1

Context: this is intended to justify the second paragraph of Ethan Bolker's answer to my previous question concerning convex polyhedrons.


In $\Bbb R^n$ (assming $\color{red}{n\ge 3}$), there are two $(n - 1)$-simplices $F,G$ neither of which is "coplanar" with $0$, i.e. $0$ is in the affine hull of neither. Also, we assume $F,G$ aren't coplanar themselves. Finally, there is a plane $\pi$ (or $(n-1)$-dim affine subspace) that separates $F,G$ from the $0$, i.e. $\pi$ cuts the whole space into two open regions one of which contains $F,G$ and the other contains $0$.

Show that, there exists an open set $U\in\Bbb R^n$, such that for each $n\in U, n\ne 0$, the plane $\{x\in\Bbb R^n\mid n^Tx=0\}$ intersects with both $F$ and $G$.

In 3D version: $F, G$ are any two triangles neither of which is coplanar with $0$. So it boils down to justifying an open set of normals whose corresponding subspaces intersect both $F,G$.

My idea: pick $f\in\text{relint} F$ and $g_{1,\cdots, n-2}\in\text{relint} G$ (in which relint means relative interior, i.e., points that belong to the simplex but aren't on its "boundary") in a way that $0, f,g_{1,\cdots,n-2}$ can indeed determine a $(n-1)$-dim subspace, whose normal vector we pick to be $n$. Then prove that for a sufficently small $\epsilon>0$, we will have $\{(n+v)^Tx=0\}$ still intersects $F,G$ for all $v\in B_{\epsilon}(0)$. But I don't know how to get my hands on it. Any help? Thanks in advance.

Vim
  • 13,905
  • It seems something is wrong with the claim. Indeed, let $n=2$, $F\not\ni 0$, and $G\not\ni 0$ be segments belonging to different straight lines going through the origin $0$. Then there is no $n\ne 0$ such that the straight line ${x\in\Bbb R^n\mid n^Tx=0}$ intersects with both $F$ and $G$. – Alex Ravsky Dec 03 '17 at 08:45
  • @AlexRavsky sorry, I should have added there is a plane that separate these simplices from the origin. (context is they are faces of a convex polyhedron away from the origin). – Vim Dec 03 '17 at 08:47
  • My example satisfies this condition too. – Alex Ravsky Dec 03 '17 at 08:49
  • @AlexRavsky Thanks for pointing out. I have edited the question and added the condition "$0$ is in the affine hull of neither" - I guess this should be what I was really thinking about in my mind. – Vim Dec 03 '17 at 09:00
  • I am sorry, but new restrictions still do not assure that there exists such a non-zero $n$, because we still can take segments $F\not\ni 0$ and $G\not\ni$ such that $${\lambda x:x\in F, \lambda\in\Bbb R}\cap{\lambda x:x\in G, \lambda\in\Bbb R}={0}.$$ For instance, $F={10}\times [-1;1]$ and $G=[-1;1]\times {10}$. – Alex Ravsky Dec 03 '17 at 10:19
  • @AlexRavsky oops. It seems inevitable to include the full context here to make my claim really make sense. – Vim Dec 03 '17 at 10:22
  • @AlexRavsky Nevertheless, 2D cases don't matter in my research. So do you think, with current conditions, there would exist counterexamples in $n=3$ or higher? I'm not sure about that. – Vim Dec 03 '17 at 10:24

0 Answers0