The maximum cardinality of trifferent codes with lengths 5 and 6

Abstract: A code $\mathcal{C} \subseteq \{0, 1, 2\}^n$ is said to be trifferent with length $n$ when for any three distinct elements of $\mathcal{C}$ there exists a coordinate in which they all differ. Defining $\mathcal{T}(n)$ as the maximum cardinality of trifferent codes with length $n$, $\mathcal{T}(n)$ is unknown for $n \ge 5$. In this note, we use an optimized search algorithm to show that $\mathcal{T}(5) = 10$ and $\mathcal{T}(6) = 13$.

\section{Introduction}
Let $k \geq 3$ and $n \geq 1$ be integers, and let $\mathcal{C}$ be a subset of $\{0,1,\ldots,k-1\}^n$ with the property that for any $k$ distinct elements there exists a coordinate in which they all differ. A subset $\mathcal{C}$ with this property is called perfect $k$-hash code with length $n$ (perfect $3$-hash codes are called trifferent codes).  The problem of finding upper bounds for the maximum size of perfect $k$-hash codes is a fundamental problem in theoretical computer science. An elementary double counting argument, as shown in \cite{KornerMarton}, gives the following bound on the cardinality of $k$-hash codes:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:recursivebound}
    |\mathcal{C}| \leq (k-1) \cdot \left(\frac{k}{k-1}\right)^n \textit{ for every } k \geq 3\,.
\end{equation}

In 1984 Fredman and Koml\'os \cite{FredmanKomlos} improved the bound in \eqref{eq:recursivebound} for every $k \geq 4$ and sufficiently large $n$, obtaining the following result:

\begin{equation}\label{eq:fredmanKomlos}
    |\mathcal{C}| \leq \left(2^{k! / {k^{k-1}}}\right)^n.
\end{equation}

Additional refinements of this bound have been progressively achieved over the years. See for example \cite{Arikan2, Arikan1, DalaiJaikuGuru} for the case $k=4$,  \cite{CostaDalai} for the cases $k=5,6$, and \cite{KornerMarton, RiazanovGuru, DellaFioreCostaDalai1, DellaFioreCostaDalai2} for $k \geq 5$. For the sake of completeness, we mention that some improvements on the asymptotic probabilistic lower bounds on the maximum size of perfect $k$-hash codes have been recently obtained in \cite{XingYuan} for both small values of $k$ and $k$ sufficiently large.

In contrast, no recent progress has been made to improve the simple bound given in \eqref{eq:recursivebound} for $k = 3$. This bound has not been outperformed by any algebraic technique, including the recent slice-rank method by Tao \cite{TaoSliceRank}. Indeed, Costa and Dalai showed in \cite{CostaDalaiSliceRank} that the slice-rank method cannot be applied in a \textit{simple way} in order to improve the bound in \eqref{eq:recursivebound}. It is worth to mention that an improvement has been recently obtained in \cite{PohataZakharov}, however the authors restrict the codes to be linear, i.e., $\mathcal{C} \subset \mathbb{F}_3^n$ and $\mathcal{C}$ is a subspace of $\mathbb{F}_3^n$.

As a consequence, particular attention is given to the case $k=3$.
Defining $\mathcal{T}(n)$ as the maximum cardinality of trifferent codes with length $n$, it is easy to verify that $\mathcal{T}(1)=3$, $\mathcal{T}(2)=4$ and $\mathcal{T}(3)=6$.
In addition, the authors in \cite{KornerMarton} showed that the so called \textit{tetra-code} is a trifferent code with length $4$ and cardinality $9$: this result leads to $\mathcal{T}(4)=9$.
To the best of our knowledge, $\mathcal{T}(n)$ is currently unknown for $n \ge 5$. In this note, we show that $\mathcal{T}(5) = 10$ and $\mathcal{T}(6) = 13$ and we use these results to refine the current best known upper bound on the cardinality of trifferent codes with length $n \geq 5$ (Section \ref{sec:results}).
The exact value is achieved by implementing an optimized algorithm in GAP which exhibits the non-existence of trifferent codes with lengths $5$ and $6$ and cardinalities $11$ and $14$, respectively (the algorithm description is given in Section \ref{sec:algorithm}).

\section{Improved upper bound on \texorpdfstring{$\mathcal{T}(n)$ for $n \geq 5$}{T(n) for n at least 5}}\label{sec:results}
The simple recursion used to obtain the bound in \eqref{eq:recursivebound} for $k=3$ is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:recursion}
    \mathcal{T}(n) \leq \left\lfloor \frac{3}{2} \cdot \mathcal{T}(n-1) \right\rfloor,
\end{equation}
for every $n \geq 2$, with $\mathcal{T}(1)=3$.
Since $\mathcal{T}(4) = 9$, then $10 \leq \mathcal{T}(5) \leq \left\lfloor \frac{3}{2} \cdot 9 \right\rfloor = 13$.
The upper bound is obtained using \eqref{eq:recursion}, while the lower bound comes easily from the fact that
$
    \mathcal{T}(n) \geq \mathcal{T}(n-1)+1,
$
for every $n \geq 2$. Indeed, when a construction of a trifferent code with length $n-1$ is known, then it is always possible to trivially add an element of $\{0,1,2\}^n$ preserving the trifference property.
In Example \ref{ex:n5} we give a construction of a trifferent code with length $5$ and cardinality $10$ that is built using the tetra-code, see \cite{KornerMarton} for the definition. The $10$ elements of $\{0,1,2\}^5$ are represented in columns.
For $n=6$, we have that $13 \leq \mathcal{T}(6) \leq 19$. A trifferent code with length $6$ and cardinality $13$ is given in Example \ref{ex:n6}.

\begin{ex}[$\mathcal{T}(5) \geq 10$]\label{ex:n5}
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{|rrrrrrrrrr|}
 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 \\
 0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 2 \\
 0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 2 & 0 \\
 0 & 0 & 1 & 2 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 2 & 0 & 1\\
 0 & 1 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2 & 2
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
\end{ex}

\begin{ex}[$\mathcal{T}(6) \geq 13$]\label{ex:n6}
\begin{center}
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{array}{|rrrrrrrrrrrrr|}
0&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1&1&1&1 \\
0&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1&1&2&1 \\
0&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1&1&2 \\
0&1&1&1&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1 \\
0&1&2&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1 \\
0&1&1&2&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0 \\
\end{array}
\end{equation*}
\end{footnotesize}
\end{center}
\end{ex}

We have designed an algorithm for searching trifferent codes with lengths $5$ and $6$ and cardinalities $11$ and $14$, respectively (see Section \ref{sec:algorithm} for the description of the algorithm). The search ended without returning any trifferent codes, thus proving that $\mathcal{T}(5) \leq 10$ and $\mathcal{T}(6) \leq 13$. Hence, the following theorem holds:

\begin{thm}\label{teo:nonexistence}
$
    \mathcal{T}(5) = 10 \text{ and } \mathcal{T}(6) = 13.
$
\end{thm}

This result allows us to focus on the current best known bounds on the maximum cardinality of trifferent codes, which can be expressed as $\mathcal{T}(n) \leq c \cdot (3/2)^n$, where $c$ is a constant and $n$ is sufficiently large. Since finding a better upper bound on the $\limsup_{n \to \infty} \sqrt[n]{\mathcal{T}(n)}$ is a very hard task, it becomes interesting to improve the constant $c$. The bound shown in \eqref{eq:recursivebound} gives us $c=2$, but a better constant can be obtained using \eqref{eq:recursion} and the fact that $\mathcal{T}(4) = 9$, that is $c = 9/ (3/2)^4 \approx 1.78$. We are able to improve this constant using Theorem \ref{teo:nonexistence} and \eqref{eq:recursion}. These statements directly imply:

\begin{cor}\label{teo:bestconstant}
\begin{align*}\mathcal{T}(n) \leq \frac{10}{(3/2)^5} \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^n \approx 1.32 \cdot  \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^n \text{ for every } n \geq 5, \\
\mathcal{T}(n) \leq \frac{13}{(3/2)^6} \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^n \approx 1.15 \cdot  \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^n \text{ for every } n \geq 6.
\end{align*}
\end{cor}

Since the floor function is involved in the recursive formula \eqref{eq:recursion}, we can improve the constant $c$ by iterating \eqref{eq:recursion} $m$ times starting from a fixed $n_0$ and a known upper bound on $\mathcal{T}(n_0)$. This results in the following theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{teo:improvedconst}
$\mathcal{T}(n) \leq 1.09 \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^n$ for every $n \geq 12$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
    Fix an integer $n_0 \geq 1$ and consider the following recursive formula that describes a sequence of achievable constants for $\mathcal{T}(n) \leq l(m) \cdot (3/2)^{n}$ when $n \geq n_0+m$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:recursiveconstant}
   l(m) = \left\lfloor l(m-1) \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{n_0+m} \right\rfloor \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{-n_0-m} \textit{ for } m \geq 1,
\end{equation}
where $l(0) = \mathcal{T}(n_0) \cdot (3/2)^{-n_0}$. Taking $n_0 = 6$ and $m = 6$, we obtain the thesis.
\end{proof}
Since the sequence $l(m)$ is non-increasing, we are interested in the $\lim_{m \to \infty} l(m)$.
 Computing that limit is not trivial, so we use the following recursive relation to obtain a lower bound:
\begin{equation*}
   d(m) = d(m-1) - \frac{1}{2} \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{-n_0-m} \textit{ for } m \geq 1,
\end{equation*}
where $d(0) = \mathcal{T}(n_0) \cdot (3/2)^{-n_0}$.
It is easy to see that $l(m) \geq d(m)$ for every $m \geq 0$. Then we have:
\begin{align}
\nonumber
  \lim_{m \to \infty} d(m) &= \lim_{m \to \infty} \left(\mathcal{T}(n_0) - \frac{1}{2} \cdot \sum_{i=1}^m \left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^i\right) \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{-n_0} \\
  \label{eq:constantlowerbound}
  &=\left(\mathcal{T}(n_0) - 1\right) \cdot \left(\frac{3}{2}\right)^{-n_0}.
\end{align}
\begin{rem}
Since $\mathcal{T}(4) = 9$, if we fix $n_0 = 4$ then we can substitute them into \eqref{eq:constantlowerbound} to get that $\lim_{m \to \infty} l(m) \geq \lim_{m \to \infty} d(m) = 8 \cdot (3/2)^{-4} \approx 1.59$. This lower bound is, in any case, greater than the constant that we have found in Theorem \ref{teo:improvedconst}.
\end{rem}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{teo:nonexistence} - The Algorithm}\label{sec:algorithm}
Computing a brute-force search for finding a trifferent code with length $n$ and cardinality $M$ would require to test $\binom{3^n}{M}$  subsets, and for each of them compare $\binom{M}{3}$ triplets: overall, for $(n,M)=(5,11)$ one would test $\approx 10^{20}$ triplets while for $(n,M)=(6,14)$ one would test approximately  $10^{30}$ triplets. These numbers are prohibitively large.

Our algorithm dramatically reduces the number of operations, without missing any potential trifferent code.
First, we list the elements of $\mathcal{C}_n = \{0, 1, 2\}^n$ in lexicographic order and fix $(i_1, i_2, \ldots, i_{M})$ as the indices representing the $M$ elements to test, requiring that $i_1<i_2<\ldots <i_{M}$.
Then, let $\mathcal{C}^m_n$ be the code containing the elements associated to the first $m$ indices.
Starting from $m=3$, we check if $\mathcal{C}^m_n$ is trifferent: based on the output, the variable $m$ and the indices are updated accordingly to the pseudocode reported in Algorithm 1.

\begin{algorithm}
\label{alg:pseudocode}
\caption{Check if $\mathcal{T}(n) \geq M$.}\label{alg:cap}
\begin{algorithmic}
\Require $\left(c(1), \ldots, c(3^n)\right) = \{0,1,2\}^n$ ordered lexicographically,
\State $\left(i_1, \ldots, i_{M}\right) \gets (1, \ldots, M)$, $m \gets 3$
\Repeat
\If{$\left\{c(i_1),\ldots,c(i_{m})\right\}$ \textbf{is} trifferent \textbf{or} $m < 3$}
    \IIf{$m=M$} \Return True \EndIIf \State $m \gets m+1$
\Else
\State $m' \gets $ \textbf{min}$\left\{m'' : i_{m''} \geq  3^n-M+{m''}\right\}$
\If{$m'$ \textbf{exists}}
    \State $m \gets m'-1$, $i_m \gets i_m + 1$
    \State $i_{t+1} \gets i_{t} + 1, \textit{ for every } m \leq t \leq M-1$
\Else
    \State $i_{t} \gets i_{t} + 1, \textit{ for every } m \leq t \leq M$
\EndIf
\EndIf
\Until{$i_1 \geq 2$}
\State \Return False
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\noindent
At each update, $\mathcal{C}^m_n$ is tested: however, only the triplets containing the $i_m$-th element have to be examined, since all the other triplets have been already verified by construction. This is the first key point of our algorithm.

In addition, we are able to force some restrictions on the set of the indices. Two codes $C,D \subseteq \mathbb{F}_3^n$ are called \emph{equivalent} if $D$ be obtained from $C$ by subsequently applying permutations to the coordinate positions and to the symbols $\{0,1,2\}$ in each coordinate.
Given a trifferent code, by symmetry we can find an equivalent code containing the zero vector and a vector of the form $(0, \ldots, 0, 1, \ldots, 1)$, and not containing  nonzero words lexicographically smaller than this vector. As a consequence, our algorithm stops the search of trifferent codes immediately when $i_1 = 2$, and limits the set of values that the second index can assume, namely, $i_2 \in \{\frac{3^{i}+1}{2} : i = 1,\ldots, n\}$.
Furthermore, suppose there exists a trifferent code $\mathcal{C}$ with length $n$ and cardinality $M$. Let $s_0, s_1, s_2$ be the number of elements in $\mathcal{C}$ with symbols $0$, $1$ and $2$, respectively, at the first coordinate. It is easy to see that $s_i+s_j \leq \mathcal{T}(n-1)$ for $i \neq j$, so $s_0, s_1, s_2 \geq M - \mathcal{T}(n-1) $. It means that we should have for each symbol $0$, $1$ and $2$ at least $M - \mathcal{T}(n-1)$ elements in $\mathcal{C}$ with that symbol in the first coordinate. As a consequence, recalling that we list the elements of $\mathcal{C}_n$ in lexicographic order, we can force:
\begin{itemize}
    \item $i_{M - \mathcal{T}(n-1)}\leq 3^{n-1}$ (first coordinate equal to 0);
    \item $i_{2(M - \mathcal{T}(n-1))}\leq 2\cdot 3^{n-1}$ (first coordinate equal to 1);
    \item $i_{2\mathcal{T}(n-1)-M+1}> 3^{n-1}$ (first coordinate equal to 1);
    \item $i_{\mathcal{T}(n-1)+1}> 2 \cdot 3^{n-1}$ (first coordinate equal to 2).
\end{itemize}
For the sake of readability, the pseudocode reported in Algorithm 1 does not include the restrictions on the set of the indices. However, the code associated to the final version of the algorithm is publicly available and can be found at \cite{DellaFioreSito}.

We have executed our program for $(n,M) = (5, 11)$ and $(n,M)=(6, 14)$, and no trifferent code has been found. The total number of tested triplets is $\approx 10^{7}$ for $(n,M) = (5, 11)$ and $\approx 10^{11}$ for $(n, M) = (6, 14)$, thus saving a factor of $\approx 10^{13}$ and $\approx 10^{19}$, respectively, compared to the full brute-force strategy.

As a side note: inspired by a semidefinite programming upper bound for cap sets~\cite{Gijswijt}, we could alternatively obtain the upper bound~$\mathcal{T}(5)\leq 10$ using the method from~\cite{LitjensPolakSchrijver}, in which all extra constraints from Eq.\ (3) of~\cite{LitjensPolakSchrijver}  were included to obtain the bound.

\begin{rem}
For~$(n,M)=(6,13)$, the search returned a set $S$ of~$1046$ trifferent codes up to symmetry choices explained above.
For any code in $S$, we generated all equivalent codes and deleted the ones contained in $S$ from $S$.
We had to repeat this 3 times until the set was empty. So there are 3 distinct trifferent (n,M)=(6,13)-codes up to equivalence. These are:
\begin{footnotesize}
\begin{equation*}
\arraycolsep=1.2pt\def.8{.8}
\begin{array}{|rrrrrrrrrrrrr|}
0&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1&1&1&1 \\
0&1&0&2&2&2&1&2&0&1&1&1&2 \\
0&1&1&0&2&1&2&2&2&0&1&2&1 \\
0&1&1&1&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1 \\
0&1&1&2&1&0&2&2&2&1&2&0&1 \\
0&1&2&1&1&1&0&2&1&2&2&2&0 \\
\end{array}\,,\quad
\begin{array}{|rrrrrrrrrrrrr|}
0&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1&1&1&1 \\
0&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1&1&2&1 \\
0&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1&1&2 \\
0&1&1&1&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1 \\
0&1&2&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1 \\
0&1&1&2&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0 \\
\end{array}\,,\quad
\begin{array}{|rrrrrrrrrrrrr|}
0&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1&1&1&1 \\
0&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1&1&2&1 \\
0&1&1&0&2&2&2&2&2&0&1&1&1 \\
0&1&1&1&0&2&1&2&2&2&0&1&2 \\
0&1&2&1&1&0&2&2&1&2&2&0&1 \\
0&1&1&1&2&1&0&2&2&2&1&2&0 \\
\end{array}\,.
\end{equation*}\end{footnotesize}For each of these codes, in each coordinate position two symbols occur 5 times and one symbol occurs 3 times.
\end{rem}

Combinatorics (math.CO); Information Theory (cs.IT)


Exploring the Steiner-Soddy Porism

Abstract: We explore properties and loci of a Poncelet family of polygons -- called here Steiner-Soddy -- whose vertices are centers of circles in the Steiner porism, including conserved quantities, loci, and its relationship to other Poncelet families.

\section{Outline}

\section{Introduction}
\input{010_intro}

\section{The Steiner-Soddy Porism}
\label{sec:all-n}
\input{020_all_n}

\section{The Special case of N=3}
\label{sec:n3}
 \input{030_n3}

\section{Loci in the N=3 case}
\label{sec:n3-loci}
\input{040_n3_loci}

\section{Conservations}
\label{sec:cons}
\input{050_conservations}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
\input{110_ack}

\section{Introduction}
\input{010_intro}

\section{The Steiner-Soddy Porism}
\label{sec:all-n}
\input{020_all_n}

\section{The Special case of N=3}
\label{sec:n3}
\input{030_n3}

\section{Loci in the N=3 case}
\label{sec:n3-loci}
\input{040_n3_loci}

\section{Comparing Poncelet Conservations}
\label{sec:cons}
\input{050_conservations}

\subsubsection*{Acknowledgements}
\input{110_ack}

\section{\@ifstar{\starsection}{\nostarsection}}

\newcommand\nostarsection[1]
{\sectionprelude\origsection{#1}\sectionpostlude}
\newcommand\starsection[1]
{\sectionprelude\origsection*{#1}\sectionpostlude}
\newcommand\sectionprelude{%
  \vspace{-.5em}
}
\newcommand\sectionpostlude{%
  \vspace{-.5em}
}

\makeatother

\subsubsection*{Main Results.}
Let $\P$ denote polygons in the Steiner-Soddy family. Let $N$ denote the number of its polygonal sides.

\begin{compactitem}
    \item The $\P$ are conic-inscribed and circumscribe a circle, and are therefore a Poncelet porism \cite{dragovic11}.
    \item The outer conic of the $\P$ has foci on the centers of the inner and Soddy circles of the Steiner chain.
    \item When the center of the caustic is on the circumference of the inner Soddy circle, the family becomes parabola-inscribed and the outer Soddy circle degenerates to a line.
    \item As a corollary to a result proved in \cite{schwartz2020-steiner}, the family conserves the sum of powers of half-angle tangents, up to power $N-1$.
    \item The locus of the perimeter centroid\footnote{This is the weighted average of the midpoints of sides, where the weights are sidelengths.} is a conic. Recall this is not guaranteed for a generic Poncelet family \cite{sergei2016-com}.
    \end{compactitem}

For the case when the $\P$ are triangles ($N=3$) we obtain:

    \begin{compactitem}
        \item The half-tangents of the family are equal to the cotangents of its intouch triangles.
    \item The sum of tangents of half angles is less than, equal, or greater than two if the family is ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola inscribed, respectively.
    \item When the family parabola-inscribed, the locus of the orthocenter is a line.
    \item In the spirit of \cite{odehnal2011-poristic}, we tour loci of some triangle centers over the $\P$, showing some to be stationary, circles, lines, conics, and non-conics.
\end{compactitem}

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pics/pics_0010_intro_n5.pdf}
    \caption{\textbf{Left:} Consider a set of pairwise tangent circles (blue) centered on the vertices of a regular polygon (gray). By symmetry, an inner and an outer ``Soddy'' circle (light blue) can be drawn tangent to all circles. Let the shaded red circle be an inversion circle.
    \textbf{Right:} a Steiner chain is the inversive image of the setup in the left with respect to said inversion circle. Also shown is the Steiner-Soddy polygon $\P$ (orange) whose vertices are the centers of circles in the chain. A Poncelet porism of $\P$ exists inscribed in a conic (gray) whose foci are the centers of the inversive images of the two original Soddy circles (light blue). The caustic is a circle (dashed gray) centered at $I$. Also shown is the pedal polygon of $\P$ (magenta) with respect to $I$, also Ponceletian.}
    \label{fig:intro-n5}
\end{figure}

\vspace{-0.33cm}
\subsubsection*{Related Work.}
In \cite{schwartz2020-steiner} it is proved that the first $k-1$ moments of curvatures are invariant over Steiner's porism. Loci of vertex, area, and perimeter centroids of a generic Poncelet family are studied in \cite{sergei2016-com}, where it is shown that the first two are always conics. In \cite{yff2007-isoperim} a condition is derived which guarantees that a certain center of a triangle exists iff the sum of half-tangents is less than two; this is equivalent to whether the center of the outer Soddy circle is everted or not \cite{garcia2021-triads}. The Poncelet family which is the polar image of bicentrics was studied in \cite{bellio2021-parabola-inscribed}, and that of harmonic polygons was studied in \cite{roitman2021-bicentric}. Seminal studies of loci of triangle centers over families of Poncelet triangles include \cite{odehnal2011-poristic,skutin2013,zaslavsky2001-poncelet,zaslavsky2003-trajectories}. A theory for the type of locus swept by triangle centers over the confocal Poncelet family is presented in \cite{helman2021-theory}.
\vspace{-0.33cm}
\subsubsection*{Article organization.}
In \cref{sec:all-n} we prove the main properties of the Steiner-Soddy family for all $N$. In \cref{sec:n3} we prove certain results specialized to the $N=3$ case. Loci of triangle centers in the $N=3$ are toured \cref{sec:n3-loci}. We finish with a discussion in \cref{sec:cons} comparing invariants of various Poncelet families. Explicit formulas for some of the objects mentioned herein appear in \cref{app:explicit}.

\subsubsection*{Relationship with the Homothetic family} Let the {\em homothetic family} refer to a Poncelet family interscribed between two concentric, homothetic conics. Let their foci be called ``inner'' and ``outer'' ones. In \cite{roitman2021-bicentric} it was shown that the harmonic family is the polar image of the homothetic family with respect to an inversion circle centered on one of the outer foci. Referring to \cref{fig:homoth}:

\begin{proposition}
The Steiner-Soddy family is the polar image of the homothetic family with respect to an inversion circle centered on one of its inner foci.
\end{proposition}

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth,frame]{pics/pics_0050_homothetic.png}
    \caption{The Steiner-Soddy family, orange (resp. harmonic family, magenta), is the polar image of the ``homothetic'' family, with respect to a circle centered on an inner (resp. outer) focus.}
    \label{fig:homoth}
\end{figure}

\vspace{-0.33cm}
\subsubsection*{Centroid Loci}
In \cite{sergei2016-com} it was proved that the locus of the vertex and area centroids $C_0,C_2$ are conics over any Poncelet family whereas the locus of $C_1$ is not always a conic. Arseniy Akopyan reminded us that if a polygon circumscribes a circle (of center $O$), $C1,C_2,O$ are collinear and  $(C_1-O)=(3/2)(C_2-O)$ \cite{akopyan2022-private}. Referring to \cref{fig:perimeter}:

\begin{corollary}
Over the Steiner-Soddy porism of any number $N$ of sides, the locus of the perimeter centroid $C_1$ is a conic.
\end{corollary}

By symmetry, it follows that the major axes of the loci of $C_0,C_1$ are coaxial with the outer ellipse of the porism.

\begin{figure}
    \centering
    \includegraphics[trim=0 125 20 25,clip,width=.7\textwidth,frame]{pics/pics_0030_centroids_n5.pdf}
    \caption{Over the Soddy-Steiner porism (orange), the loci of the vertex, area, and perimeter centroids $C_0,C_1,C_2$ are conics (dashed red, green, blue) coaxial with the outer ellipse (gray). Notice $I,C_2,C_1$ are collinear (green line) and $|IC_1|/|IC_2|=3/2$ \cite{akopyan2022-private}.}
    \label{fig:perimeter}
\end{figure}

\subsection{resultados para qualquer N}

\begin{enumerate}
\item considerar a familia P q é imagem polar dos poligonos harmonicos
com respeito ao circumcirculo
\item corolario: esta familia esta inscrita numa conica e circumscreve um circulo
\item qdo o circumcentro esta sobre um co-vertice da inellipse de Brocard B,
a familia esta inscrita numa parabola
\item familia conserva soma de meias tangentes
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{caso N=3}

\begin{enumerate}
\item familia "Steiner-Soddy" sao os tangenciais do porisma de Brocard, i.e., sua imagem polar com respeito ao circumcirculo.
\item é ponceletiana, i.e., inscrita numa conica.
\item foci da conica externa sao X176 e X175, os centros dos circulos de Soddy
\item conserva soma de tan(t/2). qdo esta soma é igual a 2, o circulo externo de soddy é uma reta, paralela a diretriz. Mencionar resulatdo do Hajja e Yff.
\item qdo o aspect ratio de B é $\phi/2$, a familia esta inscrita numa parabola.
\item a soma de meias tangentes tem q ser ajustada a ter sinal dependendo do ramo da hiperbole q os vertices do tangencial se encontram.
\item Zaslavsky: conservacoes genericas para qq familia inscrita em parabola e circumscrevendo circulo
\end{enumerate}

\subsection{N=3 Loci}

Quando a familia esta inscrita numa parabola:

\begin{itemize}
\item ha um aspect ratio da B (em torno de 1.225) onde o locus do X4 é a hiperbole externa da familia.
\item o locus de X4 é uma reta paralela a diretriz.
    o locus de X4 é sempre uma reta paralela a diretriz para q familia inscrita numa parabola e circumscrevendo um circulo cujo centro esta no eixo
    \item falar da familia inscrita numa parabola e circumscrevendo circulo, contendo um equilatero.
    \item X20 parado para todas elas
    \item citar paper com Bellio (imagem polar do bicentrico q conserva soma de duplos senos)
\end{itemize}

\begin{enumerate}
\item se um triangulo de referencia é agudo, seu X3 (resp. X6) coincide com o X1 (resp. X7) do tangencial. corolario: enquanto o de referencia é agudo, X1 e X7 do tangencial estao parados. de outra maneira, o tangencial esta evertido, e X1 e X7 traçam arcos (de alguma curva).
\item X2,3,4,5 (previsto) sao conicas.
\item X6 (nao previsto pela teoria) é uma conica. Para um determinado a/b de B ela passa pelos dois focos de B (a/b=1.053)
\item X8,9,10 sao conicas nao previstas
\item X13,14,15,16 sao circulos
\item ponto de de Longchamps se move num segmento (elipse com eixo menor = 0?)
\item X65 pode ser circulo (enquanto o ref. é agudo)
\item X77, X170 são segmentos
\item X80 circulo
\item X105 é circulo tangente a elipse externa e  tem o centro no eixo da elipse!
\item X175 e X176 sao os focos da conica externa, se a/b < phi/2 (ou seja, conica externa é uma elipse)
\end{enumerate}

Exploring the Steiner-Soddy Porism


Counting Partitions on the Abacus

Abstract: In 2003, Maroti showed that one could use the machinery of l-cores and l-quotients of partitions to establish lower bounds for p(n), the number of partitions of n. In this paper we explore these ideas in the case l=2, using them to give a largely combinatorial proof of an effective upper bound on p(n), and to prove asymptotic formulae for the number of self-conjugate partitions, and the number of partitions with distinct parts. In a further application we give a combinatorial proof of an identity originally due to Gauss.

\section{Introduction}
A \emph{partition} of a number $n \in \mathbf{N}_0$ is a
sequence $(\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k)$ such that
$\lambda_1 \ge \lambda_2 \ge \ldots \ge \lambda_k \ge 1$
and $\lambda_1 + \ldots + \lambda_k = n$.
To indicate that $\lambda$ is a partition of $n$ we write $|\lambda| = n$.
Let $p(n)$ be the number of partitions of~$n$.
By our definition, $\emptyset$ is the unique partition of $0$.

The problem of finding asymptotic estimates for $p(n)$
was introduced, and one might reasonably say, solved, by the
famous paper of Hardy--Ramanujan~\cite{HardyRamanujan}.
As well as their  exact formula for~$p(n)$, proved as the
original application of the circle-method,
their paper also contains several weaker results proved using
less sophisticated analytic methods; for example, that
\[ \log p(n) \sim c\sqrt{n} \quad\text{as $n \rightarrow \infty$} \]
where $c = 2\sqrt{\pi^{2}/6}$. The only time they refer to using
combinatorial arguments to obtain lower and upper bounds for~$p(n)$
is in a footnote in~\S 2.1, which suggests the strongest such bounds
they could prove were of the form
\[ 2^{A\sqrt{n}} < p(n) < n^{B\sqrt{n}}. \]

Our first aim is this paper is to improve on this. In \S 2
we introduce  G.~D.~James' abacus notation for partitions and use it
to establish an important bijection on partitions (see \S 2.2).
In \S 3 we use this bijection to show that for every $\epsilon > 0$
there exists a constant $A(\epsilon)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{upper}
\log p(n) \le A(\epsilon) n^{1/2 + \epsilon}
\quad \text{for all $n \ge 0$}.
\end{equation}

Despite the appearance of an `$\epsilon$' in this inequality, the
proof of \eqref{upper} is almost entirely combinatorial. The closest competing
result in the literature is due to Erd{\H{o}}s, who gives at the start
of \cite{ErdosPartitions} a short elementary proof that
\begin{equation}
\label{Erdosbound}
	\log p(n) \le c n^{1/2} \quad\text{for all $n \ge 0$},
\end{equation}
where, as before, $c = 2\sqrt{\pi^{2}/6}$.
Erd{\H{o}}s' result is of course significantly
sharper than~\eqref{upper}, but this improvement comes at the cost of
a greater contribution from analysis. For instance, the
reader may already have correctly guessed that  the identity
$\sum_{n=1}^\infty 1/n^{2} = \pi^{2}/6$ is needed.

In this context, we mention that Peter Neumann (Oxford Algebra
Kinderseminar, January 2003) has asked whether there is a combinatorial
proof that there exists a constant $C$ such that
$\log p(n) \le C\sqrt{n}$ for all $n \ge 0$. While \eqref{upper}
comes tantalisingly close, the ideas behind it do not appear quite
powerful enough to solve his problem.

Our second aim is to show that the partition bijection given in \S 2.2
may be used to solve several other problems in the enumeration
of partitions. In our first application we give
a very short proof of an identity originally due
to Gauss (see~\cite[end of \S 3]{Gauss}):
\begin{equation}
\label{Gauss}
\frac{(1-x^2)(1-x^4)(1-x^6) \ldots}{(1-x)(1-x^3)(1-x^5) \ldots} =
\sum_{m \ge 0}
x^{\frac{m(m+1)}{2}}.
\end{equation}

Our main application  concerns a result of Erd{\H{o}}s.
In the main part of~\cite{ErdosPartitions}, Erd{\H{o}}s uses the same
underlying idea as he used to prove \eqref{Erdosbound}, and some
more lengthy (but still elementary) analysis,
to prove that there exists a constant~$b \in \mathbf{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{asympt} p(n) \sim \frac{\mathrm{e}^{c \sqrt{n}}}{bn} \quad\text{as $n
\rightarrow \infty$}.
\end{equation}
It was already known from the work of Hardy and Ramanujan
\cite{HardyRamanujan} that \hbox{$b = 4\sqrt{3}$}, but
Erd{\H{o}}s' methods were not sufficiently powerful to prove this.
Later however, Newman  \cite{Newman} gave an elementary proof that if
\eqref{asympt} holds for \emph{some} constant $b$, then necessarily
$b =4\sqrt{3}$. In \S 4 we use our bijection to
give an alternative proof of this result. In length
it is comparable with Newman's, but it requires considerably
less knowledge of analysis, and the motivation is perhaps more apparent.

In \S 5 we conclude by showing how the abacus
may be applied to give exact asymptotic
estimates for two other classes of partitions, namely
self-conjugate partitions, and partitions with distinct parts.

\section{A partition bijection}
Let $\lambda$ be a partition of $n$. A $2$-\emph{hook} in $\lambda$
consists of two adjacent nodes in the Young diagram of $\lambda$ whose
removal leaves the diagram of a partition of $n-2$. By repeatedly
removing  $2$-hooks from $\lambda$ one obtains the \emph{$2$-core}
of~$\lambda$. For example, the $2$-core of $(6,3,3,1)$ is $(2,1)$,
obtained after removing the five~$2$-hooks indicated in the diagram below.

\begin{figure}[b]
\scalebox{0.5}[0.5]{\includegraphics{hooks.ps}}
\caption{The $2$-core of $(6,3,3,1)$.}
\end{figure}

In this diagram, two of the three
$2$-hooks of the original partition are shown by bold lines.
The remaining lines are $2$-hooks of partitions obtained
\emph{en route} to the $2$-core.

It is not obvious that the $2$-core of a partition is independent
of the manner in which one removes its $2$-hooks. This, and much
else besides, can be seen very clearly if we represent partitions
using G.~D.~James' abacus (see \cite[Ch.~2, 26--27]{JK}).
To make this article self-contained we briefly recall how
to operate this piece of apparatus. (We describe
only  the `binary' $2$-runner abacus.)

\subsection{}
Let $\lambda$ be a partition of $n$. Starting in the southwest corner
of the Young diagram of $\lambda$ walk along its rim, heading
towards the northeast corner. For each  step right, put a space,
indicated~$\circ$, and for each step up,
put a  bead, indicated~$\bullet$. For example, the partition
$(6,3,3,1)$ shown above has the sequence
$\circ$$\bullet$$\circ$\wb$\bullet$\bb$\circ$\wb$\circ$$\bullet$.
It will be seen shortly that it is useful
to allow such a sequence to begin with any number of
beads, and to finish with any number of spaces --- these must be
stripped off before the partition is recovered.

One then arranges the sequence in two columns, known as the \emph{runners}
of the abacus. For instance $(6,3,3,1)$ is represented by
\[ \begin{matrix} $$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\ $$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$ \\ $$\bullet$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\
$$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$ \\
$$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$
\end{matrix}\ . \]

We call this an \emph{abacus} display for the partition $\lambda$.
One sees that $2$-hooks in~$\lambda$ correspond to  beads with a
space above them, and that an abacus display for the partition
obtained by removing a given $2$-hook is obtained by sliding
the corresponding bead  one space up its runner.
(It is at this point that our convention about
initial beads and final spaces is needed.) The $2$-core of $\lambda$
is obtained by pushing all the beads up as far as they will go.

To reconstruct the partition $\lambda$ from an abacus display for its $2$-core
we need to know the number of positions down each bead must be moved.
For
example, given the abacus display
\[ \begin{matrix} $$\bullet$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\ $$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\ $$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$
\\ $$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$ \\ $$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$
\end{matrix}
\]
for the $2$-core of $(6,3,3,1)$, we recover the original partition
by moving the bead on the first runner down by~$2$ positions,
and on the second runner moving the lowest bead down by~$2$ positions
and the next lowest down by~$1$ position.
We record this information in a pair of partitions, $(\mu,\nu)$,
known as the $2$-\emph{quotient} of $\lambda$; here $(6,3,1,1)$ has
$2$-quotient $((2),(2,1))$.
Note that the total number of nodes in $\mu$ and $\nu$
is equal to the total number of $2$-hooks removed, so
$|\lambda| = |\gamma| + 2(|\mu| + |\nu|)$ where $\gamma$
is the $2$-core of $\lambda$.

\subsection{}
Given a partition $\lambda$ we may, by adding
a bead at the start if necessary, choose an abacus display
for $\lambda$ so that the $2$-core of $\lambda$ has at least
as many beads on the second runner as the first. With
this convention to fix the order of the partitions in the $2$-quotient
of $\lambda$, the correspondence just described between partitions
and pairs $(\gamma,(\mu,\nu))$ of $2$-cores and $2$-quotients
is bijective. Moreover, it is easy to see that any $2$-core
is of the form $(m,m-1,\ldots,1)$ for some $m \in \mathbf{N}_0$.
Therefore we have shown that, if $t(n)$ is the number
of pairs $(\mu,\nu)$ where $\mu$ and $\nu$ are partitions
with $|\mu|+|\nu| = n$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{bij}
p(n) = \sum_r t\left( \frac{n-r(r+1)/2}{2}\right)
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all the non-negative integers
$r$ such that $n-r(r+1)/2$ is a non-negative even integer. For example,
\[ p(10) = t(5) + t(2) + t(0). \]
As it is easy to calculate $t(n)$ given $p(m)$ for $m \le n$
using the formula $t(n) = \sum_{m=0}^n p(m)p(n-m)$,
\eqref{bij} gives us a recurrence relation for the values of
the partition function. We exploit this recurrence in \S 3 and \S 4 below.

\subsection{}We now prove Gauss' identity.
Let $P(x)$ be the ordinary generating function for $p$,
\begin{equation}\label{Pgenfunc}
P(x) = p(0) + p(1)x + p(2)x^2 + \ldots
= \prod_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{1-x^{n}} .
\end{equation}
Since each node in the $2$-quotient of a partition
contributes two nodes to the original partition, our
bijection shows that
\[ P(x) = P(x^2)^2 \sum_{m \ge 0} x^{\frac{m(m+1)}{2}} . \]
By \eqref{Pgenfunc}, this is equivalent to Gauss' identity \eqref{Gauss}.

It should be said that this is not the first combinatorial
proof of Gauss' identity. In \cite{Andrews}, Andrews gives a
bijective proof (in the style of Franklin's proof
of Euler's Pentagonal Number Theorem) that:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{(1-q^2)(1-q^4)(1-q^6) \ldots}{(1+q)(1+q^3)(1+q^5)
\dots} = 1 + \sum_{n=1}^\infty (-1)^{n} q^{n(2n-1)}(1+q^{2n}).
\end{equation*}
Replacing $q$ with $-x$ gives \eqref{Gauss}.
Another strategy is to first give a combinatorial
proof of Jacobi's triple product identity, as done for
example in \hbox{\cite[\S 6.2]{Pak}}; from Jacobi's identity,
it only takes a simple specialisation
to get~\eqref{Gauss}.

\subsection{}
We conclude this section by remarking that the bijection we have
described may be thought as being between the set of all partitions,
and the set of all oriented binary trees with vertices labelled
by members of $\mathbf{N}_0$, with the property that if two leaves
are connected to the same node, they are not both labelled by 0.
For example, the $2$-core and $2$-quotient of $(6,3,3,1)$
may be represented by the diagram below.

\hfil
\scalebox{0.85}{
\xymatrix{
      & 2\ar@{-}[dl]\ar@{-}[dr] & \\
  (2) &                         & (2,1)
}}\hfill

\smallskip
\noindent
Here the upper `$2$' records the number of rows (or columns)
in the $2$-core of $(6,3,3,1)$.
Iterating the process, we find that $(6,3,3,1)$
is represented by the oriented binary tree
shown below.

\hfil
\scalebox{0.85}{
\xymatrix{
  &  &  2\ar@{-}[dl]\ar@{-}[dr] \\
  &  0\ar@{-}[dl]\ar@{-}[dr] &  & 2 & \\
0 &  &  1 \\
}}\hfill

\medskip

The corresponding formulation of Gauss' identity is the attractive
\[ \prod_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{1-x^n} =
\prod_{m=0}^\infty \left( \sum_{r=0}^\infty x^{\frac{r(r+1)}{2}2^{m}}
\right)^{\!2^{m}}.\]

\section{Lower and upper bounds for $p(n)$}
By counting only partitions of $4m$ with $2$-core $\emptyset$ and $2$-quotient
$(\mu, \nu)$ where both $\mu$ and $\nu$ are partitions of $m$, we
obtain the inequality
$p(4m) \ge p(m)^2$.
An immediate consequence is that
\[ p(4^r) \ge p(4)^{2^{r-1}} = 5^{2^{{r-1}}} \quad\text{for all $r \ge 1$}. \]
Given  $n \in \mathbf{N}$, we may choose a power of $4$, say $4^r$, such
that $n/4 < 4^r \le n$. Since $p$ is an
increasing function, $p(n) \ge p(4^r)$, and so
\[ \log p(n) \ge \log p(4^r) \ge \frac{\log 5}{2}  2^{r} \ge \frac{\log 5}{4}
\sqrt{n} \quad\text{for all $n \ge 4$}. \]
It seems striking that such a simple argument gives a lower bound which,
while far from optimal, is still of the right asymptotic form.

Mar{\'o}ti (see \cite[Corollary 3.1]{MarotiLower})  has shown
that, with a little more analysis, and the use of a computer to check
small cases, one can obtain the significantly stronger lower bound
\[ p(n) \ge \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2 \sqrt{n}}}{14} \quad\text{for all $n \ge 1$}. \]

The next lemma shows how our bijection may be applied to give an upper bound.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:fbound}
Suppose that $f : \mathbf{R}_{\ge 0} \rightarrow \mathbf{R}_{\ge 0}$ is an increasing function
such that $f(0) \ge 1$ and
\[ \sum_{0 \le s \le n/2} f\left(\frac{n}{2} - s\right)
f\left(s \right)
\le \frac{f(n)}{n} \quad\text{for all $n\in\mathbf{N}$.}\]
 Then $p(n) \le f(n)$ for all $n \ge 1$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We work by induction on $n$. Using \eqref{bij} we have
\[ p(n) \le n t(n/2) = n \sum_{0 \le s \le n/2}
p\left(\frac{n}{2} - s\right)p(s) \]
where we adopt the convention that $p(x) = p(\left\lfloor x
\right\rfloor)$, and similarly for $t(x)$. Hence
\[ p(n) \le n \sum_{0 \le s \le n/2}
f\left(\frac{n}{2} - s\right) f(s) \le f(n) \]
which completes the inductive step.
\end{proof}

The reader will see that we have been very crude in taking $n$
as an upper bound for the number of summands in \eqref{bij} ---
there appears to be no advantage in being any more precise at
this point.

\begin{theorem}
Given any $\epsilon > 0$ there is a constant $A(\epsilon)$ depending
only on~$\epsilon$ such that
\[ p(n) \le \mathrm{e}^{A(\epsilon) n\raisebox{3pt}{\tiny $\sfrac{1}{2} \!+ \!\epsilon$}}\quad
\text{for all $n \ge 0$}.\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality, assume that $\epsilon < \sfrac{1}{2}$.
Let $f(x) = \mathrm{e}^{A x^{\sfrac{1}{2} + \epsilon}}$.
We shall prove that when $A$ is large enough,
$f$ satisfies the conditions of Lemma~\ref{lemma:fbound}.
Setting $\beta = \frac{1}{2} + \epsilon$, we have
\[ \sum_{0 \le s \le n/2} f\left(n/2 - s\right)
f\left(s\right)
= \sum_{0 \le s \le n/2} \mathrm{e}^{A\left( n/2 - s \right)^\beta
+ A  s^\beta} \le  \frac{n+1}{2} \,\mathrm{e}^{A n^\beta 4^{-\epsilon}} \]
where we used the inequality
\[ x^\beta + y^\beta \le 2 \left(\frac{x+y}{2}\right)^\beta \]
which is valid for $0 \le \beta \le 1$ and $x,y \ge 0$.
Therefore the only condition we must satisfy is that
\[ \mathrm{e}^{A  n^\beta 4^{-\epsilon}} \le \frac{2}{n(n+1)}\, \mathrm{e}^{A
n^\beta} \quad\text{for all $n \ge 1$}, \]
or, equivalently, that
\[ \mathrm{e}^{A (1-4^{-\epsilon}) n^\beta} \ge \frac{n(n+1)}{2}
\quad\text{for all $n  \ge 1$}.\]
Clearly this will hold provided $A$ is sufficient large.
\end{proof}

\section{A new evaluation of the constant in Erd{\H{o}}s' formula}

In this section we assume Erd{\H{o}}s' result \eqref{asympt} that
$p(n) \sim \mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{n}}/bn$ for some constant $b \in \mathbf{R}$, and prove
that $b = 4\sqrt{3}$. We shall also need Erd{\H{o}}s'
upper bound~\eqref{Erdosbound} that $p(n) \le \mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{n}}$
for all $n \ge 1$. (Here, as always, $c = 2\sqrt{\pi^2/6}$.)

Recall that $t(n)$ denotes the number of pairs $(\mu,\nu)$
of partitions such that $|\mu| + |\nu| = n$. We first show that it follows
from Erd{\H{o}}s' result that
\begin{equation}
\label{pairsasympt}
t(n) \sim \frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{2n}}}{n^{5/4}} \frac{2^23^{1/4}}{b^{2}} \quad
\text{as $n \rightarrow \infty$.}
\end{equation}
We then use the bijection described in \S 2.2 to deduce that
\begin{equation}
\label{lim}
p(32m) \sim \frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{32m}}}{32m} \frac{2^23^{1/2}}{b^{2}} \quad
\text{as $n \rightarrow \infty$.}
\end{equation}
Comparing this with $\eqref{asympt}$ shows that $b = 4\sqrt{3}$.
(The only reason for taking~$32m$ rather than a general~$n$ in \eqref{lim}
is that this choice lead to some simplifications in
the expressions we encounter;
there is of course no need to prove anything stronger.)

\subsection{}
All the results in this section
and \S 5 are proved using the following  simple lemma,
whose proof requires only the basic integral
\[ \int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma x^2} \:\mathrm{d}x= \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4\gamma}} \quad
\text{if $\gamma > 0$.}\]

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:gen}
If $\alpha, \beta, \gamma, \theta > 0$ then
\[ \sum_{r=0}^{\alpha m^{\beta + \theta}} \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma r^{2}/m^{2\beta}} \sim
\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4\gamma}} \,m^\beta \quad\text{as $m\rightarrow \infty$}.\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $S_m$ stand for the sum on the left-hand-side. Since
\[ S_m -1 \le \int_0^{\alpha m^{\beta+\theta}} \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma x^2/m^{2\beta}} \mathrm{d}x
\le S_m, \]
it is sufficient to prove that
\[ J_m = \frac{1}{m^\beta} \int_0^{\alpha m^{\beta+\theta}} \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma x^2/m^{2\beta}}
\mathrm{d}x
\rightarrow \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4\gamma}} \quad\text{as $m\rightarrow\infty$}.\]
This is not hard. On the one hand,
\[ J_m \le \frac{1}{m^\beta}\int_0^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma x^2/m^{2\beta}} \mathrm{d}x =
\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4\gamma}}
\]
and on the other,
\[
\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{4\gamma}} - J_m =
\frac{1}{m^\beta} \!
\int_{\alpha m^{\beta+\theta}}^\infty \!\mathrm{e}^{-\gamma x^2/m^{2\beta}}
\mathrm{d}x =
\frac{1}{m^\beta} \! \int_{\alpha m^\theta}^\infty \! \mathrm{e}^{-\gamma y^2}
 m^\beta \mathrm{d}y
=\int_{\alpha m^\theta}^\infty \!\mathrm{e}^{-\gamma y^2} \mathrm{d}y
\]
which tends to $0$ as $m \rightarrow \infty$. Hence $J_m$ has
the claimed limit.
\end{proof}

\subsection{} We start by proving \eqref{pairsasympt}.
If \eqref{pairsasympt} holds when $n$ is even then, by a simple
sandwiching argument, it must hold for all $n$. We may therefore
assume that $n = 2m$, in which case \eqref{pairsasympt} becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{qeq}
t(2m) \sim \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2c\sqrt{m}}}{m^{5/4}} \frac{2^{3/4}3^{1/4}}{b^{2}}
\quad\text{as $n \rightarrow \infty$.}
\end{equation}
Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given. Choose $N$ so that
\[ 1-\epsilon < \frac{p(n)}{e^{c\sqrt{n}}/bn} < 1 + \epsilon \quad
\text{for all $n \ge N$}. \]

We first obtain an upper estimate for $t(2m)$.
For $0 < \alpha < 1$ set
\begin{align*}
M_{\alpha}(m) &= \sum_{0 \le r \le \alpha m}
p(m+r)p(m-r), \\
R_{\alpha}(m) &= \sum_{\alpha m < r \le m}p(m+r)p(m-r).
\end{align*}
so we have $t(2m)/2 \le M_{\alpha}(m) + R_{\alpha}(m)$.
We shall see that as $m$
tends to infinity, the contribution of $M_{\alpha}(m)$ to~$t(2m)$ dominates,
no matter what the choice of~$\alpha$. In fact, it follows
from Erd{\H{o}}s' bound~\eqref{Erdosbound} and the inequality
\[ \sqrt{1+x} + \sqrt{1-x} \le 2 - \frac{x^2}{4} \quad\text{if $0 \le x \le 1$} \]
that
\[
R_{\alpha}(m) \le  \sum_{ \alpha m < r \le m }\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{m}\left(\sqrt{1+r/m}
+\sqrt{1-r/m}\right)} \le (1-\alpha)m e^{2c\sqrt{m} -
cr^2/4m^{3/2}},
\]
and so
\[ \frac{R_{\alpha}(m)}{\mathrm{e}^{2c\sqrt{m}}/m^{5/4}} \le
(1-\alpha)m^{9/4}
\mathrm{e}^{-c\alpha^{2}\sqrt{m}/4} \rightarrow 0 \quad\text{as $m\rightarrow \infty$}.\]
We now look at the main contribution. Provided $\alpha < 1/2$ and
$m \ge 2N$, the
smallest $n$ for which $p(n)$ appears in $M_{\alpha}(m)$ is at least
$N$. Hence if
these conditions hold,
\begin{align*}
\frac{M_{\alpha}(m)}{(1+\epsilon)^{2}} &\le
\sum_{r = 0}^{\alpha m}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{m}\left(\sqrt{1+r/m}+\sqrt{1-r/m}\right)}}
{b^2(m^2-r^2)} \\
& \le \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2c\sqrt{m}}}
{b^2m^2(1-\alpha^2)}
\sum_{r = 0}^{\alpha m} \mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{m}
\left(\sqrt{1+r/m}+\sqrt{1-r/m} - 2\right)} \\
& \le \frac{\mathrm{e}^{2c\sqrt{m}}}{b^2m^2(1-\alpha^2)}
\sum_{r = 0}^{\alpha m} \mathrm{e}^{-c r^{2}/4m^{3/2}}.
\end{align*}
It now
follows from Lemma \ref{lemma:gen}, applied with $\beta = 3/4$, $\theta = 1/4$, that
\[ \limsup \frac{M_\alpha(m)}{\mathrm{e}^{2c\sqrt{m}}/m^{5/4}} \le
\frac{(1+\epsilon)^2}{b^2(1-\alpha^2)} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{c}} =
\frac{(1+\epsilon)^2 3^{1/4}}{2^{1/4}b^2(1-\alpha^2)}.\]
Finally, let $\alpha, \epsilon \rightarrow 0$ to get
\[ \limsup \frac{t(2m)}{\mathrm{e}^{2c\sqrt{m}}/m^{5/4}} \le
\frac{ 2^{3/4}3^{1/4}}{b^2}. \]

