arX

iv:0

709.

1229

v1 [

mat

h.D

S]

8 S

ep 2

007

Outer Billiards on Kites

by

Richard Evan Schwartz

1

PrefaceOuter billiards is a basic dynamical system defined relative to a convex shapein the plane. B.H. Neumann introduced outer billiards in the 1950s, and J.Moser popularized outer billiards in the 1970s as a toy model for celestialmechanics. Outer billiards is an appealing dynamical system because of itssimplicity and also because of its connection to topics such as interval ex-change transformations, piecewise isometries, and area-preserving dynamics.There is a lot left to learn about these kinds of dynamical systems, and adeep understanding of outer billiards might shed light on the more generalsituation.

TheMoser-Neumann question, one of the central problems in this subject,asks Does there exist an outer billiards system with an unbounded orbit? Untilrecently, all the work on this subject has been devoted to proving that all theorbits are bounded for various classes of shapes. We will detail these resultsin the introduction.

Recently we answered the Moser-Neumann question in the affirmative byshowing that outer billiards has an unbounded orbit when defined relative tothe Penrose kite, the convex quadrilateral that arises in the famous Penrosetiling. Our proof involves special properties of the Penrose kite, and naturallyraises questions about generalizations.

In this monograph we will give a more general and robust answer to theMoser-Neumann question. We will prove that outer billiards has unboundedorbits when defined relative to any irrational kite. A kite is a convex quadri-lateral with an axis of bilateral symmetry that goes through two oppositevertices. The kite is irrational if it is not affinely equivalent to a quadrilat-eral with rational vertices. Our proof uncovers some of the deep structureunderlying outer billiards on kites, and relates the subject to such topics asself-similar tilings, polytope exchange maps, and the modular group.

One novel feature of this monograph is its computer-inspired origins. Idiscovered every single result in this monograph by experimenting with mycomputer program, Billiard King, a graphical user interface I wrote for thepurpose of solving the Moser-Neumann problem. For the most part, the ma-terial here is logically independent from Billiard King, but I encourage theserious reader of this monograph to download Billiard King and play withit. Billiard King relates to this monograph much in the way that a cookedmeal relates to a recipe. Billiard King is a well-documented java program,

2

available from my website.

There are a number of people I would like to thank. I especially thankSergei Tabachnikov, whose great book Geometry and Billiards first taughtme about outer billiards. Sergei has constantly encouraged me as I haveinvestigated this topic, and he has provided much mathematical insight alongthe way.

I thank Yair Minsky for his work on the punctured-torus case of the End-ing Lamination Conjecture. This result was one of the guiding inspirationsfor my work here. It may seem wierd to relate outer billiards to hyperbolic3-manifolds, but there was a strangely persistent analogy that kept me going.

I thank Eugene Gutkin for the explanations he has given me about hiswork on outer billiards. The work of Gutkin-Simanyi and others on theboundedness of the orbits for rational polygons provided the theoretical un-derpinnings for some of my initial computer investigations.

I thank Jeff Brock, Peter Doyle, David Dumas, Richard Kent, Howie Ma-sur, Curt McMullen, John Smillie, and Ben Wieland, for their mathematicalinsights and general interest in this project.

I thank the National Science Foundation for their continued support,currently in the form of the grant DMS-0604426.

I dedicate this monograph to my parents, Karen and Uri.

3

Table of Contents1. Introduction 6

Part I 162. The Arithmetic Graph 173. The Grid Structure 244. Geometric Limits 355. A Weak Copy Theorem 406. A Case of the Erratic Orbits Theorem 447. Odd Rational Approxiation 508. The Strong Copy Theorem 599. The Main Results 66

Part II 7610. The Master Picture Theorem 7711. The Pinwheel Lemma 9112. The Spiral Lemma 10113. The Torus Lemma 10914. Rough Structure of the Singular Set 12215. Fine Structure of the Singular Set 130

Part III 13616. Proof of the Embedding Theorem 13717. Proof of the Hexagrid Theorem I 14518. Symmetries of the Hexagrid 15219. Confinement 15720. Analysis of the Crossings 16421. Proof of the Hexagrid Theorem II 173

Part IV 19022. Proof of the Weak Copy Theorem 19123. Proof of the Copy Theorem 20024. The Induction Lemma 20825. Proof of the Decomposition Theorem 217

26. references 228

4

1 Introduction

1.1 History of the Problem

B.H. Neumann introduced outer billiards in the late 1950s. In the 1970s, J.Moser popularized outer billiards as a toy model for celestial mechanics. Oneappealing feature of polygonal outer billiards is that it gives rise to a piecewiseisometric mapping of the plane. Such maps have close connections to intervalexchange transformations and more generally polygon exchange maps. See[T1] and [DT] for an exposition of the subject and many references.

To define an outer billiards system, one starts with a bounded convex setS ⊂ R2 and considers a point x0 ∈ R2 − S. One defines x1 to be the pointsuch that the segment x0x1 is tangent to S at its midpoint and S lies to theright of the ray −−→x0x1. (See Figure 1.1 below.) The iteration x0 → x1 → x2...is called the forwards outer billiards orbit of x0. It is defined for almost everypoint of R2 − S. The backwards orbit is defined similarly.

x3x2

x1 x0

Figure 1.1: Outer Billiards

Moser [M, p. 11] attributes the following question to Neumann circa1960, though it is sometimes called Moser’s Question.

Question: Is there an outer billiards system with an unbounded orbit?

This question is a very idealized version of the question about the stabilityof the solar system. The Moser-Neumann question has been considered byvarious authors. Here is a list of the main results on the question.

• J. Moser [M] sketches a proof, inspired by K.A.M. theory, that outerbilliards on S has all bounded orbits provided that ∂S is at least C6

smooth and positively curved. R. Douady gives a complete proof in histhesis, [D].

5

• P. Boyland [B] gives examples of C1 smooth convex domains for whichan orbit can contain the domain boundary in its ω-limit set.

• In [VS], [Ko], and (later, but with different methods) [GS], it is provedthat outer billiards on a quasirational polygon has all orbits bounded.This class of polygons includes rational polygons 1 and also regularpolygons. (For kites, quasi-rational implies rational.) In the rationalcase, all defined orbits are periodic.

• S. Tabachnikov analyzes the outer billiards system for the regular pen-tagon and shows that there are some non-periodic (but bounded) orbits.See [T1, p 158] and the references there.

• D. Genin [G] shows that all orbits are bounded for the outer billiardssystems associated to trapezoids. He also makes a brief numerical studyof a particular irrational kite based on the square root of 2, observespossibly unbounded orbits, and indeed conjectures that this is the case.

• Recently, in [S] we proved that outer billiards has uncountably manyunbounded orbits when defined relative to the Penrose kite, thereby an-swering the Moser-Neumann question in the affirmative. The Penrosekite is the convex quadrilateral that arises in the Penrose tiling. Wealso worked out some of the finer dynamical structure of these orbits.

The work in [S1] naturally raised questions about the generality in whichthe discovered phenomena held true. The purpose of this monograph is togive a robust affirmative answer to the Moser-Neumann problem, and tosomewhat develop the theory of outer billiards on kites. We expect thatsome of the theory we develop here will work for polygonal outer billiards ingeneral, though right now a general theory is beyond us.

We discovered all the results and phenomena discussed in this monographusing our computer program, Billiard King. One can download this java-based program from my website and run it on most platforms. Even thoughwe have tried to make this monograph logically independent of Billiard King,we strongly encourage the reader to use the program.

1Outer billiards is affinely invariant, and so we call a polygon rational if some affine

image has all rational vertices.

6

1.2 Main Results

A kite K is a symmetric quadrilateral whose axis of symmetry contains twoopposite vertices. K rational iffK is affinely equivalent to a kite with rationalvertices, and otherwise irrational . Say that an outer billiards orbit on Kis erratic if both the forwards and backwards directions of the orbit areunbounded, and also return infinitely often to every neighborhood of thevertex set of K. On a large scale, an erratic orbit oscillates in the widestpossible sense.

Theorem 1.1 (Erratic Orbits) Outer billiards on any irrational kite hasuncountably many erratic orbits.

The Erratic Orbits Theorem is one of three main results in the mono-graph. The other two results, the Hexagrid Theorem from §3 and the MasterPicture Theorem from §10, cannot be stated precisely without a build-up ofterminology. In the rest of this section we will at least give an inkling of theHexagrid Theorem. We will discuss the Master Picture Theorem in §1.6. Wethink of the Master Picture Theorem, some version of which ought to hold forpolygonal outer billiards in general, as a good step towards a comprehensivetheory of polygonal outer billiards.

We define the kite K(A) to be the one with vertices

(−1, 0); (0, 1) (0,−1) (A, 0); A ∈ (0, 1). (1)

Every kite is affinely equivalent to someK(A). The Penrose kite isK(√5−2).

The kite K(A) is rational iff A is rational. We call p/q an odd rational if pqis odd, and otherwise an even rational .

Informally speaking, the Hexagrid Theorem states that the arithmeticstructure of a certain class of outer billiards orbits on odd rational kites iscontrolled by a multigrid made from 6 infinite families of parallel lines. Innaming our result, we have in mind an analogy with De Bruijn’s famouspentagrid construction of the Penrose tilings [De]. The Hexagrid Theoremhas one corollary that is easy to state.

Corollary 1.2 Let A = p/q be an odd rational. Then the orbit of the point(1/q, 1), relative to outer billiards on K(A), has diameter at least q/2.

A version of Corollary 1.2 holds for even rational kites, but this case doesnot contribute to our proof of the Erratic Orbits Theorem, so we ignore it.

7

1.3 The Main Construction

Let Zodd denote the set of odd integers. Order 2 rotation in any of thevertices of K(A) preserves the set R × Zodd. Therefore, the outer billiardsmap preserves R × Zodd. We restrict our attention to orbits on R × Zodd.We could probably develop our theory for the general orbit, but this seemsquite a bit more complicated.

We prefer to work with the square of the outer billiards map, which wedenote by ψ. This map is much nicer. For all p ∈ R2 on which ψ is defined,we have

ψ(p) = p+ vp; vp ∈ 2Z[A]× 2Z (2)

This equation derives from the fact that vp = 2(v1− v2), where v1 and v2 aretwo vertices of K(A). See Figure 1.2.

)(ψ

p

p

v1

v2

Figure 1.2: The square of the outer billiards map

Given any α ∈ R, the set

Ωα = (α + 2Z[A])×Zodd (3)

is invariant under ψ. The offset α is chosen so that the outer billiards mapis well-defined on all points of Ωα.

At least when A is irrational, the set Ωα is naturally bijective with Z3.Thus, ψ induces a more “discrete” dynamical system on Z3. Roughly speak-ing, we choose a section Z2 ⊂ Z3 and consider the return map Ψ : Z2 → Z2.The slice Z2 ⊂ Z3 corresponds roughly to the two rays R+ ×−1, 1 ⊂ R2.Roughly, we join each p ∈ Z2 to Ψ(p) ∈ Z2, in order to produce a kind ofgraph Γα(A). See §2.4 for the precise construction. The graph Γα(A) encodesthe orbits of Ψ on Z2. We call this graph the arithmetic graph.

When A = p/q is an odd rational, we set α = 1/q. This is our canonicalchoice. It turns out that we can still carry through the above constructions,

8

although points in Z3 do not correspond uniquely to points of Ω1/q. We

still produce a graph Γ(p/q), whose vertices lie in Z2. It turns out thatΓ(p/q) is always invariant under translation by the vector (q,−p). The mapψ permutes the intervals of length 2/q centered at the points (a/q, b) wherea, b ∈ Zodd. We call these intervals basic intervals . Γ(p/q) encodes the returndynamics of the basic intervals to the two rays R+ × −1, 1.

Let Γ(p/q) denote the connected component of Γ(p/q) that contains (0, 0).We set things up so that Γ(p/q) records the way the orbit O(p/q) of theinterval

IA = (0, 2/q)× 1 (4)

returns to R+ × −1, 1. We call O(p/q) the fundamental orbit . Corollary1.2 concerns the fundamental orbit.

Figure 1.3: The graph Γ(7/13).

Γ(p/q) is an infinite embedded polygonal curve that is invariant underaddition by the vector (q,−p). See the Embedding Theorem from §2.4. Wesay that the baseline of Γ(A) is the line of slope −A through the origin. WhenA = p/q, the baseline is invariant under addition by the vector (−q, p). SeeFigure 1.3. It turns out that Γ(p/q) lies entirely in the halfplane above itsbaseline. The distance from any given vertex of Γ(p/q) to the baseline isproportional to the distance from the corresponding basic interval in R+ ×−1, 1 to the origin. Thus, the higher Γ(A) rises up above its baseline, thefarther the fundamental orbit wanders from the origin.

9

When p/q is an even rational, Γ(p/q) seems to be an embedded closedpolygon. We ignore the even case because it does not contribute to our proofof the Erratic Orbits Theorem.

Our general goal is to take a sequence pn/qn of odd rationals approx-imating A in the best possible sense, and consider a geometric limit of thecorresponding sequence Γn of arithmetic graphs. We will take a suitablegeometric limit Γ∞, and deduce the Erratic Orbits Theorem from the prop-erties of Γ∞.

We will illustrate our method with some pictures. Figure 1.4 shows apicture of Γ(19/35). Notice that Γ(19/35) has a much wider oscillation, butalso manages to copy a bit more than one period of Γ(7/13). What makesthis work is that 7/13 is a very good approximation to 19/35. The CopyTheorem from §5 gives a precise result along these lines.

Figure 1.4: The graph Γ(19/35).

10

Figure 1.5 shows the same phenomenon for Γ(45/83). This graph oscil-lates on a large scale but still manages to copy a bit more than one periodof Γ(19/35). Hence Γ(45/83) oscillates on 3 scales. What makes this work isthat 19/35 is a good approximation of 45/83.

Figure 1.5: The graph Γ(45/83).

Continuing in this way, and taking a limit, we produce a graph Γ(A) thatoscillates on all scales and hence rises unboundedly far from its baseline. Wedevote a whole chapter, §4, to discussing the subtleties of the above limit.The main problem, in addition to the one of producing an unbounded limit, isproducing a limit that actually describes a well-defined orbit on the limitingdynamical system. We solve this problem by forcing the limiting graph Γ(A)comes close to the baseline along a set of points that form a kind of largescale Cantor set. It turns out that we need to produce uncountably manyerratic orbits just to find one unbounded orbit!

11

1.4 The Case of the Penrose Kite

First of all, we note that

√5− 2 = φ−3; φ =

1 +√5

2. (5)

Here φ is the golden ratio.In [S],we proved that outer billiards on K(φ−3) has erratic orbits by con-

sidering the arithmetic graph Γ(φ−3). Our offset value is α = φ−2. We showedthat Γ(φ−3) oscillates on infinitely many scales by showing that Γ(φ−3) lieswithin a small tubular neighborhood of the dilated graph φ3Γ(φ−3). In otherwords, Γ(φ−3) has a kind of self-similar structure. It is a large-scale fractal.Compare [Ke].

Figure 1.6: The graph Γ(φ−3) superimposed over φ3Γ(φ−3).

The self-similarity of Γ(φ−3) derives from the fact that φ−3 has a periodiccontinued fraction expansion, namely [0; 4, 4, 4, 4...]. Put another way, thereis a kind of recurrent pattern to the different scales on which Γ(φ−3) oscillates.Something like this should work for all quadratic irrationals, but we have notworked it out. In general, we do not get such a symmetric picture, and thescales of oscillation of Γ(A) depend on the Diophantine properties of theparameter A.

12

1.5 Diophantine Approximation

The Copy Theorem, the result that lets us produce the large scale Cantor setstructure, depends on the Diopantine properties of the numbers involved.

Say that A ∈ R belongs to the set ∆(k) if there is a monotone sequencepn/qn of odd rationals converging to A such that

∣∣∣∣pn+1

qn+1

− pnqn

∣∣∣∣ <1

kq2n; ∀n. (6)

For any k, the set ∆(k) has full measure. Curt McMullen pointed out to methat every irrational number belongs to ∆(1).

We will prove the following results:

• If A ∈ ∆(3) then Γn+1 copies 2 periods of Γn for all n.

• If A ∈ ∆(2), then Γn+1 copies a bit more than 1 period of Γn for all n.

See the Weak Copy Theorems from §5, and their corollaries. We will firstprove the Erratic Orbits Theorem when A ∈ ∆(3), where the argument ismaximally clean, and then we scramble a bit to handle A ∈ ∆(2).

After we prove Erratic Orbits Theorem for A ∈ ∆(2) we turn to thegeneral case. In general, we need to choose the odd rationals in our sequencevery carefully to get the enough period copying. To help us, we develop alittle theory of odd rational approximation that is similar to the theory ofcontinued fractions. See §7. I’m sure that nothing in this theory is new. Theonly thing that would prevent the results we state from being well known istheir idiosyncratic nature.

The period copying phenomenon is quite closely related to the theoryof odd rational approximation. The reader should compare Lemma 7.2, astructural result about odd rational approximation, with Lemma 24.1, astrikingly similar result about period copying. It seems that outer billiardson kites is closely related to the modular group SL2(Z), or more exactlythe level 2 congruence subgroup. We will rigorously develop this connectionso far as it serves the proof of the Erratic Orbits Theorem. However, afterproving the Erratic Orbits Theorem we will discuss an even deeper connectionbetween the two topics, something we call the Modular Limit Phenomenon.See §9.4.

13

1.6 The Master Picture Theorem

We would like establish properties of Γ(A) in a way that does not requireus to keep referring back to the dynamical properties of outer billiards onK(A). The content of our Master Picture Theorem is that the local structureof Γ(A) is controlled by the following data:

• A 3 dimensional torus R3/ΛA, where ΛA is lattice given by an upper-triangular matrix defined over Z[A]. See Equation 80.

• A certain fundamental domain RA = (0, 1 +A)2 × (0, 1) for the actionof ΛA, together with a partition of RA into finitely many polyhedra.

• A pair of maps M+,M− : Z2 → RA. The local structure of Γ(A) atthe point (m,n) is determined by which polyhedra contain the pointsM+(m,n) and M−(m,n).

When we consider the union

R =⋃

A∈(0,1)

RA × A ⊂ R4. (7)

we get a convex polytope that is partitioned into smaller convex polytopes.The entire partition is defined over Z, in the sense that the equations de-scribing the walls of the partition are linear, with integer coefficients. Wecall this 4 dimensional polytope partition the master picture. The masterpicture fibers over the interval of parameters, and each fiber has the form RA.In short, our Master Picture Theorem relates the structure of the arithmeticgraph Γ(A) to the master picture.

One consequence of the Master Picture Theorem is that first return mapto R+ × −1, 1, for the parameter A, is controlled by a certain polyhedronexchange map defined on two copies of RA. The return map itself is aninfinite interval exchange map, and we are saying that there is a certaincompactification of R+×−1, 1 that wraps the whole picture up as a denseand compatible subset a union of two 3-tori.

Putting all these polyhedron exchange maps together, we produce a sin-gle polytope exchange map defined on two copies of the polytope R. This 4dimensional polytope exchange map simultaneously controls the return dy-namics for outer billiards on all kites.

John Smillie and I think that this kind of master picture should persistfor general polygonal outer billiards. We hope to eventually work this out.

14

1.7 Computational Issues

As we mentioned above, we discovered all the structure of outer billiardsby experimenting with Billiard King. In places, our proof is fairly com-putational. Ultimately we are trying to verify the structure we noticed onthe computer. Our proof here uses considerably less computation than ourargument in [S], but we still use a computer-aided proof in several places.For example, we use the computer to check that the Master Picture Theoremholds for roughly a million points. We do a few other calculations of a similarnature.

To the reader who does not like computer-aided proofs (however mild) Iwould like to remark that the experimental method here has some advantagesover a traditional proof. I checked all the main steps in the proof with massiveand visually-based computation. These checks make sure that I am not ledastray by logical or conceptual errors arising from steps taken in vacuo. Icame to the Moser-Neumann problem as a kind of blank state, and only gotthe ideas for general structural statements by looking at concrete evidence.

1.8 Organization of the Monograph

This monograph comes in 4 parts. In Part I we prove Erratic Orbits Theoremmodulo 5 auxilliary theorems:

• The Return Lemma. (Stated in §2.4 and proved in part III.)

• The Embedding Theorem. Stated in §2.5 and proved in part III.)

• The Hexagrid Theorem. Stated in §3.4 and proved in part III.)

• The Copy Theorem. Stated in §8.1 and proved in Part IV.)

• The Decomposition Theorem (Stated in §8.2 and proved in Part IV.)

These results all follow from the Master Picture Theorem, which we stateand prove in Part II. In Parts III and IV, we prove all the auxilliary results,as indicated in our list above.

Before each part of the monograph, we include an overview of the contentsof that part.

15

Part IIn this part of the monograph we prove the main result, the Erratic

Orbits Theorem, modulo the 5 auxilliary results mentioned in §1.8. Here isan overview of the chapters.

• In §2 we give some background material on polygonal outer billiards,and then define the arithmetic graph. The arithmetic graph is ourmain object of study. Along the way, we state the Return Lemma andthe Embedding Theorem, two of our basic results about the arithmeticgraph.

• In §3 we state the Hexagrid Theorem, our main structural result aboutthe arithmetic graph. We also deduce Corollary 3.3, which gives lowerbounds on the amount of oscillation of the arithmetic graph for oddrational parameters.

• In §4 we informally discuss how to take a geometric limit of rationalarithmetic graphs, using the forced oscillation property to produce anunbounded arithmetic graph in the irrational limit. The upshot of §4 isthat we need to combine the oscillation estimate with a period copyingphenomenon.

• In §5 we state the Weak Copy Theorem, a fairly weak result about theperiod copying phenomenon. This result, combined with Corollary 3.3,suffices to prove the Erratic Orbits Theorem for all A ∈ ∆(2).

• In §6 we prove the Erratic Orbits Theorem for A ∈ ∆(2).

• In §7 we develop a little theory about approximating irrational numbersby odd rational numbers. This theory parallels the ordinary theory ofcontinued fraction approximants.

• In §8 we state the Copy Theorem and the Decomposition Theorem,two results which give more precise information about the nature ofthe period copying phenomenon.

• In §9 we prove the Erratic Orbits Theorem in general. We also proveseveral additional results, and present some conjectures based on ex-perimentally observed phenomena.

16

2 The Arithmetic Graph

In this chapter we give some background material on outer billiards, andthen proceed to the definition of the arithmetic graph. The arithmetic graphis the main object of study in this monograph.

2.1 Polygonal Outer Billiards

Let P be a convex polygon. We always denote the outer billiards map onP by ψ′. Our handedness convention is that a person walking from p andψ′(p) would see the shape P on the right. Thus, ψ′ is defined using the lefttangent line, from the point of view of the point to which ψ′ is applied.

For any point p ∈ R2−P that lies on a line extending a side of P , one ofthe two maps ψ′ or (ψ′)−1 is not defined. If we start pulling back these linesby the dynamics then we produce a countably infinite set L of line segmentswith the following property. p ∈ L if and only if some power of ψ′ is notdefined on p. This set L is frequently called the limit set .

We let ψ = (ψ′)2 denote the square of the outer billiards map. We usuallyprefer to work with ψ because it is a piecewise translation of R2 − P . Byconvention, when we say that ψ is defined, we mean that ψ′ is also defined.Thus, ψ and all its powers are defined away from L.

One basic property of outer billiards is that it is affinely natural. Let T beany affine transformation of the plane. Since T preserves ratios of distanceson each individual line, T carries an outer billiards orbit on P to an outerbilliards orbit on T (P ). For this reason, we can always normalize P so that3 of its vertices are the vertices of a square. The remaining vertices of P liein the square.

If P is a kite, then P is affinely equivalent to the kite K(A) with vertices

(−1, 0); (0, 1) (0,−1) (A, 0); A ∈ (0, 1). (8)

We deliberately ignore the case A = 1, which corresponds to the square.Thus, the space of all kites is parametrized by the interval (0, 1).

As we mentioned in the introduction, D. Genin [G] worked out the pictureof outer billiards on trapezoids. Modulo affine transformations, the trape-zoids also form a 1-parameter family. After the trapezoids, the kites formthe next simplest family of examples.

17

2.2 Rational Outer Billiards

The result in [VS], [K] and [GS] states, in particular, that the orbits forrational polygons are all periodic. In this case, the complement of the limitset is a locally finite tiling of the complement of the polygon. Each tile is aconvex tile. Figure 2.1 shows the picture for the kite K(1/3).

Figure 2.1: Part of the Tiling for K(1/3).

This is the simplest tiling 2 we see amongst all the kites. We have onlydrawn part of the tiling. The grey orbit consists of a “necklace” of tiles, eachone an isometric copy of K(1/3). These necklaces exist in general, and werediscovered by Kolodziej in [K]. Outside the necklace, the pattern repeats insome sense. The interested reader can draw many pictures like this usingBilliard King.

The existence of these tilings was what motivated me to study outerbilliards. I wanted to understand how the tiling changed with the rationalparameter and saw that the kites gave the first really nontrivial pictures.

2Note that the picture is rotated by 90 degrees from our usual normalization.

18

2.3 Kites and Fundamental Orbits

Until the last result in this section the parameter A is an odd fraction, p/q.Say that a basic interval is an open horizontal interval of length 2/q centeredat a point of the form (a/q, b) where a, b ∈ Zodd. Here Zodd is the set of oddintegers.

Lemma 2.1 The outer billiards map is entirely defined on any basic interval,and indeed permutes the basic intervals.

Proof: We note first that the order 2 rotations about the vertices of K(A)send the point (x, y) to the point:

(−2− x,−y); (−x, 2 − y); (−x,−2 − y); (2A− x,−y). (9)

Let ψ1 denote the outer billiards map on K(A). The map ψ1 is built outof the 4 transformations from Equation 9. The set R× Zodd is a countablecollection of lines. Let Λ ⊂ R × Zodd denote the set of points of the form(2a+2bA, 2c+1), with a, b, c ∈ Z. The complementary set Λc = R×Zodd−Λis the union of the basic intervals.

Looking at Equation 9, we see that ψ1(x) ∈ Λc provided that x ∈ Λc andψ1 is defined on x. To prove this lemma, it suffices to show that ψ1 is definedon any point of Λc.

To find the points of R × Zodd where ψ1 is not defined, we extend thesides of K(A) and intersect them with R×Zodd. We get 4 families of points.

(2n, 2n+ 1); (2n,−2n− 1); (2An, 2n− 1); (2An,−2n + 1).

Here n ∈ Z. Notice that all these points lie in Λ. ♠

More generally, the same proof gives:

Lemma 2.2 Suppose that A ∈ (0, 1) is any number. Relative to K(A),the entire outer billiards orbit of any point (α, n) is defined provided thatα 6∈ 2Z[A] and n ∈ Zodd.

When A is irrational, the set Z[A] is dense in R. However, it is alwaysjust a countable set and, from our point of view, easy to avoid.

19

2.4 The Return Map

Let A ∈ (0, 1) be any parameter. As in §1 we mean to dissuss outer billiardson the kite K(A). We know from Lemma 2.2 that the entire outer billiardsorbit of (α, 1) is defined provided that α 6∈ 2Z[A]. We have the followingbasic result. The proof is a bit long, and we prefer to prove it later on.

Lemma 2.3 (Return) The forwards and backwards ψ orbits of p = (x, 1)eventually return to the set R+ × −1, 1. The same goes for (x,−1).

Proof: This is a consequence of the Pinwheel Lemma, proved in §11. ♠

Remarks:(i) Some version of the Return Lemma also appears in [K] and [GS]. Forinstance, in [GS], the authors are concerned with the return of an orbitto a certain region called the runway . The runway is a generalization ofR+ × −1, 1.(ii) Once we develop the picture a bit, the reader will see that the ReturnLemma is obvious for points (x,±1), where x is sufficiently large. The trickypart of the result is for fairly small values of x.(iii) Reflection in the x-axis conjugates the map ψ to the map ψ−1. Thus,once we understand the orbit of the point (x, 1) we automatically understandthe orbit of the point (x,−1).

We let Ψ(x,±1) denote the first point in the forwards orbit of ψ that lieson R+×−1, 1. Given the nature of the maps in Equation 9 comprising ψ,we see that

Ψ(x,±1)− (x,±1) ∈ 2Z[A]× −2, 0, 2. (10)

In fact, it turns out that

Ψ(x,±1)− (x,±1) = 2(Aǫ1 + ǫ2, ǫ3); |ǫj | ∈ −1, 0, 1;3∑

j=1

ǫj ≡ 0 mod 2.

(11)The Spiral Lemma, proved in §12, establishes the bound |ǫj | ≤ 1. Theparity result is an immediate consequence of the Pinwheel Lemma, proved in§11. On a nuts-and-bolts level, this monograph concerns how to determinethe triple (ǫ1, ǫ2) given (x,±1). The pair (ǫ1, ǫ2) and the parity conditiondetermine ǫ3.

20

2.5 The Arithmetic Graph

Define M =MA,α : Z2 → R by the equation

MA,α(x, y) = 2Ax+ 2y + 2α. (12)

Note that M is never injective if we extend it to all of R2. However, this isnot something we wish to do.

When A is irrational, M is injective. In the rational case, we haveM(m,n) = M(m + q, n − p) when A = p/q, but at least M is injectiveon disks of radius less than q. Given p1, p2 ∈ Z2 we join p1 to p2 by aline segment, and write p1 ↔ p2, if and only if the following conditions aresatisfied:

• x1 =M(p1) and x2 =M(p2) are positive.

• x2 is the first coordinate of Ψ(x1, ǫ) for some ǫ ∈ −1, 1 and further-more ‖p2 − p1‖ ≤

√2. See Equation 11.

The second condition is symmetric in p1 and p2 because reflection in thex-axis conjugates Ψ to Ψ−1. In other words, p1 ↔ p2 iff p2 ↔ p1. Thefurthermore condition of course is only necessary in the rational case.

We call the resulting graph the arithmetic graph and denote it by Γα(A).When A = p/q we have the canonical choice α = 1/(2q) and then we setΓ(A) = Γ1/(2q)(p/q). We say that the baseline of Γ(A) is the line of slope −Athrough the origin. One important structural result we will establish is:

Theorem 2.4 (Embedding) For any A ∈ (0, 1) and and α 6∈ Z[A], thegraph Γα is a disjoint union of embedded polygons and embedded infinitepolygonal curves.

Proof: See Part III of the monograph. ♠

We are generally not interested in all of Γ, but only in the componentΓ that contains (0, 0). When A is rational, this component encodes thestructure of the fundamental orbit O(A). It is easy to check that Γ(A) isnontrivial and contains the arc (−1, 1) → (0, 0) → (1, 1) for all A ∈ (0, 1).Sometimes we abuse our terminology and call Γ(A) the arithmetic graph,when technically Γ(A) is only one component of it.

We experimentally observe the following dichotomy:

21

1. When p/q is odd, Γ(p/q) is an infinite embedded polygonal curve, in-variant under translation by (q,−p). Figures 1.2-1.4 illustrate this. SeeCorollary 3.3 in the next chapter.

2. When p/q is an even, Γ(p/q) is an embedded polygon.

We shall not discuss the even case, because it does not contribute to ourproof of the Erratic Orbits Theorem. The interested reader can explore thestructure in the even case using Billiard King. Just for fun, we includeone picture in the even case. The parameter we have chosen is one of thecontinued fraction approximants to the Penrose parameter

√5− 2.

Figure 2.3: The graph Γ(17/72).

22

2.6 Producing Erratic Orbits

From the way we have set things up, the outer billiards orbit of the point(α,±1), relative to the kite K(A), is erratic provided that the following fiveproperties hold.

1. The orbit of (α,±1) is entirely defined.

2. The forwards direction of Γα(A) rises unboundedly far away from itsbaseline. Recall that the baseline is the line of slope −A through (0, 0).

3. The forwards direction of Γα(A) comes arbitrarily close to the line ofslope−A through the point (0,−α). This line is parallel to the baseline.

4. The backwards direction of Γα(A) rises unboundedly far away from itsbaseline. Recall that the baseline is the line of slope −A through (0, 0).

5. The backwards direction of Γα(A) comes arbitrarily close to the lineof slope −A through the point (0,−α). This line is parallel to thebaseline.

The forwards direction of Γ is defined to be the half-infinite portion of Γ thatstarts at (0, 0), continues to (1, 1), and so on. The backwards direction of Γis defined to be the half-infinite portion of Γ that starts at (0, 0), continuesto (−1, 1), and so on.

23

3 The Grid Structure

The purpose of this chapter is to detail our main structural result about thearithmetic graph, the Hexagrid Theorem.

3.1 The Arithmetic Kite

Let A = p/q be an odd rational. Our construction is based on a certain affinecopy Q(A) of the kite K(A).

v4

v3

v2

v6

v7

v1

v5

Figure 3.1: The arithmetic kite

Figure 3.1 shows a schematic picture of Q(A). The vertices are given bythe equations.

1. v1 = (0, 0).

2. v2 =12(0, p+ q).

3. v3 =12q(2pq, (p+ q)2 − 2p2).

4. v4 =1

2(p+q)(4pq, (p+ q)2 − 4p2).

5. v5 =1

2(p+q)(2pq, (p+ q)2 − 2p2).

6. v6 = (−q, p).

7. v7 = (q,−p).

24

Lemma 3.1 K(A) and Q(A) are affine equivalent.

Proof: This is just a calculation. First of all, we compute that v2, v5, v4 arecollinear and ‖v2 − v5‖ = ‖v4 − v5‖. Next, we compute that v1, v5, v3 arecollinear and ‖v3−v5| = A‖v1−v5‖. Hence v5 is the intersection of the diag-onals of Q(A), and v5 divides these two diagonals into the same proporationsas the one sees for K(A). This suffices to show that Q(A) is affine equivalentto K(A). ♠

Figure 3.2 shows Q(A) for A = 73/139. We picked this parameter es-sentially at random, and noticed that it has nice pictures. We will use thisvalue for all our pictures in this chapter. The interested reader can draw thepictures for essentially any parameter, using Billiard King.

Figure 3.2: The arithmetic kite Q(73/139).

We single out the vectors

V = v7 = (q,−p); W = v5 =(

pq

p+ q,pq

p+ q+q − p

2

). (13)

These vectors play a fundamental role in the structure of the arithmeticgraph Γ(A).

25

3.2 The Room Grid

The room grid RG consists of two infinite families of parallel lines. We willgive two descriptions, and below we will explain why we give this grid thename the room grid .

First Description: The room grid RG(A) consists of the lines obtainedby extending the diagonals of Q(A) and then taking the orbit under the lat-tice Z[V/2,W ].

Second Description: One family of lines in RG(A) has slope −A. Wecall these lines the floors . We let L−

k denote the floor that contains the pointkW . The minus sign indicates that these lines have negative slope. Theother family of lines in RG(A) has positive slope 1 + 1/(2A)−A/2. We callthese lines the walls . We let L+

k denote the wall that contains the point kV/2.

Figure 3.3 illustrates our construction for the parameter 73/139.

Figure 3.3: RG(73/139) and Q(73/139).

The grid RG(p/q) divides R2 into different connected components whichwe call rooms . The reason for this terminology will become clear momen-tarily. Recall that Γ(p/q) consists of some infinite polygonal arcs and somepolygons. Figure 3.4 shows some of the infinite polygonal arcs of Γ(73/139)drawn in relation to RG(73/139).

26

Figure 3.4: RG(73/139) and some of Γ(73/139).

There are several things to notice about this picture. First of all, thepolygonal arcs are stacked on top of each other, and separated by the floorsof the room grid. Second of all, each polygonal arc only crosses each wallonce. In other words, we can break each polygonal arcs into pieces, each ofwhich lives in a single room. The pieces of then cross the walls to join eachother. Two consecutive rooms comprise a single period for each polygonalarc. The next thing we would like to understand is where the arcs crossthe walls. We hope that the reader is starting to see the reason behind ourterminology.

27

3.3 The Door Multigrid

The door multigrid DG(A) is obtained by extending the sides of Q(A) andthen taking their orbit under the lattice Z[V,W ]. Figure 3.5 shows a picturefor the parameter 73/139. Together RG(A) and DG(A) give us 6 infinitefamilies of lines. We call these two grids together the hexagrid , and wedenote it by G(A).

Figure 3.5: DG(73/139) and Q(73/139).

Say that a room wall is the line segment, contained in a wall, that dividestwo adjacent rooms. So, in other words, each wall of the room grid is dividedinto infinitely many room walls. Say that a door is a point of intersectionbetween a wall of RG(A) and a line of the door multigrid. At every doorat least 2 door lines cross a wall. In other words, every door is a triplepoint. Moreover, there is exactly one door on each room wall. Occasionally,a door occurs at the corner of a room, as for (0, 0). In this case, we countthe door twice, once for the room above and once for the room below. Thefirst coordinate of a door is always an integer. We will will analyze theseintersections carefully in §20.

28

Figure 3.6: G(73/139). and Q(73/139).

3.4 The Hexagrid Theorem

Now we come to the main result of the chapter. Say that an edge e of Γcrosses a wall if e intersects a wall at an interior point. Say that a union oftwo incident edges of Γ crosses a wall if the common vertex lies on a wall,and the two edges of Γ incident point to opposite sides of the wall. The point(0, 0) has this property. We say that a crossing cell is either an edge or aunion of two edges that crosses a wall in the manner just described. We saythat the crossing point is the point where the crossing cell intersects the wall.

Theorem 3.2 (Hexagrid) Let A be an odd rational. Then the followingtwo statements are true about the arithmetic graph Γ(A).

1. Γ(A) never crosses a floor of RG(A).

2. There is a bijection between the set of doors and the set of crossingcells. The bijection pairs a given door with the unique crossing cell thatcrosses the room wall containing the door. The crossing point occurswithin 1 unit of the door.

Proof: See Part III of the monograph. ♠

29

Figure 3.7 illustrates the Hexagrid Theorem. The shaded parallelogram,a region we denote by R(73/139), isolates one period of Γ(73/139). We willdiscuss this region in detail below. The top left corner of R(73/139) is thevector W , namely the point of Q(73/139) where the diagonals cross.

Figure 3.7: G(73/139), R(73/139), and some of Γ(73/139).

The reader can see similar pictures for other parameters, using BilliardKing. Though we will give a rigorous proof of the Hexagrid Theorem, wewould like to point out that any one instance of the result, for a randomlychosen parameter, is extremely strong evidence that the whole thing is true.

30

3.5 The Main Corollary

We let R(p/q) denote the parallelogram whose vertices are

(0, 0); V ; W ; V +W. (14)

R(p/q) is shaded in Figure 3.7. Our main corollary to the Hexagrid Theoreminvolves R(p/q).

Corollary 3.3 When A = p/q is an odd rational, Γ(A) is an infinite embed-ded polygonal arc, invariant under the translation vector (q,−p). This arcrises at least q/4 units from its baseline. One period of Γ(p/q) is containedin R(p/q).

Proof: R(p/q) is the union of two adjacent rooms, R1 and R2. The baselineof Γ(p/q) is the line extending the floor of R(p/q). There is only one doord on the wall w separating R1 and R2. The graph Γ enters R1 at the point(0, 0), passes through the door, and finally must exit R2 at (−q, p). There isno other way out. This whole arithmetic graph is invariant under translationby (q,−p), and so the whole picture repeats endlessly to the left and the rightof R(p/q). This establishes that Γ(p/q) is an infinite polygonal arc, invariantunder addition by (q,−p).

One can easily compute from the formulas for Q(p/q) that the door be-tween R1 and R2 above the center of R(p/q). That is, the door is more thanhalfway up the wall separating R1 from R2. So, Γ must rise up above thecenter point of R(p/q) before crossing the wall w. We compute easily thatthis center point is at least q/4 units from the baseline. ♠

Corollary 1.2 is an immediate consequence of Corollary 3.3 and Equation12.

3.6 Rotational Symmetry

We defined the arithmetic graph Γ(A) for all the lattice points in the halfplanebounded by the baseline of Γ(A). It is an immediate consequence of ourMaster Picture Theorem that Γ(A) has a canonical extension to all of Z2.Actually, this canonical extension exists because of our Pinwheel Lemma,proved in §11.

31

Figure 3.8: Γ(3/7) centered on a point of bilateral symmetry.

It turns out that the extended version of Γ has 180 degree rotationalsymmetry. We can describe a point of symmetry as follows. Let b/a be thelargest upper continued fraction approximant of p/q. In other words,

p

q<b

a; ap+ 1 ≡ 0 mod q; det

[p bq a

]= −1 (15)

(We mean to write b/a and not a/b.) Then rotation by 180 degrees aboutthe point

1

2(a,−b). (16)

preserves the arithmetic graph. See §18.3 for a proof. The grid lines in Figure3.8 are present in order to highlight the symmetry. This grid is a translateof RG(p/q).

We also see a kind of approximate bilateral symmetry in the picture. Thisis something that we don’t completely understand. See §9.5 for a longerdiscussion about the approximate bilateral symmetry.

32

Figure 3.10: Γ(73/139) and R(73/139) and L(73/139).

The Hexagrid Theorem actually only tells half the story. We have alreadyexplained that Γ has points of order 2 rotational symmetry. One mightconjecture that our 180 degree rotation preserves the hexagrid. This turnsout not to be the case. This means that there must be a second hexagridfor which the same theorem is true! This is indeed the case. Rather thanillustrate this result by drawing the second hexagrid, we will illusrate theresult in a way that is more limited but also more useful for us.

The line L(73/139) is the line parallel to the sides of R(79/139) andcontaining the point (99,−52). In the notation above, this point is (a,−b)relative to the fracton p/q = 73/139. This line L(73/139) is one of the linesof the other room grid. Given the Hexagrid Theorem and the rotationalsymmetry, we see that L(73/139) only intersects Γ(73/139) at a point thatis within one unit of the baseline. See §25.1 for a proof.

33

3.7 Fine Points of the Hexagrid Theorem

In our statement of the Hexagrid Theorem, we have been a bit vague aboutthe relationship between the doors and the crossing cells. Our proof givesvery precise information about this. We don’t need to know the fine detailgiven below for our proof of the Erratic Orbits Theoren, but we get it fromour proof. It seems reasonable to summarize the extra information here.

Let Ξ denote the lattice of translations generated by the vectors

v7 = (q,−p) w =(0,

(p+ q)2

4

)(17)

Here v7 refers to the point in Figure 3.1 defining the hexagrid. We will seein §18 that Ξ is precisely the group of translation symmetries of both thearithmetic graph Γ(p/q) and G(p/q). Our proof of the Hexagrid Theoremwill reveal that there are exactly p+ q crossing cells mod Ξ.

Two of the crossing cell (equivalence classes) are exceptional. One of theexceptional crossing cells consists of the two edges emanating from (0, 0).The other exceptional crossing cell consists of the edge joining (−1, 0) to(0,−1).

Another p− 1 of the crossing cells are indexed by a fraction of the forms/p ∈ (1, p). Here (

0,s

p

)= (m, ν)− (m,n), (18)

where (m, ν) is the location of the door and (m,n) is the nearest latticepoint, on the same vertical line, below the door. The crossing cell associatedto (m, ν) contains (m,n) as one of its endpoints. The other endpoint of thecrossing cell under discussion is either (m,n + 1) or (m− 1, n). The formeroption occurs if s/p > 1/2 and the latter option occurs if s/p < 1/2. Wenever have s/p = 1/2 because p is odd. The remaining q − 1 of the crossingcells are indexed by a fraction of the form s/q ∈ (1, q). Exactly the samediscussion holds for these crossing cells.

From our discussion, we see that exactly half the crossing cells (modΞ) cross their walls precisely at the doors. The remaining crossing cellscross their walls just below the doors. From the previous section we sawthat there is another hexagrid in operation. For this other hexagrid, thedescription is similar, except that (in particular) the words above and beloware interchanged.

34

4 Geometric Limits

4.1 Overview

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss how we take a limit of a sequenceof applications of Corollary 3.3 to produce an erratic orbit for outer billiardson an irrational kite. It turns out that Corollary 3.3 is not sufficient in itself,and we need a second result, called the Copy Theorem. Corollary 3.3 and theCopy Theorem work together. We will not state the Copy Theorem formallyuntil later on in this part of the monograph, but in this chapter we will makeclear what sort of result we require.

We will present 4 attempts to take a limit. The first three attempts failand the last attempt works. We hope that this discussion illustrates whyour actual proof of the Erratic Orbits Theorem is fairly elaborate. In ourdiscussion, we will copy the beautiful expository style we found in a paper byEpstein and Vogt [EV] on the co-called periodic orbit conjecture for foliationsin dimension four. In their paper, the authors present several failed attemptsat their construction before presenting the true construction. The idea is thateach failed attempt leads the reader closer to the true solution. This is thesort of thing we have in mind here. This chapter plays no logical role in ourproof, but we hope that it makes our proof more understandable.

Before we launch into the discussion, we need to say what we mean by ageometric limit . Given two subsets K1, K2 ⊂ R2, we define δ(K1, K2) to bethe infimal ǫ such that K1 is contained in the ǫ-tubular neighborhood of K2

and vice-versa. The function δ is known as the Hausdorff metric, and turnsthe space of compact sets into a metric space.

Given a sequence Cj of closed sets in the plane, and a set C, we saythat Cj → C if δ(Cj ∩K,C ∩K) → 0 for every compact set K. This kindof convergence defines the Hausdorff topology. The set of closed subsets ofR2 is compact in the Hausdorf topology. Whenever we take geometric limitsof objects in the plane, we always mean to take limits with respect to theHausdorff topology.

We will be taking limits of infinite polygonal arcs whose edges have uni-formly bounded length and whose vertices lie in Z2. A sequence Cn ofsuch sets converges in the Hausdorff topology iff the sequence Cn ∩ K iseventually constant for any compact K. This kind of convergence probablypredates the notion of Hausdorff convergence in the literature.

35

4.2 First Attempt Fails

Suppose that we have a sequence pn/qn of odd rationals converging to anirrational parameter A ∈ (0, 1). Let Γn = Γ(pn/qn) denote the arithmeticgraph corresponding to pn/qn. Let Ln denote the slope of −pn/qn throughthe point (0,−1/qn).

Referring to Equation 12, let

Mn =Mpn/qn,1/(2qn).

The point (0, 0) corresponds to the center (Mn(0, 0), 1) = (1/qn, 0) of thefundamental orbit and Ln =M−1

n (0).Certainly the lines Ln converge to the line L∞ of slope −A through (0, 0).

We also know that Γn rises at least qn/4 from Ln. We would like to take ageometric limit and produce a graph Γ∞ that rises unboundedly far from L∞

and also tracks an outer billiards orbit on the limiting kite K(A).We are thwarted by the familiar problem from real analysis that the

pointwise limit of functions could be the zero function even if the functionsare not uniformly bounded. The graph Γn might skim right along Ln for(say) qn/2 units before veering sharply away from Ln. In other words, thehuge rise of Γn would take place far away from the origin. In this case, L∞

would not rise unboundedly far away from its baseline.

4.3 Second Attempt Fails

We know that Γn is periodic relative to translation by the vector (qn,−pn).Let Γ0

n denote the connected arc of Γn that connects (0, 0) to (qn,−pn).Then Γ0

n represents one complete period of Γn. Suppose we could arrangethat Γ0

n ⊂ Γ0n+1 for all n. In other words, the first period of Γn+1 copies the

first period of Γn for all n. In this case, Γn rises up from Ln rather quickly.Indeed, we have practically guaranteed that the geometric limit (of the theforward half of) Γ∞ exists and rises up unboundedly far from L∞.

Unfortunately, a new problem presents itself: Γ∞ does not track an orbitof outer billiards on K(A). The problem is that M∞(0, 0) = 0. We couldput it like this: The graph Γn tracks the orbit of the point (1/qn,±1) and soΓ∞ would have to track the point (0,±1), which is a vertex of K(A). Thereare other problems besides this one. The other vertices of Γ∞ correspond topoints in the set 2Z[A]× −1, 1, and we have no guarantee that the outerbilliards orbits of these points exist.

36

4.4 Third Attempt Fails

What went wrong in the previous attempt is that we tracked the orbit ofthe point ζn = (1/qn,±1). It seemed that we needed to track this pointbecause Corollary 3.3 concerns the orbit of this point. However, we can bea bit more clever about this. We can replace ζn by some other point ζn inthe orbit of ζn. We might be able to arrange that ζn converges to a pointζ∞ ∈ R+ × −1, 1 on which the entire outer billiards map is defined. Inthis case, the limit in the previous attempt should correspond to a bona fideunbounded orbit.

Let’s convert this attempt into a geometric limit problem. Tracking thepoint ζn amounts to choosing a vertex wn of Γn. Let

Γn = Γn − wn. (19)

By construction, Γn is the arithmetic graph corresponding to ζn. Indeed,referring to Equation 12, if we set

Mn =MAn,dn; dn =1

2VDIST(wn, Ln) (20)

then (Mn(0),±1) = ζn. Here we have set An = pn/qn. The quantityVDIST(wn, Ln) denotes the length of the vertical line segment connectingwn to a point on Ln.

To say that ζn converges to a point of R+ × −1, 1 is to say that thelines Ln = Ln −wn converge to a line L∞ that lies beneath (0, 0). It doesn’tmatter to us that the points wn possibly tend to ∞. The important pointis that the distances dn are bounded, both away from ∞ and away from 0.There are two potential problems with our construction.

1. The limit point ζ∞ might still lie in 2Z[A]× −1, 1.

2. We know that Γn rises up quickly from Ln near the origin, but there isno reason to think that Γn rises up quickly from Ln in the vicinity ofwn. In other words, there is no reason to think that Γn rises up quicklyfrom Ln in the vicinity of (0, 0).

Let’s look more closely at these problems. Let vn = (−qn, pn). We knowfor sure that v1, ..., vm ∈ Γn, because Γ0

m ⊂ Γ0n for all m < n. Each of

these points lies near Ln, and it is tempting to first try setting wn = vn.

37

Unfortunately, the period copying phenomenon requires that the fractionspn/qn are very good approximations to A, and this causes dn → 0.

We could try to fix this problem by setting wn = vn + hn, where hn is avector of uniformly bounded length. This would keep wn near Ln. However,the corresponding points Mn(ζn) would have the form

2Axn + 2yn + δn,

where xn and yn are uniformly bounded and δn → 0. Hence the limit ζlies in 2Z[A].

If we try to set wn = vn + hn where the sequence hn is unbounded,we lose all control of distance from wn to Ln. It seems there is nothing(obvious) we can do to repair our third attempt. The basic problem is thatwe can’t really guarantee enough places where Γn is close to Ln. We need tomanufacture more contact points.

4.5 Fourth Attempt Succeeds

Suppose now we can arrange that Γn+1 copies two periods of Γn. In otherwords, Γn+1∩Γn contains the connected arc with endpoints (0, 0) and 2vn. Wecan make our fractions grow fast enough so that this entire arc is containedin the first period of Γn+1.

Let Γ0n denote the first period of Γn and let Γ1

n = Γ0n + vn denote the

second period. We have arranged that

Γ1n = Γ0

n + vn; Γ0n ∩ Γ1

n ⊂ Γ0n+1.

It follows from induction that

w(s) =n∑

i=1

ǫivi ⊂ Γn,

for any binary sequence s = ǫ1, ..., ǫn. Now we have a lot of contact points.For any of the 2n binary sequences we produce a point that is pretty near toLn. The rapid convergence now works in our favor.

If we consider the set Mn(s) as s ranges over the 2n binary sequences,we produce a set that looks pretty dense in a Cantor set Cn. It turns outthat the Cantor sets Cn converge, and we get an entire Cantor sets worth ofpossible limits of the form ζ. Not of all these points can lie in 2Z[A], because

38

2Z[A] is countable whereas a Cantor set is uncountable. By choosing one ofthe uncountably many limit points not in 2Z[A], we produce an erratic orbit.Strangely, we need to produce uncountably many erratic orbits to produce asingle unbounded orbit.

It turns out that we cannot always find a sequence of odd rational ap-proximations to A such that Γn+1 copies two periods of Γn for all n. However,when A ∈ ∆(3), we can arrange this. This is why we split off this case asspecial. For A 6∈ ∆(3) we have to scramble to produce the sort of Cantorset structure we considered in this section. It turns out that (informallyspeaking) we just need to arrange that (1 + ǫ) periods are copied at eachstage. When A ∈ ∆(2), we get this much period copying. However, whenA 6∈ ∆(2), we need to carefully examine the Diophantine properties of A.

4.6 Conclusion

Here are the main points we want to make in this chapter.

1. We produce unbounded arithmetic graphs by marrying the large oscil-lations guaranteed by Corollary 3.3 to the period copying phemomenonguaranteed by the Copy Theorem.

2. To produce a limit graph that tracks a bona fide orbit we need toarrange that the set of low lying points on the limit graph has thestructure of a large scale Cantor set.

3. The nature of the period copying depends on Diophantine propertiesof the parameter involved.

39

5 A Weak Copy Theorem

5.1 Experimental Motivation

Given two odd rationals A1 and A2, let MΓ(A1, A2) denote the set of latticepoints x such that the 1-neighborhood of Γ(A1) does not agree with the 1-neighborhood of Γ(A2). It might happen that there is a lattice point wherethe one graph is defined and the other one is not. We mean to include suchpoints in MΓ(A1, A2).

Figure 5.1: DG(13/45) and R(13/45) and MΓ(13/45, 35/121).

Figure 5.1 plots MΓ(13/45, 35/121). This set concentrates along linesparallel to those in the door multigrid! Notice that there is a large triangularregion that surrounds the shaded parallelogram R(13/35). Our Copy The-orem always picks out such a triangular region. The shaded parallelogramR(13/35) contains one period of Γ(13/35), so the above picture indicates thatΓ(35/121) copies at least one period of Γ(13/45).

40

5.2 Main Result

Let A = p/q be an odd rational. Let Q(A) be the arithmetic kite. Given apositive real number r, we define the following two lines

• L−(r) is the line parallel to the top left edge of Q(A) and containingthe point (−rq1, rp1).

• L+(r) is the line parallel to the top right edge of Q(A) and containingthe point (rq1,−rp1).

We also let L0 denote the baseline of Γ(A). This is the line of slope −p/qthrough the origin. In terms of the notation we set up in §3.2, we haveL0 = L−

0 .Let Λ(r, s) denote the triangular region bounded by L0 and L−(r), and

L+(s). In case we have two odd rationals p1/q1 and p2/q2, we mean to basethe construction of Λ on p1/q1. We will sometimes use the notation Λ1 toremind the reader of this.

Theorem 5.1 (Weak Copy I) There is a universal constant C1 with thefollowing property. Suppose that K is an integer such that

0 <p1q1

− p2q2<

1

Kq21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lattice point in Λ1(1, K) that is more than C1

units from L−(−1) ∪ L+(K).

Proof: See Part IV of the monograph. ♠

Theorem 5.2 (Weak Copy II) There is a universal constant C1 with thefollowing property. Suppose that K is an integer such that

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

1

Kq21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lattice point in Λ1(−K, 1) that is more that C1

units from L−(−K) ∪ L+(1).

Proof: See §Part IV of the monograph. ♠

Remark: Our proof will show that we can take C1 = 3.

41

5.3 Copying Two Periods

Here we derive the corollaries that are sufficient to prove the Erratic OrbitsTheorem when A ∈ ∆(3).

Let R1(2) denote the solid parallelogram whose vertices are

(0, 0); 2V1; W1; W1 = 2V1 +W1. (21)

These vectors are as in Equation 13. By Corollary 3.3, the set R1(2) containsthe first two periods of Γ1, starting at (0, 0) and ending at 2V1 = (2q1,−2p1).

Corollary 5.3 There is a universal constant C2 with the following property.if p1 > C2 and

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

1

3q21,

Γ1 and Γ2 agree in R1(2).

Proof: The vertex of R1(2) closest to L−(−1) is the point where the diago-nals of the arithmetic kite Q(A1) cross. The line L−(−1) is the line extendingthe top left side of Q(A1) and the line L+(2) is parallel to the line L+(1) ex-tending the top right side of Q(A1). Moreover L+(2) lies to the right ofL+(1). It is easy to see from the formulas defining Q(A1) that the distancefrom the diagonal-crossing point to the lines extending the top edges tendsto ∞ with p1. ♠

Corollary 5.4 There is a universal constant C2 with the following property.If p1 > C2 and

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

1

3q21,

then the intersection Γ1 ∩ Γ2 contains a connected arc whose endpoints are(0, 0) and (2q1,−2p1).

Proof: By Corollary 3.3, the first 2 periods of Γ1 are entirely contained inR1(2). Now apply Corollary 5.3. ♠

A similar result holds when A1 > A2. The only difference is that theendpoint (2q1,−2p1) is replaced by the endpoint (−2q1, 2p1).

Remark: The restriction p1 > C2 above is unnecessary. We will establishsharper versions of these results in §24.

42

5.4 Copying one Period and a Bit

In this section we deduce the corollaries that allow us to prove the ErraticOrbits Theorem for A ∈ ∆(2).

Corollary 5.5 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. If p1 > C2 and

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

1

2q21,

then Γ1 ∩ Γ2 contains a connected arc with endpoints (0, 0) and (q1,−p1).Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree in the disk of radius q1ǫ centered on (q1,−p1).

Proof: The first statement of this result has exactly the same proof as whatwe did in the previous section. For the second statement, we observe that theshape of the triangle Λ does not degenerate when the parameter A convergesto 0 or 1. Hence, by compactness, there is some ǫ > 0 such that the disk ofradius ǫq1 about (q1,−p1) is always disjoint from Λ(1,−1). ♠

Similarly, we have

Corollary 5.6 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. If p1 > C2 and

0 <p1q1

− p2q2<

1

2q21,

then Γ1 ∩ Γ2 contains a connected arc with endpoints (0, 0) and (−q1, p1).Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree in the disk of radius q1ǫ centered on (−q1, p1).

Proof: The proof is essentially the same as for the previous result. ♠

Remark: We can take ǫ = 1/10 in the above results, but our proof of theErratic Orbits Theorem just needs some ǫ > 0.

43

6 A Case of the Erratic Orbits Theorem

6.1 Step 1: Large Scale Cantor Set

Suppose that A ∈ ∆(3). In this case we can find a monotone sequencepn/qn satisfying Equation 6 for k = 3. We start this sequence so that p1 isgreater than the universal constants discussed in the previous chapter. Wewill treat the monotone increasing case.

Letvn = (qn,−pn). (22)

Let Γkn denote the portion of Γn connecting (k − 1)vn to kvn. We only care

about the first two periods, Γ1n and Γ2

n. From Corollary 5.3, and by definition,we have

Γ2n = Γ1

n + vn; Γ1n ∪ Γ2

n ⊂ Γn+1.

Note that qn+1 > 3qn for all n. Therefore,

Γ2m = Γ1

m + vm; Γ1m ∪ Γ2

m ⊂ Γ1n; ∀m < n. (23)

Given any infinite binary sequence s = ǫk, eventually 0, we define

ω(s) =∞∑

j=1

ǫjvj. (24)

1

0 1 0 10

0

100

00

10

110

001 1

111

Figure 6.1: Special Points

By Equation 23 and induction, we have ω(s) ∈ Γ1n provided all digits of s

are 0 after the nth one. Figure 6.1 shows a schematic picture of Γn for someunspecified (large) n, and also some of the points defined by Equation 24.We have marked off the individual periods by the nested boxes.

44

6.2 Step 2: Translation

Now suppose that σ = ǫn is a binary sequence with infinitely many 0s andinfinitely many 1s. Let sn denote the string obtained by replacing all thedigits, after the nth one, with 0s. Let ωn = ω(sn) ∈ Γ1

n. Define

Γ′

n = Γn − ωn. (25)

In other words, we translate the picture so that ωn is the origin.

Lemma 6.1 The sequence Γ′n converges in the Hausdorff topology to an

infinite embedded polygonal curve Γ∞(σ). This curve rises unboundedly far,in either direction, from the line L∞ of slope −A through the origin.

Proof: It happens infinitely often that the nth digit of sn is 0. Considerone of those times. Let γn be the arc of Γn connecting ωn to ωn + vn. Byconstruction γn is one full period of Γn. Let

γn+k = γn +k∑

j=1

ǫn+jvn+j; k = 1, 2, 3....

By Equation 23 and induction we have γn+k ⊂ Γ1n+k for all k = 1, 2, 3.... The

left endpoint of γn+k is ωn+k, and γn+k is just a translate of γn. Hence thearc γn+k − ωn+k is independent of k, and belongs to Γ′

n+k for all k. Sincethe length of this common arc tends to ∞ we see that the forward directionsof our graphs converge. By considering values of n for which the nth digitof sn is 1, we can make a similar argument to take care of the backwardsdirections of our graphs.

Let’s consider the arc γn in more detail. We know that γn is contained inthe first two periods of Γn to the right of the origin. Hence γn is containedin a disk of radius 4qn about the origin and rises up at least qm/4 units fromthe line Ln of slope −An through the origin. Given that |A−An| < 1/(4q2n)we see that the lines L∞ and Ln are within an (8/qn)-tubular neighborhoodof each other inside the disk of radius 8qn. Hence γn rises (qn/4) − 1 unitsabove L∞. Taking the limit, we see that either direction of Γ∞(σ) rises atleast (qn/4)− 1 away from L∞ but m is arbitrary and qn is unbounded. ♠

Similar to Equation 12, let

M∞(x, y) = 2Ax+ 2y; Mn(x, y) = 2Anx+ 2y. (26)

45

Let

α = limn→∞

M∞(ωn) =∞∑

k=1

ǫkθk; θk =M(vk). (27)

Lemma 6.2 The limit in Equation 27 exists.

Proof: We compute

|M(vn)| = |M(−qn, pn)| = | − 2Aqn − 2pn| = 2qn × |a− pnqn

∣∣∣∣ <1

qn.

But qn grows at least exponentially. Hence the terms in our series have atleast exponential decay. ♠

Let LA denote the line of slope A through the point (−α, 0). Since LA

and L∞ are parallel, Γ∞(σ) rises infinitely far above LA.

6.3 Step 3: Uncountability

The results above hold for any infinite sequence σ with infinitely many 0s and1s. There are uncountably many such sequences, and clearly they correspondto uncountably many different limit points α(σ). The easiest way to see thisis to pass to a subsequence so that (say) θn+1/θn < 1/10, and then the mapσ → α(σ) is injective. In particular, we can find uncountably many choicesof sequence σ such that the limit α is not a member of 2Z[A].

Let σ be such a sequence and let α be the limit. Let αn = Mn(ωn). Letψ∞ denote the square of the outer billiards map relative to K(A). Likewisedefine ψn relative to the kite K(An). Since the entire orbit of ψ∞ on (α, 1)is defined there is an unbounded sequence Jn with the following property:The first Jn forwards and backwards iterates of ψ∞ on (α, 1) have the samecombinatorial structure as the first Jn forwards and backwards iterates of ψn

on αn. Tautologically, Γ′n is the arithmetic graph for ψn acting on (αn, 1).

Given the approximation we have just discussed, Γ′n must converge to the

arithmetic graph for ψ∞ acting on (α, 1). But Γn converges to the graphΓ∞(σ) that has been the subject of our lemmas above. In short, all theresults above are statements about the arithmetic graph Γα(A). Interpretingthese results in terms of the orbit of (α, 1) we see that (α, 1) is an unboundedorbit for outer billiards on K(A).

46

6.4 Step 4: Erratic Orbits

Now we will prove that all the orbits we construct are erratic. Let’s interpretour construction purely in terms the kite orbits themselves. Our final orbitO relative to the kite K(A) was the limit of orbits On, where On was thefundamental orbit relative to the kite k(An). Let pn be the first point in theorbit of On. Even though pn belongs to the fundamental orbit of On, thesequence pn does not converge to a kite vertex, but rather converges to thepoint p, which is the first point in the orbit O.

Our construction produces an infinite sequence of values of n such that thereturn dynamics of O has the same combinatorial structure, in the forwardsdirection, as at least one period of On. On the one hand, the distance dnbetween the pn and p tends to 0. On the other hand, the position of p onR+ × −1, 1 is just a translate of the position of pn. We know that On,the orbit of pn, comes within 2/qn of the kite vertex set. Therefore, O comeswithin (2/qn) + dn of the vertex set. Since (2/qn) + dn → 0, we see that theforwards direction of O enters every neighborhood of the vertex set of K(A).

Our construction also produces an infinite sequence of values of n suchthat the return dynamics of O has the same combinatorial structure, in thebackwards direction, as at least one period of On. The same argument nowshows that the backwards direction of O enters every neighborhood of thevertex set of K(A).

6.5 Tightening the Argument

Suppose now that A ∈ ∆(2). We consider the same setup as above, withpn/qnmonotone increasing. Note that qn+1 > 2qn. We say that Γn+1 copies1 + ǫ periods of Γn if

Γ1n ∪

(Γn ∩ Bǫqn(vn)

)⊂ Γ1

n+1. (28)

Here Γ1n is the first period of Γn, as above, and vn = (qn,−pn). Here Br(p)

denotes the ball of radius r about p.It follows from Corollary 5.5, and from the inequality qn+1 > 2qn, that

Γn+1 copies 1 + ǫ periods of Γn for all n.Lemma 6.3, stated below, finishes off the proof of the Erratic Orbits

Theorem for A ∈ ∆(2). We shall have occasion to use Lemma 6.3 later on,when we prove the Erratic Orbits Theorem in general.

47

Lemma 6.3 Suppose there is some ǫ > 0 such that Γn+1 copies at (1 + ǫ)periods of Γn for all n. Then outer billiards on the limiting kite K(A) hasuncountably many erratic orbits.

Proof: Recall that vn = (qn,−pn). From Equation 28 and induction, wesee that Γn copies 1 + ǫ periods of Γm for all m < n. This means that weretain the 1 + ǫ period copying if we pass to any subsequence. We pass to asubsequence so that

Γ1n ⊂ Br(0, 0); r = ǫqn+1; ∀n (29)

This just amounts to making qn grow fast enough.This time we define

Γ2n = Γ1

n + vn+1. (30)

Γ2n is not the second period of Γn. Here is an explanation of Γ2

n. SinceΓ1n ⊂ Γn

n+1 and Γn+1 is invariant under translation by the vector vn+1, wehave Γ2

n ⊂ Γn+1. So, Γ2n is contained in the second period of Γn+1, and indeed

“starts out” this second period. The left endpoint of Γ2n is qn+1. Equation

29 and translational symmetry give us

Γ2n ⊂ Br(vn+1); r = ǫqn+1; ∀n (31)

But the 1 + ǫ period copying gives us Γ2n ⊂ Γ1

n+2. This sets up the followingsystem.

Γ2n = Γ1

n + vn+1; Γ1n ∪ Γ2

n ⊂ Γ1n+2.

We set Γn = Γ2n and vn = v2n+1. Then we have

Γ2m = Γ1

m + vm; Γ1m ∪ Γ2

m ⊂ Γ1m+1.

By induction, we get

Γ2m = Γ1

m + vm; Γ1m ∪ Γ2

m ⊂ Γ1n; ∀m < n. (32)

Our re-indexing trick brings us back to essentially the same setup we had forthe case of ∆(3).

By induction, the point

ω(s) =n∑

i=1

ǫivi (33)

48

belongs to Γn for any binary sequence s = ǫ1, ..., ǫn.Now suppose that σ = ǫn is a binary sequence with infinitely many 0s

and infinitely many 1s. Let sn denote the string obtained by replacing allthe digits, after the nth one, with 0s. Let ωn = ω(sn) ∈ Γ1

n. As in Equation25, define Γ′

n = Γn − ωn.We analyze the sequence Γ′

n just as in Lemma 6.1. We define γn just asin Lemma 6.1. The same argument as we gave there shows that Γ′

N containsa copy of γn for all N > n. The difference here is that γn connects a pointx ∈ Γ1

n = Γ12n to the point

x+ vn = x+ v2n+1 ⊂ Γ2n = Γ2

2n.

Since Γ2n+1 is periodic with period vector v2n+1, we see that the arc γn inthis case is exactly one period of Γ2n+1. Thus, as in the proof of Lemma6.1, our sequence of graphs agree on longer and longer strands going in theforwards direction from (0, 0). The same argument works for the backwardsdirection. Since γn is one full period of Γ2n+1, we see that γn rises at leastq2n+1/4 units from the line L2n+1 of slope −A2n+1 through (0, 0). The samegrowth estimates as in Lemma 6.1 now apply. Thus, the geometric limit ofour sequence exists and rises unboundedly far in both directions from theline of slope (−A) through the origin.

The rest of the proof is just about the same as what we did in the previoussection. Step 3 here works exactly the same as Step 3 worked in the previouscase. Step 4 here works just like Step 4 did in the previous case. Since γn isone full period of Γ2n+1, we see that our limiting orbit O follows at least oneperiod of the fundamental orbit O2n+1, for each n in either direction. Therest of the argument is the same. ♠

49

7 Odd Rational Approximation

7.1 Overview

In this chapter we will develop some theory about approximating an irrationalnumber A ∈ (0, 1) by odd rationals. See [Da] for the usual theory of rationalapproximation associated to continued fractions. In this section we state ourmain results. The rest of the chapter is devoted to proving them.

For odd rationals, we use the notation p1/q1 → p2/q2 if

q1 < q2; det[p1 p2q1 q2

]= ±2. (34)

Lemma 7.1 There is a canonical sequence pn/qn of odd rationals, con-verging to A, such that pn/qn → pn+1/qn+1 for all n.

We call the sequence above the canonical sequence. We sometimes writeAn = pn/qn. We will use some hyperbolic geometry to develop the canonicalsequence, much in the way that hyperbolic geometry is used to construct theordinary continued fraction approximants of an irrational number.

Here are three additional sequences attached to the original sequence. Welet κn be the largest integer such that

∣∣∣∣pnqn

− pn+1

qn+1

∣∣∣∣ <2

κnq2n. (35)

We call κn the diophantine constant for (An, An+1). We define an(±) ∈ Z

by the property that

an(±)× pn ± 1 ≡ 0 mod qn. (36)

Finally, we define

λn =an(+)

qn∈ (0, 1). (37)

Note that either λn < 1/2 or λn > 1/2. The point here is that both pn andqn are odd.

Our next result gives more details about the canonical sequence. Thisis the result that has a parallel result related to outer billiards on kites.Compare Lemma 24.1.

50

Lemma 7.2 For every index n, one of 4 options holds.

1. An < An+1 and κn ≡ 1 mod 2 and λn < 1/2 and

an+1(+) =κn + 1

2an(+) +

κn − 1

2an(−).

2. An < An+1 and κn ≡ 0 mod 2 and λn > 1/2 and

an+1(+) =κn2an(−) +

κn − 2

2an(+).

3. An > An+1 and κn ≡ 1 mod 2 and λn > 1/2 and

an+1(−) =κn + 1

2an(−) +

κn − 1

2an(+).

4. An > An+1 and κn ≡ 0 mod 2 and λn < 1/2 and

an+1(−) =κn2an(+) +

κn − 2

2an(−).

We can sort the indices of our canonical sequence into 4 types, dependingon which of the above options occurs. Figure 7.1 shows a graph that describesthe allowable transitions between the types. For instance, the arrow from 2to 4 indicates that it is possible for the index n to have type 2 and the indexn+ 1 to have type 4.

3

4

1

2

Figure 7.1: The Type Graph

Lemma 7.3 Any transition between types in the canonical sequence occursas an arrow in Figure 7.1.

51

Our final result says that occasionally we see some good approximation.

Lemma 7.4 There are infinitely many indices n such that κn ≥ 2. For suchindices, we have

qn+k > 2qn;∣∣∣∣pn+k

qn+k

− pnqn

∣∣∣∣ <2

q2n; ∀k ≥ 1.

7.2 Farey Addition and Rational Approximation

As usual, the Farey sum of two fractions is given by

p1q1

⊕ p2q2

=p1 + q2q1 + q2

. (38)

This third fraction might not be in reduced terms. However, if

det[p1 p2q1 q2

]= ±1, (39)

then the third fraction is already in reduced terms. In case Equation 39holds, we write p1/q1 ↔ p2/q2 and say that the two fractions are Fareyrelated . Farey addition is the basis of ordinary continued fractions, and itplays an equally important role in the variant we present here.

Let p/q be any odd fraction. The number a(±) ∈ (1, q) has the propertythat

det[b(±) a(±)p q

]= ±1. (40)

The two fractionsb(−)

a(−)<p

q<b(+)

a(+)(41)

are Farey related to p/q, and indeed

p

q=b(−)

a(−)⊕ b(+)

a(+). (42)

The differencep′

q′=

|b(+)− b(−)||a(+)− a(−)| (43)

is an odd rational. It is a short and elementary exercise to verify that p′/q′

is already in lowest terms, and p′/q′ → p/q. We have a “quadrilateral” ofFarey related fractions:

p

q↔ b(+)

a(+)↔ p′

q′↔ b(−)

a(−)↔ p

q. (44)

52

7.3 The Hyperbolic Plane

Our model for the hyperbolic plane is the upper halfplane in C. We denotethis by H2. That is, H2 consists of points z = x+ iy such that y > 0. Thereis a Riemannian metric on H2 defined by the inner product

〈v, w〉z =v · wy2

; z = x+ iy. (45)

Let SL2(R) denote the group of 2× 2 matrices with determinant 1. Thisgroup acts on H2, by linear fractional transformations.

[a bc d

]z =

az + b

cz + d. (46)

These maps are isometries of H2. One additional isometry of H2 is given bythe map z → −z, or x+ iy → −x + iy. This map, together with the actionof SL2(R), is the full isometry group of H2.

The geodesics of H2 are circular arcs that meet the real line at rightangles. As a limiting case, the vertical rays are also geodesics. The metricballs in H2 are round disks in the Euclidean sense. An ideal triangle is aunion of 3 geodesics which pairwise meet at a point on R ∪∞. Any tripleof distinct points on R ∪∞ determines a unique ideal triangle. We simplyjoin the points in pairs by geodesics. Any two ideal triangles are isometricto each other.

The Farey graph is a beautiful tiling of H2 by ideal triangles. Here is theconstruction. We join two fractions p1/q1 and p2/q2 by a geodesic iff thesefractions are Farey related. The resulting graph divides the hyperbolic planeinto an infinite symmetric union of ideal geodesic triangles. No two arcs inthe Farey graph cross.

Here is a concrete rule for constructing the portion of the Farey graphwhose vertices lie in [0, 1]. If a1/b1 and a2/b2 are joined by a geodesic, then

a1b1

⊕ a2b2

(47)

is joined to both a1/b1 and a2/b2 by an edge. Thus, the quadrilateral we con-sidered in Equation 44 is an ideal square in the Farey graph. We say squarerather than quadrilateral because our quadrilateral has 4-fold (hyperbolic)rotational symmetry.

53

7.4 Constructing the Canonical Sequence

Wemodify the Farey graph by erasing all the lines that connect even fractionsto each other. The remaining geodesics in the Farey graph partition H2 intoan infinite union of ideal squares. We are only interested in odd squares thathave all vertices in the interval [0, 1]. We call these the basic squares .

Each basic square has two opposing vertices that are labelled by positiveodd rationals, p1/q1 and p2/q2. These odd rationals satisfy Equation 34 whenordered so that q1 < q2. We call p1/q1 the tail of the square and p2/q2 thehead of the square. We draw an arrow in each odd square that points fromp1/q1 to p2/q2. We call the odd square right biased if the rightmost vertex isan odd rational, and left biased if the leftmost vertex is an odd rational.

The general form of a left biased square is

a1b1;

a1 + a2b1 + b2

;a1 + 2a2b1 + 2b2

;a2b2. (48)

From these equations, we see that the tail is the leftmost vertex. The formulaabove is similar for right biased vertices, but the order of the terms above isreversed. For right-biased squares, the tail is the rightmost vertex.

An example of a right-biased basic square is

0

1;

1

3;

1

2;

1

1. (49)

The tail here is 1/1. We call this square Q1.Now we construct the canonical sequence for the irrational parameter A.

We simply drop a vertical line VA down from∞ to A, and record the sequenceof basic squares we encounter. To form the canonical sequence, we list allthe tails of the squares we encounter, and weed out repeaters. This provesLemma 7.1.

Here is an example. Suppose that A ∈ (2/3, 3/5). Then we first encounterQ1 listed above. Our arrow points from 1/1 to 1/3. We leave Q1 throughthe geodesic joining 1/1 to 1/2, and we enter the odd square with vertices

1

2;

3

5;

2

3;

1

1.

The tail is again 1/1. Next, we leave this odd square through the geodesicjoining 3

5to 2

3. We enter into an odd square whose tail is 3/5. Thus, the

beginning of the canonical sequence is 1/1, 3/5.

54

7.5 Classification into Types

In this section we will prove Lemma 7.2. For ease of exposition, we will onlyconsider the case that λn < 1/2. The case where λn > 1/2 is similar, andactually follows from symmetry.

It is convenient to set p = pn and q = qn. We will then find formulas forp = pn+1 and q = qn+1. Since λ < 1/2, the odd square whose head is p/q isleft-biased. The vertices of this odd square are

p′

q′<b(−)

a(−)<p

q<b(+)

a(+). (50)

Here we are using the notation from §7.2. We have a(+) < q/2 < a(−).Consider the following infinite list of fractions.

(2n+ 1)p+ 2b(−)

(2n + 1)q + 2a(−)<p

q<

(2n+ 1)p+ 2b(+)

(2n+ 1)q + 2a(+); n = 0, 1, 2... (51)

Lemma 7.5 p/q → p/q iff p/q is one of the fractions in Equation 51.

Proof: A simple computation shows that p/q → p/q if p/q is one of thefractions in Equation 51. For the converse, observe that the matrix

[a(−) −b(−)−q p

]∈ SL2(Z),

acting as a linear fractional transformation, carries the set of numbers inEquation 51 onto the set

1

2Z −Z − −1

2.

In other words, all the half-integers are in the image except for −1/2. Now,the only ideal squares in the Farey graph that involve ∞ have a half-integeras the opposite vertex. Hence, by symmetry, the fractions in Equation 51represent all the fractions that appear with p/q in an odd square, with asingle exception. This single exception must be p′/q′. If p/q → p/q then p/qmust appear in some odd square as the vertex opposite p/q, and moreoverthe constraint q > q rules out the possibility that q = q′. ♠

55

Now we just have to analyze the fractions in Equation 51.

Option 1: If p/q < p/q then our fraction appears on the right hand side ofEquation 51. In this case, we compute

κ = floor((2n+ 1) + 2λ) = 2n+ 1 ≡ 1 mod 2.

This calculation uses the fact that λ < 1/2. Let us define

a(+) = nq + a(+) ∈ (1, q).

Observe that a(+)p+ 1 ≡ 0 mod p. This comes from the fact that

det[np+ b(+) pnq + a(+) q

]= 1.

Now we verify that

κ+ 1

2a(+) +

κ− 1

2a(−) = (n+ 1)a(+) + na(−) =

n(a(+) + a(−)) + a(+) = nq + a(+) = a(+).

Thus we have recovered Option 1 in Lemma 7.2.

Option 4: If p/q < p/q then our fraction appears on the left hand sideof Equation 51. In this case, we compute

κ = floor(2n+ 1 + 2(1− λ)) = 2n+ 2 ≡ 0 mod 2.

A calculation similar to the one above shows that

a(−) = (n + 1)− a(−).

In this case, we verify that

κ

2an(+) +

κ− 2

an(−)= (n+ 1)a(+) + na(−) =

(n+ 1)(a(−) + a(+))− a(−) = (n + 1)q − a(−) = a(−).

Thus we have recovered Option 4 in Lemma 7.2.

56

7.6 Allowable Transitions

In this section we prove Lemma 7.3.

Type 1: Referring to Lemma 7.2, suppose that pn/qn has Type 1. Con-sider pn+1/qn+1. Using the formula in Lemma 7, together with the fact thatan(+) + an(−) = qn, we have

an+1(+) =κn − 1

2qn + an(+). (52)

On the other hand, κn is such that

0 <pn+1

qn+1− pnqn

<2

κnq2n.

Rearranging this, we get

κn <qn+1

qn. (53)

Thereforean+1(+) <

qn+1

2− qn

2+ an(+) <

qn+1

2. (54)

The last inequality comes from the fact that an(+) < qn/2. Now we see thatλn+1 < 1/2. Hence pn+1/qn+1 either has Type 1 of Type 4.

Type 2: Suppose that pn/qn has Type 2. Using the formula in Lemma7.2, and the fact that an(+) + an(−) = qn, we have

an+1(+) =κn2qn − an(+). (55)

Combining this result with Equation 53, we see that

an+1(+) <qn+1

2. (56)

Hence λn+1 < 1/2. Hence pn+1/qn+1 has Type 1 or Type 4.

Thus the only allowable transitions between Types 1 and 2 to other typesare given in Figure 7.1. The result for Types 3 and 4 has a similar proof, andindeed follows from the result for Types 1 and 2 by (reflection) symmetry.

57

7.7 Existence of Superior Indices

Here we prove Lemma 7.4. Suppose that κn = 1 for large n. According toLemma 7.3 one of two situations occurs:

• pn/qn has Type 1 for all sufficiently large n.

• pn/qn has Type 3 for all sufficiently large n.

We will consider the first case. The second case has a similar treatment.Looking at the formula in Case 1 of Lemma 7.2, we see that the sequence

an(+) is eventually constant. But then

r = limn→∞

an(+)pnqn

exists. Since an(+)pn ≡ −1 mod qn and qn → ∞, we must have r ∈ Z. Butthen lim pn/qn ∈ Q, and we have a contradiction. This completes the proof.

We turn to the estimates in Lemma 7.4. Suppose that n is an index suchthat κn ≥ 2. First of all, we have

2

qnqn+1

=∣∣∣∣pn+1

qn+1

− pnqn

∣∣∣∣ <1

q2n.

This yields qn+1 > 2qn. But qn+k ≥ qn+1 for all k ≥ 1. This establishes thatqn+k > 2qn for all k ≥ 1.

For the second estimate in Lemma 7.4, we will consider the case whenAn < An+1, so that pn/qn is the vertex of a left-biased square. The casewhen An > An+1 is similar, and follows from symmetry. We set a1 = pn andb1 = qn as so as match Equation 48. Given that κn ≥ 2 we have

pn+k

qn+k

∈(a1b1,a1 + 2a2b1 + 2b2

)(57)

where a2/b2 is the rightmost label of the basic square associated to pn/qn.But then ∣∣∣∣

pn+k

qn+k

− pnqn

∣∣∣∣ <∣∣∣∣a1 + 2a2b1 + 2b2

− a1b1

∣∣∣∣ <2

b21=

2

q2n. (58)

This proves the second estimate of Lemma 7.4.

58

8 The Strong Copy Theorem

8.1 The Main Result

We use the notation from the Weak Copy Lemma. Recall that λ(p/q) = a/q,where a ∈ (0, q) is such that ap+ 1 ≡ 0 mod q.

Theorem 8.1 (Copy I) There is a universal constant C1 with the followingproperty. Suppose that κ ≥ 1 is an integer such that

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

2

κq21.

• If κ is odd and λ1 < 1/2 we set K = (κ+ 1)/2 + λ1.

• If κ is even and λ1 > 1/2 we set K = κ/2 + λ1.

• Otherwise we set K = floor(κ/2).

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lattice point in Λ1(1, K) that is more than C1

units from Λ(1, K).

Proof: See Part IV of the monograph. ♠

Theorem 8.2 (Copy II) There is a universal constant C1 with the follow-ing property. Suppose that κ ≥ 1 is an integer such that

0 <p1q1

− p2q2<

2

κq21.

• If κ is odd and λ1 > 1/2 we set K = (κ+ 1)/2 + (1− λ1).

• If κ is even and λ1 < 1/2 we set K = κ/2 + (1− λ1).

• Otherwise we set K = floor(κ/2).

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lattice point in Λ1(−K, 1) that is more than C1

units from Λ(−K, 1).

59

Proof: See Part IV of the monograph. ♠

Remarks:(i) We will discuss bounds on the constant C1 when we prove the Copy The-orems in §23. Notice in Figure 8.1 that we have C1 = 1 in this case.(ii) The first two options in each result correspond to the conditions in Lemma7.2. These are genuine improvements over the weak version. The last optionis what he had already.

Figure 8.1 illustrates the Copy Theorem for the pair (3/5, 7/11). Here

κ = 2; λ1 =3

5; K =

8

5.

Figure 8.1: MΓ(3/5, 7/11) and Q(3/5).

60

8.2 The Father and Son Decomposition

Corollary 3.3 states, in particular, that one period of Γ(p/q) is containedin the parallelogram R(p/q). In this section we will explain a refinementof this result, in which Γ(p/q) ⊂ SR(p/q) ∪ FR(p/q), where SR(p/q) andFR(p/q) are smaller parallelograms. The decomposition we present here ismore efficient. Figure 8.2 shows the picture for Γ(31/59).

Figure 8.2: Father and Son decomposition of Γ(31/59).

We think of R(p/q) as being an apartment, divided into two rooms, whichwe think of the son’s room and the father’s room.

61

Dividing Line: Let b/a be the continued fraction approximant of p/q suchthat p/q < b/a. We let DR(p/q) denote the line parallel to the sides ofR(p/q) but containing the point (a,−b).

Father’s Room: If λ > 1/2 then the father’s room is the closure of theleft component of R(p/q) − DR(p/q). If λ < 1/2, then the father’s roomis the closure of the right component of R(p/q)−DR(p/q). We denote theparallelogram by FR(p/q).

The Son’s Room: If λ > 1/2 then SR(p/q) is the bottom half of the rightcomponent of R(p/q)−DR(p/q). If λ < 1/2 then SR(p/q) is the bottom halfof the left component of R(p/q)−DR(p/q). In both case, the line extendingthe top of SR(p/q) is exactly halfway between the floor and ceiling of R(p/q).

For the following lemma, the notation 12S denotes the region obtained

by contracting the set S by a factor of 2 about the origin. Note that theregion 1

2R(p/q) + (q/2,−p/q) is the region obtained by contracting R(p/q)

by a factor of 2 about its bottom right vertex.

Lemma 8.3 When λ < 1/2, we have SR(p/q) ⊂ 12R(p/q). When λ > 1/2

we have SR(p/q) ⊂ 1qR(p/q) + (q/2,−p/2).

Proof: We will prove the first half. The second half has essentially thesame proof. Let L0 denote the line of slope −p/q through the origin. Whenλ < 1/2, it suffices to prove that DR(p/q)∩L0 lies to the left of (q/2,−p/2).This amounts to showing that the first coordinate of DR(p/q) ∩ L0 is lessthan q/2. We compute this first coordinate to be

a− 2p(ap− bq)

(p+ q)2= a +

2p

(p+ q)2< a+

1

2q≤ q − 1

2+

1

2q<q

2. (59)

This completes the proof. ♠

Let Γ1 denote the connected arc of Γ that has endpoints (0, 0) and (q,−p).We view the following result as an augmentation of the Hexagrid Theorem.

Theorem 8.4 (Decomposition) Γ1 ⊂ SR ∪ FR.

Proof: See Part IV of the monograph. ♠

62

8.3 Consequences of the Copy Theorem

Define

R−

1 = R1 + (−q1, p1); R1 =1

2(R1 ∪ R−

1 ). (60)

R R

(−q,p) (0,0) (q,−p)

Figure 8.3: The shaded region is R1.

For any set X ⊂ R2, let Nr(X) denote the r-tubular neighborhood of X .

Lemma 8.5 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. If p1 > C2 and

∣∣∣∣p2q2

− p1q1

∣∣∣∣ <2

q21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on N1(R1). Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any pointwithin ǫq1 of the bottom edge of R1.

Proof: The region Λ guaraneed by the Copy Lemma contains Λ(−1, 1).The same analysis as in the proof of Corollary 5.3 shows that every point ofR1 ∪ R−

1 lies inside Λ(−2, 2), and the distance from the vertices to R1 ∪ R−

1

to L−(−2) ∪ L+(2) tends to ∞ with p1. But dilation by a factor of 2 carriesR1 to R1∪R−

1 and carries Λ(−1, 1) to Λ(2,−2). Hence, the same statementscan be made about R1 sits inside Λ(−1, 1). This proves the first statementof the lemma.

The second statement has the same proof as we gave in gave in the proofof Corollary 5.5. Lemma 5.3. ♠

In the next result, we do not cancel the 2/2 we have written, because wewant to emphasize the pattern.

63

Lemma 8.6 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. Suppose p1 > C2 and

λ1 >1

2; 0 <

p2q2

− p1q1<

2

2q21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on FR1∪SR1. Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree on the diskof radius q1ǫ about the point (q1,−p1).

Proof: The second statement is proved as in Corollary 5.5. Now we provethe first statement. The Copy Theorem tells us that Γ1 and Γ2 agree on anylattice point in Λ(−1, 1+ λ1) that sufficiently far from L−(−1)∪L+(1+ λ1).

The point of FR1 closest to L−(−1) is the top left vertex. Since λ1 > 1/2,the top left vertex of FR1 coincides with the top left vertex of R1. We havealready seen that the distance from this vertex to L−(−1) tends to ∞ as p1tends to ∞. The point of FR1 closest to L+(1 + λ1) is the top right vertex.The distance between the top right vertex of FR1 and L+(1+λ1) is the sameas the distance between the top right vertex of R1 and L+(2). Therefore, asin the proof of Corollary 5.3, we see that relevant distance tends to ∞ as p1tends to ∞.

Now we consider SR1. Let φ be the dilation by a factor of 2 that fixes(q1,−p1). We have

φ(SR1) ⊂ R1; φ(Λ(−1, 1 + λ1)) ⊃ φ(Λ(−1,3

2)) = Λ(−3, 2) ⊃ Λ(−1, 2).

Having already analyzed how R1 sits inside Λ(−1, 2) in Corollary 5.3, wenow see that SR1 sits inside Λ(−1, 1 + λ1) in such a way that the relevantdistances tend to ∞ as p1 tends to ∞. ♠

Lemma 8.7 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. Suppose that p1 > C2 and

λ1 <1

2; 0 <

p2q2

− p1q1<

3

2q21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on R1. Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree on the disk of radiusq1ǫ about the point (q1,−p1).

64

Proof: The second statement has the same proof as in Corollary 5.5. For thefirst statement, the Copy Theorem tells us that Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lat-tice point inside Λ(−1, 2+λ1) that sufficiently far from L−(−1)∪L+(2+λ1).But this is a bigger region than the one considered in Corollary 5.3. ♠

The two previous results have counterparts for the case A2 > A1. Beforewe state those results, we introduce the notation

X− = X − (q1,−p1). (61)

Lemma 8.8 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. Suppose that p1 ≥ C2 and

λ1 <1

2; 0 <

p1q1

− p2q2<

2

2q21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on SR−

1 ∪ FR−

1 . Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree on thedisk of radius q1ǫ about the point (−q1, p1).

Lemma 8.9 There are universal constants C2 and ǫ > 0 with the followingproperties. Suppose p1 > C2 and

λ1 >1

2; 0 <

p1q1

− p2q2<

3

2q21.

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on R−

1 . Moreover, Γ1 and Γ2 agree on the disk ofradius q1ǫ about the point (−q1, p1).

Remarks:(i) Lemmas 8.6 and 8.8 are the two results where we use the full force of theCopy Theorem. In general it isn’t true that Γ1 and Γ2 agree on all of R1,and yet (because of the Decomposition Theorem) Γ2 still copies one periodof Γ1.(ii) The constraints on p1 in Lemmas 8.6 and 8.8 are not necessary. Wewill remove them later in the monograph, when it comes time to prove theDecomposition Theorem.

65

9 The Main Results

9.1 The Erratic Orbits Theorem

Let A ∈ (0, 1) be an irrational parameter. Let pn/qn be the canonicalsequence of odd rationals that approximates A, as constructed in §7. Weassume that p1 exceeds the universal constants that appear in the Copy The-orem and its corollaries. Let κn be the sequence of Diophantine constantsassociated to pn/qn.

Let Γn = Γ(pn/qn), the arithmetic graph associated to pn/qn. The firstperiod of Γn is the connected arc Γ1

n whose endpoints are (0, 0) and (qn,−pn).We define the zeroth period of Γn to be the arc Γ0

n whose endpoints are (0, 0)and (−qn, pn). From Corollary 3.3 we have

Γ0n ⊂ R−

n = Rn + (−qn, pn); Γ1n ⊂ Rn. (62)

Similar to Equation 60, we define

Rn =1

2(Rn ∪ R−

n ). (63)

For any set X ⊂ R2, let Nr(X) denote the r-tubular neighborhood of X .Recall that an index n is superior of κn ≥ 2.

Lemma 9.1 There is a universal constant C such that

Γ0n ∪ Γ1

n ⊂ NC(RN); ∀N > n,

for any superior index n.

Proof: Without loss of generality, we will prove this for the index n = 1.Given Corollary 3.3, it suffices to prove that

R1 ∪ R−

1 ⊂ NC(Rk); k ≥ 2. (64)

Dilating by a factor of 2 and unravelling the definitions, we see that Equation64 is equivalent to

2R1 ⊂ N2(Rk); 2R−

1 ⊂ N2C(R−

k ); k ≥ 2. (65)

We will prove the first of these statements. The second statement has essen-tially the same proof.

66

Both 2R1 and Rk are parallelograms. We will compare their edges. Oneof the edges 2v1 of 2R1 connects (0, 0) to (2q1,−2p1). The corresponding edgevk of Rk connects (0, 0) to (qk,−pk). The slopes of these edges are withinO(q−2

1 ), according to Lemma 7.4. Lemma 7.4 also tells us that qk ≥ 2q1 + 1.From these two properties, we see that

2v1 ⊂ NC(vk). (66)

The other edge of 2R1 emanating from (0, 0) is 2w1, which connects (0, 0)to

2(

p1q1p1 + q1

+q1 − p1

2

)= 2q1

(A1

1 + A1,

A1

1 + A1+

1− A1

2

)

The corresponding edge of Rk connects (0, 0) to

(2pkqkpk + qk

+qk − pk

2

)= qk

(Ak

1 + Ak,

Ak

1 + Ak+

1−Ak

2

).

The slopes of 2w1 and 2k again differ by O(q−21 ). Hence, again we have

2w1 ⊂ NC(wk). (67)

Combining Equations 66 and 67, and using basic properties of parallelo-grams, we get the result of this lemma. ♠

Corollary 9.2 Assuming that p1 is chosen sufficiently large, we have

Γ0n ∪ Γ1

n ⊂ N1(RN); ∀N > n,

for any superior index n.

Proof: In our proof, the size of the constant C tends to 0 as the size of thefirst term in our sequence tends to ∞. The point is that we are dealing withlengths of size O(r) and slopes which differ by O(r−2). Taking a large initialterm allows us deal only with very large values of r. ♠

Now we come to the main part of the argument.

Lemma 9.3 If κn ≥ 3 and pn/qn has type 1, then Γ1n ⊂ Γ1

n+k for all k ≥ 1.

67

Proof: Without loss of generality, we consider the index n = 1. Lemma 8.7gives us Γ1

1 ⊂ Γ2. Corollary 9.2 gives us

Γ11 ⊂ N1(Rn); n ≥ 2. (68)

Lemma 8.5 says that Γn+1 and Γn agree on N1(Rn) for n ≥ 2. Therefore

Γ11 ⊂ Γn; n ≥ 3. (69)

Lemma 7.4 tells us that qn > 2q1 for n ≥ 2. Combining this fact with Equa-tion 69, we see that actually Γ1

1 ⊂ Γ1n for all n ≥ 2. ♠

Lemma 9.4 If κn ≥ 2 and pn/qn has type 2, then Γ1n ⊂ Γ1

n+k for all k > 0.

Proof: In this case, Lemma 8.6 tells us that Γ2 copies FR1 ∪ SR1. But theDecomposition Theorem tells us that Γ1

1 ⊂ FR1 ∪SR1. Hence Γ11 ⊂ Γ2. The

rest of the proof is the same as in the previous case. ♠

Lemma 9.5 If κn ≥ 2 and pn/qn has type 3 or 4, then Γ1n ⊂ Γ1

n+k for allk > 0.

Proof: The proof is essentially the same as the proof in the previous cases.Lemmas 8.8 and 8.9 are used in place of Lemmas 8.6 and 8.7. ♠

We can now extract a subsequence of pn/qn where κn ≥ 2. Passing to afurther subsequence, we can assume that this sequence is monotone. We willconsider the monotone increasing case. Our subsequence does not necessarilysatisfy Equation 6 for k = 2. Nonetheless, we have arranged that

Γ1n ⊂ Γ1

n+1; ∀n. (70)

We have still not used the second statements of all the corollaries to theCopy Theorem we have used above. We also showed that certain disks arealso copied at each stage. These additional bits of information translate intothe statement that there is a universal ǫ > 0 such that Γn+1 copies 1 + ǫperiods of Γn for all n. Lemma 6.3 now finishes the proof of the ErraticOrbits Theorem.

Following this chapter, the rest of the monograph is devoted to provingthe 5 main results left over from our proof of the Erratic Orbits Theorem.These results are listed in §1.8.

68

9.2 Topological Orbit Confinement

Now that we have proved (modulo the 5 auxilliary results) the Erratic OrbitsTheorem, we work out some other consequences of the auxilliary results. Thefirst result in this section is a consequence of the Embedding Theorem.

Assuming that we have chosen λ ∈ R − 2Z[A], the arithmetic graphΓα(A) encodes information about the orbits of points having the form

MA,α(m,n) = (2Am+ 2n+ α,±1). (71)

Call this orbit O(m,n). (We suppress the depends on A and α in our nota-tion.)

The Embedding Theorem tells us that Γα(A) is an embedded union of em-bedded polygons and infinite embedded polygonal arcs. Let Γ(m,n) denotethe component of Γ that contains (m,n).

Figure 9.1: The component Γ(0, 0) and some orbits it confines

We say that the orbit O(m1, n1) confines the orbit O(m2, n2) if the wind-ing number of Γ(m1, n1) about the point (m2, n2) is nonzero. In this case,

69

Γ(m2, n2) is forced to lie entirely in the compact region bounded by Γ(m1, n1).In particular, the orbit O(m2, n2) has a diameter bounded in terms of thediameter of O(m1, n1), and moreover O(m2, n2) is also a stable orbit.

Figure 9.1 illustrates this phemomenon for the parameter A = 17/72.Here Γ(0, 0) is another name for the graph Γ(17/72) that we drew in theprevious section. Any resemblence between Figure 9.1 and a monster ispurely coincidental, and not part of the theory we are trying to develop!We have chosen to illustrate the orbit confinement phenomenon for an evenrational, but in the odd case there are plenty of polygonal orbits as well.

9.3 The Classification of Basic Orbits

First we will discuss some of the structure of the arithmetic graph that isimplied by the Hexagrid Theorem and the orbit confinement phenomenon.After we are done with this discussion, we will interpret our results directlyin terms of the outer billiards dyhamics.

As usual, we consider an odd rational parameter A = p/q. Say that a suiteis the region between two floors of the room grid. Each suite is partitionedinto rooms. Each room has two walls, and each wall has a door in it. Fromthe Hexagrid Theorem, we see that there is an infinite polygonal arc of Γ(p/q)that lives in each suite. See Figures 3.7 or 3.8. One of these polygonal arcsis Γ(p/q), and the other ones correspond to other outer billiards orbits. Allthe other components of Γ(p/q) are closed polygons and must be confinedto single rooms. The point here is that the infinite polygonal arcs we havealready described have already used up all the doors. Nothing else can crossany of the walls.

Now we turn to the dynamical interpretation of the discussion above.Recall that the outer billiards map permutes the basic intervals, as definedin §2.3. Now that we have finished (modulo details) the proof of the Er-ratic Orbits Theorem, we work out some other consequences of our results.Here we will give a dynamical interpretation of the Hexagrid Theorem. Thisinterpretation gives a kind of classification of the basic orbits.

Referring to Equation 12, we set

M(m,n) =2mp+ 2n+ 1

q(72)

70

Lemma 9.6 Let r ∈ (0,∞) have the form s/q, where s > 0 is odd. Thenthere exists a lattice point (m,n) above the baseline of Γ(p/q), such thatM(m,n) = r.

Proof: Let L0 denote the baseline of Γ(p/q). Note that M maps all pointsof Z2 to (0,∞) provided that they lie above L0. Therefore, it suffices toshow thatM(Z2) consists of all the fractions of the form s/q, where s is odd.Given Equation 72, the statement we just made about M(Z2) is obvious. ♠

Say that an outer billiards orbit on the kite K(A) is basic if it intersectsthe pair of rays R+ × −1, 1. We are only studying basic orbits in thismonograph. Compare the material in §2.4. Every basic orbit intersects thepair of rays R+ × −1, 1 in some point that lies in the interior of a basicinterval. Moreover, all points in the same basic interval have orbits withthe same combinatorics. Put another way, the basic orbit remains inside theorbit of one of the basic intervals.

Lemma 9.6 tells us that the arithmetic graph Γ captures the return dy-namics of any basic interval—i.e., the dynamics of the return map Ψ. Thedynamics of Ψ on a basic orbit pretty well determines the entire dynamicsof the orbit. Essentially, a basic orbit leaves R+ × −1, 1, circulates oncearound the kite, and then returns. So, in short, the arithmetic graph Γ(A)captures the dynamics of all the basic orbits, when A is an odd rational.

We call a basic orbit stable if the corresponding component of Γ is stable,and otherwise unstable. Dynamically, the stable orbits retain their periodic-ity if we replace the parameter A by a nearby parameter A′, and the unstableorbits do not.

Each vertex (m,n) in the arithmetic graph corresponds to the two points(M(m,n),±1). Thus, each component of Γ tracks either 1 or 2 orbits. Thereare two possibilities:

• If the orbit of the point (M(m,n), 1)) contains the point (M(m,n),−1)then this orbit is tracked by a single component of Γ.

• If the orbits of (M(m,n), 1) and (M(m,n),−1) are distinct, then bothorbits are tracked by the same component.

Lemma 9.7 Each component of Γ tracks two orbits.

71

Proof: We will give the proof first in the unstable case. In light of Equation11, the two adjacent vertices in the arithmetic graph correspond to pointson the same ray if and only if the vector (ǫ1, ǫ2) joining these points is suchthat ǫ1 + ǫ2 is even. Since q − p is even, we see that the two points (m,n)and (m,n) + (q,−p) correspond to points on the same ray. Moreover, themap M is injective when restricted to the two adjacent rooms as cut out bythe room grid. Hence, our unstable orbit returns to the same point on thesame ray before it has any opportunity to return to the point on the otherray with the same first coordinate.

For the stable orbits, the proof is the same. Tracing around our polygonalcomponent once, the corresponding point has returned to the ray it startedon before it gets a chance to return to the point on the other ray with thesame first coordinate. ♠

The following classification result summarizes the discussion in this sec-tion.

Theorem 9.8 Let A = p/q be an odd rational. Then there is an infinitefamily Uk

± of unstable basic orbits. The orbits Uk− and Uk

+ intersect thepair of rays R+ × −1, 1 only in the pair of intervals

(k(p+ q), (k + 1)(p+ q))× −1, 1.The list we have given is an exhaustive list of the unstable basic orbits. Eachstable orbit intersects R+ × −1, 1 solely in one of the listed intervals.

Remark: It is interesting to compare Theorem 9.8 to a result in [K]. Theresult in [K] is quite general, and so we will specialize it to the case of kites.In this case, a kite is quasi-rational iff it is rational. The (special case of the)result in [K], interpreted in our language, says that Γ never crosses the R−

p+q.These floors correspond to necklace orbits . A necklace orbit (in our case) is anouter billiards orbit consisting of copies of the kite, touching vertex to vertex.Compare Figure 2.1. These necklaces occur at distances k(p + q)2/2 fromthe kite and separate the outer billiards orbits into an infinite sequence ofdistinct regions. These regions discovered by Kolodziej are p+ q times as fatas the ones we pick out with Theorem 9.8. Thus, our result is a refinementof the result in [K]. The other floors in our picture do not correspond tonecklace orbits, and the “confinement mechanism” is more subtle. On theother hand, the result in [K] works for all the orbits and not just the basicones.

72

9.4 The Modular Limit Phenomenon

As we mentioned in the introduction, we will now discuss a connection be-tween outer billiards and the modular group that seems to go deeper thananything we prove in this monograph. We don’t have a proof of this phe-nomenon, though we have programmed Billiard King so that the interestedreader can test it extensively and see that it always works.

Our construction is based on an odd rational p/q ∈ (0, 1) and an evenratonal r/s ∈ (0, 1), where r is odd and s is even. There is an elementT ∈ SL2(Z) such that T (∞) = p/q. Here we mean that T acts as a linearfractional transformation. The choice of T is not unique, but Billiard Kingalways makes the choice

T =[p b(−)q a(−)

]. (73)

Here b(−)/a(−) is the fraction from Equation 41.We define

An = T (n+r

s). (74)

Finally, we let Γn = Γ(An). Notice that An → p/q. In considering the limitΓn we are considering what happens when we take a very specific kind ofrational limit of growing rational parameters.

Conjecture 9.9 (Modular Limit) The rescaled Hausdorff limit

limn→∞

1

nΓn

exists and is an infinite periodic polygonal curve.

The Hausdorff limit is not necessarily embedded, but it is almost embed-ded in the sense that it is a limit of embedded curves.

The reader with the right orientation will recognize the similarity betweenthe Modular Limit Phenomenon and the phenomenon that the geometriclimit of a sequence of Kleinian groups can be larger than the associatedalgebraic limit.

Figure 9.2 illustrates the Modular Limit Phenomenon for the simple casep/q = 1/3 and r/s = 1/4. We have superimposed several different choices ofΓn on the same picture. One should be able to detect the limiting asymptoticshape from what we have drawn. The interested reader can see these picturefor any (smallish) choices of parameters using Billiard King.

73

We have a vague understanding of the Modular Limit Phenomenon interms of the Master Picture Theorem. The Modular Limit Phenomenon isa kind of renormalization phenomenon related to the instablity of orbits ina polytope exchange map. To say any more than this would lead us intocompletely unsupported speculation. We hope to eventually come to a goodunderstanding of the Modular Limit Phenomenon.

9.5 Near Bilateral Symmetry

There is one more phenomenon we noticed about outer billiards on kites thatseems worth mentioning. Figure 9.3, suggests that the intersections

Γ(p/q) ∩ SR(p/q); Γ(p/q) ∩ FR(p/q)

have an approximate bilateral symmetry. The reader can probably pick outthis near symmetry in all the pictures we have drawn.

Figure 9.3: Superimposed arithmetic graphs.

There is a unique affine involution I such that I(FR1) = FR1. Thedirection fixed by I is parallel to the long diagonal of the arithmetic kite.

74

Figure 9.3 shows a closeup of the superposition

I(Γ′) ∪ Γ′; Γ′ = Γ(73/139) ∩ FR(73/139).

We can see that the symmetry is fundamentally approximate in nature,but somehow quite close. The symmetry must be approximate, becausethe involution I does not respect the lattice Z2. We don’t have a proof ofthis wierd phenomenon, though our paper [S1] establishes a related kind ofquasi-self-similarity for the arithmetic graph associated to the Penrose kiteparameter.

75

Part II:In this part of the monograph we will state and prove the Master Picture

Theorem. All the auxilliary theorems left over from Part I rely on this centralresult. Here is an overview of the material.

• In §10 we will state the Master Picture Theorem. Roughly, the MasterPicture Theorem says that the structure of the return map Ψ is de-termined by a pair of maps into a flat 3-torus, R3/Λ, together with apartition of R3/Λ into polyhedra. Here Λ is a certain 3-dimensionallattice that depends on the parameter.

• In §11, we will prove the Pinwheel Lemma, a key technical step alongthe way to our proof of the Master Picture Theorem. The PinwheelLemma states that we can factor the return map Ψ into a compositionof 8 simpler maps, which we call strip maps . A strip map is a verysimple map from one infinite strip in the plane to another.

• In §12 we deduce the Spiral Lemma from the Pinwheel Lemma. TheSpiral Lemma, while not strictly necessary for our overall proof, doesdirectly imply the important Equation 11.

• In §13 we deduce the Torus Lemma from the Pinwheel Lemma. TheTorus Lemma relates the structure of Ψ to R3/Λ. The Torus Lemmaimplies that there exists some partition of our torus into open regions,such that the regions determine the structure of the arithmetic graph.Deducing the Master Picture Theorem from the Torus Lemma amountsto understanding the complement of our open regions. We call thiscomplement the singular set .

• In §14 work out the rough structure of the singular set in our torus,showing that it is contained in a finite number of hyperplanes. After§14 we have reduced the proof of the Master Picture Theorem to afinite (but probably massive) computation.

• In §15 we prove a number of theoretical results that pin down thestructure of the singular set, and eventually show that it is exactly aspredicted by the Master Picture Theorem.

76

10 The Master Picture Theorem

10.1 Computational Description

The Master Picture Theorem gives a formula for the arithmetic graph. Theformula is rather intricate, and the first three parts of this section are meantas references. We strongly advise that the reader first skip ahead to §10.1.4,to see where the discussion is going.

10.1.1 The Classifying Map

Let A ∈ (0, 1) and α ∈ R+ − 2Z[A]. Let

RA = (0, 1 + A)× (0, 1 + A)× (0, 1). (75)

Given a point (m,n) ∈ Z2 and a parameter A ∈ (0, 1) we first describe howto produce points

M±(m,n) ∈ RA. (76)

Here is the description of the map M−(m,n).

1. Let z = Am+ n+ α.

2. Let Z = floor(z).

3. Let y = z + Z.

4. Let Y = floor(y/(1 + A)).

5. Let x = y − Y (1− A)− 1.

6. Let X = floor(x/(1 + A)).

We then have

M−(m,n) =

x− (1 + A)Xy − (1 + A)Y

z − Z

(77)

The description of M+ is identical, except that the third step above is re-placed by

y = z + Z + 1. (78)

In §10.2.1 we will see that our algorithm is a reduction algorithms for a certainintegral lattice.

77

10.1.2 Characteristics of the point

Now we describe how to attach a 5-tuple (n0, .., n4) to (a, b, c). The firstinteger n0 records whether (a, b, c) is generated by M+ or by M−.

• Determining n0:

– If we are interested in M+, then n0 = 0.

– If we are interested in M−, then n0 = 1.

• Determining n1:

– If c < A and c < 1− A then n1 = 0.

– If c > A and c < 1− A then n1 = 1.

– If c > A and c > 1− A then n1 = 2.

– If c < A and c > 1− A then n1 = 3.

• Determining n2:

– If a ∈ (0, A) then n2 = 0.

– If a ∈ (A, 1) then n2 = 1.

– If a ∈ (1, 1 + A) then n2 = 2.

• Determining n3.

– If b ∈ (0, A) then n3 = 0.

– If b ∈ (A, 1) then n3 = 1.

– If b ∈ (1, 1 + A) then n3 = 2.

• Determining n4.

– Let t = a + b− c.

– Let n4 = floor(t−A).

Notice that each 5-tuple (n0, ..., n4) corresponds to a (possibly empty) convexpolyhedron in RA. The polyhedron doesnt depend on n0. It turns out thatthis polyhedron is empty unless n4 ∈ −2,−1, 0, 1, 2. See §10.2.2 for ageometric discussion.

78

10.1.3 Functions of the Characteristic

Let n = (n0, ..., n4). We now describe two functions ǫ1(n) ∈ −1, 0, 1 andǫ2(n) ∈ −1, 0, 1. We will describe these functions algorithmically.

Here is the definition of ǫ1(n).

• If n0 + n4 is even then:

– If n2 + n3 = 4 or x2 < x3 set ǫ1(n) = −1.

• If n0 + n4 is odd then:

– If n2 + n3 = 0 or x2 > x3 set ǫ1(n) = +1.

• Otherwise set ǫ1(n) = 0.

Here is the definition of ǫ2(n).

• If n0 = 0 and n1 ∈ 3, 0.

– If n2 = 0 let ǫ2(n) = 1.

– If n2 = 1 and n4 6= 0 let ǫ2(n) = 1.

• If n0 = 1 and n1 ∈ 0, 1.

– if n2 > 0 and n4 6= 0 let ǫ2(n) = −1.

– If n2 < 2 and n3 = 0 and n4 = 0 let ǫ2(n) = 1.

• If n0 = 0 and n1 ∈ 1, 2.

– If n2 < 2 and n4 6= 0 let ǫ2(n) = 1.

– If n2 > 0 and n3 = 2 and n4 = 0 let ǫ2(n) = −1.

• If n0 = 1 and n1 ∈ 2, 3.

– If n2 = 2 let ǫ2(n) = −1.

– If n2 = 1 and n4 6= 0 let ǫ2(n) = −1.

• Otherwise let ǫ2(n) = 0.

See §10.2.3 for a geometric representation of these formulas.

79

10.1.4 The Main Result

Let A ∈ (0, 1) be any parameter and let α > 0 be some parameter suchthat α 6∈ 2Z[A]. Given any lattice point (m,n) we perform the followingconstruction.

• Let (a±, b±, c±) =M±(A,m, n). See §10.1.1.

• Let n± be the 5-tuple associated to (a±, b±, c±). See §10.1.2.

• Let ǫ±1 = ǫ1(n±) and ǫ±

2 = ǫ2(n±). See §10.1.3.

• Let Γα(A,m, n) denote the union of 2 edges obtained by joining (m,n)to (m+ ǫ−1 , n+ ǫ−2 ) and to (m+ ǫ+1 , n + ǫ+2 ).

Finally, defineΓα(A) =

⋃

(m,n)∈Z2

Γα(A,m.n). (79)

By construction, Γα(A) is some kind of graph whose vertices are latticepoints. By construction, the edges of this graph have length at most

√2.

Recall that the arithmetic graph ΓA,α is only defined for lattice pointsabove the lineM−1

A.α(0). LetHA,α denote the half-plane of these lattive points.

Theorem 10.1 (Master Picture) Γα(A) = Γα(A) on HA,α.

The Master Picture Theorem gives us a formula for the arithmetic graph.Note that the graph Γ is defined in all of Z2. Therefore, the Master PictureTheorem gives us a canonical extension of the arithmetic graph to all of Z2.We discussed this extension already in §3.6.

Remark: Let x = 2Am + 2n + 2α. The Master Picture Theorem givesa formula for the quantity ρ± = Ψ(x,±1) − (x,±1) in terms of the mapsM+ and M−. As stated, the Master Picture Theorem says that one of themaps, either M+ or M−, determines ρ+, and the other map determines ρ−.Here is a more refined statement that falls out of our proof. M+(m,n) deter-mines ρ+ iff (x,+) ∈ X , the region from §13.1.1. The interested reader candeduce everything about the return dymamics of Ψ from the Master PictureTheorem and from the statement we have just made.

80

10.2 Geometric Interpretation

10.2.1 The Classifying Map

In this section, we reinterpret the discussion in §10.1.1 geometrically. Wedefine the following lattice.

ΛA =

1 + A 1−A −10 1 + A −10 0 1

Z3 (80)

ΛA is the Z-span of the column vectors of the above matrix.The region RA given in Equation 75 is a fundamental domain for the

action of ΛA on R3. Here is a more geometric description of the maps M+

and M−. We have

M−(m,n) = (t− 1, t, t) mod ΛA; t = Am+ n+ α. (81)

M+(m,n) = (t, t + 1, t) mod ΛA; t = Am+ n+ α. (82)

The algorithm for M− given in §10.1.1 is really just the standard method forfinding a ΛA-equivalent representative of the point (t − 1, t, t) in RA. Thesame goes for M+.

There is a factor of 2 floating around that we want to nail down. Settings = 2Am+ 2n+ 2α, the points

(s

2,s

2+ 1,

s

2

) (s

2− 1,

s

2,s

2

)mod ΛA (83)

determine the action of Ψ on (s,±1). Compare the remark at the end of§10.1.4.

Remark: If we extend M+ and M− to all of R2, then we can describe thesemaps geometrically. Each map crushes R2 down to a line, and then mapsthis line into the 3-torus R3/ΛA as a geodesic. The geodesic is irrationaliff A is irrational. Typically the geodesic has dense image. For quadraticirrationals, the geodesic is dense in a 2-dimensional sub-torus. What makesthese maps so interesting is that, as it turns out, there is more than one natu-ral extension to all of R2, and these other extensions give different geometricinformation about the map. We take up this point in §19.

81

10.2.2 The Polyhedron Partitions

As we remarked at the end of §10.1.2, the characteristics of the point

(a±, b±, c±) =M±(m,n)

determine a partition of RA into polyhedra. These polyhedra are cut out by4 families of planes:

• x = 0, x = A, x = 1, x = 1 + A.

• y = 0, y = A, y = 1, y = 1 + A.

• x+ y − z ∈ Z + A.

• z = A, z = 1−A.The third item describes an infinite list of parallel planes, but only finitelymany of these−either 2, 3, or 4 or them−actually intersect RA and therebyplay a role in the definition. The complements of the union of these planesare all polyhedra.

(1/2+A,0,1/2)(0,0,0) (A,0,0) (0,0,1/2)

z=0 z=1/2(1+A,1+A,0)

Figure 10.1: Two slices of the partition for A = 2/3.

Figure 10.1 shows a picture of two slices of the partition for the parameterA = 2/3. We have sliced the picture at z = 0 and z = 1/2. We have labelledseveral points just to make the coordinate system more clear. The little arrowin the picture indicate the “motion” the diagonal lines would make were weto increase the z-coordinate and show a kind of movie of the partition. Thereader can see this partition for any parameter and slice using Billiard King.

82

10.2.3 The Master Picture

For each parameter A we get a solid body RA partitioned into polyhedra.We can put all these pieces together into a single master picture. We define

R =⋃

A∈(0,1)

RA × A ⊂ R4. (84)

Each 2-plane family discussed above gives rise to a hyperplane family in R4.These hyperplane families are now all defined over Z, because the variable Ais just the 4th coordinate of R4 in our current scheme. Given that we havetwo maps M+ and M−, it is useful for us to consider two identical copies R+

and R− of R. The characteristic n0 ∈ 0, 1 tells us which copy to consider.We have a fibration f : R4 → R2 given by f(x, y, z, A) = (z, A). This

fibration in turn gives a fibration of R over the unit square B = (0, 1)2.Figure 10.1 draws the fiber f−1(3/2, 1/2). The base space B has a partitioninto 4 regions, as shown in Figure 10.2. The 4 regions are determined by thevalue of the characteristic n1.

z

2

3

0

1

A

Figure 10.2: The Partition of the Base Space

All the fibers above the same characteristic region have the same combi-natorial structure. Thus, the characteristic n1 determines the combinatorialstructure of the fiber in our master picture. Figure 10.1 corresponds ton1 = 3.

Now we describe the functions ǫ1 = ǫ1(n0, ..., n4) and ǫ2 = ǫ2(n0, ..., n4)with pictures. For each pair (n0, n1) ∈ 0, 1 × 0, 1, 2, 3 we can draw adecorated picture of a corresponding fiber. Light shading indicates a value of+1; dark indicates −1; and no shading indicates 0. The first column in eachcluster of 4 is the coloring for ǫ1. The second column is the coloring for ǫ2.

83

The first row in each cluster is the coloring for M+. The second row is thecoloring for M−. The number in the center indicates n0, the correspondingregion of the base space. We have placed Figure 10.2 in the middle forreference.

2

3

0

1

z

A 20

3

1

+

ε1 ε2

ε1 ε2

ε2ε1

ε2ε1

+ +

+

Figure 10.3: The decorated fibers

The reader can see many more pictures like using Billiard King. Geomet-rically, the Master Picture Theorem says that we map the triple (A,m, n)into R+ and R−, look at the decoration of the polytopes containing ourpoint, and then determine the arithmetic graph accordingly. For each choicein x, y, the decoration consists of a 3-coloring of the polytope partitions ofR+ and R−.

84

10.2.4 A Generic Example

We now work out an example to show the Master Picture Theorem in action.We take A = 3/5 and α = 1/10 and (m,n) = (4, 2). In this case we have

t = (4)(3/5) + (2) + (1/10) =9

2.

Hence

M+(4, 2) = (9

2,11

2,9

2) ≡ (

1

10,3

2,1

2) mod Λ;

M−(4, 2) = (7

2,9

2,9

2) ≡ (

7

10,1

2,1

2) mod Λ.

We have (z, A) = (1/3, 3/5). Therefore n1 = 3. Therefore, to figure out thelocal structure at the point (4, 2) we need to plot the first two coordinates ofpoints M+(4, 2) and M−(4, 2) on the upper portion of Figure 10.2. Here isthe plot.

3

+

+

ε1 ε2

Figure 10.4: Points in the fiber.

When we look up the regions in Figure 10.3, or else use the formulas from§10.1.3, we find that (ǫ+1 , ǫ

+2 ) = (−1, 1) and (ǫ−1 , ǫ

−

2 ) = (1, 0).

