arxiv: v2 [math.co] 23 Jan 2018

Transcription

1 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON arxiv: v2 [math.co] 23 Jan 2018 Abstract. A cubical polytope is a polytope with all its facets being combinatorially equivalent to cubes. We deal with the connectivity of the graphs of cubical polytopes. We establish that, for any d 3 and any 0 α d 3, the graph of a cubical d-polytope with minimum degree at least d + α is (d + α)- connected. Secondly, we show that, for any d 4 and any 0 α d 3, every separator of cardinality d + α in such a graph consists of all the neighbours of some vertex and breaks the polytope into exactly two components. 1. Introduction The k-dimensional skeleton of a polytope P, denoted k-skel(p), is the set of all its faces of dimension k. The 1-skeleton of P is the graph G(P) of P. This paper studies the (vertex) connectivity of a cubical polytope; that is, the connectivity of the graph of the polytope. A cubical d-polytope is a polytope with all its facets being cubes. By a cube we mean any polytope which is combinatorially equivalent to a cube; that is, one whose face lattice is isomorphic to the face lattice of a cube. Unless otherwise stated, the graph theoretical notation and terminology follows from [3] and the polytope theoretical notation and terminology from [7]. Moreover, when referring to graph-theoretical properties of a polytope such as degree and connectivity, we mean properties of its graph. In the three-dimensional world, Euler s formula implies that the graph of a cubical 3-polytope P with vertex set V (P) has 2 V (P) 4 edges, and hence its minimum degree is three. This equality between dimension, minimum degree and connectivity of a cubical polytope no longer holds in higher dimensions. In Blind and Blind s [1] classification of cubical d-polytopes with degree d or d + 1, they exhibited cubical d-polytopes with the same graph as the (d + 1)-cube; for an explicit example, check [4, Sec. 4]. And more generally, there are cubical d-polytopes [4, Sec. 6] with the same ( d/2 1)-skeleton as the d -cube for every d > d, the so-called neighbourly cubical d-polytopes. Thus the minimum degree or connectivity of a cubical d-polytope for d 4 does not necessarily coincide with its dimension; this is what one would expect. However, somewhat surprising, we can prove a result connecting the connectivity of a cubical polytope to its minimum degree, regardless Date: June 16, Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 52B05; Secondary 52B12. Key words and phrases. cube, hypercube, cubical polytope, connectivity, separator. Thanks. 1

2 2 HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON F F Figure 1. Cubical 3-polytopes with minimum separators not consisting of the neighbours of some vertex. Vertex separator coloured in gray. The removal of the face F doesn t leave a spanning strongly 2-subcomplex. Infinitely many more examples can be generated by using well-known expansion operations such as those in [2, Fig. 3]. of the dimension; this is a vast generalisation of a similar, and well-known, result in the d-cube [5, Prop. 1]; see also Section 3. Theorem (Connectivity Theorem). Let 0 α d 3 and let P be a cubical d-polytope with minimum degree at least d + α. Then P is (d + α)-connected. Furthermore, if the minimum degree of P is exactly d + α, then, for any d 4 and any 0 α d 3, every separator of cardinality d + α consists of all the neighbours of some vertex and breaks the polytope into exactly two components. Here by a separator of a polytope we mean a set of vertices disconnecting the graph of the polytope. An immediate corollary of the theorem is the following. Corollary. A cubical d-polytope with no simple vertices is (d + 1)-connected. A simple vertex in a d-polytope is a vertex of degree d, where the degree of a vertex records the number of edges at the vertex; otherwise we say that the vertex is nonsimple. Remark 1. The connectivity theorem is best possible in the sense that for d = 3 there are infinitely many cubical d-polytopes with minimum separators not consisting of the neighbours of some vertex (cf. Fig. 1). On our way to prove the connectivity theorem we prove connectivity results on cubical polytopes of independent interest; see, for instance, the following. Theorem. Let F be a proper face of a cubical d-polytope P. Then the antistar of F in P is a complex which is not necessarily pure but contains a spanning strongly connected (d 2)-complex. Remark 2. The examples of Fig. 1 also establish that the previous theorem is best possible in the sense that a spanning strongly connected (d 1)-complex doesn t always remain in the polytope after the removal of the vertices of a face. The connectivity theorem also gives rise to the following corollary and open problem. Corollary. There are functions f : N N and g : N N such that, for every d,

