Neighboring mapping points theorem
Andrei V. Malyutin, Oleg R. Musin

TL;DR
This paper introduces a new family of topological theorems extending Borsuk-Ulam and Radon theorems by replacing 'large to singleton' conditions with 'large to small' conditions, applicable to broader spaces.
Contribution
It proposes a novel extension framework for classical topological theorems, broadening their applicability to new classes of spaces and mappings.
Findings
Extended theorems cover mappings from m-sphere to n-space with m<n
Generalized conditions from 'large to singleton' to 'large to small'
Applicable to wider classes of topological spaces
Abstract
We introduce and study a new family of extensions for the Borsuk-Ulam and topological Radon type theorems. The defining idea for this new family is to replace requirements of the form `a subset that is large in some sense goes to a singleton' with requirements of the milder form `a subset that is large in some sense goes to a subset that is small in some sense'. This approach covers the case of mappings m-sphere to n-space with m<n and extends to wider classes of spaces.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHomotopy and Cohomology in Algebraic Topology · Advanced Topology and Set Theory · Topological and Geometric Data Analysis
Neighboring mapping points theorem
Andrei V. Malyutin
A. V. Malyutin: St. Petersburg Department of Steklov Institute of Mathematics, Fontanka 27, St. Petersburg 191011, Russia; St. Petersburg State University
and
Oleg R. Musin
O. R. Musin: University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, School of Mathematical and Statistical Sciences, One West University Boulevard, Brownsville, TX, 78520; Leonhard Euler International Mathematical Institute in St. Petersburg; Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology; The Institute for Information Transmission Problems of RAS
Abstract.
We introduce and study a new family of theorems extending the class of Borsuk–Ulam and topological Radon type theorems. The defining idea for this new family is to replace requirements of the form ‘the image of a subset that is large in some sense is a singleton’ with requirements of the milder form ‘the image of a subset that is large in some sense is a subset that is small in some sense’. This approach covers the case of mappings with and extends to wider classes of spaces.
An example of a statement from this new family is the following theorem. Let be a continuous map of the boundary of the -dimensional simplex to a contractible metric space . Then contains a subset such that (is ‘large’ in the sense that it) intersects all facets of and the image (is ‘small’ in the sense that it) is either a singleton or a subset of the boundary of a metric ball whose interior does not meet .
We generalize this theorem to noncontractible normal spaces via covers and deduce a series of its corollaries. Several of these corollaries are similar to the topological Radon theorem.
The first author was supported by RFBR according to the research project n. 20-01-00070. The second author is supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, agreement 075-15-2019-1620 date 08/11/2019.
1. Introduction
In this paper we introduce and study a new family of theorems extending the class of Borsuk–Ulam and topological Radon type theorems (though none of our theorems is a generalization for the Borsuk–Ulam or topological Radon theorem itself). By the Borsuk–Ulam and topological Radon type theorems we mean those stating that a continuous map takes a ‘wide’ set of some specific kind to a point. Let us list several of the most influential examples.
- •
The Borsuk–Ulam theorem itself says that every continuous map of a Euclidean -sphere into Euclidean -space identifies two antipodes.
- •
The Hopf theorem states that if is a compact Riemannian -manifold and is a continuous map, then for any , there exists a geodesic of length such that .
- •
The topological Radon theorem says that if is a convex -polytope, then any continuous map identifies two points from disjoint faces.
- •
The topological Tverberg theorem says that if is an integer, is a prime power, and is a convex -polytope, then any continuous map identifies points from pairwise disjoint faces.
See, e. g., [37, 38, 23, 18, 3, 12, 6, 35, 5] and references therein for more examples including various extensions and generalizations for -spaces, maps between manifolds, matroids, colored versions, etc. Another related family is Knaster’s conjecture type theorems (see [24] and references therein).
All of these examples involve rigid dimensional restrictions. It is a natural question whether the maps not satisfying these restrictions have any properties of the Borsuk–Ulam kind. In particular, we are interested in whether the Borsuk–Ulam theorem has any reasonable extensions to the case of mappings with (a related idea appears in [2]).
Extensions of this kind are found in a new class we study. This class emerges by replacing conditions of the form ‘the image of a subset that is large in some sense is a singleton’ with conditions of the milder form ‘the image of a subset that is wide in some sense is a subset that is restricted in some sense’. This approach covers the case of mappings with and extends to wider classes of spaces.
Here is an example for the simplest nondegenerate case .
Proposition 1** ([21]).**
Let , , and be three closed arcs covering the circle such that no two of them cover , and let be a continuous map. Then either or each of , , and touches a closed Euclidean disk whose interior does not meet .
Proposition 1 works for plane curves and knot diagrams and has a corollary with applications in knot theory (see [21]). We formulate this corollary here. Let be a regular smooth plane curve in general position (that is, its only singularities are transversal double points). By an edge of we mean the closure of a component of the set , where is the set of double points of . We say that two edges and of are neighboring edges or neighbors if there exists a component of such that the boundary contains both and . We say that two edges and of are consecutive if the union coincides with the image of a (connected) arc in . We denote by the maximal metric on the set of edges of in the class of metrics satisfying the condition ‘ whenever and are consecutive edges of ’.
Proposition 2** ([21]).**
If the curve has double points, then has a pair of neighboring edges and with .
Proposition 1 readily implies Proposition 2 if we choose the arcs , , and appropriately. Proposition 2 appears in [21] as an auxiliary lemma (Lemma 5.1) needed to obtain a series of statements related to knot theory. In [21] this lemma is deduced from the topological Helly theorem (see [7, 25]). The statement of Proposition 2 was one of the starting points for our study.
In this paper we generalize Proposition 1 to noncontractible normal spaces via covers. The generalizations and their corollaries will be formulated in the next sections after definitions. Our method is based on obstruction theory and uses a variation of the concept of non–null–homotopic covers introduced in [29, 30].
2. Definitions and results
Throughout this paper we mainly consider normal topological spaces111A topological space is normal if any two disjoint closed sets of are contained in disjoint open sets of ; see [34, p. 446] for equivalent definitions via the Urysohn and shrinking lemmas., all simplicial complexes and covers will be finite, all manifolds will be both compact and PL, will denote the -dimensional sphere, will denote the -dimensional simplex, will denote the -skeleton of . We shall denote the set of homotopy classes of continuous maps by . The nerve of a (finite) collection of sets will be denoted by . When this does not cause confusion we use the same notation for an abstract simplicial complex and its underlying space (carrier).
The further exposition in this section is structured as follows: first we give a chain of successively stronger generalizations of Proposition 1 (Theorem 1 is the weakest, Theorem 4 is the strongest one); then we present a family of corollaries (all but one of which follow from Theorem 1).
2.1. Spherical –neighbors
All of the following generalizations and corollaries replace the condition ‘the image is a singleton’ appearing in the Borsuk–Ulam type theorems with the following milder condition of ‘spherical neighboring’.
Definition 1** (Spherical -neighbors).**
Let be a set, let be a metric space, and let be a map. We say that a subset is a set of spherical –neighbors if contains at least two points and the image is either a point or a subset of the boundary of a metric ball222By a metric ball in a metric space with metric we mean a subset of the form , , . whose interior does not meet . If a two-point set is a set of spherical –neighbors, we say that and are spherical –neighbors. (See Fig. 2.)
The first extension generalizes Proposition 1 to the case of spheres of arbitrary dimension and replaces Euclidean spaces with arbitrary contractible metric spaces. (Recall that facets of a polytope of dimension are its faces of dimension .)
Theorem 1**.**
Let be a continuous map of the boundary of the -dimensional simplex to a contractible metric space . Then a set of spherical –neighbors intersects all facets of .
Proof.
Let denote the metric on . If is a point and is a subset in , we write
[TABLE]
Let be the facets of . For each , we set
[TABLE]
Observe that contains and is closed, so that is a closed cover of . Since is contractible, extends to a continuous map . Then is a closed cover of extending the closed cover of . By the Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz (KKM) lemma the elements of have a common point . Then lies in . Then either so that belongs to all of by the definition of , or and the ball of radius centered at touches all of while its interior does not meet . This implies the statement. ∎
We generalize Theorem 1 by replacing the set of facets with a more general class of covers as in the KKM lemma.
2.2. KKM covers and spherical –neighbors
Definition 2** (KKM covers).**
Let be an -dimensional simplex with vertices labelled . A closed cover of the -sphere is called a KKM cover if there exists a homeomorphism such that for each the convex hull of the vertices with is covered by the union .
The argument in the proof of Theorem 1 also proves the following theorem.
Theorem 2**.**
Let be a KKM cover of the -sphere , and let be a continuous map to a contractible metric space . Then a set of spherical –neighbors intersects all elements of .
The key role in Theorem 2 is played by the properties of the cover, and not by the fact that the underlying space is a sphere. To move on to the next generalization, we define non–null–homotopic covers (we generalize the concept of non–null–homotopic covers given in [29, 30]).
2.3. Non–null–homotopic covers and spherical –neighbors
Let be a normal topological space, and let be an open cover of . Let be the nerve of . Let be a partition of unity subordinate to . Let be the vertices of the -dimensional unit simplex , where
[TABLE]
For each we identify the vertex of corresponding to with so that becomes a subcomplex of . We set
[TABLE]
Then is a continuous map from to . Since the linear homotopy of two partitions of unity and subordinate to induces a homotopy between the corresponding maps, it follows that the homotopy class in , where by we denote the set of homotopy classes of continuous maps , does not depend on (see [29, Lemma 1.6]). We denote this class in by .
