5

If I measure the average distance from the origin to the points of the unit circle, obviously the answer is 1.

But if I instead measure the average distance from the point (0.1, 0) to the unit circle, I get this integral: $$\frac1{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \sqrt{(\cos(t)-0.1)^2 + (\sin(t))^2} dt \neq 1 $$ Is there a nice intuitive explanation why this "average distance" is not 1? I think of this as averaging all rays from (0.1,0) to the circle- some of these are less than 1, and some are more than 1. Intuitively, I had expected this average to also be 1. Why is it different?

4 Answers4

4

There is one immediate solution that exploits the symmetry as follows : twice the average is the average sum of distances from the given point to a point on the circle and its diametrically opposed, and each such sum is $> 2$ (except perhaps one).

Another way: consider a bounded figure $F$ in a normed space. For a point $P$ in the space consider $f(P)$ the average of the distance from $P$ to a point on $F$ ( we assume a positive measure on $F$). It is easy to see that $f(\cdot)$ is a convex function, and strictly convex, if $\|\cdot\|$ is strictly convex. Moreover, at $\infty$ the function $f$ becomes $+\infty$. Therefore, $f$ achieves a minimum at a point in the space. This point is unique if $f$ is strictly convex.

Now, assume moreover (on top of $f$ stricly convex) that $F$ is symmetric with respect to a point $O$, and the measure on $F$ is invariant under the symmetry through $O$. The the unique point of minimum of $f$ is also invariant under $O$, so it is $O$. We also see that $f$ is stricly increasing on every ray starting at $O$.

Note: this is the continuous analogue of finding a point whose sum of (weighted) distances to a family of points is smallest. If that set of points is invariant under some isometries, so is the point of minimum.

$\bf{Added:}$ @copper hat pointed out that it is not entirely obvious that there exists a point of minimum for the function $f$, if the ambient space is infinite dimensional ( Banach), something worth pondering on! However, if the problem has a center of symmetry $O$, then clearly $f(P) + f(P') \ge 2 f(O)$ ( perhaps strict), and moreover $f(P) = f(P')$, so no other argument is needed.

orangeskid
  • 53,909
  • 1
    Showing the existence of a minimiser of a coercive convex function in a Banach space requires some work. – copper.hat Sep 06 '23 at 12:51
  • @copper.hat: Oh, that is interesting! was tacitly assuming a finite dimensional space. That it is possible to show it for a Banach space is intriguing. Right now I don't know how to show there exists an optimizer even if $F$ consists of $3$ points. – orangeskid Sep 06 '23 at 13:38
  • A convex function defined on $\mathbb{R}^n$ is continuous and a coercive continuous function on $\mathbb{R}^n$ has a minimiser from a compactness argument. – copper.hat Sep 06 '23 at 13:48
  • @copper.hat: yes, on a finite dimensional space is no problem, I mean if the surrounding space is infinite dimensional and Banach, there exists a point whose sum of distances to some ( finitely many ?) points is smallest. – orangeskid Sep 06 '23 at 16:12
  • @copper.hat: I looked into mimimums of coercive convex ( Lipschitz) functions on Banach spaces. If the space is reflexive, then we always have a minimum ( the convex fn is a sup of a family of affine functions, and a ball in the space is weakly compact). However, if the space is not reflexive, then we do not have the approximation property, so for some$H$ hyperplane in $X$ and , $H\ni x\mapsto |x-x_0|$ does not attain a minimum. Interesting, thanks for the heads-up! – orangeskid Sep 06 '23 at 22:35
  • This https://mathoverflow.net/a/123725/31729 might be of interest too. – copper.hat Sep 06 '23 at 22:42
  • 1
    @copper.hat Thanks! found useful this – orangeskid Sep 06 '23 at 23:38
3

Let $d(t) = {1 \over 2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} |t+e^{i \theta}| d \theta$, the average distance from the point $(t,0)$ to the circle. (Note that $d$ is an even function.)

Suppose $|t|<1$ and let $\phi(t,\theta) = |t+e^{i \theta}| = \sqrt{t^2+2 t\cos \theta + 1}$.

