Abstract
In the paper, our main aim is to introduce a new concept and call it the \(L_p\)- mixed geominimal surface area \(G_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) of \(n\) convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\), which obeys the classical basic properties. The new affine geometric quantity in a special case yields Petty’s geominimal surface area \(G(K)\) of a convex body \(K\), Lutwak’s \(p\)-geominimal surface area \(G_{p}(K)\) of \(K\), and the newly established mixed geominimal surface area \(G(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) of \(n\) convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\). We establish some \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area inequalities for the \(L_p\)-mixed geominimal surface area, whose some special cases are Petty’s geominimal surface area inequality, Lutwak’s \(p\)-geominimal surface area inequality, and some new mixed geominimal surface area inequalities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1. Introduction
The setting for this paper is the \(n\)-dimensional Euclidean space \({\Bbb R}^{n}\). Let \({\mathcal K}^{n}\) denote the set of the convex bodies (compact, convex sets with nonempty interiors) of \({\Bbb R}^{n}\). For a compact set \(K\), we write \(V(K)\) for the (\(n\)-dimensional) Lebesgue measure of \(K\) and call \(V(K)\) the volume of \(K\). Let \(B\) be the unit ball centered at the origin, and let its volume be \(\omega_{n}\). For the set of convex bodies containing the origin in their interiors, write \({\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), and let \({\mathcal K}^{n}_{c}\) denote the set of convex bodies whose centroids lie at the origin. The important concept of geominimal surface area was introduced by Petty [1]. The concept serves as a bridge connecting a number of areas of geometry: affine differential geometry, relative geometry, and Minkowski geometry. The geominimal surface area \(G(K)\) of \(K\in {\mathcal K}^{n}\) was defined by
where \(V_{1}(K,Q)\) denotes the usual mixed volume of \(K\) and \(Q\), and \(Q^{*}\) is the polar of \(Q\). Given \(Q\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), let \(Q^{*}\) denote the polar of the body \(Q\), defined by (see, e.g. [2])
where \(\langle x,y\rangle\) denotes the usual inner product of \(x\) and \(y\) in \({\Bbb R}^{n}\).
The geominimal surface area of a body is invariant under the unimodular affine transformations of the body. Petty [1] showed that the geominimal surface area \(G:{\mathcal K}^{n}\rightarrow(0,\infty)\) is continuous and also established the following fundamental inequality for the geominimal surface area:
Petty’s geominimal surface area inequality. If \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) , then
with equality if and only if \(K\) is an ellipsoid.
Some extension of Petty’s geominimal surface area was presented by Lutwak [3]. The \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area, \(G_{p}(K)\) of \(K\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), with \(p\geq 1\), was defined by
where \(V_{p}(K,Q)\) denotes the usual \(L_p\)-mixed volume of \(K\) and \(Q\). It was also shown that the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area of a body is invariant under the unimodular centro-affine transformations of the body. He showed also that \(G_{p}:{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\rightarrow(0,\infty)\) is continuous. Some extension of Petty’s geominimal surface area inequality was also obtained:
Lutwak’s \(p\) -geominimal surface area inequality. If \(p\geq 1\) and \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) , then
with equality if and only if \(K\) is an ellipsoid.
Recently, the geominimal surface area, \(p\)-geominimal surface area, Orlicz geominimal surface area and related inequalities have attracted extensive attention and research. The recent research on these matters can be found in the references [4]– [14].
To the convex bodies \(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n-1}\) in \({\Bbb R}^{n}\) there is a unique positive Borel measure on \(S^{n-1}\), \(S(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1};\cdot)\), called the mixed area measure of \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\), such that for every convex body \(K_{n}\) we have the integral representation (see, e.g. [15], p. 280)
where \(u\in S^{n-1}\), \(S^{n-1}\) stands for the unit sphere, and \(h(K,x)\) is the support function of a convex body \(K\) (simply denoted by \(h_{K}\)).
The integration is with respect to the mixed area measure \(S(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1};\cdot)\) on \(S^{n-1}\). The mixed area measure \(S(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1};\cdot)\) is symmetric in its first \(n-1\) arguments. If \(K_{1}=\cdots=K_{n-i-1}=K\) and \(K_{n-i}=\cdots=K_{n-1}=B\), the mixed area measure \(S(K,\,\dots\,,K,B,\,\dots\,,B;\cdot)\) with \(i\) copies of \(B\) and \((n-i-1)\) copies of \(K\) will be written as \(S_{i}(K,\cdot)\). If \(K_{1}=\cdots=K_{n-1}=K\), then \(S(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1};\cdot)\) becomes the surface area measure \(S(K,\cdot)\).
We will present some natural extension of Lutwak’s \(p\)-geominimal surface area in this paper. The \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area \(G_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) of \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) with \(p\geq 1\) was defined by
where \(V_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1},Q,K_{n})\) denotes the \(L_p\)-multiple mixed volume of \(n+1\) convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\) and \(Q\) and is defined by (see [16])
It will be shown that the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area is invariant under unimodular centro-affine transformations. It will also be shown that \(G_{p}:\underbrace{{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\times \ldots\times{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}}_{n}\rightarrow(0,\infty)\) is unique and continuous. In Sec. 4, we also establish an affine isoperimetric inequality for the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area.
The \(L_{p}\) -mixed geominimal surface area inequality. If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) and \(p\geq 1\) , then
with equality if and only if \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}=E\) are mixed \(p\) -self-minimal, where \(E\) is an ellipsoid.
The equality conditions for this inequality involve ”mixed \(p\)-self-minimal” bodies. These bodies are defined in Sec. 4.
Obviously, if \(K_{1}=\cdots=K_{n}=K\), then (8) becomes (4). If \(p=1\) and \(K_{1}=\cdots=K_{n}=K\), then (8) becomes (2).
It is worth mentioning here that other definitions of “\(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area” have recently been published. However, none of them is based on the newly established \(L_p\)-multiple mixed volume of \((n+1)\) convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\) and \(L_{n}\), so neither of them is a natural extension. Because the \(L_p\)-multiple mixed volume was proposed which follows the spirit of introduction of Aleksandrov’s mixed quermassintegrals and Lutwak’s \(p\)-mixed quermassintegrals. Thus, the concept of \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area based on the \(L_p\)-multiple mixed volume complies with the study line of Petty and Lutwak’s geominimal surface area and the law of development.
2. Notation and Preliminaries
Let \(d\) denote the Hausdorff metric on \({\mathcal K}^{n}\); i.e., for \(K, L\in {\mathcal K}^{n}\), we have
where \(|\cdot|_{\infty}\) denotes the sup-norm on the space \(C(S^{n-1})\) of continuous functions. The Minkowski addition plays an important role in the Brunn–Minkowski theory. During the last few decades, the theory has been extended to \(L_{p}\)-Brunn–Minkowski theory. The well-known \(L_p\) addition is defined by (see Firey [17])
for all \(x\in {\Bbb R}^{n}\), \(1\leq p\leq\infty\), and compact convex sets \(K\) and \(L\) in \({\Bbb R}^{n}\) containing the origin.
2.1. Basics on Convex Bodies
Define the Santaló product of \(K\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) as \(V(K)V(K^{*})\). The Blaschke–Santaló inequality is one of the fundamental affine isoperimetric inequalities (see [18]–[21]). It states that if \(K\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{c}\), then
with equality if and only if \(K\) is an ellipsoid.
The radial function \(\rho_{K}=\rho(K,\cdot):{\Bbb R}^{n}\backslash\{0\}\rightarrow [0,\infty)\) of a compact star-shaped \(K\subset\mathbb R^{n}\) (about the origin) is defined for \(x\in {\Bbb R}^{n}\backslash\{0\}\) as
If \(\rho(K,u)\) (or simply \(\rho_{K}\)) is positive and continuous, then \(K\) is called a star body (about the origin). Write \({\mathcal S}^{n}_{o}\) for the set of star bodies in \({\Bbb R}^{n}\). For \(K\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), it is easily seen that
For \(\phi\in {\rm GL}(n)\), we write \(\phi^{t}\) for the transpose of \(\phi\) and \(\phi^{-t}\) for the inverse of the transpose of \(\phi\). It is easy that (see [22])
where \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\). Obviously,
where \(Q\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\).
For \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), define the inner radius \(r(K)\) and outer radius \(R(K)\) by
Obviously,
2.2. \(L_p\)-Mixed Volumes
The Brunn–Minkowski inequality is the best-known inequality concerning volumes of compact convex sets. It states that if \(K\) and \(L\) are compact convex sets in \({\Bbb R}^{n}\), then
with equality if and only if \(K\) and \(L\) are homothetic.
The mixed volume \(V_{1}(K,L)\) of compact convex sets \(K\) and \(L\) is defined by
The Minkowski inequality for \(K\) and \(L\) states that
with equality if and only if \(K\) and \(L\) are homothetic.
The \(L_p\) Minkowski mixed volume inequality is as follows:
with equality if and only if \(K\) and \(L\) are homothetic, where
and the \(L_p\)-mixed volume has the integral representation (see [23])
In particular, in the \(L_p\)-Brunn–Minkowski theory, \(S(K,\cdot)\) is replaced by the \(p\)-surface area measure \(S_{p}(K,\cdot)\) given by
2.3. Mixed \(p\)-Quermassintegrals
The mixed quermassintegrals are, of course, the first variation of the ordinary quermassintegrals with respect to the Minkowski addition. The \(p\)-mixed quermassintegrals \(W_{p,0}(K,L), W_{p,1}(K,L)\ldots\) \(W_{p,n-1}(K,L)\), are the first variation of the ordinary quermassintegrals with respect to the Firey addition; i.e., for \(K,L\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) and real \(p\geq 1\), we have (see e.g. [24])
For \(p\geq 1\), \(0\leq i<n\), and each \(K\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), there exists a regular Borel measure \(S_{p,i}(K;u)\) on \(S^{n-1}\) such that the \(p\)-mixed quermassintegral \(W_{p,i}(K,L)\) has the integral representation
for all \(L\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\). Obviously, for \(p=1\), \(W_{p,i}(K,L)\) becomes the well-known mixed quermassintegral \(W_{i}(K,L)\) of \(K\) and \(L\). The measure \(S_{p,i}(K,\cdot)\) is absolutely continuous with respect to \(S_{i}(K,\cdot)\) and has the Radon–Nikodym derivative
The measure \(S_{n-1}(K,\cdot)\) is independent of the body \(K\), presenting just the ordinary Lebesgue measure \(S(K,\cdot)\) on \(S^{n-1}\). \(S_{i}(B,\cdot)\) denotes the \(i\)th surface area measure of the unit ball in \({\Bbb R}^{n}\). In fact, \(S_{i}(B,\cdot)=S\) for all \(i\). The surface area measure \(S_{0}(K,\cdot)\) will frequently be written simply as \(S(K,\cdot)\). When \(i=0\), \(S_{p,i}(K,\cdot)\) is just the \(p\)-surface area measure \(S_{p}(K,\cdot)\) (see [25]). Obviously, putting \(i=0\) in (22), the mixed \(p\)-quermassintegral \(W_{p,i}(K,L)\) becomes the \(L_{p}\)-mixed volume \(V_{p}(K,L)\). The fundamental inequality for mixed \(p\)-quermassintegrals states that (see [24]) for \(K,L\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), \(p\geq 1\), and \(0\leq i<n\),
with equality if and only if \(K\) and \(L\) are homothetic.
Obviously, when \(p=1\), inequality (24) becomes the well-known Minkowski inequality for mixed quermassintegrals.
2.4. Mixed Projection Body
For \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}\) and \(u\in S^{n-1}\), let \(v(K|u^{\perp})\) denote the \((n-1)\)-dimensional volume of \(K|u^{\perp}\), the image of the orthogonal projection of \(K\) onto the \((n-1)\)-dimensional subspace of \({\Bbb R}^{n}\) that is orthogonal to \(u\). The projection body \(\mathbf\Pi K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) of \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}\) is the body whose support function is given by
where \(u\in S^{n-1}\). Let \(\mathbf\Pi (K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1})\) be the mixed projection body of convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\). It is defined by (see, e.g. [26])
One of the fundamental inequalities for the mixed projection body is the following Aleksandrov–Fenchel inequality for mixed projection bodies: If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) are compact convex subsets and \(1\leq r<n\), then (see [26])
If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}\), then the mixed projection body of convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) is denoted by \(\mathbf\Pi (K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1})\), and its support function is given for \(u\in S^{n-1}\) as (see [26])
where \(v(K_{1}|u^{\perp},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}|u^{\perp})\) is the \((n-1)\)-dimensional mixed volume of \(K_{1}|u^{\perp},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}|u^{\perp}\).
