1 Correction to: Ann. Comb. 20 (2016) 433–452 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00026-016-0315-z
In Section 4.2 of [1], we showed that there does not exist any infinite near hexagon \({\mathcal {N}}\) of order (2, t) that contains an isometrically embedded subgeometry \({\mathcal {H}}\) isomorphic to H(2). The proofs of Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7 in [1] have been spoiled by the same error: points of \({\mathcal {N}}\) at distance 1 from \({\mathcal {H}}\) are not necessarily collinear with a unique point of \({\mathcal {H}}\) (see Page 446, Line −8 and Page 447, Line 2). This is true in case \({\mathcal {N}}\) is a generalised hexagon, but not if \({\mathcal {N}}\) is a general near hexagon. Luckily, these errors can be corrected.
The following proof should replace the proof of Lemma 4.6 in [1].
Lemma 1
There are only finitely many points of type \(B_1\) in \({\mathcal {N}}\).
Proof
Let \(\mathcal {B}\) denote the set of those points of \({\mathcal {N}}\) that have type \(B_i\) for some \(i \in \{ 2,3,4,5 \}\). Then \(\mathcal {B}\) is finite by [1, Lemma 4.5]. Let \(\mathcal {A}\) denote the set of those points of \({\mathcal {N}}\) that have type A, i.e., the points of \({\mathcal {H}}\). Then the set \(\mathcal {A} \cup \mathcal {B}\) is also finite. Let x be a point of type \(B_1\) in \({\mathcal {N}}\). Then by [1, Lemma 4.2], x is at distance 1 from \({\mathcal {H}}\), and since \({\mathcal {O}}_{f_x}\) is a singleton, there exists a unique point \(\pi (x)\) in \({\mathcal {H}}\) collinear with x. If x is only collinear with points of type A, \(B_1\) or C, then by the same reasoning as in the proof of [1, Theorem 4.4], we get a contradiction. So, x is collinear with at least one point of \(\mathcal {B}\), and we have already seen that it is collinear with at least one point of \(\mathcal {A}\). Thus x is the common neighbour of two points at distance 2 in the finite set \(\mathcal {A} \cup \mathcal {B}\). Since each such pair of points at distance 2 in the near polygon \({\mathcal {N}}\) has finitely many (at most five) common neighbours, we see that the set of points of type \(B_1\) must be finite; in fact, the cardinality of this set is bounded by five times the number of unordered pairs of points at distance 2 in \(\mathcal {A} \cup \mathcal {B}\). \(\square \)
The following proof should replace the proof of Lemma 4.7 in [1].
Lemma 2
There are only finitely many points of type C in \({\mathcal {N}}\).
Proof
Let x be a point of type C in \({\mathcal {N}}\). Then the set of points of \({\mathcal {H}}\) at distance 2 from x is a 1-ovoid of \({\mathcal {H}}\) and hence it has cardinality 21. Let \(S_x\) be the set of common neighbours between x and the elements of \({\mathcal {O}}_{f_x}\) (the 1-ovoid of \({\mathcal {H}}\) induced by x). By [1, Lemma 4.2], each element y of \(S_x\) has type \(B_i\) for some \(i \in \{ 1,2,\ldots ,5 \}\) and hence by [1, Table 3] y is collinear with at most nine points of \({\mathcal {H}}\). Therefore, \(|S_x| \ge \frac{21}{9}\), and we get two points of the set \(\Gamma _1({\mathcal {H}})\) at distance 2 from each other having x as a common neighbour. By [1, Lemma 4.5] and Lemma 1, the set \(\Gamma _1({\mathcal {H}})\) is finite. A similar reasoning as in the proof of Lemma 1 then shows that there are only finitely many points of type C in \({\mathcal {N}}\). \(\square \)
The rest of the discussion in Section 4.2 of [1] can remain as it is. In the proof of Lemma 4.3, there is however a typo. The condition \({\mathrm {d}}(x,y_1)={\mathrm {d}}(x,y_2)={\mathrm {d}}(x,y_3)\) should be replaced with \({\mathrm {d}}(y,x_1)={\mathrm {d}}(y,x_2)={\mathrm {d}}(y,x_3)\).
Reference
Bishnoi, A., De Bruyn, B.: On semi-finite hexagons of order \((2,t)\) containing a subhexagon. Ann. Comb. 20(3), 433–452 (2016)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bishnoi, A., De Bruyn, B. Correction to: On Semi-finite Hexagons of Order (2, t) Containing a Subhexagon. Ann. Comb. 23, 423–424 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00026-019-00436-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00026-019-00436-9