THE CENTRO-AFFINE MINKOWSKI PROBLEM FOR POLYTOPES guangxian zhu Abstract

POLYTOPES guangxian zhu

Abstract

The centro-affine Minkowski problem in affine differential ge- ometry is considered. Existence for the solution of the discrete centro-affine Minkowski problem is proved.

1. Introduction

The setting for this paper is n-dimensional Euclidean space Rⁿ. A convex body inRⁿis a compact convex set that has non-empty interior.

LetKbe a convex body inRⁿwhose boundary∂Kis aC²closed convex hypersurface with positive Gauss curvature. IfK contains the origin in its interior, then the affine support function ofK (also called the affine distance see, e.g., [30], pp. 62-63) is defined by

˜h=hκ⁻ⁿ⁺¹¹ ,

where, as functions of the unit outer normal, h is the support function and κ is the Gauss curvature.

It is known that the affine support function of a convex body is in- variant when the convex body undergoes an SL(n) transformation. In particular, the affine support function is constant if the convex body is an ellipsoid centered at the origin. Conversely, for a convex body with C^∞boundary if the affine support function of the convex body is a pos- itive constant, then the convex body is an ellipsoid (see, e.g., Tzits´eica [35], Loewner and Nirenberg [23], Calabi [6], and Leichtweiss [22]).

The function

˜

κ= ˜h⁻ⁿ⁻¹ =h⁻ⁿ⁻¹κ

is called the centro-affine Gauss curvature (see, e.g., [10], pp. 76).

Characterizing the centro-affine Gauss curvature (or the affine sup- port function) is of great interest. The problem (posed explicitly by Chou and Wang in [10], pp. 76; see also Jian and Wang [19], pp. 432) is:

2010Mathematics Subject Classification: 52A40.

Key Words: polytope, affine support function, cenro-affine Gauss curvature, centro- affine Minkowski problem,LpMinkowski problem.

1

Centro-affine Minkowski problem: Given a positive function f on the unit sphere Sⁿ⁻¹, find necessary and sufficient conditions for f so that f is the centro-affine Gauss curvature of a convex body in Rⁿ.

Obviously, the centro-affine Minkowski problem is equivalent to the following Monge-Amp`ere type equation:

(1.1) h¹⁺ⁿdet(hij +hδij) = 1/f,

whereh_ij is the covariant derivative ofhwith respect to an orthonormal frame on Sⁿ⁻¹ and δ_ij is the Kronecker delta.

In [10], Chou and Wang posed the centro-affine Minkowski problem and established a necessary condition for the existence of solutions to this problem. For the case where the data is rotationally symmetric, existence for the centro-affine Minkowski problem was proved by Lu and Wang [24].

The centro-affine Minkowski problem is a special case of theLpMinkows- ki problem (posed by Lutwak [26]).

If p ∈ R and K is a convex body in Rⁿ that contains the origin in its interior, then the L_p surface area measure,S_p(K,·), ofK is a Borel measure on Sⁿ⁻¹ defined for a Borelω ⊂Sⁿ⁻¹, by

S_p(K, ω) = Z

x∈ν_K⁻¹(ω)

(x·ν_K(x))^1−pdHⁿ⁻¹(x),

where ν_K : ∂⁰K → Sⁿ⁻¹ is the Gauss map of K, defined on ∂⁰K, the set of boundary points of K that have a unique outer unit normal, and Hⁿ⁻¹ is (n−1)-dimensional Hausdorff measure.

Obviously, S1(K,·) is the classical surface area measure of K. In addition, _n¹S₀(K,·) is the cone-volume measure of K. In recent years, theLp surface area measure appeared in, e.g., [17,25,26,31].

In [26], Lutwak posed the following L_p Minkowski problem.

L_p Minkowski problem: Find necessary and sufficient conditions on a finite Borel measure µ onSⁿ⁻¹ so that µ is theL_p surface area mea- sure of a convex body in Rⁿ.

Obviously, the centro-affine Minkowski problem is a special case of the Lp Minkowski problem when p=−nand µ has a density. For this reason, the L−n surface area measure and theL−n Minkowski problem in this paper, will be called respectively the centro-affine surface area measure and the general centro-affine Minkowski problem.

General centro-affine Minkowski problem: Find necessary and sufficient conditions on a finite Borel measure µ on Sⁿ⁻¹ so that µ is the centro-affine surface area measure of a convex body in Rⁿ.

Besides the general centro-affine Minkowski problem, there are two other important cases for the L_p Minkowski problem. The case p = 1 of the Lp Minkowski problem is of course the classical Minkowski problem, which is completely solved (see, e.g., Alexandrov [1], Cheng and Yau [8], and Schneider [32]). The case p= 0 of the Lp Minkowski problem is called the logarithmic Minkowski problem. Very recently, a major breakthrough in the logarithmic Minkowski problem was made by B¨or¨oczky, Lutwak, Yang and Zhang [4].

Today, the L_p Minkowski problem is one of the central problems in convex geometric analysis, and is studied in, e.g., [5,7,11,16,20,21, 24,27,29,33], especially by Lutwak [26], Chou and Wang [10], Guan and Lin [15], Hug, Lutwak, Yang and Zhang [18]. The solutions to the Minkowski problem and the L_p Minkowski problem are connected to some important flows (see, e.g., [2, 3, 9,12]), and play key roles in establishing the affine Sobolev-Zhang inequality [36] and theLp affine Sobolev inequality [28].

The centro-affine Minkowski problem is the continuous case of the general centro-affine Minkowski problem whenµhas a density. Another important case of the general centro-affine Minkowski problem is the polytopal case, that is, µis a discrete measure.

A polytope in Rⁿ is the convex hull of a finite set of points in Rⁿ provided that the convex hull has positive n-dimensional volume. The convex hull of a subset of these points is called a facet of the polytope if the convex hull lies entirely on the boundary of the polytope and has positive (n−1)-dimensional volume. If a polytopeP contains the origin in its interior withN facets whose outer unit normals areu1, ..., uN, and if the facet with outer unit normal u_k has area a_k and distance from the origin h_k for all k∈ {1, ..., N}. Then the centro-affine surface area measure of P is

N

X

k=1

h¹⁺ⁿ_k a_kδu_k(·),

whereδ_uk denotes the delta measure that is concentrated at the pointu_k. Centro-affine Minkowski problem for polytopes: Find necessary and sufficient conditions on a discrete measure µ onSⁿ⁻¹ so that µ is the centro-affine surface area measure of a convex polytope in Rⁿ.

The Minkowski problem and theLpMinkowski problem for polytopes are of great importance. One reason that the problem for polytopes is so important is that the Minkowski problem and the L_p Minkowski problem (for p >1) for arbitrary measures can be solved by an approx- imation argument by first solving the polytopal case (see, e.g., [18] or [32] pp. 392-393). It is the aim of this paper to solve the centro-affine Minkowski problem for polytopes.

A finite set U of no less than n unit vectors in Rⁿ is said to be in general position if any nelements of U are linearly independent.

It is the aim of this paper to solve the general centro-affine Minkowski problem for the case of discrete measures whose supports are in general position:

Theorem. Let µbe a discrete measure on the unit sphere Sⁿ⁻¹. Then µ is the centro-affine surface area measure of a polytope whose outer unit normals are in general position if and only if the support of µis in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere.

Our theorem is a necessary and sufficient condition on the class of polytopes whose outer unit normals are in general position. However, the condition that the support ofµis in general position is not necessary for general discrete measures (e.g., when µ is the centro-affine surface area measure of the unique cube). The condition thatµis not contained in a closed hemisphere is necessary for general measures. Otherwise, the corresponding general centro-affine Minkowski problem will not have bounded solution.

For the case where the measureµhas a positive density, it is easy to construct discrete measures µ_i whose supports are in general position that converge weakly toµ. This may provide a possible way to solve the centro-affine Minkowski problem in affine differential geometry by using an approximation argument and the solution to the discrete centro-affine Minkowski problem.

2. Preliminaries

In this section, we collect some notation regarding convex bodies. For general references regarding convex bodies, see, e.g., [13,14,32,34].

The sets in this paper are subsets of the n-dimensional Euclidean spaceRⁿ. Forx, y∈Rⁿ, we writex·yfor the standard inner product of x and y,|x|for the Euclidean norm ofx, and Sⁿ⁻¹ for the unit sphere of Rⁿ.

For convex bodies K₁, K₂ in Rⁿ and c₁, c₂ ≥0, the Minkowski com- bination is defined by

c1K1+c2K2 ={c₁x1+c2x2 :x1∈K1, x2 ∈K2}.

The support function hK :Rⁿ →R of a convex body K is defined, for x∈Rⁿ, by

h(K, x) = max{x·y:y∈K}.

Obviously, forc≥0 and x∈Rⁿ,

h(cK, x) =h(K, cx) =ch(K, x).

