arxiv: v2 [math.mg] 6 Feb 2016

Transcription

1 Do Minowsi averages get progressively more convex? Matthieu Fradelizi, Moshay Madiman, rnaud Marsiglietti and rtem Zvavitch arxiv: v2 [math.mg] 6 Feb 2016 bstract Let us define, for a compact set R n, the Minowsi averages of : { } a1 + + a () = : a 1,..., a = 1 ( ) + +. }{{} times We study the monotonicity of the convergence of () towards the convex hull of, when considering the Hausdorff distance, the volume deficit and a non-convexity index of Schneider as measures of convergence. For the volume deficit, we show that monotonicity fails in general, thus disproving a conjecture of Bobov, Madiman and Wang. For Schneider s non-convexity index, we prove that a strong form of monotonicity holds, and for the Hausdorff distance, we establish that the sequence is eventually nonincreasing. 1 Introduction This note announces and proves some of the results obtained in [3]. Let us denote for a compact set R n and for a positive integer, { } a1 + + a () = : a 1,..., a = 1 ( ) + + }{{}. (1) times Denoting by conv() the convex hull of, and by d() := inf{r > 0 : conv() + rb n 2 } the Hausdorff distance between a set and its convex hull, it is a classical fact (proved independently by [7, 2] in 1969, and often called the Shapley-Folmann-Starr theorem) that () converges in Hausdorff distance to conv() as. Furthermore [7, 2] also determined Laboratoire d nalyse et de Mathématiques ppliquées UMR 8050, Université Paris-Est Marne-la- Vallée, 5 Bd Descartes, Champs-sur-Marne, Marne-la-Vallée Cedex 2, France. Supported in part by the gence Nationale de la Recherche, project GeMeCoD (NR 2011 BS ). matthieu.fradelizi@u-pem.fr Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Delaware, 501 Ewing Hall, Newar, DE 19716, US. Supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation through grants DMS (CREER) and CCF madiman@udel.edu Institute for Mathematics and its pplications, University of Minnesota, 207 Church Street SE, 434 Lind Hall, Minneapolis, MN 55455, US. Supported in part by the Institute for Mathematics and its pplications with funds provided by the National Science Foundation. arnaud.marsiglietti@ima.umn.edu Department of Mathematical Sciences, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, US. Supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation Grant DMS and the Simons Foundation. zvavitch@math.ent.edu 1

2 the rate of convergence: it turns out that d(()) = O(1/) for any compact set. For sets of nonempty interior, this convergence of Minowsi averages to the convex hull can also be expressed in terms of the volume deficit () of a compact set in R n, which is defined as: () := Vol n (conv() \ ) = Vol n (conv()) Vol n (), where Vol n denotes Lebesgue measure in R n. It was shown by [2] that if is compact with nonempty interior, then the volume deficit of () also converges to 0; more precisely, (()) = O(1/) for any compact set with nonempty interior. Our original motivation came from a conjecture made by Bobov, Madiman and Wang [1]: Conjecture 1.1 ([1]). Let be a compact set in R n for some n N, and let () be defined as in (1). Then the sequence (()) is non-increasing in, or equivalently, {Vol n (())} 1 is non-decreasing. We show that Conjecture 1.1 fails to hold in general, even for moderately high dimension. Theorem 1.1. Conjecture 1.1 is false in R n for n 12, and true for R 1. Notice that Conjecture 1.1 remains open for 1 < n < 12. In particular, the arguments presented in this note do not seem to wor. In analogy with Conjecture 1.1, we also consider whether one can have monotonicity of {c(())} 1, where c is a non-convexity index defined by Schneider [6] as follows: c() := inf{λ 0 : + λ conv() is convex}. nice property of Schneider s index is that it is affine-invariant, i.e., c(t + x) = c() for any nonsingular linear map T on R n and any x R n. Contrary to the volume deficit, we prove that Schneider s non-convexity index c satisfies a strong ind of monotonicity in any dimension. Theorem 1.2. Let be a compact set in R n and N. Then c (( + 1)) + 1 c (()). Finally, we also prove that eventually, for c(), the Hausdorff distance between () and conv() is also strongly decreasing. Theorem 1.3. Let be a compact set in R n and c() be an integer. Then d (( + 1)) + 1 d (()). Moreover, Schneider proved in [6] that c() n for every compact subset of R n. It follows that the eventual monotonicity of the sequence d (()) holds true for n. It is natural to as what the relationship is in general between convergence of c, and d to 0, for arbitrary sequences (C ) of compact sets. In fact, none of these 3 notions of approach 2