3 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES 3 F L # F R = (a) P 1 (b) P 2 (c) P 1 #P 2 Figure 2. Connected sum of two cubical polytopes. (1) the function f (d) gives the maximum number such that every cubical d- polytope with minimum degree δ f (d) is δ-connected; (2) the function g(d) gives the maximum number such that every cubical d- polytope with minimum degree δ g(d) is δ-connected and whose minimum separator consists of the neighbourhood of some vertex; and (3) the functions f (d) and g(d) are bounded from below by 2d 3. An exponential bound in d for f (d) is readily available. Define the connected sum P 1 #P 2 of two d-polytopes P 1 and P 2 with two projectively isomorphic facets F 1 and F 2. The d-polytope P 1 #P 2 is then obtained by gluing P 1 and P 2 along F 1 and F 2. Figure 2 depicts this operation. Taking the connected sum of two cubical d-polytope P 1 and P 2 with minimum degree δ we can obtain a cubical d-polytope Q with minimum degree δ and a separator of cardinality 2 d 1, the number of vertices of the facet along which we glued. The cardinality of this separator gives at once the announced upper bound. This exponential bound in conjuntion with the connectivity theorem gives that (1) 2d 3 g(d) f (d) 2 d 1. The following problem naturally arises. Problem 3. Provide precise values for the functions f and g or improve the lower and upper bounds in (1). We suspect that both functions are linear in d, but we don t even know whether they coincide. 2. Preliminary results This section groups a number of preliminary results that will be used in later sections of the paper. The definitions of polytopal complex and strongly connected complex play an important role in the paper. A polytopal complex C is a finite nonempty collection of polytopes in R d where the faces of each polytope in C all belong to C and where polytopes intersect only at faces (if P 1 C and P 2 C then P 1 P 2 is a face of both

4 4 HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON P 1 and P 2 ). The empty polytope is always in C. The dimension of a complex C is the largest dimension of a polytope in C; if C has dimension d we say that C is a d-complex. Faces of a complex C of largest and second largest dimension are called facets and ridges, respectively. If each of the faces of a complex C is contained in some facet we say that C is pure. Given a polytopal complex C with vertex set V and a subset X of V, the subcomplex of C formed by all the faces of C containing only vertices from X is called induced, and as in the case of graphs [3, p. 4], it is denoted by C[X]. We say that a subcomplex C of a complex C is a spanning subcomplex of C if V (C ) = V (C). As in the case of polytopes, we denote the graph of a complex C, its 1-skeleton, by G(C). A pure polytopal complex C is strongly connected if every pair of facets F and F is connected by a path F = F 1 F n = F of facets in C such that F i F i+1 is a ridge of C; we say that such a path is a (d 1, d 2)-path or a facet-ridge path if the dimensions of the faces can be deduced from the context. The relevance of strongly connected complexes stems from a result of Sallee described below. Proposition 4 ([6, Sec. 2]). The graph of a strongly connected d-complex is d- connected. Strongly connected complexes can be defined from a d-polytope P. A basic example is given by the complex of all proper faces of P, called the boundary complex of P and denoted by B(P). For a polytopal complex C, the star of a face F, denoted star(f, C), is the complex formed by all the faces containing F, and their faces; the antistar of a face F, denoted astar(f, C), is the complex formed by all the faces disjoint from F. Unless otherwise stated, when defining stars and antistars in a polytope, we always assume the underlying complex is the boundary complex of the polytope. From looking at the dual polytope P of P the next proposition follows. Proposition 5. Let P be a d-polytope. Then the star and antistar of a vertex in B(P) are strongly connected (d 1)-complexes. For instance, the star of a vertex v in a d-cube Q d is the complex induced by V (Q d ) \ {v o }, where v o denotes the vertex at distance d from v, called the vertex opposite to v. The distance between two vertices in a graph is the length of a shortest path between the vertices. The antistar of v coincides with the star of v o. Figure 3 depicts these complexes. 3. d-cube In the d-cube Q d, the facet disjoint from a facet F is denoted by F o, and we say that F and F o are a pair of opposite facets. For a facet F of Q d and a vertex x V (F), define a projection π F o which sends x to the unique neighbour x p F o of x which is in F o ; write π F o(x) = x p F o to be precise, or write π(x) or x p if the facet F o is understood from the context. If x V (F o ) then π F o(x) = x. We extend this

