MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Every surface can be triangulated in such a way that at most 7 trianlges meet at one vertex. Every surface can be decomposed in squares such that at every vertex at most 5 suqares meet. For surfaces of genus more than 1 this is the low bound.

What happen in higher dimensions, for example for 3 and 4-manifolds, ect...? It should be easy to show that for every dimension $n$ there are numbers $S(n)$ and and $C(n)$ such that every manifold $M^n$ admits a simplicial decomposition with at most $S(n)$ simplexes at every vertex and a cubical decomposition with at most $C(n)$ cubes at every vertex. The refference of Gil below confirms this for $n=3$.

Here are three questions (I suspect they are hard).

1) Can it be proven that $C(n)>2^n$?

2) Can it be proven that $S(n)>\frac{Vol(S^n)}{Vol(\Delta^n)}$, where $\Delta^n$ is the spherical tetrahedron with edge of length $\frac{\pi}{3}$ in the unit sphere $S^n$.

3) Is there any reasonable estimation for $C(n)$ and $S(n)$ from above?

share|cite|improve this question
Isn't the hyperbolic plane a surface? Tilings of the hyperbolic plane can have as many triangles at a vertex as one wishes. – Joseph Malkevitch Jan 2 '10 at 20:07
Sure Joseph, but 7 is the minimum and this is what I am looking for. – Dmitri Jan 3 '10 at 0:42

The paper of Cooper and Thurston: Triangulating 3-manifolds using five vertex link types. Topology 27 (1988), no. 1, 23--25, is relevant. From the review: "It is known that, for any dimension n, there is a finite set of link types such that every n-manifold has a triangulation in which the link of each vertex is in this set." This does not answer the specific question, and also does not deal the case of cubed-manifolds but it can be a good place to start.

share|cite|improve this answer
Gil, thanks for your answer I will have a look, curious to know about 5 types! By the way, the finiteness of types for cubes can be deduced quickly from finitenss for simplexes. The point is that a simplex of dimension $n$ can be decomposed in $n!$ cubes in a canoncial way. So every simplicial decomposition produces a "cubisation", somewhat similar to the baricentric decomposition – Dmitri Jan 2 '10 at 19:49
Dear Dimitri, unfortunately I cannot answer your precise question and also I dont have a clear intuition what the answer should be. Regarding cubical structure and your conjecture I wonder if already the n dimensional torus can have a cubical structure where the degree of every vertex is less than 2^d. – Gil Kalai Jan 2 '10 at 20:07

For n = 3, Cooper and Thurston show (see Gil's answer for citation) that any 3-manifold can be paved with cubes using only 3 vertex link types. These three types have 6, 8 and 10 cubes at each vertex. Cooper and Thurston then subdivide the cubes into simplices to show that any 3-manifold can be triangulated with 5 vertex link types. A slightly more clever subdivision strategy shows that in fact one only needs 3 vertex link types in a triangulation. The largest of these types has 30 simplices around a vertex.

C&T use a result of Montesinos which says that any 3-manifold branch covers the 3-sphere with branch locus the borromean rings. This implies that any 3-manifold has a Euclidean orbifold-ish structure where the non-smooth points have neighborhoods isomorphic to an interval cross a 2-dimensional cone with cone angle 3/2 pi or 5/2 pi. If an analogous result were true in higher dimensions then one could show that any n-manifold could be paved with hypercubes using only 3 vertex link types. The largest vertex link would use 5/4 * 2^n cubes.

share|cite|improve this answer
Kevin thanks for this explantion! Just a nitpick, a cone points with angles 5/2 pi and 3/2 pi should not be called orbifold points, orbifold points are points with angle 2pi/n. Also 5/4 2^n looks quite optimistic for me... But it is surelly worth to think about generalisation of their construction for high dim. – Dmitri Jan 3 '10 at 13:59
Yes, bad choice of terminology on my part. I'll edit my answer to fix it. – Kevin Walker Jan 3 '10 at 15:12

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.