DOCSLIB.ORG

Arxiv:2102.12813V1 [Math.CO] 25 Feb 2021 Attention of Numerous Researchers Over the Years [2, 11–13, 19]

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Arxiv:2102.12813V1 [Math.CO] 25 Feb 2021 Attention of Numerous Researchers Over the Years [2, 11–13, 19] A LOWER BOUND THEOREM FOR d-POLYTOPES WITH 2D + 1 VERTICES GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO Centre for Informatics and Applied Optimisation, Federation University, Australia School of Information Technology, Deakin University, Geelong, Australia DAVID YOST Centre for Informatics and Applied Optimisation, Federation University, Australia Abstract. We establish the exact lower bound for the number of k-faces of d-polytopes with 2d + 1 vertices, for each value of k, and characterise the minimisers. As a byproduct, we characterise all d-polytopes with d+3 vertices, and only one or two edges more than the minimum. 1. Introduction A polytope P of dimension d is a d-polytope and a k-dimensional face of the polytope is a k-face. A facet is a (d − 1)-face, a ridge is a (d − 2)-face, an edge is a 1-face, and a vertex is a 0-face. The number of k-faces of P is denoted by fk(P ). The graph of a polytope is the graph formed by the vertices and edges of the polytope. For an edge e = xy of any graph, we say that x and y are adjacent or neighbours; that x and y are incident with e; and that e is incident with x and y. (We denote edges of graphs and polytopes by concatenation of their names, rather than using the interval notation.) Lower bound theorems for the number of faces of polytopes have attracted the arXiv:2102.12813v1 [math.CO] 25 Feb 2021 attention of numerous researchers over the years [2, 11{13, 19]. The lower bound theorem for simple polytopes of Barnette [1, 2] is the best known such theorem; a vertex in a d-polytope is simple if it is incident with exactly d edges; otherwise it is nonsimple. A polytope is simple if all its vertices are simple; otherwise it is nonsimple. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected]. Date: February 26, 2021. 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 52B05; Secondary 52B12. Key words and phrases. polytope, f-vector, dual polytope, excess degree. 1 2 A LOWER BOUND THEOREM FOR D-POLYTOPES WITH 2D + 1 VERTICES Theorem 1 (Simple polytopes, [1, 2]). Let d > 2 and let P be a simple d-polytope with fd−1 facets. Then 8 <(d − 1)fd−1 − (d + 1)(d − 2); if k = 0; (1) fk(P ) > d d+1 : k+1 fd−1 − k+1 (d − 1 − k); if k 2 [1; d − 2]: Moreover, for every value of fd−1 > d + 1, there are simple d-polytopes for which equality holds. Dually, Barnette's Theorem also gives the exact lower bound for the numbers of faces of each positive dimension of a simplicial polytope, in terms of the number of vertices. We are interested in finding optimal lower bounds for the number of k- faces of a general polytope, with a given number of vertices. We break this problem down according to the number of vertices. Gr¨unbaum [10, Sec. 10.2] defined a function φk(d + s; d), for s 6 d, by: d + 1 d d + 1 − s (2) φ (d + s; d) = + − : k k + 1 k + 1 k + 1 That φk(d + s; d) gives the minimum number of k-faces of a d-polytope with d + s vertices was conjectured by Gr¨unbaum [10, Sec. 10.2] and recently proved by Xue [19], who also characterised the unique minimisers for k 2 [1; d − 2]. (This was also proved for some restricted values of k in [17].) The minimisers are called triplices and were defined in [17, Sec. 3]. The (s,d − s)-triplex M(s; d − s) is a (d − s)-fold pyramid over a simplicial s-prism for s 2 [1; d]. In particular, M(1; d − 1) is a d-simplex T (d) and M(d; 0) is a simplicial d-prism. The prism over a polytope Q is the product of Q and a line segment, or any polytope combinatorially equivalent to it. By a simplicial d-prism we mean a prism over a simplex. Theorem 2 (d-polytopes with at most 2d vertices, [19]). Let d > 2 and let P be a d-polytope with d + s vertices, where s 6 d. Then fk(P ) > φk(d + s; d) for all k 2 [1; d − 1]: Also, if fk(P ) = φk(d + s; d) for some k 2 [1; d − 2] then P is the (s; d − s)-triplex. This paper extends this result to the case of d-polytopes with 2d + 1 vertices. That is, we establish the minimum number k(d) of k-faces of a d-polytope with 2d + 1 vertices, and characterise the minimisers (Theorem 3). Note that the case k = d − 1 is not included in the last part of Theorem 2, as it behaves a bit differently. The triplex M(s; d − s) has exactly φd−1(d + s; d) = d + 2 facets, but it may not be the only minimiser. For example, a pyramid over ∆(2; 2) (defined below) is a 5-polytope with ten vertices and seven facets, but it is not a triplex. The case k = d − 1 of Theorem 2 was investigated thoroughly by McMullen [13], who considered d-polytopes with even more than 2d vertices. He showed that the 1 2 minimal number of facets, for polytopes satisfying 2d 6 f0 6 4 d + 2d, is either d + 2 or d + 3, depending on number theoretic properties of d and f0. For the case A LOWER BOUND THEOREM FOR d-POLYTOPES WITH 2D + 1 VERTICES 3 of 2d + 1 vertices, we have d−1(d) = d + 3 when d is prime, while d−1(d) = d + 2 when d is composite. Our main result Theorem 3 shows that this sort of dichotomy is quite common. The case k = 1 of Theorem 3 was settled in [17]; we restate this result here as Theorem 11. The case k = d − 2 will be proved in §3. Building on this, we describe in §4 the situation for general k. With one exception in dimension three, each minimiser is either a d-pentasm or a certain d-polytope with d + 2 facets. Let us describe these examples briefly. More details appear in Section 2.5 below. The pentasm P m(d) in dimension d, or d-pentasm, was defined in [17, Section 4]; it can be obtained by truncating a simple vertex from the triplex M(2; d − 2), i.e. by intersecting this triplex with a closed halfspace which contains all the nonsimple vertices and three of the four simple vertices. For more details about truncation, see Section 2.1 below. The (Minkowski) sum of two polytopes Q + R is defined to be fx + y : x 2 Q; y 2 Rg. We define the simple polytope ∆(r; s) (with r; s > 0) as the sum of an r-dimensional simplex and an s-dimensional simplex, lying in complementary subspaces; it has r + s + 2 facets. It turns out that t-fold pyramids over such simple polytopes, denoted ∆t(r; s), are the only d-polytopes with d + 2 facets; see Lemma 12 below. This can be established by dualising the structure of d-polytopes with d + 2 vertices [10, Sec. 6.1], and was first done explicitly in [13]. Finally, we introduce the other minimiser in dimension three. In Rd, denote by Σ(d) a polytope that is combinatorially equivalent to the convex hull of f0; e1; e1 + ek; e2; e2 + ek; e1 + e2; e1 + e2 + 2ek : 3 6 k 6 dg ; th d where ei is the standard i unit vector in R . This polytope has 3d − 2 vertices and d + 3 facets. So for the time being, it is mainly of interest to us when d = 3. Examples of all the aforementioned polytopes are depicted in Fig. 1. The next theorem summarises our results; the f-vector of a d-polytope P , denoted f(P ), is the sequence (f0(P ); : : : ; fd−1(P )) of the numbers of faces of P of different dimen- sions. Theorem 3. Let d > 3 and consider the class of d-polytopes with 2d + 1 vertices. Fix k 2 [1; d − 2]. Then the following hold. (i) Let d = 3. If P is Σ(3) or a pentasm, then f(P ) = (7; 11; 6). Otherwise, f1(P ) > 11 and f2(P ) > 6. (ii) Let d = 4. If P is ∆(2; 2), then f(P ) = (9; 18; 15; 6). If P is a pentasm, then f(P ) = (9; 19; 17; 7). Otherwise, f1(P ) > 19, f2(P ) > 17, and f3(P ) > 7. (iii) Let d = 5. If P is a pentasm, then f(P ) = (11; 29; 36; 24; 8). Otherwise, f1(P ) > 29, f2(P ) > 37, f3(P ) > 24, and f4(P ) > 8. (iv) If d > 6 and d is prime, then the d-pentasm is the unique minimiser of fk(P ). 4 A LOWER BOUND THEOREM FOR D-POLYTOPES WITH 2D + 1 VERTICES v0 v0 v3 v1 v2 v1 v2 v3 v4 u4 u3 u1 u u1 u (a) (b) 2 (c) 2 (d) Figure 1. Schlegel diagrams of extremal polytopes with 2d + 1 vertices. (a) Σ(3). (b) 3-pentasm. (c) 4-pentasm. (d) ∆(2; 2). (v) If d > 6 and d is composite, then the minimiser of fk(P ) is either a d- pentasm or a (d − r − s)-fold pyramid over ∆(r; s) where d = rs is a nontrivial factorisation of d. 2. Preliminaries Unless otherwise stated the notation and terminology follows from [20]. In par- ticular, we assume familiarity with duality of polytopes, [10, §3.4], [14, §2.2] or [20, §2.3].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 15 BASIC PROPERTIES of CONVEX POLYTOPES Martin Henk, J¨Urgenrichter-Gebert, and G¨Unterm
    15 BASIC PROPERTIES OF CONVEX POLYTOPES Martin Henk, J¨urgenRichter-Gebert, and G¨unterM. Ziegler INTRODUCTION Convex polytopes are fundamental geometric objects that have been investigated since antiquity. The beauty of their theory is nowadays complemented by their im- portance for many other mathematical subjects, ranging from integration theory, algebraic topology, and algebraic geometry to linear and combinatorial optimiza- tion. In this chapter we try to give a short introduction, provide a sketch of \what polytopes look like" and \how they behave," with many explicit examples, and briefly state some main results (where further details are given in subsequent chap- ters of this Handbook). We concentrate on two main topics: • Combinatorial properties: faces (vertices, edges, . , facets) of polytopes and their relations, with special treatments of the classes of low-dimensional poly- topes and of polytopes \with few vertices;" • Geometric properties: volume and surface area, mixed volumes, and quer- massintegrals, including explicit formulas for the cases of the regular simplices, cubes, and cross-polytopes. We refer to Gr¨unbaum [Gr¨u67]for a comprehensive view of polytope theory, and to Ziegler [Zie95] respectively to Gruber [Gru07] and Schneider [Sch14] for detailed treatments of the combinatorial and of the convex geometric aspects of polytope theory. 15.1 COMBINATORIAL STRUCTURE GLOSSARY d V-polytope: The convex hull of a finite set X = fx1; : : : ; xng of points in R , n n X i X P = conv(X) := λix λ1; : : : ; λn ≥ 0; λi = 1 : i=1 i=1 H-polytope: The solution set of a finite system of linear inequalities, d T P = P (A; b) := x 2 R j ai x ≤ bi for 1 ≤ i ≤ m ; with the extra condition that the set of solutions is bounded, that is, such that m×d there is a constant N such that jjxjj ≤ N holds for all x 2 P .