85

10.2.5 A Singular Example

Sometimes it is an annoyance to deal with the tiny positive constant α. So,in this section we will explain an alternate approach. One situation wherethis alternate approach proves useful is when we need to deal with the fibersat z = α. We much prefer to draw the fibers at z = 0, because these donot contain any tiny polygonal regions. All the pieces of the partition canbe drawn cleanly. However, in order to make sense of the Master PictureTheorem, we need to slightly redefine how the partition defines the edges ofthe arithmetic graph.

Our method is to redefine our polygonal regions to include their loweredges. A lower edge is an edge first encountered by a line of slope 1. Figure10.5 shows what we have in mind.

Figure 10.5: Polygons with their lower boundaries included.

We then set α = 0 and determine the relevent edges of the arithmeticgraph by which lower borded polygon contains our points. if it happens thatz ∈ 0, A, 1 − A, Then we think of the fiber at z as being the geometriclimit of the fibers at z + ǫ for ǫ > 0. That is, we take a right-sided limit ofthe pictures. When z is not one of these special values, there is no need todo this, for the fiber is completely defined already.

We illustrate our approach with the example A = 3/5 and (m,n) = (0, 8).We compute that t = 8 + α in this case. The relevant slices are the ones weget by setting z = α. We deal with this by setting α = 0 and computing

M+(0, 8) = (8, 9, 8) ≡ (4

5, 1, 0) modΛ

M−(0, 8) = (7, 8, 8) ≡ (0,7

5, 0) modΛ.

Figure 10.6 draws the relevant fibers.

86

+ 0ε1 ε2

+

−

Figure 10.6: Points in the fiber.

The only place where we need to use our special definition of a lowerborded polygon is for the point in the lower left fiber. This fiber determinesthe x coordinate of the edge corresponding to M−. In this case, we includeour point in the lightly shaded parallelogram, because our point lies in thelower border of this parallelogram.

There is one exception to our construction that requires an explanation.Referring to the lower right fiber, suppose that the bottom point actuallywas the bottom right vertex, as shown in Figure 10.7. In this case, the pointis simultaneously the bottom left vertex, and we make the definition usingthe bottom left vertex. The underlying reason is that a tiny push along theline of slope 1 moves the point into the region on the left rather than theregion on the right.

Figure 10.7: An exceptional case.

87

10.3 The Integral Partition

Let Aff denote the 4 dimensional affine group. We define a discrete affinegroup action Λ ⊂ Aff on the infinite slab R = R3 × (0, 1). Λ is generatedby the 3 maps

γ1 :

xyzA

→

x+ AyzA

+

1000

γ2 :

xyzA

→

x− Ay + AzA

+

1100

γ3 :

xyzA

→

xyzA

+

−1−110

(85)

Λ preserves the sets R3×A. The quotient R/Λ is naturally a fiber bundleover (0, 1). Each fiber (R3 × A)/Λ is isomorphic to R3/ΛA.

The region R, from Equation 84, is a fundamental domain for the actionof Λ. Note that R is naturally an integral polytope. That is, all the verticesof R have integer coordinates. R has 16 vertices, and they are as follows.

(ǫ1, ǫ2, ǫ3, 0); (2ǫ1, 2ǫ2, ǫ3, 1); ǫ1, ǫ2, ǫ3 ∈ 0, 1. (86)

Inplicit in our geometric interpretation is the statement that the regionsR+ and R− are partitioned into smaller convex polytopes. The partition isdefined by the 4 families of hyperplanes discussed above. However, we cantake a different point of view about the partition. This alternate point ofview leads to a simpler tiling on R+ and a simpler tiling on R−, but the twotilings will not be exactly the same—they are essentially mirror images ofeach other. We will first discuss the picture for R+ and then explain how thepicture on R− is derived from the picture on R+.

For each pair (ǫ1, ǫ2) ∈ −1, 0, 1, we let R+(ǫ1, ǫ2) denote the closureof the union of regions that assign (ǫ1, ǫ2). It turns out that R(ǫ1, ǫ2) if afinite union of convex integral polytopes. There are 14 such polytopes, andthey give an integral partition of R+. We now list these polytopes by theirvertices.

88

0000

0001

0010

0101

0111

1001

1010

1011

1111

(1, 1)

0000

0100

0101

0201

0211

1101

1111

1211

(−1, 1)

0100

0110

1110

1111

1211

2111

(−1,−1)

0100

0201

1000

1100

1101

1110

1201

1211

(0, 1)

0000

0010

0101

0110

0111

0211

1010

1111

(0, 1)

0000

0101

1001

1101

1111

(0, 1)

0001

0010

0011

0111

1011

(0, 1)

0000

0100

0110

0211

1111

1211

(−1, 0)

1100

1201

2101

2201

2211

(−1, 0)

89

0100

1101

1111

1211

2111

(−1, 0)

1000

1100

1101

1110

2001

2101

2111

(1, 0)

1001

1010

1011

1111

2011

(1, 0)

1100

1101

1110

1201

1211

2101

2111

2211

(0, 0)

0000

0100

0110

1000

1001

1010

1101

1110

1111

2001

2011

2111

(0, 0)

Now we describe the polytopes that partition R−. Let ι : R+ → R− be givenby the map

ι(x, y, z, A) = (1 + A− x, 1 + A− y, 1− z, A). (87)

Geometrically, ι is a reflection in the 1-dimensional line. We have the generalequation

R−(−ǫ1,−ǫ2) = ι(R+(ǫ1, ǫ2)). (88)

Thus, the partition of R− is a mirror image of the partition of R+. Bothpartitions involve 14 convex integral polytopes.

We use the action of Λ to extend the partitions of R+ and R− to twointegral polytope tilings of R. This is our final view of the Master PictureTheorem: The structure of the arithmetic graph is determined by the 4-dimensional Λ-invariant integral polytope tilings of the slab R, together withsuitably defined maps, namely M+ and M−, into this space.

90

11 The Pinwheel Lemma

11.1 Statement of the Result

For points of R+×−1, 1 far away from the origin, the return map Ψ has aparticularly simple form. The Pinwheel Lemma states that this simple formextends to all of R+ × −1, 1.

Consider a pair (Σ, L), where Σ is an infinite planar strip and L is a linetransverse to Σ. The pair (L,Σ) determines two vectors, V+ and V−, each ofwhich points from one boundary component of Σ to the other and is parallelto L. Clearly V− = −V+.

For almost every point p ∈ R2, there is a unique integer n such that

E(p) := p+ nV+ ∈ Σ. (89)

We call E the strip map defined relative to (Σ, L). The map E is well-definedexcept on a countable collection of parallel and evenly spaced lines.

p

L

Σ

E(p)

V

+V

−

Figure 11.1: A strip map

Figure 11.2 shows 4 strips we associate to our kite. Similar objects areconsidered in [GS] and [S1].

To describe the strips in Figure 11.3 write (v1, v2, v3)t (a column vector)

to signify that L = v2v3 and ∂Σ = v1v2 ∪ I(v1v2), where I is the order 2rotation fixing v3. Here is the data for the strip maps E1, E2, E3, E4.

(−1, 0)(0, 1)(0,−1)

;

(A, 0)(0,−1)(−1, 0)

;

(0, 1)(A, 0)(−1, 0)

;

(−1, 0)(0,−1)(0, 1)

. (90)

See Figure 11.2 below.

91

We also define a map χ : R+ ×Zodd → R+ × −1, 1 by the formula

χ(x, 4n± 1) = (x,±1) (91)

Recall that ψ is the square of the outer billiards map. The goal of thischapter is to prove the following result.

Lemma 11.1 (Pinwheel) For any x > 0, the forward ψ orbit of (x,±1)returns as the point Ψ(x,±1), where Ψ = χ (E4 E3 E2 E1)

2

Σ4

L1

Σ3

Σ2Σ1

L4L3

L2

Figure 11.2: The 4 strips for the parameter A = 1/3.

Remark: Near the origin, the Pinwheel Lemma is a nontrivial result. Hereis a sanity check for it. Using Billiard King, we computed that the PinwheelLemma holds true at the points (x,±1) relative to the parameter A for all

A =1

256, ...,

255

256; x = ǫ+

1

1024, ..., ǫ+

16384

1024; ǫ = 10−6.

The tiny number ǫ is included to make sure that the outer billiards orbit isactually defined for all the points we sample. We have fairly well carpetedthe region of doubt about the Pinwheel Lemma with instances of its truth.

92

The Master Picture Theorem includes the statement that

Ψ(x, 1)− (x, 1) = 2(ǫ1A+ ǫ2, ǫ3); ǫ1, ǫ2, ǫ3 ∈ −1, 0, 1. (92)

Even without knowing the Master Picture Theorem, the Pinwheel Lemmatells us that the triple (ǫ1, ǫ2, ǫ3) exists. Looking at the vectors defining thestrip maps, we see that ǫ1 + ǫ2 + ǫ3 is even. This establishes the paritystatement in Equation 11.

We call (ǫ1, ǫ2) the return pair . We call the map p → (ǫ1(p), ǫ2(p)) isthe arithmetic return map. The arithmetic return map is a map ψ : R+ ×−1, 1 → Z2, and it determines the arithmetic graph.

The main consequence of the Pinwheel Lemma is that it lets us computeand estimate the return pair. All our results below use the basic factorizationof the return map given by the Pinwheel Lemma.

11.2 A Partition of the Plane

Let ψ be the square of the outer billiards map, defined relative to the kiteK(A). For each x ∈ R2 −K on which ψ is defined, there is a vector vx suchthat ψ(x)− x = vx. This vector is twice the difference between 2 vertices ofK, and therefore can take on 12 possible values. It turns out that 10 of thesevalues occur. We call these vectors Vj , with j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 4♯, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8. Withthis ordering, the argument of Vj increases monotonically with j. CompareFigure 11.3. For each of our vectors V , there is an open region R ⊂ R2 −Ksuch that x ∈ R if and only if ψ(x) − x = V . The regions R1, ..., R8 areunbounded. The two regions R♯

4 and R6 are bounded.

One can find the entire partition by extending the sides of K in onedirection, in a pinwheel fashion, and then pulling back these rays by the outerbilliards map. To describe the regions, we use the notation −→q1 , p1, ..., pk,−→q2to indicate that

• The two unbounded edges are p1 + tq1| t ≥ 0 and pk + tq2| t ≥ 0.

• p2, ..., pk−1 are any additional intermediate vertices.

To improve the typesetting on our list, we set λ = (A − 1)−1. Figure 10.3shows the picture for A = 1/3. The reader can see any parameter usingBilliard King.

93

V1=(0, 4). R1 :−−−−→(1,−1), (1,−2),

−−−→(1, 1).

V2=(−2, 2). R2 :−−−→(1, 1), (1,−2), (0,−1),

−−−→(A, 1).

V3=(−2−2A, 0) R3 :−−−→(A, 1), (2A, 1), λ(2A2,−1− A),

−−−−→(−A, 1).

V4=(−2,−2) R4 :−−−−→(−A, 1), λ(2A,A− 3),

−−−−→(−1, 1).

V4♯=(−2A,−2) R4♯ : (A, 0), (2A, 1), λ(2A2,−1−A))

V5=(0,−4) R5 :−−−−→(−1, 1), λ(2A,A−3), (−A, 2), λ(2A, 3A−1),

−−−−−→(−1,−1)

V6=(2A,−2) R6 : (0, 1), (−A, 2), λ(2A, 3A− 1)

V6=(2,−2) R6 :−−−−−→(−1,−1), λ(2, A+ 1),

−−−−−−→(−A,−1)

V7=(2 + 2A, 0) R7 :−−−−−−→(−A,−1), λ(2, A+ 1), (−2,−1),

−−−−→(A,−1)

V8=(2, 2) R8 :−−−−→(A,−1), (−2,−1), (−1, 0),

−−−−→(1,−1).

#

V1

V2

V3

V4

V5

V6

V7

V8

R6b

R4

R1R8R7

R5

R6

R2

R4

R3

Figure 11.3: The Partition for A = 1/3.

94

11.3 Allowable Transitions

It is convenient to set

Ra = Ra + Va = p+ Va| p ∈ Ra. (93)

One symmetry of the partition is that reflection in the x-axis interchangesRa with R10−a, for all values of a. (To make this work, we set R9 = R1, anduse the convention 4♯ + 6 = 10.)

We are interested in transitions between one region Ra, and another re-gion Rb. If Ra ∩ Rb 6= ∅ for some parameter A it means that there is somep ∈ Ra such that ψA(p) ∈ Rb. Here ψA is the square of the outer billiardsmap, relative to the kite K(A).

We create a transition matrix using the following rule.

• A 0 in the (ab)th spot indicates that Ra ∩Rb = ∅ for all A ∈ (0, 1).

• A 1 in the (ab)th spot indicates that Ra ∩Rb 6= ∅ for all A ∈ (0, 1).

• A t+ in the (ab)th spot indicates that Ra ∩ Rb 6= ∅ iff A ∈ (t, 1).

• A t− in the (ab)th spot indicates that Ra ∩ Rb 6= ∅ iff A ∈ (0, t).

We think of our regions as being open.

R1 R2 R3 R4 R4♯ R5 R6 R6 R7 R8

R1 1 1 (13)+ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

R2 0 1 1 (13)− 1 1 1 0 0 0

R3 0 0 1 1 (12)+ 1 0 0 0 0

R4 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0R4♯ 0 0 0 0 0 (1

3)+ (1

3)+ 0 0 1

R5 0 0 0 0 0 1 (13)+ 1 1 1

R6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 (12)+ 1

R6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (13)−

R7 (13)+ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

R8 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

(94)

We have programmed Billiard King so that the interested reader can seeeach of these relations at a single glance. Alternatively, they can easily be

95

established using routine linear algebra. For example, interpreting R3 and R2

as projectivizations of open convex cones C3 and C2 in R3, we easily verifiesthat the vector (−1, A,−2− A) has positive dot product with all vectors inC3 and negative dot product with all vectors in C2. Hence R2 ∩ R3 = ∅.

We can relate all the nonempty intersections to our strips. As with thelist of intersections, everything can be seen at a glance using Billiard King,or else proved using elementary linear algebra. First we list the intersectionsthat comprise the complements of the strips.

• R2 ∩ R2 and R6 ∩R6 are the components of R2 − (Σ1 ∪ Σ2).

• R4 ∩ R4 and R8 ∩R8 are the components of R2 − (Σ3 ∪ Σ4).

• R3∩(R3∪R4♯) and (R6∪R7)∩R7 are the components ofR2−(Σ2∪Σ3).

• R1∩R1 and (R4♯∪R5)∩(R5∪R6) are the components ofR2−(Σ1∪Σ4).

Now we list the intersections that are contained in single strips. To makeour typesetting nicer, we use the term u-component to denote an unboundedconnected component. We use the term b-component to denote a boundedconnected component.

• R1 ∩ R2 and R5 ∩R6 are the two u-components of Σ1 − (Σ2 ∪ Σ4).

• R8 ∩ R1 and R4 ∩R5 are the two u-components of Σ4 − (Σ1 ∪ Σ3).

• R3∩R4 and (R6∪R7)∩R8 are the two u-components of Σ3−(Σ2∪Σ4).

• R6∩R7 and R2∩(R3∪R4♯) are the two u-components of Σ2−(Σ1∪Σ3).

• R6 ∩ R7 is contained in the b-component of Σ1 − (Σ2 ∪ Σ3).

• R3 ∩ R4♯ is contained in the b-component of Σ4 − (Σ2 ∪ Σ3).

• R4♯ ∩ (R5 ∪ R6) is contained in the b-component of Σ3 − (Σ1 ∪ Σ4).

• (R4♯ ∪ R5) ∩ R6 is contained in the b-component of Σ2 − (Σ1 ∪ Σ4).

Now we list the intersections of regions that are contained in doubleintersections of strips. In this case, all the components are bounded: Anytwo strips intersect in a bounded region of the plane.

96

• R1 ∩ R3 and R5 ∩R7 are the components of (Σ1 ∩ Σ2)− (Σ3 ∪ Σ4).

• R7 ∩ R1 and R3 ∩R5 are the components of (Σ3 ∩ Σ4)− (Σ1 ∪ Σ2).

• R2∩R4 and R6∩R8 are bounded components of (Σ2∩Σ3)− (Σ1∪Σ4).

• R8 ∩ R2 = (Σ1 ∩ Σ4)− (Σ2 ∪ Σ3).

Now we list all the intersections of regions that are contained in tripleintersections of strips.

• R2 ∩ (R5 ∪R6) = Σ2 ∩ Σ3 ∩ Σ4 − Σ1.

• R8 ∩ (R3 ∪R4♯) = Σ1 ∩ Σ2 ∩ Σ4 − Σ3.

• (R4♯ ∪ R5) ∩ R8 = Σ1 ∩ Σ2 ∩ Σ3 − Σ4.

• (R6 ∪ R7) ∩ R2 = Σ1 ∩ Σ3 ∩ Σ4 − Σ2.

Here we list a bit more information about the two regions R4♯ and R6

some of the information is redundant, but it is useful to have it all in oneplace.

• R4♯ ⊂ Σ4 − Σ3.

• R4♯ + V3 = Σ3 − (Σ2 ∪ Σ4).

• R6 ⊂ Σ2 − Σ1.

• R6 + V5 ⊂ Σ1 − Σ2.

• R6 + V5 − V6 = Σ2 − (Σ1 ∪ Σ3).

Finally, we mention two crucial relations between our various vectors:

• V3 − V4 + V5 = V4♯ .

• V5 − V6 + V7 = V6 .

These two relations are responsible for the lucky cancellation that makes thePinwheel Lemma hold near the kite.

Given all the information above, we are ready to prove the PinwheelLemma.

97

11.4 The Simplest Case

In our proof we will frequently use the notation R8+j = Rj and Σ4+j = Σj .Thus, for instance, Σ7 is defined to be equal to Σ3.

Given any point z1 ∈ R+ × −1, 1, we can associate the sequence ofregions

R1 → Ra2 → ...→ Rak (95)

through which the forwards orbit of z1 transitions until it returns as Ψ(z1).The simplest possible sequence is the one where aj = j for j = 1, ..., 9. SeeFigure 11.4. In Figure 11.4 we have drawn a “spiral” Q that cuts off compactregions Sj ⊂ Rj for j = 1, ..., 8. This is the sequence we consider first.

S5

S7S8

S3S4

S6

S1

Q z1

z2

z10

z3

S2

Figure 11.4: The Simplest Sequence of Regions

We let zj denote the first point in the forwards orbit of z1 that lies in Rj .Given Items 1 and 2 of the Intersection Lemma, we see that z2 = E1(z1) andz3 = E2(z2), and so on until z9 = E8(z8). But then Ψ(z1) and z9 differ bysome multiple of V1 = (0, 4). This shows that Ψ(z1) = µ (E4E3E2E1)

2(z1).

98

11.5 The Next Simplest Case

Now we will consider orbits whose associated sequence in Equation 95 doesnot involve the indices 4♯ or 6.

The following result is an immediate corollary of the intersections listedabove.

Lemma 11.2 If j < k then Rj ∩ Rk ⊂ Σj ∩ ... ∩ Σk−1.

Let zj be the first point in the forwards orbit of z1 that lies in Raj .Suppose by induction we have shown that

zj = Eaj−1Eaj−2...E1(z1). (96)

By construction and Lemma 11.2,

zj+1 = Eaj (zj) ∈ Raj ∩ Raj+1⊂ Σaj ∩ ... ∩ Σaj+1−1.

Therefore, Eaj , ..., Eaj+1−1 all act trivially on zj+1, forcing

zj+1 = Eaj+1−1Eaj+1−2...E1(z1).

Hence, Equation 96 holds true for all indices j.By the Intersection Lemma, we eventually reach either a point z9 or z10.

(That is, we wrap all the way around and return either to R9 = R1 or elseto R10 = R2.) We will consider these two cases one at a time.

Case 1: If we reach z9 = (x9, y9) ∈ R9 then we have

z9 = E8...E1(z1); x9 > 0; y9 ≤ 1. (97)

From this we get that Ψ(z1) = µ (E4...E1)2(z1), as desired. The last in-

equality in Equation 97 requires explanation. By the Intersection Lemma,the point preceding z9 on our list must lie in Ra for some a ∈ 6, 6, 7, 8.However, the distance between any point on R+ ×3, 5, 7... to any point inRa exceeds the length of vector Va.

Case 2: If we arrive at z10 = (x10, y10), then the Intersection Lemma tellsus that the point preceding z10 lies in Va for a = 6, 6, 7, 8 and z10 ∈ Σ9.Hence E9(z10) = z10. That is

z10 = E8...E1(z1); x10 > 0; y10 < 3.

The last inequality works just as in Case 1. All points in R10 have y-coordinate at least −2. Hence y10 = ±1. Hence µ(z10) = z10. Puttingeverything together gives the same result as Case 1.

99

11.6 Dealing with Four Sharp

In this section we will deal with orbits whose associated sequence has a 4♯ init, but not a 6. Here is a lemma of the Intersection Lemma.

Lemma 11.3 The following holds for all parameters.

R4♯ ∩R4♯ = ∅; R4♯ ⊂ Σ4−Σ3; R4♯ +V3 ∈ Σ3−Σ4; R4♯ ∩R8 ⊂ Σ1∩Σ2∩Σ3

Let z be the first point in the forward orbit of z1 such that z ∈ R4♯ . UsingLemma 11.2 and the same analysis as in the previous section, we get

∃n ∈ N ∪ 0 z = E2E1(z1) + nV3, (98)

From Lemma 11.2 and Item 1 of Lemma 11.3, the next point in the orbit is

w = z + V4♯ ∈ R5 ∪R8. (99)

Items 2 and 3 of Lemma 11.3 give

E3E2E1(z1) = E3(z) = z + V3; E4E3(z) = z + V3−V4.Figure 11.5 shows what is going on. Since V3 − V4 + V5 = V4♯ ,

w = z+V4♯ = z+V3−V4+V5 = E4E3(z)+V5 = E4E3E2E1(z1)+V5. (100)

The rest of the analysis is as in the previous section. We use Item 4 of Lemma11.3 as an addendum to Lemma 11.2 in case w ∈ R8.

4#Rz

w

E3(z)

E4(E3(z))

Σ3 Σ4

−V4

V3

V5

Figure 11.5: The orbit near R4♯ .

100

11.7 Dealing with Six Flat

Here is another immediate consequence of the intersections listed above.

Lemma 11.4 The following is true for all parameters.

V6 ⊂ Σ2 − Σ1; V6 +R5 ⊂ Σ1 − Σ2;

R6 ∩R2 ⊂ Σ3 ∩ Σ4 ∩ Σ1; R2 ∩ R6 ⊂ Σ2 ∩ Σ3 ∩ Σ4;

Let z be the first point in the forwards orbit of z1 such that z ∈ R6 andlet w = ψ(z). The same arguments as in the previous section give

z = E4E3E2E1(z1) + nV5; w = z + V6 ∈ R7 ∪R2. (101)

Here n ∈ N ∪ 0. (The possibility of w ∈ R6 is ruled out by Item 1 ofLemma 11.3 and the reflection symmetry.) Items 2 and 3 of Lemma 11.4 give

E5E4E3E2E1(z1) = E5(z) = z + V5; E6E5E4E3E2E1(z) = z + V5 − V6

Figure 11.6 shows what is going on. Since V5 − V6 + V7 = V6 ,

w = E6E5E4E3E2E1(z) + V7. (102)

The rest of the analysis is as in the previous cases. We use Item 3 of Lemma11.4 as an addendum to Lemma 11.2 in case w ∈ R2.

V6bz

w

6bR

V6

V7

V5

Σ6 Σ5

Figure 11.6: The orbit near R6 .

101

12 The Spiral Lemma

Recall that (ǫ1(p), ǫ2(p)) is the return pair for p ∈ R+ × −1, 1. The goalof this chapter is to prove the following result.

Lemma 12.1 (Spiral) |ǫ1(p)|, |ǫ2(p)| ≤ 1 for all p ∈ R× −1, 1.This gives us the bound in Equation 11.

12.1 The Length Spectrum

The Pinwheel Lemma tells us that

Ψ(p) = χ E8...E1(p) (103)

whenever both maps are defined. This map involves the sequence Σ1, ...,Σ8

of strips. We are taking indices mod 4 so that Σj+4 = Σj and E4+j = Ej.We set p0 = (x,±1). When inductively define pj = Ej(pj−1). This gives

us points pj ∈ Σj for j = 1, ..., 8. For j = 2, ..., 8, we have an integer nj suchthat

pj+1 = Ej+1(pj) = pj + njVj+1. (104)

n5

p0

p6 p7

p1

p2p3

p4

p5 p8

Σ2

Σ4Σ1

Σ3

n3n2

n1

n6

n7

Figure 12.1: The Spectrum of the Map

102

Considering the values of the vectors, namely,

V1 = (0, 4); V2 = (−2, 2); V3 = (−2− 2A, 0); V4 = (−2,−2) (105)

we find that

ǫ1 = n2 + n6; ǫ2 = n1 + n2 + n3 + n5 + n6 + n7; (106)

The number n4, being the coefficient of a vertical vector, plays no role inthe above determinations. We call (n1, ..., n7) the length spectrum of Ψ at x.Equation 106 is the most important equation in this chapter and the next.

We will prove

Lemma 12.2 For any x ∈ R+ we have

• n3(x) ≤ m3(x) + 1.

• n2(x) ≤ m2(x) + 1.

• If n2(x) + n3(x) = m2(x) +m3(x) + k then n1(x) ≤ m1(x) + (1− k).

We have listed these inequalities in the order that we prove them. By sym-metry, the same inequalities hold with the letters m and n reversed. Lemma12.2 combines with Equation 106 to prove the Spiral Lemma.

12.2 Setting up the Comparisons

Let P be our polygonal path. We will start tracing P in both directions,starting at the point x where P crosses R− × 0. Our argument refers toFigure 12.1 and Figure 12.2. In Figure 12.2, we have reflected the lower halfof P in R× 0. We have set

qk = ρX(p9−k); k = 2, 3, 4. (107)

Here ρ is reflection in the R×0. The central disk in Figure 12.2 is includedfor artistic purposes, to cover up some messy intersections. We draw the pic-ture for paths that are fairly far away from the origin, though our argumentworks in general. So as to work with positive numbers, we set

mk = −n8−k; k = 3, 4, 5. (108)

Finally, we have included the coordinates for the vectors −V1 and −V2 and−V2 to remind the reader of their values. It is convenient to write −Vk ratherthan Vk because there are far fewer minus signs involved. Also, we are tracingthe figure from left to right.

103

m1

n1m2

m3

(2,−2)

(2+2A,0)(2,2)

x

Σ3

Σ1

Σ2

Σ4

n3

n2 p2

q2p1

q1

p4

q4

p3

q3

Figure 12.2: Two Competing Paths

Here is a notion we will use in our estimates. Say that a vector V bridgesa strip Σ if we can translate V so that it separates the interior of Σ into twocomponents. For instance, a vector (x, y) bridges Σ3 iff |x+ Ay| ≥ 2 + 2A.

12.3 First Comparison

We will write p4 = (p41, p42), etc. Given V4 = V0 = (0, 4), we see that

p41 = q41; |p42 − q42| < 4. (109)

Suppose that n3 ≥ m3 + 2. Then

p3 − q3 = (x, y); x ≥ 4; y > 0. (110)

fails to bridge Σ3. But x+ Ay > 4 > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.

12.4 Second Comparison

We break this estimate into three cases. In all cases, we use the fact that(x, y) bridges Σ2 if and only if |x− Ay| ≥ 2 + 2A.

104

12.4.1 Case 1

Suppose first that n3 = m3. Then

p31 = q31; |q32 − p32| < 4. (111)

If n2 ≥ m2 + 2 then

W = p2 − q2 = (x, y); x ≥ 4 + 4A; y < 4 (112)

fails to bridge Σ2. But x− Ay > (4 + 4A)− 4A > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.

12.4.2 Case 2

Suppose now that m3 = n3+1. In this case we have p31 = q31 +2. We claimthat

p32 < q32 + 2. (113)

If Equation 113 is false, then

W = p3 − q3 = (x, y); x = 2; y > 2

fails to bridge Σ3. But x+ Ay > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.Now, if n2 ≥ m2 + 2 then

W = p2 − q2 = (x, y); x ≥ 2 + 4A; y < 2. (114)

fails to bridge Σ2. But x− Ay > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.

12.4.3 Case 3

Suppose that m3 = n3 − 1. In this case, p31 = q31 − 1 and p32 < q32 + 2. Ifm2 ≥ n2 + 2, then we have

W = p2 − q2 = (x, y); x ≥ 2 + 4A; y < 2. (115)

fails to bridge Σ2. But Ax− y > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.

105

12.5 Eliminating Two Cases

Before we get to our third estimate, we want to eliminate two cases. We willshow that it is impossible for n2 = m2 + 1 and n3 = m3 + 1. By symmetry,it is also impossible for m2 = n2 + 1 and m3 = n3 + 1.

Suppose that n2 = m2 + 1 and n3 = m3 + 1. We have

p21 = q21 + 4 + 2A p22 < q22 + 6. (116)

This estimate isn’t good enough for us. We claim that

p22 ≤ q22 + 2 (117)

if this is false then

p31 = q31 + 2; p32 > q32 + 2 (118)

But thenW = p3 − q3 = (x, y); x = 2; y > 2 (119)

fails to bridge Σ3. But x+ Ay > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.Now we know that

p21 = q21 + 4 + 2A > q21 + 2 + 4A p22 < q22 + 2. (120)

If n3 ≥ m3 then

W = p2 − q2 = (x, y); x > 2 + 4A; y < 2 (121)

fails to bridge Σ2. But x− Ay > 2 + 2A. Contradiction.

12.6 Third Comparison

Our last estimate breaks into 9 cases, depending on the values of n2 − m2

and n3 − m3. One fact we will use repeatedly is that (x, y) bridges Σ1 iff|x− y| ≥ 4.

12.6.1 Case 1

Suppose that n2 = m2 − 1 and n3 = m3 − 1. We have already seen that thiscase is impossible.

106

12.6.2 Case 2

Suppose that n2 = m2 and n3 = m3 − 1. We have

p21 = q21 − 2; p22 < q22 + 2. (122)

Suppose that n1 ≥ m1 + 2. Then

W = p1 − q2 = (x, y); x > 2; y < −2. (123)

fails to bridge Σ1. But x− y ≥ 4. Contradiction.

12.6.3 Case 3

Suppose that n2 = m2 − 1 and n3 = m3. We have

p21 = q21 − 2− 2A > q21 − 4; p22 < q22 + 4. (124)

Suppose that n1 ≥ m1 + 3. Then

W = p1 − q2 = (x, y); x > 2; y < −2. (125)

fails to bridge Σ1 and we get the same contradiction as Case 2.

12.6.4 Case 4

Suppose that n2 = m2 − 1 and n3 = m3 + 1. We have

p21 = q21 − 2A > q21 − 2; p22 < q22 + 6. (126)

This estimate isn’t good enough for us. We claim that actually

p22 < q22 + 2. (127)

If Equation 127 is false then

W = p2 − q2 = (x, y); x < −2; y > 2 (128)

fails to bridge Σ2. But |x− Ay| > 2 + 2A, contradiction.Given Equation 127, the statement that n1 ≥ m1 + 2 leads to the same

contradiction as in Case 3.

107

12.6.5 Case 5

Suppose that n2 = m2 + 1 and n3 = m3 − 1. We have

p21 = q21 + 2A > q21; p22 < q22 + 4. (129)

If n1 ≥ m1 + 2 then

W = p1 − q1 = (x, y); x > 4; y < 0. (130)

fails to bridge Σ1. But x− y > 4. Contradiction;

12.6.6 Case 6

Suppose that n2 = m2 and n3 = m3. We have

p21 = q21 p22 < q22 + 4. (131)

If n1 ≥ m1 + 2 then we get the same contradiction as in Case 5.

12.6.7 Case 7

Suppose that n2 = m2 + 1 and n3 = m3. We have

p21 = q21 + 2 + 2A > q21 + 2 p22 < q22 + 4. (132)

If n1 ≥ m1 + 2 then

W = p1 − q1 = (x, y); x > 6; y < 0. (133)

fails to bridge Σ1. But x− y > 6 > 4. Contradiction.

12.6.8 Case 8

Suppose that n2 = m2 and n3 = m3 + 1. We have

p21 = q21 + 2 p22 < q22 + 6. (134)

If n1 ≥ m1 + 2 then

W = p1 − q1 = (x, y); x > 6; y < 2. (135)

fails to bridge Σ1. But x− y > 4. Contradiction.

12.6.9 Case 9

Suppose that n2 = m2 + 1 and n3 = m3 + 1. We have already seen that thiscase is impossible.

108

13 The Torus Lemma

13.1 The Main Result

13.1.1 A Better Domain

We find it convenient to write R+ × −1, 1 = X+ ∪X−, where X+ consistsof the set of points (x, y) such that one of the two conditions holds:

1. The fractional part of x/2 lies in (0, 1/2) and y = 1.

2. The fractional part of x/2 lies in (1/2, 1) and y = −1.

Every statement we make about X+ has a corresponding statement aboutX−. For ease of exposition, we only consider X+.

On each ray, X+ is a countable union of evenly spaced open intervals oflength 2. Figure 13.1 shows X+ as well as the image E1(X+). What makesX+ nice is the image E1(X+).

Figure 13.1: The sets X and E1(X).

The reader might worry about whether or not the points 2Z × −1, 1belong to X+ or to X−. The fact is that we never consider such points, sowe just ignore them. We sometimes set X = X+.

109

13.1.2 The Main Result

We call the map χE8...E1 the pinwheel map. The Pinwheel Lemma says thatthe first return map and the pinwheel map agree whenever both are defined.We work entirely with the pinwheel map. All our applications involve pointswhere both maps are defined. The pinwheel map depends on the parameterA. We will state our results for points in X+, with the understanding thatanalogous result hold for points in X− and have essentially the same proofs.

Given p ∈ X+, we let pj = Ej(pj−1). This gives us points p0, ..., p8,assuming that the pinwheel map is defined at p for the relevant parameter.If all these points are defined, there is some minimum distance θ > 0 suchthat each pj is at least θ units from the boundary of the strip that containsit. We call θ = θ(p) the comfort distance.

Let T 3 = R3/Λ be the 3 dimensional lattice discussed above. We defineµ± : X± → T 3 by the following equation.

µ+(p) =(x

2,x

2+ 1,

x

2

)mod Λ; µ−(p) =

(x

2− 1,

x

2,x

2

)modΛ. (136)

Here we have set p = (x,±1). The sign of the second coordinate is determinedby p. (We are including the formula for µ− so that the reader can better seewhat form the result for X− would take, were to state it.)

Let T 4 = R/Λ. We define µ+ : R+ × (0, 1) → T 4 by the rule

µ+(A, p) = ((µ+)A(p), A). (137)

Lemma 13.1 (Torus) Let (p, A), (q∗, A∗) ∈ X+ × (0, 1). There is someη > 0 with the following property. Suppose that the pinwheel map (relativeto A) is defined at p and µ+(p, A) and µ+(q

∗, A∗) are within η of each other.Then the pinwheel map (relative to A∗) is defined at q∗ and (ǫ1(q

∗), ǫ2(q∗)) =

(ǫ1(p), ǫ2(p)). The number η only depends on the comfort distance θ(p), andon the distance from A to the set 0, 1.

Our proof of the Torus Lemma will also yield the following result.

Lemma 13.2 Let (p, A) and (q∗, A∗) be points in X+ × (0, 1). There issome η > 0 with the following property. Suppose that the maps E1, ..., Ek+1

(relative to A) are defined at p and µ+(p, A) and µ+(q∗, A∗) are within η of

each other. Then the maps E1, ..., Ek+1 (relative to A∗) are defined at q∗.The number η only depends on the minimum distance from pj to ∂Σj , forj = 0, ..., k + 1.

110

13.1.3 Remarks on the Proof

Referring to the construction in §12.1, we call two points p, q ∈ X+ cospectralif

n1(q)− n1(p) = n3(q)− n3(p) = n5(q)− n5(p) = n7(q)− n7(p);

n2(q)− n2(p) = n6(q)− n6(p). (138)

If p and q are cospectral then Equation 106 tells us that ǫj(p) = ǫj(q) forj = 1, 2. We will prove that the hypotheses in the Torus Lemma guaranteethat our numbers are cospectral.

I discovered the Torus Lemma experimentally, but I got some inspirationfor its proof by reading [T2], which is partly an account of some unpublishedwork by Steve Culter about the existence of periodic orbits for polygonalouter billiards. Culter’s proof is very similar to the constructions that appearin [K]. The paper [GS] implicitly has some of these same ideas, though theyare treated from a different point of view. If all these written sources aren’tenough, I was also influenced by some conversations with John Smillie abouta kind of renormalization procedure related to the material here. In short,my proof of the Torus Lemma owes a big intellectual debt to many sources.

13.2 Input from the Torus Map

We introduce the quantities

λj =Area(Σj+1 ∩ Σj)

Area(Σj ∩ Σj−1); j = 1, ..., 7. (139)

Given the explicit nature of our kite, it is not hard to work out that

Area(Σ0 ∩ Σ1) = 8; Area(Σ1 ∩ Σ2) =8 + 8A

1− A;

Area(Σ2 ∩ Σ3) =2(1 + A)2

A; Area(Σ3 ∩ Σ4) =

8 + 8A

1− A. (140)

Setting λj = λ0 × ...× λj, we have

λ0 = λ4 = 1; λ1 = λ3 = λ5 = λ7 =1 + A

1− A; λ2 = λ6 =

(1 + A)2

4A. (141)

Notice the parallel between Equation 141 and Equation 138. Our proof ofthe Torus Lemma will exploit this parallel.

111

Remark: The notion of a quasi-rational polygon, the kind considered inthe papers [VS], [GS], and [K], is one in which all the λj are rational. Theseareas play a fundamental role in polygonal outer billiards.

Now we relate these quantities to our map µ+. We have defined µ+ onX+, but we can equally well think of µ+ as being defined on R+. There is anatural bijection between X+ and R+ − 2Z, sending p = (x,±1) to x. Letp = (x,±1) and y = (q,±1). We set

t =y − x

2. (142)

We haveµ+(t) = (t, t, t) mod Λ. (143)

The matrix

M =

11+A

A−1(1+A)2

2A(1+A)2

0 11+A

11+A

0 0 1

(144)

conjugates the columns of the matrix defining Λ to the standard basis. There-fore, if Dx and Dy are close mod Λ, then M(Dt) is close to 0 mod Z3. Herewe have set t = y − x. We compute

M(t, t, t) =(

4A

(1 + A)2,

2

1 + A, 1)t = (λ−1

2 , λ−13 − 1, 1)t. (145)

If µ+(p)) and µ+(q) are close together, then the quantities t/λj are all veryclose to integers. In particular, t is close to an integer.

13.3 Pairs of Strips

In this section we will study triples of the form (S1, S2, V2), where S1 and S2

are infinite strips, not parallel to each other, and V2 is a vector that pointsfrom one vertex of S1 ∩ S2 to the opposite vertex.

Figure 13.2 shows the triple (S1, S2, V2) The vector V2 is represented bythe thick segment. Figure 13.2 also shows the points p1 and p2. By construc-tion, p2 = E2(p1), where E2 is the strip map based on the pair (S2, V2). Wedefine

n(S1, S2, V2, p1, p2) =p2 − p1V2

. (146)

112

The quantity makes sense as an integer, because the numerator on the rightis an integer multiple of the denominator. In our example, we have n = 3.We also define

α(S1, S2, V2, p1, p2) =area(B)

area(S1 ∩ S2). (147)

Here B is the shaded parallelogram. When it comes time to work withB below, we will sometimes write B = B(S1, S2, V2, p1, p2), to denote thedependence of B on the objects involved.

V2

S2

S1

B

p2

p1

n=3

Figure 13.2: Strips and associated objects

Say that the leading boundary of Sj is the one that contains the blackdot in Figure 1.3. There is a unique affine map Tj from Sj to (0, 1) thatcarries the leading boundary to 0 and the other boundary to 1. We defineρ(pj) = Tj(pj) ∈ (0, 1).

Our main result in this section compares these various quantities for twoquintuples (S1, S2, V2, p1, p2) and (S1, S2, V2, q1, q2). The strips stay the same,but the pairs of points change. We will simplify our notation by writingn(p) = n(S1, S2, V2, p1, p2), etc.

Lemma 13.3 Let ǫ > 0 be given. There is some δ > 0 with the followingproperty. If |ρ(p1)− ρ(p2)| < δ and α(q)− α(p) is within δ of an integer N ,

113

then |ρ(q2) − ρ(p2)| < ǫ and N = n(q) − n(p). The number δ only dependson ǫ and the distance from ρ(p1) and ρ(p2) to the set 0, 1.

