Proposed Proof of The Lonely Runner Conjecture

This is the rough draft of what appears to be a proof of the lonely runner conjecture for all cases.
It has not yet been reviewed, nor thoroughly edited. However, to the best of my knowledge, it appears
to be correct. I hesitantly publish the solution for the world to judge. Please do your best to tear it apart.
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

Unpacking the Problem

The lonely runner conjecture is typically stated as follows:

Consider k runners on a circular track of unit length. At t = 0, all runners are at the same
position and start to run; the runners speeds are pairwise distinct. A runner is said to be
lonely at time t if they are at a distance of at least = 1/k from every other runner at
time t. The lonely runner conjecture states that each runner is lonely at some time.
(Wikipedia)

The deeper nature and implications of this conjecture are not well-illustrated by the picture of
runners circling a track, though the runners-on-track picture does serve as a bridge between the world of
our intuition and the mathematical world in which the lonely runner conjecture is embedded.

2
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

From Running to View Obstruction

While it is theoretically possible to spend all day imagining runners circling a track at various
speeds, it is practically inadvisable to do so. We wish to step outside of time itself, and to view the relevant
facets of the problem from a Gods eye view. To do this, we will reformulate the situation in purely spatial
terms. However, nothing in life or in math is free; popping the problem into a spatial domain will cause it
to become a bit unruly, requiring the analysis of an infinite number of potential pathways through an
infinite number of arrays of infinitely many hypercubic blocks in a set of spaces of every possible number
of dimensions. More on that later. We will begin by considering the case involving just three runners.

Any one of our three runners can be selected as a reference runner whose point of view will be
analyzed. If it can be shown that the reference runner will eventually become lonely for every possible
set of runner speeds, then it can be concluded that all three runners will become lonely eventually, since
there is nothing special about our arbitrarily-selected reference runner. In fancy terms, the reference
runner will be chosen without loss of generality.

Since each runner maintains a constant speed forever, the reference runner will always see the
other two runners running at a constant speed relative to him-or-herself. This is the first advantage of
viewing the world through the reference runners perspective: since the reference runners own speed is
technically zeroed out, the 3-dimensional problem becomes 2-dimensional, in that there are now only
two arbitrary speeds which must be considered. In mathematical terms, the speed set transforms as
follows:
{1 , 2 , 3 } {0, 2 1 , 3 1 } = {0, 2 , 3 }

where 1 is the speed of the reference runner.

Consider now the following picture:

Here we see an array of blocks in a two-dimensional space. The blocks are uniform, square,
centered on half-integer positions, and with side lengths of one third. The array can be imagined to extend
infinitely across all four quadrants, however for the purposes of this diagram we can consider only the
first quadrant without loss of generality.

3
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

The purpose of the previous diagram is to spatially represent the reference runners distance from
the other two runners (1 , 2 ) at any point in time. Imagine the diagonal line segment extending linearly
through the block array over time, where the relationship between the passage of time and the extension
rate of the diagonal line segment is determined by the magnitude of the relative speeds 2 and 3, and
the slope of the line is determined by the proportion of these relative speeds to each other.

As the line segment extends through the block array shown above, it will eventually touch or
intersect a block, which corresponds to the reference runner becoming lonely, since at that point the
1
runner is at least a distance of = 3 away from the nearest integer line in both 1 and 2 . The diagonal
line shown is the optimal path through the two-dimensional block array, where 1 = 22; all other
nontrivial paths will more fully intersect the blocks, as will be proven later. Trivial paths exist along each
axis, which correspond to a case in which the reference runner has the same speed as one of the other
runners; these can be neglected as the runners speeds are pairwise distinct. Sweeping the slope of the
ray over the interval (0,1) will cover every possible combination of speeds for the three-runner case, with
the magnitude of each relative speed and the reference runners speed left floating but unimportant.
1 1 1
Note that we have assigned = = +1 = 3 in this diagram. We will prove that the which is
proposed in the conjecture is, in fact, the critical . It is already known that > 1 will allow free
passage of the reference runner along the path of (, 1, ,2,1), so we must only prove that = 1/
is always large enough to prevent clear passage of the reference runner through an = 1
dimensional block array, because it follows from block growth that all smaller will do the same.

Of course, the lonely runner conjecture deals not just with the case of = 3 runners, but with all
possible cases of runners. As such, we must imagine the conjecture as a statement on view obstruction
not just in the two-dimensional space shown previously, but in its three-dimensional form, its four-
dimensional form, and so on for every dimensionality up to infinity. Intuition begins to fail, so we must
get rigorous.

The lonely runner conjecture can be reframed as follows:

Consider the -dimensional array of blocks, where = 1. The blocks are defined to be
2
centered on all half-integer lattice points ( 21 , 2
, , 2 ) and to cover the -dimensional hypercubic
domain with side length 1 2 where = 1/( + 1). There exists no straight path through the block
array which begins at the origin and extends to infinity while avoiding each block; intersection with a
block, if only tangential, is inevitable. (Loneliness is inevitable).

The -dimensional block array = (1 , 2 , , ) can be precisely defined as:

1 1 1 1 2 1 2
= [ (1 + 1 + , 2 + 2 + , , + + )] [ ( + ) ( )]
2 2 2 2 2
1 =0 2 =0 =0 =1

where is the Dirac delta function and is the Heaviside step function. Disclaimer: this definition is
included for precision, but this formula itself will not be relied upon in the proof, so a potential typo here
would be of no consequence other than to confuse the reader.

4
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

Fractals from the Nth Dimension

Alright, well, we have quite a problem on our hands now. How can we prove that there exists no
straight nontrivial path through every single block array in each of an infinite number of dimensions? First,
we will trade one infinity for another, by cramming all the pathway information contained in an infinite
array of blocks into a finite and manageable domain. This will generate a terrifying fractal in each
dimension, but we can clean up that mess in a future chapter.

Consider the following: if a free path (1 , 2 , , ) exists through a block array in dimensions,
then that path would also pass freely through the block array if the block array were uniformly scaled
down by any natural number in every dimension.

Proof: embed the path corresponding to (1 , 2 , , ) in the original block array, so that the two
are the same geometrical object. Scale that object down by a factor of . What remains is the scaled
block array, as well as the path (1 /, 2 /, , /) which still passes freely from the origin to infinity.
The scaled path has the same orientation as the original path, and both are infinite, so the path is invariant
under scaling. Therefore, the original path also passes through the scaled block array.

This means that if there exists any free path through the block array, it will also pass through any
superposition of scaled block arrays. We will define the messy fractal in -dimensions as the
superposition on the hypercubic domain [0,1]1 [0,1]2 [0,1] of the -dimensional block array
scaled by every natural number. The messy fractal in two dimensions is shown below:

This beautifully frustrating pattern appears to show that there is no free path through the 2D
messy fractal, and that therefore there is no free path through the 2D block array, so that loneliness for
each runner is inevitable for the three-runner scenario (this will be rigorously proven in the following
section). Imagine now the three-dimensional messy fractal, with cubes rather than squares. Now imagine
the four-dimensional messy fractal with tesseracts, and the 5D, 6D, and 7D fractals which tend to defy
visualization. We will prove that in all dimensions, up to infinity, the messy fractal in each dimension is
impenetrable, by proving an either stronger or equivalent statement: each messy fractal covers its entire
hypercubic domain.

5
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

Order out of Chaos

It is time to confront the fractal monsters we have created in the previous section. We wish to
cut away as many of the unnecessary, messy, and overlapping features of the fractal as possible, while
preserving enough of its components to ensure that its entire unit domain remains fully covered. This will
create a set of clean fractals whose hypervolumes are less than or equal to that of their corresponding
messy fractal. As usual, we will begin with the two-dimensional fractal, corresponding to the three-runner
case.

Consider the two-dimensional fractal which is generated not by superimposing every integer-
scaled two-dimensional block array, but by only superimposing those which are scaled by the powers of
three.

Messy Clean

The clean fractal is entirely embedded within the messy fractal because the powers of three are
entirely embedded in the natural numbers. This new fractal immediately strikes us as clean, manageable,
and with a degree of self-similarity which is conducive to rigorous analysis. As it turns out, the clean fractal
can be easily shown to cover the entire unit domain, from which it follows that the original messy fractal
does as well, and that therefore there exists no clear path through the two-dimensional block array, which
proves the conjecture for the case of three runners. Gone are our worries about the unmanageably
complicated nature of this problem, at least in the three-runner case. We can prove it by simply
calculating the area of the clean fractal, which is a lower bound on the area of the messy fractal.

Begin with the area of the largest square:

1 2
Area so far = ( )
3
Now, add in the eight next-largest squares, which each have one-ninth the area of the largest
square:

1 2 1 1 2
Area so far = ( ) + 8 ( ) ( )
3 9 3

6
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

Now, add the third-largest layer of squares, noting that each of the eight second-largest squares
is surrounded by eight third-largest squares, and that the third-largest squares have one-ninth the area of
the second-largest squares:

1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2
Area so far = ( ) + 8 ( ) ( ) + 64 ( ) ( )
3 9 3 9 3
Now, add all of the remaining layers of squares and calculate the result:

1 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 8 1 8
= ( ) + 8 ( ) ( ) + 64 ( ) ( ) + = ( ) = ( ) = 1
3 9 3 9 3 3 9 9 9
=0 =0

The area of the fractal equals one, which is precisely the area of the unit domain. Therefore, the
clean fractal covers the unit domain. Therefore, the messy fractal covers the unit domain. Therefore,
there exists no free straight path through the two-dimensional block array. Therefore, every straight path
through the two-dimensional block array will eventually touch or intersect a block. Therefore, the
reference runner in the three-runner case will eventually become lonely. Therefore, each of the three
runners will eventually become lonely. Therefore, the lonely runner conjecture for the three-runner case
is true.

7
April 29th, 2017 Richard Behiel

To Infinity

We have now proven the conjecture for the three-runner case, but the three-runner case has
already been proven by other approaches, so we must go further. The power of the approach we have
used is that it can be inductively scaled up into all higher dimensions, thereby proving the lonely runner
conjecture in its entirety.

First, construct the clean fractal in an arbitrary dimension by superimposing the -dimensional
block arrays which are scaled by the powers of + 1.

In dimensions, corresponding to the case of = +1 runners, the largest block of the clean
1
fractal will have a hypervolume of (+1) . It will be surrounded by ( + 1) ( 1) second-largest
blocks (number of blocks in second-largest layer number overlapping previous layer), each of a
hypervolume which is 1/( + 1) the hypervolume of the largest block. The same is true of the third-
largest blocks in relation to the second-largest blocks, and so on ad infinitum. The previous values come
from straightforward and simple geometry, the details of which have been omitted for the sake of brevity.

Therefore, the hypervolume of the -dimensional clean fractal is:

1 (( + 1) ( 1) ) 1 ( + 1) ( 1)
= ( ) = ( ) ( )
+1 ( + 1) +1 ( + 1)
=0 =0

1 ( 1) 1 1 1 +1
= ( ) (1 ) = ( ) (1 ( ) ) = ( ) ( ) =1
+1 ( + 1) +1 +1 +1 1
=0 =0

The hypervolume of the clean fractal in dimensions is always precisely equal to 1, for integer
from two to infinity. Thus, there exists no free path through the clean fractal in any dimension, nor the
messy fractal, nor the block array. Block intersection is inevitable, as is the reference runners loneliness,
as is any of the runners loneliness.

The lonely runner conjecture is true in all cases

And Beyond

This result and method, if shown to be correct, may have broad implications. There is certainly
an extremely wide space of ideas in which this result may be applied, many of which I am in the process
of exploring. Please contact me at RichardBehiel@gmail.com if you are interested in collaborating, or if
you have any questions or comments regarding this paper. The more trivial details of the proof have been
omitted for brevity, but will be provided upon request. If you are able to find a flaw in this proof, please
let me know!