The Happy Ending problem
The Happy Ending problem asks for the minimum number N(k) of non-collinear points in the plane such that some k of them always form a convex k-gon. In the 1935 paper of Erdös and Szekeres, A Combinatorial Problem in Geometry, three proofs were given for the finiteness of N(k). The first one of them was based on the finiteness of the hypergraph Ramsey numbers. The third proof is based on König's lemma and does not give any concrete bounds for N(k). The second proof, presented below, gives a better bound for N(k).
Theorem 1 (Erdös and Szekeres). We have for all k≥2
\begin{eqnarray}N(k)\leq \binom{2k-4}{k-2}+1.\end{eqnarray}
Proof. Let A_1,...,A_N be non-collinear points in the plane. Give these points cartesian coordinates by choosing x and y axes to be non-parallel to all the lines formed by the A_i. Call a sequence A_{i_1},...,A_{i_k} of points increasing if the slopes of A_{i_1}A_{i_2},A_{i_2}A_{i_3},...,A_{i_{k-1}}A_{i_k} form an increasing sequence, and call it decreasing if the slopes form a decreasing sequence. Note that any increasing or a decreasing sequence of k points forms a convex k-gon. However, it is important to note that the vertices of a k-gon do not always form an increasing or decreasing sequence in any order; consider a regular hexagon for instance.
Define f(k,\ell) as the smallest value of N such that there is always either an increasing sequence of length k or a decreasing sequence of length \ell. Trivially f(k,2)=f(2,k)=2=\binom{k+2-4}{k-2}+1. We show that f(k,\ell)\leq f(k-1,\ell)+f(k,\ell-1)-1, and then f(k,\ell)\leq \binom{k+\ell-4}{k-2} follows by induction from Pascal's triangle.
Consider the sequence of points A_1,A_2,...,A_{f(k,\ell-1)}. Either it contains an increasing sequence of k points or a decreasing sequence of \ell-1 points. We may assume that the latter case holds, and let A_{i_1} be the last point of (one of) the decreasing sequences of length \ell-1. Consider now the sequence A_1,...,A_{i_1-1},A_{i_1+1},...,A_{f(k,\ell)},A_{f(k,\ell)+1}. Again we may assume that there is a decreasing sequence of length \ell-1, and let A_{i_2} be the end point of such a subsequence. Again remove A_{i_2} from the sequence under consideration and add A_{f(k,\ell)+2}. Continuing in this way as long as possible, we get a sequence A_{i_1},..,A_{i_{f(k-1,\ell)}} of distinct points such that each is an endpoint of a decreasing sequence of length \ell-1. Among these f(k-1,\ell) points there is either a decreasing sequence of length \ell or an increasing one length k-1. We may assume that the latter holds, and call the sequence A_1',...,A_{k-1}'. Let A_{j_1},...,A_{j_{\ell-2}},A_1' be a decreasing sequence ending in A_1' (it exists by assumption). Let the slope of AB be s(AB). By assumption, we have \begin{eqnarray}s(A_{j_1}A_{j_2})>...>s(A_{j_{\ell-2}}A_1')\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}s(A_1'A_2')<...<s(A_{\ell-2}'A_{\ell-1}').\end{eqnarray}
If s(A_{j_{\ell}-2}A_1')<s(A_1'A_2'), we see that A_{j_{\ell-2}-1},A_1',...,A_{k-1}' form an increasing sequence of length k, and if s(A_{j_{\ell}-2}A_1')>s(A_1'A_2'), then A_{j_1},...,A_{j_{\ell-2}},A_1',A_2' form a decreasing sequence of length \ell. This proves the statement. ■
The upper bound obtained grows approximately like 4^k, and as in the case of the Ramsey numbers R(k,k), we find a lower bound of size approximately 2^k. This is also due to Erdös and Szekeres, this time from 1961. A key ingredient in the proof, somewhat paradoxically, is actually showing that \binom{2k-4}{k-2} is the largest size of a set not containing an increasing or a decreasing sequence of k points (as already mentioned, there are many k-gons that do not form a monotonous sequence; take for example any k-gon with k\geq 6 that resembles a regular one). We follow these notes by Fernándes.
Lemma 2. Let k and \ell be positive integers and \varepsilon>0. There is a set T of \binom{k+\ell}{k} points in the plane without any increasing sequence of length k+2 or a decreasing sequence of length \ell+2 such that the slopes satisfy |s(PQ)|<\varepsilon for any P,Q\in T.
