Cyclic polytopes, orientals, and correspondences: some aspects of higher Segal spaces

Tobias Dyckerhoff

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Cyclic polytopes, orientals, and correspondences: some aspects of higher Segal spaces

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Simplicial objects in any $\infty$-category with limits are exactly lax monads in the higher correspondence category, and the lower and upper $d$-Segal conditions are truncations locating the monad.

desk verdict Readable, honest survey whose advertised monad theorem rests on a false localization lemma; useful as notes, but the central proof does not work as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.02051 v2 pith:HSNZ6NXD submitted 2025-05-04 math.AT math.CT

Tobias Dyckerhoff This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.ATmath.CT MSC 18N6052B1118C15

keywords higherSegalspacescyclicpolytopesorientalscorrespondenceslaxmonads(∞ω)-categoriescomplicialsetsbarycentricsubdivision

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 aims to establish a categorical characterization of higher Segal spaces, objects that package higher associativity and coherence data in an $\infty$-category. Its central theorem says that a simplicial object in any $\infty$-category with limits is the same thing as a lax monad in the $\infty$-category of higher correspondences built from that category, and that the lower and upper $d$-Segal conditions are exactly the conditions that the monad lives in the corresponding truncated correspondence subcategory. If true, this turns a homotopy-limit condition indexed by cyclic polytopes into a purely algebraic statement about where a monad lives, and gives a uniform reason for the stabilization of higher Segal conditions. Along the way, the paper constructs the orientals, the free $\omega$-categories on simplices, from cyclic polytopes, and uses that pasting combinatorics in the main argument.

What carries the argument

The central object is the higher correspondence $(\infty,\omega)$-category $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$, defined through the barycentric subdivision adjunction: an $n$-simplex is a diagram $x: \mathcal{P}^*([n])^{\mathrm{op}} \to C$, whose $d$-dimensional equators are the limits over the lower and upper boundaries $L([n],d)$ and $U([n],d)$ of the cyclic polytope $C([n],d)$. Thinness of a simplex is the requirement that one of the legs in the top correspondence, i.e. the corresponding lower or upper higher Segal map, is an equivalence. Lax monads are packaged as sections of the coCartesian fibration over $\Delta^{\mathrm{op}}$ built from $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$ that send every injective map to a coCartesian edge. Theorem 7.10 carries the paper: it uses the localization property of the total category of the poset of nonempty subsets to show that simplicial objects correspond exactly to such sections, and the thinness and truncation conditions translate to the monad living in $\mathrm{co}^l_d(C)$ or $\mathrm{co}^r_d(C)$.

What would settle it

Take $C$ to be the $\infty$-category of spaces and unpack $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$ by the barycentric subdivision formula. A reader could check whether the thin-saturated horn $\Lambda^3_i$, with all 2-faces containing $\{i-1,i,i+1\}$ thin, always admits a thin filler of the form constructed in the proof of Proposition 6.7 by right-then-left Kan extension; any failure of thinness for such a filler would disprove Proposition 6.7 and remove the complicial-set structure that Theorem 7.10 needs to speak of monads in an $(\infty,\omega)$-category.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is Theorem 7.10: for any $\infty$-category $C$ with limits, there is an equivalence of $\infty$-categories $\mathrm{Fun}(\Delta^{\mathrm{op}}, C) \simeq \{\text{lax monads in } \mathrm{co}_\infty(C)\}$, sending a simplicial object $X$ to a monad $M_X$; under this equivalence, lower $d$-Segal objects correspond to monads in $\mathrm{co}^l_d(C)$ and upper $d$-Segal objects to monads in $\mathrm{co}^r_d(C)$. The category $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$ is built from $C$ by barycentric subdivision: its $n$-simplices are diagrams indexed by the nonempty subsets of $[n]$, and its top-dimensional cell is a correspondence between the limits over the lower and upper hemispheres of the cyclic polytope $C([n], n-1)$. The paper shows that $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$ with its thin simplices is a complicial set, hence models an $(\infty,\omega)$-category, and proves that the functor from the total category of nonempty subsets to $\Delta$ is a localization, which identifies simplicial objects with its lax monads. A direct corollary is that lower or upper $d$-Segal objects are automatically $k$-Segal for all $k>d$, and that in a $d$-Segal object every triangulation of a cyclic polytope gives an equivalent limit.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the paper's own definition of a lax monad in $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$ (Definition 7.8) is the right notion of lax monad for $(\infty,\omega)$-categories: the author calls it 'somewhat ad-hoc' and not model-independent (Remark 7.9), so if it does not match the intended general concept, Theorem 7.10 characterizes a custom object rather than monads in an established sense; the theorem also relies on Proposition 6.7, whose full proof is deferred to a forthcoming paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Every simplicial object in an $\infty$-category with limits carries a canonical lax monad structure in the correspondence category, so the monadic structure is not an additional choice but part of the simplicial datum.
The lower and upper $d$-Segal conditions are exactly the conditions that this canonical monad factors through the truncated categories $\mathrm{co}^l_d(C)$ and $\mathrm{co}^r_d(C)$, respectively, making higher Segal conditions a statement about where a monad lives.
The correspondence between Segal maps and thinness gives a dictionary between higher Segal conditions and invertibility of the legs in top-dimensional correspondences in $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$.
Combined with the stabilization theorem, the characterization explains why lower or upper $d$-Segal implies $k$-Segal for every $k>d$: once the monad lives in the $d$-truncation, all higher Segal maps are automatically equivalences.
The geometric construction of the orientals from admissible subcomplexes of cyclic polytopes supplies the pasting schemes used in the proof that $\mathrm{co}_\infty(C)$ is complicial, so the monadic characterization inherits the explicit stacking combinatorics of cyclic polytopes.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: if Definition 7.8 can be made model-independent, the equivalence would recast the whole theory of simplicial objects as a chapter of monad theory, with higher Segal conditions becoming a family of truncation functors on $(\infty,\omega)$-categories.
Editorial inference: the monadic viewpoint suggests a testable analogue of the known automatic unitality phenomenon for 2-Segal spaces: for higher $d$-Segal objects, the unit axioms of the associated lax monad may follow from the Segal conditions rather than needing to be imposed.
Editorial inference: the Pachner-move interpretation in Section 9, combined with the monadic description, points toward a construction of manifold invariants in dimension greater than two, where monadic coherence data would provide the higher associativity constraints needed to make Segal-Pachner moves invariant; the paper leaves this as an open problem.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Honest, well-written notes. The expository core — cyclic polytopes, orientals, the review of Poguntke and Walde — is solid and should be useful to anyone entering the subject. The paper is also unusually clear about provenance: what is new, what is reviewed, and what is deferred (Proposition 6.7 explicitly credits Gödicke–Ho–Stern; the lax monad definition is flagged as ad hoc). That candor deserves credit.

The problem is the advertised new result. Theorem 7.10(1) is derived from Lemma 7.12, and Lemma 7.12 is false as stated. Take φ:[2]→[1] constant at 0, I={0,2}, J={0}. Then φ(I)=J, so the morphism ([2],{0,2})→([1],{0}) is in the set S along which λ is supposed to localize. But λ sends this morphism to the unique map [1]→[0] in Δ, which is not invertible. A localization functor must invert every map in S; λ does not, so Δ cannot be the ∞-categorical localization of tot(P*) along S. The slice-category argument in the lemma only works for the injective maps in S, not the full collection. Since Theorem 7.10(1) is the central new statement, the proof is unsupported at the point where it matters most.

The rest of the soft spots are real but secondary: Proposition 6.7 is only sketched and depends on a forthcoming paper; the notion of lax monad is admittedly not model-independent; and part (2) of Theorem 7.10 is close to a rephrasing of the thinness definitions from Section 6. None of these would be fatal if the main equivalence were proven. As it stands, the new contribution is not established.

Who should read this? Specialists and students who want a geometric tour of higher Segal spaces will get value from Sections 2–5 and 8. The monad story should be treated with caution until the gap is repaired. I'd send it to a serious referee — the survey material is genuinely helpful and the theorem is likely correct in spirit — but the report should require a corrected proof of Lemma 7.12 or a precise restriction of the localization. I wouldn't cite the monad characterization in its present form.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper is an extended workshop write-up that connects cyclic polytopes, Street's orientals, and higher Segal objects. After reviewing Gale's evenness criterion and Rambau's work, the author defines higher Segal objects via limits over lower and upper boundary complexes L([n],d) and U([n],d), describes the Waldhausen S_\bullet construction as an example, and proposes a geometric construction of orientals from admissible subcomplexes of cyclic polytopes. The main new claim is developed in Sections 6 and 7: for an infinity-category C with limits, the barycentric-subdivision correspondence simplicial set co_infinity(C), stratified by "thin" simplices, is a complicial set; and there is an equivalence Fun(Delta^op, C) \simeq {lax monads in co_infinity(C)}, under which lower and upper d-Segal objects correspond to monads in the truncations co^l_d(C) and co^r_d(C).

Significance. The paper contains useful exposition and some original framing: the cyclic-polytope perspective on higher Segal maps is elegant, the path-space criteria and the Waldhausen S_\bullet examples are informative, and the monadic reformulation, if made rigorous, would give a clean way to package higher Segal conditions as thinness conditions in a correspondence category. The author is transparent that the complicial-set statement is due to G\"odicke, Ho, and Stern and appears in a forthcoming paper, and that the lax-monad definition is ad hoc. The main theorems are not fully proven in the text, and the central localization lemma is false as stated, so the paper in its current form does not establish the advertised characterization. The value of the paper is currently more survey/expository plus a promising research program.

major comments (4)

[Section 7, Lemma 7.12] The localization claim is false as stated. Let phi:[2]->[1] be the constant map at 0, let I={0,2} subset [2], and J={0} subset [1]. Then phi(I)=J, so phi:([2],I)->([1],J) belongs to the set S. But lambda sends this morphism to the unique map [1]->[0], which is not invertible in Delta. A localization along S would be forced to invert the map [1]->[0], collapsing Delta, whereas lambda does not do this. The slice-category argument in the proof only justifies inverting those morphisms in S for which phi restricts to a bijection I->J. This is load-bearing because the proof of Theorem 7.10(1) derives the equivalence Fun(Delta^op, C) \simeq {monads in co_infinity(C)} directly from Lemma 7.12 via lambda^*. The statement is likely repairable by localizing along the smaller class of morphisms whose image under lambda is an isomorphism, but as written the proof does not prove the claimed equivalence.
[Section 6, Proposition 6.7] The statement that co_infinity(C), stratified by the thin simplices of Definition 6.5, is a complicial set is load-bearing for the whole monad formalism, but the proof is only a sketch and is attributed to a forthcoming paper of G\"odicke, Ho, and Stern. The first filling condition is outlined, while the second is asserted after a diagram and a short discussion. A reader cannot verify the complicial identities from the text. Since Theorem 7.10 and the truncations co^l_d(C) and co^r_d(C) rely on this result, the main characterization is conditional on an external unpublished result. The paper should either include a complete proof or explicitly mark the main theorem as conditional on this forthcoming work.
[Section 7, Definition 7.8 and Remark 7.9] The notion of lax monad used in Theorem 7.10 is explicitly ad hoc and not model-independent. Since the paper's headline is an identification of higher Segal spaces with lax monads, this definitional choice is a load-bearing part of the statement. The equivalence of Theorem 7.10(1) may describe a custom object rather than a pre-existing notion of lax monad in (infinity,omega)-categories, and the paper itself acknowledges this. The revision should either prove model independence or weaken the abstract and introduction so that the claimed characterization is stated for the specific notion defined in Definition 7.8.
[Section 7, Theorem 7.10(2)] Part (2) is dismissed as immediate, but this is close to a restatement of the definitions. In Section 6, thinness of a simplex sigma_x is defined in Definition 6.5 via the maps l and u in (6.4), and the text before (6.4) already says that these legs are precisely the upper and lower (n-1)-Segal maps. Consequently, after part (1), the identification of lower and upper d-Segal objects with monads in co^l_d(C) and co^r_d(C) is largely a reformulation. The paper should spell out the correspondence and clearly separate the genuinely new content from the notational repackaging.

minor comments (5)

