14.02.2013 Views

Gruber P. Convex and Discrete Geometry

Gruber P. Convex and Discrete Geometry

Gruber P. Convex and Discrete Geometry

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Fig. 17.1. Isometric but not congruent polytopal surfaces<br />

17 Rigidity 293<br />

We wanted to give only an idea of M. Cauchy’s proof, but have reproduced the<br />

argument almost completely. We have thus furnished further evidence of the brilliance<br />

with which this young geometer came to grips with a problem that had resisted even<br />

the efforts of the masters of the art, a problem whose solution was utterly essential if<br />

the theory of solids was to be perfected.<br />

See Belhoste [91], p.28.<br />

For a nice presentation of Cauchy’s proof <strong>and</strong> a survey of related problems, we<br />

refer to Dolbilin [276]. See also the survey of Schlenker [889].<br />

Cauchy’s Rigidity Theorem for <strong>Convex</strong> Polytopal Surfaces<br />

can be stated as follows:<br />

Theorem 17.1. Let P, Q be proper convex polytopes in E 3 . If there is a homeomorphism<br />

of bd P onto bd Q which maps each facet of P isometrically onto a facet of<br />

Q, then P <strong>and</strong> Q are congruent.<br />

There are many versions of Cauchy’s proof in the literature, see, for example the<br />

proof in Aigner <strong>and</strong> Ziegler [6] which includes the arm lemma. The proof consists of<br />

two parts, a geometric <strong>and</strong> a combinatorial one. In the geometric part the following<br />

proposition is proved. Mark an edge of P by +, −, or leave it unmarked, if the<br />

dihedral angle of P at this edge is greater than, less than or equal to the dihedral<br />

angle of Q at the corresponding edge of Q. If no edge of P is marked, P <strong>and</strong> Q<br />

are congruent as can be seen by building up bd Q beginning with one facet <strong>and</strong><br />

successively adding adjacent facets. If at least one edge of P is marked, then for any<br />

vertex of P on a marked edge the following can be shown. On circling around the<br />

vertex, there are at least four changes of sign of the marks encountered (omitting<br />

the edges not marked). This is ruled out in the combinatorial part of the proof by an<br />

argument based on the Euler polytope formula for planar connected graphs.<br />

The first tool for the proof is the so-called arm lemma of Cauchy. We state it<br />

without proof. Proofs are elementary, yet complicated. For a proof, see Danzer [240].<br />

For references to other proofs compare [218].

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!