On Vietoris-Rips complexes of Finite Metric Spaces with Scale 2
Ziqin Feng
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849
[email protected]
and
Naga Chandra Padmini Nukala
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Auburn University
Auburn, AL 36849
[email protected]
(Date: January 2023)
Abstract.
We examine the homotopy types of Vietoris-Rips complexes on certain finite metric spaces at scale 2. We consider the collections of subsets of [m]={1,2,…,m} equipped with symmetric difference metric d, specifically, Fnm, Fnm∪Fn+1m, Fnm∪Fn+2m, and F⪯Am. Here Fnm is the collection of size n subsets of [m] and F⪯Am is the collection of subsets ⪯A where ⪯ is a total order on the collections of subsets of [m] and A⊆[m] (see the definition of ⪯ in Section 1). We prove that the Vietoris-Rips complexes VR(Fnm,2) and VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) are either contractible or homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S2’s; also, the complexes VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2) and VR(F⪯Am,2) are either contractible or homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s. We provide inductive formulae for these homotopy types extending the result of Barmak in [4] about the independence complexes of Kneser graphs KG2,k and the result of Adamaszek and Adams in [2] about Vietoris-Rips complexes of hypercube graphs with scale 2.
Key words and phrases:
Vietories-Rips Complexes, Simplicial Complexes, Homotopy Types, Kneser Graphs, Hypercube Graphs
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
05E45, 55P10, 55N31
1. Introduction
Along with the development of topological data analysis [10, 6], determining the homotopy types of Vietoris-Rips complex of finite metric spaces has become crucial in applied topology. In fact, the idea behind persistent homology is to compute the (co)homology of a Vietoris-Rips complex filtration built on data, which is typically a finite metric space in high dimensions ([5]).
Vietoris-Rips complexes were introduced by Vietoris in [17] and then by Rips (see [12]) to approximate a metric space at a chosen scale for different purposes. Additionally, these kinds of complexes have been intensively used in computational topology as a simplical model for the sensor networks ([11, 13, 14]) and as a tool for image processing ([15]).
The Vietoris-Rips complex VR(X;r) of a metric space (X,d) with scale r≥0 is a simplicial complex with vertex set X, where a nonempty subset σ∈[X]<∞ is a simplex in VR(X;r) if and only if its diameter satisfies diam(σ)≤r. Here, [X]<∞ denotes the collection of all finite subsets of X, and for any subset S of X diam(S) is defined as the supremum of all distances d(x,y) between pairs of points x,y∈S. Recent work has focused on studying Vietoris-Rips complexes of circles ([1]), metric graphs ([7]), geodesic spaces ([18, 19]), and more.
In this paper, we investigate the homotopy type of the Vietoris-Rips complex VR(F,2) of a specific class of finite metric spaces with scale 2. Let F be a collection of subsets of [m] for some m∈N, where [m]={1,2,…,m}. We define a metric d on F such that, for any A and B in F, d(A,B)=∣AΔB∣, where AΔB denotes the symmetric difference of A and B, i.e., (A∖B)∪(B∖A). Hence, (F,d) is a finite metric space. In this paper, we study the homotopy types of the Vietoris-Rips compelxes, VR(Fnm,2) (Section 4), VR(F⪯Am,2) (Section 5), and VR(Fnm∪Fn′m,2) (Section 6), where Fnm, F⪯Am, and Fnm∪Fn′m are all collections of subsets of [m]. We show that:
the complexes VR(Fnm,2) and VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) are either contractible or homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S2’s;
the complexes VR(F⪯Am,2) and VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2) are either contractible or homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s.
Furthermore, we identify inductive formulas for determining the homotopy types of these complexes. The homotopy type of VR(F,r) for r≥0 is closely related to the study of the independence complex of Kneser graphs in [4] and the Vietoris-Rips complexes of hypercube graphs in [2].
The independence complex I(G) of a graph G=(V(G),E(G)) is a simplicial complex whose simplices are the independent sets of vertices of G, i.e., sets of vertices no two of which are adjacent. The Kneser graph KGn,k has the n-subsets of [2n+k] as its vertices and its edges are given by pairs of disjoint such subsets. In particular, any two vertices in KGn,k are not disjoint if and only if their symmetric difference distance is at most 2n−1. Therefore, the independence complex of KGn,k is identical to the Vietoris-Rips complex VR(Fn2n+k,2n−1), where Fnm denotes the collection of all n-subsets of [m].
Barmak proved in [4] (Theorem 4.11) that the independence complex of KG2,k, I(KG2,k), is homotopy equivalent to ⋁(3k+3)S2. For any m≥4, note that VR(F2m,2)=VR(F2m,3)=I(KG2,m−4); thus, the complex VR(F2m,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (3m−1) copies of S2. Our result on the homotopy types of VR(Fnm,2) (Corollary 11) is a generalization of Barmak’s result. When m=2n, the complex VR(Fnm,m−2) has (nm) vertices and is the boundary of a cross-polytope, so it is homotopy equivalent to S21(nm)−1.
The hypercube graph is a graph whose vertices are all binary strings of length m, denoted by Qm, and whose edges are given by pairs of such strings with Hamming distance 1. The Hamming distance between any two binary strings with the same length is defined as the number of positions in which their entries differ. We can consider Qm as a metric space equipped with the Hamming distance, and then the hypercube graph can be identified as the complex VR(Qm,1).
Adamaszek and Adams investigated the Vietoris-Rips complexes VR(Qm,r) at small scales r=0,1,2 in their recent work [2]. The complex VR(Qm,0) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (2m−1)-many S0’s, and VR(Qm,1) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of ((m−2)2m−1+1)-many S1’s. Their main result is that the complex VR(Qm,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of cm copies of S3’s, where cm is given by cm=∑0≤j<i<m(j+1)(2m−2−2i−1). The Čech complexes of the metric space Qm with scales 2 and 3 are studied in [3].
Each binary string of length m can also be considered as the characteristic function of a subset of [m]. Hence, there is a natural isometric map between the metric spaces Qm and P([m]), where P([m]) is the collection of all subsets of [m] equipped with the symmetric difference metric d. Notice that P([m]) contains the empty set ∅ as an element. Hence the result about the homotopy type of VR(Qm,2) by Adamaszek and Adams is a special case of Theorem 16 which gives a deeper understanding on how its homotopy type is formed. Adamaszek and Adams in [2] used Polymake [8] and Ripser++ [20] to compute the reduced homology groups of VR(P[m],3) for m=5,6,…,9, with coefficients Z or Z/2Z. They found that these homology groups are nontrivial only in dimensions 4 and 7, indicating that the complex VR(P[m],3) is a wedge sum of copies of S4’s and S7’s. This suggests that the homotopy type of the complex VR(P[m],3) is more complicated than that of the complexes VR(P[m],r) with r=0,1,2. Shukla [16] subsequently proved that for m≥5, the reduced homology group H~i(VR(P([m]),3)) is nontrivial if and only if i∈{4,7}.
In this paper, we extend the study of Vietoris-Rips complexes to other collections of subsets in [m] with scale 2 beyond F2m and P[m]. To determine the homotopy type of VF(P[m],2), Adamaszek and Adams in [2] used an inductive proof on the clique complex of the graph Gℓ2, whose vertices are binary sequences of non-negative integers ≤ℓ−1 with edges given by pairs of sequences with Hamming distance ≤2. We adopt a different inductive process to study these complexes and our approach is also potentially applicable to the investigation of these complexes at larger scales.
We start with introducing notations for certain collections of subsets of [m]. For n≤m, let F≤nm be the collection of all subsets of [m] with cardinality ≤n. It is easy to see that the complex VR(F≤rm,r) is contractible since it is a cone with the cone vertex being the empty set ∅. We now proceed to define a total ordering ≺ on P([m]) to facilitate the conduction of induction process. For each A⊆[m] with ∣A∣=n, we represent A={i1,i2,…,in} as i1i2⋯in with i1<i2<⋯<in. For any A,B⊆[m], we say A≺B if one of the followings holds:
∣A∣<∣B∣;
there is a k∈N such that ik<jk and iℓ=jℓ for any ℓ<k, when n=∣A∣=∣B∣, A=i1i2⋯in and B=j1j2⋯jn.
Clearly this is a total order on P([m]) and for any subcollection F of P([m]), (F,≺) is also a total order. For any A⊂[m], we denote F≺Am={B:B≺A and B⊂[m]} and F⪯Am=F≺Am∪{A}. Notice that the set [m] is the maximal elements in P([m]); hence if A=[m], F⪯Am=P([m]).
We start with some easy observations of the homotopy types of such complexes. For any collection F of subsets of [m], VR(F,0) is a complex with ∣F∣-many disjoint vertices. Also for any 1≤n≤m−1, VR(Fnm,1) is also the space of (nm) disjoint vertices since d(A,B)≥2 for any two different subsets A,B with cardinality n. Also for each i=0,1,…,m, the metric space Fim is isometric to Fm−im since the complementary mapping with ϕ(A)=[m]∖A preserves the symmetric distance from Fim to Fm−im. Therefore VR(Fim,r) is homotopy equivalent to VR(Fm−im,r) for each r≥0. We see that the complexes VR(F1m,2) and VR(Fm−1m,2) are contractible because each pair of their vertices has distance 2. Hence the complex VR(Fnm,2) is contractible when n=0,1,m−1, or m. Similarly the complexes VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) is contractible if n=0 or m−1.
2. Notations and Preliminary Results
Topological Spaces and Wedge sums. Let X and Y be topological spaces. We write X≃Y when they are homotopy equivalent. We denote Sk to be the k-dimensional sphere. The wedge sum of X and Y, X∨Y, is the space obtained by gluing X and Y together at a single point. The homotopy type of X∨Y is independent of the choice of points if X and Y are connected CW complexes. For k≥1, ⋁kX denotes the k-fold wedge sum of X. We denote ΣX to be the suspension of X. For any sphere Sk, ΣSk is homeomorphic to Sk+1. A function f from X to Y is said to be null-homotopic if it is homotopic to a constant map. It is well-known that any mapping from Sn to Sm is null-homotopic when n<m.
Any two metric spaces (X,dX) and (Y,dY) are said to be isometric if there is a bijective distance-preserving map f from X to Y, i.e., dX(x1,x2)=dY(f(x1),f(x2)) for any x1,x2∈X. Hence if X and Y are isometric, then it is straightforward to verify that VR(X,r) is homeomorphic to VR(Y,r) for any r≥0.
A cross-polytope with 2n vertices is a regular, convex polytope that exists in n-dimensional Euclidean space. So it homeomorphic to the unit ball in Rn whose boundary is homeomorphic to Sn−1.
Simplicial complexes. A simplicial complex K on a vertex set V is a collection of non-empty subsets of V such that: i) all singletons are in K; and ii) if σ∈K and τ⊂σ, then τ∈K. For a complex K, we use K(k) to represent the k-skeleton of K, which is a subcomplex of K. For vertices v1,v2,…,vk in a complex K, if they span a simplex in K, then we denote the simplex to be {v1,v2,…,vk}. If σ and τ are simplices in K with σ⊂τ, we say σ is a face of τ. We say a simplex is a maximal simplex (or a facet) if it is not a face of any other simplex. We say that L is a full subcomplex of K if it contains all the simplicies in K spanned by the vertices in L.
A complex K is a clique complex if the following condition holds: a non-empty subset σ of vertices is in K given that the edge {v,w} is in K for any pair v,w∈σ. For any graph G=(V,E), we denote Cl(G) to be the clique complex of G whose vertex set is V and Cl(G) contains a finite subset σ⊂V as a simplex if each pair of vertices in σ forms an edge in G. Also, we see that the Vietoris-Rips complex over any metric space is a clique complex by the definition.
Let L be a complex and v be a vertex not in L. The cone over L with the vertex v, denoted by v∗L, is a simplical complex defined on the vertex set L(0)∪{v} such that a simplex of v∗L is either a simplex in L or a simplex in L adjoined with v. Notice that any cone is contractible.
The following result is proved in [9]. This is an important method to investigate the homotopy type of a complex by splitting it into two or more subcomplexes.
Lemma 1**.**
Let K be a simplical complex. Suppose that K=K1∪K2 and the inclusion maps 1:K1∩K2→K1 and 2:K1∩K2→K2 are both null-homotopic. Then
[TABLE]
The next lemma (see [2], Lemma 1) is an easy corollary of this result. For any vertex v in a complex K, K∖v denote the induced complex on the vertex set K(0)∖{v}. The star of a vertex v in K is stK(v)={σ:σ∪{v}∈K}. Hence for any v∈V, stK(v) is contractible because it is a cone over lkK(v) with the vertex v, namely v∗lkK(v), where lkK(v)={σ:σ∪{v}∈K and v∈/σ}.
Lemma 2**.**
If v is a vertex in K with the inclusion map :lkK(v)→K being null-homotopic, then K is homotopic to K∖v∨Σ(lkK(v)).
Proof.
Let v be a vertex in K such that the inclusion map :lkK(v)→K is null-homotopic. It is straightforward to verify that K=stK(v)∪K∖v. Since stK(v) is contractible, the inclusion from lkK(v) to stK(v) is also null-homotopic. Notice that (K∖v)∩stK(v)=lkK(v). Hence by Lemma 1 and the fact that stK(v) is contractible,
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 3**.**
If σ is a k-simplex and Kσ is the simplicial complex generated by σ, then Kσ(n) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (n+1k)-many of Sn for any n<k.
Proof.
