On the Beer Index of Convexity and Its Variants

Discrete & Computational Geometry, Jan 2017

Let S be a subset of \(\mathbb {R}^d\) with finite positive Lebesgue measure. The Beer index of convexity \({\text {b}}(S)\) of S is the probability that two points of S chosen uniformly independently at random see each other in S. The convexity ratio \({\text {c}}(S)\) of S is the Lebesgue measure of the largest convex subset of S divided by the Lebesgue measure of S. We investigate the relationship between these two natural measures of convexity. We show that every set \(S\subseteq \mathbb {R}^2\) with simply connected components satisfies \({\text {b}}(S)\leqslant \alpha {\text {c}}(S)\) for an absolute constant \(\alpha \), provided \({\text {b}}(S)\) is defined. This implies an affirmative answer to the conjecture of Cabello et al. that this estimate holds for simple polygons. We also consider higher-order generalizations of \({\text {b}}(S)\). For \(1\leqslant k\leqslant d\), the k-index of convexity \({\text {b}}_k(S)\) of a set \(S\subseteq \mathbb {R}^d\) is the probability that the convex hull of a \((k+1)\)-tuple of points chosen uniformly independently at random from S is contained in S. We show that for every \(d\geqslant 2\) there is a constant \(\beta (d)>0\) such that every set \(S\subseteq \mathbb {R}^d\) satisfies \({\text {b}}_d(S)\leqslant \beta {\text {c}}(S)\), provided \({\text {b}}_d(S)\) exists. We provide an almost matching lower bound by showing that there is a constant \(\gamma (d)>0\) such that for every \(\varepsilon \in (0,1)\) there is a set \(S\subseteq \mathbb {R}^d\) of Lebesgue measure 1 satisfying \({\text {c}}(S)\leqslant \varepsilon \) and \({\text {b}}_d(S)\geqslant \gamma \frac{\varepsilon }{\log _2{1/\varepsilon }}\geqslant \gamma \frac{{\text {c}}(S)}{\log _2{1/{\text {c}}(S)}}\).

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00454-016-9821-3.pdf

On the Beer Index of Convexity and Its Variants

On the Beer Index of Convexity and Its Variants Martin Balko 0 1 2 Vít Jelínek 0 1 2 Pavel Valtr 0 1 2 Bartosz Walczak 0 1 2 Bartosz Walczak 0 1 2 Editor in Charge: János Pach 0 Computer Science Institute, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University , Malostranské nám. 25, 118 00 Prague 1 , Czech Republic 1 Department of Applied Mathematics, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University , Malostranské nám. 25, 118 00 Prague 1 , Czech Republic 2 Theoretical Computer Science Department, Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Jagiellonian University , Kraków , Poland Let S be a subset of Rd with finite positive Lebesgue measure. The Beer index of convexity b(S) of S is the probability that two points of S chosen uniformly independently at random see each other in S. The convexity ratio c(S) of S is the Lebesgue measure of the largest convex subset of S divided by the Lebesgue measure of S. We investigate the relationship between these two natural measures of convexity. We show that every set S ⊆ R2 with simply connected components satisfies b(S) α c(S) for an absolute constant α, provided b(S) is defined. This implies an affirmative answer to the conjecture of Cabello et al. that this estimate holds for simple - polygons. We also consider higher-order generalizations of b(S). For 1 k d, the k-index of convexity bk (S) of a set S ⊆ Rd is the probability that the convex hull of a (k + 1)-tuple of points chosen uniformly independently at random from S is contained in S. We show that for every d 2 there is a constant β(d) > 0 such that every set S ⊆ Rd satisfies bd (S) β c(S), provided bd (S) exists. We provide an almost matching lower bound by showing that there is a constant γ (d) > 0 such that for every ε ∈ ( 0, 1 ) there is a set S ⊆ Rd of Lebesgue measure 1 satisfying c(S) ε and bd (S) γ log2ε1/ε γ log2c1(S/)c(S) . Mathematics Subject Classification 52A27 1 Introduction For positive integers k and d and a Lebesgue measurable set S ⊆ Rd , we use λk (S) to denote the k-dimensional Lebesgue measure of S. We omit the subscript k when it is clear from the context. We also write “measure” instead of “Lebesgue measure”, as we do not use any other measure in the paper. For a set S ⊆ Rd , let smc(S) denote the supremum of the measures of convex subsets of S. Since all convex subsets of Rd are measurable [11], the value of smc(S) is well defined. Moreover, Goodman’s result [8] implies that the supremum is achieved on compact sets S, hence it can be replaced by maximum in this case. When S has finite positive measure, let c(S) be defined as smc(S)/λd (S). We call the parameter c(S) the convexity ratio of S. For two points A, B ∈ Rd , let A B denote the closed line segment with endpoints A and B. Let S be a subset of Rd . We say that points A, B ∈ S are visible one from the other or see each other in S if the line segment A B is contained in S. For a point A ∈ S, we use Vis( A, S) to denote the set of points that are visible from A in S. More generally, for a subset T of S, we use Vis(T , S) to denote the set of points that are visible in S from T . That is, Vis(T , S) is the set of points A ∈ S for which there is a point B ∈ T such that A B ⊆ S. Let Seg(S) denote the set {( A, B) ∈ S × S : A B ⊆ S} ⊆ (Rd )2, which we call the segment set of S. For a set S ⊆ Rd with finite positive measure and with measurable Seg(S), we define the parameter b(S) ∈ [0, 1] by b(S) := λ2d (Seg(S)) λd (S)2 . If S is not measurable, or if its measure is not positive and finite, or if Seg(S) is not measurable, we leave b(S) undefined. Note that if b(S) is defined for a set S, then c(S) is defined as well. We call b(S) the Beer index of convexity (or just Beer index) of S. It can be interpreted as the probability that two points A and B of S chosen uniformly independently at random see each other in S. 1.1 Previous Results The Beer index was introduced in the 1970s by Beer [1–3], who called it “the index of convexity”. Beer was motivated by studying the continuity properties of λ(Vis( A, S)) as a function of A. For polygonal regions, an equivalent parameter was later independently defined by Stern [19], who called it “the degree of convexity”. Stern was motivated by the problem of finding a computationally tractable way to quantify how close a given set is to being convex. He showed that the Beer index of a polygon P can be approximated by a Monte Carlo estimation. Later, Rote [16] showed that for a polygonal region P with n edges the Beer index can be evaluated in polynomial time as a sum of O(n9) closed-form expressions. Cabello et al. [6] have studied the relationship between the Beer index and the convexity ratio, and applied their results in the analysis of their near-linear-time approximation algorithm for finding the largest convex subset of a polygon. We describe some of their results in more detail in Sect. 1.3. 1.2 Terminology and Notation We assume familiarity with basic topological notions such as path-connectedness, simple connectedness, Jordan curve, etc. The reader can find these definitions, for example, in Prasolov’s book [15]. Let ∂ S, S◦, and S denote the boundary, the interior, and the closure of a set S, respectively. For a point A ∈ R2 and ε > 0, let Nε( A) denote the open disc centered at A with radius ε. For a set X ⊆ R2 and ε > 0, let Nε(X ) := A∈X Nε( A). A neighborhood of a point A ∈ R2 or a set X ⊆ R2 is a set of the form Nε( A) or Nε(X ), respectively, for some ε > 0. A closed interval with endpoints a and b is denoted by [a, b]. Intervals [a, b] with a > b are considered empty. For a point A ∈ R2, we use x ( A) and y( A) to denote the x -coordinate and the y-coordinate of A, respectively. A polygonal curve Γ in Rd is a curve specified by a sequence ( A1, . . . , An) of points of Rd such that Γ consists of the line segments connecting the points Ai and Ai+1 for i = 1, . . . , n − 1. If A1 = An, then the polygonal curve Γ is closed. A polygonal curve that is not closed is called a polygonal line. A set X ⊆ R2 is polygonally connected, or p-connected for short, if any two points of X can be connected by a polygonal line in X , or equivalently, by a selfavoiding polygonal line in X . For a set X , the relation “ A and B can be connected by a polygonal line in X ” is an equivalence relation on X , and its equivalence classes are the p-components of X . A set S is p-componentwise simply connected if every p-component of S is simply connected. A line segment in Rd is a bounded convex subset of a line. A closed line segment includes both endpoints, while an open line segment excludes both endpoints. For two points A and B in Rd , we use A B to denote the open line segment with endpoints A and B. A closed line segment with endpoints A and B is denoted by A B. We say that a set S ⊆ Rd is star-shaped if there is a point C ∈ S such that Vis(C, S) = S. That is, a star-shaped set S contains a point which sees the entire S. ( 0, 1 ) ( 1, 1 ) Similarly, we say that a set S is weakly star-shaped if S contains a line segment such that Vis( , S) = S. 1.3 Results We start with a few simple observations. Let S be a subset of R2 such that Seg(S) is measurable. For every ε > 0, S contains a convex subset K of measure at least (c(S) − ε)λ2(S). Two points of S chosen uniformly independently at random both belong to K with probability at least (c(S) − ε)2, hence b(S) (c(S) − ε)2. This yields b(S) c(S)2. This simple lower bound on b(S) is tight, as shown by a set S which is a disjoint union of a single large convex component and a large number of small components of negligible size. It is more challenging to find an upper bound on b(S) in terms of c(S), possibly under additional assumptions on the set S. This is the general problem addressed in this paper. As a motivating example, observe that a set S consisting of n disjoint convex components of the same size satisfies b(S) = c(S) = n1 . It is easy to modify this example to obtain, for any ε > 0, a simple star-shaped polygon P with b( P) n1 − ε and c( P) n1 , see Fig. 1. This shows that b(S) cannot be bounded from above by a sublinear function of c(S), even for simple polygons S. For weakly star-shaped polygons, Cabello et al. [6] showed that the above example is essentially optimal, providing the following linear upper bound on b(S). Theorem 1.1 [6, Thm. 5] For every weakly star-shaped simple polygon P, we have b( P) 18 c( P). For polygons that are not weakly star-shaped, Cabello et al. [6] gave a superlinear bound. Theorem 1.2 [6, Thm. 6] Every simple polygon P satisfies b( P) Moreover, Cabello et al. [6] conjectured that even for a general simple polygon P, b( P) can be bounded from above by a linear function of c( P). (The question whether b( P) = O(c( P)) for simple polygons P was originally asked by S. Cabello and M. Saumell, personal communication to G. Rote.) The next theorem, which is the first main result of this paper, verifies this conjecture. Recall that b(S) is defined for a set S if and only if S has finite positive measure and Seg(S) is measurable. Recall also that a set is p-componentwise simply connected if its p-components are simply connected. In particular, every simply connected set is p-componentwise simply connected. Theorem 1.3 Every p-componentwise simply connected set S ⊆ R2 whose b(S) is defined satisfies b(S) 180 c(S). Clearly, every simple polygon satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 1.3. Hence we directly obtain the following, which verifies the conjecture of Cabello et al. [6]. Corollary 1.4 Every simple polygon P ⊆ R2 satisfies b( P) 