The homotopy classes of covers are also well defined for closed sets. Indeed, in a normal space any finite closed cover has an open extension with the same nerve (see, e. g., [26, Theorem 1.3] and [17, pp. 31–33]). Furthermore, if is a closed cover of a normal space and and are two open covers such that contains for all and with the same nerve , then each partition of unity subordinate to the open cover
[TABLE]
is also subordinate to both and . This implies that in due to the independence of the choice of partition of unity mentioned above. Then we set
[TABLE]
Definition 3** (Non–null–homotopic covers).**
We say that an open or closed cover of a normal topological space is non–null–homotopic if the corresponding homotopy class in contains no constant map.
Remark 1*.*
Any non–null–homotopic map to a finite simplicial complex yields non–null–homotopic covers on ; to obtain an example, take the inverse images of all elements in one of the following collections:
- •
open stars of vertices of ,
- •
stars of vertices of in its first barycentric subdivision,
- •
maximal simplexes of .
Definition 4** (Homotopy ranks of maps).**
Let be a topological space, let be a finite simplicial complex, and let be a continuous map. Let be the simplex spanned by the vertices of so that is a subcomplex of . We define the homotopy rank of to be the least nonnegative integer such that is null–homotopic in , where stands for the -skeleton.333We say that is the -exoskeleton of . (Since is contractible, the homotopy rank is well defined and does not exceed the dimension of .)
Remark 2*.*
In terms of Definition 4, is null–homotopic if and only if .
Definition 5** (Ranks of covers).**
We define the (homotopy) rank of a (closed or open) finite cover of a normal space to be the homotopy rank of maps in the class determined by .
Remark 3*.*
A cover is non–null–homotopic if and only if it is of nonzero rank.
Remark 4*.*
Since is contractible, it follows that the rank of an -element cover does not exceed .
Definition 6** (Principal covers).**
An -element cover () of rank is said to be principal.
Remark 5*.*
Since any proper nonempty subcomplex of is contractible in , it follows that a cover is principal if and only if it is non–null–homotopic and its nerve is the boundary of a simplex.
Remark 6*.*
Remark 5 implies that no principal cover has a proper subcollection of elements with empty intersection; in particular, no principal cover has disjoint elements.
Remark 7*.*
Any non–null–homotopic map to the -sphere yields a principal cover of of rank (cf. Remark 1; cf. [29, Theorem 1.5]). Thus, a space can have principal covers of distinct ranks.
Remark 8* (Conditions for cover non–null–homotopicity).*
If the composition of continuous maps is non–null–homotopic, then each of them is non–null–homotopic.
- •
On the one hand this implies that any refinement of a cover of rank has rank at least . In particular, any refinement of a non–null–homotopic cover is non–null–homotopic.
- •
On the other hand this implies that if is a continuous map of normal spaces and is a closed cover of such that the dimension of the nerve is less than the rank of the induced cover , then . In particular, if the induced cover is principal and then is principal. (Confer Lemma 2 below.)
We now have all the definitions needed to replace spheres in Theorem 2 with general ‘noncontractible’ spaces.
Theorem 3**.**
Let be a compact normal space, let be a contractible metric space, and let be a continuous map. Then for any non–null–homotopic cover of , a set of spherical –neighbors intersects at least elements of . In particular, for any principal cover, a set of spherical –neighbors intersects all elements of the cover.
Theorem 3 implies Theorem 2 because each KKM cover either is principal or all of its elements have a common point; furthermore, the maps in the homotopy class corresponding to each principal KKM cover are of degree one, so that contains a homeomorphism (see Corollaries 2.1–2.3 in [30]).
Remark 9*.*
Note that in Theorem 3 is not assumed to be connected. Figure 3 shows an example with (cf. Fig. 1).
Remark 10*.*
Combining the idea that in Theorem 3 is not necessarily connected, with switching attention to the image of the cover, leads to generalizations of Helly’s theorem and the KKM lemma. See also Lemma 2 below. We do not develop this line in the present paper.
2.4. EP triples and ranks, and spherical –neighbors
We are going to upgrade Theorem 3 to a more general Theorem 4, which covers the case of maps to not necessarily contractible spaces. In order to state and prove Theorem 4, we introduce concepts of Eilenberg–Pontryagin and Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz ranks.
Definition 7** (Eilenberg–Pontryagin triples and ranks).**
Let be a topological space with a subspace , let be a finite simplicial complex, and let be a homotopy class in . We say that is an Eilenberg–Pontryagin triple if no map in extends to a continuous map .
We define the Eilenberg–Pontryagin rank (EP rank) of the triple to be the least nonnegative integer such that there exists a continuous map whose restriction is homotopic in to the maps of , where is the simplex spanned by the vertices of and containing as a subcomplex. (Since is contractible, the EP rank is well defined and does not exceed the dimension of .)
Remark 11*.*
In terms of Definition 7, a triple is Eilenberg–Pontryagin if and only if it is of nonzero EP rank (because ).
Remark 12*.*
Since any constant map extends to any ambient space, it follows that in terms of Definitions 4 and 7, for any , , , and we have
[TABLE]
Furthermore, if is contractible in , then we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if is a finite closed cover of and is contractible in , then
[TABLE]
Example 1*.*
- •
If , , and , then .
