Barycentric cuts through a convex body

Abstract: Let $K$ be a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (i.e., a compact convex set with nonempty interior). Given a point $p$ in the interior of $K$, a hyperplane $h$ passing through $p$ is called barycentric if $p$ is the barycenter of $K \cap h$. In 1961, Grünbaum raised the question whether, for every $K$, there exists an interior point $p$ through which there are at least $n+1$ distinct barycentric hyperplanes. Two years later, this was seemingly resolved affirmatively by showing that this is the case if $p=p_0$ is the point of maximal depth in $K$. However, while working on a related question, we noticed that one of the auxiliary claims in the proof is incorrect. Here, we provide a counterexample; this re-opens Grünbaum's question. It follows from known results that for $n \geq 2$, there are always at least three distinct barycentric cuts through the point $p_0 \in K$ of maximal depth. Using tools related to Morse theory we are able to improve this bound: four distinct barycentric cuts through $p_0$ are guaranteed if $n \geq 3$.

\section{Introduction}
\subparagraph*{Gr\"{u}nbaum's questions.} Let $K$ be a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^n$ (i.e., compact convex set with nonempty interior). Given an interior point $p\in K$, a hyperplane $h$ passing through $p$ is called \emph{barycentric} if $p$ is the barycenter (also known as the centroid) of the intersection $K\cap h$. In 1961, Gr\"{u}nbaum~\cite{grunbaum61} raised the following questions (see also \cite[\S 6.1.4]{grunbaum63}):
\begin{question}
\label{q:1}
Does there always exist an interior point $p\in K$ through which there are at least $n+1$ distinct barycentric hyperplanes?
\end{question}
\begin{question}
\label{q:2}
In particular, is this true if $p$ is the barycenter of $K$?
\end{question}
Seemingly, Question~\ref{q:1} was  answered affirmatively by Gr\"unbaum himself~\cite[\S
6.2]{grunbaum63} two years later, by using a variant of Helly's theorem to show that there are at least $n+1$ barycentric cuts through the point of $K$ of maximal \emph{depth} (we will recall the definition below).
The assertion that Question~\ref{q:1} is resolved has also been reiterated in other geometric literature~\cite[A8]{croft_falconer_guy94}. However, when working on Question~\ref{q:2}, which remains open, we identified a concrete problem in Grünbaum's argument for the affirmative answer for the point of the maximal depth.
The first aim of this paper is to point out this problem, which re-opens Question~\ref{q:1}.
\subparagraph*{Depth, depth-realizing hyperplanes, and the point of maximum
depth.} In order to describe the problem with Gr\"unbaum's argument, we need a
few definitions. Let $p$ be a point in $K$. For a unit vector $v$ in the unit
sphere $S^{n-1} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$,  let $h_v = h_v^p:=\{x\in \mathbb{R}^n \colon \langle
v,x-p\rangle =0\}$ be the hyperplane orthogonal to $v$ and passing through $p$, and let $H_v = H_v^p:= \{x\in \mathbb{R}^n \colon \langle v,x-p\rangle  \geq 0\}$ be the half-space bounded by $h_v$ in the direction of $v$. Given $p$, we define the \emph{depth function} $\delta^p\colon
S^{n-1} \to [0,1]$ via $\delta^p(v) = \lambda(H_v \cap
K)/\lambda(K)$, where $\lambda$ is the Lebesgue measure ($n$-dimensional volume) in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
The \emph{depth} of a point $p$ in $K$ is defined as
$\dep(p, K) := \inf_{v \in S^{n-1}} \delta^p(v).$ It is easy to
see\footnote{Given $v, v' \in S^{n-1}$, $\lambda(H_v \cap
K)$ and $\lambda(H_{v'} \cap K)$ differ by at most $\lambda((H_v \Delta H_{v'})
\cap K)$ where $\Delta$ is the symmetric difference. For $\varepsilon > 0$
and $v$ and $v'$ sufficiently close, $\lambda((H_v \Delta H_{v'})
\cap K) < \varepsilon \lambda(K)$~as~$K$~is~bounded.}
that
$\delta^p$ is a continuous function, therefore the infimum in the definition is
attained at some $v \in S^{n-1}$. Any hyperplane $h_v$ through $p$ such that $\dep(p, K) =
\delta^p(v)$ is said to \emph{realize the depth} of $p$. Finally, a \emph{point
of maximal depth in $K$} is a point $p_0$ in the interior of $K$ such that
$\dep(p_0, K) := \max \dep(p, K)$ where the maximum is taken over all points in
the interior of $K$.\footnote{We remark that our depth function slightly differs from the
function $f(H,p)$ used by Gr\"{u}nbaum~\cite[\S 6.2]{grunbaum63}. However, the
point of maximal depth coincides with the `critical point' in~\cite{grunbaum63} and
hyperplanes realizing the depth for $p_0$ coincide with the `hyperplanes through
the critical point dividing the volume of $K$ in the ratio $F_2(K)$'.}
The point of maximal depth always exists (by compactness of $S^{n-1}$) and
it is unique (two such points would yield a point of larger depth on the segment between them).

\subparagraph{Many depth-realizing hyperplanes?} Gr\"unbaum's argument has two ingredients. The first is the following result, known as Dupin's theorem~\cite{dupin22}, which dates back to 1822:
\begin{theorem}[Dupin's Theorem]
\label{thm:Dupin}
If a hyperplane $h$ through $p$ realizes the depth of $p$ then it is barycentric with respect to $p$.
\end{theorem}
Gr\"unbaum refers to Blaschke~\cite{blaschke17} for a proof; for a more recent reference, see~\cite[Lemma 2]{schutt-werner94}.\footnote{The idea of the proof is simple: For contradiction assume that $h$ realizes the depth of
$p$ but that the barycenter $b$ of $K \cap h$ differs from
$p$. Let $v \in S^{n-1}$ be such that $h = h_v$ and $\dep(p, K) = \delta^p(v)$.
Consider the affine $(d-2)$-space $\rho$ in $h$ passing through $p$ and
perpendicular to the segment $bp$. Then by a small rotation of $h$ along $\rho$
we can get $h_{v'}$ such that $\delta^p(v') < \delta^p(v)$ which contradicts
that $h$ realizes the depth of $p$.
Of course, it remains to check the
details.}
A stronger statement will be the content of
Proposition~\ref{p:C1} below.

The second ingredient in Gr\"unbaum's argument is the following assertion (which in~\cite[\S 6.2]{grunbaum63} is deduced using a variant of Helly's theorem, without providing the details).
\begin{postulate}
\label{postulate}
If $p_0$ is the point of $K$ of maxiumal depth, then there are at least $n+1$ distinct hyperplanes through $p_0$ that realize the depth.
\end{postulate}
If correct, Postulate~\ref{postulate}, in combination with Dupin's theorem, would immediately imply an affirmative answer to Question~\ref{q:1}.
However, it turns out that this step is problematic. Indeed, there is a counterexample to Postulate~\ref{postulate}:

\begin{proposition}
\label{p:counterexample}
Let $K = T \times I \subseteq \mathbb{R}^3$ where $T$ is an
equilateral triangle and $I$ is a line segment (interval) orthogonal to $T$, and let $p_0 \in K$ be the point of maximal depth  (which in this case coincides with the barycenter of $K$). Then there are only $3$ hyperplanes realizing the depth of $p_0$.

\end{proposition}
\begin{remark} We believe that Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample} can be
  generalized to higher dimensions in the sense that, for every $n$, there are
  only $n$ depth-realizing hyperplanes through the point of maximal depth in
  $\Delta \times I \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$, where $\Delta$ is a regular
  $(n-1)$-simplex. However, we did not attempt to work out the details
  carefully, because Kyn\v{c}l and Valtr~\cite{kyncl-valtr19} informed us about
  stronger counterexamples: For every $n$, there exists a convex body $K \in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that there are only $3$ depth-realizing hyperplanes through the point of maximal depth in $K$. Therefore, we prefer to keep the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample} as
simple as possible and focus on dimension $3$.
\end{remark}

\begin{remark} We emphasize that Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample} does not preclude an affirmative answer to Gr\"unbaum's Question~\ref{q:1} (nor to Question~\ref{q:2}), since $T \times I$ contains infinitely many distinct barycentric hyperplanes through $p_0$.
Thus Gr\"{u}nbaum's questions remain open.
\end{remark}

We also remark that a weakening of Postulate~\ref{postulate} is known to be true (see the `Inverse Ray Basis Theorem~\cite{rousseeuw-ruts99}, using the proof from~\cite{donoho-gasko92}):\footnote{We remark that the second condition in the statement of the result in~\cite{rousseeuw-ruts99} is equivalent to the statement that $0 \in \conv U$, in our notation.}$^{,}$\footnote{Sketch of the inverse ray basis theorem:
if there is a closed hemisphere $C \subseteq S^{n-1}$ which does not contain
a point of $U$, let $v$ be the centre of $C$. Then a small shift of $p_0$ in
the direction of $v$ yields a point of larger depth, a contradiction.}

\begin{proposition}
\label{p:irbt}
Let $U \subseteq
S^{n-1}$ be the set of vectors $u$ such that $\delta^{p_0}(u) = \dep(p_0, K)$. Then $0 \in \conv U$.
\end{proposition}

In the special case that $U$ is in general position, the cardinality of $U$ is
at least $n+1$ (otherwise $\dim \conv U < n$ and $\conv U$ would not contain
the origin, by general position), which proves Postulate~\ref{postulate} in
this special case. However, $U$ need not be always in general position. For
example, in the case $K = T \times I$ in $\mathbb{R}^3 = \mathbb{R}^2 \times \mathbb{R}$ of
Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample}, the set $U$ contains three vectors in the
plane through the origin parallel with $T$. This is also the way we arrived at
the counterexample from Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample}.

Inverse Ray Basis Theorem immediately implies that three barycentric
hyperplanes are guaranteed in dimension at least $2$.

\begin{corollary}
  \label{c:three}
Let $K$ be a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^n$ where $n \geq 2$ and $p_0$ be the point of
  maximal depth of $K$. Then there at least three distinct barycentric
  hyperplanes through $p_0$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
  Let $U$ be the set from Proposition~\ref{p:irbt}.  Then, $0 \in \conv U$ and $U \subseteq S^{n-1}$ imply
together $|U| \geq 2$. However, if $|U| = 2$, then $U = \{u,-u\}$ for some $u \in
S^{n-1}$. This necessarily means $\dep(p_0, K) = \delta^{p_0}(u) =
\delta^{p_0}(-u) = 1/2$ as $\delta^{p_0}(u) + \delta^{p_0}(-u) = 1$. Then for any other $v \in S^{n-1}$ we get
$\min\{\delta^{p_0}(v), \delta^{p_0}(-v)\} \geq 1/2$ which implies $\delta^{p_0}(v) =
\delta^{p_0}(-v) = 1/2$ as well. Therefore $v \in U$ contradicting $|U| = 2$.)
\end{proof}

\subparagraph{Four barycentric cuts via critical points of $C^1$
functions.} Using tools related to
 Morse theory, we are able to obtain one more
barycentric hyperplane, provided that $n \geq 3$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t:four}
Let $K$ be a convex body in $\mathbb{R}^n$ where $n \geq 3$ and $p_0$ be the point of
  maximal depth of $K$. Then there are at least four distinct hyperplanes $h$ such that $p_0$ is the barycenter of $K \cap h$.
\end{theorem}

Here we should also mention related work of Blagojevi\'{c} and
Karasev~\cite[Theorem~3.3]{karasev11} and
\cite[Theorem~1.13]{blagojevic-karasev16}. They show that there are at least
$\mu(n)$ barycentric hyperplanes passing through \emph{some} interior point of
$K$ (not necessarily the point of maximal depth), where $\mu(n):=\min_f
\max_{p\in S^n} |f^{-1}(p)|$ is the minimum \emph{multiplicity} of any
continuous map $f\colon \mathbb{R}P^n\to S^n$ (here, $\mathbb{R} P^n$ is the $n$-dimensional
real projective space).  By calculations with Stiefel--Whitney classes, they
obtain lower bounds for $\mu(n)$ that depend in a subtle (and non-monotone) way
on $n$ (see \cite[Remark~1.3]{karasev11}). For example, $\mu(n)\geq
\frac{n}{2}+1$ if $n=2^\ell -2$, but for values of $n$ of the form $n=2^\ell-1$
(e.g., for $n=3$) their methods only give a lower bound of $\mu(n)\geq 2$.

Our argument in the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:four} is, in certain sense,
tight. For completeness we discuss this in Section~\ref{s:conclusions}.

In what follows,
we view
$S^{n-1}$ as a smooth manifold with its
standard differential structure. A key tool in the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:four} is the following close connection between barycentric hyperplanes and the critical points of the depth function:

\begin{proposition}
\label{p:C1}
  Let $K \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ be a convex body and $p$ be a point in the interior of
  $K$. Then the corresponding depth function $\delta^p \colon S^{n-1} \to \mathbb{R}$
  is a $C^1$ function. In addition, $v \in S^{n-1}$ is a critical point of
  $\delta^p$ (that is, $D\delta^p(v) = 0$, where $Df(v)$ denotes the total derivative of a function $f$
  at $v$) if and only if
  $h_v$ is barycentric.
\end{proposition}

As mentioned earlier, Proposition~\ref{p:C1} generalizes Dupin's
theorem.
Indeed, if $h = h_v$
realizes the depth, then $v$ is a global minimum of $\delta^p$, hence $h$ is barycentric by Proposition~\ref{p:C1}.

In the proof, we closely follow computations by Hassairi and
Regaieg~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08} who stated an extension of Dupin's
theorem to absolutely continuous probability measures.
As explained in~\cite{nagy-schutt-werner19} (see Proposition~29, Example~7, and
the surrounding text in~\cite{nagy-schutt-werner19}), the extension of Dupin's
theorem
does not hold in the full generality stated
in~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08}, and it requires some additional assumptions.
However, a careful check of the computations of Hassairi and
Regiaeg~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08} in the special case of uniform probability
measures on convex bodies reveals not only Dupin's theorem but all items of
Proposition~\ref{p:C1}.

