Plectis Atlas
Search

↑ and ↓ move, Enter opens, Esc closes.

Reading view

A product counterexample to the simplex maximum for projection-body volume

OpenAI, 24 September 2026

PDFTeX source

Part of family 088: Sharp projection-body inequalities and a counterexample to simplex maximization. Read it with its family

This page is converted from the paper’s TeX source. Atlas reconstructs statement numbers from the paper’s typesetting source (TeX). Use the original PDF if they differ. One figure is shown as a placeholder; see the PDF for it.

Abstract

The product of two ten-dimensional simplices has larger normalized projection-body volume than a twenty-dimensional simplex. This gives a counterexample to Brannen’s proposed simplex maximum.

1 Introduction

Throughout, a convex body in \R^d is compact and convex with nonempty interior, and d\ge2. Write |K| for its d-dimensional volume and h_C(x)=\max_{y\in C}\langle x,y\rangle for the support function of a compact convex set C. The projection body \Pi_d K, also written \Pi K when the dimension is evident, is defined by

h_{\Pi K}(u)=\vol_{d-1}\bigl(\proj_{u^\perp}K\bigr), \qquad u\in S^{d-1},

extended homogeneously to all of \R^d. Here S^{d-1} is the Euclidean unit sphere and \proj_{u^\perp} is orthogonal projection. We write B_2^j for the Euclidean unit ball in \R^j and \kappa_j=|B_2^j|. The functional under consideration is

R_d(K)=\frac{|\Pi K|}{|K|^{d-1}}, \qquad c_d=\frac{(d+1)d^d}{d!}. \tag{1}

The extremal values of this affine-invariant functional are classical questions in convex geometry. Petty established the affine covariance of the projection-body operator [6]; see also [5, Equation (1)]. Brannen conjectured in 1996 that simplices maximize R_d among all convex bodies [1]. The simplex value is c_d, as we verify below. Thus the proposed simplex upper bound is

|\Pi K|\le c_d|K|^{d-1}. \tag{2}

It is the volume of \Pi K itself that occurs here, not the volume of its polar: the classical projection inequalities involving the polar concern a different functional. For d\ge3, Petty’s separate minimum problem asks whether ellipsoids are the only minimizers of the same functional R_d; see [7, Section 1] for these distinctions.

In dimension three, Chen, Feng, Li, Xi, and Xu settle the minimum problem and also prove the bound R_3(K)\le18=c_3 for all three-dimensional convex bodies, with tetrahedra attaining equality [2, Theorems 1.1 and 1.2]. Feng, Hu, Liu, and Xu give counterexamples to (2) in every dimension d\ge9, using polytopes with at most d+2 facets [3, Theorem 1.3]. Their result already gives a negative answer to the unrestricted-dimensional simplex-maximum question. Their construction uses perturbed projections of a cube and Minkowski’s existence theorem [3, Section 4]. The present paper supplies a direct Cartesian-product construction and its exact value: two ten-dimensional simplices suffice.

Theorem 1. Let T_{10}=\conv(0,e_1,\ldots,e_{10})\subset\R^{10}, where the e_i are the coordinate unit vectors, and let K=T_{10}\times T_{10}\subset\R^{20}. Then

\frac{R_{20}(K)}{c_{20}} =\frac{121\binom{20}{10}}{21\cdot2^{20}} =\frac{22\,355\,476}{22\,020\,096}>1.

Thus K violates (2) in dimension twenty.

The exact witness in Theorem 1 provides an elementary illustration of the failure of the simplex maximum. The optimal upper constant and its maximizing bodies remain separate questions.

The useful mechanism is a product test: for full-dimensional polytopes A\subset\R^r and B\subset\R^s, with r,s\ge2,

R_{r+s}(A\times B)=R_r(A)R_s(B).

Consequently, the product c_rc_s of the simplex values is a necessary lower bound for any universal upper constant in dimension r+s. The dimension-twenty counterexample comes from comparing two copies of the ten-dimensional simplex value with the twenty-dimensional simplex value. All identities used in that comparison are proved below.

The growth of upper constants with dimension is a further quantitative question. For centrally symmetric bodies, Henk gives the lower bound 2^d(9/8)^{\lfloor d/3\rfloor} for the optimal upper constant [4]. Iterating our product identity gives an exponential excess over the simplex benchmark: for some fixed \lambda>1 and every sufficiently large n, a product of simplices K_n\subset\R^n satisfies R_n(K_n)\ge\lambda^n c_n. Corollary 6 proves this consequence by repeating ten-dimensional factors and using one additional simplex to reach each dimension.

