arXiv:2106.13659v2 [math.MG] 29 Jun 2021 r ipe(.e,i xcl he ae r niett ahvertex), themselv each polyhedra to the incident of equivalence are affine faces Se the In three implies exactly already purposes. faces if our for e., convenient (i. is simple which are form a addition in authors (in other polyhedra equ convex affine the two guarantee faces) of corresponding the developments of equivalence the on conditions te.Hwvr si ayt see, to easy is as However, other. ae of faces loan-qiaett ahohr h ovre oee,i no is however, converse, The triangular other. convex each to affine-equivalent also hl h egh falohregsof edges other all of lengths the while r congruent. are sfollows: as n rilso optrvso nw ou,tepolmw r stud are we problem the us, to known boo vision the computer to on g., visio e. articles computer reader, and interested of the problems refer the We to understanding. also but geometry, synthetic it. and solving in steps first c the poly these take these we that of article, understand developments only to given possible are it we polyh “is if these affine-equivalent of problem: not) developments following the the with pose only operating congruent?”, egho n deof edge one of length h ril sognzda olw.I eto ,w en h termino the refine we 2, Section In follows. as organized is article The reformulat be can article this in studied problem main the Therefore, h aosCuh iiiyterm[] 4 hpe I] 3] 1,S [14, [33], III], Chapter [4, [1], theorem rigidity Cauchy famous The biul,i h polyhedra the if Obviously, only not related is study under ab problem results the any apparently, or that, problem Note this of statement the of aware not are We EONTO FAFN-QIAETPLHDAB THEIR BY POLYHEDRA AFFINE-EQUIVALENT OF RECOGNITION td iia rbe bu hte ti osbe sn nytedeve the only using possible, polyhe these is developme that it their understand to using whether 3-space, by about Euclidean of not problem polyhedra congruent. or similar isometric are a are they study polyhedra then two developments whether isometric have polytopes Abstract. hoe,an-qiaetplhda alyMne determinan Cayley–Menger polyhedra, affine-equivalent theorem, P Keywords ahmtc ujc lsicto (2010) classification subject Mathematics and ftedvlpet ftocne oyer in polyhedra convex two of developments the if P hs hstermalw st nwrteqeto aeteecon these “are question the answer to us allows theorem this Thus, ′ ulda -pc,cne oyern eeomn fapolyhed a of development , convex 3-space, Euclidean : h lsia acyrgdt hoe o ovxpltpsrast reads polytopes convex for theorem rigidity Cauchy classical The biul olw rmtefc htaytotinlsaeaffine-equ are triangles two any that fact the from follows obviously P ′ oncigavre fvlny3wt etxo aec sntequ not is 4 valency of vertex a with 3 valency of vertex a connecting P P AUA DEVELOPMENTS NATURAL and and P P and P P ′ ITRALEXANDROV VICTOR ′ in ′ uhta h egho l de of edges all of length the that such 1. P r qa o1 h ffieeuvlneo h corresponding the of equivalence affine The 1. to equal are R ′ Introduction 3 hmevsaentaffine-equivalent. not are themselves 22,5B0 51M25. 52B10, 52C25, : r ffieeuvln,te hi orsodn ae are faces corresponding their then affine-equivalent, are 1 r r o r o)affine-equivalent. not) are (or are dra 2] lhuhi t si te books other in as it, in although [27], k vlneo h oyer themselves?” polyhedra the of ivalence R t. 3 re ovrf hs osdrtwo consider this, verify To true. t nohrwrs ecndecide can we words, other In r smti,te h polyhedra the then isometric, are to ,w rv hti polyhedra if that prove we 3, ction ,ptenrcgiin n image and recognition, pattern n, hntean qiaec fthe of equivalence affine the then da tsesntrlt sto us to natural seems It edra. s(.e,n diinlconditions additional no e., (i. es t ny nti ril,we article, this In only. nts oteCuh iiiytheorem rigidity Cauchy the to hedra?” da olw:“htadditional “what follows: as ed u ti h ieaue nthis In literature. the in it out igi o tde directly. studied not is ying cin64 a eformulated be can 6.4] ection oyadfruaerslsof results formulate and logy ne oyer r o are (or are polyhedra onvex omnso w convex two of lopments otecniino affine of condition the to o,Cuh rigidity Cauchy ron, P a ftoconvex two if hat seult ,adthe and 1, to equal is vln oeach to ivalent e polyhedra vex lt 1, to al 2 VICTOR ALEXANDROV are needed). In Section 4, we study our problem for suspensions, i. e., for polyhedra combinatorially equivalent to regular n-gonal bipyramids. In Section 5, we study an auxiliary local problem of affine equivalence of two polyhedra, each of which is homeomorphic to a disk and contains only three faces. Finally, in Section 6, we describe some algorithm for recognizing affine-equivalent polyhedra from their natural developments, based on the ideas developed in Sections 3–5, suitable for polyhedra of any combinatorial structure. For some pairs of polyhedra, it can certify that they are not affine- equivalent. Note that this algorithm can be applied not only to convex or closed polyhedra. 2. Refinement of the terminology Throughout this article, a connected two-dimensional polyhedral surface in Euclidean 3-space composed of a finite number of convex is called polyhedron and those convex polygons are called its faces. In this article, the faces of a polyhedron are not necessarily triangular; a polyhedron itself can either have a non-empty boundary or be closed, can be either convex (i. e., coincide with the boundary or a part of the boundary of a convex set) or non-convex, can have an arbitrary topological structure, and may have self-intersections. All these possibilities are not excluded in our reasoning until the corresponding restriction is explicitly formulated. On the other hand, we always assume that any polyhedron under study is connected, i. e., that we can go from any face to another by crossing edges, not vertices. In this article, a finite collection R of convex polygons on the plane is called natural development of a polyhedron P if R is in one-to-one correspondence with the collection of faces of P such that each face of P is congruent to the corresponding of R and two elements of P are incident to each other if and only if the corresponding two elements of R are incident to each other. Here, for brevity, we call a face, edge or vertex of P an element of P , and a polygon, side of the polygon or vertex of the polygon of R an element of R (sometimes we also call the latter a face, edge or vertex of R, respectively). Natural developments R and R′ are called isometric to each other if the set of polygons of R is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of polygons of R′, the corresponding polygons are congruent to each other, and two elements of R are incident to each other if and only if the corresponding two elements of R′ are incident to each other. Using the notion of natural development of a polyhedron, we can formulate the classical Cauchy rigidity theorem for convex polyhedra as follows: Theorem 1. Let P and P ′ be convex closed polyhedra in Euclidean 3-space. If the natural develop- ments of P and P ′ are isometric, then P and P ′ are congruent. This theorem was first proved by Augustin-Louis Cauchy in 1813 [10]. It is considered one of the most striking achievements of geometry. It has a significant impact on the development of synthetic geometry and is well presented in scientific [4, Chapter III], [12], [13, Section 23.1], [14, Section 6.4], [40], educational [26, Addition K], [43, Chapter 24], and popular science [1, Chapter 14], [15], [20, Theorem 24.1], [33, Chapter III, §14] literature. Of recent articles using or generalizing Theorem 1, we mention article [16], where the local rigidity of zonohedra is proved in R3; articles [17], [18], [44], where the rigidity of a polyhedron is proved in R3 provided that it is homeomorphic to the sphere, torus or pretzel and all its faces are unit squares; article [9], in which Theorem 1 carries over to the case of circular polytopes in the 2-sphere S2; and article [36], in which a rather unexpected application of Theorem 1 is given to find a sufficient condition for a convex polyhedron P to realize by means of isometries of the ambient space R3 all “combinatorial symmetries” of P , i. e., all maps of the natural development of P onto itself that preserve edge lengths. RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 3

xÄ0 xÄ3 xÄ0 xÄ0 xÄ3 xÄ0 x0

x3 x 1 xÄ1 xÄ2 xÄ1 xÄ2 xÄ1 xÄ2 x2 (a) (b) (c)

Figure 1. (a): a regular P . (b): a natural development of P . (c): an abstract development of P , which is not natural.

A convex polyhedron can be regarded as a metric space if we put by definition that the distance between any two points is equal to the infimum of the lengths of the curves connecting these points and lying entirely on the polyhedron. Each point of this metric space, other than a vertex of the polyhedron, has a neighborhood isometric to a disk on the plane R2. We can say that, after removing a finite number of points, this space is locally Euclidean. It is convenient to represent such metric space as a disjoint union of a finite number of convex polygons in R2, the edges of which are identified so that each edge belongs to exactly two polygons, and the lengths of any edge segment calculated in each of these two polygons are the same. We call such a disjoint union of a finite number of convex polygons in R2 together with the edge identification rule connected if, starting from any polygon, it is possible to pass to any other, successively crossing the sides (not vertices) of the polygons of this disjoint union. Finally, a connected disjoint union of a finite number of convex polygons in R2, together with the edge identification rule, we call an abstract development of the polyhedron. Obviously, an abstract development can be constructed for any polyhedron, not just for a convex one. It is also obvious that any natural development of a polyhedron is its abstract development. Fig. 1 shows that the converse is not true. Indeed, in Fig. 1, a a regular tetrahedron P with vertices x0, x1, x2, x3 is shown. In Fig. 1, b and Fig. 1, c two developments of P with vertices x0, x1, x2, x3 are shown. Moreover, for each j = 0, 1, 2, 3, the vertex xj of P corresponds to the vertex xj of its development. The development shown in Fig. 1, b is natural. In contrast, the abstract developmente e e e of P shown in Fig. 1, c, is not natural. The latter follows, e. g., from the fact that triangleex1x2x0 on the abstract development shaded in Fig. 1, c is located on two faces x1x2x3 and x2x3x0 of P simultaneously. In this case, it is said that the face x1x2x0 and the edge x1x0 of the abstracte e e development “break” and are not a true face and a true edge of P , respectively. A.D. Alexandrov proved [4, Chapter III] the followinge generalizatioe e n of Theoreme e 1: Theorem 2. Let P and P ′ be convex closed polyhedra in Euclidean 3-space, and let R and R′ be any of their abstract developments. If R and R′ are isometric, then P and P ′ are congruent. In other words, Theorem 2 shows that in Theorem 1 there is no need to check that the developments of the polyhedra P and P ′ are natural. Theorem 2 is interesting not only in itself, but also plays an essential role in the proof of the following theorem on the existence of a convex polyhedron, also proved by A.D. Alexandrov [4, Chapter IV]: 4 VICTOR ALEXANDROV

Theorem 3. From any abstract development homeomorphic to the sphere and having the sums of the angles at the vertices 6 2π, one can glue a closed in R3.

The concept of the “sum of the angles at the vertex x of an abstract development” used in Theorem 3 is intuitively obvious. To find this sum, denoted by δxe, you need to select flat angles with the vertex x in all polygons of the abstract development ande calculate the sum of the values of these angles. The quantity 2π − δxe is called the curvature of the vertex x. Theorem 3 actually requires that the curvaturee of each vertex be non-negative. Note also that the example of an abstract development shown ine Fig. 1, c shows that if in the statement of Theorem 3 we replace the words “abstract development” with the words “natural development”, then we get a wrong statement. That is, we can say that Theorem 3 is true precisely because the faces and edges of the development are allowed to break in the process of its isometric realization in the form of a polyhedron. For completeness, we mention that at present there are several substantially different proofs of Theorem 3. Initially Theorem 3 was published by A.D. Alexandrov in 1941 in a short note [2], then in 1942 in a detailed article [3], and later was included in his book [4], first published in 1950. A.D. Alexandrov deduced Theorem 3 from Brouwer’s domain invariance theorem and Theorem 2. He also showed that, by approximating any metric of positive curvature by polyhedral metrics of positive curvature and then passing to the limit, we obtain the positive solution to the generalized H. Weyl problem, i. e., that we can assert that any two-dimensional sphere-homeomorphic manifold with an intrinsic metric of positive curvature admits an isometric embedding into R3 by means of a closed convex surface (which is not necessarily smooth and may even degenerate into a doubly covered convex domain in the plane). Various aspects of the Weyl problem (such as the existence, stability and smoothness of a surface depending on the smoothness of the metric) are studied in books and articles, see, e. g., [37], [48], [22], [25] and references given there. In 1943 at the Steklov Mathematical Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, L.A. Lyu- sternik gave a talk (see [5, p. 372]) in which he showed that Theorem 3 follows from already known facts (see [32]) about the Weyl problem for analytic metrics. Namely, he proposed to approximate any polyhedral metric of positive curvature by analytic metrics of positive curvature, then realize the latter by means of convex analytic surfaces, and finally, passing to the limit, obtain the desired convex polyhedron which realizes the original polyhedral metric. Therefore, the method proposed by L.A. Lyusternik is usually called analytical; it is presented in detail in [19, § 12]. Another proof of Theorem 3 was proposed by Yu.A. Volkov in his Ph.D. thesis, defended at Leningrad State University in 1955 under the direction of A.D. Alexandrov. The proof proposed by Yu.A. Volkov is usually called variational, since it is based on the fact that the desired convex polyhedron delivers the minimum to a function defined on a space of “3-dimensional developments” (the latter was specially invented by Yu.A. Volkov for this proof). It is presented in brief in [50] and [51], and in details in [53] and [52]. Among current publications, we mention the articles [7] and [28], where proofs of Theorem 3 are proposed, which are also based on solving some variational problem and are close in spirit to the proof proposed by Yu.A. Volkov. Despite the significance of the concept of abstract development of a polyhedron demonstrated above using the example of Theorem 3 and the Weyl problem, in this article we only deal with natural developments of polyhedra. The fact is that the problem of recognizing whether a given abstract development is natural or not is in itself very difficult and we do not expect to contribute RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 5 here to its solution. To justify this fact, let us quote A.D. Alexandrov: “To determine the structure of a polyhedron from an [abstract] development, i. e., to indicate its genuine edges in the development, is a problem whose general solution seems hopeless” [4, Section 2.3.3]. As far as we know, even now there is very little progress in solving this problem with “hopeless” general solution. The only particular case we know of, in which it is possible to directly indicate the true edges of a polyhedron on its abstract development, is described in [45]. It is proved there that if an abstract development R satisfies the conditions of Theorem 3 and there exists a simple edge cycle γ ⊂ R consisting of shortest paths connecting in series all vertices of R with positive curvature, and moreover for any two of vertices with positive curvature that not connected by an edge of γ there are exactly two shortest paths connecting them, then the convex polyhedron P existing by Theorem 3 is degenerate in the sense that it is located in a plane, has only two faces, γ is the common boundary of these faces, and γ consists of all true edges of P . At the same time, researchers in various fields of science proposed a number of computer algorithms for reconstructing the spatial shape of a convex surface from its internal metric, see, e. g., [7], [29], [30], [38], [49]. Some of these algorithms work for polyhedra as well. Having computed the spatial shape of a polyhedron, we, in a sense, can claim that we have found its true edges as well. However, all of these algorithms are numerical. Among them, the one proposed in [30] is distinguished by a particularly thorough theoretical study. It is based on solving a differential equation, derived in [7], it allows one to compute the spatial shape of a polyhedron with arbitrary precision from its abstract development, and, in addition, a pseudopolynomial bound on its running time is proved. Summarizing what was said above about the relationship between the concepts of abstract and natural developments, we can say that our desire to deal with natural developments is by no means accidental. Let us continue to clarify the terminology used in this article. We say that two combinatorially equivalent polyhedra P and P ′ in R3 are affine-equivalent if there is a nondegenerate affine trans- formation R3 → R3, which maps P onto P ′, and maps the vertices, edges and faces of P onto the corresponding (due to the combination equivalence of P and P ′) vertices, edges and faces of P ′. Affine-equivalent polygons are defined similarly. We can now clarify the main problem studied in this article:

Problem 1. What additional conditions on natural developments of two polyhedra (besides the obvious condition of affine equivalence of the corresponding faces) guarantee affine equivalence of the polyhedra themselves or, conversely, guarantee that these polyhedra are not affine-equivalent?

