Conway's spiral and a discrete Gömböc with 21 point masses

Abstract: We show an explicit construction in 3 dimensions for a convex, mono-monostatic polyhedron (i.e., having exactly one stable and one unstable equilibrium) with 21 vertices and 21 faces. This polyhedron is a 0-skeleton, with equal masses located at each vertex. The above construction serves as an upper bound for the minimal number of faces and vertices of mono-monostatic 0-skeletons and complements the recently provided lower bound of 8 vertices. This is the first known construction of a mono-monostatic polyhedral solid. We also show that a similar construction for homogeneous distribution of mass cannot result in a mono-monostatic solid.

\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}

\subsection{Mono-stability and homogeneous polyhedra}
If a rigid body has one single stable position then we call it \emph{mono-stable}, and this property was probably first explored by Archimedes as he developed his famous design for ships \cite{Archimedes}.  Mono-stability might also be of advantage for rigid bodies under gravity, supported on a rigid (frictionless) surface, as it  facilitates self-righting.

Beyond these applications, mono-stable bodies have also attracted  considerable mathematical interest. In particular, in case of
convex polyhedra with homogeneous mass distribution, it is still unclear
what are the minimal numbers $F^S, V^S$ of faces and vertices necessary to achieve mono-stability. Conway and Guy in 1967 \cite{Conway}
offered the first upper bound by describing such an object with $F=19$ faces and $V=34$ vertices. The Conway-Guy construction was improved by Bezdek \cite{Bezdek} to $(F,V)=(18,18)$ and later by Reshetov \cite{Reshetov} to $(F,V)=(14,24)$. The mentioned values of $F$ and $V$ define the best known \emph{upper bounds} for a mono-stable polyhedron, so we have  $F^S \leq 14 , V^S \leq 18$. Even less is known about the lower bounds: the only known result is due to Conway \cite{Dawson} who proved that a homogeneous tetrahedra have at least two stable equilibria, from which $F^S, V^S \geq 5$ follows.

\subsection{Mono-unstable and mono-monostatic homogeneous polyhedra}
 The natural dual property to being mono-stable is being \emph{mono-unstable}, i.e. to have one single unstable static balance position. The Conway-Guy polyhedron has, beyond the single stable position on one face, 4 unstable equilibria at 4 vertices. The first example for a mono-unstable polyhedron  was demonstrated in \cite{balancing}, having $F=18$
 faces and $V=18$ vertices and in the same paper it was proven that a homogeneous tetrahedron can not be mono-unstable. Thus, for the minimal numbers $F^U, V^U$ for the faces and vertices that a homogeneous, mono-unstable polyhedron may have, the following bounds apply:
 $ 5 \leq F^U \leq 18$, $5 \leq V^U \leq  18$.

 If a rigid body is either mono-stable or mono-unstable then we call it monostatic.
 If it has both properties, then we call it mono-monostatic.
  The construction of the first convex, homogeneous, mono-monostatic  body  called G\"{o}mb\"{o}c \cite{VarkonyiDomokos} in 2006 raised the interest in the subject, because a polyhedral version of the G\"{o}mb\"{o}c is not known.  This implies that for the minimal numbers
  $F^{\star}, V^{\star}$ for the faces and vertices of a mono-monostatic polyhedron the only known bounds are $F^{\star}, V^{\star} \geq 5.$

\subsection{0-skeletons and the main result}
Here we highlight a new aspect of this problem: instead of looking at uniform mass distribution, we consider polyhedra with unit masses at the vertices, also called polyhedral 0-skeletons. The latter problem may appear, at first sight, almost `unsportingly' easy. However, the minimal vertex number $V^{\star}_0$ and face number $F^{\star}_0$  to produce  a mono-monostatic polyhedral 0-skeleton are not known. Even more curiously, the minimal number of vertices for a mono-monostatic,  \emph{polygonal} 0-skeleton (in 2 dimensions) is not known either.

The first related results have been reported in \cite{Bozoki} where, for the minimal number of vertices $V^{U}_0$ for
a mono-unstable polyhedral 0-skeleton $V^{U}_0 \geq 8$ was proven and this implies the lower bounds
$F^{U}_0 \geq 6$ (via the theorem of Steinitz \cite{Steinitz}) and it also implies the bounds $F^{\star}_0 \geq 6, V^{\star}_0 \geq 8$
for mono-monostatic polyhedral 0-skeletons.

In this paper we explain the background and show some constructions which may inspire further research. In particular, by providing an explicit construction of a mono-monostatic polyhedral 0-skeleton with 21 faces and 21 vertices, we prove

\begin{theorem}\label{th1}
$F^{\star}_0,  V^{\star}_0 \leq 21.$
\end{theorem}
Our example, illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:intro}(c) and defined on line 3 of Table~\ref{tb:monomono},  appears to be the first discrete construction of a mono-monostatic object and it may help to inspire thinking about
the bounds  $F^{\star}, V^{\star}$ for the homogeneous case.

The paper is structured as follows: in Section~\ref{spirals} we explain the geometric idea behind Conway's classical construction and how
this idea may be generalized in various directions. In Section~\ref{skeletons}, by relying on an idea by Dawson \cite{Dawson}, we describe the construction for a mono-monostatic 0-skeleton in 2 dimensions, having $V_0=11$ vertices and then we proceed to prove Theorem \ref{th1} by providing the construction of the mono-monostatic 0-skeleton. In Section~\ref{other} we show the connection to other problems, including the mechanical complexity of polyhedra, and also point out why the particular geometry of our constructions may not be applied to the construction of a homogeneous mono-monostatic polyhedron. In Section~\ref{sum} we draw conclusions.

\section{The geometry of Conway spirals}\label{spirals}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{intro.eps}
\caption{Construction of symmetric, mono-monostatic discs and polyhedra; a) Geometry of the Conway spiral $P_0 , \ldots, P_n$.  $P_0$ is fixed at $z=1$ and each radius $OP_i$ is perpendicular to the corresponding edge $P_{i-1}P_i$. The geometry of the spiral is uniquely described in terms of $n$ angular variables $\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n$; b) 2D mirror-symmetric mono-monostatic polygon with 11 vertices for $n=5$ and $k=2$, see Table~\ref{tb:monomono}, line 6 for numerical data; c) 3D mono-monostatic polyhedron with 5-fold rotational symmetry for $n=4$ and $k=5$, see Table~\ref{tb:monomono}, line 3 for numerical data.}
\label{fig:intro}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{The classical Conway double spiral and the Conway-Guy monostable polyhedron}
The essence of the Conway-Guy polyhedron is a remarkable planar construction to which we will briefly refer as the \emph{Conway spiral}, illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:intro}(a).
In terms of symbols shown in the figure, it can be defined as an open planar polygon $M$ composed of the sequence of points $P_0 , \ldots, P_n$ with $\angle O P_i P_{i-1} = \pi/2$, $i = 1\ldots n$. Without loss of generality, $O$ is considered here as the origin of the coordinate system, all points $P_i$ lie in the plane $xz$ and the coordinates of $P_0$ are fixed at (0,0,1).
If we consider double Conway spirals generated by reflection symmetry, for the $x$-coordinate
 of center of mass $C$  of any double Conway spiral we have $x_C=0$  and due to the special design, the double Conway spiral is monostatic if and only if $z_C<0$.

The original Conway-Guy construction is equivalent to Figure~\ref{fig:intro}(a) if all central angles are equal, i.e., we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:conway}
\alpha _1 = \alpha _2 =\dots =\alpha _{n+1},
\end{equation}
implying that all triangles $P_iP_{i+1}O$ are similar. This case, to which we refer as the \emph{classical Conway spiral} admits a discrete family of shapes, parametrized by the integer $n$, and a corresponding family of double Conway spirals.
None of these polygons (interpreted as homogeneous discs rolling along their circumference
on a horizontal plane) is monostatic, i.e., we have $z_C>0$ for all values of $n$,
since convex monostatic, homogeneous discs do not exist \cite{DomokosRuina}. Still, the Conway spiral may be regarded as a \emph{best shot} at a monostatic polyhedral disc with reflection symmetry. The same intuition suggests that a Conway spiral may need minimal added `bottom weight' to become monostatic.

Conway and Guy added this bottom weight by extending the shape into 3D as an oblique prism and they computed the minimal value of $n$ necessary to make
this homogeneous oblique prism (with the cross-section of a classical Conway spiral) monostable as $n=8$, resulting in a homogeneous, convex polyhedron with 34 vertices and 19 faces.

\subsection{The modified Conway double spiral and Dawson's monostable simplices in higher dimensions}
The idea of the Conway spiral may be generalized to bear more fruits. In \cite{Dawson} Dawson, seeking monostatic simplices in higher dimensions, considered the generalized version with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dawson}
\alpha_i = c^{i-1}\alpha _1, \quad i=1,2, \dots n \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \alpha_{n+1}=\alpha_n
\end{equation}
to which we refer as a \emph{modified Conway spiral}. To describe Dawson's construction we again consider a double spiral, with the mirror images of the vertex $P_i$ defined as $P_{-i}$. In this model the vectors $\mathbf{x}_i=OP_i$, $i=-n, -n+1 \dots n$ are interpreted as the \emph{face vectors} of a simplex ($\mathbf{x}_i$ being orthogonal to the face $f_i$ and having magnitude proportional to the area of $f_i$). To qualify as face vectors, any set of vectors must be balanced \cite{Minkowski}, i.e., we must have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sum}
    \sum_{i=-n}^{n}\mathbf{x}_i=0.
\end{equation}
 Dawson  proved that the condition for the simplex tipping from face $f_i$ to $f_j$ can be written as
 \begin{equation}\label{dawson1}
\lvert\mathbf{x}_i\rvert < \lvert\mathbf{x}_j\rvert\cos\theta_{ij},
\end{equation}
where $\theta_{ij}$ is the angle between $\mathbf{x}_i$ and $\mathbf{x}_j$. By using this
\emph{tipping condition} he found that for $n=5, c=1.5$ the modified Conway spiral (\ref{eq:dawson})  yields a set of balanced vectors, the small
perturbation of which defines a 10-dimensional, homogeneous mono-stable simplex.

\section{Mono-monostatic 0-skeletons}\label{skeletons}
\subsection{The generalized double Conway spiral and planar 0-skeletons}\label{ss:11gon}
If, instead of considering double Conway spirals as homogeneous disks we associate unit masses with the vertices then we obtain objects which may be called \emph{polygonal 0-skeletons}. Since there are relatively many vertices with negative $z$ coordinate and relatively few ones with positive $z$ coordinate, this interpretation appears to be a convenient manner to
add `bottom weight' to the geometric double Conway spiral. In this interpretation as planar 0-skeletons, one may ask whether mono-monostable double Conway spirals exist and if yes, what is the minimal number of their vertices necessary to have this property. Since static balance equations for such a skeleton coincide with (\ref{eq:sum}) and the tipping condition (\ref{dawson1})  is equivalent to prohibit an unstable equilibrium at vertex $v_i$  \cite{Bozoki}, it is easy to see that Dawson's geometric construction, interpreted as a 0-skeleton,
has $z_C<0$ and it defines a polygon  with $V=11$ vertices which is mono-monostatic.

One can ask whether this construction is optimal in two ways: whether there exists a smaller value of $n$ which defines a mono-monostatic modified double Conway spiral (interpreted as a 0-skeleton)
and whether by keeping $n=5$, one may pick other values for $\alpha_i$ which
yield a center of mass with larger negative coordinate. The first question was answered in \cite{Dawson3} in the negative by proving that monostable simplices in $d<9$  dimensions do not exist. This implies that for $n<5$ no mono-monostatic Conway spiral (interpreted as a 0-skeleton) exists, but nothing is known  about the existence of mono-monostatic 10-gonal disks as 0-skeletons since they cannot be represented by a symmetric double Conway spiral. The second question may be addressed if we admit \emph{generalized} Conway spirals with arbitrary $\alpha_i$ and optimize this construction to seek the minimum of $z_C$.

In any case, to verify monostatic property of a given double Conway spiral, $z_C$ needs to be computed. In terms of coordinates $z_i$, we have from Figure~\ref{fig:intro}(a):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:z_C}
 z_C = \dfrac{1+k \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n} z_i}{1+kn},
\end{equation}
where $k$ stands for the multiplicity of Conway spirals; now $k=2$.
Furthermore, any $z_i$ can be expressed in terms of angles $\angle P_0 O P_i = \sum_{j=1}^i \alpha_j$ and distances $$r_i = \overline{OP_i} = \overline{OP_0}\cdot\prod_{j=1}^i \cos\alpha_j$$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:z_i}
 z_i = \prod_{j=1}^i \cos\alpha_j\cdot\cos\left(\sum_{j=1}^i \alpha_j\right).
\end{equation}
By merging (\ref{eq:z_C}) and (\ref{eq:z_i}) we get
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:z_prodsum}
 z_C(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = \dfrac{1+k \displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{n} \prod_{j=1}^i \cos\alpha_j\cdot\cos\left(\sum_{j=1}^i \alpha_j\right)}{1+kn},
\end{equation}
or briefly,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:z_C_simp}
 z_C(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = \dfrac{1+k S_n(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}{1+kn}.
\end{equation}
We performed an optimization for $\boldsymbol{\alpha} = (\alpha_1 \ldots \alpha_n)$ and found the shape in Figure~\ref{fig:intro}(b) (see Table~\ref{tb:monomono}, line 6 for computed values of $\boldsymbol{\alpha}$). Note that this single result is an alternative proof for the existence of monostable $10$-dimensional simplices given by Dawson \cite{Dawson}.

We remark that a similar optimization process of the Conway spiral is discussed in \cite{Minich} for the homogeneous case.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{th1}:  Conway $k$-spirals and mono-monostatic 0-skeletons in 3 dimensions}\label{ss:21hedron}

\begin{proof}

Generalized Conway spirals may be used as the building blocks of mono-monostatic 0-skeletons in 3 dimensions. The key idea is to consider instead of a double Conway spiral \emph{multiple} Conway spirals in a $D_k$-symmetrical arrangement around the $z$-axis, rotated at angles $\beta=2\pi/k$. We call such a construction a Conway $k$-spiral. Planar double spirals correspond to $k=2$, while for higher values of $k$ one may seek to find mono-monostatic 0-skeletons.
If for $k=2$ the Conway spiral defines  a mono-monostatic planar 0-skeleton then we expect that for higher values of $k$ we will obtain mono-monostatic polyhedral 0-skeletons.

The procedure of finding mono-monostatic Conway $k$-spirals (interpreted as 0-skeletons) is as follows:

Let us consider a planar polygonal line $M$ as the intersection of a symmetry plane bisecting a sequence of faces, while another polygonal line $N(Q_0, \ldots,Q_n)$ remains on a sequence of edges as before.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{revol.eps}
\caption{Construction of polyhedra with rotational symmetry: side and top views. Polygonal lines $M(P_0, \ldots,P_n)$ (solid line) and $N(Q_0, \ldots,Q_n)$ (dashed line) lie in symmetry planes through faces and edges, respectively. Any optimal construction requires $Q_0Q_1$ instead of $P_0P_1$ to be perpendicular to radius $OQ_1$.}
\label{fig:revol}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let $e_i$ be an edge $Q_iQ_{i+1}, i=0\ldots n-1$ and face $f_i$ be adjacent to $e_i$. Call face $f_i$ (edge $e_i$) `outwards' if its upper edge (endpoint) is farther from the axis of symmetry than the bottom one, i.e., for a face $f_i$, $\sum_{j=i+2}^{n+1} \alpha_j \leq \pi/2$. Clearly, $e_i$ is outwards if and only if $f_i$ does.

By construction, $e_0$ and $f_0$ are never outwards but we assume from now on that any $e_i$, $f_i$ with $i>0$ are outwards edges and faces. For them it is clear that $\angle OQ_{i+1}Q_i > \angle OP_{i+1}P_i$ and if this latter equals $\pi/2$, there will be no equilibrium points inside $f_i$. Non-outwards edges, however, are just on the contrary and therefore an optimal construction for the entire polyhedron requires $\angle OQ_{i+1}Q_i = \pi/2$, causing the top vertex $Q_0$ to be moved up by a positive distance $h$ as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:revol}.

It is easy to read from the right triangle $OP_0P_1$ that $z_1 = \cos^2\alpha_1$ and $x_1 = \sin\alpha_1 \cos\alpha_1$. Let the distance between $z$ and $Q_1$ (also between $z$ and $Q'_1$ in the figure) be denoted by $x'_1$. Since $x_1 = x'_1 \cos(\pi/k)$ (see the top view) and $OQ'_1Q_0$ is also a right triangle, for its height of length $x'_1$ the following equality holds:
\begin{equation*}
 \label{eq:height}
 \cos^2\alpha_1 (\sin^2\alpha_1 + h) = \left(\dfrac{\sin\alpha_1 \cos\alpha_1}{\cos(\pi/k)}\right)^2,
\end{equation*}
which yields
\begin{equation*}
 \label{eq:h}
 h = \sin^2\alpha_1 \tan^2\dfrac{\pi}{k}.
\end{equation*}
Since it affects the vertical position of the top vertex and thus of the centroid, (\ref{eq:z_C_simp}) should be modified as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:z_C_ast}
 z^\ast_C(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = \dfrac{1+k S^\ast_n(\boldsymbol{\alpha})}{1+kn},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:S_n_ast}
 S^\ast_n(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) = S_n(\boldsymbol{\alpha}) + \dfrac{1}{k} \sin^2\alpha_1 \tan^2\dfrac{\pi}{k}.
\end{equation}
We performed calculations in search of minimum $z^\ast_C$ that lead to different constructions (denoted as $P_{n,k}
), one
of these constructions with $n=4  , k=5$ is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:intro}(c).

Table~\ref{tb:monomono} summarizes the possible mono-monostatic objects with minimum required $k$ found by the above method ($v = kn+1$ stands for the number of vertices or/and faces):
\begin{table}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|ccclp{7.7cm}|}
 \hline
 no. & $n$ & $k$ & $v$ & $z_C$ & $(\alpha_{n+1},\alpha_n, \ldots, \alpha_1)$
 \\ \hline \hline
 1 & 2 & 25 & 51 & -0.00051277 & $(49.799,   49.799,   80.402)^\circ$
 \\ \hline
 2 & 3 & 8 & 25 & -0.0061413 & $(30.273, 30.273, 46.543, 72.912)^\circ$
 \\ \hline
 3 & 4 & 5 & 21 & -0.015354 & $(19.716, 19.716, 29.875, 44.519, 66.173)^\circ$
 \\ \hline
 4 & 5 & 4 & 21 & -0.029972 & $(13.494, 13.494, 20.336, 29.781, 43.215, 59.680)^\circ$
 \\ \hline
 5 & 7 & 3 & 22 & -0.042695 & $( 7.1815, 7.1815, 10.7864, 15.6392, 22.1409,$ $30.9129, 43.0793, 43.0788)^\circ$
 \\ \hline
 6 & 5 & 2$^\ast$ & 11 & -0.017984 & $( 13.201, 13.201, 19.890, 29.110, 42.172, 62.427)^\circ$
 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\vskip 5mm
\caption{List of some mono-monostatic 0-skeletons $P_{n,k}$ with $D_k$-symmetry and $v = nk+1$ vertices; $z_C$ can be verified via (\ref{eq:z_prodsum}). $k=2$ marked by `$\ast$' is the two
-dimensional case already mentioned at the end of Subsection~\ref{ss:11gon}. The minimum number of vertices for monostatic 3D rotational polyhedra is 21.}
\label{tb:monomono}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\end{proof}

We believe that this construction  is close to a (local) optimum, i.e., we think that this may be the mono-monostatic 0-skeleton defined by multiple generalized Conway spirals which has the least number of vertices. This, however, does not exclude the existence of mono-monostatic 0-skeletons with smaller number of vertices which have less symmetry. Our construction provides 21 as an \emph{upper bound} for the minimal number of vertices and faces of a mono-monostatic 0-skeleton. The lower bound for the number of vertices was given in \cite{Bozoki} as 8, from which a lower bound of 6 for the number of faces follows \cite{Steinitz1}.

\section{Connection to related other problems}\label{other}
\subsection{Mechanical complexity of polyhedra}
It is apparent that constructing monostatic polyhedra is not easy. In \cite{balancing} this general observation was formalized by introducing the \emph{mechanical complexity} $C(P)$ of a polyhedron $P$ as
\begin{equation}\label{complexity}
 C(P) = 2(V(P) + F(P) - S(P) - U(P)),
\end{equation}
where $V(P),F(P),S(P),U(P)$ stand for the number of vertices, faces, stable and unstable equilibrium points of $P$, respectively.
The \emph{equilibrium class} of polyhedra with given numbers $S,U$ of stable and unstable equilibria is denoted by $(S,U)^E$ and the complexity of such class was defined as
\begin{equation}\label{complexity1}
C(S,U)=min\{C(P): P \in (S,U)^E\}.
\end{equation}
The only material distribution considered in \cite{balancing} was uniform density.
Other types of homogeneous mass distributions, commonly referred to as \emph{h-skeletons} are also possible: 0-skeletons have mass uniformly distributed on their vertices,  1-skeletons have mass uniformly distributed on the edges, 2-skeletons have mass uniformly distributed  on the faces. To distinguish between these
cases we will apply an upper index to the symbol $C$ of complexity, indicating the type of skeleton  (the absence of index indicates classical homogeneity).

In the case of uniform density (classical homogeneity), the complexity for all non-monostatic equilibrium classes $(S,U)^E$ for $S,U>1$ has been computed in \cite{balancing}. On the other hand, the complexity has not yet been determined for any of the monostatic classes $(1,U)^E, (S,1)^E$. Lower and upper bounds exist for $C(S,1),C(1,U)$ for $S,U>1$. The most difficult appears to be the mono-monostatic class $(1,1)^E$ for the complexity $C(1,1)$ of which  the prize USD $1.000.000/C(1,1)$ has been offered in \cite{balancing}. Not only is $C(1,1)$  unknown, at this point there is no upper bound known either.

\subsection{Complexity of some monostable and mono-unstable polyhedral 0-skeletons}\label{ss:complexity}
Admittedly, computing upper bounds for 0-skeletons is easier.
This is already apparent in the planar case, where monostatic discs with homogeneous mass distribution in the interior do not exist \cite{DomokosRuina} whereas a monostatic 0-skeleton could be constructed with $V=11$ vertices  \cite{Dawson}. In 3D,  our construction of a 0-skeleton with $F=21$ faces and $V=21$ vertices (see the top left polyhedron in Figure~\ref{fig:compl} and Table~\ref{tb:monomono}, line 3) offers such an upper bound as
\begin{equation}\label{bound}
C^0(1,1)\leq 2(21+21-1-1) =80
\end{equation}
This is the first known such construction and its existence may help to solve the more difficult cases, in particular,
the case with uniform density. In  Figure~\ref{fig:compl} we provide upper bounds for the complexity of 0-skeletons in some other monostatic equilibrium classes as well.

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{compl.eps}
\caption{Complexity of some monostable and mono-unstable polyhedra. Drawn representatives of equilibrium classes $(S,U)$ prove an upper bound for complexity of the respective class, see the bracketed numbers as lower and upper bounds, respectively, in the top left corner of their cells. Since mono-unstable polyhedra with less than 8 vertices (and therefore, by Steinitz's theorem, with less than 6 faces) cannot exist, 24 is a lower bound of complexity of classes $(S,1)$. Complexity of the four non-monostatic classes is exactly known by the existence of simplicial representatives of each class \cite{balancing}. Coordinates of drawn polyhedra, except for the one in class (1,1), are given in Table~\ref{tb:coord}. }
\label{fig:compl}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\subsection{Existence and non-existence of certain types of mono-monostatic 0-skeletons and homogeneous bodies}\label{ss:existence}

The following paragraphs illustrate the relative difficulty of constructing mono-monostatic $h$-skeletons from a different point of view. Firstly, it is known from \cite{DomokosRuina} that no homogeneous mono-monostatic two-dimensional objects rolling along their perimeter exist; however, $P_{5,2}$ drawn in Figure~\ref{fig:intro}b is a mono-monostatic 0-skeleton in 2D. A similar property of non-existence
of homogeneous mono-monostatic objects will be proven below for Conway $k$-spirals, interpreted as homogeneous solids.

\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:nonexst}
Let $P$ be a convex solid with center of mass at $C$. Let $a$ denote an axis intersecting $P$ and let $h(a)$ be a half-plane the boundary of which is $a$. Let $N$ denote the intersection of $P$ and $h(a)$ and let us describe $N$ as the polar distance $r(\varphi)$, measured from $C$ as origin.

If there exists an axis $a$ such that $r(\varphi)$ is strictly monotonic for all possible $h(a)$ then

$P$ is not mono-monostatic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let an axis $z$ be directed along $a$ and let a point $Q$ on the surface of $P$ be parametrized as $Q(\theta, \varphi,r)$ where $0 \leq\theta\leq \pi$ is the meridian angle between $CQ$ and $z$, $0\leq\varphi< 2\pi$ is the azimuth angle (with respect to a fixed starting position),  $r=\lvert Q-C \rvert$.
Since $P$ is convex, $r = r(\theta, \varphi)$ for all surface points is uniquely defined. In this polar system, $C$ can only be the centre of mass of $P$ if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Cheight}
    \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi} \dfrac{2}{9} r(\theta, \varphi)^4 \sin\theta \cos\theta d\theta d\varphi = 0,
\end{equation}
once $(1/3)r^3 \sin\theta d\theta d\varphi$ is the volume of an elementary pyramid with its apex at $C$ and $(2/3)r\cos \theta$ measures the $z$ coordinate for the centre of mass of an elementary pyramid.
From the condition of the theorem, it follows that $r$ is strictly monotonic in $\theta$: assume now that $\theta_1 < \theta_2 \iff r_1 > r_2$ for all $Q_1(\theta_1, \varphi, r_1), Q_2(\theta_2, \varphi, r_2)$ and rewrite (\ref{eq:Cheight}) as follows:
\begin{equation*}
    \dfrac{2}{9} \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi/2} \left(r(\theta, \varphi)^4 \sin\theta \cos\theta + r(\pi-\theta, \varphi)^4 \sin(\pi-\theta) \cos(\pi-\theta) \right) d\theta d\varphi = 0
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation}
    \dfrac{1}{9} \int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi/2} \left(r(\theta, \varphi)^4 - r(\pi-\theta, \varphi)^4 \right) \sin 2\theta d\theta d\varphi = 0.
\end{equation}
Here both terms of the product in the integrand are positive, so the definite integral cannot evaluate to zero.
\end{proof}

\begin{cor}
Conway $k$-spirals, interpreted as homogeneous solids, are never mono-monostatic.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We prove the Corollary by showing that a Conway $k$-spiral satisfies the monotonicity condition of the theorem. Consider $a$ to be aligned with axis $z$ again. Since we consider polyhedral solids, the `level sets' for $r$ are concentric circles on all faces.  By construction, perpendicular projection of $C$ on the base $k$-gon is incident to $a$, so $r$ increases monotonically within that $k$-gon along any $h$. For all other faces, assume that there is a plane $h$ intersecting or being tangent to a level set, but it would immediately imply that a non-horizontal edge (surely contained by some plane $h$) of the same face carries an equilibrium point which contradicts the mono-monostatic property. As a consequence, any $h$ intersects all set levels without being even tangent to any of them, which is a necessary and sufficient condition for $r$ being strictly monotonic along any line $N$ started and ended at the axis $a$.
\end{proof}

We note that Theorem~\ref{thm:nonexst} also implies that any homogeneous smooth solid of revolution cannot be mono-monostatic.

\section{Concluding comments}\label{sum}
In this paper, by relying on the geometric idea of Conway spirals,  we demonstrated the existence of mono-monostatic 0-skeletons in two and three dimensions. In the former case, by drawing on an earlier result of Dawson \cite{Dawson} we showed
that mono-monostatic planar 0-skeletons with $V=11$ vertices exist. It follows from another result of Dawson \cite{Dawson3} that for $V=9$ such constructions can not exist The $V=10$ case is not known.  In three dimensions we showed an explicit construction with $V=21$ vertices,
thus providing an upper bound for the minimal number of vertices. The lower bound is $V=8$ \cite{Bozoki} and other results are not known.
We hope that these constructions will motivate further research to find the minimal number of $V$ for a mono-monostatic 0-skeleton, both in two and in 3 dimensions.

\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{scriptsize}
    \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|}
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$(S,U) = (1,2)$}\\
    $x$ & $y$ & $z$ \\
    \hline
     0 & 374 & 0 \\
    154 & 80 & 0 \\
    124 & -32 & 0 \\
    81 & -78 & 0 \\
    47 & -95 & 0 \\
    24 & -100 & 0 \\
    -24 & -100 & 0 \\
    -47 & -95 & 0 \\
    -81 & -78 & 0 \\
    -124 & -32 & 0 \\
    -154 & 80 & 0 \\
    0 & -1200 & 5000 \\
    \hline
    \end{tabular}
    \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|}
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$(S,U) = (1,3)$}\\
    $x$ & $y$ & $z$ \\
    \hline
     0 & 466 & 0 \\
    166 & 70 & 0 \\
    121 & -47 & 0 \\
    71 & -87 & 0 \\
    35 & -100 & 0 \\
    -35 & -100 & 0 \\
    -71 & -87 & 0 \\
    -121 & -47 & 0 \\
    -166 & 70 & 0 \\
    0 & -100 & -900 \\
    0 & -100 & 900 \\
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{c}{\phantom{0} }
\end{tabular}
\vskip 5mm
    \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|}
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$(S,U) = (2,1)$}\\
    $x$ & $y$ & $z$ \\
    \hline
    0 & 374.328 & 0 \\
    153.589 & 80.2023 & 20 \\
    124.268 & -32.3675 & 14.9819 \\
    81.1006 & -77.5258 & 8.45141 \\
    46.9121 & -94.4981 & 3.41302 \\
    23.4562 & -100 & 0 \\
    -23.4562 & -100 & 0 \\
    -46.9121 & -94.4981 & 3.41302 \\
    -81.1006 & -77.5258 & 8.45141 \\
    -124.268 & -32.3675 & 14.9819 \\
    -153.589 & 80.2023 & 20 \\
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{c}{\phantom{0} }
    \end{tabular}
    \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|}
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{|c|}{$(S,U) = (3,1)$}\\
    $x$ & $y$ & $z$ \\
    \hline
    0 & 334.907 & 0 \\
    145.019 & 83.7267 & 10 \\
    145.019 & 0 & 9.6018 \\
    94.9161 & -68.9606 & 5.40618 \\
    53.5898 & -92.8203 & 2.10256 \\
    26.7949 & -100 & 0 \\
    -26.7949 & -100 & 0 \\
    -53.5898 & -92.8203 & 2.10256 \\
    -94.9161 & -68.9606 & 5.40618 \\
    -145.019 & 0 & 9.6018 \\
    -145.019 & 83.7267 & 10 \\
    \hline
    \multicolumn{3}{c}{\phantom{0} }
    \end{tabular}
\end{scriptsize}
\caption{Coordinates of some polyhedra shown in Figure~\ref{fig:compl}. Monostable objects are provided with integer coordinates which would be difficult for mono-unstable ones due to oblique polygonal faces.}
\label{tb:coord}
\end{center}
\end{table}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Combinatorics (math.CO)


On cycles in intersection graph of rings

Abstract: Let $R$ be a commutative ring with non-zero identity. We describe all $C_3$- and $C_4$-free intersection graph of non-trivial ideals of $R$ as well as $C_n$-free intersection graph when $R$ is a reduced ring. Also, we shall describe all complete, regular and $n$-claw-free intersection graphs. Finally, we shall prove that almost all Artin rings $R$ have Hamiltonian intersection graphs. We show that such graphs are indeed pancyclic.

\section{Introduction}
If $S=\{S_1,\ldots,S_n\}$ is a family of sets, then the intersection graph of $S$, is the graph having $S$ as its vertex set with $S_i$ adjacent to $S_j$ if $i\neq j$ and $S_i\cap S_j\neq\emptyset$. A well-know theorem due to Marczewski \cite{tam-frm} states that all graphs are intersection graph.

An interesting case of intersection graphs is when the members of $S$ have an algebraic structure. Bosak \cite{jb} was the first who studied graphs arising from semigroups. Cs\'{a}k\'{e}any and Poll\'{a}k \cite{bc-gp} defined and studied the intersection graphs of nontrivial proper subgroups of groups. Zelinka \cite{bz} continued the work of Cs\'{a}k\'{e}any and Poll\'{a}k on intersection graphs of subgroups of finite abelian groups, and later Shen \cite{rs} studies such graphs and classifies all finite groups whose intersection graphs of nontrivial subgroups are disconnected. Herzog, Longobardi and Maj \cite{mh-pl-mm} study the intersection graphs of maximal subgroups of finite groups and among other results classify all finite groups with disconnected graph. The same as for groups, the intersection graphs of ideals of rings and subspaces of vector spaces have been discussed in \cite{ic-sg-tkm-mks,shj-njr-1,shj-njr-2}.

Let $R$ be a commutative ring with a non-zero identity. The intersection graph of $R$, denoted by $\Gamma(R)$, is a graph whose vertices are the nontrivial ideals of $R$ and two distinct vertices are joined by an edge if the corresponding ideals of $R$ have a non-zero intersection.

In this paper, we study the cycle structure of intersection graphs. First we classify all Artin rings with a regular (hence complete) intersection graph. Next we shall investigate all rings $R$ whose intersection graphs $\Gamma(R)$ do not have an induced cycle of  length $3$ or $4$. Also, we show that if $R$ is a reduce ring, then $\Gamma(R)$ is $C_n$-free $(n\geq5)$ if and only if $R$ has no ideal which is the direct sum of $n$ non-zero ideals. The same result is also established for $n$-claws instead of $n$-cycles. In the last section, we shall prove that except few cases all other Artin rings have Hamiltonian intersection graphs. Using simple modifications of the given Hamiltonian cycle, we show that $\Gamma(R)$ is pancyclic whenever it is Hamiltonian. Recall that an $n$-claw (a claw) is the star graph $K_{1,n}$ ($K_{1,3}$). Also a graph is called pancyclic if it contains cycles of possible arbitrary sizes $\geq3$.

The following theorem will be used without further reference.
\begin{recalltheorem}[{\cite[Theorem VI.2]{brm}}]
Let $R$ be an Artin commutative ring with a non-zero identity. Then
\[R=R_1\oplus\cdots\oplus R_n,\]
where $R_1,\ldots,R_n$ are local rings.
\end{recalltheorem}
If $R$ is a ring, then the ideals $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ are called \textit{independent} if \[\a_i\cap(\a_1+\cdots+\a_{i-1}+\a_{i+1}+\cdots+\a_n)=0\]
for $i=1,\ldots,n$. In other words, $(\a_1,\ldots,\a_n)=\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n$ is the direct sum of $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$. All rings in this paper are commutative rings with a non-zero identity.
\section{$C_n$-free intersection graphs}
As a most simple property we may investigate on intersection graph $\Gamma(R)$ of ideals of a ring, is whether $\Gamma(R)$ is a complete graph. We show that the class of Artin rings with a complete intersection graph coincides with the class of Artin rings with a regular intersection graph and then characterize all such rings.
\begin{theorem}
Let $R$ be an Artin ring, which is not a direct sum of two fields. If $\Gamma(R)$ is regular, then it is complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First we show that $R$ has no direct factor, which is a field. If $R=S\oplus F$, where $F$ is a field and $S$ is not a field, then $N_{\Gamma(R)}(F)=\{\a\oplus F:0\neq\a\vartriangleleft S\}$ and $N_{\Gamma(R)}(S)=\{\a,\a\oplus F:0\neq\a\vartriangleleft S\}$. Hence, $\deg_{\Gamma(R)}S>\deg_{\Gamma(R)}F$, which is a contradiction. Therefore, each maximal ideal of $R$ is adjacent to all other vertices of $\Gamma(R)$, from which it follows that $\Gamma(R)$ is a complete graph.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
If $R$ is an Artin ring, then the graph $\Gamma(R)$ is complete if and only if there exists a sequence of rings $R_1,\ldots,R_n$, in which $R=R_1$, $(R_i,R_{i+1})$ is a local ring for all $i=1,\ldots,n-1$ and $R_n$ is a field.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $R$ is not a local ring, then $R=S\oplus T$ for some non-zero rings $S$ and $T$. But then $S\cap T=0$, which is a contradiction. Thus $R=(R,\mathfrak{m})$ is a local ring. Continuing this way for $\mathfrak{m}$ instead of $R$ the result follows. The converse is obvious.
\end{proof}

In the following two theorems, we shall consider conditions under which the intersection graph of a ring is a star graph, which also results in a characterization of rings with a bipartite intersection graph.
\begin{theorem}\label{pendant}
Let $R$ be a ring, which is neither a direct sum of two fields nor a direct sum of a field with a local ring $(S,\mathfrak{m})$ such that $\mathfrak{m}$ is a field. If $\Gamma(R)$ has a pendant, then $\Gamma(R)$ is a star graph.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\a\in V(\Gamma(R))$ be a pendant. If $\a$ is a maximal ideal, then it is easy to see that $R=(R,\a)$ is a local ring and $\a=(x)$ is a principal ideal. Let $\b$ be the ideal of $R$ adjacent to $\a$. Then $\b=(x^2)$ and $(x^3)=0$, hence $\Gamma(R)$ is an edge.

If $\a$ is not a maximal ideal, then there exists a unique maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of $R$ containing $\a$. Clearly, $\a=(x)$ is principal and $(x^2)=0$. If $R$ is not a local ring, then there exists a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{n}$ such that $\a\cap\mathfrak{n}=0$. Thus $R=\a\oplus\mathfrak{n}$ and $\a$ is a field. Then $\mathfrak{m}=\a+\b$ for some ideal $\b$ of $\mathfrak{n}$. But then $(\mathfrak{n},\b)$ is a local ring such that $\b$ is a field, which is a contradiction. Therefore $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ is a local ring. Clearly, $\mathfrak{m}=(x,y)$ for some $y\in R$. If $\mathfrak{m}$ is principal, then we may assume that $\mathfrak{m}=(y)$. Thus $(y^2)=(x)$ and $(y^3)=0$, which implies that $\Gamma(R)$ is an edge. If $\mathfrak{m}$ is not principal, then $(x)\cap(y)=0$ and consequently $xy=0$. Since $(x)\subseteq (x)+(y^2)\subseteq (x)+(y)=\mathfrak{m}$, it follows that $(y^2)=0$. Hence $\mathfrak{m}^2=0$ so that $\mathfrak{m}$ is a vector space over the field $F=R/\mathfrak{m}$, where the multiplication is defined by $(r+\mathfrak{m})\cdot m=rm$ for all $r\in R$ and $m\in\mathfrak{m}$. Clearly, there is a one to one correspondence between ideals of $R$ contained in $\mathfrak{m}$ and subspaces of $(\mathfrak{m},F)$. Hence $\dim_F\mathfrak{m}=2$ so that $\Gamma(R)$ is a star graph.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{triangle}
\label{main}
 If $\Gamma(R)$ is triangle-free, then $\Gamma(R)$ is star or two isolated vertices.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $R$ is not a local ring, then there exist two distinct maximal ideals $\mathfrak{m}_1$ and $\mathfrak{m}_2$ in $R$. Since $\Gamma(R)$ is triangle-free, we should have $\mathfrak{m}_1\cap\mathfrak{m}_2=0$. Hence $R=\mathfrak{m}_1\oplus\mathfrak{m}_2$. Let $F_1=R/\mathfrak{m}_1$ and $F_2=R/\mathfrak{m}_2$. Then $R\cong F_1\oplus F_2$ and $\Gamma(R)$ is the union of two isolated vertices.

Now, suppose that $(R,\mathfrak{m})$ is a local ring. We have two cases for $\mathfrak{m}$.

Case 1: $\mathfrak{m}$ is not a principal ideal. First we show that $\mathfrak{m}^2=0$. If $x\in\mathfrak{m}$ and $y\in \mathfrak{m}\setminus xR$, then $ xR\cap yR=0$. Thus $xy=0$ so that $(\mathfrak{m}\setminus xR)x=0$. On the other hand, if $r\in R$, then $xr=y+(xr- y)$ so that $xrx =0$. Thus $xRx=0$ and consequently $\mathfrak{m} x=0$. Hence $\mathfrak{m}^2=0$.

Let $F=R/\mathfrak{m}$. The same as in the proof of Theorem \ref{pendant}, $(\mathfrak{m},F)$ is a vector space. If $\dim_F\mathfrak{m}\geq3$ and $\lbrace x, y, z\rbrace$ is an independent set in $(\mathfrak{m},F)$, then the set of ideals $\{(x),(x,y),(x,y,z)\}$ induces a triangle in $\Gamma(R)$, which is a contradiction. Thus $\dim_F\mathfrak{m}\leq2$.

If $\dim_F\mathfrak{m}=2$, then every two distinct non-trivial ideals of $R$ different from $\mathfrak{m}$ are disjoint. Thus $\Gamma(R)$ is a star graph with $\mathfrak{m}$ at the center. If $\dim_F\mathfrak{m}=1$, then $\Gamma(R)$ is a single vertex and we are done.

Case 2: $\mathfrak{m}=xR$ is a principal ideal. Let $\a$ be a non-zero ideal of $R$. Then $ \a\subseteq\mathfrak{m}$. If $y\in\a$, then $y=rx$ for some $r \in R$. If $r$ is a unit, then $x=yr^{-1} \in \a$ and hence $ \a= \mathfrak{m} $. If $\a\neq\mathfrak{m}$, then $r$ is not unit and so $r=sx$, for some $s\in R$. Thus $y=sx^2$ and subsequently $\a\subseteq\mathfrak{m}^2\subseteq\mathfrak{m} $. Since $\Gamma(R)$ is triangle free, it follows that $\a= \mathfrak{m}^2$. Therefore $\Gamma(R)$ is either a single vertex when $\mathfrak{m}=\mathfrak{m}^2$ or it is an edge when $\mathfrak{m}\neq\mathfrak{m}^2$.
\end{proof}

The following corollary is a direct consequence of the preceding two theorems.
\begin{corollary}
Let $R$ be a ring, which is neither a direct sum of two fields nor a direct sum of a field with a local ring $(S,\mathfrak{m})$ such that $\mathfrak{m}$ is a field. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)]$\Gamma(R)$ is triangle-free,
\item[(2)]$\Gamma(R)$ has a pendant,
\item[(3)]$\Gamma(R)$ is bipartite.
\item[(4)]$\Gamma(R)$ is star.
\end{itemize}
\end{corollary}

In what follows, we shall concentrate on cycle structure of intersection graphs and give a characterization of almost all intersection graphs under investigation that do not have an induced cycle of length greater than $3$.
\begin{theorem}
The graph $\Gamma(R)$ is $C_{4}$-free if and only if $R$ has no set of four non-zero independent ideals.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First suppose that $R$ has an ideal which is a direct sum of four non-zero ideals, namely $\a_1,\a_2,\a_3$ and $\a_4$. Then $\a_1\oplus\a_2$, $\a_2\oplus\a_3$, $\a_3\oplus\a_4 ,\a_4\oplus\a_1$ induces a cycle of length $4$ in $\Gamma(R)$.

Conversely, suppose that $R$ has an induced $4$-cycle with vertices $\a_1,\a_2,\a_3$ and $\a_4$. Then $\a_1\cap\a_3=\a_2\cap\a_4=0$. Since $\a_2\cap\a_3+\a_3\cap\a_4\subseteq\a_3$, we have
\begin{align*}
(\a_1\cap\a_2)\cap(\a_2\cap\a_3+ \a_3\cap\a_4+\a_4\cap\a_1)&\subseteq(\a_1\cap\a_2)\cap(\a_3+(\a_4\cap\a_1))\\
&=(\a_1\cap\a_2)\cap (\a_3\oplus\a_4\cap\a_1).
\end{align*}
If $a+b\in (\a_1\cap\a_2)\cap(\a_3\oplus\a_4\cap\a_1)$, where $a\in\a_3$ and $b\in\a_4\cap\a_1$, then $a\in\a_1$, which implies that $a=0$. Then $b\in\a_2$ and similarly $b=0$. Hence
\[(\a_1\cap\a_2)\cap(\a_2\cap\a_3+\a_3\cap\a_4+\a_4\cap\a_1)=0.\]
Similar arguments show that $(\a_1\cap\a_2),(\a_2\cap\a_3),(\a_3\cap\a_4)$ and $(\a_4\cap\a_1)$ are non-zero independent ideals and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}

Recall that a ring is reduced if it has no non-zero nilpotent element.
\begin{theorem}
Let $R$ be a reduced ring. Then $\Gamma(R)$ is $C_n$-free ($n\geq5$) if and only if $R$ has no set of $n$ independent of ideals.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First suppose $\Gamma(R)$ is $C_n$-free. If $R$ has $n$ non-zero independent ideals $\a_1,\ldots\a_n$, then $\a_1\oplus\a_2,\a_2\oplus\a_3,\ldots,\a_n\oplus\a_1$ induces a cycle of length $n$ in $\Gamma(R)$, which is a contradiction.

Now, suppose that $R$ has no set of $n$ non-zero independent ideals and the ideals $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ induce a cycle of length $n$. Let $\b_n=\a_n\cap\a_1$ and $\b_i =\a_i\cap\a_{i+1}$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n-1$. Then for all distinct $1\leq i,j\leq n$, we have $\b_i\b_j= 0$. Let $\b_i^*=\b_1+\cdots+\b_{i-1}+\b_{i+1}+\cdots+\b_n$. Then $\b_i\b_i^*=0$. Thus $(\b_i\cap\b_i^*)^2\subseteq\b_i\b_i^*=0$, for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. Since $R$ is reduced, it follows that  $\b_i\cap\b_i^*=0$, from which it follows that $\{\b_1,\ldots,\b_n\}$ is a set of non-zero independent ideals of $R$, which is a contradiction.
\end{proof}

In the sequel, we give another approaches to induced cycles in intersection graphs. The following lemma is straightforward.
\begin{lemma}
Suppose $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ induce a cycle of length $n$ in $\Gamma(R)$. Then there exist $t$ independent ideals $\a_{i_1},\ldots,\a_{i_t}$ such that $2\leq t\leq\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$ and $\a_{i_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_{i_t}$ is adjacent to $\a_i$ for all $i=1,\ldots,n$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ induce a cycle of length $n$ in $\Gamma(R)$ and the number $t$ introduced in the previous lemma takes it maximum value $\lfloor\frac{n}{2}\rfloor$. Then $R$ has a set of $n$ non-zero independent ideals if $n$ is even and it has a set of $n-1$ non-zero independent ideals if $n$ is odd.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\a_1,\a_3,\ldots,\a_{2\lfloor\frac{n}2\rfloor-1}$ are independent. A simple verification shows that
\[\{\a_1\cap\a_2,\a_2\cap\a_3,\ldots,\a_{n-1}\cap\a_n,\a_n\cap\a_1\}\]
when $n$ is even,
\[\{\a_1\cap\a_2,\a_2\cap\a_3,\ldots,\a_{2\lfloor\frac{n}2\rfloor-1}\cap\a_{n -1},\a_n\cap\a_1\}\]
when $n$ is odd are sets of non-zero independent ideas of $R$, as required.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
Suppose $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ $(n\geq3)$ are independent ideals of $R$. Let $\b_i=\a_{i_1}\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_{i_{n_i}}$, for $i=1,\ldots,n$. Then $\b_1,\ldots,\b_n$ induce a cycle of length $n$ if and only if there exist a permutation $\pi\in S_n$ such that $\b_i=\a_{\pi(i)}\oplus\a_{\pi(i+1)}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $n=3$ then the result is obvious. If there exist $\pi \in S_n$ such that $\b_i=\a_{\pi(i)}\oplus\a_{\pi(i +1)}$, for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, then there is nothing to prove. Hence we may assume that $\b_1,\ldots,\b_n$ are vertices of an induced cycle with length $n\geq4$. Then $n_i\geq 2$, for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, otherwise $\b_j=\a_{j_1}$ for some $j$. But then $\a_{j_1}$ is adjacent to $\b_{j-1}$ and $\b_{j+1}$, which implies that $\b_{j-1}$ and $\b_{j+1}$ are adjacent, a contradiction. Hence $2n\leq \sum_{i=1}^{n}n_i$. On the other hand, the number of $\b_j$ containing $\a_i$ is at most two for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, which implies that $\sum_{i=1}^{n}n_i\leq2n$. Therefore $\sum_{i=1}^{n}n_i=2n$ and hence $n_i=2$, for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. Now the result is straightforward.
\end{proof}

Utilizing the same method used before, we may prove the following result for $n$-claws instead of $n$-cycles.
\begin{theorem}
Let $R$ be a reduced ring. Then the ideals $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ of $R$ are independent and $\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n$ is a proper ideal of $R$ if and only if there exist an induced $n$-claw in $\Gamma(R)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ are independent ideals of $R$ such that $\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n$ is a proper ideal of $R$, then clearly $\{\a_1,\ldots,\a_n,\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n\}$ induces an $n$-claw in $\Gamma(R)$.

Now, suppose that the ideals $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ and $\a$ are pendants and the center of an induced $n$-claw, respectively. Let
\[\a_i^*=\a_1+\cdots+\a_{i-1}+\a_{i +1}+\cdots+\a_n,\]
for all $i=1,\ldots,n$. Then
\[(\a_i\cap\a_i^*)^2\subseteq\a_i\a_i^*=\sum_{j \neq i}\a_i\a_j\subseteq\sum_{j\neq i}\a_i\cap\a_j=0,\]
for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, which implies that $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ are independent. If  $R\neq\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n$, then we are done. Now, suppose that $R=\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n$. If $\a_i$ is not a field for some $1\leq i\leq n$, then by replacing $\a_i$ by one of its non-zero proper ideals, we may assume that $R\neq\a_1\oplus\cdots\oplus\a_n$, as required. Otherwise $\a_1,\ldots,\a_n$ are all fields. But then $\a_i\subseteq\a$, for all $i=1,\ldots,n$, which implies that $\a=R$, a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\section{Hamilton cycles}
The aim of this section is to show that except few cases all intersection graphs are Hamiltonian. Indeed, we shall prove the stronger result that such graphs are pancyclic.

A simple verification shows that if $R=S\oplus F$, where $F$ is a field and $\Gamma(S)$ has a Hamiltonian path, then $\Gamma(R)$ has a Hamiltonian cycle. This fact enables us to prove the following result. In what follows, the set of all ideals of a ring $R$ is denoted by $\mathbf{I}(R)$.
\begin{theorem}\label{hamiltonian}
Let $R$ be an Artin ring. Then $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian if and only if $R$ is not isomorphic to the following rings:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)]$F$ or $E\oplus F$,
\item[(2)]$S$ or $E\oplus S$ such that $(S,F)$ is a local ring,
\item[(3)]$S$ such that $(S,T)$ is a local ring and $(T,F)$ is a local ring,
\end{itemize}
where $E$ and $F$ are fields.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $R$ is isomorphic to one of the rings in parts (1), (2) or (3), then clearly $\Gamma(R)$ is not Hamiltonian. Now, suppose that $R$ is a ring such that $\Gamma(R)$ is not Hamiltonian. We proceed in some steps:

Case 1: $R=R_1\oplus R_2$ such that $|\mathbf{I}(R_1)|,|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|\geq4$. Let
\[\mathbf{I}(R_1)=\{0=\a_0,\a_1,\ldots,\a_m=R_1\}\]
and
\[\mathbf{I}(R_2)=\{0=\b_0,\b_1,\ldots,\b_n=R_2\}.\]
Clearly an arbitrary ideal of $R$ can be expressed as $\a_i\oplus\b_j$ for some $1\leq i\leq m$ and $1\leq j\leq n$. Consider an $(m\times n)$-grid and put $\a_i\oplus\b_j$ on the $(i,j)$-th coordinate. By Figures 1, 2 and 3, the subgraph induced by ideals $\a_i\oplus\b_j$ in which $\a_i,\b_j\neq0$ is Hamiltonian with a Hamiltonian cycle in which there exists at least one edge on every row as well as one edge on every column. If $\{\a_i\oplus\b_j,\a_{i+1}\oplus\b_j\}$ is an edge such that $i,j>0$, then by removing this edge and adding two edges $\{\a_i\oplus\b_j,\b_j\}$ and $\{\b_j,\a_{i+1}\oplus\b_j\}$ we reach to a new cycle including the vertex $\b_j$. Similarly, we may enlarge the resulting cycle in which the new cyclic contains an arbitrary $\a_i\neq0$. Continuing this way, we reach to a Hamiltonian cycle for $\Gamma(R)$, a contradiction.

Case 2: $R=R_1\oplus R_2$ such that $\mathbf{I}(R_1)\geq3$ and $|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|=3$. The same as in case 1, we may present ideals of $R$ on the grids as it is shown in Figures 4 and 5, which gives rise to a Hamiltonian cycle for $\Gamma(R)$. Hence $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian, which is a contradiction.

Case 3: $R=S\oplus F$, where $F$ is a field. If $S=S_1\oplus S_2$, where either $S_1$ or $S_2$, say $S_1$ is not a field, then $R=S_1\oplus(S_2\oplus F)$ and by case 1, $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian. Now, suppose that $S_1$ and $S_2$ are both fields. Then
\[S_1\sim S_1\oplus S_2\sim S_2\sim S_2\oplus F\sim F\sim S_1\oplus F\sim S_1\]
is a Hamiltonian cycle for $\Gamma(R)$. Hence $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian, a contradiction.

Case 4: If $R$ is a field or it is a direct sum of two fields, then we are done. If not, by cases 1, 2 and 3, there exists a sequence $\{(S_i,R_i)\}_{i=1}^n$ of local rings and a sequence $\{F_i\}_{i=1}^n$ of fields such that $R=R_0=S_1$ or $S_1\oplus F_1$ and $R_i=S_{i+1}$ or $S_{i+1}\oplus F_{i+1}$ for all $1\leq i<n$. Moreover, $R_n$ is a field. If $n=1$, then either $\Gamma(R)$ is a single vertex or it is a path of length three. If $n=2$, then $R=S_1, R_1=S_2$ and $\Gamma(R)$ is an edge. If $n\geq3$, then since $\Gamma(R_{n-2})$ is a path, $\Gamma(R_{n-3})$ and hence $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian, which is a contradiction. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6,rotate=90]
\draw [dotted] (0,0) grid (4,4);
\draw [dotted] (5,0) grid (9,4);
\draw [dotted] (0,5) grid (4,9);
\draw [dotted] (5,5) grid (9,9);

\draw [color=white] (0,8)--(0,9)--(1,9);
\draw [color=white] (8,0)--(9,0)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (3,4)--(3,0)--(1,0)--(1,1)--(2,1)--(2,2)--(1,2)--(1,3)--(2,3)--(2,4)--(1,4);
\draw [thick] (2,5)--(1,5)--(1,6)--(2,6)--(2,7)--(1,7)--(1,8)--(2,8);
\draw [thick] (3,5)--(3,8)--(4,8)--(4,5);
\draw [thick] (4,4)--(4,0);

\draw [thick] (5,0)--(5,4);
\draw [thick] (6,4)--(6,0)--(7,0)--(7,4);
\draw [thick] (8,2)--(8,4);
\draw [thick] (8,0)--(8,1)--(9,1)--(9,4);

\draw [thick] (5,5)--(5,8)--(6,8)--(6,5);
\draw [thick] (7,5)--(7,8)--(8,8)--(8,5);
\draw [thick] (9,5)--(9,8);

\draw [thick] (8,0) to [out=77, in=-77] (8,2);
\draw [thick] (2,8) to [out=13, in=167] (9,8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,0.5)--(4.8,0.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,1.5)--(4.8,1.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,2.5)--(4.8,2.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,3.5)--(4.8,3.5);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,5.5)--(4.8,5.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,6.5)--(4.8,6.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,7.5)--(4.8,7.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,8.5)--(4.8,8.5);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (0.5,4.2)--(0.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (1.5,4.2)--(1.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (2.5,4.2)--(2.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (3.5,4.2)--(3.5,4.8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (5.5,4.2)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (6.5,4.2)--(6.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (7.5,4.2)--(7.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (8.5,4.2)--(8.5,4.8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,4.2)--(4.82,4.82);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.82,4.2)--(4.2,4.82);
\end{tikzpicture}\\
Figure 1. $(|\mathbf{I}(R_1)|,|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|)=(\mbox{odd}>3,\mbox{even}>3)$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6,rotate=90]
\draw [dotted] (0,0) grid (4,4);
\draw [dotted] (5,0) grid (9,4);
\draw [dotted] (0,5) grid (4,9);
\draw [dotted] (5,5) grid (9,9);

\draw [color=white] (0,8)--(0,9)--(1,9);
\draw [color=white] (8,0)--(9,0)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (4,0)--(4,4);
\draw [thick](3,4)--(3,0)--(1,0)--(1,1)--(2,1)--(2,2)--(1,2)--(1,3)--(2,3)--(2,4)--(1,4);

\draw [thick] (2,8)--(1,8)--(1,7)--(2,7)--(2,6)--(1,6)--(1,5)--(2,5);
\draw [thick] (3,5)--(3,8)--(4,8)--(4,5);

\draw [thick] (5,4)--(5,0)--(6,0)--(6,4);
\draw [thick] (7,4)--(7,0)--(8,0);
\draw [thick] (8,4)--(8,1)--(9,1)--(9,4);

\draw [thick] (5,8)--(5,5);
\draw [thick] (6,5)--(6,8)--(7,8)--(7,5);
\draw [thick] (8,8)--(8,5);
\draw [thick] (9,8)--(9,5);

\draw [thick] (2,8) to [out=13, in=167] (9,8);
\draw [thick] (2,8) to [out=13, in=167] (9,8);
\draw [thick] (8,0) to [out=77, in=-77] (8,8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,0.5)--(4.8,0.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,1.5)--(4.8,1.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,2.5)--(4.8,2.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,3.5)--(4.8,3.5);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,5.5)--(4.8,5.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,6.5)--(4.8,6.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,7.5)--(4.8,7.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,8.5)--(4.8,8.5);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (0.5,4.2)--(0.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (1.5,4.2)--(1.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (2.5,4.2)--(2.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (3.5,4.2)--(3.5,4.8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (5.5,4.2)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (6.5,4.2)--(6.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (7.5,4.2)--(7.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (8.5,4.2)--(8.5,4.8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,4.2)--(4.82,4.82);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.82,4.2)--(4.2,4.82);
\end{tikzpicture}\\
Figure 2. $(|\mathbf{I}(R_1)|,|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|)=(\mbox{odd}>3,\mbox{odd}>3)$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6,rotate=90]
\draw [dotted] (0,0) grid (4,4);
\draw [dotted] (5,0) grid (9,4);
\draw [dotted] (0,5) grid (4,9);
\draw [dotted] (5,5) grid (9,9);

\draw [color=white] (0,8)--(0,9)--(1,9);
\draw [color=white] (8,0)--(9,0)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (1,0)--(2,0)--(2,1)--(1,1)--(1,2)--(2,2)--(2,3)--(1,3)--(1,4)--(2,4);
\draw [thick] (2,5)--(1,5)--(1,6)--(2,6)--(2,7)--(1,7)--(1,8)--(2,8);
\draw [thick] (3,5)--(3,8)--(4,8)--(4,5);
\draw [thick] (3,4)--(3,0);
\draw [thick] (4,4)--(4,0);

\draw [thick] (5,0)--(5,4);
\draw [thick] (6,4)--(6,0)--(7,0)--(7,4);
\draw [thick] (8,2)--(8,4);
\draw [thick] (8,0)--(8,1)--(9,1)--(9,4);

\draw [thick] (5,5)--(5,8)--(6,8)--(6,5);
\draw [thick] (7,5)--(7,8)--(8,8)--(8,5);
\draw [thick] (9,5)--(9,8);

\draw [thick] (8,0) to [out=77, in=-77] (8,2);
\draw [thick] (2,8) to [out=13, in=167] (9,8);
\draw [thick] (1,0) to [out=13, in=167] (3,0);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,0.5)--(4.8,0.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,1.5)--(4.8,1.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,2.5)--(4.8,2.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,3.5)--(4.8,3.5);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,5.5)--(4.8,5.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,6.5)--(4.8,6.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,7.5)--(4.8,7.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,8.5)--(4.8,8.5);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (0.5,4.2)--(0.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (1.5,4.2)--(1.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (2.5,4.2)--(2.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (3.5,4.2)--(3.5,4.8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (5.5,4.2)--(5.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (6.5,4.2)--(6.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (7.5,4.2)--(7.5,4.8);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (8.5,4.2)--(8.5,4.8);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,4.2)--(4.82,4.82);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.82,4.2)--(4.2,4.82);
\end{tikzpicture}\\
Figure 3. $(|\mathbf{I}(R_1)|,|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|)=(\mbox{even}>3,\mbox{even}>3)$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]

\draw [dotted] (0,0) grid (4,2);
\draw [dotted] (5,0) grid (9,2);
\draw [color=white] (0,1)--(0,0)--(1,0);
\draw [color=white] (8,2)--(9,2)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (0,1)--(0,2)--(1,2)--(1,1)--(2,1)--(2,2)--(3,2)--(3,1)--(4,1)--(4,2);
\draw [thick] (5,2)--(5,1)--(6,1)--(6,2)--(7,2)--(7,1)--(8,1)--(8,2);
\draw [thick] (8,0)--(9,0)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (8,2) to [out=-60, in=60] (8,0);
\draw [thick] (0,1) to [out=-13, in=-167] (9,1);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,.5)--(4.82,.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,1.5)--(4.82,1.5);

\end{tikzpicture}\\
Figure 4. $(|\mathbf{I}(R_1)|,|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|)=(3,\mbox{even}\geq3)$
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]

\draw [dotted] (0,0) grid (4,2);
\draw [dotted] (5,0) grid (9,2);
\draw [color=white] (0,1)--(0,0)--(1,0);
\draw [color=white] (8,2)--(9,2)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (0,1)--(0,2)--(1,2)--(1,1)--(2,1)--(2,2)--(3,2)--(3,1)--(4,1)--(4,2);
\draw [thick] (5,1)--(5,2)--(6,2)--(6,1)--(7,1)--(7,2)--(8,2)--(8,0);
\draw [thick] (8,0)--(9,0)--(9,1);

\draw [thick] (0,1) to [out=-13, in=-167] (9,1);
\draw [thick , color=white] (0,0)--(1,0);

\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,.5)--(4.82,.5);
\draw [loosely dotted,thick] (4.2,1.5)--(4.82,1.5);
\end{tikzpicture}\\
Figure 5. $(|\mathbf{I}(R_1)|,|\mathbf{I}(R_2)|)=(3,\mbox{odd}\geq3)$
\end{center}
\begin{theorem}\label{pancyclic}
Let $R$ be an Artin ring. Then $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian if and only if it is pancyclic.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\Gamma(R)$ is pancyclic, then clearly $\Gamma(R)$ is Hamiltonian. Now, we show that the converse is also true. Suppose on the contrary that there is an Artin ring $R$ such that $\Gamma(R)$ is a non-pancyclic Hamiltonian graph and that $R$ is minimal with this property. If $R$ is neither a local ring nor a direct sum of a local ring with a field, then by applying the following transformations on the Hamiltonian cycles constructed in cases 1 and 2 of Theorem \ref{hamiltonian}, along with replacing horizontal or vertical paths of length two to a path of length one, by joining its end vertices, we would reach to cycles with possible arbitrary length $\geq4$.
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.6]
\draw [dotted] (0,0) grid (1,1);
\draw [dotted] (3,0) grid (4,1);

\draw [dotted] (7,0) grid (8,1);
\draw [dotted] (10,0) grid (11,1);

\draw [dotted] (0,2) grid (1,3);
\draw [dotted] (3,2) grid (4,3);

\draw [dotted] (7,2) grid (8,3);
\draw [dotted] (10,2) grid (11,3);

\draw [thick] (0,1)--(0,0)--(1,0)--(1,1);
\draw [->] (1.5,0.5)--(2.5,0.5);
\draw [thick] (3,1)--(4,1);

\draw [thick] (7,1)--(8,1)--(8,0)--(7,0);
\draw [->] (8.5,0.5)--(9.5,0.5);
\draw [thick] (10,0)--(10,1);

\draw [thick] (1,2)--(0,2)--(0,3)--(1,3);
\draw [->] (1.5,2.5)--(2.5,2.5);
\draw [thick] (4,2)--(4,3);

\draw [thick] (7,2)--(7,3)--(8,3)--(8,2);
\draw [->] (8.5,2.5)--(9.5,2.5);
\draw [thick] (10,2)--(11,2);
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
On the other hand, by Theorem \ref{triangle}, the graphs under consideration contain triangles, which implies that $\Gamma(R)$ is pancyclic, a contradiction. Hence either $R=S$ or $R=S\times F$, where $(S,\mathfrak{m})$ is a local ring and $F$ is a field. If $\Gamma(\mathfrak{m})$ is Hamiltonian, then either $\Gamma(\mathfrak{m})$ is pancyclic, which implies that $\Gamma(R)$ is pancyclic too, contradicting the hypothesis, or $\Gamma(\mathfrak{m})$ is not pancyclic which contradicts the minimality of $R$. Thus $\Gamma(\mathfrak{m})$ is not Hamiltonian and $\mathfrak{m}$ is isomorphic to one of the five rings given in Theorem \ref{hamiltonian}. Now, a simple verification shows that in each case either $\Gamma(\mathfrak{m})$ is not Hamiltonian or it is pancyclic, which is a contradiction. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}


Synchronization of Kuramoto Oscillators in Dense Networks

Abstract: We study synchronization properties of systems of Kuramoto oscillators. The problem can also be understood as a question about the properties of an energy landscape created by a graph. More formally, let $G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph and $(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{n}$ denotes its adjacency matrix. Let the function $f:\mathbb{T}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be given by $$ f(\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n) = \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}.$$ This function has a global maximum when $\theta_i = \theta$ for all $1\leq i \leq n$. It is known that if every vertex is connected to at least $\mu(n-1)$ other vertices for $\mu$ sufficiently large, then every local maximum is global. Taylor proved this for $\mu \geq 0.9395$ and Ling, Xu \& Bandeira improved this to $\mu \geq 0.7929$. We give a slight improvement to $\mu \geq 0.7889$. Townsend, Stillman \& Strogatz suggested that the critical value might be $\mu_c = 0.75$.

\section{Introduction}
We study a simple problem that can be understood from a variety of
perspectives. Perhaps its simplest formulation is as follows: let
$G=(V,E)$ be a connected graph and $(a_{ij})_{i,j=1}^{n}$ denotes its
adjacency matrix. We assume the graph is simple, and thus
  $a_{ii} = 0$ for $i = 1, \ldots, n$. We are then interested in the
behavior of the energy functional
$f:\mathbb{T}^n \cong [0,2\pi]^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ given by
\begin{equation} \label{main}
 f(\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n) = \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}.
 \end{equation}
Ling, Xu \& Bandeira \cite{ling} ask the following very interesting
\begin{quote}
  \textbf{Question.} What is the relationship between the existence of
  local maxima and the topology of the network?
\end{quote}

$f$ assumes its global maximum when $\theta_i \equiv \theta$ is constant and this is the unique global maximum up to rotation. Factoring out the rotation symmetry, there are at least $2^n$ critical points of the form $\theta_i \in \left\{0, \pi\right\}$. The main question is under which condition we can exclude the existence of local maxima that are not global maxima.\\
This is related to the Kuramoto model as follows: suppose we consider the system of ordinary differential equations given by
$$ \frac{d \theta_i}{dt} = -\sum_{j=1}^{n}{a_{ij} \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}.$$
We can interpret this system of ODEs as a gradient flow with respect to the energy
$$ E(\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n) =  - \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}.$$
In this case, local maxima that are not global correspond to stable local minima of the gradient flow. In light of this model, particles on the circle that are connected by springs, it is natural to assume that no spurious local minimizer of this energy exist if there are enough springs. This motivated an existing line of research: Taylor \cite{taylor} proved that if each vertex is connected to at least $\mu(n-1)$ vertices for $\mu \geq 0.9395$, then \eqref{main} does not have local maxima that are not global. Ling, Xu \& Bandeira \cite{ling} improved this to $\mu \geq 0.7929$. They also showed the existence of a configuration coming from the family of Wiley-Strogatz-Girvan networks \cite{wiley} where each vertex is connected to $0.68n$ other vertices that indeed has local maxima that are not global. Townsend, Stillman \& Strogatz \cite{townsend} suggest that the critical value might be $\mu_c = 0.75$ and identify networks with $\mu = 0.75$ having interesting spectral properties. \\

The problem itself arises in a variety of settings. We refer to the surveys \cite{review1, review2, review3} for an overview regarding synchronization problems, to \cite{chaos} for insights into complexities of the Kuramoto model and to \cite{lopes, lopes2} for random Kuramoto models. There is also recent interest in the landscape of non-convex loss functionals for which this problem is a natural test case, we refer to \cite{loss1, loss2, loss3, loss4}.

\begin{theorem} If $G=(V,E)$ is a connected graph such that the degree of every vertex is at least $0.7889(n-1)$,  then
$$ f(\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n) = \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}$$
does not have local maxima that are not global.
\end{theorem}

The main idea behind the argument is a refinement of the approach of
Ling, Xu \& Bandeira \cite{ling} in a certain parameter range using a
new decomposition of the points. We consider the problem a natural
benchmark for testing our understanding of the geometry of energy
landscapes. We conclude by reiterating the original question from
\cite{ling}: which kind of assumption on the network (this paper, for
example, is only dealing with edge-density assumptions) implies
synchronization?

\section{Proof}
\subsection{Ingredients.} The purpose of this section is to sketch several of the tools that go into the argument which is a variation on the argument given by Ling, Xu \& Bandeira \cite{ling}. We first recall their argument. They start by introducing a useful Proposition (precursors of which can be found in Taylor \cite{taylor}).

\begin{proposition}[Ling, Xu, Bandeira \cite{ling}] Let $(\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n) \in \mathbb{T}^n$ be a strict local maximizer of \eqref{main}. If there exists an angle $\theta_r$ such that
$$ \forall~1 \leq i \leq n: \qquad |\sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)}| < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},$$
then all the $\theta_i$ have the same value.
\end{proposition}
The idea behind this argument is as follows: if
$(\theta_1, \dots, \theta_n) \in \mathbb{T}^n$ is a local maximizer,
then the quadratic form (corresponding to the negative Hessian) is positive semi-definite.
In other words, a necessary condition for being a local
maximum (derived in \cite{ling}) is that for all vectors
$w \in \mathbb{R}^n$
$$ \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2} \geq 0.$$
We can derive a contradiction by defining a vector
$w \in \left\{-1, 1\right\}^n$ depending on which of the two `cones'
the variable $\theta_i$ is in.
Then the summation only ranges over pairs that are in opposite sides of the cone. The cosine is negative for those values and since the graph is connected, there
is at least one connection leading to a contradiction.\\

A second important ingredient is the Kuramoto parameter \cite{kuramoto}
$$ r = \| r\| e^{i \theta_r}:= \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{i \theta_j}}.$$
The second part in the argument \cite{ling} is based on showing that
\begin{equation} \label{length}
\begin{aligned}
\|r\|^2 &\geq \frac{n^2}{2} - \sum_{i \neq j}{ (1-a_{ij}) \Abs{ \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} - \cos^2{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} }}  \\
&\geq \left(2 \mu - \frac{3}{2} \right)n^2 + 2(1-\mu)n,
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where the second inequality follows from
$$ \Abs{\cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} - \cos^2{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}} \leq 2$$
and
$$ \sum_{i \neq j}{(1-a_{ij})} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \sum_{j \neq i}{(1-a_{ij})} \leq \sum_{i=1}^{n}{ (1-\mu)(n-1)} = (1-\mu) (n-1)n.$$

The argument in \cite{ling} proceeds by writing
$$ \| r\| e^{-i (\theta_i - \theta_r)} = r e^{- i\theta_i} = \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{-i(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}$$
and taking imaginary parts to obtain
$$ \|r\| \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)} = \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}.$$
However, the first order condition in a maximum implies
$$ \sum_{j=1}^{n}{a_{ij} \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}} = 0$$
and thus we obtain
$$ \|r\| \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)} = \sum_{j=1}^{n}{(1-a_{ij}) \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}}.$$
As a consequence, we have
\begin{equation} \label{bound}
 | \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)} | \leq \frac{1}{\|r\|} \Biggl\lvert \sum_{j=1}^{n}{(1-a_{ij}) \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}} \Biggr\rvert \leq \frac{(1-\mu)n}{\|r\|}.
\end{equation}
The Proposition together with \eqref{length} and \eqref{bound} then imply the result.

\subsection{The Proof}
Our proof is motivated by the following simple observation: inequality \eqref{length} is only sharp when
$$ \Abs{\cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} - \cos^2{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}} = 2$$
for all pairs of angles $\theta_i, \theta_j$ for which $a_{ij} = 0$.  This only happens when $\theta_i - \theta_j = \pi$.
So the only extreme case of equality is when the points that are not connected are concentrated on two different sides of the torus.
Then, however, we can dramatically improve inequality \eqref{bound} since $\sin{(\pi)} = 0$.
The proof will decouple into two steps: either inequality \eqref{length}
is very far from sharp, in that case the origin Ling-Xu-Bandeira argument will result in the desired improvement, or
the inequality is close to being sharp in which case we can try to extract more information from it.\\

Our proof makes use of several new parameters.
As will come to no
surprise to the reader, we obtain them by working with unspecified
coefficients in the beginning and then solving the arising
optimization problem to obtain the optimal selection of
parameters. For readers who prefer explicit values to have an idea of
scales, we will later set
$$ \varepsilon = 0.5 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \delta = 0.88.$$

\begin{proof} The proof decouples into several steps.\\

\textbf{Step 1: Finding Good Vertices.}
 The first part of our proof emulates the argument from \cite{ling} with one slight modification. We assume that we are working with a slightly improved bound in \eqref{length}. Specifically, we first assume that we have the identity
$$
\sum_{i \neq j} (1 - a_{ij}) \Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) -
\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2} = (2-\alpha) (1-\mu) (n-1)n
$$
for some value of $\alpha > 0.0537$. In that case, running the original Ling-Xu-Bandeira argument again shows that we have
$$
| \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)} | < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$$ as long as
$\mu \geq 0.788897$. It thus remains to obtain a similar bound in the
case where this assumption does not hold. We may thus additionally
assume
\begin{equation} \label{standingassumption}
\sum_{i \neq j} (1 - a_{ij}) \Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) -
\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2} = (2-\alpha) (1-\mu) (n-1)n,
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is defined by the equation and satisfies $0 \leq \alpha \leq 0.0537$. The first assumption that we derive from this assumption is that there are many `good' vertices, a term that we will use repeatedly and that we now formally define.
\begin{definition} A vertex $i$ is `$\varepsilon-$good' if
\begin{equation} \label{firstcond}
\sum_{j=1,\, j \neq i}^{n} (1 - a_{ij})\Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) -
\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2} \geq (2-\varepsilon) (1-\mu)(n-1).
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
In practice, we will assume that $\varepsilon$ is fixed and to be optimized over later and we will refer to them as `good vertices' or `good points'. The nomenclature is motivated by the fact that the double sum has to be large (see equation \eqref{standingassumption}) and `good points' contribute to achieving this goal. It will also be reflected in the fact that we will derive some improved bounds for good points early on in the paper.

The first step in our argument is to conclude that, for every given $\varepsilon \in [\alpha, 2]$, there are at least $(1-\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon})n$ vertices that are $\varepsilon-$good.
Suppose this is false, then the double sum in \eqref{standingassumption}
could be bounded from above by
\begin{align*}
\text{LHS of }\eqref{standingassumption}&<  \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} n (2-\varepsilon) (1-\mu)(n-1) + \Bigl(1-\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\Bigr)n 2 (1-\mu)(n-1) \\
 &= (1-\mu)(n-1)n \Bigl( \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}(2-\varepsilon) + 2-2\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\Bigr)\\
 &= (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)(n-1)n
\end{align*}
which is a contradiction to \eqref{standingassumption}.  \\

Let us now take a $\varepsilon-$good vertex $i$. We argue that, for
every given $ \delta \in (\varepsilon, 2)$ there are many
non-neighbors, indices $j$ such that $a_{ij} = 0$, for which
$$ \Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) -
\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2}  \geq 2 - \delta.$$
Let us assume their number is $(1-\mu - c)(n-1)$. Then we can bound, using the fact that the total number of non-neighbors is at most $(1-\mu)(n-1)$, that
$$ \sum_{j=1}^{n} (1 - a_{ij})\Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) -
\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2} \leq (1-\mu-c)(n-1) 2 + c(n-1)(2-\delta).$$
We require, using \eqref{firstcond}, that
$$  (2-\varepsilon) (1-\mu)\leq (1-\mu-c) 2 + (2-\delta)c$$
and thus
$$  c \leq (1-\mu)\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta}.$$
This shows that for any $\varepsilon-$good vertex, the number of non-neighbors for which the cosine quantity exceeds $2-\delta$ is at least
$$(1-\mu - c)(n-1)  \geq (1-\mu)(n-1)\left(1- \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} \right).$$

We summarize our arguments up to this step.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Let us consider the value $\alpha$ as defined in \eqref{standingassumption}. If $\alpha > 0.0537$, then we get the desired result directly from the argument of Ling, Xu \& Bandeira. It thus remains to study the cases where $0 \leq \alpha \leq 0.0537$.
\item In this case, for each $\varepsilon \geq \alpha$, there are at least $(1-\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon})n$ vertices $i$ (`the $\varepsilon$-good vertices') for which we have the inequality
$$
\sum_{j=1,j\neq i}^{n} (1 - a_{ij})\Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) -
\cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2} \geq (2-\varepsilon) (1-\mu)(n-1).
$$
\item For each $\varepsilon < \delta < 2$, each of these $(1-\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon})n$ good points has at least $(1-\mu) (n-1)(1 - \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta})$ non-neighbors, $a_{ij} = 0$, for which
$$ \Abs{\cos(\theta_i - \theta_j) - \cos(\theta_i-\theta_j)^2}  \geq 2- \delta.$$
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Step 2: Improved Bounds for Good Vertices.} It is an
elementary trigonometric fact that if $0 \leq \delta \leq 1$ (in
  fact the inequality below holds for $0 \leq \delta < 7/4$), then
$$ \Abs{\cos(x) - \cos(x)^2}  \geq  2 - \delta,\quad \text{implies} \quad \left|\sin{(x)}\right| \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{ \sqrt{9 - 4 \delta} - 3 + 2\delta} =: s_{\delta},$$
where we introduced the shorthand $s_{\delta}$ for simplicity of exposition.
Combining these facts, we can show that for all the good points, of which there are at least $(1-\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon})n$, we have
\begin{align*}
\|r\| \cdot \left|\sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)}\right| &= \left| \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ (1-a_{ij}) \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_j)}} \right|\\
&\leq (1-\mu)(n-1) \Bigl(1-\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta}\Bigr) s_{\delta}  \\
&\qquad + (1-\mu)(n-1)\frac{\varepsilon}{\delta}\\
&=  (1-\mu)(n-1)\Bigl( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\Bigr).
\end{align*}
This, in turn, implies that any good point $i$ satisfies
$$  \left|\sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)}\right|^2 \leq \frac{ \left( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\right)^2 (1-\mu)^2 n^2}{\|r\|^2}$$
Note that we also have \eqref{length} and \eqref{standingassumption} implying
\begin{align*}
 \|r\|^2 \geq  \left(\frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu) \right)n^2
 \end{align*}
Therefore, if $i$ is a good point, then
$$  \left|\sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)}\right|^2 \leq \frac{ \left( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\right)^2 (1-\mu)^2}{  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)}.$$
Recall also that there are at most $\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} n$ `bad' points (points which are not good, we will also call then `outliers').
We define
$$\varphi = \varphi(\mu, \varepsilon, \delta, \alpha)$$
as the positive angle satisfying
$$  \left|\sin{(\varphi)}\right|^2 = \frac{ \left( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\right)^2 (1-\mu)^2}{  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)}.$$
This is the bound we get on the angle that good points have with $\theta_r$. There is a balancing act: by choosing the parameters in a more restricted fashion, we can get a better upper bound for this angle but there will be less good points. Choosing the parameters in the other direction will result in a bigger number of good points but less control on their geometric distribution.
We will require, further along in the argument, that $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$ are chosen in such a way that
\begin{equation} \label{sincond}
  \left|\sin{(\varphi)}\right|^2 = \frac{ \left( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\right)^2 (1-\mu)^2}{  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)} < \frac{1}{2}.
  \end{equation}

\textbf{Step 3: The Distribution of Good Points.}
We now introduce a bit of orientation and assume, without loss of generality after possibly rotating all the points, that
$$ r = \| r\| e^{i \theta_r} = \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{i \theta_j}} \qquad \mbox{is a positive real number.}$$
We know that the good points, of which there are at least $(1-\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon})n$ many, satisfy \eqref{sincond} and are thus contained in one of two cones.
We assume that we have $\gamma_1 n$ good points in the left cone and $\gamma_2n$ good points in the right cone (see Figure~\ref{fig:cones} for a sketch of this). Without loss of generality, we can reflect the picture if necessary and assume that $\gamma_2 \geq \gamma_1$. Recalling our lower bound on the number of good points, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:gamma12}
  \gamma_1 + \gamma_2 \geq 1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}.
  \end{equation}

\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw [thick] (0,0) circle (2cm);
\draw [->, thick] (0,0) -- (3,0);
\node at (3, -0.3) {$r$};
\draw [thick, dashed] (-1.6, -1.2) -- (1.6, 1.2);
\draw [thick, dashed] (-1.6, 1.2) -- (1.6, -1.2);
\node at (-4,0) {$\gamma_1 n$ points here};
\draw[->] (-2.7,0) -- (-2.2,0);
\node at (4,1) {$\gamma_2 n$ points here};
\draw [->] (2.8, 0.8) -- (2.2, 0.5);
\node at (0.6, 0.2) {$\varphi$};
\node at (3,-1) {$\sin^2{(\varphi)} < 1/2$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Introducing orientation: $r$ being a positive real forces all the good points to be in two cones. The outliers can be anywhere (and could also be in the cone).\label{fig:cones}}
\end{figure}
\end{center}

We note that the outliers, of which there are (at most) $\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} n$, might also be in the left or the right cone, we do not make any statement about their actual location and will always assume
that they are working against us.
The inequality
$$ \|r\|^2 \geq  \left(\frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu) \right)n^2$$
forces some restrictions on $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$: in particular, if all the good points and all the outliers were distributed somewhat evenly, then $\|r\|$ would actually be quite small. However, we do have a lower bound on $\|r\|$ and this forces some restrictions which we will now explore.
 Assuming the worst case (where all the outliers are actually working in our favor and contribute to making $r$ as big as possible), we have
$$ \|r\| \leq \left(\gamma_2 - \cos{(\varphi)} \gamma_1 + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\right) n$$
and therefore
$$ \gamma_2 - \cos{(\varphi)} \gamma_1 + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} \geq  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}$$
which implies, using $-\gamma_1 \leq \gamma_2 -1 + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}$,
$$ \bigl(1 + \cos(\varphi)\bigr) \Bigl(\gamma_2 + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\Bigr) - \cos(\varphi)   \geq \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}.$$
This inequality implies there cannot be too few points inside the right cone for otherwise $r$ could not attain the size it does. More precisely, this forces
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lowerboundgamma2} \gamma_2 \geq \frac{\cos(\varphi) +  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}}{1 + \cos{(\varphi)}} - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}.
\end{equation}

\textbf{Step 4: Using the Hessian.} So far, we have obtained fairly precise information about the number of good points and their approximate location. We have not yet made strong use of the fact that the configuration is a local maximum (we did use it implicitly
when appealing to results of Ling-Xu-Bandeira). In this section, we will explicitly use the fact that the Hessian has to be negative-semidefinite in a maximum to derive a criterion that has to be satisfied for all local maxima. We will then contrast this criterion with the precise structure we have derived to conclude that for some parameters this condition is violated thus excluding them. This will prove the result.
We conclude the argument by using that the configuration of points considered in Step 3 is a
local maximum: this means that the Hessian is definite which in our
case implies that for any $(w_1, \dots, w_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we
have
\begin{equation} \label{positivity}
 \sum_{i,j}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2} \geq 0.
 \end{equation}
 We are free to choose the constants $w_i$ and will choose them in a way that makes the quadratic form as small as possible: this means we want to pick $w_i, w_j$ to be quite different when $i,j$ are on different sides of the cone.
We pick these numbers as follows: for a constant $v \in \mathbb{R}$ to be determined
$$ w = \begin{cases} 1 &\qquad \mbox{for the ones on the left cone}\\
v  &\qquad \mbox{for the outliers}\\
-1 &\qquad \mbox{for the ones on the right cone}.
\end{cases}$$
We will bound the expression from above using the information we have about $\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$:  we know that $\gamma_1 + \gamma_2$ is not too small, that $\gamma_1 \leq \gamma_2$ and we have a lower bound on $\gamma_2$.
The quadratic form, which we know to be positive, is bounded from above
\begin{align*}
 \frac{1}{2} \sum_{i,j}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2} &=
  \sum_{i~\tiny \mbox{left}}~  \sum_{j~ \tiny \mbox{right}}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2}\\
  &+  \sum_{i~\tiny \mbox{outlier}} ~ \sum_{j~\tiny \mbox{right/left cone}}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2}
    \end{align*}
    Now, since $|\sin(\varphi)|^2 \leq 1/2$ by assumption, we have
    that the cosine is negative for any pair of points where one is
    contained in the left cone and one is contained in the right
    cone. Indeed, we see that for any pair $i,j$ of good points on different
    sides of the cone, we have
    $$ \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} \leq \cos{(\pi - (2\pi))},$$
    where $\phi$ is the angle introduced above.
We further bound the quadratic form from above by assuming
    that the number of connections running across good points on different
    sides of the cone is minimized which leads to an upper bound since
    we know that each such connection contributed a nonpositive number.
    To simplify this step in the argument, we will make one more assumption:
  $$ \gamma_2 \geq 1 - \mu.$$
Using this assumption, it becomes possible to determine the minimal configuration: each good point on the left-hand side
is connected to all points except the $\gamma_2$ points in the right cone as much as possible. Of course, once $\gamma_2 > 1-\mu$,
each good point on the left has to connect to at least $(\gamma_2 - (1-\mu))n$ good points on the right side of the cone since a point can only be not connected to at most $(1-\mu)n$ other points. This results in
  \begin{align} \sum_{i~\tiny \mbox{left}}  ~~\sum_{j~\tiny \mbox{right}}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2} & \leq \gamma_1 (\gamma_2 - (1-\mu)) \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} (1 -(-1))^2 n^2 \notag \\
                                                                                & = 4 \gamma_1 (\gamma_2 - (1-\mu)) \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} n^2. \label{eq:sumleftright}
  \end{align}
  As for outliers, we have no control on where they are. Let $i$ be an
  outlier and consider the quantity that we need to bound
  $$ S =    \sum_{j~\tiny \mbox{left/right cone}}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2}.$$
We can increase this contribution by assuming that the outlier is somewhere in $\varphi \leq \theta_i \leq \pi - \varphi$ and that
all the good points in the left and right cone are located at angles $\varphi$ and $\pi - \varphi$: this means that the good points in the cone are as close to each other as they are allowed to be from the cone condition which simplifies getting large interactions with both of them from the monotonicity of the cosine in that range. If $i$ is an outlier located at angle $\theta$, this leads to the upper bound
$$ S \leq \gamma_1 n (1-v)^2 \cos{(\theta - (\pi - \varphi))} + \gamma_2n (1+v)^2 \cos{(\theta- \varphi)}.$$
We bound expressions of this type via
\begin{align*}
  A \cos{(\theta - (\pi - \phi))} + B \cos{(\theta- \varphi)} &=  -A \cos{(\theta + \varphi)} + B \cos{(\theta - \varphi)} \\
  &= \mbox{Re} \Bigl(-A e^{i (\theta + \varphi)} + B e^{i(\theta - \varphi)}\Bigr)\\
  &= \mbox{Re}~ e^{i \theta} \left( -A  e^{i   \varphi} + B  e^{-i  \varphi} \right)\\
  &\leq  \left|  -A  e^{i   \varphi} + B  e^{-i  \varphi} \right|. \\
  &=   \left|  -A  e^{ 2i   \varphi} + B \right|.
  \end{align*}
We note that, by assumption, $|\sin{\varphi}|^2 < 1/2$ and thus, since $A,B$ are positive reals,
$$   \left|  -A  e^{ 2i   \varphi} + B \right| \leq \sqrt{A^2+B^2}.$$
This allows us to bound
$$ S \leq n\sqrt{ \gamma_1^2 (1-v)^4 + \gamma_2^2 (1+v)^4}.$$
We now choose the value of $v$ that minimizes this expression. This value is
$$ v = \frac{\gamma_1 - \gamma_2}{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2}$$
and we obtain
$$ S \leq n \frac{4 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 (\gamma_1^2 + \gamma_2^2)^{1/2}}{(\gamma_1 + \gamma_2)^2} = n \frac{4\gamma_1 \gamma_2}{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2} \frac{\sqrt{\gamma_1^2 + \gamma_2^2}}{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2} \leq n \frac{4\gamma_1 \gamma_2}{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2}. $$
Altogether, summing over all the outliers  shows
$$  \sum_{i~\tiny \mbox{outlier}}  \sum_{j~\tiny \mbox{left/right}}{ a_{ij} \cos{(\theta_i - \theta_j)} (w_i - w_j)^2} \leq \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}
   \frac{4\gamma_1 \gamma_2}{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2}   n^2.$$
  We note that  \eqref{eq:gamma12} implies an upper bound on the number of outliers and
  $$ \frac{1}{\varepsilon} \frac{1}{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2} \leq \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\frac{1}{1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon - \alpha}.$$
Combining this with \eqref{eq:sumleftright}, we reach a contradiction to \eqref{positivity} if
 \begin{equation} \label{condition}
    \gamma_1(\gamma_2 - (1-\mu)) \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\gamma_1 \gamma_2  \alpha}{\varepsilon- \alpha}  < 0.
    \end{equation}
 Indeed, if this inequality is satisfied, then the quadratic form corresponding to the Hessian is not definite implying that the configuration we are in does not correspond to a local maximum. We will now analyze the condition.\\

 \textbf{Step 5: Analyzing the Condition.} We will now try to understand under what conditions \eqref{condition} holds.
 It clearly requires $\gamma_1 > 0$. We first show that if $\gamma_1 = 0$, then the only stable configuration that can arise
 is actually the one where all points are in the same spot. Then we deal with the more elaborate case that arises when $\gamma_1 > 0$. \\

 \textit{Part 1: $\gamma_1 > 0$.} We will show that if $\gamma_1 = 0$, then $\|r\|$ has to be quite big and this will allow us to immediately deduce the desired statement via the Ling-Xu-Bandeira framework. We now discuss this in greater detail.
 If $\gamma_1 = 0$, then there are at least $(1- \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon})n$ points in the right cone since all the good points are in one of the two cones, none of them in the left cone and there are at least that many good points in total.
 Since the opening angle is
 less than $45^{\circ}$ (recall that this is an assumption and will be the case for all the parameter we will consider below), we know that the $x-$coordinate of $e^{i \theta_j}$ for each good point is at least $1/\sqrt{2}$.  The $x-$coordinate of an outlier is, trivially, at most $-1$. Therefore
 $$ \|r\| = \left|  \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{i \theta_j}} \right| \geq \mbox{Re}   \sum_{j=1}^{n}{ e^{i \theta_j}}  \geq  \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( 1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}\right)n - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}n.$$
 Recalling \eqref{bound}, we have, for any $i$, that
$$  \left| \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)} \right| \leq \frac{(1-\mu)n}{\|r\|} \leq \sqrt{2} \frac{1-\mu}{1 - (1+\sqrt{2})\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}}.$$
Recalling our regime of interest, $0 \leq \alpha \leq 0.0537$ and $\mu \geq 0.78$ as well as our parameter selection $\varepsilon =0.5$,
we see that
$$  \left| \sin{(\theta_i - \theta_r)} \right| \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \frac{1-\mu}{1 - 2\frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon}} \leq 0.45 < \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}.$$
This case thus reduces to the Proposition of Ling-Xu-Bandeira discussed above and we see that the only possible case is that  all the points are in the same spot.\\

\textit{Part 2: Using $\gamma_1 > 0$.} We can thus assume that $\gamma_1 > 0$ in which case the configuration is clearly not the one where all the points are in one spot. We obtain a contradiction to \eqref{positivity} if
 $$   (\gamma_2 - (1-\mu)) \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{ \gamma_2  \alpha}{\varepsilon- \alpha}  < 0.$$
Note that $\cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} = - \cos(2 \varphi)  =  -1 + 2 \sin(\varphi)^2$.
By assumption, we know that $\sin(\varphi)^2 < 1/2$ and thus the
cosine contribution in the above inequality is negative.  We reach a
contradiction if
  $$ \gamma_2 \left(  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha} \right) < (1-\mu)  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}.$$
  We would like to extract a bound for $\gamma_2$ from this but we cannot simply divide by a term without knowing its
  sign which we now determine.
  The right-hand side is negative; this means that in order to reach a
  contradiction, we certainly would need to require the quantity in
  the parentheses to be negative, i.e.
\begin{equation} \label{condition2}
   \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha}  < 0.
   \end{equation}
Once this is the case, we can divide by that term and deduce that we reach a global contradiction if
\begin{equation} \label{condition3}
 \gamma_2 \geq \frac{ (1-\mu)  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} }{  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha} }.
 \end{equation}
  Notice that this is condition implies the weaker condition
  $\gamma_2 \geq (1 - \mu)$ that we assumed above, and thus the latter will be
  dropped. Summarizing, we have derived a lower bound on $\gamma_2$ that leads to a global contradiction. At this point, we recall that we did already derive a lower bound on $\gamma_2$ in
  \eqref{eq:lowerboundgamma2} stating that
\begin{align*}
\gamma_2 & \geq \frac{\cos(\varphi) +  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}}{1 + \cos{(\varphi)}} - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} \\
& = 1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} -  \frac{1 - \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}}{1 + \cos{(\varphi)}}.
\end{align*}
It is not clear that if our already established lower bound \eqref{eq:lowerboundgamma2} is larger than the lower bound leading to a contradiction, i.e. if
$$  1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} -  \frac{1 - \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}}{1 + \cos{(\varphi)}}
 \geq \frac{ (1-\mu)  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} }{  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha} },
$$
then we have obtained a contradiction. Any collection of points with these parameters must necessarily give rise to a Hessian with a negative definite eigenvalue and thus cannot be a local maximum.\\

 \textbf{Summary.}
 In order to obtain a contradiction, it suffices to find, for each $\alpha \leq 0.0537$ two variables $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$
 $$ \alpha < \varepsilon < \delta < 1$$
 such that, abbreviating once again,
 $$ s_{\delta} =  \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \sqrt{ \sqrt{9 - 4 \delta} - 3 + 2\delta},$$
 the following properties hold
  \begin{enumerate}
 \item we have
 $$\frac{ \left( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\right)^2 (1-\mu)^2}{  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)} < \frac{1}{2}.$$
 This says that the parameters define a critical angle $\varphi = \varphi(\alpha, \mu, \varepsilon, \delta)$ corresponding to an angle less than $45^{\circ}$ which is required for our argument.

 \item we require that this angle  satisfies
   $$   \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha}  < 0$$
which was required when dividing by it and flipping the sign in Step 5, Part 2.
 \item we also require the angle $\varphi$ satisfies
    $$ 1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} - \frac{1 - \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}}{1 + \cos{(\varphi)}} > \frac{ (1-\mu)  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} }{  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha} }.$$
    This shows that the lower bound \eqref{eq:lowerboundgamma2} we derived for $\gamma_2$ is big enough to imply a contradiction, we refer to Step 5, Part 2.\\
 \end{enumerate}

 \textbf{Conclusion.} We distinguish the cases $\alpha \leq 0.0537$ and $\alpha > 0.0537$. If $\alpha > 0.0537$, then we immediately obtain a contradiction if
$$ \mu \geq 0.788897.$$
This follows from rerunning the Ling-Xu-Bandeira argument, described in \S 2.1. verbatim and using the definition of $\alpha$, and the value of $\mu$ comes from \eqref{length} and \eqref{bound}.
Let us now assume that $\alpha \leq 0.0537$.
We set
$$ \varepsilon = 0.5 \qquad \mbox{and} \qquad \delta = 0.88.$$
An easy (mathematica) check shows that we obtain a contradiction for the entire range  $0 \leq \alpha \leq 0.0537$ and $0.788897 \leq \mu \leq 0.794$, where $0.794$ is the bound proved in \cite{ling}. More precisely, the inequalities are true with room to spare: we have, over this entire parameter range
 $$\frac{ \left( s_{\delta} + \frac{\varepsilon}{\delta} (1-s_{\delta})\right)^2 (1-\mu)^2}{  \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)}  < 0.46 < \frac{1}{2}$$
    $$   \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha}  < -0.05 < 0$$
and
    $$ 1 - \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon} - \frac{1 - \left( \frac{1}{2} - (2-\alpha)(1-\mu)\right)^{1/2}}{1 + \cos{(\varphi)}} > \frac{ (1-\mu)  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)} }{  \cos{(\pi - 2\varphi)}  + \frac{\alpha}{\varepsilon - \alpha} } + 0.004 .$$
    It is the last expression which is almost satisfied and does not allow an extension to smaller parameter ranges (the critical values occur when $\alpha \sim 0.0537$ and $\mu \sim 0.7889$), the inequality is satisfied with a much bigger gap away from these parameters.
   \end{proof}

\textbf{Acknowledgment.} We are grateful to the anonymous referees for the substantial and detailed reports resulting in a greatly improved manuscript.

Optimization and Control (math.OC); Dynamical Systems (math.DS); Adaptation and Self-Organizing Systems (nlin.AO)