Regarding the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:four}, the
Inverse Ray Basis Theorem (Proposition~\ref{p:irbt}) and Corollary~\ref{c:three}
imply that $\delta^{p_0}$ has at least three global minima. This
gives three barycentric hyperplanes via Proposition~\ref{p:C1}.
Furthermore, we also get three maxima of $\delta$, as a maximum
appears at $v$, if and only if a minimum appears at $-v$ (note that $h_v =
h_{-v}$). However, it
should not happen for a $C^1$ function on $S^{n-1}$ that it has only such critical
points. We will show that there is at least one more critical point, which
yields another barycentric hyperplane via Proposition~\ref{p:C1}. Namely, we
show the following proposition.

\begin{proposition}
 \label{p:one_more_point}
Let $n \geq 2$ and let $f \colon S^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a $C^1$ function. Let $m_1,
  \dots, m_k$ be (not necessarily strict) local minima or maxima of $f$, where $k \geq 3$. Then there exists
  $u \in S^n$, different from $m_1, \dots, m_k$, such that $Df(u) = 0$.
\end{proposition}

This finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:four} modulo
Propositions~\ref{p:C1} and~\ref{p:one_more_point}.
(Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point} is applied with $k = 6$.)

The main idea beyond the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point} is
that if we have at least three local minima or maxima, then we should also
expect a saddle point (unless there are infinitely many local extremes).
This would be
an easy exercise for Morse functions (which are in particular $C^2$) via Morse
theory (actually, the Morse inequalities would provide even more critical points).
Working with $C^1$ functions adds a few difficulties, but all of
them can be overcome.

\subparagraph*{Relation to probability and statistics.}
The depth function, as we define it above is a special case of the (Tukey) depth of a probability
measure in $\mathbb{R}^d$, a well-known notion in statistics~\cite{tukey75,donoho82,donoho-gasko92}. More precisely, given a probability measure $\P$ on $\mathbb{R}^d$
and $p \in \mathbb{R}^d$, we can define $\dep(p, \P) := \inf_{v \in S^{n-1}}\P(H_v)$.
Then $\dep(p, K)$ is a special case of the uniform probablity measure on a convex body $K$, i.e.,
$\P(A) := \lambda(A)/\lambda(K)$ for $A$ Lebesgue-measurable.
We refer
to~\cite{nagy-schutt-werner19} for an extensive recent survey making
many connections between the depth function in statistics and geometric
questions.

There is a vast amount of literature, both in computational geometry and statistics, devoted
to computing the depth function in various settings (which is not easy in
general). We refer, for example,
to~\cite{rousseeuw-struyf98, chan04, bremner-chen-iacono-langerman-morin08,chen-morin-wanger13,
dyckerhoff_mozharovskyi16, liu_mosler_mozharovskyi19} and the references
therein. From this point of view, understanding the minimal possible number of
critical points of the depth function is a quite fundamental property of the
depth function. Via Proposition~\ref{p:C1}, this is essentially equivalent to Gr\"{u}nbaum's questions.

\subparagraph*{Organization.} Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample} is proved in
Section~\ref{s:counterexample}; Proposition~\ref{p:C1} is proved in
Section~\ref{s:C1}; and Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point} is proved in
Section~\ref{s:one_more_point}.

\section{Few hyperplanes realizing the depth}
\label{s:counterexample}

In this section we prove Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample}, assuming Proposition \ref{p:C1}.

\subparagraph*{Preliminaries.} Let us recall that given a bounded measurable set $Y \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ of
positive measure, the
\emph{barycenter} of $Y$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{e:barycenter}
\cen Y = \frac{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} x \chi_Y(x) dx}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}
\chi_Y(x) dx} = \frac{1}{\lambda(Y)}\int_{Y} x dx
\end{equation}
where $\chi_Y$ is the characteristic function and the integral is
considered as a vector in $\mathbb{R}^n$.

If $Y$ splits as a disjoint union $Y
= Y_1 \sqcup \cdots \sqcup Y_\ell$ of sets of positive measure then
\begin{equation}
  \label{e:sum_centres}
  \cen Y = \frac1{\lambda(Y)}\left(\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}\lambda(Y_i) \cen
  Y_i\right)
\end{equation}
 which easily follows from~\eqref{e:barycenter}.

If $h$ is a hyperplane, and $Y \subseteq h$ has positive $(n-1)$-dimensional
Lebesgue measure inside $h$, then the formula for the barycenter is analogous
to~\eqref{e:barycenter}:
\begin{equation}
\label{e:barycenter_h}
  \cen Y = \frac{\int_{h} x \chi_Y(x) d\lambda_{n-1}(x)}{\int_h
  \chi_Y(x) d\lambda_{n-1}(x)} = \frac{1}{\lambda_{n-1}(Y)}\int_{Y} x
  d\lambda_{n-1}(x)
\end{equation}
where, for purpose of this formula, $\lambda_{n-1}$ denotes the
$(n-1)$-dimensional Lebesgue measure on $h$.

If $h \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ is a hyperplane whose
orthogonal projection $\pi(h)$ onto $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times\{0\}$
(the first $n-1$ coordinates)
equals $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}\times\{0\}$,
then $\cen \pi(Y) = \pi(\cen Y)$.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:counterexample}.]
Let
$T \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$ be
an equilateral triangle with
  $\cen(T) = 0$ and $I = [-1,1]$. Then $\cen(K) = 0$. In addition, because the
  point of maximal depth $p_0$ is unique and invariant under isometries of $K$,
  we get $p_0  = 0$.

We will use the following notation: $a$, $b$, $c$ are the vertices of $T$ and
  $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ are lines perpendicular to $T$ passing through
  $a$, $b$, and $c$ respectively.

Now let $h$ be a hyperplane passing through $0$. We want to find out whether
  $h$ realizes the depth. We will consider three cases:

  \begin{enumerate}[(i)]
   \item $h$ is perpendicular to $T$; \label{c:i}
   \item $h$ is not perpendicular to $T$ and all
  intersection points of $h$ with $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ belong to~$K$; \label{c:ii}
  \item $h$ is not perpendicular to $T$ and at least one
  of the  intersection points of $h$ with $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ does \label{c:iii}
  not belong to $K$.
  \end{enumerate}

  In case (\ref{c:i}), we will find three candidates for hyperplanes
  realizing the depth. Then we show that there is no hyperplane realizing the
  depth in cases (\ref{c:ii}) and (\ref{c:iii}), which shows that only the three
  candidates from case (\ref{c:i}) may realize the depth. They
  realize the depth because we have at least three hyperplanes realizing the
  depth by the discussion in the introduction above
  Theorem~\ref{t:four}.

  Let us focus on case (\ref{c:i}).
This is the same as considering the lines realizing the depth in an
 equilateral triangle.

  It is easy to check and well known (see
  e.g.~\cite[\S 5.3]{rousseeuw-ruts99}) that the depth of the equilateral
  triangle

  is $4/9$ and it is realized by lines parallel with the sides of the
  triangle. It follows that we can reach depth $4/9$ in $K$ by hyperplanes perpendicular to
  $T$ and parallel with the three sides of $T$, and all other hyperplanes from
  case (i) bound a portion of $K$ strictly larger than $4/9$ on each of their sides.

 Case (\ref{c:ii}) is very easy: It is easy to compute that each hyperplane of type
  (\ref{c:ii}) splits $K$ into two parts of equal volume $1/2$
  Therefore, no such hyperplane
  realizes the depth.

 Finally, we investigate case (\ref{c:iii}). Here we show that no hyperplane $h$
  of case (\ref{c:iii}) is barycentric. Therefore, by Theorem~\ref{thm:Dupin},
  it cannot realize the depth either.

  We aim to show that $0$ is not the barycenter of $h \cap K$. Let $U$ be the
  orthogonal projection of $h \cap K$ to the triangle $T$. Equivalently, we want to show
  that $0$ is not the barycenter of $U$. We also realize that $U = T \cap S$,
  where $S$ is an infinite strip obtained as the orthogonal projection of $h
  \cap (\mathbb{R}^2 \times I)$ to $\mathbb{R}^2\times \{0\}
  ; see Figure~\ref{f:U}.

Let $s$ be the center line of $S$. This is the line where $h$ meets the plane
of $T$.
  We remark that $0$ belongs to $s$ and in addition $U$ is a proper subset of $T$ (otherwise we would
  be in case (\ref{c:ii})). We again distinguish three cases:

  \begin{enumerate}[(a)]
   \item none of the vertices $a, b, c$ belongs to $U$,
   \item  one of the vertices $a, b, c$ belongs to $U$,
   \item two of the vertices $a, b, c$ belong to $U$.
  \end{enumerate}

  In all the cases we will show $\cen U \neq \cen T$.
  \begin{figure}
\begin{center}
 \includegraphics[page=2]{triangle_strip}
\caption{Three cases for the intersection $U = T \cap S$.}
  \label{f:U}
\end{center}
  \end{figure}
  In case (a), $s$ splits one of the vertices of $T$ from the other two.
  Without loss of generality, $a$ is on one side of $s$ and $b$ and $c$ are on
  the other side. The center line $s$ also splits $U$ into two parts. Let $W'$
  be the (closed) part on the side of $a$, $W''$ be the mirror image of $W'$ along $S$
  and $W := W' \cup W''$. Note that $W$ is a proper subset of $U$; indeed, since $\cen T = 0$ and $T$ is equilateral, the line $s$ splits the segment $ab$ closer to $b$ and the
  segment $ac$ closer to $c$. By the symmetry of $W$, the barycenter $\cen W$
  belongs to the line $s$. However, this means that the barycenter of $U$ is
  not on $s$; it is on the $bc$ side of $s$. Formally, this follows
  from~\eqref{e:sum_centres} for the decomposition $U = W \sqcup (U \setminus W)$.

In case (b), without loss of generality, $U$ contains $c$. Then $T \setminus
U$ is the union of two triangles $T_a$ and $T_b$. Let $\kappa$ be the line
parallel with $ab$ passing through $0$. Without loss of generality, up to
rotating $T$, $\kappa$ is the $x$-axis. From~\eqref{e:sum_centres}, we get
$0 = \cen T = \frac1{\lambda(T)}(\lambda(U) \cen U + \lambda(T_a) \cen T_a +
\lambda(T_b) \cen T_b)$. The barycenters $\cen T_a$ and $\cen T_b$ are below
the line $\kappa$ or on it. At least one of these barycenters is strictly
below ($\cen T_a$ is on $\kappa$ if and only if $c$ belongs to the closure of
$T_a$, and similarly with $T_b$).
Therefore, $\cen U$ must be strictly above
$\kappa$ if the above equality is supposed to hold.

In case (c), it is even more obvious that $\cen U \neq \cen T$. Without loss of
generality $U$ contains $b$ and $c$. Then $T \setminus U$ is a triangle $T_a$.
Since both $T$ and $T_a$ are convex and $T_a$ does not contain $\cen T$, we have $\cen T_a \neq \cen T$. Therefore $\cen T
\neq \cen U$ follows from~\eqref{e:sum_centres} for the decomposition $T = U
\sqcup T_a$.
\end{proof}

\section{Critical points of the depth function}
\label{s:C1}
Here we prove Proposition~\ref{p:C1}. We follow~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08}
with a slightly adjusted notation and adding a few more details here and there.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:C1}]
Without loss of generality, we can assume that the point $p$ coincides
with the origin and we suppress it from the notation. That is, we write
$\delta$ for the depth function instead of $\delta^p$.

Let $e_1, \ldots, e_n$ be the canonical basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and let
\[ S_{j+}^{n-1} = \{u = \sum_{i=1}^n u_ie_i \in S^{n-1}; u_j >
0\} \hskip5mm \hbox{ and } \hskip5mm S_{j-}^{n-1} = \{u = \sum_{i=1}^n u_ie_i \in S^{n-1}; u_j <
0\}
\]
be the relatively open hemispheres  of $S^{n-1}$ with poles at $e_j$ and
$-e_j$, for $j \in [n]$.
These sets
form an atlas on $S^{n-1}$.

Let us consider $j \in [n]$.
Given $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $i \in [n]$, $x_i$ denotes the $i$th coordinate of
$x$, that is $x= \sum_{i=1}^n x_ie_i$.  With a slight abuse of the notation, we
identify $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ with the subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$ spanned by $e_1, \dots,
e_{j-1}, e_{j+1}, \dots, e_n$. Let $\hat x := \sum_{i=1, i \neq j}^n x_ie_i
\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
 Following~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08} we consider the diffeomorphisms $u \mapsto
 \beta(u) = -\frac{\hat u}{u_j}$ between $S_{j+}^{n-1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ or
  between $S_{j-}^{n-1}$ and $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$.
We will check the required properties of $\delta$ locally at each
of the $2n$ hemispheres $S_{j+}^{n-1}$ or $S_{j-}^{n-1}$ (with respect to the aforementioned
diffeomorphisms). Given that all cases are symmetric, it is sufficient to focus
only on the $S_{n+}^{n-1}$ case.
  That is, from now on, we assume that $j = n$ and $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is spanned
  by the first $(n-1)$ coordinates in the convention above. Given a point $x
  \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we also write it as $x = ( \hat x; x_n)$.

 Now, for $y \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ we consider the hyperplane $h'_y$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ containing the origin and defined by
 \[
  h'_y = \{(\hat x; x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n \colon x_n = \langle y,\hat x\rangle\}.
 \]
Note that if $u \in S^{n-1}_{j+}$, then $h'_{\beta(u)} = \{x \in
\mathbb{R}^n\colon \langle x, u \rangle = 0\}$.
In particular, since $p$ is the origin, $h'_{\beta(u)}$ coincides with $h_u$ used in
the introduction for definition of the depth function. This also means
that the map
$y \mapsto h'_y$ provides a parametrization of a family of those
hyperplanes containing the origin which do not contain $e_n$. We also
set $H'_y$ to be the positive halfspace bounded by $h'_y$:
\[
 H'_y = \{(\hat x; x_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n \colon x_n \geq \langle y,\hat x\rangle \}.
\]
Again, if $u \in S^{n-1}_{j+}$, then $H'_{\beta(u)}$ coincides with $H_u$ from
the introduction (here we use $u_n > 0$).