Assume σ={v0,v1,…,vk} and Kσ is the simplicial complex generated by σ. Denote K=Kσ(n). Notice that there are (n+1k)-many n-simplices which don’t contain v0. List such n-simplices as τ1,τ2,…,τ(n+1k). Then K=stK(v0)∪⋃{Kτi:i=1,2,…,(n+1k)} where Kτi is the simplicial complex generated by τi for each i. Next we show that K≃⋁(n+1k)Sn by induction.
First notice that stK(v0)∩Kτ1 is the boundary of τ1, and hence is homotopy equivalent to Sn−1. Since both stK(v0) and Kτ1 are contractible, the inclusion maps from their intersection to each of them are null-homotopic. By Lemma 2, stK(v0)∪Kτ1≃ΣSn−1≃Sn. Then inductively, K≃⋁(n+1k)Sn. ∎
Also in this paper for convenience, we set ∑i=abf(i)=0 when b<a, where f is a function on the set of natural numbers.
3. Star Cluster of a subcomplex
To investigate the topology of the independence complex of graphs, Barmak [4] introduced a general tool using which he answered a question arisen from works of Engström and Jonsson and investigated lots of examples appearing from literature. It turns out this concept is a powerful tool to understand general simplicial complexes. For any subcomplex L of K, we define the star cluster of L in K as the subcomplex
[TABLE]
If σ is a simplex in K, Barmak in [4] proved that SCK(σ) is contractible, hence homotopy equivalent to σ. In general, given that L is a subcomplex of K, SCK(L) is not homotopy equivalent to L as showed in the example below.
Example 4**.**
Let K=VR(P([2]),1) and L be the full subcomplex with vertices {∅,{1},{2}}. Then L is contractible but in the other hand, SCK(L)=K which is homotopy equivalent to S1.
\emptyset$$\{1\}$$\{1,2\}$$\{2\}
Next, we’ll give a sufficient condition under which the star cluster of a subcomplex L in K is homotopy equivalent to L. This result is a generalization of Barmak’s result about SCK(σ) being contractible for any simplex σ in K; and it is also heavily used to determine the homotopy type of simplicial complexes in this paper.
Lemma 5**.**
Let K be a clique complex and L a clique subcomplex of K. Suppose that the edge {v,w} is in L for any pair v,w∈L(0) with (stK(v)∩stK(w))∖L=∅. Then the following hold:
L* is a full subcomplex of K;*
for any collection of vertices, v1,v2,…,vℓ in L, the complex L′=L∪⋃i=1ℓstK(vi)) is homotopy equivalent to L.
In particular, ii) implies that SCK(L) is homotopy equivalent to L.
Proof.
First we prove i). Let σ={w0,w1,…,wk} be a simplex in K and wj∈L for each j=0,1,…,k. Take an arbitrary pair wj,wj′ of vertices from σ with j=j′. Suppose, for contradiction, that {wj,wj′}∈/L. Since the 1-simplex {wj,wj′} is in K, it is in both stK(wj) and stK(wj′). Hence, stK(wj)∩stK(wj′)∖L=∅. Then by the assumption the edge {wj,wj′}∈L which is a contradiction. Therefore each pair of vertices in σ forms an edge in L. Since L is a clique complex, σ∈L.
We’ll prove ii) by induction. Suppose that the vertices v1,v2,…,vk−1 in L satisfy that the complex L0=L∪⋃{stK(vi):i=1,2,…,k−1}≃L. When k=1, L0=L and the result holds. Let vk be any other vertex in L and L1=L0∪stK(vk). We’ll show that L1≃L.
We claim that L0∩stK(vk)=stL0(vk). Note that both stK(vk) and stL0(vk) are contractible, hence so is Σ(stL0(vk)). Then by Lemma 1 and the inductive assumption,
[TABLE]
Next we prove our claim above. The inclusion stL0(vk)⊆L0∩stK(vk) is clear from definition. Then, take a simplex σ∈L0∩stK(vk) and we’ll prove σ∈stL0(vk) in the following two cases.
Suppose that all the vertices of σ are in L. Since σ∈stK(vk), σ∪{vk} is a simplex in K whose vertices are in L. Then by i), σ∪{vk}∈L⊆L0; hence σ∈stL0(vk).
Suppose that the simplex σ contains at least one vertex not in L. Then clearly σ∈/L. Because σ∈L0, then there exists at lease one k0 with 1≤k0≤k−1 such that σ∈stK(vk0). So σ∪{vk0} is a simplex in K. Since σ∈stK(vk), σ∪{vk} is also a simplex in K. Also note that σ∈(stK(vk0)∪stK(vk))∖L. By the assumption {vk0,vk} is an edge in K. Since K is a clique complex, σ∪{vk0,vk} is a simplex in K; and this simplex is in stK(vk0)⊆L0. Hence the simplex σ∪{vk0,vk} is in stL0(vk) which implies that σ is also in stL0(vk).
∎
Next, we give a way to split a complex K into a union of two subcomplexes using star clustering. Then we could apply Lemma 1 to investigate the homotopy type of the complex K.
Lemma 6**.**
Let K be a simplicial complex and K1,K2 be subcomplexes of K such that
K(0)=K1(0)∪K2(0);
K2* is a full subcomplex of K.*
Then K=SCK(K1)∪K2.
Proof.
Let σ be a simplex of K. If one of σ’s vertices, namely v, is in K1, then σ∈stK(v)⊆SCK(K1); otherwise, σ∈K2 by the assumption.
∎
4. Vietoris-Rips Complex VR(Fnm,2)
Starting from this section, each vertex of a complex is a subset of [m] and we’ll use A, B, C, or D to represent them. For any subset C of [m], denote N[C]={A∈P([m]):C⊂A and ∣A∖C∣=1} and L[C]={A∈P([m]):A⊂C and ∣C∖A∣=1}.
Fix n,m∈N with n<m. For any {i1,i2,…,in,in+1}∈[m] with i1<i2<…<in<in+1, we get that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
here, i1i2⋯ij^⋯in+1 is defined to be {i1,i2,…,in,in+1}∖{ij} for each j.
Lemma 7**.**
Assume that m≥n+2 with n≥2 and {i1,i2,…,in+1}⊆[m]. Then N[i1,i2,..,in−1] and L[i1,i2,…,in+1] are maximal simplices in the complex VR(Fnm,2).
Proof.
It is straightforward to verify that N[i1,i2,…,in−1] is an (m−n)-simplex and L[i1,i2,…,in+1] is an n-simplex in VR(Fnm,2).
First, we show that N[i1,i2,…,in−1] is a maximal simplex in VR(Fnm,2). Let A be an n-subset of [m] such that A∈/N[i1,i2,…,in−1]. Without loss of generality, we assume that i1∈/A, then we pick i,j∈A∖{i1,i2,…,in−1} and k∈[m]∖{i,j,i1,i2,…,in−1}. Let B={i1,i2,…,in−1,k} which is clearly in N[i1,i2,…,in−1]. Clearly, d(A,B)≥4 since {i,j,k,i1}⊆AΔB. Hence N[i1,i2,..,in−1] is a maximal simplex in VR(Fnm,2).
