\documentclass[12pt,letterpaper,reqno,pdftex]{amsart}

\headheight=8pt     \topmargin=0pt
\textheight=624pt   \textwidth=432pt
\oddsidemargin=18pt \evensidemargin=18pt

\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{mathptmx}
\usepackage[scaled=.9]{helvet}
\usepackage{courier}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{color,graphicx}

\theoremstyle{theorem}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}{Corollary}
\newtheorem{observation}{Observation}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}{Definition}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}{Remark}

\newcommand{\conv}{\operatorname{conv}}
\newcommand{\ind}{\operatorname{ind}}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\ensuremath{\lVert #1 \rVert}}
\newcommand{\vol}{\operatorname{vol}}


\begin{document}

\title{On a generalization of Sch\"onhardt's polyhedron}
\author{J\"org Rambau}
\address{J\"org Rambau\\Zuse-Institute Berlin\\Takustr.~7\\14195 Berlin\\Germany}
\email{rambau@zib.de}
\thanks{Supported by a general membership at the Mathematical Sciences
  Research Institute Berkeley (MSRI) in the special semester ``Discrete and 
  Computational Geometry'' (2003); research at MSRI is supported in part by
  NSF grant DMS-9810361}
\date{\today}

\begin{abstract}
  We show that the non-convex twisted prism over an $n$-gon cannot be
  triangulated without new vertices.  For this, it does not matter what the
  coordinates of the $n$-gon are as long as the top and the bottom $n$-gon are
  congruent and the twist is not too large.  This generalizes Sch\"onhardt's
  polyhedron, which is the non-convex twisted prism over a triangle.
\end{abstract}

\maketitle


\section{The Background}\label{sec:background}

Back in 1911, Lennes \cite{Lennes:PolygonsPolyhedra:1911} presented the first
simple three-dimensional non-convex polyhedron whose interior cannot be
triangulated without new vertices.  The more famous example, however, was
given in 1927 by Sch\"onhardt: he observed that in the non-convex twisted
triangular prism (subsequently called ``Sch\"onhardt's polyhedron'') every
diagonal that is not a face lies completely in the
exterior~\cite{Schoenhardt:Polyhedron:1927}.  This implies immediately that
there can be no triangulation of it without new vertices because there is
simply no interior tetrahedron: all possible tetrahedra spanned by four of its
six vertices would introduce new edges.  Moreover, he proved that every simple
polyhedron with the same properties must have at least six vertices.  Later,
further such non-convex, non-triangulable polyhedra with an arbitrary number
of points have been presented.  Among them, Bagemihl's
polyhedron~\cite{Bagemihl:Indecomposable:1948} also has the feature that every
non-facial diagonal is in the exterior.

The twisted prism over an arbitrary $n$-gon would arguably be the most natural
generalization of Sch\"onhardt's polyhedron.  Surprisingly enough, there has
been no proof so far that it cannot be triangulated without new vertices.  One
of the reasons seems to be that---in contrast to Sch\"onhardt's and Bagemihl's
polyhedra---not every non-facial diagonal lies completely outside the
polygonal prism.  Yet, the non-convex twisted polygonal prism can indeed not
be triangulated without new vertices, as we will show below.  For this, it
does not matter what the coordinates of the $n$-gon are as long as the top and
the bottom $n$-gon are congruent and the twist is just a perturbation by
rotation, i.e., it is not too large.

There is a relation between Sch\"onhardt's polyhedron and the (untwisted)
triangular prism with a prescribed boundary triangulation that is cyclically
symmetric: there is no triangulation of the triangular prism that extends a
cyclically symmetric boundary triangulation without new vertices.  Similarly,
there is no a triangulation of the general polygonal prism inducing a
cyclically symmetric triangulation of the boundary quadrilaterals.

Besides the fact that the (frequently asked) question about the existence of
triangulations of the non-convex twisted polygonal prism deserves a conclusive
answer at last, we mention one other motivation for studying problems like
this.  Deciding the existence of a triangulation without new vertices for a
fixed polyhedron is NP-hard~\cite{Ruppert+Seidel:NonconvexTriangulation:1992}.
In studying the twisted polygonal prism we surprisingly hit the borderline
between existence and non-existence of triangulations without new vertices in
a single type of point configurations, and this could make the twisted or
untwisted polygonal prism a handy gadget for NP-hardness proofs.


\section{The Objects}\label{sec:objects}

Consider a two-dimensional point configuration $C_n := \{v_0, v_1, \dots,
v_{n-1}\}$ in strictly convex position labeled counter-clockwise.  Fix a point
$o$ in the interior of $C_n$ in~$\mathbb{R}^2$.  For $\alpha \in [0,2\pi)$,
let $C_n(\alpha)$ be a copy of $C_n$ rotated by~$\alpha$ around the point~$o$
(rotation by an angle in $(0,2\pi)$ means counter-clockwise rotation).  We
call the corresponding points $w_0, w_1, \dots, w_{n-1}$.  The \emph{Cayley
  embedding} of $C_n$ and~$C_n(\alpha)$ is defined by
%%
\begin{equation*}
  P_n(\alpha) := 
  \conv 
  \bigl(
  (C_n \times \{0\}) \cup (C_n(\alpha) \times \{1\})
  \bigr).
\end{equation*}
%%
A \emph{triangulation} of a three-dimensional polyhedron~$P$ is a dissection
into finitely many tetrahedra such that any two intersect in a common face
(possibly empty).  For a triangulation of~$P$ and a simplex $F$ of arbitrary
dimension we say \emph{$T$ uses~$F$} if $F$ is a face of some tetrahedron
in~$T$.  Faces are denoted by their sets of vertices.  A \emph{triangulation
  without new vertices} or a \emph{$v$-triangulation} of~$P$ is a
triangulation all of whose vertices are vertices of~$P$.

$P_n := P_n(0)$ is known as a \emph{prism} over~$C_n$.  The \emph{cyclic set
  of diagonals}
%%
\begin{equation*}
  D_c := \bigl\{ \{v_i, w_{i+1}\} \;:\; i = 0, 1, \dots, n-1 \bigr\}
\end{equation*}
%%
induces a triangulation of the quadrilateral facets of~$P_n(0)$
into the triangles $\{v_i, w_i, w_{i+1}\}$ and $\{v_i, w_{i+1}, v_{i+1}\}$, $i
= 0, 1, \dots, n-1$ (all indices regarded modulo~$n$).

The continuity of the determinant function ensures that there is an $\alpha >
0$ such that no full-dimensional tetrahedron in $P_n(0)$ has a reversed
orientation (sign of determinant of the points in homogeneous coordinates)
in~$P_n(\alpha)$.  In that case, the \emph{vertical edges} $\{v_i, w_i\}$ and
the \emph{reverse cyclic edges} $\{w_i, v_{i+1}\}$ are among the boundary
edges of~$P_n(\alpha)$, for all $i = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$.  For such an $\alpha$,
we call $P_n(\alpha)$ a \emph{convex twisted prism over~$C_n$}.
($P_n(\alpha)$ is a convex twisted prism over~$C_n$ if and only if the map
sending $v_i, w_i \in P_n(\alpha)$ to the corresponding $v_i, w_i \in P_n(0)$
induces a weak map of oriented
matroids~\cite{Bjoerner+LasVergnas+Sturmfels+White+Ziegler:OrientedMatroids:1993}.)

For a convex twisted prism over~$C_n$, the \emph{cyclic set of tetrahedra} is
the set of tetrahedra
%%
\begin{equation*}
  T_c := \bigl\{\{v_i, v_{i+1}, w_i, w_{i+1 }\} \;:\; i = 0, 1, \dots, n-1\bigr\}.
\end{equation*}
%%
Any two of these tetrahedra intersect in a common edge.


\section{The Results}\label{sec:results}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:prismmain}
  For all $n \ge 3$, no prism $P_n(0)$ over an $n$-gon admits a triangulation
  without new vertices that uses the cyclic set~$D_c$ of diagonals.
\end{theorem}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:twistedmain}
  For all $n \ge 3$, no convex twisted prism~$P_n(\alpha)$ admits a
  triangulation that contains the cyclic set~$T_c$ of tetrahedra.
\end{theorem}

We define the \emph{non-convex twisted prism}~$\Check{P}_n(\alpha)$ to be the
topological closure of $P_n(\alpha) \setminus T_c$.  Since the twist is not
too large, this is a non-convex simple polyhedron.  Here is now the
generalization of Sch\"onhard's polyhedron:
\begin{corollary}
  For all $n \ge 3$, the non-convex twisted prism $\Check{P}_n(\alpha)$ cannot
  be triangulated without new vertices.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark}
  When $C_n$ is a regular triangle and $\alpha \in (0,2\pi/3)$, the twisted
  prism $P_3(\alpha)$ coincides with Sch\"on\-hardt's twisted prism.
\end{remark}

\section{The Tools}\label{sec:preliminaries}

For a more detailed background about the following consult
\cite{Huber+Rambau+Santos:Cayley-Trick:2000} and the references therein.

\subsection{Minkowski sums and mixed subdivisions}\label{sec:Minkowskisum}

Let $P$ and $Q$ be point configurations in~$\mathbb{R}^2$.  Then the
\emph{Minkowski sum of $P$ and~$Q$ scaled by $\lambda \in (0,1)$} is the point
configuration
%%
\begin{equation*}
  (1 - \lambda) P + \lambda Q 
  := \{ (1 - \lambda) p + \lambda q \;:\; p \in P, q \in Q\} 
  \subset \mathbb{R}^2.
\end{equation*}
%%
We make the following simplifying assumption: we consider only generic
$\lambda \in (0,1)$, for which $(1 - \lambda) p + \lambda q = (1 - \lambda) p'
+ \lambda q'$ implies that $p=p'$ and $q=q'$.  A \emph{mixed cell} in $(1 -
\lambda) P + \lambda Q$ is the Minkowski sum $(1 - \lambda) \sigma + \lambda
\tau$ of subsets $\sigma \subseteq P$ and $\tau \subseteq Q$.  A \emph{mixed
  subdivision} of $(1 - \lambda) P + \lambda Q$ is a dissection of $(1 -
\lambda) P + \lambda Q$ into finitely many mixed cells such that any two
intersect in common faces (possibly empty).

A two-dimensional mixed cell is \emph{fine} if it is the Minkowski sum of
either two edges or of a point and a triangle.  In the first case, the cell is
a parallelogram, in the second case the cell is a triangle.  A mixed
subdivision is \emph{fine} if it contains only fine mixed cells.


\subsection{Cayley embeddings}
\label{sec:Cayleyembedding}

Let $P$ and~$Q$ as above.  Then the \emph{Cayley embedding} of $P$ and~$Q$ is
the point configuration
%%
\begin{equation*}
  \mathcal{C}(P,Q) := \{(p,0) \;:\; p \in P\} \cup \{(q, 1) \;:\; q \in Q\}
  \subset \mathbb{R}^3.
\end{equation*}
%%
For example, $P_n(\alpha)$ from above is a Cayley embedding for all~$\alpha$.


\subsection{The Cayley trick}\label{sec:Cayley}

The Cayley trick states that for all $P$ and~$Q$ as above, triangulations of
$\mathcal{C}(P,Q)$ are in one-to-one correspondence with fine mixed
subdivisions of $(1 - \lambda) P + \lambda Q$ for all $\lambda \in (0,1)$.  We
will only need the fact that every triangulation of $\mathcal{C}(P,Q)$ induces
a fine mixed subdivision of $(1 - \lambda) P + \lambda Q$ for all $\lambda \in
(0,1)$.

The correspondence is given by intersecting $\mathcal{C}(P,Q)$ by a horizontal
hyperplane $H_{\lambda}$ at height~$\lambda$.  The intersection of any
tetrahedron in a triangulation of $\mathcal{C}(P,Q)$ with $H_{\lambda}$ is a
fine mixed cell in $\bigl((1 - \lambda) P + \lambda Q\bigr) \times \{\lambda\}
\subset \mathbb{R}^3$.  Since intersection with affine hyperplanes preserves
face relations, the set of all fine mixed cells so obtained yields a fine
mixed subdivision of $(1 - \lambda) P + \lambda Q$.

Applied to $P_n(\alpha)$ this means: each triangulation of $P_n(\alpha)$
induces a fine mixed subdivision of $S_n(\alpha, \lambda) := (1 - \lambda) C_n
+ \lambda C_n(\alpha)$ for every $\lambda \in (0,1)$.  In summary, we have the
following correspondences between objects in the Cayley embedding and the
Minkowski sum:

\begin{center}
  \begin{footnotesize}
    \begin{tabular}{ll}
      \hline
      $P_n(\alpha)$ & $S_n(\alpha, \lambda)$\\
      \hline
      tetrahedra                                              & fine mixed polygons\\
      tetrahedra with a triangle in the bottom or the top     & fine mixed triangles\\
      tetrahedra with edges both in the top and in the bottom & fine mixed parallelograms\\
      non-horizontal triangles                                & fine mixed edges\\
      non-horizontal edges                                    & fine mixed points\\
      orientation                                             & counter-clockwise orientation\\
      \hline
    \end{tabular}
  \end{footnotesize}
\end{center}

Since the Minkowski sum lives in one dimension less than the Cayley embedding,
we rather work with~$S_n(\alpha, \lambda)$.


\section{The Proofs}\label{sec:proofs}

Let $\alpha \ge 0$ be small enough such that $P_n(\alpha)$ is a prism or a
twisted prism.  Fix $\epsilon \in (0,1)$ such that $\norm{\epsilon (v_j -
  v_i)} < \norm{(1-\epsilon)(w_j - w_i)}$ for all $i,j = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$.
(All following considerations are also true for arbitrary $\epsilon \in
(0,1)$; the choice of a small $\epsilon$ makes some arguments more
transparent, though.)  In particular, $S_n(\alpha) := S_n(\alpha, 1-\epsilon)
= \epsilon P_n + (1-\epsilon)P_n(\alpha)$ does not contain multiple points.
For brevity, we will use the notation $(i,j)$ for the point $\epsilon v_i +
(1-\epsilon)w_j$, $i,j = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$.

\subsection{Some notions and notation}\label{sec:notation}

Consider mixed edges.  All mixed edges are, by definition, Minkowski sums of
either a point and an edge or of an edge and a point.  In our notation, they
are of the form $(e,i) := \{(k,i), (l,i)\}$ or of the form $(j, e) :=
\{(j,k), (j,l)\}$ for some edge $e = \{k,l\}$ in~$C_n$ or $C_n(\alpha)$, resp.

The following notions are motivated by regarding $\epsilon$ as being small.
We highlight the most important one as a definition.

\begin{definition}[Short and Long Edges]
  Call a mixed edge \emph{short} if it is of the form $(e,i)$, call it
  \emph{long} otherwise.  The short mixed edge $e_i := \{(i,i), (i+1,i)\}$ is
  called \emph{special}.\qed
\end{definition}

The special edges are interesting in~$S_n$ because -- via the Cayley trick --
they correspond to triangles that are incompatible with the cyclic set of
diagonals~$D_c$ in~$P_n$.  Moreover, they are interesting in~$S_n(\alpha)$ for
$\alpha > 0$ because the cyclic set of tetrahedra~$T_c$ covers the
corresponding triangles in $P_n(\alpha)$ so that in any triangulation
containing~$T_c$ no other cell can use them.

For $i = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$, there are the convex sub-$n$-gons $(C_n,i) :=
\epsilon C_n + (1-\epsilon)w_i$ and $(i,C_n(\alpha)) := \epsilon v_i +
(1-\epsilon) C_n(\alpha)$ in~$S_n$.  By construction, all $(C_n,i)$ are
translates of~$C_n$, and all $(i,C_n(\alpha))$ are translates
of~$C_n(\alpha)$, which itself is an angle-preserving image of~$C_n$ under a
(small) rotation that we call~$r(\alpha)$.  The \emph{long} translation that
shifts $(C_n,i)$ to $(C_n,j)$ along the long edge~$\{(i,i),(i,j)\}$ is denoted
by~$T_{ij}$; the \emph{short} translation that moves $(i, C_n(\alpha))$ to
$(j,C_n(\alpha))$ along the short edge~$\{(i,i),(j,i)\}$ is denoted
by~$t_{ij}$.

Call the $n$-gons $(C_n,i)$ \emph{small} and the $n$-gons $(j,C_n)$
\emph{large}.  Similarly, we call a mixed triangle with only short edges
\emph{small}; we call a mixed triangle with only long edges \emph{large}.  By
definition of the Minkowski sum, each mixed triangle is either small or large.
We can regard short mixed edges as edges that have both end points in the same
small sub-$n$-gon.  Since $C_n$ is convex, no line spanned by a short edge~$e$
in~$(C_n,i)$ cuts the interior of any other short edge in~$(C_n,i)$.  The
special short mixed edge~$e_i$ lies in the boundary of~$S_n(\alpha)$.
Figure~\ref{fig:Cayley-correspondence} illustrates the setup.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \input{Cayley_correspondence}
  \caption{Cutting the Cayley embedding of two $n$-gons with a horizontal
    hyperplane close to the top yields their Minkowski sum scaled as
    in~$S_n(\alpha)$; the cyclic set of diagonals and the special edges are
    drawn thicker}
  \label{fig:Cayley-correspondence}
\end{figure}


\subsection{Roadmap of the proofs}
\label{sec:roadmap}

Note that any triangulation of~$P_n$ that uses the cyclic set of diagonals
induces a mixed subdivision~$M$ of~$S_n$ in which no special edge~$e_i$ is
used.  Consider any non-special short edge~$e$ in~$M$ in some small
$n$-gon~$(C_n,i)$.  Then the ``region'' between~$e$ and~$e_i$ must be covered
by~$M$ somehow.  We want to show that this cannot be accomplished unless at
least one special edge is used.  We even show that at least one special edge
must be used as an edge of some mixed triangle
(Theorem~\ref{thm:specialedge}).

How can the region between $e$ and~$e_i$ be subdivided?  There must be a cell
adjacent to~$e$ on the same side as~$e_i$.  If we use a mixed triangle, i.e.,
a small triangle, then we harvest new short edges in the same small $n$-gon.
One of these new short edges is ``closer'' to~$e_i$ in a sense to be defined
precisely below, and we can proceed.  If we use a mixed parallelogram then
there is another short edge~$e'$ opposite to~$e$ in some other small
$n$-gon~$(C_n,j)$ at a ``partner vertex''~$j$ of~$e$.  But the ``regions''
containing potential partner vertices for~$e'$ towards~$e_j$ will turn out to
be strictly smaller than for~$e$.

But what happens if we use a mixture of mixed triangles and parallelograms?
It fact, both ideas from above can be merged by using a certain lexicographic
partial order on short edges, in which the short edges that are hit by
``chasing the mixed subdivision~$M$ towards special short edges'' are strictly
decreasing.  This shows that not all special short edges can be avoided
by~$M$.

We can make this idea precise for both the prism and the twisted prism.  In
the latter case, it is no surprise that even all special edges must be used,
since they are boundary edges of~$S_n(\alpha)$.  However, using the cyclic set
of tetrahedra means covering all special short edges by parallelograms, and we
will show that at least one of them must be in a small triangle.

In the sequel, we will formalize these arguments in order to obtain rigorous
proofs of Theorems~\ref{thm:prismmain} and~\ref{thm:twistedmain}.


\subsection{Ordering short mixed edges}\label{sec:ordering}

For the following, let $e$ be a short edge in~$(C_n,i)$.  We want to give an
orientation to the halfplanes separated by the line~$l(e)$ spanned by~$e$.  If
$e = e_i$, then we make use of the fact that $e_i$ is in the boundary
of~$S_n$, thus $l(e)$ is a supporting hyperplane for~$S_n$.  Therefore, we can
define the positive side $l(e)^+$ of $e$ to be the halfplane not
containing~$S_n$.  If $e \neq e_i$, we define the positive side $l(e)^+$ of~$e$
to be the halfplane containing~$e_i$.  This idea of investigating the
subdivision between $e$ and~$e_i$ can now be formulated as looking at cells on
the positive side of~$l(e)$.

The following is a simple observation.
\begin{lemma}\label{thm:oppositeparallel}
  Let $\sigma$ be a mixed parallelogram in~$S_n(\alpha)$ with short edges $e$
  and~$e'$.  Then:
  \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
  \item If $\sigma$ is on the positive sides or on the negative sides of both
    of its short edges then $l(e)$ and~$l(e')$ have opposite orientations.
  \item If $\sigma$ is on the positive side of~$e$ and on the negative side
    of~$e'$, or vice versa, then $l(e)$ and~$l(e')$ have parallel
    orientations.\qed
  \end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

One of the cases mentioned in Lemma~\ref{thm:oppositeparallel} can actually
never occur.  This will allow us to keep on finding new cells on the positive
sides of short edges.

\begin{lemma}[Orientation Lemma]
  \label{thm:orientation}
  There is no fine mixed $2$-cell $\sigma$ in~$S_n$ on the positive side of
  all of its short edges.
\end{lemma}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \input{double_plus_parallelogram}
  \caption{Parallelograms which are on the positive sides of both of their
    short edges exist when $\alpha$ is too large; in the picture $\alpha =
    \frac{\pi}{3}$.  However, it can be seen that the bad parallelogram flips
    its orientation when $P_4(\alpha)$ is untwisted}
  \label{fig:double-plus-parallelogram}
\end{figure}

\begin{remark}
  The correctness of the Orientation Lemma heavily depends on the congruence
  of the top/bottom polygons of~$P_n(\alpha)$ and on the restriction
  of~$\alpha$.  That the lemma is false in even slightly more general
  situations can be seen in the example in
  Figure~\ref{fig:double-plus-parallelogram}.
\end{remark}

\begin{proof}
  Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that $\sigma$ is a mixed $2$-cell
  in~$S_n$ lying on the positive side of all of its short edges.  Since
  $\sigma$ contains the short edge~$e$, it must be either a small triangle or
  a parallelogram.
  
  Consider the case where $\sigma$ is a small triangle on the positive side of
  all of its edges.  The special edge~$e_i$ cannot be an edge of~$\sigma$,
  since $\sigma$ is contained in $\conv S_n$, and $l(e_i)^+$ was defined to be
  the side of $l(e_i)$ not containing~$S_n$.  By definition of the
  orientations of short edges other than~$e_i$, we conclude that $e_i$ must be
  contained in $\sigma$.  Since $(C_n,i)$ is convex, this can only be the case
  if $e_i$ is an edge of~$\sigma$: contradiction.
 
  Therefore, $\sigma$ must be a parallelogram lying on the positive sides of
  both of its short edges $e$ in $(C_n,i)$ and~$e'$ in~$(C_n, j)$ for some
  $i,j\in \{0, 1, \dots, n-1\}$.  We first consider this in the case of the
  prism, i.e., when $\alpha = 0$.  We will also include the degenerate case,
  i.e., where $\sigma$ is a line segment, into our considerations.  Since
  $\sigma \subset l(e)^+ \cap l(e')^+$, the orientations of $e$ and~$e'$ must
  be opposite (Lemma~\ref{thm:oppositeparallel}).  In terms of translations,
  $T_{ij}(l(e)^+) = l(e')^-$ and~$T_{ji}(l(e')^+ = l(e)^-$.  By definition of
  the orientation, $e_i$ is on the positive side of~$e$, and hence $(i,i) \in
  l(e)^+$.  Similarly, $(j,j) \in l(e')^+$.  This implies
  %%
  \begin{align}
    (i,i)               &\in l(e)^+,\label{equ:necessary1}\\
    (j,i) = T_{ji}(j,j) &\in T_{ji}(l(e')^+) = l(e)^-,\label{equ:necessary2}\\
    (i,j) = T_{ij}(i,i) &\in T_{ij}(l(e)^+) = l(e')^-,\label{equ:necessary3}\\
    (j,j)               &\in l(e')^+.\label{equ:necessary4}
  \end{align}
  %%
  These are necessary conditions for a non-degenerate~$\sigma$ being on the
  positive side of both of its short edges.  While being on the positive side
  of short edges does not make sense for degenerate~$\sigma$,
  Conditions~\eqref{equ:necessary1} through~\eqref{equ:necessary4} have a
  meaning in the degenerate case as well.  For further reference, we call
  these necessary conditions the \emph{orientation conditions}.
  
