Two trees enumerating the positive rationals

Abstract: We give two trees allowing to represent all positive rational numbers. These trees can be seen as ternary and quinary analogues of the Calkin-Wilf tree. For each of these two trees, we give recurrence formulas allowing to compute the rational number corresponding to the node n. These are analogues of the formulas given by Donald Knuth and Moshe Newman for the Calkin-Wilf tree. Finally, we show that the two sequences we have obtained, together with Calkin-Wilf sequence, are the only ones which satisfy a relation analogue to Newman's relation and enumerate the positive rationals.

\section{Introduction}

It is well-known, since Cantor's first works on the theory of cardinality, that the rationals are countable. However, it is not so simple to give an explicit enumeration of all of them. Most of the time (see \cite{Bra05}), one proves that $\mathbb{Q}_+$ is countable by constructing a bijection (or an injection) from $\mathbb{N}^{2}$ to $ \mathbb{N}$, which yields an injection from $\mathbb{Q}_+$ to $\mathbb{N}$, and the conclusion follows from Cantor-Bernstein's theorem.

In 2000, N. Calkin and H. S. Wilf \cite{CW00} have described an elegant explicit enumeration of $\mathbb{Q}_{+}^*$. Its first few terms are
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{1},~\dfrac{1}{2},~\dfrac{2}{1},~\dfrac{1}{3},~\dfrac{3}{2},~\dfrac{2}{3},~\dfrac{3}{1},~\dfrac{1}{4},~\dfrac{4}{3},~\dfrac{3}{5},~\dfrac{5}{2},~\dfrac{2}{5},~\dfrac{5}{3},~\dfrac{3}{4},~\dfrac{4}{1},~\dfrac{1}{5},~\dfrac{5}{4},~\dfrac{4}{7},...
\end{equation*}

This sequence, known as Calkin-Wilf sequence, is defined by a binary tree the following way~:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet $] the top of the tree is $\frac{1}{1}$;

\item[$\bullet $] the vertex labeled $\frac{a}{b}$ has two children~: the left child labeled $\frac{a}{a+b}$ and the right child labeled $\frac{a+b}{b}$.
\end{enumerate}

This leads to the Calkin-Wilf tree, whose first few rows are~:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\dfrac{1}{1}$};
\node (fg) at ({-5},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{1}{2}$};
\node (fgg) at ({-7},{-3}) {$\dfrac{1}{3}$};
\node (fggg) at ({-8},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{1}{4}$};
\node (fggd) at ({-6},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{4}{3}$};
\node (fgd) at ({-3},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{2}$};
\node (fgdg) at ({-4},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{3}{5}$};
\node (fgdd) at ({-2},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{5}{2}$};
\node (fd) at ({5},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{2}{1}$};
\node (fdg) at ({3},{-3}) {$\dfrac{2}{3}$};
\node (fdgg) at ({2},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{2}{5}$};
\node (fdgd) at ({4},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{5}{3}$};
\node (fdd) at ({7},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{1}$};
\node (fddg) at ({6},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{3}{4}$};
\node (fddd) at ({8},{-4.5}) {$\dfrac{4}{1}$};
\draw (P)--(fg);
\draw (fg)--(fgg);
\draw (fgg)--(fggg);
\draw (fgg)--(fggd);
\draw (fg)--(fgd);
\draw (fgd)--(fgdg);
\draw (fgd)--(fgdd);
\draw (P)--(fd);
\draw (fd)--(fdg);
\draw (fdg)--(fdgg);
\draw (fdg)--(fdgd);
\draw (fd)--(fdd);
\draw (fdd)--(fddg);
\draw (fdd)--(fddd);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

The Calkin-Wilf sequence is then obtained by reading the fraction $\frac{1}{1}$ on level 1, then the two fractions on level 2 from left to right, then the four fractions on level 3 from left to right, and so on. Besides the fact that every positive rational number appears once and only once in reduced form in the tree, this sequence has another remarkable property~: the numerator of the term of rank $n+1$ is equal to the denominator of the term of rank $n$. In other words, there exists a sequence of positive integers $(b_{n})$ such that the term of rank $n$ of the Calkin-Wilf sequence is equal to $\frac{b_{n}}{b_{n+1}}$. In fact, the sequence $(b_{n})$ has been discovered as soon as the mid 19th century, independently by the German mathematician M. Stern \cite{Ste58} and the French clockmaker A. Brocot \cite{Bro61} by considering the median fraction $\frac{a+b}{c+d}$ of two fractions $\frac{a}{b}$ and $\frac{c}{d}$. This procedure leads to another binary tree which enumerates the rationals, named the Stern-Brocot tree \cite[pp. 116-123 et pp. 305-306]{GKP94} and closely connected to the Calkin-Wilf tree (see \cite{Man09} and \cite{BBT10}). B. Reznick \cite{Rez08} notes that Stern has proved in his 1858 paper that, for every pair of positive coprime integers $(a,b)$, there exists one and only one integer $n$ such that $b_{n}=a$ and $b_{n+1}=b$. In other words, Stern proved that $\mathbb{Q}_{+}^*$ is countable more than 15 years before Cantor's first papers on the subject. The sequence $(b_{n})$, which is known nowadays as Stern diatomic sequence, has been widely studied since that time and is known to be connected with many other subjects such as hyperbinary representations, Farey sequences, continued fractions, the
Fibonacci sequence or the Minkowski ?-function (see \cite[pp. 110-114]{AZ06} and \cite{Nor10}).

Calkin-Wilf sequence gives also the answer to a problem set by D. Knuth \cite{Knu01}~: if $v_{p}(n)$ denotes the \textit{p}-adic valuation of the positive integer $n$, prove that the sequence $(x_{n})$ defined by
\begin{equation}
x_{0}=0\text{ and, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, }x_{n}=\dfrac{1}{1+2v_{2}(n)-x_{n-1}}  \label{eq22062150}
\end{equation}%
enumerates the positive rationals. Various solutions to this problem have been given in \cite{KRSS03}, among which C. P. Ruppert's one, which associates to the sequence $(x_{n})$ a tree almost identical to Calkin-Wilf tree, the only difference being that the vertices are labeled, not by the
rationals $\frac{a}{b}$, but by the pairs of coprime positive integers $(a,b)$, which is clearly the same. Hence Knuth sequence $(x_{n})$ is exactly the same as Calkin-Wilf sequence.

The editors of \cite{KRSS03} also quote an answer of Moshe Newman, who has shown that the sequence $(x_{n})$ satisfies the recurrence relation~:
\begin{equation}
\text{For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, }x_{n}=\dfrac{1}{1+2\left\lfloor x_{n-1}\right\rfloor -x_{n-1}}  \label{eq22062207}
\end{equation}%
where $\left\lfloor x\right\rfloor $ denotes the integral part of the real number $x.$ This implies, in particular, the striking result~:
\begin{equation}
\text{For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^{*}$, }\left\lfloor
x_{n-1}\right\rfloor =v_{2}(n).
\label{eq22062325}
\end{equation}
Another way to formulate Newman's result consists in saying that the function $f$ defined on $\mathbb{R}_{+}$ by
\begin{equation}
f:x\mapsto \dfrac{1}{1+2\left\lfloor x\right\rfloor -x}
\label{eq22062208}
\end{equation}
generates all positive rationals by iteration starting from $x_{0}=0$.

\bigskip

The purpose of this paper is to construct two sequences $(t_{n})$ et $(s_{n}) $ satisfying relations similar to \eqref{eq22062150} and \eqref{eq22062207}. For doing this, we define two trees~: a ternary tree associated to the sequence $(t_{n})$ and a quinary tree associated to the sequence $(s_{n})$. These two trees are not labeled by rationals or pairs of coprime integers, but by triples of integers. They can be considered as generalizations of the Calkin-Wilf tree, in the sense that they lead to sequences which enumerate the postive rationals and satisfy relations similar to \eqref{eq22062150}, \eqref{eq22062207} and \eqref{eq22062325}. However, these generalizations are quite different from those proposed by T. Mansour and M. Shattuck (\cite{MS11} and \cite{MS15}), by B. Bates and T. Mansour \cite{BM11} and by S. H. Chan \cite{Cha11}. Finally, we show that the sequences $(t_{n})$ and $(s_{n}) $ are, together with the Calkin-Wilf
sequence, the only sequences $(u_{n})$ which enumerate the positive rationals and are defined by $u_{0}=0$ and a recurrence relation of the form~:
\begin{equation}
\text{For every }n\in \mathbb{N}^*,\text{ }u_{n}=\dfrac{f(u_{n-1})}{k},
\label{eq02071820}
\end{equation}
where $f$ is defined by \eqref{eq22062208} and $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$.

\section{A ternary tree}

\subsection{Definition}

We consider the ternary tree $\mathcal{A}_{3}$ whose vertices are labeled by triples of integers $\left( {a}\mathpunct{};{b}\mathpunct{};{c}\right) $ and such that~:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet $] the top of the tree is $\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{2}%
\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $;

\item[$\bullet $] the children of $\left( {a}\mathpunct{};{b}\mathpunct{};{c}%
\right) $ are defined by~:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\blacktriangleright$] if $b$ is odd~:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\triplet{a}{b}{c}$};
\node (fg) at ({-4},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{4(c+1)a-b}{2a}{0}$};
\node (fc) at ({0},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{a}{2a+b}{c+1}$};
\node (fd) at ({4},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{2a+b}{2a+2b}{0}$};
\draw (P)--(fg) ;
\draw (P)--(fc) ;
\draw (P)--(fd) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

\item[$\blacktriangleright$] if $b$ is even~:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\triplet{a}{b}{c}$};
\node (fg) at ({-4},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{2(c+1)a-\dfrac{b}{2}}{a}{0}$};
\node (fc) at ({0},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{a}{2a+b}{c+1}$};
\node (fd) at ({4},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{a+\dfrac{b}{2}}{a+b}{0}$};
\draw (P)--(fg) ;
\draw (P)--(fc) ;
\draw (P)--(fd) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}

\bigskip

Hence the first few levels of $\mathcal{A}_{3}$ are~:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\triplet{1}{2}{0}$};
\node (fg) at ({-6},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{1}{1}{0}$};
\node (fgg) at ({-8},{-3}) {$\triplet{3}{2}{0}$};
\node (fgc) at ({-6},{-3}) {$\triplet{1}{3}{1}$};
\node (fgd) at ({-4},{-3}) {$\triplet{3}{4}{0}$};
\node (fc) at ({0},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{1}{4}{1}$};
\node (fcg) at ({-2},{-3}) {$\triplet{2}{1}{0}$};
\node (fcc) at ({0},{-3}) {$\triplet{1}{6}{2}$};
\node (fcd) at ({2},{-3}) {$\triplet{3}{5}{0}$};
\node (fd) at ({6},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{2}{3}{0}$};
\node (fdg) at ({4},{-3}) {$\triplet{5}{4}{0}$};
\node (fdc) at ({6},{-3}) {$\triplet{2}{7}{1}$};
\node (fdd) at ({8},{-3}) {$\triplet{7}{10}{0}$};
\draw (P)--(fg);
\draw (fg)--(fgg);
\draw (fg)--(fgc);
\draw (fg)--(fgd);
\draw (P)--(fc);
\draw (fc)--(fcg);
\draw (fc)--(fcc);
\draw (fc)--(fcd);
\draw (P)--(fd);
\draw (fd)--(fdg);
\draw (fd)--(fdc);
\draw (fd)--(fdd);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

The three children of the vertex $N=\left( {a}\mathpunct{};{b}\mathpunct{};{c}\right) $ are called respectively the left, the middle and the right child of $N$ and we say that $N$ is the parent of these three children.

For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, we denote by $N_{n}=\left( {a_{n}}\mathpunct{};{b_{n}}\mathpunct{};{c_{n}}\right) $ the vertex of index $n$ of the tree $\mathcal{A}_{3}$ read from the top and, at each level, from left to right. Hence, $N_{1}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{2}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $, $N_{2}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{1}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $, $N_{3}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{4}\mathpunct{};{1}\right) $, and so on... Observe that, by definition, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, the left, middle and right children of $N_{n}$ are respectively $N_{3n-1}$, $N_{3n}$ and $N_{3n+1}$.

\begin{lem} --- For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $c_{n}=v_{3}(n)$.
\label{lem16061603}
\end{lem}

\emph{Proof}. --- For $n=1,$ it is true since $c_{1}=0=v_{3}(1)$. Assume that
$c_{n}=v_{3}(n)$ for a given $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$. Then the
left child of $N_{n}$ is $N_{3n-1},$ whence by definition $%
c_{3n-1}=0=v_{3}(3n-1)$. Similarly, $N_{3n+1}$ is the right child of $N_{n}$
and $c_{3n+1}=0=v_{3}(3n+1)$. Finally, as $N_{3n}$ is the middle child of $%
N_{n}$, $c_{3n}=c_{n}+1=v_{3}(n)+1=v_{3}(3n)$, and lemma 1 is proved by
induction.\hfill $\square $

\begin{lem}
--- For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are
positive coprime integers and $2a_{n}\geqslant b_{n}-4a_{n}c_{n}$. \label%
{lem16061604}
\end{lem}

\emph{Proof}. --- For $n=1,$ it is true since $a_{1}=1$ , $b_{1}=2$ and $%
c_{1}=0$. Assume that, for a given $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $a_{n}$
and $b_{n}$ are positive coprime integers satisfying $2a_{n}\geqslant
b_{n}-4a_{n}c_{n}$.

