Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- From: Niels Diepeveen <n936673@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 22:02:38 +0100
Kevin Buhr wrote:
Kevin Buhr <buhr+un@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
For an example of a *connected* A where you still need d+1 points, I
don't believe you'll find one in R^1 or R^2, but you'll find it easy
to find one in R^3. Let A be the union of three line segments joined
at a single point (so their convex hull is a tetrahedron). Note that
no interior point can be expressed as a linear combination of only two
points of A.
Oops.. Well, now that I reread what I wrote, that's hardly going to
work, is it? In R^3, you obviously want an example where *four*
points are required.
And, now that I've thought about it, I think in R^d for a connected
set A, you'll never need all d+1 points. You can use connectedness to
"eliminate" a point as follows.
Suppose you have an x in A (subset of R^d)
You mean in the convex hull of A?
expressed as a convex
combination (c.c.) of d+1 points in A: x_0,x_1,...,x_d. If these
points aren't all linearly independent, you can obviously express x as
c.c. of a subset of d or fewer of them, and you're done, so suppose
they *are* independent.
That is a bit of a handwave. Besides, I think you are confusing linear,
affine and convex combinations here. How about this:
If these points are affinely dependent, they are contained in an affine
subspace of dimension d' < d, and Caratheodory's theorem can be used to
show that x is a c.c. of (d'+1) <= d points.
On the other hand, if they are independent, ...
Then, the convex closure of the points is a
d-simplex S(x_0,x_1,x_2,...,x_d). If x is on the boundary, again, you
can immediately express x as a c.c of a subset of d or fewer of the
points, so suppose x is in the interior of the simplex.
Now, as A is connected, there is a path from x_0 to x_1.
Unfortunately, not every connected set is path-connected.
Consider the
"shrinking" d-simplex S(y,x_1,x_2,...,x_d) as y moves along the path
from x_0 to x_1. Geometrically, "x" is contained in the interior of
the original simplex, and as y goes from x_0 to x_1, the simplex
"shrinks". At some point, either at y=x_1 or at some earlier time on
the path, the simplex becomes "flat"---it's no longer a d-simplex.
It's either a (d-1)-simplex or---if this happens before y=x_1 and
depending on the shape of the path---maybe the union of two
(d-1)-simplexes. But sometime between y=x_0 and the first "collapse"
of the simplex, the boundary of the shrinking simplex (or its
collapsed version) must contact x. At that point, x can be expressed
as a c.c. of y and d-1 of the points (x_1,x_2,...,x_d).
Visualizing this in R^2 is easiest: if x is expressed as a c.c. of
three linearly independent points, it's in the interior of the
triangle formed by those three points S(x_0,x_1,x_2). Now, let y go
from x_0 to x_1 along a path in A, and consider the "shrinking"
triangle S(y,x_1,x_2). Eventually, this will collapse to a line
segment, and sometime between the original triangle at y=x_0 and this
collapse x will be on the triangle boundary or the final collapsed
line, expressible as a linear combination of two points y and x_1 (or
maybe y and x_2) in S.
I think that's sound, though I'm sure to be corrected if it's not.
Does that make sense?
I like it, with the restriction that A must be path-connected.
Maybe that restriction can be lifted, but I'm guessing that would require a
completely different proof. Any ideas? Counterexamples?
--
Niels Diepeveen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- From: Kevin Buhr
- Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- References:
- Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- From: Dash
- Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- From: Kevin Buhr
- Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- From: Kevin Buhr
- Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- Prev by Date: construction problem
- Next by Date: Re: Can "n choose r" * 2^(2(r-1))" ever be odd or twice odd for integers 1 < r <= [n/2] ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- Next by thread: Re: Example of a set requiring d+1 points (Caratheodory theorem)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|