Variational collocation on finite intervals

Abstract: In this paper we study a new family of sinc--like functions, defined on an interval of finite width. These functions, which we call ``little sinc'', are orthogonal and share many of the properties of the sinc functions. We show that the little sinc functions supplemented with a variational approach enable one to obtain accurate results for a variety of problems. We apply them to the interpolation of functions on finite domain and to the solution of the Schrödinger equation, and compare the performance of present approach with others.

\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}

The main goal of this paper is to introduce a new set of
orthogonal functions, hereafter called "little sinc functions"
(LSF), and show that they can be used to solve a wide class of
problems, such as function interpolation, the numerical solution
of differential equations, including the Schr\"odinger equation.
Actually the LSF, which are defined on a finite domain, were first
derived by D. Baye~\cite{Baye95} in the framework of generalized
meshes, but the relation with the usual sinc functions was not
recognized. As a matter of fact, in recent years Baye and
collaborators have used these and other functions for the solution
of the Schr\"odinger equation with several different potentials,
and they have produced accurate numerical results both for the
energies and wave functions~\cite{Baye95,Baye86,BGV02}.

On the other hand, sinc collocation methods have been applied to a
larger class of problems, which include those mentioned above (see
for example \cite{Kour96}), and they have been put on firm
mathematical grounds~\cite{Ste93}. Examples of applications of the
sinc functions can be found in references
\cite{Ste79,Morlet95,Lybeck96,Nara02,Eas00,Rev03}, among others.
Recently, one of the authors has shown that the sinc collocation
methods can be optimized by using a variational
approach~\cite{Amore06} based on the Principle of Minimal
Sensitivity~\cite{Ste81}. This optimization allows one to obtain
the highest precision with a given number of grid points, and can
be particularly valuable in problems that require intense
numerical calculation.

We feel that it is important to establish the relation of the LSF
with the sinc functions at least for two reasons: first, because
it will be possible to generalize the variational approach
\cite{Amore06} to the LSF, thus improving the convergence behavior
of the method, and second because it offers an interesting link to
generalized mesh methods and to open new areas of application of
the latter.

This paper is organized as follows: in Section \ref{sinc} we
describe the general properties of the usual sinc functions,
defined on the real line. In Section \ref{little} we derive an
expression for the LSF and discuss their
properties. In Section~\ref{sch} we solve the Schr\"odinger
equation with two different potentials and compare numerical results obtained
with the usual sinc functions and LSF. Finally, in \ref{concl} we draw our
conclusions.

\section{Sinc functions}
\label{sinc}

In what follows we outline some of the basic properties of the
generalized sinc functions, defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
S_k(h,x) &\equiv& \frac{\sin\left(\pi/h (x-k h)\right)}{\pi/h (x-k h)}  \ ,
\label{eq_1_1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $k = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2,\dots$.
 The sinc function for a given value of the index
 $k$ is peaked at $x_k = k h$, where it equals unity, and vanish at
the other points $x_j = j h$, with $j \neq k$ and $j = 0, \pm 1,
\pm 2, \dots$.

From the integral representation
\begin{eqnarray}
S_k(h,x) &=& \frac{h}{2\pi} \int_{-\pi/h}^{+\pi/h} \ e^{\pm i (x- k h) t} \ dt \ ,
\label{eq_1_2}
\end{eqnarray}
we easily derive the normalization factor
 \begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I}_1 &\equiv& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} S_k(h,x) \ dx = h   \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
and the orthogonality property
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal I}_2 &\equiv&
\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} S_k(h,x) \ S_l(h,x) \ dx = h \ \delta_{kl}  .
\end{eqnarray}
It is worth noticing that eq.~(\ref{eq_1_2}) defines a Dirac delta
function in the limit $h \rightarrow 0$.

A function $f(x)$ analytic on a rectangular strip centered on the
real axis can be approximated in terms of sinc functions
as~\cite{Ste93}
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x) \approx  \sum_{k=-\infty}^{+\infty} \ f(k h) \ S_{k}(h,x) \ , \label{eq_1_4}
\end{eqnarray}
which together with the normalization factor can be used to approximate the definite
integral \begin{eqnarray} \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} f(x) \ dx &\approx& h \
\sum_{k=-\infty}^{\infty} f(k,h)  . \end{eqnarray}

It is not difficult to derive simple expressions of the derivatives of sinc functions
in terms of the same sinc functions:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dx} S_k(h,x)  = \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty} \ c_{lk}^{(1)} \  S_k(h,x)  \ ,
\end{eqnarray}

where
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{kl}^{(1)} &\equiv& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} S_l(h,x) \  \frac{d}{dx} S_k(h,x) \ dx = \left\{
\begin{array}{c}
0 \ \ if \ \ k=l \\
\frac{1}{h} \ \frac{(-1)^{k-l}}{k-l} \ \ if \ \ k \neq l
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}

For the second derivative we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d^2}{dx^2} S_k(h,x)  = \sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty} \ c_{lk}^{(2)} \  S_k(h,x)  \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{lk}^{(2)} &\equiv& \int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} S_l(h,x) \  \frac{d^2}{dx^2} S_k(h,x) \ dx =
\left\{ \begin{array}{c}
- \frac{\pi^2}{3 h^2} \ \ if \ \ k=l \\
- \frac{2}{h^2} \frac{(-1)^{k-l}}{(k-l)^2} \ \ if \ \ k \neq l
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}

General expressions for higher order derivatives are also available~\cite{Rev03}:
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{lk}^{(2r)} &\equiv&  \frac{(-1)^{l-k}}{h^{2r} (l-k)^{2r}}  \ \sum_{k=0}^{r-1} (-1)^{k+1} \ \frac{2r!}{(2k+1)!} \pi^{2k} \ (l-k)^{2k} \\
c_{ll}^{(2r)} &\equiv& \left(\frac{\pi}{h}\right)^{2r} \ \frac{(-1)^r}{2 r+1} \\
c_{lk}^{(2r+1)} &\equiv&  \frac{(-1)^{l-k}}{h^{2r+1} (l-k)^{2r+1}}  \ \sum_{k=0}^{r} (-1)^{k} \ \frac{(2r+1)!}{(2k+1)!} \pi^{2k} \ (l-k)^{2k} \\
c_{ll}^{(2r+1)} &\equiv& 0 \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
with $r= 1,2,\dots$.

\section{Little sinc functions}
\label{little}

We will now derive the new set of LSF.
We consider the orthonormal basis of the wave functions of a particle in a box with
infinite walls located at $x=\pm L$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\psi_n(x) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{L}} \ \sin \left(\frac{n\pi}{2L} (x+L)\right)
\end{eqnarray}
and define
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{\delta}_N(x,y) = C_N \sum_{n=1}^N \psi_n(x) \psi_n(y) = \frac{C_N}{4 L} \
\left\{ \frac{\sin \left(\frac{(2 N+1) \pi  (x-y)}{4 L}\right)}{\sin \left(\frac{\pi  (x-y)}{4 L}\right) }
-(-1)^{N}  \frac{\cos\left(\frac{(2 N+1) \pi  (x+y)}{4 L}\right)}{ \cos \left(\frac{\pi  (x+y)}{4 L}\right)}
\right\} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
where $C_N$ is a constant.

Because of the completeness of the basis $\left\{ \psi_n(x) \right\}$ we have
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} \frac{\overline{\delta}_N(x,y)}{C_N} = \delta(x-y) \ .
\end{eqnarray}

For reasons that will soon become clear, we  set $C_N = \frac{2 L}{N}$ and select even values
of $N$. To simplify the notation $h \equiv 2L/N$ will denote the grid spacing, and
$y_k \equiv \frac{2 k L}{N} = k h$, with $k = - N/2+1, -N/2+2, \dots , N/2-1$, the grid points.

We then define a set of $N-1$ LSF
\begin{eqnarray}
s_k(h,N,x) \equiv  \frac{1}{2 N}
\left\{ \frac{\sin \left( \left(1+\frac{1}{2N}\right) \ \frac{\pi}{h} (x-k h) \right)}{
\sin \left( \frac{\pi}{2 N h} (x-k h) \right) }
-\frac{\cos\left(\left(1+\frac{1}{2N}\right) \ \frac{\pi}{h} (x+k h)\right)}{
\cos \left(\frac{\pi}{2 N h} (x+k h)\right)} \right\} \ .
\label{sincls}
\end{eqnarray}
Fig.~\ref{FIG1} shows $5$ of these functions for $N = 20$.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig_1.eps}
\caption{LSF for $N=20$ and different values of $k$ (color online).}
\bigskip
\label{FIG1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

It is not difficult to prove that the $s_k$ are orthogonal
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{-L}^L s_k(h,N,x) s_j(h,N,x) dx = h \ \delta_{kj} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
and satisfy
\begin{eqnarray}
s_k(h,N,y_j) = \delta_{kj} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
properties that are also shared by the sinc functions.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{prova.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the sinc functions and  little sinc functions corresponding to $N=40$ (color online). }
\bigskip
\label{FIG2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Therefore, it is not surprising that the LSF become the standard sinc functions
when $N \rightarrow \infty$ and $h$ is held constant in eq.~(\ref{sincls}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{N\rightarrow \infty} s_k(h,N,x) = \frac{\sin (\pi (x-k h)/h)}{\pi (x-k h)/h)} \equiv S_k(h,x) \ .
\label{sinc_asym}
\end{eqnarray}
This property justifies the name of {\sl little sinc functions}.