Assume that $b_{n}$ is odd. Then the three children of $N_{n}$ are
\begin{align*}
N_{3n-1}&=\triplet{4(c_{n}+1)a_{n}-b_{n}}{2a_{n}}{0} \\
N_{3n}&=\triplet{a_{n}}{2a_{n}+b_{n}}{c_{n}+1} \\
N_{3n+1}&=\triplet{2a_{n}+b_{n}}{2a_{n}+2b_{n}}{0}
\end{align*}

As $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are positive integers, it is clear that $b_{3n-1}=2a_{n}$, $a_{3n}=a_{n}$, $b_{3n}=a_{3n+1}=2a_{n}+b_{n}$ and $b_{3n+1}=2a_{n}+2b_{n}$ are positive integers. Moreover, since $2a_{n}\geqslant b_{n}-4a_{n}c_{n}$,
\begin{equation}
a_{3n-1}=4(c_{n}+1)a_{n}-b_{n}=4a_{n}-(b_{n}-4a_{n}c_{n})\geqslant 2a_{n}
\label{eq16061349}
\end{equation}

and $a_{3n-1}$ is also a positive integer.

Let $d=\text{gcd}\left( a_{3n-1},b_{3n-1}\right) $. Then $d$ divides $b_{3n-1}=2a_{n}$ and $2(c_{n}+1)b_{3n-1}-a_{3n-1}=b_{n}$. Hence $d$ is odd since $b_{n}$ is odd and therefore $d$ divides $a_{n}$. As $a_{n}$ and $b_{n}$ are coprime, we have $d=1$, which means that $\left( a_{3n-1},b_{3n-1}\right) $ are coprime. Similarly we obtain $\left( a_{3n},b_{3n}\right) =\left(a_{3n+1},b_{3n+1}\right) =1.$

Finally, for $N_{3n-1}$ we have, by using (\ref{eq16061349}),
\begin{equation*}
b_{3n-1}-4a_{3n-1}c_{3n-1}=2a_{n}\leqslant a_{3n-1}\leqslant 2a_{3n-1}.
\end{equation*}

For $N_{3n}$, by using(\ref{eq16061349}),
\begin{equation*}
b_{3n}-4a_{3n}c_{3n}=b_{n}-4a_{n}c_{n}-2a_{n}\leqslant
2a_{n}-2a_{n}=0\leqslant 2a_{3n},
\end{equation*}

And for $N_{3n+1}$,
\begin{equation*}
b_{3n+1}-4a_{3n+1}c_{3n+1}=2a_{n}+2b_{n}\leqslant 4a_{n}+2b_{n}=2a_{3n+1}.
\end{equation*}

In the case where $b_{n}$ is even, the proof is similar. One only has to
replace (\ref{eq16061349}) by
\begin{equation}
a_{3n-1}=2(c_{n}+1)a_{n}-\dfrac{b_{n}}{2}=2a_{n}-\dfrac{b_{n}-4a_{n}c_{n}}{2}%
\geqslant a_{n}.  \label{eq16051429}
\end{equation}

Hence Lemma 2 is proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\bigskip

Now we put, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$,
\begin{equation*}
t_{n}=\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}.
\end{equation*}

By Lemma 2, $(t_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}^*}$ is a sequence of positive reduced rationals. The first few terms of this sequence are~:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\dfrac{1}{2}$};
\node (fg) at ({-6},{-1.5}) {$1$};
\node (fgg) at ({-8},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{2}$};
\node (fgc) at ({-6},{-3}) {$\dfrac{1}{3}$};
\node (fgd) at ({-4},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{4}$};
\node (fc) at ({0},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{1}{4}$};
\node (fcg) at ({-2},{-3}) {$2$};
\node (fcc) at ({0},{-3}) {$\dfrac{1}{6}$};
\node (fcd) at ({2},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{5}$};
\node (fd) at ({6},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{2}{3}$};
\node (fdg) at ({4},{-3}) {$\dfrac{5}{4}$};
\node (fdc) at ({6},{-3}) {$\dfrac{2}{7}$};
\node (fdd) at ({8},{-3}) {$\dfrac{7}{10}$};
\draw (P)--(fg);
\draw (fg)--(fgg);
\draw (fg)--(fgc);
\draw (fg)--(fgd);
\draw (P)--(fc);
\draw (fc)--(fcg);
\draw (fc)--(fcc);
\draw (fc)--(fcd);
\draw (P)--(fd);
\draw (fd)--(fdg);
\draw (fd)--(fdc);
\draw (fd)--(fdd);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

We remark that, for every $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$,

\begin{gather}
t_{3k-1}=\dfrac{4(c_{k}+1)a_{k}-b_{k}}{2a_{k}}=2(v_{3}(k)+1)-\dfrac{1}{2t_{k}%
}=2v_{3}(3k)-\dfrac{1}{2t_{k}},  \label{eq170610461} \\
t_{3k}=\dfrac{a_{k}}{2a_{k}+b_{k}}=\dfrac{t_{k}}{2t_{k}+1},
\label{eq170610462} \\
t_{3k+1}=\dfrac{2a_{k}+b_{k}}{2a_{k}+2b_{k}}=\dfrac{2t_{k}+1}{2t_{k}+2}.
\label{eq170610463}
\end{gather}

We extend this sequence to $\mathbb{N}$ by putting
\begin{equation*}
t_{0}=0.
\end{equation*}

We will show that $(t_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ enumerates the non negative rationals, i.e. that $n\mapsto t_{n}$ is a bijection from $\mathbb{N}$ to $\mathbb{Q}_{+}$. Before this, we will give two recurrence relations satisfied by the sequence $(t_{n})$.

\subsection{Two recurrence relations}

First we prove that the sequence $(t_{n})$ satisfies a recurrence relation similar to \eqref{eq22062150}.

\begin{prop} --- For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$,  $\displaystyle t_{n}=\dfrac{1}{2(1+2v_{3}(n)-t_{n-1})}$.
\label{prop16061604}
\end{prop}

\emph{Proof}. --- This is true for $n=1$ and $n=2$, since
\[\dfrac{1}{2(1+2v_{3}(1)-t_{0})}=\dfrac{1}{2}=t_{1} \qquad \text{and} \qquad \dfrac{1}{2(1+2v_{3}(2)-t_{1})} =1=t_{2}.\]
Now assume that, for a given integer $n\geqslant 3$, the property is true for every positive integer $j\leqslant n-1$. Denote $N_{k}$ $(k\in\mathbb{N}^*$) the parent of $N_{n}$.

\emph{1st case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the left child of $N_{k},$ then $n=3k-1$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the right child of $N_{k-1}$. As the property is true when $n=k,$ we have by using  \eqref{eq170610461}
\begin{equation}
t_{n}=2(v_{3}(k)+1)-\dfrac{1}{2t_{k}}=2(v_{3}(k)+1)-\left[
1+2v_{3}(k)-t_{k-1}\right] =1+t_{k-1}.  \label{eq17061056}
\end{equation}

Moreover, since $N_{n-1}$ is the right child of $N_{k-1}$, $t_{n-1}=\frac{2t_{k-1}+1}{2t_{k-1}+2}$ by \eqref{eq170610463}. But $v_{3}(n)=v_{3}(3k-1)=0$, whence
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{2(1+2v_{3}(n)-t_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{2\left( 1-\frac{2t_{k-1}+1}{2t_{k-1}+2}\right) }=1+t_{k-1}=t_{n}.
\end{equation*}

\emph{2nd case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the middle child of $N_{k}$, then $n=3k$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the left child of $N_{k}$. By using \eqref{eq170610461}, we have
\begin{equation*}
t_{n-1}=t_{3k-1}=2v_{3}(3k)-\dfrac{1}{2t_{k}}=2v_{3}(n)-\dfrac{1}{2t_{k}}.
\end{equation*}

Therefore by using \eqref{eq170610462} we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{2(1+2v_{3}(n)-t_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{2+\frac{1}{t_{k}}}=\dfrac{t_{k}}{%
2t_{k}+1}=t_{n}.
\end{equation*}

\emph{3rd case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the right child of $N_{k},$ then $n=3k+1$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the middle child of $N_{k}$. Hence, by \eqref{eq170610462} and \eqref{eq170610463},
\begin{equation*}
t_{n-1}=\dfrac{t_{k}}{2t_{k}+1} \qquad \text{and} \qquad t_{n}=\dfrac{2t_{k}+1}{2t_{k}+2}.
\end{equation*}

Since $v_{3}(n)=v_{3}(3k+1)=0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{2(1+2v_{3}(n)-t_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{2\left( 1-\frac{t_{k}}{2t_{k}+1}%
\right) }=\dfrac{2t_{k}+1}{2t_{k}+2}=t_{n}.
\end{equation*}

Proposition \label{prop16061604 copy(1)} is proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\begin{coro} --- For every $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $t_{3k-1}=1+t_{k-1}$.
\label{coro17061009}
\end{coro}

\emph{Proof}. --- This is exactly the equality (\ref{eq17061056}).

\begin{coro} --- For every $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $t_{3k}\in %
\intervalleoo{0}{\tfrac{1}{2}}$, $t_{3k+1}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{1}$
and $t_{3k+2}\in \intervalleoo{1}{+\infty}$.
\label{coro16061716}
\end{coro}

\emph{Proof}. --- Let $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. Since $t_{k}>0$,
\begin{equation*}
t_{3k}=\dfrac{t_{k}}{2t_{k}+1}\in \intervalleoo{0}{\tfrac{1}{2}} \qquad \text{and} \qquad t_{3k+1}=\dfrac{2t_{k}+1}{2t_{k}+2}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{1}.
\end{equation*}

Moreover, from corollary \ref{coro17061009}, $t_{3k+2}=t_{3(k+1)-1}=1+t_{k}>1 $. \hfill $\square $

\begin{rem} --- As $t_{0}=0$, $t_{1}=\tfrac{1}{2}$ and $t_{2}=1$, we can also see that
for every $k\in \mathbb{N}$, $t_{3k}\in \intervallefo{0}{\tfrac{1}{2}}$, $t_{3k+1}\in \intervallefo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{1}$ et $t_{3k+2}\in \intervallefo{1}{+\infty}$.
\end{rem}

\bigskip

Now we prove that the sequence $(t_{n})$ satisfies relations similar to \eqref{eq22062207} and \eqref{eq22062325}.

\begin{prop} --- For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $\left\lfloor t_{n-1}\right\rfloor =v_{3}(n)$. \label{prop16061909}
\end{prop}

\emph{Proof}. --- For $n=1$, clearly $\left\lfloor t_{0}\right\rfloor=\left\lfloor 0\right\rfloor =0=v_{3}(1)$.

Let $n\geqslant 2.$ Assume that, for every positive integer $j\leqslant n-1$, $\left\lfloor t_{j-1}\right\rfloor =v_{3}(j)$ and denote by $N_{k}$ the parent of $N_{n}$ ($k\in \mathbb{N}^*$).

If $N_{n}$ is the left child of $N_{k},$ then $n=3k-1$, whence $v_{3}(n)=v_{3}(3k-1)=0$ and by Remark 1 $\left\lfloor t_{n-1}\right\rfloor=\left\lfloor t_{3(k-1)+1}\right\rfloor =0$.

If $N_{n}$ is the right child of $N_{k},$ then $n=3k+1$, $v_{3}(n)=v_{3}(3k+1)=0$ and $\left\lfloor t_{n-1}\right\rfloor =\left\lfloor t_{3k}\right\rfloor =0$.

