2
$\begingroup$

EDIT As @David has observed, my conjecture was clearly wrong for $\ n:=2.\ $ Let me still give it a chance for $\ n\ge 3$.

I'll call a family $\ F\ $ of bound closed convex subsets of $\ \mathbb R^n\ $ to be impressive $\ \Leftarrow:\Rightarrow\ $ each set $\ B\in F\ $ has constant width greater or equal $1$, and each two different members of $\ F\ $ have disjoint interiors. Family $\ F\ $ is called assuming $\ \Leftarrow:\Rightarrow\ \ F\ $ is impressive and the width of each $\ B\in F\ $ is exactly $1\ $ (so that all diameters are $1$ under the given circumstances).

The following conjecture seems obvious but I don't have a proof:

CONJECTURE   Let $\ n>2.\ $ There exists real $\ \delta_n > 0\ $ such that for every impressive $(n+1)$-element family $\ F\ $ in $\ \mathbb R^n,\ $ and every $\ x\in\mathbb R^n,\ $ the following inequality holds:

$$\max_{B\in F} d(x\ B)\ \ge\ \delta_n$$

where $\ d(x\ B) := \inf_{y\in B}\, ||x-y||\ $ (the Euclidean norm is meant).

The harder challenge seem to be the exact computation of the maximal possible $\ \delta_n.\ $ Now let's still call this maximal constant simply $\ \delta_n.\ $ Furthermore, I'd like to know also a similar constant $\gamma_n\ $ restricted to the assuming families, i.e. $\ \gamma_n\ $ is the maximal constant such that for every $(n+1)$-element assuming family $\ F,\ $ and for every $\ x\in\mathbb R^n,\ $the following inequality holds:

$$\max_{B\in F} d(x\ B)\ \ge\ \gamma_n$$

Obviously, $\ \, \delta_n\, \le\ \gamma_n$.

Needless to say, I apologize if this problem is well-known.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I imagine that there are higher-dimensional "pyramidlike" analogues of Reuleaux-triangles; is it not possible to let $n+1$ such meet at a point also, as in the $n=2$ case? $\endgroup$ – Per Alexandersson Sep 14 '14 at 8:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Per, I simply don't know. It'd be interesting to find out one way or another. $\endgroup$ – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Sep 14 '14 at 9:11
  • $\begingroup$ @PerAlexandersson: I think you are correct. The Reuleaux tetrahedron should do the trick. $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Sep 14 '14 at 18:09
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The Reuleaux tetrahedron is not of constant width. But the Meissner body should work. $\endgroup$ – Yoav Kallus Sep 14 '14 at 18:32
  • $\begingroup$ @YoavKallus: Thanks for the correction! Changed the image accordingly. $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Sep 15 '14 at 0:24
2
$\begingroup$

Not an answer; just an illustration. I had some difficulty understanding the question, so...

Here $n=2$, so the shapes are planar, $\mathbb{R}^2$. I used Reuleaux triangles for the $3=n{+}1$ unit-constant-width bodies $F=\{ B_1, B_2, B_3 \}$ forming an "impressive" and "assuming" family $F$. A particular point $x \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is shown, with segments achieving $d(x,B_i)$. In this case, all three of those min-distances to the bodies are equal, so that is also the max $\gamma_2$.


  Reuleaux
So I think the question is simply asking if there is a lowerbound on the radius of a ball that can nestle in the gap.? I.e., can we ensure that the gap is not arbitrarily small?

Apologies if I am misinterpreting...

Added: To address $d{=}3$ & Per A.'s question, here is an image (from here) of a constant-width Meissner tetrahedron:


CWidth3D

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ But what happens if the Reuleaux triangles are all translates of each other and meet at $x$? Is that a counterexample or am I misunderstanding the question? $\endgroup$ – David Eppstein Sep 14 '14 at 1:38
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidEppstein: I think that is a counterexample! Let us await Włodz to weigh in... $\endgroup$ – Joseph O'Rourke Sep 14 '14 at 1:52
  • $\begingroup$ @David--you're right. I am very sorry. I'll soon remove the question. (First, I'll give you and Joseph to read my answer). At least I know that my conjecture was new :-) $\endgroup$ – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Sep 14 '14 at 5:29
  • $\begingroup$ @Joseph--you may be well right (my eyes trust you). The equivalence still needs to be proved, I think. $\endgroup$ – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Sep 14 '14 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ @David, I decided to leave the conjecture for the remaining case $\ n\ge 3$. Thank you for your counter-exaple (as obvious as it is; the obviousness was my fault :-). $\endgroup$ – Włodzimierz Holsztyński Sep 14 '14 at 5:43

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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