16

This question build on top of this other question: Dividing a curve into chords of equal length, for which I wrote an (incomplete) answer. I got the feeling we might need some help from a real topologist. Let me repeat the crucial definitions. We are dealing with curves $c:[0,1]\to\Bbb R^m$ which are assumed to be continuous maps.

Definition. Given a curve $c:[a,b]\to\Bbb R^m$ and $n\in\Bbb N$, an equichordal subdivision of $c$ into $n$ segments is a sequence $t_i,i=0,...,n$ with $$a=t_0\leq t_1\leq\cdots\leq t_{n-1}\leq t_n=b, \qquad \|c(t_{i-1})-c(t_i)\|=\Delta,\quad \text{for all $i=1,...,n$}$$ and some chord length $\Delta$.

Essentially this means we are looking for $n+1$ points on a curve (including the end points) so that neighboring points all have the same Euclidean distance $\Delta$ from each other. Now the big question is:

Question: Is it always possible for arbitrary curves $c$ and $n\in\Bbb N$ to equichordally subdivide $c$ into $n$ segments?

It seems not so strange to assume that this might be. However, look at the following examples for $n=3$. The subdivision might not at all follow the shape of the curve or will look similar to a subdivision with equal arc lengths (for small $n$). Most of the time, for a given $n$ the final chord length $\Delta$ is pretty unpredictable.

enter image description here

Further information for the interested reader:

  • In one of my answers I gave a proof that felt good at first, but I cited a result incompletely. I used this statement despite some answer below gave a nice counter-example. Currently I have no idea how to justify that this is no problem. I also think that my proof might be too complicated, even though it proves a more general statement (the existence of a continuous transition from a trivial subdivision to a subdivision of the whole curve).
  • In this answer Rahul gave a proof for the cases $n=2$ and $n=3$. He (and now me too) got the feeling that this might be generalizable by someone with enough experience in topology (homotopy maybe?). I really prefer Rahul's approach for its simplicity. He even posted a follow up question on it over here.
  • As far as I know, there is no easy way to find such a subdivision. For sufficiently well behaved curves it might be possible to just choose some reasonable subdivision and wiggling the points a bit to bring them into the right spot for equichordality. However, this will fail in general. Also, given an equichordal subdivision of some subcurve of $c$, it is highly non-trivial to "stretch" it out to cover the whole curve while still keeping the desired property. I found counterexamples for most easy approaches. For example, test your procedure on the examples given above.
  • I have not studied any possible counter-examples in higher dimensions. I only looked at plane curves so far. I have no clue what might hide over there.
M. Winter
  • 29,928
  • Whoops, I didn't realize that you already asked this question; I posted my version here: https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2296622/856. If you agree, perhaps we can move some of the technical content from my question to this one and I can delete my question. –  May 25 '17 at 19:04
  • @Rahul Ha :D no problem. But I think we can let these two questions be distinct as your new question is about details of your approach and (at least for me) very interesting on its own. I will however still mention it in my question. – M. Winter May 25 '17 at 19:10
  • That makes sense. I really like your example curves, by the way! :) They would result in extremely complicated self-intersecting surfaces in my formulation. –  May 25 '17 at 19:23
  • Question: Is a constraint of the problem that the curve be non-self-intersecting? – David G. Stork May 26 '17 at 16:59
  • @DavidG No, self-intersections are ok! But if you have a proof for the non-intersecting case I would still be glad to see it. – M. Winter May 26 '17 at 17:02
  • @M. Winter: Actually, I was trying to construct counter-examples, and wanted to know if I had the freedom to include self-intersecting curves. Very cool problem, by the way... I'm amazed that in 2017 this apparently hasn't been solved (by Euler, the Bernoulli brothers, or other great mathematician). – David G. Stork May 26 '17 at 17:08

4 Answers4

6

Niels Diepeveen helped me fill the gap in my incomplete proof, which I've deleted from the original question and moved here because it fits this question better.


