Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 80 references

Design Principles for Realizable Discrete Surface Embeddings in Physical Systems

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Discrete surface meshes can be designed so their 3D shapes stay bounded and predictable.

desk verdict Useful, honest engineering paper on designing discrete meshes with controlled embedding multiplicity; the central counting theorem is a plausible result stated without proof and with a confusing exponent, so it needs referee revision rather than desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07696 v1 pith:O553GILH submitted 2025-05-12 cond-mat.dis-nn physics.comp-ph

Kyungeun Kim , Christian D. Santangelo This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.dis-nnphysics.comp-ph MSC 52C2553C42
keywords isometricembeddinggraphrealizationrigiditytheoryBézoutboundtriangulatedmeshtrilaterationlinearmatrixmethodprogrammablematerials
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper asks why a discrete mesh with fixed edge lengths can have multiple three-dimensional shapes, and whether mesh connectivity can be designed so that the number of shapes is known and small. It answers that meshes built by gluing sequential tripod-like units ($I_3$) or tetrahedral four-edge units ($I_4$) have controlled realization counts: at most $2^n$ for a strip of $n$ units, and between $2^n$ and $4^n$ for an annulus. The bounds follow from counting sphere intersections via Bézout's theorem after reducing each new vertex to a position determined by three known neighbors. The paper further claims that when the continuous target surface has a unique isometric embedding, extra local wiggles in a discrete reconstruction signal missing constraints on dihedral angles, and it supports this with simulations comparing trilateration, a linear matrix method, and energy minimization. A reader who cares about 4D printing, programmable materials, or deployable structures gets a design recipe for making a programmed length pattern fold into one intended shape rather than a zoo of alternatives.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are $I_n$ structures: a vertex with $n$ edges in a nondegenerate configuration, so an $I_3$ is a tripod and an $I_4$ is a tetrahedral four-edge unit. These are used as sequential building blocks. Counting relies on Bézout's theorem: two circles meet in at most two points, so each new vertex positioned by distances to three known vertices contributes a factor of two, giving $2^n$ for strips and direction-dependent bounds for annuli; subtracting sphere equations turns the quadratic distance constraints into linear systems. Rigidity enters through the rigidity matrix and its rank condition for infinitesimal rigidity, and Cayley-Menger determinants certify local realizability and complete missing distances. Computationally, trilateration places each new vertex from three known distances, giving two candidate positions per vertex, while the linear matrix method uses four fixed points and solves a $3\times3$ linear system, giving one candidate per vertex.

What would settle it

For the metric in Eqs. (18)-(20), solve the Gauss-Codazzi evolution (Eqs. (8)-(9)) without imposing $f_1(v)=5v$ and $f_2(v)=0.3|v|^2+0.2|v|^4$; if a second smooth embedding satisfying the $v=1$ boundary exists, the observed discrete fluctuations could be genuine multiplicity rather than insufficient constraints.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a design principle: a discrete surface embedding problem can be engineered so the number of realizations is controlled by mesh connectivity rather than discovered by accident. Theorem III.1 states that a graph assembled from $n$ copies of the unit $I_d$ (a vertex with $d$ edges in nondegenerate configuration) has at most $2^n$ realizations when arranged as a strip, and between $2^n$ and $4^n$ when arranged as an annulus; replacing one $I_d$ by $I_{d+1}$ caps the count at $2^n$. The paper also claims that in a mesh reconstruction, when the smooth isometric embedding of the target metric with its boundary condition is unique, local fluctuations away from the target are a symptom of underspecified dihedral angles: the discrete solver is selecting the wrong member of a finite solution set. It demonstrates the claim numerically on a wavy target surface with 4, 8, 12, and 16 peaks, comparing trilateration, which branches two ways per step, with a linear matrix method that uses more pinned points and gives one choice per step, and with energy minimization.

