Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Dan McQuillan

Publications and source records attributed to Dan McQuillan.

9 recordsLinked to original sources
arXiv2021

Drawings of complete graphs in the projective plane

Hill's Conjecture states that the crossing number $\text{cr}(K_n)$ of the complete graph $K_n$ in the plane (equivalently, the sphere) is $\frac{1}{4}\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor\lfloor\frac{n-2}{2}\rfloor\lfloor\frac{n-3}{2}\rfloor=n^4/64 + O(n^3)$. Moon proved that the expected number of crossings in a spherical drawing in which the points are randomly distributed and joined by geodesics is precisely $n^4/64+O(n^3)$, thus matching asymptotically the conjectured value of $\text{cr}(K_n)$. Let $\text{cr}_P(G)$ denote the crossing number of a graph $G$ in the projective plane. Recently, Elkies proved that the expected number of crossings in a naturally defined random projective plane drawing of $K_n$ is $(n^4/8π^2)+O(n^3)$. In analogy with the relation of Moon's result to Hill's conjecture, Elkies asked if $\lim_{n\to\infty} \text{cr}_P(K_n)/n^4=1/8π^2$. We construct drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane that disprove this.

math.CO↗
arXiv2018

Bishellable drawings of $K_n$

The Harary--Hill conjecture, still open after more than 50 years, asserts that the crossing number of the complete graph $K_n$ is $ H(n) = \frac 1 4 \left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor \left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n-1}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor \left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n-2}{\mathstrut 2}\right\rfloor \left\lfloor\frac{\mathstrut n-3}{\mathstrut 2}\right \rfloor$. Ábrego et al. introduced the notion of shellability of a drawing $D$ of $K_n$. They proved that if $D$ is $s$-shellable for some $s\geq\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$, then $D$ has at least $H(n)$ crossings. This is the first combinatorial condition on a drawing that guarantees at least $H(n)$ crossings. In this work, we generalize the concept of $s$-shellability to bishellability, where the former implies the latter in the sense that every $s$-shellable drawing is, for any $b \leq s-2$, also $b$-bishellable. Our main result is that $(\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor\!-\!2)$-bishellability of a drawing $D$ of $K_n$ also guarantees, with a simpler proof than for $s$-shellability, that $D$ has at least $H(n)$ crossings. We exhibit a drawing of $K_{11}$ that has $H(11)$ crossings, is 3-bishellable, and is not $s$-shellable for any $s\geq5$. This shows that we have properly extended the class of drawings for which the Harary-Hill Conjecture is proved. Moreover, we provide an infinite family of drawings of $K_n$ that are $(\lfloor \frac{n}{2} \rfloor\!-\!2)$-bishellable, but not $s$-shellable for any $s\geq\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$.

math.CO↗
arXiv2017

Convex drawings of the complete graph: topology meets geometry

In this work, we introduce and develop a theory of convex drawings of the complete graph $K_n$ in the sphere. A drawing $D$ of $K_n$ is convex if, for every 3-cycle $T$ of $K_n$, there is a closed disc $Δ_T$ bounded by $D[T]$ such that, for any two vertices $u,v$ with $D[u]$ and $D[v]$ both in $Δ_T$, the entire edge $D[uv]$ is also contained in $Δ_T$. As one application of this perspective, we consider drawings containing a non-convex $K_5$ that has restrictions on its extensions to drawings of $K_7$. For each such drawing, we use convexity to produce a new drawing with fewer crossings. This is the first example of local considerations providing sufficient conditions for suboptimality. In particular, we do not compare the number of crossings {with the number of crossings in} any known drawings. This result sheds light on Aichholzer's computer proof (personal communication) showing that, for $n\le 12$, every optimal drawing of $K_n$ is convex. Convex drawings are characterized by excluding two of the five drawings of $K_5$. Two refinements of convex drawings are h-convex and f-convex drawings. The latter have been shown by Aichholzer et al (Deciding monotonicity of good drawings of the complete graph, Proc.~XVI Spanish Meeting on Computational Geometry (EGC 2015), 2015) and, independently, the authors of the current article (Levi's Lemma, pseudolinear drawings of $K_n$, and empty triangles, \rbr{J. Graph Theory DOI: 10.1002/jgt.22167)}, to be equivalent to pseudolinear drawings. Also, h-convex drawings are equivalent to pseudospherical drawings as demonstrated recently by Arroyo et al (Extending drawings of complete graphs into arrangements of pseudocircles, submitted).

math.CO↗
arXiv2016

Witt's cancellation theorem seen as a cancellation

The year 2017 marks the 80th anniversary of Witt's famous paper containing key results, including the Witt cancellation theorem, which form the foundation for the algebraic theory of quadratic forms. We pay homage to this paper by presenting a transparent and algebraic proof of the Witt cancellation theorem, which itself is based on a cancellation. We also present an overview of some recent spectacular work which is still building on Witt's original creation of the algebraic theory of quadratic forms.

math.NT↗
arXiv2016

Drawings of Kn with the same rotation scheme are the same up to Reidemeister moves. Gioan's Theorem

A {\em good drawing\/} of $K_n$ is a drawing of the complete graph with $n$ vertices in the sphere such that: no two edges with a common end cross; no two edges cross more than once; and no three edges all cross at the same point. Gioan's Theorem asserts that any two good drawings of $K_n$ that have the same rotations of incident edges at every vertex are equivalent up to Reidemeister moves. At the time of preparation, 10 years had passed between the statement in the WG 2005 conference proceedings and our interest in the proposition. Shortly after we completed our preprint, Gioan independently completed a preprint.

math.CO↗
arXiv2015

Levi's Lemma, pseudolinear drawings of $K_n$, and empty triangles

There are three main thrusts to this article: a new proof of Levi's Enlargement Lemma for pseudoline arrangements in the real projective plane; a new characterization of pseudolinear drawings of the complete graph; and proofs that pseudolinear and convex drawings of $K_n$ have $n^2+{}$O$(n\log n)$ and O$(n^2)$, respectively, empty triangles. All the arguments are elementary, algorithmic, and self-contained.

math.CO↗
arXiv2015

A Remark on Baserunning risk: Waiting Can Cost You the Game

We address the value of a baserunner at first base waiting to see if a ball in play falls in for a hit, before running. When a ball is hit in the air, the baserunner will usually wait, to gather additional information as to whether a ball will fall for a hit before deciding to run aggressively. This additional information guarantees that there will not be a double play and an "unnecessary out". However, waiting could potentially cost the runner the opportunity to reach third base, or even scoring on the play if the ball falls for a hit. This in turn affects the probability of scoring at least one run henceforth in the inning. We create a new statistic, the baserunning risk threshold (BRT), which measures the minimum probability with which the baserunner should be sure that a ball in play will fall in for a hit, before running without waiting to see if the ball will be caught, with the goal of scoring at least one run in the inning. We measure a 0-out and a 1-out version of BRT, both in aggregate, and also in high leverage situations, where scoring one run is particularly important. We show a drop in BRT for pitchers who pitch in more high leverage innings, and a very low BRT on average for "elite closers". It follows that baserunners should be frequently running without waiting, and getting thrown out in double plays regularly to maximize their chances of scoring at least one run.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2013

On the crossing number of K_13

Since the crossing number of K_{12} is now known to be 150, it is well-known that simple counting arguments and Kleitman's parity theorem for the crossing number of K_{2n+1} combine with a specific drawing of K_{13} to show that the crossing number of K_{13} is one of the numbers in {217,219,221,223,225}. We show that the crossing number is not 217.

math.CO↗