[Title/header] The title in the header reads "some as pects of higher Segal spaces"; this should be corrected to "some aspects of higher Segal spaces".
[Section 3, Proposition 3.13] There is a typo in the statement: "conitions" should be "conditions".
[Section 4, Definition 4.4] The word "simplical" appears in Example 4.4 and should be "simplicial".
[Section 7, Definition 7.8] Since the fibration pi in (7.7) is over Delta^op, the phrase "injective maps in Delta" is ambiguous. The paper should specify exactly which edges of Delta^op are meant by a coCartesian condition.
[References] The references [DK15a] and [DK15b] appear to cite the same paper with the same title and should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Higher Segal/monad identification is definitional: the truncations co^l_d and co^r_d are defined by thinness conditions that are literally the higher Segal maps.

self definitional [Section 6, text before (6.4) and Definition 6.5; Section 7, proof of Theorem 7.10(2)]
"Then σx is called lower (resp. upper) thin if the map l (resp. u) in (6.4) is an equivalence in C. ... The legs of the correspondence ... are precisely the upper, resp. lower, (n−1)-Segal maps induced by the higher Segal cones of Definition 3.7. ... The statement of (2) is immediate from the discussion in §6, since higher Segal conditions for a simplicial object X translate directly into thinness conditions for the monad MX."

Definition 6.5 defines a simplex to be 'lower thin' exactly when the map l in (6.4) is an equivalence, and the text immediately before (6.4) states that l and u are precisely the lower and upper (n−1)-Segal maps of Definition 3.7. The simplicial subsets co^l_d(C) and co^r_d(C) are then defined by requiring lower/upper thinness of simplices. A monad in co^l_d(C) is therefore, by construction, a simplicial object whose lower d-Segal maps are equivalences; likewise for the upper case.

full rationale

Part (1) of Theorem 7.10 is not circular: it is an equivalence between all simplicial objects and the paper's custom monads, and it depends on the localization lemma 7.12, which has independent content. The proof of that lemma, however, appears to claim that λ inverts every morphism φ with φ(I)=J, whereas for non-injective φ the image under λ is not invertible in Δ; this is a correctness gap in the proof of (1), but it is not a circularity. The paper also explicitly flags Definition 7.8 as 'somewhat ad-hoc' and not model-independent (Remark 7.9), so any claim that higher Segal spaces are 'lax monads' in a pre-existing sense is weakened; that is a scope or correctness caveat, not circularity. The circular component is confined to part (2), where the truncations co^l_d and co^r_d are defined by thinness conditions that are literally the higher Segal maps. Since this definitional identification is central to the advertised characterization, the score is 6; it is not higher because part (1) contributes a genuine equivalence (assuming the localization gap is repairable) and no load-bearing self-citation chain is present.

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

No parameters are fitted or chosen by hand; this is a pure mathematics paper. The axioms listed are the background results and modeling choices the central claim rests on.

assumptions (5)

standard math Background framework of infinity-categories, limits, Kan extensions, coCartesian fibrations, and infinity-categorical localization (Lurie's HTT and HA) is taken as given.
Used throughout, e.g., in Definition 3.7 (higher Segal objects), Proposition 3.13, and the proof of Theorem 7.10 in section 7.
standard math Gale's evenness criterion and the structural results on cyclic polytopes from Gale and Rambau, including Rambau's lemma that the stacking relation on simplices is a partial order, are correct.
These underpin the geometric definitions of L([n],d), U([n],d), admissibility, and Lemma 4.9 used in the proofs of sections 4 and 5.
domain assumption Proposition 6.7: co_infinity(C) with the thin simplices of Definition 6.5 is a complicial set, so it models the (infinity,omega)-category of higher correspondences; the paper gives only a sketch and cites a forthcoming paper.
Needed for the monadic interpretation in section 7, specifically to regard monads in co_infinity(C) as monads in a higher category of correspondences.
ad hoc to paper The ad-hoc notion of lax monad in co_infinity(C) (Definition 7.8), and the associated coCartesian fibration pi in (7.7), is an acceptable model for the intended concept; the paper notes no standard concept exists and defers model-independence.
This assumption is load-bearing for Theorem 7.10; the author explicitly says this definition is somewhat ad-hoc and that more work is needed for a model-independent context.
standard math Street's orientals O_n are the free omega-categories on the n-simplex and have the universal property described in section 4; this is used in Theorem 4.8.
Theorem 4.8 compares the geometric globular set G to O_n and the proof uses the universal property of orientals.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cyclic polytopes, orientals, and correspondences: some aspects of higher Segal spaces." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HSNZ6NXD

