the motivation for the study reported in this paper comes from the celebrated and long - standing problem , originally posed by erds @xcite in 1946 , of obtaining a sharp lower bound for the number of distinct distances guaranteed to exist in any set @xmath0 of @xmath1 points in the plane .
erds has shown that a section of the integer lattice determines only @xmath10 distinct distances , and conjectured this to be a lower bound for any planar point set . in spite of steady progress on this problem , reviewed next , erds s conjecture is still open .
l. moser @xcite , chung @xcite , and chung  @xcite proved that the number of distinct distances determined by @xmath1 points in the plane is @xmath11 , @xmath12 , and @xmath13 , respectively .
szkely @xcite managed to get rid of the polylogarithmic factor , while solymosi and tth @xcite improved this bound to @xmath14 .
this was a real breakthrough .
their analysis was subsequently refined by tardos @xcite and then by katz and tardos @xcite , who obtained the current record of @xmath15 , for any @xmath16 , which is @xmath17 .    in this paper
we transform the problem of distinct distances in the plane to an incidence problem between points and a certain kind of curves ( helices or parabolas ) in three dimensions . as we show , sharp upper bounds on the number of such incidences translate back to sharp lower bounds on the number of distinct distances .
incidence problems in three dimensions between points and curves have been studied in several recent works @xcite , and a major push in this direction has been made last year , with the breakthrough result of guth and katz  @xcite , who have introduced methods from algebraic geometry for studying problems of this kind .
this has been picked up by the authors  @xcite , where worst - case tight bounds on the number of incidences between points and lines in three dimensions ( under certain restrictions ) have been obtained .
the present paper serves two purposes .
first , it studies in detail the connection between the distinct distances problem and the corresponding 3-dimensional incidence problem . as it turns out ,
there is a lot of interesting geometric structure behind this reduction , and the paper develops it in detail .
we offer several conjectures on the number of incidences , and show how , if true , they yield the almost tight worst - case lower bound @xmath9 on the number of distinct distances .
unfortunately , so far we have not succeeded in proving these conjectures .
nevertheless , we have made considerable progress on the incidence problem itself , which is the second purpose of the study in this paper .
we show how to adapt the algebraic machinery of @xcite to derive sharp bounds for the incidence problem . @xcite to derive sharp bounds for the incidence problem .
these bounds are very similar to , and in fact even better than the bounds obtained in @xcite for point - line incidences , where they have been shown to be worst - case tight .
however , they are not ( yet ) good enough to yield significant lower bounds for distinct distances .
we believe that there is additional geometric structure in the particular problem studied here , which should enable one to further improve the bounds , but so far this remains elusive .
the paper is organized as follows .
we first describe the reduction from the planar distinct distances problem to the 3-dimensional incidence problem mentioned above . in doing so , we note and explore several additional geometric connections between the two problems ( as manifested , e.g. , in the analysis of _ special surfaces _ given below ) .
we then present the tools from algebraic geometry that are needed to tackle the incidence problem ; they are variants of the tools used in @xcite , adapted to the specific curves that we need to handle .
we then go on to bound the number of incidences .
we first bound the number of rotations in terms of the number of parabolas , and then bound the number of incidences themselves .
the latter task is achieved in two steps .
we first use a `` purely algebraic '' analysis , akin to those in @xcite , to obtain a weaker bound , which we then refine in the second step , using more traditional space decomposition techniques .
the final bound is still not as good as we would like it to be , but it shows that the case studied in this paper `` behaves better '' than its counterpart involving lines .    [
[ distinct - distances - and - incidences - with - helices . ] ] distinct distances and incidences with helices .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    we offer the following novel approach to the problem of distinct distances .
[ [ h1-notation . ] ] ( h1 ) notation .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + +    let @xmath0 be a set of @xmath1 points in the plane with @xmath18 distinct distances .
let @xmath19 denote the set of all quadruples @xmath20 , such that the pairs @xmath21 and @xmath22 are distinct ( although the points themselves need not be ) and @xmath23 .
let @xmath24 denote the @xmath18 distinct distances in @xmath0 , and let @xmath25 .
we have @xmath26 ^ 2 = \frac{\left[s(s-1)-x\right]^2}{x } .\ ] ]    [ [ h2-rotations . ] ] ( h2 ) rotations .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    we associate each @xmath27 with a ( unique ) _ rotation _ ( or , rather , a rigid , orientation - preserving transformation of the plane ) @xmath28 , which maps @xmath29 to @xmath30 and @xmath31 to @xmath32 .
a rotation @xmath28 , in complex notation , can be written as the transformation @xmath33 , where @xmath34 and @xmath35 .
putting @xmath36 , @xmath37 , we can represent @xmath28 by the point @xmath38 . in the planar context
, @xmath39 is the counterclockwise angle of the rotation , and the center of rotation is @xmath40 , which is defined for @xmath41 ; for @xmath42 , @xmath28 is a pure translation .
the _ multiplicity _ @xmath43 of a rotation @xmath28 ( with respect to @xmath0 ) is defined as @xmath44 the number of pairs @xmath45 such that @xmath46 . clearly , one always has @xmath47 , and we will mostly consider only rotations satisfying @xmath48 . as a matter of fact , the bulk of the paper will only consider rotations with multiplicity at least @xmath49 .
rotations with multiplicity @xmath50 are harder to analyze .    if @xmath51 then @xmath0 contains two congruent and equally oriented copies @xmath52 of some @xmath5-element set , such that @xmath53 .
thus , studying multiplicities of rotations is closely related to analyzing repeated ( congruent and equally oriented ) patterns in a planar point set ; see @xcite for a review of many problems of this kind .
[ [ anti - rotations . ] ] anti - rotations .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    in this paper we will also consider _ anti - rotations _ , which are rigid , orientation - reversing transformations of the plane .
any anti - rotation can be represented as a rotation , followed by a reflection about some fixed line , e.g. , the @xmath18-axis ( so , in complex notation , this can be written as @xmath54 ) .
anti - rotations will be useful in certain steps of the analysis .
[ [ h3-bounding - k . ] ] ( h3 ) bounding @xmath55 .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    if @xmath51 then @xmath28 contributes @xmath56 quadruples to @xmath19 .
let @xmath57 ( resp . ,
@xmath58 ) denote the number of rotations with multiplicity exactly @xmath5 ( resp .
, at least @xmath5 ) , for @xmath8 . then @xmath59    [ [ h4-the - main - conjecture . ] ] ( h4 ) the main conjecture .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    [ conj1 ] for any @xmath60 , we have @xmath61    suppose that the conjecture were true .
then we would have @xmath62 ^ 2}{x } \le |k| = o(s^3 ) \cdot \left [ 1 + \sum_{k\ge 3 } \frac{1}{k } \right ] = o(s^3\log s ) , \ ] ] which would have implied that @xmath63 .
this would have almost settled the problem of obtaining a tight bound for the minimum number of distinct distances guaranteed to exist in any set of @xmath1 points in the plane , since , as mentioned above , the upper bound for this quantity is @xmath10 @xcite .
we note that conjecture  [ conj1 ] is rather deep ; even the simple instance @xmath64 , asserting that there are only @xmath3 rotations which map ( at least ) two points of @xmath0 to two other points of @xmath0 ( at the same distance apart ) , seems quite difficult . in this paper
we establish a variety of upper bounds on the number of rotations and on the sum of their multiplicities .
in particular , these results provide a partial positive answer , showing that @xmath65 ; that is , the number of rotations which map a ( degenerate or non - degenerate ) triangle determined by @xmath0 to another congruent ( and equally oriented ) such triangle , is @xmath3 . bounding @xmath66 by @xmath3
is still an open problem .
see section  [ sec : impr ] for a simple proof of the weaker bound @xmath67 .
[ [ lower - bound . ] ] lower bound .
+ + + + + + + + + + + +    we next give a construction ( suggested by haim kaplan ) which shows :    [ lem : lower ] there exist sets @xmath0 in the plane of arbitrarily large cardinality , which determine @xmath68 distinct rotations , each mapping a triple of points of @xmath0 to another triple of points of @xmath0 .
* proof : * consider the set @xmath69 , where @xmath70 see figure  [ lower ] .
lower.pstex_t    for each triple @xmath71 such that @xmath72 also belongs to @xmath73 , construct the rotation @xmath74 which maps @xmath75 to @xmath76 and @xmath77 to @xmath78 . since the distance between the two source points is equal to the distance between their images
, @xmath74 is well ( and uniquely ) defined .
moreover , @xmath74 maps the midpoint @xmath79 to the midpoint @xmath80 .
we claim that the rotations @xmath74 are all distinct . indeed , suppose that two such rotations , @xmath74 and @xmath81 , for distinct triples @xmath82 , @xmath83 , coincide ; call the common rotation @xmath28 .
we can represent @xmath28 as the rigid transformation which first translates the plane horizontally by distance @xmath84 , so that @xmath75 is mapped to @xmath76 , and then rotates it around @xmath76 by an appropriate angle @xmath85 , so that @xmath86 is mapped to @xmath78 .
suppose first that @xmath87 .
since @xmath88 , it maps @xmath89 to @xmath90 and then rotates this point by angle @xmath39 around @xmath76 , mapping it to a point outside the @xmath18-axis , contradicting the fact that @xmath81 maps @xmath89 to @xmath91 . if @xmath92 then we also must have @xmath93 , so @xmath94 .
but then it is impossible to turn , around @xmath76 , the shifted point @xmath86 to @xmath78 and the shifted point @xmath95 to @xmath96 , by the same angle , a contradiction which shows that the two rotations are distinct .    since there are @xmath97 triples @xmath82 with the above properties , the claim follows .
@xmath98    * remarks .
* * ( 1 ) * a `` weakness '' of this construction is that all the rotations @xmath74 map a _ collinear _ triple of points of @xmath0 to another collinear triple .
( in the terminology to follow , these will be called _
flat _ rotations . )
we do not know whether the number of rotations which map a _ non - collinear _ triple of points of @xmath0 to another non - collinear triple can be @xmath99 .
we tend to conjecture that this is indeed the case .    *
( 2 ) * we do not know whether conjecture  [ conj1 ] is worst - case tight ( if true ) .
that is , we do not know whether there exist sets @xmath0 , with @xmath100 arbitrarily large , so that there are @xmath101 distinct rotations , each mapping at least @xmath5 points of @xmath0 to @xmath5 other points of @xmath0 .    [ [ h5-helices . ] ] ( h5 ) helices . + + + + + + + + + + + + +    to estimate @xmath58 , we reduce the problem of analyzing rotations and their interaction with @xmath0 to an incidence problem in three dimensions , as follows .    with each pair
@xmath45 , we associate the curve @xmath102 , in a 3-dimensional space parametrized by @xmath103 , which is the locus of all rotations which map @xmath29 to @xmath31 .
that is , the equation of @xmath102 is given by @xmath104 putting @xmath105 , @xmath106 , this becomes @xmath107 this is a _ helix _ in @xmath2 , having four degrees of freeedom , which we parametrize by @xmath108 .
it extends from the plane @xmath42 to the plane @xmath109 ; its two endpoints lie vertically above each other , and it completes exactly one revolution between them .
[ [ h6-helices - rotations - and - incidences . ] ] ( h6 ) helices , rotations , and incidences .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    let @xmath110 be a set of rotations , represented by points in @xmath2 , as above , and let @xmath111 denote the set of all @xmath112 helices @xmath102 , for @xmath45 ( note that @xmath113 is permitted ) .
let @xmath114 denote the number of incidences between @xmath110 and @xmath111 .
then we have @xmath115 rotations @xmath28 with @xmath116 are not interesting , because each of them only contributes @xmath117 to the count @xmath114 , and we will mostly ignore them .
for the same reason , rotations with @xmath118 are also not interesting for estimating @xmath114 , but they need to be included in the analysis of @xmath119 .
unfortunately , as already noted , we do not yet have a good upper bound ( i.e. , cubic in @xmath1 ) on the number of such rotations .    [
[ h7-incidences - and - the - second - conjecture . ] ] ( h7 ) incidences and the second conjecture .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    [ conj2 ] for any @xmath110 and @xmath111 as above , we have @xmath120    suppose that conjecture  [ conj2 ] were true .
let @xmath121 denote the set of all rotations with multiplicity at least @xmath5 ( with respect to @xmath0 ) .
we then have @xmath122 from which we obtain @xmath123 thus establishing conjecture  [ conj1 ] , and therefore also the lower bound for @xmath18 ( the number of distinct distances ) derived above from this conjecture
.    * remark .
* conjecture  [ conj2 ] can also be formulated for an _ arbitrary _ subset @xmath111 of all possible helices .
note that two helices @xmath102 and @xmath124 intersect in at most one point
this is the unique rotation which maps @xmath29 to @xmath31 and @xmath125 to @xmath126 ( if it exists at all , namely if @xmath127 ) .
hence , combining this fact with a standard cutting - based decomposition technique , similar to what has been noted in @xcite , say , yields the weaker bound @xmath128 which , alas , only yields the much weaker bound @xmath129 , which is completely useless for deriving any lower bound on @xmath18 .
( we will use this bound , though , in section  [ sec : conc ] . )    [ [ h8-from - helices - to - parabolas . ] ] ( h8 ) from helices to parabolas .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the helices @xmath102 are non - algebraic curves , because of the use of the angle @xmath39 as a parameter .
this can be easily remedied , in the following standard manner .
assume that @xmath39 ranges from @xmath130 to @xmath131 , and substitute , in the equations ( [ eq : helix ] ) , @xmath132 , @xmath133 , and @xmath134 , to obtain @xmath135 which are the equations of a _ planar parabola _ in the @xmath136-space .
( the parabola degenerates to a line if @xmath137 , a situation that we will rule out by choosing an appropriate generic coordinate frame in the original @xmath138-plane . )
we denote the parabola corresponding to the helix @xmath102 as @xmath139 , and refer to it as an _
@xmath140-parabola_.    [ [ h9-joint - and - flat - rotations . ] ] ( h9 ) joint and flat rotations .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    a rotation @xmath141 is called a _ joint _ of @xmath111 if @xmath28 is incident to at least three helices of @xmath111 whose tangent lines at @xmath28 are non - coplanar . otherwise , still assuming that @xmath28 is incident to at least three helices of @xmath111 , @xmath28 is called _
let @xmath142 be a rotation , incident to three distinct helices @xmath102 , @xmath124 , @xmath143 . from their equations ,
as given in ( [ eq : helix ] ) , the directions of the tangents to these helices at @xmath28 are @xmath144 put @xmath145 and @xmath146
. then the three tangents are coplanar if and only if @xmath147 simplifying the determinant , and recalling that @xmath148 , the condition is equivalent to @xmath149 in other words , the three helices @xmath102 , @xmath124 , @xmath143 form a joint at @xmath28 if and only if the three points @xmath150 ( and thus also @xmath151 ) are non - collinear .
that is , we have shown :    [ jointri ] a rotation @xmath28 is a joint of @xmath111 if and only if @xmath28 maps a non - degenerate triangle determined by @xmath0 to another ( congruent and equally oriented ) non - degenerate triangle determined by @xmath0 .
a rotation @xmath28 is a flat rotation if and only if @xmath28 maps at least three collinear points of @xmath0 to another collinear triple of points of @xmath0 , but does not map any point of @xmath0 outside the line containing the triple to another point of @xmath0 .
* remarks : * * ( 1 ) * note that if @xmath28 is a flat rotation , it maps the entire line containing the three source points to the line containing their images .
specifically ( see also below ) , we can respectively parametrize points on these lines as @xmath152 , @xmath153 , for @xmath154 , such that @xmath28 maps @xmath152 to @xmath153 for every @xmath155 .    *
( 2 ) * for flat rotations , we also need to ensure , for technical reasons , that the three ( or more ) helices incident to a flat rotation @xmath28 are such that their tangents at @xmath28 are all distinct .
this fortunately is always the case .
indeed , the preceding analysis is easily seen to imply that if @xmath102 and @xmath124 meet at @xmath28 then their tangents at @xmath28 coincide if and only if @xmath156 .
but then @xmath102 and @xmath157 can not have a common point ( rotation ) unless @xmath158 too , i.e. , they are the same helix ; otherwise the common rotation would have to map @xmath29 to the two distinct points @xmath31 and @xmath126 , an impossibility .
[ [ h10-special - surfaces . ] ] ( h10 ) special surfaces . + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    in preparation for the forthcoming algebraic analysis , we need the following property of our helices .
let @xmath28 be a flat rotation , with multiplicity @xmath4 , and let @xmath159 and @xmath160 be the corresponding lines in the plane , such that there exist @xmath5 points @xmath161 and @xmath5 points @xmath162 , such that @xmath28 maps @xmath163 to @xmath164 for each @xmath165 ( and in particular maps @xmath159 to @xmath160 ) . by definition ,
@xmath28 is incident to the @xmath5 helices @xmath166 , for @xmath167 .
let @xmath168 and @xmath169 denote unit vectors in the direction of @xmath159 and @xmath160 , respectively . clearly , there exist two reference points @xmath170 and @xmath171 , such that for each @xmath165 there is a real number @xmath172 such that @xmath173 and @xmath174 . as a matter of fact , for each real @xmath155 , @xmath28 maps @xmath175 to @xmath176 ,
so it is incident to @xmath177 .
note that @xmath29 and @xmath31 are not uniquely defined : we can take @xmath29 to be any point on @xmath159 , and shift @xmath31 accordingly along @xmath160 .
let @xmath178 denote the set of these helices .
since a pair of helices can meet in at most one point , all the helices in @xmath178 pass through @xmath28 but are otherwise pairwise disjoint . using the re - parametrization @xmath179 , we denote by @xmath180 the surface which is the union of all the @xmath140-parabolas that are the images of the helices in @xmath178 .
we refer to such a surface @xmath181 as a _
special surface_.    an important comment is that most of the ongoing analysis also applies when only two helices are incident to @xmath28 ; they suffice to determine the four parameters @xmath182 that define the surface @xmath181 .
we also remark that , although we started the definition of @xmath183 with a flat rotation @xmath28 , the definition only depends on the parameters @xmath184 , and @xmath169 ( and even there we have , as just noted , one degree of freedom in choosing @xmath29 and @xmath31 ) .
if @xmath28 is not flat it may determine many special surfaces , one for each line that contains two or more points of @xmath0 which @xmath28 maps to other ( also collinear ) points of @xmath0 .
also , as we will shortly see , the same surface can be obtained from a different set ( in fact , many such sets ) of parameters @xmath185 , and @xmath186 ( or , alternatively , from different flat rotations @xmath187 ) .
an `` intrinsic '' definition of special surfaces will be given shortly .
the surface @xmath181 is a cubic algebraic surface , whose equation can be worked out as follows .
the equation of the parabola @xmath188 corresponding to @xmath177 is @xmath189 we can view this as a parametrization of @xmath181 using @xmath155 and @xmath190 as parameters .
we can simplify these equations as @xmath191 where @xmath192 are quadratic polynomials in @xmath190 .
eliminating @xmath155 from these equations gives us the first version of the equation of @xmath181 , which is @xmath193 this is a quartic equation , although it is only linear in @xmath194 and @xmath195 .
note also that the cross - section of @xmath181 by any plane @xmath196 is a line , so @xmath181 is a ruled surface .
we next reduce ( [ sigma1 ] ) to a cubic equation , as follows .
let @xmath197 denote the coordinates of @xmath28 in the @xmath198-frame .
we note that @xmath199 .
this can be worked out explicitly , or concluded by noting that @xmath197 is a common point of all our parabolas , so @xmath197 can not determine @xmath155 , meaning that the coefficients @xmath200 and @xmath201 in ( [ parsig ] ) must both be zero .    hence , each of the three polynomials @xmath202 , @xmath203 , and @xmath204 , appearing in the left - hand side of ( [ sigma1 ] ) , vanishes at @xmath205 , and is therefore divisible by @xmath206 .
factoring @xmath206 out , we get a reduced equation for @xmath181 , of the form @xmath207 where @xmath208 and @xmath209 are linear in @xmath190 .
recalling that @xmath210 an explicit calculation yields : @xmath211 an additional explicit calculation shows that @xmath212 ( to see , say , the first equality , we need to show that @xmath213 . writing @xmath214 , @xmath215 , where @xmath39 is the angle of rotation , and recalling that @xmath216 , the claim follows by straightforward trigonometric manipulations . )
this allows us to rewrite @xmath217 hence , the `` free '' term in ( [ sigma ] ) is the cubic polynomial @xmath218 @xmath219 @xmath220 we refer to the cubic polynomial in the left - hand side of ( [ sigma ] ) as a _
special polynomial_. thus a special surface is the zero set of a special polynomial .
[ [ h11-the - geometry - of - special - surfaces . ] ] ( h11 ) the geometry of special surfaces .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    special surfaces pose a technical challenge to the analysis .
specifically , each special surface @xmath181 captures a certain underlying pattern in the ground set @xmath0 , which may result in many incidences between rotations and @xmath140-parabolas , all contained in @xmath181 .
the next step of the analysis studies this pattern in detail .    uvuv1.pstex_t    consider first a simple instance of this situation , in which two special surfaces @xmath181 , @xmath221 , generated by two distinct flat rotations @xmath28 , @xmath187 , coincide .
more precisely , there exist four parameters @xmath182 such that @xmath28 maps the line @xmath222 to the line @xmath223 ( so that points with the same parameter @xmath155 are mapped to one another ) , and four other parameters @xmath224 such that @xmath187 maps ( in a similar manner ) the line @xmath225 to the line @xmath226 , and @xmath227 .
denote this common surface by @xmath181 .
since the surfaces coincide , the coefficients @xmath228 , @xmath229 for @xmath230 must be proportional to the coefficients @xmath231 , @xmath232 for @xmath233 .
that is , we must have @xmath234 and @xmath235 , for some real @xmath236 . in other words ,
since @xmath238 are unit vectors , the angle bisector between @xmath168 and @xmath169 must coincide with that between @xmath239 and @xmath186 , as depicted in figure  [ uvuv1 ] .
moreover , as is easily checked , if we let @xmath240 be the intersection point of @xmath241 and @xmath242 , and let @xmath243 be the intersection point of @xmath244 and @xmath245 , then both @xmath28 and @xmath187 map @xmath240 to @xmath243 , and @xmath246 is contained in @xmath181 .