TheHausdorff distance of two convex bodies K1, K2 inRⁿ is defined by

δ(K1, K2) = inf{t≥0 :K1 ⊂K2+tBⁿ, K2⊂K1+tBⁿ}, where Bⁿ is the unit ball.

If K is a convex body in Rⁿ and u ∈ Sⁿ⁻¹, then the support set F(K, u) of K in directionu is defined by

F(K, u) =K∩ {x∈Rⁿ:x·u=h(K, u)}.

The diameter of a convex bodyK inRⁿ is defined by d(K) = max{|x−y|:x, y∈K}.

Let P be the set of polytopes in Rⁿ. If the unit vectors u1, ..., uN

(N ≥ n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, let P(u₁, ..., u_N) be the subset of P such that a polytope P ∈ P(u₁, ..., uN) if

P =

N

\

k=1

{x:x·uk≤h(P, uk)}.

Obviously, if P ∈ P(u₁, ..., uN), then P has at most N facets, and the outer unit normals ofP are a subset of{u₁, ..., u_N}. LetP_N(u₁, ..., u_N) be the subset of P(u1, ..., uN) such that a polytope P ∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN) ifP ∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N), andP has exactlyN facets.

The following lemmas will be needed (see, [37], Lemma 4.1 & Theo- rem 4.3).

Lemma 2.1. If the unit vectorsu1, ..., uN (N ≥n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, andP ∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N), then F(P, ui) is either a point or a facet of P for all1≤i≤N.

Lemma 2.2. If the unit vectorsu₁, ..., u_N (N ≥n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, Pi ∈ P(u₁, ..., uN) (with o ∈ P_i) is a sequence of polytopes, and V(P_i) = 1, then P_i is bounded.

3. An extremal problem related to the centro-affine Minkowski problem

In this section, we solve an extremal problem. Its solution also solves the centro-affine Minkowski problem.

If α₁, ..., α_N ∈ R⁺, the unit vectors u₁, ..., u_N (N ≥ n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, and P ∈ P(u1, ..., uN), then define ΦP : Int (P)→Rby

ΦP(ξ) =

N

X

k=1

αk(h(P, uk)−ξ·uk)⁻ⁿ,

where Int (P) is the interior of P.

Lemma 3.1. If α₁, ..., α_N ∈ R⁺, the unit vectors u₁, ..., u_N (N ≥ n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, and P ∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N), then there exists a unique point ξ(P) ∈Int (P) such that

ΦP(ξ(P)) = inf

ξ∈Int(P)ΦP(ξ).

Proof. Obviously, t⁻ⁿ is strictly convex on (0,+∞). Thus, for 0 <

λ <1 andξ1, ξ2∈Int (P), λΦ_P(ξ₁) + (1−λ)Φ_P(ξ₂) =λ

N

X

k=1

α_k(h(P, u_k)−ξ₁·u_k)⁻ⁿ

+ (1−λ)

N

X

k=1

αk(h(P, uk)−ξ2·uk)⁻ⁿ

=

N

X

k=1

α_k

λ(h(P, u_k)−ξ1·u_k)⁻ⁿ + (1−λ)(h(P, u_k)−ξ2·u_k)⁻ⁿ

≥

N

X

k=1

α_k[h(P, u_k)−(λξ₁+ (1−λ)ξ₂)·u_k]⁻ⁿ

= Φ_P(λξ₁+ (1−λ)ξ₂),

with equality if and only if ξ₁·u_k =ξ₂ ·u_k for all k = 1, ..., N. Since u1, ..., uN are in general position, ξ1 =ξ2. Thus, ΦP is strictly convex on Int (P).

SinceP ∈ P(u₁, ..., uN), for any boundary pointx∈∂P, there exists a u_i0 ∈ {u₁, ..., u_N}such that

h(P, u_i0) =x·u_i0.

Thus, Φ_P(ξ) goes to +∞wheneverξ∈Int (P) andξ →∂P. Therefore, there exists a unique interior point ξ(P) ofP such that

ΦP(ξ(P)) = min

ξ∈Int (P)ΦP(ξ).

q.e.d.

By definition, forλ >0 and P ∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N),

(3.1) ξ(λP) =λξ(P).

Obviously, if P_i ∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N) and P_i converges to a polytope P, thenP ∈ P(u₁, ..., uN).

