This post chronicles several attempts and failures to show that X=Ran⩽ is conically stratified. Here M will be a smooth, compact manifold of dimension m, embedded in \R^N for N\gg 0. Recall that a stratified space f:X\to A is conically stratitifed at x\in X if there exist:
Let P=\{P_1,\dots,P_k\}\in \Ran^k(M)\subseteq \Ran^{\leqslant n}(M)=X, and 2\epsilon = \min_{1\leqslant i<j\leqslant k}\{d(P_i,P_j)\}.
Observation 1: When M=I = (0,1), the interval, we can visualize what \Ran^{\leqslant 3}(M) looks like via the construction \Ran^{\leqslant 3}(M) = (M^3\setminus \Delta_3)/ S_3, to gain some intuition about what the Ran space looks like in general.
Attempt 1: Use more resrictive (but better described) AFT definition.
- a stratified space g:Y\to A_{>f(x)},
- a topological space Z, and
- an open embedding Z\times C(Y)\hookrightarrow X of stratified spaces whose image contains x.
Let P=\{P_1,\dots,P_k\}\in \Ran^k(M)\subseteq \Ran^{\leqslant n}(M)=X, and 2\epsilon = \min_{1\leqslant i<j\leqslant k}\{d(P_i,P_j)\}.
Observations
Observation 1: When M=I = (0,1), the interval, we can visualize what \Ran^{\leqslant 3}(M) looks like via the construction \Ran^{\leqslant 3}(M) = (M^3\setminus \Delta_3)/ S_3, to gain some intuition about what the Ran space looks like in general.
A drawback is that \dim(M)=1, which masks the problems in higher dimensions.
Observation 2: An open neighborhood of P\in X looks like
\coprod_{\sum \ell_i = n \atop \ell_i\in \Z_{>0}}\ \prod_{i=1}^k \Ran^{\leqslant \ell_i}(B^M_\epsilon(P_i)) = B^X_{\epsilon/2}(P) \times \coprod_{\sum \ell_i = n \atop \ell_i\in \Z_{>0}}\ \prod_{i=1}^k \Ran^{\leqslant \ell_i}(B^M_{\epsilon/2}(P_i)),\hspace{2cm} (1)
for B^M_\epsilon(x) = \{y\in M\ :\ d_M(x,y)<\epsilon\} the open ball of radius \epsilon around x\in M, and similarly for P\in X. Most attempts to prove conical stratification are based around expressing these as Z\times C(Y), usually for Z=B_{\epsilon/2}^X(P).
Observation 3: When k<n, the "steepest" direction from P_i into the highest stratum of X is given by P_i splitting into n-k+1 points uniformly distributed on \partial B^M_t(P_i). Hence the [0,1) part of the cone (recall C(Y)=Y\times [0,1)/\sim) should be along t\in [0,1).
Observation 2: An open neighborhood of P\in X looks like
\coprod_{\sum \ell_i = n \atop \ell_i\in \Z_{>0}}\ \prod_{i=1}^k \Ran^{\leqslant \ell_i}(B^M_\epsilon(P_i)) = B^X_{\epsilon/2}(P) \times \coprod_{\sum \ell_i = n \atop \ell_i\in \Z_{>0}}\ \prod_{i=1}^k \Ran^{\leqslant \ell_i}(B^M_{\epsilon/2}(P_i)),\hspace{2cm} (1)
for B^M_\epsilon(x) = \{y\in M\ :\ d_M(x,y)<\epsilon\} the open ball of radius \epsilon around x\in M, and similarly for P\in X. Most attempts to prove conical stratification are based around expressing these as Z\times C(Y), usually for Z=B_{\epsilon/2}^X(P).
Observation 3: When k<n, the "steepest" direction from P_i into the highest stratum of X is given by P_i splitting into n-k+1 points uniformly distributed on \partial B^M_t(P_i). Hence the [0,1) part of the cone (recall C(Y)=Y\times [0,1)/\sim) should be along t\in [0,1).