We take the curve to be $c:[0,1]\to\mathbb R^m$ and assume that $c(0)\ne c(1)$ (otherwise a trivial solution exists). A subdivision into $n$ segments is determined by its vector of interval lengths, $s=(s_1,\dots,s_n)$ where $s_i=t_i-t_{i-1}$. The set of all valid $s$ forms the standard simplex $$\Delta^{n-1}=\left\{(s_1,\dots,s_n):\sum_{i=1}^n s_i=1, s_i\ge 0\text{ for all }i=1,\dots,n\right\},$$ which is an $(n-1)$-dimensional polytope embedded in $\mathbb R^n$. In fact, $\Delta^{n-1}$ lies in the nonnegative orthant $\mathbb R_+^n$ and its boundary lies in $\partial\mathbb R_+^n$: vertices lie on the coordinate axes, $1$-faces (edges) lie on the coordinate $2$-planes, and so on.

Consider the function $d:\Delta^{n-1}\to\mathbb R_+^n$ mapping the vector of interval lengths to the vector of chord lengths, $$d(s)=(\|c(t_1)-c(t_0)\|,\dots,\|c(t_n)-c(t_{n-1})\|),$$ where $t_i=\sum_{j=1}^i s_j$. This function is nonnegative ($d(s)_i\ge 0$), nondegenerate ($d(s)\ne0$ because $c(t_0)\ne c(t_n)$), and preserves zero coordinates ($d(s)_i=0$ if $s_i=0$). Zero coordinate preservation is the key property here: it means that while $d$ may transform $\Delta^{n-1}$ into an arbitrarily complicated, possibly self-intersecting $(n-1)$-dimensional surface, it cannot detach its boundary from the faces of $\partial\mathbb R_+^n$. Vertices still lie on the coordinate axes, edges become curves lying on the coordinate $2$-planes, and so on.

We want to prove that there exists an $s\in\Delta^{n-1}$ such that all the components of $d(s)$ are equal. Equivalently, we want to show that the surface $d(\Delta^{n-1})$ intersects the line $\{(a,\dots,a):a\in\mathbb R\}$.

enter image description here enter image description here enter image description here

From left to right: A curve $c([0,1])$, the corresponding deformed simplex $d(\Delta^{n-1})$ for $n=2$, $d(\Delta^{n-1})$ for $n=3$.

Rescaling $d(s)$ so that its components sum to $1$, we obtain the map $$\hat d(s) = \frac{d(s)}{\sum_{i=1}^n d(s)_i},$$ which is well-defined and continuous because $d(s)$ is never zero. It is easy to verify that $\hat d$ maps the simplex $\Delta^{n-1}$ to itself; further, zero coordinate preservation implies that $\hat d$ also maps each face of $\Delta^{n-1}$ to itself. It can be shown using Brouwer's fixed point theorem that such a mapping must be surjective. Therefore, there exists an $s\in\Delta^{n-1}$ such that $\hat d(s)=(\frac1n,\dots,\frac1n)\in\Delta^{n-1}$, which is equivalent to the desired result.

In fact, we have proved a slightly stronger property: For any vector of nonnegative chord length ratios $r=(r_1,\dots,r_n)$, we can find a subdivision $s$ such that $d(s)=ar$ for some $a\in\mathbb R$.

2

Here's an alternative approach that could work generally. One may be able to reason by induction on $n$ using a connectedness argument. One would need to establish connectedness of a certain level set, but this might be hard.


The proposition is quite obvious for $n=1$. Suppose we know the proposition to hold for $n\geq 1$, that is, suppose we know that for any (continuous, simple) curve $\gamma:[0,1]\to\Bbb R^d$ (I'll take $d=2$) there exist $0\leq t_1\leq\cdots\leq t_n\leq1$ such that, if we set $t_0=0$ and $t_{n+1}=1$, $$\forall k\in\lbrace 1,\dots,n\rbrace,\quad\|\gamma(t_{k+1})-\gamma(t_{k})\|=\|\gamma(t_{k})-\gamma(t_{k-1})\|$$ Note that since $\gamma(0)\neq\gamma(1)$ by non intersection, the $t_i$ must actually all be different, so that in actuality one has $0<t_1<\cdots< t_n<1$.

