2
$\begingroup$

Question: If within a convex solid body C there is a special point P such that every planar section of C passing through P has the same area, then, can we assert that C is a sphere and P its center? If not, is there any C such that there are more than one such P's?

Note 1: Same question can be asked with 'perimeter' (or moment of inertia or any other moment) replacing 'area'.

Note 2: If we rephrase the question with 'diameter' instead of 'area', the solid C could be an oblate spheroid and if we consider least width, it could be a prolate spheroid.

$\endgroup$

2 Answers 2

3
+50
$\begingroup$

There are plenty of $(C,P)$ such that all sections through $P$ have the same area. The construction readily adapts to higher moments about $C$ but not to perimeter. The existence of a single convex $P$ with two (or more) $P$ may be a very hard question; already in two dimensions the "equichordal point problem" was open for 80 years and took an Inventiones paper to solve [1].

Put $P$ at the origin, and let $S$ be the unit sphere $\{v \in {\bf R}^3 : \|v\| = 1\}$. For $v \in S$ let $f(v)$ be $\sup\{a \in {\bf R} : av \in C\}$. The area of a plane section of $C$ is the integral of $\frac12 f(v)^2$ over the corresponding great circle on the unit sphere. If $C$ is a sphere about the origin then $f(v)$ is constant. But for the great-circle integrals of $\frac12 f(v)^2$ to be constant, it suffices to have $f(v)^2 + f(-v)^2$ constant, which is easy to arrange: let $g : S \to {\bf R}$ be any smooth (or even $C^2$) odd function, and set $f(v) = (1 + \epsilon g)^{1/2}$ for some small $\epsilon > 0$. The resulting body $C_\epsilon := \bigcup_{v \in S} [0,f(v)] v$ must be convex for $\epsilon$ small enough, because $C_0$ is the unit sphere and the curvature form of $C_\epsilon$ varies continuously with $\epsilon$.

For a reasonably simple explicit example, take $g$ to be the restriction to $S$ of one of the coordinates of ${\bf R}^3$, which makes $C_\epsilon$ a solid of revolution for the curve given in polar coordinates by $r = (1 + \epsilon \cos \theta)^{1/2}$. If I did this right, the curve, and thus $C_\epsilon$, is convex if and only if $|\epsilon| \leq 2/3$.

Conversely, in any solution $f(v)^2 + f(-v)^2$ must be constant. This follows from known properties of the Funk-Radon integral transform ${\cal F}$ on functions on the unit sphere, where $({\cal F}F)(x)$ is the integral of $F$ over the great circle orthogonal to $x$. Clearly ${\cal F}F$ is even, and ${\cal F}F$ is the zero function if $F$ is odd (which is what we used); Funk showed for even functions ${\cal F}F$ determines $F$, so if ${\cal F}F$ is the zero function then $F$ is odd. See the references cited in Guillaume Aubrun's answer.

The construction readily adapts to any dimension $d$: make $f(v)^{d-1} + f(-v)^{d-1}$ constant. For constant moments of inertia about $P$, change the exponent $d-1$ to $d+1$.

Reference

[1] Marek R. Rychlik (1997): "A complete solution to the equichordal point problem of Fujiwara, Blaschke, Rothe and Weitzenböck", Inventiones Mathematicae 129 (1), 141--212. (From Wikipedia's "Equichordal point problem" entry)

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. look forward to a resolution of the perimeter case as well! $\endgroup$ Commented May 9 at 4:39
2
$\begingroup$

The answer is yes, for a $3$-dimensional convex body this is a 1915 theorem by Funk. See for example the introduction to this paper : https://sites.tufts.edu/tquinto/files/2021/01/funk2.pdf

The following book is a excellent reference for related questions.

Gardner, Richard J., Geometric tomography, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and Its Applications 58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (ISBN 0-521-68493-5/pbk; 0-521-86680-4/hbk). xxii, 492 p. (2006). ZBL1102.52002.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ But Funk's theorem assumes that $C$ is centrally symmetric. The OP did not make this assumption; and the question about $C$ with more than one $P$ indicates that the OP really did want to allow bodies without central symmetry: a nonempty bounded set cannot have more than one central symmetry, because the composition of two distinct central symmetries $s_P, s_Q$ is translation by the nonzero vector $2(P-Q)$. $\endgroup$ Commented May 8 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for pointing out the central symmetry assumption made by Funk's theorem. $\endgroup$ Commented May 9 at 4:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .