arXiv:math/0703388v1 [math.CA] 13 Mar 2007 PFC–00060 h rtato a upre npart a in T034531 Poten # supported Grant was Human Research, Scientific author “Improving for first Foundation programme The tional Community HPMF–CT–2000–00670. European # the of elkonMnosifntoa oabtay o eesrl sym necessarily ext bodies not the arbitrary, and to symmetry functional Minkowski of well-known measure Minkowski’s to connected results Abstract. oegnrladte r u nabte esetv o.I par In now. perspective Minko extended a better the a – of α properties in formulations fundamental equivalent put of connection number many are features, a between prove they several and connections that general the of feel more aware we e.g. not and are – literatur we kind the ties Further, in this find. elsewhere of found to study hard be can possibly paper and this scattered in treat we results yeetea rbesfrmliait polynomials. multivariate Bern i for polynomials, functions problems multivariate convex extremal type sets, continuous convex of of minima separation of existence tions, e,maueo ymty it of width symmetry, of measure centro symmetrization, ies, central bounds, conv Lipschitz functional, spaces, Minkowski layers, and halfspaces planes, 26D05. 41A44, 41A63, 41A17, Secondary appro of problems in effective and relevant theory. surprisingly be to proved prxmto ftecasclMnosifntoa ftecentra the body of the functional of Minkowski tion classical the of approximation ( K, SZIL ∗ e od n phrases: and words Key Classification: Subject 2000 MSC hsjitrsac a enspotdb MreCreRese Curie “Marie a by supported been has research joint This UCINLWT PLCTOSIN APPLICATIONS WITH FUNCTIONAL x ,icuigcneiy lblLpcizbuddes iergrowth linear boundedness, Lipschitz global convexity, including ), K R Y R GY. ARD ´ H EEAIE MINKOWSKI GENERALIZED THE nay(el omdspace normed (real) any on egv ytmtcadtoog td fgoercntosand notions geometric of study thorough and systematic a give We PRXMTO THEORY APPROXIMATION K u i st rsn o ntercn er hs notions these years recent the in how present to is aim Our . EV ´ ESZ ´ ovxbd,spotfnto,spotn hyper- supporting function, support body, convex ∗ n ANSSARANTOPOULOS YANNIS and K 1 X nadrcin oohtctransforma- homothetic direction, a in lhuhmn ftentosand notions the of many Although . rmr 46B20; Primary dT032872. nd d oeo ovxbod- convex of cone id, xfntosi normed in functions ex ti n Chebyshev and stein yteHnainNa- Hungarian the by il ne contract under tial” omdspaces, normed n sifunctional wski rhFellowship” arch n proper- and s ercconvex metric symmetriza- l nino the of ension systematic a iua,we ticular, ,te are they e, ximation enew, re and 1 Introduction
The present work grew out of our studies on inequalities and extremal prob- lems for multivariate polynomials, especially multivariate polynomials defined on infinite dimensional normed spaces. For a general introduction to polyno- mials on infinite dimensional spaces we refer to the comprehensive first chapter of Dineen’s monograph [D]; as for the discussion of the particular multivariate polynomial extremal problems connected to generalized Minkowski functional, see 9 of this article. A§ quite general question in these type of problems presents itself in the following setting. Suppose we are given a (continuous) polynomial p of known degree n and satisfying some boundedness condition on a reasonably well-shaped set, say on a convex body K X, where X is a normed space. If n(X) is the space of polynomials p : ⊂X R of degree not exceeding n, theP “initial conditions” of a usual extremal problem→ are p (X) and p 1, where ∈ Pn k kK ≤ p K := supK p . The aim is to find best possible (or at least of a correct order ofk k magnitude)| estimates| on some expressions — say, a linear functional — of p, which depend on a point x X. For example, the “Bernstein problem” is to estimate grad p(x) ; the “point∈ value Chebyshev problem” is to estimate p(x) . To solvek these questions,k apart from functional analysis and approxima- tion theory, a crucial role is played by the geometric features of the configuration of K and x. In particular, any such estimate has to use some quantitative for- mulation of the location of x with respect to the body K. Obvious choices — like the metric distance of x / K from K, or x K from the boundary ∂K — yield only essentially trivial but∈ too rough estimates.∈ If the convex body K X (i.e., K is a bounded, convex and closed set with nonempty interior) is also⊂centrally symmetric with respect to the origin, then there is a norm on X — equivalent to the original norm of X in k·k(K) k·k view of BX, (0, r) K BX, (0, R) — which can be used successfully in approximationk·k theoretic⊂ questions⊂ k·k as well. For this norm the unit ball k·k(K) of X will be K itself, BX, (0, 1) = K, while for any x X the Minkowski k·k(K) ∈ functional or (Minkowski) distance function [HC, p. 57] or gauge [Ro, p. 28] or Minkowski gauge functional [P, 1.1(d)]
(1.1) ϕ (x) := inf λ> 0 : x λK K { ∈ } will serve as definition of x (K). Clearly (1.1) is a norm on X if and only if the convex body K is centrallyk k symmetric with respect to the origin. In case K is nonsymmetric, (1.1) still can be used. But then, even the choice of the homothetic centre is questionable since the use of any alternative gauge functional ϕ x (x) := inf λ> 0 : x λ(K x ) K, 0 ∈ − 0 is equally well justified. Moreover, neither is good enough for the applications.
2 There are two possible approaches here. The first one, which to us seems to be more easily understood, is to define some “continuous”, increasing, absorbing set function t Kt, and to derive the corresponding generalized functional analogously to→ (1.1). That will be pursued in this Introduction. On the other hand, another general approach is described e.g. by Gr¨unbaum in connection to the construction of measures of symmetry in general, see [G, p. 245]. In this approach, one defines first a functional f(K, x) by directly using some geometric features of the configuration of K and x. Then a measure of symmetry is defined by considering the extremal value of f over the whole of K (or X). Depending on the geometric properties we start with, corresponding approaches lead to valuable information. In 4 we examine how this second approach can be used to arrive at equivalent forms§ and thus unifying a number of seemingly different geometric constructions. An interesting construction of the first type, which resembles somewhat to our upcoming choice of subject, is the so called “floating body” construction 1 (see [BL]), which was successfully applied in a number of geometric problems (c.f. e.g. the recent survey article [B´a]). Skipping the precise details of formulation, let us describe heuristically this definition. If 0 <β< 1, imagine that the closed surface of ∂K is a container which contains a liquid of volume β vol(K)/2. Rotating the body shell (in the fixed gravitational field) to all possible positions, the liquid flows freely around. Then the body will consist of points which became “wet” during the rotation, and of “dry” points which went under water in neither position. Cutting down the wet points, the set of the dry points form a smaller set K(β) which is easily seen to be convex, and, naturally, form a monotone set sequence of the continuous parameter β. The crucial feature is that, although K is not symmetric, a natural, geomet- rical definition is given to a reasonable set sequence K(β), which reflects the geometric characteristics (in our case the boundary shape in particular). If we want, similarly to (1.1), a “floating distance” can be defined:
ψ (x) := inf λ> 0 : x K(1 λ) , K ∈ − although this is not usual in the applications of the floating body construction. Now this is very much like what we want, but at least two properties consti- tute some major drawback. First, the definition is restricted to points x K, and second, the reference to the volume excludes infinite dimensional spaces.∈ Moreover, we do not know any particular applications in approximation theory which could be well described using the floating body notion. It is worth noting that for x / K there is an alternative notion, the “il- lumination body” construction, quite∈ similar in nature. See for instance [We].
