What is the proof for the statement about facets in a simplex triangulation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter e(ho0n3
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of a statement regarding facets in a triangulation of an n-simplex. Specifically, it asserts that for a facet F of a subsimplex S' in a triangulation T of a simplex S, F is either contained in a facet of S or is the facet of exactly one other simplex S''. Participants express frustration over the lack of comprehensive proofs in existing literature and the necessity of employing topological concepts, such as barycentric coordinates, to establish the proof. The need for clearer references and proofs is emphasized, as many sources treat this as a trivial fact.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of n-simplex and its properties
  • Familiarity with triangulations in geometry
  • Knowledge of topological concepts related to simplices
  • Comprehension of barycentric coordinates
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of n-simplices and their facets
  • Study triangulations and their definitions in geometric contexts
  • Explore topological proofs related to simplices and barycentric coordinates
  • Look for comprehensive references or textbooks that provide proofs of triangulation properties
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, geometry enthusiasts, and students studying topology or geometric structures who seek a deeper understanding of simplicial complexes and triangulations.

e(ho0n3
Messages
1,349
Reaction score
0
First, some definitions:

An n-simplex is defined as the convex hull of n+1 affinely independent vectors in Rd (its vertices). A face of a simplex is defined to be the convex hull of any subset of its vertices. A facet of a n-simplex is a face that is an (n-1)-simplex. A triangulation T of an n-simplex S is a finite collection of n-simplices {S', S'', ...} (called the subsimplices of T) such that (i) their union equals S and (ii) the intersection of any two of them is either empty or a common face.

Now for the question:

Let S be a simplex and let T be a triangulation of S. Let F be a facet of a subsimplex S' of T. Then either F is contained in a facet of S or F is the facet of exactly one other simplex S''.

The question is, how does one prove the above statement? All the books I have checked consider this a trivial fact or leave it as an exercise to the reader. In trying to prove it, I was forced to use a lot of topological facts about simplices that I have not seen proved anywhere (e.g. a point in a simplex is an interior point if and only if its barycentric coordinates are all positive). Since the definition of a triangulation makes no use of any topology, it bugs me that I have had to use so much topology in trying to prove it. If anybody supplies me with a reference with a full proof, I would greatly appreciate it.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
e(ho0n3 said:
First, some definitions:

An n-simplex is defined as the convex hull of n+1 affinely independent vectors in Rd (its vertices). A face of a simplex is defined to be the convex hull of any subset of its vertices. A facet of a n-simplex is a face that is an (n-1)-simplex. A triangulation T of an n-simplex S is a finite collection of n-simplices {S', S'', ...} (called the subsimplices of T) such that (i) their union equals S and (ii) the intersection of any two of them is either empty or a common face.

Now for the question:

Let S be a simplex and let T be a triangulation of S. Let F be a facet of a subsimplex S' of T. Then either F is contained in a facet of S or F is the facet of exactly one other simplex S''.

The question is, how does one prove the above statement? All the books I have checked consider this a trivial fact or leave it as an exercise to the reader. In trying to prove it, I was forced to use a lot of topological facts about simplices that I have not seen proved anywhere (e.g. a point in a simplex is an interior point if and only if its barycentric coordinates are all positive). Since the definition of a triangulation makes no use of any topology, it bugs me that I have had to use so much topology in trying to prove it. If anybody supplies me with a reference with a full proof, I would greatly appreciate it.

I think it follow immefiately from the definition of a triangulation.
 
lavinia said:
I think it follow immefiately from the definition of a triangulation.

That's what many books say too, but I don't see how it immediately follows. For example, I don't see how it rules out that three subsimplices can share a common facet.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K