Zeros of holomorphic one-forms and topology of Kähler manifolds

Abstract: A conjecture of Kotschick predicts that a compact Kähler manifold $X$ fibres smoothly over the circle if and only if it admits a holomorphic one-form without zeros. In this paper we develop an approach to this conjecture and verify it in dimension two. In a joint paper with Hao, we use our approach to prove Kotschick's conjecture for smooth projective threefolds.

\section{Introduction}

This paper is motivated by the following conjecture of Kotschick \cite{Ko}.

\begin{conjecture} \label{conj1}
For a compact K\"ahler manifold $X$, the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}[(A)]
\item $X$ admits a holomorphic one-form without zeros; \label{item:conj1:hol-1-form}
\item \label{item:conj1:circle}
$X$ admits a real closed $1$-form without zeros;
or, by Tischler's theorem \cite{Ti} equivalently, the underlying differentiable manifold is a  $C^\infty$-fibre bundle over the circle.
\end{enumerate}
\end{conjecture}

The implication (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) is clear;
the possibility of the converse implication  (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}) is asked in \cite{Ko}.
Condition (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) is equivalent to asking that the smooth manifold that underlies $X$ is a quotient $M\times [0,1]/\sim$, where $M$ is a closed real manifold of odd dimension and $M\times 0$ is identified with $M\times 1$ via some diffeomorphism of $M$.
Kotschick's conjecture relates this purely topological condition  with the complex geometric condition
 that $X$ has a holomorphic one-form without zeros.

The purpose of this paper is to related Kotschick's conjecture to the following condition
\begin{enumerate}[(A)]
\setcounter{enumi}{2}
\item there is a holomorphic one-form  $\omega \in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$, such that for any finite \'etale cover $\tau:X'\to X$, the sequence
$$  H^{i-1}(X',\mathbb C)\xrightarrow{\wedge \omega'}  H^{i}(X',\mathbb C)\xrightarrow{\wedge \omega'}  H^{i+1}(X',\mathbb C) ,
$$
given by cup product with $\omega':=\tau^\ast \omega$,
is exact for all $i$.
\label{item:conj1:exact}
\end{enumerate}
This is motivated by a theorem of Green and Lazarsfeld \cite[Proposition 3.4]{GL}, who proved the implication (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{item:conj1:exact}).
Our first result is the following, which in view of Green and Lazarsfeld's theorem yields some positive evidence for Conjecture \ref{conj1}.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:B=>C}
For any compact K\"ahler manifold $X$, we have (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{item:conj1:exact}).
\end{theorem}

By the above theorem, in order to prove Kotschick's conjecture, it would be enough to
show that (\ref{item:conj1:exact}) implies (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}).
Compared to the original implication (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) $\Rightarrow$ (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}), this has the major advantage that (\ref{item:conj1:exact}) and (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}) are complex geometric conditions, while (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) is not.
More precisely, it is natural to wonder whether a one-form $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ which satisfies condition (\ref{item:conj1:exact}) must be without zeros.
This would have the remarkable implication that the question whether $\omega$ has zeros depends only on the de Rham class of $\omega$ and the homotopy type of $X$.
We show that this is true for surfaces.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:surfaces}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler surface.
If $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ satisfies condition (\ref{item:conj1:exact}), then it has no zeros.
In particular, Conjecture \ref{conj1} holds for compact K\"ahler surfaces.
\end{theorem}

The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:surfaces} uses classification of surfaces.
In the Appendix to this paper, written jointly with Lin, we  give however a more general and direct argument which does not rely on classification results, see Theorem \ref{thm:appendix} below.

In joint work with Hao \cite{HS}, we use the approach developed here to prove Conjecture \ref{conj1} for smooth projective threefolds.

The following theorem proves some partial results in arbitrary dimension.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:C=>...}
Let $X$ be a compact connected K\"ahler manifold with a holomorphic one-form $\omega$ such that the complex $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ given by cup product with $\omega$ is exact.
Then the analytic space $Z(\omega)$ given by the zeros of $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ has the following properties.
\begin{enumerate}[(1)]
\item For any connected component $Z\subset Z(\omega)$ with $d=\dim Z$,
$$
H^{d}(Z,{\omega_X} |_Z)=0 .
$$
In particular, $\omega$ does not have any isolated zero. \label{item:thm:Z(omega)}

\item If $f:X\to A$ is a holomorphic map to a complex torus $A$ such that $\omega\in f^\ast H^0(A,\Omega_A^1)$, then $f(X)\subset A$ is fibred by tori.
\label{item:thm:fibred}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

Ein and Lazarsfeld \cite[Theorem 3]{EL} showed that the image of a morphism $f:X\to A$ to a complex torus $A$ is fibred by tori if $\chi(X,\omega_X)=0$ and $\dim f(X)=\dim X$.
In item (\ref{item:thm:fibred}) above we obtain the same conclusion without any assumption on $f$, but where we replace $\chi(X,\omega_X)=0$ by the stronger condition on the exactness of $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$.

Theorem \ref{thm:B=>C} and item (\ref{item:thm:fibred}) in the above theorem imply for instance that a K\"ahler manifold $X$ with simple Albanese torus $\operatorname{Alb}(X)$ and with $b_1(X)>2\dim(X)$ does not admit a $C^\infty$-fibration over the circle.
Similarly, we obtain the following corollary in the projective case.

\begin{corollary}
Let $X$ be a smooth complex projective variety such the manifold which underlies $X$ fibres smoothly over the circle.
Then there is a surjective holomorphic morphism $f:X\to A$ to a positive-dimensional abelian variety $A$.
\end{corollary}

The following example of Debarre, Jiang and Lahoz shows that the \'etale covers in condition (\ref{item:conj1:exact}) are necessary to make Theorem \ref{thm:surfaces} true.

\begin{example}[{\cite[Example 1.11]{DJL}}]
Let $C_1,C_2$ be smooth projective curves with $g(C_1)>1$ and $g(C_2)=1$ and automorphisms $\varphi_i\in \operatorname{Aut}(C_i)$ of order two such that $C_i/\varphi_i$ has genus one for $i=1,2$.
Then the quotient
$$
X:=(C_1\times C_2)/(\varphi_1\times \varphi_2)
$$
has the same rational cohomology ring as an abelian surface, and so $\wedge \omega$ is exact on cohomology for any non-zero $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$.
However, if $\omega$ is obtained as pullback via the map $\pi:X\to C_1/\varphi_1$, then it vanishes along the multiple fibres of $\pi$, which lie above the branch points of $C_1\to C_1/\varphi_1$.
\end{example}

\begin{remark}
This paper raises the question whether condition (\ref{item:conj1:exact}) implies (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}).
In view of \cite[Proposition 3.4]{GL} it is natural to wonder whether more generally, a holomorphic one-form $\omega \in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ such that for any finite \'etale cover $\tau:X'\to X$
$$
H^{i-1}(X',\mathbb C)\xrightarrow{\wedge \tau^\ast \omega} H^i(X',\mathbb C) \xrightarrow{\wedge \tau^\ast \omega} H^{i+1}(X',\mathbb C)
$$
is exact for all $i<c$ implies that $\operatorname{codim}_X(Z(\omega))\geq c$.
This goes back to \cite{BWY}, where it is asked whether equality always holds in  \cite[Theorem 1.1]{BWY}.
However, blowing-up a point in $Z(\omega)$ easily produces counterexamples to this conjecture.
The question remains open under suitable minimality assumptions on $X$ (e.g.\ if $K_X$ is nef).
\end{remark}

\subsection*{Why the K\"ahler assumption?}
The K\"ahler assumption in Conjecture \ref{conj1} is essential.
For instance, a Hopf surface $X$ is a compact complex surface with $H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)=0$, whose underlying differentiable manifold is diffeomorphic to $S^1\times S^3$, and so it satisfies (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) but not (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}).

\subsection*{Acknowledgement}
I am grateful to Dieter Kotschick for sending me the preprint \cite{Ko} in spring 2013, where he poses the problem about the equivalence of (\ref{item:conj1:hol-1-form}) and (\ref{item:conj1:circle})  in Conjecture \ref{conj1}.
I am also grateful to Rui Coelho, Feng Hao, Dieter Kotschick and Anand Sawant for useful conversations and to Hsueh-Yung Lin, Mihnea Popa, Christian Schnell, Botong Wang and the referees for useful comments.
This work is supported by the DFG Grant ``Topologische Eigenschaften von Algebraischen Variet\"aten'' (project no.\ 416054549).

\subsection*{Notation}
For a holomorphic one-form $\omega$ on a K\"ahler manifold $X$, we denote by $Z(\omega)$ the (possibly non-reduced) analytic space given by the zeros of $\omega$, viewed as a section of the vector bundle $\Omega_X^1$.

\section{Proof of Theorem \texorpdfstring{\ref{thm:B=>C}}{1.2}}
\label{sec:thm:B=>C}

Let $X$ be a smooth connected manifold.
We denote by  $\operatorname{Loc}(X)$ the group of local systems on $X$ whose stalks are one-dimensional $\mathbb C$-vector spaces.
Since  local systems on the interval are trivial, the choice of a base point $s\in S^1$ induces a canonical isomorphism $\operatorname{Loc}(S^1)\cong \mathbb C^\ast$.
Hence, if we fix a base point $x\in X$, then for any $L\in \operatorname{Loc}(X)$, any continuous map $\gamma:S^1\to X$ with $\gamma(s)=x$ yields a canonical element $\gamma^\ast L\in \operatorname{Loc}(S^1)\cong \mathbb C^\ast$, which, as one checks, depends only on the homotopy class of $\gamma$.
This construction gives rise to the so called monodromy representation, which (since $X$ is connected)
 induces an isomorphism between $\operatorname{Loc}(X)$ and the character variety
$$
\operatorname{Char}(X):=\operatorname{Hom}(\pi_1(X,x),\mathbb C^\ast)\cong H^1(X,\mathbb C^\ast).
$$

If $L\in \operatorname{Loc}(X)$, then the associated complex line bundle has locally constant transition functions, hence it admits a flat connection and so the first Chern class $c_1(L)$ must be torsion.
The long exact sequence associated to the short exact sequence $0\to \mathbb Z \to \mathbb C \to \mathbb C^\ast \to 0$ of locally constant sheaves on $X$ thus shows that $\operatorname{Loc}(X)$ is isomorphic to an extension of a finite group by the connected subgroup $\operatorname{Loc}^0(X)\subset \operatorname{Loc}(X)$ which contains the trivial local system.
Moreover,
$$
\operatorname{Loc}^0(X)\cong \frac{H^1(X,\mathbb C)}{H^1(X,\mathbb Z)}\cong (\mathbb C^\ast)^{b_1(X)} .
$$
coincides with the subgroup $\{L\in \operatorname{Loc}(X) \mid c_1(L)=0\}$.

\subsection{Local systems associated to closed $1$-forms and Novikov's inequality} \label{subsec:L(alpha)}
If $\alpha$ is a closed complex valued $1$-form on $X$, then we can construct a local system $L(\alpha)\in \operatorname{Loc}^0(X)$ as follows.
Consider the twisted de Rham complex $(\mathcal A^\ast_{X,\mathbb C},d+\wedge \alpha)$, where $\mathcal A^k_{X,\mathbb C}$ denotes the sheaf of complex valued $C^\infty$-differential $k$-forms on $X$, and where $\wedge \alpha$ acts on a $k$-form $\beta$ via $\beta\mapsto \alpha\wedge \beta$.
There is an open covering $\mathcal U=\{U_i\}_{i\in I}$ of $X$ such that $\alpha|_{U_i}=dg_i$ for some smooth function $g_i$ on $U_i$.
For a $k$-form $\beta$ on $U_i$, we then have $(d+\wedge \alpha)(\beta)=0$ if and only if $d(e^{g_i}\beta)=0$.
This shows that the twisted de Rham complex $(\mathcal A^\ast_{X,\mathbb C},d+\wedge \alpha)$ is exact in positive degrees and it resolves a sheaf $L(\alpha)$ whose sections above $U_i$ are given by all smooth functions $f$ with $d (e^{g_i}f)=0$, i.e.\ $f=e^{-g_i}c$ for some constant $c\in \mathbb C$.
Hence, $L(\alpha)\in \operatorname{Loc}(X)$ is a local system with stalk $\mathbb C$ on $X$.
Moreover, $c_1(L(\alpha))=0$ because the cocycle $(g_i-g_j)\in \check{C}^1(\mathcal U, ( \mathcal A_X^0)^\times)$ maps to zero in $H^2(X,\mathbb Z)$ and so
\begin{align} \label{eq:L(alpha)}
L(\alpha)\in \operatorname{Loc}^0(X),
\end{align}
as we want.