We now obtain a lower estimate for $t(2m)$.
By taking $\alpha$ sufficiently small we may ensure that
\[ \sqrt{1+x} + \sqrt{1-x} \ge 2 - \frac{(1+\epsilon)x^2}{4} \quad
\text{if $0 \le x < \alpha$.} \]
For this choice of $\alpha$ we have, by the same manipulations as before,
\[ \frac{t(2m)}{e^{2c\sqrt{m}}/m^{5/4}}
+ \frac{p(m)^2}{e^{2c\sqrt{m}}/m^{5/4}}
\ge \frac{2}{b^2m^{3/4}}
\sum_{r=0}^{\alpha m} \mathrm{e}^{-cr^{2}(1+\epsilon)/4m^{3/2}}
. \]
The second term on the left-hand-side compensates for the double
counting of the contribution of $p(m)p(m)$ to $t(2m)$; as
$p(m) \le (1+\epsilon)\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{m}}/bm$ for $m \ge N$, this term vanishes in the limit. As before, it follows from Lemma~\ref{lemma:gen} that
\[ \liminf \frac{t(2m)}{e^{2c\sqrt{m}}/m^{5/4}} \ge
\frac{1}{b^2} \sqrt{\frac{\pi}{c(1+\epsilon)}} =
\frac{2^{3/4}3^{1/4}}{b^2\sqrt{1+\epsilon}}. \]
Now let $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$. This completes the proof
of~\eqref{qeq}.

\subsection{}
It follows from \eqref{bij} that
\[ p(32m) = \sum_r t\left(16m-\frac{r(r+1)}{4} \right) \]
where the sum is over all non-negative integers $r$
such that $16m-r(r+1)/4$ is a non-negative even number.
We may estimate this sum using the same ideas as \S 4.2.

We start with a lower estimate.
The contribution from those $r \equiv 0$ mod~$4$ is at least
the contribution from those $r \equiv 3$ mod~$4$, so we have
\[ p(32m) \ge 2\sum_{s=1}^{\alpha \sqrt{m}} t(16m-(4s-1)s)\]
for any $\alpha$ such that $0 < \alpha < 1$.

Let $\epsilon > 0$ be given. By \eqref{pairsasympt} we may choose $N$ so that
\[ t(n) > (1 - \epsilon){\frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{2n}}}{n^{5/4}}
\frac{2^23^{1/4}}{b^{2}}}  \quad \text{for all $n \ge N$}. \]
Take $m \ge N$. Choose $\alpha$ sufficiently small that
\[ \sqrt{1-x} \ge 1 - \frac{(1+\epsilon)x}{2}
\quad\text{if $0 \le x \le \frac{\alpha^2}{4}$.} \]
For this choice of $\alpha$ we have
\begin{align*}
\frac{p(32m)}{1-\epsilon} &\ge 2\sum_{s=1}^{\alpha \sqrt{m}}
\frac{2^23^{1/4}}{b^2}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{32m-2s(4s-1)}}}{(16m-s(4s-1))^{5/4}} \\
&\ge  \frac{2^33^{1/4}}{b^2}  \sum_{s=1}^{\alpha \sqrt{m}}
\frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{32m} \sqrt{1-\frac{s^2}{4m}}}}{(16m-s(4s-1))^{5/4}} \\
&\ge \frac{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{32m}}}{32m}
\frac{2^33^{1/4}}{b^2m^{5/4}}
\sum_{s=1}^{\alpha \sqrt{m}} \mathrm{e}^{-(1+\epsilon)cs^2/\sqrt{2m}}.
\end{align*}
It now follows from Lemma \ref{lemma:gen}, applied with
$\beta = 1/4$, $\theta = 1/4$, that
\[ \liminf \frac{p(32m)}{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{32m}}/32m}
\ge \frac{(1-\epsilon)}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon}}
\frac{2^33^{1/4}}{b^2}
\sqrt{\frac{\pi\sqrt{2}}{4c}}
= \frac{(1-\epsilon)}{\sqrt{1+\epsilon}} \frac{2^{2} 3^{1/2}}{b^2}. \]
Now let $\epsilon \rightarrow 0$.

To complete the proof of \eqref{lim} we must also show that
\[ \limsup  \frac{p(32m)}{\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{32m}}/32m} \le \frac{2^23^{1/2}}{b^2}.\]
In order to apply the method used in \S4.2 we need a uniform upper
bound for $t(n)$; the relatively crude estimate
\[ t(n) \le n p(n/2)^2 \le n\mathrm{e}^{c\sqrt{2n}} \quad\text{for $n\ge 1$}\]
given by \eqref{Erdosbound}
is sufficient for this purpose.
As no other new ideas are needed
we shall omit the remaining details of the proof.

\section{Asymptotic formulae for two special types of partition}
In this final section we give asymptotic formulae
for the number of self-conjugate partitions, and for the
number of partitions with distinct parts.
As corollaries, we get precise estimates
for the proportions of such partitions. We omit the details of the analytic
arguments required, as they are of the same nature as those
already seen in \S 4.

\subsection{Self-conjugate partitions}

Recall that if $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \ldots, \lambda_k)$ is a partition
of $n$ then the conjugate partition $\lambda'$ is defined by
$\lambda'_j = |\{ i : \lambda_i \ge j \}|$; the diagram
of $\lambda'$ is obtained from that of $\lambda$ by reflecting
it in its leading diagonal. Let $s(n)$ be the
number of self-conjugate partitions of $n$.

Given an abacus display
for a partition $\lambda$, one obtains a display for the conjugate partition
$\lambda'$ by reading the sequence of beads and spaces from
right to left,  and then replacing $\bullet$~with~$\circ$\ and \emph{vice versa}.
For example, $(6,3,3,1)$ and $(6,3,3,1)' = (4,3,3,1,1,1)$ have the
abacus displays:
\[ \begin{matrix} $$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\ $$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$ \\ $$\bullet$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\
$$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$ \\
$$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$
\end{matrix}\ ,\qquad\qquad
\begin{matrix} $$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\ $$\bullet$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\ $$\circ$$ & $$\circ$$ \\
$$\bullet$$ & $$\bullet$$ \\
$$\circ$$ & $$\bullet$$
\end{matrix} \
\]
respectively.

If $\lambda$ is self-conjugate then the sequence of spaces and
beads corresponding to $\lambda$ has an even number of entries.
It follows that if $\lambda$ has $2$-quotient $(\mu,\nu)$ then
$\nu = \mu^\prime$. This  gives us a bijection
between self-conjugate partitions of~$n$ and
pairs $(\gamma,\mu)$ where $\gamma$ is a $2$-core (and so of a known shape)
and $\mu$ is a partition of $(n-|\gamma|)/4$. (This bijection is well known,
see for instance \cite[Theorem 6.2.2]{JK}. We leave it to the
reader to work out the connection with the labelled binary trees of \S 2.4.)

The corresponding numerical result is
\[ s(n) = \sum p\left(\frac{n-r(r+1)/2}{4}\right) \]
where the sum is over all the non-negative integers $r$ such that $n-r(r+1)/2$ is
a non-negative integer divisible by $4$. By the same techniques
used in \S 4.3, one finds that
\[ s(n) \sim  \frac{\mathrm{e}^{\frac{c}{2} \sqrt{n}}}{{2^{7/4}3^{1/4}n^{3/4}}}
\quad\text{as $n\rightarrow \infty$}. \]
It follows that the proportion of self-conjugate partitions
satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{s(n)}{p(n)} \sim (6n)^{1/4} \mathrm{e}^{-\frac{c\sqrt{n}}{2}}\quad
\text{as $n\rightarrow \infty$}.
\end{equation}
Thus of the $p(n)$ partitions of $n$,
approximately $\sqrt{p(n)}$ are self-conjugate.

\subsection{Partitions with distinct parts}
Let $q(n)$ be the number of partitions of $n$ with distinct parts.
Here the numerical result we require is
\[ q(n) = \sum p\left(\frac{n-r(r+1)/2}{2}\right) \]
where the sum is over all the non-negative integers $r$ such that $n-r(r+1)/2$ is a non-negative even integer.
For a combinatorial proof of this result, see Proposition~5.2 in~\cite{KOR}.
As an alternative, note that the generating function for $q(n)$ is
\[ Q(x) = \prod_{n=1}^\infty (1+x^n) = \frac{P(x)}{P(x^2)}. \]
Hence by \eqref{Gauss},
\[ Q(x)  = P(x^2) \sum_{m \ge 0} x^{\frac{m(m+1)}{2}}. \]
Comparing coefficients of $x^n$ gives the required result.

By the same techniques used in \S 4.3, one finds that
\[ q(n) \sim \frac{ \mathrm{e}^{\frac{c}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{n}}}{2^23^{1/4}n^{3/4}}
\quad\text{as $n\rightarrow \infty$}. \]
It follows that the proportion of partitions with distinct parts satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{q(n)}{p(n)} \sim (3n)^{1/4} \mathrm{e}^{-c\sqrt{n}
\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)}
\quad\text{as $n \rightarrow \infty$}. \end{equation}

\section{Acknowledgements}
\thanks{I should like to thank
John Britnell and Atilla Mar{\'o}ti for several helpful conversations
on the subject of partitions, and Gordon James and Peter~Neumann
for asking two of the questions which motivated this paper.
}

\def\cprime{$'$} \def\Dbar{\leavevmode\lower.6ex\hbox to 0pt{\hskip-.23ex
  \accent"16\hss}D}

Counting Partitions on the Abacus


A Note on Nullstellensatz over Finite Fields

Abstract: We give an expository account of Nullstellensatz-like results when the base field is finite. In particular, we discuss the vanishing ideal of the affine space and of the projective space over a finite field. As an application, we include an alternative proof of Ore's inequality for the number of points of affine hypersurfaces over finite fields.

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:in}

Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, or Hilbert's Zero Point Theorem, is a classical result of fundamental importance in commutative algebra and algebraic geometry.
This result is only valid when the base field
is $\mathbb{C}$, the field of complex numbers, or more generally an algebraically closed field. In fact, when
the base field is $\mathbb{C}$,
it can be viewed as a remarkable generalization of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra. There are two versions, commonly known as Weak Nullstellensatz and Strong Nullstellensatz, which can be stated as follows.
\smallskip

{\bf Weak Nullstellensatz:} Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. If
$I$ is a nonunit ideal of the polynomial ring ${k[X_1, \dots , X_n]}$, then $I$ has a `zero', i.e.,
there exists $(\alpha_1, \dots ,\alpha_n) \in k^n$ such that
$f(\alpha_1, \dots ,\alpha_n) =0$, for each $f\in I$.

This result is usually deduced from the assertion, also referred to as a Nullstellensatz, that every
maximal ideal of ${k[X_1, \dots , X_n]}$ is of the form $(X_1-\alpha_1, \dots , X_n - \alpha_n)$
for some $\alpha_1, \dots ,
\alpha_n \in k$, provided of course $k$ is algebraically closed. On the other hand, the Weak Nullstellensatz together with a well-known ``trick of Rabinowitsch", implies the following version.
\smallskip

{\bf Strong Nullstellensatz:} Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field and let $f_1, \dots , f_m$ be any polynomials in ${k[X_1, \dots , X_n]}$. If $f\in {k[X_1, \dots , X_n]}$ is such that $f$ vanishes at every common zero in $k^n$ of $f_1, \dots , f_m$, then
$$
f^r = g_1f_1+ \cdots + g_mf_m \quad \text{for some } g_1, \dots ,g_m \in {k[X_1, \dots , X_n]} \text{ and } r \ge 0.
$$

The above statement is close to the original version of the theorem
as it appears in Hilbert's 1893 paper \cite[\S 3]{H} on the complete systems of invariants. Hilbert calls this
a \emph{third general theorem in the theory of algebraic functions, continuing Theorems I and III} of his 1890 paper \cite[\S I,  III]{H1} on the theory of algebraic forms. These latter theorems being what we now call Hilbert's basis theorem and Hilbert's syzygy theorem. A translation into English of Hilbert's papers on invariant theory is now available (cf. \cite{HA}) and one can access more easily the writings of a master.
Nowadays, (Strong) Nullstellensatz is more commonly stated in the language of vanishing ideals of affine algebraic varieties and we recall this version in \S\,\ref{subsec:2.1}
below. We also recall
analogous result for projective varieties that one calls Projective Nullstellensatz. Most modern textbooks on commutative algebra contain a proof of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz, and we refer to Eisenbud's book \cite{E} which has five different proofs, and to \cite{Z,Mun, May, Arr} for a sampling of alternative proofs.
See also the article by Goel, Patil and Verma \cite{GPV} in this volume and the older article by
Laksov \cite{L} where some variations of Hilbert's Nullstellensatz are discussed.

