Stabbing Pairwise Intersecting Disks by Five Points

Abstract: Suppose we are given a set $\mathcal{D}$ of $n$ pairwise intersecting disks in the plane. A planar point set $P$ stabs $\mathcal{D}$ if and only if each disk in $\mathcal{D}$ contains at least one point from $P$. We present a deterministic algorithm that takes $O(n)$ time to find five points that stab $\mathcal{D}$. Furthermore, we give a simple example of 13 pairwise intersecting disks that cannot be stabbed by three points. Moreover, we present a simple argument showing that eight disks can be stabbed by at most three points.This provides a simple-albeit slightly weaker-algorithmic version of a classical result by Danzer that such a set $\mathcal{D}$ can always be stabbed by four points.

\section{Introduction}

Let $\D$ be a set of $n$ disks in the plane. If every \emph{three}
disks in $\D$ intersect, then Helly's theorem shows that the whole
intersection $\bigcap\D$ of $\D$ is
nonempty~\cite{Helly23,Helly30,Radon21}.  In other words, there is a
single point $p$ that lies in all disks of $\D$, i.e., $p$
\emph{stabs} $\D$.  More generally, when we know only that every
\emph{pair of} disks in $\D$ intersect, there must be a point set $P$
of constant size such that each disk in $\D$ contains at least one
point in $P$.  It is fairly easy to give an upper bound on the size of
$P$, but for some time, the exact bound remained elusive.  Eventually,
in July 1956 at an Oberwolfach seminar, Danzer presented the answer:
four points are always sufficient and sometimes necessary to stab any
finite set of pairwise intersecting disks in the plane
(see~\cite{Danzer86}). Danzer was not satisfied with his original
argument, so he never formally published it. In 1986, he presented a
new proof~\cite{Danzer86}. Previously, in 1981, \Stacho had already
given an alternative proof~\cite{Stacho81}, building on a previous
construction of five stabbing points~\cite{Stacho65}.  This line of
work was motivated by a result of Hadwiger and Debrunner, who showed
that three points suffice to stab any finite set of pairwise
intersecting \emph{unit} disks~\cite{HadwigerDe55}.  In later work,
these results were significantly generalized and extended, culminating
in the celebrated $(p, q)$-theorem that was proven by Alon and
Kleitman in 1992~\cite{AlonKl92}. See also a recent paper by
Dumitrescu and Jiang that studies generalizations of the stabbing
problem for translates and homothets of a convex
body~\cite{DumitrescuJi11}.

Danzer's published proof~\cite{Danzer86} is fairly involved.
It uses a compactness argument that does not seem to be
constructive, and one part of the argument relies on a
an undetailed
verification by computer. Therefore, it is
quite challenging to verify the correctness
of the argument, let alone to derive any intuition
from it.
There seems to be no obvious way to turn it into
an efficient algorithm for finding a stabbing set of size four. The
two constructions of \Stacho~\cite{Stacho81,Stacho65} are simpler, but
they are obtained through a lengthy case analysis that requires
a very disciplined and focused reader.  Here, we present a new
argument that yields five stabbing points. Our proof is constructive,
and it lets us find the stabbing set in deterministic linear time.
Very recently, following the conference version of this paper, Carmi,
Katz, and Morin~\cite{CarmiKaMo18} posted a draft on the arXiv
that promises to prove
the existence of four stabbing points and a linear-time algorithm for
finding them. However, as of now, their manuscript  still seems to
be in a rough state.

As for lower bounds, Gr\"unbaum\xspace gave an example of 21 pairwise
intersecting disks that cannot be stabbed by three
points~\cite{Grunbaum59}. Later, Danzer reduced the number of disks to
ten~\cite{Danzer86}. This example is close to optimal, because every
set of eight disks can be stabbed by three points~\cite{Stacho65}.  It
is hard to verify Danzer's lower bound example---even with dynamic
geometry software, the positions of the disks cannot be visualized
easily.  Here, we present a simple construction that needs 13 disks
and can easily be verified, more or less by inspection.

\section{The Geometry of Pairwise Intersecting Disks}
\seclab{geometry}

Let $\D$ be a set of $n$ pairwise intersecting disks in the plane.  A
disk $D_i \in \D$ is given by its center $c_i$ and its radius
$r_i$. To simplify the analysis, we make the following assumptions:
(i) the radii of the disks are pairwise distinct; (ii) the
intersection of any two disks has a nonempty interior; and (iii) the
intersection of any three disks is either empty or has a nonempty
interior.  A simple perturbation argument can then handle the
degenerate cases.

The \emph{lens} of two disks $D_i, D_j \in \D$ is the set
$L_{i, j} = D_i \cap D_j$.  Let $u$ be any of the two intersection
points of ${\partial}} \def\D{{\cal D}} \def\Dinf{\overline{{\cal D}} D_i$ and ${\partial}} \def\D{{\cal D}} \def\Dinf{\overline{{\cal D}} D_j$.  The angle $\angle c_iuc_j$ is
called the \emph{lens angle} of $D_i$ and $D_j$. It is at most
$\pi$. A finite set $\mathcal{C}$ of disks is \emph{Helly} if their
common intersection $\bigcap \mathcal{C}$ is nonempty. Otherwise,
$\mathcal{C}$ is \emph{non-Helly}.  We present some useful geometric
lemmas.

\begin{figure}
    \centering%
    \includegraphics[page=1]{3_lens}%
    \hspace*{1cm}%
    \includegraphics{three_disks}%
    %
    \caption{\textbf{left:} At least one lens angle is large.
       \textbf{right:} $D_1$ and $E$ have the same radii and lens
       angle $2\pi/3$. By \lemref{subset}, $D_2$ is a subset of
       $E$. $\{c_1,c,p,q\}$ is the set $P$ from
\lemref{C:D:diff:size}.}
    \figlab{3_lens}%
\end{figure}

\begin{lemma}%
    \lemlab{triple}%
    %
    Let $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$ be a set of three pairwise intersecting
    disks that is non-Helly.  Then, the set contains two disks with
    lens angle larger than $2 \pi/3$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Since $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$ is non-Helly, the lenses $L_{1, 2}$,
    $L_{1, 3}$ and $L_{2, 3}$ are pairwise disjoint. Let $u$ be the
    vertex of $L_{1, 2}$ nearer to $D_{3}$, and let $v$, $w$ be the
    analogous vertices of $L_{1,3}$ and $L_{2,3}$ (see
    \figref{3_lens}, left).  Consider the simple hexagon
    $c_1 u c_2 w c_3v$, and write $\angle u$, $\angle v$, and
    $\angle w$ for its interior angles at $u$, $v$, and $w$. The sum
    of all interior angles is $4\pi$. Thus,
    $\angle u + \angle v + \angle w < 4\pi$, so at least one angle is
    less than $4\pi/3$.  It follows that the corresponding lens angle,
    which is the exterior angle at $u$, $v$, or $w$ must be larger than $2\pi/3$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}%
    \lemlab{subset}%
    %
    Let $D_1$ and $D_2$ be two intersecting disks with $r_1 \geq r_2$
    and lens angle at least $2 \pi / 3$.  Let $E$ be the unique disk
    with radius $r_1$ and center $c$, such that (i) the centers $c_1$,
    $c_2$, and $c$ are collinear and $c$ lies on the same side of
    $c_1$ as $c_2$; and (ii) the lens angle of $D_1$ and $E$ is
    exactly $2\pi/3$ (see \figref{3_lens}, right).  Then, if $c_2$
    lies between $c_1$ and $c$, we have $D_2 \subseteq E$.
\end{lemma}%

\begin{proof}
    Let $x \in D_2$. Since $c_2$ lies between $c_1$ and $c$, the
    triangle inequality gives
    \begin{equation}%
        \eqlab{x:c}%
        |xc| \leq |xc_2| + |c_2c| = |xc_2| + |c_1c| - |c_1c_2|.
    \end{equation}
    Since $x \in D_2$, we get $|xc_2| \leq r_2$.  Also, since $D_1$
    and $E$ have radius $r_1$ each and lens angle $2\pi/3$, it follows
    that $|c_1c| = \sqrt{3} \, r_1$.  Finally,
    $|c_1c_2| = \sqrt{r_1^2+r_2^2-2r_1r_2\cos\alpha}$, by the law of
    cosines, where $\alpha$ is the lens angle of $D_1$ and $D_2$. As
    $\alpha \geq 2\pi/3$ and $r_1 \geq r_2$, we get
    \begin{math}
        \cos\alpha%
        \leq%
        -1/2 %
        = (\sqrt{3}-3/2)-\sqrt{3}+1%
        \leq%
        (\sqrt{3}-3/2){r_1}/{r_2}-\sqrt{3}+1,
    \end{math}
    As such, we have
    \begin{align*}
      |c_1 c_2|^2%
      &=%
        r_1^2 + r_2^2 - 2r_1r_2\cos\alpha
        \geq%
        r_1^2 + r_2^2 - 2r_1r_2 \Bigl( \bigl(\sqrt{3} - 3/2 \bigr)
        \frac{r_1}{r_2} - \sqrt{3} + 1\Bigr)%
      \\&%
      =%
      r_1^2 -  2\bigl(\sqrt{3} - 3/2 \bigr)
      r_1^2 +2 ( - \sqrt{3} + 1)r_1 r_2 + r_2^2 %
      \\&%
      =%
      (1 -  2\sqrt{3} + 3  )r_1^2 +2( - \sqrt{3} + 1)r_1 r_2  + r_2^2 %

      =%
      \bigl(r_1(\sqrt{3}-1)+r_2 \bigr)^2.
    \end{align*}
    Plugging this into \Eqref{x:c} gives
    $|xc| \leq r_2 +
    \sqrt{3}r_1-(r_1\left(\sqrt{3}-1)+r_2\right)=r_1$, i.e.,
    $x \in E$.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}%
    \lemlab{D:E}%
    %
    Let $D_1$ and $D_2$ be two intersecting disks with equal radius
    $r$ and lens angle $2\pi/3$. There is a set $P$ of four points so
    that any disk $F$ of radius at least $r$ that intersects both
    $D_1$ and $D_2$ contains a point of $P$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Consider the two tangent lines of $D_1$ and $D_2$, and let $p$ and
    $q$ be the midpoints on these lines between the respective two
    tangency points. We set $P = \{ c_1, c_2, p, q\}$ (see
    \figref{P:covers}, left).%

    Given the disk $F$ that intersects both $D_1$ and $D_2$, we shrink
    its radius, keeping its center fixed, until either the radius
    becomes $r$ or until $F$ is tangent to $D_1$ or $D_2$. Suppose the
    latter case holds and $F$ is tangent to $D_1$. We move the center
    of $F$ continuously along the line spanned by the center of $F$
    and $c_1$ towards $c_1$, decreasing the radius of $F$ to maintain
    the tangency. We stop when either the radius of $F$ reaches $r$ or
    $F$ becomes tangent to $D_2$.  We obtain a disk $G \subseteq F$
    with center $c = (c_x, c_y)$ so that either: (i)
    $\text{radius}(G) = r$ and $G$ intersects both $D_1$ and $D_2$; or
    (ii) $\text{radius}(G) \geq r$ and $G$ is tangent to both $D_1$
    and $D_2$.  Since $G \subseteq F$, it suffices to show that
    $G \cap P \neq \emptyset$.
    We introduce a coordinate system, setting the origin $o$ midway
    between $c_1$ and $c_2$, so that the $y$-axis passes through $p$
    and $q$.  Then, as in \figref{P:covers} (left), we have
    $c_1 = (-\sqrt{3}\,r / 2, 0)$, $c_2 = (\sqrt{3}\,r / 2, 0)$,
    $q = (0, r)$, and $p = (0, -r)$.

    For case (i), let $D_1^2$ be the disk of radius $2r$ centered at
    $c_1$, and $D_2^2$ the disk of radius $2r$ centered at
    $c_2$. Since $G$ has radius $r$ and intersects both $D_1$ and
    $D_2$, its center $c$ has distance at most $2r$ from both $c_1$
    and $c_2$, i.e., $c \in D_1^2 \cap D_2^2$.  Let $D_p$ and $D_q$ be
    the two disks of radius $r$ centered at $p$ and $q$. We will show
    that $D_1^2 \cap D_2^2 \subseteq D_1 \cup D_2 \cup D_p \cup D_q$.
    Then it is immediate that $G \cap P \neq \emptyset$.  By symmetry,
    it is enough to focus on the upper-right quadrant
    $Q = \{(x,y) \mid x \geq 0, y \geq 0\}$.  We show that all points
    in $D_1^2 \cap Q$ are covered by $D_2 \cup D_q$.  Without loss of
    generality, we assume that $r = 1$.  Then, the two intersection
    points of $D_1^2$ and $D_q$ are
    $r_1 = (\frac{5\sqrt{3} - 2\sqrt{87}}{28}, \frac{38 +
       3\sqrt{29}}{28}) \approx (-0.36, 1.93)$ and
    $r_2 = (\frac{5\sqrt{3} + 2\sqrt{87}}{28}, \frac{38 -
       3\sqrt{29}}{28}) \approx (0.98, 0.78)$, and the two
    intersection points of $D_1^2$ and $D_2$ are
    $s_1 = (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}, 1) \approx (0.87, 1)$ and
    $s_2 = (\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}, -1) \approx (0.87, -1)$.  Let $\gamma$
    be the boundary curve of $D_1^2$ in $Q$.  Since
    $r_1, s_2 \not\in Q$ and since $r_2 \in D_2$ and $s_1 \in D_q$, it
    follows that $\gamma$ does not intersect the boundary of
    $D_2 \cup D_q$ and hence $\gamma \subset D_2 \cup D_q$.
    Furthermore, the subsegment of the $y$-axis from $o$ to the start
    point of $\gamma$ is contained in $D_q$, and the subsegment of the
    $x$-axis from $o$ to the endpoint of $\gamma$ is contained in
    $D_2$. Hence, the boundary of $D_1^2 \cap Q$ lies completely in
    $D_2 \cup D_q$, and since $D_2 \cup D_q$ is simply connected, it
    follows that $D_1^2 \cap Q \subseteq D_2 \cup D_q$, as desired.

    For case (ii), since $G$ is tangent to $D_1$ and $D_2$, the center
    $c$ of $G$ is on the perpendicular bisector of $c_1$ and $c_2$, so
    the points $p$, $o$, $q$ and $c$ are collinear.  Suppose without
    loss of generality that $c_y\geq 0$. Then, it is easily checked
    that $c$ lies above $q$, and
    $\text{radius}(G) + r= |c_1c| \geq |oc|=r + |qc|$, so $q \in G$.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
    \centerline{

       \includegraphics[page=2]{hex_mesh}%
       \hspace*{1cm}%
       \includegraphics[page=2]{three_disks}%

    }
    \caption{\textbf{left:} $P=\{c_1,c_2,p,q\}$ is the stabbing set.
       The green arc $\gamma={\partial}} \def\D{{\cal D}} \def\Dinf{\overline{{\cal D}} (D_1^2\cap D_2^2) \cap Q$ is covered
       by $D_1^2 \cap D_q$.  \textbf{right:} Situation (ii) in the
       proof of \lemref{C:D:diff:size}: $D_2\not\subseteq E$. $x$ is
       an arbitrary point in $D_2\cap F\cap k^+$.  The angle at $c$ in
       the triangle $\Delta xcc_2$ is $\geq\pi/2$.}
    \figlab{P:covers}%
\end{figure}
\begin{lemma}
    \lemlab{C:D:diff:size}%

    Consider two intersecting disks $D_1$ and $D_2$ with $r_1\geq r_2$
    and lens angle at least $2\pi/3$.  Then, there is a set $P$ of
    four points such that any disk $F$ of radius at least $r_1$ that
    intersects both $D_1$ and $D_2$ contains a point of $P$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Let $\ell$ be the line through $c_1$ and $c_2$.  Let $E$ be the
    disk of radius $r_1$ and center $c \in \ell$ that satisfies the
    conditions (i) and (ii) of \lemref{subset}. Let
    $P = \{c_1, c, p, q\}$ as in the proof of \lemref{D:E}, with
    respect to $D_1$ and $E$ (see \figref{3_lens}, right).  We claim
    that
    \[
        D_1\cap F\neq\emptyset\ \wedge\ D_2\cap F\neq\emptyset\
        \Rightarrow\ E\cap F\neq\emptyset.  \tag{*}
    \]
    Once (*) is established, we are done by \lemref{D:E}.  If
    $D_2\subseteq E$, then (*) is immediate, so assume that
    $D_2 \not\subseteq E$.  By \lemref{subset}, $c$ lies between $c_1$
    and $c_2$.  Let $k$ be the line through $c$ perpendicular to
    $\ell$, and let $k^+$ be the open halfplane bounded by $k$ with
    $c_1 \in k^+$ and $k^-$ the open halfplane bounded by $k$ with
    $c_1 \not\in k^-$.  Since $|c_1c| = \sqrt{3}\,r_1 > r_1$, we have
    $D_1 \subset k^+$ (see \figref{P:covers}, right).  Recall that $F$
    has radius at least $r_1$ and intersects $D_1$ and $D_2$. We
    distinguish two cases: (i) there is no intersection of $F$ and
    $D_2$ in $k^+$, and (ii) there is an intersection of $F$ and $D_2$
    in $k^+$.

    For case (i), let $x$ be any point in $D_1 \cap F$.  Since we know
    that $D_1 \subset k^+$, we have $x\in k^+$.  Moreover, let $y$ be
    any point in $D_2 \cap F$. By assumption (i), $y$ is not in $k^+$,
    but it must be in the infinite strip defined by the two tangents
    of $D_1$ and $E$. Thus, the line segment $\overline{xy}$
    intersects the diameter segment $k\cap E$.  Since $F$ is convex,
    the intersection of $\overline{xy}$ and $k\cap E$ is in $F$, so
    $E \cap F \neq \emptyset$.

    For case (ii), fix $x \in D_2\cap F \cap k^+$ arbitrarily.
    Consider the triangle $\Delta xcc_2$. Since $x \in k^+$, the angle
    at $c$ is at least $\pi/2$ (\figref{P:covers}, right). Thus,
    $|xc| \leq |xc_2|$. Also, since $x \in D_2$, we know that
    $|xc_2| \leq r_2 \leq r_1$. Hence, $|xc| \leq r_1$, so $x \in E$
    and (*) follows, as $x \in E \cap F$.
\end{proof}

\section{Existence of Five Stabbing Points}

With the tools from \secref{geometry}, we can now show that
there is a stabbing set with five points.

\begin{theorem}%
    \thmlab{existence}%
    %
    Let $\D$ be a set of $n$ pairwise intersecting disks in the plane.
    There is a set $P$ of five points such that each disk in $\D$
    contains at least one point from $P$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    If $\D$ is Helly, there is a single point that lies in all disks
    of $\D$. Thus, assume that $\D$ is non-Helly, and let
    $D_1, D_2, \dots, D_n$ be the disks in $\D$ ordered by increasing
    radius. Let $i^*$ be the smallest index with
    $\bigcap_{i \leq i^*} D_i = \emptyset$. By Helly's
    theorem~\cite{Helly23,Helly30,Radon21}, there are indices
    $j, k < i^*$ such that $\{D_{i^*}, D_j, D_k\}$ is non-Helly. By
    \lemref{triple}, two disks in $\{D_{i^*}, D_j, D_k\}$ have
    lens angle at least $2\pi/3$.  Applying
    \lemref{C:D:diff:size} to these two disks, we obtain a set
    $P'$ of four points so that every disk $D_i$ with $i \geq i^*$
    contains at least one point from $P'$.  Furthermore, by definition
    of $i^*$, we have $\bigcap_{i < i^*} D_i \neq \emptyset$, so there
    is a point $q$ that stabs every disk $D_i$ with $i < i^*$. Thus,
    $P = P' \cup \{q\}$ is a set of five points that stabs every disk
    in $\D$, as desired.
\end{proof}
\paragraph{Remark.} A weakness in our proof is that it combines two different stages, one
of finding the point $q$ that stabs all the small disks, and one of
constructing the four points of \lemref{C:D:diff:size} that stab all
the larger disks. It is an intriguing challenge to merge the two
arguments so that altogether they only require four points.

\section{Algorithmic Considerations}

The proof of \thmref{existence} leads to a simple $O(n \log n)$ time
deterministic algorithm for finding a stabbing set of size five.
For this, we need an oracle that decides whether a given
set of disks is Helly. This has already been done by
L\"{o}ffler and van Kreveld~\cite{loffler2010largest}, in a
slightly different context:

\begin{lemma}[Theorem~6 in \cite{loffler2010largest}]
\lemlab{helly-oracle}
Given a set of $n$ disks, the problem of choosing a point in each disk such that
the smallest enclosing circle of the resulting point set is as small as possible
can be solved in $O(n)$ time.
\end{lemma}

Now, the algorithm for finding the five stabbing points works as follows:
first, we sort the disks in  $\D$ by increasing radius. Let
$\D = \{D_1, \dots, D_n\}$ be the resulting order.
Next, we use binary search with the oracle
from \lemref{helly-oracle} to determine the smallest index $i^*$ such that
$\{D_1, \dots ,\D_{i^*}\}$ is non-Helly. This yields the disk $D_{i^*}$. After that,
we use another binary search with the oracle from \lemref{helly-oracle} to determine
the smallest index $k < i^*$ such that $\{D_{i^*}, D_1, \dots, D_k\}$ is non-Helly.
Last, we perform a linear search to find an index $j < k$ such that $\{D_j,D_k,D_{i^*}\}$
is a non-Helly triple. Finally, we use
\lemref{helly-oracle} to obtain a stabbing point $q$ for the Helly set
$\{D_1, \dots ,\D_{i^* - 1}\}$  and
the method from the proof of \thmref{existence} to
extend $q$ to a stabbing set for the whole set $\D$.

The proof of \lemref{helly-oracle} uses the \emph{LP-type framework} by Sharir
and Welzl~\cite{SharirWe92,Chazelle01}. As we will see next, a
more sophisticated application of the framework directly leads to a
deterministic linear time algorithm to find a stabbing set with
five points.

\subparagraph{The LP-type framework.}  An \emph{LP-type problem}
$(\H, w, \leq)$ is an abstract generalization of a low-dimensional
linear program.  It consists of a finite set of \emph{constraints}
$\H$, a \emph{weight function} $w: 2^{\H} \rightarrow {\cal W}} \def\reals{{\mathbb R}} \def\N{{\mathbb N}$, and a
\emph{total order} $({\cal W}} \def\reals{{\mathbb R}} \def\N{{\mathbb N}, \leq)$ on the weights.  The weight function
$w$ assigns a weight to each subset of constraints.  It must fulfill
the following three axioms: \vspace*{0.3cm}
\begin{itemize}
    \item \textbf{Monotonicity}: for any $\H' \subseteq \H$ and
    $H \in \H$, we have $w\big(\H' \cup \{H\}\big) \leq w(\H')$;
    \item \textbf{Finite Basis}: there is a constant $d \in \N$ such
    that for any $\H' \subseteq \H$, there is a subset
    ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \H'$ with $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| \leq d$ and $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = w(\H')$; and
    \item \textbf{Locality:} for any ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \H' \subseteq \H$
    with $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = w(\H')$ and for any $H \in \H$, we have that if
    $w\big({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \cup \{H\}\big) = w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$, then also
    $w\big(\H' \cup \{H\}\big) = w(\H')$.
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{0.3cm} Given a subset $\H' \subseteq \H$, a \emph{basis} for
$\H'$ is an inclusion-minimal set ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \H'$ with
$w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = w(\H')$.  The Finite-Basis-axiom states that any basis has at
most $d$ constraints. The goal in an LP-type problem is to determine
$w(\H)$ and a corresponding basis ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ for $\H$.

A generalization of Seidel's algorithm for low-dimensional linear
programming~\cite{Seidel91} shows that we can solve an LP-type problem
in expected time $O(|\H|)$, provided that an $O(1)$-time
\emph{violation test} is available: given a set ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \H$ and
a constraint $H \in \H$, we say that $H$ \emph{violates} ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ if and
only if $w\big({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \cup \{H\}\big) < w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$.  In a violation test, we
are given ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ and $H$, and we must determine (i) whether ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is a
valid basis for some subset of constraints; and (ii) whether $H$
violates ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$.
  \footnote{Here, we follow the presentation of
   Chazelle~\cite{Chazelle01}. Sharir and Welzl~\cite{SharirWe92} do
   not require property (i) of a violation test. Instead, they need an
   additional \emph{basis computation} primitive: given a basis ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$
   and a constraint $H \in \H$, find a basis for ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \cup
   \{H\}$. If a violation test with property (i) exists and if $d$
   is a constant, a basis computation primitive can easily be
   implemented by brute force enumeration.}
Here and below, the constant factor in the
$O$-notation may depend on $d$.

Chazelle and \Matousek~\cite{ChazelleMa96} showed that an LP-type
problem can be solved in $O(|\H|)$ \emph{deterministic} time if (i) we
have a constant-time violation test and (ii) the range space
$(\H, \{\vio({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) \mid {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \text{ is a basis for some }\H' \subseteq \H\})$ has bounded
VC-dimension~\cite{Chazelle01}. Here, for a basis ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$, the set
$\vio({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) \subset \H$ consists of all constraints that violate ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$.
We will now show that the problem of finding a non-Helly triple as in
\thmref{existence} is LP-type and fulfills the requirements for the
algorithm of Chazelle and \Matousek.

\begin{figure}
    \centering%
    \includegraphics{lp_type}%
    %
    \caption{\textbf{left:} The disks $D_3$ and $D_4$ are destroyers
       of the Helly set $\{D_1,D_2\}$. Moreover, $D_3$ is the smallest
       destroyer of the whole set $\{D_1, D_2, D_3, D_4\}$.
       \textbf{right:} The disks without $D_ \infty$ form a Helly set
       $\C$. The smallest destroyer of $\C$ is $D_ \infty$ and the
       point $v$ is the extreme point for $\C$ and
       $D_\infty$, i.e., $\dist(\C)=d(v,D_\infty)$.}
    \figlab{lptype}%
\end{figure}

\subparagraph{Geometric observations.}  The \emph{distance} between
two closed sets $A, B \subseteq \reals^2$ is defined as
$d(A, B) = \inf \{d(a, b) \mid a \in A, b \in B\}$.  From now on, we
assume that all points in $\bigcup\D$ have positive
$y$-coordinates. This can be ensured with linear overhead by an
appropriate translation of the input.  We denote by $D_{\infty}$ the
closed halfplane below the $x$-axis. It is interpreted as a disk with
radius $\infty$ and center at $(0, -\infty)$. First, observe that for
any subsets $\C_1 \subseteq \C_2 \subseteq \D\cup\{D_\infty\}$,
we have that if $\C_1$ is non-Helly, then
$\C_2$ is non-Helly. For any  $\C \subseteq \D \cup \{D_\infty\}$,
we say that a disk $D$ \emph{destroys}
$\C$ if $\C \cup \{ D \}$ is non-Helly. Observe that $D_{\infty}$
destroys every non-empty subset of $\D$. Moreover, if $\C$ is
non-Helly, then every disk is a destroyer.
See \figref{lptype} for an example. We can make the
following two observations.

\begin{lemma}
    \lemlab{unique:v}%
    %
    Let $\C \subseteq \D$ be Helly and $D$ a destroyer of $\C$.
    Then, the point $v \in \bigcap\C$ with minimum distance to
    $D$ is unique.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Suppose there are two distinct points $v \neq w \in \bigcap \C$
    with $d(v, D) = d\big(\bigcap\C, D \big) = d(w, D)$. Since
    $\bigcap\C$ is convex, the segment $\overline{vw}$ lies in
    $\bigcap\C$. Now, if $D \neq D_\infty$, then every point in the
    relative interior of $\overline{vw}$ is strictly closer to $D$
    than $v$ and $w$. If $D = D_\infty$, then all points in
    $\overline{vw}$ have the same distance to $D$, but since
    $\bigcap \C$ is strictly convex, the relative interior of
    $\overline{vw}$ lies in the interior of $\bigcap \C$, so there
    must be a point in $\bigcap \C$ that is closer to $D$ than $v$ and
    $w$.  In either case, we obtain a contradiction to the assumption
    $v \neq w$ and $d(v, D) = d\big(\bigcap\C, D\big) = d(w, D)$. The
    claim follows.
\end{proof}

Let $\C\subseteq \D$ be Helly and $D$ a destroyer of $\C$. The unique point
$v \in \bigcap \C$ with minimum distance to $D$ is called the
\emph{extreme point} for $\C$ and $D$ (see \figref{lptype}, right).

\begin{figure}
    \centering%
    \includegraphics{destroyers}%
    %
    \caption{\textbf{left:} The disk $D_4$ is a destroyer for the
       Helly sets $\{D_1, D_2\}$ and $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$.  The extreme
       point $v$ for $\{D_1, D_2\}$ is also the extreme point for
       $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$.  \textbf{right:} The disk $D_4$ is a
       destroyer for the Helly sets $\{D_1, D_2\}$ and
       $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$.  The extreme point $v$ for $\{D_1, D_2\}$
       is not in $\D_3$. The distance to $D_4$ increases.}
    \figlab{destroyers}%
\end{figure}

\begin{lemma}
    \lemlab{destroyer:dist}%
    %
    Let $\C_1 \subseteq \C_2 \subseteq\D$ be two Helly sets and
    $D$ a destroyer of $\C_1$ (and thus of $\C_2$).  Let
    $v \in \bigcap\C_1$ be the extreme point for $\C_1$ and $D$. We
    have $d\big(\bigcap\C_1, D\big) \leq d\big(\bigcap\C_2, D\big)$.
    In particular, if $v \in \bigcap \C_2$, then
    $d\big(\bigcap\C_1, D\big) = d\big(\bigcap\C_2, D\big)$ and $v$ is
    also the extreme point for $\C_2$ and $D$.  If $v \not\in \bigcap \C_2$,
    then $d\big(\bigcap\C_1, D\big) < d\big(\bigcap\C_2, D\big)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    The first claim holds trivially: let $w \in \bigcap\C_2$ be the
    extreme point for $\C_2$ and $D$.  Since $\C_1 \subseteq \C_2$, it
    follows that $w \in \bigcap\C_1$, so
    $d\big(\bigcap \C_1, D \big) \leq d(w, D) = d\big(\bigcap\C_2,
    D\big)$.  If $v \in \bigcap\C_2$, then
    $d\big(\bigcap\C_1, D\big) \leq d\big(\bigcap\C_2, D\big) \leq
    d(v, D) = d\big(\bigcap\C_1, D\big)$, so $v = w$, by
    \lemref{unique:v}. If $v \notin\bigcap\C_2$, then
    $d\big(\bigcap\C_1, D\big) < d\big(\bigcap\C_2, D\big)$, by
    \lemref{unique:v} and the fact that $\C_1 \subseteq \C_2$.
    See \figref{destroyers}.
\end{proof}

Let $\C$ be a subset of $\D$. For $0 < r \leq \infty$ we
define $\C_{<r}$ as the set of all disks in
$\C$ with radius smaller than $r$. Recall that we assume
that all the radii are pairwise distinct.
A disk $D$ with radius $r$, $0 < r \leq \infty$,  is called
\emph{smallest destroyer} of $\C$ if (i) $D \in \C$ or $D=D_{\infty}$,
(ii) $D$ destroys $\C_{<r}$, and (iii) there is no disk $D'\in\C_{<r}$
that destroys $\C_{<r}$. Observe that Property~(iii)
is the same as saying that $\C_{<r}$ is Helly.
See \figref{lptype} for an example.

Let $\C$ be a subset of $\D$ and $D$ the
smallest destroyer of $\C$.
We write $\rad(\C)$ for the radius of $D$
and $\dist(\C)$ for
the distance between $D$ and the set $\bigcap\C_{<\rad(\C)}$, i.e.,
$\dist(\C)= d\big(\bigcap\C_{<\rad(\C)}, D\big)$.  Now, if $\C$ is Helly,
then $D=D_{\infty}$ and thus $\rad(\C) = \infty$.
If $\C$ is non-Helly,
then $D \in \C$ and thus $\rad(\C)<\infty$.
In both cases, $\dist(\C)$ is the distance between $D$ and
the extreme point for $\C_{<\rad(\C)}$ and $D$. We define the
\emph{weight of $\C$} as $w(\C) = (\rad(\C),-\dist(\C))$, and
we denote by $\leq$ the lexicographic order on $\reals^2$.  Chan
observed, in a slightly different context, that $(\D, w ,\leq)$ is
LP-type~\cite{Chan04}.  However, Chan's paper does not contain a
detailed proof for this fact. Thus, in the following lemmas, we show
that the three LP-type axioms hold.

\begin{lemma}%
    \lemlab{LPtype:axiom1}%
    %
    For any $\C \subseteq \D$ and $E \in \D$, we have
    $w\big(\C \cup\{E\}\big) \leq w(\C)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{figure}
    \centering %
    \includegraphics{axiom_1}%
    %
    \caption{Monotonicity: In both cases, $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$ is
       non-Helly with smallest destroyer $D_3$.  Adding a disk $E$
       either decreases the radius of the smallest destroyer
       (\textbf{left}) or increases the distance to the smallest
       destroyer (\textbf{right}).}
    \figlab{axiom1}%
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
    Set $\C^* = \C \cup \{E\}$. Let $D$ be the smallest destroyer of
    $\C$, and let $r = \rad(\C)$ be the radius of $D$.
    Since $D$ destroys $\C_{< r}$, the set $\C_{< r}\cup\{D\}$ is
    non-Helly. Moreover, since $\C_{< r}\cup\{D\}\subseteq \C^*_{< r}\cup\{D\}$,
    we know that $\C^*_{< r}\cup\{D\}$ is also non-Helly.
    Therefore, $D$ destroys $\C^*_{< r}$ and we can derive
    $\rad(\C^*) \leq \rad(\C)$. If we have
    $\rad(\C^*) < \rad(\C)$, we are done. Hence, assume that
    $\rad(\C^*) = \rad(\C)$. Then $D$ is the smallest destroyer of $\C^*$,
    and \lemref{destroyer:dist} gives
    $-\dist(\C^*) = -d\big(\bigcap\C^*_{<r}, D\big) \leq -
    d(\bigcap\C_{<r}, D) = -\dist(\C)$. Hence,
    $w\big(\C^*) \leq w(\C)$. See \figref{axiom1} for an
    illustration.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}%
    \lemlab{LPtype:axiom2}%
    %
    For each $\C \subseteq \D$, there is a set ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \C$ with
    $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| \leq 3$ and $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = w(\C)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{figure}
    \centering%
    \includegraphics{axiom_2}%
    %
    \caption{A basis can either be a non-Helly triple (left), a pair
       of intersecting disks $E$ and $F$ where the point of minimum
       $y$-coordinate in $E \cap F$ is a vertex (middle), or a single
       disk.}
    \figlab{axiom2}%
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
    Let $D$ be the smallest destroyer of $\C$.  Let
    $r = \rad(\C)$ be the radius of $D$, and let
    $v \in \bigcap \C_{<r}$ be the extreme point for $\C_{<r}$ and
    $D$.
    First of all, we observe that $v$ cannot be in the
    interior of $\bigcap \C_{<r}$, since $v$ minimizes the distance to $D$.
    Thus, there has to be a non-empty
    subset $\A \subseteq \C_{<r}$ such that $v$ lies on the boundary of
    each disk of $\A$.
    Let  $\A$ be a minimal set such that $d(\bigcap \A, D) = d(v, D)$.
    It follows that $|\A| \leq 2$.
    See \figref{axiom2} for an illustration.

    First, assume that $\A = \{E\}$. Then, since
    $d(E, D) = d(v,D)>0$, we know that $E\cap D=\emptyset$.
    As the disks in $\C$ intersect pairwise,
    we derive $D\notin \C$ and hence $D=D_\infty$. Setting
    ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}= \A$, we get $\rad(\C)=\infty=\rad({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$ and
    $\dist(\C)=d(v,D)=d(E,D)=\dist({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$.
    Thus, $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}|\leq 3$ and $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})=w(\C)$.

    Second, assume that $\A=\{E,F\}$.
    Then, $v$ is one of the two vertices of the lens $L= E \cap F$.
    Next, we show that $d(L, D)\geq d(v, D)$. Assume for the sake of
    contradiction that there is a point $w \in L$ with $d(w, D) < d(v, D)$.
    By general position and since $v$ is the intersection
    of two disk boundaries, there is a relatively open neighborhood
    $N$ around $v$ in $\bigcap\C_{<r}$ such that $N$ is also
    relatively open in $L$.  Since $L$ is convex, there
    is a point $x \in N$ that also lies in the relative interior of
    the line segment $\overline{wv}$. Then, $d(x, D) < d(v, D)$ and
    $x \in \bigcap\C_{<r}$. This yields a contradiction, as $v$ is the extreme
    point for $\C_{<r}$ and $D$. Thus, we have $d(L, D)\geq d(v, D)$
    which also shows hat $D \cap E \cap F= \emptyset$.

    We set ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} = \{E,F\}$, if $\C$ is Helly (i.e., $D=D_\infty$), and
    ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} = \{D, E, F\}$, if $\C$ is non-Helly (i.e., $D \in \C$). In both cases,
    we have ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \C$ and $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| \leq 3$. Moreover, we can conclude
    that $D$ destroys ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}_{<r} = \{E,F\}$, and since ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}_{<r}$ is Helly, $D$
    is the smallest destroyer of ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$. Hence, we have $\rad(\C) = r = \rad({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$.

    To obtain $\dist({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = \dist(\C)$, it remains to show
    $d(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}_{<r},D)=d(\bigcap\C_{<r},D)$.  Since ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}_{<r} \subseteq \C_{<r}$,
    we can use \lemref{destroyer:dist} as well as $d(L, D)\geq d(v, D)$ to
    derive
    \[
		d\Big(\bigcap\C_{<r},D\Big) \geq d\Big(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}_{<r},D\Big),
		= d(L,D) \geq d(v,D) = d\Big(\bigcap\C_{<r},D\Big)
    \]
    as desired. We conclude that $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})=w(\C)$.

    We remark that the set ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is actually a basis for $\C$: if ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is a non-Helly
    triple, then removing any disk from ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ creates a Helly set and
    increases the radius of the smallest destroyer to $\infty$.  If
    $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| \leq 2$, then $D_\infty$ is the smallest destroyer of ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$
    and the minimality follows directly from the definition.
\end{proof}

\begin{lemma}
    \lemlab{LPtype:axiom3}%
    %
    Let ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \C \subseteq\D$ with $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = w(\C)$ and let
    $E \in \D$. Then, if $w \big({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \cup \{E\}\big) = w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$, we also
    have $w\big(\C \cup \{E\}\big) = w(\C)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Set $\C^* = \C \cup \{E\}$, ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^* = {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}\cup \{E\}$.  Let
    $r = \rad(\C)$ and $D$ be the smallest destroyer of $\C$.
    Since $w(\C) = w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}) = w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*)$, we have that $D$ is also the
    smallest destroyer of ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ and of ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*$.
    If the radius of $E$ is larger than $r$, then $E$ cannot be the smallest
    destroyer of $\C^*$, so $w\big(\C^*\big) = w(\C)$.
    Thus, assume that the  $E$ has radius less than $r$.  Let $v$ be the extreme point of
    $\C_{<r}$ and $D$. Since $w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*) = w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$, we know that
    $d\big(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}_{<r}, D\big) = d\big(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*_{<r}, D\big) =
    d(v, D)$.  Now, \lemref{destroyer:dist} implies that $v \in E$,
    since $E \in {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*_{<r}$.  Thus, the set
    $\C^*_{<r} = \C_{<r} \cup \{E\}$ is Helly and therefore, there is no
    disk $D'\in \C^*_{<r}$ that destroys $\C^*_{<r}$.
    Furthermore, since $D$ destroys $\C_{<r}$ and
    $\C_{<r} \subset \C^*_{<r}$, the disk $D$ also destroys $\C^*_{<r}$.
    Therefore, $D$ is also the smallest destroyer of $\C^*$, so
    $\rad(\C^*) = r = \rad(\C)$.  Finally, since
    ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*_{<r} \subseteq \C^*_{<r}$ we can use
    \lemref{destroyer:dist} to derive
    \[
        d\Big(\bigcap\C_{<r}, D\Big) = d\Big(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}^*_{<r}, D\Big)
        \leq d\Big(\bigcap\C^*_{<r}, D\Big) \leq d(v, D) =
        d\Big(\bigcap\C_{<r}, D\Big).\qedhere
    \]
\end{proof}

Next, we describe a violation test for $(\D, w, \leq)$: given a set
${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \D$ and a disk $E \in \D$ with radius $r$, determine (i)
whether ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is a basis for some subset of $\D$, and (ii) whether $E$
violates ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$, i.e., whether $w\big({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \cup \{E\}\big) < w({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$. This
is done as follows: \vspace*{0.3cm}
\begin{itemize}
    \item If (i) $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| > 3$; or (ii) $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| = 3$ and ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is Helly; or
    (iii) $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| = 2$ and the $y$-minimum of $\bigcap {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is also the
    $y$-minimum of a single disk of ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$, return \textbf{``${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is not
       a basis.''}.
    \item If $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| = 1$, then, if the $y$-minimum in
    $E \cap \bigcap {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ differs from the $y$-minimum in $\bigcap {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$,
    return \textbf{``$E$ violates ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''}; otherwise, return
    \textbf{``$E$ does not violate ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''}.
    \item If ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} = \{D_1, D_2\}$, find the $y$-minimum $v$ of
    $D_1 \cap D_2$ and return \textbf{``$E$ violates ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''} if
    $v \not\in E$, and \textbf{``$E$ does not violate ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''},
    otherwise.
    \item Finally, assume that ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} = \{D, D_1, D_2\}$ is non-Helly with
    smallest destroyer $D$.\footnote{Note that since ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is a subset
       of $\D$ and since ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is non-Helly, the smallest destroyer $D$
       of ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ cannot be the disk $D_\infty$.} Let $r = \rad({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})$ be
    the radius of $D$ and $r'$ be the radius of $E$:
    \begin{itemize}
        \item If $r' > r$, return \textbf{``$E$ does not violate
           ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''}.
        \item If $r' <r$, find the vertex $v$ of $D_1 \cap D_2$ that
        minimizes the distance to $E$ and return \textbf{``$E$
           violates ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''} if $v \not\in E$, and \textbf{``$E$ does
           not violate ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$''}, otherwise.
    \end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
\vspace*{0.3cm}

The violation test obviously needs constant time.  Finally, to apply
the algorithm of Chazelle and \Matousek, we still need to check
that the range space $(\D, \R)$ with
$\R = \{\vio({\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H})\mid {\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}\text{ is a basis of a subset in }\D\}$ has
bounded VC dimension.

\begin{lemma}
    \lemlab{vc:dim}%
    %
    The range space $(\D, \R)$ has VC-dimension at most $3$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    The discussion above shows that for any basis ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$, there is a
    point $v_{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \in \reals^2$ such that $E \in \D$ violates ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ if
    and only if $v_{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \not\in E$. Thus, for any $v \in \reals^2$, let
    $\R'_v = \{ D \in \D \mid v \not\in D\}$ and let
    $\R' = \{ \R'_v \mid v \in \reals^2\}$. Since $\R \subseteq \R'$,
    it suffices to show that $(\D, \R')$ has bounded VC-dimension.
    For this, consider the complement range space $(\D, \R'')$ with
    $\R'' = \{ \R''_v \mid v \in \reals^2\}$ and
    $\R''_v = \{ D \in \D \mid v \in D\}$, for $v \in \reals^2$.  It
    is well known that $(\D, \R')$ and $(\D, \R'')$ have the same
    VC-dimension~\cite{Chazelle01}, and that $(\D, \R'')$ has
    VC-dimension $3$ (e.g., this follows from the classic homework
    exercise that there is no planar Venn-diagram for four sets).
\end{proof}

Finally, the following lemma summarizes the discussion so far.

\begin{lemma}%
    \lemlab{solve:LPtype}%
    %
    Given a set $\D$ of $n$ pairwise intersecting disks in the plane,
    we can decide in $O(n)$ deterministic time whether $\D$ is Helly.
    If so, we can compute a point in $\bigcap\D$ in $O(n)$
    deterministic time.  If not, we can compute the smallest destroyer
    $D$ of $\D$ and two disks $E, F \in \D_{<r}$ that form a non-Helly
    triple with $D$.  Here, $r$ is the radius of $D$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Since $(\D, w, \leq)$ is LP-type, the violation test needs $O(1)$
    time, and the VC-dimension of $(\D,\R)$ is bounded, we can apply
    the deterministic algorithm of Chazelle and
    \Matousek~\cite{ChazelleMa96} to compute
    $w(\D) = (\rad(\D), -\dist(\D))$ and a corresponding basis ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ in
    $O(n)$ time.  Then, $\D$ is Helly if and only if
    $\rad(\D) = \infty$. If $\D$ is Helly, then $|{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}| \leq 2$. We
    compute the unique point $v \in \bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ with
    $d(v, D_\infty) = d\big(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}, D_{\infty}\big)$.  Since
    ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H} \subseteq \D$ and
    $d\big(\bigcap{\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H},D_{\infty}\big) = d\big(\bigcap\D,
    D_{\infty}\big)$, we have $v \in \bigcap\D$ by
    \lemref{destroyer:dist}. We output $v$.  If $\D$ is non-Helly, we
    simply output ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$, because ${\cal B}} \def\V{{\cal V}} \def\H{{\cal H}$ is a non-Helly triple with the
    smallest destroyer $D$ of $\D$ and two disks $E, F \in\D_{<r}$,
    where $r$ is the radius of $D$.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
    Given a set $\D$ of $n$ pairwise intersecting disks in the plane,
    we can find in deterministic $O(n)$ time a set $P$ of five points such that
    every disk of $\D$ contains at least one point of $P$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    Using the algorithm from \lemref{solve:LPtype}, we decide whether
    $\D$ is Helly.  If so, we return the extreme point computed by the
    algorithm.  Otherwise, the algorithm gives us a non-Helly triple
    $\{D, E, F\}$, where $D$ is the smallest destroyer of $\D$ and
    $E, F \in\D_{<r}$, with $r$ being the radius of $D$.  Since
    $\D_{<r}$ is Helly, we can obtain in $O(n)$ time a stabbing point
    $q \in \bigcap\D_{<r}$ by using the algorithm from
    \lemref{solve:LPtype} again.  Next, by \lemref{triple}, there are
    two disks in $\{D, E, F\}$ whose lens angle is at least
    $2\pi/3$. Let $P'$ be the set of four points from the proof of
    \lemref{C:D:diff:size}.  Then, $P = P' \cup \{q\}$ is a set of
    five points that stabs every disks in $\D$.
\end{proof}

\section{A Simple Lower Bound}

We now exhibit a set of $13$ pairwise intersecting disks in the plane
such that no point set of size three can pierce all of them.  The
construction begins with an inner disk $A$ of radius $1$ and three
larger disks $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$ of equal radius, so that each pair
of disks in $\{A,D_1,D_2,D_3\}$ is tangent.
For $i = 1, 2, 3$, we denote the contact point of $A$ and
$D_i$ by $\xi_i$.

We add six more disks as follows. For $i=1,2,3$, we draw
    the two common outer tangents to $A$ and $D_i$, and denote by
    $T_i^-$ and $T_i^+$ the halfplanes that are bounded by these
    tangents and are openly disjoint from $A$. The labels $T_i^-$ and
    $T_i^+$ are chosen such that the points of tangency between $A$
    and $T_i^-$, $D_i$, and $T_i^+$, appear along ${\partial}} \def\D{{\cal D}} \def\Dinf{\overline{{\cal D}} A$ in this
    counterclockwise order.  One can show that the nine points of
    tangency between $A$ and the other disks and tangents are pairwise
    distinct (see \figref{lower}).
    We regard the six halfplanes
    $T_i^-$, $T_i^+$, for $i=1,2,3$, as (very large) disks; in the
    end, we can apply a suitable inversion to turn the disks and
    halfplanes into actual disks, if so desired.

\begin{figure}
    \centering%
    \includegraphics[scale=1]{lb_2}%
        %
        \captionof{figure}{Each common tangent $\ell$ between $A$ and
           $D_i$ represents a very large disk, whose interior is
           disjoint from $A$. The nine points of
           tangency are pairwise distinct.}%
        \figlab{lower}
\end{figure}

Finally, we construct three additional disks $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$.  To
construct $A_i$, we slightly expand $A$ into a disk $A'_i$ of radius
$1 + {\varepsilon}_1$, while keeping the tangency with $D_i$ at $\xi_i$.  We
then roll $A'_i$ clockwise along $D_i$, by a tiny angle
${\varepsilon}_2 \ll {\varepsilon}_1$, to obtain $A_i$.

This gives a set of $13$ disks.  For sufficiently small ${\varepsilon}_1$ and
${\varepsilon}_2$, we can ensure the following properties for each $A_i$: (i)
$A_i$ intersects all other $12$ disks; (ii) the nine intersection
regions $A_i \cap D_j$, $A_i \cap T_j^-$, $A_i \cap T_j^+$, for
$j = 1,2,3$, are pairwise disjoint; and (iii) $\xi_i\notin A_i$.

\begin{theorem}%
    \thmlab{lower:bound
    %
    The construction yields a set of $13$ disks that cannot be stabbed
    by $3$ points.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
    Consider any set $P$ of three points.  Set
    $A^* = A \cup A_1 \cup A_2 \cup A_3$.  If
    $P \cap A^* = \emptyset$, we have unstabbed disks, so suppose that
    $P \cap A^* \neq \emptyset$. For $p \in P \cap A^*$, property~(ii)
    implies that $p$ stabs at most one of the nine remaining disks
    $D_j$, $T_j^+$ and $T_j^-$, for $j = 1, 2, 3$.  Thus, if
    $P \subset A^*$, we would have unstabbed disks, so we may assume
    that $|P \cap A^*| \in \{1, 2\}$.

    Suppose first that $|P \cap A^*| = 2$. As just argued, at most two
    of the remaining disks are stabbed by $P \cap A^*$. The following
    cases can then arise.  \vspace*{0.3cm}
    \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
        \item None of $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$ is stabbed by $P \cap A^*$.
        Since $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$ is non-Helly and a non-Helly set
        must be stabbed by at least two points, at least one disk
        remains unstabbed.
        \item Two disks among $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$ are stabbed by
        $P \cap A^*$.  Then the six unstabbed halfplanes form many
        non-Helly triples, e.g., $T_1^-$, $T_2^-$, and $T_3^-$, and
        again, a disk remains unstabbed.
        \item The set $P \cap A^*$ stabs one disk in
        $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$ and one halfplane. Then, there is (at
        least) one disk $D_i$ such that $D_i$ and its two tangent
        halfplanes $T_i^-$, $T_i^+$ are all unstabbed by $P \cap A^*$.
        Then, $\{ D_i, T_i^-, T_i^+ \}$ is non-Helly, and at least two
        more points are needed to stab it.
    \end{enumerate}
    \vspace*{0.3cm} Suppose now that $|P \cap A^*| = 1$, and let
    $P \cap A^* = \{p\}$.  We may assume that $p$ stabs all four
    disks $A$, $A_1$, $A_2$, $A_3$, since otherwise a disk would stay
    unstabbed. By property (iii), we can derive $p \not\in \{\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3\}$.
    Now, since $p\in A \setminus \{\xi_1, \xi_2, \xi_3\}$, the point $p$ does
    not stab any of $D_1$, $D_2$, $D_3$. Moreover, by property (ii),
    the point $p$ can only stab at most one of the remaining halfplanes.
    Since $\{D_1, D_2, D_3\}$ is
    non-Helly, it requires two stabbing points. Moreover, since
    $|P \setminus \{p\}| = 2$, it must be the case that one point $q$ of
    $P \setminus A^*$ is the point of tangency of two of these disks,
    say $q = D_2 \cap D_3$.  Then, $q$ stabs only two of the six
    halfplanes, say, $T_1^-$ and $T_1^+$. But then,
    $\{ D_1, T_2^+, T_3^- \}$ is non-Helly and does not contain any
    point from $\{p, q\}$. At least one disk remains unstabbed.
\end{proof}

\section{Conclusion}

We gave a simple linear-time algorithm to find five stabbing points
for a set of pairwise intersecting disks in the plane.
It is still not known
whether nine disks can always be stabbed by three points or not (for eight
disks, this is the case~\cite{Stacho65}). Furthermore, it would be
interesting to find a simpler construction of
ten pairwise intersecting disks that cannot be stabbed by three
points. The example by Danzer is not easy to draw,
even with the help of geometry processing
software.

\bibliographystyle{abbrv}


Conditionally decomposable polytopes

Abstract: It is possible for a combinatorial type of polytope to have both decomposable and indecomposable realizations; here decomposability is meant with respect to Minkowski addition. Such polytopes are called conditionally decomposable. We show that the minimum number of vertices of a conditionally decomposable polytope is in the range $[3d-3, 4d-4]$, and that for a polytope having a line segment for a summand, $4d-4$ is sharp. In dimension 4, the minimum number of facets of a conditionally decomposable polytope is 9, and in dimension $d\ge 5$, the minimum is $d+4$.

\section{Introduction}

The existence of conditionally decomposable polytopes has only been well studied in $3$-dimensions.
In $2$-dimensions, no such examples exist: line segments and triangles are indecomposable and all other polygons are decomposable. In higher dimensions, no examples of conditionally decomposable polytopes had been found until now.
In this paper, we give explicit examples of conditionally decomposable $d$-polytopes, for  all dimensions $d \ge 4$.

A polytope is the convex hull of finite number of points in Euclidean space.
Recall that a polytope $P$ is decomposable if it can be written as the Minkowski sum of two polytopes,
i.e. $P=Q+R=\{q+r: q \in Q, r \in R \}$, where $Q, R$ are not homothetic to $P$. The set of all faces of a polytope is a  lattice with respect to inclusion. We say that two polytopes are combinatorially equivalent if there is an isomorphism between their face lattices.
It has long been known, at least in three dimensions, that the combinatorial structure of a polytope does not determine its decomposability.
Thus it is natural to call a polytope  {\it combinatorially decomposable}
if every polytope combinatorially equivalent to it is decomposable, {\it combinatorially indecomposable} if every polytope combinatorially equivalent to it is indecomposable, and {\it conditionally decomposable} if one polytope combinatorially equivalent to it is decomposable
and another one combinatorially equivalent to it is indecomposable. The concept of decomposability of polytopes was introduced by Gale (with a different  name);
Shephard \cite{Shephard1963}  made perhaps the first serious study of it.

The first conditionally decomposable polytope seems to be in the thesis of Meyer \cite{Meyerthesis}, the cuboctahedron, which has 12 vertices and 14 faces. If $T$ denotes a tetrahedron in $\mathbb{R}^3$, then the difference set $T-T=\{x-y:x\in T, y\in T\}$ is easily checked to be a cuboctahedron.  Meyer showed \cite[Section 3.1]{Meyerthesis} that it is combinatorially equivalent to an indecomposable polyhedron. He did this by proving that any polyhedron combinatorially equivalent to the cuboctahedron is indecomposable, if one of its quadrilateral faces is not a trapezium, and three of the quadrilateral faces which touch it are parallelograms, and then exhibiting one example with this property.

Kallay \cite{Kallay1982} gave another example with only $12$ faces and 10 vertices, the sum of a bi-pyramid over a square and a line segment. By tilting  the side faces slightly, he obtained an indecomposable polytope  combinatorially equivalent to it. Smilansky \cite{Smilanskythesis}  made the most detailed study of conditionally decomposable polytopes, establishing  the existence of conditionally decomposable $3$-polytopes with $V$  vertices and $F$  facets whenever
$V \le F \le 2V-8$, and showing that these are the only values opf $F$ and $V$ for which conditionally decomposable $3$-polytopes exist. It is then easy to see that for $3$-polytopes, the conditionally decomposable polytopes with $8$ vertices (and $8$ facets) are the ones with the minimum number of vertices. Smilansky effectively gave two conditionally decomposable examples with $V=F=8$; these turn out to be the examples numbered 282 and 288 in the earlier catalogue due to Federico \cite{Federico1975}, of all $3$-polytopes with $4$ to $8$ faces. These two examples were rediscovered in \cite{Przeslawski-Yost-2008} and  \cite{Yost2007}.  We generalize  these two examples into $d$-polytopes with $d\ge4$.
There is exactly one other conditionally decomposable example with $d=3$ and $V=F=8$: the gyrobifastigium, numbered 287 in Federico's catalogue \cite[Proposition 2.10]{Yost2007}.

To continue, we need some sufficent conditions for the indecomposability of polytopes. Rather than give a detailed account, we just summarize the results which we need.
Kallay \cite{Kallay1982} defined a  geometric graph as any graph whose vertices lie in some Euclidean space, and whose edges are some of the segments between them. This includes the edge  graph, i.e. the $1$-skeleton, of any polytope. He then generalized to such graphs the notion of decomposability of  polytopes. This generalisation is consistent, i.e. a polytope $P$ is indecomposable if and only if its $1$-skeleton $G(P)$ is indecomposable \cite[Corollary 5]{Kallay1982}. By strongly connected triangular chain, we mean a sequence of triangles $T_1,\cdots,T_n$ such that $T_i\cap T_{i+1}$ is an edge for each $i$. By triangle in a geometric graph, we mean three vertices, each pair of which determines an edge of the graph; in the graph of a polytope, this may be, but need not be, a triangular face.  For more information on the decomposability of polytopes, we refer to \cite{Schneider} and \cite{Grunbaum2003}. The following omnibus result combines work from \cite{Shephard1963}, \cite{Kallay1982}, \cite{Przeslawski-Yost-2008}, \cite{Przeslawski-Yost-2016}, \cite{Yost2007}, \cite{Yost1991}.

\begin{theorem}\label{theorem-indecomposable}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose a geometric graph $G$ contains a strongly connected triangular chain, whose union contains every vertex of $G$. Then $G$ is indecomposable.

\item The graph of any $d$-polytope with strictly fewer than $2d$ vertices contains  a strongly connected triangular chain, whose union touches every facet.

\item If the graph of a $d$-polytope $P$ contains an indecomposable subgraph, whose union touches every facet, then $P$ is indecomposable.

\item Let $C$ be the disjoint union of indecomposable geometric graphs $A$ and $B$, and suppose there are disjoint edges $[a_1, b_1]$, $[a_2, b_2]$ with $a_i \in A$, $b_i \in B$, $i=1,2$.
	If the lines $\emph{aff}(a_1, b_1)$ and $\emph{aff}(a_2, b_2)$ are skew then $C$ is indecomposable.

\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\section{Constructions}

Using Kallay's result, that skew lines  connecting two indecomposable subgraphs makes the union of the subgraphs indecomposable, we present our first construction.

\begin{example} For each $d\ge3$, there is a conditionally decomposable $d$-polytope with $4d-4$ vertices.
\end{example}

\begin{proof} Let $P$ be the polytope whose $4d-4$ vertices have the following coordinates:

\begin{equation*}
 \begin{aligned}
   & A_i=e_i,  \text{ for } i = 1, \dots, d-3, \text{ where } e_i \text{ is the usual unit vector in } \mathbb{R}^d, \\
   & A_{d-2}=(0,\dots,0), \text{ the origin}, \\
   & B_i=A_i+(0, \dots, 0,1,0,0), \text{ for } i= 1, \dots, d-2, \\
   & C_i=A_i+(0, \dots, 0,0,3,0), \text{ for } i= 1, \dots, d-2, \\
   & D_i=A_i+(0, \dots, 0,1,3,0), \text{ for } i= 1, \dots, d-2, \\
   & A=(0, \dots, 0,0,1,1), \\
   & B=(0, \dots, 0,1,0,1), \\
   & C=(0, \dots, 0,0,2,1), \\
   & D=(0, \dots, 0,1,3,1).
 \end{aligned}
\end{equation*}

Then $P$ is a $d$-polytope that has a line segment for a summand (in the direction of $e_{d-1}$), so $P$ is decomposable. Since two polytopes are combinatorially equivalent if and only if there is a one-one correspondence between their vertices and facets,  which preserves the inclusion relation, we first list the following facets:

\begin{equation*}
 \begin{aligned}
   & \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i, D_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_d=0, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i, D_i, A, B, C, D: 1\le i\le d-2, i\ne j  \} \text{ for each } j\in\{1,\dots,d-3\}, \\
   & \hskip1cm \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_j=0, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i, D_i, A, B, C, D: 1\le i\le d-3 \}  \\
   &  \hskip1cm \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_1+\dots+x_{d-3}+x_d=1, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ A_i, C_i, A, C: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-2}=0, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ B_i, D_i, B, D: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-2}=1, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ C_i, C, D: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } -x_{d-2}+x_{d-1}+x_d=3, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ A_i, A, B: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-2}+x_{d-1}-x_d=0, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ C_i, D_i, D: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-1}=3, \\
   & \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, B: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-1}=0.
 \end{aligned}
\end{equation*}

To show that there are no other facets, we first denote the first listed facet by $\Delta$, and notice that it has the form $\Delta(1,1,d-3)$, which is the sum of a $(d-3)$-simplex and a square. Furthermore $P$ is the convex hull of  this facet and four additional vertices $A, B, C, D$. Note also that $A, C$ are not adjacent to $B_i, D_i$, and $B$ is not adjacent to $C_i$, and $D$ is not adjacent to $A_i$, since those line segments are not exposed.

Let $H$ denote the hyperplane $\{x \in \mathbb{R}^d: x_{d-1}=\frac{3}{2} \}$. Then $P \cap H$ is a cross section that separates the vertices of $P$ into two parts $\{ A, A_i, B, B_i \}$ and $\{ C, C_i, D, D_i \}$, and is in fact a $(d-1)$-prism based on a $(d-2)$-simplex. This suggests that the number of side facets (i.e. facets which intersect with $H$) of $P$ is $d+1$, because there is a one-one correspondence between facets of $P \cap H$ and the side facets of $P$. To show that there are no other upper and lower facets (i.e. facets contained in one of the half spaces whose boundary is $H$), we use the fact that a facet  of $P$ must be of the form $\text{conv} \{ F_1 \cup F_2  \}$, where $F_1$ is a face of $\Delta$, and $F_2 \subseteq \{ A,B,C,D \}$. In terms of its upper facets, the only possible faces of $\Delta(1,1,d-3)$ to constitute part of a facet of P are its $(d-2)$-faces: $\text{conv} \{C_i, D_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$, and $(d-3)$-faces: $\text{conv} \{C_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$, $\text{conv} \{D_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$, $\text{conv} \{C_i, D_i: \text{except one index} \}$. Since a facet of $P$ has dimension $d-1$, and $C$ is not adjacent to $D_i$, the only possible upper facets are those shown before. Similarly, we can show that the only possible lower facets are those shown before.

To obtain $P'$, we perturb $C$ and $C_i$ slightly. Replace $C_i$ with $C_{i}'=A_i+(0,\dots,0,\frac{3 \varepsilon}{\varepsilon -1},3,0)$, $i=1, \dots, d-2$, replace $C$ with $C'=(0,\dots,0,- \varepsilon , 2-\varepsilon, 1)$, and retain the rest of the vertices, where $\varepsilon > 0$ is small. It is routine to check that the corresponding sets in $P'$ of facets of $P$ are still facets, and again we list the facets and calculate their supporting hyperplanes:

\begin{equation*}
\begin{aligned}
& \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i', D_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_d=0, \\
& \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i', D_i, A, B, C', D: 1\le i\le d-2, i\ne j  \} \text{ for each } j\in\{1,\dots,d-3\}, \\
&  \hskip1cm \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_j=0, \\
& \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i', D_i, A, B, C', D: 1\le i\le d-3 \},  \\
& \hskip1cm \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_1+\dots+x_{d-3}+x_d=1, \\
& \text{conv} \{ A_i, C_i', A, C': 1\le i\le d-2 \}, \\
& \hskip1cm \text{ with supporting hyperplane } \frac{\varepsilon -1}{\varepsilon}x_{d-2}-x_{d-1}+x_{d}=0, \\
& \text{conv} \{ B_i, D_i, B, D: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-2}=1, \\
& \text{conv} \{ C_i', C', D: 1\le i\le d-2 \},  \\
&  \hskip1cm \text{ with supporting hyperplane } (\varepsilon -1)x_{d-2}+(1-\varepsilon)x_{d-1}+(2 \varepsilon +1)x_d=3, \\
& \text{conv} \{ A_i, A, B: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-2}+x_{d-1}-x_d=0, \\
& \text{conv} \{ C_i', D_i, D: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-1}=3, \\
& \text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, B: 1\le i\le d-2 \} \text{ with supporting hyperplane } x_{d-1}=0.
\end{aligned}
\end{equation*}

Among the facets of $P$, $\Delta$ corresponds in  $P'$ to $\Delta'$, which is the Minkowski sum of $\text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$ and $\text{conv} \{ A_{d-2}, C_{d-2}'  \}$, and it is not difficult to see that it is also combinatorially equivalent to $\Delta$. So, to know the $1$-skeleton of $P'$, we just need to know the adjacency relations between $\{ A, B, C', D \}$ and $\Delta'$. Now
$C'$ and $B_i$ are not adjacent because
$\frac{1}{2}B_i + \frac{1}{2}C' = \frac{2+\varepsilon}{6}B_i + \frac{1}{2}A + \frac{(1-\varepsilon)^2}{6(1+2\varepsilon)}D_i + \frac{\varepsilon(1-\varepsilon)}{2(1+2\varepsilon)}C_i'$,
$C'$ and $D_i$ are not adjacent because
$\frac{1}{2}D_i + \frac{1}{2}C' = \frac{1+\varepsilon}{6}A_i + \frac{1-\varepsilon^2}{3(1+2\varepsilon)}C_i' + \frac{\varepsilon}{2(1+2\varepsilon)}D_i + \frac{1}{2}D$,
$B$ and $C_i'$ are not adjacent because
$\frac{1}{2}B+\frac{1}{2}C_i' = \frac{2-5\varepsilon}{4(1-\varepsilon)}A_i+ \frac{9\varepsilon}{4(1-\varepsilon^2)}C_i' + \frac{2-2\varepsilon^2-9\varepsilon}{4(1-\varepsilon^2)}D+ \frac{3\varepsilon}{4(1-\varepsilon)}D_i$, as those edges are not exposed. Since $P \subset P'$, and the line segments $AB_i$, $AD_i$, $DA_i$ are not exposed in $P$, they are also not exposed in $P'$. Also $A_i,C'$ are still not adjacent since all $A_iC_{i}'$ are parallel to $AC'$, meaning that for each $i$, $\text{conv} \{A_i,C_{i}',A,C' \}$ is still a planar quadrilateral.

Taking a cross section $P' \cap H$, one can show that it is a simple $(d-1)$-polytope with the same edge graph as a prism based on a $(d-2)$-simplex, so $P' \cap H$ is combinatorially equivalent to a prism based on a $(d-2)$-simplex \cite{Blind-Levitska}. This means there are no other side facets. Similarly, one can show that there are no other upper and lower facets of $P'$. And finally, we conclude that $P'$ is combinatorially equivalent to $P$.

Notice that $\text{conv}\{ C',C_i',D: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$ is a $(d-1)$-simplex which is a facet of $P'$, and $\text{conv} \{ D,D_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$ is a $(d-2)$-simplex which is a facet of $\text{conv} \{ D, D_i, B, B_i: 1\le i\le d-2 \}$ that is a facet of $P'$, so those corresponding edges are still edges of $P'$. Therefore, the upper subgraph of $P'$ is indecomposable since it has a strongly connected triangular chain, and likewise so is the lower subgraph of $P'$. As the line containing $A_{d-2} C_{d-2}'$ (and in fact, every index) and the line containing $BD$ are skew, by Theorem \ref{theorem-indecomposable}, $P'$ is an indecomposable polytope. We conclude that $P$ is a conditionally decomposable polytope.

\end{proof}

\begin{remark}

   Gluing a proper $d$-simplex over one of the $(d-1)$-simplex facets of $P$ and correspondingly over one of the $(d-1)$-simplex facets of $P'$ gives the existence of conditionally decomposable polytope with one more vertex (and $d-1$ more facets), see \cite[Proposition 6]{Przeslawski-Yost-2016}. After gluing a proper $d$-simplex over a $(d-1)$-simplex facet, these new polytopes still have facets that are $(d-1)$-simplexes, without changing its decomposability, we follow this process indefinitely, which gives the existence of conditionally decomposable polytopes with more than $4d-4$ vertices, of which one of the $3$-faces is the graph numbered 282 of Federico's list \cite{Federico1975}.

\end{remark}

\begin{remark}[Another example]

   Taking the same base facet $\Delta=\text{conv} \{ A_i, B_i, C_i, D_i: 1\le i\le d-2  \}$ as before,  we now add four different vertices

   \begin{equation*}
    \begin{aligned}
       & \bar{A}=(0,\dots,0,0,-1,1), \\
       & \bar{B}=(0,\dots,0,1,0,1), \\
       & \bar{C}=(0,\dots,0,0,2,1), \\
       & \bar{D}=(0,\dots,0,1,3,1).
    \end{aligned}
   \end{equation*}
   Then one can show that $\bar{P}=\text{conv}\{ \Delta, \bar{A},\bar{B},\bar{C},\bar{D} \}$ is a $d$-polytope with $4d-4$ vertices, $d+5$ facets, and $\bar{P}$ is the sum of a line segment and a $2$-fold pyramid.

   To generate another polytope that is combinatorially equivalent to $\bar{P}$ but indecomposable, we perturb $\bar{C}$ with $\bar{C}'=(0,\dots,0, -\varepsilon, 2-\varepsilon, 1)$, perturb $\bar{C}_{i}$ with $\bar{C}_{i}'=A_i+(0,\dots,0,\frac{3\varepsilon}{\varepsilon -3},3,0)$, $i=1,\dots,d-2$, where $\varepsilon >0$ is pretty small, and retain the rest of the vertices of $\bar{P}$, then we obtain $\bar{P}'$. By the very similar approach, one can show that $\bar{P}'$ is combinatorially equivalent to $\bar{P}$ but indecomposable. By gluing a proper $d$-simplex over one simplex facets of $\bar{P}$ and $\bar{P}'$, respectively, we obtain another construction of conditionally decomposable polytope with $4d-4$ or more vertices,  of which one of the $3$-faces is the graph numbered 288 of Federico's list.

\end{remark}

\begin{remark}

   It is also possible to construct a conditionally decomposable $d$-polytope that inherits directly from Kallay's example with $4d-2$ vertices. Start with a $d$-dimensional $\Delta(1,1,d-2)$, say $Q$, with vertices

   \begin{equation*}
     \begin{aligned}
      & A_i=e_i, i=1,\dots, d-2, \\
      & A_{d-1}=(0,\dots,0), \text{ the origin}, \\
      & B_i=A_i+(0,\dots,0,1,0), i=1,\dots, d-1, \\
      & C_i=A_i+(0,\dots,0,0,3), i=1,\dots, d-1, \\
      & D_i=A_i+(0,\dots,0,1,3), i=1,\dots, d-1.
     \end{aligned}
   \end{equation*}

This time we perturb $Q$ first, replace $C_i$ with $C_{i}'=A_i+(0,\dots,0,-\varepsilon,3), i=1,\dots,d-1$, retain the rest of vertices and we obtain $Q'$ that is combinatorially equivalent to $Q$ but with skew lines. Stacking an appropriate pyramid over facets of $Q$, $\text{conv} \{C_i, D_i: i=1,\dots, d-1 \}$ and $\text{conv} \{A_i, B_i: i=1,\dots, d-1 \}$, respectively and also an appropriate pyramid over facets of $Q'$, $\text{conv} \{C_{i}', D_i: i=1,\dots, d-1 \}$ and $\text{conv} \{A_i, B_i: i=1,\dots, d-1 \}$, respectively. Since the geometric graph of a pyramid is indecomposable, we obtain one polytope decomposable and another one indecomposable but with the same face lattice, by \cite[Proposition 6]{Przeslawski-Yost-2016}. This also shows another construction of conditionally decomposable polytopes with more than $4d-2$ vertices.

\end{remark}

Figure 1 gives the sketch of those examples when $d=4$.

\begin{figure}[H]
  \begin{tabular}{ccc}
		\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{P_1.png} &
		\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{P_2.png}&
		\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{P_0.png}\\
		(1) $P$  & (2) $\bar{P}$  &  (3) $4d-2$ vertices

  \end{tabular}
	\caption{$4$-dimensional examples}
\end{figure}

A sharp bound that a $d$-polytope with no more than $2d-1$ vertices has a strongly connected triangular chain \cite[Lemma 5]{Yost1991} suggests that our construction is among the best possible examples for a conditionally decomposable polytope that has a line segment for a summand, in terms of the minimum number of vertices.

Notice first that the sum of a polytope and a line segment of different length are combinatorially equivalent, which allows us to partition vertices into two parts without changing the combinatorial structure.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma1}
	Let $P$ be a $d$-polytope, $[0,a]$ be a line segment. Then $P_1=P+[0,a]$ and $P_2=P+[0,ka]$ are combinatorially equivalent, $k>0$.
\end{lemma}

 \begin{proof}

 	We first show that there is a one-one correspondence between $V(P_1)$ and $V(P_2)$.
 	Let $v \in V(P_1)$. Then

 	1) $v \in V(Q)$. Then there exists a hyperplane $H_v=\{ x: \alpha \cdot x =c  \}$ such that

 	\begin{equation*}
    	\begin{aligned}
 	        \left \{
 	        \begin{split}
 	      \begin{array}{lc}
 	      \alpha \cdot v = c,    &                          \\
 	      \alpha \cdot (v+a) > c,& \text{ \quad  which implies }   \\
 	      \alpha \cdot q > c,    &                          \\
 	      \alpha \cdot (q+a) > c,&
 	      \end{array}
 	     \end{split}  \right.
    \left \{
    \begin{split}
      \begin{array}{l}
         \alpha \cdot v = c,           \\
         \alpha \cdot (v+ka) = \alpha \cdot v + k\alpha \cdot a = c+k\alpha \cdot a >c,       \\
         \alpha \cdot q > c,           \\
         \alpha \cdot (q+ka) = \alpha \cdot q + k\alpha \cdot a > c+\alpha \cdot a >c,
         \end{array}
    \end{split}  \right.

 	\end{aligned}
 	\end{equation*}
  	where $q \in V(Q)$, $q \neq v$. So $H_v$ is also a supporting hyperplane of $P_1$ at $v$, i.e. $v$ is also a vertex of $P_2$.

 	2) $v \in V(Q)+a$. Then there exist $q_v \in V(Q)$ such that $v=q_v+a$. Similarly, there exists a hyperplane $H_v=\{ x: \alpha \cdot x =c  \}$ such that

 		\begin{equation*}
 		\begin{aligned}
 		\left \{
 		\begin{split}
 		\begin{array}{lc}
 		\alpha \cdot (q_v + a) = c,    &                          \\
 		\alpha \cdot q_v > c,& \text{ \quad which implies }           \\
 		\alpha \cdot q > c,    &                                \\
 		\alpha \cdot (q+a) > c,&
 		\end{array}
 		\end{split}  \right.
 		\left \{
 		\begin{split}
 		\begin{array}{l}
 		\alpha \cdot (q_v+ka) = c + (k-1) \alpha \cdot a,           \\
 		\alpha \cdot q_v = c-\alpha \cdot a > c + (k-1) \alpha \cdot a,       \\
 		\alpha \cdot q >  c-\alpha \cdot a > c + (k-1) \alpha \cdot a,           \\
 		\alpha \cdot (q+ka) > c + (k-1) \alpha \cdot a,
 		\end{array}
 		\end{split}  \right.

 		\end{aligned}
 		\end{equation*}
 	where $q \in V(Q)$, $q \neq q_v$. This suggests $H_{v}'=\{ x: \alpha \cdot (q_v+ka) = c + (k-1) \alpha \cdot a   \}$ is a supporting hyperplane of $P_2$ at $v'=q_v+ka$, a vertex of $P_2$.

 	Conversely, let $v \in V(P_2)$. Then $v \in V(Q)$ or $v \in V(Q)+ka$. By the same approach, one can show that for every vertex of $P_2$, there is a corresponding vertex of $P_1$. So there is a one-one correspondence between $V(P_1)$ and $V(P_2)$.

 	Let $F$ be a facet of $P_1$, then $F=F_1+F_2$, where $F_1$ is a face of $Q$, and $F_2$ is a face of $[0,a]$. Denote $Q=\text{conv} \{  q_i: i \in I  \}$. If $F_2$ is the origin, then $F=\text{conv} \{ q_i: i \in I_1   \}$ for some index set $I_1 \subset I$ such that

 	\begin{equation*}
 	\begin{aligned}
 	\left \{
 	\begin{split}
 	\begin{array}{l}
 	\alpha \cdot q_i = c,       i \in I_1,                          \\
 	\alpha \cdot q_i > c,       i \in I\setminus I_1,   \text{\quad  which implies}         \\
 	\alpha \cdot (q_i+a)> c,    i \in I.
 	\end{array}
 	\end{split}  \right.
 	\left \{
 	\begin{split}
 	\begin{array}{l}
 	\alpha \cdot q_i = c,       i \in I_1,                          \\
 	\alpha \cdot q_i > c,       i \in I\setminus I_1,               \\
 	\alpha \cdot (q_i+ka)= \alpha \cdot q_i + k \alpha \cdot a > c,    i \in I.
 	\end{array}
 	\end{split}  \right.
 	\end{aligned}
 	\end{equation*}
 	So, $F'=F$ is also a facet of $P_2$. Similarly, one can show that if $F_2=a$, $F=\text{conv}\{q_i+a: i\in I_2 \subset I \}$, then $F'=\text{conv}\{q_i+ka: i\in I_2 \}$ is a facet of $P_2$, and if $F_2=[0,a]$, $F=\text{conv}\{ q_i,q_i+a: i\in I_3 \subset I \}$, then $F'=\text{conv}\{ q_i, q_i+ka: i\in I_3 \}$ is a facet of $P_2$. One can also show that for a facet of the form $\text{conv}\{ q_j: j \in J_1 \subset I  \}$ of $P_2$, $\text{conv}\{ q_j: j \in J_1 \}$ is a facet of $P_1$, for a facet of the form $\text{conv}\{ q_j+ka: j \in J_2 \subset I  \}$ of $P_2$, $\text{conv}\{ q_j+a: j \in J_2 \}$ is a facet of $P_1$, and for a facet of the form $\text{conv}\{ q_j, q_j+ka: j \in J_3 \subset I  \}$ of $P_2$, $\text{conv}\{ q_j, q_j+a: j \in J_3 \}$ is a facet of $P_1$.

 	Therefore, there is a one-one correspondence between vertices and facets of $P_1$ and $P_2$, of which the inclusion holds, so, $P_1$ and $P_2$ are combinatorially equivalent.

 \end{proof}

The main theorem then follows rather straightforwardly.

\begin{theorem}

Let $P$ be a $d$-polytope with no more than $4d-5$ vertices that has a line segment for a summand. Then $P$ is combinatorially decomposable.

\end{theorem}

 \begin{proof}
    Since the decomposability of a polytope is translation and rotation invariant, we can assume that $P$ has $[0,a]$ for a summand. By Lemma \ref{lemma1} we can partition vertices of $P$ into two sets $A$ and $B$ such that for each vertex in $A$, there is at most one vertex in $B$ that is adjacent to it. Take two parallel hyperplanes $H_1$, $H_2$ such that they both separate $A$ and $B$. Let $C_1= P \cap H_1$, $C_2=P\cap H_2$. Then $C_1$ and $C_2$ are $(d-1)$-polytopes with the same number of vertices. We can label the vertices of  $C_1$ (respectively  $C_2$) as $\{v_i: i \in I \}$ (respectively $\{v_{i}': i \in I \}$) in such a way that [$v_i$, $v_{i}'$] is parallel to $[0,a]$, for each $i \in I$.

    Let $F_1=\text{conv} \{ v_i: i \in I_1 \subset I  \}$ be a facet of $C_1$, then there is a unique facet $F$ of $P$ such that $F_1=F \cap H_1$. Then $F_2:=F \cap H_2=\text{conv} \{  v_{i}': i \in I_1 \}$ is a corresponding facet of $C_2$, and vice versa. It follows that $C_1$ and $C_2$ are combinatorially equivalent.

    Since at least one of $A,B$ has no more than $2d-3$ vertices, the same holds for the $(d-1)$-polytopes $C_1$ and $C_2$. So there exists a strongly connected triangular chain in both $C_1$ and $C_2$, and that the corresponding pair of each of these triangles $\text{conv}\{ v_{i_1}, v_{i_2}, v_{i_3} \}$, $\text{conv}\{ v_{i_1}', v_{i_2}', v_{i_3}' \}$, is part of a $3$-face of $P$. So, the line $l_{i_1}$ containing $v_{i_1}, v_{i_1}'$, the line $l_{i_2}$ containing $v_{i_2}, v_{i_2}'$ and the line $l_{i_3}$ containing $v_{i_3}, v_{i_3}'$ are pairwise coplanar. And this is also the case for any polytope that is combinatorially equivalent to $P$, since those lines contains a $1$-face. Also, in the strongly connected triangular chain, two consecutive triangles share a common edge, so correspondingly two consecutive $3$-faces of $P$ (that cross $C_1$ and $C_2$) have two common lines which are coplanar. Note that $l_{i_1},l_{i_2},l_{i_3}$ are either all parallel or concurrent. So all these lines are either all parallel or concurrent, where the concurrent point does not belong to $P$. In the latter case, by taking a suitable projective transformation through the concurrent point without intersecting with $P$, we obtain a $d$-polytope combinatorially equivalent to $P$ with all such those edges are parallel. Since the decomposability of a polytope is projective invariant \cite{Kallay1984}, it then suffices to see that by defining one side of the vertices along the direction of those parallel edges gives the combinatorial decomposability of $P$.

 \end{proof}

However, whether there is a higher dimensional example of which one of the $3$-faces is the graph numbered 287 of Federico's list is still a mystery.

Deciding the existence of higher dimensional conditionally decomposable polytopes with triangles for summands may be the next line of investigation.

Conditionally decomposable polytopes