A counter-example to the theorem of Hiemer and Snurnikov

DOI10.1023/B:JOSS.0000013974.81162.20zbMATH Open1058.37040arXivmath/0408431OpenAlexW1968499554MaRDI QIDQ702944FDOQ702944

Authors: Thierry Monteil 

Publication date: 19 January 2005

Published in: Journal of Statistical Physics (Search for Journal in Brave)

Abstract: A planar polygonal billiard $P$ is said to have the finite blocking property if for every pair $(O,A)$ of points in $P$ there exists a finite number of ``blocking points $B_1,\mathrm{...},B_n$ such that every billiard trajectory from $O$ to $A$ meets one of the $B_i$'s. As a counter-example to a theorem of Hiemer and Snurnikov, we construct a family of rational billiards that lack the finite blocking property.

Full work available at URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0408431

Recommendations

• A counter-example to Hausmann's conjecture
• A counterexample to Ljamin's theorem
• A counter-example to Grunwald's theorem
• A counter-example of Gottwald's theorem
• A counter-example to a lemma of Skornjakov
• Counterexamples to Hedetniemi's conjecture
• A counterexample to the \(a\)-`theorem'
• A counterexample to the Nelson-Seiberg theorem
• A counterexample to a conjecture of Hasson
• A counterexample to the Hirsch conjecture

zbMATH Keywords

translation surfacesblocking propertyrational polygonal billiards

Mathematics Subject Classification ID

Hamilton's equations (70H05)

Cited In (6)

• On topological entropy of billiard tables with small inner scatterers
• Generic absence of finite blocking for interior points of Birkhoff billiards
• On the finite blocking property
• Birkhoff billiards are insecure
• Blocking light in compact Riemannian manifolds
• Finite blocking property versus pure periodicity

This page was built for publication: A counter-example to the theorem of Hiemer and Snurnikov

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q702944)