Comments for Rational Digits
https://www.rationaldigits.com
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:10:18 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.3Comment on Strictly convex surfaces in 3D have an equicurved point by mccoy
https://www.rationaldigits.com/2016/07/27/strictly-convex-surfaces-in-3d-have-an-equicurved-point/#comment-9
Fri, 10 Nov 2017 14:10:18 +0000http://www.rationaldigits.com/?p=113#comment-9Note that a friend of mine pointed out that this applies to all \(C^2\) surfaces that are topologically equivalent to \(S^2\), since the principal radii of curvature can be parameterized the same way, and the hairy ball theorem also holds for these surfaces.
]]>Comment on The mincing problem by mccoy
https://www.rationaldigits.com/2016/09/19/the-mincing-problem/#comment-6
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:51:53 +0000http://www.rationaldigits.com/?p=131#comment-6Fixed.
]]>Comment on The mincing problem by Mike
https://www.rationaldigits.com/2016/09/19/the-mincing-problem/#comment-5
Fri, 02 Jun 2017 13:33:00 +0000http://www.rationaldigits.com/?p=131#comment-5That’s [SW Theorem 8.4.1] not 8.1.4.
]]>Comment on Meissner bodies: A new proof of an old result by Space cat
https://www.rationaldigits.com/2016/06/12/meissner-bodies-a-new-proof-of-an-old-result/#comment-4
Fri, 15 Jul 2016 05:39:11 +0000http://rationaldigits.com/?p=18#comment-4Isn’t this obvious? The function V_i is multilinear (if you consider the arguments are repeated) and so Vi(K,-K) must be proportional to the volume v(K)
]]>Comment on Convexity and positive functions by mccoy
https://www.rationaldigits.com/2016/07/12/convexity-and-positive-functions/#comment-3
Wed, 13 Jul 2016 05:45:12 +0000http://rationaldigits.com/?p=70#comment-3I must have made some mistake because we don’t always have \(h(\pi/2) + h”(\pi/2) = 0\).

(Sure did! Fixed above.)

]]>Comment on Meissner bodies: A new proof of an old result by mccoy
https://www.rationaldigits.com/2016/06/12/meissner-bodies-a-new-proof-of-an-old-result/#comment-2
Wed, 06 Jul 2016 04:57:04 +0000http://rationaldigits.com/?p=18#comment-2A very similar argument shows that symmetric convex bodies \(K=-K\subset \mathbb{R}^d\) satisfy