Lemma 3.2. If α1, ..., αN are positive, the unit vectors u1, ..., uN

(N ≥ n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed

hemisphere, Pi ∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N), and Pi converges to a polytope P, then limi→∞ξ(P_i) =ξ(P) and

i→∞lim ΦPi(ξ(Pi)) = ΦP(ξ(P)), where Φ_P(ξ) =P_N

k=1α_k(h(P, u_k)−ξ·u_k)⁻ⁿ.

Proof. Leta0 = minu∈Sⁿ⁻¹{h(P, u)−ξ(P)·u}>0. SincePiconverges toP and ξ(P)∈Int (P), there exists aN0 >0 such that

h(Pi, uk)−ξ(P)·uk> a₀ 2, for all k= 1, ..., N,whenever i > N₀. Thus, (3.2) Φ_Pi(ξ(P_i))≤Φ_Pi(ξ(P))<

N

X

k=1

α_k (a₀

2 )⁻ⁿ, whenever i > N0.

From the conditions, ξ(P_i) is bounded. Suppose thatξ(P_i) does not converge toξ(P), then there exists a subsequencePij ofPisuch thatPij

converges toP,ξ(P_ij)→ξ₀butξ₀6=ξ(P). Obviously,ξ₀ ∈P. We claim that ξ₀ is not a boundary point ofP, otherwise limj→∞Φ_Pij(ξ(P_ij)) = +∞, this contradicts (3.2). Ifξ0is an interior point ofP withξ0 6=ξ(P), then

j→∞lim Φ_Pij(ξ(Pij)) = Φ_P(ξ0)

>Φ_P(ξ(P))

= lim

j→∞Φ_Pij(ξ(P)).

This contradicts

Φ_Pij(ξ(P_ij))≤Φ_Pij(ξ(P)).

Therefore, limi→∞ξ(P_i) =ξ(P) and thus,

i→∞lim ΦPi(ξ(Pi)) = ΦP(ξ(P)).

q.e.d.

The following lemma will be needed.

Lemma 3.3. IfP is a polytope,ui0 ∈Sⁿ⁻¹,F(P, ui0) is a point, and P_δ =P∩ {x:x·ui0 ≤h(P, ui0)−δ}.

Then there exists a positive δ₀ such that when 0 < δ < δ₀, P\P_δ is a cone and

V(P \P_δ) =c₀δⁿ, where c₀ is a constant that depends on P and u_i0.

Proof. Since P is a polytope andF(P, ui0) is a point, there exists a positive δ₀ (depends on P and u_i0) such that when 0< δ ≤δ₀, P\P_δ is a cone andF(P, ui0) is the apex. Then, when 0< δ≤δ0,

Vn−1 P∩ {x:x·ui0 =h(P, ui0)−δ}

Vn−1 P∩ {x:x·ui0 =h(P, ui0)−δ0} = δ

δ0

n−1

.

Therefore, when 0< δ < δ0, V(P \P_δ) =

Z δ

0

Vn−1(P∩ {x:x·ui0 =h(P, ui0)−t})dt=c0δⁿ, where c₀ is a constant depends onP and u_i0. q.e.d.

Lemma 3.4. Ifα1, ..., αN are positive, and the unit vectorsu1, ..., uN

(N ≥ n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, then there exists a P ∈ P_N(u₁, ..., u_N) with ξ(P) =o and V(P) = 1 such that

ΦP(o) = sup{ min

ξ∈Int(Q)ΦQ(ξ) :Q∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN) and V(Q) = 1}, where ΦQ(ξ) =PN

k=1α_k(h(Q, u_k)−ξ·u_k)⁻ⁿ.

Proof. Obviously, forP, Q∈ P_N(u₁, ..., u_N), if there exists anx∈Rⁿ such that P =Q+x, then

ΦP(ξ(P)) = ΦQ(ξ(Q)).

Thus, we can choose a sequencePi ∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN) withξ(Pi) =oand V(P_i) = 1 such that Φ_Pi(o) converges to

sup{ min

ξ∈Int (Q)Φ_Q(ξ) :Q∈ P_N(u₁, ..., u_N) and V(Q) = 1}.

Because of Lemma 2.2, Pi is bounded. Thus, from Lemma 3.2 and the Blaschke selection theorem, there exists a subsequence of P_i that converges to a polytope P such that P ∈ P(u₁, ..., uN), V(P) = 1, ξ(P) =o and

(3.3)

ΦP(o) = sup{ min

ξ∈Int (Q)ΦQ(ξ) :Q∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN) and V(Q) = 1}.