3. \(L_{p}\)-Multiple Mixed Volume
Let us introduce the \(L_{p}\)-multiple mixed volume of \(n+1\) convex bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\) and \(L_{n}\).
Definition 3.1. (see [16]) For \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n},L_{n}\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), and \(p\geq 1\), the \(L_{p}\)-multiple mixed volume, denoted by \(V_{p}(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n},L_{n})\), is defined by
Zhao [16] shown also that the \(L_{p}\)-multiple mixed volume has the limit representation; i.e.,
Obviously, the classical mixed volume \(V(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) of \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\), the \(L_p\)-mixed volume \(V_{p}(K,L)\) of convex bodies \(K\) and \(L\), and the \(p\)-mixed quermassintegral \(W_{p,i}(K,L)\) of \(K\) and \(L\) are all special cases of the \(L_p\)-multiple mixed volume \(V_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1},Q,K_{n})\).
The fundamental inequality for \(L_{p}\)-multiple mixed volume of \(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n},L_{n}\) is the following \(L_p\)-Aleksandrov–Fenchel inequality for \(L_{p}\)-multiple mixed volume: If \(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n},L_{n}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), \(1\leq r\leq n\), and \(p\geq 1\), then (see [16])
The classical Aleksandrov–Fenchel inequality of \(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n}\) is an important special case of the \(L_p\)-Aleksandrov–Fenchel inequality. The Minkowski inequality (24) for mixed \(p\)-quermassintegrals is also a special case of the \(L_p\)-Aleksandrov–Fenchel inequality.
Lemma 1.
If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) and \(p\geq 1\) , then, for \(A\in {\rm SL}(n)\) , we have
Proof.
This completes the proof.
Lemma 2.
Let \(K_{i1},\,\dots\,,K_{in},L_{in}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) and \(p\geq 1\) . If \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\) , \(j=1,\,\dots\,,n\) , and \(L_{in}\rightarrow L_{0n}\) , then
as \(i\rightarrow\infty\) .
Proof.
To see this, let \(K_{ij}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), \(i \in {\Bbb N}\cup\{0\}\), \(j=1,\,\dots\,,n\), be such that \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\) as \(i\rightarrow\infty\) and \(L_{in}\rightarrow L_{0n}\) as \(i\rightarrow\infty\). The mixed area measure is weakly continuous; i.e.,
Since \(h(K_{in},u)\rightarrow h(K_{0n},u)\) and \(h(L_{in},u)\rightarrow h(L_{0n},u)\) uniformly on \(S^{n-1}\), it follows that, for \(p\geq 1\),
Further,
Hence
This shows that \(V_{p}(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n},L_{n})\) is continuous.
Lemma 3.
Let \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n},L_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) and \(p_{i},p\geq 1\) . If \(p_{i}\rightarrow p\) , then
Proof.
Note that \(p_{i}\rightarrow p\) implies that
Further,
Hence
This completes the proof.
Lemma 4 (see [16]).
If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n},L_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) and \(p\geq 1\) , then, for \(A\in {\rm SL}(n)\) , we have
4. \(L_{p}\)-Mixed Geominimal Surface Area
Definition 4.1. For \(p\geq 1\) and \(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area of convex bodies \(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n}\), denoted by \(G_{p}(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n})\), is defined by
If \(p=1\), then \(G_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) will be written \(G(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) and called the mixed geominimal surface area of \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\), and
This is exactly another generalization of mixed angle of Petty’s geominimal surface area.
If \(K_{1}=\cdots=K_{n-i-1}=K\), \(K_{n-i}=\cdots=K_{n-1}=B\), and \(K_{n}=K\), then \(G_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) will be written \(G_{p,i}(K)\) and called the \(i\)th \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area of \(K\), and
In case \(i=0\) in (38), \(G_{p,i}(K)\) becomes the \(p\)-geominimal surface area \(G_{p}(K)\). If \(p=1\), then \(G_{p,i}(K)\) will be written \(G_{i}(K)\) and called the \(i\)th geominimal surface area of \(K\), and
Lemma 5.
If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) , \(p\geq 1\) , and \(A\in{\rm SL}(n)\) , then
Proof.
From (13), (29) and Lemma 1, we have
This completes the proof.
Lemma 6 ([3]).
Let \(K_{i}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) and \(K_{i}\rightarrow L\in{\mathcal S}^{n}\) . If the sequence \(V(K_{i}^{*})\) is bounded, then \(L\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) .
