This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Non-very generic arrangements in low dimension

Takuya Saito  and  Simona Settepanella Department of Mathematics, Hokkaido University, Japan. Department of Statistics and Economics, Torino University, Italy [email protected] [email protected]
Abstract.

The discriminantal arrangement (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) has been introduced by Manin and Schectman in 19891989 and it consists of all non-generic translates of a generic arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} of nn hyperplanes in a kk-dimensional space. It is known that its combinatorics depends on the original arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} which, following Bayer and Brandt [3], is called very generic if the intersection lattice of the induced discriminantal arrangement has maximum cardinality, non-very generic otherwise. While a complete description of the combinatorics of (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) when 𝒜\mathcal{A} is very generic is known (see [2]), very few is known in the non-very generic case. Even to provide examples of non very generic arrangements proved to be a non-trivial task (see [17]). In this paper, we characterize, classify and provide examples of non-very generic arrangements in low dimension.

Key words and phrases:
Hyperplane arrangements, intersection lattice, discriminantal arrangements, permutation groups.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 52C35; Secondary 05B35, 14M15.
The named first author was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP23KJ0031.

1. Introduction

The discriminantal arrangement (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}), 𝒜\mathcal{A} a generic arrangement of nn hyperplanes in a kk-dimensional space, has been introduced by Manin and Schectman (see [11]) as a generalization of the well known braid arrangement with which it coincides when k=1k=1. Analogously to the braid arrangement which can be regarded as the complement of the configuration space of nn distinct points in a line, its higher dimensional generalization, the discriminantal arrangement, can be defined as the complement of the configuration space of nn hyperplanes in a kk-dimensional space such that any kk of them are in general position111In this case, the generalization of any two points be distinct in the line is kk by kk hyperplanes be in general position in the kk-space. Different generalizations are also possible..
The combinatorics of the discriminantal arrangement (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) depends on the original arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} if k>1k>1 (see, among others, [7]) and the arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} is called (see [3]) very generic if the intersection lattice of (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) has maximum cardinality, non-very generic otherwise. The space of very generic arrangements is an open Zariski set 𝒵\mathcal{Z} (see, among others, [11]), but, beside this, very few is known on its characterization and to establish whether an arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} belongs or not to 𝒵\mathcal{Z} proved to be a quite difficult task (see [17] for more details on this).
It is worthy to mention that in 1985, that is few years before Manin and Schectman, Crapo already defined an object equivalent to the discriminantal arrangement that he called geometry of circuits (see [5]). The first reference to Crapo’s work in the literature on the discriminantal arrangement is due to Athanasiadis (see [2]). In his paper Crapo presented an example of an arrangement of 66 hyperplanes in the real plane which is, in fact, the first example of a non-very generic arrangement. The first half of the results presented in this paper are based on this Crapo’s non-very generic example (for a preliminary discussion about it see also [6] ). More recent results on non-very generic arrangements are in [10],[14],[15],[16],[6]. In particular the second part of this paper completes the discussion on the case k=3,n=6k=3,n=6 started by Falk in [7] and continued in [15]. Other studies related to the combinatorics of the discriminantal arrangement include higher Bruhat orders, fiber zonotopes (cf. [8]), arrangements generated by points in general position (cf. [9][12]), circuits of representable matroids (cf. [4][13]) and, more recently, applications to physics and statistics (cf. [1]).
The content of this paper is as follows. Section 2 contains the preliminaries on the discriminantal arrangement and the definition of non-very generic intersections. In Section 3 we characterize the rank 33 and 44 non-very generic intersections of (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) by means of the Ceva’s Theorem and the involutions on a projective line. In Section 4 we classify the non-very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) and provide a complete classification for the combinatorics of (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) over a characteristic 0 commutative field. Finally in Section 5 we provide an example of a real arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} such that (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) admits 1010 non-very generic intersections in rank 33.

Acknowledgment

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP23KJ0031.

2. Preliminaries

2.1. Discriminantal arrangement

Let 𝒜0={H10,,Hn0}\mathcal{A}^{0}=\{H_{1}^{0},\dots,H_{n}^{0}\} be a central arrangement in 𝕂k\mathbb{K}^{k} (𝕂\mathbb{K} is a commutative field), k<nk<n such that any mm hyperplanes intersect in codimension mm at any point except for the origin for any mkm\leq k. We will call such an arrangement a generic arrangement. The space 𝕊[𝒜0]\mathbb{S}[\mathcal{A}^{0}] (or simply 𝕊\mathbb{S} when dependence on 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0} is clear or not essential) will denote the space of parallel translates of 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0}, that is the space of the arrangements 𝒜t={H1x1,,Hnxn}\mathcal{A}^{t}=\{H_{1}^{x_{1}},\dots,H_{n}^{x_{n}}\}, t=(x1,,xn)𝕂nt=(x_{1},\dots,x_{n})\in{\mathbb{K}}^{n}, Hixi=Hi0+αixiH_{i}^{x_{i}}=H_{i}^{0}+\alpha_{i}x_{i}, αi\alpha_{i} a vector normal to Hi0H_{i}^{0}. There is a natural identification of 𝕊\mathbb{S} with the nn-dimensional affine space 𝕂n{\mathbb{K}}^{n} such that the arrangement 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0} corresponds to the origin. In particular, an ordering of hyperplanes in 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0} determines the coordinate system in 𝕊\mathbb{S} (see [10]).
The closed subset of 𝕊\mathbb{S} formed by the translates of 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0} which fail to form a generic arrangement is a union of hyperplanes DL𝕊D_{L}\subset\mathbb{S} (see [11]). Each hyperplane DLD_{L} corresponds to a subset L={i1,,ik+1}[n]={1,,n}L=\{i_{1},\dots,i_{k+1}\}\subset[n]=\{1,\dots,n\} and it consists of nn-tuples of translates of hyperplanes H10,,Hn0H_{1}^{0},\dots,H_{n}^{0} in which translates of Hi10,,Hik+10H_{i_{1}}^{0},\dots,H_{i_{k+1}}^{0} fail to form a generic arrangement. The arrangement (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) of hyperplanes DLD_{L} is called discriminantaldiscriminantal arrangementarrangement and has been introduced by Manin and Schechtman in [11].
It is well known (see, among others [5],[11]) that there exists an open Zariski set 𝒵\mathcal{Z} in the space of generic arrangements of nn hyperplanes in 𝕂k{\mathbb{K}}^{k}, such that the intersection lattice of the discriminantal arrangement (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) is independent from the choice of the arrangement 𝒜𝒵\mathcal{A}\in\mathcal{Z}. Accordingly to Bayer and Brandt (see [3]) we will call the arrangements 𝒜𝒵\mathcal{A}\in\mathcal{Z} very generic and non-very generic the others.

2.2. Non-very generic intersections

According to [2] if 𝒜\mathcal{A} is a very generic arrangement, then the intersection lattice of the discriminantal arrangement (n,k,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) is isomorphic to the collection of all sets {S1,,Sm}\{S_{1},\ldots,S_{m}\}, SiS_{i} \subset [n]={1,,n}[n]=\{1,\ldots,n\}, |Si|k+1\left\lvert S_{i}\right\rvert\geq k+1, such that

(1) |iISi|>k+iI(|Si|k) for all I[m]={1,,m},I2.\left\lvert\bigcup_{i\in I}S_{i}\right\rvert>k+\sum_{i\in I}(\left\lvert S_{i}\right\rvert-k)\mbox{ for all }I\subset[m]=\{1,\ldots,m\},\mid I\mid\geq 2\quad.

The isomorphism is the natural one which associate to the set SiS_{i} the space DSi=LSi,L=k+1DL,DL(n,k,𝒜)D_{S_{i}}=\bigcap_{L\subset S_{i},\mid L\mid=k+1}D_{L},D_{L}\in\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}) of all translated of 𝒜\mathcal{A} having hyperplanes indexed in SiS_{i} intersecting in a not empty space. In particular {S1,,Sm}\{S_{1},\ldots,S_{m}\} will correspond to the intersection i=1mDSi\bigcap_{i=1}^{m}D_{S_{i}}.
The Athanasiadis’s condition is necessary but not sufficient for an arrangement to be very generic (see [16]), hence we will call non-very generic any intersection XX of hyperplanes in (n,k,𝒜),𝒜\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}),\mathcal{A} non-very generic arrangement, which is not combinatorially isomorphic to an intersection in (n,k,𝒜),𝒜\mathcal{B}(n,k,\mathcal{A}^{\prime}),\mathcal{A}^{\prime} very generic. In particular any intersection X=i=1mDSiX=\bigcap_{i=1}^{m}D_{S_{i}} such that the set {S1,,Sm}\{S_{1},\ldots,S_{m}\} does not satisfy the condition (1), is non-very generic.
In this paper we are particularly interested in the intersections of the form:

X=i=1rDLi,|Li|=k+1 and iIDLiDS,S>k+1 for any I[r],I2,X=\bigcap_{i=1}^{r}D_{L_{i}},|L_{i}|=k+1\mbox{ and }\bigcap_{i\in I}D_{L_{i}}\neq D_{S},\mid S\mid>k+1\mbox{ for any }I\subset[r],\mid I\mid\geq 2\quad,

which we will call simple accordingly to [17]. If we call multiplicity of the simple intersection XX the number rr of the hyperplanes intersecting in XX, an immediate consequence of the equation (1) is the following result (see also [17]).

Proposition 1.

A simple intersection of rank strictly less than its multiplicity is non-very generic.

