Lionel Pournin
Universit´e Paris 13, Villetaneuse, France e-mail: [email protected]
Zili Wang
Dartmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire e-mail: [email protected]
ABSTRACT
A graph structure F (Σ) can be given to the triangulations of a surface Σ with a prescribed set of vertices. Its edges connect two triangulations that differ by a single arc. An interesting question is whether the subgraph Fε(Σ) induced in F (Σ) by the triangulations that contain a given arc ε is
strongly convex in the sense that all the geodesic paths between two such triangulations remain in that subgraph. A positive answer to this question has been given when Σ is a convex polygon or a topological surface. Here, we provide a related result that involves a triangle instead of an arc, in the case when Σ is a convex polygon. We show that, when the three edges of a triangle τ appear in (possibly distinct) triangulations along a geodesic path, τ must belong to a triangulation in that path. We also provide two consequences of this result. The first consequence is that Fε(Σ) is
not always strongly convex when Σ has either two flat vertices or two punctures. The second is that the number of arc crossings between two triangulations of a convex polygon Σ does not allow to approximate their distance in F (Σ) by a factor of less than 1.25.
1. Introduction
In order to study the properties of a surface, it is convenient to decompose it into elementary pieces such as triangles. This can be achieved by embedding a collection of pairwise non-crossing arcs in the surface, whose complement is a disjoint union of triangles. These arcs are geodesics when the surface is
1
equipped with a metric and they are isotopy classes of paths otherwise and in both cases the extremities of an arc possibly coincide. Such a collection of arcs is called a triangulation. Two triangulations that differ by a single arc can be thought of as related by a local operation called a flip that removes an arc from the first triangulation and replaces it with the only other arc such that the resulting set of arcs is a triangulation of the same surface. Observe that both of these triangulations share the same set of vertices as this operation does not change the set of the arcs’ endpoints. One can therefore associate a graph structure to the triangulations of a surface Σ with a prescribed set of vertices. The vertices of this graph are are the triangulations and its edges connect any two triangulations that are related by a flip. This graph, which we denote by F (Σ) from now on, is called the flip-graph of Σ.
Flip-graphs appear in a number of contexts in geometry and topology. Their simplest manifestation, when Σ is a convex Euclidean polygon and the set of ver-tices of the triangulations coincide with that of the polygon, is a popular exam-ple. In this case, F (Σ) is the graph of a convex polytope—the associahedron— whose dimension is the number of vertices of Σ minus three [17]. The genus of this graph [21], its chromatic number [10], and hamiltonicity [15] have been investigated. Its geometry is specially interesting because of its relation with the rotation distance of binary trees [32, 31]. While its diameter is known ex-actly [26], the time-complexity of computing distances in this graph remains an important unsolved problem [1, 7, 18, 25]. The flip-graph of a convex polygon coincides with that of a topological disk whose boundary contains the triangu-lations’ vertices. The generalization of this basic case to arbitrary topological surfaces has been studied in [2, 9, 14, 22, 23]. Its generalizations to higher dimensions have been considered both in the geometric [8, 13, 29, 30] and topo-logic [3, 20, 8, 29] settings. Related flip-graphs, usually relevant to particular combinatorial or geometric objects, can be obtained with only a subset of all possible triangulations or a modified flip operation [5, 6, 11, 12, 24, 27].
It is shown in [31] that, when Σ is a convex Euclidean polygon and the vertices of the triangulations are exactly those of Σ, the subgraph Fε(Σ) induced in F (Σ)
by the triangulations that contain a given arc ε is strongly convex in the sense that all the geodesic paths in F (Σ) between two triangulations that contain ε remain in Fε(Σ). In other words, the arc ε belongs to all the triangulations along
of results on the geometry of F (Σ) [7, 26, 31], is obtained by projecting the paths in F (Σ) between two triangulations that contain ε to paths in Fε(Σ) between
the same two triangulations via an explicit normalization of any triangulation of Σ into a triangulation that contains ε. It is proven in [9] that the same holds in the case when Σ is an arbitrary topological surface via a similar normalization of its triangulations. This property was used to study the (coarse) geometry of the mapping class group of Σ [9] and to establish sharp bounds on the diameter of the quotient of F (Σ) by the group of certain homeomorphisms of Σ up to isotopy [22]. In a related combinatorial setting, the corresponding property was obtained [6, 19] for the graphs of all generalized associahedra that arise from the theory of cluster algebra [12]. Our first main result is a similar property, that involves a triangle instead of an arc.
Theorem 1.1: Consider a convex polygon Σ. If the three edges of a triangle τ appear in possibly distinct triangulations along a geodesic path in F (Σ), then τ must belong to some triangulation in that path.
This theorem is obtained by thinking of paths in F (Σ) as triangulations of a 3-dimensional ball that is geometric with respect to two dimensions and topo-logic with respect to the third. We will model this situation by flattening that ball into the plane, the topology along the third coordinate being given by an order on the arcs, (flat) triangles and (flat) tetrahedra. The proof consists in projecting the paths within F (Σ) in the spirit of [31] except that the projec-tion takes places along a triangle instead of along an arc. As we shall see, Theorem 1.1 provides a new tool to investigate the geometry of F (Σ).
Now, consider a convex polygon Σ and assume that the vertices of the trian-gulations is any finite subset of Σ that contains all of its vertices. By analogy with the non-Euclidean case, we refer to the vertices that belong to the interior of Σ as punctures and to the vertices that belong to the interior of an edge of Σ as flat vertices of Σ. It is well-known that, when Σ has six punctures or more, the subgraphs Fε(Σ) are not always strongly convex [4, 6, 8, 16]. Our second
main result, which we prove using Theorem 1.1, is that this remains the case down to two punctures or two flat vertices.
As we shall see, the subgraph Fε(Σ) is always strongly convex when Σ is a
convex polygon with no puncture and at most one flat vertex. In particular, Theorem 1.2 is sharp for convex polygons with flat vertices. Our third main result and second application of Theorem 1.1 is on the problem of computing the distances within F (Σ) when Σ is a topological surface. In the case when Σ is a convex polygon, a popular procedure to estimate the distance of two given triangulations in F (Σ) is based on the number of crossing arc pairs between them [7]. It is known that, in the more general cases of convex punctured polygons [28] and arbitrary topological surfaces [9], performing some flip in one of the triangulations makes the number of such crossings decrease. Hence, one can build a path in F (Σ) between the two triangulation, whose length can be taken as an estimation of the desired distance. It is shown in [7] that the resulting estimation is not always equal to the distance between the two considered triangulations. Here we show that, for pairs of triangulations of a convex polygon whose number of vertices is large enough, this estimation is sometimes about 1.25 times greater than the actual distance.
The outline of the article is the following. In Section 2, we recall how the normalization along a diagonal of a convex polygon from [31] works, and show that it still works for a convex polygon with a single flat vertex. In Section 3, we introduce a normalization along triangles, and prove Theorem 1.1. In Section 4, we establish Theorem 1.2, and in Section 5, we show that the number of arc crossings between two triangulations of convex polygon Σ does not allow to approximate their distance in F (Σ) by a factor of less than 1.25.
2. Normalization along diagonals
Consider a planar polygon π and a diagonal d of π. When π is a convex quadrilateral, flipping d means replacing d by the other diagonal of π. More generally, given a triangulation T of π, we can flip d whenever d is a diagonal of some convex quadrilateral in T , as shown in Figure 1.
Let us consider a special type of triangulations, called cone-typed triangula-tions, that have a particular role in the flip-graph of convex polygons.
Figure 1. The diagonal flip of AD (orange) to BF in the convex quadrilateral with vertices A, B, D, and F .
In a triangulation of π, the degree of a vertex X is the number of edges and diagonals containing X. If π is convex, and T is a triangulation of π in which X is not of maximal degree, there is always a flip that increases the degree of X by one. In other words, in the case when π is convex, there is a flip path from T to the cone-typed triangulation at X such that each flip introduces a diagonal of the latter triangulation. Figure 2 shows an example of a flip path from a triangulation T of a convex hexagon to the cone-typed triangulation at a vertex A of that hexagon. The same holds when π has flat vertices, provided X is not adjacent to any flat vertex.
Figure 2. A flip path from a triangulation T (left) to the cone-typed triangulation at A. In each triangulation, the orange diagonal is to be flipped next.
