Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 40 references

Indecomposability of the median hypersimplex and polytopality of the hemi-icosahedral Bier sphere

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that the median hypersimplex cannot be split as a Minkowski sum, placing it as a ray in the permutahedron's deformation cone, and that the Bier sphere of the hemi-icosahedron is an actual polytope with explicit…

desk verdict A solid new indecomposability theorem for the median hypersimplex, plus a plausible but under-certified computational polytopality claim that needs an exact verification before it is fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.21345 v1 pith:G5KVBC3J submitted 2025-04-30 math.CO math.MG

Filip D. Jevtić , Marinko Ž. Timotijević , Rade T. Živaljević This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.MG MSC 52B1252B7005E45
keywords medianhypersimplexMinkowskiindecomposabilitydeformationconesubmodularpermutahedronBierspherehemi-icosahedronpolytopal
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

This paper establishes two results in the geometry of polytopes. First, the median hypersimplex — the polytope whose vertices are the 0/1 vectors with exactly k ones among 2k coordinates — cannot be expressed as a non-trivial Minkowski sum, meaning it cannot be built by adding together two genuinely different polytopes pointwise. Because the median hypersimplex is a deformed permutahedron, this indecomposability means its essential deformation cone is a single ray, adding a symmetric ray to the submodular cone of the permutahedron, a structure whose rays have been sought since the 1970s. Second, the Bier sphere built from the hemi-icosahedron, the smallest triangulation of the real projective plane, is polytopal: it is combinatorially equivalent to the boundary of a 5-dimensional polytope with 12 vertices, and the paper gives explicit coordinates for those vertices. A sympathetic reader should care because both results answer concrete 'can it be split?' and 'can it be realized?' questions with objects that are central in the study of polytopal spheres and deformation cones.

What carries the argument

The argument runs through three linked objects. The median hypersimplex $\Delta_{2k,k}$ is the convex hull of all 0/1 vectors of length $2k$ with coordinate sum $k$. Its polar dual is, up to affine equivalence, the diplo-simplex $\Omega_{2k}$, the convex hull of a simplex and its negative; Corollary 3.9 turns the normal fan of the hypersimplex into the radial fan of this diplo-simplex. The Bier sphere $\mathrm{Bier}(K)$ of a simplicial complex $K$ is the deleted join of $K$ with its Alexander dual $K^\circ$, the family of complements of non-faces of $K$; Bier-sphere fans provide simplicial refinements of the radial fan. The load-bearing mechanism is Lemma 3.12: for $K$ the complex of all subsets of size at most $k-1$, each balanced partition $S \sqcup T$ of $[2k]$ forces a wall-crossing equality $x_S = y_T$ among deformation parameters, and these equalities leave only one free parameter in the essential deformation cone. For Theorem 4.2, the machinery is a previously developed algorithm that produces polytopal Bier-sphere realizations by successive local re-triangulations from a canonical threshold realization, combined with a computer search that supplies the 12-by-5 coordinate matrix (4.3).

What would settle it

For the first theorem, enumerate the wall-crossing equalities in the Bier fan of $K$, the complex of all subsets of size at most $k-1$: if any balanced $S \sqcup T$ fails to produce $x_S = y_T$, the linear span in (3.13) grows and the essential deformation cone has dimension greater than one. For the second, recompute the convex hull of the rows of matrix (4.3) in exact rational arithmetic and compare its facets with table (4.4); any discrepancy shows the floating-point coordinates do not establish polytopality.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the core discovery is Theorem 3.10 and Theorem 4.2. Theorem 3.10 states that the hypersimplex $\Delta_{2k,k}$ is Minkowski indecomposable, equivalently its essential deformation cone $\mathrm{Def}_{\mathrm{ess}}(\Delta_{2k,k})$ is one-dimensional; consequently $\Delta_{2k,k}$ represents a symmetric ray in the deformation cone of the permutahedron, i.e. in the submodular cone. The proof identifies the normal fan of $\Delta_{2k,k}$ with the radial fan of the polar diplo-simplex $\Omega_{2k}$, refines that fan by a Bier-sphere fan, and uses the wall-crossing equalities of Proposition 3.1 to show that any deformation vector is determined up to scaling and translation. Theorem 4.2 states that the Bier sphere $\mathrm{Bier}(I_6)$ of the hemi-icosahedron — the minimal 6-vertex triangulation of the real projective plane — is polytopal; the rows of matrix (4.3) are coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^5$ whose convex hull has exactly the Bier sphere's face lattice.

Load-bearing premise

The first theorem stands on the unstated condition (5.1) in Lemma 3.12, which must guarantee that every balanced partition $S \sqcup T$ of $[2k]$ yields the wall-crossing equality $x_S = y_T$; the second stands on the exactness of the seven-decimal coordinates in (4.3), since rounding them to five decimals destroys convexity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Because the essential deformation cone of $\Delta_{2k,k}$ is one-dimensional, every admissible deformation of the median hypersimplex is a translate and a dilate of it.
  • The submodular cone of the permutahedron contains the symmetric rays spanned by the median hypersimplices $\Delta_{2k,k}$ for every $k$.
  • The twelve-vertex Bier sphere of the hemi-icosahedron has a concrete polytopal realization in $\mathbb{R}^5$, extending the known polytopality of all Bier spheres with up to eleven vertices.
  • The face lattice of the 12-vertex convex hull of matrix (4.3) coincides with the facets and edges of $\mathrm{Bier}(I_6)$ listed in tables (4.4) and (4.5), giving an explicit checkable instance of a non-threshold Bier sphere that is polytopal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same wall-crossing method could test whether non-median hypersimplices, which appear as summands in the permutahedron decomposition, are decomposable; if so, the median hypersimplices would be exactly the ray-generating members of the family.
  • Beyond the paper, the near-degeneracy of the 12-vertex coordinates suggests seeking an exact rational realization, whose existence would strengthen the polytopality result to a certified construction.
  • Beyond the paper, applying the incremental algorithm to Bier spheres of other minimal triangulations, such as higher-dimensional projective-plane analogs, could locate the first genuinely non-polytopal Bier sphere.
  • Beyond the paper, the wall-crossing equalities derived from extremal-volume Bier spheres may point to additional previously unknown rays in the submodular cone, not just the median-hypersimplex family.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies deformation cones of hypersimplices and polytopality of Bier spheres. Its first main result, Theorem 3.10, claims that the median hypersimplex Δ_{2k,k} is Minkowski indecomposable, equivalently that its essential deformation cone is one-dimensional, and hence that Δ_{2k,k} spans a ray in the submodular cone of the permutahedron. The proof uses the wall-crossing relations of Proposition 3.1 applied to a Bier-sphere refinement of the normal fan of Δ_{2k,k}, relying on the identification of the polar of the diplo-simplex with Δ_{2k,k} from previous work. The second main result, Theorem 4.2, claims that the Bier sphere of the hemi-icosahedron I_6 is polytopal, realized as the boundary of a five-dimensional polytope whose twelve vertices are given by the rows of the numerical matrix (4.3). The proof consists of a Polymake computation of the face lattice of the convex hull of these rows and a comparison with the facet list of Bier(I_6).

Significance. If both theorems are rigorously established, the paper makes a meaningful contribution: it provides a new infinite family of rays in the submodular cone, a step toward the longstanding problem initiated by Edmonds, and it supplies a new non-threshold example of a polytopal Bier sphere, the 12-vertex hemi-icosahedral Bier sphere. The wall-crossing framework and the explicit computational data in matrix (4.3) are concrete and checkable, which is a strength of the paper's overall approach. The caveat is that the current manuscript leaves two load-bearing points under-proved, so the significance of the results is real but the rigor of the present write-up is not yet at the level needed for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [3.2, Lemma 3.12] Lemma 3.12 is the load-bearing step that turns the Bier-fan refinement into the wall-crossing equalities x_S = y_T for every balanced partition S⊔T of [2k]. As stated, the lemma invokes 'condition (5.1)', but no equation (5.1) appears anywhere in Section 5 or elsewhere in the manuscript; the only numbered conditions in Section 5 are (5.2), (5.3), and (5.6). The proof is also only a short sketch. Since the conclusion that LinDef(Δ_{2k,k}) is cut out by (3.13) depends on every balanced S being covered, the manuscript must either state condition (5.1) explicitly, give a complete proof of Lemma 3.12, or provide a precise reference to the condition in [20] or [40].
  2. [4.2, Theorem 4.2] The proof that the boundary of the convex hull Q of the rows of matrix (4.3) is the Bier sphere Bier(I_6) is a report of a Polymake computation in floating-point arithmetic, and the paper itself states that rounding the same coordinates to 5 decimal places destroys convexity and changes the face lattice. No exact-arithmetic or interval-arithmetic certificate is supplied. Because every entry in (4.3) is a decimal fraction with denominator 10^7, an exact rational verification is feasible: one can scale the matrix by 10^7 and recompute the face lattice in rational arithmetic, or provide an independent exact certificate. Without such a check, Theorem 4.2 is not rigorously established.
  3. [3.2, Lemma 3.15 and proof of Theorem 3.10] The final inference from Lemma 3.15 to one-dimensionality is too compressed. After imposing the normalizing conditions x_i = y_i, the equations in (3.13) become 2 x_S = x_[n] for every k-subset S of [2k]. To conclude that the essential deformation cone is one-dimensional, the proof must show that these equations force all x_i to be equal, leaving only x_[n] as a parameter. This follows by comparing the equations for two k-subsets that differ in one element, but that argument is not written down; the sentence 'x[n] = y[n] is the only variable parameter' is asserted rather than proved.
minor comments (4)
  1. [2.1] The section title contains a typo: 'submoduar cone' should be 'submodular cone'.
  2. [3.2, Eq. (3.11)] In equation (3.11), the dummy index k in the sum ∑_{k∈T} y_k clashes with the fixed parameter k in Δ_{2k,k}; using another letter, such as j, would improve readability.
  3. [Abstract and Theorem 4.2] The abstract refers to a 'twelve vertex, 4-dimensional polytopal realization' while Theorem 4.2 speaks of a 'five dimensional convex polytope' whose boundary is the Bier sphere; these are consistent because the boundary is a 4-dimensional sphere, but the wording should be made unambiguous.
  4. [4.2, Table (4.4)] The facet list in table (4.4) uses barred labels ¯1,...,¯6, but the relabeling map σ is described only in words and the correspondence between the barred labels and the rows of matrix (4.3) is not spelled out; an explicit list would help reproducibility.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the main results do not reduce to their inputs; noted gaps are numerical and notational, not definitional loops.

full rationale

The derivation of Theorem 3.10 does not reduce by construction to any input or fitted quantity. The paper computes the essential deformation cone of the median hypersimplex via Proposition 3.1 from an external source and a Bier-fan refinement, and the wall-crossing relations in Lemma 3.12 are derived from explicit face incidences of the diplo-simplex, not from an assumed conclusion. The identification of the polar diplo-simplex with the median hypersimplex is cited from the authors' prior work ([20, Theorem 14]); although this is a self-citation, it is a parameter-free prior geometric statement whose assumptions do not include Minkowski indecomposability, so it counts as independent support rather than a circular premise. The proof of Theorem 4.2 rests on a Polymake computation in floating-point arithmetic, and the paper notes that rounding to five decimal places destroys convexity; this is a numerical-certificate gap, not circularity, because the coordinates are explicit rational data and the claimed face lattice is checked against the combinatorial Bier sphere. The undefined 'condition (5.1)' in Lemma 3.12 is an expositional omission, not a definitional loop. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no central claim is equivalent to its own assumptions.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The core theorem imports the normal-fan identification and the Bier-sphere refinement from the authors' prior work [20]; the only fully new numerical object is the coordinate matrix for Bier(I6), found by computer search. There are no invented physical or mathematical entities beyond the constructed polytope.