If $N_{n}$ is the middle child of $N_{k}$ then $n=3k$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the left child of $N_{k}$. Hence, by Corollary \ref{coro17061009}, $t_{n-1}=1+t_{k-1}$ and $\left\lfloor t_{n-1}\right\rfloor =1+\left\lfloor t_{k-1}\right\rfloor $. By the induction hypothesis, it follows that $\left\lfloor t_{n-1}\right\rfloor =1+v_{3}(k)=v_{3}(3k)=v_{3}(n)$.

Proposition 2 is proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\bigskip

From \ref{prop16061604} and \ref{prop16061909} we get directly

\begin{coro} --- Let $f$ be defined in \eqref{eq22062208}. Then the sequence $(t_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ satisfies $t_{0}=0$ and, for every $n\in %
\mathbb{N}^*$,
\[t_{n}=\dfrac{1}{2(1+2\left\lfloor t_{n-1}\right\rfloor -t_{n-1})}=\dfrac{f(t_{n-1})}{2}.\]
\end{coro}

\subsection{The sequence $(t_{n})$ enumerates $\mathbb{Q}_{+}$}

\begin{thm} --- The mapping $n\mapsto t_{n}$ is a bijection from $\mathbb{N}$ to $\mathbb{Q}_+$. \label{th16061912}
\end{thm}

\emph{Proof}. --- As $t_{0}=0$ and $t_{n}=\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}$ is reduced for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, we have to prove that, for every pair of non zero coprime natural integers $\left( {\alpha }\mathpunct{};{\beta }\right) $, there exists one and only one $n\geqslant 1$ such that $a_{n}=\alpha $ and $b_{n}=\beta $.

The proof is by induction on $m=\alpha +\beta $.

If $m=2$ then $\alpha =\beta =1$ and Corollary \ref{coro16061716} implies that $n=2$ is the only one integer such that $a_{n}=b_{n}=1$.

Assume that, for a given integer $m\geqslant 2$, the property is true for every $k\in \{2,...,m\}$. Let $\left( {\alpha }\mathpunct{};{\beta }\right)$ be a pair of non zero coprime natural integers such that $\alpha +\beta =m+1$.

\emph{1st case}~: $\beta >2\alpha $. Then, by Corollary \ref{coro16061716}, if $n$ exists, there exists $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that $n=3k$. Hence $N_{n}$ is the middle child of $N_{k}$. Therefore $%
N_{k}=\left( {\alpha }\mathpunct{};{\beta -2\alpha }\mathpunct{};{c_{k}}\right) $. Now, $\alpha +(\beta -2\alpha )=\beta -\alpha \leqslant m$ and $\alpha $ and $\beta -2\alpha $ are coprime. By the induction hypothesis, there exists one and only one integer $k$ such that $a_{k}=\alpha $ and $b_{k}=\beta -2\alpha ,$ which proves that $n=3k$ is the one and only one integer such that $a_{n}=\alpha $ and $b_{n}=\beta $.

\emph{2nd case}~: $\beta =2\alpha .$ Then, $\couple{\alpha}{\beta}=\couple{1}{2}$ since $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are coprime. By Corollary \ref{coro16061716}, $n=1$ is the sole integer such that $a_{n}=1$ and $b_{n}=2$.

\emph{3rd case}~: $\beta <2\alpha <2\beta .$ Then, by Corollary \ref{coro16061716}, if $n$ exists, there exists $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$ such that $n=3k+1$. Hence $N_{n}$ is the right child of $N_{k}$. If $\beta $ is even $N_{k}=\left( {\alpha -\frac{\beta }{2}}\mathpunct{};{\beta -\alpha }\mathpunct{};{c_{k}}\right) $. Since $\alpha -\frac{\beta }{2}+\beta -\alpha=\frac{\beta }{2}\leqslant m$ and $\alpha -\frac{\beta }{2}$ and $\beta-\alpha $ are coprime, we see, as in the first case, that $n=3k+1$ is the one and only one integer such that $a_{n}=\alpha $ and $b_{n}=\beta $. If $\beta $ is odd then $N_{k}=\left( {2\alpha -\beta }\mathpunct{};{2\beta-2\alpha }\mathpunct{};{c_{k}}\right) .$ As $2\alpha -\beta +2\beta -2\alpha=\beta \leqslant m$ and $2\alpha -\beta $ and $2\beta -2\alpha $ are coprime (since $\beta $ is even), we draw the same conclusion.

\emph{4th case}~: $\alpha =\beta .$ Then $\alpha =\beta =1$ since $\alpha $ and $\beta $ are coprime. But this is impossible because $\alpha+\beta =m+1\geqslant 3$.

\emph{5th case}~: $\alpha >\beta .$ Then, by Corollary \ref{coro16061716}, if $n$ exists, there exists an integer $k\geqslant 2$ such that $n=3k-1$. Hence $N_{n}$ is the left child of $N_{k}$. In this case, we cannot argue as before because, for odd $b_{n}$, $a_{n}+b_{n}$ is not necessarily greater
than $a_{k}+b_{k},$ as can be seen, for example, when $N_{3}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{4}\mathpunct{};{1}\right) $ and $N_{8}=\left( {2}\mathpunct{};{1}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $. However, by Corollary \ref{coro17061009}, $t_{n}=1+t_{k-1}$, whence $t_{k-1}=\frac{\alpha -\beta }{\beta }$. As $(\alpha -\beta )+\beta =\alpha \leqslant m$ and $\alpha -\beta $ and $\alpha
$ are coprime, by the induction hypothesis there exists one and only one integer $k\geqslant 2$ such that $a_{k-1}=\alpha -\beta $ and $b_{k-1}=\beta.$ This shows that $n=3k$ is the one and only one integer such that $a_{n}=\alpha $ and $b_{n}=\beta $.

Theorem 1 is therefore proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\bigskip

Hence the ternary tree $\mathcal{A}_{3}$ enabled us to construct a sequence $(t_{n})$ which enumerates the non negative rationals and satisfies recurrence relations similar to \eqref{eq22062150} and \eqref{eq22062207}. Now we give a similar construction by using a quinary tree.

\section{A quinary tree}

\subsection{Definition}

We consider the quinary tree $\mathcal{A}_{5}$ whose vertices are labeled by
triples of integers $\left( {a}\mathpunct{};{b}\mathpunct{};{c}\right) $
such that~:

\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet $] the top of the tree is $\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{3}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $;
\item[$\bullet $] the children of $\left( {a}\mathpunct{};{b}\mathpunct{};{c}\right) $ are defined by~:
\newpage
\begin{itemize}
\item[$\blacktriangleright$] if $3$ doesn't divide $b$~:
\end{itemize}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\triplet{a}{b}{c}$};
\node (f1) at ({-6},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{3(4c+3)a-2b}{3(6c+5)a-3b}{0}$};
\node (f2) at ({-3},{-3}) {$\triplet{(6c+5)a-b}{6(c+1)a-b}{0}$};
\node (f3) at ({0},{-4.5}) {$\triplet{6(c+1)a-b}{3a}{0}$};
\node (f4) at ({3},{-3}) {$\triplet{a}{3a+b}{c+1}$};
\node (f5) at ({5},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{3a+b}{6a+3b}{0}$};
\draw (P)--(f1) ;
\draw (P)--(f2) ;
\draw (P)--(f3) ;
\draw (P)--(f4) ;
\draw (P)--(f5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

\begin{itemize}
\item[$\blacktriangleright$] if 3 divides $b$~:
\end{itemize}

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\triplet{a}{b}{c}$};
\node (f1) at ({-6},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{(4c+3)a-\dfrac{2b}{3}}{(6c+5)a-b}{0}$};
\node (f2) at ({-3},{-3}) {$\triplet{(6c+5)a-b}{6(c+1)a-b}{0}$};
\node (f3) at ({0},{-4.5}) {$\triplet{2(c+1)a-\dfrac{b}{3}}{a}{0}$};
\node (f4) at ({3},{-3}) {$\triplet{a}{3a+b}{c+1}$};
\node (f5) at ({5},{-1.5}) {$\triplet{a+\dfrac{b}{3}}{2a+b}{0}$};
\draw (P)--(f1) ;
\draw (P)--(f2) ;
\draw (P)--(f3) ;
\draw (P)--(f4) ;
\draw (P)--(f5) ;
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\end{enumerate}

The five children of the vertex $N=\left( {a}\mathpunct{};{b}\mathpunct{};{c}\right) $ are called from left to right respectively first, second, third,
fourth and fifth child of $N.$

For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, we denote $N_{n}=\left( {a_{n}}\mathpunct{};{b_{n}}\mathpunct{};{c_{n}}\right) $ the vertex of index $n$ of the tree $\mathcal{A}_{5}$ read from the top and, at each level, from left to right. Thus, $N_{1}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{3}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $, $N_{2}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{2}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $, $N_{3}=\left( {2}\mathpunct{};{3}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $, $N_{4}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{1}\mathpunct{};{0}\right) $, $N_{5}=\left( {1}\mathpunct{};{6}\mathpunct{};{1}\right) $, and so on...

By definition, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, the \textit{i}-th child of $N_{n}$ is $N_{5(n-1)+i+1}$.

\bigskip

It is easy to check, as in Lemmas \ref{lem16061603} and \ref{lem16061604}, that for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $c_{n}=v_{5}(n)$, $a_{n}\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $b_{n}\in \mathbb{N}^*$ (with, this time, $3a_{n}\geqslant b_{n}-6a_{n}c_{n})$ and $\text{gcd}(a_{n},b_{n})=1$. Hence, by putting for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $
s_{n}=\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}$, we define a sequence $(s_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}^*}$ of positive reduced rationals, whose first few terms are~:

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1,yscale=1]
\node (P) at ({0},{0}) {$\dfrac{1}{3}$};
\node (f1) at ({-6},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{1}{2}$};
\node (f11) at ({-7},{-3}) {$\dfrac{5}{9}$};
\node (f12) at ({-6.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{4}$};
\node (f13) at ({-6},{-3}) {$\dfrac{4}{3}$};
\node (f14) at ({-5.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{1}{5}$};
\node (f15) at ({-5}, {-3}) {$\dfrac{5}{12}$};
\node (f2) at ({-3},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{2}{3}$};
\node (f21) at ({-4},{-3}) {$\dfrac{4}{7}$};
\node (f22) at ({-3.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{7}{9}$};
\node (f23) at ({-3},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{2}$};
\node (f24) at ({-2.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{2}{9}$};
\node (f25) at ({-2}, {-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{7}$};
\node (f3) at ({0},{-1.5}) {$1$};
\node (f31) at ({-1},{-3}) {$\dfrac{7}{12}$};
\node (f32) at ({-0.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{14}{5}$};
\node (f33) at ({0},{-3}) {$\dfrac{5}{3}$};
\node (f34) at ({0.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{1}{4}$};
\node (f35) at ({1}, {-3}) {$\dfrac{4}{9}$};
\node (f4) at ({3},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{1}{6}$};
\node (f41) at ({2},{-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{5}$};
\node (f42) at ({2.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{5}{6}$};
\node (f43) at ({3},{-3}) {$2$};
\node (f44) at ({3.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{1}{9}$};
\node (f45) at ({4}, {-3}) {$\dfrac{3}{8}$};
\node (f5) at ({6},{-1.5}) {$\dfrac{2}{5}$};
\node (f51) at ({5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{8}{15}$};
\node (f52) at ({5.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{5}{7}$};
\node (f53) at ({6},{-3}) {$\dfrac{7}{6}$};
\node (f54) at ({6.5},{-3}) {$\dfrac{2}{11}$};
\node (f55) at ({7}, {-3}) {$\dfrac{11}{27}$};
\draw (P)--(f1);
\draw (f1)--(f11);
\draw (f1)--(f12);
\draw (f1)--(f13);
\draw (f1)--(f14);
\draw (f1)--(f15);
\draw (P)--(f2);
\draw (f2)--(f21);
\draw (f2)--(f22);
\draw (f2)--(f23);
\draw (f2)--(f24);
\draw (f2)--(f25);
\draw (P)--(f3);
\draw (f3)--(f31);
\draw (f3)--(f32);
\draw (f3)--(f33);
\draw (f3)--(f34);
\draw (f3)--(f35);
\draw (P)--(f4);
\draw (f4)--(f41);
\draw (f4)--(f42);
\draw (f4)--(f43);
\draw (f4)--(f44);
\draw (f4)--(f45);
\draw (P)--(f5);
\draw (f5)--(f51);
\draw (f5)--(f52);
\draw (f5)--(f53);
\draw (f5)--(f54);
\draw (f5)--(f55);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}

It can be remarked that, for every $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$,
whether 3 divides $b_{k}$ or not,

\begin{gather}
s_{5k-3}=\dfrac{3(4c_k+3)a_k-2b_k}{3(6c_k+5)a_k-3b_k}=\dfrac{3(4c_k+3)-\frac{%
2}{s_k}}{3(6c_k+5)-\frac{3}{s_k}},  \label{eq200617231} \\
s_{5k-2}=\dfrac{(6c_k+5)a_k-b_k}{6(c_k+1)a_k-b_k}=\dfrac{6c_k+5-\frac{1}{s_k}%
}{6(c_k+1)-\frac{1}{s_k}},  \label{eq200617232} \\
s_{5k-1}=\dfrac{6(c_k+1)a_k-b_k}{3a_k}=2(c_k+1)-\dfrac{1}{3s_k},
\label{eq200617233} \\
s_{5k}=\dfrac{a_k}{3a_k+b_k}=\dfrac{1}{3+\frac{1}{s_k}},  \label{eq200617234}
\\
\quad s_{5k+1}=\dfrac{3a_k+b_k}{6a_k+3b_k}=\dfrac{3s_k+1}{6s_k+3}=\dfrac{3+%
\frac{1}{s_k}}{6+\frac{3}{s_k}}.  \label{eq200617235}
\end{gather}

\bigskip

We extend this sequence to $\mathbb{N}$ by putting $s_{0}=0$. We
will now show, as we did for $(t_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ that $(s_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$, enumerates the elements of $\mathbb{Q}_{+}$.

