Primes of the form n^2+n+p have density 1

Abstract: We consider the representation of primes as a sum of a prime and twice a triangular number. We prove that a subset of the primes having density 1 is expressible in this form. We conjecture that every odd prime number is expressible as a sum of a twin prime and twice a triangular number. We show that this conjecture implies the existence of infinitely many twin primes.

\section{Introduction}

Our main result in this paper is the following theorem.

\begin{thm}\label{main}
There exists a density 1 subset $S$ of the prime numbers  such that for every $q\in S$, there exists a prime $p$ and an integer  $n\geq 1$ such that $q=n^2+n+p$.
\end{thm}

While Dirichlet's Theorem asserts that for each relatively prime pair $a,b\in\mathbb{N}$ the sequence $\{an+b\}_{n\geq 1}$ contains infinitely many prime numbers, the question of how often an irreducible quadratic polynomial with integer coefficients assumes a prime value when evaluated at natural numbers is still an open problem. In this regard,  Buniakowski's conjecture is well known.

\begin{conj}[Buniakowski] Let $f(x)\in\mathbb{Z}[x]$ be a quadratic irreducible polynomial such that the sequence $\{f(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ does not have a common factor. Then, there exist infinitely many primes in the sequence.
\end{conj}

However,  it is even unknown if a general polynomial meeting the conditions as in Buniakowski's conjecture will always produce at least one prime number in the sequence $\{f(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$.

Notice that each polynomial $f_p(x)=x^2+x+p$, for primes $p\geq 3$, satisfies the conditions in Buniakowski's conjecture.
Theorem \ref{main} says that a density 1 set of primes occur in the
sequences $\{f_p(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ as we range over all primes $p\geq 3$. Our proof also gives a lower bound for the number of primes in the sequence $\{f_p(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ for each
$p$.
Such a lower bound was also given by Granville and Mollin  \cite{granville};
however our result uses a different region
and gives control of the error term which allows us to prove
Theorem \ref{main}.

Sun \cite{sun}  conjectures that any odd integer larger than 3 can be written in the form $n^2+n+p$, where $p$
is a prime.
Theorem \ref{main} can be seen as evidence towards Sun's conjecture.

Our result can also be seen as evidence towards the following conjecture\footnote{This conjecture arose from an entry into the Ireland BT Young Scientist Competition} which originally motivated this work.

\begin{conj}\label{conj}
For every prime number $q\geq 5$, there exists a twin prime $p$ and an integer  $n\geq 1$ such that
$q=n^2+n+p$.
\end{conj}

To sum up,
\begin{itemize}
\item Conjecture \ref{conj} states that the set of prime numbers is contained in the union of the sequences $\{f_p(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ as $p$ runs over all twin primes.
\item Theorem \ref{main} states that a density 1 subset of primes is contained in the union of the sequences $\{f_p(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ as $p$ runs over all primes.
\item Sun's conjecture states that all odd integers larger than 3 are
in the union of the sequences $\{f_p(n)\}_{n\geq 1}$ as $p$ runs over all primes.
\end{itemize}

This paper is laid out as follows.
In Section \ref{asy} we prove the following asymptotic formula, which apart from being interesting by itself, will allow us to prove Theorem \ref{main} in Section \ref{wrapup}.

\begin{thm}
For a prime $p\geq 2$ let $\kappa=\kappa(p)=4p-1$, and fix  $A,B>0$.
For $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ large enough
in the region $x^2\log(x)^{-A}\leq y\leq x^2$ we have
$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}\kappa\leq y\\ \mu^2(\kappa)=1\end{array}}\left|\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n^2+n+p)-S(\kappa)\frac{x}{2}\right|^2=O\left(\frac{yx^2}{(\log x)^B}\right).
$$
\label{r1intro}
\end{thm}

In Section \ref{twins} we prove that the validity of Conjecture \ref{conj} would imply the existence of infinitely many pairs of twin primes. What is more, the validity of our conjecture yields a lower bound for the asymptotic growth of the set of twin primes.
Section \ref{compev} addresses computational evidence -- that
Conjecture \ref{conj} holds for the first 100 million primes.

Theorem \ref{r1intro} is an analogue to the main result in Baier and Zhao \cite{baier}, where the authors study the asymptotic distribution of primes expressible as $n^2+k$, for square free $k\geq 0$, in the same logarithmic region as we do. Our proof is a  modification of the proof in \cite{baier}; the control of the negligible terms relies on the same arguments as in their paper and so we refer the reader to \cite{baier} for that, while we derive in full detail the dominant term appearing in Theorem \ref{r1intro}, since our argument is not immediate from theirs.

Finally, we thank Liangyi Zhao and Nigel Boston and an anonymous aide for their kind and useful answers to our questions.

From now on, by a twin prime we mean a prime number $p$ such that either $p-2$ or $p+2$ is also prime. For $x\in\mathbb{R}$, let us denote by $\pi(x)$ the number of prime numbers less than or equal to $x$ and by $\pi_2(x)$, the number of twin primes less than or equal $x$. For functions $\psi,\phi:[0,\infty)\to\mathbb{R}$, we write $\psi(x)\gg\phi(x)$ if
$\psi(x)\geq\phi(x)$ for $x$ big enough. In particular, it is well known that
$$
\pi(x)\gg\frac{x}{\log(x)}.
$$

\section{An asymptotic formula}\label{asy}

Throughout the rest of the paper, let $\Lambda$ be the von Mangoldt function, $\mu$ the M\"obius function, and for $k\geq 1$, denote
$$
S(k)=\prod_{p>2}\left(1-\frac{\left(\frac{-k}{p}\right)}{p-1}\right)
$$
where the product is over primes $p>2$ and $\left(\frac{-k}{p}\right)$ is the Legendre symbol.

The following result due to Baier and Zhao describes the asymptotic distribution of primes in the progressions $n^2+k$, for square free $k$:

\begin{thm}[Baier, Zhao \cite{baier}] Given $A,B>0$, for $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ with $x^2\log(x)^{-A}\leq y\leq x^2$, and for $k\in\mathbb{N}$, it is
$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}k\leq y\\ \mu^2(k)=1\end{array}}\left|\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n^2+k)-S(k)x\right|^2=O\left(\frac{yx^2}{(\log(x))^B}\right).
$$
\label{bz}
\end{thm}

Our aim in this section is to prove the following variation, from which we will deduce Theorem \ref{main} as a corollary:

\begin{thm}
For a prime $p\geq 2$ let $\kappa=\kappa(p)=4p-1$.
Given $A,B>0$, for $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ with $x^2\log(x)^{-A}\leq y\leq x^2$ we have
$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}\kappa\leq y\\ \mu^2(\kappa)=1\end{array}}\left|\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n^2+n+p)-S(\kappa)\frac{x}{2}\right|^2=O\left(\frac{yx^2}{(\log(x))^B}\right).
$$
\label{r1}
\end{thm}

We give the proof of Theorem \ref{r1} in three subsections.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{r1} Part 1: The circle method}

We start writing

$$
\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n^2+n+p)=\int_0^1\sum_{m\leq z}\Lambda(m)e(\alpha m)\sum_{n\leq x}e(-\alpha(n^2+n+p))d\alpha,
$$

where, throughout the paper, $e(u)=exp(2\pi i u)$, $z=x^2+x+y$. Next, we write:
$$
\sum_{n\leq x}\Lambda(n^2+n+p)=\int_0^1\sum_{m\leq z}\Lambda(m)e(\alpha m)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}n\leq 2x+1\\(n,2)=1\end{array}}e\left(\frac{-\alpha}{4}(n^2+\kappa)\right)d\alpha.
$$

For $x,y>0$ take $Q_1=\log(x)^c$ ($c$ fixed) and $Q=x^{1-\epsilon}$, so that if $x>>1$, $Q>Q_1$. Our argument, as Baier-Zhao's uses Hardy-Littlewood's circle method (\cite{circle}). We give the necessary notations next.

\begin{defn}The major arc is the set
$$
M=\bigcup_{q\leq Q_1}\bigcup_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}J_{q,a},
$$
where $J_{q,a}=\left[\frac{a}{q}-\frac{1}{qQ},\frac{a}{q}+\frac{1}{qQ}\right]$. The minor arc is the set
$$
\frak{m}=\left[\frac{1}{Q},1+\frac{1}{Q}\right]\setminus M.
$$
\end{defn}

The integral over the major arc will contribute the singular series, which gives rise to the main term, as well as a tail term $\Phi(\kappa)$ together with other error terms. The integral over the minor arc gives also error terms. All error terms are controlled in Baier-Zhao's paper and we will refer the reader to the relevant sections of the work. Next we derive the dominant term in Theorem \ref{r1intro} from the integral over the major arc.

Let us denote

$$
S_1(\alpha)=\sum_{m\leq z}\Lambda(m)e(\alpha m),\;\;\;S_2(\alpha)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\\mbox{ odd}\end{array}}e\left(-\frac{\alpha}{4} r^2\right).
$$

For $\alpha=\frac{a}{q}+\beta\in M$, it is

$$S_1(\alpha)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}m\leq z\\(m,q)=1\end{array}}\Lambda(m)e\left(\frac{am}{q}\right)e(\beta m)+O(log(z)^2).$$

Likewise, for $(am,q)=1$,

\begin{equation}
e\left(\frac{am}{q}\right)=\frac{1}{\phi(q)}\sum_{\chi\pmod{q}}\chi(am)\tau(\overline{\chi}),
\label{eq1}
\end{equation}

where for a Dirichlet character $\chi$, $\tau(\chi)$ stands for its attached Gauss sum and $\phi$ is the Euler totient function. By using (\ref{eq1}), we can write

$$
S_1(\alpha)=T_1(\alpha)+E_1(\alpha)+O(log(z)^2),
$$
where
$$
T_1(\alpha)=\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\sum_{m\leq z}e(\beta m),
$$
and
$$
E_1(\alpha)=\frac{1}{\phi(q)}\sum_{\chi\pmod{q}}\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(a)\sum_{m\leq z}'\chi(m)\Lambda(m)e(\beta m),
$$
the $'$ meaning that for the trivial character, what appears in the sum is $\Lambda(m)-1$.

Next, also by using (\ref{eq1}), we can write
\begin{equation}
\sum_{d\mid 4q}\frac{1}{\phi(q_1^*)}\sum_{\chi\pmod{q_1^*}}\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(-ad^*)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\(r,4q)=d\\r\mbox{ odd}\end{array}}\chi^2(r^*)e\left(-\frac{\beta}{4} r^2\right),
\label{eq1coma5}
\end{equation}

with $r^*=r/d$, $q^*=4q/d$, $d^*=d/(d,q^*)$, $q_1^*=q^*/(d,q^*)$. Now, observe crucially (this does not happen in Baier-Zhao's proof), that in the most inner sum in (\ref{eq1coma5}), the indices over which we are summing are odd. Since the gcd's of these $r$ with $4q$ are $d$, it turns out that the $d's$ we are summing over in the outer sum are also odd, hence, the above expression becomes:

$$
\sum_{d\mid q}\frac{1}{\phi(q_1^*)}\sum_{\chi\pmod{q_1^*}}\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(-ad^*)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\(r,4q)=d\\r\mbox{ odd}\end{array}}\chi^2(r^*)e\left(-\frac{\beta}{4} r^2\right),
$$

And this, can also be decomposed as

$$S_2(\alpha)=T_2(\alpha)+E_2(\alpha),$$

where

$$
T_2(\alpha)=\sum_{d\mid q}\frac{1}{\phi(q_1^*)}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\(l,q_1^*)=1\end{array}}^{q_1^*}e\left(\frac{-ad^*l^2}{q_1^*}\right)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\\mbox{ odd}\\(r,4q)=d\end{array}}e\left(-\frac{\beta}{4} r^2\right),
$$

and

$$
E_2(\alpha)=\sum_{d\mid q}\frac{1}{\phi(q_1^*)}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}\chi\pmod{q_1^*}\\\chi^2\neq 1\end{array}}\tau(\overline{\chi})\chi(-ad^*)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\(r,4q)=d\\r\mbox{ odd}\end{array}}\chi^2(r^*)e\left(-\frac{\beta}{4} r^2\right).
$$

All told, the integral $\displaystyle\int_M\sum_{m\leq z}\Lambda(m)e(\alpha m)\sum_{n\leq x}e(-\alpha(n^2+n+p))d\alpha$ has been decomposed as

$$
\int_M(T_1(\alpha)+E_1(\alpha)+O(log(x)^2))(T_2(\alpha)+E_2(\alpha))e\left(-\frac{\alpha}{4}\kappa\right)d\alpha.
$$

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{r1} Part 2: The singular series}

\bigskip

Next, we will prove that
$$
\int_MT_1(\alpha)T_2(\alpha)e\left(-\frac{\alpha}{4}\kappa\right)d\alpha=S(\kappa)\frac{x}{2}+O\left(\sqrt{x}\log(x)^{c_1}\right),
$$
as the rest of integrals are negligible, as proved in \cite{baier}.

So, we start by expressing $\displaystyle\int_MT_1(\alpha)T_2(\alpha)e\left(-\frac{\alpha}{4}\kappa\right)d\alpha$ as

\begin{equation}
\sum_{q\leq Q_1}\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a\kappa}{4q}\right)\sum_{d\mid q}\frac{G(a,q_1^*)}{\phi(q^*_1)}\int_{|\beta|\leq 1/qQ}\Pi_{q,d}(\beta)d\beta,
\label{integral}
\end{equation}

with

\begin{equation}
G(a,q_1^*)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\(l,q_1^*)=1\end{array}}^{q_1^*}e\left(\frac{-ad^*l^2}{q_1^*}\right)
\label{pre1}
\end{equation}

and

\begin{equation}
\Pi_{q,d}(\beta)=\sum_{m\leq z}e(\beta m)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\(r,4q)=d\\r\mbox{ odd}\end{array}}e\left(-\frac{\beta}{4} r^2\right)e\left(-\frac{\kappa\beta}{4}\right).
\label{pre2}
\end{equation}

Now, using the bound for the geometric series over $m$ in (\ref{pre2}), Cauchy and Parseval inequalities, the integral of the right hand side of (\ref{integral}) is expressed as

\begin{equation}
\int_0^1\sum_{m\leq z}e(\beta m)\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\r\mbox{ odd}\\(r,4q)=d\end{array}}e\left(-\frac{\beta r^2}{4}\right)e\left(-\frac{\kappa\beta}{4}\right)d\beta+O\left(\left(qQ\frac{x}{d}\right)^{1/2}\right).
\label{mainterm}
\end{equation}

The first term of (\ref{mainterm}) is, by orthogonality of the exponential

$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}m\leq z\\m=r^2+\kappa\end{array}}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r\leq 2x+1\\(r,4q)=d\\r\mbox{ odd}\end{array}}1=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r^*\leq (2x+1)/d\\(r^*,4q/d)=1\\r^*\mbox{  odd}\end{array}}1=\frac{\phi(4q/d)}{8q}(2x+1)+O\left(\phi(4q/d)\right).
$$

Since $\phi(4q/d)\ll\sqrt{qQ}$, the integral \ref{integral} becomes

\begin{equation}
\sum_{q\leq Q_1}\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a\kappa}{4q}\right)\sum_{d\mid q}\frac{G(a,q_1^*)}{\phi(q^*_1)}\left(\frac{\phi(4q/d)}{8q}(2x+1)+O\left((qQx/d)^{1/2}\right)\right).
\label{integral2}
\end{equation}

We only have to consider square free $q's$, since $\mu(q)=0$ otherwise. For these $q$'s, we have $d^*=d$, $q_1^*=4q/d$, and (\ref{integral2}) becomes

\begin{equation}
\frac{x}{4}\sum_{q\leq Q_1}\frac{\mu(q)}{q\phi(q)}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a\kappa}{4q}\right)\sum_{d\mid q}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\(l,4q/d)=1\end{array}}^{4q/d}e\left(\frac{-a(dl)^2}{4q}\right)+O(\sqrt{xQ}log(x)^{c_1})
\label{integral3}
\end{equation}

for some fixed $c_1>0$.

Next, we study the term $\Sigma(q):=\displaystyle \sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a\kappa}{4q}\right)\sum_{d\mid q}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}l=1\\(l,q^*)=1\end{array}}^{4q/d}e\left(\frac{-a(dl)^2}{4q}\right)$ in (\ref{integral3}), which can easily be expressed as

$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r=1\\(r,2)=1\end{array}}^{4q}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a}{4q}(\kappa+r^2)\right).
$$
The treatment of these terms is also one of the key differences between our work and Baier-Zhao's.

First, notice that the only $r's$ that remain in the outer sum above are the odd ones, since in (\ref{integral3}), the $l's$ in the inner sum are the odd ones, and $d$ is also odd. In particular, this means that the numbers $\kappa+r^2$ are divisible by $4$.

\begin{prop}If $q$ is prime, then
$$
\Sigma(q)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{l}2q\left(\frac{-\kappa}{q}\right),\mbox{ if }q\neq2,\\0\mbox{ if }q=2.\end{array}\right.
$$
with $\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)$ the Legendre symbol.
\label{legendreP}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
Suppose that $q$ is an odd prime. We hav

$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a}{4q}(\kappa+r^2)\right)=\sum_{a=1}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a}{4q}(\kappa+r^2)\right)-1,
$$

Hence,

$$
\Sigma(q)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r=1\\4q\mid\kappa+r^2\end{array}}^{4q}\sum_{a=1}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a}{4q}(\kappa+r^2)\right)-2q,
$$

i.e

$$
\Sigma(q)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r=1\\4q\mid\kappa+r^2\end{array}}^{4q}q-2q.
$$

Now, notice that given $r\in\{1,...,q\}$ such that $q\mid\kappa+r^2$, we have two odd $r_1,r_2\in\{1,...,4q\}$ such that $q\mid\kappa+r_i^2$ ($i=1,2$) and the $r_i$ are congruent modulo $q$: if $r$ is odd, take $r_1=r$ and $r_2=2q+r$, otherwise, take $r_1=q+r$ and $r_2=3q+r$. Notice that $r$ odd is equivalent to $4\mid\kappa+r^2$. Reciprocally, odd $r's$ in $\{1,...,4q\}$ with $q\mid\kappa+r^2$ come in pair (both elements in each pair are congruent mod $q$). Hence,

$$
\Sigma(q)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}r=1\\q\mid\kappa+r^2\end{array}}^{q}2q-2q=2q\left(\frac{-\kappa}{q}\right).
$$

For $q=2$, the left sum runs through the odd indices $r\in\{1,...,8\}$ such that $8\mid r^2+\kappa$, which is the empty set, hence this sum is $0$ and so is $\Sigma(2)$.

\end{proof}

Now, we can prove the following characterisation of $\Sigma(q)$, for general square free odd $q\geq 1$.

\begin{thm}For a square free $q\geq 3$, we have
$$
\Sigma(q)=\left\lbrace\begin{array}{l}2q\left(\frac{-\kappa}{q}\right),\mbox{ if }2\nmid q,\\0\mbox{ if }2\mid q.\end{array}\right.
$$
with $\left(\frac{a}{b}\right)$ the Jacobi symbol.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
We need to check that the assignment $n\mapsto \Sigma(n)/2$ is a multiplicative arithmetic function. For this, it is convenient to observe first that, by setting $r=2n+1$, we have
$$
\Sigma(q)=2\sum_{n=0}^{q-1}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a=1\\(a,q)=1\end{array}}^{q}e\left(-\frac{a}{q}(p+n^2+n)\right).
$$
So, for odd integers $q_1,q_2>3$ with $(q_1,q_2)=1$, we have
$$
\Sigma(q_1)/2=\sum_{n_1=0}^{q_1-1}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a_1=1\\(a_1,q_1)=1\end{array}}^{q_1}e\left(-\frac{a_1}{q_1}(p+(q_2n_1)^2+(q_2n_1))\right),
$$
and analogously for $\Sigma(q_2)$, since being $(q_1,q_2)=1$, if $n_1$ runs over all residue classes modulo $q_1$, $q_2n_1$ do so, and analogously for $q_1n_2$. Hence

\begin{equation}
\Sigma(q_1)\Sigma(q_2)/4=\sum_{n_1=0}^{q_1-1}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a_1=1\\(a_1,q_1)=1\end{array}}^{q_1}\sum_{n_2=0}^{q_2-1}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}a_2=1\\(a_2,q_2)=1\end{array}}^{q_2}e(f(a_1,a_2,q_1,q_2,r_1,r_2)),
\label{multiplicative}
\end{equation}

with

$$
f(a_1,a_2,q_1,q_2,r_1,r_2)=-p\frac{a_1q_2+a_2q_1}{q_1q_2}-\frac{a_1q_2(q_2n_1)^2+a_2q_1(q_1n_2)^2}{q_1q_2}-\frac{a_1q_2^2n_1+a_2q_1^2n_2}{q_1q_2}
$$

which is congruent, modulo $1$, with

$$
-p\frac{a_1q_2+a_2q_1}{q_1q_2}-\frac{(a_1q_2+a_2q_1)((n_1q_2+n_2q_1)^2+(n_1q_2+n_2q_1))}{q_2q_1}.
$$

Hence, if both $q_1$ and $q_2$ are odd, Equation \ref{multiplicative} yields

$$
2\Sigma(q_1q_2)=\Sigma(q_1)\Sigma(q_2).
$$

It is also easy to check with a similar argument as in Prop. \ref{legendreP}, that for $q$ odd prime, $\Sigma(2q)=0$.
\end{proof}

Hence, we have shown that (\ref{integral3}) becomes

$$
\frac{x}{2}\sum_{\begin{array}{c}q\leq Q_1\\2\nmid q\end{array}}\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\left(\frac{1-4p}{q}\right)+O(\sqrt{xQ}log(x)^{c_1}),
$$

which, setting $\kappa=\kappa(p)=1-4p$, can be rewritten as

$$
S(\kappa)\frac{x}{2}-\Phi(Q_1,p)\frac{x}{2}+O(\sqrt{xQ}log(x)^{c_1}),
$$

with

$$
S(\kappa)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}q=1\\2\nmid q\end{array}}^{\infty}\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\left(\frac{1-4p}{q}\right)=\prod_{\begin{array}{c}q>2\\q\mbox{ prime}\end{array}}1-\frac{\left(\frac{1-4p}{q}\right)}{q-1}
$$

and

$$
\Phi(Q_1,p)=\sum_{\begin{array}{c}q>Q_1\\2\nmid q\end{array}}^{\infty}\frac{\mu(q)}{\phi(q)}\left(\frac{1-4p}{q}\right).
$$

Putting the results of this section all together, we arrive to

\begin{equation}
\int_MT_1(\alpha)T_2(\alpha)e(-\kappa\alpha)d\alpha=S(p)\frac{x}{2}+O\left(x|\Phi(Q_1,p)|\sqrt{xQ}log(x)^{c_1}\right).
\label{majorarc}
\end{equation}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{r1} Part 3:  The error terms}

First, we have:

\begin{prop}[\cite{baier}, Section 5] The following inequality holds:
$$
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}k\leq y\\ \mu^2(k)=1\end{array}}|\Phi(Q_1,p)|^2\ll\frac{y}{\log(x)^c}.
$$
\end{prop}

Second, analogously to \cite{baier}, by a similar use of Polya-Vinogradov's estimate, Gallagher's Lemma and Cauchy, Parseval and Besser inequalities, we obtain:

\begin{prop}The following estimate holds:
$$
\sum_{\kappa\leq y}\left|\int_M\left(T_1(\alpha)E_2(\alpha)+T_2(\alpha)E_1(\alpha)+E_1(\alpha)E_2(\alpha)\right)e(-\kappa\alpha)d\alpha\right|^2 \ll
$$
$$
\frac{x^5(\log x)^{c_4}}{Q^2}+\frac{x^4}{(\log(x))^{c_5}}+\frac{yx^3}{Q^2},
$$
for fixed $c_4$ and $c_5$.
\end{prop}

Last, by using Bessel's lemma, Parseval's inequality and Dirichlet approximation in exactly the same way as in \cite{baier}, we can control the integral over the minor arc:

\begin{prop}The following estimate holds:
$$
\sum_{\kappa(p)\leq y}\left|\int_{\frak{m}}\sum_{m\leq z}\Lambda(m)e(\alpha m)\sum_{n\leq x}e(-\alpha(n^2+n+p))\right|^2\leq \frac{x^4}{\log(x)^{c-3}}+\log(x)^3Qx^3.
$$
\end{prop}

This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{r1}.

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}\label{wrapup}

We end our work by proving Theorem \ref{main} as a corollary of Theorem \ref{r1}.
Firstly, let us make precise what we mean by density in this work.

\begin{defn}[Powell, \cite{powell}] A subset of prime numbers $S$ is said to have density\footnote{Notice that what we define here as \emph{density} is defined as \emph{primitive density}  in \cite{powell}, in other words, by density of a subset $S$ of prime numbers we mean the relative density of $S$ with respect to the set of primes.} $\delta$ if
$$
\lim_{x\to\infty}\frac{|\{p\leq x, p\in S\}|}{\pi(x)}=\delta.
$$
\end{defn}

Secondly, we need the following from Mirsky \cite{myrski}.

\begin{lem}Denote by $s(y)$ the number of primes $p\leq y$ such that $4p-1$ is square-free.
Then we have
$$
s(y)\gg y/\log(y).
$$
\label{lemmamyrski}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}This is Theorem 2 of \cite{myrski} for $k=2$.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
There exists a density $1$ subset $S$ of the set of prime numbers such that for every $q\in S$, there exists a prime $p$ and an integer  $n\geq 1$ such that $q=n^2+n+p$.
\end{cor}

\begin{proof}
We start with Theorem \ref{r1}.
Let $x,y\in\mathbb{R}$ with $x^2\log(x)^{-A}\leq y\leq x^2$.
The equality in the statement of  Theorem \ref{r1} also holds if in the inner sum we replace $\Lambda(n^2+n+p)$ by $\log(n^2+n+p)$ and keep only the $n$'s such that $n^2+n+p$ is prime.
For, the remaining prime powers (on which the $\Lambda$ function is supported) will contribute $O\left(\frac{\sqrt{x}}{\log(x)}\right)$ in the inner sum before squaring, and hence $O\left(\frac{x^{3/2}}{\log(x)^2}\right)$ in the inner sum after squaring, hence $O\left(\frac{x^{3/2}y}{\log(x)^2}\right)$ over the full sum, which is negligible
in comparison to $O\left(\frac{x^2y}{(\log(x))^B}\right)$.
Thus

\begin{equation}\label{key}
\sum_{\begin{array}{c}\kappa\leq y\\ \mu^2(\kappa)=1\end{array}}
\left|\sum_{\begin{array}{c}n\leq x\\ n^2+n+p \textrm{ prime}\end{array}}  \log (n^2+n+p)-
S(\kappa)\frac{x}{2}\right|^2=O\left(\frac{x^2y}{(\log(x))^B}\right).
\end{equation}

Take $\kappa=4p-1$, with $p$ prime. If for $x\gg 1$ there does not exist $n$ with $2n+1\leq x$ and such that $n^2+n+p$ is prime, then the inner sum corresponding to such $p$ is
$|S(\kappa)|x/2$.
As in the introduction of \cite{baier},
$|S(\kappa)|\gg 1/\log(x)$.

Thus, letting $N(y)$ be the number of primes $p\leq y/4$ such that $4p-1$ is square-free and $n^2+n+p$ is not prime for any $n$, by  \eqref{key} we have
$$
N(y)x^2/\log(x)^2\ll x^2y/(\log(x))^B.
$$
giving
$$
N(y)\ll y/(\log(x))^{B-2}.
$$
Because of the domain to which $x$ and $y$ belong we get
$$
N(y) \ll y/(\log(y))^{B-2}.
$$

By Lemma \ref{lemmamyrski}  the number of primes $p\leq y/4$ such that $4p-1$ is square-free and $n^2+n+p$ is prime for some $n$ is
$\gg y/\log(y)-N(y).$
Taking $B=4$ we get that the number of these primes is
$$\gg y/log(y)-y/\log(y)^2.$$
Dividing by $\pi(y)$, we obtain, by using the prime number theorem, that the density of these primes is $1$.
\end{proof}

\section{Relation of  Conjecture \ref{conj} with some open questions}\label{twins}

In the previous section we showed that 'most' primes can be written
as $n^2+n+p$ where $p$ is a prime.
Recall Conjecture \ref{conj}, which is the stronger statement that every prime $q$ can be written as $n^2+n+p$ where
$p$ is a twin prime.

