On splitting and splittable families

Abstract: A set $A$ is said to split a finite set $B$ if exactly half the elements of $B$ (up to rounding) are contained in $A$. We study the dual notions: (1) splitting family, which is a collection of sets such that any subset of $\{1,\ldots,k\}$ is split by a set in the family, and (2) splittable family, which is a collection of sets such that there is a single set $A$ that splits each set in the family.We study the minimum size of a splitting family on $\{1,\ldots,k\}$, as well as the structure of splitting families of minimum size. We use a mixture of computational and theoretical techniques. We additionally study the related notions of $\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting families and $4$-splitting families, and we provide lower bounds on the minimum size of such families.Next we investigate splittable families that are just on the edge of unsplittability in several senses. First, we study splittable families that have the fewest number of splitters. We give a complete characterization in the case of two sets, and computational results in the case of three sets. Second, we define a splitting game, and study splittable families for which a splitter cannot be found under adversarial conditions.

\section{Introduction}

\let\thefootnote\relax\footnotetext{\ \ \textbf{Acknowledgements.} This article represents a portion of the research carried out during the 2018 REU CAD at Boise State University. The program was supported by NSF award \#DMS-1659872 and by Boise State University.}

This article concerns the dual notions of splitting families and splittable families, which arise naturally in several areas of combinatorics. Both types of families involve the following key notion:

\begin{definition}
  Let $A$ and $B$ be subsets of $[k]=\{1,\ldots,k\}$. We say that $A$ \emph{splits} $B$, or $A$ is a \emph{splitter} of $B$, if $|A \cap B| = |B|/2$ for $|B|$ even, and $|A \cap B| = (|B|\pm1)/2$ for $|B|$ odd.
\end{definition}

A collection $\mathcal A$ of subsets of $[k]$ is said to be a \emph{splitting family} on $k$ if for any $B\subset[k]$ there exists an $A\in\mathcal A$ such that $A$ splits $B$. Splitting families are also called splitting systems, and along with separating systems such families have been used to aid in combinatorial search algorithms.

A collection $\mathcal B$ of subsets of $[k]$ is said to be a \emph{splittable family}  on $[k]$ if there exists $A\subset[k]$ such that for each $B\in\mathcal B$ we have $A$ splits $B$. In discrepancy theory, splittable families correspond to the families with discrepancy $\leq1$ and represent distributions which are the most amenable to a variety of algorithms such as parallelization and halftoning.

Below we will study several questions surrounding splitting families and splittable families. Our first investigation focuses on the question of the least size of a splitting family on $k$. Splitting families were used in \cite{stinson-baby} as an aid in an algorithm for solving the low Hamming weight discrete logarithm problem. In that article, the authors used a construction, attributed varyingly to Coppersmith and Galvin, of a splitting family on $k$ of size $\lceil{k/2}\rceil$. Specifically they show that the family consisting of $A_i=\{i,i+1\ldots,i+\ceiling{k/2}\}$ for $i=1,\ldots,\ceiling{k/2}$ is a splitting family on $k$.

In Section~2 we record the result that the above construction is optimal in the sense that any splitting family on $k$ has size at least $\ceiling{k/2}$. This result follows from the results of \cite{alon} and was pointed out to us by a colleague. Still it is natural to ask whether the ``standard'' splitting family described in the previous paragraph is the unique optimal construction. We provide computational results essentially confirming this conjecture for $k\leq 16$ (with just one notable exception). We further show that under additional assumptions, the conjecture holds for all $k$.

In Section~3 we study two broad generalizations of splitting families which arise naturally in the above investigations. A collection $\mathcal A$ is said to be a \emph{$\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting family} on $k$ if for any $B\subset[k]$ such that $|B|\leq 4$ there exists an $A\in\mathcal A$ such that $A$ splits $B$. The notion of $4$-splitting family is defined analogously. We will provide lower bounds on the minimum size of a $\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting family and of a $4$-splitting family. The latter bound corrects a minor error in the literature.

Our second major area of investigation concerns the boundary between splittable and unsplittable families. It was shown in \cite{charikar} (and elaborated in \cite{reu16}) that the general problem of deciding whether a given family is splittable is NP-complete. It is then natural to ask which families $\mathcal B$ are ``just splittable,'' that is, splittable but with the fewest number of splitters. The answer to the question of which $n$-set families $\mathcal B$ are ``just splittable'' can be used to find bounds on the least size of an $n$-splitting family on $[k]$, see \cite{reu14}.

In Section~4 we give results on $n$-set families on $[k]$ with the fewest number of splitters for $n\leq3$. When $n=1$ and $\mathcal B=\{B\}$, the minimum number of splitters occurs when $|B|=k$ or $k-1$, and the number of splitters is asymptotic to $2^k/\sqrt{k}$. When $n=2$ and $\mathcal B=\{B_1,B_2\}$, it was shown in \cite{reu14} that if $|B_i|\leq k/2$ then the minimum number of splitters occurs when $B_1$ and $B_2$ are disjoint. In this article we remove the cardinality constraints $|B_i|\leq k/2$ and find that the minimum number of splitters occurs when $|B_i|\approx 2k/3$ and $|B_1\cap B_2|\approx k/3$. In both the disjoint and general cases, the number of splitters is asymptotic to $2^k/k$. We also calculate an analytical formula for approximating the number of splitters of an arbitrary two-set family $\mathcal B$.

When $n=3$ the situation is somewhat more complex and we provide partial answers and computational results. Based solely on the short pattern $2^k/k^{1/2}$, $2^k/k^1$, the authors of \cite{reu14} conjectured that for $n=3$ the minimum number of splitters is asymptotic to $2^k/k^{3/2}$. Our computational results support this conjecture. However the explanation for the formula $2^k/k^{3/2}$ doesn't seem to be the same as the explanation for the cases $n=1,2$. Indeed, when $n\geq3$ there exist unsplittable families, unlike when $n<3$, and the ``just splittable'' families are very similar to the unsplittable ones in appearance.

In Section~5, we define and study a strategic variant of the notion of splittability. We define the \emph{splitting game}, in which players Split and Skew are given a family $\mathcal B$ and collaborate to construct a set $A$. Split wins if $A$ splits $\mathcal B$ and Skew wins otherwise. We establish several general lemmas that allow one to simplify the analysis of a given instance of the game. For families $\mathcal B$ of three or fewer sets, we give a complete characterization of when each player has a winning strategy. We also provide complete solutions to several special case studies, such as the tic-tac-toe style game which arises when the splitting game is played on a grid.

\section{Splitting families}

Recall from the introduction that a splitting family on $k$ is a collection of sets which suffices to split any subset of $[k]$. In this section we investigate several questions surrounding the minimum size of a splitting family on $k$, as well as the structure of families of minimum size.

Recall from the introduction that for even $k$, the \emph{standard splitting family} on $k$ is the family $\mathcal F$ consisting of $A_i=\{i,i+1\ldots,i+k/2\}$ for $i=1,\ldots,k/2$. For any even $k$, the standard splitting family on $k$ is in fact a splitting family, see for example \cite{enomoto} and \cite{stinson-baby}. As a consequence, for any $k$ the minimum size of a splitting family on $k$ has upper bound $\ceiling{k/2}$.

On the other hand, the next result states that this bound is tight. We are grateful to Calvin Yost--Wolff for discovering the proof and allowing us to include it here.

\begin{theorem}[Yost--Wolff]
  Any splitting family on $k$ has size at least $k/2$. As a consequence, the minimum size of a splitting family on $k$ is exactly $\ceiling{k/2}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  Suppose that $\mathcal F$ is a splitting family on $k$. For each $A\in\mathcal F$ let $\bm{v}_A$ be the $\pm1$ characteristic vector of $A$, that is, $\bm{v}_A(i)=1$ for $i\in A$ and $\bm{v}_A(i)=-1$ for $i\notin A$. Define a polynomial $p(\bm{x})$ in $k$ variables by
  \[p(\bm{x})=\prod_{A\in\mathcal F}\bm{v}_A\cdot\bm{x}
  \]
  Then $p$ vanishes on every $0,1$-vector with an even number of $1$'s. Next define
  \[q(\bm{x})=p((x_1+1)/2,\ldots,(x_k+1)/2)
  \]
  and note that $q$ vanishes on every $\pm1$-vector with an even number of $1$'s.

  Finally let $\bar q$ be the polynomial obtained from $q$ by repeatedly replacing occurrences of $x_i^2$ with $1$ in each monomial of $q$. Then $\bar q$ agrees with $q$ on every $\pm1$-vector, and hence $\bar q$ vanishes on every $\pm1$-vector with an even number of $1$'s.

  Now $\bar q$ is multilinear in the sense that it is affine in each coordinate. Moreover $\bar q\neq 0$: indeed, $p$ does not vanish on any $0,1$-vector with an odd number of $1$'s, so $q$ does not vanish on any $\pm1$-vector with an odd number of $1$'s, so $\bar q$ does not vanish on any $\pm1$-vector with an odd number of $1$'s. It follows from \cite[Lemma~2.1]{alon} that $\deg(\bar q)\geq k/2$. We may now conclude that $|\mathcal F|=\deg(p)=\deg(q)\geq\deg(\bar q)\geq k/2$.
\end{proof}

Given this result, it is natural to wonder whether the standard splitting family on $k$ is the unique splitting family of size $\ceiling{k/2}$. In the rest of this section, we present partial answers to this question.

We begin with computational results. In the following we say that a splitting family $\mathcal F$ on $k$ is \emph{uniform} if every set $A\in\mathcal F$ has size $|A|=\floor{k/2}$ or $\ceiling{k/2}$. Observe that the standard splitting family on $k$ is uniform. We also say that splitting families $\mathcal F,\mathcal F'$ are \emph{equivalent} if $\mathcal F'$ can be obtained from $\mathcal F$ by complementing sets in $\mathcal F$ and permuting the elements of $[k]$.

\begin{proposition}
  \begin{itemize}

    \item For all $k\leq16$, every minimal splitting family is uniform.
    \item Among even $k\leq16$, there is just one minimal splitting family which is not equivalent to a standard splitting family, namely $k=8$ and
    \[\mathcal F=\{\{1,2,3,4\},\{1,2,5,6\},\{3,4,5,6\},\{1,3,5,7\}\}
    \]
  \end{itemize}
\end{proposition}

The method of search centered on the following notion. We say that splitting family $\mathcal A = \{A_1, \ldots, A_n\}$ on $k$ is \emph{extendable} if it is the restriction to $k$ of some splitting family on $k+1$. Our algorithm performed an exhaustive search of non-extendable splitting families with a fixed number of sets. The code and its output may be found in \cite{bryce}.

In our next results we identify the structure of minimal splitting families under a strong additional hypothesis. To begin, we recall that if $\mathcal F=\{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ is a splitting family on $k$, its \emph{incidence matrix} is the $n\times k$ matrix with a $1$ in the $(i,j)$ entry if $j\in A_i$, and a $0$ otherwise. The columns of $A$ are distinct elements of the Hamming cube $\{0,1\}^n$ of $n$-entry $0,1$ vectors. The \emph{Hamming representation} of $\mathcal F$ is the subset $S\subset\{0,1\}^n$ consisting of the columns of the matrix representation $A$. The Hamming representation inherits a graph structure defined by $s\sim t$ iff $s,t$ differ in exactly one entry.

