Talk:Ehrhart polynomial
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
The polytope being "integral" means that all its corners are lattice points? AxelBoldt 20:03, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I blanked the page since it was a copyright violation; the text was a verbatim copy of http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EhrhartPolynomial.html . Somebody should rephrase that material and write it up again. AxelBoldt 02:25, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ehrhart's theorem for non-convex polytopes
[edit]Usually Ehrhart's theorem is stated for convex polytopes, but here convexity is not stated. Is that correct? McKay 16:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point--the polynomiality theorem still holds, but Ehrhart reciprocity needs a stronger condition, e.g., the polytope being homeomorphic to a manifold is good enough. For simplicity, I inserted the condition that the polytope is convex. Mattbeck 04:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. Do you happen to know where more general conditions are investigated? McKay 08:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Try Peter McMullen's papers, e.g., Valuations and Euler-type relations on certain classes of convex polytopes, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 35, no. 1 (1977), 113-135, or Lattice invariant valuations on rational polytopes, Arch. Math. 31, no. 5 (1978), 509-516. Another good starting point might be Richard Stanley, Combinatorial reciprocity theorems, Advances in Math. 14 (1974), 194-253. Mattbeck 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll check those out. --McKay 04:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
- Try Peter McMullen's papers, e.g., Valuations and Euler-type relations on certain classes of convex polytopes, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 35, no. 1 (1977), 113-135, or Lattice invariant valuations on rational polytopes, Arch. Math. 31, no. 5 (1978), 509-516. Another good starting point might be Richard Stanley, Combinatorial reciprocity theorems, Advances in Math. 14 (1974), 194-253. Mattbeck 23:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
please can you define L(P,-t)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flandre (talk • contribs) 15:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
- L(P,t) is a priori only defined for positive integers t. Ehrhart proved that L(P,t) is a quasipolynomial (if P is a rational polytope), and this quasipolynomial can be evaluated at other inputs, e.g., negative integers. Thus Ehrhart's reciprocity theorem gives an algebraic relation between two quasipolynomials, i.e., L(P,-t) is just an algebraic expression (it's the quasipolynomial L(P,t) where we plug in -t for t). Mattbeck (talk) 06:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
is the volume of P > the number of integer interior points? (if P has 01 vertices) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flandre (talk • contribs) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Example image
[edit]This polyhedron would probably make sense as an example.
The volume is 43 - 18 = 46. The number of contained points is 53 - 24 = 101. --Watchduck (quack) 19:41, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Ehrhart polynomial page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Ehrhart polynomial" page.