Since $L(\alpha)$ is resolved by the $\Gamma$-acyclic complex $(\mathcal A^\ast_{X,\mathbb C},d+\wedge \alpha)$, we find that
\begin{align}\label{eq:H^k(L(alpha))}
H^k(X,L(\alpha))=H^k((A^\ast(X,\mathbb C),d+\wedge \alpha)),
\end{align}
where $A^k(X,\mathbb C)=\Gamma(X,\mathcal A^k_{X,\mathbb C})$.
In view of (\ref{eq:H^k(L(alpha))}), we can define the Novikov Betti numbers $b_i(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$ as follows, cf.\ \cite{Pa} or \cite{Fa}:
$$
b_k(\alpha):=\dim_\mathbb C H^k(X,L(\alpha)) .
$$

A closed $1$-form $\alpha$ on $X$ is Morse if locally at each zero $x\in Z(\alpha)$ of $\alpha$, $\alpha=dh$ for some Morse function $h$.
If $\alpha$ is Morse, its Morse index at a zero $x$ is defined as the Morse index of $h$ and we denote by $m_i(\alpha)$ the number of zeros of $\alpha$ of Morse index $i$.
The Novikov inequalities then state the following, see \cite[Theorem 1]{Pa}:

\begin{theorem}[Novikov's inequalities] \label{thm:Novikov-ineq}
Let $X$ be a closed manifold and let $\alpha$ be a closed $1$-form on $X$.
Suppose that $\alpha$ is Morse in the above sense.
Then for sufficiently large $t\in \mathbb R$, $m_i( \alpha)\geq b_i(t\alpha)$.
In particular, if $\alpha$ has no zeros, then for $t \gg 0$,
$$
H^i(X,L(t\alpha))=0 \ \ \text{for all $i$.}
$$
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Local systems associated to holomorphic $1$-forms} \label{subsec:L(omega)}
Let now $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold.
For any holomorphic $1$-form $\omega$ on $X$,
$\omega$ is closed and so we get a local system $L(\omega)$ as above.
This induces a short exact sequence
\begin{align} \label{eq:ses:Loc^0}
0\longrightarrow H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)\longrightarrow \operatorname{Loc}^0(X)\longrightarrow \operatorname{Pic}^0(X)\longrightarrow 0,
\end{align}
where  $\operatorname{Loc}^0(X) \to \operatorname{Pic}^0(X)$ is given by $L\mapsto L\otimes_\mathbb C \mathcal O_X$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:coho-Lomega}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold and let $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ be a holomorphic $1$-form.
Let $c\in \mathbb Z \cup \{\infty \}$ be maximal such that
$$
H^{i-1}(X,\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow  H^{i}(X,\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow  H^{i+1}(X,\mathbb C)
$$
is exact for all $i < c$.
Then the local system $L(\omega)$ associated to $\omega$
satisfies  $H^i(X,L(\omega))=0$ for all $i< c$.
Moreover, if $c\neq \infty$, then $H^{c}(X,L(\omega))\neq 0$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
The local system $L(\omega)$ is resolved by the following complex
$$
(\Omega_X^\ast,\partial+\wedge \omega):=0\longrightarrow \Omega_X^0\xrightarrow{\partial+\wedge \omega}   \Omega_X^1\xrightarrow{\partial +\wedge \omega}  \dots \Omega_X^n{-1}\xrightarrow{\partial+ \wedge \omega }  \Omega_X^n\to 0 .
$$
To see that this complex is exact in positive degrees, one uses that locally $\omega=dh$ and so for any local holomorphic form $\beta$, we have $de^h\beta=e^h(d\beta+dh\wedge \beta)$ and so $\partial \beta+\omega\wedge \beta=0$ if and only if $d e^h \beta=0$ and we can use the holomorphic Poincar\'e lemma to prove the claim.
Hence,
$$
H^i(X,L(\omega))=\mathbb H^i(X,(\Omega_X^\ast,\partial+\wedge \omega) ) .
$$
There is a spectral sequence
$$
'E_1^{p,q}:=H^p(X,\Omega_X^q) \Rightarrow \mathbb H^{p+q}(X,(\Omega_X^\ast,\partial+\wedge \omega) ) .
$$
The differential $d_1:'E_1^{p,q}\to 'E_1^{p,q+1}$ is induced by $\partial +\wedge \omega$.
Since $\partial$ acts trivially on $'E_1^{p,q}:=H^p(X,\Omega_X^q)$, we find that $d_1=\wedge \omega$.
It thus follows from \cite[Proposition 3.7]{GL} that the above spectral sequence degenerates at the second page, i.e.\ $'E_2={'E}_\infty$.

Our assumption implies $'E_2^{p,q}=0$ for $p+q< c$ and so $H^i(X,L(\omega))=0$ for $i< c$.
Let us now assume $c\neq \infty$.
By the definition of $c$,
$$
H^{c-1}(X,\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow H^{c}(X,\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow H^{c+1}(X,\mathbb C)
$$
is not exact.
Since $\omega\in H^{1,0}(X)$ is of type $(1,0)$, the above complex respects the Hodge decomposition and so we find that there must be some $j$ such that
$$
H^{j-1,c-j}(X)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow H^{j,c-j}(X)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow H^{j+1,c-j}(X)
$$
is not exact.
Hence $'E_2^{j,c-j}\neq 0$.
Since $'E_2^{j,c-j}={'E}_\infty^{j,c-j}$, we get $H^{c} (X,L(\omega))\neq 0$, as we want.
This concludes the lemma.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:B=>C}}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold which admits a real closed one-form $\alpha$ without zeros, i.e.\ condition (\ref{item:conj1:circle}) in Conjecture \ref{conj1} holds.
Since the pullback of $\alpha$ via a finite \'etale cover is again a real closed one-form without zeros, in order to prove (\ref{item:conj1:exact}), it suffices to show that $X$ carries a holomoprhic one-form $\omega$ such that $\wedge \omega$ is exact on cohomology.
For this, we may without loss of generality assume that $X$ is connected.

Since $\alpha$ has no zero on $X$, Theorem \ref{thm:Novikov-ineq} implies that there is a local system $L\in \operatorname{Loc}^0(X)$ that has no cohomology.
By the generic vanishing theorems \cite{GL,GL2,Ar,Si}, the locus of those local systems that have some cohomology are subtori, translated by torsion points, see \cite[Theorem 1.3]{Wa}.
It follows that for general $\omega \in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$, the local system $L(\omega)$ has no cohomology.
It thus follows from Lemma \ref{lem:coho-Lomega} that
$$
H^{i-1}(X,\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow H^{i}(X,\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega}\longrightarrow H^{i+1}(X,\mathbb C)
$$
is exact for all $i$, as we want.
This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:B=>C}.

\begin{remark}
Botong Wang points out that one can bypass the use of Theorem \ref{thm:Novikov-ineq} in the above argument by showing directly that if $X$ is a $C^\infty$-fibre bundle over the circle, then the pullback of a general local system on the circle has no cohomology on $X$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark} \label{rem:generic-omega}
Let $X$ be a compact connected K\"ahler manifold.
As we have used above, the results in \cite{GL} imply that $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$  is exact if and only if $L(\omega)$ has no cohomology.
The locus of such local systems is well understood by generic vanishing theory.
In particular, \cite[Theorem 1.3]{Wa} implies that the locus of those  holomorphic one-forms $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$  for which $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ is not exact is a finite union of linear subspaces of the form $f_i^\ast H^0(T_i,\Omega_{T_i}^1)$, where $f_i:X\to T_i$ is a finite collection of holomorphic maps to complex tori $T_i$.
As a special case we see that if there is one holomorphic one-form $\omega$ on $X$ which makes $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ exact, then this holds for all forms in a non-empty Zariski open subset of $H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$.
\end{remark}

\section{The case of surfaces}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:surfaces}]
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler surface with a one-form $\omega \in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$ such that for any finite \'etale cover $\tau:X'\to X$,
\begin{align} \label{eq:ses:surfaces}
H^{i-1}(X',\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega'}\longrightarrow H^{i}(X',\mathbb C)\stackrel{\wedge \omega'}\longrightarrow H^{i+1}(X',\mathbb C)
\end{align}
is exact for all $i$, where $\omega':=\tau^\ast \omega$.
This implies $\chi(X,\Omega_X^p)=0$ for all $p$ and so $c_2(X)=0$.

Replacing $X$ by its connected components, we may without loss of generality assume that $X$ is connected.
The classification of surfaces (see \cite[Chapter VI.1]{barth-etal}) thus shows that only the following cases occur.

\textbf{Case 1.} $X$ is birational to a ruled surface over a curve $C$ of positive genus.

\textbf{Case 2.} $X$ is a minimal bi-elliptic surface or a complex $2$-torus.

\textbf{Case 3.} $X$ is a minimal properly elliptic surface.

In Case 1, exactness of (\ref{eq:ses:surfaces}) implies that $X$ is birational to a ruled surface over an elliptic curve $C$.
This implies $b_1(X)=2$.
Since $e(X)=0$, we conclude $b_2(X)=2$ and so $X$ is a minimal ruled surface over an elliptic curve.
In particular, since $\omega$ is nonzero, it must be a holomorphic one-form without zeros.

In Case 2, any nontrivial holomorphic one-form on $X$ has no zeros and so we are done because exactness of (\ref{eq:ses:surfaces}) implies $\omega\neq 0$, as before.

In Case 3, the condition $c_2(X)=0$ implies by \cite[Proposition III.11.4]{barth-etal} that $X$ admits a fibration $\pi:X\to C$ to a curve $C$ such that the reduction of any fibre of $\pi$ is isomorphic to a smooth elliptic curve, but where multiple fibres are allowed.
Let $F$ be a general fibre of $\pi:X\to C$.
Suppose for the moment that the one-form $\omega$ restricts to a nonzero form on $F$.
In particular, the Albanese map $a :X\to \operatorname{Alb}(X)$ does not contract $F$ and the reduction of any fibre of $a $  is isomorphic to $F$.
Moreover, the restriction of $\omega$ to $F$ does not depend on the fibre and so it is nonzero everywhere.
That is, $\omega$ has no zeros.

It remains to deal with the case where $\omega$ restricts to zero on the fibres of $\pi:X\to C $.
In this case, $\omega=\pi^\ast \alpha$ for a one-form $\alpha$ on $C$.
Since cup product with $\omega$ is exact, $C$ must be an elliptic curve.
If $\pi$ is smooth, then $\omega$ has no zeros.
Otherwise, $\omega$ vanishes along the multiple fibres of $\pi$.
We may thus assume that $\pi$ has at least one multiple fibre.

