|
Let and be two disjoint sets; the elements of will be termed points and those of blocks. Now (throughout this article, a bullet point defines the term in boldface)
- an incidence structure is a subset

and a point and a block are said to be incident iff
. The dual incidence structure is the same structure with the labels “point” and “block” reversed.
Every block has a set
of points it is incident with. If
whenever
, the incidence structure is said to be simple. Now we could identify each block with its
so that blocks no longer have sets of points they are incident with but are such sets. If we define it that way, then

- a simple incidence structure consists of a set
and a set
where
is the powerset of (the set of subsets of ).
A simple incidence structure is also called a hypergraph (with points as vertices, and blocks as an extended type of “edges” that are no longer restricted to exactly two vertices each).
Every point also has a set
of blocks it is incident with. Often, a simple incidence structure also has a simple dual, but the set theory formalism does not allow us to regard blocks as sets of points and simultaneously points as sets of blocks! Nevertheless, it is often useful to alternate between these dual interpretations.
- A
-
design, aka -design or block design, is an incidence structure with
-
points in all,
-
points in each block , and such that
- any set
of
points occurs as subset
in exactly blocks.
The parameters are often called , , , (in mixed Latin and Greek alphabets). Note there may be several non-isomorphic designs with the same values of the parameters, and no designs at all for certain combinations of values.
Designs need not be simple (they can have repeated blocks), but they usually are (and don't) in which case can again be used as synonym for
.

- 0-designs (
) are allowed.

- 1-designs (
) are known as tactical configurations.

- 2-designs are called balanced incomplete block designs or BIBD.

- 3, 4, 5... -designs have all been studied.
Being a -
design implies also being an -
design for every
(on the same points and with the same block size ), with
given by
and recursively
from which we get the number of blocks as
Being a 0-design says nothing more than all blocks having the same size. As soon as we have however we also have a 1-design, so the number
of blocks per point is constant throughout the structure. Note now
which is also evident from their interpretation.
As an example: designs (simple designs) with are multigraphs (simple graphs), now

implies no more than that,

gives regular graphs, and

gives complete graphs.
A more elaborate “lambda calculus” (pun intended) can be introduced as follows. Let
and
with
and . The number of blocks such that all the points of are inside and all the points of are outside is independent of the choice of and , only depending on and , provided
. Call this number
. It satisfies a kind of reverse Pascal triangle like recursion
that starts off for with
. An important quantity (for designs with ) is the order
.
Finally, the dual of a design can be a design but need not be.
- A square design aka symmetric design is one where
and
, now also
. Here the dual is also a square design.
Note that for no designs exist with
other than trivial ones (where any points form a block).
- An
Steiner system is a -
design (i.e. ).
Again, there may be several non-isomorphic systems with the same values of the parameters, and no systems at all for certain combinations of values. Note that implies a simple incidence structure; from now on we will interpret a block to be a set of points (
).
Let be an
with point set and block set , and choose a point
(often, the system is so symmetric that it makes no difference which point you choose). The choice uniquely induces an
with point set
and block set consisting of
for only those
that contained
. This works because for any
with
there was a unique
that contained
.
This recurses down all the way to (a partition of into blocks of ) and finally to (one arbitrary block of ). If any of the divisibility conditions on the way there do not hold, there cannot exist a Steiner system with the original
parameters either.
For instance, Steiner triple systems (the first Steiner systems studied, by Kirkman, before Steiner) exist for and all or
, and no other .
The reverse construction, turning an
into an
, need not be unique and may be impossible. Famously an and a have the Mathieu groups and as their automorphism groups, while , and are those of an , and , with connexions to the binary Golay code and the Leech lattice.
The term line has a specific meaning for 2-designs in general: for any two points, it is the intersection of all blocks containing both those points. For 2-designs that are also Steiner systems ( and ) there is only one such block, so line becomes a synonym for block. And it becomes a finite analogue of the usual geometric meaning of the word.
- An
is the finite analogue of a plane, with blocks in the rôle of lines
in the following sense: the design property now requires there to be, for any two different points, exactly one line “through” both those points. Just like in a real (continuous) plane.
This also implies that, for any two different lines and , there is no more than one point “on” both those lines (if both of and were on both those lines, there would be two lines through those points). It does not imply there is always such a point: just like in a real plane, lines can be parallel.
One example is a (finite) affine plane with points and lines. It can be obtained by deleting one line (and all its points) from a projective plane (for which see below). Lines that used to intersect in one of the deleted points are parallel in the affine plane.
- A (finite) projective plane is an

and it has no parallel lines. Because any two lines meet in a point, the dual is again a projective plane. So a projective plane is a square design, as well as being a great many other things.
It is easy to prove that the property of being a plane dual to a plane (i.e. the absence of parallel lines) implies, apart from a few trivial cases, numbers of the form and . Much harder is determining for which such planes exist. The parameter is known as the order of the plane (this agrees with order as defined above for designs in general).
Highly symmetric “classical” (aka Desarguesian, Pappian) projective planes can be constructed based on finite fields, for any prime power . Many non-Desarguesian projective planes are known, but thus far their are also prime powers. The prime power conjecture is that orders of all projective planes will be prime powers.
The Bruck-Ryser theorem states that if or
, and not (a square or) the sum of two squares, it cannot be the order of a projective plane. This rules out 6 for instance, as well as 14 etc. It has been extended to the Bruck-Ryser-Chowla theorem for all square 2-designs, with a more complicated constraint.
The only other order ruled out to date is 10, via an epic computer search by Lam, Swiercz and Thiel (read http://www.cecm.sfu.ca/organics/papers/lam/index.html for Lam's account).
- AK93
- E.F.ASSMUS and J.D.KEY, Designs and their Codes
(pbk. ed. w. corr.), Camb. Univ. Pr. 1993, ISBN0521458390
first part has thorough introduction to various flavors of incidence structure
- Cam94
- PETER J.CAMERON, Combinatorics: topics, techniques, algorithms,
Camb. Univ. Pr. 1994, ISBN0521457610
http://www.maths.qmul.ac.uk/˜pjc/comb/ (solutions, errata &c.)
good combinatorics textbook, with detail
- Pot95
- ALEXANDER POTT, Finite Geometry and Character Theory,
Lect. Notes in Math. 1601, Springer 1995, ISBN354059065X
includes clear introduction to incidence structures
- CD96
- CHARLES J.COLBOURN and JEFFREY H.DINITZ, eds.
The CRC Handbook of Combinatorial Designs,
CRC Press 1996, ISBN0849389488
http://www.emba.uvm.edu/˜dinitz/hcd.html (errata, new results)
the reference work on designs incl. Steiner systems, proj. planes
|