1We are grateful to Professor Apostolos Giannopoulos for calling our attention to this notion and providing us the corresponding references.
3 However, this also relies on use of the volume, hence is restricted to finite di- mensional spaces. So, our choice will be another construction of a set function which was considered first by Hammer [H]. The use of an equivalent geometric notion (the somewhat implicit use of λ(K, x), see (4.2) below) has already appeared in approximation theory in the work of Rivlin and Shapiro [RiSh] dealing with the Chebyshev problem for finite dimensional spaces. Although Rivlin–Shapiro, as well as Kro´o–Schmidt [KS] later on, have worked with exterior points of K, it was realized in [KR] that the same definition works for points of K as well. Also, in [KR] a few observations and questions were mentioned concerning the generalized Minkowski functional α(K, x) (see definition (2.13) below). However, to the best of our knowledge this present work is the first attempt in bringing together what geometers on the one hand, and approximation theorists on the other hand have contributed in the subject. For this reason, new results are accompanied by quite a number of facts which were already known to either geometers or approximation theorists, but not in our setting and without the connections our investigation reveals. Lacking the drive of accommodating to application needs of approximation theory, some geometric facts, which were accessible to experts well before, seem to surface or to be explored the first time here. In particular, not even the fundamental properties of the generalized Minkowski functional, like convexity, Lipschitz boundedness, or linear speed growth, seem to have been established before. Moreover, in the present work we investigate the subject in the full generality of normed spaces. A careful checking reveals that essentially α(K, x) does not depend on the initial norm of X, at least in the sense that any equivalent norm can be con- sidered. Actually the sets Kλ of (2.12), and hence α(K, x), depend only on geometry and not on the norm. Therefore, this notion can be equally well in- troduced in topological vector spaces (t.v.s) where the (topological) dual X∗, the support function and every necessary ingredient is available. However, if X is only a t.v.s, then the mere existence of the convex body K leads to a topo- logically equivalent norm, the unit ball of which is the central symmetrization C (c.f. (2.1)) of K. As we will show in the sequel, actually = ϕ and k·k(C) C α(K, ) have only a very small — globally bounded — difference, and so the seemingly· easy generalization to t.v.s. is essentially void. A word of warning concerns the use of the inner product space structure, which is justified in Rd in view of the equivalence of all norms, but is not available for normed spaces in general. Hence, here we must carefully distinguish the space X, its unit ball B = BX (0, 1) and its unit sphere S = SX (0, 1) = ∂B on one hand, and X∗ its corresponding unit ball B∗ and its unit sphere S∗ on the other hand. The value of a linear functional x∗ X∗ at a vector x X will be ∈ ∈ denoted by x∗, x . h i
4 2 Notations, definitions, and general background
The central symmetrization of a set K in a normed space X is
1 1 (2.1) C := C(K) := (K K) := (x y): x, y K . 2 − 2 − ∈ The central symmetrization of K is centrally symmetric with respect to the origin. In case K is a convex body, we also have 0 int C 2. On the other hand, even though K is assumed to be closed, C is not∈ necessarily closed (c.f. 6 of [RS]), hence C is not a convex body in general. Nevertheless, the closure C §of C is a symmetric convex body, which is also fat, and int C C int C = C. The “ maximal chord ” of K in direction of v = 0 is ⊂ ⊂ 6 τ(K, v) := sup λ 0 : y, z K s.t. z = y + λv = { ≥ ∃ ∈ } (2.2) = sup λ 0 : K (K + λv) = = ≥ ∩ 6 ∅ = sup λ 0 : λv K K = 2 sup λ> 0 : λv C = { ≥ ∈ − } ∈ = 2max λ 0 : λv C = τ C, v . ≥ ∈ Usually τ(K, v) is not a “maximal” chord length, but only a supremum, however we shall use the familiar finite dimensional terminology (see for example [W]). The support function to K, where K can be an arbitrary set, is defined for all v∗ X∗ (sometimes only for v∗ S∗) as ∈ ∈
(2.3) h(K, v∗) := sup v∗ = sup v∗, x : x K , K h i ∈ and the width of K in direction v∗ X∗ (or v∗ S∗) is ∈ ∈
(2.4) w(K, v∗) := h(K, v∗)+ h(K, v∗) = sup v∗ + sup( v∗)= − K K −
= sup v∗, x y : x, y K =2h C, v∗ = w C, v∗ . h − i ∈ Let us introduce the notations
(2.5) X (v∗) := x X : v∗, x t , X(K, v∗) := X ∗ (v∗). t ∈ h i≤ h(K,v )
Clearly the closed halfspace X(K, v∗) contains K and the hyperplane (2.6) H(K, v∗) := H ∗ (v∗), H (v∗) := x X : v∗, x = t = ∂X (v∗) h(K,v ) t ∈ h i t 2Throughout the paper we denote when convenient C(K), τ(K, v), α(K, x), w(K, v∗), etc. by C, τ, α, w, etc., respectively.
5 is a supporting hyperplane 3 to K. A layer (sometimes also called strip in the literature) is the region of X enclosed by two parallel hyperplanes, i.e.
(2.7) Lr,s(v∗) := x X : r v∗, x s = Xs(v∗) X r( v∗), ∈ ≤ h i≤ ∩ − − while the supporting layer or fitting layer of K with normal v∗ is
(2.8) L(K, v∗) := X(K, v∗) X(K, v∗)= L h(K, v∗),h(K,v∗)(v∗)= ∩ − − −
= x X : h(K, v∗) v∗, x h(K, v∗) . ∈ − − ≤ h i≤ By convexity, K is the intersection of its “ supporting halfpaces ” X(K, v∗), and grouping opposite normals we get
(2.9) K = X(K, v∗)= L(K, v∗). v∗ S∗ v∗ S∗ T∈ T∈ Any layer (2.7) can be homothetically dilated with quotient λ 0 at any of its ≥ symmetry centers lying on the symmetry hyperplane H r+s (v∗) to obtain 2 (2.10) λ λ +1 λ 1 λ +1 λ 1 L (v∗) := x X : r − s v∗, x s − r . r,s ∈ 2 − 2 ≤ h i≤ 2 − 2 In particular, we have also defined
λ λ (2.11) L (K, v∗)= L h(K, v∗),h(K,v∗)(v∗) − − and by using (2.11) one can even define
λ λ (2.12) K := L (K, v∗). v∗ S∗ ∈ T Note that Kλ can be empty for small values of λ. Using the convex, closed, bounded, increasing and (as easily seen, c.f. Proposition 3.3) even absorbing λ set system K λ 0, the generalized Minkowski functional or gauge functional is defined as{ } ≥
(2.13) α(K, x) := inf λ 0 : x Kλ . { ≥ ∈ } Denoting the cone of convex bodies in X by := (X), in analogy to e.g. K K [HC, Chapter 1.9, p. 302], we see that α is a mapping from X R+. Speaking of topological or analytical features of α, we alwaysK× understand→ K 3Note that throughout the paper we mean “supporting” in the weak sense, that is, we do not require K ∩ H(K, v∗) =6 ∅, but only dist K,H(K, v∗) = 0. The same convention is in effect for other supporting objects as halfspaces, layers etc.
6 as the topological space equipped with the (Pompeiu–)Hausdorff(–Blaschke) metric δ = δH (c.f. [HC] p. 307)
(2.14) δ(K,M) := max sup inf x y , sup inf x y , x K y M k − k y M x K k − k ∈ ∈ ∈ ∈ while R+ = [0, ) is considered with its usual metric. Note that (2.14) may be defined for any∞ subsets of X. We shall also use the notation
(2.15) α := inf α(K, ) = inf λ 0 : Kλ = . K · { ≥ 6 ∅} For further use, we introduce the notation
(2.16) : R P K× + → K (K, λ) := λ(K) := Kλ P P for the formation of the “ λ-powered set ” of K. To avoid notational complica- tions, here and elsewhere if necessary, we identify and its (metric) complete closure of not necessarily proper (i.e., the set of allK convex, closed, bounded, nonempty, but not necessarily int K = ) convex bodies. Cauchy sequences in converge. 6 ∅ K In reference to the notations (2.1)–(2.4), we also use the notions of the width of K, the diameter of K and the inradius of C which are defined as
(2.17) w := w(K) := inf w(K, v∗): v∗ S∗ , ∈ (2.18) d := d(K) := diam (K) := sup x y : x, y K , k − k ∈ and
(2.19) r := r C) := sup r : B(0, r) C , ⊂ respectively. Finally, we introduce the notation
(2.20) D := D(K) := sup x . x K k k ∈ In view of (2.1)–(2.4) we have
(2.21) w(K)= w C , and by taking into consideration the notation (2.20), we also have
(2.22) d(K)= d C =2D C .
Observe also that C C implies r(C ) r(C). Moreover, we claim that ⊂ ≤ (2.23) r C = max r : B(0, r) C = r(C). ⊂ 7 Indeed, the maximum exists because the ball B 0, r C is the closure of the union of all balls in C and obviously it is contained in C by closedness. But r(C) can not exceed r C since by fatness int B 0, r C int C C. Whence ⊂ ⊂ r C = r C proving (2.23). Usually maximal chord length and width are considered in finite dimensional spaces, equipped with the inner product structure, and so they can be compared (after identifying X and X∗). See e.g. [W], Th. 7.6.1. For infinite dimensional spaces this is not possible, but some of the intrinsic connections can be proved. Lemma 2.1. w(K)=2r C . Proof. In view of (2.21) is enough to show that w(C)=2r(C) . Also by fatness we may assume that C is closed, that is C = C. So, for C = C take now B = B 0, r(C) C (c.f. (2.23)). In view of (2.4) and (2.17) we have to prove r ⊂ that r(C) = inf h(C, v∗): v∗ S∗ . The“ ” direction is obvious as Br C, 1 ∈ ≤ ⊂ v∗ = sup v∗ = sup v∗ and (2.3) yields r(C) = sup v∗ h(C, v∗), for k k B r Br Br ≤ all v∗ S∗. On∈ the other hand, by using the definition (2.19) of r(C), for any ε> 0 there exists some point x / C with x r + ε. Applying the separation theorem ∈ k k ≤ to this x and C, we conclude that r + ε x v∗, x h(C, v∗), for some ≥ k k ≥ h i ≥ v∗ S∗. Taking infimum we conclude also the “ ” part of the assertion. ∈ ≥ Corollary 2.2. w(K) = inf τ(K, v): v S . ∈ Proof. Since by (2.2) ∂C = τ(K,v) v : v S , the inradius r C is the 2 ∈ infimum of τ(K, v)/2 over all v nS. Therefore a referenceo to Lemma 2.1 proves the statement. ∈
Note that again by the definition of v∗ , for any v∗ S∗, one can always k k ∈ choose a v S so that v∗, v > 1 ε. Hence, the obvious relation ∈ h i −
(2.24) w(K, v∗) τ(K, v) v∗, v ≥ |h i| also implies the “ ” part of Corollary 2.2, while the other direction can be also obtained from≥ the following result.
Lemma 2.3. For any v S there exists v∗ S∗ such that ∈ ∈
(2.25) w(K, v∗)= τ(K, v) v∗, v . · h i τ Proof. Consider a normal vector v∗ S∗ to C at 2 v ∂C. Clearly τ ∈ ∈ h(C, v∗)= 2 v∗, v . Now (2.25) follows from the fact that w(C, v∗)= w(K, v∗) (see (2.4)). h i At this stage we can formulate the generalization of [W] Theorem 7.6.1 to infinite dimensional spaces.