Proof. We use induction on k+\ell. The case k=1 is trivial: take \ell+1 points A_1,...,A_{\ell+1} whose slopes s(A_iA_{i+1}) decrease but stay between -\varepsilon and \varepsilon. The case \ell=1 is symmetric. We use induction on k+\ell. Let T_1 be a set with \binom{k+\ell-1}{k-1} elements with slopes bounded by \varepsilon and without any increasing sequences of length k+1 or decreasing sequences of length \ell+2. Similarly, let T_2 be a set of \binom{k+\ell-1}{k} with slopes bounded by \varepsilon and without any increasing sequences of length k+2 or decreasing sequences of length \ell+1. Let S_1' and S_2' be homothetic copies of S_1 and S_2 such that S_1 belongs to the ball B\left((0,0),\frac{\varepsilon}{100}\right) and S_2 belongs to the ball B\left((\varepsilon,10\varepsilon),\frac{\varepsilon}{100}\right). Now the slope between any points, one of which is from S_1' and the other from S_2', is \geq 2\varepsilon. Let I be an increasing sequence in S_1'\cup S_2'. If I\subset S_1' or I\subset S_2', then |I|<k+2, so we are done. Therefore, let A_1,...,A_r be the points of I, with A_1,...,A_s belonging to S_1' and the rest belonging to S_2'. Now by construction s(A_sA_{s+1})\geq 2\varepsilon but s(A_{s+1}A_{s+2})\leq \varepsilon. This is a contradiction, so S_1'\cup S_2' has no increasing sequence of length k+2. Similarly if A_1,...,A_r is a decreasing sequence of points such that A_1,...,A_s belong to S_2' and the rest belong to S_1', we have s(A_sA_{s+1})\leq -2\varepsilon but s(A_{s+1}A_{s+2})\in [-\varepsilon,\varepsilon]. The slopes are bounded by 100\varepsilon, which can be taken to be arbitrarily small. ■
Now we are ready to prove the lower bound for N(k).
Theorem 3 (Erdös and Szkeres). We have
\begin{eqnarray}N(k)\geq 2^{k-2}+1.\end{eqnarray}
Proof. We are going to construct a set of 2^{k-2} points without convex k-gons. Consider the vertices P_1,...,P_{4k-4} of a regular (4k-4)-gon centered at the origin. Let P_1,...,P_{k-1} be the vertices belonging to the quadrant bounded by the lines y=x and y=-x. We define k-1 sets T_0,...,T_{k-2} of points with the following properties.
(i) T_i has \binom{k-2}{i} points.
(ii) T_i has neither an increasing sequence of length k+2 nor a decreasing sequence of length k-i.
(iii) For any P,Q\in T_i, the slope s(PQ) is in [-1,1].
These conditions can be satisfied in view of Lemma 2. Let T_1',..,T_i' be homothetic copies of T_0,...,T_{k-2} such that T_i belongs to the ball B\left(P_{i-1},\frac{1}{100k^2}\right), say. Now we have a set S whose points are centered in small neighborhoods of P_1,..,P_{n-1}. We also have
\begin{eqnarray}|S|\leq \sum_{i\leq k-2}\binom{n-2}{i}=2^{k-2}.\end{eqnarray}
Let C be a convex polygon whose vertices are from S. Let i be the smallest index such that C\cap T_i\neq \emptyset, and let j be the largest index such that C\cap T_j\neq \emptyset. Let P\in C\cap T_i,P'\in C\cap T_j. Suppose C\cap T_r contains two points, Q and Q' for some i<r<j. The slope of PP' is at least 1+\frac{1}{20k} , since the slope between P_i and P_{i+1} for i\leq n-2 is at least 1+\frac{1}{10k}, say. On the other hand, s(QQ')\leq 1 by definition, so s(QQ') must be negative. But then s(QQ')\geq -1, while s(Q'P')\leq -1-\frac{1}{20k}. Hence S contains at most one point from each T_r, i<r<j. Also the points in C\cap T_i form a monotonous sequence, which clearly must be increasing. Similarly the points in C\cap T_j form a decreasing sequence. By the definition of the sets T_0,...,T_{k-2}, this means that C\cap T_i has at most i+1 elements, C\cap T_j has at most k-j-1 elements, and C has in total at most (i+1)+(k-j-1)+(j-i-1)=k-1 elements. The construction is now complete.
The bounds produced by the method above are very close to the best results known about N(k). Indeed, Erdös and Szekeres conjectured that N(k)=2^{k-2}+1 always, but this remains open. For k\leq 6 this is known. The upper bound in turn has only been improved to N(k)\leq \binom{2n-5}{n-2}+2 by Tóth and Valtr.
