arxiv: v1 [math.co] 16 Aug 2017

Transcription

1 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING arxiv: v1 [math.co] 16 ug 2017 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV bstract. Jim Propp recently introduced a variant of chip-firing on a line where the chips are given distinct integer labels. Hopins, McConville, and Propp showed that this process is confluent from some (but not all) initial configurations of chips. We recast their set-up in terms of root systems: labeled chip-firing can be seen as a root-firing process which allows the moves +α for α Φ + whenever,α = 0, where Φ + is the set of positive roots of a root system of Type and is a weight of this root system. We are thus motivated to study the exact same root-firing process for an arbitrary root system. ctually, this central root-firing process is the subject of a sequel to this paper. In the present paper, we instead study the interval root-firing processes determined by + α for α Φ + whenever,α [ 1, 1] or,α [, 1], for any 0. We prove that these interval-firing processes are always confluent, from any initial weight. We also show that there is a natural way to consistently label the stable points of these interval-firing processes across all values of so that the number of weights with given stabilization is a polynomial in. We conjecture that these Ehrhart-lie polynomials have nonnegative integer coefficients. Contents 1. Introduction 2 Part 1. Vector-firing in general: definitions and basic results 7 2. Vector-firing: notation and definitions 7 3. Vector-firing: basic results on termination and confluence M-matrix chip-firing and vector-firing Classification of convergent nonnegative threshold arrangements Discussion of convergent central arrangements 23 Part 2. Confluence of symmetric and truncated interval-firing Root systems: notation, definitions, and basic results Vector arrangements from root systems Symmetries of positive root interval-firing Sins of symmetric interval-firing and the map η Traverse lengths of permutohedra The permutohedron non-escaping lemma 45 Date: ugust 17, Mathematics Subject Classification. 17B22; 52B20; 05C57. Key words and phrases. Chip-firing; belian Sandpile Model; root systems; confluence. 1

2 2 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV 13. Confluence of symmetric interval-firing Confluence of truncated interval-firing 50 Part 3. Ehrhart-lie polynomials Ehrhart-lie polynomials: introduction Ehrhart-lie polynomials for symmetric interval-firing Symmetric interval-firing components contain cubical subcomplexes How symmetric and truncated interval-firing components decompose Ehrhart-lie polynomials for truncated interval-firing Iterative descriptions of the stabilization maps 67 References Introduction The belian Sandpile Model (SM) is a discrete dynamical system that taes place on a graph. Thestates of this system areconfigurations of grains of sandon thevertices of the graph. vertex with at least as many grains of sand as its neighbors is said to be unstable. ny unstable vertex may toppple, sending one grain of sand to each of its neighbors. The sequence of topplings may continue forever, or it may terminate at a stable configuration, where every vertex is stable. The SM was introduced (in the special case of the two-dimensional square lattice) by the physicists Ba, Tang, and Wiesenfeld [BTW87] as a simple model of self-organized criticality; much of the general, graphical theory was subsequently developed by Dhar [Dha90, Dha99]. The SM is by now studied in many parts of both physics and pure mathematics: for instance, following the seminal wor of Baer and Norine [BN07], it is nown that this model is intimately related to tropical algebraic geometry(specifically, divisor theory for tropical curves [GK08, MZ08]); meanwhile, the SM is studied by probabilists because of its remarable scaling-limit behavior [PS13, LPS16]; and there are also interesting complexity-theoretic questions related to the SM, such as, what is the complexity of determining whether a given configuration stabilizes [KT15, FL16]. For more on sandpiles, consult the short survey article [LP10] or the upcoming textboo [CP17]. Independently of its introduction in the statistical mechanics community, the same model was defined and studied from a combinatorial perspective by Björner, Lovász, and Shor [BLS91] under the name of chip-firing. Instead of grains of sand, we imagine that chips are placed on the vertices of a graph; the operation of an unstable vertex sending one chip to each of its neighbors is now called firing that vertex. One fundamental result of Björner-Lovász-Shor is that, from any initial chip configuration, either the chip-firing process always goes on forever, or it terminates at a stable configuration that does not depend on the choice of which vertices were fired. This is a confluence result: it says that (in the case of termination) the divergent paths in the chip-firing process must come together eventually. This confluence property is the essential property which serves as the basis of all further study of the chip-firing process; it explains the adjective belian in belian Sandpile Model.

3 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 3 closely related chip-firing process to the one studied by Björner-Lovász-Shor is where we designate a distinguished vertex to be the sin. The sin will never become unstable and is allowed to accumulate any number of chips; hence, any initial chip configuration will eventually stabilize to a unique stable configuration. Chip-firing with a sin has been generalized to several other contexts beyond graphs. One of the most straightforward but also nicest such generalizations is what is called M-matrix chip-firing (see [Gab93, GK15], or [PS04, 13]). Rather than a graph, we start with an integer matrix C = (C ij ) Z n n. The states are integer vectors c = (c 1,c 2,...,c n ) Z n, and a firingmove replaces a state c with c C t e i whenever c i C ii for i = 1,...,n. (Here e 1,...,e n are the standard basis vectors of Z n ; i.e., c C t e i is c minus the ith row of C.) This firing move is denoted c c C t e i. Setting C to be the reduced Laplacian of a graph recovers chip-firing with a sin. But in fact C does not need to be a reduced Laplacian of any graph for confluence to hold in this setting: the condition required to guarantee confluence (and termination), as first established by Gabrielov [Gab93], is that C be an M-matrix. We will discuss M-matrix chip-firing, and its relation to our present research, in more detail later (see 4). But now let us explain the direct motivation for our wor, namely, labeled chip-firing. Björner, Lovász, and Shor were motivated to introduce the chip-firing process for arbitrary graphs by papers of Spencer [Spe86] and nderson et al. [LS + 89] that studied the special case of chip-firing on a line. Jim Propp recently introduced a version of labeled chip-firing on a line that generalizes this original case. In ordinary chip-firing, the chips are all indistinguishable. But the states of the labeled chip-firing process are configurations of n distinguishable chips with integer labels 1,2,...,n on the infinite path graph Z. The firing moves consist of choosing two chips that occupy the same vertex and moving the chip with the lesser label one vertex to the right and the chip with the greater label one vertex to the left. Propp conjectured that if one starts with an even number of chips at the origin, this labeled chip-firing process is confluent and in particular the chips always end up in sorted order. Propp s conjecture was recently proved by Hopins, McConville, and Propp [HMP17]. Note crucially that confluence does not hold for labeled chip-firing if the initial number of chips at the origin is odd (e.g., three). Hence, compared to all the other models of chip-firing discussed above (for which confluence holds locally and follows from Newman s diamond lemma [New42]), confluence is a much subtler property for labeled chip-firing. The crucial observation that motivated our present research is that we can generalize Propp s labeled chip-firing to other types, as follows. For any configuration of n labeled chips on the line, if we define the vector c := (c 1,c 2,...,c n ) Z n by setting c i to be the position of the chip with label i, then for i < j we are allowed to fire chips with label i and j in this configuration as long as c is orthogonal to e i e j ; and doing so replaces the vector c by c+(e i e j ). Note that the vectors e i e j for 1 i < j n are exactly (one choice of) the positive roots Φ + of the root system Φ of Type n 1. So there is a natural candidate for a generalization of Propp s labeled chip-firing to arbitrary (crystallographic) root systems: let Φ be any root system living in some Euclidean vector space V; then for a vector v V and a positive root α Φ +, we allow

4 4 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV Figure 1. The = 1 symmetric interval root-firing process for Φ = 2. the firing move v v +α whenever v is orthogonal to α. We call this process central root-firing because we allow a firing move whenever our point v lies on a certain central hyperplane arrangement (namely, the Coxeter arrangement of Φ). Central root-firing is actually the subject of our sequel paper [GHMP17]. In the present paper we instead study a ind of affine version of root-firing. Let us explain what we mean by affine. First of all, it turns out to be best to interpret the condition whenever v is orthogonal to α as whenever v,α = 0, where, is the standard inner product on V and α is the coroot associated to α. lso, rather than consider all vectors v V to be the states of our system, it is better to restrict to a discrete setting where the states are weights P, where P is the weight lattice of Φ (this is ain to only allowing vectors c Z n above). The central root-firing moves thus become +α whenever,α = 0 for P, α Φ +. s mentioned, the central-firing process may or may not be confluent, depending on the initial weight we start at (e.g., our comment about three labeled chips above says that the central root-firing process is not confluent from the origin for the root system of Type 2 ). major result of the present paper is that we can slightly modify these firing conditions so that the resulting root-firing process is always confluent: namely, for any 0, if we allow the firing moves +α whenever,α { 1,,..., 1} for P, α Φ + (the symmetric interval root-firing process) or +α whenever,α {, +1,..., 1} for P, α Φ + (the truncated interval root-firing process), then these root-firing processes are always confluent, from all initial weights. For example, Figure 1 depicts the = 1 symmetric interval root-firing process for Φ = 2 : the edges of this graph correspond to firing moves; that this process is confluent means that all paths starting from a given vertex must terminate at the same final vertex. For more such pictures, see Example 8.1.

5 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 5 We refer to these processes as interval-firing processes because they allow firing a root from a weight when the inner product of that weight with the corresponding coroot is in some fixed interval. lternately, we could say that the firing moves are allowed when our weight belongs to a certain affine hyperplane arrangement whose hyperplanes are orthogonal translates of the Coxeter arrangement hyperplanes; this is precisely the sense in which these processes are affine. Observe that the = 0 case of symmetric interval-firing has the firing moves +α whenever,α = 1 for P, α Φ + and the = 1 case of truncated interval-firing has the firing moves +α whenever,α { 1,0} for P, α Φ +. So these two interval-firing processes are actually very close to central-firing, and suggest that central-firing (in particular, labeled chip-firing), is somehow right on the cusp of confluence. Hence, it is not surprising that many of the tools we develop and results we prove in the present paper are applied to the study of central-firing in the sequel paper [GHMP17]. We also note that these interval-firing processes themselves have a direct chip-firing interpretation in Type ; see Remar 8.2 for more details. Moreover, we contend that these interval-firing processes are interesting not just because of their connection to central-firing (and hence labeled chip-firing), but also because of their remarable geometric structure. To get a sense of this geometric structure, the reader is encouraged to loo at the depictions of these interval-firing processes for the irreducible ran 2 root systems in Example 8.1. s we will show, the symmetric and truncated interval-firing processes are closely related to permutohedra, and indeed we will mostly investigate these processes from the perspective of convex, polytopal geometry. For example, a ey ingredient in our proof of confluence is an exact formula for traverse lengths of root strings in permutohedra. The most striing geometric objects that come out of our investigation of intervalfiring are certain Ehrhart-lie polynomials that count the number of weights with given stabilization as we vary our parameter. To mae sense of with given stabilization, first we show that there is a consistent way to label the stable points of the symmetric and truncated interval-firing processes across all values of : these stable points are (a subset of) η () for P, where η : P P is a certain piecewise-linear dilation map depicted in Figure 8. Then we as: for P, how many weights stabilize to η (), as a function of? For the symmetric interval-firing process, we show that this is always a polynomial in ; and we also show that it is a polynomial in for truncated interval-firing, with the assumption that Φ is simply laced. Moreover, we conjecture for all root systems Φ that these functions are polynomials in with nonnegative integer coefficients. We call these polynomials Ehrhart-lie because they count the number of points in some discrete region as it is dilated, but we note that in general the set of weights with given stabilization is not the set of lattice points of any convex polytope, or indeed any convex set (although these Ehrhart-lie polynomials do include the usual Ehrhart polynomials of standard permutohedra). That these Ehrhart-lie polynomials apparently have nonnegative integer coefficients suggests that our interval-firing processes must have some deeper connection to the

6 6 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV representation theory or algebraic geometry associated to the root system Φ, although presently we have no precise conjecture about what such a connection would be. However, we do remar that there is a striing similarity between our interval-firing processes and the theory of quasi-invariants (see [ES03]). We than Pavel Etingof for pointing out this possible connection to us. We remar that a ind chip-firing for root systems was recently studied by Benart, Klivans, and Reiner [BKR16]. However, what Benart-Klivans-Reiner studied was in fact M-matrix chip-firing with respect to the Cartan matrix C of the root system Φ. s we discuss later (see 4), this Cartan matrix chip-firing is analogous to root-firing where we only allow firing of the simple roots of Φ. The root-firing processes we study in this paper allow firing of all the positive roots of Φ. Hence, our set-up is really quite different than the set-up of Benart-Klivans-Reiner: for instance, the simple roots are always linearly independent, but there are many linear dependencies among the positive roots. Now let us outline the rest of the paper. In Part 1 we discuss vector-firing processes in general, which replace the set of positive roots Φ + of a root system by an arbitrary collection of vectors. The reader who cares only about root-firing may read 2, where we establish some basic notation for vector-firing, and then sip ahead to Part 2, returning only as necessary to Part 1 to verify a few simple results about vector-firing in general proved later in that part. Indeed, in 3 we go over some basic results related to termination and confluence of vector-firing processes. Then in 4 we compare vectorfiring to M-matrix chip-firing: as explained in that section, vector-firing subsumes M-matrix chip-firing for symmetrizable M-matrices, but overall neither notion is more general than the other (although see Remar 4.8 for discussion of an even more general notion of vector-firing which does generalize M-matrix chip-firing). Finally, we round out the first part by classifying and/or describing some special classes of confluent vector-firing processes ( 5 and 6). In Part 2 we prove that the symmetric and truncated interval root-firing processes are confluent. To do this, we first identify some Weyl group symmetries for all positive root interval-firing processes (Theorem 9.1), and thereby demonstrate that symmetric interval-firing is invariant under the action of the Weyl group(thus explaining its name). We then introducethe map η and explain how it labels the stable points for symmetric interval-firing (Lemma 10.6). We proceed to prove some polytopal results: we establish the aforementioned formula for traverse lengths of permutohedra (Theorem 11.6); this traverse length formula leads directly to a permutohedron non-escaping lemma (Lemma 12.2) which says that root-firing processes get trapped inside of certain permutohedra. The confluence of symmetric interval-firing (Corollary 13.3) follows easily from the permutohedron non-escaping lemma. Finally, we establish the confluence of truncated interval-firing (Corollary 14.5) by first explaining how the map η also labels the stable points in the truncated case (Lemma 14.1), and then combining the permutohedron non-escaping lemma with a careful analysis of truncated interval-firing in ran 2. In Part 3 we study the Ehrhart-lie polynomials. We establish the existence of the symmetric Ehrhart-lie polynomials (Theorem 16.4) via some basic Ehrhart theory for

7 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 7 zonotopes (see, e.g., Theorem 16.1). Then, to establish the existence of the truncated Ehrhart-lie polynomials in the simply-laced case (Theorem 19.1), we study in detail the relationship between symmetric and truncated interval-firing and in particular how the connected components of the graphs of these processes decompose into smaller connected components in a way consistent with the labeling map η (see 18). In the final section, 20, we explain how these Ehrhart-lie polynomials also count the sizes of fibers of iterates of a certain operator on the weight lattice, another remarable property of these polynomials that would be worth investigating further. cnowledgements: We than Jim Propp, both for several useful conversations and because his persistent advertisement of his labeled chip-firing game launched this project. The second author was supported by NSF grant # Part 1. Vector-firing in general: definitions and basic results 2. Vector-firing: notation and definitions lthough the vector-firing processes we are most interested in involve firing subsets of roots in some root system, the definition of vector-firing maes sense for any collection of vectors in Euclidean space. In this section we give the general definition. Vector-firing will formally be defined to be a binary relation on the elements of an additive subgroup inside a Euclidean vector space. Before giving the precise definition, we review some general notation and results concerning binary relations. Let X be a set and a binary relation on X. We use Γ to denote the directed graph (from now on, digraph ) with vertex set X and with a directed edge (x,y) whenever x y. Clearly Γ contains exactly the same information as and we will often implicitly identify binary relations and digraphs (specifically, digraphs without multiple edges in the same direction) in this way. We use to denote the reflexive, transitive closure of : that is, we write x y to mean that x = x 0 x 1 x = y for some Z 0. In other words, x y means there is a path from x to y in Γ. We use to denote the symmetric closureof : x y means that x y or y x. For any digraph Γ, we useγ un to denote the underlying undirected graph of Γ; in fact, we view Γ un as a digraph: it has edges (x,y) and (y,x) whenever (x,y) is an edge of Γ. Hence Γ = Γ un. Finally, we use to denote the reflexive, transitive, symmetric closure of : x y means that x = x 0 x 1 x = y for some Z 0. In other words, x y means there is a path from x to y in Γ un. Now let us review some notions of confluence for binary relations. Here we generally follow standard terminology in the theory of abstract rewriting systems, as laid out for instance in [Hue80]; however, instead following chip-firing terminology, we use stable in place of what would normally be called irreducible, and rather than normal forms we refer to stabilizations. We say that is terminating (also sometimes called noetherian) if there is no infinite sequence of relations x 0 x 1 x 2 ; i.e., is terminating means that Γ has no infinite paths (which implies in particular that this digraph has no directed cycles). Generally speaing, the relations we are most interested in will all be terminating and it will be easy for us to establish that they