Proof: All our quantities are affinely invariant. We set p1 = (p11, p12), etc,and [t] denotes the fractional part of t. We can apply an affine transformationso that V1 = (−1, 1) and

• S1 is the horizontal strip bounded by the lines y = 0 and y = 1.

• S2 is the vertical strip bounded by the lines x = 0 and x = 1.

• ρ(p1) = p12 and ρ(q1) = q12. By hypothesis, |q12 − p12| < δ.

• ρ(p2) = p21 = [p11] and ρ(q2) = q21 = [q11].

• n(p) = floor(p11) and n(q) = floor(q11).

• α(p) = p11 + p12 − 1 and α(q) = q11 + q12 − 1.

LetN ′ = n(q)− n(p). (148)

There are two cases. Either N = N ′ or N 6= N ′.Suppose that N = N ′. Then

|([q11]− [p11]) + (q12 − p12)| = |α(q)− α(p)−N ′| < δ (149)

Therefore, by the triangle inequality,

|ρ(q2)− ρ(p2)| =∣∣∣∣[q11]− [p11]

∣∣∣∣ <∣∣∣∣α(q)−α(p)−N ′

∣∣∣∣+∣∣∣∣q12 − p12

∣∣∣∣ < 2δ. (150)

We can take δ = ǫ/2 and all the conclusions of this lemma are true.Suppose that N 6= N ′. Then

∣∣∣∣α(q)− α(p)−N ′

∣∣∣∣ > 1− δ.

But then the triangle inequality gives us∣∣∣∣[q11]− [p11]

∣∣∣∣ > 1− 2δ. (151)

This is only possible if [p11] = ρ(p2) is within 2δ units of the set 0, 1. Ifwe take δ less than half the distance from ρ(p2) to the set 0, 1, we rule outthis bad case. ♠

114

13.4 Triples of Strips

Suppose now that S1, S2, S3 is a triple of strips, and V2, V3 is a pair of vectors,such that (S1, S2, V2) and (S2, S3, V3) are both as in the previous section. Tofix the picture clearly, we assume that there is a small ball K about theorigin that contains the intersections of our 3 strips, and that the points weconsider are fairly far from this ball.

Let pj ∈ Sj for j = 1, 2, 3 be such that p2 = E2(p1) and p3 = E3(p2). Wewant to study the quantities

α1 = α(S1, S2, V2, p1, p2); α2 = α(S2, S2, V3, p2, p3); ρ2 = ρ(p2).(152)

We also introduce the ratio

λ =Area(S2 ∩ S3)

Area(S1 ∩ S2). (153)

Here is the main result in this section.

Lemma 13.4 There are constants C and D, depending (continuously) onthe strips, so that

α2 =α1

λ+ C +Dρ2.

Proof: Our proof refers to Figure 13.3. The points r1, r2, r3 serve as referencepoints for our construction. The lines r1r2 and p1p2 are parallel to V2 andthe lines r2r3 and p2p3 are parallel to V3.

We let

B1(r) = B(S1, S2, V2, r1, r2); B2(r) = B(S2, S3, V3, r2, r3); (154)

We define B1(p) and B2(p) similarly. There is some constant C ′ such that

Area(B1(r))) = Area(B2(r)) + C ′. (155)

Hence α2(r) = α1(r)+C, for some constant C. Therefore, it suffices to provethat

λ×(α2(p)− α2(r)

)= Dρ2 +

(α1(p)− α1(r)

). (156)

Equation 156, when written out, becomes

λ× Area(B2(p)− B2(r))

Area(S2 ∩ S3)= Dρ2 +

Area(B1(p)− B1(r))

Area(S1 ∩ S2). (157)

115

Given the equation for λ, Equation 157 simplifies to

Area(B2(p)− B2(r)) = Dρ2 +Area(B1(p)− B1(r)). (158)

1 542

p2

6 7

3

r1p1

p3

r3

r2

S3

S2

S1

v2v3

Figure 13.3: A triple of strips

We will deduce Equation 158 from Figure 13.3. We let xk denote the pointlabelled “k” in Figure 13.3. The shaded region in S1 is B1(p) − B1(r). Byaffine symmetry, this parallelogram has the same area as the parallelogramP (r2, x2, x5, x6). Using the base-times-height formula for parallelograms, wesee that the two parallelograms P (r2, x2, x5, x6) and P (r2, x1, x3, x6) havethe same area. But P (r2, x1, x3, x6) has the same area as the lightly shadedparallelogram in S3. In short, B1(p)−B1(r) has the same area as the lightlyshaded parallelogram in S3.

The parallelogram B2(p) − B2(r) is given by P (r2, x7, x4, x1). By affinesymmetry, this parallelogram has the same area as the union of the twoshaded regions in S3. Therefore, the difference

Area(B2(p)− B2(r))− Area(B1(p)− B1(r)) (159)

is exactly the area of the darkly shaded parallelogram in S3. The area of thislittle parallelogram is clearly proportional to ρ(p2). ♠

116

13.5 The Main Argument

We first consider the case when A = A∗. We set q = q∗. The constantsδ0, δ1, δ2 are meant to be small constants that tend to 0 with the distancebetween µ+(q) and µ+(p). As in §13.2, we write p = (x,±1) and q = (y,±1),and

t =y − x

2(160)

We define p0 = p and pj = Ej(pj−1). We make the same definition forthe q points. Finally, we define

p0 = E0(p0); q0 = E0(q0). (161)

We have p0, q0 ∈ Σ0. we know that t is near an integer. This tells is that|ρ(q0)− ρ(p0)| < δ0. Figure 13.4 shows the situation.

q0

p0

p0

q0

Figure 13.4: The points p0 and q0.

We defineαk(p) = α(Σk,Σk+1, Vk+1, pk, pk+1) (162)

It is also convenient to write

ρk(p) = ρ(pk); θk = ρk(q)− ρk(p). (163)

For k = 0, we use p0 in place of p0 and q0 in place of q0 for these formulas.So far, we know that |θ0| < δ0.

117

Lemma 13.5 |θk| < δk for all k = 1, ..., 7.

Proof: Applying Lemma 13.4 inductively, we find that

α1 =α0

λ1+ C1 +D1ρ1;

α2 =α1

λ2+ C2 +D2ρ2 =

α0

λ1λ2+C1

λ2+D1ρ1λ2

+ C2 +D2ρ2;

α3 =α2

λ3+C3+D3ρ3 =

α0

λ1λ2λ3+

C1

λ2λ3+D1ρ1λ2λ3

+C2

λ3+D2ρ2λ3

+C3+D3ρ3. (164)

and so on. Here we are suppressing the dependence on p or q and concen-trating on the general form of the equation. These equations yield

αk(q)− αk(p) =t

λk+ ξ1θ1 + ... + ξkθk; k = 0, ..., 7 (165)

Where ξ1, ..., ξk are constants that depend only (and continuously) on theparameter A. For k = 0 we just have α0(q)− α(p) = t.

By hypothesis, α0(q) − α0(p) is near an integer, and we know |θ0| < δ1.Suppose by induction that αk−1(q)−αk−1(p) is near an integer, and |θj | < δjfor j = 0, ..., k − 1. Lemma 13.3 now tells us that |θk| < δk.

Looking at Equation 165, we see that every term on the right hand sideis near an integer. The analysis given in §13.2 deals with the first term, andthe remaining terms are near 0 by induction. We conclude that αk(q)−αk(p)is near an integer. This completes the induction step. ♠

Lemma 13.6 Once δ is sufficiently small, nk(q)−nk(p) is the integer nearestto t/λk.

Proof: Our discussion in connection with Equation 165 shows that the inte-ger nearest to αk(q)−αk(p) is also the integer nearest to t/λk once δ is smallenough. By Lemma 13.3, the integer nearest to αk(q)−αk(p) is nk(q)−nk(p).From this we conclude that nk(q)− nk(p) is the integer nearest t/λk. ♠

Combining Lemma 13.6, Equation 138, and Equation 141, we see that pand q are cospectral once δ is small. Examining our argument, we see thatδ only depends on the parameter A and on the comfort distance θ(p). Thislatter quantity arises in the applications of Lemma 13.3.

This completes the proof of the Torus Lemma for a single parameter.

118

13.6 Adding the Parameter

Now we consider the general case of the Torus Lemma, where we possiblyhave A∗ 6= A. We will attach a (∗) to the quantities associated to A∗ and q∗.Equation 164 (or, rather, the general equation that it suggests) works sepa-rately for each parameter. Subtracting the two expressions gives somethingmore complicated than Equation 165. The new equation is as follows.

α∗

k(q)− αk(p) =W +X + Y ; (166)

W =α∗0

λ∗k− α0

λk(167)

X =k∑

i=1

ξ∗i ρ∗

i (q∗)−

k∑

i=1

ξiρi(p) (168)

Y =k∑

i=1

ζ∗i −k∑

i=1

ζi. (169)

The term ζi is a rational expression incolving C1, ..., C7 and λ1, ..., λ7. Theexpression is the same for ζ∗i . No terms blow up, and hence these expressionsvary continuously with the parameter and vanish when A = A∗. The sameremarks hold for the ξi terms. Therefore, we may write

X + Y =k∑

i=1

ξi(ρ∗

i (q)− ρi(p)) +O(|A−A∗|); (170)

Putting these equations together, we have

α∗(q)− α(p) =(α∗0

λ∗k− α0

λk

)+

k∑

i=1

ξi(ρ∗

i (q)− ρi(p)) +O(|A− A∗|). (171)

We will use Equation 171 as the basis for an induction argument. The keyidea in the induction argument is to use the affine naturality of the quantitiesof interest to us.

Lemma 13.7 αk(q∗)−αk(p) is near an integer and |ρk(q∗)−ρk(p)| < δj for

all k.

119

Proof: Just as in the single parameter case, we have |ρ0(q∗) − ρ0(p)| < δ0.Suppose by induction that αk−1(q

∗)−αk−1(p) is near an integer. Here is thekey modification in our proof. We call it the transplant trick .

There is a unique affine map T such that

T (Σ∗

k−1) = Σk−1; T (Σ∗

k) = Σk; T (V ∗

k ) = Vk. (172)

Let’s consider the points

qk−1 = T (q∗k−1); qk = T (q∗k). (173)

By affine naturality, we have

• ρ(qk−1) = ρ(q∗k−1) and ρ(qk) = ρ(q∗k).

• α(q∗k−1) = α(qk−1) and α(q∗k) = α(qk).

• n(qk−1) = n(q∗k−1).

Let’s expand one of these equalities out to see what it says. We have

α(qk−1) = α(Σk−1,Σk, Vk, qk−1, qk) =∗

α(Σ∗

k−1,Σ∗

k, V∗

k , q∗

k−1, q∗

k) = α(q∗k−1). (174)

The starred equality comes from the fact that T , being affine, preserves ratiosof areas. The other equalities have similar explanations.

Lemma 13.3 now says that ρ(qk) and ρ(pk) are close together. Henceρ(q∗k)− ρ(pk) is small.

On the other hand, the location of µ(p) in T 3 determines the fractionalpart of α0(p)/λk and the location of µ(q∗) in (T 3)∗ determines the frac-tional part of α0(q

∗)/λ∗k. Hence, the first expression on the right hand sideof Equation 171—the expression in parentheses– is near an integer. Henceαk(q

∗)− αk(p) is near an integer. This completes the induction step. ♠

Lemma 13.8 Once δ is sufficiently small, nk(q∗)−nk(p) is the integer near-

est toα∗0

λ∗k− α0

λk.

Proof: Once we do the transplant trick, the proof here is exactly the sameas in Lemma 13.6. ♠

The end of the proof is the same here as in the single parameter case.

120

13.7 Analyticity

We fix a point τ = µ(p, A) ∈ T 4, such that the points p = p0, ..., pk aredefined. Even if pk+1 is not defined in R2, the quotient [pk+1] always makessense in the cylinder R2/〈Vk+1〉. Put another way, the function ρk+1(q) iswell defined as an element of R/Z.

Let B be a small ball in T 4 = R4/Λ centered at τ . The image of µintersects B in a dense subset B∗. We define the functions ρ1, ..., ρk+1 on B

∗

using the formula

ρj(τ∗) = ρj(q

∗); τ ∗ = µ(q∗, A∗). (175)

In other words, ρj(τ∗) measures the relative position of q∗j in the strip Σj .We take the domain of all these maps to be R/Z.

The content of our analysis in the previous section is that the functionsρ1, ..., ρk+1 extend to continuous functions on all of B, and the size of B onlydepends on the minimum distance of ρj(τ) to the set 0, 1 for j = 1, ..., k.We will prove that δj is analytic on B and lccally affine each A-slice.

Defineβm(τ

∗) = αm(q∗)− αm mod Z (176)

Lemma 13.9 If ρ1, ..., ρm are analytic on B then so is βm.

Proof: Given Equation 145, the function W in Equation 166 extends to Bas

W (x, y, z, A) = C1 +z + C2

λk,Amod Z (177)

Here (x, y, z, A) is taken from a local coordinate chart for B. Here C1 andC2 are constants that depend on τ . If the functions ρj are analytic on B forj = 1, ..., m, then the functions X and Y are also analytic on B. Hence, βmis the sum of analytic functions on B. ♠

The analysis in §13.3 shows that ρm+1 is an analytic function of βm. Wenow see by induction that ρ1, ..., ρk+1 are all analytic on B, provided that Bis taken small enough.

If we hold the parameter A fixed, then W is locally affine and X is alocally affine function of ρ1, ..., ρm and Y = 0. The same induction thereforeshows that ρ1, ..., ρk+1 are locally affine when restricted to an A-slice.

121

14 Rough Structure of the Singular Set

14.1 The Main Result

Let X = X+ be the domain from the Torus Lemma. As in the previouschapter, we concentrate on X+ for ease of exposition, with the understandingthat analogous results hold for X−.

We say that a pair (p, A) ∈ X+ × (0, 1) is singular if the pinwheel maprelative to the parameter A is not defined at p. We letW denote the singularset. We let S denote the closure of µ+(W ) in R, the fundamental domain forR4/Λ. The following result highlights the significance of the singular set.

Lemma 14.1 Let (p0, A0) and (p1, A1) be two points of X+×(0, 1) such thatµ(p0, A0) and µ(p1, A1) lie in the same path connected component of R − S.Then the return pair for p0, relative to A0, agrees with the return parameterfor q1, relative to A1.

Proof: Let L ⊂ R be a path joining points µ(p0, A0) and µ(p1, A1). By theTorus Lemma, and compactness, we can cover L with finitely many opensets U1, ..., Un such that each Uj has the following property. If µ(p2, A2) andµ(p3, A3) both belong to Uj , then bpth have the same return pairs at theirrespective parameters.

The image µ+(X+ × (0, 1)) is certainly dense in R. Hence, we can find afinite sequence of (x0, A0) = p0, ..., pn = (x1, A1) such that each consecutivepair of points is mapped into the same open set in our cover. (The samepoint of course may be mapped into several of our open sets.) Using thebasic property of our open cover, we now see that this lemma is true. ♠

Recall thatR ⊂ R4 is the polytope that serves as the fundamental domainfor the affine action of the group Λ. Here is the main result of this chapter.

Lemma 14.2 (Partition) There is a finite list Π1, ....,Πk of hyperplanessuch that

S ⊂k⋃

i=1

Πi ∩R.

Each intersection Πi∩RA is parallel to one of the hyperplanes in the partitionof RA detailed in the Master Picture Theorem.

122

14.2 Decomposing the Singular Set

LetΣ′

j = Σj ∩ (R×Zodd). (178)

Let Vj ⊂ Σ′j denote the set of points p such that

Ej+1(p) ∈ ∂Σj+1. (179)

Recall that χ(x, 4n± 1) = (x,±1). We define

W0 = 2Z × −1, 1; W1 = χ(V1) ∩X+

Wj =(χ E−1

2 ... E−1j (Vj)

)∩X+; j = 2, ..., 7. (180)

By construction,

W =7⋃

j=0

Wj. (181)

This reduces the Partition Lemma to a computation of µ+(Wi) for i = 0, ..., 7.The next result saves us some computation. Define

S ′ = S0 ∪ S1 ∪ S2; S ′′ = S ′ ∪ S3 ∪ S4. (182)

We let SA be the A-slice of S, and likewise define S ′A and S ′′

A.

Lemma 14.3

SA ⊂ S ′′

A ∪1⋃

i=−1

1⋃

j=−1

S ′

A + (Ai+ j, Ai+ j, Ai+ j).

Proof: Let p be a point such that µ(p) is not contained in the right hand sideof the above equation. We want to show that the pinwheel map is defined atp.

pinwheel map is defined on a dense subset ofX+, so we can find a sequenceof points pn that converges to p on which the pinwheel map is defined. Let

qn = χ E8...E1(pn). (183)

We know from the Spiral Lemma that

qn − pn = 2Ain + 2jn; |in|, |jn| ≤ 1. (184)

123

Passing to a subsequence, we can assume that in = i and jn = j for all n.Let

q = p+ 2Ai+ 2j. (185)

Since p = p0 6∈ E, the points p1, p2, p3, p4, p5 are well defined, and pj ∈ Σj

(the interior) for all j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Here we have set pj = Ej(pj−1) as usual.Our set of strips is symmetric with respect to reflection in the X-axis.

From this symmetry, we see that the points q8, q7, q6 are well defined, andqj ∈ Σj (the interior) for j = 8, 7, 6. Here we have set q9 = q and qj =Ej(qj+1) for j = 8, 7, 6.

Consider the path p0, ..., p5, q6, ..., q8, q9. The points pn5 and qn6 differ byan integral multiple of the vector V6, the vector used to define the map E6.Taking a limit, we see that p5 and q6 differ by an integral multiple of q6. Butthis means that q6 = E6(p5). By construction, q7 = E5(q6), etc. Therefore,p1, ..., p5, q6, ..., q9 is in fact the trajectory of p under the successive iteratesof the pinwheel map. In short, the pinwheel map is defined at p. ♠

Now we turn to the calculation of Sj for j = 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. The value µ+(p)only depends on the first coordinate of p, so we think of Wj as a subset ofR+, and we think of R+ as the domain of µ+. We set µ = µ+.

14.3 Zeroth Computation

Given x ∈ W0, we have x = 2n for some n ∈ Z. But then

µ(x) = (n, n + 1, n) mod Λ. (186)

Hence S0 is contained in the hyperplane z = 0. If we want to work inthe fundamental domain RA, we would say that S0 is contained in the unionz = 0 and z = 1, because these these two sets are identified in thequotient.

14.4 First Calculation

The set V1 consists of those points (x, y) where x ∈ (y − 1, y + 4) and

x− Ay + A+ 2

2 + 2A∈ Z.

124

More explicitly, V1 consists of those points

(x, y) = (2An+ 2Am+ 2m− 2, 2n+ 1); x ∈ (y − 1, y + 1). (187)

We compute

µ(x) = (t, t+ 1, t) mod Λ; t =x

2= An + Am+m− 1. (188)

Reducing mod Λ we see that

(t, t+ 1, t) ≡(t+ floor(t), t+ floor(t) + 1, t− floor(t)

)(189)

We have 2t = x ∈ (2n, 2n+ 2). This yields floor(t) = n. Therefore,

t+ floor(t) + 1 = (1 + A)(m+ n). (190)

Subtracting off m+ n times (1−A, 1 +A, 0), we get µ(x) ≡ (∗, 0, ∗). Henceµ(W1) is contained in the hyperplane y = 0.

14.5 Second Calculation

In this calculation, we use the notation u ≈ v to mean mean that |u−v| < Cfor some universal constant C. We also define

ρA(mA+ n) = mA. (191)

To be precise about this definition, we take A irrational, so that ρA is well-defined, and then consider the rational case as a limiting case.

14.5.1 Characterizing the Set

The set V2 consists of points (x0, y0) such that

x0 + Ay0 + A + 2

2 + 2A∈ Z; x0 −Ay0 ∈ (−2 −A,A).

More explicitly, the points in V2 are given by

(x0, y0) = (−2− 2A+ 2m+ 2Am− 2An, 2n+ 1),

m = ceiling(A + 2An

1 + A

)≈ 2An

1 + A. (192)

125

14.5.2 Pulling Back

Given (x0, y0) ∈ V2, we have

(x1, y1) = E−12 (x, y) = (−2−2A+2m+2Am−2An+2s, 2n−2s+1), (193)

The constraint x1 ∈ (y1 − 1, y1 + 3) leads to 2s ≈ n−An.

14.5.3 Mapping to the Torus

Since χ(x1, y1) = (x1,±1), the point we want to compute is

µ(x1) = (u, u+ 1, u); u =M1A+N1; M1 ≈ Am− An; N1 ≈ m+ s(194)

We have

µ(x1) ≡(u+ floor(u), u+ floor(u) + 1, u− floor(u)

). (195)

ρA(u+ floor(u)) = ρA(u) ≈ Am−An ≈ A(A− 1)n

1 + A;

u+ floor(u) ≈ 2m(1 + A)− 2An+ 2s ≈ n(1 + A). (196)

To reduce the second coordinate so as to lie in the interval (0, 1 + A),we subtract off approximately n times (1 − A, 1 + A, 0). Let x2 be the firstcoordinate of the resulting vector. We have

x2 = N1(A+ 1); N1 ≈2An

1 + A. (197)

But now we subtract the vectorM1(1+A, 0, 0) to produce a point whose firstcoordinate is uniformly bounded element of Z[A]. This proves that µ(W2)lies in a uniformly finite number of planes of the form x = t with t ∈ Z[A].

Remark: For A sufficiently small, the point pA = (−2A, 3) belongs to V1.When we apply the above calculations to this point, we find that it lies inthe set x = 0 for all small A.

14.6 Third Calculation

It turns out that it is important for us to get explicit estimates for thiscalculation. We use the notation

u = v + ζ(k) (198)

To indicate that |u− v| ≤ k.

126

14.6.1 Characterizing the Set

The set V3 consists of those points (x0, y0) such that

x0 + y0 + 1

4∈ Z; x0 + Ay0 ∈ (−2 −A,A). (199)

Every point in V3 has the form

(−2+4m−2n, 2n+1); m = floor

(1 + n− An

2

)=n− An

2+ζ(1). (200)

Not all such points lie in V3, but this doesn’t matter to us.

14.6.2 Pulling Back

Given (x, y) ∈ V2, we have

(x1, y1) = E−13 (x0, y0) = (−2 + 4m− 2n+ t(2 + 2A), 2n+ 1). (201)

The constraint that x1 − Ay1 ∈ (−2− A,A) gives

t =2An

1 + A+ ζ(2). (202)

We have(x2, y2) = E−1

2 (x1, y1) = (x1 + 2s, y1 − 2s). (203)

The constraint that x2 ∈ (y2 − 1, y2 + 3) gives

2s = n− An+ ζ(2). (204)

Adding the estimates we have above, we get

x2 = n(A + 1) + ζ(8); ρA(x2) =4A2n

1 + A+ ζ(4). (205)

14.6.3 Mapping to the Torus

Since χ(x2, y2) = (x2,±1), the point we want to compute is

µ(x2) = (u, u+ 1, u); u =x22. (206)

127

We have

µ(x1) ≡(u+ floor(u), u+ floor(u) + 1, u− floor(u)

). (207)

ρA(u− floor(u)) = ρA(u+ floor(u)) = ρA(u) =2A2n

1 + A+ ζ(2).

u− floor(u) = ζ(1); u+ floor(u) = n(1 + A) + ζ(4). (208)

To reduce the second coordinate so as to lie in the interval (0, 1+A), wesubtract off n′(1−A, 1 + A, 0), where

n′ = n+ ζ(4). (209)

The resulting vector is (x3, y4, z4), where

ρA(x3) =2A2n

1 + A+ An + ζ(6); x3 = 2An+ ζ(12).

ρA(y4) =2A2n

1 + A− An+ ζ(6) y3 = ζ(2).

ρA(z4) =2A2n

1 + A+ ζ(2); z3 = ζ(1). (210)

(our indexing is deliberate.) The fact that y3 = ζ(2) comes from the factthat y3 ∈ (0, 1 + A).

To reduce the first coordinate so that it lies in (0, 1 +A), we subtract offn′′(1 + A, 0, 0), where

n′′ =2An

1 + A+ ζ(12). (211)

This yields a new first coordinate x4 such that new first coordinate x4 suchthat

ρA(x4) = An + ζ(18); x4 = ζ(2). (212)

In summary,

ρ(x4) = An+ζ(18); ρ(y4) =2A2n

1 + A−An+ζ(6); ρ(z4) =

2A2n

1 + A+ζ(2);

x4, y4, z4 = ζ(2). (213)

128

From this last equation, we see that

x4 + y4 − z4 = c1A + c2; |c1| ≤ 26; |c2| ≤ 30. (214)

The estimate on c2 comes from the fact that A ∈ (0, 1) and c1A+c2 ∈ (−1, 2+2A). Worsening the estimate a bit, we have shown that S3 is contained inthe union of hyperplanes of the form

x+ y − z = c1A + c2 |c1|, |c2| ≤ 30 (215)

14.7 The Fourth Calculation

The set V4 consists of points of the form (−2n, 2n+1). The set V ′3 = E−1

4 (V3)consists of points of the form (x±2, y), where (x, y) ∈ V3. Geometrically, E4

maps points in V3 to the boundary of Σ4 and E4 maps points in V ′3 to the

centerline of Σ4. The same calculation as in the previous section gives thesame estimate on S4 as we had on S4.

Remark:(i) Our estimate on S3 and S4 is quite crude. We will see that S3 is containedin the the two hyperplanes x+y−z = 1+A and x+y−z = −1+A and S4

is contained in the two hyperplanes x+y−x = A and x+y−z = 2+A.However, we need some crude estimate to establish the stronger result. Theprecise nature of the crude estimate is not important, as long as it is notso crude so as to lead to an infeasible calculation. For instance, we couldreplace the bound of 30 with a bound of 300 and still have feasible calculation.

129

15 Fine Structure of the Singular Set

In this chapter, we pin down the structure of the singular set, and therebyfinish the proof of the Master Picture Theorem. We work entirely with X+

and µ+, with the understanding that essentially the same results hold for X−

and µ−. We set µ = µ+ and X = X+. In general, we will use the notationΩA to denote Ω∩RA, the slice of Ω at the parameter A. Here Ω is any objectof interest to us.

Recall that R = R3 × (0, 1) and Λ is an affine action on R. We have apolyhedral fundamental domain R for the quotient T 4 = R/Λ4. Topologi-cally, T 4 is the product of a 3-torus with (0, 1). For now, we consider oursingular set as a subset of T 4. We define Sk to be the closure of µ(Wk),the set from the previous chapter. The Partition Lemma tells us that Sk iscontained in a finite union of hyperplanes.

15.1 Polyhedral Structure

Our calculation in §14.3 shows that S0 is contained in the hyperplane z = 0.For the generic parameter, µ(W0) is dense in this hyperplane. Hence S0

consists precisely in the hyperplane z = 0.Our calculation in §14.4 shows that S1 is contained in the hyperplane

y = 0. For the generic parameter, µ(W1) is dense in this hyperplane.Hence S1 consists precisely in the hyperplane y = 0.

Our remaining calculations in the previous chapter were less precise, andwe need to augment them with some structural results.

Define

S ′

k =k−1⋃

j=0

Sj ; W ′

k =k−1⋃

j=0

Wj. (216)

Lemma 15.1 Sk−S ′k is a finite union of disjoint open sets, each one locally

isometric to R3. The boundary of each of these sets lies in S ′k.

Proof: We proceed by induction. We already know the cases k = 0 andk = 1 Now we assume that k ≥ 2.

Consider a point τ ∈ Sk −S ′k. Our analysis in §13.7 shows that there is a

small ball B ⊂ p, contained in Sk −S ′k, and an analytic function φ : B → R,

such that Sk∩B = φ−1(0). Let A be the 4th coordinate of τ . The restrictionof φ to BA is locally affine. From this we see that Sk ∩BA is an open disk.

130

Given the Partition Lemma, the function φ is nonconstant on BA. Sinceφ is affine on BA, and φ vanishes at one point of BA, we see that φ is bothpositive and negative on BA. Hence, φ is both positive and negative on Ba

for any a sufficiently near A. We conclude that Sk ∩Ba is also a disk.From the Partition Lemma, there are finitely many hyperplanes Π1, ...,Πm

such thatSk ∩B ⊂ Π1 ∪ ... ∪ Πm.

One of these hyperplanes must contain the disk Sk ∩ Ba for infinitely manyparameters a. Let Π be this hyperplane. By construction, φ = 0 on infinitelymany disks of the form Π∩Ba. It now follows from the fact that φ is analyticthat φ vanishes identically on Π ∩B. Hence Π ∩ B ⊂ Sk ∩ B.

Suppose that φ vanishes identically on Π′ ∩B for some other hyperplaneΠ′. We can pick a typical parameter a such that Π ∩ Ba and Π′ ∩ Ba aredisjoint and parallel disks. Since the restriction of φ to Ba is affine and non-constant, φ cannot vanish on two parallel disks in Ba. This contradictionshows that Π′ = Π. Hence Π ∩B = Sk ∩ B.

Our argument works as long as we stay away from B′k. Hence, each com-

ponent of Sk − S ′k can only have a boundary in S ′

k. ♠

With a small amount of calculation, we can pin down the set S2.

Lemma 15.2 S2 is precisely the set x = 0.

Proof: Lemma 15.1 combines with the calculation in §14.5 to show that S2

is the union of finitely many sets x = t for t ∈ Z[A]. The remark at theend of §14.5 combines with Lemma 15.1 to show that S2 contains x = 0.

Recall that X is a countable union of open intervals of length 2. LetX ′ denote the first 10 of these intervals. For the parameter A = 1/2. Theset µ(X ′) intersects every set x = t for t ∈ [0, 1 + A). We check bydirect calculation that µ(X ′) only intersects S2 in the set x = 0. Thiscomputation amounts to generating the first few points in the set V1 from§14.5 and carrying out the calculation.

If S2 contained some other set x = t then µ(X ′) would intersect S2 inthis set. Hence S2 consists exactly of the set x = 0. ♠

131

15.2 The Third and Fourth Pieces

We find it convenient to work now with the polytope R. We have the follow-ing convention.

• Both rectangles x = 0∩RA and x = 1+A∩RA correspond to theset we call x = 0 in R3/ΛA.

• Both rectangles y = 0∩RA and y = 1+A∩RA correspond to theset we call y = 0 in R3/ΛA.

• Both squares z = 0∩RA and z = 1∩RA correspond to the set wecall z = 0 in R3/ΛA.

Given this convention, our analysis in the previous section shows that

(S0 ∪ S1 ∪ S2) ∩ RA = ∂RA. (217)

We will deal with S3 first. Our calculation in §14.6 shows that S3 consistsof finitely many sets of the form

P = x+ y − z = c1A+ c2 ∩R; |c1|, |c2| ≤ 30. (218)

For the parameter A = 25/31, we compute that S3 ∩ RA contains pointsin the interior of RA that lie in both planes x + y − z = −1 + A andx+ y− z = 1+A. The corresponding hyperplanes (for varying A) are theonly ones that contain these particular planes. What makes this work is thatthe denominator of A exceeds 30. Lemma 15.1 now tells us that S3 containsthe sets

x+ y − z = 1 + A ∩ R; x+ y − z = −1 + A ∩ R. (219)

Our job is to rule out the extra components. Let P be such a component.Let PA = P ∩ RA.

Lemma 15.3 Let d = |c1|+ 2. At least one of the following is true.

1. PA 6= ∅ for all A ∈ (0, d−1).

2. PA 6= ∅ for all A ∈ (1− d−1, 1).

132

Proof: If c1 = 0 then we must have c2 = 1, because PA is not empty for someparameter, If this lemma is false, then there is some parameter t, containedin one of the two intervals, such that either

c1A + c2 = −1; c1A+ c2 = 2 + 2A. (220)

The point is that the two corners (0, 0, 1) and (1+A, 1+A, 0) are the extremepoints for the linear functional x+ y − z.

The cases c1 ∈ 0, 2 lead to solutions that never intersect the interior ofRA. Hence c1 6∈ 0, 2. Solving Equation 220, we have either

t =−1 − c2c1

; t =2− c2c1 − 2

.

The denominator of t is too small for it to lie in the given intervals. ♠

For ease of exposition, we finish our proof in the case when c1 < −2 andStatement 1 of Lemma 15.3 holds. The other cases have essentially the sametreatment.

Since c1 < −2, the we have

A =−1

2c1∈ (0,

1

d). (221)

Hence PA 6= ∅. Butc1A+ c2 =

1

2+ c2. (222)

Since A < 1/2 and c2 ∈ Z and c1A+ c2 ∈ (−1, 3/2), we have one of the twoequalities

PA = x+ y − z = −1/2 ∩RA; PA = x+ y − z = 1/2 ∩RA. (223)

for this choice of A.Let X ′ denote the first 100 intervals of X . For each c1 = −30, ...,−3, we

check that µ(X ′) intersects each of the above sets in an interior point, butthat this point does not belong to S3. This contradicts the existence of P .

Now we deal with S4. For the same parameter A = 25/31, we computethat S4 ∩ RA contains points in the two hyperplanes x + y − z = A andx + y − z = 2 + A. The same argument as for S3 now shows that S4

consists precisely in the sets

x+ y − z = A ∩R; x+ y − z = 2 + A ∩ R. (224)

133

15.3 The Fifth Piece

We use the notation from Lemma 14.3. already computed S ′A and S ′′

A exactly.Given our calculation for S ′

A, we see that the set

1⋃

i=−1

1⋃

j=−1

S ′

A + (Ai+ j, Ai+ j, Ai+ j); (225)

is contained in the following list of

• x = t for t = Ai+ j. Here |i|, |j| ≤ 4.

• y = t for t = Ai+ j. Here |i|, |j| ≤ 1.

• z = t for t = 0, A, 1−A, 1.

We arrive at this estimate by taking points in S ′A, translating them according

to Equation 225, and then reducing the resulting points back to the funda-mental domain RA.

Lemma 15.4 If S5 contains an open subset of a hyperplane of the formx = t then t = A or t = 1.

Proof: Let X ′ denote the first 500 intervals of X . For each parameter p/43for p = 1, ..., 42, we compute that

µA(W5 ∩X ′)− ∂RA (226)

is contained in the planes x = A and x = 1. (When p ∈ ∂RA andτ = µA(p) ∈ ∂RA, there is some ΛA-equivalent vector τ

′ contained in the twoplanes mentioned above. However, our program does not bother to computeτ ′.)

LetY = R− S ′

5 = R− S ′′. (227)

The set Y has 5 components. Let P be any other hyperplane on the list in theprevious section, having the form x = t. Let C be any open component ofY such that P ∩C 6= ∅. We compute that there is some parameter A = p/43,and some interval I ⊂ X ′, such that µA(I

′) crosses P inside the set C.For the parameters we have considered, PA is disjoint from the planes

x = A and x = 1. But then there is a point ζ ∈ I such that µA(ζ) ∈ P .But then µA(ζ) ∈ S5 ∩ C. This contradicts the fact that A = p/43 andζ ∈ X ′. ♠

134

15.4 The End of the Proof

The same argument as in Lemma 14.3 proves that

S ⊂5⋃

j=0

Sj ∪1⋃

i=−1

1⋃

j=−1

(S0 ∪ S1) + (Ai+ j, Ai+ j, Ai+ j). (228)

Combining this result with what we have already shown in the chapter, wesee that S is contained in the following union of hyperplanes.

• x = t for t = 0, A, 1, 1 + A.

• y = t for t = Ai+ j where |i|, |j| ≤ 1.

• z = t for t = 0, A, 1−A, 1.

• x+ y − z = k + A for k = −1, 0, 1, 2.

We let S denote the union of these hyperplanes.

Lemma 15.5 For each component C of R−A, there is a parameter A and apoint p ∈ X+ so that the Master Picture Theorem holds for p and µ+(p) ∈ C.

Proof: The partition of R defined by S consists of polytopes with half-integer coordinates, all lying in the range [0, 2]. Given the placement of thevertices, the combinatorial structure of R−S does not change for parametersA ∈ (0, 1/2). Likewise, the combinatorial structure does not change forparaeters A ∈ (1/2, 1). In particular, each component of R − S intersectsone of the two slices A = 41/153 ∈ (0, 1/2) and A = 113/153 ∈ (1/2, 1). (Webasically picked these parameters at random.)

For each α = j/16 for j = 1, ..., 15, we plot the image

µA(2α+ 2n); n = 1, ..., 215; (229)

The image is contained in the slice z = α.We see that the Master Picture Theorem holds for all these points. Bil-

liard King allows the reader to make the plot and inspect the image visually.(Visually, the image for each is so dense that it nearly hits every pixel on thecomputer screen when the picture is scaled to be one inch square.) ♠

Lemma 14.1 now completes the proof of the Master Picture Theorem.

135

Part IIIIn this part of the monograph we use the Master Picture Theorem to

prove the Embedding Theorem and the Hexagrid Theorem.

• In §16 we prove the Embedding Theorem.

• In §17 we prove the fist statement of the Hexagrid theorem, namelythat the arithmetic graph does not cross any floor lines. This is theeasy part of the proof. Our Master Picture Theorem, as stated, isexactly tailored to this result.

• In §18 we prove some results about the symmetries of the arithmeticgraph and the hexagrid.

• In §19 we give a second geometric picture of the maps M+ and M−

involved in the Master Picture Theorem. Just as the original pictureis tailor made to deal with the first half of the Hexagrid Theorem, thesecond picture is tailor made to deal with the second statement of theHexagrid Theorem.

• In §20 we show that each crossing cell predicted by the Hexagrid The-orem really exists.

• In §21 we prove that the only crossing cells in the arithmetic graph arethe ones predicted by the Hexagrid Theorem, thereby completing theproof of the second statement of the Hexagrid Theorem. The proof ofthe second statement of the Hexagrid Theorem is very similar to theproof of the first statement, once we have all the material from §18-20assembled.

All the proofs in this part of the monograph require us to prove variousdisjointness results about some 4 dimensional polytopes. We will give shortcomputer-aided proofs of these disjointness results. The proofs only involvea small amount of integer arithmetic. An energetic mathematician coulddo them all by hand in an afternoon. To help make the proofs surveyable,we will include extensive computer pictures of 2 dimensional slices of ourpolytopes. These pictures, all reproducible on Billiard King, serve as sanitychecks for the computer calculations.

136

16 Proof of the Embedding Theorem

Let Γ = Γα(A) be the arithmetic graph for a parameter A and some numberα 6∈ 2Z[A]. In this chapter we will the Embedding Theorem for Γ, whichstates that Γ is a disjoint union of embedded polygons and infinite polygonalarcs.

16.1 Step 1

We will first prove that every nontrivial vertex of Γ has valence 2. Each pointp ∈ Γ is connected to two points q+ and q−. Hence, each non-trivial vertexhas valence either 1 or 2. The following two cases are the only cases thatlead to valence 1 vertices:

• p = q+ and q+ 6= q−.

• q+ = q− and q± 6= p.

The following lemma rules out the first of these cases.

Lemma 16.1 If p = q+ or p = q− then p = q+ = q−.

Proof: Recall that R+(0, 0) consists of 2 convex integer polytopes. LikewiseR−(0, 0) consists of 2 convex integer polytopes. It suffices to show that

(t, t+ 1, t) ∈ R+(0, 0) ⇐⇒ (t− 1, t, t) ∈ R−(0, 0). (230)

This is equivalent to the statement that

R−(0, 0) + (1, 1) ⊂ ΛR+(0, 0)

Let ι be the involution from Equation 87. Recall that R−(0, 0) = ι(R+(0, 0)).Hence, Equation 230 equivalent to the statement that

ι(R+(0, 0)) + (1, 1) ⊂ ΛR+(0, 0). (231)

Let P1 and P2 denote the two polytopes composing R−(0, 0), as listed at theend of §10. Let γ2 be as in Equation 85. We easily compute that

ι(P1) + (1, 1) = P1; γ−12 (ι(P2 + (1, 1)) = P2. (232)

This does it for us. ♠

137

16.2 Step 2

Our next goal is to rule out the possibility that p 6= q±, but q+ = q−. Thissituation happens if and only if there is some pair (ǫ1, ǫ2) ∈ −1, 0, 1 suchthat

ΛR+(ǫ1, ǫ2) ∩ (R−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1, 0, 0)) 6= ∅. (233)

The set on the left is the Λ-orbit of R+(ǫ1, ǫ2). The set on the right is just afinite union of convex polytopes. First of all, an inspection of our tiling (orelse a complete computer search — we did both) reveals that at least one ofthe two sets above is empty unless (ǫ1, ǫ2) is one of

(1, 1); (−1,−1); (1, 0); (−1, 0). (234)

To rule out Equation 233 for each of these pairs, we need to consider allpossible pairs (P1, P2) of integral convex polytopes such that

P1 ⊂ ΛR+(ǫ1, ǫ2); P2 ⊂ (R−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1)) (235)

For such pairs, we need to see that the interiors of the two polygons aredisjoint.

