2408/2408.00887.md

Title: Locally Resolvable BIBDs and Generalized Quadrangles with Ovoids

URL Source: https://arxiv.org/html/2408.00887

Markdown Content: (July 2024)

Abstract

In this note we establish a 1-to-1 correspondence between the class of generalized quadrangles with ovoids and the class of balanced incomplete block designs that posses a non-triangular local resolution system and have the appropriate parameters. We present a non-triangular local resolution system for a difference family BIBD construction of Sprott.

MSC2000 : Primary 05B25; Secondary 05B05.

Key words : BIBD, balanced incomplete block design, combinatorial design, block design, design, difference family, generalized quadrangle, ovoid, spread.

1 Introduction

A finite incidence structure 𝒮=(𝒫,ℬ,I)𝒮 𝒫 ℬ 𝐼\mathcal{S}=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{B},I)caligraphic_S = ( caligraphic_P , caligraphic_B , italic_I ) of points and lines is known as a generalized quadrangle, denoted GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) with parameters s 𝑠 s italic_s and t 𝑡 t italic_t, if it satisfies the following three axioms:

(i) Each point is incident with 1+t⁢(t≥1)1 𝑡 𝑡 1 1+t,,,(t\geq 1)1 + italic_t ( italic_t ≥ 1 ) lines and two distinct points are incident with at most one common line.

(ii) Each line is incident with 1+s⁢(s≥1)1 𝑠 𝑠 1 1+s,,,(s\geq 1)1 + italic_s ( italic_s ≥ 1 ) points and two distinct lines are incident with at most one common point.

(iii) If x 𝑥 x italic_x is a point and L 𝐿 L italic_L is a line not incident on x 𝑥 x italic_x, then there is a unique pair (y,M)∈𝒫×ℬ 𝑦 𝑀 𝒫 ℬ(y,M)\in\mathcal{P}\times\mathcal{B}( italic_y , italic_M ) ∈ caligraphic_P × caligraphic_B for which x⁢I⁢M⁢I⁢y⁢I⁢L 𝑥 I 𝑀 I 𝑦 I 𝐿 x,\text{I},M,\text{I},y,\text{I},L italic_x I italic_M I italic_y I italic_L.

When s=t 𝑠 𝑡 s=t italic_s = italic_t we say that the GQ(s,s)𝑠 𝑠(s,s)( italic_s , italic_s ) has order s 𝑠 s italic_s. We will use the notation in [3] when describing examples of known generalized quadrangles.

Let |𝒫|=v 𝒫 𝑣|\mathcal{P}|=v| caligraphic_P | = italic_v and |ℬ|=b ℬ 𝑏|\mathcal{B}|=b| caligraphic_B | = italic_b. One can show that

v=(1+s)⁢(1+s⁢t),b=(1+t)⁢(1+s⁢t).formulae-sequence 𝑣 1 𝑠 1 𝑠 𝑡 𝑏 1 𝑡 1 𝑠 𝑡 v=(1+s)(1+st),;;;;;;;;;;;;;b=(1+t)(1+st).italic_v = ( 1 + italic_s ) ( 1 + italic_s italic_t ) , italic_b = ( 1 + italic_t ) ( 1 + italic_s italic_t ) .

Given points x,y∈𝒫 𝑥 𝑦 𝒫 x,y\in\mathcal{P}italic_x , italic_y ∈ caligraphic_P, we say that x 𝑥 x italic_x and y 𝑦 y italic_y are collinear, and use the notation x∼y similar-to 𝑥 𝑦 x\sim y italic_x ∼ italic_y to mean that there is some L∈ℬ 𝐿 ℬ L\in\mathcal{B}italic_L ∈ caligraphic_B so that x⁢I⁢L⁢I⁢y 𝑥 I 𝐿 I 𝑦 x,\text{I},L,\text{I},y italic_x I italic_L I italic_y.

An ovoid, O 𝑂 O italic_O, of a generalized quadrangle (𝒫,ℬ,I)𝒫 ℬ 𝐼(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{B},I)( caligraphic_P , caligraphic_B , italic_I ) is defined to be a set of points in 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P such that every line in ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B is incident with exactly one point of O 𝑂 O italic_O.

Not every generalized quadrangle possesses an ovoid. If a GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) does posses an ovoid, O 𝑂 O italic_O, then we have that |O|=1+s⁢t 𝑂 1 𝑠 𝑡|O|=1+st| italic_O | = 1 + italic_s italic_t.

A t 𝑡 t italic_t-(v,k,λ)𝑣 𝑘 𝜆(v,k,\lambda)( italic_v , italic_k , italic_λ ) design consists of a pair (ℬ,𝒫)ℬ 𝒫(\mathcal{B},\mathcal{P})( caligraphic_B , caligraphic_P ) where ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B is a family of k 𝑘 k italic_k-subsets, called blocks, of a v 𝑣 v italic_v-set of points 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P such that every t 𝑡 t italic_t-subset of 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P is contained in exactly λ 𝜆\lambda italic_λ blocks. When t=2 𝑡 2 t=2 italic_t = 2 and k<v 𝑘 𝑣 k<v italic_k < italic_v, such a design is known as a balanced incomplete block design, or BIBD. When k>2 𝑘 2 k>2 italic_k > 2, the BIBD is said to be nontrivial. We use the notation BIBD(v,k,λ)𝑣 𝑘 𝜆(v,k,\lambda)( italic_v , italic_k , italic_λ ) to refer to a BIBD with parameters v,k,λ 𝑣 𝑘 𝜆 v,k,\lambda italic_v , italic_k , italic_λ.

For a BIBD, let |ℬ|=b ℬ 𝑏|\mathcal{B}|=b| caligraphic_B | = italic_b and let r 𝑟 r italic_r be the number of blocks in which a point occurs. The values of b 𝑏 b italic_b and r 𝑟 r italic_r can be determined from the other parameters via:

v⁢r=b⁢k,r⁢(k−1)=λ⁢(v−1).formulae-sequence 𝑣 𝑟 𝑏 𝑘 𝑟 𝑘 1 𝜆 𝑣 1 vr=bk,;;;;;;;;;;;;;r(k-1)=\lambda(v-1).italic_v italic_r = italic_b italic_k , italic_r ( italic_k - 1 ) = italic_λ ( italic_v - 1 ) .

A BIBD is said to be resolvable if the block set can be partitioned into sets each of which is a partition of the point set. These sets are called parallel classes. A partition of the blocks into parallel classes is called a resolution of the BIBD.

A BIBD with point set 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P is said to be locally resolvable at a point p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P if the family of blocks that contain p 𝑝 p italic_p can be partitioned into sets so that for each set S 𝑆 S italic_S in the partition, the set S′={b−{p}|b∈S}superscript 𝑆′conditional-set 𝑏 𝑝 𝑏 𝑆 S^{\prime}={b-{p},,|,,b\in S}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_b - { italic_p } | italic_b ∈ italic_S } is a partition of 𝒫−{p}𝒫 𝑝\mathcal{P}-{p}caligraphic_P - { italic_p }. A set S 𝑆 S italic_S in the partition is called a parallel class of the BIBD about p 𝑝 p italic_p. A partition of the blocks that contain p 𝑝 p italic_p into parallel classes about p 𝑝 p italic_p is called a local resolution of the BIBD about p 𝑝 p italic_p.

A BIBD with point set 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P is said to be locally resolvable if it is locally resolvable at each point p 𝑝 p italic_p in 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P. We define a local resolution system of a locally resolvable BIBD to be a collection of local resolutions about p 𝑝 p italic_p for every p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P.

A local resolution system of a locally resolvable BIBD is said to be non-triangular if it has the following property:

For any three distinct blocks b,c,d∈ℬ 𝑏 𝑐 𝑑 ℬ b,c,d\in\mathcal{B}italic_b , italic_c , italic_d ∈ caligraphic_B, if b 𝑏 b italic_b and c 𝑐 c italic_c are in a common parallel class about p 𝑝 p italic_p, and if b 𝑏 b italic_b and d 𝑑 d italic_d are in a common parallel class about q 𝑞 q italic_q, for some points p≠q 𝑝 𝑞 p\neq q italic_p ≠ italic_q, then c 𝑐 c italic_c and d 𝑑 d italic_d are not in a common parallel class about r 𝑟 r italic_r for any point r∈𝒫 𝑟 𝒫 r\in\mathcal{P}italic_r ∈ caligraphic_P.

Note that distinctness here simply means that b 𝑏 b italic_b, c 𝑐 c italic_c, and d 𝑑 d italic_d are distinct members of the family ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B. The family ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B may very well be a multiset that contains repeated blocks, and we consider those to be “distinct” .

2 Main Theorem

Theorem 2.1.

Let s>1 𝑠 1 s>1 italic_s > 1 and t>1 𝑡 1 t>1 italic_t > 1 be integers.

1. 1. Let 𝒳=(𝒫,ℬ,I)𝒳 𝒫 ℬ 𝐼\mathcal{X}=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{B},I)caligraphic_X = ( caligraphic_P , caligraphic_B , italic_I ) be a GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) that possesses an ovoid O 𝑂 O italic_O. Let 𝒫′=O superscript 𝒫′𝑂\mathcal{P}^{\prime}=O caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_O and define a a family of blocks ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as follows: for each x∈𝒫−O 𝑥 𝒫 𝑂 x\in\mathcal{P}-O italic_x ∈ caligraphic_P - italic_O, b x={p∈O|x∼p}subscript 𝑏 𝑥 conditional-set 𝑝 𝑂 similar-to 𝑥 𝑝 b_{x}={p\in O,,|,,x\sim p}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_p ∈ italic_O | italic_x ∼ italic_p } is a block in ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Given a point p∈O 𝑝 𝑂 p\in O italic_p ∈ italic_O, let l 1,…,l t+1 subscript 𝑙 1…subscript 𝑙 𝑡 1 l_{1},\dots,l_{t+1}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the lines of ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B incident with p 𝑝 p italic_p; and for each such l i subscript 𝑙 𝑖 l_{i}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, let S p,i={b x|x∈𝒫−O⁢and⁢x⁢I⁢l i}subscript 𝑆 𝑝 𝑖 conditional-set subscript 𝑏 𝑥 𝑥 𝒫 𝑂 and 𝑥 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 S_{p,i}={b_{x},,|,,x\in\mathcal{P}-O\text{ and }x\text{ I }l_{i}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_x ∈ caligraphic_P - italic_O and italic_x I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }. Let X p={S p,i| 1≤i≤t+1}subscript 𝑋 𝑝 conditional-set subscript 𝑆 𝑝 𝑖 1 𝑖 𝑡 1 X_{p}={S_{p,i},,|,,1\leq i\leq t+1}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 1 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_t + 1 } and let 𝒞={X p|p∈O}𝒞 conditional-set subscript 𝑋 𝑝 𝑝 𝑂\mathcal{C}={X_{p},,|,,p\in O}caligraphic_C = { italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_p ∈ italic_O }. Then 𝒴=(𝒫′,ℬ′)𝒴 superscript 𝒫′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{Y}=(\mathcal{P}^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime})caligraphic_Y = ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is a locally resolvable BIBD(1+s⁢t,1+t,1+t)1 𝑠 𝑡 1 𝑡 1 𝑡(1+st,1+t,1+t)( 1 + italic_s italic_t , 1 + italic_t , 1 + italic_t ) with 𝒞 𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C a non-triangular local resolution system. Denote 𝒩⁢(𝒳,O)=(𝒴,𝒞)𝒩 𝒳 𝑂 𝒴 𝒞\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{X},O)=(\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C})caligraphic_N ( caligraphic_X , italic_O ) = ( caligraphic_Y , caligraphic_C ).
2. 2. Suppose 𝒳=(𝒫,ℬ)𝒳 𝒫 ℬ\mathcal{X}=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{B})caligraphic_X = ( caligraphic_P , caligraphic_B ) is a locally resolvable BIBD(1+s⁢t,1+t,1+t)1 𝑠 𝑡 1 𝑡 1 𝑡(1+st,1+t,1+t)( 1 + italic_s italic_t , 1 + italic_t , 1 + italic_t ) with 𝒞={X p|p∈𝒫}𝒞 conditional-set subscript 𝑋 𝑝 𝑝 𝒫\mathcal{C}={X_{p},,|,,p\in\mathcal{P}}caligraphic_C = { italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P } a non-triangular local resolution system. Let O=𝒫 𝑂 𝒫 O=\mathcal{P}italic_O = caligraphic_P and let 𝒫′=𝒫∪ℬ superscript 𝒫′𝒫 ℬ\mathcal{P}^{\prime}=\mathcal{P}\cup\mathcal{B}caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = caligraphic_P ∪ caligraphic_B. Define a line set ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT so that for each p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P and each S∈X p 𝑆 subscript 𝑋 𝑝 S\in X_{p}italic_S ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, S∈ℬ′𝑆 superscript ℬ′S\in\mathcal{B}^{\prime}italic_S ∈ caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The incidence relation I is defined as follows: for p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P and S∈ℬ′𝑆 superscript ℬ′S\in\mathcal{B}^{\prime}italic_S ∈ caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, p⁢I⁢S 𝑝 I 𝑆 p\text{ I }S italic_p I italic_S if and only if S∈X p 𝑆 subscript 𝑋 𝑝 S\in X_{p}italic_S ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT; and for b∈ℬ 𝑏 ℬ b\in\mathcal{B}italic_b ∈ caligraphic_B and S∈ℬ′𝑆 superscript ℬ′S\in\mathcal{B}^{\prime}italic_S ∈ caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, b⁢I⁢S 𝑏 I 𝑆 b\text{ I }S italic_b I italic_S if and only if b∈S 𝑏 𝑆 b\in S italic_b ∈ italic_S. Then 𝒴=(𝒫′,ℬ′,I)𝒴 superscript 𝒫′superscript ℬ′𝐼\mathcal{Y}=(\mathcal{P}^{\prime},\mathcal{B}^{\prime},I)caligraphic_Y = ( caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_I ) is a GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) with ovoid O 𝑂 O italic_O. Denote ℳ⁢(𝒳,𝒞)=(𝒴,O)ℳ 𝒳 𝒞 𝒴 𝑂\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{X},\mathcal{C})=(\mathcal{Y},O)caligraphic_M ( caligraphic_X , caligraphic_C ) = ( caligraphic_Y , italic_O ).
3. 3. Let 𝒳 𝒳\mathcal{X}caligraphic_X be a GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) that possesses an ovoid O 𝑂 O italic_O and let 𝒴 𝒴\mathcal{Y}caligraphic_Y be a locally resolvable BIBD(1+s⁢t,1+t,1+t)1 𝑠 𝑡 1 𝑡 1 𝑡(1+st,1+t,1+t)( 1 + italic_s italic_t , 1 + italic_t , 1 + italic_t ) with 𝒞 𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C a non-triangular local resolution system. Let 𝒩⁢(𝒳,O)𝒩 𝒳 𝑂\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{X},O)caligraphic_N ( caligraphic_X , italic_O ) and ℳ⁢(𝒴,𝒞)ℳ 𝒴 𝒞\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C})caligraphic_M ( caligraphic_Y , caligraphic_C ) be defined as in the previous two items. Then ℳ⁢(𝒩⁢(𝒳,O))=(𝒳,O)ℳ 𝒩 𝒳 𝑂 𝒳 𝑂\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{X},O))=(\mathcal{X},O)caligraphic_M ( caligraphic_N ( caligraphic_X , italic_O ) ) = ( caligraphic_X , italic_O ) and 𝒩⁢(ℳ⁢(𝒴,𝒞))=(𝒴,𝒞)𝒩 ℳ 𝒴 𝒞 𝒴 𝒞\mathcal{N}(\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C}))=(\mathcal{Y},\mathcal{C})caligraphic_N ( caligraphic_M ( caligraphic_Y , caligraphic_C ) ) = ( caligraphic_Y , caligraphic_C ).

Proof.

Item 1. So |𝒫′|=1+s⁢t=|O|superscript 𝒫′1 𝑠 𝑡 𝑂|\mathcal{P}^{\prime}|=1+st=|O|| caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | = 1 + italic_s italic_t = | italic_O |, and each block in ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has size 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t. If p,q∈𝒫′𝑝 𝑞 superscript 𝒫′p,q\in\mathcal{P}^{\prime}italic_p , italic_q ∈ caligraphic_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with p≠q 𝑝 𝑞 p\neq q italic_p ≠ italic_q, then |{x∈𝒫−O|x∼p⁢and⁢x∼q}|=1+t conditional-set 𝑥 𝒫 𝑂 similar-to 𝑥 𝑝 and 𝑥 similar-to 𝑞 1 𝑡|{x\in\mathcal{P}-O,,|,,x\sim p\text{ and }x\sim q}|=1+t| { italic_x ∈ caligraphic_P - italic_O | italic_x ∼ italic_p and italic_x ∼ italic_q } | = 1 + italic_t, and so we have 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t blocks that contain {p,q}𝑝 𝑞{p,q}{ italic_p , italic_q }. Note that given a point p∈O 𝑝 𝑂 p\in O italic_p ∈ italic_O, a line l i⁢I⁢p subscript 𝑙 𝑖 I 𝑝 l_{i}\text{ I }p italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_p, and points x,y∈𝒫−O 𝑥 𝑦 𝒫 𝑂 x,y\in\mathcal{P}-O italic_x , italic_y ∈ caligraphic_P - italic_O, x≠y 𝑥 𝑦 x\neq y italic_x ≠ italic_y, with x⁢I⁢l i 𝑥 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 x\text{ I }l_{i}italic_x I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and y⁢I⁢l i 𝑦 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 y\text{ I }l_{i}italic_y I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we have that b x∩b y={p}subscript 𝑏 𝑥 subscript 𝑏 𝑦 𝑝 b_{x}\cap b_{y}={p}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∩ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_p } (otherwise we create a triangle). And, furthermore, for any q∈O 𝑞 𝑂 q\in O italic_q ∈ italic_O, q≠p 𝑞 𝑝 q\neq p italic_q ≠ italic_p, there is some z⁢I⁢l i 𝑧 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 z\text{ I }l_{i}italic_z I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with z∼q similar-to 𝑧 𝑞 z\sim q italic_z ∼ italic_q. Hence we have that S p,i′={b x−{p}|b x∈S p,i}superscript subscript 𝑆 𝑝 𝑖′conditional-set subscript 𝑏 𝑥 𝑝 subscript 𝑏 𝑥 subscript 𝑆 𝑝 𝑖 S_{p,i}^{\prime}={b_{x}-{p},,|,,b_{x}\in S_{p,i}}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - { italic_p } | italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is a partition of O−{p}𝑂 𝑝 O-{p}italic_O - { italic_p }.

