Three-person impartial avoidance games for generating finite cyclic, dihedral, and nilpotent groups

Abstract: We study a three-player variation of the impartial avoidance game introduced by Anderson and Harary. Three players take turns selecting previously-unselected elements of a finite group. The losing player is the one who selects an element that causes the set of jointly-selected elements to be a generating set for the group, with the previous player winning and the remaining player coming in second place. We describe the winning strategy for these games on cyclic, dihedral, and nilpotent groups.

\subsection{Nilpotent Groups}

Recall that finite nilpotent groups are the finite groups that are isomorphic to the direct product of their Sylow subgroups. It immediately follows that all abelian groups are nilpotent.  The next proposition generalizes the result for abelian groups found in~\cite{ErnstSieben}.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:nilpotent}
If $G$ is a nontrivial finite nilpotent group, then
\[
\text{\sf DNG}(G)=
\begin{dcases}
*1, & |G|=2 \text{ or } G \text{ is odd}\\
*3, & G\cong \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_{2k+1}, k\ge 1 \\
*0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{dcases}
\]
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
If $|G|=2$ or $G$ is odd, then $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*1$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:DNGClassification}. If $G \cong \mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_{2k+1}$ for some $k$, then it follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:CyclicGroups} that $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*3$.

Lastly, we assume we are not in the first two cases;  then either $4$ divides $|G|$ or $G$ is non-cyclic of even order. We know $G \cong \prod_p Q_p$, where $Q_p$ is the Sylow $p$-subgroup of $G$ for the prime $p$.
If $4$ divides $|G|$, then every maximal subgroup is even by Proposition~\ref{prop:4DirectProduct}, and hence $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria}.
So, suppose that $|Q_2|=2$ and $G$ is non-cyclic; then $\prod_{p\not=2} Q_p$ is not cyclic.  Let $g \in G$ have odd order.  Then $\langle g \rangle$ is a proper subgroup
of $\prod Q_p$, so $Q_2 \times \langle g \rangle$ is a proper subgroup of $G$.  Thus, every element of odd order is contained in an even subgroup, so $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:0iffCovering}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Generalized Dihedral Groups}

A group $G$ is said to be a generalized dihedral group if $G\cong A \rtimes \mathbb{Z}_2$ for some finite abelian $A$, where the action of the semidirect product is inversion.  In this case, we write $G=\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ and we identify $A$ with the corresponding subgroup of $G$.  Note that $A$ has index $2$ in $G$, so $A$ is maximal in $G$. The proof of the following is a trivial exercise.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:dihElements}
Every element of $\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ that is not in $A$ has order $2$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:dihMaximals}
Every maximal subgroup of $\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ is even except possibly $A$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $M$ be a maximal subgroup of $\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ that is not equal to $A$.  Then $M$ contains an element of $\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ that is not contained in $A$.  By Proposition~\ref{prop:dihElements}, this element has order $2$, so $M$ is even.
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:gendih}
The avoidance games on the generalized dihedral groups satisfy:
\[
\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Dih}(A)) =\begin{dcases}
*3, & A \text{ is odd and cyclic} \\
*0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{dcases}
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
If $A$ is even, then all maximal subgroups of $\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ are even by Proposition~\ref{prop:dihMaximals}.  Then $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Dih}(A))=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria}, so we may assume that $A$ is odd.

If $A=\langle a \rangle$ for some $a \in A$, then $\langle L, a \rangle =G$ for all even maximal subgroups $L$. Then  $a$ is not in the union of the even maximal subgroups,  and we conclude that $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Dih}(A))=*3$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:DNGClassification}.

If $A$ is non-cyclic,  let $g \in \operatorname{Dih}(A)$ have odd order; then $g \in A$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:dihElements}.  Let $t \in \operatorname{Dih}(A)$ be any element of order $2$.  Then $\langle g,t \rangle = \operatorname{Dih}(\langle g \rangle) < \operatorname{Dih}(A)$ since $A$ is not cyclic, so $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:0iffCovering}.
\end{proof}

Note that $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Dih}(A))$ can only be $*3$ if $\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ is a dihedral group.  An alternative proof for Proposition~\ref{prop:gendih} is to determine the simplified structure diagrams shown in Figure~\ref{fig:gendih} for
$\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Dih}(A))$ in terms of the minimum number of generators $d(A)$ of $A$ and the parities of $A$ and $\Phi(A)$.

\subsection{Generalized Quaternion Groups}

Recall that a group $G$ is a generalized quaternion group (or dicyclic group) if $G \cong \langle x,y \mid x^{2n}=y^4=1, x^n=y^2,x^y=x^{-1}\rangle$ for some $n \geq 2$. The quaternion group of order $8$ is the $n=2$ case.

\begin{proposition}
If $G$ is a generalized quaternion group, then $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $g \in G$ have odd order.  Using notation from the presentation above, one can easily verify that $G=X \cup Xy$, where $X=\langle x\rangle$.  It is easy to check that every element of $Xy$ has order $4$ and so $g \in X$.  Since $X$ is even, $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:0iffCovering}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Groups with Real Elements}

Recall~\cite{Rose} that an element $g$ of a group $G$ is \emph{real} if there is a $t \in G$ such that $g^t=g^{-1}$.  Note that $t$ induces an automorphism of order $2$ on $\langle g \rangle$, so $G$ must be even if it has a real element.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:RealElements}
If $G$ is a finite group such that $|G| > 2$ and $g \in G$ is a real element of odd order, then $g$ is contained in a proper even subgroup or $G \cong \operatorname{Dih}(\langle g \rangle)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $K=\langle g \rangle$.  Because $g$ is real, there is a $t \in G$ such that $g^t=g^{-1}$.  Then conjugation by $t$ in $G$ induces an automorphism of $K$ of order $2$, so the order of $t$ is even.  Since $t$ normalizes $K$, we may define a subgroup $L= K\langle t \rangle$.  If $L < G$, then $g \in L < G$ and we are done since $L$ must be even.

So assume that $G=L$ with $K$ normal in $G$.  Let $u$ be an involution in $G$, and let $M=K\langle u \rangle$.  If $M < G$, then $g \in M < G$ and we are done since $M$ is even.  So assume that $G=K\langle u \rangle=\langle g,u \rangle$ with $|G|=2|\langle g \rangle|$.  Since $g$ is real and $G=K \cup Ku$, $u$ must invert $g$ and we have $G \cong \operatorname{Dih}(\langle g \rangle)$.
\end{proof}

The next corollary immediately follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:CyclicGroups},~Corollary~\ref{cor:0iffCovering}  and Propositions~\ref{prop:gendih} and~\ref{prop:RealElements}.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:RealGroups}
If $G$ is a finite group such that every element of $G$ of odd order is real, then
\[
\text{\sf DNG}(G) =\begin{dcases}
*1, & |G|=2\\
*3, & \text{$G\cong\operatorname{Dih}(A)$ for some odd cyclic $A$}\\
*0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{dcases}
\]
\end{corollary}

\begin{exam}
If $G$ is any of the groups listed below, then $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:RealGroups} since every element of $G$ is real by~\cite{TiepZalesski}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Omega_{2n+1}(q)$ with $q \equiv_4 1$ and $n \geq 3$
\item $\Omega_{9}^+(q)$ with $q \equiv_4 3$
\item P$\Omega_{4n}^+(q)$ with $q \not\equiv_4 3$ and $n \geq 3$
\item $\Omega_{4n}^+(q)$ with $q \not\equiv_4 3$ and $n \geq 3$
\item $\prescript{3}{}{\operatorname{D}}_4(q)$
\item any quotient of $\operatorname{Spin}_{4n}^-(q)'$ with $n \geq 2$
\item any quotient of $\operatorname{Sp}_{2n}(q)'$ with $q \not\equiv_4 3$ and $n \geq 1$
\end{enumerate}

\end{exam}

Proposition~\ref{prop:RealElements} implies that $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Sym}(n))=*0$ for all $n \geq 4$ since every element in $\operatorname{Sym}(n)$ is conjugate to other elements with the same cycle structure, including the element's inverse.  This is generalized in the following corollary for Coxeter groups.  Recall that the Coxeter groups of types $A_n$ and $I_2(m)$ are isomorphic to $\operatorname{Sym}(n+1)$ and the dihedral group of order $2m$, respectively~\cite{Humphreys1990}.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Coxeter}
If $G$ is a finite irreducible Coxeter group, then
\[
\text{\sf DNG}(G) =\begin{dcases}
*1, & \text{$G$ is of type $A_1$}\\
*3, & \text{$G$ is of type $I_2(m)$ for some odd $m$}\\
*0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{dcases}
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
If $G$ is of type $A_1$, then $G$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_2$ and $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*1$ by Proposition~\ref{thm:DNGClassification}.  If $G$ is of type $I_2(m)$ for some odd $m$ (which includes type $A_2$), then $G$ is dihedral of order $2m$, and hence $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*3$ by Proposition~\ref{prop:gendih}.  Every element of every other Coxeter group is real by~\cite[Corollary~3.2.14]{MR1778802}, so the result follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:RealGroups}.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Alternating Groups}

Let $\operatorname{Alt}(n)$ denote the alternating group on $n$ letters.  The last two authors proved in~\cite{ErnstSieben} that $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Alt}(3))=*3=\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Alt}(4))$.  Barnes proved in \cite{Barnes} that $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Alt}(n))=*0$ if $n$ is greater than $5$ and not a prime that is congruent to $3$ modulo $4$.  The full characterization of $\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Alt}(n))$ can be found in \cite{BeneshErnstSiebenSymAlt}, which uses the O'Nan--Scott Theorem~\cite{AschbacherScott} to show
\[
\text{\sf DNG}(\operatorname{Alt}(n)) =\begin{dcases}
*3, & n\in\{3,4\} \text{ or } n \text{ is in a certain family of primes} \\
*0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{dcases}
\]

\noindent
The smallest number in this family of primes is $19$.

\subsection{Sporadic Groups}

The sporadic groups are the finite simple groups that do not belong to any infinite family of simple groups.
\begin{proposition}
Let $M_{23}$ denote the Mathieu group that permutes $23$ objects and $B$ denote the Baby Monster. If $G$ is a sporadic group, then
\[
\text{\sf DNG}(G) =\begin{dcases}
*3, & G \cong M_{23} \text{ or } G \cong B\\
*0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{dcases}
\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Suppose $G \cong M_{23}$.  Then $23$ divides $|G|$, so $G$ has an element of order $23$.  The Atlas of Finite Groups~\cite{Atlas} states that no even maximal subgroup of $G$ has order divisible by $23$, so we conclude that elements of order $23$ are not in any even maximal subgroup and the set of even maximal subgroups does not cover $G$.  Then $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*3$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria}. If $G \cong B$, then similarly elements of order $47$ are not contained in any even maximal subgroup, since no even maximal subgroup is divisible by $47$~\cite{wilson1999maximal}. So $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*3$ in this case, too.

Now suppose that $G$ is isomorphic to the Thompson group $Th$.  There is only one class of maximal subgroups of $G$ that is odd~\cite{linton1989maximal}, and these odd maximal subgroups are isomorphic to $31.15$.  Thus, we only need to consider elements of order dividing $31 \cdot 15$, since all other elements are contained in some even maximal subgroup.  By the character table in~\cite{Atlas}, it suffices to consider elements of order $3$, $5$, $15$, and $31$.  Again by the character table, all elements of orders $3$, $5$, and $15$ are contained in centralizers of even order.  Therefore, all elements of $G$ are contained in an even maximal subgroup except possibly for elements of order $31$.

So let $M$ be a maximal subgroup of $G$ isomorphic to $31.15$, and let $g \in M$ have order $31$.  By the character table, there are exactly two conjugacy classes $C_1$ and $C_2$ of elements of order $31$, and any element of order $31$  is contained in one and its inverse is contained in the other.    By~\cite{Atlas}, there is a maximal subgroup $H$ of $G$ that is isomorphic to $2^5.L_5(2)$, so $31$ divides $|H|$ and $H$ has an element $h$ of order $31$.  Then $g$ is conjugate to either $h$ or $h^{-1}$; without loss of generality, assume that there is an $x \in G$ such that $h^x=g$.  Then $g = h^x \in H^x$, so $g$ is contained in an even maximal subgroup.  Therefore, the maximal subgroups of $G$ cover $G$, so $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria}.

The remaining cases contain only even maximal subgroups, and therefore have nim-number $0$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The group $J_4$ has only even maximal subgroups by~\cite{kleidman1988maximal}.
\item The group $Fi_{23}$ has only even maximal subgroups by~\cite{kleidman1989maximal}.
\item The group $Fi_{24}'$ has only even maximal subgroups by~\cite{linton1991maximal}.
\item The group $M$ has only even maximal subgroups by~\cite{norton1998anatomy},~\cite{norton2002anatomy},~\cite{norton2013correction},~\cite{wilson1999maximal}, and~\cite{wilson2006new}.
\end{enumerate}

Every maximal subgroup is even for every sporadic group not already mentioned~\cite{Atlas}, so they also have nim-number $0$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Rubik's Cube Groups}

We can use our classification results together with a computer algebra system to handle some fairly large groups. There are $8$ and $20$ conjugacy classes of maximal subgroups of the $2\times2\times 2$ and $3\times3\times 3$ Rubik's Cube groups, respectively. A simple GAP calculation~\cite{WEB2} shows that all these maximal subgroups are even. Hence, the avoidance games on these groups are all $*0$.

\end{section}

\begin{section}{Groups with Odd Order Frattini Subgroup}

If the Frattini subgroup of a group $G$ is even, then $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=*0$ by Corollary \ref{cor:evenFrattini}.
If the Frattini subgroup is odd, then factoring out by the Frattini subgroup does not change the nim-number of $\text{\sf DNG}(G)$.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:FrattiniQuotients}
Let $G$ be a finite group, and let $N$ be a normal subgroup of $G$ such that $N$ is odd and $N \leq \Phi(G)$.  Then $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=\text{\sf DNG}(G/N)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
The result follows trivially if $|G|=2$ and follows from Corollary~\ref{cor:finiteOdd} if $G$ is odd, so assume that $G$ is even of order greater than $2$.  If $G$ is cyclic, then $4$ divides $|G|$ if and only if $4$ divides $|G/N|$, since $N$ is odd; the result follows by Proposition~\ref{prop:CyclicGroups}.  So, suppose that $G$ is non-cyclic.

Let $x \in G$.  If $M$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$, then $N \leq \Phi(G) \leq M$ by the definition of $\Phi(G)$.  By the Correspondence Theorem~\cite[Theorem~3.7]{Isaacs1994}, the maximal subgroups of $G/N$ that contain $Nx$ are exactly the set of subgroups of the form $M/N$, where $M$ is a maximal subgroup of $G$ containing $x$.  Additionally, $|(MN)/N|=|M/N|=|M|/|N| \equiv_2 |M|$ since $N$ is odd.
Therefore, the parities of the orders of maximal subgroups of $G/N$ that contain $Nx$ are exactly the same as the parities of orders of maximal subgroups of $G$ that contain $x$, so the set of even maximal subgroups of $G/N$ covers $G/N$ if and only if the set of even maximal subgroups of $G$ covers $G$.  The result follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:DNGClassification}.
\end{proof}

It is well-known that the Frattini quotient of a nilpotent group is abelian. Since the avoidance games for abelian groups were classified in~\cite{ErnstSieben}, we could have used Proposition~\ref{prop:FrattiniQuotients} to prove Proposition~\ref{prop:nilpotent}.

\begin{exam}
The Frattini subgroup of $G=\mathbb{Z}_{18}\times \mathbb{Z}_2$ is $\Phi(G)\cong\mathbb{Z}_3$. Hence, $\text{\sf DNG}(G)=\text{\sf DNG}(G/\Phi(G))=\text{\sf DNG}(\mathbb{Z}_6\times \mathbb{Z}_2)=*0$, where the last equality follows from Proposition~\ref{prop:nilpotent}. Figure~\ref{fig:C18xC2} shows how the subgroup lattice
changes in the factoring process while the structure diagrams remain the same.
Notice that there are three arrows in Figure~\ref{fig:C18xC2}(c) joining the structure classes corresponding to the intersection subgroups
$\mathbb{Z}_1$ and $3\cdot\mathbb{Z}_6$ in the structure diagram of $\text{\sf DNG}(\mathbb{Z}_6\times \mathbb{Z}_2)$, even though there is no edge joining $\mathbb{Z}_1$ to any copy of $\mathbb{Z}_6$ in Figure ~\ref{fig:C18xC2}(b). A similar relationship holds between the structure classes corresponding to the intersection subgroups $\mathbb{Z}_3$ and $3\cdot\mathbb{Z}_{18}$ for $\text{\sf DNG}(\mathbb{Z}_{18}\times \mathbb{Z}_2)$.
\end{exam}

Factoring out by the Frattini subgroup can reduce the size of the group to make it more manageable for computer calculation.

\begin{exam}
The Frattini subgroup of the special linear group $SL(3,7)$ is isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z}_3$. The Frattini quotient is isomorphic to the projective special linear group $PSL(3,7)$.
A GAP calculation shows that the Frattini quotient has $69008$ even and $32928$ odd maximal subgroups.
The set of even maximal subgroups does not cover $PSL(3,7)$, so $\text{\sf DNG}(SL(3,7))=\text{\sf DNG}(PSL(3,7))=*3$ by Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria}(3)(b).
\end{exam}

\end{section}

\begin{section}{Further Questions}\label{sec:questions}

Below we outline a few open problems related to $\text{\sf DNG}(G)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The nim-number of the avoidance game is determined by the structure diagram, which is determined by the structure digraph and the parity of the intersection subgroups.
Is it possible to determine the structure diagram from the abstract subgroup lattice structure without using any information about the subgroups?
\item Can we characterize $\text{\sf DNG}(G\times H)$, or even $\text{\sf DNG}(G\rtimes H)$, in terms of $\text{\sf DNG}(G)$ and $\text{\sf DNG}(H)$?
\item Let $N$ be a normal subgroup of $G$ such that $N\le \Phi(G)$. Are the structure digraphs of $\text{\sf DNG}(G)$ and $\text{\sf DNG}(G/N)$ isomorphic?
\item Can we characterize the nim-numbers of the achievement games from~\cite{ErnstSieben} in terms of covering conditions by maximal subgroups similar to Corollary~\ref{cor:DNGCriteria} for avoidance games?
\item Is it possible to determine nim-numbers for avoidance games played on algebraic structures having maximal sub-structures, such as quasigroups, semigroups, monoids, and loops?
\item The nim-number of a game position $P$ can be determined using the type of the structure class containing $P$. The type of the structure class requires a recursive computation using the minimal excludant.
Is it possible to avoid this computation and determine the nim-value of $P$ in terms of a simple condition using only the maximal subgroups?
\item What are the nim-values of avoidance games played on the remaining classical and simple groups?
\end{enumerate}

\end{section}

\bibliographystyle{amsplain}

Group Theory (math.GR); Combinatorics (math.CO)


An upper bound on Euclidean embeddings of rigid graphs with 8 vertices

Abstract: A graph is called (generically) rigid in R^d if, for any choice of sufficiently generic edge lengths, it can be embedded in R^d in a finite number of distinct ways, modulo rigid transformations. Here, we deal with the problem of determining the maximum number of planar Euclidean embeddings of minimally rigid graphs with 8 vertices, because this is the smallest unknown case in the plane.

\section{Definitions}
Given a graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|=n$ and a collection of edge lengths $d_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{+}$, a Euclidean embedding of $G$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a mapping of its vertices to a set of points $p_1,\ldots, p_n$, such that $d_{ij} = \Vert p_i - p_j \Vert$, for all $\{i,j\} \in E$.
We call a graph (generically) rigid in $\mathbb{R}^d$ iff, for generic edge lengths, it can be embedded in $\mathbb{R}^d$ in a finite number of ways, modulo rigid transformations (translations and rotations).
A graph is minimally rigid in $\mathbb{R}^d$ iff it is no longer rigid once any edge is removed.
The study of rigid graphs is motivated by numerous applications, mostly in robotics, mechanism and linkage theory, structural bioinformatics, and architecture.
The main goal is to determine the maximum number of distinct planar Euclidean embeddings of minimally rigid graphs, up to rigid transformations, as a function of the number of vertices.
We shall focus on the planar case.

\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{examples.jpg}
\end{center}

\section{Existing work}
A general upper bound on the number of embeddings, for the planar case, is $\binom{2n-4}{n-2}\approx \frac{4^{n-2}}{\sqrt{\pi (n-2)}}$.
The bound was obtained by exploiting results from complex algebraic geometry that bound the degree of (symmetric) determinantal varieties defined by distance matrices \cite{Bor,BorStr,HarTu}.
In \cite{SteThe}, mixed volumes (cf. Section 1.2) also yield an upper bound of $4^{n-2}$, for the planar case.

In the table below we can see the lower and upper bounds we know \cite{EmiMor,EmTsVa2,EmTsVa1} for the maximum number of embeddings of rigid graphs with up to $n=10$ vertices. The most recent tight bound is for $n=7$ \cite{EmiMor}.
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
Number of vertices &Lower Bounds &Upper Bounds\\
\hline
3 &2 &2\\
\hline
4 &4 &4\\
\hline
5 &8 &8\\
\hline
6 &24 &24\\
\hline
7 &56 &56\\
\hline
8 &112 &128\\
\hline
9 &288 &512\\
\hline
10 &576 &2048\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

Up to $n=7$ we have exact values. Our result is to prove an upper bound of 116 to the number of planar embeddings of minimally rigid graphs with 8 vertices in the plane.
We conjecture that the bound of 116 is tight.