Attempts
Attempt 1: Use more resrictive (but better described) AFT definition.
Ayala-Francis-Tanaka describe C^0 stratified spaces, a special type of stratified space. Any space that has a cover by topological manifolds is a C^0 stratified space, however it seems that X cannot be covered by topological manifolds. Even further, each element in the cover must have the trivial stratification, and since we must have overlaps, f:X\to A will have A=\{*\}, which is not what we want.
Attempt 2: Stratify \Ran^{\leqslant n}(M)\times \R_{\geqslant 0} instead.
Attempt 2: Stratify \Ran^{\leqslant n}(M)\times \R_{\geqslant 0} instead.
This is more difficult, but was the original impetus, with strata defined by collecting the Vietoris-Rips complexes VR(P,t) of the same type. The problem is that this space has strata next to each other of the same dimension, which does not conform to a standard definition of stratification, and so doesn't admit a conical stratification. Dimension counting and requiring an open embedding Z\times C(Y)\hookrightarrow X shows this is impossible at the boundary point between two such strata.
Weinberger gives some standard stratifed space types, among them a manifold stratified space, a manifold stratified space with boundary, and a PL stratified space, but X\times \R_{\geqslant 0} is none of these.
Attempt 3: Naively describe the neighborhood of P as a cone.
Weinberger gives some standard stratifed space types, among them a manifold stratified space, a manifold stratified space with boundary, and a PL stratified space, but X\times \R_{\geqslant 0} is none of these.
Attempt 3: Naively describe the neighborhood of P as a cone.
This is the most direct attempt to write (1) as Z\times C(Y). If we say
C(Y) = \underbrace{\coprod_{\sum \ell_i = n \atop \ell_i\in \Z_{>0}}\ \prod_{i=1}^k \Ran^{\leqslant \ell_i}(\partial B^M_{t}(P_i))}_{Y} \times [0,\epsilon/2) \Bigg/\sim,
then we miss points splitting off at different "speeds". That is, in this presentation P_i can only split into points that are all the same distance away from it. Between such a collection of points and P_i are points that are some closer, some the same distance away, and those are not accounted for.
Moreover, using Z=B^X_{\epsilon/2}(P), leads to overcounting, and the map into X would not be injective.
Attempt 4: Iterate over different number of points at common radius.
C(Y) = \underbrace{\coprod_{\sum \ell_i = n \atop \ell_i\in \Z_{>0}}\ \prod_{i=1}^k \Ran^{\leqslant \ell_i}(\partial B^M_{t}(P_i))}_{Y} \times [0,\epsilon/2) \Bigg/\sim,
then we miss points splitting off at different "speeds". That is, in this presentation P_i can only split into points that are all the same distance away from it. Between such a collection of points and P_i are points that are some closer, some the same distance away, and those are not accounted for.
Moreover, using Z=B^X_{\epsilon/2}(P), leads to overcounting, and the map into X would not be injective.
Attempt 4: Iterate over different number of points at common radius.
This came out of an attempt to fix the previous attempt. As in a previous post ("The Ran space is locally conical," 2017-10-22), let E_\ell be the collection of distinct partitions of \ell elements, and for e\in E_\ell, let T(e) be the collection of distinct total orderings of e. A candidate for Z\times C(Y) would then be
Solution 1: Instead of a smooth manifold, let M be a simplicial complex. Then \Ran^{\leqslant n}(M) should also be a simplicial complex. Then it may be possible to apply a general theorem to find appropriate cones.
Solution 2: Extend the only partially successful attempt, Attempt 5. Extend by describing a point splitting off into \ell pieces as a sequence of points splitting into 2 pieces. Or, extend by using the centroid of \ell points instead of the midpoint.