A trivial consequence of Strong Nullstellensatz is that if $k$ is an algebraically closed field and if $f\in {k[X_1, \dots , X_n]}$ vanishes on all of $k^n$, then $f$ is the zero polynomial. We will refer to it as {\bf Very Weak Nullstellensatz}, or in short, \textbf{VWN}. To deduce it from Strong Nullstellensatz, it suffices to take $m=1$ and $f_1$ to be the zero polynomial. The VWN  is, in fact, valid if $k$ is any infinite field, and can be proved easily using induction on $n$ and noting that a polynomial in one variable of degree $d$ with coefficients in a field $k$ has at most $d$ roots in $k$.

On the other hand, even the VWN is not true if the base field is finite, say the finite field ${\mathbb F}_q$ with $q$ elements. Indeed, there are nonzero polynomials
such as $X_i^q - X_i$ that vanish on all of ${\mathbb F}_q^n$. Nonetheless one has the following result, which may be viewed as an analogue of  (Very Weak) Nullstellensatz over finite fields.
\smallskip

\textbf{Affine ${\mathbb F}_q$-Nullstellensatz:} Let  $f \in {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ and let $\Gamma_q$ denote the ideal of ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ generated by $X_1^q-X_1, \dots , X_n^q - X_n$.
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $f$ vanishes at every point of ${\mathbb F}_q^n$ if and only if $f\in \Gamma_q$.
\item[(ii)]
Let $f_1, \dots , f_m$ be polynomials in  ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$.
If $f$ vanishes at every common zero of $f_1, \dots , f_m$ in ${\mathbb F}_q^n$,  then
$$
f = g_1f_1+ \cdots + g_mf_m +\gamma \quad \text{for some } g_1, \dots ,g_m \in {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]   \text{ and }  \gamma \in \Gamma_q.
$$
 \end{enumerate}
Note that (i) is a special case of (ii) and also that in (ii), one doesn't have to take a power of $f$ (unlike in Strong Nullstellensatz). In other words, if $I$ is an ideal of ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$, then $I + \Gamma_q$ is automatically a radical ideal of ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$. The above result is not new and goes back at least to Terjanian \cite{Terj}. An excellent account is available in the article (in French) of Joly \cite{Joly}. A more modern reference is Kreuzer and Robbiano \cite[\S\,6.2A]{KR}. However, in the experience of the author, the result is not as widely known as it should be. Moreover, an analogue of (i) in the projective case that gives an explicit description of homogeneous polynomials that vanish on all of ${\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$, appears to be known to even fewer algebraists. This is of a relatively recent vintage and can be attributed
to Mercier and Rolland \cite{MR}. We thus provide in this article a self-contained account of these Nullstellensatz-like results in the setting of finite fields. Our proof of the projective analogue of (i) above uses the notion of projective reduction developed in \cite{BDG} and is a little simpler than the original proof of Mercier and Rolland. We will also point out that
a straightforward analgoue of (ii) in the projective case is not possible.  In the affine case, the Affine
${\mathbb F}_q$-Nullstellensatz can be useful to deduce the so called affine ${\mathbb F}_q$-footprint bound for estimating the number of ${\mathbb F}_q$-rational points of affine algebraic varieties defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$. We outline this and show how such a bound can be used to deduce a classical inequality for the number of points of affine hypersurfaces defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$.

As indicated in the abstract, this is an expository article, and we have made an attempt to keep it fairly self-contained. The results given here are not new, but are somewhat scattered in the literature not all of which is easily available in English. The proofs given here of some of the results (especially in Section~\ref{sec:proj}) appear to be simpler and more natural than those available elsewhere in the literature.

\section{The Affine Case}
\label{sec:affine}

In the first subsection, we set up some basic notation and recall preliminaries about affine varieties. The notion of reduced polynomials is discussed in the next subsection and a couple of auxiliary results are proved here. These are then used in \S\,\ref{subsec:2.3} to prove the result described in the Introduction as the Affine ${\mathbb F}_q$- Nullstellensatz, and, in fact, a slightly more general version of it. Finally, in \S\,\ref{subsec:2.4}, we give an application to a classical inequality due to Ore.  Our exposition in
subsections \ref{subsec:2.2} and \ref{subsec:2.3} closely follows Joly \cite[Ch. 2]{Joly}, while the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:AFB} in \S\,\ref{subsec:2.3} is adapated from Carvalho's notes \cite[\S\,3]{Car}.

\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{subsec:2.1}
Let $k$ be a field and let $n$ be a nonnegative integer. Also, let $S:=k[X_1, \dots, X_n]$ be the ring of polynomials in $n$ variables $X_1, \dots , X_n$ with coefficients in $k$. We denote by ${\mathbb A}^n_k$ (or simply, ${\mathbb A}^n$ if the reference to $k$ is clear from the context) the space of $n$-tuples of elements of $k$. Given any $I \subseteq S$, we let
$$
{\mathsf Z}(I):=\{ \mathbf{a} = (a_1, \dots , a_n) \in {\mathbb A}^n_{k} : f(a_1, \dots , a_n) = 0 \text{ for all } f \in I\}.
$$
Given a subfield $F$ of $k$, we call a subset $Z$ of ${\mathbb A}^n_k$ an \emph{affine algebraic variety} defined over $F$ if $Z = {\mathsf Z}(I)$ for some $I\subseteq F[X_1, \dots , X_n]$. This is equivalent to saying that $Z = {\mathsf Z}(I)$ for some ideal $I$ of $S$ generated by finitely many polynomials in $F[X_1, \dots , X_n]$.
If $Z$ is an affine algebraic variety defined over $F$ and if $K$ is a field extension of $F$ such that
 $K$ is a subfield of an algebraic closure $\overline{k}$ of $k$ (so that $F, K$ and $k$ are subfields of $\overline{k}$), then we denote by $Z(K)$ the set of $K$-rational points of $Z$, i.e., $Z(K):=\{\mathbf{a} \in {\mathbb A}^n_{K} : f(\mathbf{a}) = 0 \text{ for all } f \in I\}$. Given a subset $Z$ of ${\mathbb A}^n_k$, we let
$$
{\mathsf I}(Z) : = \{ f\in S : f( \mathbf{a}) = 0 \text{ for all }  \mathbf{a}\in Z\},
$$
and we note that ${\mathsf I}(Z)$ is an ideal of $S$; it is called the \emph{vanishing ideal} of $Z$. It is not difficult to see that if $Z$ is an affine algebraic variety defined over $k$, then ${\mathsf Z}({\mathsf I}(Z)) = Z$. On the other hand,
Strong Nullstellensatz can be stated
as follows.
\begin{equation}
\label{SN}
{\mathsf I}({\mathsf Z} (I) ) = \sqrt{I} \quad \text{ if $k$ is algebraically closed and $I$ is any ideal of $S$}.
\end{equation}
By considering an ideal $I$ of $S$ such that ${\mathsf Z}(I) = \emptyset$, we obtain the Weak Nullstellensatz, whereas by considering the special case ${\mathsf Z}(I) = {\mathbb A}^n_k$, we can deduce the VWN.
As noted in the Introduction, the latter is valid (and rather easily proved) more generally when $k$ is an infinite field that is not necessarily algebraically closed.

\subsection{Reduction}
\label{subsec:2.2}
Fix a finite field ${\mathbb F}_q$ with $q$ elements (so that $q$ is
a prime power) and an algebraic closure $\overline{{\mathbb F}}_q$ of ${\mathbb F}_q$ (in fact, we can take $\overline{\FF}_q$ to be $\cup_{n\ge 1} {\mathbb F}_{q^n}$). Let $k$ be a subfield of $\overline{\FF}_q$ containing ${\mathbb F}_q$ (or equivalently, $k$ is an algebraic extension of ${\mathbb F}_q$). As before, let $S:=k[X_1, \dots , X_n]$.

A polynomial $f\in S$ is said to be \emph{reduced} if $\operatorname{deg}_{X_i} f \le q-1$ for each $i=1, \dots , n$. The set of all reduced polynomials in $S$ will be denoted by ${\mathfrak{R}}$. Clearly, ${\mathfrak{R}}$ is a vector space over $k$ and the monomials $X_1^{i_1} \cdots X_n^{i_n}$, where $0 \le i_j \le q-1\text{ for } j=1, \dots , n$,
form a $k$-basis of ${\mathfrak{R}}$. In particular, $\dim {\mathfrak{R}} = q^n$. Note that if $n=0$, then ${\mathfrak{R}} = S = k$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem1}
If $f\in {\mathfrak{R}}$ is such that $f(\mathbf{a}) = 0$ for all $\mathbf{a}\in {\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$, then $f$ is the zero polynomial. In other words, ${\mathfrak{R}} \cap {\mathsf I}( {\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)) = \{0\}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The case when $n=0$
is trivial. Suppose $n>0$ and the result holds for polynomials in $n-1$ variables. Let $f\in {\mathfrak{R}}$ be such that $f(\mathbf{a}) = 0$ for all $\mathbf{a}\in {\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$. Since $f$ is reduced, we can write $f= f(X_1, \dots , X_n)$ as
$$
f = f_0X_n^{q-1} + f_1X_{n}^{q-2} + \cdots + f_{q-1} \ \text{ where } f_i \in k[X_1, \dots , X_{n-1}] \text{ for } i=0,1, \dots , q-1.
$$
Now for any fixed $(a_1, \dots , a_{n-1})\in {\mathbb A}^{n-1}({\mathbb F}_q)$, the
polynomial $f(a_1, \dots , a_{n-1}, X_n)$ in $k[X_n]$ has degree $\le q-1$ and has at least $q$ roots in $k$. Hence it must be the zero polynomial. Consequently, $f_i(a_1,  \dots , a_{n-1}) = 0$ for all $i=0,1, \dots , q-1$ and
$(a_1, \dots , a_{n-1})\in {\mathbb A}^{n-1}({\mathbb F}_q)$. So by the induction hypothesis, each $f_i$ is the zero polynomial, and therefore, so is $f$.
\end{proof}

Now let us define ${\Gamma}_q(k)$ to be the ideal of $S=k[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ generated by $X_1^q - X_1, \dots , X_n^q - X_n$.
Clearly, ${\Gamma}_q(k) \subseteq  {\mathsf I}( {\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$, and so
Lemma~\ref{lem1} implies that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:RG}
{\mathfrak{R}} \cap {\Gamma}_q(k) = \{0\}.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem2}
Every $f\in S$ can be uniquely written as $f = g + \gamma$ for some
$g\in {\mathfrak{R}}$ and $\gamma \in {\Gamma}_q(k)$. In other words, $S = {\mathfrak{R}} \oplus {\Gamma}_q(k)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} The uniqueness is clear from \eqref{eq:RG} since both ${\mathfrak{R}}$ and ${\Gamma}_q(k)$ are clearly vector spaces over $k$. To prove the existence, it suffices to take $f$ to be a monomial, say
$f = X_1^{i_1} \cdots X_n^{i_n}$. If $f$ is not reduced, then $i_j \ge q$ for some $j\in \{1, \dots , n\}$.
Note that
$$
X_j^{i_j} = X_j^{i_j -q} (X_j^q - X_j + X_j) \equiv X_j^{i_j - (q -1)}({\rm mod} \ {\Gamma}_q(k)).
$$
Hence $f \equiv X_1^{i_1} \cdots X_{j-1}^{i_{j-1}} X_j^{i_j - (q -1)} X_{j+1}^{i_{j+1}} \cdots X_n^{i_n}({\rm mod} \ {\Gamma}_q(k))$.
Continuing in this way, we see that $f \equiv g ({\rm mod} \ {\Gamma}_q(k))$ for some reduced monomial $g$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Affine ${\mathbb F}_q$-Nullstellensatz}
\label{subsec:2.3}
We will continue to use the notation and terminology in \S\,\ref{subsec:2.1} and \S\,\ref{subsec:2.2}.
The Affine ${\mathbb F}_q$-Nullstellensatz stated in the Introduction is a special case of the theorem below with $k={\mathbb F}_q$,
where
$Z({\mathbb F}_q)$ coincides with $Z(I)$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:FFN}
Let $k$ be an algebraic extension of ${\mathbb F}_q$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] ${\mathsf I} ({\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)) = {\Gamma}_q(k)$.
\item[(ii)] If $Z$ is an affine algebraic variety in ${\mathbb A}^n_k$ defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$
and $Z = {\mathsf Z}(I)$ for some ideal $I$ of $S$ generated by polynomials in ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$,  then
$$
{\mathsf I}(Z({\mathbb F}_q)) = I + {\Gamma}_q(k).
$$
 \end{enumerate}
 \end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
(i) The inclusion ${\Gamma}_q(k) \subseteq  {\mathsf I} ({\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$ is obvious.
Now  suppose
$f \in  {\mathsf I} ({\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$. By Lemma~\ref{lem2}, we can write $f = g + \gamma$ for some $g\in {\mathfrak{R}}$ and $\gamma\in {\Gamma}_q(k)$. But then $g = f - \gamma$ vanishes on  ${\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$ and so by Lemma~\ref{lem1}, $g=0$. Thus $f\in {\Gamma}_q(k)$.