free parameters (1)
  • Matrix (4.3) coordinate entries = 12x5 matrix with 7-decimal entries
    These 60 numbers were found by the authors' computer search and are the explicit witness for Theorem 4.2. No analytic derivation is given, and the paper states that rounding to 5 decimal places destroys convexity, so the specific values are load-bearing for the second result.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Theorem 3.7 from [20]: the polar dual Ω_{2k}^∘ is affinely isomorphic to the median hypersimplex Δ_{2k,k}.
    Imported from the same authors' earlier paper and used in Corollary 3.9 to identify the normal fan of Δ_{2k,k} with the radial fan of the diplo-simplex Ω_{2k}. The proof of Theorem 3.10 depends on this identification.
  • standard math Proposition 3.1 from [32]: wall-crossing equalities and inequalities give the deformation cone of a polytope once its normal fan is refined by a simplicial fan.
    This is the main external tool for the deformation cone computation. The paper quotes it and applies it to the Bier fan refinement.
  • domain assumption Corollary 5.4 from [20]: every maximal-volume Bier sphere has the same star-shaped body Ω_n, the diplo-simplex.
    Used to ensure that the radial fan R(Bier(K)) with K={subsets of size at most k-1} refines the radial fan R(Ω_n)=N(Δ_{2k,k}). This refinement is needed for Proposition 3.1.
  • domain assumption The combinatorial face structure of Bier(I6) is correctly read off from Figure 1.
    Theorem 4.2 compares the face lattice computed from matrix (4.3) with the facet list of Bier(I6) obtained by inspection. A wrong reading would make the polytopality claim unsupported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Indecomposability of the median hypersimplex and polytopality of the hemi-icosahedral Bier sphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G5KVBC3J

@misc{pith2026250421345,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Indecomposability of the median hypersimplex and polytopality of the hemi-icosahedral Bier sphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G5KVBC3J}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.21345}
}
abstract

We prove that the median hypersimplex $\Delta_{2k,k}$ is Minkowski indecomposable, i.e. it cannot be expressed as a non-trivial Minkowski sum $\Delta_{2k,k} = P+Q$, where $P\neq \lambda\Delta_{2k,k}\neq Q$. We obtain as a corollary that $\Delta_{2k,k}$ represents a ray in the submodular cone (the deformation cone of the permutahedron). Building on the previously developed geometric methods and extensive computer search, we exhibit a twelve vertex, $4$-dimensional polytopal realization of the Bier sphere of the hemi-icosahedron, the vertex minimal triangulation of the real projective plane.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.21345 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hemi-icosahedron 4.2 Polytopality of hemi-icosahedral Bier sphere Theorem 4.2. The Bier sphere Bier(I6) of the minimal, 6-vertex triangulation I6 of the real projective plane RP 2 is polytopal, i.e. it can be realized as the boundary sphere of a five dimensional convex polytope. More explicitly, the vertices of the geometric realisation of Bier(I6), obtained by the algorithm described in Section 4, are coordinatized… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [20]

    Jevtić, F. D. and Živaljević, R. T.,Bier spheres of extremal volume and generalized permutohedra. Appl. Anal. Discrete Math., 17 (2023), 101–119. https://doi.org/ 10.2298/AADM211010026J 12

    work page doi:10.2298/aadm211010026j 2023

  2. [40]

    Ž., Živaljević, R

    Timotijević, M. Ž., Živaljević, R. T., and Jevtić, F. D., Poly- topality of Simple Games . Experimental Mathematics, 1–14, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/10586458.2024.2379802. 14

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    and Ardila F.,Hopf monoids and generalized permutahedra

    Aguiar, M. and Ardila F.,Hopf monoids and generalized permutahedra. To appear in Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 2017. arXiv:1709.07504

    arXiv 2017

  4. [2]

    Albertin, D., Pilaud V., and Ritter J.,Removahedral congruences versus permutree congruences. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    and Doker J.,Matroid polytopes and their volumes

    Ardila F., Benedetti C. and Doker J.,Matroid polytopes and their volumes. Discrete Comput. Geom. 43.4 (2010), pp. 841–854

    work page 2010

  6. [4]

    Bier T.,A remark on Alexander duality and the disjunct join, preprint (1992), 7pp

    work page 1992

  7. [5]

    M.,Bier spheres and posets

    Björner A., Paffenholz A., Sjöstrand J., and Ziegler, G. M.,Bier spheres and posets. Discrete and Computational Geometry, 34(1):71–86, 2004

    work page 2004

  8. [6]

    BokowskiJ., SturmfelsB., Computational Synthetic Geometry, LectureNotesinMath- ematics (LNM), volume 1355, Springer 1989. 11

    work page 1989

Show all 40 references
  1. [7]

    International Math- ematics Research Notices, 2022(3):1973–2026, 2020

    Castillo F., and Liu F.,Deformation Cones of Nested Braid Fans. International Math- ematics Research Notices, 2022(3):1973–2026, 2020

    2022

  2. [8]

    Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 45(4):537–566, 2002

    Chapoton F., Fomin S., and Zelevinsky, A.,Polytopal realizations of generalized asso- ciahedra. Canadian Mathematical Bulletin, 45(4):537–566, 2002

    2002

  3. [9]

    Conway J., and Sloane, N. J. A.,The Cell Structures of Certain Lattices. In Miscel- lanea Mathematica, pp. 71–107. Berlin: Springer, 1991

    1991

  4. [10]

    A., Little, J

    Cox, D. A., Little, J. B. and Schenck, H. K.,Toric Varieties. Vol. 124. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2011, pp. xxiv+841

    2011

  5. [11]

    Čukić, S. L. and Delucchi, E.,Simplicial shellable spheres via combinatorial blowups. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 135(08):2403–2415, apr 2007

    2007

  6. [12]

    Danilov, V. I. and Koshevoy, G. A.,Cores of cooperative games, superdifferentials of functions, and the Minkowski difference of sets. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 247.1 (2000), pp. 1–14

    2000

  7. [13]

    and Hoessly, L.,Fundamental polytopes of metric trees via parallel con- nections of matroids

    Delucchi, E. and Hoessly, L.,Fundamental polytopes of metric trees via parallel con- nections of matroids. European Journal of Combinatorics, 87:103098, jun 2020

    2020

  8. [14]

    Combinatorial Structures and their Applications

    Edmonds J., Submodular functions, matroids, and certain polyhedra. Combinatorial Structures and their Applications. Gordon and Breach, New York, 1970, pp. 69–87

    1970

  9. [15]

    Springer New York, 1996

    Ewald, G., Combinatorial Convexity and Algebraic Geometry. Springer New York, 1996

    1996

  10. [16]

    Fujishige S.,Submodular Functions and Optimization. Second. Vol. 58. Annals of Dis- crete Mathematics. Elsevier B. V., Amsterdam, 2005, pp. xiv+395

    2005

  11. [17]

    and Joswig, M.,polymake: a framework for analyzing convex polytopes

    Gawrilow, E. and Joswig, M.,polymake: a framework for analyzing convex polytopes. In Polytopes — Combinatorics and Computation, 43–73. Birkhäuser Basel, 2000

    2000

  12. [18]

    resource

    Gvozdeva, T., Hemaspaandra, L. A., and Slinko, A., Three hierarchies of simple games parameterized by “resource” parameters. International Journal of Game Theory, 42(1):1–17, nov 2011

    2011

  13. [19]

    D., Timotijević, M., and Živaljević, R

    Jevtić, F. D., Timotijević, M., and Živaljević, R. T., Polytopal Bier spheres and Kantorovich–Rubinstein polytopes of weighted cycles. Discrete & Computational Ge- ometry, 2019