\subsection{Recurrence relations}

\begin{prop} --- For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $\displaystyle s_{n}=\dfrac{1}{3(1+2v_{5}(n)-s_{n-1})}.$
\label{prop200954}
\end{prop}

\emph{Proof}. --- For $n=1$ and $n=2,$ this is true since
\[\dfrac{1}{3(1+2v_{5}(1)-s_{0})}=\dfrac{1}{3}=s_{1} \qquad \text{et} \qquad \dfrac{1}{3(1+v_{5}(2)-s_{1})} =\dfrac{1}{2}=s_{2}.\]
Assume that, for a given $n\geqslant 2$, the property is true for every positive integer $j\leqslant n-1$. Denote $N_{k}$ ($k\in \mathbb{N}^*$) the
parent of $N_{n}$ .

\emph{1st case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the first child of $N_{k}$ then $n=5k-3$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the fifth child of $N_{k-1}$. By the induction hypothesis,
\begin{equation*}
s_{k}=\dfrac{1}{3(1+2v_{5}(k)-s_{k-1})}=\dfrac{1}{3\left(
1+2c_{k}-s_{k-1}\right) }.
\end{equation*}%
Hence, by using \eqref{eq200617231},
\begin{equation}
s_{n}=\dfrac{3(4c_{k}+3)-\frac{2}{s_{k}}}{3(6c_{k}+5)-\frac{3}{s_{k}}}=\dfrac{3(4c_{k}+3)-6(2c_{k}+1-s_{k-1})}{3(6c_{k}+5)-9(2c_{k}+1-s_{k-1})}=\dfrac{1+2s_{k-1}}{2+3s_{k-1}}.
\label{eq21060933}
\end{equation}
As $v_{5}(n)=0$, \eqref{eq200617235} yields
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{3(2v_{5}(n)+1-s_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{3(1-s_{5(k-1)+1})}=\dfrac{1}{3\left( 1-\frac{3s_{k-1}+1}{6s_{k-1}+3}\right) }=\dfrac{2s_{k-1}+3}{3s_{k-1}+2}=s_{n}.
\end{equation*}

\emph{2nd case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the second child of $N_{k}$ then $%
n=5k-2$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the first child of $N_{k}$. As $v_{5}(n)=0$, %
\eqref{eq200617231} and \eqref{eq200617232} yield
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{3(2v_{5}(n)+1-s_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{3(1-s_{5k-3})}=\dfrac{1}{3\left(
1-\frac{3(4c_{k}+3)a_{k}-2b_{k}}{3(6k+5)a_{k}-3b_{k}}\right) }=\dfrac{%
(6c_{k}+5)a_{k}-b_{k}}{6(c_{k}+1)a_{k}-b_{k}}=s_{5k-2}=s_{n}.
\end{equation*}

\emph{3rd case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the third child of $N_{k}$ then $%
n=5k-1$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the second child of $N_{k}$. As $v_{5}(n)=0$, %
\eqref{eq200617232} and \eqref{eq200617233} yield
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{3(2v_{5}(n)+1-s_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{3(1-s_{5k-2})}=\dfrac{1}{3\left(
1-\frac{(6c_{k}+5)a_{k}-b_{k}}{6(c_{k}+1)a_{k}-b_{k}}\right) }=\dfrac{%
6(c_{k}+1)a_{k}-b_{k}}{3a_{k}}=s_{5k-1}=s_{n}.
\end{equation*}

\emph{4th case}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the fourth child of $N_{k}$ then $%
n=5k$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the third child of $N_{k}$. As $%
v_{5}(5k)=v_{5}(k)+1=c_{k}+1$, \eqref{eq200617233} and \eqref{eq200617234}
yield
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{3(2v_{5}(n)+1-s_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{3\left( 2(c_{k}+1)+1-\left[
2(c_{k}+1)-\frac{1}{3s_{k}}\right] \right) }=\dfrac{1}{3+\frac{1}{s_{k}}}%
=s_{n}.
\end{equation*}

\emph{5th cas}. --- If $N_{n}$ is the fifth child of $N_{k}$ then $%
n=5k+1$ and $N_{n-1}$ is the fourth child of $N_{k}$. As $v_{5}(n)=0$, %
\eqref{eq200617234} and \eqref{eq200617235} yield
\begin{equation*}
\dfrac{1}{3(2v_{5}(n)+1-s_{n-1})}=\dfrac{1}{3\left( 1-\frac{a_{k}}{%
3a_{k}+b_{k}}\right) }=\dfrac{3a_{k}+b_{k}}{6a_{k}+3b_{k}}=s_{n}.
\end{equation*}

Proposition 3 is proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\begin{coro}
--- For every $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $s_{5k-1}=1+s_{k-1}$. \label%
{coro20061836}
\end{coro}

\emph{Proof}. --- Let $k$ be a positive integer. By definition, $s_{5k-1}=2(c_{k}+1)-\frac{1}{3s_{k}}$ and, by Proposition \ref{prop200954}, $s_{k}=\frac{1}{3(2c_{k}+1-s_{k-1})}$. Therefore $s_{5k-1}=2(c_{k}+1)-(2c_{k}+1-s_{k-1})=1+s_{k-1}$. \hfill $\square $

\bigskip

As in Corollary \ref{coro16061716}, we deduce from Proposition \ref{prop200954}
that the rationals $s_{n}$ belong to one of the five intervals $\intervallefo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{\tfrac{2}{3}}$, $\intervallefo{\tfrac{2}{3}}{1}$, $\intervallefo{1}{+\infty}$, $\intervallefo{0}{\tfrac{1}{3}}$ or $\intervallefo{\tfrac{1}{3}}{\tfrac{1}{2}}$ depending on their rank in the tree $\mathcal{A}_{5}$ as a first, second, third, fourth or fifth child~:

\begin{coro} --- For every $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $s_{5k}\in \intervalleoo{0}{\tfrac{1}{3}}$, $s_{5k+1}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{1}{3}}{\tfrac{1}{2}}$, $s_{5k+2}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{\tfrac{2}{3}}$, $s_{5k+3}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{2}{3}}{1}$ and $s_{5k+4}\in \intervalleoo{1}{+\infty}$.
\label{coro20061848}
\end{coro}

\emph{Proof}. --- Let $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. As $s_{k}>0$, \eqref{eq200617234} and \eqref{eq200617235} imply that $s_{5k}\in \intervalleoo{0}{\tfrac{1}{3}}$ and $s_{5k+1}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{1}{3}}{\tfrac{1}{2}}$. Now \eqref{eq21060933} yields $s_{5k+2}=\frac{1+2s_{k}}{2+3s_{k}}$ whence $s_{5k+2}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{\tfrac{2}{3}}$. However, from Proposition \ref{prop200954}, $s_{5k+3}=\frac{1}{3(1-s_{5k+2})}$. As $\tfrac{1}{2}<s_{5k+2}<\tfrac{2}{3}$, $1<3(1-s_{5k+2})<\tfrac{3}{2}$ this yields $s_{5k+3}\in \intervalleoo{\tfrac{2}{3}}{1}$. Finally, $s_{5k+4}>1$ since $s_{5k+4}=1+s_{k}$ by Corollary \ref{coro20061836}.\hfill $\square $

\bigskip

\begin{rem} --- As $s_{0}=0$, $s_{1}=\tfrac{1}{3}$, $s_{2}=1$, $s_{3}=\tfrac{2}{3}$ and $%
s_{4}=1$, we see that for every $k\in \mathbb{N}$, $s_{5k}\in \intervallefo{0}{\tfrac{1}{3}}$, $s_{5k+1}\in \intervallefo{\tfrac{1}{3}}{\tfrac{1}{2}}$, $s_{5k+2}\in \intervallefo{\tfrac{1}{2}}{\tfrac{2}{3}}$, $s_{5k+3}\in \intervallefo{\tfrac{2}{3}}{1}$ and $s_{5k+4}\in \intervallefo{1}{+\infty}$.
\end{rem}

\bigskip

Now we prove that the sequence $(s_{n})$ satisfies relations similar to \eqref{eq22062207} and \eqref{eq22062325}.

\begin{prop} --- For every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $\left\lfloor s_{n-1}\right\rfloor =v_{5}(n)$. \label{prop2100949}
\end{prop}

\emph{Proof}. --- For $n=1$, $\left\lfloor s_{0}\right\rfloor =\left\lfloor 0\right\rfloor =0=v_{5}(1)$. Now assume that, for a given integer $n\geqslant 2$ and every integer $j\leqslant n-1$, $\left\lfloor s_{j-1}\right\rfloor =v_{5}(j)$. Denote $N_{k}$ ($k\in \mathbb{N}^*$) the parent of $N_{n}$ .

If $N_{n}$ is not the fourth child of $N_{k}$ then $5$ does not divide $n.$ Therefore $v_{5}(n)=0$ and $n-1\not\equiv 4\pmod{5}$ and, by Corollary \ref{coro20061848}, $\left\lfloor s_{n-1}\right\rfloor =0$.

If $N$ is the fourth child of $N_{k}$ then $n=5k$, whence $n-1=5k-1$. Now Corollary \ref{coro20061836} yields $s_{n-1}=1+s_{k-1},$ which implies $\left\lfloor s_{n-1}\right\rfloor =1+\left\lfloor s_{k-1}\right\rfloor $. However, by the induction hypothesis, $\left\lfloor s_{k-1}\right\rfloor =v_{5}(k)$, whence $\left\lfloor s_{n-1}\right\rfloor =1+v_{5}(k)=v_{5}(5k)$, i.e. $\left\lfloor s_{n-1}\right\rfloor =v_{5}(n)$.

Proposition 6 is proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\bigskip

The following statement is a direct consequence of properties \ref{prop200954} and \ref{prop2100949}.

\begin{coro} --- Let $f$ be defined in \eqref{eq22062208}. Then, the sequence $(s_{n})_{n\in \mathbb{N}}$ satisfies $s_{0}=0$ and, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$,
\[s_{n}=\dfrac{1}{3(1+2\left\lfloor s_{n-1}\right\rfloor -s_{n-1})}=\dfrac{f(s_{n-1})}{3}.\]
\end{coro}

\subsection{The sequence $(s_{n})$ enumerates $\mathbb{Q}_{+}$}

\begin{thm} --- The mapping $n\mapsto t_{n}$ is a bijection from $\mathbb{N}$ to
$\mathbb{Q}_{+}$. \label{th21061003}
\end{thm}

\emph{Proof}. --- As in the proof of Theorem \ref{th16061912}, we have to prove that, for every pair of non zero coprime natural integers $\left( {\alpha }\mathpunct{};{\beta }\right) $, there exists one and only one $n\geqslant 1$ such that $a_{n}=\alpha $ and $b_{n}=\beta $.

The proof is again by induction on $m=\alpha +\beta $.

If $m=2,$ then $\alpha =\beta =1$ and Corollary \ref{coro20061848} shows that $n=4$ is the only integer such that $a_{n}=b_{n}=1$.

Assume that, for a given integer $m\geqslant 2$, the property is true for every $k\in \{2,...,m\}$. Let $\left( {\alpha }\mathpunct{};{\beta }\right) $ be a pair of coprime positive integers such that $\alpha +\beta =m+1$.

