arxiv:math.fa/ v1 31 Oct 2004

Transcription

1 A sharp isoperimeric bound for convex bodies Ravi Monenegro arxiv:mah.fa/0408 v 3 Oc 2004 Absrac We consider he problem of lower bounding a generalized Minkowski measure of subses of a convex body wih a log-concave probabiliy measure, condiioned on he se size. A bound is given in erms of diameer and se size, which is sharp for all se sizes, dimensions, and norms. In he case of uniform densiy a sronger heorem is shown which is also sharp. Keywords : isoperimeric inequaliy, log-concave, Minkowski measure, Localizaion lemma. Inroducion I is a classic resul ha among all surfaces in R 3 enclosing a fixed volume, he sphere has minimal surface area, as measured by he Minkowski measure µ +. A relaed exremal problem shows ha half spaces minimize surface area for a Gaussian disribuion in R n [3]. One variaion on hese resuls is o consider log-concave measures µ suppored on a convex body K, i.e. a closed and bounded convex se. Recall ha he Minkowski measure µ + (S) = lim h 0 + µ(s h \S)/h, where S h denoes he se of poins a mos disance h from S. In cerain applicaions i is beer o work in a differen norm. We define he generalized Minkowski measure µ + (S) as before, bu where disance in S h is measured in he desired norm. If is he l 2 Euclidean norm hen his is he sandard Minkowski measure. Our main resul is he following. Theorem.. Le µ be a log-concave probabiliy measure suppored on a convex body K R n. For all measurable ses S K wih µ(s) /2 i follows ha (diam K)µ + (S) µ(s)g(/µ(s)), where (diam K) is measured in some arbirary norm, µ + (S) is he generalized Minkowski measure in ha same norm, and G(/µ(S)) is given by where γ > 0 is he unique soluion o G(/x) = γ 2 e γ e γ (γ ) +, () x = eγ (γ ) + (e γ ) 2. Moreover, his bound is sharp for every value of x, diameer of K, dimension n and norm. School of Mahemaics, Georgia Insiue of Technology, Alana, GA , moneneg@mah.gaech.edu; suppored in par by a VIGRE gran.

2 This exends heorems of Dyer and Frieze [4] and Lovász and Simonovis [7] in which hey did no condiion on se size. Our sharpness also shows ha heir heorems are igh only when x = /2. The main ool in our proof is he Localizaion Lemma of Lovász and Simonovis, which makes i possible o reduce an n-dimensional inegraion problem ino a one dimensional problem. A unique aspec of our mehod is ha we sar wih an unknown lower bound, given by G(/x), proceed o discover which properies G(/x) mus have o apply Localizaion, and only a he final sep, afer reducing his o a one dimensional problem, do we deermine he funcion G(/x). All oher applicaions of Localizaion of which we are aware begin wih a conjecured lower bound and proceed o show i o be correc. However, by no making any assumpions o begin wih we are able o obain he a sharp lower bound which would have been a very unlikely iniial candidae. I does no appear possible o wrie he funcion G(/x) in closed form. However, in Corollary 3. we show ha G(/x) behaves like log(/x), being bounded below by 2 + log(/2x) and above by 2 log 2 (/x). I is ineresing o noe ha for graphs wih a nice geomeric srucure, as wih he grid [k] n (see [2]), his shows ha he graph number and he edge-isoperimery are likely o differ by a logarihmic facor. We are also able o apply our mehods o he more specific case of he uniform disribuion. In Theorem 4. we give a bound which is again sharp for every se size x, dimension n and norm. The main improvemen is when x is small, and in Corollary 4.2 i is shown ha when x < 2 n hen G(/x) behaves like n/ n x. Example 4.3 shows ha, a leas for he l norm, he exremal cases on he hypercube [0,] n are always wihin a facor 3 of he exremal cases on general convex bodies. In fac, in general, he exremal cases are relaively simple o sae. When µ is uniform and he enclosed volume µ(s) = x, dimension n and diameer D are fixed, hen here is a runcaed cone K wih a subse S ha is exremal (he slope of he cone depends on he dimension n). More generally, when µ is a log-concave probabiliy measure and x = µ(s), dimension n and diameer D are fixed, hen we show ha he long hin cyclinder [0,] [0,ǫ] n wih a one dimensional exponenial disribuion F(x) = e γ x /(ǫ n 0 eγ x dx) conains a subse S = [0,s] [0,ǫ] n ha is exremal as ǫ 0 +, where γ is from Theorem. and boh s and γ are independen of he dimension n. Since Theorem. is sharp, hen all bounds of he form will follow as corollaries. For insance, (diam K)µ + (S) f(µ(s)) (diam K)µ + (S) µ(s)µ(k \ S) (4 + log (/4µ(S)µ(K \ S))) srenghens a resul of Kannan, Lovász and Monenegro [5]. A differen weakening leads o a Gaussian isoperimeric funcion, (diam K)µ + (S) 2π I γ (µ(s)), (2) where µ(s) /2 and I γ (x) is he Gaussian isoperimeric funcion (see (0)). We noe ha oher auhors [, 6] have proven relaed resuls in which quaniies measuring he well-roundedness of K were fixed, raher han he diameer D, bu heir resuls appear o be igh only in asympoics and no when condiioned on dimensions and volumes µ(s) as is he case here. For insance, Bobkov [] used a Prékopa-Leindler inequaliy o obain a relaed resul. 2

3 Theorem.2. Le µ be a log-concave probabiliy measure in R n. For all measurable ses S R n, for every poin x 0 R n, for every number r > 0, and for sandard l 2 Minkowski measure, 2r µ + (S) µ(s) log µ(s) + ( µ(s)) log µ(s) + log µ{ x x 0 r}. This is no direcly comparable wih our resul because Theorem.2 considers shape (via r) as well as se size µ(s). However, if r is a radius hen he log erm drops ou. In his case a comparison can be made and our resul is sronger. Of course, r can be chosen so ha he log erm need no drop ou compleely, in which case he bounds are no comparable. The paper proceeds as follows. In Secion 2 we prove Theorem.. Secion 3 proves various bounds on he quaniy G(/x). We conclude wih he uniform case in secion 4. 2 The Proof Recall ha a funcion f : R n R + is log-concave if x, y R n, [0,] : f[x + ( )y] f(x) f(y), i.e., log f is a concave funcion on on he suppor of f. In paricular, non-negaive concave funcions are log-concave. A measure µ is log-concave if for every measurable A, B R n : µ( A+( )B) µ(a) µ(b). All log-concave measures are induced by log-concave funcions, so ha µ is log-concave if and only if here is a log-concave funcion F such ha for every measurable S R n : µ(s) = µ F (S) = S F(x)dx. A lower semi-coninuous funcion is one which is a limi of a monoone increasing sequence of coninuous funcions. For example, he indicaor of an open se, or he negaive of he indicaor of a closed se. The lemma below is a variaion on resuls in [6, 7]. Lemma 2. (Localizaion Lemma). Le g and h be lower semi-coninuous Lebesgue inegrable funcions on R n such ha g(x)dx 0 and h(x)dx = 0. R n R n Then here exis wo poins a, b R n and a linear funcion l : [0,] R + such ha 0 l() n g(( )a + b)d 0 and We begin by reducing our problem ino a one-dimensional one. 0 l() n h(( )a + b)d = 0. Theorem 2.2. Le µ F be a log-concave measure on R n induced by log-concave funcion F, wih compac suppor K and a disjoin pariion K = S S 2 B wih µ F (S ) µ F (S 2 ). Also, le and d be such ha d diam K, dis(s,s 2 ), boh relaive o some norm. If G : [2, ) R + and xg(/x) : (0,/2] R + are monoonically non-decreasing, hen d µ F (B) µ F (S )G µ F (S ) holds for all such pariions if i holds for all one-dimensional probabiliy disribuions F() = e γ and all inervals S = [0,s), B = [s,s + ], S 2 = (s +,] such ha µ F(S ) µ F(S 2 ). (3) 3

4 Remark 2.3. The dependence on B in he lower bound can be removed by replacing d wih d and K \ B by K. However, his leads o a slighly weaker resul which no longer exends [7] in erms of. Proof. Assume a conradicion, i.e. F, K, S, S 2, B wih d µ F (B) µ F (K \ B) < µ F(S ) µ F (K \ B) G µ F (S ). (4) By coninuiy of measure, if S and S 2 are increased by a small enough amoun, wih B = K \(S S 2 ) and decreasing accordingly, hen his sill gives a counerexample. I can hen be assumed ha S and S 2 are open, wih B closed. The Localizaion Lemma can be used o reduce his o a one-dimensional problem. The following wo condiions will decrease he lef side of he counerexample, while keeping he righ side consan. g() = F() ( A K\B () B () ) where A = µ(b)/µ(k \ B) ( ) and h() = F() x K\B () S () where x = µ(s )/µ(k \ B), where S indicaes he closure of S. The condiion g()d 0 assures ha µ(b)/µ(k \ B) no increase when changing o one-dimension, while h()d = 0 causes x = µ(s )/µ(k \ B) o say consan, and hese wo condiions imply µ(s ) µ(s 2 ) in he one-dimensional problem as well. This decreases he lef side of (4) while increasing he righ side (by he condiions on G), and hence gives a one-dimensional counerexample. The one dimensional problem has smaller diameer (lengh) han K and larger separaion, so he same d and are valid in he one-dimensional problem. Moreover, by lineariy all norms are equivalen in R up o a consan facor; hese consans cancel ou when aking (d )/, so i can be assumed ha he norm is sandard Euclidean lengh. Wihou loss, assume he one dimensional problem is on [0,]. In he sequel, for [0,] hen F() will denoe he resricion o he one-dimensional problem, i.e. l() n F( a + ( )b), and for [u,v] [0,] hen µ F ([u,v]) = v u l()n F(a + ( )b)d. Suppose here is a one-dimensional counerexample (wih < in (3)) where B consiss of a single inerval, i.e. [0,] = [0,u) [u,v] (v,] where S = [0,u), B = [u,v], S 2 = (v,]. Le log F() be he line log F() = A + γ passing hrough he poins (u, log F(u)) and (v, log F(v)). Log-concaviy of F() implies ha F() F() in B and F() F() in S S 2. Then µ F(B) µ F (B) and he lef side of he counerexample decreases in changing from µ F (B) o µ F(B). Also, µ F(S ) µ F (S ) and µ F(S 2 ) µ F (S 2 ) µ F (S ), so ha by monooniciy of G(x) he righ side of he counerexample increases in going from µ F (K \ B) o µ F(K \ B), and by monooniciy of xg(/x) here is anoher increase in going from µ F (S ) o min{µ F(S ), µ F(S 2 )}. This complees he single inerval case. In general, he one-dimensional problem may have many inervals. We use a rick of Lovász and Simonovis [7] o reduce he general case o he single inerval case. Suppose ha µ F ([0,r)) > µ F ((s,]) for he lefmos maximal inerval [r,s] B [0,], or µ F ([0,r)) µ F ((s,]) for he righmos maximal inerval. In he former case he resul follows from he single inerval case applied o S 2 = [0,r), B = [r,s], S = (s,], while he laer case is similar. Oherwise, consider consecuive maximal inervals [r,s] and [u,v] of B such ha µ F ([0,r)) µ F ((s,]) bu µ F ([0,u)) > µ F ((v,]). 4

5 Eiher S or S 2 is a subse of [0,r) (v,], assume S. If he single inerval case has been proven hen µf (K \ [r,s]) µ F ([r,s]) µ F ([0,r))G µ F ([0,r)) µ F ([0,r) S )G µ F ([0,r) S ) µ F ([0,r) S )G µ F (S ) where he inequaliies follow from he monooniciy condiions on G(x) and xg(/x). Likewise, µ F ([u,v]) µ F ((v,] S )G. µ F (S ) Adding hese expressions ogeher gives µ F (B) (µ F ([r,s]) + µ F ([u,v])) µ F (S )G, µ F (S ) as desired. If i were S 2 [0,r) (v,] hen he same seps would hold wih S 2. Since µ F (S 2 ) µ F (S ) hen he monooniciy of xg(/x) would hen imply he resul for µ F (S ). This reduces he problem o a one dimensional one on [0,], wih log-concave measure µ F (A) = A eγ d and inervals S = [0,s), B = [s,s + ], S 2 = (s +,]. We now find he opimal G(x) for he one-dimensional problem, which leads o he opimal funcion G(x) in Theorem 2.2 as well. Theorem 2.4. Le G : [2, ) R be defined by G(2) = 2 and γ > 0 : G(/x) = γ 2 e γ e γ (γ ) + where x = eγ (γ ) + (e γ ) 2 (0,/2). (5) Then he condiions of Theorem 2.2 are saisfied, and he heorem is sharp a every value of x = µ(s )/µ(k \ B). Remark 2.5. The general case of sharpness was given in he inroducion. Recall ha K = [0, ] [0,ǫ] n. When x = /2 hen γ = 0 and F =, wih sharpness when S is half he cylinder, i.e. S = [0,/2] [0,ǫ] n. This is he same as he sharpness resul for Dyer and Frieze s [4] version of Theorem. ha does no condiion on x. Similarly, when x = /2 and > 0 in Theorem 2.2 hen F = and S = [0,( )/2) [0,] n, B = [( )/2,( + )/2] [0,] n. This was he sharp case for Lovász and Simonovis [7]. Our bounds equal heirs when x = /2 and are sricly beer when x < /2. Remark 2.6. Alernaively, γ can be inerpreed as he slope of xg(/x) because d dx [xg(/x)] = d [ γ 2 e γ ] [ ] dx dγ (e γ ) 2 dγ = = γ. (2γe γ +γ 2 e γ )(e γ ) 2 γ 2 e γ 2e γ (e γ ) (e γ ) 4 (e γ +e γ (γ ))(e γ ) 2 (e γ (γ )+)2e γ (e γ ) (e γ ) 4 5

6 Proof of Theorem 2.4. Consider a one-dimensional (single inerval) counerexample o Theorem 2.2 wih µ F(S ) µ F(S 2 ). The case µ F(S 2 ) µ F(S ) follows similarly. µ F(B) µ F(K \ B) < µ F(S ) µ F(K \ B) G µ F(K \ B). (6) µ F(S ) Wrie he inervals as S = [0,s), B = [s,s + ] and S 2 = (s +,]. If is decreased, while fixing x = µ F(S )/µ F(K \ B) and adjusing s in order o keep x consan, hen he righ side of he counerexample remains consan in. For he lef side, some simple algebra shows ha µ F(S ) = x x µ F(S 2 ), and herefore Solving for e γ s proves ha e γ s = x x γ µ F(S ) = e γ s = x ( e γ e γ (s+)). e γ e γ + x(e γ ), from which i follows ha he lef side of he counerexample is µ F(B) µ F(K \ B) = ( + x(eγ )) e γ e γ e γ. By Lemma 2.7 wih D = e γ i follows