arxiv: v3 [math.mg] 17 Mar 2008

Transcription

1 arxiv: v3 [math.mg] 17 Mar 2008 The DNA Inequality in Non-Convex Regions Eric Larson May 10, 2009 Abstract The DNA Inequality states that the average curvature of a curve inside of a given closed figure exceeds the average curvature of the figure. In the paper by Lagarias and Richardson (1997) that proved it for convex figures, the question arose if it could be possible to prove it for some non-convex region; the authors suggested L-Shaped regions. In this paper, we disprove the conjecture for L-Shapes and show that the DNA inequality holds for (another) non-convex region, in fact for a quadrilateral. 1 Introduction The DNA Inequality states that the average curvature of a curve (which can be approximated as a closed polygonal line) inside of a given closed figure exceeds the average curvature of the figure. (It is called the DNA Inequality because the picture is akin to a little piece of DNA inside of a cell.) This has been proven for all convex figures, see [1, 2, 3]. On the second page of the paper by Lagarias and Richardson [1] that proved it for convex figures, the question arose if it could be possible to prove it for some non-convex region. The authors suggested L-Shapes. An L-Shape is a rectangle Y AZD, with another rectangle, XBZC removed, such that B (A, Z), C (Z, D). An important preliminary reduction is that it suffices to prove the theorem for polygonal lines; the theorem for general curves can then be derived via a limiting argument. For details on this reduction, see [1], Lemma The DNA inequality fails for all L-Shapes Theorem 1. The DNA inequality is false for all L-Shapes. 1

2 2 DISPROOF FOR L-SHAPES 2 Proof. We proceed to construct a counterexample to the DNA Inequality for any L-Shape. Choose some sufficiently small θ. (The size of θ is bounded above by the dimensions of the L-Shape, but it will be clear that some nonzero θ can always be chosen.) Construct points P (A, B) and Q (C, D) such that AY P = DY Q = θ. A P B Z θ Y X θ Figure 1 C Q D We consider the closed curve A, P, Y, Q, D, Y, A. (see Figure 1) Its curvature is clearly 3π + 4θ, and its perimeter is clearly (AY + Y D)(1 + sec(θ) + tan(θ)). The curvature of the whole figure is 3π, and the perimeter is 2(AY + Y D). Therefore, to disprove the DNA Inequality, we will show that for θ sufficiently small, we have: 3π + 4θ (AY + Y D)(1 + sec(θ) + tan(θ)) 3π + 4θ 1 + sec(θ) + tan(θ) 3π + 4θ 2 + tan(θ) 8 3π < < 3π 2 < 3π 2 3π 2(AY + Y D) < tan(θ) θ To verify this for θ sufficiently small, it suffices to note that: 8 3π < 1 = lim tan(θ) θ 0 θ Thus, the DNA Inequality is false for all L-Shapes.

3 3 CONSTRUCTION OF REGION 3 3 Construction of Region Yet, Theorem 1 is somehow an inadequate answer, for the point of the question was to find some non-convex region for which the DNA Inequality holds. In this paper, we will prove the DNA Inequality not for an L-Shape (for which it is false), but for an isosceles right triangle with a dent taken out of it. Start with Y AB, where Y is a right angle and Y A = Y B = 1, which we will orient (for purposes of talking about above and below) at the bottom left, with A on the top, B on the right. We will make this figure into a non-convex one by turning it into a quadrilateral Y AXB, where Y, A, B are in their original positions, and X is such that Y AX = XBY = π/4 1/11. (see Figure 2) Theorem 2. YAXBY satisfies the DNA inequality. A D X Y C Figure 2 Let our closed polygonal line be a 0, a 1,...,a n = a 0. (For an explanation of how this implies the case of a general curve, see Lagarias- Richardson [1].) We will consider indices modulo n. Whenever we have a i, a i+1, a i+2 colinear, we will drop one of them to create a shorter path. (In particular, we will never have a i = a i+1.) Define: B f := α(curvature) perimeter Where perimeter of Y AXBY α := curvature of Y AXBY = 2 + 2sec(1/11) 2π + 4/ Note that 1/α is the average curvature of Y AXBY.

4 4 STAGE 1 4 Let AX intersect Y B at C, and BX intersect Y A at D. (see figure 2) Throughout the paper, when I refer to A, B, C, D, X, or Y, the reader can refer to figure 2. It suffices to show f 0. In order to do this, we will, just like Lagarias and Richardson, employ a series of simplifications to our polygonal line, each of which decreases f. First, we will reduce to the case where a i {X, Y, A, B, C, D} i. (This part will be referred to as Stage 1; the remaining part wil be referred to as Stage 2.) We will discuss the termination of our reduction procedure after the entire procedure has been given. 4 Reduction to a i {X, Y, A, B, C, D} i The reader should check that every reduction in this section decreases or leaves the same the number of a i / {A, B, C, D, Y }. Lemma 1. Assume that a i is free to move along line a i 1 a i. Then, one can always move it one direction along a i 1 a i until the boundary of the region is reached, decreasing f. (An analogous statement holds when one replaces a i 1 with a i+1.) Proof. [Note that the points A, B, Y are never free to move, and that if the points C, D are free to move, they can be moved along the lines Y A, Y B respectively, until they are equal to one of Y, A, B (if we accept that the Lemma is true). Thus, this Lemma decreases or leaves the same the number of a i / {A, B, C, D, Y }. We will leave it to the reader to check this assertion for Lemmas 2, 3, 4, 5, for which it is easier.] We distinguish 2 cases: Case 1: a i 1 and a i+2 are on the same side of line a i a i+1. a i 1 a i a i+1 Figure 3 a i+2 Moving a i along line a i 1 a i increasing the distance to a i 1 increases the perimeter, but fixes the curvature, therefore decreasing f. Case 2: They are on different sides. Let H be the foot of the perpendicular from a i+1 to line a i 1 a i. Define θ to be angle Ha i+1 a i. Let a be the length of Ha i+1.

5 4 STAGE 1 5 a i 1 H a i a θ a i+1 a i+2 Figure 4 We will prove that df/dθ has at most one root for θ ( π/2, π/2). 1 + sin(θ) cos 2 (θ) 0 = f = α( d dθ (curvature)) d dθ (perimeter) = 2α d (a(sec(θ) + tan(θ))) dθ a(1 + sin(θ)) = 2α cos 2 (θ) = 2α a Therefore, it suffices to show that d dθ (1+sin(θ) cos 2 (θ) ) 0 on ( π/2, π/2). d + sin(θ) (1 + sin(θ))2 (1 dθ cos 2 ) = (θ) cos 3 (θ) > 0 on ( π/2, π/2) Now, I claim that this finishes the proof of this Lemma. To see this, observe that as θ π/2, we have f. Thus, as f has at most one root on ( π/2, π/2), we either have that f is always decreasing, in which case we can move a i to the right, or that β ( π/2, π/2) such that f is decreasing on (β, π/2), and increasing on ( π/2, β). In the latter case, we can move a i to the right if θ > β and to the left if θ < β. It is not hard to see that by applying Lemma 1, we can insure that all of our points are on the boundary. (This Lemma is the analogue of Theorem 4.1 in the Lagarias-Richardson paper [1].) Lemma 2. We may assume that we never have two points in the strict interiors of adjacent sides of our figure that are connected, unless the line connecting them passes through X. Proof. Say a i and a i+1 are in the interior of two consecutive sides. Let P denote the common point of those 2 sides. Choose i such that Pa i + Pa i+1 is minimal over all such pairs (a i, a i+1 ).

6 4 STAGE 1 6 a i P Figure 5 a i+1 Now, if a i+2 [a i+1, P] or a i 1 [P, a i ], then we are done by Lemma 1. By minimality of Pa i + Pa i+1, we have a i+2 / (P, a i ) and a i 1 / (P, a i+1 ). a i+2, a i 1 lie above line a i a i+1. Now, replace: a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 1, a i, P, a i+1, a i+2. This fixes the curvature and increases the perimeter, therefore decreases f. Lemma 3. We may assume (A, X) and (B, X) are empty of a i. Proof. See Figure 6. We will prove this for (B, X). [(A, X) will follow by symmetry]. Say a i (B, X). Now, I claim that a i+1, a i 1 (D, Y ]. If a i+1 or a i 1 {D} [X, B], then we can finish by Lemma 1. By Lemma 2, a i+1, a i 1 / (Y, B) a i+1, a i 1 (D, Y ]. Without loss of generality, a i+1 is below (or equal to) a i 1. A D a i 1 X ai+1 a i Y Figure 6 C Now, I claim that a i+2 is below line a i a i+1. For if not, replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 1, a i, B, Y, a i+1, a i+2 increases the perimeter and fixes curvature, so decreases f. Similarly, a i 2 is above line a i a i 1 ; for, if not, replacing a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1 a i 2, a i 1, D, a i, a i+1 increases perimeter and fixes curvature, so decreases f. Now, consider replacing a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 2, a i 1, a i+1, a i+2. The curvature decreases by 2 a i a i 1 a i a i a i+1 a i 1, and the perimeter B

7 4 STAGE 1 7 decreases by a(csc( a i a i 1 a i+1 ) cot( a i a i 1 a i+1 )+csc( a i a i+1 a i 1 ) cot( a i a i+1 a i 1 )) where a is the length of the perpendicular from a i to AY. Thus, it suffices to show that we can decrease the curvature by 2θ and the perimeter by a(csc(θ) cot(θ)), for θ < 3π/4, or that α(2θ) a(csc(θ) cot(θ)) > 0 As a < 1, it suffices to check that, for θ < 3π/4: Define: α(2θ) (csc(θ) cot(θ)) > 0 θ sin(θ) > 1 1 cos(θ) 2α g(θ) := θ sin(θ) 1 cos(θ) As one can easily check g(3π/4) > 1/(2α), it suffices to show that g is decreasing on (0, π). g (θ) = d dθ ( θ sin(θ) 1 cos(θ) ) = sin(θ) θ < 0 on (0, π) 1 cos(θ) The above Lemma is analogous to Lemma 5.1 in [1], in a very loose sense. Lemma 4. We may assume that we never have a i (A, Y ) (Y, B), a i 1 = X. (We do not count the case where a i (A, Y ) (Y, B), a i 1 = X, and a i 2 is in the other interval such that a i 2, a i 1, a i are collinear in that order. See section 3.)

8 4 STAGE 1 8 A D X Y C a i Figure 7 Proof. Assume a i (Y, B), a i 1 = X. If a i+1 [Y, B], then apply Lemma 1 to a i. Otherwise, we must have a i+1 = X or collinear with X and a i (by Lemma 2); therefore, we can apply Lemma 1 to a i 1 (with line a i a i 1 if a i 2 is below line a i a i 1, with line a i 1 a i 2 otherwise). B Now, the only points a i that we can have are in {X} [A, Y ] [B, Y ]. A point in, say [Y, B] can only be connected to a point collinear with it and X, or another point on [Y, B]. Additionally, points in (Y, C) (Y, D) can only be connected to other points on their same line; therefore we may get rid of them by Lemma 1. Any point (say, a i ) not in {A, D, Y, C, B, X} is in fact in (A, D) (B, C), where either a i 1 or a i+1 is in the other of the two intervals, collinear with X, a i. Lemma 5. In fact, we may assume that no a i are in the intervals (A, D) or (B, C). Proof. Say, without loss of generality, that a i (B, C) and a i 1 (A, D) such that a i 1, X, a i are collinear. We distinguish 2 cases: Case 1: a i 2 a i and a i+1 a i 1. (see figure 9) If a i 1 and a i+1 are both above line a i a i 1, then we can replace a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1 a i 2, a i 1, Y, a i, a i+1, which increases perimeter and decreases curvature. If a i 2 and a i+1 are both below line a i a i 1, then we can rotate line a i a i 1 about X, increasing Y a i or Y a i 1, whichever was originally bigger, and decreasing the other. So, a i, a i 1 becomes either B, D or C, A. This fixes the curvature, hence decreasing f, provided that we can show that the perimeter increases. To do this, we will show that the perimeter of triangles whose sides are the x-axis and the y-axis and some line passing through (1, 1) [rescale the figure] is a decreasing function of the angle that it makes with the y-axis (call this θ), provided that θ π/4, and increasing if θ π/4. (see figure 8) By symmetry, it suffices to show the result for θ π/4.