Fig.~\ref{FIG2} shows the LSF for $N = 40$ and $L=1$ together with the corresponding sinc
functions. Differences between both kind of functions are appreciable only in the right plot,
corresponding to $k=19$. In this case the LSF is slightly larger than unity at the peak and
its oscillations die out faster.

The LSF share some properties with the sinc functions; for example, we can approximate a
function $f(x)$ on the interval $(-L,L)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x) \approx \sum_{k=-N/2+1}^{N/2-1} f(x_k) \ s_k(h, N,x) \ ,\label{f(x)_LSF}
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_k\equiv k h$.
Similarly one can express the derivatives of LSF in terms of LSF as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d s_k(h,N,x)}{dx} \approx \sum_j \left. \frac{d s_k(h,N,x)}{dx}\right|_{x=x_j} \ s_j(h,N,x) \equiv \sum_j c_{kj}^{(1)} \ s_j(h,N,x) \\
\frac{d^2 s_k(h,N,x)}{dx^2} \approx \sum_j  \left. \frac{d^2 s_k(h,N,x)}{dx^2}\right|_{x=x_j} \ s_j(h,N,x) \equiv \sum_j c_{kj}^{(2)} \ s_j(h,N,x)  \ ,
\label{der2}
\end{eqnarray}
where the $c_{kj}^{(r)}$ are the counterpart of the coefficients shown above for the sinc
functions.

An explicit calculation yields
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{jj}^{(1)} &=& \frac{\pi}{4 L}   \tan \left(\frac{j \pi }{N}\right) \\
c_{kj}^{(1)} &=& (-1)^{k-j} \frac{\pi}{4 L} \left(\cot \left(\frac{(j-k) \pi }{2 N }\right)+
\tan \left(\frac{(j+k) \pi }{2 N}\right)\right)
\label{c1}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{jj}^{(2)} &=& -\frac{\pi ^2}{24 L^2} \left(1+2 N^2-3 \sec ^2\left(\frac{j \pi }{N}\right)\right) \\
c_{kj}^{(2)} &=& -(-1)^{j-k}  \frac{\pi^2}{8 L^2} \
\frac{\cos \left(\frac{j \pi }{N}\right) \cos\left(\frac{k \pi }{N}\right)}{
\cos^2\left(\frac{\pi}{2 N} (j+k)\right) \sin^2\left(\frac{\pi }{2 N} (j-k)\right)} \ .
\label{c2}
\end{eqnarray}

Because of eq.~(\ref{sinc_asym}) these matrices reduce to the usual sinc
expressions given in the preceding section when $N \rightarrow \infty$.

It is straightforward to generalize from eq.~(\ref{sincls}), defined in $(-L, L)$, to
an arbitrary interval $(a,b)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{s}_k\left(h,N, x\right) \equiv s_k\left(h,N, \frac{2 L}{b-a} \
\left(x - \frac{a+b}{2}\right)\right) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
In this case the points of the grid are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
x_k = (b-a) \frac{k}{N-2} + \frac{a+b}{2} \ .
\end{eqnarray}

In order to apply sinc collocation on a finite domain one commonly maps the real line
onto a finite interval~\cite{Ste93} by means of the conformal transformation
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi(z) = \log \left(\frac{z-a}{b-z}\right) \ .
\label{map}
\end{eqnarray}
This map carries the eye-shaped region
\begin{eqnarray}
D_E = \left\{ z = x+ i y : \left|arg \left(\frac{z-a}{b-z}\right) \right| < d \leq \frac{\pi}{2}  \right\}
\end{eqnarray}
into the infinite strip
\begin{eqnarray}
D_S = \left\{ w = u + i v : \left|v \right| < d \leq \frac{\pi}{2}  \right\} \ .
\end{eqnarray}

Under the inverse transformation, $z=\phi^{-1}(w)$ the points of the uniform grid on the real
axis, given by $u_k = k h$, are mapped onto the non uniform grid defined by the points
$\overline{x}_k = (a+b e^{k h})/(1+e^{kh})$.

In this case the sinc functions are mapped onto
\begin{eqnarray}
\overline{S}_k(h,x) \equiv \frac{\sin\left(\pi (\phi(x)-k h)/h\right)}{\pi (\phi(x)-k h)/h} \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
which equals unity at $x=\overline{x}_k$. Consequently, it is possible to approximate a function
in the interval $(a,b)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x) \approx \overline{f}(x) = \sum_{k=-N}^{+N} f(\overline{x}_k) \ \overline{S}_k(h,x) \ .
\end{eqnarray}

We can test the performance of the LSF on an example selected from Ref.~\cite{Nara02}:
\begin{eqnarray}
f(x) = 2 x^2+x-3 x^3
\label{eq:steng}
\end{eqnarray}
where $0 \leq x \leq 1$.  Fig.~\ref{FIG_err_steng} compares the logarithmic error
$\Delta(x) \equiv \log_{10} \left| f(x)-\overline{f}(x)\right|$ for both kind of functions.
The solid curve corresponds to $21$ LSF, whereas the other three curves correspond
to the same number of conformally mapped sinc functions with spacing $h = 1/4, 1/2$, and $1$
respectively. The LSF produce smaller errors and offer the advantage of a uniform grid.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig_error_Stenger.eps}
\caption{Error in the interpolation of $f(x)$ in eq.(\ref{eq:steng}) using $21$ functions (color online).}
\bigskip
\label{FIG_err_steng}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Stenger originally introduced sinc methods for the numerical solution of differential
equations~\cite{Ste79}. Sinc-Galerkin and sinc collocation methods are particularly
useful in dealing with these problems since they converge exponentially even in the presence of
boundary singularities. It is not our purpose to generalize all the known mathematical
results from the sinc functions to the LSF; however, we assume that both kind of functions
share similar properties and simply compare our LSF results with those provided by the
conformally mapped sinc functions.

We consider the example $4.1$ of Ref.~\cite{Lybeck96}; that is to say, the inhomogeneous
differential equation~\footnote{Notice a typo in \cite{Lybeck96}, where $69 x$ must read $62 x$.}
\begin{eqnarray}
-u''(x)+u'(x)+u(x)= \left(\frac{4}{25}\right)^2 \ \left( x^4 - 2 x^3 - 29 x^2 + 62 x
+ 38 \right) \label{eq:Lybeck}
\end{eqnarray}
with the boundary conditions $u(-1) = u(4) = 0$.
The exact solution to this equation is
\begin{eqnarray}
u_{exact}(x) =  \left(\frac{4}{25}\right)^2 \ (x+1)^2 \ (x-4)^2 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
We look for a numerical solution in terms of our LSF as
\begin{eqnarray}
u(x) \approx u_{ls}(x) = \sum_{k=-N/2+1}^{N/2-1} u_k \ s_{k}(h,N,x-3/2) \ .
\end{eqnarray}

Fig.~\ref{FIG_Lybeck_1} shows global and local errors defined respectively as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Xi_G(N) &\equiv& \log_{10} \left| \int_{-1}^{4} (u_{exact}(x)-u_{ls}(x))^2 \ dx \right| \nonumber \\
&=& \log_{10} \left|\int_{-1}^4 u_{exact}^2(x) \ dx - h \sum_{k=-N/2+1}^{N/2-1} u^2_k\right|
\label{xig}
\\
\Xi_L(N) &\equiv& \log_{10} \left| (u_{exact}(3/2) - u_{ls}(3/2) \right| \ .
\label{xil}
\end{eqnarray}

Notice that at large $N$ the errors appear to decay exponentially. Unlike Ref.~\cite{Lybeck96} no
domain decomposition was required to solve this problem.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig_Lybeck_1.eps}
\caption{Global and local errors (\ref{xig}) and (\ref{xil}), respectively, for
the solution of eq.~(\ref{eq:Lybeck}) in terms of $N-1$  LSF.}
\bigskip
\label{FIG_Lybeck_1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig_Lybeck_2.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the exact solution $u_{true}(x)$ (solid line) and the
approximations obtained using LSF with $N = 4,6, 10$ (color online).}
\bigskip
\label{FIG_Lybeck_2}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\section{The Schr\"odinger equation}
\label{sch}

As mentioned in the Introduction, sinc collocation methods have been used to obtain accurate
numerical solutions to the Schr\"odinger equation. In this section we wish to extend the
variational approach and the results of Ref.~\cite{Amore06} to our LSF and generalize the
method enclosing potentials with both bound and unbound states.  To simplify this
presentation we begin with potentials containing only bound states.

\subsection{Potentials containing only bound states}

We consider the one dimensional Schr\"odinger equation
\begin{eqnarray}
- \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} \frac{d^2\psi_n(x)}{dx^2} + V(x) \psi_n(x) = E_n \psi_n(x)
\label{scheq}
\end{eqnarray}
on an interval $(a,b)$, which can be either finite or infinite.
The wave functions $\psi_n(x)$ obey the boundary conditions $\psi_n(a) = \psi_n(b) = 0$
which grant that there will be only bound states.

If we express the wave functions in terms of our LSF, then
equations (\ref{f(x)_LSF}), (\ref{der2}) and (\ref{c2}) allow one to derive
the following matrix representation of the hamiltonian operator
\begin{eqnarray}
H_{kl} = - \frac{\hbar^2}{2m} c_{kl}^{(2)} + \delta_{kl} V(k h)  \ .
\label{Hmat}
\end{eqnarray}
This equation is similar to  eq.(8) of Ref.~\cite{Amore06}, except for the form of the
matrix $\mathbf{c}^{(2)}$. Once the spacing $h$ of the grid is fixed, then the
$N \times N$ matrix $\mathbf{H}_N$
for a manifold of $N$ LSF can be diagonalized. In this way one obtains an approximation to the
lower part of the spectrum, consisting of the first $N$ eigenvalues and wave functions
of the Schr\"odinger equation~(\ref{scheq}).