5 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES 5 v (a) v (b) Figure 3. Complexes in the 4-cube. (a) The 4-cube with a vertex v highlighted. (b) The star of the vertex v. projection to sets of vertices as follows: given a pair (F, F o ) of opposite facets and a set X V (F) the projection X p F o of X onto F o is the set of the projections onto F o of the vertices in X. In particular, for an i-face J F, the projection J p F o of J onto F o is the i-face consisting of the projections of all the vertices of J onto F o Connectivity of the d-cube. We next unveil some further properties of the cube which will be used in subsequent sections. While it is true that the antistar of a vertex in a d-polytope is always a strongly connected (d 1)-complex (cf. Proposition 5), it is far from true that this extends to higher dimensional faces. This extension is however possible for the d-cube. Lemma 6. Let F be a proper face in the d-cube Q d. Then the antistar of F is a strongly connected (d 1)-complex. Proof. We proceed by induction on d, with d = 1, 2 as the basis cases. If F is a facet, astar(f, Q d ) is the facet opposite to F, and we are done. Otherwise, F is contained in some facet J. Observe Q d = J J o, where J o is the facet opposite to J. By induction, astar(f, J) is a strongly connected (d 2)-complex which can be written as R 1 R m, where R i is a (d 2)-face. Consider the other facets J 1,..., J m of Q d containing the (d 2)-faces R 1,..., R m, respectively. Then astar(f, Q d ) = J o J 1 J m is a pure (d 1)-complex. In addition, since J i J o is a (d 2)-face for i [1, m], we have that J i J o J j is a (d 1, d 2)-path for any two i, j in [1, m]. This completes the proof of the lemma. Remark 7. Let (F, F o ) be a pair of opposite facets in the d-cube Q d. The ridges of Q d are either the ridges of F, the ridges of F o, or the convex hulls of a (d 3)-face from F and the the projection of the (d 3)-face onto F o. While the first part of the following proposition is well-known, we are not aware of a reference for the other parts. Proposition 8. Let y be a vertex of the d-cube Q d, let N (y) denote the set of neighbours of y in Q d, and let Y be a subset of N (y). Then the following statements hold.

6 6 HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON (i) Any separator X of cardinality d in Q d consists of the d neighbours of some vertex in the cube. (ii) If Y 2, then any face of Q d containing Y must contain y. (iii) The complex of Q d induced by V (Q d ) \ ({y} Y ) is not necessarily pure in Q d but contains a spanning strongly connected (d 2)-subcomplex. Proof. A proof of the first part can be found in [5, Prop. 1]: essentially, one proceeds by induction on d, considering the effect of the separator on a pair of opposite facets. We next prove (ii). Since y is a simple vertex, dim aff Y = Y 1, and since there are no simplices of dimension at least two in Q d as faces, any face containing Y is at least Y -dimensional. Let F u be the unique Y -face containing Y and y and let F be any other face containing Y. Since dim aff(f F y ) Y, F y F, as required. The third part is clearly true for d = 2. So assume d 3 and let the induction start. If Y = 0, 1 then Lemma 6 establishes the result. So assume Y 2. There exists a pair (F, F o ) of opposite facets of Q d such that y V (F), V (F) Y Y 1 and V (F o ) Y 1. By the induction hypothesis, the complex of F induced by V (F)\({y} Y ) contains a spanning strongly connected (d 3)-subcomplex C F, while the complex C F o induced by V (F o )\Y is a strongly connected (d 2)-complex by Lemma 6. If V (F o ) Y =, let C F o coincide with the boundary complex of F o. Let C := C F C F o. We further remove from C any ridge in C F ; that is, C contains the boundary complex of every ridge in C F but not the ridge itself. We first establish that C is a pure (d 2)-complex. Every face of C F is contained in some (d 3)-face J of C F. Since the projection J p F o of J onto F o is present in C F o, it follows that conv(j J p F o ) is a (d 2)-face of C containing J. Any face of C F o is contained in a (d 2)-face of C F o. The strong connectivity of C essentially follows from the strong connectivity of C F o. Let R and R be two (d 2)-faces of C containing (d 3)-faces J and J of C F o. The faces J and J are in turn contained in ridges R F o and R F o of C F o, respectively, because C F o is a pure (d 2)-complex. Join the ridges R F o and R F o of C F o by a (d 2, d 3)-path L in C F o. Appending R and R to the path L gives the desired (d 2, d 3)-path between R and R. This analysis covers all the ridges of C according to Remark 7, since the ridges of C F are not present in C. Remark 9. Proposition 8 (ii) remains true if Q d is replaced by any polytope P without triangular faces and y is a simple vertex in P, while in Proposition 8 (iii) if Y = N (y), then the verb contains can be replaced by the verb is. The following remark will be helpful later on. Remark 10. If x and y are vertices of a cube, then they share at most two neighbours. In other words, the complete bipartite graph K 2,3 is not a subgraph of the cube. Figure 4 shows examples of Proposition 8 (iii).

7 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES 7 y 4 y 4 y 1 y 2 y (a) y 3 (b) (c) y 3 Figure 4. Complexes in the 4-cube. (a) The 4-cube with a vertex y and its neighbours highlighted. (b) The strongly connected 2- complex induced by V (Q 4 ) \ ({y} Y ), where Y = {y 1, y 2, y 3, y 4 }. (c) The nonpure complex induced by V (Q 4 ) \ ({y} Y ), where Y = {y 1, y 2 }. 4. Cubical polytopes The aim of this section is to prove Theorem 13, a result that relates the connectivity of a cubical polytope to its minimum degree. We extend the notion of independent vertex-edge paths to facet-ridge paths. Two facet-ridge paths are independent if they don t share an inner facet. Our exploration of the connectivity of cubical polytopes starts with a statement about the connectivity of the star of a vertex. Proposition 11. Let F be a facet in the star S of a vertex in a cubical d-polytope. Then the antistar of F in S is a strongly connected (d 2)-complex. Proof. The result is true for d = 1, 2, so assume d 3. Let F 1,..., F n be the facets in the star S of some vertex s in a cubical d-polytope P and let F 1 = F. According to Lemma 6, the antistar of F i F 1 in F i ; that is, the complex of F i induced by V (F i ) \ V (F i F 1 ) is a strongly (d 2)-connected complex for i [2, n]. It follows that astar(f 1, S) = n i=2 astar(f i F 1, F i ), and consequently, that astar(f 1, S) is a pure (d 2)-complex. It remains to prove that there exists a (d 2, d 3)-path between any two ridges R i and R j in astar(f 1, S). By virtue of Lemma 6, we can assume that R i astar(f i F 1, F i ) and R j astar(f j F 1, F j ) with i j. Since S is a strongly (d 1)-connected complex (cf. Proposition 4), there exists a (d 1, d 2)-path M := F i = J 1 J m = F j in S, where J l J l+1 is a ridge for l [1, m 1]. We can assume the path M doesn t contain F 1 : look at the dual polytope P of P and observe that a (d 1, d 2)-path between F i and F j in the star S translates into an edge-vertex path in the facet F of P corresponding to the vertex s of P between the vertices corresponding to F i and F j ; the (d 1)-connectivity of F validates the assumption. Since J l J l+1 is a ridge but not of F 1, Lemma 6 ensures that astar(j l J l+1 F 1, J l J l+1 ) contains a spanning nonempty strongly connected (d 3)-subcomplex, which is, in particular, a spanning subcomplex of the complex C l := astar(j l F 1, J l ) astar(j l+1 F 1, J l +1). For every l [1, m 1], pick a (d 3)-face I l in C l, and using the strong connectivity