9 4 STAGE 1 9 π/2 θ (1, 1) θ Figure 8 One can see that the perimeter is given by 2 + sec(θ) + tan(θ) + sec(90 θ)+tan(90 θ). Therefore, it suffices to show that on (0, π/4) 0 > d (2 + sec(θ) + tan(θ) + sec(π/2 θ) + tan(π/2 θ)) dθ 0 > (sin2 (θ) + sin 3 (θ)) (sin 2 (π/2 θ) + sin 3 (π/2 θ)) sin 2 (θ)cos 2 (θ) sin 2 (π/2 θ) + sin 3 (π/2 θ) > sin 2 (θ) + sin 3 (θ) Thus, it suffices to note that sin 2 (θ)+sin 3 (θ) is an increasing function of θ, on (0, π/2). For the rest of this case refer to figure 9. Therefore, without loss of generality, let a i+1 be below line a i a i 1 and a i 2 be above a i+1 [Y, a i ), a i 2 (a i 1, A]. a i 2 a i 1 A D θ X Y a i+1 Figure 9 C a i B

10 4 STAGE 1 10 Define θ := a i a i 1 Y. Now, I claim that as we roll a i a i 1 around X, df/dθ is decreasing, which will finish the proof of this Case. So, after we roll, a i, a i 1 becomes either B, D or C, A. Let a be the distance of the perpendicular from X to Y B. We have: df dθ = d (α[2θ + π/2] a[tan(θ) + sec(θ) + sec(π/2 θ) tan(π/2 θ)]) dθ 1 = 2α + a( 1 sin(θ) cos(θ) ) Now, cos(θ) is decreasing, so 1/(1 + cos(θ)) is decreasing. Also, sin(θ) is increasing, so 1/(1 sin(θ)) is decreasing. f is decreasing too. Before we go into Case 2, we do this argument as many times as we can; thus during the proof of case 2, we may assume that a i (A, D) (B, C), a i 2 = a i or a i+1 = a i 1. Case 2: a i 2 = a i or a i+1 = a i 1. (see figure 10). Without loss of generality, a i+1 = a i 1. A a i 1 = a i+1 D a i+2 X a i 2 Y C Figure 10 a i Now, I claim that we may assume that a i 2 and a i+2 lie below line a i a i 1. Say a i+2 was above or at line a i a i 1 (the other case is similar). Then, one could replace: a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 1, a i, Y, a i+1, a i+2, which would increase the perimeter, leaving the curvature unchanged, therefore decreasing f. Now, this means that in every case, a i+2, a i 2 / (A, D), for then the points corresponding to a i+2 and a i 2 would lie above the line corresponding to line a i a i 1. (Remember: there are no case 1 points left.) Thus, we can replace: a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 2, D, B, a i, a i+1, a i+2, which fixes curvature and increases perimeter, therefore decreasing f. The Lemmas in this section show that we may henceforth assume: a i {X, Y, A, B, C, D} i. B

11 5 STAGE The case a i {X, Y, A, B, C, D} i During stage 2, the reader should check that the number of a i = X and the number of a i Y are both non-increasing throughout the process, and that when f is unchanged by a replacement, the number of a i Y strictly decreases. Let us discuss the strategy for finishing the proof off. Observe that we have a finite number of points, therefore we can be sure some points are repeated that have indices less than 7 apart. Say, our closed curve is a 0, a 1,..., a i 1, a i, a i+1,..., a j 1, a j, a j+1,..., a n, where a i = a j. Then, we could create a new closed curve a 0, a 1,...,a i 1, a i = a j, a j+1,..., a n. If we analyze sufficiently many cases, it is possible to show that for all curves, we can make some sort of replacement like this. In addition, we will need to know that this can be done without increasing the number of a i = X, or number of a i Y. First, we will need a Lemma that will cover all of the possible replacements that we will make: Lemma 6. The following inequalities are true: α(4/11) (2 2 tan(π/4 1/11)) < 0 (1) α(π/2 + 2/11) (2 2 tan(π/4 1/11)) > 0 (2) α(π + 2/11) 2sec(1/11) > 0 (3) α(2π) 2 sec(π/4 1/11) > 0 (4) α(2π) (1 + tan(π/4 1/11) + sec(π/4 1/11)) > 0 (5) α(2π + 4/11) 2(sec(π/4 1/11) + 1 tan(π/4 1/11)) > 0 (6) α(3π/2 2/11) 2 tan(π/4 1/11) > 0 (7) α(3π/2) 2(1 tan(1/11)) > 0 (8) α(3π/2 + 2/11) 2sec(1/11) > α(3π/2 + 2/11) 2 > 0 (9) α(3π) (3 + sec(π/4 1/11) tan(π/4 1/11)) > 0 (10) And inequality number (11): α(4π+6/11) (4 2 tan(π/4 1/11)+2 sec(π/4 1/11)+ 2 sec(1/11)) > 0 Proof. This is an exercise left to the reader. Lemma 7. We may assume that X and Y are not consecutive a i s. Proof. Say X = a i+1, Y = a i. Now, if a i+2 Y, then by Lemma 1 on a i+1, we are done. Now, consider replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i 1, a i, a i+3. It can be seen (there are finitely many choices for a i 1, a i+3 ), that the curvature decreases by at least 3π/2, while the perimeter decreases by 2(1 tan(1/11)), so we are done by Lemma 6 (8).

12 5 STAGE 2 12 Lemma 8. We may assume that we do not have a i+1 = a i 1 = A, a i = C. (And similarly, that we do not have a i+1 = a i 1 = B, a i = D.) Proof. If a i 2 or a i+2 {X, C}, then we can change a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 2, a i 1, a i+2. This decreases the perimeter by 2 sec(π/4 1/11) and decreases the curvature by at least 2π, so we are done by Lemma 6 (4). If D {a i 2, a i+2 } (without loss of generality, let D = a i 2 ), then, as a i+2 / {X, C}, we can replace a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 2, a i+2, which reduces curvature by at least 2π + 4/11, and perimeter by 2 sec(π/4 1/11)+2 2tan(π/4 1/11), so we are done by Lemma 6 (6). Thus, we may assume a i 2 = a i+2 = Y. Now, we consider the possibilities for a i+3. If a i+3 = A, then replacing a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i, a i+3 decreases the perimeter by 2, and the curvature by at least 3π/2 + 2/11. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (9). If a i+3 = D, then replacing a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i+1, a i+3 decreases the perimeter by 2 tan(π/4 1/11), and the curvature by 3π/2 2/11. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (7). If a i+3 {C, B}, then replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i 1, a i, a i+3 decreases the perimeter by 1+sec(π/4 1/11)+tan(π/1 1/11), and the curvature by at least 2π. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (5). Lemma 9. If we have a i = C, then we may assume a i+1 = A, a i+2 = Y (or a i 1 = A, a i 2 = Y ). Similarly a i = D a i+1 = B, a i+2 = Y, or equivalent with minus signs. Proof. By Lemma 1, we may assume that A {a i+1, a i 1 }. Without loss of generality, say A = a i+1. We want to show a i+2 = Y. Assume to the contrary a i+2 Y a i+2 {D, X, C}. We distinguish 3 cases: Case 1: a i+2 = C. If a i+3 Y, then changing a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i, a i+1, Y, a i+2 increases the perimeter and fixes the curvature, so decreases f. If a i 1 Y, then changing a i, a i+1 a i, Y, a i+1 increases the perimeter and fixes the curvature, so decreases f a i+3 = a i 1 = Y. Now, changing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i 1, B, D, B, a i+3 increases the perimeter by 2 2 tan(π/4 1/11), and the curvature by 4/11. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (1). Case 2: a i+2 = D a i+3 = B. By Lemma 8, a i 1 A a i 1 {Y, B}. If a i 1 = Y, then replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 1, B, a i+2 leaves perimeter and curvature unchanged. If a i 1 = B, then replacing a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4 a i 2, B, a i+4 decreases the perimeter by 2[sec(π/4 1/11)+1 tan(π/4 1/11)], and the curvature by at least 2π + 4/11. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (6).

13 5 STAGE 2 13 Case 3: a i+2 = X a i+3 = B. Now, replacing a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i, a i+1, D, a i+3 increases perimeter and fixes curvature, so decreases f. Lemma 10. We may assume that C, D / {a 0, a 1,..., a n }. Proof. Say a i = C. By Lemma 9, we may assume that a i+1 = A, a i+2 = Y. Now, I claim a i 1 = B. By Lemma 8, we may assume that a i 1 A, so if a i 1 B a i 1 = Y. Then, replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i 1, a i+3 decreases the perimeter by 1 + sec(π/4 1/11) + tan(π/4 1/11), and decreases curvature by at least 2π. Thus, f decreases by Lemma 6 (5) a i 1 = B. Claim 1: a i+3 = B. For, if not, a i+3 {D, A, C}. If a i+3 = A, then replacing a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i, a i+3 decreases the perimeter by 2 and the curvature by at least 3π/2 + 2/11. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (9). If a i+3 = D, then replacing a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3 a i, a i+1, a i+3 decreases the perimeter by 2 tan(π/4 1/11), and the curvature by at least 3π/2 2/11. Thus, f decreases by Lemma 6 (7). If a i+3 = C a i+4 = A, then replacing a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4 a i, a i+4 decreases the perimeter by sec(π/4 1/11)+1+tan(π/4 1/11) and the curvature by at least 2π. Thus, f decreases by Lemma 6 (5). a i+3 = B. Claim 2: a i 2 {X, D}, a i+4 = D. First, we show a i 2, a i+4 {X, D}. For if not, replacing a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4 a i 2, B, a i+4 would decrease the perimeter by at least 3π. Given that it decreases the perimeter by 3 + sec(π/4 1/11) tan(π/4 1/11), and making this change would decrease f by Lemma 6(10), it follows we may assume a i 2, a i+4 {X, D}. Now, I claim that, in fact, a i+4 = D. For, assume a i+4 = X a i+5 = A. Replacing a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4, a i+5 a i, a i+5 decreases the perimeter by 2+ 2 sec(1/11), and the curvature by at least 2π+4/11. Thus, we need to verify α(2π+4/11) (2+ 2sec(1/11)) 0, which follows from the definition of α (we have equality). a i+4 = D. Claim 3: a i+5 = A. We have a i+5 {A, X, B, Y }. By Lemmas 8 and 4, a i+5 / {X, B}. So if we assume a i+5 A a i+5 = Y. Therefore, replacing a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4, a i+5 a i+1, a i+5 decreases the perimeter by 1+tan(π/4 1/11)+sec(π/4 1/11), and the curvature by at least 2π. Thus, f decreases by Lemma 6 (5). a i+5 = A. Claim 4: a i+6 {X, C}. Claim 3 a i+6 {X, C, D, Y }. Now, I claim a i+6 / {D, Y }. Indeed, assume a i+6 {D, Y }. Then, replacing a i+3, a i+4, a i+5, a i+6 a i+3, a i+4, a i+6 decreases the perimeter by 2 2 tan(π/4 1/11), and the curvature by at least π/2 + 2/11. Thus, f decreases by Lemma 6 (2). a i+6 {X, C}.

14 5 STAGE 2 14 We can replace: a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4, a i+5, a i+6 a i 2, X, a i+6, which decreases the perimeter by 4 2 tan(π/4 1/11)+ 2 sec(π/4 1/11) + 2 sec(1/11), and the curvature by at least 4π + 6/11. Thus, f decreases, which is a consequence of Lemma 6 (11). Now, in the last replacement, we have added an X in violation of our comment at the beginning of stage 2. Our final step to remove this extra X is as follows: if either a i 2 or a i+6 is X, we drop our X because we do this whenever a i = a i+1. Otherwise, a i 2, X, a i+6 = D, X, C by claims 2 and 4, and we can apply Lemma 1 to X, replacing it with either B, or D. This completes the proof of this Lemma. Now, we have all a i restricted to just 4 points {A, X, B, Y }, and the only pairs that can be connected are {(A, Y ), (Y, B), (B, X), (X, A)}. Lemma 11. a i = X a i 1 a i+1. Proof. Consider replacing a i 2, a i 1, a i, a i+1 a i 2, a i+1. This causes the perimeter to decrease by 2sec(1/11), and the curvature to decrease by at least 3π/2 + 2/11. Thus,it suffices to apply Lemma 6 (9). Proof of Theorem 2: YAXBY satisfies the DNA inequality. If Y / {a 0, a 1,..., a n }, then a 0 = a 4 = a 8 = = a 4k = A, a 2 = a 6 = a 10 = = a 4k 2 = B, a 1 = a 3 = a 5 = = a 4k 1 = X. This gives a perimeter of 2k 2sec(1/11), and curvature 2k(π+2/11). Thus, it suffices to verify: α(2k(π + 2/11)) 2k 2 sec(1/11) 0 which is a consequence of Lemma 6 (3). Therefore, we may assume there exists i such that a i = Y. Without loss of generality, say a i+1 = A. Next, we consider 2 cases. Case 1: a i+2 = Y. Now, I claim a i 1 = a i+3 = B. If not, replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 1, a i+2 decreases the perimeter by 2, and if a i 1 B or a i+3 B, the curvature by at least 2π. Thus, it suffices to note that α(2π) 2 0, which follows from α > 1/2. a i 1 = a i+3 = B. Next, I claim that a i+4 = X. Indeed, if not, replacing a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4 a i 1, a i+4 decreases the perimeter by 4, and if a i+4 X, curvature by at least 3π. Thus, it suffices to check α(3π) 4 0, which follows from α > 1/2. a i+4 = X a i+5 = A. But, now we can replace a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4, a i+5 a i, a i+5, decreasing the perimeter by 2+ 2sec(1/11), and curvature by at least 2π+4/11. Thus, it suffices to check α(2π+4/11) (2+ 2 sec(1/11)) 0, which follows from the definition of α (it is an equality). This finishes the proof of this case. Case 2: a i+2 = X a i+3 = B. We consider 2 possibilities: a i 1 = A, a i 1 = B.

