Covering spheres with spheres arxiv:math/060600v1 [math.mg] 31 May 006 Ilya Dumer College of Engineering, University of California at Riverside, Riverside, CA 951, USA dumer@ee.ucr.edu Abstract Given a sphere of radius r > 1 in an n-dimensional Euclidean space, we study the coverings of this sphere with unit spheres. Our goal is to design a covering of the lowest covering density, which defines the average number of unit spheres covering a point in a bigger sphere. For growing n, we obtain the covering density of (n lnn)/. This new upper bound is half the order n lnn established in the classic Rogers bound. 1 Introduction Spherical coverings. Let Br n (x) be a ball (solid sphere) of radius r centered at some point x = (x 1,...,x n ) of an n-dimensional Euclidean space R n : { } n Br n def (x) = z R n (z i x i ) r. We also use a simpler notation Br n if a ball is centered at the origin x = 0. For any subset A R n, we say that a subset Cov(A,ε) R n forms an ε-covering (an ε-net) of A if A is contained in the union of the balls of radius ε centered at points x Cov(A,ε). In this case, we use notation Cov(A,ε) : A Bε n (x). i=1 x Cov(A,ε) By changing the scale in R n, we can always consider the rescaled set A/ε and the new covering Cov(A/ε,1) with unit balls B1 n (x). Without loss of generality, below we consider these (unit) coverings. One of the classical problems is to obtain tight bounds on the covering size Cov(Br n,1) for any ball Br n of radius r and dimension n. Another related covering problem arises for a sphere { } n+1 def = z R n+1 zi = r. S n r Then a unit ball B n+1 1 (x) intersects this sphere with a spherical cap i=1 C n r (ρ,y) = Sn r Bn+1 1 (x), which has some center y Sr n, half-chord ρ 1, and the corresponding half-angle α = arcsin ρ r. The biggest possible cap Cr n (1,y) is obtained if the corresponding ball Bn+1 1 (x) is centered at the distance x = r 1 (1) 1
from the origin. To obtain a minimal covering, we shall consider the biggest caps Cr n (1,y) assuming that all the centers x satisfy (1). Covering density. Given a set A of volume A, we consider any unit covering Cov(A,1) and its minimum density δ(a) = min Cov(A,1) x Cov(A,1) B n 1 (x) A. A Minimal coverings have been long studied for the spheres S n r and the balls B n r. In particular, the Coxeter-Few-Rogers simplex bound shows that for any sphere S n r of radius r (1 + 1/n) 1/, δ(s n r ) c 1 n. Here and below c i denote some universal constants. Various upper bounds on the minimum covering density are obtained for B n r and S n r in the classic papers [3] and [4]. In particular, a sufficiently large ball B n r can be covered with the density δ(b n r ) ( 1 + ln ln n lnn + 5 ln n) n lnn. () In the recent papers [1] and [5], these estimates have been tightened for some radii r and also extended to the arbitrary radii. For a sphere Sr n of an arbitrary radius r, the best universal estimate on the covering density known to date is obtained in [1] and [] (see Corollary 1. and Remark 5.1 in [1]). This estimate gives δ(sr n ) ( 1 + ) ( ) ln lnn ln n 1 + ln n + e n lnn n ln n. (3) Our main result is presented in Theorem 1, which reduces the present upper bounds about two times as n. Theorem 1 A sphere Sr n of any radius r > 1 and any dimension n 3 can be covered with spherical caps of half-chord 1 with density For n, there exists o(1) 0 such that Preliminaries: embedded coverings δ(s n r ) ( 1 + lnln n ln n + 5 lnn) n lnn. (4) δ(s n r ) 1 n ln n + [ 3 + o(1)] n lnln n. (5) The approach of this section gives the estimates on δ(sr n ) that are similar to (3). We present this technique mainly to introduce the embedded coverings that lead to the new bound (4) in Section 3. Consider a sphere Sr n of some dimension n 3 and radius r > 1. We use notation C(ρ,y) for a cap Cr n (ρ,y) whenever parameters n and r are fixed; we also use a shorter notation C(ρ) when a specific center y is of no importance. In this case, Cov(ρ) will denote any covering of Sr n with spherical caps C(ρ). Let C (ρ) θ ρ = Sr n
be the fraction of the surface of the sphere S n r covered by a cap C (ρ). For any τ < δ 1, we extensively employ inequality (see [1]): In this section, we use parameters θ τ θ δ ( τ δ) n. (6) ε = 1 n lnn, ρ = 1 ε. (7) We begin with two preliminary lemmas, which will be used to simplify our calculations. Lemma For any n 4, ( 1 1 n lnn) n < 1 + 1/ln n + 1 /ln n. (8) Proof. For n = 4,..., 8, the above inequality is verified numerically. For n 9, we take z = ε + 3ε /. Note that ε < 1 /3 and zn < 1 /, in which case (1 ε) 1 = ε i 1 + z, (1 + z) n < (zn) i i! 1 + zn + (zn) /3. Also, ln n < 1 / for n 9. Then zn ln 1 n + ( ln n ) /6 and (1 + z) n < 1 + 1 lnn + 5 6ln n + 1 4ln 3 n, which is less than the right-hand side of (8) if lnn < 1 /. Let f 1 (x) and f (x) be two positive differentiable functions. We say that f 1 (x) moderates f (x) for x a if the inequality (ln f 1 (x)) (ln f (x)) holds for all x a. We will use the following simple lemma. Lemma 3 Consider m functions f i (x) such that f 1 (x) moderates each function f i (x), i, for x a. Then inequality m f 1 (x) f i (x) holds for any x a if it is valid for x = a. i= Proof. Note that f i (x) = f i (a)exp {s i (x)}, where Therefore, f 1 (x) exp {s 1 (x)} s i (x) def = x a m f i (a) i= (lnf i (t)) dt s 1 (x). m f i (a)exp {s i (x)} = i= m f i (x), i= 3
which completes the proof. An embedded algorithm. To design a covering Cov(1), we shall also use another covering Cov(ε) : Sr n C(ε, u) u Cov(ε) with smaller caps C(ε,u). We assume that this covering has some density δ ε and the corresponding size Cov(ε) = δ ε /θ ε. We also use parameter First, we randomly choose N points y S n r, where λ = 1 + lnln n ln n + n. (9) λn ln n θ ρ 1 < N λn ln n θ ρ. (10) Consider the set {C(ρ,y)} of N caps. Then we take all centers ū Cov(ε) that are left uncovered by the set {C(ρ,y)} and form the extended set X = {y} {ū}. By replacing the caps C(ρ,x), x X, with the bigger caps C(1,x), we obtain a covering Cov(1) : Sr n C(1,x). x X Lemma 4 For any n 8 and r > 1, a sphere S n r can be covered with density δ ( 1 + lnln n ln n + 3 lnn) n ln n. (11) Proof. Consider the above covering X. Any point u is covered by some cap C(ρ,y) with probability θ ρ. Therefore, we estimate the expected number N of centers ū left uncovered after N trials as follows N = (1 θ ρ ) N Cov(ε). Here we use (6) and observe that Cov(ε) = δ ε /θ ε (n lnn) n δ ε /θ 1. To estimate (1 θ ρ ) N, note that θ ρ < θ 1 < 1 /. Then we use estimate (10) for N and deduce that According to (6) and (8), (1 θ ρ ) N e Nθρ(1+θρ/) e (λn ln n θρ)(1+θρ/) e λn ln n, N e λn lnn (n lnn) n δ ε /θ 1 n δ ε /θ 1. Thus, there exists a random set X that gives the density θ 1 /θ ρ (1 ε) n 1 + 1/ln n + 1/ln n. (1) δ 1 = θ 1 (N + N) (λn ln n)θ 1 /θ ρ + δ ε /n δ (1 1 /n ) + δ ε /n (13) where we take δ = λn lnn 1 + 1/ln n + 1/ln n 1 1 /n. 4