Next, we show that L[i1,i2,…,in+1] is a maximal simplex in VR(Fnm,2). Let A be an n-subset of [m] such that A∈/L[i1,i2,…,in+1]. Then there is an i∈[m]∖{i1,i2,…,in+1} such that i∈A. Suppose A∩{i1,i2,…,in+1}=∅. Then we can pick B∈L[i1,i2,…,in+1] such that ({i1,i2,…,in+1}∖A)⊂B. Then ∣A∖B∣≥1 since i∈A∖B. Also, ∣B∖A∣≥2 since at least 2 elements in {i1,i2,…,in+1} are not in A. So d(A,B)≥3. If A∩{i1,i2,…,in+1}=∅, d(A,B)≥2n≥4 for any B∈L[i1,i2,…,in+1]. Hence L[i1,i2,…,in+1] is a maximal simplex in VR(Fnm,2). ∎
For convenience in this paper, we will use N[i1,i2,…,in−1] or L[i1,i2,…,in+1] to represent both a simplex and the subcomplex generated by the simplex in VR(Fnm,2) or any other complexes containing them.
For a complex K, let M(K) be the collection of maximal simplices in K. Clearly K=⋃M(K). Hence it is important to understand the collection of maximal simplices in a complex. Next, we show that there are only these two of maximal simplices in VR(Fnm,2).
Lemma 8**.**
Fix n,m∈N with 1<n<m. Let K be the complex VR(Fnm,2).
Any maximal simplex σ in K is either N[i1,i2,..,in−1] or L[i1,i2,..,in+1] for i1,i2,i3,...,in+1∈[m] with i1<i2<...<in<in+1.
For any k≥2 and {A1,A2,…,Ak+1} being a k-simplex in K such that ∣⋂ℓ=1k+1Aℓ∣<n−1, the only maximal simplex containing {A1,A2,…,Ak+1} as a face is L[A1∪A2].
Proof.
To prove i), we pick a maximal simplex σ in the complex K.
Note that the vertices of K are subsets of [m]. Hence, σ is a collection of subsets of [m] and ⋂σ⊂[m]. If ∣⋂σ∣=n−1, then clearly σ is one of the simplices in the form N[i1,i2,..,in−1].
We claim that the size of the set ⋂σ can’t be greater than [math] and less than n−1. For the purpose of contradiction, we suppose that 0<∣⋂σ∣<n−1. Let ∣⋂σ∣=k with 0<k<n−1 and list ⋂σ as {i1,i2,⋯,ik}. Pick A∈σ such that A∖⋂σ={j1,j2,…,jn−k}. For each ℓ=1,2,…,n−k, pick Bℓ∈σ such that jℓ∈/Bℓ. Also ∣Bℓ∖A∣=1 because d(Bℓ,A)=2 for each ℓ. Since k<n−1, n−k≥2. Then we let i0 be the number in B1∖A and j0 be the number in B2∖A. If i0=j0, then the B1ΔB2={j1,i0,j2,j0} which is a contradiction. So i0=j0. Therefore, by induction, Bℓ∖A={i0} for each ℓ=1,2,…,n−k. Then if C={i0,i2,…,ik,j1,…jn−k}, then CΔA={i0,i1} and CΔBℓ={i1,jℓ} for each ℓ=1,2,…,n−k, i.e., d(C,A)=2 and d(C,Bℓ)=2 for each ℓ=1,2,…,n−k. If C is in σ, then i1∈/⋂σ; and if C is not in σ, then σ is not a maximal simplex. These contradictions show that it is impossible that 0<∣⋂σ∣<n−1.
Now we suppose that ⋂σ=∅. Pick A∈σ and represent A as i1i2⋯in. For each ℓ=1,2,…,n, there exists Bℓ∈σ such that iℓ∈/Bℓ. Using the argument above, we can show that Bℓ∖A=Bℓ′∖A for each ℓ,ℓ′=1,2,…,n. Denote B1∖A={in+1}. Then clearly σ=L[i1,i2,…,in+1].
To prove ii), we start with a k-simplex {A1,A2,…,Ak+1} in K such that ∣⋂ℓ=1k+1Aℓ∣<n−1 and k≥2. Then if σ is a maximal simplex in K such that {A1,A2,…,Ak+1}⊆σ, then ⋂σ=∅ by the argument above, and hence σ is in the form L[i1,i2,…,in+1]. Clearly A1∪A2⊆{i1,i2,…,in+1} which means A1∪A2={i1,i2,…,in+1} because ∣A1∪A2∣=n+1. It is clear that no other maximal simplex contains this simplex. ∎
We need one more result before the discussion of the homotopy types of the complex VR(Fnm,2). Assume n≥1. Fix a number a∈[m], let Sa={A:A∈Fnm and a∈A}. There is a natural isometric mapping between the metric spaces Fn−1m−1 and Sa. Hence VR(Fn−1m−1,2) is homeomorphic to VR(Sa,2). Next, we show that the homotopy type of the star cluster of the latter in K remains the same.
Lemma 9**.**
Let n,m be in N such that n<m. Define S1={A⊂[m]:∣A∣=n and 1∈A} and let L be the complex VR(S1,2). Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let K=VR(Fnm,2). We’ll show that the condition in Lemma 5 is satisfied. Then the result follows.
Pick vertices A and B in L such that {A,B} is not an edge in L, i.e., ∣AΔB∣≥4. Hence there exist natural numbers i1,i2,j1, and j2 such that {i1,i2}⊆A∖B and {j1,j2}⊆B∖A. Suppose, for contradiction, that (stK(A)∩stK(B))∖L=∅. We pick a vertex C∈(stK(A)∩stK(B))∖L. Clearly 1∈/C. We claim that A∖{1}⊂C, otherwise there exists i0=1 such that i0∈A∖C, whence ∣A∖C∣≥2 which is a contradiction. Similarly, B∖{1}⊂C. Therefore, {i1,i2,j1,j2}⊂C. Notice that (A∩B)∖{1} has size ≤n−3. Suppose that ∣(A∩B)∖{1}∣=n−3. Then the vertex C has n+1 elements because (A∩B)∖{1}⊂C and {i1,i2,j1,j2}⊂C. This means that C has at least n+1 elements which is a contradiction. This finishes the proof. ∎
Now we are ready to give a complete characterization of the homotopy types of VR(Fnm,2).
Theorem 10**.**
Suppose that 1<n<m−1. The complex VR(Fnm,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of spheres. Specifically,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Notice that the complex VR(F1m−1,2) is contractible. Hence the result holds when n=2 by Barmak’s result mentioned above.
