Fixed Points of Mean Section Operators
Leo Brauner, Oscar Ortega-Moreno

TL;DR
This paper characterizes certain rotation-equivariant operators on functions on spheres and applies this to identify fixed points of Minkowski valuations, showing Euclidean balls are unique fixed points under specific conditions.
Contribution
It provides a new characterization of rotation-equivariant operators via the spherical Laplacian and extends fixed point results for Minkowski valuations.
Findings
Euclidean balls are the only fixed points for certain Minkowski valuations near the unit ball.
Characterization of operators using the mass distribution of the spherical Laplacian.
Extension of previous fixed point results by Ivaki (2017) and Schuster (2021).
Abstract
We characterize rotation equivariant bounded linear operators from to by the mass distribution of the spherical Laplacian of their kernel function on small polar caps. Using this characterization, we show that every continuous, homogeneous, translation invariant, and rotation equivariant Minkowski valuation that is weakly monotone maps the space of convex bodies with a support function into itself. As an application, we prove that if is in addition even or a mean section operator, then Euclidean balls are its only fixed points in some neighborhood of the unit ball. Our approach unifies and extends previous results by Ivaki from 2017 and the second author together with Schuster from 2021.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPoint processes and geometric inequalities · Geometric Analysis and Curvature Flows · Analytic and geometric function theory
Fixed Points of Mean Section Operators
Leo Brauner and Oscar Ortega-Moreno
Abstract
We characterize rotation equivariant bounded linear operators from to by the mass distribution of the spherical Laplacian of their kernel function on small polar caps. Using this characterization, we show that every continuous, homogeneous, translation invariant, and rotation equivariant Minkowski valuation that is weakly monotone maps the space of convex bodies with a support function into itself. As an application, we prove that if is in addition even or a mean section operator, then Euclidean balls are its only fixed points in some neighborhood of the unit ball. Our approach unifies and extends previous results by Ivaki from 2017 and the second author together with Schuster from 2021.
1 Introduction
Sections and projections of convex bodies play an essential role in the field of geometric tomography. By taking measurements in lower dimensions, one seeks to recover information about the geometry of the original object. A common procedure to work with these measurements is to assemble them into a new convex body. For instance, the projection body of a convex body is built from the volumes of shadows of cast from every possible direction. To give the exact definition, recall that a convex body (that is, a convex, compact subset) in , where throughout , can be defined by its support function , . The projection body of a convex body is defined by
[TABLE]
where denotes the orthogonal projection of onto the hyperplane and denotes the -dimensional volume. The geometric operator was already introduced by Minkowski and has since become central to convex geometry (see, e.g., [50, 67, 41, 5, 66, 37, 34, 44, 43, 42]).
A more recent instance of the procedure described above is the family of mean section operators introduced by Goodey and Weil [20, 21]. For , the -th mean section body of a convex body is essentially the average of all -dimensional sections of with respect to Minkowski addition. More precisely,
[TABLE]
where denotes the affine Grassmannian (that is, the space of -dimensional affine subspaces of ) and integration is with respect to a suitably normalized, positive, rigid motion invariant measure.
The projection body and mean section operators belong to a rich class of geometric operators acting on the space of convex bodies in . A Minkowski valuation is a map satisfying
[TABLE]
with respect to Minkowski addition whenever . Scalar valued valuations have a long history in convex geometry (see, e.g., [2, 3, 4, 8, 26, 33, 40, 10]). Their systematic study goes back to Hadwiger’s [27] famous characterization of the intrinsic volumes , , (see Section 2) as a basis for the space of continuous, rigid motion invariant scalar valuations.
The investigation of Minkowski valuations has originated from Schneider’s [52] research on Minkowski endomorphisms. However, it was the seminal work by Ludwig [37, 38] which prompted further development. In [37], Ludwig identifies Minkowski’s projection body map as the unique (up to a positive constant) continuous, translation invariant, affine contravariant Minkowski valuation, solving a problem posed by Lutwak. Following Ludwig’s steps, contributions of several authors (e.g., [1, 11, 14, 25, 39, 59, 65]) show that the convex cone of Minkowski valuations compatible with affine transformations is in many instances finitely generated. In contrast, a less restrictive condition such as rotation equivariance produces a significantly larger class of valuations, making their classification challenging.
Denote by the space of all continuous, translation invariant Minkowski valuations intertwining rotations and by the subspace of Minkowksi valuations homogeneous of degree . A map is said to have degree if for every and . By a classical result of McMullen [46], continuous, translation invariant, homogeneous valuations can only have integer degree . In recent years, substantial progress (e.g., [32, 57, 58, 60, 61]) to obtain a Hadwiger-type theorem for the space has led to the following representation by Dorrek [15] involving the spherical convolution of an integrable function and the area measures of a convex body (see Section 2): for every of degree , there exists a unique centered, invariant function such that for every ,
[TABLE]
A function on is said to be centered if it is orthogonal to all linear functions. We call the function in 1 the generating function of . If for all , we call trivial.
For , the -th projection body map is defined by , . Note that is Minkowski’s projection body map. Each operator belongs to and is generated by the support function of a line segment, as can be easily deduced from Cauchy’s projection formulas (see, e.g., [19, p. 408]). The -th mean section operator , up to a suitable translation, also belongs to , where . However, unlike for the projection body map, the determination of their generating functions is non-trivial and involves the functions employed by Berg in his solution of the Christoffel problem [13]. For each dimension , Berg [7] constructed a function with the property that for every convex body , where is the invariant function on associated to and denotes the Steiner point of (see Section 2). Goodey and Weil [20, 22] showed that for and every ,
[TABLE]
where is some constant.
Fixed points of geometric operators are closely related to a range of open problems in convex geometry (see, e.g., [12, 50, 19]). For instance, Petty’s conjecture [50] can be expressed in terms of fixed points of up to affine transformations. This was first observed by Schneider [54] and later extended by Lutwak [42] to projection body maps of all degrees. The global classification of fixed points of has only been settled in the polytopal case by Weil [66] and in the -homogeneous case by Schneider [53]. It is conjectured that the only smooth fixed points of are ellipsoids. Locally around the unit ball, this was recently confirmed independently by Saraoglu and Zvavitch [51] and Ivaki [30], motivated by the work of Fish, Nazarov, Ryabogin, and Zvavitch [18].
For degree , Ivaki [29] showed that in some neighborhood of the unit ball, the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls. The second author and Schuster [48, 47] have shown that this phenomenon also holds for the class of even regular Minkowski valuations, that is, Minkowski valuations generated by the support function of an origin-symmetric convex body of revolution that has a boundary with positive Gauss curvature. A line segment is clearly not of this kind, so the results by Ivaki and by the second author and Schuster appear to be disconnected. In this paper, we bridge this gap with our first main result.
Theorem A**.**
Let and be generated by an origin-symmetric convex body of revolution. Then there exists a neighborhood of the unit ball where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls, unless is a multiple of the projection body map, in which case ellipsoids are also fixed points.
The case when (that is, is a Minkowski endomorphism) has been settled globally by Kiderlen [32]. With A, we unify the previous results on regular Minkowski valuations and projection body maps obtained in [48] and [30, 29], respectively. However, none of them (including A) cover any local uniqueness of fixed points of mean section operators. This is because Berg’s functions are neither even nor support functions. By further extending the techniques employed in the proof of A, we obtain the following.
Theorem B**.**
For , there exists a neighborhood of the unit ball where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
Throughout, this is to be understood as follows: there exists some such that if has a support function satisfying for some and , and if is a dilated and translated copy of , then is a Euclidean ball. We want to emphasize that we will obtain both Theorem A and B from a more general result (5.2) that applies to all weakly monotone, homogeneous Minkowski valuations in the space . A Minkowski valuation is called weakly monotone if whenever and the Steiner points of and are at the origin. The proof of 5.2 requires the convolution transform defined by its generating function to be a bounded operator from to . The following theorem provides necessary and sufficient conditions for the boundedness of convolution transforms.
Theorem C**.**
Let be invariant. Then the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to if and only if is a signed measure and
[TABLE]
Here, denotes the north pole of the unit sphere fixing the axis of revolution of and , where is the spherical Laplacian on . C tells us that the regularity of the convolution transform defined by is determined by the mass distribution of on small polar caps. It turns out that generating functions of weakly monotone Minkowski valuations exhibit precisely this behavior.
Theorem D**.**
Let and with generating function . Then is locally Lipschitz outside the poles and is a signed measure on . Moreover, if is in addition weakly monotone, then there exists such that for all ,
[TABLE]
As an immediate consequence of Theorems C and D, we obtain the following.
Corollary**.**
Let and be weakly monotone with generating function . Then the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to . In particular, maps the space of convex bodies with a support function into itself.
To the best of our knowledge, apart from smooth Minkowski valuations, this was previously only known for the projection body operators: it was shown by Martinez-Maure [45] that the cosine transform is a bounded linear operator from to , which is an essential tool in the proof of Ivaki’s [30, 29] fixed point results.
We want to remark that the continuity of proven in D confirms a conjecture by Dorrek. Moreover, note that 4 relates the regularity of to the degree of homogeneity. It has been shown by Parapatits and Schuster [49] that if a function generates a Minkowski valuation of a certain degree, then it also generates Minkowski valuations of all lower degrees. Using 4, it can be shown that for each , the Berg function generates a weakly monotone Minkowski valuation of degree but not higher.
The article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we collect the required background on convex geometry and analysis on the unit sphere. In Section 3, we investigate regularity of zonal measures and convolution transforms, proving C. In Section 4, we show that weak monotonicity of Minkowski valuations implies additional regularity of the generating function, proving D. Finally, in Section 5 we apply our results from the previous sections to the study of fixed points. There we prove Theorems A and B as well as a general result on even Minkowski valuations.
2 Background Material
In the following, we collect basic facts about convex bodies, mixed volumes and area measures. We also discuss differential geometry and the theory of distributions on the unit sphere. In the final part of this section, we gather the required material from harmonic analysis, including spherical harmonics and the convolution of measures. As general references for this section, we cite the monographs by Gardner [19], Schneider [55], Hörmander [28], Lee [35, 36], and Groemer [24].
Convex geometry.
The space of convex bodies naturally carries an algebraic and topological structure. The so-called Minkowski operations, dilation and the Minkowski addition, are given by , , and . The Hausdorff metric can be defined as
[TABLE]
where denotes the unit ball of .
As was pointed out before, every convex body is uniquely determined by its support function , , which is homogeneous of degree one and subadditive. Conversely, every function with these two properties is the support function of a unique body . Associating a convex body with its support function is compatible with the structure of , that is, and , where denotes the maximum norm on the unit sphere. Moreover, if and only if . In addition, for every and .
The Steiner formula expresses the volume of the parallel set of a convex body at distance as a polynomial in . To be precise,
[TABLE]
where denotes the -dimensional volume of and the coefficient is called the -th intrinsic volume of for . The intrinsic volumes are important quantities carrying geometric information on convex bodies. For instance, is the volume, the surface area, and the mean width.
The surface area measure of a convex body is the positive measure on defined as follows: the measure of a measurable subset is the -dimensional Hausdorff measure of all boundary points of with outer unit normal in . Analogously to 2.1, there is a Steiner-type formula for surface area measures:
[TABLE]
where the measure is called the -th area measure of for . Each of the area measures is centered, meaning that they integrate all linear functions to zero. By a theorem of Alexandrov-Fenchel-Jessen (see, e.g., [55, Section 8.1]), if has non-empty interior, then each area measure determines up to translations.
The Steiner point of a convex body is defined as . The Steiner point map is the unique continuous, vector valued valuation intertwining rigid motions (see, e.g., [55, p. 181]).
Differential geometry.
As an embedded submanifold of , the unit sphere naturally inherits the structure of an -dimensional Riemannian manifold. We identify the tangent space at each point with , which allows us to interpret tensor fields as maps from into some Euclidean space.
Throughout, we will only work with tensor fields up to order two. That is, we define a vector field on as a map such that for every , and a -tensor field on as a map such that and for every . For instance, let be the orthogonal projection onto for each . Then the -tensor field acts as the identity on each tangent space. The inner product of two -tensors and on is given by .
We denote by the standard covariant derivative and by the divergence operator on . The operators and are related via the spherical divergence theorem, which states that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for every smooth function , smooth vector field , and smooth -tensor field on .
The spherical gradient and spherical Hessian of a smooth function can be expressed in terms of derivatives along smooth curves. If is a geodesic in , then
[TABLE]
For the first identity, does not actually need to be a geodesic; for the second identity, the fact that is a geodesic eliminates an additional first order term compared to a general smooth curve. All geodesics in the unit sphere are of the form
[TABLE]
for some orthogonal vectors , where is the constant speed of .
Distributions.
For an open interval , we denote by the space of test functions (that is, compactly supported smooth functions) on , endowed with the standard Fréchet topology. The elements of the continuous dual space are called distributions on . Moreover, we denote the pairing of a test function and a distribution by . The derivative of and the product of a smooth function with are defined by
[TABLE]
The space of distributions on the unit sphere is defined as the continuous dual space of the space of smooth functions, endowed with the standard Fréchet topology. We denote the pairing of a test function and a distribution by . By virtue of the spherical divergence theorem, we define the spherical gradient and spherical Hessian of a distribution by
[TABLE]
respectively, where is an arbitrary smooth vector field and is an arbitrary smooth -tensor field on .