2.3. 𝐊𝕋\mathbf{K_{{\mathbb{T}}}}-translated

Fixed a set 𝕋={L1,,Lr}{\mathbb{T}}=\{L_{1},\dots,L_{r}\} of subsets Li[n]L_{i}\subset[n] of cardinality k+1k+1 and an arrangement 𝒜={H1,,Hn}\mathcal{A}=\{H_{1},\ldots,H_{n}\} translated of 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0}, the intersection Pi=pLiHpP_{i}=\bigcap_{p\in L_{i}}H_{p} is a point if and only if 𝒜DLi\mathcal{A}\in D_{L_{i}}, it is empty otherwise. Following [17] we will call the set 𝕋{\mathbb{T}} an rr-set222Notice that the original definition required the additional condition LiLjL_{i}\cap L_{j}\neq\emptyset which we removed. if

i=1rLi=iILi\bigcup_{i=1}^{r}L_{i}=\bigcup_{i\in I}L_{i}

for any subset I[r],|I|=r1I\subset[r],|I|=r-1 and any two indices 1i<jr1\leq i<j\leq r. Given an rr-set 𝕋={L1,,Lr}{\mathbb{T}}=\{L_{1},\dots,L_{r}\}, a translated arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} of 𝒜0\mathcal{A}^{0} will be called a 𝐊𝕋\mathbf{K_{{\mathbb{T}}}}-translated if PiP_{i} is a point which belongs exactly to the k+1k+1 hyperplanes indexed in LiL_{i} for any i=1,,ri=1,\ldots,r. We will denote by 𝒜t(𝕋)\mathcal{A}^{t(\mathbb{T})} such a translate.

3. Low rank non-very generic intersections in (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A})

In this section we will provide an algebraic way to fully characterize the non-very generic intersections in rank 33 and 44 in (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) by means of the Ceva’s Theorem.

3.1. Non-very generic intersections in rank 33.

In [5] Crapo proved that an arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} of 66 lines in the real plane is non-very generic if and only if it admits a translated which is combinatorially equivalent to the arrangement depicted in Figure 2. We will call such a configuration of lines Crapo’s configuration.
In other terms, the Crapo’s configuration is a K𝕋K_{{\mathbb{T}}}-translated 𝒜t(𝕋)\mathcal{A}^{t(\mathbb{T})} of 𝒜\mathcal{A} such that 𝒜t(𝕋)\mathcal{A}^{t(\mathbb{T})} belongs to the simple intersection X=i=14DLi,Li𝕋X=\bigcap_{i=1}^{4}D_{L_{i}},L_{i}\in\mathbb{T} of multiplicity 44 in rank 33. In this case the rank of XX can be easily obtained since the only element in rank 44 in the intersection lattice of (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) is the intersection D[6]D_{[6]} which elements correspond to all the translated of 𝒜\mathcal{A} which are central arrangements. By Proposition 1. XX is a non-very generic intersection. We will call quadral point any simple intersection of rank 33 and multiplicity 44.
In all this subsection the set 𝕋{\mathbb{T}} will always denote a 44-set of the form 𝕋={L1,,L4}{\mathbb{T}}=\{L_{1},\ldots,L_{4}\} with L1={p1,p2,p3},L2={p1,p5,p6},L3={p2,p4,p6},L4={p3,p4,p5}L_{1}=\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\},L_{2}=\{p_{1},p_{5},p_{6}\},L_{3}=\{p_{2},p_{4},p_{6}\},L_{4}=\{p_{3},p_{4},p_{5}\} fixed, unless differently specified.
Finally, since the discriminantal arrangement only depends on its trace at infinity 𝒜\mathcal{A}_{\infty}, we will consider indifferently either the generic arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} in 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2} or its trace at infinity 𝒜\mathcal{A}_{\infty} in (𝕂2){\mathbb{P}}(\mathbb{K}^{2}) .

Hp1H_{p_{1}}Hp6H_{p_{6}}Hp2H_{p_{2}}Hp3H_{p_{3}}Hp4H_{p_{4}}Hp5H_{p_{5}}
Figure 1. The Crapo configulation
c1αp1c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}}c2αp2c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}}c4αp4c_{4}\alpha_{p_{4}}c5αp5c_{5}\alpha_{p_{5}}c6αp6c_{6}\alpha_{p_{6}}c3αp3c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}}
Figure 2. The Crapo configulation spanned by normals

The following theorem shows that the Ceva’s Theorem provides a full characterization of the Crapo’s configuration which can also be characterized by means of involutions, i.e. projective transformations ff which satisfy f2=idf^{2}=\mathrm{id}, on the infinity line. From now on, given a family of vectors viv_{i}’s, we will denote by [v1,v2;v3,v4][v_{1},v_{2};v_{3},v_{4}] the cross ratio |v1v3||v2v4|/|v2v3||v1v4||v_{1}v_{3}||v_{2}v_{4}|/|v_{2}v_{3}||v_{1}v_{4}|, where the symbol |vivj||v_{i}v_{j}| stands for the determinant of the 2×22\times 2 matrix consisting of the column vectors vi,vjv_{i},v_{j}.

Theorem 2 (The Ceva’s Theorem).

Let 𝕋{\mathbb{T}} be a 44-set, the following statements are equivalent:

  1. i)

    the arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} of 66 lines in 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2} admits a K𝕋K_{{\mathbb{T}}}-translated 𝒜t(𝕋)\mathcal{A}^{t(\mathbb{T})};

  2. ii)

    the Ceva’s equation

    (2) |αp1αp5||αp2αp6||αp3αp4||αp1αp6||αp2αp4||αp3αp5|=1\frac{|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{5}}||\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{6}}||\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{4}}|}{|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{6}}||\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{4}}||\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{5}}|}=1

    is satisfied;

  3. iii)

    there is an involution ff on the infinity line which satisfies

    f(Hpj)=Hpj+3,j6.f(H_{p_{j}})=H_{p_{j+3}},j\in\mathbb{Z}_{6}\quad.
Proof.

For simplicity, we write [αp1,αp2,αp3;αp4,αp5,αp6][\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}};\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}},\alpha_{p_{6}}] instead of

(|αp1αp5||αp2αp6||αp3αp4|)/(|αp1αp6||αp2αp4||αp3αp5|).\left(|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{5}}||\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{6}}||\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{4}}|\right)/\left(|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{6}}||\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{4}}||\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{5}}|\right).

There is a canonical isomorphism between 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2} and (𝕂2)(\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast} which induces an isomorphism between (𝕂2)\mathbb{P}(\mathbb{K}^{2}) and ((𝕂2))\mathbb{P}((\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast}). Since the vectors αp(𝕂2)\alpha_{p}\in(\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast} are normal to the lines HpH_{p}, we can study the line arrangement 𝒜={αp}p=16\mathcal{A}^{\prime}=\left\{\langle\alpha_{p}\rangle\right\}_{p=1}^{6},in the dual space (𝕂2)(\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast}, which trace at infinity 𝒜\mathcal{A}^{\prime}_{\infty} is projectively isomorphic to 𝒜\mathcal{A}_{\infty}.

i) \Rightarrow ii) The translate of arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A}^{\prime} (see Figure 2) is a Crapo’s configuration if and only if there are c1,,c6𝕂c_{1},\ldots,c_{6}\in\mathbb{K}333Notice that Figure 2 is obtained from Figure 1 by a π/2\pi/2 rotation. This fact guarantees the existence of c1,c2,c3,c4,c5,c6c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c_{4},c_{5},c_{6} satisfying the Equation (3). In the case of general fields, the existence of c1,c2,c3,c4,c5,c6c_{1},c_{2},c_{3},c_{4},c_{5},c_{6} follows from the natural isomorphism between 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2} and (𝕂2)(\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast}. satisfying the equation

(3) c4αp4=c2αp2c3αp3,c5αp5=c3αp3c1αp1,c6αp6=c1αp1c2αp2,c_{4}\alpha_{p_{4}}=c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}}-c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}},\quad c_{5}\alpha_{p_{5}}=c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}}-c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}},\quad c_{6}\alpha_{p_{6}}=c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}}-c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}},

that is

[αp1,αp2,αp3;αp4,αp5,αp6]=[c1αp1,c2αp2,c3αp3;c4αp4,c5αp5,c6αp6]\displaystyle[\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}};\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}},\alpha_{p_{6}}]=[c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}},c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}},c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}};c_{4}\alpha_{p_{4}},c_{5}\alpha_{p_{5}},c_{6}\alpha_{p_{6}}]
=\displaystyle= [c1αp1,c2αp2,c3αp3;c2αp2c3αp3,c3α3p3c1αp1,c1αp1c2αp2]\displaystyle[c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}},c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}},c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}};c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}}-c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}},c_{3}\alpha_{3}{p_{3}}-c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}},c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}}-c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}}]
=\displaystyle= |αp1αp3||αp2αp1||αp3αp2|(1)3|αp1αp2||αp2αp3||αp3αp1|=1.\displaystyle\frac{|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{3}}||\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{1}}||\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{2}}|}{(-1)^{3}|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{2}}||\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{3}}||\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{1}}|}=1.

ii) \Rightarrow i) Conversely, assume that the equation (2) is satisfied. The combinatorics of discriminantal arrangement are invariant under projective transformations for the original arrangements. Thus, we can assume six vectors are (101λ~14λ~15λ~16011λ~24λ~25λ~26)\begin{pmatrix}1&0&1&\tilde{\lambda}_{14}&\tilde{\lambda}_{15}&\tilde{\lambda}_{16}\\ 0&1&1&\tilde{\lambda}_{24}&\tilde{\lambda}_{25}&\tilde{\lambda}_{26}\\ \end{pmatrix}. But since we also have the flexibility to dilate the six normal vectors in the plane individually by various nonzero constants we can actually assume that

(4) (αp1αp2αp3αp4αp5αp6)=(101λ4λ5λ6011111)\left(\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{3}}\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{5}}\alpha_{p_{6}}\right)=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&1&\lambda_{4}&\lambda_{5}&\lambda_{6}\\ 0&1&1&1&1&1\\ \end{pmatrix}

where λ4,λ5,λ6𝕂{0,1}\lambda_{4},\lambda_{5},\lambda_{6}\in\mathbb{K}\setminus\{0,1\} and λ4λ5λ6λ4\lambda_{4}\neq\lambda_{5}\neq\lambda_{6}\neq\lambda_{4}. Since the Ceva’s equation (2) is satisfied then

(5) 1=[αp1,αp2,αp3;αp4,αp5,αp6]=1(λ6)(1λ4)1(λ4)(1λ5),1=[\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}};\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}},\alpha_{p_{6}}]=\frac{1\cdot(-\lambda_{6})\cdot(1-\lambda_{4})}{1\cdot(-\lambda_{4})\cdot(1-\lambda_{5})},

that is (1λ5)λ4=(1λ4)λ6(1-\lambda_{5})\lambda_{4}=(1-\lambda_{4})\lambda_{6} and if we write c1=(1λ5)λ4,c2=λ41,c3=λ4c_{1}=(1-\lambda_{5})\lambda_{4},c_{2}=\lambda_{4}-1,c_{3}=\lambda_{4}, we get

c1αp1c2αp2=(1λ4)αp6;c2αp2c3αp3=αp4;c3αp3c1αp1=λ4αp5.c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}}-c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}}=(1-\lambda_{4})\alpha_{p_{6}};\quad c_{2}\alpha_{p_{2}}-c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}}=-\alpha_{p_{4}};\quad c_{3}\alpha_{p_{3}}-c_{1}\alpha_{p_{1}}=\lambda_{4}\alpha_{p_{5}}\quad.

The equation (3) is satisfied and the proof is completed.
iii) \Leftrightarrow ii) We are going to prove that, with the choice of coordinates in equation (4) then the statement in iii) is equivalent to the equation (5) which concludes the proof.
Let ff be a projective involution on the infinity line which satisfies f(Hpj)=Hpj+3,j6f(H_{p_{j}})=H_{p_{j+3}},j\in\mathbb{Z}_{6}, then the following equalities hold:

[αp1,αp2;αp3,αi]\displaystyle[\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}};\alpha_{p_{3}},\alpha_{i}] =\displaystyle= [f(αp1),f(αp2);f(αp3),f(αi)]\displaystyle[f(\alpha_{p_{1}}),f(\alpha_{p_{2}});f(\alpha_{p_{3}}),f(\alpha_{i})] =\displaystyle= [αp4,αp5;αp6,αj]\displaystyle[\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}};\alpha_{p_{6}},\alpha_{j}]

for any couple (i,j){(p4,p1),(p5,p2),(p6,p3)}(i,j)\in\{(p_{4},p_{1}),(p_{5},p_{2}),(p_{6},p_{3})\}, where the action of ff on (𝕂2)(\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast} is the induced action, that is, f(α)=αf1f(\alpha)=\alpha\circ f^{-1} for α(𝕂2)\alpha\in(\mathbb{K}^{2})^{\ast}.

By algebraic computations, with the choice of coordinates in equation (4) we get the equations:

[αp1,αp2;αp3,αp4]=λ4,[αp1,αp2;αp3,αp5]=λ5,[αp1,αp2;αp3,αp6]=λ6[\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}};\alpha_{p_{3}},\alpha_{p_{4}}]=\lambda_{4},\quad[\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}};\alpha_{p_{3}},\alpha_{p_{5}}]=\lambda_{5},\quad[\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}};\alpha_{p_{3}},\alpha_{p_{6}}]=\lambda_{6}

and, if we set c=(λ4λ6)(λ5λ6)c=\frac{(\lambda_{4}-\lambda_{6})}{(\lambda_{5}-\lambda_{6})}, we obtain

[αp4,αp5;αp6,αp1]=c,[αp4,αp5;αp6,αp2]=cλ5λ4,[αp4,αp5;αp6,αp3]=c(λ51)(λ41).[\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}};\alpha_{p_{6}},\alpha_{p_{1}}]=c,\quad[\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}};\alpha_{p_{6}},\alpha_{p_{2}}]=c\frac{\lambda_{5}}{\lambda_{4}},\quad[\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}};\alpha_{p_{6}},\alpha_{p_{3}}]=c\frac{(\lambda_{5}-1)}{(\lambda_{4}-1)}\quad.

Since ff is an involution the following equalities hold:

(6) 1.c=λ4;2.cλ5λ4=λ5;3.c(λ51)(λ41)=λ6.1.\quad c=\lambda_{4};\quad 2.\quad c\frac{\lambda_{5}}{\lambda_{4}}=\lambda_{5};\quad 3.\quad c\frac{(\lambda_{5}-1)}{(\lambda_{4}-1)}=\lambda_{6}\quad.

The equation (6) 3. can be written as (λ4λ6)(1λ5)=(λ5λ6)(1λ4)λ6(\lambda_{4}-\lambda_{6})(1-\lambda_{5})=(\lambda_{5}-\lambda_{6})(1-\lambda_{4})\lambda_{6}, the equations (6) 1. and (6) 2. are equivalent to (7) and combining (6) 1. and (6) 3. yields (8)

(7) (λ4λ6)(λ5λ6)λ4=0\displaystyle(\lambda_{4}-\lambda_{6})-(\lambda_{5}-\lambda_{6})\lambda_{4}=0
(8) (1λ5)λ4=(1λ4)λ6.\displaystyle(1-\lambda_{5})\lambda_{4}=(1-\lambda_{4})\lambda_{6}\quad.

If we replace λ6=λ4(1λ5)/(1λ4)\lambda_{6}=\lambda_{4}(1-\lambda_{5})/(1-\lambda_{4}) obtained from the equation (8) into the left hand side of the equation (7) we get

(λ4λ6)(λ5λ6)λ4=λ4(1λ5)(1λ4)λ6=λ4(1λ5)λ4(1λ5)=0.(\lambda_{4}-\lambda_{6})-(\lambda_{5}-\lambda_{6})\lambda_{4}=\lambda_{4}(1-\lambda_{5})-(1-\lambda_{4})\lambda_{6}=\lambda_{4}(1-\lambda_{5})-\lambda_{4}(1-\lambda_{5})=0\quad.

That is the equation (8) provides the equation (7) and hence the equations in (6). On the other hand the equation (8) is the equation (5) and the proof follows. Conversely, if the condition (5) is satisfied and we fix the representation matrix of ff equals to (100λ4)1(λ4λ511)1\begin{pmatrix}-1&0\\ 0&\lambda_{4}\end{pmatrix}^{-1}\begin{pmatrix}\lambda_{4}&\lambda_{5}\\ 1&1\end{pmatrix}^{-1}, then ff is an involution as soon as the λi\lambda_{i}’s satisfy the above equations. ∎

Next corollary has been already proved by Crapo in [5].

Corollary 3.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a generic arrangement of nn lines in 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2}. The number of quadral points of (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) is either zero or even.

Proof.

Let 𝕋={L1,,L4}\mathbb{T}=\{L_{1},\ldots,L_{4}\} be a 44-set such that the αpi\alpha_{p_{i}}’s indexed in 𝕋\mathbb{T} satisfy the Ceva’s equation (2). Then it is an easy remark that the vectors indexed in the 44-set 𝕋={L1,,L4},Li={i1,,i6}Li\mathbb{T}^{\prime}=\{L_{1}^{\prime},\ldots,L_{4}^{\prime}\},L_{i}^{\prime}=\{i_{1},\ldots,i_{6}\}\setminus L_{i} too satisfy the Ceva’s equation (2). ∎

The following corollary is a consequence of simple algebraic computations.

Corollary 4.

Let 𝕋\mathbb{T} be a 44-set, an arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} admits a K𝕋K_{\mathbb{T}}-translated which is a Crapo’s configuration if and only if the equation

[αp2,αp3;αp1,αp4][αp3,αp1;αp2,αp5][αp1,αp2;αp3,αp6]=1[\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}};\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{4}}][\alpha_{p_{3}},\alpha_{p_{1}};\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{5}}][\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha_{p_{2}};\alpha_{p_{3}},\alpha_{p_{6}}]=-1

is satisfied.

Example 5.

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be the line arrangement in 2\mathbb{R}^{2} defined by the lines normal to the vectors

A=(α1α6)=(112033111121).\displaystyle A=(\alpha_{1}\ldots\alpha_{6})=\begin{pmatrix}1&1&2&0&3&3\\ -1&1&-1&1&-2&1\\ \end{pmatrix}\quad.

It is an easy check that the arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} is generic. If we multiply AA by the matrix T=(3313)T=\begin{pmatrix}3&3\\ -1&-3\\ \end{pmatrix} we get

TA\displaystyle TA =(3313)(112033111121)\displaystyle=\begin{pmatrix}3&3\\ -1&-3\\ \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}1&1&2&0&3&3\\ -1&1&-1&1&-2&1\\ \end{pmatrix}
=(0633312241336)=(2α4,2α5,α6,3α1,3α2,6α3).\displaystyle=\begin{pmatrix}0&6&3&3&3&12\\ 2&-4&1&-3&3&-6\\ \end{pmatrix}=\left(2\alpha_{4},2\alpha_{5},\alpha_{6},3\alpha_{1},3\alpha_{2},6\alpha_{3}\right)\quad.

That is the map TT satisfies the third condition of the Theorem 2 and hence the arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} is non-very generic.

Example 6.

Let’s consider the octahedron on the Riemann sphere 1S2\mathbb{C}{\mathbb{P}}^{1}\cong S^{2}; {,0,1,1,1,1}\{\infty,0,1,-1,\allowbreak\sqrt{-1},-\sqrt{-1}\} with the natural action of the octahedral group (S4)(\cong S_{4}) and the matrix of vectors

A=(α1α6)=(101111011111).A=(\alpha_{1}\ldots\alpha_{6})=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&1&-1&\sqrt{-1}&-\sqrt{-1}\\ 0&1&1&1&1&1\\ \end{pmatrix}\quad.