(ii)  Let $I$ be an ideal of $S$ generated by polynomials in ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$  and let $Z = {\mathsf Z}(I)$. Evidently, $I + {\Gamma}_q(k) \subseteq {\mathsf I}(Z({\mathbb F}_q))$. To prove the reverse inclusion, first note that by Hilbert basis theorem, $I = \langle f_1, \dots , f_r  \rangle$ for some $f_1, \dots , f_r \in {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$. Let
us consider
$$
g:= 1 - \big(1-f_1^{q-1}\big) \cdots \big(1-f_r^{q-1}\big) \quad \text{and} \quad h: = 1- g.
$$
It is clear that $g, h \in  {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ and $g\in I$. Moreover,
$$
g(\mathbf{a}) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{if }  \mathbf{a}\in Z({\mathbb F}_q) \\ 1 & \text{if } \mathbf{a}\in {\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q) \setminus Z({\mathbb F}_q) \end{cases}
 \quad \text{and} \quad
 h(\mathbf{a}) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if }  \mathbf{a}\in Z({\mathbb F}_q) \\ 0 & \text{if } \mathbf{a}\in {\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q) \setminus Z({\mathbb F}_q). \end{cases}
$$
Now let $f\in {\mathsf I}(Z({\mathbb F}_q))$. Then $fg \in I$ and $fh \in  {\mathsf I} ({\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$. Since $g+h = 1$, we see from (i) above that
$f = fg + fh \in I + {\Gamma}_q(k)$. Thus ${\mathsf I}(Z({\mathbb F}_q)) = I + {\Gamma}_q(k)$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
An immediate corollary of part (ii) of the above theorem is that for any ideal $I$ of $S$ generated by polynomials in ${\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$, the ideal $I+{\Gamma}_q(k)$ is a radical ideal. This particular fact can also be deduced from Seidenberg's Lemma given in Article 92 of \cite{Sei}.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Application to Affine Hypersurfaces over Finite Fields}
\label{subsec:2.4}
Let $k$ be an arbitrary field and as before, let $S$ denote the polynomial ring $k[X_1, \dots , X_n]$.
Also, let $\mathcal{M}$ denote the set of all monomials in $S$ (including the constant monomial $1$). Fix a monomial order on $\mathcal{M}$, i.e., a total order $\preccurlyeq$ on $\mathcal{M}$ satisfying (i) $1 \preccurlyeq \mu$ for all $\mu \in \mathcal{M}$ and
(ii)  $\mu_1 \preccurlyeq \mu_2$ $\Rightarrow$  $\nu \mu_1 \preccurlyeq \nu \mu_2$ for all $\mu_1,  \mu_2, \nu \in \mathcal{M}$. For $0 \ne f\in S$, let $\mathrm{in}_{\preccurlyeq} (f)$ denote the largest monomial (w.r.t. $\preccurlyeq$) appearing in $f$ with a nonzero coefficient; this is called the \emph{leading monomial} or the \emph{initial monomial} of $f$ (w.r.t.
$\preccurlyeq$).
For any subset $I$ of $S$, define the \emph{footprint} of $I$ to be the set $\Delta (I)$
of all monomials in $\mathcal{M}$ that are not divisible by the leading monomials of any nonzero element of $I$, i.e.,
$$
\Delta (I) := \{ \mu \in \mathcal{M} : \mathrm{in}_{\preccurlyeq}(f) \nmid \mu \text{ for all } f\in I \text{ with } f\ne 0\}.
$$
If $I \subseteq S$ is finite, say $I=\{f_1, \dots , f_r\}$, then we may
write $\Delta(I)$ as $\Delta (f_1, \dots , f_r)$.

The following result due to Buchberger is classical and is easily derived from the division algorithm (w.r.t. $\preccurlyeq$) in $S$. See, for example, Prop. 1 in Ch. 5, \S\,3 of \cite{CLO}.

\begin{proposition
\label{prop:muI}
$\{\mu + I : \mu \in \Delta (I)\}$ is a $k$-basis of $S/I$ for any ideal $I$ of $S$.
\end{proposition}

We can use this and a variant of
Lagrange interpolation to derive a useful bound for the number of ${\mathbb F}_q$-rational points of affine algebraic varieties defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$.

\begin{lemma}[Affine ${\mathbb F}_q$-Footprint Bound]
\label{lem:AFB}
Let $k$ be an algebraic extension of ${\mathbb F}_q$ and let $I$ be an ideal of $S:= k[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ generated by some nonzero polynomials $f_1, \dots , f_r \in {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$. Also let $Z = {\mathsf Z}(I)$ denote the corresponding affine algebraic variety in ${\mathbb A}^n_k$ defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$. Then
$$
|Z({\mathbb F}_q)| \le \left|\overline{\Delta} (f_1, \dots , f_r)\right|,
$$
where $\overline{\Delta} (f_1, \dots , f_r): = \{\mu \in \mathcal{M}: \mu \text{ is reduced and } \mathrm{in}_{\preccurlyeq}(f_i) \nmid \mu \text{ for } i=1, \dots , r \}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $I_q := I + {\Gamma}_q(k)$.
It is clear that $Z(I_q) = Z({\mathbb F}_q)$. In particular, $Z(I_q)$ is a finite subset of ${\mathbb A}^n_k$,
say $Z(I_q) = \{\mathbf{a}_1, \dots , \mathbf{a}_m\}$, where $\mathbf{a}_i \ne \mathbf{a}_j$ for $1\le i < j\le m$.
Write $\mathbf{a}_i = (a_{i1}, \dots , a_{in})$ for $i=1, \dots , m$.
Fix $i\in \{1, \dots , m\}$. Then for each $j\in \{1, \dots , m\}$ with $j\ne i$, there is $t_j \in \{1, \dots , n\}$ such that $a_{it_j} \ne a_{j t_j}$. Consider
$$
p_i(X_1, \dots , X_n) = \mathop{\prod_{1\le j \le m}}_{j\ne i} \frac{X_{t_j} - a_{j t_j}}{ a_{i t_j} - a_{j t_j}}.
$$
The polynomials $p_1, \dots , p_m \in {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ thus obtained have the property that
$p_i(\mathbf{a}_j) = \delta_{ij}$ for $i,j=1, \dots , m$.
Moreover, $I_q = I(Z({\mathbb F}_q))$, by part (ii) of Theorem~\ref{thm:FFN}. Hence if $\sum_{j=1}^m \lambda_j p_j \in I_q$ for some $\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_m\in k$, then by evaluating at $\mathbf{a}_i$, we obtain $\lambda_i=0$ for $i=1, \dots , m$. It follows that $\{p_1+I_q, \dots , p_m+I_q\}$ is a $k$-linearly independent subset of $S/I_q$. Thus, by Proposition~\ref{prop:muI}, we see that
$$
|Z({\mathbb F}_q)| = m \le \dim_k S/I_q = |\Delta (I_q)| \le \left| \Delta(f_1, \dots , f_r, X_1^q - X_1, \dots , X_n^q - X_n)\right|.
$$
Finally, since $\mathrm{in}_{\preccurlyeq}(X_i^q - X_i) = X_i^q$ for each $i=1, \dots , n$, it is clear that $\mu \in \mathcal{M}$ is reduced if and only if $\mathrm{in}_{\preccurlyeq}(X_i^q - X_i)\nmid \mu$ for all $i=1, \dots , n$. This readily implies that
$\Delta(f_1, \dots , f_r, X_1^q - X_1, \dots , X_n^q - X_n) = \overline{\Delta} (f_1, \dots , f_r)$.
\end{proof}

As a corollary, we shall deduce an inequality that according to \cite[p. 320]{LN}, goes back at least to Ore (1922) and provides an effective bound on the number of ${\mathbb F}_q$-rational points of an affine hypersurface defined over ${\mathbb F}_q$ in terms of its degree. It can also be viewed as a multivariable generalization of the elementary fact that a univariate polynomial of degree $d$ with coefficients in a field has at most $d$ roots in that field. The generalization is of course possible when the base field is finite.

\begin{corollary}[Ore's Inequality]
\label{cor:ore}
Let $f\in {\mathbb F}_q[X_1, \dots , X_n]$ be a nonzero polynomial of degree $d$ and let $Z= Z(f)$ be the corresponding variety in ${\mathbb A}^n_k$, where $k$ is any algebraic extension of ${\mathbb F}_q$. Then
$$
|Z({\mathbb F}_q)| \le dq^{n-1}.
$$
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
The inequality is trivial
if $d\ge q$ because then  $dq^{n-1} \ge |{\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)| \ge |Z({\mathbb F}_q)|$.
Assume that $d< q$. This implies, in particular, that $f$ is reduced. Fix a monomial order $\preccurlyeq$ on the set $\mathcal{M}$ of all monomials in $S:=k[X_1, \dots , X_n]$, and
write
$\mathrm{in}_{\preccurlyeq}(f) =X_1^{i_1}\cdots X_n^{i_n}$, where $i_1, \dots , i_n$ are nonnegative integers such that $i_1+ \dots + i_n \le d$. Note that
$0\le i_j \le d \le q-1$ for $j=1, \dots , n$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:AFB},
$$
|Z({\mathbb F}_q)| \le |\overline{\Delta}(f)| =
\left|\{ \mu \in \mathcal{M}: \mu \text{ is reduced and } X_1^{i_1}\cdots X_n^{i_n} \nmid \mu\} \right|.
$$
Now a monomial $\mu = X_1^{j_1}\cdots X_n^{j_n}$ is reduced and is divisible by $X_1^{i_1}\cdots X_n^{i_n}$
if and only if $i_t \le j_t \le q-1$ for all $t=1, \dots , n$. The number of such monomials is therefore
$ (q-i_1) \cdots (q-i_n)$. An easy induction on $n$ shows that
$$
 (q-i_1) \cdots (q-i_n) \ge q^n - (i_1+ \cdots +i_n)q^{n-1} \quad \text{ whenever }

 0 \le i_j < q \text{ for } j =1, \dots , n.
 $$
Since the number of reduced monomials in $\mathcal{M}$ is clearly $q^n$, it follows that
$$
 |Z({\mathbb F}_q)| \le |\overline{\Delta}(f)| \le q^n - \left( q^n - d q^{n-1} \right) = d q^{n-1},
 $$
 where we have used the fact that $i_1+ \dots + i_n \le d$.

\end{proof}

\section{Projective Version}
\label{sec:proj}

In this section, we will try to develop projective analogues of the results in the first three subsections of Section~\ref{sec:affine}. Our treatment will, in fact,  be very parallel to that in \S \ref{subsec:2.1}-\ref{subsec:2.3}.