The group acts on the space in a natural way: for and , we define by . By duality, the action of extends to distributions: for , we define by . A map is said to be equivariant if it intertwines rotations, that is, for every in the domain of .
We may identify the space of finite signed measures on with a subspace of . By virtue of to the Riesz-Markov-Kakutani representation theorem, a distribution is defined by a finite signed measure on if and only if it is continuous on with respect to uniform convergence. Similarly, the space of signed measures on corresponds to the subspace of distributions which are continuous on with respect to uniform convergence.
Harmonic analysis.
Denote by the space of spherical harmonics of dimension and degree , that is, the space of harmonic, -homogeneous polynomials on , restricted to the unit sphere . The spherical Laplacian is a second-order uniformly elliptic self-adjoint operator on that intertwines rotations. It turns out that the spaces are precisely the eigenspaces of . Consequently, decomposes into a direct orthogonal sum of them. Each space is a finite dimensional and irreducible invariant subspace of and for every , we have that . For the box operator , this implies
[TABLE]
Throughout, we use to denote a fixed but arbitrarily chosen pole of and write for the subgroup of rotations in fixing . Functions, measures, and distributions on that are invariant under the action of are called zonal. Clearly the value of a zonal function at depends only on the value of , so there is a natural correspondence between zonal functions on and functions on . For a zonal function , we define by and for , we define by .
By identifying the unit sphere with the homogeneous space , the natural convolution structure on can be used to define a convolution structure on . For an extensive exposition of this construction, we refer the reader to the excellent article by Grinberg and Zhang [23]. The spherical convolution of a smooth function and a zonal distribution is defined by
[TABLE]
Note that this definition does not depend on the special choice of and that .
The convolution transform is a self-adjoint endomorphism of intertwining rotations and thus extends by duality to an endomorphism of which also intertwines rotations. That is, for a distribution ,
[TABLE]
This definition includes the convolution of signed measures. Moreover, the convolution product is Abelian on zonal distributions. In the special case when and is zonal, the convolution product can be expressed as
[TABLE]
For each , the space of zonal spherical harmonics in is one-dimensional and spanned by , where denotes the Legendre polynomial of dimension and degree . The orthogonal projection onto the space turns out to be the convolution transform associated with , that is,
[TABLE]
where is the surface area of . By duality, extends to a map from onto . Moreover, the formal Fourier series of a distribution converges to in the weak sense. If is zonal, then
[TABLE]
where .
Throughout this work, we repeatedly use spherical cylinder coordinates on . For and ,
[TABLE]
For a signed measure that carries no mass at the poles, we denote by the unique finite signed measure on such that
[TABLE]
By 2.4, this naturally extends the notation for . From the above, the Fourier coefficient can be computed as
[TABLE]
The Funk-Hecke Theorem states that the spherical harmonic expansion of the convolution product of a signed measure and a zonal signed measure is given by
[TABLE]
Hence the convolution transform acts as a multiple of the identity on each space of spherical harmonics. The Fourier coefficients are called the multipliers of .
For the explicit computations of multipliers, the following identity relating Legendre polynomials of different dimensions and degrees is useful:
[TABLE]
The Legendre polynomials also satisfy the following second-order differential equation, which also determines them up to a constant factor:
[TABLE]
3 Regularity of the Spherical Convolution
3.1 Zonal Measures
In this section, we investigate the regularity of zonal signed measures. We provide necessary and sufficient conditions to decide whether and are signed measures and provide explicit formulas for them. As one might expect, this can be expressed in terms of the corresponding measure on . In the smooth case, we have the following.
Lemma 3.1** ([48]).**
Let be zonal. Then for all ,
[TABLE]
Throughout, denotes the orthogonal projection onto , and denotes the rotated copy of with axis of revolution , that is, where is such that . Moreover, for every , we define two operators and by
[TABLE]
By a change to spherical cylinder coordinates (see 2.4), we obtain
[TABLE]
which shows that and are adjoint to each other. Hence, by continuity and duality, both operators naturally extend to signed measures. With these notations in place, we prove the following dual version of 3.1.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let , let be a smooth vector field on , and be a smooth -tensor field on . Then for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be an arbitrary test function. Due to the spherical divergence theorem and 3.1,
[TABLE]
We transform both integrals to spherical cylinder coordinates. For the left hand side, we have
[TABLE]
and for the right hand side,
[TABLE]
where the final equality is obtained from integration by parts. This yields 3.3.
For the second part of the lemma, let be an arbitrary test function. Due to the spherical divergence theorem for -tensor fields and 3.2,
[TABLE]
We transform both integrals to spherical cylinder coordinates. For the left hand side, we have
[TABLE]
and for the right hand side,
[TABLE]
where the final equality is obtained from integration by parts. This yields 3.4. ∎
Throughout Sections 3 and 4, we repeatedly apply the following two technical lemmas. Their proofs are given in Appendix A.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let and such that . Then is a locally integrable function and . Moreover, whenever is such that both and are bounded on , then
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let , , and . Then for all and , there exists a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
For now, we only the need the following instances of 3.4.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let , be a smooth vector field, and be smooth -tensor field on . Then for all , there exists a constant such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
For the proof of 3.7, note that , where
[TABLE]
Clearly, , so we may apply 3.6 for and . The proof of 3.8 is analogous. ∎
In the following proposition, we characterize the zonal signed measures for which their spherical gradient is a (vector-valued) signed measure and show that identity 3.1 extends to this case in the weak sense.
Proposition 3.6**.**
Let be zonal. Then if and only if does not carry any mass at the poles and . In this case, for some zonal such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
First, let be a smooth vector field on and note that if does not carry any mass on the poles or if , then
[TABLE]
where the second equality is obtained from a change to spherical cylinder coordinates and the final equality from 3.3.
Suppose now that does not carry any mass on the poles and that . Then and thus is absolutely continuous, that is, for some zonal . By 3.7, we have that and are bounded, so for every smooth vector field on , 3.10 and 3.5 yield
[TABLE]
where we applied a change to cylinder coordinates in the second equality. This proves identity 3.9 and in particular that .
Conversely, suppose that . Take an arbitrary test function and define a smooth vector field by
[TABLE]
Then and , thus 3.10 yields
[TABLE]
Therefore, we obtain the estimate
[TABLE]
where denotes the total variation of . Hence, . Denoting , the first part of the proof shows that , and thus,
[TABLE]
Since and are distributions of order one (see, e.g., [28, Section 2.1]), this is clearly possible only if carries no mass at the poles. ∎
Employing the same technique as in 3.6, we can characterize signed measures for which their spherical Hessian is a (matrix-valued) signed measure. Identities 3.1 and 3.2 extend to this case in the weak sense.
Proposition 3.7**.**
Let be zonal. Then if and only if carries no mass at the poles and . In this case, for some zonal such that and for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
First, take a smooth -tensor field on and note that if does not carry any mass on the poles or if , then
[TABLE]
where the second equality is obtained from a change to spherical cylinder coordinates and the final equality from 3.4.
Suppose now that carries no mass at the poles and that . Then , and thus, are absolutely continuous, that is, for some zonal . Moreover, 3.3 implies that , and thus, 3.6 implies and identity 3.11. By 3.8, we have that and are bounded, so for every smooth -tensor field on , 3.13 and 3.5 yield
[TABLE]
where we applied a change to cylinder coordinates in the second equality. This proves 3.12 and in particular that .
Conversely, suppose now that . Take an arbitrary test function and define a smooth -tensor field on by
[TABLE]
Then , and satisfies and , thus
[TABLE]
Therefore, we obtain the estimate:
[TABLE]
where denotes the total variation of . Hence, . Denoting , the first part of the proof shows that , and thus,
[TABLE]
Since and are distributions of order two (see, e.g., [28, Section 2.1]), this is clearly possible only if carries no mass at the poles. ∎
For later purposes, it will be useful to describe the regularity of zonal functions in terms of their Laplacian.
Lemma 3.8**.**
If is zonal and , then for almost all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be an arbitrary test function. Define and note that . Then Lebesgue-Stieltjes integration by parts yields
[TABLE]
where the third equality follows from the characteristic property of the pushforward measure and the final equality, from the definition of the distributional spherical Laplacian. Taking the tracein 3.2,
[TABLE]
By a change to spherical cylinder coordinates, we obtain
[TABLE]
Since was arbitrary, identity 3.14 holds for almost all . ∎
From now on, we denote by
[TABLE]
the spherical cap around with radius . The following proposition classifies zonal functions for which their spherical Hessian is a signed measure in terms of the behavior of on small polar caps.
Proposition 3.9**.**
For a zonal function , the following are equivalent:
- (a)
, 2. (b)
* and ,* 3. (c)
* and .*
Proof.
Each of the three statements above implies that . Due to 3.8, we have that and for almost all ,
[TABLE]
Taking the distributional derivative on both sides yields
[TABLE]
in . According to 3.7, condition (a) is fulfilled if and only if is a finite signed measure. Due to 3.16 and 3.17, this is the case if and only if
[TABLE]
The substitution then shows that conditions (a) and (b) are equivalent.
For the equivalence of (b) and (c), it suffices to show that (1-t^{2})^{-1}\big{|}\int_{\{u:\lvert\langle\bar{e},u\rangle\rvert>t\}}f(u)du\big{|} is integrable on . To that end, using spherical cylinder coordinates, we estimate
[TABLE]
for . Since , 3.6 and 3.3 imply that is integrable. This completes the proof. ∎
We want to note that 3.8 and 3.9 still hold if the zonal function is replaced by a zonal signed measure that carries no mass at the poles.
Example 3.10**.**
For Berg’s function we have that is an integrable function on the sphere and is a finite signed measure. Hence 3.8 implies that is integrable on . At the same time, the integrability condition in 3.9 (c) is clearly violated, so the distributional spherical Hessian is not a finite signed measure.
3.2 Convolution Transforms
Linear operators on functions on the unit sphere intertwining rotations can be identified with convolution transforms, as the following theorem shows.
Theorem 3.11** ([56]).**
If is zonal, then the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator on . Conversely, if is an equivariant bounded linear operator on , then there exists a unique zonal such that .
The regularizing properties of a convolution transform correspond to the regularity of its integral kernel. In this section, we classify rotation equivariant bounded linear operators from to in terms of their integral kernel, proving C. We require the following two lemmas.
Lemma 3.12**.**
Let and let be a smooth curve in . Then for all and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be an arbitrary test function. On the one hand, spherical cylinder coordinates yield
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
By 3.1 and a change to spherical cylinder coordinates, we obtain
[TABLE]
where the final equality follows from integration by parts. This implies 3.18.
For the second part of the lemma, let be an arbitrary test function. On the one hand, spherical cylinder coordinates yield
[TABLE]
On the other hand,
[TABLE]
By 3.1 and a change to cylinder coordinates, we obtain
[TABLE]
where the final equality follows from integration by parts. This implies 3.19. ∎
Lemma 3.13**.**
Let and let be a smooth curve in . Then for all and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
For the proof of 3.20, apply estimate 3.6 to the right hand side of 3.18 in the instance where . To obtain 3.21, apply estimate 3.6 to the right hand side of 3.19 in the instances where and . ∎
Theorem 3.14**.**
If is zonal and , then the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to . Conversely, if is an equivariant bounded linear operator from to , then there exists a unique zonal satisfying such that . In this case, for every and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose that is zonal and that . 3.11 implies that is a bounded linear operator on . First, we will verify identity 3.22 for an arbitrary smooth function . Take a point and a tangent vector . Choosing a smooth curve in such that and yields
[TABLE]
Note that 3.6 and 3.3 imply that is a finite signed measure and is an integrable function on . Due to the estimate 3.20, we have that is bounded uniformly in for all sufficiently small , so we may interchange differentiation and integration and obtain
[TABLE]
where the second equality follows from 3.18, the third from 3.5, and the final equality from a change to spherical cylinder coordinates. This proves identity 3.22 for all .
As an immediate consequence, for some constant and all . Thus, extends to a bounded linear operator . Since is a bounded operator and the inclusion is continuous, agrees with . By density and continuity, 3.22 is valid for all .