( see figure  [ uvuv2 ] . ) indeed , @xmath187 lies on some parabola @xmath247 through @xmath28 which is contained in @xmath181 , and @xmath28 lies on some parabola @xmath248 through @xmath187 which is also contained in @xmath181 . since a pair of distinct @xmath140-parabolas meet in at most one point ,
the two parabolas must coincide , so @xmath249 and @xmath250 .
however , by construction , @xmath251 lies on @xmath241 and @xmath252 lies on @xmath242 , so this common point must be @xmath240 , and , similarly , @xmath253 , as claimed .
uvuv2.pstex_t    since the preceding analysis applies to any pair of distinct rotations on a common special surface @xmath181 , it follows that we can associate with @xmath181 a common direction @xmath254 and a common shift @xmath255 , so that for each @xmath256 there exist two lines @xmath159 , @xmath160 , where @xmath28 maps @xmath159 to @xmath160 , so that the angle bisector between these lines is in direction @xmath254 , and @xmath28 is the unique rigid motion , obtained by rotating @xmath159 to @xmath160 around their intersection point @xmath257 , and then shifting @xmath160 along itself by a distance whose projection in direction @xmath254 is @xmath255 .
the fact that the shifts of any pair of rotations on @xmath181 have the same @xmath254-component follows from the fact that they both map the intersection point @xmath240 of their source lines to the intersection point @xmath243 of their target lines ; consult figure  [ uvuv2 ] .
let @xmath181 be a special surface , generated by @xmath178 ; that is , @xmath181 is the union of all parabolas of the form @xmath188 , for @xmath154 .
let @xmath258 be the common rotation to all these parabolas , so it maps the line @xmath259 to the line @xmath260 , so that every point @xmath175 is mapped to @xmath176 .
let @xmath261 be a parabola contained in @xmath181 but not passing through @xmath258 .
take any pair of distinct rotations @xmath262 on @xmath261 .
then there exist two respective real numbers @xmath263 , such that @xmath264 , for @xmath265 .
thus @xmath266 is the unique rotation which maps @xmath125 to @xmath126 and @xmath173 to @xmath174 . in particular
, we have @xmath267 .
this in turn implies that the triangles @xmath268 and @xmath269 are congruent ; see figure  [ uvuv3 ] .    uvuv3.pstex_t    given @xmath125 , this determines @xmath126 , up to a reflection about @xmath270 .
we claim that @xmath126 has to be on the `` other side '' of @xmath270 , namely , be such that the triangles @xmath268 and @xmath269 are oppositely oriented . indeed ,
if they were equally oriented , then @xmath258 would have mapped @xmath125 to @xmath126 , and then @xmath261 would have passed through @xmath258 , contrary to assumption .
now form the two sets @xmath271 the preceding discussion implies that @xmath272 and @xmath273 are congruent and oppositely oriented .
to recap , each rotation @xmath256 , incident to @xmath8 parabolas contained in @xmath181 , corresponds to a pair of lines @xmath274 with the above properties , so that @xmath28 maps @xmath5 points of @xmath275 ( rather , of @xmath276 ) to @xmath5 points of @xmath277 ( that is , of @xmath278 ) .
if @xmath28 is flat , its entire multiplicity comes from points of @xmath0 on @xmath159 ( these are the points of @xmath276 ) which are mapped by @xmath28 to points of @xmath0 on @xmath160 ( these are points of @xmath278 ) , and all the corresponding parabolas are contained in @xmath181 . if @xmath28 is a joint then , for any other point @xmath279 outside @xmath159 which is mapped by @xmath28 to a point @xmath280 outside @xmath160 , the parabola @xmath247 is not contained in @xmath181 , and crosses it transversally at the unique rotation @xmath28 .
note also that any pair of parabolas @xmath281 and @xmath282 which are contained in @xmath181 intersect , necessarily at the unique rotation which maps @xmath283 to @xmath284 and @xmath285 to @xmath286 .
this holds because @xmath287 , as follows from the preceding discussion .
[ [ special - surfaces - are - anti - rotations . ] ] special surfaces are anti - rotations .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    let @xmath181 be a special surface , and let @xmath52 be the subsets of @xmath0 associated with @xmath181 , as in ( [ aandb ] ) .
then there exists a single _ anti - rotation _ which maps @xmath272 to @xmath273 .
conversely , any anti - rotation can be associated with a unique special surface in this manner .
however , the number of incidences within a special surface may be larger than the incidence count of the anti - rotation with the appropriate variants of the @xmath140-parabolas : the former counts incidences between the points of @xmath272 ( or of @xmath273 ) and the lines that they determine , while the latter only counts the size of @xmath272 ( or of @xmath273 ) .    [ [ an - alternative - analysis . ] ] an alternative analysis .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    recall the equation ( [ sigma ] ) of @xmath181 @xmath288 where , writing @xmath289 and @xmath290 , @xmath291 now let @xmath139 be a parabola contained in @xmath181 . substituting the equations ( [ parabola ] ) of @xmath139 into the above equation
, we get @xmath292 - ( \lambda z + \mu ) \biggl [ ( a_2+b_2)z^2 - 2a_1z + ( b_2-a_2 )   \biggr ] + k(z ) \equiv 0 , \ ] ] where @xmath293 is the `` free '' cubic term in the equation of @xmath181 .
a straightforward algebraic simplification of this equation yields @xmath294 + k(z ) \equiv 0 .\ ] ] in particular ( an interesting observation in itself , albeit obvious from the definition of @xmath295 ) , @xmath296 must be divisible by @xmath297 , with the remainder being a linear function of @xmath190 . eliminating this factor
, we get @xmath298 for appropriate reals numbers @xmath283 , @xmath285 .    now , writing @xmath299 and @xmath300 , where @xmath39 is the angle of rotation , and observing that @xmath301 the containment of @xmath139 in @xmath181 is equivalent to the two conditions @xmath302 for appropriate parameters @xmath303 .
the geometric interpretation of the first condition is that the midpoint of @xmath304 has to lie on a fixed line @xmath305 ( whose direction , @xmath306 , is parallel to the angle bisector between the lines @xmath307 ( see figure  [ uvuv2 ] ) .
the second condition means that @xmath84 has a fixed component in the direction of @xmath305 . in other words , @xmath139 is contained in @xmath181 if and only if @xmath308 , where @xmath309 is the anti - rotation obtained as a reflection about @xmath305 followed by a shift parallel to @xmath305 .
this constitutes an alternative derivation of the characterization of @xmath181 given above .
[ [ h12-special - surfaces - and - parabolas . ] ] ( h12 ) special surfaces and parabolas . + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    finally , we study intersection patterns involving special surfaces .
let @xmath181 be a special surface as above , and let @xmath310 be another @xmath311-linear surface of the form @xmath312 .
then either @xmath310 coincides with @xmath181 , or there is at most one parabola contained in both of them .
indeed , the intersection of @xmath310 and @xmath181 is the curve satisfying @xmath313 this is a linear system in @xmath194 and @xmath195 .
suppose first that its determinant , @xmath314 , does not vanish identically .
then , with the exception of finitely many values of @xmath190 , we get a unique solution of the form @xmath315 , @xmath316 , which can describe at most one parabola .
if the determinant vanishes identically , then the equation of @xmath310 can be written as @xmath317 , for an appropriate rational algebraic function @xmath318 .
if @xmath310 and @xmath181 do intersect in a parabola , then we must have @xmath319 , so @xmath310 and @xmath181 coincide .
@xmath98    as a corollary , we have :    [ only1 ] let @xmath310 be an @xmath311-linear surface of the above form , and let @xmath28 be a flat rotation contained in @xmath310 .
then either @xmath310 contains at least two of the parabolas incident to @xmath28 , and then it must coincide with the corresponding special surface @xmath181 , or @xmath310 contains at most one of these parabolas , so at least two other parabolas cross @xmath310 at @xmath28 .    [ sspec ] a special surface can contain at most @xmath1 @xmath140-parabolas .
* proof : * let @xmath310 be the given special surface .
we claim that for each @xmath320 there can be at most one point @xmath321 such that @xmath322 . indeed , suppose that there exist two such points @xmath323 .
since any pair of @xmath140-parabolas on @xmath310 intersect , @xmath324 and @xmath325 meet at a rotation @xmath28 , which maps @xmath29 to both @xmath326 and @xmath327 , an impossibility which completes the proof .
@xmath98    [ surfpar ]
the number of containments between @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas and @xmath329 special surfaces is @xmath330    * proof : * as argued above , a special surface @xmath181 is characterized by an anti - rotation @xmath331 in the plane , specified by a line @xmath159 and a shift @xmath255 , such that @xmath332 is the point obtained by reflecting @xmath29 about @xmath159 and then by shifting the reflected point parallel to @xmath159 by distance @xmath255 .
thus @xmath181 has three degrees of freedom , and can be parametrized by @xmath333 , where @xmath334 is the equation of @xmath159 and @xmath255 is the shift .
we write @xmath335 to denote the special surface parametrized by @xmath336 .    by construction , a parabola @xmath139 is contained in @xmath181 if and only if @xmath337 .
we use the following parametric setup .
we represent each special surface @xmath181 by the corresponding triple @xmath333 , and regard it as a point in parametric 3-space .
each parabola @xmath139 is mapped to the locus @xmath338 of all ( points representing ) special surfaces containing @xmath139 .
this is a curve in the @xmath333-space , given by the pair of scalar equations @xmath339 .
this is a low - degree algebraic curve , whose concrete equations can be worked out explicitly , but we skip over this step .
we thus have a system of @xmath329 points and @xmath328 such curves in 3-space , and we wish to bound the number of incidences between them .
we have the additional property , noted in lemma  [ only1 ] , that two curves meet in at most one point . by projecting these points and curves onto some generic 2-plane
, one can easily show that that the number of incidences , and thus the number of original containments , is at most @xmath340 , as claimed .
* remark . *
if we represent each special surface by its corresponding anti - rotation , lemma  [ surfpar ] simply bounds the number of incidences between @xmath329 anti - rotations and @xmath328 ( appropriately transformed copies of ) @xmath140-parabolas , and the bound noted in ( [ weak23 ] ) holds here as well .
we begin by reviewing and extending the basic tools from algebraic geometry which have been used in @xcite and in @xcite .
however , we develop them here in the context of incidences between points and our @xmath140-parabolas , rather than the context of points and lines considered in the previous papers .
so let @xmath341 be a set of @xmath342 @xmath140-parabolas in @xmath2 . for each @xmath343
, we denote the plane containing @xmath344 by @xmath345 and its equation as @xmath346 , where @xmath347 is a linear polynomial .
we represent @xmath344 as the intersection curve of @xmath346 and @xmath348 , where @xmath349 is one of the quadratic equations in ( [ parabola ] ) defining @xmath344 , say the first one .
note that all the parabolas of @xmath341 cross every plane of the form @xmath196 , each at a single point .
recalling the definitions in ( h9 ) , and similar to the case of lines , we say that a point @xmath29 is a _ joint _ of @xmath341 if it is incident to three parabolas of @xmath341 whose tangents at @xmath29 are non - coplanar .
let @xmath350 denote the set of joints of @xmath341 .
we will also consider points @xmath29 that are incident to three or more parabolas of @xmath341 , so that the tangents to all these parabolas are coplanar , and refer to such points as _ flat _ points of @xmath341 .
we recall ( see ( h9 ) ) that any pair of distinct @xmath140-parabolas which meet at a point have there distinct tangents .
first , we note that a trivariate polynomial @xmath251 of degree @xmath126 which vanishes at @xmath351 points that lie on a common parabola @xmath343 must vanish identically on @xmath344 . indeed , these points are common roots of @xmath251 and @xmath349 , restricted to the plane @xmath345 . by bzout
s theorem  @xcite , either these restricted polynomials have a common factor , or they have at most @xmath352 roots . since @xmath349 is irreducible , it must divide the restricted @xmath251 , so @xmath251 must vanish identically on @xmath344 , as claimed .
[ [ critical - points - and - parabolas . ] ] critical points and parabolas .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    a point @xmath29 is _ critical _ ( or _ singular _ ) for a trivariate polynomial @xmath251 if @xmath353 and @xmath354 ; any other point @xmath29 in the zero set of @xmath251 is called _
regular_. a parabola @xmath344 is _ critical _ if all its points are critical .
the following proposition is adapted from @xcite .
[ factor ] let @xmath355 and @xmath356 be two trivariate polynomials , of respective degrees @xmath5 and @xmath357 , so that there are @xmath358 parabolas of @xmath341 on which both @xmath359 and @xmath360 vanish identically . then @xmath359 and @xmath360 have a common factor .    * proof .