We show that 𝒞 𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C is non-triangular. Let b x subscript 𝑏 𝑥 b_{x}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, c y subscript 𝑐 𝑦 c_{y}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, d z subscript 𝑑 𝑧 d_{z}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be distinct members of ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, and so x,y,z 𝑥 𝑦 𝑧 x,y,z italic_x , italic_y , italic_z are distinct points of 𝒫−O 𝒫 𝑂\mathcal{P}-O caligraphic_P - italic_O. Suppose b x subscript 𝑏 𝑥 b_{x}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and c y subscript 𝑐 𝑦 c_{y}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are in S p,i subscript 𝑆 𝑝 𝑖 S_{p,i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some line l i subscript 𝑙 𝑖 l_{i}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and some point p∈O 𝑝 𝑂 p\in O italic_p ∈ italic_O with p⁢I⁢l i⁢I⁢x 𝑝 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 I 𝑥 p\text{ I }l_{i}\text{ I }x italic_p I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_x and p⁢I⁢l i⁢I⁢y 𝑝 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 I 𝑦 p\text{ I }l_{i}\text{ I }y italic_p I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_y. Suppose b x subscript 𝑏 𝑥 b_{x}italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and d z subscript 𝑑 𝑧 d_{z}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are in S q,j subscript 𝑆 𝑞 𝑗 S_{q,j}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q , italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some line l j subscript 𝑙 𝑗 l_{j}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and some point q∈O 𝑞 𝑂 q\in O italic_q ∈ italic_O with q⁢I⁢l j⁢I⁢x 𝑞 I subscript 𝑙 𝑗 I 𝑥 q\text{ I }l_{j}\text{ I }x italic_q I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_x and q⁢I⁢l j⁢I⁢z 𝑞 I subscript 𝑙 𝑗 I 𝑧 q\text{ I }l_{j}\text{ I }z italic_q I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_z, and suppose p≠q 𝑝 𝑞 p\neq q italic_p ≠ italic_q. Since p 𝑝 p italic_p and q 𝑞 q italic_q are ovoid points, we have that l i subscript 𝑙 𝑖 l_{i}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and l j subscript 𝑙 𝑗 l_{j}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are distinct. Suppose by way of contradiction that c y subscript 𝑐 𝑦 c_{y}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_y end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and d z subscript 𝑑 𝑧 d_{z}italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are in S r,k subscript 𝑆 𝑟 𝑘 S_{r,k}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for some line l k subscript 𝑙 𝑘 l_{k}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and some point r∈O 𝑟 𝑂 r\in O italic_r ∈ italic_O with r⁢I⁢l k⁢I⁢y 𝑟 I subscript 𝑙 𝑘 I 𝑦 r\text{ I }l_{k}\text{ I }y italic_r I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_y and r⁢I⁢l k⁢I⁢z 𝑟 I subscript 𝑙 𝑘 I 𝑧 r\text{ I }l_{k}\text{ I }z italic_r I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_z. We show that r 𝑟 r italic_r is distinct from p 𝑝 p italic_p and q 𝑞 q italic_q. Suppose, say, that r=p 𝑟 𝑝 r=p italic_r = italic_p. Then l i=l k subscript 𝑙 𝑖 subscript 𝑙 𝑘 l_{i}=l_{k}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. And so x,z 𝑥 𝑧 x,z italic_x , italic_z are both incident with two common lines, l i subscript 𝑙 𝑖 l_{i}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and l j subscript 𝑙 𝑗 l_{j}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, a contradiction. So p,q,r 𝑝 𝑞 𝑟 p,q,r italic_p , italic_q , italic_r are distinct and hence l i subscript 𝑙 𝑖 l_{i}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, l j subscript 𝑙 𝑗 l_{j}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and l k subscript 𝑙 𝑘 l_{k}italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are distinct. But then x⁢I⁢l i⁢I⁢y 𝑥 I subscript 𝑙 𝑖 I 𝑦 x\text{ I }l_{i}\text{ I }y italic_x I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_y, x⁢I⁢l j⁢I⁢z 𝑥 I subscript 𝑙 𝑗 I 𝑧 x\text{ I }l_{j}\text{ I }z italic_x I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_z, and y⁢I⁢l k⁢I⁢z 𝑦 I subscript 𝑙 𝑘 I 𝑧 y\text{ I }l_{k}\text{ I }z italic_y I italic_l start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_z, a contradiction.

Proof of item 2. It is clear by construction that every line in ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is incident with exactly one point of O 𝑂 O italic_O. Since for each p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P, X p subscript 𝑋 𝑝 X_{p}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a partition of the family of blocks containing p 𝑝 p italic_p, we have that two distinct lines cannot both be incident with a point of 𝒫 𝒫\mathcal{P}caligraphic_P and a point of ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B. And if two distinct lines were both incident with two distinct points of ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B, say b 𝑏 b italic_b and c 𝑐 c italic_c, then {p,q}⊆b∩c 𝑝 𝑞 𝑏 𝑐{p,q}\subseteq b\cap c{ italic_p , italic_q } ⊆ italic_b ∩ italic_c for distinct p,q∈𝒫 𝑝 𝑞 𝒫 p,q\in\mathcal{P}italic_p , italic_q ∈ caligraphic_P, contradicting the fact that for each S∈X p 𝑆 subscript 𝑋 𝑝 S\in X_{p}italic_S ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, S′={b−{p}|b∈S}superscript 𝑆′conditional-set 𝑏 𝑝 𝑏 𝑆 S^{\prime}={b-{p},,|,,b\in S}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_b - { italic_p } | italic_b ∈ italic_S } is a partition of 𝒫−{p}𝒫 𝑝\mathcal{P}-{p}caligraphic_P - { italic_p }. Equivalently, two distinct points cannot be incident with more than one common line.