For the second part of the theorem, suppose that is an equivariant bounded linear operator from to . Then 3.11 implies that for a unique zonal . According to 3.6, it suffices to show that carries no mass at the poles and that . To that end, take an arbitrary test function , a point , a unit tangent vector , and define
[TABLE]
Then is a smooth function satisfying , where is given by . Choosing a smooth curve in such that and yields
[TABLE]
where the final equality is due to 3.18. Observe that and that uniformly in for all sufficiently small , so we may interchange differentiation and integration and obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, we arrive at the following estimate:
[TABLE]
This shows that . Denoting , 3.6 and the first part of the proof show that is a bounded linear operator from to . Hence also
[TABLE]
is a bounded linear operator from to , where is the reflection at the origin. Clearly, this is possible only if carries no mass at the poles. ∎
Theorem 3.15**.**
If is zonal and , then the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to . Conversely, if is an equivariant bounded linear operator from to , then there exists a unique zonal satisfying such that . In this case, for every and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose that is zonal and that . Then due to 3.7. According to 3.14, the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from from and identity 3.23 holds for every . Next, we will verify identity 3.24 for an arbitrary smooth function . Let be a point and a tangent vector. Choosing a geodesic in such that and yields
[TABLE]
Note that 3.7 and 3.3 imply that is a finite signed measure and both and are integrable functions on . Due to 3.20, we have that is bounded uniformly in for all sufficiently small , so we may interchange differentiation and integration and obtain
[TABLE]
where the second equality follows from 3.18 and the final equality from 3.5. Due to 3.21, we have that is uniformly bounded in for all sufficiently small , so we may again interchange differentiation and integration and obtain
[TABLE]
where the second equality follows from 3.19 and 2.2, the third from 3.5, and the final equality from a change to spherical cylinder coordinates. Since the space of -tensors on the tangent space is spanned by pure tensors , this proves identity 3.24 for all .
As an immediate consequence, for some constant and all . Thus, extends to a bounded linear operator . Since is a bounded operator and the inclusion is continuous, agrees with . By density and continuity, 3.24 is valid for all .
For the second part of the theorem, suppose that is an equivariant bounded linear operator from to . Then 3.14 implies that for a unique zonal . According to 3.7, it suffices to show that is a finite signed measure. To that end, take an arbitrary test function , a point , a unit tangent vector and define
[TABLE]
Then is a smooth function satisfying and , where is given by . Choosing a geodesic in such that and yields
[TABLE]
where the final equality is due to 3.19. Observe that and that uniformly in for all sufficiently small , so we may interchange differentiation and integration and obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore, we arrive at the following estimate:
[TABLE]
This shows that , which completes the proof. ∎
In Theorems 3.14 and 3.15, we identify convolution transforms with zonal functions for which the spherical gradient and Hessian are signed measures, respectively. In general, checking these conditions directly can be difficult. However, Propositions 3.6, 3.7, and 3.9 provide more practical equivalent conditions. In this way, we obtain C.
Proof of C.
According to 3.15, the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to if and only if . Due to 3.8, this is the case precisely when is a finite signed measure and satisfies 3. ∎
For a zonal , integration and differentiation can be interchanged, and thus,
[TABLE]
for every . In light of 3.12, we see that 3.24 naturally extends this identity to general . Denote by the Hessian of the -homogeneous extension of a function on . Since , as a direct consequence of 3.24, we obtain the following formula for:
[TABLE]
As an instance of 3.15, we obtain Martinez-Maure’s [45] result on the cosine transform, which is discussed in the following example.
Example 3.16**.**
The cosine transform is the convolution transform generated by the function , that is, . Thus in the sense of distributions, so 3.7 and 3.15 imply that the cosine transform is a bounded linear operator from to .
Moreover, and , where denotes the Lebesgue measure on the -dimensional subsphere . Hence 3.25 shows that for every ,
[TABLE]
Example 3.17**.**
For Berg’s function , we have seen in 3.10 that is an integrable function on while the distributional spherical Hessian is not a finite signed measure. Thus, Theorems 3.14 and 3.15 imply that the convolution transform is a bounded operator from to but not a bounded operator from to .
4 Regularity of Minkowski Valuations
In this section, we study the regularity of Minkowski valuations of degrees , proving D. In the -homogeneous case, Schuster [57] showed that is generated by a continuous function. For other degrees of homogeneity, all that is known about the regularity of a generating function is that is a signed measure and is integrable (due to Dorrek [15]). Using our study of regularity of zonal functions in Section 3, we are able to refine Dorrek’s results.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let and with generating function . Then
- (i)
* is a signed measure on ,* 2. (ii)
* is a locally Lipschitz function on ,* 3. (iii)
* is differentiable almost everywhere on , and .*
Proof.
By [60, Theorem 6.1(i)], the function also generates a Minkowski valuation of degree one. It follows from [15, Theorem 1.2] that , and thus , is a signed measure on . Therefore, 3.14 shows that is an function. This implies that is locally Lipschitz on , and thus, is locally Lipschitz on . Moreover, is in , so due to 3.6, the distributional gradient is in . Since is locally Lipschitz on , according to Rademacher’s theorem, the classical gradient of exists almost everywhere on and agrees with the distributional gradient. ∎
As a consequence of Theorems 3.14 and 4.1, we obtain the following.
Corollary 4.2**.**
For , every Minkowski valuation maps convex bodies with a support function to strictly convex bodies.
Proof.
Denote by the generating function of . 4.1 (iii) implies that . According to 3.14, the convolution transform is a bounded operator from to . Suppose now that has a support function. Then has a continuous density, so is a function, and thus, is strictly convex (see, e.g., [55, Section 2.5]). ∎
We now turn to weakly monotone Minkowski valuations, for which we will obtain additional regularity of their generating functions. Recall that is called weakly monotone if whenever and the Steiner points of and are at the origin.
Theorem 4.3**.**
Let and be weakly monotone with generating function . Then is a weakly positive measure on and there exists such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Note that Theorems 4.1 and 4.3 together yield D. Here and in the following, a distribution on is called weakly positive if it can be written as the sum of a positive measure and a linear function. In particular, every weakly positive distribution is a signed measure. The following characterization of weak positivity is a simple consequence of the Hahn-Banach separation theorem. For completeness, we provide a proof in Appendix A.
Lemma 4.4**.**
A distribution is weakly positive if and only if for every positive centered smooth function .
The proof of 4.3 relies on the behavior of area measures of convex bodies on spherical caps. We need the following classical result by Firey (recall the notation introduced in 3.15).
Theorem 4.5** ([17]).**
Let and be a convex body. Then for every ,
[TABLE]
where depends only on and and denotes the diameter of .
The area measures of the -dimensional disk in , which we denote by , exhibit the worst possible asymptotic behavior in 4.2. This is shown in the example below.
Example 4.6**.**
We seek to compute the area measures of . For a convex body it is well known that is the area of the reverse spherical image of a measurable subset . Thus,
[TABLE]
In order to compute the area measures of lower order, note that if a convex body with absolutely continuous area measure of order lies in a hyperplane (where ), then
[TABLE]
where and denote the densities of the -th area measure of with respect to the ambient space and the hyperplane , respectively (see [31, Lemma 3.15]). Hence, for ,
[TABLE]
By a change to spherical cylinder coordinates, the measure of a polar cap can be estimated by
[TABLE]
We require the following simple lemma, which relates the behavior of two positive measures and on small polar caps to the behavior of their convolution product.
Lemma 4.7**.**
Let and let be zonal. Then for all and ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
First observe that 4.5 implies 4.6 by reflecting at the origin. Moreover, we may assume that . The general case can be obtained from this by applying a suitable rotation to the measure and exploiting the equivariance of the convolution transform . Next, note that
[TABLE]
as can be easily shown by approximating with smooth functions from below and applying the principle of monotone convergence. Thus
[TABLE]
where the first inequality follows from shrinking the domain of integration and the second from the fact that for all combined with the monotonicity of . ∎
Now we are in a position to prove 4.3.
Proof of 4.3.
Define a functional on the space of smooth support functions by . For every , the function is a support function whenever is sufficiently small. Therefore, we may compute the first variation of at . To that end, note that as a consequence of 1 and the polynomiality of area measures (see, e.g., [55, Section 5.1]),
[TABLE]
Thus, for the first variation we obtain
[TABLE]
Since is weakly monotone, the functional is monotone on the subspace of centered functions, that is, whenever and are smooth centered support functions and . Consequently, the first variation must be non-negative for every positive and centered . 4.4 implies that is a weakly positive measure.
Since is weakly positive, there exists some positive measure and such that . Observe that for every ,
[TABLE]
Hence, 4.5 and 4.6 imply that for all ,
[TABLE]
Due to 4.2, the right hand side is bounded from above by a constant multiple of . If we choose to be the -dimensional disk , then is bounded from below by a multiple of , as is shown in 4.3 and 4.4. Thus,
[TABLE]
Since , we have that
[TABLE]
for a suitable constant , which proves 4.1. ∎
By combining 4.3 with C, we immediately obtain the following.
Corollary 4.8**.**
Let and be weakly monotone with generating function . Then the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to .
As was pointed out in 3.9, the behavior of zonal measures on small polar caps determines their regularity. In the following, we show that this behavior also determines the rate of convergence of their multipliers, which is another way of expressing regularity. We use the following classical asymptotic estimate for Legendre polynomials.
Theorem 4.9** ( [63, 7.33]).**
For all and , there exists such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Theorem 4.10**.**
Let be zonal and suppose that there exist and such that
[TABLE]
for all . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since can be decomposed into two signed measures that are each supported on one hemisphere, we may assume that . Denoting by the pushforward measure of with respect to the map , we have that
[TABLE]
Our aim now is to find suitable bounds for the integral on the right hand side. To that end, we fix some arbitrary and split it into the two integrals
[TABLE]
Observe that our assumption on implies that for all . Since for all , we obtain
[TABLE]
For the integral , estimate 4.7 and Lebesgue-Stieltjes integration by parts yield
[TABLE]
where we defined
[TABLE]
Employing again our estimate on and performing a simple computation shows that
[TABLE]
Combining the estimates for and completes the proof. ∎
As an immediate consequence of Theorems 4.3 and 4.10, we obtain the following.
Corollary 4.11**.**
Let and be weakly monotone with generating function . Then as .
5 Fixed Points
In this section, we prove a range of results regarding local uniqueness of fixed points of Minkowski valuations of degree (the -homogeneous case has been settled globally by Kiderlen [32]). This section is divided into three subsections. In Section 5.1, we prove B concerning the mean section operators. Section 5.2 is dedicated to Minkowski valuations generated by origin-symmetric convex bodies of revolution. There we prove A, unifying previous results by Ivaki [29, 30] and the second author and Schuster [48]. Finally, in Section 5.3 we consider general even Minkowski valuations for which we obtain information about the fixed points of (as opposed to ).
The proofs given in this section utilize the following result for general Minkowski valuations . It provides three sufficient conditions on the generating function of to obtain the desired local uniqueness of fixed points of . It contains however no information on when these conditions are fulfilled. For instance, in the particular case when is generated by an origin symmetric convex body of revolution, checking condition (C3) turns out to be rather involved.
Theorem 5.1** ([48]).**
Let and with generating function satisfying the following conditions:
- (C1)
the convolution transform is a bounded linear operator from to , 2. (C2)
there exists such that as , 3. (C3)
for all ,
[TABLE]
Then there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
Now we can apply our results on regularity of weakly monotone Minkowski valuations to these fixed point problems. Corollaries 4.8 and 4.11 show that conditions (C1) and (C2) are fulfilled in the weakly monotone case, which yields the following.
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let and be weakly monotone with generating function satisfying condition (C3). Then there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
Remark 5.3**.**
The way 5.1 was stated in [48] additionally required to be even as the proof employs the following classical result by Strichartz [62]. Denote by , , the Sobolev space of functions on with weak covariant derivatives up to order in . Strichartz showed that
[TABLE]
for every even , where is the standard norm of . However, the classical theory on the Dirichlet problem on compact Riemannian manifolds (see, e.g., [64, Section 5.1]) implies that 5.1 holds for every . Therefore, by a minor modification of the proof of [48, Theorem 6.1], the assumption on to be even can be omitted.
5.1 Mean Section Operators
As a first application, we show local uniqueness of fixed points of the mean section operators , which were defined at the beginning of this article. As was pointed out in the introduction, the mean section operators are not generated by a convex body of revolution. This is the main reason why they have not been included in previous results. Due to our extensive study of regularity, we obtain B as a simple consequence of 5.2.
Theorem B**.**
For , there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
Proof.
Define the -th centered mean section operator by . Then for and due to 2 its generating function is given by . Clearly is monotone, and thus, is weakly monotone. By 5.2, it suffices to check condition (C3) for .
It was shown in [6] and [9] independently that the multipliers of are given by
[TABLE]
for . A simple computation using 2.3 and the functional equation yields
[TABLE]
Since the Gamma function is strictly positive and strictly increasing on , it follows that satisfies condition (C3). ∎
5.2 Convex Bodies of Revolution
We now turn to Minkowski valuations that are generated by a convex body of revolution, that is, their generating function is a support function. This class includes all even Minkowski valuations in , as was shown in [57]. Our aim for this section is to prove A which is restated below.
Theorem A**.**
Let and be generated by an origin-symmetric convex body of revolution. Then there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls, unless is a multiple of the projection body operator, in which case ellipsoids are also fixed points.
Note that if is generated by a convex body of revolution , then for every ,
[TABLE]
where denotes a suitably rotated copy of , and is the mixed volume of the convex bodies (see, e.g., [55, Section 5.1]). Due to the monotonicity of the mixed volume we see that every Minkowski valuation generated by a convex body of revolution is monotone. In light of 5.2, it is natural to ask when condition (C3) is fulfilled. The following result shows that being origin symmetric is already sufficient up to the second multiplier.
Theorem 5.4** ([48]).**
Let be a convex body of revolution. Then for all even ,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
where the left hand side inequality in 5.3 is strict if is of class .
If , then condition (C3) is fulfilled. If , then 5.4 shows that condition (C3) is fulfilled under the additional assumption that is of class . We will show that imposing this regularity is not necessary: line segments are the only bodies for which equality is attained in the left hand side of inequality 5.3.
Definition 5.5**.**
On , we define the two differential operators
[TABLE]
These operators come up naturally in the study of zonal functions. For a zonal function , the Hessian of its -homogeneous extension at each point only has two eigenvalues: is the eigenvalue of multiplicity , and the eigenvalue of multiplicity one (see 3.25). The following lemma is a simple consequence of this fact.
Lemma 5.6** ([48]).**
Let . Then is the support function of a convex body of revolution if and only if and in the weak sense.
In [48], this lemma was proven only for functions, however it extends to by a simple approximation argument. Next, we determine the kernels of and .
Lemma 5.7**.**
Let be a locally integrable function on .
- (i)
* in the weak sense if and only if for some .* 2. (ii)
* in the weak sense if and only if for some .*
Proof.
Clearly, is a weak solution of the differential equation . Conversely, suppose that in the weak sense. Observe that on the interval , the change of variables transforms the differential operator as follows:
[TABLE]
Therefore, there exists such that in . Reversing the change of variables yields in . Similarly, there exists such that in . Since is locally integrable, choosing and , we obtain that in .
For the second part of the lemma, note that solves the differential equation . Conversely, suppose that in the weak sense. Observe that the change of variables transforms the differential operator as follows:
[TABLE]
Therefore, there exist such that in . Reversing the change of variables yields in . ∎
The following lemma describes the action of and on Legendre polynomials.
Lemma 5.8**.**
For every ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
We need the following two identities:
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Both follow from 2.5 by a simple inductive argument (see [24, Section 3.3]). By 2.5 and 5.8,
[TABLE]
Combining 2.6 with 5.7 and 5.9 yields
[TABLE]
By 5.4 and a combination of identities 5.7, 5.9, and 5.10, we obtain 5.5 and 5.6. ∎
We use 5.5 and 5.6 to derive the following recurrence relation for multipliers.
Lemma 5.9**.**
Let be a locally integrable function on .
- (i)
If , then for all ,
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
If , then for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
In the following, we use that the family of Legendre polynomials is an orthogonal system with respect to the inner product on . Moreover, (see, e.g., [24, Section 3.3]).
For the first part of the lemma, note that due to 3.5, for every ,
[TABLE]
where denotes the differential operator
[TABLE]
Clearly increases the degree of a polynomial at most by two, so there exist such that for every ,
[TABLE]
Choosing in 5.13 yields
[TABLE]
Hence, it only remains to determine the numbers . By applying the identity above to for , and employing 5.5, we obtain that
[TABLE]
and for , which proves 5.11.
For the second part of the proof, note that due to 3.5, for every ,
[TABLE]
where denotes the differential operator
[TABLE]
Clearly increases the degree of a polynomial at most by two, so there exist such that for every ,
[TABLE]
Choosing in 5.14 yields
[TABLE]
Hence, it only remains to determine the numbers . By applying the identity above to for , and employing 5.6, we obtain that
[TABLE]
and for , which proves 5.12. ∎
We arrive at the following geometric inequality for convex bodies of revolution. This shows that equality is attained in 5.3 only by line segments, which completes the proof of A.
Theorem 5.10**.**
Let be a convex body of revolution. Then
[TABLE]
with equality in the left hand inequality if and only if is a line segment and equality in the right hand inequality if and only if is an -dimensional disk.
Proof.
As an instance of 5.11,
[TABLE]
Due to 5.6, we have that , which proves the first inequality in 5.15. Moreover, equality holds precisely when . According to 5.7 (i), this is the case if and only if for some , which means that is a line segment.
As an instance of 5.12,
[TABLE]
Due to 5.6, we have that , which proves the second inequality in 5.15. Moreover, equality holds precisely when . According to 5.7 (ii), this is the case if and only if for some , which means that is an -dimensional disk. ∎
5.3 Even Minkowski Valuations
This section is dedicated to even Minkowski valuations of degree . In the previous subsection, we have shown that if is generated by an origin-symmetric convex body of revolution, then condition (C3) is fulfilled, unless is a multiple of the projection body map (see Theorems 5.4 and 5.10).
In general, the generating function of an even Minkowski valuation does not need to be a support function. In this broader setting, we prove a weaker condition than (C3), which we use to obtain information about the fixed points of the map itself as opposed to . To that end, we require the following version of 5.1, which can be obtained from a minor modification of its proof, as was observed in [48].
Theorem 5.11** ([48]).**
Let and with generating function satisfying conditions (C1), (C2), and
- (C3’)
for all ,
[TABLE]
Then there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
Again, Corollaries 4.8 and 4.11 show that conditions (C1) and (C2) are fulfilled in the weakly monotone case. Hence we obtain the following.
Theorem 5.12**.**
Let and be weakly monotone with generating function satisfying condition (C3’). Then there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
The main result of this section will be that if is even, then its generating function satisfies condition (C3’). We require the following lemma, which is a consequence of a classical result by Firey [16]. We call a convex body of revolution smooth if it has a support function and on .
Lemma 5.13**.**
Let and let be zonal and centered. Then is the density of the -th area measure of a smooth convex body of revolution if an only if for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
It was proved in [16] that is the density of the -th area measure of a smooth convex body if and only if for all ,
[TABLE]
Therefore it only remains to show that for all ,
[TABLE]
We have seen in 3.17 that the convolution transform is a bounded operator from to , so both sides of 5.16 depend continuously on with respect to uniform convergence. Therefore it suffices to show 5.16 only for smooth .
To that end, let and observe that according to 3.2,
[TABLE]
A direct computation yields
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain 5.16, which completes the proof. ∎
Next, we prove the following two technical lemmas. For smooth functions , we define . Note that due to 3.2.
Lemma 5.14**.**
For every ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be a maximum point of . We will show that
[TABLE]
If , then clearly we have 5.18. If , then
[TABLE]
which implies that or that . In the latter case, we obtain 5.18 again. In the case where , we obtain that , which also yields 5.18. Therefore
[TABLE]
which proves 5.17. ∎
Lemma 5.15**.**
For every ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
According to 5.5, the function is a convex combination of the two Legendre polynomials and . They both have as their maximum value on and they both attain it at . Therefore, this must also be the case for , which proves 5.19. ∎
We now define a family of polynomials that turns out to be instrumental in the following.
