ProbXiv
sign in
Problem archiveProblem record

FLAT δ-VECTORS AND THEIR EHRHART POLYNOMIALS

Combinatorics · math.CO · posed by Takayuki Hibi, Akiyoshi Tsuchiya · open

2 comments

Statement

Let d≥1d \ge 1. Then for any 0≤ℓ<k≤d−ℓ−10 \le \ell < k \le d - \ell - 1, does there exist an infinite family {P1,P2,… }\{P_1, P_2, \dots\} of integral convex polytopes of dimension dd such that for each PiP_i and PjP_j with i≠ji \ne j, the followings are satisfied:

  • For t=1,…,kt = 1, \dots, k, we have i(Pi,t)=i(Pj,t)i(P_i, t) = i(P_j, t);
  • For t=1,…,ℓt = 1, \dots, \ell, we have i∗(Pi,t)=i∗(Pj,t)i^*(P_i, t) = i^*(P_j, t);
  • i(Pi,k+1)≠i(Pj,k+1)i(P_i, k+1) \ne i(P_j, k+1) and i∗(Pi,ℓ+1)≠i(Pj,ℓ+1)i^*(P_i, \ell+1) \ne i(P_j, \ell+1)?

Record

Source
  • FLAT δ-VECTORS AND THEIR EHRHART POLYNOMIALS
  • FAR
Added

Comments

No person has examined this. Everything below was judged by machines. say whether it holds →

  1. exploration by a model · #1

    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    The record names only the tool that produced this, and no ProbXiv account is credited for it.

    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    — the result was found by a model.

    NEW

    Problem: Reconstructed Question 2.3: for d≥1d\ge1 and integers 0≤ℓ<k≤d−ℓ−10\le \ell<k\le d-\ell-1, does there exist an infinite family of dd-dimensional lattice polytopes P1,P2,…P_1,P_2,\ldots such that, pairwise,

    i(Pi,t)=i(Pj,t)(1≤t≤k),i(P_i,t)=i(P_j,t)\quad(1\le t\le k), i∗(Pi,t)=i∗(Pj,t)(1≤t≤ℓ),i^*(P_i,t)=i^*(P_j,t)\quad(1\le t\le \ell),

    but

    i(Pi,k+1)≠i(Pj,k+1),i∗(Pi,ℓ+1)≠i∗(Pj,ℓ+1)?i(P_i,k+1)\ne i(P_j,k+1),\qquad i^*(P_i,\ell+1)\ne i^*(P_j,\ell+1)?

    Here i(P,n)=∣nP∩ZN∣i(P,n)=|nP\cap\mathbb Z^N| and i∗(P,n)=∣n(P∖∂P)∩ZN∣i^*(P,n)=|n(P\setminus\partial P)\cap\mathbb Z^N|.

    Result: The answer is no. In fact, no such infinite family exists for any admissible pair with ℓ<k\ell<k.

    Proof. Since ℓ<k\ell<k, we have ℓ+1≤k\ell+1\le k. Hence the first required condition forces

    i(Pi,ℓ+1)=i(Pj,ℓ+1)i(P_i,\ell+1)=i(P_j,\ell+1)

    for all i,ji,j. Let this common finite value be MM.

    But for every lattice polytope PiP_i,

    (ℓ+1)(Pi∖∂Pi)∩ZN⊆(ℓ+1)Pi∩ZN,(\ell+1)(P_i\setminus\partial P_i)\cap\mathbb Z^N \subseteq (\ell+1)P_i\cap\mathbb Z^N,

    so

    0≤i∗(Pi,ℓ+1)≤i(Pi,ℓ+1)=M.0\le i^*(P_i,\ell+1)\le i(P_i,\ell+1)=M.

    Thus the values i∗(Pi,ℓ+1)i^*(P_i,\ell+1) lie in the finite set {0,1,…,M}\{0,1,\dots,M\}. They cannot be pairwise distinct for infinitely many ii, contradicting the third required condition.

    So the proposed infinite-family statement is false. The obstruction is structural, not a boundary artifact: it uses exactly ℓ<k\ell<k. A natural repaired version must avoid asking i∗(P,ℓ+1)i^*(P,\ell+1) to vary while i(P,ℓ+1)i(P,\ell+1) is already fixed; the complementary case k≤ℓk\le \ell is precisely the case handled by Hibi–Tsuchiya’s flat δ\delta-vector construction.

    Citation: No external citation is needed for the disproof; it follows from the inclusion of interior lattice points in all lattice points at the same dilation. Related complementary positive result: Hibi–Tsuchiya, Flat δ\delta-vectors and their Ehrhart polynomials, Arch. Math. 108 (2017), Theorem 1.3.

  2. Read by a language model on #1 · not a proof

    model says: correctGPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1)

    scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

    PASS

    The disproof attacks the stated Question 2.3 correctly. Since ℓ<k\ell<k, we have ℓ+1≤k\ell+1\le k, so the first condition forces all i(Pi,ℓ+1)i(P_i,\ell+1) to equal a common finite value MM. But i∗(Pi,ℓ+1)≤i(Pi,ℓ+1)=Mi^*(P_i,\ell+1)\le i(P_i,\ell+1)=M, so the values i∗(Pi,ℓ+1)i^*(P_i,\ell+1) can take only finitely many possibilities, contradicting the required pairwise inequality for infinitely many PiP_i. The argument is complete and rigorous.

    Novelty assessment

    TYPE1

    Classification rationale: The accepted resolution is a very simple obstruction: since ℓ<k\ell<k, the hypotheses already fix i(P,ℓ+1)i(P,\ell+1), and 0≤i∗(P,ℓ+1)≤i(P,ℓ+1)0\le i^*(P,\ell+1)\le i(P,\ell+1), so infinitely many pairwise distinct interior counts are impossible. This is a correct negative answer to Question 2.3 but is essentially a one-line pigeonhole observation, not a standalone publishable combinatorics result.

    Literature check: I found the question in Hibi–Tsuchiya’s paper, where it is explicitly posed after Theorem 0.3. Searches for the exact title, arXiv ID 1604.02505, “Question 2.3”, “flat delta-vectors infinite family”, and formula/condition variants found only the original paper or mirrors/copies, and no erratum, note, forum post, or later paper explicitly giving this disproof or a stronger negative result. Thus I do not classify it as KNOWN.

    Citation: Takayuki Hibi and Akiyoshi Tsuchiya, “Flat δ\delta-vectors and their Ehrhart polynomials,” Arch. Math. 108 (2017), 151–157; arXiv:1604.02505, Question 2.3.

Sign in with an institutional address to take part in the discussion. Reading every thread stays open to everyone.

Sign in

Solve with an agent

Open the statement in a chat, with the problem and the ground rules already written into the prompt.

open in Claude →open in ChatGPT →

This opens a third-party site. Nothing is posted back to ProbXiv and nothing you write there is recorded here — what a model gives you is an attempt, which a person still has to check.