The multiple fibres of $\pi$ give rise to a orbifold structure on $C$.
Since $C$ is an elliptic curve, this orbifold is good and so there is a finite orbifold covering $C'\to C$ such that the orbifold structure on $C'$ is trivial, see e.g.\ \cite[Corollary 2.29]{CHK00}.
Let $X'$ be the normalization of the base change $X\times_CC'$.
Then, $X'$ is a smooth surface, $X'\to X$ is \'etale and $X'\to C'$ is an elliptic surface without singular fibres, see e.g.\ \cite[Proposition III.9.1]{barth-etal}.
Since $\tau:X'\to X$ is finite \'etale, $(H^\ast(X',\mathbb C),\wedge \omega')$ is exact for $\omega':=\tau^\ast \omega$ by assumptions.
On the other hand, since $\pi$ has singular fibres, $C'\to C$ is a branched covering with nontrivial branch locus and so $C'$ is a curve of genus $\geq 2$.
This is a contradiction, because $\omega'$ is a pullback of a one-form from $C'$.
This finishes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:surfaces}.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary} \label{cor:classification:surfaces}
Let $X$ be a compact connected K\"ahler surface with a holomorphic one-form $\omega$ such that $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ is exact.
Then $\omega$ has no zeros and $(X,\omega)$ is given by one of the following:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $X$ is a minimal ruled surface over an elliptic curve; \label{item:ruled}
\item $X$ is a complex $2$-torus; \label{item:torus}
\item $X$ is a minimal elliptic surface $f:X\to C$ such that one of the following holds: \label{item:kod=0,1}
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
\item $f$ is smooth, $C$ is an elliptic curve and $\omega\in f^\ast H^0(C,\Omega_C^1)$;\label{item:f-smooth}
\item $f$ is quasi-smooth, i.e.\ all singular fibres are multiple fibres, and the restriction of $\omega$ to the reduction of any fibre of $f$ is nonzero. \label{item:f-quasi-smooth}
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The classification into types (\ref{item:ruled}), (\ref{item:torus}) and (\ref{item:kod=0,1}) follows directly from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:surfaces}, where we note that bi-elliptic surfaces fall in the class (\ref{item:f-smooth}).
The fact that $\omega$ has no zeros follows from this classification.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
In the notation of Corollary \ref{cor:classification:surfaces},
assume that $X$ is projective.
Then,
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\setcounter{enumi}{3}
\item   $X$ admits a smooth morphism to a positive-dimensional abelian variety; \label{item:smoothmap}
\item if $\kappa(X)\geq 0$, then there is a finite \'etale cover $\tau:X'\to X$ which splits into a product $X'=A'\times S'$, where $A'$ is a positive-dimensional abelian variety and $S'$ is smooth projective.
\label{item:split}
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Note that item (\ref{item:smoothmap}) is clear in cases (\ref{item:ruled}), (\ref{item:torus}) and (\ref{item:f-smooth}) of Corollary \ref{cor:classification:surfaces}.
It remains to deal with case (\ref{item:f-quasi-smooth}).
In this case, since $X$ and hence $\operatorname{Alb}(X)$ are projective, $\operatorname{Alb}(X)$ is isogeneous to $E\times \operatorname{Jac}(C)$, where $E$ is an elliptic curve which is isogeneous to the reduction of any fibre of $f$.
It follows that there is a morphism $g:X\to E$ which restricts to an isogeny on the reduction of each fibre of $f:X\to C$.
Since $\omega$ restricts non-trivially to the reduction of any fibre of $f$, the morphism $g:X\to E$ must be smooth, as we want.

It clearly suffices to prove item (\ref{item:split}) in the case (\ref{item:kod=0,1}) of Corollary \ref{cor:classification:surfaces}.
In this case, there is a finite \'etale cover $X'\to X$, such that $\operatorname{Alb}(X')\cong E\times \operatorname{Jac}(C')$ for a smooth projective curve $C'$ which maps finitely to $C$.
Moreover, the Albanese map identifies $X'$ to the product $E\times C'$, as we want.
This concludes the corollary.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem \texorpdfstring{\ref{thm:C=>...}}{1.4}}

\subsection{Preliminaries}
We will use the following lemma.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:support}
Let $K^\ast$ be a bounded complex of sheaves on a manifold $X$.
Let $Z,Z'\subset X$ be closed subsets with $Z\cap Z'=\emptyset$, such that
$$
\operatorname{supp} \mathcal H^i(K^*)\subset Z\cup Z'
$$
for all $i$.
Then the differentials $d_r:E^{p,q}_{r}\to E_r^{p+r,q-r+1}$ in the spectral sequence
$$
E_2^{p,q}=H^p(X,\mathcal H^q(K^*))\Rightarrow \mathbb H^{p+q}(X,K^\ast)
$$
respect the natural decompositions
$$
E_2^{p,q}=H^p(Z,\mathcal H^q(K^*)|_Z)\oplus H^p(Z',\mathcal H^q(K^*)|_{Z'}) .
$$
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $i:Z\to X$ and $j:Z'\to X$ be the inclusions.
Then the natural map of complexes
$$
K^*\twoheadrightarrow i_\ast i^{-1}K^\ast \oplus j_\ast j^{-1}K^\ast
$$
is a quasi-isomorphism.
This proves the lemma, because the spectral sequence depends only on the class of $K^*$ in the derived category of sheaves on $X$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Item (\ref{item:thm:Z(omega)}) of Theorem \ref{thm:C=>...}}

Let $X$ be a compact connected K\"ahler manifold and let $\omega$ be a holomorphic one-form on $X$ with associated local system $L(\omega)$.
Recall the isomorphism
$$
H^k(X,L(\omega))\cong \mathbb H^k(X,(\Omega_X^\ast,\omega\wedge-)) .
$$
The above hypercohomology is computed by a spectral sequence with $E_2$-page
\begin{align} \label{def:ss:H^qK}
E_2^{p,q}:=H^p(X, \mathcal H^q(K^*))\Rightarrow H^{p+q}(X,L(\omega)) ,
\end{align}
where $K^*:= (\Omega_X^\ast,\omega\wedge-)$ and $\mathcal H^q(K^*)$ denotes the $q$-th cohomology sheaf of that complex.
In particular, $\mathcal H^q(K^*)=0$ if $\omega \wedge-$ is exact on holomorphic $q$-forms and the latter holds if $\omega$ has no zeros.
More precisely, this shows that $\mathcal H^q(K^*)$ are sheaves that are supported on the zero locus $Z(\omega)$ of $\omega$.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:H^n(K)}
We have $\mathcal H^n(K^\ast)\cong \Omega^n_X|_Z$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Locally $\omega=\sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_i$.
We are interested in the cokernel of
$$
\Omega_X^{n-1}\to \Omega_X^n,\ \ \alpha \mapsto \sum_{i=1}^n f_i dx_i\wedge \alpha .
$$
The image of the above map is clearly spanned by $f_i dx_1\wedge \dots \wedge dx_n$ with $i=1,\dots ,n$.
Hence, $\mathcal H^n(K^\ast)$ is the quotient of $\Omega_X^n$ by the subsheaf $I_Z\otimes_{\mathcal O_X}  \Omega_X^n$, where $I_Z$ denotes the ideal sheaf of $Z$.
Hence,
$$
\mathcal H^n(K^\ast)\cong \Omega_X^n\otimes_{\mathcal O_X} \mathcal O_Z = \Omega_X^n|_Z .
$$
This proves the lemma.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of item (\ref{item:thm:Z(omega)}) in Theorem \ref{thm:C=>...}]
Let $Z\subset Z(\omega)$ be a connected component of the zero locus of $\omega$.
Then we can write $Z(\omega)=Z\cup Z'$, where $Z$ and $Z'$ are disjoint closed subsets of $X$.

Consider the spectral sequence (\ref{def:ss:H^qK}).
By Lemma \ref{lem:H^n(K)}, we have
$$
H^d(X,\Omega_X^n|_Z)\hookrightarrow E^{d,n}_2.
$$
Using Lemma \ref{lem:support}, one easily checks that this term survives on the infinity page and we get
$$
H^d(X,\Omega_X^n|_Z)\hookrightarrow E^{d,n}_\infty.
$$
By Lemma \ref{lem:coho-Lomega}, exactness of $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ implies $H^{i}(X,L(\omega))=0$ for all $i$.
Hence, $E^{d,n}_\infty=0$, and so $H^d(Z,\Omega_X^n|_Z)=0$, as we want.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:Z^red}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold and let $\omega\in H^0(X,\Omega_X^1)$
such that the complex $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ given by cup product with $ \omega$ is exact.
Let $Z\subset Z(\omega)$ be a connected component of the zero locus of $\omega$, and let $d=\dim Z$.
Then
$$
H^d(Z',\omega_X|_{Z'})=0 ,
$$
for any irreducible component $Z'$ of the reduced scheme $Z^{\red}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
 Consider the long exact sequence, associated to the short exact sequence
$$
0\longrightarrow \omega_X|_Z\otimes \mathcal I_{Z'} \longrightarrow \omega_X|_Z \longrightarrow \omega_{X}|_{Z'}\longrightarrow 0 .
$$
By item (\ref{item:thm:Z(omega)}), $H^d(Z,\omega_X|_{Z})=0$.
Moreover, $H^{d+1}(Z,\omega_X|_Z\otimes \mathcal I_{Z'})=0$ because of dimension reasons.
This implies $H^d(Z',\omega_X|_{Z'})=0$, as we want.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:a(X)}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold with a holomorphic map $f:X\to A$ to a complex torus $A$.
Let $\omega\in H^0(A,\Omega_A^1)$
such that the complex $(H^\ast(X,\mathbb C),\wedge f^\ast \omega)$ given by cup product with $f^\ast \omega$ is exact.

Then the restriction of $\omega$ to $f(X)\subset \operatorname{Alb}(X)$ does not vanish at a point $y\in f(X)$ such that the fibre $F:=f^{-1}(y)$ is smooth with trivial normal bundle (the locus of such points $y\in f(X)$ is Zariski dense in $f(X)$).
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $\omega$ vanishes at a point $y\in f(X)$ such that the fibre $F:=f^{-1}(y)$ is smooth with trivial normal bundle.
Then $F\subset Z(f^\ast \omega)^{\red}$ is a connected component.
This contradicts Corollary \ref{cor:Z^red}, because
$$
H^{\dim F}(F,\omega_X|_F)=H^{\dim F}(F,\omega_F)
\neq 0,
$$
by Serre duality, where we used that $F$  has trivial normal bundle.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Item (\ref{item:thm:fibred}) of Theorem \ref{thm:C=>...}}

Let $f:X\to A$ be a holomorphic map to a complex torus $A$ and assume that there is a one-form $\omega \in f^\ast H^0(A,\Omega_A^1)$ such that $(H^\ast(A,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega)$ is exact.
Since exactness is an open property, $(H^\ast(A,\mathbb C),\wedge \omega')$ is exact for any general $\omega' \in f^\ast H^0(A,\Omega_A^1)$.

Let  $Y:=f(X)$ and fix a general point $y\in Y$.
There are countably many non-trivial linear subspaces
$$
\{0\}\neq W_i\subset T_{A,y}
$$
such that there is a morphism of complex tori $\pi_i:A\to B_i$ with $\ker((d \pi_i)_y)=W_i$.

For a contradiction, we assume that $Y$ is not fibred by tori.
This implies that the tangent space $T_{Y,y} $ does not contain any of the $W_i$.
We may thus choose a one-form $\omega'\in H^0(A,\Omega_A^1)$, such that $\omega'$ vanishes on $T_{Y,y}\subset T_{A,y}$, but which is non-trivial on each $W_i$.
Let $Z\subset Z(\omega')$ be an irreducible component which contains $y$.
Then $\omega'$ vanishes on $Z$ and hence on the subtorus $\langle Z\rangle\subset A$, generated by $Z$.
If $Z$ was positive-dimensional, then $ T_{\langle Z\rangle,y}=W_i$ for some $i$, which contradicts the fact that $\omega'$ does not vanish on $W_i$.
Hence, $Z$ is zero-dimensional and so $y$ is an isolated zero of $\omega'|_Y$.
But this implies that a small perturbation of $\omega'|_Y$ has an isolated zero in some neighbourhood of $y$.
Hence, a general one-form $\omega \in H^0(A,\Omega_A^1)$ has the property that $Z(\omega|_Y)$ contains a general point of $Y$ as a connected component.
This contradicts Corollary \ref{cor:a(X)}, which finishes the proof.

Algebraic Geometry (math.AG); Complex Variables (math.CV); Geometric Topology (math.GT)


On packing spheres into containers (about Kepler's finite sphere packing problem)

Abstract: In an Euclidean $d$-space, the container problem asks to pack $n$ equally sized spheres into a minimal dilate of a fixed container. If the container is a smooth convex body and $d\geq 2$ we show that solutions to the container problem can not have a ``simple structure'' for large $n$. By this we in particular find that there exist arbitrary small $r>0$, such that packings in a smooth, 3-dimensional convex body, with a maximum number of spheres of radius $r$, are necessarily not hexagonal close packings. This contradicts Kepler's famous statement that the cubic or hexagonal close packing ``will be the tightest possible, so that in no other arrangement more spheres could be packed into the same container''.

\section{Introduction}

How many equally sized spheres
can be packed into a given container?
In 1611, {\sc Kepler} discussed this question
in his booklet
\cite{kepler-1611} and came to the following conclusion:

\begin{quote}
``Coaptatio fiet arctissima, ut nullo praeterea ordine plures
\underline{globuli} \underline{in idem vas} compingi queant.''

\medskip

\noindent
``The (cubic or hexagonal close) packing will be the tightest possible, so that in no other arrangement more \underline{spheres} could be packed
\underline{into the same container}.''
\end{quote}

In this note we want to show that
Kepler's assertion is false for many containers
(see Section \ref{sec:kepler-assert}, Corollary \ref{cor:corollary3}).
Even more general we show, roughly speaking, that the set of solutions to
the finite container problem (see below) in an Euclidean space
of dimension $d\geq 2$ has no ``simple structure'' (see Definition \ref{def:lc}).

To make this precise,
we consider the Euclidean $d$-space $\mathbb R^d$ endowed with
inner product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ and norm $|\cdot |$.
Let $B^d=\{\vec{x}\in\mathbb R^d : |\vec{x}|\leq 1\}$ denote the
(solid) unit sphere and $S^{d-1}=\{\vec{x}\in\mathbb R^d : |\vec{x}|= 1\}$
its boundary. Then a discrete set $X\subset \mathbb R^d$ is a {\em packing set} and
defines a {\em sphere packing}
$X+\frac{1}{2}B^d
=\{\vec{x}+\frac{1}{2}\vec{y} : \vec{x}\in X, \vec{y}\in B^d\}
$,
if distinct elements $\vec{x},\vec{x}'\in X$ have distance
$|\vec{x}-\vec{x}'|\geq 1$. The sphere packing
is called {\em finite} if $X$ is of finite cardinality $|X|$.
Here we consider finite sphere packings contained in a convex body ({\em container}) $C$,
that is, a compact, convex subset of $\mathbb R^d$ with nonempty interior.
The {\em finite container problem} may be stated as follows.

\begin{problem}
Given $d\geq 2$, $n\in\mathbb N$ and a convex body
$C\subset\mathbb R^d$, determine
\[
\lambda(C,n)=
\min\{ \lambda >0 : \lambda C \supset X +\tfrac{1}{2}B^d \mbox{ a packing, $X\subset\mathbb R^d$ with $|X|=n$ }\}
\]
and packing sets $X$ attaining the minimum.
\end{problem}

Many specific instances of this container problem have been considered
(see for example
\cite{bezdek-1987}, \cite{bw-2000}, \cite{fodor-1999}, \cite{melissen-1997}, \cite{no-1999},\cite{packomania}, \cite{sccscg-2006}).
Independent of the particular choice of the container $C$,
solutions tend to densest infinite packing arrangements for growing $n$
(see Section \ref{sec:kepler-assert}, cf. \cite{cs-1995}).
In dimension $2$ these packings are known to be arranged hexagonally.
Nevertheless, although close, solutions to the container problem
are not hexagonally arranged for all sufficiently large $n$
and various convex disks $C$, as shown by the author
in \cite{schuermann-2002}, Theorem 9
(cf. \cite{lg-1997} for corresponding computer experiments).
Here we show that a similar phenomenon is true in arbitrary
Euclidean spaces of dimension $d\geq 2$.

We restrict ourselves to {\em smooth convex bodies} $C$ as containers.
That is, we assume the {\em support function}
$h_C(\vec{u})=\sup \{\langle \vec{x},\vec{u} \rangle : \vec{x} \in C \}$
of $C$ is differentiable at all $\vec{u}\in\mathbb R^d\setminus\{\vec{0}\}$, or
equivalently, we require that $C$ has a unique {\em supporting hyperplane}
through each boundary point (see \cite{schneider-1993}, Chapter 1.7).

Our main result shows that families of packing sets with a
``simple structure'' can not be solutions to the container problem
if $C$ is smooth and $n$ sufficiently large.
This applies for example to the family of solutions to the
{\em lattice restricted container problem}.
In it, we only consider packing sets
which are isometric to a subset of some
{\em lattice} (a discrete subgroup of $\mathbb R^d$).

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:theorem1}
Let $d\geq 2$ and $C\subset\mathbb R^d$ a smooth convex body.
Then there exists an $n_0\in\mathbb N$, depending on $C$,
such that $\lambda(C,n)$ is not attained
by any lattice packing set for $n\geq n_0$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Packing families of limited complexity}

The result of Theorem \ref{thm:theorem1} can be extended
to a more general class of packing sets.

\begin{definition} \label{def:lc}
A family ${\mathcal F}$ of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$ is of
{\em limited complexity} (an {\em lc-family}), if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
there exist isometries ${\mathcal I}_X$, for each $X\in{\mathcal F}$, such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:lc-def}
\{
\vec{x}-\vec{y} :
\vec{x}, \vec{y} \in {\mathcal I}_X(X) \mbox{ and $X\in{\mathcal F}$}
\}
\end{equation}
has only finitely many accumulation points in any bounded region.

\item[(ii)]
there exists a $\varrho>0$, such that
for all $\vec{x}\in X$ with $X\in{\mathcal F}$,
every affine subspace spanned by some elements of
$$\{
\vec{y} \in X :
\mbox{$|\vec{x}-\vec{y}| = 1$}
\}
$$
either contains $\vec{x}$ or its distance to $\vec{x}$
is larger than $\varrho$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}

Condition (i) shows that point configurations within an arbitrarily large radius
around a point are (up to isometries of $X$ and up to finitely many exceptions)
arbitrarily close to one out of finitely many possibilities.
Condition (ii) limits the possibilities for points at minimum distance further.
Note that the existence of a $\varrho>0$ in (ii)
follows if \eqref{eqn:lc-def} in (i) is finite within $S^{d-1}$.

An example of an lc-family
in which isometries can be chosen so that \eqref{eqn:lc-def} is finite
in any bounded region, is the family of {\em hexagonal packing sets}.
These are isometric copies of subsets of a {\em hexagonal lattice},
in which every point in the plane is at minimum distance $1$
to six others. For the hexagonal packing sets,
condition (ii) is satisfied for all $\varrho<\tfrac{1}{2}$.
More general, isometric copies of subsets of a fixed lattice
give finite sets \eqref{eqn:lc-def} in any bounded region and satisfy (ii)
for suitable small $\varrho>0$.
Similar is true for more general families of packing sets,
as for example for the {\em hexagonal close configurations} in dimension $3$
(see Section \ref{sec:kepler}).

An example of an lc-family, in which the sets \eqref{eqn:lc-def}
are not necessarily finite in any bounded region,
are the solutions to the lattice restricted container problem.
As shown at the end of Section \ref{sec:proofs},
condition (ii) in Definition \ref{def:lc} is nevertheless satisfied.
Thus we derive Theorem \ref{thm:theorem1}
from the following, more general result.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:main}
Let $d\geq 2$, $C\subset\mathbb R^d$ a smooth convex body
and ${\mathcal F}$ an lc-family of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$.
Then there exists an $n_0\in\mathbb N$, depending on ${\mathcal F}$ and $C$, such that
$\lambda(C,n)$ is not attained
by any packing set in ${\mathcal F}$ for $n\geq n_0$.
\end{theorem}

Proofs are given in the next section.
In Section \ref{sec:extensions} we briefly mention some possible
extensions of Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
In Section \ref{sec:kepler} we discuss consequences
for the quoted assertion of Kepler, if interpreted as a container problem
(see Corollary \ref{cor:corollary3}).

\section{Proofs}
\label{sec:proofs}

{\bf Idea. }
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main} is subdivided into
four preparatory steps and corresponding propositions.
These technical ingredients are brought together at the end of this section.
Given an lc-family ${\mathcal F}$ of packing sets, the idea is the following:
We show that packing sets $X\in{\mathcal F}$,
with $|X|$ sufficiently large, allow the construction of packing sets
$X'$ with $|X'|=|X|$ and with $X'+ \tfrac{1}{2}B^d$
fitting into a smaller dilate of $C$.
Roughly speaking, this is accomplished in two steps. First we show that
``rearrangements'' of spheres near the boundary of $C$ are possible
for sufficiently large $n$.
This allows us to obtain arbitrarily large regions
in which spheres have no contact, respectively in which points
of $X'$ have distance greater than $1$ to all other points
(Proposition \ref{prop:prop2}, depending on property (i) of Definition \ref{def:lc}).
Such an initial modification then allows rearrangements
of all spheres (Proposition \ref{prop:prop3} and \ref{prop:prop4},
depending on property (ii) of Definition \ref{def:lc}),
so that the resulting packing fits into a smaller dilate of $C$.
For example, consider a hexagonal packing in the plane:
It is sufficient to initially rearrange (or remove) two disks in order
to subsequently rearrange all other disks, so that no disk
is in contact with others afterwards
(see Figure \ref{fig:plane-instability}, cf. \cite{schuermann-2002}).

\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{finite-kepler-figure-1.eps}
}
\caption{Local rearrangements in a hexagonal circle packing.}
\label{fig:plane-instability}
\end{figure}

How do we know that the new sphere packings $X'+\tfrac{1}{2}B^d$ fit
into a smaller dilate of $C$? Consider
$$
\lambda(C,X)
=
\min
\{
\lambda > 0 :
\lambda C\supset \vec{t}+X +\tfrac{1}{2}B^d
\mbox{ for some } \vec{t}\in\mathbb R^d
\}
$$
for a fixed finite packing set $X$.
Here and in the sequel we use
$\vec{t}+X$ to abbreviate $\{\vec{t}\}+X$.
Clearly
$$\lambda(C,n)=\min\{ \lambda(C,X) : \mbox{ $X$ is a packing set with $|X|=n$ }\},$$
and $\lambda(C,X')<\lambda(C,X)$
whenever the {\em convex hull} $\conv X'$ of $X'$
(and hence $X'$ itself) is contained in the interior
$\interior\conv X$ of the convex hull of $X$.
Thus in order to prove that $X$ does not attain $\lambda(C,|X|)$
for any convex container $C$, it is sufficient to describe a way
of attaining a packing set $X'$ with $|X'|=|X|$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:suf-cond}
X' \subset \interior\conv X
.
\end{equation}

\medskip

{\bf I. }
Let us first consider the ``shapes''
of packing sets $X_n$ attaining $\lambda(C,n)$.
Here and in what follows, $X_n$ denotes
a packing set with $|X_n|=n$.

In order to define the ``shape'', let
\[
R(M)=\min\{ R \geq 0 : M\subset \vec{t} + R B^d \mbox{ for some }\vec{t}\in\mathbb R^d\}
\]
denote the circumradius of a compact set $M\subset\mathbb R^d$ and
let $\vec{c}(M)$ denote the center of its circumsphere.
Hence $M\subseteq \vec{c}(M)+R(M)B^d$.
Then the {\em shape} of $M$ is defined by
\[
{\mathcal S}(M)=\left(\conv(M)-\vec{c}(M)\right) / R(M) \subset B^d
.
\]
The family of nonempty compact subsets in $\mathbb R^d$ can be
turned into a metric space, for example with the {\em Hausdorff metric}
(cf. \cite{schneider-1993}).
Shapes of packing sets $X_n$ attaining $\lambda(C,n)$ converge to the shape of $C$,
that is,
\begin{equation}    \label{shape-convergence}
\lim_{n\to\infty} {\mathcal S}\left(X_n\right) = {\mathcal S}(C)
.
\end{equation}
This is seen by ``reorganizing elements'' in a hypothetical convergent
subsequence of $\{X_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}$ not satisfying \eqref{shape-convergence}.

The convergence of shapes
leads for growing $n$ to shrinking sets of
{\em outer (unit) normals}
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:normals}
\{ \vec{v}\in S^{d-1} : \langle \vec{v}, \vec{x} \rangle \geq \langle \vec{v}, \vec{y} \rangle
 \mbox{ for all } \vec{y}\in \conv X_n\}
\end{equation}
at boundary points $\vec{x}$ of the {\em center polytope} $\conv X_n$.
For general terminology and results on convex polytopes
used here and in the sequel we refer to \cite{ziegler-1998}.