Going back to eq.~(\ref{Hmat}) we observe that the precision of the approximate results
obtained by diagonalization of the hamiltonian matrix depends crucially on both the number of
LSF as well as on the grid spacing. In fact, altough a small spacing can help to increase
the resolution, if the number of the sinc functions is not large enough, the approximation
will not be able to grasp the natural scale of the problem and the overall precision will
be poor. On the other hand, a large spacing will certainly provide poor results, because
the details of the problem will not be resolved.
On these grounds it is easy to convince oneself that it is likely to exist an optimal spacing,
for a given number of functions. Finding this optimal spacing will allow one to reach
sufficiently accurate results with a relatively small number of grid points.

It was found earlier~\cite{Amore06} that an optimal spacing can be obtained by straightforward
application of the principle of minimal sensitivity (PMS) to the trace of the $N\times N$
hamiltonian matrix ${\cal T}_N(h) = Tr\left[ \mathbf{H}_N\right]$.
In fact, given that the trace of a hamiltonian is invariant under unitary transformations,
and that in the limit $h \rightarrow 0$ it will therefore be independent of
$h$, then the optimal spacing may be given by the solution of the
equation~\footnote{Notice that such property was invoked earlier in Ref.~\cite{Am_1} when using a
basis of harmonic oscillator wave functions depending on an arbitrary scale parameter}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{d}{dh} {\cal T}_N (h) = 0.
\label{pmseq}
\end{eqnarray}

Therefore the optimal value of $h$ is found by numerically solving a single algebraic equation,
a modest computational task; thus, the interval length $L$ appearing in
LSF is treated as a variational parameter.

To test the performance of our method we apply it to the first example in Ref.~\cite{Baye86},
i.e the harmonic oscillator with $\hbar = 1$, $m=1/2$ and $\omega = 2$. Using a cartesian
mesh, Baye and Heenen reported errors smaller than
$10^{-3}$ for the first three eigenvalues and $N=10$.
On the other hand, our LSF approach with $N=10$ (which corresponds to $9$ sinc functions),
and a grid spacing optimized according to eq.~(\ref{pmseq}), yields errors
of $-4.86 \times 10^{-6}$, $1.2 \times 10^{-4}$ and $-1.6 \times 10^{-3}$ for the
same cases.

The authors of Ref.~\cite{Baye86} also observe that for $N=50$, the high eigenvalues
become very sensitive to the value of $h$, and that the variation of the $30th$ eigenvalue
with respect to $h$ presents a marked minimum around $h = 0.35$. It is remarkable that the
PMS condition for $N=50$ yields $L_{PMS} = 8.93$, corresponding to
$h_{PMS} = 2L_{PMS}/N \approx 0.357$, which is extremely close to the value quoted
by Baye and Heenen. It is worth noticing that while the optimal value of $h$
quoted by Baye and Heenen is the result of an empirical observation, the almost identical
value of $h$ given by the PMS is just the numerical solution of the algebraic
equation~(\ref{pmseq}), which requires negligible computer time.

As a second example of application of the PMS to the LSF collocation method we consider
the anharmonic potential
\begin{eqnarray}
V(x) = x^2 + x^4
\label{anharm}
\end{eqnarray}
and we assume that $\hbar = 1$ and $m=1/2$ in the Sch\"rodinger equation.
This example was also studied by Baye and Heenen~\cite{Baye86} who obtained the optimal
values $h=0.55$ for $N=10$, and $h=0.2$ for $N=50$ using a cartesian mesh,
which is somehow related to the LSF.
Fig.~\ref{FIG_PMS} shows the error $|E_0^{exact}-E_0^{approx}|$ as a function of the
parameter $L$ for three different values of $N$ (remember that the number of LSF in the
expansion is $N-1$).
The plus symbols in the plot correspond to the predictions of the PMS condition,
which generally fall close to the minimum of the curve, while the square symbols correspond
to the solutions of a sort of empirical PMS condition, obtained by minimizing the modified
trace
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{\cal T}_N(h) = {\cal T}_N(h) - \frac{N-2}{2 N} \sum_k V(x_k) \ .
\label{modPMS}
\end{eqnarray}
with respect to $L$. The better behavior of the modified PMS condition for just one state
(as in Fig.~\ref{FIG_PMS}) should not confuse the reader. It must be kept in mind that the
PMS minimizes a sort of global error for all the states in the chosen manifold. In order to
appreciate this point clearly, Fig.~\ref{optimal} shows the global error
$\sigma = \sum_{n=0}^{N-1} | E_n^{(N)}-E_n^{(exact)}|$ as a function of
$L$ for the potential $x^4/4$ and $N = 20$. Notice that in this case the PMS condition
yields the minimal error. The exact energies $E_n^{(exact)}$ were simply chosen to be those
given by the method at higher order: $E_n^{(60)}$.

The accuracy of present calculations is greater than that obtained earlier
for the same problem~\cite{Baye86}, where the authors report errors of the order of $10^{-5}$
and $10^{-12}$ for $N=10$ and $N=50$, respectively.
Fig.~\ref{FIG_PMS} shows that the curves with different values of $N$ overlap in the
region of small $L$, which suggests that the approach may not be taking into account the
large--$L$ region correctly.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig_PMS.eps}
\caption{Error in the ground--state energy of the potential (\ref{anharm}) using
$N = 10$, $20$ and $30$, as a function of the parameter $L$. The plus and square symbols
correspond to the PMS and modified PMS conditions, respectively (color online).}
\bigskip
\label{FIG_PMS}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{optimal.eps}
\caption{Global error $\sigma \equiv \sum_{n=0}^{18}|E_n^{(20)}-E_n^{(60)}|$ for the potential
$V(x) = x^{4}/4$ (color online). }
\bigskip
\label{optimal}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Potentials containing bound and unbound states}

In what follows we try and show that the LSF are suitable for the treatment of potentials with
bound and unbound states. The application of the PMS condition to potentials with both discrete
and continuous spectra is not straightforward. The potentials treated in the preceding section
increase with the coordinate and therefore the matrix representation of those potentials
increase with $L$. Since the matrix representation of the kinetic energy decreases with $L$
then there is a minimum in the trace of the Hamiltonian matrix and the PMS gives a balance
between the traces of the kinetic and potential energies. That minimum provides the natural
length scale for the application of the method. If the potential energy tends to a
finite constant value as the coordinate increases, then there may not be a minimum and the
PMS will not yield the length scale for the application of present approach.

In order to overcome that problem we substitute a potential $\tilde{V}(x)$
into the Schr\"odinger equation that behaves exactly as the original potential $V(x)$
in the relevant coordinate region and increases to infinity at large distances.
The error introduced by such potential substitute will be negligible if the
difference between the original and substitute potentials is appreciable only where the
wavefunctions are expected to be vanishing small. This substitution removes the continuous
spectrum but should not affect the discrete one too much. The advantage is that
we are thus able to apply the PMS condition exactly as in the preceding subsection.
The potential substitute is introduced with the sole purpose of obtaining the length
scale and we diagonalize the correct hamiltonian matrix.

We will illustrate our procedure on the Morse potential already treated earlier
by means of the Lagrange mesh method~\cite{BGV02}:
\begin{eqnarray}
V(r) = D \ \left[ e^{-2 a (r-r_e) } - 2 e^{- a (r-r_e)}  \right] \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $D= 0.10262$, $r_e = 2$, $a= 0.72$, $2 m = 1836$ and $\hbar=1$.
In the case of states with nonzero angular momentum we should add the centrifugal
potential $\frac{\hbar^2 l (l+1)}{2 m r^2}$, $l=0, 1, 2, \dots$.

The potential substitute $\tilde{V}(r)$ is arbitrary; we can, for example, choose it to be
the Taylor expansion of $V(r)$ around a given point, and truncate it at a sufficiently
large order to be accurate enough at small $r$, and at the same time to satisfy
$\lim_{r\rightarrow \infty } \tilde{V}(r) = +\infty$.
For example, in present particular case we can choose:
\begin{eqnarray}
\tilde{V}(r) = \sum_{n=0}^{20} \frac{1}{n!} \ \left.\frac{d^nV}{dr^n}\right|_{r=10} (r-10)^n \ .
\end{eqnarray}

Another difficulty to take into consideration is that our LSF are defined
in $(-L,L)$ whereas the radial coordinate is defined in $(0,+\infty)$.
The obvious solution to this apparent problem would be using the form of Ref.~\cite{Baye95},
where the left boundary of the interval is $0$; on the other hand, such choice would
be equivalent to a shift by a proper amount of the potential, thus bringing the boundary
condition on the left point to coincide with the left point of the LSF. Despite its
simplicity, this procedure is not optimal and generally does not provide the best
results. We have found out that a more convenient strategy consists of keeping our
LSF unchanged and shifting the coordinate by given amount as
$V(r) \rightarrow V(r + \overline{r})$, where
$\overline{r}$ is typically close to the minimum of the potential (the same shift should be
applied to the centrifugal energy when necessary). The PMS applied
to the shifted hamiltonian will thus provide the optimal scale for the application
of the LSF collocation method.

