Comments In the 60's - 70's, the following question appeared in All-Union Math Olympiad of USSR: A tetradehron $V_{1}$ sits inside another tetrahedron $V_{2}$, prove that the sum of edge lengths of $V_{1}$ does not exceed $\frac{4}{3}$ times that of $V_{2}$. What is anti-intuitive is that, on a plane, if a triangle sits inside another triangle, then not only the area of the first triangle is strictly smaller than that of the second one, but the perimeter also is. Now in a three dimensional situation, though the "order" of volume and surface is still kept, it is not the case for the sum of edge lengths. The "origine" of the problem is likely the following paper in Polish: Holsztyński, W. and Kuperberg, W., O pewnej wlasnósci czworościanów, Wiadomości Matematyczne 6 (1962), 14-16. They published an English version some 15 years later: Holsztyński, W. and Kuperberg, W., On a Property of Tetrahedra, Alabama J. Math. 1(1977), 4042 . Then in 1986, Carl Linderholm of the University of Alabama generalized the above result to higher dimensional Euclidean spaces: Theorem. Let $S$ and $T$ be two $m$-dimensional simplexes in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$, the first being inside the second, and $1 \leqslant r \leqslant m$. The there exists constants $B_{m, r}$, such that the sum of all $r$ dimensional faces of $S$ does not exceed $B_{m, r}$ times that of $T$. Here $B_{m, r}$ is calculated as follows: Let $m+1=(r+1) q+s$ (Euclidean division), then $$B_{m, r}=\frac{q^{r+1-s}(q+1)^{s}}{m+1-r}$$ (CARL LINDERHOLM, AN INEQUALITY FOR SIMPLICES, Geometriae Dedicata (1986) $21,67-73$. Now back to the current problem, the Choice (A) is trivial, so we focus on: why $(\mathrm{B}),(\mathrm{C})$ and $(\mathrm{D})$ can be realized? why (E) cannot? The mathematics that we need here is: (A) a little geometric topology: an octahedron with all faces being triangles has $3 \times 8 / 2=12$ edges, so by Euler's Formula, the number of vertices is 6 . (B) a bit of graph theory: if one vertex has degree 5 , then by a very easy argument one has another vertex with degree 5 also, and the degrees of the vertices are (5,5,4,4,3,3). The only other possibility is that every vertex has degree 4 (like that of a regular ocrahedron). (C) a little bit of convex geometry: as we consider convex octahedron, so the maximum distance of two points on it must be attained between two vertices. If every vertex of the big octahedron is of degree 4 , and the maximum distance lis realized between two vertices $A$ and $B$ that are NOT adjacent, then as the other four vertices are all adjacent to them, so $\ell_{2}$ is at least $4 \ell_{2}$ (and can be arbitrarily close to that valur when the other four vertices are close enough to line $A B$ ), and for the small octahedron, if every vertex is of degree 4 , we can make three vertices very close to $A$, while the other three very close to $B$, so $\ell_{1}$ would be very close to $6 \ell_{2}$. Hence any ratio less than 1.5 is realizable. ( so the Choices (A),(B) and (C)) If the maximum distance $\ell$ is realized between two vertices of degree 3 in the big octahedron, then $\ell_{2}$ is at least $3 \ell_{2}$ (and can be arbitrarily close to that valur when the other four vertices are close enough to line $A B$ ), while for the small octahedron, we can still take each vertex to be of degree 4 , and three of them very close to $A$, while the other three very close to $B$, so $\ell_{1}$ would be very close to $6 \ell_{2}$. Hence any ratio less than 2 is realizable. ( so the Choice (D)) Actually, if the small octahedron has the some topological configuration as that of the big one, and the two vertices of degree 5 are very close to each other, while the other four vertices are very close together, then the ratio can actually approach $8 / 3$. After some easy case by case discussion, we conclude that, if the maximum distance $\ell$ is realized between a vertex of degree $a$ and a vertex of degree $b$ (whether they are adjacent or not), one has always $\ell_{2}$ is at last $\min (a, b) \ell$, while obviously $\ell_{1}$ cannot exceed $12 \ell_{2}$, So (E)is impossible.