let @xmath0 be a coxeter system .
there is a canonical real representation of @xmath1 which is called the _ geometric representation _ of @xmath0 and which is known to be faithful by the work of tits in the 1960s ( a proof can be found in @xcite . in the proof
he considers a convex cone @xmath2 in the dual module which is stabilized under the action of @xmath1 . by means of the standard generating set @xmath3
he defines an open simplicial cone @xmath4 which turns out to be a prefundamental domain for the action of @xmath1 on @xmath2 .
it is now the standard terminology to call the cone @xmath2 the _ tits cone _ and @xmath4 the _ ( open ) fundamental chamber_. the conjugates of the fundamental generators act as linear reflections on the module and its dual .
their reflection hyperplanes yield a simplicial decomposition of @xmath2 and thus provide a simplicial complex which is the _ coxeter complex _ of @xmath0 . the geometric representation of @xmath0 , the geometry of the tits cone , and the properties of the coxeter complex are fundamental tools for the investigation of coxeter groups .
coxeter systems play an important role in various branches of mathematics . in combinatorics and
geometric group theory they are a rich source of interesting phenomena ( @xcite , @xcite ) . in representation theory and the theory of algebraic groups the _ crystallographic _ coxeter systems occur as _ weyl groups _ of several structures .
there , they play the role of basic invariants , often called the _ type _ of the algebraic object under consideration .    in @xcite and @xcite _ weyl groupoids _ and their root systems have been introduced as basic invariants of nichols algebras .
their definition emerged from earlier work in @xcite and @xcite , they are natural generalizations of weyl groups .
weyl groupoids of finite type are those which generalize finite weyl groups .
these have been studied intensively in @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , @xcite , where a classification has been obtained .
this classification is considerably harder than the classification of the finite weyl groups .
it was observed by the first two authors in 2009 that the final outcome of this classification in rank 3 is intimately related to grnbaum s list of simplicial arrangements in @xcite .
there is an obvious explanation of this connection : to each weyl groupoid one can associate a tits cone which is the whole space if and only if the weyl groupoid is of finite type .
based on these considerations , _ crystallographic _ arrangements have been introduced in @xcite , where it is shown that their classification is a consequence of the classification of finite weyl groupoids .    in view of the importance of the tits cone and the coxeter complex for the understanding of coxeter systems it is natural to investigate their analogues in the context of weyl groupoids .
although it is intuitively clear what has to be done in order to generalize these notions , there are instances where things have to be modified or some extra argument is needed . our intention is to provide the basic theory of the tits cone and the coxeter complex of a weyl groupoid .
this paper deals with the combinatorial aspects of this project and therefore the crystallographic condition does nt play a role at all . hence
, here we deal with _
tits arrangements _ rather than with weyl groupoids .
the basic strategy for setting up the framework is to start with a simplicial arrangement @xmath5 on a convex open cone @xmath2 and to investigate the abstract simplicial complex @xmath6 associated with it .
this is a _ gated chamber complex _ and has therefore a natural type function .
we call a simplicial arrangement on a convex open cone a tits arrangement if @xmath7 is a thin chamber complex and introduce the notion of a root system of a tits arrangement . given a simplicial arrangement of rank @xmath8 on an open convex cone , there are two canonical procedures to produce simplicial arrangements of smaller rank
.    we would like to point out that this paper is meant to be a contribution to the foundations of the theory of weyl groupoids of arbitrary type .
the concepts and ideas are at least folklore and several of the results for which we give proofs are well established in the literature .
the only exception is probably our systematic use of gated chamber complexes at some places .
our principal goal here is to provide a fairly complete account of the basic theory of the tits cone of a weyl groupoid by developing the corresponding notions to the extent that is needed for just this purpose .
therefore , we have decided to include short proofs for standard facts and refer to other sources only when we need a more elaborate result .
we are not able to give a systematic account of the origins of the concepts and ideas which play a role in this paper . here
are some comments based on the best of our knowledge :    1 .
simplicial arrangements were first introduced and studied by melchior @xcite and subsequently by grnbaum @xcite . shortly afterwards , simplicial arrangements attracted attention in the seminal work of deligne @xcite : they are a natural context to study the @xmath9 property of complements of reflection arrangements , since the set of reflection hyperplanes of a finite coxeter group is a simplicial arrangement .
they further appeared as examples or counterexamples to conjectures on arrangements .
2 .   we do not know where arrangements of hyperplanes on convex cones were considered for the first time .
the concept seems most natural and they are mentioned in @xcite without further reference .
of course , our definition of a simplicial arrangement on an open convex cone is inspired by the tits cone of a coxeter system .
the fact that arrangements of hyperplanes provide interesting examples of gated sets in metric spaces appears in @xcite for the first time . at least in the simplicial case
it was observed much earlier @xcite .
the observation that there is a natural link between root systems and simplicial arrangements is quite natural .
we already mentioned that it was our starting point to investigate the tits - cone of a weyl groupoid .
but it also appears in dyer s work on rootoids @xcite , @xcite .
it is conceivable that the observation was made much earlier by other people and is hidden somewhere in the literature .
the paper is organized as follows .    in section [ sec : ex ] we will provide some basic examples for our objects of interest .
these will be used for later reference , since they are either basic examples or counterexamples for the properties which we introduce .
like in example [ exm : thinf ] , the geometric representation of a coxeter group is a prominent sample for simplicial arrangements .    in section [ sec : hyp ]
we fix notation and develop the notion of a hyperplane arrangement on an open convex cone in a real vector space @xmath10 .
we introduce the common substructures for these objects , i.  e.  subarrangements and restrictions .
furthermore we define the chamber graph of an arrangement and show that parabolic subsets of the set of chambers are gated subsets with respect to the canonical metric .
in section [ sec : tits ] we introduce simplicial arrangements and tits arrangements .
we add additional combinatorial structure to a tits arrangement by associating to the set of hyperplanes a set of roots , linear forms which define the hyperplanes .
with respect to the study of nichols algebras root systems with additional properties will be interesting , however in this paper we deal with roots systems as very general objects .
we also associate to a simplicial arrangement a canonical simplicial complex .
the main results regarding this complex are proven in the appendix .
in section [ subarr ] we consider subarrangements and restrictions of simplicial arrangements and tits arrangements .
we give criteria when the substructures of a simplicial / tits arrangement is again a simplicial / tits arrangement , and in the case of a tits arrangement we describe canonical root systems .
the appendix provides proofs for the properties of the poset associated to a simplicial hyperplane arrangement which are stated in section 4 . while most of these properties are quite intuitive , a rigid proof can be tedious .
appendix [ app : simpcomp ] recalls the basic definitions of simplicial complexes as we need them .    in appendix [ app :
s ] we show that the poset @xmath11 associated to a simplicial hyperplane arrangement @xmath12 is indeed a simplicial complex .
the results of this section are summarized in proposition [ ssimpcomp ] .
in particular , we provide an equivalent definition for simplicial cones , which has an implicit simplicial structure .
appendix [ app : scc ] provides the remaining properties of @xmath13 .
the first part recalls the definitions of chamber complexes and type functions .
in the second part it is shown that @xmath13 is a gated chamber complex with a type function , a collection of the results can be found in proposition [ prop - sproperties ] .
we also show that the notions of being spheric and thin , which we introduced for simplicial hyperplane arrangements before , coincide with the classical notions for chamber complexes
.    * acknowledgements .
* part of the results were achieved during a mini - workshop on nichols algebras and weyl groupoids at the mathematisches forschungsinstitut oberwolfach in october 2012 , and during meetings in kaiserslautern , hannover , and giessen supported by the deutsche forschungsgemeinschaft within the priority programme 1388 .
one of the authors was partly funded by a scholarship of the justus - liebig - universitt giessen .
consider the following setting . let @xmath14
then @xmath15 consists of two connected components @xmath16    let @xmath17 , @xmath18 be the dual basis in @xmath19 to @xmath20 , then we can write @xmath21 we will later define objects which can be written in this way , i.  e.  as intersections of half spaces , as simplicial cones .    both @xmath22 and @xmath23 are cones with exactly two bounding hyperplanes , for @xmath22 these are @xmath24 and @xmath25 , for @xmath23 these are @xmath26 and @xmath27
.    note that in this example only one of the bounding hyperplanes , namely @xmath26 , of @xmath22 , @xmath23 meets @xmath2 , while the other meets @xmath28 , but not @xmath2 itself .    .
]    [ exm : notthin ]    let @xmath10 and @xmath2 be as before .
define for @xmath29 the lines @xmath30    then the connected components of @xmath31 are again simplicial cones for suitable linear forms .
the number of connected components is not finite in this case , and every component has bounding hyperplanes which meet @xmath2 ( see figure [ fig : thinf ] ) .    .
]    [ exm : thinf ]    let @xmath32 and @xmath33    then @xmath2 is a convex open cone .
consider the universal coxeter group @xmath1 in 3 generators , i.  e. @xmath34    the geometric representation ( see ( * ? ? ?
* chapter 5.3 ) ) of @xmath1 yields a set of reflection hyperplanes @xmath35 , which meet @xmath2 after choosing a suitable basis .
we obtain the picture in figure [ fig : univ3 ] by intersecting @xmath2 with a hyperplane parallel to @xmath36 , which corresponds to the beltrami - klein model of hyperbolic 2-space .    .
]    the connected components of @xmath37 are again cones which carry a simplicial structure .
however , the vertices of the simplices are not contained in @xmath2 , but in its boundary @xmath38 .
[ exm : univ3 ]
throughout this paper , all topological properties are with respect to the standard topology of @xmath39 , unless stated otherwise .
let @xmath40 .
a subset @xmath41 is called a _ cone _ , if @xmath42 for all @xmath43 , @xmath44 . for a subset @xmath45
we call @xmath46 the _ cone over @xmath47_.    let @xmath35 be a set of linear hyperplanes in @xmath40 , and @xmath2 an open convex cone .
we say that _ @xmath35 is locally finite in @xmath2 _ , if for every @xmath48 there exists a neighborhood @xmath49 of @xmath50 , such that @xmath51 is a finite set .    a _ hyperplane arrangement ( of rank @xmath8 )
_ is a pair @xmath12 , where @xmath2 is a convex open cone in @xmath10 , and @xmath35 is a ( possibly infinite ) set of linear hyperplanes such that    1 .
@xmath52 for all @xmath53 , 2 .
@xmath35 is locally finite in @xmath2 .
if @xmath2 is unambiguous from the context , we also call the set @xmath35 a hyperplane arrangement
.    let @xmath54 .
then the _ support of @xmath47 _ is defined as @xmath55 if @xmath56 is a singleton , we write @xmath57 instead of @xmath58 , and we omit the index @xmath35 , if @xmath35 is unambiguous from the context . in this paper
we call the set @xmath59 the _ section of @xmath47 ( in @xmath35)_. again , we will omit @xmath35 when there is no danger of confusion .
the connected components of @xmath37 are called _ chambers _ , denoted with @xmath60 or just @xmath61 , if @xmath62 is unambiguous .
let @xmath63 .
define the _ walls of @xmath64 _ as @xmath65    define the _ radical of @xmath35 _ as @xmath66 .
we call the arrangement _ non - degenerate _ , if @xmath67 , and _ degenerate _ otherwise .
a hyperplane arrangement is _ thin _ , if @xmath68 for all @xmath69 .    1
.   by construction , the chambers @xmath70 are open sets .
2 .   in our notation
, if @xmath62 is a hyperplane arrangement , @xmath35 being locally finite in @xmath2 implies : for every point @xmath48 there exists a neighborhood @xmath49 of @xmath50 such that @xmath71 is finite .
let @xmath12 be a hyperplane arrangement .
then for every point @xmath48 there exists a neighborhood @xmath72 such that @xmath73 .
furthermore the set @xmath74 is finite for every compact set @xmath75 .
[ compfin ]    let @xmath48 , in particular there exists an open neighborhood @xmath76 of @xmath50 such that @xmath77 is finite . by taking
the smallest open @xmath78-ball contained in @xmath76 and centred at @xmath50 , we can assume @xmath79 .
let @xmath80 , with @xmath81 .
let @xmath82 , then @xmath83 , and @xmath84 is an open subset such that @xmath85 .
since @xmath77 is finite , @xmath86 is finite .
we can therefore repeat this process finitely many times until we find an open ball @xmath87 such that @xmath88 .
the second assertion is a consequence of the first : let @xmath47 be compact , and for @xmath89 let @xmath72 denote an open subset such that @xmath90 .
then @xmath91 as @xmath92 .
but the @xmath72 are open and @xmath47 is compact , therefore there exists a finite set @xmath93 , @xmath94 , such that @xmath95 consequently , if @xmath96 , then there exists an index @xmath97 such that @xmath98 and @xmath99 .
hence @xmath100 and @xmath74 is finite .
we want to say more about hyperplane arrangements arising as @xmath101 for points @xmath102 .
let @xmath103 be a hyperplane arrangement and let @xmath102 . if @xmath104 , we call @xmath105 a _ subarrangement of @xmath62_.    define @xmath106 , we call @xmath107 the _ induced arrangement at @xmath50 _ or the _ parabolic subarrangement at @xmath50_. a _ parabolic subarrangement of @xmath62 _ is a subarrangement @xmath108 of @xmath62 , such that @xmath109 for some @xmath102 .
furthermore set @xmath110 .
let @xmath111 be a connected metric space .
define the segment between @xmath112 to be @xmath113    when referring to the metric of @xmath39 , we will use the more common notion of the _ interval _ between two points @xmath50 and @xmath114 : @xmath115 & : = \sigma(x , y ) = \{\lambda x + ( 1 - \lambda ) y \in { { \mathbb{r}}}^r \mid \lambda \in [ 0,1 ] \},\\ ( x , y ) & : = \sigma(x , y)\setminus \{x , y\ } = \{\lambda x + ( 1 - \lambda ) y \in { { \mathbb{r}}}^r \mid \lambda \in ( 0,1 ) \}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that the intervals @xmath116 $ ] , @xmath117 can be defined analogously .    note
that every hyperplane @xmath118 separates @xmath10 into half - spaces .
one way to describe the half - spaces uses linear forms .
choose an arbitrary linear form @xmath119 such that @xmath120
. then @xmath121 and @xmath122 ( @xmath123 and @xmath124 ) are the two _ open ( closed ) half - spaces bounded by @xmath118_.    for an arbitrary subset @xmath75 , if @xmath47 is contained in one open half space bounded by @xmath118 , we denote this particular half - space by @xmath125 . in this case
we write @xmath126 for the unique half - space not containing @xmath47 . by definition
every chamber @xmath64 is contained in a unique half space of @xmath53 , therefore the sets @xmath127 exist for all @xmath53 , @xmath128 .
let @xmath129 be chambers , we say that @xmath53 _ separates _ @xmath64 and @xmath26 , if @xmath130 .
we also say that two closed chambers @xmath131 are _ separated _ by @xmath53 , if @xmath118 separates @xmath64 and @xmath26 .
we denote by @xmath132 the set of hyperplanes separating @xmath129 .    if @xmath133 , @xmath134 , then @xmath135 .
[ starsep ]    assume @xmath136 , then the half - space @xmath137 is well defined and unique . as a consequence we have @xmath138 , and @xmath118 does not separate @xmath64 and @xmath26 .
the pair @xmath139 is a hyperplane arrangement with chambers corresponding to @xmath140 .
[ lem : subarr ]    the set @xmath107 is locally finite in @xmath2 since @xmath35 is locally finite in @xmath2 , and every @xmath135 meets @xmath2 .
let @xmath141 denote the connected components of @xmath142 .
assume @xmath143 are both contained in @xmath144 .
then there exists a hyperplane @xmath53 such that @xmath22 , @xmath23 are contained in different half - spaces with respect to @xmath118 , in contradiction to lemma [ starsep ] . since @xmath145 , every chamber in @xmath140
is therefore contained in a unique chamber in @xmath141 .
likewise , every chamber in @xmath146 contains a chamber in @xmath147 , which completes the proof .
we note that it is always possible to mod out the radical of an arrangement to obtain a non - degenerate one .
assume that @xmath62 is a hyperplane arrangement , set @xmath148 and    1 .
@xmath149 , 2 .
@xmath150 , 3 .
@xmath151 , 4 .
@xmath152 .
note that the set @xmath107 is clearly finite if @xmath48 .
the set @xmath153 is an open convex cone in @xmath154 .
the set @xmath155 is open as the image of an open set and @xmath156 is open .
furthermore , if @xmath157 $ ] is an interval in @xmath155 , then there exist @xmath158 with @xmath159 , @xmath160 .
the interval @xmath161 $ ] is contained in @xmath2 as @xmath2 is convex , and we find @xmath162 ) = [ y , z]$ ] .
finally , @xmath153 is a cone , since for @xmath163 we find @xmath164 with @xmath165 .
since @xmath2 is a cone , for every @xmath166 we have @xmath167 , so @xmath168 .
we gather basic properties of @xmath169 .
the pair @xmath170 is a non - degenerate hyperplane arrangement with chambers @xmath171 .
the chambers are furthermore in one to one correspondence to @xmath70 .
[ lem : red ]    the set @xmath169 is a set of hyperplanes in @xmath154 , since @xmath172 for all @xmath53 .
let @xmath173 with @xmath174 for @xmath53 , then @xmath175 , since @xmath52 .
we show that @xmath169 is locally finite in @xmath153 .
let @xmath176 , then there exists an @xmath164 such that @xmath177 .
since @xmath35 is locally finite in @xmath2 , there exists a neighborhood @xmath178 containing @xmath179 such that @xmath180 is finite . as @xmath156 maps open sets to open sets , @xmath181 is a neighborhood of @xmath114 in @xmath153 .
now let @xmath182 for some @xmath183 .
let @xmath173 with @xmath184 and assume @xmath185 .
then there exists @xmath186 with @xmath187 and @xmath188 with @xmath189 , thus @xmath190 for some @xmath191 .
hence @xmath192 as well , and we can conclude that @xmath193 .    we have thus established for @xmath53 @xmath194 therefore @xmath195 is finite .    for the chambers , note that @xmath196 is a connected component of @xmath197 , in particular , as @xmath198 , @xmath199 , furthermore for a connected component @xmath146 of @xmath197 , @xmath200 is a connected component of @xmath37 .
this completes the proof .
let @xmath62 be a hyperplane arrangement , @xmath102 . then set    @xmath201 ,    @xmath202 ,    @xmath203 ,    @xmath204 ,    @xmath205 .
the pair @xmath206 is a non - degenerate hyperplane arrangement with chambers @xmath207 .
[ cor : redsub ]    this follows from lemma [ lem : subarr ] and lemma [ lem : red ] , since @xmath208 .
the hyperplane arrangement in example [ exm : notthin ] is degenerate , as @xmath209 . reducing this arrangement yields the non degenerate and thin hyperplane arrangement @xmath210 .
[ exm : deg ]      we now consider the structure given by the chambers and their adjacency .
let @xmath62 be a hyperplane arrangement .
we call two chambers @xmath211 _ adjacent _ , if @xmath212 is a hyperplane .
if @xmath129 are are adjacent and @xmath213 , then we also call @xmath129 to be _ adjacent by @xmath118_.    define the _ chamber graph _ @xmath214 to be the simplicial graph with vertex set @xmath70 , @xmath215 is an edge if and only if @xmath64 and @xmath26 are adjacent .
we call a path in @xmath216 connecting @xmath217 a _ gallery from @xmath64 to @xmath26_. we say a gallery from @xmath64 to @xmath26 is _ minimal _ , if it is of length @xmath218 , where @xmath219 is the distance in @xmath216 .
let @xmath220 , @xmath221 , @xmath222 . then @xmath223)$ ] , and @xmath224 is finite .
[ finsep ]    as @xmath2 is convex , the line @xmath225 $ ] is contained in @xmath2 , and is compact .
therefore , as @xmath35 is locally finite , by lemma [ compfin ] @xmath226)$ ] is finite .
let @xmath53 and assume @xmath227 $ ] is empty , then @xmath228)$ ] is well - defined and @xmath229 ) = d_h(l)$ ] , so @xmath118 does not separate @xmath64 and @xmath26
. we can conclude @xmath230)$ ] . on the other hand ,
let @xmath231)$ ] .
since @xmath221 , @xmath222 , the interval @xmath225 $ ] is not contained in @xmath118 and neither @xmath232 nor @xmath233 is in @xmath118 .
assume @xmath234 , since @xmath235 is convex , we obtain @xmath225 \subset d_h(\{v\})$ ] , contradicting our assumption . therefore @xmath236
. this yields @xmath226 ) \subseteq s(k , l)$ ] .
two chambers @xmath220 are adjacent by @xmath118 if and only if @xmath237 .
in this situation @xmath26 is the unique chamber adjacent to @xmath64 by @xmath118 .
