Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 31 references

Regular subdivisions, bounds on initial ideals, and categorical limits

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For any homogeneous ideal, every initial ideal is sandwiched between two ideals built from the regular subdivisions of an associated point configuration.

desk verdict New and mostly sound framework for initial ideals via regular subdivisions; fix the overclaimed matroid appendix and this is a solid paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12819 v2 pith:4CA5NBH6 submitted 2024-11-19 math.CO math.AG

George Balla , Daniel Corey , Igor Makhlin , Victoria Schleis This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.COmath.AG MSC 05E4014T1518A3005E1413A0252B20
keywords initialidealregularsubdivisionsecondaryfanGröbnercategoricallimitveryaffineschemeGrassmannianmatroid
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

For any homogeneous ideal $I$ in a polynomial ring that does not contain the ideal generated by all the variables, this paper attaches a finite point configuration $A(I)$ to $I$ and uses it to control initial ideals. Its central claim is that, for every weight vector $w$, the initial ideal $\operatorname{in}_w I$ contains a lower-bound ideal $I_w$ determined by the regular subdivision of $A(I)$ by $w$, and is contained in an upper-bound ideal $I^w$ determined by the subdivision by $-w$. The two bounds are not merely computational conveniences: each quotient ring is shown to be a categorical (co)limit over the face poset of the corresponding subdivision. The paper further proves that the sets of weights where each bound is exact form subfans of the secondary fan of $A(I)$, the fan whose cones gather weights inducing the same regular subdivision, generalizing and unifying known toric and Grassmannian constructions.

What carries the argument

The central objects are the point configuration $A(I)$ and the regular subdivisions it induces. For a subspace $L \subset \mathbb R^E$ containing the all-ones vector, the paper identifies the affine equivalence class of configurations with $L$ via $A(L) = (u_e^L)_{e\in E}$, where $u_e^L$ is the restriction of the $e$-th coordinate functional to $L$; taking $L = L(I)$, the lineality space of the Gröbner fan, produces $A(I)$. A weight $w \in \mathbb R^E$ lifts the points of $A(I)$ into one higher dimension, and the lower faces of the lifted configuration form the regular subdivision $\operatorname{subd}_w A(I)$; the same construction with $-w$ gives the dual subdivision. The proof mechanism is the separating-weight property: nested cells $\Delta \subset \Gamma$ admit a vector $u \in L(I)$ that vanishes on $\Delta$ and is positive on $\Gamma \setminus \Delta$, which makes the restricted ideal $I_\Delta$ behave exactly like the $u$-initial form. These restricted ideals assemble into finite diagrams over the face poset, and the (co)limits of these diagrams are identified with the quotient rings $S/I_w$ and $S/I^w$.

What would settle it

Take a homogeneous ideal $I$ with computed $A(I)$ and a weight $w$, build $\operatorname{subd}_w A(I)$ and $\operatorname{subd}_{-w} A(I)$, and compute $I_w$, $I^w$, and $\operatorname{in}_w I$ with the paper's algorithm; finding a polynomial in $I_w \setminus \operatorname{in}_w I$ or in $\operatorname{in}_w I \setminus I^w$ would refute the central chain. A readier check is the Grassmannian case $I_{3,6}$ with $w \in \operatorname{Trop} I$ as in Remark 6.5, where the paper's statements imply $I_w$ is properly contained in $\operatorname{in}_w I$; verifying equality there would invalidate the claimed separation of the two bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a mechanism that ties Gröbner theory to polyhedral geometry for arbitrary projective schemes. Starting from an ideal $I$, one takes $L(I)$ to be the lineality space of the Gröbner fan of $I$, the fan whose cones collect weights giving the same initial ideal; the points of $A(I)$ are the coordinate-functionals restricted to $L(I)$, equivalently the orthogonal projections of the unit-coordinate vectors onto $L(I)$. For a weight vector $w$, the lower bound $I_w = \sum_\Delta \widetilde I_\Delta$ sums ideals coming from cells $\Delta$ of $\operatorname{subd}_w A(I)$, while the upper bound $I^w = \bigcap_\Delta \widetilde I^\Delta$ intersects ideals coming from cells of $\operatorname{subd}_{-w} A(I)$, yielding $I_w \subseteq \operatorname{in}_w I \subseteq I^w$. When $I$ is the Plücker ideal, the lower bound realizes the finite-limit construction for initial degenerations of the Grassmannian; when $I$ is toric, the upper bound is the radical of the initial ideal. The exactness regions $\Omega(I)$ and $\Omega^*(I)$ are supports of subfans of the secondary fan, and in the very affine setting (schemes meeting the dense torus) the initial degeneration admits a closed immersion into a limit of very affine schemes associated to the subdivision.

Load-bearing premise

The whole chain of inclusions rests on being able to find, for any nested pair of cells of a regular subdivision, a weight vector that vanishes on the smaller cell and is strictly positive on the rest of the larger cell; if such separating vectors failed to exist, the inclusions $I_w \subseteq \operatorname{in}_w I \subseteq I^w$ would not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every initial ideal of a homogeneous ideal is squeezed by two ideals that can be computed from the regular subdivision of a single point configuration, giving algorithmically simpler upper and lower bounds for Gröbner degenerations.
  • For the Plücker ideal $I_{2,n}$ and $w \in \operatorname{Trop} I$, the lower bound is exact, so the initial degeneration equals the combinatorial colimit over the subdivision's face poset.
  • For toric ideals, the upper-bound ideal $I^w$ is the radical of $\operatorname{in}_w I$, so exactness of that bound is equivalent to the initial ideal being radical, which for unimodular triangulations recovers the toric picture.
  • The exactness loci $\Omega(I)$ and $\Omega^*(I)$ are subfans of the secondary fan, meaning that once exactness holds at a weight, it holds for the whole open cone of weights giving the same subdivision; for weights in $\operatorname{Trop} I$ this gives subfans of the tropical fan.
  • In the very affine setting, the initial degeneration admits a closed immersion into the limit of very affine schemes attached to the subdivision, generalizing the Grassmannian theorem and yielding smooth irreducible initial degenerations for connected paving realizable matroids.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The graded-dimension gap between $I_w$ and $I^w$ could serve as a quantitative measure of how far a given initial degeneration is from being combinatorial; computing it for flag varieties or Schubert varieties may reveal where tropical compactification-type descriptions fail.
  • Because $A(I)$ is obtained from the lineality space of the Gröbner fan, one might define a canonical quotient fan refining the secondary fan for every ideal, making the correspondence between initial ideals and subdivisions a functor from ideals to point configurations.
  • The adjacency-graph reduction of the (co)limits suggests that initial ideals can be approximated using only maximal cells and codimension-one adjacencies, so practical Gröbner computations could be sped up substantially for large configurations.
  • A testable extension is to compute $\Omega(I) \cap \operatorname{Trop} I$ for the Plücker ideals $I_{k,n}$ with $k \geq 3$ and larger $n$; the paper's data for $I_{3,6}$ (30 of 1035 maximal tropical cones) invites the question of whether this ratio tends to zero as $n$ grows.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper associates to any homogeneous ideal I in S = C[x_e] (not containing the irrelevant ideal) a point configuration A(I) obtained from the lineality space L(I) of the Gröbner fan. For a weight vector w, the regular subdivisions subd_w A(I) and subd_{-w} A(I) are used to define ideals I_w (a sum over cells) and I^w (an intersection over cells), and the main containment theorem (Theorems 3.3 and 3.10) states I_w ⊆ in_w I ⊆ I^w. The paper then gives categorical interpretations: R_w = S/I_w is a colimit of a diagram over the face poset of subd_w A(I) (Theorem 4.3), and R^w = S/I^w is a limit over the opposite face poset of subd_{-w} A(I) (Theorem 4.6). It defines Omega(I) and Omega^*(I) as the exactness regions for the two inclusions and proves they are supports of subfans of the secondary fan and its negative (Theorems 5.3 and 5.8). In the very affine setting, Theorem 6.2 gives a closed immersion from the initial degeneration of the very affine scheme into a limit of cell schemes, generalizing Corey's Grassmannian result, and Theorem 6.3 identifies that limit. Appendix A studies an infinite family of Grassmannian initial degenerations, and Appendix B gives a Gröbner-basis algorithm for computing A(I) with an OSCAR implementation.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a genuinely general framework that unifies toric and Grassmannian initial-degeneration phenomena under one construction: every initial ideal is squeezed between combinatorially defined ideals built from regular subdivisions, and the exactness regions are subfans of the secondary fan. The categorical limit and colimit descriptions are elegant and directly generalize Corey's theorem [3]. Strengths include the explicit, self-contained construction of A(I), the machine-checkable computations in Appendix B with a public repository, and the concrete computational claims in Example 5.4 and Remark 5.5 that are falsifiable. The central proofs are detailed and the geometric input (existence of separating affine functions for faces of regular subdivisions) is standard.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix A, Theorem A.1] Theorem A.1 is stated for 'a connected paving matroid M' with no further hypotheses, yet the proof invokes C-realizability of M (to interpret the schemes as matroid strata, to use [5, Prop. 7.6], and to conclude the fiber product is smooth via [19, Thm. A]) and the inductive connectivity condition (the referenced [19, Thm. A] applies to inductively connected matroids). Neither hypothesis appears in the statement. This is a genuine overclaim: a connected paving matroid need not be C-realizable, and even C-realizable connected paving matroids need not be inductively connected. The statement and proof can be repaired by adding 'C-realizable and inductively connected' to the hypotheses of Theorem A.1 and its surrounding claims, but as written the theorem is false or at best unsupported.
  2. [Section 3, Propositions 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, 3.9] The load-bearing geometric input is the assertion that for faces Delta subset Gamma of a regular subdivision there exists u in L(I) with u_e = 0 on Delta and u_e > 0 on Gamma\Delta, used in Propositions 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.9. This is true for polyhedral subdivisions of finite point configurations, as the reader and skeptic agree. However, the manuscript never isolates this fact as a lemma or states its proof; it is asserted as 'we may choose' inside proofs. Since all later theorems rest on it, I recommend adding one explicit lemma (with proof) in Section 1.2, for the benefit of the reader and to make the dependency transparent.
  3. [Section 6, Theorem 6.2] Theorem 6.2 states the closed immersion conclusion requires only that each a_e lies in a cell of Theta. But the proof uses the assumption that the initial degeneration in_w X^circ is nonempty, equivalently w in Trop I, which was stated as a standing assumption just before the theorem but is not included in the theorem statement. This is fixable by adding 'w in Trop I' to the statement of Theorem 6.2 (and to Theorem 6.3 if it is meant to use the same assumptions). The omission does not affect the central framework but should be corrected for precision.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract / Introduction] The abstract and introduction claim the framework 'allows for partial generalizations' to arbitrary projective schemes; the wording is appropriate, but the precise hypotheses (I homogeneous, not containing the irrelevant ideal) should appear earlier in the abstract for clarity.
  2. [Section 4.2, Theorem 4.1] Theorem 4.1 is stated as a special case of Theorem 4.3, but the statement as written (R_w = colimit of R over J(Theta)) is not a special case of Theorem 4.3, which uses the adjusted diagram hat R. The text says it is not proved separately and defines a cocone, which creates confusion. Recommend deleting the separate theorem or restating it as a corollary with the correct diagram.
  3. [Section 5, Proposition 5.6] In the proof of Proposition 5.6, the reference to 'Theorem 3.9' should be 'Theorem 3.10', since the statement about the upper bound is Theorem 3.10. Similar small reference inconsistencies should be checked throughout.
  4. [Appendix A, paragraph before Theorem A.1] The sentence 'By [16, Theorem 35], we have w(M) in Trop I_{k,n}' requires M to be connected and C-realizable (as [16, Theorem 35] states for the corank vector of a connected realizable matroid). The text has already imposed these at that point, but for clarity the hypothesis should be repeated in the theorem statement.
  5. [Section 6, Remark 6.6] Remark 6.6 says the general case would replace X^circ_Delta by a product with a torus, but no theorem is stated. This is fine as a remark, but a precise conjecture or stated theorem would be more useful.
  6. [Throughout] There are a few typographical issues: 'Schl eis' in the author line should be 'Schleis', 'Grobner' should be 'Gröbner' in the running header, and 'Gr ob' in the Introduction should be 'Gröb'. These do not affect the mathematics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the main inclusions and categorical limits follow from explicit definitions and standard polyhedral geometry, with no fitted parameter or self-citation chain forcing the conclusions.

full rationale

The central derivation chain is self-contained. The point configuration A(I) is defined as A(L(I)), where L(I) is the lineality space of the Grobner fan of I, and the regular subdivision subd_w(A(I)) is formed from the same weight w that defines in_w I. The lower bound I_w is defined as a sum of ideals over cells of subd_w(A(I)), and the upper bound I^w as an intersection of ideals over cells of subd_{-w}(A(I)). The inclusions I_w ⊆ in_w I ⊆ I^w are proved directly: Proposition 3.2 shows I_Δ ⊆ in_w I by choosing w' ∈ w + L(I) with w'_e = 0 on a maximal cell and w'_e > 0 elsewhere, so the restriction map equals the initial form; Proposition 3.9 shows in_w I ⊆ ilde I_Δ by the dual sign choice. Neither definition presupposes the value of in_w I, and no parameter is fitted to make the bounds equal; exactness is a theorem (Theorems 5.3 and 5.8), not an input. The categorical results (Theorems 4.3 and 4.6) are proved from universal properties of colimits and limits in rings, using the same inclusions; they do not assume the target isomorphism. The separating-weight property used in Propositions 3.1, 3.2, 3.8, and 3.9 is the standard fact that for faces Δ ⊆ Γ of a polyhedral subdivision there is an affine function vanishing on Δ and positive on Γ\Δ, realized as an element of L(A(I)); it is a legitimate geometric input, not an assumption equivalent to the conclusion. Citations to prior work such as Sturmfels' Chapter 8, Zhu, Speyer-Sturmfels, Kapranov, and Tevelev supply examples or known special cases; they are not used to define the main objects in terms of the target results. One genuine but non-circular caveat: Theorem A.1 in Appendix A is stated for connected paving matroids, but its proof invokes C-realizability and inductively connected hypotheses from [5] and [19] that are absent from the statement; this is a correctness overclaim, not a circularity, and it does not affect the paper's main framework. Overall, no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction, so the paper should receive a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 5 invented entities

This is a theorem-and-construction paper, so the ledger contains no fitted parameters. The axioms are standard background results and one cited smoothness theorem whose hypotheses are not fully reflected in Theorem A.1. The invented entities are new mathematical definitions, not empirical postulates.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Standard properties of Groebner fans and initial ideals over C, including flat degenerations and grdim(in_w I) = grdim(I).
    Used throughout, especially in Section 2.1 and in Propositions 5.1 and 5.6.
  • standard math Regular subdivisions are polyhedral subdivisions with a complete secondary fan.
    Used in Section 1.2 and in the proof of Theorem 5.3.
  • domain assumption For toric ideals, I^w is the radical of in_w I, as proved in [30, Theorem 3].
    Used in Example 5.9 to characterize Omega^*(I) for toric ideals.
  • domain assumption Trop I_{2,n} is the space of phylogenetic trees and the corresponding subdivisions of Delta(2,n) are described by trees, per Speyer-Sturmfels and Kapranov.
    Used in Theorem 3.7 to prove exactness of the lower bound for Gr(2,n).
  • domain assumption [19, Theorem A] gives smoothness and irreducibility of realization spaces for inductively connected matroids, and [5, Proposition 7.6] describes the dual graph of the matroid subdivision.
    Used in Appendix A to prove Theorem A.1. The theorem statement omits the inductively connected and C-realizable hypotheses that the introduction and the cited results require.
invented entities (5)
  • A(I), the point configuration associated to an ideal I
    purpose: Translates weight vectors for initial ideals into regular subdivisions.
    Defined via the lineality space of the Groebner fan; computable through Appendix B, but it is a definition rather than an empirically supported entity.
  • I_w, the lower bound ideal
    purpose: Gives a combinatorial lower bound on in_w I from subd_w A(I).
    A new algebraic object constructed from the cells of the regular subdivision.
  • I^w, the upper bound ideal
    purpose: Gives a combinatorial upper bound on in_w I from subd_-w A(I).
    A new algebraic object constructed from the cells of the reverse subdivision.
  • Omega(I) and Omega^*(I), exactness sets
    purpose: Quantify the weights where the lower and upper bounds are exact, and are shown to be supports of subfans.
    New subsets of weight space defined by equality of ideals; their polyhedral structure is the content of Theorems 5.3 and 5.8.
  • X^o_w, the very affine scheme obtained from the categorical limit
    purpose: Realizes the limit of matroid strata in the very affine setting.
    A geometric object defined from the diagram of very affine schemes; central to Section 6.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regular subdivisions, bounds on initial ideals, and categorical limits." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4CA5NBH6

@misc{pith2026241112819,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regular subdivisions, bounds on initial ideals, and categorical limits},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4CA5NBH6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12819}
}
abstract

Several known constructions relate initial degenerations of projective toric varieties and Grassmannians to regular subdivisions of appropriate point configurations. We define a general framework which allows for partial generalizations of these constructions to arbitrary projective schemes (as well as their very affine parts). We associate a point configuration $A$ with any homogeneous ideal $I$. We obtain upper and lower bounds on every initial ideal of $I$, defining them in terms of the regular subdivision of $A$ given by the same weight. Furthermore, both bounds are interpreted categorically via (co)limits over the face poset of the subdivision. We also investigate when these bounds are exact, showing that the respective weights form a subfan in the secondary fan of $A$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [3]

    D. Corey. Initial degenerations of Grassmannians. Selecta Mathematica, 27:57, 2021. Appendix by Mar ´ ıa Ang´ elica Cueto.2, 3, 16, 18, 19

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Category theory, volume 52 of Oxford Logic Guides

    Steve Awodey. Category theory, volume 52 of Oxford Logic Guides. Oxford University Press, Oxford, second edition, 2010. 10, 16, 17

    work page 2010

  3. [2]

    Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing

    Jeff Bezanson, Alan Edelman, Stefan Karpinski, and Viral B Shah. Julia: A fresh approach to numerical computing. SIAM Review , 59(1):65–98, 2017. 3

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    The Grassmannian of 3-planes in C8 is sch¨ on.Algebraic Combina- torics, 6(5):1273–1299, 2023

    Daniel Corey and Dante Luber. The Grassmannian of 3-planes in C8 is sch¨ on.Algebraic Combina- torics, 6(5):1273–1299, 2023. 14, 16, 19

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    Singular matroid realization space s, 2025

    Daniel Corey and Dante Luber. Singular matroid realization space s, 2025. To appear in Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (5) . arXiv:2307.11915. 3, 20, 21

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Initial degenerations of flag varieties, 2022

    Daniel Corey and Jorge Alberto Olarte. Initial degenerations of flag varieties, 2022. arXiv:2207.08094. 13

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    De Loera, J¨ org Rambau, and Francisco Santos

    Jes´ us A. De Loera, J¨ org Rambau, and Francisco Santos. Triangulations, volume 25 of Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2010. Structures for algorithms and applications. 1, 5

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    The Com- puter Algebra System OSCAR: Algorithms and Examples , volume 32 of Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics

    Wolfram Decker, Christian Eder, Claus Fieker, Max Horn, and Mich ael Joswig, editors. The Com- puter Algebra System OSCAR: Algorithms and Examples , volume 32 of Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics . Springer, 1 edition, 2025. 3

    work page 2025

Show all 31 references
  1. [9]

    A fair file format for mathematical software

    Antony Della Vecchia, Michael Joswig, and Benjamin Lorenz. A fair file format for mathematical software. In Kevin Buzzard, Alicia Dickenstein, Bettina Eick, Anton Leykin, and Yue Ren, editors, Mathematical Software – ICMS 2024 , pages 234–244, Cham, 2024. Springer Nature Switze...

    2024

  2. [10]

    Dummit and Richard M

    David S. Dummit and Richard M. Foote. Abstract algebra. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, third edition, 2004. 12

    2004

  3. [11]

    Commutative algebra , volume 150 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics

    David Eisenbud. Commutative algebra , volume 150 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer- Verlag, New York, 1995. With a view toward algebraic geometry. 1

    1995

  4. [12]

    Gelfand, M

    I. Gelfand, M. Goresky, R. MacPherson, and V. Serganova. C ombinatorial geometries, convex poly- hedra, and Schubert cells. Adv. in Math. , 63(3):301–316, 1987. 16

    1987

  5. [13]

    Gelfand, M

    I. Gelfand, M. Kapranov, and A. Zelevinsky. Discriminants, Resultants and Multidimensional De- terminants. Modern Birkh¨ auser Classics. Birkh¨ auser, Boston, 2008.1

    2008

  6. [14]

    On the facets of the secondary polytope

    Sven Herrmann. On the facets of the secondary polytope. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A , 118(2):425–447,

  7. [15]

    How to draw tropical planes

    Sven Herrmann, Anders Jensen, Michael Joswig, and Bernd St urmfels. How to draw tropical planes. Electron. J. Combin. , 16(2):Research Paper 6, 26, 2009. 2, 15

    2009

  8. [16]

    Matroids from hypers implex splits

    Michael Joswig and Benjamin Schr¨ oter. Matroids from hypers implex splits. J. Combin. Theory Ser. A, 151:254–284, 2017. 20, 21

    2017

  9. [17]

    Kapranov

    M. Kapranov. Chow quotients of Grassmannians I. Advances in Soviet Mathematics , 16:29–110,

  10. [18]

    Lafforgue

    L. Lafforgue. Chirurgie des grassmanniennes, volume 19 of CRM Monograph Series. American Math- ematical Society, Providence, RI, 2003. 1

    2003

  11. [19]

    Irreducibility, smoothne ss, and connectivity of realiza- tion spaces of matroids and hyperplane arrangements, 2024

    Emiliano Liwski and Fatemeh Mohammadi. Irreducibility, smoothne ss, and connectivity of realiza- tion spaces of matroids and hyperplane arrangements, 2024. arXiv:2410.22175. 3, 19, 20, 21 18

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Introduction to tropical geometry , volume 161 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics

    Diane Maclagan and Bernd Sturmfels. Introduction to tropical geometry , volume 161 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2015. 1

    2015

  13. [21]

    Categories for the Working Mathematician

    Saunders MacLane. Categories for the Working Mathematician . Springer-Verlag, New York, 1971. 13

    1971

  14. [22]

    The Gr¨ obner fan of an ideal

    Teo Mora and Lorenzo Robbiano. The Gr¨ obner fan of an ideal. J. Symbolic Comput. , 6(2-3):183–208,

  15. [23]

    URL: https://www.oscar-system.org

    OSCAR – open source computer algebra research system, ver sion 1.3.1, 2025. URL: https://www.oscar-system.org. 3

    2025

  16. [24]

    Matroid theory

    James Oxley. Matroid theory. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford Univer sity Press, New York, 1992. 19

    1992

  17. [25]

    Term orderings on the polynomial ring

    Lorenzo Robbiano. Term orderings on the polynomial ring. In EUROCAL ’85, Vol. 2 (Linz, 1985) , volume 204 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. , pages 513–517. Springer, Berlin, 1985. 1

    1985

  18. [26]

    Speyer and B

    D. Speyer and B. Sturmfels. The tropical Grassmannian. Advances in Geometry , 4:389–411, 2004. 8, 15

    2004

  19. [27]

    David E. Speyer. Tropical linear spaces. SIAM J. Discrete Math. , 22(4):1527–1558, 2008. 2

    2008

  20. [28]

    Sturmfels

    B. Sturmfels. Gr¨ obner Bases and Convex Polytopes, volume 8 of University Lecture Series. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 1995. 1, 2, 5, 16

    1995

  21. [29]

    J. Tevelev. Compactifications of subvarieties of tori. American Journal of Mathematics , 129(4):1087–1104, 2007. 2, 15

    2007

  22. [30]

    C.-G. Zhu. Degenerations of toric ideals and toric varieties. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications, 386(2):613–618, 2012. 2, 9, 10

    2012

  23. [31]

    G¨ unter M. Ziegler. Lectures on polytopes, volume 152 of Graduate Texts in Mathematics . Springer- Verlag, New York, 1995. 1 Appendix A. Grassmannians and matroid strata In this section, we consider the Grassmannian Gr( k,n ). Given w∈ TropIk,n, the regu- lar subdivision Θ = ...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.