One advantage of that procedure is that it maximizes the sampling of the
classically allowed region, where the bound state wave functions exhibit marked
nonzero contributions. Of course, in order to take into account the boundary
condition at $r=0$, the PMS length scale has to be smaller than $\overline{r}$.

\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab1} Errors $\epsilon_n \equiv E_n^{approx}-E_n^{exact}$ for
some states of the Morse potential. Powers of ten are indicated between square brackets.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
$l$ & $n$  & $N$ & Ref.\cite{BGV02}  & PMS & $h_{PMS}$\\
\hline
$0$ & $0$ & $20$ & $3.8 [-7]$   & $-3.3 [-10]$ & $0.223$ \\
    &     & $40$ & $< 1 [-14]$  & $1.8 [-20]$  & $0.134$ \\
    & $5$ & $20$ & $4.0 [-3]$   & $2.1 [-6]$  & $0.223$ \\
    &     & $40$ & $1.1 [-9]$   & $2.5 [-14]$  & $0.134$ \\
$1$ & $0$ & $20$ & $4.1 [-7]$   & $-3.6 [-10]$ & $0.223$ \\
    &     & $40$ & $< 1 [-14]$  & $-1.6 [-20]$  & $0.134$ \\
    & $5$ & $20$ & $4.4 [-3]$   & $1.5 [-6]$  & $0.223$ \\
    &     & $40$ & $1.1 [-9]$   & $2.9 [-14]$  & $0.134$ \\
$2$ & $0$ & $20$ & $4.5 [-7]$   & $-4.1 [-10]$ & $0.223$ \\
    &     & $40$ & $< 1 [-14]$  & $1.2 [-20]$  & $0.134$ \\
    & $5$ & $20$ & $4.7 [-3]$   & $2.0 [-7]$  & $0.223$ \\
    &     & $40$ & $1.1 [-9]$   & $3.9 [-14]$  & $0.134$ \\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\bigskip\bigskip
\end{table}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{Fig_eta.eps}
\caption{Error $\eta_N(x) = | \psi^{(N)}(x)-\psi^{(80)}(x) |$ as a function of $x$
for the ground state of the Morse potential (color online).}
\bigskip
\label{FIG_eta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Table~\ref{tab1} shows the errors $\epsilon_n \equiv E_n^{approx}-E_n^{exact}$ for
the s, p, and d states of the Morse potential with $n=0$ and $n=5$. It compares
present results with those of Baye et al~\cite{BGV02}. The last column of
Table~\ref{tab1} displays the PMS optimal values of the grid spacing.

Fig.~\ref{FIG_eta} shows the local error $\eta_N(x) = | \psi^{(N)}(x)-\psi^{(80)}(x) |$ for
the ground state of the Morse potential and approximations $N=20$ and $N=40$,
where we have chosen $\overline{r}=3$. We assume that the approximation of order $N=80$
is sufficiently close to the exact wavefunction.  Our results are more accurate than those
of Baye et al~\cite{BGV02} who essentially considered the average of $\eta(x)$ over a
chosen region.  The sharp drop of the error beyond a certain value of $r$, clearly
noticeable in Fig.~\ref{FIG_eta}, is due to the fact that our LSF reproduce the wave function
only in a finite region outside which $\eta(x)$ is merely the value of $\psi^{(80)}(x)$.
It is worth noticing that $\eta_N(x)$ is almost uniform in the region covered by the LSF.

We have also applied our method to the one--dimensional Morse potential considered by
Wei~\cite{Wei00}:
\begin{eqnarray}
V(x) = D \left[e^{-2 \alpha x} - 2 e^{-\alpha x} + 1 \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $-\infty<x<\infty$, $D = 0.0224$, $\alpha = 0.9374$, $m = 119406$ and $\hbar=1$. This problem can be solved
exactly and the energies are given by \cite{Marcelo}
\begin{eqnarray}
E_n = \hbar \omega \left[  n + \frac{1}{2} - \frac{\hbar \omega}{4D} \left( n+\frac{1}{2}\right)^2  \right]
\end{eqnarray}
where $\omega = \sqrt{2 D/m}\ \alpha$. As before we can improve our
results by conveniently shifting the potential on the $x$-axis from $V(x)$ to
$V(x+\overline{x})$. When $N = 20$ and assuming $\overline{x}=0$ we have found
that the first--excited--state eigenvalue is reproduced with an accuracy of about
$8 \times 10^{-14}$,
which is even better than the accuracy obtained by Wei with
$N=64$~\footnote{Notice that Table~I of Ref.~\cite{Wei00} omits the the ground state
of the model.}. When $N = 40$ the error of our method is just $8.1 \times 10^{-21}$
for the ground state.

\section{Conclusions}
\label{concl}

In this paper we have introduced a new class of sinc-like functions, which we name
``little sinc functions'' (LSF), which share some properties of the usual sinc
functions, but are defined on finite intervals.
We have shown that the LSF collocation method provides accurate approximations for
a wide class of problems when it is supplemented by the Principle of Minimal
Sensitivity (PMS) that provides an optimal grid spacing. In particular, we have
applied the LSF to the solution of the
Schr\"odinger equation with only bound states and with mixed discrete and continuous
spectra. We have chosen benchmark models treated earlier by other authors and in all
the cases we obtained more accurate results. It seems that the LSF collocation method
is an interesting alternative algorithm for solving many mathematical and physical problems.

\begin{acknowledgments}
P.A. acknowledges support of Conacyt grant no. C01-40633/A-1.
\end{acknowledgments}


Drawings of complete graphs in the projective plane

Abstract: Hill's Conjecture states that the crossing number $\text{cr}(K_n)$ of the complete graph $K_n$ in the plane (equivalently, the sphere) is $\frac{1}{4}\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor\lfloor\frac{n-1}{2}\rfloor\lfloor\frac{n-2}{2}\rfloor\lfloor\frac{n-3}{2}\rfloor=n^4/64 + O(n^3)$. Moon proved that the expected number of crossings in a spherical drawing in which the points are randomly distributed and joined by geodesics is precisely $n^4/64+O(n^3)$, thus matching asymptotically the conjectured value of $\text{cr}(K_n)$. Let $\text{cr}_P(G)$ denote the crossing number of a graph $G$ in the projective plane. Recently, Elkies proved that the expected number of crossings in a naturally defined random projective plane drawing of $K_n$ is $(n^4/8\pi^2)+O(n^3)$. In analogy with the relation of Moon's result to Hill's conjecture, Elkies asked if $\lim_{n\to\infty} \text{cr}_P(K_n)/n^4=1/8\pi^2$. We construct drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane that disprove this.

\section{Introduction}

Hill's conjecture~\cite{HararyHill} states that the crossing number $\ucr{K_n}$ of the complete graph $K_n$ in the plane (equivalently, the sphere) is $\frac{1}{4}\floor{\frac{n}{2}}\floor{\frac{n-1}{2}}\floor{\frac{n-2}{2}}\floor{\frac{n-3}{2}}$. This has been verified only for $n\le 12$~\cite{Guy10,PanRichter}.

An elementary counting argument shows that $\bigl\{\ucr{K_n}/{n^4}\bigr\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is a non-decreasing sequence. {It is easy to see that a drawing of $K_n$ in which the vertices are in convex position and each edge is a straight segment has $\binom{n}{4}$ crossings, and so $\ucr{K_n}\le \binom{n}{4}$. Combining these two observations it follows that the} {\em plane constant\,} $c_{{\mathbb R}^2}:=\lim_{n\to\infty} \ucr{K_n}/n^4$ exists. The asymptotic version of Hill's conjecture then reads
\[
c_{{\mathbb R}^2}\stackrel{?}{=} \frac{1}{64}.
\]

In an interesting development, Moon~\cite{moon} proved that the expected number of crossings in a spherical drawing in which the points are randomly distributed and joined by geodesics is $\frac{n^4}{64}+O(n^3)$. Inspired by this exact match of the leading term (the coefficient of $n^4$) in Hill's conjectured value, it makes sense to consider models of random drawings of the complete graph in other surfaces. In this paper we concern ourselves with the crossing number $\pcr{K_n}$ of $K_n$ in the projective plane $P$.

\subsection{Drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane}
Recently, Elkies~\cite{elkies} described a natural extension of Moon's model in the projective plane. We quote: {\sl ``Place $v$ points ${\widetilde{p}}_i$ randomly on the sphere $S$, and let $p_i$ be the corresponding points on $P$. Connect each pair of points $p_i,p_j$ with a shortest path, which is the image on $P$ of the great-circle arc on $S$ joining ${\widetilde{p}}_i$ to either ${\widetilde{p}}_j$ or $-{\widetilde{p}}_j$ [the antipodal point of ${\widetilde{p}}_j$], whichever is shorter. We show [\ldots] that any two such paths that do not share an endpoint cross with probability $1/\pi^2$.''}

The same argument as for the plane crossing number $\ucr{K_n}$ of $K_n$ shows that the {\em projective plane constant} $c_P:=\lim_{n\to\infty} \pcr{K_n}/n^4$ exists. Elkies's natural random model for drawing $K_n$ in the projective plane in particular implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:elk1}
c_P\le \frac{1}{8\pi^2},
\end{equation}
and he asked if ${1}/{8\pi^2}$ might be the actual value of $c_P$. (We note that Elkies investigated the number $\lim_{n\to\infty} 8\pcr{K_n}/n^4=8 c_P$, and asked if $8c_P=1/\pi^2$.)