@misc{pith2026250502051,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cyclic polytopes, orientals, and correspondences: some aspects of higher Segal spaces},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HSNZ6NXD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.02051}
}

read the original abstract

We discuss the role of higher Segal spaces at the interface of cyclic polytopes, orientals, and higher correspondences. Along the way we review examples from algebraic K-theory, show how cyclic polytopes provide a geometric model for the definition of orientals, and establish a characterization of higher Segal spaces as lax monadic structures in higher correspondence categories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.02051 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The two triangulations of C([4], 3) corresponding to the upper boundary U([4], 3) and lower boundary L([4], 3) of |∆4 |, respectively. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] 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

Higher Segal spaces and partial groups
math.GR 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

The higher Segal degree of a partial groupoid equals the Helly number of the closure space of a characteristic action, and the method gives explicit degrees for punctured Weyl groups.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[2]

Bergner, Ang\'elica M

Julia E. Bergner, Ang\'elica M. Osorno, Viktoriya Ozornova, Martina Rovelli, and Claudia I. Scheimbauer. 2- S egal objects and the W aldhausen construction. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 21(3):1267--1326, 2021

work page 2021
[1]

Bergner, Ang\'elica M

Julia E. Bergner, Ang\'elica M. Osorno, Viktoriya Ozornova, Martina Rovelli, and Claudia I. Scheimbauer. 2- S egal sets and the W aldhausen construction. Topology Appl. , 235:445--484, 2018

work page 2018
[3]

Dyckerhoff, G

T. Dyckerhoff, G. Jasso, and T. Walde. Simplicial structures in higher Auslander-Reiten theory . Adv. Math. , 355:106762, 2019

work page 2019
[4]

Dyckerhoff and M

T. Dyckerhoff and M. Kapranov. Crossed simplicial groups and structured surfaces. In Stacks and categories in geometry, topology, and algebra , volume 643 of Contemp. Math. , pages 37--110. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015

work page
[5]

Dyckerhoff and M

T. Dyckerhoff and M. Kapranov. Crossed simplicial groups and structured surfaces . Stacks and Categories in Geometry, Topology, and Algebra , 643:37, 2015

work page 2015
[6]

Triangulated surfaces in triangulated categories

Tobias Dyckerhoff and Mikhail Kapranov. Triangulated surfaces in triangulated categories. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 20(6):1473--1524, 2018

work page 2018
[7]

Dyckerhoff and M

T. Dyckerhoff and M. Kapranov. Higher S egal spaces , volume 2244 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, Cham, 2019

work page 2019
[8]

Dyckerhoff

T. Dyckerhoff. A ^1 -homotopy invariants of topological F ukaya categories of surfaces . Compos. Math. , 153(8):1673--1705, 2017

work page 2017

Show all 29 references

[9]

Dyckerhoff

T. Dyckerhoff. A categorified D old- K an correspondence. Selecta Math. (N.S.) , 27(2):Paper No. 14, 35, 2021

2021
[10]

Feller, R

M. Feller, R. Garner, J. Kock, M. U. Proulx, and M. Weber. Every 2-Segal space is unital . Communications in Contemporary Mathematics , 23(02):2050055, 2021

2021
[11]

D. Gale. Neighborly and cyclic polytopes. In Proc. S ympos. P ure M ath., V ol. VII , pages 225--232. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1963

1963
[12]

G\'alvez-Carrillo, J

I. G\'alvez-Carrillo, J. Kock, and A. Tonks. Decomposition spaces, incidence algebras and M \"obius inversion I : B asic theory. Adv. Math. , 331:952--1015, 2018

2018
[13]

Gal and E

A. Gal and E. Gal. Higher Segal spaces and Lax A _ -algebras . arXiv:1905.03376 https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.03376 , 2019

1905 arXiv
[14]

A. Govzman. Cyclic polytopes and higher categories. Master thesis, University of Bonn , 2016

2016
[15]

J. Gödicke. An -category of 2-Segal Spaces . arXiv:2407.13357 https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.13357 , 2024

2024
[16]

D.M. Kan. On c. s. s. complexes. Amer. J. Math. , 79:449--476, 1957

1957
[17]

M. M. Kapranov and V. A. Voevodsky. Combinatorial-geometric aspects of polycategory theory: pasting schemes and higher B ruhat orders (list of results). Cahiers Topologie G\'eom. Diff\'erentielle Cat\'eg. , 32(1):11--27, 1991. International Category Theory Meeting (Bangor, 198...

