3

Note: This post has been reworked to be more readable

While writing up a proof for another post, I have stumbled across a conjecture which seems true concerning rotations, which is as follows:


let $f(x)=\sqrt{1-x^2}$ and $g(x)=1-x$. It is clear that $f(x)$ is greater on the interval $\left(-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}},\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$, which has diameter $1$. We now rotate both curves $45^{\circ}$ counter-clockwise about the origin, and get two curves $f^*(x)$ and $g^*(x)$.

Without finding an explicit form for $f^*$ and $g^*$,

  1. How can we prove that $f^*$ will still be greater than $g^*$ on some interval of diameter $1$

  2. Can we determine this interval will be $(0,1)$?

More generally, what can we say about these questions when $f$ and $g$ are arbitrary curves (that may or not be functions before, during, or after rotation)? Will the length of the interval where $f$ exceeds $g$ be the same as the length of the interval where $f^*$ exceeds $g^*$?


The following image illustrates this, where orange is $g(x)=1-x$ and purple is $f(x)=\sqrt{1-x^2}$. enter image description here

  • What do you mean by rotate $f$? Rotate the graph of $f$? Compose it with a rotation (in this case, what is a rotation on an interval?)? – Fimpellizzeri Mar 17 '17 at 22:37
  • @Fimpellizieri I realized I worded this is a confusing way. Yes, I think I mean "rotate the graph". I added an animation for better understanding since I am not great with the terminology here – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 17 '17 at 22:38
  • 1
    So the rotation is about the origin? In any case, I feel it's important to point out that after the rotation the resulting curves may no longer be graphs of a function over the interval defined by their projection onto the $x$-axis. – Fimpellizzeri Mar 17 '17 at 22:40
  • @Fimpellizieri Yes, around the origin. Sorry for the ambiguity! And yes, I realize the curves might not be functions. I ought to change the wording later (I cannot right now, and must go for a bit) – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 17 '17 at 22:41
  • Well, $f^\star$ is not necessarily a function. – Michael Hoppe Mar 17 '17 at 22:49
  • What is the "conjecture" that you mention twice, but never spell out? – dxiv Mar 18 '17 at 06:50
  • @dxiv I have reworked my post to fix this. I was a bit rushed in writing the first iteration. – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 18 '17 at 20:49
  • @MichaelHoppe I have reworked my post and addressed more explicitly now that $f^*$ need not be a function – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 18 '17 at 20:50
  • Do you mean $45^\circ$ counterclockwise? If you go clockwise, $1-x$ goes vertical. – WB-man Mar 18 '17 at 21:02
  • @WB-man sigh yep. The amount of typos I have made on this thing has made this comment section a nightmare – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 18 '17 at 21:04

1 Answers1

1

As noted in the comments, $f^*$ and $g^*$ are not necessarily functions after rotation. For example, consider the upper semicircle $y = \sqrt{1-x^2}$; any amount of rotation will cause it to no longer be a function.$\newcommand{\degs}{^\circ} \newcommand{\cut}{\, \backslash \,} \newcommand{\AND}{\ {\rm{\small{AND}}}\ } \newcommand{\OR}{{\ \rm{\small{OR}}}\ } \newcommand{\NOT}{\ {\rm{\small{NOT}}}\ } \newcommand{\Implies}{\Rightarrow} \newcommand{\If}{\Leftarrow} \newcommand{\Iff}{\Leftrightarrow} \newcommand{\x}{\times} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}} \newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}} \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}} \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}} \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}} \newcommand{\E}{\operatorname{\rm{\small{E}}}} \renewcommand{\Re}{\operatorname{Re}} \renewcommand{\Im}{\operatorname{Im}} \newcommand{\dash}{\textrm{-}} \newcommand{\der}{\partial} \newcommand{\del}{\nabla} \newcommand{\inv}{{\sim}} \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon} \newcommand{\dedent}{\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!}$

However, we really do need the rotated curves to be functions if we want a notion of "above" and "below" to make sense. To see what I mean, let $f$ denote the upper unit semicircle I defined earlier, and let $g$ be identically zero on $[-1,\ 1]$. If we rotate them both clockwise we get the following: enter image description here

In the red zone, the rotated $f^*$ has no $g^*$ underneath, leaving the comparison undefined.

So we need to ensure that $f^*$ and $g^*$ are well-defined functions. To do so, we need to impose some special conditions onto both $f$ and $g$. I don't know what the bare minimum necessary conditions are, but I do have a reasonably broad set of sufficient conditions that work. I will state them as part of the following proposition which, I think, is the essential gist of what you're wanting to prove:

Proposition: Let $\Delta\theta$ be an angle in the open interval $(0,\ \pi/2)$, and let $f$ and $g$ be differentiable functions on the closed interval $[a,b]$ such that the following hold:

  • $f(a) = g(a) \AND f(b) = g(b)$,
  • $f(x) \geq g(x)$ for all $x \in [a,b]$,
  • $f'(x),\ g'(x) < \cot \Delta\theta$ for all $x \in [a,b]$.

Then the counterclockwise rotations $f^*$ and $g^*$ by $\Delta\theta$ exist on the shifted interval $[a^*, b^*]$ (to be computed later) and satisfy $f^*(x) \geq g^*(x)$ on it.

For ease of presentation, this proposition is restricted to counterclockwise rotations, but the more general version for clockwise rotations is stated similarly to this one.

The key condition I imposed is that the derivatives of both $f$ and $g$ must be bounded by the cotangent of the rotation angle. To see the intuitive reason I did this, I pictured the rotation being a rotation of the axes instead of the curves. In that case, the question of whether the rotated curves will satisfy the vertical line test becomes equivalent to asking whether any line of the form $$ y = (\cot \Delta\theta) x + b $$ intersects any one unrotated curve twice.

With that I'll dive into the proof of the Proposition.

(Note: every step may not be perfectly rigorous, but I think it works pretty well, and it's probably briefer than a thorough proof.)


The first thing we need to show is that $f^*$ and $g^*$ are well-defined functions. To do that, let's suppose that they're not. In that case the rotations fail the vertical line test, or equivalently, there exists a line $$ y = (\cot \Delta\theta)x + b $$ that intersects either $f$ or $g$ twice. Assume without loss of generality that $f$ is guilty of this (the logic is the same for $g$). Let's call the two $x$-values of the two intersection points $\alpha$ and $\beta$. In that case the two points $\big(\alpha,\ f(\alpha) \big)$ and $\big(\beta,\ f(\beta) \big)$ must lie on a line with slope $\cot \Delta\theta$. Therefore $$ \frac{f(\beta) - f(\alpha)}{\beta - \alpha} = \cot \Delta\theta $$ Then by the Mean Value Theorem, there must exist some $c$ between $\alpha$ and $\beta$ such that $f'(c) = \cot \Delta\theta$. This contradicts our assumption that $f'(x) < \cot \Delta\theta$ for all $x \in [a,b]$. $\checkmark$

Now we prove that the rotations still preserve the order. Consider any $x^* \in [a^*, b^*]$. We want to show $f^*(x^*) \geq g^*(x^*)$. Now the points $\big(x^*, f^*(x^*) \big)$ and $\big(x^*, g^*(x^*) \big)$ correspond to two points $\big(x_f, f(x_f) \big)$ and $\big(x_g, g(x_g) \big)$ in unrotated space. The statement $f^*(x) \geq g^*(x)$ is equivalent to saying that $x_f \geq x_g$

i.e. $f^*(x^*)$ is above $g^*(x^*)$ if and only if the corresponding point $\big(x_f, f(x_f) \big)$ is upslope from $\big(x_g, g(x_g) \big)$.

To prove it, suppose not. Suppose $x_f < x_g$. Then the two points $\big(x_f, f(x_f) \big)$ and $\big(x_g, g(x_g) \big)$ lie on a line of slope $\cot \Delta\theta$ and so $$ \frac{g(x_g) - f(x_f)}{x_g - x_f} = \cot \Delta\theta $$ Now we assumed that $f(x) \geq g(x)$ for any $x$, so that means $f(x_g) \geq g(x_g)$. Hence $$ \frac{f(x_g) - f(x_f)}{x_g - x_f} \geq \frac{g(x_g) - f(x_f)}{x_g - x_f} = \cot \Delta\theta $$ So by the Mean Value Theorem we again have a $c$ between $x_f$ and $x_g$ such that $f'(c) \geq \cot \Delta\theta$. A contradiction. $\checkmark$