  Since $\alpha = 0$, the points $(i,i)$, $(j,i)$, $(i,j)$, and $(j,j)$ lie on
  a straight line~$\ell$.  Since $\epsilon$ is very small, the points appear
  on~$\ell$ in the order $(i,i)$, $(j,i)$, $(i,j)$, and $(j,j)$.  This tells
  us that $\ell$ starts in $l(e)^+$, enters~$l(e)^-$, and then returns into
  $l(e)^+$.  This implies that $\ell = l(e)$.  By the symmetric argument, also
  $\ell = l(e')$.  Therefore, $\sigma$ is a segment.  Moreover, its short
  edges are actually $e = \{(i,i),(j,i)\}$ and~$e' = \{(i,j),(j,j)\}$ because
  the points in~$(C_n,i)$ are in strictly convex position.
  
  This shows that a non-degenerate~$\sigma$ cannot exist in the prism.
  Moreover, we have learned the following useful fact: if the points $(i,i)$,
  $(j,i)$, $(i,j)$, and $(j,j)$ satisfy the orientation
  conditions~\eqref{equ:necessary1} through~\eqref{equ:necessary4} for the
  short edges $e$ and~$e'$ of some (possibly degenerate)
  parallelogram~$\sigma$ then $\sigma = \{(i,i),(j,i),(i,j),(j,j)\}$.
  
  Since $\sigma$ cannot exist in the prism, consider the case where $\alpha >
  0$ so that $P_n(\alpha)$ is still a twisted prism.  That means, no
  full-dimensional tetrahedron in~$P_n$ switches orientation during the
  twisting towards~$P_n(\alpha)$.  That implies that no full-dimensional
  parallelogram in~$S_n(0)$ changes its orientation w.r.t.\ its short edges
  (by the Cayley trick correspondence in Section~\ref{sec:Cayley}; easy
  exercise in linear algebra).
  
  Now, untwist $P_n(\alpha)$, and hence~$\sigma$.  Then, $\sigma$ must
  degenerate to a segment in~$P_n$.  During the untwist, for all $\alpha > 0$
  the points $(i,i)$, $(j,i)$, $(i,j)$, and $(j,j)$ must always satisfy the
  orientation conditions.  Since the conditions define a closed space and
  untwisting changes all data continuously in~$\alpha$, they must also hold in
  the degenerate position~$\alpha = 0$.  Hence, $\sigma$ must be of the form
  $\{(i,i),(j,i),(i,j),(j,j)\}$ for some $i,j \in \{0, 1, \dots, n-1\}$.  In
  particular, $e = \{(i,i),(j,i)\}$.
  
  We finally show that during the twist, $\sigma$ folds up in the ``wrong''
  direction.  Consider the order of the short edges incident to $(i,i)$
  counter-clockwise starting at an edge of~$S_n$.  In this order $e_i$ is the
  first edge, by definition.  Twisting $P_n$ again counter-clockwise
  by~$\alpha$ will turn the slope of the short edge $e = \{(i,i),(j,i)\}$
  counter-clockwise into the slope of the long edge $\{(i,i),(i,j)\}$.
  Therefore, the long edge $\{(i,i),(i,j)\}$ and the special short edge~$e_i$
  are on different sides of~$e$.  This means, $\sigma$ lies on the negative
  side of~$e$: contradiction.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \input{index_1}
  \caption{Primary index $\ind_1(e)$ of a short edge~$e$}
  \label{fig:index_1}
\end{figure}

The following quantity defines how close a short edge is to the corresponding
special short edge.  See Figure~\ref{fig:index_1} for an illustration.

\begin{definition}[Primary Index]
  We define the \emph{primary index} $\ind_1(e)$ of any short edge~$e$ by
  %%
  \begin{equation*}
    \ind_1(e) :=  \vol \bigl(\conv (C_n,i) \cap l(e)^+ \bigr)\mathqed
  \end{equation*}
  %%
\end{definition}

We now turn our attention to measuring how many short partner edges a short
edge can find to build a parallelogram on its positive side.  Consider the
unique line $l(e,i)$ parallel to $e$ through~$(i,i)$.  Let $l(e,i,\alpha)$ be
the line that is obtained from $l(e,i)$ by a rotation by~$-\alpha$
around~$(i,i)$.  Its orientation is obtained by rotating the orientation
of~$l(e)$ by~$-\alpha$ as well.  The resulting positive halfplane defined
by~$l(e,i,\alpha)$ is called~$l(e,i,\alpha)^+$.

\begin{lemma}[Partner Lemma]
  \label{thm:partner}
  Let $\sigma$ be a mixed parallelogram with short edges $e$ and~$e'$ so that
  $\sigma$ lies on the positive side of~$e$.  Assume, $e$ lies in the small
  polygon~$(C_n,i)$ and $e'$ lies in the small polygon~$(C_n,j)$.  Then
  $(j,i)$ lies in the interior of~$l(e,i,\alpha)^+$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that $(j,i)$ lies in
  $l(e,i,\alpha)^-$.  By definition, $e_i$ is inside~$l(e)^+$.  Since $e_i$ is
  a boundary edge of~$S_n(\alpha)$, one of the long edges~$E$ of~$\sigma$ must
  separate $e_i$ from~$\sigma$.  Let $(k,i) := E \cap e$, where $k = i$ is
  possible.
  
