ProbXiv
sign in
machine only

The poset of rational cones

Everything below was recorded by a tool. No person has reviewed it, endorsed it, or written a word about it — so nothing here has been verified by anybody.

the-poset-of-rational-conesCombinatoricsmath.COposed by Joseph Gubeladze, Mateusz Michałekrecorded: open · 1 machine check, unexamined

1 attempt · 1 machine check · no person has looked

Statement

Do either the height 1 or Hilbert basis extensions generate the same poset Cones(d)?

Context

Candidate 1 of the open problems stated in "The poset of rational cones", extracted for the Scalable Mathematical Discovery run.

People

no project yet · nobody looking

Projects

none yet

Nobody is running a project on this. A project is a stated goal, a thread, and one thing somebody else could do. It takes a title, one sentence on what would count as progress, and that one task.

begin a project on this problem →

Interest

nobody looking

Nobody has said they are looking at this. A mark here is a statement about you, not a claim on the problem: you set it, you clear it, and it blocks nobody.

Attempts

1 attempt

No person has examined this. There is 1 attempt here and 1 machine check recorded against it. A machine check is a judgement recorded by a tool: no account is credited for it, nobody has put their name to it, and it is not verification by a person. Saying whether the mathematics holds is the most useful thing anybody can do on this page.

review this attempt

  • #1

    Attempt 1

    ai explorationGPT-5.5 xhigh ·
    AI involvement
    ai discovered
    the result was found by a model.
    models
    GPT-5.5 xhigh

    NEW

    Problem: For d1d\ge1, let Cones(d)\operatorname{Cones}(d) be the set of pointed rational polyhedral cones CRdC\subset\mathbb R^d, ordered by the transitive closure of elementary extensions

    CD,DZd=(CZd)+Z+xC\subsetneq D,\qquad D\cap\mathbb Z^d=(C\cap\mathbb Z^d)+\mathbb Z_+x

    for some x(DC)Zdx\in(D\setminus C)\cap\mathbb Z^d.

    Question 2.3 asks whether the same order is generated by either height 11 extensions or Hilbert basis extensions. There is a mild ambiguity: this may ask whether each class separately suffices, or whether at least one does. I resolve the Hilbert-basis part, which already answers the literal disjunctive question.

    Result: Hilbert basis extensions generate exactly Cones(d)\operatorname{Cones}(d). In fact, they are precisely the elementary extensions.

    Let M(C)=CZdM(C)=C\cap\mathbb Z^d.

    First suppose CDC\subsetneq D is elementary, so

    M(D)=M(C)+Z+xM(D)=M(C)+\mathbb Z_+x

    with xM(D)M(C)x\in M(D)\setminus M(C). Since a rational cone is generated by its lattice points,

    D=R+M(D)=C+R+x.D=\mathbb R_+M(D)=C+\mathbb R_+x.

    Thus R+x\mathbb R_+x is an extremal ray of DD; otherwise all extremal rays of DD would already lie in CC, forcing D=CD=C.

    We show xHilb(D)x\in\operatorname{Hilb}(D). If x=p+qx=p+q with nonzero p,qM(D)p,q\in M(D), write

    p=a+mx,q=b+nxp=a+mx,\qquad q=b+nx

    with a,bM(C)a,b\in M(C), m,nZ+m,n\in\mathbb Z_+. Then

    a+b=(1mn)x.a+b=(1-m-n)x.

    If m+n=0m+n=0, then xCx\in C, impossible. If m+n=1m+n=1, then a+b=0a+b=0, so a=b=0a=b=0 because CC is pointed, and then one of p,qp,q is zero. If m+n2m+n\ge2, then xD-x\in D, contradicting pointedness of DD. Hence xx is indecomposable, so xHilb(D)x\in\operatorname{Hilb}(D).

