Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given two convex bodies $A$ and $B$, in $\mathbb R^3$ let's say. We define $A(t)$ and $B(t)$ as $A+xt$ and $B+yt$ where $x,y$ are two arbitrary points. (That is the Minkowski sum, so the two bodies are moving at constant velocity in the $x$ and $y$ directions, and $t$ is the time variable.) Can one show that the function $$f(t)=\operatorname{Vol}(A(t)\cap B(t))$$ is unimodal? That is nondecreasing up to some point, and then nonincreasing.

share|improve this question
    
Gjergji, I suspect that you ask for the 3D version because this is known in 2D. Can you give a link to the corresponding result? –  Wadim Zudilin Jun 4 '10 at 10:28
1  
I suspect the proof, even in the general case, not to be very hard, but I don't have any reference. I was discussing Kneser-Poulsen with a friend today, and thought that the question above is one of the simplest one could start asking in a series of related questions. –  Gjergji Zaimi Jun 4 '10 at 11:13
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 13 down vote accepted

The sets $\{ (A(t),t)|t\in \mathbb{R} \} \subset \mathbb{R}^4$ and $\{ (B(t),t)|t\in \mathbb{R} \} \subset \mathbb{R}^4$ are convex, their intersection $K$ is a bounded convex set, and $f(t)$ is the volume of the slice of $K$ at height $t$. By Brunn-Minkowski inequality, this is log-concave, so definitely unimodal.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you Thorny! This is nice. By the way, you mean $f(t)^{1/3}$ to be concave right? Unimodality follows in any case. –  Gjergji Zaimi Jun 4 '10 at 12:30
    
If $f^{1/3}$ is concave then $f$ is log-concave. Thorny's kind of formulation is frequently preferred when it is possible, because it's dimension-free. –  Mark Meckes Jun 4 '10 at 13:35
    
The intersection $K$ need not be bounded. Consider the case $A \cap B \ne 0$ and $x = y$. –  Steve Huntsman Jun 4 '10 at 13:46
1  
See also Zalgaller, V. A., On intersections of convex bodies. –  Anton Petrunin Jun 4 '10 at 13:50
    
@Mark Meckes: You are right, I think I misread log-concave for concave for some reason... –  Gjergji Zaimi Jun 4 '10 at 13:53
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.