We next prove thatF(P, u_i) are facets for alli= 1, ..., N. Otherwise, from Lemma 2.1, there exist 1 ≤ i0 < ... < im ≤ N with m ≥ 0 such that

F(P, u_i)

is a point for i∈ {i₀, ..., im} and is a facet ofP fori /∈ {i₀, ..., im}.

Choose δ >0 small enough so that the polytope P_δ =P ∩ {x:x·u_i0 ≤h(P, u_i0)−δ}

has exactly (N −m) facets and

P∩ {x:x·u_i0 ≥h(P, u_i0)−δ}

is a cone. From this and Lemma 3.3, we have, (3.4) h(Pδ, uk) =h(P, uk) fork6=i₀,

(3.5) h(P_δ, u_i0) =h(P, u_i0)−δ, and

V(P_δ) = 1−c0δⁿ,

where c₀>0 is a constant that depends onP and directionu_i0. Because of Lemma 3.2, for anyδi →0, it is always true thatξ(Pδi)→ o. We have

δ→0limξ(P_δ) =o.

Let δ be small enough so that

(3.6) h(P, u_k)> ξ(P_δ)·u_k+δ for all k∈ {1, ..., N}, and let

(3.7) λ=V(Pδ)⁻ⁿ¹ = ( 1 1−c0δⁿ)ⁿ¹. From (3.6), (3.1), (3.4) and (3.5), we have

Φ_λPδ(ξ(λP_δ)) =

N

X

k=1

α_k h(λP_δ, u_k)−ξ(λP_δ)·u_k−n

=λ⁻ⁿ

N

X

k=1

α_k h(P_δ, u_k)−ξ(P_δ)·u_k−n

=λ⁻ⁿ

N

X

k=1

αk h(P, uk)−ξ(Pδ)·uk

−n

+α_i0λ⁻ⁿ

h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0 −δ−n

− h(P, ui0)−ξ(P_δ)·ui0

−n

= Φ_P(ξ(P_δ)) + (λ⁻ⁿ−1)

N

X

k=1

α_k h(P, u_k)−ξ(P_δ)·u_k−n

+αi0λ⁻ⁿ

h(P, ui0)−ξ(P_δ)·ui0 −δ−n

− h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0−n

= ΦP(ξ(Pδ)) +B(δ), (3.8)

where

B(δ) = (λ⁻ⁿ−1)

N

X

k=1

α_k h(P, u_k)−ξ(P_δ)·u_k−n

+αi0λ⁻ⁿ

h(P, ui0)−ξ(Pδ)·ui0 −δ−n

− h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0−n

=−c₀δⁿ

N

X

k=1

αk(h(P, uk)−ξ(Pδ)·uk)⁻ⁿ +α_i0(1−c₀δⁿ)

h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0−δ−n

− h(P, ui0)−ξ(P_δ)·ui0

−n . Letd0 be the diameter ofP. Since

d₀ > h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0 > h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0 −δ >0, h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0−δ−n

− h(P, u_i0)−ξ(P_δ)·u_i0−n

>(d₀−δ)⁻ⁿ−d⁻ⁿ₀ . Then,

B(δ)>−c₀δⁿ

N

X

k=1

α_k(h(P, u_k)−ξ(P_δ)·u_k)⁻ⁿ +αi0(1−c0δⁿ)

(d0−δ)⁻ⁿ−d⁻ⁿ₀ . (3.9)

On the other hand, for 0< δ < d0,

(3.10) (d₀−δ)⁻ⁿ−d⁻ⁿ₀ >0, (3.11) lim

δ→0 N

X

k=1

αk h(P, uk)−ξ(Pδ)·uk

−n

=

N

X

k=1

αkh(P, uk)⁻ⁿ, and

(3.12) lim

δ→0

−c₀δⁿ

(d₀−δ)⁻ⁿ−d⁻ⁿ₀ = lim

δ→0

−nc₀δⁿ⁻¹

(−n)(d₀−δ)⁻ⁿ⁻¹(−1) = 0.

From Equations (3.9), (3.10), (3.11), (3.12), we have B(δ) > 0 for small enough δ > 0. From Equation (3.8), there exists a small δ₀ > 0 such that P_δ0 has exactly (N −m) facets and

Φλ0P_δ0(ξ(λ0Pδ0))>ΦP(ξ(Pδ0))≥ΦP(ξ(P)) = ΦP(o),

whereλ₀ =V(P_δ0)⁻ⁿ¹. LetP₀=λ₀P_δ0−ξ(λ₀P_δ0), thenP₀∈ P(u₁, ..., u_N), V(P₀) = 1, ξ(P₀) =oand

(3.13) Φ_P0(o)>Φ_P(o).