ha, aking 0 + on boh sides of (6) gives anoher counerexample: γx + γ e γ < xg(/x). (7) Fix x and minimize he lef side wih respec o γ. ( γx + γ ) γ e γ = x + eγ γe γ (e γ ) 2 When γ > 0 hen his is increasing in γ and so he roo is an absolue minimum of (7), i.e. he minimum occurs a he soluion o x = eγ (γ ) + (e γ ) 2 (0, /2). (8) Observe ha when γ (0, ) hen (8) is a bijecion ono x (0,/2). Since he soluion o (8) is he minimum of he lef side in (7) hen here is anoher counerexample wih γ eγ (γ ) + (e γ ) 2 + γ e γ < xg. x This simplifies o give a conradicion o (5). When γ < 0 hen reverse orienaion and consider [,0]. This reduces i o he problem jus considered. The above work shows ha for fixed x hen when 0 + he γ given by (8) leads o an equaliy in (3), so G is sharp. 6

7 Lemma 2.7. If D > and > 0 hen wih he minimum occuring as 0 +. D D D log D D, Proof. Le D = e γ for some γ > 0. Cross muliplying and simplifying, i suffices o show ( )(e γ )(e γ ) γ (e γ e γ ) 0. Plugging in he Taylor series for e x ino he lef side, and facoring ou or facors gives LHS = γ 2 (γ ) k γ k ( ) (k + )! (k + )! γ k γ2 (k + )! ( k+ ) = γ 2 ( ) = γ 2 ( ) [ γ k γ k k i (i + )!(k i + )! γ k (k + )! i=0 [ ( k k+2 ) ] i i+ (k + 2)! 0, (k + )! where he inequaliy uses ha ( k+2 i+) k + 2 for i {0,..., k}. 3 Bounding G(/x) i=0 ] k i Theorem. gives an opimal bound, bu i seems impossible o wrie G(/x) in closed form. We give here a few upper and lower bounds which show ha G(x) is essenially logarihmic in x. Corollary 3.. If x = µ(s) /2, hen 4x( x) log 2 x( x) xg(/x) x( x) 2x log 2 (/x) xg(/x) x(2 + log(/2x)) and has limi G(/x) log(/x) x 0 +. ( ( 4 + log i=0 4x( x) The firs lower bound is a sronger form of a resul of Kannan, Lovász and Monenegro [5]. Compuer plos show ha he absolue error is no more han 0.005, or a mos 0.5% of he [0,] range of µ + (S), and he relaive error is no more han 7%. Anoher lower bound of ineres is where I γ (x) is he so-called Gaussian isoperimeric funcion I γ (x) = ϕ Φ (x) where ϕ() = 2π e 2 /2 )) (diam K)µ + (S) 2π I γ (x), (9) and Φ() = 2π e y2 /2 dy, (0) which makes is appearance in many isoperimeric resuls, such as Bobkov s []. This lower bound is weaker han he firs one in he corollary and so we do no prove i here. 7

8 Proof of Corollary. The second upper bound follows because he general log-concave bound is a leas as small as he uniform one (see he nex secion). By Corollary 4.2, aking n, he upper bound on he uniform case for x > 2 n becomes a bound on he case x > 0. The firs upper bound follows from he second one because 2x( x) x and x( x) x. For he limiing case G(/x) lim x 0 + log(/x) = lim γ ln γ 2 e γ e γ (γ )+ ( (e γ ) 2 e γ (γ )+ ) =. To prove he firs lower bound, subsiue he expression for µ + (S) in Theorem. ino he lower bound and rearrange erms. This reduces he problem o one of showing γ 2 e γ ( ) (e γ ) 2 x( x) 4 + log 0 where x = eγ (γ ) + 4x( x) (e γ ) 2. () In order o show ha () is non-negaive, i suffices o show ha d dγ (Eqn.) 0, or equivalenly ha he sign of he derivaive is never negaive. Muliplying he derivaive by posiive funcions does no affec is sign, so posiive facors can be cancelled ou of he derivaive before checking is sign. This differeniaion and cancellaion of erms can be performed repeaedly; if he final expression