Note that for p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P, p 𝑝 p italic_p occurs in exactly r=(1+t)⁢s⁢t t=(1+t)⁢s 𝑟 1 𝑡 𝑠 𝑡 𝑡 1 𝑡 𝑠 r=\dfrac{(1+t)st}{t}=(1+t)s italic_r = divide start_ARG ( 1 + italic_t ) italic_s italic_t end_ARG start_ARG italic_t end_ARG = ( 1 + italic_t ) italic_s blocks of the BIBD. Since for each S∈X p 𝑆 subscript 𝑋 𝑝 S\in X_{p}italic_S ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, S′={b−{p}|b∈S}superscript 𝑆′conditional-set 𝑏 𝑝 𝑏 𝑆 S^{\prime}={b-{p},,|,,b\in S}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_b - { italic_p } | italic_b ∈ italic_S } is a partition of 𝒫−{p}𝒫 𝑝\mathcal{P}-{p}caligraphic_P - { italic_p }, and since for each o∈𝒫−{p}𝑜 𝒫 𝑝 o\in\mathcal{P}-{p}italic_o ∈ caligraphic_P - { italic_p }, {o,p}𝑜 𝑝{o,p}{ italic_o , italic_p } is contained in exactly 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t blocks of ℬ ℬ\mathcal{B}caligraphic_B, we have that |X p|=1+t subscript 𝑋 𝑝 1 𝑡|X_{p}|=1+t| italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 1 + italic_t. It follows that each S∈X p 𝑆 subscript 𝑋 𝑝 S\in X_{p}italic_S ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has size s 𝑠 s italic_s. If p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P, then p 𝑝 p italic_p is incident with exactly |X p|=1+t subscript 𝑋 𝑝 1 𝑡|X_{p}|=1+t| italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 1 + italic_t lines in ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. And if b∈ℬ 𝑏 ℬ b\in\mathcal{B}italic_b ∈ caligraphic_B, then b 𝑏 b italic_b is incident with exactly 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t lines in ℬ′superscript ℬ′\mathcal{B}^{\prime}caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT since |{X q|q∈b}|=1+t conditional-set subscript 𝑋 𝑞 𝑞 𝑏 1 𝑡|{X_{q},,|,,q\in b}|=1+t| { italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_q end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_q ∈ italic_b } | = 1 + italic_t. If S∈ℬ′𝑆 superscript ℬ′S\in\mathcal{B}^{\prime}italic_S ∈ caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then S 𝑆 S italic_S is incident with exactly 1+|S|=1+s 1 𝑆 1 𝑠 1+|S|=1+s 1 + | italic_S | = 1 + italic_s points. We now work to establish the third generalized quadrangle axiom.

Let S∈ℬ′𝑆 superscript ℬ′S\in\mathcal{B}^{\prime}italic_S ∈ caligraphic_B start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be arbitrary and o 𝑜 o italic_o be such that S∈X o 𝑆 subscript 𝑋 𝑜 S\in X_{o}italic_S ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Case 1 is to consider p∈𝒫 𝑝 𝒫 p\in\mathcal{P}italic_p ∈ caligraphic_P with p≠o 𝑝 𝑜 p\neq o italic_p ≠ italic_o. Since S′={b−{o}|b∈S}superscript 𝑆′conditional-set 𝑏 𝑜 𝑏 𝑆 S^{\prime}={b-{o},,|,,b\in S}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_b - { italic_o } | italic_b ∈ italic_S } is a partition of 𝒫−{o}𝒫 𝑜\mathcal{P}-{o}caligraphic_P - { italic_o }, there is a unique b∈S 𝑏 𝑆 b\in S italic_b ∈ italic_S with p∈b 𝑝 𝑏 p\in b italic_p ∈ italic_b. And since X p subscript 𝑋 𝑝 X_{p}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a partition of the family of blocks containing p 𝑝 p italic_p, there is a unique M∈X p 𝑀 subscript 𝑋 𝑝 M\in X_{p}italic_M ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with b∈M 𝑏 𝑀 b\in M italic_b ∈ italic_M. Hence p⁢I⁢M⁢I⁢b⁢I⁢S 𝑝 I 𝑀 I 𝑏 I 𝑆 p\text{ I }M\text{ I }b\text{ I }S italic_p I italic_M I italic_b I italic_S.

Case 2(a) is to consider b∈ℬ 𝑏 ℬ b\in\mathcal{B}italic_b ∈ caligraphic_B where b∈S′𝑏 superscript 𝑆′b\in S^{\prime}italic_b ∈ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for some S′∈X o superscript 𝑆′subscript 𝑋 𝑜 S^{\prime}\in X_{o}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with S≠S′𝑆 superscript 𝑆′S\neq S^{\prime}italic_S ≠ italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. So b⁢I⁢S′⁢I⁢o⁢I⁢S 𝑏 I superscript 𝑆′I 𝑜 I 𝑆 b\text{ I }S^{\prime}\text{ I }o\text{ I }S italic_b I italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT I italic_o I italic_S and S′superscript 𝑆′S^{\prime}italic_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the unique line in X o subscript 𝑋 𝑜 X_{o}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o end_POSTSUBSCRIPT incident with b 𝑏 b italic_b. Now if there is some o′∈𝒫 superscript 𝑜′𝒫 o^{\prime}\in\mathcal{P}italic_o start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_P with o′≠o superscript 𝑜′𝑜 o^{\prime}\neq o italic_o start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≠ italic_o and there is T∈X o′𝑇 subscript 𝑋 superscript 𝑜′T\in X_{o^{\prime}}italic_T ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with b⁢I⁢T⁢I⁢b′⁢I⁢S 𝑏 I 𝑇 I superscript 𝑏′I 𝑆 b\text{ I }T\text{ I }b^{\prime}\text{ I }S italic_b I italic_T I italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT I italic_S for some b′∈S superscript 𝑏′𝑆 b^{\prime}\in S italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_S, then o∈b 𝑜 𝑏 o\in b italic_o ∈ italic_b and o∈b′𝑜 superscript 𝑏′o\in b^{\prime}italic_o ∈ italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with b,b′∈T∈X o′𝑏 superscript 𝑏′𝑇 subscript 𝑋 superscript 𝑜′b,b^{\prime}\in T\in X_{o^{\prime}}italic_b , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_T ∈ italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, contradicting the fact that T′={b−{o′}|b∈T}superscript 𝑇′conditional-set 𝑏 superscript 𝑜′𝑏 𝑇 T^{\prime}={b-{o^{\prime}},,|,,b\in T}italic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = { italic_b - { italic_o start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } | italic_b ∈ italic_T } is a partition of 𝒫−{o′}𝒫 superscript 𝑜′\mathcal{P}-{o^{\prime}}caligraphic_P - { italic_o start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT }.