Assume that n>2 and VR(Fn−1m−1,2) is homotopic to a wedge sum of spheres S2. We denote K=VR(Fnm,2). As in Lemma 9, let S1={A⊂[m]:∣A∣=n and 1∈A} and L be the complex VR(S1,2). Then, the complex L is homotopy equivalent to VR(Fn−1m−1,2) which is a wedge sum of S2’s by the assumption. Also by Lemma 9, the star cluster SCK(L) is homotopy equivalent to L.
Now we examine the collection of maximal simplices in K to decide which of them is not in SCK(L). Notice that any maximal simplex in the form N[i1,i2,…,in−1] or L[1,i1,…,in] contains at least one vertex containing 1 for any i1,i2,…,in∈[m]; hence any such simplex is in SCK(L). Therefore in the complement of SCK(L), namely K∖SCK(L), there is only one kind of maximal simplicies in the form L[i1,i2,…,in+1] with ik=1 for any k=1,2,…,n+1; and there are (n+1m−1)-many such simplices and list them as {σ1,σ2,…,σ(n+1m−1)}. Here, Kσℓ is the complex generated by σℓ for each ℓ=1,2,…,(n+1m−1).
For each ℓ with 1≤ℓ≤(n+1m−1), we denote Lℓ to be the complex whose maximal simplices are {σj:j=1,2,…,ℓ}. Hence the complex L(n+1m−1) is the complex VR(S2,2) where S2 is the collection of n-subsets of [m] not containing 1. Therefore, K=SCK(L)∪L(n+1m−1).
We claim that SCK(L)∪Lℓ is homotopic to (⋁ℓ⋅(2n)S2)∨VR(Fn−1m−1,2) for each ℓ=1,2,…,(n+1m−1). This claim finishes the proof. Next, we’ll prove this claim by induction. For convenience, denote L0=∅.
Suppose, for induction, that
[TABLE]
This holds when ℓ=1 since L0=∅. Then SCK(L)∪Lℓ=SCK(L)∪Lℓ−1∪{Kσℓ}. Denote σℓ to be L[i1,i2,…,in+1] where ik=1 for each k=1,2,…,n+1. Next we’ll find the homotopy type of (SCK(L)∪Lℓ−1)∩{Kσℓ}.
For any vertex B∈Kσℓ, B∈L[{1}∪B]⊂SCK(L). Hence the [math]-skeleton of Kσℓ is contained in SCK(L). Let {B1,B2} be a 1-simplex in Kσℓ. Then ∣B1∩B2∣=n−1. Because N[B1∩B2] is in SCK(L), the edge {B1,B2} is in SCK[L]. So the 1-skeleton Kσℓ(1) of Kσℓ is also contained in SCK(L). Moreover, any k-simplex with k≥2 in Kσℓ is not in SCK(L); otherwise such a k-simplex would be contained in a maximal simplex which has a vertex containing 1 and hence is different from σℓ. This leads to a contradiction by ii) in Lemma 8. For any ℓ′=1,2,…,ℓ−1, the intersection of the complexes Kσℓ′ and Kσℓ contains at most one vertex because of their definitions. Therefore, (SCK(L)∪Lℓ−1)∩Kσℓ=Kσℓ(1). Recall that σℓ is an n-simplex, hence Kσℓ(1) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (2n)-many copies of S1’s by Lemma 3.
Notice that Kσℓ(1) is null-homotopic in Kσℓ because Kσℓ is contractible. Also, Kσℓ(1) is null-homotopic in SCK(L)∪Lℓ−1 because the homotopy type of former is a wedge sum of S1’s and the homotopy type of latter is a wedge sum of S2’s. Therefore by Lemma 1, SCK(L)∪Lℓ is homotopy equivalent to Σ(⋁(2n)S1)∨(SCK(L)∪Lℓ−1) which is by inductive assumption (∨ℓ(2n)S2)∨SCK(L). This finishes the proof because SCK(L)≃L≃VR(Fn−1m−1,2).
∎
By an inductive calculation, we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 11**.**
Suppose that 1<n<m−1. The complex VR(Fnm,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of ∑k=2n(k+1m+k−1−n)(2k)-many copies of S2’s.
5. Vietoris-Rips Complex VR(F⪯Am,2)
In this section, we’ll determine the homotopy type of VR(F⪯A,2) for A∈P([m]) with ∣A∣=n.
As in the discussion in Section 1, VR(F≤rm,r) is a cone with cone vertex being the empty set, hence contractible;
and similarly VR(F≥m−rm,r) is also contractible. Hence, for any A⊂[m] with ∣A∣≤2, the complex VR(F⪯Am,2) is contractible. So in this section, we will discuss the homotopy type of VR(F⪯Am,2) with ∣A∣≥3.
The following lemma is easy to prove, but heavily used in the discussion of VR(F⪯Am,2).
Lemma 12**.**
For any A,B∈P[m] with ∣A∣<∣B∣, d(A,B)≤2 if and only if A⊂B and ∣B∖A∣≤2.
Proof.
If A⊂B and ∣B∖A∣≤2, then d(A,B)=∣(A∖B)∪(B∖A)∣≤2.
Now we suppose A∖B=∅, i.e. ∣A∖B∣≥1. Since ∣A∣<∣B∣, ∣B∖A∣≥2, therefore d(A,B)≥3. If A⊂B and ∣B∖A∣>2, then d(A,B)=∣B∖A∣>2. This finishes the proof.
∎
Next, we’ll discuss the homotopy type of VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) using a similar approach as in the proof of Theorem 10.
Theorem 13**.**
Suppose that 1<n<m−1. Then the complex VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (∑k=2n(k+1m+k−1−n)⋅(2k)+(n+2m)⋅(2n+1))-many copies of S2.
Proof.
Let K=VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) and K0=VR(Fnm,2). By Corollary 11, the complex K0 is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of ∑k=2n(k+1m+k−1−n)⋅(2k)-many copies of S2’s.
We claim that SCK(K0)≃K0. We proceed to show that the condition in Lemma 5 is satisfied. Hence this claim holds. Take a B∈Fn+1m such that B∈stK(D)∩stK(D′) for D,D′∈Fnm. Then d(B,D)=d(B,D′)=2, hence by Lemma 12, D,D′ are both subsets of B which implies that d(D,D′)=2. This finishes the proof of the claim.
By Lemma 8, there are two types of maximal simplicies in VR(Fn+1m,2). If σ is a maximal simplex VR(Fn+1m,2) which can be represented in the form N[i1,i2,…,in], clearly {i1i2⋯in}∪N[i1,i2,…,in] is a simplex in K; hence N[i1,i2,…,in]∈SCK(K0).
Now we look at the second type of maximal simplices in VR(Fn+1m,2). There are (n+2m)-many type of maximal simplicies in VR(Fn+1m,2) which are in the form L[i1,i2,…,in+2]; and list such (n+1)-simplicies as {σ1,σ2,…,σ(n+2m)}. Denote Lℓ=SCK(K0)∪⋃j=1ℓKσj for ℓ=1,2,…,(n+2m). Recall that the complex Kσj is the complex generated by the simplex σj for j=1,2,…,(n+2m).