Lutwak [3] introduced the \(L_{p}\)-compact convex set \(P_{p}K\) whose support function for \(x\in{\Bbb R}^{n}\) is given by
where \(K\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) and \(p\geq 1\). Since \(h(P_{p}K,\cdot):{\Bbb R}^{n}\rightarrow[0,\infty)\) is convex, it is the support function of a compact convex set. Lutwak was the first to give a lower bound estimate of \(h(P_{p}K,\cdot)\) and prove the following important result for \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area \(G_{p}(K)\): If \(K\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), \(p\geq 1\), then there exists a unique body \(\bar{K}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) such that
For the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area \(G_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\), the introduction of such a compact convex set is difficult but can also be done. However, here we will prove the following result on the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area not introducing the compact convex set but using a new technique.
Theorem 1.
If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) , \(p\geq 1\) , then there exists a unique body \(\bar{K}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) such that
Proof.
From (36), there exists a sequence \(M_{i}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) such that \(V(M_{i}^{*})=\omega_{n}\) with
for all \(i\), and
Suppose that \(R_{i}=R(M_{i})=\rho(M_{i},u_{i})=\max\{\rho(M_{i},u):u\in S^{n-1}\}\). The convex set
is such that \(\rho(M_{i},u_{i})=R_{i}\), whence
From the well-known Jensen’s inequality, and choosing \(c\) such that \(h(\mathbf\Pi(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n-1}),u)\geq c>0\) on \(S^{n-1}\), we obtain
Note that the mixed area measure, when considered as defining a mass distribution on the sphere, always has centroid at the origin (see [15, p. 281]),
Hence
Noting that \(M_{i}\) are uniformly bounded, the Blaschke selection theorem guarantees the existence of a subsequence of the \(M_{i}\), which will also denote by \(M_{i}\), and a compact convex \(L\in{\mathcal S}^{n}\) such that \(M_{i}\rightarrow L\). In view of \(V(M_{i}^{*})=\omega_{n}\), Lemma 6 gives \(L\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\). Hence \(M_{i}\rightarrow L\) implies that \(M_{i}^{*}\rightarrow L^{*}\), and since \(V(M_{i}^{*})=\omega_{n}\), it follows that \(V(L^{*})=\omega_{n}\). Lemma 2 can now be used to conclude that \(L\) will serve as the desired body \(\bar{K}\).
The uniqueness of the minimizing body is proved as follows: let \(L_{1},L_{2}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) satisfy \(V(L_{1}^{*})= V(L_{2}^{*})=\omega_{n}\), and let
Let \(L\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) be defined by
Using (9) and (29) and noticing that \(\varphi\) is convex and strictly increasing on \([0,\infty)\), we have
If \(K,L\in{\mathcal S}^{n}_{o}\) and \(\lambda,\mu\geq 0\) (not both zero), then, for \(p\geq 1\), the harmonic \(p\)-combination \(\lambda\circ K\widehat{+}_{p}\mu\circ L\in{\mathcal S}^{n}_{o}\) is defined as (see [10]–[11])
Hence
and \(V(L_{1}^{*})=\omega_{n}=V(L_{2}^{*})\).
Suppose that \(K,L\in{\mathcal S}^{n}_{o}\) and \(\lambda,\mu\geq 0\). If \(p\geq 1\), then (see [3])
with equality if and only if \(K\) and \(L\) are dilates. This yields that
with equality if and only if \(L_{1}=L_{2}\). Thus,
This is a contradiction if \(L_{1}\neq L_{2}\).
The unique body whose existence is guaranteed by Theorem 1 will be denoted by \(T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) and called the \(L_{p}\)-mixed Petty body of \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\). Thus, for \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) and \(p\geq 1\), the body \(T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) is defined so as
where \(T_{p}^{*}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) denotes the polar body of \(T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\). That is,
Lemma 7.
If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) , \(p\geq 1\) , then, for \(A\in {\rm SL}(n)\) ,
Proof.
Let \(\bar{K}\in T_{p}(K_{1},\cdots,K_{n})\); from the definition of \(T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\), Lemma 4, Lemma 5 and Theorem 1, we have
Observe that
So
On the other hand, let \(\bar{K}\in T_{p}(AK_{1},\cdots,AK_{n})\); from Lemma 1, Lemma 5, and Theorem 1, we obtain
Note that
Hence
This completes the proof.