Load-bearing premise

The diagnostic claim presupposes that the smooth target surface in Example III.2 is genuinely the only isometric embedding of its metric under the stated boundary condition, which is inferred from a radial-symmetry ansatz and Gauss-Codazzi rather than proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a strip of $n$ sequential $I_3$ or $I_4$ units, a practitioner can guarantee at most $2^n$ embeddings, making sequential reconstruction or exhaustive comparison feasible for meshes with roughly a thousand vertices.
  • For an annulus, the $2^n$ to $4^n$ bounds warn that direction-independent counting can double the solution space, so annular designs should be pinned or otherwise constrained when a unique shape is required.
  • If the smooth target embedding is unique, adding constraints that fix dihedral angles, slope, or periodicity should reduce reconstruction error, and leftover local fluctuations become a usable diagnostic for under-constrained meshes.
  • The linear matrix method keeps reconstruction error at the level of input noise despite using coarser grids, suggesting that over-constraining the discrete problem is a practical route to stable shapes.
  • Construction by tetrahedra with Cayley-Menger conditions yields unique realizations when edge counts reach the complete-graph threshold, giving a checklist for mesh design before fabrication.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the diagnostic claim holds, local fluctuation maps could drive adaptive mesh design: reconstruct, locate regions of high oscillation, and add constraints only there; the paper does not test this adaptive loop.
  • The Bézout counting argument depends only on the algebraic degree of the distance equations, so it should extend to force-balance or other algebraic constraints on vertex coordinates; the paper notes the force extension but does not prove bounds for it.
  • The bounds control how many realizations exist, not which one a physical sheet selects; connecting the count to the actual folded state needs an energy or stability criterion, a gap the paper acknowledges as a limitation.
  • On a physical 4D-printed sheet, the diagnostic predicts that two meshes with the same target metric and thickness but different connectivity should differ in measured roughness, which is a testable experimental signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript addresses the multiplicity of isometric realizations of triangular meshes approximating surfaces. It proposes a framework based on rigidity theory and Bezout's theorem to bound the number of realizations for strips and annuli constructed by sequential addition of I_d units (Theorem III.1), and introduces two sequential reconstruction methods (trilateration and a linear matrix method) with demonstrations on parametric surfaces. It also claims (Claim II.1) that local fluctuations in reconstructed discrete shapes indicate insufficient constraints when a unique smooth embedding exists.

Significance. Should the bounds in Theorem III.1 be established, the paper would provide practical design guidelines for programmable materials and 4D printing, where controlling solution multiplicity is important. The manuscript has several strengths: it presents concrete algorithms (Algorithms 1 and 2), explicit grid constructions (Figs. 13-14), and numerical comparisons against known values of M3(n) from the literature. The diagnostic idea in Claim II.1 is falsifiable and potentially useful. However, the central theorem is stated without proof, and the diagnostic claim rests on an unproven uniqueness assertion for the smooth target, so the current version does not yet deliver the claimed rigor.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section III.A.d, Theorem III.1] The central realization-count bounds are stated without proof. The text after the theorem gives examples and a table but no argument establishing N_G <= 2^n for strips, 2^n <= N_G <= 4^n for annuli, or the mixed I_d/I_{d+1} case. The preceding Bezout and dimensional-reduction discussion (Figs. 3-4) is heuristic. The theorem also omits the algebraic-independence and non-degeneracy hypotheses that the paper itself invokes in Section III.B.1; without these, the lower bound 2^n for annuli is not generally true, since symmetric or algebraically dependent edge lengths can identify distinct realizations. This is the principal theoretical contribution and needs a rigorous proof or a precise statement with hypotheses.
  2. [Section II.C and Section III.C.2] The claim that reconstructions with insufficient dihedral constraints exhibit larger local fluctuations is said to be 'rigorously demonstrated,' but the evidence is only the error panels in Fig. 9 and Table III. There is no quantitative definition of 'local fluctuations,' no null model, and no statistical measure. The two configurations compared (trilateration vs linear matrix) differ in grid structure, pinned-point count, and method, so the comparison does not isolate the effect of dihedral constraints. As stated, the claim is not supported at the level claimed.
  3. [Section III.C.2, Example III.2] The smooth target surface is not proven to have a unique isometric embedding. The argument postulates the radial-symmetry ansatz (21)-(23), determines f1 and f2 by matching the metric (18)-(20), and then invokes Gauss-Codazzi without demonstrating that the second fundamental form is uniquely determined by the boundary curve at v=1. A boundary curve does not generally determine the second fundamental form, so there may be other smooth embeddings with the same metric and boundary. Because Claim II.1 requires the target smooth solution to be unique, this gap undermines the interpretation of the numerical fluctuations.
  4. [Section III.B.3.b, Eq. (17)] The condition |E| >= C(m+1,2) is described as both necessary and sufficient for unique realization under algebraic independence. This is too strong: generic globally rigid graphs with far fewer than complete-graph edges can already admit a unique realization in R^3, and the paper's own linear matrix method solves each new vertex from four distances rather than from a complete graph. The condition is sufficient but not necessary; the text should be corrected, or the actual necessary and sufficient conditions for generic global rigidity should be stated.
  5. [Section III.A.d, Theorem III.1 and Table II] The statement uses 'n copies of I_d' for the exponents, but the subsequent examples and Table II use 2^{n-3} and 4^{n-3}, where n is the total number of vertices with three pinned vertices. These two definitions of n are inconsistent, so the reader cannot verify the claimed bounds against the table. The theorem statement and the table should use the same indexing convention.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II.B.1, Eq. (8)] The evolution equation for d^2_r X appears dimensionally inconsistent and likely incorrect; in geodesic coordinates d_rr should equal b_rr N, and the quotient involving (N·d_rs X)^2/(N·d_ss X) does not reduce to b_rr. Please check this equation and its derivation.
  2. [Section III.C.1] The text says each point in the linear matrix method is connected to three pinned points, but Algorithm 2 requires four reference points. Please reconcile the description with the algorithm.
  3. [Table II] The assertion that the bounds are 'consistent' with M3(n) is a weak check, because the interval [2^{n-3}, 4^{n-3}] is very broad and contains M3(n) for the listed n by a wide margin. The table should be described as a consistency check rather than a validation of the bounds.
  4. [Fig. 5] The caption is a placeholder ('Caption'). Please provide a descriptive caption.
  5. [Example V.2, Eq. (35)] In the first Cayley-Menger determinant, the entries appear inconsistent with the stated distances (e.g., the third row has entries 1, 2, 1); please verify the matrix.
  6. [Reference [25]] Reference [25] appears to have an incomplete or incorrect author list; please check.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the realization bounds are constructive properties of the proposed I_d meshes, not fitted predictions; no load-bearing self-citation chain exists.

full rationale

The paper's central bounds (Theorem III.1 and Eq. 17) are estimates for graphs built by sequential I_d additions with pinned vertices. These counts are properties of the proposed construction: each I3/trilateration step gives at most two branch choices, so the bounds are constructive design statements rather than independent numerical predictions fitted to data. The comparison with M3(n) from [46] is an external sanity check, not a fit. Claim II.1 is stated as a conjecture and then supported by the same simulations that illustrate it; this is an evidentiary weakness, but no equation or parameter is fitted to make the claim true by construction. Example III.2 verifies that the parametric surface used to define E, F, and G satisfies those metric components, but uniqueness is asserted via Gauss-Codazzi without a full proof; this is a missing justification, not a circular reduction. The only self-citation [23] supports the existence of multiple discrete embeddings and is not load-bearing for the main counting or construction claims. Therefore, no step in the derivation chain reduces to its own input by definition; the derivation is incomplete in places, but not circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities. It relies on standard rigidity and distance-geometry results and on two domain assumptions: generic algebraically independent edge lengths, and uniqueness of the smooth target embedding in Example III.2. No free parameters are fitted to data; all test parameters are chosen a priori.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Edge lengths are algebraically independent (generic)
    Assumed in Section III.B.1 ('These conditions assume algebraically independent edge lengths') and in the Limitations. Counting bounds and uniqueness conditions fail for symmetric or degenerate lengths.
  • ad hoc to paper The target surface in Example III.2 has a unique smooth isometric embedding with the stated boundary condition
    The uniqueness is asserted in Section III.C Example III.2 from a radial-symmetry ansatz and an appeal to Gauss-Codazzi; no rigorous proof or external verification is given. Claim II.1 depends on this uniqueness.
  • standard math A graph in R^3 is infinitesimally rigid iff its rigidity matrix has rank 3n - 6
    Used in Section III.B.2 to judge rigidity; standard result in rigidity theory, not proved in the paper.
  • standard math Cayley-Menger determinant conditions characterize Euclidean realizability
    Used in Section III.B and Appendix V.A.6 for distance matrix completion; standard result in distance geometry.
  • standard math Bezout's theorem gives the maximum number of intersection points for polynomial equations without common factors
    Used in Section III.A to count sphere intersections; the paper implicitly assumes the generic no-common-factor case.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Design Principles for Realizable Discrete Surface Embeddings in Physical Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/O553GILH

@misc{pith2026250507696,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Design Principles for Realizable Discrete Surface Embeddings in Physical Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/O553GILH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07696}
}
read the original abstract

The isometric embedding of surfaces in three-dimensional space is fundamental to various physical systems, from elastic sheets to programmable materials. While continuous surfaces typically admit unique solutions under suitable boundary conditions, their discrete counterparts-represented as networks of vertices connected by edges-can exhibit multiple distinct embeddings for identical edge lengths. We present a systematic approach to constructing discrete meshes that yield a controlled number of embeddings. By analyzing the relationship between mesh connectivity and embedding multiplicity through rigidity theory, we develop criteria for designing meshes that minimize solution multiplicity. We demonstrate computational methods based on local matrix operations and trilateration techniques, enabling practical implementation for meshes with approximately a thousand vertices. Our analysis provides both theoretical bounds on the number of possible embeddings based on B\'ezout's theorem and practical guidelines for mesh construction in physical applications. Through numerical simulations, we show that this approach achieves comparable accuracy to traditional minimization methods while offering computational advantages through sequential computation. Importantly, we demonstrate that in cases where a unique smooth solution exists, local fluctuations in reconstructed shapes derived from the computational grid can serve as indicators of insufficient geometric constraints. This work bridges the gap between discrete and continuous embedding problems, providing insights for applications in 4D printing, mechanical meta-materials, and deployable structures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07696 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. An illustration of a continuous surface approximated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The coordinate system ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) Intersection points of two circles. (b) Intersection [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. An illustration of strip and annulus (genus is high [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: as follows:     p1 p2 p3 p4 p1 P 2,3,4 P(1, j) −P(1, 2) −P(1, 3) −P(1, 4) p2 −P(2, 1) P 1,4 P(2, j) 0 −P(2, 4) p3 −P(3, 1) 0 P 1,4 P(3, j) −P(3, 4) p4 −P(4, 1) −P(4, 2) −P(4, 3) P 1,2,3 P(4, j)     where P(i, j) = (pi − pj )(pi − pj ) T . If the rank of M satis…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Gluing two tetrahedrons via a green-colored face. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Four resulting embeddings from Euclidean distance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. An illustration of trilateration. With fixed edge [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Grid construction for each method: (a) annulus type [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Planar view of a 3D strip. (a) Regular triangula [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. A calla lily-inspired graph with a total of 627 points, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A theoretical framework for analyzing and bound- arXiv:2505.07696v1 [cond-mat.dis-nn] 12 May 2025 2 ing the number of possible embeddings for a given network topology

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [2]

    Design principles for constructing networks that minimize solution multiplicity

    work page

  3. [3]

    Demonstration of computational methods based on specific grid structures

    work page

  4. [4]

    A demonstration that local disorder in discretized reconstructions can serve as indicators of insuffi- cient geometric constraints when a unique smooth solution exists

    work page

  5. [5]

    Section II es- tablishes the theoretical foundations of graph embed- ding and its relationship to rigidity theory

    Practical guidelines for implementing these ap- proaches in physical systems The paper is organized as follows. Section II es- tablishes the theoretical foundations of graph embed- ding and its relationship to rigidity theory. Section III presents our methods for constructing networks with con- trolled embedding properties. Section IV details the ap- plic...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Local Evolution In geodesic coordinates, Gauss’ theorema egregium es- tablishes that the Gaussian curvature depends solely on the first fundamental form coefficients (determined by ρ representing intrinsic shape) and their derivatives, in- dependent of the extrinsic shape (described by the sec- ond fundamental form hij) [30]. Specifically, by Gauss- Codaz...

    work page

  7. [7]

    The shape of the surface depends crucially on the function f(s) in equa- tion (9), which determines how the surface bends ini- tially

    Global Behavior While local evolution is unique under suitable condi- tions, global behavior is more subtle. The shape of the surface depends crucially on the function f(s) in equa- tion (9), which determines how the surface bends ini- tially. Different choices off(s) can lead to different global shapes. This behavior parallels the physics of thin sheets:...

    work page

  8. [8]

    + dX j=1 h (pj 1)2− (pj 2)2 i =d2 1i−d2 2i 2 dX j=1 xj i (−pj 1 +pj

    work page

Show all 80 references
  1. [9]

    + dX j=1 h (pj 1)2− (pj 3)2 i =d2 1i−d2 3i If the vectors (−pj 1 +pj

  2. [10]

    Consequently, the solution space for then-dimensional sphere equations can be reduced to lower-dimensional sphere equations

    are linearly in- dependent (i.e., the rows of the matrix pj 1−pj 2 pj 1−pj 3 are lin- early independent or have different slopes), then we can eliminate two variables from (x1 i,...,x d i ). Consequently, the solution space for then-dimensional sphere equations can be reduced ...

  3. [11]

    These conditions assume algebraically independent edge lengths

    Algebraic Conditions for Finite Realizations For m unknown vertices in Rd, the relationship be- tween edge constraints |E| and degrees of freedom de- termines the nature of realizations: Multiple finite real- izations occur when dm≤| E| < m+1 2 , while a unique realization exi...

  4. [12]

    up” or “down,

    Sequential Construction Framework To develop systematic construction methods, we first introduce key concepts from rigidity theory. Definition III.2 (In Structure). In represents a set of n edges connected to a vertex, characterized by nonzero angles between each pair of edges...

  5. [13]

    Systematic Construction Methods Using Cayley-Menger determinants, we can verify whether a given construction yields unique realization (a) two neighboring triangles (b) pinned vertices with I2 FIG. 5. Caption through distance matrix completion. For a graph with n vertices in R...

  6. [14]

    The tri- lateration method, primarily used for the modified trian- gulated surface, determines vertex positions using three known points and distances

    Reconstruction Methods Our computations and simulations implement three approaches using R [50] and Mathematica [51]. The tri- lateration method, primarily used for the modified trian- gulated surface, determines vertex positions using three known points and distances. This ap...

  7. [15]

    Han and J

    Q. Han and J. Hong, Isometric Embedding of Rieman- nian Manifolds in Euclidean Spaces , Isometric embed- ding of Riemannian manifolds in Euclidean spaces No. V. 13 (American Mathematical Society, 2006)

    2006

  8. [16]

    Test Results To evaluate these methods, we used a parametric test function generating surfaces with controlled numbers of peaks: (x,y,z ) = (5v cos(u), 5v sin(u), (0.3|v|2 +0.2|v|4) sin(au)) where a = 4, 8, 12, 16 controls the number of peaks (Fig. 9). Example III.2. Before we...

  9. [17]

    By examining the form of the metric components and the boundary conditions, we can determine that f1(v) = 5v and f2(v) = (0.3|v|2 + 0.2|v|4)

  10. [18]

    Since the boundary condition provides information re- lated to second fundamental form (how much it bends on the space), we can reconstruct shape by Gauss- Codazzi

    We verify this solution by checking: At v = 1: f2(1) = 0 .3 + 0.2 = 0 .5, and the calculated E, F , G match our given metric tensor. Since the boundary condition provides information re- lated to second fundamental form (how much it bends on the space), we can reconstruct shap...

  11. [19]

    However, we focused on non-overlapping edges, with modifications based on a typical triangulated surface, as shown in Fig

    Designing grid for specific computational method There are many different ways to construct grids for the linear matrix and trilateration methods. However, we focused on non-overlapping edges, with modifications based on a typical triangulated surface, as shown in Fig. 14(a). ...

  12. [20]

    Detailed description of marching methods Consider 3D strips as shown in Fig. 14(a). As men- tioned earlier, the grid structure for trilateration can be 16 (a) Regular triangulation (b) Grid structure for trilateration (c) Grid structure for the linear matrix method FIG. 14. Pl...

  13. [21]

    Each represents a different approach to solving for unknown vertex posi- tions

    Computational algorithms The following algorithms detail the computational methods used for point determination. Each represents a different approach to solving for unknown vertex posi- tions. Algorithm 1 Trilateration Require: 3D position vectors p1, p2, p3 with corresponding...

  14. [22]

    However, the linear matrix method requires four reference points instead of three, making it more con- strained but less prone to error accumulation in extended structures

    Comparison of methods While trilateration provides two possible solutions per vertex (requiring additional criteria to select the correct one), the linear matrix method yields a unique solution directly. However, the linear matrix method requires four reference points instead ...

  15. [23]

    We demonstrate how error increases with one example

    Possible issues with marching methods We suggest applying these methods to no more than 1000 points if using only marching methods without sta- bilization (e.g., recalculating using different directions). We demonstrate how error increases with one example. The shape of the ex...

  16. [24]

    Alternative Methods for Shape Reconstruction While sequential computation methods (marching methods) can suffer from error accumulation due to se- quential matrix calculations, there are several ways to mitigate or avoid these issues. For grid structures that ensure unique rea...

  17. [25]

    For n + 1 points, realizability requires: (−1)k+1CM (P0,...,P k)≥ 0 for k = 1,...,d (27)

  18. [26]

    For n + 2 points, additional condition: CM (P0,...,P n,P n+1) = 0 (28)

  19. [27]

    For n + 3 points, conditions: CM (P0,...,P n,P n+1) = 0 (29) CM (P0,...,P n,P n+2) = 0 (30) CM (P0,...,P n,P n+1,P n+2) = 0 (31) Example V.1 (Computing Missing Distance Using Em- bedding Conditions). Consider our structure where: We have 5 points in R3 with known positions (ba...

  20. [28]

    = 0 (second tetrahedron) (33) Since these tetrahedra share points and the structure must be embeddable in R3, we can use the embedding conditions for n + 2 andn + 3 points to write additional constraints: CM (P0,...,P 5) = 0 (34) These conditions together determine the possibl...

  21. [29]

    Ravasz and A.-L

    E. Ravasz and A.-L. Barab´ asi, Phys. Rev. E 67, 026112 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    M. E. J. Newman, SIAM Review 45, 167 (2003)

    2003

  23. [31]

    Liberti, C

    L. Liberti, C. Lavor, N. Maculan, and A. Mucherino, SIAM Review 56, 3 (2014)

    2014

  24. [32]

    Poole, S

    B. Poole, S. Lahiri, M. Raghu, J. N. Sohl-Dickstein, and S. Ganguli, in Neural Information Processing Systems (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    Y. Chen, R. Peng, and Z. You, Science 349, 396 (2015)

    2015

  26. [34]

    Smith, J

    J. Smith, J. Hodgins, I. Oppenheim, and A. Witkin, ACM Trans. Graph. 21, 295–301 (2002)

    2002

  27. [35]

    Panetta, Q

    J. Panetta, Q. Zhou, L. Malomo, N. Pietroni, P. Cignoni, and D. Zorin, ACM Trans. Graph.34 (2015), 10.1145/2766937

    2015 doi

  28. [36]

    Connelly and W

    R. Connelly and W. Whiteley, SIAM Journal on Discrete Mathematics 9, 453 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    J. E. Goodman and J. O’Rourke, Handbook of Discrete and Computational Geometry (CRC Press, Inc., 1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    Jackson and T

    B. Jackson and T. Jord´ an, inLocalization Algorithms and Strategies for Wireless Sensor Networks: Monitoring and Surveillance Techniques for Target Tracking , edited by G. Mao and B. Fidan (IGI Global Scientific Publishing,

  31. [39]

    Hendrickson, SIAM Journal on Computing 21, 65 (1992)

    B. Hendrickson, SIAM Journal on Computing 21, 65 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    R. L. Bryant, P. A. Griffiths, and D. Yang, Duke Math- ematical Journal 50, 893 (1983)

    1983

  33. [41]

    Han and M

    Q. Han and M. Khuri, Communications in Analysis and Geometry 18 (2010), 10.4310/CAG.2010.v18.n4.a2

    2010 doi

  34. [42]

    Janet, Annales de la Soci´ et´ e Polonaise de Math´ ematique T

    M. Janet, Annales de la Soci´ et´ e Polonaise de Math´ ematique T. 5 (1926) (1927)

    1926

  35. [43]

    H. S. Seung and D. R. Nelson, Physical Review A 38, 1005 (1988)

    1988

  36. [44]

    Klein, E

    Y. Klein, E. Efrati, and E. Sharon, Science 315, 1116 (2007)

    2007

  37. [45]

    Efrati, E

    E. Efrati, E. Sharon, and R. Kupferman, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 57, 762 (2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    Lewicka, Marta and Reza Pakzad, Mohammad, ESAIM: COCV 17, 1158 (2011)

    2011

  39. [47]

    Borrelli, S

    V. Borrelli, S. Jabrane, F. Lazarus, and B. Thibert, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 7218 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    M. L. Gromov, Mathematics of the USSR-Izvestiya 7, 329 (1973)

    1973

  41. [49]

    Bouaziz, S

    S. Bouaziz, S. Martin, T. Liu, L. Kavan, and M. Pauly, ACM Trans. Graph. 33 (2014), 19 10.1145/2601097.2601116

    2014

  42. [50]

    We selected the conjugate gradient option in both cases

    for the appendix. We selected the conjugate gradient option in both cases. For comparison, we implemented minimization using different energy functions in Mathe- matica and R: EMathematica = X i,j (d(qi,q j)−dij)2 in Mathematica and ER = X i,j (d(qi,q j)2−d2 ij)2 where d(x,y )...

  43. [51]

    Marder and N

    M. Marder and N. Papanicolaou, Journal of Statistical Physics 125, 1065 (2006)

    2006

  44. [52]

    B. G.-g. Chen and C. D. Santangelo, Phys. Rev. E 82, 056601 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Hotz and H

    I. Hotz and H. Hagen, in Geometric Modeling for Scien- tific Visualization , edited by G. Brunnett, B. Hamann, H. M¨ uller, and L. Linsen (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2004) pp. 19–35

    2004

  46. [54]

    Stable discretization,

    B. Achi and L. O. E, “Stable discretization,” in Multigrid Techniques (2011) Chap. 2, pp. 25–30

    2011

  47. [55]

    Skouras, B

    M. Skouras, B. Thomaszewski, P. Kaufmann, A. Garg, B. Bickel, E. Grinspun, and M. H. Gross, ACM Trans- actions on Graphics (TOG) 33, 1 (2014)

    2014

  48. [56]

    Liebmann, Mathematische Annalen 53, 81 (1900)

    H. Liebmann, Mathematische Annalen 53, 81 (1900)

    1900

  49. [57]

    M. P. do Carmo, Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1976)

    1976

  50. [58]

