3

Looking through the window of a bus at night a long time ago I got to think of the following. Given a subset $X\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n}$ (assume $n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus\{0\}$), define its silhouette $S(X)\subseteq\mathbb{R}^{n}$ as the set of points $p$ such that, for each line (read "ray of light") $l$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ that passes through $p$, $l$ also intersects $X$ (read "is blocked by $X$"). Obviously $X\subseteq S(X)$. Now, the set $D=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:x^{2}+y^{2}=1\}$, which I call the donut,

enter image description here

has a silhouette $S(D)=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:x^{2}+y^{2}\leq 1\}$, but the silhouette of $S(D)$ itself is again $S(D)$, therefore we cannot tell the donut from its silhouette by looking at their respective silhouettes (meaning that one cannot see the shape of a pastry from its silhouette, pun).

Now, at first I thought that a silhouette would turn out to simply be the convex hull, but that is wildly not true. Consider, if you will, the modified donut $D′=\{(x,y,z)\in\mathbb{R}^{3}:z=0,x^{2}+y^{2}=1\}$: its silhouette is now itself, while the convex hull of $D^{\prime}$ is the unit disc with $z=0$.

Then, for a long time, I thought, despite their differences, that one could at least prove that the convex hull always contains the silhouette, but recently I found... the croissant. This set, given by $C=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:y>0,x^{2}+y^{2}=1\}\cup\{(1,0)\}$

enter image description here

has a silhouette $S(C)=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:y\geq 0,x^{2}+y^{2}\leq 1\}\setminus\{(−1,0)\}$, while its convex hull is $\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^{2}:y>0,x^{2}+y^{2}\leq 1\}\cup\{(1,0)\}$ (correct if I am wrong, it has been a long time since I studied analytic geometry): so $(0,0)$ belongs to $S(C)$, but not to the convex hull of $C$.

So, my questions are:

  • Is there a standard name for the "silhouette" in the literature, so I can read more?
  • More importantly, it appears that the fact the croissant is not closed is vital to prove its silhouette is not contained in its convex hull. So, is the silhouette of a set $X$ necessarily contained in its convex hull IF we assume $X$ is closed? I have no idea of how that could be proven...
  • 1
    I don't know about the name. If $X$ is closed, then the silhouette must be contained in the convex hull of $X$ follows from a version of the hyperplane separation theorem where you take the convex hull of $X$ to be a closed convex set and a point outside it to be a closed compact convex set. – Rob Arthan Sep 25 '23 at 23:50
  • @RobArthan That sounds like an answer to me, would you mind writing it down? – AnyDisplayName Sep 26 '23 at 19:53
  • My comment isn't quite right: I'd forgotten that the convex closure of a closed set is not necessarily closed. I've written up an answer. I hope that helps. – Rob Arthan Sep 26 '23 at 21:11

1 Answers1

2

First of all let me give a counter-example to your conjecture (based on your croissant adapted to become a closed set whose convex hull is not closed, cf. Are convex hulls of closed sets also closed?). Consider the subspace $W$ of $\Bbb{R}^2$ defined by:

$$ W = \{ (x, y) : \Bbb{R}^2 \mid y = e^x \lor (x = 0 \land 0 \le y \le 1) \lor (x \ge 0 \land y = 0)\} $$

enter image description here

So $W$ (a "wide-mouthed worm") is the union of the graph of the exponential function, a unit segment on the $y$-axis and the non-negative points on the $x$-axis. Then $W$ is closed and its convex hull $C(W)$ and its silhouette $S(W)$ are given by: \begin{align*} C(W) &= \{ (x, y) : \Bbb{R}^2 \mid (x \ge 0 \land y = 0) \lor y > 0\} \\ S(W) &= \{ (x, y) : \Bbb{R}^2 \mid y \ge 0 \} \end{align*}

I.e., the convex hull is the closed upper half-plane with the negative points on the $x$-axis removed, while the silhouette is the whole of the closed upper half-plane. So $W$ is a closed set whose silhouette is not contained in its convex hull.

To get a result along the lines of your conjecture, let's prove that if $n \ge 2$ and $X$ is a subset of $\Bbb{R}^n$ whose convex hull $C(X)$ is closed, then the silhouette $S(X)$ is contained in $C(X)$. Let $x \in \Bbb{R}^n \setminus C(X)$. Then $\{x\}$ and $C(X)$ are disjoint closed convex sets and $\{x\}$ is compact, so by a form of the hyperplane separation theorem, there is a hyperplane $H$ that strictly separates $\{x\}$ and $C(X)$ (i.e., $\{x\}$ and $C(X)$ are disjoint from $H$ and on opposite sides of it). If $L$ is any line through $x$ parallel to $H$, $L$ does not meet $C(X)$, so $x$ is not in $S(X)$. This shows, in particular, that if $X$ is compact then its silhouette is contained in its convex hull, since the convex hulls of compact sets are closed (see copper.hat's answer to Is the convex hull of closed set in $\mathbb R^{n}$ is closed?).

The case $n = 1$ is special. The above argument does not apply because the separating hyperplane is a single point and doesn't contain any lines. In this case, the silhouette of any non-empty set $X$ is the whole of $\Bbb{R}$ and will not be contained in the convex hull unless $X$ is unbounded below and above.

Rob Arthan
  • 51,538
  • 4
  • 53
  • 105
  • I thought of mentioning that that does not look like a worm (maybe a pelican eel?), but I suppose my croissant does not look like a croissant, so... If you don't like the diagram please feel free to undo the edit. – AnyDisplayName Sep 27 '23 at 19:24
  • Now, amazing counterexample! I had noticed that silhouettes of unbounded sets behave sometimes wildly, so I forgot to look for counterexamples among them... I will wait a day or two to accept your answer, in case someone knows the established name for silhouette, so in the meantime: do you think a compact counterexample is possible? – AnyDisplayName Sep 27 '23 at 19:29
  • 2
    The diagram is great- thanks for supplying it. A compact counterexample is not possible: see the last paragraph of my answer: if $X$ is compact, its convex hull is closed and the argument I give shows $S(X) \subseteq C(X)$. – Rob Arthan Sep 27 '23 at 19:34
  • I've said a bit more about compact sets having closed convex hulls with a reference to a proof. I've also added a bit about what happesn when $n = 1$. – Rob Arthan Sep 27 '23 at 19:44
  • A very nice answer, it is quite peculiar that for $n=1$, compactness is not only not sufficient, but in fact guarantees that the inclusion is not true – Carlyle Sep 27 '23 at 19:49
  • @Carlyle: thanks for the kind words. That's a good point. You get an analogous situation with the question "if $X \subseteq \Bbb{R}^n$ is convex, is $\Bbb{R}^n \setminus X$ connected". The answer is yes for compact $X$ when $n \ge 2$ and no for (non-empty) compact $X$ when $n = 1$. – Rob Arthan Sep 27 '23 at 20:04
  • Fascinating. It feels as if the fundamental difference is that in $\mathbb{R}$ we're using subsets that are homomorphic to $\mathbb{R}$ itself, to define various qualities such as convex and connected (if you take the line segment approach to connectedness) whereas in higher dimensions line segments are no longer homeomorphic to the space itself. I wonder if there is a way to make this peculiarity precise or more general – Carlyle Sep 27 '23 at 20:28