Then the six matrices

(1111),\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}1&1\\ 1&-1\\ \end{pmatrix}, (1111),\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}-1&1\\ 1&1\\ \end{pmatrix}, (0110),\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}0&\sqrt{-1}\\ 1&0\\ \end{pmatrix},
(0110),\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}0&-\sqrt{-1}\\ 1&0\\ \end{pmatrix}, (1111),\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}\sqrt{-1}&-1\\ 1&-\sqrt{-1}\\ \end{pmatrix}, (1111)\displaystyle\begin{pmatrix}\sqrt{-1}&1\\ -1&-\sqrt{-1}\\ \end{pmatrix}

act as six involutions with no fixed points on AA and if 𝒜O\mathcal{A}_{O} is the arrangement with the lines normal to the above vectors α1,,α6\alpha_{1},\ldots,\alpha_{6}, the discriminantal arrangement (6,2,𝒜O)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}_{O}) has 6×2=126\times 2=12 quadral points.

3.2. Non-very generic intersections in rank 44.

Analogously to the previous subsection, we call quintuple point a simple intersection XX of multiplicity 55 in rank 44. The following proposition is a consequence of the Ceva’s Theorem (Theorem 2) and it provides a condition that yields quintuple points in (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}).

Hp0H_{p_{0}}Hp3H_{p_{3}}Hp5H_{p_{5}}Hp1H_{p_{1}}Hp4H_{p_{4}}Hp2H_{p_{2}}Hp6H_{p_{6}}
Figure 3. quintuple point in (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A})
Hp0H_{p_{0}}Hp3H_{p_{3}}Hp5H_{p_{5}}Hp1H_{p_{1}}Hp4H_{p_{4}}Hp2H_{p_{2}}Hp6H_{p_{6}}HH^{\prime}
Figure 4. quintuple point add 11 line
Proposition 7.

Let 𝕋\mathbb{T} be a 55-set defined by

𝕋={{p0,p1,p4},{p0,p2,p5},{p0,p3,p6},{p1,p2,p3},{p4,p5,p6}}.\mathbb{T}=\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\}\}\quad.

A simple intersection X=L𝕋DLX=\bigcap_{L\in\mathbb{T}}D_{L} of hyperplanes in (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) is a quintuple point if and only if the equation

(9) [αp0,αp1;αp2,αp3]=[αp0,αp4;αp5,αp6][\alpha_{p_{0}},\alpha_{p_{1}};\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}}]=[\alpha_{p_{0}},\alpha_{p_{4}};\alpha_{p_{5}},\alpha_{p_{6}}]

is satisfied.

Proof.

Let’s assume there is a K𝕋K_{\mathbb{T}}-translated 𝒜t\mathcal{A}^{t}, t=t(𝕋)t=t(\mathbb{T}), of 𝒜\mathcal{A} and add the line HH^{\prime}, with normal vector α\alpha^{\prime}, such that Hp1tHp2tHp3t,Hp4tHp5tHp6tHH^{t}_{p_{1}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{2}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{3}},H^{t}_{p_{4}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{5}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{6}}\subset H^{\prime}. Then, the new arrangement 𝒜t{H}\mathcal{A}^{t}\cup\{H^{\prime}\} contains the 22 Crapo’s configurations {H,Hp0t,Hp1t,Hp2t,Hp4t,Hp5t},{H,Hp0t,Hp1t,Hp3t,Hp4t,Hp6t}\{H^{\prime},H^{t}_{p_{0}},H^{t}_{p_{1}},H^{t}_{p_{2}},H^{t}_{p_{4}},H^{t}_{p_{5}}\},\{H^{\prime},H^{t}_{p_{0}},H^{t}_{p_{1}},H^{t}_{p_{3}},H^{t}_{p_{4}},\allowbreak H^{t}_{p_{6}}\}. The Ceva’s condition in Theorem 2 yelds

(10) |αp0αp2||αp1α||αp4αp5|/|αp0αp5||αp1αp2||αp4α|\displaystyle|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{2}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha^{\prime}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{5}}|/|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{5}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{2}}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha^{\prime}| =\displaystyle= 1,\displaystyle 1,
(11) |αp0αp3||αp1α||αp4αp6|/|αp0αp6||αp1αp3||αp4α|\displaystyle|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{3}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha^{\prime}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{6}}|/|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{6}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{3}}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha^{\prime}| =\displaystyle= 1.\displaystyle 1.

Combining (10) and (11) yields

|αp4α||αp1α|=|αp0αp2||αp4αp5||αp0αp5||αp1αp2|=|αp0αp3||αp4αp6||αp0αp6||αp1αp3|\frac{|\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha^{\prime}|}{|\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha^{\prime}|}=\frac{|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{2}}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{5}}|}{|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{5}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{2}}|}=\frac{|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{3}}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{6}}|}{|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{6}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{3}}|}

from which we obtain |αp0αp2||αp1αp3|/|αp0αp3||αp1αp2|=|αp0αp5||αp4αp6|/|αp0αp6||αp4αp5||\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{2}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{3}}|/|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{3}}||\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{2}}|=|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{5}}||\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{6}}|/|\alpha_{p_{0}}\alpha_{p_{6}}|\allowbreak|\alpha_{p_{4}}\alpha_{p_{5}}| equivalent to the equation (13).
Conversely, suppose that 𝒜\mathcal{A} satisfies the equation (13). There is an unique map fPGL(2,𝕂)f\in PGL(2,\mathbb{K}) such that f(αp1)=αp5,f(αp5)=αp1,f(αp2)=αp4f(\alpha_{p_{1}})=\alpha_{p_{5}},f(\alpha_{p_{5}})=\alpha_{p_{1}},f(\alpha_{p_{2}})=\alpha_{p_{4}} and we choose the homogeneous coordinate such that (αp1αp5αp2αp4)=(101λ0111)(\alpha_{p_{1}}\alpha_{p_{5}}\alpha_{p_{2}}\alpha_{p_{4}})=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&1&\lambda\\ 0&1&1&1\end{pmatrix}. Now ff is represented by (0λ10)\begin{pmatrix}0&\lambda\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix} therefore f(αp4)=αp2f(\alpha_{p_{4}})=\alpha_{p_{2}}. Similarly, by setting α=f(αp0)\alpha^{\prime}=f(\alpha_{p_{0}}), the equation (10) holds by f(α)=αp0f(\alpha^{\prime})=\alpha_{p_{0}} and Theorem 2. As in the first half of the discussion, equation (11) follows from equations (13) and (10). Hence there is a tt-translated of 𝒜{H}\mathcal{A}\cup\{H^{\prime}\} which contains the Crapo configurations {Ht,Hp0t,Hp1t,Hp2t,Hp4t,Hp5t},{Ht,Hp0t,Hp1t,Hp3t,Hp4t,Hp6t}\{H^{\prime t},H^{t}_{p_{0}},H^{t}_{p_{1}},H^{t}_{p_{2}},H^{t}_{p_{4}},H^{t}_{p_{5}}\},\{H^{\prime t},H^{t}_{p_{0}},H^{t}_{p_{1}},H^{t}_{p_{3}},H^{t}_{p_{4}},\allowbreak H^{t}_{p_{6}}\} where HH^{\prime} is an hyperplane orthogonal to α\alpha^{\prime}. In particular, Hp1tHp4t,Hp2tHp5t,Hp3tHp6tHp0tH^{t}_{p_{1}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{4}},H^{t}_{p_{2}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{5}},H^{t}_{p_{3}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{6}}\subset H^{t}_{p_{0}} and Hp1tHp2tHp3t,Hp4tHp5tHp6tH^{t}_{p_{1}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{2}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{3}},H^{t}_{p_{4}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{5}}\cap H^{t}_{p_{6}}\neq\emptyset. This completes the proof. ∎

Analogously to what happen for the quadral points in (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) and the non-very generic intersections in (n,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,3,\mathcal{A}), e.g. the Pappus’s Theorem (see [14, 15]), there are dependencies between quintuple points too. The following Corollaries are obtained from Proposition 7 by means of simple algebraic computations.

Corollary 8.

If the intersection lattice of the discriminantal arrangement (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) contains the two quintuple points associated to the 55-sets:

𝕋1\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{1} =\displaystyle= {{p0,p1,p4},{p0,p2,p5},{p0,p3,p6},{p1,p2,p3},{p4,p5,p6}},\displaystyle\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\}\},
𝕋2\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{2} =\displaystyle= {{p0,p1,p5},{p0,p2,p6},{p0,p3,p4},{p1,p2,p3},{p4,p5,p6}},\displaystyle\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{6}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{4}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\}\},

then it contains the quintuple point associated to the 55-set:

𝕋3={{p0,p1,p6},{p0,p2,p4},{p0,p3,p5},{p1,p2,p3},{p4,p5,p6}}.\mathbb{T}_{3}=\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{6}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{5}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\}\}.
Corollary 9.

If the intersection lattice of the discriminantal arrangement (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}) contains the three quintuple points associated to the 55-sets:

𝕋1\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{1} =\displaystyle= {{p0,p1,p4},{p0,p2,p5},{p0,p3,p6},{p1,p2,p3},{p4,p5,p6}},\displaystyle\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\}\},
𝕋2\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{2} =\displaystyle= {{p0,p1,p4},{p0,p2,p5},{p0,p3,p6},{p1,p5,p3},{p4,p2,p6}},\displaystyle\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{5},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{2},p_{6}\}\},
𝕋3\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{3} =\displaystyle= {{p0,p1,p4},{p0,p2,p5},{p0,p3,p6},{p1,p2,p6},{p4,p5,p3}}.\displaystyle\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{6}\},\{p_{4},p_{5},p_{3}\}\}.