In Sections 3–6 below we obtain partial solutions to Problem 1 for some classes of polyhedra in Euclidean 3-space. Wherein, we will use the so-called Cayley–Menger determinants and their properties. Let us recall them in a formulation and notation convenient for us. k Let k > 2 and x0, x1,...,xk be arbitrary points in R . We denote by dij = d(xi, xj) the Euclidean distance between xi and xj, i, j =0, 1,...,k. The determinant

01 1 ... 1 2 2 1 0 d01 ... d0k def 2 2 cm (x0, x1,...,xk) = 1 d10 0 ... d (1) 1k ..... 2 2 1 d 0 d 1 ... 0 k k

6 VICTOR ALEXANDROV is called the Cayley–Menger determinant of the points x0, x1,...,xk, see, e. g., [6, Formula 9.7.3.2]. However, sometimes we will say that formula (1) defines the Cayley–Menger determinant of the simplex T with the vertices x0, x1,...,xk, and denote it by cm (T ). We need two properties of the Cayley–Menger determinant: (a) k-dimensional volume vol (x0, x1,...,xk) of the simplex with the vertices x0, x1,...,xk is related to the Cayley–Menger determinant of the points x0, x1,...,xk by the following formula [6, Lemma 9.7.3.3]: k+1 2 (−1) [vol (x0, x1,...,x )] = cm (x0, x1,...,x ); (2) k 2kk! k (b) let dij (i, j =0, 1,...,k) be a collection of k(k + 1)/2 arbitrary positive real numbers such that dij = dji and dii = 0. The following inequality 0 1 1 ... 1 2 2 1 0 d01 ... d0k k+1 2 2 (−1) 1 d10 0 ... d > 0 (3) 1k ..... 2 2 1 dk0 dk1 ... 0

is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a nondeg enerate (i. e., not contained in any k hyperplane) simplex (whose vertices we denote by x0, x1,...,xk) in R such that dij is equal to the Euclidean distance between xi and xj, see [6, Theorem 9.7.3.4, Remark 9.7.3.5 and Exercise 9.14.23]. Finally, let us agree on some more notation used in Sections 3–6 without additional explanations. Given a polyhedron P , its development R (it does not matter natural or abstract), and a vertex x of P , we denote by x the vertex of R, corresponding to x. If y is another vertex of P , then we denote by d(x, y) the Euclidean distance between the points x, y in R3, and by ρ(x, y) the distance between ′ ′ x, y in R. If, besidese P , a polyhedron P is given, which is combinatorially equivalent to P , and R is a development of P ′, then we denote by x′ the vertex of P ′ corresponding, by virtue of combinatorial ′ ′ e e equivalence,e e to the vertex x of P , and by x the vertex of R , corresponding (due to the construction of development) to the vertex x′ of P ′. If y′ is another vertex of P ′, then by d(x′,y′) we denote the ′ ′ R3 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Euclidean distance between x ,y in , ande by ρ (x , y ) the distance between x , y in R . 3. Simple polyhedra e e e e A closed convex polyhedron is called strictly convex if none of its dihedral angles is equal to π. A strictly convex closed polyhedron is called simple if any of its vertices is incident to exactly three edges (or, which is the same, exactly three faces). Examples of simple closed are well known: they are three of five Platonic solids (namely: tetrahedron, , and ), six of thirteen Archimedean solids (namely: , , truncated , truncated , truncated , and truncated , see [54] and [55]), as well as every strictly convex n-gonal for any n > 3. Theorem 4. Let P and P ′ be simple polyhedra in R3 combinatorially equivalent to each other. If the corresponding faces of natural developments of P and P ′ are affine-equivalent, then P and P ′ themselves are affine-equivalent. 3 3 Proof. Given a vertex x of P , construct an affine transformation Ax : R → R as follows. Since P is assumed to be simple, there are exactly three of its vertices incident to x. Let us denote them by x1, x2, x3. Since P is assumed to be strictly convex, the linear span of three vectors x1 −x, x2 −x, x3 −x RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 7 coincides with R3, i. e., these vectors are linearly independent. Similarly, since P ′ is assumed to be ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ strictly convex, vectors x1 − x , x2 − x , x3 − x are also linearly independent. Therefore, there is a R3 R3 ′ ′ unique affine transformation Ax : → such that Ax(xj)= xj for each j =1, 2, 3, and Ax(x)= x . Let F denote an arbitrary face of P incident to x. For definiteness, let F is incident to x, x1, x2. Let F ′ denote the face of P ′ corresponding to F by combinatorial equivalence. Then F ′ is incident ′ ′ ′ to x , x1, x2. Let us verify that ′ Ax(F )= F . (4) Indeed, on the natural development of P there is a polygon corresponding to F . Let us denote it by F . Due to the construction of natural development, F and F are congruent. Similarly, on the natural development of P ′, there is a polygon F ′ corresponding to F ′. It is congruent to F ′. By the hypothesis ofe Theorem 4, F and F ′ are affine-equivalent. Hence the facese F and F ′ are affine-equivalent. This ′ means that there is an affine mappinge BF : aff(F ) → aff(F ) that maps the affine hull aff(F ) of ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ F into the affinee hulle aff(F ) of F and is such that BF (F ) = F , BF (x) = x , BF (x1) = x1, and ′ ′ ′ ′ BF (x2) = x2. Since Ax(x) = x = BF (x), Ax(x1) = x1 = BF (x1) and Ax(x2) = x2 = BF (x2), the ′ restriction of Ax to aff(F ) coincides with BF . Thus, Ax(F )= BF (F )= F , i. e., (4) is proved. Now let us make sure that if the vertices x and y of the polyhedron P are connected by an edge, then

Ax = Ay. (5)

For this, as before, we denote by x1, x2, x3 the three vertices of P incident to x. For definiteness, we assume that y = x3. Similarly, let us denote by y1,y2,y3 the three vertices of P incident to y. For definiteness, we assume that x = y3 and the vertices x1, x = y3,y = x3,y2 are incident to a face of P , while the vertices x2, x = y3,y = x3,y1 are incident to another face of P . Denote by F1 the face ′ of P incident to x1, x = y3,y = x3,y2, and denote by aff(F1) the affine hull of F1. Denote by F1 ′ the face of the polyhedron P corresponding to F1 by virtue of combinatorial equivalence of P and ′ ′ ′ P . Denote by aff(F1) the affine hull of F1. Arguing as in the previous paragraph, we are convinced ′ that there is an affine mapping BF1 : aff(F1) → aff(F1), which coincides with both Ax and Ay on F1. ′ This implies that Ax(x1) = x1 = Ay(x1). In a similar way, using the face F2, which is incident to ′ x2, x = y3,y = x3, we make sure that Ax(x2) = x2 = Ay(x2). Thus, we made sure that the affine transformations Ax and Ay coincide with each other at x, x1, x2, x3. Taking into account that the vectors x1 − x, x2 − x, x3 − x are linearly independent, we obtain (5). Finally, let us make sure that the transformation Ax is the same for all vertices x of P . Indeed, since P is connected, any two of its vertices can be connected by an edge path. If the vertex y follows the vertex x in this edge path, then, as proved in the previous paragraph, Ay = Ax. Hence, Ax is the same at the initial and final vertices of the edge path, i. e., is independent of x. Let us denote this transformation by A. Then A is an affine transformation that maps the polyhedron P to the polyhedron P ′ in such a way that the elements of P are mapped to the corresponding (due to combinatorial equivalence) elements of P ′. Thus, P and P ′ are affine-equivalent to each other.  Theorem 4 shows that, for simple polyhedra, the affine equivalence of faces already implies the affine equivalence of polyhedra. From the above proof of Theorem 4, it is clear that, with a suitable refinement of the terminology, similar statements can be formulated and proved both for some non- convex polyhedra and for projectively equivalent polyhedra. Of all the possible generalizations of Theorem 4, we explicitly state only one that is applicable not only to simple polytopes. Here it is: 8 VICTOR ALEXANDROV

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 2. (a): A 4-gonal . (b): A 4-gonal . (c): A solid broken line represents a 5-sided non-closed edge path γ on a 4-gonal trapezohedron, satisfying the conditions of Theorem 5.

Theorem 5. Let strictly convex closed polyhedra P and P ′ in R3 have the same combinatorial structure, and their corresponding faces are affine-equivalent. And let there is an edge path on γ P such that (i) each vertex of γ is incident to exactly three edges of P , and (ii) for every face of P , there exists a vertex of γ incident to this face. Then P and P ′ are affine-equivalent to each other.

The proof of Theorem 5 can be carried out similarly to the above proof of Theorem 4. We leave it to the reader as an easy exercise. For every n > 4, any n-gonal trapezohedron may serve as an example of a polyhedron that satisfies the conditions of Theorem 5, but is not simple. Recall that an n-gonal trapezohedron is the polyhedron dual to an n-gonal antiprism, see [24], [42]. Fig. 2, a shows a 4-gonal antiprism; Fig. 2, b shows a 4-gonal trapezohedron; and Fig. 2, c shows a 5-sided non-closed edge path γ on a 4-gonal trapezohedron satisfying the conditions of Theorem 5. Theorem 4 allows us to prove the following statement:

Theorem 6. For n > 4, let Mn be the set of all strictly convex closed polyhedra with n faces in Euclidean 3-space endowed with the Hausdorff metric. There is an open dense subset Ωn ⊂ Mn such ′ that, for any polyhedra P,P ∈ Ωn, the following conditions are equivalent: (i) P and P ′ are combinatorially equivalent, and every two corresponding faces are affine-equivalent; (ii) P and P ′ are affine-equivalent.

