5
$\begingroup$

Let $n$ be a positive integer, and let $n = \ell_1 + \dots + \ell_k$ be a partition of $n$. Then there exists a convex polygon with side lengths $\ell_1, \dots, \ell_k$ if and only if all of the $\ell_i$ are smaller than $\frac{n}{2}$.

Questions:

  1. What is the corresponding criterion in $3$ dimensions, i.e. under which conditions does there exist a convex polyhedron with edge lengths $\ell_1, \dots, \ell_k$?

  2. How many of the $p(n)$ partitions of $n$ do occur as lists of edge lengths of some polyhedron -- i.e. which are these values for small $n$, and what is asymptotically the proportion of such partitions among all partitions of $n$ when $n$ goes to infinity?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Note that you need two polygons to share the longest edge, so an edge of length n/3 or longer will be a deal breaker, and I imagine n/4 will present some challenges. This suggests to me a fraction tending to 0 for the probability of a partition to be a length list of feasible polytopes. For d dimensions, I think n/d is a similar obstacle, but am less sure. Gerhard "Fractions, Now There's A Chance" Paseman, 2016.04.16. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2016 at 20:17
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ to start simple: for the tetrahedron there is the Cayley-Menger determinant in addition to having all the face obeying the triangle inequality (which is not sufficient) $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 16, 2016 at 20:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A related question covering the case of simplicial polyhedra math.stackexchange.com/questions/574323/… $\endgroup$
    – j.c.
    Commented Apr 16, 2016 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ I would expect that the number of partitions, that correspond to a convex polygon is asymptotically the same (up to a constant) as the number of all partitions, is this true? Then if you only consider prisms over convex polygons you already get a positive fraction of all partitions of $3n$ for the form $(p)+(p)+1+\dots+1$, where p is a partition of $n$ that corresponds to a convex polygon. @GerhardPaseman: I am not convinced that the fraction should be tending to $0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 19, 2016 at 7:47
  • $\begingroup$ @MoritzFirsching: For polygons you are obviously right. -- But your conclusion for polyhedra does not seem to be correct: since we have $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} p(n)/p(3n) = 0$, it seems your construction of prisms does only work for a fraction of all partitions which tends to $0$. -- Or did I misunderstand what you mean? $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl
    Commented Apr 19, 2016 at 10:34

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Since I expect the answer for all combinatorial types of polytopes to be somewhat obscure, let me give an answer to the more simple question of what happens for the tetrahedron. We denote the six edges of the tetrahedron by $(x,y,z,a,b,c)$ and assume six faces the ones with edges $(a,b,c), (x,y,c), (x,b,z)$ and $(a,y,z)$. The sextuple $(x,y,z,a,b,c)$ corresponds to such a tetrahedron if and only if

  • $(a,b,c), (x,y,c), (x,b,z)$ and $(a,y,z)$ satisfy the triangle inequality, and

  • the Cayley-Menger determinant $$CM(x,y,z,a,b,c):=\left(\begin{array}{rrrrr} 0 & x^{2} & y^{2} & z^{2} & 1 \\ x^{2} & 0 & c^{2} & b^{2} & 1 \\ y^{2} & c^{2} & 0 & a^{2} & 1 \\ z^{2} & b^{2} & a^{2} & 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 0 \end{array}\right)$$ is positive.

This would be a complete answer to your first question if you only asked for the tetrahedron.

So if you consider a partition $(p_1,\dots,p_6)$ of $n$, you have to say which of the $p_i$s correspond to which edge, or just check all permutations of the partition (so perhaps it would be more natural to consider compositions?!). In any case if you do this for the first few $n$, you get a sequence like this (if there is no mistake in my calculations):$$[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 9, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 24, 25, 32, 34, 40, 47, 55, 61, 70, 83, 91, 101, 117, 124, 148, 160, 181, 195, 225, 243, 270, 301, 327, 359, 396, 432, 473, 513, 566, 604, 668, 712, 782, 844, 913, 985, 1056, 1148, 1227, 1313, 1421, 1509, 1640, 1730, 1863, 1985, 2127, 2269, 2410, 2572, 2738, 2905, 3099, 3276, 3490, 3682, 3914, 4128, 4377, 4615, 4892, 5170, 5450, 5753, 6057, 6389, 6725, 7067, 7460, 7807, 8236, 8638, 9077, 9504, 10005, 10461, 10961].$$ Compare this to partitions into 6 parts:$$[0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 14, 20, 26, 35, 44, 58, 71, 90, 110, 136, 163, 199, 235, 282, 331, 391, 454, 532, 612, 709, 811, 931, 1057, 1206, 1360, 1540, 1729, 1945, 2172, 2432, 2702, 3009, 3331, 3692, 4070, 4494, 4935, 5427, 5942, 6510, 7104, 7760, 8442, 9192, 9975, 10829, 11720, 12692, 13702, 14800, 15944, 17180, 18467, 19858, 21301, 22856, 24473, 26207, 28009, 29941, 31943, 34085, 36308, 38677, 41134, 43752, 46461, 49342, 52327, 55491, 58767, 62239, 65827, 69624, 73551, 77695, 81979, 86499, 91164, 96079, 101155, 106491, 111999, 117788, 123755, 130019, 136479]$$ If you plot these two, you get:compare sequences

For a better comparison, I take the fifths root of the values to get this plot (since we now that partitions into 6 parts roughly grow like $n^5$):scaled comparison

From these few values one might conjecture that the blue values also grow roughly like $n^5$, perhaps with a factor $(1/2)^5$ slower than all partitions into 6 parts.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Very interesting -- thank you very much! $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl
    Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ The first 85 terms of the sequence are 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 3, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 9, 9, 11, 13, 16, 17, 24, 25, 32, 34, 40, 47, 55, 61, 70, 83, 91, 101, 117, 124, 148, 160, 181, 195, 225, 243, 270, 301, 327, 359, 396, 432, 473, 513, 566, 604, 668, 712, 782, 844, 913, 985, 1056, 1148, 1227, 1313, 1421, 1509, 1640, 1730, 1863, 1985, 2127, 2269, 2410, 2572, 2738, 2905, 3099, 3276, 3490, 3682, 3914, 4128, 4377, 4615, 4892, 5170. $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl
    Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ I have computed these numbers with these GAP functions. $\endgroup$
    – Stefan Kohl
    Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 15:41
  • $\begingroup$ Cool, I will update the post and the plots when I have calculated the first 100 values. I have the same values you have, at least up to n=67, where I also get 1730. For n=90, the value is 6725. I have used sage. Would it speed up your code if you calculate the determinant once symbolically beforehand and then evaluate the corresponding polynomial? $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 15:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now I calculated the first 101 terms in the sequence. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 17, 2016 at 20:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .