ScalingStacks

1. Preliminaries [04QN]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

1. Preliminaries

1.1. Balanced polyhedra

Definition 1.

A subset Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is called a proper rational polyhedral complex (or just a polyhedral complex in this paper) if it can be presented as a finite union of closed sets in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} called cells with the following properties.

  • •

    Each cell is a closed convex (possibly semi-infinite) polyhedron. The dimension of the cell is, by definition, the dimension of its affine spun, the smallest affine subspace of ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} which contains it. We call a cell of dimension kk a kk-cell.

  • •

    The slope of the affine spun of each cell is rational. I.e. the linear subspace of ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} parallel to the affine spun is defined over ℚ\mathbb{Q}.

  • •

    The boundary (i.e. the boundary in the corresponding affine spun) of a kk-cell is a union of (k−1)(k-1)-cells.

  • •

    Different open cells (i.e. the interiors of the cells in the corresponding affine spuns) do not intersect.

Informally speaking, a proper polyhedral complex in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is a cellular space where each cell is a convex polyhedron with a rational slope and where some cells are allowed to go to infinity.

As usual, the dimension of Π\Pi is the maximal dimension of its cells.

Definition 2.

A polyhedral nn-complex is called weighted if there is a natural number w⁡(F)w(F), called weight, prescribed to each of its nn-cell FF. (Of course, any polyhedral complex can be considered as a weighted polyhedral complex by prescribing 1 to each nn-cell.)

Let Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} be a weighted polyhedral nn-complex. Note that its complement ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi consists of a finite union of connected components. Let F⊂ΠF\subset\Pi be an nn-cell.

Recall that by Definition 1 the nn-cell FF has a rational slope in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1}. Therefore, it defines an integer covector

±cF:ℤn+1→ℤ\pm c_{F}:\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{Z}

up to its sign. Here are the characteristic properties of cFc_{F}.

  • •

    The kernel of cFc_{F} is parallel to FF.

  • •

    1w⁡(F)​cF\frac{1}{w(F)}c_{F} is a primitive (i.e. non-divisible) integer covector ℤn+1→ℤ\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{Z}.

Furthermore, even the sign of cFc_{F} becomes well-defined once we co-orient F⊂ℝn+1F\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1}.

Polyhedral complexes that appear in this paper have the following additional property.

Definition 3.

A weighted polyhedral nn-complex Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is called balanced if for every (n−1)(n-1)-cell G⊂ΠG\subset\Pi the following condition holds. Let F1,…,FkF_{1},\dots,F_{k} be the nn-cells adjacent to GG. A choice of a rotational direction about GG defines a coherent co-orientation on these nn-cells. The balancing condition is

∑j=1kcFj=0.\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}c_{F_{j}}=0.

Refer to caption

Figure 1. Balanced graphs in ℝ2\mathbb{R}^{2}.
Example 1.

Consider the function

H⁡(x1,…,xn+1)=max⁡{0,x1,…,xn+1}.H(x_{1},\dots,x_{n+1})=\max\{0,x_{1},\dots,x_{n+1}\}.

This is a convex piecewise-linear function ℝn+1→ℝ\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{R}. We define the primitive complex Σn⊂ℝn+1\Sigma_{n}\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} as the corner locus of HH, i.e. the set of points where HH is not smooth is Σn\Sigma_{n}.

Note that Σn\Sigma_{n} is a balanced proper polyhedral complex in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1}. Its kk-cells are formed by the points where at least n+2−kn+2-k of the functions 0,x1,…,xn+10,x_{1},\dots,x_{n+1} achieve the value of HH. In fact, it is easy to see that topologically Σn\Sigma_{n} is the cone over the (n−1)(n-1)-skeleton of the (n+1)(n+1)-simplex. The fact that Σ\Sigma is balanced follows from Proposition 1.2.

Refer to caption

Figure 2. Primitive complex Σn\Sigma_{n}.

The following example is a generalization of the previous one. As the following propositions show, it is the fundamental example of balanced polyhedra.

Example 2.

Let A⊂ℤn+1A\subset\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} be a finite set and let v:A→ℝv:A\to\mathbb{R} be any function. Let Δ⊂ℝn+1\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} be the convex hull of AA. We associate the following polyhedral complex Πv\Pi_{v} to vv.

Take the Legendre transform Lv:ℝn+1→ℝL_{v}:\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{R} of vv

Lv​(y)=maxx∈A⁡(x​y−v⁡(x)).L_{v}(y)=\max\limits_{x\in A}(xy-v(x)).

Here x,y∈ℝn+1x,y\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1} and x​yxy is their scalar product. Since the maximum is taken over a finite set, the result LvL_{v} is a convex piecewise-linear function. We define Πv\Pi_{v} as the corner locus of LvL_{v} (recall that this is the set of points where LvL_{v} is not smooth).

To present Example 1 as a special case of Example 2 we take the vertices of the standard simplex

(1) Δ1{(x1,…,xn+1)∈ℝn+1|xj≥0,x1+⋯+xn+1≤1}\Delta_{1}\{(x_{1},\dots,x_{n+1})\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\ |\ x_{j}\geq 0,x_{1}+\dots+x_{n+1}\leq 1\}

for AA and set v≡0v\equiv 0.

Recall that a polyhedron in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is called lattice if all its vertices belong to ℤn+1\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}. A subdivision of a polyhedron into smaller polyhedra is called lattice if all the polyhedra of the subdivision are lattice.

Proposition 1.1.

The set Πv\Pi_{v} from Example 2 is a proper rational polyhedral complex dual to a certain lattice subdivision of Δ\Delta.

Proof.

We start by associating to vv a certain lattice subdivision 𝒟v{\mathcal{D}}_{v} of Δ\Delta. Let O​Γ​(v)O\Gamma(v) be the overgraph of vv, i.e. the set of vertical rays upwards in ℝn+1×ℝ\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R} starting at the points of the graph of vv. The convex hull of O​Γ​(v)O\Gamma(v) is a semi-infinite closed polyhedral domain. The projections of its finite faces to ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} form the subdivision 𝒟v{\mathcal{D}}_{v}.

We claim that Πv\Pi_{v} is a polyhedral complex dual to 𝒟v{\mathcal{D}}_{v}. Namely, a kk-dimensional polyhedron Δ′\Delta^{\prime} in 𝒟v{\mathcal{D}}_{v}, k>0k>0, gives a (n+1−k)(n+1-k)-cell of Πv\Pi_{v}. This cell is compact iff Δ′⊂Δ\Delta^{\prime}\subset\Delta.

This claim follows from the duality property of the Legendre transform. Consider the function v~\tilde{v} whose graph is is given by the lower boundary of the convex hull of O​Γ​(v)O\Gamma(v). If vv is convex then the function v~\tilde{v} extends vv and is defined on the whole polyhedron Δ\Delta, not just on its lattice points. It is a convex piecewise-linear function. The Legendre transform of vv coincides with the Legendre transform of v~\tilde{v}. (In fact the function v~\tilde{v} can be defined by applying the Legendre transform to vv twice.) By duality, the graph of Lv~L_{\tilde{v}} has the facets en lieu of the vertices of the graph of v~\tilde{v} and so on. ∎

Note that Πv\Pi_{v} is naturally weighted. Indeed, an nn-cell F⊂ΠvF\subset\Pi_{v} comes as a corner between the graphs of two integer linear functions. The difference between these functions is an integer covector cFc_{F}. We define w⁡(F)∈ℕw(F)\in{\mathbb{N}} as the maximum integer divisor of cFc_{F}.

Proposition 1.2.

The weighted polyhedral complex Πv\Pi_{v} is balanced.

Proof.

The proposition easily follows from the definition of the covectors cFjc_{F_{j}} for the nn-cells FjF_{j} adjacent to an (n−1)(n-1)-cell G⊂ΠG\subset\Pi. ∎

Remark 1.3.

Note that several different functions vv define the same complex Πv\Pi_{v} by the construction of Example 2. Here is the list of ambiguities.

  1. (1)

    Let v′=v+const:A→ℝv^{\prime}=v+\operatorname{const}:A\to\mathbb{R} be a function different with vv by a constant. Then Πv=Πv′\Pi_{v}=\Pi_{v^{\prime}}.

  2. (2)

    Let A′=A+cA^{\prime}=A+c, where c∈ℤn+1c\in\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} and v′:A′→ℝv^{\prime}:A^{\prime}\to\mathbb{R} is defined by v′​(z+c)=v⁡(z)v^{\prime}(z+c)=v(z). Then Πv=Πv′\Pi_{v}=\Pi_{v^{\prime}}.

  3. (3)

    Let A′A^{\prime} be such that its convex hull Δ′\Delta^{\prime} coincides with Δ\Delta, the convex hull of AA. Let v¯\underline{v} (resp. v′¯\underline{v^{\prime}}) be the maximal convex function such that v¯≤v\underline{v}\leq v (resp. v′¯≤v′\underline{v^{\prime}}\leq v^{\prime}). Suppose that v¯=v′¯\underline{v}=\underline{v^{\prime}}. Then Πv=Πv′\Pi_{v}=\Pi_{v^{\prime}}.

The following proposition shows that Example 2 is fundamental.

Proposition 1.4.

Suppose that Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is a weighted balanced proper rational polyhedral complex. Then there exists a finite set A⊂ℤn+1A\subset\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} and a function v:A→ℤv:A\to\mathbb{Z} such that Π=Πv\Pi=\Pi_{v} (see Example 2). The convex hull Δ⊂ℝn+1\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} of AA is unique up to a translation in ℤn+1\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}. The choice of the function vv is unique up to the ambiguity of Remark 1.3.

Proof.

First we define a convex piecewise-linear function HH whose corner locus is Π\Pi and then choose a function vv such that HH is the Legendre transform LvL_{v} of vv. Note that the finiteness condition in Definition 1 implies that there are finitely many connected components in ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi.

We define the function HH inductively. Choose any connected component D0D_{0} of ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi as a “reference component”. Define H|D0≡0H|_{D_{0}}\equiv 0. Suppose that D′D^{\prime} is a component of ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi such that there exists an adjacent component DD where HH is already defined.