Recall that Λ is generated by the three elements γ1, γ2, γ3. Let

Λ′ = a1γ1 + a2γ2|; Λ′

10 = a1γ1 + a2γ2|| |a1|, |a2| ≤ 10. (236)

In our next results the P s and Qs are meant to be convex polytopes.

Lemma 16.2 Suppose that

γ ∈ Λ− Λ′; P1 = γ(Q1); Q1 ⊂ R+(ǫ1, ǫ2); P2 ⊂ R−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1, 0, 0).

Then P1 and P2 have disjoint interiors.

Proof: The third coordinates of points in P1 lies between n and n + 1 forsome n 6= 0 whereas the third coordinates of points in P2 lie in [0, 1]. ♠

Lemma 16.3 Suppose that

γ ∈ Λ′−Λ′

10; P1 = γ(Q1); Q1 ⊂ R+(ǫ1, ǫ2); P2 ⊂ R−(ǫ1, ǫ2)+(1, 1, 0, 0).

Then P1 and P2 have disjoint interiors.

138

Proof: Q1 is contained in the ball of radius 4 about P2, but γ moves thisball entirely off itself. ♠

The last two results leave us with a finite problem. Given a pair (ǫ1, ǫ2)from our list above, and

γ ∈ Λ′

10; P1 = γ(Q1); Q1 ⊂ R+(ǫ1, ǫ2); P2 ⊂ R−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1, 0, 0),

we produce a vector

w = w(P1, P2) ∈ −1, 0, 14 (237)

such thatmax

v∈vtx(P1)v · w ≤ min

v∈vtx(P2)v · w. (238)

This means that a hyperplane separates the interior of P1 from P2. In eachcase we find v(P1, P2) by a short computer search, and perform the verifica-tion using integer arithmetic. It is a bit surprising to us that such a simplevector works in all cases, but that is how it works out.

Using Billiard King, the interested reader can draw arbitrary (z, A) slicesof the sets ΛR+(ǫ1, ǫ2) and ΛR−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1, 0, 0), and see that all thepolygons from the one set have disjoint interiors from all the polygons of theother set.

We will illustrate this with pictures in §16.4.

16.3 Step 3

Given that every nontrivial vertex of Γ has valence 2, and also that the edgesof Γ have length at most

√2, the only way that Γ can fail to be embedded

is if there is situation like the one shown in Figure 16.1.

p2

p1

Figure 16.1: Embedding Failure

139

Given the Master Picture Theorem, this situation arises only in the fol-lowing 4 cases:

• M+(p1) ∈ ΛR+(1, 1) and M+(p2) ∈ ΛR+(1,−1).

• M−(p1) ∈ ΛR−(1, 1) and M−(p2) ∈ ΛR−(1,−1).

• M−(p1) ∈ ΛR−(1, 1) and M+(p2) ∈ ΛR+(1,−1).

• M+(p1) ∈ ΛR+(1, 1) and M−(p2) ∈ ΛR−(1,−1).

Note that p2 = p1 + (0, 1) and hence

M±(p2) =M±(p1) + (1, 1, 1, 0) mod Λ. (239)

In particular, the two points M(p1) and M(p2) lie in the same fiber ofR over the (z, A) square. We inspect the picture and see that this situationnever occurs for the types (1, 1) and (1,−1). Hence, Cases 1 and 2 do notoccur. More inspection shows that there are R+(1,−1) = ∅. Hence, Case 3does not occus. This leaves Case 4, the only nontrivial case.

Case 4 leads to the statement that

(t, t, t, A) + (0, 1, 0, 0) ∈ ΛR+(1, 1);

(t, t, t, A)− (1, 0, 0, 0) + (1, 1, 1, 0) = (t, t, t, A) + (0, 1, 1, 0) ∈ ΛR−(1,−1).(240)

Setting p equal to the first of the two points above, we get

p ∈ ΛR+(1, 1); p+ (0, 0, 1, 0) ∈ ΛR−(1,−1). (241)

Letting γ3 ∈ Λ be as in Equation 85, we have

p− (1, 1, 0, 0) = γ3(p+ (0, 0, 1, 0)) ∈ ΛR−(1,−1). (242)

For any subset S ⊂ R, we have

(ΛS) + (a, b, c, 0) = Λ(S + (a, b, c, 0)). (243)

The point here is that Λ acts as a group of translations on each set of theform R3 × A, and addition by (x, y, z, 0) commutes with this action onevery such set. Equations 242 and 243 combine to give

p− (1, 1, 0, 0) ∈ Λ(R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)) (244)

140

Now we see that

ΛR+(1, 1) ∩ Λ(R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)) 6= ∅.

Since the whole picture is Λ-equivariant, we have

ΛR+(1, 1) ∩ (R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)) 6= ∅. (245)

We mean that there is a pair (P1, P2) of polytopes, with P1 in the first setand P2 in the second set, such that P1 and P2 do not have disjoint interiors.

We rule out this intersection using exactly the same method as in Step2. In §16.4 we illustrate this with a convincing picture.

16.4 A Visual Tour

The theoretical part of our proof amounts to reducing the Embedding The-orem to the statement that finitely many pairs of polytopes have disjointinteriors. The computer-aided part of the proof amounts to verifying thedisjointness finitely many times. Our verification used a very fragile dis-jointness test. We got a lucky, because many of our polytope pairs sharea 2-dimensional face. Thus, a separating hyperplane has to be chosen verycarefully. Needless to say, if our simple-minded approach did not work, wewould have used a more robust disjointness test.

If we could write this monograph on 4-dimensional paper, we could simplyreplace the computer-aided part of the proof with a direct appeal to thevisual sense. Since we don’t have 4-dimensional paper, we need to rely onthe computer to “see” for us. In this case, “seeing” amounts to finding ahyperplane that separates the interiors of the two polytopes. In other words,we are getting the computer to “look” at the pair of polytopes in such a waythat one polytope appears on one side and the other polytope appears onthe other side.

We do not have 4 dimensional paper, but we can draw slices of all the setswe discussed above. The interested user of Billiard King can see any desiredslice. We will just draw typical slices. In our pictures below, we will drawthe slices of R+ with dark shading and the slices of R− with light shading.in our discussion, the base space B refers to the (z, A) square over which ourpicture fibers. Let Bj denote the jth component of B, as determined by thecharacteristic n1 discussed in §10.1.2.

141

In reference to Step 2, our pictures for the pair (−ǫ1,−ǫ2) look like rotatedversions of the pictures for the pair (ǫ1, ǫ2). Accordingly, we will just drawpictures for (1, 1) and (1, 0).

Figure 16.2 shows a slice of ΛR+(1, 1) and Λ(R−(1, 1) + (1, 1, 0, 0)) overB0. Both slices are nonempty over B1 as well, and the picture is similar.

Figure 16.2: A slice of ΛR+(1, 1) and Λ(R−(1, 1) + (1, 1, 0, 0))

Figure 16.3 shows a slice of ΛR+(1, 0) and Λ(R−(1, 0) + (1, 1, 0, 0)) overB0. The picture over B1 is similar. Figure 16.4 shows a slice of ΛR+(1, 0)and Λ(R−(1, 0) + (1, 1, 0, 0)) over B2. The picture over B3 is similar.

Figure 16.3: A slice of ΛR+(1, 1) and Λ(R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)).

142

Figure 16.4 shows a slice of ΛR+(1, 0) and Λ(R−(1, 0) + (1, 1, 0, 0)) overB2. The picture over B3 is similar.

Figure 16.4: A slice of ΛR+(1, 1) and Λ(R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)).

Figure 16.5 shows a slice of ΛR+(1, 1) and Λ(R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)) overB2. The picture looks similar over B3 and otherwise at least one of the slicesis empty.

Figure 16.5: A slice of ΛR+(1, 1) and Λ(R−(1,−1)− (1, 1, 0, 0)).

143

17 Proof of the Hexagrid Theorem I

17.1 Crossing Lines

First we explain our general method for studying the problem of how thearithmetic graph interacts with straight lines in R2. Let L ⊂ R2 be any line.For each pair of indices ǫ1, ǫ2 ∈ −1, 0, 1, let Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2) denote those latticepoints (m,n) such that the line segment with endpoints

(m,n); (m+ ǫ1, m+ ǫ2) (246)

crosses L. These sets are all open infinite strips lying on one side of L or theother.

Recall that R±(ǫ1, ǫ2) is the region in our 4 dimensional polytope suchthat M±(m,n) ∈ R±(ǫ1, ǫ2) if and only if the abovementioned edge actuallylies in the arithmetic graph. If we can show that

M±(Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2)) ∩ R±(ǫ1, ǫ2) = ∅ (247)

then we have shown that this particular kind of edge in the arithmetic graphnever crosses L. If we can show the same result for all pairs (ǫ1, ǫ2), then wehave shown that no edge whatsoever of the arithmetic graph crosses L. Wemight say in this situation that L is a perfect barrier.

We will use this method to prove the Hexagrid Theorem. Before westart the proof, we point out 2 subtleties. First, we also need to deal withlattice points (m,n) what actually lie on L. For the lines we consider, thissituation happens rarely and it will be easy to deal with these points specially.Second, the Hexagrid Theorem states the existence of certain lines —the linesof positive slope in the room grid—that serve as nearly but not quite perfectbarriers. When it comes time to deal with these lines, we need look carefullyat our construction in order to see how the exceptions to Equation 247 arise.

Fortunately, we are guided by a mountain of experimental evidence forall the lines we consider, and so we know in advance what special cases needto be considered. It is just a matter of enumerating them all. So, in short,we prove the Hexagrid method by a 2 step method.

1. For each relevant line L, and each pair (ǫ1, ǫ2), we establish some versionof Equation 247, modulo exceptions.

2. We individually analyze the exceptions to Equation 247 and see thatthey are in accord with the statement of the Hexagrid Theorem.

144

17.2 Dealing with the Floors

Let L−

k be the kth floor line. (See §3.3 or below for a formula.) Note that

slope of L−

k , namely −A, lies in (0,−1). For this reason, the sets Σ(kǫ1, ǫ2) lie

above L−

k for the indices

(0,−1); (−1, 0); (1,−1); (−1,−1). (248)

These are the 4 strips we consider. As we have set things up, we have 4strips Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2) to consider for each integer k. However, our argument worksindependently of k.

We define the set

P−(ǫ1, ǫ2) = [0, 2]× t, t, A| t ∈ [0,−ǫ1A− ǫ2]. (249)

Recall that Λ : R3 × (0, 1) → R3 × (0, 1) is the affine group action thatpermutes our integral polytope tiling. This action is discussed in §10. Forany set X ⊂ R3 × (0, 1), let ΛX denote the orbit of X under Λ.

Before we state our main result, we recall that there is a tiny positivenumber α that we use to define the maps M+ and M−. Our result is statedfor M−. We will deal with M+ later on.

Lemma 17.1 If (m,n) ∈ Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2) then M−(m,n)−(α, α, α) ∈ ΛP−(ǫ1, ǫ2).

Proof: By construction, M−(m,n)− (α, α, α) =M ′−(m,n), where

M ′

−(m,n) = (t− 1, t, t); t = Am+ n. (250)

We just have to prove that M ′−(m,n) ∈ ΛP−(ǫ1, ǫ2).

The fibers of the map M ′− are the lines parallel to the floor lines. In

particular M ′− is constant along the floor lines. Note that L−

k is the line ofslope −A through the point

ζk = k ×(

pq

p+ q,pq

p+ q+q − p

2

). (251)

Referring to Equation 250, we compute from Equation 251 that

t =k(p+ q)

2∈ Z (252)

t is an integer, because p+ q is even. We just have to subject the point t toour reduction algorithm from §10.1.1. We have

145

1. z = t.

2. Z = floor(t) = t, because t is an integer.

3. y = 2t = k(p+ q) = kq(1 + A).

4. Y = floor(t/(1 + A)) = kq.

5. x = y − (1− A)Y − 1 = β..

6. X = 0.

Hence

(x− (1 + A)X, y − (1 + A)Y, z − Z) =M−(L−

k ) = (β, 0, 0), (253)

for some number β ∈ R that depends on A and k. Hence

M−(L−

k ) ∈ ΛB; B = [0, 2]× (0, 0) × (0, 1). (254)

The only mystery here is how we get the X-coordinate in [0, 2]. Using theelement γ1 from Equation 85, we can move any point (β, y, z, A) to a point(β ′′, y, z, A) with β ′ ∈ [0, 1 + A] ⊂ [0, 2]. This explains the mystery.

By definition,

s ∈ [0, Aǫ1 + ǫ2] =⇒ B + (s, s, s, 0) ∈ P−(ǫ1, ǫ2). (255)

Similar to Equation 243, we have

Λ(B + (s, s, s, 0)) = (ΛB) + (s, s, s, 0). (256)

If ζ ∈ Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2) then

M ′

−(ζ) =M ′

−(L−

k ) + (s, s, s, 0); s ∈ (0, Aǫ1 + ǫ2). (257)

Now we know that

M ′

−(ζ) ∈ ΛB + (s, s, s, 0) = Λ(B + (s, s, s, 0)) ⊂ ΛP−(ǫ1, ǫ2).

This completes our proof. ♠

When A = p/q is rational, there is some uniform ǫ > 0 such that everypoint in the interior of Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2) is at least ǫ units from the boundary of thisset. Indeed, there are only finitely many distances involved, modulo symme-tries of the picture, and we just take α to be less than the smallest positivedistance involved. With this choice of α we get the following corollary.

Corollary 17.2 If (m,n) lies in the interior of Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2) then M−(m,n) isΛ-equivalent to a point in the interior of P−(ǫ1, ǫ2).

146

17.3 A Polytope Intersection Problem

We now have 4 polytopes. P−(ǫ1, ǫ2). In each case we can write

P−(ǫ1, ǫ2) = 0, 2 ×Q−(ǫ1, ǫ2), (258)

where Q−(ǫ1, ǫ2) is a polygon in R3. These polygons are the convex hulls oftheir vertices, and the vertices as follows:

(−1,−1) :

000

001

110

221

; (0,−1) :

000

001

110

111

. (259)

(−1, 0) :

000

001

111

; (1,−1) :

000

001

110

(260)

We use the method from the previous chapter to prove R−(ǫ1, ǫ2) andQ−(ǫ1, ǫ2) have disjoint interiors. The only difference here is that we we usethe sets

Λ′ = a1γ1 + a2γ2 + a3γ3| |a3| ≤ 2;Λ′

10 = a1γ1 + a2γ2 + a3γ3|| |a1|, |a2| ≤ 10, |a3| ≤ 2. (261)

in place of the ones in Equation 236. The point is that we need to considerthe action of γ3 because some points in P−(−1,−1) have z-coordinates in[0, 2] rather than in [0, 1].

So far we have dealt only with the map M−. When we deal with M+, thewhole construction is the same, except that Q−(ǫ1, ǫ2) is replaced by

Q+(ǫ1, ǫ2) = Q−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1, 0, 0). (262)

The same argument then shows R+(ǫ1, ǫ2) and P+(ǫ1, ǫ2) have disjoint in-teriors. We will illustrate these results in the next section with very cleancomputer pictures.

We have shown that the arithmetic graph Γ(p/q) cannot cross L−

k at apoint that is interior to an edge. It only remains to deal with the latticepoints actually on L−

k . Modulo the group of translations generated by thevector (q,−p), the only such points is the point ζk given by Equation 251.We now deal specially with these points.

147

The slices as shown in Figure 10.3 determine the nature of the edgesof the arithmetic graph, although the slices currently of interest to us arenot shown there. We are interested in following the method discussed in§10.2.5, where we set α = 0 and consider the singular situation. The pointsM−(ζk) and M+(ζk) both lie in the (0, A) slices of our partitions. Figure17.1 does for these slices what Figure 10.3 does for the generic slice. Thepoint M−(ζk) always lies along the bottom edge of the fiber, and the pointM+(ζk) just above the edge contained in the line y = 1. The relevant edgesare highlighted.

(Y,−)

(Y,+)(X,+)

(X,−−)Figure 17.1: The (0, A) slices.

From this picture we can see that the only edges emanating from ζk arethose corresponding to the pairs

(0, 1); (1, 0); (1, 1); (−1, 1).

All of these edges point into the halfplane above L−

k . Hence Γ(p/q) nevercrosses L−

k , not even at a vertex that actually lies on this line.

148

17.4 A Visual Tour

It turns out that we can get a better picture of the disjointness result if weproject into a lower dimensional space. Note that the first coordinate playsa special role in our proof above. Let π : R4 → R3 be the map

π(x, y, z, A) = (y, z, A). (263)

Let P = P±(ǫ1, ǫ2), and likewise for Q. We can show that two polytopes Pand Q have disjoint interiors by proving that π(P ) and π(Q) have disjointinteriors, provided that π(P ) does have a nonempty interior.

The set π(P ) is a polyhedron in R3 and the set π(Q) is a polygon inR3. To get a 2 dimensional picture, we intersect π(P ) and π(Q) with planesA = const.. The slice of π(P ) is a polygon, and the slice of π(Q) is a linesegment. The same statements hold for π(Λ(P )) and π(γ(Q)), where γ ∈ Λ,the affine group that acts on our picture. We will show typical slices of theorbits π(ΛP−) and π(ΛQ−) for the 4 choices of (ǫ1, ǫ2). The pictures for P+

and Q+ look the same.Figure 17.2 shows the picture for (−1,−1). The line segments are disjoint

from the interiors of the polygons.

Figure 17.2: Slices of π(P−(−1,−1)) and π(Q−(−1,−1)).

149

Figure 17.3 shows the picture for (−1, 0).

Figure 17.3: Slices of π(P−(−1, 0)) and π(Q−(−1, 0)).

Figure 17.4 shows the picture for (1,−1).

Figure 17.4: Slices of π(P−(1,−1)) and π(Q−(1,−1)).

150

Figure 17.5 shows the picture for (−1, 0). The line segments are disjointfrom the interiors of the polygons. This time it looks like one componentof the slice of π(ΛP ) is a square and the segments are the diagonals of thesquares. This is not the case. In fact, the slices are isosceles triangles thatshare a common boundary—and the segments cover this common boundary.So, again, the line segments are disjoint from the interiors of the polygons.One way to justify our claim is to recall that there are 4 different polytopescomprising R−(0,−1), and the “square option” would only account for 3 ofthe polytopes.

Figure 17.5: Slices of π(P−(0,−1)) and π(Q−(0,−1)).

Remark: The user can get a better appreciation for these pictures, andespecially Figure 17.5, using Billiard King. We have programmed BilliardKing so that the user can see these pictures for any parameter A. We havebuilt two useful features into the program. First, the user can show and hideall parts of the picture individually, so as to what covers what in the pictures.Second, the user can draw the polygonal regions in semi-transparent colors,so as to make sure two polygonal regions really do not overlap.

151

18 Symmetries of the Hexagrid

18.1 Translational Symmetry

Let A = p/q be an odd rational. The Master Picture Theorem tells us thatthe local picture of the arithmetic graph is determined by the maps M+ andM−. Since these maps are defined on all of Z2, and not just on the pointsof Z2 above the arithmetic graph baseline, it makes perfect sense to extendthe arithmetic graph to all of ZZ .

Let Ξ denote the lattice of translations generated by the vectors

v7 = (q,−p) w =(0,

(p+ q)2

4

)(264)

Here v7 refers to the point in Figure 3.1 defining the hexagrid. Note that thesecond coordinate of w is an integer, because p+ q is even.

Lemma 18.1 The arithmetic graph Γ(p/q) is invariant under Ξ.

Proof: By construction, Γ(p/q) is invariant under v7. We just have to provethat Γ(p/q) is invariant under w. Using the Master Picture Theorem, we seethat it suffices to prove that (t, t, t) ∈ Λ when t is the second coordinate ofw. Here Λ is the lattice from Equation 80.

First of all, we have

(t, t, t) ≡ (2t, 2t, 0) mod Λ,

because t is an integer. Setting

a = pq; b =pq + q2

2, (265)

We compute that

a

1 + A00

+ b

1− A1 + A0

=

2t2t0

. (266)

This completes the proof. ♠

152

Lemma 18.2 The hexagrid is invariant under the action of Ξ.

Proof: By construction, the hexagrid is invariant under the action of v7. Wejust have to see what happens for w. The hexagrid is composed of 6 infiniteparallel families of lines. One line from each family contains the point (0, 0).To prove this result, it suffices to show that one line from each of the hexagridfamilies contains the point w.

The line L−

k of the room can be described as the line of slope −A throughthe point (

0,k(p + q)

2

).

Hence, the line Lh contains w, when h = (p+ q)/2. Note that h is an integerbecause p+ q is even.

Consider the line L containing the point w and the point

−p2(−q, p).

We compute that this line has the same slope as the long diagonal of thearithmetic kite Q(p/q). Hence, L is parallel to the lines of positive slope inthe room grid. But now we see that L = L+

−p.The vertical line through the origin certainly contains w, and this line is

one of the lines in the door grid.Let L be the line containing w and the point

−p + q

2(q,−p).

We compute that the slope of L coincides with the slope of the the right edgeof the arithmetic kite Q(p/q). Hence, we see that L is one of the lines in thedoor grid.

For the rest of the lines, we can use the affine symmetry of the picture.Since Q(p/q) is the affine image of a kite, there is an order 2 affine involu-tion that fixes the long diagonal of Q and reverses the short diagonal. Bysymmetry, there is such an affine symmetry for each line of positive slope inthe room grid. In particular, if we choose the affine symmetry that fixes theline through w, we see that it maps the two door grid lines we have alreadyfound to the two door grid lines we are still seeking. ♠

153

18.2 A Converse to the Symmetry

The following result is a kind of converse to our symmetry result above. LetM+ denote the map from the Master Picture Theorem. That is

M+(m,n) = (t, t+ 1, t) mod Λ; t = Am+ n. (267)

For convenience we set α = 0. The proof is the same in general.

Lemma 18.3 If M+(m1, n1)=M+(m2, n2) then (m1, n1)≡(m2, n2) mod Ξ.

Proof: Let (m,n) = (m2, n2)− (m1, n1). To prove this lemma, it suffices toprove that (t, t, t) ∈ Λ implie that (m,n) ∈ Ξ. Here t = Am + n. Lookingat the bottom row of the matrix defining Λ, we see (0, 0, 1). From this weconclude that t ∈ Z. Since

t =pm

q+ n,

we see that q divides m. But now we can subtract multiples of v7 = (q,−p)to arrange that m = 0. In other words, it suffices to consider the points(0, n). Note that

(n, n, n) ≡ (2n, 2n, 0) mod Λ.

Therefore, we have the equation[2n2n

]= a

[1 + A0

]+ b

[1−A1 + A

]; a, b ∈ Z. (268)

The solutions are

a =4npq

(p+ q)2; b =

2nq

p+ q. (269)

Since p and q are relatively prime, pq is relatively prime to (p + q)2. Hence(p+ q)2 divides 4n. Hence, the second coordinate of w divides n. ♠

The following corollary plays a very important role in our proof of thesecond statement of the Hexagrid Theorem, because (as we will see) it allowsus to use the Pidgeohole Principle to account for all the wall crossings.

Corollary 18.4 The maps M+ and M− from the Master Picture Theoremare well defined and injective on Z2/Ξ.

Remark: The result in the next section is not needed until §25 in Part IV.The reader who wants to get on with the proof of the Hexagrid Theoremshould skip the next chapter.

154

18.3 Rotational Symmetry

Here we will establish the rotational symmetry of the arithmetic graph thatwe discussed in §3.6. We will assume that p/q is an odd rational, as usual.

Recall that b/a is the continued fraction approximant to p/q such thatap + 1 ≡ 0 mod q. Let ι denote the order 2 rotation about the point(a/2,−b/2). We have

ι(m,n) = (a,−b)− (m,n). (270)

Here is the main result of this section.

Lemma 18.5 ι(Γ) = Γ.

Proof: Our maps M+ and M− depend on a choice of α ∈ (0, 2/q), but thefinal answer—i.e., which polyhrdron contains the images of our point underthese maps — does not. We choose α = 1/(2q). We will first compareM+(m,n) with M−(ι(m,n)). We have

M+(m,n) = (t, t + 1, t) mod Λ;pm

q+ n+

1

2q(271)

Next, we haveM−(ι(m,n)) = (t′ − 1, t′, t′) mod Λ;

t′ =(ap

q− b

)−(pm

q+ n

)+

1

2q=

(ap− bq

q

)−(pm

q+ n

)+

1

2q=

−1

q−(pm

q+ n

)+

1

2q= −

(pm

q+ n

)− 1

2q= −t.

In shortM−(ι(m,n)) = (−t− 1,−t,−t) mod Λ. (272)

Our reduction algorithm produces a vector v ∈ Λ such that

(s1, s2, s3) = (t, t + 1, t) + (v1, v2, v3) ∈ RA;

RA = (0, 1 + A)× (0, 1 + A)× (0, 1). (273)

155

Consider the vector

w = (−v1,−v2,−v3) + (−1,−1, 1) + (1− A, 1 + A, 0) + (2 + 2A, 0, 0) =

(−v1 + 2 + A,−v2 + A,−v3 + 1). (274)

We compute that

(−t− 1,−t,−t) + w = (1 + A, 1 + A, 1)− (s1, s2, s3). (275)

So, we haveM+(m,n) = ρ M−(ι(m,n)), (276)

where ρ is reflection through the midpoint of the space RA. A similar calcu-lation shows

M−(m,n) = ρ M+(ι(m,n)), (277)

But now we just verify by inspection that our partition of RA is symmetricunder ρ, and has the labels appropriate to force the type determined by

ρ M+(m,n), ρ M−(m,n)

to be the 180 degree rotation of the type forced by

M−(m,n), M+(m,n)

Indeed, we can determine this with an experiment performed on any rationallarge enough such that all regions are sampled. A little inspection of thepicture of Γ(3/7), for instance, suffices to finish the proof. Compare Figure3.6. ♠

Since Γ is also invariant under the lattice Ξ of translations, we see thatthere are actually infinitely many points of order 2 symmetry.

156

19 Confinement

In this chapter we will explain the importance of the lines of positive slopein the room grid. The key to understanding these lines is to normalize ourmaps from the Master Picture Theorem in a different way.

19.1 The Confinement Map

Recall that M+ and M− are the two maps that participate in the MasterPicture Theorem. We will concentrate on M+. For our analysis we will setα = 0 and use the determination of the arithmetic graph explained in §10.2.5.Thus

M+(m,n) = (t, t+ 1, t) mod Λ, t = Am+ n. (278)

We introduce the map

µ(m,n) =(−A

0

)+m

(1 + 2AA

)+ n

(−2A0

)− floor(Am)

(A1

). (279)

The range of µ is the infinite strip R× [0, 1). We think of this strip as livingin the yz plane, for reasons that will become clear momentarily. We call µthe confinement map for reasons we will explain in §19.2.

Now we explain the connection between µ and the map M+. Essentially,µ and M+ record the same information about a lattice point. To make thisprecise, we define M ′

+ : Z2 → R3 by the following formula

M ′

+(m,n) = (x′, y′, z′); (y′, z′) = µ(m,n); x′ = A− y′. (280)

Lemma 19.1 Let (m,n) ∈ Z2 be any lattice point. Then M+(m,n) andM ′

+(m,n) are equivalent mod Λ.

Proof: We will give a proof by induction. We compute

M ′

+(0, 0) =

2A−A0

=

010

−

1−A1 + A0

+

1 + A00

.

This shows that M ′+(0, 0) ≡M+(0, 0) mod Λ.

Suppose that M+(m,n) ≡M ′+(m,n) mod Λ, Set

X =M+(m+ 1, n)−M+(m,n); Y =M+(m,n+ 1)−M+(m,n).

157

We define X ′ and Y ′ similarly. Our goal is to show that X ′ ≡ X mod Λ andY ′ ≡ Y mod Λ.

We compute easily that

X =

AAA

; Y =

111

. (281)

In our calculation for X ′ there are two cases to consider. Suppose that

floor(Am+ A) = floor(Am).

In this case, we have

X ′ =

−1− 2A1 + 2AA

=

AAA

+

1− A1 + A0

− 2

1 + A00

. (282)

Suppose now that

floor(Am+ A) = floor(Am) + 1.

in this case, we have

X ′ =

−1 −A1 + AA− 1

=

AAA

+

11−1

− 2

1 + A00

. (283)

These calculations show that X ≡ X ′ mod Λ.In our calculation for Y ′ there is only one case to consider. We compute

Y ′ =

2A−2A0

=

111

−

−1−11

− 2

1− A1 + A0

. (284)

This calculation shows that Y ′ ≡ Y mod Λ. ♠

Remark: We can describe µ in a different way. We start with the basicequation M+(m,n) = (t, t + 1, t) = (x, y, z) and then find a particular Λ-equivalent point (x′, y′, z′) such that x′ + y′ = A. Since x′ is determinedby y′, it makes good sense to define µ(m,n) = (y′, z′). In a certain sense,the action of Λ gives us a “transform” from the diagonal line (t, t + 1, t) tothe plane (A − y′, y′, z′), and we think of µ as the conjugate of M+ by thetransform.

158

19.2 Geometry of the Confinement Map

From our formula, it is clear that we can extend µ to all of R2. What makesµ useful to us is that, even though it encodes the same information asM+ onZ2, the extension of µ to R2 has very different properties than the extensionof M+ to R2. In this section we explore these geometric properties.

For any non-negative real number λ, let Π(λ) ⊂ R × [0, 1) denote theparallelogram with vertices

(−A, 0); (0, 1); (λ, 1); (−A+ λ, 0) (285)

Let Π(λ) denote the infinite strip

Π(λ) =⋃

s∈Z

Π(λ) + s(A, 1) (286)

Π

Figure 19.1: Π(λ) and Π(λ).

There is an obvious projection π from Π(λ) to Π(λ) given by

π(yz

)=(yz

)− floor(z)

(A1

). (287)

If we define

µ(m,n) =(−A

0

)+(1 + 2A −2AA 0

)(mn

)(288)

then we haveµ = π µ. (289)

159

Let L+0 be the line in R2 obtained by extending the main diagonal of the

arithmetic kite. Here is our main geometric result.

Lemma 19.2 Let Σ be a closed infinite strip whose left boundary is L+0 .

Then µ(Σ) = Π(λ) for some λ > 0.

Proof: We compute that µ(0, 0) = (−A, 0) and µ(v3) ∈ Π(0). Since (0, 0)and v3 are two points on L

+0 , and µ is an isomorphism, we have µ(L+

0 ) ⊂ Π(0).By linearity, if L′ is a line parallel to L+

0 and on the right of L+0 , then µ(L

′)is a line segment parallel to Π(0). We check by example that µ(L′) lies onthe right (rather than on the left) of Π(0) in this case. Our lemma followsimmediately from this structure. ♠

Remarks:(i) The value of λ of course depends on the choice of Σ. In general, we cancompute λ by looking at the image of the right boundary of Σ. In practice,the right boundary of Σ will contain a lattice point ζ , and we will deduce thevalue of λ from µ(ζ).(ii) Our proof also makes the following stronger statement: If ζ is an interiorpoint of Σ, then the first coordinate of µ(ζ) lies in (−A, λ).

Lemma 19.2 is the key technical result needed for our proof of the secondstatement of the Hexagrid Theorem, but as such it is incomplete. Recallthat L+

1 is the line parallel to L+0 and containing (q/2,−p/2). We are also

interested in the images of strips whose left bounrary of L−. These stripsare not Ξ-equivalent to the ones considered in the previous section, but theyalso arise in our proof of the Hexagrid Theorem.

Lemma 19.3 Let Σ be a closed infinite strip whose left boundary is L+1 .

Then

µ(Σ) = Π(λ) +((p+ q)2

2q, 0)

Proof: We compute that

µ(q

2,−p

2

)=

−pq

0

+

p+ p2

q+ q

2

p2

(290)

160

Since p is odd, floor(p/2) = (p− 1)/2. Using this value, we find that

µ(q

2,−p

2

)=(−p2q,1

2

)+((p+ q)2

2q, 0). (291)

But (−p2q,1

2

)∈ Π(0). (292)

Our lemma follows immediately from these calculations. ♠

Suppose now that Σ0 and Σ1 are translation equivalent strips around L+0

and L+1 respectively. Then µ0(Σ0) and µ0(Σ1) are translation equivalent par-

allelograms. The translation vector is given in Lemma 19.3. The translationvector is a bit annoying, and so here we explain how to deal with it.

Lemma 19.4 The points (y, z) and

(y, z) +((p+ q)2

2q, 0)

represent the same point in R3 mod Λ.

Proof: It suffices to prove that the vector

−tt0

; t =

(p+ q)2

2q(293)

is equivalent to 0 mod Λ. The two values

c1 =−2qt

(p+ q)2; c2 =

qt

p+ q(294)

are both integers, and we compute that

−tt0

= c1

1 + A00

+ c2

1− A1 + A0

. (295)

This completes the proof. ♠

161

So, if we define

µ0 = µ; µ1(m,n) = µ0(m,n)−((p+ q)2

2q, 0)

(296)

then µ0(Σ0) and µ1(Σ1) are the same parallelogram. Moreover, both µ0 andµ1 are related to the map M+ in the same way.

We can state our results in a unified way. Let φ(y, z) = (A − y, y, z).Then

Lemma 19.5 Let Σ0 and Σ1 be translation equivalent strips about the linesL+0 and L+

1 respectively. Then there is some λ > 0, depending only on thewidth of the strips, such that M+(m,n) is equivalent to some φ(Π(λ)) pro-vided that (m,n) ∈ Σ0 ∪ Σ1.

Again, the value of λ can be computed from any point that lies on the rightboundary component of Σ1 or Σ2. We will work out the relevant examplesin the next section.

19.3 Examples of Strips

Recall that Ξ is the lattice of translation symmetries of the arithmetic graphand the hexagrid. Any line L+

k in the room grid is Ξ-equivalent to one of thelines L+

0 or L+1 that we have already been discussing. Accordingly, we take

k ∈ 0, 1 for our constructions in this section. The strips of interest to uscome from our general construction in §17.1. We define the strips Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2)as in §17.1. That is, a point (m,n) belongs to Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2) iff the segmentconnecting (m,n) to (m,n) + (ǫ1, ǫ2) crosses L

+k .

We are only interested in the strips that lie in the lower half-planesbounded by our lines. Since the slope of Lk

+ lies in the (1,∞), we justhave to worry about the pairs

(0, 1); (−1, 1); (−1, 0); (−1,−1). (297)

For each pair (ǫ1, ǫ2), we get a value λ(ǫ1, ǫ2) determined by Lemma 19.5. Wewill list the computation of µ(−ǫ1,−ǫ2). This gives us a point on the rightboundary of Π(ǫ1, ǫ2). When it serves or purposes, we will deduce the value(or an estimate for the value) of λ from our computation.

• µ(0,−1) = (A, 0) =⇒ λ(0, 1) = 2A.

162

• µ(1,−1) = (1 + 3A,A) =⇒ λ(−1, 1) < 1 + 4A.

• µ(1, 0) = (1 + A,A) =⇒ λ(−1, 0) < 1 + 2A.

• µ(1, 1) = (1−A,A) =⇒ λ(−1,−1) < 1.

Our computations give us some additional information that we will usein the next section. We list the two cases we need. For the discussion, weset (x, y, z) =M+(m,n).

1. Suppose we are only interested in lattice points (m,n) ∈ Σ(1,−1) suchthat z ≤ A. In this case, we intersect the Π(λ) with the smaller stripR × [0, A]. In this case, we can see that the top right point of theresulting parallelogram is exactly (1 + 3A,A).

2. Suppose we are only interested in lattice points (m,n) ∈ Σ(−1,−1)such that z ≤ A. In this case, we intersect the Π(λ) with the smallerstrip R× [0, A]. In this case, we can see that the top right point of theresulting parallelogram is exactly (1−A,A).

163

20 Analysis of the Crossings

20.1 Two Kinds of Crossings

Recall that a wall is a line of positive slope in the room grid. The walls arethe lines L+

k . A door is a point where a line from the door grid crosses a wall.In this chapter we study the nature of the arithmetic graph near the doors.Specifically, we show that all the crossing cells predicted by the HexagridTheorem really do exist. In the next chapter, we will show that these are theonly crossing cells.

There are 4 families of lines in the door hexagrid. These 4 families breakup naturally into two pairs:

1. The ridge lines . These lines are parallel to the top two edges of thearithmetic kite.

2. The trough lines . These lines are parallel to the bottom two edges ofthe arithmetic kite.

Whenever a ridge line crosses a wall, a second ridge line crosses at the samepoint. We call these doors the ridge doors . Whenever a trough line crosses awall, a second trough line crosses at the same point. We call these crossingsthe trough doors .

We will study the two kinds of doors separately. The calculations are abit different in each case.

v4

v3

v2

v6

v7

v1

v5

Figure 20.1: The arithmetic kite and the hexagrid.

164

20.2 Ridge Doors

20.2.1 A Lattice Count

Consider the vectors

v3 =(p,

(p+ q)2 − 2p2

2q

); v′3 =

1

2(v3 + v7) =

(p+ q

2,q2 − p2

4q

)(298)

The vectors v3 and v7 are shown in Figure 20.1. Notice that the first coordi-nates of the points in Equation 298 are integers.

Recall that Ξ is the group of translations of the arithmetic graph.

Lemma 20.1 Modulo the action of Ξ, there are exactly q distinct ridgedoors.

Proof: The covolume of a lattice Ξ′ in R2 is just the area of R2/Ξ′. Wecompute that Ξ has covolume

q × (p+ q)2

4. (299)

The calculation just amounts to taking the determinant of a matrix whosecolumns are v7 and w.

The set of all ridge points is a lattice Ξ′ generated by the vectors v3 andv′3. We compute that the covolume of this lattice is

(p+ q)2

4. (300)

The ratio of the covolumnes, namely q, counts the number of distinct latticepoints of Ξ′ mod Ξ. ♠

Remark: The first coordinates of v3 and v′3 are integers. Hence, the firstcoordinates of all the ridge doors are integers.

The ridge doors come in 2 families. The even family consists of thoseridge doors on L+

k , where k is even. The odd family consists of those ridgedoors on L+

k , where k is odd. We will analyze the behavior of the arithmeticgraph in the vicinity of the ridge doors. By symmetry, it suffices to considerthe cases k = 0 and k = 1.

165

20.2.2 The Even Family

The set of all ridge doors on L+0 is given by

ζh = hv3; k ∈ Z. (301)

The Hexagrid Theorem predicts that the vertex

ζ ′h =(kp, floor

(h(p + q)2 − 2hp2

2q

))(302)

is a vertex of a crossing cell. This is what we will prove in this section.We write

ζ ′h = (mh, nh). (303)

Let δ1 and δ2 respectively denote the decimal parts of

h(p+ q)2 − 2hp2

2q;

h(p+ q)2

2q. (304)

The second quantity is Amh + νh, where ζh = (mh, νh) and nh = floor(νh).

Lemma 20.2 δ1 + δ2 ∈ 0, 1.

Proof: δ1 + δ2 differs by an integer from the decimal part of

h(p+ q)2 − 2hp2

2q+h(p + q)2

2q=h(p+ q)2 − p2

q2= hq + 2hp ∈ Z.

Hence δ1 + δ2 ∈ Z. Since δ1 + δ2 ∈ [0, 2), we must have δ1 + δ2 = 0, 1. ♠

Lemma 20.3 If δ1 + δ2 = 0 then ζ ′h is Ξ-equivalent to (0, 0).

Proof: If δ1 + δ2 = 0 then ζh = ζ ′h and δ1 = δ2 = 0. In this case

µ(ζ ′h) = µ(ζh) ∈ Π(0).

Moreover, the z-component of µ(ζ ′h), which agrees with the z-component ofM+(ζ

′h), must be δ2 = 0. But this forces µ(ζ ′h) = (−A, 0) = µ(0, 0). But then

M+(ζ′h) =M+(0, 0). But M+ is injective on Z2/Ξ. ♠

For the rest of the analysis, we have δ1 + δ2 = 1.