* assume that both @xmath355 and @xmath356 have a positive degree in @xmath18 ; this can always be enforced by an appropriate rotation of the coordinate frame .
it is then an easy exercise to show that @xmath359 and @xmath360 have a common factor if and only if their resultant , when viewing them as polynomials in @xmath18 , is identically @xmath361 . recall that the resultant is a polynomial in @xmath362 and @xmath363 .
( the same holds when @xmath359 and @xmath360 have any number of variables , including @xmath18 , in which case the resultant is a polynomial in the remaining variables . )    for any fixed value @xmath364 of @xmath363 , @xmath365 and @xmath366 have at least @xmath358 common roots ( at the intersection points of the @xmath358 parabolas with @xmath367 ) , so , by bzout s theorem @xcite , they have a common factor .
therefore , the resultant , with respect to @xmath18 , of @xmath365 and @xmath366 is identically @xmath361 ( as a polynomial in @xmath362 ) .
since this is true for every value @xmath364 of @xmath363 , it follows that the resultant of @xmath355 and @xmath356 , with respect to @xmath18 , vanishes identically as a polynomial in @xmath362 and @xmath363 .
therefore , @xmath355 and @xmath356 , as trivariate polynomials , have a common factor .
@xmath98    [ prop1 ]
let @xmath341 be as above .
then any trivariate square - free polynomial @xmath251 of degree @xmath126 can have at most @xmath368 critical parabolas in @xmath341 .
* proof : * we prove the claim by induction on the degree @xmath126 of @xmath251 .
the claim holds trivially for @xmath369 , so assume that @xmath370 .
assume first that @xmath251 is irreducible .
apply proposition  [ factor ] to @xmath251 and @xmath371 , say .
both polynomials vanish identically on each critical parabola , and their respective degrees are @xmath126 and @xmath372 . if @xmath251 had more than @xmath368 critical parabolas then @xmath251 and @xmath371 would have a common factor , which is impossible since @xmath251 is irreducible .
suppose next that @xmath251 is reducible ( but square - free ) , and write @xmath373 , so that @xmath359 and @xmath360 are non - constant polynomials which have no common factor ( since @xmath251 is square - free , this can always be done ) .
denote the degrees of @xmath359 and @xmath360 by @xmath374 and @xmath375 , respectively ; we have @xmath376 .
let @xmath344 be a critical parabola for @xmath251 .
then either @xmath377 on @xmath344 or @xmath378 on @xmath344 ( or both ) .
moreover , since @xmath379 on @xmath344 , it is easily checked that @xmath344 must satisfy ( at least ) one of the following properties :    \(i ) @xmath380 on @xmath344 .
\(ii ) @xmath344 is a critical parabola of @xmath359 .
\(iii ) @xmath344 is a critical parabola of @xmath360 .    indeed ,
if ( i ) does not hold , we have , without loss of generality , @xmath377 on @xmath344 , but @xmath360 vanishes only at finitely many points of @xmath344 . on any other point @xmath29 of @xmath344
we then must have @xmath381 , which implies that @xmath382 is identically zero on @xmath344 , so @xmath344 is critical for @xmath359 .
this implies ( ii ) ; ( iii ) holds in the symmetric case where @xmath378 on @xmath344 but @xmath359 does not vanish identically on @xmath344 .    by the induction hypothesis ,
the number of critical parabolas for @xmath359 is at most @xmath383 , and the number of critical parabolas for @xmath360 is at most @xmath384 .
consider the parabolas that satisfy ( i ) and intersect all of them by any of the planes @xmath367 , as in the proof of proposition  [ factor ] .
all the intersection points are roots of @xmath385 and @xmath386 on this plane , and , as follows from the proof of proposition  [ factor ] , these bivariate polynomials have no common factor ( or , more precisely , they can have a common factor only at finitely many values of @xmath363 ) .
hence , by bzout s theorem , they have at most @xmath387 common roots .
altogether , the number of critical parabolas for @xmath251 is at most @xmath388 @xmath98    [ prop2 ] let @xmath29 be a regular point of @xmath251 , so that @xmath389 on three parabolas of @xmath341 passing through @xmath29 .
then these parabolas must have coplanar tangents at @xmath29 .
* proof : * any such tangent line must be contained in the tangent plane to @xmath390 at @xmath29 .
@xmath98    hence , a point @xmath29 incident to three parabolas of @xmath341 whose tangent lines at @xmath29 are non - coplanar , so that @xmath389 on each of these parabolas , must be a critical point of @xmath251 .
[ prop4 ] given a set @xmath0 of @xmath357 points in 3-space , there exists a nontrivial trivariate polynomial @xmath391 which vanishes at all the points of @xmath0 , of degree @xmath126 , for any @xmath126 satisfying @xmath392
.    * proof : * ( see @xcite . ) a trivariate polynomial of degree @xmath126 has @xmath393 monomials , and requiring it to vanish at @xmath357 points yields these many homogeneous equations in the coefficients of these monomials .
such an underdetermined system always has a nontrivial solution .
[ [ flat - points - and - parabolas . ] ] flat points and parabolas .
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    call a regular point @xmath28 of a trivariate polynomial @xmath251 _ geometrically flat _
if it is incident to three distinct parabolas of @xmath341 ( with necessarily coplanar tangent lines at @xmath28 , no pair of which are collinear ) on which @xmath251 vanishes identically .
let @xmath28 be a geometrically flat point of @xmath251 , and let @xmath394 be three incident parabolas on which @xmath251 vanishes .
let @xmath395 denote the tangent line to @xmath396 at @xmath28 , and let @xmath397 denote a unit vector in the direction of @xmath395 , for @xmath398 .
the second - order taylor expansion of @xmath251 at @xmath28 has the form @xmath399 for any vector @xmath254 , where @xmath400 is the _
hessian _ matrix of @xmath251 .
@xmath401 is a quadratic polynomial ( in @xmath254 ) which approximates @xmath251 up to third order terms for sufficiently small values of @xmath402 .
our goal is to construct , using this approximation and the fact that @xmath389 on three parabolas incident to @xmath28 , as above , a new polynomial , depending on @xmath251 , which vanishes at @xmath28 , and use this vanishing as a characterization of flat points .
to do so , we need to make the analysis more specific , and taylor it to the special form of @xmath140-parabolas .
let @xmath28 be a flat point , and let @xmath182 be the corresponding parameters in the @xmath138-plane ( so @xmath28 maps @xmath175 to @xmath176 for each @xmath154 ; cf .
remark ( 1 ) at the end of ( h9 ) ) .
let @xmath180 be the corresponding special surface spanned by the parabolas @xmath188 , for all @xmath155 ( here we vary @xmath155 continuously , but only finitely many corresponding parabolas belong to @xmath341 ) . since @xmath28 is flat
, there exist at least three parabolas @xmath403 , @xmath398 ( all belonging to @xmath341 , contained in @xmath181 , and passing through @xmath28 ) , such that @xmath389 on each of them .
let @xmath401 denote , as above , the quadratic polynomial which is the second - order taylor expansion of @xmath251 at @xmath28 .
let @xmath404 be one of the above parabolas on which @xmath251 vanishes identically .
for @xmath187 in the vicinity of @xmath28 , @xmath405 , so , for points @xmath187 near @xmath28 on @xmath344 , we have @xmath406 .
let us continue to consider only points @xmath187 on @xmath344 .
let @xmath197 ( resp . ,
@xmath136 ) be the coordinates of @xmath28 ( resp . , @xmath187 ) .
the equations of @xmath344 ( see ( [ parabola ] ) ) are @xmath407 so we have @xmath408 which we can further rewrite as @xmath409 let us simplify these equations as @xmath410 where @xmath411 , @xmath412 , @xmath413 , and @xmath414 are all linear functions of @xmath155 .
if we substitute these equations into the equation of @xmath401 , assume that @xmath190 is very close to @xmath205 , ignore terms which are at least cubic in @xmath206 , and use the fact that @xmath415 for any @xmath187 on @xmath344 sufficiently close to @xmath28 , we conclude that both the linear and the quadratic parts of @xmath416 ( in @xmath206 ) vanish identically .
the linear part is @xmath417 and the quadratic part is @xmath418 hence we have @xmath419 note that both equations vanish for ( at least ) three distinct values of @xmath155 . since the first equation is linear in @xmath155 and the second is quadratic in @xmath155 , all the coefficients of both equations are identically zero .
let us restrict ourselves to the coefficient of the linear term in the first equation and of the quadratic term in the second one .
denote by @xmath420 ( resp .
, @xmath421 ) the coefficient of @xmath155 in @xmath411 ( resp . ,
@xmath412 ) .
then we have @xmath422 it is easily seen that @xmath420 and @xmath421 can not both be zero ( assuming a generic coordinate frame in the original @xmath138-plane ) , so , eliminating them gives @xmath423 which is the constraint we were after .    in what follows
, we refer to the left - hand side of ( [ sofsof ] ) as @xmath424 .
that is , @xmath425 and this polynomial has to vanish at @xmath28 .    we have thus shown :    [ flat ] let @xmath251 be a trivariate polynomial . if @xmath28 is a regular geometrically flat point of @xmath251 ( with respect to three parabolas of @xmath341 ) then @xmath426 .    * remark . * note that the left - hand side of ( [ sofsof ] ) is one of the three polynomials @xmath427 used in @xcite to analyze flat points in a 3-dimensional line arrangement .
specifically , @xmath428 where @xmath429 is the unit vector in the @xmath363-direction ; the other two polynomials are defined analogously , using the other two coordinate vectors @xmath430 , @xmath431 .
these polynomials form the _ second fundamental form _ of @xmath251 ; see @xcite for details .
in particular , if the degree of @xmath251 is @xmath126 then the degree of @xmath424 is at most @xmath432 .    in
what follows , we call a point @xmath28 _ flat _ for @xmath251 if @xmath426
. we will need the following technical lemma .
[ plinxy ] let @xmath251 be an irreducible trivariate polynomial , with the properties that ( i ) @xmath433 at each regular point @xmath28 of @xmath390 , and ( ii ) @xmath389 on at least two distinct intersecting @xmath140-parabolas of @xmath341 .
then @xmath251 is a special polynomial .
( note that the converse of the lemma is trivial , because the second - order derivatives @xmath434 , @xmath435 , and @xmath436 are all identically zero for a special polynomial @xmath251 , and because of the way such polynomials are constructed . )    * proof : * fix @xmath437 and consider the restricted bivariate polynomial @xmath438 . clearly , @xmath439 on the plane @xmath440 . hence @xmath441 at each regular point @xmath442 of @xmath390 , and thus at each regular point of @xmath443 .
( note that a regular point of @xmath443 is also a regular point of @xmath251 , although the converse need not be true . )
note also that @xmath443 is an irreducible polynomial , except possibly for finitely many values of @xmath205 .
as is well known  @xcite , the curvature of the plane curve @xmath444 , at a regular point of @xmath443 , is given by @xmath445 hence this curve has zero curvature at every regular point of @xmath443 , and thus , being the zero set of an irreducible polynomial , it must be a single line .
in other words , @xmath251 is linear in @xmath194 and @xmath195 for every fixed @xmath190 , except for finitely many values , implying that its equation is of the form @xmath446 , where @xmath447 , @xmath448 and @xmath449 are univariate polynomials .
we now exploit assumption ( ii ) , denoting by @xmath181 the unique special surface determined by ( and containing ) the two given @xmath140-parabolas .
the analysis in ( h12 ) then implies that @xmath181 coincides with the zero set of @xmath251 , so @xmath251 is indeed a special polynomial , as claimed .
@xmath98    call an @xmath140-parabola @xmath343 _ flat _ for @xmath251 if all the points of @xmath344 are flat points of @xmath251 ( with the possible exception of a discrete subset ) .
arguing as in the case of critical points , if @xmath344 contains more than @xmath450 flat points then @xmath344 is a flat parabola .    as in @xcite , we next show that , in general , trivariate polynomials do not have too many flat parabolas . as before , we first establish this property for irreducible polynomials , and then extend the analysis to more general polynomials .
[ lflat ] let @xmath251 be an irreducible trivariate polynomial of degree @xmath126 , which is not a special polynomial .
then @xmath251 can have at most @xmath451 flat @xmath140-parabolas of @xmath341 .
* proof : * suppose to the contrary that there are more than @xmath451 flat @xmath140-parabolas . as above ,
restrict @xmath251 and @xmath424 to a fixed plane @xmath452 of the form @xmath437 .
the number of common roots of @xmath251 and @xmath424 on @xmath452 exceeds the product of their degrees .
since this holds for every @xmath205 , proposition  [ factor ] implies that they must have a common factor .
since @xmath251 is irreducible , @xmath251 must be a factor of @xmath424 .
this implies that all the ( regular ) points at which @xmath251 vanishes are flat .
hence , by lemma  [ plinxy ] , @xmath251 must be a special polynomial , a contradiction which completes the proof of the asserted bound .
@xmath98    [ lflatx ]
let @xmath251 be any trivariate square - free polynomial of degree @xmath126 with no special polynomial factors .
then @xmath251 can have at most @xmath453 flat @xmath140-parabolas in @xmath341 .
* proof : * if @xmath251 is irreducible , the claim holds by proposition  [ lflat ] . otherwise , write @xmath373 where @xmath359 and @xmath360 are non - constant polynomials with no common factors ( and no special polynomial factors ) .
let @xmath374 and @xmath375 denote their respective degrees , so @xmath376 .
let @xmath28 be a regular flat point of @xmath251 .
then either @xmath454 , or only exactly one of @xmath455 , @xmath456 vanishes . hence , if @xmath344 is a flat parabola for @xmath251 then either both @xmath359 and @xmath360 vanish identically on @xmath344 or exactly one of them vanishes identically on @xmath344 , while the other has only finitely many zeroes on @xmath344 .
now , as already argued in the proof of proposition  [ prop1 ] , there are at most @xmath387 parabolas of the former kind . to handle parabolas of the latter kind ,
consider a regular point @xmath28 of @xmath251 at which @xmath385 but @xmath360 is nonzero .
a simple calculation yields : @xmath457 hence , at @xmath28 we have @xmath458 and therefore we have at @xmath28 , as is easily checked , @xmath459 that is , a regular flat point for @xmath251 , at which @xmath385 but @xmath360 is nonzero , is a regular flat point for @xmath359 , and a symmetric statement holds when @xmath386 but @xmath359 is nonzero .
hence , any flat parabola of the latter kind is either a flat parabola for @xmath359 or a flat parabola for @xmath360 .
arguing by induction on the degree , the number of flat parabolas for @xmath251 is thus at most @xmath460 and the lemma follows .
in this section we extend the recent algebraic machinery of guth and katz  @xcite , as further developed by elekes et al .
@xcite , using the algebraic tools set forth in the preceding section , to establish the bound @xmath461 on the number of rotations with multiplicity at least @xmath49 in a collection of @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas .
[ thm : gk1 ] let @xmath341 be a set of at most @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas in @xmath2 , and let @xmath110 be a set of @xmath357 rotations , each of which is incident to at least three parabolas of @xmath341 .
suppose further that no special surface contains more than @xmath401 parabolas of @xmath341
. then @xmath462 .
* remarks . * * ( 1 ) * the recent results of @xcite imply that the number of joints in a set of @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas is @xmath463 .
the proofs in @xcite are much simpler than the proof given below , but they do not apply to flat points ( rotations ) as does theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] . since flat rotations are an integral part of the setup considered in this paper , we need to count them too , using the stronger theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] . moreover ,
even if we were to consider only joint rotations , the analysis of their incidences with the @xmath140-parabolas will turn some of them into flat rotations ( by pruning some of the parabolas ) , so , as in @xcite , we will need to face flat rotations , no matter what .    *
( 2 ) * by lemma  [ sspec ] , we always have @xmath464 , and we also have @xmath465 , so the `` worst - case '' bound on @xmath357 is @xmath466 .    *
( 3 ) * note that the parameter @xmath328 in the statement of the theorem is arbitrary , not necessarily the maximum number @xmath112 .
when @xmath328 attains its maximum possible value @xmath112 , the bound becomes @xmath467 .
the proof of theorem [ thm : gk1 ] uses the proof technique of @xcite , properly adapted to the present , somewhat more involved context of @xmath140-parabolas and rotations .
* we first prove the theorem under the additional assumption that @xmath468 .
the proof proceeds by induction on @xmath328 , and shows that @xmath469 , where @xmath272 is a sufficiently large constant whose choice will be dictated by the forthcoming analysis .
the statement holds for all @xmath470 , for some constant @xmath471 , if we choose @xmath272 to be sufficiently large .
fix @xmath472 , and suppose that the claim holds for all @xmath473 .
let @xmath341 and @xmath110 be as in the statement of the theorem , with @xmath474 , and suppose to the contrary that @xmath475 .
we first apply the following iterative pruning process to @xmath341 .
as long as there exists a parabola @xmath343 incident to fewer than @xmath476 rotations of @xmath110 , for some constant @xmath477 that we will fix later , we remove @xmath344 from @xmath341 , remove its incident rotations from @xmath110 , and repeat this step with respect to the reduced set of rotations . in this process we delete at most @xmath478 rotations .
we are thus left with a subset of at least @xmath479 of the original parabolas , each incident to at least @xmath476 surviving rotations , and each surviving rotation is incident to at least three surviving parabolas . for simplicity , continue to denote these sets as @xmath341 and @xmath110 .
choose a random sample @xmath480 of parabolas from @xmath341 , by picking each parabola independently with probability @xmath155 , where @xmath155 is a small constant that we will fix later .
the expected number of parabolas that we choose is @xmath481 , where @xmath482 is the number of parabolas remaining after the pruning .
we have @xmath483 , because each surviving parabola is incident to at least @xmath476 surviving rotations , each incident to at least two other surviving parabolas ; since all these parabolas are distinct ( recall that a pair of parabolas can meet in at most one rotation point ) , we have @xmath484 .
hence , using chernoff s bound , as in @xcite ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) , we obtain that , with positive probability , ( a ) @xmath485 .
( b ) each parabola @xmath343 contains at least @xmath486 rotations that lie on parabolas of @xmath480 .
( to see ( b ) , take a parabola @xmath343 and a rotation @xmath487 .
note that @xmath28 will be incident to a parabola of @xmath480 with probability at least @xmath155 , so the expected number of rotations in @xmath488 which lie on parabolas of @xmath480 is at least @xmath489 .
this , combined with chernoff s bound , implies ( b ) . )
we assume that @xmath480 does indeed satisfy ( a ) and ( b ) , and then ( recalling that @xmath490 ) choose @xmath491 arbitrary rotations on each parabola in @xmath480 , to obtain a set @xmath0 of at most @xmath492 rotations .    applying proposition  [ prop4 ] ,
we obtain a nontrivial trivariate polynomial @xmath493 which vanishes at all the rotations of @xmath0 , whose degree is at most the smallest integer @xmath126 satisfying @xmath494 , so @xmath495 for @xmath328 ( i.e. , @xmath471 ) sufficiently large . without loss of generality , we may assume that @xmath251 is square - free  by removing repeated factors , we get a square - free polynomial which vanishes on the same set as the original @xmath251 , with the same upper bound on its degree .
the polynomial @xmath251 vanishes on @xmath491 points on each parabola in @xmath480 .
this number is larger than @xmath352 , if we choose @xmath155 sufficiently small so as to satisfy @xmath496 .
hence @xmath251 vanishes identically on all these parabolas .
any other parabola of @xmath341 meets at least @xmath486 parabolas of @xmath480 , at distinct points , and we can make this number also larger than @xmath352 , with an appropriate choice of @xmath155 and @xmath125 ( we need to ensure that @xmath497 ) . hence , @xmath251 vanishes identically on each parabola of @xmath341 .
we will also later need the property that each parabola of @xmath341 contains at least @xmath498 points of @xmath110 ; that is , we require that @xmath499 , which will hold if @xmath500 .    to recap ,
the preceding paragraphs impose several inequalities on @xmath125 and @xmath155 , and a couple of additional similar inequalities will be imposed later on .
all these inequalities are easy to satisfy by choosing @xmath501 to be a sufficiently small positive constant , and @xmath125 a sufficiently large constant .
( these choices will also affect the choice of @xmath272see below . )
we note that @xmath251 can have at most @xmath502 special polynomial factors ( since each of them is a cubic polynomial ) ; i.e. , @xmath251 can vanish identically on at most @xmath502 respective special surfaces @xmath503 , for @xmath504 .
we factor out all these special polynomial factors from @xmath251 , and let @xmath443 denote the resulting polynomial , which is a square - free polynomial without any special polynomial factors , of degree at most @xmath126 .
consider one of the special surfaces @xmath505 , and let @xmath172 denote the number of parabolas contained in @xmath505 .
then any rotation on @xmath505 is either an intersection point of ( at least ) two of these parabolas , or it lies on at most one of them .
the number of rotations of the first kind is @xmath506 .
any rotation @xmath28 of the second kind is incident to at least one parabola of @xmath341 which crosses @xmath505 transversally at @xmath28 .
we note that each @xmath140-parabola @xmath344 can cross @xmath505 in at most three points . indeed , substituting the equations of @xmath344 into the equation @xmath507 of @xmath505 ( see ( [ sigma ] ) ) yields a cubic equation in @xmath190 , with at most three roots .
hence , the number of rotations of the second kind is @xmath508 , and the overall number of rotations on @xmath505 is @xmath509 , since we have assumed in the present version of the proof that @xmath510 .
summing the bounds over all surfaces @xmath505 , we conclude that altogether they contain @xmath511 rotations , which we bound by @xmath512 , for some absolute constant @xmath31 .
we remove all these vanishing special surfaces , together with the rotations and the parabolas which are fully contained in them , and let @xmath513 and @xmath514 denote , respectively , the set of those parabolas of @xmath341 ( rotations of @xmath110 ) which are not contained in any of the vanishing surfaces @xmath505 .
note that there are still at least three parabolas of @xmath515 incident to any remaining rotation in @xmath516 , since none of the rotations of @xmath516 lie in any surface @xmath505 , so all parabolas incident to such a rotation are still in @xmath515 .
clearly , @xmath443 vanishes identically on every @xmath517 .
furthermore , every @xmath518 contains at most @xmath126 points in the surfaces @xmath505 , because , as just argued , it crosses each surface @xmath505 in at most three points .
note that this also holds for every parabola @xmath344 in @xmath519 , if we only count intersections of @xmath344 with surfaces @xmath505 which do not fully contain @xmath344 .
hence , each @xmath517 contains at least @xmath520 rotations of @xmath516 . since each of these rotations is incident to at least three parabolas in @xmath515 ,
each of these rotations is either critical or geometrically flat for @xmath443 .
consider a parabola @xmath518 .
if @xmath344 contains more than @xmath352 critical rotations then @xmath344 is a critical parabola for @xmath443 . by proposition  [ prop1 ] ,
the number of such parabolas is at most @xmath368 . any other parabola @xmath517 contains more than @xmath521 geometrically flat points and hence @xmath344 must be a flat parabola for @xmath443 . by proposition [ lflatx ] ,
the number of such parabolas is at most @xmath453 . summing up we obtain
@xmath522 we require that @xmath523 ; that is , @xmath524 , which can be guaranteed by choosing @xmath155 sufficiently small .
we next want to apply the induction hypothesis to @xmath515 , with the parameter @xmath525 ( which dominates the size of @xmath515 ) . for this
, we first need to argue that each special surface contains at most @xmath526 parabolas of @xmath515 .
indeed , let @xmath310 be a special surface . using ( [ sigma ] ) ,
eliminate , say , @xmath195 from the equation of @xmath310 and substitute the resulting expression into the equation of @xmath443 , to obtain a bivariate polynomial @xmath527 .
let @xmath344 be a parabola of @xmath515 contained in @xmath310 .
we represent @xmath344 by its @xmath194-equation of the form @xmath528 , and observe that @xmath527 vanishes on the zero set of @xmath529 .
hence @xmath530 must be divisible by @xmath529 .
note that , in a generic coordinate frame in the @xmath138-plane , two different parabolas can not have the same equation @xmath528 , because this equation uniquely determines @xmath531 , and @xmath532 , and then , in a generic frame , @xmath327 is also uniquely determined .
note also that the degree of @xmath530 is at most @xmath533 , and that the degree of each factor @xmath529 is @xmath50 , implying that @xmath181 can contain at most @xmath534 parabolas of @xmath515 .
an important observation , which we will use in the proof of general version of the theorem , is that the argument just given does not use the assumed bound on the number of @xmath140-parabolas contained in a special surface , but , rather , establishes this bound `` from scratch '' for the subproblem involving @xmath516 and @xmath515 .
that is , even if the original problem does not satisfy the extra assumption in the restricted version , the subproblems that it generates always do satisfy it .
hence , the maximum number of parabolas of @xmath515 contained in a special surface is at most @xmath535 , so , by the induction hypothesis , the number of points in @xmath516 is at most @xmath536 adding up the bounds on the number of points on parabolas removed during the pruning process and on the special surfaces @xmath505 ( which correspond to the special polynomial factors of @xmath251 ) , we obtain @xmath537 with an appropriate , final choice of @xmath155 , @xmath125 , and @xmath272 .
this contradicts the assumption that @xmath538 , and thus establishes the induction step for @xmath328 , and , consequently , completes the proof of the restricted version of the theorem .
[ [ proof - of - the - general - version ] ] proof of the general version : + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +    the proof proceeds almost exactly as the proof of the restricted version , except for the analysis of the number of rotations on the special surfaces @xmath505 . as noted above , we encounter this difference only once , in handling the original problem : when we apply the induction step , we always fall into the restricted setup .    by assumption , each special surface @xmath505 contains at most @xmath401 @xmath140-parabolas .
we modify the preceding analysis , so that each parabola is considered only once .
that is , we iterate over the special surfaces in some order .
when handling a surface @xmath505 , we consider only those @xmath140-parabolas that are not contained in any previously processed surface , and bound the number of rotations that they contain .
then we remove these parabolas and rotations from further considerations and go to the next surface .    as argued above , a special surface @xmath505 containing @xmath172 ( surviving ) parabolas contains at most @xmath539 rotations which lie on these parabolas ( and on no previously processed parabola ) . summing these bounds over all special surfaces , and using the fact that @xmath540 for each @xmath165 , we get an overall bound @xmath541 , as asserted .
@xmath98    we summarize the remarks following theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] , combined with lemma  [ lem : lower ] , in the following corollary .
[ roth ] let @xmath0 be a set of @xmath1 points in the plane
. then there are at most @xmath3 rotations which map some ( degenerate or non - degenerate ) triangle spanned by @xmath0 to another ( congruent and equally oriented ) such triangle .
this bound is tight in the worst case .    in the following section
we will continue to adapt the analysis of @xcite to obtain bounds on the number of incidences between helices ( @xmath140-parabolas ) and rotations with multiplicity @xmath542 , and , consequently , obtain bounds on @xmath543 , for any @xmath4 .
in this section we further adapt the machinery of @xcite to derive an upper bound on the number of incidences between @xmath357 rotations and @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas in @xmath2 , where each rotation is incident to at least three parabolas ( i.e. , has multiplicity @xmath542 ) .
[ inc - gen ] for an underlying ground set @xmath0 of @xmath1 points in the plane , let @xmath341 be a set of at most @xmath342 @xmath140-parabolas defined on @xmath0 , and let @xmath110 be a set of @xmath357 rotations with multiplicity at least @xmath49 ( with respect to @xmath0 ) . then @xmath544    * remark . *
as easily checked , the first term dominates the second term when @xmath545 , and the second term dominates when @xmath546 .
in particular , the first term dominates when @xmath547 , because we have @xmath548    * proof : * the proof of theorem  [ inc - gen ] proceeds in two steps .
we first establish a bound which is independent of @xmath357 , and then apply it to obtain the @xmath357-dependent bound asserted in the theorem .
for the first step , we have :    [ inc-32 ] let @xmath341 be a set of at most @xmath342 @xmath140-parabolas defined on @xmath0 , and let @xmath110 be a set of rotations with multiplicity at least @xmath49 with respect to @xmath0 , such that no special surface contains more than @xmath491 parabolas of @xmath341 .
then the number of incidences between @xmath110 and @xmath341 is @xmath463 .
* proof . *
write @xmath549 for short , and put @xmath550
. we will establish the upper bound @xmath551 , for some sufficiently large absolute constant @xmath273 , whose specific choice will be dictated by the various steps of the proof .
suppose then to the contrary that @xmath552 for the given @xmath341 and @xmath110 .    for @xmath343 ,
let @xmath553 denote the number of rotations incident to @xmath344 .
we refer to @xmath553 as the _ multiplicity _ of @xmath344 .
we have @xmath554 .
the average multiplicity of a parabola @xmath344 is @xmath555 .
we begin by applying the following pruning process .
put @xmath556 . as long as there exists a parabola @xmath343 whose multiplicity is smaller than @xmath557 ,
we remove @xmath344 from @xmath341 , but do not remove any rotation incident to @xmath344 .
we keep repeating this step ( without changing @xmath557 ) , until each of the surviving parabolas has multiplicity at least @xmath557 . moreover ,
if , during the pruning process , some rotation @xmath28 loses @xmath558 incident parabolas , we remove @xmath28 from @xmath110 .
this decreases the multiplicity of some parabolas , and we use the new multiplicities in the test for pruning further parabolas , but we keep using the original threshold @xmath557 .    when we delete a parabola @xmath344 , we lose at most @xmath557 incidences with surviving rotations .
when a rotation @xmath28 is removed , the number of current incidences with @xmath28 is smaller than or equal to twice the number of incidences with @xmath28 that have already been removed . hence , the total number of incidences that were lost during the pruning process is a most @xmath559 .
thus , we are left with a subset @xmath516 of the rotations and with a subset @xmath515 of the parabolas , so that each @xmath517 is incident to at least @xmath560 rotations of @xmath516 , and each rotation @xmath561 is incident to at least three parabolas of @xmath515 ( the latter is an immediate consequence of the rule for pruning a rotation ) .
moreover , we have @xmath562
. it therefore suffices to bound @xmath563 .
let @xmath564 .
since at least three parabolas in @xmath515 are incident to each rotation in @xmath516 , it follows that each parabola in @xmath515 is incident to at most @xmath565 rotations of @xmath516 , and therefore @xmath566 . combining this with the fact that @xmath562 , we get that @xmath567 .
we fix the following parameters @xmath568 for an appropriate absolute constant @xmath569 , whose value will be fixed shortly .
clearly , @xmath570 , and we can also ensure that @xmath571 , i.e. , that @xmath572 , by choosing @xmath573 . furthermore , since @xmath567 we have @xmath574 .
we construct a random sample @xmath575 of parabolas of @xmath515 by choosing each parabola independently at random with probability @xmath155 ; the expected size of @xmath575 is @xmath576 .
now take @xmath18 ( arbitrary ) rotations of @xmath516 on each parabola of @xmath575 ( which can always be done since @xmath577 ) , to form a sample @xmath0 of rotations in @xmath516 , of expected size at most @xmath578 .
for any parabola @xmath517 , the expected number of rotations of @xmath579 which lie on parabolas of @xmath575 is at least @xmath580 ( each of the at least @xmath557 rotations @xmath581 is incident to at least one other parabola of @xmath515 , and the probability of this parabola to be chosen in @xmath575 is @xmath155 ) .
we assume that @xmath273 is large enough so that @xmath582 is larger than @xmath583 ( it suffices to choose @xmath584 ) . since @xmath585 , and the expected size of @xmath586 is @xmath587 ,
we can use chernoff s bound , to show that there exists a sample @xmath575 such that ( i ) @xmath588 , and ( ii ) each parabola @xmath517 contains at least @xmath589 rotations of @xmath516 which lie on parabolas of @xmath575 . in
what follows , we assume that @xmath575 satisfies these properties . in this case , we have @xmath590 .
now construct , using proposition  [ prop4 ] , a nontrivial suqare - free trivariate polynomial @xmath251 which vanishes on @xmath0 , of smallest degree @xmath126 satisfying @xmath591 , so @xmath592 for @xmath328 sufficiently large ( for small values of @xmath328 we ensure the bound by choosing @xmath273 sufficiently large , as before ) .
we will choose @xmath593 , so @xmath594 .
as above , and without loss of generality , we may assume that @xmath251 is square - free : factoring out repeated factors only lowers the degree of @xmath251 and does not change its zero set .    the following properties
hold : ( a ) since @xmath595 , @xmath251 vanishes at more than @xmath352 rotations on each parabola of @xmath575 , and therefore , as already argued , it vanishes identically on each of these parabolas .
( b ) each parabola @xmath517 contains at least @xmath596 rotations which lie on parabolas of @xmath575 .
since , as just argued , @xmath251 vanishes at these rotations , it must vanish identically on @xmath344 .
thus , @xmath389 on every parabola of @xmath515 .    before proceeding ,
we enforce the inequality @xmath597 which will hold if we choose @xmath255 so that @xmath598 .
similarly , an appropriate choice of @xmath255 ( or @xmath273 ) also ensures that @xmath599 .
we next consider all the special polynomial factors of @xmath251 , and factor them out , to obtain a square - free polynomial @xmath443 , of degree at most @xmath126 , with no special polynomial factors .
as in the previous analysis , @xmath251 can have at most @xmath502 special polynomial factors , so it can vanish identically on at most @xmath502 special surfaces @xmath503 , for @xmath504 .
let @xmath600 denote the set of those parabolas of @xmath515 which are not contained in any of the vanishing surfaces @xmath505 .
for each parabola @xmath601 , @xmath443 vanishes identically on @xmath344 , and ( as argued above ) at most @xmath126 rotations in @xmath579 lie in the surfaces @xmath505 .
hence , @xmath344 contains at least @xmath520 remaining rotations , each of which is either critical or flat for @xmath443 , because each such point is incident to at least three parabolas ( necessarily of @xmath602 ) on which @xmath603 .
hence , either at least @xmath352 of these rotations are critical , and then @xmath344 is a critical parabola for @xmath443 , or at least @xmath521 of these rotations are flat , and then @xmath344 is a flat parabola for @xmath443 . applying propositions  [ prop1 ] and [ lflatx ] ,
the overall number of parabolas in @xmath602 is therefore at most @xmath604 on the other hand , by assumption , each vanishing special surface @xmath505 contains at most @xmath491 parabolas of @xmath341 , so the number of parabolas contained in the special vanishing surfaces is at most @xmath605 , with our choice of @xmath255 .
hence , the overall number of parabolas in @xmath515 is smaller than @xmath606 , a contradiction that completes the proof of theorem  [ inc-32 ] . @xmath98    * proof of theorem  [ inc - gen ] . *
write @xmath549 for short . set @xmath607 and @xmath608 , for some sufficiently large constant @xmath125 whose value will be determined later , and apply the following pruning process . as long as there exists a parabola @xmath343 whose multiplicity is smaller than @xmath557 , we remove @xmath344 from @xmath341 , but do not remove any rotation incident to @xmath344 . similarly ,
as long as there exists a rotation @xmath141 whose multiplicity is smaller than @xmath609 , we remove @xmath28 from @xmath110 .
of course , these removals may reduce the multiplicity of some surviving rotations or parabolas , making additional rotations and parabolas eligible for removal . we keep repeating this step ( without changing the initial thresholds
@xmath557 and @xmath609 ) , until each of the surviving parabolas has multiplicity at least @xmath557 and each of the surviving rotations has multiplicity at least @xmath609 . we may assume that @xmath610 , by choosing @xmath125 suficiently large and using theorem  [ thm : gk1](i ) .
when we delete a parabola @xmath344 , we lose at most @xmath557 incidences with surviving rotations . when a rotation @xmath28 is removed , we lose at most @xmath609 incidences with surviving parabolas .
all in all , we lose at most @xmath611 incidences , and are left with a subset @xmath516 of @xmath110 and with a subset @xmath515 of @xmath341 , so that each parabola of @xmath515 is incident to at least @xmath557 rotations of @xmath516 , and each rotation of @xmath516 is incident to at least @xmath609 parabolas of @xmath515 ( these subsets might be empty ) . put @xmath564 and @xmath612 .
we have @xmath613 , so it remains to bound @xmath563 , which we do as follows .
we fix some sufficiently small positive parameter @xmath501 , and construct a random sample @xmath614 by choosing each rotation of @xmath516 independently with probability @xmath155
. the expected size of @xmath615 is @xmath616 , and the expected number of points of @xmath615 on any parabola of @xmath515 is at least @xmath617 .
chernoff s bound implies that , with positive probability , @xmath618 , and @xmath619 for every @xmath517 .
we can therefore assume that @xmath615 satisfies all these inequalities .
( for the bound to apply , @xmath620 ( and @xmath357 ) must be at least some sufficiently large constant ; if this is not the case , we turn the trivial bound @xmath621 ( or @xmath622 ) on @xmath623 into the bound @xmath624 ( or @xmath625 ) by choosing the constant of proportionality sufficiently large . )    construct , using proposition  [ prop4 ] , a nontrivial square - free trivariate polynomial @xmath251 which vanishes on @xmath615 , whose degree is at most the smallest integer @xmath126 satisfying @xmath626 , so @xmath627 assuming ( as above ) that @xmath620 is sufficiently large .
choosing @xmath125 to be large enough , we may assume that @xmath628 .
( this will hold if we ensure that @xmath629 . )
this implies that @xmath251 vanishes at more than @xmath498 points on each parabola @xmath517 , and therefore it vanishes identically on each of these parabolas .
as in the previous analysis , we factor out the special polynomial factors of @xmath251 , obtaining a square - free polynomial @xmath443 , of degree at most @xmath126 , with no special polynomial factors .
let @xmath503 denote the special surfaces on which @xmath251 vanishes identically ( the zero sets of the special polynomial factors of @xmath251 ) , for some @xmath504 .
let @xmath600 ( resp . ,
@xmath630 ) denote the set of those parabolas of @xmath515 ( resp . , rotations of @xmath516 ) which are not contained in any of the vanishing surfaces @xmath505 .
put @xmath631 and @xmath632 .    for each parabola @xmath601
, @xmath443 vanishes identically on @xmath344 , and , as argued in the proof of theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] , at most @xmath126 rotations of @xmath579 lie in the surfaces @xmath505 .
hence , @xmath344 contains more than @xmath520 rotations of @xmath633 , and , arguing as in the preceding proof , each of these rotations is either critical or flat for @xmath443 .
hence , either more than @xmath352 of these rotations are critical , and then @xmath344 is a critical parabola for @xmath443 , or more than @xmath521 of these rotations are flat , and then @xmath344 is a flat parabola for @xmath443 . applying propositions  [ prop1 ] and [ lflatx ] , the overall number of parabolas in @xmath602 is therefore at most @xmath634 we now apply theorem  [ inc-32 ] to @xmath602 and @xmath633 , with the bound @xmath525 on the size of @xmath602 .
the conditions of this theorem hold for these sets : clearly , each rotation in @xmath633 is incident to at least three parabolas of @xmath602 .
for the other condition , we argue exactly as in the proof of theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] , to conclude that any special surface can contain at most @xmath534 parabolas of @xmath515 , establishing the second condition of theorem  [ inc-32 ] .
this theorem then implies that the number of incidences between @xmath633 and @xmath602 , which is also equal to the number of incidences between @xmath633 and @xmath515 , is @xmath635 moreover , since each parabola of @xmath602 contains at least eight times more rotations of @xmath633 than of @xmath636 , this bound also applies to the number of incidences between @xmath636 and @xmath602 .
it therefore remains to bound the number of incidences between @xmath636 and @xmath637 , namely , between the rotations and parabolas contained in the vanishing special surfaces @xmath505 .
to do so , we iterate over the surfaces , say , in the order @xmath503 . for each surface @xmath505 in turn , we process the rotations and parabolas contained in @xmath505 and then remove them from further processing on subsequent surfaces .
let us then consider a special surface @xmath505 .
let @xmath638 and @xmath639 denote respectively the number of rotations and parabolas contained in @xmath505 , which were not yet removed when processing previous surfaces .
the number of incidences between these rotations and parabolas can be bounded by the classical szemerdi - trotter incidence bound  @xcite ( see also ( [ weak23 ] ) ) , which is @xmath640 . summing these bounds over all the special surfaces @xmath505 , and using hlder s inequality and the fact , established in lemma  [ sspec ] , that @xmath641 , we get an overall bound of @xmath642 @xmath643 where we use the facts that @xmath644 and @xmath645 , which follow since in this analysis each parabola and rotation is processed at most once . the two linear terms satisfy @xmath646 ( the bound obtained in the pruning process ) , and @xmath647 since @xmath648 ; see remark ( 2 ) following theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] .
we are not done yet , because each rotation of @xmath636 is processed only once , within the first surface @xmath505 containing it .
this , however , can be handled as in @xcite .
that is , let @xmath28 be a rotation which was processed within the first surface @xmath505 containing it .
suppose that @xmath28 also lies on some later surface @xmath649 , with @xmath650 , and let @xmath344 be a parabola contained in @xmath649 , which has not been removed yet ; in particular , @xmath344 is not contained in @xmath505 , and thus meets it transversally , so the incidence between @xmath344 and @xmath28 can be regarded as one of the transversal incidences in @xmath505 , which we have been ignoring so far . to count them
, we simply recall that each parabola , whether of @xmath637 or of @xmath602 , has at most three transversal intersections with a surface @xmath505 ( see the proof of theorem  [ thm : gk1 ] ) , for a total of at most @xmath126 crossings with all the vanishing surfaces .
since each of these parabolas contains at least @xmath498 rotations of @xmath516 , those `` transversal incidences '' are only a fraction of the total number of incidences , and we simply ignore them altogether .    to recap , we obtain the following bound on the number of incidences between @xmath516 and @xmath515 : @xmath651 adding the bound @xmath652 on the incidences lost during the pruning process , we get the asserted bound .
@xmath98    it is interesting to note that the proof technique also yields the following result .
[ mgek ] let @xmath341 be a set of @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas and @xmath110 a set of points in 3-space which satisfy the conditions of theorem  [ inc - gen](i ) .
then , for any @xmath653 , the number @xmath654 of points of @xmath110 incident to at least @xmath5 parabolas of @xmath341 satisfies @xmath655    * proof : * write @xmath656 for short .
we clearly have @xmath657 .
theorem  [ inc - gen ] then implies @xmath658 , from which the first two bounds follow . if @xmath659 we use the other bound ( in ( [ weak23 ] ) ) , to obtain @xmath660 , which implies that @xmath661 ( which is in fact an equivalent statement of the classical szemerdi - trotter bound ) . @xmath98
in this section we further improve the bound in theorem  [ inc - gen ] ( and corollary  [ mgek ] ) using more standard space decomposition techniques .
we show :    [ thm : impr ] the number of incidences between @xmath357 arbitrary rotations and @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas , defined for a planar ground set with @xmath1 points , is @xmath662 where the @xmath663 notation hides polylogarithmic factors . in particular , when all @xmath547 @xmath140-parabolas are considered , the bound is @xmath664    * proof : * we dualize the problem as follows .
we map each parabola @xmath139 to the point @xmath665 in @xmath666 .
each rotation @xmath28 is mapped to a 2-plane @xmath667 , which is the locus of all points @xmath668 such that @xmath28 is incident to @xmath344 .
this is indeed a 2-plane , because the equations of @xmath28 , either ( [ eq : helix ] ) in the @xmath103-frame , or ( [ parabola ] ) in the @xmath136-frame , are a pair of linear ( independent ) equations in @xmath108 .
so in this new setup we have @xmath328 points and @xmath357 2-planes in 4-space , and we wish to bound the number of incidences between these points and 2-planes .
we note that any pair of these 2-planes intersect in at most one point .
( the corresponding statement in the primal setup is that two rotations can be incident to at most one common @xmath140-parabola . )    to bound the number of incidences , we first project the points and 2-planes onto the 3-space @xmath669 .
we claim that , with a generic choice of the coordinate frame in the original @xmath138-plane , the projected points remain distinct .
indeed , a point @xmath108 , dual to an @xmath140-parabola @xmath139 , is projected to the point @xmath670 , so the projected point uniquely determines @xmath29 , and also @xmath31 , because we may assume that no two points of @xmath0 have the same @xmath18-coordinate @xmath326 . hence the projected points are all distinct .
this is not necessarily the case for the 2-planes . indeed ,
consider a 2-plane @xmath667 .
its projection onto the @xmath671-space is the plane satisfying the first equation of ( [ parabola ] ) , say , namely @xmath672 it is easily checked that this equation uniquely determines the @xmath194 and @xmath190 components of @xmath28 , leaving @xmath195 ( i.e. , the shift along the @xmath362-direction that @xmath28 makes after its initial pure rotation ) undetermined .
thus it is possible that several distinct rotations , all with the same @xmath194 and @xmath190 components , are projected to the same 2-plane .
this has the potential danger that the projection loses incidences , when several 2-planes , incident to a common point @xmath667 , get projected into the same plane , so that , instead of several incidences with @xmath667 in 4-space , we get only one incidence in the projection .
nevertheless , this bad situation can not arise .
this follows from the easy observation that two distinct rotations with the same @xmath194 and @xmath190 components can not both map a point @xmath673 into the same point @xmath674 .    to recap , after the projection we get @xmath328 points and at most @xmath357 planes in @xmath2 , and our goal is to bound the number of incidences between them .
more precisely , we want to bound only the number of original incidences .
we note that each such incidence appears as an incidence in the projection , but not necessarily the other way around .
we recall that , in general , the number of incidences between @xmath328 points and @xmath357 planes in 3-space can be @xmath622 in the worst case , because of the possibility that many points lie on a common line and many planes pass through that line .
this situation can also arise in our setup , but we will apply a careful analysis to show that the number of original incidences that project to such a degenerate configuration is much smaller .
we proceed as follows .
we fix a parameter @xmath675 , to be determined shortly , and construct the following decomposition of 3-space .
first , we note that the projected points @xmath670 have only @xmath1 distinct @xmath676-coordinates , which are the @xmath18-coordinates of the points of @xmath0 .
similarly , they have only @xmath1 distinct @xmath326-coordinates .
we partition the 3-space by a set @xmath677 of @xmath675 planes orthogonal to the @xmath676-axis , so that within each resulting slab the projected points have at most @xmath678 distinct @xmath676-coordinates .
we construct a similar collection @xmath679 of @xmath675 planes orthogonal to the @xmath326-axis , so that within each resulting slab the projected points have at most @xmath678 distinct @xmath326-coordinates .
we then choose a random sample @xmath680 of @xmath675 of the projected planes .
we take the set @xmath681 of @xmath682 planes , construct their arrangement , and decompose each of its cells into simplices .
we obtain @xmath683 simplices , and the construction and the standard @xmath684-net theory @xcite imply that , with high probability , the following properties hold for every simplex @xmath685 of the partition : ( i ) @xmath685 is crossed by at most @xmath686 projected 2-planes ; ( ii ) the projected points that fall into @xmath685 have at most @xmath678 distinct @xmath676-coordinates and at most @xmath678 distinct @xmath326-coordinates .
further refining the simplices , if necessary , we can also assume that ( iii ) each simplex contains at most @xmath687 projected points .
property ( ii ) is crucial .
it asserts that the number of points of @xmath0 which induce the parabolas whose dual points project into a fixed simplex is at most @xmath688 ; more precisely , there are only @xmath678 `` source '' points of @xmath0 and only @xmath678 `` target '' points , so that each of these parabolas is of the form @xmath139 , where @xmath29 is one of the @xmath678 source points and @xmath31 is one of the @xmath678 target points .