If $\bar x$ is a subset of the indices $1,\ldots,n$ we let $\delta_{\bar x}$ denote the element of $\{0,1\}^n$ with $1$'s in the entries indicated by $\bar x$ and $0$'s everywhere else. In our graphical representations we stratify the elements $\delta_{\bar x}$ by their \emph{weight}, $|\bar x|$. See Figure~\ref{fig:hamming} for two examples of Hamming representations.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node(0) at (0,0) {$\delta_\emptyset$};
    \node(1) at (-1,1) {$\delta_1$};
    \node(4) at (1,1) {$\delta_4$};
    \node(12) at (-1,2) {$\delta_{12}$};
    \node(34) at (1,2) {$\delta_{34}$};
    \node(123) at (-1,3) {$\delta_{123}$};
    \node(234) at (1,3) {$\delta_{234}$};
    \node(1234) at (0,4) {$\delta_{1234}$};
    \draw (0)--(1)--(12)--(123)--(1234)--(234)--(34)--(4)--(0);
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \hspace{1in}
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node(0) at (0,0) {$\delta_\emptyset$};
    \node(4) at (0,1) {$\delta_4$};
    \node(12) at (-1,2) {$\delta_{12}$};
    \node(13) at (0,2) {$\delta_{13}$};
    \node(23) at (1,2) {$\delta_{23}$};
    \node(124) at (-1,3) {$\delta_{124}$};
    \node(134) at (0,3) {$\delta_{134}$};
    \node(234) at (1,3) {$\delta_{234}$};
    \draw (0)--(4);
    \draw (12)--(124);
    \draw (13)--(134);
    \draw (23)--(234);
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{Left: The Hamming representation of the standard splitting family on $k=8$. Right: The Hamming representation of the nonstandard minimal splitting family on $k=8$.\label{fig:hamming}}
\end{figure}

In the following result, we say that a family $\mathcal F$ of subsets of $[k]$ is a \emph{$\mathord\leq t$-splitting family} if $\mathcal F$ splits all subsets of $[k]$ of size at most $t$. We say that a family $\mathcal F$ is \emph{connected} if its Hamming representation is a connected graph.

\begin{theorem}
  \label{theorem:connected}
  Let $\mathcal F$ be a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family on $k$ of minimum size. If $\mathcal F$ is connected, then $\mathcal F$ is equivalent to the standard splitting family on $k$, or else to the restriction to $k$ of the standard splitting family on $k+1$ (if $k$ is odd). In particular, $|\mathcal F|=\ceiling{k/2}$.
\end{theorem}

The proof consists of a series of lemmas.

\begin{lemma}[Y lemma]
  \label{lemma:Y}
  Let $S$ be the Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family $\mathcal F$. Then every element of $S$ has degree at most $2$ in $S$. In fact, $S$ cannot contain an arrangement of the following four ``Y'' types:
  \begin{enumerate}
    \item $\{\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar u},\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar v},\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar w}\}$, with $\bar u,\bar v,\bar w$ pairwise disjoint;
    \item $\{\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar x\bar y},\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar z},\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar w}\}$, with $\bar y\not\subset\bar x$, and $\bar z,\bar w$ disjoint;
    \item $\{\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar y},\delta_{\bar x\bar y},\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar z}\}$, with $\bar y\not\subset\bar x$, $\bar x\not\subset \bar y$, and $\bar z\not\subset\bar x\bar y$; and
    \item $\{\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar y},\delta_{\bar z},\delta_{\bar xyz}\}$, with $\bar x\setminus\bar y\bar z=\bar y\setminus\bar x\bar z=\bar z\setminus\bar x\bar y=\emptyset$.
  \end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

These four arrangements are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:4forbidden}.

\begin{figure}[ht]
  \centering
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node(x) at (0,0) {$\delta_{\bar x}$};
    \node(xyu) at (-1,0.8) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar \bar y\bar u}$};
    \node(xyv) at (0,1) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar v}$};
    \node(xyw) at (1,1.2) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar w}$};
    \draw[dashed] (x) edge(xyu) edge(xyv) edge(xyw);
  \end{tikzpicture}\quad
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node(x) at (0,0) {$\delta_{\bar x}$};
    \node(xy) at (0,1) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y}$};
    \node(xyz) at (-.5,1.8) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar z}$};
    \node(xyw) at (.5,2) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar w}$};
    \draw[dashed] (x) edge(xy);
    \draw[dashed] (xy) edge(xyz) edge(xyw);
  \end{tikzpicture}\quad
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node(x) at (-.5,-1) {$\delta_{\bar x}$};
    \node(y) at (.5,-.8) {$\delta_{\bar y}$};
    \node(xy) at (0,0) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y}$};
    \node(xyz) at (0,1) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar z}$};
    \draw[dashed] (x) edge(xy)  (y) edge(xy)  (xy) edge(xyz);
  \end{tikzpicture}\quad
  \begin{tikzpicture}
    \node(xyz) at (0,0) {$\delta_{\bar x\bar y\bar z}$};
    \node(x) at (-1,-0.8) {$\delta_{\bar x}$};
    \node(y) at (0,-1) {$\delta_{\bar y}$};
    \node(z) at (1,-1.2) {$\delta_{\bar z}$};
    \draw[dashed] (xyz) edge(x) edge(y) edge(z);
  \end{tikzpicture}
  \caption{Forbidden ``Y'' arrangements for the Hamming representation of a $\leq4$-splitting family; (a)--(d) appear left--right.\label{fig:4forbidden}}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
  To prove the arrangements (a)--(d) are impossible, it is sufficient to observe that in each type (a)--(d), no index appears exactly twice among the subscripts, as this means that no set of $\mathcal F$ contains exactly two elements of the $4$-element set.

  To see this implies every element of $S$ has degree at most $2$, suppose towards a contradiction that some element $s\in S$ is adjacent in the Hamming hypercube to three other elements $s_1,s_2,s_3\in S$. We claim that the $4$-element set $\{s,s_1,s_2,s_3\}$ is of one of the types~(a)--(d). Indeed, each of $s_1,s_2,s_3$ has weight one higher or one lower than $s$. If all three are higher the set is of type~(a), if two of the three are higher the set is of type~(b), if two of the three are lower the set is of type~(c), and if all three are lower the set is of type~(d). In all cases we obtain a contradiction to the previous paragraph.
\end{proof}

We remark that avoiding the types~(a)--(d) does not guarantee a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family. For example $\{\delta_1,\delta_2,\delta_3,\delta_4\}$ is unsplit but not of any of the types~(a)--(d).

\begin{lemma}
  \label{lem:cycle}
  Let $S$ be the Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family $\mathcal F$ with $\emptyset\notin\mathcal F$. If $S$ is a simple cycle, then $\mathcal F$ is equivalent to the standard splitting family on $k=|S|$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  By complementing sets of $\mathcal F$, we may assume $\delta_\emptyset\in S$. We first argue that the stratified graph of $S$ has the shape of a standard arrangement, that is, a vertically elongated diamond with just one turn each at the top and bottom (see Figure~\ref{fig:hamming} left). Indeed otherwise $S$ must contain elements of the form $\delta_{\bar xa},\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar xb}$ (that is, the cycle must have a vee at a location other than $\delta_\emptyset$). But then the set $\{\delta_\emptyset,\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar xa},\delta_{\bar xb}\}$ is a Y of type~(b), a contradiction.

  Next we argue that the $\delta$-labeling of the elements of $S$ is equivalent to a standard arrangement up to renaming the sets. To begin we know the bottom element (least weight) is $\delta_\emptyset$ and we may say that the top element (greatest weight) is $\delta_{12\cdots n}$ where $n$ is the total number of sets. Furthermore we may assume without loss of generality that the labels up the left-hand side are $\delta_{1},\delta_{12},\ldots,\delta_{12\cdots n-1}$.

  \begin{center}
    \begin{tikzpicture}[n/.style={draw,circle,fill,inner sep=0}]
      \node[n,label=below:$\delta_\emptyset$](0) at (0,0) {};
      \node[n,label=left:$\delta_1$](1) at (-1,1) {};
      \node[n](4) at (1,1) {};
      \node(12) at (-1,2) {$\vdots$};
      \node(34) at (1,2) {$\vdots$};
      \node[n,label=left:$\delta_{12\cdots n-1}$](123) at (-1,3) {};
      \node[n](234) at (1,3) {};
      \node[n][label=above:$\delta_{12\cdots n}$](1234) at (0,4) {};
      \draw (0)--(1)--(12)--(123)--(1234)--(234)--(34)--(4)--(0);
    \end{tikzpicture}
  \end{center}

  To conclude, we need only show that the labels down the right-hand side are exactly $\delta_{2\cdots n},\delta_{3\cdots n},\ldots\delta_{n}$. To see this, assume as an inductive hypothesis that the first $i-1$ vertices down the right-hand side are $\delta_{2\cdots n},\ldots,\delta_{i\cdots n}$.

  We claim that the remaining vertices down the right-hand side must all omit $i$. Otherwise we would be able to find two distinct such vertices of the form $\{\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar xi}\}$. But then the set $\{\delta_{1\cdots i},\delta_{\bar x},\delta_{\bar xi},\delta_{i\cdots n}\}$ is not split. This completes the claim.

  Now we may conclude that the vertex immediately below $\delta_{i\cdots n}$ must be $\delta_{(i+1)\cdots n}$. This completes the inductive step, and the proof.
\end{proof}

In the next result, if $S$ is a Hamming representation of an $n$-set $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family $\mathcal F$, we say that $S$ is \emph{maximal} if whenever an element of $\{0,1\}^n$ is added to $S$ the result is no longer a Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family.

\begin{lemma}
  Let $S$ be the Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family $\mathcal F$ with $\emptyset\notin\mathcal F$. If $S$ is a simple cycle, then $S$ is maximal.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  By the previous lemma, it is sufficient to show that the standard arrangement $S=\{\delta_\emptyset,\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_{1\cdots n},\cdots,\delta_n\}$ is maximal. Now suppose towards a contradiction that there exists $\delta_{\bar x}\notin S$ such that $S\cup\{\delta_{\bar x}\}$ is a Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family.

  We first claim that either $1\in\bar x$ or $n\in\bar x$. Indeed otherwise we would have that the set $\{\delta_\emptyset,\delta_1,\delta_n,\delta_{\bar x}\}$ is a $Y$ of type~(a). Thus we may suppose without loss of generality that $1\in\bar x$.

  Now let $i\in 2,\ldots,n$ be the least index such that $i\notin\bar x$. Then the set $\{\delta_{1\cdots i-2},\delta_{1\cdots i-1},\delta_{1\cdots i},\delta_{\bar x}\}$ is a $Y$ of type~(b), a contradiction which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

The lemmas so far imply that if $S$ is the Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family, then $S$ is either a single simple cycle or else a disjoint union of paths. Next we investigate constraints on the paths.

\begin{lemma}
  Let $S$ be the Hamming representation of a $\mathord\leq4$-splitting family $\mathcal F$ with $\emptyset\notin\mathcal F$. If $S$ is a path, then $\mathcal F$ is equivalent to the restriction to $k=|S|$ of the standard splitting family on $k'=2|\mathcal F|$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  By complementing some of the sets of $\mathcal F$, we may suppose without loss of generality that one end of the path $S$ is $\delta_\emptyset$. We will show that $S$ is a subset of the Hamming representation of a standard splitting family. By permuting the indices of the sets, we may suppose that the longest initial segment of increasing weights is $\delta_\emptyset,\delta_1,\ldots,\delta_{1\cdots n}$ for some $n$. If there are no more elements of $S$, then we are done.

  Otherwise we may suppose that $S$ turns after $\delta_{1\cdots n}$. Then this must be the last turn, since an additional turn would form a vee shape, which together with $\delta_\emptyset$ would form a $Y$ of type~(b). Now the inductive argument from Lemma~\ref{lem:cycle} implies that the remaining points of $S$ after $\delta_{1\cdots n}$ must be $\delta_{2\cdots n},\ldots,\delta_{i\cdots n}$. It follows that $n=|\mathcal F|$, and that $S$ is the restriction of the standard splitting family on $n$.
\end{proof}

We are now ready to conclude the proof of the Theorem.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem:connected}]
  The lemmas together imply that $\mathcal F$ is either equivalent to the standard splitting family on $k$ or the restriction to $k$ of the standard splitting family on $k'=2|\mathcal F|$. Since $\mathcal F$ is of minimum size, $|\mathcal F|\leq\ceiling{k/2}$, which implies that $k'=k$ or $k'=k+1$ (if $k$ is odd).
\end{proof}

\section{Splitting subsets of size $2$ and $4$}

Recall from the previous section that $\mathcal F$ is a $\mathord{\leq}t$-splitting family on $k$ if $\mathcal F$ splits all subsets of $[k]$ of size at most $t$. We will also say that $\mathcal F$ is a \emph{$t$-splitting family} on $k$ if $\mathcal F$ splits all subsets of $[k]$ of size exactly $t$. In \cite{stinson-baby}, $t$-splitting families are used in an algorithm to solve the weight $t$ discrete log problem. In this section we study the least size of a $4$-splitting family and the least size of a $\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting family on $k$.

Beginning with $4$-splitting families, the article \cite{ling} established a lower bound on the least size of a \emph{uniform} $4$-splitting family (that is, assuming every set in the family has size $k/2$). Later, \cite{stinson-mt} stated that this lower bound holds for arbitrary $4$-splitting families, citing the aforementioned article as proof. In the following result we repair this minor error and prove that the claimed lower bound does indeed hold for arbitrary $4$-splitting families.

\begin{theorem}
	Let $k\geq 6$ and suppose $\mathcal F$ is a $4$-splitting family on $k$. Then $|\mathcal F|\geq\log_2{k}$.
\end{theorem}

In the proof and later in the paper, we will use the following terminology. Let $\mathcal F=\{A_1,A_2,\ldots, A_n\}$ be a family of subsets of $[k]$. For any $I\subset \{1,2,\ldots,n\}$, the \emph{Venn region} corresponding to $I$ is the set
\[\bigcap\{A_i\mid i\in I\}\cap\bigcap\{A_i^c\mid i\notin I\}\;.
\]
The \emph{multiplicity} of the Venn region corresponding to $I$, or any of its elements, is $|I|$. We will say two Venn regions corresponding to $I,I'$ are \emph{adjacent} if $|I\triangle I'|=1$.

\begin{proof}
	Assume towards contradiction that $n<\log_2{k}$ so that $k\geq 2^n + 1$.

	We consider the subfamily $\mathcal F_0=\{A_1,A_2,\ldots A_{n-1}\}$. Then $\mathcal F_0$ has $2^{n-1}$ Venn regions, and since $k>2^n=2\cdot 2^{n-1}$ we conclude that some Venn region $R$ of $\mathcal F_0$ contains at least three points $x,y,z$.

  We can replace $A_n$ with its complement if necessary, so we can assume without loss of generality that $A_n$ contains at least two of $x,y,z$, say $x$ and $y$. If $w\in[k]$ is any other point, consider the set $\{x,y,z,w\}$. $\mathcal F_0$ does not split it since $x,y,z \in R$. Therefore, since $\mathcal F$ is a $4$-splitting family, $A_n$ must split $\{x,y,z,w\}$, implying $z,w \notin A_n$. Since $w$ was chosen arbitrarily, it follows that $A_n = \{x,y\}$. The $k-3\geq 2^n-2$ points other than $x,y,z$ are distributed among the $2^{n-1}$ Venn regions of $\mathcal F_0$; we consider several cases on how these points are distributed.

	\underline{Case 1:} There is a point in $R$ besides $x,y,z$.

	Let $w$ be such a point. We know $w\not \in A_n$. Since $k\geq 6$, we can find a fifth point $w'$, and again $w'\notin A_n$. Then $\{x,z,w,w'\}$ is not split by $A_n$ since $A_n$ only contains $x$. Further, $\{x,z,w,w'\}$ is not split by any set from $\mathcal F_0$ since $x,z,w$  are in the same Venn region of $\mathcal F_0$. Thus, $\{x,z,w,w'\}$ is not split by any set from $\mathcal F$, a contradiction.

 	\underline{Case 2:} There are no points in $R$ besides $x,y,z$ and some Venn region of $\mathcal F_0$ other than $R$ has at least three points.

  Let $R'$ be such a region and let $w,w',w''\in R'$. Then $\{z,w,w',w''\}$ is not split by any set from $\mathcal F_0$. Moreover $A_n$ contains none of these four points, so $\{z,w,w',w''\}$ is not split by any set from $\mathcal F$, a contradiction.

 	\underline{Case 3:} There are no points in $R$ besides $x,y,z$ and no Venn region of $\mathcal F_0$ other than $R$ has at least three points.

	The $2^n-2$ points other than $x,y,z$ are distributed among the $2^{n-1}-1$ Venn regions of $\mathcal F_0$ other than $R$. In this case, since $2^n-2=2\cdot\left( 2^{n-1}-1\right)$, every such region must have exactly two points. Choose distinct Venn regions $R'$ and $R''$ which are adjacent to $R$. (This is possible because the assumption $k\geq 6$ implies $|\mathcal F|\geq3$, so $|\mathcal F_0|\geq 2$.) Letting $w'\in R'$ and $w''\in R''$, we have that $\{x,z,w',w''\}$ is not split by any set from $\mathcal F_0$. Moreover $\{x,z,w',w''\}$ is not split by $A_n=\{x,y\}$. Once again $\{x,z,w',w''\}$ is not split by any set from $\mathcal F$, a contradiction.

	This completes the proof.
\end{proof}

We now turn to $\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting families.

\begin{theorem}
  Let $k\geq5$ and suppose $\mathcal F$ is a $\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting family on $k$. Then $|\mathcal F|\geq\log_2k+3-\log_2 5$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  Suppose $\mathcal F=\{A_1,\ldots,A_n\}$ and this time let $\mathcal F_0=\{A_1,\ldots,A_{n-2}\}$ and $\mathcal F_1 = \{A_{n-1}, A_n\}$.

  We first claim that no Venn region of $\mathcal F_0$ contains four points. Indeed if there were such $x,y,z,w$, then since $\mathcal F$ is $2$-splitting we would have $x,y,z,w$ in each of the four distinct Venn regions of $\mathcal F_1$. Since we assumed $k\geq 5$, we may let $u$ be any other point. Without loss of generality, $u$ is in the same Venn region of $\mathcal F_1$ as $x$. But then the $4$-element set $\{x,y,z,u\}$ is not split, a contradiction.

  We next claim there cannot exist Venn regions $R_1,R_2,R_3$ of $\mathcal F_0$, each with three points, such that $R_1\sim R_2\sim R_3$. Indeed, otherwise we would be able to find $x_i$ in each $ R_i$ such that all three $x_i$ are in the same Venn region of $\mathcal F_1$. (This holds because three $3$-element subsets of a $4$-element set must have a point in common.) Suppose without loss of generality that $x_1,x_2,x_3\in A_{n-1}\cap A_n$. Let $y_2$ be another element of $R_2$ which is in a Venn region of $\mathcal F_1$ adjacent to that of $x_2$. Then $\{x_1,x_2,y_2,x_3\}$ is not split by any set of $\mathcal F$. Indeed $A_{n-1}$ and $A_n$ contain three of these points, and $A_1,\ldots,A_{n-2}$ each agree on $x_2,y_2$ and at least one of $x_1,x_3$.

  Now let $S$ be the set of Venn regions of $\mathcal F_0$ with three points. We claim that $|S|\leq2^{n-3}$. For this, observe that the adjacency graph of the $2^{n-2}$ Venn regions of $\mathcal F_0$ is isomorphic to a hypercube and thus may be decomposed into $2^{n-4}$ disjoint squares. If $|S|>2^{n-3} = 2 \cdot 2^{n-4}$ then one of these squares must contain three elements of $S$. It follows that we can find three elements $R_1,R_2,R_3\in S$ such that $R_1\sim R_2\sim R_3$. This contradicts the previous claim.

  We now have that the number of elements $k$ satisfies
  \[k\leq 3|S|+2|S^c| = 2(|S|+|S^c|) + |S|
    \leq 2\cdot 2^{n-2} + 2^{n-3}
    = 5\cdot 2^{n-3}
  \]
  This implies the desired bound.
\end{proof}

It is remarkable that the lower bounds in the previous two theorems are so close to one another. The distance between them is more visible if one considers the inverse functions, that is, the corresponding upper bounds on the $k$ for which there exists a $4$- or $\mathord{\leq}4$-splitting family on $k$ of a given size. Of course, these bounds are unlikely to be tight.

\section{Splittable families}

Recall from the introduction that a family $\mathcal B = \{B_1, \ldots, B_n\}$ of subsets of $[k]$ is called \emph{splittable} if there exists a single set $A \subset [k]$ such that $A$ splits $B_i$ for all $i\leq n$. In this section we investigate the questions: given a fixed $n$ and $k$, what $n$-set splittable family on $k$ has the minimum number of splitters $A$, and what is this number? We will answer these questions completely in the case when $n=1,2$, and provide computational results when $n=3$.

We first consider the case when $n=1$, that is, $\mathcal B=\{B\}$ and $B\subset[k]$. If $|B|$ is even then the number of splitters of $\mathcal B$ is
\[2^{k-|B|}\cdot \binom{|B|}{|B|/2}
\]
and if $|B|$ is odd then the number of splitters of $\mathcal B$ is
\[2^{k-|B|}\cdot \left(\binom{|B|}{|B|/2 + 1}+\binom{|B|}{|B|/2 - 1}\right) = 2^{k-|B|+1}\binom{|B|}{(|B|-1)/2}
\]
The following result is unsurprising, and we record the proof.

\begin{proposition}
  The number of splitters of $\mathcal B=\{B\}$ on $[k]$ is minimized when $|B|=k$ if $k$ is even, and when $|B| = k-1$ when $k$ is odd. The minimum number of splitters is asymptotic to $2^k/\sqrt{k}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
	We first claim that if $|B|=k-i$ is odd (and nonempty), then removing one point from $B$ decreases the number of splitters. Indeed the number of splitters of $B$ is
  \[2^{i+1}\binom{k-i}{(k-i-1)/2} \;,
  \]
	and the number of splitters of $B$ with a point removed is
  \[2^{i+1} \binom{k-i-1}{(k-i-1)/2} \; .
  \]
	It is not difficult to calculate that the latter expression is smaller than the first whenever $k-i \geq 3$. (Note that when $k-i=1$, the two expressions are equal.)

  In particular the number of splitters is minimized when $|B|$ is even. We next claim that if $|B|=k-i$ is even (and nonempty), then removing two points from $B$ increases the number of splitters, that is:
  \[2^i \binom{k-i}{(k-i)/2} < 2^{i+2} \binom{k-i-2}{(k-i-2)/2} \; .
  \]
  This comes from applying Pascal's identity:
	\begin{align*}
		2^i\binom{k-i}{\frac{k-i}2} &= 2^i\left(\binom{k-i-2}{\frac{k-i-2}2-1} + 2\binom{k-i-2}{\frac{k-i-2}2} + \binom{k-i-2}{\frac{k-i-2}2+1}\right) \\
		&< 2^{i+2}\binom{k-i-2}{\frac{k-i-2}2} \; .
	\end{align*}
	The desired result follows.

  For the second statement, we now see that when $k$ is even the minimum number of splitters of a $1$-set family on $k$ is exactly $\binom{k}{k/2}$. It is a standard application of Stirling's approximations to conclude that this is asymptotic to $2^k/\sqrt{k}$.
\end{proof}

We now turn to the case when $n=2$. We begin by fixing some notation. Given a family $\mathcal B = \{B_1, B_2\}$, we say the \emph{arrangement} of $\mathcal B$ is the quadruple $(a_1,b,a_2,d)$, where $a_1=|B_1\backslash B_2|$, $b=|B_1\cap B_2|$, $a_2=|B_2\backslash B_1|,$ and $d=|B_1^c\cap B_2^c|$ (see Figure~\ref{fig:two-set}). The number of splitters of $\mathcal B$ is determined by its arrangement, and we will often use the family and the arrangement interchangeably. We let $\splitters(\mathcal B)$ and $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,d)$ both denote the number of splitters of $\mathcal B$.

\begin{figure}[H]
	\center
	\begin{tikzpicture}
		\draw (0:.6) circle (1);
		\draw (180:.6) circle (1);
		\node at (-.9,0) {$a_1$};
		\node at (0,0) {$b$};
		\node at (.9,0) {$a_2$};
		\node at (2,0) {$d$};
    \node at (-1.5,1.1) {$B_1$};
    \node at (1.5,1.1) {$B_2$};
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{A family $\mathcal B=\{B_1,B_2\}$ with arrangement $(a_1,b,a_2,d)$.\label{fig:two-set}}
\end{figure}

We now proceed to calculate a formula for $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,d)$. Initially suppose that $|B_1|=a_1+b$ and $|B_2|=a_2+b$ are both even. Then if $A$ contains $i$ elements from $B_1 \cap B_2$, then $A$ is a splitter if and only if $A$ contains exactly $\frac{a_1 + b}2 - i$ elements from $B_1 \backslash B_2$ and $\frac{a_2 + b}2 - i$ elements from $B_2 \backslash B_1$. Thus the total number of splitters of $\mathcal B$ is given by:
\[\splitters(a_1, b, a_2, d) = 2^d\sum_{i=0}^b \binom{a_1}{\frac{a_1+b}{2}-i}
  \binom{b}{i}\binom{a_2}{\frac{a_2+b}{2}-i}\;.
\]
(Here if $z\in\mathbb{N}$ and $x\neq0,\ldots,z$ we define $\binom{z}{x}=0$.)