As in the proof of Theorem \ref{th16061912}, we deduce from Corollary \ref{coro20061848} and Remark 2 that $n=1$ (resp. $n=2$, $n=3$ and $n=4$) if $\beta =3\alpha $ (resp. $\beta =2\alpha $, $2\beta =3\alpha $ and $\beta =\alpha $).

Now we distinguish five cases.

\emph{1st case}~: $\beta >3\alpha .$ Then, by Corollary \ref{coro20061848}, if $n$ exists, $n=5k$ with $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. Hence, by \eqref{eq200617234}, $s_{k}=\frac{\alpha }{\beta -3\alpha }$. However, $\alpha +(\beta -3\alpha )=\beta -2\alpha \leqslant m$ and $\alpha $ and $\beta -3\alpha $ are coprime, which yields the conclusion by using the induction hypothesis.

\emph{2nd case}~: $2\beta <6\alpha <3\beta .$ Then, by Corollary \ref{coro20061848}, if $n$ exists, $n=5k+1$ with $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. Hence, by \eqref{eq200617234},
\[s_{k}=\frac{3\alpha -\beta }{3\beta -6\alpha } \text{ if } 3 \nmid \beta \qquad  \text{and} \qquad s_{k} =\frac{\alpha -\frac{\beta }{3}}{\beta -2\alpha } \text{ if }3 \mid \beta\]
which yields the conclusion as in the first case.

\emph{3rd case}~: $3\beta <6\alpha <4\beta .$ Then, by Corollary \ref{coro20061848}, if $n$ exists, $n=5k-3$ with $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. Hence, by \eqref{eq200617234}, $s_{k-1}=\frac{2\alpha -\beta }{2\beta -3\alpha }$ which yields the conclusion as in the first case.

\emph{4th case}~: $2\beta <3\alpha <3\beta .$ By Corollary \ref{coro20061848}, if $n$ exists, $n=5k-2$ with $k\in \mathbb{N}^*$. Then, by Proposition \ref{prop200954}, $s_{5k-1}=\frac{1}{3(1-s_{5k-2})}$ and therefore $s_{5k-2}=1-\frac{1}{3s_{5k-1}}=1-\frac{1}{3(1+s_{k-1})}$ by Corollary \ref{coro20061836}. Hence,
\[s_{k-1}=\frac{3\alpha -2\beta }{3\beta -3\alpha } \text{ if } 3 \nmid \beta \qquad  \text{and} \qquad s_{k-1} =\frac{\alpha -2\frac{\beta }{3}}{\beta -\alpha } \text{ if }3 \mid \beta\]
which yields the conclusion as in the first case.

\emph{5th case}~: $\alpha >\beta .$ By Corollary \ref{coro20061848}, if $n$ exists, $n=5k-1$ with $k\in \mathbb{N},$ $k\geqslant 2$. Then, by Corollary \ref{coro20061836}, $s_{n}=1+s_{k-1}$ and therefore $s_{k-1}=\frac{\alpha -\beta }{\beta }$ and the conclusion holds as in the first case.

Theorem 2 is proved by induction.\hfill $\square $

\section{The relation \eqref{eq02071820} with $k\geqslant 4$}

Newman result \eqref{eq22062207} and Propositions \ref{prop16061909} and \ref{prop2100949} show that the Calkin-Wilf sequence and sequences $(t_{n})$ and $(s_{n})$ are all defined by a first term $u_{0}=0$ and by a recurrence relation of the form
\[\text{for every }n\in \mathbb{N}^*, \quad u_{n}=\dfrac{f(u_{n-1})}{k}\]
where $k\in\{1, 2, 3\}$ and $f$ is defined by \eqref{eq22062208}. It is natural to ask if such a relation defines an enumeration of $\mathbb{Q}_{+}$ for every $k\geqslant 1.$ We prove now that this is
not the case.

Let $k\geqslant 4$ be an integer. Put $f_{k}=\tfrac{1}{k}f$ and consider the
sequence $(u_{n})$ defined by $u_{0}=0$ and, for every $n\in \mathbb{N}^*$, $u_{n}=f_{k}(u_{n-1})$. It is easy to check that the only solutions of $f_{k}(x)=x$ are
\[\gamma _{k}=\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{4}{k}}\text{ and }\delta
_{k}=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1-\frac{4}{k}},\]
and that $0<\gamma _{k}\leqslant \delta _{k}<1$. Hence, as $f_{k}$ is increasing on $\intervallefo{0}{1}$ and $f_{k}(0)=\tfrac{1}{k}>0$,  $f_{k}\left( \intervalleff{0}{\gamma_k}\right) \subset $ $\intervalleff{0}{\gamma_k}$. Moreover, $u_{1}=f_{k}(0)=\tfrac{1}{k}>u_{0}.$ Therefore $(u_{n})$ is increasing since $f_{k}$ is increasing, which proves that $(u_{n})$ is
convergent. As $f_{k}$ is continuous on $\intervalleff{0}{\gamma_k}$, $\lim u_{n}=\gamma _{k}$. Hence $\gamma _{k}$ is the only accumulation point of $(u_{n}),$ which proves that $(u_{n})$ cannot enumerate $\mathbb{Q}_{+},$ nor even the rationals of a given interval.

\bibliographystyle{smfalpha}


A Proof of the Simplex Mean Width Conjecture

Abstract: The mean width of a convex body is the average distance between parallel supporting hyperplanes when the normal direction is chosen uniformly over the sphere. The Simplex Mean Width Conjecture (SMWC) is a longstanding open problem that says the regular simplex has maximum mean width of all simplices contained in the unit ball and is unique up to isometry. We give a self contained proof of the SMWC in $d$ dimensions. The main idea is that when discussing mean width, $d+1$ vertices $v_i\in\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ naturally divide $\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ into $d+1$ Voronoi cells and conversely any partition of $\mathbb{S}^{d-1}$ points to selecting the centroids of regions as vertices. We will show that these two conditions are enough to ensure that a simplex with maximum mean width is a regular simplex.

\section{Introduction}
Let $B_2^d\subset \RR^d$ be the standard Euclidean ball. Denote $\sphd:=\partial B_2^d$. Let $\mu$ be the uniform probability measure on $\sphd$. The spherical simplex $T$ with vertices $v_1,\dots,v_d$ is the cone generated by $v_1,\dots,v_d$ intersected with $\sph$.\\

The support function of a convex body $K\subset B_2^d$ is

\[h_K(u):=\max_{x\in K}u\cdot x\]

and the mean width

\[w(K):=2\int_{\sphd} h_K(\theta)d\mu(\theta)\]

The centroid of a full dimensional spherical region $R$ will be defined as

\[G(R):=\frac{\int_{R}u d\mu(u)}{\left|\int_{R}u d\mu(u)\right|}\]

and $G(R)=0$ if $\mu(R)\in\{0,1\}$. Note that under the Hausdorff distance, $G$ does not continuously generalize to sets contained in a hyperplane. For, consider the Euclidean simplex $\triangle v_0\dots v_d$ as $v_d\to v_i$. The limit of the centroids depends on i,

\[G(\triangle v_0\dots v_d)\to \frac{d-1}{d}G(\triangle v_0\dots v_{d-1})+\frac{1}{d}\cdot v_i\]

{\conj\label{SMWC} (Simplex Mean Width Conjecture) Of all simplices contained in $B_2^d$, the inscribed regular simplex has the maximum mean width, and is unique up to isometry.}\\

The SMWC is related to the problem of recovering transmissions from a noisy signal and has been assumed to be true by information theorists \cite{AVB1, AVB2}. In dimension $d$, it is equivalent to the Gaussian Random Vector Maximum Conjecture in dimension $d+1$ \cite{ZLZ}.The $d=3$ case has been proved in a variety of ways (published and unpublished), including a stronger version in \cite{LS}. I thank Wei Sun for helpful conversations about $d=3$. The SMWC was mentioned in the survey by Gritzmann and Klee \cite{GK} and sometimes by Klee in his talks. Litvak wonderfully surveyed the problem more recently in \cite{AL}. The following claim is a basic start.

{\claim\label{basic} In order that $\triangle:=\mathrm{conv}(v_0,\dots, v_d)$ maximizes $w(\cdot)$ over all simplices contained in $B_2^d$, it must be that

\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $B_2^d$ is the smallest ball containing $\triangle$.
\item $v_i\in\sphd$ for $0\le i\le n$, i.e. $\sphd$ is the circumsphere of $\triangle$.
\item The closed hemispheres centered at $v_i$ cover $\sphd$.
\end{enumerate}}

\begin{proof}
 \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item If $\triangle\subset Q+rB_2^d$ with $r<1$, then $(\triangle-Q)/r$ is a simplex contained in $B_2^d$ and

\[w((\triangle-Q)/r)=w(\triangle/r)=w(\triangle)/r>w(\triangle)\]

\item Suppose that $|v_0|<1$. Extend the edge $v_1v_0$ past $v_0$ until it meets $\sphd$ at a point $v_{n+1}$. The simplex $\tilde{\triangle}:=\mathrm{conv}\{v_1,\dots,v_{n+1}\}\subset B_2^d$ contains $v_0$ as a convex combination of $v_{n+1}$ and $v_1$, so it strictly contains $\triangle$. Since $w$ is strictly increasing under set inclusion, $w(\triangle)<w(\tilde{\triangle})$. Therefore, if $|v_i|<1$ for any $i$, then $w(\triangle)$ is not maximum.
\item Suppose $v\in\sphd$ is such that $v\cdot v_i =m<0$ for all $i$. It follows that each $v_i$ is contained in the spherical cap $\{\theta\in\sphd:v\cdot \theta\le m\}$, which is contained in the ball of radius $\sqrt{1-m^2}$, centered at $-mv$. Part (a) implies there is no such $v$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

The support function of the simplex $\triangle=\mathrm{conv}\{v_0,\dots, v_d\}$ reduces to a maximum over the vertex set:

\[h_\triangle(u)=\max_{x\in \triangle}u\cdot x=\max_{0\le i\le d} u\cdot v_i\]

As such, for each $i$ define the $i$th Voronoi cell on the sphere to be

\begin{align}S_i(\triangle):=\{u\in\sphd:u\cdot v_i= \max_{x\in\triangle}u\cdot x\}\label{DefVor}\end{align}

The mean width of a simplex is then

\begin{align}
w(\triangle)=&2\int_{\sphd}\max_{0\le i\le d}\theta\cdot v_i d\mu(\theta)\nonumber\\
 =& 2\sum_{i=0}^d \int_{S_i}\theta\cdot v_i d\mu(\theta)\label{SumMAR}
\end{align}

\section{Proof of SMWC}
In the next two lemmas, we show that all but one vertex of a spherical simplex and its centroid will determine the final vertex.

\begin{figure}[H]\label{FigLemma1}
  \centering
      \includegraphics[width=3in]{Lemma1}
  \caption{General setup in Lemma \ref{Lemma1} to approximate $\triangle w,v_2^\prime,v_3,\dots, v_d\cap T$.}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak
{\lem\label{Lemma1} Let $T=\triangle v_1\dots v_d\subset \sphd$ be a simplex with an edge $E=v_1v_2$. For $0< x\le 1$, call $T(x)$ the simplex made by sliding $v_1$ to the point

\[w=\frac{(1-x)v_2+xv_1}{|(1-x)v_2+xv_1|}\]

i.e. the simplex formed by replacing vertex $v_1$ with this $w$. Then $v_1\cdot G(T(x))$ is increasing in $x$.}

\begin{proof}

Call $F_1$ the face of $T$ opposite $v_1$ and $F_w$ the face of $T(x)$ in the interior of $T$, or the $(d-1)$-simplex formed by $w$ and all the vertices of $T$ except $v_1$ and $v_2$. Reflect $v_2$ across the great sphere containing $F_w$ to the point $v_2^\prime$ and let $v_j^\prime$ be the intersection of the arc $v_jv_2^\prime$ (possibly requiring extension past $v_2^\prime$). Let $T^\prime(x)$ be the reflection of $T$ across $F_w$.\\

Now, let $w\to v_2$ along $E$. The ``overhang'' spherical simplex

\[R(x):=\triangle wv_2^\prime v_3^\prime\dots v_d^\prime\]

becomes infinitesimal and is approximately Euclidean. We assert that $\mu(R(x))$ is negligible compared to $\mu(T^\prime(x))$. Note that the surface measure of a spherical simplex exceeds the volume of the Euclidean simplex with the same vertices. Let $v_2^\prime$ be at height $h_2$ from the opposite face in $R(x)$ and $h_3$ be the height of $v_3$ (arbitrarily chosen) from that same face. We have that

\begin{align*}\mu(R(x))\approx& \frac{h_2}{d!}\mathrm{Vol}_{d-1}(\triangle w v_3^\prime\dots v_d^\prime)\\
\mu(T^\prime(x))=\mu(T(x))>&\frac{h_3}{d!}\mathrm{Vol}_{d-1}(\triangle w v_3^\prime\dots v_d^\prime)\end{align*}

Since $h_2\to 0$ and $h_3$ is independent of $w$, the ratio of $\mu(R(x))$ to $\mu(T^\prime(x))$ vanishes as $x\to 0$. Then, since $\sphd$ is bounded, $R(x)$ has vanishing contribution to the centroid $G(T^\prime(x))$. That is,

\[G(T^\prime(x))=c_1G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)+c_2G(R(x))\]

for some positive constants $c_2\to 0$ and $c_1\to 1$. It follows that

\begin{align*}
U(x):=&\frac{|G(T^\prime(x))-G(T(x))|}{|G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)-G(T(x))|}\to 1\\
Z(x):=&\frac{(1-c_1)G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)-c_2G(R(x))}{|G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)-G(T(x))|}\to 0
\end{align*}
where the denominators do not vanish because $G(T(x))$ becomes arbitrarily close to $F_1$ and so must remain distant from $G(T)$. Then, we have convergence to the pole of $F_1$
\begin{align*}
\frac{G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)-G(T(x))}{|G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)-G(T(x))|}=&\frac{G(T^\prime(x))-G(T(x))}{|G(T^\prime(x)-G(T(x))|}U(x)
+Z(x)\\
\to& \frac{G(T^\prime(x))-G(T(x))}{|G(T^\prime(x))-G(T(x))|}
\end{align*}

 and that
\[v_1\cdot (G(T^\prime(x)\cap T)-G(T(x)))>0\]
for small $x$.\\

Repeat this argument as $v_2$ slides toward $v_1$ along $E$. It follows that ${v_1\cdot (G(T(x))}$ increases with $x$.
\end{proof}

{\lem\label{CentroidUnique} Given vertices $v_2,\dots, v_d$ of a simplex $T$ and the centroid $G(T)$, the final vertex $v_1$ is uniquely determined.}
\begin{proof}
Consider two points $v_1, v_1^\prime\in\sphd$. Set $T:=\triangle v_1v_2\dots v_d$  and ${T^\prime :=\triangle v_1^\prime v_2\dots v_d}$. Suppose that $v_1\neq v_1^\prime$ \cite{CCGIJP}. We will show that $G(T)\neq G(T^\prime)$.\\

$G(T)$ is a positive linear combination of $G(T\cap T^\prime)$ and $G(T\setminus T^\prime)$, so it lies on the smaller arc between these two points and that arc is contained in $T$. Similarly, $G(T^\prime)$ is a positive linear combination of $G(T\cap T^\prime)$ and $G(T^\prime\setminus T)$. Since $G(T)=G(T^\prime)$, each of these points lie on a common arc starting at $G(T\cap T^\prime)$, continuing to $G(T)=G(T^\prime)$, then to $G(T\setminus T^\prime)$ and $G(T^\prime\setminus T)$ if they are not zero. But, since we take each of $T$ and $T^\prime$ to be contained in a hemisphere, this arc may not exceed $\pi$ in length, which would be the case if it were to start in a triangle, leave, then reenter. Therefore, either $T^\prime\setminus T=\{\}$, or $T\setminus T^\prime=\{\}$. WLOG, say $T\subset T^\prime$.\\

For $0<x\le 1$, call $T(x)$ the simplex made by sliding $v_1$ along the edge $v_1v_1^\prime$ to the point

\[w=\frac{(1-x)v_1+xv_1^\prime}{|(1-x)v_1+xv_1^\prime|}\]

i.e. the simplex formed by replacing vertex $v_1$ with this $w$. Since $v_1\in T(x)$, subdivide $T(x)$ into $d$ simplices $T,T_2(x)\dots, T_d(x)$, each with vertex $v_1$ and a face in common with $T(x)$. Lemma \ref{Lemma1} and continuity of the centroid as a function of the vertices, tell that ${G(T_i(x))\cdot v_1>G(T)\cdot v_1}$ for small $x$ and $i=2,\dots, d$. Then, $G(T(x))$ is a positive linear combination of $G(T),G(T_2(x)),\dots,G(T_d(x))$, so $G(T(x))\cdot v_1>G(T)\cdot v_1$ for small $x$. Repeat this argument, replacing $w$ with $v_1$ to slide all the way to $v_1^\prime$, and conclude

\[G(T(1))\cdot v_1=G(T^\prime)\cdot v_1>G(T)\cdot v_1\]
\end{proof}

{\thm\label{thmSMWC} The simplex mean width conjecture is true in $\RR^d$.}
\begin{proof}
First, note that the Voronoi cells are spherical simplices, as they are bounded by $d$ perpendicular bisectors of pairs of points in $\sphd$, which are hyperplanes through $0\in\RR^d$. The intersection of all Voronoi cells except $S_i$ is the circumcenter of all vertices except $v_i$, call it $C_i$.\\

Next, a maximal mean width simplex will even maximize equation \ref{SumMAR} for any $S_i$ partitioning $\sphd$ and allowing $v_i$ to move inside $S_i$. For a fixed region $R$,

\[\left(\int_RXd\mu(X)\right)\cdot A\]

is maximized when $A$ is a multiple of $\int_R Xd\mu(X)$, that is $A=G(R)$. So, for a simplex $\triangle$ maximizing $w(\cdot)$, we have that $v_i=G(S_i)$.\\

Any two Voronoi cells share a face. The corresponding $v_i$ are, by definition, reflections across that face. Lemma \ref{CentroidUnique} implies the two Voronoi cells are reflections. In particular, $C_i$ and $C_j$ are reflections across the perpendicular bisector between $v_i$ and $v_j$. This implies that the edges $C_iC_k$ and $C_jC_k$ are reflections and have equal length for any $i,j,k$ and finally that $C_iC_k$ and $C_jC_l$ have equal length. The $d$ circumcenters $C_i$ are then vertices of a regular simplex. The vertices $v_i$ are then the centroids of the faces of a regular simplex, making the original simplex regular.
\end{proof}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Information Theory (cs.IT)


Algebraic Cayley Graphs over Finite Fields

Abstract: A new algebraic Cayley graph is constructed using finite fields. Its connectedness and diameter bound are studied via Weil's estimate for character sums. These graphs provide a new source of expander graphs, extending classical results of Chung.

\section{Introduction}
For a subset $S$ of a finite abelian group $\Gamma$, the Cayley graph $Cay(\Gamma, S)$ is
the directed graph with vertex set $\Gamma$, and edge set $\{b_1\rightarrow b_2|b_1-b_2\in S\}$.
Cayley graphs play a central role in the construction of expander graphs. A randomly chosen Cayley graph
$Cay(\Gamma, S)$ often has good properties with non-trivial probability. However, deterministically constructing one such good graph
is often more difficult. Typically one needs to assume additional
structure on the group $\Gamma$ and its subset $S$. By an algebraic Cayley graph, we mean that $\Gamma$ is
the multiplicative group of a finite commutative ring and $S\subset \Gamma$ is a subset with certain algebraic structure such as a box or an interval in some sense.
The box algebraic structure makes it possible to use powerful tools from number theory to prove conditionally (assuming
some sort of Riemann hypothesis) that an algebraic Cayley graph $Cay(\Gamma, S)$ does have the desired properties if the box is suitably large.
In this way, algebraic Cayley graph provides a rich source of expander graphs.

An important such example is given by Chung \cite{chung} who uses the multiplicative group of a finite extension of a finite field and take the subset to be a line
in certain sense. The advantage to work
with a finite field is that the needed estimate can sometimes be proved using the celebrated Weil bound for curves over finite fields.
In this paper, we  introduce a more general construction using the multiplicative group of a finite field and taking the subset  to be those elements represented by certain primary polynomials.

Let $\mathbb{F}_q$ be a finite field of $q$ elements with characteristic
$p$. Let $f(x)$ be an irreducible polynomial of degree $n>1$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$.
Our group $\Gamma$ will be
$$\Gamma_f=(\mathbb{F}_q[x]/(f(x)))^{*}=(\mathbb{F}_q[\alpha])^*= \mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*, \ \ \alpha=\overline{x}.$$
The group $\Gamma_f$ is cyclic of order $q^n-1$.
A polynomial $g(x) \in \mathbb{F}_q[x]$ of degree $d>0$ is called primary if  $g(x)$ is a power of an
irreducible polynomial. For $1\leq d< n$, let $P_d$ be the set of monic primary polynomials of degree $d$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[x]$. Our subset $S$ will be
$$E_d=\{g(\alpha)|g\in P_d\}\subset \Gamma_f.$$
Note that in the case $d=1$, the subset $E_1=\alpha+\mathbb{F}_q$ is a line in the $n$-dimensional $\mathbb{F}_q$-vector space $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$.

\begin{definition}
Let $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ be the Cayley graph $Cay(\Gamma_f, E_d)$ with vertex set $\Gamma_f$
and edge set $\{\beta_1\rightarrow \beta_2|\beta_2/\beta_1\in E_d\}$.
\end{definition}
It is clear that $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ is
a regular directed graph of order $q^n-1$ and its degree is given by
$$|E_d| =|P_d| =\sum_{k|d} \frac{1}{k} \sum_{s|k}\mu(s)q^{\frac{k}{s}} \sim \frac{q^d}{d},$$
where $\mu$ is the M\"obius function.  It should be noted that the graph $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ depends not just on $d, n, q$ but also
on the choice of $\alpha$ (that is, the choice of the irreducible polynomial $f(x)$ which is used to present the extension field $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$).
In the case $d=1$, $G_1(n,q,\alpha)$ reduces to Chung's graph in \cite{chung},
which has been studied extensively, see \cite{cohen} \cite{katz}\cite{wan97}.  In this paper, we study the general $d$ case.
Our proof is more direct and uses Weil's bound for character sums.

Our first result is the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}
Assume that $n<q^{d/2}+1$, then the graph $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$
is connected and its diameter $D$ satisfies the bound
\[D\leq 2\frac{n}{d}+1+\frac{4\frac{n}{d}\log{(n-1)}}{d\log{q}-2\log(n-1)}.\]
\end{theorem}

In the case $d=1$, this reduces to the diameter bound in \cite{chung} and \cite{wan97}.
The above theorem gives a sufficient condition for the graph to be connected.
If $n\geq q^{d/2}+1$, the graph $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ is not always connected as the answer
depends on the choice of $\alpha$ or the irreducible polynomial $f(x)$. More precisely, we have

\begin{theorem}
If $\ell>1$ is a divisor of the integer $(q^n-1)$ such that
$n\geq 2d+ 2(|P_d| +1)\log_{q}\ell $, then there is at least one
$\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ of degree $n$ such that the number of connected components of the graph
$G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ is divisible by $\ell$.
\end{theorem}

If $q>2$, $q^n-1$ has the obvious divisor $(q-1) >1$. We obtain

 \begin{corollary} Assume that  $q>2$ and
$n\geq 2d+ 2(|P_d| +1)$. Then there is at least one
$\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ of degree $n$ such that the number of connected components of the graph
$G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ is divisible by $(q-1)$. In particular, $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ is not connected for at least one degree
$n$ element $\alpha$.
\end{corollary}

As $|P_d| \sim q^d/d$, the bound $2d + 2(|P_d|+1) \sim 2q^d/d$ is roughly the square of the bound
$q^{d/2}$ in Theorem 2. This shows that the condition in Theorem 2 is not too far from being sharp.
For the remaining interval where
$$ q^{d/2} +1 \leq  n \leq 2d+ 2(|P_d| +1) \sim 2q^d/d,$$
we have no results on the connectedness of the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$. One does know the following crude combinatorial upper bound for the
number $N_d(n, q, \alpha)$ of connected components of the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$:
$$N_d(n, q, \alpha) \leq {{q^n -1}\over { |P_d|+1 \choose {\lceil \frac{n}{d}\rceil -1}}},$$
see Theorem 14 in section $2$.