Assume for induction that Lℓ−1 is homotopic to
[TABLE]
This is clearly true when ℓ=1. We claim that Lℓ−1∩Kσℓ=Kσℓ(1) which is homotopic to ⋁(2n+1)S1 and hence is null-homotopic in both Lℓ−1 and Kσℓ. By Lemma 1, this implies that Lℓ is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (∑k=2n(k+1m+k−1−n)⋅(2k)+ℓ⋅(2n+1))-many S2. This finishes the proof. Next, we’ll prove our claim.
By part ii) of Lemma 8, any 2-simplex in Kσℓ is not in Lℓ−1. Let {B1,B2} be a 1-simplex in Kσℓ. Then B1∩B2 is an n-subset, i.e., a vertex in K0; so {B1,B2,B1∩B2} is a 2-simplex in K which means {B1,B2}∈stK(B1∩B2). This shows that Lℓ−1∩Kσℓ=Kσℓ(1). ∎
To identify the homotopy types of K=VR(F⪯Am,2) with ∣A∣≥3, we’ll use Lemma 2 by taking the vertex A so that K=(K∖A)∪stK(A). So the key is to understand the link of A in K, lkK(A). Next lemma shows that lkK(A) is a wedge sum of S2’s.
Note that when n=3, ∑k=2n−2(2k) is set to be [math] as introduced in Section 2.
Lemma 14**.**
Suppose that m≥n>2 and A=i1i2⋯in∈P([m]).
Denote i0=−1 and define dℓ=iℓ−(iℓ−1+1) for each ℓ=1,2,…,n. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let K=VR(F⪯Am,2). Note that for any B with ∣B∣≤n−3, d(A,B)≥3. Next we divide the vertices in the link of the vertex A in K, lkK(A), into the following pairwise disjoint collections Gk for k=0,1,…,in−1. These collections are defined as the following:
G0={B∈P:∣B∣<n and d(B,A)=2};
for k∈{1,2,…,in−1}∖{i1,i2,…,in−1} , Gk contains all the B′s with ∣B∣=n such that B contains k, all ij’s with ij<k, all but one of ij’s with ij>k;
Gin−1 contains all the B’s with ∣B∣=n such that {i1,i2,…,in−1}⊂B and B contains any other number between in−1 and in.
Gij=∅ for j=1,2,…,n−2 for the purpose of convenience.
By Lemma 12, G0 contains all the B’s such that B⊂A and ∣B∣=n−1 or n−2. Also, it is clear that ⋃k=1in−1Gk contains all the B’s such that B≺A, d(A,B)=2, and ∣B∣=n. Hence lkK(A)=VR(⋃k=0in−1Gk,2). For each k=0,1,…,in−1, we define Kk=VR(Gk,2) if Gk=∅ and K≤k=VR(⋃i=0kGi,2). Hence lkK(A)=K≤in−1.
Since G0 is the collection of all (n−2)-subsets and (n−1)-subsets of the n-set A, the complex K0 is homeomorphic to VR(Fn−2n∪Fn−1n,2); hence by Theorem 13, the complex K0=K≤0 is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (∑k=2n−2(2k)+(2n−1))-many copies of S2’s.
Since Gij=∅ for j=1,2,…,n−2, the complex K≤ij is same as K≤ij−1 for such j.
Now we investigate the complex Kk with k≥1 and the collection Gk=∅. Fix k such that 1≤k<in−1 and Gk=∅. Then there exists an ℓ in the set {1,2,…,n−1} such that iℓ−1<k<iℓ. Then, the complex Kk is the complex generated by a proper face of L[i1,…,iℓ−1,k,iℓ,…,in] which consists of all B which contains {i1,…,iℓ−1,k} and all but one of {iℓ,…,in}; hence it is an (n−ℓ)-simplex. And Kin−1 is a proper face of N[i1,i2,…,in−1] which includes all B’s which contains {i1,i2,…,in−1} and another number between in−1 and in; hence it is a complex generated by a (dn−1)-simplex.
Next we determine the homotopy type of K≤in−2. If there is no k such that k∈[in−2]∖{i1,i2,…,in−2}, then d1=1 and d2,…,dn−2 are all zeroes and the complex K≤in−2=K0 which is clearly homotopy equivalent ⋁∑k=2n−2(2k)+∑ℓ=1n−2dℓ⋅(2n−ℓ)S2. Now we suppose otherwise and fix k such that 1≤k≤in−2 and iℓ−1<k<iℓ for some ℓ=1,2,…,n−2, here we define i0=0. Suppose, for induction, that K≤(k−1) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S2’s. This holds when k is the minimal natural number different from i1,i2,…in−2 in which case K≤k−1 is homotopy equivalent to K0. By Lemma 6, K≤k=SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))∪Kk. We’ll prove the following two claims and these two claims imply that K≤k≃K≤(k−1)∨(⋁(2n−ℓ)S2) by Lemma 1 and the inductive assumption.
**Claim i): **
SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))≃K≤(k−1).
**Claim ii): **
SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))∩Kk≃⋁(2n−ℓ)S1.
Proof of Claim i): We’ll verify that the condition in Lemma 5 is satisfied. Then the result follows. We’ll show that d(C1,C2)≤2 for C1,C2∈K≤(k−1) whenever stK≤k(C1)∩stK≤k(C2)∖K≤(k−1)=∅. Pick a vertex D in Kk. Then D contains k and an (n−1)-subset of A, denoted by C. Then for any vertex B∈K≤(k−1), D∈stK≤k(B) if and only if B is one of the following: a) C⊂B and B contains one of 1,2,…,k−1 not in A; b) C; c) any (n−2) subset of C. Any pair of such vertices have distance 2; hence they form a 1-simplex in K≤(k−1). This finishes the proof of Claim i).
Proof of Claim ii): Since the complex Kk is generated by an (n−ℓ)-simplex, Kk(1) is homotopy equivalent to ⋁(2n−ℓ)S1 by Lemma 3. We’ll show that SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))∩Kk=Kk(1). Pick any pair of vertices, B1,B2, in Kk. Then, B1∩B2 contains the number k and an (n−2)-subset of A, denoted by D. Note that D is a vertex in the complex K0⊆K≤k−1; therefore, the 1-simplex {B1,B2}∈stK≤k(D). Hence Kk(1)⊆SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))∩Kk. It is straightforward to verity that for any B∈Gi with i=1,2,…,k−1, stK≤k(B)∩Kk is a complex containing only one vertex because any vertex in this complex must contains B∩A and the number k. Similarly, for any B∈G0 with ∣B∣=n−1, there is at most 1 vertex in Kk containing B as a subset, i.e. having a distance ≤2 from B; and if B∈G0 with ∣B∣=n−2, then there are at most two vertices in Kk which have distance 2 from B. Hence, stK≤k(B)∩Kk⊆Kk(1) for any vertex B in the complex K≤(k−1). This finishes the proof of Claim ii).