Note that if $|B_1|=a_1+b$ is odd and $|B_2|=a_2+b$ is even, then
\begin{align*}
	\splitters(a_1, b, a_2, d)
  &= 2^d \sum_{\epsilon = 0}^1 \sum_{i = 0}^b
         \binom{a_1}{\floor{\frac{a_1 + b}{2}} + \epsilon - i}
         \binom{b}{i}\binom{a_2}{\frac{a_2 + b}{2} - i} \\
	&= 2^d\sum_{i = 0}^b
        \binom{a_1 + 1}{\frac{(a_1 + 1) + b}{2} - i}
        \binom{b}{i}\binom{a_2}{\frac{a_2 + b}{2} - i} \\
	&= \splitters(a_1 + 1, b, a_2, d)\;.
\end{align*}
Similarly if both $|B_1| = a_1 + b$ and $|B_2| = a_2 + b$ are odd, we have
\[\splitters(a_1, b, a_2, d) = \splitters(a_1+1,b,a_2+1,d)\;.
\]

We are now ready to give the characterization of $2$-set families with the minimum number of splitters.

\begin{theorem}
  \label{min2}
  Let $k=a_1+b+a_2+d$ be fixed. Then $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,d)$ is minimized by the following arrangements:
  \begin{itemize}
    \item if $k\equiv0\pmod{3}$, minimum at $(m,m,m,0)$, where $m=\frac{k}3$;
    \item if $k\equiv1\pmod{3}$, minimum at $(m-2,m,m,0)$, where $m=\frac{k+2}3$, and;
    \item if $k\equiv2\pmod{3}$, minimum at $(m,m,m+2,0)$, where $m=\frac{k-2}3$.
  \end{itemize}
  Moreover, the minimum number is asymptotic to $2^k/k$.
\end{theorem}

The proof consists of a series of ``point-moving'' lemmas. Each one shows that given an arbitrary arrangement, we can find a way to nudge it towards the proposed minimum arrangement without increasing the number of splitters.

\begin{lemma}
	\label{swap lemma}
	If $a_1+b$ and $a_2+b$ are even, then for any permutation $(a_1', b', a_2')$ of $(a_1, b, a_2)$, we have $\splitters(a_1, b, a_2, d) = \splitters(a_1', b', a_2', d)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  First it suffices to consider the case when $d=0$, since otherwise both sides of the inequality simply have an extra factor of $2^d$. Further it suffices to show that $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,0)=\splitters(b,a_1,a_2,0)$, since by symmetry $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,0)=\splitters(a_2,b,a_1,0)$, and all other permutations are generated by these two.

  To show that $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,0)=\splitters(b,a_1,a_2,0)$, fix a family $\mathcal B = \{B_1, B_2\}$ with arrangement $(a_1,b,a_2,0)$ and let $\mathcal B'=\{B_1, B'_2\}$, where $B'_2 = B_1 \triangle B_2$, so that $\mathcal B'$ has arrangement $(b,a_1,a_2,0)$. Next define a mapping of sets $A\mapsto A'$ by $A' = (A \cap B_1) \cup ((B_2 \backslash B_1) \backslash A)$. We claim that $A\mapsto A'$ is an injection from the splitters of $\mathcal B$ to the splitters of $\mathcal B'$.

	We first argue that if $A$ splits $\mathcal B$ then $A'$ splits $\mathcal B'$. Since $A$ splits $B_1$ and $A' \cap B_1 = A \cap B_1$, $A'$ splits $B_1$ as well. By the assumption that $a \equiv b \equiv c\pmod{2}$, all of $B_1,B_2,B_2'$ are even-sized. Now if $A$ contains $i$ elements from $B_1 \cap B_2$, then $A$ contains $\frac{a + b}{2} - i$ elements from $B_1 \setminus B_2$ and $\frac{b + c}{2} - i$ elements from $B_2 \backslash B_1$. Thus $A'$ contains $i$ elements from $B_1 \setminus B'_2$ and $\frac{a + b}{2} - i$ elements from $B_1 \cap B'_2$ and $c - (\frac{b + c}{2} - i) = \frac{c - b}{2} + i$ elements from $B'_2 \setminus B_1$. Thus $A'$ contains exactly $\frac{a + c}{2}$ elements from $B'_2$, so $A'$ splits $\mathcal B'$.

  Finally note that since $d=0$, we can recover $A$ from $A'$ by the formula $A=(A'\cap B_1)\cup((B_2\setminus B_1)\setminus A')$. This shows that $A\mapsto A'$ is injective, so $\splitters(\mathcal B)\leq\splitters(\mathcal B')$. Moreover the symmetry of the inverse mapping shows that $\splitters(\mathcal B')\leq\splitters(\mathcal B)$, concluding the proof.
  %

\end{proof}

Recall that the definition of splitting allows rounding up or down in the case of odd-sized sets. Thus if a family has an odd-sized set, one would expect it to have more splitters than a similar family with even-sized sets only. The following result confirms this intuition.

\begin{lemma}
  \label{no_odd}
	Suppose that $a_1+b$ and $a_2+b$ are even, and let $\epsilon_1,\epsilon_2\in \{-1,0,1\}$. Then
  \[\splitters(a_1, b, a_2, 0)\leq\splitters(a_1+\epsilon_1, b-\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2, a_2+\epsilon_2,0)
  \]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Let $\mathcal B=\{B_1,B_2\}$ be a family with arrangement $(a_1,b,a_2,0)$, and let $\mathcal B'=\{B_1',B_2'\}$ be the family with arrangement $(a_1+\epsilon_1, b-\epsilon_1-\epsilon_2, a_2+\epsilon_2,0)$ that is derived from $\mathcal B$ according to the $\epsilon_i$ in the natural way. (For example, if $\epsilon_1 = 1$ and $\epsilon_2 = 0$, we can construct $B'$ from $B$ by selecting some point $x \in B_1\cap B_2$ and placing it in $B_1'\setminus B_2'$.) It is easy to see that if $A$ splits $\mathcal B$, then $A$ splits $\mathcal B'$ too, completing the proof.
\end{proof}

The next result allows one to move points from outside the sets $B_1,B_2$ into the sets without increasing the number of splitters.

\begin{lemma}
  \label{ext_zero}
  For fixed $k$, for any arrangement $(a_1,b,a_2,d)$ on $k$, there exists an arrangement $(a_1',b',a_2',0)$ on $k$ such that
  \[\splitters(a_1',b',a_2',0)\leq\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,d)
  \]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	By Lemma \ref{no_odd}, we need only consider the case when $a_1+b$ and $a_2+b$ are both even. By Lemma~\ref{swap lemma} we can suppose that $b>0$ (otherwise $d=k$ and this is clearly not minimal). We now use the result \cite[Theorem~3.11]{reu14}, which states that if $b,d>0$ then we have:
  \[\splitters(a_1+1,b-1,a_2+1,d-1)\leq\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,d)
  \]
  Note that the arrangement on the left-hand side again satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{swap lemma}. Thus we may repeat the process inductively to obtain the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}

The next result is the key, as it allows one to move $2$ points from one of the sets to the other without increasing the number of splitters, provided it would make the regions more balanced in size.

\begin{lemma}
  \label{2 point lemma}
  Assume that $a_1+b$ and $a_2+b$ are even. If $2\leq a_1\leq a_2$ then
  \[\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,0)\leq\splitters(a_1-2,b,a_2+2,0) \; .
  \]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  Let $\mathcal B=\{B_1,B_2\}$ be a family with arrangement $(a_1,b,a_2,0)$ and $\mathcal B'=\{B_1',B_2'\}$ be a family with arrangement $(a_1-2,b,a_2+2,0)$. We can again assume $\mathcal B'$ is constructed from $\mathcal B$ in the natural way, that is, fix $x,y\in B_1\backslash B_2$ and let $B_1' = B_1 \setminus \{x,y\}$ and $B_2' = B_2 \cup \{x,y\}$. We wish to show that there exists an injection from the splitters of $\mathcal B$ to the splitters of $\mathcal B'$. Note immediately that if $A$ is a splitter of $\mathcal B$ that contains either $x$ or $y$, but not both, then $A$ also splits $\mathcal B'$. Thus it remains to show that there are fewer splitters of $\mathcal B$ that contain (omit) both $x,y$ than splitters of $\mathcal B'$ that contain (omit) both $x,y$.

  We address the ``omit'' case with the ``contain'' case being similar. Let $S$ be the number of splitters of $\mathcal B$ that omit $x,y$, and $S'$ be the number of splitters of $\mathcal B'$ that omit $x,y$. We wish to show that $S\leq S'$. To proceed, let us first assume that $b$ is even. Let $t_i=\frac{a_i+b}{2}$, the \emph{target} number of elements of $B_i$ for a splitter $A$ of $\mathcal B$. We calculate:
  \begin{align*}
    S'-S
      &=\sum_{i=0}^b
      \binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1}\binom{b}{i}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}
      -\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i}\binom{b}{i}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i}\\
      &=\sum_{i=0}^{b/2}
      \binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1} \binom{b}{i} \binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}
      -\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i} \binom{b}{i} \binom{a_2}{t_2 - i} \\
      &\qquad+\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-(b+1-i)} \binom{b}{b+1-i} \binom{a_2}{t_2-(b+1-i)+1}\\
      &\qquad-\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-(b+1-i)} \binom{b}{b+1-i} \binom{a_2}{t_2-(b+1-i)} \\
      &=\sum_{i = 0}^{b/2}
      \binom{b}{i}
      \left(\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1} \binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}
      -\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i} \binom{a_2}{t_2-i}\right) \\
      &\qquad+\binom{b}{i - 1}
      \left(\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i} \binom{a_2}{t_2-i}
      -\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1} \binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}\right) \\
      &=\sum_{i=0}^{b/2}
      \left(\binom{b}{i}-\binom{b}{i-1}\right)
      \left(\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}
      -\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i}\right)
  \end{align*}
  The second line above was the key step, wherein we paired term $i$ with term $j=b+1-i$. In the third equality we reflect five binomial coefficients and observe that $a_i-t_i=t_i-b$.

  Clearly, $\binom{b}{i}-\binom{b}{i-1}$ is positive for each $i\leq b/2$. Thus it is enough to show that for all $i\leq b/2$ we have
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:term}
    \binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}-\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i}
    \geq0
  \end{equation}
  Note that if the second term of Equation~\eqref{eq:term} is zero, we are done. On the other hand if the second term of Equation~\eqref{eq:term} is nonzero, then we claim that the first term is nonzero as well. To see this, the indices where the first term is nonzero are $[t_1-a_1+1,t_1-1]\cap[t_2-a_2+1,t_2+1]=[t_1-a_1+1,t_1-1]$, and the indices where the second term is nonzero are $[t_1-a_1+2,t_1]\cap[t_2-a_2,t_2]=[t_1-a_1+2,t_1]$. (We are using here that $a_1\leq a_2$, $t_1\leq t_2$, and $t_2-a_2\leq t_1-a_1$.) The only index in the latter set but not the former is $i=t_1$, but the hypothesis $2\leq a_1$ implies $b/2<t_1$, and so this index is not in the sum.

  Now for indices $i$ such that the terms of Equation~\eqref{eq:term} are nonzero, we have:
  \begin{equation}
    \label{eq:frac}
    \frac{\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i-1}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i+1}}
         {\binom{a_1-2}{t_1-i}\binom{a_2}{t_2-i}}
      =\frac{(t_1-i)(a_2-t_2+i)}{(a_1-t_1+i-1)(t_2-i+1)}
      =\frac{(t_1-i)(t_2-b+i)}{(t_1-b+i-1)(t_2-i+1)}.
  \end{equation}
  It suffices to show that the last quantity in Equation~\eqref{eq:frac} is $>1$. Recall that the Mediant Inequality states that if $A,B,C,D>0$ and $\frac{A}{B}>\frac{C}{D}$ then $\frac{A}{B}>\frac{A+C}{B+D}>\frac{C}{D}$. Since $t_1\leq t_2$ we may write:
  \[\frac{t_2 - b + i}{t_1 - b + i - 1} > 1 = \frac{b - 2i + 1}{b - 2i + 1}
  \]
  Since we are assuming the numerator and denominator of the left-hand side are positive, and since $b-2i+1$ is positive as well, the Mediant Identity implies that
  \[\frac{t_2 - b + i}{t_1 - b + i - 1}
  >\frac{t_2 - i + 1}{t_1 - i}
  >\frac{b - 2i + 1}{b - 2i + 1}
  \]
  This implies that the last quantity in Equation~\eqref{eq:frac} is $>1$, as desired.

