Is there always a straight line bisecting a finite set of points on a plane?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dragonfall
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometry
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there is always a straight line that can bisect a finite set of points on a plane. Participants explore various approaches to proving this concept, including mathematical reasoning and geometric interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests considering a finite set of points S contained within a box B and proposes a method involving polar coordinates to find a bisecting line.
  • Another participant expresses confusion about the meaning of a specific condition regarding points not being on certain lines, indicating a gap in understanding.
  • A clarification is made that the selection of a point p should ensure it is not collinear with any two points in S, allowing for a line to be rotated through p to count the number of points it intersects.
  • Some participants question the definition of "bisecting," particularly whether a line passing through points counts towards the bisection.
  • A participant introduces the concept of separating convex sets and references the Mazur separation lemma, suggesting it could be applicable to the problem.
  • Concerns are raised about the case of an odd number of points, questioning whether a bisecting line can pass through an odd number of points and still achieve a balanced division.
  • It is noted that if the number of points is odd, one group will necessarily have one more point than the other when using certain methods.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing interpretations of what constitutes a bisecting line and whether it can be achieved under various conditions. There is no consensus on the method or the implications of having an odd number of points.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential gaps in understanding and the need for clarification on definitions and conditions related to the problem. The discussion reflects uncertainty regarding the implications of point distribution and the geometric properties involved.

Dragonfall
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
5
How do you show that there is always a straight line bisecting a finite set of points on a plane?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Okay, I'll bite:

Let the set of points be S, let |S| = n, and suppose S is contained in some box B = [-a, a] X [-a, a] (S is finite, after all). Consider the set L of all lines that pass through at least 2 points in S. Then L is finite, so the set T consisting of all points p such that (1) for all lines l in L, p is not on l is nonempty, and (2) p is below and to the left of B (that is, [tex]p \in (-\infty, -a] \times (-\infty, -a][/tex] ) is nonempty. Choose some p in T, and center a polar coordinate system at p, with polar axis parallel to the x-axis. For all q in S, define [tex]\theta(q)[/tex] as the modulus of q, considered as a point in this polar coordinate system (note that by the way we defined p, we always have [tex]\displaystyle 0 \leq \theta(q) \leq \frac{\pi}{2}[/tex]). Define a discrete mapping [tex]\displaystyle f : \left[0, \frac{\pi}{2} \right] \to \mathbb{N}[/tex] by [tex]f(t) = | \{ q \in S \; : \; \theta(q) \leq t \} |[/tex]. By the way we defined p, for all [tex]m \leq n[/tex], there exists some [tex]t_m[/tex] such that [tex]f(t_m) = n[/tex]. Furthermore, we can consider the smallest such [tex]t_m[/tex]; write this as [tex]\tilde{t}_m[/tex]. If n is odd, then the line through p of slope
[tex]\displaystyle \tan(\tilde{t}_{\frac{1}{2} (n+1)})[/tex]
does the trick; if n is even, then the line through p of slope
[tex]\displaystyle \tan(t_{\frac{1}{2} n})[/tex],
where [tex]t_{\frac{1}{2} n} \neq \tilde{t}_{\frac{1}{2} n}[/tex], suffices.
 
VKint said:
(1) for all lines l in L, p is not on l is nonempty

I'm not sure what this means.

This can't be the easiest way to prove this. I can't figure out how to prove this. It's like a gap in my math education.
 
I'm not sure what this means.

Yeah, that sentence should have read:

"Then L is finite, so the set T consisting of all points p such that (1) for all lines l in L, p is not on l, and (2) p is below and to the left of B (that is, [tex]p \in (-\infty, -a] \times (-\infty, -a][/tex] ) is nonempty." In other words,
[tex]\{p \; : \; \ell \in L \Rightarrow p \notin \ell \; \textrm{and} \; p \in (-\infty, -a] \times (-\infty, -a] \} \neq \emptyset[/tex].

It's actually a very easy proof; my post above just got a bit bogged down in formalism. The idea is that you select a point p far to the left and below all your points (again, call the set of all your points S), such that no line runs through p and any two points in S, and imagine rotating a line slowly through p. You then keep track of how many times the line has "hit" a point in S. The crucial idea is that you can arrange things so that this count always increases by just one at a time (this is why we chose p so that it's not collinear with any two points in S). Furthermore, at some point, the line has "hit" all the points in S, so the final count is |S|. There is therefore a time at which the line has hit exactly half of the points in S.
 
First, what do you mean by "bisecting a finite set of points"? In particular, if the line passes through some of the points and has the same number of points on each side, is that "bisecting"?
 
If you can separate any 2 convex sets, then you can iteratively build up 2 balanced disjoint convex hulls of your points. This is actually pretty general - the Mazur separation lemma let's you separate convex sets in any Banach space.

here is a diagram:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5483/convexs1.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
First, what do you mean by "bisecting a finite set of points"? In particular, if the line passes through some of the points and has the same number of points on each side, is that "bisecting"?

Bisecting in this case means dividing the plane into 2 half planes each of which contains an equal number of points. If a point is on the line then it counts towards both sides.

I guess that separation lemma could work, but what if there's an odd number of points? Then the bisecting line must pass through an odd number of points. Not sure if that's always possible.
 
VKint said:
Yeah, that sentence should have read:

"Then L is finite, so the set T consisting of all points p such that (1) for all lines l in L, p is not on l, and (2) p is below and to the left of B (that is, [tex]p \in (-\infty, -a] \times (-\infty, -a][/tex] ) is nonempty." In other words,
[tex]\{p \; : \; \ell \in L \Rightarrow p \notin \ell \; \textrm{and} \; p \in (-\infty, -a] \times (-\infty, -a] \} \neq \emptyset[/tex].

It's actually a very easy proof; my post above just got a bit bogged down in formalism. The idea is that you select a point p far to the left and below all your points (again, call the set of all your points S), such that no line runs through p and any two points in S, and imagine rotating a line slowly through p. You then keep track of how many times the line has "hit" a point in S. The crucial idea is that you can arrange things so that this count always increases by just one at a time (this is why we chose p so that it's not collinear with any two points in S). Furthermore, at some point, the line has "hit" all the points in S, so the final count is |S|. There is therefore a time at which the line has hit exactly half of the points in S.

Ok I think I got the idea. This could work.
 
Dragonfall said:
I guess that separation lemma could work, but what if there's an odd number of points? Then the bisecting line must pass through an odd number of points. Not sure if that's always possible.

ah yeah youre going to have to do some modification if you want it exactly half and half. If the number of points is odd, with this method one group will have exactly 1 more point than the other group.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K