arXiv++ Combinatorics

We consider two systems of curves $(α_1,...,α_m)$ and $(β_1,...,β_n)$ drawn on a compact two-dimensional surface $M$ with boundary. Each $α_i$ and each $β_j$ is either an arc meeting the boundary of $M$ at its two endpoints, or a closed curve. The $α_i$ are pairwise disjoint except for possibly sharing endpoints, and similarly for the $β_j$. We want to "untangle" the $β_j$ from the $α_i$ by a self-homeomorphism of $M$; more precisely, we seek a homeomorphism $φ:M\rightarrow M$ fixing the boundary of $M$ pointwise such that the total number of crossings of the $α_i$ with the $φ(β_j)$ is as small as possible. This problem is motivated by an application in the algorithmic theory of embeddings and 3-manifolds. We prove that if $M$ is planar, i.e., a sphere with $h\geq 0$ boundary components ("holes"), then $O(mn)$ crossings can be achieved (independently of $h$), which is asymptotically tight, as an easy lower bound shows. In general, for an arbitrary (orientable or nonorientable) surface $M$ with $h$ holes and of (orientable or nonorientable) genus $g$, we obtain an $O((m+n)^4)$ upper bound, again independent of $h$ and $g$. The proofs rely, among others, on a result concerning simultaneous planar drawings of graphs by Erten and Kobourov.

A fundamental question for simplicial complexes is to find the lowest dimensional Euclidean space in which they can be embedded. We investigate this question for order complexes of posets. We show that order complexes of thick geometric lattices as well as several classes of finite buildings, all of which are order complexes, are hard to embed. That means that such d-dimensional complexes require (2d + 1)-dimensional Euclidean space for an embedding. (This dimension is in general always sufficient for any d-complex.) We develop a method to show non-embeddability for general order complexes of posets which builds on properties of the van Kampen obstruction.

Let $\mathcal{F}=\{F_1,F_2, \ldots,F_n\}$ be a family of $n$ sets on a ground set $S$, such as a family of balls in $\mathbb{R}^d$. For every finite measure $μ$ on $S$, such that the sets of $\mathcal{F}$ are measurable, the classical inclusion-exclusion formula asserts that $μ(F_1\cup F_2\cup\cdots\cup F_n)=\sum_{I:\emptyset\ne I\subseteq[n]} (-1)^{|I|+1}μ\Bigl(\bigcap_{i\in I} F_i\Bigr)$; that is, the measure of the union is expressed using measures of various intersections. The number of terms in this formula is exponential in $n$, and a significant amount of research, originating in applied areas, has been devoted to constructing simpler formulas for particular families $\mathcal{F}$. We provide an upper bound valid for an arbitrary $\mathcal{F}$: we show that every system $\mathcal{F}$ of $n$ sets with $m$ nonempty fields in the Venn diagram admits an inclusion-exclusion formula with $m^{O(\log^2n)}$ terms and with $\pm1$ coefficients, and that such a formula can be computed in $m^{O(\log^2n)}$ expected time. For every $\varepsilon>0$ we also construct systems with Venn diagram of size $m$ for which every valid inclusion-exclusion formula has the sum of absolute values of the coefficients at least $Ω(m^{2-\varepsilon})$.

The problem Cover(H) asks whether an input graph G covers a fixed graph H (i.e., whether there exists a homomorphism G to H which locally preserves the structure of the graphs). Complexity of this problem has been intensively studied. In this paper, we consider the problem PlanarCover(H) which restricts the input graph G to be planar. PlanarCover(H) is polynomially solvable if Cover(H) belongs to P, and it is even trivially solvable if H has no planar cover. Thus the interesting cases are when H admits a planar cover, but Cover(H) is NP-complete. This also relates the problem to the long-standing Negami Conjecture which aims to describe all graphs having a planar cover. Kratochvil asked whether there are non-trivial graphs for which Cover(H) is NP-complete but PlanarCover(H) belongs to P. We examine the first nontrivial cases of graphs H for which Cover(H) is NP-complete and which admit a planar cover. We prove NP-completeness of PlanarCover(H) in these cases.

Let K be a simplicial complex with vertex set V = {v_1,..., v_n}. The complex K is d-representable if there is a collection {C_1,...,C_n} of convex sets in R^d such that a subcollection {C_{i_1},...,C_{i_j}} has a nonempty intersection if and only if {v_{i_1},...,v_{i_j}} is a face of K. In 1967 Wegner proved that every simplicial complex of dimension d is (2d+1)-representable. He also suggested that his bound is the best possible, i.e., that there are $d$-dimensional simplicial complexes which are not 2d-representable. However, he was not able to prove his suggestion. We prove that his suggestion was indeed right. Thus we add another piece to the puzzle of intersection patterns of convex sets in Euclidean space.