Now, we consider the map $f \colon \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \to \mathbb{R}$ defined by
\begin{equation}
\label{e:big_delta}
 f(y) = \lambda (H'_y \cap K) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \int_{\langle y,
 \hat x \rangle}^{\infty} \chi_K(\hat x; x_n) dx_n d\hat x,
\end{equation}
where $\chi_K$ is the characteristic function of $K$.
When $y = \beta(u)$ for some $u \in S^{n-1}_{j+}$, then $f(\beta(u)) =
\delta(u)$. Therefore, given that the map $u \to \beta(u)$ is a diffeomorphism,
it is sufficient to prove that $f$ is a $C^1$ function and that
$\beta(v) \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ is a critical point of $f$ if and only if
$h'_{\beta(v)} = h_v$ is barycentric.

The aim now is to differentiate $f(y)$ with respect to $y$.
We will show that the total derivative equals
\begin{equation}
\label{e:df}
Df(y) = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \hat x \cdot \chi_K(\hat x; \langle y, \hat
x\rangle) d \hat x
\end{equation}
considering the integral on the right-hand side as a vector.
Deducing~\eqref{e:df} is a quite routine computation skipped
in~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08}.\footnote{When compared with formula (3.1)
in~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08}, we obtain a different sign in front of the
integral. This is caused by integration over the opposite halfspace.}
However, this is the step in the proof of Theorem~3.1
in~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08} which reveals that some extra assumptions
in~\cite{hassairi-regaieg08} are necessary. Thus we carefully
deduce~\eqref{e:df} at the end of this proof for completeness.

We will also see that all partial derivatives of $f$ are continuous
which
means that $f$ is a $C^1$ function
which is one of our required conditions. Now we want to show that
$Df(\beta(v)) = 0$ if and only if $h_v$ is barycentric.

First, assume that $Df(\beta(v)) = 0$.
This gives
\begin{equation}
\label{e:zero_barycenter}
  0 = \frac{\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \hat x \cdot \chi_K(\hat x; \langle \beta(v), \hat
  x\rangle) d \hat x}{\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}} \chi_K(\hat x; \langle
  \beta(v), \hat
    x\rangle) d \hat x}
\end{equation}
which means that $0$ is the barycenter of $K \cap h'_{\beta(v)}$ from the
definition of $h'_{\beta(v)}$.

On the other hand, if $0$ is the barycenter of $K \cap h'_{\beta(v)}$,
then we deduce~\eqref{e:zero_barycenter} which implies $Df(\beta(v)) = 0$.

It remains to show~\eqref{e:df}. For this purpose, we compute partial
derivatives $\frac{\partial}{\partial y_k} f(y)$, $1 \leq k \leq n-1$.
In the following computations, recall that $e_k$ stands for the standard basis vector
for the $k$th coordinate and let $\int_a^b := -\int_b^a$ if $a > b$. We get
\begin{align*}
 \frac{\partial}{\partial y_k}f(y)
  &=  \lim_{t \to 0}\frac1{t}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}\left(\int_{\langle y + t e_k, \hat
  x\rangle}^{\infty} \chi_K(\hat x; x_n) d x_n - \int_{\langle y, \hat
    x\rangle}^{\infty} \chi_K(\hat x; x_n) d x_n\right) d\hat x \\
    &=  \lim_{t \to
    0}\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}\frac1t\int_{\langle y, \hat
      x\rangle + t x_k}^{\langle y, \hat x\rangle} \chi_K(\hat x; x_n)
      d x_n d\hat x.
\label{e:partial_fy}
\end{align*}

Let $y, \hat x \in \mathbb{R}^{d-1}$ be such that $( \hat x; \langle y, \hat x\rangle)
\not \in \partial K$. Then we get
\[
  \lim_{t\to 0}  \frac1t\int_{\langle y, \hat
        x\rangle + t x_k}^{\langle y, \hat x\rangle} \chi_K(\hat x; x_n)
	      d x_n = -x_k\chi_K(\hat x; \langle y, \hat x \rangle),
\label{e:limit_inner_integral}
\]
 because $( \hat x; \langle y, \hat x\rangle)
 \not \in \partial K$ implies that the function $\chi_K(\hat x; x_n)$ as a
 function of $x_n$ is constant on the interval $(\langle y, \hat
 x\rangle - |t x_k|, \langle y, \hat  x\rangle + |t x_k|)$ for small enough
 $|t|$. Therefore, by the dominated convergence theorem,
\begin{equation}
 \frac{\partial}{\partial y_k}f(y) = \int_{\mathbb{R}^{n-1}}-x_k \chi_K(\hat x; \langle
 y, \hat x\rangle) d\hat x.
\label{e:partial_fy_final}
\end{equation}

 For fixed $y$, the condition $( \hat x; \langle y, \hat x\rangle)
  \not \in \partial K$ holds for almost every $\hat x$ because $( \hat x;
  \langle y, \hat x\rangle) \in h_y$ and $h_y$ passes through the interior of
  $K$ (through the origin).
  By another application of dominated convergence
  theorem, we realize that the right hand side of~\eqref{e:partial_fy_final} is
  continuous in $y$ (this time, we consider a sequence $y^i \to y$ and we
  observe that $\chi_K(\hat x; \langle y^i, \hat x\rangle) \to \chi_K(\hat
  x; \langle y, \hat x\rangle)$ for almost every $\hat x$). Therefore the total
  derivative of $f$ at any $y$ exists and \eqref{e:partial_fy_final} gives the
  formula~\eqref{e:df}.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
  In the last paragraph of the proof above we crucially use the convexity of $K$.
  Without convexity, there is a compact nonconvex polygon $K' \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$,
  with $0$ in the interior, such that there is $y$ with the property that the
  set of those $\hat x$ for which $( \hat x; \langle y, \hat x\rangle)
   \in \partial K'$ has positive measure;

  see Figure~\ref{f:two_squares}.
  In fact, even~\eqref{e:df} does not hold for $K'$. Here we took $K'$ to be
  the polygon from Example~7 of~\cite{nagy-schutt-werner19}, and we refer the reader to that paper for more
  details.
\end{remark}

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
  \includegraphics[page=2]{two_squares}
\caption{A nonconvex polygon $K'$ and $y$ such that the total derivative of $f$
  does not exist at $y$. }
  \label{f:two_squares}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\iffalse
\section{Reeb graphs and $C^1$ functions, obsolete}
\label{s:one_more_point}

In this section, we prove Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}. We start with some
preliminaries.

Let $M$ be a manifold. Given a continuous function $f\colon M \to \mathbb{R}$ and $s \in \mathbb{R}$
we define the \emph{level set} $L_s := \{w \in M\colon  f(w) = s\}$. Moreover, we define an equivalence relation $\sim$
on $M$, where $u \sim v$ if $f(u) = f(v)$ and $u$ and $v$ belong to the
same connected component of the level set $L_{f(u)}=L_{f(v)}$. The \emph{Reeb graph} of $f$ is defined as
the quotient $G = G_f := M_{/\sim}$. By $q = q_f$ we denote the quotient
map $q \colon M \to G$. Furthermore, by the definition of the Reeb graph, the map $f$ induces
a well-defined and continuous map $\Phi \colon G \to \mathbb{R}$ given by
$\Phi([u]) = f(u)$, where $[u]$ is the equivalence class of $u \in M$ with
respect to $\sim$.

We remark that, in the most general case, a Reeb graph as defined above need not be a graph, nor even a Hausdorff topological space.
However, if $M$ is a smooth manifold, and $f$ is a $C^1$ function, then by the following proposition the local structure of the Reeb graph is well-behaved in the neighborhood of points $u$ for which the total derivative $Df(u)$ is nonzero.

\begin{proposition}
\label{p:regular_reeb}
Let $M$ be a smooth $n$-manifold, $n \geq 1$, $f$ be a $C^1$ map and $u \in M$
  be such that $Df(u) \neq 0$. Then
there is an open neighborhood $N(u)$ of $u$ such that $\Phi$ is a homeomorphism
when restricted to $q(N(u))$.
\end{proposition}

\martin{The first sentence below was half-modified by Uli but the second half
remained in the original setting. Now the sentence is a bit odd. I do not step
in because I do not know what was the intention of the modification. Uli, are
you willing to fix it?}

This proposition might be folklore, but the usual
setting in which Reeb graphs are considered is when the function $f$ is assumed to Morse, or at
least $C^2$ functions; see e.g.~\cite{edelsbrunner-harer10}. We were not able to find a suitable reference for $C^1$
functions. Therefore, we provide a proof via the implicit function theorem and
standard $\varepsilon$-$\delta$-arguments (which appear in the proof in the guise of
repeatedly choosing sufficiently small neighborhoods).

\begin{proof

  The key in the proof the proposition will be the following
  claim:
\begin{embeddedclaim}
\label{c:injective}
  There is a neighborhood $N'(u)$ of $u$ such that $\Phi$ is injective when
  restricted to $q(N'(u))$. Equivalently, for each $v,w \in N'(u)$, if $f(v) = f(w)$, then $v$ and $w$ belong to the same component of the level set $L_{f(v)}$.
\end{embeddedclaim}
  \martin{Updates: This claim is still used in the new proof; however,
  Proposition~\ref{p:regular_reeb} is not used. Thus, after checking the proof,
  this claim should be turned into a proposition. It is used only in $\mathbb{R}^n$
  which should simplify the proof. Also, it is sufficient to state in the form
  after the word `Equivalently'. On the other hand, it should be stated that $v$
  and $w$ can be connected by a path in the level set. But this immediately
  follows from the proof. }

  \martin{In the Claim above, Uli changed `Equivalently' to `Thus'. Perhaps
  based on the suggestion of the referee. This we have to discuss! Both
  implications are used! (The intended meaning is that the level set is
  considered in the whole manifold.) I have also changed the numbering so that
  it is more apparent that the claim is embedded in the proof of the theorem.}
  \martin{Reverted `Thus' into `Equivalently'. Do you agree?}

  First we show how the proposition follows from the claim, then we prove the
  claim.

Consider a closed ball $B(u)$ around $u$ which is fully contained in $N'(u)$. We
  get that $\Phi(q(B(u)))$ is a connected compact subset of $\mathbb{R}$ as a
  continuous image of a connected set is connected and a continuous image of a
  compact set is compact, that
  is, $\Phi(q(B(u)))$ is a
bounded closed interval (or a point but the point can be easily excluded as $f$
  cannot be constant on $N'(u)$). Moreover, because $q(B(u))$ is compact and
  $\Phi$ is injective, $\Phi$ must be a
  homeomorphism between $q(B(u))$ and $\Phi(q(B(u)))$. Now, it is
sufficient to set $N(u)$ to be the interior of $B(u)$.

Now we want to prove Claim~\ref{c:injective}. First we prove the claim
  under the additional assumption that $M = \mathbb{R}^n$. Then we deduce the claim in
  general.

Let us assume that $M = \mathbb{R}^n$. Without loss of generality assume
that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}(u) > 0$, otherwise we permute the
coordinates and/or swap $x_n$ and $-x_n$. Consistently with the previous
  section, given $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we write $x =
(\hat x, x_n)$ where $\hat x \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $x_n \in \mathbb{R}$. Now we
consider the $C^1$ function $F \colon \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ defined as
$F(\hat x, t, x_n) := f(\hat x, x_n) - t$. Note that
$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_n} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}$. We also
observe that $F(\hat u, f(u), u_n) = 0$. Therefore, by the implicit
function theorem, there is an open neighborhood $N''$ of $(\hat u,
f(u))$
in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ such that there is a $C^1$ function $g \colon N'' \to
\mathbb{R}$ with $g(\hat u, f(u)) = u_n$ and that $F(\hat v, t,
g(\hat v, t)) = 0$ for any $(\hat v, t) \in
N''$. From the definition of $F$ this gives
\begin{equation}
  \label{e:fgt}
  f(\hat v, g(\hat v, t)) = t.
\end{equation}

By possibly restricting the neighborhood to a smaller set, we can assume
that $N''$ is the Cartesian product of a neighborhood $N''(\hat u)$ of
$\hat u$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $N''(f(u))$ of $f(u)$ in $\mathbb{R}$, and that both
$N''(\hat u)$ and $N''(f(u))$ are open balls.
Moreover,
we can assume
that $\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_n}(\hat v, t, v_n) > 0$ for any
$(\hat v, t, v_n) \in N'' \times N'''(u_n)$ where $N'''(u_n)$ is some
neighborhood of $u_n$ in $\mathbb{R}$, again a ball. Now we possibly further restrict
  $N''(\hat
u)$ and $N''(f(u))$ so that $g(\hat v, t)$ belongs to $N'''(u_n)$ for any
$(\hat v, t) \in N''$.

The condition on the partial derivative of $F$
implies that for every $(\hat v, t) \in N''$ the equation $F(\hat v,
t, x_n) =
0$ has at most one solution $x_n \in N'''(u_n)$. Therefore it has a unique
solution $x_n = g(\hat v,
t)$. In other words we get:
\begin{equation}
  \label{e:if_then}
  \hbox{If } f(\hat v, x_n) = t, \hbox{ then } x_n = g(\hat v,t).
\end{equation}

Now, we define $N'(u) := \Psi^{-1}(N'')$ where $\Psi\colon \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R} \to
\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ is defined as $\Psi(v) = (\hat v, f(v))$ for any $v
\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$.
In particular $(\hat v, f(v))$ belongs to $N''$ for any $v \in N'(u)$.

  Now we prove Claim~\ref{c:injective} in the form of the second sentence in
  the claim.
  Let $t := f(v) = f(w)$. From~\eqref{e:if_then} we get $v_n = g(\hat v,
  t)$ and $w_n = g(\hat w, t)$. Now, let us consider an arbitrary path
  $P$ in  $N''(\hat u)$ connecting $\hat v$ and $\hat w$. Let
  us map $P$ to a path $P_t := \{(\hat x, g(\hat x, t))\colon \hat x \in
  P\}$. This is a path connecting $v$ and $w$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$. We will
  be done once we show $P_t \subseteq L_t$. This means that we are
  supposed to show that $f(\hat x, g(\hat x, t)) = t$

  for
  every $\hat x \in P$ which follows from~\eqref{e:fgt}.
  This finishes the proof of
  Claim~\ref{c:injective} under the additional condition that $M = \mathbb{R}^n$.

\martin{In the paragraph above, I have reverted the changes. You have changed
  $t$ to $f(v)$ in the sentence `This means...'. I have previously did the change $L_{f(v)} \to L_t$ (maybe it
  wasn't noticed). Then, I think that it is better to have $t$ in the next
  sentence. And I also think that it is beeter to use $L_t$ than $L_{f(v)}$,
  because $t$ is used everywhere above and it does not really distinguish
  $f(v)$ and $f(w)$. If you insist on your changes, I kept them in the
  comments.}

\martin{Is the last paragraph understandable. I was quite struggling with this.}

  Now, let us drop the assumption that $M = \mathbb{R}^n$. Let
  $\Omega(u)$ be an open ball containing $u$ and $\psi$ be a
  diffeomorphism from an open ball $B \subseteq \mathbb{R}^d$ to $\Omega(u)$.
  Let $\Phi_\psi\colon G \to \mathbb{R}$ be given as $\Phi_\psi([x]) = f \circ
    \psi(x)$ where the equivalence class is taken with respect to level sets
      in $B$.
  The condition
  $Df(u) \neq 0$ is equivalent with $D(f\circ\psi)(\psi^{-1}(u)) \neq 0$.
Therefore, by the claim for $M = \mathbb{R}^n$, we get that there is a neighborhood
  $N'_\psi \subseteq B$ of $\psi^{-1}(u)$ such that if $v'$ and $w'$ in
  $N'_\psi$ satisfy $f \circ \psi (v') = f \circ \psi(w')$, then they belong to
  the same component of their level set in $B$. Let us set $N'(u) = \psi^{-1}(N_\psi)$. The
  condition above says that if $v = \psi(v')$ and $w = \psi(w')$ satisfy $f(v)
  = f(w)$, then they belong to the same component in their level set in $\Omega(u)$ (because
  $\psi$ is, in particular, a homeomorphism), therefore in
  $M$ as well. This proves Claim~\ref{c:injective} and finishes the proof of
  the proposition.
\end{proof}

Now, we are ready for the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}.]
 First, we can assume that all local extrema $m_1,
  \dots, m_k$ are strict. Indeed, if some of them is not strict, say $m_1$,
  then we can find $u \neq m_1, \dots, m_k$ with $Df(u) = 0$ in a neighborhood
  of $m_1$.

  \martin{Not yet done: The set U in the proof of Proposition 4
  (currently~\ref{p:one_more_point}) is not quite the
  U you obtain
  from Proposition 6 (currently~\ref{p:regular_reeb}). This needs more explaining. Also, having a picture of
  manifold, a function on the manifold and its associated Reeb graph and
  explaining f vs. Phi vs. q (maybe illustrating the proof of Proposition 4)
  would make Section 4 more readable.}

  Let $U = S^n\setminus\{m_1,\dots, m_k\}$. The set $U$ is connected
  (even path connected) because
  $n \geq 2$. For contradiction, let us assume that $Df(u) \neq 0$ for every $u
  \in U$. From Proposition~\ref{p:regular_reeb} we get that $\Phi$ is a
  homeomorphism between $q(U)$ and the image $\Phi(q(U))$. As $\Phi(q(U))$ is
  connected, it must be an interval, and because $\Phi(G)$ is bounded, we
  get that $\Phi(q(U))$ is a bounded interval. Let $a < b$ be the endpoints of
  this interval.

  We also observe that for every $i \in [k]$ the equivalence classes $[m_i]$ consist of a single
  point because $m_i$ are local extrema. In other words, each $m_i$ is also an
  equivalence class in the Reeb graph. Because $k > 3$, there are either two
  points among $[m_1], \dots, [m_k]$ mapped to $a$ by $\Phi$ or two such points mapped to $b$
  or one such point mapped into the interval $(a,b)$. We will exclude each case.

First, let us assume that two of the points are mapped to $a$ or $b$.
    Without loss of generality, $\Phi([m_1]) = \Phi([m_2]) = a$. For $i = 1,2$,
    let $B(m_i) \subseteq S^n$ be a closed ball around $m_i$ such that $m_i$
    is a strict minimum on $B(m_i)$; let $s_i := \min\{f(u)\colon u \in \partial
    B(m_i)\}$; and let $t$ be a real number satisfying $a < t < s_1,s_2$, and
    $t \neq f(m_j)$ for $j \in [k]$. In particular, the level set $L_t$ is
    nonempty and connected because $\Phi$ is an isomorphism on $U$.
    Because $f(m_1) = f(m_2) = a$ and $f(u) > t$ for $u \in \partial B(m_1)$ or
    $u \in \partial B(m_2)$, we get that $L_t$ intersects both the interior of
    $B(m_1)$ and the interior of $B(m_2)$; however these two intersections are
    separated by $\partial B(m_1)$ and $\partial B(m_2)$ which contradicts
    connectedness of $L_t$.

  It remains to exclude the case $f(m_i) \in (a,b)$ for some $i$. The
  argument is similar. Without loss of generality $f(m_1) \in (a,b)$ and $m_1$
  is a local minimum. Define $B(m_1)$ and $s_1$ as above and consider $t$ satisfying $f(m_1)
  < t < s_1$, and $t \neq f(m_j)$ for $j \in [k]$. The level set $L_t$
  intersects the interior of $B(m_1)$ as before. However, it also intersects the (open)
  complement $S^n \setminus B(m_1)$ because $f(u) > t$ on $\partial B(m_1)$
  whereas the global minimum of $f$ on $S^n$ does not belong to $B(m_1)$.
  Therefore, $\partial B(m_1)$ again separates $L_t$, a contradiction.
\qedhere

\end{proof}

\fi

\section{One more critical point}
\label{s:one_more_point}
In this section, we prove Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}.
Given a manifold $M$ and a continuous function $f\colon M \to \mathbb{R}$ and $s \in
\mathbb{R}$ we define the \emph{level set} $L_s := \{w \in M\colon  f(w) = s\}$.
In the proof of Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point} we will need that the
level sets are well-behaved in the neighborhoods of points $u$ for which the
total derivative $Df(u)$ is nonzero.

\begin{proposition}
\label{p:path_connected}
Let $n\geq 1$, $f\colon \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a $C^1$ function and $u \in \mathbb{R}^n$ be
  such that $Df(u) \neq 0$. Then there is a neighborhood $N(u)$ of $u$ such that
  for every $v,w \in N(u)$ if $f(v) = f(w)$, then $v$ and $w$ can be connected
  with a path within the level set $L_{f(v)}$. (It is allowed that this path
  leaves $N(u)$ provided that it stays in $L_{f(v)}$.)
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality assume
that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}(u) > 0$, otherwise we permute the
coordinates and/or swap $x_n$ and $-x_n$. Consistently with the previous
  section, given $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, we write $x =
(\hat x, x_n)$ where $\hat x \in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $x_n \in \mathbb{R}$. Now we
consider the $C^1$ function $F \colon \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ defined as
$F(\hat x, t, x_n) := f(\hat x, x_n) - t$. Note that
$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_n} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}$. We also
observe that $F(\hat u, f(u), u_n) = 0$. Therefore, by the implicit
function theorem, there is an open neighborhood $N'$ of $(\hat u,
f(u))$
in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ such that there is a $C^1$ function $g \colon N' \to
\mathbb{R}$ with $g(\hat u, f(u)) = u_n$ and that $F(\hat v, t,
g(\hat v, t)) = 0$ for any $(\hat v, t) \in
N'$. From the definition of $F$ this gives
\begin{equation}
  \label{e:fgt}
  f(\hat v, g(\hat v, t)) = t.
\end{equation}

By possibly restricting the neighborhood to a smaller set, we can assume
that $N'$ is the Cartesian product of a neighborhood $N'(\hat u)$ of
$\hat u$ in $\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ and $N'(f(u))$ of $f(u)$ in $\mathbb{R}$, and that both
$N'(\hat u)$ and $N'(f(u))$ are open balls.
Moreover,
we can assume
that $\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_n}(\hat v, t, v_n) > 0$ for any
$(\hat v, t, v_n) \in N' \times N''(u_n)$ where $N''(u_n)$ is some
neighborhood of $u_n$ in $\mathbb{R}$, again a ball. Now we possibly further restrict
  $N'(\hat
u)$ and $N'(f(u))$ so that $g(\hat v, t)$ belongs to $N''(u_n)$ for any
$(\hat v, t) \in N'$.

