Balanced Convex Partitions of Measures in $\mathbb{R}^d$

Pablo Soberón

Introduction

The ham sandwich Theorem is a very well known result in both measure theory and discrete geometry (see and the references therein). It says the following.

Theorem A (Ham Sandwich) Given dd finite measures μ1,μ2,…,μd\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\ldots,\mu_{d} in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} that vanish on every hyperplane, there is a hyperplane HH that simultaneously divides equally all the measures.

In the planar case, Toshinori Sakai proved that if one wants to partition the measures in more parts, one can find a partition of the plane in convex sets with this property . The same result was proven by Bespamyatnikh, Kirkpatrick and Snoeyink for two discrete sets of points. Namely,

Theorem B (Bespamyatnikh, Kirkpatrick and Snoeyink, 2000 ;Sakai, 2002 ) Given a positive integer kk and two nice measures in the plane μ1\mu_{1} and μ2\mu_{2} such that μ1(\mathdsR2)=μ2(\mathdsR2)=k\mu_{1}(\mathds{R}^{2})=\mu_{2}(\mathds{R}^{2})=k, there is a convex partition of the plane in sets C1,C2,…,CkC_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{k} such that μi(Cj)=1\mu_{i}(C_{j})=1 for all i,ji,j.

A mixed version has also been proven, with convex sets partitioning simultaneously a measure and a discrete set of points . In Sakai’s theorem, a nice measure refers to a measure μ\mu absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure such that there is a bounded domain BB with μ(B)=μ(\mathdsR2)\mu(B)=\mu(\mathds{R}^{2}). We will define a nice measure in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} as a finite measure μ\mu absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure such that there is a bounded convex set KK with μ(K)=μ(\mathdsRd)\mu(K)=\mu(\mathds{R}^{d}) and μ\mu is nonvanishing in open sets of KK. Notice that if μ\mu is a nice measure and K1K_{1} is a convex body with positive measure, then μ∣K1\mu|_{K_{1}} is also a nice measure. Also, since the set of nice measures is dense we are not losing generality. A convex partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} (C1,C2,…,Ck)(C_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{k}) is a partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} where all the parts are closed convex sets with pairwise disjoint interiors.

The question of whether Sakai’s result could be extended to \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} was asked by Imre Bárány. Namely, he conjectured the following theorem.

Theorem 1. Given a positive integer kk and dd nice measures μ1,μ2,…,μd\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\ldots,\mu_{d} in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} such that μi(\mathdsRd)=k\mu_{i}(\mathds{R}^{d})=k for all ii, there is a convex partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} in sets C1,C2,…,CkC_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{k} such that μi(Cj)=1\mu_{i}(C_{j})=1 for all i,ji,j.

The aim of this paper is to give a positive answer to Bárány’s conjecture. This theorem is a generalization of the Ham Sandwich theorem since a convex partition (C1,C2)(C_{1},C_{2}) of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} is always defined by a hyperplane. It was proved indpendently by R.N. Karasev using different topological methods. The main tools that will be used in the proof are new results regarding power diagrams and a theorem from equivariant topology. Power diagrams are a generalization of Voronoi diagrams and will be discussed in the next section. The theorem from equivariant topology we will use is the following.

Theorem C. (Dold, 1983 ) Let GG be a finite group, ∣G∣>1|G|>1, let XX be an nn-connected space with a free action of GG, and let YY be a (paracompact) topological space of dimension at most nn with a free action of GG. Then there is no GG-equivariant map f:X⟶Yf:X\longrightarrow Y.

Recall that the Ham Sandwich theorem is a direct consequence of the Borsuk-Ulam Theorem. The theorem above, with X=\mathdsSn+1X=\mathds{S}^{n+1}, Y=\mathdsSnY=\mathds{S}^{n} and G=\mathdsZ2G=\mathds{Z}_{2} gives precisely the Borsuk-Ulam Theorem. Theorem C gives us the necesary freedom to extend the Ham Sandwich result. The main idea is to construct a space XX that represents the partitions and a space YY that represents how they partition each measure. If there is no equipartition, then the dimension of YY can be reduced and we obtain a contradiction to Dold’s theorem.

Topological methods like this one almost always apear in proofs of theorems related to partitions of measures. See for more details.

Power Diagrams

Given SS an ordered kk-tuple of different points (x1,x2,…,xk)(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{k}) in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} (these points will be called sites), and a weight vector (w1,w2,…,wk)∈\mathdsRk(w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{k})\in\mathds{R}^{k}, we will define the power fuctions hi:\mathdsRd⟶\mathdsRh_{i}:\mathds{R}^{d}\longrightarrow\mathds{R} by hi(x)=d(x,xi)2−wih_{i}(x)=d(x,x_{i})^{2}-w_{i}. The power diagram C(S,w)C(S,w) is a partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} where

In other words, CiC_{i} is the set of points where hih_{i} is minimal among all the power functions.

If w=(0,0,…,0)w=(0,0,\ldots,0), then each point is in the part corresponding to the closest site, which is the Voronoi diagram with sites SS.

Each CiC_{i} is the intersection of all the closed halfspaces Hi,j+={x ∣ hi(x)≤hj(x)}H_{i,j}^{+}=\{x\ |\ h_{i}(x)\leq h_{j}(x)\} for all j≠ij\neq i. Thus, each CiC_{i} is a convex polyhedron with at most k−1k-1 facets. Notice that the hyperplane

is orthogonal to xi−xjx_{i}-x_{j}, and its position depends entirely on wj−wiw_{j}-w_{i}. Thus, if v0=(1,1,…,1)v_{0}=(1,1,\ldots,1) is the diagonal vector in \mathdsRk\mathds{R}^{k}, we have that C(S,w)=C(S,w+αv0)C(S,w)=C(S,w+\alpha v_{0}) for all S,w,αS,w,\alpha.

In 1998, F. Aurenhammer et al. proved that given a nice probability measure μ\mu, a kk-set SS of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} and a capacity vector c=(c1,c2,…,ck)∈\mathdsRkc=(c_{1},c_{2},\ldots,c_{k})\in\mathds{R}^{k} such that ci≥0c_{i}\geq 0 for all ii and the sum of the cic_{i} is 11, there is a weight vector ww such that for the power diagram C(S,w)C(S,w) we have that μ(Ci)=ci\mu(C_{i})=c_{i} for all ii. It has also been proven that the vector ww is unique up to translations by the diagonal . The nonvanishing condition on our measure is essentially needed here.

This last result will be our main tool to prove the main theorem. Since C(S,w)=C(S,w+αv0)C(S,w)=C(S,w+\alpha v_{0}) for all α\alpha, we may choose that the dot product w⋅cw\cdot c is .

It is also known that given cc, if one moves the points of SS continuously and they remain different , then the weight vector also moves continuously (if a condition such as c⋅w=0c\cdot w=0 has been imposed). We will analyze what happens when the points of SS move and some of them converge to the same point.

Let μ\mu be a nice probability measure in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} and c=(c1,c2,…,ck)c=(c_{1},c_{2},\ldots,c_{k}) be a capacity vector such that ci>0c_{i}>0 for all ii. Given SS a set of kk different sites in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} let w(S)=(w1,w2,…,wk)w(S)=(w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{k}) be the weight vector such that the measure of the parts of C(S,w(S))C(S,w(S)) agree with the capacity vector and w(S)⋅c=0w(S)\cdot c=0.

Let SS be a kk-set of sites in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} that move continuously through the time interval $.Supposethesitesremaindifferentinthetimeinterval. Suppose the sites remain different in the time interval[0,1).Supposethattherearetwopoints. Suppose that there are two pointsx_{1},x_{2}\in Sandapointand a pointp_{0}\in\mathds{R}^{d}suchthatsuch thatx_{i}\longrightarrow p_{0}asthetimeas the timet\longrightarrow 1forfori=1,2.Then,thereisanumber. Then, there is a numberw^{\prime}suchthatsuch thatw_{i}\longrightarrow w^{\prime}asthetimeas the timet\longrightarrow 1forfori=1,2$.

In other words, if two sites converge to the same point, their weights converge to the same number.

Proof. Suppose there are numbers w1′w_{1}^{\prime} and w2′w_{2}^{\prime} such that wi⟶wi′w_{i}\longrightarrow w_{i}^{\prime} for i=1,2i=1,2 and w1′>w2′w_{1}^{\prime}>w_{2}^{\prime}. Let yy be the point where the hyperplane H1,2={x ∣ d(x,x1)2−d(x,x2)2=w1−w2}H_{1,2}=\{x\ |\ d(x,x_{1})^{2}-d(x,x_{2})^{2}=w_{1}-w_{2}\} intersects the line that goes through x1x_{1} and x2x_{2}. Let u=d(y,x2),v=d(x1,x2)u=d(y,x_{2}),v=d(x_{1},x_{2}). Since wi⟶wi′w_{i}\longrightarrow w_{i}^{\prime} we can suppose that w1>w2w_{1}>w_{2}, so d(y,x1)=u+vd(y,x_{1})=u+v. Thus w1−w2=(u+v)2−u2=v(2u+v)w_{1}-w_{2}=(u+v)^{2}-u^{2}=v(2u+v). Notice that (w1−w2)⟶(w1′−w2′)>0(w_{1}-w_{2})\longrightarrow(w_{1}^{\prime}-w_{2}^{\prime})>0 and v⟶0v\longrightarrow 0. Thus u⟶∞u\longrightarrow\infty. This means that the distance d(p0,C2)⟶∞d(p_{0},C_{2})\longrightarrow\infty. This contradicts the fact that μ(C2)=c2>0\mu(C_{2})=c_{2}>0 for t∈[0,1)t\in[0,1).

S′S^{\prime} consists of replacing all the points converging to qq by a single copy of qq, for all q∈\mathdsRdq\in\mathds{R}^{d}.

c′c^{\prime} consists of replacing all the capacities corresponding the points converging to qq by a single copy of their sum, for all q∈\mathdsRdq\in\mathds{R}^{d}.

Main proofs

We will now construct the spaces and functions to use Dold’s theorem. The main idea goes as follows. Let pp be a prime number and let XX be the space of ordered pp-tuples of vectors of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} such that they are not all the same point. Notice that X≅\mathdsRpd\YX\cong\mathds{R}^{pd}\backslash Y where Y≅\mathdsRdY\cong\mathds{R}^{d}. The space XX will be used to represent the partitions of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} in at least two parts (one for each different point in our pp-tuple). The measure we want each part to have will be corresponding with how many times its point is present in the pp-tuple. We will use Dold’s theorem to see that this can be done simoultaneously for all measures. The reason why pp is required to be prime is only to make sure that the group actions we will define are free.

The following lemma will be the core of our proof of the main theorem.

Let pp, dd be positive integers such that pp is prime. Let μ1,μ2,…,μd\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\ldots,\mu_{d} be dd nice measures in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} such that μi(\mathdsRd)=p\mu_{i}(\mathds{R}^{d})=p for all ii. Then, there is an integer 2≤r≤p2\leq r\leq p and a partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} in rr convex parts C1,C2,…,CrC_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{r} such that μi(Cj)=μi′(Cj)\mu_{i}(C_{j})=\mu_{i^{\prime}}(C_{j}) for all i,i′,ji,i^{\prime},j and all these measures are positive integers.

Proof. Given 1≤i≤d1\leq i\leq d, let us define a function fi:X⟶\mathdsRpf_{i}:X\longrightarrow\mathds{R}^{p} (associated with μi\mu_{i}). Given x=(x1,x2,…,xp)∈Xx=(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{p})\in X, let S(x)=(s1,s2,…,st)S(x)=(s_{1},s_{2},\ldots,s_{t}) be the tt-tuple of different points in xx, with the order in which they appeared in xx. Notice that if all the points of xx are different, then S(x)=xS(x)=x. For each 1≤j≤t1\leq j\leq t, let αj\alpha_{j} be the number of times sjs_{j} appeared in xx. Then, let (w1,w2,…,wt)(w_{1},w_{2},\ldots,w_{t}) be the weights needed to partition μi\mu_{i} with a power diagram with sites S(x)S(x) and capacities c=(α1,α2,…,αt)c=(\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\ldots,\alpha_{t}) such that w⋅c=0w\cdot c=0. For all 1≤j≤p1\leq j\leq p, let yj=why_{j}=w_{h} if xj=shx_{j}=s_{h}. Now define fi(x)=(y1,y2,…,yp)f_{i}(x)=(y_{1},y_{2},\ldots,y_{p}). Since c⋅w=0c\cdot w=0, we have that y1+y2+…+yp=0y_{1}+y_{2}+\ldots+y_{p}=0. Thus, fi(x)∈\mathdsRp−1↪\mathdsRpf_{i}(x)\in\mathds{R}^{p-1}\hookrightarrow\mathds{R}^{p}. By Claim 1, each fif_{i} is continuous.

Now consider f:X⟶\mathdsR(p−1)(d−1)↪\mathdsRp(d−1)f:X\longrightarrow\mathds{R}^{(p-1)(d-1)}\hookrightarrow\mathds{R}^{p(d-1)} defined by f=(f1−f2,f1−f3,…,f1−fd)f=(f_{1}-f_{2},f_{1}-f_{3},\ldots,f_{1}-f_{d}). We will show that there is an x∈Xx\in X such that f(x)=0f(x)=0.

Suppose there is no such xx, so f:X⟶\mathdsR(p−1)(d−1)\{0}f:X\longrightarrow\mathds{R}^{(p-1)(d-1)}\backslash\{0\}. There is a natural action of \mathdsZp\mathds{Z}_{p} in XX given by σ(x1,x2,…,xp)=(x2,x3,…,xp,x1)\sigma(x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{p})=(x_{2},x_{3},\ldots,x_{p},x_{1}), where σ\sigma is a generator of \mathdsZp\mathds{Z}_{p}. The same action can be applied in \mathdsRp−1={(z1,z2,…,zp) ∣ z1+z2+…+zp=0}\mathds{R}^{p-1}=\{(z_{1},z_{2},\ldots,z_{p})\ |\ z_{1}+z_{2}+\ldots+z_{p}=0\} and thus in \mathdsR(p−1)(d−1)\mathds{R}^{(p-1)(d-1)}. Notice that with these actions, ff is equivariant. Since pp is prime, the actions in XX and in \mathdsR(p−1)(d−1)\{0}\mathds{R}^{(p-1)(d-1)}\backslash\{0\} are both free.

Let g(x)=f(x)∣∣f(x)∣∣g(x)=\frac{f(x)}{||f(x)||}. We know that g:X⟶\mathdsS(p−1)(d−1)−1g:X\longrightarrow\mathds{S}^{(p-1)(d-1)-1} and is still equivariant. However, XX is \mathdsRpd\mathds{R}^{pd} with a hole of dimension dd, so it is at least [(pd−1)−(d+1)][(pd-1)-(d+1)]-connected. Since (pd−1)−(d+1)≥(p−1)(d−1)−1(pd-1)-(d+1)\geq(p-1)(d-1)-1, we have a contradictions with Theorem CC.

Given the point xx such that f(x)=0f(x)=0, we have that for S(x)S(x) and its associated capacity vector cc as in the definition of fif_{i}, the weight vector ww such that C(S(x),w)C(S(x),w) partitions μi\mu_{i} with capacities cc is the same for all ii. Thus C(S(x),w)C(S(x),w) is the partition we wanted.

Let a,ba,b be positive integers. If Theorem 11 is true for values k=ak=a and k=bk=b, then it is true for k=abk=ab.

Proof. Let μ1,μ2,…,μd\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\ldots,\mu_{d} be nice measures such that μi(\mathdsRd)=ab\mu_{i}(\mathds{R}^{d})=ab for all ii. Since Theorem 11 is true for k=ak=a, we can find a convex partition (C1,C2,…,Ca)(C_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{a}) such that μi(Cj)=b\mu_{i}(C_{j})=b for all i,ji,j. For all 1≤j≤a1\leq j\leq a, μi∣Cj\mu_{i}|_{C_{j}} is a nice measure in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d}. Thus, since Theorem 11 holds for k=bk=b, we can find a partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} in convex sets Cj,1,Cj,2,…,Cj,bC_{j,1},C_{j,2},\ldots,C_{j,b} such that μi∣Cj(Cj,h)=1\mu_{i}|_{C_{j}}(C_{j,h})=1 for all i,hi,h. Let Dj,h=Cj∩Cj,hD_{j,h}=C_{j}\cap C_{j,h}. We have that μi(Dj,h)=μi∣Cj(Cj,h)=1\mu_{i}(D_{j,h})=\mu_{i}|_{C_{j}}(C_{j,h})=1. Since Dj,hD_{j,h} is convex for all j,hj,h, they form the partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} we were looking for.

We are now ready to prove the main theorem.

Theorem 1. Given a positive integer kk and dd nice measures μ1,μ2,…,μd\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\ldots,\mu_{d} in \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} such that μi(\mathdsRd)=k\mu_{i}(\mathds{R}^{d})=k for all ii, there is a convex partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} in sets C1,C2,…,CkC_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{k} such that μi(Cj)=1\mu_{i}(C_{j})=1 for all i,ji,j.

Proof. We will prove this theorem by strong induction on kk. For the basis, if k=1k=1 then C1=\mathdsRdC_{1}=\mathds{R}^{d}. Suppose that k≥2k\geq 2 and the theorem is true for all 1≤k′<k1\leq k^{\prime}<k.

If kk is not prime, it can be factorized as k=abk=ab with a,b<ka,b<k. By lemma 22, we are done.

If kk is prime, by Lemma 11, one can find a partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} in at least 22 convex sets C1,C2,…,CrC_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{r} such that each convex set has the same measure in all dd measures and these numbers are all positive integers. Given 1≤j≤r1\leq j\leq r, we can apply Theorem 11 in the measures μi∣Cj\mu_{i}|_{C_{j}} as in the proof of Lemma 22 to obtain the partition of \mathdsRd\mathds{R}^{d} we were looking for.

Since the set of nice measures is dense, by usual approximation arguments one can make one of the measures to be a Dirac measure in the origin. By doing this, we obtain the following Corollary.

Corollary 1. Given μ1,μ2,…,μd−1\mu_{1},\mu_{2},\ldots,\mu_{d-1} nice measures on \mathdsSd−1\mathds{S}^{d-1} such that μi(\mathdsSd−1)=k\mu_{i}(\mathds{S}^{d-1})=k for all ii, there is a convex cone subdivision (with apices at the origin) C1,C2,…,CkC_{1},C_{2},\ldots,C_{k} such that μi(Cj)=1\mu_{i}(C_{j})=1 for all i,ji,j.

Thus the main theorem also holds for measures in \mathdsSd\mathds{S}^{d}. The equivalence with the version in \mathdsSd\mathds{S}^{d} was conjectured and proven by Imre Bárány.

Remarks on the proof

The last inequality used in the proof of Lemma 1 is equivalent to p≥2p\geq 2. If one goes through Sakai’s proof of the planar case, he uses a similar lemma. The lemma says the following: If there is no line that divides both measures equally and each halfspace has a positive integer measure, then there it is possible to do so with a convex 33-partition. Moreover, Sakai proves that if the 33-partition is necessary, then (as it must be a convex 33-fan) one of the direction of its lines may be chosen arbitrarily. In the same way for the high-dimensional version, if the smallest partition possible is with t parts, then conditions may be imposed on XX so that they do not reduce its connectedness in more than t−2t-2.

References