180 c( P). The main restriction in Theorem 1.3 is the assumption that S is p-componentwise simply connected. This assumption cannot be omitted, as shown by the set S := [0, 1]2 Q2, where it is easy to verify that c(S) = 0 and b(S) = 1, see Proposition 3.7. A related construction shows that Theorem 1.3 fails in higher dimensions. To see this, consider again the set S := [0, 1]2 Q2, and define a set S ⊆ R3 by S := {(t x , t y, t ) : t ∈ [0, 1] and (x , y) ∈ S}. Again, it is easy to verify that c(S ) = 0 and b(S ) = 1, although S is simply connected, even star-shaped. Despite these examples, we will show that meaningful analogues of Theorem 1.3 for higher dimensions and for sets that are not p-componentwise simply connected are possible. The key is to use higher-order generalizations of the Beer index, which we introduce now. For k ∈ {1, . . . , d} and a set S ⊆ Rd , we define the set Simpk (S) ⊆ (Rd )k+1 by Simpk (S) := {( A0, . . . , Ak ) ∈ Sk+1 : Conv({ A0, . . . , Ak }) ⊆ S}, where the operator Conv denotes the convex hull of a set of points. We call Simpk (S) the k-simplex set of S. Note that Simp1(S) = Seg(S). For k ∈ {1, . . . , d} and a set S ⊆ Rd with finite positive measure and with measurable Simpk (S), we define bk (S) by bk (S) := λ(k+1)d (Simpk (S)) λd (S)k+1 . Note that b1(S) = b(S). We call bk (S) the k-index of convexity of S. We again leave bk (S) undefined if S or Simpk (S) is non-measurable, or if the measure of S is not finite and positive. We can view bk (S) as the probability that the convex hull of k + 1 points chosen from S uniformly independently at random is contained in S. For any S ⊆ Rd , we have b1(S) b2(S) · · · bd (S), provided all the bk (S) are defined. We remark that the set S := [0, 1]d Qd satisfies c(S) = 0 and b1(S) = b2(S) = · · · = bd−1(S) = 1, see Proposition 3.7. Thus, for a general set S ⊆ Rd , only the d-index of convexity can conceivably admit a nontrivial upper bound in terms of c(S). Our next result shows that such an upper bound on bd (S) exists and is linear in c(S). Theorem 1.5 For every d 2, there is a constant β = β(d) > 0 such that every set S ⊆ Rd with bd (S) defined satisfies bd (S) β c(S). We do not know if the linear upper bound in Theorem 1.5 is best possible. We can, however, construct examples showing that the bound is optimal up to a logarithmic factor. This is our last main result. Theorem 1.6 For every d 2, there is a constant γ = γ (d) > 0 such that for every ε ∈ ( 0, 1 ), there is a set S ⊆ Rd satisfying c(S) ε and bd (S) γ log2ε1/ε , and in particular, we have bd (S) γ log2c1(S/)c(S) . The proof of Theorem 1.3 is given in Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, we will prove Theorems 1.5 and 1.6. We conclude, in Sect. 4, with some further remarks and a collection of open problems. 2 Bounding the Mutual Visibility in the Plane The goal of this section is to prove Theorem 1.3. Since the proof is rather long and complicated, we first present a high-level overview of its main ideas. We first show that it is sufficient to prove the estimate from Theorem 1.3 for bounded open simply connected sets. This is formalized by the next lemma, whose proof can be found in Sect. 2.2. Lemma 2.1 Let α > 0 be a constant such that every bounded open simply connected set T ⊆ R2 satisfies b(T ) α c(T ). It follows that every p-componentwise simply connected set S ⊆ R2 with b(S) defined satisfies b(S) α c(S). In the proof of Lemma 2.1, we first show that the set S can be reduced to a bounded open set S whose Beer index b(S ) can be arbitrarily close to b(S) from below. This is done by considering a part S of S that is contained in a sufficiently large disc and by showing that all segments in S are in fact contained in the interior of S , except for a set of measure zero. The proof is then finished by choosing S as the interior of S and by applying the assumption of the lemma to every p-component of S . Suppose now that S is a bounded open simply connected set. We seek a bound of the form b(S) = O(c(S)). This is equivalent to a bound of the form λ4(Seg(S)) = O(smc(S)λ2(S)). We therefore need a suitable upper bound on λ4(Seg(S)). We first choose in S a diagonal (i.e., an inclusion-maximal line segment in S), and show that the set S is a union of two open simply connected sets S1 and S2 (Lemma 2.4). It is not hard to show that the segments in S that cross the diagonal contribute to λ4(Seg(S)) by at most O(smc(S)λ2(S)) (Lemma 2.8). Our main task is to bound the measure of Seg(Si ∪ ) for i = 1, 2. The two sets Si ∪ are what we call rooted sets. Informally, a rooted set is a union of a simply connected open set S and an open segment r ⊆ ∂ S , called the root. To bound λ4(Seg(R)) for a rooted set R with root r , we partition R into levels L1, L2, . . ., where Lk contains the points of R that can be connected to r by a polygonal line with k segments, but not by a polygonal line with k − 1 segments. Each segment in R is contained in a union Li ∪ Li+1 for some i 1. Thus, a bound of the form λ4(Seg(Li ∪ Li+1)) = O(smc(R)λ2(Li ∪ Li+1)) implies the required bound for λ4(Seg(R)). We will show that each p-component of Li ∪ Li+1 is a rooted set, with the extra property that all its points are reachable from its root by a polygonal line with at most two segments (Lemma 2.5). To handle such sets, we will generalize the techniques that Cabello et al. [6] have used to handle weakly star-shaped sets in their proof of Theorem 1.1. We will assign to every point A ∈ R a set T( A) of measure O(smc(R)), such that for every ( A, B) ∈ Seg(R), we have either B ∈ T( A) or A ∈ T(B) (Lemma 2.7). From this, Theorem 1.3 will follow easily. 2.1 Proof of Theorem 1.3 for Bounded Open Simply Connected Sets First, we need a few auxiliary lemmas. Lemma 2.2 For every positive integer d, if S is an open subset of Rd , then the set Seg(S) is open and the set Vis( A, S) is open for every point A ∈ S. Proof Choose a pair of points ( A, B) ∈ Seg(S). Since S is open and A B is compact, there is ε > 0 such that Nε( A B) ⊆ S. Consequently, for any A ∈ Nε( A) and B ∈ Nε(B), we have A B ⊆ S, that is, ( A , B ) ∈ Seg(S). This shows that the set Seg(S) is open. If we fix A = A, then it follows that the set Vis( A, S) is open. Lemma 2.3 Let S be a simply connected subset of R2 and let and be line segments in S. It follows that the set Vis( , S) ∩ is a (possibly empty) subsegment of . Proof The statement is trivially true if and intersect or have the same supporting line, or if Vis( , S) ∩ is empty. Suppose that these situations do not occur. Let A, B ∈ and A , B ∈ be such that A A , B B ⊆ S. The points A, A , B , B form a (possibly self-intersecting) tetragon Q whose boundary is contained in S. Since S is simply connected, the interior of Q is contained in S. If Q is not self-intersecting, then clearly A B ⊆ Vis( , S). Otherwise, A A and B B have a point D in common, and every point C ∈ A B is visible in R from the point C ∈ A B such that D ∈ CC . This shows that Vis( , S) ∩ is a convex subset and hence a subsegment of . Now, we define rooted sets and their tree-structured decomposition, and we explain how they arise in the proof of Theorem 1.3. A set S ⊆ R2 is half-open if every point A ∈ S has a neighborhood Nε( A) that satisfies one of the following two conditions: 1. Nε( A) ⊆ S, 2. Nε( A) ∩ ∂ S is a diameter of Nε( A) splitting it into two subsets, one of which (including the diameter) is Nε( A) ∩ S and the other (excluding the diameter) is Nε( A) S. The condition 1 holds for points A ∈ S◦, while the condition 2 holds for points A ∈ ∂ S. A set R ⊆ R2 is a rooted set if the following conditions are satisfied: 1. R is bounded, 2. R is p-connected and simply connected, 3. R is half-open, 4. R ∩ ∂ R is an open line segment. The open line segment R ∩ ∂ R is called the root of R. Every rooted set, as the union of a non-empty open set and an open line segment, is measurable and has positive measure. A diagonal of a set S ⊆ R2 is a line segment contained in S that is not a proper subset of any other line segment contained in S. Clearly, if S is open, then every diagonal of S is an open line segment. It is easy to see that the root of a rooted set R is a diagonal of R. The following lemma allows us to use a diagonal to split a bounded open simply connected subset of R2 into two rooted sets. It is intuitively clear, and its formal proof is postponed to Sect. 2.3. Lemma 2.4 Let S be a bounded open simply connected subset of R2, and let be a diagonal of S. It follows that the set S has two p-components S1 and S2. Moreover, S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are rooted sets, and is their common root. Let R be a rooted set. For a positive integer k, the kth level Lk of R is the set of points of R that can be connected to the root of R by a polygonal line in R consisting of k segments but cannot be connected to the root of R by a polygonal line in R consisting of fewer than k segments. We consider a degenerate one-vertex polygonal line as consisting of one degenerate segment, so the root of R is part of L1. Thus L1 = Vis(r, R), where r denotes the root of R. A k-body of R is a p-component of Lk . A body of R is a k-body of R for some k. See Fig. 2 for an example of a rooted set and its partitioning into levels and bodies. We say that a rooted set P is attached to a set Q ⊆ R2 P if the root of P is subset of the interior of P ∪ Q. The following lemma explains the structure of levels and bodies. Although it is intuitively clear, its formal proof requires quite a lot of work and can be found in Sect. 2.4. Lemma 2.5 Let R be a rooted set and (Lk )k 1 be its partition into levels. It follows that 1. R = k 1 Lk ; consequently, R is the union of all its bodies; 2. every body P of R is a rooted set such that P = Vis(r, P), where r denotes the root of P; d(B ) = d(B, r ) 3. L1 is the unique 1-body of R, and the root of L1 is the root of R; 4. every j -body P of R with j 2 is attached to a unique ( j − 1)-body of R. Lemma 2.5 yields a tree structure on the bodies of R. The root of this tree is the unique 1-body L1 of R, called the root body of R. For a k-body P of R with k 2, the parent of P in the tree is the unique (k − 1)-body of R that P is attached to, called the parent body of P. Lemma 2.6 Let R be a rooted set, (Lk )k 1 be the partition of R into levels, be a closed line segment in R, and k 1 be minimum such that ∩ Lk = ∅. It follows that ⊆ Lk ∪ Lk+1, ∩ Lk is a subsegment of contained in a single k-body P of R, and ∩ Lk+1 consists of at most two subsegments of each contained in a single (k + 1)-body whose parent body is P. Proof The definition of the levels directly yields ⊆ Lk ∪ Lk+1. The segment splits into subsegments each contained in a single k-body or (k + 1)-body of R. By Lemma 2.5, the bodies of any two consecutive of these subsegments are in the parentchild relation of the body tree. This implies that ∩ Lk lies within a single k-body P. By Lemma 2.3, ∩ Lk is a subsegment of . Consequently, ∩ Lk+1 consists of at most two subsegments. In the setting of Lemma 2.6, we call the subsegment ∩ Lk of the base segment of , and we call the body P that contains ∩ Lk the base body of . See Fig. 2 for an example. The following lemma is the crucial part of the proof of Theorem 1.3. Lemma 2.7 If R is a rooted set, then every point A ∈ R can be assigned a measurable set T( A) ⊆ R2 so that the following is satisfied: 1. λ2(T( A)) < 87 smc(R); 2. for every line segment BC in R, we have either B ∈ T(C ) or C ∈ T(B); 3. the set {( A, B) : A ∈ R and B ∈ T( A)} is measurable. Proof Let P be a