 Keeping in mind Moon's success of finding in his random model the same leading coefficient $1/64$ as in Hill's conjecture, indeed it makes sense to wonder:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:elkies}
c_P\stackrel{?}{=} \frac{1}{8\pi^2}.
\end{equation}

Elkies's result \eqref{eq:elk1} improves the upper bound $c_P<13/1028$, obtained by Koman~\cite{koman}. As Elkies points out, his bound is about $0.25\%$ better than Koman's bound.

\subsection{Our main result}

Using a refinement of Koman's construction, we show that equality does not hold in~\eqref{eq:elkies}:

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
\[
c_P <  \frac{1}{8\pi^2}.
\]
\end{theorem}

The relevance of this result is not merely because we obtain a better upper bound for $c_P$, as our improvement over Elkies's bound is rather marginal. Its importance is that it shows that the natural extension of Moon's random model to the projective plane does not yield (asymptotically) optimal drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane.

\subsection{Structure of the rest of this paper} In Section~\ref{sec:thedrawings} we describe, for each integer $n$ such that $n\equiv 2\pmod{8}$, and parameters $\alpha,\beta \in [0,2]$, a drawing $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ of $K_n$ in the projective plane. (As we will see below, there are restrictions on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ that depend on $n$.)

The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is in Section~\ref{sec:proofmain}. We start by giving the expression for the crossing number $\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n)}$ of $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$, for $\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]$ and $n\equiv 2\pmod{8}$. The calculations leading to this expression are totally elementary, if somewhat tedious. To avoid an interruption of the main discussion, these calculations are deferred to Section~\ref{sec:calculations}. To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we simply give explicit values $\alpha_0$ of $\alpha$ and $\beta_0$ of $\beta$ such that $\pcr{D(\alpha_0,\beta_0,n)}=c\cdot n^4 + O(n^3)$, for some $c < 1/8\pi^2$.

As we mentioned above, our drawings are a refinement of Koman's drawings in~\cite{koman}. In Section~\ref{sec:remarks} we explain why we could tell right away from Koman's calculations that his construction could be adapted to yield drawings with fewer crossings. Also in that section we describe further generalizations of our own construction.

\section{The drawings $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ of $K_n$ in the projective plane}\label{sec:thedrawings}

In this section we describe a construction that yields drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane, for $n\equiv 2 \pmod 8$. This is a generalization of Koman's construction in~\cite{koman}, and depends on two parameters $\alpha,\beta$ with $\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]$. (Koman's construction is obtained by setting $\alpha=\beta=1$.) As in~\cite{koman}, these drawings are obtained by first constructing a plane drawing, and then suitably identifying the sides of a polygon in this plane drawing. We start by describing this plane drawing, the {\em auxiliary model}.

\subsection{The auxiliary model $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$}

For the rest of the paper, $n\ge 10$ is a positive integer such that $n\equiv 2\pmod{8}$, and $k$ is the integer such that $n=8k+2$.

We construct the auxiliary model $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ as follows. As illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:440}, we start with three concentric circles $W,V$, and $U$. Place $4k+1$ vertices (the $w$-{\em vertices}) $w_0,\ldots,w_{4k}$ evenly distributed in the circle $W$, in this clockwise order, where $w_0$ is the highest point of $W$. Then place $4k+1$ vertices $v_0,\ldots,v_{4k}$ (the $v$-{\em vertices}) evenly distributed in the circle $V$, in this clockwise order, where $v_0$ is the lowest point of $V$. Finally, place $4k+1$ vertices $u_0,\ldots,u_{4k}$ (the $u$-{\em vertices}) evenly distributed in the circle $U$, placed in this clockwise order, where $u_0$ is the lowest point of $U$.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.45}{\input{440-1.pdf_t}}
\caption{The layout of the vertices $w_i,v_i$, and $u_i$ for $i=0,\ldots,4k$ in the auxiliary model $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$.}
\label{fig:440}
\end{figure}

Now let $\alpha, \beta \in [0,2]$ be numbers such that $\alpha k$ and $\beta k$ are integers. (That is, $\alpha (n-2)/8$ and $\beta (n-2)/8$ are integers.) We construct the model plane drawing $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ by joining some pairs of vertices in $\{w_0,\ldots,w_{4k},v_0,\ldots,v_{4k},$ $u_0,\ldots,$ $u_{4k}\}$ with edges, which we colour for easy reference. The reader may wish to take a look at Figure~\ref{fig:150} to get a flavour of the final product of the construction for the particular case $n=10$ and $\alpha=\beta=1$.

We use $WV$ to denote the annulus bounded by $W$ and $V$. Similarly, $VU$ is the annulus bounded by $V$ and $U$, and $WU$ is the annulus bounded by $W$ and $U$.

We join pairs of vertices in $\{w_0,\ldots,w_{4k},v_0,\ldots,v_{4k},u_0,\ldots,u_{4k}\}$ with edges that we colour green, red, brown, blue, and black, according to the following rules. We emphasize that indices are read modulo $4k+1$. We refer the reader to Figure~\ref{fig:450}.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{450-5.pdf_t}}
\caption{The green and red edges incident with $v_i$, and the brown and blue edges incident with $w_i$.}
\label{fig:450}
\end{figure}

\medskip
\noindent{\bf The green edges.} For each $i=0,\ldots,4k$, we join the vertex $v_i$ with the $2\alpha k +1$ $u$-vertices that are closest to $v_i$. That is, we join $v_i$ with $u_{i- \alpha k}, \ldots, u_{i- 1}, u_i, u_{i+ 1}, \ldots, u_{i+ \alpha k}$. These edges are green, and are drawn inside $VU$.

\medskip
\noindent{\bf The red edges.} For each $i=0,\ldots,4k$, we join the vertex $v_i$ with the $2\beta k$ $v$-vertices that are closest to $v_i$. That is, we join $v_i$ with $v_{i- \beta k}$, $\ldots, v_{i- 1}, v_{i+ 1}, \ldots$, $ v_{i+ \beta k}$. These edges are red, and they are drawn inside $VU$.

\medskip
\noindent{\bf The brown edges.} For each $i=0,\ldots,4k$, we join the vertex $w_i$ with the $2(2-\alpha) k$ $u$-vertices that are closest to $w_i$. That is, we join $w_i$ with $u_{i- (\alpha k -1)},\ldots,u_{i- 2k}{=},u_{i+ (2k+1)}, u_{i+ 2k},\ldots, u_{i+ (\alpha k +1)}$. These edges are brown, and they are drawn inside $WU$ so that they cross the straight segment that joins $v_{i+ 2k}$ and $v_{i+ (2k+1)}$.

\medskip
\noindent{\bf The blue edges.} For each $i=0,\ldots,4k$, we join the vertex $w_i$ with the $2(2-\beta) k$ $v$-vertices that are closest to $w_i$. That is, we join $w_i$ with $v_{i-(\beta k -1)},\ldots,v_{i-2k}{=}v_{i+(2k+1)},  v_{i+ 2k},\ldots,v_{i+( \beta k +1)}$. These edges are blue, and they are drawn inside $WV$.

\medskip
\noindent{\bf The black edges.} For each $i,j=0,\ldots,4k$, $i\neq j$, we join the vertex $u_i$ with the vertex $u_j$ (say with a straight segment) inside the disk bounded by $U$.
\medskip

In Figures~\ref{fig:160} and~\ref{fig:175} we give illustrations for some specific values of $n,\alpha$, and $\beta$.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.52}{\input{160-2.pdf_t}}
\caption{On the left hand side we illustrate the red and green edges incident with $v_0$, and the brown and blue edges incident with $w_0$, for the case $n=18$ (that is, $k=2$) and $\alpha=\beta=1$. On the right hand side we illustrate the red and green edges incident with $v_3$, and the brown and blue edges incident with $w_3$.}
\label{fig:160}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.52}{\input{175-3.pdf_t}}
\caption{On the left hand side we illustrate the red and green edges incident with $v_0$, and the brown and blue edges incident with $w_0$, for the case $n=26$ (that is, $k=3$) and $\alpha=4/3$ and $\beta=2/3$. On the right hand side we illustrate the red and green edges incident with $v_5$, and the brown and blue edges incident with $w_5$.}
\label{fig:175}
\end{figure}

As a full example, in Figure~\ref{fig:150} we illustrate the model plane drawing $A(1,1,18)$, that is, the case in which $\alpha=\beta=1$ and $n=18$, and so $k=2$.

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{170-1.pdf_t}}
\caption{The auxiliary model drawing $A(1,1,18)$. Each pair of opposite edges and opposite vertices of the thick blue polygon are identified to obtain the drawing $D(1,1,18)$ of $K_{18}$ in the projective plane (the part outside this polygon is discarded).}
\label{fig:150}
\end{figure}

\subsection{The drawing $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ of $K_n$ in the projective plane}

From the model plane drawing $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ we obtain a drawing $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ of $K_n$ in the projective plane as follows. First, we discard the part of $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ outside the polygon ${P{=}}w_0 v_{2k+1} w_1 v_{2k+2} \cdots w_{4k} v_{2k}$. In the example in Figure~\ref{fig:150} this is the thick blue polygon $w_0 v_5 w_1 v_6 w_2 v_7 w_3 v_8 w_4 v_0 w_5 v_1 w_6 v_2 w_7 v_3 w_8 v_4 w_0$.

