Orientation of good covers

TL;DR

This paper explores the properties of partial and total 3-orders (P3O and T3O) on orientations, especially those realizable by points or convex sets, and demonstrates the existence of a T3O not realizable as a good cover.

Contribution

It introduces the concept of GC-P3O and proves that some T3O cannot be realized as GC-T3O, addressing an open problem from previous work.

Findings

Existence of a p-T3O not realizable as GC-T3O

Extension of 3-order concepts from convex sets to good covers

New combinatorial and geometric insights into orientation structures

Abstract

We study systems of orientations on triples that satisfy the following so-called interiority condition: $\circlearrowleft(ABD)=~\circlearrowleft(BCD)=~\circlearrowleft(CAD)=1$ implies $\circlearrowleft(ABC)=1$ for any $A,B,C,D$. We call such an orientation a P3O (partial 3-order), a natural generalization of a poset, that has several interesting special cases. For example, the order type of a planar point set (that can have collinear triples) is a P3O; we denote a P3O realizable by points as p-P3O. If we do not allow $\circlearrowleft(ABC)=0$, we obtain a T3O (total 3-order). Contrary to linear orders, a T3O can have a rich structure. A T3O realizable by points, a p-T3O, is the order type of a point set in general position. In our paper "Orientation of convex sets" we defined a 3-order on pairwise intersecting convex sets; such a P3O is called a C-P3O. In this paper we extend this 3-order to pairwise intersecting good covers; such a P3O is called a GC-P3O. If we do not allow $\circlearrowleft(ABC)=0$, we obtain a C-T3O and a GC-T3O, respectively. The main result of this paper is that there is a p-T3O that is not a GC-T3O, implying also that it is not a C-T3O -- this latter problem was left open in our earlier paper. Our proof involves several combinatorial and geometric observations that can be of independent interest. Along the way, we define several further special families of GC-T3O's.