Small nonrational four-polytopes
1. Introduction
A face lattice can force irrational coordinates in every realization. Perles’ original example showed this in dimension eight, and the universality theorem of Richter-Gebert brought arbitrary realization-space phenomena into dimension four [6, 5]. The size of a polytope needed to carry even a quadratic obstruction is a more specific question. The classical four-dimensional construction has thirty-three vertices, whereas Firsching proved that every four-polytope with at most nine vertices is rational [2].
The following results improve both sides of this range.
Theorem 1. There is a seventeen-vertex four-polytope whose combinatorial type is
realizable over a subfield
If
The two bounds turn on which incidences a small face lattice can enforce. In the construction, seven vertices and one recoverable intersection point carry nine coplanarity relations, two of which force the golden-ratio equation. Ten auxiliary vertices make the required planes recoverable from faces. Perturbations at the ends of a split vertex expose those faces through a comparison of cap minima.
For the lower bound, we use the freedom that remains when such incidences cannot be forced. Projection from a vertex separates the problem into a three-dimensional incidence configuration and a linear system for reciprocal heights. Most types admit successive joins and intersections followed by a triangular linear solve; the exceptional types reduce to a few explicit projective constructions. Counting relations and nonedges bounds the finite lists to which these arguments must be applied. The accompanying supplement contains the exact lists and their reconstruction data.
A useful principle applies in every dimension and requires no finite input.
Theorem 3. Let
where
We prove Theorem 1 first, then develop the rationalization tools and the lower-bound argument. The exceptional linear constructions and the finite coverage are collected in the appendices. We use homogeneous coordinates in projective arguments; juxtaposition of labels denotes their projective span or their vertex set, as indicated by context.
2. The incidence obstruction
The arithmetic is already present in an eight-point configuration. Its role in the construction is clearer if we first recover the equation from its incidences.
Lemma 5. Suppose seven distinct points
Then their field of definition contains
Proof. Normalize
All displayed nonzero entries are forced by the absence of collinear triples. The
planes
Use the affine chart
while
Subtracting gives
This is the golden rank-four configuration; related matroid descriptions appear in [1, Appendix A.3.5]. To turn it into a small polytope, it is not enough to place the eight points in space; several of the planes in (1) are not supporting planes. The construction below makes them recoverable as intersections of spans of actual faces.
3. A seventeen-vertex realization
Put
and cut off
The cuts do not interact; violating both gives
Its facets through 5 are
Write
in homogeneous coordinates
3.1. Splitting a vertex and retaining its incidences. Replace
exposes that old facet together with the upper minimizers. It is nonnegative on the
upper cap and old vertices, and on the lower cap it tends to
Second, suppose a three-face is the convex hull of a polygon
The directions needed are
For a sufficiently small positive rational
Their projections are positive combinations of old vertices. For example,
and the old facet
3.2. The cap minima. The different orders of
The points
The first convexity observation now supplies the facets
The old faces
gives the following bridge pairs
| First two-face | Second two-face | Recovered plane |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
Each pair meets in its auxiliary edge
3.3. Recovering the obstruction in every realization. Consider any realization of
this face lattice over
The two planes in each bridge pair share an edge and span a projective three-space
different from
Conversely, the construction uses only
4. Simple vertices and realization fields
The arithmetic obstruction just constructed is carried by a nonsimple configuration. Theorem 3 explains why a simple vertex cannot create a new obstruction.
Proof of Theorem 3. Put
In restoring
Take any realization of
This removes the origin, passes through exactly the neighbors indexed by
For density, replace the coefficients 2 by freely chosen
5. Rationalizing incidences and heights
A labeled type is rationally dense if every realization is a limit of rational realizations of that type. The distinction from rational existence matters when part of a polytope has already been fixed; an arbitrary rational realization of that part need not admit the required attachment.
5.1. Projection from a vertex. Choose a vertex
The convex hull of the
The vertex figure and its marks, by themselves, have dense rational realizations. Indeed, the vertex–facet incidence graph of a three-polytope is planar and bipartite, so every subgraph has a node of degree at most three. Delete these nodes and reinsert them by rational linear algebra; three vertices of a polygon are independent, as are three supporting planes at a vertex. The prescribed marks can then be chosen in the relative interiors of their face spans. The difficulty lies in polygon planes not already determined by the vertex figure.
