Harborth's theorem p(5)=18 revisited
Abstract
Let p(n) be the minimum cardinality of a finite planar point set in which each point has exactly n unit-distance neighbours. Harborth proved p(5)=18 in work presented in 1985 and published in 1987, using a detailed case analysis. We revisit the proof using convex-hull arguments, incidence counts, and elementary properties of intersections of unit circles. These tools give an alternative treatment of configurations with $14$ and $16$ points and organize the final case distinction by a common vector-sum structure. We also treat a configuration not explicitly covered by the case analysis in the online PDF copy of Harborth's paper available to us, and give an explicit justification of the six-point classification used in the argument. No result subsequent to Harborth's proof is required.
Related
BibTeX
@misc{winkler2026harborths,
title = {{Harborth's theorem p(5)=18 revisited}},
author = {Mike Winkler},
howpublished = {arXiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.48550/arxiv.2610.40725},
eprint = {2610.40725},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40725},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Harborth's theorem p(5)=18 revisited
AU - Mike Winkler
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/29
PB - arXiv
DO - 10.48550/arxiv.2610.40725
UR - https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.40725
AB - Let p(n) be the minimum cardinality of a finite planar point set in which each point has exactly n unit-distance neighbours. Harborth proved p(5)=18 in work presented in 1985 and published in 1987, using a detailed case analysis. We revisit the proof using convex-hull arguments, incidence counts, and elementary properties of intersections of unit circles. These tools give an alternative treatment of configurations with $14$ and $16$ points and organize the final case distinction by a common vector-sum structure. We also treat a configuration not explicitly covered by the case analysis in the online PDF copy of Harborth's paper available to us, and give an explicit justification of the six-point classification used in the argument. No result subsequent to Harborth's proof is required.
ER -