  If $b$ is odd then the calculation of $S'-S$ is similar. We again pair the $i$ and $b+1-i$ terms. Of course the $i=(b+1)/2$ term has nothing to pair with, but fortunately it cancels out completely. To see this note that the left and right terms are reflections of one another, since
  \begin{align*}
    (t_1-(b+1)/2-1)+(t_1-(b+1)/2)&=a_1-2,\text{ and}\\
    (t_2-(b+1)/2+1)+(t_2-(b+1)/2)&=a_2
  \end{align*}
  Thus in the second line we may take the sum from $i=1$ up to $i=(b-1)/2$. The rest of the proof is the same as before.
\end{proof}

The combination of Lemmas~\ref{swap lemma} and~\ref{2 point lemma} means that (when $d=0$) moving two points from any region to another region with fewer points decreases the number of splitters. We are now ready to prove our main result.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{min2}]
  We will give the proof when $k = 3m$, the remaining cases are similar. By the lemmas together, it suffices to show that for any even $x,y\geq0$ we have:
  \[\splitters(m,m,m,0)\leq\splitters(m+x, m-x+y, m-y,0)\;.
  \]
  We show this in two steps, with each step consisting of several applications of Lemma~\ref{2 point lemma} and~\ref{swap lemma}. Assuming $x\leq y$, first use the two lemmas to achieve:
  \[\splitters(m,m,m,0) \leq \splitters(m+x,m,m-x,0)
  \]
  We then use the two lemmas again to achieve:
  \[\splitters(m+x,m,m-x,0) \leq \splitters(m+x, m-x+y, m-y,0).
  \]
  We refer to Figure~\ref{fig:lattice} for a visualization of these two inequalities. The steps are similar if $y\leq x$. This concludes the proof that $\splitters(m,m,m,0)$ is minimal.

  For the last statement, observe that $\splitters(k/3,k/3,k/3,0)$ is exactly equal to $\sum_i\binom{k/3}{i}^3$. These are \emph{Franel numbers}, and it is not hard to see this expression is asymptotic to $2^k/k$. (See for instance \cite{franel}.)
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[inner sep=1]
	\node at (-3, -1.7) (060) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-2, -1.7) (051) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-1, -1.7) (042) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0, -1.7) (033) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (1, -1.7) (024) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (2, -1.7) (015) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (3, -1.7) (006) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-2.5, -0.85) (150) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-1.5, -0.85) (141) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-0.5, -0.85) (132) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0.5, -0.85) (123) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (1.5, -0.85) (114) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (2.5, -0.85) (105) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-2, 0) (240) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-1, 0) (231) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0, 0) (222) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (1, 0) (213) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (2, 0) (204) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-1.5, 0.85) (330) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-0.5, 0.85) (321) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0.5, 0.85) (312) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (1.5, 0.85) (303) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-1, 1.7) (420) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0, 1.7) (411) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (1, 1.7) (402) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (-0.5, 2.55) (510) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0.5, 2.55) (501) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0, 3.4) (600) {$\bullet$};
	\node at (0, -2) {$b = 0$};
	\node[rotate=60] at (-2, .85) {$a_1 = 0$};
	\node[rotate=-60] at (2, 0.85) {$a_2 = 0$};

	\draw[->](051)--(060);\draw[->](042)--(051);\draw[->](033)--(042);\draw[->](033)--(024);
	\draw[->](024)--(015);\draw[->](015)--(006);\draw[->](141)--(150);\draw[->](132)--(141);
	\draw[->](123)--(114);\draw[->](114)--(105);\draw[->](231)--(240);\draw[->](222)--(231);
	\draw[->](222)--(213);\draw[->](213)--(204);\draw[->](321)--(330);\draw[->](312)--(303);
	\draw[->](411)--(420);\draw[->](411)--(402);\draw[->](510)--(600);\draw[->](420)--(510);
	\draw[->](330)--(420);\draw[->](330)--(240);\draw[->](240)--(150);\draw[->](150)--(060);
	\draw[->](411)--(501);\draw[->](321)--(411);\draw[->](231)--(141);\draw[->](141)--(051);
	\draw[->](312)--(402);\draw[->](222)--(312);\draw[->](222)--(132);\draw[->](132)--(042);
	\draw[->](213)--(303);\draw[->](123)--(033);\draw[->](114)--(204);\draw[->](114)--(024);
	\draw[->](105)--(006);\draw[->](204)--(105);\draw[->](303)--(204);\draw[->](303)--(402);
	\draw[->](402)--(501);\draw[->](501)--(600);\draw[->](114)--(015);\draw[->](213)--(114);
	\draw[->](312)--(411);\draw[->](411)--(510);\draw[->](123)--(024);\draw[->](222)--(123);
	\draw[->](222)--(321);\draw[->](321)--(420);\draw[->](132)--(033);\draw[->](231)--(330);
	\draw[->](141)--(042);\draw[->](141)--(240);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The lattice of arrangements $(a_1,b,a_2,0)$ with $k=12$ and $a_1+b,a_2+b$ even. An arrow $\alpha\to\beta$ denotes $\alpha$ has fewer or equal splitters than $\beta$. The proof of Theorem~\ref{min2} uses the fact that one can follow the arrows from the centroid to any other point using two straight-line steps.\label{fig:lattice}}
\end{figure}

Before leaving the case when there are $n=2$ sets, we mention an approximate formula for the value of $\splitters(a_1,b,a_2,d)$. Recall that the de~Moivre--Laplace Theorem \cite[Section~7.3]{feller} gives the approximation
\[\binom{n}{k} \approx 2^n \sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi n}} e^{-\frac{2}{n} \left(k-\frac{n}{2}\right)^2}.
\]
Thus when $a_1 \equiv b \equiv a_2\pmod{2}$ we can approximate the number of splitters by
\begin{align*}
	\splitters(a_1, b, a_2,d) &= 2^{d}\sum_{i = 0}^b \binom{b}{i}\binom{a_1}{t_1 - i}\binom{a_2}{t_2 - i} \\
	&\approx 2^{a_1 + b + a_2+d} \sqrt{\frac{8}{\pi^3 a_1 b a_2}}\int_{-\infty}^\infty e^{-\frac{2}{b}\left(x - \frac{b}{2}\right)^2 - \frac{2}{a_1}\left(\frac{b}{2} - x\right)^2 - \frac{2}{a_2}\left(\frac{b}{2} - x\right)^2}dx \\
	&= \frac{2^{k + 1}}{\pi \sqrt{a_1 a_2 + a_1 b + a_2 b}}.
\end{align*}
It is not difficult to calculate that the latter expression has its minimum when $a_1=b=a_2=k/3$ and $d=0$. However without very tight control over the error in the approximation, it would not be possible to use this information to replace the proof of the previous theorem.

We close this section by briefly considering the case when there are $n=3$ sets. The formula for the number of splitters when $n=3$ is considerably more complex than the $n=2$ case. Using an exhaustive search elaborated in Appendix~\ref{appendix:3-set}, we found that if $N_k$ denotes the minimum number of splitters of a splittable $3$-set family, then $N_k$ appears to obey $N_6=4$ and
\[\frac{N_{k+1}}{N_k} =
  \left\{
  	\begin{array}{l l}
  		2 - \frac{1}{\floor{k/6} + 1}, & k \text{ even} \\
  		2, & k \text{ odd}
  	\end{array}
  \right.
\]
It is not difficult to show that the recurrence above implies that $N_k$ is asymptotic to $2^k/k^{3/2}$. Together with the known asymptotics for the case $n=2$, this supports the following.

\begin{conjecture}
	The minimum number of splitters of a splittable $n$-set family is asymptotic to
  \[2^k/k^{n/2} \; .
  \]
\end{conjecture}

\section{The splitting game}

In this section we again look for arrangements that are in some sense the least splittable. This time, rather than considering the number of splitters an arrangement has, we instead consider whether the arrangement can be split under adversarial conditions. To do this, we adopt a game theoretic perspective on the notion of set splitting.

The \emph{splitting game} is played by player Split and Skew on a game board $\mathcal B$ consisting of a family of subsets of some $[k]$ (together with the value of $k$). An instance of the game consists of a game board together with a $t \in \{\mathrm{Split},\mathrm{Skew}\}$ indicating which player goes first. The players alternate claiming an element from $[k]$, without repetition, until all the elements have been claimed. Split wins the game if the set of elements she claimed splits the collection $\mathcal B$, and Skew wins otherwise.

The splitting game lies in the general class of games known as Maker--Breaker games. Introduced by Paul Erd\"os and John Selfridge, such games consist of two players choosing objects with Maker trying to occupy some winning arrangement and Breaker trying to prevent Maker's success \cite{beck-tic}. Since such games are finite and of perfect information, Zermelo's theorem implies that in each instance of the game, one of the two players must have a winning strategy.

It is clear that if Split has a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B, t)$, then $\mathcal B$ is splittable. However, the converse is not true. For example, consider a game on $k=3$ consisting of the sets $\mathcal B = \{\{1,2\}, \{2, 3\}\}$. Note that $\mathcal B$ is splittable and its splitters are $\{1, 3\}$ or $\{2\}$. Therefore, in the game $(\mathcal B, \text{Skew})$, if Skew first claims $2$, then Split may claim $1$ or $3$ but not both, resulting in a victory for Skew.

We begin with some general observations on the splitting game.

\begin{lemma}[Reduction lemma]
	\label{reduction lemma}
	Let $\mathcal B,\mathcal B'$ be game boards on $k,k'$ respectively. Suppose $|\mathcal B| = |\mathcal B'|$ and that $|R| \equiv |R'|\pmod{2}$ for corresponding Venn regions $R,R'$ of $\mathcal B,\mathcal B'$. Then Player~$p$ has a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B,t)$ if and only if $p$ has a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B',t)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  We may assume that $\mathcal B'$ is formed by adding a pair of points to some Venn region of $\mathcal B$. (That is, $\mathcal B'$ is a game board on $k+2$ formed by adding $\{k+1,k+2\}$ to each set in some subfamily $\mathcal B_0\subset\mathcal B$.) Admitting this, the result follows by applying it repeatedly.

	First let $\sigma$ be a winning strategy for Player~$p$ in $(\mathcal B,t)$ and let Player~$q$ be the other player. We define a strategy for $p$ in $(\mathcal B',t)$ as follows. If $q$ claims one of $k+1$ or $k+2$, then $p$ claims the other immediately. Otherwise $p$ plays according to $\sigma$. If every element of $[k]$ is claimed before this happens, and it is $p$'s turn to move, then $p$ takes either one, and $q$ is forced to take the other.

	Let $A$ be the set of elements claimed by Player~$p$ after a run where she played according to this strategy. Since $p$ followed $\sigma$, $A$ splits or skews $\mathcal B$ as desired by $p$. Moreover since $A$ contains exactly one of $k+1$ and $k+2$, it follows that $A$ remains a splitter or a skewer of $\mathcal B'$. In any case, $p$ wins $(\mathcal B',t)$.

