Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Dehn Sommerville Manifolds

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Level sets in Dehn-Sommerville manifolds stay Dehn-Sommerville

desk verdict A promising definition and a real program, but the central level-set theorem is unproved as written; the paper reads like a research announcement in need of complete proofs. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14372 v1 pith:UCZRUCJV submitted 2025-08-20 math.CO

Oliver Knill This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CO MSC 05E45
keywords Dehn-Sommervillemanifoldssimplicialcomplexesunitsphereslevelsetsf-vectorEulercharacteristicchromaticnumberhighercharacteristics
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

Dehn-Sommerville manifolds are finite abstract simplicial complexes defined by a simple recursive condition: every unit sphere of a q-dimensional complex must itself be a Dehn-Sommerville sphere, with Euler characteristic 1+(-1)^q. The paper argues that despite this lightweight definition, the class carries much of the structure of genuine discrete manifolds: it satisfies all Dehn-Sommerville symmetries, so half of the f-vector is redundant; it is closed under level-set cuts, barycentric and edge refinements, Cartesian products, and joins; and every higher characteristic w_m equals the Euler characteristic. These properties matter because they make Dehn-Sommerville manifolds a broad, algorithmically tractable habitat in which manifold-like invariant theory and level-set constructions work without requiring geometric sphere structures at unit spheres. The central new result is an inductive closure theorem: for any function g from vertices to k labels, the collection of simplices whose labels exhaust the whole palette is again a Dehn-Sommerville (q-k)-manifold whenever nonempty.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the inductive definition via unit spheres together with the hyperbolic structure of every simplex x in a complex: the unit sphere S(x) splits as the join S^-(x) ⊕ S^+(x), where S^-(x) is the boundary sphere of the simplex x and S^+(x) is the sphere of proper cofaces containing x. In Dehn-Sommerville manifolds each factor is itself a Dehn-Sommerville sphere, and the level-set condition acts only on the stable factor, which is why Theorem 3 can reduce the dimension by k: the labelled part of a simplex boundary is claimed to be a sphere one dimension lower, and joining it with the unstable sphere yields a unit sphere of the right type. The same machinery feeds the monoid an

What would settle it

Check the level-set theorem computationally on a small simplex boundary: label the vertices of, say, a 4-simplex boundary with two colors, form the subcomplex of all proper faces that contain both colors, and verify it is a 1-sphere. A single example where this local complex is not such a sphere disproves the induction step behind Theorem 3. More broadly, find one Dehn-Sommerville q-manifold and one label function whose level set is nonempty but fails the unit-sphere test for a Dehn-Sommerville (q-k)-manifold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a class of simplicial complexes introduced with almost no geometric baggage—define a q-dimensional Dehn-Sommerville manifold by requiring every unit sphere S(x) to be a Dehn-Sommerville (q-1)-sphere—behaves like a manifold across many structural operations. In particular, Theorem 3 states that for any Dehn-Sommerville q-manifold G and any function g from its vertices to the label set A_k={0,...,k}, the set G_g={x in G : g(x)=A_k} is a Dehn-Sommerville (q-k)-manifold if nonempty; the proof runs through the hyperbolic decomposition of every unit sphere S(x)=S^-(x) ⊕ S^+(x) into a stable and an unstable sphere, noting that the level-set co

Load-bearing premise

The weakest point is the unproved level-set-in-a-simplex-boundary lemma in Section 4.4: the paper asserts that inside the boundary of a single simplex, the pieces that still see all k labels form a sphere of the claimed dimension, and the chromatic estimate additionally rests on an unproved intersection-of-unit-spheres property in Lemma 4.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All higher characteristics w_m(G) equal the Euler characteristic on Dehn-Sommerville q-manifolds, unifying Euler characteristic, Wu characteristic, and their k-point analogues for this class.
  • Half of the f-vector entries of any Dehn-Sommerville manifold are determined by the other half via explicit Dehn-Sommerville equations, so enumerative questions about such complexes only need about half as many independent face counts.
  • Any Dehn-Sommerville q-manifold can be colored with at most 2q+2 colors, since its dual graph has vertex arboricity 2; this extends the q-manifold bound to the larger class.
  • The level-set theorem gives a discrete counterpart of regular-value level submanifolds: labeling vertices with k colors and taking all faces that see every color produces a (q-k)-dimensional Dehn-Sommerville manifold, yielding a combinatorial Sard-type statement.
  • Odd-dimensional Dehn-Sommerville manifolds form a monoid under joins, so one can build new higher-dimensional examples by joining or suspending non-manifold Dehn-Sommerville spheres.

Reading between the lines

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

  • This suggests that Dehn-Sommerville manifolds could serve as a testbed for algorithms that compute f-vectors, chromatic numbers, and higher characteristics, because the class is defined by a local, checkable condition on unit spheres rather than by global homeomorphism data.
  • If the level-set theorem survives scrutiny, it may supply a route to discrete analogues of Sard's theorem and Morse theory for a far larger class than q-manifolds; one could ask whether every Dehn-Sommerville manifold arises as a level set of a function on a larger Dehn-Sommerville manifold.
  • The chromatic bound 2q+2 may be tight only for exceptional high-chromatic examples; a computational search among small Dehn-Sommerville 2-manifolds could test whether the bound can be improved or whether chromatic number 6 actually occurs.
  • Because Dehn-Sommerville manifolds are closed under barycentric refinement and Cartesian products, spectral and random-walk constructions built on their Whitney complexes inherit a stable invariant theory, potentially connecting the class to numerical experiments on point clouds after dimension-reducing melting.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper defines Dehn-Sommerville (DS) q-manifolds as finite simplicial complexes all of whose unit spheres are DS spheres, and DS spheres as complexes satisfying the same unit-sphere condition plus the Euler gem formula. It claims that this class generalizes discrete q-manifolds while retaining Dehn-Sommerville f-vector symmetries, and it announces new structural results: level sets of functions g:V(G)->A_k are DS (q-k)-manifolds (Theorem 3); all higher characteristic invariants w_m(G) equal the Euler characteristic; the chromatic number is at most 2q+2; odd-dimensional DS manifolds form a join monoid; and DS manifolds are invariant under barycentric refinement, edge refinement, and Cartesian products. The paper consists largely of examples, computational checks, and references to the author's earlier work, with the new results stated as theorems but proved only in sketch form.

Significance. If Theorem 3 and the invariant-theoretic claims were fully proved, the DS manifold class would be a natural and much broader setting for Dehn-Sommerville relations and discrete Sard/level-set theorems. The Dehn-Sommerville symmetry part of the paper is standard and plausible, and the many explicit examples (including non-manifold suspensions and non-Hamiltonian DS 2-manifolds) are useful. However, the central new results are not rigorously established: several load-bearing lemmas are asserted without proof, and one advertised theorem (w_m=chi) is not proved in the text at all. The paper ships reproducible code for examples, but no machine-checked proofs, so the claimed generality rests entirely on the manuscript's arguments.

major comments (5)
  1. [§4.4, Theorem 3] The proof rests on an unproved assertion: for an m-simplex x with g(x)=A_k, the set L={y⊂x : y≠x, g(y)=A_k} is a (m−1−k)-sphere. The text says 'by induction' and 'one can check', but L is not closed under taking subsets (a face meeting all colors has faces meeting fewer colors), so L is not a subcomplex of S^-(x). The statement needs a real proof, e.g. via the order complex of L. Without this, the join computation for the unit sphere of x in G_g has no foundation, and Theorem 3 is not established.
  2. [§4.3/§4.4, Lemma 4] The proof also assumes that S^+(x), the upper link of x (equivalently, the intersection of unit spheres of the vertices of x), is a DS (q-m-1)-sphere. This is not part of the definition of a DS manifold. The 'symmetry of f functions' remark is only a sketch, and the analogous intersection property in Lemma 4 is stated without proof. This property is used again in the chromatic-number argument (§9.3) and in Theorem 3; it is load-bearing and requires a proof.
  3. [§9, Lemma 6 and Theorem 13] The chromatic bound chi(G)≤2q+2 depends on the claim that the dual graph of a DS q-manifold has vertex arboricity 2. The proof uses Lemma 6 (the cutting lemma G\U(x) is a DS q-manifold), which is unproved, and a 'growing forests into the interior' induction that is only sketched. Since Lemma 6 itself relies on earlier unproved level-set/intersection properties, Corollary 3 is not supported by the text.
  4. [§12 and §1.8] The advertised result that w_m(G)=chi(G) for every Dehn-Sommerville q-manifold is not proved anywhere in Section 12. The section proves Lemma 7 (star lemma) and Lemma 8 (local boundary formula) and then gives examples, but no theorem statement or induction is supplied that passes from these local identities to the global equality for DS manifolds. This is a main invariant-theory claim of the abstract and Section 1.8, so it is unsupported as written.
  5. [§4.4] The proof conflates two notions of 'unit sphere'. For simplicial complexes, S(x)=δU(x) is the topological boundary of the star, while for open sets such as G_g the unit sphere is the comparability-graph neighborhood. The join decomposition S(x)=S^-(x)⊕S^+(x) is asserted for the graph notion, but the DS hypothesis on G is phrased for the topological-boundary notion. A consistent dictionary (e.g. via Barycentric refinement and order complexes) is needed before the join argument can be verified.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§4.4] In the proof of Theorem 3, 'The simplices in S^-(x) on which f still reaches A_k is by induction a (q−1−k)-manifold' should presumably be an (m−1−k)-manifold; the mixing of q and m obscures the induction.
  2. [§5.1] The proof of Theorem 5 contains an unresolved cross-reference 'Theorem (??)'.
  3. [Title/Abstract] The title uses 'Dehn Sommerville' without a hyphen while the abstract and body use 'Dehn-Sommerville'; please unify.
  4. [References] References [35] and [36] are the same arXiv entry ('Green functions of energized complexes'); duplicate citations should be merged.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: central claims are not derived from their own conclusions; main weaknesses are unproved lemmas and reliance on prior self-citations that supply real, non-fitted evidence.