Let FF be the nn-cell of of Π\Pi separating DD from D′D^{\prime}. Let cFc_{F} be the covector associated to FF (recall that the weight of FF is incorporated into cFc_{F}) with the co-orientation directed from DD to D′D^{\prime}. Let lD:ℝn+1→ℝl_{D}:\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{R} be the linear function extending H|DH|_{D}. We define H|D′=lD+cFH|_{D^{\prime}}=l_{D}+c_{F}. By the balancing condition the result does not depend on the choice of the adjacent component DD where HH is already defined.

To define vv we take the Legendre transform of HH. This amounts to associating each component DD a point z∈ℤn+1z\in\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} equal to the gradient of H|DH|_{D} and setting v​(z)=lD​(0)v(z)=l_{D}(0). Thus, the number of elements of the set AA is equal to the number of components of ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi.

The ambiguity Remark 1.3.3 comes from taking the Legendre transform of non-convex functions vv. It coincides with the Legendre transform of the underlying convex function v¯\underline{v}. (In fact, nothing changes if we assume that vv is defined on the whole ℤn+1\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} by letting v⁡(z)=+∞v(z)=+\infty for z∉Az\notin A.) The ambiguities Remark 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 come from the ambiguity in assigning a linear function for H|D0H|_{D_{0}}. ∎

Corollary 1.5.

To any nn-dimensional balanced polyhedral complex Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} one may associate a convex lattice polyhedron Δ⊂ℝn+1\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} (defined up to translation) and a lattice subdivision of Δ\Delta.

This corollary follows from Propositions 1.4 and 1.1.

Refer to caption

Figure 3. The lattice polyhedron subdivisions dual to the balanced graphs from Figure 1.

The next corollary illustrates the strength of the balancing condition that we require just for the nn-cells. We do not use this corollary elsewhere in the paper.

Let BB be a vertex of Π\Pi and let E1,…,EkE_{1},\dots,E_{k} be the edges adjacent to BB. Let vj∈ℤn+1v_{j}\in\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}, j=1,…,kj=1,\dots,k, be the primitive integer vectors in the direction of EjE_{j}. Suppose that each EjE_{j} is adjacent to exactly n+2n+2 connected components of ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi (note that this is a general position situation).

Corollary 1.6.

If Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is a balanced nn-complex then there exists a weight wj⊂ℕw_{j}\subset{\mathbb{N}} for EjE_{j}, j=1,…​kj=1,\dots k, such that

∑j=1kwj​vj=0.\sum\limits_{j=1}^{k}w_{j}v_{j}=0.
Proof.

By Proposition 1.4 Π\Pi comes as a corner locus of a convex piecewise-linear function FF on ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1}. Let y=aj,1​x1+⋯+aj,n+1​xn+1y=a_{j,1}x_{1}+\dots+a_{j,n+1}x_{n+1}, j=1,…,n+2j=1,\dots,n+2 be the equations of the linear functions on the adjacent components of ℝn+1∖Π\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\smallsetminus\Pi. Then uj=(aj,1,…,aj,n+1,−1)u_{j}=(a_{j,1},\dots,a_{j,n+1},-1) are the vectors in ℝn+2=ℝn+1×ℝ\mathbb{R}^{n+2}=\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R} normal to the linear portions of the graph of FF adjacent to BB.

The ℝn+2\mathbb{R}^{n+2}-version of the vector product associates a normal vector to (n+1)(n+1) other vectors in ℝn+2=ℝn+1×ℝ\mathbb{R}^{n+2}=\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\times\mathbb{R}. We take all possible such products among uju_{j} and project them to ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1}. The result is the vectors which are multiples of vjv_{j}. By linear algebra the sum of these vectors is zero. ∎

1.2. Maximal polyhedral complexes and their decomposition into primitive pieces

Definition 4.

We call Π\Pi a dual Δ\Delta-complex if it corresponds to the convex polyhedron Δ⊂ℝn+1\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} by Proposition 1.4. We call Π\Pi a maximal polyhedral complex if the elements of the corresponding subdivision from Corollary 1.5 are simplices of volume 1(n+1)!\frac{1}{(n+1)!} (a so-called unimodular lattice triangulation).

Proposition 1.7.

The minimal positive volume of a lattice polyhedron in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} is 1(n+1)!\frac{1}{(n+1)!}. Any lattice polyhedron of volume 1(n+1)!\frac{1}{(n+1)!} can be identified with the standard simplex Δ1\Delta_{1} (see (1)) by an element of A​S​Ln+1​(ℤ)ASL_{n+1}(\mathbb{Z}).

Here A​S​Ln+1​(ℤ)ASL_{n+1}(\mathbb{Z}) stands for the group of affine-linear transformations of ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} whose rotation part belongs to S​Ln+1​(ℤ)SL_{n+1}(\mathbb{Z}).

Proof.

We may assume that our lattice polyhedron is a simplex, since otherwise we can triangulate it to smaller polyhedra. Fix one of its vertex and consider the (n+1)(n+1) integer vectors connecting it to other vertices. The volume of the simplex is equal to the determinant of the sublattice generated by these vectors divided by (n+1)!(n+1)!. ∎

Example 3.

Clearly, a dual Δ1\Delta_{1}-complex (see (1)) is necessarily maximal. The complexes from Figure 1 are maximal dual Δ\Delta-complexes for the polyhedra Δ\Delta pictured on Figure 3.

Proposition 1.8.

Any dual Δ1\Delta_{1}-complex is the result of a translation of Σn\Sigma_{n} in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1}.

Proof.

Such a complex Π\Pi is determined by a function v:Δ1∩ℤn+1→ℝv:\Delta_{1}\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}\to\mathbb{R}, i.e. by n+2n+2 numbers a1,…,an+1,b∈ℝa_{1},\dots,a_{n+1},b\in\mathbb{R}. Recall (see Example 2) that Π\Pi is the corner locus Lv​(x1,…,xn+1)=max⁡{xj−aj,−b}L_{v}(x_{1},\dots,x_{n+1})=\max\{x_{j}-a_{j},-b\}. If aj=b=0a_{j}=b=0 for all jj than Π=Σ1\Pi=\Sigma_{1}. Adding the same real number to all numbers does not change Π\Pi. Changing aja_{j} by tt results in a translation by tt in the direction of xjx_{j}. ∎

Remark 1.9.

Not for every Δ\Delta there exists maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex. E.g. a lattice simplex in ℝ3\mathbb{R}^{3}, whose vertices are (1,0,0)(1,0,0), (0,1,0)(0,1,0), (1,1,0)(1,1,0) and (0,0,n)(0,0,n), cannot be further subdivided. On the other hand, a maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex is, of course, not unique.

Proposition 1.10.

If Π\Pi is a maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex then Π\Pi is homotopy equivalent to the bouquet of #⁡(Int⁡Δ∩ℤn+1)\#(\operatorname{Int}\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}) copies of SnS^{n}.

Proof.

Because of its maximality, the polyhedron Π\Pi is dual to a unimodular triangulation of Π\Pi. Such a triangulation cannot be further subdivided and therefore its vertices are all the lattice points of Δ\Delta. Therefore, Π\Pi is homotopy equivalent to Int⁡Δ∖ℤn+1\operatorname{Int}\Delta\smallsetminus\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}. ∎

Here is a way to canonically cut a maximal complex Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} into standard-looking subsets UjU_{j}. We define the cutting locus Ξ\Xi as the following simplicial complex that is partially dual to Π\Pi. The vertices of Ξ\Xi are the baricenters of all bounded kk-cells, k>0k>0 from Π\Pi. The simplices of Ξ\Xi have the baricenters of positive-dimensional cells Fk⊂ΠF_{k}\subset\Pi in the embedded towers F1⊂⋯⊂FlF_{1}\subset\dots\subset F_{l} as its vertices. Note that Ξ⊂Π\Xi\subset\Pi is a finite simplicial (n−1)(n-1)-complex.

Definition 5.

The connected components of Π∖Ξ\Pi\smallsetminus\Xi are called the primitive pieces of Π\Pi. We denote them with UjU_{j}. These open sets are parametrized by the vertices of Π\Pi or, equivalently, by the (n+1)(n+1)-simplices of the triangulation of Δ\Delta.

Proposition 1.11.

For each UjU_{j} there exists Mj∈A​S​Ln+1​(ℤ)M_{j}\in ASL_{n+1}(\mathbb{Z}) such that Mj​(Uj)⊂ΣnM_{j}(U_{j})\subset\Sigma_{n} is an open set in the primitive complex Σn\Sigma_{n} from Example 1.

Proof.

This proposition also follows from the duality with a unimodular triangulation 𝒟\mathcal{D} of Δ\Delta. Let UjU_{j} be a primitive piece. It corresponds to a simplex of volume 1(n+1)!\frac{1}{(n+1)!} in 𝒟\mathcal{D}. There is an element of S​Ln+1​(ℤ)SL_{n+1}(\mathbb{Z}) which takes this simplex to the standard simplex Δ1n+1\Delta_{1}^{n+1} (see (1)). Then the image of UjU_{j} by the adjoint to the inverse of this element is contained in a dual Δ1\Delta_{1}-complex. Such a complex is the result of a translation of Σn\Sigma_{n} by Proposition 1.8. ∎

Recall that a polyhedral complex Π\Pi is called generic at a point x∈Πx\in\Pi from an open kk-cell if there exists a neighborhood isomorphic to ℝk×Σn−k\mathbb{R}^{k}\times\Sigma_{n-k}.

Thus, Proposition 1.10 implies that a maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex is a generic polyhedron. In topology such polyhedra often appear as the so-called special spines of smooth manifolds. In the next section we see that Π\Pi can be compactified so as to become a spine of the polyhedron Δ\Delta after puncturing it in the interior lattice points.

1.3. Toric varieties and compactification of balanced polyhedra

Consider the complex algebraic torus (ℂ∗)n+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}, where ℂ∗=ℂ∖0\mathbb{C}^{*}=\mathbb{C}\smallsetminus 0. It is a commutative Lie group under multiplication. The 2-form

(2) 12​i​∑j=1n+1d​zz∧d​z¯z¯\frac{1}{2i}\sum\limits_{j=1}^{n+1}\frac{dz}{z}\wedge\frac{d\bar{z}}{\bar{z}}

is an invariant symplectic form on (ℂ∗)n+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}. There is an action of the real torus Tn+1=S1×⋯×S1T^{n+1}=S^{1}\times\dots\times S^{1} on (ℂ∗)n+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} by coordinatewise multiplication (we treat S1⊂ℂ∗S^{1}\subset\mathbb{C}^{*} as the unit circle). The action of Tn+1T^{n+1} is Hamiltonian and thus we have a well-defined moment map (we refer to [1] for the general definition or to a textbook, e.g. [2]) Log:(ℂ∗)n+1→ℝn+1\operatorname{Log}:(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\to\mathbb{R}^{n+1}

(3) Log⁡(z1,…,zn+1)=(log⁡|z1|,…,log⁡|zn+1|).\operatorname{Log}(z_{1},\dots,z_{n+1})=(\log|z_{1}|,\dots,\log|z_{n+1}|).