Now let us assume that δ 1 meets some uniform upper bound for all radii r. For example, we can use (3) or a weaker estimate δ 1 n c, where c. By changing the scale in R n+1, we can map a covering Cov(1) of any sphere S n r onto the covering Cov(ε) of the sphere of radius rε. Thus, δ 1 and δ ε are interchangeable, and we can always use δ 1 instead of δ ε in the right-hand side of (13). If δ 1 > δ, this will reduce δ 1 in the left-hand side of (13). Obviously, this reduction gives the upper bound δ 1 δ. Thus, we only need to verify that δ satisfies inequality (11). Here we apply Lemma 3. Then straightforward calculations show that the right-hand side of (11) exceeds δ for n = 8 and moderates δ for n 8, due to the bigger remaining term 3/ln n in (11). Possible refinements. More detailed arguments show that (11) holds for any n 3, whereas for n 7, δ ( 1 + lnln n ln n + lnn) n ln n. To reduce this order below n ln n, we modify our approach. Namely, the caps C(ρ,y) will partially cover the bigger caps C(µ,z) of radius µ n 1/. However, we cannot take ρ = 1 µ in this design, since θ 1 /θ 1 µ = exp{n 1/ }, and the covering density increases exponentially, when the caps C(ρ, y) are expanded to C(1, y). To circumvent this problem, we keep ρ = 1 ε but use the fact that a typical cap C(µ,z) is covered by multiple caps C(ρ,y). Here we shall use only those caps C(ρ,y) whose centers y fall within some smaller distance d < ρ to centers z. Then we prove that under some restrictions, most caps C(µ,z) are left with holes of radius less than ε. This approach is described in the following section. 3 New covering algorithm for a sphere S n r In the sequel, we use the following parameters ε = 1 n ln n, ρ = 1 ε β = 1 + lnln n lnn λ = β + 5 lnn (14) µ = n β / 3 d = 1 ε µ. Given any d (0,r), we say that the two caps, C(ρ 1,y) and C(ρ,z) are d-close if their centers y and z (considered as vectors from the origin) have angle (y,z) arcsin d /r. We obtain a covering Cov(1) of a sphere Sr n with asymptotic density λn ln n as follows. 1. Let a sphere Sr n be covered with the two different coverings Cov(µ) and Cov(ε) : Cov(µ) : Sr n C(µ,z), Cov(ε) : S n r z Cov(µ) u Cov(ε) C(ε,u). 5
We assume that both coverings have density δ of (11) or less. Then Cov(ε) δ θ ε, Cov(µ) δ θ µ.. Randomly choose N points y S n r, where λn ln n θ d 1 < N λn ln n θ d. (15) Consider N spherical caps C(ρ,y). 3. Let ū Cov(ε) be any center left uncovered by the bigger caps C(ρ,y), and let C(µ, z) be any cap of the covering Cov(µ) that contains at least one such center ū. We consider the entire set { z} of such centers and form the joint set X = {y} { z}. Note that the centers x X form a unit covering Cov(1) : S n r x X C(1,x). Our goal now is to prove bound (4). To simplify our calculations, we wish to eliminate the case of small n. Here we first observe (by numerical comparison) that bound (4) or even its refined version (31) exceed bound (11) for n 100. Thus, Theorem 1 holds in this case, and we can only consider dimensions n 100 in our proof. In addition, this latter restriction also allows us to refine the residual terms in (4). In the end of the proof, we will also address the asymptotic case n, which is much more straightforward. The proof is based on three lemmas. We first estimate the fraction of a cap C(µ,Z) left uncovered by a single d-close cap C(ρ,Y ). Lemma 5 Consider two d-close caps C(µ,Z) and C(ρ,Y ) in a sphere S n r, so that sin (Y,Z) d/r, d = 1 ε µ. (16) Then the bigger cap C(ρ,Y ) covers the smaller cap C(µ,Z), with an exception of its fraction C(µ,Z) \ C(ρ,Y ) C(µ, Z) ω, where ω = 1 ( 4ln n 1 3 n ln n ) n 1 1 4ln n exp ( 3 ln n ) (17) Proof. In Fig. 1, we represent the two caps C(µ,Z) and C(ρ,Y ). The caps have bases PQRS and PMRT, which form the balls Bµ(A) n and Bρ n (B). The bigger cap C(ρ,Y ) covers the base Bµ(A) n of the smaller cap, with the exception of the segment PQRN. Note that the boundary of the base PQRS is the sphere Sµ n 1 (A). In turn, the boundary of the uncovered segment PQRN forms a cap PQR on this sphere, with center Q and half-angle α = PAQ. We first estimate α. Let d(h,g) denote the distance between any two points H and G. Also, let σ(h) be the distance from a point H to the line OBY that connects the origin O of the sphere Sr n to the center B of the bigger base Bρ n (B) and then to the center Y of the cap C(ρ,Y ). Then according to (16), σ(z) d, and thus σ(a) d. 6
Z Y M R Q N A S P B O T Figure 1: Two intersecting caps C(µ,Z) and C(ρ,Y ) with bases PQRS and PMRT. Next, consider the base PNR of the uncovered cap PQR, which forms a ball in R n 1 with center N and radius NP. Then both lines AN and BN are orthogonal to this base. Also, d(b,p) = ρ, and d(n,p) d(a,p) = µ. Thus, d(b,n) = d (B,P) d (N,P) ρ µ ρ µ. (18) The latter inequality follows from the trivial inequality ρ 1 µ. Finally, note that by definition of the center B of the base PMRT, the lines BN and OBY are orthogonal. Then σ(n) = d(b,n) and d(a,n) σ(n) σ(a) ρ µ d ε. (19) Now we consider the right triangle ANP and deduce that cos α = d(a,n)/d(a,p) ε/µ = 3 n ln n. (0) (Numerical calculation shows that ε > µ for n 41. This gives the trivial case, where α = 0 and the base P QRS is covered entirely.) Now we can calculate the fraction θ of the boundary PQRS contained in the cap PQR. According to [1], this fraction is defined by its angle α as θ < {π(n 1)} 1/ sin n 1 α cos α < sinn 1 α 4ln n. In the last inequality, we used the fact that 6π (1 1/n) > 16 for n 7. Given (0), we deduce that θ 1 ( 4lnn 1 3 n ln n ) n 1 1 4ln n exp {( 3 ln n 9 4n ln4 n )( 1 1 )} n 1 4ln n exp ( 3 ln n ). Finally, consider any other cap C(µ,Z) with the same center Z and a smaller half-chord µ < µ. Similarly, we can define its base with some center A on the line AZ, and its boundary S n 1 µ (A ). Then we estimate the fraction θ of this boundary left uncovered by the bigger cap C(ρ,Y ). To obtain the upper bound on θ, we only need to replace µ with µ in (0). This gives the angle α arccos(ε/µ ), where again α = 0 if ε µ. Thus, we obtain a smaller uncovered fraction 7
θ θ for any other boundary layer of the cap C(µ,Z). Then the uncovered fraction ω of the entire cap C(µ,Z) is also bounded by the uncovered fraction θ of its base. Remark. The above proof is fully based on our choice of d in (16). In fact, only half the cap C(µ,Z) is left uncovered if a cap C(ρ,Y ) is (d + ε)-close. If this distance between the caps is further increased to ρ, then C(ρ,Y ) covers a vanishing fraction of C(µ,Z) as n. Our next goal is to prove that a typical center z has sufficiently many d-close caps C(ρ,y) after N trials. Given any z, a randomly chosen center y is d-close to z with the probability θ d. Then for any z, the expected number of d-close caps C(ρ,y) is defined by (15): θ d N = λn