3 Proof. Denote by Ωn the set of all simple strictly convex closed polyhedra in R with n faces. Ωn is an open everywhere dense subset of Mn. To make sure of this, it suffice to slightly move the planes of the faces parallel to themselves so that only three faces are incident to each vertex. For polyhedra ′ P,P ∈ Ωn, the equivalence of conditions (i) and (ii) of Theorem 6 follows from Theorem 4. 

In a sense, Theorem 6 is similar to the statement that, in the space of all closed polyhedra of a given combinatorial structure in R3, there is an open dense set, each point of which corresponds to a rigid polyhedron. The last statement was first proved by H. Gluck in [23]. Recently, Gluck’s proof has been adapted to prove the rigidity of almost all triangulated circle polyhedra, see [8]. RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 9

xn+1 xn+1

xj xj+1

x0 x0 (a) (b)

Figure 3. (a): An n-gonal suspension for n = 5. (b): The tetrahedron Tj with the vertices x0, xj, xj+1, and xn+1 of the suspension is grayed out; the thin line segment x0xn+1 is an edge of Tj, but is not an edge of the suspension.

4. Suspensions As stated in Section 1, our study of Problem 1 is mainly motivated by the Cauchy rigidity theorem. The history of this theorem began in 1794, when in the first edition of the famous textbook by A.M. Legendre [31, Note XII, pp. 321–334], it was formulated as a conjecture, while its proofs were given only for some classes of polyhedra, including octahedra. In [41, Section 1], I.Kh. Sabitov writes that in editions 2nd to 9th a part of Note XII related to the rigidity theorem was removed by Legendre, and restored only in the 10th and subsequent editions after Cauchy in 1813 proved the rigidity theorem in the general case [10], making significant use of Legendre’s ideas. Therefore, we consider it appropriate to investigate the different classes of polyhedra for which we can make progress in solving Problem 1. In doing so, we would first of all like to find arguments suitable for answering Problem 1 for octahedra. In this Section we study suspensions, i. e., polyhedra combinatorially equivalent to a regular n- gonal for n > 3. Note that suspensions are not necessarily convex or self-intersection free. From the edges of a suspension P one can form a closed cycle L, which passes without repetition through all vertices of P , except for two. Denote the vertices of L by xj, j =1,...,n, labeled in the cyclic order prescribed by L. The cycle L is called the equator of the suspension P . Two vertices of P that do not lie on the equator are denoted by x0 and xn+1 and are called the southern and north poles of the suspension, respectively. From what has been said, it is clear that each vertex of the equator is incident to both the south and north poles, while the south and north poles are not incident to each other. For n = 4, a suspension is combinatorially equivalent to an octahedron. A 5-gonal suspension is shown in Fig. 3, a. Suspensions play an important role in the theory of flexible polyhedra; for example, they were studied in articles [11], [39], [34], [47], [35], [46], [21]. Let P be a suspension with n vertices on the equator. Let Tj denote a tetrahedron with vertices x0, xj, xj+1, and xn+1, if j = 1, 2,...,n − 1 and with vertices x0, xn, x1, and xn+1, if j = n, see Fig. 3, b. Note that although the segment x0xn+1 is an edge of Tj, it is nevertheless not an edge of P . In other words, x0xn+1 is the only edge of Tj that we cannot find directly from the natural 10 VICTOR ALEXANDROV development of P . Define polynomials qj(t), j =1, 2,...,n, by the formulas

01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, xj)] [ρ(x0, xj+1)] t  2 2 2  1 [ρ(x , x0)] 0 [ρ(x , x +1)] [ρ(x , x +1)] , if j =1,...,n − 1;  j j j j n  2 e e 2 e e 2  1 [ρ(xj+1, x0)] [ρ(xj+1, xj)] 0 [ρ(xj+1, xn+1)]  2 2 2  1 e t e [ρ(x +1, x )] [ρ(xe+1e, x +1)] e 0e  n j n j def  qj(t) =  e e e e e e   01e 1e e 1e 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, xn)] [ρ(x0, x1)] t  2 2 2  1 [ρ(x , x0)] 0 [ρ(x , x1)] [ρ(x , x +1)] , if j = n.  n n n n  2 e e 2 e e 2  1 [ρ(x1, x0)] [ρ(x1, xn)] 0 [ρ(x1, xn+1)]  2 2 2  1 e t e [ρ(xn+1, xn)] [ρ(xen+1,ex1)] e 0e   e e e e e e (6)  Since ρ denotes the distancee in thee naturale developmente of P , for any pair {x, y} of vertices of Tj other than the pair {x0, xn+1}, the equality ρ(x, y) = d(x, y) holds true. Therefore, putting by definition t∗ = d(x0, xn+1) and comparing formulas (6) and (1), we get e e

cm (x0, xj, xj+1, xn+1), if j =1, 2,...,n − 1; qj(t∗)= (7) (cm (x0, xn, x1, xn+1), if j = n.

Now comparing formulas (7) and (2), for any j =1, 2,...,n we get the following expression for the volume of Tj:

2 1 [vol (T )] = q (t∗). (8) j 233! j

Let P ′ be another suspension with n vertices on the equator, for which a combinatorial equivalence with the suspension P is fixed, i. e., an incidence-preserving mapping is given which maps the set of elements (i. e., vertices, edges and faces) of P ′ onto the set of elements of P . As usual, we denote by ′ ′ xj the vertex of P , which corresponds to the vertex xj of P due to this combinatorial equivalence. ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Let Tj denote a tetrahedron with vertices x0, xj, xj+1, xn+1, if j =1, 2,...,n − 1, and with vertices ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ x0, xn, x1, xn+1, if j = n. Note that segment x0xn+1 is the only edge of Tj, which we cannot find ′ ′ ′ directly from the natural development of P . We define polynomials qj(t ), j = 1, 2,...,n, by the RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 11 formulas 01 1 1 1 1 0 [ρ′(x′ , x′ )]2 [ρ′(x′ , x′ )]2 [t′]2  0 j 0 j+1 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2  1 [ρ (xj, x0)] 0 [ρ (xj, xj+1)] [ρ (xj, xn+1)] , if j =1,...,n − 1;  ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2  1 [ρ (x +1, x0)] [ρ (xe+1,ex )] e 0e [ρ (x +1, x +1)]  j j j j n  1e [t′]2e [ρ′(x′ , x′ )]2 [ρ′(xe′ e, x′ )]2 e 0e  n+1 j n+1 j+1 ′ ′ def  qj(t ) =  e e e e e e   01e 1e e 1e 1 1 0 [ρ′(x′ , x′ )]2 [ρ′(x′ , x′ )]2 [t′]2  0 n 0 1  ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2  1 [ρ (xn, x0)] 0 [ρ (xn, x1)] [ρ (xn, xn+1)] , if j = n.  ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2  1 [ρ (x1, x0)] [ρ (xe1, xe )] e 0e [ρ (x1, x +1)]  n n  1e [t′]2e [ρ′(x′ , x′ )]2 [ρ′(xe′ ,ex′ )]2 e 0e  n+1 n n+1 1   e e e e e e (9) Since ρ′ denotes the distance in the natural development of P ′, then for any pair {x′,y′} of vertices ′ ′ ′e e e ′ e′ ′ ′ ′ of Tj other than the pair {x0, xn+1}, the equality ρ (x , y ) = d(x ,y ) is true. Therefore, putting by ′ ′ ′ definition t∗ = d(x0, xn+1) and comparing formulas (9) and (1), we get ′ ′ ′ ′ e e ′ ′ cm (x0, xj, xj+1, xn+1), if j =1, 2,...,n − 1; qj(t∗)= ′ ′ ′ ′ (10) (cm (x0, xn, x1, xn+1), if j = n. Now comparing formulas (10) and (2), for any j =1, 2,...,n we get the following expression for the ′ volume of Tj: ′ 2 1 ′ ′ [vol (T )] = q (t∗). (11) j 233! j ′ Note that the polynomials qj and qj, defined by formulas (6) and (9), are uniquely determined by the natural developments of suspensions P and P ′. Using these polynomials we can formulate the following partial answer to Problem 1 for suspensions: Theorem 7. Let P and P ′ be suspensions in R3. Suppose P and P ′ have the same number of vertices ′ n > 3 on the equator and, for each j = 1, 2,...,n polynomials qj and qj are defined by formulas (6) and (9) via natural developments of P and P ′. Suppose also that the system of n > 3 algebraic equations ′ ′ qj(t )= δqj(t), j =1, 2, . . . , n, (12) with respect to three variables δ, t, and t′ has no positive real solution (i.e. such a solution that δ > 0, t> 0, and t′ > 0). Then P and P ′ are not affine-equivalent. Proof. We argue by contradiction. Suppose that P and P ′ are affine-equivalent and denote by 3 3 ′ 2 A : R → R an affine transformation such that P = A(P ). By definition, put δ∗ = (det A) , ′ ′ ′ t∗ = d(x0, xn+1), and t∗ = d(x0, xn+1). According to formulas (11) and (8), for every j = 1, 2,...,n we have ′ ′ 3 ′ 2 3 2 2 qj(t∗)=2 · 3! · [vol (Tj)] =2 · 3! · (det A) [vol (Tj)] = δ∗qj(t∗). ′ Therefore, the triplet of positive real numbers δ∗, t∗, t∗ is a solution to the system (12). Thus, we have come to a contradiction with the conditions of Theorem 7, which completes the proof.  12 VICTOR ALEXANDROV