Let Δ⊂ℝn+1\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} be a convex polyhedron with integer (from ℤn+1\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}) vertices. Recall (see e.g. [4]) that there is a complex toric variety ℂ​TΔ⊃(ℂ∗)n+1\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta}\supset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}. One way to construct it is to consider the Veronese embedding (ℂ∗)n+1→ℂ​ℙ#⁡(Δ∩ℤn+1)−1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\to{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{\#(\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1})-1} defined by the linear system of monomials associated to Δ∩ℤn+1\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}. Here we associate to a point (p1,…,pn+1)(p_{1},\dots,p_{n+1}) a monomial zp1​…​zn+1pn+1z^{p_{1}}\dots z_{n+1}^{p_{n+1}}. We define ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} as the closure of the image of the Veronese embedding. Note that the standard, Fubini-Study, symplectic form on the ambient space ℂ​ℙ#⁡(Δ∩ℤn+1)−1{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{\#(\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1})-1} defines a symplectic form on ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} (as long as the variety ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} is non-singular). In particular, it gives a symplectic form ωΔ\omega_{\Delta} on (ℂ∗)n+1(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} that invariant with respect to the action of TΔT_{\Delta}. This gives us a moment map with respect to ωΔ\omega_{\Delta}

μΔ:(ℂ∗)n+1→Δ,μΔ​(z)=1∑j∈Δ∩ℤn+1|z2​j|​∑j∈Δ∩ℤn+1j​|z2​j|.\mu_{\Delta}:(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\to\Delta,\mu_{\Delta}(z)=\frac{1}{\sum\limits_{j\in\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}}|z^{2j}|}\sum\limits_{j\in\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}}j|z^{2j}|.

The image of this embedding is the interior Int⁡Δ\operatorname{Int}\Delta. The map μ​Δ\mu\Delta can be compactified to the moment map μ¯Δ:ℂ​TΔ→Δ\bar{\mu}_{\Delta}:\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta}\to\Delta.

The maps Log:(ℂ∗)n+1→ℝn+1\operatorname{Log}:(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\to\mathbb{R}^{n+1} and μΔ:(ℂ∗)n+1→Int⁡Δ\mu_{\Delta}:(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\to\operatorname{Int}\Delta both have the orbits of Tn+1T^{n+1} as their fibers. Thus, they define a natural reparametrization

ΦΔ:ℝn+1→Int⁡Δ.\Phi_{\Delta}:\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\to\operatorname{Int}\Delta.
Definition 6.

Let Π⊂ℝn+1\Pi\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} be an nn-dimensional balanced polyhedral complex. By Proposition 1.4 there is a convex lattice polyhedron Δ\Delta dual to Π\Pi. We define Π¯⊂Δ\bar{\Pi}\subset\Delta, the compactification of Π\Pi, by taking the closure of ΦΔ​(Π)\Phi_{\Delta}(\Pi) in Δ\Delta. We call Π¯∖ΦΔ​(Π)\bar{\Pi}\smallsetminus\Phi_{\Delta}(\Pi) the boundary of Π¯\bar{\Pi}. For convenience from now on we identify Π\Pi and ΦΔ​(Π)\Phi_{\Delta}(\Pi).

Proposition 1.12.

Let Π\Pi be a dual Δ\Delta-complex and let Δ′⊂Δ\Delta^{\prime}\subset\Delta be a (k+1)(k+1)-dimensional face. Then the intersection Π¯∩Δ′\bar{\Pi}\cap\Delta^{\prime} is a compactification of a dual Δ′\Delta^{\prime}-complex Π′\Pi^{\prime}. If Π\Pi is maximal then Π′\Pi^{\prime} is also maximal.

We prove this proposition simultaneously with the following proposition describing the behavior of Π\Pi near infinity. Recall that a supporting vector v→\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}} at a face Δ′⊂Δ\Delta^{\prime}\subset\Delta is a vector such that pv→|Δp_{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}}}|_{\Delta} reaches its maximum precisely over Δ′\Delta^{\prime}, where pv→p_{\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}}} is the orthogonal projection in the direction of v→\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}}.

Proposition 1.13.

The complex Π′\Pi^{\prime} from Proposition 1.12 can be obtained in the following way. Let L⊂ℝn+1L\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} be the linear (k+1)(k+1)-subspace parallel to the face Δ′\Delta^{\prime}. Let v→\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}} be a supporting vector at Δ′\Delta^{\prime}. For a sufficiently large R>0R>0 we have Π′=(Π−Rv→)∩L\Pi^{\prime}=(\Pi-R\hskip-5.0pt\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}})\cap L.