[ adjsep ]    assume first that @xmath129 are adjacent by @xmath118 .
so @xmath238 .
note that @xmath239 by definition .
since @xmath240 , the set @xmath241 is a convex cone spanning @xmath118 .
take a point @xmath50 in the interior of @xmath242 . for a suitable @xmath243
we find @xmath244 and @xmath245 .
the hyperplane @xmath118 separates @xmath246 into two connected components , say @xmath247 and @xmath248 . since @xmath64 is open , @xmath249 , w.  l.  o.  g.  @xmath64 meets @xmath247 . since @xmath245 ,
indeed we find @xmath250 .
assuming that @xmath26 meets @xmath247 implies that @xmath251 , but then @xmath252 generates @xmath10 , contradicting the assumption of @xmath64 and @xmath26 being adjacent .
thus @xmath253 , and @xmath118 separates @xmath64 and @xmath26 .
assume @xmath254 such that @xmath255 separates @xmath64 and @xmath26
. then @xmath256 and @xmath257 , in particular @xmath258 .
this implies @xmath259 , therefore @xmath260 .    for the other implication assume that @xmath118 is the unique hyperplane separating @xmath64 and @xmath26 . in this case , note that @xmath64 and @xmath26 are distinct .
if @xmath118 is not in @xmath261 , @xmath64 and @xmath26 are on the same side of every wall of @xmath64 , thus equal , a contradiction .
therefore @xmath239 .
consider @xmath221 and @xmath222 .
the interval @xmath225 $ ] meets only @xmath118 by lemma [ finsep ] .
therefore @xmath225 \cap h = \{p\}$ ] , with @xmath262 . since @xmath35 is locally finite , by lemma [ compfin ] we find a neighborhood @xmath76 of @xmath263 such that @xmath264 .
again @xmath76 is separated by @xmath118 into two connected components , one contained in @xmath64 , one in @xmath26 .
therefore @xmath265 is contained in @xmath266 and this set generates @xmath118 .
thus @xmath64 and @xmath26 are adjacent .    for the second statement
assume @xmath267 is a chamber adjacent to @xmath64 by @xmath118 .
then we established @xmath268 .
if @xmath269 , there exists a hyperplane @xmath255 separating @xmath26 and @xmath267 , and we can assume @xmath270 and @xmath271
. then @xmath255 separates @xmath64 and @xmath267 , which implies @xmath259 .
this contradicts the fact that @xmath270 .
let @xmath69 , @xmath272 .
then there exists a chamber @xmath26 adjacent to @xmath64 by @xmath118 .
[ lem : adjex ]    take a point @xmath50 in the interior of @xmath273 with respect to @xmath118 and a neighborhood @xmath76 of @xmath50 contained in @xmath2 with @xmath264 .
since @xmath53 , @xmath274 is contained in a chamber @xmath26 , which is adjacent to @xmath64 by @xmath118 .    in the case where @xmath62 is not thin , we need to be able to handle hyperplanes which are not in @xmath35 but occur as a wall of a chamber .
assume @xmath69 , @xmath240 and @xmath275 . then @xmath276 .
in particular for all @xmath220 the set @xmath127 is well defined and @xmath277 holds .
[ boundwalls ]    assume @xmath278 , then @xmath118 separates @xmath2 into two half spaces . as @xmath118 is a wall of @xmath64 and @xmath275 , we find that @xmath64 is not a connected component of @xmath279 .
therefore @xmath276 , which proves our claim .
let @xmath217 .
then there exists a minimal gallery of length @xmath224 connecting @xmath64 and @xmath26 .
[ sepisdis ]    by lemma [ finsep ] @xmath280 is finite , so let @xmath281 . for @xmath282 , we have @xmath277 for every @xmath283 and all @xmath284 by lemma [ boundwalls ] .
this implies that @xmath64 and @xmath26 are the same connected component .
let @xmath285 , then we obtain the statement from lemma [ adjsep ] .
we now use induction on @xmath286 , let @xmath287 .
we can sort @xmath280 in a way , such that @xmath288 . by lemma [ lem : adjex ] and lemma [ adjsep ] there
exists a unique chamber @xmath146 adjacent to @xmath64 such that @xmath289 .
we will show @xmath290 , then the statement of the lemma follows by induction .
since we have @xmath291 , we have @xmath292 for @xmath293 . assuming that there exists an additional @xmath254 , @xmath294 for @xmath295 with the property that @xmath255 separates @xmath146 and @xmath26 , provides a contradiction as @xmath255 also separates @xmath64 and @xmath26 . by induction
this yields a gallery of length @xmath286 from @xmath64 to @xmath26 .
we show that this gallery is also minimal . for this purpose
let @xmath296 be an arbitrary gallery connecting @xmath129 and let for @xmath297 the hyperplane @xmath298 such that @xmath299 .
note that @xmath300 is unique with that property by lemma [ adjsep ] .
assume @xmath134 , then there exists an index @xmath301 such that @xmath118 separates @xmath302 and @xmath26 but not @xmath303 and @xmath26 .
so @xmath304 and @xmath305 , @xmath118 separates @xmath306 and @xmath303 .
we obtain @xmath307 , as @xmath308 are adjacent by @xmath300 and @xmath300 is unique with that property by lemma [ adjsep ] .    thus @xmath309 and this yields @xmath310 .
above we constructed a gallery of length @xmath224 , hence the gallery is already minimal .    the graph @xmath216 is connected .
[ cor : gammacon ]    let @xmath311 be a connected metric space .
let @xmath312 and @xmath313 .
a point @xmath314 is called a _ gate of @xmath50 to @xmath315 _ or _ the projection of @xmath50 on @xmath315 _ if @xmath316 for all @xmath317 .
the gate of @xmath50 to @xmath315 is uniquely determined , if it exists , and we will then denote it by @xmath318 .
the set @xmath315 is called gated if every @xmath312 has a gate to @xmath315 .
let @xmath102 .
define the graph @xmath319 , where @xmath320 .
then @xmath321 is a subgraph of @xmath216 and is called the _ parabolic subgraph at @xmath50_. a subgraph @xmath322 of @xmath216 is called _ parabolic _ , if it is a parabolic subgraph at @xmath50 for some @xmath102 .
the parabolic subgraphs and subarrangements correspond to the residues in the case where @xmath35 is a hyperplane arrangement coming from a coxeter group .
parabolic subgraphs are connected .
[ kxcon ]    the graph @xmath321 corresponds to the chamber graph of the hyperplane arrangement @xmath139 , and is therefore connected by corollary [ cor : gammacon ] .
let @xmath102 , @xmath69 .
then there exists a unique chamber @xmath323 , such that @xmath324 for all @xmath135 .
[ starunique ]    we prove existence first .
let @xmath69 and consider the intersection @xmath325 then @xmath3 is a chamber of @xmath326 , since it is a non - empty connected component of @xmath2 . by lemma [ lem : subarr ]
@xmath3 corresponds to a unique chamber @xmath327 in @xmath140 , and @xmath328 holds .
so let @xmath329 be another chamber in @xmath140 .
then there exists an element @xmath53 such that @xmath118 separates @xmath327 and @xmath330 . by lemma [ starsep ]
we obtain @xmath135 , but this implies @xmath331 . hence @xmath327 is unique with the property that @xmath324 for all @xmath135 .    for @xmath332
the set @xmath140 are gated subsets of @xmath333.[stargate ]    let @xmath102 and @xmath321 be a parabolic subgraph .
let @xmath69 .
by lemma [ starunique ] there exists a unique chamber @xmath334 such that @xmath335 for all @xmath135
. we will prove that @xmath336 is a gate of @xmath64 to @xmath140 .
so let @xmath337 .
if @xmath53 separates @xmath336 and @xmath26 , we immediately get by lemma [ starsep ] that @xmath135 . on the other hand
we get that if @xmath254 separates @xmath336 and @xmath64 , by construction of @xmath336 we find @xmath338 .
now assume @xmath339 , we find that since @xmath135 , @xmath118 does not separate @xmath336 and @xmath64 and therefore must separate @xmath336 and @xmath26 .
assume on the other hand that @xmath340 , then it can not separate @xmath26 and @xmath336 , and therefore must separate @xmath336 and @xmath64 .
summarized this yields @xmath341 we thus find for all @xmath337 that @xmath342 .
so @xmath336 is indeed a gate for @xmath64 to @xmath321 .
we will now consider the structure induced on hyperplanes @xmath118 by the elements in @xmath35 .
let @xmath62 be a simplicial arrangement .
let @xmath343 be a hyperplane in @xmath10 , such that @xmath52 .
set @xmath344 this is a set of hyperplanes in @xmath118 which have non empty intersection with @xmath345 , if @xmath345 is not empty itself .
we also define the connected components of @xmath346 as @xmath347 .
the pair @xmath348 is a hyperplane arrangement of rank @xmath349 with chambers @xmath347 .    by definition for @xmath350 we find @xmath351 .
the set @xmath345 is an open convex cone in @xmath118 , which is isomorphic to @xmath352 .
let @xmath353 , @xmath76 a neighborhood of @xmath50 such that @xmath77 is finite .
then @xmath354 is also finite , hence @xmath355 is locally finite in @xmath345 .
by definition @xmath347 are the chambers of this arrangement .    in the case where @xmath53 , we need some basic relations between chambers in @xmath70 and in @xmath347 .
assume @xmath53 and let @xmath69 .
if @xmath240 , then @xmath273 is the closure of a chamber in @xmath347
. for every @xmath356 there exists exactly two chambers @xmath357 , such that @xmath358 and @xmath359 for @xmath360 .
