Tight \(t\)-designs on two concentric spheres (Q2255410)

In this paper, the authors propounded some general theory of tight Euclidian \(t\)-designs on two concentric spheres in \(\mathbb R^n\). \textit{P. Delsarte} et al. [Geom. Dedicata 6, 363--388 (1977; Zbl 0376.05015)] first defined a spherical \(t\)-design as a finite set on the unit sphere \(S^{n-1}\) such that any integral of polynomial \(f(x)\) of degree at most \(t\) on \(S^{n-1}\) is given by the average value of \(f(x)\) over a finite set \(X\). \textit{A. Neumaier} and \textit{J. J. Seidel} [Indag. Math. 50, No. 3, 321--334 (1988; Zbl 0657.10033)] proposed the concept of Euclidian \(t\)-design. The Fisher type inequalities for spherical \(t\)-designs are generalized to Euclidian designs. The classifications of these designs have been done already by the authors for \(t \leq 9\), when \(n\) is odd. Particularly in this paper, the authors consider \(t \geq 13\), but for \(t = 11\), as this normal procedure is not workable, all the useful information is given. They show the result by reducing the problem to the existence of integer solutions of certain Diophantine equations. For even \(t\), the solutions are difficult and hence for giving scope to the future researchers, it is left out in the present study. In order to prove the result, Theorem 3.1 is proposed: Assume \(n \geq 3\) and let \(e = [1/2]\), then \(|A(X_1,X_2)|=e\). Moreover, if \(t = 2e+1\), then \(A(X_1,X_2)\) coincides with the set of zeros of the Gegenbauer polynomial \(Qe(x)\) of degree \(e\). If \(t = 2e\), then \(s\lambda = e-1\) or \(s\lambda = e\). If \(t = 2e + 1\), then \(s\lambda = e s\lambda = e+1\) for \(\lambda = n = 1,2\). Moreover, if \(e \geq 5\), then every element of \(A(X\lambda)\) is a rational number for \(\lambda = 1,2\). If \(A(X_1)\) or \(A(X_2)\) consists of rational numbers, then there are only finitely many tight \(t\)-designs on 2 concentric spheres up to similar transformations. In establishing this theorem, another lemma arose, which is proved by the authors. They conclude the paper dealing with the case of \(t = 11\).