8 8 HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON of the pure (d 2)-complexes astar(j l F 1, J l ) and astar(j l+1 F 1, J l + 1), find a (d 2, d 3)-path L l between some ridge R l in astar(j l F 1, J l ) and some ridge R l+1 in astar(j l+1 F 1, J l+1 ) sharing I l. Here R 1 = R i. Finally, let L m be a (d 2, d 3)- path path between and R m and R j in astar(j m F 1, J m ) Concatenating all these paths L l we obtain the desired path between R i and R j. The proof method used in Proposition 11 also proves the following. Theorem 12. Let F be a proper face of a cubical d-polytope P. Then the antistar of F in P is a complex which is not necessarily pure but contains a spanning strongly connected (d 2)-complex. Proof. The result is true for d = 1, 2, so assume d 3. Let F 1,..., F n be the facets of P. According to Lemma 6, the antistar of F i F in F i is either empty or contains a strongly (d 2)-connected complex C i for i [2, n]; if F i doesn t touch F, the complex C i coincides with the boundary complex of F i, and if F i coincides with F, C i is empty. Let C := C i with i [1, n]. It follows that C is a spanning pure (d 2)-subcomplex of the complex induced by V (P) \ V (F). It remains to prove that there exists a (d 2, d 3)-path between any two ridges R i and R j in C. By virtue of Lemma 6, we can assume that R i C i and R j C j with i j. Since P is a strongly (d 1)-connected complex, there exists a (d 1, d 2)-path M := F i = J 1 J m = F j in P, where J l J l+1 is a ridge for l [1, m 1]. By looking at the d-connectivity of the dual polytope we can assume the path M doesn t contain F in the case of F being a facet or a ridge. Since J l and J l+1 are different from F and since J l J l+1 is different from F, Lemma 6 ensures that the complex induced by V (J l J l+1 ) \ V (J l J l+1 F) contains a spanning nonempty strongly connected (d 3)-subcomplex. For every l [1, m 1], pick a (d 3)-face I l in C l C l+1, and using the strong connectivity of C l and C l+1, find a (d 2, d 3)- path L l between some ridge R l in C l and some ridge R l+1 in C l+1 which contains I l. Here R 1 = R i. Finally, let L m be a (d 2, d 3)-path in C m between R m and R j. Concatenating all these paths L l we obtain the desired path between R i and R j. We are now ready to prove the main result of the section. Theorem 13 (Connectivity Theorem). Let 0 α d 3 and let P be a cubical d-polytope with minimum degree at least d + α. Then P is (d + α)-connected. Furthermore, if the minimum degree of P is exactly d + α, then, for any d 4 and any 0 α d 3, every separator of cardinality d + α consists of all the neighbours of some vertex and breaks the polytope into exactly two components. Proof. Let P be a cubical d-polytope with minimum degree at least d + α. We first prove that P is (d + α)-connected. The cases of d = 1, 2 are trivial and the case d = 3 follows from Balinski s theorem. So assume d 4. Let X be a minimum separator of P. The theorem follows from a number of claims which we prove next.

9 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES 9 Claim 1. If X d + α then, for any facet F, the cardinality of X V (F) is at most d 1. Proof. Suppose otherwise and let F be a facet with X V (F) d. Remove all the vertices of F from P, which, according to Theorem 12, produces a strongly connected (d 2)-complex C whose graph is (d 2)-connected (cf. Proposition 4). Since there are at most α d 3 in V (C) X, removing V (C) X doesn t disconnect C. Since the minimum degree is at least d + α and since every vertex in F has at least d + α (d 1) = α + 1 neighbours outside F, we have that such a vertex has a neighbour in V (C) \ X. Consequently, P is not disconnected by X. Claim 2. If X d + α then the set X disconnects at least d facets of P. Proof. Suppose X disconnects at most d 1 facets of P; that is, for such a facet F, the graph induced by V (F)\X is disconnected. Take any two vertices u, v in G(P). There are at least d facets containing u and there are at least d facets containing v. As a result, we can pick facets F u and F v with u F u and v F v whose graphs are not disconnected by X. Since P is a strongly connected (d 1)-complex and since there are at least d independent (d 1, d 2)-paths from F u to F v, there exists a (d 1, d 2)-path F u = F 1 F n = F v whose facets are all connected in G[V (P) \ X]. Construct a u v path L by traversing the facets F 1,... F n : find a path in F 1 from u to F 1 F 2 then a path in F 2 to F 2 F 3 and so on up to F n 1 F n, using the connectivity of the subgraphs G[V (F 1 )\X],..., G[V (F n 1 )\X], and then find a path from F n 1 F n to v using the connectivity of G[V (F n ) \ X]. Observe that this path L can only be disconnected by X if there exists some i such that V (F i F i+1 ) X; that is, a ridge which is removed from the path. However, for d 4 it follows that V (F i F i+1 ) = 2 d 2 d, which in turn would imply that the facet F i contains at least d vertices from X, contradicting Claim 1. Claim 3. If α d 3 and X d +α, then X = d +α. Moreover, if α d 4 and the minimum degree of P is exactly d +α, then the set X consists of the neighbours of some vertex. Proof. Let F be a facet of P being disconnected by X, which by Claim 2 exists. Claim 1 ensures that V (F) X = d 1. Consider vertices u and v of P which are separated by X. By Theorem 12, removing all the vertices of F from P produces a complex C whose graph is (d 2)-connected. We first establish that a minimum separator X has size exactly d+α for α d 3. Suppose otherwise. Then there are at most α d 3 vertices in V (C) X, and so removing V (C) X doesn t disconnect C. We must then have that one of these vertices, say u, is in F. Let X 1 denote the set of neighbours of u in C; then X 1 α + 1, since the minimum degree of P is at least d + α. Every neighbour of u in C belongs to X; otherwise u and v could be linked through a path in the

