arXiv++ Combinatorics

Henze and Malikiosis (2017) have shown that the Lonely Runner Conjecture (LRC) can be restated as a convex-geometric question on the so-called LR zonotopes, lattice zonotopes with one more generator than their dimension. This relation naturally suggests a more generel statement, the \emph{shifted LRC}, the zonotopal version of which concerns a classical parameter, the covering radius. Theorems A and B in Malikiosis-Schymura-Santos (2025) use the zonotopal restatements of both the original and the shifted LRC to prove a linearly-exponential bound on the size of the (integer) speeds for which the conjectures need to be checked in order to establish them for each fixed number of runners; in the shifted version their statement and proof rely on a certain assumption on two-dimensional rational vector configurations, the so-called ``Lonely Vector Property''. In this paper we do two things: 1. We push the analogies between the two versions of LRC and their zonotopal counterparts, in particular highlighting that the proofs of Theorems A and B in Malikiosis-Schymura-Santos are more transparent, and the statments more general, if regarded in terms of two quite general classes of lattice zonotopes: the coloopless zonotopes that we introduce here and the cosimple ones, already defined by them. These classes contain all primitive zonotopes of widths at least two and at least three, respectively. 2. We show explicit counterexamples to both the shifted Lonely Runner Conjecture (starting at $n=5$) and to the Lonely Vector Property (starting at $n=12$).

We show that the polyhedron defined as the convex hull of the lattice points above the hyperbola $\left\{xy = n\right\}$ has between $Ω(n^{1/3})$ and $O(n^{1/3} \log n)$ vertices. The same bounds apply to any hyperbola with rational slopes except that instead of $n$ we have $n/Δ$ in the lower bound and by $\max\left\{Δ, n/Δ\right\}$ in the upper bound, where $Δ\in \mathbb{Z}_{>0}$ is the discriminant. We also give an algorithm that enumerates the vertices of these convex hulls in logarithmic time per vertex. One motivation for such an algorithm is the deterministic factorization of integers.

We completely classify non-spanning $3$-polytopes, by which we mean lattice $3$-polytopes whose lattice points do not affinely span the lattice. We show that, except for six small polytopes (all having between five and eight lattice points), every non-spanning $3$-polytope $P$ has the following simple description: $P\cap \mathbb{Z}^3$ consists of either (1) two lattice segments lying in parallel and consecutive lattice planes or (2) a lattice segment together with three or four extra lattice points placed in a very specific manner. From this description we conclude that all the empty tetrahedra in a non-spanning $3$-polytope $P$ have the same volume and they form a triangulation of $P$, and we compute the $h^*$-vectors of all non-spanning $3$-polytopes. We also show that all spanning $3$-polytopes contain a unimodular tetrahedron, except for two particular $3$-polytopes with five lattice points.

We prove that in each dimension $d$ there is a constant $w^\infty(d)\in \mathbb{N}$ such that for every $n\in \mathbb{N}$ all but finitely many $d$-polytopes with $n$ lattice points have width at most $w^\infty(d)$. We call $w^\infty(d)$ the finiteness threshold width and show that $d-2 \le w^\infty(d)\le O^*\left( d^{4/3}\right)$. Blanco and Santos determined the value $w^\infty(3)=1$. Here, we establish $w^\infty(4)=2$. This implies, in particular, that there are only finitely many empty $4$-simplices of width larger than two. The main tool in our proofs is the study of $d$-dimensional lifts of hollow $(d-1)$-polytopes.

We develop a procedure for the complete computational enumeration of lattice $3$-polytopes of width larger than one, up to any given number of lattice points. We also implement an algorithm for doing this and enumerate those with at most eleven lattice points (there are 216,453 of them). In order to achieve this we prove that if $P$ is a lattice 3-polytope of width larger than one and with at least seven lattice points then it fits in one of three categories that we call boxed, spiked and merged. Boxed polytopes have at most 11 lattice points; in particular they are finitely many, and we enumerate them completely with computer help. Spiked polytopes are infinitely many but admit a quite precise description (and enumeration). Merged polytopes are computed as a union (merging) of two polytopes of width larger than one and strictly smaller number of lattice points.

We classify lattice $3$-polytopes of width larger than one and with exactly $6$ lattice points. We show that there are $74$ polytopes of width $2$, two polytopes of width $3$, and none of larger width. We give explicit coordinates for representatives of each class, together with other invariants such as their oriented matroid (or order type) and volume vector. For example, according to the number of interior points these $76$ polytopes divide into $23$ tetrahedra with two interior points (clean tetrahedra), $49$ polytopes with one interior point (the $49$ canonical three-polytopes with five boundary points previously classified by Kasprzyk) and only $4$ hollow polytopes. We also give a complete classification of three-polytopes of width one with $6$ lattice points. In terms of the oriented matroid of these six points, they lie in eight infinite classes and twelve individual polytopes. Our motivation comes partly from the concept of distinct pair sum (or dps) polytopes, which, in dimension $3$, can have at most $8$ lattice points. Among the $74+2$ classes mentioned above, exactly $44 + 1$ are dps.

We extend White's classification of empty tetrahedra to the complete classification of lattice $3$-polytopes with five lattice points, showing that, apart from infinitely many of width one, there are exactly nine equivalence classes of them with width two and none of larger width. We also prove that, for each $n\in \mathbb{N}$, there is only a finite number of (classes of) lattice $3$-polytopes with $n$ lattice points and of width larger than one. This implies that extending the present classification to larger sizes makes sense, which is the topic of subsequent papers of ours.