Since $C$ is smooth, the sets of outer normals \eqref{eqn:normals} at boundary points
of $\conv X_n$ become uniformly small for large $n$.
Also, within a fixed radius around a boundary point,
the boundary of $\conv X_n$ becomes ``nearly flat'' for growing $n$.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:prop1}
Let $d\geq 2$ and $C\subset \mathbb R^d$ a smooth convex body.
Let $\{X_n\}$ be a sequence of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$ attaining $\lambda(C,n)$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
for $\varepsilon > 0$
there exists an $n_1\in\mathbb N$, depending on $C$ and $\varepsilon$,
such that for all $n\geq n_1$, outer normals $\vec{v},\vec{v}'\in S^{d-1}$ of
$\conv X_n$ at $\vec{x}\in X_n$ satisfy
$$
|\vec{v}-\vec{v}'|
<\varepsilon
;
$$

\item[(ii)]
for $\varepsilon>0$ and $r>0$ there exists an $n_1\in\mathbb N$, depending on $C$, $\varepsilon$ and $r$,
such that for all $n\geq n_1$, and for $\vec{x},\vec{x}'\in \bd \conv X_n$ with $|\vec{x}-\vec{x}'|\leq r$,
outer normals $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$ of $\conv X_n$ at $\vec{x}$ satisfy
$$
\langle \vec{v}, \vec{x}-\vec{x}' \rangle > -\varepsilon
.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\medskip

{\bf II. }
In what follows we use some additional terminology.
Given a packing set $X$, we say
$\vec{x}\in X$ is in a {\em free position},
if the set
\[
{\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})=\{ \vec{y}\in X : |\vec{x}-\vec{y}|=1 \}
\]
is empty.
If some $\vec{x}\in X$ is not
contained in
$\interior \conv {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$, then it is possible to
obtain a packing set $X'=X\setminus\{\vec{x}\}\cup \{\vec{x}'\}$
in which $\vec{x}'$ is in a free position.
We say $\vec{x}$ is {\em moved to a free position} in this case (allowing $\vec{x}'=\vec{x}$).
We say $\vec{x}$ is {\em moved into or within a set} $M$ (to a free position),
if $\vec{x}'\in M$.
Note, in the resulting packing set $X'$
less elements may have minimum distance $1$ to others,
and therefore possibly further elements can be moved to free positions.

Assuming $X\in{\mathcal F}$ attains $\lambda(C,|X|)$ with $|X|$ sufficiently large,
the following proposition shows that it is possible to move elements of $X$
into free positions within an arbitrarily large region,
without changing the center polytope $\conv X$.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:prop2}
Let $d\geq 2$ and $R>0$. Let $C\subset \mathbb R^d$ a smooth convex body and
${\mathcal F}$ a family of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$ satisfying (i) of Definition \ref{def:lc}.
Then there exists an $n_2\in\mathbb N$, depending on $R$, ${\mathcal F}$ and $C$,
such that for all $X \in{\mathcal F}$ attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$
with $|X|\geq n_2$, there exists a $\vec{t}_{X}\in\mathbb R^d$ with
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
$(\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d)\subset \conv X$, and
\item[(ii)]
all elements of $X\cap\interior (\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d)$ can be moved to free positions
by subsequently moving elements of $X\cap \interior \conv X$
to free positions within $\interior \conv X$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
{\em Preparations. }
By applying suitable isometries to the packing sets in ${\mathcal F}$
we may assume that
\begin{equation}  \label{eqn:simpl-asump}
\{
\vec{y} :
\mbox{ $\vec{y} \in X - \vec{x}$ with $|\vec{y}| < r$ for $\vec{x}\in X$ and $X\in{\mathcal F}$}
\}
\end{equation}
has only finitely many accumulation points for every $r>1$.
For each $X$, the container $C$ is transformed to possibly
different isometric copies.
This is not a problem though, since the container
is not used aside of Proposition \ref{prop:prop1},
which is independent of the chosen isometries.
Note that the smoothness of $C$ is implicitly used here.

We say $\vec{x}\in X$ is {\em moved in direction $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$},
if it is replaced by an $\vec{x}'$ on the ray
$\{\vec{x}+\lambda \vec{v} : \lambda \in\mathbb R_{> 0} \}$.
Note that it is possible to move $\vec{x}$ in direction $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$
to a free position, if
\begin{equation}  \label{eqn:lattice-blocking-sets}
{\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x},\vec{v})
= \{ \vec{w} \in {\mathcal N}_{X}(\vec{x})-\vec{x} : \langle \vec{v}, \vec{w} \rangle > 0 \}
\end{equation}
is empty.
If we want a fixed $\vec{x}\in X$ to be moved to a free position,
in direction $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$ say, we have to move the elements
$\vec{y}\in \vec{x}+{\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x},\vec{v})$ first.
In order to do so,
we move the elements of $\vec{y}+{\mathcal N}_X(\vec{y},\vec{v})$ to free positions, and so on.
By this we are lead to the definition of the {\em access cone}
\begin{equation}  \label{eqn:access_cones}
\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v})
=
\mbox{pos}\left\{
{\mathcal N}_{X}(\vec{x},\vec{v})  :  \vec{x}\in X \mbox{ for } X \in {\mathcal F} \mbox{ with } |X|\geq n
\right\}
\end{equation}
of ${\mathcal F}$ and $n$ in direction $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$.
Here,
$$
\mbox{pos}(M) = \{ \sum_{i=1}^m \lambda_i\vec{x}_i : m\in\mathbb N, \lambda_i\geq 0 \mbox{ and } \vec{x}_i\in M \mbox{ for $i=1,\dots,m$ } \}
$$
denotes the {\em positive hull} of a set $M\subset \mathbb R^d$, which is by definition a convex cone.
Note that $\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v})$ is contained in
the halfspace $\{\vec{x} \in\mathbb R^d : \langle \vec{v}, \vec{x} \rangle \geq 0 \}$
and that $\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v}) \subseteq \mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n'}(\vec{v})$
whenever $n\geq n'$.

By the assumption that
\eqref{eqn:simpl-asump} has only finitely many accumulation points for $r>1$,
there exist only finitely many limits
$\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v})\cap B^d\right)$.
Here, limits are defined using the Hausdorff metric on the set
of nonempty compact subsets of $\mathbb R^d$ again.

\smallskip

{\em Strategy. }
We choose a $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$ such that there exists an $\varepsilon>0$
with
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v})\cap B^d\right)
=
\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v}')\cap B^d\right)
,
$$
for all $\vec{v}'$ in the $\varepsilon$-{\em neighborhood}
$S_{\varepsilon}(\vec{v})=S^{d-1}\cap (\vec{v}+{\varepsilon} B^d)$
of $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$.

In order to prove the proposition,
we show the following for every $X\in{\mathcal F}$, attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$
with $|X|$ sufficiently large:
There exists a $\vec{t}_{X}\in\mathbb R^d$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i')]
$(\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d) + \mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v})$ does not intersect $X \cap \bd \conv X$, while

\item[(ii')]
$(\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d) \subset  \conv X$.
\end{enumerate}
It follows that $\bd \conv X$ has to intersect
the unbounded set
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:acc-translate}
(\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d) + \mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v})
\end{equation}
and by the definition of the access cone it is possible
to move the elements in $X\cap \interior(\vec{t}_X+RB^d)$ to free positions as asserted.
For example,
after choosing a direction $\vec{v}'\in S_{\varepsilon}(\vec{v})$,
we may subsequently pick
non-free elements $\vec{x}$ in \eqref{eqn:acc-translate}
with maximal $\langle \vec{x},\vec{v}' \rangle$.
These elements can be moved to a free position within $\interior \conv X$,
since ${\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x},\vec{v}')$ is empty by the definition
of the access cone.

\smallskip

{\em Bounding the boundary intersection. }
We first estimate the size of the intersection
of \eqref{eqn:acc-translate} with $\bd \conv X$.
For $\vec{v}'\in S_{\varepsilon}(\vec{v})$ and $n\in\mathbb N$, we consider the sets
$$
M(\vec{v}',n)=\{ \vec{x}\in RB^d+\mbox{acc}_{{\mathcal F},n}(\vec{v}) : \langle \vec{x} , \vec{v}' \rangle = R\}
.
$$
By the definition of the access cones \eqref{eqn:access_cones},
$M(\vec{v}',n)\subseteq M(\vec{v}',n')$ for $n\geq n'$.
We choose
$$
r
>
\sup
\{
|\vec{x}-\vec{y} | : \vec{x},\vec{y}\in M(\vec{v}',n)
\mbox{ with } \vec{v}'\in S_{\varepsilon}(\vec{v})
\}
,
$$
as a common upper bound on the
diameter of the sets $M(\vec{v}',n)$ with $n$ sufficiently large,
say $n\geq n'$.
Note that $R$ as well as ${\mathcal F}$, $\vec{v}$ and $\varepsilon$
have an influence on the size of $r$ and $n'$.

By Proposition \ref{prop:prop1} (ii)
we can choose $n'$ possibly larger
to ensure the following for all $X\in{\mathcal F}$ attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$
with $|X|\geq n'$:
{\em
The intersection of \eqref{eqn:acc-translate} with $\bd\conv X$
has a diameter less than $r$, no matter which
$\vec{t}_{X}\in \conv X$
at distance $R$ to $\bd\conv X$ we choose.
Moreover, $(\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d) \subset \conv X$.
}

\smallskip

{\em Ensuring an empty intersection. }
It remains to show that for $X\in{\mathcal F}$, attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$
with $|X|$ sufficiently large,
$\vec{t}_{X}$ can be chosen such that \eqref{eqn:acc-translate} does not
intersect $X\cap \bd \conv X$.
For this we prove the following
{claim:}
{\em
There exists an $n''$, depending on $r$, $\vec{v}$ and $\varepsilon$, such that
for all $X\in{\mathcal F}$ with $|X|\geq n''$, there exists
a vertex $\vec{x}$ of $\conv X$ with outer normal $\vec{v}'\in S_{\varepsilon}(\vec{v})$
and
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:final-cond}
\{\vec{x}\}= X \cap (\bd \conv X ) \cap (\vec{x}+r B^d)
.
\end{equation}
}

Thus these vertices $\vec{x}$ have a distance larger than $r$
to any other element of $X \cap \bd \conv X$.
Therefore, by choosing $n_2\geq \max \{n', n''\}$,
we can ensure that there exists a $\vec{t}_{X}\in\mathbb R^d$
at distance $R$ to $\bd \conv X$
such that (i') and (ii') are satisfied for all $X\in{\mathcal F}$
attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$ with $|X| \geq n_2$.
Note that $n'$, $n''$, and hence $n_2$,
depend on the choice of $\vec{v}$ and $\varepsilon$.
But we may choose $\vec{v}$ and $\varepsilon$,
depending on ${\mathcal F}$, so that $n_2$ can be chosen as small as possible.
In this way we get an $n_2$ which solely depends on $R$, ${\mathcal F}$ and $C$.

It remains to prove the claim.
Since \eqref{eqn:simpl-asump} has only finitely many accumulation points,
the set of normals $\vec{v}' \in S^{d-1}$ with hyperplane
$\{ \vec{y} \in\mathbb R^d : \langle \vec{v}',\vec{y}\rangle = 0\}$
running through $\vec{0}$ and an accumulation point
$\vec{y}$ of \eqref{eqn:simpl-asump}
all lie in the union ${\mathcal U}_r$ of finitely many linear subspaces of dimension $d-1$.
Thus for any $\delta>0$ the normals of these hyperplanes
all lie in ${\mathcal U}_{r,\delta} = {\mathcal U}_r+\delta B^d$ if we choose $|X|$
sufficiently large, depending on $\delta$.
By choosing $\delta$ small enough, we
find a $\vec{v}'\in S_{\varepsilon}(\vec{v})$
with $\vec{v}'\not\in {\mathcal U}_{r,\delta}$.
Moreover, there exists an $\varepsilon'>0$ such that
$S_{\varepsilon'}(\vec{v}')\cap {\mathcal U}_{r,\delta} = \emptyset$.
Since every center polytope $\conv X$ has a vertex $\vec{x}$
with outer normal $\vec{v}'$,
we may choose $|X|$ sufficiently large by Proposition \ref{prop:prop1} (i)
(applied to $2 \varepsilon '$),
such that $\conv X$ has no outer normal in ${\mathcal U}_{r,\delta}$ at $\vec{x}$.