3 to convexity are comparable with each other in general. To see why, observe that while c is scaling-invariant, neither nor d are; so it is easy to construct examples of sequences (C ) such that c(c ) 0 but (C ) and d(c ) remain bounded away from 0. The same argument enables us to construct examples of sequences (C ) such that c(c ) remain bounded away from 0, whereas (C ) and d(c ) converge to 0. Furthermore, (C ) remains bounded away from 0 for any sequence C of finite sets, whereas c(c ) and d(c ) could converge to 0 if the finite sets form a finer and finer grid filling out a convex set. n example where (C ) 0 but both c(c ) and d(c ) are bounded away from 0 is given by taing a 3-point set with 2 of the points getting arbitrarily closer but staying away from the third. One can obtain further relationships between these measures of non-convexity if further conditions are imposed on the sequence C ; details may be found in [3]. The rest of this note is devoted to the examination of whether () becomes progressively more convex as increases, when measured through the functionals, d and c. The concluding section contains some additional discussion. 2 The behavior of volume deficit We prove Theorem 1.1 in this section. We start by constructing a counterexample to the conjecture in R n, for n 12. Let F be a p-dimensional subspace of R n, where p {1,..., n 1}. Let us consider = I 1 I 2, where I 1 F and I 2 F are convex sets, and F denotes the orthogonal complement of F. One has Notice that + = 2I 1 (I 1 I 2 ) 2I 2, + + = 3I 1 (2I 1 I 2 ) (I 1 2I 2 ) 3I 2. Vol n ( + ) = Vol p (I 1 )Vol n p (I 2 ), Vol n ( + + ) = Vol p (I 1 )Vol n p (I 2 )(2 p + 2 n p 1). Thus, Vol n ((3)) Vol n ((2)) if and only if 2 p + 2 n p 1 ( ) 3 n. (2) 2 Notice that inequality (2) does not hold when n 12 and p = n 2. For R 1, the conjecture may be proved by adapting a proof of [4] on cardinality of integer sumsets; this was also independently observed by F. Barthe. Let 1. Set S = and for i [], let a i = min i, b i = max i, S i = j, j []\{i} s i = j<i a j + j>i b j, S i = {x S i ; x s i } and S + i = {x S i ; x > s i }. For all i [ 1], one has S (a i + S i ) (b i+1 + S + i+1 ). Since a i + s i = j i a j + j>i b j = b i+1 + s i+1, the above union is a disjoint union. Thus for i [ 1] Vol 1 (S) Vol 1 (a i + S i ) + Vol 1(b i+1 + S + i+1 ) = Vol 1(S i ) + Vol 1(S + i+1 ). 3