Proof.

From the finiteness condition in Definition 1 we have that the complex Π′=(Π−Rv→)∩L⊂L\Pi^{\prime}=(\Pi-R\hskip-5.0pt\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}})\cap L\subset L does not depend on the choice of R>0R>0 and v→\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}} as long as v→\stackrel{{\scriptstyle\to}}{{v}} is supporting and RR is sufficiently large. The proof of Proposition 1.4 ensures that Π′\Pi^{\prime} is a dual Δ′\Delta^{\prime}-complex. If Π\Pi is maximal then it is dual to a triangulation of Δ\Delta into simplices of minimal volume. Such a triangulation induces a triangulation into simplices of minimal volume on the faces Δ′\Delta^{\prime} and thus Π′\Pi^{\prime} is also maximal. ∎

If Π\Pi is a maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex then it is generic everywhere except at the points of its boundary ∂Π\partial\Pi. The following proposition describes the local topology of Π¯\bar{\Pi} near the boundary. It is a corollary of Proposition 1.12.

Proposition 1.14.

Suppose that Π\Pi is a maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex. A point xx in Π¯\bar{\Pi} has a neighborhood of one of the following (n+1)​(n+2)2\frac{(n+1)(n+2)}{2} types: ℝk×Σl−k×[0,+∞)n−l\mathbb{R}^{k}\times\Sigma^{l-k}\times[0,+\infty)^{n-l}, where k≤l≤nk\leq l\leq n. Here kk is the dimension of the open cell of Π¯\bar{\Pi} which contains xx while l+1l+1 is the dimension of the open face of Δ\Delta which contains xx.

We call a point with such a neighborhood a (k,l)(k,l)-point of Π¯\bar{\Pi}.

Remark 1.15.

The concept of generic polyhedron is closely related to that of special spine in Topology. We remind its definition. Let MM be a compact (n+1)(n+1)-manifold with boundary and Π¯⊂M\bar{\Pi}\subset M be an nn-dimensional CW-complex such that its every open cell is smoothly embedded to MM. The complex Π¯\bar{\Pi} is called a spine of MM if Π¯\bar{\Pi} is a deformational retract of MM. The spine Π¯\bar{\Pi} is called special if for any point x∈Π¯∖∂Mx\in\bar{\Pi}\smallsetminus\partial M from an open kk-cell there exists a neighborhood isomorphic to ℝk×Σn−k\mathbb{R}^{k}\times\Sigma^{n-k}.

Note that if Int⁡Δ∩ℤn+1=∅\operatorname{Int}\Delta\cap\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}=\emptyset then all the triangulation vertices of a dual Δ\Delta-polyhedron Π\Pi are from ∂Δ\partial\Delta then Π¯\bar{\Pi} is a spine of Δ\Delta. In general, Π¯\bar{\Pi} is a spine of the polyhedron Δ\Delta minus a small neighborhood of the interior lattice points. Note that Π¯\bar{\Pi} can be treated as a special spine of Δ\Delta if we treat Δ\Delta as a manifold with boundary and corners.

1.4. Stratified fibrations

Let VV and FF be smooth manifolds, Δ⊂ℝn+1\Delta\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} be a lattice polyhedron of full dimension and Π\Pi be a maximal dual Δ\Delta-complex.

Definition 7.

A smooth map λ:V→Π¯\lambda:V\to\bar{\Pi} is called a stratified FF-fibration if

  • •

    The restriction of λ\lambda to any open nn-cell e⊂Π¯e\subset\bar{\Pi} is a trivial fibration with the fiber FF;

  • •

    for each integer pair (l,k)(l,k), 0≤k≤l≤n0\leq k\leq l\leq n there exists a smooth “model” map λl,k:Vl,k→Πl,k\lambda_{l,k}:V_{l,k}\to\Pi_{l,k}, where Πl,k≈ℝk×Σ0l−k×[0,+∞)n−l\Pi_{l,k}\approx\mathbb{R}^{k}\times\Sigma^{l-k}_{0}\times[0,+\infty)^{n-l}, such that any (l,k)(l,k)-point of Π¯\bar{\Pi} has a neighborhood U⊃xU\supset x such that

    λ|U:λ−1​(U)→U\lambda|_{U}:\lambda^{-1}(U)\to U

    is diffeomorphic to the model map. The model map depends only on ll and kk.

The map λl,k\lambda_{l,k} is called the (l,k)(l,k)-fiber degeneration; the fiber Fl,k=λl,k−1​(x)F_{l,k}=\lambda^{-1}_{l,k}(x) is called the (l,k)(l,k)-fiber of λ\lambda.

The following proposition is a direct corollary of Definition 7.

Proposition 1.16.

Let λ:V→Π¯\lambda:V\to\bar{\Pi} be a stratified fibration over the compactification of a maximal dual Δ\Delta-polygon Π\Pi. For any open (l,k)(l,k)-cell ee of Π¯\bar{\Pi} the restriction of λ\lambda to ee is a trivial fibration over ee with the fiber Fl,kF_{l,k}.

Remark 1.17.

Definition 7 can be generalized in a straightforward way to the case when the base is any space with a prescribed stratification. Here we used the stratification given by Proposition 1.14.

