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.
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
Projects
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.
Interest
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
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.
NEW
Problem: For , let be the set of pointed rational polyhedral cones , ordered by the transitive closure of elementary extensions
for some .
Question 2.3 asks whether the same order is generated by either height 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 . In fact, they are precisely the elementary extensions.
Let .
First suppose is elementary, so
with . Since a rational cone is generated by its lattice points,
Thus is an extremal ray of ; otherwise all extremal rays of would already lie in , forcing .
We show . If with nonzero , write
with , . Then
If , then , impossible. If , then , so because is pointed, and then one of is zero. If , then , contradicting pointedness of . Hence is indecomposable, so .
Now let , . Write , , . If , then decomposes nontrivially unless , which would give . Hence , so . Therefore
so is a Hilbert basis extension.
Conversely, suppose is a Hilbert basis extension: for some extremal generator of ,
Every element of is a nonnegative integer combination of , so it has the form with , . Hence
so the extension is elementary.
Thus elementary extensions and Hilbert basis extensions coincide, and their transitive closures give exactly the same poset .
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 checkNo person has reviewed this attempt. 1 machine check below — a machine check is not human verification.
Machine check · not human verification
machine: correctscope 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 indeed forces , with the primitive new extremal generator and the unique Hilbert basis element of outside . Conversely, the Hilbert basis condition immediately gives . Thus Hilbert basis extensions coincide with elementary extensions and generate .
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 endorsementsNo 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
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.