For a randomly chosen $\alpha$, the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ is connected with high probability.
For example, this is the case if $\alpha$
is a primitive root of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$.
Unfortunately, constructing a primitive root (or even an element of high order) is a well known difficult problem
in computational number theory.
In practical application, the difficulty is how to verify quickly that a given $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ is connected and more generally
how to quickly compute the number of its connected components, using the sparse input size $(n\log q)^{O(1)}$
of the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$. Ideally, we would like to have a deterministic algorithm with running time bounded by a polynomial in $(n\log q)^{O(1)}$,
to compute the number of connected components. In this direction, we have the following conditional
result.

\begin{theorem}
Assume that the factorization of $q^n-1$ is given. Then one can compute the number of
connected components of $G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ in time $(n \log q)^{O(1)}$.
\end{theorem}

It would be of great interest to remove the factorization assumption in the above theorem.
The graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ provides a new source of expander graphs, see the last section.
We have

\begin{theorem} Let $\delta$ be a constant with $0<\delta< 1$. Assume that $(n+d-1)\leq q^{d/2}(1 -\delta)$.
Then  the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ is an expander graph.
\end{theorem}

{\sl Remarks}. In our construction of the Cayley graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$, we took the subset $E_d$ to be the set of
all monic primary polynomials of degree $d$. It is also natural to take the subset to the set of all monic irreducible polynomials
of degree $d$ or the set of all monic irreducible polynomials who degree divides $d$. The resulting graph would have
similar quality asymptotically. However, our choice of the subset in this paper makes the proofs simpler and cleaner with
the results slightly better.

\section{The number of  connected components}

Our key technical tool is the following Weil bound for character sums, see Theorem 2.1
in \cite{wan97}.

\begin{lemma} Let $\chi: \Gamma_f \longrightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$ be a non-trivial character.
Then, we have the estimate
$$|\sum_{g\in P_d}\Lambda(g)\chi(g(\alpha))| \leq (n-1)\sqrt{q^d},$$
where $\Lambda(g)$ is the von-Mangold function and it is equal to the degree of the unique prime factor in $g$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{theorem}
If $n<q^{d/2}+1$, then $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ is connected.
\end{theorem}

\noindent \textbf{Proof.} If the graph $G_d(n,q, \alpha)$ is not connected, then $E_d$ generates a proper subgroup
$H$ of $\Gamma_f$. Let
\[\chi: \Gamma_f \rightarrow \Gamma_f/H \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*\]
be a non-trivial character of $\Gamma_f$, trivial on $H$.  Then by the Weil bound in Lemma 7,
\[q^d=\sum_{g\in P_d}\Lambda(g)=|\sum_{g\in P_d}\Lambda(g)\chi(g(\alpha))|\leq (n-1)\sqrt{q^d}.\]
It follows that $n\geq q^{d/2}+1$. \hfill $\Box$

The next result shows that the condition $n<q^{d/2}+1$ in the above theorem is not too far from being sharp.

\begin{theorem}
If $\ell>1$ is a divisor of $(q^n-1)$ such that
$n\geq 2d+ 2(|P_d| +1)\log_{q}\ell $, then there is at least one
$\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ of degree $n$ over $\mathbb{F}_q$ such that the number of connected components of the graph
$G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ is divisible by $\ell$.
\end{theorem}

\noindent \textbf{Proof.} Let $\pi_n$ denote the number of monic irreducible polynomials of degree $n$ in
$\mathbb{F}_q[x]$. It is easy to check that
$$|\pi_n -\frac{q^n}{n} | \leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{k|n, k\leq n/2}q^k  \leq \frac{2}{n} q^{n/2}.$$
The number of degree $n$ elements in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is $n\pi_n$.
The number of elements in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ which are in a proper subfield of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ is
$$(\sum_{\deg(\alpha) < n} 1) = |n\pi_n -{q^n} | \leq {2} q^{n/2}.$$
Let $H$ be the subgroup generated by $g(\alpha)$ for $g \in P_d$. It is clear that the number of connected
components of the graph $G_d(n,q, \alpha)$ is equal to the index $[\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^* : H]$.

For a divisor $\ell>1$ of $q^n-1$, let $H_{\ell}$ denote the unique subgroup of index $\ell$ in
the cyclic group $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$. The group $H_{\ell}$  consists of $\ell$-th power of elements
in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$.
Let $I_d$ denote the set of monic irreducible polynomial $g$ in $\mathbb{F}_q[x]$ such that $\deg(g)$
divides $d$. Every element of $P_d$ is an integral power of an element in $I_d$. Furthermore,
$|I_d| =|P_d|$.
If $\alpha$ is a degree $n$ element in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$ such that $g(\alpha) \in H_{\ell}$ for all $g \in I_d$,
then $H$ is a subgroup of $H_{\ell}$ and thus the number of connected components of $G_d(n,q, \alpha)$ is
$$[\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^* : H]=[\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^* : H_{\ell}] [H_{\ell}: H] =\ell [H_{\ell}: H]$$
which is divisible by $\ell$. Let
$$N_{\ell} = \{ \alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}| \deg(\alpha) =n, \ g(\alpha) \in H_{\ell} ~ \forall g\in I_d\}.$$
To prove the theorem, it is enough to prove that $N_{\ell}>0$.
A standard character sum argument shows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ell^{|I_d|}N_{\ell} &=& \sum_{\deg(\alpha)=n} \prod_{g\in I_d} \sum_{\chi_g^{\ell}=1} \chi_g(g(\alpha))  \\
&=& \sum_{\chi_g^{\ell}=1, g\in I_d} \sum_{\deg(\alpha)=n} \prod_{g\in I_d} \chi_g(g(\alpha)),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\chi_g$ denotes a character of $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$.
In the case that $\chi_g =1$ for all $g\in I_d$, the inner sum is the number $n\pi_n$ of degree $n$ elements
in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}$. In all other $(\ell^{|I_d|}-1)$ cases, there is at least one $g\in I_d$ such that $\chi_g$ is a nontrivial
character. In such a case, the standard Weil character sum bound (see Corollary 2.3 in \cite{wan97}) implies
\begin{eqnarray*}
 |\sum_{\deg(\alpha)=n} \prod_{g\in I_d} \chi_g(g(\alpha))| &=& | \sum_{\alpha \in \mathbb{F}_{q^n}}\prod_{g\in I_d} \chi_g(g(\alpha))
 -\sum_{\deg(\alpha)<n}\prod_{g\in I_d} \chi_g(g(\alpha))| \\
 &\leq &
 ((\sum_{g\in I_d} \deg(g)) -1) q^{n/2}  +  \sum_{\deg(\alpha)<n}1\\
  &\leq &
 (q^d -1) q^{n/2}  +2 q^{n/2} \\
 &=& (q^d+1)q^{n/2}.
 \end{eqnarray*}
Putting these together, we deduce that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\ell^{|I_d|}N_{\ell} &\geq & n\pi_n - (\ell^{|I_d|}-1) (q^d+1)q^{n/2} \\
                             &\geq & q^n - 2q^{n/2} - (\ell^{|I_d|}-1) (q^d+1)q^{n/2} \\
                             &\geq & q^n - \ell^{|I_d|}(q^d+1)q^{n/2} \\
                             & >& q^{\frac{n}{2} +d} (q^{\frac{n}{2}-d} - \ell^{|I_d|+1}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Solving the inequality
$$q^{\frac{n}{2}-d} \geq  \ell^{|I_d|+1},$$
one obtains the condition
$$n\geq 2d+ 2(|I_d| +1)\log_{q}\ell.$$
Since $|I_d| =|P_d|$, the theorem is proved. \hfill $\Box$

In the case $d=1$, we have $|I_1|=|P_1|=q$. This gives the following result.

\begin{corollary}
If $\ell>1$ is a divisor of the integer $q^n-1$ such that $n \geq 2 + 2(q+1)\log_q\ell$,
then there is at least one degree $n$ element $\alpha$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$
such that the graph $G_1(n, q, \alpha)$ is not connected.
\end{corollary}

The above theorem shows that the graph  $G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ is not always connected. It depends very much on the
choice of $\alpha$.  An interesting question is to
find a fast algorithm, with running time bounded by a polynomial in $(n\log q)^{O(1)}$,
to compute the number of connected components. In this direction, we have the following conditional
result.

\begin{theorem}
Assume that the factorization of $q^n-1$ is given. Then one can compute the number of
connected components of $G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ in time $(n \log q)^{O(1)}$.
\end{theorem}

\textbf{Proof.}
We may assume that $n\geq q^{d/2}+1$, otherwise $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ is already connected.
Let
\[q^n-1=p^{k_1}_1\cdots p^{k_s}_s, H_i=\{\beta^{p_i}|\beta\in \mathbb{F}^{*}_{q^n}\}.\]
The $H_i$'s are the maximal subgroups of $\mathbb{F}^{*}_{q^n}$. The graph $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$
is dis-connected if and only if the subgroup $H=<g(\alpha)|g\in P_d>$ is contained in
$H_i$ for some $i$. This is true if and only if
\[g(\alpha)^{(q^n-1)/p_i}=1, \forall g \in P_d.\]
The elements of $P_d$ can be listed in time $q^d (n\log q)^{O(1)}$. Note that
$$\max\{ s, (k_1+\cdots +k_s), q^d\} \leq  n^2\log q.$$
It follows that one can check if there is $1\leq i\leq s$ such that $H \subseteq H_i$ in time
\[s q^d(n\log q)^{O(1)}=(n\log q)^{O(1)}.\]
If $H \not\subseteq H_i$ for $1\leq i \leq s$, then $H =\Gamma_f$ and the graph is connected.
Otherwise, we can assume that $H\subseteq H_i$ for some given $i$.

The group  $H_i$ is cyclic of order
$$\frac{q^n-1}{p_i}=p^{k_1}_1\cdots p^{k_{i}-1}_{i}\cdots p^{k_s}_s.$$
Its maximal subgroups are
$H_{ij}=\{\beta^{p_ip_j}|\beta\in \Gamma_f\}
=\{\beta^{p_j}|\beta\in H_i\}$, where $p_ip_j |(q^n-1)$.
Similarly we have $H\subseteq H_{ij}$ for some $j$ if and only if
\[g(\alpha)^{\frac{q^n-1}{p_ip_j}}=1, \forall g \in P_d.\]
Again, we can check if there is $1\leq j \leq s$ such that $H\subseteq H_{ij}$  in time
\[s q^d(n\log q)^{O(1)}=(n\log q)^{O(1)}.\]
Continuing in this fashion, eventually one finds that
$H=H_{i_1i_2\cdots i_u}$, and thus the number of connected components is $[\Gamma_f:H]=p_{i_1}\cdots p_{i_u}$.
The total time needed is bounded by

\hspace*{2cm} $(k_1+\cdots +k_s) q^d(n\log q)^{O(1)}=(n\log q)^{O(1)}$.   \hfill $\Box$
\begin{corollary}
The number of connected components of $G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$, which is the index $[\Gamma_f:H]$,
can be computed in time $O(q^{n/4})$.
\end{corollary}

\textbf{Proof.} By the well known LLL lattice factorization algorithm,  $q^n-1$
can be factored in time $O(q^{n/4})$.  \hfill  $\Box$

\begin{corollary}
If $n$ is even, the number of connected components of $G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ can be computed
in time $O(q^{n/8})$.
\end{corollary}

\textbf{Proof.}  $q^n-1=(q^{n/2}-1)(q^{n/2}+1)$ can be factored in time $O(q^{n/8})$. \hfill  $\Box$

Let $N_d(n, q, \alpha)$ denote the number of connected components of the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$.
An interesting problem is to give a good general upper bound for $N_d(n, q, \alpha)$, which is uniform in $\alpha$.
In this direction, we have
the following simple crude upper bound.
\begin{theorem}
$$N_d(n, q, \alpha) \leq {{q^n -1}\over { |P_d|+1 \choose {\lceil \frac{n}{d}\rceil -1}}}.$$
\end{theorem}

{\sl Proof}. Let $H$ be the subgroup generated by $\{ g(\alpha) | g\in P_d\}$.  Since $\alpha$ has degree $n$,
the unique factorization of polynomials implies that the elements
$$g_1(\alpha) \cdots g_k(\alpha), 0\leq k \leq \lceil \frac{n}{d}\rceil -1, \{g_1, \cdots, g_k\} \subset P_d$$
are distinct elements of $H$. This proves
$$|H| \geq { |P_d|+1 \choose {\lceil \frac{n}{d}\rceil -1}}.$$
It follows that
$$N_d(n, q, \alpha) = [\Gamma_f: H] = \frac{q^n-1}{|H|} \leq  {{q^n -1}\over { |P_d|+1 \choose {\lceil \frac{n}{d}\rceil -1}}} .$$
The theorem is proved. \hfill  $\Box$

\section{The diameter}

The diameter of $G_{d}(n,q,\alpha)$ is the minimal integer $D$ (or $\infty$ if it does not
exist) such that every element in $\Gamma_f$ can  be written as a product of at most
$D$ elements in $E_d$.

