I still don't understand. Let's postpone this. Concerning your tertatoid, I think I know a way, modulo some experimenting. Here are the steps. (1) Construct the regular tetrahedron as the convex hull of every other vertex of the cube [-1,1]^3. Call this polytope T. (2) From each edge of T construct ...
What is the "perpendicular bisector" of an edge? Do you mean the affine hyperplane which is perpendicular to a given edge, passing through the midpoint of that edge? Your "tetartoid" is given without coordinates, and from the description given on that web page I cannot deduce how...
Of course, we will fix those errors in polymake. However, your specific computation can be rescued as follows: polytope > $C = new Cone(INEQUALITIES =>[[1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,1,0,0,0,00,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0],[0,0,0,0,0,1,0,0,0,...
OK, so for fixed dimension d, assuming the resulting polytope to be simplicial (with prob 1) is indeed crucial for the algorithms to run in linear time? This is not what I said. Note that in the expression O(mnd) the parameter m (number of facets) depends on n (number of vertices/input points). Rou...
Indeed, polymake employs a convex hull computation to compute the vertex-facet incidences from input points. Most algorithms/implementations produce FACETS and VERTICES_IN_FACETS together. If this is not the case there is a second step to compute scalar products between each row of VERTICES and each...
Here is a question that I received: I was wondering what computational complexity I can expect from VERTICES_IN_FACETS for m vertices on the d sphere. Does it rely on a convex hull algorithm? If yes, on which? As I am using this wonderfully practicable function as a non-specialist in convex geometry...