Minimum valence of a vertex in a simple triangular mesh with no boundaries












2












$begingroup$


Suppose M is a simple (manifold, orientable and connected) triangular mesh with no boundaries (in other words, a mesh homeomorphic to a sphere).



I have the conjecture that the following statement is true:




The valence (the number of connecting edges) of
each vertex is greater or equal than 3.




My current definition of manifoldness is that each edge is incident to only one or two faces and the faces incident to a vertex form a closed or an open fan.



Valence is a natural number by definition, so:




  • Valence = 0 breaks connectivity

  • Valence = 1 breaks manifoldness because the only edge associated to the vertex would not be able to be incident to any face.


However I am having problems proving that Valence = 2 should break the manifoldness condition.



Can someone help me to better understand those conditions so I can prove if the statement is either false or true?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Suppose M is a simple (manifold, orientable and connected) triangular mesh with no boundaries (in other words, a mesh homeomorphic to a sphere).



    I have the conjecture that the following statement is true:




    The valence (the number of connecting edges) of
    each vertex is greater or equal than 3.




    My current definition of manifoldness is that each edge is incident to only one or two faces and the faces incident to a vertex form a closed or an open fan.



    Valence is a natural number by definition, so:




    • Valence = 0 breaks connectivity

    • Valence = 1 breaks manifoldness because the only edge associated to the vertex would not be able to be incident to any face.


    However I am having problems proving that Valence = 2 should break the manifoldness condition.



    Can someone help me to better understand those conditions so I can prove if the statement is either false or true?










    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Suppose M is a simple (manifold, orientable and connected) triangular mesh with no boundaries (in other words, a mesh homeomorphic to a sphere).



      I have the conjecture that the following statement is true:




      The valence (the number of connecting edges) of
      each vertex is greater or equal than 3.




      My current definition of manifoldness is that each edge is incident to only one or two faces and the faces incident to a vertex form a closed or an open fan.



      Valence is a natural number by definition, so:




      • Valence = 0 breaks connectivity

      • Valence = 1 breaks manifoldness because the only edge associated to the vertex would not be able to be incident to any face.


      However I am having problems proving that Valence = 2 should break the manifoldness condition.



      Can someone help me to better understand those conditions so I can prove if the statement is either false or true?










      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Suppose M is a simple (manifold, orientable and connected) triangular mesh with no boundaries (in other words, a mesh homeomorphic to a sphere).



      I have the conjecture that the following statement is true:




      The valence (the number of connecting edges) of
      each vertex is greater or equal than 3.




      My current definition of manifoldness is that each edge is incident to only one or two faces and the faces incident to a vertex form a closed or an open fan.



      Valence is a natural number by definition, so:




      • Valence = 0 breaks connectivity

      • Valence = 1 breaks manifoldness because the only edge associated to the vertex would not be able to be incident to any face.


      However I am having problems proving that Valence = 2 should break the manifoldness condition.



      Can someone help me to better understand those conditions so I can prove if the statement is either false or true?







      general-topology manifolds computer-science






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 26 '18 at 23:37







      Albuquerque

















      asked Dec 26 '18 at 23:11









      AlbuquerqueAlbuquerque

      214




      214






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          Okay. It took me the entire day to realize. It probably deserves a more formal proof, but at least it is an argument:



          If a vertex has valence 2, the 2 neighboring vertices must have 2 edges connecting the same 2 vertices. This would make the edges in the star of v boundaries, as they would be homeomorphic to the closed upper half-plane.



          So, in this case, it is guaranteed that each vertex in a 2-manifold mesh with no boundaries has valence greater or equal to 3.



          Diagram of valence = 2 case






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 18:41










          • $begingroup$
            The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:11












          • $begingroup$
            I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:18










          • $begingroup$
            If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 28 '18 at 3:15












          • $begingroup$
            x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 28 '18 at 14:42












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053423%2fminimum-valence-of-a-vertex-in-a-simple-triangular-mesh-with-no-boundaries%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          Okay. It took me the entire day to realize. It probably deserves a more formal proof, but at least it is an argument:



          If a vertex has valence 2, the 2 neighboring vertices must have 2 edges connecting the same 2 vertices. This would make the edges in the star of v boundaries, as they would be homeomorphic to the closed upper half-plane.



          So, in this case, it is guaranteed that each vertex in a 2-manifold mesh with no boundaries has valence greater or equal to 3.



          Diagram of valence = 2 case






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 18:41










          • $begingroup$
            The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:11












          • $begingroup$
            I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:18










          • $begingroup$
            If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 28 '18 at 3:15












          • $begingroup$
            x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 28 '18 at 14:42
















          0












          $begingroup$

          Okay. It took me the entire day to realize. It probably deserves a more formal proof, but at least it is an argument:



          If a vertex has valence 2, the 2 neighboring vertices must have 2 edges connecting the same 2 vertices. This would make the edges in the star of v boundaries, as they would be homeomorphic to the closed upper half-plane.



          So, in this case, it is guaranteed that each vertex in a 2-manifold mesh with no boundaries has valence greater or equal to 3.



          Diagram of valence = 2 case






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 18:41










          • $begingroup$
            The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:11












          • $begingroup$
            I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:18










          • $begingroup$
            If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 28 '18 at 3:15












          • $begingroup$
            x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 28 '18 at 14:42














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          Okay. It took me the entire day to realize. It probably deserves a more formal proof, but at least it is an argument:



          If a vertex has valence 2, the 2 neighboring vertices must have 2 edges connecting the same 2 vertices. This would make the edges in the star of v boundaries, as they would be homeomorphic to the closed upper half-plane.



          So, in this case, it is guaranteed that each vertex in a 2-manifold mesh with no boundaries has valence greater or equal to 3.



          Diagram of valence = 2 case






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Okay. It took me the entire day to realize. It probably deserves a more formal proof, but at least it is an argument:



          If a vertex has valence 2, the 2 neighboring vertices must have 2 edges connecting the same 2 vertices. This would make the edges in the star of v boundaries, as they would be homeomorphic to the closed upper half-plane.



          So, in this case, it is guaranteed that each vertex in a 2-manifold mesh with no boundaries has valence greater or equal to 3.



          Diagram of valence = 2 case







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 27 '18 at 19:14

























          answered Dec 27 '18 at 18:11









          AlbuquerqueAlbuquerque

          214




          214












          • $begingroup$
            What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 18:41










          • $begingroup$
            The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:11












          • $begingroup$
            I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:18










          • $begingroup$
            If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 28 '18 at 3:15












          • $begingroup$
            x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 28 '18 at 14:42


















          • $begingroup$
            What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 18:41










          • $begingroup$
            The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:11












          • $begingroup$
            I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 27 '18 at 19:18










          • $begingroup$
            If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
            $endgroup$
            – Albuquerque
            Dec 28 '18 at 3:15












          • $begingroup$
            x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
            $endgroup$
            – Henning Makholm
            Dec 28 '18 at 14:42
















          $begingroup$
          What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
          $endgroup$
          – Henning Makholm
          Dec 27 '18 at 18:41




          $begingroup$
          What is the "manifold condition"? Surely if you glue triangles together like in your diagram, the result will be a perfectly good topological manifold.
          $endgroup$
          – Henning Makholm
          Dec 27 '18 at 18:41












          $begingroup$
          The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
          $endgroup$
          – Albuquerque
          Dec 27 '18 at 19:11






          $begingroup$
          The "manifold condition" I am referring is that each vertex has a neighborhood homeomorphic to an open disk. But you are right! My writing was poor and perhaps even wrong. The diagram indeed is a good topological manifold, but it has a boundary (which could not exist according to hypothesis).
          $endgroup$
          – Albuquerque
          Dec 27 '18 at 19:11














          $begingroup$
          I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
          $endgroup$
          – Henning Makholm
          Dec 27 '18 at 19:18




          $begingroup$
          I'm assuming that there are other triangles than the ones in the diagram. But even so, if you take two triangles and glue them together at the edges, you get a perfectly good topological manifold, homeomorphic to the sphere. I don't get why you think the red edges in your diagram would be a boundary -- there's clearly surface to both sides of each of them.
          $endgroup$
          – Henning Makholm
          Dec 27 '18 at 19:18












          $begingroup$
          If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
          $endgroup$
          – Albuquerque
          Dec 28 '18 at 3:15






          $begingroup$
          If you glue two (flat) triangles at the edges, wouldn't you have a set that is itself a (flat) triangle, hence being homeomorphic to a disk, not a sphere?
          $endgroup$
          – Albuquerque
          Dec 28 '18 at 3:15














          $begingroup$
          x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
          $endgroup$
          – Henning Makholm
          Dec 28 '18 at 14:42




          $begingroup$
          x @Albu: Um, no. Only of you glue the interiors of the triangles together rather than just the edges.
          $endgroup$
          – Henning Makholm
          Dec 28 '18 at 14:42


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053423%2fminimum-valence-of-a-vertex-in-a-simple-triangular-mesh-with-no-boundaries%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

          ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

          Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?