\begin{theorem}
Assume that $n<q^{d/2}+1$. The diameter $D$ of $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ satisfies the inequality
\[D\leq 2\frac{n}{d}+1+\frac{4\frac{n}{d}\log{(n-1)}}{d\log{q}-2\log(n-1)}.\]
\end{theorem}

\textbf{Proof.} Let $\widehat{\Gamma_f}$ be the character group of the multiplicative group $\Gamma_f= \mathbb{F}_{q^n}^*$, which is
the set of homomorphisms from $\Gamma_f$ to $\mathbb{C}^*$.
For integer $k>0$ and $\beta\in \Gamma_f$, let $N_{k}(\beta)$ be
the number of solutions of the equation
\[\beta=g_1(\alpha)g_2(\alpha)\cdots g_{k}(\alpha), g_i\in P_d.\]
It is clear that
$$N_{k}(\beta) = \frac{1}{q^{n}-1}\sum_{g_1,\cdots,g_k\in P_d}
\sum_{\chi\in \widehat{\Gamma_f}} \chi(\frac{g_1(\alpha)\cdots g_{k}(\alpha)}{\beta}).$$
To show that the diameter $D$ is bounded by $k$, it is enough to show that $N_{k}(\beta) >0$ for
all $\beta\in \Gamma_f$.  For our purpose, it is simpler to work with the following weighted sum
$$
M_{k}(\beta) = \frac{1}{q^{n}-1}\sum_{g_1,\cdots,g_k\in P_d}
\Lambda(g_1)\cdots \Lambda(g_k)\sum_{\chi\in \widehat{\Gamma_f}} \chi(\frac{g_1(\alpha)\cdots g_{k}(\alpha)}{\beta}).$$
Note that $N_{k}(\beta) >0$ if and only if $M_{k}(\beta) >0$.
Now, separating the trivial character, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
M_{k}(\beta) &=&
\frac{q^{kd}}{q^n-1}+\frac{1}{q^n-1} \sum_{g_1,\cdots,g_k\in P_d}\Lambda(g_1)\cdots \Lambda(g_k) \sum_{\chi\neq 1} \chi(\frac{g_1(\alpha)\cdots g_{k}(\alpha)}{\beta}) \\
&=& \frac{q^{kd}}{q^n-1}+\frac{1}{q^n-1} \sum_{\chi\neq 1} \chi^{-1}(\beta) (\sum_{g \in P_d} \Lambda(g) \chi(g(\alpha)))^k.
\end{eqnarray*}
Applying the Weil bound in Lemma 7, we deduce that
\[|M_{k}(\beta)-\frac{q^{kd}}{q^n-1}|<(n-1)^k \sqrt{q^{dk}}.\]
In order for $M_k(\beta) >0$ for all $\beta$, it suffices to have the inequality
\[q^{kd}\geq q^n (n-1)^k q^{kd/2},\]
that is,
\[ q^{kd -2n} \geq (n-1)^{2k}.\]
This is satisfied if
\[k\geq  \frac{2n}{d- 2\log_q(n-1)} =      2\frac{n}{d}+\frac{4\frac{n}{d}\log(n-1)}{d\log{q}-2\log(n-1)}.\]
The theorem is proved. \hfill $\Box$

For a proper divisor $d$ of $n$,
we now make some comparisons between Chung's graph $G_1(\frac{n}{d},q^d,\beta)$ and our more general
construction $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$, where $\beta$ is a root of an irreducible polynomial of degree $n/d$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q^d}[x]$
and $\alpha$ is a root of an irreducible polynomial of degree $n$ in $\mathbb{F}_{q}[x]$.
It is clear that both graphs have $q^n-1$ vertices.
Assume that $n<q^{d/2}+1$. In this case, both $G_1(\frac{n}{d},q^d,\beta)$ and $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ are connected, and their diameter bounds
\[
D_1\leq 2\frac{n}{d}+1+\frac{4\frac{n}{d}\log (\frac{n}{d}-1)}{d\log q-2\log (\frac{n}{d}-1)}, \
D_2\leq 2\frac{n}{d}+1+\frac{4\frac{n}{d}\log (n-1)}{d\log q-2\log (n-1)}\]
are comparable.
But $G_1(\frac{n}{d},q^d,\alpha)$ is $q^d-$regular and $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$
is $|P_d|$-regular, where $|P_d|\sim \frac{q^d}{d}<q^d$. Thus, $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ can be significantly
better than $G_1(\frac{n}{d},q^d,\alpha)$ if $n<q^{d/2}+1$, since $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$ has far fewer edges.

\begin{corollary}
If $q^d>(n-1)^{4\frac{n}{d}+2}$, then $D\leq 2\frac{n}{d}+1$.
\end{corollary}

If $q$ is sufficiently large, it may be possible to improve the above diameter bound to $D \leq \frac{n}{d} +2$.
This is indeed the case for $d=1$, as shown by Katz \cite{katz} and Cohen \cite{cohen}.

A computational question is to ask for a fast algorithm, with running time bounded by $O(n\log q)^{O(1)}$,
to compute the diameter $D$ of the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$. This is expected to be a very difficult problem. Even assuming the
factorization of $q^n-1$, we still do not know a fast algorithm to compute the diameter. We believe that computing the diameter is related to the discrete logarithm
problem and the subset sum problem, both are difficult problems used in cryptography.

\section{Expander graphs}

In this section, we show that our graph  $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ has good expanding properties.
The adjacency matrix $M=(m_{\beta_1\beta_2})$ is a $(q^n-1) \times (q^n-1)$ matrix, where
the entry $m_{\beta_1\beta_2} = 1$ if $\beta_1\rightarrow \beta_2$ is an edge and it is zero otherwise.  The adjacency operator $M$ acts
on the $(q^n-1)$-dimensional complex vector space $\mathbb{C}^{\Gamma_f}$ of functions on $\Gamma_f$. If $h(x)$ is a complex function on $\Gamma_f$, then
$$M(h)(x) =\sum_{x\rightarrow y} h(y) = \sum_{g\in P_d} h(xg(\alpha)),$$
where $y$ runs over all elements of $\Gamma_f$ such that $x\rightarrow y$ is an edge of $G_d(n,q, \alpha)$.
If $h(x)=\chi(x)$ is a multiplicative character of $\Gamma_f$, then one checks that
$$M(\chi)(x) = \sum_{g\in P_d} \chi(xg(\alpha))= \lambda_d(\chi) \chi(x),$$
where
$$\lambda_d(\chi) = \sum_{g\in P_d} \chi(g(\alpha)).$$
This shows that each character $\chi$ is an eigenvector of the operator $M$. By Artin's lemma, the set of characters on $\Gamma_f$
is $\mathbb{C}$-linearly independent. Since the number of characters is equal to $q^n-1$, it follows that $\mathbb{C}^{\Gamma_f}$ has a
basis consisting of the eigenvectors $\chi$ of $M$, where $\chi$ runs through all characters of $\Gamma_f$.  If $\chi$ is
a character which is trivial on the subgroup generated by $H=<g(\alpha) |g \in P_d>$ of $\Gamma_f$, then the eigenvalue
$$\lambda_d(\chi) = \sum_{ g\in P_d} 1  = |P_d|$$
which is the trivial eigenvalue $\lambda_{triv}=|P_d|$. If $\chi$ is a character which is non-trivial on $H$, its eigenvalue is called a non-trivial eigenvalue which
satisfies the bound
\begin{eqnarray*}
|\lambda_d(\chi)| &= &  |\sum_{g\in P_d} \chi(g(\alpha))| \\
&=& |\frac{1}{d}\sum_{g\in P_d} \Lambda(g)\chi(g(\alpha)) + \sum_{g\in P_d, \Lambda(g)<d}(1 -\frac{\Lambda(g)}{d}) \chi(g(\alpha))| \\
&\leq & \frac{n-1}{d} q^{d/2} +  \sum_{g\in P_d, \Lambda(g)<d} (1 -\frac{\Lambda(g)}{d})     \\
&\leq &  \frac{n-1}{d} q^{d/2} + q^{d/2} \leq \frac{n+d-1}{d}q^{d/2}.\\
\end{eqnarray*}
Since
$$\frac{q^d}{d} =\sum_{g \in P_d} \frac{\Lambda(g)}{d} \leq \sum_{g\in P_d} 1 = |P_d|, $$
we deduce

\begin{theorem} Let $\delta$ be a constant with $0<\delta< 1$. Assume that $(n+d-1)\leq q^{d/2}(1 -\delta)$. Then each non-trivial
eigenvalue $\lambda$  of the adjacency operator $M$ for the graph $G_d(n,q, \alpha)$ satisfies the bound
$$|\lambda| \leq \frac{q^{d}}{d}(1-\delta)  \leq |P_d|(1-\delta) =\lambda_{triv}  (1-\delta).$$
In particular, the graph $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ is an expander graph.
\end{theorem}

Note that the number of connected components of $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ is equal to the multiplicity of the trivial eigenvalue $|P_d|$ of the adjacency matrix $M$.
If one uses the matrix $M$ and linear algebra directly to compute the number of connected components, then the running time will be $O(q^n)^{O(1)}$,
which is fully exponential in terms of $n\log q$. This trivial algorithm is far slower than the conditional result in Theorem 5.

Finally, we explain that it is best to view  our graph  $G_d(n, q, \alpha)$ as a weighted graph. For this purpose, let $G_d^*(n,q,\alpha)$ be the weighted graph
with the same vertices and edges as $G_d(n,q,\alpha)$. Given an edge $\beta_1\rightarrow \beta_2$ in $G_d^*(n, q, \alpha)$, we define
the weight of the edge $\beta_1\rightarrow \beta_2$ to be $\Lambda(\beta_2/\beta_1)= \Lambda(g)$, where $\beta_2/\beta_1 = g(\alpha)$
for a unique monic primary polynomial $g \in P_d$. The weighted adjacency matrix $M^*=(m_{\beta_1\beta_2})$ is a $(q^n-1) \times (q^n-1)$ matrix, where
the entry $m_{\beta_1\beta_2} = \Lambda(\beta_2/\beta_1)$ if $\beta_1\rightarrow \beta_2$ is an edge and it is zero otherwise.  The adjacency operator $M^*$ acts
on the $(q^n-1)$-dimensional complex vector space $\mathbb{C}^{\Gamma_f}$ of functions on $\Gamma_f$. If $h(x)$ is a complex function on $\Gamma_f$, then
$$M^*(h)(x) =\sum_{x\rightarrow y} \Lambda(\frac{y}{x}) h(y) = \sum_{g\in P_d} \Lambda(g) h(xg(\alpha)),$$
where $y$ runs over all elements of $\Gamma_f$ such that $x\rightarrow y$ is an edge of $G_d^*(n,q, \alpha)$.
If $h(x)=\chi(x)$ is a multiplicative character of $\Gamma_f$, then one checks that
$$M^*(\chi)(x) = \sum_{g\in P_d} \Lambda(g) \chi(xg(\alpha))= S_d(\chi) \chi(x),$$
where
$$S_d(\chi) = \sum_{g\in P_d} \Lambda(g)\chi(g(\alpha)).$$
This shows that each character $\chi$ is an eigenvector of the operator $M^*$.  If $\chi$ is
a character which is trivial on the subgroup generated by $H=<g(\alpha) |g \in P_d>$ of $\Gamma_f$, then the eigenvalue
$$S_d(\chi) = \sum_{ g\in P_d} \Lambda (g)  = q^d$$
which is the trivial eigenvalue $\lambda_{triv}=q^d$. If $\chi$ is a character which is non-trivial on $H$, its eigenvalue is called a non-trivial eigenvalue which
satisfies the bound
$$|S_d(\chi)| =   |\sum_{g\in P_d} \Lambda(g)\chi(g(\alpha))| \leq (n-1)\sqrt{q^d}. $$
We obtain

\begin{theorem} Let $\delta$ be a constant with $0<\delta< 1$. Assume that $(n-1) \leq q^{d/2}(1 -\delta)$. Then each non-trivial
eigenvalue $\lambda$  of the adjacency operator $M^*$ for the weighted graph $G_d^*(n,q, \alpha)$ satisfies the bound
$$|\lambda| \leq \lambda_{triv}  (1-\delta).$$
In particular, the weighted graph $G_d^*(n, q, \alpha)$ is an expander graph.
\end{theorem}

The condition $(n-1) \leq q^{d/2}(1 -\delta)$ in this weighted theorem is weaker and simpler than the condition $(n+d-1)\leq q^{d/2}(1 -\delta)$ in the previous
un-weighted theorem.

\section*{Acknowledgement}
{\small
 The research is partially supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 10990011, 61170289 and 11271256).}