Now let $c:[0,1]\to\Bbb R^d$ be a (continuous, simple) curve. We shall write vectors $x\in\Bbb R^{m}$ as $x_\bullet=(x_1,\dots,x_m)$ et us define $$T_{n+1}=\lbrace t_\bullet\in\Bbb R^{n+1}\mid 0\leq t_1\leq\cdots\leq t_n\leq t_{n+1}\leq1\rbrace$$ (again, we write $t_0=0$ and $t_{n+2}=1$) and set, for $\theta\in[0,1]$, $$T_{n+1}^\theta=\lbrace t_\bullet\in T_{n+1}\mid t_{n+1}=\theta\rbrace\simeq\begin{cases}* & \text{if }\theta=0\\[3mm]\theta\cdot T_n & \text{if }\theta>0 \end{cases}$$ Let us consider the function $\varphi:T_{n+1}\to\Bbb R_+$ defined by the formula $$\varphi(t_\bullet)=\sum_{k=1}^{n}\Big[\|c(t_{k+1})-c(t_{k})\|^2-\|c(t_{k})-c(t_{k-1})\|^2\Big]^2$$ Note that the sum only goes to $t_{n+1}$. Let us set $Z=\varphi^{-1}(0)$. This is the set of all equichordal subdivisions that start at $c(0)$, but may end before $c(1)$, that is, we drop the requirement that the last chord from $c(t_{n+1}$ to $c(1)$ have the same length as the other chords.

What can we say about $Z$ ?

  1. $Z$ is a closed subset of $T_{n+1}$,
  2. for every $\theta\in[0,1]$, the set $Z\cap T_{n+1}^\theta$ is non empty,
  3. actually, for every $\theta\in(0,1]$, the set $Z\cap T_{n+1}^\theta$ is included in the interior of $T_{n+1}^\theta$ (where all inequalities are strict).

The second point follows from induction : for every $\theta\in[0,1]$, the (continuous, simple if $\theta>0$, constant if $\theta=0$) curve $$c^\theta:[0,1]\to\Bbb R^d,\;t\mapsto c(\theta t)$$ has an equichordal subdivision with $n$ nodes.

Question. Is $Z$ connected ?

Suppose it were, then consider the functions $\Delta^L,\Delta^R:T_{n+1}\to\Bbb R_+$ defined by $$\Delta^L(t_\bullet)=\|c(t_1)-c(0)\|^2,\quad \Delta^R(t_\bullet)=\|c(1)-c(t_{n+1})\|^2$$ Then at the point $t^0_\bullet=(0,0,\dots,0)\in Z$, $$\Delta^L(t_\bullet^0)=0\quad\text{and}\quad\Delta^R(t_\bullet^0)=\|c(1)-c(0)\|^2>0$$ while for every $t_\bullet^1\in Z\cap T_{n+1}^1\;(\neq\emptyset)$, $$\Delta^L(t_\bullet^1)>0\quad\text{and}\quad\Delta^R(t_\bullet^1)=\|c(1)-c(1)\|^2=0$$

Thus, the continuous function $$\Delta^L-\Delta^R$$ switches sign on $Z$. If $Z$ were connected, then there would exist a point where the two functions coïncide, and such a point is exactly an equichordal subdivision.


Here are a few illustrations of this in the case $n=1$ (i.e. $n+1=2$). Consider the curve $c$ drawn in the plane as follows:enter image description here The following represents $Z$ in this particular case : there can be either one, two or three equichordal subdivisions of $c$ with prescribed endpoint and one node, and this is how these possibilities are distributed :

The triangle represents $T_2$ in the plane, the horizontal lines are the $T_2^\theta$ for four values of $0<\theta<\theta'<1$. One sees in this example that the level set $Z$ is path connected. It even looks like a manifold ($c$ is rather smooth).