4 (2) (3) Figure 1: counterexample in R 12. Notice that S 1 = S 1 and S + = S \ {s }, thus adding the above 1 inequalities we obtain ( 1)Vol 1 (S) = 1 1 ( Vol1 (Si ) + Vol 1(S i+1 + )) = Vol 1 (S1 ) + Vol 1(S + ) + Vol 1 (S i ) Vol 1 (S i ). i=2 Now taing all the sets i =, and dividing through by ( 1), we see that we have established Conjecture 1.1 in dimension 1. 3 The behavior of Schneider s non-convexity index and the Hausdorff distance We establish Theorems 1.2 and 1.3 in this section. This relies crucially on the elementary observations that conv( + B) = conv() + conv(b) and (t + s)conv() = tconv() + sconv() for any t, s > 0 and any compact sets, B. Proof of Theorem 1.2. Denote λ = c (()). Since conv(()) = conv(), from the definition of c, one nows that () + λconv() = conv() + λconv() = (1 + λ)conv(). Using that ( + 1) = (), one has ( + 1) λconv() = () λconv() = conv() λconv() conv() () λconv() = conv() (1 + λ)conv() ( + 1 = 1 + ) + 1 λ conv(). 4

5 Since the other inclusion is trivial, we deduce that ( + 1) + +1λconv() is convex which proves that c(( + 1)) + 1 λ = + 1 c (()). Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let c(), then, from the definitions of c() and d(()), one has conv() = We conclude that 4 Discussion conv() d (( + 1)) + 1 (() + d(())bn 2 ) = ( + 1) d(())bn d (()). 1. By repeated application of Theorem 1.2, it is clear that the convergence of c(()) is at a rate O(1/) for any compact set R n ; this observation appears to be new. In [3], we study the question of the monotonicity of (), as well as convergence rates, when considering several different ways to measure non-convexity, including some not mentioned in this note. 2. Some of the results in this note are of interest when one is considering Minowsi sums of different compact sets, not just sums of with copies of itself. Indeed, the original conjecture of [1] was of this form, and would have provided a strengthening of the classical Brunn-Minowsi inequality for more than 2 sets; of course, that conjecture is false since the weaer Conjecture 1.1 is false. Nonetheless we do have some related observations in [3]; for instance, it turns out that in general dimension, for compact sets 1,...,, ( ) Vol n i 1 Vol n j. 1 j []\{i} For convex sets B i, an even stronger fact is true (that this is stronger may not be immediately obvious, but if follows from well nown results, see, e.g., [5]): Vol n (B 1 + B 2 + B 3 ) + Vol n (B 1 ) Vol n (B 1 + B 2 ) + Vol n (B 1 + B 3 ). 3. There is a variant of the strong monotonicity of Schneider s index when dealing with different sets. If, B, C are subsets of R n, then it is shown in [3] (by a similar argument to that used for Theorem 3) that c( + B + C) max{c( + B), c(b + C)}. cnowledgements We are indebted to Fedor Nazarov for valuable discussions, in particular for help in the construction of the counterexample in Theorem 1.1. We also than Franc Barthe, Dario Cordero-Erausquin, Uri Grupel, Joseph Lehec, Bo az Klartag and Paul-Marie Samson for interesting discussions. 5

6 References [1] S. G. Bobov, M. Madiman, L. Wang, Fractional generalizations of Young and Brunn- Minowsi inequalities, in: C. Houdré, M. Ledoux, E. Milman, M. Milman (Eds.), Concentration, Functional Inequalities and Isoperimetry, Vol. 545 of Contemp. Math., mer. Math. Soc., 2011, pp [2] W. R. Emerson, F. P. Greenleaf, symptotic behavior of products C p = C + + C in locally compact abelian groups, Trans. mer. Math. Soc. 145 (1969) [3] M. Fradelizi, M. Madiman,. Marsiglietti,. Zvavitch, On the monotonicity of Minowsi sums towards convexity, Preprint. [4] K. Gyarmati, M. Matolcsi, I. Z. Ruzsa, superadditivity and submultiplicativity property for cardinalities of sumsets, Combinatorica 30 (2) (2010) [5] M. Madiman, P. Tetali, Information inequalities for joint distributions, with interpretations and applications, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory 56 (6) (2010) [6] R. Schneider, measure of convexity for compact sets, Pacific J. Math. 58 (2) (1975) [7] R. M. Starr, Quasi-equilibria in marets with non-convex preferences, Econometrica 37 (1) (1969)