is non-negaive, and if afer each inermediae derivaive he value a 0 was non-negaive, hen i follows ha () holds. Consider d 4 [ γ d2 γ d4 [e [e dγ 4 dγ 2 dγ 4 e γ d [ (e γ (γ ) + ) 2 (e γ (γ + )) 2 (e γ ]]]] ) d dγ e γ (γ 2) + (γ + 2) dγ (Eqn.) = 296e γ. I can be verified ha each inermediae derivaive was non-negaive as γ 0 +, and 296e γ is rivially non-negaive, so by he earlier remarks () follows. The second lower bound follows from his by checking ha he difference of he wo lower bounds is concave wih minima of 0 a x 0 + and x = The Uniform Disribuion When he disribuion F is uniform over K hen he resuls from he previous secions can be srenghened slighly. The proof is similar, bu wihou he reducion from log-concaviy o e γ. Insead, he exremal cases will be runcaed cones {x : < x 2,x 3...,x n > + γ x }, which leads o a more edious compuaion. Theorem 4.. Theorem. holds for he uniform disribuion, bu wih opimal G(/x) in dimension given by x G(/x) =, and in dimension n > given by G(2) = 2 and γ > 0 : xg(/x) = γ n ( + γ) n [ ( + γ) n ] /n γ(n ) ( + γ) n where x = ( + γ)n [γ(n ) ] + [( + γ) n ] [( + γ) n ] (0,/2). 8

9 How much of an improvemen does his give over he log-concave resul? By fixing a consan ˆγ > 0 and seing γ = ˆγ/n, hen as n he bound in Theorem 4. converges o ha of he dimension free Theorem., jus wih ˆγ in place of γ. For finie n he main difference is for small values of x. In paricular, he limiing cases in Corollaries 3. and 4.2 (see below) reveal ha when n is fixed and x 0 + hen G(/x) for he logconcave case is infiniely smaller han for he uniform case. Therefore he log-concave bound is no a good approximaion of he uniform resul on small subses, alhough he following corollary does show ha i is a good approximaion when x > 2 n. Corollary 4.2. In Theorem 4. he quaniy G(/x) is bounded by and has limi n n x G(/x) 2 n n x when x 2 n, 2 log 2 (/x) G(/x) 2 + log(/2x) when x > 2 n, G(/x) n/ n x x 0 +. Proof. For he firs upper bound i suffices o give an example saifying he upper bound for every x and n. Consider an n-dimensional uni hypercube [0,] n. Then, in l norm, a subcube embedded in he corner of volume x will have µ + (S) = n x /n, µ(s) = x and diam K =. Therefore, G(/x) (diam K)µ + (S)/µ(S) = n/ n x. When n = hen he lower bound is rivial. When n > hen xg(/x) γ n ( + γ) n [x (( + γ)n )] /n n 2 x /n if γ. The formula for x is monoone decreasing in γ, so his implies he lower bound when x x γ= where x γ= = 2n (n 2) + (2 n )(2 n ) > 2n (n 2) 2 n 2 n = n 2 2 n. Then x γ= > /2 n for n 3, and when n = 2 hen x γ= = /3 > /2 n again. The second lower bound follows from Secion 3, as he lower bound for he uniform problem is cerainly no worse han ha for he general log-concave. The second upper bound follows by an example, again. Once again consider he uni hypercube [0,] n wih l norm, bu his ime for x ( 2 (k+),2 k] (where k < n) consider he k-dimensional subcube, i.e., S = [0,x /k ] k [0,] n k. Then µ(s) = x, µ + (S) = k x /k and herefore G(/x) (diam K)µ + (S)/µ(S) = k/ k x. The funcion k x log 2 (/x) is minimized in ( 2 (k+),2 k] a x = 2 k, wih minimum k/2. This implies ha G(/x) 2 log 2 (/x). 9

10 For he limiing case, G(/x) lim x 0 + n/ n x γn n ( + γ) n [(+γ)n γ(n )] /n (+γ) = lim n [γ(n ) ]+ γ n n [(+γ) n ][(+γ) n ] = lim γ =. (+γ) n [γ(n ) ]+ { γ ( + γ) n γ(n ) n ( + γ) n ( + γ) n [γ(n ) ] + } /n I is illusraive o compare hese bounds o somehing ha is known exacly. Example 4.3. Consider he n-dimensional hypercube [0,] n wih uniform disribuion F =, l norm and S K required o have faces parallel o he surfaces (i.e. u = ). Bollobás and Leader [2] sudied surfaces of minimal surface area for his problem and found ha he exremal ses for fixed x are jus he k-dimensional subcubes ha we used o deermine he upper bounds in Corollary 4.2, i.e., (diam K)µ + (S)/µ(S) min k/ k x. (2) k {,...,n} Simple calculus shows ha k/ k xlog(/x) e, wih he minimum occuring a x = e k. Therefore, (diam K)µ + (S)/µ(S) e log(/x), which shows ha he bes logarihmic approximaion o (2) is only a facor e larger han he general lower bound of Corollary 4.2. Likewise, he upper bound in he corollary is an upper bound o (2) because i was found by fixing k over cerain inervals. Bollobás and Leader solved he hypercube problem in order o find an edge-isoperimeric inequaliy on he grid [k] n. The bounds of Corollary 4.2 show ha in graphs wih a nice geomeric srucure, such as [k] n, hen he graph number (or cuse expansion) and he edge-isoperimery are likely o differ by a logarihmic facor of inverse se size. 5 Remarks The diameer is ofen a poor measure of he size of a convex body. For insance, he diameer of [0,] n in he sandard Euclidean l 2 norm is n, whereas he average disance of a poin from he cener is much smaller. I would be nice if he mehods of his paper could be used o allow condiioning on se sizes in resuls using oher measures of diameer, such as he heorem of Kannan, Lovász and Simonovis [6] ( ) x x 0 µ(dx) µ + (S) (log 2)µ(S)µ(K \ S). When µ is a probabiliy measure hen x x 0 µ(dx) measures he average radius of he convex body (or probabiliy disribuion) cenered a x 0, and replaces he diameer in his paper. A sharp resul condiioned on se size would read somehing like ( ) x x 0 µ(dx) µ + (S) µ(s)f(/µ(s)). 0

11 However, a problem arises because he average radius, x x 0 µ(dx), may increase when he reducion is made o a one-dimensional problem. This conrass o he diameer, which is non-increasing. Therefore i is necessary o wase an inequaliy in he Localizaion Lemma o hold down his average radius, while wo more inequaliies would be needed o find F(/µ(S)). Since Localizaion only allows for wo inequaliies hen our mehod fails here. References [] S.G. Bobkov. Isoperimeric and analyic inequaliies for log-concave probabiliy measures. Annals of Probabiliy, 27(4):903 92, [2] B. Bollobás and I. Leader. Edge-isoperimeric inequaliies in he grid. Combinaorica, (4):299 34, 99. [3] C. Borell. The brunn-minkowski inequaliy in gauss space. Inveniones Mahemaicae, 30:207 26, 975. [4] M. Dyer and A. Frieze. Compuing he volume of convex bodies : A case where randomness provably helps. Symposium on Applied Mahemaics, 44:23 69, 99. [5] R. Kannan, L. Lovász, and R. Monenegro. Blocking conducance and mixing in random walks. Preprin, [6] R. Kannan, L. Lovász, and M. Simonovis. Isoperimeric problems for convex bodies and a localizaion lemma. Discree and Compuaional Geomery, 3:54 549, 995. [7] L. Lovász and M. Simonovis. Random walks in a convex body and an improved volume algorihm. Random Srucures and Algorihms, 4:359 42, 993.