4
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be the "standard open simplex in $\mathbb{R}^n_{\geq 0}$",

$X = \{(x_1, \ldots, x_n) : \text{ all } x_i > 0 \text{ and } \sum x_i < 1 \}.$

And, for a subset $A \subseteq \{1, \ldots, n\}$, let $\tilde A : X \to \mathbb{C}$ denote the indicator function

$ \tilde A(x_1, \ldots, x_n) = \begin{cases} 1 & \text{ if } \sum_{i \notin A} x_i - \sum_{i \in A} x_i > \frac{1}{2}, \newline 0 & \text{ otherwise.} \end{cases} $

Finally, given a simplicial set $S$ on up to $n$ vertices, let $\tilde S : X \to \mathbb{C}$ be the product of the indicator functions for its facets, (so $\tilde S$ indicates solutions to the corresponding system of inequalities / linear program.)

The $\mathbb{C}$ algebra $\tilde R$ generated by the functions $\tilde A$, where $A \subseteq \{1, \ldots, n\}$, is spanned by the $\tilde S$ as a $\mathbb{C}$-vector space.

Some of these simplicial complexes lead to functions that are identically zero, such as $\{\{1,2\},\{2,3\}\}$ on $n=3$. Others are obviously feasible (for example, if some $i$ is not a vertex of $S$). So, I have two questions:

  1. Is there a simple criterion for which simplicial complexes $S$ are 'feasible', i.e. the indicator function $\tilde S$ is not identically zero on $X$?

  2. Are the remaining 'feasible' indicator functions $\tilde S$ $\mathbb{C}$-linearly independent? (The answer seems like it should be "yes". Certainly it is for small $n$).

I am trying to analyze a sum of such indicator functions of this form, that arises as the Fourier transform of a probability density related to zeros of a family of $L$-functions. (If it makes the answers easier/neater, the strict inequalities can become $\geq$ or $\leq.$ I only care up to sets of measure zero anyway.)

I can provide additional number theoretic or combinatorial background info if necessary. In any case, the above two questions have stymied me, so I'd be grateful for any help!

Thank you! --Jake

edit: (David Speyer has made some useful observations about Spec $\tilde R$, which I could reproduce here.)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Would you mind reproducing those observations by David Speyer here? I would be curious to know more about this. $\endgroup$ Feb 25, 2017 at 11:47

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.