  • This is essentially the proof from my answer to the original question. I also think the connectivity of $Z$ is the crucial point. – M. Winter May 26 '17 at 17:36
1

An initial point for collecting ideas:

Let us assume that $\gamma:[0,1]\mapsto\mathbb{R}^2$ is an injective $C^2$ function. In such a case it is a rectifiable curve and there is an arc length parametrization such that $\gamma:[0,L]\mapsto\mathbb{R}^2$ still is a $C^2$ function and $$ \forall \ell\in[0,L],\qquad \int_{0}^{\ell}\left\|\dot\gamma(t)\right\|\,dt = \ell.$$ We may further assume $\gamma(0)=(0,0)$ without loss of generality and get that $$ \forall \ell\in[0,L],\qquad \ell=\int_{0}^{\ell}\left\|\dot\gamma(t)\right\|\,dt\geq \left\|\gamma(\ell)\right\| $$ from the triangle inequality. If we consider the points $$ P_0=\gamma(0),\quad P_1=\gamma\left(\frac{L}{n}\right),\quad P_2=\gamma\left(\frac{2L}{n}\right),\quad \ldots $$ all the chords between consecutive points have a length that is positive (by injectivity and the $C^2$ constraint) and bounded above by $\frac{L}{n}$. Let $c_1,c_2,\ldots,c_n$ the sequence of those lengths. Without moving $P_0$ or $P_n$, we may move $P_1$ along the $P_0 P_2$ arc in $\gamma$ in such a way that $c_1=c_2$: it is enough to intersect $\gamma$ with the perpendicular bisector of the $P_0 P_2$ segment. If multiple choices are possible, we may take the new $P_1$ point that is closer to the old $P_1$ point. Then we may move $P_2$ along the $P_1 P_3$ arc and so on. After we move $P_{n-1}$ we restart in the opposite direction by moving $P_{n-2}, P_{n-3},\ldots, P_1$, then again $P_2,P_3,\ldots,P_{n-1}$. If the variance of the set of lengths $\{c_1,\ldots,c_n\}$ decreases at each step, the condition $\gamma\in C^2$ ensures that $\gamma$ cannot behave too bad, hence this process is expected to converge to an equichordal distribution.


The following approach appears to be much more effective: let us assume that $\gamma:[0,L]\to\mathbb{R}^2$ is an injective $C^1$ curve with an arc-length parametrization. For some $r>0$, let $A(r)$ be the farthest point from $P_0=\gamma(0)$, with respect to the arc length, such that there is a $n$-equichordal distribution over the $P_0 A(r)$ arc with chords having length $r$. Similarly, let $B(r)$ the farthest point from $\gamma(L)$, with respect to the arc length, such that the chord joining $\gamma(L)$ and $B(r)$ has length $r$. Let us consider the intervals $J_0=[0,\gamma^{-1}A(r)]$ and $J_1=[\gamma^{-1}B(r),L]$. For small values of $r$ they are clearly disjoint, since the total length of consecutive chords cannot exceed the length of the curve considered. For large values of $r$ they are clearly overlapping, since by inductive hypothesis there is a $n$-equichordal distribution for the curve restricted to the interval $[0,L-\varepsilon]$. If continuity holds (unluckily, it is not always so: it is enough to consider curves with a very small radius of curvature somewhere) it follows that for some value of $r$ we have $A(r)=B(r)$, hence it is possible to join a $n$-equichordal distribution for the $P_0 A(r)$ arc with a chord $B(r)\gamma(L)$ having the same length of the previous ones. That leads to a $(n+1)$-equichordal distribution for $\gamma$.

This is not constructive at all but the approach let us make enough room for another chord should prove the claim nicely, once the lack of continuity issue is fixed.

