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

I'm sorry in advance for how long this question is. Suppose I have a continuous function $f:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \Delta_{n-1}$, where we think of the simplex $\Delta_{n-1}$ as the set

$\Delta_{n-1} = \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n : \sum_i x_i = 1, x_i \geq 0\}$.

Suppose that this function $f$ has the following "nice" properties:

  1. $f$ is translation-invariant, in the sense that $f(x_1,\dots,x_n) = f(x_1+t,\dots,x_n+t)$ for all $t$.
  2. For any point $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$, if we increase the $i$th entry of $x$, the corresponding $i$th entry of $f(x)$ approaches $1$. In other words, we have $\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty} f(x_1,\dots, x_i + t, \dots, x_n)_i = 1$.
  3. $f$ has a "monotonicity property", in the following sense: If $x = (x_1,\dots,x_n)$ and $\tilde{x} = (x_1,\dots,x_i+t,\dots,x_n)$ where $t > 0$, then $f(x)_i < f(\tilde{x})_i$ (with no other conditions on the other elements).

Now, let's define a vector field $V:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ in the following way: at point $(x_1, \dots, x_n)$, we select the index(es) $i$ such that $f(x_1,\dots,x_n)_i$ is maximal. Then, we let $V(x_1,\dots,x_n)$ be a vector with $-1$ in the components corresponding to $i$, and $0$ everywhere else. So, for example, if $f(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (0.1, 0.7, 0.2)$, we'd have $V(x_1,x_2,x_3) = (0,-1,0)$.

My question now is: suppose we start at some point $x$ and "follow" this vector field $V$ (I hope that the notion of "following" a vector field is well-defined -- I don't even know if that is the case here). Are there any "nice" conditions under which I'm guaranteed to eventually end up at a point where $f(x) = (1/n ,\dots, 1/n)$? Using an argument that Neil Strickland gave in an earlier thread,

Map from simplex to itself that preserves sub-simplices

it seems that my map $f$ must be surjective, thus the barycenter of the simplex is at least in the image of $f$. Thanks!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

First you want to make sure your vector field itself is well-defined. What do you intend to do when $f_i=f_j$?

No matter what you choose, your vector field will not be continuous except for very special $f$, so following it will be hard to define, but not impossible.

Note the following nice fact: Everywhere but those places, your vector field has the property that when you follow it, $\max (f(x))$ decreases. If it still has that property elsewhere, then following it long enough should allow you to reach the minimum value of $f(x)$.

Now, what should you choose? Let's say the first two coordinates of $f(x)$ are equal, for simplicity. Then your vector field should probably be somewhere in between $(-1,0,0)$ and $(0,-1,0)$. Otherwise, following it would take you into a region where the vector field there immediately took you out of it. But we can strengthen that condition. Suppose infinitesimally decreasing $x_1$ makes $f_1$ fall faster than $f_2$, and vice versa. Then your vector field must cause $f_1$ and $f_2$ to still be equal. Otherwise, you would immediately hit a region where the change was different.

share|improve this answer
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.