MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $K$ and $L$ be two two-dimensional convex bodies, and consider their Cartesian product $K\times L\subseteq \mathbb R^4$. Now let $U_\theta\subseteq \mathbb R^4$ be the two-dimensional subspace spanned by $(1,0,\cos\theta,-\sin\theta)$ and $(0,1,\sin\theta,\cos\theta)$. Let $f(\theta) = \max_{\mathbf{x}\in\mathbb{R}^4} |(K\times L)\cap(U_\theta+\mathbf{x})|$, that is, the maximal cross-sectional area of $K\times L$ parallel to $U_\theta$. I have reason to believe, and would like to prove, that $f(\theta)$ cannot be unimodal. I call $f(\theta)$ unimodal if it is strictly increasing for $a\le\theta\le b$ and then strictly decreasing for $b\le\theta\le a+2\pi$. I will not say for now what my reasons are to believe that $f(\theta)$ cannot be unimodal, because I don't want to bias the reader's impression of what the best approach to this problem might be.

If anyone has any suggestions for approaches which might be beneficial to consider I would be very happy. Also, if you have some ideas for solving special cases, such as the case $K=L$, that would also be helpful. In the case $K=L$, we have $f(\theta)=f(-\theta)$, $f(0)$ is automatically a maxmimum, and $f(\pi)$ is either a local maximum or a local minimum. So, unimodality occurs if and only if $f(\pi)$ is a minimum and there are no other local extrema.

share|cite|improve this question
The function can be a constant and constants seem to be unimodal by your definition. – Sergei Ivanov Apr 7 '13 at 8:07
Yes, you're right. I actually should have written "increasing" instead of "weakly increasing". I will edit accordingly. – Yoav Kallus Apr 7 '13 at 15:37

Here is a non-constant counter-example to the original version (with weak monotonicity).

First observe that $f(\theta) $ (up to a factor $\sqrt2$ or so) equals the maximum area of intersection of $K$ and a translate of $R_\theta(L)$ where $R_\theta$ is the rotation of the plane through the angle $\theta$.

Let $K$ be the triangle with vertices $(1,0)$, $(-1,0)$ and $(0,1)$. Let $L$ be a narrow isosceles triangle $ABC$ with $AB=AC=1$ and $BC=\varepsilon$. I assume that $BC$ is horizontal and $A$ is above $BC$.

For most values of $\theta$ (more precisely, for all but a small neighborhood of $\pi$) $R_\theta(L)$ can be translated so as to fit inside $K$, hence $f(\theta)=area(L)$. But for $\theta\approx\pi$ this is not possible and hence $f(\theta)<area(L)$. It seems that (although it is cumbersome to verify) $f(\pi)$ is the minimum and $f$ is monotone at both sides of $\pi$.
          (Image added by J.O'Rourke.)

share|cite|improve this answer
@Sergei: I took the liberty of adding a figure. Hope I illustrated your pretty idea correctly. – Joseph O'Rourke Apr 7 '13 at 19:19
It seems from numerics that it is indeed the case that $f$ is weakly unimodal. So this is a valuable example to keep in mind. However, as I have pointed out, I am interested in the cases where $f(\theta)$ is not constant on any interval. Particularly, I want to eliminate the cases that $K$ or $L$ are circular disks and the cases where $R_\theta(L)\subset K$ for some $\theta$. – Yoav Kallus Apr 7 '13 at 19:43

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.