Erdös distinct distances problem
We now turn to the Erdös distinct distances problem, which asks for the minimum number of distinct distances between n points in the plane. This problem is another classical example of how hard simple-looking questions in Ramsey theory can turn out to be. Define D(n) as the minimum number of distances among n points. A trivial bound is D(n)\leq \lfloor \frac{n}{2}\rfloor, coming from a regular n-gon. Erdös was able to prove the following result in 1946.
Theorem 4 (Erdös). For n\geq 3, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\sqrt{n-\frac{3}{4}}-\frac{1}{2}<D(n)<\frac{cn}{\sqrt{\log n}},\end{eqnarray}
where c>0 is a certain constant.
Proof. We start with the lower bound. Let C be the convex hull of a set of n points P_1,...,P_n (the convex hull is the convex polygon whose vertices are from the set and which contains all the other points). Let P_{a} be a vertex of it. Consider the n-1 distances P_aP_i,a\neq a. Let K be number of different distances among these n-1 points, and let N the maximum number of times a single distance occurs among these n-1 distances. Then KN\geq n-1, or K\geq \frac{n-1}{N}. By assumption, there exists r such that N of the distances P_aP_i are equal to r. Now these points, say Q_1,...,Q_N form a semicircle, because C was convex. We may assume that Q_1,...,Q_N are ordered in positive direction along the circle, so Q_1Q_2<...<Q_1Q_N. Hence D(n)\geq \max\left\{\frac{n-1}{N},N-1\right\}. The maximum is achieved when N(N-1)=n-1, and from this we easily solve for N.
The upper bound comes via an entirely different argument. Consider the points (a,b) with integer points in the first quadrant of the plane, satisfying 0<a,b<\sqrt{n}. The squared distance between any such points (a,b) and (c,d) is (a-c)^2+(b-d)^2, and hence the sum of two squares with |a-c|,|b-d|< \sqrt{n}. Counting the number of integers in
\begin{eqnarray}\{n\leq y:n=a^2+b^2\,\, \text{with}\,\, a,b\in \mathbb{Z}\}\end{eqnarray}
is a simple sieve problem, because it is well-known that the set of prime divisors of the numbers a^2+b^2 is p\equiv 1\pmod 4 and p=2. Selberg's upper bound sieve (Theorems 1 and 5 from this post) gives
\begin{eqnarray}|\{n\leq y:n=a^2+b^2\,\, \text{with}\,\, a,b\in \mathbb{Z}\}|\ll y\prod_{p\leq y^{\frac{1}{3}}}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)\ll \frac{y}{\sqrt{\log y}}\end{eqnarray}
by the prime number theorem in arithmetic progressions. Choosing y=n the theorem follows. ■
The proof above is quite elementary, but Erdös was not able to improve his bounds. He did conjecture, though, that D(n)\gg n^{1-\varepsilon} for any \varepsilon>0, so the lower bound should be far from the truth. In 1952, Moser improved Erdös' result to D(n)\gg n^{\frac{2}{3}}. Over the years, several improvements were given, until in 2010 Guth and Katz proved with a very complicated argument that D(n)\gg \frac{n}{\log n}, which settles the problem up to logarithmic factors.
The Hadwiger-Nelson problem
We consider lastly a problem that is of a bit different nature than the two previous ones, as here we color an uncountable number of points. The problem of Hadwiger and Nelson asks for the smallest number of colors such that in any coloring of the points of \mathbb{R}^2 there are two points at distance one from each other. The smallest such number is called the chromatic number of the plane and denoted by \chi(\mathbb{R}^2). As with the previous problems, there are simple arguments that give the best known bounds.
Theorem 5. We have 4\leq \chi(\mathbb{R}^2)\leq 7.
\textbf{Proof.} We start with the upper bound. Tessellate the plane with regular hexagons of side length 0.9 parallel to the coordinate axes. We call a flower a collection of seven hexagon tiles such that one of them is adjacent to the others. The tessellation by hexagons of course induces a tessellation by flowers (after fixing one hexagon tile as a center of a flower). In each flower we color the central hexagon with color 1 and the remaining hexagons with the colors 2,3,...,7 such that the colorings of all the flowers are identical. The boundaries of the hexagons can be colored with any of the colors of one of the neighboring hexagons. Now the distance between two points with the same color is easily seen to be at least 0.9\cdot \sqrt{7}>1.