In much the same way as before, here we do not introduce the compact convex set \(P_{p}K\) and do not estimate the relevant lower boundary either. By using a new technique, we will prove the following bound on the size of \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area \(T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\).
Lemma 8.
Suppose that \(p\geq 1\) and \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) . If \(r,R>0\) are such that
then, for all \(u\in S^{n-1}\) ,
Proof.
It follows from (29) that
Let \(\bar{K}=T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\). Then
Let \(u_{0}\) be a point in \(S^{n-1}\) such that
Since the support function of \(\bar{K}\) majorizes that of the convex set \(e_{0}=\{\lambda u_{0}: 0\leq \lambda \leq R(\bar{K})\}\subset \bar{K}\), from the proof of Theorem 1, it follows that
Hence
So
From (45), (46) and (47), (44), the desired result easily follows.
This completes the proof.
Lemma 9.
Let \(p\geq 1\) . If \(K_{ij}\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) \((j=1,2,\,\dots\,,n)\) is a family of bodies for which there exist \(r,R>0\) such that
then there exist \(r',R'>0\) such that
Proof.
Let \(\bar{K}_{i}=T_{p}(K_{i1},\cdots,K_{in})\). The existence of \(R'>0\), implying that the \(\bar{K}_{i}\) are uniformly bounded, is contained in Lemma 8. Let \(r_{i}=r(\bar{K}_{i})\) denote the inner radius of \(\bar{K}_{i}\). Thus,
where \(u_{i}\in S^{n-1}\) is any point where this minimum is attained. Suppose that \(\inf\{r_{i}\}=0\). Thus, there exists a subsequence of the \(\bar{K}_{i}\), which will not be relabeled, such that
The Blaschke selection theorem, in conjunction with Lemma 6, demonstrates the existence of \(M\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) such that, for a subsequence of the \(\bar{K}_{i}\), which will also not be relabeled,
But \(h(\bar{K}_{i},u_{i})\rightarrow 0\), and \(\max|h_{K_{i}}-h_{M}|\rightarrow 0\), so that \(h(M,u_{i})\rightarrow 0\), which is impossible, because the continuous function \(h_{M}\) is positive.
This completes the proof.
Theorem 2.
If \(p\geq 1\) , then \(G_{p}: \underbrace{{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\times\cdots\times {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}}_{n}\rightarrow (0,\infty)\) is continuous.
Proof.
First, we show that \(G_{p}\) is upper semicontinuous. If \(p\geq 1\) and \(K_{ij}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), \(j=1,2,\,\dots\,,n\), such that \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), then \(S(K_{i1},\,\dots\,,K_{in};\cdot)\rightarrow S(K_{01},\,\dots\,,K_{0n};\cdot)\), weakly on \(S^{n-1}\). Hence for \(L\in{\mathcal S}^{n}_{o}\) we have
Therefore, the \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area \(\omega_{n}^{p/n}G_{p}:\underbrace{{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\times\cdots\times{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}}_{n}\rightarrow(0,\infty)\) is defined by the infimum of the continuous functions \(nV_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1},Q^{*},\cdot)V(Q)^{p/n}:\underbrace{{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\times\cdots\times{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}}_{n}\rightarrow(0,\infty)\) as \(Q\) ranges over \({\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\).
To see that \(G_{p}\) is lower semicontinuous at \(K_{01},\,\dots\,,K_{0n}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\), let \(K_{ij}\in {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) be a sequence of bodies such that \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\) \((j=1,2,\,\dots\,,n)\) with \(G_{p}(K_{i1},\,\dots\,,K_{in})\rightarrow l\in{\Bbb R}\). We will show that \(l\geq G_{p}(K_{01},\,\dots\,,K_{0n})\), and thus
By Lemma 9, the \(\bar{K}_{i}=T_{p}(K_{i1},\,\dots\,,K_{in})\) are uniformly bounded. The Blaschke selection theorem, in conjunction with Lemma 6, yields the existence of a body \(M\in K^{n}_{o}\) and a subsequence of the \(\bar{K}_{i}\), which will not be relabeled, such that \(\bar{K}_{i}\rightarrow M\) and \(V(M^{*})=\omega_{n}\). By Lemma 2 and the facts that \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\) and \(\bar{K}_{i}\rightarrow M\), we have
Since \(G_{p}(K_{i1},\,\dots\,,K_{in})\rightarrow l\), we have \(nV_{p}(K_{01},\,\dots\,,K_{0,n-1},M,K_{0n})=l\). But it follows from the definition of \(G_{p}(K_{01},\,\dots\,,K_{0n})\) that
This completes the proof.
Lemma 10.
If \(p\geq 1\) , then \(T_{p}: \underbrace{{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\times\cdots\times {\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}}_{n}\rightarrow (0,\infty)\) is continuous.
Proof.
Suppose that \(K_{ij}\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) \((j=1,2,\,\dots\,,n)\) such that \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\). Let \(\bar{K}_{i}=T_{p}(K_{i1},\,\dots\,,K_{in})\) denote a subsequence of \(\bar{K}_{i}\). Lemma 9 shows that the \(\bar{K}_{i}\) are uniformly bounded. The Blaschke selection theorem, in conjunction with Lemma 6, yields the existence of a body \(M\in{\mathcal K}^{n}_{o}\) and a subsequence of the \(\bar{K}_{i}\), which will not be relabeled, such that \(\bar{K}_{i}\rightarrow M\) and \(V(M^{*})=\omega_{n}\). Lemma 2 and the fact that \(K_{ij}\rightarrow K_{0j}\) and \(\bar{K}_{i}\rightarrow M\) may be used to conclude that
But, by Theorem 2,
Hence
and the uniqueness part of Theorem 1 shows that \(\bar{K}_{0}=M\).
Hence every subsequence of \(\bar{K}_{i}\) has a subsequence converging to \(\bar{K}_{0}\).
This completes the proof.
Petty [1] called a body \(K\in {\mathcal K}^{n}\) self-minimal if \(TK\) and \(K\) are homothetic. Lutwak [3] called a body \(K\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) \(p\)- self-minimal if \(T_{p}K\) and \(K\) are dilates of each other, and showed that the class of \(p\)-self-minimal bodies is a centro-affine invariant class of bodies. In this article, for some bodies \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), we will say that \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}\) are mixed \(p\)-self-minimal if \(T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) and \(K_{n}\) are dilates of each other.
Lemma 11.
If \(p\geq 1\) , and \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) , then
with equality if and only if \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}\) are mixed \(p\) -self-minimal.
Proof.
Putting \(Q=K_{n}\) in the definition of \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area, we have
To obtain the equality conditions, let \(\bar{K}=T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})\) and assume first that \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\) are mixed \(p\)-self-minimal. From \(\bar{K}=T_{p}(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n})=\delta K_{n}\), \(\delta>0\), we have
Moreover, \(\bar{K}=\delta K_{n}\) implies that \(\delta \bar{K}^{*}=K_{n}^{*}\). Since \(V(\bar{K}^{*})=\omega_{n}\), this yields \(\delta=\left(V(K_{n}^{*})/\omega_{n}\right)^{1/n}\). This shows that there is equality in the inequality.
Conversely, suppose that there is equality in the inequality
But
Hence
Since
it follows from the uniqueness of \(\bar{K}\) that
Thus, \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}\) are mixed \(p\)-self-minimal.
This completes the proof.
Theorem 3.
If \(p\geq 1\) and \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) , then
with equality if and only if \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}=E\) are mixed \(p\) -self-minimal.
Proof.
The inequality is immediate from Lemma 11 and the Blaschke–Santaló inequality.
From the equalities of Lemma 11 and the Blaschke–Santaló inequality, it follows that equality in (50) holds if and only if \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}\) are mixed \(p\)-self-minimal and \(K_{n}\) is an ellipsoid. This yields that the equality in (50) holds if and only if \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and an ellipsoid \(E\) are mixed \(p\)-self-minimal.
This completes the proof.
Remark.
When \(K_{1}=\cdots=K_{n}=K\), (50) becomes Lutwak’s \(p\)-geominimal surface area inequality: If \(p\geq 1\), and \(K\in{\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), then
with equality if and only if \(K\) is an ellipsoid.
The following mixed geominimal surface area inequality of \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\) is also derived.
The mixed geominimal surface area inequality. If \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n}\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\) , then
with equality if and only if \(K_{1},\,\dots\,,K_{n-1}\) and \(K_{n}=E\) are mixed \(p\) -self-minimal.
The following \(i\)th \(L_{p}\)-mixed geominimal surface area inequality is a special case of (50). If \(p\geq 1\), \(0\leq i<n\), and \(K\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), then
with equality if and only if \(K\) is an ellipsoid.
The following \(i\)th mixed geominimal surface area inequality is also a special case of (52). If \(0\leq i<n\) and \(K\in {\mathcal K}_{o}^{n}\), then
with equality if and only if \(K\) is an ellipsoid.
References
C. M. Petty, “Geominimal surface area,” Geom. Dedicata 3, 77–97 (1974).
Y. D. Burago and V. A. Zalgaller, Geometric Inequalities (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988).
E. Lutwak, “The Brunn–Minkowski–Firey theory. II. Affine and geominimal surface areas,” Adv. Math. 118, 244–294 (1996).
B. Zhu, J. Zhou and W. Xu, “\(L_p\)-mixed geominimal surface area,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 423, 1247–1263 (2015).
D. Ye, “New Orlicz affine isoperimetric inequalities,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 427, 905–929 (2015).
W. Wang and B. He, “ \(L_p\)-dual affine surface area,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 348, 746–751 (2008).
W. Wang and G. Leng, “ \(L_p\)-mixed affine surface area,” J. Math. Anal. Appl. 335, 341–354 (2007).
J. Guo and Y. Feng, “\(L_p\)-dual geominimal surface area and general \(L_p\)-centroid bodies,” J. Inequal. Appl. 2015, Article ID 358 (2015).
T. Ma, “The \(i\)th \(p\)-geominimal surface mixed area,” J. Inequal. Appl. 2014, Article ID 356 (2014).
H. Li, Y. Lin, W. Wang, and G. Leng, “The \((q,\varphi)\)-dual Orlicz mixed affine surface areas,” Results Math. 73, Article ID 131 (2018).
M. Ludwig, “General affine surface areas,” Adv. Math. 224, 2346–2360 (2010).
K. J. Böröczky, “Stability of the Blaschke–Santaló and the affine isoperimetric inequality,” Adv. Math. 225, 1914–1928 (2010).
S. Yuan, H. Jin, and G. Leng, “Orlicz geominimal surface areas,” Math. Inequal. Appl. 18 (1), 358–362 (2015).
D. Zou and G. Xiong, “The minimal Orlicz surface area,” Adv. Appl. Math. 61, 25-45 (2014).
R. Schneider, Convex Bodies: The Brunn–Minkowski Theory (Cambridge University Press, 2nd ed., Cambridge, 2014).
C.-J. Zhao, “Orlicz–Aleksandrov–Fenchel inequality for Orlicz multiple mixed volumes,” J. Func. Spaces 2018, Article ID 9752178 (2018).
W. J. Firey, “\(p\)-means of convex bodies,” Math. Scand. 10, 17–24 (1962).
W. Blaschke, Vorlesungen über Differentialgeometrie. II. Affine Differentialgeometrie (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1923).
M. Meyer and A. Pajor, “On the Blaschke–Santaló inequality,” Arch. Math. 55, 82–93 (1990).
L. A. Santaló, “Un invariante afin para los cuerpos convexos del espacio den dimensiones,” Portugal. Math. 8, 155–161 (1949).
R. Schneider, “Kinematische Berührmaß e für konvexe Kõrper und Integralrelationen für Ober flächenmaß e,” Math. Ann. 218, 253–267 (1975).
E. Lutwak, “Centroid bodies and dual mixed volumes,” Proc. London Math. Soc. 60 (3), 365–391 (1990).
E. Lutwak D. Yang, and G. Zhang, “\(L_{p}\) affine isoperimetric inequalities,” J. Diff. Goem. 56, 111–132 (2000).
E. Lutwak, “The Brunn–Minkowski–Firey theory I. mixed volumes and the Minkowski problem,” J. Diff. Goem. 38, 131–150 (1993).
E. Lutwak D. Yang, and G. Zhang, “Sharp affine \(L_{p}\) Sobolev inequalities,” J. Diff. Goem. 62, 17–38 (2002).
E. Lutwak, “Inequalities for mixed projection bodies,” Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 339, 901–916 (1993).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zhao, C.J. The \(L_{p}\)-Mixed Geominimal Surface Areas. Math Notes 112, 1044–1058 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001434622110360
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001434622110360