Notes:Delta complex/Formal attempt

From Maths
< Notes:Delta complex
Revision as of 15:36, 5 February 2017 by Alec (Talk | contribs) (Saving work)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Formal attempt

We try and keep everything combinatorial, so keep an abstract simplicial complex in the back of your mind, and a simplex as being like {a,b,c} for a triangle and such.

Notations:

  • Let #(n):={1,,n}N - I did want to use C(n) for "count" or "consecutive" but given the context that'd be a poor choice!
    • Consider #(n) as a poset in its own right (in fact a total order is in play) with the "usual" ordering on N it inherits. This is a standard substructure construction.
  • Let K be our Delta complex, let us sidestep defining exactly what this is now, as a tuple of sets.
  • Let Sn(K) be the set of n-simplices of K
  • Let I(m,n) be defined to be equal the collection of all injective monotonic functions of the form f:#(m+1)#(n+1)[Note 1]
    • The +1 comes from the definition: Dim(σ):=|σ|1N - we take care with the case σ= as I'm developing a framework including this and come up with 2 "null objects" that do not alter the theory, for now Dim()=1 will do. It wont matter.
  • Δm be the standard m-simplex in Rm+1
  • G(n,m) - this is our goal, it's a collection of a bunch of maps of the form G:Sn(K)Sm(K) {{Caveat|Notice the flip of n and m) with certain properties.
    • Our goal is to find a bijection, say F:I(m,n)G(n,m)

First stab



Notes

  1. Jump up This basically means:
    • x,y#(m+1)[x<yf(x)<f(y)] - notice the strict ordering used here. This ensures that it is 1-to-1. We can never have equality of f(x) and f(y)
      • Caveat:Not proved yet
        TODO: Do the proof!
  2. Jump up There's some abuse of notation going on here, as if eiRn then eiRm with mn of course. We identify Rm with a subspace of Rn where nm spanned by the first m basis vectors. It's not that big of a leap, so shouldn't require any more discussion