Some non-existence results for distance-jj ovoids in small generalized polygons

We give a computer-based proof for the non-existence of distance-$2$ ovoids in the dual split Cayley hexagon $\mathsf{H}(4)^D$. Furthermore, we give upper bounds on partial distance-$2$ ovoids of $\mathsf{H}(q)^D$ for $q \in \{2, 4\}$.Comment: 10 page

Non-intersecting Ryser hypergraphs

A famous conjecture of Ryser states that every $r$-partite hypergraph has vertex cover number at most $r - 1$ times the matching number. In recent years, hypergraphs meeting this conjectured bound, known as $r$-Ryser hypergraphs, have been studied extensively. It was recently proved by Haxell, Narins and Szab\'{o} that all $3$-Ryser hypergraphs with matching number $\nu > 1$ are essentially obtained by taking $\nu$ disjoint copies of intersecting $3$-Ryser hypergraphs. Abu-Khazneh showed that such a characterisation is false for $r = 4$ by giving a computer generated example of a $4$-Ryser hypergraph with $\nu = 2$ whose vertex set cannot be partitioned into two sets such that we have an intersecting $4$-Ryser hypergraph on each of these parts. Here we construct new infinite families of $r$-Ryser hypergraphs, for any given matching number $\nu > 1$, that do not contain two vertex disjoint intersecting $r$-Ryser subhypergraphs.Comment: 8 pages, some corrections in the proof of Lemma 3.6, added more explanation in the appendix, and other minor change

Characterizations of the Suzuki tower near polygons

In recent work, we constructed a new near octagon $\mathcal{G}$ from certain involutions of the finite simple group $G_2(4)$ and showed a correspondence between the Suzuki tower of finite simple groups, $L_3(2) < U_3(3) < J_2 < G_2(4) < Suz$, and the tower of near polygons, $\mathrm{H}(2,1) \subset \mathrm{H}(2)^D \subset \mathsf{HJ} \subset \mathcal{G}$. Here we characterize each of these near polygons (except for the first one) as the unique near polygon of the given order and diameter containing an isometrically embedded copy of the previous near polygon of the tower. In particular, our characterization of the Hall-Janko near octagon $\mathsf{HJ}$ is similar to an earlier characterization due to Cohen and Tits who proved that it is the unique regular near octagon with parameters $(2, 4; 0, 3)$, but instead of regularity we assume existence of an isometrically embedded dual split Cayley hexagon, $\mathrm{H}(2)^D$. We also give a complete classification of near hexagons of order $(2, 2)$ and use it to prove the uniqueness result for $\mathrm{H}(2)^D$.Comment: 20 pages; some revisions based on referee reports; added more references; added remarks 1.4 and 1.5; corrected typos; improved the overall expositio

A new near octagon and the Suzuki tower

We construct and study a new near octagon of order $(2,10)$ which has its full automorphism group isomorphic to the group $\mathrm{G}_2(4){:}2$ and which contains $416$ copies of the Hall-Janko near octagon as full subgeometries. Using this near octagon and its substructures we give geometric constructions of the $\mathrm{G}_2(4)$-graph and the Suzuki graph, both of which are strongly regular graphs contained in the Suzuki tower. As a subgeometry of this octagon we have discovered another new near octagon, whose order is $(2,4)$.Comment: 24 pages, revised version with added remarks and reference

On semi-finite hexagons of order (2,t)(2, t) containing a subhexagon

The research in this paper was motivated by one of the most important open problems in the theory of generalized polygons, namely the existence problem for semi-finite thick generalized polygons. We show here that no semi-finite generalized hexagon of order $(2,t)$ can have a subhexagon $H$ of order $2$. Such a subhexagon is necessarily isomorphic to the split Cayley generalized hexagon $H(2)$ or its point-line dual $H^D(2)$. In fact, the employed techniques allow us to prove a stronger result. We show that every near hexagon $\mathcal{S}$ of order $(2,t)$ which contains a generalized hexagon $H$ of order $2$ as an isometrically embedded subgeometry must be finite. Moreover, if $H \cong H^D(2)$ then $\mathcal{S}$ must also be a generalized hexagon, and consequently isomorphic to either $H^D(2)$ or the dual twisted triality hexagon $T(2,8)$.Comment: 21 pages; new corrected proofs of Lemmas 4.6 and 4.7; earlier proofs worked for generalized hexagons but not near hexagon