- •
If , , and , then .
Example 2*.*
We have whenever is a retract of .
Example 3*.*
Let be an orientable compact PL -manifold with connected nonempty boundary , and let be a continuous map. Then we have , , and .
- •
If , then (this follows from the Hopf degree theorem; see the proof of Corollary 1 below).
- •
If , then (because is contractible; see Remark 12).
- •
Results of [31] imply however that for any and with nontrivial and for any non–null–homotopic there exists an -manifold with such that extends to a continuous map , so that we have and .
Definition 8** (Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz rank).**
Let be a topological space, and let be a collection of subsets in . We say that the pair is a Knaster–Kuratowski–Mazurkiewicz (KKM) system if no closed cover of with for all has the same nerve as .
We define the KKM rank of the pair to be the least integer such that there exists a closed cover of with for all such that the dimension of is .
Remark 13*.*
In terms of Definition 8, a pair is a KKM system if and only if it is of nonzero KKM rank.
Example 4*.*
If and is a KKM cover of , then by the KKM lemma.
Example 5*.*
We have whenever is a closed cover of a retract of .
Example 6*.*
We have whenever .
Lemma 1**.**
Let a normal space contain a normal space as a subspace, let be a closed cover of , and let be the corresponding homotopy class in , where is the nerve. Then the EP rank of the triple does not exceed the KKM rank of the system :**
[TABLE]
Furthermore, if is closed in , then
[TABLE]
Lemma 1 is proved in the next section.
Example 7* (Showing that the closedness requirement of in the second part of Lemma 1 is essential).*
If is a compact normal space, is a closed cover of with and each nonempty, is the cone over , is the top of , , is the subcone in over , , and , then the KKM rank is and the EP rank is one more than the dimension of the nerve . (See Fig. 4 with .) For example, if and the elements of are pairwise disjoint, then
[TABLE]
Remark 14*.*
Lemma 1 implies (see Remark 12) that, given a compact normal space with a finite closed cover , for any ambient normal space we have and if is contractible in . (This generalizes Theorem 2.2 from [29].)
Theorem 4**.**
*Let be a compact normal space, let be a closed cover of , and let be the corresponding homotopy class in , where is the nerve. Let be a normal space containing as a subspace. If the triple is Eilenberg–Pontryagin, with EP rank , then for any metric space and any continuous map that extends to a continuous map , a set of spherical –neighbors intersects at least elements of . *
Theorem 4 is proved in the next section.
Proof of Theorem 3.
We deduce Theorem 3 from Theorem 4. Let , , , and be as in Theorem 3. Set and identify with . (The cone is normal because is compact and normal; see, e. g., [32].) Definitions of ranks imply (see Remark 12) that
[TABLE]
In particular, the triple is Eilenberg–Pontryagin since is non–null–homotopic. Since is contractible, it follows that extends to a continuous map . We apply Theorem 4 to the Eilenberg–Pontryagin triple , with and in the notation of Theorem 4, and see that a set of spherical –neighbors intersects at least elements of . Then Theorem 3 follows by (*** ‣ 2.4). ∎
Remark 15*.*
Theorem 4 has further refinements regarding the number of distinct sets of spherical –neighbors intersecting the prescribed number of cover elements, but we do not develop this line in the present paper.
2.5. Corollaries
Next, we list several corollaries of Theorems 1–4. In fact, all of the following corollaries, except for Corollary 1, follow from Theorem 1.
Definition 9**.**
A continuous map of an orientable connected closed PL manifold to a space is said to be null–cobordant if there exists an orientable compact PL manifold with and a continuous map such that .
Corollary 1** (cf. [29, Theorem 2.6]).**
Let be an orientable connected closed PL -manifold, and let be a non–null–homotopic cover of such that the nerve of is homeomorphic to the -sphere. Then for any metric space and any null–cobordant map , a set of spherical –neighbors intersects at least elements of . In particular, if is principal and contains precisely elements, then a set of spherical –neighbors intersects all elements of .
Proof.
If is null–cobordant, then there are an orientable compact PL -manifold with and a continuous map with . A homological argument shows that for each continuous map , the restriction is of zero degree. Then the Hopf degree theorem implies that is null–homotopic. This means that the triple is Eilenberg–Pontryagin and the statement follows by Theorem 4. ∎
Remark 16* (The dimensional restriction in Corollary 1 is essential).*
It is shown in [31] that any continuous map is null–cobordant if . Let and be such that and is nontrivial, and let be a non–null–homotopic continuous map. Then there exists an orientable compact PL -manifold with and a continuous map such that . Let be the closed cover of composed of the inverse images of the facets of . Then and is principal. We embed into a Euclidean ball of large dimension and ‘tiny’ diameter, then embed into the product such that the projection of this embedding to yields , and take the induced metric on . Now, let be the identity map. Then is null–cobordant but no set of spherical –neighbors intersects all elements of if the diameter of is sufficiently small.
Corollary 2**.**
Let be a contractible metric space, let be the Euclidean unit -sphere in Euclidean -space , and let be a continuous map. Then there exists a pair of spherical –neighbors such that the Euclidean distance is at least .
Corollary 2 is proved in the next section.
Remark 17*.*
In [22] we show that if with , then the constant in Corollary 2 (the Euclidean distance between the centers of adjacent -simplices of the regular triangulation of ) can be replaced with (the Euclidean distance between vertices of the regular triangulation of ), which is the best possible. Our proof for the Euclidean case is based on the Delaunay triangulations and we do not know whether it extends to all contractible .
Corollary 3**.**
Let be a contractible metric space, let be a convex -polytope, and let be a continuous map. Then a set of spherical –neighbors intersects at least facets of .
Proof via Theorem 1.
Corollary 3 is an ‘equivalent generalization’ of Theorem 1 because the -skeleton of any convex -polytope contains the -skeleton of the -simplex as a topological subspace (see [15]). ∎
Proof via Theorem 3.
Clearly, the cover of composed of the facets of is non–null–homotopic of rank because is a good cover (that is, any intersection of elements in is contractible), so the nerve of has homotopy type of by the nerve theorem, while the maps in the class are homotopy equivalences. Then a set of spherical –neighbors intersects at least facets of by Theorem 3. ∎
Since any collection of facets of the -cube contains a pair of antipodal facets, Corollary 3 implies the following.
Corollary 4**.**
*Let be a contractible metric space, let be the boundary of the -dimensional cube , and let be a continuous map. Then there is a pair of spherical –neighbors intersecting antipodal facets of . *
There exists an example of continuous map showing that the statement of Corollary 4 about spherical –neighbors lying on antipodal facets holds for neither regular octahedron nor regular dodecahedron nor regular icosahedron. A weaker version of Corollary 4 where ‘antipodal’ is replaced with ‘disjoint’ holds for many polytopes.
2.6. Radon type theorems
Definition 10** (Weak Radon polytopes).**
We say that an -polytope is weakly Radon if for any continuous map into any contractible metric space there is a pair of spherical –neighbors intersecting two disjoint faces of .
We recall some standard definitions. A flag polytope is a convex polytope such that every collection of pairwise intersecting facets has a nonempty intersection. A (combinatorial) fullerene is a simple -polytope with all facets pentagons and hexagons.
A ‘visual’ simply checked sufficient condition for weakly Radon polytopes is provided by the so-called belts. A -belt (or a prismatic -circuit) in a -polytope is a cyclic sequence of facets in which pairs of consecutive facets (including ) are adjacent, other pairs of facets do not intersect, and no three facets have a common vertex.
Corollary 5**.**
- (1)
If the -skeleton of a convex -polytope contains the -skeleton of the -cube as a topological subspace, then is weakly Radon. 2. (2)
Each convex -polytope having a -belt with is weakly Radon. 3. (3)
Each flag -polytope is weakly Radon. 4. (4)
Each fullerene is weakly Radon. 5. (5)
The regular dodecahedron and the regular icosahedron are weakly Radon.
Proof.
Assertion (1) follows from Corollary 4 in an obvious way. Assertions (2) and (5) directly follow from assertion (1). Assertion (3) follows from assertion (2) of Corollary 6 given below. Assertion (4) is a particular case of assertion (3). ∎
Definition 11** (Weak Radon rank).**
If is an -polytope, is a metric space, and is a map, we say that two facets and of are spherical –neighbors (or that the pair is a pair of spherical –neighbors) if there is a pair of spherical –neighbors with and . We say that has weak Radon rank if there are exactly distinct pairs of facets of such that each of these pairs is a pair of disjoint spherical –neighbors. By the weak Radon rank of a polytope we mean the least of the weak Radon ranks of continuous maps into contractible metric spaces.
Corollary 4 allows us to obtain rough lower bounds on the weak Radon rank.
Definition 12** (Cubic hemisphere).**
Let be a subset of the boundary of a convex -polytope . We say that is a cubic hemisphere if there exists a homeomorphism such that the restriction of to the -skeleton of is a topological embedding to the -skeleton of and is the image of the union of facets of that have a common vertex.
Definition 13** (Lighthouse independence number).**
We say that a set of vertices of an -polytope is lighthouse independent if no two vertices in share a facet (equivalently, the corresponding facets of the dual polytope are pairwise disjoint). The lighthouse independence number of an -polytope , , is the cardinality of a largest lighthouse independent set of .
Remark 18*.*
The lighthouse independence number of an -polytope equals the cardinality of a largest set of pairwise disjoint facets of the dual polytope.
