Has anyone ever proved or disproved the existence of a subgroup of the group of all distance preserving operations on R3 under the operation of composition that satisfies the following properties?
- The only translation in that subgroup is the identity transformation.
- There exists a point in R3 and a positive real number r such that every open disc of radius r contains at least 1 and only finitely many points from that set of all points that are an image of that point under one of the transformations in that subgroup.
If it's already been proven that there are 219 space groups, does that mean what I'm describing is not a space group because the existence of a unit cell is a requirement of a space group?
Your question is not well written and has several possible interpretations. Here is one:
Does there exist a subgroup $G$ of $R^3\rtimes O(3)$ (containing no translations), a point $p\in R^3$ and a number $r>0$ such that for every $q\in R^3$ the intersection $B(q,r)\cap G\cdot p$ is finite and nonempty?
Lemma. Such subgroups do not exist. Proof. Suppose that $G$ is such a group. Then $G$ has to be discrete (the finiteness assumption on $B(q,r)\cap G\cdot p$). If $G$ is crystallographic, i.e., $R^3/G$ is compact, then $G$ contains nontrivial translations. The alternative is that $G$ either has an invariant line $L$ or fixed point in $R^3$. Consider the first case. Then $G\cdot p$ is contained in $R$-neighborhood of $L$. Therefore, for arbitrary $r>0$, take $q$ such that $d(q, L)>r+R$. Then $B(q,r)$ contains no points from $G\cdot p$.
If $G$ has a fixed point $a$, then $G\cdot p$ is contained in the $R$-ball $B(a,R)$ for some $R$. Now, take $q$ such that $d(q,a)>R+r$. Again a contradiction. qed
A side remark: Every group of isometries of $R^3$ which contains no translations either fixes a point in $R^3$ or has an invariant line in $R^3$. One can ask about groups which contain no skew translations (isometries without fixed points). Then such subgroup of isometric motions of $R^3$ has to fix a point in $R^3$. Hence, it is conjugate to a subgroup of $O(3)$. Interestingly enough, there are isometry groups of $R^4$ which contain no (skew) translations but are not conjugate to subgroups of $O(4)$. (A proof that I know uses the fact that $U(2)$ contains free nonabelian subgroups.)