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0311272V2 [Math.MG] 11 Jun 2004
    Hyperbolic Coxeter n-polytopes with n +3 facets P. Tumarkin Abstract. A polytope is called a Coxeter polytope if its dihedral angles are integer parts of π. In this paper we prove that if a non- compact Coxeter polytope of finite volume in IHn has exactly n+3 facets then n ≤ 16. We also find an example in IH16 and show that it is unique. 1. Consider a convex polytope P in n-dimensional hyperbolic space IHn. A polytope is called a Coxeter polytope if its dihedral angles are integer parts of π. Any Coxeter polytope P is a fundamental domain of the discrete group generated by the reflections with respect to facets of P . Of special interest are hyperbolic Coxeter polytopes of finite volume. In contrast to spherical and Euclidean cases there is no complete classification of such polytopes. It is known that dimension of compact Coxeter polytope does not exceed 29 (see [12]), and dimension of non-compact polytope of finite volume does not exceed 995 (see [9]). Coxeter polytopes in IH 3 are completely characterized by Andreev [1], [2]. There exists a complete classification of hyperbolic simplices [8], [11] and hyperbolic n-polytopes with n + 2 facets [7] (see also [13]), [5], [10]). In [5] Esselmann proved that n-polytopes with n + 3 facets do not exist in IHn, n> 8, and the example found by Bugaenko [3] in IH8 is unique. There is an example of finite volume non-compact polytope in IH15 with 18 facets (see [13]). The main result of this note is the following theorem: Theorem 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Combinatorial Aspects of Convex Polytopes Margaret M
    Combinatorial Aspects of Convex Polytopes Margaret M. Bayer1 Department of Mathematics University of Kansas Carl W. Lee2 Department of Mathematics University of Kentucky August 1, 1991 Chapter for Handbook on Convex Geometry P. Gruber and J. Wills, Editors 1Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-8801078. 2Supported in part by NSF grant DMS-8802933, by NSA grant MDA904-89-H-2038, and by DIMACS (Center for Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science), a National Science Foundation Science and Technology Center, NSF-STC88-09648. 1 Definitions and Fundamental Results 3 1.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 1.2 Faces : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 1.3 Polarity and Duality : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 3 1.4 Overview : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2 Shellings 4 2.1 Introduction : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.2 Euler's Relation : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 4 2.3 Line Shellings : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5 2.4 Shellable Simplicial Complexes : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 5 2.5 The Dehn-Sommerville Equations : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 6 2.6 Completely Unimodal Numberings and Orientations : : : : : : : 7 2.7 The Upper Bound Theorem : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 8 2.8 The Lower Bound Theorem : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9 2.9 Constructions Using Shellings : : : : : : : : : : : : :
    [Show full text]
  • GEOCHEMICAL PHASE DIAGRAMS and GALE DIAGRAMS Contents 1
    GEOCHEMICAL PHASE DIAGRAMS AND GALE DIAGRAMS P.H. EDELMAN, S.W. PETERSON, V. REINER, AND J.H. STOUT Abstract. The problem of predicting the possible topologies of a geochemical phase diagram, based on the chemical formula of the phases involved, is shown to be intimately connected with and aided by well-studied notions in discrete geometry: Gale diagrams, triangulations, secondary fans, and oriented matroids. Contents 1. Introduction 2 2. A geochemistry-discrete geometry dictionary 6 3. Chemical composition space 6 4. Triangulations and subdivisions 10 5. Secondary fans 13 6. Gale diagrams and duality 17 7. Geometry of the phase diagram in general 21 7.1. Bistellar operations and 1-dimensional stability fields 23 7.2. Invariant points and indifferent crossings 25 8. The case m = n + 2: phase diagram = Gale diagram 28 9. The case m = n + 3: phase diagram = affine Gale diagram 30 9.1. The spherical representation: closed nets 31 9.2. Two-dimensional affine Gale diagrams 33 10. Further implications/applications 35 10.1. Slopes around invariant points 35 10.2. Counting potential solutions 37 References 40 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 52B35, 52C40, 86A99. Key words and phrases. Gale diagram, Gale transform, phase diagram, trian- gulation, secondary polytope, secondary fan, geochemistry, heterogeneous equilib- rium, closed net, Euler sphere. Work of second author was carried out partly as a Masters Thesis at the Uni- versity of Minnesota Center for Industrial Mathematics, and partly supported by a University of Minnesota Grant-in-Aid of Research. Third author was partially supported by NSF grant DMS{9877047. 1 2 P.H.
    [Show full text]
  • On Zonotopes
    TRANSACTIONS OF THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Volume 159, September 1971 ON ZONOTOPES BY P. McMULLEN Abstract. In this paper is described a diagram technique for zonotopes, or vector sums of line segments, which is analogous to that of Gale diagrams for general polytopes, and central diagrams for centrally symmetric polytopes. The use of these new zonal diagrams leads to relationships between zonotopes with n zones of dimen- sions d and n —d, and enables one to enumerate all the combinatorial types of d- zonotopes with ntsd+2 zones. The connexion between arrangements of hyperplanes in projective space and zonotopes leads to corresponding new results about arrangements. 1. Introduction. Several recent advances in the theory of convex polytopes have stemmed from the idea of Gale diagrams, which were first conceived by Gale [1956], and later much elaborated by Perles (see Grünbaum [1967, 5.4, 6.3 and elsewhere]). The technique is to represent a o'-polytope with n vertices by a diagram of n points in (« —d— l)-dimensional space, from which all the combinatorial properties of the original polytope can be determined. However, Gale diagrams proved ineffective in dealing with the problems of centrally symmetric polytopes. McMullen-Shephard [1968] described the appro- priate analogues of Gale diagrams for centrally symmetric polytopes ; these dia- grams are known as central diagrams or c.s. diagrams. One subclass of the centrally symmetric polytopes, which is interesting for many reasons (in particular, the connexion with arrangements of hyperplanes, for which see §7 below), comprises the zonotopes. Since a ¿-dimensional zonotope has at least 2" vertices, even central diagrams fail to give much information about zono- topes.
    [Show full text]
  • Random Gale Diagrams and Neighborly Polytopes in High Dimensions
    Random Gale diagrams and neighborly polytopes in high dimensions Rolf Schneider Abstract Taking up a suggestion of David Gale from 1956, we generate sets of combinatorially isomorphic polytopes by choosing their Gale diagrams at random. We find that in high dimensions, and under suitable assumptions on the growth of the involved parameters, the obtained polytopes have strong neighborliness properties, with high probability. Keywords: Gale diagram, random polytope, neighborly polytope, high dimensions 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 52B35, Secondary 60D05 1 Introduction The purpose of the following is, roughly speaking, to introduce a new class of random poly- topes, which have strong neighborliness properties in high dimensions, with overwhelming probability. The main idea is to generate not directly the polytopes by a random procedure, but their Gale diagrams. d Let us first recall that a convex polytope P in Euclidean space R is called k-neighborly if any k or fewer vertices of P are neighbors, which means that their convex hull is a face of P . A bd=2c-neighborly polytope is called neighborly. It is known that a k-neighborly d-polytope with k > bd=2c must be a simplex, and that in dimensions d ≥ 4 there are neighborly polytopes with any number of vertices. It appears that neighborliness properties (though not under this name) of certain polytopes were first noted by Carath´eodory [2], and that the proper investigation of neighborly polytopes began with the work of Gale [7]. For more information on neighborly polytopes (for example, their important role in the Upper bound theorem), we refer to the books by Gr¨unbaum [8], McMullen and Shephard [12], Ziegler [19], Matouˇsek[10].
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:2009.07252V2 [Math.CO] 19 Sep 2020 Ol Oase H Oiaigqeto.W Reydsrb He E Three Describe Briefly We Defi Question
    MINKOWSKI SUMMANDS OF CUBES FEDERICO CASTILLO, JOSEPH DOOLITTLE, BENNET GOECKNER, MICHAEL S. ROSS, AND LI YING Abstract. In pioneering works of Meyer and of McMullen in the early 1970s, the set of Minkowski summands of a polytope was shown to be a polyhedral cone called the type cone. Explicit computations of type cones are in general intractable. Nevertheless, we show that the type cone of the product of simplices is simplicial. This remarkably simple result derives from insights about rainbow point configurations and the work of McMullen. 1. Introduction A fundamental operation on polytopes is Minkowski addition. In this paper, we consider the reverse of this operation. Our motivating question is “Given a polytope P, what can we say about the set of its Minkowski summands?” It is convenient to modify this question and consider the set TMink(P) of weak Minkowski summands, polytopes that are summands of some positive dilate of P, up to translation equivalence. With this perspective, there are multiple equivalent definitions that provide tools to answer the motivating question. We briefly describe three existing techniques to parametrize the set TMink(P) as pointed polyhedral cone, which we refer to as the type cone of P. The starting point is a theorem of Shephard [13, Section 15] characterizing the weak Minkowski summands in terms of their support functions. In [21], Meyer used this connec- tion to give a parametrization of TMink(P) using one parameter for each facet, so we refer to this construction as the facet parametrization. In the context of algebraic geometry, the type cone is the nef cone of the toric variety associated to P, when P is a rational poly- tope.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1908.05503V2 [Math.AG] 14 Sep 2020 D We Are Interested by the Existence of the Positive Solutions of (1.1) in R>0
    SIGN CONDITIONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF AT LEAST ONE POSITIVE SOLUTION OF A SPARSE POLYNOMIAL SYSTEM FRED´ ERIC´ BIHAN, ALICIA DICKENSTEIN, AND MAGAL´I GIAROLI Abstract. We give sign conditions on the support and coefficients of a sparse system of d generalized polynomials in d variables that guar- antee the existence of at least one positive real root, based on degree theory and Gale duality. In the case of integer exponents, we relate our sufficient conditions to algebraic conditions that emerged in the study of toric ideals. 1. Introduction Deciding whether a real polynomial system has a positive solution is a basic question, that is decidable via effective elimination of quantifiers [1]. There are few results on lower bounds on the number of real or positive roots of polynomial systems (see e.g. [3, 18, 19, 23]). In this paper, we consider generalized polynomial systems, that is, polynomials with real exponents, for which the positive solutions are well defined. We give sign conditions on the support and on the coefficients of a sparse system of d generalized poly- nomials in d variables that guarantee the existence of at least one positive real root, based on degree theory and Gale duality. d We fix an exponent set A = fa1; : : : ; ang ⊂ R of cardinality n and for d×n any given real matrix C = (cij) 2 R we consider the associated sparse generalized multivariate polynomial system in d variables x = (x1; : : : ; xd) with support A: n X aj (1.1) fi(x) = cijx = 0 ; i = 1; : : : ; d: j=1 arXiv:1908.05503v2 [math.AG] 14 Sep 2020 d We are interested by the existence of the positive solutions of (1.1) in R>0.
    [Show full text]
  • C Copyright 2019 Amy Wiebe Realization Spaces of Polytopes and Matroids
    c Copyright 2019 Amy Wiebe Realization spaces of polytopes and matroids Amy Wiebe A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2019 Reading Committee: Rekha R. Thomas, Chair Isabella Novik Jarod Alper Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Mathematics University of Washington Abstract Realization spaces of polytopes and matroids Amy Wiebe Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Dr Rekha R. Thomas Mathematics Chapter 1 describes several models for the realization space of a polytope. These models include the classical model, a model representing realizations in the Grassmannian, a new model which represents realizations by slack matrices, and a model which represents poly- topes by their Gale transforms. We explore the connections between these models, and show how they can be exploited to obtain useful parametrizations of the slack realization space. Chapter 2 introduces a natural model for the realization space of a polytope up to projec- tive equivalence which we call the slack realization space of the polytope. The model arises from the positive part of an algebraic variety determined by the slack ideal of the polytope. This is a saturated determinantal ideal that encodes the combinatorics of the polytope. The slack ideal offers an effective computational framework for several classical questions about polytopes such as rational realizability, non-prescribability of faces, and realizability of combinatorial polytopes. Chapter 3 studies the simplest possible slack ideals, which are toric, and explores their connections to projectively unique polytopes. We prove that if a projectively unique polytope has a toric slack ideal, then it is the toric ideal of the bipartite graph of vertex-facet non- incidences of the polytope.
    [Show full text]
  • Polytopes Course Notes
    Polytopes Course Notes Carl W. Lee Department of Mathematics University of Kentucky Lexington, KY 40506 [email protected] Fall 2013 i Contents 1 Polytopes 1 1.1 Convex Combinations and V-Polytopes . 1 1.2 Linear Inequalities and H-Polytopes . 8 1.3 H-Polytopes are V-Polytopes . 10 1.4 V-Polytopes are H-Polytopes . 13 2 Theorems of the Alternatives 14 2.1 Systems of Equations . 14 2.2 Fourier-Motzkin Elimination | A Starting Example . 16 2.3 Showing our Example is Feasible . 19 2.4 An Example of an Infeasible System . 20 2.5 Fourier-Motzkin Elimination in General . 22 2.6 More Alternatives . 24 2.7 Exercises: Systems of Linear Inequalities . 25 3 Faces of Polytopes 28 3.1 More on Vertices . 28 3.2 Faces . 30 3.3 Polarity and Duality . 32 4 Some Polytopes 36 4.1 Regular and Semiregular Polytopes . 36 4.2 Polytopes in Combinatorial Optimization . 38 5 Representing Polytopes 42 5.1 Schlegel Diagrams . 42 5.2 Gale Transforms and Diagrams . 42 6 Euler's Relation 44 6.1 Euler's Relation for 3-Polytopes . 44 6.2 Some Consequences of Euler's Relation for 3-Polytopes . 46 6.3 Euler's Relation in Higher Dimensions . 48 6.4 Gram's Theorem . 51 7 The Dehn-Sommerville Equations 52 7.1 3-Polytopes . 52 7.2 Simple Polytopes . 52 ii 7.3 Simplicial Polytopes . 54 d 7.4 The Affine Span of f(Ps ) ............................ 57 7.5 Vertex Figures . 58 7.6 Notes . 60 8 Shellability 61 9 The Upper Bound Theorem 66 10 The Lower Bound Theorem 71 10.1 Stacked Polytopes .
    [Show full text]
  • 16 SUBDIVISIONS and TRIANGULATIONS of POLYTOPES Carl W
    16 SUBDIVISIONS AND TRIANGULATIONS OF POLYTOPES Carl W. Lee and Francisco Santos INTRODUCTION We are interested in the set of all subdivisions or triangulations of a given polytope P and with a fixed finite set V of points that can be used as vertices. V must contain the vertices of P , and it may or may not contain additional points; these additional points are vertices of some, but not all, the subdivisions that we can form. This setting has interest in several contexts: In computational geometry there is often a set of sites V and one wants to find the triangulation of V that is optimal with respect to certain criteria. In algebraic geometry and in integer programming one is interested in triangu- lations of a lattice polytope P using only lattice points as vertices. Subdivisions of some particular polytopes using only vertices of the polytope turn out to be interesting mathematical objects. For example, for a convex n-gon and for the prism over a d-simplex they are isomorphic to the face posets of two remarkable polytopes, the associahedron and the permutahedron. Our treatment is very combinatorial. In particular, instead of regarding a subdivision as a set of polytopes we regard it as a set of subsets of V , whose convex hulls subdivide P . This may appear to be an unnecessary complication at first, but it has advantages in the long run. It also relates this chapter to Chapter 6 (oriented matroids). For more application-oriented treatments of triangulations see Chapters 27 and 29. A general reference for the topics in this chapter is [DRS10].
    [Show full text]
  • Lectures on Matroids and Oriented Matroids
    LECTURES ON MATROIDS AND ORIENTED MATROIDS VICTOR REINER Abstract. These lecture notes were prepared for the Algebraic Combina- torics in Europe (ACE) Summer School in Vienna, July 2005. 1. Lecture 1: Motivation, examples and axioms Let's begin with a little \pep talk", some (very) brief history, and some of the motivating examples of matroids. 1.1. Motivation. Why learn about or study matroids/oriented matroids in geo- metric, topological, algebraic combinatorics? Here are a few of my personal rea- sons. • They are general, so results about them are widely applicable. • They have relatively few axioms and standard constructions/techniques, so they focus one's approach to solving a problem. • They give examples of well-behaved objects: polytopes, cell/simplicial complexes, rings. • They provide \duals" for non-planar graphs! 1.2. Brief early history. (in no way comprehensive ...) 1.2.1. Matroids. • H. Whitney (1932, 1935) - graphs, duality, and matroids as abstract linear independence. • G. Birkhoff (1935) - geometric lattices are simple matroids. • S. Mac Lane (1938) - abstract algebraic independence give matroids. • J. Edmonds and D.R. Fulkerson (1965) - partial matchings give matroids. 1.2.2. Oriented matroids (OM's). • J. Folkman and J. Lawrence (1975) - abstract hyperplane arrangements • R. Bland and M. Las Vergnas (1975) - abstract linear programming 1.3. Motivating examples. Let's start with the first few examples that origi- nally motivated the definition of a matroid, before we actually give the definition. Thanks to the Algebraic Combinatorics in Europe (ACE) training network for the opportu- nity to give these lectures, and to the students at the summer school who discovered numerous typos, incorrect exercises, and gave great suggestions for improvement! Particular thanks go to Andrew Berget for a later careful reading.
    [Show full text]