Moser's Shadow Problem

Abstract: Moser's shadow problem asks to estimate the shadow function $\mathfrak{s}_b(n)$, which is the largest number such that for each bounded convex polyhedron $P$ with $n$ vertices in $3$-space there is some direction ${\bf v}$ (depending on $P$) such that, when illuminated by parallel light rays from infinity in direction ${\bf v}$, the polyhedron casts a shadow having at least $\mathfrak{s}_b(n)$ vertices. A general version of the problem allows unbounded polyhedra as well, and has associated shadow function $\mathfrak{s}_u(n)$. This paper presents correct order of magnitude asymptotic bounds on these functions. The bounded case has answer $\mathfrak{s}_b(n) = \Theta \big( \log (n)/ (\log(\log (n))\big$. The unbounded shadow problem is shown to have the different asymptotic growth rate $\mathfrak{s}_u(n) = \Theta \big(1\big)$. Results on the bounded shadow problem follow from 1989 work of Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas on the (bounded) silhouette span number $\mathfrak{s}_b^{\ast}(n)$, defined analogously but with arbitrary light sources. We complete the picture by showing that the unbounded silhouette span number $\mathfrak{s}_u^{\ast}(n)$ grows as $\Theta \big( \log (n)/ (\log(\log (n))\big)$.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec1c}
 This paper treats  a problem
raised in 1966  in  an influential list of problems\footnote{In Problems \ref{main-prob} and \ref{main-prob2}
below we have changed the original notation $f$  to ${\mathfrak{s}}$.}  in combinatorial geometry
made  by  Leo Moser  (\cite[Problem 35]{Mo66}), later  reprinted in 1991 (\cite{M91}).

\begin{prob}
\label{main-prob}
Estimate the largest ${\mathfrak{s}}={\mathfrak{s}}(n)$ such that every convex polyhedron of $n$ vertices has an orthogonal projection
onto the plane with ${\mathfrak{s}}(n)$ vertices on the `outside'.
\end{prob}

This problem addresses a  fundamental question about the
nature of convex $3$-dimensional polyhedra, which is
to  determine   restrictions that  the convexity property
imposes on the parts of its boundary visible under   orthogonal projections.
It  has been called the  Moser Shadow Problem (\cite[p. 140]{CEG89}, \cite[Problem B10]{CFG91}).

A nearly equivalent  problem
was  formulated  in a 1968 paper
 of G. C. Shephard \cite[Problem VIII]{Sh68b}.

\begin{prob}
\label{main-prob2}
 Find a function ${\mathfrak{s}}(v)$ such that every convex polyhedron with $v$ vertices possesses a projection which is an
$n$-gon with $n \ge {\mathfrak{s}}(v)$.
\end{prob}

In Shephard's version of the problem
 ``projection" refers to  the shadow cast by the polygon
by parallel light rays from a light source at  infinity, but viewed
on a two-dimensional screen which is oblique to the direction of the rays
and ``behind" the polyhedron;. The angle of
obliqueness of the screen to the rays of
the projection does not affect the number of vertices of the polygonal projection,
so it suffices to consider orthogonal projection,
as in Moser's formulation.

Moser's  shadow problem can be formulated in  two variants, depending on whether or not unbounded
 polyhedra are allowed. Moser's original problem
 does not  explicitly specify whether polyhedra are required to  be bounded;
 however we believe that he  had bounded polyhedra  in mind.
  Shephard's version of the problem   (\cite{Sh68a}, \cite{Sh68b})  restricts to bounded polyhedra
since  he treats polyhedra that are the convex hull of a finite set of points.
The unbounded version of the shadow problem
seems of interest whether or not it is included in the original formulation,
 because  polyhedra  defined as  intersections of half-spaces naturally arise
 in linear programming, and certain linear programming algorithms
 have an interpretation in terms of shadows.
  Unbounded convex polyhedra cast  shadows which are
unbounded polygons,
and their shadows  in some directions may  fill the entire plane.

 To distinguish the bounded case from the general (unbounded) case
 we let ${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n)$ denote the minimal value over bounded polyhedra,
and let ${\mathfrak{s}}_u(n)$ denote the minimal value allowing unbounded polyhedra as well.
A priori we have  ${\mathfrak{s}}_u(n) \le {\mathfrak{s}}_b(n)$.

\subsection{Results}\label{sec11}

 This paper  proves results
 which resolve the problem in the bounded case and general case.
 The first object of this paper is to put  on  the record a
 solution in  the bounded polyhedron case.

\begin{theorem}\label{main-thm1}
 {\rm (Chazelle-Edelsbrunner-Guibas)}
The bounded $n$-vertex shadow number  ${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n)$ for $3$-dimensional polytopes satisfies
\begin{equation*}
                                                   {\mathfrak{s}}_b(n) = \Theta(\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

This result follows from the work of  Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas \cite{CEG89}
but was not stated as a set off theorem in their paper;
 we discuss the details in Section \ref{sec41}.
Their paper focuses  on a closely related problem, the {\em silhouette span problem} for bounded polyhedra,
described in Section \ref{sec3}, which is a variant of the shadow problem that allows more freedom
to the light source.
The upper bound for shadow number follows directly from their upper bound
for the Silhouette Span problem for bounded polyhedra. Another one of   their results (Lemma 5.1 of \cite{CEG89}) implies
a matching lower bound for the Moser shadow problem in the bounded polyhedron case.
This lemma is stated in a polar dual form for an unnamed function $c_d^{\ast}(n)$ and \cite{CEG89} does not
point out its consequences for the shadow problem.
We are indebted to  Arnau Padrol  for bringing  the latter  fact to our attention.

In this paper we present a proof of Theorem \ref{main-thm1} in its original (non-polar) form using a
modified argument  based on spherical geometry;  in  it essence it is using the same idea as  \cite{CEG89}.

The second object of this paper is to resolve the shadow problem
in the unbounded case.

\begin{theorem}\label{main-thm2}
The unbounded $n$-vertex shadow number  ${\mathfrak{s}}_u(n)$ for $3$-dimensional polyhedra satisfies
\begin{equation*}
                                                   {\mathfrak{s}}_u(n) = \Theta(1).
\end{equation*}
 In fact ${\mathfrak{s}}_u(n) \le 5$.
\end{theorem}

The  difference in growth rates between the unbounded and bounded cases arises  from
 the possible failure  of a convexity condition in the unbounded case,
 after a reduction of the problem to a two-dimensional subproblem, see Sect. \ref{sec42}.
 A surprising feature is that this difference is visible using spherical geometry,
 although  the  problem itself is one of Euclidean geometry.
  This failure of convexity  does not by itself  produce a better upper bound,
 but it establishes where to look
 to find better examples  in the unbounded case;
 our proof of Theorem \ref{main-thm2} is based on a construction.

 Finally we formulate in Section \ref{sec34} a silhouette span problem for unbounded polyhedra.
 We leave determination of the growth rate of the associated function
 ${\mathfrak{s}}_u^{\star}(n)$  as an open problem.

\subsection{Plan of the Paper}\label{sec13}

Section \ref{sec2} formulates definitions and
discusses variants of the main results for
different combinatorial measures of the size of a polytope.
Section \ref{sec3} reviews the silhouette span
problem for bounded polyhedra of Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas \cite{CEG89}
and its solution; it defines a silhouette span problem to unbounded polyhedra.
Section \ref{sec4}  outlines methods
 to obtain a good lower bound
for the shadow number function and fills in
details in the lower bound proof in \cite{CEG89}.
Section \ref{sec5}  relates the shadow number to
a special case of the spherical image problem, and
 Section \ref{sec6}  further reduces the problem to
a stabbing number problem.
Section \ref{sec7} completes this paper's proof of  Theorem \ref{main-thm1}.
Section \ref{sec8} treats the unbounded case of shadow number,
and proves Theorem \ref{main-thm2}.
The final section of the paper discusses higher
dimensional variants of the shadow problem.
An Appendix includes  for completeness
a relevant proof of Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas.

\section{Shadow Numbers and Combinatorial Size Measures}\label{sec2}

\subsection{Shadow Number}\label{sec21}

We follow the terminology for polytopes
in Ziegler \cite[pp.4--5]{Z95}.
A  {\em polytope} in $\mathbb{R}^d$  is the convex hull of a finite set of
points, so is bounded, while  a {\em polyhedron} in $\mathbb{R}^d$ is a finite intersection of half-spaces,
and may be unbounded.
Both polyhedra and polytopes are automatically  convex, and
the concept of  polytope  is the same as that of    bounded polyhedron.

\begin{defi}\label{de21}

(1) Given  a (bounded or unbounded) polyhedron $P$ in $\mathbb{R}^d$
and a
 $(d-2)$-dimensional subspace $V$, the
shadow  polygon in ``direction" $V$ is the  orthogonal projection  of the polyhedron
onto the subspace $\langle V \rangle^{\perp} \simeq \mathbb{R}^2$.
It is a (bounded or unbounded) polygon.
The {\em shadow number}  ${\mathfrak{s}}(V; P)$  is
the number of vertices in the shadow polygon.
In  the unbounded case  the number of vertices of an (unbounded) shadow polygon will be
be one less than the number of edges.

 (2) The {\em shadow number} or {\em orthogonal projection span}
 ${\mathfrak{s}}(P)$ of the polyhedron $P$ is then  the maximum over all $(d-2)$-subspaces:
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}(P) := \max_{ V \in \mathbb{G}(2, \mathbb{R}^d)}  {\mathfrak{s}}(V; P),
$$
where  $\mathbb{G}(2, \mathbb{R}^d)$ is the real Grassmannian of two-dimensional
subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{defi}

This paper exclusively considers the $3$-dimensional case $\mathbb{R}^3$.
In  the $3$-dimensional case, the $(d-2)$-dimensional subspace $V$ is one-dimensional,
specified by a direction ${\mathbf {v}}$,
and we write
 $V= \mathbb{R}[{\mathbf {v}}]$.
We then denote the shadow number by ${\mathfrak{s}}( {\mathbf {v}}: P)$, allowing
${\mathbf {v}}$ to be  an  oriented direction in $\mathbb{S}^2$, the double cover of $\mathbb{G}(1, \mathbb{R}^3) = \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{R})$, and write
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}(P) := \max_{ {\mathbf {v}} \in \mathbb{S}^2}  s({\mathbf {v}}; P).
$$
We have  ${\mathfrak{s}}({\mathbf {v}}; P)= {\mathfrak{s}}(-{\mathbf {v}}; P).$

We measure the size of a polyhedron $P$ in terms of  its number of vertices $v(P)$, as in Moser's
version of the problem.
We let ${\mathcal P}(n)$ denote the set of all (three-dimensional) polyhedra having exactly $n$ vertices and ${\mathcal P}_b(n)$ the set of all
bounded polyhedra having exactly $n$ vertices.
\begin{defi}\label{de12}
 (1) The {\em $n$-vertex general shadow number} or {\em minimal  orthogonal projection span} ${\mathfrak{s}}(n)$ is:
 \[
 {\mathfrak{s}}_u(n) : = \min_{P \in {\mathcal P}(n)} \{ {\mathfrak{s}}(P):\,\, \mbox{ $P$ has  $n$ vertices; $P$ may be unbounded} \}.
 \]

 (2) The  {\em $n$-vertex bounded shadow number} or {\em minimal bounded orthogonal projection span} ${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n)$ is:
  \[
 {\mathfrak{s}}_b(n) : = \min_{P \in {\mathcal P}_b(n)} \{ s(P):\,\, \mbox{ $P$ has exactly $n$ vertices; $P$ is bounded} \}.
 \]
\end{defi}

\begin{rmk}
(1) The shadow number ${\mathfrak{s}}(P)$ is a Euclidean invariant of a $3$-polyhedron $P$, i.e.
two congruent polyhedra have equal shadow numbers.
In addition,
two $3$-polyhedra $P_1$, $P_2$  which have
(i)  the same combinatorial type, and
(ii)   identical normal directions ${\mathbf {v}}$ to each corresponding face,
 will  necessarily have equal shadow numbers ${\mathfrak{s}}(P_1)= {\mathfrak{s}}(P_2)$,
since they have  identical shadow numbers
 ${\mathfrak{s}}( {\mathbf {v}}; P_1) = {\mathfrak{s}}({\mathbf {v}}; P_2)$ for every direction ${\mathbf {v}}$.
 Here $P_1$, $P_2$ need not be congruent polyhedra.

(2) The  shadow number of a polytope is not a projective invariant, i.e. one
can exhibit  examples of polytopes $P$ and $P'$  that are equivalent under
 a projective transformation in the sense of  \cite[Appendix 2.6]{Z95} which
 have different shadow numbers.
  \end{rmk}

\subsection{Combinatorial size measures of polyhedra and polytopes}\label{sec22}
This paper   uses vertices as the combinatorial measure of size of
a polyhedron $P$.
One  can  measure the combinatorial size of polyhedra in terms of
vertices $v(P)$, edges $e(P)$ or faces $f(P)$, or some combination of
all three terms.

In relating these complexity measures, we note that
for bounded $3$-dimensional polyhedra all three of these measures
are proportional to within a polynomial factor.
For bounded polyhedra vertices and edges are related by
$$
v(P) \le e(P) \le \frac{1}{2} v(P)(v(P) -1) \le v(P)^2,
$$
the upper bound holding  since each edge corresponds
to a pair of vertices, and each  pair of vertices determines at most one edge
of $P$. The lower bound holds using {\em Euler's relation}, which
for bounded  $3$-dimensional polyhedra says
$v(P)-e(P)+f(P)=2$, while  unbounded polyhedra it says $v(P)-e(P)+f(P)=1.$

For  a general polyhedron $P$ (bounded or unbounded)
  ${e}(P)$  is always at least as large as  number of vertices $v(P)$
and the number of faces $f(P)$ (in view of Euler's relation) and is
invariant under projective duality.  However there is no lower bound
relating $v(P)$ to ${e}(P)$; there can be one vertex and arbitrarily many edges.
Projective duality will
interchange vertices and faces, while taking edges to edges,
so  there is no lower bound relating $f(P)$ to ${e}(P)$, either.

We now show that the  results of this paper concerning vertex complexity
imply parallel results for both the edge or face complexity.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
We let ${\mathfrak{s}}_u^{E}({e})$ and   ${\mathfrak{s}}_b^{E}({e})$ denote
the corresponding minima of ${\mathfrak{s}}(P)$  taken over all polyhedra,  resp. bounded polyhedra
having ${e}$ edges.
When combined with Theorem \ref{main-thm1}  the bounds above  imply matching lower and upper bounds
for the edge-size version of the shadow problem,
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}_{b}^{E}({e}) = \Theta(\frac{\log {e}}{\log\log {e}}).
$$
For unbounded polyhedra there is  no general upper bound for ${e}(P)$ in terms of $v(P)$,
since in dimensions $d \ge 3$ a single vertex may have an arbitrarily number of edges going to infinity.
Nevertheless the construction in the proof of Theorem \ref{main-thm2}
still yields examples  for all sufficiently large ${e}(P)={e}$  establishing the constant upper bound
${\mathfrak{s}}_u^{E}({e}) \le 5.$
\item
We  let
${\mathfrak{s}}_{u}^{F}(f)$ and ${\mathfrak{s}}_{b}^{F}(f)$ denote the corresponding minima of
 ${\mathfrak{s}}(P)$ taken over all polyhedra,  resp. all bounded polyhedra
having $f$ faces.  One  obtains bounds of the same type as above  for ${\mathfrak{s}}_{u}^{F}(f)$ and ${\mathfrak{s}}_{b}^{F}(f)$
 using
the results for edges together with the inequalities
$$f(P) \le e(P) \le \frac{1}{2} f(P)(f(P) -1) \le f(P)^2$$
 which hold for bounded polyhedra $P$. These bounds are
 $${\mathfrak{s}}_b^{F} (f) = \Theta(\frac{\log f}{\log\log f})$$
 and ${\mathfrak{s}}_u^{F} (f) \le 5$.
\end{enumerate}

 %

\section{Silhouette Span} \label{sec3}

We discuss the silhouette span problem
as treated in Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas \cite{CEG89}.

 %

\subsection{Silhouette span} \label{sec31}

  The  notion of {\em silhouette span} ${\mathfrak{s}}^{\ast}(P)$ of a
 $3$-dimensional polytope $P$ was  introduced
 in  \cite[p. 174]{CEG89}. It
 considers  shadows cast by point sources located at a finite distance from the polytope.

 \begin{defi}\label{de121}
(1)  For a polytope $P$ and a point $ q \not\in P$, the {\em silhouette} viewed from $q$ is
 the collection of (closed) faces $f$ of $P$ (of any codimension) that allow a supporting hyperplane $H$ of $P$
 such that $q \in H$ and $f$ is in the relative interior of $P \cap H$. This is a collection of
 vertices and edges, unless $H$ is in a plane determined by  a facet of $P$ (in which case $f$
 is the interior of that facet.)
 The {\em silhouette size} ${\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(q; P)$ viewed from $q$ is the number of vertices in this collection.
   Informally, in three dimensions,  ${\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(q; P)$ is the number of vertices in
 a shadow cast by the polyhedron $P$ from a point source of light located at $q$.

 (2)
 The {\em silhouette span} of a polytope $P$ is:
 $$
 {\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P) := \sup_{q \in \mathbb{R}^3 \smallsetminus P} s^{\star}(q; P).
 $$
 \end{defi}

In parallel with shadow number we make the following definition.

 \begin{defi}\label{de122}
The {\em $n$-vertex (bounded)  silhouette span}  is:
 $$
 {\mathfrak{s}}_b^{\star}(n) := \min \{ {\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P):~ \mbox{$P$ is bounded and has $n$ vertices} \}.
 $$
  \end{defi}

   By the {\em sihouette span problem} we mean the problem of determining the growth rate
 of ${\mathfrak{s}}_{b}^{\star}(n)$.

  \begin{rmk}
  The notion of silhouette span of a polytope $P$ can be viewed as a projective analogue of shadow number of $P$.

  This notion is invariant under those projective transformations whose
 hyperplane at infinity does not intersect  the polyhedron $P$,
 because these projective transformations preserve boundedness of the
 polyhedron and preserve the incidence relations with supporting hyperplanes included
 in the definition.
 \end{rmk}

 \subsection{Silhouette span problem for bounded polyhedra} \label{sec32}

 In 1989 Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas \cite{CEG89}
 determined the growth rate of ${\mathfrak{s}}_{b}^{\star}(n)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm123}{\rm (Chazelle, Edelsbrunner, Guibas (1989))}
For $n \ge 4,$ the minimum bounded silhouette span $s_{b}^{\ast}(n)$ taken over
all  $3$-polytopes with $n$ vertices  is
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}_b^{\star}(n) = \Theta\Big( \frac{\log n}{\log\log n}).
$$
\end{theorem}

More precisely, Theorem \ref{thm123} corresponds to  a  polar dual formulation\footnote{Theorem \ref{thm123}
directly corresponds to Theorem 4 of \cite{CEG89}. However  Theorem 4 there appears to be mis-stated;  the word  ``facet"   should
everywhere be replaced with
``vertex", and vice-versa.}
of Theorem 3  in \cite{CEG89}.  Theorem 3 states
the same bounds   for the {\em cross-section span} of a polytope,
when minimized over all $n$-facet polytopes $P$, where the  {\em cross-section span}  measures the
maximum  number of facets of a polytope that can be intersected with
a plane.  In  \cite[Section 5.3]{CEG89} they
present
  a polar  duality operation which shows that cross-section span
of a polytope $P$ (containing $0$ in its interior) equals the silhouette span of any polytope $Q$ polar to it
with respect to $0$.
(Lemma 5.17).  The polarity operation with respect to an interior point of $P$
sends  facets of $P$ to vertices of the  polar polytope $Q$ and preserves incidences (Lemma 5.16),
so the minimization for silhouette span is taken over all $n$-vertex polytopes.

 %

\subsection{ Silhouette span versus shadow number} \label{sec33}

There is a simple  relation between
the silhouette span problem and the shadow problem
noted by   Chazelle et al. \cite[p. 140]{CEG89}.

\begin{lem}\label{le23a}
For each bounded  polyhedron $P$, one has
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P) \ge {\mathfrak{s}}(P).
$$
 It follows that
 $$
{\mathfrak{s}}_{b}^{\star}(n) \ge {\mathfrak{s}}_{b}(n).
$$
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
For any projection direction
of parallel rays ${\mathbf {v}}$ at infinity one has
 ${\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P) \ge {\mathfrak{s}}(P, {\mathbf {v}}),$
 because a point source located sufficiently far away in the direction of ${\mathbf {v}}$
 (along  a ray passing through the centroid of $P$, say)  will have shadow polygon having
 at least as large number of edges  as that from
 parallel rays in direction ${\mathbf {v}}$.
 \end{proof}

Lemma \ref{le23a} implies  that the upper bound of Theorem \ref{thm123} implies
the upper bound in Theorem \ref{main-thm1}.
It is possible
to directly construct  a bounded polyhedron $P$ with $n$ vertices having
shadow number ${\mathfrak{s}}(P) = O \Big(\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}\Big)$
by a recursive construction analogous to that made in  \cite[Sect. 5.2, 5.3]{CEG89}.

 %

\subsection{Silhouette span problem for unbounded polyhedra} \label{sec34}
In this section, we will formulate a variant of the silhouette span problem that applies to unbounded polyhedra.
The definition used by \cite{CEG89} was formulated only for bounded polyhedra,
but it extends to unbounded polyhedra, since it is defined in terms of incidence relations.

We formulate an alternative (equivalent) definition  in the unbounded case,
in terms of shadows cast on screens.

\begin{defi} \label{de431}
(1) Given a (possibly unbounded) polyhedron $P$, a point $q\in \mathbb{R}^3 \smallsetminus P$ and a separating plane $H$ between $q$ and $P$.
We define the shadow $S(q, H: P)$ of $P$ on $H$ cast by $q$ to be the intersection of $H$ with the union of lines passing through $q$ and all points in $P$.
We define the {\em point silhouette number} ${\mathfrak{s}}(q, H; P)$ to be the number of vertices of this shadow.

(2) The {\em silhouette span} ${\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P)$ of a (possibly unbounded) polyhedron $P$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$  is  the supremum of
the point silhouette numbers ${\mathfrak{s}}(q, H :P)$ over all admissible pairs $(q, H).$
\end{defi}

If the polyhedron $P$ were bounded, then the number ${\mathfrak{s}}(q, H; P)$ would not depend on $H$, and
it also equals to the vertices of the genuine shadow if we put the screen behind the polyhedron.
In the case of an unbounded polyhedron, $S(q, H; P)$  can sometimes be the whole plane,
and for these $H$ we set  ${\mathfrak{s}}(q, H; P) =0$.

One can show that this new definition agrees with the one given in Definition \ref{de121}, generalized
to unbounded polyhedra.

\begin{defi}\label{de434}
The  {\em $n$-vertex (unbounded) silhouette span}  is:
 $$
 {\mathfrak{s}}_u^{\star}(n) := \inf \{ {\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P):~ \mbox{$P$  is a polyhedron with $n$ vertices} \}.
 $$
 \end{defi}

The {\em unbounded silhouette span problem} concerns the growth rate of ${\mathfrak{s}}_{u}^{\star}(n)$.
By definition one has ${\mathfrak{s}}_{u}^{\star}(n) \le {\mathfrak{s}}_b^{\star}(n)$ so Theorem \ref{thm123} implies the
upper bound,  for $n \ge 5$,
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}_{u}^{\star}(n) \le c \frac{\log n}{\log\log n},
$$
for a suitable positive constant $c$. In Section \ref{sec43} we  discuss the  problem of obtaining a  lower bound for this function.

\begin{rmk}\label{rmk311}
Any  unbounded  polyhedron $P$ having at least one vertex
can be mapped by a suitable projective
transformation $\phi$ to a bounded polyhedron $P^{'}$.
Here we view $\mathbb{R}^3$ as embedded i
as the hyperplane $x_4=1$ n real projective space $\mathbb{P}^3 = (\mathbb{R}^{4} \smallsetminus \{ {\bf 0}\})/ \mathbb{R}^{\ast}$
using homogeneous coordinates $(x_1, x_2, x_3, x_4)$ , as in Ziegler \cite[Appendix 2.6]{Z95},
and allow projective transformations on $\mathbb{P}^3$.
The bounded polyhedron $P^{'}$ now has extra vertices compared to $P$,
since it has one face corresponding to the ``face at infinity" of $P$
(or in the degenerate case, we have edge or vertex at infinity),
One can show that the  silhouette span of such $P$ is related
to the silhouette span of $P'$  by
\begin{equation}\label{visible}
{\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P) = \max \{ {\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(q, P^{'}) - {\mathfrak{s}}_{visible}^{\star}(q, \phi(F)): q \in \mathbb{R}^3 \smallsetminus P^{'}\},
\end{equation}
in which ${\mathfrak{s}}_{visible}^{\star}(q, \phi(F))$ counts the number of vertices of the face $ \phi(F)$ which
are the image of the hyperplane at infinity of projective space.
\end{rmk}

 %

\section{ Lower Bounds for Silhouette Span and Shadow Number}\label{sec4}

We now discuss approaches to lower bounds for
silhouette span and shadow number, starting from the results of
\cite{CEG89}.

The approach to the shadow problem
we present here is
a modification of the lower bound
proof given in Chazelle et al. \cite[Theorem 3]{CEG89}.

\subsection{Lower bound approach of Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas}\label{sec41}

 The paper of \cite{CEG89} approached the silhouette span problem
 (and the shadow problem) by an eventual  reduction to two-dimensional  problems.
 Their reduction procedure had two steps.
 \begin{enumerate}
 \item[(1)]
 The   silhouette span problem  is reduced to a dual
problem in three dimensions  called a {\em cross-section span problem,}
by use of  a polarity operation. This operation sends a polytope $P$ containing
$0$ in its interior to a polytope $Q$ containing $0$ in its interior.
(The polytope $Q$ is polar to $P$ with respect to the point $0$.)
This relation interchanges points and planes.
The {\em cross section span} of a polytope $Q$ is the maximal number of facets of $Q$
that can be hit by a single plane cutting the polytope $Q$.
They show the  silhouette span ${\mathfrak{s}}^{\star}(P)$ is equal to the cross section span of $Q$.
\item[(2)]
 The cross-section span problem in three dimensions
of a polytope $Q$ is reduced  to a  special case of a problem
called a stabbing-number problem on a finite convex polygonal subdivision of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
A {\em stabbing number} of a polygonal subdivision ${\mathcal P}$ of the plane  is
the maximal number of regions in the polygonal subdivision ${\mathcal P}$
 of a plane  that can be crossed by a single line.
 The {\em minimal line span}  $\ell(n)$  is the minimal stabbing number
taken over finite polygonal convex subdivisions having $n$ regions.
A lower bound for minimal line span then implies a lower bound for
silhouette span of the original problem.
 \end{enumerate}

 Their Lemma 3.2  establishes  a lower bound for  the
minimal line span of
$$\ell(n) := \ell_n (n) \ge \frac{\log_2 n}{\log_2\log_2 n}. $$
We state a version of this result as  Theorem \ref{th41}.
This establishes  a lower bound
${\mathfrak{s}}_b^{\star}(n) \ge c \frac{\log n}{\log\log n}$
for  silhouette span of bounded polyhedra.

  The paper \cite{CEG89} also contains results yielding  a lower bound
  on the shadow problem,  using a  variant of this approach. It has three steps.

   \begin{enumerate}
 \item[(1)]
 The   shadow problem for a polytope $P$ containing the point $0$  is first reduced to a dual
problem in three dimensions  which we will call
a  {\em restricted cross-section span problem,}\footnote{ The paper \cite{CEG89} does not name this operation.}
by use of the same  polarity operation as above.
The {\em restricted cross-section span}
of a polytope $Q$  containing $0$ is the maximal number of facets of $Q$
that can be hit by a single plane cutting the polytope $Q$  that also passes through the origin $0$.
The shadow number ${\mathfrak{s}} (P)$ can be shown equal to the restricted cross-section span of
the polar polytope $Q$.
\item[(2)]
The restricted cross section span problem can be viewed as a two-dimensional problem by identifying planes
through the origin with great circles in a unit sphere drawn around the origin $0$. In Section 5.1 for $1 \le d \le n$ they define
$c_d^{\ast}(n)$ to be equal to the minimum restricted cross-section span taken over
  all such $n$-facet polytopes in which all facets have at most
  $d$ edges. By polar duality one has that
  the $n$-vertex bounded shadow number ${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n) = c_n^{\ast}(n).$
\item[(3)]
The two-dimensional problem with great circles is transformed  using {\em central projection} (also called {\em gnomonic projection})
of a hemisphere of $\mathbb{S}^2$ to map great circles on a sphere to lines on a plane. They define the {\em restricted minimal line span} $\ell_d(n)$
to be the minimal line span over all finite polygonal convex subdivisions having $n$ regions
in which each region has at most $d$ edges.
Their  Lemma 5.1 proves $c_d^{\ast}(n) \ge \ell_d(\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rfloor)$ for $1 \le d \le n$.
Applying this result with $d=n$ yields
${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n) \ge \ell_n(\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rfloor)=\ell(\lceil \frac{n}{2} \rfloor).$
Now Lemma 3.2 of their paper gives the lower bound ${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n)\ge c \frac{\log n}{\log\log n}.$
 \end{enumerate}
 Thus the lower bound stated in  Theorem \ref{main-thm1} follows from results in \cite{CEG89}.

\subsection{Modified approach  for shadow problem}\label{sec42}

In this paper we introduce  a modified reduction procedure to replace the first two steps given in
the approach of \cite{CEG89} to the shadow problem above. The third step remains the same.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] and (2) Combined:
 Map the polyhedron $P$ to its {\em spherical image} on $\mathbb{S}^2$.
The spherical image of $P$ is a subdivision of $\mathbb{S}^2$
into  spherical polygons  having the property that  all edges that are great-circle arcs; we term
these {\em geodesic spherical polygons}.  The spherical image of $P$ is
dual to $P$ in the sense that vertices, edges and faces of $P$ correspond
to faces, edges, and vertices of the spherical image, respectively.
The shadow number problem is reduced to a {\em great circle span problem}\footnote{The {\em great circle span} as a spherical geometry analogue for
 the {\em cross-section span} of a polytope used in \cite{CEG89}.}
described in Section \ref{sec5}.
(This great circle span problem is different from the one performed in step (2) of \cite{CEG89} because
polarity and spherical image maps do not coincide in general.)
\item[(3)]
 Given a polygonal subdivision ${\mathcal P}$ of $\mathbb{S}^2$, taking it under
 the {\em central projection} (i.e. {\em gnomonic projection}) of a suitable  hemisphere
 to a  polygonal subdivision of $\mathbb{R}^2$.
 In taking  this step, one must make  a  suitable choice
 of a hemisphere. A great circle span problem is then converted to
 a {\em stabbing number problem} for  the polygonal subdivision.
 \end{enumerate}

The spherical image map
is a notion of spherical geometry distinct from polarity.
It  qualitatively distinguishes   bounded  polyhedra from  unbounded polyhedra
in terms of  the range of the image:
{\em The spherical image of a bounded polyhedron gives a polygonal subdivision
that covers
the entire sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$, while the spherical image  of an unbounded polyhedron
 gives a polyhedral subdivision that is strictly contained in some  hemisphere of $\mathbb{S}^2$.}
 Whenever the spherical image is strictly contained in
a hemisphere, a suitable central projection in the second step  will produce a polygonal subdivision ${\mathcal P}$ of $\mathbb{R}^2$
having a non-convex unbounded region; this  non-convex region
corresponds to the region outside the projection of the spherical image.

It is known that the behavior of stabbing number for
non-convex subdivisions is  qualitatively different from
the convex case; there are examples of  (non-convex)  subdivisions having
arbitrarily many regions with stabbing number  bounded by a constant.
The qualitative difference in
stabbing number behavior in the bounded and unbounded cases
for polyhedral subdivisions
opens the possibility of better upper bounds might exist in the unbounded polyhedron case.
We show this is indeed so in Section \ref{sec7}.

There is an additional difficulty to overcome to resolve
the unbounded case, which is  that the spherical image  step above is  not
surjective; there exist geodesic polygonal subdivisions of $\mathbb{S}^2$ that are not
the image of any polytope (or polyhedron), cf. Remark \ref{rmk25}.
To  obtain  a matching upper bound in the
unbounded polyhedron case we
make an explicit  construction of suitable polyhedra which we can show  fall in the range
of the first reduction step.

\subsection{Unbounded silhouette span problem lower bound}\label{sec43}
The reduction methods discussed in this paper do not apply  well to
this problem.
The polar duality transformation used by Chazelle, Guibas and Edelsbrunner   \cite{CEG89} is not well defined for
unbounded polyhedra containing $0$ in their interior, so their argument does not permit
a reduction of the (unbounded) silhouette span problem to the cross-section span problem.
On the other hand, our reduction based on the spherical image map remains well defined for unbounded polyhedra.
There is however a difficulty in applying central projection.
The $2$-dimensional analogue of  silhouette span allows circles of
any size, not just great circles. Under central projection these
more general circles are not always mapped to straight lines, but to more complicated curves.
In consequence our  upper bound example for shadow number of unbounded polyhedra fails for silhouette span, and
allows the possibility that the  function ${\mathfrak{s}}_u^{\star}(n)$ grows with $n$.

The only lower bound for  ${\mathfrak{s}}_u^{\ast}(n)$
we currently know is a constant.
We ask: Is it true that there is   a positive constant $c$ such that
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}_u^{\star}(n) \ge c \frac{\log n}{\log \log n}
$$
holds for all $n \ge 3$?

\section{Reduction via Spherical Image to Great Circle Span  Problems}\label{sec5}

In this section, we reduce the shadow problem
in both the bounded polyhedron case and the general polyhedron case,  to special cases of a
dual problem about convex geodesic subdivisions on the standard sphere
$$
\mathbb{S}^2:= \{ u= (u_1, u_2, u_3) \in \mathbb{R}^2: u_1^2 +u_2^2 + u_3^2 =1\}.
$$
This reduction relates  a three-dimensional problem to a two-dimensional problem.
It is not always reversible, but lower bounds for the new problem(s) will imply lower bounds
for the original problem(s).

\subsection{Spherical image map and spherical image subdivision}\label{sec51}

The {\em spherical image} ${\sigma}(P) \subset \mathbb{S}^2$ of a polyhedron $P$
is the subset of $\mathbb{S}^2$ consisting of all outward unit normal directions  to the
supporting hyperplanes\footnote{A {\em supporting hyperplane} through $x$ is a hyperplane through
$x$ such that the $P$ lies on one side of the hyperplane.
The {\em outward unit normal} of a supporting plane is defined to be the unit normal of the supporting plane pointing towards the half plane
 that does not contain $P$.} of $P$. If $P$ is
a bounded polyhedron then  ${\sigma}(P) = \mathbb{S}^2$, while if $P$ is unbounded then ${\sigma}(P)$
is contained in some hemisphere of $\mathbb{S}^2$, see Alexandrov \cite[Section 1.5, esp. Theorem 3]{A05}.

The spherical image ${\sigma}(P)$
has a partition
 into  convex spherical polygons $\{ S_i\}$
 which we call the {\em spherical image subdivision} ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$.
 The $\{ S_i\}$ correspond to the vertices $v_i$ of $P$. A {\em spherical polygon} is one whose edges are segments of great circles,
 and the convexity condition requires that  all interior angles
 of the polygon be at most $\pi$.
 Here for any point $x \in P$ we define its {\em spherical image} $D(x; P)$ by
$$
D(x; P ) := \{u\in \mathbb{S}^2: u \text{ is an outward unit normal of  any supporting plane at}\, x\}.
$$
The spherical image map $D(\cdot, P)$ takes any interior point of $P$
to the empty set, any  face of $P$ to a singleton set, any edge to an arc of a great circle,
and any vertex $v_i$ to a spherical convex polygon.

We define the spherical image subdivision
\begin{equation*}
{\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P) :=  \{Int(D(x; P)): x \text{ is a vertex of }\,\,P\}
\end{equation*}
This subdivision is invariant under  Euclidean motions applied to $P$,
up to a rotation.
Note however that there do exist  exist non-congruent polyhedra $P_1, P_2$
having  the same spherical image subdivision, ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P_1)= {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P_2)$. This happens
when $P_1, P_2$ have the same combinatorial type and also have identical outward normals
to all of their faces, under a combinatorial isomorphism between them.
On the other hand, there exist polyhedra having the same combinatorial type with
different spherical images.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{subfigure}[h!]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{SphericalImageOfVertices.pdf}
\caption{Spherical Image of a Vertex}
\label{fig1a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[h!]{0.4\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=50mm]{SphericalImageOfEdges.pdf}
\caption{Spherical Image of an Edge}
\label{fig1b}
\end{subfigure}
\end{center}
\caption{  Spherical images.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

In summary, we have the following result about the spherical image subdivision,
given in  Alexandrov \cite{A05}.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm21} {\rm (Spherical Image Subdivision of a Polyhedron)}
The spherical image ${\sigma}(P)$ of a (bounded or unbounded) convex polyhedron
in $\mathbb{R}^3$ is composed of spherical polygons
$S_1,...,S_m$ that are the spherical images of the vertices of the polyhedron. These polygons have
no common interior points.  Each common side of two polygons
$S_k$ and $S_{\ell}$ is a spherical image of the interior of the edge between the corresponding vertices.
Each common vertex of polygons $S_k,...,S_q$ is the spherical image of the interior of the face
 that contains the vertices of the polyhedron  corresponding to these polygons. Each angle of the polygons $S_{\ell}$
 is the complement of the planar angle at the corresponding vertex of the polygon.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
This result is  Theorem 1 in Sect. 1.5.1. of Alexandrov \cite[p. 41]{A05}.
\end{proof}

In the case of a bounded polyhedron $P$, the spherical image subdivision ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$ covers all of $\mathbb{S}^2$.
In the case of an unbounded polyhedron $P$, the spherical image subdivision ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$ covers the spherical
image $\sigma(P)$. In this case $\sigma(P)$
equals the spherical image $\sigma(C)$
of a pointed polyhedral cone $C$ called its {\em limit angle},
defined by its set of unbounded directions, cf. Alexandrov \cite[Sect. 1.4.1 and Sect. 1.5.3, Theorem 3]{A05}.
This image $\sigma(C)$ is a convex spherical polygon  in the sense of the next subsection.

\subsection{Spherical convex subdivisions}\label{sec52}

We now consider more general spherical polygonal subdivisions,
not necessarily coming from a polyhedron, but imposing a convexity condition on its polygonal pieces.
It is known that such subdivisions are strictly more general than subdivisions that
are the spherical image of a polyhedron, cf.  Remark \ref{rmk25}.

To  discuss polygonal subdivisions we introduce  the following terminology.
The relative interior of the intersection of the closures of two regions, if nonempty, is called a {\em vertex} if  it is a point,
and an {\em edge} otherwise. Notice that an edge is an open arc of some great circle.
Two regions are {\em adjacent} if their closures contain a common edge.

\begin{defi} \label{de22}
 A {\em convex spherical polygon} is a finite intersection of closed hemispheres in $\mathbb{S}^2$.
 \end{defi}

We  next  define more generally    notions of  a spherical convex subdivision, resp. partial convex subdivision,  of $\mathbb{S}^2$.

\begin{defi}\label{de22b}
 (1) A finite set of interiors of convex spherical polygons (called {\em regions}) of $\mathbb{S}^2$ defines a {\em spherical convex subdivision} ${\mathcal D}$
(or {\em  subdivision} for short)
of $\mathbb{S}^2$
 if no two regions of ${\mathcal D}$ intersect and the union of their closures is $\mathbb{S}^2$.
  Similarly, a {\em spherical convex subdivision} ${\mathcal D}$
 of a convex spherical polygon $U$  is a finite set of
 interiors of regions as above,  in which no two regions of ${\mathcal D}$ intersect and the union of their closures is $U$.
 We call the cases $\mathbb{S}^2$ and $U$ {\em full subdivisions} and {\em partial subdivisions},
 respectively.

  (2) The {\em completed spherical subdivision} ${\mathcal D}'$ of $\mathbb{S}^2$ associated to a spherical
  convex subdivision of the two types above takes  ${\mathcal D}':= {\mathcal D}$ in the case of a full subdivision, and otherwise takes
    ${\mathcal D}^{'} := {\mathcal D} \cup (\mathbb{S}^2 \smallsetminus U)$ obtained by adding the
 {\em exterior region}
 $(\mathbb{S}^2 \smallsetminus U)$;  the exterior region is  the interior of a (generally nonconvex) spherical polygon.
\end{defi}

 According to Theorem \ref{thm21},
for a polyhedron $P$
 its associated spherical image subdivision
 $$
 {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P) = \{Int(D(x; P)): x \text{ is a vertex of }\,\,P\}
 $$
  forms a spherical convex subdivision of $\mathbb{S}^2$ in the bounded case
  and a spherical convex subdivision of  $U= \sigma(P)$ in the unbounded case.
  (Recall that  $U = \sigma(C)$ for a convex pointed polyhedral cone $C$.)

\subsection{Great circle span of a spherical convex subdivision}\label{sec53}

We relate the  original problem of determining ${\mathfrak{s}}_b(n)$ (resp. ${\mathfrak{s}}_u(n)$)  to
 the minimum  of the maximal number of regions cut by any great circle
over completed spherical subdivisions ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$ induced by  bounded polyhedra
(resp. unbounded polyhedra).   For this purpose we introduce the following notions
for spherical convex subdivisions.

\begin{defi}\label{de23}
Let ${\mathcal D}$ be a spherical convex subdivision of
$\mathbb{S}^2$ or of
$U= \sigma(C)$ for some  pointed convex cone $C$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$.

(1) For a direction $u\in \mathbb{S}^2$, let $C_u$ denote the great circle in $\mathbb{S}^2$ perpendicular to $u$.
The {\em great circle span $c(u; {\mathcal D})$ with respect to $u$} of ${\mathcal D}$
 is the number of regions intersected by $C_u$
 in the convex spherical  subdivision ${\mathcal D}$.

 (2)  The {\em great circle span} $c({\mathcal D})$ of a convex spherical subdivision ${\mathcal D}$ is
 $$
 c({\mathcal D}) := \sup_{u\in \mathbb{S}^2} c(u;{\mathcal D}).
 $$
 \end{defi}

 \begin{defi}\label{de23a}
 A spherical convex subdivision ${\mathcal D}$ of either $\mathbb{S}^2$ or of
 $\sigma(C)$ for a pointed convex cone $C$ is  said to be of {\em size $n$} if
 its associated  completed subdivision ${\mathcal D}$ contains  exactly  $n$ regions.
 \end{defi}

We  let ${\mathcal D}_{b}(n)$ denote the set of  spherical convex subdivisions ${\mathcal D}$ of
the two-sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ of size $n$. We  let ${\mathcal D}(n)$ denote the  set of all size $n$
convex spherical subdivisions of either $\mathbb{S}^2$ or of $\sigma(C)$ as above;
thus ${\mathcal D}_{b}(n) \subset {\mathcal D}(n)$.

\begin{defi}\label{de23b}

(1) For $n \ge 3$ the {\em minimal partial subdivision great circle span} $c(n)$ is given by
$$
c(n) := \inf_{{\mathcal D} \in {\mathcal D}(n)} c({\mathcal D}).
$$

(2) For $n \ge 3$ the {\em minimal full subdivision  great circle span} $c_b(n)$ is given by
$$
c_b(n) := \inf_{{\mathcal D} \in {\mathcal D}_b(n)} c({\mathcal D}).
$$
\end{defi}

\subsection{Relation of shadow number and great circle span}\label{sec54}

\begin{theorem}\label{th24}
(1) Let $P$ be a bounded  or unbounded polyhedron in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and let ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$ its induced spherical image subdivision
of $\mathbb{S}^2$ or of $U = \sigma(P)$.
Then the shadow number
\begin{equation*}
{\mathfrak{s}}(P) = c({\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)).
\end{equation*}

(2) If  ${\mathfrak{s}}_{b}(n)$ is  the $n$-vertex  bounded shadow number and
and $c_b(n)$  is the minimal  full subdivision  great circle span, then
\begin{equation*}
{\mathfrak{s}}_b(n) \ge c_b(n).
\end{equation*}

(3) If ${\mathfrak{s}}(n)$ is  the $n$-vertex  shadow number and
and $c(n)$  is the minimal  partial subdivision  great circle span, then
\begin{equation*}
{\mathfrak{s}}_u(n) \ge c(n).
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
(1) A vector  $u\in \mathbb{S}^2$  is said to be {\em non-degenerate} (for $P$)  if
$u$ is not perpendicular to any outward normal of a face of $P$, and $u$ is said to be {\em degenerate} if otherwise.

We will first prove that for non-degenerate $u\in \mathbb{S}^2$,
$$c(u; {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)) = {\mathfrak{s}}(u; P).$$
Let $E$ be an edge of $P$ bounded by two faces $F_1, F_2$ with outward unit normals $v_1, v_2$ respectively.
For simplicity, we will denote $E = (v_1v_2)$.
The edge $E$ is projected to an edge on the boundary of the projection of $P$
along $u$ if and only if
the inner products $\langle u,v_1\rangle$ and $\langle u,v_2 \rangle $ have  opposite signs.
(Here $\langle a,b \rangle $ denotes the usual inner product in $\mathbb{R}^3$.) Therefore, we have
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}(u;P) = |\{E = (v_1v_2):\langle u, v_1\rangle \langle u,v_2\rangle  <0\}|.
$$
Notice that $C_u$
divides $\mathbb{S}^2$ into two open hemispheres.
The points $v_1, v_2 \in \mathbb{S}^2$ are in  different open hemispheres of $C_u$ if and only if $\langle u,v_1\rangle $ and
$\langle u,v_2 \rangle $ have different signs. Hence, an edge $E = (v_1v_2)$ is projected to an
edge on the boundary if and only if its spherical image intersects $C_u$.
The number of edges cut by great circle $C$ in a
convex subdivision ${\mathcal D}$ of $\mathbb{S}^2$ equals  the number of regions cut
by $C$ in a completed subdivision ${\mathcal D}'$, so we conclude $s(u; P)$ is the number of edges cut by $C_u$ in
the completed subdivision
${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)'$.

If  $P$ is bounded then  the number
of edges cut by $C_u$ in completed subdivision ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)' = {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$ is the same as the number of regions intersected by $C_u$ which is $c(u, {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P))$,
 so $c(u, {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P))= {\mathfrak{s}}(u;  P)$
in this case.

If $P$ is unbounded, then the shadow polygon is unbounded and its number of edges is
${\mathfrak{s}}(u, P)+1$, while the great circle $C_u$ in general position always intersects the exterior region to
${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$, and hence cuts $c(u, {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)) +1$ edges in the completed subdivision. Thus $c(u, {\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P) = {\mathfrak{s}}(u, P)$ in this case too.

It remains to treat the  case that  $u\in \mathbb{S}^2$ is degenerate. It is not hard to see that
the functions ${\mathfrak{s}}(-;P)$ and $c(-,;sDD(P) )$
then each have  a local minimum at $u$. Therefore,
\begin{align*}
{\mathfrak{s}}(P) &= \sup_{u\in\mathbb{S}^2}{\mathfrak{s}}(u,P) \\
&= \sup_{u\in\mathbb{S}^2 \text{ non-degenerate}}{\mathfrak{s}}(u ;P)\\
&=\sup_{u\in\mathbb{S}^2 \text{ non-degenerate}} c(u;{\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P))\\
&=\sup_{u\in\mathbb{S}^2} c(u;{\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P) ) = c({\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)).
\end{align*}

(2)  We have
\begin{align*}
{\mathfrak{s}}_b(n) &= \inf_{P \in P_b(n)} {\mathfrak{s}}(P)\\
&= \inf_{P \in P_b(n)}c({\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P))  \\
&\ge \inf_{{\mathcal D} \in {\mathcal D}_b(n)} c({\mathcal D}) = c_b(n).
\end{align*}

(3) The general bound ${\mathfrak{s}}_u(n) \ge c(n)$
  follows by a chain of inequalities parallel to those given in (2).
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}\label{rmk25}
The set of all spherical image subdivisions ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P)$
of bounded polyhedra $P$ having  $n$ vertices is contained in the set of
all spherical convex subdivisions ${\mathcal D}$ of $\mathbb{S}^2$.
The containment is strict, because it
is known that a spherical convex subdivision is a regular subdivision of
a vector configuration and there are subdivisions of vector configurations
that are not regular (Sections 9.5 and 2.5 of de Loera et al \cite{dLRS10}.)
See also Connelly and Henderson \cite{CH80}.
We are indebted to A. Padrol for this observation.
\end{rmk}

\section{Reduction by Central Projection to Stabbing Number Problem}\label{sec6}

We  relate great circle span problems on spherical convex subdivisions of $\mathbb{S}^2$
to  a family of  line span (stabbing number) problems on Euclidean convex subdivisions of $\mathbb{R}^2$
using {\em central projection}, also  called {\em gnomonic projection}.

\subsection{Central projection}\label{sec61}

Central  projection  maps an open hemisphere of a sphere $\mathbb{S}^2$ bijectively to a plane.
Let $\mathbb{S}^2$ be the standard sphere in $\mathbb{R}^3$, and let $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2 := \mathbb{S}^2 \cap \{(x_1,x_2,x_3):x_3<0\}$ denote
 the lower open hemisphere in the last coordinate.
 Let $H$ be the plane $\{(x_1,x_2,x_3):x_3=-1\}$. We define the {\em central
 projection} $\gamma:\mathbb{S}_{-}^2 \longrightarrow H$ by mapping $v\in \mathbb{S}_{-}^2$ to the unique intersection point $u\in H$ of the line through $0$ and $v$ with $H$.

 Central  projection is not a conformal mapping, but it preserves convexity, i.e.
 it maps an a spherical angle less than $180^\circ$ to a
 Euclidean angle less than $180^\circ$.

 \begin{lem}
 (1) Central projection maps great circles of $\mathbb{S}^2$ that intersect $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$ bijectively to lines in $H \simeq \mathbb{R}^2$.

 (2) Central projection maps convex spherical polygons in $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$  to convex polygons.
 \end{lem}

\begin{proof}
(1) Let $C'$ be a great circle in $\mathbb{S}^2$  distinct from the equator $C:= \{ (u_1, u_2, u_3) \in \mathbb{S}^2: u_3=0\}$.
and set $H^{'}$ be the hyperplane such that $C' = H^{'} \cap \mathbb{S}^2$. Then $\gamma(C'\cap \mathbb{S}_{-}^2) = H^{'}\cap H$
is a line in $H$.
Conversely, if $L$ is a line in $H$, let $H^{'}$ be the plane through $L$ and $0$. Then $\gamma^{-1}(L) = H^{'}\cap \mathbb{S}_{-}^2$
 is a great circle intersecting $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$. Hence, $\gamma$ maps great-semicircles non-trivially intersecting $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$ bijectively to lines in $H \simeq \mathbb{R}^2$.

(2) Using a similar argument to (1), one shows that  $\gamma$ maps closed hemispheres intersecting $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$ bijectively
to closed half-planes in $H$. Since every convex spherical polygon is a finite intersection of closed hemispheres,
and since every convex polygon
in $H$ is a finite intersection of closed half-planes in $H$, we
deduce that $\gamma$ maps convex spherical polygons in $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$ bijectively to convex polygons in $H$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Euclidean convex subdivisions and stabbing number}\label{sec62}

We next consider  Euclidean convex subdivisions and stabbing number.

\begin{defi}\label{de32}
A  (Euclidean) {\em convex subdivision} ${\mathcal E}$ (or {\em subdivision} for short) of a Euclidean plane $H$
to be a finite set of pairwise disjoint open convex polygons (bounded or unbounded),
which we call {\em regions}, such that the closures of the regions cover the whole plane.
In a similar way to convex spherical subdivision, we  define edges, and vertices of a subdivision of a plane.
\end{defi}

\begin{defi} \label{de33}
Let ${\mathcal E}$ be a (finite) convex subdivision of a plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $L$ a line in that plane.

(1)  The {\em line span} or {\em stabbing number} $\ell(L; {\mathcal E})$
 of ${\mathcal E}$ with respect  to a line $L$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ is the number of regions in ${\mathcal E}$ intersected by $L$.
 (In a special position case where the line $L$ follows an edge that is a boundary
 of  two regions, without entering either we count it as passing through $1$ region there.)

(2) The {\em line span} or {\em stabbing number} $\ell({\mathcal E})$ of the subdivision ${\mathcal E}$ is
$$
\ell ({\mathcal E}) := \sup_{L \,\text{a line in} \, \mathbb{R}^2}  \ell(L; {\mathcal E}).
$$

(3)  The {\em minimal line span} $\ell(n)$ of convex subdivisions with $n$ regions is given by
$$
\ell(n):=\inf_{{\mathcal E} \in {\mathcal E}(n)} \ell ({\mathcal E}),
$$
in which ${\mathcal E}(n)$ denotes the set of all convex subdivisions of $\mathbb{R}^2$ having $n$ regions.
 \end{defi}

\subsection{Relation of great circle span and line span under central projection}\label{sec63}
Now let ${\mathcal D}$ be a spherical convex subdivision of $\mathbb{S}^2$.
By intersecting each region with the open hemisphere $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$,
we obtain a spherical convex subdivision of $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$,
which we denote by ${\mathcal D}_{-}$. Its image under  the gnomonic projection
 $\gamma:\mathbb{S}_{-}^2\longrightarrow H$
 is then a  (Euclidean) convex subdivision $\gamma({\mathcal D}_{-})$ of $H$.

This map yields  a relationship between the minimal great circle span and the minimal line span,
as follows

\begin{theorem}\label{th64}
Let $c_b(n)$ be the minimal full subdivision great circle span and $\ell(n)$ be the minimal line span, then
\begin{equation*}
c_{b}(n) \geq \ell(\lceil n/2\rceil)
\end{equation*}
where $\lceil x\rceil$ denotes the ceiling function, denoting the smallest  integer at least as large as $x$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Let ${\mathcal D}$ be a spherical convex subdivision of size $n$ of all of $\mathbb{S}^2$. By rotating the subdivision ${\mathcal D}$
 by a suitable
rotation $\theta \in SO(3)$,  we may assume that this subdivision restricted  to the lower hemisphere
$(\theta{\mathcal D})_{-}$  has  the maximum size (number of regions), call it $k = k({\mathcal D})$.  By averaging over all
rotations we have $k ({\mathcal D}) \ge n/2$, whence
$$
k({\mathcal D})  \geq \lceil n/2\rceil.
$$
We will use $c(u;(\theta {\mathcal D})_{-}) $ to denote the number of regions intersected by
the great circle $C_u$ that lie in $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$. Notice that for all $\theta \in SO(3)$,
$$
c(u,\theta {\mathcal D}) \geq c(u; (\theta{\mathcal D})_{-}).
$$
By this argument, ${\mathcal D}_{-}$ induces a subdivision $\gamma(\theta {\mathcal D}_{-})$ of size $k \ge \lceil n/2 \rceil$ of $H$.

 Now let $u\in\mathbb{S}^2$ be given, and let $C_u$ be the great circle perpendicular to $u$.
 Set   $L_u = \gamma(C_u\cap \mathbb{S}_{-}^2)$.
 Then we have
 $$
 \ell(L_u , \gamma( (\theta{\mathcal D})_{-}) )= c(u; {\mathcal D}_{-}) \leq c(u,{\mathcal D}).
 $$
 Since $\gamma$ maps great circles nontrivially intersecting $\mathbb{S}_{-}^2$ bijectively to lines in $H$, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{u\in\mathbb{S}^2} \ell(L_u; \gamma ((\theta {\mathcal D})_{-})) = \sup_{L} \ell(L;\gamma((\theta {\mathcal D})_{-})) = \ell( \gamma((\theta{\mathcal D})_{-})).
\end{equation*}
Therefore, we obtain
\begin{align*}
c_b(n) &= \inf_{{\mathcal D} \in {\mathcal D}_b(n)}      \sup_{u\in\mathbb{S}^2}c(u; {\mathcal D})\\
&\geq  \inf_{{\mathcal D} \in {\mathcal D}_b(n)} \Big( \sup_{\theta \in SO(3)} \sup_{u \in\mathbb{S}^2} \ell(L_u,\gamma(\theta {\mathcal D})_{-})  \Big)\\
&=\inf_{{\mathcal D} \in {\mathcal D}_b(n)} \sup_{\theta \in SO(3)} \ell(\gamma((\theta{\mathcal D})_{-})\\
&\geq \inf_{{\mathcal D}  \in {\mathcal D}_b(n)} \ell(k({\mathcal D}))\\
& \geq \ell(\lceil n/2\rceil).
\end{align*}
The last inequality holds because the line span $\ell(n)$ is  a non-decreasing function of $n$,
as is easily checked.
\end{proof}

\section{Stabbing Number Minimax Lower Bound and Proof of Theorem \ref{main-thm1}}\label{sec7}

The solution to the bounded version of
Moser's Shadow Problem
uses a lower bound result for minimal line span  (i.e. a minimax stabbing number) proved
by Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas \cite[Lemma 3.2]{CEG89}.

\subsection{Stabbing number for convex subdivisions} \label{sec71}

Recall that a  {\em convex polygonal subdivision} of the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ is a dissection of the plane into a finite
number of convex polygonal regions; necessarily some of these regions  are unbounded.
In the case of  a finite number of regions,  the convexity condition on the subdivision is sufficient to force
all these regions to be polygons.

The following result is given in \cite[Lemma 3.2]{CEG89}.
The proof uses an iterated topological sweep and  captures a
crucial tradeoff explaining why $\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}$ is a lower bound
for minimal line span.

\begin{theorem} \label{th41} {\rm (Chazelle, Edelsbrunner, Guibas (1989))}
Let $\ell(n)$ be the minimal line span of a convex polygonal subdivision of the plane $\mathbb{R}^2$ into $n$ regions. Then
for all sufficiently large $n$,
\begin{equation*}
\ell(n)  \ge  \frac{\log 2n}{\log\log 2n}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}

The convexity hypothesis in this result  is essential; the conclusion fails to hold otherwise.
For completeness and  the reader's convenience, we include
in an  Appendix a proof from \cite{CEG89},  making
small changes  to improve the original lower bound $\frac{\log n}{\log\log n}$ to
$\frac{\log 2n}{\log\log 2n}$.

\begin{rmk} \label{remark42}
If we relax the  convexity hypothesis on all (bounded and unbounded) regions  made in
the subdivision in Theorem \ref{th41},  then the conclusion no longer holds.
Specificially, there exists a family of  polygonal subdivisions ${\mathcal P}$ of the plane, satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)]
all family members have a fixed (nonzero) number of unbounded regions,
and unbounded regions may be non-convex.
\item[(ii)]
there are family members with an arbitrary large number of bounded regions,
and all family members have convex bounded regions
 \end{enumerate}
which have a
 uniformly  bounded stabbing number. This is evident from the construction
 given below in  Section \ref{sec7}.
\end{rmk}

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{main-thm1}.} \label{sec72}

For the upper bound, we use the bound on silhouette span ${\mathfrak{s}}(n)= O (\log(n)/\log(\log(n)))$ given in Theorem \ref{thm123}
and the fact that
$${\mathfrak{s}}_b^{*}(n) \ge {\mathfrak{s}}_{b}(n).$$

To prove $p(n) = \Omega(\log(n)/\log(\log(n)))$, we have by combining Theorem \ref{th24} and Theorem
\ref{th64} that
\begin{equation*}
{\mathfrak{s}}_{b}(n) \geq  c_b(n)  \geq \ell(\lceil n/2\rceil).
\end{equation*}
Combining this inequality with  the lower bound
$\ell(n) \ge  \log 2n/\log\log 2n$ of Theorem \ref{th41}, yields
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}_{b}(n) \ge \frac{\log n}{\log\log n}
$$
for all sufficiently large $n$, hence there is $C>0$ with
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}_{b}(n) \ge C \frac{\log n}{\log\log n}
$$
for all $n \ge 4$, as asserted.

\section{Shadow Problem Upper Bound for Unbounded Convex Polyhedra}\label{sec8}

To obtain an upper bound on shadow number for unbounded polyhedra,
we directly construct a sequence of unbounded  polyhedra $P_n$ having $n$ vertices
and $2n$ faces whose shadow number $s(P_n) = 5$.

This construction reverses the direction of implications used in proving Theorem \ref{main-thm1}.
It proceeds by first constructing a convex polyhedral subdivision ${\mathcal E}_n$ of a regular $(n-1)$-gon in $\mathbb{R}^2$
in which the unbounded region outside the $(n-1)$-gon is the only non-convex region, and this
(non-convex) polyhedral subdivision of $\mathbb{R}^2$ has stabbing number $6$ (which includes the non-convex region).
We then  use the inverse map for gnomonic projection to pull this back to
a certain  spherical convex subdivision ${\mathcal D}_n$ whose closure is the spherical image of a
pointed convex cone $\sigma(C_n)$, which automatically has great circle span $c({\mathcal D}_n)=5$.
The general inequality ${\mathfrak{s}}(n) \ge c(n)$ in Theorem \ref{th24} (3) goes the wrong direction,
so to complete the proof we must establish
 that each subdivision  ${\mathcal D}_n$ we construct is in the range of the spherical image map ${\mathcal D}_{\sigma}(\cdot)$
 on the set of all unbounded polyhedra ${\mathcal P} = \cup_{n \ge 1} {\mathcal P}(n)$, i.e. ${\mathcal D}_n={\mathcal D}_{\sigma}(P_n)$ for an unbounded polyhedron $P_n$, which
then has shadow number $5$.

\subsection{Construction:  A family ${\mathcal D}_n$ of spherical convex subdivisions of $\mathbb{S}^2$} \label{sec81}

To begin the construction, for each integer
 $n\geq 4$,  construct two homothetic regular $(n-1)$-gons with center at the origin in $\mathbb{R}^2$, such that the corresponding edges of the two
  regular polygons are parallel. We draw a line segment connecting two corresponding vertices from the two polygons
 (See Figure \ref{fig2}). This
 construction  defines a convex subdivision of the larger regular polygon, call it $Q_n$.

 We call the region between the two polygons the {\em ring region}, and we call the interior of the smaller polygon the {\em interior region}.
 This subdivision of $Q_n$ contains
 $(n-1)$ congruent ring regions and $1$ interior region. We may scale
  the distance between two parallel edges of the homothetic $(n-1)$-gons
  so small so that any straight line in the plane intersects at most $4$ ring regions,
   and we call this subdivision of the larger regular $(n-1)$-gon ${\mathcal E}_n$. Hence, the line span of ${\mathcal E}_n$ ( defined similarly to  the
   line span of a convex subdivisions of $\mathbb{R}^2$) is at most $6$; in fact the bound  $6$ is attained for all $n \ge 6$.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{UnboundedPolyhedron.pdf}
\caption{Subdivision of Regular $(n-1)$-gon, for $n=9$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}

Next,  identify $\mathbb{R}^2$ with the plane $H= \{ z= -1\}$ in $\mathbb{R}^3$ used in gnomonic projection,
and locate the common centroid of the two $(n-1)$-gons at $(0,0, -1)$.
Under the inverse of gnomonic projection,  the resulting subdivision of the larger regular polygon defines a subdivision
of a spherical regular $(n-1)$-gon (See Figure \ref{fig3}), which we call  ${\mathcal D}_n$, which is strictly contained in
the lower hemisphere of $\mathbb{S}^2$. Here we note that all spherical $(n-1)$-gons in the lower hemisphere
(with any fixed angle size) are the spherical images $\sigma(C_n)$ of suitable pointed convex cone.
For $n \ge 6$ the  convex subdivision ${\mathcal D}_n$ of $\sigma(C_n)$ has great circle span $c({\mathcal D}_n)=5$;
the decrease by $1$ comes from the unbounded regions contributing a count of $1$ in the Euclidean subdivision
but $0$ in the spherical subdivision by definition.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{UnboundedPolyhedron2.pdf}
\caption{Induced Subdivision in Sphere}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Construction of a family of unbounded polyhedra $P_n$} \label{sec82}

We claim that the subdivision ${\mathcal D}_n$ above of the spherical regular $(n-1)$-gon $\sigma(C_n)$
 is  the spherical image subdivision  ${\mathcal D}_{\sigma}(P_n)$
 induced from an unbounded convex polyhedron $P_n$ having  $n$ vertices. More precisely, we  prove the following
 result, which establishes Theorem \ref{main-thm2}.

\begin{theorem}\label{th82}
For each $n \ge 6$, given the convex subdivision ${\mathcal D}_n$ above,
there is an unbounded convex polyhedron $P_n$ with $n$ vertices such that the spherical
 image of a vertex in $P_n$ is the closure of a region in ${\mathcal D}_n$; the spherical image of an edge in $P_n$
  is the closure of an edge in ${\mathcal D}_n$; the spherical image of a plane in $P_n$ is a vertex in ${\mathcal D}_n$;
  and vice versa. In particular, ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P_n) = {\mathcal D}_n$ and $P_n$ has $n$ vertices and
the shadow number ${\mathfrak{s}}(P_n) =5.$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
We first observe that for a convex polyhedron, the spherical image is uniquely determined if the
outward unit normals of the faces and the adjacency relation of faces are known.
To see this, notice for any two points in an open hemisphere, there is a unique arc of
the great circle connecting the two points in this open hemisphere. So the spherical image
of an edge formed by two faces is determined by the unique arc
 connecting the corresponding two points on the sphere, and the spherical image of a
  point incident to edges $E_1,...,E_k$ is determined by the unique region contained in some open hemisphere bounded by the corresponding arcs.

Let $v$ be a vertex in $S_n$, we denote $H_v$ to be the closed half space separated by the
 tangent plane through $v$ that contains the sphere. We let
\begin{equation*}
P_n = \bigcap _{v \text{ vertex of }S_n} H_v
\end{equation*}

It is clear that $P_n$ has the right outward unit normals of faces. By the above observation, to show $P_n$ gives
the desired spherical image, it suffices to show faces of $P_n$ have the right adjacency relation.
This reduces to prove the following two claims:
\begin{cl}
The tangent planes through vertices of the interior region intersect at a single point.
\end{cl}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim 1]
Let $v_1,...v_{n-1}$ be the vertices of the interior region, and denote the South Pole as $s$.
Since the interior region is a regular $(n-1)$-gon centered at $s$, the spherical distance between
$s$ and $v_i$'s are equal. Let $l$ be the line through $s$ and the center of the sphere $0$, then
$H_{v_i}$'s are only differ by a rotation along
$l$ (See Figure \ref{fig4}). Let $u$ be the intersection of $l$ and $H_{v_1}$, then it is clear that
\begin{equation*}
\cap_{i=1}^{n-1}H_{v_i} = \{u\}
\end{equation*}
The claim follows.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=80mm]{InteriorRegion.pdf}
\caption{Cross Section View}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}

\begin{cl}
The tangent planes through vertices of a ring region intersect at a single point.
\end{cl}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim 2]
Let $v_1, v_2, w_1, w_2$ be the vertices of a ring region, with $v_1, v_2$ from
vertices of the inner spherical polygon and $w_1, w_2$  from vertices of the outer one. Let $[v_1v_2]$ denote the line segment connecting $v_1$ and $v_2$, and $v_m$ be the mid point of $[v_1v_2]$, then $H_{v_1} \cap H_{v_2}$ is a line $l_v$ lying in the plane $Q_v$ through $v_m$ perpendicular to $[v_1v_2]$ (See Figure \ref{fig5}). Similarly $H_{w_1}\cap H_{w_2}$ is a line $l_w$ lying in plane $Q_w$ through $w_m$ perpendicular to $[w_1w_2]$. By construction, $v_1, v_2, w_1, w_2$ actually forms an isosceles trapezoid, so $Q_v$ and $Q_w$ coincide. This shows that $l_v$ and $l_w$ intersect at a single point as they are not parallel, and the claim follows.

\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{RingRegion.pdf}
\caption{Cross Section View}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}

The above two claims prove that $P_n$ has the desired adjacency relation of faces and hence has the desired spherical image,
which induces the subdivision $S_n$. Notice that there are $n$ regions in the subdivision ${\mathcal D}_n$ ($n-1$ ring
regions plus $1$ interior region), which corresponds to $n$ vertices in $P_n$.
This proves that $P_n$ has $n$ vertices, and we have established that the spherical image ${\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P_n) = {\mathcal D}_n$.

Now by Theorem \ref{th24} (1) we conclude that
$$
{\mathfrak{s}}(P_n) = c({\mathcal  D_{{\sigma}}}(P_n)) = c( {\mathcal D}_n)= 5,
$$
as asserted.
\end{proof}

\begin{rmk}
In Section \ref{sec11} we discussed an alternative measure of size of
a polyhedron $P$ that counts its number of edges $e(P)$.
The  examples $P_n$ used  in this construction work for the edge number size measure as well.
These $P_n$   have $n$ vertices, $n$ faces, and  $2n-1$ edges, and so establish boundedness of
  the shadow function with respect to  any of these measures of size of the polyhedron  going to $+\infty$.
\end{rmk}

\section{ Silhouette Span Lower Bound for Unbounded Polyhedra}\label{sec9}

It is well known that convex polyhedra can be characterized in terms of having
polyhedral shadows in all directions (Klee \cite{Kle59}).
  There are  two  natural  $d$-dimensional generalizations  of the shadow problem.
   A first generalization
 considers  $(d-1)$-dimensional projections of
 $d$-dimensional
 polyhedra.  This  problem can be related to an $(d-1)$-dimensional version of the stabbing number
 problem discussed in Section \ref{sec6}.
 This problem has been solved. Toth \cite{T08} has constructed examples in all dimensions
 having small stabbing numbers, extending the analysis of Chazelle, Edelsbrunner and Guibas \cite{CEG89}.

  A second  generalization of shadow number to $d$-dimensions
   considers  $2$-dimensional projections of   $d$-dimensional
 polyhedra.  To our knowledge,  the minimax shadow problems
 analogous to this paper in higher dimensions $d \ge 4$, that
 of finding the growth of the  minimal shadow number function of  $2$-dimensional
 shadows of  $d$-polyhedra having $n$ vertices, remain open.

  The second generalization of  $2$-dimensional  shadows
 of $d$-dimensional polyhedra has previously
 been studied in connection with linear programming.
 The {\em shadow vertex simplex algorithm} is a parametric version of
 the simplex algorithm in linear programming
  introduced by Gass and Saaty \cite{GS55} in 1955.
 Analysis of this algorithm leads to study of $2$-dimensional shadows of $d$-dimensional polyhedra.
The worst case behavior of the
 shadow vertex method  is related to cases of
 LP polyhedra having large shadows,
 which leads     to the problem of {\em maximizing} shadow
 number. This problem has been solved.
  For dimension $d=3$ it is easily seen that
for all $n \ge 4$  there are polyhedra having all vertices visible in
a shadow: one may take a suitable oblique cone over a base that is an $(n-1)$-gon. Amenta and Ziegler \cite{AZ98}
 and  G\"{a}rtner, Helbling, Ota and Takahashi \cite{GHOT13} (see also \cite{GJM12}) present constructions
  of  bad examples of $2$-dimensional shadows in higher dimensions.

  There are also problems related to average case analysis of the
  shadow vertex algorithm.  In the 1980's  Borgwardt \cite{Bo82a}, \cite{Bo82}, \cite{Bo87}, \cite{Bo99} developed
 a polynomial time average case analysis of the variant of the simplex method for linear programming
 that uses the shadow vertex pivot rule.
 The shadow vertex simplex algorithm  later provided the
  fundamental example used  in Spielman and Teng's \cite{ST04}
  theory of smoothed analysis of
 algorithms. Their analysis requires obtaining some control on the (average) size of shadows,
 as a function of the numbers of variables and constraints in the linear program.
 Further developments of smoothed analysis
 are given in Despande and Spielman \cite{DS05} and Kelner and Spielman \cite{KS06}.

\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
We are indebted to Arnau Padrol  for
pointing out to us  that Theorem 1.1
follows from  results of \cite{CEG89}.
Some work of the second author was
done while at the National University of Singapore.
He thanks them for support to work with the first author
in Michigan.