Moreover, for sufficiently large $|X|$, faces of $\conv X$ intersecting
$\vec{x}+rB^d$ can not contain any vertex in $X\cap (\vec{x}+rB^d)$
aside of $\vec{x}$. Thus by construction, there exists an $n''$
such that \eqref{eqn:final-cond} holds for all $X\in{\mathcal F}$ with $|X|\geq n''$.
This proves the claim and therefore the proposition.
\end{proof}

Note that the proof offers the possibility
to loosen the requirement on ${\mathcal F}$ a bit,
for the prices of introducing another parameter:
For suitable large $r$, depending on ${\mathcal F}$,
the proposition holds, if
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i')]
there exist isometries ${\mathcal I}_X$ for each $X\in{\mathcal F}$, such that
$$
\{
\vec{x}-\vec{y} :
\vec{x}, \vec{y} \in {\mathcal I}_X(X) \mbox{ and $X\in{\mathcal F}$ }
\}
$$
has only finitely many accumulation points within $r B^d$.
\end{enumerate}

\medskip

{\bf III. }
For all $X\in{\mathcal F}$ attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$, with $|X|$ sufficiently large,
we are able to obtain {\em contact free regions}
$(\vec{t}_{X}+RB^d)\subset \conv X$, with $R$ as large as we want,
by Proposition \ref{prop:prop2}.
That is, we can modify these packing sets $X$ by moving elements to free positions
within $\interior (\vec{t}_X+RB^d)$.
By choosing $R$ large enough,
such an initial contact free region allows to move further elements
to free positions. The following proposition takes care of interior points.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:prop3}
Let $d\geq 2$ and ${\mathcal F}$ a family of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$
satisfying (ii) in Definition \ref{def:lc} with $\varrho>0$.
Let $R\geq \tfrac{1}{\varrho}$, $X\in{\mathcal F}$ and $\vec{x}\in X \cap \interior \conv X$.
Let $\vec{t}\in\mathbb R^d$ with $|\vec{t}-\vec{x}|\leq R+\tfrac{\varrho}{2}$
and with all elements of $X \cap (\vec{t}+RB^d)$ in a free position.
Then $\vec{x}$ can be moved to a free position within $\interior \conv X$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Assume $\vec{x}\in\interior \conv {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$.
By the assumption on ${\mathcal F}$,
$$
\vec{x}+\varrho B^d\subset\interior \conv {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})
.
$$
Thus there exists a $\vec{y}\in {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$, such that the
orthogonal projection $\vec{y}'$ of $\vec{y}$ onto the line through
$\vec{x}$ and $\vec{t}$ satisfies $|\vec{y}'-\vec{x}|\geq \varrho$
and $|\vec{y}'-\vec{t}|\leq R-\tfrac{\varrho}{2}$.
Then
$$
|\vec{y}-\vec{t}|^2
=
|\vec{y}'-\vec{t}|^2 + |\vec{y}-\vec{y}'|^2
\leq \left(R-\tfrac{\varrho}{2}\right)^2 + \left(1 - \varrho^2\right) < R^2
.
$$
Thus $\vec{y}$ is in a free position by the assumptions of the
proposition, which contradicts $\vec{y}\in {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

{\bf IV. }
After Propositions \ref{prop:prop2} and \ref{prop:prop3}
it remains to take care of points in $X \cap \bd \conv X$,
for $X\in{\mathcal F}$ attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$, and with $|X|$ sufficiently large.
It turns out that these points can all be moved to free positions
within $\interior \conv X$. As a consequence we obtain the following.

\begin{proposition} \label{prop:prop4}
Let $d\geq 2$, $C\subset \mathbb R^d$ a smooth convex body
and ${\mathcal F}$ a family of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$ satisfying (ii) of Definition \ref{def:lc}.
Then there exists an $n_4\in\mathbb N$, depending on $C$ and ${\mathcal F}$,
such that $X\in{\mathcal F}$ with $|X|\geq n_4$ does not attain $\lambda(C,|X|)$,
if all elements of $X\cap \interior \conv X$ are in a free position.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Let $\varrho>0$ as in (ii) of Definition \ref{def:lc}.
We choose $n_4$ by Proposition \ref{prop:prop1} (ii), applied to $\varepsilon =\varrho$ and $r=1$.
Assume $X\in{\mathcal F}$ with $|X|\geq n_4$ attains $\lambda(C,|X|)$
and all elements of $X\cap \interior \conv X$ are in a free position.
We show that every element $\vec{x}\in X\cap \bd \conv X$
can be moved to a free position into $\interior \conv X$.
This gives the desired contradiction,
because after moving (in an arbitrary order) all $X \cap \bd \conv X $
to free positions into $\interior \conv X$, we
obtain a packing set $X'$ with $|X'|=|X|$
and $X'\subset \interior \conv X$.

It is possible to move a given $\vec{x}\in X\cap \bd \conv X$
to a free position $\vec{x}'=\vec{x}+\delta \vec{v}$
for a (sufficiently small) $\delta>0$, if $\vec{v}\in S^{d-1}$ is contained in
the non-empty polyhedral cone
$$
C_{\vec{x}}
=
\left\{
\vec{v}\in \mathbb R^d:
\langle \vec{v}, \vec{y}-\vec{x}\rangle \leq 0
\mbox{ for all } \vec{y}\in{\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})
\right\}
.
$$
If $\vec{v}\in C_{\vec{x}}$ can be chosen, so that $\vec{x}'\in\interior \conv X$,
the assertion follows.
Otherwise, because $C_{\vec{x}}$ and $\conv X$ are convex, there exists a hyperplane
through $\vec{x}$, with normal $\vec{w}\in S^{d-1}$,
which separates $\conv X$ and $\vec{x}+C_{\vec{x}}$.
That is,
we may assume that
$$
\vec{w}
\in
\pos \left\{
\vec{y}-\vec{x} : \vec{y} \in{\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})
\right\}
$$
and $-\vec{w}$ is an outer normal of $\conv X$ at $\vec{x}$.

Then for some $\delta>0$, there exists a point $\vec{z} = \vec{x} + \delta \vec{w} \in \bd \conv {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$,
which is a convex combination of some $\vec{y}_1,\dots,\vec{y}_k \in {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$.
That is, there exist $\alpha_i\geq 0$ with
$
\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i = 1
$
and
$
\vec{z}=\sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i \vec{y}_i
$
.
Therefore
$$
\delta = \langle \vec{z}-\vec{x} , \vec{w} \rangle
= \sum_{i=1}^k \alpha_i \langle \vec{y}_i -\vec{x} , \vec{w} \rangle
< \varrho,
$$
because $\langle \vec{y}_i - \vec{x}, \vec{w} \rangle < \varrho$
due to $|X|\geq n_4$ and $\vec{y}_i\in\bd \conv X$.
This contradicts the assumption on ${\mathcal F}$ with respect to $\varrho$ though.
\end{proof}

\medskip

{\bf Finish. }
The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main}
reduces to the application of Propositions \ref{prop:prop1}, \ref{prop:prop2},
\ref{prop:prop3} and \ref{prop:prop4}.
Let ${\mathcal F}$ be an lc-family of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$,
with a $\varrho>0$ as in (ii) of Definition \ref{def:lc}.
We choose $R \geq 1/\varrho$ and $n_2$ and $n_4$
according to Propositions \ref{prop:prop2} and \ref{prop:prop4}.
By Proposition \ref{prop:prop1} (ii), we choose $n_1$ such that packing sets
$X$ attaining $\lambda(C,|X|)$ with $|X|\geq n_1$ satisfy the following:
For each $\vec{x}\in X$, there exists a $\vec{t}\in \mathbb R^d$ with
$|\vec{x}-\vec{t}| = R + \tfrac{\varrho}{2}$ and
$\vec{t}+ R B^d \subset \conv X$.

We choose $n_0\geq \max\{n_1,n_2,n_4\}$
and assume that $X\in{\mathcal F}$ with $|X|\geq n_0$ attains $\lambda(C,|X|)$.
By Proposition \ref{prop:prop2}
we can modify the packing set $X$ to obtain a new packing set $X'$
with a contact free region $(\vec{t}_{X}+R B^d)\subset \interior \conv X$,
and with the same points
$X'\cap \bd \conv X'=X\cap \bd \conv X$ on the boundary of
the center polytope $\conv X' = \conv X$.

The following gives a possible order, in which
we may subsequently move non-free elements $\vec{x}\in X \cap \interior\conv X$
to free positions:
By the choice of $n_0$ we can guarantee that for each $\vec{x}\in X \cap \interior\conv X$,
there exists a $\vec{t}$ with $|\vec{x}-\vec{t}|\leq R+\tfrac{\varrho}{2}$
and $\vec{t}+ R B^d \subset \conv X$. Let $\vec{t}_{\vec{x}}$ be the
$\vec{t}$ at minimal distance to $\vec{t}_X$.
Then among the non-free $\vec{x}\in \interior\conv X$, the one with
minimal distance $|\vec{t}_{\vec{x}}-\vec{t}_X|$ satisfies
the assumptions of Proposition \ref{prop:prop3},
because a non-free element $\vec{y}\in X \cap (\vec{t}_{\vec{x}}+B^d)$
would satisfy $|\vec{t}_{\vec{y}}-\vec{t}_X|<|\vec{t}_{\vec{x}}-\vec{t}_X|$
due to $\conv\{\vec{t}_{\vec{x}},\vec{t}_X\}+B^d\subset \conv X$.

Thus by Proposition \ref{prop:prop3} we can subsequently move the non-free elements
within $X\cap \interior\conv X$ to free positions.
By this we obtain a contradiction to Proposition \ref{prop:prop4},
which proves the theorem.

\medskip

{\bf The lattice packing case. }
We end this section with the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:theorem1}.
We may apply Theorem \ref{thm:main} after showing
that the family of solutions to the lattice restricted container problem
is of limited complexity.
The space of lattices can be turned into a topological space
(see \cite{gl-1987}).
The convergence of a sequence $\{\Lambda_n\}$ of lattices
to a lattice $\Lambda$ in particular involves that sets of lattice points
within radius $r$ around a lattice point tend to
translates of $\Lambda\cap rB^d$ for growing $n$.
As a consequence, a convergent sequence of packing lattices,
as well as subsets of them, form an lc-family.
Solutions to the lattice restricted container problem tend for growing $n$ towards subsets
of translates of {\em densest packing lattices} (see \cite{zong-1999}).
These lattices are the solutions of the {\em lattice (sphere) packing problem}.
Up to isometries, there exist only finitely
many of these lattices in each dimension (see \cite{zong-1999}).
Thus the assertion follows, since a finite union of lc-families is
an lc-family.

\section{Extensions}

\label{sec:extensions}

Let us briefly mention some possible extensions of Theorem \ref{thm:main}.
These have been treated in \cite{schuermann-2002}
for the $2$-dimensional case and could be directions for further
research.

\medskip

{\em Packings of other convex bodies. }
Instead of sphere packings, we may consider
packings $X+K$ for other convex bodies $K$.
If the {\em difference body} $DK=K-K$ is strictly convex,
then the proofs can be applied after some modifications:
Instead of measuring distances with the norm $|\cdot|$ given
by $B^d$, we use the
norm $|\vec{x}|_{DK}=\min \{\lambda>0 : \lambda \vec{x} \in DK\}$
given by $DK$. The strict convexity of $DK$ is then used for the key fact,
that elements $\vec{x}$ of a packing set $X$ can be moved to a free
position, whenever they are not contained in $\interior \conv {\mathcal N}_X(\vec{x})$
(see {\bf II} in Section \ref{sec:proofs}).
Note though that the sets in
\eqref{eqn:lattice-blocking-sets} and depending definitions have
to be adapted for general convex bodies.

\medskip

{\em Packings in other containers. }
The restriction to smooth convex containers simplifies the proof,
but we strongly believe that Theorem \ref{thm:main} is valid for other
containers as well, e.g. certain polytopes.
On the other hand there might exist containers for which
Theorem \ref{thm:main} is not true.
In particular in dimension $3$ it seems very likely that Theorem \ref{thm:main}
is not true for polytopal containers $C$ with all their facets lying
in planes containing hexagonal sublattices of the {\em fcc lattice} (see Section \ref{sec:kepler-assert}).
That is, for these polytopal containers $C$ we conjecture the existence of infinitely many $n$,
for which subsets of the {\em fcc lattice} attain $\lambda(C,n)$.
An example for at least ``local optimality''
of sphere packings (with respect to differential perturbations)
in suitable sized tetrahedra was given by
Dauenhauer and Zassenhaus \cite{dz-1987}.
A proof of ``global optimality'' seems extremely difficult though, as it would provide a new
proof of the sphere packing problem (``Kepler conjecture'', see Section \ref{sec:kepler}).

\medskip

{\em Other finite packing problems. }
Similar ``phenomena'' occur for other packing problems.
For example, if we consider finite packing sets $X$ with
minimum diameter or surface area of $\conv X$, or maximum
parametric density with large parameter
(cf. \cite{cfg-1991}, \cite{bhw-1994}, \cite{boeroeczky-2004}, \cite{bp-2005}).
This is due to the fact that the shapes of solutions tend to
certain convex bodies, e.g. a sphere.

\section{Kepler's assertion} \label{sec:kepler-assert}

\label{sec:kepler}

Kepler's statement, quoted in the introduction,
was later referred to as the origin of the
famous sphere packing problem known as the {\em Kepler conjecture}
(cf. e.g. \cite{hales-2002} p.5, \cite{hsiang-2001} p.4).
In contrast to the original statement, this problem
asks for the maximum sphere packing density (see \eqref{eq:delta} below) of an infinite arrangement
of spheres, where the ``container'' is the whole Euclidean space.
As a part of Hilbert's famous problems \cite{hilbert-1901},
it attracted many researchers in the past.
Its proof by Hales with contributions of Ferguson
(see \cite{hales-2002}, \cite{hales-2005}, \cite{hales-2006}),
although widely accepted, had been a matter of discussion
(cf. \cite{lagarias-2002}, \cite{szpiro-2003}, \cite{fl-2006}).

\vspace*{0.1cm}
\noindent
\begin{minipage}{8.5cm}
\hspace*{0.3cm}
Following Kepler \cite{kepler-1611},
the {\em cubic or hexagonal close packings} in $\mathbb R^3$ can
be described via two dimensional layers of spheres,
in which every sphere center belongs to a planar square grid,
say with minimum distance $1$.
These layers are stacked (in a unique way) such that
each sphere in a layer touches exactly four spheres of the layer above
and four of the layer below.
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{4cm}
\hfill
\includegraphics[width=3.5cm]{finite-kepler-figure-2.eps}
\end{minipage}
\vspace*{0.03cm}

The packing attained in this way is the well known
{\em face centered cubic (fcc) lattice packing}.
We can build up the fcc lattice by planar hexagonal layers as well,
but then there are two choices for each new layer
to be placed, and only one of them yields an fcc lattice packing.
All of them, including the uncountably many non-lattice packings,
are referred to as {\em hexagonal close packings (hc-packings)}.
Note that the family of hc-packings
is of limited complexity, because up to isometries
they can be built from a fixed hexagonal layer.

Let
\[
n(C)=\max\{ |X| : C \supset X +\tfrac{1}{2}B^d
            \mbox{ is a packing } \}.
\]
Then in our terminology Kepler asserts that,
in $\mathbb R^3$, $n(C)$ is attained by hc-packings.
His assertion, if true, would imply an ``answer'' to the sphere packing problem
(Kepler conjecture),
namely that the density of the densest infinite sphere packing
\begin{equation} \label{eq:delta}
\delta_d=
\displaystyle \limsup_{\lambda \to \infty}
\frac{n(\lambda C) \cdot \vol(\frac{1}{2}B^d)}{\vol(\lambda C)}
\end{equation}
is attained by hc-packings for $d=3$; hence
$\delta_3=\pi/\sqrt{18}$.
Note that this definition of density is independent
of the chosen convex container $C$ (see \cite{hlawka-1949} or \cite{gl-1987}).

As a consequence of Theorem \ref{thm:main}, Kepler's assertion turns out to be false,
even if we think of arbitrarily large containers.
Consider for example the containers $\lambda(C,n)C$ for $n\geq n_0$.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:corollary2}
Let $d\geq 2$, $C\subset\mathbb R^d$ a smooth convex body
and ${\mathcal F}$ an lc-family of packing sets in $\mathbb R^d$.
Then there exist arbitrarily
large $\lambda$ such that $n(\lambda C)$
is not attained by packing sets in ${\mathcal F}$.
\end{corollary}

We may as well think of arbitrarily small spheres
packed into a fixed container $C$.
For $r>0$, we call $X + r B^d$ a sphere packing if distinct
elements $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{x}'$ of $X$ have distance
$|\vec{x}-\vec{x}'|\geq 2r$.
Specializing to $\mathbb R^3$, the following corollary of
Theorem \ref{thm:main} refers directly to Kepler's assertion.

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:corollary3}
Let $C\subset\mathbb R^3$ a smooth convex body.
Then there exist arbitrarily small $r>0$, such that
$$
\max\{ |X| : C \supset X + r B^d \mbox{ is a packing } \}
$$
is not attained by fcc or hexagonal close packing sets.
\end{corollary}

\section*{Acknowledgments}

I like to thank Thomas C. Hales, Tyrrell B. McAllister, Frank Vallentin,
J\"org M. Wills, G\"unter M. Ziegler and the two anonymous referees
for many helpful suggestions.

\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}


Absolute real root separation

Abstract: While the separation (the minimal nonzero distance) between roots of a polynomial is a classical topic, its absolute counterpart (the minimal nonzero distance between their absolute values) does not seem to have been studied much. We present the general context and give tight bounds for the case of real roots.

\section{Separation and absolute separation}
The polynomials $14x^3+17x^2-13x+2 $ and $17x^3-9x^2-7x+8$ hold records in the set of polynomials with integer coefficients in $\{-20,\dots,20\}$ and degree at most~3. The first one has two roots $\alpha_1,\alpha_2$ with
\[0<|\alpha_1-\alpha_2|<0.005, \]
while the second one has two roots $\beta_1,\beta_2$ with
\[0<\big||\beta_1|-|\beta_2|\big|<0.000015.\]
Apart from those obtained by multiplying these polynomials by $-1$ or changing $x$ into $-x$ in them, no other polynomial in that set has roots satisfying any of these inequalities.
More generally, we are interested in understanding how close can the nonzero difference between two roots (or the absolute values of two roots) of a polynomial with integer coefficients be in terms of its degree and a bound on its coefficients.

The first quantity is classically called the \emph{root separation} of a polynomial~$P$ with at least two distinct roots and denoted by $\sep(P)$:
\[ \sep(P):=\min_{\substack{P(\alpha)=P(\beta)=0,\\ \alpha\neq\beta}}|\alpha-\beta|. \]
By analogy, we define the \emph{absolute root separation} by
\[ \abssep(P):=\min_{\substack{P(\alpha)=P(\beta)=0,\\ |\alpha|\neq|\beta|}}\big||\alpha|-|\beta|\big|. \]
This quantity arises in the computation of the asymptotic behavior of sequences satisfying linear recurrence equations, where it governs the precision required in computing the roots of the characteristic polynomial.

The \emph{height} of a polynomial~$P$, denoted $\ho(P)$, is the maximum of the absolute values of its coefficients. In 1964, Mahler proved the following lower bound relating separation, degree and height~\cite{M64,B04}.
\begin{proposition}[Mahler, 1964]
If $\alpha, \beta$ are two roots of a separable polynomial (i.e., with no multiple roots) of degree~$d\ge2$ with integer coefficients, then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mahler}
|\alpha-\beta|> \sqrt{3} (d+1)^{-(2d+1)/2} \max\{1,|\alpha|,|\beta|\} \ho(P)^{-d+1}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
This implies in that case
\begin{equation}\label{eq:mahler2}
\sep(P)\gg \ho(P)^{-d+1},
\end{equation}
where, here and below, the constant implicit in the `$\gg$' sign depends
only on the degree~$d$.
The tightness of the exponent $-d+1$ of $\ho(P)$ in this inequality is still unknown. The best known upper bound on this exponent is $-(2d-1)/3$ for general~$d$ (see \cite{BD14}) and~$-2$ for $d=3$  \cite{E04,S06}, which is the only case where we thus know the bound of~\eqref{eq:mahler2} to be optimal. (Restricting further the set of polynomials under consideration so that only monic or irreducible polynomials enter the contest leads to even larger upper bounds \cite{BM10,BD11,BD14,DP11}.)

Concerning the absolute separation, not much appears to be known. A consequence of Mahler's result \eqref{eq:mahler} yields the following \cite{GS96}:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gourdonsalvy}
  \abssep(P)\gg \ho(P)^{-d(d^2+2d-1)/2}.
\end{equation}
The exponent of $\ho(P)$ does not seem to be the best possible, but no improvement in this general case seems to be known. However, restricting to the absolute root separation of two \emph{real} roots, our main result completely solves the problem:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:bound}
Let $\alpha_1=\alpha,\alpha_2=\beta,\alpha_3,\ldots,\alpha_d\in{\mathbb C}$ be the roots of a separable polynomial $P(x)\in{\mathbb Z}[x]$ of degree $d$ such that $\alpha_i+\alpha_j\neq 0$ for any $i,j\in\{1,\ldots,d\}$. If $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are real then
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bound}
  \big||\alpha|-|\beta|\big|\geq 2^{(-d^2+2)/2}(d+1)^{(-d+1)/2}\ho(P)^{-d+1}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the exponent of $\ho(P)$ is best possible.
\end{theorem}
In the next section, we give a proof of the first part of this theorem, which is a variant of Mahler's proof.
Next, we prove that for reducible polynomials, the exponent can be increased to $-d+2$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:reducible} below).
Finally, we give explicit families of polynomials reaching the bound $-d+1$.
We show that,
furthermore, the bound is still tight when restricting to monic polynomials of arbitrary degree $d\ge3$.

\section{Bounds from resultants}\label{sec2}

Since Mahler's result \eqref{eq:mahler} implies \eqref{eq:bound} if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ have the same sign, we need to prove a comparable result for $|\alpha+\beta|$ as well. Our proof, like Mahler's, relies on the use of a resultant. Recall that the resultant~$\res(P,Q)$ of two univariate polynomials~$P$ and~$Q$ of degree~$d_1$ and~$d_2$ is the determinant of their Sylvester matrix, which is the transposed matrix of the map $(U,V)\mapsto UP+VQ$ in the bases $((1,0),(x,0),\dots,(x^{d_2-1},0),(0,1),(0,x),\dots,(0,x^{d_1-1}))$ and $(1,x,\dots,x^{d_1+d_2-1})$. We refer to the literature~(e.g., \cite{L02,M92}) for the definition and properties of resultants and recall only the following.
\begin{lemma}[Poisson's formula]
The resultant of the polynomials\\ $P=a_{d_1}\prod_{i=1}^{d_1}(x-\alpha_i)$ and
$Q=b_{d_2}\prod_{i=1}^{d_2}(x-\beta_i)$ satisfies
\[\res(P,Q)=a_{d_1}^{d_2}b_{d_2}^{d_1}\prod_{i,j}(\alpha_i-\beta_j).\]
\end{lemma}
The special case when $Q=P'$ gives the discriminant (up to a simple constant), that was used by Mahler in his proof.