\subsection{A conjectural lower bound for twin primes}

For a prime $q\geq 5$ such that $q=p+n(n+1)$ with $p$ a twin prime and $n\geq 1$, let us denote by $p_q$ the smallest twin prime such that there exists some $n_q\geq 1$ with $q=p_q+n_q^2+n_q$. Notice that $p_q$ determines $n_q$: indeed, if $p_q+n_q^2+n_q=p_q+m_q^2+m_q$, since the function $x^2+x$ is injective for $x\geq 0$, we have $n_q=m_q$.

Next, we give an easy lemma.

\begin{lem}Let $q'<q$ be prime numbers expressible as $q=p_q+n_q(n_q+1)$ and $q'=p_{q'}+n_{q'}(n_{q'}+1)$, with minimal $p_q$ and $p_{q'}$. If $n_q=n_{q'}$, then $p_{q'}<p_q$.
\label{easylemma}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}If $n_q=n_{q'}$, then
$$
q=p_q+n_q^2+n_q=p_q+n_{q'}^2+n_{q'}=p_q-p_{q'}+q',
$$
hence $0<q-q'=p_q-p_{q'}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{thm}If Conjecture \ref{conj} is true, then
$$
\pi_2(x)\gg\frac{\sqrt{x}}{\log(x)}.
$$
In particular, there exist infinitely many twin primes.
\label{implica}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}Assume the conjecture to be true and for every prime number $q\geq 5$, consider the
mapping $q\mapsto p_q$. First, the number of integers $m$ such that $m^2+m\leq x$ is $O(\sqrt{x})$. Second, let us split the set of primes less than or equal $x$ as the union of the sets $C_p(x):=\{q\leq x: p_q=p\}$, which are disjoint because of Lemma \ref{easylemma}. Then, for each twin prime $p\leq x$, $|C_p|$ is $O(\sqrt{x})$ and
$$
\pi(x)\ll\pi_2(x)\sqrt{x}.
$$
Since $\pi(x)\gg\frac{x}{\log(x)}$, the result follows.
\end{proof}

\section{Computational evidence}\label{compev}

Our computer verifications using Pari/GP show that, for the first 100 million primes $q$, there exists a twin prime $p_q$ and an integer $n_q\geq 1$ such that $q=p_q+n_q^2+n_q$ with $p_q>q^{1/3}$ and such that $n_q$ does not grow very fast (indeed it seems to grow with the logarithm of $q$). The fact of $p_q$ growing with $q$ is in accordance with Theorem \ref{implica}. In fact, for primes $q$ satisfying our conjecture, we have the following bounds.

\begin{lem}If Conjecture \ref{conj} is true, we have that, for primes $q$ large enough,
$$
n_q\leq\sqrt{q}.
$$
\label{easylemma2}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If Conjecture \ref{conj} holds, the for a prime $q\geq 5$, we have $q=p_q+n_q(n_q+1)\geq 3+n_q^2+n_q$, hence $n_q\leq \frac{-1+\sqrt{4q-11}}{2}\sim\sqrt{q}$, for $q$ big enough.
\end{proof}

As mentioned before, our computer tests outperform this upper-bound. As for a conditional lower bound for $n_q$ we have the following:

\begin{prop}For $q\geq 5$ satisfying Conjecture \ref{conj}, either $p_q\geq q/2$ or $n_q\in[\frac{\sqrt{2q}}{2},\sqrt{q}]$.
\label{cases2}
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}For a prime $q$ such that $q=p_q+n_q^2+n_q$, by Lemma \ref{easylemma2}, $n\leq\sqrt{q}$, for $q$ big enough. On the other hand, either $p_q\leq q/2$ or $n_q^2+n_q\leq q/2$. When $n_q^2+n_q\leq q/2$, $q\leq p_q+q/2$, hence $p_q\geq q/2$, and as it is easy to see, these two facts are equivalent. If, on the other hand, $p_q\leq q/2$, it follows that $n_q^2+n_q=q-p_q\geq q/2$, hence $n_q\geq \frac{-1+\sqrt{1+2q}}{2}\sim\sqrt{2}\sqrt{q}/2$, for $q$ large.
\end{proof}


Minimum area isosceles containers

Abstract: We show that every minimum area isosceles triangle containing a given triangle $T$ shares a side and an angle with $T$. This proves a conjecture of Nandakumar motivated by a computational problem. We use our result to deduce that for every triangle $T$, (1) there are at most $3$ minimum area isosceles triangles that contain $T$, and (2) there exists an isosceles triangle containing $T$ whose area is smaller than $\sqrt2$ times the area of $T$. Both bounds are best possible.

\section{Introduction}\label{s1}

Given two convex bodies, $T'$ and $T$, in the plane, it is not easy to decide whether there is a rigid motion that takes $T'$ into a position where it covers $T$. Suppose, for instance, that we place a $2$-dimensional convex body $T'$ in the $3$-dimensional space, and let $T$ denote the orthogonal projection of $T'$ onto the $x$-$y$ plane. The area of $T'$ is at least as large as the area of $T$, and it looks plausible that $T'$ can be moved to cover $T$. However, the proof of this fact is far from straightforward; see~\cite{DeM86, KoT90}. As Steinhaus~\cite{St64} pointed out, it is not even clear how to decide, whether a given triangle $T'$ can be brought into a position where it covers a fixed triangle $T$. The first such algorithm was found by Post \cite{P} in 1993, and it was based on the following lemma.

\begin{lem}[Post]\label{tPost}
If a triangle $T'$ can be moved to a position where it covers another triangle $T$, then one can also find a covering position of $T'$ with a side that contains one side of $T$.
\end{lem}

In many problems, the body $T'$ is not fixed, but can be chosen from a family of possible ``containers,'' and we want to find a container which is in some sense optimal.
To find a minimum area or minimum perimeter triangle, rectangle, convex $k$-gon, or
ellipse (L\"owner-John ellipse) enclosing a given set of points are
classical problems in geometry with interesting applications in
packing and covering, approximation, convexity, computational
geometry, robotics, and elsewhere \cite{BC, BoD, D, E, Fe, I, JW, Jo, OR, R1, R2}.
Finding optimal circumscribing and inscribed simplices, ellipsoids, polytopes with a fixed number of sides or vertices, etc., are fundamental questions in optimization, functional analysis, and number theory; see e.g. \cite{GLS, KY, K,  Sc, We}.
\smallskip

Motivated by a computational problem, R. Nandakumar~\cite{N} raised the following interesting special instance of the above question: {\em Determine the minimum area of an isosceles
triangle containing a given triangle $T$.} The aim of the present note is to solve this problem and to find all triangles for which the minimum is attained. We call these triangles  {\em minimum area isosceles containers} for $T$. It is easy to verify that every triangle has at least one minimum area isosceles container (see Lemma \ref{c0.0}). However, we will see that in some cases the minimum area isosceles container is not unique.

Our main objective is to prove the following statement conjectured by Nandakumar \cite{N}.

\begin{thm}\label{t0.1}
Let $T$ be a triangle and let $T'\supseteq T$ be one of its minimum area isosceles containers. Then, $T'$ and $T$ have a side in common, and their angles at one of the endpoints of this side are equal.
\end{thm}

For any two points, $A$ and $B$, let $AB$ denote the closed segment connecting them, and let $|AB|$ stand for the length of $AB$. To unify the presentation, in the sequel we fix a triangle $T$ with vertices $A, B, C,$ and side lengths $a=|BC|$, $b=|AC|$, $c=|AB|$. If two sides are of the same length, then $T$ is the unique minimum area isosceles container of itself, so there is nothing to prove. Therefore, from now on we assume without loss of generality that $a<b<c$.
\smallskip

To establish Theorem~\ref{t0.1} and to formulate our further results, we need to introduce some special isosceles triangles associated with the triangle $ABC$, each of which shares a side and an angle with $ABC$.
\smallskip

{\bf Special containers of the first kind.} Let $B'$ denote the point on the ray $\vec{CB}$, for which $|B'C|=|AC|=b$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}). Analogously, let $C'$ (and $C''$) denote the
points on $\vec{AC}$ (resp., $\vec{BC}$) such that $|AC'|=c$ (resp., $|BC''|=c$). Obviously, the triangles $AB'C$, $ABC'$, and $ABC''$ are isosceles. We call them special containers of the first kind associated with $ABC$.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) node[anchor=north]{$B$}
  -- (3,0)
  -- (2,4) node[anchor=south]{$A$}
  -- cycle;

 \draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (3,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2,4) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=gray!30] (2,4)-- (0,0) --(3,0)--cycle;
\draw (1.5,0) node[anchor=south]{$a$};
\draw (2.75,2) node[anchor=north]{$b$};
\draw (0.72,2) node[anchor=north]{$c$};
\draw (0,0)
  -- (4.123,0)
  -- (2,4)
  -- cycle;
\node at (2.7,0.2 ) {$C$}; \node at (4.4,0 ) {$C''$}; \node at
(3.2,-0.35 ) {$C'$}; \draw (3,0)--(3.0675,-0.25)--(0,0);
\draw(3,0)
  -- (-1,0)
  -- (2,4)
-- cycle;

\node at (-1.2,0 ) {$B'$};

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
    \caption{Special containers of the first kind $AB'C, ABC'$, and $ABC''$.}
    \label{fig2}
\end{figure}

\smallskip

{\bf Special containers of the second kind.} Let $B_1$ denote the point on the ray $\vec{AB}$, different from $A$, for which $|B_1C|=|AC|=b$ (see Figure \ref{fig2.1}). Analogously, let $C_1$ (resp., $C_2$) denote the point on $\vec{AC}$ (resp., $\vec{BC}$) for which $|BC_1|=|AB|=c$ and $C_1\neq A$ (resp., $|AC_2|=|AB|=c$ and $C_2\neq B$). The triangles $AB_1C$, $ABC_1$, and $ABC_2$ are called the special containers of the second kind associated with $ABC$.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[thick] (0,0) node[anchor=east]{$B$}
  -- (3,0)
  -- (2,3) node[anchor=south]{$A$}
  -- cycle;

   \draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (3,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2,3) circle (0.05);

\draw[fill=gray!30] (2,3)-- (0,0) --(3,0)--cycle;

\draw (1.5,0) node[anchor=south]{$a$}; \draw (2.7,1.7)
node[anchor=north]{$b$}; \draw (0.8,1.7) node[anchor=north]{$c$};
\draw (2.1,-0.4) node[anchor=north]{$c$}; \draw (0.6,-0.2)
node[anchor=north]{$b$}; \draw (2.9,2) node[anchor=north]{$c$};

\draw (0,0)
  -- (3.8,0)
  -- (2,3)
  -- cycle;

\node at (2.7,0.2 ) {$C$}; \node at (4,-0.1 ) {$C_2$}; \node at
(3.7,-1.2 ) {$C_1$}; \draw (3,0)--(3.4,-1.2)--(0,0);
\draw(0,0)
  -- (-0.24,-0.35)
  -- (3,0)
-- cycle;

\node at (-0.4,-0.45 ) {$B_1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
    \caption{Special containers of the second kind $AB_1C$, $ABC_1$, and $ABC_2$.}
    \label{fig2.1}
\end{figure}

\smallskip

{\bf Special containers of the third kind.} Let $\overline{A}$ be the intersection of the perpendicular bisector of $BC$ and the line $AC$. Since we have $b=|AC|<|AB|=c$, the point
$\overline{A}$ lies outside of $ABC$. Analogously, denote by $\overline{B}$ (resp., $\overline{C}$) the intersection of the perpendicular bisector of $AC$ (resp. $AB$) and the line $BC$. Note that $\overline{A}BC$ and $A\overline{B}C$ do not contain $ABC$ if $\sa BCA\ge 90  ^{\circ}$. The triangles $\overline{A}BC$, $A\overline{B}C$, and $AB\overline{C}$ are called special
containers of the third kind associated with $ABC$, provided that they contain $ABC$.
Thus, if $ABC$ is acute, then it has three special containers of the third kind. Otherwise, it has only one (see Figure \ref{fig2.2}).

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) node[anchor=north]{$B$}
  -- (3,0) node[anchor=north]{$C$}
  -- (2,3) node[anchor=west]{$A$}
  -- cycle;

 \draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (3,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2,3) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=gray!30] (2,3)-- (0,0) --(3,0)--cycle;

\draw (1.5,0)--(1.5, 4.5)--(0,0); \draw (1.5,4.5)-- (2,3); \draw (1,
1.5)--(3.25,0); \draw (2.5, 1.5)--(-2,0);
\draw (0,0)
  -- (3.25,0)
  -- (2,3)
  -- cycle;

\node at (3.5,0 ) {$\overline{C}$}; \node at (1.5,4.8 )
{$\overline{A}$};
\draw(3,0)
  -- (-2,0)
  -- (2,3)
-- cycle;

\node at (-2.3,0 ) {$\overline{B}$};

\draw[thick] (5.5,0) node[anchor=north]{$B$}
  -- (7,3)node[anchor=west]{$A$}
  -- (6.5,0) node[anchor=north]{$C$}
  -- cycle;

\draw[fill=black] (5.5,0) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=black] (7,3) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=black] (6.5,0) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=gray!30] (5.5,0)-- (7, 3) --(6.5,0)--cycle;
\draw (6.5,0)--(9.25, 0)--(7,3);
\draw (9.25, 0)-- (6.25,1.5);

\node at (9.45,0) {$\overline{C}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
    \caption{Special containers of the third kind in the acute and in the non-acute cases.}
    \label{fig2.2}
\end{figure}

\smallskip

All special containers share a common angle and a common side with the original triangle $ABC$. Obviously, there is no other isosceles container having the same property. Indeed, for each vertex of $ABC$, there are at most 3 isosceles triangles that share this vertex and the angle at this vertex with $ABC$, and also have a common side with $ABC$.

Therefore, Theorem \ref{t0.1} is an immediate corollary of the following statement.

\begin{thm}\label{t0.2}
All minimum area isosceles containers for a triangle are special containers of the first kind, or of the second kind, or of the third kind.
\end{thm}

Whenever a minimum area isosceles container of a triangle is acute, we can be more specific.

\begin{thm}\label{prop1.3}
If a minimum area isosceles container of a triangle is acute, then it is a special container of the first kind.
\end{thm}

One is tempted to believe that if a triangle is acute, then all of its minimum area isosceles containers are acute and, hence, all of them are special containers of the first kind. However, this is not the case: Example~\ref{ex1} demonstrates that there are acute triangles with obtuse minimum area isosceles containers. As all special containers of the first kind and the third kind of an acute triangle are acute, Theorem~\ref{prop1.3} implies the following statement.

\begin{cor}\label{corp2}
A minimum area isosceles container for an acute triangle is obtuse if and only if it is a special container of the second kind.
\end{cor}

It follows from Theorem \ref{t0.2} that every triangle has at most $9$ minimum area isosceles containers: at most $3$ special containers of each kind. In the next section, we prove that there are no minimum area isosceles triangles of the third kind (see Lemma~\ref{p2}). Thus, every triangle can have at most $6$ minimum area isosceles triangles. In fact, this bound can be further reduced to $3$.

\begin{thm}\label{peq3}
Every non-isosceles triangle $ABC$ has at most $3$ minimum area isosceles containers, $AB'C$, $ABC'$, and $AB_1C$. In particular, every minimum area isosceles container is a special container of the first or the second kind.

There is a unique triangle $T^*$, up to similarity, which has precisely $3$ different minimum area isosceles containers. Its angles are $\alpha^*\approx 41.831452 ^{\circ}, 2\alpha^*,$ and $180 ^{\circ}-3\alpha^*$, where $\alpha^*$ is the unique solution of  $\sin(\alpha)\sin (2\alpha)-\sin^2(3\alpha)=0$ in the interval $[36 ^{\circ}, 45^{\circ}]$.
\end{thm}

Finally, we discuss how large the area of a minimum area isosceles container for a triangle $T$ can be relative to the area of $T$. We also consider the same question for special containers of the first kind.

\begin{thm}\label{thmrarea}
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item\label{item16a} Every triangle of area $1$ has an isosceles container whose area is smaller than $\sqrt{2}$.
\item\label{item16b} Every triangle of area $1$ has a special container of the first kind, whose area is smaller than $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$.
\end{enumerate}
\smallskip

Both bounds are best possible.
\end{thm}

As (b) is best possible, there exists a triangle of area 1 for which every special container of the first kind has area larger than $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. Therefore, by (a), none of its special containers of the first kind can be a minimum area isosceles container. This disproves an earlier conjecture of Nandakumar, according to which every triangle $T$ admits a minimum area isosceles container which is a special container of the first kind.
\smallskip

Our paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{s2}, we prove some useful inequalities for the areas of special containers. In particular, we prove Theorem \ref{thmrarea} (b). In Section \ref{s3}, we establish some elementary properties of minimum area isosceles containers. Section \ref{smain} contains the proofs of Theorems \ref{t0.2}, and \ref{prop1.3}. Finally, Theorem \ref{peq3}, and \ref{thmrarea} (a) are proved in Section \ref{uj}.

\section{Preliminaries---Proof of Theorem~\ref{thmrarea} (\rm{b})}\label{s2}
In this section, we collect some basic facts about special containers and establish Theorem~\ref{thmrarea} (b).

First, we consider special containers of the first kind, because their areas can be easily compared to the area of the triangle $ABC$. As everywhere else, we assume that the side lengths of $ABC$ satisfy $a<b<c$. The area of $ABC$ is denoted by $t(ABC)$.

\begin{lem}\label{p0.1} For any non-isosceles triangle $ABC$,  we have
\begin{enumerate}
    \item[(a)] $t(ABC'')>t(ABC')$,
    \item[(b)] $t(AB'C)>t(ABC')$ (resp., $t(AB'C)\geq t(ABC')$) \\ if and only if $b^2>ac$ (resp., $b^2\geq ac$ ).
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}

\noindent{\bf Proof.} Let $m$ be the length of the altitude of $ABC$ perpendicular
to the side $BC$. We have $t(ABC)=\frac{a\cdot m}{2}$ and
$t(AB'C)=\frac{b\cdot m}{2}$. Thus, the ratio $t(AB'C)/t(ABC)=
b/a$.

\noindent Similar arguments show that
$$\frac{t(ABC')}{t(ABC)}= \frac{c}{b} \ \ \textrm{ and } \ \ \frac{t(ABC'')}{t(ABC)}=\frac{c}{a}.$$

\begin{enumerate}
    \item[{\it(a)}]
Since $b>a$, we have $t(ABC'')>t(ABC')$.
   \item[{\it (b)}]
    Straightforward.  \hfill $\Box$
\end{enumerate}

\medskip
Next, using Lemma \ref{p0.1}, we determine the supremum of the ratio of the area of the smallest isosceles containers of the first kind to the area of the original triangle $ABC$. This will also provide an upper bound for the ratio of the area of a smallest area {\em isosceles} containers to the area of the original triangle. This fact will be used in the sequel.

\medskip

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thmrarea} (b).}
Let $r^*_1$ denote the supremum of the ratio of the area of a smallest container of the first kind associated with $ABC$ and the area of $ABC$, over all triangles $ABC$ with the above property.
We show that $r^*_1= \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. Suppose without loss of generality that $a=1$. By our assumptions and the triangle inequality, we have $1<b<c<b+1$.
Let
$$r(b,c):=\begin{cases}
b& \textrm{if } b^2\le c,\\
c/b & \textrm{if } b^2> c.
\end{cases}$$
By Lemma \ref{p0.1}, $r(b,c)=\min\Big(
\frac{t(AB'C)}{t(ABC)},\frac{t(ABC')}{t(ABC)}\Big)$, and
\begin{equation*}\label{eq_fa} r_1^*=\sup_{1<b<c<b+1}
r(b,c)
\end{equation*}
If
$b^2\le c<b+1$, then $r(b,c)=b < \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$.

If $b^2>c$ and $b < \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$, then
$r(b,c)=\frac{c}{b}<b < \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. Otherwise,
if
$b\ge\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ (and, hence, $b^2>c$), then
$r(b,c)=\frac{c}{b}<\frac{b+1}{b}=1+\frac{1}{b}\le 1+\frac{2}{1+\sqrt{5}}=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$.
Thus, we obtain that $r(b,c)<r_1^*\le \frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ , for all $1<b<c<b+1$, i.e, the supremum $r_1^*$ is not attained for any triangle $ABC$.

The supremum of $r(b,c)$, restricted to the parabola arc $c=b^2<b+1$ in the $(b,c)$ plane, is $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$. Since every point $(b,c)$ of this arc corresponds to a triangle with side lengths $1,b,c$, we obtain that $r^*_1=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$, as required.
\qed

\bigskip

We show that for any special container of the third kind, there
exists a special container of the second kind whose area is smaller.

\begin{lem}\label{p2}
For any triangle $ABC$ we have
$ t(AB_1C) < t(AB\overline{C})$. If $ABC$ is acute, then we also have $t(ABC_1) < t(A\overline{B}C)$ and $t(ABC_2) < t(\overline{A}BC)$.
Thus, a minimum area isosceles container can never be a special container of the third kind.
\end{lem}

\noindent{\bf Proof.} We verify only the first inequality; the other two statements can be shown analogously.

Assign planar coordinates to the points.
We can assume without loss of generality that $A=(0,0)$, $B=(2,0)$,  $C=(p,q)$, and $\overline{C}=(1,d)$. Then
$t(AB\overline{C})=d$.
The equation of the line passing through $B$, $C$, and
$\overline{C}$ is $dx+y=2d$. Taking $p=1+s$ for some $0<s<1$, we have $q=d(1-s)$ and $B_1=(2(1+s),0)$. Hence,
$t(AB_1C)=d(1-s^2)<d=t(AB\overline{C})$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}

\draw (0,0)--(2,2.6)--(4,0);

 \draw[fill=black] (4,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.6,1.82) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=gray!30] (0,0)-- (2.6,1.82) --(4,0)--cycle;

\draw (0,0)--(2.6,1.82)--(5.2,0)--cycle; \draw (2,2.6)--(2,0); \draw
(2.6,1.82)--(2.6,0); \node at (0.55,-0.3) {$A=(0,0)$}; \node at
(4.65,-0.3) {$B=(2,0)$}; \node at (2.6,-0.3) {$(1+s,0)$}; \node at
(2.7,2.8) {$\overline{C}=(1,d)$};

\node at (5.5,0) {$B_1$}; \node at (4.3,1.9) {$C=(1+s,d(1-s))$};
\draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (2.6,0)
circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (5.2,0) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=black] (4,0) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (2.6,1.82)
circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (2,2.6) circle (0.05);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Proof of Lemma \ref{p2}.}
    \label{fig4.2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\hfill $\Box$

\section{Four useful lemmas}\label{s3}

The aim of this section is to prepare the ground for the proofs of the main results that will be given in the next two sections.

First, we show that the problem is well-defined, that is, for every triangle $ABC$, there is at least one isosceles triangle containing $ABC$, whose area is smaller than or equal to the area of any other isosceles container.
\begin{lem}\label{c0.0}
Every triangle $ABC$ has at least one minimum area isosceles container.
 \end{lem}

\noindent{\bf Proof.}
It follows from Theorem \ref{thmrarea} (b) that the area of a minimum area isosceles container is at most $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}$ times larger than the area of the original triangle $ABC$. Therefore, the vertices of any minimum area isosceles container must lie within a bounded distance from
$ABC$, and the statement follows by a standard compactness argument.  \hfill  $\Box$

\begin{lem}\label{c0}
Let $ABC$ be a triangle and $SPR$ a minimum area
isosceles container for $ABC$. Then $A,B,C$ must lie on the boundary of $SPR$, and each side of $SPR$ contains at least one of them.
\end{lem}

\noindent{\bf Proof.}
First, we show that each side of $SPR$ contains a vertex of $ABC$. Indeed, if one of the sides did not contain any vertex of $ABC$, then we could slightly move it, parallel to itself, to obtain a smaller isosceles container.

Assume next, for contradiction, that $A$, say, does not lie on the boundary of $SPR$. Then we could slightly rotate $ABC$ about $B$ or $C$, to bring it into a position where only one of its vertices lies on the boundary of $SPR$. However, in that case, at least one of the sides of $SPR$ would contain no vertex of $ABC$.
\hfill   $\Box$
\medskip

Let $SPR$ be an isosceles triangle and let $m_{S}, m_{P}, m_{R}$ denote the midpoints of the sides $PR$, $SR$, and $SP$, respectively.
The boundary of $SPR$ splits into three polygonal pieces,
$\widehat{m_Pm_R}, \widehat{m_Rm_S}$ and $\widehat{m_Sm_P}$, each of
which consists of two closed line segments.
Namely,
$$ \widehat{m_Pm_R}= m_PS ~ \cup ~ Sm_R,$$ $$\widehat{m_Rm_S}=m_RP ~\cup ~ P m_S,$$  $$\widehat{m_Sm_P}= m_SR ~\cup~ Rm_P.$$
See Figure \ref{fig7}.

\begin{lem}\label{clm2}
Let $ABC$ be a triangle and $SPR$ a minimum area
isosceles container for $ABC$. Then, each of the closed polygonal pieces
$\widehat{m_Pm_R}, \widehat{m_Rm_S}$, and $\widehat{m_Sm_P}$ contains
precisely one vertex of $ABC$.
\end{lem}
\smallskip

\noindent{\bf Proof.} By Lemma \ref{c0}, the vertices $A,B,C$ lie on the boundary of $SPR$. Suppose for contradiction that the closed polygonal piece $\widehat{m_Pm_S}$ contains two
vertices of $ABC$. We may and do assume without loss of generality that these vertices are $A$ and $C$.

Let $T_1$ and $T_2$ denote the intersection points of the segment $m_Pm_S$
with $AB$ and $CB$, respectively.
The quadrilateral $CAT_1T_2\subseteq Rm_Pm_S$, so that $t(CAT_1T_2)\le t(Rm_Pm_S)$. Since $|T_1T_2|\le|m_Pm_S|$, we have $t(T_2 T_1B)\le t(m_Sm_Pm_R)$. Consequently, we get $$t(ABC)\le t(Rm_Pm_S) + t(m_Sm_Pm_R)=\frac{1}{2}t(SPR).$$
Equality holds if and only if $A=R,B=S, C=m_S$ or
$A=m_P,B=P, C=R$.

On the other hand,
by Theorem \ref{thmrarea} (b), we obtain $t(SPR)<\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}t(ABC)$, the desired contradiction. \hfill $\Box$

\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (3,0) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (1.5,4) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;

 \draw[fill=gray!30] (1.16,3.15)-- (1,0) --(1.86,3)--cycle;

 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.25,2) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (0.75,2) circle (0.05);

\draw[fill=black] (1.57,2) circle (0.05); \draw (1.8,2)
node[anchor=north]{$T_2$}; \draw[fill=black] (1.1,2) circle (0.05);
\draw (0.9,2) node[anchor=north]{$T_1$};

\draw (1.5,-0.1) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (2.7,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (0.4,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};
\draw[dashed] (1.5, 0) -- (0.75,2) --(2.25,2)--cycle;

\draw[fill=black] (1,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (1.16,3.15) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (1.86,3) circle (0.05);

 \draw (1,-0.05) node[anchor=north]{$B$};
\draw (0.9,3.4) node[anchor=north]{$A$}; \draw (2.1,3.3)
node[anchor=north]{$C$};

\draw[thick] (1,0)-- (1.16,3.15) -- (1.86,3)--cycle;

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
 \caption{Illustration for the proof of Lemma \ref{clm2}.}
    \label{fig7}
\end{figure}

\begin{lem}\label{lcommon} Let $ABC$ be a triangle and $SPR$ a minimal area isosceles container for $ABC$. Then
$ABC$ and $SPR$ have a common vertex.
\end{lem}

\noindent{\bf Proof.}
By Lemma \ref{c0}, the points $A,B,C$ must lie on the boundary $SPR$. Suppose for contradiction that none of them is a vertex of $SPR$. In view of Lemmas \ref{c0} and \ref{clm2}, there are two possibilities: each of the segments $m_PR,m_RS, m_SP$ contains precisely one vertex of $ABC$, or each of the segments $m_PS,m_RP, m_SR$ contains precisely one vertex of $ABC$. Suppose without loss of generality that $A\in m_PR,B\in m_RS, C\in m_SP$, as in Figure \ref{figcase1}.

Let $Q$ denote the center of the circle circumscribed around $SPR$. It is easy to see that a small clockwise rotation about $Q$ will take $ABC$ into a position such that all of its vertices lie in the interior of the triangle $SPR$. This contradicts the minimality of $SPR$ and Lemma \ref{c0}.
\hfill $\Box$

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]

\draw (0,0) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (4,0) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (2,6) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;

 \draw[fill=gray!30] (1.355,4.145)-- (1.5,0) --(3.35,2)--cycle;

\node[anchor=north] at (2.2,0) {$m_R$}; \node[anchor=east] at (1,3)
{$m_P$}; \node[anchor=west] at (3,3) {$m_S$}; \draw[fill=black]
(2,0) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (1,3) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=black] (3,3) circle (0.05);

\draw (1.355,4.145)--(1.5,0)--(3.33,2)--cycle;
 \draw[fill=black] (1.355,4.145) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (3.35,2) circle (0.05);

\draw (1.1,4.45 ) node[anchor=north]{$A$}; \draw (1.5, 0 )
node[anchor=north]{$B$}; \draw (3.4,2) node[anchor=west]{$C$};

\draw[->] (1.355,4.145) --(1.6, 4.25);
\draw[->] (1.5,0 )--(1.2, 0.075);
\draw[->] (3.35,1.95 )--(3.2, 1.65);

\draw[fill=black] (2, 2.7) circle
(0.05);

\draw[dotted] (2, -1)--(2, 6);

\draw[dotted] (3, 3)--(0.7, 2.3);
\draw[dotted] (1, 3)--(3.3, 2.3);

\draw  (2, 2.5)  node[anchor=west] {$Q$};
\draw[dashed] (2,2.7)--(1.355,4.145); \draw[dashed]
(2,2.7)--(1.5,0); \draw[dashed] (2,2.7)--(3.33,2);

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
 \caption{Illustration for the proof of Lemma \ref{lcommon}.}
    \label{figcase1}
\end{figure}

\section{Nandakumar's conjecture---Proofs of Theorems~\ref{t0.2} and~\ref{prop1.3}}\label{smain}

We start with the proof of Theorem \ref{t0.2}, which immediately implies Nandakumar's conjecture (Theorem~\ref{t0.1}).
\medskip

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{t0.2}.} Let $SPR$ be a minimum area container for $ABC$ with apex $R$. By Lemma \ref{c0}, $A,B$, and
$C$ are on the boundary of $SPR$, and, by Lemma \ref{lcommon}, the triangles $SPR$ and $ABC$ share a
vertex. Using Lemma \ref{clm2} under the assumption that $ABC\ne
SPR$, we can distinguish 8 cases, up to symmetry (see
Figure \ref{figesetek}). Cases (1)--(3) represent those instances when
$ABC$ and $SPR$ have two common vertices. In these cases, $SPR$ is a special
container of the first, the second, and the third kind,
respectively, so we are done.

In the remaining cases, $ABC$ and $SPR$ have only one vertex in common.
In cases (4)--(6), this vertex is a base vertex (say, $S$) of $SPR$.
Finally, in cases (7)--(8), $R$ is the unique common vertex of $ABC$ and
$SPR$. It is sufficient to show that in cases (4)--(8), the area of $SPR$ is not
minimal.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,0) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (3,0) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (1.5,4) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;
\draw (0,3.9) node[anchor=south]{$(1)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.25,2) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (0.75,2) circle (0.05);

\draw (1.5,-0.1) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (2.7,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (0.4,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};

\draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,4) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.625,1) circle (0.05);

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (0,0)-- (1.5,4) -- (2.625,1)-- cycle;

\draw (4,0) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (7,0) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (5.5,4) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;

\draw (4,3.9) node[anchor=south]{$(2)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (5.5,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (6.25,2) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (4.75,2) circle (0.05);

\draw (5.5,-0.1) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (6.7,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (4.4,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};

\draw[fill=black] (4,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (5.5,4) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (6,0) circle (0.05);

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (4,0)-- (5.5,4) -- (6,0)-- cycle;

\draw (8,0) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (11,0) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (9.5,4) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;
 \draw (8,3.9) node[anchor=south]{$(3)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (8,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (10.25,2) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (11,0) circle (0.05);

\draw (9.5,-0.1) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (10.7,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (8.4,2.3)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};

\draw[fill=black] (8,0) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (9.17,3.15) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (11,0) circle (0.05);

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (8,0)-- (9.17,3.15) -- (11,0)-- cycle;

\draw (0,-5.5) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (3,-5.5) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (1.5,-1.5) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;
\draw (0,-1.6) node[anchor=south]{$(4)$};

 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,-5.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.25,-3.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (0.75,-3.5) circle (0.05);

\draw (1.5,-5.6) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (2.7,-3.2)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (0.4,-3.2)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};

\draw[fill=black] (0,-5.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (1.17,-2.35) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.625,-4.5) circle (0.05);

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (0,-5.5)-- (1.17,-2.35) -- (2.625,-4.5)--
cycle;

\draw (4,-5.5) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (7,-5.5) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (5.5,-1.5) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;

\draw (4,-1.6) node[anchor=south]{$(5)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (5.5,-5.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (6.25,-3.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (4.75,-3.5) circle (0.05);

\draw (5.5,-5.6) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (6.7,-3.2)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (4.4,-3.2)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$}; \draw (2.625,-4.5)
node[anchor=west]{$D$};

\draw[fill=black] (6.625,-4.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (5.8,-2.35) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (4,-5.5) circle (0.05);

 \draw (5.8,-2.35) node[anchor=west]{$D$};

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (4,-5.5)-- (5.8,-2.35) -- (6.625,-4.5)--
cycle;

\draw (8,-5.5) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (11,-5.5) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (9.5,-1.5) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;
 \draw (8,-1.6) node[anchor=south]{$(6)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (8,-5.5) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (10.25,-3.5) circle (0.05);

\draw[fill=black] (9.5,-5.6) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw
(10.7,-3.2) node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (8.4,-3.2)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$}; \draw[fill=black] (8,-5.5) circle
(0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (9.8,-2.35) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (10,-5.5) circle (0.05);

 \draw (9.8,-2.35) node[anchor=west]{$D$};

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (8,-5.5)-- (10,-5.5) -- (9.8,-2.35)--
cycle;

\draw (2,-11) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (5,-11) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (3.5,-7) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;
\draw (2,-7.1) node[anchor=south]{$(7)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (3.5,-11) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (4.25,-9) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.75,-9) circle (0.05);

\draw (3.5,-11.1) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (4.7,-8.7)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (2.4,-8.7)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};

\draw[fill=black] (2.5,-11) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (3.5,-7) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (4,-11) circle (0.05);

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (2.5,-11)-- (4,-11) -- (3.5,-7)-- cycle;

\draw (6,-11) node[anchor=north]{$S$}
  -- (9,-11) node[anchor=north]{$P$}
  -- (7.5,-7) node[anchor=south]{$R$}
  -- cycle;
\draw (6,-7.1) node[anchor=south]{$(8)$};
 \draw[fill=black] (7.5,-11) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (8.25,-9) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (6.75,-9) circle (0.05);

\draw (7.5,-11.1) node[anchor=north]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (8.7,-8.7)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (6.4,-8.7)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$}; \draw (6.5,-11)
node[anchor=north]{$D$};

\draw[fill=black] (6.5,-11) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (7.5,-7) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (8.6,-10) circle (0.05);

\draw[thick, fill=gray!30] (6.5,-11)-- (8.6,-10) -- (7.5,-7)--
cycle;

\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
 \caption{The 8 cases up to symmetry. Triangle $ABC$ is shaded.}

    \label{figesetek}
\end{figure}

First, we discuss cases (5)--(8). Case (4) is more delicate and is left to the end of the proof.

Cases (5) and (6) are analogous. Let $D$ denote the vertex of $ABC$ lying on $RP$. In
both cases, we have $ABC\subseteq SPD$. Clearly, $SPR$ is a special container
of the third kind associated with $SPD$, and by Lemma
\ref{p2}, it cannot be minimal. Since every container for $SPD$ is also a container for $ABC$, we
conclude that $SPR$ is not a minimum area container for $ABC$.

In case (7), we can find an isosceles triangle with apex $R$ which contains $ABC$ and whose base is properly contained in $PS$. Thus, $SPR$ was not minimal.

In case (8), one vertex of $ABC$ is $R$, another (denoted by $D$) belongs to $Sm_R$, and the third lies on $Pm_S$. Since $SPR$ is an
isosceles triangle, we have $\sa RDS\ge 90 ^{\circ}$. Hence, $ABC$ can be slightly
rotated about $R$ so that it remains within $SPR$, which leads to a contradiction.
\smallskip

It remains to handle case (4). We distinguish two subcases.
Denote the apex angle $\sa SRP$ by $\delta$. If $\delta\ge 60 ^{\circ}$,
then we can rotate $ABC$ about $S$. Indeed, vertex $D$ of $ABC$ belongs to $m_SP$, while the base of the altitude belonging to $PR$ lies on $m_SR$.
Hence, we have $\sa SDP\ge 90 ^{\circ}$, and the image of
$ABC$ through a small clockwise rotation
about $S$ is still contained in $SPR$. Therefore, in this case, $SPR$ cannot be minimal either.

Therefore, from now on we assume $\delta< 60  ^{\circ}$.
Choose a suitable coordinate system, in which the vertices of $ABC$ are
$(0,0)$, $(s,0)$, and $D=(p,q)$. We also have $S=(0,0)$ and $R=(s+x,0)$ for some $x>
0$. Since $\delta<60 ^{\circ}<90 ^{\circ}$, vertex $D$ is to the left of $R$, that is, $p<s+x$.

\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.90]
\draw (-0.1,4) node[anchor=south]{(4/a)}; \draw (8.4,4)
node[anchor=south]{(4/b)}; \draw[fill=gray!20]
(0,0)--(5,0)--(3,2.95)--cycle; \draw[dashed]
(5,0)--(3,2.95)--(2.2,4.1)--(0,0)--cycle;
\draw (0,0)--(6,0)--(1.75,4.165)--cycle; \node at (0.6,-0.3)
{$S=(0,0)$}; \node at (6.9,-0.3) {$R=(s+x,0)$}; \node at (3.9,3)
{$D=(p,q)$}; \node at (5,-0.3) {$(s,0)$}; \node at
(4.25,2.0825) {$m_S$};
\node at
(0.5,2.0825) {$m_R$};
\node at
(3,0.2) {$m_P$};
\draw[fill=black] (0,0) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (3,0)
circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (0.875,2.0825) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=black] (5,0) circle (0.05);

\draw[fill=black] (3, 2.95) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black]
(3.875,2.0825) circle (0.05);
\coordinate
(S) at (0,0);
\coordinate
(R) at (6,0); \coordinate[label=left:$P$] (P) at (1.75,4.165); \node
at (5.6,0.2) {$\delta$}; \draw pic[draw=black, angle
eccentricity=1.2, angle radius=0.7cm]
    {angle=P--R--S};
\draw (1.75,4.165)--(1.75,0); \node at (1.5,2) {$m$};

\draw[fill=gray!20] (8.5,0)--(11.7,0)--(12,2.48)--cycle ;
\draw[dashed] (8.5,0)--(12,2.48)--(15.5,0)--cycle;
\draw (8.5,0)--(14.5,0)--(10.25,4.165)--cycle; \node at (9.1,-0.3)
{$S=(0,0)$}; \node at (15.4,-0.3) {$R=(s+x,0)$}; \node at (11.8,-0.3)
{$(s,0)$}; \node at (12.9,2.58) {$D=(p,q)$};
\draw[fill=black] (8.5,0) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (11.5,0)
circle (0.05); \node at
(12.75,2.0825) {$m_S$};
\node at
(9,2.0825) {$m_R$};
\node at
(11.4,0.2) {$m_P$};

\draw[fill=black] (9.375,2.0825) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black]
(11.7,0) circle (0.05); \draw[fill=black] (12,2.48) circle (0.05);
\draw[fill=black] (12.375,2.0825) circle (0.05); \coordinate (S) at
(8.5,0); \coordinate  (R) at (14.5,0); \coordinate [label=left:$P$] (P)
at (10.25,4.165); \node at (14.1,0.2) {$\delta$}; \draw
pic[draw=black, angle eccentricity=1.2, angle radius=0.7cm]
    {angle=P--R--S};

\draw (10.25,4.165)--(10.25,0); \node at (10,2) {$m$};

\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Possible realizations of Case (4) when $\delta<60 ^{\circ}$.}
    \label{fig4.44}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\noindent
By simple calculation,
\begin{equation}\label{eqP}P=(s+x,0)+\frac{(s+x)}{\sqrt{(p-(s+x))^2+q^2}}(p-(s+x),q).\end{equation}
Denote by $m$ the length of the altitude of $SPR$ belonging to the side $SR$. Then, $m$ is equal to the second coordinate of $P$ (see Figure \ref{fig4.44}). We have
$$m=\frac{q(s+x)}{\sqrt{(p-(s+x))^2+q^2}}.$$

Let us compute the derivative of the function $$f(x)=2t(SPR)=
q(s+x)^2\cdot\big((p-(s+x))^2+q^2\big)^{-\frac{1}{2}}.$$
We obtain
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
f'(x)&= 2q(s+x)\big((p-(s+x))^2+q^2\big)^{-\frac{1}{2}}+q(s+x)^2(p-(s+x))\big((p-(s+x))^2+q^2\big)^{-\frac{3}{2}}\\
&=q(s+x)\big((p-(s+x))^2+q^2\big)^{-\frac{3}{2}}\big[(p-(s+x))(2p-(s+x))+2q^2\big]\\
&=
\underbrace{q\left(s+x\right)\left((p-(s+x))^2+q^2\right)^{-\frac{3}{2}}}_{>0}\left[\left(\frac{3}{2}p-(s+x)\right)^2-\frac{1}{4}p^2+2q^2\right].
\end{split}
\end{equation*}

{\em Case (4/a1)}: $q \ge \frac{1}{2}p$. Then, $-\frac{1}{4}p^2+2q^2>0$, and
hence, $f'(x)>0$ for all $x\ge 0$. Thus, $f$ is strictly increasing and since $x$ cannot be negative, $f$
takes its minimum at $x=0$. This means that the area of a special container
of the first kind where $x=0$  (see the triangle with dashed sides on Figure \ref{fig4.44} (4/a)) is smaller than the area of $SPR$ for $x>0$.

{\em Case (4/a2)}: $2p<s+x$. Then $\frac{1}{2}p<(s+x)-\frac{3}{2}p$, so that $(\frac{3}{2}p-(s+x))^2-(\frac{1}{2}p)^2>0$. Again, we have $f'(x)>0$ for all $x\ge 0$ and, as above, we obtain a special container of the first kind whose area is smaller than the area of $SPR$ (see Figure \ref{fig4.44}
(4/a)).

{\em Case (4/b)}: $q<\frac{1}{2}p$ and $2p\ge s+x$. Let $\Delta$ denote the triangle with vertices $(0,0)$, $(p,q)$, and $(2p,0)$. It follows from the inequality $2p\ge s+x$ that $\Delta$ is an isosceles container of the second kind associated with $ABC$ (see Figure \ref{fig4.44}
(4/b)). We show that $\Delta$ has smaller area than $SPR$.
To prove this, we have to verify that
$$t(\Delta)=pq<q\frac{(s+x)^2}{2\sqrt{(p-(s+x))^2+q^2}}=t(SPR).$$
Using our assumption that $(p,q)\in m_SP$, we obtain $$p\le
s+x+\frac{(s+x)(p-(s+x))}{2\sqrt{(p-(s+x))^2+q^2}}.$$ The right-hand side of the last inequality is the first coordinate of the midpoint $m_S$ of $PR$, where $P$ is given by formula \eqref{eqP} and $R=(s+x,0)$.  Thus, it is
sufficient to show that
$$(s+x)+\frac{(s+x)(p-(s+x))}{2\sqrt{(p-(s+x))^2+q^2}}<\frac{(s+x)^2}{2\sqrt{(p-(s+x))^2+q^2}},$$
which reduces to $3p^2+4q^2<4(s+x)p$. The last inequality holds, because $p<s+x$ and, by our assumption, $2q\le p$. This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{t0.2}.
\qed
\medskip

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{prop1.3}.} By Theorem \ref{t0.2}, every
minimum area isosceles container for a triangle $ABC$ is one of its
special containers. By Lemma \ref{p2}, it must be a special container of the
first or the second kind.

Suppose for a contradiction that a minimum area special container $SPR$ associated
with the triangle $ABC$ is acute, but it is of the second kind. Assume without
loss of generality that $S=B$ and $R=A$. (The other cases can be treated in a similar manner.) By our notation, $P=C_2$. We prove that $t(ABC')<t(ABC_2)=t(SPR)$ (see Figure \ref{figfirst}).
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
    \begin{tikzpicture}
\draw (0,-11) node[anchor=north]{$B=S$}
  -- (3,-11) node[anchor=west]{$P=C_2$}
  -- (1.5,-7) node[anchor=south]{$A=R$}
  -- cycle;

 \draw[fill=gray!30] (0,-11)-- (1.5,-7) --(2.5,-11)--cycle;
 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,-11) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.25,-9) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (0.75,-9) circle (0.05);

\draw (1.5,-11) node[anchor=south]{$m_{R}$}; \draw (2.7,-8.7)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{S}$}; \draw (0.4,-8.7)
node[anchor=north]{$m_{P}$};

\draw[fill=black] (0,-11) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (1.5,-7) circle (0.05);
 \draw[fill=black] (2.5,-11) circle (0.05);
\draw[dotted, thick] (2.5,-11)--(2.55,-11.2)--(0,-11);

\draw (2.5,-10.8) node[anchor=east]{$C$}; \draw (2.55,-11.2)
node[anchor=north]{$C'$};

\draw[thick] (0,-11)-- (1.5,-7) -- (2.5,-11)-- cycle;

    \end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
    \caption{An acute minimum area isosceles container cannot be a special container of the second kind.}
    \label{figfirst}
\end{figure}

Indeed, we have $|AB|=|AC_2|=|AC'|$ and $\sa C'AB<\sa C_2AB$. Since
$SPR=ABC_2$ is acute, it follows that $t(ABC')<t(ABC_2)$. \qed
\medskip

\begin{cor}\label{cor2}
If a minimum area isosceles container for $ABC$ is a special container of the second kind, then it must be $AB_1C$.
\end{cor}

\noindent{\bf Proof.}
By Theorem \ref{prop1.3}, if a special container of the second kind has minimum area, then it has to be non-acute. If $ABC_2$ is non-acute, then $ABC_1$ is obtuse and $t(ABC_2)>t(ABC_1)$, because $|AB|=|AC_1|=|AC_2|$ and $\sa ABC_1>\sa BAC_2\ge90 ^{\circ}$. On the other hand, as $AB_1C$ and $ABC_1$ share a base angle at $A$ and $b<c$, it follows that $t(ABC_1)>t(AB_1C)$.   \hfill    $\Box$

\section{Quantitative results---Proofs of Theorems~\ref{peq3} and~\ref{thmrarea} (\rm{a})}\label{uj}

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{peq3}.} By Theorem \ref{t0.2}, a minimal area isosceles container for $ABC$ is a special container associated with $ABC$. In view of Lemma~\ref{p2}, it must be a special container of the first or second kind. By Lemma
\ref{p0.1} (a) and Corollary \ref{cor2}, among special containers of the first kind, it is
enough to consider $ABC'$ and $AB'C$, and among special containers of the second kind, only  $AB_1C$. These immediately show that every triangle $ABC$ admits at most 3 minimum area isosceles containers.

If $ABC$ is an obtuse or right triangle,
then $t(AB'C) >t(AB_1C)$. Indeed, in this case $|AC|=|CB'|=|CB_1|$, both $AB'C$ and $AB_1C$ are obtuse or right triangles, and their apex angles satisfy $\sa ACB' <\sa ACB_1$. Thus, there are only two candidates for a minimum area isosceles container: $ABC'$ and $AB_1C$.

If $ABC$ is an acute triangle
and it has $3$ minimum area isosceles containers, then
$t(AB'C)=t(ABC')=t(AB_1C)$.
Since $t(BCB_1)=t(BCC')$, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eq1} (c-b) \sin(\alpha+\beta)=b\sin(\beta - \alpha).
\end{equation}
Note that this equation also holds when $ABC$ is obtuse.

It follows from equation \eqref{eq1} that $\frac{c}{b}=\frac{2
\sin(\beta)\cos(\alpha)}{\sin(\alpha+\beta)}$. By Lemma \ref{p0.1} (b), the equation
$t(AB'C)=t(ABC')$ reduces to $\frac{c}{b}=\frac{b}{a}$. Thus,
$\frac{\sin(\beta)}{\sin(\alpha)}=\frac{2
\sin(\beta)\cos(\alpha)}{\sin(\alpha+\beta)}$, so that
$\sin(\alpha+\beta)=\sin(2\alpha)$. Therefore, either $\alpha=\beta$,
which is impossible, or $180 ^{\circ}-(\alpha+\beta)=\gamma=2\alpha$.

It follows from $\frac{c}{b}=\frac{b}{a}$ that
\begin{equation}\label{eq3}
    \frac{\sin(2\alpha)}{\sin(3\alpha)}=\frac{\sin(3\alpha)}{\sin(\alpha)}.
\end{equation}
Since $ABC$ is acute, its smallest angle is $\alpha$, and $180 ^{\circ}-3\alpha=\beta<\gamma=2\alpha$, we
have that $36 ^{\circ}<\alpha<45 ^{\circ}$. Simple analysis shows that equation
\eqref{eq3} has exactly one solution $\alpha^*$ in the interval $[36 ^{\circ},45 ^{\circ}]$. It can be approximated by computer. The other two angles of the corresponding triangle are $\beta^*=180 ^{\circ}-3\alpha^*$ and $\gamma^*=2\alpha^*$.  \qed

\medskip
\begin{ex}\label{ex1}
By the proof of Theorem \ref{peq3}, any minimal area isosceles container for $ABC$ is either $AB'C$, or $ABC'$, or $AB_1C$.
Here, we construct a family of acute triangles $ABC$ whose only minimal area isosceles containers are special containers of the second kind, i.e., $AB_1C$. Moreover, $AB_1C$ is obtuse.

Let $\alpha>\alpha^*$ and $90 ^{\circ}>\gamma>2\alpha>\gamma^*$. Then, denoting by $\beta=180^{\circ}-\alpha-\gamma$ we obtain that
\[\frac{\sin(\gamma)}{\sin(\beta)}>\frac{\sin(\gamma^*)}{\sin(\beta^*)}=
\frac{\sin(\beta^*)}{\sin(\alpha^*)}>
\frac{\sin(\beta)}{\sin(\alpha)},\] which implies that $t(AB'C)<t(ABC')$.
The triangles $AB_1C$ and $AB'C$ are isosceles with legs of length $b$,
so it is enough to show that $\sin(\sa ACB_1)=\sin(180 ^{\circ}-2 \alpha)<
\sin( \gamma )=\sin(\sa ACB')$. However, this follows from the inequalities
$90 ^{\circ}>\gamma>2\alpha$. The base angle of $AB_1C$ satisfies $\alpha<45 ^{\circ}$, so that
$AB_1C$ is obtuse.

\end{ex}

\noindent{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{thmrarea} (a):}
Let $r^*$ denote the supremum of the ratio of the area of a minimum area isosceles container of a triangle to the area of the triangle itself. In view of Theorem \ref{peq3}, we have $$r^*=\sup_{\textrm{triangle } ABC}\min\Big(
\frac{t(AB'C)}{t(ABC)},\frac{t(ABC')}{t(ABC)}, \frac{t(AB_1C)}{t(ABC)}\Big).$$

If $\beta\ge 45 ^{\circ}$, then $\sin(\beta)\ge\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$. Using the proof of Lemma \ref{p0.1}(b) and
the law of sines, we obtain $$\frac{t(ABC')}{t(ABC)}=
\frac{c}{b}=\frac{\sin(\gamma)}{\sin(\beta)}\le
\frac{1}{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}=\sqrt{2}.$$ Equality holds here if and only if $\beta=
45 ^{\circ}$ and $\gamma= 90 ^{\circ}$, in which case $ABC$ is an isosceles triangle and
the ratio of the area of the minimum isosceles container to the area of $ABC$ is $1$.

If $\beta < 45 ^{\circ}$, then $\gamma>90 ^{\circ}$. Hence, $ABC$ is obtuse and, by the proof of Theorem \ref{peq3}, the minimum
area isosceles container is $ABC'$ or $AB_1C$. For fixed
$\beta$ and $c$, we can express the ratios of the areas as
functions of $\alpha$. Let $$f(\alpha)=\frac{t(ABC')}{t(ABC)}=
\frac{c}{b}$$ and
$$g(\alpha)=\frac{t(AB_1C)}{t(ABC)}=\frac{2b\cos(\alpha)}{b\cos(\alpha)+a\cos(\beta)}=\frac{1}{\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\tan(\alpha)}{2\tan(\beta)}},$$
where $0<\alpha<\beta$. Obviously, $f(\alpha)$ is strictly
increasing and $g(\alpha)$ is strictly decreasing on the open interval $(0,\beta)$, and
both functions are continuous. We have $$\lim_{\alpha\to 0+} f(\alpha)=1, \ \
1<\lim_{\alpha\to \beta-}f(\alpha)<2,$$ $$\lim_{\alpha\to
0+} g(\alpha)=2, \ \ \lim_{\alpha\to \beta-}g(\alpha)=1.$$
Therefore, the graphs of $f$ and $g$ intersect at a unique point $z$. Thus,
$\max\limits_{0 ^{\circ}<\alpha<\beta}^{}({\min\left(f(\alpha),g(\alpha)\right)})= f(z)=g(z)$, which implies $t(ABC')=t(AB_1C)$. This means that $t(BCB_1)=t(BCC')$, so that equation \eqref{eq1} above holds. Using the law of sines, we obtain $(\frac{c}{b})^2=2
\cos(z)< 2$ and, hence, $\frac{c}{b}< \sqrt{2}$.
If $\beta\to 0$, then $z\to 0$ and $c/b \to \sqrt{2}$.
This implies that $r^*=\sqrt{2}$, but the supremum is not realized by any triangle $ABC$.
\qed

\bigskip

\noindent{\bf Acknowledgement.}
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the anonymous referee for her useful suggestions. Research by the first author was supported by a Premium Postdoctoral Fellowship of the Hungarian Academy of Science, and by NKFIH (Hungarian National Research, Development
and Innovation Office) grant K-124749. Research by the second author was partially supported by NKFIH grants K-176529 and KKP-133864, Austrian Science Fund grant Z 342-N31, and by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in the framework of MegaGrant No.\ 075-15-2019-1926. Research by the third author was partially supported by NKFIH grant K-115799.

Metric Geometry (math.MG); History and Overview (math.HO)

Minimum area isosceles containers


On Gauss-Lobatto integration on the triangle

Abstract: A recent result in [2] on the non-existence of Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules on the triangle is strengthened by establishing a lower bound for the number of nodes of such rules. A method of constructing Lobatto type cubature rules on the triangle is given and used to construct several examples.

\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

Recently in \cite{H}, motivated by $hp$-finite element method, Gauss-Lobatto
cubature rule on the triangle
$$
  \triangle := \{(x,y): 0 \le x, y, x+y \le 1\}
$$
is studied, which requires $(n+1)(n+2)/2$ nodes, with $(n-1)(n-2)/2$ nodes in
the interior, $n-1$ nodes in each side and $1$ point at each vertex, and is capable
of exactly integrating  polynomials of degree $2n-1$. We call such a rule strict
Gauss-Lobatto. The main result of \cite{H} shows that such rules do not exist.
In this note we consider cubature rules that have nodes in both interior and
boundary of the triangle, and establish a lower bound for the number of nodes, from
which the non-existence of the strict Gauss-Lobatto rule follows immediately. We also
study the structure of rules that attain our lower bound and give a method for
constructing cubature rules of degree $2n-1$ with $n-1$ nodes on each side and
1 node at each vertex. The development is based on the observation that cubature
rules with nodes on the boundary can be constructed, by restricting to the class
of bubble functions (functions that vanish on the boundary), from
cubature rules with nodes on the interior. This leads to a bootstrapping scheme for
transforming some cubature rules with interior points into higher order rules with a
specific number of nodes on the boundary. Several examples are constructed to
illustrate the algorithm.

\section{Results}
\setcounter{equation}{0}

For $n \in {\mathbb N}_0$, let $\Pi_n^2$ denote the space of
polynomials of (total) degree $n$ in two variables. It is known that
$$
         \dim \Pi_n^2 = \binom{n+2}{2} = \frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2}.
$$
Let $W(x,y)$ be a non-negative weight function on the triangle $\triangle$
with finite moments. A cubature rule of precision $s$ with respect to $W$ is a finite
sum that satisfies
\begin{equation} \label{cubaa}
   \int_\triangle f(x,y) W(x,y) dxdy = \sum_{k=1}^N {\lambda}_k f(x_k,y_k), \qquad \forall f\in \Pi_s^2.
\end{equation}
We choose $W$ to be the Jacobi weight $W_{\a,{\beta},{\gamma}} (x,y) = x^\a y ^{\beta} (1-x-y)^{\gamma}$ for
$\a,{\beta},{\gamma} > -1$. The case $\a = {\beta} ={\gamma} =0$ corresponds to the constant weight. These
weight functions are often considered together with the orthogonal polynomials, called
Jacobi polynomials on the triangle, that are orthogonal with respect to them;
see, for example, \cite[p. 86]{DX}, and \cite{BS, BSX} in connection with cubature rules.

For the Jacobi weight, it is known that the number of nodes $N$ for \eqref{cubaa} satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{lwbd}
   N \ge \begin{cases}    \frac{n(n+1)}{2} +  \lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor & \hbox{if $s = 2n-1$},\\
        \frac{n(n+1)}{2} & \hbox{if $s = 2n-2$}. \end{cases}
\end{equation}
This lower bound is classical for $s = 2n-2$ (\cite{St}) and given in \cite{BS} for
$s = 2n-1$, which agrees with M\"oller's lower bound for centrally symmetric weight
functions \cite{M} as well as \cite{DX}. A cubature rule that attains the lower bound is naturally
minimal, meaning that it has the smallest number of nodes among all cubature rules of the
same degree. The lower bound, however, is most likely not sharp; that is, a minimal cubature
could require more points than what the lower bound indicates. Minimal cubature rules are
sometimes called Gaussian cubature rules. Their construction is closely related to
orthogonal polynomials of several variables. For discussion along this line, see \cite{CMS, X}
and references therein.

The cubature rules that we consider are of precision $s$ and are of the form
\begin{align} \label{cuba}
   \int_\triangle f(x,y) W_{\a,{\beta},{\gamma}}(x,y) dxdy  & = \sum_{k=1}^{N_0} {\lambda}_{k,0} f(x_{k,0},y_{k,0})
    + \sum_{k=1}^{N_1} {\lambda}_{k,1} f(x_{k,1},0) \\
    & + \sum_{k=1}^{N_2} {\lambda}_{k,2} f(0,y_{k,2}) +    \sum_{k=1}^{N_3} {\lambda}_{k,3} f(x_{k,3}, 1-x_{k,3})
      \notag \\
    & + \mu_0 f(0,0) + \mu_1 f(1,0) + \mu_2 f(0,1),   \notag
\end{align}
where $(x_{k,0},y_{k,0})$ are distinct points in the interior of $\triangle$, $(x_{k,1}, 0)$, $(0,y_{k,2})$,
and $(x_{k,3},1-x_{k,3})$ are distinct points on the side $y=0$, $x=0$, and $x+y=1$
(but not on the corners) of $\triangle$, respectively, $\lambda_{k,j} > 0$ and $\mu_i > 0$.
Such a cubature has
$$
       N : = N_0 + N_1 +N_2+N_3 + 3
$$
nodes. The main result in \cite{H} states that such a cubature rule does not exist if
$s = 2n-1$ and
$$
 N_0 = \frac{(n-2)(n-1)}{2}, \quad N_1 = N_2 =N_3  = n-1,
$$
which has a total number of nodes $N = (n+2)(n+1)/2$. This follows as an immediate corollary of the following theorem.

\begin{thm}
If a cubature rule of the form \eqref{cuba} exists with precision $s = 2n-1$ or $s =2n$, then
\begin{align}
   N_0 & \ge \begin{cases} \frac{n(n-1)}{2} & \hbox{if $s = 2n-1$}, \\
          \frac{n (n-1)}{2} +  \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor & \hbox{if $s = 2n$},\end{cases} \label{lwbd2} \\
   N_0 + N_i & \ge \begin{cases}  \frac{n(n-1)}{2}+  \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor & \hbox{if $s = 2n-1$}, \\
        \frac{n (n+1)}{2}  & \hbox{if $s = 2n$},\end{cases}  \qquad i =1,2,3. \label{lwbd2b}
\end{align}
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
The cubature \eqref{cuba} exactly integrates degree $s$ polynomials of the form
$f(x,y) = xy(1-x-y) g(x,y)$ if
\begin{equation} \label{cuba2}
  \int_\triangle g(x,y)  W_{\a+1,{\beta}+1,{\gamma}+1} (x,y)dxdy = \sum_{k=1}^{N_0}
      {\lambda}_{k,0}^* g(x_{k,0}, y_{k,0}), \quad  \forall g \in \Pi_{s-3}^2,
\end{equation}
where ${\lambda}_{k,0}^* = {\lambda}_{k,0} x_{k,0}y_{k,0} (1-x_{k,0} - y_{k,0})$, which is a cubature rule
of precision $s-3$ for the weight function $W_{\a+1,{\beta}+1,{\gamma}+1}$ so that, by \eqref{lwbd},
$N_0$ has to satisfy the lower bound in the inequality of \eqref{lwbd2}.
On the other hand,
the cubature (2.3) exactly integrates degree $s$ polynomials of the form
$f(x,y)=x(1-x-y)g(x,y)$ if $\forall g \in \Pi_{s-3}^2$,
\[
\int_{\Delta} g(x,y) W_{\alpha+1,\beta,\gamma+1}(x,y)dxdy=
\sum_{k=1}^{N_0} \tilde{\lambda}_{k,0} g(x_{k,0}, y_{k,0})
+
\sum_{k=1}^{N_1} \lambda_{k,1}^* g(x_{k,1},0)
\]
where $\tilde{\lambda}_{k,0} = \lambda_{k,0} x_{k,0} (1-x_{k,0}-y_{k,0})$
and $\lambda_{k,1}^* = \lambda_{k,1} x_{k,1} (1-x_{k,1})$, which is a cubature rule of precision $s-2$
for the weight function $W_{\a+1,{\beta},{\gamma}+1}(x,y)$, so that $N_0+N_1$ satisfies the lower bound
in \eqref{lwbd},  which gives the inequality of \eqref{lwbd2b} for $i=1$. Similarly, we
can derive lower bound for $N_0+N_2$ and $N_0+N_3$.
\end{proof}

One naturally asks if there is any cubature rule that attains the lower bound in the theorem.
For $s = 2n-1$, this asks if there is a cubature rule of precision $2n-1$ with
\begin{align}  \label{min}
 N_0  =  \frac{n(n-1)}{2} \quad \hbox{and} \quad  N_i = \left \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \right \rfloor,  \quad i =1,2,3.
\end{align}
We expect that the answer is negative. A heuristic argument can be given as follows: Assume that
$N_0 =\frac{n(n-1)}{2}$. Then the proof of the theorem shows that \eqref{cuba2} is a cubature of
degree $2n-4$ with $n(n-1)/2$ nodes, which is known to exist only for small $n$. Assume that
it does exist. We define a linear functional ${\mathcal L}_1$, acting on polynomials of one variable, by
\begin{equation}\label{L1}
 {\mathcal L}_1 g : = \int_\triangle g(x)  W_{\a+1,{\beta},{\gamma}+1}(x,y)dxdy -
    \sum_{k=1}^{N_0} {\lambda}_{k,0} x_{k,0} (1-x_{k,0} - y_{k,0}) g(x_{k,0}),
\end{equation}
where $x_{k,0}$, $y_{k,0}$ and ${\lambda}_{k,0}$ are as in \eqref{cuba}. Applying \eqref{cuba} on
polynomials of the form $f(x,y) = g(x) x (1-x-y)$ shows that
\begin{equation}\label{gausian}
  {\mathcal L}_1 g = \sum_{k=1}^{N_1} {\lambda}_{k,1}^* g(x_{k,1}), \qquad  \forall g \in \Pi_{2n-3},
\end{equation}
where ${\lambda}_{k,1}^* = {\lambda}_{k,1} x_{k,1}(1-x_{k,1})$.
The functional ${\mathcal L}_1$ defined in equation \eqref{L1} defines a bilinear form $[p,q]_1= {\mathcal L}_1(pq)$
that could be indefinite ($[q,q]_1$ is not necessarily positive). If the bilinear form were positive definite
on $\Pi_{2n-3}$, then \eqref{gausian} could be regarded as a quadrature rule of $N_1$ nodes
and of degree $2n-3$ for ${\mathcal L}_1$ and, consequently, $N_1 \ge n-1$ by the standard result in Gaussian
quadrature rule, which is stronger than the second equation of \eqref{min}. Thus, in order for
\eqref{min} to hold,  we would need ${\mathcal L}_1$ to be indefinite on $\Pi_{2n-3}$, that is, ${\mathcal L} (q^2) = 0$
for some nonzero $q \in \Pi_{n-1}$, and we would need to require that ${\mathcal L}_1$ has a quadrature rule of
degree $2n-3$ with $N_1 = \lfloor \frac{n-1}{2} \rfloor$ nodes. A simple count of variables (the
nodes and weights of the quadrature rule) and restraints (the polynomials that need to be exactly
integrated) shows that this is unlikely to happen, although it still might as the equations are nonlinear.
For a linear functional that defines an indefinite
bilinear form, the theory of Gaussian quadrature rule breaks down since orthogonal polynomials
may not exist and, even they do, they may not have real or simple zeros. In particular, we do not
have a lower bound for the number of nodes of a quadrature rule for such a linear functional.

The above argument indicates that if we want the cubature rule \eqref{cuba} to have the smallest
number of interior points, then the best that we can hope for will be a cubature rule of degree $2n-1$
that satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{min2}
      N_0  =  \frac{n(n-1)}{2} , \quad \hbox{and} \quad N_i \ge n -1, \qquad 1 \le i \le 3.
\end{equation}

We shall call a cubature rule that attains the lower bound in \eqref{min2} {\it Gauss-Lobatto
cubature rule}. The proof of the lower bound indicates how such a cubature rule can be constructed.
Let us also define linear functionals
\begin{align*}
 {\mathcal L}_2 g &: = \int_\triangle g(y)  W_{\a,{\beta}+1,{\gamma}+1}(x,y)dxdy -
    \sum_{k=1}^{N_0} {\lambda}_{k,0} y_{k,0} (1-x_{k,0} - y_{k,0}) g(x_{k,0}), \\
 {\mathcal L}_3 g & : = \int_\triangle g(x)  W_{\a+1,{\beta}+1,{\gamma}}(x,y)dxdy -
    \sum_{k=1}^{N_0} {\lambda}_{k,0} x_{k,0}  y_{k,0} g(x_{k,0}).
\end{align*}
Then we can summarize the method of construction as follows.

\medskip\noindent
{\bf Algorithm.} We can follow the following procedure to construct a Gauss-Lobatto cubature rule
of form \eqref{cuba}:

{\it Step 1.} Construct a cubature rule of degree $s-3$ for $W_{\a+1,{\beta}+1,{\gamma}+1}$ in the form of
\eqref{cuba2} with all nodes in the interior of $\triangle$, and define
\begin{equation} \label{lambda0}
  {\lambda}_{k,0} = \frac{ {\lambda}_{k,0}^*}{(x_{k,0}y_{k,0}(1-x_{k,0}-y_{k,0}))}.
\end{equation}
{\it Step 2.} Construct Gaussian quadrature rules \eqref{gausian} and
\begin{equation*}
  {\mathcal L}_2 g = \sum_{k=1}^{N_2} {\lambda}_{k,2}^* g(y_{k,2}), \quad {\mathcal L}_3 g = \sum_{k=1}^{N_3} {\lambda}_{k,3}^* g(x_{k,3}),
  \qquad \forall g \in \Pi_{2n-3},
\end{equation*}
with respect to the linear functional ${\mathcal L}_1,{\mathcal L}_2,{\mathcal L}_3$, which gives the nodes of the cubature rule
\eqref{cuba} on the boundary of the triangle, and define
\begin{equation} \label{lambda*}
{\lambda}_{k,1} =  \frac{ {\lambda}_{k,1}^*}{x_{k,1}(1-x_{k,1})}, \quad {\lambda}_{k,2} =  \frac{{\lambda}_{k,2}^*}{ y_{k,2}(1-y_{k,2})}, \quad
 {\lambda}_{k,3} = \frac{{\lambda}_{k,3}^*}{x_{k,3}(1-x_{k,3})}.
\end{equation}

{\it Step 3.} Finally, the weight $\mu_0$, $\mu_1$, and $\mu_2$ are determined by setting
$f(x,y) = 1, x, y$ in \eqref{cuba} and solve the resulted linear system of equations.
 \qed

\begin{prop} \label{prop1}
Assume, in the above algorithm, that the linear functional ${\mathcal L}_1,{\mathcal L}_2$ and ${\mathcal L}_3$ are positive definite
on $\Pi_{2n-3}$ and all $x_{k,1}, y_{k,2}, x_{k,3}$ are inside $(0,1)$. Then the algorithm produces a cubature
rule of degree $2n-1$ in the form \eqref{cuba}. In particular, if $N_0 = \frac{n(n-1)}{2}$, then the cubature rule
is Gauss-Lobatto.
\end{prop}

\begin{proof}
We need to show that the cubature rule constructed by the algorithm holds for all $f \in \Pi_{2n-1}^2$,
that is, \eqref{cuba} holds for all $f \in \Pi_s^2$ with $s = 2n-1$. A moment of reflection shows that, with
$z = 1-x-y$, $\Pi_s^2$ can be decomposed into a direct sum.
\begin{equation}\label{decom}
 \Pi_s^2 =x y z \Pi_{s-3}^2 \oplus xz\Pi_{s-2}[x]\oplus yz\Pi_{s-2}[y]\oplus x y\Pi_{s-2}[x]\oplus \Pi_1^2,
\end{equation}
where $\Pi_{s-2}[x]$ and $\Pi_{s-2}[y]$ denote the space of polynomials of one variable in $x$-variable
and $y$-variable, respectively. If $f \in x y z \Pi_{s-3}^2$, then \eqref{cuba} reduces to \eqref{cuba2},
which holds by our construction. If $f \in xz\Pi_{s-2}[x]$, then \eqref{cuba} reduces to \eqref{gausian} for
${\mathcal L}_1$, which holds by our construction. The same holds for $f \in yz\Pi_{s-2}[y]$ and $f \in  x y\Pi_{s-2}[x]$,
whereas for $f \in \Pi_1^2$, the cubature is verified by Step 3. Thus, by \eqref{decom}, the cubature
rule holds for all $f\in \Pi_{2n-1}$.
\end{proof}

It should be pointed out that, as long as we have a cubature rule of degree $2n-4$ with all nodes in the
interior of $\triangle$ in the Step 1, regardless if it is a minimal one, the Step 2 and Step 3 could be
carried out and Proposition \ref{prop1} applies. Thus, the algorithm can be used to construct cubature
rules of degree $2n-1$ in the form \eqref{cuba} with $N_1 = N_2 = N_3 = n-1$.

Let us comment on how the steps in the algorithm can be realized.

For Step 1, a cubature with the specification can be constructed by solving moment equations,
that is, solving the system of equations formed by setting $g(x,y) = x^iy^j$ for $i+j \le s-3$ in
\eqref{cuba2} for $x_{k,0}$, $y_{k,0}$ and ${\lambda}_{k,0}^*$. There have been a number of papers based
on this method, see e.g. \cite{ZCL} for the latest result and further references. Another approach is to use
a characterization of the cubature rules that attain lower bound in \eqref{lwbd2}, which is given in
terms of common zeros of certain orthogonal polynomials and can be used to find cubature rules of
lower order, see \cite{M, X}. Not all cubature rules obtained via either methods work for our purpose,
since we require that all nodes are inside the domain.

For Step 2, one needs to check that ${\mathcal L}_1, {\mathcal L}_2,{\mathcal L}_3$ are positive linear functionals on $\Pi_{2n-3}$.
Once they are, the standard procedure of constructing Gaussian quadrature rules applies. In
particular, we can apply the standard algorithm to generate a sequence of orthogonal polynomials
up to degree $n-1$ with respect to ${\mathcal L}_i$ inductively; the nodes of the Guassian quadrature rule
of degree $2n-3$ for ${\mathcal L}_i$ are the zeros of the orthogonal polynomial of degree $n-1$ with
respect to ${\mathcal L}_i$.

\medskip

In the following we give several examples of Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules of degree $5$ and $7$ for
the unit weight function. The minimal cubature rules for the degree 5 and 7 have nodes 7 and 12,
respectively (\cite{CR}). For Gauss-Lobatto rules, the number of nodes are necessarily larger, as
seen in \eqref{min}.

\medskip\noindent
{\bf Example 1.} There is a cubature formula of degree $5$ with 12 nodes, 3 interior, 2 on each
side and 1 at each corner of the triangle. To illustrate our procedure, we shall present the nodes
and weights in steps.

The three interior points and weights are given in the first table. While the nodes are those of a
cubature rule of degree 2 for the weight function $W_{1,1,1}(x,y) = xy(1-x-y)$, the weights are
relates to those of the latter cubature rule by \eqref{lambda0}. These nodes are common zeros
of quasi-orthogonal polynomials (see \cite{X2} for definition) of degree $2$ which were found by
solving the nonlinear system of equations in Theorem 4.1 of \cite{X2}.

\medskip

\hskip .5cm \vbox{\tabskip=0pt \offinterlineskip
\def\noalign{\hrule}{\noalign{\hrule}}
\halign to 310pt{\strut#& \vrule#\tabskip=1em
   \hfil& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil #\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#&
   \hfil#& \vrule#\tabskip=0pt \cr\noalign{\hrule}
&& \omit\hidewidth $x_{k,0}$ \hidewidth&&
  \omit\hidewidth  $y_{k,0}$ \hidewidth&&
  \omit\hidewidth  $\lambda_{k,0}$ \hidewidth&\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 &&0.15881702219143 && 0.19201873632215 && 0.101342396527698 &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 &&0.56219234596964 && 0.19201873632215 && 0.117181247909596  &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 &&0.22100936816107 && 0.55798126367785 && 0.118066904793533 &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
}}

\noindent where the nodes are the common zeros of following three polynomials of degree $2$:
\begin{align*}
 & 19 - \sqrt{105}+ x (-91 + \sqrt{105} + 112 x) + 2 (-7 + \sqrt{105}) y, \\
 & 49 - 3 \sqrt{105} - 175 x + 5 \sqrt{105} x + 112 x^2 - 84 y +  4 \sqrt{105} y + 224 x y, \\
 &154 - 6 \sqrt{105} - 301 x + 11 \sqrt{105} x + 112 x^2 - 609 y +  7 \sqrt{105} y + 560 x y + 560 y^2.
\end{align*}

\medskip

\noindent
The nodes on the edges of the triangle, but not on the corners, are the nodes of Gaussian
quadrature rules for ${\mathcal L}_1, {\mathcal L}_2, {\mathcal L}_3$, respectively, where the weights are related to
those of Gaussian quadrature rules by \eqref{lambda*}. They are given in the following three
tables:

\medskip

\hskip .5cm \vbox{\tabskip=0pt \offinterlineskip
\def\noalign{\hrule}{\noalign{\hrule}}
\halign to 199pt{\strut#& \vrule#\tabskip=1em
   \hfil& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil #\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#&
   \hfil#& \vrule#\tabskip=0pt \cr\noalign{\hrule}
&& \omit\hidewidth $x_{k,1}$ \hidewidth&&  \omit\hidewidth  $\lambda_{k,1}$ \hidewidth&\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.3931870086016  && 0.02991955921794   &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.8595419130359 & & 0.01756588222187  &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
}}

\noindent
where the nodes are zeros of the orthogonal polynomials  $p_1$ of degree 2 for ${\mathcal L}_1$,
$$
 p_1(x) = x^2 + \frac{1}{448} \left(-469 - 9 \sqrt{105}\right) x  + \frac{1}{4480}\left(889 + 61 \sqrt{105}\right);
$$

\medskip

\hskip .5cm \vbox{\tabskip=0pt \offinterlineskip
\def\noalign{\hrule}{\noalign{\hrule}}
\halign to 199pt{\strut#& \vrule#\tabskip=1em
   \hfil& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil #\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#&
   \hfil#& \vrule#\tabskip=0pt \cr\noalign{\hrule}
&& \omit\hidewidth $y_{k,2}$ \hidewidth&&  \omit\hidewidth  $\lambda_{k,2}$ \hidewidth&\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.4305843026985 && 0.02290932968619   &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.7924406473476 && 0.02022650113138   &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
}}

\noindent
where the nodes are zeros of the orthogonal polynomials $p_2$ of degree 2 for ${\mathcal L}_2$,
$$
 p_2(x) =  x^2 + \frac{3}{46} \left(-29 + \sqrt{105}\right) x  + \frac{3}{644} \left (63 + \sqrt{105}\right);
$$

\medskip

\hskip .5cm \vbox{\tabskip=0pt \offinterlineskip
\def\noalign{\hrule}{\noalign{\hrule}}
\halign to 199pt{\strut#& \vrule#\tabskip=1em
   \hfil& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil #\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#&
   \hfil#& \vrule#\tabskip=0pt \cr\noalign{\hrule}
&& \omit\hidewidth $x_{k,3}$ \hidewidth&&  \omit\hidewidth  $\lambda_{k,3}$ \hidewidth&\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.2629899118578 &&   0.02514330117112  &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.7030163143652  &&  0.03109870484395  &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
}}

\noindent
where the nodes are zeros of the orthogonal polynomials $p_3$ of degree 2 for ${\mathcal L}_3$,
$$
 p_3(x) =  x^2 + \frac{1}{10843} \left(-10997 + 51 \sqrt{105} \right) x + \frac{1}{3098}\left(665 - 9 \sqrt{105}\right).
$$
Finally, the weights $\mu_1,\mu_2,\mu_3$ are given by

\medskip

\hskip .5cm \vbox{\tabskip=0pt \offinterlineskip
\def\noalign{\hrule}{\noalign{\hrule}}
\halign to 300pt{\strut#& \vrule#\tabskip=1em
   \hfil& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil #\hfil& \vrule#& \hfil#\hfil& \vrule#&
   \hfil#& \vrule#\tabskip=0pt \cr\noalign{\hrule} && \omit\hidewidth $\mu_1$ \hidewidth&&
  \omit\hidewidth  $\mu_2$ \hidewidth&&  \omit\hidewidth  $\mu_3$ \hidewidth&\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 && 0.0081170837035 &&0.00326155091683 && 0.00516753787639 &\cr\noalign{\hrule}
 }}  \qed

The nodes of this Lobatto cubature rule are depicted in Figure 1.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{degree5.pdf} }
\caption{Nodes of Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules of degree 5} \label{Fig1}
\end{figure}

Our next two examples are Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules that are symmetric in the sense
that the nodes are invariant under the symmetric group of $\triangle$, or the permutation of
$(x,y,1-x-y)$. A symmetric Gauss-Lobatto rule for the constant weight takes the form
\begin{align} \label{symm}
  \int_\triangle f(x,y) dxdy  & =  \sum_{k=1}^{M_0} A_{k} \left[ f(u_{k,0},v_{k,0}) + f(v_{k,0},w_{k,0})
         + f(w_{k,0},u_{k,0})\right] \\
         & + \sum_{k=1}^{M_1} B_{k} \left[ f(u_{k,1},0) + f(0,1-u_{k,1}) + f(1-u_{k,1}, u_k) \right]  \notag \\
         & + C  \left[ f(0,0) + f(1,0) + f(0,1) \right], \notag
\end{align}
where $w_{k,0} = 1-u_{k,0} - v_{k,0}$.

Both examples are constructed by following the steps in the algorithm. The symmetry makes the construction
much easier, since we only need to consider polynomials that are symmetric under the symmetric group of
$\triangle$. In particular, the cubature rule for $W_{1,1,1}(x,y)$ in Step 1 can be found by solving the reduced
moment equations of symmetric polynomials. We shall skip details and only list the nodes and weights of
these two cubature rules as formulated in \eqref{symm}.  Their nodes are depicted in Figure 2.

\medskip\noindent
{\bf Example 2.} Symmetric Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules of degree $5$ with 12 nodes. This formula
is in the form of \eqref{symm} with $M_0=1$ and $M_1 =2$. The nodes and weights are given below:
\begin{align*}
  & u_{1,0}  =  v_{1,0} =  \tfrac{1}{21} (7 - \sqrt{7}), \quad  A_1=  \tfrac{7}{720} \big(14 - \sqrt{7}\big),  \\
  & u_{1,1} =  \tfrac{1}{42} \Big(21 - \sqrt{21 \big( 4 \sqrt{7}-7\big)}\Big),  \quad
     u_{1,2} = \tfrac{1}{42} \Big(21 + \sqrt{21 \big( 4 \sqrt{7}-7\big)}\Big),  \\
  & B_1=   B_2 = \tfrac{1}{720} \big(7 + 4 \sqrt{7}\big),
    \quad C = \tfrac{1}{720} \big(8 - \sqrt{7}\big).  \end{align*}  \qed

\medskip\noindent
{\bf Example 3.} Symmetric Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules of degree $7$ with 18 nodes. This formula
is in the form of \eqref{symm} with $M_0=2$ and $M_1 =3$. The nodes and weights are given below:
\begin{align*}
 & u_{1,0}  =  v_{1,0} = \tfrac{1}{18} (5 - \sqrt{7}),   \qquad  u_{2,0}  =  v_{2,0} = \tfrac{1}{18} (5 + \sqrt{7}), \\
 & A_1=  \tfrac{1}{17640} \big(1141 -94 \sqrt{7}\big), \quad A_2 =  \tfrac{1}{17640} \big(1141 + 94 \sqrt{7}\big), \\
 & u_{1,1} = \tfrac{1}{6} \big(3 - \sqrt{3}\big), \quad u_{2,1} = \tfrac{1}{2}, \quad u_{3,1} = \tfrac{1}{6} \big(3 + \sqrt{3}\big),\\
 & B_1 = \tfrac{3}{280}, \quad B_2 = \tfrac{4}{315}, \quad B_3= \tfrac{3}{280},   \quad C = \tfrac{1}{315}.
\end{align*} \qed

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width = 5cm]{degree5symm.pdf} \,\, \,\,
   \includegraphics[width = 5cm]{degree7.pdf} }
\caption{Nodes of symmetric Gauss-Lobatto cubature rules of degree 5 and 7} \label{Fig2}
\end{figure}

These cubature rules appear to be new (see the list in \cite{CR}). Their numbers of nodes are
more than the minimal given in \eqref{lwbd}. The existence of higher order Gauss-Lobatto rules
depends on the existence of minimal cubature rules of degree $2n-4$ for the weight $W_{1,1,1}$.
The latter cubature rules most likely do not exist for $n \ge 6$, but the algorithm can still
be applied to produce cubature formulas with $n-1$ points in each side of the triangle.

It should be mentioned that there are cubature rules of degree $2n-1$ in the form of \eqref{cuba}
that have fewer than $n-1$ points on each side, naturally with more interior points according to
\eqref{lwbd2b}, such rules cannot be constructed directly by our algorithm. It is possible to modify
the algorithm, however, since ${\mathcal L}_i$ for such rules cannot be positive definite on $\Pi_{n-1}$ but
it must be positive definite on a subspace of $\Pi_{n-1}$.

Finally, let us mention that our algorithm can also be modified for constructing cubature rules of degree
$2n$. This means a cubature rule of degree $2n-3$ for $W_{\a+1,{\beta}+1,{\gamma}+1}$ in Step 1, and
a quadrature for ${\mathcal L}_i$ of degree $2n-2$ in Step 2. The quadrature of degree $2n-2$ is generated
by a quasi-orthogonal polynomial of the form $q_n := p_n + \a p_{n-1}$, where $\a$ is a free parameter
which can be fixed by requiring, say, $q_n(1/2) =0$, which means fixing the middle point on the
corresponding side of the triangle as a node of the cubature. We have tried this construction for
cubature rules of degree $6$ with 4 interior points, 3 on each sides and 1 at each vertex, starting with
a cubature rule for $W_{1,1,1}$ of degree 3. The Lobatto type cubature rule of degree $6$ that we
obtained, however, has three negative weights.

\medskip\noindent
{\bf Acknowledgment.} The author thanks both referees for their careful reading of the manuscript,
especially David Day for his extensive and thoughtful suggestions.