The task of this survey is to present various results on intersection patterns of convex sets. One of main tools for studying intersection patterns is a point of view via simplicial complexes. We recall the definitions of so called $d$-representable, $d$-collapsible and $d$-Leray simplicial complexes which are very useful for this study. We study the differences among these notions and we also focus on computational complexity for recognizing them. A list of Helly-type theorems is presented in the survey and it is also discussed how (important) role play the above mentioned notions for the theorems. We also consider intersection patterns of good covers which generalize collections of convex sets (the sets may be `curvy'; however, their intersections cannot be too complicated). We mainly focus on new results.

The colored Tverberg theorem asserts that for every d and r there exists t=t(d,r) such that for every set C in R^d of cardinality (d+1)t, partitioned into t-point subsets C_1,C_2,...,C_{d+1} (which we think of as color classes; e.g., the points of C_1 are red, the points of C_2 blue, etc.), there exist r disjoint sets R_1,R_2,...,R_r \subseteq C that are "rainbow", meaning that |R_i \cap C_j| < 2 for every i,j, and whose convex hulls all have a common point. All known proofs of this theorem are topological. We present a geometric version of a recent beautiful proof by Blagojević, Matschke, and Ziegler, avoiding a direct use of topological methods. The purpose of this de-topologization is to make the proof more concrete and intuitive, and accessible to a wider audience.

In 1975 Wegner conjectured that the nerve of every finite good cover in R^d is d-collapsible. We disprove this conjecture. A good cover is a collection of open sets in R^d such that the intersection of every subcollection is either empty or homeomorphic to an open d-ball. A simplicial complex is d-collapsible if it can be reduced to an empty complex by repeatedly removing a face of dimension at most d-1 which is contained in a unique maximal face.

We prove that there is no d such that all finite projective planes can be represented by convex sets in R^d, answering a question of Alon, Kalai, Matousek, and Meshulam. Here, if P is a projective plane with lines l_1,...,l_n, a representation of P by convex sets in R^d is a collection of convex sets C_1,...,C_n in R^d such that C_{i_1},...,C_{i_k} have a common point if and only if the corresponding lines l_{i_1},...,l_{i_k} have a common point in P. The proof combines a positive-fraction selection lemma of Pach with a result of Alon on "expansion" of finite projective planes. As a corollary, we show that for every $d$ there are 2-collapsible simplicial complexes that are not d-representable, strengthening a result of Matousek and the author.

A simplicial complex is d-collapsible if it can be reduced to an empty complex by repeatedly removing (collapsing) a face of dimension at most d-1 that is contained in a unique maximal face. We prove that the algorithmic question whether a given simplicial complex is d-collapsible is NP-complete for d greater or equal to 4 and polynomial time solvable for d at most 2. As an intermediate step, we prove that d-collapsibility can be recognized by the greedy algorithm for d at most 2, but the greedy algorithm does not work for d greater or equal 3. A simplicial complex is d-representable if it is the nerve of a collection of convex sets in R^d. The main motivation for studying d-collapsible complexes is that every d-representable complex is d-collapsible. We also observe that known results imply that analogical algorithmic question for d-representable complexes is NP-hard for d greater or equal to 2.

A simplicial complex K is called d-representable if it is the nerve of a collection of convex sets in R^d; K is d-collapsible if it can be reduced to an empty complex by repeatedly removing a face of dimension at most d-1 that is contained in a unique maximal face; and K is d-Leray if every induced subcomplex of K has vanishing homology of dimension d and larger. It is known that d-representable implies d-collapsible implies d-Leray, and no two of these notions coincide for d greater or equal to 2. The famous Helly theorem and other important results in discrete geometry can be regarded as results about d-representable complexes, and in many of these results "d-representable" in the assumption can be replaced by "d-collapsible" or even "d-Leray". We investigate "dimension gaps" among these notions, and we construct, for all positive integers d, a 2d-Leray complex that is not (3d-1)-collapsible and a d-collapsible complex that is not (2d-2)-representable. In the proofs we obtain two results of independent interest: (i) The nerve of every finite family of sets, each of size at most d, is d-collapsible. (ii) If the nerve of a simplicial complex K is d-representable, then K embeds in R^d.

Let X be a simplicial complex with the ground set V. Define its Alexander dual as a simplicial complex X* = {A \subset V: V \setminus A \notin X}. The combinatorial Alexander duality states that the i-th reduced homology group of X is isomorphic to the (|V|-i-3)-th reduced cohomology group of X* (over a given commutative ring R). We give a self-contained proof.