From this we get ${\partial \phi(t,\theta) \over \partial t} = {t + \cos \theta \over \sqrt{t^2+2 t\cos \theta + 1} }$ and ${\partial^2 \phi(t,\theta) \over \partial t^2} = {\sin^2\theta \over (t^2+2 t\cos \theta + 1)^{3 \over 2} }$, and so ${\partial \phi(0,\theta) \over \partial t} = \cos \theta$ and ${\partial^2 \phi(t,\theta) \over \partial t^2} >0$ except for $t \in \{0, \pi, 2 \pi\}$.

Leibniz gives $d'(t) = {1 \over 2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} {\partial \phi(t,\theta) \over \partial t} d \theta$, $d''(t) = {1 \over 2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} {\partial^2 \phi(t,\theta) \over \partial t^2} d \theta$ and so $d'(0) = 0$, $d''(t) >0$.

Hence for $|t| < 1$ and $t \neq 0$, Taylor shows that $d(t) > d(0) = 1$.

For $t= 0.1$ we have $d(t) \approx d(0)+ d'(0)t +{1 \over 2} d''(0) t^2 = 1.0025$

copper.hat
  • 172,524
  • I was looking for an intuitive explanation- I can already numerically calculate the integral to see that the answer is more than 1. – user2744010 Sep 06 '23 at 13:13
  • 1
    For intuition, plot the average distance from $(t,0)$ to any two antipodal points on the circle (other than the angles mentioned above). – copper.hat Sep 06 '23 at 13:54
2

Sorry for the self-answer! Here is my explanation why the average distance at (0.1, 0) (or any point other than the origin) is greater than 1. diagram of circles centered at origin and also at (0.1,0)

Let $C$ be the unit circle centered at the origin. The picture has $C$ as the solid colored line, and the unit circle centered at (0.1,0) is the dashed line. The points on $C$ with distance less than 1 to (0.1,0) are colored red, the ones with distance more than 1 are blue. You can see there are more blue ones than red ones.

If we slide the point (0.1,0) further to the right, the red zone only shrinks (and eventually disappears entirely), so this average distance will always be greater than 1, increasing as our point moves further away from the origin.

  • 1
    Expectation is more than just a measure of the support of an event in the sample space. You must also take into account how much the distances increase or decrease. – whpowell96 Sep 06 '23 at 01:04
  • Your self-answer is plausible intuition as to why the value 0.9993 in your question is wrong and should be greater than 1, by the way.

    For (0.1,0), Mathematica gives a numerical integral of approximately 1.0025, not 0.9993. From the point $(1,0)$, Mathematica gives a larger, exact value of $4/$, and this agrees with the known average distance between two points on a circle. (For example, see the integral in an answer at https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/611762/what-is-the-average-length-of-2-points-on-a-circle-with-generalizations )

    – Steve Kass Sep 06 '23 at 01:07
  • I think the answer in this question gives the average value you ask about in general, as an elliptic integral: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2020713/average-distance-from-point-to-circle – Steve Kass Sep 06 '23 at 01:20
  • @SteveKass Yes sorry my initial version had the wrong number there- I had mistyped it into WolframAlpha. And yes I had seen the elliptic integral form- but wanted some "easy" way of believing the answer was more than 1. – user2744010 Sep 06 '23 at 01:21
1

A good way to see this is not to place the point at $(0.1,0)$ but to place it at $(0.9,0)$. With the point placed there, plot the distance to $\cos\theta,\sin\theta)$ as a function of $\theta$. You don't get a symmetrical, sine-wave-like curve around the "mid-line" $y=1$. Instead you get broad ranges above this line punctuated by sharp dips below $y=1$ wgen $\theta$ is close to a multiple of $2\pi$. The broader ranges above $y=1$ makes the average distance greater than $1$.

The plot looks like that because only a small part of the circle is near the closest approach point $(1,0)$, whereas a large part on the "back side" is nearly as far away as the point $(-1,0)$.

Oscar Lanzi
  • 39,403