[HN Gopher] 'Once in a Century' Proof Settles Math's Kakeya Conj...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       'Once in a Century' Proof Settles Math's Kakeya Conjecture
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 89 points
       Date   : 2025-03-14 23:21 UTC (23 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.quantamagazine.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.quantamagazine.org)
        
       | hsshhshshjk wrote:
       | The article stops half way through?
        
         | asplake wrote:
         | Reader mode?
        
         | shakna wrote:
         | It waits until some packages from unpkg.com load, and then
         | loads in the rest of the article.
        
         | kbmr wrote:
         | need to wait another century for the rest
        
         | jan_Inkepa wrote:
         | I had to reload a few times - eventually it loaded everything.
        
       | nextts wrote:
       | Animation looks like how a skilled fighter might used a double
       | barbed weapon. Maybe there is a connection? Minimise movement
       | (time, energy use) while maximising agility?
        
       | larodi wrote:
       | https://archive.is/YzZUA
        
       | keming wrote:
       | Calling all Blue Blaze Irregulars...
       | 
       | We're one step closer to the Oscillation Overthruster!
        
         | gcanyon wrote:
         | Big-boo-tay!! Tay, Tay, tay!
         | 
         | (hello, fellow old!)
        
       | vrnvu wrote:
       | Time to add a leetcode medium problem for this.
        
         | kevinventullo wrote:
         | Joking aside, I feel like a variation of this could make a good
         | Project Euler problem...
        
       | jan_Inkepa wrote:
       | "Consider a pencil lying on your desk. Try to spin it around so
       | that it points once in every direction, but make sure it sweeps
       | over as little of the desk's surface as possible."
       | 
       | I'm really stuck at the start here - moving a pen so that it
       | pointing in all directions is basically impossible - the space of
       | directions is two-dimensional and you can only trace out a one-
       | dimensional curve (or pair of curves).
       | 
       | Ok, wikipedia makes it clearer:
       | 
       | "In mathematics, a Kakeya set, or Besicovitch set, is a set of
       | points in Euclidean space which contains a unit line segment in
       | every direction."
       | 
       | Quanta writers are generally very good at explaining things, but
       | wikipedia wins hands down in this case...
        
         | tromp wrote:
         | The Wikipedia entry [1] has some good illustrations for the
         | 2-dimensional case.
         | 
         | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakeya_set
        
         | seanhunter wrote:
         | It's not pointing in all directions at once, it's pointing once
         | in each direction. So if you spin the pencil so it does exactly
         | one complete rotation that works, doesn't it?
        
           | OJFord wrote:
           | Yes, and spinning the pencil on its centre like that shows
           | that the circle (of pencil length diameter) is such a set. (I
           | think you're thinking about it the wrong way around: it's
           | which containing shapes allow this, not how can it be done at
           | all.)
        
           | rsaarelm wrote:
           | I think OP is thinking about covering the sphere of
           | directions in 3D space, not just directions in a 2D plane. No
           | matter how hard you spin the pencil, you're drawing a one-
           | dimensional curve that has no area, so any finite amount you
           | draw will cover zero percent of the area of the two-
           | dimensional sphere surface.
        
             | flufluflufluffy wrote:
             | > No matter how hard you spin the pencil, you're drawing a
             | one-dimensional curve that has no area
             | 
             | The object doesn't matter, using pencil as the example was
             | what threw you off - it's not about what the pencil
             | "draws". Consider a thin cylinder, or rectangular prism, or
             | just a stick - if you spin it around, its endpoints trace
             | out a circle whose diameter is the length of the stick. You
             | can move and spin such an object in another way where the
             | shape traced out by its endpoints has smaller area than
             | that circle.
        
           | jan_Inkepa wrote:
           | in 2d, but not in 3d though (like in the video on top of the
           | article)!
        
         | Someone wrote:
         | > Ok, wikipedia makes it clearer:
         | 
         | > "In mathematics, a Kakeya set, or Besicovitch set, is a set
         | of points in Euclidean space which contains a unit line segment
         | in every direction."
         | 
         | Is that definition correct/complete? It leaves open the option
         | that such a set isn't connected. I think there's an additional
         | requirement that, for any two directions D and E, you can move
         | a line segment oriented in direction D so that it's oriented in
         | direction E without any point on it ever leaving the set.
        