\section{Laman graphs and Henneberg steps}
We will use a combinatorial characterization of rigidity in $\mathbb{R}^2$, which is based on Laman graphs \cite{Lam,Max}.
A graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|=n$ is called Laman iff $|E|=2n-3$ and all of its induced subgraphs on $k<n$ vertices have $\leq 2k-3$ edges.
It is a fundamental theorem (Maxwell 1864 - Laman 1970) that a graph is minimally rigid in $\mathbb{R}^2$ iff it is a Laman graph.
Moreover, we know that Laman graphs admit inductive constructions that begin with a triangle, followed by a sequence of so-called Henneberg steps (Henneberg-2 constructions). A graph is Laman iff it has a Henneberg-2 construction.
Each Henneberg step adds to the graph a new vertex and a total number of two edges.
A Henneberg-1 (or H1) step connects the new vertex to two existing vertices.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{hen1.jpg}
\end{center}
A Hennenerg-2 (or H2) step connects the new vertex to three existing vertices having at least one edge among them, and this edge is removed.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{hen2.jpg}
\end{center}
A Laman graph is called H1 if it can be constructed using only H1 steps and it is called H2 otherwise

Using Henneberg steps we can construct all rigid graphs with 8 vertices and classify them up to isomorphism.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{henn-4.png}
\end{center}

By doing this, we have the following results
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
Number of vertices &Number of H1-graphs & Number of H2-graphs\\
\hline
3 &1 &0\\
\hline
4 &1 &0\\
\hline
5 &3 &0\\
\hline
6 &11 &2\\
\hline
7 &61 &9\\
\hline
8 &499 &109\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}

For example, these are the 9 H2-graphs with 7 vertices.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{graphs7.png}
\end{center}
The second one has 56 embeddings (the upper bound for $n=7$).

We see that, in total, there are 608 rigid graphs with 8 vertices and from them, the 499 are H1-graphs. Since two circles intersect generically in two points, a H1-step at most doubles the number of embeddings and this is tight. It follows that a H1-graph on $n$ vertices has $2^{n-2}$ embeddings. Therefore, the 499 graphs have $2^6=64$ embeddings, which is smaller than the lower bound we have (112).

From the remaining 109 graphs, 77 have a vertex of degree 2, which means that they have at most $2\cdot 56=112$ embeddings, because 56 is the maximum number of embeddings of a graph with 7 vertices.

Therefore, there are only 32 graphs to consider.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{graphs32.png}
\end{center}

\begin{lem}
The five marked graphs (in the above drawing with some bold edges) have at most 64 embeddings.
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
The marked graphs can be constructed by combining two smaller rigid graphs. More specifically, we can take the rigid graph with 4 vertices and combine it with a rigid graph with 5 vertices in a way that they have a common vertex, and we add one more edge so that the whole construction is rigid. The resulting graph is isomorphic with one of the above marked graphs and moreover, it has at most $4\cdot 8\cdot 2=64$ embeddings, because there are 4 embeddings for the rigid graph with 4 vertices, 8 embeddings for the graph with 5 vertices and the additional edge allows only 2 embeddings for each combination: We consider a cycle (blue cycle in the figure below) with center a vertex of the rigid subgraph with 4 vertices and we have to count its intersections with a specific vertex (red vertex) of the second rigid subgraph with 5 vertices. There are 2 such intersections because the latter vertex moves on a circle (orange circle) centered at the common vertex of the two rigid subgraphs (see the figure below).
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{lemma2.png}
\end{center}
\end{proof}

Therefore, we focus on the remaining 27 graphs.

\section{Calley-Menger matrices}
We can associate every graph with a Cayley-Menger matrix \cite{Cay}, which is a matrix like the following:
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{cmm.png}
\end{center}
where $c_{ij}$ correspond to the fixed distances and $x_{ij}$ are the unspecified distances.

For every graph we construct the corresponding Cayley-Menger matrix.
We know that the number of embeddings of a graph is equal to the number of completions of the above matrix that have rank 4.
This means that all the 5x5 minors that correspond to Cayley-Menger sub-matrices vanish, therefore we have a polynomial system with $\binom{8}{4}=70$ equations and $\binom{8}{2}-(2\cdot 8 -3)=15$ unknowns.

For every system (one for each graph), we will find a square subsystem with finite number of roots and for which if the unknown lengths are fixed, they uniquely define the configuration of the overall graph; this is the approach in \cite{EmTsVa1}. We now introduce a powerful algebraic tool, namely the mixed volume of a well-constrained polynomial system; see, e.g., \cite{EmiCan} for definitions and an efficient algorithm for its computation. The mixed volume of the square subsystem of minors is an upper bound on the number of its complex roots, hence it bounds the number of embeddings of the graph.

More specifically, this bound does not take into account solutions with zero coordinates, since it counts toric complex roots. However, a graph has embeddings with some zero length only when the input bar lengths form a singular set, in the sense that they would satisfy a non-generic algebraic dependency. For example, by letting some input distance be exactly 0, some graph may theoretically have infinitely many configurations. However, generically, it is impossible to have such an embedding, as discussed in \cite{EmTsVa2}.

For the above matrix, the following 6x6 subsystem has a finite number of solutions, mixed volume equal to 116, and it uniquely defines the configuration of the overall graph. Let $D[X]$ denote the principal minor of the matrix indexed by the rows/columns in $X$ and the first row/column of ones.
\begin{center}
$D(2,3,4,6)(x_{13},x_{25})=0$

$D(2,3,4,7)(x_{13},x_{26})=0$

$D(2,4,6,7)(x_{13},x_{56})=0$

$D(3,5,6,9)(x_{25},x_{48})=0$

$D(5,6,8,9)(x_{48},x_{57})=0$

$D(2,3,6,7)(x_{25},x_{26},x_{56})=0$
\end{center}
Therefore, this graph has at most 116 embeddings (this is the first circled graph in the image below).

If we do this for every graph we have the following results (numbers up-left of each drawing):
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{results-2.png}
\end{center}

We see that there are only two graphs which exceed the lower bound we know (112), and they have at most 116 embeddings. This proves that a rigid graph with 8 vertices can have at most 116 embeddings (we also expect that this bound is tight).


Direct and Inverse Theorems on Signed Sumsets of Integers

Abstract: Let $G$ be an additive abelian group and $h$ be a positive integer. For a nonempty finite subset $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$ of $G$, we let \[h_{\underline{+}}A:=\{\Sigma_{i=0}^{k-1}\lambda_{i} a_{i}: (\lambda_{0}, \ldots, \lambda_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{Z}^{k},~ \Sigma_{i=0}^{k-1}|\lambda_{i}|=h \},\] be the {\it signed sumset} of $A$.The {\it direct problem} for the signed sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is to find a nontrivial lower bound for $|h_{\underline{+}}A|$ in terms of $|A|$. The {\it inverse problem} for $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is to determine the structure of the finite set $A$ for which $|h_{\underline{+}}A|$ is minimal. In this article, we solve both the direct and inverse problems for $|h_{\underline{+}}A|$, when $A$ is a finite set of integers.

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}

Let $G$ be an additive abelian group and $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$ be a nonempty finite subset of $G$. Let $h$ be a positive integer. The $h$-fold sumset $hA$ of $A$ is the set of all sums of $h$ elements of $A$, that is,
\[hA=\{\Sigma_{i=0}^{k-1}\lambda_{i} a_{i}: (\lambda_{0}, \ldots, \lambda_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{N}_{0}^{k}, \Sigma_{i=0}^{k-1}\lambda_{i}=h \}.\]
The $h$-fold signed sumset of $A$, denoted by $h_{\underline{+}}A$, is defined by
\[h_{\underline{+}}A:=\{\Sigma_{i=0}^{k-1}\lambda_{i} a_{i}: (\lambda_{0}, \ldots, \lambda_{k-1}) \in \mathbb{Z}^{k}, \Sigma_{i=0}^{k-1}|\lambda_{i}|=h \}.\]
Clearly,
\begin{equation}
hA\cup h(-A) \subseteq h_{\underline{+}}A \subseteq h\left(A\cup -A\right)\nonumber,
\end{equation}
and for any integer $\alpha$,
\begin{equation}
h_{\underline{+}}(\alpha *A)=\alpha * (h_{\underline{+}}A),\nonumber
\end{equation}
where \[\alpha*A=\{\alpha*a:~a\in A\},\]
is the $\alpha$-dilation of the set $A$.

The study of sumsets and hence of multiple fold sumsets of sets of an additive abelian group has more than two-hundred-year old history. The sumsets are actually the foundations of the ``additive number theory". A paper of Cauchy \cite{cauchy} in 1813, which is believed to be one of the oldest and classical work off-course, finds the minimum cardinality of the sumset $A+B$, where $A$ and $B$ are nonempty subsets of residue classes modulo a prime. Later, Davenport \cite{dav} rediscovered Cauchy's result in 1935. The result is now known as the Cauchy-Davenport theorem. Several partial results about the minimum cardinality of the sumsets and its inverse that if the minimum cardinality is achieved, then the characterization of individual sets have been obtained by now. A comprehensive list of references may be found in Mann \cite{mann}, Freiman \cite{freiman}, Nathanson \cite{N96}, and  Tao \cite{tao}. Plagne \cite{plagne} in 2006, finally settled the general case by obtaining the minimum cardinality of sumset in an abelian group.

In contrast to the $h$-fold sumset, the $h$-fold signed sumset has a brief and a quite young history. This sumset first appeared in the work of Bajnok and Ruzsa \cite{BR03} in the context of the ``independence number" of a subset $A$ of $G$ and in the work of Klopsch and Lev \cite{KL03, KL09} in the context of the ``diameter" of $G$ with respect to the subset $A$. The first systematic and point centric study appeared in the work of Bajnok and Matzke \cite{BM15} in which they studied the minimum cardinality of $h$-fold signed sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ of subsets of a finite abelian group. In particular, they proved that the minimum cardinality of $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is the same as the minimum cardinality of $hA$, when $A$ is a subset of a finite cyclic group. An year later, they \cite{BM2015} classified all possible values of $k$ for which the minimum cardinality of $h_{\underline{+}}A$ coincide with the minimum cardinality of $hA$, when $A$ is a subset of a particular elementary abelian group.

The direct problem for signed sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is to find a nontrivial lower bound for $|h_{\underline{+}}A|$ in terms of $|A|$. The inverse problem for $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is to determine the structure of the finite set $A$ for which $|h_{\underline{+}}A|$ is minimal. In this article, we study both direct and inverse problems for signed sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$, when $A$ is a finite set of integers. This study is done in Section \ref{sec2} by considering three different cases, viz.; (i) A contains only positive integers, (ii) A contains positive integers and zero, and (iii) A contains arbitrary integers, in the subsections \ref{subsec2.1}, \ref{subsec2.2}, and \ref{subsec2.3}, respectively. To prove our results, we need the following classical results about $h$-fold sumset $hA$.

\begin{theorem} \cite{N96}\label{thmA}
Let $h\geq 2$ and let $A$ be a finite set of integers with $|A|=k$. Then
\[|hA| \geq hk-h+1.\]
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem} \cite{N96}\label{thmB}
Let $h\geq 2$ and let $A$ be a finite set of integers with $|A|=k$. Then
$|hA|=hk-h+1$ if and only if $A$ is a $k$-term arithmetic progression.
\end{theorem}