If m= 0, then (3.13) and (3.3) yield a contradiction. If m≥1, choose positive δ_i so thatδ_i →0 as i→ ∞,

P_δi =P0∩ ∩^m_j=1{x:x·uij ≤h(P0, uij)−δi}

and λiP_δi ∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN), where λi = V(P_δi)⁻ⁿ¹. Obviously, λiP_δi converges toP₀. From Lemma 3.2, Equation (3.13) and Equation (3.3), we have

n→∞lim Φ_λiPδi(ξ(λ_iP_δi))

= Φ_P0(o)

>ΦP(o)

= sup{ min

ξ∈Int (Q)ΦQ(ξ) :Q∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN), V(Q) = 1}.

This contradicts (3.3). Therefore,

P ∈ P_N(u₁, ..., u_N).

q.e.d.

4. The centro-affine Minkowski problem for polytopes In this section, we prove the main theorem. We only need prove the following theorem:

Theorem 4.1. If α₁, ..., α_N ∈ R⁺, the unit vectors u₁, ..., u_N (N ≥ n+ 1) are in general position and not contained in a closed hemisphere, then there exists a polytope P0 such that

S−n(P0,·) =

N

X

k=1

α_kδu_k(·).

Proof. From Lemma 3.4, there exists a polytope P ∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN) withξ(P) =oand V(P) = 1 such that

ΦP(o) = sup{ min

ξ∈Int (Q)ΦQ(ξ) :Q∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN) and V(Q) = 1}, where Φ_Q(ξ) =PN

k=1α_k(h(Q, u_k)−ξ·u_k)⁻ⁿ.

For δ1, ..., δN ∈ R, choose |t| small enough so that the polytope Pt

defined by

P_t=

N

\

i=1

{x:x·u_i ≤h(P, u_i) +tδ_i} has exactly N facets. Then,

V(Pt) =V(P) +t

N

X

i=1

δiai

!

+o(t),

where ai is the (n−1)-dimensional volume ofF(P, ui). Thus,

t→0lim

V(P_t)−V(P)

t =

N

X

i=1

δ_ia_i.

Let λ(t) =V(Pt)⁻ⁿ¹, then λ(t)Pt∈ P_N(u1, ..., uN),V(λ(t)Pt) = 1 and

(4.1) λ⁰(0) =−1

n

N

X

i=1

δiai.

For convenience, letξ(t) =ξ(λ(t)P_t), and Φ(t) = min

ξ∈Int (λ(t)Pt) N

X

k=1

αk(λ(t)h(Pt, uk)−ξ·uk)⁻ⁿ

=

N

X

k=1

α_k(λ(t)h(Pt, u_k)−ξ(t)·u_k)⁻ⁿ. (4.2)

From Equation (4.2) and the fact that ξ(t) is an interior point of λ(t)P_t, we have

(4.3)

N

X

k=1

αk

u_k,i

[λ(t)h(Pt, uk)−ξ(t)·uk]¹⁺ⁿ = 0,

for i = 1, ..., n, where u_k = (u_k,1, ..., u_k,n)^T. As a special case when t= 0, we have

N

X

k=1

α_k u_k,i

h(P, u_k)¹⁺ⁿ = 0, fori= 1, ..., n.Therefore,

(4.4)

N

X

k=1

α_k u_k

h(P, u_k)¹⁺ⁿ = 0.

Let

F_i(t, ξ₁, ..., ξ_n) =

N

X

k=1

α_k u_k,i

[λ(t)h(P_t, u_k)−(ξ₁u_k,1+...+ξ_nu_k,n)]¹⁺ⁿ fori= 1, ..., n.Then,

∂F_i

∂ξj

(0,...,0)

=

N

X

k=1

(1 +n)α_k

h(P, uk)²⁺ⁿuk,iuk,j. Thus,

∂F

∂ξ _(0,...,0)

!

n×n

=

N

X

k=1

(1 +n)α_k

h(P, u_k)²⁺ⁿu_k·u^T_k, where u_k·u^T_k is ann×nmatrix.

For anyx∈Rⁿwithx6= 0, from the fact thatu1, ..., u_N are in general position, there exists a u_i0 ∈ {u₁, ..., u_N}such that u_i0 ·x6= 0. Then,

x^T ·

N

X

k=1

(1 +n)α_k

h(P, u_k)²⁺ⁿu_k·u^T_k

!