Corollary 6**.**
- (1)
Let be a convex -polytope. If contains cubic hemispheres with pairwise disjoint interiors, then the weak Radon rank of is at least . 2. (2)
Let be a flag -polytope (e. g., a fullerene). Then the weak Radon rank of is at least half the lighthouse independence number of . 3. (3)
If is a flag simple -polytope with facets and is the largest number of edges in a facet of , then the weak Radon rank of is at least
[TABLE]
where stands for the floor function. 4. (4)
If is a fullerene with facets, then the weak Radon rank of is at least
[TABLE] 5. (5)
The weak Radon rank of the regular dodecahedron is at least . 6. (6)
The weak Radon rank of the regular icosahedron is at least . 7. (7)
The weak Radon rank of the cube is .
Corollary 6 is proved in the next section.
3. Proofs
Proof of Lemma 1.
- We show that .
Let , let denote the simplex spanned by the vertices of the nerve of so that is a subcomplex of , and let . By the definition of the KKM rank there exists a closed cover of with for all such that the dimension of is . Therefore, the union contains . Set
[TABLE]
Since for all , it follows that the nerve contains . We have
[TABLE]
Let be the homotopy class in determined by , and let be a map in . Let be the homotopy class in determined by , and let be a map in . Let be a map in .
Since contains for each , the argument preceding Definition 3 shows that and are homotopic in . By construction, and are homotopic in . Thus, and are homotopic in and hence in as well. By the definition of the EP rank this means that .
- We show that whenever is closed in .
We start by constructing a specific map from the class . Let , and let be a subcomplex in (as in the first part of the proof). Since is normal, there exists an open cover of such that contains for each and the nerve of coincides with that of (see, e. g., [26, Theorem 1.3] and [17, pp. 31–33]). The Urysohn lemma for normal spaces implies that for each there exists a continuous function with and . Then , where , is a partition of unity subordinate to and such that contains for all . Let
[TABLE]
be the corresponding map representing the class (see the construction preceding Definition 3).
Now, let . Then by the definition of the EP rank there exists a continuous map such that the restriction is homotopic to in . The generalizations of Borsuk’s homotopy extension theorem obtained in [27] and [36] imply that, since is closed in , there exists a continuous map with . Then the collection of subsets
[TABLE]
where , , are the coordinate functions of , is a closed cover of such that contains for all and the nerve is contained in so that the dimension of is at most . By the definition of the KKM rank this means that . ∎
Now we state and prove Lemmas 2 and 3, and then deduce Theorem 4 from Lemmas 1, 2, and 3.
Lemma 2**.**
Let be a KKM system of rank , let be a continuous map to a topological space , and let be a family of subsets in such that for all . Then either contains a subset of cardinality such that and or is a KKM system of rank at least .
Remark 19*.*
In Lemma 2 two key special cases are and .
Proof.
If neither nor contains with such that and , then (i) there exists a closed cover of with for all such that the dimension of is less than (by definition) and (ii) the dimension of is less than . Consequently, the dimension of is less than . The collection with is a closed cover of such that for all . The nerve contains . Therefore, the dimension of is less than . This contradicts the assumption that . ∎
Lemma 3**.**
Let be a KKM system of rank with metrizable and all compact, and let be a metric on . Then there exists a closed metric ball
[TABLE]
whose interior intersects no element of and whose boundary sphere touches at least elements of .
Proof.
If is a point and is a subset in , we write
[TABLE]
Let denote the union . For each , we set
[TABLE]
Observe that contains and is closed so that is a closed cover of . Since is a KKM system of rank , it follows by the definition of KKM rank that the set contains a subset of cardinality such that and . Let be a point in . Then the ball of radius centered at meets the requirements of the lemma (since each of is compact). ∎
Proof of Theorem 4.
Since is an Eilenberg–Pontryagin triple, it follows by Lemma 1 that is a KKM system of rank .
Let . Set . Then Lemma 2 implies that we have two possibilities:
- (1)
The dimension of is at least so that contains a subset of cardinality such that and .
- (2)
The pair is a KKM system of rank at least .
In case (1), for any point the set is a set of spherical –neighbors that intersects all elements of , which proves the theorem.
In case (2), the required statement follows by Lemma 3 applied to . ∎
Proof of Corollary 2.
We use a spherical version of Theorem 1. Let be a regular triangulation of the unit sphere , and let , , , be the -simplices of : all of are regular spherical simplices with Euclidean distances between vertices
[TABLE]
and angular edge length
[TABLE]
We recall that the circumradius of a compact set in a metric space is defined as the radius of a least metric ball containing . If is a compact subset of we denote by and , respectively, the circumradius and diameter of with respect to the angular metric, and will stand for the Euclidean diameter of in . Under this notation Dekster’s extension [10] of the Jung theorem says that for any compact subset of we have
[TABLE]
This immediately implies that in the case where we have
[TABLE]
Another auxiliary fact we need is that
[TABLE]
Indeed, observe that is the intersection of a finite number of closed hemispheres and hence its boundary is composed of fragments of great hyperspheres, which are geodesic in . Therefore, if and are two points in such that neither nor is a vertex of , then because contains two geodesic arcs444By geodesic arcs in we mean arcs of great circles. and such that contains in its relative interior and contains in its relative interior. Since is contained in the interior of a hemisphere so that and are not antipodal, it follows that there exist and with (imagine the interposition of , , and the metric ball of diameter containing and ). Thus, if and are two points in such that , then one of and is a vertex of and we easily obtain (4) by considering the regular triangulation of dual (antipodal) to .
Now, we pass to the proof of Corollary 2. If we have a continuous map , then Theorem 1 implies that a finite set of spherical –neighbors intersects all of . We need to prove that
[TABLE]
Let be a metric ball with angular radius containing , let be the center of , let be the antipode of , let be a simplex of containing , and let be the metric ball centred at of angular radius (see (4)). Then contains . Since intersects while and , it follows that intersects . Therefore, we have
[TABLE]
The situation splits in two cases:
- (i)
(i. e., no hemisphere contains );
- (ii)
.
In case (i) we observe that since no hemisphere contains , it follows that no Euclidean ball in of radius less than contains . Then the Jung theorem555A discussion and materials concerning the Jung theorem and containment in hemispheres see in [41], [16], [9, pp. 112, 113, 132–136], [40], [20], [4], and [1, Proposition 2.4]. says that , which implies the required (5).
In case (ii), (3) is applicable and yields
[TABLE]
Remark 20*.*
It would be interesting to find a way to upgrade the above proof of Corollary 2 by considering the family of all regular triangulations of the unit sphere .
Proof of Corollary 6.
(1) Corollary 4 implies that if is a contractible metric space and is a continuous map, then each cubic hemisphere in contains a facet that is a member of a pair of disjoint facets that are spherical –neighbors. The statement follows.
(2) Proposition 3 below implies that if the lighthouse independence number of a flag -polytope is , then contains cubic hemispheres with pairwise disjoint interiors. This implies the required assertion by assertion (1) of the corollary.
Assertions (3) and (4) of Corollary 6 follow from assertion (2) and Proposition 4 below.
Assertions (5) and (6) follow from assertion (2) because the direct check shows that the lighthouse independence number of the regular dodecahedron is , and the lighthouse independence number of the regular icosahedron is .
As for the weak Radon rank of the cube (assertion (7)), Corollary 4 shows that it is at least and an example where is mapped to an oblate spheroid in shows that it is at most . ∎
We say that a vertex of a polytope is cubical if the union of the facets containing is a cubic hemisphere.
Proposition 3**.**
All vertices of a flag -polytope are cubical.
Proof of Proposition 3.
Let be a vertex of a flag -polytope . Observe that no facet of is a triangle (because any triangular facet together with the three adjacent ones form a collection of four pairwise intersecting facets with no common point). Therefore, each facet of containing has a vertex that is not adjacent to . Let , , and be three such vertices lying on three distinct facets containing . Let denote the union of the facets of that do not contain . Then is a topological disk with the points , , and on its boundary. Since if flag, we see that
- •
no facet contained in intersects three of the facets not contained in ,
- •
no facet of splits (in the sense that is connected for each facet ).
This implies that
- •
each of the vertices , , and is incident to an edge of whose second endpoint is contained in the interior of (in particular, the interior of contains at least one vertex of ), and
- •
the subgraph in the -skeleton of induced by the vertices of contained in the interior of is connected.
Thus, each of , , and is adjacent to a vertex of the connected subgraph in . This easily implies that contains a -homeomorphic subgraph that is contained in and intersects the boundary exactly in the set .
Besides, since , , and belong to three distinct facets containing , it follows that there exists a triple of edges in incident to whose endpoints split into three arcs each of which contains exactly one of , , and . Clearly, the union of these edges with and is a graph homeomorphic to the cube -skeleton. This shows that is cubical. ∎
Proposition 4**.**
- (1)
Let be a flag simple -polytope with facets, and let be the largest number of edges in a facet of . Then the lighthouse independence number of is at least
[TABLE] 2. (2)
If is a fullerene with facets, then the lighthouse independence number of is at least
[TABLE]
Proof of Proposition 4.
In the proof if is a vertex of , we denote by the union of facets of that contain .
We construct a lighthouse independent set by the following algorithm. First we choose a vertex of such that the number of vertices in is the least possible and set . The number of vertices in is at most .
At each next step, being given such that a vertex of is not in , we take a vertex of in such that the number of vertices in is the least possible and set . Observe that if a vertex of is not in and adjacent to a vertex in , then shares at least vertices with . This implies that the number of vertices in is at most .
Therefore, if has vertices this algorithm produces a lighthouse independent set , , … with at least
[TABLE]
elements. Since is simple, Euler’s formula yields . This proves the required estimate.
The case of fullerenes follows if we observe that when is a vertex of a pentagon, then the number of vertices in is at most . ∎
4. Concluding remarks
Now we discuss several concepts and open questions.
- (1)
The Hopf theorem. The trefoil curve in Fig. 5 shows that there exists a continuous map with no pair of spherical –neighbors having distance less than between them.
This means that the direct analog of the aforementioned Hopf theorem for spherical –neighbors does not hold for small distances. It would be interesting to find more properties of the set of distances between spherical –neighbors for a continuous map of given metric spaces. For example, Is it true that for any continuous map , the set
[TABLE]
contains a nondegenerate interval? Is there a nonzero lower bound for the diameter of ? 2. (2)
Topological Tverberg theorems. Projecting a Euclidean -sphere into a hyperplane in shows that there exists a continuous map with no set of spherical –neighbors of cardinality exceeding . Consequently, each convex -polytope has a map with no set of spherical –neighbors intersecting three disjoint faces of . This means that no direct analog of topological Tverberg theorems with three or more disjoint faces holds for spherical –neighbors. This correlates with the property (mentioned in Remark 6) that no principal cover has disjoint elements. Nevertheless, we have some analogs of the topological Radon theorem, which is the topological Tverberg theorem for two disjoint faces: see Corollaries 4–6. It would be interesting to find extensions of topological Tverberg theorems for spherical –neighbors with additional restrictions. (See also van Kampen–Flores and Conway–Gordon–Sachs type results [35].) 3. (3)
Weak Radon rank. Describe the set of polyhedra that are not weakly Radon. Find the weak Radon rank for fullerenes. 4. (4)
Minimaxes. Let and be metric spaces, and let be a continuous map. Let be the set of all pairs of spherical –neighbors in . We set
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
where stands for continuous maps. Suppose and . If , then by the Borsuk–Ulam theorem. For , it is shown in [22] that
[TABLE]
It is an interesting problem to find and its lower bounds in general and some special cases. In particular, it would be interesting to find and for the case where and is an -dimensional Riemannian manifold. 5. (5)
Minimaxes 2. Let us fix in (see Definition 3), for instance, in . It is an interesting problem, What is min–max distance between the points of a set intersecting each element of a cover of this class? 6. (6)
Widths, distortion, filling radius, etc. Similarly to , we consider infima of over families of homotopic maps, over all continuous maps of a given space to certain classes of spaces (e. g., contractible spaces), etc. This generates a series of new metric ‘-invariants’ of maps and metric spaces. This -invariants are similar to such invariants as distortion, filling radius, various widths, etc. (see [39, 13, 14, 11, 33, 19, 3]). It is an interesting problem to find and describe relations between -invariants and classical ones. 7. (7)
Topological and visual –neighbors. Let be a map of topological spaces. We say that two points and in are topological –neighbors if and belong to the boundary of the same connected component of the complement . If is a geodesic metric space, we say that and in are visual –neighbors if and are connected by a geodesic, in , whose interior does not meet . It is interesting to translate the above constructions and questions to these new types of –neighbors. 8. (8)
Helly-type sufficient conditions for principal covers. Remark 8 implies some Helly-type sufficient conditions for principal covers. For example, if is a closed cover of a normal space such that and for each with any continuous map is null–homotopic, then there exists a map such that the image of each facet is contained in an element of , so that is principal. (See the proofs of Theorems 5 and 6 in [7].) It is interesting to find out, Which of the other versions of topological Helly theorem (see, e. g., [7, 25]) give sufficient conditions for principal and non–null–homotopic covers?
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Florian Frick, Sergei Ivanov, Roman Karasev, Gaiane Panina, and Arkadiy Skopenkov for helpful discussions and comments. Also, the authors are grateful to the anonymous referees for helpful remarks and suggestions.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Adams, C., F. Morgan, and J. M. Sullivan, “When soap bubbles collide.” Amer. Math. Monthly 114 :4 (2007), 329–337.
- 2[2] Adams, H., J. Bush, and F. Frick, “Metric thickenings, Borsuk–Ulam theorems, and orbitopes.” Mathematika 66 :1 (2020), 79–102.
- 3[3] Akopyan, A., R. Karasev, and A. Volovikov, “Borsuk–Ulam type theorems for metric spaces.” (2012), preprint ar Xiv:1209.1249.
- 4[4] Alexander, R. “The width and diameter of a simplex.” Geom. Dedicata 6 (1977), 87–94.
- 5[5] Bárány, I. and P. Soberón, “Tverberg’s theorem is 50 years old: a survey.” Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 55 :4 (2018), 459–492.
- 6[6] Bárány, I., P. V. M. Blagojević, and G. M. Ziegler, “Tverberg’s theorem at 50: extensions and counterexamples.” Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 63 :7 (2016), 732–739.
- 7[7] Bogatyi, S. A. “Topological Helly theorem.” [In Russian.] Fundam. Prikl. Mat. 8 :2 (2002), 365–405.
- 8[8] Buchstaber, V. M. and N. Yu. Erokhovets, “Fullerenes, polytopes and toric topology.” Combinatorial and toric homotopy, 67–178, Lect. Notes Ser. Inst. Math. Sci. Natl. Univ. Singap., 35, World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2018.