5. Local realizability problem for a natural development In [39], an algorithm is proposed to determine if a given suspension is flexible. This gave us the idea to look for an algorithmic solution to Problem 1. In Section 6 we describe an algorithm that receives two combinatorially equivalent natural developments at the input, and at the output either guarantees that no polyhedra with such natural developments are affine-equivalent, or answers that it cannot give such a guarantee. Section 5 is devoted to the necessary preparatory work. Recall that, in Section 2, we denoted by x the vertex of the natural development of a polyhedron corresponding to the vertex x of that polyhedron. In Sections 5 and 6, we use the same notation even if only the development is given and thee polyhedron has yet to be found (or it has to be proved that the required polyhedron does not exist). A set Z of three faces of an abstract development R is called a patch of R incident to a vertex x0 of R if each of the faces of Z is incident to x0 and Z is a connected, i. e., that we can go from any face of Z to any other face of Z by crossing edges of Z, not vertices. The proofs of the followinge properties of patches are straightforward ande are left to the reader: every patch is a development; every patch is homeomorphic to a disk; x0 can be either an inner or a boundary point of a patch incident to x0. Our approach to an algorithmic solutione of Problem 1 is based on reducing it to the following problem: e

′ Problem 2. Let abstract developments R and R be combinatorially equivalent to each other, x0 be ′ ′ a vertex of R, Z be a patch of R incident to x0, and Z be the patch of R corresponding to Z due to the combinatorial equivalence of R and R′. Suppose also that any face of Z is affine-equivalent ′ e to the corresponding by combinatorial equivalencee face of Z . The problem is whether there exist polyhedra P and P ′ in R3 such that (i) P and P ′ are homeomorphic to the disc; (ii) Z is the natural development of P ; (iii) Z′ is the natural development of P ′; (iv) P and P ′ are affine-equivalent to each other.

For the convenience of speech, property (ii) is expressed by the words “a natural development Z is isometrically realized as a polyhedron P .” Note that Problem 2 deals with the possibility of realizing only patches Z and Z′ as affine-equivalent polyhedra, regardless of whether it is possible to realize “ambient” abstract developments R and R′. Therefore, Problem 2 can be called local. Let x1, x2, x3 be sequentially numbered vertices of a patch Z incident to a vertex x0 of an abstract development R, and let n be the total number of vertices of R incident to x0. Let us study Problem 2 for eache ofe thee following cases separately: n = 3 (see Fig. 4, a); n = 4 (see Fig. 4,e b); n > 5 (see Fig. 4, c). e Case n = 3. Suppose that there is a polyhedron P in R3 for which Z is a natural development. Then P contains the star of a vertex x0 of a nondegenerate tetrahedron T with vertices x0, x1, x2, x3. As usual, let us denote by ρ(x, y) the distance in R between points x and y. Since we have assumed that Z is a natural development of P , for any pair {x, y} of vertices of T , the equality ρ(x, y)= d(x, y) R3 holds true, where d(x, y) denotese e the Euclidean distance between thee pointse x, y ∈ . (There is no need to assume that x and y are connected by an edge of P ; it is sufficient that they aree e incident to one and the same face of P .) Therefore, the Cayley–Menger determinant (1) of T can be expressed RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 13

xÄ4 xÄ4 xÄ1 xÄ5 s s xÄ1 xÄ0 xÄ xÄ3 xÄ0 3 Ä xÄ3 x0 xÄ2 t r t Ä xÄ2 xÄ2 xÄ1 x1 xÄ1

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 4. Schematic representation of the star (grayed out) of a vertex x0 of valency n in an abstract development R (part of which is shown by solid lines) and a patch Z incident to x0 (depicted in bold lines). The dotted lines show the segmentse that are not edges of either R or Z; their lengths are taken as “free parameters” r, s, t. (a): The case n =e 3. (b): The case n = 4. (c): The case n > 5. in terms of the distances on R: 01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [d(x0, x1)] [d(x0, x2)] [d(x0, x3)] 2 2 2 cm (x0, x1, x2, x3)= 1 [d(x1, x0)] 0 [d(x1, x2)] [d(x1, x3)] = 2 2 2 1 [d(x2, x0)] [d(x2, x1)] 0 [d(x2, x3)] 2 2 2 1 [d(x3, x0)] [d(x3, x1)] [d(x3, x2)] 0

01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x3)] 2 2 2 def 3 = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 [ρ(x1, x2)] [ρ(x1, x3)] = q. (13) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] 2 e e 2 e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] [ρ(x3, x1)] [ρ(x3, x2)] 0 e e e e e e

Note that T is non-degenerate e becausee wee havee assumed that Z is thee e natural development of P and because no two adjacent facese ofe any polyhedrone e lie ine thee same plane. Therefore, according to (3), the number 3q defined by formula (13) is positive. Moreover, in the case n = 3, the inequality 3q > 0 is necessary and sufficient for Z to be isometrically realizable as the natural development of some polyhedron P , i. e., for property (ii) from the statement of Problem 2 to be fulfilled. Similarly, putting by definition 01 1 1 1 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 1 0 [ρ (x0, x1)] [ρ (x0, x2)] [ρ (x0, x3)] ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 def 3 ′ 1 [ρ (x1, x0)] 0 [ρ (x1, x2)] [ρ (x1, x3)] = q , (14) ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ ′ ′ 2 1 [ρ (x2, x0)] [ρ (x2, x1)] 0 [ρ (x2, x3)] ′ ′ ′ 2 ′ e′ e′ 2 ′ e′ e′ 2 e e 1 [ρ (x3, x0)] [ρ (x3, x1)] [ρ (x3, x2)] 0 e e e e e e 3 ′ ′ we make sure that the inequalitye e q > 0e is necessarye and sufficient fore Ze to be isometrically realizable as the natural development e ofe some polyhedrone e P ′,e i. e.,e for property (iii) from the statement of Problem 2 to be fulfilled. 14 VICTOR ALEXANDROV

It was already noted above that tetrahedron T with vertices x0, x1, x2, x3 is non-degenerate, i. e., 3 ′ ′ ′ ′ does not lie in any plane in R . Similarly, we can assert that tetrahedron T with vertices x0, x1, x2, ′ 3 3 x3 is also non-degenerate. Hence, there exists uniquely determined affine transformation A : R → R ′ ′ such that A(xj) = xj for all j = 0,..., 3. The fact that A maps P onto P was already established by us in the proof of Theorem 4. Moreover, we can find the absolute value of the Jacobian of A by the formula ′ 3 ′ 3 | det A| = vol(Tj)/vol (Tj)= q / q. (15) ′ This formula shows that, for n = 3, the assignment of patchesp Z and Z uniquely determines the value of | det A|. Thus, we have proved the following lemma: Lemma 1. In the case n = 3, the answer to Problem 2 is positive if and only if both numbers 3q and 3q′ given by formulas (13) and (14) are positive. Proof. The “if” statement was proven above. To prove the opposite statement, one need to do the same reasoning in reverse order.  Case n = 4. The corresponding patch Z is shown schematically in Fig. 4, b. Suppose that there is a polyhedron P in R3 for which Z is a natural development. Then P contains the star of a vertex x0 of an octahedron O for which x0 is the south pole, and the points x1, x2, x3, x4 lie on the equator. Since we assumed that Z is a natural development of P , then for any two-point set {x, y}⊂{x0, x1, x2, x3, x4}, except for the pairs {x1, x3} and {x2, x4}, the equality ρ(x, y)= d(x, y) holds true. (There is no need to assume that x and y are connected by an edge of P ; it is sufficient that they are incident to one and the same face of P .) The segments x1x3 and x2x4 aree usuallye called small diagonals of P . Their lengths in R3 will be denoted by t and s, respectively, and will be called free parameters, since they are not expressed in terms of distances in R. For each j = 0, 1,..., 4, we denote by Tj the tetrahedron which is the convex hull of the set {x0, x1, x2, x3, x4}\{xj}. In the Cayley–Menger determinant (1) for Tj, replace the Euclidean dis- tances dij = d(xi, xj) by the following expressions:

ρ(xi, xj), if (i, j) ∈{/ (1, 3), (2, 4), (3, 1), (4, 2)}; d(xi, xj)= t, if (i, j) ∈{(1, 3), (3, 1)}; s, e e if (i, j) ∈{(2, 4), (4, 2)}. The resulting polynomial depends on either t, or s, or both free parameters t and s at once. As a  result, we get: 01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x1, x2)] t [ρ(x1, x4)] 4 def 2 2 2 q0(t, s) = 1 [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] s , (16) 2 2 2 1 t [ρ(x3, x2)] 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 e 2e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x4, x1)] s [ρ(x4, x3)] 0 e e e e

01e 1e 1e 1 e 2 2 2 1e 0e [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(xe0, xe3)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 4 def 2 2 2 q1(s) = 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] s , (17) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] [ρ(x3, x2)] 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 e 2e e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x4, x0)] s [ρ(x4, x3)] 0 e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 15

01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x3)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 4 def 2 2 2 q2(t) = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 t [ρ(x1, x4)] , (18) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] t 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 e e 2 e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x4, x0)] [ρ(x4, x1)] [ρ(x4, x3)] 0 e e e e

e e e e 01 1 1 1 e e e e 2 e e 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 4 def 2 2 2 q3(s) = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 [ρ(x1, x3)] [ρ(x1, x4)] , (19) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 s 2 e e 2 e 2e e e 1 [ρ(x4, x0)] [ρ(x4, x1)] s 0 e e e e e e

e e e e 01 1 1 1 e e e e 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x3)] 4 def 2 2 2 q4(t) = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 [ρ(x1, x2)] t . (20) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] 2 e 2e e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] t [ρ(x3, x3)] 0 e e e e e e ′ e e e e For each j = 0, 1,..., 4, denote by Tj the tetrahedron which is the convex hull of the set ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ e e ′ ′ e′ e {x0, x1, x2, x3, x4}\{xj}. By definition, put dij = d(xi, xj). In the Cayley–Menger determinant ′ ′ ′ (1) for Tj, replace the Euclidean distances d(xi, xj) by the following expressions:

′ ′ ′ ρ (xi, xj), if (i, j) ∈{/ (1, 3), (2, 4), (3, 1), (4, 2)}; ′ ′ ′ d(xi, xj)= t , if (i, j) ∈{(1, 3), (3, 1)}; ′ s , e e if (i, j) ∈{(2, 4), (4, 2)}. ′ ′ ′ ′ Here ρ denotes the distance in R, while t , s are new free parameters. As a result, we get polynomials 4 ′ ′ ′ 4 ′ ′ 4 ′ ′ 4 ′ ′ 4 ′ ′ q0(t ,s ), q1(s ), q2(t ), q3(s ), and q4(t ), given by formulas (16)–(20), in which the letters ρ, x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, t, and s are replaced by the same letters endowed with a prime. If the answer to Problem 2 is positive, then there exists uniquely determined affine transformatione R3 R3 ′ Ae : e →e e such that A(xj)= xj for all j =0,..., 4. This follows from our assumptions: patch Z is the natural development of polyhedron P ; the faces of a polyhedron are non-degenerate; and no adjacent faces lie in the same plane. Therefore, we have ′ 2 4 ′ ′ ′ 2 (vol T0) q0(d13,d24) | det A| = 2 = 4 , (vol T0) q0(d13,d24)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′  2 (vol T1) q1(d24) | det A| = 2 = 4 ,  (vol T1) q1(d24)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′  2 (vol T2) q2(d13) | det A| = 2 = 4 , (21)  (vol T2) q2(d13)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′  2 (vol T3) q3(d24) | det A| = 2 = 4 ,  (vol T3) q3(d24)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′  2 (vol T4) q4(d13) | det A| = 2 = 4 .  (vol T4) q4(d13)   The above results can be summarized as follows: 16 VICTOR ALEXANDROV

Lemma 2. Suppose n = 4 and the answer to Problem 2 is positive. Then the system of algebraic equations 4 ′ ′ ′ 4 q0(t ,s ) = q0(t, s)α, 4 ′ ′ 4 q1(s ) = q1(s)α, 4 ′ ′ 4  q2(t ) = q2(t)α, (22) 4 ′ ′ 4  q3(s ) = q3(s)α, 4 ′ ′ 4 q4(t ) = q4(t)α  ′ ′  ′ ′ has a solution α,t,s,t ,s such that α> 0, t> 0, s> 0, t > 0, s > 0. 2 ′ ′ ′ ′ Proof. Put α = | det A| , t = d13, s = d24, t = d13, s = d24 and use formulas (21).  Note that system (22) contains 5 equations for 5 unknowns α,t,s,t′,s′. Therefore, we can be expect that in “generic situation” it has only a finite number of solutions. Case n > 5. The corresponding patch Z is shown schematically in Fig. 4, c. Suppose that there 3 is a polyhedron P in R for which Z is a natural development. Then the star of the vertex x0 of P contains vertices xj, j =1,..., 5, and each segment x0xj is an edge of P . Since we assumed that Z is a natural development of P , then for any two-point set {x, y}⊂{x0, x1, x2, x3, x4}, except for the pairs {x1, x3}, {x2, x4}, and {x1, x4} the equality ρ(x, y) = d(x, y) holds true. (There is no need to assume that x and y are connected by an edge of P ; it is sufficient that they are incident to one and the same face of P .) As usual, the segments x1x3, xe2xe4, and x1x4 are called small diagonals of P . Their lengths in R3 will be denoted by t, s, and r respectively, and will be called free parameters, since they are not expressed in terms of distances in R. For each j = 0, 1,..., 4, we denote by Tj the tetrahedron which is the convex hull of the set {x0, x1, x2, x3, x4}\{xj}. In the Cayley–Menger determinant (1) for Tj, replace the Euclidean dis- tances dij = d(xi, xj) by the following expressions:

ρ(xi, xj), if (i, j) ∈{/ (1, 3), (2, 4), (3, 1), (4, 2), (1, 4), (4, 1)}; t, if (i, j) ∈{(1, 3), (3, 1)}; d(xi, xj)=  s, e e if (i, j) ∈{(2, 4), (4, 2)};  r, if (i, j) ∈{(1, 4), (4, 1)}.  The resulting polynomial depends on one or few free parameters t, s, and r. As a result, we get: 01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x1, x2)] t r 5 def 2 2 2 q0(t,s,r) = 1 [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] s , (23) 2 2 2 1 t [ρ(x3, x2)] 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 e 2e 2 1 r s [ρ(x4, x3)] 0 e e e e

e e e e 01 1e 1e 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x3)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 5 def 2 2 2 q1(s) = 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] s , (24) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] [ρ(x3, x2)] 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 e 2e e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x4, x0)] s [ρ(x4, x3)] 0 e e e e

e e e e e e e e e e RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 17

01 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x3)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 5 def 2 2 2 q2(t, r) = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 t r , (25) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] t 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 e 2e e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x4, x0)] r [ρ(x4, x3)] 0 e e

e e e e 01 1 1 1 e e 2 e e 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 5 def 2 2 2 q3(s,r) = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 [ρ(x1, x3)] r , (26) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 s 2 e 2e e 2e e e 1 [ρ(x4, x0)] r s 0 e e e e

e e e e 01 1 1 1 e e 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x3)] 5 def 2 2 2 q4(t) = 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 [ρ(x1, x2)] t . (27) 2 2 2 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] [ρ(x2, x1)] 0 [ρ(x2, x3)] 2 e 2e e e 2 e e 1 [ρ(x3, x0)] t [ρ(x3, x3)] 0 e e e e e e 3 e e e e Five points x0, x1, x2, x3 , x4 lying in R can be considered as the vertices of a degenerate 4- dimensional simplex T . Its four-dimensionale e volume is equale e to zero. Therefore, replacing the edge lengths in the Cayley–Menger determinant (1) for T by either the corresponding distances in the patch Z or the free parameters t, s, r, we obtain 01 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 0 [ρ(x0, x1)] [ρ(x0, x2)] [ρ(x0, x3)] [ρ(x0, x4)] 2 2 2 2 5 def 1 [ρ(x1, x0)] 0 [ρ(x1, x2)] t r q(t,s,r) = 2 2 2 2 =0. (28) 1 [ρ(x2, x0)] [ρ(xe2, xe1)] e 0e [ρ(xe2, xe3)] es e 2 2 2 2 1 [ρ(xe3, xe0)] t [ρ(xe3, xe2)] 0 [ρ(x3, x4)] 2 2 2 2 1 [ρ(xe4, xe0)] er e s [ρ(xe4, xe3)] 0

e e ′ e e e e For each j = 0 , 1,..., 4, we denote by Tj the tetrahedron which is the convex hull of the set ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ e e e e ′ ′ {x0, x1, x2, x3, x4}\{xj}. In the Cayley–Menger determinant (1) for Tj and T , replace the Euclidean ′ ′ ′ distances dij = d(xi, xj) by the following expressions:

′ ′ ′ ρ (xi, xj), if (i, j) ∈{/ (1, 3), (2, 4), (3, 1), (4, 2)}; ′ ′ ′ t , if (i, j) ∈{(1, 3), (3, 1)}; d(xi, xj)= ′ s , e e if (i, j) ∈{(2, 4), (4, 2)};  ′ r , if (i, j) ∈{(1, 4), (4, 1)}. ′  ′ ′ ′ ′ Here ρ denotes the distance in Z , while t , s , r are new free parameters. As a result, we get 5 ′ ′ ′ ′ 5 ′ ′ 5 ′ ′ ′ 5 ′ ′ ′ 5 ′ ′ 5 ′ ′ ′ ′ polynomials q0(t ,s ,r ), q1(s ), q2(t ,r ), q3(s ,r ), q4(t ), and q (t ,s ,r ), given by formulas (23)–(28), in which the letters ρ, x0, x1, x2, x3, x4, t, s, and r are replaced by the same letters endowed with a prime. If the answer to Problem 2 for ae patche Zeis positive,e e then there exists uniquely determined affine R3 R3 ′ transformation A : → such that A(xj) = xj for all j = 0,..., 4. This follows from our assumptions: patch Z is the natural development of polyhedron P ; the faces of a polyhedron are 18 VICTOR ALEXANDROV non-degenerate; and no adjacent faces lie in the same plane. Therefore, we have ′ 2 4 ′ ′ ′ 2 (vol T0) q0(d13,d24) | det A| = 2 = 4 , (vol T0) q0(d13,d24)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′  2 (vol T1) q1(d24) | det A| = 2 = 4 ,  (vol T1) q1(d24)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′  2 (vol T2) q2(d13) | det A| = 2 = 4 ,  (vol T2) q2(d13)  ′ 2 4 ′ ′ (29)  2 (vol T3) q3(d24) | det A| = 2 = 4 ,  (vol T3) q3(d24) ′ 2 4 ′ ′ 2 (vol T4) q4(d13) | det A| = 2 = 4 ,  (vol T4) q4(d13) 5  q(t,s,r) =0,  5q′(t′,s′,r′) =0.    > The above results obtained for the case n 5 can be summarized as follows: Lemma 3. Suppose n > 5 and the answer to Problem 2 is positive. Then the system of algebraic equations 4 ′ ′ ′ 4 q0(t ,s ) = q0(t, s)α, 4 ′ ′ 4  q1(s ) = q1(s)α, 4 ′ ′ 4  q (t ) = q2(t)α,  2 4 ′ ′ 4  q3(s ) = q3(s)α, (30) 4 ′ ′ 4  q4(t ) = q4(t)α, 5q(t,s,r) =0,  5 ′ ′ ′ ′  q (t ,s ,r ) =0.  α, t, s, r, t′,s′,r′  α> t> s> r> t′ > s′ > r′ > has a solution such that 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0. 2 ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Proof. Put α = | det A| , t = d13, s = d24, r = d14, t = d13, s = d24, r = d14 and use formulas (29).  Note that system (30) contains 7 equations for 7 unknowns α, t, s, r, t′,s′,r′. Therefore, we can be expect that in “generic situation” it has only a finite number of solutions. The results on Problem 2 obtained in Section 5 can be summarized as follows: Theorem 8. Let P and P ′ be affine-equivalent polyhedra in R3, let A : R3 → R3 be an affine mapping such that P ′ = A(P ), and let R, R′ are natural developments of P , P ′. Then, there exists a positive number α∗ such that 3 ′ 3 (i) For any patch Z incident to an arbitrary vertex x0 of valency 3 of R, the equality α∗ = q / q holds true, where the expressions 3q and 3q′ are given by the formulas (13) and (14) respectively. p (ii) For any patch Z incident to an arbitrary vertex x0 of valency 4 of R, the system of algebraic ′ ′ e ′ ′ equations (22) has a solution α,t,s,t ,s such that α = α∗ and t> 0, s> 0, t > 0, s > 0. (iii) For any patch Z incident to an arbitrary vertex x0 of valency 5 of R, the system of algebraic ′ ′ ′ e ′ equations (30) has a solution α, t, s, r, t ,s ,r such that α = α∗ and t > 0, s > 0, r > 0, t > 0, ′ ′ s > 0, r > 0. e RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 19

Proof. By definition, put α∗ = | det A|. Statement (i) follows from equality (15). Moreover, according to Lemma 1, both numbers 3q and 3q′ are strictly positive. Statements (ii) and (iii) follow from Lemmas 2 and 3, respectively.  Note that in Theorem 8 polyhedra P and P ′ are not assumed to be convex or closed.

6. Algorithmic solution to the problem of recognition of affine-equivalent polyhedra by their natural developments Let P and P ′ be polyhedra in R3 that are not assumed to be convex, closed, or affine-equivalent. And let R and R′ be natural developments of P and P ′. Let us organize an item-by-item examination of all vertices x0 of R and all patches Z of R incident to x0. 3 ′ 3 3 3 ′ • If x0 is a vertex of valency 3, then we put α(x0,Z)= q / q, where expressions q and q are defined by formulas (13) and (14), respectively. (Note that numerical values of both expressions 3q 3 ′ e ep and qeare strictly positive. According to Lemmae 1, this follows from our assumption that P and P ′ do actually exist, and R and R′ are their natural developments.) • If x0 is a vertex of valency 4, then we distinguish two cases: if the system of algebraic equations ′ ′ ′ ′ (22) has a solution α,t,s,t ,s such that α> 0, t> 0, s> 0, t > 0, s > 0, then we put α(x0,Z)= α; ∅ and ife (22) has no solution with the indicated properties, then we put {α(x0,Z)} = . • If x0 is a vertex of valency n > 5, then again we distinguish two cases: If the system ofe algebraic equations (30) has a solution α, t, s, r, t′,s′,r′ such that α > 0, t > 0, s > 0, r > 0, t′ > 0, s′ > 0, ′ e r > 0,e then we put α(x0,Z)= α; and if (30) has no solution with the indicated properties, then we put {α(x0,Z)} = ∅. • Finally, we find thee set {α(x0,Z)}, i. e., the intersection of the sets {α(x0,Z)}, when x0 runs throughe the set of all vertices of R and Z runs through the set of all patches of R incident to x0. T ∅ ′ Based on Theorem 8, we asserte that if {α(x0,Z)} = , then P and P aree not affine-equivalente to each other. T e e 7. Concluding remarks The results we have obtained on recognizing affine-equivalent polyhedra by their developments are certainly far from the final solution. To obtain it, apparently, fundamentally new ideas are required. In 2016, at the suggestion of the author, several statements similar to Theorems 4 and 5, were proved by A.V. Sherstobitov, who at that time was planning to start postgraduate studies in geom- etry. However, this plan remained unfulfilled, and the statements were not published. The study was carried out within the framework of the state contract of the Sobolev Institute of Mathematics (project no. 0314-2019-0006). References [1] M. Aigner and G. M. Ziegler. Proofs from THE BOOK. 6th edn. Berlin: Springer, 2018. [2] A. D. Aleksandrov. Existence of a given polyhedron and of a convex surface with a given metric (In Russian). C. R. (Dokl.) Acad. Sci. URSS, n. Ser., 30:103–106, 1941. [3] A. Alexandroff. Existence of a convex polyhedron and of a convex surface with a given metric (In Russian). Mat. Sb., Nov. Ser., 11:15–65, 1942. [4] A. D. Alexandrov. Convex polyhedra. Berlin: Springer, 2005. [5] I. Ya. Bakel’man, A. L. Verner, and B. E. Kantor. Introduction to the differential geometry “in the large” (In Russian). Moscow: Nauka, 1973. [6] M. Berger. Geometry. I. Berlin: Springer, 1987. 20 VICTOR ALEXANDROV

[7] A. I. Bobenko and I. Izmestiev. Alexandrov’s theorem, weighted Delaunay triangulations, and mixed volumes. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 58(2):447–505, 2008. [8] J. C. Bowers, Ph. L. Bowers, and K. Pratt. Almost all circle polyhedra are rigid. Geom. Dedicata, 203:337–346, 2019. [9] J. C. Bowers, Ph. L. Bowers, and K. Pratt. Rigidity of circle polyhedra in the 2-sphere and of hyperideal polyhedra in hyperbolic 3-space. Trans. Am. Math. Soc., 371(6):4215–4249, 2019. [10] A. L. Cauchy. Sur les polygones et poly`edres. Second M´emoire. J. Ecole´ Polyt´echnique, 9:87–98, 1813. [11] R. Connelly. The rigidity of suspensions. J. Differ. Geom., 13:399–408, 1978. [12] R. Connelly. Rigidity. In P. M. Gruber and J. M. Wills (eds.), Handbook of convex geometry. Volume A, pp. 223–271. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993. [13] E. D. Demaine and J. O’Rourke. Geometric folding algorithms. Linkages, origami, polyhedra. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press, 2007. [14] S. L. Devadoss and J. O’Rourke. Discrete and computational geometry. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2011. [15] N. P. Dolbilin. Rigidity of convex polyhedrons. Quantum, 9(1):8–13, 1998. [16] N. P. Dolbilin, M. A. Shtan’ko, and M. I. Shtogrin. Rigidity of zonohedra. Russ. Math. Surv., 51(2):326–328, 1996. [17] N. P. Dolbilin, M. A. Shtan’ko, and M. I. Shtogrin. Nonbendability of a division of a sphere into squares. Dokl. Math., 55(3):385–387, 1997. [18] N. P. Dolbilin, M. A. Shtan’ko, and M. I. Shtogrin. Rigidity of a quadrillage of the torus. Russ. Math. Surv., 54(4):839–840, 1999. [19] N. V. Efimov. Qualitative problems of the theory of deformation of surfaces (In Russian). Usp. Mat. Nauk, 3(2):47–158, 1948. [20] D. Fuchs and S. Tabachnikov. Mathematical omnibus. Thirty lectures on classic mathematics. Providence: Amer- ican Mathematical Society, 2007. [21] A. A. Gaifullin. Embedded flexible spherical cross-polytopes with nonconstant volumes. Proc. Steklov Inst. Math., 288:56–80, 2015. [22] J. A. G´alvez, A. Mart´ınez, and J. L. Teruel. On the generalized Weyl problem for flat metrics in the hyperbolic 3-space. J. Math. Anal. Appl., 410(1):144–150, 2014. [23] H. Gluck. Almost all simply connected closed surfaces are rigid. Lect. Notes Math., 438:225–239, 1975. [24] B. Gr¨unbaum and G. C. Shephard. Spherical tilings with transitivity properties. In The geometric vein. The Coxeter Festschr., pp. 65–98, 1982. [25] P. Guan and S. Lu. Curvature estimates for immersed hypersurfaces in Riemannian manifolds. Invent. Math., 208(1):191–215, 2017. [26] J. Hadamard. Le¸cons de g´eom´etrie ´el´ementaire. II. G´eom´etrie dans l’espace. 8th edn. Paris: Colin, 1949. [27] R. Hartley and A. Zisserman. Multiple view geometry in computer vision. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. [28] I. Izmestiev. A variational proof of Alexandrov’s convex cap theorem. Discrete Comput. Geom., 40(4):561–585, 2008. [29] M. Jasiulek and M. Korzy´nski. Isometric embeddings of 2-spheres by embedding flow for applications in numerical relativity. Classical Quantum Gravity, 29(15):14, 2012. Id/No 155010. [30] D. Kane, G. N. Price, and E. D. Demaine. A pseudopolynomial algorithm for Alexandrov’s theorem. In Algorithms and data structures. 11th international symposium, WADS 2009, Banff, Canada, August 21–23, 2009. Proceedings, pages 435–446. Berlin: Springer, 2009. [31] A.-M. Legendre. El´ements de g´eom´etrie. Paris, 1794. [32] H. Lewy. On the existence of a closed convex surface realizing a given Riemannian metric. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 24:104–106, 1938. [33] L. A. Lyusternik. Convex figures and polyhedra. New York: Dover Publications, 1963. [34] H. Maehara. On a special case of Connelly’s suspension theorem. Ryukyu Math. J., 4:35–45, 1991. [35] S. N. Mikhalev. Some necessary metric conditions for flexibility of suspensions. Mosc. Univ. Math. Bull., 56(3):15– 21, 2001. [36] E. A. Morozov. Symmetries of 3-polytopes with fixed edge length. Sib. Elektron.` Mat. Izv., 17:1580–1587, 2020. RECOGNITION OF AFFINE-EQUIVALENT POLYHEDRA 21

[37] A. V. Pogorelov. Extrinsic geometry of convex surfaces. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 1973. [38] Sh. Ray, W. A. Miller, P. M. Alsing, and S.-T. Yau. Adiabatic isometric mapping algorithm for embedding 2-surfaces in Euclidean 3-space. Classical Quantum Gravity, 32(23):17, 2015. Id/No 235012. [39] I. Kh. Sabitov. Algorithmic testing for the deformability of suspensions. J. Sov. Math., 51(5):2584–2586, 1990. [40] I. Kh. Sabitov. Around the proof of the Legendre–Cauchy lemma on convex polygons. Sib. Math. J., 45(4):740–762, 2004. [41] I. Kh. Sabitov. Algebraic methods for solution of polyhedra. Russ. Math. Surv., 66(3):445–505, 2011. [42] Y. Sakano and Y. Akama. Anisohedral spherical triangles and classification of spherical tilings by congruent kites, darts and rhombi. Hiroshima Math. J., 45(3):309–339, 2015. [43] R. E. Schwartz. Mostly surfaces. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 2011. [44] M. I. Shtogrin. Rigidity of quadrillage of the pretzel. Russ. Math. Surv., 54(5):1044–1045, 1999. [45] M. I. Shtogrin. Degeneracy criterion for a convex polyhedron. Russ. Math. Surv., 67(5):951–953, 2012. [46] D. A. Slutskiy. A necessary flexibility condition for a nondegenerate suspension in Lobachevsky 3-space. Sb. Math., 204(8):1195–1214, 2013. [47] H. Stachel. Flexible cross-polytopes in the Euclidean 4-space. J. Geom. Graph., 4(2):159–167, 2000. [48] J. J. Stoker. Uniqueness theorems for some open and closed surfaces in three-space. Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, Cl. Sci., IV. Ser., 5:657–677, 1978. [49] W. Tichy, J. R. McDonald, and W. A. Miller. New efficient algorithm for the isometric embedding of 2-surface metrics in three dimensional euclidean space. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(1):015002, 2014. [50] Yu. A. Volkov. On the existence of a polyhedron with prescribed metric (In Russian). In The Third All-Union Mathematical Congress, Moscow, June–July 1956. Proceedings, vol. 1, p. 146. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1958. [51] Yu. A. Volkov. Existence of a polyhedron with prescribed development. I (In Russian). Vestn. Leningr. Univ., Mat. Mekh. Astron., 19(4):75–86, 1960. [52] Yu. A. Volkov. Existence of a polyhedron with prescribed development. J. Math. Sci., New York, 251(4):462–479, 2020. [53] Yu. A. Volkov and E. G. Podgornova. Existence of a polyhedron with prescribed development (In Russian). Uch. Zap. Tashk. Gos. Pedagog. Inst. Im. Nizami, 85:3–54, 1972. [54] M. J. Wenninger. Polyhedron models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. [55] V. A. Zalgaller. Convex polyhedra with regular faces. Leningrad: Steklov Math. Inst., 1969.

Sobolev Institute of Mathematics, Koptyug ave., 4, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia and Department of Physics, Novosibirsk State University, Pirogov str., 2, Novosibirsk, 630090, Russia Email address: [email protected]