15 6 TERMINATION 15 If a i 1 = A, then we can replace a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2 a i 1, a i+2, which decreases the perimeter by 2, and decreases the curvature by at least 3π/2 + 2/11. Thus, we are done by Lemma 6 (9). If a i 1 = B, then we can replace a i 1, a i, a i+1, a i+2, a i+3, a i+4 a i 1, a i+4, decreasing the perimeter by 2+ 2sec(1/11), and curvature by at least 2π + 4/11. Thus, it suffices to check α(2π + 4/11) (2 + 2sec(1/11)) 0, which follows from the definition of α (it is an equality). In this manner, we can reduce to the case of no points, in which case f = 0. For clarification, if our path starts as Y, A, X, B, Y, then one of our reductions says that we may remove such a closed loop, so we do so, leaving the empty curve, which we assign f = 0. 6 Termination We have a bunch of Lemmas that say that we may make various assumptions. However, we must show that reduction terminates, as sometimes Lemma n reduces our curve to something that Lemma k says we can assume not to have, where k < n. In this section, we will examine the termination of this procedure. Recall that we divided up the proof into two stages. Stage 1 was the part of the argument that goes until we have a i {A, B, C, D, X, Y } i and stage 2 the part afterwards. Claim 1: Stage 2 terminates: Observe that the number of a i Y decreases or stays the same with every step. [See in particular Lemma 9, Case 1.] Also, if a i = a i+1 = Y, we can replace a i, a i+1 a i. Thus, if our path starts with N points, we can insure that the path length never is above 2N, which gives us a finite number of possible paths. Now, observe that at every step, f+ the number of a i Y strictly decreases stage 2 terminates. Next, observe that if we have a subset of the path of length at least 11, we can use the stage 2 argument to replace it with a shorter path, provided that our subpath satisfies a i {A, B, C, D, Y } i. This is because the length of the longest segment that we replace in stage 2 is 11, so if we have a path of length at least 11, then we can run our algorithm to replace it with a shorter path. Also, as noted earlier, it is possible to do stage 2 without adding any extra X. Claim 2: Stage 1 terminates: Let F be the family of all legal curves (e.g. closed polygonal lines that are contained within our region). Say that we have a counterexample to f 0, a 0, a 1,..., a n = a 0 F. Let N be the number of a i / {A, B, C, D, Y }. In general, denote the number of points in a curve b 0, b 1,...,b k = b 0 that are not in {A, B, C, D, Y } by g(b). Observe that we can insure n < 12N, by applying stage 2 to simplify portions of the path with length at least

16 7 CLOSING REMARKS that have a i {A, B, C, D, Y } i. Now, let c be the value of f(a 0, a 1,...,a n = a 0 ). We have c < 0. Define: S = {b 0, b 1,..., b k = b 0 F g(b) N, k 12N, f(b 0, b 1,...,b k = b 0 ) c} Clearly, S is non-empty. Now, I claim that S is compact. To see this, call our dented triangle R. Then, S 12N i=1 R i Thus, S sits inside of a compact set. Also, S is a closed subset, as the constraints (g(b) N, etc) are inequalities of the form: some Lower Semi-Continuous function being less than or equal to some bound. Thus, S is compact. Therefore, one can take the curve in S on which f assumes the minimal value (f is Lower Semi-Continuous), which will be negative by definition of S. For this curve, I claim that the entire stage 1 reduction procedure leaves the curve b 0, b 1,...,b k = b 0 where f is assumed to be minimal unchanged; thus stage 1 must terminate for some curve with initially negative f. To see that the entire stage 1 reduction procedure leaves it unchanged, observe that the number of a i / {A, B, C, D, Y } decreases or stays the same at every point in stage 1. By applying stage 2 to simplify portions of the path with length at least 11 that have a i {A, B, C, D, Y } i, we can insure that the length is bounded by 12N. Thus, as f is decreased by every reduction, our reduced path would also be in S, which contradicts the minimality of our chosen path. This completes the proof. QED 7 Closing Remarks One can see, by tracing the equality cases for our inequalities that say we are decreasing f, that the only time that f = 0 is precisely when the curve runs around the perimeter of our dented triangle, always in the same direction (clockwise or counterclockwise). Additionally, it is not true that all curves that are almost convex work; a counterexample is easy to construct. In Figure 2, take any P and Q such that P (A, X), Q (B, X). Then the DNA inequality fails for Y AP QBY, a counterexample being Y AXBY. I would like to thank Ken Ross for helping me edit this paper, as well as Misha Guysinsky and Serge Tabachnikov for bringing this problem to my attention. Thanks to the Penn State REU for giving me support while writing this paper.

17 REFERENCES 17 References [1] J. Lagarias, T. Richardson. Convexity and the Average Curvature of Plane Curves. Geometry Dedicata 67 (1997), [2] A. Nazarov, F. Petrov. On a conjecture of S. L. Tabachnikov. Algebra and Analysis 19 (2007), [3] S. Tabachnikov. A tale of a geometric inequality. MASS Selecta, AMS, 2003,