Skip to content
#explainable ai #edge computing Dataset Open access

Exact certificates for r(n) = e(n), n = 9–21: regular triangle unions

Aug 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

Version 6 (Augustus 2026) adds r(21) = e(21) = 231, closing the hardest rung to date after a five-day resistance documented in CHANGELOG_v6.md; the pattern now holds for thirteen consecutive values. -- Version 5 (August 2026) adds r(19) = 207 and r(20) = 220, extending r(n) = e(n) = U(n) to twelve consecutive values; the n=20 census was dual-computed by the established Python pipeline and a gate-validated native kernel with exact agreement. --- Version 4 (August 2026) closes the question left open in v3: r(18) = e(18) = 196, certified circle-inscribed and independently verified. The pattern r(n) = e(n) holds continuously for n = 9 through 18; the apparent separation was a search-capability artifact, documented in CHANGELOG_v4.md. --- Version 3 (August 2026) adds three results: r(17) = e(17) = 185, extending the circle-inscribed series to nine consecutive values meeting the proven combinatorial ceiling. r(18) >= 195, an exact circle-inscribed certificate one below the ceiling of 196. e(18) = 196: the first FREE-PLANAR certificate in this series, consisting of 54 rational point coordinates not on a circle, 196 sides meeting the ceiling, with a new decisive assertion verified in exact integer arithmetic: REGULARITY, i.e. the boundary cycle visits the 54 triangle corners with labels 0..17 repeated exactly three times. Consequently the sequence A375986 extends to a(18) = 196, attained off-circle, while the best known circle configuration at n = 18 has 195 sides: whether r(18) = 195 < e(18), which would be the first separation of the circle-restricted and regular quantities, or r(18) = 196, is open and under active search. All three new certificates passed the same five-tier verification standard as v1/v2 (two independently written exact-arithmetic verifiers, two execution environments, zero floating point in any decisive predicate); the three independent verifiers are included with SHA-256 hashes in CHANGELOG_v3.md. See CHANGELOG_v3.md for details and candid provenance notes. ----- Version 2 (August 2026) extends the results to n = 16: exact certificates for r(13)=137, r(14)=150, r(15)=161, r(16)=172 are added, each verified to the same standard as v1 (two independently written exact-arithmetic verifiers, two environments, zero floating point). See CHANGELOG_v2.md for details. The sequence A375986 now reads 3, 12, 22, 33, 45, 56, 67, 80, 91, 102, 115, 126, 137, 150, 161, 172. Summary This deposit contains explicit, exactly-verifiable configurations answering and extending open questions from: G. Alkauskas, Regular triangle unions with maximal number of sides, arXiv:2510.22584 (v5, April 2026). For n triangles inscribed in the unit circle with their 3n vertices in cyclic arrangement (a regular union, in the paper's sense), r(n) denotes the maximal number of sides of a union that is a simple polygon. The paper proves the combinatorial ceiling e(n) ≤ 12n − 12 − γ(n+1) with γ(n+1) = n + 2 − 2⌊(n+1)/3⌋, poses "prove rigorously that r(9) = 90" as Open Question 2, and asks in Question 3 to improve the bound r(n) ≥ 10n − 7. Main results certified here: r(9) = e(9) = 91 — answering Open Question 2 in the opposite direction to the conjecture; r(10) = e(10) = 102, r(11) = e(11) = 115, r(12) = e(12) = 126 — three new exact values of the sequence e(n) (cf. OEIS A375986: 3, 12, 22, 33, 45, 56, 67, 80, 91, ...), each meeting the proven ceiling; consequent data for Open Questions 6 and 7: the observed increments are 11, 13, 11 (exactly the ceiling increments; no increment of 14), consistent with limsup e(n)/n = 35/3. The certificates Each certificate (certificates/r{n}_exact_certificate.json) is a list of 3n rational numbers t, in increasing order. The corresponding vertex is P(t) = ((1 − t²)/(1 + t²), 2t/(1 + t²)), which lies exactly on the unit circle for rational t. Increasing t corresponds to circular order (wrapping through (−1, 0)); the vertex at position j belongs to triangle j mod n. The claim per certificate: the union of the n closed triangles is a simple polygon with exactly S sides (S = 91, 102, 115, 126), all 3n corners on its boundary in circular order. Verification Two independently written verifiers are included; both use only Python's standard-library fractions.Fraction — no floating point enters any decisive predicate: verifiers/exact_certifier_pipeline.py — the author-side certifier; verifiers/independent_verifier_generalized.py — an independent verifier written from scratch by OpenAI's ChatGPT on request, covering all four certificates. It additionally checks: no coincident vertices, no degenerate triangles, no vertex on a foreign edge, no collinear foreign edges, no endpoint/tangent contacts, no three concurrent edges, boundary graph 2-regular with a single component, no collinear boundary nodes, all corners genuine polygon vertices in circular traversal order, and connectedness of the triangle-interior overlap graph. verifiers/independent_verifier_n9.py is its original n = 9 version. Both verifiers were cross-executed in two separate environments with identical output. To verify yourself: python3 verifiers/independent_verifier_generalized.py (Python ≥ 3.9, no dependencies; runtime seconds to minutes). Method and provenance The configurations were found with substantial help from AI systems (Anthropic's Claude; independent verification code by OpenAI's ChatGPT). Blind numerical search over circle configurations reliably plateaus just below sharp optima (reproducibly 44/45 and 77/80 on the paper's known Pentastar/Octastar values, which may explain the experimental value 90 at n = 9 reported in the paper). The successful approach was combinatorics-first, built on the paper's own triangulation-shift tool: (1) exhaustively enumerate maximal-weight triangulation shifts of the (n+1)-gon; (2) compile each champion into its full boundary word (the compiler reproduces the paper's 79-edge worked example symbol-for-symbol and its Pentastar/Octastar structure); (3) solve the geometric realization on the circle guided by the target word; (4) inflate degeneracy margins, round to rational circle points, and certify exactly. search_code/ contains the complete pipeline. License Code: MIT. Data (certificates) and accompanying text: CC BY 4.0. If you use these certificates or values, please cite this deposit and arXiv:2510.22584.

View source

Similar papers

#computer vision Review Sep 2017

Agile Software Development Methods: Review and Analysis

This publication proposes a definition and a classification of agile software development approaches and analyses ten software development methods that can be characterized as being "agile" against the defined criterion.

P. Abrahamsson, O. Salo, Jussi Ronkainen et al. · 727 citations · ⚡54
#computer vision Jun 2008

The impact of agile practices on communication in software development

The study shows that agile practices improve both informal and formal communication, but indicates that, in larger development situations involving multiple external stakeholders, a mismatch of adequate communication mechanisms can sometimes even hinder the communication.

M. Pikkarainen, Jukka Haikara, O. Salo et al. · 401 citations · ⚡48
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2014

Software development in startup companies: A systematic mapping study

The results indicate that software engineering work practices are chosen opportunistically, adapted and configured to provide value under the constrains imposed by the startup context.

Nicolò Paternoster, Carmine Giardino, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 394 citations · ⚡54

Related blog posts

MIT News · Artificial Intelligence Oct 15, 2026

AI model decodes the language cells use to communicate

A new computational approach reveals how cells communicate to assemble into tissues. This could accelerate stem cell engineering, improve disease models, and inform therapies.

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 6, 2026

What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us

Jennifer Neville did not want to go into computer science—but that’s exactly where she landed. Neville discusses the starts and stops that led to her professional sweet spot and her work identifying “surprising failures” making it hard for AI to handle complexity.  The post What AI gets wrong and what failure teaches us appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.