10 10 HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON connected graph G[V (C) \ X]. But, since V (C) X α, X 1 couldn t be at least α + 1. Thus a minimum separator has size exactly d + α. For the second part of the claim, let α d 4 and let P have minimum degree exactly d + α. Since there are now exactly α + 1 d 3 vertices in V (C) X, removing V (C) X doesn t disconnect C. As above, we may assume that u is in F, that every neighbour of u in C belongs to X, and that X 1 denotes the same set of neighbours of u. Then the cardinality of X 1 is at least α+1, and so X 1 = V (C) X. In addition, every path of length two from u to C passing through a neighbour of u in F contains some vertex x from X; observe that x X \ X 1 since there are no triangles in P. From V (C) X = X 1 it therefore follows that x F, which in turn implies that every neighbour of u in F must be in X. That is, the set X consists of the d + α neighbours of u in P, as desired. The structure of a minimum separator remains only open for the case of α = d 3 and d 4; this is fixed by Claim 4. Claim 4. If d 4, α = d 3 and the minimum degree of P is exactly d + α, then the set X consists of the neighbours of some vertex. Proof. Proceed by contradiction. Then every vertex in P has at least one neighbour outside X. By Claim 1 there are at most d 1 vertices from X in any facet F of P. If the removal of X disconnects a facet F, then there would be exactly d 1 vertices in V (F) X consisting of the neighbours of some vertex (cf. Proposition 8(i)). Consequently, the graph F would be broken into two components: one being a singleton z(f) and another Z(F) being (d 3)-connected by Proposition 8(iii); if X doesn t disconnect F, we let z(f) = and let Z(F) be the subgraph of G(F) induced by V (F) \ X. Let u and v be vertices being separated by X. Since the vertex u has a neighbour w not in X there must exist a facet F u in which u Z(F u ): a facet containing the edge uw. Similarly, there exists a facet F v containing v in which v Z(F v ). Consider a (d 1, d 2)-path L := F 1 F n = F v in P, where F u = F 1 and F v. For i [1, n 1] pick a vertex y i V (F i F i+1 ) with y i Z(F i ) Z(F i+1 ). If the vertex y i existed for each i [1, n 1], we would be home. Indeed, Let y 0 := u and y n := v. For all i [0, n], there would be a path from y i to y i+1 in Z(F i ) which is not disconnected by X. Concatenating all these paths we would then have a u v path in G(P) \ X, giving a contradiction. As a consequence of this contradiction, the set X would consists of the neighbours of u or v, as desired. Hence it only remains to show the existence of the vertex y i for i [1, n 1] when d 4. We will consider a number of cases. Case 1. For some i neither the facet F i nor the facet F i+1 is disconnected by X. In this case, z(f i ) = z(f i+1 ) =. Since by Claim 1 V (F i ) X d 1, we immediately have Z(F i ) Z(F i+1 ) = V (F i F i+1 ) \ X = 2 d 2 (d 1) 1,