( note , by the way , that the number of parabolas , @xmath687 , in volved in a subproblem is much smaller than the maximum possible value @xmath689 , when @xmath690 . )
we now apply theorem  [ inc - gen ] to each simplex @xmath685 ; that is , to the set @xmath691 of those parabolas whose ( projected ) dual points lie in @xmath685 , and to the set @xmath692 of those rotations whose ( projected ) dual 2-planes cross @xmath685 .
put @xmath693 and @xmath694 .
we note that some rotations in @xmath692 may be incident to no more than two parabolas in @xmath691 ; these rotations contribute @xmath695 to the overall incidence bound . by theorem  [ inc - gen ] we thus have is subsumed by the other terms , because of the possibility that some of the @xmath696 rotations are incident to only one or two parabolas in a subproblem . ]
@xmath697 summing these bounds over all cells @xmath685 , we get an overall bound of @xmath698 @xmath699 where , as above , @xmath663 hides polylogarithmic factors .
we also have to add to the bound incidences involving points , which are projections dual to parabolas , which lie on the boundaries of the cells of the cutting .
let @xmath700 , the projection of a ( unique ) point @xmath701 be such a point .
let @xmath359 denote the face whose relative interior contains @xmath401 .
if @xmath359 is a 2-face of some simplex @xmath685 , we can associate @xmath401 with @xmath685 : except for the single plane containing @xmath359 , any other plane incident to @xmath401 must cross @xmath685 , and we can count the incidence within the subproblem of @xmath685 .
the uncounted incidences , at most one per parabola , add up to at most @xmath328 .
if @xmath359 is a vertex ( so @xmath702 ) then any plane through @xmath359 either bounds or crosses some adjacent simplex , so the total number of such incidences is @xmath703 .
the harder situation is when @xmath359 is an edge .
again , if a plane _ crosses _ @xmath359 at @xmath401 , we can count this incidence within any adjacent simplex , arguing as in the case where @xmath359 is a 2-face .
the difficult case is when the plane _ contains _
@xmath359 , and we handle it as follows .
it is simpler to consider @xmath359 as a full line of intersection of two sampled planes , rather than a single edge .
( the decomposition , though , has also other edges , obtained in the decomposition of arrangement cells into simplices ; these edges require a slightly different treatment , given below . )
let @xmath704 be the projected dual points that lie on @xmath359 , and let @xmath705 denote the parabola corresponding to @xmath706 , for @xmath707 .
consider the rotations @xmath28 whose dual 2-planes project to planes containing @xmath359 .
rotations @xmath28 of this kind which are incident to just one of the parabolas @xmath705 are easy to handle , because the number of incidences involving these rotations is at most @xmath357 ( for the fixed line @xmath359 ) , for a total of @xmath708 .    consider then those rotations @xmath28 which are incident to at least two of the parabolas @xmath705 .
since the points @xmath709 lie on a common line , it follows that the points @xmath163 are also collinear in the original @xmath138-plane , lying on a common line @xmath305 .
the points @xmath164 are not necessarily collinear , but they have the property that , for any pair of indices @xmath710 , the ratio @xmath711 is fixed .
see figure  [ abab ] .
abab.pstex_t    now if @xmath28 is incident to two parabolas @xmath705 , @xmath712 , then @xmath28 maps @xmath163 to @xmath164 and @xmath713 to @xmath714 . in particular , @xmath715 .
this , and the fact that @xmath711 is fixed , imply that @xmath28 maps @xmath305 to the line through @xmath164 and @xmath714 , and that the slope of this line has a _ fixed absolute value _ @xmath716 . hence , considering , with no loss of generality , only lines of the latter kind with positive slope
, we can partition @xmath717 into equivalence classes , so that , for each class , all the corresponding points @xmath164 lie on a common line of slope @xmath716 .
moreover , there is at most one rotation that is incident to at least two parabolas from the same class ( and no rotation can be incident to two parabolas from different classes ) .
thus the total number of incidences of this kind , for the fixed @xmath359 , is at most @xmath155 .
summing over all lines @xmath359 , we get a total of @xmath508 such incidences .    in the preceding analysis we considered only intersection lines between sampled planes , but , as noted , the cutting has additional edges , interior to cells of the arrangement .
we handle such edges in almost the same way as above .
that is , we consider such an edge @xmath718 , and argue , exactly as above , that the number of original incidences involving points on @xmath718 and planes that contain @xmath718 is proportional to the number @xmath719 of points on @xmath718 plus the number @xmath720 of planes containing @xmath718 .
( incidences involving planes that cross @xmath718 are also handled exactly as above , wih the same resulting bound . )
the sum @xmath721 is still at most @xmath328 . for the other sum @xmath722
, we note that the number of edges @xmath718 is @xmath683 ( instead of @xmath723 in the preceding analysis ) , but each edge @xmath718 can be contained in at most @xmath686 planes , as follows easily from the @xmath684-net theory ( this holds with high probability , but we may assume that our sample does indeed have this property ) .
hence , we have @xmath724 , the same bound as above .
altogether , the number of incidences is thus @xmath725 we now choose @xmath726 this choice of @xmath675 makes the first and third terms in the incidence bound equal to each other , and they both dominate the second term , as is easily verified , using the fact that @xmath342 .
note also that @xmath727 when @xmath728 assume first that @xmath357 lies in this range .
then the incidence bound becomes @xmath729 when @xmath730 , we use @xmath731 and get the bound @xmath732 since @xmath733 , the second term dominates the two other terms , and the bound is thus @xmath734 .
finally , when @xmath735 , we use the szemerdi - trotter bound in ( [ weak23 ] ) , which is easily seen to yield the bound @xmath508 .
adding all these bounds , the theorem follows .
@xmath98    using this bound , we can strengthen corollary  [ mgek ] , as follows .
[ mgek1 ] let @xmath341 be a set of @xmath328 @xmath140-parabolas and @xmath110 a set of rotations , with respect to a planar ground set @xmath0 of @xmath1 points .
then , for any @xmath4 , the number @xmath654 of rotations of @xmath110 incident to at least @xmath5 parabolas of @xmath341 satisfies @xmath736 for @xmath547 , the bound becomes @xmath737    * proof : * the proof is similar to the proof of corollary  [ mgek ] , and we omit its routine details . @xmath98
in this paper we have reduced the problem of obtaining a near - linear lower bound for the number of distinct distances in the plane to a problem involving incidences between points and a special class of parabolas ( or helices ) in three dimensions .
we have made significant progress in obtaining upper bounds for the number of such incidences , but we are still short of tightening these bounds to meet the conjectures on these bounds made in the introduction .    to see how far we still have to go , consider the bound in corollary  [ mgek1 ] , for the case @xmath547 , which then becomes @xmath738 .
( here @xmath654 coincides with @xmath58 as defined in ( h3 ) . )
moreover , we also have the szemerdi - trotter bound @xmath739 , which is smaller than the previous bound for @xmath740 . substituting these bounds in the analysis of ( h3 ) and ( h4 ) , we get @xmath62 ^ 2}{x } \le |k| = n_{\ge 2 } + \sum_{k\ge 3 } ( k-1 ) n_{\ge k } = \ ] ] @xmath741 =   n_{\ge 2 } + o(s^{29/9 } ) .\ ] ] it is fairly easy to show that @xmath119 is @xmath742 , by noting that @xmath119 can be upper bounded by @xmath743 , where @xmath744 is as defined in ( h1 ) . using the upper bound @xmath745 @xcite , we get @xmath746 thus , at the moment , @xmath119 is the bottleneck in the above bound , and we only get the ( weak ) lower bound @xmath11 on the number of distinct distances . showing that @xmath747 too ( hopefully , a rather modest goal ) would improve the lower bound to @xmath748 , still a rather weak lower bound .
\(ii ) it gave us a new , and considerably more involved setup in which the new algebraic technique of guth and katz could be applied .
as such , the analysis in this paper might prove useful for obtaining improved incidence bounds for points and other classes of curves in three dimensions .
the case of points and circles is an immediate next challenge .
another comment is in order .
our work can be regarded as a special variant of the complex version of the szemerdi - trotter theorem on point - line incidences @xcite . in the complex plane ,
the equation of a line ( in complex notation ) is @xmath749 . interpreting this equation as a transformation of the real plane
, we get a _ homothetic map _ ,
i.e. , a rigid motion followed by a scaling .
we can therefore rephrase the complex version of the szemerdi - trotter theorem as follows .
we are given a set @xmath110 of @xmath357 pairs of points in the ( real ) plane , and a set @xmath750 of @xmath328 homothetic maps , and we seek an upper bound on the number of times a map @xmath751 and a pair @xmath752 `` coincide '' , in the sense that @xmath46 . in our work
we only consider `` complex lines '' whose `` slope '' @xmath251 has absolute value @xmath117 ( these are our rotations ) , and the set @xmath110 is simply @xmath753 .
\(a ) obtain a cubic upper bound for the number of rotations which map only two points of the given ground planar set @xmath0 to another pair of points of @xmath0 .
any upper bound smaller than @xmath754 would already be a significant step towards improving the current lower bound of @xmath17 on distinct distances @xcite .
the bulk of the paper was written after the passing away of gyrgy elekes in september 2008 . however , the initial infrastructure , including the transformation of the distinct distances problem to an incidence problem in three dimensions , and many other steps , is due to him . as a matter of fact
, it was already discovered by elekes about 10 years ago , and lay dormant since then , mainly because of the lack of effective tools for tackling the incidence problem .
these tools became available with the breakthrough result of guth and katz  @xcite in december 2008 , and have made this paper possible .
thanks are due to mrton elekes , who was a driving force in restarting the research on this problem .                              n. h. katz and g. tardos , a new entropy inequality for the erds distance problem , in _ towards a theory of geometric graphs _ , j. pach , ed .
, _ contemporary math .
342 , amer .
soc . press , providence , ri , 2004 , pp .  119126 .
a. pressley , _ elementary differential geometry _ ,
springer undergraduate mathematics series , springer verlag , london , 2001 .
r. quilodrn , the joints problem in @xmath755 , arxiv:0906.0555 , posted june 2 , 2009 .