Dimension gaps between representability and collapsibility (Q1042449)

From MaRDI portal
scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Dimension gaps between representability and collapsibility
scientific article

    Statements

    Dimension gaps between representability and collapsibility (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    14 December 2009
    0 references
    Let \({\mathcal S}=\{S_1, \ldots, S_n\}\) be a family of sets. The \textit{nerve} \(N({\mathcal S})\) of \({\mathcal S}\) is a simplicial complex whose vertex set is \([n]=\{1,\ldots , n\}\) and its simplices are the subsets \(\sigma\subseteq [n]\) with the property that \(\cap_{i\in \sigma}S_i\neq\emptyset\). If a simplicial complex is isomorphic to the nerve of a family of convex sets in \({\mathbb R}^d\), then it is called \(d\)-representable. \textit{G. Wegner} [Arch. Math. 26, 317--321 (1975; Zbl 0308.52005)] introduced the notion of \(d\)-collapsibility of simplicial complexes. A simplicial complex is called \(d\)-collapsible if it can be reduced to an empty simplicial complex by repeatedly removing a face of dimension at most \(d-1\) that is contained in a unique maximal face. Another important related concept is a \(d\)-Leray simplicial complex. A simplicial complex is \(d\)-Leray if its every induced subcomplex has zero homology over \({\mathbb Q}\) in dimensions \(d\) and larger. Wegner proved that a \(d\)-representable simplicial complex is \(d\)-collapsible and that every \(d\)-collapsible simplicial complex is \(d\)-Leray. Although the notions of \(d\)-representable, \(d\)-collapsible, and \(d\)-Leray are very similar in some aspects, no two of them coincide. Helly's theorem and other results in discrete geometry can be described in a very natural way using the language of \(d\)-representability of simplicial complexes. Moreover, in many of these statements, \(d\)-representability can be replaced by \(d\)-collapsibility or the \(d\)-Leray property in the assumptions. In this paper, the authors prove stronger differences between these notions by establishing ''dimension gaps''. More precisely, they construct for all \(d\geq 1\), a \(2d\)-Leray complex that is not \((3d-1)\)-collapsible, and they construct a \(d\)-collapsible complex that is not \((2d-2)\)-representable. In the course of the proofs, the authors obtain two results of independent interest as well. These are the following: (i) The nerve of every finite family of sets, each of size at most \(d\), is \(d\)-collapsible. (ii) If the nerve of a simplicial complex is \(d\)-representable, then the complex embeds in \({\mathbb R}^d\).
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    \(d\)-representability
    0 references
    \(d\)-collapsibility
    0 references
    \(d\)-Leray
    0 references
    simplicial complex
    0 references
    convex set
    0 references
    nerve
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references
    0 references