Ithen it contains the quintuple point associated to the 55-set:

𝕋4={{p0,p1,p4},{p0,p2,p5},{p0,p3,p6},{p1,p5,p6},{p4,p2,p3}}.\mathbb{T}_{4}=\{\{p_{0},p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{0},p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{0},p_{3},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{5},p_{6}\},\{p_{4},p_{2},p_{3}\}\}.

3.3. Arrangements from regular polygons

For simplicity let’s call quintuple point a simple intersection of multiplicity 55 and rank 44. Given a line arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A}, let’s denote by m4(𝒜)m_{4}(\mathcal{A}) and m5(𝒜)m_{5}(\mathcal{A}) the numbers, respectively, of the quadral and quintuple points of the discriminantal arrangement (n,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(n,2,\mathcal{A}).

Notice that from the characterization of non-very generic intersections by means of projective transformations shows that highly symmetric arrangements have many quadral or quintuple points. If we denote by RnR_{n} the central line arrangement defined by the nn lines parallel to the edges of the regular polygon with 2n2n sides, then the following Proposition holds.

Proposition 10.

Let RnR_{n} be a real central arrangement consisting of the nn lines normal to the vectors αp=(cospπn,sinpπn)\alpha_{p}=(\cos\frac{p\pi}{n},\sin\frac{p\pi}{n}) for p[n]p\in[n], then for n6n\geq 6 we have

(12) m4(Rn)(n+2)(n/23)+n(n/213)if n is evenm4(Rn)2n((n1)/23)if n is odd\begin{split}m_{4}(R_{n})\geq(n+2)\binom{n/2}{3}+n\binom{n/2-1}{3}\quad\mbox{if $n$ is even}\\ m_{4}(R_{n})\geq 2n\binom{(n-1)/2}{3}\quad\mbox{if $n$ is odd}\end{split}

while for n7n\geq 7 we have

(13) m5(Rn)4n(n/213)if n is evenm5(Rn)4n((n1)/23)if n is odd.\begin{split}m_{5}(R_{n})\geq 4n\binom{n/2-1}{3}\quad\mbox{if $n$ is even}\\ m_{5}(R_{n})\geq 4n\binom{(n-1)/2}{3}\quad\mbox{if $n$ is odd}.\end{split}
Proof.

Set [An]={[α1],,[αn]}(2)[A_{n}]=\{[\alpha_{1}],\ldots,[\alpha_{n}]\}\subset{\mathbb{P}}(\mathbb{R}^{2}) and let Rfl(α,)\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha,\cdot) be the reflection map vv(2vα/αα)αv\mapsto v-\left(2v\cdot\alpha/\alpha\cdot\alpha\right)\alpha where vαv\cdot\alpha is the inner product of vv and α\alpha. The reflections Rfl(αp1,)\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p_{1}},\cdot) and Rfl(αp1+αp2,)\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p_{1}}+\alpha_{p_{2}},\cdot) are involutions acting on [An][A_{n}]. Indeed Rfl(α,)\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha,\cdot) is an element of PGL(2,)PGL(2,\mathbb{R}) since [Rfl(αp1,α)],[Rfl(αp1+αp2,α)][An][\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p_{1}},\alpha)],[\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p_{1}}+\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha)]\in[A_{n}] for any [αp1],[αp2],[α][An][\alpha_{p_{1}}],[\alpha_{p_{2}}],[\alpha]\in[A_{n}] and Rfl(v,)2=id\mathrm{Rfl}(v,\cdot)^{2}=\mathrm{id} for any [v](2)[v]\in{\mathbb{P}}(\mathbb{R}^{2}). In particular we have that

[Rfl(αp,αp+q)]=[αpq],[Rfl(αp1+αp,αp+q)]=[αpq1][\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p},\alpha_{p+q})]=[\alpha_{p-q}],\,[\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p-1}+\alpha_{p},\alpha_{p+q})]=[\alpha_{p-q-1}]

where we regard the index set [n][n] as the cyclic group n\mathbb{Z}_{n}.
Since the fixed points of [Rfl(αp1,)]\langle[\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p_{1}},\cdot)]\rangle are, respectively, [αp][\alpha_{p}] if nn is odd and [αp+n/2][\alpha_{p+n/2}] if nn is even, the orbit decompositions of [An][A_{n}] by the action of [Rfl(αp1,)]\langle[\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p_{1}},\cdot)]\rangle are

{{αp},{αp1,αp+1},,{αp(n1)/2,αp+(n1)/2}}if n is odd\{\{\alpha_{p}\},\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\allowbreak\{\alpha_{p-(n-1)/2},\allowbreak\alpha_{p+(n-1)/2}\}\}\quad\mbox{if n is odd}

and

{{αp},{αp1,αp+1},,{αpn/2+1,αp+n/21},{αp+n/2}}if n is even.\{\{\alpha_{p}\},\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\{\alpha_{p-n/2+1},\alpha_{p+n/2-1}\},\{\alpha_{p+n/2}\}\}\quad\mbox{if n is even}\quad.

The orbit decomposition of [An],n[A_{n}],n even, by the action of Rfl(αp1+αp,)\langle\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p-1}+\alpha_{p},\cdot)\rangle is

{{αp1,αp},{αp2,αp+1},,{αpn/2,αp+n/21}}.\{\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p}\},\{\alpha_{p-2},\allowbreak\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\allowbreak\{\alpha_{p-n/2},\alpha_{p+n/2-1}\}\}\quad.

We can prove the Proposition case by case as follows.

  1. 12.1

    For each reflection Rfl(αp,)\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p},\cdot) and Rfl(αp1+αp,)\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p-1}+\alpha_{p},\cdot), p=1,,n/2p=1,\ldots,n/2, by Theorem 2 any choice of three elements, respectively in {{αp1,αp+1},,{αpn/2+1,αp+n/21}}\{\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\allowbreak\{\alpha_{p-n/2+1},\alpha_{p+n/2-1}\}\} and in {{αp1,αp},{αp2,αp+1},,{αpn/2,αp+n/21}}\{\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p}\},\{\alpha_{p-2},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\allowbreak\{\alpha_{p-n/2},\alpha_{p+n/2-1}\}\} gives rise to two quadral points. Moreover the matrix (0110)\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix} provides an involution on [An][A_{n}] which maps αp\alpha_{p} into αp+n/2\alpha_{p+n/2} and hence any choice of three elements in {{α1,α1+n/2},{α2,α2+n/2},,{αn/2,αn}}\{\{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{1+n/2}\},\allowbreak\{\alpha_{2},\alpha_{2+n/2}\},\ldots,\{\alpha_{n/2},\alpha_{n}\}\} gives rise to two more quadral points. Thus we obtain exactly n2(n/23)×2+n2(n/213)×2+(n/23)×2\frac{n}{2}\binom{n/2}{3}\times 2+\frac{n}{2}\binom{n/2-1}{3}\times 2+\binom{n/2}{3}\times 2 quadral points.

  2. 12.2

    Analogously to [12.1], for each reflection Rfl(αp,),p=1,,n\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p},\cdot),p=1,\ldots,n, any choice of three elements in {{αp1,αp+1},,{αp(n1)/2,αp+(n1)/2}}\{\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\{\alpha_{p-(n-1)/2},\alpha_{p+(n-1)/2}\}\} gives rise to two quadral points and, summing up, we obtain exactly 2n((n1)/23)2n\binom{(n-1)/2}{3} quadral points.

  3. 13.1

    By Proposition 7, for each reflection Rfl(αp,),p=1,,n/2\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p},\cdot),p=1,\ldots,n/2, choosing three elements from {{αp1,αp+1},,{αpn2+1,αp+n21}}\{\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\allowbreak\{\alpha_{p-\frac{n}{2}+1},\alpha_{p+\frac{n}{2}-1}\}\} and one from {αp,αp+n/2}\{\alpha_{p},\alpha_{p+n/2}\} gives rise to four quintuple points. Thus we obtain the number n2(n/213)×2×4\frac{n}{2}\binom{n/2-1}{3}\times 2\times 4.

  4. 13.2

    Analogously to [13.1], for each reflection Rfl(αp,),p=1,,n\mathrm{Rfl}(\alpha_{p},\cdot),p=1,\ldots,n, any choice of three elements from {{αp1,αp+1},,{αp(n1)/2,αp+(n1)/2}}\{\{\alpha_{p-1},\alpha_{p+1}\},\ldots,\allowbreak\{\alpha_{p-(n-1)/2},\alpha_{p+(n-1)/2}\}\} gives rise to four quintuple points. Thus we obtain the number n2((n1)/23)×2×4\frac{n}{2}\binom{(n-1)/2}{3}\times 2\times 4.

4. The non-very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A})

In the previous Section we proved that the only non-very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) are pairs of quadral points which correspond to involutions in PGL(2,𝕂)PGL(2,\mathbb{K}). It follows that there is a natural correspondence between the non-very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and the permutations of the form (p1p2)(p3p4)(p5p6)(p_{1}p_{2})(p_{3}p_{4})(p_{5}p_{6}).
Moreover, in [14] authors show that there is a correspondence between the permutation (p1p2)(p3p4)(p5p6)(p_{1}p_{2})(p_{3}p_{4})(p_{5}p_{6}) and the non-very generic intersection in (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) associated to the 33-set 𝕋={{p1,p2,p3,p4},{p3,p4,p5,p6},{p1,p2,p5,p6}}\mathbb{T}=\{\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4}\},\{p_{3},p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{5},p_{6}\}\}.
As a consequence of the above remarks, it is possible to classify the non-very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) by means of the permutation group.

4.1. Permutation group on six points

ϕ(1)\phi(1)ϕ(2)\phi(2)ϕ(3)\phi(3)ϕ(4)\phi(4)ϕ(5)\phi(5)ϕ(6)\phi(6)ϕ((12))=(15)(26)(34)\phi((12))=(15)(26)(34)(14)(23)(56)(14)(23)(56)(13)(25)(46)(13)(25)(46)(12)(36)(45)(12)(36)(45)(16)(24)(35)(16)(24)(35)(12)(35)(46)(12)(35)(46)(16)(23)(45)(16)(23)(45)(13)(24)(56)(13)(24)(56)(14)(25)(36)(14)(25)(36)(15)(24)(36)(15)(24)(36)(16)(25)(34)(16)(25)(34)(13)(26)(45)(13)(26)(45)(14)(26)(35)(14)(26)(35)(12)(34)(56)(12)(34)(56)(15)(23)(46)(15)(23)(46)
Figure 5. Complete graph ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6})
112233445566(15)(26)(34)(15)(26)(34)(14)(25)(36)(14)(25)(36)(13)(25)(46)(13)(25)(46)(12)(36)(45)(12)(36)(45)(16)(24)(35)(16)(24)(35)
Figure 6. 11-factorization on ϕ(1)\phi(1)

Let S6S_{6} be the symmetric group of degree 66 and ϕ\phi be the outer automorphism defined by:

(12)\displaystyle(12) \displaystyle\mapsto ϕ((12))=(15)(26)(34),\displaystyle\phi((12))=(15)(26)(34), (23)\displaystyle(23) \displaystyle\mapsto ϕ((23))=(12)(35)(46),\displaystyle\phi((23))=(12)(35)(46),
(34)\displaystyle(34) \displaystyle\mapsto ϕ((34))=(15)(24)(36),\displaystyle\phi((34))=(15)(24)(36), (45)\displaystyle(45) \displaystyle\mapsto ϕ((45))=(14)(26)(35),\displaystyle\phi((45))=(14)(26)(35),
(56)\displaystyle(56) \displaystyle\mapsto ϕ((56))=(15)(23)(46).\displaystyle\phi((56))=(15)(23)(46).

Notice that ϕ\phi is unique up to inner automorphisms of S6S_{6}.
If K6K_{6} is the complete graph on 66 vertices, it is possible to define the new graph ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}), depicted in Figure 6, having vertices ϕ(i)\phi(i)’s and edges ϕ(i)ϕ(j)=ϕ((ij))\phi(i)\phi(j)=\phi((ij)). As a consequence of the fact that ϕ\phi is an automorphisms, we get that the subgroups E,E\langle E\rangle,\langle E^{\prime}\rangle of the symmetric group S6S_{6} associated to any two subsets E,EE,E^{\prime} of the edge set of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}), are equal if and only if the two partitions of the vertices determined by the connected components of EE and EE^{\prime} are the same. That is the partitions of the vertices of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) determine the subgroups of S6S_{6}.
There are exactly the following eleven types of partitions of six:

16,1421,1331,1222,1241,112131,23,1151,2141,32,611^{6},1^{4}2^{1},1^{3}3^{1},1^{2}2^{2},1^{2}4^{1},1^{1}2^{1}3^{1},2^{3},1^{1}5^{1},2^{1}4^{1},3^{2},6^{1}

which define, up to connected components, eleven types of subgraphs of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}). In particular a partition 𝒱ν\mathcal{V}_{\nu} of type ν=i1n1i2n2ilnl\nu=i_{1}^{n_{1}}i_{2}^{n_{2}}\cdots i_{l}^{n_{l}} will correspond to a subgraph ϕ(K6)[𝒱ν]\phi(K_{6})[\mathcal{V}_{\nu}] of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) having as connected components exactly njn_{j} copies of Kij,j=1,,lK_{i_{j}},j=1,\ldots,l. The number m(ν)m(\nu) of the edges in ϕ(K6)[𝒱ν]\phi(K_{6})[\mathcal{V}_{\nu}] equals 1jlnj(ij2)\sum_{1\leq j\leq l}n_{j}\binom{i_{j}}{2}, that is:

(14) m(16)\displaystyle m(1^{6}) =0,\displaystyle=0, m(1421)\displaystyle\quad m(1^{4}2^{1}) =1,\displaystyle=1, m(1331)\displaystyle\quad m(1^{3}3^{1}) =3,\displaystyle=3, m(1222)\displaystyle\quad m(1^{2}2^{2}) =2,\displaystyle=2,
m(1241)\displaystyle m(1^{2}4^{1}) =6,\displaystyle=6, m(112131)\displaystyle\quad m(1^{1}2^{1}3^{1}) =4,\displaystyle=4, m(23)\displaystyle\quad m(2^{3}) =3,\displaystyle=3, m(1151)\displaystyle\quad m(1^{1}5^{1}) =10,\displaystyle=10,
m(2141)\displaystyle m(2^{1}4^{1}) =7,\displaystyle=7, m(32)\displaystyle\quad m(3^{2}) =6,\displaystyle=6, m(61)\displaystyle\quad m(6^{1}) =15.\displaystyle=15.

Since the edges of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) correspond to elements σS6\sigma\in S_{6} which are the product of exactly three transpositions and each σ\sigma, in turns, corresponds to a non very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}), we can now count and, partially, classify, the non very generic intersections in (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}).

4.2. The arrangement (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A})

Let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be a generic arrangement of 66 lines in 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2} and denote by 𝒬4((6,2,𝒜))\mathcal{Q}_{4}(\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A})) the set of quadral points of (6,2,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A}) and by m4(𝒜)m_{4}(\mathcal{A}) its cardinality. With the above notations, the discussion in Section 4.1 provides a proof of the following theorem.

Theorem 11.

There is one and only one type ν\nu partition 𝒱ν\mathcal{V}_{\nu} of the vertex set of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) such that the edge set of ϕ(K6)[𝒱ν]\phi(K_{6})[\mathcal{V}_{\nu}] corresponds to a fixed 44-set associated to 𝒬4((6,2,𝒜))\mathcal{Q}_{4}(\mathcal{B}(6,2,\mathcal{A})). In particular m4(𝒜)=2m(ν)m_{4}(\mathcal{A})=2m(\nu).

The above Theorem 11 allows to classify the non-very generic arrangements of 66 lines in 𝕂2\mathbb{K}^{2}. For example, the arrangement 𝒜O\mathcal{A}_{O} in the Example 6 corresponds to type 12411^{2}4^{1}. Notice, however, that not all partitions give rise to a non-very generic arrangement. Indeed the existence of an arrangement corresponding to a given partition of [6]=1,,6[6]={1,\cdots,6} depends on the coefficient field 𝕂\mathbb{K}.
The following proposition easily follows from the properties of the projective transformation group.

Proposition 12.

There are not line arrangements corresponding to a type 616^{1} partition of the vertex set of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}). In particular, m4(𝒜)2m(1151)=20m_{4}(\mathcal{A})\leq 2m(1^{1}5^{1})=20 for any arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A}.

Proof.

If an arrangement 𝒜\mathcal{A} corresponding to a partition of type 616^{1} exists, then S6S_{6} acts faithfully on 𝒜\mathcal{A}_{\infty}. In particular, there is a permutation exchanging only two points but fixing the other four points in the PGL(2,𝕂)PGL(2,\mathbb{K}). But a projective transformation that fixes three points in the PGL(2,𝕂)PGL(2,\mathbb{K}) is the identity map and this is is an absurd. ∎

The above proposition provides a sharp upper bound for m4(𝒜)m_{4}(\mathcal{A}). For example, m4(𝒜)m_{4}(\mathcal{A}) is exactly 2020 when 𝒜\mathcal{A} is the unique arrangement of type 11511^{1}5^{1} over the five elements finite field 𝔽5\mathbb{F}_{5}. Its normals are the colmuns of (101234011111)\begin{pmatrix}1&0&1&2&3&4\\ 0&1&1&1&1&1\end{pmatrix}.

4.3. The arrangement (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A})

In this subsection, 𝒜\mathcal{A} is a generic arrangement of 66 planes in 𝕂3\mathbb{K}^{3}, 𝒬3((6,3,𝒜))\mathcal{Q}_{3}(\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A})) the set of non very generic intersections of (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) and m3(𝒜)m_{3}(\mathcal{A}) its cardinality. Analogously to the planar case, the following Theorem holds.

Theorem 13.

There is one and only one type ν\nu partition 𝒱ν\mathcal{V}_{\nu} of the vertex set of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) such that the edge set of ϕ(K6)[𝒱ν]\phi(K_{6})[\mathcal{V}_{\nu}] corresponds to a fixed 33-set associated to 𝒬3((6,3,𝒜))\mathcal{Q}_{3}(\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A})). In particular m3(𝒜)=m(ν)m_{3}(\mathcal{A})=m(\nu).

A consequence of our approach is the extension to any field of the alternative proof of the Pappus’s Hexagon Theorem over the complex field provided by Sawada, Yamagata, and the second author in [14] . Analogously to the following one, their proof is based on the combinatorics of the discriminantal arrangement.

Theorem 14 (Pappus).

Let 𝕋1,𝕋2\mathbb{T}_{1},\mathbb{T}_{2} be two disjoint 33-sets associated to two non-very generic intersections in (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) and let σ1\sigma_{1} and σ2\sigma_{2} be edges of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) corresponding to 𝕋1\mathbb{T}_{1} and 𝕋2\mathbb{T}_{2} respectively. Then the 33-set 𝕋3\mathbb{T}_{3} corresponding to the edge σ3=σ1σ2σ1\sigma_{3}=\sigma_{1}\sigma_{2}\sigma_{1} gives rise to a third non-very generic intersection (see Figure 7).