Section 2 derives the facet formula, the product identity, and affine covariance. Section 3 computes the simplex value by expressing its projection body as a cube plus one segment. Section 4 combines the identities and gives the exact integer comparison, then proves the exponential excess in all sufficiently large dimensions.

2 Facet vectors and Cartesian products

We first express projection bodies of polytopes as sums of segments. The facets of a Cartesian product then separate into two families, which will make its normalized projection-body volume multiplicative. The facet formula is the polytopal case of Cauchy’s projection formula; see [7, Section 1]. We include its proof to fix the factor 1/2 on which the subsequent constants depend.

We use Minkowski addition C+D=\{c+d:c\in C,\ d\in D\}. Support functions add under this operation and determine compact convex sets uniquely. For the latter assertion, if x\notin C and y\in C is nearest to x, minimization along each segment [y,z]\subset C gives \langle x-y,z-y\rangle\le0 for every z\in C. The linear functional with vector x-y therefore separates x from C.

Lemma 2. Let P\subset\R^d, d\ge2, be a full-dimensional convex polytope. For each facet F, let s_F be its (d-1)-dimensional volume and \nu_F its outward unit normal. Then

h_{\Pi P}(u)=\frac12\sum_Fs_F|\langle\nu_F,u\rangle|, \qquad u\in\R^d, \tag{3}

and therefore

\Pi P=\sum_F \left[-\frac{s_F\nu_F}{2},\frac{s_F\nu_F}{2}\right]. \tag{4}

Proof. First take u to be a unit vector. Orthogonal projection from the hyperplane of F to u^\perp has absolute Jacobian |\langle\nu_F,u\rangle|. Indeed, for an orthonormal tangent basis v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1}, that Jacobian is |\det(v_1,\ldots,v_{d-1},u)|, which equals the stated inner product in absolute value.

Apart from a set of (d-1)-dimensional measure zero, a point in the projection of P lies on the projections of exactly two facet interiors: the entry and exit points of its line parallel to u. To see that the exceptions are null, discard the boundary of the projection and the projections of all faces of dimension at most d-2. Also discard projections of facets whose hyperplanes are parallel to u; these projections have dimension at most d-2. Every remaining line meets P in a nondegenerate interval with its two endpoints in facet interiors. Integrating this multiplicity gives (3) for unit u, and homogeneity gives the general case.

The support function of [-v/2,v/2] is \tfrac12|\langle v,u\rangle|. Adding these support functions proves (4).

Proposition 3. Let A\subset\R^r and B\subset\R^s be full-dimensional convex polytopes, where r,s\ge2. In the orthogonal product space \R^{r+s}=\R^r\times\R^s,

\Pi(A\times B)=(|B|\Pi A)\times(|A|\Pi B). \tag{5}

In particular,

R_{r+s}(A\times B)=R_r(A)R_s(B). \tag{6}

Proof. The face exposed by a linear functional (u,v) on A\times B is the product of the faces exposed by u and v. Dimensions add under Cartesian products. A nonzero linear functional exposes a proper face of a full-dimensional body, so if both u and v are nonzero, the product face has codimension at least two. A facet therefore has one facet factor and one whole factor. Thus the facets are F\times B and A\times G, with area-normal vectors

(|B|s_F\nu_F,0) \quad\hbox{and}\quad (0,|A|s_G\nu_G),

respectively. The area factors are products because the two coordinate spaces are orthogonal. Lemma 2 now gives

h_{\Pi(A\times B)}(u,v) =|B|h_{\Pi A}(u)+|A|h_{\Pi B}(v).

This is the support function of the right side of (5), proving that identity. Hence

\begin{split} R_{r+s}(A\times B) &=\frac{|B|^r|A|^s|\Pi A||\Pi B|} {(|A||B|)^{r+s-1}}\\ &=\frac{|\Pi A|}{|A|^{r-1}} \frac{|\Pi B|}{|B|^{s-1}}, \end{split}

as required.

The product identity reduces our comparison to the values of its factors. To use simplices as a dimension-dependent benchmark, we also need to know that all full-dimensional simplices of a fixed dimension have the same value. The following affine covariance formula supplies that fact.

Lemma 4. Let P\subset\R^d, d\ge2, be a convex body. For every invertible linear map L\colon\R^d\to\R^d,

\Pi(LP)=|\det L|L^{-t}\Pi P,\qquad R_d(LP)=R_d(P),

where L^{-t} denotes the inverse transpose. Translations also preserve R_d.

Proof. First suppose that P is a polytope. The transformed outward unit normal of F is L^{-t}\nu_F/\|L^{-t}\nu_F\|. Its area is

s_{LF}=|\det L|\,\|L^{-t}\nu_F\|\,s_F.

