite{Böröczky2003a} also coming from a
randomized construction.

\subsection{Covering $n$-dimensional Euclidean space}
\label{ssec:space}

As a second application we consider coverings of $n$-dimensional
Euclidean space~$\mathbb{R}^n$ by congruent balls. We get a covering
of $\mathbb{R}^n$ by applying Theorem~\ref{thm:main} to the torus
$\mathbb{T}^n = \mathbb{R}^n / \mathbb{Z}^n$ which is a compact metric
space satisfying properties (a) and (b). Then we periodically extend
the obtained covering of $\mathbb{T}^n$ to a covering of the entire
$\mathbb{R}^n$ having the same covering density.

We repeat the choices and calculations as in the previous section
(which are slightly simpler here because clearly
$\omega_{tr}/\omega_r = t^n$ holds where here $\omega$ denotes the
Lebesgues measure) and get:

\begin{corollary}
 The covering density of the $n$-dimensional Euclidean space
 by congruent balls is at most
\[
\left(1 + \frac{1}{\mu - 1}\right)  (n \ln \mu n + 1) \text{ for all }
\mu > 1.
\]
In particular, for $\mu = \ln n$, the covering density is at most
\[
n \ln n + n \ln\ln n + n + o(n).
\]
\end{corollary}

We remark that this bound coincides with the currently best known
bound by G. F\'ejes Toth \cite{FejesToth2009a} coming from a
deterministic construction. The best known bound coming from a
randomized construction is $(1/2 + o(1)) n \ln n$ due to Dumer
\cite{Dumer2007a}

\subsection{More general coverings}
\label{ssec:general}

At last we want to demonstrate that the greedy approach to geometric
covering problems is quite flexible. It is not restricted to finding
coverings of compact metric spaces by balls but can be extended to
finding coverings of compact metric spaces by finite unions of balls
\[
\bigcup_{i=1}^N B(y_i,r),
\]
where we choose the initial points $y_1,\ldots , y_N\in X$ arbitrarily.

We make this statement precise in the general setting of a compact
metric space $(X,d)$. Consider the group of continuous isometries of
$(X,d)$, these are all continuous bijective maps $\tau \colon X \to X$
which preserve the distance between every two points $x,y \in X$. We
assume that the group acts transitively on $X$ and that
$\omega(\tau A) = \omega(A)$ holds for all continuous isometries
$\tau$ and all measurable sets $A$. Then by the theorem of
Arzel\`a-Ascoli (see for example \cite[Chapter 4.6]{Folland1999a}) the
group of continuous isometries is relatively compact in the compact
space of continuous maps mapping $X$ to itself equipped with the
supremum norm. We need this compactness for Lemma
\ref{lem:welldefined}. So we can transfer the analysis of the greedy
algorithm given in Section~\ref{sec:proof} to this setting.

With small modifications this extension can for example be applied to
prove the following theorem due to Nasz\'odi \cite[Theorem
1.3]{Naszodi2016a}:

\begin{theorem}
\label{Naszth}
Let $K\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be a bounded measurable set. Then there is a
covering of $\mathbb{R}^n$ by translated copies of $K$ of density at most
\[
\inf\left\{
\frac{\omega(K)}{\omega(K_{-\delta})}\left(
   \ln\left(\frac{\omega\left(K_{-\delta/2}
     \right)}{\omega(B(0,\delta/2))}\right)  +1\right) :
\delta > 0, K_{-\delta} \neq \emptyset\right\},
\]
where $K_{-\delta} = \{x\in K :\ B(x,\delta)\subseteq K\}$ is the $\delta$-inner parallel body of $K$.
\end{theorem}

Here, we only sketch the proof, though filling in the details is
easy. As in Section~\ref{ssec:space} we can work on the torus
$\mathbb{T}^n$. We approximate the body $K$ and its inner parallel
bodies by a finite union of balls for which
\[
\bigcup_{i=1}^N B(y_i, \delta) \subseteq K
\]
and
\[
K_{-\delta} \subseteq \bigcup_{i=1}^N B(y_i, \delta/2) \subseteq K_{-\delta/2}
\]
holds. In the end going back from the torus $\mathbb{T}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}^n$
we get a covering of $\mathbb{R}^n$ by translated copies of $K$ with
density at most
\[
\inf\left\{
\frac{\omega(K)}{\omega(K_{-\delta/2})}\left(
   \ln\left(\frac{\omega\left(K_{-\delta/2}
     \right)}{\omega(B(0,\delta/2))}\right)  +1\right) :
\delta > 0, K_{-\delta} \neq \emptyset\right\},
\]
improving the result of Nasz\'odi slightly.

Another alternative of proving this bound is to verify that the proof
of Theorem \ref{thm:main} also holds if we consider translates of
$K_{-\delta/2}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ instead of balls
$B(x,r-\varepsilon)$. This further requires that $K_{-\delta}$ is
nonempty and to consider translates of Minkowski sums
$x + K_{-\delta/2} + B(0, \zeta)$ instead of
$B(x, r - \varepsilon + \zeta)$ in the parts of the proofs of Lemmas
\ref{lem:welldefined} and \ref{lem:termination} where we apply the
triangle inequality.

\section*{Acknowledgements}

We thank Markus Schweighofer, Cordian Riener, and the anonymous referee for helpful remarks.

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Computational Geometry (cs.CG)

Covering compact metric spaces greedily