3
$\begingroup$

Let $\{K_i\}$ be a family of smooth, origin-symmetric, strictly convex bodies such that $K_i$ converge in the Hausdorff distance (or you may assume $\partial K_i\to \partial K$ smoothly, in the sense of differential geometry, where $\partial K$ stands for the boundary hypersurface of $K$) to a smooth, strictly convex body $K.$

The Banach-Mazur distance of an origin-symmetric convex body $L$ from the unit ball of $\mathbb{R}^n$, $B$, is defined as follows $$d(L,B)=\min\{r; B\subseteq\Phi L\subseteq rB, \Phi\in GL(n)\}.$$

Here, $GL(n)$ is the group of linear transformations.

Is there a family of linear transformations $A_i\in GL(n)~$ for $i=1,2,\cdots,\infty$ (including $i=\infty$), such that for each $A_i$, $B\subseteq A_i K_i\subseteq d(K_i,B)B$ and $A_i\to A_{\infty}$ uniformly, or at least $\det A_i\to \det A_{\infty}$.Each of these claim implies that the inradius of $(A_iK_i) 1/(detA_i)$ converge to the inradius of$ (A_{\infty}K_{\infty})1/(detA_{\infty})$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There is a problem with the definition of BM distance: as stated, the distance from $B$ to itself is 1. Should $r$ in the definition be replaced with $1+r$ or $e^r$? $\endgroup$ – Victor Protsak Sep 27 '15 at 5:47
  • $\begingroup$ @VictorProtsak: $\log r$ is a distance in the usual sense, however for this case it is usual to leave the $r$ as it is, so for example, the triangle inequality is $d(K,L)\leq d(K,J)\,d(J,L)$. $\endgroup$ – Marcos Cossarini Sep 27 '15 at 12:59
2
$\begingroup$

This got more complicated than what I thought, and the type of convergence (Hausdorff versus smooth) may be important. I have a non-smooth counter-example, did you already find that? It seems that it can be modified to obtain smooth sets, but the convergence is only in the Hausdorff distance. Perhaps a stronger convergence, say, $\partial K_i\to \partial K$ as $C^2$ hypersurfaces, may be enough to establish what you want, but that may be complicated to do.

Definition: We say that a transformation $A\in GL(n)$ places $K$ in optimum (or Banach-Mazur) position (or does the job) iff $$B\subseteq AK\subseteq d(K,B)B.$$

Remark: Observe that this fact depends on $A$ only up to left multiplication by orthogonal transformations, that is, if $A$ does the job, then so does any $UA$ where $U$ is orthogonal. (This is a consequence of the fact that $B\subseteq K$ iff $UB\subseteq UK$ iff $B\subseteq UK$ because $UB=B$. Similarly, we have $K\subseteq rB$ iff $UK\subseteq rB$.) Since any $A$ has a unique polar decomposition $A=UP$ where $U$ is orthogonal and $P$ is symmetric and positive semidefinite, we can discard the $U$ and consider only operators $A=P$ that are symmetric and positive.

Now, an operator $P$ that places $K$ in Banach-Mazur position is not uniquely determined by $K$ as shows the following

Example: In $\mathbb R^3$ take $K$ the convex hull of $B\cup\{(\pm 1,\pm 1, 0)\}$. This set has $d(K,B)=\sqrt 2$, and any $P_t=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,t)$ for $t\in[1,\sqrt 2]$ will place $K$ in optimum position. The fact that $d(K,B)\geq\sqrt 2$ follows by looking at the intersection of $K$ with the $xy$-plane, which is a square. Here there's a gap: I'm not proving that the operators $P_t$ are the only positive operators $P$ that do the job.

Now, it is possible to slightly grow $K$ to obtain a body $K_{+,\epsilon}$ that has the same Banach-Mazur distance to $B$, in a way that blocks all the operators $P_t$ but the lowest $P_1$ from doing their job, and there is another way to slightly shrink $K$ to a body $K_{-,\epsilon}$ so that all the $P_t$ but the highest $P_{\sqrt 2}$ are blocked. Our modifications won't affect the intersection of $K$ with the $xy$ plane, and that's why the Banach-Mazur distance to $B$ is not decreased. The fact that some of the $P_t$ still place $K$ between $B$ and $\sqrt 2B$ show that the Banach-Mazur is not increased either.

The modifications are as follows: to obtain $K_{+,\epsilon}$ for some $\epsilon>0$, consider the circle $C=\{(x,y,z):x^2+y^2+z^2=\sqrt 2\textrm{ and }x+y=0\}$ and let $C_\epsilon=\{(x,y,z)\in C:|z|\leq\epsilon\}$. Let $K_{+,\epsilon}$ be the convex hull of $K\cup C_\epsilon$. Observe that $P_t(C_\epsilon)\subseteq\sqrt B$ iff $t=1$, as we wanted.

To obtain $K_{-,\epsilon}$, let $p_\epsilon=(\cos\epsilon, 0,\sin\epsilon)$, and let $$K_{-,\epsilon}=\{(x,y,z)\in K:|\langle P_{\sqrt 2}(x,y,z),p_\epsilon\rangle|\leq 1\}.$$ Observe that $P_tK_{-,\epsilon}\supseteq B$ iff $t=\sqrt 2$, since the point $P_{\sqrt 2}^{-1}p_\epsilon$ is on the border of $K_{-,\epsilon}$ and is only thrown outside the interior of $B$ by $P_t$ when $t=\sqrt 2$.

Finally, we can construct the sequence $K_i:=K_{(-1)^i,\epsilon_i}$ for some sequence $0<\epsilon_i\to 0$, so that $K_i\to K$ in the Hausdorff distance. The respective unique positive operators $P_i$ that place $K_i$ in optimum position alternate between $P_1$ and $P_\sqrt 2$, with respective determinant 1 and $\sqrt 2$. Allowing general operators $A_i=U_iP_i$ with $U_i$ orthogonal doesn't change the picture, since the determinant is not altered.

The bodies involved in the counterexample can probably be made smooth and strictly convex, but convergence in the $C^2$ sense won't take place.

$\endgroup$

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.