[ indfaces ]    for the first statement , @xmath273 is contained in the closure of a chamber @xmath146 of @xmath348 , since its interior with respect to @xmath118 does not meet any hyperplane .
let @xmath361 .
then @xmath362 for some chamber
let @xmath364 .
assume @xmath365 , then @xmath366 , while @xmath273 is either contained in @xmath255 or in @xmath367 .
a contradiction to @xmath368 .
thus we find @xmath369 .
since @xmath370 , there exists a wall of @xmath64 separating @xmath64 and @xmath50 . a contradiction , hence @xmath371 .    for the second statement ,
take @xmath368 , then @xmath372 and @xmath373 .
choose a neighborhood @xmath76 of @xmath47 such that @xmath264 , which is possible by lemma [ compfin ] .
the hyperplane @xmath118 separates @xmath76 into two connected components , which are each contained in chambers @xmath374 . by definition @xmath22 and @xmath23
are adjacent by @xmath118 , and by lemma [ adjsep ] there can not exist another chamber being adjacent to @xmath22 or @xmath23 by @xmath118 .
in this section we introduce simplicial cones and collect some basic properties . as before , throughout this section let @xmath40 .
let @xmath119 be a linear form , then @xmath375    let @xmath87 be a basis of @xmath19 , then the _ open simplicial cone ( associated to @xmath87 ) _ is @xmath376    with notation as above we find @xmath377 let @xmath87 be a basis of @xmath19
. we can then define the _ closed simplicial cone ( associated to @xmath87 ) _ as @xmath378    we say a cone is _ simplicial _ if it is open simplicial or closed simplicial .    a simplicial cone
can also be defined using bases of @xmath10 .
let @xmath4 be a basis of @xmath10 , then the open simplicial cone associated to @xmath4 is @xmath379 and the closed simplicial cone associated to @xmath4 is @xmath380    both concepts are equivalent , and it is immediate from the definition that if @xmath381 and @xmath382 are bases , then @xmath383 if and only if @xmath87 is , up to positive scalar multiples and permutation , dual to @xmath4 .
a simplicial cone @xmath64 associated to @xmath87 carries a natural structure of a simplex , to be precise :    @xmath384 is a poset with respect to inclusion , which is isomorphic to @xmath385 with inverse inclusion
. if @xmath4 is the basis of @xmath10 dual to @xmath87 , we find @xmath386 to be the set of all convex combinations of subsets of @xmath4 , and @xmath386 is also isomorphic to @xmath387 .
moreover , @xmath388 is the vertex set of the simplex @xmath386 .    for a simplicial cone @xmath64
, we denote with @xmath389 a basis of @xmath19 such that @xmath390 .
[ rem : scs ]    an open or closed simplicial cone is convex and has non - empty interior . [
cone : simpprop1 ]    let @xmath64 be an open simplicial cone and @xmath389 a basis associated to @xmath64 .
then @xmath64 is convex and open as an intersection of convex and open subsets .
furthermore let @xmath4 be dual to @xmath391 , then we obtain that @xmath392 , hence @xmath64 is not empty and thus has non - empty interior .
if @xmath2 is a closed simplicial cone , it contains the closure of an open simplicial cone , and has non - empty interior .
the common notation for cones introduces _ properness _ of a cone @xmath64 as the property of having non - empty interior and being closed , convex , and pointed , the latter meaning that @xmath393 .
thus all closed simplicial cones are proper . in our context
being proper is not of interest , the cones we are dealing with are either convex and open or already simplicial .      in the following
let @xmath40 and @xmath394 be an open convex cone . in this section we establish a notion of tits arrangements on @xmath2 .
the interesting cases the reader may think of are @xmath395 , or a half - space @xmath396 for some @xmath119 .
we can now define our main objects of interest .
let @xmath394 be a convex open cone and @xmath35 a set of linear hyperplanes in @xmath10 .
we call a hyperplane arrangement @xmath12 a _ simplicial arrangement ( of rank @xmath8 ) _ , if every @xmath397 is an open simplicial cone .
the cone @xmath2 is the _ tits cone _ of the arrangement .
a simplicial arrangement is a _ tits arrangement _ , if it is thin .        1
.   the definition of `` thin '' requires that all possible walls are already contained in @xmath35 .
if we do not require this , a bounding hyperplane may arise as a bounding hyperplane of @xmath2 itself .
this happens in example [ exm : notthin ] , which is not thin .
consider also the case where @xmath2 itself is an open simplicial cone .
even the empty set then satisfies that the one chamber , which is @xmath2 itself , is a simplicial cone .
however , it has no walls in @xmath35 , hence it is not thin .
2 .   from the definition it follows that in dimensions @xmath398 and @xmath399 , there are very few possibilities for simplicial arrangements and tits arrangements .
+ in dimension @xmath398 , the empty set is the only possible tits arrangement .
+ in the case @xmath400 , we find @xmath401 or @xmath402 or @xmath403 . in the first case
, @xmath404 is a tits arrangement and in the other two cases , @xmath404 is a simplicial arrangement , but not thin any more .
3 .   later in this section
we introduce the notion of @xmath405-spherical arrangements , which is a refinement of being thin .
4 .   in the case
where @xmath395 , the property of @xmath35 being locally finite is equivalent to @xmath35 being finite , as @xmath398 is contained in every hyperplane .
furthermore @xmath395 is the only case where @xmath406 , as the cone over every neighborhood of @xmath398 is already @xmath39 .
\(i ) consider example [ exm : notthin ] , there @xmath22 and @xmath23 are simplicial cones , with @xmath407 and @xmath408 .
the set @xmath409 is therefore a simplicial arrangement of rank 2 in @xmath2 , which is finite and hence also locally finite .
but @xmath410 is not thin , as @xmath411 note that this particular example can be turned into a thin arrangement by factoring out the radical ( cp .
example [ exm : deg ] ) .
however , one can easily find examples of non - degenerate simplicial arrangements which are not thin .
\(ii ) in example [ exm : thinf ] , the set @xmath412 of hyperplanes is not finite , but it is locally finite in @xmath2 .
if @xmath413 , we can not find a neighborhood @xmath76 of @xmath414 which meets only finitely many hyperplanes if and only if @xmath415 or @xmath416 , and hence @xmath417 .
a chamber @xmath64 satisfies one of the following :    1 .
@xmath418 for some @xmath419 , or 2 .
@xmath420 for some @xmath419 .
therefore , @xmath421 is a tits arrangement of rank 2 .    likewise
, the hyperplane arrangement in example [ exm : univ3 ] is a tits arrangement of rank 3 in @xmath2 .
the vertices of the simplicial cones are contained in @xmath38 , but all walls meet @xmath2 .
\(iii ) figure ( [ extits ] ) shows a tits arrangement coming from the weyl groupoid of an infinite dimensional nichols algebra .
tits arrangements are non - degenerate .
[ lem : titsnd ]    let @xmath69 , @xmath87 a basis of @xmath19 such that @xmath422 . since @xmath68 and @xmath87 is a basis , we find @xmath423 .    some of the `` classical '' cases are the following choices for @xmath2 .
a simplicial arrangement @xmath62 is _ spherical _ , if @xmath395 .
we say @xmath62 is _ affine _ , if @xmath424 for some @xmath425 . for an affine arrangement
we call @xmath426 the _ imaginary root _ of the arrangement
.    the tits cone of a tits arrangement @xmath62 resembles the tits cone for compact hyperbolic coxeter groups .
the geometric representation of an irreducible spherical or affine coxeter group is a prototype of spherical or affine tits arrangements .
let @xmath40 , a _ root system _ is a set @xmath427 such that    1 .
@xmath428 , 2 .
@xmath429 for all @xmath430 , 3 .
there exists a tits arrangement @xmath62 such that @xmath431 .
if @xmath432 is a root system , @xmath62 as in 3 ) , we say that the tits arrangement @xmath12 is _ associated to @xmath432_.    let @xmath432 be a root system .
we call a map @xmath433 a _ reductor of @xmath432 _ , if for all @xmath430    1 .   @xmath434 for some @xmath435 , 2 .   @xmath436 .
a root system @xmath432 is _ reduced _ , if @xmath437 is a reductor .
given @xmath432 and a reductor @xmath438 , when no ambiguity can occur , we denote @xmath439 .
we note some immediate consequences of this definition .
let @xmath432 be a root system and @xmath62 be a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , @xmath438 a reductor of @xmath432
. then    1 .
@xmath440 is a reduced root system and @xmath62 is associated to @xmath432 .
2 .   @xmath432 is reduced if and only if @xmath441 for all @xmath442 .
if @xmath432 is reduced , @xmath437 is the only reductor of @xmath432 .    for i ) , as @xmath443 , we find that @xmath444 , so @xmath445 is a root system . due to the properties of @xmath438 , we find that @xmath446 , so @xmath437 is a reductor of @xmath432 .
for the second statement assume @xmath441 for all @xmath430 , then the identity is a reductor .
assume that the identity is a reductor , then for @xmath447 with @xmath448 , @xmath449 , we find that @xmath450 .    for the third statement assume that @xmath432 is reduced , so @xmath437 is a reductor of @xmath451 .
let @xmath430 , then @xmath441 . if @xmath438 is a reductor of @xmath432 , @xmath452 , as @xmath453 is positive , we find @xmath454 and @xmath455 .    in the case where for @xmath430 the set @xmath456 is finite ,
the canonical choice for @xmath438 is such that @xmath457 is minimal in @xmath458 ; with respect to an arbitrary scalar product .
the notion of a reductor of @xmath432 is very general , the intention is to be able to reduce a root system even in the case where for @xmath430 the set @xmath456 does not have a shortest or longest element . in this most general
setting , the existence of a reductor requires the axiom of choice .
furthermore we find that , given a tits arrangement @xmath62 , root systems always exist .
let @xmath12 be a tits arrangement , @xmath459 the unit sphere in @xmath39 with respect to the standard metric associated to the standard scalar product @xmath460 .
let @xmath461 then @xmath462 is a reduced root system for @xmath35 .
furthermore every reduced root system @xmath463 associated to @xmath12 is of the form @xmath464 , and every such set is a reduced root system associated to @xmath12 .
[ rsx ]    as @xmath53 is @xmath349-dimensional , @xmath465 , so @xmath466 for some vector @xmath467 , with @xmath468 .
so @xmath451 is a root system associated to @xmath35 .
let @xmath469 for some @xmath449 , then @xmath470 .
as the map @xmath471 is bijective , we find @xmath472 . therefore @xmath432 is reduced .    for the second statement note
that the hyperplane @xmath283 determines @xmath473 uniquely up to a scalar .
so any @xmath463 of the given form satisfies @xmath474 .
furthermore it is reduced , as @xmath475 for @xmath430 .
let @xmath12 be a tits arrangement associated to the root system @xmath432 , and fix a reductor @xmath438 of @xmath432 .
let @xmath64 be a chamber .
the _ root basis of @xmath64 _ is the set @xmath476    if @xmath477 is a tits arrangement associated to the root system @xmath432 , @xmath69 , then @xmath478 also , as a simplicial cone @xmath479 has exactly @xmath8 walls , the set @xmath480 is a basis of @xmath19 . furthermore , @xmath481 .
the following proposition is crucial for the theory and motivates the notion of root bases .
let @xmath62 be a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , @xmath64 a chamber
. then @xmath482 .
in other words , every root is a non - negative or non - positive linear combination of @xmath480 .