For the area formula, take a prism of height one over F, extending in direction \nu_F. Its image has volume |\det L|s_F and height 1/\|L^{-t}\nu_F\| over LF; dividing volume by height gives the formula. Thus each area-normal vector transforms by |\det L|L^{-t}, including when \det L<0. Apply (4). The absolute determinant of this map is |\det L|^{d-1}, exactly the scaling of |LP|^{d-1}. Translation invariance follows directly from projection volumes.

For completeness, we justify the passage to an arbitrary convex body and the existence of its projection body. Translate an interior point of P to the origin, choose R>0 with P\subset RB_2^d, and take increasing inscribed polytopes P_m containing a fixed ball aB_2^d, a>0, such that

P_m\subset P\subset P_m+\varepsilon_mB_2^d \subset(1+\varepsilon_m/a)P_m, \qquad \varepsilon_m\longrightarrow0.

Take, for example, convex hulls of cumulative finite nets in P and a fixed inscribed polytope containing aB_2^d. Put \lambda_m=1+\varepsilon_m/a, and for unit u write F(u)=\vol_{d-1}(\proj_{u^\perp}P) and f_m(u)=h_{\Pi P_m}(u). Projection and volume monotonicity give

0\le F(u)-f_m(u) \le (\lambda_m^{d-1}-1)\kappa_{d-1}R^{d-1}.

Thus f_m\to F uniformly. The increasing bodies \Pi P_m lie in a fixed ball and contain \kappa_{d-1}a^{d-1}B_2^d, so their union closure is a convex body with support function F, namely \Pi P. The support inequalities also give

\Pi P_m\subset\Pi P\subset\lambda_m^{d-1}\Pi P_m, \qquad |\Pi P_m|\le|\Pi P|\le\lambda_m^{d(d-1)}|\Pi P_m|.

Likewise |P_m|\le|P|\le\lambda_m^d|P_m|. Applying L to the original sandwich gives the same convergence for LP_m. Passing to the limit in the polytope identity proves covariance and, by these volume inequalities, the asserted invariance of R_d.

3 The simplex value

We now compute the value to which the product will be compared. Only one extra segment beyond a coordinate cube is needed to describe the projection body of a simplex.

Proposition 5. For d\ge2, the standard simplex T_d=\conv(0,e_1,\ldots,e_d)\subset\R^d satisfies

|T_d|=\frac1{d!},\qquad |\Pi T_d|=\frac{d+1}{((d-1)!)^d},\qquad R_d(T_d)=c_d.

Every full-dimensional d-simplex has the same value c_d.

Proof. The simplex volume follows by iterated base and height. Put w=e_1+\cdots+e_d. The coordinate facets have area-normal vectors -e_i/(d-1)!. The remaining facet has unit normal w/\sqrt d. Dropping its last coordinate projects it onto the standard (d-1)-simplex with Jacobian 1/\sqrt d; its area-normal vector is therefore w/(d-1)!. In the centered segments of Lemma 2, changing the sign of a generator changes no segment. Translating each segment to start at the origin therefore shows that \Pi T_d is a translate of

\frac{[0,1]^d+[0,w]}{(d-1)!}.

To compute the numerator’s volume, let Q=[0,1]^d. Every nonempty fiber of Q parallel to w is an interval, and adding [0,w] increases its length by \|w\|. The base projection is unchanged. Fubini therefore gives

|Q+[0,w]| =|Q|+\|w\|\vol_{d-1}(\proj_{w^\perp}Q) =1+h_{\Pi Q}(w).

The cube has two facets of area one in each coordinate direction, so (3) gives h_{\Pi Q}(w)=d. Thus |Q+[0,w]|=d+1; Figure 1 illustrates the two-dimensional case. Dilation by 1/(d-1)! and division by |T_d|^{d-1} now yield

R_d(T_d)=\frac{(d+1)(d!)^{d-1}}{((d-1)!)^d} =\frac{(d+1)d^d}{d!}.

Every full-dimensional simplex is an invertible affine image of T_d, so Lemma 4 proves the final assertion.

Figure 1: The planar extrusion Q+[0,(1,1)], with Q=[0,1]^2, consists of the unit square and two parallelograms of area one. Its area is 3. The fiber argument in Proposition 5 proves the corresponding volume d+1 in every dimension.

4 The counterexample and exponential excess

The geometric work is complete. The product formula turns the comparison in dimension twenty into a calculation with two simplex constants.

Proof of Theorem 1. The product K=T_{10}\times T_{10} is compact and convex with nonempty interior in \R^{20}. Propositions 3 and 5 give

R_{20}(K)=R_{10}(T_{10})^2 =\left(\frac{11\cdot10^{10}}{10!}\right)^2.