\subsection{Preliminaries}
\label{subsec:3.1}
Let $k$ be a field.
The projective $n$-space over $k$ will be denoted by ${\mathbb P}^n_k$ and it is
the set of equivalence classes of elements of the set $k^{n+1} \setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$
w.r.t. the equivalence relation $\sim$ given by proportionality, i.e., for all $\mathbf{a} = (a_0, a_1, \dots , a_n)$ and
$\mathbf{b} = (b_0, b_1, \dots , b_n)$ in $k^{n+1} \setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$,
$$
\mathbf{a} \sim \mathbf{b}
\Longleftrightarrow \text{ there is $\lambda \in k$ such that $a_i = \lambda b_i$ for all $i=0,1,\dots , n$}.
$$
We may denote by $[a_0:a_1: \dots : a_n]$
the equivalence class of $(a_0, a_1, \dots , a_n)$ in $k^{n+1} \setminus \{\mathbf{0}\}$. We let $\mathcal{S}$ be the polynomial ring $k[X_0, X_1, \dots , X_n]$ in $n+1$ variables. Given a subset $\mathcal{I}$ of $\mathcal{S}$ consisting of homogeneous polynomials, we let
$$
\mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I}) : = \left\{ [a_0:a_1: \dots : a_n] \in {\mathbb P}^n_k : f(a_0, a_1, \dots , a_n) = 0 \text{ for all } f\in \mathcal{I}\right\}.
$$
Given a subfield $F$ of $k$, we call a subset $V$ of ${\mathbb P}^n_k$ a \emph{projective algebraic variety} defined over $F$ if $V = \mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I})$ for some subset $\mathcal{I}$ of homogeneous polynomials in  $F[X_0, X_1, \dots , X_n]$. This is equivalent to saying that $V = \mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I})$ for some homogeneous ideal $\mathcal{I}$ of $S$ generated by finitely many homogeneous polynomials in $F[X_0, X_1, \dots , X_n]$.
If $V$ a projective algebraic variety defined over $F$ and if $K$ is a field extension of $F$ such that
 $K$ is a subfield of an algebraic closure $\overline{k}$ of $k$,

 then we denote by $V(K)$ the set of $K$-rational points of $V$, i.e.,
$$
V(K):=\{[a_0: \dots : a_n] \in {\mathbb P}^n_{K} : f(a_0,  \dots , a_n) = 0 \text{ for all  homogeneous } f \in \mathcal{I}\}.
$$
Given a subset $V$ of ${\mathbb P}^n_k$, the  \emph{vanishing ideal} of $V$ is defined to be the ideal ${\mathsf I}(V)$ of $\mathcal{S}$ generated by the
homogeneous polynomials in $\mathcal{S}$ that vanish at every point of $V$.
It is not difficult to see that if $V$ is any projective algebraic variety defined over $k$, then $\mathsf{V}({\mathsf I}(V)) = V$, while
the projective analogue of \eqref{SN}
is the following.

\smallskip

\noindent
{\bf Projective Nullstellensatz}:
If $k$ is algebraically closed and if $\mathcal{I}$ is any homogeneous ideal of $\mathcal{S}$, then $\sqrt{\mathcal{I}} \supseteq \langle X_0, X_1, \dots , X_n\rangle$ if $\mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I})$ is empty, whereas ${\mathsf I}(\mathsf{V} (\mathcal{I}) ) = \sqrt{\mathcal{I}}$ if $\mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I})$ is nonempty.

In particular, we see that there are nonunit homogeneous ideals of $\mathcal{S}$ that have no `zero' in ${\mathbb P}^n_k$,  even when $k$ is algebraically closed.
Thus a straightforward analogue of the Weak Nullstellensatz isn't quite true for projective varieties. On the other hand, the other special case $\mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I}) = {\mathbb P}^n_k$ still yields the projective analogue of VWN, which says that if $k$ is algebraically closed, then the only homogeneous polynomial that vanishes on all of ${\mathbb P}^n_k$ is the zero polynomial. As before, this is valid more generally (and proved rather easily) when $k$ is any infinite field. But when $k$ is a finite field, such a result is not true and we
 discuss next what happens in this case.

\subsection{Projective reduction}
\label{subsec:3.2}
We follow \cite{BDG} to outline here a projective analogue of the notion of reduction that was discussed in \S\,\ref{subsec:2.2}.  In this section, let $k$ be an algebraic extension of ${\mathbb F}_q$ and let $\mathcal{S}:=k[X_0, X_1, \dots , X_n]$. Given a nonnegative integer $d$, let $\mathcal{S}_d$ denote the set of homogeneous polynomials in $\mathcal{S}$ of degree $d$ (including the zero polynomial).
We will denote by $\mathbb{M}$ the set of all monomials in $\mathcal{S}$. A monomial $\mu \in \mathbb{M}$ is said to be \emph{projectively reduced} if either $\mu =1$ or $\mu \ne 1$ and $\operatorname{deg}_{X_i} \mu \le q-1$ for $1\le i < \ell_{\mu}$, where $\ell_{\mu}$ is the index of the last variable appearing in $\mu$, i.e., $\ell_{\mu}:= \max\{\ell \in \{0,1, \dots , n\} : X_{\ell} \mid \mu\}$. Given a nonnegative integer $d$, we let ${\mathfrak{R}}_d$ denote the set of $k$-linear combinations of projectively reduced monomials in $\mathbb{M}$ of degree $d$. Clearly ${\mathfrak{R}}_d$ is a finite dimensional vector space over $k$ and its elements may be called projectively reduced homogeneous  polynomials of degree $d$.
The next two results are projective analogues of Lemmas~\ref{lem1} and \ref{lem2}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemp1}
Let $d$ be a nonnegative integer. If $f\in {\mathfrak{R}}_d$ is such that $f(P) = 0$ for all $P\in {\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$, then $f$ is the zero polynomial. In other words, ${\mathfrak{R}}_d \cap {\mathsf I}( {\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)) = \{0\}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The case when $n=0$
is trivial. Suppose $n>0$ and the result holds for homogeneous polynomials of degree $d$ in $k[X_0, X_1, \dots , X_{n-1}]$. Let $f\in {\mathfrak{R}}_d \cap {\mathsf I}( {\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)) $.
By separating terms involving $X_n$,
we can write
$$
f(X_1, \dots , X_n) = g(X_0, \dots , X_{n-1}) + h(X_0, \dots , X_n)
$$
where $g\in k[X_0, \dots , X_{n-1}]$ and $h\in k[X_0, \dots , X_n]$ are homogeneous of degree $d$ such that the last variable in each of the monomials appearing in $h$ (with a nonzero coefficient) is $X_n$. Considering points $[a_0: \dots : a_n]$ of ${\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$ such that $a_n=0$, we deduce from the induction hypothesis that $g(X_0, \dots , X_{n-1})$ is the zero polynomial. On the other hand, the dehomogenization $h(X_0, \dots , X_{n-1}, 1)$ is a reduced (and not necessarily homogeneous) polynomial in $k[X_0, \dots , X_{n-1}]$ that vanishes on ${\mathbb A}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$. Hence by Lemma~\ref{lem1}, $h(X_0, \dots , X_{n-1}, 1)$ is  the zero polynomial. Since $h$ is a homogeneous polynomial divisible by $X_n$, it follows that $h$
is also the zero polynomial.
\end{proof}

Now let us define ${\Gamma}_q^*(k)$ to be the ideal of $\mathcal{S}$
generated by the ${n+1}\choose{2}$ \emph{Fermat polynomials} $X_i^q X_j -  X_i X_j^q$, where $0\le i < j \le n$.
Clearly, ${\Gamma}_q^*(k)$ is a homogeneous ideal of $\mathcal{S}$ and  ${\Gamma}_q^*(k) \subseteq  {\mathsf I}( {\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$. For any $d\ge 0$, we let ${\Gamma}_q^*(k)_d := {\Gamma}_q^*(k)\cap \mathcal{S}_d$.
From Lemma~\ref{lemp1}, we see that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:PRG}
{\mathfrak{R}}_d \cap {\Gamma}_q^*(k)_d = \{0\} \quad \text{for every nonnegative integer } d.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemp2}
Let $d$ be a nonnegative integer and let $f\in \mathcal{S}_d$.
Then
$f = g + \gamma$ for unique
$g\in {\mathfrak{R}}_d$ and $\gamma \in {\Gamma}_q^*(k)_d$. Consequently, $\mathcal{S}_d = {\mathfrak{R}}_d \oplus {\Gamma}_q^*(k)_d$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} The uniqueness is clear from \eqref{eq:PRG} since both ${\mathfrak{R}}_d$ and ${\Gamma}_q^*(k)_d$ are clearly vector spaces over $k$. To prove the existence, it suffices to take $f$ to be a nonconstant monomial of degree $d$, say
$f = X_0^{i_0} \cdots X_{\ell}^{i_\ell}$, where $\ell$ is the index of the last variable in $f$ so that $i_{\ell} > 0$.  If $f$ is not reduced, then $\ell \ge 1$ and $i_j \ge q$ for some $j\in {\mathbb Z}$ with $0\le j < \ell$.
Now observe that  $X_j^{i_j} X_{\ell}^{i_\ell}$ can be written as
$$
X_j^{i_j -q}  X_{\ell}^{i_\ell -1 }  \left( X_j^q X_{\ell} - X_j X_{\ell}^{q}  + X_j X_{\ell}^{q}\right) \equiv X_j^{i_j - (q -1)}   X_{\ell}^{i_\ell  +(q-1) }
({\rm mod} \ {\Gamma}_q^*(k)).
$$
This implies that
$$
f \equiv X_1^{i_1} \cdots X_{j-1}^{i_{j-1}} X_j^{i_j - (q -1)} X_{j+1}^{i_{j+1}} \cdots X_{\ell}^{i_\ell  +(q-1) }({\rm mod} \ {\Gamma}_q^*(k)).
$$
Continuing in this way, we see that $f \equiv g ({\rm mod} \ {\Gamma}_q^*(k))$ for some projectively reduced monomial $g$ of degree $d$. Moreover, $\gamma: = f -g$ is necessarily a homogeneous polynomial in
${\Gamma}_q^*(k)$ of degree $d$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Vanishing Ideal of Projective Spaces over Finite Fields}
\label{subsec:3.3}
We will continue to use the notation and terminology in \S\,\ref{subsec:3.1} and \S\,\ref{subsec:3.2}.
The following result is a slightly more general version of a theorem of Mercier and Rolland \cite[Thm. 2.1]{MR}; in fact, it corresponds precisely to \cite[Cor. 2.6]{BDG}. The proof, however, is different from
that in \cite{MR} or \cite{BDG}.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:PFFN}
Let $k$ be an algebraic extension of ${\mathbb F}_q$. Then
$$
{\mathsf I} ({\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)) = {\Gamma}_q^*(k).
$$
 \end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The inclusion ${\Gamma}_q^*(k) \subseteq  {\mathsf I} ({\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$ is obvious. For the reverse inclusion, let $f$ be a homogeneous polynomial of degree $d$ such that
$f \in  {\mathsf I} ({\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q))$. By Lemma~\ref{lemp2}, we can write $f = g + \gamma$ for some $g\in {\mathfrak{R}}_d$ and $\gamma\in {\Gamma}_q^*(k)_d$. But then $g = f - \gamma$ vanishes on  ${\mathbb P}^n({\mathbb F}_q)$ and so by Lemma~\ref{lemp1}, $g=0$. Thus $f\in {\Gamma}_q^*(k)$.
\end{proof}

Unlike in the affine case, it is not true that if $\mathcal{I}$ is a homogeneous ideal of $\mathcal{S}$, then ${\mathsf I} (\mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I})) = \mathcal{I} + {\Gamma}_q^*(k)$. In fact, while ${\mathsf I}(\mathsf{V}(\mathcal{I}))$ is a radical ideal, the ideal $\mathcal{I} + {\Gamma}_q^*(k)$ need not be a radical ideal even when $\mathcal{I}$ is a radical ideal of $\mathcal{S}$. To illustrate this, we reproduce the following example from \cite[Ex. 3.8]{BDG}.

\begin{example}
\label{ex:JqNotRad}
{\rm
Suppose $n=1$ and $f(X_0, X_1) : = X_0^q X_1 - X_0X_1^q + X_0^{q+1}$. Consider the principal homogeneous ideal  $\mathcal{I} = \langle f(X_0, X_1)\rangle$
of $k[X_0, X_1]$.
Note that $\mathcal{I}$ is a radical ideal of $\mathcal{S} = k[X_0,X_1]$ because $\mathcal{S}$ is a UFD and $f$ does not have a multiple root in ${\mathbb P}^1(k)$. Indeed,
$f(X_0, X_1) = X_0g(X_0, X_1)$ where $g(X_0, X_1):= X_0^{q-1}X_1 - X_1^q + X_0^q$ does not have $[0:1]$ as a root and also no multiple root of the form $[1:a]$ since the derivative with respect to $X_1$ of $g(1, X_1)$ is never zero. On the other hand, $\mathcal{I} + {\Gamma}_q^*(k) = \mathcal{I} + \langle  X_0^q X_1 - X_0X_1^q \rangle$ contains $X_0^{q+1}$, but does not contain $X_0$ (since every nonzero element of $\mathcal{I} + {\Gamma}_q^*(k)$ has degree $\ge q+1$). Thus $\mathcal{I} + {\Gamma}_q^*(k)$ is not a radical ideal even though $\mathcal{I}$ is a radical ideal.
}
 \end{example}

\begin{remark}
The nonavailability of a straightforward analogue of part (ii) of Theorem~\ref{thm:FFN} in the projective case makes it harder to find a suitable analogue of the affine ${\mathbb F}_q$-footprint bound (Lemma~\ref{lem:AFB}). Nonetheless, it is shown in \cite{BDG} how a useful projective ${\mathbb F}_q$-footprint bound can be obtained, and as an application an inequality due to Serre for the number of points of projective hypersurfaces  is deduced. This inequality is, in fact, a not-so-straightforward projective analogue of Ore's inequality given in Corollary~\ref{cor:ore}; see \cite{DG} for more on this.
\end{remark}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author is grateful to Peter Beelen and Mrinmoy Datta
for some helpful conversations related to the topics in this article.