	Conversely if Player~$p$ does not have a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B,t)$, then by Zermelo's Theorem, $q$ must have a winning strategy. By the forward implication, $q$ then has a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B',t)$. Thus $p$ does not have winning strategy in $(\mathcal B',t)$ if $p$ does not have a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B,t)$.
\end{proof}

For the next result, if $\mathcal B$ is a game board on $k$, we say that Split has a \emph{pairing strategy} for $\mathcal B$ if there exists a set of disjoint pairs $\mathcal P = \{P_1, \ldots, P_r\}$ of elements of $[k]$ such that every set containing exactly one element from each $P_i$ splits $\mathcal B$. Similarly we say that Skew has a pairing strategy if every set containing exactly one element from each $P_i$ does not split $\mathcal B$.

\begin{lemma}[Pairing lemma]
  \label{pairing lemma}
  If Player~$p$ has a pairing strategy for $\mathcal B$, then $p$ has a winning strategy for $(\mathcal B,t)$ for either value of $t$. Moreover, $p$ has a winning strategy on any board constructed from $\mathcal B$ by adding points to or removing points from the Venn region $[k]\setminus\bigcup\mathcal B$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Suppose Split has a pairing strategy $\mathcal P$. Consider the side game $(\mathcal P,t)$ whose board consists of the pairs $\mathcal P=\{P_1, \ldots, P_r\}$. By Lemma~\ref{reduction lemma}, this game is equivalent to the game where all sets are empty, and Split clearly has a winning strategy in this game. Since any set that splits $\mathcal P$ also splits $\mathcal B$, this yields a winning strategy for $(\mathcal B,t)$.

	If Skew has a pairing strategy, we can use the same argument, but note that Skew will play the role of Split in the side game.

	The second statement follows from the definition of a pairing strategy.
\end{proof}

In the rest of the section, we carry out case studies, giving characterizations of the winning player for several families of splitting games. We begin with a very trivial class of games.

\begin{theorem}
	\label{even regions}
	Suppose that $\mathcal B$ has at most two odd-sized Venn regions of nonzero multiplicity. Then for either value of $t$, Split has a winning strategy in $(\mathcal B, t)$.
\end{theorem}

Indeed, by Lemma~\ref{reduction lemma}, the game board is equivalent to one with $0$, $1$, or $2$ points, and it is clear that Split wins any run of the splitting game on such a trivial game board.

Next we proceed to study games where the number of sets $n=|\mathcal B|$ is small. By Lemma~\ref{reduction lemma}, one can reduce any game to one in which each Venn region has at most one element. Thus for fixed $n$ there are just finitely many $n$-set game boards after reduction, and for small $n$ we can exhaustively check who has a winning strategy in each case.

\begin{theorem}
	For all games with $|\mathcal B| \leq 3$, the winning player and corresponding winning strategy are known and identified in Appendix~\ref{appendix:two-three}.
\end{theorem}

This case study gives some insight into the question of which player wins more often. Let $P(n)$ be the proportion of $n$-set games (with at most one element in each Venn region) that are won by Split. From our data, we have $P(1)=1$, $P(2)=7/8$, and $P(3)=65/128$. Moreover, using the fact that games won by Skew are closed under adding sets, it is not difficult to show that $P(n)$ is a decreasing function of $n$. We conjecture that $P(n)\to0$.

It is also worth remarking that while we were able to give a pairing strategy for every $3$-set game, there is not always a pairing strategy. For an example with $n=6$, see the first statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:tictactoe} below. In this case we can show that Player~II has a winning strategy, so Lemma~\ref{pairing lemma} implies there cannot be a pairing strategy. For an example with $n=5$, we can also show Player~II has a winning strategy in the game on $\mathbb Z/5\mathbb Z$ with board $B_i=\{i,i+1\bmod5,i+2\bmod5\}$. We do not know whether there is such an example using just four sets.

As there is significant literature on maker--breaker tic-tac-toe and its variants, we next study splitting tic-tac-toe. Here given $m,n$ we let $k=mn$ and think of $[k]$ as an $m\times n$ grid. We then let the board $\mathcal B$ consist of the rows and columns of the grid. Observe that $\mathcal B$ is splittable by a checkerboard pattern. For comparison, in $3\times3$ maker--breaker tic-tac-toe, Maker tries to make a line and Breaker tries to prevent Maker from making a line. In $3\times3$ splitting tic-tac-toe, Skew tries to make a line or cause Split to make a line.

Because of the special status of the $3\times3$ board, we first consider the ``classic'' variant of $3\times3$ splitting tic-tac-toe where $\mathcal B$ includes the diagonals as well as the rows and columns.

\begin{proposition}
	In ``classic'' $3\times3$ splitting tic-tac-toe, Skew has a winning strategy.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
  If Skew is Player~I, begin by claiming the upper-left corner. Split is then forced to claim the middle, or else Skew can win traditional tic-tac-toe. Skew then claims the middle-top and middle-left, forcing Split to form a diagonal line.

  If Skew is Player~II, we consider the three cases depending on which element Split claims first. If Split claims the middle, then by claiming a corner, Skew can threaten to form three in a row no matter where Split goes next. Skew can take advantage of this by choosing one of the squares adjacent to its first move, forcing Split to take the final corner in that row or column. Thus, along this diagonal, either Split has already formed a full diagonal or there is one open square which Skew can force Split to claim as Split must make the last move.

  Next suppose Split claims the upper middle. Skew can then go in the middle and no matter what Split does next, Skew can occupy one of the two bottom corners. Thus, Skew threatens to form a diagonal so Split must prevent this by taking one of the two upper corners depending on where Skew went. Again, by avoiding the final spot in this row, Skew can force Split to take it, resulting in a full row for Split and a Skew win.

  Finally suppose Split claims upper left. Skew again responds by selecting the middle. No matter where Split goes next, Skew can force Split to claim one of the two free squares adjacent to their first one. As before, Skew may simply avoid the third square in this row or column, eventually forcing Split to form three in a row.

  This covers all cases up to symmetry, so Skew has a winning strategy.
\end{proof}

We now return to the version of splitting tic-tac-toe without the diagonals.

\begin{theorem}
  \label{thm:tictactoe}
  Consider the $m\times n$ splitting tic-tac-toe game, with $m,n\neq1$.
  \begin{itemize}
    \item If $m=n=3$, Player~II has a winning strategy.
    \item Otherwise, Skew has a winning strategy.
  \end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

The proof consists of a number of cases and is carried out in Appendix~\ref{appendix:tictactoe}.

We conclude with the generalization of splitting tic-tac-toe to higher dimensions. Specifically, we play on a $d$-dimensional grid and let $\mathcal B$ consist of the maximal axis-parallel lines.

\begin{theorem}
  Consider the $n_1\times\cdots\times n_d$ game described above. Assume that $n_i\neq1$ for all $i$ (this would reduce to a lower dimensional game).
  \begin{itemize}
    \item If $d=2$ and $n_1=n_2=3$, then Player~II has a winning strategy.
    \item In all other cases, Skew has a winning strategy.
  \end{itemize}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  The first statement is part of the previous theorem.

  For the second statement, unless $n_i=3$ for all $i$, the previous theorem implies there is a two-dimensional sub-board where Skew has a winning strategy.

  If $n_i=3$ for all $i$, regard the board as a union of parallel $3\times3$ sub-boards. First suppose Skew is player I. After the first move, we can assume that Player~II moves on a different sub-board (otherwise we could cut the boards in a different way). Then Skew gets to make a second move in the same sub-board, giving them a one move lead. It is not difficult to see that Skew can now make a line in this sub-board. For example Skew's first four moves can form a $2\times2$ corner of the sub-board, forcing Split to play in other corners. After this Skew is threatening two lines and Split cannot block both.

  Next suppose that Skew is Player~II. After Split makes the first move, Skew can play on the same sub-board. If Split continues to play on the same sub-board, then Skew wins because Skew is Player~II in a $3\times3$ game. If Split plays outside the sub-board, Skew can copycat and also play outside the sub-board. Since there are an even number of elements in the complement of the sub-board, Skew can continue to use the winning strategy on the sub-board.
\end{proof}

On splitting and splittable families


Circulant matrices: norm, powers, and positivity

Abstract: In their recent paper "The spectral norm of a Horadam circulant matrix", Merikoski, Haukkanen, Mattila and Tossavainen study under which conditions the spectral norm of a general real circulant matrix ${\bf C}$ equals the modulus of its row/column sum. We improve on their sufficient condition until we have a necessary one. Our results connect the above problem to positivity of sufficiently high powers of the matrix ${\bf C^\top C}$. We then generalize the result to complex circulant matrices.

\section{Introduction and Preliminaries}
For $n\in\N$ and $\bfx=(x_0,\dots,x_{n-1})\in\R^n$, look at the
circulant matrix
\[
\Cx\ :=\ \begin{pmatrix}
     x_0&x_1&\cdots&x_{n-1}\\
     x_{n-1}&x_0&\ddots &\vdots\\[0mm]

     \vdots&\ddots&\ddots      &x_1\\
     x_1&\cdots&x_{n-1}&x_0
    \end{pmatrix}\ \in\ \R^{n\times n}.
\]
Motivated by studies of so-called Horadam or Fibonacci circulant matrices,
the authors of \cite{4Fins1,4Fins2} ask in \cite{4Fins1} under which conditions
the spectral norm of $\Cx$  equals $|x_0+x_1+\dots+x_{n-1}|$.
We give a sufficient and a necessary condition.
Both have to do with the positivity of powers of $\CxT\Cx$.

If $\bfR:={\bf C}_{(0,1,0,\dots,0)}$ denotes the cyclic backward shift
$\bfR:(u_1,\dots,u_n)\mapsto(u_2,\dots,u_n,u_1)$, then\\[-2mm]
\[
\Cx=x_0\bfR^0+x_1\bfR^1+\dots+x_{n-1}\bfR^{n-1}=c(\bfR)
\quad\text{with}\quad
c(t) := x_0t^0+x_1t^1+\dots+x_{n-1}t^{n-1}.
\]
The polynomial $c$ is called the {\sl symbol} of $\Cx$.
Most of the time, we understand $c$ as a function on
\[
\T_n\ :=\ \{t\in\C:t^n=1\}=\{\omega^0,\omega^1,\dots,\omega^{n-1}\}
\qquad\text{with}\qquad
\omega:=\exp(\tfrac{2\pi}n{\sf i}).
\]
It is easy to see that $\bfR$ diagonalizes
as $\bfR=\F\bfD\F^*$, where $\bfD=\diag(\omega^0,\dots,\omega^{n-1})$
and $\F$ is the so-called {\sl Fourier matrix} $\tfrac1{\sqrt n}\bigl(\omega^{jk}\bigr)_{j,k=0}^{n-1}$.
Note that $\F$ is unitary, so that $\F^{-1}=\F^*$.
Consequently
\[
\Cx=c(\bfR)=c(\F\bfD\F^*)=\F\, c(\bfD)\,\F^*=\F\diag(c(\omega^0),\dots,c(\omega^{n-1}))\F^*
=\F\Dx\F^*
\]
with $\Dx:=\diag(c(\omega^0),\dots,c(\omega^{n-1}))$.
Since $\F$ is an isometry of $\C^n$ with the Euclidean norm,\\[-2mm]
\begin{equation} \label{eq:diag}
\|\Cx\|\ =\ \|\F\Dx\F^*\|\ =\ \|\Dx\|\ =\ \max\bigl(|c(\omega^0)|,|c(\omega^1)|,\dots,|c(\omega^{n-1})|\bigr)\ =:\ \|c\|_\infty,
\end{equation}
where $\|\cdot\|$ denotes the spectral norm of a matrix; it is the matrix
norm that is induced by the Euclidean norm.
Of course, all of this is standard \cite{Davis:Circ}. The Fourier transform $\F$ turns the
convolution $\Cx$ into a multiplication $\Dx$. We are just fixing notations here.

The question of \cite{4Fins1} is essentially, under which condition
\begin{equation} \label{eq:claim}
 \|\Cx\|=\|c\|_\inft
 \qquad\text{equals}\qquad
 |x_0+x_1+\dots+x_{n-1}|=|c(1)|=|c(\omega^0)|.
\end{equation}
So let
\[
\cC_n\ :=\ \bigl\{\bfx=(x_0,\dots,x_{n-1})\in\R^n\ :\ \|\Cx\|=|x_0+x_1+\dots+x_{n-1}|\bigr\}.
\]
Looking at \eqref{eq:claim}, we see that
\[
\bfx\in\cC_n \quad\iff\quad\|c\|_\infty=|c(1)|,\quad
\text{i.e.~$|c(\cdot)|$ assumes its maximum on $\T_n$ at $t=1=\omega^0$.}
\]
We will work with the latter condition in what follows.
We will also study the following subset of $\cC_n$ if $n\ge 2$. Let
\[
\cC_n'\ :=\ \bigl\{\bfx\in\cC_n\ :\ \max_{t\in\T_n\setminus\{1\}}|c(t)|<|c(1)|=\|c\|_\infty\bigr\}\ \subset\ \cC_n.
\]
While, for $\bfx\in\cC_n$, the maximum of $|c(\cdot)|$ in $\T_n$ is attained at $t=1$,
for $\bfx\in\cC_n'$ it is {\bf only} attained at $t=1$, so that $\Cx$ has a spectral gap
between the two largest (in modulus) eigenvalues.
We start with a simple sufficient
condition for membership in $\cC_n$ and $\cC_n'$, respectively. Here we write
$\bfx\ge\bfO$ ($\bfx>\bfO$) or $\bfM\ge\bfO$ ($\bfM>\bfO$) if each entry of,
respectively, the vector $\bfx$ or the matrix $\bfM$ is nonnegative (positive).
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:x>=0}
Let $n\ge 2$ and $\bfx\in\R^n$.