Consequently,

\frac{R_{20}(K)}{c_{20}} =\frac{121\cdot10^{20}\cdot20!} {(10!)^2\cdot21\cdot20^{20}} =\frac{121\binom{20}{10}}{21\cdot2^{20}} =\frac{22\,355\,476}{22\,020\,096}>1.

Here \binom{20}{10}=184\,756, and the exact integer certificate is

121\cdot184\,756-21\cdot1\,048\,576=335\,380>0.

This is an exact strict violation of (2).

More generally, for r,s\ge2, the same two propositions give the explicit product test

\frac{R_{r+s}(T_r\times T_s)}{c_{r+s}} =\frac{(r+1)(s+1)}{r+s+1} \binom{r+s}{r}\frac{r^rs^s}{(r+s)^{r+s}}.

Thus any universal upper constant in dimension r+s must be at least c_rc_s.

Iterating the product test gives the following quantitative consequence.

Corollary 6. There exist a constant \lambda>1 and an integer N\ge20 such that, for every integer n\ge N, some full-dimensional convex polytope K_n\subset\R^n satisfies

\frac{R_n(K_n)}{R_n(T_n)}\ge\lambda^n.

The polytopes K_n may be chosen as Cartesian products of simplices.

Proof. We use repeated ten-dimensional factors to obtain exponential growth, and one factor of dimension between ten and nineteen to reach every sufficiently large dimension. For r\in\{0,\ldots,9\}, put d_r=10+r. Every integer n\ge20 has a unique representation n=10k+d_r with k\ge1. In the orthogonal coordinate product space, take

K_n=T_{10}^{\,k}\times T_{d_r}.

Here T_{10}^{\,k} denotes the k-fold Cartesian product. All factors and their successive products are full-dimensional convex polytopes, with each factor dimension at least ten. Thus Propositions 3 and 5 apply iteratively and give

R_n(K_n)=c_{10}^k c_{d_r}.

To compare this value with c_n, we bound the simplex constants by n+1 times a fixed exponential, whose rate is smaller than that supplied by the ten-dimensional factors. Put \beta=11/4. The exponential series gives

e=\frac52+\sum_{j=3}^{\infty}\frac1{j!} <\frac52+\frac16\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}3^{-j} =\beta,

since the successive ratios in the tail are strictly less than 1/3. The positive term n^n/n! in the series for e^n is strictly smaller than the full sum, so

c_n<(n+1)e^n<(n+1)\beta^n\qquad(n\ge2).

For the fixed ten-dimensional block, exact arithmetic yields

c_{10}=\frac{17\,187\,500}{567},\qquad A:=\frac{c_{10}}{\beta^{10}} =\frac{1\,638\,400\,000\,000}{1\,336\,956\,340\,797}>1.

Choose a fixed \lambda with 1<\lambda<A^{1/10}. Combining these estimates with the formula for R_n(K_n) gives

\frac{R_n(K_n)}{R_n(T_n)\lambda^n} >c_{d_r}\beta^{-d_r}\lambda^{-d_r} \frac{(A/\lambda^{10})^k}{10k+d_r+1}.

For each fixed r, the right side tends to infinity as k\to\infty, because A/\lambda^{10}>1. A threshold can therefore be chosen in each of the ten residue classes; their maximum, enlarged to be at least twenty, gives one N for all n\ge N.

References

  1. [1]N. S. Brannen, Volumes of projection bodies, Mathematika 43 (1996), no. 2, 255–264. doi:10.1112/S002557930001175X.
  2. [2]S. Chen, Y. Feng, Y. Li, D. Xi, and L. Xu, Petty’s conjectured projection inequality in dimension three, preprint, 2026, MathSciDoc:2608.23001. Full text.
  3. [3]Y. Feng, S. Hu, W. Liu, and L. Xu, On the reverse projection inequality, preprint, 2026, MathSciDoc:2608.23002. Full text.
  4. [4]M. Henk, Note on projection bodies of zonotopes with n+1 generators, Acta Mathematica Scientia 45 (2025), 96–103. doi:10.1007/s10473-025-0107-9.
  5. [5]M. Ludwig, Projection bodies and valuations, Advances in Mathematics 172 (2002), no. 2, 158–168. doi:10.1016/S0001-8708(02)00021-X.
  6. [6]C. M. Petty, Projection bodies, in Proceedings of the Colloquium on Convexity (Copenhagen, 1965), Københavns Universitet Matematiske Institut, Copenhagen, 1967, pp. 234–241.
  7. [7]C. Saroglou, On the shape of a convex body with respect to its second projection body, Advances in Applied Mathematics 67 (2015), 55–74. doi:10.1016/j.aam.2015.03.004. Preprint: arXiv:1409.4347v2.