Definition 5.16**.**
For , and , we define
[TABLE]
Observe that for , the polynomial is the classical Legendre polynomial . Denote the extrema of on the interval by
[TABLE]
The following lemma about the minima is why we require to be even.
Lemma 5.17**.**
Let be even. Then the sequence is strictly increasing, that is,
[TABLE]
Proof.
For fixed even , define a family of affine functions by
[TABLE]
and observe that it suffices to show that the function defined by
[TABLE]
is strictly decreasing on .
To that end, note that as the point-wise minimum of a family of affine functions, is a concave function. Next, note that since is an even Legendre polynomial, it is minimized in the interior of , that is, there exists such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, , so for every ,
[TABLE]
Since is concave, this implies that is strictly decreasing on , which completes the proof. ∎
The following two propositions are an extension of [48, Proposition 5.4].
Proposition 5.18**.**
For and , denote by the set of all for which is the density of the -th area measure of a smooth convex body of revolution. If and is even, then
[TABLE]
Moreover, if , then the interval on the right hand side of 5.22 is precisely the set of all for which is the density of the surface area measure of a convex body of revolution.
Proof.
To simplify notation, all minima and maxima in this proof refer to the interval . 5.13 shows that if and only if
[TABLE]
for all . An easy rearrangement of 5.23 implies the right hand set inclusion in 5.22. For the other set inclusion, let and suppose that
[TABLE]
Due to 5.19, we have that
[TABLE]
Moreover, 5.21 combined with 5.17 applied to yields
[TABLE]
Finally, observe that 5.24, 5.25, and 5.26 jointly imply 5.23, thus . This shows the left hand set inclusion in 5.22.
For the second part of the proposition, observe that lies in the interval on the right hand side of 5.22 precisely when . According to Minkowski’s existence theorem (see, e.g., [55, p. 455]), this is the case if and only if is the density of the surface area measure of a convex body. ∎
Proposition 5.19**.**
Let be even and denote the set of all for which is the support function of a convex body of revolution . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Denote the interval on the right hand side of 5.27 by . Since the space of support functions is a closed convex cone of , the set must be a closed interval. Recall that for every convex body . Hence, 5.22 shows that
[TABLE]
where denotes the closure. For the converse set inclusion, let . Then is positive semidefinite for all . This implies that for every , the matrix is positive definite for all . Therefore, is the support function of a convex body of revolution which is of class , and thus, strictly convex (see, e.g., [55, Section 2.5]). Hence, 5.22 implies that for all , and thus, . ∎
We are now in a position to prove the main result of this section.
Theorem 5.20**.**
Let and be non-trivial. Then its generating function satisfies for all even ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
First, observe that for every convex body ,
[TABLE]
thus the convolution transform maps -th order area measures to first order area measures. Moreover, for every ,
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain that
[TABLE]
The descriptions of the intervals and given in 5.22 and 5.27 imply that
[TABLE]
where the strict inequality is due to 5.21. ∎
Combining 5.20 with 5.12, we obtain the following.
Corollary 5.21**.**
Let and be weakly monotone and even. Then there exists a neighborhood of where the only fixed points of are Euclidean balls.
Remark 5.22**.**
Computational simulations suggest that for every and , the maximum of on is attained in , that is,
[TABLE]
As an immediate consequence, the intervals in 5.22 could be simplified.
Computational simulations also suggest that for and for every even ,
[TABLE]
If both 5.28 and 5.29 were shown to be true, then the argument in the proof of 5.20 would immediately imply that whenever and is non-trivial with generating function , then for all even ,
[TABLE]
Appendix A Appendix
Proof of 3.3.
We may assume that is a positive measure: all statements of the lemma follow from this case by the Jordan decomposition theorem and linearity. Thus itself is a locally finite positive measure on , so there exists some constant such that for almost all ,
[TABLE]
We may assume that . Since is an increasing function, we have that on and on .
For , Lebesgue-Stieltjes integration by parts yields
[TABLE]
By passing to the limit and applying the monotone convergence theorem, we obtain that is integrable on .
For the second part of the lemma, note that since is increasing,
[TABLE]
and the right hand side tends to zero as tends to . An analogous argument applies to , thus
[TABLE]
Suppose now that is as stated above. For , Lebesgue-Stieltjes integration by parts yields
[TABLE]
Due to our assumptions on , the right hand hand side tends to zero as tends to . Thus, by passing to the limit and applying the dominated convergence theorem, we obtain 3.5. ∎
Proof of 3.4.
First, fix , and and observe that it suffices to find a family of bounded linear operators such that for every and ,
[TABLE]
We will construct this family inductively, starting with .
For the induction step, define a first order differential operator by
[TABLE]
A straightforward computation using spherical cylinder coordinates shows that
[TABLE]
thus we see that the operators have the desired property. Since every is a bounded linear operator from to , it follows by induction that every is a bounded linear operator from to . ∎
Proof of 4.4.
Suppose that is weakly positive, that is, for some positive measure and some linear function . Then for every positive centered , we have that
Conversely, suppose that is not weakly positive. Observe that the set of weakly positive distributions is a closed convex cone of . Due to the Hahn-Banach separation theorem there exists some such that
[TABLE]
for every positive measure and linear function . By fixing and varying , we see that is centered. By fixing and varying , we see that . Finally, by choosing , we see that . ∎
Acknowledgments
The second author was supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF), Project numbers: P31448-N35 and ESP 236 ESPRIT-Programm.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] J. Abardia and A. Bernig. Projection bodies in complex vector spaces. Adv. Math. , 227(2):830–846, 2011.
- 2[2] S. Alesker. Continuous rotation invariant valuations on convex sets. Ann. of Math. (2) , 149(3):977–1005, 1999.
- 3[3] S. Alesker. Description of translation invariant valuations on convex sets with solution of P. Mc Mullen’s conjecture. Geom. Funct. Anal. , 11(2):244–272, 2001.
- 4[4] S. Alesker. Introduction to the theory of valuations , volume 126 of CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics . Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2018.
- 5[5] K. Ball. Shadows of convex bodies. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 327(2):891–901, 1991.
- 6[6] A. Berg, L. Parapatits, F. E. Schuster, and M. Weberndorfer. Log-concavity properties of Minkowski valuations. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 370(7):5245–5277, 2018. With an appendix by Semyon Alesker.
- 7[7] C. Berg. Corps convexes et potentiels sphériques. Mat.-Fys. Medd. Danske Vid. Selsk. , 37(6):64 pp. (1969), 1969.
- 8[8] A. Bernig and J. H. G. Fu. Hermitian integral geometry. Ann. of Math. (2) , 173(2):907–945, 2011.