Then we identify each pair of opposite edges and each pair of opposite vertices in the polygon $P$. That is, we identify the vertices $w_i$ and $v_i$ {into a vertex $(vw)_i$} for $i=0,\ldots,4k$, and also identify each edge $w_i v_j$ of $P$ with the edge $w_j v_i$. Thus the pairs of edges that get identified are the pair $(w_i v_{i+ 2k},v_i w_{i+ 2k})$ and the pair $(w_i v_{i+(2k+1)},v_i w_{i+(2k+1)})$, for $i=0,\ldots,4k$. In the example in Figure~\ref{fig:150}, for instance, we identify the edges $w_0 v_5$ and $w_5 v_0$.

It is worth noting that these identified edges contain blue-blue crossings (crossings of a blue edge with a blue edge), and so the blue edges in the model drawing $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ must be drawn so that the identification of these crossings is possible.

{The result of this process is a drawing $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ in the projective plane. It is not difficult to verify that $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is a drawing of $K_n$. First of all, $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ has $n=8k+2$ vertices, namely the {\em $u$-vertices} $u_0,\ldots,u_{4k}$ and the {\em $vw$-vertices} $(vw)_0,\ldots,(vw)_{4k}$. Each pair of $u$-vertices is joined by a black edge, and each $u$-vertex is joined to each $vw$-vertex either by a green or by a brown edge. Finally, each pair of $vw$-vertices are joined either by a red edge or by a blue edge, where the blue edge may be the union of two segments of blue edges back in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$.}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}\label{sec:proofmain}

To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we simply exhibit numbers $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ such that the number $\pcr{D(\alpha_0,\beta_0,n)}$ of crossings in $D(\alpha_0,\beta_0,n)$ is $c\cdot n^4+O(n^3)$, for some $c < 1/8\pi^2$.

Calculating $\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n)}$ is a routine exercise, if somewhat tedious. In order to continue with the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we just give this number (asymptotically)  in the following statement, and devote the next section to the elementary calculations leading to it.

For the next claim, we recall that the drawing $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is defined for integers $n$ such that $n=8k+2$ for some integer $k$, and for those $\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]$ such that $\alpha k$ and $\beta k$ are integers, that is, $\alpha (n-2)/8$ and $\beta (n-2)/8$ are integers.

\begin{claim}\label{cla:number}
Let $n\equiv 2\pmod{8}$, and let $\alpha,\beta\in [0,2]$ be such that $\alpha(n-2)/8$ and $\beta(n-2)/8$ are integers. Then
\[
\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n)} =f(\alpha,\beta)\cdot n^4 + O(n^3),
\]
where
{\small
\begin{align*}
f(\alpha,\beta):=\frac{1}{8^4}\cdot \biggl(
& \frac{32}{3} +
\frac{4\beta^3}{3} +
{8(2-\alpha)(2-\beta)^2 +
4\alpha \beta^2} +
\frac{32}{3} - \frac{32}{3}(\alpha-1)^3 + 4(2-\alpha)\beta^2 + \frac{16}{3}\alpha^3 +
\\
 &   \frac{16}{3}(2-\alpha)^3 + \frac{8}{3}(2-\beta)^3
\biggr).
\end{align*}
}
\end{claim}

We remark that the expression $f(\alpha,\beta)$  clearly can be simplified, but we chose to present it in this way to allow for an easier verification: these terms match in the given order the terms in which we will later express the exact value of $\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n)}$ (see proof of Claim~\ref{cla:number} in the next section).

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]

Let $n$ be an integer such that $n\equiv 2\pmod{80}$. (Thus in particular $n\equiv 2\pmod{8}$). Note that for each such $n$ we have that $1.1\cdot (n-2)/8$ is an integer, and obviously also $1 \cdot (n-2)/8$ is an integer, and so the drawing $D(1.1,1,n)$ exists.

By Claim~\ref{cla:number},
\[
\pcr{D(1.1,1,n)}= f(1.1,1)\cdot n^4 + O(n^3)\, { < 0.0126 \cdot n^4} + O(n^3).
\]

An elementary calculation shows that $\bigl\{\pcr{K_n}/{n^4}\bigr\}_{n=1}^\infty$ is a non-decreasing sequence. Thus the previous expression implies that $c_P < 0.0126$. Since $0.0126 < 1/8\pi^2 \approx 0.012665$, it follows that $c_P < 1/8\pi^2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Claim~\ref{cla:number}: the number of crossings in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$}\label{sec:calculations}

The crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ (and hence the crossings in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$) are of nine {\em types}: green-green, red-red, brown-brown, blue-blue, black-black, red-green, red-brown, blue-brown, and green-brown. Obtaining the number of crossings in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ from the crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is quite easy, in view of the following remark, which is an immediate consequence of the way we obtain $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ from $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$.

\begin{remark}\label{rem:rem1}
The number of each type of crossings is the same in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ as in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$, with the exception of the blue-blue crossings: the number of blue-blue crossings in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is half the number of blue-blue crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$.
\end{remark}

To identify each pair of opposite edges and vertices on the polygon, the order of the edge crossings on the opposite edges must be the same. It follows that each blue-blue crossing outside the polygon $P$ near the vertices $w_{i-1},v_{i+2k},w_i$ can also be found inside the polygon $P$ near the vertices $v_{i-1}, w_{i+2k}, v_i$. Similarly, each blue-blue crossing on the polygon will happen twice, once at each edge in a pair of opposite edges. Therefore, the number of blue-blue crossings in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is half the number of blue-blue crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$.

Recall that $k$ is the integer such that $n=8k+2$. We have the following statements, whose proofs are deferred for the moment. (We shall only give the proofs of (A)--(G), as the proofs of (H) and (I) are totally analogous to the proof of (G).)

\medskip
\noindent (A) {\sl The number of black-black crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $\binom{4k+1}{4}$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (B) {\sl The number of red-red  crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(1/4)(4k+1)\binom{2\beta k}3$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (C) {\sl The number of blue-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $4k(4k+1)(2-\alpha)\binom{(2-\beta)k}2$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (D) {\sl The number of red-green crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(4k+1)(2\alpha k+1)\binom{\beta k}2$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (E) {\sl The number of green-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $2(4k+1)\left(\binom{2k+1}3-\binom{2(\alpha-1)k+1}3\right)$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (F) {\sl The number of red-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is ${2(4k+1)}(2-\alpha)\binom{\beta k + 1}{2}$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (G) {\sl The number of green-green crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(4k+1) \binom{2\alpha k+1}3$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (H) {\sl The number of brown-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(4k+1) \binom{2(2-\alpha) k}{3}$.}
\medskip

\medskip
\noindent (I) {\sl The number of blue-blue crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(4k+1) \binom{2(2-\beta)k}{3}$.}
\medskip

\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim~\ref{cla:number}]
In view of Remark~\ref{rem:rem1}, to obtain the number of crossings in $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$ it suffices to add the numbers in (A)--(H) plus half the number in (I). Thus

{\small
\begin{align*}
&\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n})=
\binom{4k+1}{4}+
(1/4)(4k+1)\binom{2\beta k}3+
4k(4k+1)(2-\alpha)\binom{2k-\beta k}2
\\ &+
(4k+1)(2\alpha k+1)\binom{\beta k}2+
2(4k+1)\left(\binom{2k+1}3-\binom{2(\alpha-1)k+1}3\right)+
2(4k+1)(2-\alpha)k\binom{\beta k + 1}{2}
\\ &+
(4k+1) \binom{2\alpha k+1}3+
(4k+1) \binom{2(2-\alpha) k}{3}+
(1/2)(4k+1) \binom{2(2-\beta)k}{3}.
\end{align*}
}

Recalling that $k=\frac{n-2}{8}$, a straightforward manipulation of this expression shows that the coefficient of $n^4$ in $\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n)}$ is $f(\alpha,\beta)$ in Claim~\ref{cla:number}.
\end{proof}

We conclude the section by proving statements (A)--(G). In the proofs, we say that a vertex $x$ is {\em incident} with a crossing if it is incident with one of the edges involved in the crossing. {With the exception of (A), the proofs of these statements involve counting (certain) crossings incident with either $v_0$ or $w_0$. For the reader's convenience, in Figure~\ref{fig:800} we illustrate some useful information on the edges incident with each of $v_0$ and $w_0$.}

\begin{figure}[ht!]
\centering
\scalebox{0.8}{\input{800-1.pdf_t}}
\caption{The green and red edges incident with $v_0$, and the brown and blue edges incident with $w_0$.}
\label{fig:800}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (A)]
The total number of black-black crossings is $\binom{4k+1}{4}$, because there are $4k+1$ $u$-vertices, and every set of four $u$-vertices defines a black-black crossing.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (B)]
We show that the number $X$ of crossings of red edges incident with $v_0$ by red edges is $\binom{2\beta k}3$. Since there are $4k+1$ $v$-vertices, and each red-red crossing involves four $v$-vertices, by symmetry this implies that the total number of red-red crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(1/4)(4k+1)\binom{2\beta k}3$, as claimed.

Let $h<j<c$ be from $\{1,2,\dots,2\beta k\}$.  Half these triples have $j\le \beta k$. For this half, we will associate a red-red crossing involving $v_0 v_j$ and an edge incident with $v_h$. Let $i$ be the $(c-j)^{{\textrm{th}}}$ element of the list $h-(\beta k+1),h-(\beta k+2),\dots,4k,j+1,j+2,\dots,h+ \beta k$.  In this way, the triple $(h,j,c)$ corresponds precisely to the crossing $v_0v_j$ with $v_hv_i$.

If $j>\beta k$, then we set $h'=4k+1-c$, $j'=4k+1-j$, and $c'=4k+1-h$ to get the symmetric situation on the other side of $v_0$.  Then $v_0v_{j'}$ crosses $v_{h'}v_{i'}$, with $i'$ the $(c'-j')^{{\textrm{th}}}$ entry in the list $h'- (\beta k+1), \dots, j'- 1, 1,2,\dots,h'+\beta k$.  Therefore $X=\binom{2\beta k}3$, as claimed.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (C)]
We show that the number of blue-brown crossings that involve a brown edge incident with $w_0$ is $4k(2-\alpha)\binom{(2-\beta)k}2$. Since there are $4k+1$ $w$-vertices, by symmetry this implies that the total number of blue-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $4k(4k+1)(2-\alpha)\binom{(2-\beta)k}2$, as claimed.

A blue-brown crossing of the brown edge $w_0u_j$ with the blue edge $w_hv_i$ occurs when either {(i)} $1\le h\le 2k-\beta k -1$ and $h+(\beta k+ 1)\le i\le 2k$, or {(ii)} $2k+\beta k +2\le h\le 4k$ and $h+ (2k+(2-\beta) k)\ge i\ge 2k+1$.  Notice that $j$ is irrelevant, so that each blue edge crossing one brown edge incident with $w_0$ crosses all $2(2-\alpha)k$ brown edges incident with $w_0$.  Thus, the problem boils down to counting the number of pairs $(h,i)$ {that satisfy (i) or (ii). We show that the number of pairs $Z$ that satisfy (i) is $\binom{(2-\beta)k}{2}$. Since the number of pairs that satisfy (ii) is also $Z$, in view of the previous observation it will follow that the number of blue-brown crossings that involve a brown edge incident with $w_0$ is $2Z\bigl( 2(2-\alpha)k\bigr) = 4k(2-\alpha)\binom{(2-\beta)k}2$, as claimed.}

For each pair $h'<i$ from $\{\beta k+1,\beta k+2,\dots,2k\}$ we set $h=h'-\beta k$.  Clearly, $1\le h\le 2k-\beta k -1$ and, since $h'<i\le 2k$, $h+\beta k<i\le 2k$.  As $h+\beta k = h+2k-(2-\beta)k$, this is precisely the constraint on $i$ {in (i). Thus $Z=\binom{2k-\beta k}{2} = \binom{(2-\beta)k}{2}$, as claimed}.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (D)]
We show that the number $X$ of crossings of green edges incident with $v_0$ by red edges is $(2\alpha k+1)\binom{\beta k}2$. Since there are $4k+1$ $v$-vertices, by symmetry this implies that the total number of red-green crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(4k+1)(2\alpha k+1)\binom{\beta k}2$, as claimed.

We count the crossings of the green edge $v_0$ to $u_j$ with red edges $v_hv_i$.  As in the blue-brown case, a red edge crosses either all $2\alpha k+1$ or none of the green edges incident with $v_0$.  We choose the labelling of each pair $(i,h)$ of indices so that $h\in\{1,2,\dots,\beta k-1\}$ and $h- \beta k \le i\le 4k$.

For each pair $i'<h'$ chosen from $\{1,2,\dots,\beta k\}$, set $h'=\beta k+1-h$ and $i=4k+1-i'$.  Then $i=4k+1-i' > 4k+1-h' = (4k+1)- (\beta k+1 -  h) = h-(\beta k+1)$, as required.  It follows that there are $\binom{\beta k}2$ pairs $(i,h)$, and so $X=(2\alpha k+1)\binom{\beta k}2$, as claimed.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (E)]
We show that the number of green-brown crossings that involve a brown edge incident with $w_0$ is $2\left(\binom{2k+1}3-\binom{2(\alpha-1)k+1}3\right)$. Since there are $4k+1$ $w$-vertices, by symmetry this implies that the total number of green-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $2(4k+1)\left(\binom{2k+1}3-\binom{2(\alpha-1)k+1}3\right)$, as claimed.

Suppose $\alpha\ge 1$. Our aim is to compute {the} number of green-brown crossings that involve a brown edge incident with $w_0$. Half of these crossings involve $w_0u_i$ and $v_hu_j$ for which
\[h\in {\{2,\dots,}2k\},\]
\[i\in \{2k-(2-\alpha)k+1,2k-(2-\alpha)k+2,\dots,2k,2k+1,\dots,2k+(2-\alpha)k\}\,,\] and
\[j\in \{i+1,i+2\dots,h,h+1,\dots,h+\alpha k\}\,.\]

That is, $i\in\{\alpha k+1,\alpha k+2,\dots, (4-\alpha)k\}$ and $j\in \{i+1,i+2,\dots,h+\alpha k\}$.  We encode the possibilities $(i,j,h)$ by triples $i<j<c$ from $\{\alpha k+1,\alpha k+2,\dots, \alpha k + 2k+1\}$.  The $i$ and $j$ give the $u_i$ and $u_j$, while $c$ yields $h$ by the formula $h=c-\alpha k -1$.  Obviously, there are $\binom{2k+1}3$ triples.

For any $j$ and $c$ with $j<c$, we have that $\alpha+2\le j\le c-1 = (h+\alpha k+1) -1=h+\alpha k$.  The upper bound $j\le h+\alpha k$ is precisely the upper limit on the green neighbours of $v_h$.  On the other hand, $j\ge \alpha k+2$ and $h\le 2k$.  Since $v_{2k}$ has $u_{2k-\alpha k}$ as a neighbour and $\alpha\ge 1$, $(2-\alpha)k<\alpha k+2$, so all the possibilities for $j$ and $c$ yield a green edge.

The brown edge $w_0u_i$ requires $i\in \{\alpha k+1,\dots,(4-\alpha)k\}$, so the triples with $i>(4-\alpha)k$ do not count.  There are $\binom{(\alpha k+2k+1-(4-\alpha)k}3$ triples with $i>(4-\alpha)k$.  Thus, the number of brown-green crossings incident with $w_0$ is $2\left(\binom{2k+1}3-\binom{2(\alpha-1)k+1}3\right)$, as claimed. A very similar argument applies to $\alpha<1$, starting with $v_0$, $w_h$, $u_i$, $u_j$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (F)]
We show that the number of red-brown crossings incident with $w_0$ is $2k(2{-}\alpha)$ $\binom{\beta k+1}{2}$. Since there are $4k+1$ $w$-vertices, and each red-brown crossing involves exactly one $w$-vertex, by symmetry it follows that the number of red-brown crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $2k(4k+1)(2-\alpha)\binom{\beta k+1}{2}$, as claimed.

Each red-brown crossing incident with $w_0$ involves $v_i$ and $v_j$ with $i\in \{2k, 2k-1, \dots,2k-\beta k+1\}$ and $j\in \{2k+1,2k+2,\dots,i+\beta k\}$.  Each such $v_iv_j$ crosses all the brown edges incident with $w_0$.

Let $i'<j'$ be from $\{0,1,2\dots,\beta k\}$.   We choose $i=2k-i'$ and $j=i+j'=2k-i'+j'$.  Then $i\in \{2k,2k-1,\dots,2k-\beta k+1\}$ and $2k+1\le j\le i+\beta k$.

Since $w_0$ has degree $2(2-\alpha)k$, there are $2(2-\alpha)k\binom{\beta k + 1}2$ brown-red crossings with brown edge incident with $w_0$, as claimed.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of (G)]
We show that the number $X$ of green-green crossings incident with $v_0$ is $2\binom{2\alpha k+1}3$. Since there are $4k+1$ $v$-vertices, and each green-green crossing involves two $v$-vertices, by symmetry it follows that the number of green-green crossings in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is $(1/2)(4k+1)X = (4k+1) \binom{2\alpha k+1}3$, as claimed.

To calculate $X$, we show that the number $Y$ of green-green crossings of the form $v_0u_j$ with $v_hu_i$ that have $h\in \{1,2,\dots,2k\}$ is $\binom{2\alpha k+1}3$. Since clearly $Y=X/2$, this implies that $X=2\binom{2\alpha k+1}3$.

In the case $\alpha\le 1$, there are no green-green crossings of the form $v_hu_i$ for $i\ge h$ and $h\ge \alpha k$.  (This is different in the case $\alpha> 1$, which we treat below).  The crossing $v_0u_j$ with $v_hu_i$ occurs if and only if $h\in \{1,2,\dots,2\alpha k-1\}$, $i\in \{h-\alpha k,h-\alpha k+1,\dots, \alpha k-1\}$, and $j\in \{i+1,\dots,\alpha k\}$.    Such a triple $(h,i,j)$ corresponds to the triple $(h,i+\alpha k+1,j+\alpha k+1)$ (so $h<i<j$) and this latter triple is from $\{1,2,\dots,2\alpha k+1\}$.  Thus, there are $\binom{2\alpha k+1}3$ triples, and so $Y=\binom{2\alpha k+1}3$, as claimed.

For $\alpha>1$, the situation is somewhat different. Recall that the goal is to calculate the number $Y$ of green-green crossings of the form $v_0u_j$ with $v_hu_i$ that have $h\in \{1,2,\dots,2k\}$. For $h+\alpha k \le (4-\alpha)k+1$, there are only the crossings as identified in the $\alpha\le 1$ case; these also occur up to $h=2k$.  However, for $h+\alpha k> (4-\alpha)k+1$, we also have the crossings $v_0u_j$ with $v_hu_i$ for $i\in\{h+\alpha k,h+\alpha k-1,\dots,(4-\alpha)k\}$ and $j\in\{i-1,i-2,\dots,(4-\alpha)k+1\}$.

