MathOverflow will be down for maintenance for approximately 3 hours, starting Monday evening (06/24/2013) at approximately 9:00 PM Eastern time (UTC-4).

2 Fixed a few problems: it wasn't displaying correctly because of the <-sign was interpreted as HTML, I guess.

There is a theorem of Rogers that for large d, $d$, if you want to cover a ball of radius R $R$ with balls of radius $r \lt R$ then the volume ratio estimates is almost sharp. (Almost = a polynomial expression in $d$; while the volume ration is $(R/r)^d$.)

Morally, the same should be true for caps whether you want to cover large caps by smaller caps or the whole sphere by smaller caps. I think this is also a consequence of the result about covering density that Henry mentioned. There is some basic difference between covering and packing in that coverings are much more efficient than packings. But I cannot say I understand the conceptual reason.

When you want to cover by caps which are very close to being half-spheres then again to the best of my memory the problem becomes delicate. You need always d+1 $d+1$ by Borsuk-Ulam theorem and the precise smallest radius for which d+1 $d+1$ suffices is also not known to the best of my memory.

1

There is a theorem of Rogers that for large d, if you want to cover a ball of radius R with balls of radius r

Morally, the same should be true for caps whether you want to cover large caps by smaller caps or the whole sphere by smaller caps. I think this is also a consequence of the result about covering density that Henry mentioned. There is some basic difference between covering and packing in that coverings are much more efficient than packings. But I cannot say I understand the conceptual reason.

When you want to cover by caps which are very close to being half-spheres then again to the best of my memory the problem becomes delicate. You need always d+1 by Borsuk-Ulam theorem and the precise smallest radius for which d+1 suffices is also not known to the best of my memory.