166

Lemma 20.4 δ1 6= δ2.

Proof: Since δ1 + δ2 = 1, both δ1 and δ2 are positive. There is some integers such that δ1 = s/q and δ2 = (1 − s)/q. Since q is odd, neither of thesequantities can equal 1/2. ♠

Lemma 20.5 If δ1 < δ2 then M−(ζ′h) = (0, A, zh) for some zh ∈ (0, 1).

Proof: To figure out M+(ζ′h), we subject the number

t = Amh + nh =hp2

q+h(p+ q)2 − 2hp2

2q− δ1 =

h(p+ q)2

2q− δ1. (305)

to our algorithm described in §10.1.1. Since δ1 < δ2, we have

floor(t) =h(p+ q)2

2q− δ2. (306)

Our reduction algorithm gives z = t and Z = floor(t). Hence

y = z + Z + 1 =h(p+ q)2

2q− δ1 +

h(p+ q)2

2q− δ2 + 1 =

h(p + q)2

q. (307)

But Since 1 + A = (p + q)/q, we get

Y = h(p+ q); y − (1 + A)Y = 0. (308)

Next, we have

x = y − Y (1−A)− 1 =h(p+ q)2

q− h(p− q)(p+ q)

q− 1 = 2h(p+ q)− 1;

X = 2hq; x− (1 + A)X = −1. (309)

HenceM+(ζ

′

h) = (−1, 0, zh) ≡ (A, 0, z);

M−(ζ′

h) =M+(ζ′

h)− (1, 1, 0) = (A− 1,−1, zh) ≡ (0, A, zh). (310)

This completes the proof. ♠

167

The minus partition is the partition of the region RA = (1 +A)2 × (0, 1)that corresponds to the map M−. Inspecting this partition, we see that(0, A, zh) is always the lower vertex of a region in the minus partition thatspecifies the vector (−1, 0). See Figure 10.3. Since L+

0 has slope in (1,∞),the two points ζ ′h and ζ ′h− (1, 0) lie on different sides of L+

0 . Hence, the edgeconnecting ζ ′h to ζ ′h − (1, 0) is a crossing cell corresponding to the ridge doorζh.

Lemma 20.6 If δ1 > δ2 then M+(ζ′h) = (0, A, zh) for some zh ∈ (0, 1).

floor(t) =h(p+ q)2

2q− δ2. (311)

Proof: We proceed as in Lemma 20.5. This time we have

floor(t) =h(p + q)2

2q− δ2 − 1. (312)

A calculation just like the one above leads to

y − (1 + A)y = −1; x− (1 + A)x = −A− 1. (313)

Hence M+(ζ′h) = (−1− A,−1, zh) ≡ (0, A, zh) mod Λ. ♠

The reader can check that (0, A, zh) is always the lower vertex of a regionon the plus partition that specifies the vector (0, 1). Therefore, the edgeconnecting connecting ζ ′h to ζ ′h + (0, 1) is a crossing cell corresponding to theridge crossing.

Remarks:(i) The difference ζ − ζ ′ always has the form (0, s/q) for s ∈ 0, ..., q − 1.There are potentially q different values for this difference. Some of thesevalues are achieved in the even family, and the rest are achieved in the oddfamily, considered below.(ii) The reader can see plots of the points M+(ζ

′h) and M−(ζ

′h) on Billiard

King for any desired parameter. As a sanity check, we saw visually that ourcalculations above give the correct answer. Indeed, this is how we discoveredthe correct answer.

168

20.2.3 The Odd Family

The ridge doors on L+1 are given by

ζh =(p+ q + 2hp

2,q2 + 2hq2 + 4hpq − p2 − 2hp2

4q

). (314)

The Hexagrid Theorem predicts that the point

ζ ′h =(p + q + 2hp

2, floor

(q2 + 2hq2 + 4hpq − p2 − 2hp2

4q

))(315)

will be a vertex of a crossing cell. This is what we will prove in this section.We set ζ ′h = (mh, nh), as above. Let δ1 and δ2 respectively be the frac-

tional parts of

q2 + 2hq2 + 4hpq − p2 − 2hp2

4q;

(1 + 2h)(p+ q)2

4q. (316)

The second quantity is Amh + νh, where ζh = (mh, νh) and nh = floor(νh).

Lemma 20.7 δ1 + δ2 = 1.

Proof: The sum of the two quantities in Equation 316 is

p+ q

2+ h(2p+ q) ∈ Z.

Hence δ1 + δ2 ∈ 0, 1. If δ1 + δ2 = 0 then both quantities in Equation 316are integers. However, the second quantity cannot be an integer because itis never 0, and q is relatively prime to (p+ q)2. ♠

Lemma 20.8 δ1 6= δ2.

Proof: Same proof as above. ♠

The analysis of the odd family is just like the analysis in the even family,and leads to the two options

M−(ζ′

h) = (0, A, zh); M+(ζ′

h) = (0, A, zh), (317)

depending on whether δ1 < δ2 or δ2 < δ1. The calculations are very similarto what we did for the even family. We omit the details.

Remark: Again, the reader can check visually on Billiard King that thecalculations work out.

169

20.3 The Trough Doors

Consider the vectors

w =(0,

(p+ q)2

4p

); w′ = w + (q,−p) =

(q,−p+ (p+ q)2

4p

). (318)

Notice that the first coordinates of the points in Equation 318 are integers.We compute that the covolume of the lattice generated by w and w′ is

1

p× q × (p+ q)2

4. (319)

Lemma 20.9 Modulo the action of Ξ, there are exactly p distinct troughdoors.

Proof: We compute that the covolume of the lattice generated by w and w′

is1

p× q × (p+ q)2

4. (320)

Comparing this quantity to Equation 299, and arguing as in Lemma 20.1,we get the result. ♠

Lemma 20.10 Modulo the action of Ξ, every trough door is equivalent toζ ′h = hw.

Proof: All trough doors lie in the lattice generated by w and w′. Hence, thefirst coordinate of any trough door is divisible by q. But then we can subtractoff multiples of the vector (q,−p), one of the generators of Ξ, to arrange thatthe first coordinate is 0. The only trough doors with first coordinate 0 arethe ones of the form hw. ♠

Setting ζh = (0, νh), we let ζ ′h = (0, nh) where nh = floor(νh). We have

ζ ′h =(0, floor

(h(p+ q)2

4p

)). (321)

Lemma 20.11 M+(ζ′h) ≡ (A− y, y, 0) mod Λ. Here y ∈ (−A,A)− 0.

170

Proof: We compute that

µ(ζh) =(−A

0

)+

−h(p+q)2

2q

0

(322)

We also have

µ(ζ ′h)− µ(ζh) =(−2A(nh − νh)

0

)(323)

Therefore

µ(ζ ′h) =(−A + β

0

)+

−h(p+q)2

2q

0

, (324)

for some β ∈ (0, 2A). It follows from Lemma 19.4 that this point in Equation324 represents the same point in R3 mod Λ as (−A + β, 0). But

(−A+ β, 0) = (y, 0)

for some y ∈ (−A,A). But (y, 0) represents the point (A− y, y, 0) mod Λ.If y = 0 then β = A, which forces νh − nh = 1/2. But νh − nh = s/p for

some integer s. Since p is odd, this is a contradiction. Hence y 6= 0. ♠

We continue to use the notation from the previous lemma. If y ∈ (0, A),then M+(ζ

′h) lies on the diagonal line, as shown in Figure 20.2. From this

diagram, we see that M+(ζ′h) determines the vector (0, 1). Hence, ζ ′h is part

of a crossing cell.

(X,+) (Y,+)

Figure 20.2: The locations of M+(ζ′h) and M−(ζ

′h).

171

We continue to use the notation from the previous lemma. If y ∈ (−A, 0),then

M+(ζ′

h) ≡

1 + θ11 + θ2

0

; θ1, θ2 ∈ (0, A). (325)

Hence M+(ζ′k) is as shown in Figure 20.3. This time, M+(ζ

′h) determines the

vector (−1, 0). Hence, ζ ′h is part of a crossing cell.

(X,+) (Y,+)

Figure 20.3: The locations of M+(ζ′h) and M−(ζ

′h).

172

21 Proof of the Hexagrid Theorem II

21.1 Dealing with the Walls

We now set up the same kind of proof we gave in §17, except that we analyzethe situation near the lines L+

0 and L+1 . In the previous few chapters we

considered M+ and M− as maps from Z2 into R3 mod Λ. Now we find itconvenient to consider M+ and M− as maps from Z2 to R4, mod the affineaction Λ. The only difference is that we pad the 4th coordinate with an A.

We define the strips Σk(ǫ1, ǫ2) exactly as in §19.3. We find it convenientto slightly modify the regions we used in §19.3. Define

Ω(λ) = (x, y, z, A)| x+ y = A; z ∈ [0, 1) ∩ y| y ∈ [−A, λ]. (326)

We define

• P+(0, 1) = Ω(2A);

• P+(−1, 0) = Ω(1 + 2A);

• P+(−1,−1) = Ω(1);

• P ′+(−1, 1) = Ω(1 + 3A);

• P ′+(−1,−1) = Ω(1− A);

Note the parallels between the constants in our definition here, and theconstants listed in §19.3. The regions P ′(−1,−1) and P ′(1,−1) correspondto the two numbered remarks at the end of §19.3.

Before we state our result, we need one more technical definition. Wesay that (m,n) has special type if the following property holds. When weset M+(m,n) = (x, y, z, A) and normalize so that z ∈ [0, 1) then we havez < A. Essentially half the lattice points have special type. Let Σ′ denotethose points in Σ that have special type. The numbered comments at theend of §19.3 deal with these special lattice points.

Before we state our main result, we explain the relation between the setsΠ(λ) discussed in §19.2 and 19.3 and the regions P (λ) discussed here. Ifwe consider both polyhedra at the parameter A, then the slice of P (λ) isobtained from Π(λ) as shown in Figure 21.1.

173

P

Π

Figure 21.1: Π(λ) and a slice of P (λ).

The following results are immediate consequences of the analysis in §19.2and §19.3.

1. M+(Σ(0, 1)) ⊂ P+(0, 1).

2. M+(Σ(−1, 0)) ⊂ P+(−1, 0).

3. M+(Σ(−1,−1)) ⊂ P+(−1,−1).

4. M+(Σ′(1,−1)) ⊂ P ′

+(1,−1).

5. M+(Σ′(−1,−1)) ⊂ P ′

+(−1,−1).

6. If (m,n) ∈ Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2) andM+(m,n) = (2A,−A, z, A) mod Λ then z = 0.Here (ǫ1, ǫ2) is any of the pairs of interest to us.

7. If (m,n) ∈ Σ(−1,−1) and M+(−1,−1) is the left endpoint of a slice ofP+(−1,−1), then M+(m,n) = (2A− 1, 1− A,A,A) mod Λ.

We call these the confinement statements .It is easy to list the vertices of our sets P (λ). This polytope always has

8 vertices. 4 of the vertices occur at the level A = 0 and the other 4 occurat the level A = 1. The first 4 vertices are present for all the polytopes. Ingeneral, the vertices for Ω(ǫ1 + ǫ2A) are

0000

0010

2−101

2−111

ǫ1ǫ100

ǫ1ǫ110

1− ǫ1 − ǫ2ǫ1 + ǫ2

01

1− ǫ1 − ǫ2ǫ1 + ǫ2

11

(327)

174

21.2 A Polygon Intersection Problem

Before we state our disjointness results, we need a few more definitions. Firstof all, we define

X− = X+ − (1, 1, 0, 0), (328)

for each object X of interest to us.Let π : R4 → R2 be projection into the (z, A) plane. The image π(R) is

the unit square B. Recall that we have split B into 4 regions. Now we write

B = B′ ∪ B′′; B′ = (z, A)| z ≤ A; B′′ = (z, A)| z ≥ A (329)

All the lattice points of special type map into π−1(R′). We define

X ′ = X ∩ π−1(B′); X ′′ = X ∩ π−1(B′′), (330)

for each object X of interest to us.Now we can state our main disjointness result. We will illustrate these

results with pictures in the next section. Using the same method as in §17,we show that

• P±(0, 1) and R±(0, 1) have disjoint interiors.

• P±(−1, 0) and R±(−1, 0) have disjoint interiors.

• P ′±(−1, 1) and R±(−1, 1) have disjoint interiors.

• P ′±(−1,−1) and R′

±(−1,−1) have disjoint interiors.

• P±(−1,−1) and R′′±(−1,−1) have disjoint interiors.

Now we can state the crucial difference between our proof here and ourproof in §17. If we add the small vector (α, α, α, 0) to the sets from Lemma17.1, we remain in these sets. However, if we add the vector (α, α, α, 0) toΩ(λ), then we move off these sets. This difference is responsible for the factthat the lines of positive slope in the room grid are not perfect barriers. Whathappens is that sometimes there are points in a given slice of P that lie in thelower boundary of some polygons of the corresponding slice of R. Here lowerboundary refers to the discussion in §10.2.5. Put another way, there are somepoints of the slice of P that can be pushed an arbitrarily small amount in thedirection of (1, 1), so that they lie in the interior of a supposedly excludedpolygon of the corresponding slice of R. The rest of this chapter is devotedto analyzing this situation.

175

21.3 The Nature of the Crossings

Figure 21.2 shows a line segment of slope −1, together with 4 polygons,labelled 0, 1, 2, 3. The thickened regions (two points and a line segment)denote points on the line segment that lie on a lower boundary of a polygon.Notice that the top left point does not have this property. The polygonlabelled 0 is irrelevant to our discussion.

1

2

0

3

Figure 21.2: Crossing types within a slice

We call the union of the thickened regions the contact region for the slice,and we call any point in a contact region a contact point . In terms of theHexagrid Theorem, the segment in Figure 21.2 represents a slice of one ourP sets. The polygons represent various slices of polytopes in our R sets. Thearithmetic graph Γ crosses the line L+

k at the point (m,n) only if M− or M+

maps (m,n) into the contact region for some slice.We will finish the proof of the Hexagrid Theorem by analyzing exactly

which lattice points can get mapped into the contact region. It turns out thatthe lattice points that get mapped into the contact points are canonically inbijection with the crossing cells we analyzed in the previous chapter. Ourproof appeals to the visual inspection of the slices, which can be done usingBilliard King. Alternatively, one can verify all the claims made by inspectingthe vertices of our polytopes. Given that our polytopes have disjoint interiorsand integer vertices, this inspection is not difficult. We cannot show thepicture for every slice, but at the end of the chapter we will show all thetopological possibilities for the slices that arise in our proof. The reader cansee a much more extensive array of slices playing with Billiard King.

176

21.4 Special Points of Contact

21.4.1 Right Endpoints

Let (m,n) ∈ Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2). In this section we deal with the case that M±(m,n)is an endpoint of the slice of P±(ǫ1, ǫ2) that contains it. We call such a pointan endpoint of contact

According to the Confinement Statement 6, the point M(m,n) is theright endpoint of our slice only if

M+(m,n) = (2A,−A, 0, A) mod Λ. (331)

Note that (0, 0) satisfies Equation 331. Lemma 18.4 now says that

(m,n) ≡ (0, 0) mod Ξ. (332)

Recall that both the arithmetic graph and the hexagrid are invariant un-der Ξ. Hence, uur discussion gives a complete explanation of the crossing cellsof the arithmetic graph corresponding to these right endpoints of contact.

21.4.2 Left Endpoints

Inspecting the pictures of the slices on Billiard King, or else looking at theformulas for the vertices, we see that the only time the top left endpointof a (z, A)-slice of P+(ǫ1, ǫ2) is a contact point occurs when z = A and(ǫ1, ǫ2) = (−1,−1).

According to the Confinement Statement 7, if (m,n) ∈ Σ(−1,−1) andM+(−1,−1) is the left endpoint of a slice of P+(−1,−1), then

M+(m,n) = (2A− 1, 1−A,A,A) mod Λ. (333)

But (1, 1) is a point satisfying Equation 333. Lemma 18.4 now says that

(m,n) ≡ (1, 1) mod Ξ. (334)

Again, this gives a complete explanation of the crossing cells correspondingto the left endpoints of contact. Note that (0, 0) and (1, 1) both belong to thesame crossing cell. Note that (0, 0) and (1, 1) are part of the same crossingcell. The whole cell is the union of the two edges emanating from (0, 0). Thiscell is present in the arithmetic graph for every parameter.

177

21.4.3 A Special Interior Point

We computeM+(0,−1) = (0, A, 0, A) mod Λ (335)

The point (0,−1) lies on the boundary of the strip Σ(−1, 1) defined for L+0 .

We check visually that the point M+(−1, 1) is an interior point of contactin the (0, A) slice, and that the region of contact is a polygonal slice ofP+(−1, 1). Here is a picture of the slice.

Figure 21.3. A special point of contact.

Suppose (m,n) ∈ Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2) is some other point such that M+(m,n) hasthe same kind interior contact point. Inspecting the pictures from BilliardKing — see below — we see that the interior contact point only exists for theslice (0, A). Given that M+(m,n) must be the lower left corner of a polygonof type (−1, 1), and there is at most one such polygon per slice, we see thatin fact

M+(m,n) = (0, A, 0, A). (336)

Hence(m,n) ≡ (0,−1) mod Ξ. (337)

This crossing cell is Ξ-equivalent to the edge with vertices (0,−1) and (−1, 0).This cell is present in the arithmetic graph for every parameter.

178

21.5 Segments of Contact

Let (m,n) ∈ Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2). In this section we deal with the case that M±(m,n)lies in a segment of contact on the slice of P±(m,n) that contains it. Lookingat the figures from Billiard King, or else comparing the vertices of the variousregions, we see that this situation only arises if the slice in question is the(0, A) slice. That is

M±(m,n) = (−y + A, y, 0, A). (338)

This implies that Am+n ∈ Z. Recalling that A = p/q, we see that q dividesm. But then we can find a new point

(0, n′) = (m,n)− a(q,−p)

In other words, (m,n) is Ξ-equivalent to a point of for form (0, n′).For ease of notation, we set n = n′. Thus, we just have to deal with points

of the form (0, n). The point (0, n) lies on a line of the door multigrid, namelythe line x = 0. Inspecting the pictures for the case (ǫ1, ǫ2), or else lookingexplicitly at the vertices, we find that the the segment of contact picture onlyarises for the pair (0, 1). See the figures below. But if (0, n) ∈ Σ(0, 1), thenby definition (0, n) and (0, n+ 1) lie on different sides of some line L+

k .In conclusion, the crossing cells corresponding to these segments of con-

tact are precisely the crossing cells associated to the trough crossings, asdiscussed in the previous chapter.

21.6 Isolated Interior Points of Contact

Let (m,n) ∈ Σ(ǫ1, ǫ2). In this section, we deal with the case that M±(m,n)is an isolated interior point of contact on the slice of P±(ǫ1, ǫ2). This is theonly remaining case, so (if the Hexagrid Theorem is true) these must accountfor the other kind of wall crossing.

Inspecting the pictures from Billiard King, or else comparing the vertices,we see that this case does not occur for the pair (−1,−1). We have alreadyanalyzed the one case where this situation occurs for the pair (−1, 1).

It remains to deal with points in Σ(−1, 0) and Σ(0, 1) that give rise tothese points. Note that Σ(0, 1) ⊂ Σ(−1, 0), because the lines L+

k have slopein (1,∞). So, rather than deal with both Σ(−1, 0) and Σ(0, 1), we will justdescribe the points (m,n) ∈ Σ(−1, 0) such thatM±(m,n) is in interior pointof contact for either P±(0,−1) or P±(1, 0).

179

There is a beautiful picture we can draw, which encapsulates all theinformation in one picture. We draw the the slice of the following sets

• P+(−1, 0);

• R+(−1, 0);

• R+(0, 1);

• R−(−1, 0) + (1, 1, 0, 0);

• R−(0, 1) + (1, 1, 0, 0).

The points of interior contact between the segment in this picture (the firstset) and any of the other sets accounts for an isolated interior point of contactbetween P±(m,n) and either R±(0,−1) or R±(1, 0), and conversely. Thepoint is simply that

X− = X+ + (1, 1, 0, 0), (339)

for each symbol X ∈ M,R, P.Inspecting the figures from Billiard King, or else looking at the vertices

directly, we see that there are always two such points of contact in ourpicture—as long as we are not on the (0, A) fiber. This one fiber requiresspecial treatment, and we will supply it below. Figure 21.4 shows a typicalexample. The two interior points of contact appear in the bottom half of thesegment.

Figure 21.4 also shows that our slice of P+(−1, 0) intersects R+(0, 1). Thisis not any contradiction to our disjointness result. What the disjointnessresult rules out is the possibility that the shorter segment, a slice of P+(0, 1),crosses the slice of R+(0, 1). To be sure, Figure 21.5 shows the same picture,but with the slice of P+(0, 1) replacing the slice of P+(−1, 0). This shorterslice does not cross any of the polygons, as predicted by the intersectionresult.

180

Figure 21.4: Isolated interior points of contact.

181

Figure 21.5: The disjointness result confirmed.

We will now use the Pidgeonhole principle to find a bijection between allthese points of contact and the wall crossings (of the second type) predictedby the Hexagrid Theorem. The interior points of contact occur at the lowervertices of polygons obtained by slicing R±(0, 1) and R±(−1, 0). From thisfact, and from an inspection of the pictures, we see that the points of contacthave one of two forms:

M+(m,n) ≡ (A, 0, z, A) mod Λ; z ∈ (0, 1). (340)

orM+(m,n) ≡ (0, A, z, A) mod Λ; z ∈ (0, 1) (341)

Moreover, exactly one of these forms is an interior point of contact. Nowz = s/q for some integer s. Hence there are exactly q − 1 interior pointsof contact. On the other hand, Lemma 20.1 gives q distinct points mod Ξwhere a ridge line crosses a wall. One of these points is (0, 0). Hence, thereare q − 1 remaining doors.

In the previous chapter, we say that every ridge crossing had a corre-sponding crossing cell. One of these ridge crossings was the point (0, 0). Tothe remaining ridge crossings—the generic ones—we associated crossing cellsof the kind we are discussing here. Thus, the crossing cells associated to theq−1 generic ridge crossings compately account for, and are in bijection with,the isolated interior points of contact.

This completes our proof of the Hexagrid Theorem.

182

21.7 A Visual Tour

For each relevant pair, we will show most of the topological possibilities forthe sets

P+(ǫ1, ǫ2); R+(ǫ1, ǫ2); R−(ǫ1, ǫ2) + (1, 1, 0, 0).

When appropriate we will replace P (ǫ1, ǫ2) with P′(ǫ1, ǫ20.

Figure 21.6: Generic slices for P ′(1,−1).

183

Figure 21.7: The z = 0 slice of P ′(−1, 1).

184

Figure 21.8: Generic slices of P (−1, 0).

185

Figure 21.9: Two z = 0 slices of P (−1, 0).

In this picture, the line segment extends all the way down to the bottom(acute) corner of the dark triangle. Hence, there is a whole interval of contact.

186

Figure 21.10: Generic slices of P (0, 1).

187

Figure 21.11: A z = 0 slice of P (0, 1).

188

Figure 21.12: A slice of P ′(−1,−1) for which z < A.

Figure 21.13: A slice of P (−1,−1) for which z > A.

189

Part IVIn this part of the monograph we use the Master Picture Theorem to provethe Copy Theorem and the Decomposition Theorem, two technical resultsleft over from Part I. Here is an overview of the material.

• In §22 we prove the Weak Copy Theorem. The Copy Theorem sub-sumes the Weak Copy Theorem, but we find it useful to first provethe weaker result. Proving the weaker result first allows to present themain ideas in the proof without worrying too much about some finepoints in the argument.

• In §23 we prove the Copy Theorem. Our proof of the strong version isvery similar to our proof of the weak version, but we need to pay moreattention to the fine details. At the end of §23 we state an effectiveversion of the Copy Theorem.

• In §24 we use the effective version of the Copy Theorem to prove theInduction Lemma, a result that exactly parallels Lemma 7.2, our struc-ture result about odd rational approximation. The Induction Lemmagives us sharp statements about the period copying phenomenon.

• In §25 we use prove the Decomposition Theorem. There are two in-gredients in the proof. The first ingredient is the existence of a certaindividing line, discussed in §3.6. The second ingredient is the InductionLemma.

190

22 Proof of the Weak Copy Theorem

22.1 Setting up the Problem

We will concentrate on the Weak Copy Theorem I. At the very end of thechapter, we will explain the small modifications needed to handle the WeakCopy Theorem II.

When A is an odd rational, the arithmetic graph Γ is defined in terms ofthe map

Mα(m,n) = 2Am+ 2n+ 2α.

The canonical choice for α is 1/(2q). However, any choice of α ∈ (0, 1/q)yields the same arithmetic graph. In this chapter we wish to compare thearithmetic graphs based on two parameters A1 and A2. We would like tochoose the same parameter value α for both graphs. We do this by choosingα much smaller than 1/q22. In fact, we think of α as an infinitesimally smallpositive number, present simply because the numbers 2Am + 2n lie in theforbidden set 2Z[A].

According to the hypotheses of the Weak Copy Theorem I, we supposethat

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

1

Kq21. (342)

Under these conditions, our goal is to show that Γ1 and Γ2 agree at any latticepoint (m,n) ∈ Λ(1, K) that is sufficiently far away from L−(−1) ∪ L−(K).

For convenience, we recall the definition of these sets. The region Λ(1, K)is bounded by the lines L0 and L−(−1) and L+(K). The latter two lines areparallel to the top edges of the arithmetic kite Q(A1), and are defined by theintersections

L0 ∩ L− = (−q1, p1); L0 ∩ L+ = (Kq1,−Kp1). (343)

Here L0 is the baseline of Γ(p1/q1). For ease of notation we often write

L− = L−(−1); L+ = L+(K); Λ = Λ(−1, K). (344)

Remark: The reader will see in our proof that “sufficiently far” can be takento be “about 3 units”. In the next chapter we will tighten our argument andtry to get as good a handle as possible on what “sufficiently far” really means.

191

22.2 Input from the Master Picture Theorem

The Master Picture Theorem implies that the local picture of Γ at each point(m,n) depends on the locaton of the points M+(m,n) and M−(m,n) in thepolyhedron R = (0, 1 + A)2 × (0, 1). Here

M+(m,n) = (Am+ n,Am+ n+ 1, Am+ n) + (α, α, α). (345)

M−(m,n) = (Am+ n− 1, Am+ n,Am+ n) + (α, α, α). (346)

modulo the lattice

Λ =

1 + A 1− A −10 1 + A −10 0 1

Z3 (347)

Let (m,n) ∈ Λ be a lattice point that is sufficiently far from L−∪L+. Ourstrategy is to show that the polyhedra containing M+(m,n) and M+(m,n)are independent of whether the maps and partitions are defined relative toA1 or to A2. We only care about the components Γ1 and Γ2 of Γ1 and Γ2,but our argument works for the entire arithmetic graph. Indeed, our proof iscompletely insensitive to the notion of a topological component of the graph.

We first make a general comment about the problem we want to solve.In theory we just have to compute Equations 345 and 347 for the latticepoints of interest to us, and see that the polyhedra containing the imagesare independent of parameter. The polyhedra in our partitions are definedas the intersections of various halfspaces. Thus, we really need to see thatthe images of our lattice points lie on the same sides of various planes. Fromhere it is clear that we are dealing with a kind of Diophantine approximationproblem. The general form of the conditions in our Copy Theorems arisein this way. Given that our polyhedron partition is defined by 4 families ofparallel planes, it is perhaps not so surprising that the mismatch set MΓconcentrates along 4 families of parallel lines.

Now we come to practical matters. In practice, our reduction algorithmfrom §10.1.1 tells us how to compute the points M+(m,n) and M−(m,n).Below we will work out what the reduction algorithm tells what we needto do. We will consider the case of M− until the very end of the chapter,when we deal with M+. Below, θ1, θ2 ∈ −1, 0, 1. Here is what we mustdo to prove that M−(m,n) lies in the same polyhedron, independent of theparameter.

192

1. Let zj = Ajm+ n+ α.

2. Let Zj = floor(xj).

3. We prove that Z1 = Z2. Let Z = Z1 = Z2. We also prove that thestatement

zj − Z < θ1Aj + θ2

has the same truth value independent of j ∈ 1, 2. We mean this tohold for any relevant choice of θ1 and θ2.

4. Let yj = zj + Z.

5. Let Yj = floor(yj/(1 + Aj).

6. We prove that Y1 = Y2. Let Y = Y1 = Y2. We also prove that thestatement

yj − Y (1 + Aj) < θ1Aj + θ2

has the same truth value independent of j ∈ 1, 2. We mean this tohold for any relevant choice of θ1 and θ2.

7. Let xj = yj − Y (1−Aj)− 1.

8. Let Xj = floor(xj/(1 + Aj)).

9. We prove that X1 = X2. Let X = X1 = X2. We also prove that

xj −X(1 + Aj) < θ1Aj + θ2

has the same truth value independent of j ∈ 1, 2. We mean this tohold for any relevant choice of θ1 and θ2.

10. We want to see that all of the statements

(xj −X(1 + Aj)) + (yj − Y (1 + Aj))− (zj − Z) < h+ Aj; h ∈ Z

has the same truth value independent of j ∈ 1, 2.

193

22.3 Good Integers

We say that an integer µ is good if µA1+α and µA2+α have the same floors.Otherwise we call µ bad.

Before we start proving that certain integers are good, we make a generalremark. Since q1 is odd, there is a unique M ∈ Z such that

µA1 =M +j

q1; |j| < q1

2(348)

Lemma 22.1 Suppose µ ∈ (−q1, 0) ∩Z. Then µ is good.

Proof: If this result is false, then there is some integer N such that

µA2 + α < N < µA1 + α. (349)

Referring to Equation 348, we have

|j|q1

≤ |µA1−N | < µA1−µA2+α <|µ|Kq21

+α <1

q1− 1

Kq21+α <

1

q1. (350)

This forces j = 0 in Equation 348. But then q1 divides µ, which is impossiblefor µ ∈ (−q1, 0). ♠

Lemma 22.2 Suppose µ ∈ (0, Kq1). Then µ is good.

Proof: We will suppose that this result is false and derive a contradiction.There is an integer N such that

µA1 + α < N < µA2 + α. (351)

Referring to Equation 348, we have

|j|q1

≤ N − µA1 < µ(A2 −A1) + α <µ

Kq21+ α <

1

q1− 1

Kq21+ α <

1

q1. (352)

Hence j = 0. But then, µA1 + α is a tiny bit bigger than an integer. Butthen the difference between the left and right hand sides of Equation 351 is,at smallest, just a bit smaller than 1. Hence

1

2< µA2 − µA1 ≤

1

q1,

a contradiction. ♠

194

22.4 Good Integers and Linear Functionals

In this section, we set ζ = ζ1 for each quantity ζ that depends on p1/q1. Weuse the notation a ≈k b to indicate that |a− b| ≤ k.

We introduce the linear functional

f−(m,n) =(q − p

p+ q,−2q

p+ q

)· (m,n). (353)

We compute thatf−(hq,−hp) = hq. (354)

We also compute that the fibers of f− are parallel to L−. Referring to Figure3.1, this computation amounts to showing that f−(v6) = f−(v3).

Lemma 22.3 If (m,n) ∈ Λ is more than 2 units from L− ∪L+ then m− Y1is good.

Proof: We have y1 ≈1 2z1, and

Y1 ≈1y1

1 + A≈1

2z11 + A

. (355)

Therefore

m− Y1 ≈2 m− 2(Am+ n)

A+ 1= f−(m,n).

the last equality comes from setting A = p/q and expanding. If (m,n) ismore than 2 units inside Λ then f−(m,n) ∈ (−q1 + 2, Kq1 − 2). This givesm− Y1 ∈ (−q1, Kq1). ♠

Lemma 22.4 Let (m,n) ∈ Λ. If (m ∈ −q,Kq) and (m,n) lies at least 2units from L− ∪ L+, then m−X is a good integer.

Proof: By construction, we have X ∈ [−1, Y ]. Therefore

m−X ∈ [m− Y,m+ 1].

This result now follows from the previous one. ♠

195

We also introduce the linear functional

f+(m,n) =(−p2 + 4pq+q2

(p+ q)2,2q(q − p)

(p+ q)2

)· (m,n). (356)

We compute thatf+(hq,−hp) = hq. (357)

We also compute that the fibers of f+ are parallel to L+. Referring to Figure3.1, this computation amounts to showing that f+(v7) = f+(v3).

Lemma 22.5 If (m,n) ∈ Λ is at least 2 units from L−∪L+ then m+Y −Xis a good integer.

Proof: We have

Y −X ≈1y − x

1 + A=Y (1−A) + 1

1 + A≈1 2z

1−A

(1 + A)2(358)

Expanding this out, we have

m+ Y −X ≈2 f+(m,n).

The rest of the proof is the same as in Lemma 22.3. ♠

Now we return the subscripts to indicate that our quantities all dependon p1/q1.

Corollary 22.6 There is a universal constant C with the following property.Suppose θ ∈ −1, 0, 1 and (m,n) ∈ Λ is more than C units from L− ∪ L+,then the following numbers are all good.

m− θ; m− Y1 − θ; m−X1 − θ; m+ Y1 −X1 + θ.

Proof: This is clear from what we have already proved. Indeed, we takeC = 3. ♠

196

22.5 The Utility of Good Integers

Here we prove two technical results that connect up the notion of good inte-gers with the Copy Theorem.

Lemma 22.7 Let d ≥ 0 be an integer. Suppose µ, η ∈ Z. Let Nj be theinteger such that

Nj(dAj + 1) < µAj + ν + α < (Nj + 1)(dAj + 1).

Suppose µ− dN1 and µ− dN2 are both good integers. Then N1 = N2.

Proof: Suppose first that N1 < N2. In this case we set N = N2 and we notethat

µA1 + ν + α < N(dA1 + 1); N(dA2 + 1) > µA2 + ν + α.

But then(µ− dN)A1 + α < N − ν < (µ− dN)A2 + α.

This contradicts the fact that µ − dN2 is good. If N1 > N2 we set N = N1

and get the same equations with the inequalities reversed. This contradictsthe fact that µ− dN1 is good. ♠

Lemma 22.8 Let d ≥ 0 be an integer and. Suppose µ, η ∈ Z. Let N be aninteger. The truth of the statement

(µAj + η + α)−N(dAj + 1) < θ1A1 + θ2

is independent of j provided that µ− dN − θ1 is good.

Proof: The proof is almost the same as in Lemma 22.7. If the above state-ment is true for j = 1 and false for j = 2 then we get the inequalities

(µ− dN − θ1)A1 + α < θ2 +N − ν < (µ− dN − θ1)A2,

and this contradicts the fact that µ− dN − θ1 is good. We get a similar con-tradiction, with the inequalities reversed, if the statement is true for j = 1and false for j = 2. ♠

197

22.6 Comparing the Two Reductions

Now we carry out the outline discussed in §22.2. Suppose (m,n) ∈ Λ issufficiently far away from L− ∪ L+.

• We have zj = mAj + n. To see that Z1 = Z2 we apply Lemma 22.6and Lemma 22.7 to the case (µ, d,Nj) = (m, 0, Zj). The relevant goodinteger is m. Let Z = Z1 = Z2.

• To see that the truth of the statement zj − Z < θ1Aj + θ2 is trueindependent of j, we apply Lemma 22.6 and Lemma 22.8 to the case(µ, d,N) = (m, 0, Z). The relevant good integer is m− θ1.

• We have yj = mAj +n′ for some n′ ∈ Z. To see that Y1 = Y2 we applyLemma 22.6 and Lemma 22.7 to the case (µ, d,Nj) = (m, 1, Yj). Therelevant good integers are m− Y1 and m− Y2. We set Y = Y1 = Y2.

• To see that the truth of the statement yj − Y (A1 + 1) < θ1Aj + θ2 istrue independent of j, we apply Lemma 22.6 and Lemma 22.8 to thecase (µ, d,N) = (m, 1, Y ). The relevant good integer is m− Y − θ1.

• We have xj = (m+Y )Aj+n′′+α for some n′′ ∈ Z. To see thatX1 = X2

we apply Lemma 22.6 and Lemma 22.7 to the case (µ, d,Nj) = (m +Y, 1, Xj). The relevant good numbers are m+Y −X1 and m+Y −X2.We set X = X1 = X2.

• To see that the truth of the statement xj − (1 + Aj)X < θ1Aj + θ2 isindependent of j = 1, 2 we apply Lemma 22.6 and Lemma 22.8 to thecase (µ, d,N) = (m+Y, 1, X). The relevant good number ismY −X−θ1.

• Define

σj = (xj −X(1 + Aj)) + (yj − Y (1 + Aj))− (zj − Z).

We have σj = (m−X)Aj+n′′′ for some n′′′ ∈ Z. Let h ∈ Z be arbitrary.

To see that the truth of the statement σj < Aj + h is independent ofj we apply Lemma 22.6 and Lemma 22.8 to (µ, d,N) = (m−X, 1, 0).The relevant good number is m−X − 1.

This completes our proof for the map M−.

198

22.7 The Plus Case

So far we have given the proof of the Weak Copy Theorem I for the mapM−. The proof for M+ is the same, except that our reduction algorithm isslightly different. The list of steps is identical to what we have above, exceptthat Step 4, namely

4. Let yj = zj + Zj .

is replaced by

4’. Let yj = zj + Zj + 1.

This tiny change has no effect on the statement of Lemma 22.6, as longas we are willing to enlarge the constant C a bit if necessary. (Perhaps wewould need C = 4.)

22.8 The Weak Copy Theorem II

Now we will prove the Weak Copy Theorem II. Our new hypothesis is thatK is an integer such that

0 <p1q1

− p2q2<

1

Kq21. (359)

Once we establish the statements corresponding to Lemmas 22.1 and 22.2,the rest of the proof is the same. We will explain what happens for Lemma22.1, and the reader will see what is going on.

Lemma 22.9 Suppose µ ∈ (0, q1) ∩Z. Then µ is good.

Proof: Our proof here only requires K = 1. If this result is false, then thereis some N such that

µA2 + α < N < µA1 + α. (360)

Notice that Equation 360 is identical to Equation 349. The rest of the proofgoes through word for word, except that the conclusion that q1 divides µcontradicts the statement that µ ∈ (0, q1). ♠

The translation of Lemma 22.2 works in the same way.

199

23 Proof the Copy Theorem

23.1 Overview

Our proof of the Copy Theorem is identical to the proof of the Weak CopyTheorem, except for the material in §22.3. We need to prove Lemmas 22.2and 22.1 under the hypotheses given in the Copy Theorem. We will justtreat the case of the Copy Theorem I, where A1 < A2. The other case hasessentially the same proof, just as the Weak Copy Theorem II had essentiallythe same proof as the Weak Copy Theorem I. In the Copy Theorem I, thereare 3 options. The third option is the same as in the Weak Copy TheoremI. For this reason, we just have to deal with the first two options.

In §23.2 we will prove the replacement for Lemma 22.2. In §23.3 we willprove the replacements for Lemma 22.1. After we finish the proof of theCopy Theorem, we will prove a more effective version. We need the effectiveversion to prove the Decomposition Theorem.

23.2 The Lower Bound

As in §22.3, we say that an integer µ is good if µA1 + α and µA2 + α havethe same floors. Otherwise we call µ bad.

We remind the reader of Equation 348 from the previous chapter. Sinceq1 is odd, there is a unique M ∈ Z such that

µA1 =M +j

q1; |j| < q1

2(361)

Let κ be as in the Copy Theorem. If κ ≥ 2, then we get the bound

0 <p22q2

− p1q1<

1

q21

and the same argument as in Lemma 22.1 establishes Lemma 22.1 in ourcurrent setting. The only case that requires a new proof is the conditionthat κ = 1 and λ1 < 1/2. This is to say that

0 < A2 − A1 =p22q2

− p1q1<

2

q21(362)

Recall that λ1 = a/q1, where ap1 + 1 ≡ 0 mod q1. We have the followingimplication for an integer µ.

200

µ ∈ (−q1, 0) and µp1 ≡ 1 mod q1 =⇒ µ = −λ1q1. (363)

Lemma 23.1 Suppose µ ∈ (−q1, 0) ∩Z. Then µ is good.

Proof: Again we will argue by contradiction. There is some integer N suchthat

µA2 + α < N < µA1 + α.

Moreover,

− α < µA1 −N < µA1 − µA2 <2

q1. (364)

The bounds in Equation 364 force M = N and j ≥ 0 in Equation 361.Substituting M for N in Equation 364, we have

j

q1= µA1 −M <

2

q1.