ln n ν, ν [0,θ d ). (1) We say that a center z is bad and denote it z if it has only s or fewer d-close caps C(ρ,y), where we take s = n/q, q = 3ln ln n. () Otherwise, we say that z is good and denote it z. We now estimate the expected number N bad centers z left after N trials. Lemma 6 For n 100, the expected number N of bad centers z is N < n/4 N. (3) of Proof. Given any center z, the probability that z has s or fewer d-close caps is P = s ( Ni ) θ i d (1 θ d ) N i Note that for any i s, For any θ d 1 /, we then observe that (1 θ d ) N i exp { ( θ d + θ d /) (N i) }. ( θd + θ d /) (N i) = Nθ d (1 + θ d ) iθ d (1 + θ d ) (λn ln n θ d ) + θ d [λn lnn θ d s( + θ d )] λn lnn. To obtain the last inequality, we use (), which yields the inequalities s( + θ d ) 5 6 Then s λn ln n P e λn lnn θ d s( + θ d ). (θ d N) i i! s λn lnn e (λn ln n) i i! n ln lnn and Note that consecutive summands in (4) differ at least (λn lnn)/s λq ln n times. Therefore s (λn ln n) i i! (λn ln n)s s! (λn ln n)s s! (λq ln n) i (λn ln n)s (s/e) s (eλq ln n) n/q. (4) 8
Here we first estimated the sum of the geometric series as c n < c 100 <. Then we used the Stirling formula in the form s! > (πs) 1/ (s/e) s and removed the vanishing term (πs) 1/. Finally, the last inequality follows from the fact that its left-hand side is an increasing function of s for any s < λn ln n. Summarizing, these substitutions give where h n = P exp {nh n λn ln n}, ln(eλq ln n) q = 1 3 + ln(eλq). q Next, compare δ in (11) with λ in (14). It is easy to verify that for any n, δ (λn lnn 1/) θ d N. Now we estimate the size of Cov(µ) using (6) and (14) as follows Cov(µ) δ /θ µ Nθ d /θ µ Nµ n N exp {n [β ln n + ln (1) /]}. (5) Thus, the expected number of bad caps is N Cov(µ) P N exp {n [h n (λ β)ln n + ln (1) /]} N exp {n [h n (5 ln 1) /]}. (6) Now we see that the quantity Ψ n in the brackets of (6) consists of the declining positive function h n and the negative constant. Thus, Ψ n is a declining function of n. Direct calculation shows that Ψ 100 < 0.57. Therefore estimate (3) holds. We now consider the good centers z, and prove that N random caps C(ρ,y) typically leave only few ε-holes in all good caps C(µ,z ). More precisely, let N be the expected number of centers ū Cov(ε) left uncovered in all the caps C(µ,z ). Lemma 7 For any n 100, the number of uncovered centers ū Cov(ε) has expectation N < n/ N. Proof. We first estimate the total number Cov(ε) of centers u. Similarly to (5), Cov(ε) δ /θ ε Nθ d /θ ε N (n ln n) n. Any cap C(µ,z ) is covered at least s + 1 times. According to Lemma 5, each covering leaves uncovered at most a fraction ω of its surface. Therefore any point of the cap C(µ,z ) is left uncovered with probability ω s+1 or less. Note that ω s+1 < ω n/q, where q = 3ln ln n. Then we use the upper bound (17) for ω and deduce that where N Cov(ε) ω n/q N exp {nφ n }, (7) Φ n = ln n + ln lnn ln 4 3ln ln n ln n ln ln n + ln 1 /3. (8) Direct calculation shows that Φ 100 < 0.71. Note also that the first three (growing) terms in Φ n are moderated by the term ( ln n ) /(ln ln n). Thus, Φ n < 0.71 for all n 100, and the lemma is proved. 9
Proof of Theorem 1. Let z be any center, whose cap C(µ, z) contains at least one uncovered center ū Cov(ε) and let z be any such center among good centers z. Then { z} { z } { z }. Obviously, { z } {ū }. Then, according to Lemmas 6 and 7, the set { z} has expected size N N + N < 1 n/4 N. (Equivalently, we can directly consider the set {z } {ū }). Thus, there exist N randomly chosen centers y that leave at most 1 n/4 N centers z. The extended set of centers X = {y} { z}, forms a 1-covering of Sr n with caps {C(1,x),x X}. This covering has density ( δ θ 1 N(1 + 1 n/4 ) λn ln n 1 + 1 n/4) θ 1 /θ d. According to inequality (8), θ 1 /θ d ( 1 1 n lnn n β) n < 1 + 1 ln n + 1 ln n. (9) Finally, we take λ of (8) and combine the last two inequalities as follows δ n lnn ( 1 ln ln n + ln n + 5 ) ( ) ln n 1 + 1 ln n + 1 (1 + 1 n/4 ) ln n < 1 + lnln n lnn + 5 lnn. Here we again used Lemma 3. Namely, we numerically verify that the last expression exceeds the previous one for n = 100 and moderates it for larger n, due to its bigger remaining term 5/ln n. This completes the non-asymptotic case n 3. To complete the proof of Theorem 1, we now present similar estimates for n. We take any constant b > 3 / and redefine the parameters in (14) and () as follows: + bln ln n lnn β = 1 λ = β + 3 4ln n 1 µ = n ln b n q = ln ln n. First, bounds (0) and (17) can be replaced with cos α ε/µ lnb 1 n n Second, bound (6) can be rewritten as ω ( 1 1 n lnb n ) n 1 exp ( 1 lnb n ). (30) N N exp { ( )} n ln(eλq lnn) q + ln 3 4. 10
Note that the first term ln(eλq ln n)/q vanishes for n, and N declines exponentially in n. Thus, Lemma 6 holds. Finally, bound (7) is replaced with { [ ]} N N exp n ln(n ln n) lnb n ln ln n which declines (faster than exponent in n) for any given b > 3/. Thus, Lemma 7 also holds. Then we proceed similarly to (9). In this case, for sufficiently large n, we obtain the density δ ( 1 lnn + bln lnn + 3 ) ( ) 4ln n 1 + 1 ln n + 1 1 ln n ln n + bln lnn + 3 ln n which yields inequality (5). Generalizations and concluding remarks. Note that for n, our choice of β > 1 / gives both an incremental expansion θ 1 /θ d 1 in (9) and a vanishing fraction ω in (30). By contrast, any constant β < 1 / increases the expansion ratio θ 1 /θ d to exp ( n 1 β). Our estimates can be slightly improved for finite n, by refining bounds (18) and (19). Also, we can employ the first bound in (17) instead of its approximation used throughout the paper. More precise estimates show that in this case, our bound (4) can be improved to δ 1 + lnln n ln n + 4lnln n ln n. (31) However, these refinements leave the asymptotic case n unchanged. The following Theorem can be proven by combining the technique of Theorem 1 with the multilayered design described in [4] and [5]. Theorem 8 A ball Br n of dimension n and radius r n can be covered by the unit balls with density δ(br n ) ( 1 + o(1))n ln n. Corollary 9 Euclidean spaces R n of growing dimension n can be covered by the unit balls with density δ(r n ) ( 1 + o(1))n ln n. References [1] K. Böröczky, Jr. and. G. Wintsche, Covering the sphere with equal spherical balls, In: Discrete Comput. Geometry - The Goldman-Pollack Festschrift, B. Aronov, S. Bazú, M. Sharir, J. Pach (eds.), Springer, 003, 37-53. [] K. Böröczky Jr., Finite Packing and Covering, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, 154. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 004. [3] C.A. Rogers, A note on coverings, Mathematika, v. 4, pp. 1 6, 1957. [4] C.A. Rogers, Covering a sphere with spheres, Mathematika, v. 10, pp. 157 164, 1963. [5] J.-L. Verger-Gaugry, Covering a ball with smaller equal balls in R n, Discrete Comput. Geometry, v. 33, pp. 143 155, 005. 11