σ1:{{p1,p2},{p3,p4},{p5,p6}}\sigma_{1}:\{\{p_{1},p_{2}\},\{p_{3},p_{4}\},\{p_{5},p_{6}\}\}σ3:{{p1,p4},{p2,p5},{p3,p6}}\sigma_{3}:\{\{p_{1},p_{4}\},\{p_{2},p_{5}\},\{p_{3},p_{6}\}\}σ2:{{p1,p6},{p2,p3},{p4,p5}}\sigma_{2}:\{\{p_{1},p_{6}\},\{p_{2},p_{3}\},\{p_{4},p_{5}\}\}Hp2,H_{p_{2},\infty}Hp1,H_{p_{1},\infty}Hp3,H_{p_{3},\infty}Hp4,H_{p_{4},\infty}Hp6,H_{p_{6},\infty}Hp5,H_{p_{5},\infty}
Figure 7. Pappus’ configuration

4.4. A complete classification of (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) over a commutative field of characteristic 0

Theorem 15.

Let 𝕂\mathbb{K} be a subfield of the complex field \mathbb{C} and let 𝒜\mathcal{A} be an arrangement of 66 planes in 𝕂3\mathbb{K}^{3}. The minimal fields in which the type ν\nu arrangement appears are provided in the following table:

ν16142113311222124111213123115121413261𝕂(5)(3)\begin{array}[]{l||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}\nu&1^{6}&1^{4}2^{1}&1^{3}3^{1}&1^{2}2^{2}&1^{2}4^{1}&1^{1}2^{1}3^{1}&2^{3}&1^{1}5^{1}&2^{1}4^{1}&3^{2}&6^{1}\\ \hline\cr\mathbb{K}&\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Q}&\mathbb{Q}&\star&\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{5})&\star&\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-3})&\star\end{array}

Here \star means that the type ν\nu arrangement does not exist over a characteristic 0 commutative field.

Proof.

The Falk’s example (Example 3.2. [7]) shows that the type 1121311^{1}2^{1}3^{1} arrangement appears over \mathbb{Q}. Since the condition corresponding to each edge of ϕ(K6)\phi(K_{6}) is a solution set of some algebraic equation, the one corresponding to the refinement of 1121311^{1}2^{1}3^{1} can be realized on \mathbb{Q} by a proper perturbation. Therefore the types 16,1421,1331,1222,1121311^{6},1^{4}2^{1},1^{3}3^{1},1^{2}2^{2},1^{1}2^{1}3^{1} appear in \mathbb{Q}.
In the rest of the proof we set the vectors normal to the planes in 𝒜\mathcal{A} as follows:

(α1α2α3α4α5α6)=(1001wy0101xz001111).\left(\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\alpha_{3}\alpha_{4}\alpha_{5}\alpha_{6}\right)=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&1&w&y\\ 0&1&0&1&x&z\\ 0&0&1&1&1&1\\ \end{pmatrix}.

The condition that 𝒜\mathcal{A} is generic implies that:

(15) w,x,y,z{0,1},wx,wy,xz,yz,wzxy,wxy+zwz+xy0.w,x,y,z\not\in\{0,1\},\quad w-x,w-y,x-z,y-z,wz-xy,w-x-y+z-wz+xy\neq 0.

Let αp×αp\alpha_{p}\times\alpha_{p^{\prime}} be the cross product of αp\alpha_{p} and αp\alpha_{p^{\prime}}, we will classify each case by means of the Lemma 13 and the equation

(16) det(αp1×αp2,αp3×αp4,αp5×αp6)=0\det(\alpha_{p_{1}}\times\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}}\times\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}}\times\alpha_{p_{6}})=0

which is equivalent to the fact that the intersection L𝕋DL,𝕋={{p1,p2,p3,p4},{p3,p4,p5,p6},{p1,p2,p5,p6}}\bigcap_{L\in\mathbb{T}}D_{L},\mathbb{T}=\{\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{3},p_{4}\},\allowbreak\{p_{3},p_{4},p_{5},p_{6}\},\{p_{1},p_{2},p_{5},p_{6}\}\} is a non-very generic intersection in (3,6,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(3,6,\mathcal{A}) (see [14]).
For simplicity, we write det((p1p2)(p3p4)(p5p6))\det((p_{1}p_{2})(p_{3}p_{4})(p_{5}p_{6})) instead of det(αp1×αp2,αp3×αp4,αp5×αp6)\det(\alpha_{p_{1}}\times\alpha_{p_{2}},\alpha_{p_{3}}\times\alpha_{p_{4}},\alpha_{p_{5}}\times\alpha_{p_{6}}).
Type 1241, 11511^{2}4^{1},\,1^{1}5^{1} : Let 𝒱1241={{ϕ(1),ϕ(2),ϕ(3),ϕ(4)},{ϕ(5)},{ϕ(6)}}\mathcal{V}_{1^{2}4^{1}}=\{\{\phi(1),\phi(2),\phi(3),\phi(4)\},\allowbreak\{\phi(5)\},\{\phi(6)\}\} be a partition of type 12411^{2}4^{1}. With this choice the edges of ϕ(K6)[1241]\phi(K_{6})[1^{2}4^{1}] are determined by (15)(26)(34),(12)(35)(46)(15)(26)(34),(12)(35)(46), and (15)(24)(36)(15)(24)(36). Then the following equations are satisfied.

{0=det((15)(26)(34))=det(011101xy0)=xy,0=det((12)(35)(46))=det(0x1z0wy110zy)=xy+xw+wz,0=det((15)(24)(36))=det(01z10yx10)=xy+z.\left\{\begin{aligned} 0=\det((15)(26)(34))&=&\det\begin{pmatrix}0&1&-1\\ -1&0&1\\ x&-y&0\end{pmatrix}&=&x-y,\\ 0=\det((12)(35)(46))&=&\det\begin{pmatrix}0&-x&1-z\\ 0&w&y-1\\ 1&0&z-y\end{pmatrix}&=&-xy+x-w+wz,\\ 0=\det((15)(24)(36))&=&\det\begin{pmatrix}0&1&-z\\ -1&0&y\\ x&-1&0\end{pmatrix}&=&-xy+z.\\ \end{aligned}\right.

Organizing the above equations, we get

(17) w(1x2)=xx2,y=x,z=x2w(1-x^{2})=x-x^{2},\,y=x,\,z=x^{2}

which has a solution over the rationals.
Analogous computations for the type 11511^{1}5^{1} and the choice of the partition 𝒱1151={{ϕ(1),ϕ(2),ϕ(3),ϕ(4),ϕ(5)},{ϕ(6)}}\mathcal{V}_{1^{1}5^{1}}=\{\{\phi(1),\phi(2),\phi(3),\phi(4),\phi(5)\},\{\phi(6)\}\} yield the equation

x2+x1x^{2}+x-1

which has solution over the field (5)\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{5}).
Type 323^{2} : Analogously to the previous case, if we choose 𝒱32={{ϕ(1),ϕ(2),ϕ(3)},{ϕ(4),ϕ(5),ϕ(6)}}\mathcal{V}_{3^{2}}=\{\{\phi(1),\phi(2),\phi(3)\},\allowbreak\{\phi(4),\phi(5),\phi(6)\}\}, then the edges of ϕ(K6)[32]\phi(K_{6})[3^{2}] are determined by (15)(26)(34),(12)(35)(46),(14)(24)(35)(15)(26)(34),\allowbreak(12)(35)(46),(14)(24)(35), and (15)(23)(46)(15)(23)(46). By algebraic computations we get the equations

w=x2,y=z,z=x2+2x,x42x3+2x2x=0.w=x^{2},\,y=z,\,z=-x^{2}+2x,\,x^{4}-2x^{3}+2x^{2}-x=0.

The last equation yields x(x1)(x2x+1)=0x(x-1)(x^{2}-x+1)=0 which, by x0,1x\neq 0,1 has solution over the field (3)\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{-3}).
Type 23, 2141, 612^{3},\,2^{1}4^{1},\,6^{1} : Let 𝒱23={{ϕ(1),ϕ(2)},{ϕ(3),ϕ(4)},{ϕ(5),ϕ(6)}}\mathcal{V}_{2^{3}}=\{\{\phi(1),\phi(2)\},\allowbreak\{\phi(3),\phi(4)\},\{\phi(5),\phi(6)\}\} be a partition of type 232^{3}. Then the edges of ϕ(K6)[23]\phi(K_{6})[2^{3}] are (15)(26)(34),(15)(24)(36)(15)(26)(34),(15)(24)(36), and (15)(23)(46)(15)(23)(46) which yield

{0=det((15)(26)(34))=xy,0=det((15)(24)(36))=xy+z,0=det((15)(23)(46))=xyx+zy,\left\{\begin{aligned} 0=\det((15)(26)(34))&&=&&x-y,\\ 0=\det((15)(24)(36))&&=&&xy+z,\\ 0=\det((15)(23)(46))&&=&&xy-x+z-y,\end{aligned}\right.

that is

(18) x=y,x=y,z=xy.x=y,\,x=-y,\,z=-xy\quad.

The equations in (18) are satisfied if and only if x=y=0x=y=0 which are not admissible values by (15). Moreover, since the types 21412^{1}4^{1} and 616^{1} have 232^{3} as a substructure, the equations in (18) have to be satisfied in those cases too. Hence we can conclude that there are not arrangements of type 23, 21412^{3},\,2^{1}4^{1}, and 616^{1} in any characteristic 0 commutative field. ∎

Remark 16.

The induced graph by the partition type 161^{6} has no edges, so it corresponds to the very generic arrangement.
The type 323^{2} corresponds to the Hesse configuration mentioned by Sawada, Yamagata, and the second author (cf.Theorem 6.5.6.5. [15]) and it does not appear over the real field. So this classification includes their results.
Notice that, as a consequence of (14), two discriminantal arrangements associated to arrangements of 66 planes in 3\mathbb{C}^{3} can have the same number of non-very generic points, but different combinatorics. On the other hand, this is a classification over characteristic 0 commutative fields thus we cannot exclude the possibility that there are more types of general position arrangements of 66 planes in a 33-dimensional space over a skew field such that the combinatorics of the discriminantal arrangements associated to them are not isomorphic to the ones we described here.

Remark 17.

In the case of type 616^{1}, the arrangement must satisfy 55 equations but the essential parameters of any arrangement of 66 planes in a 33-dimensional space are 44 so the type 616^{1} arrangement does not appear over most fields.
However the condition (18) has a solution when the characteristic of the ground field is 22 so, for example, over the 44 elements finite field 𝔽4=𝔽2[ω]/(ω2+ω+1)\mathbb{F}_{4}=\mathbb{F}_{2}[\omega]/(\omega^{2}+\omega+1) if we choose the normals as

(α1α2α3α4α5α6)=(1001ωω20101ω2ω001111)(\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\alpha_{3}\alpha_{4}\alpha_{5}\alpha_{6})=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0&1&\omega&\omega^{2}\\ 0&1&0&1&\omega^{2}&\omega\\ 0&0&1&1&1&1\end{pmatrix}

we get a type 616^{1} arrangement 𝒜61\mathcal{A}_{6^{1}} with exactly 1515, i.e. the maximum, non-very generic intersections in (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}). Indeed in this case w=z=ω,x=y=ω2w=z=\omega,\,x=y=\omega^{2} and all the equations in the proof of Theorem 15 are satisfied. If we consider (6,3,𝒜61)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}_{6^{1}}) in terms of matroid theory, it includes the uniform matroid U2,4U_{2,4} and rank 22 projective plane (𝔽23){\mathbb{P}}(\mathbb{F}_{2}^{3}) as minors. Thus (6,3,𝒜61)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}_{6^{1}}) is only representable over characteristic 22 fields 𝔽\mathbb{F} with |𝔽|>4\left\lvert\mathbb{F}\right\rvert>4 if the field 𝔽\mathbb{F} is commutative.

5. The minimum intersection lattice of (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) over the real field

Refer to caption
Figure 8. Dodecahedral arrangement

In Section 4.4 we proved that the maximum number of non-very generic intersections in (6,3,𝒜)\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}) over the real (or complex) field is 1010. In this Section we provide an example of such an arrangement: the dodecahedral arrangement 𝒜D={H1,H2,H3,H4,H5,H6}\mathcal{A}_{D}=\left\{H_{1},H_{2},H_{3},H_{4},H_{5},H_{6}\right\} in 3\mathbb{R}^{3} defined by the 66 planes parallel to the faces of the dodecahedron. The normals to the hyperplanes of 𝒜D\mathcal{A}_{D} are given by

(α1α2α3α4α5α6)=(1100ττ00ττ11ττ1100)\left(\alpha_{1}\alpha_{2}\alpha_{3}\alpha_{4}\alpha_{5}\alpha_{6}\right)=\begin{pmatrix}1&1&0&0&\tau&-\tau\\ 0&0&\tau&-\tau&1&1\\ \tau&-\tau&1&1&0&0\\ \end{pmatrix}

where τ\tau is the golden ratio τ=1+52\tau=\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}. The following proposition holds.

Proposition 18.

The discriminantal arrangement associated to the dodecahedral arrangement has 1010 non-very generic intersections.

Proof.

It is an easy computation to show that the 1010 33-sets 𝕋i,i=1,,10\mathbb{T}_{i},i=1,\ldots,10 listed in the table (18) are associated to hyperplanes DL(6,3,𝒜D),L𝕋iD_{L}\in\mathcal{B}(6,3,\mathcal{A}_{D}),L\in\mathbb{T}_{i} which normal vectors satisfy the dependency conditions listed in the equation (19). That is the 1010 intersections L𝕋iDL\bigcap_{L\in\mathbb{T}_{i}}D_{L} are non-very generic.

L1L2L1L3L2L3L1L2L1L3L2L3𝕋1:123546𝕋2:123645𝕋3:132645𝕋4:132456𝕋5:142356𝕋6:142536𝕋7:152346𝕋8:152634𝕋9:162435𝕋10:162534\begin{array}[]{rccc|rccc}&L_{1}\cap L_{2}&L_{1}\cap L_{3}&L_{2}\cap L_{3}&&L_{1}\cap L_{2}&L_{1}\cap L_{3}&L_{2}\cap L_{3}\\ \hline\cr\mathbb{T}_{1}:&12&35&46&\mathbb{T}_{2}:&12&36&45\\ \mathbb{T}_{3}:&13&26&45&\mathbb{T}_{4}:&13&24&56\\ \mathbb{T}_{5}:&14&23&56&\mathbb{T}_{6}:&14&25&36\\ \mathbb{T}_{7}:&15&23&46&\mathbb{T}_{8}:&15&26&34\\ \mathbb{T}_{9}:&16&24&35&\mathbb{T}_{10}:&16&25&34\end{array}
(19) 𝕋1:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{1}: α1235α1246α3546\displaystyle\alpha_{1235}-\alpha_{1246}-\alpha_{3546} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0, 𝕋2:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{2}: α1236α1245α3456\displaystyle\alpha_{1236}-\alpha_{1245}-\alpha_{3456} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0,
𝕋3:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{3}: α1236+α1345+α2456\displaystyle\alpha_{1236}+\alpha_{1345}+\alpha_{2456} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0, 𝕋4:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{4}: α1356α1234α2456\displaystyle\alpha_{1356}-\alpha_{1234}-\alpha_{2456} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0,
𝕋5:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{5}: α1456α1234α2356\displaystyle\alpha_{1456}-\alpha_{1234}-\alpha_{2356} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0, 𝕋6:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{6}: α1346α1245α2356\displaystyle\alpha_{1346}-\alpha_{1245}-\alpha_{2356} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0,
𝕋7:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{7}: α1456α1235α2346\displaystyle\alpha_{1456}-\alpha_{1235}-\alpha_{2346} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0, 𝕋8:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{8}: α2346α1256α1345\displaystyle\alpha_{2346}-\alpha_{1256}-\alpha_{1345} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0,
𝕋9:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{9}: α1246α1356α2345\displaystyle\alpha_{1246}-\alpha_{1356}-\alpha_{2345} =\displaystyle= 0,\displaystyle 0, 𝕋10:\displaystyle\mathbb{T}_{10}: α1346α1256α2345\displaystyle\alpha_{1346}-\alpha_{1256}-\alpha_{2345} =\displaystyle= 0.\displaystyle 0.

This is also a counterexample to the Remark 6.66.6 in [15].

References

  • [1] Daniele Agostini, Taylor Brysiewicz, Claudia Fevola, Lukas Kühne, Bernd Sturmfels, and Simon Telen, Likelihood degenerations, Adv. Math. 414 (2023), Paper No. 108863, 39, With an appendix by Thomas Lam.
  • [2] Christos A Athanasiadis, The largest intersection lattice of a discriminantal arrangement, Beitr. Algebra Geom 40 (1999), no. 2, 283–289.
  • [3] Margaret M Bayer and Keith A Brandt, Discriminantal arrangements, fiber polytopes and formality, Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics 6 (1997), no. 3, 229–246.
  • [4] Beifang Chen, Houshan Fu, and Suijie Wang, Parallel translates of represented matroids, Adv. in Appl. Math. 127 (2021), Paper No. 102176, pp.11.
  • [5] Henry Crapo, The combinatorial theory of structures, Matroid Theory, Colloquia mathematica Societatis János Bolyai, vol. 40, North-Holland, 1985, pp. 107–213.
  • [6] Pragnya Das, Elisa Palezzato, and Simona Settepanella, The generalized sylvester’s and orchard problems via discriminantal arrangement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03007 (2022).
  • [7] Michael Falk, A note on discriminantal arrangements, Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society 122 (1994), no. 4, 1221–1227.
  • [8] Stefan Felsner and Günter M. Ziegler, Zonotopes associated with higher bruhat orders, Discrete Mathematics 241 (2001), no. 1-3, 301–312.
  • [9] Hiroshi Koizumi, Yasuhide Numata, and Akimichi Takemura, On intersection lattices of hyperplane arrangements generated by generic points, ANNALS OF COMBINATORICS 16 (2012), no. 4, 789–813.
  • [10] Anatoly Libgober and Simona Settepanella, Strata of discriminantal arrangements, Journal of Singularities (Special Volume in honor of E. Brieskorn ) 18 (2018), 441–456.
  • [11] Yu I Manin and V Schechtman, Arrangements of hyperplanes, higher braid groups and higher bruhat orders, Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics 17 (1989), 289–308, Algebraic Number Theory — in honor of K. Iwasawa.
  • [12] Yasuhide Numata and Akimichi Takemura, On computation of the characteristic polynomials of the discriminantal arrangements and the arrangements generated by generic points, Harmony of Grobner Bases and the Modern Industrial Society, (Takayuki Hibi, editor), World Scientific (2012), 228–252.
  • [13] James Oxley and Suijie Wang, Dependencies among dependencies in matroids, Electron. J. Combin. 26 (2019), no. 3, Paper No. 3.46, pp.12.
  • [14] Sumire Sawada, Simona Settepanella, and So Yamagata, Discriminantal arrangement, 3×33\times 3 minors of plücker matrix and hypersurfaces in grassmannian Gr(3,𝐂n)Gr(3,\mathbf{C}^{n}), Comptes Rendus Mathematique 355 (2017), no. 11, 1111–1120.
  • [15] Sumire Sawada, Simona Settepanella, and So Yamagata, Pappus’s theorem in grassmannian Gr(3,𝐂n)Gr(3,\mathbf{C}^{n}), ARS MATHEMATICA CONTEMPORANEA 16 (2019), no. 1, 257–276.
  • [16] Simona Settepanella and So Yamagata, A linear condition for non-very generic discriminantal arrangements, arXiv:2205.04664 (2021).
  • [17] Simona Settepanella and So Yamagata, On the non-very generic intersections in discriminantal arrangements, Comptes Rendus Mathematique 360 (2022), 1027–1038.