1991
[18]

M. M. Kapranov and V. A. Voevodsky. Combinatorial-geometric aspects of polycategory theory: pasting schemes and higher B ruhat orders (list of results). volume 32, pages 11--27. 1991. International Category Theory Meeting (Bangor, 1989 and Cambridge, 1990)

1991
[19]

Loubaton

F. Loubaton. The complicial model of ( , ) -categories, 2022

2022
[20]

J. Lurie. Higher topos theory , volume 170 of Annals of Mathematics Studies . Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2009

2009
[21]

J. Lurie . Higher Algebra . preprint , September 2017

2017
[22]

Poguntke

T. Poguntke. Higher Segal structures in algebraic K -theory . arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.06510 , 2017

2017 arXiv
[23]

J. Rambau. Triangulations of cyclic polytopes and higher B ruhat orders. Mathematika , 44(1):162--194, 1997

1997
[24]

Complicial Sets, an Overture , pages 49--76

Emily Riehl. Complicial Sets, an Overture , pages 49--76. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018

2018
[25]

W.H. Stern. 2- S egal objects and algebras in spans. J. Homotopy Relat. Struct. , 16(2):297--361, 2021

2021
[26]

R. Street. The algebra of oriented simplexes. J. Pure Appl. Algebra , 49(3):283--335, 1987

1987
[27]

D. Verity. Complicial sets characterising the simplicial nerves of strict -categories. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 193(905):xvi+184, 2008

2008
[28]

T. Walde. Higher S egal spaces via higher excision. Theory Appl. Categ. , 35:Paper No. 28, 1048--1086, 2020

2020
[29]

G\"unter M. Ziegler. Lectures on polytopes , volume 152 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1995

1995

Pith tools

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

[1] [2]

Bergner, Ang\'elica M

Julia E. Bergner, Ang\'elica M. Osorno, Viktoriya Ozornova, Martina Rovelli, and Claudia I. Scheimbauer. 2- S egal objects and the W aldhausen construction. Algebr. Geom. Topol. , 21(3):1267--1326, 2021

work page 2021

[2] [1]

Bergner, Ang\'elica M

Julia E. Bergner, Ang\'elica M. Osorno, Viktoriya Ozornova, Martina Rovelli, and Claudia I. Scheimbauer. 2- S egal sets and the W aldhausen construction. Topology Appl. , 235:445--484, 2018

work page 2018

[3] [3]

Dyckerhoff, G

T. Dyckerhoff, G. Jasso, and T. Walde. Simplicial structures in higher Auslander-Reiten theory . Adv. Math. , 355:106762, 2019

work page 2019

[4] [4]

Dyckerhoff and M

T. Dyckerhoff and M. Kapranov. Crossed simplicial groups and structured surfaces. In Stacks and categories in geometry, topology, and algebra , volume 643 of Contemp. Math. , pages 37--110. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015

work page

[5] [5]

Dyckerhoff and M

T. Dyckerhoff and M. Kapranov. Crossed simplicial groups and structured surfaces . Stacks and Categories in Geometry, Topology, and Algebra , 643:37, 2015

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Triangulated surfaces in triangulated categories

Tobias Dyckerhoff and Mikhail Kapranov. Triangulated surfaces in triangulated categories. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) , 20(6):1473--1524, 2018

work page 2018

[7] [7]

Dyckerhoff and M

T. Dyckerhoff and M. Kapranov. Higher S egal spaces , volume 2244 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics . Springer, Cham, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [8]

Dyckerhoff

T. Dyckerhoff. A ^1 -homotopy invariants of topological F ukaya categories of surfaces . Compos. Math. , 153(8):1673--1705, 2017

work page 2017