8 8 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV x y (I) (II) (III) (IV) (V) (VI) Figure 2. Examples of various relations: (I) is confluent from x but not from y; (II) and (III) are confluent but not terminating; (IV) and (VI) are locally confluent but not confluent; (V) is convergent. are terminating. For x X, we say that is confluent from x if whenever x y 1 and x y 2, there is y 3 such that y 1 y3 and y 2 y3. We say x X is -stable (or just stable if the context is clear) if there is no y X with x y. In graph-theoretic language, x is -stable means that x is a sin (vertex of outdegree zero) of Γ. If is terminating, then for every x X there must be at least one stable y X with x y. On the other hand, if is confluent from x X, then there can be at most one stable y X with x y. Hence if is terminating and is confluent from x, then there exists a unique stable y with x y; we call this y the -stabilization (or just stabilization if the context is clear) of x. We say that is confluent if it is confluent from every x X. We call the relation convergent if it is both terminating and confluent. s we just explained, if is convergent then a unique stabilization of x exists for all x X. weaer notion than confluence is that of local confluence: we say that is locally confluent if for any x X, if x y 1 and x y 2, then there is some y 3 with y 1 y3 and y 2 y3. Figure 2 gives some examples of relations comparing these various notions of confluence and termination. Observe that there is no example in this figure of a relation that is locally confluent and terminating but not confluent. That is no coincidence: Newman s lemma, a..a. the diamond lemma, says that local confluence plus termination implies confluence. Lemma 2.1 (Diamond lemma, see [New42, Theorem 3] or [Hue80, Lemma 2.4]). Suppose is terminating. Then is confluent if and only if it is locally confluent. Our main goal for much of this paper will be to prove that certain relations are convergent and to compute stabilizations when possible. To this end, the diamond lemma will indeed be an important tool for us. However, we will sometimes prove confluence by means other than the diamond lemma. Indeed, we will sometimes consider relations which are confluent from some but not all x X, in which case confluence becomes a much subtler property and we cannot appeal directly to the diamond lemma. Even in the cases where the relation we consider is confluent (from all x X), we

9 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 9 will want anyways to explicitly describe the connected components of Γ and often we will be able to read off confluence directly from our descriptions of these connected components. So let us briefly review connected components for digraphs. If Γ is a digraph with vertex set X and Y X, then we use Γ[Y] to denote the restriction of Γ to Y, i.e., the induced subgraph of Γ on the vertices in Y. If Γ is an undirected graph, we can consider the usual notion of a connected component of Γ: this is an induced subgraph of the form Γ[Y] where Y is a maximal by containment collection of vertices that are pairwise connected by a path. For Γ an arbitrary digraph, a connected component of Γ is an induced subgraph of the form Γ[Y] where Y is the set of vertices of a connected component of the underlying undirected graph Γ un. Sometimes we will say that Y X is a connected component of Γ, when really we mean that Γ[Y] is a connected component of Γ. Observe that the connected component of Γ containing x is just {y X: x y}. If the relation is terminating, then it is clearly confluent if every connected component of Γ contains a unique sin (and in fact we leave it as an exercise to the reader to prove that this is an if and only if). But note that the relation may be confluent from x X even though the component of Γ containing x has more than one sin, because it may be that only one such sin is in fact accessible from x via a directed path in Γ. When it comes to confluence from a single element, the best we can say in terms of connected components of Γ is: if is terminating, then is confluent from x if and only if Γ[{y X: x y}] contains a unique sin. We now proceed to define vector-firing. The vector-firing process taes as input a vector arrangement, which is a slight generalization of a hyperplane arrangement. Throughout this paper V will be a fixed n-dimensional real vector space together with some inner product,. For any v V we use v := v,v to denote the length of v. For u V and r > 0 we use B(u;r) := {v V : u v < r} to denote the open ball of radius r centered at u. We use S n 1 := {v V : v = 1} to denote the standard unit sphere inside of V. Definition 2.2. n (affine) vector arrangement (in V) is a pair = (,F), where V \{0} is a finite set of nonzero vectors, and F is a function F : 2 R that associates to each v a nonempty subset F(v) R of real numbers. (Here F is for fireability set. ) We write v as a shorthand for v ; and we will also implicitly reference the function F by simply writing F v := F(v). The affine vector arrangement is naturally associated to the affine hyperplane arrangement H := {H v, : v, F v } with H v, := {x V : x,v = }; but note that multiple affine vector arrangements may be associated to the same affine hyperplane arrangement. vector arrangement is essentially a hyperplane arrangement together with a choice of normal vector for each hyperplane. In this paper we will generally consider vector-firing in a discrete setting. This means that the vector-firing relation will not be defined on the whole vector space V but rather some subset of vectors. Hence from now on in this part let us fix an additive subgroup Λ of V; explicitly, this means that Λ V is some set of vectors satisfying:

10 10 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV (1) 0 Λ; (2) if x Λ then x Λ; (3) if x,y Λ then x + y Λ. Here are some properties that Λ might or might not have: Λ is rational if u,w Q for all u,w Λ. Λ is discrete if Λ B(0;r) is finite for all r > 0; Λ is a lattice if Λ is discrete and Span R (Λ) = V. n important equivalent condition to Λ being a lattice is that it is isomorphic as an abstract group to Z n. The case we care most about is when Λ is a lattice (and actually we can say the most for rational lattices), but we generally state our results for arbitrary Λ and sometimes it will be important to have the flexibility of considering additive subgroups which are not lattices. We require that our vector arrangements be compatible with Λ in the following sense. Definition 2.3. We say that the vector arrangement (in V) is a Λ-arrangement if: v Λ for each v ; F v { w,v : w Λ} for each v. Each Λ-arrangement determines a vector-firing process on Λ, which is a certain binary relation between the elements of Λ. Our primary interest is in understanding when this relation is convergent, and, in the case of convergence, computing stabilizations. Definition 2.4. Let be a Λ-arrangement. Then determines a vector-firing process, abinaryrelation onλ, asfollows: foru,w Λ, wehaveu w ifandonlyifw = u+v for some v with u,v F v. We call the relation u u + v a firing move, and we refer to the operation of replacing u by u + v as firing the vector v. We use the shorthand Γ := Γ. (The relation, and thus also the graph Γ, depend on Λ but this dependence is left implicit in all the notation.) One immediate remar is that u Λ is -stable if and only if u does not belong to the associated hyperplane arrangement H. Example 2.5. Suppose that is a Λ-arrangement whose vectors are v 1,v 2,,v m with v i,v j = 0 if i j, i.e., the vectors in are pairwise orthogonal. lso suppose that for every u Λ and i = 1,...,m, there exists l Z 0 such that u+lv i,v i / F vi. Then is convergent. Moreover, for any u Λ the stabilization of u is u+ m i=1 l iv i where l i := min({l Z 0 : u+lv i,v i / F vi }). Now we will discuss some ways to obtain new arrangements from old ones. One way to mae a smaller arrangement from a larger one is via restriction/projection. Let U V be a subspace. We remar that of course U naturally inherits an inner product from, and from now on we will always assume that subspaces are considered together with their induced inner products. For v V we define π U (v) to be the orthogonal (with respect to, ) projection of v onto U. Note that, because the projection map is linear, π U (Λ) is an additive subgroup of U (but also note that the projection of a discrete subgroup may not be discrete). If = (,F) is a Λ- arrangement, and U V is any subset of vectors, we define U := ( U,F U )