Let Tinitialand Tf inal be two triangulations of π sharing a common diagonal
d. We are interested to know when d is preserved.
triangulation T of π along d toward X to a triangulation NX(T ), leaving every
triangulation containing d invariant. If two triangulations T and T0 differ by a flip, it can be shown that NX(T ) and NX(T0) differ at most by a flip, and are
the same if T and T0 differ by flipping d. Thus, if a shortest path from T initial
to Tf inal flips d, applying NX to every triangulation in the path gives a strictly
shorter flip path from Tinitial to Tf inal, a contradiction.
Let us describe the normalization process, and show how that process can be modified to establish a similar result when π has a single flat vertex. We say that a diagonal d1 crosses a diagonal d2 if their interiors are non-disjoint.
Definition 2.2 (Normalization along d): Let T be a triangulation of π. Let d be a diagonal of π with a vertex X. The normalization of T along d toward X, denoted by NX(T ), is the replacement of every diagonal Y Z ⊂ T crossing d by
adding XY, XZ and d whenever they are diagonals of π not in T .
Figure 3. Normalization of T along d (red diagonal) toward X in a convex polygon.
Figure 3 shows an example of T and NX(T ). Informally, the normalization
“pulls” every diagonal crossing d towards X as if pulling a rubber band. If π is a convex polygon, NX(T ) is also a triangulation of π. However, this may not
be true if π has flat vertices. More precisely, NX(T ) may not be a triangulation
of π in the case when X is adjacent to a flat vertex. An example is given in Figure 4 in which ZX is not a diagonal of π. Thus, in order to check whether d is preserved, directly applying normalization may not always work.
Now suppose π has both convex and flat vertices, and d has vertices X and Y . We want to see when d is preserved.
1. When π has one flat vertex. When X is not adjacent to a flat vertex, NX(T )
Figure 4. The normalization of a triangulation T along a di-agonal d (colored red) toward X is impossible as it results in a segment ZX that is not a diagonal of π.
vertex. In this case, since π has only one flat vertex, Y cannot be adjacent to this flat vertex. Consequently, NY(T ) is a triangulation, and d is thus preserved.
So every diagonal in π is preserved if π has only one flat vertex.
2. When π has at least 2 flat vertices. We only need to consider the situation when both X and Y are adjacent to a flat vertex of π. There are two cases.
Case 1. When the flat vertices are on different sides of d.
As d divides π into two components, let π1 be the component containing a
flat vertex adjacent to X, and π2 be the component containing a flat vertex
adjacent to Y , as shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5. The normalization of T along d (red diagonal) when the flat vertices are on different sides of d.
In this case, for any triangulation T of π, π1∩ NY(T ) is a triangulation of π1,
and π2∩NX(T ) is a triangulation of π2. Thus, their union forms a triangulation
of π. Let us denote that triangulation by N (T ).
Case 2. When the flat vertices are on the same side of d.
In this case, the method in Case 1 doesn’t work. In fact, in Section 4 we will find an example of a diagonal that is not preserved.
3. A normalization related to triangles
Through the normalization along diagonals, we see that when Tinitialand Tf inal
share a diagonal of a convex polygon π, we can cut π along this diagonal into two smaller polygons π1 and π2, such that a shortest flip path from Tinitial to
Tf inalis decomposed into a shortest flip path in π1 and in π2.
In this section, we construct a normalization along triangles. As a back-ground, a flip from AB to CD can be associated naturally to a flipping tetra-hedron without volume, with AB at front and CD at back. In this way, a flip path from Tinitial to Tf inal consisting of n triangulations can be interpreted as
gluing in order n flat tetrahedra associated to the flips. This gives a tetrahedral decomposition T of a “flat” polyhedron P , whose boundaries are Tinitial and
Tf inal glued along the edges of π. The diagonals and triangles of the
triangu-lations in this flip path are respectively called the diagonals and faces in T. See [31] for more details of this construction.
It is important to mention that the diagonals and faces coming from different triangulations are considered different inT even if they have the same pair of vertices. An example is given by Figure 6, in which the diagonals coming from the first and the third triangulation are not the same inT.
Figure 6. A flip path of length 2 and its corresponding tetra-hedral decomposition (right).
In Figure 7, we draw a flip path from Tinitial to Tf inal, as well as the
corre-sponding tetrahedral decomposition T of P in the center of the figure.
Figure 7. A flip path from Tinitial(bottom left) to Tf inal
(bot-tom) following the gray arrows. In each triangulation, the or-ange diagonal is to be flipped next, and the corresponding flip-ping tetrahedron is drawn. The diagonals in Tinitialand Tf inal
are colored blue and red, respectively.
diagonal BC, while Tf inalcontains diagonals AB and AC. We can cut P along
4ABC (as shown in Figure 8 below), which gives two polyhedra P1 and P2
with fewer number of vertices. Similarly, we can also cut P along 4ABC if AB, AC and BC are in Tinitial, in Tf inal and an edge of π respectively.
The goal of this section is to show that finding minimal tetrahedral decom-positions of P amounts to finding those for P1 and P2. In fact, we will prove
something more general: If we know that a minimal decompositionT contains three diagonals or edges of π enclosing a triangle that is not a face inT, then we can find appropriate “cross sections” containing this triangle to cut P into smaller flat polyhedra P1and P2. Furthermore, findingT is equivalent to finding
minimal tetrahedral decompositions of P1 and P2.
Figure 8. Intuitively, we can cut P along 4CF J (yellow) into two flat polyhedra P1and P2. The blue diagonals are in Tinitial
and the red dashed ones in Tf inal.
3.1. Preliminaries. Let Tinitial and Tf inal be two triangulations of a convex
N -gon π. Let P be the topological sphere whose boundaries are Tinitial and
Tf inal glued along the edges of π. Let T be a tetrahedral decomposition of P
corresponding to a flip path from Tinitial and Tf inal.
Notation. We say that a vertex X of π is in (Y, Z) if, when we start from Y and travel counter-clockwisely along the boundary of π, we reach X before Z. From now on, the segment XY refers to the geodesic joining X and Y . Note that a segment is different from a diagonal inT.
Definition 3.1 (Extra diagonal): A diagonal d inT is called an extra diagonal if it is not contained in Tinitial or in Tf inal.
There is a simple relationship between the number of extra diagonals and the number of tetrahedra in T.
Lemma 3.2: Let nT, nE be the number of tetrahedra and extra diagonals inT
respectively. Then nT = N − 3 + nE.
Proof. This is follows from the observation that the total number of diagonals that are flipped in the flip path is equal to the number of diagonals in Tinitial
plus the number of extra diagonals.
Figure 9. Starting from Tinitial, one can reach Tf inalby moving
upward or downward. This gives two flip paths corresponding to the tetrahedral decompositionT in the center.
Definition 3.3 (Order of diagonals): Consider two diagonals d1 and d2 in T.
Suppose that in any flip path corresponding toT, no triangulation contains d1
and d2simultaneously, and that each triangulation containing d1appears before
each triangulation containing d2 in the flip path. In this case, we say that d1 is
above d2and that d2 is below d1.
Note that, in Definition 3.3, “each triangulation” can be replaced by “a tri-angulation”, because the set of triangulations containing d1 (or d2) in a flip
path is path-connected. Definition 3.3 does not consider edges of π, but for convenience, we say that an edge of π is not below any other edge of π or any diagonal in T , since it appears in the first triangulation in any flip path.
We say that d1 overlaps d2 if these two diagonals have the same endpoints
but are not the same diagonal inT. Note that if d1crosses or overlaps d2, these
two diagoinals cannot appear in the same triangulation. Therefore, one of them must be above the other. Note in addition that these relations are transitive: if d1 is above d2and d2 is above d3, then d1 is above d3.
We can extend this relation among diagonals to any face or tetrahedron in T. We need the following lemma in order to state the definition.
1) if F has a diagonal below d, then F has no diagonal above d, 2) if T has a diagonal below d, then T has no diagonal above d. The lemma is also true if we interchange “below” and “above”.
Proof. For 1), suppose d0 is a diagonal in F below d. Choose a flip path cor-responding to T and pick from it a triangulation Td that contains d, and a
triangulation TF that contains F . Since d is above d0, Td appears before TF in
the flip path. Hence no diagonal in F is above d.
For 2), suppose d0 is a diagonal of T below d, and T is the flipping tetrahe-dron of d00. Choose a flip path corresponding toT. Consider the two adjacent triangulations T1and T2in the flip path right before and right after flipping d00.
Let Td be a triangulation in the flip path containing d. Then either Td= T1, or
Td appears before T1 in the flip path. In both cases, neither T1 nor T2 appears
before Td. Since the diagonals of T is in T1 or T2, none of them is above d.
If we interchange “below” and “above” in the statement of the lemma, we just interchange “below” and “above”, “before” and “after” in the proof. Definition 3.5 (Orders of diagonals, faces and tetrahedra): Let O1be a diagonal,
a face or a tetrahedron inT, and similarly for O2. We say that O1 is above O2
and that O2 is below O1 when a diagonal in T contained in O1 is above a
diagonal in T contained in O2.
Note that, by Lemma 3.4, if O1 is above O2, then O2 is not above O1. We
say that O1 crosses O2 if a diagonal d1 contained in O1 crosses a diagonal d2
contained in O2. We say that O1 overlaps O2 if they have the same vertices.
Let τ be a triangle, each side of which is an edge of π or a diagonal in T . Definition 3.6 (Penetrating diagonal): We say an extra diagonal d is τ -penetrating (or simply penetrating when τ is clear from the context) if it crosses two diag-onals of τ , being above one diagonal and below the other.
Thus, if τ has a penetrating diagonal, it is not a face in T. In addition, we define τ -penetrating faces and tetrahedra:
Definition 3.7 (Penetrating face and penetrating tetrahedron): A face or a tetra-hedron inT is τ-penetrating if it contains a τ-penetrating diagonal.
Lemma 3.8: If T is a τ -penetrating tetrahedron, then T has at most two non-penetrating faces. If, in addition, T has exactly two non-non-penetrating faces, then it contains two vertices of τ .
Proof. We can assume without loss of generality that τ has vertices A, B, C, where B is in (A, C). Let AB, AC and BC be the three sides of τ .
If T has three non-penetrating faces, then no diagonal of T is penetrating and, in this case, T is not penetrating.
Suppose that T has exactly two non-penetrating faces. In this case, it has only one penetrating diagonal. Without loss of generality, we assume it is below AB and above BC. Then it has a vertex X in (A, B), and a vertex Y in (B, C). Let Z1, Z2 be the remaining two vertices of T .
If Z1is in (B, C), then XZ1 must cross both AB and BC. But then XZ1 is
also below AB and above BC by Lemma 3.4, hence is also penetrating. This is impossible because T has only one penetrating diagonal. For the same reason, Z1is not in (A, B), otherwise Y Z1 is penetrating.
Finally, if Z1 is in (C, A), then XZ1 crosses AB and AC. By Lemma 3.4,
XZ1is below AB, thus also below AC since otherwise it is another penetrating
diagonal in T , a contradiction. In addition, Y Z1crosses AC and BC. Thus, by
Lemma 3.4, Y Z1is above BC because XY is, so Y Z1is above AC, otherwise it
is another penetrating diagonal in T . Now T has a diagonal below AC, which is XZ1, and a diagonal below AC, which is Y Z1, a contradiction to Lemma 3.4.
The same arguments work for Z2. Thus, Z1, Z2∈ {A, B, C}.
Finally we define upward and downward flipping tetrahedra.
Definition 3.9 (Upward and downward flipping tetrahedron): If a flip takes a diagonal d to a diagonal d0, the tetrahedron T associated to this flip is called the downward flipping tetrahedron of d and the upward flipping tetrahedron of d0 (because T is below d and above d0).
3.2. Normalization Process. Throughout this subsection, T is a tetrahedral decomposition of P corresponding to a flip path from Tinitialto Tf inal, such that
T contains the three edges of a triangle τ that is not a face in T.
Figure 10. A sketch for the idea of normalizing T in Figure 7 along 4ADF (yellow) toward F . Intuitively, the penetrating diagonals (gray) in the first picture are “pulled” toward F fol-lowing the pink arrows, resulting in the second picture. The second picture can also be regarded as a tetrahedral decompo-sition of the same flat polyhedron because we can extract four flat tetrahedra from it (third picture).
more careful in showing that this yields a new tetrahedral decomposition of P . In Figure 10, we use the tetrahedral decomposition in Figure 7 to demonstrate how the τ -penetrating diagonals are pulling toward F , where τ = 4ADF . This results in a new tetrahedral decomposition of P with fewer tetrahedra thanT. Without loss of generality, we assume from now on that the vertices of τ are A, B and C, and let AB, AC and BC be sides of τ , which can be diagonals in T or edges of π. Since our goal is to use normalization to cut P into smaller flat polyhedra, we begin with defining the “cross sections”. First, if AB divides π into two components, we denote by πAB the component not containing C.
Otherwise, πAB= φ. Similarly, we define πAC and πBC.
Let TAB be a triangulation of πAB that is the restriction to πAB of a
trian-gulation in the flip path corresponding toT. Similarly, we have TAC and TBC.
The set TAB∪ TAC∪ TBC is called a cross section of P .
The choices for TAB, TAC, TBC are not unique. For instance, the tetrahedral
decomposition in Figure 11 has two choices of TAB, both drawn in Figure 11.
Consequently, there can be multiple choices of cross sections. We fix one now and denote it byC throughout this section.
Similar to Lemma 3.4, if a face F or a tetrahedron T in T has a diagonal below/above TXY, where XY = AB, AC or BC, then F or T does not have a
Figure 11. Two choices for TAB for the same T in figure 9.
diagonal, a face or a tetrahedron is below/above TXY if there exist diagonals
d1 in the former and d2in the latter such that d1 is below/above d2.
Definition 3.10 (Below or above the cross section): We say that a diagonal d in T is below C if it is below TXY whenever it has a nonempty intersection with
the interior of πXY, where XY is equal to AB, to AC or to BC. A face or a
tetrahedron inT is below C if it has a diagonal below and no diagonal above C. By interchanging “below” and “above”, we similarly define when a diagonal, face or tetrahedron is aboveC.
Notation. We denote by Flower and Fupper the sets of the non-penetrating
faces inT below and above C, respectively.
Lemma 3.11: As sets, Flower and Fupper are disjoint.
Proof. Let F be a non-penetrating face inT. If F has vertices A, B, C, or if F only has nonempty intersection with the interior of one of πAB, πAC and πBC,
then it is clear that F /∈ Flower∩ Fupper.
Therefore, without loss of generality, we assume that F has nonempty inter-section with the interior of both πAB and πAC, is below TAB and is above TAC.
Then F has a vertex in (A, B), and a vertex in (C, A), thus a diagonal crossing both AB and AC. This diagonal is below AB and above AC, but then F is τ -penetrating, a contradiction.
Let us now define two types of τ -penetrating tetrahedra.
1) F is in Flower;
2) F is inC and T is below F .
In both cases, we say F is a lower base of T . By replacing “below” with “above” everywhere and “lower” with ”upper”, we define penetrating tetrahedra from above and their upper bases.
We have the following property.
Lemma 3.13: If a tetrahedron T is τ -penetrating, it has at most one lower base and one upper base. If T contains both, then it shares two vertices of τ . Proof. We show that T has at most one lower base, and the other case can be argued similarly. Let d be a τ -penetrating diagonal of T . Without loss of generality, suppose d crosses and is above AB. Then d has a vertex X in (A, B). Among the three faces in T containing X, the two faces containing d are τ -penetrating and thus not in Floweror C. The third face F crosses and hence
is not below TAB by Lemma 3.4. If F is in TAB, then T is not below F because
d ⊂ T is above TAB. Thus, in this case, F is not a lower base of T . Now if
F ∈ Flower, by definition it must cross and is below either TAC or TBC. But
then F crosses and is above AB, so it is τ -penetrating, a contradiction. Hence, in this case, it is not a lower base either. Therefore, at least three faces in T are not lower bases. This justifies the first statement.
If T has one lower base and one upper base, then they are not the same face because Flower and Fupper are disjoint according to Lemma 3.11. The
conclusion follows from Lemma 3.8.
Notation. We denote byTlower the set of the non-penetrating tetrahedra in
T that have a face in Flower. Similarly, we denote by Tupper the set of
non-penetrating tetrahedra inT with a face in Fupper.
We can show the following in a similar way as we established the disjointness of Fupper and Flower in the proof of Lemma 3.11.
Lemma 3.14: As sets, Tlower andTupper are disjoint.
Normalization Rules. The lower half normalization along τ toward X, denoted by NX, is the selective assignment of a new tetrahedron to each tetrahedron T
inT under the following normalization rules:
(NR1) If T is in Tlower, then NX(T ) is just a tetrahedron identical to T ;
(NR2) Suppose that T is penetrating τ from below and that X is not a vertex of T . Denote by p, q, r, and s the vertices of T in such a way that the face pqr of T is the its lower base. Then we can deform T by “pulling” s to X. More precisely, we construct a new tetrahedron T0 with vertices p, q, r, X such that the crossing diagonals remain crossing with the same order after replacing s by X. For instance, pq crosses and is above/below rX if and only if pq crosses and is above/below rs. If such T0 exists, then NX(T ) is equal to T0. Figure 12
shows two examples when T0 does and does not exist. (NR3) In all other cases, NX(T ) is empty.
We define the upper half normalization toward X, denoted by NXin a similar way, except that the above normalization rule (NR2) should be modified by replacing “below” with “above” and “lower” with “upper”.
According to Lemma 3.13, NX (or NX) assigns to each T at most one
tetra-hedron. The following lemma gives a sufficient condition for the existence of NX(T ) or NX(T ) in the case of the normalization rule (NR2).
Lemma 3.15: Let Y , and Z be the two vertices of τ other than X. If Y Z is not below any of XY and XZ, then every tetrahedron penetrating τ from below and not containing X has nonempty image under NX. Similarly, if Y Z is not
above any of XY and XZ, then every tetrahedron penetrating τ from above and not containing A has nonempty image under NX.
Proof. Assume that T penetrates τ from below. Denote by p, q, r, and s its vertices in such a way that pqr is the lower base of T .
We prove the first statement by contradiction. Suppose that NX(T ) is empty.
We assume without loss of generality that rs crosses pq. Since NX(T ) is empty,
s and X must be on different sides of pq.
Figure 12. The tetrahedron T in the upper left picture is pene-trating from below and has one lower base pqr. Taking X = A, the corresponding T0 in the upper right picture satisfies the crossing relations of diagonals in NR2. Thus NA(T ) = T0.
Another tetrahedron T penetrating from below and the corre-sponding T0 (taking X = A) are drawn in the lower left and right pictures. Notice that ps crosses qr in T , but pA does not cross qr in T0. Thus NA(T ) = φ by NR2.
Lemma 3.4. But by assumption, rs also crosses pq (hence Y Z). Therefore it is above Y Z because it is τ -penetrating. This implies that Y Z is below XZ, which contradicts the assumption of the lemma.
is impossible because pqr is non-penetrating. Therefore, NX(T ) is nonempty.
The statement for NX(T ) is proved similarly.
We will need the following lemma in the next subsection.
Lemma 3.16: Assume that Y Z is not below any of XY and XZ. Consider a non-penetrating diagonal d that does not contain X, and that is below any diagonal it crosses in τ . Let F be a face containing d and not on the same side of d as X. Then F is not penetrating.
Proof. If d is a diagonal in πAB, πAC or πBC, then the result is immediate.
Otherwise, d crosses XY or XZ. We assume without loss of generality that d crosses (and hence must be below) XY . Suppose that F is penetrating and consider a penetrating diagonal d0 of F .
If d does not cross XZ, then neither does d0because it is not on the same side
of d as X. So d0 has to cross XY and Y Z because it is penetrating. Therefore, d0 is below XY (by Lemma 3.4) and above Y Z (because it is penetrating). But this implies Y Z is below XY , which contradicts the lemma’s assumption.
If d also crosses (and hence is below) XZ, then d0 is neither above XY nor above XZ by Lemma 3.4. Since d0is penetrating, it must be above Y Z. Again, this implies that Y Z is below either XY or XZ which is impossible.
As a consequence, F is not penetrating. 3.3. The Topological Space gNX(T ). Let
NX(T) = {NX(T ) : T ∈T, NX(T ) is nonempty}
and
NY(T) = {NY(T ) : T ∈T, NY(T ) is nonempty}
be the collections of tetrahedra we obtain from lower and upper half normal-ization along τ toward X and Y respectively. The goal of this section is to glue tetrahedra in NX(T) and NY(T) in a such way that the resulting two simplicial
complexes correspond to a flip path from Tinitial to C ∪ τ and a flip path from
C ∪ τ to Tf inal respectively. It suffices to describe this process for NX(T), and
that for NY(T) will follow similarly. For our convenience, we take X = A, and
assume BC is not below any of AB and AC.
Let F0 be a face in T. The first step is to associate to F0 zero, one or two
tetrahedra in NA(T). When F0 is associated to two tetrahedra in NA(T), it
consider gluing them by identifying the two faces. We will discuss this method of tetrahedral association in a case-by-case manner.
Method of Tetrahedral Association for F0. Suppose that F0 is contained in a
tetrahedron T whose image by NAis nonempty. We denote the corresponding
image of F0 in NA(T ) by NAT(F0). Similarly, we denote the corresponding
image of a diagonal (or an edge of π) d ⊂ T in NA(T ) by NAT(d).
Case 1. A /∈ NAT(F0).
(a) If there is a tetrahedron T0 containing and below F0 in T, then NA(T0)
exists if F0 is in Flower or C by NR1 and NR2. If T0 is not penetrating, then
NR1 applies. Otherwise, NR2 applies and F0 is the lower base of T0 because
A /∈ NAT(F0). Thus, in both cases, NAT0(F0), F0and NAT(F0) have the same
vertices. We then associate NA(T0) to F0.
(b) If there is a tetrahedron T00 containing and above F0 inT, then NA(T00)
exists if F0∈ Flower by NR1 and NR2. Also, NAT0(F0) and NAT(F0) have the
same vertices, so we associate NA(T0) to F0.
Case 2. A ∈ F0 or A ∈ NAT(F0).
Let d ⊂ F0 be a diagonal or an edge of π such that NAT(d) does not contain
A. Let L+F
0 = {F0, F1, . . . , Fi, . . . }(i ∈ N) be a finite list of faces containing
d such that: 1) Fi and F0 are on the same side of d for all i; 2) there is a
tetrahedron Ti ∈ T containing Fi and Fi−1 for all i > 0; 3) T1 is below F0.
Figure 13 showsL+F
0 in two cases.
Similarly, consider a list L−F
0 = {F0, F−1, . . . , F−j, . . . } (here, j is a
non-negative integer) of faces containing d such that 1) F−j and F0are on the same
side of d for all j, 2) there is a tetrahedron T−j ∈T containing F−j and F−(j−1)
for all j > 0, and 3) T−1 is above F0.
(a) If L+F
0 has a face in Flower∪C that does not contain A, let FI be such
a face with the least possible I. In this case, NA(TI) exists by NR1 or NR2,
depending on whether TI contains A or not (if not, it is penetrating by the
minimality of I). Thus, NA(TI) contains A, hence contains a face with vertices
of NAT(F0). So we associate NA(TI) to F0. This is the case in the right picture
of Figure 13, for instance, in which I = 3. The tetrahedron associated to F0 is
NA(T3), drawn in the right picture of Figure 14.
(b) If FI does not exist, and if d is not in Tf inal, consider the downward
flip-ping tetrahedron Tdof d. Let Fdbe the face of Td containing d and on different
Figure 13. Examples ofL+F
0, where F0are the dark green faces
in both pictures. The dashed lines connects vertices in the adjacent faces of L+F
0 and are in the T
0
is. In the left picture,
L+
F0has three terms and FI does not exist. In the right picture,
L+
F0 has four terms and I = 3.
Figure 14. The tetrahedra associated to F0 in the two cases
shown in Figure 13. The dark green faces are NATd(F0) (left)
and NAT3(F0) (right).
implies that d belongs to a face inC or Flower. Since Tdis below this face, Fd is
inC or Flower. As Td is below Fd, NA(Td) exists by NR2 or NR1 depending on
whether Td is penetrating or not. Finally, if Td is not penetrating, it contains
A, otherwise Tdhas a face in Flower containing d but not A, a contradiction to
the non-existence of FI by assumption. Thus, NA(Td) has a face with the same
vertices to NAT(F0), and we associate NA(Td) to F0. This is the case in the left
picture of Figure 13. The tetrahedron associated to F0is NA(Td), drawn in the
(c) Similar to Case 2(a), ifL−F
0 has a face in Flower∪C and not containing A,
let F−J be such a face that J is the smallest integer. Then NA(T−J) exists by
NR1 or NR2, depending on whether F−J +1contains A or not (i.e. is penetrating
by the minimality of J ). Thus, NA(T−J) contains A, hence contains a face with
vertices of NA(F0). So we associate NA(T−J) to F0.