[ posorneg ]    the proof works exactly as in the spherical case , see ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 2.2 ) .
it is useful to identify tits arrangements which basically only differ by the choice of basis , therefore we make the following definition .
let @xmath62 , @xmath483 be tits arrangements associated to the root systems @xmath432 and @xmath463 respectively .
then @xmath62 and @xmath484 are called _ combinatorially equivalent _ , if there exists an @xmath485 such that @xmath486 , @xmath487 , @xmath488 . here
@xmath489 denotes the dual action of @xmath490 on @xmath19 , defined by @xmath491 .
let @xmath12 be a simplicial arrangement .
the set of chambers @xmath61 gives rise to a poset @xmath492 with set - wise inclusion giving a poset - structure .
note that we do not require any of these intersections to be in @xmath2 . by construction
they are contained in the closure of @xmath2 , as every @xmath64 is an open subset in @xmath2 .
we will at this point just note that @xmath13 is a simplicial complex .
this will be elaborated in appendix [ app : s ] .
the poset @xmath493 is a simplicial complex .
[ ssimpcomp ]    the complex @xmath493 is furthermore a chamber complex , which justifies the notion of chambers and is shown in appendix [ app : scc ] .
we have a slight ambiguity of notation at this point , as a chamber in the simplicial complex @xmath493 is the closure of a chamber in @xmath70 . for the readers convenience
, a chamber will always be an element @xmath69 , while we will refer to a chamber in @xmath493 as a _ closed chamber _
, written with the usual notation @xmath494 .
we show in appendix [ app : scc ] that the closed chambers are indeed chambers in a classical sense .    1 .   depending on @xmath2 , the above mentioned simplicial
complex can also be seen as canonically isomorphic to the simplicial decomposition of certain objects , arising by intersection with the respective simplicial cones . in case @xmath395
, @xmath13 corresponds to a simplicial decomposition of the sphere @xmath495 .
if @xmath396 for @xmath119 , we find @xmath13 to be a decomposition of the affine space @xmath496 , which we identify with the set @xmath497 .
if @xmath2 is the light cone and @xmath35 is ch - like as defined in definition [ def : spherical ] below , we can find a corresponding decomposition of @xmath498 .
2 .   in the literature ( see ( * ? ? ?
* chapter v ,
1 ) ) the simplicial complex associated to a finite or affine simplicial hyperplane arrangement is defined in a slightly different manner .
let @xmath10 be a euclidean space , @xmath35 a locally finite set of ( possibly affine ) hyperplanes .
define for @xmath499 , @xmath500 the set @xmath501 to be the halfspace with respect to @xmath118 containing @xmath232 .
set @xmath502 then @xmath503 is an equivalence relation , its classes are called facets .
facets correspond to simplices , and form a poset with respect to the inclusion @xmath504 .
+ one obtains immediately that every point in @xmath10 is contained in a unique facet .
however , when the space is not the entire euclidean space but a convex open cone , it is desirable to consider some of the points in the boundary , as they contribute to the simplicial structure of @xmath13 . therefore , we prefer our approach before the classical one .
3 .   the above approach could also be used to define being @xmath405-spherical ( see below ) for hyperplane arrangements , which are not necessarily simplicial .    using the simplicial complex @xmath13
, it is now possible to refine the notion of being thin for a simplicial arrangement .    a simplicial arrangement @xmath62 of rank @xmath8 is called _
@xmath405-spherical _ for @xmath505 if every simplex @xmath3 of @xmath493 , such that @xmath506 , meets @xmath2 .
we say @xmath12 is _ ch - like _ if it is @xmath349-spherical .
[ def : spherical ]    immediate from the definition are the following :    1 .
a simplicial hyperplane arrangement of rank @xmath8 is @xmath398-spherical , as @xmath69 is constructed as an open subset of @xmath2 .
the hyperplane arrangement @xmath62 is spherical if and only if it is @xmath8-spherical .
@xmath12 is thin and therefore a tits arrangement if and only if it is @xmath399-spherical .
4 .   as @xmath493 is a simplicial complex w.  r.  t.  inclusion , being @xmath405-spherical implies being @xmath507-spherical for @xmath508 . 5 .
examples of ch - like arrangements are all arrangements belonging to affine weyl groups , where the affine @xmath349-plane is embedded into a real vector space of dimension @xmath8 , as well as all arrangements belonging to compact hyperbolic coxeter groups , where @xmath2 is the light cone .
the notion ch - like is inspired by exactly this property for groups , i.  e.  being * * c**ompact * * h**yperbolic .
6 .   as a generalization of ( 5 ) , take a coxeter system @xmath0 of finite rank .
then @xmath1 is said to be @xmath405-spherical if every rank @xmath405 subset of @xmath3 generates a finite coxeter group .
the geometric representation of @xmath1 then yields a hyperplane arrangement which is @xmath405-spherical in the way defined above .
therefore , being @xmath405-spherical can be seen as a generalization of the respective property of coxeter groups .
an equivalent condition for @xmath62 to be @xmath405-spherical , which we will use often , is that every @xmath509-simplex meets @xmath2 .
this uses just the fact that simplices of codimension @xmath405 are exactly @xmath509-simplices .
the arrangement in example [ exm : notthin ] yields the simplicial complex @xmath13 , with maximal elements @xmath22 , @xmath23 , vertices @xmath510 , @xmath511 , @xmath512 , and the set
@xmath513 as the minimal element .
thus @xmath410 is @xmath398-spherical , but not @xmath399-spherical , as it is not thin .
the arrangement in example [ exm : thinf ] is thin and therefore @xmath399-spherical and ch - like . the vertices are the rays @xmath514 , @xmath515 , the minimal element , which has codimension @xmath516 , is @xmath513 . since @xmath517 , it is not @xmath516-spherical and in particular not spherical .
in example [ exm : univ3 ] , the arrangement @xmath12 is thin and therefore 1-spherical , but since all vertices are contained in @xmath38 , it is not 2-spherical and thus not ch - like . note that the group @xmath1 from this example is not compact hyperbolic .
an important observation is the fact that the cone @xmath2 can be reconstructed from the chambers .    for a simplicial hyperplane arrangement @xmath12
we find @xmath518 furthermore @xmath62 is ch - like if and only if @xmath519 holds . [ tchambers ]    as @xmath520 , the inclusion @xmath521 holds . if @xmath48 , either @xmath522 for some @xmath69 , or @xmath50 is contained in a finite number of hyperplanes , thus in a simplex in @xmath13 and also in the closure of a chamber , and therefore @xmath523 .
so let @xmath524 .
assume further that @xmath50 is not contained in any simplex in @xmath13 , else the statement follows immediately as above .
therefore @xmath525 , and as @xmath2 is convex , this means @xmath50 is in the boundary of @xmath2 .
so let @xmath526 be the open @xmath527-ball with center @xmath50 , then @xmath528 . as @xmath76 is open , @xmath529 is open again .
the set @xmath530 can not be empty , else @xmath531 is not contained in a chamber , in a contradiction to the construction of chambers .
so let @xmath532 be the set of chambers @xmath64 with @xmath533 . if @xmath50 is not contained in the closure of @xmath534 , we find an @xmath535 such that the open ball @xmath246 does not intersect any @xmath536 . but @xmath537 must again meet some chambers @xmath64 , which are then also in @xmath532 , a contradiction .
so @xmath523 and equality holds .    for the second statement , if @xmath62 is ch - like , note that every @xmath48 is contained in some simplex @xmath538 , so @xmath539 holds .
now if @xmath540 for some @xmath69 , @xmath50 is contained in some simplex @xmath249 . now @xmath35 is ch - like , so @xmath541 meets @xmath2 .
boundaries of simplices are simplices , hence the intersection @xmath542 is again a simplex in @xmath13 , being ch - like yields that this intersection is empty , which proves the other inclusion .
the other direction of the second statement is immediate from the definition of being @xmath349-spherical .    for a tits arrangement @xmath62 it is possible to show that we can also describe @xmath2 as the convex closure of @xmath543 , or alternatively as @xmath544.\ ] ]
we will require the existence of a type function of @xmath13 ( for the definition , see definition [ def : numb ] ) , which is given by the following proposition , proven in appendix [ app : scc ] .
let @xmath62 be a simplicial arrangement .
the complex @xmath545 is a chamber complex of rank @xmath8 with @xmath546 the complex @xmath13 is gated and strongly connected .
furthermore there exists a type function @xmath547 of @xmath13 , where @xmath548 .
the complex @xmath13 is thin if and only if @xmath12 is thin , and @xmath13 is spherical if and only if @xmath62 is spherical .
[ prop - sproperties ]    we will now take a closer look at the relations between the bases of adjacent chambers . again
the proof follows ( * ? ? ?
* lemma 2.8 ) closely .
let @xmath62 be a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , and let @xmath217 be adjacent chambers .
assume @xmath549 for @xmath550 .
if @xmath551 , then either    1 .
@xmath552 or 2 .
@xmath553 .    holds .
[ adjcham1 ]    by lemma [ posorneg ] we can assume @xmath554 is either as in case ii ) or @xmath555 with @xmath556 . using that for arbitrary @xmath557 we have @xmath558 , we get @xmath559 .
we also observe that @xmath560 , therefore we get @xmath561 .    by choice of @xmath17 and since the elements in @xmath480 , @xmath562 are reduced , we find @xmath563 and @xmath552 .
assume for @xmath69 that @xmath480 is indexed in some way , i.e. @xmath564 . for any set @xmath565 , define the map @xmath566 by @xmath567 .
set @xmath568 .    for every simplex @xmath249
there exists a description of the form @xmath569 for some @xmath570 by remark [ rem : scs ] , which gives an index set @xmath571 .
finally this gives rise to a type function of @xmath494 in @xmath493 , by taking the map @xmath572 . by theorem [ numbext ] the map @xmath573 yields a unique type function @xmath574 of the whole simplicial complex @xmath13 .
so let @xmath363 be another chamber , then the restriction @xmath575 is a type function of @xmath576 as well .
assume @xmath577 , this yields a second type function of @xmath576 in the same way we acquired a type function of @xmath494 before , @xmath578 we now call the indexing of @xmath562 _ compatible with @xmath480 _ , if @xmath579 .
note that since the type function @xmath574 is unique , there is a unique indexing of @xmath562 compatible with @xmath480 .
the existence of the type function and lemma [ adjcham1 ] allow us to state the following lemma , which gives another characterization root bases of adjacent chambers .
assume that @xmath12 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 .
let @xmath220 be adjacent chambers and choose a indexing @xmath564 .
let the indexing of @xmath577 be compatible with @xmath480 .
assume @xmath580 for some @xmath508
. then @xmath581 .
[ adjcham15 ]    if @xmath582 , this is immediate from lemma [ adjcham1 ] .
so let @xmath583 and assume w.l.o.g .
