Zaz Brown
The Affine Plank Conjecture is about planks covering convex bodies.
A convex body is a shape with no inward curves, like the one shown in red on the leftbelow.
to make it convex.
A plank is a region between two parallel lines (or two parallel hyperplanes in higher dimensions).
A plank's relative width is its width divided by the width of the convex body, measured perpendicular to the plank.
In 1951 Thøger Bang conjectured that if planks cover a convex body, their relative widths must sum to at least .
But nobody has been able to prove this for 75 years.
Each gap chooses one side of each plank: 2 × 2 × 2 possibilities. Empty cells have area zero.
Even the case of 3 planks on a triangle is full of complexity.
The planks contribute three dimensions each: position, width, and angle.
Together, these form a 9-dimensional parameter space. To see what that means, let's start by considering just one parameter…
We call the uncovered regions gap cells.
There are 8 possible gap cells.
The Affine Plank Conjecture is equivalent to saying that when the relative widths of the planks sum to less than one, there is always a gap cell with positive area.
Each triple is a plank’s position, relative width, and angle.
The slide shows one variable at a time, with the other eight fixed. The full formula accounts for all nine.
Each plank has a position x, a relative width w, and an angle θ. Subscripts identify the purple, green, and red planks. Formula angles are in radians; the live inputs display degrees.
For the rational angle formulas, , for plank .
These eight equations cover all configurations, including empty gaps. Each value is the fraction of the triangle occupied by that gap.
F and every symbol it uses are defined below.
A triple (a, b, c) means the half-plane au + bv ≤ c. Pj0 and Pj1 describe the two sides of plank j. Including the boundary does not change its area.
The vertices v1, v2, v3 run counterclockwise. Set v4 = v1. Its three outward boundary triples are:
For F(P1, P2, P3), take the six triples in the order (T1, T2, T3, P1, P2, P3). Write the rth triple as (ar, br, cr).
The shared expressions below give er. Both r and s range from 1 to 6.
Each of the other inequalities puts a lower or upper bound on the part of line r that can remain. Take the strongest bounds:
Both sets have a member because the triangle is bounded. Let Xr mean a parallel inequality excludes line r, and Rr mean an earlier line repeats the same outward boundary:
The complete piecewise rule is:
Rr counts coincident outward boundaries only once. Opposite boundaries are retained: if the gap collapses to a line, their area contributions cancel.
This uses only arithmetic, trigonometric functions, finite minima and maxima, and the written conditions. With angles fixed, it is piecewise quadratic in positions and widths.
Parameterize boundary r by:
Substitution in inequality s gives Drst ≤ Brs, which explains the bounds. A surviving edge runs from tr− to tr+. Its oriented shoelace contribution is crer. Summing the edges, dividing by 2, and dividing by |K| gives the area fraction. An empty intersection has no surviving edges; a point or line has zero area.
These are the pieces active at the current configuration. Their boundary conditions are listed below each formula.
For each gap, lines 1–3 are the triangle boundaries and lines 4–6 are the chosen sides of the three planks. Line r is aru + brv = cr. Its corners are intersections of the listed lines, inside all six half-planes.
|K| is the triangle's area. The coefficients depend on the angles; with angles fixed, each piece is quadratic in positions and widths.
We found piecewise-rational formulas for the area of each gap cell, but the are incredibly complicated. The table above shows their current pieces, with rounded coefficients. Click a formula to see more.
So all that remained was to set the area of every gap cell equal to zero and solve.
As a computer scientist, I thought: finding an intersection of sets is easy.
For finite sets, yes, but not so for sets of real numbers.
For polynomial inequalities, a standard general method is cylindrical algebraic decomposition (CAD)…
But its worst-case running time is doubly exponential in the number of variables, so the naive approach is not feasible, even on the triangle.
For 3 planks on a convex body, accounting for the boundary of the convex body adds even more complexity.
For 20 planks, the gap cells themselves become much more numerous and complex.
And for 100 planks, we had better dim the lights…