New lower bounds for the number of pseudoline arrangements
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.20382/jocg.v11i1a3Abstract
Arrangements of lines and pseudolines are fundamental objects in discrete and computational geometry. They also appear in other areas of computer science, such as the study of sorting networks. Let $B_n$ be the number of nonisomorphic arrangements of $n$ pseudolines and let $b_n=\log_2{B_n}$. The problem of estimating $B_n$ was posed by Knuth in 1992. Knuth conjectured that $b_n \leq {n \choose 2} + o(n^2)$ and also derived the first upper and lower bounds: $b_n \leq 0.7924 (n^2 +n)$ and $b_n \geq n^2/6 -O(n)$. The upper bound underwent several improvements, $b_n \leq 0.6988\, n^2$ (Felsner, 1997), and $b_n \leq 0.6571\, n^2$ (Felsner and Valtr, 2011), for large $n$. Here we show that $b_n \geq cn^2 -O(n \log{n})$ for some constant $c>0.2083$. In particular, $b_n \geq 0.2083\, n^2$ for large $n$. This improves the previous best lower bound, $b_n \geq 0.1887\, n^2$, due to Felsner and Valtr (2011). Our arguments are elementary and geometric in nature. Further, our constructions are likely to spur new developments and improved lower bounds for related problems, such as in topological graph drawings.Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).