By an inductive calculation, we have proved that the complex K≤in−2 is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of (∑k=2n−2(2k)+∑ℓ=1n−2dℓ⋅(2n−ℓ))-many S2’s. Next, we show that the complex K≤(in−1−1) is homotopy equivalent to K≤in−2.
If dn−1=0, then K<in−1=K≤in−2; otherwise we fix k with in−2<k<in−1 and suppose that K≤(k−1)≃K≤in−2. The collection Gk contains two vertices i1i2⋯in−2kin and i1i2⋯in−2kin−1; and the simplex {i1i2⋯in−2kin,i1i2⋯in−2kin−1} is in stK≤(in−1−1)(D) where D=i1i2⋯in−2∈K≤(k−1). Hence SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))=K≤k. By a similar discussion as in the proof of claim i), we can verify that the complex K≤k and its subcomplex K≤(k−1) satisfy the condition in Lemma 5. Therefore, SCK≤k(K≤(k−1))≃K≤(k−1). Hence the complex K≤k is homotopy equivalent to K≤in−2. Therefore by induction, the complex K≤(in−1−1) is homotopy equivalent to K≤in−2.
In the last part, we show that the complex K≤in−1=lkK(A) is also homotopy equivalent to K≤in−2. Again it is straightforward to verify that K≤in−1 and K≤(in−1−1) satisfy the condition in Lemma 5. Hence, SCK≤in−1(K≤(in−1−1))≃K≤(in−1−1). Recall that Kin−1 is a complex generated by a proper face of the simplex N[i1i2⋯in−1]. Note that i1i2⋯in−1 is a vertex in K≤(in−1−1); and also, {i1i2⋯in−1}∪Gin−1 is a simplex in K≤in−1. So, Kin−1⊂stK≤in−1(i1i2⋯in−1); and hence SCK≤in−1(K≤(in−1−1))=K≤in−1. And this finishes the proof. ∎
Motivated by the lemma above, we define a natural number rA for each A⊂[m] in the following way. For each A=i1i2⋯in⊆[m] with d1=i1 and dℓ=iℓ−(iℓ−1+1) for ℓ=2,3,…,n, we define
[TABLE]
Theorem 15**.**
Suppose that m≥n>2 and A=i1i2⋯in∈P([m]). Then the complex VR(F⪯Am,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s.
More specifically, if A is the vertex {1,2,3}⊂[m],
[TABLE]
And for any other vertex A with {1,2,3}≺A,
[TABLE]
Therefore if A∈P([m]) with ∣A∣≥3, VR(F⪯Am,2) is homotopy equivalent to the wedge sum of ∑{rB:{1,2,3}⪯B⪯A}-many copies of S3.
Proof.
Let K=VR(F⪯Am,2) and L=VR(F≺Am,2). Suppose A={1,2,3}. Then rA=1, hence lkK(A) is homotopic to S2 by Lemma 14. Because the complex L is contractible, the complex K is homotopy equivalent to S3 by Lemma 2.
Fix A with {1,2,3}≺A and suppose for induction that L is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s. Again by Lemma 14, lkK(A) is homotopic to a wedge sum of rA-many S2’s. Hence the inclusion map from lkK(A) to L is null-homotopic. Therefore, the general result holds due to again Lemma 2. ∎
The following result is a direct application of Lemma 1, Lemma 14, and Theorem 15.
Theorem 16**.**
Suppose that m≥n>2. For each n, we define
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
Therefore, VR(F≤nm,2) is homotopy equivalent to the wedge sum of (∑k=3ntk)-many copies of S3.
Adamaszek and Adams in [2] proved that VR(Qm,2)=VR(F≤mm,2)≃⋁cmS3 for any m>2, where cm=∑0≤j<i<m(j+1)(2m−2−2i−1). By Theorem 16, cm=∑k=3mtk where tn is defined as in the statement of Theorem 16.
6. Vietoris-Rips Complex VR(Fnm∪Fn′m,2)
In this section, we’ll investigate the homotopy types of VR(Fnm∪Fn′m,2) with n,n′∈N. Clearly when ∣n−n′∣≥3, then VR(Fnm∪Fn′m,2) is a disjoint union of
VR(Fnm,2) and VR(Fn′m,2); then by the discussion in Section 4, its homotopy type is clear. The homotopy types of the complex VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m,2) are discussed in Section 5 (see Theorem 13).
In the following, we’ll find the homotopy types of the Vietoris-Rips complexes VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2) for n+2≤m. Clearly for m≥3, VR(F0m∪F2m,2) and VR(Fmm∪Fm−2m,2) are contractible because both of them are cones. Next, we’ll discuss the complexes VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2) in general.
The next result can be obtained by applying the proof of Lemma 14 with small modifications; next we’ll go through the difference of the proofs. For each A=i1i2⋯in∈Fnm with c1=i1−1 and cℓ=iℓ−(iℓ−1+1) for ℓ=2,3,…,n, we define
[TABLE]
Note that for any A⊂[m] with ∣A∣=n, rA=sA+(2n−1).
Lemma 17**.**
Suppose that 4≤n<m−1 and A=i1i2⋯in⊂[m] with i1≥2. Let K=VR(Fn−2m∪Fnm,2)∩VR(F⪯Am,2).
Then,
[TABLE]
Proof.
As in the proof of Lemma 14, we divide the vertices in lkK(A) into pairwise disjoint collections Gk for k=0,1,…,in−1. For k≥1, Gk is exactly defined in the same way as in the proof of Lemma 14. Note that the vertices in K have either size n−2 or n. Then G0 contains all the subsets of A with size n−2. The complexes Kk and K≤k are defined in the same ways as in the proof of Lemma 14 for k=0,1,…,in−1. Hence K0 is homeomorphic to VR(Fn−2n,2); hence by Corollary 11, it is homotopy equivalent to ∑k=2n−2(2k)-many copies of S2’s. Then the rest of the proof is same as the proof of Lemma 14. ∎
Theorem 18**.**
Suppose that 1≤n<m−3. Then the complex VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s.
More specifically,
[TABLE]
and for n≥2, we define om,n=∑{sA:A∈Fn+2m with minA≥2} and then
[TABLE]
Therefore, VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2) is homotopy equivalent to (∑k=2nom+k−n,k+(4m+1−n))-many copies of S3.
Proof.
We firstly prove that K=VR(F1m∪F3m,2)≃⋁(4m)S3. Let L0=VR(F1m,2) which is a complex generated by a simplex because each pair of singlton subsets of [m] has distance 2. Hence by Lemma 5, SCK(L0) is contractible. By Lemma 8, there are two types of maximal simplices in VR(F3m,2), namely N[i1,i2] and L[i1,i2,i3,i4] for some i1,…,i4∈[m]; clearly {i1}∪N[i1,i2]} is a simplex in K. Hence N[i1,i2]∈SCK(L0) for each i1,i2∈[m]. Within VR(F3m,2), there are (4m)-many simplices in the form L[i1,i2,i3,i4] and the intersection of each pair of such simplices contains at most one vertex. We list such simplices as {σℓ:ℓ=1,2,…,(4m)} and define Lℓ=SCK(L0)∪⋃i=1ℓσℓ. We see that σℓ∈/SCK(L0) for each ℓ=1,2,…,(4m) because otherwise there is a number in ∩σℓ which is a contradiction; and because each of σℓ’s proper faces has an nonempty intersection, we get that σℓ(2)⊂SCK(L0). Hence Lℓ−1∩σℓ=σℓ(2)≃S2. Therefore, by Lemma 1, L1≃S3 and inductively Lℓ≃⋁ℓS3. This finishes the proof of first part.
Now we assume that n≥2 and VR(Fn−1m−1∪Fn+1m−1,2) is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s. Let G0={B∈Fnm∪Fn+2m:1∈B} and K0=VR(G0,2); by a straightforward isometric mapping, we see that K0≅VR(Fn−1m−1∪Fn+1m−1,2) which is homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of S3’s by the assumption. Let G1={B∈Fnm∪Fn+2m:∣B∣=n or 1∈B} and K1=VR(G1,2).
Next, we show that K1=SCK1(K0)≃K0. Let σ be a simplex in K1 consisting of vertices not containing 1. Then σ is a face of either N[i1,i2,…,in−1] or L[i1,i2,…,in+1] with all the numbers >1. Since 1i1i1⋯in−1∈N[i1,i2,…,in−1], N[i1,i2,…,in−1]∈SCK1(K0). Also notice that {1i1i2⋯in+1}∪L[i1,i2,…,in+1] is a simplex in K1; hence L[i1,i2,…,in+1]∈SCK1(K0). Therefore, K1=SCK1(K0).
Next we show that the condition in Lemma 5 is satisfied which implies that SCK1(K0)≃K0. Pick a vertex B=i1i2⋯in in Fnm not containing 1 such that B∈stK1(D1)∩stK1(D2) with D1,D2∈G0. There are three cases to discuss.
Suppose ∣D1∣=∣D2∣=n+2. Then by Lemma 12, B⊂D1 and B⊂D2. Since both D1 and D2 contain 1, ∣D1∩D2∣=n+1 and therefore {D1,D2}∈K0.
Suppose ∣D1∣=n and ∣D2∣=n+2. Then D1 contains an (n−1)-subset of B and 1; hence D1⊂D2. By Lemma 12, d(D1,D2)=2 and therefore {D1,D2}∈K0.
Suppose ∣D1∣=∣D2∣=n. Then both D1 and D2 contains an (n−1)-subset of B and 1 and hence ∣D1∩D2∣=n−1, i.e., d(D1,D2)=2. Therefore {D1,D2}∈K0.
Now fix A∈Fn+2m with minA≥2 and assume for induction that VR({B∈Fnm∪Fn+2m:B≺A},2) is homotopy equivalent to
[TABLE]
which is a wedge sum of S3’s. If A=min≺{C:C∈Fn+2m and minC=2}, then the set {B:B∈Fn+2m with minB≥2 and B≺A} is empty; so the inductive assumption holds since VR({B∈Fnm∪Fn+m:B≺A},2)≃VR(Fn−1m−1∪Fn+1m−1,2) by the discussion above.
Let L=VR({B∈Fn+2m∪Fnm:B⪯A},2). Then by Lemma 17, lkL(A) is homotopy equivalent to ⋁sAS2 which is clearly contractible in L∖{A}. Hence by Lemma 2, L is homotopy equivalent to
[TABLE]
i.e.
[TABLE]
This finishes the proof. ∎
We conclude this section by showing that the vertices Fn+1m in the complex VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m∪Fn+2m,2) don’t contribute to its homotopy type which means that it is homotopy equivalent to VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2).
Theorem 19**.**
Suppose that 1≤n<m−3 with m≥4. Then,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let K=VR(Fnm∪Fn+1m∪Fn+2m,2) and K0=VR(Fnm∪Fn+2m,2). Then we claim that K=SCK(K0) and SCK(K0)≃K0.
It is clear that SCK(K0)⊆K. Take a simplex σ in K such that none of its vertices is in K0; hence all its vertices are in Fn+1m. By Lemma 8, σ is a face of either N[i1,i2,…,in] or L[i1,i2,…,in+2]. Note that {i1i2⋯in}∪N[i1,i2,…,in] is a simplex in K with i1i2⋯in∈K0; therefore N[i1,i2,…,in]∈SCK(K0). Also {i1i2⋯in+2}∪L[i1,i2,…,in+2] is a simplex in K with i1i2⋯in+2∈K0; hence, L[i1,i2,…,in+2]∈SCK(K0). Therefore, SCK(K0)=K.
Take D∈Fn+1m with D∈stK(B1)∩stK(B2) where B1,B2 are vertices in K0. Using a similar discussion as in the proof of Theorem 18, {B1,B2}∈K0. Hence the condition of Lemma 5 is satisfied which implies that SCK(K0)≃K0.
Therefore, we conclude that K≃K0. ∎
7. Open Questions
There is little known about the Vietoris-Rips complexes of these finite metric spaces with large scales. A good number of interesting open questions about the Vietoris-Rips complex on hypercube groups with large scales have been raised in [2, 16]. We’ll end our paper with a couple questions related to the independence complex of Kneser graphs.
Suppose 2<n<m−2. For any pair of subsets B1,B2 of [m] with ∣B1∣=∣B2∣=n, d(B1,B2)≤2k+1 is equivalent to d(B1,B2)≤2k for any nonnegative integer k. Hence the Vietoris-Rips complex VR(Fnm,3) is identical with VR(Fnm,2). Little is known for larger scale r≥4. The complex VR(F36,4) is the boundary of a cross-polytope on 20 vertices, hence it is homotopy equivalent to S9. Using polymake [8], we find the reduced homology groups of VR(F37,4) is trivial when n=6 or 9; also, H~6(VR(F37,4))=Z29 and H~9(VR(F37,4))=Z7. This is related to independence complex of the Kneser graphs. Notice that the complex VR(F3m,4) is identical with VR(F3m,5); therefore both of them are equal to the independence complex of the Kneser graph KG3,m−6 with m≥6. Then the complex VR(Fnm,4) for general 2n<m is very likely to be homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of spheres with different dimensions.
Then, we have the following question.
Question 1**.**
Assume that 2n<m. Are the complexes VR(Fnm,4) with 2n<m homotopy equivalent to a wedge sum of spheres S6’s and S9’s?
In general, it is worth to investigate the following question.
Question 2**.**
What are the homotopy types of the complex VR(Fnm,r) for r≥4?
Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Professor Henry Adams and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions which lead to the improvements of the paper.