\section{Direct and inverse theorems for $h_{\underline{+}}A$}\label{sec2}

\subsection{$A$ contains only positive integers}\label{subsec2.1}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm1}
Let $h$ be a positive integer and let $A$ be a finite set of $k$ positive integers. We have
\[|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq 2(hk-h+1).\] This lower bound is best possible for $h\leq2$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$, where $0 < a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$. The sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ contains at least the following $2(hk-h+1)$ integers.
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn1}
ha_{0} &<& (h-1)a_{0}+a_{1} < (h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1} < \cdots < a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1} < ha_{1}\nonumber \\
 &<& (h-1)a_{1}+a_{2} < (h-2)a_{1}+2a_{2} < \cdots < a_{1}+(h-1)a_{2} < ha_{2}\nonumber \\
 & \vdots & \nonumber\\
 &<& (h-1)a_{k-2}+a_{k-1} < (h-2)a_{k-2}+2a_{k-1} < \cdots < a_{k-2}+(h-1)a_{k-1}\nonumber \\
 &<& ha_{k-1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn2}
-ha_{k-1} &<& -(h-1)a_{k-1}-a_{k-2} < \cdots < -a_{k-1}-(h-1)a_{k-2} < -ha_{k-2}\nonumber \\
 &<& -(h-1)a_{k-2}-a_{k-3} < \cdots < -a_{k-2}-(h-1)a_{k-3} < -ha_{k-3}\nonumber \\
 & \vdots & \nonumber\\
 &<& -(h-1)a_{1}-a_{0} < \cdots < -a_{1}-(h-1)a_{0} < -ha_{0}.
\end{eqnarray}

Thus, \[|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq 2(hk-h+1).\]
Next, we show that this lower bound is best possible. If $h=1$, then $|1_{\underline{+}}A|=2k$. Hence the lower bound is tight for every finite set $A$. Next, let $h=2$ and $A=\{1, 3, 5, \ldots, 2k-1 \}$. Then \[2_{\underline{+}}A=\{-(4k-2), \ldots, -4, -2, 2, 4, \ldots, (4k-2)\}.\]
 zHence, $|2\underline{+}A|=4k-2$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm2}
Let $h \geq 2$ and let $A$ be a finite set of $k$ positive integers. If $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2(hk-h+1)$, then $h=2$ and $A=d*\{1,3,\ldots,2k-1\}$, for some positive integer $d$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$, where $0 < a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$.
Since $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2(hk-h+1)$, it follows from Theorem \ref{thm1}, that the sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ consists precisely the integers listed in  (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}). For each $i=1, 2, \ldots, k-2$, we have
\[a_{i-1}+(h-1)a_{i} < ha_{i} < (h-1)a_{i}+a_{i+1}.\]
Also,
 \[a_{i-1}+(h-1)a_{i} < a_{i-1}+(h-2)a_{i}+a_{i+1} < (h-1)a_{i}+a_{i+1}.\]
Thus,
 \[ha_{i}=a_{i-1}+(h-2)a_{i}+a_{i+1}.\]
 This is equivalent to \[a_{i+1}-a_{i}=a_{i}-a_{i-1}.\]
 Therefore, the set $A$ is in arithmetic progression, i.e., $a_{i}-a_{i-1}=d$, for some $d>0$ and for all $1\leq i\leq k-1$. Again,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn3}
-ha_{1} &<& -(h-1)a_{1}-a_{0}\nonumber \\ &<& -(h-1)a_{1}+a_{0}\nonumber \\ &<& -(h-2)a_{1}+2a_{0}\\ & \vdots &\nonumber \\ &<& -a_{1}+(h-1)a_{0}\nonumber \\ &<& ha_{0}\nonumber.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, from (\ref{eqn1}), (\ref{eqn2}) and (\ref{eqn3}), it follows that, for $i=1,2,\ldots, h-1$,
\[-(h-i)a_{1}+ia_{0}=-(h-i-1)a_{1}-(i+1)a_{0}.\]
So, the common difference $d=a_{1}-a_{0}=2ia_{0}$,
for $i=1,2,\ldots, h-1$. This is possible, only if $h=2$. Hence, \[A=d*\{1,3,\ldots, 2k-1\}.\]
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm3}
Let $h\geq 3$ be a positive integer. Let $A$ be a finite set of $k\geq 3$ positive integers. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn4}
|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq 2hk-h+1.
\end{equation}
This lower bound is best possible.
\end{theorem}

The above theorem does not hold for $k=2$, as it can be seen by taking $A=\{1,2\}$, $h=3$; $A=\{1,3\}$, $h=4$; and $A=\{2,3\}$, $h=5$.

Further, if $A=\{a_{0},a_{1}\}$, where $0<a_{0}<a_{1}$ and $h<\frac{a_{0}+a_{1}}{2a_{0}}$, we observe in the following remark that $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=4h$.

\begin{remark}
Let $h\geq 3$ and $A=\{a_{0},a_{1}\}$, where $0<a_{0}<a_{1}$. Then, every summand in $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is either of the form $(h-i)a_{0}+ia_{1}$, or $(h-i)a_{0}-ia_{1}$, or $-(h-i)a_{0}+ia_{1}$, or $-(h-i)a_{0}-ia_{1}$, where $0\leq i\leq h$. Hence, the maximum possibility of integers in $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is $4h$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{eqnr1}
|h_{\underline{+}}A|\leq 4h.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, as $h<\frac{a_{0}+a_{1}}{2a_{0}}$, i.e., $0<(2h-1)a_{0}<a_{1}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
ha_{0}&<&-(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}<(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}<-(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}\\ &<& (h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}< \cdots
                                                               < -a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}<a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}<ha_{1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since each of the above $2h$ signed $h$-fold summand is positive and in $h_{\underline{+}}A$, their negatives are also in $h_{\underline{+}}A$. Hence, $|h_{\underline{+}}A|\geq 4h$. This together with (\ref{eqnr1}) give $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=4h$.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}[\textbf{Proof of theorem \ref{thm3}.}]
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$ be a finite set of integers, where $0 < a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$. From Theorem \ref{thm1}, it follows that the sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ contains at least $2(hk-h+1)$ integers listed in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}). So, it remains to show at least $(h-1)$ extra integers in $h_{\underline{+}}A$ different from the integers  in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}). To show this, we consider three cases depending on $a_{2}-a_{1}<a_{1}-a_{0}$, $a_{2}-a_{1}>a_{1}-a_{0}$, and $a_{2}-a_{1}=a_{1}-a_{0}$. Except in a subcase of the last case, namely, $a_{2}-a_{1}=a_{1}-a_{0}=2a_{0}$, which will lead to present the example for the best possible bound, we show much more extra summands than $h-1$ in $h_{\underline{+}}A$.

\begin{case}\label{case1} ($a_{2}-a_{1}<a_{1}-a_{0}$, i.e., $a_{2}<2a_{1}-a_{0}$). Consider the following sequence of integers, which is taken from (\ref{eqn1}).
\begin{equation}\label{eqn5}
(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}<(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}<(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}<\cdots<a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}<ha_{1}
\end{equation}

We shall insert an extra signed $h$-fold summand between each pair of successive integers of (\ref{eqn5}) as follows:

\noindent $(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}<(h-1)a_{0}+a_{2}<(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}<(h-2)a_{0}+a_{1}+a_{2}<(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}<(h-3)a_{0}+2a_{1}+a_{2}<(h-4)a_{0}+4a_{1}
<\cdots<2a_{0}+(h-3)a_{1}+a_{2}<a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}<a_{0}+(h-2)a_{1}+a_{2}<ha_{1}$.

Thus, we get $h-1$ extra positive integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$. Similarly, taking the negatives of these $h-1$ summands, we get another set of $h-1$ integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$. Hence, we get a total of at least $2(h-1)$ extra integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$, not already listed in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}).
\end{case}

\begin{case}\label{case2} ($a_{2}-a_{1}>a_{1}-a_{0}$, i.e., $2a_{1}<a_{2}+a_{0}$). Similar to the Case 1, we have

\noindent $ha_{1}<(h-2)a_{1}+a_{2}+a_{0}<(h-1)a_{1}+a_{2}<(h-3)a_{1}+2a_{2}+a_{0}<(h-2)a_{1}+2a_{2}<(h-4)a_{1}+3a_{2}+a_{0}<(h-3)a_{1}+3a_{2}
<\cdots<(h-1)a_{2}+a_{0}<a_{1}+(h-1)a_{2}$.

So, we get $h-1$ extra summands in $h_{\underline{+}}A$ between $ha_{1}$ and $a_{1}+(h-1)a_{2}$. Hence, taking negatives of these $h-1$ positive summands, we get a total of at least $2(h-1)$ extra integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$.
\end{case}

\begin{case}\label{case3} ($a_{2}-a_{1}=a_{1}-a_{0}$, i.e., $a_{0}$, $a_{1}$, $a_{2}$ are in arithmetic progression). Let $a_{1}=a_{0}+d$, $a_{2}=a_{0}+2d$, for some positive integer $d$.

\begin{subcase}\label{subcase1} ($d>2a_{0}$). Consider the following integers of (\ref{eqn1})

$ha_{0}<(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}<(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}<\cdots<a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}<ha_{1}<(h-1)a_{1}+a_{2}<(h-2)a_{1}+2a_{2}<\cdots<a_{1}+(h-1)a_{2}<ha_{2}$.
\\ Rewrite the list as

$ha_{0}<ha_{0}+d<ha_{0}+2d<\cdots<ha_{0}+(h-1)d<ha_{0}+hd<ha_{0}+(h+1)d<ha_{0}+(h+2)d<\cdots<ha_{0}+(2h-1)d<ha_{0}+2hd$.

For each $i=0,1,\ldots,h-2$, we insert an extra summand between $ha_{0}+2id$ and $ha_{0}+(2i+1)d$. We have,

$ha_{0}+2id<(h-2)a_{0}+(2i+1)d=(h-2-i)a_{0}-a_{1}+(i+1)a_{2}<ha_{0}+(2i+1)d$.

Each of these $h-1$ extra signed $h$-fold summands $(h-2-i)a_{0}-a_{1}+(i+1)a_{2}$, is positive. So, we get $h-1$ extra positive integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$. The negatives of these $h-1$ integers are also signed $h$-fold summands, hence are in the set $h_{\underline{+}}A$ and different from the summands in (\ref{eqn2}). Hence, we get at least $2(h-1)$ extra integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$, which are not listed in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}).
\end{subcase}

\begin{subcase}\label{subcase2} ($d<2a_{0}$). We use induction argument on $h$ to write $\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$.

\noindent If $h=3$, then \[a_{0}<a_{2}-a_{1}+a_{0}=a_{0}+d<3a_{0}.\]
If $h=4$, then \[2a_{0}<a_{2}-a_{1}+2a_{0}=2a_{0}+d<4a_{0},\] and \[0<-a_{1}+3a_{0}=2a_{0}-d<2a_{0}.\]
If $h=5$, then \[3a_{0}<a_{2}-a_{1}+3a_{0}=3a_{0}+d<5a_{0},\] and \[a_{0}<-a_{1}+4a_{0}=3a_{0}-d<3a_{0}.\]
If $h=6$, then \[4a_{0}<a_{2}-a_{1}+4a_{0}=4a_{0}+d<6a_{0},\] \[2a_{0}<-a_{1}+5a_{0}=4a_{0}-d<4a_{0},\] and \[0<2a_{2}-3a_{1}+a_{0}=d<2a_{0}.\]

In all the above cases we get exactly $\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor$ number of extra positive signed $h$-fold summands,  which are not included in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}). Now, let $h\geq 7$ and assume that the result is true for $h-1$. If $h=4k+1$ or $h=4k+3$ for some $k\geq 1$, then  $\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor=\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor=\frac{h-1}{2}$. By the induction hypothesis, $\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive integers as signed $(h-1)$-fold summands may be obtained in $(h-1)_{\underline{+}}A$. Adding a single copy of $a_{0}$ to all these $(h-1)$-fold summands, we can obtain $\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor(=\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor)$ extra positive signed $h$-fold summands. This completes the induction in this case.