Finally, case 2(b) is to consider b∈ℬ 𝑏 ℬ b\in\mathcal{B}italic_b ∈ caligraphic_B where b 𝑏 b italic_b is not incident with any line in X o subscript 𝑋 𝑜 X_{o}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. So b={o 1,…,o 1+t}𝑏 subscript 𝑜 1…subscript 𝑜 1 𝑡 b={o_{1},...,o_{1+t}}italic_b = { italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 + italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } with each o i≠o subscript 𝑜 𝑖 𝑜 o_{i}\neq o italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_o. For each o i∈b subscript 𝑜 𝑖 𝑏 o_{i}\in b italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_b, let S i subscript 𝑆 𝑖 S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the unique line in X o i subscript 𝑋 subscript 𝑜 𝑖 X_{o_{i}}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT incident b 𝑏 b italic_b. Note that each S i subscript 𝑆 𝑖 S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT contains exactly one block that contains o 𝑜 o italic_o. Now if there was an (S i,b′)subscript 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑏′(S_{i},b^{\prime})( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) pair with b′∈S∩S i superscript 𝑏′𝑆 subscript 𝑆 𝑖 b^{\prime}\in S\cap S_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_S ∩ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and if there was an (S j,b′′)subscript 𝑆 𝑗 superscript 𝑏′′(S_{j},b^{\prime\prime})( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) pair with b′′∈S∩S j superscript 𝑏′′𝑆 subscript 𝑆 𝑗 b^{\prime\prime}\in S\cap S_{j}italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_S ∩ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and with S i≠S j subscript 𝑆 𝑖 subscript 𝑆 𝑗 S_{i}\neq S_{j}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≠ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, then this would contradict the fact that 𝒞 𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C is non-triangular. Since the number of S i subscript 𝑆 𝑖 S_{i}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT’s is 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t, and |X o|=1+t subscript 𝑋 𝑜 1 𝑡|X_{o}|=1+t| italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | = 1 + italic_t and X o subscript 𝑋 𝑜 X_{o}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_o end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a partition of the family of blocks that contain o 𝑜 o italic_o, it follows that there exists some (S i,b′)subscript 𝑆 𝑖 superscript 𝑏′(S_{i},b^{\prime})( italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) which is the unique pair with b′∈S∩S i superscript 𝑏′𝑆 subscript 𝑆 𝑖 b^{\prime}\in S\cap S_{i}italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_S ∩ italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, and b⁢I⁢S i⁢I⁢b′⁢I⁢S 𝑏 I subscript 𝑆 𝑖 I superscript 𝑏′I 𝑆 b\text{ I }S_{i}\text{ I }b^{\prime}\text{ I }S italic_b I italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT I italic_b start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ′ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT I italic_S.

Proof of item 3 is clear. ∎

Corollary 2.2.

Locally resolvable BIBDs that posses a non-triangular local resolution system and with the following (v,b,r,k,λ)𝑣 𝑏 𝑟 𝑘 𝜆(v,b,r,k,\lambda)( italic_v , italic_b , italic_r , italic_k , italic_λ ) parameters arise from ovoids in known generalized quadrangles:

1. 1. (q 2+1,(q 2+1)⁢q,(q+1)⁢q,q+1,q+1)superscript 𝑞 2 1 superscript 𝑞 2 1 𝑞 𝑞 1 𝑞 𝑞 1 𝑞 1(q^{2}+1,(q^{2}+1)q,(q+1)q,q+1,q+1)( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 , ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ) italic_q , ( italic_q + 1 ) italic_q , italic_q + 1 , italic_q + 1 ) where q 𝑞 q italic_q is a prime power.
2. 2. (q 3+1,(q 3+1)⁢q 2,(q+1)⁢q 2,q+1,q+1)superscript 𝑞 3 1 superscript 𝑞 3 1 superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 1 superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 1 𝑞 1(q^{3}+1,(q^{3}+1)q^{2},(q+1)q^{2},q+1,q+1)( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 , ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ) italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( italic_q + 1 ) italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q + 1 , italic_q + 1 ) where q 𝑞 q italic_q is a prime power.
3. 3. (q 2,(q+1)⁢q 2,(q+1)⁢q,q,q)superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 1 superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 1 𝑞 𝑞 𝑞(q^{2},(q+1)q^{2},(q+1)q,q,q)( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( italic_q + 1 ) italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( italic_q + 1 ) italic_q , italic_q , italic_q ) where q 𝑞 q italic_q is a prime power.
4. 4. (q 2,(q−1)⁢q 2,(q−1)⁢(q+2),q+2,q+2)superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 1 superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 1 𝑞 2 𝑞 2 𝑞 2(q^{2},(q-1)q^{2},(q-1)(q+2),q+2,q+2)( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( italic_q - 1 ) italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , ( italic_q - 1 ) ( italic_q + 2 ) , italic_q + 2 , italic_q + 2 ) where q 𝑞 q italic_q is a power of 2 2 2 2.

Proof.

For item 1, take Q⁢(4,q)𝑄 4 𝑞 Q(4,q)italic_Q ( 4 , italic_q ) which is a GQ(q,q)𝑞 𝑞(q,q)( italic_q , italic_q ) and is known to possess ovoids. For item 2, take H⁢(3,q)𝐻 3 𝑞 H(3,q)italic_H ( 3 , italic_q ) which is a GQ(q 2,q)superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞(q^{2},q)( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q ) and is known to possess ovoids. For item 3, take the dual of P⁢(W⁢(q),x)𝑃 𝑊 𝑞 𝑥 P(W(q),x)italic_P ( italic_W ( italic_q ) , italic_x ) for any point x 𝑥 x italic_x of W⁢(q)𝑊 𝑞 W(q)italic_W ( italic_q ). Such a GQ(q+1,q−1)𝑞 1 𝑞 1(q+1,q-1)( italic_q + 1 , italic_q - 1 ) is known to always possess ovoids. For item 4, take P⁢(Q⁢(4,q),x)𝑃 𝑄 4 𝑞 𝑥 P(Q(4,q),x)italic_P ( italic_Q ( 4 , italic_q ) , italic_x ) where q 𝑞 q italic_q is a power of 2 and x 𝑥 x italic_x is a point in an ovoid of Q⁢(4,q)𝑄 4 𝑞 Q(4,q)italic_Q ( 4 , italic_q ). It is known that all of the points of Q⁢(4,q)𝑄 4 𝑞 Q(4,q)italic_Q ( 4 , italic_q ) are regular when q 𝑞 q italic_q is a power of 2, and it is known that P⁢(Q⁢(4,q),x)𝑃 𝑄 4 𝑞 𝑥 P(Q(4,q),x)italic_P ( italic_Q ( 4 , italic_q ) , italic_x ) possesses an ovoid when x 𝑥 x italic_x is a point in an ovoid of Q⁢(4,q)𝑄 4 𝑞 Q(4,q)italic_Q ( 4 , italic_q ). ∎

3 Examples

We begin this section with a BIBD coming from a difference family construction due to Sprott[4, Theorem 2.1] (see [1] for terminology related to difference families).