11 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 11 and \U := (\U,F \U ), both considered as Λ-arrangements. For U V a subspace, we define the restriction of to U, denoted U, to be exactly the same vector arrangement as U, but viewed as a π U (Λ)-arrangement. Note crucially that U is viewed as a π U (Λ)-arrangement, not a Λ U-arrangement. One reason to consider restrictions of arrangements is that if all the vectors that we could ever possibly fire (or fire and unfire ) starting from some particular v V span a strict subspace of V, then we can understand vector-firing from v by restricting to this subspace. The following proposition maes this last assertion precise. Proposition 2.6. Let be a Λ-arrangement and let u Λ. Then for any subspace U V we have that π U is an isomorphism between the connected component of Γ U containing u and the connected component of Γ U containing π U (u). Hence: (1) With U 1 := Span R {u w: w is in the same connected component of Γ as u}, π U1 is an isomorphism between the connected component of Γ containing u and the connected component of Γ U1 containing π U1 (u). (2) With U 2 := Span R {u w: u w}, π U2 is an isomorphism between Γ [{w: u w}] and Γ U2 [w: π U2 (u) w}]. U2 Proof. This is straightforward. Let us also describe a way to form bigger arrangements from smaller ones: orthogonal direct sums. We say that V is the orthogonal direct sum of subspaces V 1,V 2 V, writtenv = V 1 V 2, ifasavectorspacev isthedirectsumofv 1 andv 2,and v 1,v 2 = 0 for any v 1 V 1,v 2 V 2. Similarly, we write Λ = Λ 1 Λ 2 to mean that there exist subspaces V 1,V 2 V with V = V 1 V 2 such that Λ i is an additive subgroup of V i for i = 1,2 and Λ = {v 1 + v 2 : v 1 Λ 1,v 2 Λ 2 }. lso, if is a Λ-arrangement, we write = 1 2 to mean that Λ = Λ 1 Λ 2 with i = ( i,f i ) a Λ i -arrangement for i = 1,2 and = ( 1 2,F) where F(v) := F 1 (v) F 2 (v) for all v (with the convention that F i (v) = if v / i ). Finally, for two digraphs Γ 1 and Γ 2, their Cartesian product, denoted Γ 1 Γ 2 is defined to be the digraph with vertex set Γ 1 Γ 2 and with a directed edge from (x,y) to (x,y ) if either: y = y and there is a directed edge from x to x in Γ 1 ; or x = x and there is a directed edge from y to y in Γ 2. Proposition 2.7. Let be a Λ-arrangement. Suppose that = 1 2. Then we have Γ = Γ 1 Γ 2. Proof. This is straightforward. Proposition 2.7 means that we generally may assume that our arrangements do not decompose nontrivially as orthogonal direct sums(e.g., we will without loss of generality assume that our root spaces are irreducible). Note that Example 2.5 can be seen as the orthogonal direct sum of m one-dimensional vector arrangements. Finally, let us give some names for the inds of Λ-arrangements and vector-firing processes will we study. We say that is a central arrangement if F v = {0} for all v. We say that is an interval arrangement if for each v there exist

12 12 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV scalars a v,b v R such that F v = [a v,b v ] { w,v : w Λ}. Note that a central arrangement is (a degenerate case of) an interval arrangement. We say that is a threshold arrangement if for each v there exists f v R such that F v = (,f v ] { w,v : w Λ}; we say that the threshold arrangement is nonnegative if f v 0 for each v. Note that a threshold arrangement is a ind of limit of interval arrangements. For any of these inds of arrangements (central, interval, threshold, et cetera) we refer to the associated vector-firing process in the same way (e.g., we call it central-firing, interval-firing, threshold-firing, et cetera). Now that we have established all this notation related to vector-firing, the reader who is interested exclusively in vector-firing for root systems could sip ahead to Part Vector-firing: basic results on termination and confluence s mentioned, it is often simple to verify that is terminating. For instance, we have the following proposition. Proposition 3.1. Let be a Λ-arrangement which has f v := max(f v ) < for each v. Suppose further that there is some y V such that v,y f v + v,v for each v. Then is terminating. Proof. Since there are finitely many vectors in, there is ǫ > 0 such that v,v ǫ for all v. Now suppose that u u ; hence there is some v with u = u + v and u,v f v. Then, u y,u y u y,u y = u y,u y u+v y,u+v y = v,v 2 u,v +2 v,y v,v 2f v +2f v +2 v,v ǫ. Thus we see that the nonnegative quantity u y,u y decreases by at least ǫ each time we move along an edge of Γ, therefore is terminating. We say that a collection of vectors {v 1,...,v m } is acyclic if there exists y V such that v i,y > 0 for i = 1,...,m. special case of the Proposition 3.1 arises for arrangements of acyclic vectors. Corollary 3.2. Let be a Λ-arrangement with max(f v ) < for each v. Suppose further that the vectors in are acyclic. Then is terminating. Proof. Let y V be such that v,y > 0 for all v. Rescaling y by a large positive constant yields v,y f v + v,v for all v and the result then follows by Proposition 3.1. Note that max(f v ) < whenever is a point, interval, or threshold arrangement. In the case where the vectors in are not acyclic, the relation might or might not be terminating, depending on the particular, as the following series of propositions demonstrate.

13 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 13 Proposition 3.3. Let be a threshold arrangement. Set f v := max(f v ) for v. Suppose that there is no y V such that v,y > f v for all v. Then is not terminating. Proof. The result is obvious since in this case Γ has no sins, i.e., there are no - stable points in Λ. Thus if is a threshold arrangement then the only case not covered by Propositions 3.1 and 3.3 is when there is no y V such that v,y f v + v,v for all v but there exists y V such that v,y > f v for all v. However, if we restrict to nonnegative threshold arrangements (which have f v 0 for all v ), this indeterminate case is impossible (because of Corollary 3.2) and hence we get the following exact classification of when is terminating. Corollary 3.4. Let be a nonnegative threshold arrangement. Then is terminating if and only if the vectors in are acyclic. Unlie threshold-firing, central-firing always terminates. Proposition 3.5. Let be a central arrangement. Then is terminating. Proof. We will prove something stronger: that there is some constant N such that no sequence of firings has length greater than N. We prove this by induction on the dimension n of our vector space V. The base case n = 0 is trivial. Now suppose n > 0 and the result is nown for smaller dimensions. Suppose to the contrary that there are firing sequences of arbitrarily long length in. Let N be strictly greater than the the maximum over all proper subspaces U V spanned by elements of of the length of the longest firing sequence in U, which exists by induction. Before we proceed with the argument, we need the following intermediary result. For v let H v := {x V : x,v = 0} be the corresponding hyperplane. We claim there is some ε > 0 such that for every point u S n 1 on the unit sphere we have Span R {v : H v B(u;ε) } V. Indeed, suppose otherwise: then, because there are only finitely many vectors in, there would have to be v 1,...,v n, a basis of V, such that for every ε > 0 there is some point u S n 1 with H vi B(u;ε) for i = 1,...,n. Since the sphere is compact, this would mean that there is some point u S n 1 with u H vi for i = 1,...,n; but clearly that is impossible: if u is orthogonal to all the elements of a basis, then u = 0. So let ε > 0 be such that for every point u S n 1 on the unit sphere we have Span R {v : H v B(u;ε) } V. Since there are firing sequence of arbitrarily long length in, we can find a firing sequence u 0 u 1 u N of length N. In fact, we claim that we can find such a firing sequence where u 0 is arbitrarily large. Indeed, observe that if u u + v then u + v,u + v = u,u + v,v, so after each firing the quantity u,u increases by at least min v v,v > 0. So by finding a very long firing sequence u M u M+1 u 0 u 1 u N, and eeping only the

14 14 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV tail of this sequence, we can assume u 0 u M,u M +M min v v,v > κ for any κ > 0. Let us tae κ := 2Nε 1 max v v. Now suppose that u i = u i 1 +v i for all i = 1,...,N, where v i. Note that we also have u i u 0 > 2Nε 1 max v v for all i = 0,1,...,N. So then for any i = 0,1,...,N we have u 0 u 0 u i u i u 0 ( u i u 0 ) u 0 u i + v 1 +v v i u i 2 v 1 +v v i u i In other words, for i = 0,...,N we have u i / u i B(u 0 / u 0 ;ε). By our definition of ε, this means that U := Span R {v : u i,v = 0 for some i = 0,...,N} is a proper subspace of V. Note that in fact u 0 u 1 u N; via Proposition 2.6 this U U U means that π U (u 0 ) π U (u 1 ) π U (u N ). But then we have found a firing U U U sequence of length N in U, where U is a proper subspace of V, a contradiction. Finally, let us end this section by explaining how the diamond lemma often implies that convergence for vector-firing processes is essentially a two-dimensional phenomenon. (This may already hint at the connection to root systems, because the definition and many properties of root systems reduce to ran 2.) Proposition 3.6. Let be a Λ-arrangement such that is terminating. Then is confluent if is confluent for every subspace U V of dimension two or less that U is spanned by elements of. Proof. Thisis a consequence of thediamond lemma, Lemma2.1: the relation is confluent because it is locally confluent. To see that it is locally confluent, suppose u w 1 and u w 2. Set U := Span R {u w 1,u w 2 }. By the confluence of U, there exists w 3 π U (Λ) such that π U (w 1 ) w 3 and π U (w 2 ) w 3. Hence via Proposition 2.6 U U we conclude that there is w 3 Λ such that w 1 w 3 and w 2 w 3, as required. It would be nice to have a converse to the previous proposition. In order to obtain such a converse we want to be able to translate a non-confluent dimension two subspace of our arrangement along a vector orthogonal to that subspace to somewhere it will be stable with respect to vectors outside that subspace. We need to mae some assumptions about Λ to ensure this is possible. For a subspace U V, let us use U to denote the orthogonal (with respect to, ) complement of U. Let us say that Λ has orthogonal complements if for every subspace U V of the form U = Span R (Λ U), we have also that U = Span R (Λ U ). Observe that if Λ has orthogonal complements, then at a minimum Span R (Λ) = V because we can tae U = {0}. But of course the requirement Span R (Λ) = V is not a serious one since we can always project to Span R (Λ) via Proposition 2.6. Many Λ (including lattices) do indeed have orthogonal complements. For instance, rational additive subgroups which span V have orthogonal complements: Proposition 3.7. Suppose that Λ is rational and Span R (Λ) = V. Then Λ has orthogonal complements. < ε.

15 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 15 Proof. Suppose U V is of the form U = Span R (Λ U). Let u 1,...,u m Λ be a basis of U. Since Span R (Λ) = V, we can complete this to a basis u 1,...,u n Λ of V. Then we can use the Gram-Schmidt process over the rationals Q to find an orthogonal basis w 1,...,w n of V with Span R {w 1,...,w } = Span R {u 1,...,u } for all 1 n, and such that each w i is a rational combination of the u j s. By clearing denominators, we can scale the w i so that they are in fact integer combinations of the u j s. Hence we can assume w 1,...,w n Λ, and then w m+1,...,w n Λ U will be a basis of U. Even assuming that Λ has orthogonal complements, to get a converse of Proposition 3.6 we need to mae some further assumptions about as well: namely, that max(f v ) and min(f v ) are both finite for all v (which holds for instance for interval arrangements but not for threshold arrangements). With these assumptions, we can prove a converse to Proposition 3.6. But first let us state a useful lemma that lets us find points in Λ. Lemma 3.8. Suppose that Span R (Λ) = V. Then there exists r > 0 such that for every x V, we have B(x;r) Λ. Proof. By the assumption Span R (Λ) = V, there exist u 1,...,u n Λ which form a basis of V. Set Λ := Span Z {u 1,...,u n }, a lattice inside of V, and note that Λ Λ. Define P := x + n i=1 [0,u i) (this is a Minowsi sum) to be the half-open parallelepided with vertex x and sides u 1,...,u n. Note that P tiles V, which is just to say that every v V can be written uniquely as v = u+u with u P and u Λ. Hence P must contain exactly one point in the lattice Λ. So set r := u 1 + u u n. This choice of r yields P B(x;r). Hence B(x;r) must contain a point in Λ, which implies B(x;r) Λ. Proposition 3.9. Suppose that Λ has orthogonal complements and let be a Λ- arrangement such that is terminating and with max(f v ) < and min(f v ) > for each v. Then is confluent if and only if U is confluent for every subspace U V of dimension two or less that is spanned by elements of. Proof. The if direction follows from the previous Proposition 3.6. So it remains to prove the only if direction. Hence, assume that there is some subspace U V of dimension two or less that spanned by elements of such that is not confluent. U That isterminatingimplies viaproposition 2.6that is terminating; soif is U U not confluent it must be because there are u,w 1,w 2 π U (Λ) with w 1 w 2 both - U stable, andu w 1 andu w 2. ThanstoProposition2.6, wecanfindu,w 1,w 2 Λ U U with π U (u) = u, π U (w 1 ) = w 1, π U (w 2 ) = w 2, and such that u w 1 and u w 2. U U Let r > 0 be such that w 1,w 2 B(0;r). We want to translate w 1 and w 2 via a vector in Λ U so that they become -stable. Set K := {x V : x,v / [min(f v {0}),max(F v {0})] for any v \U}. Observe that if u Λ K then u is -stable. Note that U K is nonempty: \U

16 16 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV for any point x U \ {x V : x,v = 0 for some v \U} (the complement of a central hyperplane arrangement inside of U ), there is some scalar κ 0 for which κx U K. It is moreover clear that every connected component of U K is the interior of a full-dimensional (inside of U ) unbounded convex polytope, and if x is in such a connected component, then κx is as well for any κ > 1. Thus, each connected component of U K contains arbitrary large balls (inside of U ). Since Span R (Λ U ) = U by the assumption that Λ has orthogonal complements, we can apply Lemma 3.8 to conclude that there is some u Λ U such that u K. By scaling u by a large enough integer we can assume that u is such that B(u ;r) K. To summarize, we have found u Λ U with B(u ;r) K. Because adding a vector in U does not affect our ability to fire vectors in U, we have u+u w 1 +u and u+u w 2 +u. Since w 1 +u,w 2 +u B(u ;r), we have w 1 +u,w 2 +u K; hence, we cannot fire any vector in U from w 1 +u or w 2 +u. But we also cannot fireavector in U from w 1 +u or w 2 +u because their projections w 1 and w 2 onto U are -stable. Thus, w 1 +u and w 2 +u are both -stable. That u+u w 1 +u U and u+u w 2 +u then implies that is not confluent. 4. M-matrix chip-firing and vector-firing In this section we compare vector-firing to the well-studied theory of M-matrix chipfiring. s we will show, neither notion is more general than the other, although there is a significant overlap between the two. Specifically, we will show that chip-firing of symmetrizable M-matrices is (more-or-less) equivalent to threshold-firing for collections of linearly independent and pairwise non-acute vectors, and that this is the only equivalence between M-matrix chip-firing and vector-firing. So let us briefly review M-matrix chip-firing. For i = 1,...,n, let e i be the standard unit basis vectors in Z n R n. We always consider R n with its standard inner product defined by e i,e j := δ ij. Let C = (C ij ) Z n n be any n n matrix with integer entries. The matrix C defines a matrix chip-firing process, a binary relation C on Z n, as follows: for c = (c 1,c 2,...,c n ) Z n, we have c C c if and only if c = c + C t e i for some i = 1,...,n with c i 0. We call the operation of replacing c with c+c t e i firing the row C t e i. The vectors c Z n are often called configurations, because they are thought of as configurations of chips (and negative chips) which get moved around according to the dynamics of the matrix C. Note that usually this matrix chip-process is defined slightly differently: in the usual formulation, firing the ith row of C taes c to c C t e i, and we are allowed to do this whenever c i C ii. But observe that the two formulations are equivalent via the involution c (C 11,C 22,...,C nn ) c. We use this definition of C because it matches better with the way we have defined vector-firing as adding vectors. Let us use the shorthand Γ C := Γ C. Naturally, we want to now when C is convergent.

17 ROOT SYSTEM CHIP-FIRING I: INTERVL-FIRING 17 Definition 4.1. n n matrix C R n n with real entries is called a Z-matrix if C ij 0 for all i j. It is clear that the relation C is locally confluent if C Z n n is a Z-matrix. We might then as when C is terminating. This was answered by Gabrielov [Gab93], building on the seminal wor of Dhar [Dha90]. Definition 4.2. matrix C R n n is called an (nonsingular) M-matrix if it is a Z-matrix and satisfies any one of the following equivalent properties: (1) the real parts of all eigenvalues of C are strictly positive; (2) C 1 exists and has all nonnegative entries; (3) there exists x R n with x 0 such that Cx has all positive entries. See for instance Plemmons [Ple77] for the equivalence between these conditions. Theorem 4.3 (Gabrielov [Gab93, Theorem 1.5]). Let C Z n n be a Z-matrix. Then C is terminating if and only if C is an M-matrix. We remar that this result of Gabrielov is only the launching point for the investigation of M-matrix chip-firing. Indeed, M-matrix chip-firing has a rich algebraic structure, because the operation of C -stabilization is closely related to the finite group coer(c t ) where we view the transposed matrix C t as a map C t : Z n Z n. major theme in the subject is using C -stabilization to find, and to describe combinatorially, distinguished representatives of coer(c t ) (such as the recurrent and superstable configurations). See for instance [PS04, 13: ppendix] or [GK15] for more details. Our interest in M-matrix chip-firing is, as mentioned, more limited: we just want to compare it to vector-firing. To that end, recall that a matrix C R n n is called symmetrizable ifthereexistsaninvertiblediagonalmatrixd = diag(d 1,...,d n ) R n n and a symmetric matrix M R n n such that C = MD. It is easy to see from the first condition in Definition 4.2 that if an M-matrix is symmetric then it is positive definite. s the next proposition demonstrates, a symmetrizable M-matrix is not far from being positive definite: it is just a positive definite matrix times a diagonal matrix with positive diagonal entries. Proposition 4.4. If C R n n is a symmetrizable M-matrix, there exist R n n and D = diag(d 1,...,d n ) a diagonal matrix with d 1,...,d n > 0 such that C = ( t )D. Proof. Let C = MD be a symmetrizable M-matrix, where D = diag(d 1,...,d n ) for d 1,...,d n 0 and M is symmetric. From the third condition in Definition 4.2 we see that C ii > 0; as we already now C ij 0 for i j, we thus now the entire sign pattern of the matrix C. Therefore, by replacing the diagonal entries of D with d 1,..., d n and the entries of M with M ij for i j and with M ii on the diagonal, we can assume that in fact d 1,...,d n > 0. By applying the second condition in Definition 4.2, which says that C 1 exists, we get that M 1 = DC 1. Then, since that second condition says that moreover the entries of C 1 are nonnegative, and since d 1,...,d n > 0, the entries of M 1 are also nonnegative. Hence, by again applying that

18 18 PVEL GLSHIN, SM HOPKINS, THOMS MCCONVILLE, ND LEXNDER POSTNIKOV second condition, we conclude that M is an M-matrix. But it is a symmetric M-matrix, so it is positive definite, i.e., M = t for some R n n. Now let C Z n n be a symmetrizable M-matrix. From the previous proposition we may write C = ( t )D where D = diag(d 1,...,d n ) with all d 1,...,d n > 0. Suppose the rows of are v 1,...,v n R n. Observe that C ij = v i,d j v j. We want to realize the matrix chip-firing process C in terms of vector-firing. Hence, set V := R n (with its standard inner product) and set Λ := {v R n : v,d i v i Z for all i = 1,...,n }. In other words, set Λ := Span Z {ω 1,...,ω n }, where {ω 1,...,ω n } is the dual (with respect to, ) basis to {d 1 v 1,...,d n v n }. Then define := (,F) with := {v 1,...,v n } and F(v) := (,0] { v,w : w Λ} for all v. From the assumption that the entries of C are integers, we get that v 1,...,v n Λ; hence is indeed a Λ- arrangement. The point of this construction is that there is an isomorphism of abelian groups ϕ: Λ Z n given by ϕ: n i=1 c iω i (c 1,...,c n ) which extends to an isomorphism of digraphs ϕ: Γ Γ C. To see this is an isomorphism one needs only to chec ϕ(v i ) = ϕ( n j=1 v i,d j v j ω j ) = C t e i and u,v i 0 ϕ(u),e i 0, which are clear from construction. Conversely, suppose that: v 1,...,v n V are linearly independent, with v i,v j 0 for i j; Λ = {v R n : v,d i v i Z for all i = 1,...,n } = Span{ω 1,...,ω n } Z is the lattice generated by the dual basis {ω 1,...,ω n } to {d 1 v 1,...,d n v n } for some positive real numbers d 1,...,d n > 0; = (,F) with = {v 1,...,v n } and F(v) = (,0] { v,w : w Λ} for all v is a Λ-arrangement (which implies v i,d j v j Z for all i,j). The conclusion is: setting C := ( v i,d j v j ) Z n n, the graphs Γ and Γ C are again isomorphic via the same isomorphism ϕ: Λ Z n and C is in fact a symmetrizable M-matrix. The isomorphism can be checed in exactly the same way as the previous paragraph. nd observe that C = MD whered = diag(d 1,...,d n ) and M = ( v i,v j ), which shows C is symmetrizable. But here M is an M-matrix because it is positive definite and has M ij 0 for i j, so we can also conclude that C is an M-matrix via for instance the second condition in Definition 4.2. We want to say that the only way an isomorphism ϕ: Λ Z n can extend to an isomorphism ϕ: Γ Γ C is in the situation described above. However, this is not quite correct; specifically, irrational angles can cause problems, as the next example demonstrates. Example 4.5. Supposethat V is two-dimensional, spanned by v 1,v 2, with v 1,v 2 = ζ for any irrational number ζ and v 1 = v 2 = 1. Set Λ := Span Z {v 1,v 2 }, and let := (,F) be the Λ-arrangement with := {v 1,v 2 } and F(v) := {a+bζ: a,b Z,a 0} forall v. Thenthereisanisomorphismϕ: Λ Z 2 given by ϕ(c 1 v 1 +c 2 v 2 ) = (c 1,c 2 ) that extends to an isomorphism ϕ: Γ Γ C, where C is the 2 2 identity matrix. Nevertheless, if we assume that Λ is rational then these issues disappear and we can state the following theorem characterizing exactly the overlap between vector-firing and M-matrix chip-firing.