For each facet
The following rules give such orders. Incidence throughout means incidence with the nodes still retained.
- (i)
- A plane may be deleted with at most two points. It may be deleted with three
points if it is extra, or if those three points together with
consist of three vertices of a two-face and one vertex outside that face. - (ii)
- A point may be deleted with at most one plane, or with two planes of which at most one is extra.
- (iii)
- A point corresponding to a neighbor of
may be deleted with three ordinary planes. More generally, two or three planes may be used if they are distinct supporting planes at that point of the projection of a single facet avoiding . - (iv)
- A point may be deleted with three planes if two are distinct and contain another
labeled point
, while the third is an ordinary plane excluding .
The last rule applies because the first two planes meet in a line through the point being
deleted and
Lemma 6. If these rules delete the incidence graph, its projected configurations have dense rational realizations preserving all required plane incidences.
Proof. Projection is a projective isomorphism on any facet avoiding
At a vertex of a three-polytope, any three distinct incident facet normals are independent. Their rays are extreme rays of a pointed three-dimensional cone, whereas a pointed cone in a two-dimensional subspace has only two extreme rays. This proves the independence required in rule (iii), including its application within a projected facet. Rule (iv) was explained above.
Reverse the deletion order, choosing rational homogeneous points and planes near their originals. At each stage, the independent equations define a rational kernel of constant dimension, whose rational points are dense. All strict ordinary supporting inequalities persist. Incidences between points deleted earlier and planes deleted later are imposed when the former are reinserted, so the entire prescribed configuration is recovered. □
Once these incidences are fixed, the heights are governed by affine relations. Suppose
first that every facet with more than five vertices contains
Indeed, these equations say that the reciprocal height is affine on each projected facet; a bipyramid contributes one equation, a square pyramid contributes its base equation, and a tetrahedron contributes none. Every coefficient of a bipyramid or quadrilateral row is nonzero.
A larger facet
Proposition 7 (Projection and height reconstruction).
Suppose the projected incidence graph admits the preceding deletion rules and every
polygon avoiding
Proof. The height rows have full row rank at every realization; a label occurring in
only one remaining row forces that row’s coefficient to vanish in any dependence, and
induction finishes the argument. After applying Lemma 6, choose the free heights
rationally near their originals and solve for the remaining heights through one fixed
nonsingular minor. The solutions stay positive. The vertex figure preserves facets
through
The distinction between a possible row support and a certified nonzero coefficient matters for the fundamental relations; coefficients other than the pivot may vanish. All the data used below record both. Thus the criterion requires no genericity assumption about an unspecified realization.
5.2. Counting the relations. A second reduction measures how much arithmetic a
face lattice can impose before choosing a projection center. Let
where
The second inequality counts diagonals of polygonal two-faces; each contributes at least twice its excess, and a nonedge cannot be a diagonal in two different two-faces.
Choose each polygon’s affine relation basis once and supplement it within each facet
to the full relation space. If
The number
A nonedge belongs to at most two facets. Give it weight one in a unique containing
facet, or weight one-half in each of two facets. If
For
Summing the weights, then using (3)–(4), yields
The following small-core results are proved in Appendix A. Their proofs identify the only eight-element incidence obstruction, rather than assuming that a smooth realization space has rational points.
- (i)
- Every four-polytope with at most nine vertices is rationally dense.
- (ii)
- A four-polytope with at most nine nonsimplicial facets or at most nine nonsimple vertices is rationally dense.
- (iii)
- A four-polytope admitting at most eight selected facet-relation rows is rationally dense.
6. Rationality through ten vertices
For
Theorem 3 removes simple vertices, and Proposition 8 removes
6.1. The high-facet boundaries. When
so
When
Otherwise there is one six-vertex facet and nine five-vertex facets. No pentagon is
possible. The six-facet has allocated weight three, forcing
For
The local surplus
Proposition 9 (Finite reduction). Every realizable ten-vertex four-polytope not removed by Theorem 3 and Proposition 8 satisfies the projection criterion of Section 5, or is one of the explicit configurations in Appendix B.
The proof and the complete partition of the finite lists are given in Appendix D; the accompanying exact data supply the incidence insertion orders and height pivots. The computations establish coverage and the required nonzero witnesses. The positive constructions themselves use rational linear algebra, apart from one small Cayley polytope for which rational existence is given directly.
Proof of Theorem 2 and Corollary 4. Proposition 8 settles at most nine vertices. For ten vertices, delete a simple vertex if present, using Theorem 3. The relation count and finite reduction leave either the projection criterion, which gives rational density, or an explicit configuration from Appendix B, each of which has a rational realization. This proves Theorem 2. Deleting a simple vertex from an eleven-vertex type and applying Theorem 3 gives the corollary. □
Appendix A. Small incidence cores
A.1. Plane configurations on eight points.
Lemma 10. Every configuration of at most eight points in the real projective plane has dense rational realizations of its oriented matroid.
Proof. Call a line rich if it contains at least three points. A noncollinear configuration
on
where
Only
Normalize the first four points to a frame. The first six incidences give
and the last two give
Delete a point on at most two rich lines and proceed inductively. Reinsert it freely, on one rational line, or at the intersection of two rational lines. Rational choices sufficiently close to the original retain the signs of all nonzero minors. Collinear configurations, repeated projective points, and zero vectors are immediate. □
Gale duality gives rational density for four-polytopes with at most eight vertices, since their homogeneous kernels have rank at most three. Rational kernel bases and the inverse transformation vary continuously in a fixed nonzero-minor chart.
A.2. Relation spaces and the golden exception. Let the rows of
Lemma 11. Every real rank-four configuration on eight elements is rationally dense, except the matroid represented by
Its dependent four-sets are those in (1); every triple is independent and every five-set spans.
The finite proof uses the 731 connected rank-four eight-element matroids in the
small-matroid catalog [8]. Normalize a basis to
Lemma 12 (Multiaffine density). Let
Proof. Expand in the increments
Make all but one of these increments small and nonzero, leaving the last zero.
This gives a nearby zero at which some
For an irreducible residual polynomial with at most one unrestricted variable
The two remaining curves have the parametrizations
Their inverse parameters
If one of the exceptional four-flats is not required, rational density is restored. Replace
| Omitted flat | Changed entries |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | none |
| | |
The involution
A.3. Polarity and nine vertices. Keep in
If
Their 45 incidences force every vertex to belong to five facets. Each vertex figure is a
prism or square pyramid, hence has at most six vertices; since
But
For
Its allocated weight is three; the other facets contribute eight, giving
A.4. Eight relation rows in any four-polytope. Retain a vertex set
For
Appendix B. The exceptional rational constructions
All constructions in this appendix are made near a specified realization. A fixed nonzero minor keeps each join, intersection, and linear solve of the stated dimension. The strict supporting inequalities are then open, so the face lattice is retained. Rationally approximating the inverse normalization returns rational points near the original realization. This also explains why no new facet appears; its limiting vertex set would lie in an old supporting face, whose perturbed points already lie in a retained facet hyperplane.
B.1. A symmetric Cayley polytope. The one case for which only rational
existence is needed is the fourteen-facet type
| | | | | | | |
|
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 9 | | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | | |
| 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 5 | | | | 3 | | | |
| 6 | | | | 4 | | | |
Their apex pairs are
Reflection
The following directions, with their reflections, give the lateral facets
| Direction | | | Facet |
| | 058 | 3 | 0358 |
| | 068 | 23 | 02368 |
| | 059 | 47 | 04579 |
| | 05 | 137 | 01357 |
| | 5 | 147 | 1457 |
| | 58 | 123 | 12358 |
A triangle–segment row gives a bipyramid; the segment is parallel to the triangle plane but to none of its edges, so no four of the five vertices are coplanar. A triangle–point row gives a tetrahedron.
To see completeness, the
whereas
With the two base facets, the bipyramids are
and the tetrahedra are
B.2. Independent line intersections. For type
Indices are modulo five. Its ten bipyramid facets are
and its tetrahedra are
The five
Normalize the
The join on the right is the hyperplane of
For type
Construct successively
then choose
Every displayed join is a hyperplane and
| Facet | Hyperplane | Facet | Hyperplane |
| 01389 | | 02479 | |
| 03679 | | 04589 | |
| 12369 | | 12459 | |
| 12567 | | 13568 | |
| 24578 | | 34678 | |
The tetrahedra
B.3. A prism frame and its axis. Every triangular prism is projectively equivalent to
with
The two end triangles span
The opposite end edges meet at
If two bipyramids consist of the same three outside vertices and the opposite edges
For the fifteen-facet type
and
become
None of
Conversely, these formulas imply all incidences because
For type
and
The difference
B.4. A second large facet. Type 85 has nonsimplicial facets
and bipyramids
Normalize its prism
and put
All three coefficients are nonzero, since four vertices of a bipyramid are independent. The next incidences give
The six-vertex facet
Choose
Scale
B.5. Two crossed prisms. Suppose two prism facets share the quadrilateral
The eight points admit the following normalization in an auxiliary affine chart
To prove it, choose representatives
The missing grid point
lies in all four planes
The points
Conversely each condition gives the required intersections.
Suppose the remaining equations require
| Type | | | |
| 0 | 3,7 | 4,5,8,6 | 0,2,1,9 |
| 1 | 7,8 | 4,1,5,6 | 2,3,9,0 |
| 2 | 6,7 | 0,1,8,9 | 2,4,5,3 |
Their four bipyramids are
The same grid handles the two types with three or four prism facets. For the four-prism type
normalize the first two with
For the three-prism type
B.6. Two compatible prisms. If two prism facets share two longitudinal edges, their concurrency points agree. Their eight vertices lie in four independent pairs on concurrent lines and normalize to
Thus this core is rational and projectively unique.
For type 52, the prism pairs are
For type 53, the prism pairs are
B.7. Concurrent planes and reciprocal heights. The remaining type with one six-vertex facet admits a linear construction after passing to Gale coordinates. The useful observation is quite general. Write a four-dimensional vector space as
and let
The unique relation among the three normals therefore gives one linear equation in
the reciprocal heights
For type 679, the facets imposing equations are the six-vertex facet
The other facets are the square pyramid
Thus
The vectors
We use
Four bipyramid equations become the following construction in
Choose
These planes are distinct and share the line
After rational choices in (10), choose
The coefficient matrix is nonsingular because
For this construction to prove density, the denominators and intersections must be nondegenerate at every realization. They follow from facial ranks, rather than a generic choice. Every four vertices of a triangular bipyramid facet are independent, and adjoining a vertex outside that facet gives rank five. Applying (9) gives the following checks. Here a primal set containing a whole facet and an outside vertex also has rank five.
| Condition | Primal rank witness |
| | The
complement
of
|
| | |
| | |
| Triples
in
| Their
complements
contain
|
| | The
complementary
sets
|
| | The
complements
of
|
| | The
complements
of
|
| | |
The joins
B.8. The sixteen-facet residue. The sixteen-facet list leaves 74 systems with eight bipyramids, two square pyramids on a common quadrilateral, and six tetrahedra. Ordinary projection covers 69 of them. Two more, labeled 444 and 446, use the three-plane insertion from Section 5; project from 8, delete the two ordinary triangular plane nodes, then point 1 and its three now triangular plane nodes. The remaining incidence system peels. The only extra independence checks are
| Type | Two planes sharing a line | Third plane |
| 444 | ordinary | |
| 446 | ordinary | |
Both height systems have a leaf order at center 8. It remains to exclude types 31 and 32 and rationalize type 452.
All three arguments take place in Gale space. The quadrilateral circuit puts its six
complementary Gale points in a four-dimensional vector space
A common obstruction for types 31 and 32. Let
and the triples
are incompatible.
Write
Here
Indeed,
Neither vector is proportional to the indicated point
Their intersection puts
For the two types the substitutions are
| Type | | | |
| 31 | | | |
| 32 | | | |
Each incidence is the complement of a bipyramid. To record the rank checks compactly, write
| Gale set | Type 31 | Type 32 |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
For the triples
Three affine lines for type 452. Relabel the Gale points by
The first six lie in
cut out by the bipyramids. Nine facets exceed the bound
Normalize
The coefficients used to normalize are nonzero. In order, the Gale sets
Put
The incidence
Both coordinate pairs of
The next two incidences put
Here
Diagonal rescaling sets
All required incidences hold identically in the seven free parameters
Appendix C. The contribution of large facets
The surplus
C.1. Local surplus. For a three-polytope
If every face has at most four vertices, the lower bounds improve to two and four,
respectively. The verification also identifies the equality configurations needed later.
Euler’s formula and minimum degree give polygon excess at most four for
The following table gives the possibilities containing a larger polygon, with
| | Larger faces | | Bound for |
| 7 | hexagon | | |
| 7 | one pentagon, | | |
| 8 | heptagon | | |
| 8 | hexagon, | | |
| 8 | two pentagons, | | |
| 8 | one pentagon, | | |
A polygon on
If all nonsimplicial faces are quadrilaterals, then
C.2. Global consequences. Assume that at least ten facets are nonsimplicial; all other
types were removed by the polar-core argument. A nine-vertex facet makes the
four-polytope a pyramid over a three-polytope, which is rationally dense. For an
eight-vertex facet,
Every facet is nonsimplicial, and we may assume that no vertex is simple.
Let
If
Suppose both are prisms. Their allocated nonedge weights, together with
Hence
Exactly two facets are not adjacent to
edges join
If the common face is
We have proved that any remaining large-facet type has exactly one seven-vertex facet and at most one six-vertex facet.
C.3. The remaining seven-vertex facet budgets. Let
| Other large facet | | | Allocated weight | | |
| None | | | | | |
| Six vertices, no pentagon | | | | | |
| Six vertices, a pentagon | | | | | |
Here
In the second row,
- (i)
- With no six-vertex facet,
,The numbers of square pyramids, bipyramids, and tetrahedra are
, , and . There are 14 budgets over 27 facet templates. - (ii)
- With one six-vertex facet and no pentagon,
. Either with , or with both excesses equal to one. If is the number of quadrilaterals in the six-vertex facet, the small-facet counts arewith
. There are 34 budgets. - (iii)
- With a pentagon,
, , , and . The six-vertex facet is a pentagonal pyramid, and there are four possible seven-vertex facet templates.
All facet counts must be nonnegative. The condition
Appendix D. Finite coverage
We finish the proof of Proposition 9. The geometric reductions leave finitely many
boundary complexes, with facet sizes and counts fixed by Section 6 and Appendix C. The
exact data [3] contain their complete enumerations, sign exclusions, and incidence
reconstruction orders. The following table gives the resulting partition. Except in its first
two rows,
|
Facet family |
Finite reduction |
Remaining argument |
|
Sixteen facets |
801 coarsenings; 727 sign exclusions; 74 survivors |
69 ordinary projection orders; two shared-line insertions; 31 and 32 excluded, and 452 rationalized, in Appendix B.8. |
|
Fifteen facets |
Four
shape
families
with
|
267
projection
orders;
the
two
line
constructions
|
|
All
facets
have
at
most
five
vertices,
|
339 surviving systems |
338
projection
orders;
the
rational
Cayley
realization
|
|
Other small-facet residue |
Five
survivors
for
|
Projection and height reconstruction in every case. |
|
One nonprismatic six-vertex facet |
1846 systems; 432 simple-vertex cases, 104 boundary failures, 1087 sign exclusions, 223 survivors |
217 projection orders with large facet through the center, five with the large facet away from the center, and type 679 from Appendix B.7. |
|
One prism facet |
Eight survivors |
Projection and height reconstruction. |
|
At least two prisms, no other facet larger than five |
27
low-facet
count
families,
and
three
two-prism
types
for
|
Two simple-vertex cases; all others use the grid, common-concurrence, or three- and four-prism constructions. |
|
Several six-vertex facets with a pentagon |
22 count families, one residual survivor |
Projection and height reconstruction. |
|
Other several-six-vertex-facet types |
228 systems; 53 simple-vertex cases, two boundary failures, 157 sign exclusions, sixteen survivors |
Eleven projection orders with all large facets through the center, two with one large facet away, and the constructions for 52, 53, 85. |
|
A facet with at least seven vertices |
The surplus reductions leave five pure-seven candidates; four have a simple vertex and one is excluded by signs. No mixed seven/six candidate survives. |
Appendix C and simple-vertex deletion. |
For clarity, the four fifteen-facet families have respectively ten bipyramids; eight bipyramids and two square pyramids; seven bipyramids and four square pyramids; or one prism, three square pyramids, and six bipyramids. The first, second, and fourth families have five tetrahedra, and the third has four. The remaining several-six-vertex-facet branch comprises 31 count families and 270 facet-type budgets; the all-prism and pentagonal branches are listed separately.
There are two exhaustive enumeration methods. In direct growth, start with a facet of an allowed type and attach every locally admissible facet across each open ridge, retaining the prescribed vertex and facet budgets. Reject only a violated necessary incidence or manifold condition. Every polytopal boundary is reached because its facet adjacency graph is connected; canonical relabeling removes duplicates without removing an isomorphism class. The coarsening branches instead start from every compatible pulling triangulation in Lutz’s complete ten-vertex simplicial three-sphere catalog [4, 7]. The input contains 247882 three-spheres, with the type and index conversion recorded explicitly. A pulling triangulation uses the original vertices, so every required polytopal boundary occurs among these coarsenings.
For each candidate, orient its triangulated boundary. Facet incidences prescribe zero determinants and the signs of determinants obtained by adjoining an outside vertex. The three-term Grassmann–Plücker identities then propagate the allowed signs. A contradiction is an exact obstruction to realization; candidates with a consistent sign system are retained. The boundary failures in the table are failures of the necessary coherent orientation of the proposed triangulated boundary.
A positive certificate records a projection center, an incidence deletion order, and a height-row deletion order. A two-face independence witness justifies each three-point plane insertion, while every height pivot is a nonzero polygon or bipyramid circuit coefficient, or a fundamental-relation coefficient witnessed by a four-point facial frame. Lemma 6 and Proposition 7 turn these into rational constructions near every realization. Appendix B.8 displays the two shared-line witnesses, and Appendix B treats the other residual types.
The supplement contains the complete catalog inputs and enumeration programs, together with independent checkers for the reconstruction orders and determinant-sign exclusions. These reconstruct the 338 projection certificates in the first two table rows, cover the low-facet branches, and verify the eight-element incidence input of Lemma 11. Every candidate is therefore either excluded by an exact necessary condition or rationalized by the constructions above, proving Proposition 9.
References
- [1]
- M. Baker, O. Lorscheid, and T. Zhang, Foundations of matroids. Part 2: Further theory, examples, and computational methods, Combinatorial Theory 5 (2025), no. 1, Article 1. DOI 10.5070/C65165012.
- [2]
-
M.
Firsching,
The
complete
enumeration
of
-polytopes and -spheres with nine vertices, Israel J. Math. 240 (2020), 417–441. - [3]
- C. Folkerts, Exact data for small nonrational four-polytopes, electronic supplement, 2026.
- [4]
-
F.
H.
Lutz,
Combinatorial
-manifolds with vertices, Beitr. Algebra Geom. 49 (2008), 97–106. - [5]
- J. Richter-Gebert, Realization Spaces of Polytopes, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1643, Springer, Berlin, 1996.
- [6]
-
J.
Richter-Gebert
and
G.
M.
Ziegler,
Realization
spaces
of
-polytopes are universal, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 32 (1995), 403–412. - [7]
- B. Rieck and F. H. Lutz, Stellar: The Manifold Page archive, version 6, Zenodo, 2025. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.17495553.
- [8]
- G. Royle, Catalog of matroids on at most nine elements; connected small-matroid data reproduced by D. C. Haws, https://math.ucdavis.edu/∼mkoeppe/art/Matroids/.