Let p 𝑝 p italic_p be a prime and let m 𝑚 m italic_m and λ 𝜆\lambda italic_λ be such that m⁢(λ−1)=p a 𝑚 𝜆 1 superscript 𝑝 𝑎 m(\lambda-1)=p^{a}italic_m ( italic_λ - 1 ) = italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Let x 𝑥 x italic_x be a primitive element of G⁢F⁢(p a)𝐺 𝐹 superscript 𝑝 𝑎 GF(p^{a})italic_G italic_F ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). We define D 𝐷 D italic_D, a set of base blocks, by D={(0,x i,x i+m,x i+2⁢m,…,x i+(λ−2)⁢m)| 0≤i≤m−1}𝐷 conditional-set 0 superscript 𝑥 𝑖 superscript 𝑥 𝑖 𝑚 superscript 𝑥 𝑖 2 𝑚…superscript 𝑥 𝑖 𝜆 2 𝑚 0 𝑖 𝑚 1 D={(0,x^{i},x^{i+m},x^{i+2m},\dots,x^{i+(\lambda-2)m}),,|,,0\leq i\leq m-1}italic_D = { ( 0 , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 2 italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + ( italic_λ - 2 ) italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_m - 1 }. Sprott shows that D 𝐷 D italic_D satisfies the conditions for being a difference family. We shall refer to the associated BIBD with parameters (v,k,λ)=(p a,λ,λ)𝑣 𝑘 𝜆 superscript 𝑝 𝑎 𝜆 𝜆(v,k,\lambda)=(p^{a},\lambda,\lambda)( italic_v , italic_k , italic_λ ) = ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_λ , italic_λ ) as Sprott⁢(p a,λ)Sprott superscript 𝑝 𝑎 𝜆\text{Sprott}(p^{a},\lambda)Sprott ( italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_λ ).

Proposition 3.1.

Let q 𝑞 q italic_q be a power of 2 2 2 2 and let x 𝑥 x italic_x be a primitive element of G⁢F⁢(q 2)𝐺 𝐹 superscript 𝑞 2 GF(q^{2})italic_G italic_F ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Let 𝒳=Sprott⁢(q 2,q+2)𝒳 Sprott superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 2\mathcal{X}=\text{Sprott}(q^{2},q+2)caligraphic_X = Sprott ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q + 2 ). Let S 0,0={(0,x i,x i+(q−1),x i+2⁢(q−1),…,x i+q⁢(q−1))| 0≤i≤q−2}subscript 𝑆 0 0 conditional-set 0 superscript 𝑥 𝑖 superscript 𝑥 𝑖 𝑞 1 superscript 𝑥 𝑖 2 𝑞 1…superscript 𝑥 𝑖 𝑞 𝑞 1 0 𝑖 𝑞 2 S_{0,0}={(0,x^{i},x^{i+(q-1)},x^{i+2(q-1)},\dots,\ x^{i+q(q-1)}),,|,,0\leq i\leq q-2}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ( 0 , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + ( italic_q - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 2 ( italic_q - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + italic_q ( italic_q - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_q - 2 } be the set of base blocks. For 0≤j≤q 0 𝑗 𝑞 0\leq j\leq q 0 ≤ italic_j ≤ italic_q, let S 0,j+1={x j+(q+1)⁢i⋅(0,1,x q−1+1,x 2⁢(q−1)+1,…,x q⁢(q−1)+1)| 0≤i≤q−2}subscript 𝑆 0 𝑗 1 conditional-set⋅superscript 𝑥 𝑗 𝑞 1 𝑖 0 1 superscript 𝑥 𝑞 1 1 superscript 𝑥 2 𝑞 1 1…superscript 𝑥 𝑞 𝑞 1 1 0 𝑖 𝑞 2 S_{0,j+1}={x^{j+(q+1)i}\cdot(0,1,x^{q-1}+1,x^{2(q-1)}+1,\dots,x^{q(q-1)}+1),% ,|,,0\leq i\leq q-2}italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_j + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_j + ( italic_q + 1 ) italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⋅ ( 0 , 1 , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 ( italic_q - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 , … , italic_x start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_q ( italic_q - 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + 1 ) | 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_q - 2 }. Let X 0={S 0,i| 0≤i≤q+1}subscript 𝑋 0 conditional-set subscript 𝑆 0 𝑖 0 𝑖 𝑞 1 X_{0}={S_{0,i},,|,,0\leq i\leq q+1}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | 0 ≤ italic_i ≤ italic_q + 1 }. For v∈G⁢F⁢(q 2)𝑣 𝐺 𝐹 superscript 𝑞 2 v\in GF(q^{2})italic_v ∈ italic_G italic_F ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ), let X v subscript 𝑋 𝑣 X_{v}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the translation of X 0 subscript 𝑋 0 X_{0}italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT by v 𝑣 v italic_v (i.e. X 0+v subscript 𝑋 0 𝑣 X_{0}+v italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_v). Let 𝒞={X v|v∈G⁢F⁢(q 2)}𝒞 conditional-set subscript 𝑋 𝑣 𝑣 𝐺 𝐹 superscript 𝑞 2\mathcal{C}={X_{v},,|,,v\in GF(q^{2})}caligraphic_C = { italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_v end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_v ∈ italic_G italic_F ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) }. Then 𝒞 𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C is the uniquely determined local resolution system for 𝒳 𝒳\mathcal{X}caligraphic_X, and 𝒞 𝒞\mathcal{C}caligraphic_C is non-triangular.

Proof.

Exercise. ∎

We verified for some q 𝑞 q italic_q a power of 2 2 2 2 that the GQ(q−1,q+1)𝑞 1 𝑞 1(q-1,q+1)( italic_q - 1 , italic_q + 1 ) resulting from Sprott(q 2,q+2)superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞 2(q^{2},q+2)( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q + 2 ) is isomorphic to the Payne GQ P⁢(W⁢(q),x)𝑃 𝑊 𝑞 𝑥 P(W(q),x)italic_P ( italic_W ( italic_q ) , italic_x ).