(d) Finally, if F−J does not exist, and if d is not in C, consider the upward
flipping tetrahedron Tdof d. By a similar reasoning to Case 2(b), N
A(Td) exists
and has a face with vertices of NAT(F0), and we associate NA(T
d) to F 0.
By this method, it is clear that F0 is associated to at most two tetrahedra.
Gluing Tetrahedra. Now suppose that F0is associated to two tetrahedra by the
above method. Since both of these tetrahedra have a face whose vertices are the same as NAT(F0), this leads us to gluing the two tetrahedra by identifying
these faces. However, in order to make sure such gluing is well-defined, we need to prove the following lemma.
Lemma 3.17: Let F0 and F00 be (non-necessarily different) faces in different
tetrahedra T and T0, respectively such that NA(T ) and NA(T0) are non-empty.
Assume that NAT(F0) and NAT 0(F
0
0) have the same vertices. If NA(T0) is
asso-ciated to F0through the method of association for F0, then NA(T ) is associated
to F0
0 through the method of association for F00.
Proof. The proof is a case-by-case verification following the method of associa-tion. We will demonstrate with two cases.
Suppose NA(T0) is associated to F0 through Case 1(b) in the method of a
for F0. Then F0 = F00 and T0 is above F0. Since T0 is different from T , T is
below F0, so NA(T ) is associated to F00 = F0through Case 1(a) of the method
of association for F0.
Suppose NA(T0) is associated to F0 through Case 2(a) in the method of
association for F0. Then F0and F00 share a common diagonal d. Let FI be the
face defined in Case 2(a) in the listL+F
0. Then F
0
0 has index I − 1 in this list.
Let Fd⊂ T be the face containing d such that Fd6= F0.
Consider the listL−F0
0in the method of association for F
0
0. Since NA(T ) exists,
we have Fd∈ Flower∪C. In addition, T is above F0, otherwise NA(T ) (rather
than NA(T0)) will be associated to F0 through Case 2(a), a contradiction.
It remains to discuss the two possibilities. First, if Fdand F00 are on the same
side of d, then Fd ∈L−F0
0. Furthermore, any face inL
− F0
0 after F
0
is penetrating or contains A because F00 has index I − 1 inL+F
0. Thus, Fd = F
0 −J
(J as defined in Case 2(c)). We then have T = T−J0 , and NA(T ) is associated to
F00 through Case 2(c) of the method of association for F00. Second, if Fd∈/ L−F0 0,
then since T is above F0, T is the upward flipping tetrahedron of d, so NA(T )
is associated to F0
0through Case 2(d).
The rest of cases are verified in a similar way.
Definition 3.18 (The Space gNA(T)): Whenever a face F0 is associated to two
tetrahedra NA(T ) and NA(T0), We can glue NA(T ) and NA(T0) by identifying
NAT(F0) with NAT 0(F0). We denote the resulting simplicial complex by gNA(T),
and denote the composition map of NA and the gluing map by gNA.
We give an ordering of the face gNA(F0) and the tetrahedra associated to F0:
Definition 3.19: Under the gluing map, we say that the tetrahedron obtained through Cases 1(a), 2(a) or 2(b) in the method of tetrahedral association for F0is below gNA(F0). We say that the tetrahedron obtained through Cases 1(b),
2(c) or 2(d) is above gNA(F0).
The next step is to identify the boundary of gNA(T).
The boundary of gNA(T). We would like to find faces ingNA(T) belonging to only
one tetrahedron. We start with faces inT associated to only one tetrahedron. Lemma 3.20: Let F0 be a face in C ∪ Tf inal. Then there exists a face fF0 in
g
NA(T) with vertices of F0such that fF0is contained in exactly one tetrahedron.
Proof. This is again a case-by-case checking following the method of association. Case 1. F0⊂C, A /∈ F0
Let T0 ∈T be the tetrahedron below F0. Then NA(T0) is associated to F0
through Case 1(a) of the method of association. Let fF0= gNA(F0) with vertices
of F0. Then gNA(T0) is below fF0 by Definition 3.19. However, no tetrahedron
is associated to F0through Case 1(b) since F0∈ F/ lower.
Case 2. F0⊂C, A ∈ F0
Let d be the diagonal in F0 not containing A. If FI exists in L+F0, let fF0 =
g
NA(FI−1). Then fF0 and F0 have the same vertices. In addition, gNA(TI) is
below fF0 by Definition 3.19. If FI does not exist, let Fd be the face in the
downward flipping tetrahedron Td of d such that F0 and Fd are on the same
g
NA(Td) is below fF0. However, no tetrahedron is above fF0 because Case 2(c)
and 2(d) fail in the method of association for F0: 2(c) fails because every face
inL+F
0 is aboveC, and 2(d) fails because d ⊂ C.
Case 3. F0⊂ Tf inal, A /∈ F0
Similar to Case 1, let T0 ∈T be the tetrahedron above F0, and take fF0 =
g
NA(F0). Then gNA(T0) contains and is above fF0, but Case 1(a) fails in the
method of association for F0.
Case 4. F0⊂ Tf inal, A ∈ F0
Similar to Case 2, we consider gNA(T−J) or gNA(Td), depending on whether
F−J exists or not. In the former case, take fF0= gNA(F−J+1). In the latter case,
let Fd⊂ Td be the face containing d and on the same side of d as F
0, and take
f
F0 = gNA(Fd). Then gNA(F−J) or gNA(Fd) contains and is above fF0, but Case
2(a) and 2(b) fail in the method of association for F0.
Notation. If F0⊂C ∪ Tf inal, denote by eTF0 or eT
F0 the tetrahedron in gN
A(T)
below or above fF0 given by Lemma 3.20.
We define e TXY := [ F0⊂TXY f F0,
where XY is equal to AB, to AC, or to BC. Given that fF0 and F0 have the
same vertices, eTXY and TXY are the same triangulations. In addition, define
e Tf inal:= [ F0⊂Tf inal f F0
Finally, define eC =TeAB∪ eTAC∪ eTBC. The following lemma gives a tetrahedron
in gNA(T) containing a face with vertices A, B, C.
Lemma 3.21: There exists a tetrahedron T in T containing BC, such that g
NA(T ) has a face with vertices A, B, and C, and that face does not belong to
any other tetrahedron in gNA(T).
Proof. Consider a set S = {F ∈ Flower: F contains BC but not A, F and τ are
on the same side of BC}. First assume S is nonempty. Let F0be the “top” face in S, meaning that there is no other face in S above it. Since F0∈ Flower and
below AB, contradicting the fact that BC is not below AB. Thus, T has a face F00 above F0 that contains BC and is on the same side of BC as τ . But then T must be penetrating or contain A, since otherwise F0 is not the “top” face. Thus, gNA(T ) 6= φ, and gNA(F0) has vertices A, B, C. Finally, gNA(F0) does not
belong to any other tetrahedron than gNA(T ), because the associating method
for F00 fails in Case 2(c) or 2(d) according to the definition of F0.
Now assume S is empty. Let TBC be the downward flipping tetrahedron of
BC inT. Since S is empty, TBC is penetrating or contains A. Set T = TBC.
Then gNA(T ) contains a face with vertices A, B, C. We claim that there is no
tetrahedron in gNA(T) above this face. Assume the contrary, note that Case
2(d) in the method of association for this face fails because BC is inC, so Case 2(c) must hold. This implies the existence of a face in S, a contradiction to the emptiness of S, thus proves the lemma.
Notation. Denote by eTτ the tetrahedron gNA(T ) from Lemma 3.21 andτ thee
face of eTτ with vertices A, B, and C.
The method in Lemma 3.21 can be used to show the following:
Corollary 3.22: Suppose that T has no face with vertices A, B, C. Then, there exist a τ -penetrating tetrahedron containing AB and a τ -penetrating tetrahedron containing AC.
Proof. In order to find a penetrating tetrahedron that contains AB, we re-place A by C, B by A, and C by B in the proof of 3.21. If S is non-empty, we consider the tetrahedron containing and above F0. Otherwise we consider
the tetrahedron TAB. The considered tetrahedron is necessarily τ -penetrating
because there is no face with vertices A, B, and C.
A penetrating tetrahedron containing AC can be found in the same way. Combining Lemma 3.20 and Lemma 3.21, we see thatτ as well as the faces ine e
TAB, eTAC, eTBC, and eTf inalare in the boundary of gNA(T). In fact, the following
lemma implies that we have found all boundary faces.
Lemma 3.23: Let eF be a face in gNA(T). IfF is contained in only one tetrahe-e dron, then eF is equal toeτ , or eF is contained in eC ∪Tef inal.
such that gNA(F0) is equal to eF , and F0 is associated to only one tetrahedron
NA(T ) (where gNA(T ) is equal to eT ) through Case 1(a), 2(a) or 2(b) in the
method of association for F0.
Suppose A does not belong to eF . This means Case 1(a) holds while Case 1(b) fails in the method of association for F0. The only possibility is that F0 is
in C and does not contain A.
Now suppose A ∈ eF . Let d be the diagonal of F0 such that its image in eF
does not contain A. Then F0 and A are on the same side of d. Recall the list
L−
F0 and the face F−J in the association method for F0. Since Case 2(c) fails
in the method of association for F0, F−J does not exist. Since Case 2(d) fails
either, d is inC. Let F00⊂ T be the face containing d other than F0.
If d is equal to BC, the nonexistence of F−Jimplies either S = φ and T = TBC
in the proof of Lemma 3.21, or F00 is below F0 and is the “top” face in S,
depending on whether F00 and F0 are on the same side of d. In both cases,
g
NA(T ) is equal to eTτ by Lemma 3.21, and therefore, eF coincides withτ .e If d is not equal to BC, the nonexistence of F−J implies that d belongs to a
face in C containing A, denoted by FA, where FAand F0 are on the same sides
of d. Then eT is just equal to eTFA defined as the tetrahedron obtained in Case
2 of Lemma 3.20. In conclusion, we have shown that if eF is contained in only one tetrahedron eT , and if eT is below eF , then eF =τ or is in ee C. In the same way, if eT is above eF , we can show that eF ⊂ eTf inal. This proves the lemma.
Next, similar to the diagonals inT, we want to define the concept of upward and downward flipping tetrahedra for a class of diagonals in gNA(T). We will
define the downward flipping tetrahedra first.
Upward and Downward Flipping Tetrahedra. Let ed be a diagonal in gNA(T)
con-taining A. The goal of this section is to define the so-called upward flipping tetrahedron eTdeand downward flipping tetrahedron eT
e
d in gNA(T) for ed. They
get such names because their relationship to ed is analogous to that of Td and Td to d. We first give the definition of the downward flipping tetrahedron.
Definition 3.24 (Downward flipping tetrahedron): Consider a diagonal ed in gNA(T).
Further consider a diagonal d in a tetrahedron T such that ]NAT(d) coincides
with ed, and d is not contained in Tf inal.
If A is not contained in d, we define eT
e
d = gNA(Td). Otherwise, let O be the
Sd = {F ∈ Flower : F contains O, crosses the segment AO and is below d}.
If Sd is not empty, let F (d) ∈ Sd be the “top” face, so that any other face
in Sd is below F (d). Let T (d) be the tetrahedron containing and above F (d).
Then NA(T (d)) is non-empty, and we define eTde= gNA(T (d)).
For this definition to hold we need to show that eT
e
d is independent of which
d we choose. We need to establish two lemmas before showing this.
Lemma 3.25: Let {T0, T1, . . . , Tn} be a list of tetrahedra containing a diagonal
with a vertex O 6= A. Suppose Tiand Ti+1share a face Fi(0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1) where
Fi is penetrating or contains A for i 6= 0, n. Let FO ∈ Flower or FO ⊂C be a
face containing O and crosses AO. Then Tn is above/below FO if T0is.
Proof. We would like to prove by induction. Assume Ti is above/below FO for
some i, where 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1. We want to show that Ti+1 is above/below FO.
If A ∈ Fi, in which case Fi crosses FO, the proof is clear. So we assume
A /∈ Fi, so Fi is penetrating. We claim that Fi is above or below FO in this
case.
Let di ⊂ Fi be a penetrating diagonal. Without loss of generality, assume
di crosses and is above AB. if FO crosses (hence is below) AB, it is below Fi.
Thus, it suffices to consider when FO does not cross AB.
Let x, y be the other two vertices of FO. Then 4xOy is a triangle in πAB or
π \ πAB because FO does not cross AB. Suppose Fi does not cross or overlap
with FO. Then the vertices of Fi (including O) must belong to a connected
component in πAB\ 4xOy or π \ (πAB∪ 4xOy). There are at most two such
components containing O, but Fi does not cross AB if its vertices belong to
any of these components. This contradicts the assumption that di crosses AB.
So Fi either crosses or overlaps with FO. Note that Fi 6= FO because Fi is
penetrating. Therefore, Fi is above or below FO. This finishes the proof of the
claim, and the proof of the lemma follows from induction.
As a consequence of Lemma 3.25, we get
FO ∈ Flower or FO ⊂C be a face containing O and crossing AO. Then T and
T0 are both above or both below FO.
Proof. Since NA(T ) and NA(T0) contain A, NA(T ) and NA(T0) are associated
to some face through Case 2 in the method of association. Then there is a list of tetrahedra {T0, T1, . . . , Tn} sharing a diagonal d0containing O, where T0= T
and Tn = T0, such that Ti and Ti+1 share a face Fi.
We first prove the lemma if the vertices of d0 are B and C. It suffices to show that Fi is above/below FO for 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, and the lemma follows
from induction. If FO crosses d0, we are done. Thus, we can assume that FO
crosses (hence is below) both AB and AC. According to Case 2 in the method of association, Fi and A are on the same side of d0. If A ∈ Fi, then Fi crosses
FO and we are done. Otherwise, Fi crosses AB or AC. Note that Fi ∈ F/ lower,
since otherwise NA(T ) and NA(T0) will not be glued. Thus, we must have
Fi∈ Fupper, which implies that Fi is above AB or AC. Since FO is below AB
and AC, Fi is above FO. Hence, the lemma is true if B, C are the vertices of
d0.
If the vertices of d0 are not B and C, then A ∈ Fi or Fi is penetrating, and
the lemma follows directly from Lemma 3.26.
Applying Corollary 3.26 repeatedly to adjacent tetrahedra in gNA(T)
contain-ing ed (taking FO= F (d)), we get
Corollary 3.27: Let ed be a diagonal containing A. Suppose ed = ]NAT(d) for
some tetrahedron T and diagonal d ⊂ T . If ed ⊂ gNA(T0) for some tetrahedron
T0, then T0 is above F (d).
In addition, we will need the following simple observation:
Lemma 3.28: Let ed be a diagonal in gNA(T) not containing A. Suppose T, T0
are two tetrahedra such that gNA(T ) and gNA(T0) both contain ed. Then T and
T0 share a diagonal with the same vertices as ed.
Proof. It suffices to prove the lemma in case gNA(T ) and gNA(T0) are adjacent.
Otherwise, gNA(T ) and gNA(T0) are connected by a sequence of adjacent
tetra-hedra containing ed, and we can apply induction to this sequence.
By assumption, there exist diagonals d ⊂ T and d0⊂ T0 such that ]N AT(d) =
]
will associate two tetrahedra containing d. Therefore, d ⊂ T0. Since d and d0 have the same vertices, d = d0.
Now we are ready to prove that eT
e
d is independent of d.
Lemma 3.29: Suppose there exist tetrahedra T, T0 ∈ T, where d ⊂ T and d0 ⊂ T0, such that ]N
AT(d) = ]NAT 0(d
0) = ed. Then eT e d= eTde0.
Proof. We consider two cases.
Case 1. A /∈ ed. Then it follows directly from Lemma 3.28 that d = d0. Hence Td= Td0.
Case 2. A ∈ ed. Suppose Sd 6= φ, then T is above F (d). By Corollary 3.27,
T0 is also above F (d), so F (d) ∈ Sd0, and Sd0 6= φ. Furthermore, F (d) is not
above F (d0) by definition of F (d0). Conversely, if Sd0 6= φ, then Sd 6= φ, and
F (d0) is not above F (d).
Therefore, if Sd, Sd0 = φ, then eT
e
d = eTde0 = φ. Otherwise, since F (d) and
F (d0) both cross OA, they must be the same face. Thus, eT
e d= eTde0.
Next we prove some properties of eT
e
d we expect naturally:
Lemma 3.30: eTdedoes not exist if and only if ed ⊂ eTf inal.
Proof. Let d and T0 be such that d ⊂ T0 and ]NAT0(d) = ed.
1. Suppose A /∈ ed. Then eT
e
d does not exist ⇔ Td= φ ⇔ d ⊂ Tf inal.
We show that d ⊂ Tf inal⇔ ed ⊂ eTf inal:
(⇒) Let F0 be a face such that d ⊂ F0 ⊂ T0. If there is no tetrahedron in
g
NA(T) containing and below gNA(F0), then ed ⊂ gNA(F0) ⊂ eTf inal by Lemma
3.23. Otherwise, there is a tetrahedron T1 ∈T below T0 such that gNA(F0) ⊂
g
NA(T1). Let F1 6= F0 be a face such that d ⊂ F1⊂ T1. Repeat the argument
on gNA(F1), then either ed ⊂ gNA(F1) ⊂ eTf inal by Lemma 3.23, or there is a
tetrahedron T2 below T1 such that gNA(F1) ⊂ gNA(T2). The list {T0, T1, T2, . . . }
must terminate because there are finite tetrahedra containing d and below T0.
Thus ed ⊂ eTf inal.
(⇐) By definition, ed is contained in eTFf0 for some F0 ⊂ T
f inal, and F0contains
a diagonal d0with the same vertices as ed. Let T0∈T be such thatTeFf
0
= gNA(T0).
By checking Case 3 and 4 in Lemma 3.20, we see that d0⊂ T0. Finally, applying
Lemma 3.28 to T0 and T0, we have d ⊂ T0. Thus d = d0 and d ⊂ Tf inal.
2. Now suppose ed has vertices A and O. Then eT
e
d does not exist ⇔ Sd= φ.
We will show that Sd= φ ⇔ ed ⊂ eTf inal.
(⇒) Consider the set S = {T ∈ T : ed ⊂ gNA(T )}. Let T0 be the “bottom”
tetrahedron in S, meaning that no tetrahedron in S is below T0. Let F ⊂ T0 be a face below T0 and containing O.
We claim that eF := gNA(F ) contains ed. Suppose not, then A /∈ eF , so eF and
hence F crosses OA. In addition, F 6⊂C since F is below T0 and NA(T0) 6= φ.
Therefore, F ∈ Flower, and is consequently in Sd, a contradiction to Sd= φ.
Now if there exists a tetrahedron T00 such that gNA(T00) is below eF , then
T00 ∈ S, and T00 is below T0, a contradiction to the definition of T0. Thus, by
Lemma 3.23, eF ⊂ eTf inal, so ed ⊂ eTf inal.
(⇐) Suppose ed ⊂ eTf inal. By definition, there is a face F ⊂ Tf inal containing
O and A such that ed ⊂ eTF. Let T0
0 ∈T be such thatTeF = gNA(T00). Then T00
is above F (d) by Corollary 3.27. From Case 3 and 4 in Lemma 3.20, there is a list of tetrahedra {T00, T10, . . . , Tn0} sharing a diagonal, such that T0
i and Ti+10
are adjacent for 0 ≤ i ≤ n − 1, and F ⊂ Tn0. By Corollary 3.27, Tn0 is above F (d), so F = F (d) or F is above F (d). The former is impossible since A ∈ F but A /∈ F (d). The latter is impossible either since F ⊂ Tf inal. Therefore,
e
d 6⊂ eTf inal. This proves the lemma.
Lemma 3.31: If exists, eTdeis the unique tetrahedron in gNA(T) that contains,
crosses and is below ed.
Proof. Let gNA(T ) be a tetrahedron that contains, crosses and is below ed. Let
d ⊂ T be such that ]NAT(d) = ed. Then NA(T ) crosses and is below NAT(d). So
T crosses and is below d by normalization rules. Since the only tetrahedron in T that contains, crosses and is below d is Td, T = Td.
If A /∈ ed, then gNA(T ) = eTdeby definition.
Otherwise, suppose ed has vertices A and O. Let F ⊂ Td be the face below
d and containing O. Then F crosses d, so NA(F ) crosses OA. In addition,
since A /∈ F , NA(F ) and F have the same vertices. This means F ⊂ C or
F ∈ Flower. Since Td is above F , the former case is impossible, otherwise
NA(Td) = φ. Therefore F ∈ Flower and thus Sd. Consequently, F is not
above F (d). In addition, F is not below F (d) because T is above F (d) by Corollary 3.27. Therefore, F = F (d) as they both cross OA. Again, we have g
Thus, we have seen that eT
e
d and ed in gNA(T ) are just like what we have for Td
and d in T.
The upward flipping tetrahedron eTdeis similarly defined:
Definition 3.32 (Upward Flipping Tetrahedra): Let ed be a diagonal in gNA(T).
Let d be a diagonal in a tetrahedron T such that ]NAT(d) = ed, and d 6⊂C.
If A /∈ d, define eTde= gN A(Td).
Otherwise, let O be the vertex of ed other than A. Consider the set Sd =
{F ∈ Flower or F ⊂C : F contains O, crosses AO and is above d}. If Sd6= φ,
let F (d) be the “bottom” face in Sd. Let T (d) be the tetrahedron containing and below F (d). Then NA(T (d)) 6= φ, and we define eTde= gNA(T (d)).
In the way we prove Lemma 3.29, 3.30 and 3.31, we can show that eTdeis
well-defined, exists if and only if ed ⊂ eC, and is the unique tetrahedra containing, crossing and above ed.
In summary, we proved the following result in this section: Theorem 3.33: Let ed be a diagonal in gNA(T ).
If ed 6⊂ eTf inal, then ed has a downward flipping tetrahedron eTde, which is the
unique tetrahedron containing, crossing and below ed.
If ed 6⊂ eC, then ed has an upward flipping tetrahedron eTde, which is the unique
tetrahedron containing, crossing and above ed.
3.4. The Decomposition lemma. We have seen that the boundary of gNA(T )
isτ ∪ ee C ∪Tef inal. We will first show that we can build a flip path fromeτ ∪ eC to e
Tf inalwhose flipping tetrahedra are precisely those in gNA(T).
Let eT be a triangulation of π consisting of faces in gNA(T).
Lemma 3.34: If eT 6= eTf inal, then there exist two adjacent faces in eT and a
tetrahedron in gNA(T) containing and below them.
Proof. We assume that eT and eTf inalhave no diagonal in common, otherwise we
cut eT and eTf inalalong this diagonal, and prove this lemma on each remaining
connected component.
By Lemma 3.23, every face eF in eT has a tetrahedron that contains and is below eF since it is not in eTf inal. This tetrahedron contains, crosses and is below
some diagonal ed of eF , hence must equal eT
e
Now every diagonal in eT has a downward flipping tetrahedron by Theorem 3.33. Since eT has N − 3 diagonals, there are N − 3 distinct downward flipping tetrahedra. Since eT has N − 2 faces, each of which has a downward flipping tetrahedron below it by the last paragraph, at least one downward flipping tetrahedron contains and is below two faces by the pigeonhole principle. This tetrahedron thus contains two adjacent faces in eT .
If eT
e
d has two adjacent faces in eT , flipping ed gives a new triangulation of π
whose faces are in gNA(T), and the corresponding flipping tetrahedron is just
e T
e
d∈ gNA(T). Thus, applying Lemma 3.34 repeatedly gives a flip path fromτ ∪ ee C to eTf inal. As every tetrahedron in gNA(T) is a downward flipping tetrahedron of
some diagonal, the number of flips in this path equals the number of tetrahedra in gNA(T).
Now suppose AC is not above any of AB or BC. Then by Lemma 3.15 we can consider the map NB and create a space gNB(T). Everything we have done so
far for NAhas a symmetric analogue for NB, proved by turning gNB(T) upside
down. In summary, the boundaries of gNB(T) are
e
Tinitial (defined in a similar
way to eTf inal) and eτ ∪ eC, and we obtain a flip path from Teinitial to eτ ∪ eC by
flipping the diagonals in gNB(T). Concatenating the two flip paths gives a flip
path from eTinitial to eTf inal. The number of flips in the path is the number of
tetrahedra in gNA(T) and gNB(T).
We show that this number is no greater than the number of tetrahedra inT. Lemma 3.35: If T does not have a face with vertices A, B, C, then the number of tetrahedra in gNA(T) ∪ gNB(T) is strictly less than that in T.
Proof. Let T ∈T. If T ∈ Tlower or Tupper, either NA(T ) or NB(T ) is empty
by Lemma 3.11. If T is τ -penetrating with exactly one non-penetrating face, then it is penetrating from above or below but not both, so one of NA(T ) and
NB(T ) is empty. Finally, if T is penetrating with two non-penetrating faces,
then by Lemma 3.8, T has two vertices in {A, B, C}. Thus, T has at least a vertex in {A, B}, again either NA(T ) or NB(T ) is empty.
It remains to show that T contains a tetrahedron with empty image under both NA and NB. By Corollary 3.22, there exists a penetrating tetrahedron
containing A and B, hence has empty image under both NA and NB.
Theorem 3.36: Let π be a convex polygon, and Tinitial, Tf inalbe two
triangu-lations of π forming the boundary of a flat polyhedron P . LetT be the tetra-hedral decomposition of P corresponding to a minimal flip path from Tinitialto
Tf inal. Let AB, AC and BC be diagonals inT or edges of π forming a triangle
τ . Then T has a face with vertices A, B, C.
Proof. Suppose T does not have a face with vertices A, B, C. Without loss of generality, assume BC and AC are respectively a first and a last diagonal in T or edge of π to appear in the minimal flip path. By Lemma 3.15, we can consider the normalized space gNA(T) and gNB(T). By Lemma 3.34 and 3.35,
there is a flip sequence from Tinitial to Tf inal with fewer number of flips than
the minimal flip path, a contradiction.
Now we are ready to prove the decomposition lemma claimed at the beginning of Section 3.
Lemma 3.37 (Decomposition Lemma): Let π be a convex polygon, and Tinitial, Tf inal
be two triangulations of π forming the boundary of a flat polyhedron P . Suppose there are three diagonals in Tinitial∪ Tf inal or edges of π enclosing a triangle
that is not a face of P . Then P can be cut into two flat polyhedra P1 and
P2 along this triangle, and any minimal tetrahedral decomposition of P is the
union of some minimal tetrahedral decompositions of P1 and P2.
Proof. Denote the three diagonals or edges by AB, AC and BC. We choose the cross section such that TAB, TAC and TBC only contain faces in Tinitial or
Tf inal. The rest is a direct consequence of Theorem 3.36.
More generally, if we take any cross section, we have
Lemma 3.38 (Generalized Decomposition Lemma): Let π be a convex polygon, and Tinitial, Tf inal be two triangulations of π forming the boundary of a flat
polyhedron P . LetT be a minimal tetrahedral decomposition of P . Suppose there are three diagonals inT or edges of π enclosing a triangle τ. Then there exists a triangulation T of π containing a face with the same vertices as τ , such thatT is the union of some minimal tetrahedral decompositions of two flat polyhedra P1 and P2, where P1has boundary Tinitial∪ T and P2has boundary
Figure 15. The decomposition of P into P1. In P , the blue
diagonals are in Tinitial and the red dashed ones are in Tf inal.
The triangle τ is colored yellow.
Remark 3.39: The decomposition lemmas can not be generalized freely to non-convex planar regions. For example, in a polygon with flat vertices, concave vertices or punctures, there is no guarantee that a diagonal joining any two vertices exists, so the image of a tetrahedron given by NR1 and NR2 can be empty. Thus, before applying the decomposition lemmas to these polygons, one should check carefully that every tetrahedron NX(T ) or NY(T ) satisfying NR1
or NR2 exists for X and Y we choose.
Remark 3.40: To prove the decomposition lemma, we take NA(T ) and NB(T ).
The reason for not considering upper and lower normalizations both toward A is that Lemma 3.35 may not be true if BC is not preserved. We don’t prove it here since the current version suffices for its application in the next sections.
4. Strong convexity fails with two flat vertices
Recall that a diagonal is preserved if it is not flipped in a minimal flip path between two triangulations sharing it. We have seen that when adding a flat vertex to a convex polygon, all diagonals are still preserved. We want to see whether this is true if we keep adding flat vertices.
In this section, we construct a class of convex polygons with two flat vertices added, and show by the decomposition lemma that there is a non-preserved diagonal.
insert n convex vertices in (D, E), denoted by Di(1 ≤ i ≤ n), where the indices
increase counterclockwisely. For convenience we define D0 = D, Dn+1 = E.
Similarly, we insert n convex vertices Hi (1 ≤ i ≤ n) in (H, I), and set H0 =
H, Hn+1= I. Then insert m convex vertices Ei, Gi (1 ≤ i ≤ m) in (E, F ) and
(G, H), and set E0 = E, Em+1 = F, G0 = G and Gm+1 = H. Finally, insert
m + 1 convex vertices Fi (1 ≤ i ≤ m + 1) in (F, G) and set F0= F, Fm+2= G.
The resulting polygon is denoted by πm,n.
Next we construct two triangulations Tinitial and Tf inal of πm,n. For Tinitial,
make a diagonal joining BD, ADi(0 ≤ i ≤ n+1), EL, EK, EiJ (0 ≤ i ≤ m+1),
F Hi(1 ≤ i ≤ n + 1), FiGm+1−iand Fi+1Gm+1−i(0 ≤ i ≤ m). Construct Tf inal
as the “mirror image” of Tinitial. When m = 4, n = 5, we plot π4,5, Tinitialand
Tf inalin Figure 16. By direct counting, πm,nhas 2n + 3m + 13 vertices, and a
triangulation of πm,nhas 2n + 3m + 10 diagonals.
Figure 16. Flat polyhedra constructed from π4,5 (left) andbπ4,5
(right). The blue diagonals are in Tinitial (left) or bTinitial
(right). The red diagonals are in Tf inal (left) or bTf inal (right).
Now construct a polygon bπm,n from πm,n by adding a convex vertex O in
(L, A). Correspondingly, denote by bTinitial and bTf inal the triangulations after
Finally, let Tm,n be a minimal tetrahedral decomposition of the flat
poly-hedron Pm,n associated to Tinitial and Tf inal, and let tm,n be the number of
tetrahedra inTm,n. Similarly, we define bTinitial, bTf inal, bTm,nandbtm,n.
We will prove the following result:
Theorem 4.1: The diagonal AL is not preserved in πbm,n whenever n >> m >> 0.
The outline of proof is as follows:
First, we find an upper bound forbtm,nby constructing a specific flip path from
b
Tinitialto bTf inal. Then we find a lower bound for tm,nunder the assumption that
AL is preserved, and show that tm,n>btm,n, which is a contradiction. This is
done by decomposing Pm,ninto five smaller flat polyhedra by the decomposition
lemma, and then finding the minimal sum in the number of tetrahedra in their tetrahedral decompositions.
Let us find an upper bound for btm,n.
Lemma 4.2: btm,n≤ 2n + 6m + 24.
Proof. We simply construct a flip path from bTinitialto bTf inalwith 2n + 6m + 24
flips. Begin with bTinitial and take the flips in a sequence of 11 steps described
below:
steps flips step flip number total flip number
1. AL → OE 1 1 2. EL → OK 1 2 3. EK → OJ 1 3 4. EiJ → OEi+1(0 ≤ i ≤ m) m + 1 m + 4 5. F J → OI 1 m + 5 6. OJ → IK 1 m + 6 7. OK → IL 1 m + 7 8. OI → F L 1 m + 8 9. F Hn+1−i→ Hn−iL(0 ≤ i ≤ n) n + 1 n + m + 9 10. F L → OH 1 n + m + 10 11. FiGm+1−i→ OFi+1 Fi+1Gm+1−i→ OGm−i
)
Then we arrive at a triangulation shown in Figure 17. By symmetry, another n+3m+12 flips can take us from this triangulation to bTf inal, so the flip distance
between bTinitial and bTf inal is at most 2n + 6m + 24.
Figure 17. The triangulation after n + 3m + 12 flips from bTinitial.
Assume that AL is preserved inbπm,n. In this case, we will find two diagonals
inTm,n, and show that the generalized decomposition lemma can be applied to
Pm,n.
Notation. If XY is flipped to ZW , we write f (XY ) = ZW . In addition, for every integer i > 1, define fi inductively by fi(XY ) = f (fi−1(XY )). If
fi(XY ) ⊂ T
f inal, we say that XY is flipped i times.
Lemma 4.3: Suppose AL is preserved inbπm,n. When n >> m,Tm,n contains a diagonal joining F, L, denoted by F L, and a diagonal joining A, G, denoted by AG. Furthermore, F L is above AG.
Proof. We count how many flips are necessary in a minimal flip path corre-sponding toTm,n. Suppose there is no diagonal joining A and G inTm,n. Then
in this flip path, ADi can not be flipped directly to DjG for any i, j. In
addi-tion, ADi can not be flipped directly to HjL for any i, j because they do not
cross.
Hence ADi can only be possibly flipped to a diagonal other than DjG or
HjL(0 ≤ j ≤ n + 1), and since Tf inal has 2n + 3m + 10 diagonals, there are