{\bf a) } If $\bfx\ge\bfO$ or $-\bfx\ge\bfO$ (i.e. $\pm\Cx\ge\bfO$)
then $\bfx\in\cC_n$. (This is \cite[Corollary 2]{4Fins1}.)

{\bf b) } If $\bfx>\bfO$ or $-\bfx>\bfO$ (i.e. $\pm\Cx>\bfO$)
then $\bfx\in\cC_n'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
{\bf a) }
By triangle inequality, every $|c(t)|$ with $t\in\T_n$ is bounded as follow
\[
\left|c(t)\right|\ =\ \left|x_0+x_1t^1+\dots+x_{n-1}t^{n-1}\right|
 \ \le\ |x_0|+|x_1|+\dots+|x_{n-1}|
 \quad\text{since}\quad
 |t|=1.
\]
But this upper bound, and hence the maximum $\|c\|_\infty$, is attained by $|c(1)|=|x_0+\dots+x_{n-1}|$
as soon as all $x_k$ have the same sign, $\bfx\ge\bfO$ or $-\bfx\ge\bfO$.

{\bf b) } The statement can be derived by the Perron-Frobenius theorem but here is
a more elementary proof.
Let $\bfx>\bfO$. (The argument is similar for $-\bfx>\bfO$.)
 By {\bf a)}, we have $|c(1)|=\|c\|_\infty$.
For every $t\in\T_n\setminus\{1\}$, it holds $|x_0+x_1t|<|x_0|+|x_1t|$
since $x_0,x_1>0$ and $1$ and $t$ have different directions in $\C$.
Consequently, noting that $|t|=1$,
\begin{align*}
|c(t)|\ &=\ \left|x_0+x_1t^1+\dots+x_{n-1}t^{n-1}\right|
\ \le\ \underbrace{|x_0+x_1t|}_{<\ |x_0|+|x_1t|}+|x_2t^2|+\dots+|x_{n-1}t^{n-1}|\\
& <\ |x_0|+|x_1|+|x_2|+\dots+|x_{n-1}|
\ =\ x_0+\dots+x_{n-1}
\ =\ c(1)\ =\ |c(1)|\ =\ \|c\|_\infty.\qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
This sufficient condition for membership in $\cC_n$ or $\cC_n'$ seems quite generous.
\cite{4Fins1} suggests the following improvement. Put
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Bx}
\Bx\ :=\ \CxT\Cx\ =\ \Cxadj\Cx\ =\ (\F\Dx\F^*\bigr)\kern-0.1em^*(\F\Dx\F^*)\ =\ \F\Dxadj\Dx\F^*
\ =\ \F\Ax\F^*
\end{equation}
with $\Ax:=\Dxadj\Dx=\diag(b(\omega^0),\dots,b(\omega^{n-1}))$, where
\[
b(t) := \overline{c(t)}c(t)=|c(t)|^2
\quad\text{for all}\quad t\in\T_n,
\quad\text{so that}\quad
\|b\|_\infty:=\max_{t\in\T_n}|b(t)|=\max_{t\in\T_n}|c(t)|^2=\|c\|_\infty^2.
\]
Then $\Bx$ is again a real circulant matrix. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0} to $\Bx$ (in place of $\Cx$), we get:
\pagebreak
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Bx>=0}
Let $n\ge2$, $\bfx\in\R^n$ and put $\Bx:=\CxT\Cx$.

{\bf a) } If $\Bx\ge\bfO$ then $\bfx\in\cC_n$. (This is \cite[Theorem 4]{4Fins1}.)\\[-1.3em]

{\bf b) } If $\Bx>\bfO$ then $\bfx\in\cC_n'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recall that the symbol $b$ of $\Bx$ is related to the symbol $c$ of $\Cx$ by $b(t)=|c(t)|^2$
for all $t\in\T_n$. So $b$ assumes its maximum at the same point(s) as $|c(\cdot)|$ does.
For {\bf a)}, by Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0} a),
\[
\Bx\ge\bfO\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\|b\|_\infty=|b(1)|\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\|c\|_\infty^2=|c(1)|^2\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\|c\|_\infty=|c(1)|\quad\Rightarrow\quad
\bfx\in\cC_n.
\]
{\bf b) } By Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0} b), positivity $\Bx>\bfO$ implies that $|b(t)|<\|b\|_\infty$
for all $t\in\T_n\setminus\{1\}$. But then also $|c(t)|=|b(t)|^{1/2}<\|b\|_\infty^{1/2}=\|c\|_\infty$
for all $t\in\T_n\setminus\{1\}$. So $\bfx\in\cC_n'$.
\end{proof}

Note that the case $-\Bx\ge\bfO$ is impossible (unless $\bfx=\bfO$, in which case $\Bx=\bfO$) since the main diagonal
of $\Bx$ carries the entry $\|\bfx\|_2^2$.
\section{Iterating the argument until sufficient becomes necessary}
Looking at Lemmas \ref{lem:x>=0} and \ref{lem:Bx>=0}, the following questions seem natural:\\[0.5em]
\begin{tabular}{l}
(Q1)~~Is the new condition $\CxT\Cx\ge\bfO$ substantially weaker than the old condition $\pm\Cx\ge\bfO$?\\[0.1em]
(Q2)~~Do we get a chain of increasingly weaker sufficient conditions if we repeat the argument?\\[0.1em]
(Q3)~~Does that chain end in a necessary condition?
\end{tabular}

Let us address those questions, starting with (Q1):
It is easy to see that for $n\in\{1,2\}$, the two conditions are equivalent but for $n\ge3$ they differ.
Figure \ref{fig:table} below indicates that the quotient of their probabilities grows as $n$ grows.
As an example for $n=3$, look at $\bfx=(1,-2,-3)$, where
\[
 \Cx=\begin{pmatrix}
      1&-2&-3\\
      -3&1&-2\\
      -2&-3&1
     \end{pmatrix}\not\ge\bfO,
\qquad
-\Cx\not\ge\bfO
\qquad\text{but}\qquad
\Bx:=\CxT\Cx=\begin{pmatrix}
                14&1&1\\
                1&14&1\\
                1&1&14
               \end{pmatrix}\ge\bfO.
\]
So Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0} is not strong enough to show $\bfx\in\cC_3$,
i.e. $\|\Cx\|=|1-2-3|=4$, but
Lemma \ref{lem:Bx>=0} is.

About (Q2): With $\Bx=\CxT\Cx$, let us now look at $\BxT\Bx$.
But since $\BxT=\Bx$, one has $\BxT\Bx=\Bx^2$.
This is still a circulant, to which we can apply Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0}.
Then one can again multiply $\Bx^2$ with its transpose (itself) or just with $\Bx$ and continue like that.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:sufficient}
Let $n\ge2$, $\bfx\in\R^n$ and $\Bx=\CxT\Cx$.

{\bf a) } If $\Bx^m\ge\bfO$ for some $m\in\N$ then $\bfx\in\cC_n$.\\[-1.3em]

{\bf b) } If $\Bx^m>\bfO$ for some $m\in\N$ then $\bfx\in\cC_n'$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
For every $m\in\N$, we have, by \eqref{eq:Bx},
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Bx^m}
\Bx^m = \F\,\Ax^m\,\F^* = \F\,\diag_{k=0}^{n-1}b(\omega^k)^m\ \F^*,
\quad\text{ so that}\quad
\|\Bx^m\| = \max_{k=0}^{n-1}|b(\omega^k)|^m = \|b\|_\infty^m = \|c\|_\infty^{2m}.
\end{equation}
So $\Bx^m$ is a circulant matrix with symbol $t\mapsto b(t)^m=|c(t)|^{2m}$.
It assumes its maximum at the same point(s) of $\T_n$ as $|c(\cdot)|$ does.
Now argue as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:Bx>=0}.
\end{proof}

Looking at $m=2^0,\; 2^1,\; 2^2, \dots$ and noting that $\bfM,\bfN\ge\bfO$ implies $\bfM\cdot\bfN\ge\bfO$,
we get tha
\[
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}
\pm\Cx\ge 0
&\Rightarrow& \Bx\ge{\bf 0}
& \Rightarrow& \Bx^2\ge {\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \Bx^4\ge {\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \Bx^8\ge {\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \cdots
& \Rightarrow& \bfx\in\cC_n,\\[0.2em]
\pm\Cx> 0
&\Rightarrow& \Bx>{\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \Bx^2> {\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \Bx^4>{\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \Bx^8> {\bfO}
& \Rightarrow& \cdots
& \Rightarrow& \bfx\in\cC_n'.
\end{array}
\]
To illustrate that these are indeed chains of increasingly weaker conditions,
let us approximately compute\footnote{using a Monte Carlo simulation with one million
equally distributed points in the unit ball}
the portion of the unit ball in $\R^n$ that satisfies the corresponding condition:
\[
{\footnotesiz
\begin{array}{|c||r|r|r|r|r|r|r|c||r|}
\hline
\rule{0pt}{1.1em}n&\pm\bfx>\bfO&\Bx>\bfO&\Bx^2>\bfO&\Bx^4>\bfO&\Bx^8>\bfO&\Bx^{16}>\bfO&\Bx^{32}>\bfO&\cdots&\bfx\in\cC_n'\\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{1.1em}
n=2&  50.0\% &  50.0\%  & 50.0\%  &  50.0\%  &  50.0\%  & 50.0\% &  50.0\%  &\cdots& 50.0\%\\
n=3&  25.0\% &  42.3\%  & 42.3\%  &  42.3\%  &  42.3\%  & 42.3\% &  42.3\%  &\cdots& 42.3\%\\
n=4&  12.5\% &  25.0\%  & 27.3\%  &  28.9\%  &  29.8\%  & 30.3\% &  30.5\%  &\cdots& 30.8\%\\
n=5&   6.3\% &  23.2\%  & 25.4\%  &  27.1\%  &  28.1\%  & 28.6\% &  28.9\%  &\cdots& 29.2\%\\
n=6&   3.1\% &  16.7\%  & 20.0\%  &  21.9\%  &  22.8\%  & 23.1\% &  23.3\%  &\cdots& 23.5\%\\
n=7&   1.6\% &  14.7\%  & 18.1\%  &  20.4\%  &  21.7\%  & 22.4\% &  22.8\%  &\cdots& 23.2\%\\
n=8&   0.8\% &  10.4\%  & 14.3\%  &  16.8\%  &  18.1\%  & 18.8\% &  19.2\%  &\cdots& 19.5\%\\
n=9&   0.4\% &  10.3\%  & 14.4\%  &  17.0\%  &  18.3\%  & 18.9\% &  19.2\%  &\cdots& 19.5\%\\
n=10&  0.2\% &   7.5\%  & 11.6\%  &  14.3\%  &  15.7\%  & 16.3\% &  16.6\%  &\cdots& 16.9\%\\
\vdots& \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots}&\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots} &\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots} &\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots} &\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots} &\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots} &         &\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\vdots}\\
n=20& 2^{-19}&  1.9\%  &  5.2\%  &    7.9\%  &   9.4\%  &  10.1\%  & 10.4\%  &\cdots& 10.7\%\\
\hline
\end{array}
}
\]
~\\[-3.3em]
\begin{figure}[h]
\caption{An approximate computation of the portion of points $\bfx\in\R^n$ of the unit ball
(note that all conditions are invariant under scaling of $\bfx$) that satisfy the
corresponding condition in the header. Reading from left to right, every row seems to grow -- in the limit --
up to the portion of the ball that belongs to $\cC_n'$.
This is a positive sign with respect to our question (Q3).}
\label{fig:table}
\end{figure}
~\\[-2em]