Jack D'Aurizio
  • 353,855
  • How do you know that the variance of the lengths decreases ? There are different choices you can make for the choice of $P_1$ for instance ... – Olivier Bégassat May 25 '17 at 21:13
  • Why $C^2$? Isn't $C^1$ enough to define arc length? Why define it at all, can't we just start with any subdivision? If not any, then what is so special about the one with equal arc lengths? And as Olivier said, the choice for where some $P_i$ to move must not be unique (but you gave a procedure to choose one). I think the problem here is hidden in the proof of convergence. Still a nice idea for repeated refinement. I will think about it. – M. Winter May 25 '17 at 21:17
  • @OlivierBégassat: if you have a sequence of positive numbers $(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_n)$ and both $x_1$ and $x_2$ are replaced by their average the variance decreases, that is straightforward to check. $P_1$ is initially well defined: it is the only point on $\gamma$ such that the arc length from $P_0$ to $P_1$ is exactly $\frac{L}{n}$. When we move it, we move it along the arc joining $P_0$ to $P_2$ that does not contain any other critical point. – Jack D'Aurizio May 25 '17 at 21:19
  • The $C^2$ condition ensures that the radius of curvature cannot be too small, so the variance of lengths is decreasing and convergent to zero. Without such assumption, I am not even sure an equichordal distribution is granted to exist. – Jack D'Aurizio May 25 '17 at 21:21
  • But don't you change $P_1$ in the process? You start with a certain guess of $t_1$ ($=\frac{L}{N}$), and then you change the point $P_1$ so as to lie on the bisector of $[P_0,P_2]$ : there are various possible choices, and some may be much farther away from $P_0$ and $P_2$ than the initial guess (although not equidistant) $P_1$ was. Is this not the case ? – Olivier Bégassat May 25 '17 at 21:31
  • @OlivierBégassat: on the perpendicular bisector of $P_0 P_2$ and on the $P_0 P_2$ arc in $\gamma$. There might be different choices, of course: in such a case we pick the $P_1$ point that is closer to the $P_0 P_2$ segment, for instance, or to the previous $P_1$ point. – Jack D'Aurizio May 25 '17 at 21:32
  • Yes, I understand! But there still may be many such points, including choices that are far away from $P_0$ and $P_2$. – Olivier Bégassat May 25 '17 at 21:33
  • @JackD'Aurizio Look at the very curvy example in my question (bottom left). Number the points as $P_0,...,P_3$. The curve $\gamma$ and the bisector of $[P_0,P_2]$ intersect in many points. Which one to choose? You have to give a choice for every step in your algorithm. Otherwise we cannot talk about convergence. – M. Winter May 25 '17 at 21:38
  • Here is a simple counterexample to the claim that the variance of $(c_1,\dots,c_n)$ decreases at each step: https://i.stack.imgur.com/iNDim.png The dotted line is the bisector of $P_0P_2$. You can mollify the curve as needed to satisfy any smoothness requirements. –  May 25 '17 at 22:26
  • @Rahul This curve isn't parametrized by arc length. I think a better example would involve a point $P_1$ that happens to be very close to $\frac{P_0+P_2}2$, such that there is only one point on the segment bisector of $[P_0,P_2]$ and the curve, but happens to be far away from the midpoint of said segment. – Olivier Bégassat May 25 '17 at 22:30
  • @Olivier: Ah, I hadn't noticed that requirement for the initial condition. But it's not a problem: one can replace the curve with one that has tiny wiggles added to the shorter arcs, such that the three arc lengths become the same. –  May 25 '17 at 22:36
  • @Rahul: I took some steps back and turned my initial post into a collection of ideas only. There are indeed many things that can go wrong in constructing an equichordal distribution with a fixed (and small) number of chords. – Jack D'Aurizio May 25 '17 at 22:41
  • @Rahul: I added an approach that seems to settle the question, at least for injective regular curves. Would you mind to review it? – Jack D'Aurizio May 26 '17 at 01:16
  • Unfortunately $B(r)$ is not a continuous function of $r$. The curve in my first comment is still a counterexample. –  May 26 '17 at 01:25
  • @Rahul: neither it is $A(r)$, as keyhole-like curves show. These are bad news, but maybe there is some way to fix this issue. – Jack D'Aurizio May 26 '17 at 01:27
  • @JackD'Aurizio Your second approach is more like the way I would think about. Actually it is quite similar to what I have already answered here under the original question. I circumvented the problem of continuity by including it into the induction assumption. This means I showed something like "if $A(r)$ is continuous for $n$, then we can build an $(n+1)$-subdivision that also satisfies the same continuity requirements". This however made everything more complicated. E.g. $A(r)$ must not be purely increasing in $r$ (in the arc length sense). – M. Winter May 26 '17 at 08:22
1

This is too long for a comment, it's not a complete solution, only a sketch of solution ...


I think it shouldn't be too hard to prove the following :

Lemma. Let $c$ be some $C^1$ curve parametrized by arc length. There exists some $N\gg 0$ such that for all $n\geq N$ equichordal subdivisions in $n$ steps exist. Furthermore, there is a canonical one.

The idea would be that by uniform continuity of $\dot{c}$ on $[a,b]$, there exists $\delta>0$ such that on each segment $[x,x+\delta]$ of $[a,b]$, the curve deviates very little from the chord (i.e. straight line) that links $c(x)$ and $c(x+\delta)$.

So for instance, for any $0\ll k<1$ very close to $1$, there will exist $\delta>0$ such that for all $a\leq x\leq y\leq b$,

$$|y-x|\leq\delta\implies k\cdot|y-x|\leq \|c(y)-c(x)\|\leq |y-x|$$

Let $k$ be very close to $1$, and $\Delta\leq k\cdot \delta$. On every such segment $[x,x+\delta]\subset[a,b]$, there should be exactly one other point $y=y_x(\Delta)\in[x,x+\delta]$ such that $$\|c(x)-c(y)\|=\Delta,$$ futhermore $y_x(\Delta)$ depending continuously on $x$ and $\Delta$. One would then consider, for any imposed chord length $0<\Delta\leq k\delta$, the sequence of times in $[a,b]$ constructed like so : $x_0(\Delta)=a$, $x_{k+1}(\Delta)=y_{x_k(\Delta)}(\Delta)$ : eventually (in terms explicitely quantifiable in terms of arc length and $\Delta$), this sequence would not make sense anymore (because one runs out of curve to travel along), one then sets $x_{k+1}=b$. Call $k_\Delta$ the first $k$ for which $x_k(\Delta)=b$.

The point is that the functions $(]0,k\cdot \delta]\ni)\Delta\mapsto x_k(\Delta)$ will be continuous, weakly increasing, and will satisfy $$a=x_0(\Delta)< x_1(\Delta)< x_2(\Delta)<\cdots< x_{k_\Delta}(\Delta)=x_{k_\Delta+1}(\Delta)=\cdots=b$$ with for every $k$, $\lim_{\Delta\to 0}x_k(\Delta)=a$ and for $k$ big enough, $x_{k}$ constant equal to $b$ for $\Delta$ near $k\cdot\delta$.

Now take $n\gg\frac1\delta$ : There will be a smallest $\Delta_n$ such that $x_n\equiv b$ on $[\Delta_n,k\cdot\delta]$ : this $\Delta_n$ will be the chord distance in an equichordal subdivition of $c$ of length $n$ with time subdivision $$a=x_0(\Delta_n)< x_1(\Delta_n) < x_2(\Delta_n)<\cdots< x_{n}(\Delta_n)=b$$

  • Everything is extremely reasonable (so +1), but what if our problem is to find and equichordal distribution with a given (possibly very small) number of chords? – Jack D'Aurizio May 25 '17 at 22:36
  • @JackD'Aurizio The main fact I use is that the curve $c(t)$, on small intervals $t\in[x,x+\delta]$, is virtually indistinguishable from $$t\mapsto c(x)+(t-x)\dot{c}(x)$$ This will fail on larger intervals, and so the subdivision is only defined if we force the steps to be small ($\Delta\ll 1$). I don't claim that such subdivisions don't exist, only that this line of argumentation falls apart for larger steps $\Delta$. – Olivier Bégassat May 25 '17 at 22:39