4.1 Set of circumscribed circles
Definition 4.1.1.
Let . The set of centres of circumscribed circles of with radius , is the set of all points such that the integer circle is a circumscribed circle of the set .
Remark 4.1.2.
For , we have .
Definition 4.1.3.
Let . The set of circumscribed centres of , is the union of sets:
The set of circumscribed centres is the set of all points which are the centre of a circumscribed circle of . In other terms, this is the set of all points that are equidistant to all vertices of .
Example 4.1.4.
Let be an integer point. Then
Remark 4.1.5.
Recall that in Euclidean geometry, a line is the locus of points equidistant from two points. In integer geometry, the locus of points equidistant from and is given by
In this chapter, we study properties of and . In particular, we compare the sets and .
Proposition 4.1.6.
Let be a set of integer points, and let be an integer. Then .
Proof.
Let . Then for all points we have that . Thus . Hence, . ∎
Corollary 4.1.7.
Let . Then .
Proof.
This follows from the fact ∎
Remark 4.1.8.
Since , if does not admit a circumscribed circle of radius , we have that .
Definition 4.1.9.
Let be an integer set with and let when it exists. Otherwise, let . Then the set
is the principle circular-congruent set to we denote it by .
Let be an integer set. Then if , we say that and are circular-congruent.
Remark 4.1.10.
In the case when has only one element, is not bounded.
Remark 4.1.11.
We define with so that it is defined for sets which only admit rational circumscribed circles.
Remark 4.1.12.
If and are integer-congruent subsets of then and are circular-congruent.
Definition 4.1.13.
We say that is maximal if .
Example 4.1.14.
A one-point set is maximal.
For a two-point set we have a direct generalisation of the classical definition of a line as the set of points at the same distance from a given pair of points.
Problem 2.
Is it true that in case of is non-empty? What about
Definition 4.1.15.
Let be a set. We say that is the toric complement to if:
-
•
is tori-transparent at all points in ,
-
•
includes all points in that are not tori-equivalent to a point in .
Remark 4.1.16.
If then the toric complement to is .
Theorem 4.1.17.
Let be a finite set, then .
Proof.
Without loss of generality we suppose that .
Since set of centres of is the toric complement to , we write
Hence
Since there is only one point in which intersects each integer torus at the same point, we find that ∎
Example 4.1.18.
Let be a finite set. Then the complement has no circumscribed circles and hence . Therefore . Hence the statement of Problem 4.1.17 is not necessarily true for an infinite set .
For the next proposition, we need the following definition:
Definition 4.1.19.
An exhaustive filtration is affine-invariant if for any and we have the following. If the density of exists, then the density of exists and
Proposition 4.1.20.
Let be an affine-invariant exhaustive filtration. Let be a unit circle and let such that the density of is not less than the density of intersection of two integer unit circles with respect to some exhaustive filtration. Then .
Proof.
Let be the centre of . Then and hence . Assume that any is also in . Therefore . This is impossible due to our assumption. Hence . Therefore . ∎
Remark 4.1.21.
Let be a unit circle and let such that the density Then .
Problem 3.
Is , here is the intersection of circles centered at the the intersection of circles centered at .