This equation shows that j ∈ 0, 1. If j = 0 then q1 divides µ, which isimpossible for µ ∈ (−q1, 0). Hence j = 1.

Now that we know j = 1 we can feed a stronger estimate into Equation350. Equation 361 implies

µp1q1

− 1

q1∈ Z.

But then µp1 ≡ 1 mod q1. Equation 363 now tells us that

µ = −λ1q1. (365)

Given that λ1 < 1/2, we have

|µ| ≤ q1 − 1

2. (366)

Here we are using the fact that q1 is odd. But we can use this strongerestimate in Equation 364 to conclude that

1

q1= µA1 −M < |µ|(A1 − A2) <

1

q1.

This is a contradiction. ♠

201

23.3 The Upper Bound

23.3.1 Case 1

We suppose that κ is odd and λ1 < 1/2. In this case K = (κ+ 1)/2 + λ1.

Lemma 23.2 Suppose µ ∈ (0, Kq1) ∩Z. Then µ is good.

Proof: We will suppose that this result is false and derive a contradiction. Ifµ < κq1/2 then we get the same contradiction as in Lemma 22.2. Therefore,the case we need to consider is

µ ∈[κq12,(κ+ 1)q1

2+ λ1q1

). (367)

There is an integer N such that

µA1 + α < N < µA2 + α.

Referring to Equation 361, we have

|j|q1

≤ N − µA1 < µ(A2 − A1) + α <2µ

κq21+ α <

2

q1− 2

κq21+ α <

2

q1. (368)

These bounds force M = N and j ∈ −1, 0, 1 in Equation 361. But nowwe see that

j

q1= µA1 −M = µA1 −N < 0. (369)

Hence j ∈ 0, 1. If j = 0 then q1 divides µ. But this contradicts Equation367. The point here is that the left endpoint is not an integer, because κ isodd.

Now we know that j = −1. But then Equation 361 tells us that µq1+1 ≡ 0mod q1. Referring to the definition of λ1, we see that µ ≡ a mod q1. In otherwords, there is an integer K ′ such that

µ = (K ′ + λ1)q1. (370)

Equation 367 tells us that

K ′ <κ+ 1

2. (371)

Therefore

µ ≤(κ− 1

2+ λ1

)q1 <

κ

2q1,

and this contradicts Equation 367. ♠

202

23.3.2 Case 2

We suppose that κ is even and λ1 > 1/2. In this case K = κ/2 + λ1.

Lemma 23.3 Suppose µ ∈ (0, Kq1) ∩Z. Then µ is good.

Proof: We will suppose that this result is false and derive a contradiction. Ifµ ≤ κq1/2 then we get the same contradiction as in Lemma 22.2. Therefore,the case we need to consider is

µ ∈[κq12

+ 1,κq12

+ λ1q1

). (372)

The same considerations as in Lemma 23.2 force j = −1 in Equation 361.But then Equation 370 holds for µ. Given Equation 372, the only possibilityis K ′ = κ/2. That is

µ =κ

2+ λ1q1. (373)

But this contradicts Equation 372. ♠

23.4 An Effective Formulation

Recall that Λ(r, s) is the region bounded by the lines L0, L−(r) and L+(s).Here L−(r) is the line through the point r(−q, p) that is parallel to the topleft edge of the arithmetic kite Q(A), and L+(s) is the line through the points(q,−p) that is parallel to the top right edge of Q(A).

Define

L−(r; d) = L−(r +d

q); L+(s; d) = L+(s−

d

q). (374)

Here we think of r < 0 < s, and d > 0. Let Λ(r, s; d) denote the region ob-tained from Λ(r, s) by replacing L−(r) with L−(r; d) and L+(s) with L+(s; d).When d is a small positive integer, the region Λ(r, s; d) is just a bit smallerthan Λ(r, s).

Referring to the linear functionals discussed in §22.4, we have

L−(r; d) = f−1− (qr + d); L+(s; d) = f−1

+ (qs− d). (375)

This equation is a clue that these lines might have something to do with theCopy Theorem.

Here is our effective version of the Copy Theorem I.

203

Theorem 23.4 (Effective Copy I) Suppose that κ ≥ 1 is an integer suchthat

0 <p2q2

− p1q1<

2

κq21.

• If κ is odd and λ1 < 1/2 we set K = (κ+ 1)/2 + λ1.

• If κ is even and λ1 > 1/2 we set K = κ/2 + λ1.

• Otherwise we set K = floor(κ/2).

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lattice point contained in Λ(−1, K; 3).

Here is our effective version of the Copy Theorem II.

Theorem 23.5 (Effective Copy II) There is a universal constant C1 withthe following property. Suppose that κ ≥ 1 is an integer such that

0 <p1q1

− p2q2<

2

κq21.

• If κ is odd and λ1 > 1/2 we set K = (κ+ 1)/2 + (1− λ1).

• If κ is even and λ1 < 1/2 we set K = κ/2 + (1− λ1).

• Otherwise we set K = floor(κ/2).

Then Γ1 and Γ2 agree on any lattice point in Λ1(−K, 1; 3).

These results are proved exactly as we proved the Copy Theorems. Theonly difference is that we need to keep more careful track of the constantsin §22.4. Accordingly, we will now re-do this section in a slightly differentway. We will give the proof of the Sharp Copy Theorem I. The Sharp CopyTheorem II has essentially the same proof.

23.5 Linear Functionals and Good Integers Revisited

Our proof again uses the linear functionals that we introduced in §22.4,namely:

f−(m,n) =(q − p

p+ q,−2q

p+ q

)· (m,n). (376)

204

f+(m,n) =(−p2 + 4pq+q2

(p+ q)2,2q(q − p)

(p+ q)2

)· (m,n). (377)

We will carry out most of the analysis for the case of the map M−, justas we did in §22.4. At the end, we will briefly consider the case of M+.

We set α = α1 for each quantity that depends on p1/q1. We also setL− = L−(−1) and L+ = L+(K).

Lemma 23.6 Let θ ∈ −1, 0, 1. Then m−θ is a good integer provided thatm ∈ (−q1 + 1, Kq1).

Proof: The conditions guarantee that m − θ ∈ (−q1, Kq1). Lemmas 22.2and 22.1 now apply. ♠

Lemma 23.7 Let θ ∈ −1, 0, 1. Then m−Y −θ is a good integer providedthat f−(m,n) ∈ (−q + 1, Kq − 3).

Proof: We have y ∈ [2z − 1, 2z], and

Y ∈[

y

1 + A− 1,

y

1 + A

]⊂[

2z

1 + A− 1− 1

1 + A,

2z

1 + A

]. (378)

Using z = Am+ n and A = p/q, we get

m− Y ∈[f−(m,n), f−(m,n) + 1 +

1

1 + A

]. (379)

If f−(m,n) > −q + 1 then m− Y − θ > −q + 1. If f−(m,n) < Kq − 3 then

m− Y − θ < Kq − 2 + 1 +1

1 + A< Kq.

Since m− Y − θ is an integer, we have m− Y − θ < Kq. All in all, we havem− Y − θ ∈ (−q,Kq). Lemmas 22.2 and 22.1 now apply. ♠

Lemma 23.8 Let θ ∈ −1, 0, 1. Then m−X−θ is a good integer providedthat m ∈ (−q,Kq) and f−(m,n) ∈ (−q + 1, Kq − 3).

205

Proof: By construction, we have X ∈ [−1, Y ]. Therefore

m−X ∈ [m− Y,m+ 1].

This result now follows from the previous one. ♠

Lemma 23.9 Let θ ∈ −1, 0, 1. Then m + Y − X − θ is a good integerprovided that f+(m,n) ∈ (−q + 3, Kq − 3).

Proof: We have

Y ∈[

y

1 + A− 1

y

1 + A

]; X ∈

[x

1 + A− 1

x

1 + A

].

Therefore

Y −X ∈[y − x

1 + A− 1,

y − x

1 + A+ 1

](380)

We also havey − x

1 + A= Y

1− A

1 + A+

1

1 + A(381)

Equation 378 gives us

Y1− A

1 + A∈[2z

1−A

(1 + A)2− η, 2z

1−A

(1 + A)2

]; η =

(1 +

1

1 + A

)× 1−A

1 + A.

Observing that

1

1 + A− η =

A2 + 2A− 1

(1 + A)2∈ (−1,

1

2),

we see that

m+y − x

1 + A∈(2z

1− A

(1 + A)2− 1, 2z

1−A

(1 + A)2+

1

2

)=

(f+(m,n)− 1, f+(m,n) +

1

2

). (382)

Combining this last result with Equation 380, we have

m+ Y −X ∈(f+(m,n)− 2, f+(m,n) +

3

2

). (383)

206

The rest of the proof is as in §23.7. ♠

Now that we have considered the analysis forM−, we briefly consider thecase of M+. The only change in our analysis is in Lemma 23.7 is that Y isreplaced by Y + 1. This changes the conclusion to read

f−(m,n) ∈ (−q + 2, Kq − 3).

At this point, we see that all the arguments we carried out when provingthe Weak Copy Theorem go through word for word provided that (m,n) ∈Λ(−1, K; 3). This completes our proof of the Effective Copy Theorem I.Again, the Effective Copy Theorem II has essentially the same proof.

207

24 The Induction Lemma

In this chapter we prove an effective versions of Lemma 8.8 and an affectiveversion of a weakened Lemma 8.6, using the Effective Copy Theorem in placeof the Copy Theorem. work for all odd rationals. We need these effectiveresults for our inductive proof of the Decomposition Theorem.

24.1 The Main Result

Let p1/q1 be an odd rational. Given any set X ⊂ R2 we define.

Xn = X + n(q1,−p1). (384)

For any integer n ≥ 1 we define. Ωn(+) and Ωn(−) for any integer n ≥ 2.

Ω2n(+) = FR1 ∪ SR1 ∪ ... ∪ SRn−11 ∪ FRn

1

Ω2n(−) = FR−

1 ∪ SR−

1 ∪ ... ∪ SR−n+11 ∪ FR−n

1

Ω2n+1(+) = SR1 ∪ FR1 ∪ ... ∪ FRn1 ∪ SRn+1

1 .

Ω2n+1(−) = SR−

1 ∪ FR−

1 ∪ ... ∪ FR−n1 ∪ SR−n−1

1 . (385)

The union of Ωk involves k − 1 terms in the even case, and k terms in theodd case. The terms alternate father, son, father... and have a palindromiccharacter to them.

Say that a set X is copied if Γ1 and Γ2 agree in X .

Lemma 24.1 (Induction) Let κ be the greatest integer such that

∣∣∣∣p2q2

− p1q1

∣∣∣∣ <2

κq21.

1. If A1<A2 and κ ≡ 1 mod 2 and λ1 < 1/2 then Ωκ(+) is copied.

2. If A1<A2 and κ ≡ 0 mod 2 and λ1 > 1/2 then Ωκ(+) is copied.

3. If A1>A2 and κ ≡ 1 mod 2 and λ1 > 1/2 then Ωκ(−) is copied.

4. If A1>A2 and κ ≡ 0 mod 2 and λ1 < 1/2 then Ωκ(−) is copied.

Remark: In §24.5 we will discuss how the hypotheses in the InductionLemma compare to Lemma 8.6.

208

24.2 Most Rationals

In this section we will prove the Induction Lemma for most rationals. In thesections following this one, we will deal with the remaining cases by hand.For ease of exposition, we will just deal with Statements 1 and 2. Statements3 and 4 have the same proofs, and indeed follow from Statements 1 and 2and (affine) symmetry.

Let Λκ denote the region given by the Copy Theorem. Referring to theCopy Theorem, we have Λκ = Λ(−1, K), where

• K = (κ+ 1)/2 + λ1 for κ odd.

• K = κ/2 + λ1 for κ even.

Notice that the regions Ωκ and Λκ both grow rightward by one periodwhen we add 2 to κ. More formally, we have

U ∩ (Ωκ+2 ∪ Λκ+2) = U ∩ (Ωκ ∪ Λκ).

Vκ+2 ∩ (Ωκ+2 ∪ Λκ+2) = Vκ ∩ (Ωκ ∪ Λκ) + (q1,−p1). (386)

Here we take U to be the strip bounded by the lines L−(−1) and L−(−1; 3).We take Vκ to be the strip bounded by L+(K) and L+(K; 3). The strip Vκof course depends on κ.

Suppose we know for some parameter p1/q1 that

Ωκ ⊂ Λκ(−1, K; 3); κ = 2, 3 (387)

Then Equation 386 allows us to conclude that the same result is true forall κ. Accordingly, to prove the Induction Lemma for p1/q1, it suffices toestablish Equation 387.

For ease of exposition, we set ζ = ζ1 for any object ζ that depends onp1/q1.

Case 1: The region Ω2(+) looks like the one in Figure 23.1. (We havelightly shaded a copy of the arithmetic kite to help the reader compare thisfigure with Figure 3.1.) Referring to the vertices used to define the arithmetickite in Figure 3.1, the vertices in Figure 23.1 have the formulas

w1 = v5; w2 = v5 + λ′1(q,−p); λ′ = λ+2p

q(p+ q)2. (388)

209

The value of λ′ comes from Equation 59. To help with our computations, werecord the following information.

f±(v5) = ± q2

p+ q; f±(hq,−hp) = hq; v7 = −v6 = (q,−p). (389)

We also introduce the quantity

Z =pq

p+ q. (390)

The functional f− is minimized on w1 and the functional f+ is maximizedat w2. To show that FR∪SR ⊂ Λ(−1, 1+ λ; 3), it suffices to prove that therightmost quantities in the following three equations all exceed 3.

f−(v5)− f−(v6) = Z. (391)

f+((1 + λ)v7)− f+(w2) = Z − 2p

(p+ q)2(392)

w1

v1

v6

w2

v7

FR

Figure 25.1: FR and SR and Λ(−1, 1 + λ).

Equations 391 and 393 exceed 3 except when p1 = 1, 3 or when p1 = 5 andq1 = 7. We check by hand that all lattice points in FR1 lie in Λ(−1, 1+λ1; 3)when p1/q1 = 5/7. Hence, Statement 1 of the Induction Lemma is true ex-cept possibly when p1 = 1, 3.

Case 2: When κ = 3, the region Ωκ has looks like the one in Figure 25.1.

210

Referring to the vertices used to define the arithmetic kite in Figure 3.1, thevertices in Figure 25.1 have the formulas

w3 =1

2v5; w4 = v5 + λ′v7; w5 = v5 + v7; w6 =

1

2v5 + (1 + λ)v7.

v7

SR+

FR

v7

w4

w3 w5

w6

(2+λ)

v6v1

SR

Figure 25.2: SR and FR and SR+ and Λ(−1, 1 + λ).

This time it suffices to show that the rightmost quantities in the followingequations exceed 3.

f−(w3)− f−(v6) = Z +q2

2(p+ q)(393)

f−(w4)− f−(v6) = Z + λ′q > Z + λq ≥ Z + 2 (394)

f+((2 + λ)v7)− f+(w5) = Z + λq ≥ Z + 2 (395)

f+((2 + λ)v7)− f+(w6) = Z +q2

2(p+ q)(396)

These quantities all exceed 3 when p1 ≥ 3. When p1 = 1, we haveλ = (q1 − 1)/q1 > 1/2. So, this case does not actually arise. This provesStatement 2 of the Induction Lemma.

211

24.3 Getting to a Finite List

Here we deal with the infinite list of cases left undecided by Equations 391amd 392. We observe that there is some slack in our argument above. Forinstance, we don’t really need to prove f−(x) > −q+3 for all x ∈ Ωκ. We justhave to prove this when x is a lattice point . The vertices we considered are notlattice points, and so we can get some savings by finding the nearby latticepoints and re-evaluating. We have 4 = 2 × 2 cases to consider, dependingon the choice of p ∈ 1, 3, and the choice of troublesome equation. We willdeal with these 4 cases one at a time.

Figure 25.3: The arithmetic kite Q(3/11) and the hexagrid G(3/11).

Before we start our analysis, we note that the diagonals of Q(A) divideQ(A) into quadrants . See Figure 25.3 below. It turns out that we can,through appropriate translation, study the lattice points of interest to us bylooking at the lattice points in various quadrants of Q(A).

24.3.1 Case 1

Here we will take p = 3 and consider Equation 391. In this case, we haveκ = 2 and λ > 1/2. This condition forces q = 6k+5. A neighborhood of FRabout w1 coincides with the lower right quadrant of Q(A). When q ≥ 11,

212

the lattice point in with smallest f−-value is

w1 =(3,q + 1

2

). (397)

See Figure 25.3. We compute

f−(w1)− f−(v6) =5q − 9

q + 3> 3 (398)

for q ≥ 11. This leaves only 3/5 undecided.

24.3.2 Case 2

Here we take p = 3 and consider Equation 392. Here we have κ = 2 andλ > 1/2. We have

q = 6k + 5; λ =4k + 3

6k + 5. (399)

In this case, the lattice point of FR with the largest f+ value is

w2 = (λq,−2) +(2,q + 1

2

). (400)

What is going on is that translation by the lattice vector (λq,−2) very nearly— i.e. asymptotically— maps a neighborhood of the lower left quadrant ofQ(A), because 2/(λq) is an excellent approximation to 3/q. We compute

(1 + λ)q − f+(w2) =28 + 75k + 54k2

(4 + 3k)2> 3 (401)

for k ≥ 1. This leaves only 3/5 undecided.

24.3.3 Case 3

Here we take p = 1 and consider Equation 392. Here we have κ = 2 andλ = (q − 1)/q. The lattice point of FR with largest f+-value is

w2 = (q − 1,−1) +(0,q − 1

2

)(402)

We compute

2q + λ− f+(w2) =4q − 2

q + 1> 3 (403)

for q ≥ 7. This leaves only 1/3 and 1/5 undecided.

213

24.3.4 Case 4

Here we take p = 1 and consider Equation 391. Here we have κ = 2 and= (q − 1)/q. Our luck finally runs out. The lattice point

w1 =(0,q − 1

2

)(404)

is such thatf−(w1)− f−(v6) < 3

for all values of q. For all other lattice points, the quantity above exceeds 3.We just have to worry about what happens at this one point.

We check by hand that Corollary 22.6 remains true for when p = 1 andm = 0 and n = (q − 1)/2. Here we have K = 1 + q−1

q. Referring to the

quantities in §22.2, we compute

z =q − 1

2+ α; Z =

q − 1

2; Y = q − 1 + α;

Y = q − 2; x =q − 2

q+ α; X = 0; (405)

Now we compute

m− Y = −q + 2; m−X = 0; m+ Y −X = q − 2. (406)

All the quantities above lie in [−q+2, Kq−2]. This suffices to prove Lemma22.6 for our point.

24.4 Finishing the List

It remains to prove the Induction Lemma for when p1/q1 ∈ 1/3, 1/5, 3/5.Given the way Ωκ grows with κ, and the fact that the map (m,n) → Am+nis invariant under translation by (q,−p), it suffices to show that the relevantlattice points satisfy Lemma 22.6 for the case κ = 2, 3. In other words, wejust have to verify the Induction Lemma for our 3 rationals above, in thecases κ = 2, 3. We do this on Billiard King.

214

24.5 Some Remarks on our Proof

24.5.1 Sharpness of the Result

We proved the Induction Lemma for the regions Ω2n(+) and Ω2n(−). Thereare two other sets of regions we wish to consider. For ease of notation, wewill just consider the (+) versions of these regions. For ease of notation wewrote Ω2n = Ω2n(+). We define

Ω′

2n = Ω2n ∪ SRn1 ; Ω′′

2n = SR−11 ∪ Ω′

2n. (407)

We have Ω2n ⊂ Ω′2n ⊂ Ω′′

2n. In fact, the Induction Lemma is true for Ω′′2n.

However, the argument is a bit more tedious. Essentially, we have to showthat certain additional quantities, corresponding to additional vertices, ex-ceed 3. This introduces some additional case-by-case analyses that we preferto avoid.

Were we to prove the Induction Lemma for Ω′2n in place of Ω2n, we would

have an effective version of Lemma 8.6. Were we to prove the InductionLemma for Ω′′

2n in place of Ω2n we would have an effective version of a resultthat is even stronger than Lemma 8.6. This would give us the sharpest resultpossible. The reader can explore the sharpness of our results using BilliardKing.

What we like about the region Ω2n is that its definition exactly parallelsthe corresponding cases of Lemma 7.2. We will discuss this parallel in detailin the next chapter.

24.5.2 Robustness of the Proof

We gave a fairly fragile proof of the Induction Lemma, mainly to save our-selves work. Our idea was to get the sharpest possible statement in theEffective Copy Theorem, so as to leave us with as few special cases as possi-ble to handle. The downside of this method is that it leaves the impressionthat proof of the Induction Lemma hangs by a thread.

In fact, we might have proved a weaker version of the Effective Copy The-orem and still clawed our way to a complete proof of the Induction Lemma.For example, we might have settled for the region Λ(−1, K; 7) in place ofthe region Λ(−1, K; 3). This would have left us with more cases to check.Referring to the situation in §24.3.4, our luck would have run out for somelarger class of lattice points. In the end, we would have been forced to ver-ify Lemma 22.6 for finitely many families of vertices. By family we mean

215

a sequence of vertices whose coordinates change according to an arithmeticprogression.

Put this way, we can see the robustness of our proof. Given the CopyTheorem, we know that there is some constant ρ such that all points in theregion Λ(−1, K; ρ) are covered by our theoretical argument. Depending onthe value of ρ we can manage, we then must make an algebraic computationfor each of finitely many lattice point families. Fortunately, we can takeρ = 3, and in the end just need to deal with one infinite family, the oneconsidered in §24.3.4.

216

25 Proof of the Decomposition Theorem

25.1 A Preliminary Division into Regions

Recall that DR(p/q) is the line parallel to the sides of R(p/q) that containsthe point (a,−b). Put another way, DR(p/q) is the line extending the edgecommon to FR(p/q) and SR(p/q).

Lemma 25.1 Γ(p/q) only crosses DR(p/q) once, and the crossing point lieswithin one unit of L0, the baseline of Γ(p/q).

Proof: As in the previous section, let ι denote the 180 degree rotation aboutthe point (a/2,−b/2). We proved in the last section that ι(Γ) = (Γ). LetL be the line through the origin that is parallel to DR(p/q). Note that Lis the line extending the long diagonal of Q(A), the arithmetic kite. Byconstruction, DR(p/q) = ι(L).

We will use the notation from the Hexagrid Theorem. With this nota-tion, the baseline is L0 = L−

0 . By the Hexagrid Theorem, Γ lies between L−

0

and L−

1 . The image ρ(Γ) lies between L10 and L

−

−1. The hexagrid is invariant

under 180 degree rotation through the origin. (Note that Γ is not invariantunder this rotation, but this does not bother us.) From this symmetry, wesee that no line of the door grid intersects L in a point that lies betweenthe lines L0

− and L−1− . Hence ι(Γ) only intersects L0 at within 1 unit of

(0, 0). (The intersection point occurs slightly below (0, 0) on L−.) Apply-ing ι again, we now see that Γ only intersects DR(p/q) within 1 unit of L−

0 . ♠

As this point, we define

FΓ = Γ ∩ FR; SΓ = Γ ∩ SR; SR = R− FR. (408)

Given Corollary 3.3 and Lemma 25.1, both FΓ and SΓ are connected arcs.We also have FΓ ⊂ FR and SΓ ⊂ SR by construction. It only remains toshow that SΓ ⊂ SR. That is, SΓ does not rise more than halfway towardsthe ceiling in SR. We will give an inductive proof of this result.

Remark: It is tempting to try to prove this by finding a barrier in SR,at most halfway up, that SΓ does not cross. This strategy sometimes works,but not always. This approach does not work in general, as we discuss in§25.4.

217

25.2 The Base Case of the Induction

Now we adopt the terminology from §7. If p/q ∈ (0, 1) is an odd rational,we can find a simpler odd rational p′/q′ ∈ (0, 1) such that p′/q′ → p/q unlessq − p = 2. That is, the method given in §7.2 leads to the fraction 1/1 in asingle step for any fraction of the form

Ak =2k − 1

2k + 1; k = 1, 2, 3... (409)

For any p/q not of this special form, we can assume that the DecompositionTheorem is true for p′/q′ and then attempt to prove it for p/q using theInduction Lemma. We will do this in the next section. However, in order toget started, we need to prove by hand that the Decomposition Theorem istrue for all Ak.

Unfortunately, the rationals Ak form an infinite sequence, and so we can-not just give a proof by inspection. We need a general argument. Fortnately,the picture looks essentially the same, independent of k.

Figure 24.1: Γ(7/9) and FR(7/9) and SR(7/9).

218

Here 7/9 = r4. In the picture, SΓ(r4) contains the 4 vertices

2× (4,−4) + (1, 1) + j(1,−1); j = 0, 1, 2, 3,

and also contains roughly half the segment joining (4+2,−4) to (4+1,−4+1).This half segment crosses L(r4). The line L(r4) contains the point (4+1,−4),and has slope pretty close to 1. We have written things out this way so asto point out the beginnings of a general pattern.

In general, L(Ak) contains the point (k + 1,−k), because

η(2k − 1

2k + 1

)=

k

k + 1.

Lemma 25.2 Suppose Γ(Ak) contains the k + 1 points

pj = 2× (k,−k) + (1, 1) + j(−1, 1); j = 0, ..., k. (410)

Then the Decomposition Theorem is true for Ak.

Proof: We could just follow Γ(Ak) backwards from pj and continue alongthe diagonal until it crosses L(Ak) between pk and pk+1. Given that Γ(Ak)only crosses L(Ak) once, we would have identified the crossing and shownthat SΓ(Ak) only rises about 1 unit from the baseline. ♠

The Master Picture Theorem only tells us about the local structure ofΓ, and not about the global topology of the one component Γ. Accordingly,we need a local way to establish the hypotheses of Lemma 25.2. Say thatthe vertex pj is good if M+(pj) lands in the polyhedron corresponding to thevector (−1, 1).

Lemma 25.3 Suppose that the vertices p0, ..., pk−1 are all good. Then theDecomposition Theorem is true.

Proof: We know that p0 ∈ Γ(p/q). Suppose by induction that pj ∈ Γ(p/q).Since pj is good, one of the edges emanating from pj joins the point pj tothe point pj + (−1, 1) = pj+1. Hence pj+1 ∈ Γ. So, by induction, in this way,we find that p0, ..., pk are all vertices of Γ(Ak). Now we apply Lemma 25.2. ♠

219

Let A = p/q be some odd rational parameter. Recall that

M+(m,n) = (t, t+ 1, t) mod Λ; t = Am+ n + α. (411)

As usual, α is a tiny positive number. Say that (m,n) has trivial reductionrelative to A if

Am+ n+ α < A. (412)

Lemma 25.4 Suppose that

• pk−1 has a trivial reduction relative to Ak;

• M+(pk−1) and M+(p1) are contained in the polyhedron.

• M+(p1) lands in a polyhedron that specifies the vector (−1, 1).

Proof: In general, the size of the quantity Am+ n depends on the distancefrom (m,n) to the baseline of the arithmetic graph. The points p0, ..., pkare ordered in terms of their distance to the baseline. So, if pk−1 has trivialreduction, so do p0, ..., pk−1. But then M+(pj) lies on the line segment con-nectingM+(p1) toM+(pk−1) for j = 1, ..., k−2. But thenM+(pj) lands in thesame polygon, independent of j = 1, ..., k − 1. But this means that M+(pj)specifies the vector (−1, 1) for j = 1, ..., k − 1. We also check explicitly thatM+(p0) =M+(0, 0) specifies (−1, 1). Now we apply the previous result. ♠

To finish the proof that the Decomposition Theorem holds for Ak, we justhave to verify the 3 hypotheses of Lemma 25.4.

Lemma 25.5 The first hypothesis of Lemma 25.4 holds.

Proof: We have pk−1 = (k + 2,−k). We compute

2k − 1

2k + 1(k + 2)− k + α =

2k − 2

2k + 1+ α < Ak. (413)

This shows that pk has a trivial reduction. Finally, we compute that

M+(pk−1) =(2k − 2

2k + 1,4k − 1

2k − 1,2k − 2

2k + 1

)+ (α, α, α). (414)

This verifies the first hypothesis. ♠

220

Lemma 25.6 The second hypothesis of Lemma 25.4 holds.

Proof: Let Xj , Yj, and Zj stand for the three coordinates of M+(pj).. Weobserve that

1. Xk−1 ∈ (0, Ak).

2. Yk−1 ∈ (1, 1 + Ak).

3. Zk−1 ∈ (1− Ak, Ak).

4. Xk−1 + Yk−1 − Zk−1 ∈ (Ak, 1 + Ak).

We call these 4 inequalities the 4 determiners , because they determine thepolyhedron containing M+(pk−1). We compute that

M+(p1) =M+(−1, 1) =(

2

2k + 1,2k + 3

2k + 1,

2

2k + 1

)+ (α, α, α). (415)

We now see that the same 4 determiners hold with j = 1 in place of j = k−1.Hence M+(p1) and M+(pk−1) lie in the same polyhedron in the partition. ♠

Lemma 25.7 The third hypothesis of Lemma 25.4 holds.

Proof: Our 4 determiners specify the same polyhedron independent of theparameter Ak. We just check for a specific choice of parameter, say A1, thatthe 4 determiners above specify the polyhedron that in turn specifies thevector (−1, 1). ♠

Now we know that the Decomposition Theorem holds for all parametersAk.

25.3 The Induction Step

Now we come to the main step in our proof. We will work with the canonicalsequences discssed in §7.

Lemma 25.8 Each odd rational p/q ∈ (0, 1) appears in a canonical se-quence.

221

Proof: Starting from p/q one can work backwards using the construction in§7.2, and then we can work forwards more or less arbitrarily. ♠

The first term in any canonical sequence is 1/1. We ignore this term. Thesecond term always has the form Ak for some k. We have already establishedthe Decomposition Theorem for these terms.

Lemma 25.9 Suppose n ≥ 1. If the Decomposition Theorem holds forpn/qn, the nth term in a canonical sequence, then the Decomposition Theoremalso holds for the next term pn+1/qn+1 in the sequence.

Before dealing with the general case, we work out an example. Whenever31/79 appears as a term in the canonical sequence, the previous term is 9/23.We compute that the Diophantine constant for these parameters is κ = 3.That is, ∣∣∣∣

9

23− 31

79

∣∣∣∣ ∈(

2

3× 232,

2

4× 232

).

The Induction Lemma implies that the two arithmetic graphs agree in theregion Ω3(9/23). This region is the union of 3 shaded boxes in Figure 24.2below. We observe first of all that Γ(9/23) and Γ(31/79) agree on the edgee that crosses the right edge of Ω3(9/23). This holds in general, and is aconsequence of the Induction Lemma.

We also observe the following two properties.

1. Ω3(9/23) lies in the bottom half of R(31/79). That is, all points ofΩ3(9/23) lie below the line parallel R−

1/2 that is parallel to R−

0 and R−

1

and midway between these two lines.

2. The edge e of Γ(31/79) that crosses the right edge of Ω(9/23) is thesame edge that crosses L(31/79).

As we trace Γ(31/79) from (0, 0), we stay in Ω3(9/23) until we reachthe edge 3. All this time, we stay in the lower half of R(31/79). Once wereach e, we cross L(31/79). After crossing L(31/79), we never cross back.So, SΓ(31/79) consists of all the edges of Γ(31/79) we encounter before e,and also part of e itself. Therefore SΓ(31/79) remains in the bottom halfof R(31/79). Since SΓ(31/79) also remains in SR(31/79), we now see thatSΓ(31/79) remains in the bottom half of SR(31/79). This is to say thatSΓ(31/79) ⊂ SR(31/79), as desired.

222

We show the situation in Figure 24.2. Figure 24.2 shows a superpositionof Γ(9/23) and Γ(31/79). The three shaded regions comprise Ω3(9/23). Theline that very nearly extends the right edge of Ω3(9/23) is L(31/79). Theline L(31/79) so nearly extends the right edge of Ω(9/23) that the differenceis not even detectable in Figure 24.2.

Figure 24.2: Γ(9/23) and Γ(31/79) and L(31/79) and Ω3(9/23).

Now we turn to the general proof of Lemma 25.9. There are 4 cases toconsider, depending on the 4 cases of Lemma 7.2. Each case of Lemma 7.2corresponds to the same-numbered case of the Induction Lemma. We willgive the proof for Cases 1 and 2. Cases 3 and 4 have essentially the sametreatment.

223

In each case, we just have to verify the two properties we listed above forour example. We will treat the cases and properties one at a time. For easeof notation, we use the index n = 1, so that we can write the relevant termsas p1/q1 and p2/q2.

25.3.1 Case 1 Property 1

We have p2/q2 > p1/q1 and κ even. We must verify that Ωκ(p1/q1) liesentirely in the lower half of R(p2/q2). The line extending the top edges ofΩκ(p1/q1) has equation

y = −p1q1x+

p1 + q12

. (416)

The line R−

1/2(p2/q2) has equation

y = −p2q2x+

p2 + q24

. (417)

Equating the right hand sides of these lines, we find that the two lines inter-sect at a point p whose first coordinate is

x =q1q28

× (p2 + q2 − 2(p1 + q1)). (418)

Since κ ≥ 2 we have q2 ≥ 2p1+1. Since p2/q2 > p1/q1, we have p2 > 2p1+1.Hence

p2 + q2 − 2(p1 + q1) ≥ 2.

We have equality only if q1 − p1 = 2. Otherwise we have

p2 + q2 − 2(p1 + q1) ≥ 4.

Hence, except for the case p1/q1 = 1/3 and p2/q2 = 3/7 (which we check byhand) we have

x >3q22. (419)

But we check that all points of R(p2/q2) have x-coordinate less than 3q2/2.Hence, our two lines cross to the right of R(p2/q2), as desired. This provesthat all points of Ωκ(p1/q1) lie beneath R−

1/2.

224

25.3.2 Case 1 Property 2

We have p2/q2 > p1/q1 and κ even and λ1 < 1/2. We must verify that theedge e of Γ1 crosses both the right edge of Ωκ(p1/q1) and L(p2/q2). Settinga2 = a2(+) and b2 = b2(+), let us guess that e is the edge with vertices

(a2 − 1,−b2); (a2,−b2). (420)

From the symmetry discussed in §18.3, we see that e is an edge of Γ2.We will show that e crosses both L(p2/q2) and the mystery line L′ ex-

tending the right edge of Ωκ(p1/q1). The line L(p2/q2) contains the point

(a2,−b2) (421)

and has slope

σ2 = 1 +q22p2

− p22q2

∈ (1.∞). (422)

We compute σ2 from the equation for the point v5 given in §3.1. From thisinformation, we see that e crosses L(p2/q2).

In the analysis to follow, we define the horizontal width of a parallelogramto be the difference in x-coordinates of the bottom two vertices of the paral-lelograms. We take the horizontal width to be positive. Let h(R) denote thehorizontal width of a parallelogram R.

Now for the moment of truth. This is the point where we reveal the par-allel nature of Lemma 7.2 and the Induction Lemma. Here are the importantpoints:

1. When λ1 < 1/2, we have a1(+) = h(SR1).

2. When λ1 < 1/2, we have a1(−) = h(FR1).

3. The formula for a2 in terms of the quantities κ and a1(+) and a1(−)exactly matches the description of Ωκ.

We take an example to explain Item 3 in more detail. Setting κ = 6, we have

a2 = a1(+) + a1(−) + a1(+) + a+ 1(−) + a1(+),

and we have the decomposition

Ω6(p1/q1) = SR1 ∪ FR1 ∪ SR1 ∪ FR1 ∪ SR1.

225

We have two expressions with the same number of terms, and value of theterm in the first sum describes the horizontal width of the term in the secondexpression.

From this general picture, we see that the mystery line L′ contains a pointζ very near the baseline of Γ(p1/q1) and having x-coordinate a2. Given thatboth p1/q1 and b2/a2 are excellent approximations to p2/q2, we see that thesecond coordinate of ζ must be −b2. In short, ζ = (a2,−b2), the same pointthat is contained in L(p2/q2). Finally, the line L′ has slope

σ1 = 1 +q12p1

− p12q1

∈ (1.∞). (423)

Hence, e crosses L′ as well.

25.3.3 Case 2

We have p2/q2 > p1/q1 and κ odd. First we deal with Property 1. If κ ≥ 3 wehave the same argument as in the previous case. If κ = 1 then Ωκ(p1/q1) =SR(p1/q1) and the line extending the top of edge of Ωκ(p1/q1) has equation

y = −p1q1x+

p1 + q14

. (424)

This time, the intersection of the two lines is

x =q1q28

× (p2 + q2 − (p1 + q1)). (425)

The case q1 ≤ 5 do not occur here. Hence q1 ≥ 7. Also p2 + q2 ≥ p1 + q1 +2.Finally, 7/8× 2 > 3/2. Hence, Equation 419 holds in this case. The rest ofthe proof is the same as in the previous case.

The verification of Property 2 is the same as in Case 1, except for thefollowing changes.

1. When λ1 > 1/2, we have a1(+) = h(FR1).

2. When λ1 > 1/2, we have a1(−) = h(SR1).

The rest of the proof is the same.

226

25.4 Some Remarks on the Proof

At the end of §25.1 we remarked that it is tempting to try to find a barrierin SR that confines SΓ to the bottom half of SR, namely the smaller regionSR. Of course, the line that cuts SR in half is a kind of barrier that SΓ doesnot cross. This is what we proved. But, this is not what we have in mindhere. We have in mind a line segment, parallel to the top and bottom of SRwhich the whole graph Γ does not cross. For example, the lines L−

k , namelythe floors in the room grid, are barriers that Γ never crosses.

In almost all cases, such a barrier exists. However, I found at least oneparameter where the barrier does not exist. There is no line one can drawacross SR that confines SΓ to the lower half. Unfortunately, I cannot re-member the parameter! At any rate, the fact that the barrier sometimes doesnot exist means that the proof of the Decomposition Theorem requires sometopological input — we need to focus on a single component of Γ, namely Γ,rather than treating Γ in a wholesale way.

We make these remarks because our proof of the Decomposition Theoremis rather roundabout, and we want to let the reader know that we firstsearched for a simpler proof.

227

26 References

[B] P. Boyland, Dual Billiards, twist maps, and impact oscillators , Nonlin-earity 9 (1996) 1411-1438

[De] N .E. J. De Bruijn, Algebraic Theory of Penrose’s Nonperiodic Tilings ,Nederl. Akad. Wentensch. Proc. 84 (1981) pp 39-66

[Da] Davenport, The Higher Arithmetic: An Introduction to the Theory ofNumbers , Hutchinson and Company, 1952

[D], R. Douady, These de 3-eme cycle, Universite de Paris 7, 1982

[DT] F. Dogru and S. Tabachnikov, Dual Billiards , Math Intelligencer vol.27 No. 4 (2005) 18–25

[EV] D. B. A. Epstein and E. Vogt, A Counterexample to the Periodic OrbitConjecture in Codimension 3 , Annals of Math 108 (1978) pp 539-552

[G] D. Genin, Regular and Chaotic Dynamics of Outer Billiards , Penn StatePh.D. thesis (2005)

[GS] E. Gutkin and N. Simanyi, Dual polygonal billiard and necklace dy-namics , Comm. Math. Phys. 143 (1991) 431–450

[Ke] R. Kenyon, Inflationary tilings with a similarity structure, Comment.Math. Helv. 69 (1994) 169–198

[Ko] Kolodziej, The antibilliard outside a polygon, Bull. Polish Acad Sci.Math. 37 (1989) 163–168

[M] J. Moser, Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems, with Spe-cial Emphasis on Celestial Mechanics , Annals of Math Studies 77, PrincetonUniversity Press (1973)

[N] B.H. Neumann, Sharing Ham and Eggs ,summary of a Manchester Mathematics Colloquium, 25 Jan 1959published in Iota, the Manchester University Mathematics students’ journal

228

[S] R. E. Schwartz, Unbounded Orbits for Outer Billiards , Journal of ModernDynamics 3 (2007)

[T1] S. Tabachnikov, Geometry and Billiards , A.M.S. Math. AdvancedStudy Semesters (2005)

[T2] S. Tabachnikov, A proof of Culter’s theorem on the existence of pe-riodic orbits in polygonal outer billiards , preprint (2007)

[VS] F. Vivaldi, A. Shaidenko, Global stability of a class of discontinuousdual billiards , Comm. Math. Phys. 110 (1987) 625–640

229