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

Plenty of very nice literature is available on the characterization of f-vectors of simplicial complexes of diverse sorts (results by Billera, Bjoerner, Kalai, Stanley, among others). I mention, as an example, the Dehn-Sommerville equations, the Upper- and Lower Bound Theorems, for Simplicial Polytopes.

Are there any results on the enumeration of simplicial, convex d-polytopes with a given f-vector?

A slightly simpler question is: How does information about an f-vector (say, specifying the number of vertices, edges and triangles) determine the amount of (simplicial, convex d-) polytopes having this numbers fixed. Are there some cases where the f-vector specifies completely the polytope?

This is related to these posts:

Number of graphs with a given number of nodes, edges and triangles

What is known about the number of permissible simplicial complexes given the number of k-cells?

And the reason I am concerned about this is that in the first of the posts, it has been commented that the problem may be way too difficult, so I was wondering whether imposing the condition that the simplicial complex be a convex polytope may simplify the situation a bit.

share|cite|improve this question
"...the condition that the simplicial complex be a convex polytope may simplify the situation a bit": unlikely. – André Henriques Jul 22 '11 at 16:41
I was also thinking this should bring no simplification at all, since it would be difficult to impose the (global) condition that the simplicial complex be a polytope while trying to enumerate. However, last week I heard that there are some ways to enumerate planar maps by considering a bijection to an appropriately defined set of trees, which should be easier to enumerate. See and… . – Camilo Sarmiento Jul 25 '11 at 14:44
I just realized this bijection is actually older. For 3-dimensional convex polytopes it's Steinitz theorem (thanks again to Joseph for the reference). – Camilo Sarmiento Jul 25 '11 at 15:49
up vote 4 down vote accepted

These are just some random remarks, with one hopefully useful reference.

"Are there some cases where the $f$-vector specifies completely the polytope?"

This is hardly what you are seeking, but for 3-polytopes, $f_2=2f_0-4$ is achieved exactly for the $f$-vectors of simplicial polytopes. And of course the stacked and cyclic polytopes achieve the lower and upper bounds respectively.

I don't know if you have seen Günter M. Ziegler's "Convex Polytopes: Extremal Constructions and $f$-Vector Shapes" (IAS/Park City Mathematics Series Volume 14, 2004), which seems to directly address your questions, albeit as of several years ago. Here is the PDF.

Here is one tidbit. He mentions, as a measure of our ignorance, that not even this "suspiciously innocuous conjecture" of Imre Bárány is settled:

For any $d$-polytope, $f_k \ge \min \{f_0, f_{d−1}\}$.

It is (or was in 2004) only proven for $d \le 6$.

Günter has a particularly careful description of what's known about the $f$-vectors of 4-polytopes, a specialty of his. In particular, the set of these $f$-vectors "is not the set of all integral points in a polyhedral cone, or even in a convex set." It has concavities and holes.

share|cite|improve this answer
Many thanks for the reference! – Camilo Sarmiento Jul 25 '11 at 15:44
The "here is the pdf" link is broken as of today. I might search for it later... – Christian Stump May 10 at 13:26
@ChristianStump: Redirected the broken PDF link. – Joseph O'Rourke May 10 at 13:34
that was quick, thanks! – Christian Stump May 10 at 13:36

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.