    2019

  14. [21]

    D., Timotijević, M., and Živaljević, R

    Jevtić, F. D., Timotijević, M., and Živaljević, R. T., Polytopal Bier spheres and Kantorovich-Rubinstein polytopes of weighted cycles, Disc. Comp. Geom. 65 (2021), 1275–1286; arXiv:1812.00397

    2021 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Israel J

    Jojić, D., Panina, G., and Živaljević, R., A Tverberg type theorem for collectively unavoidable complexes. Israel J. Math., Jan. 2021

    2021

  16. [23]

    Joswig M., Klimm M., and Spitz S.,Generalized permutahedra and optimal auctions

  17. [24]

    A., Rambau, J

    De Loera, J. A., Rambau, J. and Santos, F.,Triangulations: Structures for Algorithms and Applications. Vol. 25. Algorithms and Computation in Math. Springer, 2010

    2010

  18. [25]

    Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 105(2):355–357, 2004

    de Longueville, M.,Bier spheres and barycentric subdivision. Journal of Combinatorial Theory, Series A, 105(2):355–357, 2004

    2004

  19. [26]

    H.,Combinatorial 3-manifolds with 10 vertices

    Lutz, F. H.,Combinatorial 3-manifolds with 10 vertices. 2007

    2007

  20. [27]

    Matoušek, J., Using the Borsuk–Ulam Theorem: Lectures on Topological Methods in Combinatorics and Geometry, Universitext, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2003, 214pp

    2003

  21. [28]

    Geometriae Dedicata 2 (1973), pp

    McMullen, P.,Representations of polytopes and polyhedral sets. Geometriae Dedicata 2 (1973), pp. 83–99

    1973

  22. [29]

    Israel J

    McMullen, P., Indecomposable convex polytopes. Israel J. Math. 58.3 (1987), pp. 321–323

    1987

  23. [30]

    Meyer, W.,Indecomposable polytopes. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 190 (1974), pp. 77–86

    1974

  24. [31]

    and Wienand O.,Convex rank tests and semigraphoids

    Morton J., Pachter L., Shiu A., Sturmfels B. and Wienand O.,Convex rank tests and semigraphoids. SIAM J. Discrete Math. 23.3 (2009), pp. 1117–1134

    2009

  25. [32]

    and Poullot, G.,Deformation cones of hypergraph polytopes

    Padrol, A., Pilaud, V. and Poullot, G.,Deformation cones of hypergraph polytopes. Séminaire Lotharingien de Combinatoire86B (2022)

    2022

  26. [33]

    and Poullot, G.,Deformation cones of graph associahedra and nestohedra

    Padrol, A., Pilaud, V. and Poullot, G.,Deformation cones of graph associahedra and nestohedra. European Journal of Combinatorics, 107:103594, January 2023

    2023

  27. [34]

    Postnikov, A., Permutohedra, associahedra, and beyond . Int. Math. Res. Not. 2009(6):1026–1106, 2009

    2009

  28. [35]

    and Williams, L

    Postnikov, A., Reiner, V. and Williams, L. K.,Faces of generalized permutohedra. Doc. Math. 13 (2008), pp. 207–273

    2008

  29. [36]

    and Yost, D.,More indecomposable polyhedra

    Przesławski, K. and Yost, D.,More indecomposable polyhedra. Extracta Math. 31.2 (2016), pp. 169–188

    2016

  30. [37]

    C.,Decomposable convex polyhedra

    Shephard, G. C.,Decomposable convex polyhedra. Mathematika 10 (1963), pp. 89–95

    1963

  31. [38]

    Taylor, A. D. and Zwicker W. S.,Simple Games. Princeton University Press, 2000. 13

    2000

  32. [39]

    Matematički Vesnik, 1(71):104–122, 2019

    Timotijević, M., Note on combinatorial structure of self-dual simplicial complexes. Matematički Vesnik, 1(71):104–122, 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.