@xmath584 .    consider the type function @xmath585 of @xmath494 and @xmath586 of @xmath576 as restrictions of the unique type function @xmath574 .
being compatible yields that @xmath587
.    then @xmath588 holds and we get @xmath589 .
we conclude that @xmath590 , and as @xmath591 we find @xmath592 .
then we find @xmath593 , so @xmath594 is a linear combination of @xmath17 and @xmath595 , which proves our claim .
we will note more properties about parabolic subarrangements of tits arrangements , in particular we will give suitable root systems associated to these subarrangements .
remember from corollary [ cor : redsub ] that @xmath206 is a hyperplane arrangement .
assume @xmath62 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 .
let @xmath102 , define @xmath596
. for @xmath597 set @xmath598 .
with notation as above , let @xmath597 , then @xmath599 .
in particular , @xmath600 is a basis of @xmath601 .
[ indeqdim ]    the inclusion @xmath602 holds due to @xmath603 .
now the space @xmath604 is a subspace of @xmath10 and @xmath605 is a face of @xmath494 containing @xmath50 .
assume @xmath541 is a face of @xmath605 containing @xmath50 .
then @xmath541 is also a face of @xmath494 and has the structure @xmath606 for some @xmath607 .
then by definition @xmath608 for @xmath297 , and @xmath609 , so @xmath605 is a minimal face of @xmath494 containing @xmath50 .
the inclusion @xmath602 implies @xmath610 , therefore the set @xmath611 is also a face of @xmath494 , furthermore it contains @xmath50 by definition .
we can conclude @xmath612 , which yields the equality .
the second claim follows since @xmath613 and the elements in @xmath480 are linearly independent .
note that @xmath614 defines a map @xmath615 by @xmath616 , which is well defined since @xmath617 .
we will identify this map with @xmath618 and think of @xmath619 as a subset of @xmath620 .
most of the time we are interested only in @xmath619 and its combinatorial properties , therefore it does not matter whether we consider these in @xmath620 or in @xmath19 .
but formally the transition to @xmath621 is necessary to obtain a root system in the strict sense .
we will consider @xmath622 as a topological space with respect to the topology in @xmath623 , which comes from the standard topology on @xmath39 .
assume @xmath12 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , @xmath102 .
the hyperplane arrangement @xmath206 is simplicial .
the chambers of this arrangement correspond to @xmath140 .
moreover , if @xmath48 , then @xmath206 is spherical . if @xmath624 , @xmath625 , and @xmath12 is @xmath405-spherical for some @xmath626 , then @xmath206 is @xmath627-spherical .
in particular @xmath628 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath619 .
[ indatpoint ]    assume @xmath625 , so @xmath629 and @xmath630 .
let @xmath597 , @xmath631 denote the standard epimorphism .
let @xmath141 be the connected components of @xmath632 .
the set @xmath633 is a basis for @xmath622 by lemma [ indeqdim ] and we find @xmath634 by definition .
denote this intersection by @xmath146 .
first we show that @xmath635 .
assume there exists @xmath636 such that there exist @xmath637 with @xmath638 , @xmath639 .
then we find @xmath640 with the properties : @xmath641 , @xmath642 , @xmath643 for all @xmath644 .
for any @xmath645 and @xmath644 we find @xmath646 and @xmath647 as @xmath648 .
so for @xmath649 the points @xmath650 , @xmath651 still satisfy the above inequalities .
now let @xmath652 , then @xmath653 .
so choosing @xmath649 large enough we find that the points @xmath654 , @xmath655 are close enough to @xmath50 to satisfy @xmath656 , @xmath657 and @xmath658 for all @xmath659 .
so @xmath660 , in contradiction to the simplicial structure of @xmath13 .    by its definition
, @xmath146 is a simplicial cone , the arrangement @xmath206 therefore is simplicial .
it remains to determine for which @xmath405 the pair @xmath206 is @xmath405-spherical .
in the case where @xmath48 , @xmath661 and @xmath662 is spherical . construct a simplex @xmath663 in the following way :    since @xmath64 is a simplicial cone , there exists an closed simplex @xmath3 with the property @xmath664 ( for details , see remark [ rem : chse ] )
. let @xmath665 denote the minimal face of @xmath3 such that @xmath666 , and let @xmath667 be the vertex set of @xmath665 .
then the vertices @xmath668 span a face of @xmath3 , denote this face by @xmath663 .
the vertices @xmath669 are linearly independent : assume @xmath670 , then @xmath671 .
furthermore note that @xmath672 is spanned by @xmath667 .
so we get a linear combination of the form @xmath673 .
linear independence of @xmath674 yields @xmath675 for all @xmath676 .
this also gives us @xmath677 .
assuming inequality , we find more than @xmath678 vertices in @xmath672 , a contradiction to @xmath630 .
so @xmath679 spans indeed an @xmath680-simplex in @xmath622 .
we show @xmath681 . in general for every @xmath682
there exists a unique @xmath659 such that @xmath683 by remark [ rem : scs ] , all other @xmath684 satisfy @xmath685 . since for @xmath686 the vector @xmath232 is not contained in any proper face of @xmath494 containing @xmath50 , we find a unique @xmath644 such that @xmath683 .
let @xmath687 , then @xmath688 with @xmath689 for all @xmath686 .
then @xmath690 for all @xmath691 , @xmath692 yields @xmath693 .
therefore @xmath694 .
so assume @xmath695 , then @xmath696 and there exists a @xmath697 such that @xmath698 .
now there exists a unique @xmath644 such that @xmath699 , so we find @xmath700 .
therefore @xmath701 holds , and therefore @xmath702 .
we can conclude @xmath681 .
now assume @xmath624 and @xmath35 is @xmath405-spherical .
let @xmath663 be as above , then @xmath703 is isomorphic as a simplicial complex to the closed chamber @xmath704 and all simplices contained therein .
a face of @xmath663 meets @xmath2 if and only if a face of @xmath705 meets @xmath621 .
now @xmath663 is an @xmath680-simplex , as it is spanned by @xmath706 vertices , likewise @xmath665 is an @xmath707-simplex .
let @xmath708 be a face of @xmath663 , and assume @xmath709 is an @xmath710-simplex .
then @xmath711 generate an @xmath712-simplex @xmath713 of @xmath13 .
as @xmath35 is @xmath405-spherical , @xmath713 therefore meets @xmath2 if @xmath714 is satisfied , or equivalently @xmath715 . under this condition
also @xmath716 meets @xmath621 , we can conclude that @xmath662 is @xmath405-spherical . since @xmath662 will not be more than @xmath706-spherical , since it is an arrangement of rank @xmath706 , we find that @xmath662 is @xmath717-spherical .
so as @xmath62 is thin , @xmath206 is a tits hyperplane arrangement with root system @xmath619 . since chambers @xmath597 and in @xmath635 are uniquely determined by the sets @xmath600 and @xmath718 we find that @xmath156 induces a bijection between @xmath147 and @xmath146 .    1 .
the tits arrangement @xmath206 is not so much dependent on the point @xmath50 as on the subspace spanned by @xmath50 , as one gets the same arrangement for every @xmath719 , @xmath720 .
this hints to the fact that one can see a simplicial arrangement as a simplicial complex in projective space .
however , we will not elaborate this further .
2 .   it may be worth mentioning that the chambers @xmath140 and the underlying simplicial complex correspond to the star of the smallest simplex in @xmath13 containing @xmath50 .
3 .   its possible to show that for a simplicial hyperplane arrangement @xmath62 , the arrangement @xmath206 is also simplicial .
however , the existence of a root system simplifies the proof .
4 .   when @xmath624 , @xmath628 may become @xmath721-spherical for some @xmath722 .
the reason for this is that @xmath35 not being @xmath721-spherical does not imply that every @xmath723-simplex contained in a chamber in @xmath140 does not meet @xmath2 .
note that the above statements make sense if @xmath724 , this occurs if and only if either @xmath48 is in the interior of a chamber , or @xmath624 does not meet any hyperplane @xmath53 .
however , in this case we have @xmath725 and the induced arrangement is the empty arrangement .
this is not a problem , since in this case @xmath726 and @xmath727 , but this case is somewhat trivial .
therefore the requirement @xmath728 is quite natural to make , and we will assume this from now on .    another trivial case occurring can be @xmath729 , in which case @xmath730 , @xmath731 and @xmath732 .
we can also give an exact criterion to when @xmath662 is a spherical arrangement :    assume @xmath62 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 with rank @xmath733 .
let @xmath102 .
then @xmath107 and @xmath619 are finite if and only if @xmath48 .    in particular , a simplicial arrangement is finite if and only if it is spherical .
[ axfin ]    if @xmath48 , @xmath107 , @xmath619 are finite by proposition [ indatpoint ] .
so assume @xmath107 , @xmath619 are finite and let @xmath102 .
then also @xmath140 is a finite set , so let @xmath734 and by lemma [ kxcon ] we find @xmath735 such that @xmath736 is maximal .
note that any minimal gallery between chambers in @xmath140 is already in @xmath140 , since for @xmath53 with @xmath737 we obtain @xmath738 by lemma [ starsep ] .
let @xmath625 , then the @xmath706 adjacent chambers @xmath739 of @xmath146 exist , since @xmath35 is thin , and are all closer to @xmath64 than to @xmath146 .
let @xmath740 be adjacent by @xmath300 to @xmath64 , we can conclude @xmath741 for @xmath742 .
let @xmath76 be an open ball with center @xmath50 , and let @xmath743 , @xmath744 , then @xmath745 and @xmath746 are open as well and contained in @xmath2 .
take @xmath747 , so @xmath748 and @xmath749 is in @xmath746 .
we find @xmath750 , which shows our first statement .
the last statement is obtained by taking @xmath751 .
we finish this section with two observations .
the root system @xmath432 is reduced if and only if @xmath619 is reduced for every @xmath48 .
this follows immediately since @xmath619 is constructed as a subset of @xmath432 and @xmath752 , note that for @xmath614 we find @xmath753 .
let @xmath62 be a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 .
let @xmath102 with @xmath728 .
let @xmath754 be adjacent by @xmath17 , and @xmath755 , @xmath756 indexed compatible with @xmath480 .
then @xmath757 is a bijection .
[ restmap ]    we know by lemma [ indeqdim ] that @xmath758 .
since @xmath759 consist of linear independent vectors , we get @xmath760 .    it remains to show that the map is well defined .
for @xmath761 we find @xmath762 .
we have @xmath763 and @xmath608 .
now @xmath764 for some @xmath765 by lemma [ adjcham15 ] , so @xmath766 and we are done .      in this section , we will discuss how a tits arrangement @xmath62 induces a tits arrangement on hyperplanes in @xmath35 . in the classical theory of hyperplane arrangements this is also called the restriction of an arrangement [ cp .
@xcite ] .
let @xmath62 be a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , and let @xmath118 be a hyperplane .
define @xmath767 and set @xmath768 we can also define the connected components of @xmath346 as @xmath347 .
note that in the case @xmath769 there exists no hyperplane which is not in the arrangement . in the case
@xmath770 the set @xmath355 is just the point @xmath513 or empty .
our statements will remain true in these cases , but most of the time they will be empty .    in particular we will examine the case where @xmath53 , since otherwise we will not necessarily see an induced simplicial complex .
an interesting special case occurs for affine arrangements with imaginary root @xmath426 and @xmath771 , since in many cases this yields as @xmath772 a root system associated to a spherical tits arrangement .    with notation as above
, we find @xmath773 .
this follows immediately from the definition .    the elements @xmath356 are simplicial cones in @xmath774 .
[ indsimp ]    if @xmath769 , the statement is empty , so let @xmath775 .
lemma [ indfaces ] yields that for @xmath776 the set @xmath777 is actually an maximal face of some chamber @xmath69 .
this is a simplicial cone by remark [ rem : scs ] .
the following observation is immediate from a geometric point of view , but necessary to point out :    let @xmath343 be an arbitrary hyperplane , and let @xmath430 .
then we find @xmath778 , @xmath779 and @xmath780 .
[ indroots ]    first note that @xmath781 by definition of @xmath782 .
the equalities follow immediately by considering the cases @xmath648 or @xmath783 .
the above lemma immediately yields the following .
@xmath784 .
let @xmath62 be a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , @xmath69 , @xmath240 .
let @xmath785 .
then    1 .
@xmath786 for a unique @xmath356 , 2 .
@xmath787 and @xmath788 for @xmath789 .
3 .   @xmath790 .
[ indbases ]    part i ) is clear by the definition of @xmath70 and @xmath347 , since @xmath791 is a unique maximal face of @xmath792 .
for the second statement assume @xmath793 for @xmath794 .
we use that @xmath795 is a maximal face of @xmath494 .
the maximal faces of @xmath795 are exactly the sets of the form @xmath796 for @xmath797 , by lemma [ indroots ] we obtain that the faces can also be written as @xmath798 for @xmath789 . as the maximal face @xmath798 spans a hyperplane in @xmath118 contained in @xmath799 ,
we conclude @xmath787 for @xmath789 and ii ) holds .
assertion iii ) is a direct consequence of lemma [ indroots ] .
let @xmath62 be a @xmath405-spherical simplicial arrangement , @xmath800 and @xmath53 .
then @xmath801 is a @xmath507-spherical simplicial arrangement .
if @xmath348 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath432 , @xmath772 is a root system for @xmath802 .
[ indarrange ]    note that @xmath772 does not contain @xmath398 by definition , and if @xmath803 , we find @xmath804 with @xmath805 , so @xmath806 and @xmath807 .    by lemma [ indroots ]
we know that @xmath784 and by definition we have @xmath808 .
furthermore we know that the connected components in @xmath347 are simplicial cones by corollary [ indsimp ] .
let @xmath356 and @xmath69 such that @xmath146 is a face of @xmath64 .
let @xmath794 such that @xmath809 . by ii ) in lemma [ indbases ]
we find @xmath810 , and together with iii ) in lemma [ indbases ] we find reduced roots @xmath811 with the property @xmath812 . hence @xmath355 is a simplicial arrangement in @xmath345 , and @xmath813 holds .
so if @xmath355 is thin , @xmath772 is a root system for @xmath355 .
now assume @xmath541 is an @xmath706-simplex in the simplicial complex @xmath814 associated to the simplicial arrangement @xmath802 .
since this is a subset of @xmath493 , @xmath541 meets @xmath345 if and only if @xmath541 meets @xmath2 , and therefore @xmath801 is @xmath507-spherical if @xmath62 is @xmath405-spherical .
assume that @xmath348 is a tits arrangement associated to @xmath772 .
let @xmath69 such that @xmath815 .
then the set @xmath816 is a basis of @xmath817 .
[ projbasis ]    by proposition [ indarrange ] the set @xmath718 is a basis of @xmath817 , by lemma [ indbases ] iii ) we find that the elements in @xmath818 are non zero scalar multiples of @xmath718 .    if @xmath12 is a simplicial arrangement , we call @xmath819 for @xmath53 as above the _ induced simplicial hyperplane arrangement ( by @xmath62 ) on @xmath118 _ or the _ restriction of @xmath62 to @xmath118_.
the notation in this chapter is mostly taken from ( * ? ? ?
* appendix a ) and @xcite .
we recall the notion of partially ordered sets :    let @xmath820 be a poset .
for @xmath821 we write @xmath822    let @xmath820 , @xmath823 be posets .
morphism of posets _ is a map @xmath824 , such that for @xmath825 we have @xmath826 it is called an isomorphism if it is bijective and @xmath827 is a morphism as well .
[ def : simpcomp ] there are two different approaches to define what a simplex is , since we want to use both , we will introduce them here .
a _ simplex _ can be seen as a poset @xmath828 isomorphic to @xmath829 for some set @xmath830 , where @xmath831 denotes the set - wise inclusion .
simplicial complex _ is then a poset @xmath832 such that    1 .
@xmath833 is a simplex for all @xmath834 , 2 .
@xmath835 have a unique greatest lower bound , denoted by @xmath836 .
a _ vertex _ of @xmath837 is an element @xmath838 such that @xmath839 and @xmath840 imply @xmath841 .
another way to define a simplicial complex is to take a set @xmath830 , and let @xmath842 .
then @xmath843 is a poset .
it is a simplicial complex if furthermore for @xmath834 also @xmath844 .
the set of vertices corresponds to the set @xmath830 .
the first definition makes it easier to describe the star of a simplex , which will often be useful .
so let @xmath832 be a simplicial complex .
for @xmath845 we say that @xmath846 _ is a face of _
@xmath847 if @xmath848
. we will write @xmath849 if @xmath848 and @xmath850 .
due to the second property , there exists a unique minimal element in @xmath837 which is denoted by @xmath851 .
let @xmath834 , then the _ rank of _
@xmath846 , @xmath852 is the cardinality of the set of vertices contained in @xmath846 .
we define the rank of @xmath837 , @xmath853 .
for @xmath834 define the _ star of @xmath846 _ as @xmath854 .
this is again a simplicial complex with minimal element @xmath846 .
a _ chamber _ of @xmath837 is a maximal element in @xmath837 , we will denote the set of chambers as @xmath855 or @xmath61 , if @xmath837 is unambiguous .
let @xmath856 be a map between simplicial complexes @xmath837 and @xmath857 .
then @xmath618 is called a _ morphism of simplicial complexes _ if it is a morphism of posets and furthermore @xmath858 is an isomorphism for all @xmath859 .
a subcomplex @xmath857 of @xmath837 is a subset of @xmath837 such that the inclusion @xmath860 is a morphism of simplicial complexes .    for @xmath848 ,
the _ codimension of @xmath846 in @xmath847 _ is the rank of @xmath847 in @xmath861 , denoted by @xmath862 .
we say that @xmath846 is a _ maximal face _ of @xmath847 , if @xmath863 .    for simplices occurring as subsets of @xmath864
it is convenient to consider the dimension of a simplex rather than the rank .
we will denote an @xmath286-dimensional simplex simply as an @xmath286-simplex .
therefore , an @xmath286-simplex will be of rank @xmath865 .
fix a simplicial arrangement @xmath62 .
we will show that @xmath493 is actually a simplicial complex and furthermore a chamber complex with set of chambers @xmath70 .
we already showed in remark [ rem : scs ] that the simplicial structure on a closed chamber @xmath494 is induced from the simplicial structure of @xmath866 , where @xmath3 is an open simplex such that @xmath867 .
recall the notion of the convex hull of a set .
let @xmath111 be a connected metric space .
for an arbitrary subset @xmath45 the convex hull of @xmath47 is the smallest convex set @xmath868 , such that @xmath869 . for a different approach , define the segment between @xmath870 to be @xmath871 this can be used to define @xmath872 we can then recursively define @xmath873 then the convex hull of @xmath47 is the set @xmath874 .    for @xmath40 and a linearly independent set @xmath875 the convex hull of @xmath47 can be more easily described as @xmath876 in this setting , we will refer to the set @xmath877 as the _ open convex hull of @xmath47_.    if @xmath875 is linearly independent , then its convex hull @xmath3 is exactly a simplex of rank @xmath349 , with vertex set @xmath878 .
the simplicial structure coincides with the poset @xmath879 .    moreover , if @xmath4 is a basis of @xmath39 , and @xmath3 is the open convex hull of @xmath4 , the cone @xmath880 coincides with @xmath881 as defined in remark [ rem : scs ] .
if @xmath541 is a face of @xmath3 , there exists a subset @xmath882 such that @xmath541 is the convex hull of @xmath883 .
then @xmath884 is a face @xmath494 in the simplicial complex @xmath885 .
therefore @xmath387 , @xmath3 , and @xmath886 are all isomorphic simplices , via the isomorphisms @xmath887 [ rem : chse ]    let @xmath888 , @xmath889 be bases of @xmath10 such that @xmath890 .
then , up to permutation , @xmath891 for some @xmath892 for all @xmath893 .
the same holds for two bases @xmath894 of @xmath19 such that @xmath895 .
[ equalcones ]    let @xmath3 be open convex hull of @xmath4 .
. one can choose positive scalars @xmath897 such that @xmath898 .
then @xmath899 with @xmath900 , @xmath901 .
let @xmath902 , we find @xmath903 . hence @xmath904 with @xmath905 and @xmath906 .
therefore the matrix @xmath907 describing the base change is non - negative , and the same holds for its inverse @xmath908 .
it is well known ( see theorem 4.6 in chapter 3 of @xcite for example ) that the inverse of a non - negative matrix is non - negative if and only if the matrix is monomial .
adding the fact that the sum of every column adds up to @xmath399 , we get that @xmath907 and @xmath908 are already permutation matrices .
the statement for @xmath909 just follows from remark [ rem : scs ] by considering the dual basis .    for the following statement recall from [ rem : scs ] that for a basis @xmath87 of @xmath19 the cone @xmath910
is given by @xmath911 for a basis @xmath4 of @xmath10 the cone @xmath881 is given by @xmath912    let @xmath913 for a basis @xmath4 of @xmath10 and a basis @xmath87 of @xmath19 .
let @xmath914 .
then @xmath915 for all @xmath916 if and only if @xmath917 .
likewise @xmath918 for all @xmath916 if and only if @xmath919.[purelc ]    let @xmath920
. by remark [ rem : scs ] we find that @xmath87 is dual to @xmath4 up to positive scalar multiples .
denote with @xmath921 the dual to @xmath916 .
so @xmath922 .
applying this to @xmath4 yields @xmath923 for all @xmath916 .
this immediately yields both equivalences .
let @xmath538 .
for every @xmath53 , either @xmath242 or @xmath541 is contained in a unique closed half space of @xmath118 , denoted by @xmath924 .
furthermore @xmath925 , and if @xmath926 for some @xmath69 , then @xmath927 .
[ facintwal ]    in case @xmath242 , there is nothing to show , so assume @xmath928 .
then the first statement is an immediate consequence of corollary [ purelc ] and the fact that the elements @xmath64 are defined as connected components of @xmath929 .
let @xmath119 such that @xmath930 and @xmath931 .
let @xmath541 be the convex hull of the vertices @xmath932 , where @xmath800 as we assume @xmath928 .
for the same reason we can assume @xmath933 for some @xmath934 , and without loss of generality we can assume @xmath935 .
then @xmath936 is the convex hull of @xmath937 . by remark [ rem : scs ]
@xmath885 is a simplicial complex , hence @xmath936 is a simplex in @xmath13 contained in @xmath885 .
_ proof of proposition [ ssimpcomp ] .
_ let @xmath538 , then @xmath938 for some @xmath69 , @xmath939 .
in particular @xmath940 carries the structure of a simplex , since by remark [ rem : scs ] @xmath885 is a simplex .
so let @xmath941 , we have to show @xmath942 .
the intersection @xmath943 is not empty , as it contains @xmath944 .
assume @xmath945 , for @xmath946 , @xmath947 .
in the case @xmath948 there is nothing to show , as @xmath949 is a simplicial complex by remark [ rem : scs ] .
so from now on let @xmath950 .
consider the case that @xmath951 , we find @xmath952 .
the set @xmath795 can be written as @xmath953 by remark [ rem : scs ] . by lemma [ facintwal ] the intersection @xmath954 for @xmath955
is either @xmath541 , in case that @xmath956 contains @xmath541 , or equals @xmath936 . in both cases ,
it is again a simplex in @xmath885 .
we can conclude that @xmath957 for every @xmath538 .    now let @xmath958 , then @xmath959 is a simplex in @xmath885 by lemma [ facintwal ] .
but @xmath943 can be written as @xmath960 , using the previous part of the proof shows our claim .
in this section we recall definitions and basic facts regarding chamber complexes and type functions following @xcite .
note that the first property is always satisfied if @xmath966 is finite . in this case
it is easy to see ( cp .
* , p.15 ) ) that every chamber has the same rank . a consequence from 2 )
is that every element in a gallery is again a chamber .    for two chambers @xmath967 and @xmath859 with @xmath968 and @xmath969 we have @xmath970 ( cp .
this allows us to define the _ corank of @xmath315 _ as @xmath971 for any chamber @xmath4 containing @xmath315 .
we call @xmath4 and @xmath965 _ adjacent _ , if @xmath972 .              a type function @xmath574 with index set @xmath565 induces a weak type function @xmath979 .
conversely , we show in lemma [ wnumisnum ] that a weak type function @xmath980 on a strongly connected chamber complex gives rise to a type function @xmath574 such that @xmath981 .
let @xmath837 be a chamber complex , such that all sets @xmath985 are gated for @xmath986 with @xmath987 .
let @xmath4 be a chamber and @xmath574 be type function of @xmath988 , there exists a unique weak type function @xmath989 such that @xmath990 .
[ gsimpwn ]              by definition every maximal element in @xmath13 is of the form @xmath494 for some @xmath69 .
assume @xmath995 for @xmath996 , then @xmath494 is contained in some @xmath53 by remark [ rem : scs ] , which contradicts to the definition of @xmath70 .
this proves @xmath994 .
two closed chambers @xmath1005 are adjacent , if @xmath1006 . with respect to lemma [ adjsep ]
we find that @xmath129 are adjacent if and only if @xmath1007 is a unique minimal gallery from @xmath64 to @xmath26 .
the complex @xmath13 is a chamber complex , since every simplex is contained in a chamber and two chambers @xmath217 are connected by a gallery of length @xmath224 by lemma [ sepisdis ] and @xmath224 is finite by lemma [ finsep ] . for two elements @xmath217
we can therefore define the distance @xmath1011 as the length of a minimal gallery connecting @xmath129 .
let @xmath541 be a simplex in @xmath13 , and consider the simplicial complex @xmath1012 with chambers @xmath1013 .
let @xmath1014 and assume @xmath1015 , so @xmath1016 .
the fact that @xmath1014 implies @xmath1017 .
we need to show that there exists a gallery in @xmath1018 from @xmath64 to @xmath26 , which we do by induction on @xmath1011 .
for @xmath1019 we have that @xmath129 are adjacent .
so let @xmath1020 and assume @xmath946 with the properties that @xmath982 are adjacent , @xmath1021 and @xmath287
. then @xmath1022 by lemma [ starsep ] , and @xmath1023 implies @xmath1024 .
in particular we get @xmath1025 and by induction there exists a gallery from @xmath146 to @xmath26 in @xmath1013 , so we are done .
let @xmath538 , then there exists @xmath69 and @xmath1027 such that @xmath1028 . in particular , @xmath1029 .
a point @xmath50 as above exists , since @xmath541 has nonempty interior with respect to @xmath1030 .
let @xmath837 be a strongly connected chamber complex .
if @xmath837 is weakly numbered , it is already numbered .
in particular , if @xmath1031 is a weak type function , there exists a type function @xmath574 such that @xmath1032 for all @xmath1033 .
[ wnumisnum ]      assume @xmath986 , and let @xmath129 be chambers with @xmath1038 .
since @xmath837 is strongly connected , @xmath1018 is connected , and we find @xmath1039 .
thus we find a gallery @xmath1040 from @xmath64 to @xmath26 with all @xmath1041 , so in particular @xmath1042 for all @xmath1043 . also @xmath1044 and @xmath302
are adjacent for @xmath1045 , therefore @xmath1046 and inductively we obtain @xmath1047 .
this allows us to define @xmath1048 for every simplex @xmath541 and every chamber @xmath64 containing @xmath541 . by definition @xmath574 coincides with @xmath1049 on all simplices
@xmath663 contained in @xmath64 , in particular @xmath1050 is a type function and thus a morphism of chamber complexes .
the construction of the weak type function is actually quite simple .
begin with a chamber @xmath64 and consider a type function @xmath574 of @xmath949 .
let @xmath26 be adjacent to @xmath64 such that @xmath1051 .
then set @xmath1052 .
let @xmath1053 be the unique index such that @xmath1054 , then @xmath574 maps the vertex not contained in @xmath541 to @xmath97 , so @xmath1055 must map the vertex @xmath232 in @xmath1056 not contained in @xmath541 to @xmath97 as well .
so as every simplex @xmath1057 is either contained in @xmath541 or contains @xmath232 , if @xmath3 is contained in @xmath541 then @xmath1058 is already defined , if it contains @xmath232 set @xmath1059 .
one can check that @xmath1055 is a morphism of chamber complexes , and furthermore @xmath1055 is the only possible type function of @xmath1056 satisfying @xmath1052 .    in this way we can inductively construct type functions for all chambers with arbitrary distance to @xmath64 .
this construction works always , however being well defined arises as a problem : given a chamber @xmath26 with @xmath1060 , there may be two chambers @xmath1061 with @xmath1062 and @xmath1061 adjacent to @xmath26 . then @xmath26 has induced type functions from @xmath22 as well as from @xmath23 .
now theorem [ numbext ] yields that these two induced type functions coincide , and thus the method gives us a weak type function of @xmath13 .
we say that a complex @xmath837 is _ spherical _ if it contains a pair of chambers @xmath982 such that @xmath1063 for all panels @xmath1064 containing @xmath64 .
the chamber @xmath146 with such a property is called _ opposite _ to @xmath64 .                thin : since @xmath1067 has two connected components , the complex @xmath13 is meager .
it is thin if and only if for every chamber @xmath4 and every wall @xmath1068 there exists a chamber @xmath1069 which is @xmath118-adjacent to @xmath4 . in this case
@xmath1070 , since @xmath2 is convex .
then @xmath1071 , therefore @xmath118 meets @xmath2 and is contained in @xmath35 .
let @xmath13 be spherical . by definition
we find two opposite chambers @xmath4 and @xmath1073 .
as @xmath13 is meagre by construction , we also know @xmath1074
. in particular @xmath1075 , and @xmath70 is finite as well as @xmath35 .
assume @xmath4 has no @xmath97-adjacent chamber for an @xmath1053 and let @xmath1064 be the @xmath97-panel containing @xmath4 , then @xmath1076 for all @xmath1077 , a contradiction . thus @xmath13 is also thin . by our previous argument
therefore @xmath62 is thin .
let @xmath1078 .
since @xmath2 can not be written as a finite union of hyperplanes , we can assume that @xmath81 for all @xmath53 .
thus take a neighborhood @xmath76 of @xmath50 and consider the chambers intersecting @xmath76 . by taking a smaller @xmath76
we can also assume that only a single chamber @xmath965 intersects @xmath76 .
thus there exists a wall of @xmath965 not meeting @xmath2 , a contradiction to @xmath35 being thin .
hence @xmath38 is empty and @xmath1072 holds .
a.  berman and r.  j. plemmons , _ nonnegative matrices in the mathematical sciences _ , academic press [ harcourt brace jovanovich , publishers ] , new york - london , 1979 , computer science and applied mathematics .
a.  bjrner , m.  las  vergnas , b.  sturmfels , n.  white , and g.  m. ziegler , _ oriented matroids _ , second ed . ,
encyclopedia of mathematics and its applications , vol .
46 , cambridge university press , cambridge , 1999 .
b.  grnbaum , _ arrangements of hyperplanes _ , proceedings of the second louisiana conference on combinatorics , graph theory and computing ( louisiana state univ . , baton rouge , la . , 1971 ) ( baton rouge , la . ) , louisiana state univ . , 1971 , pp .
41106 .
l.  paris , _ lectures on artin groups and the @xmath9 conjecture _ , groups of exceptional type , coxeter groups and related geometries , springer proc . math . stat . , vol .
82 , springer , new delhi , 2014 , pp .  239257 .
to3em , _ uvres / collected works .
i , ii , iii , iv _ , heritage of european mathematics , european mathematical society ( ems ) , zrich , 2013 , edited by francis buekenhout , bernhard matthias mhlherr , jean - pierre tignol and hendrik van maldeghem .