§ Lyndon + Christoffel = Convex Hull
Actual "real world" use-case of lyndon factorization, cribbed from here:
I wanted to learn a real-world use-case of lyndon factorization so I could
remember it. I found a whole bridge between combinatorics/strings and
discrete geometry (they call it "digital geometry") that I didn't know
existed before.
- If you have a line with rational slope p/q and you want to draw a "discretized line" by connecting integer points in ZxZ, you can describe this discretized line as starting from (0,0), making moves x (move up 1 unit along x-axis), y (move up 1 unit along y-axis), finally reaching the point (p,q). For example, to reach the point (2,3), you can make the moves [x,x,x,y,y].
- A christoffel word is a word w∈{x,y}⋆ such that it hugs a line of rational slope p/q as close as possible. Formally, there are no integer points between the line with slope p/q starting from the origin, and the discretized line as described by w. An example picture:
- It turns out that all primitive christoffel words are Lyndon words. I'm not 100% sure what primitive is, but the take-away is that these primitive christoffel words represent discrete lines that are good approximations of lines.
- Now, we are given a discrete sequence of adjacent line segments going upwards, where the line segments are described by x,y moves. We want to check if the discrete curve defined by them is well-approximating a convex polygon.
- We compute the lyndon factorization of the word. This splits the original line segment into a series of line segments, where each successive line segment has lower slope than the previous (since the lyndon decomposition splits words into non-decreasing lex order).
- We can then check that each word in the lyndon decomposition is a Christoffel word. If it is, then your sequence of moves describes a "good discrete convex hull", since as described above, a christoffel word "hugs the line" well.
§ Bonus: slick characterization of line drawing
If we want to draw a line with slope p/q = 4/7 using the lower approximation the idea
is that we keep taking 4 steps along x, and every time we "exceed" 7 steps
along x, we take a step along y.
This is the same as:
- working in
Z/(4+7)Z, starting from 0, writing down multiples of 4 till we cycle back to 0 - marking an "increase" in a step with an
x, and a "decrease" in a step with y.
The intuition is that once we walk k*p steps where k*p >= q, we want
to increment y. So, at first glance, we may believe we should consider
Z/qZ. However, this is misguided. Examples to enlighten:
- Consider
x=1, y=0. We should use Z/1Z = { 0 }: that is, we must keep moving along 0 -x -> 0 -x-> 0 -x-> .... This is unlike what happens if we choose Z/0Z (which is not a well-defined idea). - Consider
x=1,y=1. We should use Z/2Z, so we keep going 0 -x-> 1 -y-> 0 -> ...which will cause is to flip x -> y -> x -> y -> ....
In some sense, we are making sure that we can "start" with an x and see where that takes us.
In the Z/1Z case, we realise that we can keep taking xs. In the
Z/2Z case, we realise we need to flip between x and x.
Let's try to show this formally, where k is the smallest number
such that kp >= q. We'll also have concrete examples where
p=2, q=7. For the example, k=4 since kp = 4*2 = 8 > 7.
If we work in Z/yZ = Z/7Z, we will get the numbers:
Z: 0, p, 2p, ... (k-1)p, [q] kp
Z/qZ: 0, p, 2p, ... (k-1)p, [q] (kp % q)
Z/7z: 0, 2, 4, ... 6, [7] (8 % 7 = 1)
But notice that we are inserting x between numbers. So we will get:
Z: 0 -x-> p -x-> 2p, ... (k-1)p -y-> (k+1)p
Z/qZ: 0 -x-> p -x-> 2p, ... (k-1)p -y-> ((k+1)p % y)
Z/7z: 0 -x-> 2 -x-> 4, ... 6 -y-> (8 % 7 = 1)
^ ^
x since [0 < 2] y since [6 > 1]
which gives us the moves:
Z/7Z: 0 -x-> 2 -x-> 4 -x-> 6 -y-> 8 % 7 = 1
We only get 3 occurences of x, after which on the next accumulation of p,
becomes an 8 which wraps around to a 1. This is the age-old tension that exists
between points and gaps . For k points, there are k-1 gaps. In our
case, we have 4 points [0, 2, 4, 6], but this leaves us room for only
three gaps for three x moves, while in reality we need 4.
We remedy this situation by giving ourselves space enough for one more x, by changing from Z/qZ
to Z/(p+q)Z. We should look at this as creating space for another gap.
Z: 0, p, 2p, ... (k-1)p, [q] kp, [q+p ], (k+1)p
Z/(p+q)Z: 0, p, 2p, ... (k-1)p, [q] kp, [q+p ], (k+1)p % (p+q)
Z/9z: 0, 2, 4, ... 6, [7] 8, [7+2=9], (10 % 9=1)
which gives us the moves:
Z: 0 -x-> p -x-> ... (k-1)p -x-> kp -y-> (k+1)p
Z/(p+q)Z: 0 -x-> p -x-> ... (k-1)p -x-> kp -y-> (k+1)p % (p+q)
Z/9Z: 0 -x-> 2 -x-> ... 6 -x-> 8 -y-> ( 10 % 9 = 1)
^ ^
x since [0 < 2] y since [8 > 1]
That is, we are able to get k occurences x between 0, p, ..,kp which
has (k+1) points. Concretely, we have:
Z/9Z: 0 -x-> 2 -x-> 4 -x-> 6 -x-> 8 -y-> 1
where we have 4 occurences of x in between after which we have an occurence
of y, which is what we want when x=2, y = 7. We need to reach at least
q=7 before we have exceeded our denominator and need to make a move
along y.