    Kaneda, Hokkaido Mathematical Journal 19, 189 (1990)

    E. Kaneda, Hokkaido Mathematical Journal 19, 189 (1990)

    1990

  51. [59]

    Kreyszig, Differential Geometry , first dover edition ed., Dover Books on Mathematics (Dover Publications, New York, 1991)

    E. Kreyszig, Differential Geometry , first dover edition ed., Dover Books on Mathematics (Dover Publications, New York, 1991)

    1991

  52. [60]

    D. R. Hilbert, Transactions of the American Mathemat- ical Society 2, 87 (1901)

    1901

  53. [61]

    Nash, Annals of Mathematics 60, 383 (1954)

    J. Nash, Annals of Mathematics 60, 383 (1954)

    1954

  54. [62]

    R. L. Graham and P. M. Winkler, Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 288, 527 (1985)

    1985

  55. [63]

    S. J. Gortler, A. D. Healy, and D. P. Thurston, American Journal of Mathematics 132, 897 (2010)

    2010

  56. [64]

    Laurent, Linear Algebra and its Applications 273, 9 (1998)

    M. Laurent, Linear Algebra and its Applications 273, 9 (1998)

    1998

  57. [65]

    Alfakih, A

    A. Alfakih, A. Khandani, and H. Wolkowicz, Computa- tional Optimization and Applications 12, 13 (1999)

    1999

  58. [66]

    Y. Chi, Y. Li, Y. Zhao, Y. Hong, Y. Tang, and J. Yin, Advanced Materials 34, 2110384 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    Kebadze, S

    E. Kebadze, S. Guest, and S. Pellegrino, International Journal of Solids and Structures 41, 2801 (2004)

    2004

  60. [68]

    Isometric embeddings of graphs into riemannian manifolds,

    S. Ren, “Isometric embeddings of graphs into riemannian manifolds,” (2018), 1804.07136

    2018 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Discrete differential geometry: An applied intro- duction,

    E. Grinspun, M. Desbrun, P. Schr¨ oder, and M. Wardet- zky, “Discrete differential geometry: An applied intro- duction,” SIGGRAPH Asia 2008 Course Notes (2008)

    2008

  62. [70]

    Connelly, Mathematics Magazine 52, 275 (1979)

    R. Connelly, Mathematics Magazine 52, 275 (1979)

    1979

  63. [71]

    Wardetzky, S

    M. Wardetzky, S. Mathur, F. K¨ alberer, and E. Grin- spun, Proceedings of the Fifth Eurographics Symposium on Geometry Processing, , 33 (2007)

    2007

  64. [72]

    Wallner and H

    J. Wallner and H. Pottmann, Journal of Mathematics in Industry 1, 1 (2011)

    2011

  65. [73]

    Hilmar and C

    J. Hilmar and C. Smyth, The American Mathematical Monthly 117, 250–260 (2010)

    2010

  66. [74]

    Grasegger, C

    G. Grasegger, C. Koutschan, and E. Tsigaridas, Exper- imental Mathematics 29, 125–136 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    L. M. Blumenthal, Theory and Applications of Distance Geometry, second edition ed. (Chelsea Publishing Com- pany, New York, 1970)

    1970

  68. [76]

    T. F. Havel, Encyclopedia of Computational Chemistry (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2002)

    2002

  69. [77]

    M. H. Trinh, M.-C. Park, Z. Sun, B. D. O. Anderson, V. H. Pham, and H.-S. Ahn, in 2016 IEEE 55th Confer- ence on Decision and Control (CDC) (2016) pp. 922–927

    2016

  70. [78]

    The comprehensive r archive network,

    CRAN, “The comprehensive r archive network,” (2022)

    2022

  71. [79]

    Mathematica, Version 13.2,

    W. R. Inc., “Mathematica, Version 13.2,” (2022), cham- paign, IL, 2022

    2022

  72. [80]

    Gemmer, E

    J. Gemmer, E. Sharon, T. Shearman, and S. C. Venkataramani, Europhysics Letters 114, 24003 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.