We thus obtain the products of pairwise sums of roots of $P(x)=a_d x^d+\dots+a_1 x+a_0$ by considering the resultant $r=\res(P(x),P(-x))$,
\[ r=
  \begin{vmatrix}
    a_d & \cdots & a_1 & a_0  &   &   \\
      & \ddots &   &   & \ddots &   \\
      &   &   a_d & a_{d-1} & \cdots & a_0 \\
    (-1)^{d} a_d & \cdots & -a_1 & a_0  &   &   \\
      & \ddots &   &   & \ddots &   \\
      &   &   (-1)^{d} a_d & (-1)^{d-1} a_{d-1} & \cdots & a_0 \\
  \end{vmatrix}.\]
Factoring out $a_d$ from the first column and $a_0$ from the last, we see that $r$ is an integer divisible by $a_0 a_d$. Thus, if $r\neq 0$, then we have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rlower}
  |r|\geq |a_0 a_d|.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, Poisson's formula gives
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:rproduct}
\begin{aligned}
r
  &=(-1)^d a_{d}^{2d}  \prod_{1\leq i\leq d}(2\alpha_i) \, \prod_{1\leq i< j\leq d} (\alpha_i+\alpha_j)^2,\\
  &=a_0a_{d}^{2d-1}  2^d \prod_{1\leq i< j\leq d} (\alpha_i+\alpha_j)^2.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}
since $\prod_{i=1}^{d} \alpha_i= (-1)^d a_0/a_d$.

Bounds will follow from the simple upper bound
\begin{equation*} \label{eq:tworoots}
  |\alpha_i+\alpha_j|\leq 2\max\{1,|\alpha_i|\}\max\{1,|\alpha_j|\},\quad\text{for all $i,j$}.
\end{equation*}
Then, with our notation $\alpha=\alpha_1$, $\beta=\alpha_2$, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:rupper}
  |r|
 \leq  2^{d^2-2} |a_0||a_d|^{2d-1} {|\alpha+\beta|^2}
    \prod_{1\leq i\leq d} \max\{1,|\alpha_i|\}^{2d-2}.
\end{equation}
This last quantity is related to the height of $P$ thanks to the following.
\begin{lemma}[Landau's inequality]
The \emph{Mahler measure} $\mo(P)$, defined as
\[ \mo(P):=|a_d|\prod_{i=1}^{d}\max\{1,|\alpha_i|\}, \]
is bounded by:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:mahlermeasure}
\mo(P)\leq \sqrt{a_0^2+\dots+a_d^2}\le \sqrt{d+1}\ho(P).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}[Sketch of proof]
See, for instance, \cite{B04,M92}. If all the roots have modulus smaller than~1, then the property is obvious. If $P(\alpha)=0$ with~$|\alpha|>1$ then the polynomial $(1-\alpha x)P(x)/(x-\alpha)$ can be checked to have the same Mahler measure and
the same $L_2$-norm as $P$.
This construction is repeated till no root has modulus larger than~1.
\end{proof}
When no $\alpha_i+\alpha_j$ is~0, then Landau's bound~\eqref{eq:mahlermeasure} together with~\eqref{eq:rupper} and~\eqref{eq:rlower} give
\[  |\alpha+\beta|\geq 2^{(-d^2+2)/2}(d+1)^{(-d+1)/2}\ho(P)^{-d+1},  \]
which finishes the proof of the first part of Theorem~\ref{thm:bound}.

\section{The case of reducible polynomials}
It turns out that the exponent of $\ho(P)$ can be improved for irrational roots of reducible polynomials.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:reducible}
Let $P(x)\in{\mathbb Z}[x]$ be a polynomial of degree~$d$ reducible over ${\mathbb Q}$. Then for any two irrational real roots $\alpha,\beta$ of $P(x)$, either $|\alpha|=|\beta|$ or
\begin{equation} \label{eq:reducible}
  \big| |\alpha|-|\beta| \big| \ge 2^{-3d^2/2+3d-1} d^{(-d+2)/2} \ho(P)^{-d+2}.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We assume $|\alpha|\neq|\beta|$. Any irreducible factor~$Q$ of $P$ has degree at most $d-1$ and Gelfond's lemma (see e.g., \cite[Lemma A.3]{B04}) implies $\ho(Q)\leq 2^d \ho(P)$.

We distinguish two cases depending on whether $\alpha$ and $\pm\beta$ are roots of the same irreducible factor of~$P$ or not. When $\alpha$ and either one of $\pm\beta$ are roots of the same irreducible factor~$Q$, Theorem~\ref{thm:bound} applies to~$Q$ if moreover it has no pair of opposite roots. Then, we get
\begin{equation} \label{eq:notevenpoly}
\begin{aligned}
    \big| |\alpha|-|\beta| \big| &\ge 2^{(-d^2+2d+1)/2} d^{(-d+2)/2} \ho(Q)^{-d+2}\\
    &\ge 2^{-3d^2/2+3d+1/2} d^{(-d+2)/2} \ho(P)^{-d+2}.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If two roots of $Q$ sum to~0, the gcd of $Q(x)$ and $Q(-x)$ is nontrivial and since $Q$ is irreducible, this means that $Q(x)$ is even, so that $\pm\beta$ are both roots of $Q$ and Mahler's bound applies both to~$|\alpha-\beta|$ and $|\alpha+\beta|$, leading to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:evenpoly}
  \big| |\alpha|-|\beta| \big| = |\alpha - (\pm \beta)| > \sqrt{3} d^{-(2d-1)/2} \ho(Q)^{-d+2},
\end{equation}
which leads to the result since $\sqrt{3}d^{-(2d-1)/2}>2^{(-d^2+2d-2)/2}d^{(-d+2)/2}$  for $d\ge0$.

Otherwise, if $\alpha$ and $\pm\beta$ are not roots of the same irreducible factor of~$P$,
let $Q_{\alpha}(x)$ and $Q_{\beta}(x)$ be minimal polynomials of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ over ${\mathbb Z}$ with respective degrees $a$ and $b$.
Arguing in a similar manner as in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:bound},
we deduce
\[1\le|\res(Q_{\alpha}(x),Q_{\beta}(\pm x))|
\leq 2^{ab} \mo(Q_{\alpha})^{b} \mo(Q_{\beta})^{a} |\alpha\pm\beta|.
\]
Gauss's lemma and multiplicativity of Mahler's measure give
$ \mo(Q_{\alpha}Q_{\beta}) \leq \mo(P)$. Furthermore,
the condition that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are not rational gives $a,b\in [2,d-2]$, so that
\[ \mo(Q_{\alpha})^{b} \mo(Q_{\beta})^{a} \leq \mo(Q_{\alpha}Q_{\beta})^{\max\{a,b\}}
  \leq \mo(P)^{d-2} \leq (d+1)^{(d-2)/2} \ho(P)^{d-2} \]
and finally $2^{ab}\leq 2^{d^2/4}$, leading to
\[  \big| |\alpha|-|\beta| \big| \geq 2^{-d^2/4} (d+1)^{(-d+2)/2} \ho(P)^{-d+2} \]
which is stronger than \eqref{eq:reducible} since $\alpha,\beta$ being both irrational forces $d\ge4$.
\end{proof}

\section{Families with small absolute root separation}
We now exhibit families of polynomials that reach the exponent~$-d+1$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:bound}, thereby concluding its proof. The construction starts from~$Mx^2-1$ which has two real roots $\pm1/\sqrt{M}$. For $M$ sufficiently large, these are small so that higher powers of the roots will be even smaller. By perturbing $Mx^2-1$ in appropriate ways we thus get polynomials with roots very close to~$\pm1/\sqrt{M}$ and whose sum is minute.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:examples}
Let $d \ge 2$ be an integer and $M$ be a positive integer.
Consider the polynomials $P_{d,M}(x)$ of degree $d$ and height $M$
defined by:
\begin{equation*}
P_{d,M}(x) =
 \begin{cases}
   Mx^2-x-1 & \text{if } d=2; \\
   x^3+Mx^2-1 &\text{if } d=3; \\
   x^d-(Mx^2-1)(1-x^{d-3}) &\text{if } d\geq 4 \text{ even;} \\
   x^d -(M-1)x^{d-1} +x^{d-3} -Mx^3 -Mx^2 +x +1 &\text{if } d\geq 5 \text{ odd.}
 \end{cases}
\end{equation*}
If $M$ is sufficiently large in terms of $d$,
then the polynomial $P_{d,M}(x)$ has two roots $\alpha,\beta\in{\mathbb R}$ such that $||\alpha|-|\beta||=|\alpha+\beta|$ and
\begin{equation} \label{eq:polybound}
  0 < |\alpha+\beta| \ll \ho(P_{d,M})^{-d+1}.
\end{equation}
For $d\geq 3$, these polynomials are monic and irreducible over the field of rational numbers.
\end{theorem}

Note that for any odd integer $d\geq 5$ the polynomial $x^{d-1}-(Mx^2-1)(1-x^{d-2})$ has also two real roots satisfying \eqref{eq:polybound}.
However, $P_{d,M}$ has the extra advantage of being monic.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:examples}] The case of quadratic polynomials is trivial. The only thing left to discuss for $d=2$ is monicity and irreducibility. With monic quadratic polynomials, we can only achieve the exponent $0$ in \eqref{eq:polybound}. The given polynomial is irreducible if and only if $4M+1$ is not a square,
which happens for infinitely many $M$. Therefore, from now on, we take $d\geq 3$.

Direct asymptotic computations give roots $\alpha$ and $\beta$ of~$P_{d,M}$ such that \eqref{eq:polybound} holds. For instance,
the polynomial $P_{3,M}$ has two roots $\alpha_3, \beta_3$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
  \alpha_3 &= -M^{-1/2} -\frac{1}{2}M^{-2} +\mathcal{O}(M^{-7/2}), \\
  \beta_3 &= M^{-1/2} -\frac{1}{2}M^{-2} +\mathcal{O}(M^{-7/2}).
\end{align*}
The conclusion of the proof is computational too and consists in giving small enough intervals where the polynomial $P_{d,M}(x)$ changes sign. For the first root for instance,
\[ \begin{aligned}
  P_{3,M}(-M^{-1/2}-\frac{1}{2}M^{-2}-M^{-3}) &= 2M^{-5/2} +\mathcal{O}(M^{-3}) >0, \\
  P_{3,M}(-M^{-1/2}-\frac{1}{2}M^{-2}) &= -\frac{5}{4}M^{-3} +\mathcal{O}(M^{-4}) <0,
\end{aligned} \]
for $M$ large enough and similarly for the other root. Of course, the lengths of the intervals can be adjusted to the required precision.

Correspondingly, for $d\geq 4$ even, $P_{d,M}(x)$ has roots
\[ \begin{aligned}
  \alpha &= -M^{-1/2} -\frac{1}{2}M^{-(d+1)/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-d+1}+\mathcal{O}(M^{-(2d+1)/2}),\\
  \beta &= M^{-1/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-(d+1)/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-d+1} +\mathcal{O}(M^{-(2d+1)/2}).\\
\end{aligned} \]
For $d\geq 5$ odd, $P_{d,M}(x)$ has roots
\[ \begin{aligned}
  \alpha &= -M^{-1/2} -\frac{1}{2}M^{-d/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-(2d-3)/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-d+1} + \mathcal{O}(M^{-(2d-1)/2}),\\
  \beta &= M^{-1/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-d/2} -\frac{1}{2}M^{-(2d-3)/2} +\frac{1}{2}M^{-d+1}
   + \mathcal{O}(M^{-(2d-1)/2}).

\end{aligned} \]
Inequalities showing that actual roots with these expansions exist are obtained by straightforward computations.

For $d \ge 3$ and $M \ge 3$, the leading coefficient of the polynomial $P_{d,M}(x)$ is $1$ and its
constant coefficient is $\pm 1$. It is easily checked that $1$ and $-1$ are not roots of $P_{d,M}(x)$, thus this polynomial has no rational roots. Gauss' lemma together with Theorem \ref{thm:reducible} then implies that $P_{d,M}(x)$ is irreducible for $M$ large enough in terms of $d$.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
A.~D. and T.~P. were supported by the Croatian Science Foundation under the project no.~6422. A.~D. acknowledges support from the QuantiXLie Center of Excellence. The work of B.~S. was supported in part by FastRelax ANR-14-CE25-0018-01.

Absolute real root separation