Lecture 17: Convex Bodies and Ellipsoid

Yesterday we talked about the center of gravity; since some of you had not seen that before, the formula can seem somewhat mysterious. But it’s the natural extension of the discrete case, which you may have seen before, e.g., even in Melanie’s talk at this Wednesday’s theory lunch. Suppose we have {N} objects in {{\mathbb R}^n}, the {i^{th}} one having location {x_i \in {\mathbb R}^n} and mass {\mu_i \geq 0}. Then the center of gravity (or the center of mass, or centroid) is defined as

\displaystyle  c = \frac{\sum_{i \in [N]} x_i \mu_i }{\sum_{i \in [N]} \mu_i}.

The continuous analog of this where we have a general measure {\mu(x)} over {{\mathbb R}^n} (basically replacing sums by integrals), is

\displaystyle  c = \frac{\int_{x \in R^n} x \; d\mu(x) }{\int_{x \in R^n} d\mu(x)}.

The numerator is the total measure over {{\mathbb R}^n}. (In class I was implcitly assuming the uniform measure over {K \subseteq {\mathbb R}^n}, which is given by {d\mu(x) = \mathbf{1}_{x \in K} dx}.

John’s questions: the {1/e} in Grunbaum’s theorem (that each hyperplane through the centroid of a convex body contains at least {1/e} fraction of the mass on either side) is indeed best possible for convex bodies. And the proof is clever but not difficult See Grunbaum’s (very short) paper for examples and proof, or these notes by Jon Kelner or Santosh Vempala.

Guru’s question: does the theorem hold for other measures, and not just for the uniform measure over a convex bodies? In retrospect, it’s easy to see I was dead wrong (and I even knew the answer, had I thought about it for a minute more, sorry): it does not. E.g., consider {n+1} equal point masses at the vertices of an {n}-dimensional simplex. No matter which point you choose, you can find a hyperplane through it that contains only a single point (which is {1/n+1} of the mass) on one side. Grunbaum actually shows (in the same paper) that you can find a point that ensures at least {1/(n+1)} fraction of the mass on either side. I wonder what minimal assumptions can we make on the measure to get back the {1/e}? Replies in the comments, please.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s