And lastly a note on how to compute $a^*$ and $b^*$. We can treat a point $(x,y)$ on the plane as the complex number $x+yi$. If we want to rotate that point about the origin by $\Delta\theta$ radians (either positive or negative), we simply multiply: $$ x^* + y^*i = (x+yi)e^{\theta i} $$ which yields $$ x^* + y^*i = x \cos \Delta\theta - y \sin \Delta\theta + (y \cos \Delta\theta + x \sin \Delta\theta)i $$ Substituting \begin{align} x &= a,\ b \\ y &= f(a),\ f(b) \end{align} respectively and taking the real part will give $a^*$ and $b^*$.

For your particular $f$ and $g$: \begin{align} f(x) &= \sqrt{1-x^2} \\ g(x) &= 1-x \end{align} on the interval $[0,1]$ I get $a^*$ and $b^*$: \begin{align} a^* &= \Re \left(i \cdot e^{\pi/4 i} \right) = \Re \left(e^{3\pi/4 i} \right) = \cos(3\pi/4) = -\sqrt{2}/2 \\ b^* &= \Re \left(1 \cdot e^{\pi/4 i} \right) = \cos(\pi/4) = \sqrt{2}/2 \end{align} yielding an interval length of $\sqrt{2}$ which is expected since that is the length of the diagonal of $y = 1-x$ on $[0,1]$.

WB-man
  • 2,558
  • OH, how could I be so dumb as to not understand why $f^$ and $g^$ must be functions. This clears everything up so much! I'll read through this a few times to make sure I grasp everything and it answers everything adequately before accepting. Again, thank you so much! – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 18 '17 at 21:13
  • @BrevanEllefsen: No problem. Glad it helps. This was a fun problem for me to work. It's often interesting when algebra, calculus, and geometry collide. – WB-man Mar 18 '17 at 21:19
  • How does $\cot \theta$ come into this? Is there some geometric argument you could show? – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 18 '17 at 23:07
  • I'm not sure how it relates to rotating the axes. – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 18 '17 at 23:09
  • @BrevanEllefsen: "Rotating the axes" is perhaps a poor way to make my point. I just meant that instead of rotating the curves we could think of rotating the vertical line. Picture

    You can see that every part of the curve of slope greater than $\cot\Delta\theta$ (the orange part) will turn back on itself when rotated counter-clockwise by $\Delta\theta$. The role of cotangent is to allow us to relate $\Delta\theta$ (angle) to derivatives (slopes). $\cot \Delta\theta$ is the maximum allowable slope our curves can have at any point.

    – WB-man Mar 19 '17 at 05:21
  • Ok, I've now stared at that diagram for about 5 minutes and I think I get where $\cot \Delta \theta$ comes from geometrically, and I am really trying to understand it. I cannot thank you enough for your time, this is really fascinating stuff and I am simply amazed with how quickly you answered earlier! I haven't yet figured out how to prove the existence of the red point with slope $\cot \Delta \theta$ for each $\Delta \theta$ (looks like mean value theorem under certain conditions?) but if I understand correctly the red point, when the function is rotated counter-clockwise by $\Delta \theta$, – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 19 '17 at 05:28
  • will land on the $x$-axis and thus everything below it will have to start rotating "inwards" again and "turn back on itself" in your words. The cotangent enters this geometrically, as $\cot \Delta \theta = y/x = m$ where $m$ is the slope. Since you seem to understand this better than I, how do I prove the existence of a point with slope $\cot \Delta \theta$?? It seems to me a simple result of the Mean Value Theorem... is this correct? – Brevan Ellefsen Mar 19 '17 at 05:31
  • @BrevanEllefsen: I may not quite follow your reasoning, but I don't think you need to employ the MVT to prove the function $f(x)=\sqrt{1-x^2}$ has a red point for any rotation angle you choose. I think it's pretty clear from the picture that the derivative $f'$ covers all possible slopes $(-\infty, \infty)$. If you want a slope $m$, just let $x$ get sufficiently close to either $1$ or $-1$. Since the range of $f'$ is all real numbers, there must be a point $x$ for which $f'(x) = \cot \Delta\theta$ no matter what $\Delta\theta$ we choose. – WB-man Mar 19 '17 at 21:25