1.5. Hypersurfaces in toric varieties

Let f:(ℂ∗)n+1→ℂf:(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\to\mathbb{C} be a Laurent polynomial

f⁡(z)=∑jaj​zj,f(z)=\sum\limits_{j}a_{j}z^{j},

where z∈(ℂ∗)n+1z\in(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} and j∈ℤn+1j\in\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} is a multi-index.

We recall that the Newton polyhedron Δ\Delta of ff is the convex hull in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} of the set of all indices j∈ℤn+1j\in\mathbb{Z}^{n+1} such that aj≠0a_{j}\neq 0. Since by assumption ff is a polynomial this set is finite and Δ\Delta is a bounded convex lattice polyhedron. We also call Δ\Delta the Newton polyhedron of the hypersurface V∘={z∈(ℂ∗)n+1|f⁡(z)=0}{V}^{\circ}=\{z\in(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\ |\ f(z)=0\}. According to [4] we call the image Log⁡(V∘)⊂ℝn+1\operatorname{Log}({V}^{\circ})\subset\mathbb{R}^{n+1} the amoeba of V∘{V}^{\circ}.

For the rest of the paper we assume that Δ\Delta has a non-empty interior in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1}. Otherwise after a suitable (multiplicative) change of coordinates the polynomial ff can be transformed to a polynomial in smaller number of variables.

Let ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} be the complex toric variety (see e.g. [4]) associated to Δ\Delta. We define VV as the closure of the hypersurface V∘={z∈(ℂ∗)n+1|f⁡(z)=0}{V}^{\circ}=\{z\in(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}\ |\ f(z)=0\} in ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta}. Taking the Newton polyhedron for Δ\Delta is a canonical choice. Of course, we can take such compactification for any convex lattice (n+1)(n+1)-polyhedron Δ\Delta, even if it was not the Newton polyhedron of V∘{V}^{\circ}. However the choice of the Newton polyhedron of V∘{V}^{\circ} as Δ\Delta produces the best results as the next proposition shows. Recall that in the toric construction there is a kk-dimensional complex toric subvariety ℂ​TΔ′\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta^{\prime}} associated to any kk-dimensional face Δ′⊂Δ\Delta^{\prime}\subset\Delta.

Proposition 1.18.

The hypersurface VV is disjoint from the points (i.e. the 0-dimensional toric varieties) corresponding to the vertices of Δ\Delta, but intersects all the tori corresponding to any positive-dimensional face of Δ\Delta.

Furthermore, this property characterizes ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} in the following sense. Let Δ¯\bar{\Delta} be a convex lattice polyhedron in ℝn+1\mathbb{R}^{n+1} with a non-empty interior and V¯\bar{V} be the closure of V∘{V}^{\circ} in ℂ​TΔ¯⊃(ℂ∗)n+1\mathbb{C}T_{\bar{\Delta}}\supset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1}. If a hypersurface V¯\bar{V} is disjoint from the points corresponding to the vertices of Δ¯\bar{\Delta} but intersects all the tori corresponding to positive-dimensional faces of Δ¯\bar{\Delta} then ℂ​TΔ¯=ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\bar{\Delta}}=\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta}.

Remark 1.19.

Note that even though ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} is unique by this proposition, the polyhedron Δ¯\bar{\Delta} itself is not unique. The image of Δ\Delta by a homothety with an integer coefficient for Δ¯\bar{\Delta} corresponds to the same toric variety.

Proof.

Proposition 1.18 follows from the following Lemma. ∎

Lemma 1.20.

Let Δ′⊂Δ\Delta^{\prime}\subset\Delta be a face. The intersection V∩ℂ​TΔ′V\cap\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta^{\prime}} coincides with the hypersurface cut on ℂ​TΔ′\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta^{\prime}} by the closure of the zero set of the following Δ′\Delta^{\prime}-truncation of the polynomial ff

fΔ′​(z)=∑j∈Δ′aj​zj.f_{\Delta^{\prime}}(z)=\sum\limits_{j\in\Delta^{\prime}}a_{j}z^{j}.
Proof.

To prove the lemma it suffices to note that the monomials from ℤn+1∩Δ′\mathbb{Z}^{n+1}\cap\Delta^{\prime} have higher order of vanishing when z→ℂ​Δ′z\to\mathbb{C}\Delta^{\prime}. ∎

Remark 1.21.

The property of VV from Proposition 1.18 can be alternatively reformulated in terms of the moment map μ¯Δ:ℂ​TΔ→Δ\bar{\mu}_{\Delta}:\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta}\to\Delta, see 1.3. The image μ⁡(V)\mu(V) is disjoint from the vertices of Δ\Delta but intersects every positive-dimensional face of Δ\Delta. According to [4] the image μ⁡(V)\mu(V) is called the compactified amoeba of V∘{V}^{\circ}. This restatement is equivalent to the property from Proposition 1.18, since for any face Δ′⊂Δ\Delta^{\prime}\subset\Delta we have μ⁡(ℂ​TΔ′)=Δ′\mu(\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta^{\prime}})=\Delta^{\prime}.

Example 4.