One can see that for q 𝑞 q italic_q a power of a prime (q 𝑞 q italic_q even or odd), Sprott⁢(q 2,q)Sprott superscript 𝑞 2 𝑞\text{Sprott}(q^{2},q)Sprott ( italic_q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_q ) consists of q 𝑞 q italic_q copies of a Desarguesian affine plane of order q 𝑞 q italic_q. In this case, a local resolution system clearly exists (put multiples of a block into different parallel classes). We were able to find, through a computer search, a non-triangular local resolution system for the first few Desarguesian affine planes of order q 𝑞 q italic_q (up to at least q=16 𝑞 16 q=16 italic_q = 16), and we found that the resulting GQs are isomorphic to the dual of the Payne GQ P⁢(W⁢(q),x)𝑃 𝑊 𝑞 𝑥 P(W(q),x)italic_P ( italic_W ( italic_q ) , italic_x ). We wonder if two different non-triangular local resolution systems (for the same BIBD) could result in non-isomorphic GQs.

Proposition 3.2.

Let s>1 𝑠 1 s>1 italic_s > 1 and t>1 𝑡 1 t>1 italic_t > 1 be integers. A BIBD 𝒳 𝒳\mathcal{X}caligraphic_X consisting of 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t copies of a B⁢I⁢B⁢D⁢(1+s⁢t,1+t,1)𝐵 𝐼 𝐵 𝐷 1 𝑠 𝑡 1 𝑡 1 BIBD(1+st,1+t,1)italic_B italic_I italic_B italic_D ( 1 + italic_s italic_t , 1 + italic_t , 1 ) possesses a non-triangular local resolution system if and only if a GQ(s,t)=(𝒫,ℬ)𝑠 𝑡 𝒫 ℬ(s,t)=(\mathcal{P},\mathcal{B})( italic_s , italic_t ) = ( caligraphic_P , caligraphic_B ) possesses an ovoid O 𝑂 O italic_O so that for each point x∈𝒫−O 𝑥 𝒫 𝑂 x\in\mathcal{P}-O italic_x ∈ caligraphic_P - italic_O, there exists a point y∈𝒫−O 𝑦 𝒫 𝑂 y\in\mathcal{P}-O italic_y ∈ caligraphic_P - italic_O, x 𝑥 x italic_x and y 𝑦 y italic_y not collinear, so that the pair (x,y)𝑥 𝑦(x,y)( italic_x , italic_y ) is regular and so that the trace of x 𝑥 x italic_x and y 𝑦 y italic_y is contained in O 𝑂 O italic_O.

In fact each block of the ovoid is the trace of a regular pair (x,y)𝑥 𝑦(x,y)( italic_x , italic_y ), with the multiplicity of the block equal to 1+t 1 𝑡 1+t 1 + italic_t.

Proposition 3.2 demonstrates that for such an isomorphism class of BIBD, the assumption of the existence of a non-triangular local resolution system (without explicitly defining it) can lead to restrictions on the structure of the resulting GQ.

We verified, for the first few values of q 𝑞 q italic_q, that such ovoids as in Proposition 3.2 do exist in the dual of the Payne GQ P⁢(W⁢(q),x)𝑃 𝑊 𝑞 𝑥 P(W(q),x)italic_P ( italic_W ( italic_q ) , italic_x ), and we also used a computer to find all such ovoids (there aren’t too many). Each such ovoid resulted in a BIBD that consists of q 𝑞 q italic_q copies of a Desarguesian affine plane of order q 𝑞 q italic_q.

Conjecture 3.3.

A BIBD that consists of q 𝑞 q italic_q copies of a non-Desarguesian affine plane of order q 𝑞 q italic_q does not possess a non-triangular local resolution system.

This conjecture may indeed be false, and if so it would be quite interesting. One can look for ovoids as in Proposition 3.2 existing in the duals of some of the unusual Payne GQs P⁢(T 2⁢(O),x)𝑃 subscript 𝑇 2 𝑂 𝑥 P(T_{2}(O),x)italic_P ( italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_O ) , italic_x ) (we only checked in the duals of some of the P⁢(W⁢(q),x)𝑃 𝑊 𝑞 𝑥 P(W(q),x)italic_P ( italic_W ( italic_q ) , italic_x )). One can try each of the 88 88 88 88 affine planes of order 16 16 16 16 and use a computer to search for a non-triangular local resolution system. (We note that the BIBD table in [2] indicates that there are 189 189 189 189 affine planes of order 16. This is incorrect. There are, in fact, 88 non-isomorphic affine planes of order 16 coming from the 22 known projective planes.)

4 Conclusion

We conclude with two questions based on our main theorem.

Question 1.

Does a known GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) with some ovoid O 𝑂 O italic_O result in a previously unknown BIBD(1+s⁢t,1+t,1+t)1 𝑠 𝑡 1 𝑡 1 𝑡(1+st,1+t,1+t)( 1 + italic_s italic_t , 1 + italic_t , 1 + italic_t )?

Question 2.

Given a known BIBD(1+s⁢t,1+t,1+t)1 𝑠 𝑡 1 𝑡 1 𝑡(1+st,1+t,1+t)( 1 + italic_s italic_t , 1 + italic_t , 1 + italic_t ), can one construct a non-triangular local resolution system for the BIBD that results in a new ovoid for a known GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ), or, perhaps, that results in a new GQ(s,t)𝑠 𝑡(s,t)( italic_s , italic_t ) with ovoid?

Acknowledgements. The author is grateful to G. Eric Moorhouse, to Eric Swartz, and to the anonymous referee for helpful suggestions during the writing of this paper. The author also thanks Austin C. Bussey.

References

• Abel and Buratti [2006] R.Julian R. Abel and Marco Buratti. Difference families. In Handbook of Combinatorial Designs, chapter VI.16. CRC Press, 2006.
• Mathon and Rosa [2006] Rudolf Mathon and Alexander Rosa. 2−(v,k,λ)2 𝑣 𝑘 𝜆 2-(v,k,\lambda)2 - ( italic_v , italic_k , italic_λ ) designs of small order. In Handbook of Combinatorial Designs, chapter II.1. CRC Press, 2006.
• Payne and Thas [2009] Stanley E. Payne and Joseph A. Thas. Finite Generalized Quadrangles. European Mathematical Society, 2009. ISBN 978-3-03719-066-1.
• Sprott [1956] D.A. Sprott. Some series of balanced incomplete block designs. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics (1933-1960), 7(2):185–192, 1956.