·x=

N

X

k=1

(1 +n)α_k

h(P, u_k)²⁺ⁿ(x·u_k)²

≥ (1 +n)α_i0

h(P, ui0)²⁺ⁿ(x·u_i0)² >0.

Thus, (^∂F_∂ξ

(0,...,0)) is positive definite. From this, the fact ξ(0) = 0, Equations (4.3), and the implicit function theorem, we have

ξ⁰(0) = (ξ⁰₁(0), ..., ξ_n⁰(0)) exists.

From the fact that t = 0 is an extreme point of Φ(t) (in Equation (4.2)), Equation (4.1) and Equation (4.4), we have

0 = Φ⁰(0)/(−n)

=

N

X

k=1

α_kh(P, u_k)⁻ⁿ⁻¹ λ⁰(0)h(P, u_k) +δ_k−ξ⁰(0)·u_k

=

N

X

k=1

α_kh(P, u_k)⁻ⁿ⁻¹

"

−1 n

N

X

i=1

a_iδ_i

!

h(P, u_k) +δ_k

#

−ξ⁰(0)·

"_N X

k=1

αk

uk

h(P, u_k)¹⁺ⁿ

#

=

N

X

k=1

α_kh(P, u_k)⁻ⁿ⁻¹δ_k−

N

X

i=1

aiδi

!PN

k=1αkh(P, uk)⁻ⁿ n

=

N

X

k=1

α_kh(P, u_k)⁻ⁿ⁻¹− PN

j=1αjh(P, uj)⁻ⁿ

n a_k

! δ_k.

Since δ₁, ..., δ_N are arbitrary, PN

j=1αjh(P, uj)⁻ⁿ

n h(P, u_k)¹⁺ⁿa_k =α_k, for all k= 1, ..., N. Thus for

P0 = P_N

j=1α_jh(P, u_j)⁻ⁿ n

!_2n¹ P,

we have

S−n(P₀,·) =

N

X

k=1

α_kδ_uk(·).

q.e.d.

References

[1] A.D. Alexandrov,Existence and uniqueness of a convex surface with a given integral curvature, C. R. (Doklady) Acad. Sci. USSR (N.S.)35 (1942), 131- 134, MR0007625, Zbl 0061.37604.

[2] B. Andrews,Gauss curvature flow: the fate of the rolling stones, Invent. Math.

138(1999), 151-161. MR1714339, Zbl 0936.35080.

[3] B. Andrews, Classification of limiting shapes for isotropic curve flows, J.

Amer. Math. Soc.16(2003), 443-459, MR1949167, Zbl 1023.53051.

[4] J. B¨or¨oczky, E. Lutwak, D. Yang & G. Zhang, The logarithmic Minkowski problem, J. Amer. Math. Soc.26(2013), 831-852, MR3037788, Zbl 1272.52012.

[5] J. B¨or¨oczky, E. Lutwak, D. Yang & G. Zhang, The log-Brunn-Minkowski inequality, Adv. Math.231(2012), 1974–1997, MR2964630, Zbl 1258.52005.

[6] E. Calabi, Complete affine hypersurface I, Sympos. Math.10(1972), 19-38, MR0365607, Zbl 0252.53008.

[7] W. Chen, Lp Minkowski problem with not necessarily positive data, Adv.

Math. 201(2006), 77-89, MR 2204749, Zbl 1102.34023.

[8] S.-Y. Cheng & S.-T. Yau, On the regularity of the solution of the n- dimensional Minkowski problem, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.29 (1976), 495- 516, MR0423267, Zbl 0363.53030.

[9] K.-S. Chou, Deforming a hypersurface by its Gauss-Kronecker curvature, Comm. Pure Appl. Math.38(1985), 867-882, MR0812353, Zbl 0612.53005.

[10] K.-S. Chou & X.-J. Wang, The Lp-Minkowski problem and the Minkowski problem in centroaffine geometry, Adv. Math.205(2006), 33-83, MR2254308, Zbl 0016.27703.

[11] J.B. Dou & M.J. Zhu,The two dimensonalLp Minkowski problem and non- linear equations with negative exponents, Adv. Math.230(2012), 1209-1221, MR2921178, Zbl 1260.52005.

[12] M. Gage & R. Hamilton,The heat equation shrinking convex plane curves, J.

Differential Geom.23(1986), 69-96, MR840401, Zbl 0621.53001.

[13] R.J. Gardner, Geometric Tomography, 2nd edition, Encyclopedia of Mathe- matics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006, MR2251886, Zbl 1102.52002.