body of R with the root r . First, we show that P is entirely contained in one closed half-plane defined by the supporting line of r . Let h− and h+ be the two open half-planes defined by the supporting line of r . According to the definition of a rooted set, the sets {D ∈ r : ∃ε > 0 : Nε(D) ∩ h− = Nε(D) ∩ ( P r )} and {D ∈ r : ∃ε > 0 : Nε(D) ∩ h+ = Nε(D) ∩ ( P r )} are open and partition the entire r , hence one of them must be empty. This implies that the segments connecting r to P r lie all in h− or all in h+. Since P = Vis(r, P), we conclude that P ⊆ h− or P ⊆ h+. According to the above, we can rotate and translate the set R so that r lies on the x -axis and P lies in the half-plane {B ∈ R2 : y(B) 0}. For a point A ∈ R, we use d( A, r ) to denote the y-coordinate of A after such a rotation and translation of R. We use d( A) to denote d( A, r ) where r is the root of the body of A. It follows that d( A) 0 for every A ∈ R. Let γ ∈ ( 0, 1 ) be a fixed constant whose value will be specified at the end of the proof. For a point A ∈ R, we define sets V1( A) := {B ∈ Vis( A, R) : | A B | γ | A B|, A ∈ Vis(r , R), d( A , r ) d(B , r )}, V2( A) := {B ∈ Vis( A, R) : | A B | γ | A B|, A ∈/ Vis(r , R), d( A , r ) d(B , r )}, V3( A) := {B ∈ Vis( A, R) : | A B | < γ | A B|, | A A | |B B |}, where r denotes the root of the base body of A B and A and B denote the endpoints of the base segment of A B such that | A A | < | A B |. For every A ∈ R, the sets V1( A), V2( A), and V3( A) are pairwise disjoint. Moreover, we have A ∈ 3i3=1 Vi (B) or B ∈ i3=1 Vi ( A) for every line segment A B in R. If for some B ∈ i=1 Vi ( A) the point A lies on r , then we have B ∈ V1( A) and V1( A) ⊆ r . For the rest of the proof, we fix a point A ∈ R. We show that the union i3=1 Vi ( A) is contained in a measurable set T( A) ⊆ R2 with λ2(T( A)) < 87 smc(R) that is a union of three trapezoids. We let P be the body of A and r be the root of P. If P is a k-body with k 2, then we use r to denote the root of the parent body of P. Claim 1 V1( A) is contained in a trapezoid T1( A) with area 6γ −2 smc(R). Let H be a point of r such that A H ⊆ R. Let T be the r -parallel trapezoid of height d( A) with bases of length 8 smc(R) and 4 smc(R) such that A is the center of the d(A) d(A) larger base and H is the center of the smaller base. The homothety with center A and ratio γ −1 transforms T into the trapezoid T := A + γ −1(T − A). Since the area of T is 6 smc(R), the area of T is 6γ −2 smc(R). We show that V1( A) ⊆ T . See Fig. 3 for an illustration. Let B be a point in V1( A). Using a similar approach to the one used by Cabello et al. [6] in the proof of Theorem 1.1, we show that B ∈ T . Let A B be the base segment of A B such that | A A | < | A B |. Since B ∈ V1( A), we have | A B | γ | A B|, A ∈ Vis(r , R), and d(B, r ) d( A, r ), where r denotes the root of the base level of A B. Since A is visible from r in R, the base body of A B is the body of A and thus A = A and r = r . As we have observed, every point C ∈ { A} ∪ A B satisfies d(C, r ) = d(C ) 0. Let ε > 0. There is a point E ∈ A B such that |B E | < ε. Since E lies on the base segment of A B, there is F ∈ r such that E F ⊆ R. It is possible to choose F A = A D so that A H and E F have a point C in common where C = F, H . Let D be a point of A H with d(D) = d(E ). The point D exists, as d(H ) = 0 d(E ) d( A). The points A, E , F, H form a self-intersecting tetragon Q whose boundary is contained in R. Since R is simply connected, the interior of Q is contained in R and the triangles AC E and C F H have area at most smc(R). The triangle AC E is partitioned into triangles A D E and C D E with areas 21 (d( A) − d(D))|D E | and 21 (d(D) − d(C ))|D E |, respectively. Therefore, we have 21 (d( A) − d(C ))|D E | = λ2( AC E ) smc(R). This implies . For the triangle C F H , we have 21 d(C )|F H | = λ2(C F H ) smc(R). By the similarity of the triangles C F H and C D E , we have |F H | = |D E |d(C )/(d(E ) − d(C )) and therefore |D E | 2 smc(R) d(C )2 (d(E ) − d(C )). Since the first upper bound on |D E | is increasing in d(C ) and the second is decreasing in d(C ), the minimum of the two is maximized when they are equal, that is, when d(C ) = d( A)d(E )/(d( A) + d(E )). Then we obtain |D E | 2 dsm(Ac()2R) (d( A) + d(E )). This and 0 d(E ) d( A) imply E ∈ T . Since ε can be made arbitrarily small and T is compact, we have B ∈ T . Since | A B | γ | A B|, we conclude that B ∈ T . This completes the proof of Claim 1. Claim 2 V2( A) is contained in a trapezoid T2( A) with area 3(1 − γ )−2γ −2 smc(R). We assume the point A is not contained in the first level of R, as otherwise V2( A) is empty. Let p be the r -parallel line that contains the point A and let q be the supporting line of r . Let p+ and q+ denote the closed half-planes defined by p and q, respectively, such that r ⊆ p+ and A ∈/ q+. Let O be the intersection point of p and q. Let T ⊆ p+ ∩ q+ be the trapezoid of height d( A, r ) with one base of length (1−4γs)m2cd((RA),r ) on p, the other base of length (1−2γs)m2cd((RA),r ) on the supporting line of r , D C F H H 0 E B B T T and one lateral side on q. The homothety with center O and ratio γ −1 transforms T into the trapezoid T := O + γ −1(T − O). Since the area of T is 3(1 − γ )−2 smc(R), the area of T is 3(1 − γ )−2γ −2 smc(R). We show that V2( A) ⊆ T . See Fig. 4 for an illustration. Let B be a point of V2( A). We use A B to denote the base segment of A B such that | A A | < | A B |. By the definition of V2( A), we have | A B | γ | A B|, A ∈/ Vis(r , R), and d(B, r ) d( A, r ), where r denotes the root of the base body of A B. By Lemma 2.6 and the fact that A ∈/ Vis(r , R), we have r = r . The bound d( A, r ) d(B, r ) thus implies A ∈ r ∩ p+ and B ∈ q+. We have d(C, r ) = d(C ) 0 for every C ∈ A B . Observe that (1 − γ )d( A, r ) d( A , r ) d( A, r ). The upper bound is trivial, as d(B, r ) d( A, r ) and A lies on A B. For the lower bound, we use the expression A = t A + (1 − t )B for some t ∈ [0, 1]. This gives us d( A , r ) = t d( A, r ) + (1 − t )d(B , r ). By the estimate | A B | γ | A B|, we have | A A | + |B B | (1 − γ )| A B| = (1 − γ )(| A B | + |B B |). This can be rewritten as | A A | (1 − γ )| A B | − γ |B B |. Consequently, |B B | 0 and γ > 0 imply | A A | (1 − γ )| A B |. This implies t 1 − γ . Applying the bound d(B , r ) 0, we conclude that d( A , r ) (1 − γ )d( A, r ). Let (Gn)n∈N be a sequence of points from A B that converges to A . For every n ∈ N, there is a point Hn ∈ r such that Gn Hn ⊆ R. Since r is compact, there is a subsequence of (Hn)n∈N that converges to a point H0 ∈ r . We claim that H0 ∈ q. Suppose otherwise, and let q = q be the supporting line of A H0. Let ε > 0 be small enough so that Nε( A ) ⊆ R. For n large enough, Gn Hn is contained in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of q . Consequently, for n large enough, the supporting line of Gn Hn intersects q at a point Kn such that Gn Kn ⊆ Nε( A ), which implies Kn ∈ r ∩ Vis(r , R), a contradiction. Again, let ε > 0. There is a point E ∈ A B such that |B E | < ε. Let D be a point of q with d(D , r ) = d(E ), and let δ > 0. There are points G ∈ A B and H ∈ r such that G ∈ Nδ( A ) and G H ⊆ R ∩ Nδ(q). If δ is small enough, then d(E ) d( A , r ) − δ d(G) d( A , r ). Let D be the point of G H with d(D) = d(E ). The point E lies on A B and thus it is visible from a point F ∈ r . Again, we can choose F so that the line segments E F and G H have a point C in common where C = F, H . The points E , F, H, G form a self-intersecting tetragon Q whose boundary is in R. The interior of Q is contained in R, as R is simply connected. Therefore, the area of the triangles C E G and C F H is at most smc(R). The argument used in the proof of Claim 1 yields |D E | 2 smc(R) d(G)2 (d(G) + d(E )) 2 smc(R) (d( A , r ) − δ)2 (d( A , r ) + d(E )). This and the fact that δ (and consequently |D D|) can be made arbitrarily small yield |D E | d2(sAmc,r(R)2) (d( A , r ) + d(E )). This together with d( A , r ) (1 − γ )d( A, r ) yield |D E | (1−2γs)m2dc((AR,)r )2 (d( A, r ) + d(E )). Finally, from 0 d(E ) d( A, r ) it follows that E ∈ T . Since ε can be made arbitrarily small and T is compact, we have B ∈ T . Since | A B | γ | A B| γ | A B|, we conclude that B ∈ T . This completes the proof of Claim 2. Claim 3 V3( A) is contained in a trapezoid T3( A) with area (4(1−γ )−2 −1) smc(R). By Lemma 2.3, the points of r that are visible from A in R form a subsegment C D of r . The homothety with center A and ratio 2(1 − γ )−1 transforms the triangle T := AC D into the triangle T := A + 2(1 − γ )−1(T − A). See Fig. 5 for an illustration. We claim that V3( A) is a subset of the trapezoid T := T T . Let B be an arbitrary point of V3( A). Consider the segment A B with the base segment A B such that | A A | < | A B |. Since B ∈ V3( A), we have | A B | < γ | A B| and | A A | |B B |. This implies | A A | 1−2γ | A B| > 0 and hence A = A and B ∈/ P. From the definition of C and D, we have A ∈ C D. Since | A A | 1−2γ | A B| and B ∈/ P, we have B ∈ T . The area of T is (4(1 − γ )−2 − 1)λ2(T ). The interior of T is contained in R, as all points of the open segment C D are visible from A in R. The area of T is at most smc(R), as its interior is a convex subset of R. Consequently, the area of T is at most (4(1 − γ )−2 − 1) smc(R). This completes the proof of Claim 3. To put everything together, we set T( A) := i3=1 Ti ( A). Then, it follows that 3 i=1 Vi ( A) ⊆ T( A) for every A ∈ R. Clearly, the set T( A) is measurable. Summing the three estimates on areas of the trapezoids, we obtain 6γ −2 + 3(1 − γ )−2γ −2 + 4(1 − γ )−2 − 1 smc(R) for every point A ∈ R. We choose γ ∈ ( 0, 1 ) so that the value of the coefficient is minimized. For x ∈ ( 0, 1 ), the function x → 6x −2 + 3(1 − x )−2x −2 + 4(1 − x )−2 − 1 attains its minimum 86.7027 < 87 at x ≈ 0.5186. Altogether, we have λ2(T( A)) < 87 smc(R) for every A ∈ R. It remains to show that the set {( A, B) : A ∈ R and B ∈ T( A)} is measurable. For every body P of R and for i ∈ {1, 2, 3}, the definition of the trapezoid Ti ( A) in Claim i implies that the set {( A, B) : A ∈ P and B ∈ Ti ( A)} is the intersection of P × R2 with a semialgebraic (hence measurable) subset of (R2)2 and hence is measurable. There are countably many bodies of R, as each of them has positive measure. Therefore, {( A, B) : A ∈ R and B ∈ T( A)} is a countable union of measurable sets and hence is measurable. Let S be a bounded open subset of the plane, and let be a diagonal of S that lies on the x -axis. For a point A ∈ S, we define the set S( A, ) := {B ∈ Vis( A, S) : A B ∩ = ∅ and |y( A)| |y(B)|}. The following lemma is a slightly more general version of a result of Cabello et al. [6]. Lemma 2.8 Let S be a bounded open simply connected subset of R2, and let be its diagonal. It follows thatλ2(S( A, )) 3 smc(S) for every A ∈ S. Proof We can assume without loss of generality that lies on the x -axis. Using an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 2.2, we can show that the set {B ∈ Vis( A, S) : A B ∩ = ∅} is open. Therefore, S( A, ) is the intersection of an open set and the closed half-plane {(x , y) ∈ R2 : y −y( A)} or {(x , y) ∈ R2 : y −y( A)}, whichever contains A. Consequently, the set S( A, ) is measurable for every A ∈ S. We clearly have λ2(S( A, )) = 0 for points A ∈ S Vis( , S). By Lemma 2.3, the set Vis( A, S) ∩ is an open subsegment C D of . The interior T ◦ of the triangle T := AC D is contained in S. Since T ◦ is a convex subset of S, we have λ2(T ◦) = 21 |C D|·|y( A)| smc(S). Therefore, every point B ∈ S( A, ) is contained in a trapezoid of height |y( A)| with bases of length |C D| and 2|C D|. The area of this trapezoid is 23 |C D| · |y( A)| 3 smc(S). Hence we have λ2(S( A, )) 3 smc(S) for every point A ∈ S. Proof of Theorem 1.3 In view of Lemma 2.1, we can assume without loss of generality that S is a bounded open simply connected set. Let be a diagonal of S. We can assume without loss of generality that lies on the x -axis. According to Lemma 2.4, the set S has exactly two p-components S1 and S2, the sets S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are rooted sets, and is their common root. By Lemma 2.7, for i ∈ {1, 2}, every point A ∈ Si ∪ can be assigned a measurable set Ti ( A) so that λ2(Ti ( A)) < 87 smc(Si ∪ ) 87 smc(S), every line segment BC in Si ∪ satisfies B ∈ Ti (C ) or C ∈ Ti (B), and the set {( A, B) : A ∈ Si ∪ and B ∈ Ti ( A)} is measurable. We set S( A) := Ti ( A) ∪ S( A, ) for every point A ∈ Si with i ∈ {1, 2}. We set S( A) := T1( A) ∪ T2( A) for every point A ∈ = S (S1 ∪ S2). Let S := {( A, B) : A ∈ S and B ∈ S( A)} ∪ {(B, A) : A ∈ S and B ∈ S( A)} ⊆ (R2)2. It follows that the set S is measurable. Let A B be a line segment in S, and suppose |y( A)| |y(B)|. Then either A and B are in distinct p-components of S or they both lie in the same component Si with i ∈ {1, 2}. In the first case, we have B ∈ S( A), since A B intersects and S( A, ) ⊆ S( A). In the second case, we have B ∈ Ti ( A) ⊆ S( A) or A ∈ Ti (B) ⊆ S(B). Therefore, we have Seg(S) ⊆ S. Since both Seg(S) and S are measurable, we have λ4(Seg(S)) λ4(S) 2 λ2(S( A)), A∈S where the second inequality is implied by Fubini’s Theorem. The bound λ2(S( A)) 90 smc(S) implies S λ4(Seg(S)) 2 90 smc(S) = 180 smc(S)λ2(S). Finally, this bound can be rewritten as b(S) = λ4(Seg(S))λ2(S)−2 180 c(S). 2.2 Proof of Lemma 2.1 In this section, we prove Lemma 2.1, which reduces the general setting of Theorem 1.3 to the case that S is a bounded open simply connected subset of R2. Lemma 2.9 Let S ⊆ R2 be a set whose b(S) is defined. For every ε > 0, there is a bounded set S ⊆ S such that λ(S ) (1 − ε)λ(S) and b(S ) b(S) − ε. Moreover, if S is p-componentwise simply connected, then so is S . Proof Let B be an open ball in R2 centered at the origin. Consider the sets S = S ∩ B and S0 = S B partitioning the set S. Fix the radius of B large enough, so that S0 has measure at most ελ(S)/2. We claim that S has the properties stated in the lemma. Clearly λ(S ) (1 − ε/2)λ(S) > (1 − ε)λ(S). Moreover, Seg(S ) = Seg(S) (S0 × S) ∪ (S × S0) , and hence Seg(S ) is measurable and we have λ4(Seg(S )) λ4(Seg(S)) − ελ(S)2. Therefore, λ4(Seg(S )) b(S ) = λ4(S × S ) λ4(Seg(S )) λ4(S × S) λ4(Seg(S)) − ελ(S)2 λ4(S × S) = b(S) − ε, as claimed. It is clear from the construction that if S is p-componentwise simply connected, then so is S . Lemma 2.10 Let S ⊆ R2 be a bounded p-componentwise simply connected measur able set with measurable segment set. Then λ4(Seg(S) Seg(S◦)) = 0. In other words, all the segments in S are in fact contained in S◦, except for a set of measure zero. Proof Let B denote the set Seg(S) Seg(S◦), that is, B is the set of segments in S containing at least one point of ∂ S. Note that B is measurable, since Seg(S) is measurable by assumption and Seg(S◦) is an open set by Lemma 2.2, hence it is measurable as well. Let A B be a segment contained in S, and let C be a point of A B. We say that C is an isolated boundary point of the segment A B, if C ∈ ∂ S, but there is an ε > 0 such that no other point of A B ∩ Nε(C ) belongs to ∂ S. We partition the set B into four parts as follows: B| := {( A, B) ∈ B : A = B or A B is a vertical segment}, B := {( A, B) ∈ B B := {( A, B) ∈ B B| : A is an isolated boundary point of A B}, (B| ∪ B ) : B is an isolated boundary point of A B}, B• := B (B| ∪ B ∪ B ). We claim that each of these sets has measure zero. For B|, this is clear, since B| is a subset of {( A, B) ∈ R2 × R2 : A = B or A B is a vertical segment}, which clearly has λ4-measure zero. Consider now the set B . We first argue that it is measurable. For a set α ⊆ [0, 1] and a pair of points ( A, B), define A B[α] := {t B + (1 − t ) A : t ∈ α}, and let S(α) be the set {( A, B) ∈ R2 × R2 : A B[α] ⊆ S◦}. In particular, if α = [0, 1] then A B[α] = A B and S(α) = Seg(S◦). If α is a closed interval, then A B[α] is a segment, and it is not hard to see that S(α) is an open set, and, in particular, it is measurable. If α is an open interval, say α = (s, t ) ⊆ [0, 1], then S(α) = n∈N S([s +n−1, t −n−1]), and hence S(α) is measurable as well. We then see that B = B ∩ (∂ S × S) ∩ S((0, n−1)) , n∈N showing that B is measurable. An analogous argument shows that B is measurable, and hence B• is measurable as well. In the rest of the proof, we will use two basic facts of integral calculus, which we now state explicitly. Fact 1 (see [17, Lem. 7.25 and Thm. 7.26]) Let X, Y ⊆ Rd be two open sets, and let σ : X → Y be a bijection such that both σ and σ −1 are continuous and differentiable on X and Y , respectively. Then, for any X0 ⊆ X , the set X0 is measurable if and only if σ (X0) is measurable. Moreover, λ(X0) = 0 if and only if λ(σ (X0)) = 0. Fact 2 (Fubini’s Theorem, see [17, Thm. 8.12]) Let M ⊆ Rk × R be a measurable set. For x ∈ Rk , define Mx := {y ∈ R : (x , y) ∈ M }. Then, for almost every x ∈ Rk , the set Mx is λ -measurable, and λk+ (M ) = x∈Rk λ (Mx ). Let us prove that λ4(B ) = 0. The basic idea is as follows: suppose that we have fixed a non-vertical line L and a point B ∈ L. It can be easily seen that there are at most countably many points A ∈ L such that ( A, B) ∈ B . Since a line L with a point B ∈ L can be determined by three parameters, we will see that B has λ4-measure zero. Let us describe this reasoning more rigorously. Let La,b denote the line {(x , y) ∈ R2 : y = ax + b}. Define a mapping σ : R4 → R2 × R2 as follows: σ (a, b, x , x ) = ( A, B), where A = (x , ax + b) and B = (x , ax + b). In other words, σ (a, b, x , x ) is the pair of points on the line La,b whose horizontal coordinates are x and x , respectively. For every non-vertical segment A B, there is a unique quadruple (a, b, x , x ) with x = x , such that σ (a, b, x , x ) = ( A, B). In particular, σ is a bijection from the set {(a, b, x , x ) ∈ R4 : x = x } to the set {( A, B) ∈ R2 × R2 : A, B not on the same vertical line}. Define B = σ −1(B ). Note that σ satisfies the assumptions of Fact 1, and therefore B is measurable. Moreover, λ4(B ) = 0 if and only if λ4(B ) = 0. For a fixed triple (a, b, x ) ∈ R3, let Xa,b,x denote the set {x ∈ R : (a, b, x , x ) ∈ B }. We claim that Xa,b,x is countable. To see this, choose a point x ∈ Xa,b,x and define ( A, B) := σ (a, b, x , x ). Since ( A, B) ∈ B , we know that A is an isolated boundary point of A B, which implies that there is a closed interval β ⊆ R of positive length such that β ∩ Xa,b,x = {x }. This implies that Xa,b,x is countable and thus of measure zero. Since B is measurable, we can apply Fubini’s Theorem to get λ4(B ) = (a,b,x )∈R3 λ1(Xa,b,x ). Therefore λ4(B ) = 0 as claimed. A similar argument shows that λ4(B ) = 0. It remains to deal with the set B . We will use the following strategy: we will fix • two parallel non-horizontal lines L1, L2, and study the segments orthogonal to these two lines, with one endpoint on L1 and the other on L2. Roughly speaking, our goal is to show that for “almost every” choice of L1 and L2, there are “almost no” segments of this form belonging to B . • Let La,b denote the (non-horizontal) line {(ay + b, y) : y ∈ R}. Let us say that a pair of distinct points ( A, B) has type (a, b, c), if A ∈ La,b, B ∈ La,c, and the segment A B is orthogonal to La,b (and therefore also to La,c). The value a is then called the slope of the type t = (a, b, c). Note that every pair of distinct points ( A, B) defining a non-vertical segment has a unique type (a, b, c), with b = c. Define a mapping τ : R4 → R2 × R2, where τ (a, b, c, y) is the pair of points ( A, B) of type (a, b, c) such that A = (ay + b, y). Note that τ is a bijection from the set {(a, b, c, y) ∈ R4 : b = c} to the set {( A, B) ∈ R2 × R2 : A, B not on the same vertical line}. We can easily verify that τ satisfies the assumptions of Fact 1. Define B• = τ −1(B•). From Fact 1, it follows that B• is measurable, and λ4(B•) = 0 if and only if λ4(B•) = 0. For a type t = (a, b, c) ∈ R3, define Yt = {y ∈ R : (a, b, c, y) ∈ B•}. Furthermore, for a set α ⊆ [0, 1], define B•(α) = B• ∩ S(α), B•(α) = τ −1(B•(α)), and Yt (α) = {y ∈ R : (a, b, c, y) ∈ B•(α)}. In our applications, α will always be an interval (in fact, an open interval with rational endpoints), and in such case we already know that B•(α) is measurable, hence B•(α) is measurable. By Fubini’s Theorem, we have λ4(B•) = a∈R (b,c)∈R2 λ1(Y(a,b,c)), (*) and Yt is measurable for all t ∈ R3 up to a set of λ3-measure zero. An analogous formula holds for B•(α) and Yt (α) for any open interval α ⊆ [0, 1] with rational endpoints. Since there are only countably many such intervals, and a countable union of sets of measure zero has measure zero, we know that there is a set T0 ⊆ R3 of measure zero, such that for all t ∈ R3 T0 the set Yt is measurable, and moreover for any rational interval α the set Yt (α) is measurable as well. Our goal is to show that there are at most countably many slopes a ∈ R for which there is a (b, c) ∈ R2 such that λ1(Y(a,b,c)) > 0. From (*) it will then follow that λ4(B ) = 0. To achieve this goal, we will show that to any type t for which • λ1(Yt ) > 0, we can assign a set Rt ⊆ ∂ S of positive λ2-measure (the region of t ), so that if t and t have different slopes and if Yt and Yt both have positive measure, then Rt and Rt are disjoint. Since there cannot be uncountably many disjoint sets of positive measure, this will imply the result. Let us fix a type t = (a, b, c) ∈ R3 T0 such that λ1(Yt ) > 0. Let us say that an element y ∈ Yt is half-isolated if there is an ε > 0 such that [y, y + ε] ∩ Yt = {y} or [y − ε, y] ∩ Yt = {y}. Clearly, Yt has at most countably many half-isolated elements. Define Yt∗ := {y ∈ Yt : y is not half-isolated}. Of course, λ1(Yt∗) = λ1(Yt ). See Fig. 6 for an illustration. S B 1 y1 ∈ Yt y2 ∈ Yt∗ L a,b A 2 L a,c B 2 Fig. 6 An illustration for the proof of Lemma 2.10. The element y1 of Yt is half-isolated while y2 is not Choose y ∈ Yt∗, and define ( Ay , By ) := τ (a, b, c, y). We claim that Ay By ∩ S◦ is either empty or a single interval. Let us choose any two points C, D ∈ Ay By ∩ S◦. We will show that the segment C D is inside S◦. For ε > 0 small enough, the neighborhoods Nε(C ) and Nε(D) are subsets of S. Since y is not half-isolated in Yt , we can find two segments P, Q ∈ B• of type t that intersect both Nε(C ) and Nε(D), with Ay By being between P and Q. We can then find a closed polygonal curve Γ ⊆ P ∪ Q ∪ Nε(C ) ∪ Nε(D) whose interior region contains C D. Since S is p-componentwise simply connected, we see that C D ⊆ S◦. Therefore, Ay By ∩ S◦ is indeed an interval. Since ∂ S is a closed set, we know that for every y ∈ Yt∗, the set Ay By ∩ ∂ S is closed as well. Moreover, neither Ay nor By are isolated boundary points of Ay By , because then ( Ay , By ) would belong to B or B . We conclude that Ay By ∩ ∂ S is either equal to a single closed segment of positive length containing Ay or By , or it is equal to a disjoint union of two closed segments of positive length, one of which contains Ay and the other contains By . For an integer n ∈ N, define two sets Yt (n) and Yt (n) by Yt (n) := {y ∈ Yt∗ : Ay By [(0, n−1)] ⊆ ∂ S} and Yt (n) := {y ∈ Yt∗ : Ay By [(1 − n−1, 1)] ⊆ ∂ S}. Note that these sets are measurable: for instance, Yt (n) is equal to Yt∗ α Yt (α) , where we take the union over all rational intervals α intersecting (0, n−1). Moreover, we have Yt∗ = n∈N(Yt (n) ∪ Yt (n)). It follows that there is an n such that Yt (n) or Yt (n) has positive measure. Fix such an n and assume, without loss of generality, that λ1(Yt (n)) is positive. Define the region of t , denoted by Rt , by Rt := Ay By (0, n−1) . y∈Yt (n) The set Rt is a bijective affine image of Yt (n) × (0, n−1), and in particular it is λ2-measurable with positive measure. Note that Rt is a subset of ∂ S. Consider now two types t, t ∈ R3 T0 with distinct slopes, such that both Yt and Yt have positive measure. We will show that the regions Rt and Rt are disjoint. For contradiction, suppose there is a point C ∈ Rt ∩ Rt . Let A B and A B be the segments containing C and having types t and t , respectively. Fix ε > 0 small enough, so that none of the four endpoints A, B, A , B lies in Nε(C ). Since Yt∗ has no half-isolated points of Yt , we know that B• has segments of type t arbitrarily close to A B on both sides of A B, and similarly for segments of type t close to A B . We can therefore find four segments P, Q, P , Q ∈ B• { A B, A B } with these properties: – P and Q have type t , and P and Q have type t . – A B is between P and Q (i.e., A B ⊆ Conv( P ∪ Q)) and A B is between P and Q . – Both P and Q intersect both P and Q inside Nε(C ). We see that the four points where P ∪ Q intersects P ∪ Q form the vertex set of a parallelogram W whose interior contains the point C . Moreover, the boundary of W is a closed polygonal curve contained in S. Since S is p-componentwise simply connected, W is a subset of S and C belongs to S◦. This is a contradiction, since all points of Rt (and Rt ) belong to ∂ S. We conclude that Rt and Rt are indeed disjoint. Since there cannot be uncountably many disjoint sets of positive measure in R2, there are at most countably many values a ∈ R for which there is a type t = (a, b, c) with λ1(Yt ) positive. Consequently, the right-hand side of (*) is zero, and so λ4(B•) = 0, as claimed. Proof of Lemma 2.1 Observe that the inequalities b(S) α c(S) and λ4(Seg(S)) α smc(S)λ2(S) are equivalent. Call a set S bad if Seg(S) is measurable and b(S) > α c(S) or equivalently λ4(Seg(S)) > α smc(S)λ2(S). To prove the lemma, we suppose for the sake of contradiction that there exists a bad p-componentwise simply connected set S ⊆ R2 of finite positive measure. By Lemma 2.9, for each ε > 0, there is a bounded p-componentwise simply connected set S ⊆ S such that λ2(S ) (1 − ε)λ2(S) and b(S ) b(S) − ε. In particular, such a set S satisfies c(S ) c(S)/(1 − ε). Hence, for ε small enough, the set S is bad. Let S be the interior of S . By Lemma 2.10, λ4(Seg(S )) = λ4(Seg(S )). Clearly, λ2(S ) λ2(S ) and smc(S ) smc(S ), and therefore S is bad as well. Note that S is p-componentwise simply connected. Since S is an open set, all its p-components are open as well. In particular, S has at most countably many p-components. Let C be the set of p-components of S . Each T ∈ C is a bounded open simply connected set, and therefore cannot be bad. Therefore, λ4(Seg(S )) = λ4(Seg(T )) α smc(T )λ2(T ) α smc(S )λ2(S ), T ∈C T ∈C showing that S is not bad. This is a contradiction. 2.3 Proof of Lemma 2.4 Here we prove Lemma 2.4, which says that every bounded open simply connected subset of R2 can can be split by a diagonal into two rooted sets. Lemma 2.11 Let S be a bounded open simply connected subset of R2, and let be a diagonal of S. Let h− and h+ be the open half-planes defined by the supporting line of . It follows that the set S has exactly two p-components S1 and S2. Moreover, for every point A ∈ and every neighborhood Nε( A) ⊆ S, we have Nε( A)∩h− ⊆ S1 and Nε( A) ∩ h+ ⊆ S2. Proof Notice first that any p-component of an open set is also open. This implies that any path-connected open set is also p-connected, and therefore every open simply connected set is p-connected as well. Let A ∈ , and let Nε( A) be a neighborhood of A contained in S. We choose arbitrary points B ∈ Nε( A) ∩ h− and C ∈ Nε( A) ∩ h+. Suppose for a contradiction that S has a single p-component. Then there exists a polygonal curve Γ in S with endpoints B and C . Let ⊆ S be the closed polygonal curve Γ ∪ BC . We can assume that the curve is simple using a local redrawing argument. See Fig. 7. The curve separates R2 into two regions. The closure of the diagonal is a closed line segment that intersects in exactly one point. It follows that one endpoint of is in the interior region of . Since the endpoints of do not belong to S, this contradicts the assumption that S is simply connected. Now, we show that the set S has at most two p-components. For a point D ∈ , let Nε(D) be a neighborhood of D in S. The set Nε(D) ∩ h− is contained in a unique p-component S1 of S , and Nε(D) ∩ h+ is contained in a different p-component S2. Choose another point E ∈ with a neighborhood Nε (E ) ⊆ S. We claim that Nε (E ) ∩ h− also belongs to S1. To see this, note that since D E is a compact subset of the open set S, it has a neighborhood Nδ(D E ) which is contained in S. Clearly, Nδ(D E ) ∩ h− is p-connected and therefore belongs to S1, hence Nε (E ) ∩ h− belongs to S1 as well. An analogous argument can be made for the half-plane h+ and the p-component S2. Since for every p-component S of S , there is a point A ∈ and a neighborhood Nε( A) ⊆ S such that Nε( A) ∩ S = ∅, we see that S1 and S2 are the only two p-components of S . Proof of Lemma 2.4 By Lemma 2.11, the set S has of exactly two p-components S1 and S2. It remains to show that S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are rooted sets. Since S1 and S2 are p-connected, S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are p-connected as well. To show that S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are simply connected, choose a Jordan curve Γ in, say, S1 ∪ , and let Z be the interior region of Γ . Suppose for a contradiction that Z is not a subset of S1 ∪ . Since S is simply connected, we have Z ⊆ S. Hence there is a point A ∈ Z ∩ S2. Since both S2 and Z are open, we can assume that A does not lie on the supporting line of . Let A B be the minimal closed segment parallel to such that B ∈ Γ . Then B belongs to S1, A belongs to S2, and yet A and B are in the same p-component of S . This contradiction shows that S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are simply connected. As subsets of the bounded set S, the sets S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are bounded. Lemma 2.11 and the fact that Si is open imply that the set Si ∪ is half-open and Si ∩ ∂ Si = for i ∈ {1, 2}. Therefore, the sets S1 ∪ and S2 ∪ are rooted, and is their root. 2.4 Proof of Lemma 2.5 Here we prove Lemma 2.5, which explains the tree structure of rooted sets. For this entire section, let R be a rooted set and (Lk )k 1 be the partition of R into levels. We will need several auxiliary results in order to prove Lemma 2.5. For disjoint sets S, T ⊆ R2, we say that the set S is T -half-open if every point A ∈ S has a neighborhood Nε( A) that satisfies one of the following two conditions: 1. Nε( A) ⊆ S, 2. Nε( A) ∩ ∂ S is a diameter of Nε( A) splitting it into two subsets, one of which (including the diameter) is Nε( A) ∩ S and the other (excluding the diameter) is Nε( A) ∩ T . The only difference with the definition of S being half-open is that we additionally specify the “other side” of the neighborhoods Nε( A) for points A ∈ S ∩ ∂ S in the condition 2. A rooted set R is T -half-open if and only if it is attached to T according to the definition of attachment from Sect. 2. Lemma 2.12 The set L1 is (R2 R)-half-open and L1 ∩ ∂ L1 = R ∩ ∂ R. Proof We consider two cases for a point A ∈ L1. First, suppose A ∈ L1 ∩ ∂ R. It follows that A has a neighborhood Nε( A) that satisfies the condition 2 of the definition of a half-open set. By the definition of L1, the same neighborhood Nε( A) satisfies the condition 2 for L1 being an (R2 R)-half-open set. In particular, A ∈ ∂ L1. Since R ∩ ∂ R ⊆ L1 by the definition of L1, we have R ∩ ∂ R ⊆ L1 ∩ ∂ L1. Now, suppose A ∈ L1 ∩ R◦. Let B be a point of the root of R such that A B ⊆ R. We have A B {B} ⊆ R◦, as otherwise the point t A + (1 − t )B for t := sup{t ∈ [0, 1] : At + (1 − t )B ∈ A B ∩ ∂ R} would contradict the fact that R is halfopen. There is a family of neighborhoods {NεC (C )}C∈AB such that all NεD (D) with D ∈ A B {B} satisfy the condition 1 and NεB (B) satisfies the condition 2 for R being half-open. Since A B is compact, there is a finite set X ⊆ A B such that A B ⊆ C∈X NεC /2(C ). Hence Nε( A B) ⊆ C∈X NεC (C ), where ε := minC∈X εC /2. It follows that Nε( A B) ∩ ∂ R is an open segment Q containing B but not A and splitting Nε( A B) into two subsets, one of which (including Q) is Nε( A B) ∩ R and the other (excluding Q) is Nε( A B) R. Let ε be the minimum of ε and the distance of A to the line containing Q. It follows that Nε ( A) ⊆ Nε( A B) ∩ R. Therefore, for every A ∈ Nε ( A), we have A B ⊆ R, hence Nε ( A) ⊆ L1. It also follows that L1 ∩ ∂ L1 ⊆ R ∩ ∂ R. We say that a set P ⊆ R is R-convex when the following holds for any two points A, B ∈ P: if A B ⊆ R, then A B ⊆ P. Lemma 2.13 The set L1 is R-convex. Proof This follows directly from Lemma 2.3. A branch of R is a p-component of k 2 Lk . Lemma 2.14 Every branch of R is R-convex. Proof Let P be a branch of R, and let A, B ∈ P be such that A B ⊆ R. Since R is halfopen, it follows that A B ⊆ R◦. Suppose A B P. It follows that A B ∩ L1 = ∅. Since L1 is (R2 R)-half-open (Lemma 2.12) and R-convex (Lemma 2.13), we see that A B ∩ L1 is an open segment A B for some A , B ∈ A B. It follows that A , B ∈ P. There is a simple polygonal line in P connecting A with B , which together with A B forms a Jordan curve Γ in R. Now, let C ∈ A B . Since C ∈ L1, there is a point D on the root of R such that C D ⊆ R. Since A , B ∈/ L1, D does not lie on the supporting line of A B . Extend the segment DC beyond C until hitting ∂ R at a point C . Here we use the fact that R is bounded. Since R is simply connected, the entire interior region of Γ is contained in R, so the points D and C both lie in the exterior region of Γ . However, since Γ ∩ L1 = A B , the line segment DC crosses Γ at exactly one point, which is C . This is a contradiction. Lemma 2.15 The set L1 and every branch of R are p-connected and simply connected. Proof Let P be the set L1 or a branch of R. It follows directly from the definitions of L1 and a branch of R that P is p-connected. To see that P is simply connected, let Γ be a Jordan curve in P, A be a point in the interior region of Γ , and BC be an inclusion-maximal open line segment in the interior region of Γ such that A ∈ BC . It follows that B, C ∈ Γ and BC ⊆ R, as R is simply connected. Since B, C ∈ P and P is R-convex (Lemmas 2.13 and 2.14), we have A ∈ P. Lemma 2.16 Every branch of R is L1-half-open. Proof Let P be a branch of R. It is enough to check the condition 1 or 2 for P being L1-half-open for points in ∂ P ∩ P. Let A ∈ ∂ P ∩ P. Since R is half-open, A has a neighborhood Nε( A) that satisfies the condition 1 or 2 for S being half-open. It cannot be 2, as then A would lie on the root of R and thus in L1. Hence Nε( A) ⊆ R. Since L1 is (R2 R)-half-open (Lemma 2.12) and R-convex (Lemma 2.13) and A ∈/ L1, the set Nε( A) ∩ L1 lies entirely in some open half-plane h whose boundary line passes through A. The set Nε( A) h is p-connected and contains A, so it lies entirely within P. The set Nε( A) ∩ h is disjoint from P. Indeed, if there was a point B ∈ Nε( A) ∩ h ∩ P, then by the R-convexity of P (Lemma 2.14), the convex hull of Nε( A) h and B would lie entirely within P and would contain A in its interior, which would contradict the assumption that A ∈ ∂ P. It follows that Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P is an open segment that partitions Nε( A) into two half-discs, one of which (including Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P) is Nε( A) ∩ P. We show that Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P ⊆ ∂ L1. Suppose to the contrary that there is a point A ∈ Nε( A)∩∂ P L1. It follows that A has a neighborhood Nε ( A ) ⊆ Nε( A) L1. Since Nε ( A ) is p-connected and contains a point of P, it lies entirely within P. This contradicts the assumption that A ∈ ∂ P. Since Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P ⊆ ∂ L1, there is a point B ∈ Nε( A) ∩ L1. Let A ∈ Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P. Since L1 is (R2 R)-half-open and R-convex and A ∈/ L1, there is a point C ∈ A B such that C B {C } ⊆ L1 while A C is disjoint from L1. The latter implies that A C ⊆ P, as A ∈ P. Hence C = A . This shows the whole triangle T spanned by Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P and B excluding the open segment Nε( A) ∩ ∂ P is contained in L1. Since A lies in the interior of Nε( A) ∩ ( P ∪ T ), it has a neighborhood Nε ( A) that lies entirely within Nε( A) ∩ ( P ∪ T ). This neighborhood witnesses the condition 2 for P being L1-half-open. Lemma 2.17 Let P be a branch of R. If A0, A1 ∈ P ∩ ∂ P, then A0 A1 ⊆ R. Proof Let A0, A1 ∈ P ∩ ∂ P. By Lemma 2.16, P is L1-half-open, hence there are B0, B1 ∈ L1 such that A0 B0 { A0} ⊆ L1 and A1 B1 { A1} ⊆ L1. There is a polygonal line Γ1 in P connecting A0 with A1, and a polygonal line Γ2 in L1 connecting B0 with B1. These polygonal lines together with the line segments A0 B0 and A1 B1 form a closed polygonal curve Γ in R. We can assume without loss of generality that Γ is simple (see Fig. 7) and that the x -coordinates of A0 and A1 are equal to 0. We also assume that no two vertices of Γ except A0 and A1 have the same x -coordinates. We color the points of Γ ∩ L1 red and the points of Γ ∩ P blue. For convenience, we assume that A0 and A1 have both colors. Let Z denote the interior region delimited by Γ including Γ itself. Since R is simply connected, we have Z ⊆ R. Let x1 < · · · < xn be the x -coordinates of all vertices of Γ . We use [n] to denote the set of indices {1, . . . , n}. Since the x -coordinates of A0 and A1 are zero, there is j ∈ [n] such that x j = 0. For i ∈ [n], we let i be the vertical line {xi } × R. Since the x -coordinates of the vertices of Γ { A0, A1} are distinct, there is at most one vertex of Γ on i for every i ∈ [n] { j }. For i ∈ [n], the intersection of Z with i is a family of closed line segments with endpoints from Γ ∩ i . Some of the segments can be trivial, that is, consisting of a single point, and some segments can contain a point of Γ in their interior. For i ∈ [n] and a point A ∈ Γ ∩ i , we say that a point B is a left neighbor of A if B lies on Γ ∩ i−1 and A B ⊆ Γ . Similarly, B is a right neighbor of A if B ∈ Γ ∩ i+1 and A B ⊆ Γ . Note that every point A ∈ Γ ∩ i has exactly two neighbors and if A ∈/ { A0, A1}, then the neighbors of A have the same color as A. We distinguish two types of points of Γ ∩ i . We say that a point A ∈ Γ ∩ i is one-sided if it either has two right or two left neighbors. Otherwise, we say that A is two-sided. That is, A is two-sided if it has one left and one right neighbor. See Fig. 8. C E D lj Z Γ ln x n l1 Fig. 8 Situation in the proof of Lemma 2.17. Here A is a left neighbor of C and B is a left neighbor of D. The points B, C, and D are two-sided, the points A and E are one-sided Note that every one-sided point is a vertex of Γ and that one-sided points from Γ ∩ i are exactly the points of Γ ∩ i that either form a trivial line segment or that are contained in the interior of some line segment of Z ∩ i . Consequently, every line segment in Z ∩ i contains at most one point of Γ in its interior. For 2 i n and C, D ∈ i ∩ Γ , let C D be a line segment in Z ∩ i whose interior does not contain a point of Γ with a left neighbor. Let A and B be left neighbors of C and D, respectively, such that there is no left neighbor of C and D between A and B on i−1. Since no point between A and B on i−1 can have a right neighbor, we have A B ⊆ Z ∩ i−1 and A, B, C, D are vertices of a trapezoid whose interior is contained in Z . An analogous statement holds for right neighbors of C and D provided that the interior of C D does not contain a point of Γ with a right neighbor. Claim Let i ∈ [n] { j }, and let C and D be points of Γ ∩ i satisfying C D ⊆ Z ∩ i . Then C and D have the same color. First, we will prove the claim by induction on i for all i < j . The claim clearly holds for i = 1, as Z ∩ 1 contains only a single vertex of Γ . Fix i with 1 < i < j and suppose that the claim holds for i − 1. Let C, D ∈ Γ ∩ i be points satisfying C D ⊆ Z ∩ i . We show that C and D have the same color. Obviously, we can assume that the line segment C D is non-trivial. Assume first that the points C and D are two-sided. Suppose the interior of C D does not contain a point of Γ with a left neighbor. Let A, B ∈ Γ ∩ i−1 be the left neighbors of C and D, respectively. Then A B ⊆ Z ∩ i−1. Thus A and B have the same color by the induction hypothesis. Since C, D ∈/ { A0, A1}, the points A and C have the same color as well as the points B and D. This implies that C and D have the same color too. If there is a point E of Γ in the interior of C D, then it follows from R-convexity of P (Lemma 2.14) and L1 (Lemma 2.13) that E has the same color as C and D. Now, suppose the interior of C D contains a point E of Γ with a left neighbor. We have already observed that there is exactly one such point on C D. We also know that E has two left neighbors. The points C and E with their left neighbors A and B, respectively, where there is no left neighbor of E between A and B on i−1, form a trapezoid in Z such that A B ⊆ Z ∩ i−1. From induction hypothesis A and B have the same color which implies that C and E have the same color as well. Similarly, D and E have the same color which implies that C and D have the same color as well. The case where either C or D is one-sided is covered by the previous cases. The same inductive argument but in the reverse direction shows the claim for all i with j < i n. This completes the proof of the claim. Now, consider the inclusion-maximal line segment C D of Z ∩ j that contains A0. We can assume that either C and D are two-sided. Suppose for a contradiction that A1 is not contained in C D. If C D is trivial, that is, C = D = A0, then A0 is one-sided and its neighbors A and B have different colors, as Γ changes color in A0. This is impossible according to the claim, since we have A B ⊆ Z ∩ i−1 or A B ⊆ Z ∩ i+1. Therefore C D is non-trivial. First, we assume that A0 is an endpoint of C D, say C = A0. Then A0 is two-sided. By symmetry, we can assume that the left neighbor A of A0 and the left neighbor B of D have different colors. If there is no point of Γ with a left neighbor in the interior of A0 D, then A B ⊆ Z ∩ i−1. This is impossible according to the claim. If there is a point E ∈ Γ with a left neighbor in the interior of A0 D, then we can use a similar argument either for the line segment A0 E or for E D, as the neighbors of E have the same color. The last case is when A0 is an interior point of C D. Since Γ does not change color in C nor in D, we apply the claim to one of the line segments A0C , A0 D, and C D and show, again, that none of the cases is possible. Altogether, we have derived a contradiction. Therefore, A0 and A1 are contained in the same line segment of Z ∩ i . This completes the proof, as Z ⊆ R. Lemma 2.18 For every branch P of R, the set P ∩ ∂ P is an open segment. Proof Let P be a branch of R. First, we show that the set P ∩ ∂ P is convex. Let A0, A1 ∈ P ∩ ∂ P. By Lemma 2.17, we have A0 A1 ⊆ R. It follows that A0 A1 is disjoint from the root of R and thus is contained in R◦. By compactness, A0 A1 has a neighborhood Nε( A0 A1) contained in R◦. Since P is L1-half-open by Lemma 2.16, there are B0, B1 ∈ Nε( A0 A1) ∩ L1 such that A0 B0 { A0} ⊆ L1 and A1 B1 { A1} ⊆ L1. For t ∈ [0, 1], let At = (1 − t ) A0 + t A1 and Bt = (1 − t )B0 + t B1. We have At ∈ A0 A1 and Bt ∈ B0 B1, hence At , Bt ∈ Nε( A0 A1), for all t ∈ [0, 1]. Now, it follows from the R-convexity of P (Lemma 2.14) and L1 (Lemma 2.13) that At ∈ P and At Bt { At } ⊆ L1, hence At ∈ P ∩ ∂ P, for all t ∈ [0, 1]. This shows that P ∩ ∂ P is convex. If P ∩ ∂ P had three non-collinear points, then they would span a triangle with non-empty interior contained in P ∩ ∂ P, which would be a contradiction. Since R is bounded, the set P ∩ ∂ P is a line segment. That it is an open line segment follows directly from Lemma 2.16. Lemma 2.19 For every j 2, every p-component P of k j Lk is a rooted set attached to L j−1. Moreover, for k 1, the kth level of P is equal to L j−1+k ∩ P. Proof The proof proceeds by induction on j . For the base case, let P be a p-component of i 2 Li , that is, a branch of R. It follows from Lemmas 2.15, 2.16 and 2.18 that P is a rooted set attached to L1. Let be the root of P, and let (Lk )k 1 be the partition of P into levels. We prove that Lk ⊆ ik=+11 Li and Lk+1 ∩ P ⊆ ik=1 Li for every k 1. Let A ∈ Lk . It follows that there is a polygonal line Γ with k line segments connecting A to a point B ∈ . Moreover, since there is no shorter polygonal line connecting A to , the last line segment of Γ is not parallel to . Since P is L1-halfopen (Lemma 2.16), there is a neighborhood Nε(B) that is split by into two parts, one of which is a subset of L1. Let C be a point in Nε(B)∩ L1 such that BC is an extension of the last line segment of Γ . Since C ∈ L1, there is a point D on the root of R such that C D ⊆ L1. The polygonal line Γ extended by BC and C D forms a polygonal line with k +1 line segments connecting A to the root of R. This shows that Lk ⊆ ik=+11 Li . Now, let A ∈ Lk+1 ∩ P. It follows that there is a polygonal line Γ with k + 1 line segments connecting A to the root of R. Since L1 is an open subset of R (Lemma 2.12) and P is a p-component of R L1, there is a point B ∈ Γ such that the part of Γ between A and B (inclusive) is contained in P and is maximal with this property. It follows that B ∈ . Since B ∈/ L1, the part of Γ between A and B consists of at most k segments. This shows that Lk+1 ∩ P ⊆ ik=1 Li . We have thus proved that Lk ⊆ ik=+11 Li and Lk+1 ∩ P ⊆ ik=1 Li for every k 1. To conclude the proof of the base case, we note that a straightforward induction shows that Lk = Lk+1 ∩ P for every k 1. For the induction step, let j 3, and let P be a p-component of i j Li . Let Q be the branch of R containing P. Let (Lk )k 1 be the partition of Q into levels. As we have proved for the base case, we have Lk = Lk+1 ∩ Q for every k 1. Hence P is a p-component of ( i j Li ) ∩ Q = i j−1 Li . By the induction hypothesis, P is a rooted set attached to L j−2 ⊆ L j−1. Moreover, for k 1, the kth level of P is equal to L j−2+k ∩ P = L j−1+k . This completes the induction step and proves the lemma. Proof of Lemma 2.5 The statement 1 is a direct consequence of the definition of a rooted set, specifically, of the condition that a rooted set is p-connected. For the proof of the statement 2, let P be a j -body of R. If j = 1, then P = L1 = Vis(r, R) = Vis(r, L1), where r is the root of R, and by Lemmas 2.12 and 2.15, L1 is rooted with the same root r . Now, suppose j 2. Let Q be the p-component of k j Lk containing P. By Lemma 2.19, Q is a rooted set and L j ∩ Q is the first level of Q. Since P ⊆ L j ∩ Q, the definition of the first level yields P = L j ∩ Q = Vis(r, Q) = Vis(r, P), where r is the root of Q. By Lemma 2.12, P is a rooted set with the same root r . Lemma 2.12 and the fact that L1 is p-connected directly yield the statement 3. Finally, for the proof of the statement 4, let P be a j -body of R with j 2. Let Q be the p-component of k j Lk containing P. As we have proved above, Q is a rooted set and P is the first level of Q and shares the root with Q. Moreover, by Lemma 2.19, Q (and hence P) is attached to L j−1. The definition of attachment implies that P is attached to a single p-component of L j−1, that is, a single ( j − 1)-body of R. 3 General Dimension This section is devoted to the proofs of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6. In both proofs, we use the operator Aff to denote the affine hull of a set of points. 3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.5 Let T = (B0, B1, . . . , Bd ) be a (d + 1)-tuple of distinct affinely independent points in Rd . We say that a permutation B0, B1, . . . , Bd of T is a regular permutation of T if the following two conditions hold: 1. the segment B0 B1 is the diameter of T , 2. for i = 2, . . . , d−1, the point Bi has the maximum distance to Aff({B0, . . . , Bi−1}) among the points Bi , Bi+1, . . . , Bd . Obviously, T has at least two regular permutations due to the interchangeability of B0 and B1. The regular permutation Bi0 , Bi1 , . . . , Bid with the lexicographically minimal vector (i0, i1, . . . , id ) is called the canonical permutation of T . Let T be a (d + 1)-tuple of distinct affinely independent points in Rd , and let B0, B1, . . . , Bd be the canonical permutation of T . For i = 1, . . . , d − 1, we define Boxi (T ) inductively as follows: 1. Box1(T ) := B0 B1, 2. for i = 2, . . . , d − 1, Boxi (T ) is the box containing all the points P ∈ Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bi }) with the following two properties: – the orthogonal projection of P to Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bi−1}) lies in Boxi−1(T ), – the distance of P to Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bi−1}) does not exceed the distance of Bi to Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bi−1}), 3. Boxd (T ) is the box containing all the points P ∈ Rd such that the orthogonal projection of P to Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bd−1}) lies in Boxd−1(T ) and λd (Conv({B0, B1, . . . , Bd−1, P})) λd (S) c(S). The definition of Boxd (T ) is independent of Bd , so we can define Boxd (T by {Bd }) Boxd (T {Bd }) := Boxd (T ). It is not hard to see that this gives us a proper definition of Boxd (T −) for every d-tuple T − of d distinct affinely independent points in Rd . Lemma 3.1 1. For i = 1, . . . , d − 1, the box Boxi (T ) contains the orthogonal projection of any point of T to Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bi−1}). 2. If Conv(T ) ⊆ S then Boxd (T ) contains the point Bd . Proof We prove the statement 1 by induction on i . First, let i = 1. Then the segment Box1(T ) must contain every point A j ∈ T since otherwise one of the segments B0 A j and B1 A j would be longer than the segment B0 B1. Further, if a point A j ∈ T satisfies the statement 1 for a parameter i ∈ {1, . . . , d − 2} then it also satisfies the statement 1 for the parameter i + 1 since otherwise A j = Bi+1 and A j should have been chosen for Bi+1. The statement 2 follows from the fact that Conv(T ) ⊆ S implies λd (Conv(T )) smc(S) = λd (S) c(S). For i = 1, . . . , d − 1, let di be the distance of Bi to Aff({B0, B1, . . . , Bi−1}). In particular, d1 is the diameter of T . The following observation follows from the definition of the canonical permutation of T and from the construction of the boxes Boxi (T ). Observation 3.2 1. The (d −1)-dimensional measure of the simplex Conv(T {Bd }) is equal to d1d2 . . . dd−1/(d − 1)!. 2. The sides of Boxd (T ) have lengths d1, 2d2, . . . , 2dd−1, and d1d2.d..!dd−1 λd (S) c(S). Proof of Theorem 1.5 To estimate bd (S), we partition Simpd (S) into the following d + 2 subsets: X := {T ∈ Simpd (S) : T is affinely dependent}, Yi := {T = ( A0, . . . , Ad ) ∈ Simpd (S) : T is affinely independent, and Ai is the last element of the canonical permutation of T }, for i = 0, . . . , d. We point out that T is considered to be affinely dependent in the above definitions of X and Yi also in the degenerate case when some point of S appears more than once in T . We have λd(d+1)(X ) = 0. Let i ∈ {0, . . . , d}. The set Yi is a subset of the set Yi := {T = ( A0, . . . , Ad ) ∈ Sd+1 : T { Ai } is affinely independent and we have Ai ∈ Boxd (T { Ai })}. By Observation 3.2.2, λd (Boxd (T { Ai })) is equal to z := 2d−2d!λd (S) c(S) for every set T { Ai } appearing in the definition of Yi . Therefore, by Fubini’s Theorem, the set Yi is λd(d+1)-measurable and, moreover, λd(d+1)(Yi ) = (λd (S))d z = (λd (S))d+12d−2d! c(S). Thus, bd (S) = λd(d+1)(Simpd (S)) λd (S)d+1 λd(d+1)(X ) + id=0 λd(d+1)(Yi ) = 2d−2(d + 1)! c(S). λd (S)d+1 This completes the proof of Theorem 1.5. 3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.6 In the following, we make no serious effort to optimize the constants. As the first step towards the proof of Theorem 1.6, we show that if we remove an arbitrary n-tuple of points from the open d-dimensional box ( 0, 1 )d , then the d-index of convexity of the resulting set is of order Ω( n1 ). Lemma 3.3 For every positive integer n and every n-tuple N of points from ( 0, 1 )d , the set S := ( 0, 1 )d N satisfies bd (S) 1/2n. Proof Let S and N = {B1, . . . , Bn} be the sets from the statement and let 0 be the origin. We use Sd−1 to denote the set of (d − 1)-tuples ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) ∈ Sd−1 ∗ that satisfy the following: for every B ∈ N the points A1, . . . , Ad−1, B are affinely 0 ) = {B}. Note that the set Sd−1 independent and Aff({ A1, . . . , Ad−1, B}) ∩ (N ∪ { } ∗ is measurable and λd(d−1)(Sd−1) = 1. If h is a hyperplane in Rd that does not contain ∗ the origin, we use h− and h+ to denote the open half-spaces defined by h such that 0 ∈ h−. Let ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) ∈ Sd−1. For a point B ∈ N , we let h A1,...,Ad−1,B be the ∗ hyperplane determined by the d-tuple ( A1, . . . , Ad−1, B). Since ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) ∈ cSodn−t1a,inwtehseeoertihgaint .hTAh1,e.r..e,Afod−re1,tBhesahtiaslfif-esspahcAe1s,..h.,−Ad−1,B ∩ N = {B} and that it does not ∗ A1,...,Ad−1,B and h+A1,...,Ad−1,B are well and P2( A1, . . . , Ad−1) := S ∩ h+A1,...,Ad−1,B1 . Suppose we have sSp∩lit ht−hAe1,..s.,eAtd−S1,iBn1to sets Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) for 1 i 2(n − 1) and n 2. Consider the hyperplane h A1,...,Ad−1,Bn . Since for every k ∈ {1, . . . , n − 1} the intersection h A1,...,Ad−1,Bk ∩ h A1,...,Ad−1,Bn is the affine hull of A1, . . . , Ad−1, we see that h A1,...,Ad−1,Bn Aff({ A1, . . . , Ad−1}) is contained in two sets Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) and Pj ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) for some 1 i < j 2(n − 1). We restrict these sets to their intersection with the half-space h−A1,...,Ad−1,Bn and set P2n−1( A1, . . . , Ad−1) and P2n( A1, . . . , Ad−1) as the intersection of h+A1,...,Ad−1,Bn with Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) and Pj ( A1, . . . , Ad−1), respectively. See Fig. 9 for an illustration. Since none of the sets Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) contains a point from N , it can be regarded as an intersection of ( 0, 1 )d with open half-spaces. Therefore every set Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) is an open convex subset of S. Let P( A1, . . . , Ad−1) be the set S B∈N h A1,...,Ad−1,B . Clearly, λd ( P( A1, . . . , Ad−1)) = 1. Since the sets Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) form a partitioning of P( A1, . . . , Ad−1), we also have 2n i=1 λd ( Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1)) = 1. For i = 1, . . . , 2n, we let Ri be the subset of S∗d−1 × S2 defined as Ri := {( A1, . . . , Ad+1) ∈ S∗d−1 × S2 : Ad , Ad+1 ∈ Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1)}, and we let R := i2=n1 Ri . The sets Ri are pairwise disjoint and it is not difficult to argue that these sets are measurable. If a (d + 1)-tuple ( A1, . . . , Ad+1) is contained in Ri for some i ∈ {1, . . . , 2n}, then ( A1, . . . , Ad+1) is contained in Simpd (S), as Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) ∪ (Aff({ A1, . . . , Ad−1}) ∩ S) is a convex subset of S. Therefore, to find a lower bound for bd (S) = λd(d+1)(Simpd (S)), it suffices to find a lower bound for λd(d+1)(R), because R is a subset of Simpd (S). By Fubini’s Theorem, we obtain B 1 P2 P2 P4 P2 P4 P6 1 P1 P1 P3 P1 P5 P3 Fig. 9 The inductive splitting of S = ( 0, 1 )2 N with respect to the point A1. The points B1, B2, B3 of N are denoted as empty circles and we use a shorthand Pi for Pi (A1) (Ad ,Ad+1)∈S2 = (A1,...,Ad−1)∈S∗d−1 λd ( Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1))2, Ad , Ad+1 ∈ Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) where [φ] is the characteristic function of a logical expression φ, that is, [φ] equals 1 if the condition φ holds and 0 otherwise. For the measure of R we then derive 2n λd(d+1)(Ri ) = (A1,...,Ad−1)∈S∗d−1 i=1 2n λd ( Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1) 2. Since the function x → x 2 is convex, we can apply Jensen’s inequality and bound the last term from below by (A1,...,Ad−1)∈S∗d−1 2n i2=n1 λd ( Pi ( A1, . . . , Ad−1)) 2 2n The next step in the proof of Theorem 1.6 is to find a convenient n-tuple N of points from ( 0, 1 )d whose removal produces a set with sufficiently small convexity ratio. We are going to find N using a continuous version of the well-known Epsilon Net Theorem [9]. Before stating this result, we need some definitions. Let X be a subset of Rd and let U be a set system on X . We say that a set T ⊆ X is shattered by U if every subset of T can be obtained as the intersection of some U ∈ U with T . The Vapnik-Chervonenkis dimension (or VC-dimension) of U , denoted by dim(U ), is the maximum n (or ∞ if no such maximum exists) for which some subset of X of cardinality n is shattered by U . Let U be a system of measurable subsets of a set X ⊆ Rd with λd (X ) = 1, and let ε ∈ ( 0, 1 ) be a real number. A set N ⊆ X is called an ε-net for (X, U ) if N ∩ U = ∅ for every U ∈ U with λd (U ) ε. Theorem 3.4 [13, Thm. 10.2.4] Let X be a subset of Rd with λd (X ) = 1. Then for every system U of measurable subsets of X with dim(U ) v, v 2, there is a r1 -net for (X, U ) of size at most 2vr log2 r for r sufficiently large with respect to v. To apply Theorem 3.4, the VC-dimension of the set system U has to be finite. However, it is known that the VC-dimension of all convex sets in Rd is infinite (see e.g. [13, p. 238]). Therefore, instead of considering convex sets directly, we approximate them by ellipsoids. A d-dimensional ellipsoid in Rd is an image of the closed d-dimensional unit ball under a nonsingular affine map. A convex body in Rd is a compact convex subset of Rd with non-empty interior. The following result, known as John’s Lemma [10], shows that every convex body can be approximated by an inscribed ellipsoid. Lemma 3.5 [13, Thm. 13.4.1] For every d-dimensional convex body K ⊆ Rd , there is a d-dimensional ellipsoid E with the center C that satisfies E ⊆ K ⊆ C + d(E − C ). In particular, we have λd (K )/dd λd (E ). As the last step before the proof of Theorem 1.6, we mention the following fact, which implies that the VC-dimension of the system E of d-dimensional ellipsoids in Rd is at most d +d2 . Lemma 3.6 [13, Prop. 10.3.2] Let R[x1, . . . , xd ] t denote the set of real polynomials in d variables of degree at most t , and let Pd,t = {x ∈ Rd : p(x ) 0} : p ∈ R[x1, . . . , xd ] t . Then dim(Pd,t ) dd+t . Proof of Theorem 1.6 Suppose we are given ε > 0 which is sufficiently small with respect to d. We show how to construct a set S ⊆ Rd with λd (S) = 1 satisfying c(S) ε and bd (S) 1 ε 8 d+2 dd · log2 1/ε d . Without loss of generality we assume that ε = dd /r for some integer r 2d2d . Consider the open d-dimensional box ( 0, 1 )d and the system E ( 0, 1 )d of d-dimensional ellipsoids in ( 0, 1 )d . Since the restriction of E to ( 0, 1 )d does not increase the VC-dimension, Lemma 3.6 implies dim(E ( 0, 1 )d ) d +d2 . If we set n := 2 d+2 r log2 r , then, by Theorem 3.4, there is a r1 -net N for the d system (( 0, 1 )d , E ( 0, 1 )d ) of size n, having r sufficiently large with respect to d. Let S be the set ( 0, 1 )d N . Clearly, we have λd (S) = 1. Suppose K is a convex subset of ( 0, 1 )d with λd (K ) > ε. Since the measure of K is positive, we can assume that K is a convex body of measure at least ε. By Lemma 3.5, the convex body K contains a d-dimensional ellipsoid E with λd (E ) ε/dd = r1 . Therefore E ∩ N = ∅. Since we have E ⊆ K and N ∩ S = ∅, we see that K is not a subset of S. In other words, we have c(S) ε. By Lemma 3.3, we have bd (S) 21n . According to the choice of n and r , the term 21n is bounded from below by 1 ε 4 d +d2 r log2 2r = 4 d +d2 dd log2 (2dd /ε) 1 ε , where the last inequality follows from the estimate 2dd proof of Theorem 1.6. 1/ε. This completes the It is a natural question whether the bound for bd (S) in Theorem 1.6 can be improved to bd (S) = Ω(c(S)). In the plane, this is related to the famous problem of Danzer and Rogers (see [5,14] and Problem E14 in [7]) which asks whether for given ε > 0 there is a set N ⊆ ( 0, 1 )2 of size O( 1ε ) with the property that every convex set of area ε within the unit square contains at least one point from N . If this problem was to be answered affirmatively, then we could use such a set N to stab ( 0, 1 )2 in our proof of Theorem 1.6 which would yield the desired bound for b2(S). However it is generally believed that the answer is likely to be nonlinear in 1ε . 3.3 A Set with Large k-Index of Convexity and Small Convexity Ratio Proposition 3.7 For every integer d 2, the set S := [0, 1]d and bk (S) = 1 for every positive integer k < d. Qd satisfies c(S) = 0 Proof Since Qd is countable and λd ([0, 1]d ) = 1, we have λd (S) = 1. Every convex subset K of [0, 1]d with positive d-dimensional measure contains an open d-dimensional ball B with positive diameter, as there is a (d + 1)-tuple of affinely independent points of K . Since Qd is a dense subset of Rd , we see that B ∩ Qd = ∅ and thus c(S) = 0. It remains to estimate bk (S). By Fubini’s Theorem, we have bk (S) = (B1,...,Bk )∈Sk λd ({ A ∈ S : Conv({B1, . . . , Bk , A}) ⊆ S}) . λd (S)k+1 If A is a point of S such that Conv({B1, . . . , Bk , A}) is not contained in S, then A is a point of the affine hull Aff({B1, . . . , Bk , Q}) of B1, . . . , Bk and some Q ∈ Qd . Therefore, bk (S) is at least (B1,...,Bk )∈Sk − λd λd (S)k+1 Q∈Qd Aff({B1, . . . , Bk , Q}) . A countable union of affine subspaces of dimension less than d has d-dimensional measure zero and we already know that λd (S) = 1 = λd ([0, 1]d ), hence bk (S) = 1. 4 Other Variants and Open Problems We have seen in Theorem 1.3 that a p-componentwise simply connected set S ⊆ R2 whose b(S) is defined satisfies b(S) α c(S), for an absolute constant α 180. Equivalently, such a set S satisfies smc(S) b(S)λ2(S)/180. By a result of Blaschke [4] (see also Sas [18]), every convex set K ⊆ R2 contains √ a triangle of measure at least 34π3 λ2(K ). In view of this, Theorem 1.3 yields the following consequence. Corollary 4.1 There is a constant α > 0 such that every p-componentwise simply connected set S ⊆ R2 whose b(S) is defined contains a triangle T ⊆ S of measure at least α b(S)λ2(S). A similar argument works in higher dimensions as well. For every d 2, there is a constant β = β(d) such that every convex set K ⊆ Rd contains a simplex of measure at least βλd (K ) (see e.g. Lassak [12]). Therefore, Theorem 1.5 can be rephrased in the following equivalent form. Corollary 4.2 For every d 2, there is a constant α = α(d) > 0 such that every set S ⊆ Rd whose bd (S) is defined contains a simplex T of measure at least α bd (S)λd (S). What can we say about sets S ⊆ R2 that are not p-componentwise simply connected? First of all, we can consider a weaker form of simple connectivity: we call a set S p-componentwise simply -connected if for every triangle T such that ∂ T ⊆ S we have T ⊆ S. We conjecture that Theorem 1.3 can be extended to p-componentwise simply -connected sets. Conjecture 4.3 There is an absolute constant α > 0 such that every p-componentwise simply -connected set S ⊆ R2 whose b(S) is defined satisfies b(S) α c(S). What does the value of b(S) say about a planar set S that does not satisfy even a weak form of simple connectivity? As Proposition 3.7 shows, such a set may not contain any convex subset of positive measure, even when b(S) is equal to 1. However, we conjecture that a large b(S) implies the existence of a large convex set whose boundary belongs to S. Conjecture 4.4 For every ε > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that if S ⊆ R2 is a set with b(S) ε, then there is a bounded convex set C ⊆ R2 with λ(C ) δλ(S) and ∂C ⊆ S. Theorem 1.3 shows that Conjecture 4.4 holds for p-componentwise simply connected sets, with δ being a constant multiple of ε. It is possible that even in the general setting of Conjecture 4.4, δ can be taken as a constant multiple of ε. Motivated by Corollary 4.1, we propose a stronger version of Conjecture 4.4, where the convex set C is required to be a triangle. Conjecture 4.5 For every ε > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that if S ⊆ R2 is a set with b(S) ε, then there is a triangle T ⊆ R2 with λ(T ) δλ(S) and ∂ T ⊆ S. Note that Conjecture 4.5 holds when restricted to p-componentwise simply connected sets, as implied by Corollary 4.1. We can generalize Conjecture 4.5 to higher dimensions and to higher-order indices of convexity. To state the general conjecture, we introduce the following notation: for a set X ⊆ Rd , let Xk be the set of k-element subsets of X , and let the set Skelk ( X ) be defined by Skelk ( X ) := Conv(Y ). Y ∈(k +X1) If X is the vertex set of a d-dimensional simplex T = Conv( X ), then Skelk ( X ) is often called the k-dimensional skeleton of T . Our general conjecture states, roughly speaking, that sets with large k-index of convexity should contain the k-dimensional skeleton of a large simplex. Here is the precise statement. Conjecture 4.6 For every k, d ∈ N such that 1 k d and every ε > 0, there is a δ > 0 such that if S ⊆ Rd is a set with bk (S) ε, then there is a simplex T with vertex set X such that λd (T ) δλd (S) and Skelk ( X ) ⊆ S. Corollary 4.2 asserts that this conjecture holds in the special case of k = d 2, since Skeld ( X ) = Conv( X ) = T . Corollary 4.1 shows that the conjecture holds for k = 1 and d = 2 if S is further assumed to be p-componentwise simply connected. In all these cases, δ can be taken as a constant multiple of ε, with the constant depending on k and d. Finally, we can ask whether there is a way to generalize Theorem 1.3 to higher dimensions, by replacing simple connectivity with another topological property. Here is an example of one such possible generalization. Conjecture 4.7 For every d 2, there is a constant α = α(d) > 0 such that if S ⊆ Rd is a set with bd−1(S) defined whose every p-component is contractible, then bd−1(S) α c(S). A modification of the proof of Theorem 1.5 implies that Conjecture 4.7 is true for star-shaped sets S. Acknowledgments The first three authors were supported by the Grant GACˇ R 14-14179S. The first author acknowledges the support of the Grant Agency of the Charles University, GAUK 690214 and the Grant SVV-2015-260223. The last author was supported by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of Poland Mobility Plus Grant 911/MOB/2012/0. The authors would like to thank Marek Eliáš for interesting discussions about the problem and participation in our meetings during the early stages of the research. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 2. Beer, G.A.: The index of convexity and the visibility function. Pac. J. Math. 44( 1 ), 59–67 (1973) 3. Beer, G.A.: The index of convexity and parallel bodies. Pac. J. Math. 53(2), 337–345 (1974) 4. Blaschke, W.: Über affine Geometrie III: Eine Minimumeigenschaft der Ellipse. Ber. Verh. Kön. Sächs. Ges. Wiss. Leipzig Math.-Phys. Kl. 69, 3–12 (1917) 5. Bradford, P.G., Capoyleas, V.: Weak ε-nets for points on a hypersphere. Discrete Comput. Geom. 18( 1 ), 83–91 (1997) 6. Cabello, S., Cibulka, J., Kyncˇl, J., Saumell, M., Valtr, P.: Peeling potatoes near-optimally in near-linear time. In: Cheng, S.W., Devillers, O. (eds.) 30th Annual Symposium on Computational Geometry (SoCG 2014), pp. 224–231. ACM, New York (2014) 7. Croft, H.T., Falconer, K.J., Guy, R.K.: Unsolved Problems in Geometry, Unsolved Problems in Intuitive Mathematics, vol. 2. Springer, New York (1991) 8. Goodman, J.E.: On the largest convex polygon contained in a non-convex n-gon, or how to peel a potato. Geom. Dedicata 11( 1 ), 99–106 (1981) 9. Haussler, D., Welzl, E.: Epsilon-nets and simplex range queries. Discrete Comput. Geom. 2(2), 127– 151 (1987) 10. John, F.: Extremum problems with inequalities as subsidiary conditions. In: Studies and Essays, presented to R. Courant on his 60th birthday, January 8, 1948, pp. 187–204. Interscience, NewYork (1948) 11. Lang, R.: A note on the measurability of convex sets. Arch. Math. 47( 1 ), 90–92 (1986) 12. Lassak, M.: Approximation of convex bodies by inscribed simplices of maximum volume. Beitr. Algebra Geom. 52(2), 389–394 (2011) 13. Matoušek, J.: Lectures on Discrete Geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 212. Springer, New York (2002) 14. Pach, J., Tardos, G.: Piercing quasi-rectangles—on a problem of Danzer and Rogers. J. Comb. Theory Ser. A 119(7), 1391–1397 (2012) 15. Prasolov, V.V.: Elements of combinatorial and differential topology. In: Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 74. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2006) 16. Rote, G.: The degree of convexity. In: Abstracts of the 29th European Workshop on Computational Geometry, pp. 69–72 (2013) 17. Rudin, W.: Real and Complex Analysis, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (1987) 18. Sas, E.: Über eine Extremumeigenschaft der Ellipsen. Compos. Math. 6, 468–470 (1939) 19. Stern, H.I.: Polygonal entropy: a convexity measure for polygons. Pattern Recognit. Lett. 10(4), 229– 235 (1989) 1. Beer , G.A. : Continuity properties of the visibility function . Mich. Math. J . 20 ( 4 ), 297 - 302 ( 1973 )


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00454-016-9821-3.pdf

On the Beer Index of Convexity and Its Variants, Discrete & Computational Geometry, 2017, DOI: 10.1007/s00454-016-9821-3