Finally, we turn to our question (Q3) about necessary conditions for membership in $\cC_n$ or $\cC_n'$.
Nonnegativity / positivity of powers of $\Bx$ is not necessary for membership in $\cC_n$
(see Example \ref{ex:CnvsCn'} below). But, assuming a spectral gap, i.e.~membership in $\cC_n'$,
we get convergence of the power method and hence positivity of large powers of $\Bx$ (due to the special
structure of the corresponding eigenvector).
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:necessary}
If $\bfx\in\cC_n'$
then there exists an $m_0\in\N$ such that $\Bx^m>\bfO$ for all $m\ge m_0$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\bfx\in\cC_n'$ and abbreviate $|c(\omega^k)|=:c_k$ for $k=0,\dots,n-1$.
Then $\|c\|_\infty=c_0>c_1,\dots,c_{n-1}\ge0$. From \eqref{eq:Bx^m} we conclude
\begin{align}
\nonumber \frac {\Bx^m}{\|\Bx^m\|}\
&=\ \frac 1{c_0^{2m}}\F \diag(c_0^{2m},c_1^{2m},\dots,c_{n-1}^{2m}) \F^*
\ =\ \F \diag\Bigl(1,\bigl(\frac{c_1}{c_0}\bigr)^{2m},\dots,\bigl(\frac{c_{n-1}}{c_0}\bigr)^{2m}\Bigr) \F^*\\
\label{eq:1111}
&\to\ \F \diag(1,0,\dots,0) \F^*
\ =\ \frac1n\begin{pmatrix}1&\cdots&1\\[-0.5em]\vdots&&\vdots\\[-0.2em]1&\cdots&1\end{pmatrix}
\ >\ \bfO\qquad\text{as}\qquad m\to\infty,
\end{align}
so that $\Bx^m >\bfO$ for all sufficiently large $m\in\N$.
\end{proof}
The argument in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:necessary} does not work if
$|c(\cdot)|$ attains its maximum in another or in more than one point on $\T_n$.
The following example shows that, indeed, $\cC_n'$ cannot be replaced by $\cC_n$
in Theorem~\ref{thm:necessary}.
\begin{example} \label{ex:CnvsCn'}
Take $n=5$ and
$\Cx := \F\,\diag(1,0,1,1,0)\,\F^*$.
The diagonal has its maximum in the first but also in the
3rd and 4th position, so that $\bfx\in\cC_5\setminus\cC_5'$.
The first row of $\Cx$ is
$\bfx=(\tfrac35, \alpha, \beta, \beta, \alpha)$
with
$\alpha = \tfrac15(1+2\cos(\tfrac{4\pi}5))<0$ and
$\beta = \tfrac15(1+2\cos(\frac{2\pi}5))>0$,
so that $\Cx\not\ge\bfO$ and $-\Cx\not\ge\bfO$.
But also $\Bx^m\not\ge\bfO$ since $\Cx=\CxT=\Cx^m=\Bx^m$ for all $m\in\N$.
\end{example}

So for membership in $\cC_n'$, we have the following equivalence.
\begin{corollary}
Let $n\ge2$ and $\bfx\in\R^n$. Then the following are equivalent.\\[0.1em]
\begin{tabular}{ll}
&(i)\quad $\bfx\in\cC_n'$,\\[0.1em]
&(ii)\quad $\exists m\in\N: \Bx^m>\bfO$,\\
&(iii)\quad $\exists m_0\in\N: \forall m\ge m_0: \Bx^m>\bfO$.
\end{tabular}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
$(ii)\Rightarrow (i)$ is Theorem \ref{thm:sufficient} b),
$(i)\Rightarrow (iii)$ is Theorem \ref{thm:necessary} b),
and $(iii)\Rightarrow (ii)$ is obvious.
\end{proof}

\section{Complex entries}
The case $\bfx\in\C^n$ is only slightly different. When we refer to $\cC_n$ or $\cC_n'$
now, we mean the corresponding subsets of $\C^n$.
In a complex version of Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0} a) it would be enough to have all entries of $\bfx$ of the same
phase, i.e.~on the same ray $\{rz:r\ge 0\}$ with some $z\in\C$. But for Lemma~\ref{lem:Bx>=0}~a),
that ray would again have to be the nonnegative real axis, because the main diagonal entries of $\Bx:=\Cx^*\Cx$
are always there. The other entries of $\Bx$ or $\Bx^m$ need not even be real, let alone nonnegative or positive.

However, the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:necessary} shows that the entries of $\Bx^m$ are in a
certain neighborhood of the positive half axis if $\bfx\in\cC_n'$ (also for the complex version)
and $m$ is sufficiently large. On the other hand, by the continuity of each function value $c(t)$ with respect to $\bfx$,
one can generalize Lemma \ref{lem:x>=0} to an appropriate neighborhood of the positive half axis:
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:suff_complex}
If $n\ge 2$ and $\bfx=(x_0,\dots,x_{n-1})\in\C^n$ is such that
at least two adjacent entries of $\bfx$ are nonzero and all phases
are close to zero, precisely, each
\begin{equation} \label{eq:phase0}
\ph_k:=\arg x_k\in (-\pi,\pi]
\qquad\text{is subject to}\qquad
|\ph_k|<\frac{\pi}{2n},
\end{equation}
then $\bfx\in\cC_n'$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We start with $n$ general complex numbers $z_0,\dots,z_{n-1}\in\C$ and put $\psi_k:=\arg z_k$,
which we put to zero if $z_k=0$. Then the following ``generalized law of cosines'' is easily verified.
\begin{align}
\nonumber
|z_0+\dots+z_{n-1}|^2\ &=
\ (z_0+\dots+z_{n-1})\overline{(z_0+\dots+z_{n-1})}
\ =\ \sum_{j,k=0}^{n-1}z_j\overline{z_k}\\
\label{eq:coslaw}
&=\ \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}|z_j|^2+2\kern-0.8em\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{c}j,k=0\\j<k\end{array}}^{n-1}\kern-0.8em\Re(z_j\overline{z_k})
\ =\ \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}|z_j|^2+2\kern-0.8em\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{c}j,k=0\\j<k\end{array}}^{n-1}\kern-0.8em|z_j||z_k|\cos(\psi_j-\psi_k)
\end{align}
Putting $z_k:=x_k$ from above, we have $\psi_k=\ph_k$ and hence
\begin{equation} \label{eq:c1}
|c(1)|^2\ =\ |x_0+\dots+x_{n-1}|^2
\ \stackrel{\eqref{eq:coslaw}}=
\ \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}|x_j|^2+2\kern-0.8em\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{c}j,k=0\\j<k\end{array}}^{n-1}\kern-0.8em|x_j||x_k|\cos(\ph_j-\ph_k).
\end{equation}
Now take $t=\omega^\ell\in\T_n\setminus\{1\}$ with some $\ell\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}$ and put
$z_k:=x_kt^k$ in \eqref{eq:coslaw}. Then $\psi_k=\arg(x_kt^k)=\arg x_k+k\arg t=\ph_k+k\ell\th$ with
$\th:=\arg\omega=\tfrac{2\pi}n$. Plugging this into \eqref{eq:coslaw}, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ct}
|c(t)|^2\ =\ |x_0t^0+\dots+x_{n-1}t^{n-1}|^2
\ \stackrel{\eqref{eq:coslaw}}=
\ \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}|x_j|^2+2\kern-0.8em\sum_{\scriptsize\begin{array}{c}j,k=0\\j<k\end{array}}^{n-1}\kern-0.8em|x_j||x_k|\cos\bigl(\ph_j-\ph_k+(j-k)\ell\th\bigr).
\end{equation}
By our assumption \eqref{eq:phase0}, all differences $\ph_j-\ph_k$ are in the interval
$(-\frac\pi n,\frac\pi n)=:I_n$. Since the length of $I_n$ is $\th=\frac{2\pi}n$,
\[
\ph_j-\ph_k+(j-k)\ell\th\quad
\ \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
=\ph_j-\ph_k,&\text{if } (j-k)\ell\in n\Z,\\
\not\in I_n,&\text{otherwise},
\end{array}\right\}
\quad \text{both modulo }2\pi.
\]
Moreover, $\cos x<\cos y$ whenever $x\not\in I_n$ and $y\in I_n$ (modulo $2\pi$).
Consequently, all cosines in \eqref{eq:c1} are larger than or equal to the corresponding cosines in \eqref{eq:ct}.
So $|c(1)|\ge|c(t)|$.

For our two adjacent $j,k$ with $x_j$ and $x_k$ nonzero, we have $j-k=-1$ and hence
$(j-k)\ell\not\in n\Z$, so that the corresponding term in \eqref{eq:c1} is strictly larger than
in \eqref{eq:ct}. Hence, $|c(1)|>|c(t)|$.
\end{proof}
So it is already enough for $\bfx\in\cC_n'$ that each entry of $\bfx$ is
in a certain cone around the positive real half axis. By the same arguments
as in the real case, one can look at a power of $\Bx:=\Cx^*\Cx$, which
is again a circulant matrix, and check whether the entries of its first (or any)
row satisfy \eqref{eq:phase0}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:complex}
Let $n\ge 2$ and $\bfx\in\C^n$. Then the following are equivalent.\\[-2.2em]
\begin{itemize} \itemsep-1mm
\item[(i)] $\bfx\in\cC_n'$,
\item[(ii)] $\exists m\in\N:$ at least two adjacent entries of the first row of $\Bx^m$ are nonzero and satisfy \eqref{eq:phase0},
\item[(iii)] $\exists m\in\N:$ all entries of the first row of $\Bx^m$ are nonzero and satisfy \eqref{eq:phase0},
\item[(iv)] $\exists m_0\in\N: \forall m\ge m_0:$ all entries of the first row of $\Bx^m$ are nonzero and satisfy \eqref{eq:phase0}.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The implications $(iv)\Rightarrow(iii)\Rightarrow(ii)$ are obvious. It remains to check $(ii)\Rightarrow(i)\Rightarrow(iv)$.

$(ii)\Rightarrow(i)$: Let $m\in\N$ be as in $(ii)$ and denote the circulant matrix $\Bx^m$ by $\Cy$.
By Lemma \ref{lem:suff_complex}, $\bfy\in\cC_n'$, i.e.~the symbol $b$ of $\Bx^m$
has its maximum at $1$ and only there. Arguing as in the proofs of Lemma \ref{lem:Bx>=0}
and Theorem \ref{thm:sufficient}, the same holds for the symbol $c$ of $\Cx$, so that $\bfx\in\cC_n'$.

$(i)\Rightarrow(iv)$: Let $\bfx\in\cC_n'$. Following the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:necessary}
up to \eqref{eq:1111}, we see that, for all entries of $\Bx^m$, let us denote them by  $b_{jk}^{(m)}$,
we have the following limits as $m\to\infty$,
\[
\frac{b_{jk}^{(m)}}{\|\Bx^m\|}\to\frac 1n,
\quad\text{so that}\quad
\frac{|b_{jk}^{(m)}|}{\|\Bx^m\|}\to\left|\frac 1n\right|=\frac 1n
\quad\text{and hence}\quad
\frac{b_{jk}^{(m)}}{|b_{jk}^{(m)}|}=\frac{b_{jk}^{(m)}}{\|\Bx^m\|}\frac{\|\Bx^m\|}{|b_{jk}^{(m)}|}\to\frac 1n\cdot n=1,
\]
showing that $\arg b_{jk}^{(m)}\to 0$. It follows that, for all sufficiently large $m$, all entries of $\Bx^m$
are nonzero and subject to \eqref{eq:phase0}. This clearly implies $(iv)$.
\end{proof}

\section{Conclusion}
Theorems \ref{thm:sufficient} and \ref{thm:necessary} are clearly not meant to give
efficient ways of computing the spectral norm of a generic real circulant matrix --
one cannot beat formula \eqref{eq:diag} in terms of the computational cost.
Rather than that, our theorems connect two apparently different questions to each other:\\
(i) whether $\|\Cx\|$ equals $|x_0+\dots+x_{n-1}|$, and (ii) eventual positivity
of the semigroup $(\Bx^m)_{m=0}^\infty$.

In the complex case, one has the same results but instead of being real and positive,
the matrix entries of $\Bx^m$ only have to belong to a certain cone \eqref{eq:phase0}
around the positive half axis.