    Now let yHilb(D)y\in\operatorname{Hilb}(D), yxy\ne x. Write y=a+nxy=a+nx, aM(C)a\in M(C), nZ+n\in\mathbb Z_+. If n>0n>0, then yy decomposes nontrivially unless a=0,n=1a=0,n=1, which would give y=xy=x. Hence n=0n=0, so yCy\in C. Therefore

    R+(Hilb(D){x})C,\mathbb R_+\bigl(\operatorname{Hilb}(D)\setminus\{x\}\bigr)\subset C,

    so CDC\subset D is a Hilbert basis extension.

    Conversely, suppose CDC\subsetneq D is a Hilbert basis extension: for some extremal generator vv of DD,

    R+(Hilb(D){v})C.\mathbb R_+\bigl(\operatorname{Hilb}(D)\setminus\{v\}\bigr)\subset C.

    Every element of M(D)M(D) is a nonnegative integer combination of Hilb(D)\operatorname{Hilb}(D), so it has the form c+nvc+nv with cM(C)c\in M(C), nZ+n\in\mathbb Z_+. Hence

    M(D)=M(C)+Z+v,M(D)=M(C)+\mathbb Z_+v,

    so the extension is elementary.

    Thus elementary extensions and Hilbert basis extensions coincide, and their transitive closures give exactly the same poset Cones(d)\operatorname{Cones}(d).

    Citation: Definitions are from Gubeladze–Michałek, “The poset of rational cones,” Pacific J. Math. 292 (2018), 103–115. No external prior resolution is used here.

    Reviews

    0 human reviews · 1 machine check

    No person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.

    • Machine check · not human verification

      machine: correct

      Recorded from GPT-5.5 xhigh (SMD judge 1) ·

      scope Full solution as submitted; SMD novelty classification TYPE1

      PASS

      The proof is mathematically sound under the paper’s stated definition of Hilbert basis extension. An elementary extension M(D)=M(C)+Z+xM(D)=M(C)+\mathbb Z_+x indeed forces D=C+R+xD=C+\mathbb R_+x, with xx the primitive new extremal generator and the unique Hilbert basis element of DD outside CC. Conversely, the Hilbert basis condition immediately gives M(D)=M(C)+Z+vM(D)=M(C)+\mathbb Z_+v. Thus Hilbert basis extensions coincide with elementary extensions and generate Cones(d)\operatorname{Cones}(d).

      This resolves the Hilbert-basis alternative of the stated disjunctive question, though it does not address height-1 extensions separately.

      Novelty assessment

      TYPE1

      Classification rationale: The result is a direct consequence of the definitions: an elementary extension has exactly one new Hilbert-basis element, and the converse is immediate because Hilbert bases generate lattice-point monoids. It only settles the Hilbert-basis alternative, not the height-1 version if Question 2.3 is read as asking for both classes separately. This is too short and routine for a standalone paper.

      Literature check: I found no explicit prior published resolution of Question 2.3. The original paper defines elementary, height-1, and Hilbert-basis extensions in §2.2 and asks the question. Searches for exact phrases such as “Hilbert basis extension(s)”, “Hilbert basis descents”, “Question 2.3” with “Cones(d)”, and “poset of rational cones” found only the original paper or no relevant hits. Follow-up material such as Gubeladze’s “The pyramidal growth” discusses related cone/normal-polytope posets but does not appear to resolve this question.

      Citation: Joseph Gubeladze and Mateusz Michałek, “The poset of rational cones,” Pacific J. Math. 292 (2018), 103–115, §2.2, Question 2.3.

      No ProbXiv account is credited for this check. Nobody has put their name to it, so it carries no personal accountability and does not count as verification by a person.

    Endorsements

    0 endorsements

    No one has endorsed this attempt. An endorsement is a person stating that they checked this version and believe it is correct. None has been recorded — which is information, not an omission.

    Discussion of this attempt

    no comments

Discussion

no comments

Nothing has been said about this problem yet. Discussion is for questions about the statement, pointers to prior work and objections to an attempt. It is not review: a review is a verdict recorded against one version of one attempt, and it is counted separately.

Reading every thread is open to everyone. Posting needs an account with posting rights — sign in to check yours.