The lower bound is given by the Moser spindle, a certain configuration of 7 points in the plane. Let ABCD be a rhombus of side length 1 and angles \frac{\pi}{3} and \frac{2\pi}{3}, the angle at A being the smaller one. We may say that A is colored with 1, B with 2, C with 3 and D is colored with 1 (otherwise we must use the fourth color). Rotate ABCD around D so that D moves along a circle. Rotate it until D is mapped to D' with DD'=1. Let the images of B and C in this rotation be B' and C'. Now B' and C' are colored with 2 and 3 in either order and D' is colored with 1. However, this is a contradiction as |DD'|=1. ■
The lower bound is due to the Moser brothers from 1961, while the upper bound was proved by Isbell in 1950. Determining the exact value of \chi(\mathbb{R}^2) is an important problem in discrete geometry, but there are several guesses for what the answer could be. Erdös said in 1994 that ''almost surely'' \chi(\mathbb{R}^2)\geq 5. On the other hand, the answer may depend on the set of axioms for set theory, as we are dividing \mathbb{R}^2 into uncountable and possibly highly pathological sets.
One may ask more generally, what is the chromatic number of \mathbb{R}^n. The bounds known for it of course get weaker as n grows, and the best ones known in general are
\begin{eqnarray}(1.239+o(1))^n\leq \chi(\mathbb{R}^n)\leq (3+o(1))^n.\end{eqnarray}
The upper bound was shown by Frankl and Wilson, and the lower one by Raĭgorodskiĭ. We consider a different generalization, moving from \mathbb{R}^2 to the rational plane \mathbb{Q}^2. Surprisingly, \chi(\mathbb{Q}^2) is known and quite easy to determine. Moreover, it is much smaller than \chi(\mathbb{R}^2).
Theorem 6 (Woodall, 1973). We have \chi(\mathbb{Q}^2)=2.
Proof. Obviously two colors are needed, so we must find a coloring of \mathbb{Q}^2 with two colors and no two points at distance 1 apart. Let \left(\frac{a}{b},\frac{c}{d}\right) we a point on the unit circle with a and b as well as c and d coprime. Then a^2d^2+b^2c^2=b^2d^2. We have b^2\mid a^2d^2, so b^2\mid d^2 and hence b\mid d. Similarly d\mid b, so b=\pm d. Now a^2+b^2=b^2, and if b is even, then a and b are both even, a contradiction. We conclude that if (q_1,q_2) and (r_1,r_2) are any rational points at distance one apart, then q_1-r_1 and q_2-r_2 are odd, meaning that their denominators are odd when written in reduced form.
We say that two pairs of rationals (q_1,q_2) and (r_1,r_2) are equivalent, and denote (q_1,q_2)\sim (r_1,r_2), if q_1-r_1 and q_2-r_2 are odd. Clearly this relation is reflexive and symmetric. We show that it is transitive, so that it becomes an equivalence classes. Let (q_1,q_2)\sim (q_3,q_4)\sim (q_5,q_6),. Now q_1-q_3 and q_3-q_5 are odd, so their sum q_1-q_5 is odd. Similarly q_2-q_6 is odd, so (q_1,q_2)\sim (q_5,q_6).
Now \mathbb{Q}^2 is partitioned into equivalence classes by \sim. It suffices to color the points in one equivalence class, since if two points have distance one, they are equivalent. One equivalence class (the class of the point (0,0)) is the set of all odd rationals; we will color this class. Let the color of \left(\frac{a}{b},\frac{c}{d}\right), where \frac{a}{b} and \frac{c}{d} are reduced and odd, be red if a+c is odd and blue otherwise. Let \left(\frac{a_1}{b_1},\frac{a_2}{b_2}\right),\left(\frac{a_3}{b_3},\frac{a_4}{b_4}\right) be odd reduced points at distance one apart. Then
\begin{eqnarray}(a_1b-3-a_3b_1)^2(b_2b_4)^2+(a_2b-4-a_4b_2)^2(b_1b_3)^2=(b_1b_2b_3b_4)^2.\end{eqnarray}
As b_1,b_2,b_3 and b_4 are odd, a-1b_3-a_3b_1 and a-2b_4-a_4b_2 have different parities. Hence a_1-a_3 and a_2-a_4 have different parities. This means that a_1+a_3 and a_2+a_4 have different parities, so it is not possible that a_1+a_2 and a_3+a_4 have the same parity. Hence \left(\frac{a_1}{b_1},\frac{a_2}{b_2}\right) and \left(\frac{a_3}{b_3},\frac{a_4}{b_4}\right) have different colors, so the proof is finished. ■