Pach's "Animals": What if genus $> 0$ ? - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-26T02:14:35Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/50966http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/50966/pachs-animals-what-if-genus-0Pach's "Animals": What if genus $> 0$ ?Joseph O'Rourke2011-01-02T23:13:10Z2011-05-11T19:24:38Z
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janos_Pach" rel="nofollow">Janos Pach</a> asked a deep question 23 years ago (1988) that remains unsolved today:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can every <em>animal</em>—a topological ball in $\mathbb{R^3}$
composed of unit cubes glued face-to-face—be reduced to a single
unit cube by adding and deleting cubes, while always maintaining
the animal (ball) property?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>("Animal" was an apparently original coinage of Janos's.)
I and my students quickly found <em>irreducible animals</em>,
i.e., balls of unit cubes from which no cube can be removed
without destroying the topological-ball property.
Here is one of 119 cubes due to <a href="http://www.cs.sfu.ca/~shermer/" rel="nofollow">Tom Shermer</a>
(which I exploded vertically for visualization):
<br />
<img src="http://cs.smith.edu/~orourke/MathOverflow/Shermer.119b.jpg" alt="alt text">
<br />
Essentially all our irreducible examples are based on
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._H._Bing" rel="nofollow">Bing</a>'s <a href="http://infoshako.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp/~hachi/math/library/bing_eng.html" rel="nofollow">House with Two Rooms</a> (unbeknownst to us at the time).
So if Pach's question has a positive answer, it requires adding cubes as
well as deleting.
This history is recounted in Günter Ziegler's
<em><a href="http://www.springer.com/mathematics/geometry/book/978-0-387-94365-7" rel="nofollow">Lectures on Polytopes</a></em>,
Springer, 1995,
p.276.
His non-<em>shellability</em> Theorem 8.15 (p.243) is based on these irreducible animals.</p>
<p>So, I finally come to my question,
which is essentially a question of <em>shellability</em>.:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can every (embedded) object constructed by gluing unit cubes face-to-face,
<em>regardless of genus</em>, be reduced to a single
unit cube by adding and deleting cubes, while always
maintaining that the surface is a 2-manifold?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is exactly Pach's question, but with the ball-requirement
removed. All the irreducible animals I know rely on
violating the topological-ball requirement for their irreducibility;
so it is (remotely) <em>possible</em> that reduction alone suffices(!).
I am tempted to introduce a new genera to encompass
<em>Plantae & Animalia</em>; but I resist.</p>
<p>Any pointers that may lead me to information on the generalization of Pach's question
would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>
<p><b>Addendum, 11May11</b> (<em>original posting 2Jan11</em>).
The problem is now solved (positively): Every animal can be reduced by adding and deleting cubes.
The proof is contained in two papers, the second of which appeared as a tech report in May 2010:
"A solution to the animal problem," by Akira Nakamura. <a href="http://www.mi.auckland.ac.nz/tech-reports/MItech-TR-53.pdf%20" rel="nofollow">Here is the PDF</a>.
The first paper, an earlier 2006 tech report, is called simply, "B-Problem," by Akira Nakamura, Kenichi Morita, and Katsunobu Imai. <a href="http://www.citr.auckland.ac.nz/researchreports/CITR-TR-180.pdf" rel="nofollow">Here is its PDF</a>.
I would summarize but I do not yet understand the papers, which are presented in
terms of "digital topology." </p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/50966/pachs-animals-what-if-genus-0/51037#51037Answer by Gil Kalai for Pach's "Animals": What if genus $> 0$ ?Gil Kalai2011-01-03T17:15:00Z2011-01-03T21:11:55Z<p>Regarding Pach's original question: Bing's house deals with the analogous question of collapsibility. It is an example of a contractible non-collapsible space. For that problem it is known that if you allow both collapses and anti-collapses, every contractable space can be reduced to a point. This follows from "<a href="http://math.uchicago.edu/~shmuel/tom-readings/Cohen,%2520simple-htpy-thry.pdf" rel="nofollow">Simple homotopy theory</a>". I dont know if this result of simple homolopy theory extends to animals built from cubes but they might. </p>
<p>The modified higher genus question seems easier since you allow steps that changes the topology of the animal. </p>
<p>One can ask a stronger question if when you fixed the genus g you can pass between two animals of genus g by such steps. The analogous question for collapsibility seems to relate to simple homotopy invariants of surface groups but I dont know what they are.</p>