Part VI · The frontier · Lesson 16
Beyond the plane
Singer sets in every dimension, and the q = 2 case that becomes the shift-register sequence engineers call an m-sequence.
You’ll learn: that Singer’s construction works in any number of dimensions, what the parameters , , and become, and why the smallest field, with , turns the difference set into a stream of bits that looks random but lines up with itself in only one place. Part VII leans on that last fact.
From a plane to a space
Part IV builds the projective plane of order from vectors with three coordinates over the finite field with elements. (Those lessons are still being written; here is the picture you need.) A point is a direction: a vector together with all its nonzero multiples. A line is a flat sheet through the origin, which contains many directions.
Nothing stops us from using more coordinates. With coordinates we get a projective space of dimension . The role of the lines is now played by hyperplanes: the flat pieces that are one dimension smaller than the whole space, the way a plane is one dimension smaller than 3-dimensional space.
Counting points
There are vectors with coordinates, since each coordinate has choices. Leave out the zero vector, which points nowhere. Each direction contains nonzero vectors (its nonzero multiples), so the number of points is
A hyperplane is a copy of a space with one coordinate fewer, so by the same count it holds points. Two different hyperplanes meet in a piece with two coordinates fewer, which holds
points. (λ is the Greek letter lambda, as in Lesson 1.) For these are the plane’s numbers: , , and , because two lines meet in one point.
Singer’s theorem in every dimension
Singer’s 1938 paper already covers every dimension. The finite field with elements has a single element (the Greek letter alpha) whose powers run through every nonzero element. Number the points so that point is the direction of . Multiplying by carries flat pieces to flat pieces and moves point to point , all the way around a cycle of points. So, exactly as in Lesson 4:
Theorem (Singer). Pick any hyperplane of and let be the numbers of its points. Then is a difference set with the parameters above, and the other hyperplanes are its translates .
The reason is the same one as Lesson 2: two translates are two different hyperplanes, so they share exactly points, and a set whose translates all overlap in points has every nonzero difference exactly times.
Choose and below. The strip shows the points with the hyperplane filled in, and the tally shows every difference occurring exactly times.
Some small cases:
| 2 | 2 | (7, 3, 1) |
| 2 | 3 | (15, 7, 3) |
| 2 | 4 | (31, 15, 7) |
| 2 | 5 | (63, 31, 15) |
| 3 | 3 | (40, 13, 4) |
| 4 | 3 | (85, 21, 5) |
When q = 2: a shift register
With the field has just the two elements 0 and 1, and . Arithmetic with them is the arithmetic of bits. Set the widget to and look at the row of bits under the strip.
Those bits come from a shift register, one of the simplest circuits there is: it remembers the last few bits and makes the next bit by adding some of them, mod 2. For the rule is
starting from . That gives , and then it repeats with period 15. The 0s sit at positions , which is exactly the Singer set of , a difference set.
This is no accident. The rule comes from the polynomial used to build the field with 16 elements, and the bit is the “trace” of that Part V uses to pick out the hyperplane. Engineers call such a sequence a maximal-length sequence, or m-sequence: with bits of memory it runs through the longest possible period, , before repeating. The zeros of a binary m-sequence always form a Singer set with ; Golomb and Gong’s book on signal design covers this in detail.
Lining up with itself
Turn the bits into signs: write at the positions in and everywhere else. Now slide a copy of the sequence along by steps, multiply it position by position with the original, and add up. This total is the autocorrelation at shift . At every product is , so the total is .
At any other shift, the two copies disagree exactly where one has a and the other doesn’t. The original has positions of , and the shifted copy shares of them (Lesson 2 again), so each copy has positions the other lacks. That makes disagreements, each contributing instead of :
( means “is not equal to”.) For this is , whatever is. The bottom chart in the widget shows it: one tall spike of height and a perfectly flat everywhere else. A sequence like this looks like noise, yet it matches itself at exactly one alignment. That is what lets a receiver find an echo (Lesson 20) and a telescope unscramble a shadow (Lesson 19).
Try in the widget: the off-peak value is no longer . Planar sets with larger have a flat but tall floor, so engineers use them where only the on/off pattern matters (Lessons 21–23), and use for signs.
A warning from higher dimensions
In the plane, every known difference set with Singer’s parameters is equivalent to a Singer set, and Lesson 17 asks whether that is always so. In higher dimensions the answer is known, and it is no. In 1962 Basil Gordon, William Mills, and Lloyd Welch built difference sets with exactly Singer’s parameters (here ) that are not equivalent to any Singer set, whenever is a product of two whole numbers, one of them at least 3 and the other at least 2. The smallest case is , : two inequivalent sets, the pair Marshall Hall had found. Their construction never produces planar parameters, since that needs , a prime. So it says nothing about the question of Lesson 17.
Try it
Find for , and check Lesson 1’s counting rule .
Show the answer
, , and . Then and . They match. Set the widget to , to see the set.
Check the set yourself in the difference set workbench, and look at its translates: any two share exactly 3 points.
Sources
- J. Singer, “A theorem in finite projective geometry and some applications to number theory,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 43 (1938), 377–385. DOI 10.1090/S0002-9947-1938-1501951-4.
- B. Gordon, W. H. Mills, and L. R. Welch, “Some new difference sets,” Canad. J. Math. 14 (1962), 614–625. DOI 10.4153/CJM-1962-052-2.
- S. W. Golomb and G. Gong, Signal Design for Good Correlation, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
- Q. Xiang, a survey of sequences with two-level autocorrelation, which shows they are the same thing as cyclic difference sets.