1

Definition

The parallelopided generated by a point $O\in\Bbb R^n$ and $k$ linearly independent vectors $\vec v_1,\dots,\vec v_k$ is the set $\mathcal P_O(\vec v_1,\dots,\vec v_k)$ defined through the condition $$ \mathcal P_O(\vec v_1,\dots,\vec v_k):=\big\{P\in\Bbb R^n|\,\,\,\text{there exist}\,\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^k\in[0,1]\,\text{such that}\,\,P=O+\alpha^i\vec v_i\big\} $$

So clearly with respect this definition any parallelotope is homeomorphic to the unitary cube $[0,1]^k$ so that it is connected but unfortunately it is not possible to claim that it is convex since homeomorphisms do not preserve the convexity as here showed. So I ask if any parallelopided is a convex set. Could someone help me, please?

  • 1
    The correct definition is $P_O(v_1,\dots, v_k):={P\in\Bbb{R}^n,|,\text{there exist $\alpha^1,\dots,\alpha^k\in[0,1]$ such that $P=O+\alpha^iv_i$.}}$. One piece of advice I would offer you is to avoid using excessive symbols $\wedge$ (which in this context I'd expecially avoid because it would remind people of the wedge product) and $\forall$ and $\exists$. It's my experience that people make fewer mistakes when writing in words. Also, ALWAYS put the quantifiers at the start of a sentence, rather than the end, because that's the clearest and most unambiguous way. – peek-a-boo Aug 09 '21 at 13:42
  • @peek-a-boo Okay, I will correct now the definition. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:44
  • @peek-a-boo Definition edited. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:46
  • I do not think that the tag "general-topology" is adequate here. – Paul Frost Aug 09 '21 at 15:53
  • @PaulFrost Okay, so if you think this you can change by yourself the tags editing the question, that's no surely problem. So which tags do you suggest? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 16:07
  • I deleted "general-topology" since, as you say, homeomorphisms do not preserve the convexity, i.e. convexity is not a topological property. The tag "convex-geometry" seems to be the best choice. – Paul Frost Aug 09 '21 at 16:29
  • 2
    The "obvious" homeomorphism between the parallelepiped and the unit cube is an affine transformation. Affine transformations do respect convexity. – Rob Arthan Aug 09 '21 at 20:04
  • @PaulFrost Okay, I saw: thanks for edit. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 21:02
  • @RobArthan Oh, I did not konw this: so could you show to me this in an answer, please? I will really gratefull to you for this. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 21:04
  • 1
    An affine transformation is the composite of a linear transformation and a translation. I think you should be able to show that both linear transformations and translations respect convexity. Now you just need to show that the homeomorphism that you already know about is an affine transformation. – Rob Arthan Aug 09 '21 at 21:08
  • @RobArthan Oh yeah! Indeed if $f: V\rightarrow W$ and $g:V\rightarrow W$ are respectively a linear map and a translation between t.v.s. then $$\begin{cases}f(x)+t\big(f(x)-f(y)\big)=f(x)+t(f(y-x))=f(x)+f\big(t(y-x)\big)=f\big(x-t(y-x)\big)\g(x)+t\big(g(x)-g(y)\big)=(x+\vec v)+t(x-y)=\big(x+t(x-y)\big)+\vec v=g\big(x+t(y-x)\big)\end{cases}$$ for any $x,y\in V$ and so the statement follows immeditaly, right? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 10 '21 at 11:33
  • That looks good to me. – Rob Arthan Aug 10 '21 at 13:09
  • @RobArthan Okay, I edited the answer. Thanks very much for your support! – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 10 '21 at 21:57

1 Answers1

1

So first of all we remember that the product of convex sets is convex too (see here for details) and moreover we remember that any interval of the real line $\Bbb R$ is convex: so any rectangle is convex being product of convex sets and thus the unit cube $[0,1]^k$ is convex. Now any linear map and any translation between t.s.v. preserve the convexity since if $f:V\rightarrow W$ is a such map then $$ f\big(x+t(y-x)\big)=f(x)+t\big(f(y)-f(x)\big) $$ for any $x,y\in V$. So we conclude that any $k$-parallelopiped is convex because it is homeomorphic to the unit cube $[0,1]^k$ via the composition of a translation and a linear map.

Anyway it is possible (if it interest) to prove the statement via other argumentations I show to follow.

So if $x,y\in\mathcal P_O(\vec v_1,\dots\vec v_k)$ then there must exist $\xi^i,\eta^i\in[0,1]$ for $i=1,\dots,k$ such that $$ x=O+\xi^i\vec v_i\,\,\,\text{and}\,\,\,y=O+\eta^i\vec v_i $$ and thus we have to prove that $$ x+t\cdot(x-y)=\big(O+\xi^i\vec v_i\big)+t\cdot(\eta^i-\xi^i)\vec v_i\in\mathcal P_O(\vec v_1,\dots,\vec v_k) $$ for any $t\in[0,1]$. So observing that $$ \big(O+\xi^i\vec v_i\big)+t\cdot(\eta^i-\xi^i)\vec v_i=O+\big(\xi^i+t\cdot(\eta^i-\xi^i)\big)\vec v_i=O+\big((1-t)\cdot\xi^i+t\cdot\eta^i\big)\vec v_i $$ for any $t\in[0,1]$ we observe that $$ \begin{cases}0\le\xi^i,\eta^i\le1\\0\le t\le1\end{cases}\Rightarrow\begin{cases}0\le\xi^i,\eta^i\le1\\0\le t\le 1\\0\le1-t\le1\end{cases}\Rightarrow\\ \begin{cases}(1-t)\cdot\xi^i\ge0\\t\cdot\eta^i\ge0\\t\cdot\eta^i\le t\le1\\(1-t)\cdot\xi^i\le(1-t)\le1\end{cases}\Rightarrow0\le(1-t)\cdot\xi^i+t\cdot\eta^i\le(1-t)+t=1 $$ for any $i=1,\dots, k$ and this proves the statement.

  • @peek-a-boo So is my answer incorrect? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:27
  • Your wording is extremely confusing. "So if $x,y\in P_O(v_1,\dots, v_k)$ then $x=\xi^iv_i, y=\eta^iv_i$ for any $\xi^1\dots, \xi^k,\eta^1,\dots, \eta^k\in [0,1]$" is just wrong. You need to get the wording and particularly the definition and quantifiers right. Also, in your next line, what is $\alpha^i$? Should it be $\xi^i$? Finally, in the second half it seems you're over-complicating it because all you're trying to show is that $[0,1]$ is convex (which I would think is quite obvious). – peek-a-boo Aug 09 '21 at 13:30
  • @peek-a-boo Probably I got wrong to do not specify that I use einstein convetion about the repeated indices: ideed I wanted write $$ x=\xi^1\vec v_1+\dots+\xi^k\vec v_k,,,\text{and},,,y=\eta^1\vec v_1+\dots+\eta^k\vec v_k$$ So what can you say now with this clarification? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:36
  • I'm well aware of the summation convention. My point is that the correct phrasing is "if $x,y\in P_O$ then there exist $\xi^1,\dots, \xi^k,\eta^1,\dots, \eta^k\in [0,1]$ such that $x=O+\xi^iv_i$ and $y=O+\eta^iv_i$". This comes back to your definition in the question. Using too many symbols often confuses the meaning. – peek-a-boo Aug 09 '21 at 13:37
  • @peek-a-boo Okay, I will now edit the indicated phrasing: so then are there others mistakes? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:39
  • @peek-a-boo Answer edited, so what can you say now? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:41
  • $x=O+\xi^iv_i$. You're forgetting the $O$, same thing with $y.$ – peek-a-boo Aug 09 '21 at 13:42
  • @peek-a-boo Oh, right! My bad, sorry: I will correct now. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:43
  • @peek-a-boo Answer edited: I hope there is no typos now. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:47
  • @peek-a-boo Anyway are my argumentations correct? What can you say now about? – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:49
  • yes it is fine. – peek-a-boo Aug 09 '21 at 13:50
  • @ peek-a-boo Okay, thanks very much for your assistance! Anyway sorry for my typos: here it's really hot today and so probably this impede my brain. Thanks yet. – Antonio Maria Di Mauro Aug 09 '21 at 13:55