The former apply for all $h=1,2,\dots,2k$, while the latter apply only for $h=2(2-\alpha)k+2,2(2-\alpha)k+3,\dots,2k$.
For the former triples $(h,j,i)$, set $h'=2\alpha k+2-h$, $j'=\alpha k-j$, and $i'=\alpha k-i$.   We see that $1\le h\le 2k$ implies $2\alpha k+1\ge h' \ge 2(\alpha-1)k+2$.  Also $h -\alpha k \le i \le \alpha k-1$ implies $1\le i'\le \alpha k -h+\alpha k  = 2\alpha k -h = (2\alpha k - h)  + (2-2) = h'-2$, as expected.
Similarly, $h-\alpha k+1 \le j \le \alpha k$ implies $2\le j'\le h'-1$, so the triple $(h,i,j)$ corresponds to a triple $i'<j'<h'$ in $\{1,2,\dots,2\alpha k+1\}$ with $h' \ge 2(\alpha-1)k+2$.

For the remaining triples $(h,j,i)$, $2(2-\alpha)k+2\le h\le 2k$,   $4k+2-\alpha k\le i\le h+\alpha k$, and $4k+1-\alpha k\le j<i$.      We set  $h'=h+1-2(2-\alpha)k$, $i'=i-(4k-\alpha k)$, and $j'=j-(4k-\alpha k)$.   Then $2(2-\alpha)k+2\le h\le 2k$ translates to $ 3\le h'\le 2(\alpha-1)k+1$.  For $i'$, $4k+2-\alpha k \le i\le h+\alpha k$ translates to $ 2\le i' \le h+\alpha k - (4k- \alpha k) = h-2(2-\alpha)k= h'-1$.  Finally, for $j'$, $4k+1-\alpha k\le j< i $ translates to $1\le j'< i'$.  That is, the remaining triples $(h,i,j)$ correspond precisely with the triples $j'<i'<h'$ from $\{1,2\dots,2\alpha k+1\}$ having $h'\le 2(\alpha-1)k+1$.  Thus $Y=\binom{2\alpha k +1}3$, as claimed.
\end{proof}

\ignore{
{\small
\begin{align*}
&\pcr{D(\alpha,\beta,n})=
(4k+1) \binom{2\alpha k+1}{3} +
\frac{4k+1}{2} \binom{2(2-\beta)k}{3} + (4k+1) \binom{2(2-\alpha) k}{3} + \frac{4k+1}{4} \binom{2\beta k}{3} \\ &+
\binom{4k+1}{4} +
(4k+1)(2\alpha k+1)\binom{\beta k}{2} + 2k(4k+1)(2-\alpha)\binom{\beta k + 1}{2} + 4k(4k+1)(2-\alpha) \binom{(2-\beta)k}{2}
 \nonumber \\ &+
2(4k+1)\left(\binom{2k+1}3-\binom{2(\alpha-1)k+1}3\right).
\end{align*}
}
}

\section{Concluding remarks}\label{sec:remarks}

We finally explain why a glance at Koman's calculations revealed to us that his constructions could be adapted to yield drawings with fewer crossings, and we explore further refinements of our own constructions and their impact on obtaining better estimates for $c_P$.

\subsection{The responsibility of vertices in crossing-minimal drawings of complete graphs}

We recall that the {\em responsibility} of a vertex $v$ in a drawing $D$ is the number of crossings on edges incident to $v$. Many results on crossing numbers of complete graphs and complete bipartite graphs rely crucially on observations about the responsibility of vertices in crossing-minimal drawings. See for instance~\cite{Christian,guycrn,Kleitman,DanBruce}, and Sections 1.2 and 1.3 in~\cite{MarcusBook}.

Essentially the same arguments that show that the plane constant $c_{{\mathbb R}^2}$ and the projective plane constant $c_P$ exist, show that for each surface $\Sigma$ the constant $c_\Sigma:=\lim_{n\to \infty} cr_\Sigma(K_n)/n^4$ exists. There is a simple proof that the following holds for each surface $\Sigma$:

\begin{observation}\label{obs:rem1}
For each $n$, let $r_n$ be the responsibility of any vertex in a crossing-minimal drawing of $K_n$ in $\Sigma$.  Then $c_\Sigma=\lim_{n\to\infty}r_n/4 n^3$.
\end{observation}

Thus, roughly speaking, {\em all vertices in a crossing-minimal drawing of $K_n$ have essentially the same responsibility}.

As we have mentioned, Koman's drawings~\cite{koman} are a particular instance of our drawings $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$: they are obtained by setting $\alpha=\beta=1$. In this case, as reported in~\cite[Eq.~(23)]{koman}, half the vertices have responsibility $\frac{19}{384}n^3+O(n^2)$, and the other half have responsibility $\frac{20}{384}n^3+O(n^2)$. Thus Koman's construction implies that $\pcr{K_n} \le (1/4)\bigl((n/2)(\frac{19}{384}n^3+O(n^2)) + (n/2)(\frac{20}{384}n^3 + O(n^2))\bigr) = \frac{39}{3072}n^4 + O(n^3)$, and so $c_P \le \frac{39}{3072}$.

In general, if we have drawings of $K_n$ in a surface $\Sigma$ in which half the vertices have responsibility $p\cdot n^3 + O(n^2)$, and the other half have responsibility $q\cdot n^3 + O(n^2)$, it easily follows that $c_\Sigma \le (1/8)(p+q)$. However, the following simpler variant of Observation~\ref{obs:rem1}, which is also not difficult to prove, claims that this last inequality must be strict if $p\neq q$.

\begin{observation}\label{obs:rem2}
Let $\Sigma$ be a surface. Suppose that for each positive integer $n$ there is a drawing of $K_n$ in $\Sigma$ in which half the vertices have responsibility $p\cdot n^3 + O(n^2)$, and the other half have responsibility $q\cdot n^3 + O(n^2)$, where $p$ and $q$ are constants, $p\neq q$. Then $c_\Sigma < (1/8)(p+q)$.
\end{observation}

From this observation it follows that Koman's drawings are not asymptotically optimal. Elkies's recent result motivated us to refine Koman's construction and work out the corresponding calculations.

\subsection{Further generalizations of Koman's construction}
To show that the projective plane constant $c_P$ is strictly smaller than $1/8\pi^2$, we proved the inequality $c_P < 0.0126$. Our aim was only to show that $c_P < 1/8\pi^2$, but we could have easily obtained a better upper bound than $c_P < 0.0126$. Indeed, it is not difficult to see that
\[
c_P \le \min_{\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]} \,\, f(\alpha,\beta),
\]
where $f(\alpha,\beta)$ is as in Claim~\ref{cla:number}. Our bound $c_P < 0.0126$ follows since $f(1.1,1) < 0.0126$, but one can easily find values $\alpha_0$ and $\beta_0$ such that $f(\alpha_0,\beta_0)<f(1.1,1)$.

We decided against pushing this further for three reasons. First, as we have mentioned, our chief goal was to show that $c_P < 1/8\pi^2$. Second, in order to obtain better estimates for $\min_{\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]} \,\, f(\alpha,\beta)$ one must use numerical tools, as $f(\alpha,\beta)$ is a polynomial of degree three in two variables, and there does not seem to be a closed expression in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ in which $\min_{\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]} \,\, f(\alpha,\beta)$ is attained.

The third reason, and the most important one, is that we {\em know} that $c_P$ is strictly smaller than $\min_{\alpha,\beta\in[0,2]} \,\, f(\alpha,\beta)$. Indeed, our refinement of Koman's construction admits a further generalization that yields even better estimates for $c_P$. One can prescribe that the number of $w$-vertices (which is the number of $v$-vertices, as they get identified to obtain $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$) in $A(\alpha,\beta,n)$ is not necessarily the same as the number of $u$-vertices.

Such a generalized construction involves three parameters: besides $\alpha$ and $\beta$, the additional parameter is the ratio between the number of $w$-vertices and the number of $u$-vertices. We worked out the calculations to obtain the number of crossings in these drawings, and verified that for suitable choices of these parameters they have strictly fewer crossings than $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$.

For some time we entertained the possibility of presenting this more general construction, but we ended up realizing this was not a good idea, for several reasons. First of all, the description of the construction itself is slightly more complicated than the description of the drawings $D(\alpha,\beta,n)$. The calculations to obtain the number of crossings in these drawings, although still totally elementary, naturally are also longer. Moreover, the improvement on $c_P$ is very marginal (we could show, for instance, that $c_P < 0.012547$).

Most importantly, all these considerations would have been overcome, and we would have chosen to present the full generalization of Koman's construction, if we had any reason to believe that these constructions yield drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane that are (at least asymptotically) crossing-minimal, but we have no such reasons. However, we do find it intriguing that these constructions yield estimates of $c_P$ that are still very close to $1/8\pi^2$: they are not even $1\%$ better. Can one come up with drawings of $K_n$ in the projective plane that show that $c_P$ is substantially smaller than $1/8\pi^2$?

\section*{Acknowledgements}

{We thank two reviewers for their corrections and suggestions on the original version of this paper.} This project has received funding from NSERC Grant 50503-10940-500 and from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Sk\l{}odowska-Curie grant agreement No 754411, IST, Klosterneuburg, Austria.

\section*{Data Availability Statement}

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}