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Computational Geometry (cs.CG)

Moser's Shadow Problem


The Convex Configurations of "Sei Shonagon Chie no Ita" and Other Dissection Puzzles

Abstract: The tangram and Sei Shonagon Chie no Ita are popular dissection puzzles consisting of seven pieces. Each puzzle can be formed by identifying edges from sixteen identical right isosceles triangles. It is known that the tangram can form 13 convex polygons. We show that Sei Shonagon Chie no Ita can form 16 convex polygons, propose a new puzzle that can form 19, no 7 piece puzzle can form 20, and 11 pieces are necessary and sufficient to form all 20 polygons formable by 16 identical isosceles right triangles. Finally, we examine the number of convex polygons formable by different quantities of these triangles.

\section{Introduction}

A \emph{dissection puzzle} is a game where one must decide
whether a given set of polygons can be placed in the plane
in such a way that their union is a given target polygon.
Rotation and reflection are allowed but scaling is not,
and all polygons must be internally disjoint.
Formally, a set of polygons $S$ can \emph{form} a polygon $P$
if there is an isomorphism up to rotation and reflection between
a partition of $P$ and the polygons of $S$ (i.e. a bijection $f(\cdot)$ from a partition of $P$ to $S$ such that $x$ and $f(x)$ are congruent for all $x$).

The \emph{tangram} is a set of polygons consisting of a square
cut by straight incisions into different-sized pieces.
See the left diagram in \figurename~\ref{fig:diagrams}.
Of anonymous origin, the first known reference in literature
is from 1813 in China \cite{Slocum}.
The tangram has grown to be extremely popular throughout the world and now has
over 2000 dissection and related puzzles \cite{Slocum,Gardner}.

\begin{figure}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{tangram-and-seisho}
  \caption{Left: the tangram in square configuration.
           Right: \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace pieces in square configuration.}
  \label{fig:diagrams}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[t]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth,clip=true,trim=0 20 100 20]{chie.jpg}
  \caption{A set of plates in the form of \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace pieces, crafted by Tomomi Takeda in Kanazawa, Japan.}
  \label{fig:pottery}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
 \centering
  \includegraphics[width=0.2\textwidth]{hole}
  \caption{A typical \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace layout as a square configuration with a hole missing.}
  \label{fig:hole}
\end{figure}

There is a similar but less famous Japanese set of puzzle pieces called \emph{\Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace}.
Sei Sh\=onagon\protect\xspace was a courtier and famous novelist in Japan, but
there is no evidence that the puzzle existed a millennium ago during her lifetime.
\emph{Chie no ita} means \emph{wisdom plates}, which refers to the physical puzzle.
It is said that the puzzle is named after Sei Sh\=onagon\protect\xspace's wisdom.
Historically, the \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace first appeared in literature in 1742 \cite{Slocum}.
Even in Japan, the tangram is more popular than \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace, though
\Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace is common enough to have been made into ceramic dinner plates (see e.g. \figurename~\ref{fig:pottery}, \cite{pottery}), and in puzzle communities it is admired for being able to form some more interesting shapes that the tangram cannot, such as a square configuration with
a hole missing (\figurename~\ref{fig:hole}).

Wang and Hsiung considered the number of possible convex
  (filled) polygons formed by the tangram \cite{WH42}.
They first noted that, given sixteen identical isosceles right triangles,
 one can create the tangram pieces by gluing some edges together.
Consequently, the tangram pieces can only form a subset of the convex polygons that sixteen idential isosceles right triangles can form.
  Embedded in the proof of their main theorem, Wang and Hsiung \cite{WH42} demonstrate
  that sixteen identical isosceles right triangles can form exactly 20 convex polygons.
These 20 are illustrated in \figurename~\ref{fig:20}.
The tangram can realize thirteen of them.

\begin{figure*}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height=0.19\textheight]{20-polygons.pdf}
  \caption{All 20 potential convex polygons.}
  \label{fig:20}
\end{figure*}

It is quite natural to ask how many of these convex polygons
the \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace pieces can form.
We first show that \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace achieves sixteen.
Therefore, in a sense, we can conclude that \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace is more expressive than the tangram:
while both the tangram and \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace contain seven pieces made from sixteen identical
isosceles right triangles, \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace can form more convex polygons than the tangram.
(Also, recall that the \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace configuration in \figurename~\ref{fig:hole} is impossible with the tangram.)

One might next wonder if this can be improved with different shapes.
We demonstrate a set of seven pieces that can form nineteen convex polygons
among the 20 candidates, and that to realize them all, it
is necessary to have at least eleven shapes, which is sufficient.
Throughout, all triangles mentioned are identical isosceles right triangles with side lengths $1$, $1$, and $\sqrt 2$.

\section{The \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace puzzle}

\begin{theorem}
  The \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace puzzle pieces can be rearranged into exactly
  sixteen distinct convex polygons up to reflection and rotation.
  \label{thm:main}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We first notice that the seven puzzle pieces can be decomposed into
sixteen identical right isosceles triangles, just like the tangram.

We make use of two important results from Wang and Hsiung \cite{WH42}.
First, there are only 20 candidate convex polygons that we need to consider;
  and second, in any formable convex polygon,
  the bases of the sixteen triangles can be pairwise collinear,
  parallel, or perpendicular (\cite{WH42}, Lemma 1).
This means we only need to consider configurations that could be embedded with triangle and target polygon vertices on integer coordinates.

Sixteen convex polygons are filled as illustrated in \figurename~\ref{fig:example}.
The remaining four polygons cannot be formed since they are too thin.
More precisely, the largest trapezoid puzzle piece of area 2 has a base of length 3.
Under the four rotations we need to consider, the base of the trapezoid does not
  fit into the target polygon.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure*}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height=0.19\textheight]{examples-2}
  \caption{The sixteen convex polygons that can be formed by \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace.}
  \label{fig:example}
\end{figure*}

\section{An optimal seven piece puzzle}

Although \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace is more expressive than the tangram,
\Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace{} is not the optimal set of seven pieces
if one wishes to form as many convex polygons as possible.

\begin{theorem}
  There is a set of seven polygons composed from sixteen identical right isosceles triangles
  that can form nineteen distinct convex polygons.
  Furthermore, no set of seven polygons composed of sixteen identical right isosceles triangles can form 20 distinct convex polygons.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The set of seven polygons that can form nineteen distinct convex polygons and
its formations are depicted in \figurename~\ref{fig:19}.
Theorem~\ref{thm:eleven-pieces} implies that no seven-piece puzzle can form all 20 convex polygons.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure*}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height=0.19\textheight]{19.pdf}
  \caption{Seven pieces forming nineteen convex polygons.}
  \label{fig:19}
\end{figure*}

  \begin{figure}[h]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{skinny}
    \caption{Any set of 7 pieces covering shape (a)
   must have a piece that consists of at least 3 triangles,
   which cannot be covered by shape~(b).}
    \label{fig:skinny}
  \end{figure}

\section{Beyond seven pieces}

The next natural question to ask is how many pieces built from sixteen identical isosceles right triangles might one need in order to form all 20 convex polygons.

\begin{theorem}
Ten or fewer pieces formed from sixteen identical isosceles right triangles
cannot form 20 convex polygons.
However, eleven pieces can.
  \label{thm:eleven-pieces}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
  In the negative direction, observe that to form the $1 \times 8\sqrt 2$ parallelogram in \figurename~\ref{fig:skinny}~(a) with ten pieces, there must be at least
six $1 \times \sqrt 2$ parallelograms and at most four single triangles (larger pieces all contain a parallelogram
  and do not fit within the shape of \figurename~\ref{fig:skinny}~(b)).

  Consider the $2\sqrt 2$-sidelength square.
  The perimeter has 8 incident triangles, so the six
  parallelograms would have to cover at least four of those.
  Exhaustive case analysis, as seen in \figurename~\ref{fig:fitting-in-square},
    shows that all arrangements that cover enough of the exterior triangles
    leave a square in the middle and boundary triangles that cannot fit a single parallelogram.

    \begin{figure}[h]
      \centering
      \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{6-do-not-fit-in-square}
      \caption{Six parallelograms do not fit in a square.}
      \label{fig:fitting-in-square}
    \end{figure}

  We observe that five $1 \times \sqrt 2$ parallelograms can fit inside each of the
  20 shapes: see \figurename~\ref{fig:11}.
  So, these parallelograms along with six single triangles can realize
  all 20 convex polygons.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure*}[h]
  \centering
  \includegraphics[height=0.19\textheight]{11-pieces.pdf}
  \caption{Eleven pieces forming all twenty convex polygons (the six individual isosceles right triangles not shown).}
  \label{fig:11}
\end{figure*}

\section{Concluding remarks}

Sixteen identical right isosceles triangles can form twenty convex polygons.
We compare the power of expression of some classic dissection puzzles constructed from
  these triangles.
The ``difficulty'' of a dissection puzzle for people to solve can be estimated by the number of ways in which one can solve it.
Computing these numbers efficiently remains a compelling task for future work.

  \begin{figure
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{f-n-graph}
    \caption{The number $f(n)$ of convex polygons formed by
             $n$ identical right isosceles triangles.}
    \label{fig:num}
  \end{figure}

Another interesting direction of study is the number of convex polygons formed by different numbers of triangles.
Let $f(n)$ be the number of formable convex polygons formed by $n$ identical right isosceles triangles.
To analyze the tangram and \Sei Chie no Ita\protect\xspace puzzles,
the value $f(16)=20$ plays an important role.
If we design larger puzzles,
it is natural to consider the number of formable polygons.
The function $f(n)$ itself is also interesting to investigate.
The values of the function presented in \figurename~\ref{fig:num} were determined by computer search:
all potential side length assignment to octogons were considered
(for convex, simple arragements of identical right isosceles triangles, the interior angles are at most $\frac{3\pi}{4}$; polygons with more than 8 sides have average exterior angle strictly less than $\pi/4$).
Although it is not monotone ($f(1)=1, f(2)=3$, and $f(3)=2$),
it is a generally increasing function.
Trivially, for all $x \geq 0$, we have~$f(x) < f(2x)$ as one can subdivide every triangle into two to get the same number. The inequality's strictness comes from a new, skinnier parallelogram with side lengths 1 and $x \sqrt 2$.

\section*{Acknowledgements}
We are especially grateful to the National Science Foundation's East Asia
  and Pacific Summer Institutes and the Japan Society for the Promotion
  of Science Summer Program for encouraging international collaboration.

\bibliographystyle{alpha}

Computational Geometry (cs.CG); History and Overview (math.HO)