  Let $\beta$ be the angle from~$e$ to~$E$ around~$(k,i)$.  This angle is the
  same as the angle from $l(e,i)$ to~$\{(i,i), (i,j)\}$ around~$(i,i)$: the
  short translation $t_{ki}$ moves $(k,i)$ to~$(i,i)$, $E$ onto~$\{(i,i),
  (i,j)\}$, and~$e$ into~$l(e,i) \cap \conv S_n(\alpha)$.  There are two
  cases: either $0 < \beta < \pi$ or $-\pi < \beta < 0$.
  
  If $0 < \beta < \pi$ then the slope of~$e$ turns counter-clockwise
  around~$(k,l)$ into the slope of~$E$.  Since $\sigma$, and hence~$E$, are
  in~$l(e)^+$, the interior of the positive side $l(e)^+$ of~$l(e)$ can be
  characterized as follows: a point $x \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is in the interior
  of~$l(e)^+$ if and only if the angle from~$e$ to~$\{(k,i),x\}$ around
  $(k,i)$ is in the interval~$(0,\pi)$.  Since the orientation of $l(e,i)$ is
  parallel to this, the analogous characterization holds for the interior
  of~$l(e,i)^+$.  The characterization of the interior of the positive
  side~$l(e,i,\alpha)^+$ of~$l(e,i,\alpha)$ is analogous.

  \begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \input{partner_lemma_1}
    \caption{The case $0 < \beta < \pi$ in the proof of the Partner Lemma} 
    \label{fig:partner-lemma-1}
  \end{figure}
  
  Let $\gamma$ be the angle from $\{(i,i), (j,i)\}$ to~$l(e,i,\alpha)$
  around~$(i,i)$.  The assumption that $(j,i)$ lies in $l(e,i,\alpha)^-$ can
  now be expressed as~$-\gamma \in [-\pi,0] \iff \gamma \in [0,\pi]$.  The
  angle from $\{(i,i), (j,i)\}$ to~$\{(i,i), (i,j)\}$ around~$(i,i)$
  equals~$\alpha$, by construction of~$P_n(\alpha)$.  (See
  Figure~\ref{fig:partner-lemma-1} for an illustration.)  Therefore:
  %%
  \begin{align*}
    \alpha 
    &= \angle\bigl(\{(i,i), (j,i)\},\{(i,i), (i,j)\}\bigr)\\
    &= \angle\bigl(\{(i,i), (j,i)\}, l(e,i,\alpha)\bigr))
    + \angle\bigl(l(e,i,\alpha), l(e,i)\bigr))
    + \angle\bigl(l(e,i),\{(i,i), (j,i)\}\bigr)\\
    &= \underbrace{\gamma}_{\in [0,\pi]} 
    {}+{} \alpha 
    {}+{} \underbrace{\beta}_{\in (0,\pi)}\\
    &\in (\alpha, \alpha + 2\pi).
  \end{align*}
  %%
 This is a contradiction.

  \begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \input{partner_lemma_2}
    \caption{The case $-\pi < \beta < 0$ in the proof of the Partner Lemma} 
    \label{fig:partner-lemma-2}
  \end{figure}
 
 If $-\pi < \beta < 0$ then we get analogously $\gamma \in [-\pi,0]$.  (See
 Figure~\ref{fig:partner-lemma-2} for an illustration.)  Thus:
 %%
  \begin{align*}
    \alpha 
    &= \angle\bigl(\{(i,i), (j,i)\},\{(i,i), (i,j)\}\bigr)\\
    &= \angle\bigl(\{(i,i), (j,i)\}, l(e,i,\alpha)\bigr))
    + \angle\bigl(l(e,i,\alpha), l(e,i)\bigr))
    + \angle\bigl(l(e,i),\{(i,i), (j,i)\}\bigr)\\
    &= \underbrace{\gamma}_{\in [-\pi,0]} 
    {}+{} \alpha 
    {}+{} \underbrace{\beta}_{\in (-\pi,0)}\\
    &\in (\alpha - 2\pi, \alpha).
  \end{align*}
  %%
 Contradiction again, and we are done.
\end{proof}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \input{index_2}
  \caption{Secondary index $\ind_2(e)$ of a short edge~$e$}
  \label{fig:index_2}
\end{figure}

The following secondary index measures for any short edge the size of the
region in which partner edges for a parallelogram can be found.  See
Figure~\ref{fig:index_2} for a sketch.

\begin{definition}[Secondary Index]
  The \emph{secondary index} of a short edge~$e$ is defined as
  \begin{equation*}
    \ind_2(e) := \vol \bigl( \conv (C_n,i) \cap l(e,i,\alpha)^+ \bigr)\mathqed
  \end{equation*}
\end{definition}

We can now define a lexicographic partial order induced by primary and
secondary index.  This will turn out to be the crucial relation among short
edges in~$M$.  It is the partial order that will always decrease when we
``chase~$M$ along short edges towards special short edges''.

\begin{definition}
  Let $e$ and $e'$ be short edges in~$M'$.  Then
  %%
  \begin{equation*}
    e \prec e' :\iff 
    \begin{cases}
      \text{either} & \ind_1(e) < \ind_1(e')\\
      \text{or}     & \ind_1(e) = \ind_1(e') \text{ and } \ind_2(e) < \ind_2(e').\mathqed
    \end{cases}
  \end{equation*}
  %%
\end{definition}

The following lemma is the formalization of ``chasing the mixed subdivision
towards special short edges''.

\begin{lemma}[Order Lemma]\label{thm:orderlemma}
  Let $e$ be a short edge in a mixed subdivision~$M$ of~$S_n(\alpha)$.  Then
  the following hold:
  \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
  \item\label{itm:lemma:nonnegative} $\ind_1(e) \ge 0$ and $\ind_2(e) \ge 0$.
  \item\label{itm:lemma:zero} $\ind_1(e) = 0$ if and only if $e = e_i$ for
    some $i = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$.
  \item\label{itm:lemma:downchain} If $e \neq e_i$ for all $i = 0, 1, \dots,
    n-1$, then there exists another short edge $e'$ in~$M$ with $e' \prec e$;
    moreover, there exists a $2$-cell $\sigma$ such that both $e$ and~$e'$ are
    short edges of~$\sigma$, and $\sigma$ is on the positive side of~$e$ and
    on the negative side of~$e'$.
  \end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
  Assertions (\ref{itm:lemma:nonnegative}) and (\ref{itm:lemma:zero}) are by
  definition.
  
  In order to prove (\ref{itm:lemma:downchain}), consider a short edge~$e$
  in~$M$.  Assume that $e$ is in $(C_n,i)$ and that $e \neq e_i$.  Then the
  mixed subdivision $M$ must contain cells that subdivide the convex hull of
  $e$ and $e_i$.  In particular, there must be a cell~$\sigma$ on the positive
  side of~$e$.  There are two cases: Either $\sigma$ is a simplex containing
  only short edges inside $(C_n,i)$, or $\sigma$ is a parallelogram containing
  two short and two long edges.
  
  \textit{Case 1:} The cell $\sigma$ is a simplex with short edges.  By
  construction, $l(e)^+$ contains~$\sigma$.  By Lemma \ref{thm:orientation},
  $\sigma$ lies on the negative side of one of its short edges, say~$e'$.
  Then $l(e')^+$ does not contain~$\sigma$.  Moreover, since $(C_n,i)$ is
  convex, $l(e)$ and~$l(e')$ do not cross inside~$\conv (C_n,i)$.  Thus,
  $l(e')^+ \cap \conv (C_n,i) \subseteq l(e)^+ \cap \conv (C_n,i) \setminus
  \sigma$.  Therefore, $\ind_1(e') \le \ind_1(e) - \vol(\sigma) < \ind_1(e)$,
  whence $e' \prec e$.
  
  \textit{Case 2:} The cell $\sigma$ is a parallelogram containing two short
  and two long edges.  Consider the short edge~$e'$ in~$\sigma$ opposite
  to~$e$.  It lies in $(C_n,j)$ for some $j = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$ with $j
  \neq i$.
  
  We first prove that $e$ and~$e'$ have the same primary index.  By
  Lemma~\ref{thm:orientation}, $\sigma$ lies on the negative side of~$e'$.  By
  construction, $\sigma$ lies on the positive side of~$e$. Therefore, by
  Lemma~\ref{thm:oppositeparallel}, the parallel lines $l(e)$ and $l(e')$ have
  parallel orientations.  That means, $T_{ij}(l(e)^+) = l(e')^+$.  Because
  $T_{ij}(\conv (C_n,i)) = \conv (C_n,j)$, we conclude $\ind_1(e') =
  \ind_1(e)$.
  
  Next, we show that the secondary index of~$e'$ is strictly smaller than that
  of~$e$.  By Lemma~\ref{thm:partner}, $(j,i)$ lies in the interior
  of~$l(e,i,\alpha)^+$.  This implies that $(j,j) = T_{ij}(j,i)$ lies in the
  interior of~$T_{ij}(l(e,i,\alpha)^+)$.  Since the parallel lines~$l(e)$
  and~$l(e')$ have parallel orientations, the parallel lines $l(e,i,\alpha)$
  and $l(e', j, \alpha)$ also have parallel orientations.  Thus,
  $l(e',j,\alpha)^+$ is strictly contained in~$T_{ij}(l(e,i,\alpha)^+)$.
  Therefore,
  \begin{align*}
    \ind_2(e') 
    &= \vol \bigl( \conv (C_n,j) \cap l(e',j,\alpha)^+ \bigr)\\
    &= \vol \bigl( \conv T_{ij}(C_n,i) \cap l(e',j,\alpha)^+ \bigr)\\
    &< \vol \bigl( \conv T_{ij}(C_n,i) \cap T_{ij}(l(e,i,\alpha)^+) \bigr)\\
    &= \vol \bigl( \conv (C_n,i) \cap (l(e,i,\alpha)^+) \bigr)\\
    &= \ind_2(e').
  \end{align*}

  This proves that $e' \prec e$, and (iii) is proven as well.
\end{proof}


\subsection{The neighborhood of special short edges}\label{sec:special-edges}

We are now in a position to prove the main property of mixed subdivisions
of~$S_n(\alpha)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:specialedge} 
  Let $\alpha \ge 0$ such that $P_n(\alpha)$ is a prism or a twisted prism.
  Then every mixed subdivision~$M$ of~$S_n(\alpha)$ contains at least one
  triangle one of whose edges is some special short edge.
\end{theorem}

\begin{remark}
  If $\alpha$ is too large then not only the Order Lemma is false but also
  Theorem~\ref{thm:specialedge}, which can be seen in
  Figure~\ref{fig:no_special_triangle}.  Theorem~\ref{thm:twistedmain},
  however, might still be true for large~$\alpha$ because the cyclic set of
  tetrahedra defines parallelograms that are incompatible with the
  parallelogram that is on the positive sides of both of its short edges in
  Figure~\ref{fig:no_special_triangle}.  One could consider all $\alpha \ge 0$
  for which the face lattice of~$P_n(\alpha)$ equals the one of the twisted
  prism in our sense. Since the existence of triangulations depends on the
  orientations of tetrahedra (the oriented matroid) rather than on the face
  lattice, we decided not to investigate this any further.  If the top and the
  bottom $n$-gons are not congruent, Theorem~\ref{thm:specialedge} -- and even
  Theorem~\ref{thm:prismmain} -- do not hold either, as can be seen in
  Figure~\ref{fig:normally-equivalent}.
\end{remark}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \input{no_special_triangle}
  \caption{When $\alpha$ is too large (in the picture $\alpha =
    \frac{\pi}{3}$) then a mixed subdivision exists where no special edge is
    covered by a mixed triangle; the parallelogram of
    Figure~\ref{fig:double-plus-parallelogram} serves as kind of an adapter
    between two part of the subdivision that would be incompatible otherwise.
    This mixed subdivision disappears when $P_4(\alpha)$ is untwisted.  The
    indicated mixed subdivision does, however, not contradict the statement in
    Theorem~\ref{thm:twistedmain} for larger~$\alpha$, since it does not use
    the parallelograms corresponding to the cyclic set of tetrahedra}
  \label{fig:no_special_triangle}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
  \centering
  \input{normally_equivalent}
  \caption{Congruence of top and bottom $n$-gons is important: even if the top
    and the bottom $n$-gon of a Cayley embedding of two $n$-gons are normally
    equivalent, there may be triangulations using the cyclic set of diagonals
    of the resulting combinatorial polygonal prism; the figure shows the
    corresponding mixed subdivision; note that indeed no special edge is used}
  \label{fig:normally-equivalent}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
  Since every triangulation of~$P_n(\alpha)$ induces a triangulation of its
  top and its bottom polygon, at least one short triangle must be used.  Not
  all of its short edges can be edges of~$S_n(\alpha)$.  Therefore, there is a
  short edge having cells on both of its sides.  Hence, there is at least on
  $2$-cell that is on the positive side of some short edge.   By
  Lemma~\ref{thm:orientation}, every such cell lies on the negative side of
  one of its other short edges.
  