8 Proposition 2.4. For all v S, v∗ S∗ we have the following sharp estimates ∈ ∈
w(K) τ(K, v) d(K), w(K) w(K, v∗) d(K) . ≤ ≤ ≤ ≤ Proof. The lower bounds follow from Corollary 2.2 and the definition (2.17), respectively. The upper bound τ(K, v) d(K) is an easy consequence of defi- nitions (2.18) and (2.2). These three inequalities≤ are obviously sharp. Now consider inequality (2.24) and take the supremum over S∗ on both sides. Since sup v∗, v : v∗ S∗ = v = 1, we get τ(K, v) sup w(K, v∗): h i ∈ k k ≤ v∗ S∗ . In view of d(K) = sup τ(K, v): v S , we have d(K) ∈ ∈ ≤ sup w(K, v∗): v∗ S∗ . To prove the converse inequality, by (2.2)–(2.4) ∈ is enough to consider C in place of K. But this is trivial since w(C, v∗) = τ 2h(C, v∗) = 2 sup v∗ = 2 sup v∗, v : v S 2 sup τ/2= d(K). ∂C 2 ∈ ≤ S Example 2.5. Let ℓ2 be the real Hilbert space of square summable sequences and let 2 ∞ 2 K := x = (x )∞ ℓ : w x 1 , n n=1 ∈ n n ≤ ( n=1 ) X where the weights wn satisfy 1 < wn < 2 (n N). Then K is a closed, bounded, convex set in ℓ2 with 0 in its interior. However,∈ 1 N (i) with wn := 1 + n (n ), we have d(K) = 2, but the supremum in (2.18) is not attained; ∈ 1 N √ (ii) with wn := 2 n (n ), we have w(K)= 2, but the infimum in (2.17) is not attained.− ∈ Proof. By definition, K is closed. Since B(0, 1/√2) K B(0, 1), we have √2 w(K) d(K) 2. Also 0 int B(0, 1/√2) int⊂ K and⊂ K is obvi- ously convex.≤ Moreover,≤ K≤is a centrally∈ symmetric convex⊂ body and therefore w(K) = 2 inf x : x ∂K and d(K) = 2 sup x : x ∂K . Let (en)n∞=1 be the standardk k unit vector∈ basis of ℓ2 where e k:=k (0,...,∈ 0, 1, 0,..., 0,...), n with 1 at the nth place. In case (i), 1 e ∂K, hence d(K) 2 (n N) √wn n ∈ ≥ √wn ∈ and we find d(K) = 2. On the other hand, for wn > 1 (n N) it is clear that 2 2 ∈ any x K 0 satisfies xn < wnxn 1, hence x < 1, and d(K) is not ∈ \{ } n n ≤ k k attained. P P Similarly, in case (ii), for any v∗ = v = (vn) S∗ = Sℓ we get ∈ ℓ2 2 1 1 1 1 h(K, v∗) v∗, v = > = , 2 2 ≥ * wnvn + wnvn √2 v∗ 2 √2 n n k k qP qP 1 2 and hence w(K, v∗) > √2. Now since w(K, e )=2 e = √2, n √wn · n √wn → we have w(K)= √2. But w(K)= √2 is not attained.
9 3 Basic properties
Lemma 3.1. The mapping , defined in (2.16), has the following monotonicity properties: P i) For K fixed, λ(K)= Kλ is increasing on R . ∈ K P + ii) For λ 1 fixed, λ(K)= Kλ is increasing on . ≥ P K iii) is increasing on [1, ). P K× ∞ iv) For λ< 1 fixed, λ(K) is not monotonic. P Proof. i) By definition (2.12), it suffices to show the assertion for an arbi- trary layer L which is obvious. ii) Again, it suffices to show the assertion for layers. Let L L′; then they have ⊂ to be parallel and in view of (2.7)we must have L = Lr,s(v∗), L′ = Lr′,s′ (v∗) and [r, s] [r′,s′], for some v∗ S∗ and r, s, r′,s′ R. Now (2.10) obviously λ ⊂ λ ∈ ∈ gives L L′ , as stated. Note that v∗ brings the question for layers to a ques- tion for real⊂ intervals. Moreover, it is easy to see e.g. from (2.10) that actually for any layer L and any λ 0 we have ≥ λ +1 λ 1 (3.1) Lλ = L + − ( L)= λ C(L)+ x with L x = (L x ) 2 2 − · 0 − 0 − − 0 i.e. with any symmetry center x0 of L. (In fact (3.1) is valid for any centrally symmetric convex set). (iii) Follows from i) and ii). iv) Let L L′ with common normal vector v∗, say. If r + s = r′ + s′, (where ⊂ λ λ L = L (v∗), L′ = L′ ′ ′ (v∗)), then L L′ for any λ 0. But if λ < 1, r,s r ,s ⊂ ≥ 1+λ λ λ r = r′ = 0, s = 1 and s′ > 1 λ , then L and L′ are disjoint. − Lemma 3.2. Kλ = Kµ. µ>λ T µ µ µ Proof. We have K = L (K, v∗) = L (K, v∗) = µ>λ µ>λ v∗ S∗ v∗ S∗ µ>λ λ λ ∈ ∈ L (K, v∗)= K T, as stated.T T T T v∗ S∗ ∈ T λ Proposition 3.3. K λ 0 is absorbing, and thus α(K, x) is finitely defined all over X. Moreover,{ α(}K,≥x) is bounded on bounded sets.
Proof. Since int K = , there exists a ball B(x0, r) K. By ii) of Lemma 6 ∅ λ λ ⊂ λ 3.1, for any λ 1 we have K B (x0, r) = B(x0, λr), and thus K ≥ ⊃ λ 0 ⊃ ≥ B(x0, λr)= X. Boundedness of α(K, x) on bounded sets follows fromS λ 1 S≥ 1 B(0, R) B(x , λr) Kλ λ max 1, x + R . ⊂ 0 ⊂ ≥ r k 0k n o 10 Corollary 3.4. For all x X we have x Kα(K,x), and in fact (2.13) is a minimum: ∈ ∈
(3.2) α(K, x) = min λ 0 : x Kλ . { ≥ ∈ } Proof. By Lemma 3.1 i), Proposition 3.3 implies that Λ := λ 0 : x Kλ is a nonempty interval with right endpoint at . By Lemma{ ≥ 3.2, Λ is∈ closed,} too. ∞ Proposition 3.5. α(K, x) as x . → ∞ k k → ∞ Proof. Since K is bounded, K B(0, R) for some 0
Proof. Let us denote α′ := α(K, x′), α′′ := α(K, x′′), β := tα′ + (1 t)α′′ − and xˆ := tx′ + (1 t)x′′, 0 t 1. Moreover, for a given v∗ S∗ denote − ≤ ≤ ∈ L := L(K, v∗)= Lr,s(v∗), with r := h(K, v∗), s := h(K, v∗). It is easy to see, e.g. by using (3.1),− that−
′ ′′ ′ ′′ β tα +(1 t)α α α (3.3) L (K, v∗)= L − = tL + (1 t)L . − ′ ′ ′′ ′′ In view of Corollary 3.4 we have x Kα Lα , x Kα Lα and therefore ′ ′′ ′ ′′ α α β ∈ ⊂ ∈ ⊂ xˆ tL + (1 t)L = L (K, v∗). Since this is true for all v∗, it follows that ∈ β − β xˆ L (K, v∗)= K . Hence α(K, xˆ) β and the Proposition is proved. ∈ v∗ S∗ ≤ T∈ Corollary 3.7. For fixed K , α(K, ) is continuous on X. ∈ K · Proof. If X is finite dimensional, say X = Rd, convexity itself implies conti- nuity, see for instance [Ro, Corollary 10.1.1.]. However, for infinite dimensional spaces finiteness and convexity do not imply continuity. Thus, here we have to invoke also local boundedness, furnished by the second half of Proposition 3.3. Now, a reference to [P, Proposition 1.6 and the following Remark] yields continuity; moreover, it follows that α(K, ) is locally Lipschitzian. Instead of utilizing this stronger assertion, we postpone· the question of Lipschitz bounds to later analysis. We will prove even more precise results in Proposition 5.3 and Theorem 5.5. Corollary 3.8. (i) Kλ = x X : α(K, x) λ . ∈ ≤ (ii) int Kλ = Kµ = int Kµ. µ<λ µ<λ S S
11 (iii) α(K, x) < λ if and only if x int Kλ. ∈ (iv) α(K, x)= λ if and only if x ∂Kλ. ∈ (v) α(K, x) > λ if and only if x ext Kλ := X Kλ. ∈ \ (vi) α < 1 for every K (X). K ∈ K Proof. (i) The proof is obvious in view of (2.13) and Lemma 3.1 i). (ii) If λ>µ, by Lemma 3.1 i) Kλ Kµ int Kµ. Hence int Kλ int Kµ and the “ ” inclusion follows. On⊃ the other⊃ hand, for any x int K⊃ λ there exists a ball⊃ B(x, r) Kλ = x X : α(K, x) λ in view∈ of i). If the value of α(K, x) were⊂λ, then α would∈ have a local≤ maximum at x which, in view of convexity, would imply that α is a constant multiple of λ. But this contradicts Proposition 3.5. Thus α(K, x) < λ, i.e. x Kµ, and the first ∈ µ<λ equality follows. Equality of the middle and the right expressionS is obvious from the first identity. (iii) follows from (i) and (ii), and (iv) follows from (i) and (iii), while (v) follows from (i) trivially. Finally, (ii) and and the fact that int K1 = int K = imply (vi). 6 ∅
4 Relatives of α(K, x)
There are various other geometric quantities, which are closely related to our definition of the Minkowski functional. Many of these equivalent forms and related quantities play a crucial role in approximation theoretic applications. Therefore, we find it appropriate to give a more or less comprehensive account of them here. The use of them will also be rather helpful in the forthcoming sections. Let us start with the description of the original definition of Minkowski, [Mi], as presented in Gr¨unbaum’s article, c.f. [G p. 246]. Denote
2 v∗, x h(K, v∗)+ h(K, v∗) (4.1) t := t(K, v∗, x) := h i− − . w(K, v∗)
For fixed v∗ this function is an affine linear functional in x X, while for ∈ fixed x it is a norm-continuous mapping from S∗ (or X∗ 0 ) to R. In fact, for \{ η} fixed v∗ S∗, t maps the layer L(K, v∗) to [ 1, 1], and L (K, v∗) to [ η, η]. Therefore,∈ the two forms of the following definition− are really equivalent;−
η (4.2) λ := λ(K, x) := sup η> 0 : v∗ S∗, x ∂L (K, v∗) ∃ ∈ ∈ = sup t(K, v∗, x) : v∗ S∗ = sup t(K, v∗, x): v∗ S∗ . ∈ ∈ n o n o Note that t(K, v ∗, x) = t (K, v∗, x) and therefore we don’t have to use the absolute value. − −
12 In fact, λ(K, x) expresses the supremum of the ratios of the distances be- 1 tween the point x and the symmetry hyperplane (H(K, v∗)+ H(K, v∗)) of 2 − any layer L(K, v∗) and the half-width w(K, v∗)/2. Now Minkowski’s definition was
min dist (x,H(K, v∗)) , dist (x,H(K, v∗)) ϕ(K, x) := inf { − } : v∗ S∗ , max dist (x,H(K, v )) , dist (x,H(K, v )) ∈ { ∗ − ∗ } which clearly implies the relation
1 λ(K, x) ϕ(K, x)= − (x K). 1+ λ(K, x) ∈
Although this ϕ(K, x) seems to be used traditionally only for x K, extending the definition to arbitrary x X yields the similar relation ∈ ∈ 1 λ(K, x) ϕ(K, x)= | − | (x X). 1+ λ(K, x) ∈
Proposition 4.1. We have α(K, x)= λ(K, x) ( x X). ∀ ∈ λ Proof. If x ∂L (K, v∗) for some λ > 0 and v∗ S∗, then obviously λ ε ∈ λ∈ ε x / L − (K, v∗) for any ε > 0, and hence also x / K − and α(K, x) λ. ∈ ∈ ≥ This proves α(K, x) λ(K, x). Let now v∗ S∗ be arbitrary. Then, in view ≥ t λ ∈ of (4.2) we have x ∂L| |(K, v∗) L (K, v∗) with t and λ defined in (4.1) and (4.2), respectively.∈ Therefore x ⊂Kλ and thus α λ follows. ∈ ≤ We now define some geometric quantities using homothetic images. Let us define
(4.3) β(K, x) := sup λ 0 : λ(K x)+ x K (x K), ≥ {− − }⊂ ∈ (4.4) ̺(K, x) := sup 0 <λ< 1 : K x + λ(K x) = (x / K), ∩ − ∅ ∈ n o (4.5) ̺∗(K, x) := sup 0 <λ< 1: int K x + λ(K x) = (x / K). ∩ − ∅ ∈ n o Let us mention that these geometric quantities were used in various ways for long. In particular, Schneider defines the set of parallel bodies of a body K with respect to another one, say D, c.f. [Sch p. 134] or (7.15) below. When D = K, this reduces to parallel bodies of K closely related to the above β. In fact, in [Note 3.1.14, p. 141 Sch] Schneider mentions that r(K, K) = maxK β is Minkowski’s measure of symmetry. Moreover, the above defined− ρ(K, x) is closely connected to a well-known notion, the so-called “associated bodies” of Hammer, c.f. [Sch, pp. 141-142] or [H]. Thus it will be used to establish the connection of the parametric set sequence Kλ to Hammer’s associated bodies.
13 In the following we also consider the set of straight lines
(4.6) := (K, x) := l = x + tv : t R : # K l > 1, v S = L L { ∈ { ∩ } ∈ = l = x +tv : t R : v S, K l = [a, b], a = b . { ∈ } ∈ ∩ 6 For x int K, contains all straight lines through x, but for x / K only some lines are∈ included.L When they need to be distinguished, we always∈ assume that the notation of the endpoints of K l is chosen so that x b x a . With these in mind, we define ∩ k − k≤k − k
2x a b (4.7) µ(K, x) := inf k − − k : l (x / K), b a ∈ L ∈ k − k 2x a b ν(K, x) := sup k − − k : l (x K), b a ∈ L ∈ k − k b x σ(K, x) := inf k − k : l (x X), a x ∈ L ∈ k − k a x ω(K, x) := sup k − k : l (x K), a b ∈ L ∈ k − k
2 b x a x γ (K, x) := inf k − kk −2 k : l (x K). ( 1 (b a) ∈ L) ∈ 2 −
Note the various restrictions on the domains of the definition of these quanti- ties. Note also that in fact σ(K, x) is exactly the equivalent form of ϕ(K, x) mentioned also in [G p. 247]. This form is used by even more authors than the original one, hence we could refer to common knowledge for ϕ(K, x)= σ(K, x). Still, we give proofs for all equivalences below. Proposition 4.2. i) In (4.5), the sup is actually a maximum.
ii) ̺(K, x)= ̺∗(K, x).
iii) There exists v∗ S∗ such that the supporting hyperplane (2.6) separates (weakly) K and∈x + ̺(K x), in other words −
(4.8) h(K, v∗) (1 ̺) v∗, x ̺h(K, v∗). ≤ − h i− −
Proof. i) Consider for some scalar 0 <σ< 1 the set M := Mσ := int K x + σ(K x) . Let us suppose first that M = . As x + σ(K x) is also a fat∩ set, this entails− that int M = , and so there6 exist∅ y M and−r > 0 such that even B(y, r) M. On the other6 ∅ hand, boundedness of∈K implies K B(x, R), ⊂ σ ε ⊂ for R large enough. Take now ε < rσ/R and consider z := − (y x)+ x. σ −
14 ε Clearly z y = σ y x < r, hence even z B(y, r) int K. Since y x + σk(K− xk), we havek −z k x + (σ ε)(K x) and∈ this shows⊂ that together ∈ − ∈ − − with Mσ = also Mσ ε = follows with some ε > 0. Thus M̺∗ = would 6 ∅ − 6 ∅ 6 ∅ lead to a contradiction with (4.5), and so M ∗ = , as needed. ̺ ∅ ii) According to part i) the convex sets int K and x + ̺∗(K x) are disjoint. Applying the separation theorem of convex sets (c.f. e.g. [Ru],− Theorem 3.4.) we conclude the existence of a v∗ S∗ separating them. Since int K = K, v∗ ∈ separates even K and x+̺∗(K x) at least in the weak (i.e. ) sense. However, − ≤ this entails that K and x + (̺∗ ε)(K x) are separated by v∗ even in the − − strong sense for any ε> 0. Hence, in particular K (̺∗ ε)(K x)+ x = , ∩ − − ∅ and ̺ ̺∗ ε ( ε > 0), which leads to ̺ ̺∗. On the other hand, it is clear ≥ − ∀ ≥ that for all x / K we have 0 <̺ ̺∗ < 1 and thus we arrive at ̺ = ̺∗. ∈ ≤ iii) Since ρ = ρ∗, by construction we see that v∗ separates K and x + ̺(K x), and a simple calculation gives (4.8) as well. − Proposition 4.3. For all x / K we have σ(K, x)= ̺(K, x). ∈ Proof. Let λ < σ := σ(K, x) be arbitrary. Then by definition (4.7) of σ, K and x + λ(K x) are disjoint, hence also λ ̺, which implies σ ̺. − ≤ ≤ On the other hand, in view of Proposition 4.2 iii) there exists v∗ separating K and x + ̺(K x), i.e. K x and ̺(K x), which implies even for arbitrary a, b K (and not− only for points− on the− same line l) that with some constant c> 0∈
(4.9) v∗, b x c v∗,̺(a x) 0. h − i≥ ≥ − ≥
Clearly, separation occurs only if v∗, y x does not vanish for points y int K at least. However, this yields b h x −̺ia x from (4.9), and by definition∈ (4.7) we get even σ ̺ after takingk − thek≥ infimumk − k over l . Together with the first part this completes≥ the proof. ∈ L µ(K,x) 1 Proposition 4.4. For all x / K we have σ(K, x)= − . ∈ µ(K,x)+1 Proof. For any x / K it is clear that µ> 1. Moreover, ∈ µ 1 2 2 − =1 =1 = µ +1 − µ +1 − inf 2x 2a / b a L k − k k − k b a b x =1 sup k − k = inf k − k = σ, − x a a x L k − k L k − k as asserted. α(K,x) 1 Proposition 4.5. For all x X K we have ̺(K, x)= − . ∈ \ α(K,x)+1
15 λ λ Proof. Suppose first that x K = L (K, u∗). Then a simple calcu- ∈ u∗ S∗ lation leads to the inequality T∈ λ 1 u∗, x w(K, u∗)+ h(K, u∗) h(K, u∗) ( u∗ S∗) h i≤ 2 2 − − ∀ ∈ which is inherited by α = inf λ : x Kλ as well. Thus, also for the particular { ∈ } v∗, furnished by Proposition 4.2 iii), we obtain α 1 (4.10) v∗, x w(K, v∗)+ h(K, v∗) h(K, v∗) . h i≤ 2 2 − − On combining (4.8) and (4.10) we are led to
α +1 α 1 h(K, v∗) (1 ̺) h(K, v∗)+ − h(K, v∗) ̺h(K, v∗) ≤ − 2 2 − − − and some calculation yields
(4.11) w(K, v∗) (α 1) ̺(α + 1) 0. − − ≥ α 1 Since w(K, v∗) w(K) > 0, (4.11) entails ̺ α−+1 . ≥ λ ≤ Let now 1 <λ<α, i.e. x / L (K, u∗) for some appropriate u∗ S∗. Then, ∈ λ 1 ∈ a simple calculation shows that already x + − L(K, u∗) x) is disjoint from λ+1 − λ 1 λ 1 L(K, u∗), thus even more so x + − (K x) K = , and − ̺ follows. λ+1 − ∩ ∅ λ+1 ≤ α 1 Letting here λ α− we evenn get α+1− ̺, ando the opposite inequality being already proven,→ this concludes the proof.≤ Proposition 4.6. For x K we have σ(K, x)= 1 1. ∈ ω(K,x) − Proof. b x b a 1 1 σ = inf || − || = inf || − || 1= 1= 1. a x a x − a x − ω − L L sup ||b−a|| || − || || − || || − || L Proposition 4.7. For x K we have σ(K, x)= β(K, x). ∈ Proof. Let a ∂K be any boundary point. It is easy to see (by closedness of K) that (4.3)∈ is actually a maximum, that is, β(K x)+ x K, and − − ⊂ therefore a′ := β(a x)+ x K. Consider now an l , K l = [a, b], − − ∈ b x a′ x ∈ L ∩ b x a x , and estimate k − k k − k = β. We only need to take k − k≤k − k a x ≥ a x infimum over l to obtain σ βk. − k k − k ∈ L ≥ For the other direction let us consider the set K′ := σ(K x)+ x. Let y K be arbitrary: we show that also z := σ(y x)+− x −K, leading to ∈ − − ∈ K′ K and σ β, which will prove Proposition 4.7. ⊂ ≤
16 Take now the straight line l through x and y (y = x, as for y = x also z = x and there remains nothing to prove). Let a be the6 endpoint of K l on the ∩ side of y, — i.e. y [x, a] and a ∂relK l. Then by definition (4.7) we must have for the other∈ endpoint b ∈K l, on∩ the other side of x, the inequality b x σ a x σ y x ∈= z∩ x . This shows that z [x, b] K and khence− zk≥Kkas− needed.k≥ k − k k − k ∈ ⊂ ∈ 1 λ(K,x) Proposition 4.8. For x K we have β(K, x)= − . ∈ 1+λ(K,x)
Proof. For arbitrary v∗ S∗ consider the layer L := L(K, v∗). By (4.1) a 1∈ t simple calculation gives 1+−|t| (L x)+ x L t := t(K, v∗, x) . Since the {− | | − } ⊂ function ϕ(t) := 1 t (0 t 1) is strictly decreasing, this last relation is also 1+−t ≤ ≤ 1 λ ∗ true for λ = supS t defined by (4.2). Thus 1+−λ (L x)+ x L (v∗ S∗), and hence | | − − ⊂ ∈ 1 λ (4.12) K = L(K, v∗) − L(K, v∗) x + x v∗ S∗ ⊃ v∗ S∗ −1+ λ − ∈ ∈ T T 1 λ = − (K x)+ x, −1+ λ −
1 λ proving that β 1+−λ . To deduce the≥ converse, consider now β(K x)+ x K. Forming sup- − − ⊂ porting layers normal to v∗ S∗, we find ∈
β L(K, v∗) x + x = L β(K x)+ x , v∗ L(K, v∗), − − − − ⊂ that is, β(L x)+ x L ( v∗ S∗). For any given v∗ S∗, however, the − − ⊂ ∀ ∈ 1 t ∈ 1 t maximal scalar to satisfy this relation is exactly 1+−|t| , hence β 1+−|t| (v∗ S∗), | | 1 λ≤ | | ∈ and taking infimum on the right hand side now gives β 1+−λ , referring to the decreasing shape of ϕ(t) again. ≤ 1 σ(K,x) Proposition 4.9. For arbitrary x K we have ν(K, x)= − . ∈ 1+σ(K,x) Proof. Taking care of the distinction between a and b in the notation for 1 t K l = [a, b] prescribed for l , we write with ϕ(t) := − ∩ ∈ L 1+t 2x a b x a b x ν = sup k − − k = sup k − k−k − k = b a x a + b x L k − k L k − k k − k b x b x 1 ka−xk b x 1 inf ka−xk 1 σ − k − k − L k − k = sup b x = sup ϕ k − k = b x = − . 1+ k − k a x 1 + inf k − k| 1+ σ L a x L a x k − k k − k L k − k Proposition 4.10. For x K we have γ2(K, x)=4ω(K, x) (1 ω(K, x)). ∈ −
17 Proof. Working in a similar fashion as in the proof of Proposition 4.9, but using here also the decreasing shape of ψ(s) := 4s(1 s) on [ 1 , 1], we can write − 2
2 x a b x 1 a x γ = inf k − k·k −2 k = inf 4(1 s)s : s = k − k 1 = 1 b a − 2 ≤ b a ≤ L 2 k − k L k − k a x = ψ sup k − k = ψ (ω)=4ω(1 ω). a b − L k − k Corollary 4.11. We have the following relations for α(K, x): (i) 1 σ(K, x) 1 ϕ(K, x) − = − (x K) 1+ σ(K, x) 1+ ϕ(K, x) ∈ α(K, x)= λ(K, x)= for x X, 1+ σ(K, x) 1+ ϕ(K, x) ∈ = (x / K) 1 σ(K, x) 1 ϕ(K, x) ∈ − − 1 β(K, x) (ii) α(K, x)= ν(K, x)= − = 1 γ2(K, x)=2ω(K, x) 1 1+ β(K, x) − − p for x K, ∈ 1+ ̺(K, x) 1+ ̺ (K, x) (iii) α(K, x)= µ(K, x)= = ∗ for x / K. 1 ̺(K, x) 1 ̺ (K, x) ∈ − − ∗ 5 Lipschitz bounds and linear growth
Lemma 5.1. Let L be any layer and let 0 <β<γ be arbitrary. Then we have γ β dist ∂Lβ,∂Lγ = − w(L). { } 2 Proof. This distance formula follows easily from (2.4) and (3.1). 1 Lemma 5.2. Let x = y X and let v := x y (x y). Then 6 ∈ k − k − 2 x y (5.1) α(K, x) α(K, y) k − k , − ≤ τ(K, v) with τ(K, v) defined by (2.2). Moreover, (5 .1) is best possible.
Proof. For an arbitrary v∗ S∗ let L := L(K, v∗). There exist unique scalars β,γ 0, so that x ∂Lβ∈and y ∂Lγ. If we take δ := x y , then ≥ β ∈ γ ∈ k − k it is obvious that dist ∂L ,∂L = δ v∗, v . On the other hand, by Lemma γ β{ }γ β · |h i| 5.1 this equals to | −2 | w(L)= | −2 | w(K, v∗). Hence, in view of (2.24) we find
2δ v∗, v 2δ (5.2) γ β + |h i| β + . ≤ w(K, v∗) ≤ τ(K, v)
18 Now if x ∂Lβ and α(K, x) = α, then by definition (4.2) and Proposition 4.1 we must have∈ β α. But then (5.2) implies γ α +2δ/τ, whence y Lα+2δ/τ ≤ α+2δ/τ ≤ ∈ for all v∗ S∗ and so y K and α(K, y) α +2δ/τ. By symmetry we also have ∈α α(K, y)+2∈δ/τ. These last two inequalities≤ yield (5.1). To show≤ that (5.1) is sharp, consider x = (s + δ)v, y = sv (with s large enough). For the given vector v S, take now a v∗ S∗ furnished by Lemma 2.3 satisfying (2.25). Consider the∈ point y = sv, the∈ affine linear functional (4.1) and the quantity (4.2). By Proposition 4.1 we can write
(5.3) f(s) := α(K,sv)= λ(K,sv) t(K, v∗,sv). ≥ Now, by taking into consideration (4.1) and (2.25), (5.3) easily leads to
2 v∗, v 2 (5.4) lim f(s)/s h i = . s →∞ ≥ w(K, v∗) τ(K, v) Since the function f(s)= α(K,sv) is convex on R, we get
(5.5) sup α(K, x) α(K, y): x, y X, x y = δv { − ∈ − } lim sup f(s + δ) f(s) δ lim f(s)/s . ≥ s − ≥ s →∞ →∞ It follows from (5.4) and (5.5) that (5.1) is sharp. Proposition 5.3. We have the uniform Lipschitz bound 2 (5.6) α(K, x) α(K, y) x y (x, y X). − ≤ w(K)k − k ∈
Proof. Combining Lemma 5.2 and Proposition 2.4 yields (5.6).
Lemma 5.4. Let K,K′ , and x X be arbitrary with the Hausdorff 1 ∈ K ∈ distance δ = δ(K,K′) < 2 w(K). Then we have
δ(K,K′) 4 x +4D(K)+2w(K) (5.7) α(K, x) α(K′, x) k k . − ≤ w(K ) w(K) 2δ(K,K′) −
Proof. For an arbitrary v∗ S∗ consider the affine linear functional t ∈ defined by (4.1) and similarly the affine linear functional t′, where
2 v∗, x h(K′, v∗)+ h(K′, v∗) (5.8) t′ := t(K′, v∗, x) := h i− − . w(K′, v∗)
By definition (2.14) of the Hausdorff distance we have h(K, v∗) h(K′, v∗) −
19 δ, w w′ 2δ (< w), and thus ≤ | − |≤ 2δ 2δ 2δ t t′ 2 v∗, x + +2D(K′) | − | ≤ h i ww′ w ww′ ≤
4 δ x + D(K)+ δ 2δ(w 2δ) (5.9) k k + − = ≤ w(w 2δ) w(w 2δ) − − δ 4 x +4D(K)+2w = k k . w(w 2δ) − In view of the definition (4.2), (5.9) implies
δ 4 x +4D(K)+2w (5.10) λ(K, x) λ(K′, x) k k . − ≤ w(w 2δ) − Now a reflection to Proposition 4.1 completes the proof of the Lemma. 1 Theorem 5.5. Let (K, x), (M, y) X with δ(K,M) < 2 w(K). Then we have ∈K× δ(K,M) 4 y +4D(K)+2w(K) (5.11) α(K, x) α(M, y) k k − ≤ w(K ) w(K) 2δ(K,M) − 2 x y + k − k. w(K)
Proof. On applying the triangle inequality α(K, x) α(M, y) − ≤ α(K, x) α(K, y) + α(K, y) α(M, y) , we can use Proposition 5.3 for the
first term− and Lemma 5.4 for the− second to obtain (5.11).
Already in Proposition 3.5 we have seen that α(K, x) x , and (5.1) with (5.5) suggest a linear speed growth. We can→ make ∞ thisk k obse→ ∞rvation much more precise. Lemma 5.6. Denoting the classical Minkowski functional (c.f. (1.1), (2.1)) of C as ϕ = , we have C k·kC 2 x (5.12) ϕ (x)= k k (0 = x X). C x 6 ∈ τ K, x k k Proof. In view of (2.2) and the fatness of C we see that τ := τ(K, v) = τ C, v = τ C, v . Choosing here v : = x/ x , central symmetry of C shows k k C λv : λ R = τ v, τ v . Hence definition (1.1), applied to C in place 2 2 of ∩{K, gives ϕ∈(x)=} 2 −x , as stated. C τk k
20 Theorem 5.7. For every x X, x = 0, we have ∈ 6 2 x 2D(K) (5.13) α(K, x) ϕ (x) = α(K, x) k k 1. − C − τ(K, x/ x ) ≤ w(K) −
k k
Proof. Lemma 5.6 implies the equality part of (5.13). Now let v∗ S∗ be arbitrary and consider the affine linear functional (4.1) for both K and∈C. As in Lemma 5.6, we can easily see that h C, v∗ = h C, v∗ by symmetry, and − that w(K, v )= w C, v by (2.4) and fatness of C. Therefore we find ∗ ∗ h(K, v∗)+ h(K, v∗) (5.14) t(K, v∗, x) t C, v∗, x = − − = − w(K, v∗) 2h(K, v∗) w(K, v∗) h(K, v∗) 2D(K) = − − =2 − 1 1. w(K, v∗) w(K, v∗) − ≤ w(K, v∗) − Taking into account the similar calculation
2h(K, v∗) 2D(K) t C, v∗, x t(K, v∗, x)= 1 1, − w(K, v∗) − ≤ w(K, v∗) − now we get by (2.17)
2D(K) 2D(K) (5.15) t(K, v∗, x) t C, v∗, x 1 1. − ≤ w(K, v∗) − ≤ w(K) −