           | shiandow wrote:
           | The minimal set is trivially connected. Though showing any
           | two unit line segments have a homology between them is
           | trickier.
        
       | gsf_emergency_2 wrote:
       | https://youtu.be/hySXxdlKdNI?t=17m28s
        
       | blincoln wrote:
       | The animation in the article looks like a simplified diagram of a
       | rotary engine or a drill that will cut polygon-shaped holes
       | instead of round holes.
       | 
       | The article mentions a connection to the Fourier transform, which
       | makes sense because nested rotations are essentially summed sine
       | waves in a different coordinate space.[1]
       | 
       | Is there more of a connection than that between the Kakeya
       | conjecture, physical machines like rotary engines, and additive
       | wave synthesis, or are they all fairly different branches of
       | "interesting things one can do with nested rotations / summed
       | sine waves"?
       | 
       | I'm curious if proving the conjecture opens up new possibilities
       | in mechanical engineering or sound/EM wave synthesis/analysis, in
       | other words.
       | 
       | [1] Apologies in advance if I mauled this description.
        
       | arutar wrote:
       | This is a very phenomenal result and everyone in the field is
       | excited about this! Josh and Hong both gave talks about this at a
       | conference 2 weeks ago in Berkeley, and the videos are online:
       | [1] [2]. Josh's talk (at least from my perspective of someone who
       | is adjacent to this field) is quite approachable, whereas Hong
       | talks more about the induction scheme on Guth's grains
       | decomposition which is quite a bit more technical.
       | 
       | I visited Josh at UBC last year around this time and I recall
       | asking him if he thought Kakeya in dimension 3 would be solved
       | soon. I remember that he believed it would be (though perhaps he
       | was worried by someone other than Hong and himself). In the end
       | they were able to complete the proof themselves.
       | 
       | Hong is probably quite a serious candidate for the fields medal
       | because of this. She has already made impressive progress on
       | problems in harmonic analysis and geometric measure theory and
       | she is one of few people has a firm foothold in both fields at
       | the same time.
       | 
       | The quanta article talks about a 'tower of conjectures' in
       | harmonic analysis; at the top of the tower is the so-called
       | "local smoothing conjecture" (a conjecture about how much waves,
       | such as 'idealized' sound waves, can amplify from some initial
       | configuration when averaged over time). A Kakeya set is a certain
       | type of geometric obstruction to local smoothing; resolving the
       | full conjecture also requires handling so-called 'oscillatory'
       | obstructions. In dimension 2 + 1 (2 spatial and 1 time dimension)
       | the local smoothing was only recently resolved (also by Hong and
       | co-authors [3]); even though the corresponding result for Kakeya
       | sets in dimension 2 has been known for over 40 years.
       | 
       | [1] https://player.vimeo.com/video/1062254156
       | 
       | [2] https://player.vimeo.com/video/1063428579
       | 
       | [3] https://annals.math.princeton.edu/2020/192-2/p06
        
       | Avshalom wrote:
       | Wait, "once in a century"? How many times has this been proven
       | such that they feel comfortable talking about the statistical
       | rate of proofs?
        
         | xenocratus wrote:
         | I can tell a HN article is from Quanta from the obnoxious
         | clickbaity title. I'm shocked that they have to do this given
         | their target audience (because I'd rather not believe they just
         | choose to)
        
           | aoki wrote:
           | Each area has its own "most important" conjecture(s), so
           | Quanta is in no danger of running out of proofs to write
           | about that somebody legitimately thinks are super important.
           | 
           | (Alas, while "most important" conjectures are a renewable
           | resource, lay reader tolerance for such headlines may not
           | be.)
        
         | aoki wrote:
         | The study of Kakeya sets is over 100 years old -- so if you
         | think this generalized conjecture is the most important one in
         | their subfield, you can see why somebody would describe it this
         | way.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-15 23:01 UTC)