 Now, let $h=4k$, $k\geq 1$. Then $\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive integers may be obtained from the $\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive summands of $(h-1)$-fold signed sumset of $A$ by just adding $a_{0}$ to it and one more summand is given by $0<(k-1)a_{2}-(2k-1)a_{1}+(k+2)a_{0}=2a_{0}-d<2a_{0}$. Hence, we get $\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive integers.

Similarly, if $h=4k+2$, $k\geq 1$, then $\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive integers may be obtained from the $\lfloor\frac{h-1}{2}\rfloor$ extra positive summands of $(h-1)$-fold signed sumset of $A$ by just adding $a_{0}$ to it and one more summand is given by $0<(k+1)a_{2}-(2k+1)a_{1}+ka_{0}=d<2a_{0}$.

Since, the negatives of these $\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor$ integers are also in the set $h_{\underline{+}}A$. Hence, we get a total of at least $2\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor$ extra integers in $h_{\underline{+}}A$.

Further, in both the above subcases \ref{subcase1} and \ref{subcase2}, we get even more $2\lfloor\frac{h}{3}\rfloor$ integers. Let $m$ be the largest integer such that $3m\leq h$, i.e., $m=\lfloor\frac{h}{3}\rfloor$ or $h=3m+\epsilon$, $\epsilon\in\{0,1,2\}$. Then,
\begin{center}
\[(h-3)a_{0}+2a_{1}-a_{2}=(h-2)a_{0},\]
\[(h-6)a_{0}+4a_{1}-2a_{2}=(h-4)a_{0},\]
\[(h-9)a_{0}+6a_{1}-3a_{2}=(h-6)a_{0},\]
\vdots
\[\epsilon a_{0}+2ma_{1}-ma_{2}=(m+\epsilon)a_{0}.\]
\end{center}

So, there are $m=\lfloor\frac{h}{3}\rfloor$ further extra positive signed $h$-fold summands which are multiples of $a_{0}$, between $0$ and $ha_{0}$. Thus, including negatives of these integers we get, $2m=2\lfloor\frac{h}{3}\rfloor$ even more extra integers in both the subcases $d>2a_{0}$ and $d<2a_{0}$. Hence, in both the subcases \ref{subcase1} and \ref{subcase2}, we get a total of at least $2(\lfloor\frac{h}{2}\rfloor + \lfloor\frac{h}{3}\rfloor)$ extra signed $h$-fold summands neither included in (\ref{eqn1}) nor in (\ref{eqn2}).
\end{subcase}

\begin{subcase}\label{subcase3} ($d=2a_{0}$). In this case we show that  $-(h-2)a_{0},-(h-4)a_{0},\\-(h-6)a_{0},\ldots,(h-6)a_{0},(h-4)a_{0},(h-2)a_{0}$ are signed $h$-fold summands, which are neither included in (\ref{eqn1}) nor in (\ref{eqn2}). Clearly, their number is $h-1$.

If $h=3$, then $2a_{1}-a_{2}=a_{0}$, and $a_{2}-2a_{1}=-a_{0}$. So, we get $(h-1)=2$ distinct integers which are previously not included.

Now, let $h\geq 4$.  Rewrite the summands of (\ref{eqn1}), which are between $ha_{0}$ and $ha_{1}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn6}
(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}<(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}<(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}<\cdots<a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}
\end{equation}

 Adding $-(a_{1}+a_{2})$ to the first three successive integers $(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}$, $(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}$, $(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}$ of (\ref{eqn6}), we get
\[(h-1)a_{0}+a_{1}-(a_{1}+a_{2})=(h-1)a_{0}-a_{2}=(h-6)a_{0},\]
\[(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}-(a_{1}+a_{2})=(h-2)a_{0}+a_{1}-a_{2}=(h-4)a_{0},\]
and
\[(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}-(a_{1}+a_{2})=(h-3)a_{0}+2a_{1}-a_{2}=(h-2)a_{0}.\]

Now leave the first term of (\ref{eqn6}) and add $-2(a_{1}+a_{2})$ to the next three successive integers $(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}$, $(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}$, $(h-4)a_{0}+4a_{1}$ of (\ref{eqn6}), we get
\[(h-2)a_{0}+2a_{1}-2(a_{1}+a_{2})=(h-2)a_{0}-2a_{2}=(h-12)a_{0},\]
\[(h-3)a_{0}+3a_{1}-2(a_{1}+a_{2})=(h-3)a_{0}+a_{1}-2a_{2}=(h-10)a_{0},\]
and
\[(h-4)a_{0}+4a_{1}-2(a_{1}+a_{2})=(h-4)a_{0}+2a_{1}-2a_{2}=(h-8)a_{0}.\]

We continue this process up to the last triplet $3a_{0}+(h-3)a_{1}$, $2a_{0}\\+(h-2)a_{1}$, $a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}$ of (\ref{eqn6}) by adding $-(h-3)(a_{1}+a_{2})$, to get
\[3a_{0}+(h-3)a_{1}-(h-3)(a_{1}+a_{2})=3a_{0}-(h-3)a_{2}=-(5h-18)a_{0},\]
\[2a_{0}+(h-2)a_{1}-(h-3)(a_{1}+a_{2})=2a_{0}+a_{1}-(h-3)a_{2}=-(5h-20)a_{0},\]
and
\[a_{0}+(h-1)a_{1}-(h-3)(a_{1}+a_{2})=a_{0}+2a_{1}-(h-3)a_{2}=-(5h-22)a_{0}.\]

The above process covers all the $h-1$ integers $-(h-2)a_{0},-(h-4)a_{0},\\-(h-6)a_{0}, \ldots,(h-6)a_{0},(h-4)a_{0},(h-2)a_{0}$ as signed $h$-fold summands with some other possible negative integers which are already counted in (\ref{eqn2}). One may stop this process till one gets $-(h-2)a_{0}$. Thus, we get exactly $h-1$ extra integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$, not already included in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}).
\end{subcase}
\end{case}

Thus, in all the above cases \ref{case1}, \ref{case2} and \ref{case3}, we get at least $h-1$ extra integers of $h_{\underline{+}}A$, which are not included in (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}). Hence, $|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq 2hk-h+1$.

Next, we show that this lower bound is best possible. Let $A=\{1,3,5,\ldots,\\(2k-1)\}$ for some integer $k\geq 1$. If $h$ is even, then
\[h_{\underline{+}}A \subseteq \{-h(2k-1), \ldots, -4, -2,0, 2, 4, \ldots, h(2k-1)\}.\]
If $h$ is odd, then \[h_{\underline{+}}A \subseteq \{-h(2k-1), \ldots, -5, -3, -1, 1, 3, 5, \ldots, h(2k-1)\}.\]

In both these cases, $|h_{\underline{+}}A|\leq 2hk-h+1$. Hence, together with (\ref{eqn4}), we get, $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2hk-h+1$.
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm4}
Let $h \geq 3$ and let $A$ be a finite set of $k\geq 3$ positive integers. If $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2hk-h+1$, then $A=d*\{1,3,\ldots,2k-1\}$, for some positive integer $d$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$, where $0 < a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$.
Since $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2hk-h+1$, it follows from Theorem \ref{thm3}, that $a_{2}-a_{1}=a_{1}-a_{0}=d=2a_{0}$. Again, by the similar argument used in Theorem \ref{thm2}, we get, for each $i=1, 2, \ldots, k-2$

\[a_{i-1}+(h-1)a_{i} < ha_{i} < (h-1)a_{i}+a_{i+1},\]
and
 \[a_{i-1}+(h-1)a_{i} < a_{i-1}+(h-2)a_{i}+a_{i+1} < (h-1)a_{i}+a_{i+1}.\]
Thus,
 \[ha_{i}=a_{i-1}+(h-2)a_{i}+a_{i+1}.\]
 This is equivalent to \[a_{i+1}-a_{i}=a_{i}-a_{i-1}.\]
 Therefore, the set $A$ is in arithmetic progression, and hence \[A=d*\{1,3,\ldots, 2k-1\}.\]
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\subsection{$A$ contains nonnegative integers with $0\in A$}\label{subsec2.2}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm5}
Let $h\geq 1$. Let $A$ be a finite set of $k$ nonnegative integers with $0\in A$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn7}
|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq 2hk-2h+1.
\end{equation}
This lower bound is best possible.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$, where $0 = a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$.
From (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}), it is clear that $h_{\underline{+}}A$ contains at least $hk-h$ positive integers $(h-i)a_{j}+ia_{j+1}$ and $hk-h$ negative integers $-(h-i)a_{j}-ia_{j+1}$, for $0 \leq i \leq h$, $ 1 \leq j \leq k-2$, and one extra integer zero. Thus,
\[|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq 2hk-2h+1.\]

Next, we show that this lower bound is best possible. Let $A=\{0, 1, 2, \ldots,\\ k-1\}=[0,k-1]$. The smallest integer of $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is $-h(k-1)$ and the largest element of $h_{\underline{+}}A$ is $h(k-1)$. Therefore, \[h_{\underline{+}}A \subseteq [-h(k-1), h(k-1)].\]
So \[|h_{\underline{+}}A| \leq 2h(k-1)+1.\] This inequality together with (\ref{eqn7}), implies \[|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2hk-2h+1.\]
This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm6}
Let $h \geq 2$ and let $A$ be a finite set of $k$ nonnegative integers with $0\in A$. Then $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2hk-2h+1$ if and only if $A=d*[0,k-1]$, for some positive integer $d$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$, where $0 = a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$.
Since $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=2hk-2h+1$, it follows from Theorem \ref{thm5} that the sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ consists precisely the integers listed in equation (\ref{eqn1}) and (\ref{eqn2}). By the similar argument as used in Theorem \ref{thm2} and Theorem \ref{thm4}, we obtain that the set $A$ is an arithmetic progression. Hence $A=d*[0,k-1]$.
 This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\subsection{$A$ contains positive, negative and zero}\label{subsec2.3}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm7}
Let $h\geq 1$ and let $A$ be a finite set of $k$ integers contains both positive and negative integers. Then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn8}
|h_{\underline{+}}A| \geq hk-h+1.
\end{equation}
This lower bound is best possible.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The lower bound is trivial and it follows from (\ref{eqn1}). To see that the lower bound is optimal, consider the interval of integers $A=\left[-\lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor, \lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor\right ]$, where $k\geq 3$ is an odd integer. Then,
\[h_{\underline{+}}A \subseteq \left [-h\lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor, h\lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor\right ].\]
Thus, \[|h_{\underline{+}}A| \leq 2h\lfloor \frac{k}{2} \rfloor+1=(k-1)h+1=hk-h+1.\]
This inequality together with (\ref{eqn8}) gives $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=hk-h+1$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm8}
Let $A$ be a finite set of $k\geq 2$ integers. Let $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=hk-h+1$. Then $A$ is a symmetric set and it is an arithmetic progression.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let $A=\{a_0, a_1,\ldots, a_{k-1}\}$, where $a_{0} < a_{1} < \cdots < a_{k-1}$. Let $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=hk-h+1$. Since $hA \subseteq h_{\underline{+}}A$, Theorem \ref{thmA} implies that $hA=h_{\underline{+}}A$. Thus, by Theorem \ref{thmB} the set $A$ is in arithmetic progression. Again, since $|h_{\underline{+}}A|=hk-h+1$, the sumset $h_{\underline{+}}A$ contains precisely that $(hk-h+1)$ integers listed in (\ref{eqn1}). It also contains the $(hk-h+1)$ integers listed in (\ref{eqn2}). Thus, for all $i=0,1,\ldots,k-1$, we have
\[ha_{i}=-ha_{k-1-i}.\]
 This is equivalent to $a_{i}= -a_{k-1-i}$, for all $i=0,1,\ldots,k-1$. This completes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements} The first author would like to thank to the Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee for providing the grant to carry out the research with Grant No. MAT/FIG/100656.

\section*{References}
\bibliographystyle{model1-num-names}


Hitting distribution of a correlated planar Brownian motion in a disk

Abstract: In this paper we study the hitting probability of a circumference $C_R$ for a correlated Brownian motion $\underline{B}(t)=\left(B_1(t), B_2(t)\right)$, $\rho$ being the correlation coefficient. The analysis starts by first mapping the circle $C_R$ into an ellipse $E$ with semiaxes depending on $\rho$ and transforming the differential operator governing the hitting distribution into the classical Laplace operator. By means of two different approaches (one obtained by applying elliptic coordinates) we obtain the desired distribution as a series of Poisson kernels.

\section{Introduction}
The problem of finding the distribution of the hitting place of the boundary of simply connected sets (in $\mathbb{R}^d$, $d\ge2$) by a Brownian motion has been considered by different authors and from different points of view. Recently (\citeauthor{betsakos} \citeyear{betsakos}) the problem of hitting different connected sets $U$ and $W$, and the influence of the distance of the starting point from the boundaries of $U$ and $W$, was studied asymptotically.\\
Most of the results in the literature concern the case of Brownian motions with independent components. Correlated Brownian motions are studied mainly in a financial context. For example, the joint distribution of maxima and minima of two correlated Brownian motions $B_1(t)$ and $B_2(t)$ was studied for pricing exotic options (\citeauthor{chuang} \citeyear{chuang}, \citeauthor{he} \citeyear{he}).\\
In some special cases it has been possible to obtain explicit distributions for the hitting point of correlated Brownian motions in connected sets. The distribution of the exit point from a wedge was analyzed by \citeauthor{iyengar} (\citeyear{iyengar}) and \citeauthor{metzler} (\citeyear{metzler}). In this paper we consider a circle $C_R$ of radius $R$ centered at the origin, and a correlated planar Brownian motion $\underline{B}(t)=\left(B_1(t),\;B_2(t)\right)$ with correlation coefficient $\rho$ and starting point inside $C_R$.\\
We are interested in finding the hitting probability of the boundary $\partial C_R$ as a function of the starting point $(x,y)$
\begin{equation}\label{eq1}P\left\{\underline{B}(T_{\partial C_R})\in d\sigma|\underline{B}(0)=(x,y)\right\}=u(x,y)\end{equation}
where $$T_{\partial C_R}=\inf\left\{t>0:\;\underline{B}(t)\in\partial C_R\right\}$$
is the first instant the Brownian motion hits the boundary $\partial C_R$ of $C_R$ and $d\sigma$ represents an element of $\partial C_R$. Clearly $P(T_{\partial C_R}<\infty)=1$ (\citeauthor{portstone} \citeyear{portstone}, pag. 20) and, because of continuity of Brownian motion, $B(T_{\partial C_R})\in\partial C_R$.\\
It is easy to show that $u(x,y)$ is a solution of the equation

\begin{equation}\label{eq2}\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial x^2}+2\rho\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial x\partial y}+\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial y^2}=0\qquad\qquad(x,y)\in C_R-\partial C_R.\end{equation}

\noindent The derivation of probability density (\ref{eq1}) is equivalent to the solution of the Dirichlet problem

\begin{equation}\label{eq3}\begin{dcases}\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial x^2}+2\rho\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial x\partial y}+\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial y^2}=0\qquad\qquad & (x,y)\in C_R-\partial C_R\\
u(x,y)=h(x,y)\qquad\qquad &(x,y)\in\partial C_R\end{dcases}\end{equation}

\noindent where $h(x,y)$ is a Dirac delta function placed at the exit point $d\sigma$.\\
The paper is organized in the following manner.\\
First we transform the operator (\ref{eq2}) into the classical Laplace operator. This implies that $C_R$ is mapped into an ellipse which is then transformed into a canonical ellipse by means of a suitable rotation.\\
The Dirichlet problem is then tackled in two different ways. The first one is based on a suitable transformation of the ellipse into a circular annulus. The second approach is based on the application of elliptic coordinates (\citeauthor{lebedev} \citeyear{lebedev}, pag. 204). It is then shown that the probability (\ref{eq1}) can be expressed in terms of series of Poisson kernels.\\
In the final section we show the equivalence of the solutions obtained with the two different approaches.

\section{Cholesky decomposition: transforming the circle into an ellipse}
Our first result is the transformation of equation (\ref{eq2}) into the classical bivariate Laplace equation, as shown in the next theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{choleskythm}Consider the linear transformation
\begin{equation}\label{linear}
\begin{pmatrix}
w\\
z
\end{pmatrix}
=\begin{pmatrix}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1-|\rho|)}} & -\frac{\operatorname{sgn}(\rho)}{\sqrt{2(1-|\rho|)}}\\
\frac{\operatorname{sgn}(\rho)}{\sqrt{2(1+|\rho|)}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2(1+|\rho|)}}
\end{pmatrix}\cdot
\begin{pmatrix}
x\\
y
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The following relationship holds:
$$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x^2}+2\rho\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x\partial y}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial y^2}=\frac{\partial^2}{\partial w^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}.$$
Moreover, the circle $C_R=\{(x,y): x^2+y^2=R^2\}$ is mapped into the canonical ellipse \begin{equation}\label{canonicalellipse}\frac{w^2}{a^2}+\frac{z^2}{b^2}=1\end{equation}
where $a=\frac{R}{\sqrt{1-|\rho|}}$ and $b=\frac{R}{\sqrt{1+|\rho|}}$.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}We restrict ourselves to outlining the idea behind the proof since the calculations are straightforward. The transformation (\ref{linear}) can be decomposed in the following manner:
$$\begin{pmatrix}w\\z\end{pmatrix}=M\cdot N\cdot\begin{pmatrix}x\\y\end{pmatrix}$$
where $$M=\begin{pmatrix}\sqrt{\frac{1+|\rho|}{2}} & -\operatorname{sgn}(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{1-|\rho|}{2}}\\\operatorname{sgn}(\rho)\sqrt{\frac{1-|\rho|}{2}}&\sqrt{\frac{1+|\rho|}{2}}\end{pmatrix},
\qquad\qquad N=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}&\frac{-\rho}{\sqrt{1-\rho^2}}\\0&1\end{pmatrix}.$$
The matrix $N$ describes a Cholesky decomposition of the covariance matrix of the Brownian motion which transforms $C_R$ into a rotated ellipse and eliminates the correlation from the differential operator as desired. The matrix $M$ corresponds to a counterclockwise rotation of angle $\alpha=\operatorname{sgn}(\rho)\cdot\arctg\sqrt{\frac{1-|\rho|}{1+|\rho|}}$ which reduces the obtained ellipse to the canonical form (\ref{canonicalellipse}).
\end{proof}

We have thus transformed the initial Dirichlet problem (\ref{eq3}) in a circle into the Dirichlet problem in the elliptic set $E=\left\{w^2(1-|\rho|)+z^2(1+|\rho|)<R^2\right\}$
\begin{equation}\label{zwDirich}\begin{dcases}\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial w^2}+\frac{\partial^2u}{\partial z^2}=0\qquad\qquad &(w,z)\in E\\
u(w,z)=h(w,z)\qquad &(w,z)\in\partial E\end{dcases}\end{equation}
where we have maintained, for simplicity, the same symbol for the unknown function. The transformation of (\ref{eq3}) into (\ref{zwDirich}) converts the research of the hitting point of a correlated planar Brownian motion with source inside a disk into the derivation of the distribution of the hitting point for a planar Brownian motion (with independent components) with a starting point inside an elliptic set.

\section{Mapping the ellipse into a circular annulus}
Our next step  is that of transforming the ellipse $E$ into a circular annulus by means of the transformation (\citeauthor{ghizzetti} \citeyear{ghizzetti})
\begin{equation}\label{ghizzetti}\begin{dcases}w=\left(\frac{a+b}{2}r+\frac{a-b}{2}\frac{1}{r}\right)\cos\theta\qquad\qquad0\le\theta\le2\pi\\z=\left(\frac{a+b}{2}r-\frac{a-b}{2}\frac{1}{r}\right)\sin\theta\qquad\qquad q\le r\le1\end{dcases}\end{equation}
where $q=\sqrt{\frac{a-b}{a+b}}$ and $a$ and $b$ are defined as in theorem \ref{choleskythm}.\\
For $r=1$, (\ref{ghizzetti}) maps the ellipse $\partial E$ onto the circumference of radius 1. For $r=q$, the interfocal segment of $E$ is mapped onto the circumference of radius $q$ since, for $r=q$, the transformation (\ref{ghizzetti}) becomes $$\begin{cases}w=\sqrt{a^2-b^2}\cos\theta\qquad\qquad0\le\theta\le2\pi\\z=0.\end{cases}$$
The confocal ellipses of equation $$\dfrac{w^2}{\left(\dfrac{a+b}{2}r+\dfrac{a-b}{2}\dfrac{1}{r}\right)^2}+\dfrac{z^2}{\left(\dfrac{a+b}{2}r-\dfrac{a-b}{2}\dfrac{1}{r}\right)^2}=1$$ are mapped onto circumferences of radius $q<r<1$ (see fig. \ref{fig:figura1} below).

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{ghizzetti.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}

\caption{the transformation (\ref{ghizzetti}) maps the ellipse $E$ ino the annulus of radii $(q,1)$.}
\label{fig:figura1}
\end{figure}

\noindent In order to solve the Dirichlet problem (\ref{zwDirich}) in the $(r,\theta)$ coordinates we use the following relationship:
$$\frac{\partial^2 }{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial }{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \theta^2}=\left[\left(\frac{a+b}{2}-\frac{a-b}{2}\frac{1}{r^2}\right)^2+\frac{(a^2-b^2)\sin^2\theta}{r^2}\right]\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial w^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}\right).$$

Thus, we solve the problem (\ref{zwDirich}) by setting $f(r,\theta)=u(w,z).$ We start with some remarks. First of all it can be checked that the points $(q,\theta)$ and $(q,-\theta)$ are mapped, by means of the transformation (\ref{ghizzetti}), into the same point in the focal segment of the ellipse $\frac{w^2}{a^2}+\frac{z^2}{b^2}=R^2$. Thus, for the function $u(w,z)$ to be continuous on the focal segment, $f(q,\theta)$ must be an even function of $\theta$, that is $$f(q,\theta)=f(q,-\theta).$$
Analogously, $\frac{\partial}{\partial r}f(r,\theta)|_{r=q}$ must be an odd function of $\theta$, that is \begin{equation}\label{deriv}\frac{\partial}{\partial r}f(r,\theta)|_{r=q}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial r}f(r,-\theta)|_{r=q}.\end{equation}
In fact, the relationship (\ref{ghizzetti}) implies that, for fixed $\theta$, we have the hyperbola of equation\begin{equation}\label{hyperbola}\frac{w^2}{\cos^2\theta}-\frac{z^2}{\sin^2\theta}=a^2-b^2.\end{equation}
The derivative of $f(r,\theta)$ with respect to $r$ can be interpreted as the the slope of the function $f$ along the hyperbola defined by (\ref{hyperbola}). By changing the sign of $\theta$ we obtain the slope of $f$ along the same hyperbola in the opposite orientation.
It follows that (\ref{deriv}) must hold.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{ghizzettiderivative.png}
\end{center}
\vspace{-4mm}

\caption{the derivative $\frac{\partial}{\partial r} f(r,\theta)$ represents, for fixed $\theta$, the slope of $f$ along the branch of hyperbola identified by $\theta$. Thus, if the derivative is evaluated in opposite orientations (red arrows) along the hyperbola, the sign must change.}
\end{figure}

\noindent We can finally reformulate problem (\ref{zwDirich}) in the following manner:

\begingroup
\addtolength{\jot}{0.5em}
\begin{subequations}\label{rthetaDirich:test}
\begin{numcases}{}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\partial f}{\partial r}+\frac{1}{r^2}\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial \theta^2}=0\qquad\qquad & $r<1$\label{rthetaDirich:eq}\\
f(r,\theta)=h(\theta) & $r=1$\label{rthetaDirich:bound}\\
f(q,\theta)\;\text{is even}\label{rthetaDirich:c1}\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial r}f(r,\theta)|_{r=q}\;\text{is odd}.\label{rthetaDirich:c2}
\end{numcases}
\end{subequations}
\endgroup
\noindent The solution to problem (\ref{rthetaDirich:test}) is given in the next theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{ghizzettithm}The general solution of the Dirichlet problem (\ref{rthetaDirich:test}) is
\begin{align}\label{ghizzettithmsolution}f(r,\theta)=\int_0^{2\pi}h(\tau)\left[\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}r^k\left(\frac{1+\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)^{2k}}{1+q^{2k}}\cos k\theta\cos k\tau\;\right.\right.\nonumber\\
\left.\left.+\;\frac{1-\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)^{2k}}{1-q^{2k}}\sin k\theta\sin k\tau\right)\right]d\tau.\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}The problem (\ref{rthetaDirich:test}) can be solved by applying the method of separation of variables.\\
\noindent By assuming \begin{equation}f(r,\theta)=R(r)\Theta(\theta)\end{equation}we obtain the ordinary differential equations
\begin{align}\label{thetaeq}\Theta''(\theta)+\gamma^2\Theta(\theta)=0\\\label{req}r^2R''(r)+rR'(r)-\gamma^2 R(r)=0\end{align}where $\gamma$ is an arbitrary constant.
The general solutions of (\ref{thetaeq}) and (\ref{req}) are
$$\Theta(\theta)=A\cos\gamma\theta+B\sin\gamma\theta$$
and
$$R(r)=Cr^{\gamma}+Dr^{-\gamma}.$$
For the periodic character of the solution it must be $\gamma=k,\;k\in\mathbb{N}$ and the general solution of equation (\ref{rthetaDirich:eq}) is
\begin{align*}f(r,\theta)=&\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\left(a_k\cos k\theta+b_k\sin k\theta\right)\left(c_kr^k+d_kr^{-k}\right) \qquad\qquad\qquad\\=&\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\left[A_kr^k\cos k\theta+B_kr^k\sin k\theta+C_kr^{-k}\cos k\theta+D_kr^{-k}\sin k\theta\right].\end{align*}
In force of condition (\ref{rthetaDirich:c1}), that is $f(q,\theta)=f(q,-\theta)$, we have that $$B_kq^k=-D_kq^{-k}$$
and in light of (\ref{rthetaDirich:c2}), that is $\frac{\partial}{\partial r}f(r,\theta)|_{r=q}=-\frac{\partial}{\partial r}f(r,-\theta)|_{r=q}$, we obtain $$A_kq^k=C_kq^{-k}.$$
In conclusion, the solution of equation (\ref{rthetaDirich:eq}) with the constraints (\ref{rthetaDirich:c1}) and (\ref{rthetaDirich:c2}) becomes
\begin{align}\label{quasisol}f(r,\theta)=\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\Big[&A_k\bigg(r^k+\frac{q^{2k}}{r^k}\bigg)\cos k\theta\;\\
+\;&B_k\bigg(r^k-\frac{q^{2k}}{r^k}\bigg)\sin k\theta\Big].\nonumber\end{align}
For $r=1$ we must have
\begin{align}\label{quasisolboundary}f(1,\theta)=h(\theta)=\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\big[&A_k(1+q^{2k})\cos k\theta\;\\
+\;&B_k(1-q^{2k})\sin k\theta\big].\nonumber\end{align}
\noindent The Fourier coefficients of (\ref{quasisolboundary}) are therefore \begin{equation}\label{fourier}\begin{dcases}A_k=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{(1+q^{2k})}\int_0^{2\pi}h(\tau)\cos k\tau d\tau\\ B_k=\frac{1}{\pi}\frac{1}{(1-q^{2k})}\int_0^{2\pi}h(\tau)\sin k\tau d\tau\end{dcases}\end{equation}
\noindent The substitution of the Fourier coefficients (\ref{fourier}) into equation (\ref{quasisol}) completes the proof.
\end{proof}

The solution obtained in theorem \ref{ghizzettithm} can be expressed in terms of series of Poisson kernels. Indeed, the kernel of formula (\ref{ghizzettithmsolution}) can be written as
\begin{align}&\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}r^k\left(\frac{1+\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)^{2k}}{1+q^{2k}}\cos k\theta\cos k\tau+\;\frac{1-\left(\frac{q}{r}\right)^{2k}}{1-q^{2k}}\sin k\theta\sin k\tau\right)\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi }+\frac{1}{\pi }\sum ^{\infty }_{k=1}r^{k}\cos \left( k\left( \theta -\tau \right) \right)+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}r^k\Bigg[\frac{q^{2k}\left(\frac{1}{r^{2k}}-1\right)}{1+q^{2k}}\cos k\theta \cos k\tau\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad-\frac{q^{2k}\left(\frac{1}{r^{2k}}-1\right)}{1-q^{2k}}\sin k\theta \sin k\tau\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi }+\frac{1}{\pi }\sum ^{\infty }_{k=1}r^{k}\cos \left( k\left( \theta -\tau \right) \right)+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{\dfrac{1}{r^k}-r^k}{1-q^{4k}}\Bigg[q^{2k}\cos\left(k\left(\theta+\tau\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\;-q^{4k}\cos\left(k\left(\theta-\tau\right)\right)\Bigg]\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi }+\frac{1}{\pi }\sum ^{\infty }_{k=1}r^{k}\cos \left( k\left( \theta -\tau \right) \right)+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\Bigg[\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{q^{2+4j}}{r}\right)^k\cos\left(k\left(\theta+\tau\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(rq^{2+4j}\right)^k\cos\left(k\left(\theta+\tau\right)\right)-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(\frac{q^{4+4j}}{r}\right)^k\cos\left(k\left(\theta-\tau\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\qquad\qquad+\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\left(rq^{4+4j}\right)^k\cos\left(k\left(\theta-\tau\right)\right)\Bigg]=\nonumber\\
&=\frac{1}{2\pi }\;\frac{1-r^2}{1-2r\cos(\theta-\tau)+r^2}+\frac{1}{2\pi}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}\Bigg[\frac{r^2-q^{4(2j+1)}}{r^2-2rq^{2(2j+1)}\cos(\theta+\tau)+q^{4(2j+1)}}\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber\\
&\;\;\;-\frac{1-r^2q^{4(2j+1)}}{1-2rq^{2(2j+1)}\cos(\theta+\tau)+r^2q^{4(2j+1)}}-\frac{r^2-q^{8(j+1)}}{r^2-2rq^{4(j+1)}\cos(\theta-\tau)+q^{8(j+1)}}\nonumber\\
&\;\;\;+\frac{1-r^2q^{8(j+1)}}{1-2rq^{4(j+1)}\cos(\theta-\tau)+r^2q^{8(j+1)}}\Bigg].\label{kernelseries} \end{align}
It is well-known that the classical Poisson kernel for a planar Brownian motion with independent components writes
\begin{equation}\label{classicalPoissonkernel}P\{\underline{B}(T_{\partial C_R})\in d(R,\tau)|\underline{B}(0)=(r,\theta)\}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{R^2-r^2}{R^2-2rR\cos(\theta-\tau)+r^2}\;d\tau.\end{equation}
Other probabilistic interpretations of (\ref{classicalPoissonkernel}) have been proposed in the literature. \citeauthor{orsingher} (\citeyear{orsingher}) obtained Poisson kernels by wrapping up time-changed (with a stable subordinator) pseudoprocesses on a circle.\\
Each term of the sum in (\ref{kernelseries}) has the form (\ref{classicalPoissonkernel}) with different starting points all located inside the circumference of radius $q$.
Thus, the probability (\ref{eq1}) in the case of correlated Brownian motions can be obtained as the combination of Poisson probabilities with different starting points. When $j$ increases, the starting points approach the center of the disk and  the terms of the sum become negligible.\\
Note that the transformation (\ref{ghizzetti}) maps the Brownian motion moving in the ellipse $E$ into a new process moving inside the circular annulus of radii $(q,1)$. In principle, we should relate the final coordinates $(r,\theta)$ to the initial ones $(x,y)$ and interpret the result (\ref{kernelseries}) in terms of the distribution of $\underline{B}(T_{\partial C_R})$ in the original coordinates. Thus, it is necessary to invert the changes of coordinates performed so far. In particular, the inversion of the transformation (\ref{ghizzetti}) is tedious and will be treated in the last section.

\section{Solution in elliptic coordinates}
An alternative way to solve the Dirichlet problem (\ref{zwDirich}) is to use elliptic coordinates, defined by the formulas
\begin{equation}\label{ellipticcoordinates}\begin{dcases}w=\sqrt{a^2-b^2}\cosh\eta\cos\varphi\\z=\sqrt{a^2-b^2}\sinh \eta\sin\varphi.\end{dcases}\end{equation}
\noindent Notice that the ellipse $\partial E$ is obtained for $\eta=\hat{\eta}:=-\log q$ while the focal segment is obtained for $\eta=0$.\\
\noindent It is well known that the laplacian in elliptic coordinates (\citeauthor{lebedev} \citeyear{lebedev}, pag. 204) is
$$\frac{\partial^2}{\partial w^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z^2}=\frac{1}{(a^2-b^2)\left(\sin^2\varphi+\sinh^2\eta\right)}\left(\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \eta^2}+\frac{\partial^2}{\partial \varphi^2}\right).$$
Thus, by setting $g(\eta,\varphi)=u(w,z)$, we can reformulate the problem (\ref{zwDirich}) as follows:

\begingroup
\addtolength{\jot}{0.5em}
\begin{subequations}\label{etaphiDirich:test}
\begin{numcases}{}
\frac{\partial^2g}{\partial \eta^2}+\frac{\partial^2g}{\partial \varphi^2}=0\qquad\qquad & $\eta<\hat{\eta}$\label{etaphiDirich:eq}\\
g(\eta,\theta)=h(\varphi) & $\eta=\hat{\eta}$\label{etaphiDirich:bound}\\
g(0,\varphi)\;\text{is even}\label{etaphiDirich:c1}\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial \eta}g(\eta,\varphi)|_{\eta=0}\;\text{is odd}.\label{etaphiDirich:c2}
\end{numcases}
\end{subequations}
\endgroup
where conditions (\ref{etaphiDirich:c1}) and (\ref{etaphiDirich:c2}) can be justified as in the previous section.\\
The general solution to the problem (\ref{etaphiDirich:eq}) is given in the next theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{ellipticthm}The general solution of the Dirichlet problem (\ref{etaphiDirich:test}) is
\begin{align}g(\eta,\varphi)=\int_0^{2\pi}h(\tau)\left[\frac{1}{2\pi}+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\frac{\sinh\eta}{\sinh\hat{\eta}}\cos k\varphi\cos k\tau\;\right.\nonumber\\
\left.+\;\frac{\cosh\eta}{\cosh\hat{\eta}}\sin k\varphi\sin k\tau\right]d\tau.\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}We apply again the method of separation of variables as in theorem \ref{ghizzettithm}. By assuming \begin{equation}g(\eta,\varphi)=H(\eta)\Phi(\varphi)\end{equation}we obtain the ordinary equations
\begin{align}\label{varphieq}\Phi''(\varphi)+\gamma^2\Phi(\varphi)=0\\\label{etaeq}H''(\eta)-\gamma^2H(\eta)=0\end{align}where $\gamma$ is an arbitrary constant.
The general solutions of (\ref{varphieq}) and (\ref{etaeq}) are
$$\Phi(\varphi)=A\cos\gamma\varphi+B\sin\gamma\varphi$$
and
$$H(\eta)=C\cosh\gamma\eta+D\sinh\gamma\eta.$$
For the function $g(\eta,\varphi)$ to be periodic in $\varphi$ it must be $\gamma=k,\;k\in\mathbb{N}$ and the general solution of equation (\ref{etaphiDirich:eq}) is
\begin{align*}g(\eta,\varphi)=&\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\left(a_k\cos k\varphi+b_k\sin k\varphi\right)\left(c_k\cosh k\eta+d_k\sinh k\eta\right) \\=&\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\bigg[A_k\cosh k\eta\cos k\varphi+B_k\cosh k\eta\sin k\varphi\\
&\qquad\qquad+\;C_k\sinh k\eta\cos k\varphi+D_k\sinh k\eta\sin k\varphi\bigg].\end{align*}
In force of conditions (\ref{etaphiDirich:c1}) and (\ref{etaphiDirich:c2}) we have that $$B_k=C_k=0.$$
Thus, the general solution of equation (\ref{etaphiDirich:eq}) with the constraints (\ref{etaphiDirich:c1}) and (\ref{etaphiDirich:c2}) is
\begin{align}\label{ellipticquasisol}g(\eta,\varphi)=\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\big[A_k\cosh k\eta\cos k\varphi+D_k\sinh k\eta\sin k\varphi\big].\end{align}
For $\eta=\hat{\eta}$ we must have
\begin{align}\label{ellipticquasisolboundary}g(\hat{\eta},\varphi)=h(\varphi)=\frac{A_0}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^{+\infty}\big[A_k\cosh k\hat{\eta}\cos k\varphi+D_k\sinh k\hat{\eta}\sin k\varphi\big]\end{align}
\noindent The Fourier coefficients of (\ref{ellipticquasisolboundary}) are \begin{equation}\label{ellipticfourier}
\begin{dcases}A_k=\frac{1}{\pi\cosh k\hat{\eta}}\int_0^{2\pi}h(\tau)\cos k\tau d\tau\\ D_k=\frac{1}{\pi\sinh k\hat{\eta}}\int_0^{2\pi}h(\tau)\sin k\tau d\tau\end{dcases}\end{equation}
\noindent Plugging formulas (\ref{ellipticfourier}) into (\ref{ellipticquasisol}) completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Inverting the changes of coordinates}
We now treat the problem of inverting the changes of coordinates performed so far in order to express the distribution of $\underline{B}(T_{\partial C_R})$ in terms of the original coordinates $(x,y)$. We restrict ourselves to outlining the inversion of the non-linear transformation (\ref{ghizzetti}) and disregard the obvious inversion of the initial linear transformation (\ref{linear}).
By setting
\begin{equation}\label{ABdef}A=\frac{a+b}{2},\qquad B=\frac{a-b}{2}\end{equation}
\noindent we can write formulas (\ref{ghizzetti}) in the form
\begin{equation}\label{wdefAB}w=\left(Ar+B\frac{1}{r}\right)\cos\theta\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{zdefAB}z=\left( Ar-B\frac{1}{r}\right)\sin\theta.\end{equation}
\noindent By summing the squares of (\ref{wdefAB}) and (\ref{zdefAB}) we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{somma}w^2+z^2=A^2r^2+B^2\frac{1}{r^2}+2AB(\cos^2\theta-\sin^2\theta).\end{equation}
Taking the difference of the squares yields
\begin{equation}\label{differenza}w^2-z^2=\left(A^2r^2+B^2\frac{1}{r^2}\right)(\cos^2\theta-\sin^2\theta)+2AB.\end{equation}
\noindent Writing formula (\ref{somma}) in the form $$\cos^2\theta-\sin^2\theta=\frac{w^2+z^2-A^2r^2-B^2\frac{1}{r^2}}{2AB}$$ and substituting it into (\ref{differenza}) yields
\begin{equation}\label{preeq1}w^2-z^2=\frac{\left(A^2r^2+B^2\frac{1}{r^2}\right)\left(w^2+z^2-A^2r^2-B^2\frac{1}{r^2}\right)}{2AB}+2AB.\end{equation}
Now we set \begin{equation}\label{sostituzione}m=A^2r^2+B^2\frac{1}{r^2}\end{equation}
which allows us to write equation (\ref{preeq1}) in the form of a second order equation in $m$
$$m^2-(w^2+z^2)m+2AB\left(w^2-z^2-2AB\right).$$
By considering the non-negative root we obtain \begin{equation}\label{msolution}m=\frac{w^2+z^2+\sqrt{(w^2+z^2)^2-2(a^2-b^2)(w^2-z^2)+(a^2-b^2)^2}}{2}.\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{sostituzione}) can now be written as $$A^2r^4-mr^2+B^2=0$$
which implies \begin{equation}\label{whichroot}r^2=\frac{m\pm\sqrt{m^2-4A^2B^2}}{2A^2}.\end{equation}
Recalling that $r\ge q$ for $(w,z)\in E$, we must take the root with positive sign in formula (\ref{whichroot}). Indeed, consider a point  of coordinates $(0,z)\in E$. By taking the negative sign in formula (\ref{whichroot}) we would obtain
$$r^2=\frac{2z^2+(a^2-b^2)-2\sqrt{z^4+z^2(a^2-b^2)}}{(a+b)^2}\le\frac{2z^2+(a^2-b^2)-2\sqrt{z^4}}{(a+b)^2}=q^2$$
which violates the required condition. We have finally obtained an explicit expression of $r$ in terms or $w$ and $z$
\begin{align}\label{rfinal}r=&\sqrt{\frac{m+\sqrt{m^2-4A^2B^2}}{2A^2}}\\=&\frac{\sqrt{w^2+z^2-(a^2-b^2)+\sqrt{(w^2+z^2)^2-2(a^2-b^2)(w^2-z^2)+(a^2-b^2)^2}}}{\sqrt{2}(a+b)}\nonumber\\
&+\frac{\sqrt{w^2+z^2+(a^2-b^2)+\sqrt{(w^2+z^2)^2-2(a^2-b^2)(w^2-z^2)+(a^2-b^2)^2}}}{\sqrt{2}(a+b)}.\nonumber\end{align}
A similar procedure for $\theta$ yields
\begin{equation}\label{thetafinal}\sin\theta=\sqrt{\frac{-(w^2+z^2)+(a^2-b^2)+\sqrt{(w^2+z^2-a^2+b^2)^2+4(a^2-b^2)z^2}}{2(a^2-b^2)}}.\end{equation}
Care must be paid in selecting the correct branch of the $\arcsin$ function while inverting formula (\ref{thetafinal}).\\
We will now obtain an analogous result for the elliptic coordinates defined in (\ref{ellipticcoordinates}). We start by writing the first formula of (\ref{ellipticcoordinates}) in the form
\begin{equation}\label{eci1}\sin^2\varphi=1-\frac{w^2}{(a^2-b^2)\cosh^2 \eta}.\end{equation}
By substituting formula (\ref{eci1}) into the square of the second formula in (\ref{ellipticcoordinates}), we obtain the equation
$$(a^2-b^2)\sinh^4\eta-\left(w^2+z^2-(a^2-b^2)\right)\sinh^2\eta-z^2=0.$$
By taking the non-negative root, we have that \begin{equation}\label{inverseelliptic}\sinh^2\eta=\frac{w^2+z^2-(a^2-b^2)+\sqrt{(w^2+z^2)^2-2(a^2-b^2)(w^2-z^2)+(a^2-b^2)^2}}{2(a^2-b^2)}.\end{equation}
It can easily be verified that
 \begin{equation}\label{eci2}m=(a^2-b^2)(\sinh^2\eta+\frac{1}{2}).\end{equation}
Thus, by sustituting (\ref{eci2}) into the square of (\ref{rfinal}) and recalling formulas (\ref{ABdef}), we have

\begin{align}r^2&=\frac{2(a^2-b^2)\left(\sinh^2\eta+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\sqrt{4(a^2-b^2)^2\left(\sinh^4\eta+\sinh^2\eta+\frac{1}{4}\right)-(a^2-b^2)^2}}{(a+b)^2}\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber\\
&=\frac{2(a^2-b^2)\left(\sinh^2\eta+\frac{1}{2}\right)+2(a^2-b^2)\sqrt{\sinh^2\eta\left(\sinh^2\eta+1\right)}}{(a+b)^2}\qquad\qquad\qquad\nonumber\\
&=2\frac{(a^2-b^2)}{(a+b)^2}\left(\sinh^2\eta+\sinh \eta\cosh \eta+\frac{1}{2}\right)=q^2e^{2\eta}\nonumber\end{align}
\noindent where $q=\sqrt{\frac{a-b}{a+b}}$ as in the previous sections.
\smallskip

We have finally obtained the relationship between the coordinates $(r,\theta)$ on the circular annulus and the elliptic coordinates $(\eta,\varphi)$. Indeed, the substitution of the expression $r=qe^{\eta}$ in (\ref{ghizzetti}) and comparison with (\ref{ellipticcoordinates}) yield
\begin{equation}\label{equivalenceDef}\begin{cases}r=qe^{\eta}\\ \theta=\varphi.\end{cases}\end{equation}
\smallskip

 By means of transformation (\ref{equivalenceDef}), the equivalence of the solutions obtained in theorems \ref{ghizzettithm} and \ref{ellipticthm} is easily verified.

\bibliographystyle{unsrtnat}