11 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES 11 and thereby the existence of y i. Case 2. For some i the facet F i is disconnected by X but F i+1 is not. Suppose z(f i ) is not in F i F i+1. By Proposition 8(ii), z(f i ) has at most one neighbour in V (F i F i+1 ), in which case we have Z(F i ) Z(F i+1 ) = V (F i F i+1 ) \ X = 2 d 2 1 1, and thereby the existence of y i. If z(f i ) is in F i F i+1, then, counting z(f i ) and its d 2 neighbours in F i F i+1, we get Z(F i ) Z(F i+1 ) = V (F i F i+1 ) \ X \ {z(f i )} = 2 d 2 (d 2) 1 1, and the existence of y i. Case 3. For some i the facets F i and F i+1 are both disconnected by X. In this case, there exactly d 1 vertices from X in F i, the d 1 neighbours of z(f i ), and d 1 vertices in F i+1, the d 1 neighbours of z(f i+1 ). Suppose z(f i ) is not in F i F i+1. By Proposition 8(ii), z(f i ) has at most one neighbour in V (F i F i+1 ). This also implies that z(f i+1 ) is not in F i F i+1 either; otherwise the d 2 neighbours of z(f i+1 ) in F i F i+1 would also be neighbours of z(f i ), a contradiction. Thus we immediately have Z(F i ) Z(F i+1 ) = V (F i F i+1 ) \ X = 2 d 2 2 1, and thereby the existence of y i. Consequently, z(f i ) is in F i F i+1, and so is z(f i+1 ). Observe that z(f i ) and z(f i+1 ) share the same the neighbours in F i F i+1. If z(f i ) and z(f i+1 ) coincide, then, counting z(f i ) and its neighbours in F i F i+1, we get Z(F i ) Z(F i+1 ) = V (F i F i+1 ) \ X \ {z(f i )} = 2 d 2 (d 2) 1 1. Hence y i exists. We can then assume that z(f i ) and z(f i+1 ) are distinct. In this case, z(f i ) and z(f i+1 ) must share d 2 neighbours in F i F i+1, thereby implying that d = 4 by Remark 10. This is where the proof gets a bit messy and detailed. Call this configuration C. Here we let X := {x 1,..., x 5 } and depict the configuration in Fig. 5. There are at least four independent (d 1, d 2)-paths from F u to F v, and at least four pairs of pairwise distinct facets exhibiting Configuration C, one per path. With a counting argument we show that this configuration cannot occur in all the four paths, and so the existence of some y i is guaranteed. Suppose otherwise and refer to Fig. 5. First observe that for every pair of facets (F, F ) exhibiting Configuration C there are least five ridges in F F containing two vertices from X. For instance, for the pair (F i, F i+1 ) of Fig. 5, the pairs (x 1, x 2 ), (x 1, x 3 ), (x 2, x 3 ), (x 1, x 4 ) and

12 12 HOA THI BUI, GUILLERMO PINEDA-VILLAVICENCIO, AND JULIEN UGON F i F i+1 z(f i+1 ) x 4 x 1 R i x 2 x 3 z(f i ) Figure 5. Auxiliary figure for Theorem 13. (x 2, x 4 ) induce the five ridges. So, considering the four aforementioned F u F v paths, we have a total of 20 ridges. Also, note that there are ten ways of pairing two vertices from X. Thus, either there is a ridge in some F F which appears three times in the four pairs of facets, a contradiction, or every ridge in a pair must be present twice in the four pairs; in particular, the ridge induced by the pair (x 1, x 2 ) also appears in a pair other than (F i, F i+1 ), another contradiction. As a result, we can choose a (d 1, d 2)-path F u F v in which Configuration C doesn t occur, guaranteeing the existence of the required vertex y i. This completes the proof of the case and of Claim 4. Hence the proof of the theorem is also complete. A simple corollary of Theorem 13 is the following. Corollary 14. A cubical d-polytope with no simple vertices is (d + 1)-connected. As we mentioned in the introduction an open problem that nicely arises from Theorem 13 is Problem 3. References [1] G. Blind and R. Blind, The almost simple cubical polytopes, Discrete Math. 184 (1998), no. 1-3, MR (99c:52013) [2] G. Brinkmann, S. Greenberg, C. Greenhill, B. D McKay, R. Thomas, and P. Wollan, Generation of simple quadrangulations of the sphere, Discrete mathematics 305 (2005), no. 1, [3] R. Diestel, Graph Theory, 5th ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 173, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, [4] M. Joswig and G. M. Ziegler, Neighborly cubical polytopes, Discrete Comput. Geom. 24 (2000), no. 2-3, , The Branko Grünbaum birthday issue. MR (2001f:52019) [5] M. Ramras, Minimum cutsets in hypercubes, Discrete mathematics 289 (2004), no. 1, [6] G. T. Sallee, Incidence graphs of convex polytopes, J. Combinatorial Theory 2 (1967), MR (35 #7198) [7] G. M. Ziegler, Lectures on polytopes, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 152, Springer- Verlag, New York, MR (96a:52011)

13 CONNECTIVITY OF CUBICAL POLYTOPES 13 Centre for Informatics and Applied Optimisation, Federation University Australia address: Centre for Informatics and Applied Optimisation, Federation University Australia address: School of Information Technology, Deakin University address: