A Poncelet theorem for lines

Abstract: Our aim is to prove a Poncelet type theorem for a line configuration on the complex projective. More precisely, we say that a polygon with 2n sides joining 2n vertices A1, A2,..., A2n is well inscribed in a configuration Ln of n lines if each line of the configuration contains exactly two points among A1, A2, ..., A2n. Then we prove : "Let Ln be a configuration of n lines and D a smooth conic in the complex projective plane. If it exists one polygon with 2n sides well inscribed in Ln and circumscribed around D then there are infinitely many such polygons. In particular a general point in Ln is a vertex of such a polygon." We propose an elementary proof based on Frégier's involution. We begin by recalling some facts about these involutions. Then we explore the following question : When does the product of involutions correspond to an involution? It leads to Pascal theorem, to its dual version proved by Brianchon, and to its generalization proved by Möbius.

\section{Introduction}

Let $\mathcal{L}_n$ be a configuration of  $n$ lines $L_1, \cdots, L_n$ in the complex projective plane $\p^2$
and $D$ be a smooth conic
in the same plane. We assume that $\mathcal{L}_n\cap D$ consists in $2n$ distinct points. From a point $A_1$ on $L_1$ (not being
on the other lines neither on $D$)
we  draw a tangent line to $D$. This line cuts $L_2$ in a point $A_2$. In the same way we define successively
$$A_3\in L_3, \cdots, A_n\in L_n, A_{n+1}\in L_{n-1}, \cdots , A_{2n}\in L_2.$$
The second tangent line to $D$ from $A_{2n}$ meets $L_1$ in $A_{2n+1}$.
Now two situations can occur : $A_{2n+1}=A_1$  or $A_{2n+1}\neq A_1$. This second case is  clearly  the general case.

\smallskip

If $A_{2n+1}=A_1$  the polygon $(A_1A_2)\cup \cdots \cup (A_{2n}A_{2n+1})$ is simultaneously inscribed in $\mathcal{L}_n$ and circumscribed around $D$.
Our aim is to prove that in this case, there are  infinitely many polygons with $2n$ sides  simultaneously inscribed in $\mathcal{L}_n$ and circumscribed around $D$
 (see theorem \ref{produitdedroites}). It means that the existence of such polygons does
 not depend on
the initial point but only on $D$ and $\mathcal{L}_n$.

\smallskip

On the contrary, if $A_{2n+1}\neq A_1$  the polygon will
never close after $2n$ steps for any initial point on $\mathcal{L}_n$.

\smallskip

 This kind of result is called a porism and it is of the same nature than Steiner porism
(see \cite{BB}, thm.7.3) for circles tangent to two given circles or Poncelet porism
for two conics (see \cite{GH}, \cite{BKOR} or \cite{Po}).

\smallskip

To prove this porism we \textit{dualize} the situation and we consider the dual polygon inscribed in $D$. To be more explicit, let us assume that $A_{2n+1}=A_1$.
Then the situation can be dualized in the following way. Any line $L_i$ in the configuration is the polar line of a point $c_i$ (its pole).
Any tangent line $(A_iA_{i+1})$  is the polar line of a point $x_{i,i+1} \in D$  for $1\le i\le 2n$.
For $1\le j\le n$, the lines $(x_{j-1,j}x_{j,j+1})$ and $(x_{j+n-1,j+n}x_{j+n,j+n+1})$ meet in $c_i$. By this way we obtain  an inscribed polygon
$(x_{1,2}x_{2,3}) \cup \cdots \cup (x_{2n,2n+1}x_{1,2})$ with $2n$ sides passing through $n$ fixed points $c_1, \cdots, c_n$
(this inscribed polygon corresponds to the choice of a $2n$-cycle among the permutations of $2n$ points).

 \begin{figure}[h!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{octagon2.pdf}

    \caption{Octagon inscribed in $D$ and its dual inscribed in $4$ lines and circumscribed around $D$. }
  \end{figure}
This inscribed polygon  leads to study Fr\'egier's involutions that are particular  automorphisms of $D$.
Indeed we verify that the porism (seetheorem \ref{produitdedroites}) is true when  the product of the $n$ Fr\'egier's involutions
giving the incribed polygon is also a Fr\'egier's involution.

\smallskip

So first of all we  recall the definition
and the  main properties of these automorphisms.
Then we study the product of involutions. More precisely we wonder when a product of $n$ involutions is still an involution.\\
For $n=2$, it is very well known (see proposition \ref{two}).\\
For $n=3$, we prove that the product is an involution if and only if the centers are aligned (see proposition \ref{uvw2}). It is an other way to set out the
so-called Pascal theorem\footnote{Another way but probably not a new way. According to its  simplicity this argument is certainly already written somewhere.}.\\
For $n\ge 4$, we propose a new proof of a generalization of Pascal theorem due to M\"obius (see theorem \ref{mob}). We prove also that the product of $2n+1$ involutions
is an involution when their centers are aligned (see proposition \ref{alignes}).

\smallskip

The projective duality give us the dual versions of all these results, like Brianchon theorem for instance (see theorem \ref{dmob} and proposition \ref{dalignes}).

\smallskip

In the last section we prove our Poncelet type theorem for lines (see theorem \ref{produitdedroites}) and we conclude by an explicit computation in the case of two lines
simultaneously inscribed and circumscribed around a smooth conic.

\section{Fr\'egier's involutions}
The group $ \mathrm{PGL}(2,\C)$ acts on $\p^1=\p^1(\C)$ in the usual way.
\begin{defi}
 An element  $g\in \mathrm{PGL}(2,\C)$ which is not the identity $I$ on $\p^1$ is called an involution
 if    $g^2= I$.
\end{defi}

Considering  $ \mathrm{GL}(2,\C)$ as the space of $2\times 2$ invertible matrices it is clear that any $g\in   \mathrm{PGL}(2,\C)$
 has at most two fixed points ($g$ has three fixed points if and only if
$g= I$).
Moreover, when $g$ is an involution it is easy to verify that
it has exactly  two fixed points and that it is determined  by the data of these fixed points.

\smallskip

The Veronese embedding  $\p^1 \stackrel{v_2}\hookrightarrow \p^2$ induces an embedding for groups  $\mathrm{PGL}(2,\C) \subset \mathrm{PGL}(3,\C)$.
 Let  $g\in \mathrm{PGL}(2,\C)$ be an involution on $\p^1$.
The  corresponding transformation $g$ in $\p^2$ has  two fixed points on
the smooth conic $D=v_2(\p^1)$: the images of the fixed points on $\p^1$. \\
Let us consider now the intersection point $x\notin D$ of the two  tangent lines in the fixed points of $g$.
 A general line through $x$ cuts $D$ in two points. The map exchanging
these points is an involution on $D$ (i.e. on $\p^1$). Its fixed points are
the  intersection points of $D$ with the polar line of $x$. Such an involution  is called \textit{Fr\'egier involution} on $D$ with center $x$.

Since an involution is determined by its fixed points, this involution is  $g$.
We have verified that:
\begin{pro}
 Any involution on $D\subset \p^2$ is a Fr\'egier's involution.
\end{pro}
\subsection{Product of two and  three involutions}
Rigorously speaking we should not write product but composition of involutions. Anyway, from now, since for matrices it becomes a product we will
write product in any case. Moreover we will denote $uv$ the product (i.e the composition) of two involutions $u$ and $v$  and $u^n$ the product (i.e the composition)
 of $u$ with itself $n$  times.
 The following proposition is
classical and easy to prove.
\begin{pro}
\label{two}
Let $u$ and $v$ be two involutions with distincts fixed points. Then,
$ uv$ is involutive if and only if  the two fixed points of $u$
and the two fixed points of $v$  form an harmonic divison of $D$.
\end{pro}
For three  involutions
we recognize Pascal theorem.
\begin{pro}
\label{uvw2} Let $u$, $v$, and $w$ be three involutions with distincts fixed points and let $x_u$,
$x_v$ and
$x_w$ be their respective centers. Then,
$$ uvw\,\,\textrm{is involutive}\,\,\Leftrightarrow  x_u, x_v\,\,\textrm{and}\,\, x_w
\,\,\textrm{are aligned}.$$
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}\footnote{This  proposition, its proof and its corollary appear in a book project with Giorgio Ottaviani (see \cite{wykno}).}
Assume that the three centers are aligned on a line $L$.
The line $L$ is not tangent to $D$ because the three involutions do not have a common
fixed point. Then  let $\{x,y\}= L\cap D$. We verify that $uvw(x)=y$ and $uvw(x)=y$. The automorphism
$uvw$ has at least one fixed point
$z\in D$. Now the three points $x,y$ and $z$ are fixed points for
$(uvw)^2$.
 \begin{figure}[h!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{pascal.pdf}

    \caption{Three involutions with aligned centers. }
  \end{figure}
It means that $ uvw$ is an involution on $D$.

\smallskip

Conversely, assume that $uvw$ is involutive. Let $x\in D$ such that  $v(x)=w(x)\neq x$. Call $L$ the line joining $x$ to $v(x)$, i.e passing trough $x_{v}$ and $x_{w}$. From
$v(x)=w(x)\neq x$ and the assumption $uvw=wvu$, we find four fixed points of $wv$:
$x, v(x), u(x), uv(x)$.
The automorphism $wv$ has at most two distinct fixed points. The first two are
distinct. Consider the third one $u(x)$.
If $u(x)=v(x)$ we have $u(x)=v(x)=w(x)$ and we have finished, hence $u(x)=x$.
Consider the fourth one $uv(x)$. If $uv(x)=x $ we have again $u(x)=v(x)=w(x)$ and we
have finished, hence $uv(x)=v(x)$.
It follows that $x, v(x)$ are fixed points of both $u$ and $uvw$, that is a
contradiction since an involution is uniquely determined by its fixed points.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}[Pascal's theorem]
Let $p_1, p_2, p_3, q_3, q_2, q_1$ be six (ordered) points on a smooth conic
$D$. Let $x_{ij}, i<j$ the
 intersection point of the two lines joining $p_i$ to $q_j$ and $p_j$ to $q_i$.
Then the three points
$x_{12}, x_{13}$ and $x_{23}$ are aligned.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We denote by $u$ the involution defined by $x_{13}$, $v$ the
one defined by $x_{23}$ and
$w$ the last one defined by $x_{12}$. Then by following lines we verify that
$$(uvw)(p_1)=q_1, (uvw)(q_1)=p_1.$$
Let $z$ be a fixed point of $uvw$. Then $z,p_1,q_1$ are fixed points of $ (uvw)^2$.
Since an element of $\textrm{PGL}(2,\C)$ that has more than three fixed
points is the identity, we have
proved that $ uvw$ is an involution. The result now follows from proposition \ref{uvw2}.
\end{proof}

\begin{rem}
\label{coropascal}
The center of the product of three involutions $u_1, u_2$ and $u_3$ with aligned centers (on a line $L$)
belongs also to $L$. Indeed let us define $v=u_1 u_2 u_3$; since the centers are aligned $v$ is also an ivolution.  Then
$u_1 u_2 u_3v=I$. It  implies $u_1=u_2u_3 v$ i.e that the product of $u_2,u_3$ and $v$ is an involution. According to  theorem
\ref{uvw2}  their
centers are aligned.
\end{rem}

\subsection{Product of $n\ge 4$ involutions and M\"obius theorem}
We show that the product of an odd number of involutions with aligned centers is still an involution.
\begin{rem}
We cannot expect an equivalence as it was in proposition \ref{uvw2} but only an implication.
Indeed let us give a product of five  involutions with three centers on a line $L$ and two centers on another line $D$ that is also an involution.
So, let us consider a line $L$ and three points $x_1,x_2,x_3$ on it. We associate three  involutions $u_1,u_2, u_3$ to these centers.
The product $w=u_1 u_2 u_3$ is also an involution by proposition \ref{uvw2} . Moreover, according to  remark \ref{coropascal} its center  $x$ belongs to $L$.
 Now we introduce another line $D$ passing through $x$,
and two others points $x_4,x_5$ on $D$. Let us call $u_4, u_5$ the associated involutions. Then
$$ u_1 u_2 u_3 u_4  u_5=w u_3 u_4,$$
and $w u_3 u_4$ is an involution because their  centers $x,x_4,x_5$ are aligned.
\end{rem}
\begin{pro}
\label{alignes}
 Let  $u_1, \cdots, u_{2n+1}$ be  involutions on   $D\subset \p^2$ with respective centers
  $c_1,\cdots, c_{2n+1}$. If $c_1,\cdots, c_{2n+1}$ are  aligned then
  $\prod_{i=1}^{2n+1}u_{i}$ is an involution.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Let $v=\prod_{i=1}^{2n+1}u_{i} $. We recall that the fixed points of $v$ are also fixed points of $v^2$.
The automorphism  $v$ possesses at least one fixed point $x$.
Let $L$ be the line of centers and  $L\cap D =\lbrace y,z \rbrace$. These two points are exchanged by
$v$ and then are not fixed points of $v$. The points $x,y,z$ are fixed points of $v^2$, then $v^2=I$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
 The proposition is not valid for an even number of involutions. Indeed since two points are always aligned it is clearly not valid for two involutions.
Consider now three involutions with aligned centers $u_1,u_2,u_3$. Call $w$ their product. Let  $u_4$ be another involution with its center on the previous
line of centers. Then the product $w u_4$ is an involution if and only if  the four fixed points form an  harmonic division. But if we move the center of $u_4$ on $L$
 the cross-ratio is changing. So for the general point on $L$ the product will not be involutive.
\end{rem}
In general when the product of involutions is an involution we are not able to say something
pertinent about the position of their centers. But, when the product of $n$ involutions  is still an involution and at least $n-1$ centers are aligned,
M\"obius proved that
all the centers are aligned (see \cite{Mo}, page 219).
We prove again this theorem in the terminology of Fr\'egier's involution. The formulation below  is the one given in  Adler's article (see \cite{A}, thm. 1).
\begin{thm}[M\"obius theorem]
\label{mob}
Let  $x_1,y_1, \cdots, x_n, y_n$ be points on a smooth conic. Consider the intersection points
$a_{j}=(x_jx_{j+1})\cap (y_jy_{j+1})$,  $j=1,\cdots,n-1$ and
$$ a_n= \left \{
             \begin{array}{ccc}
              (x_ny_{1})\cap (y_nx_{1}) &  \mathrm{if}   &  n=2m+1          \\
             (x_nx_{1})\cap (y_ny_{1}) &  \mathrm{if}   &  n=2m.
\end{array}
      \right.$$
If all of these points except possibly one are collinear then the same is true for the remaining point.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
As we have seen before (in proposition \ref{uvw2})   it is true for three involutions
since  the product of three involutions is an involution if and only if the centers are aligned. Moreover as we said in remark \ref{coropascal}
the center of the product
is also aligned with the  three others.

 \begin{figure}[h!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=8.5cm]{mobius.pdf}

    \caption{Four aligned centers. }
  \end{figure}

We need only   to prove the result for four involutions. Indeed let us verify that we can reduce the general case ($n\ge 4$) to three or four involutions.
Consider $n> 4$ involutions.
Any group of three terms among $u_{i-1}, u_i, u_{i+1}$ for $i=2, \cdots, n-2$ gives a new involution with a center on the same line.
So when $n$ is odd it remains three involutions after reductions $u u_{n-1} u_{n}$. Since the product is  an involution the centers are aligned.
But the centers of $u$ and $u_{n-1}$ are already on the line $L$. Then the center or $u_n$ is also on $L$.
When $n$ is even it remains four involutions after reduction  $u u_{n-2} u_{n-1} u_{n}$ with the first three centers on $L$.

\smallskip

So let us consider the case $u_1 u_{2} u_{3} u_{4}=v$ with $v$ an involution. We have $u_1 v=u_2 u_3 u_4$.
The center $x_4$ belongs to $(x_2x_3)$ if and only if $u_2 u_3 u_4$ is an involution, i.e. if and only if  $u_1v$ is an involution.
To prove it  let us show that $u_1 v=v u_1$.
Since $x_1,x_2,x_3$ are aligned the product $u_1u_2u_3$ is involutive, so $u_1u_2u_3=u_3u_2u_1$.
Then $u_2u_3=u_1u_3u_2u_1$ and $u_1v=(u_2u_3)u_4=(u_1u_3u_2u_1)u_4$. Since
$u_3u_2u_1=u_1u_2u_3$ we obtain
$$u_1v=(u_1u_3u_2u_1)u_4=u_1(u_1u_2u_3)u_4=u_1v.$$
\end{proof}

\subsection{Projective duality and involutions}
All the results obtained above can be \textit{dualized} by considering polar lines of  points and poles of lines with respect to the smooth conic
$D$. By this way any inscribed polygon into $D$   induces a circumscribed polygon (with the same number of sides) around $D$.
 Even if M\"obius theorem was certainly  \textit{dualized} by M\"obius himself,
we write one more time this dual version below.

\begin{thm}[dual M\"obius]
\label{dmob}
Let $L_1\cup \cdots \cup L_{2n}$ be a polygon tangent circumscribed to the smooth conic $D$.
If the diagonals joining  $L_i\cap L_{i+1}$ to $L_{i+n}\cap L_{i+1+n}$  for $i=1, \cdots, n-1$ are concurrent lines then
 the same is true for the remaining diagonal joining $L_{2n}\cap L_{1}$ to $L_{n}\cap L_{n+1}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
For $n=3$ it is Brianchon theorem.
\end{rem}
Proposition \ref{alignes} implies that one can construct an inscribed polygon in $D$ when  $n$ aligned points $c_1,\cdots, c_n$ (not on $D$) are given.
Indeed let $x$ be a point on $D$ and let us take successively its  images
by the involutions $u_i$ associated to the centers $c_i$:
$$x, u_1(x), (u_2 u_1)(x) , \cdots , y=(u_{2n+1} \cdots  u_1)(x). $$
Then let us take successively the  images of $y$ by the involutions $u_i$:
$$u_1(y), (u_2 u_1)(y) , \cdots , (u_{2n+1} \cdots  u_1)(y). $$
Since the product is involutive the process stops and  we have:
 $$(u_{2n+1} \cdots  u_1)(y)=(u_{2n+1} \cdots  u_1)^2(x)=x.$$
In other words,  from a general  point on $D$ we can draw by this method an inscribed polygon with $4n+2$ sides.
Dualizing this statement, we verify the following proposition:
\begin{pro}[dual version of proposition \ref{alignes}]
\label{dalignes}
Let us consider $2n+1$ concurrent lines $L_i$ meeting a smooth conic $D$ in  $4n+2$ distinct points. Then take any point $P_1$
on $L_1$ and draw a tangent to $D$ from this point. This tangent cuts $L_2$ in one point $P_2$. Let us draw successively $P_i\in L_i$ for $1\le i\le 2n+1$
and $P_{2n+1+j}\in L_j$ for $1\le j\le 2n+1$.
 Then the line
$(P_1P_{4n+2})$ is tangent to $D^{\vee}$.
\end{pro}

\section{A Poncelet  theorem for lines}
The following  theorem is not a consequence nor of the well known
Poncelet closure theorem (except when the configuration consists in two lines) neither of Darboux theorem (the configuration is not
a Poncelet curve associated to $D$ and described in \cite{Tr}).
We say that a polygon with $2n$ sides joining $2n$ vertices
is well inscribed in a configuration $\mathcal{L}_n$ of $n$
lines when  each line of the configuration contains exactly two  vertices.
\begin{thm}
\label{produitdedroites}
Let  $\mathcal{L}_n$ be a configuration of  $n$ lines  and   $D$ a smooth conic in  $\p^2$.
If it exists a polygon with  $2n$ sides well inscribed into $\mathcal{L}_n$ and circumscribed around   $D$
 then there are  infinitely many  such polygons. In particular a general point in  $\mathcal{L}_n$ is a vertex of such a polygon.
\end{thm}

\begin{proof}
 The given   polygon of $2n$ sides  well inscribed into  $\mathcal{L}_n$ and circumscribed
to  $D$
corresponds by  duality (polarity) to an inscribed polygon into $D$.
It gives  $2n$ points on  $D$ linked by
$2n$ lines that are the polar lines of the considered $2n$ vertices in  $\mathcal{L}_n$. These $2n$ lines meet two by two in $n$ points
$L_1^{\vee}, \cdots, L_n^{\vee}$ (poles of the  $n$ lines of the configuration).

\smallskip

Let us show that the product $v=(u_n\cdots u_1)$ of the $n$ involutions $u_1, \cdots , u_n$ with respective centers $L_1^{\vee}, \cdots, L_n^{\vee}$ is involutive.
Let $x_1$ be an intersection point of $L_1\cap D$ and $x_2=v(x_1)$.
Following the sides of this inscribed polygon,  we have
$v^2(x_{1})=x_{2}$. We have, in the same way,
$v^2(x_{2})=x_{2}$. Since the inscribed polygon has $2n$ vertices and not only $n$, these two fixed points of the automorphism
$v^2$ do not co\"{\i}ncide; indeed they are  exchanged by  $v$. Let  $x$ be a fixed point of the product   $v$.
This point  $x$ is also a fixed point of
$v^2$. Since  $x_{1}$ and  $x_{2}$ are exchanged by   $v$ they do not
co\"{\i}ncide with   $x$. It implies that
$v^2$ has three fixed points, i.e.
$v^2= I$.

\smallskip

Then, a polygon constructed  from a general point $p\in D$ by joining the vertices
$$\lbrace p,u_1(p),(u_2  u_1)(p),\cdots , (u_{n}   \cdots    u_1)(p), \cdots ,
(u_{n-1}  \cdots   u_1  u_{n}   \cdots   u_1)(p) \rbrace $$  is inscribed
in  $D$ and corresponds by duality to an inscribed polygon in $\mathcal{L}_n$  circumscribed around $D$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Poncelet theorem for singular conics}
Assume that $u_{2i}=u$ and $u_{2i+1}=v$ and let $x$ and $y$ be their respective centers.
We can consider the two polar lines $L_x=x^{\vee}$ and $L_y=y^{\vee}$. Then theorem \ref{produitdedroites}  (with $u_{2i}=u$ and $u_{2i+1}=v$) implies
 that  $(uv)^n=I$ if and only if there exists a polygon with $2n$ sides inscribed in $L_x\cup L_y$ and circumscribed around $D$.
In that case since an union of two lines is a conic it is a consequence of Poncelet theorem (see \cite{Va}, thm.2.2).

\begin{figure}[h!]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[height=4.5cm]{uv4id.pdf}

    \caption{Octagon inscribed in $L_x\cup L_y$. }
  \end{figure}
This situation can be described in an elementary way. Since $\mathrm{PGL(2,\C)}$ acts transitively on triplets of points in $\p^1$
we can choose three among the four fixed points of $u$ and $v$. Then we will obtain a good matrix description.
 Let us introduce first
 a family of polynomials\footnote{Quite similar than Fibonacci polynomials.} on the affine line:

\smallskip

$P_0(x) =1, P_1(x)=x$ and for $n\ge 2$, $P_n(x)=xP_{n-1}(x)-P_{n-2}(x)$.

\smallskip

We can give now  a simple characterization for an union of two lines to be Poncelet associated to a smooth conic.
\begin{pro} Let  $\{ 1,-1\}$ be the fixed points of $u$ and $\{0,2/x\}$  be the fixed points of   $v$. Then,
$$ (uv)^n= I \Leftrightarrow P_{n-1}(x)=0\,\, \mathrm{and} \,\, P_{n-2}(x)\neq 0.$$
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Two representatives matrices of   $u$ and   $v$ are
$$M_u=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 0 & 1\\
 1 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \,\, \mathrm{and}\,\,
M_v=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 1 & 0\\
 x & -1
\end{array}
\right).$$
The product is given by the matrix
$$ (M_uM_v)^{n}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
 xP_{n-1}(x)-P_{n-2}(x) & -P_{n-1}(x)\\
 P_{n-1}(x) & -P_{n-2}(x)
\end{array}
\right)   $$ and this matrix is a multiple of the matrix  identity if and only if  $$P_{n-1}(x)=0.$$
\end{proof}

A Poncelet theorem for lines


Variations of the cop and robber game on graphs

Abstract: We prove new theoretical results about several variations of the cop and robber game on graphs. First, we consider a variation of the cop and robber game which is more symmetric called the cop and killer game. We prove for all $c < 1$ that almost all random graphs are stalemate for the cop and killer game, where each edge occurs with probability $p$ such that $\frac{1}{n^{c}} \le p \le 1-\frac{1}{n^{c}}$. We prove that a graph can be killer-win if and only if it has exactly $k\ge 3$ triangles or none at all. We prove that graphs with multiple cycles longer than triangles permit cop-win and killer-win graphs. For $\left(m,n\right)\neq\left(1,5\right)$ and $n\geq4$, we show that there are cop-win and killer-win graphs with $m$ $C_n$s. In addition, we identify game outcomes on specific graph products.Next, we find a generalized version of Dijkstra's algorithm that can be applied to find the minimal expected capture time and the minimal evasion probability for the cop and gambler game and other variations of graph pursuit.Finally, we consider a randomized version of the killer that is similar to the gambler. We use the generalization of Dijkstra's algorithm to find optimal strategies for pursuing the random killer. We prove that if $G$ is a connected graph with maximum degree $d$, then the cop can win with probability at least $\frac{\sqrt d}{1+\sqrt d}$ after learning the killer's distribution. In addition, we prove that this bound is tight only on the $\left(d+1\right)$-vertex star, where the killer takes the center with probability $\frac1{1+\sqrt d}$ and each of the other vertices with equal probabilities.

\section{Introduction}
The game of cop and robber on a graph is a simple model of the process of pursuing an adversary. Nowakowski and Winkler \cite{NW} and Quilliot \cite{Q} independently defined the game on a given graph $G$ and identified the graphs on which the cop has a winning strategy, assuming that both players use optimal strategies. Several other papers have studied different aspects of this game \cite{3,4,8,9,10}, such as the capture time.

In the original version of the game, the cop and robber play the following game on a graph $G$: the cop chooses a vertex, then the robber chooses a vertex, then the players take turns moving beginning with the cop. A move is either staying at one's present vertex or moving to an adjacent vertex, and both players see each move. The cop wins if they occupy the same vertex at some point, otherwise the robber wins.

Other versions of graph pursuit have also been studied, such as a variation where the robber becomes a rabbit and is able to hop between vertices \cite{1,2}. In another version of the game, the robber becomes a gambler and uses a fixed probability distribution on the vertices of the graph to determine its next vertex, moving simultaneously with the cop or cops \cite{geneson_arxiv_2016,geneson_arxiv_2017,komarov_arxiv_2013,tsai_arxiv_2017}.

In this report we prove new theoretical results about several variations of the cop and robber game. We consider a variation of the cop and robber game which is more symmetric. The two players are now a cop and a killer, also a perfect information game. The cop and killer each pick a vertex. Then the game begins, with the cop going first. She moves to an adjacent vertex, followed by the killer moving to an adjacent vertex. If after the cop moves she occupies the vertex where the killer is located, she wins. Similarly, if after the killer moves, he occupies the vertex where the cop is located, he wins. If neither happens after a infinite amount of turns, it is a stalemate.

We prove for all $c < 1$ that almost every random graph is stalemate for the cop and killer game, where each edge occurs with probability $\frac{1}{n^{c}} \le p \le 1-\frac{1}{n^{c}}$. Next, we prove that a graph can be killer-win if and only if it has either exactly $k\ge 3$ triangles  or none at all. We give examples of infinite graphs that are cop-win, killer-win, and stalemate. In addition, we prove that graphs with multiple cycles longer than triangles permit cop-win and killer-win graphs. For $\left(m,n\right)\neq\left(1,5\right)$ and $n\geq4$, there are cop-win and killer-win graphs with $m$ $C_n$s.

For connected graphs $H$ and $G$ with $|G|>1$ and $|H|>1,$ we find the result of the cop and killer game on several products of $G$ and $H$. We prove that $G~\square~ H$ is a stalemate if at least one of $G$ and $H$ is not a tree. We show that $G\times H$ is a stalemate if both $G$ and $H$ are not killer-win, and killer-win otherwise. Finally, we prove that $G\boxtimes H$ is cop-win if both $G$ and $H$ have a universal vertex, and is stalemate otherwise.

We find a generalized version of Dijkstra's algorithm that can be applied to find the minimal expected capture time and the minimal evasion probability for the cop and gambler game and other variations of pursuit on graphs. We further consider a randomized version of the killer that is similar to the gambler. We use this algorithmic method to find optimal strategies for pursuing the random killer. We prove that if $G$ is a connected graph with maximum degree $d$, then the cop can win with probability at least $\frac{\sqrt d}{1+\sqrt d}$ after learning the killer's distribution. In addition, we prove that this bound is tight only on the $\left(d+1\right)$-vertex star, where the killer takes the center with probability $\frac1{1+\sqrt d}$ and each of the other vertices with equal probabilities.

\section{Cop and killer}
As mentioned previously, this is a more symmetric variation of cop and robber. We found some basic properties of cop-win, killer-win, and stalemate graphs.
\begin{lemma}
  (1) All graphs with a universal vertex are cop-win.\\
  (2) All trees which are not stars are killer-win.\\
  (3) Triangle is cop-win, four-cycle is killer-win, and cycles with more than four vertices are stalemate graphs.\\
  (4) Grid graphs larger than $1\times3$ are killer-win. King's graphs larger than $3\times3$ are stalemate graphs.\\
  (5) A bipartite graph is cop-win if and only if it is a star.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  (1) is trivial.\\
  (2) If a tree has no universal vertex, then it has at least $3$ vertices. The killer could always pick a vertex that is $2$ steps away from the cop and then chase down the cop.\\
  (3) In a cycle with more than four vertices, whenever two players are two steps apart, the player who moves next moves away from the other and increases their shortest distance by one. Therefore they will never be one step apart, which is a stalemate.\\
  (4) In a $1\times k$ grid graph with $k>3$, the killer could pick a vertex two steps away from the cop. In a $k\times l$ grid graph with $k,l>1$, the killer could start at a vertex two steps away from but not horizontally or vertically aligned with the cop. In both cases the killer wins by keeping the same relative position to the cop. In a king's graph larger than $3\times3$, the killer can always choose an initial position at least two steps from the cop. Then, whenever they are exactly two steps apart, they must be vertically or horizontally aligned. Hence the next moving player can always move to a vertex further away from the other, therefore it is a stalemate.\\
  (5) A star is clearly cop-win. For a non-star bipartite graph $G$ with $V\left(G\right)=A\cup B$ and $A\cap B=\emptyset$, suppose cop starts at $v\in A$. If $|A|=1$ since $G$ is not a star, the killer can remain free forever by selecting a vertex in $B$ not adjacent to $v$; if $|A|>1$, then the killer starts at another vertex $u$ in $A$. He later either switches between $A$ and $B$ following the cop, or wins by capturing the cop.
\end{proof}

There are also interesting properties regarding retract and bipartiteness.
\begin{lemma}
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item [(1)] Killer-win and stalemate graphs are all non-retract-closed.
  \item [(2)] If a graph is not stalemate, then it either has an universal vertex or there exist vertices $u, v\in V\left(G\right)$ such that $N\left(v\right)\subseteq N\left(u\right)$ and there is no edge between $u$ and $v$.
  \item [(3)] For each $m \geq 1$, there are non-bipartite killer-win graphs that are also $C_{2k+1}$-free for each $1 \leq k \leq m$.
  \item [(4)] The maximum number of edges is $\Theta\left(n^2\right)$ for a non-bipartite killer-win graph that is also $C_{2k+1}$-free for each $k \leq m$ with $m$ fixed.
  \end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item [(1)] $C_4$ retracts to $P_3$, the former is killer-win and the latter is cop-win. Also $C_6$, stalemate, retracts to $P_4$, killer-win.

  \item [(2)] It suffices to show that a non-stalemate graph without universal vertex has two vertices $u$ and $v$ with $N\left(v\right)\subseteq N\left(u\right)$ and no edge between $u$ and $v$. Suppose in the last step a player moves from $u$ to $w$ and capture the other, and in the previous step the losing player moves from $v$ to $w$. If $N\left(v\right)$ is not a subset of $N\left(u\right)$, then the losing player could have moved to a vertex in $N\left(v\right)-N\left(u\right)$ without losing. If there is an edge between $u$ and $v$, then the losing player could have killed the winning player.

  \item [(3)] We construct a graph $G$ with vertices $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_{2m+3},B_1,B_2,\ldots,B_{2m+3}$. $\left(A_i,B_{i+1}\right), \left(A_i,A_{i+1}\right), \left(B_i,B_{i+1}\right), \left(B_i,A_{i+1}\right)\in E\left(G\right)$ for each $i\in[2m+2]$. Also $\left(A_{2m+3},A_{1}\right),\left(B_{2m+3},A_{1}\right),\left(A_{2m+3},B_{1}\right),\left(B_{2m+3},B_{1}\right)\in E\left(G\right)$. Because $G$ has odd cycles it is not bipartite. Define clusters $K_i=\{A_i,B_i\}$ for $i\in[2m+3]$. The killer wins by starting at the vertex belonging to the same cluster $K_i$ as the cop. Moreover, clearly the smallest odd cycle has length $2m+3$. Figure \ref{fig:cyclefree} shows this for $m=5$.

    \begin{figure}[H]
      \begin{asy}
        size(2.5inch);
        int rotations = 13;
        real orientation=90;
        for (int i=0; i<rotations; ++i)
        {
          dot(2*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations));
          label(scale(0.75)*Label("$A_{"+(string)(i+1)+"}$"), 2*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations), -1.5*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations));

          dot(3*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations));
          label("$B_{"+(string)(i+1)+"}$", 3*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations), 1.5*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations));

          draw(2*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations) -- 2*dir(orientation+(i+1)*360/rotations) -- 3*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations) -- 3*dir(orientation+(i+1)*360/rotations) -- cycle);
        }

      \end{asy}
      \centering
      \caption{\footnotesize A $C_{2k+1}$-free non-bipartite killer-win graph for each $1 \leq k \leq 5$.}
      \label{fig:cyclefree}
    \end{figure}

  \item [(4)] Similar to the construction in (3), assume $n\ge4m+6$ and build a graph with vertices labeled $1$ through $n,$ where vertices $u$ and $v$ are connected if and only if $u-v\equiv\pm1\pmod{2m+3}$. Define clusters $K_i=\{v \mid v \equiv i \pmod {2n+3} \}$ for $i \in [2m+3].$ Killer wins if he picks the same cluster as the cop. The graph has $\Theta\left(\left(\frac{n}{2m+3}\right)^2\right)$ edges and no $C_{2k+1}$ for each $k\in[m]$.

    \begin{figure}[H]
      \begin{asy}
        size(3inch);
        int rotations = 13;
        real orientation = 90-1440/13;
        int vertices = 35;
        int previousLayers = vertices # rotations;

        for (int i=0; i<vertices; ++i)
        {
          int layer = i # rotations;
          pair spot = (2+layer)*dir(orientation+i*360/rotations);

          for (int l=0; l<previousLayers; ++l)
          {
            draw((2+l)*dir(orientation+(i-1)*360/rotations) -- spot);
          }

          dot(spot);
          label(scale(0.75)*Label("$"+(string)(i+1)+"$"), spot, dir(orientation+i*360/rotations));

          previousLayers = vertices # rotations;
          if (i
          ++previousLayers;
        }
      \end{asy}
      \centering
      \caption{\footnotesize A $C_{2k+1}$-free non-bipartite killer-win graph for each $1 \leq k \leq 5$ of size $\ge 4 \cdot 5 + 6.$}
      \label{fig:bigcyclefree}
    \end{figure}
  \end{enumerate}
\end{proof}

The next proof shows for all $c < 1$ that almost all random graphs are stalemate for the cop and killer game, where each edge occurs with probability $p$ such that $\frac{1}{n^{c}} < p < 1-\frac{1}{n^{c}}$.

\begin{lemma}
  Let $c<1.$ Then almost all random graphs are stalemate for the cop and killer game, where each edge occurs with probability $p$ such that $\frac{1}{n^c} \le p \le 1-\frac{1}{n^c}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  In the last lemma, we proved that if a graph is not stalemate, then it either has an universal vertex or there exist $u,v\in V\left(G\right)$ such that $N\left(v\right)\subseteq N\left(u\right)$ and there is no edge between $u$ and $v$. The probability of a universal vertex is at most $n p^{n-1}$ by the union bound, which has a limit of $0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.

  The probability of having vertices $u,v\in V\left(G\right)$ such that $N\left(v\right)\subseteq N\left(u\right)$ and there is no edge between $u$ and $v$ is at most $n^2 \left(1+p\left(p-1\right)\right)^{n-2}$ by the union bound, which also has a limit of $0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Thus if $s_{n}$ denotes the probability that the random graph on $n$ vertices is stalemate, then $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} s_{n} = 1$ for $\frac{1}{n^{c}} < p < 1-\frac{1}{n^{c}}$.
\end{proof}

Next we determine for each $k \geq 0$ if there are any killer-win graphs with $k$ triangles.

\begin{lemma}
  A graph can be killer-win if and only if it has no triangles or exactly $k\ge 3$ triangles.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  $C_4$ is a killer-win graph with no triangles.\\

  If there is exactly one triangle, the cop could pick a vertex in it and stay in the triangle. The moment the killer enters the triangle he loses. Moreover he is adjacent to at most one vertex, so the cop could always move to a vertex in the triangle not adjacent to the killer.\\

  If there are two triangles and they share a side, let it be $\left(u,v\right)$ and the other two vertices in the triangles are $x$ and $y$. Define $A=\{u,v,x,y\}$. The cop picks $u$. When the killer is outside of the triangles, he is adjacent to at most a vertex in $A$, so the cop could always move to another vertex in $A$. The only possible way for the killer to enter $A$ is to move to $x$ when the cop is at $y$ or vice versa. Clearly, the cop could have moved between $u$ and $v$ instead, and thus the killer would not move to $x$ or $y$.\\

  If the two triangles do not share a side, then similar to the one-triangle situation, the cop could always move to a vertex in the same triangle not adjacent to the killer.\\

  We provide a killer-win graph with three triangles. Consider a pentagon and an extra vertex $x$. Exactly four of the vertices in the pentagon are adjacent to $x,$ as in Figure \ref{fig:three3s}. It is not hard to verify that this is killer-win.\\
  \begin{figure}[H]
    \begin{asy}
      size(1inch);
      //string names[]={"$v$","$u$","$y$","$z$","$w$"};
      for (int i=0; i<5; ++i)
      {
        dot(dir(90+72*i));
        draw(dir(90+72*i)--dir(162+72*i));
        if (i>0)
        {
          draw((0,0)--dir(90+72*i));
        }
        //label(names[i],dir(90+72*i),dir(90+72*i));
      }
      dot((0,0));
      //label("$x$",(0,0),N);
    \end{asy}
    \centering
    \caption{\footnotesize A killer-win graph with three triangles.}
    \label{fig:three3s}
  \end{figure}

  Finally, for $k>3$, we can construct $k$ triangles $T_1,\ldots,T_k$, such that
  \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,topsep=0pt]
    \item [$\bullet$] $T_{i}$ and $T_{i+1}$ share a side for all $1 \le i < k,$
    \item [$\bullet$] there are no more common sides, and
    \item [$\bullet$] there is no common vertex to all $k$ triangles.
  \end{itemize}

    We then 3-color this graph, as shown in Figures $\ref{fig:many3s}$ and $\ref{fig:worm}.$ The killer can always pick a vertex of the same color as the cop. In subsequent steps the killer should move towards the cop, but matching the cop's color at every step.  The cop will eventually be cornered at $T_1$ or $T_k.$
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}[H]
  \centering
  \begin{asy}
    size(3inch);
    int n = 20;
    pen colors[] = { orange, green, purple };

    for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
    {
      if (i < n-2)
      draw(((i+1)/2.0, (i+1
      if (i == n-2)
      draw(((i+1)/2.0, (i+1
      dot((i/2.0,
    }
  \end{asy}
  \caption{\footnotesize A killer-win graph with more than 3 triangles.}
  \label{fig:many3s}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[H]
  \centering
  \begin{asy}
    size (2inch);
    pair A = (0,0);
    pair B = (1,0);
    pen Acolors[] = { green, purple };
    pen Bcolors[] = { orange, purple };
    //pen Acolors[] = { black };
    //pen Bcolors[] = { black };

    void pacmanlines (pair center, real start, real n, real increment, real radius=1.0)
    {
      pair previous = (0,0);
      for (int i=0; i<n; ++i)
      {
        pair edge = center + radius*expi(start+i*increment);
        draw(center--edge);
        if (i>0)
        draw(previous -- edge);
        previous = edge;
      }
    }

    void pacmandots (pair center, real start, real n, real increment, pen colors[], real radius=1.0)
    {
      for (int i=0; i<n; ++i)
      {
        pair edge = center + radius*expi(start+i*increment);
        pen color = colors[i
          dot(edge, color+4bp);
        }
      }

      pacmanlines(A, 0, 10, -pi/6);
      pacmanlines(B, -pi, 10, -pi/6);
      pacmandots(A, 0, 10, -pi/6, Acolors);
      pacmandots(B, -pi, 10, -pi/6, Bcolors);

      //label("C", (0,1), N);
      //label("K", (1,0), dir(220));
  \end{asy}
  \caption{\footnotesize Another killer-win graph with more than 3 triangles.}
  \label{fig:worm}
\end{figure}
From previous results we have:
\begin{lemma}
  There are infinite graphs that are cop-win, killer-win, or stalemate.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  Stars are cop-win, paths with more than three vertices are killer-win, and cycles with more than four vertices are stalemate, as seen in Figure \ref{fig:infinte}.
  \begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \begin{asy}
      size(2inch);
      int steps = 12;
      for (int i = 0; i < 2*steps; ++i)
      {
        draw((0,0)--expi(i*pi/steps));
        pen dotpen = currentpen;
        for (int d=0; d<4; ++d)
        {
          dot(expi((i+d/4)*pi/steps), dotpen);
          dotpen=currentpen+1bp;
        }
      }
      draw((2,-1)--(2,1));
      draw((3,-1)--(3,1));
      label("$\vdots$",(3,-1),S); label("$\vdots$",(3,1),N);
      label("$\vdots$",(2,-1),S);

      int num=4;
      for (real y=-1; y<=1; y+=2/num)
      {
        dot((2,y));
        dot((3,y));
      }
    \end{asy}
    \caption{\footnotesize Infinite graphs that are cop-win, killer-win, and stalemate.}
    \label{fig:infinte}
  \end{figure}

\end{proof}

Unlike triangles, longer cycles permit cop-win and killer-win graphs.
\begin{lemma}
  For $\left(m,n\right)\neq\left(1,5\right)$ and $n\geq4$, there are cop-win and killer-win graphs with $m$ $C_n$s.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  To make a cop-win graph with $m$ $C_n$s, consider $m$ $C_n$s. Each pair of $C_n$s share a fixed vertex $v$, and $v$ is also the universal vertex within each $C_n,$ as in Figure \ref{fig:petal}. The cop picks $v$ and wins.

  \begin{figure}[H]
    \centering
    \begin{asy}
      size(2inch);

      pair f (real theta)
      {
        //return (cos(4*theta) + cos(2*theta), sin(4*theta) - sin(2*theta));
        return (sqrt(abs(cos(3*theta))) * cos(theta),
        sqrt(abs(cos(3*theta))) * sin(theta));
      }
      for (int i=0; i<30; ++i)
      {
        pair a = f((i+1)*pi/30);
        pair b = f(i*pi/30);
        pair c = -b;
        pair d = -a;
        draw(a--b--c--d);
        dot(b);
        dot(c);
      }

    \end{asy}
    \caption{\footnotesize A cop-win graph with multiple cycles of length $n\ge4$}
    \label{fig:petal}
  \end{figure}

  We now construct a killer-win graph with $m$ $C_n$s.
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item If $n=4$, take $n$ disconnected copies of $C_4$ as shown in Figure \ref{fig:many4s}.
    \begin{figure}[H]
      \centering
      \begin{asy}
        size(3inch);
        int m = 7;
        //pen colors[] = { orange, green, purple };
        void fourgon (pair position, real sidelength=0.75)
        {
          pair vertices[] = { position, position+(sidelength,0),
            position+(sidelength,sidelength), position+(0, sidelength) };
          draw(vertices[0]--vertices[1]--vertices[2]--vertices[3]--cycle);
          for (int v=0; v<4; ++v)
          dot(vertices[v]);
        }

        for (int i=0; i<m; ++i)
        {
          fourgon((i,0));
        }
      \end{asy}
      \caption{\footnotesize A killer-win graph with multiple cycles of length $n=4$}
      \label{fig:many4s}
    \end{figure}

  \item If $n>4$, take triangles $T_1,\ldots,T_{m+n-3}$, such that
    \begin{itemize}[noitemsep,topsep=0pt]
    \item [$\bullet$] $T_{i}$ and $T_{i+1}$ share a side for all $1 \le i < m+n-3,$
    \item [$\bullet$] there are no more common sides, and
    \item [$\bullet$] there is no common vertex to all $(m+n-3)$ triangles.
    \end{itemize}
    We then 3-color this graph, as shown in Figure $\ref{fig:manycycles}.$ The killer can always pick a vertex of the same color as the cop. In subsequent steps the killer should move towards the cop, but matching the cop's color at every step. The cop will eventually be cornered.
    \begin{figure}[H]
      \centering
      \begin{asy}
        size(3inch);
        int n = 24;
        pen colors[] = { orange, green, purple };

        for (int i = 0; i < n; ++i)
        {
          if (i < n-2)
          draw(((i+1)/2.0, (i+1
          if (i == n-2)
          draw(((i+1)/2.0, (i+1
          dot((i/2.0,
        }
      \end{asy}
      \caption{\footnotesize A killer-win graph with multiple cycles of length $n\ge5$}
      \label{fig:manycycles}
    \end{figure}
  \end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
The Cartesian product of two graphs turns out to be a stalemate graph in most cases.
\begin{lemma}
  Let $G$ and $H$ be connected graphs such that $|H|>1$ and $G$ is not a tree, then $G\square H$ is stalemate.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  We use vertex pair $\left(u,v\right)$ to represent a vertex in $G\square H$ for $u\in V\left(G\right), v\in V\left(H\right)$. For distinct $u_1,u_2\in V\left(G\right)$, $v_1,v_2\in V\left(H\right)$, $\left(u_1,v_1\right)$ is not adjacent to $\left(u_2,v_2\right)$ in $G\square H$, which therefore has no universal vertex.\\

  Then it suffices to show that given two players that are not adjacent to each other, the next player could always move to another vertex such that they are still not adjacent. We prove a stronger condition, that both players can stay in a cycle of length $3$ or more in $G$ forever. Let the players be at $\left(u_1,v_1\right)$ and $\left(u_2,v_2\right)$, and assume that the former player moves next. If $u_1=u_2$, then $v_1$ and $v_2$ are not equal or adjacent, so she could move to $\left(u_3,v_1\right)$ for any $u_3$ in the cycle in $G$ that is adjacent to $u_1$. If $u_1$ is adjacent to $u_2$ in $G$, then $v_1 \neq v_2$. Thus the former player can still move to $\left(u_3,v_1\right)$ where $u_3$ is in the same cycle in $G$ and $u_3 \neq u_2$. If $u_1$ is not adjacent to $u_2$, then she can move to $\left(u_{1},v'\right)$ where $v'$ may be identical to $v_1$.
\end{proof}

We find a similar kind of result for tensor products.

\begin{lemma}
  For any two graphs $|G|>1$ and $|H|>1,$ $G\times H$ is a stalemate if and only if both are not killer-win, and is killer-win if and only if at least one is killer-win.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  It is helpful to think of the tensor product of two graphs as two separate games being played simultaneously. For the first claim, let the cop choose $\left(g,h\right)\in G\times H$ to start. The killer cannot lose by choosing $\left(g,h'\right)\in G\times H$ and matching the cop's first coordinate every move thereafter. The cop cannot lose by playing optimally on both coordinates, as the killer cannot match both coordinates.

  For the second claim, without loss of generality suppose that $H$ is killer-win. Let the cop choose $\left(g,h\right)\in G\times H$ to start. The killer wins by choosing $\left(g,h'\right)\in G\times H$ where $h'$ is the optimal response to $h$ in $H,$ and matching the cop's first coordinate every move thereafter while playing optimally on the second coordinate.
\end{proof}

As with Cartesian products and tensor products, we can also determine the result of the cop and killer game for strong products based on the graphs in the product.

\begin{lemma}
  Let $G$ and $H$ be connected graphs where $G$ has no universal vertices and $|H| > 1.$ Then $G\boxtimes H$ is a stalemate.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}~
	\begin{itemize}[noitemsep,topsep=0pt]
	  	\item There are no universal vertices, because for any vertex $(g,h) \in V\left(G\boxtimes H\right)$ there is a vertex $g' \in V\left(G\right)$ such that $g'$ is not adjacent to $g,$ so $(g',h)$ is not adjacent to $(g,h).$

	  	\item There exist no vertices $u, v\in V\left(G\boxtimes H\right)$ where $N\left(v\right)\subseteq N\left(u\right)$ with no edge between $u$ and $v.$  For any non-adjacent vertices $(g,h)$ and $(g',h'),$
	  	$$\left( g \not\sim g' \wedge g \neq g' \right) \vee \left( h \not\sim h' \wedge h \neq h' \right).$$
	  	\begin{itemize}
	  		\item If $\left( g \not\sim g' \wedge g \neq g' \right),$ then for any $h_1 \sim h,$ $N(g,h) \ni (g,h_1) \not\in N(g',h').$
	  		\item If $\left( h \not\sim h' \wedge h \neq h' \right),$ then for any $g_1 \sim g,$ $N(g,h) \ni (g_1,h) \not\in N(g',h').$
	  	\end{itemize}
	\end{itemize}
	Thus by lemma 2, this graph is a stalemate.
\end{proof}
Combining the results about graph products, we obtain the following corollary:

\begin{corollary}
  Let $G$ and $H$ be connected graphs with $|G|>1$ and $|H|>1.$
  \begin{enumerate}
  \item $G~\square~ H$ is a stalemate if at least one of $G$ and $H$ is not a tree.
  \item $G\times H$ is a stalemate if both $G$ and $H$ are not killer-win, and killer-win otherwise.
  \item $G\boxtimes H$ is cop-win if both $G$ and $H$ have a universal vertex, and is stalemate otherwise.
  \end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}

\section{Algorithmic}
\label{section:algorithmic}
In \cite{tsai_arxiv_2017}, the author explores algorithms to compute the optimal cop strategy with random initial vertex and non-optimal robber distribution in the cop vs gambler game. The problem is analogous to Single Source Shortest Path Problem \cite{sssp}. Dijkstra's algorithm \cite{dijkstra} and Bellman-Ford algorithm \cite{bellman_ford} are adapted to find the optimal chase path of the cop that minimizes $T\left(v\right)$, the expected capture time of the cop starting from vertex $v$. The essence of these algorithms is to keep updating $t\left(v\right)$, the minimum expected capture time computed so far, by
$$
t\left(v\right)=\min\left(t\left(v\right), 1+\left(1-p_v\right)t\left(u\right)\right)
$$ where $u$ is adjacent to $v$.\\

It is possible to extend the update framework to minimize more objective functions. If the function $T\left(v\right)$ to be minimized satisfies
$$
T\left(v\right)=\min\left(J\left(v\right), \min_{u\in N\left(v\right)}H\left(v,u\right)\right)
$$ where $J\left(v\right)$ serves as upper bound of $T\left(v\right)$ and $N\left(v\right)$ is the set of vertices adjacent to $v$, then the adapted algorithms in \cite{tsai_arxiv_2017} compute $T\left(v\right)$ correctly. Of course, similar to the Single Source Shortest Path Problem, there are additional constraints: for generalized Dijkstra's algorithm to work, for every pair of adjacent $u$ and $v$, $T\left(v\right)\geq T\left(u\right)$ if $T\left(v\right)=H\left(v,u\right)$; for generalized Bellman-Ford algorithm to work, there should not be any cycle $C=\left(v_1,v_2,\ldots, v_k=v_1\right)$ such that for each $i\in[k-1]$, $H\left(v_i,v_{i+1}\right)=T\left(v_i\right)<T\left(v_{i+1}\right)$ because otherwise $T\left(v\right)$ is not well defined.\\

To find the minimum expected capture time for the cop and the gambler, $J\left(v\right)=1/p_v$ and $H\left(v,u\right)=1+\left(1-p_v\right)T\left(u\right)$. To generalize, when the cop has to spend $n\left(u,v\right)$ turns crossing edge $\left(u,v\right)$ from $u$ to $v$, $J\left(v\right)=1/p_v$ and $H\left(v,u\right)=1+\left(1-p_v\right)\left(T\left(u\right)+n\left(v,u\right)\right)$.\\

Let $e\left(m,v\right)$ be the minimum evasion probability for the gambler in $m$ turns when the cop starts at vertex $v$, with $e\left(m,v\right)=1$ when $m\leq0$. To compute $e\left(m,v\right)$, $J\left(v\right)=\left(1-p_v\right)^m$ and $H\left(v,u\right)=\left(1-p_v\right)e\left(m-1-n\left(v,u\right),u\right)$.\\

If the cop has to capture the gambler in $m$ turns, and the gambler occupies vertex $v$ with probability $p_{v,i}$ when the cop still has $i$ rounds left, then to compute $e\left(m,v\right)$ we need
\begin{align*}
  J\left(v\right)&=\prod_{i=1}^m\left(1-p_{v,i}\right) \text{~~~and} \\
  H\left(v,u\right)&=\left(1-p_{v,m}\right)e\left(m-1-n\left(v,u\right),u\right).
\end{align*}

We explore a variation where more than one cop chases the gambler, which was defined in \cite{geneson_arxiv_2016}. In each round, each of the $k$ cops independently moves to an adjacent vertex or stays where they are.

If cops start at random initial positions before they know gambler's distribution, then the algorithms in \cite{tsai_arxiv_2017} could be extended to find the optimal strategy of the cops to minimize expected capture time. The key is to treat the joint positions of $k$ cops $\left(v_1,\ldots,v_k\right)$ as a vertex in the supergraph $G'=\left(V\left(G'\right),E\left(G'\right)\right)=\left(V\left(G\right)^k,E'\right)$, where $\left(\left(v_1,\ldots,v_k\right),\left(u_1,\ldots,u_k\right)\right)\in E'$ if and only if $v_i$ is adjacent or equal to $u_i$ for each $i\in[k]$.

\begin{definition}
  $\delta_i\left(U\right)=1$ if $v_i\in U$, otherwise $\delta_i\left(U\right)=0$.
\end{definition}

Using the notation from the beginning of this section,
\begin{align*}
  J\left(\{u_1,\ldots,u_k\}\right)&=\frac{1}{\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_i\left(\{u_1,\ldots,u_k\}\right)p_i}, \text{~~~and} \\
  H\left(U,U'\right)&=1+\left(1-\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_i\left(U\right)p_i\right)T\left(U'\right).
\end{align*}

The supergraph has $\left|V\left(G'\right)\right|=\left|V\left(G\right)\right|^k$ vertices and $\left|E\left(G'\right)\right|=O\left(\left(\left|V\left(G\right)\right|+\left|E\left(G\right)\right|\right)^k\right)$ edges.

\section{Cop and random killer}
Consider the following graph pursuit game that combines elements of cop and killer and cop and gambler.\\

For any given connected graph $G$, the cop chooses any starting vertex of $G$ and the random killer chooses a probability distribution $\{p_v\}_{v\in V\left(G\right)}$ on the vertices of $G$. The cop does not know the distribution, but the random killer knows the cop's starting position before they choose the distribution. On the odd turns, the cop can either move to an adjacent vertex or stay at their current vertex. On the even turns, the random killer hops to a vertex using their probability distribution.\\

The random killer wins if they land on the cop's current vertex, and the cop wins if they land on the killer's current vertex. They could end up with stalemate, for example if the cop stays at a vertex $v$ such that $p_v+\sum_{u\in N\left(v\right)}p_u=0$. If both cop and killer play to maximize their probability of victory, we say that $G$ is cop-win if the cop has higher probability of victory, and otherwise $G$ is random killer-win.\\

\begin{lemma}
  For the cop and known random killer, an optimal killer will not assign a probability of $0$ to the cop's initial vertex.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  If the cop starts from a vertex $v_1$ with $0$ probability of being visited by the killer, then there is a path $v_1,v_2,\ldots,v_k$ such that $p_{v_i}=0$ for $i\in[k-1]$ and $p_{v_k}>0$. The cop could just follow this path and wait at $v_{k-1}$ until the killer takes $v_k$, then the cop wins. Note that the cop cannot lose because she takes this path with zero probability of being landed by the killer.
\end{proof}

The algorithm described in Section \ref{section:algorithmic} could be applied to decide the cop's strategy that maximizes her winning probability. In particular, to maximize winning probability $T\left(v\right)$ of the cop at vertex $v$ when it is killer that moves next, we have
$$
T\left(v\right)=\max\left(J\left(v\right), \max_{u\in N\left(v\right)}H\left(v,u\right)\right),
$$
$H\left(v,u\right)$ and $J\left(v\right)$ are required.
The probability of cop winning by staying at $v$ is $J\left(v\right)=\frac{\sum_{u\in N\left(v\right)}p_u}{p_v+\sum_{u\in N\left(v\right)}p_u}$. The update candidate of winning probability by moving from $v$ to $u$ is $\sum_{w\in N\left(v\right)}p_w$, the chance that the killer next lands on $N\left(v\right)$ before the cop moves, plus $T\left(u\right)[1-p_v-\sum_{w\in N\left(v\right)}p_w]$. So
$$
H\left(v,u\right)=T\left(u\right)\left[1-p_v-\sum_{w\in N\left(v\right)}p_w\right]+\sum_{w\in N\left(v\right)}p_w.
$$
Notice here that maximizing the cop's winning probability may also increase losing probability. For example, a cop staying at a vertex $v$ with $p_v+\sum_{u\in N\left(v\right)}p_u=0$ never wins or loses, yet moving to other vertices may make the chances of winning and losing both non-zero.\\

Interestingly the cop almost always has a higher chance to win than the killer as long as the killer's distribution is known.
\begin{lemma}
  If the killer's distribution is known to the cop, then the only two graphs for the killer to have an equal or higher chance than the cop of winning are $P_1$ and $P_2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  We denote $n_v=\sum_{u\in N\left(v\right)}p_u$ and let the cop start at $v$. The only possible graphs that the cop does not have higher winning chance than the killer are those that in the first round the cop could not move to or stay at a vertex $u$ such that $n_u>p_u$, which could only happen if $n_v\leq p_v$. If $p_v=n_v$, then we still need $v$ to have only one neighbor $u$, $p_v=p_u$, and $u$ also has degree $1$, which is only possible for $P_2$. If $p_v>n_v$, then unless $v$ is neighborless the cop could always move to a neighbor $u$, then $n_u\geq p_v>n_v\geq p_u$ and the cop is more likely to win. So the only other possibility is $P_1$. Note that for a $P_2$ to make killer at least as likely to win as the cop his distribution must be $\left(0.5,0.5\right)$.
\end{proof}

We further quantify the cop's advantage when learning the killer's distribution before her first move by proving a lower bound on her winning probability in terms of the graph's maximum degree.
\begin{lemma}
  \label{lemma:star}
  If connected $G$ has maximum degree $d$, then cop can win with probability at least $\frac{\sqrt d}{1+\sqrt d}$ after learning killer's distribution.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
  The cop could start at vertex $v$ with degree $d$. After killer's distribution is revealed, she decides to stay or move by maximizing $n_u/p_u$ where $u\in v\cup N\left(v\right)$. Consider $u=\arg\min_{w\in N\left(v\right)}p_w$, then $p_u\leq n_v/d$ and $n_u/p_u\geq dp_v/n_v$. Therefore the product of quantities $n_v/p_v$ and $n_u/p_u$ is at least $d$, making the larger of the two at least $\sqrt{d}$.
\end{proof}

It is noteworthy that there is connected graph with maximum degree $d$ that does not allow cop a winning chance higher than $\frac{\sqrt d}{1+\sqrt d}$: for a star with $d+1$ vertices, the killer can assign a probability of $\frac1{1+\sqrt d}$ to the center vertex, and an equal probability to the rest of the vertices. Moreover, it is the only graph with maximum degree $d$ that the cop has chance of winning as low as $\frac{\sqrt d}{1+\sqrt d}$.

\begin{corollary}
  This bound is tight only on the $\left(d+1\right)$-vertex star, where the killer takes the center with probability $\frac1{1+\sqrt d}$ and each of the other vertices with equal probabilities.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
  We examine the inequality in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemma:star}, and observe that the equality holds only when the initial vertex $v$ (with degree $d$) has chance $\frac{1}{1+\sqrt{d}}$, each of its neighbors has chance $\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}\left(\sqrt{d}+1\right)}$, and none of them have any neighbor with non-zero probability. It remains to show that none of them have any other neighbor. Clearly $v$ does not have any other neighbor because it has degree $d$. For each of $v$'s neighbor $u$, if it has a $0-$chance neighbor $w$, then the cop could move from $v$ to $u$ in the first turn, and then from $u$ to $w$ in the second and stay there forever. In this way her chance of winning is
  $$
  \frac{1}{\sqrt{d}+1}+\left(1-\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}\left(\sqrt{d}+1\right)}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{d}+1}\right).
  $$
  It is not hard to see that this winning probability is greater than or equal to $\frac{\sqrt{d}}{\sqrt{d}+1}$. The equality holds only when $d=1$, in which case $w$ does not exist because $u$ already has a neighbor $v$.
\end{proof}

\section{Acknowledgments}
This paper has resulted from the 2017 CrowdMath project on graph algorithms and applications (online at \url{http://www.aops.com/polymath/mitprimes2017a}). CrowdMath is an open program created jointly by the MIT Program for Research in Math, Engineering, and Science (PRIMES) and the Art of Problem Solving that gives students all over the world the opportunity to collaborate on a research project.

The contributors for this paper were Espen Slettnes (goodbear), Carl Joshua Quines (cjquines0), Shen-Fu Tsai (parityhome), and Jesse Geneson (JGeneson).

Discrete Mathematics (cs.DM); Combinatorics (math.CO); Probability (math.PR)


Quantitative Tverberg theorems over lattices and other discrete sets

Abstract: This paper presents a new variation of Tverberg's theorem. Given a discrete set $S$ of $R^d$, we study the number of points of $S$ needed to guarantee the existence of an $m$-partition of the points such that the intersection of the $m$ convex hulls of the parts contains at least $k$ points of $S$. The proofs of the main results require new quantitative versions of Helly's and Carathéodory's theorems.

\section{Discrete quantitative Helly numbers}\label{section-helly}

Helly's theorem and its numerous extensions are of central importance in discrete and computational geometry (see
\cite{amenta2015helly,DGKsurvey63,Eckhoffsurvey93,Wen1997}).  Doignon was the first to calculate the $L$-Helly
number for an arbitrary lattice $L$, which has since been much studied by researchers (see e.g., \cite{Bell:1977tm,Sca1977,Hoffman:1979ix,clarkson}).

\begin{theoremp}[Doignon~\cite{Doi1973}]
Let $L$ be a rank $d$ lattice inside $\mathds{R}^d$. Then, ${\mathds H}_L$ exists and is at most $2^d$.
\end{theoremp}

In a related result, it was shown in \cite{AW2012} that ${\mathds H}_{\mathbb{Z}^{a} \times \mathds{R}^{b}}=(b+1)2^{a}$.
Most relevant for the present work are results in \cite{queretaro} generalizing Doignon's theorem to discrete sets that are not lattices.

\begin{theoremp}[De Loera et al.~\cite{queretaro}]
Let $L$ be a lattice in $\mathds{R}^d$ and let $L_1,\dots,L_m$ be $m$ sublattices of $L$.  Let $R_m$ be the Ramsey number $R(3,3,\dots,3)$, i.e., the minimum number of vertices needed to guarantee the existence of a monochromatic triangle in any edge-coloring, using $m$ colors, of the complete graph $K_{R_m}$. Then the set $S = L \setminus (L_1\cup\dots\cup L_k)$ satisfies ${\mathds H}_S\le (R_m-1)2^d$.

\end{theoremp}

In \cite{ipcoversion}, Aliev, De Loera, and Louveaux first extended Doignon's theorem to provide \emph{quantitative} Helly numbers, showing their first ever upper bound. This was later improved to ${\mathds H}_L (k)\le (2^d-2)\left\lceil \tfrac23(k+1)\right\rceil +2$ for $L \subset \mathds{R}^d$ a lattice of rank $d$ in \cite{alievatal}. Bounds for the quantitative $\mathbb{Z}^d$-Helly number have since been improved in asymptotic behavior in \cite{averkov16, chestnut2015sublinear}. They also proved some interesting properties, e.g., that ${\mathds H}_{\mathbb{Z}^d}(k)$ is, somewhat surprisingly, not monotonic with respect to $k$. Exact values  for ${\mathds H}_{\mathbb{Z}^d}(k)$ are known for $k=1,\dots,4$. Most recently, Averkov et al.~\cite{averkov2016} have expressed the quantitative $S$-Helly number ${\mathds H}_{S}(k)$ in terms of polytopes with vertices in $S$ containing exactly $k$ points of $S$ in their interior.

Before proving our main contribution in discrete quantitative Helly numbers, Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon}, we should note the existence of similar \emph{colorful} Helly numbers. The conditions needed for this generalization have been used by several authors e.g., \cite{AW2012,baranymatousek}, and recently summarized in \cite{queretaro}.

First, we need the fact that the property \emph{``having at least $k$ points of $S$''} has a finite $S$-Helly number. Second, the property of having at least $k$ points of $S$ is \emph{monotone} in the sense that if  $K\subset K'$ and $K$ has at least $k$ points from $S$, then this implies that $K'$ has also at least $k$ points of $S$ within. Finally, the property of having at least $k$ points from $S$ is \emph{orderable}, because  for any finite family $\mathcal{F}$ of convex sets there is a direction $v$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every $K\in\mathcal{F}$ with $|K \cap S|\geq k$, there is a containment-minimal $v$-semispace (i.e. a half-space of the form $\{x:v^T x\ge 0\}$) $H$ such that $|K\cap H\cap S|\geq k$.
\item There is a unique containment-minimal $K'\subset K\cap H$ with $|K' \cap S|\geq k$.
\end{enumerate}

In our case, the work presented in \cite{queretaro} shows that every monotone and orderable property with a well-defined Helly number must be \emph{colorable}:

\begin{theorem}[Colorful discrete quantitative Helly]
\label{colorful-helly}
Let $S$ be a discrete set in $\mathds{R}^d$ with finite quantitative $S$-Helly number $N={\mathds H}_S(k)$.  Suppose that $\mathcal{F}_1,\dots\mathcal{F}_N$ are finite families of closed convex sets such that $|\bigcap {\cal G} \cap S|\geq k$ for every subfamily ${\cal G}$ satisfying $|{\cal G} \cap\mathcal{F}_i|=1$ for every $i$.  Then $|\bigcap\mathcal{F}_i \cap S|\geq k$ for some $i$.
\end{theorem}

Results such as Theorem \ref{colorful-helly} are called \emph{colorful} because we may think of each $\mathcal{F}_i$ as a different color class, in which case the relevant subfamilies ${\cal G}$ are those with one element in every color.  As a corollary to Theorem \ref{colorful-helly}, we immediately obtain the following by applying Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon}.

\begin{corollary}[Colorful quantitative Helly for differences of lattices] \label{aquantitative-discrete-doignon}
Let $L$ be a lattice in $\mathds{R}^d$ and let $L_1,\dots,L_m$ be $m$ sublattices of $L$.
 Let $S=L \setminus (L_1\cup\dots\cup L_m)$.  Let $N=\left(2^{m+1}k+1\right)^r$, where $r=\textnormal{rank}(L)$, and let $\mathcal{F}_1, \ldots, \mathcal{F}_N$ be finite families of closed convex sets so that $|\bigcap {\cal G} \cap S|\geq k$ for every rainbow subfamily ${\cal G}$.  Then, there is an $i$ such that $|\bigcap\mathcal{F}_i \cap S|\geq k$.
\end{corollary}

To prove Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon}, we will use the following definition based on \cite{alievetal,ipcoversion}. The condition that $S$ must be discrete is necessary if the following definition is to make sense for $k>1$.

\begin{definition}
Say that a subset $P$ of $S\subset\mathds{R}^d$ is \emph{$k$-Hoffman} if
$$\left|\bigcap_{p\in P}\conv(P\setminus\{p\})\cap S\right|<k.$$
The \emph{quantitative Hoffman number} ${\mathds H}'_S(k)$ of a set $S\subset \mathds{R}^d$ is the largest cardinality of a $k$-Hoffman set $P\subseteq S$.
\end{definition}

To compute the $S$-Helly number when $S$ is a discrete subset of $\mathds{R}^d$, it suffices to consider (finite) families of convex polytopes whose vertices are in $S$, instead of families of arbitrary convex sets. In the work of Hoffman \cite{Hoffman:1979ix} and later Averkov \cite{Ave2013}, the Helly numbers of various sets $S$ were calculated using this approach. Hoffman proved ${\mathds H}_S={\mathds H}'_S(1)$, where ${\mathds H}_S$ is the $S$-Helly number. Here we extend their work for $k>1$ to take into account the \emph{cardinality} of the intersections with $S$.

\begin{lemma}
\label{qHoffman} Let $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$ be a discrete set.
The quantitative Hoffman number ${\mathds H}'_S(k)$ bounds the quantitative Helly number ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ as follows:
${\mathds H}'_S(k)-k+1 \leq {\mathds H}_S(k)\leq {\mathds H}'_S(k)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We begin by showing that ${\mathds H}_S(k)\geq {\mathds H}'_S(k)-k+1$.
To do so, let $U\subset S$ be some finite set such that $\left|\bigcap_{u\in U}\conv(U\setminus\{u\}) \cap S \right|<k.$
By the definition of ${\mathds H}'_S(k)$, $|U|\leq {\mathds H}'_S(k)$.

Consider the family $\mathcal F=\{\conv(U\setminus\{u\})|u\in U\}$.
By the definition of $U$, $|\bigcap\mathcal F\cap S|<k$.
Note that if $\mathcal G$ is a subfamily of $\mathcal F$ with cardinality $|U|-k$, then $\mathcal G=\{\conv(U\setminus\{u\})|u\in U\setminus U'\}$ for some $U'\subseteq U$ of cardinality $k$. Consequently,
$$U'\subseteq\bigcap_{\substack{u\in U\setminus U'}}\conv(U\setminus\{u\})\cap S=\bigcap_{G \in \mathcal{G}} G\cap S.$$
Hence the quantitative Helly number
${\mathds H}_S(k)$ must be greater than $|U|-k$.
That is, ${\mathds H}_S(k)\geq  {\mathds H}'_S(k)-k+1$.\\

To prove the other inequality, let $K_1,\dots,K_{{\mathds H}_S(k)}$ be convex sets such that $\left|\bigcap_{j\neq i}K_j\cap S\right|\geq k$ for all $i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]$ (where $[m]=\{1, \dots, m\}$)
yet $\left|\bigcap_{i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]}K_i\cap S\right|<k$. Such a family $\{K_i\}$ exists by the definition of the quantitative Helly number. Then for all indices $i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]$, there exists $U_i\subseteq\bigcap_{j\neq i}K_j\cap S$ with $|U_i|\geq k$.

Suppose $u\in U_i\cap U_j$ (for some $i\neq j$). Then $u\in\bigcap_i K_i\cap S$,
so there can be no more than $k-1$ such points.
Hence, for each $i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]$, there exists $u_i\in U_i$ such that
$u_i\notin\bigcup_{j\neq i}U_j$.
In particular, the $u_i$ are distinct.
Define now $U=\{u_i|i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]\}$.
Consider $\bigcap_{u\in U}\conv(U\setminus\{u\})\cap S$.
Note that $U\setminus\{u_i\} = \bigcup_{j\neq i}\{u_j\}$. Because $u_j\in K_i$ for all $j\neq i$, $U\setminus\{u_i\}\subseteq K_i$.
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\left|\bigcap_{u\in U}\conv(U\setminus\{u\})\cap S\right| & = \left|\bigcap_{i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]}\conv(U\setminus\{u_i\})\cap S\right| \\
& \leq \left|\bigcap_{i\in[{\mathds H}_S(k)]}K_i\cap S\right| \\
& < k.
\end{align*}
 By the definition of ${\mathds H}'_S(k)$, it follows that ${\mathds H}_S(k)\leq {\mathds H}'_S(k)$.
\end{proof}

The following notion is easier to work with directly than the Hoffman number:
\begin{definition}
A set $P\subset S$ is \emph{$k$-hollow} if
$$\big|(\conv(P)\setminus V(\conv(P)))\cap S\big|<k,$$ where $V(K)$ is the vertex set of $K$.
\end{definition}

To relate this notion to the Hoffman number, we have the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{qScarf}
Let $S\subset\mathds{R}^d$ be a discrete set.
Then ${\mathds H}'_S(k)$ is equal to the cardinality of the largest $k$-hollow set with respect to $S$.
\end{lemma}

Lemma \ref{qScarf} is a partial generalization of Proposition 3 from \cite{Hoffman:1979ix}.

\begin{proof}
Let $P$ be a $k$-hollow subset of $S$, and note that
$$\bigcap_{p\in P}\conv(P\setminus\{p\})\subseteq\conv(P)\setminus V(\conv(P)).$$
Hence
$$\left|\bigcap_{p\in P}\conv(P\setminus\{p\})\cap S\right|\leq \big|(\conv(P)\setminus V(\conv(P)))\cap S\big| < k.$$
Thus any $k$-hollow set is also $k$-Hoffman; in particular, a maximum-cardinality $k$-hollow set is also $k$-Hoffman.

Let $h$ be the cardinality of the largest $k$-hollow set.
We will show that if $P$ is a subset of $S$ with cardinality greater than $h$, then $P$ is not $k$-Hoffman; this completes the proof.

Suppose $t>h$, and define $\mathcal P_t$ to be the family of $t$-element subsets of $S$.
Note that $\mathcal P_t$ can be partially ordered by inclusion of convex hull; i.e., $P\leq P'$ if $\conv(P)\subseteq\conv(P')$.

We will use induction.
Let $P\in\mathcal P_t$; suppose that all predecessors of $P$ have been shown to not be $k$-Hoffman (this vacuously includes the case when $P$ is minimal).
Because $|P|>h$, $|(\conv(P)\setminus V(P))\cap S|\geq k$.
For all $q\in(\conv(P)\setminus V(P))\cap S$, define $m(q)$ to be the number of elements $p\in P$ such that $q\notin(\conv(P\setminus\{p\}))$.
Let $(\conv(P)\setminus V(P))\cap S=\{q_1, q_2,\dots, q_k,\dots\}$, where $m(q_1)\leq m(q_2)\leq\cdots\leq m(q_k)\leq\cdots$.

We will show by induction that $m(q_1)=m(q_2)=\cdots m(q_k)=0$.
Let $1\leq j \leq k$.
Suppose that $m(q_i)=0$ for $i<j$ (note that this is vacuously true if $j=0$); assume for a contradiction that $m(q_j)>0$.
There then exists $p_j$ such that $q_j\notin\conv(P\setminus\{p_j\})$.
Note that $p_j$ must be a vertex of $P$, as otherwise $q_i$ would certainly be contained in $\conv(P\setminus\{p_j\})$.
It follows that the set $P'=\{q_j\}\cup P\setminus\{p_j\}$ is a strict predecessor of $P$.
By the outer induction hypothesis, $P'$ is not $k$-Hoffman.
That is, there exist at least $k$ points in $\bigcap_{p\in P'}\conv(P'\setminus\{p\})\cap S$.
Because $j\leq k$, at least one of those points, $r$, must have $m(r)>0$.
If $q_j\in\conv(P\setminus\{p\})$, then
$$r\in\conv(P'\setminus\{p\})=\conv(\{q_j\}\cap P\setminus\{p,p_j\})\subseteq\conv(P\setminus\{p\}).$$
Furthermore, $r\in\conv(P'\setminus\{q_j\})=\conv(P\setminus\{p_j\})$.
Thus $0 < m(r) < m(q_j)$, which contradicts the fact that $m(q_j)$ is the smallest nonzero value of $m$.

Thus $m(q_1)=m(q_2)=\cdots=m(q_k)=0$.
Hence $\{q_1,q_2,\dots q_k\}\subseteq\bigcap_{p\in P}\conv(P\setminus\{p\})\cap S$, so $P$ is not $k$-Hoffman.

Because $S$ is discrete, every element of $\mathcal P_t$ has a finite number of predecessors under this ordering.
It follows by induction no element of $\mathcal P_t$ is $k$-Hoffman.
\end{proof}

Lemmas \ref{qHoffman} and \ref{qScarf} allow us to prove Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon} by
finding an upper bound on the largest $k$-hollow set.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon}]
Let $P$ be a subset of $L\setminus\bigcup_i L_i$ with cardinality $n^r+1$, where $n=k\cdot2^{m+1}+1$.
We will show that $P$ is not $k$-hollow; this implies Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon} by Lemma \ref{qHoffman} and the contrapositive of Lemma \ref{qScarf}.

It is a simple fact, first observed in \cite{rabinowitz}, that there must
exist $n+1$ collinear points $z_0,z_1,\dots,z_n$ in $\conv(P) \cap L$ with $z_0,z_n\in L\setminus\bigcup_i L_i$.
Note that $z_{j}$ and $z_{j+\ell}$ cannot both be in $L_i$ if $j=0\mod\ell$; otherwise, $z_0$ would be in $L_i$.
Suppose $z_i$ is in some sublattice $L_j$ for all $i\in[\ell\cdot 2^m,(\ell+1)2^m]$.
By the above note,
$z_{\ell\cdot 2^m+2^a}$ and $z_{\ell\cdot 2^m+2^b}$ cannot both be in the same sublattice for any $0\leq a<b\leq m$.
This is impossible, as there are $m+1$ values of $a$ and only $m$ sublattices $L_i$.
Therefore $z_i\in L\setminus\bigcup_jL_j$ for some $i\in[\ell\cdot 2^m, \ell\cdot 2^m+1,\dots,(\ell+1)\cdot2^m]$.
Since $n=k\cdot 2^{m+1}+1$,
$$\left\{\left\{z_i\middle|i\in\left[(2\ell-1) 2^m,2\ell\cdot2^m\right]\right\}\middle|1\leq\ell\leq k\right\}$$
is a family of $k$ disjoint subsets of $\{z_1,\dots,z_{n-1}\}$, each of which contains a point in $L\setminus\bigcup_jL_j$.
It follows that $\{z_1,\dots,z_{n-1}\}$ contains at least $k$ elements of $L\setminus\bigcup_jL_j$.
None of these points can be vertices of $\conv(P)$, as they are strictly between the two endpoints.
Hence
$$\left|\left(\conv(P)\setminus V(\conv(P))\right)\cap L\setminus\bigcup_jL_j\right|\geq k.$$
That is, $P$ is not $k$-hollow.
Consequently, no $k$-hollow set $P$ can have size greater than $\left(2^{m+1}k+1\right)^r$.
Therefore ${\mathds H}_S(k)\leq {\mathds H}'_S(k)\leq\left(2^{m+1}k+1\right)^r$.
\end{proof}

We end by remarking that using Theorem 3 of the recent paper \cite{averkov2016} one can derive a similar result as our Theorem \ref{quantitative-discrete-doignon}.

\section{Introduction}

This year marks the 50th anniversary of Tverberg's theorem, one of the most important results in combinatorial convex geometry.

\begin{theoremp}[Tverberg 1966~\cite{Tverberg:1966tb}]
\label{thm:Tverberg}
 Let $a_{1},\ldots,a_{n}$ be points in $\mathds{R}^{d}$.
If the number of points $n$ satisfies $n >(d+1)(m-1)$, then they can be partitioned into $m$ disjoint parts $A_{1},\ldots,A_{m}$ in such
a way that the $m$ convex hulls $\conv A_1, \ldots, \conv A_m$ have a point in common.
\end{theoremp}

The case of $m=2$ was proved in 1921 by Radon \cite{originalRadon} and is often referred to as Radon's theorem or Radon's lemma.  Tverberg published the general theorem in 1966 \cite{Tverberg:1966tb} and presented another proof in 1981 \cite{Tverberg1981}.  Simpler proofs have since appeared in \cite{baranyonn-colorfulLP, Roudneff, Sarkaria:1992vt}.  Chapter 8.3 of \cite{Mbook} and the expository article \cite{3nziegler} can give the reader a sense of the abundance of work surrounding this elegant theorem.

Traditionally, Tverberg-type theorems consider intersections of convex sets over $\mathds{R}^d$.  In this article, we present Tverberg-type theorems where all points lie within a discrete subset $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$ and the intersection of convex hulls is required to have a non-empty intersection with $S$.  Recall that a set $S$ is \emph{discrete} if every point $x\in \mathds{R}^d$ has a neighborhood which intersects $S$ in a finite set.  Lattices, such as $\mathbb{Z}^d$, are important examples, but other more sophisticated discrete sets are also of interest (e.g., the difference  of a lattice and a sublattice or the Cartesian product of the primes numbers).

One motivation for considering discrete sets $S$ is that we are able to count the number of points of $S$ occurring within a finite set. This allows us to generalize the
traditional Tverberg theorem to discrete \emph{quantitative} Tverberg theorems, in which the intersections of sets are constrained to contain at least a certain number of points. As an example, consider the case of $S=\mathbb{Z}^d$, which will follow as an easy corollary from our main result, Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}.

\begin{corollary}[Discrete quantitative Tverberg over $\mathbb{Z}^d$]
\label{cor:disc-quant-tv-Z}
Let $d$ be the dimension and $k$ a positive integer. Set $c(d,k)= (2^d-2)\left\lceil \tfrac23(k+1)\right\rceil+2$.
Then, any set of at least $c(d,k) (m-1)kd+k$ integer lattice points in $\mathbb{Z}^d$ can be partitioned into $m$ disjoint subsets such
that the intersection of their convex hulls contains at least $k$ integer lattice points.
\end{corollary}

For example, in the usual (real-valued) Tverberg theorem, if one has seven points with real coordinates in the plane, they can be partition into three disjoint parts such that their convex hulls intersect in at least one (real-valued) point. In our setting, if one takes 25 lattice points in $\mathbb{Z}^2$, there is always a $3$-partition of them, so that the three
convex hulls intersect, and their intersection contains at least one lattice point. Prior work on this type of statement was pioneered in \cite{Eckhoff:2000jw,Jamison:1981wz, onn+radon}. To state our main results formally, we must define the (quantitative) Tverberg and Helly numbers over discrete sets $S$.

\begin{definition}
Given a discrete subset $S$ of $\mathds{R}^d$, the \emph{quantitative $S$-Tverberg number} ${\mathds T}_{S}(m,k)$ (if it exists) is the smallest positive integer with the following property. For any ${\mathds T}_{S}(m,k)$ distinct points in $S\subseteq\mathds{R}^d$, there is a partition of them into $m$ sets $A_1,A_2,\dots,A_m$ such that the intersection of their convex hulls contains at least $k$ points of $S$.

If no such integer exists, we say that ${\mathds T}_S(m,k)=\infty$.
\end{definition}

Recall now the classical theorem of Helly. It says that given ${\cal F}$, a finite family of convex sets of $\mathds{R}^d$, If $\bigcap {\cal K} \neq
\emptyset$ for all ${\cal K} \subset {\cal F}$ of cardinality at most $d+1$, then $\bigcap {\cal F} \neq \emptyset$. In this case $d+1$ is the Helly number of
the space $\mathds{R}^d$. More generally one can define.

\begin{definition}
Given a discrete set $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$, the \emph{quantitative $S$-Helly number} ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ (if it exists) is the smallest positive integer with the following property. Suppose that $\mathcal F$ is a finite family of convex sets in $\mathds{R}^d$, and that $\bigcap\mathcal G$ intersects $S$ in at least $k$ points for every subfamily $\mathcal G$ of $\mathcal F$ having at least ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ members. Then $\bigcap\mathcal F$ intersects $S$ in at least $k$ points.

If no such integer exists, we say that ${\mathds H}_S(k)=\infty$.
\end{definition}

For simplicity, we write ${\mathds T}_S(m)$ and ${\mathds H}_S$ for ${\mathds T}_S(m,1)$ and ${\mathds H}_S(1)$, respectively.  Note that for $k\ge 1$, the definitions of ${\mathds T}_{S}(m,k)$ and ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ make sense only because $S$ is discrete.  As our main result, we prove that the existence of $S$-Tverberg numbers is a consequence of the existence of $S$-Helly numbers, and that these numbers are related.  Our main theorem below is proven in Section \ref{section-Tverberg}. As we see later,
to prove our Tverberg-type results, we will need discrete generalizations of Carath\'eodory's theorem and Helly's theorem.

\begin{theorem}[Discrete quantitative Tverberg] \label{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}
Let $S\subseteq \mathds{R}^d$ be discrete with finite quantitative Helly number ${\mathds H}_S(k)$. Let $m,k$ be integers with $m,k\ge 1$. Then, we have
\[
{\mathds T}_S(m,k)\leq {\mathds H}_S(k)(m-1)kd+k.
\]
\end{theorem}

Corollary \ref{cor:disc-quant-tv-Z} follows from Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}, by setting $S=\mathbb{Z}^d$ and applying the results in result of Averkov et al.~\cite{averkov2016}, as will be discussed further in Section \ref{section-helly}.  The special case of $S=\mathbb{Z}^d$ and $k=1$ was considered previously in Eckhoff \cite{Eckhoff:2000jw} and in the case of $m=2$ (Radon partitions) by Onn \cite{onn+radon}.  Eckhoff described the bounds $$2^d (m-1) < {\mathds T}_{\mathbb{Z}^d}(m) \le (m-1)(d+1)2^d - d - 2,$$ where the upper bound follows by combining a theorem of Jamison for general convexity spaces \cite{Jamison:1981wz} with \cite{Doi1973}.  Our work improves slightly upon this bound, giving us:
$${\mathds T}_{\mathbb{Z}^d}(m) \le (m-1)d 2^d +1.$$

For general $S$ and $k=1$, we have no enumeration and care only about a non-empty intersection over $S$.  In this case, the condition that $S$ be discrete is unnecessary in the definition of $S$-Helly and $S$-Tverberg numbers, and the conclusion of Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg} holds for \emph{any} subset $S\subseteq\mathds{R}^d$.  We obtain the following corollary, using bounds on $S$-Helly numbers provided in \cite{AW2012,queretaro}.

\begin{corollary}[$S$-Tverberg numbers for interesting families]
The following bounds on Tverberg numbers hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item When $S=\mathbb{Z}^{d-a}\times\mathds{R}^a$, we have ${\mathds T}_S(m)\leq (m-1)d (2^{d-a}(a+1))+1.$

\item Let $L',L''$ be sublattices of a lattice $L \subset\mathds{R}^d$. Then, if $S=L \setminus (L' \cup L'')$, the Tverberg number satisfies ${\mathds T}_S(m)\leq 6(m-1)d 2^d+1$.

\item If $S\subseteq\mathds{R}^d$ is a ${\mathbb Q}$-module, then we have ${\mathds T}_S(m)\le 2(m-1)d^2+1$.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}

In Section \ref{section-helly}, we discuss several new results on discrete quantitative Helly numbers, including the following:

\begin{theorem}[Discrete quantitative Helly and Tverberg numbers for differences of lattices] \label{quantitative-discrete-doignon}
Let $L$ be a lattice in $\mathds{R}^d$ and let $L_1,\dots,L_m$ be $m$ sublattices of $L$.
 Let $S=L \setminus (L_1\cup\dots\cup L_m)$ and $r=\textnormal{rank}(L)$. Then the quantitative $S$-Helly number ${\mathds H}_S (k)$ exists and is bounded above by $\left(2^{m+1}k+1\right)^r$. Thus, by Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}, we have:$${\mathds T}_S(m,k)\leq \left(2^{m+1}k+1\right)^r(m-1)kd+k.$$

\end{theorem}

Earlier versions of our results were presented in \cite{ouroriginalpaper} which now has been divided in final form in the present paper and in a separate paper  \cite{continuousquant}, where we present similar results but regarding \emph{continuous} quantitative combinatorial convexity theorems (e.g., regarding volumes, instead of counting discrete points).  Additional quantitative results regarding the intersection structure of families of convex sets are shown by Rolnick and Sober\'on in \cite{Sob15}.  These are closely related to the contributions of this paper and include versions of the $(p,q)$ theorem of Alon and Kleitman \cite{Alon92pq} and the fractional Helly theorem of Katchalski and Liu \cite{Kat79frac}.

\input{Helly.tex}
{\input{Tverberg.tex}}

\section{Future directions}

We have here defined and demonstrated the existence of quantitative Tverberg, Helly, and Carath\'eodory theorems over discrete sets.  In a related work, we will also be presenting new results on \emph{continuous} quantitative versions of these theorems.  In the continuous setting, the intersection of sets is measured not by its cardinality over a discrete set $S$, but by some continuous parameter such as the diameter or volume.

As with Helly's and Carath\'eodory's theorems (see Theorem \ref{colorful-helly} and Lemma \ref{theorem-quantitative-discrete-caratheodory}), there is the potential for colorful versions of Tverberg's theorem.  In this case, the aim is to impose additional combinatorial conditions on the resulting partition of points, while guaranteeing the existence of a partition where the convex hulls of the parts intersect. Now that the conjectured topological versions of Tverberg's theorem have been proven false \cite{frick2015counterexamples}, the following conjecture by B\'ar\'any and Larman is arguably the most important open problem surrounding Tverberg's theorem.

\begin{conjecture}[B\'ar\'any and Larman, 1992 \cite{Barany:1992tx}]\label{conjecture-colorful-Tverberg}
Let $F_1, F_2, \ldots, F_{d+1} \subset \mathds{R}^d$ be sets of $m$ points each, considered as color classes.  Then, there is a colorful partition of them into sets $A_1, \ldots, A_{m}$ whose convex hulls intersect.
\end{conjecture}

Along these lines, we conjecture the following colorful discrete quantitative Tverberg theorem:

\begin{conjecture}
Let $S \subset \mathds{R}^d$ be a set such that the Helly number ${\mathds H}_S(k)$ is finite for all $k$.  Then, for any $m,k$ there are integers $m_1$ and $m_2$ such that the following statement holds.

Given $m_1$ families $F_1, F_2, \ldots, F_{m_1}$ families of $m_2$ points of $S$ each, considered as color classes, there are $m$ pairwise disjoint colorful sets $A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_m$ such that
\[
\bigcap_{i=1}^m \conv (A_i)
\]
contains at least $k$ points of $S$.
\end{conjecture}

\section*{Acknowledgments} We are grateful to I.~B\'ar\'any, A.~Barvinok, F.~Frick, A.~Holmsen, J.~Pach, and G.M.~Ziegler for their comments and suggestions. This work was partially supported by the Institute for Mathematics and its Applications (IMA) in Minneapolis, MN funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF). The authors are grateful for the wonderful working environment that led to this paper. The research of De Loera and La Haye was also supported first by a UC MEXUS grant and later by an NSA grant. Rolnick was additionally supported by NSF grants DMS-1321794 and 1122374.

\bibliographystyle{plain}

\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}} \label{section-Tverberg}

Recall now the classical 1907 theorem of Carath\'eodory \cite{originalCaratheodory}.
Let $S$ be any subset of $\mathds{R}^d$. Then each point in the convex hull of $S$ is a convex combination of at most $d+1$ points of $S$.
Our proof of Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg} requires generalizations of Carath\'eodory's theorem.

\begin{theoremp}[Very colorful Carath\'eodory theorem, B\'ar\'any 1982 \cite{baranys-caratheodory}] \label{verycolorfulcaratheodory}
Let $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_d \subset \mathds{R}^d$ be sets, each of whose convex hulls contains $p\in \mathds{R}^d$ and let $q \in \mathds{R}^d$.  Then, we can choose $x_1 \in X_1, \ldots, x_d \in X_d$ such that
	\[
	p \in \conv\{x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_d, q\}.
	\]
\end{theoremp}

We will use this result to prove the following extension.

\begin{lemma}[Colorful discrete quantitative Carath\'eodory]\label{theorem-quantitative-discrete-caratheodory}
	Let $K$ be the convex hull  of $m \ge 2$ points in $\mathds{R}^d$, and $\operatorname{ex}(K)$ be the number of extreme points of $K$.
	If $n=\operatorname{ex}(K)$ and $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_{nd}$ are sets whose convex hulls contain $K$, then we can find $x_1 \in X_1, \ldots, x_{nd} \in X_{nd}$ such that
	\[
	K \subset \conv\{x_1, \ldots, x_{nd}\}.
	\]
	Moreover, the number of sets is optimal for the conclusion to hold.
\end{lemma}

We believe this result may already be known, but we have not found references to it.
Lemma \ref{theorem-quantitative-discrete-caratheodory} is ``colorful'' in the following sense: given sets $X_1, \ldots, X_{nd}$, considered as color classes, whose convex hulls contain a set $K$ with $n$ vertices, we want to make a colorful choice $x_1 \in X_1, \ldots, x_{nd} \in X_{nd}$ such that $\conv \{x_1, \ldots, x_{nd}\}$ also contains $K$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{theorem-quantitative-discrete-caratheodory}]
Let $K$ be a polytope with $n$ vertices $y_1,y_2,\dots,y_n$; let $X_1,X_2,\dots, X_{nd}$ be sets whose convex hulls contain $K$.
Without loss of generality, we may assume th at $K$ contains the origin in its relative interior.

Using the very colorful Carath\'eodory theorem above,
for a each $j$ we can find $x_{(j-1)d+1}\in X_{(j-1)d+1}, \dots,x_{jd}\in X_{jd}$ such that
$$y_j\in\conv\{0, x_{(j-1)d+1},\dots,x_{jd}\}.$$
To finish the proof, it suffices to show that $0\in\conv\{x_1,\dots,x_{nd}\}$.
If this is not the case, then there must be a hyperplane separating 0 from $\conv\{x_1,\dots,x_{nd}\}$.
We may assume that the hyperplane contains 0 and leaves $\{x_1,\dots,x_{nd}\}$ in the same open halfspace.
Because $K$ contains 0 in its relative interior, there must be a vertex $y_j$ of $K$ in the other (closed) halfspace, contradicting the fact that $y_j\in\conv\{0,x_1,\dots,x_{nd}\}$.

In order to show the value $nd$ is optimal, consider a convex polytope $K'$ which has each $y_i$ in the relative interior of one of its facets, and such that the facets corresponding to $y_i$ and $y_j$ do not share vertices for all $i \neq j$.  Then, take $nd-1$ copies $X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_{nd-1}$ of $K'$.  Any colorful choice whose convex hull contains $K$ needs at least $d$ vertices for each extreme point of $K$, which is not possible.
\end{proof}

We now turn our attention to the discrete quantitative Tverberg theorem, Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}. We will use the notion of the depth of a point inside a set to present a cleaner argument.  We say that a point $p$ has \emph{depth} at least $a$ with respect to a set $A$ if for every closed halfspace $H^+$ containing $p$, we have $|H^+\cap A|\ge a$.  We say that a set of points $P$ has \emph{depth} at least $a$ with respect to $A$ if every $p\in P$ has depth at least $a$ with respect to $A$. We will use the following lemma in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}.

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:depth}
If a set of points $P$ has depth at least 1 with respect to $A$, then the convex hull of $A$ contains $P$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If this were not true, then there would exist some hyperplane $H$ separating $\conv(A)$ from a point $p\in P$, contradicting the definition of having depth at least one.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem  \ref{thm:quantitative-disc-tverberg}]
Suppose that $A\subseteq S$ contains ${\mathds H}_S(k)(m-1)kd+k$ points.  We will construct an $m$-Tverberg partition of $A$. For this, consider the family of convex sets
$$\mathcal F=\left\{ \conv(B) |B\subset A,|B|=({\mathds H}_S(k)-1)(m-1)kd+k\right\}.$$

Note that for any $F\in\mathcal F$, we have $|A\setminus F|\le (m-1)kd$.  Therefore, if $\mathcal G$ is a subfamily of $\mathcal F$ with cardinality ${\mathds H}_S(k)$, we must have
$$\left| A\setminus\bigcap_{G\in \mathcal G} G\right| \le {\mathds H}_S(k)(m-1)kd.$$
Since there are ${\mathds H}_S(k)(m-1)kd+k$ points in $A$, $\bigcap_{G \in \mathcal G} G$ must contain at least $k$ elements of $S$.  Hence, by the definition of the quantitative Helly number ${\mathds H}_S(k)$, $\bigcap_{F\in \mathcal F} F$ contains at least $k$ elements of $S$. Let $P=\{p_1,p_2,\dots,p_k\}$ be $k$ of those points.

\textbf{Claim 1.} The set $P$ has depth at least $(m-1)kd+1$ with respect to $A$.

Suppose that this is not true. Then, some closed halfspace $H^+$ contains an element of $P$ and at most $(m-1)kd$ elements of $A$.  This means that there are at least $({\mathds H}_S(k)-1)(m-1)kd+k$ elements of $A$ in the complement of $H^+$. However, this means that some $F\in \mathcal{F}$ lies in the complement of $H^+$, a contradiction, since every such $F$ must contain all points of $P$.

The theorem now follows immediately from the following claim:

\textbf{Claim 2.} For each $j\le m$, we can find $j$ disjoint subsets $A_1,A_2,\dots,A_j \subset A$ such that $P\subset \conv(A_i)$ for every $i$.

We proceed by induction on $j$.  In the base case of $j=1$, Claim 1 tells us that $P$ has depth at least one with respect to $A$.  Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem:depth}, we have $P\subset \conv(A)$.  Now suppose that $j>1$.  By our inductive hypothesis, we can find $j-1$ disjoint subsets $A_1,A_2,\dots,A_{j-1}\subset A$ such that $P\subset \conv(A_i)$ for every $i$.

\textbf{Case 1.} $k\ge 2$.

Applying Lemma \ref{theorem-quantitative-discrete-caratheodory}, we may assume that $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_{j-1}$ have cardinality at most $kd$, so the depth of $P$ is diminished by at most $kd$ if we remove $A_i$ from $A$.  It follows that the depth of $P$ is at least 1 with respect to $A\setminus \cup_{1\le i\le j-1} A_i$.  Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem:depth}, we can find $A_j\subset A$ disjoint from $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_{j-1}$ such that $P\subset \conv(A_j)$.

\textbf{Case 2.} $k=1$.

In this case, $P=\{p\}$. By standard Carath\'eodory's theorem, we may assume that each $A_i$ (for $1\le i\le j-1$) either has cardinality less than $d+1$ or else has cardinality $d+1$ and defines a full-dimensional simplex. Notice that every halfspace containing $p$ can contain at most $d$ points of $A_i$, since $p\in \conv(A_i)$. Proceeding as in Case 1, we conclude that $p$ has depth at least 1 with respect to $A\setminus \cup_{1\le i\le j-1} A_i$.  Hence, by Lemma \ref{lem:depth}, we can find $A_j\subset A$ disjoint from $A_1,A_2,\ldots,A_{j-1}$ such that $P\subset \conv(A_j)$.

This completes our induction and proves the theorem.
\end{proof}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Combinatorics (math.CO)