full rationale

The paper defines Dehn-Sommerville manifolds by an inductive unit-sphere condition, not by assuming the level-set property or w_m=chi. Theorem 1 uses the sphere formula [40], a parameter-free identity for all simplicial complexes; this is independent evidence, not a tautology. Theorem 3 is presented as an induction on dimension. The contested step in Section 4.4 ('The simplices in S^-(x) on which f still reaches A_k is by induction ...') is an omitted combinatorial lemma about level sets in a simplex boundary, not a use of the theorem's conclusion as an input. It is a proof gap, not a reduction by construction. The announced w_m(G)=chi(G) for Dehn-Sommerville manifolds is supported in Section 12 by the Star lemma and Local boundary formula; no equation fits a parameter to the conclusion or defines w_m in terms of chi. Self-citations to [24,37,38,40] provide prior general theorems (sphere formula, connection calculus identities, level-set constructions) that are not equivalent to the new claims and are not fitted data. The main risks are correctness/rigor issues (unproved level-set sphere lemma, unproved intersection-of-unit-spheres assertion in Lemma 4), but these are not circularity. Accordingly, no circular step is exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants. Its central theorems rest on unproved or externally cited structural facts: the sphere formulas from [40], the connection calculus from [37], and several lemmas asserted without proof in this paper (simplex-boundary level sets, link intersections, the cutting lemma). These are the load-bearing premises the reader must accept.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Sphere formula: sum over x in G of omega(x) chi(S(x)) = 0 for every finite simplicial complex.
    Invoked in the proof of Theorem 1 and for the w_m claims; cited to [40], not proved in this paper.
  • domain assumption Sphere formula for higher characteristics: sum over x of omega(x) w_m(S(x)) = 0.
    Invoked in Section 1.7 to conclude odd-dimensional DS manifolds have zero higher invariants; cited to [40].
  • ad hoc to paper In a DS manifold, the intersection of the unit spheres of the vertices of any k-simplex is a DS (q-k-1)-sphere.
    Used in the proof of Lemma 4 to establish dual graph regularity; not proved for DS manifolds.
  • ad hoc to paper Level sets inside the boundary S^-(x) of a simplex are spheres: the subcomplex {y subset of x : g(y)=A_k} is a (m-1-k)-sphere.
    Core induction step in the proof of Theorem 3, asserted 'by induction' without a demonstration.
  • ad hoc to paper Cutting lemma: for a DS q-manifold with boundary and a boundary wall x, G\U(x) is a DS q-manifold (Lemma 6).
    Used in the minimal-counterexample proof of vertex arboricity; unproved.
  • domain assumption Connection calculus identities: unimodularity of the connection Laplacian, Green star formula, and k-point energy identities.
    Background for higher characteristics w_m; cited to [26,35,37,40].
invented entities (2)
  • Dehn-Sommerville manifold class independent evidence
    purpose: Generalizes discrete manifolds so that Dehn-Sommerville symmetries hold by an inductive unit-sphere condition.
    Membership is checkable by the unit-sphere condition, and many examples are constructed (suspensions, level sets, joins).
  • Dehn-Sommerville variety class independent evidence
    purpose: A further generalization for which level sets remain varieties and which forms a monoid.
    The definition is computer-checkable on finite complexes, and examples such as star graphs and cube graphs are given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dehn Sommerville Manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UCZRUCJV

@misc{pith2026250814372,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dehn Sommerville Manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UCZRUCJV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14372}
}
read the original abstract

Dehn-Sommerville manifolds are a class of finite abstract simplicial complexes that generalize discrete manifolds. Despite a simpler definition in comparison to manifolds, they still share most properties of manifolds. They especially satisfy all Dehn-Sommerville symmetries telling that half of the f-vector entries are redundant. They also share other properties with q-manifolds: for every Dehn-Sommerville q-manifold G and any function g: V(G) to A={0, ..., k} with positive k, the set of x such that g(x) contains A is a Dehn-Sommerville (q-k)-manifold if not empty. We also see that for Dehn-Sommerville q-manifolds, all higher characteristics w_m(G) agree with Euler characteristic that the chromatic number is bounded above by 2q+2 and that odd-dimensional Dehn-Sommerville manifolds are flat and form a monoid under the join operation. In general, Dehn-Sommerville manifolds are invariant under edge refinement, Barycentric refinement and Cartesian products.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.14372 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A Dehn-Sommerville 2-manifold G = MΓ,M with Γ = K2,2,2 and M = C5 that is not a manifold. Its 1-skeleton graph is a non-Hamiltonian graph. We have b(G) = (1, 7, 12) and χ(G) = 6 + |E|b1 = 6. 3.8. Let us look at some examples of invariants Yk,q, the (k+1)’th eigenvector of Aq understood as the valuation Yk,q(G) = Yk,q.fG. Example 1: The K3 surface G is one of most famous 4-manifolds. It is complex 2-manifold and a Ca… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Euler Characteristics of Random Manifolds

    math.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For a random codimension-1 level set H in a simplicial complex G, E[χ(H)] equals 2−2K(G)−χ(G), with K the curvature functional built from the f-vector.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Albertson and W.R

    M.O. Albertson and W.R. Stromquist. Locally planar toroidal graphs are 5-colorable.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 84(3):449–457, 1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    Alexandroff

    P. Alexandroff. Diskrete R¨ aume.Mat. Sb. 2, 2, 1937

    work page 1937

  3. [3]

    Barnette

    D. Barnette. The triangulations of the 3-sphere with up to 8 vertices.Journal of Combinatorial Theory (A), pages 37–52, 1973

    work page 1973

  4. [4]

    Bayer and L.J

    M. Bayer and L.J. Billera. Generalized Dehn-Sommerville relations for polytopes, spheres and Eulerian partially ordered sets.Invent. Math., 79(1):143–157, 1985

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Berger.Jacob’s Ladder of Differential Geometry

    M. Berger.Jacob’s Ladder of Differential Geometry. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [6]

    Brenti and V

    F. Brenti and V. Welker.f-vectors of barycentric subdivisions.Math. Z., 259(4):849–865, 2008

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Chartrand, H.V

    G. Chartrand, H.V. Kronk, and C.E. Wall. The point-arboricity of a graph.Israel Journal of Mathematics, 6:169–175, 1968

    work page 1968

  8. [8]

    M. Dehn. Die eulersche formel im zusammenhang mit dem inhalt in der nicht-euklidischen geometrie.Math. Ann., 61:561, 1905

    work page 1905

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Dehn and P

    M. Dehn and P. Heegaard. Analysis situs.Enzyklopaedie d. Math. Wiss, III.1.1:153–220, 1907

    1907

  2. [10]

    B. Eckmann. Harmonische Funktionen und Randwertaufgaben in einem Komplex.Comment. Math. Helv., 17(1):240–255, 1944

    1944

  3. [11]

    Gr¨ unbaum

    B. Gr¨ unbaum. Polytopes, graphs, and complexes.Bull. Amer. Math. Soc., 76:1131–1201, 1970

    1970

  4. [12]

    Gr¨ unbaum

    B. Gr¨ unbaum. Are your polyhedra the same as my polyhedra? InDiscrete and computational geometry, volume 25 ofAlgorithms Combin., pages 461–488. Springer, Berlin, 2003

    2003

  5. [13]

    Gr¨ unbaum.Convex Polytopes

    B. Gr¨ unbaum.Convex Polytopes. Springer, 2003

    2003

  6. [14]

    G. Hetyei. The Stirling polynomial of a simplicial complex.Discrete and Computational Geometry, 35:437– 455, 2006

    2006

  7. [15]

    W.F.D. Hodge. Harmonic functionals in a riemannian manifold.Proc. London Math. Soc, 36:257–303, 1933

    1933

  8. [16]

    D. Klain. Dehn-Sommerville relations for triangulated manifolds. http://faculty.uml.edu/dklain/ds.pdf, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    Klain and G-C

    D.A. Klain and G-C. Rota.Introduction to geometric probability. Lezioni Lincee. Accademia nazionale dei lincei, 1997

    1997

  10. [18]

    V. Klee. A combinatorial analogue of Poincar´ e’s duality theorem.Canadian J. Math., 16:517–531, 1964

    1964

  11. [19]

    O. Knill. A graph theoretical Gauss-Bonnet-Chern theorem. http://arxiv.org/abs/1111.5395, 2011

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    O. Knill. A graph theoretical Poincar´ e-Hopf theorem. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.1162, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  13. [21]

    O. Knill. An index formula for simple graphs . http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0306, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    O. Knill. On index expectation and curvature for networks. http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4514, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  15. [23]

    O. Knill. A notion of graph homeomorphism. http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.2819, 2014

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    O. Knill. A Sard theorem for graph theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.05657, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    O. Knill. Gauss-Bonnet for multi-linear valuations. http://arxiv.org/abs/1601.04533, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  18. [26]

    O. Knill. On Fredholm determinants in topology. https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.08229, 2016

    2016 arXiv

  19. [27]

    O. Knill. The cohomology for Wu characteristics. http://arxiv.org/abs/1803.06788, 2017

    2017 arXiv

  20. [28]

    O. Knill. Combinatorial manifolds are hamiltonian. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.06436, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  21. [29]

    O. Knill. Dehn-Sommerville from Gauss-Bonnet. https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.04831, 2019

    1905 arXiv

  22. [30]

    O. Knill. Energized simplicial complexes. https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06563, 2019

    1908 arXiv

  23. [31]

    O. Knill. More on Poincar´ e-Hopf and Gauss-Bonnet. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.00577, 2019. 27 Dehn Sommerville

    1912 arXiv

  24. [32]

    O. Knill. Poincar´ e-Hopf for vector fields on graphs. https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.04208, 2019

    1911 arXiv

  25. [33]

    O. Knill. Division algebra valued energized simplicial complexes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.10176, 2020

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    O. Knill. The energy of a simplicial complex.Linear Algebra and its Applications, 600:96–129, 2020

    2020

  27. [36]

    O. Knill. Green functions of energized complexes. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.09152, 2020

    2010 arXiv

  28. [37]

    O. Knill. Characteristic topological invariants. https://arxiv.org/abs/2302.02510, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    O. Knill. Discrete algebraic sets in discrete manifolds. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.14671, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [39]

    O. Knill. Finite topologies for finite geometries. http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.03156, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  31. [40]

    O. Knill. The sphere formula. https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.05736, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    O. Knill. The colorful ring of partitions. 2024

    2024

  33. [42]

    O. Knill. Fusion inequality for quadratic cohomology, 2024

    2024

  34. [43]

    O. Knill. Manifolds from partitions. https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.07435, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  35. [44]

    O. Knill. Geodesics for discrete manifolds, 2025

    2025

  36. [45]

    O. Knill. Interacting geodesics on discrete manifolds, 2025

    2025

  37. [46]

    Cohomology of open sets, 2023

    Oliver Knill. Cohomology of open sets, 2023

    2023

  38. [47]

    Lakatos.Proofs and Refutations

    I. Lakatos.Proofs and Refutations. Cambridge University Press, 1976

    1976

  39. [48]

    Luzon and M.A

    A. Luzon and M.A. Moron. Pascal triangle, Stirling numbers and the unique invariance of the euler char- acteristic. arxiv.1202.0663, 2012

    2012 arXiv

  40. [49]

    J.P. May. Finite topological spaces. Notes for REU, Chicago, 2003-2008, 2008

    2003

  41. [50]

    Mukherjee and S

    S.K. Mukherjee and S. Bera. A simple elementary proof of The Unimodularity Theorem of Oliver Knill. Linear Algebra and Its applications, pages 124–127, 2018

    2018

  42. [51]

    Murai and I

    S. Murai and I. Novik. Face numbers of manifolds with boundary. http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.05115, 2015

    2015 arXiv

  43. [52]

    Mycielski

    J. Mycielski. Sur le coloriage des graphs.Colloq. Math., 3:161–162, 1955

    1955

  44. [53]

    Novik and E

    I. Novik and E. Swartz. Applications of Klee’s Dehn-Sommerville relations.Discrete Comput. Geom., 42(2):261–276, 2009

    2009

  45. [54]

    Sommerville

    D. Sommerville. The relations connecting the angle sums and volume of a polytope in space of n dimensions. Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series A, 115:103–119, 1927

    1927

  46. [55]

    Topological invariants of new type of finite polyhedrons.Acta Math

    Wu W-T. Topological invariants of new type of finite polyhedrons.Acta Math. Sinica, 3:261–290, 1953

    1953

  47. [56]

    Ziegler.Lectures on Polytopes

    G.M. Ziegler.Lectures on Polytopes. Springer Verlag, 1995

    1995

  48. [57]

    A.A. Zykov. On some properties of linear complexes. (Russian).Mat. Sbornik N.S., 24(66):163–188, 1949. Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 02138 28

    1949

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.