References: Lurie (Higher algebra, Appendix A), Ayala, Francis and Tanaka (Local structures on stratified spaces, Sections 2 and 3), Weinberger (The classification of topologically stratified spaces)
with t_{i,0} = \epsilon and t_{i,j>0} the chosen element of (0,t_{i,j-1}). The open embedding Z\times C(Y) \to X would be the inclusion on the C(Y) component, and would scale every factor in the Z component to a neighborhood of P_i of radius t_{i,|\tau_i|}. However, this embedding is not continuous, because a point in \Ran^k(M) is next to a point in \Ran^{n}(M), where P_i has split off into n-k points, but the radius of B^M_\epsilon(P_i) in \Ran^k(M) is \epsilon, while in \Ran^n(M) it is the shortest distance from one of the new points to P_i.
Attempt 5: Iterate over common radii, but only "antipodal" points.
This was an attempt to fix the previous attempt and combine it with the naive description. In fact, this approach works when k=1 and n=2. Then P = \{P_1\}, and
B^M_\epsilon(P_1) \times \left.\left(\mathbf P\partial B^M_t(P_1) \times [0,1)\right)\right/\sim
maps into B^X_\epsilon(P_1) by first scaling [0,1) down to [0,\epsilon-d_M(P,P_1)), where P\in B^M_\epsilon(P_1) is the chosen point. The object \mathbf P\partial B^M_t(P_1) is the projectivization of the boundary of the open \dim(M)-ball of radius t around P_1 on M. That is, every element in it is a pair of antipodal points on the boundary of this ball that are exactly t\in [0,\epsilon-d_M(P,P_1)) away from P_1.
This works because every pair of points in a contractible neighborhood of P_1 is described uniquely by a pair (P,v), for P the midpoint of the two points and v the \dim(M)-vector giving the direction of the points from P (this may rely on working in charts, which is fine, as M is a manifold). However, trying to generalize to more than two points fails because \ell>2 points in general are not equally distributed on a sphere. If instead of using the "antipodal" property we take a point from which all \ell points are equidistant, this point may not be in the \epsilon-neighborhood of P_1.
Attempt 5: Iterate over common radii, but only "antipodal" points.
This was an attempt to fix the previous attempt and combine it with the naive description. In fact, this approach works when k=1 and n=2. Then P = \{P_1\}, and
B^M_\epsilon(P_1) \times \left.\left(\mathbf P\partial B^M_t(P_1) \times [0,1)\right)\right/\sim
maps into B^X_\epsilon(P_1) by first scaling [0,1) down to [0,\epsilon-d_M(P,P_1)), where P\in B^M_\epsilon(P_1) is the chosen point. The object \mathbf P\partial B^M_t(P_1) is the projectivization of the boundary of the open \dim(M)-ball of radius t around P_1 on M. That is, every element in it is a pair of antipodal points on the boundary of this ball that are exactly t\in [0,\epsilon-d_M(P,P_1)) away from P_1.
This works because every pair of points in a contractible neighborhood of P_1 is described uniquely by a pair (P,v), for P the midpoint of the two points and v the \dim(M)-vector giving the direction of the points from P (this may rely on working in charts, which is fine, as M is a manifold). However, trying to generalize to more than two points fails because \ell>2 points in general are not equally distributed on a sphere. If instead of using the "antipodal" property we take a point from which all \ell points are equidistant, this point may not be in the \epsilon-neighborhood of P_1.
Possible solutions
Solution 1: Instead of a smooth manifold, let M be a simplicial complex. Then \Ran^{\leqslant n}(M) should also be a simplicial complex. Then it may be possible to apply a general theorem to find appropriate cones.
Solution 2: Extend the only partially successful attempt, Attempt 5. Extend by describing a point splitting off into \ell pieces as a sequence of points splitting into 2 pieces. Or, extend by using the centroid of \ell points instead of the midpoint.
Solution 3: Weaken definition of "conically stratifed" to exclude either open embedding condition or A_{>f(x)} stratification of Y, though this would involve following out Lurie's proof to see what can not be concluded.
References: Lurie (Higher algebra, Appendix A), Ayala, Francis and Tanaka (Local structures on stratified spaces, Sections 2 and 3), Weinberger (The classification of topologically stratified spaces)