Let f⁡(z,w)=z​w+z+w−1f(z,w)=zw+z+w-1. Then V∘⊂(ℂ∗)2{V}^{\circ}\subset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{2} is a hyperbola. The Newton polygon Δ\Delta is a square {(x,y)∈ℝ2| 0≤x≤1,0≤y≤1}\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\ |\ 0\leq x\leq 1,0\leq y\leq 1\} and the corresponding toric surface ℂ​TΔ\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta} is the hyperboloid ℂ​ℙ1×ℂ​ℙ1{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{1}\times{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{1}.

Take now Δ¯={(x,y)∈ℝ2| 0≤x,0≤y,x+y≤1}\bar{\Delta}=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}\ |\ 0\leq x,0\leq y,x+y\leq 1\}. The corresponding toric surface is ℂ​ℙ2⊃(ℂ∗)2{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{2}\supset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{2}. The images of V∘{V}^{\circ} under the associated moment maps are sketched on Figure 4.

Refer to caption

Figure 4. Images of the hyperbola z​w+z+w−1=0zw+z+w-1=0 under the moment maps corresponding to its Newton polygon and another polygon.

The following example treats projective hypersurfaces.

Example 5.

Let V⊂ℂ​ℙn+1⊃(ℂ∗)n+1V\subset{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n+1}\supset(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} be a projective hypersurface of degree dd not passing through the points [1:0:…:0],…,[0:…:0:1][1:0:\dots:0],\dots,[0:\dots:0:1]. Then V∘=V∩(ℂ∗)n+1{V}^{\circ}=V\cap(\mathbb{C}^{*})^{n+1} is given by a polynomial ff whose Newton polyhedron is

Δd={(x1,…,xn+1)∈ℝn+1| 0≤xj,∑jxj≤d}.\Delta_{d}=\{(x_{1},\dots,x_{n+1})\in\mathbb{R}^{n+1}\ |\ 0\leq x_{j},\sum\limits_{j}x_{j}\leq d\}.

Vice versa, ℂ​TΔ=ℂ​ℙn+1\mathbb{C}T_{\Delta}={\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n+1} and the closure of V∘{V}^{\circ} in ℂ​ℙn+1{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n+1} is VV.

1.6. Pairs-of-pants in higher dimensions

Definition 8.

Let ℋ⊂ℂ​ℙn\mathcal{H}\subset{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n} be the union of the n+2n+2 generic hyperplanes in ℂ​ℙn{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n}. Let 𝒰⊂ℂ​ℙn\mathcal{U}\subset{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n} be the union of their ϵ\epsilon-neighborhoods for a very small ϵ>0\epsilon>0.

The complement 𝒫¯n=ℂ​ℙn∖𝒰\bar{\mathcal{P}}_{n}={\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n}\smallsetminus\mathcal{U} is a manifold with boundary and corners. We call 𝒫¯n\bar{\mathcal{P}}_{n} the nn-dimensional pair-of-pants. We call 𝒫n=ℂ​ℙn∖ℋ\mathcal{P}_{n}={\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n}\smallsetminus\mathcal{H} the nn-dimensional open pair-of-pants

Immediately we have the following proposition.

Proposition 1.22.

A pair-of-pants is a compact manifold with boundary. An open pair-of-pants is diffeomorphic to the pair-of-pants minus its boundary.

Remark 1.23.

Note that the choice of n+2n+2 generic hyperplane in ℂ​ℙn{\mathbb{C}}{\mathbb{P}}^{n} is unique up to the action of P​S​Ln+1​(ℂ)PSL_{n+1}(\mathbb{C}). Thus 𝒫n\mathcal{P}_{n} can be given a canonical complex structure.

Note that 𝒫1\mathcal{P}_{1} is diffeomorphic to the Riemann sphere punctured 3 times, while 𝒫¯1\bar{\mathcal{P}}_{1} is diffeomorphic to a closed disk with 2 holes. Thus Definition 8 agrees with the classical, one-dimensional, pair-of-pants definition.

The following proposition describes a natural stratification of the boundary ∂𝒫¯\partial\bar{\mathcal{P}}.

Proposition 1.24.

We have the following canonical decomposition of the boundary ∂𝒫n¯=⋃j=0n−1∂j𝒫n¯\partial\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}}=\bigcup\limits_{j=0}^{n-1}\partial_{j}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}}, where ∂j𝒫n¯\partial_{j}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}} is a (2​n−j)(2n-j)-dimensional smooth manifold such that each its connected component is a trivial TjT^{j}-fibration over 𝒫n−j\mathcal{P}_{n-j}. Different parts do not intersect: ∂j𝒫n¯∩∂k𝒫n¯=∅\partial_{j}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}}\cap\partial_{k}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}}=\emptyset, if j≠kj\neq k, but the closure of ∂j𝒫n¯\partial_{j}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}} contains ∂k𝒫n¯\partial_{k}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}} for all k≤jk\leq j. The number of connected components is (n+2j+2)\begin{pmatrix}n+2\\ j+2\end{pmatrix}.

Proof.

Connected components of the manifold ∂j𝒫n¯\partial_{j}\bar{\mathcal{P}_{n}} can be obtained as the intersections of the boundaries of the ϵ\epsilon-neighborhoods of jj different hyperplanes from ℋ\mathcal{H}. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.