  Let $\sigma$ be a cell on the positive side of its short edge~$e$ and on the
  negative side of its short edge~$e'$ such that $e'$ is minimal w.r.t.\ 
  ``$\prec$''.  Then, by Lemma~\ref{thm:orientation}(iii), $e'$ is a special
  edge.
  
  Every parallelogram $\sigma$ with a special short edge $e_i$ must lie on the
  negative side of~$e_i$, since the positive side of~$e_i$ is
  outside~$S_n(\alpha)$.  Therefore, the parallelogram~$\sigma$ lies on the
  same side of~$e_i$ as~$(C_n,i)$.  Assume the opposite edge $e$ of~$\sigma$
  lies in $(C_n,j)$ for some $j \in \{0, 1, \dots, n-1\}$. Then, by
  Lemma~\ref{thm:oppositeparallel}, $\sigma$ lies on the opposite side of~$e$
  as~$(C_n,j)$.  In particular, $\sigma$ lies on the opposite side of~$e$
  as~$e_j$, which means, $\sigma$ lies also on the negative side of~$e$.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:prismmain} (prism)}\label{sec:prismproof}

For the sake of contradiction, assume that there is a triangulation $T$
of~$P_n$ that uses the cyclic set~$D_c$ of diagonals.  Using the Cayley trick,
$T$ induces a fine mixed subdivision $M$ of~$S_n$ that uses, among others, the
set of points $(i,i+1)$ for all $i = 0, 1, \dots, n-1$, corresponding to the
cyclic set of diagonals (labels again regarded modulo~$n$).  The triangles in
the quadrilateral facets of~$P_n$ induce the mixed edges $\{ (i,i), (i,i+1)\}$
in the boundary of~$S_n$.  They already cover the whole boundary of~$S_n$.
Thus, the special edges $e_i := \{(i,i), (i+1,i)\}$ in the boundary of~$S_n$,
which correspond to the reverse cyclic set of diagonals in the quadrilateral
facets of~$P_n$, are not used in~$M$.  However, by
Theorem~\ref{thm:specialedge}, at least one $e_i$ must be in~$M$:
contradiction.\qed


\subsection{The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:twistedmain} (twisted prism)}\label{sec:twistedproof}

For the sake of contradiction, assume that there is a triangulation $T$
of~$P_n$ that uses the cyclic set~$T_c$ of tetrahedra.  Construct the
corresponding mixed subdivision~$M$ of~$S_n(\alpha)$.  The set $M_c$ of mixed
cells corresponding to~$T_c$ are parallelograms that cover all the special
edges~$e_i$.  Therefore, there can be no other cell that contains a special
edge.  By Theorem~\ref{thm:specialedge}, there must be at least one mixed
triangle containing a special edge~$e_i$: contradiction.\qed


\section*{Acknowledgements}

I thank Yuri Romanovsky for bringing up this problem and G\"unter Ziegler for
communicating it to me.

\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}
\providecommand{\MR}{\relax\ifhmode\unskip\space\fi MR }
% \MRhref is called by the amsart/book/proc definition of \MR.
\providecommand{\MRhref}[2]{%
  \href{http://www.ams.org/mathscinet-getitem?mr=#1}{#2}
}
\providecommand{\href}[2]{#2}
\begin{thebibliography}{1}

\bibitem{Bagemihl:Indecomposable:1948}
Frederick Bagemihl, \emph{On indecomposable polyhedra}, American Mathematical
  Monthly \textbf{55} (1948), 411--413.

\bibitem{Bjoerner+LasVergnas+Sturmfels+White+Ziegler:OrientedMatroids:1993}
Anders Bj{\"o}rner, Michel Las~Vergnas, Bernd Sturmfels, Neil White, and
  G{\"u}nter~M.\ Ziegler, \emph{Oriented matroids}, Encyclopedia of
  Mathematics, vol.~46, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993.

\bibitem{Huber+Rambau+Santos:Cayley-Trick:2000}
Birkett Huber, J{\"o}rg Rambau, and Francisco Santos, \emph{Cayley embeddings,
  lifting subdivisions, and the {Bohne-Dress} theorem on zonotopal tilings},
  Journal of the European Mathematical Society \textbf{2} (2000), 179--198.

\bibitem{Lennes:PolygonsPolyhedra:1911}
Nels~Johann Lennes, \emph{Theorems on the simple finite polygon and
  polyhedron}, American Journal of Mathematics \textbf{33} (1911), 37--62.

\bibitem{Ruppert+Seidel:NonconvexTriangulation:1992}
Jim Ruppert and Raimund Seidel, \emph{On the difficulty of triangulating
  three-dimensional nonconvex polyhedra}, Discrete \& Computational Geometry
  \textbf{7} (1992), 227--253.

\bibitem{Schoenhardt:Polyhedron:1927}
Erich Sch\"onhardt, \emph{{\"U}ber die {Zerlegung} von {Dreieckspolyedern} in
  {Tetraeder}}, Mathematische Annalen \textbf{89} (1927), 309--312.

\end{thebibliography}


\end{document}

%%% Local Variables: 
%%% mode: latex
%%% TeX-master: t
%%% End: 
