Higgledy-piggledy subspaces and uniform subspace designs
Abstract
In this article, we investigate collections of `well-spread-out' projective (and linear) subspaces. Projective k-subspaces in PG(d,F) are in `higgledy-piggledy arrangement' if they meet each projective subspace of co-dimension k in a generator set of points. We prove that the set H of higgledy-piggledy k-subspaces has to contain more than |F|,Σi=0kd-k+ii+1 elements. We also prove that H has to contain more than (k+1)·(d-k) elements if the field F is algebraically closed. An r-uniform weak (s,A) subspace design is a set of linear subspaces H1,..,HNm each of rank r such that each linear subspace Wm of rank s meets at most A among them. This subspace design is an r-uniform strong (s,A) subspace design if Σi=1Nrank(Hi W) A for ∀ Wm of rank s. We prove that if m=r+s then the dual (\H1,...,HN\) of an r-uniform weak (strong) subspace design of parameter (s,A) is an s-uniform weak (strong) subspace design of parameter (r,A). We show the connection between uniform weak subspace designs and higgledy-piggledy subspaces proving that A|F|,Σi=0r-1s+ii+1 for r-uniform weak or strong (s,A) subspace designs in Fr+s. We show that the r-uniform strong (s,r· s+r2) subspace design constructed by Guruswami and Kopprty (based on multiplicity codes) has parameter A=r· s if we consider it as a weak subspace design. We give some similar constructions of weak and strong subspace designs (and higgledy-piggledy subspaces) and prove that the lower bound (k+1)·(d-k)+1 over algebraically closed field is tight.
Turn this paper into a lesson
ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.