[14] P.M. Gruber, Convex and discrete geometry, Grundlehren der Mathe- matischen Wissenschaften, 336. Springer, Berlin, 2007, MR2335496, Zbl 1139.52001.

[15] P. Guan & C.-S. Lin,On equation det(uij+δiju) =u^pf onSⁿ, (preprint).

[16] C. Haberl, E. Lutwak, D. Yang & G. Zhang, The even Orlicz Minkowski problem, Adv. Math.224(2010), 2485-2510, MR2652213, Zbl 1198.52003.

[17] C. Haberl & F. Schuster,GeneralLp affine isoperimetric inequalities, J. Dif- ferential Geom.83(2009), 1-26, MR2545028, Zbl 1185.52005.

[18] D. Hug, E. Lutwak, D. Yang & G. Zhang, On the Lp Minkowski problem for polytopes, Discrete Comput. Geom.33(2005), 699-715, MR2132298, Zbl 1078.52008.

[19] H. Jian & X.J. Wang,Bernstein theorem and regularity for a class of Monge- Amp`ere equations, J. Differential Geom.93(2013), 431-469, MR3024302, Zbl 1278.35120.

[20] M.Y. Jiang, L.P. Wang & J.C. Wei, 2π-periodic self-similar solutions for the anisotropic affine curve shortening problem, Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations41(2011), 535-565, MR2796243, Zbl 1232.34069.

[21] D. Klain,The Minkowski problem for polytopes, Adv. Math.185(2004), 270- 288, MR2060470, Zbl 1053.52015.

[22] K. Leichtweiss, On a problem of W. J. Firey in connection with the charac- terization of spheres, Math. Pannon.6(1995), no. 1, 65-75, MR1331643, Zbl 0829.53053.

[23] C. Loewner & L. Nirenberg, Partial differential equations invariant under conformal or projective transtormations, Contribution to Analysis, Academic press, New york, 1974, pp. 245-272, MR0358078, Zbl 0298.35018.

[24] J. Lu & X.-J. Wang, Rotationally symmetric solution to the Lp-Minkowski problem, J. Differential Equations. 254 (2013), 983-1005, MR2997361, Zbl 1273.52006.

[25] M. Ludwig,General affine surface areas, Adv. Math.224(2010), 2346-2360, MR2652209, Zbl 1198.52004.

[26] E. Lutwak, The Brunn-Minkowski-Firey theory. I. Mixed volumes and the Minkowski problem, J. Differential Geom. 38 (1993), 131-150, MR1231704, Zbl 0788.52007.

[27] E. Lutwak & V. Oliker,On the regularity of solutions to a generalization of the Minkowski problem, J. Differential Geom.41(1995), 227-246, MR1316557, Zbl 0867.52003.

[28] E. Lutwak, D. Yang & G. Zhang, Sharp affine Lp Sobolev inequalities, J.

Differential Geom.62(2002), 17-38, MR1987375, Zbl 1073.46027.

[29] E. Lutwak, D. Yang & G. Zhang,On theLp-Minkowski problem, Trans. Amer.

Math. Soc.356(2004), no. 11, 4359-4370, MR2067123, Zbl 1069.52010.

[30] K. Nomizu & T. Sasaki,Affine differential geometry: geometry of affine im- mersions, Cambridge press, Cambridge, 1994.

[31] G. Paouris, E. Werner, Relative entropy of cone measures and Lp centroid bodies, Proc. London Math. Soc. 104 (2012), 253-286, MR2880241, Zbl 1246.52008.

[32] R. Schneider, Convex bodies: the Brunn-Minkowski theory, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, MR1216521, Zbl 1143.52002.

[33] A. Stancu, The discrete planar L0-Minkowski problem, Adv. Math. 167 (2002), 160-174, MR1901250, Zbl 1005.52002.

[34] A. C. Thompson,Minkowski geometry, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1996, MR1406315, Zbl 0868.52001.

[35] G. Tziz´eica, Sur une nouvelle classe de surfaces, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 25(1908), 180-187;28(1909), 210-216.

[36] G. Zhang,The affine Sobolev inequality, J. Differential Geom.53(1999), 183- 202, MR1776095, Zbl 1040.53089.

[37] G. Zhu,The logarithmic Minkowski problem for polytopes, submitted.

Department of Mathematics New York University Polytechnic School of Engineering, Brooklyn, New York

E-mail address: guangxian.zhu@gmail.com