The condition on the partial derivative of $F$
implies that for every $(\hat v, t) \in N'$ the equation $F(\hat v,
t, x_n) =
0$ has at most one solution $x_n \in N''(u_n)$. Therefore it has a unique
solution $x_n = g(\hat v,
t)$. In other words we get:
\begin{equation}
  \label{e:if_then}
  \hbox{If } f(\hat v, x_n) = t, \hbox{ then } x_n = g(\hat v,t).
\end{equation}

Now, we define $N(u) := \Psi^{-1}(N')$ where $\Psi\colon \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R} \to
\mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ is defined as $\Psi(v) = (\hat v, f(v))$ for any $v
\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$.
In particular $(\hat v, f(v))$ belongs to $N'$ for any $v \in N(u)$.

  Let $t := f(v) = f(w)$. From~\eqref{e:if_then} we get $v_n = g(\hat v,
  t)$ and $w_n = g(\hat w, t)$. Let us consider an arbitrary path
  $P\colon [0,1] \to N'(\hat u)$ connecting $\hat v$ and $\hat w$. Let
  us `lift' $P$ to a path $P_t \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^{n-1} \times \mathbb{R}$ given by
  $P_t(s)  := (P(s), g(P(s), t))$. This is a path connecting $v$ and $w$. We will
  be done once we show $P_t([0,1]) \subseteq L_t$. This means that we are
  supposed to show that $f(P(s), g(P(s), t)) = t$

  for
  every $s \in [0,1]$ which follows from~\eqref{e:fgt}.
\end{proof}

\paragraph*{Total derivatives and gradients.}
Let $f \colon \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a $C^1$ function. Then for any $u \in \mathbb{R}^n$, the
total derivative $Df(u)$ is represented by a row vector
$  \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}f(u), \dots, \frac{\partial}{\partial
  x_n}f(u)\right)$ (if $Df(u)$ exists). By $\|Df(u)\|$ we mean the Euclidean norm
  of this vector. The gradient $\nabla f(u)$ is the same vector transposed
\[
  \nabla f(u) := \left( \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1}f(u), \dots,
  \frac{\partial}{\partial
    x_n}f(u)\right)^T.
  \]
Then $\|\nabla f(u) \| = \|Df(u)\|$, and in addition $Df(u)(\nabla f(u)) =
\|Df(u)\|^2$.

Let $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\rho > 0$, by $B(x,\rho)
\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ we
denote the
compact ball of radius $\rho$ centered in $x$ with respect to the
standard Euclidean metric.

\begin{lemma}
  \label{l:larger_f}
  Let $f \colon \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$ be a $C^1$ function, let $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and let
  $\zeta, \rho >
  0$. Assume that $\|Df(u)\| \geq \zeta$ for every $u \in B(x, \rho)$. Then
  there is $v \in B(x, \rho)$ such that $f(v) \geq f(x) + \frac{\zeta\rho}2$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{figure}
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics{gradient}
    \caption{The set $K$ inside $B(x,\rho)$. For contradiction $M < f(x) +
    \frac{\rho\zeta}2$ which implies that $K$ does not touch the boundary of
    the ball. Then $t > 0$ can be chosen so that $u = w + t \nabla f(w)$ still
    belongs to $B(x,\rho)$.}
    \label{f:gradient}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{proof}
Let
  \[ K := \{y \in B(x, \rho)\colon f(y) \geq f(x) + \frac\zeta2\|y -
  x\|\}.
    \]
This is a closed therefore compact set, it is also nonempty because $x \in K$.
  Let $M := \max\{f(y)\colon y \in K\}$, for contradiction $M <
  f(x) + \frac{\zeta\rho}2$. Let $w \in K$ be such that $f(w) = M$. Note that
  for every $v \in \partial B(x, \rho) \cap K$ we get $f(v) \geq f(x) +
  \frac{\zeta\rho}2$ because $\|v-x\| = \rho$ in this case. Thus, in
  particular, $w \not \in \partial B(x, \rho)$. See Figure~\ref{f:gradient}.

  Consider the derivative at $w$ in the direction of the gradient $\nabla
  f(w)$.
  From properties of the total derivative, we get
  \[
  \lim_{t \to 0} \frac{|f(w + t \nabla f(w)) - f(w) -
  Df(w)(t\nabla f(w))|}{t\|\nabla f(w)\|} = 0.
  \]
 Therefore, for small enough $t > 0$ we get
  \[|f(w + t \nabla f(w)) - f(w) -  t\|Df(w)\|^2| \leq \frac{\zeta}2t
  \|Df(w)\|.\]
  Consequently,
  \[f(w) + t\|Df(w)\|^2 - f(w + t \nabla f(w)) \leq \frac{\zeta}2t
    \|Df(w)\|.\]
  Let $u = w + t \nabla f(w)$. If $t$ is small enough then $u \in B(x, \rho)$.
  Using $\|Df(w)\| \geq \zeta$ this gives
\begin{equation}
\label{e:f(u)nabla}
  f(u) \geq f(w) + t\|Df(w)\|^2 - \frac{\zeta}2t
      \|Df(w)\| \geq f(w) + \frac{\zeta}2t\|Df(w)\| = f(w) +
      \frac{\zeta}2t\|\nabla f(w)\|.
\end{equation}

  Because $w \in K$ and $t\|\nabla f(w)\| = \|u-w\|$, we further get
\begin{equation}
\label{e:f(u)norm}
  f(u) \geq f(x) + \frac{\zeta}2(\|w - x\| + \|u - w\|) \geq f(x) +
  \frac{\zeta}2(\|u-x\|).
\end{equation}
  Equation~\eqref{e:f(u)norm} gives that $u \in K$ while~\eqref{e:f(u)nabla}
  gives $f(u) > M$. This is a contradiction
with the choice of $M$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}]
 First, we can assume that all local extrema $m_1,
  \dots, m_k$ are strict. Indeed, if some of them is not strict, say $m_1$,
  then we can find $u \neq m_1, \dots, m_k$ with $Df(u) = 0$ in a neighborhood
  of $m_1$.

Next, because $k \geq 3$, there are at least two local maxima or two local
  minima among $m_1, \dots, m_k$. Without loss of generality, $m_1$ and $m_2$
  are local maxima.

  Now, let us
  consider a path $\gamma \colon [0,1] \to S^n$ such that $\gamma(0) = m_1$ and
  $\gamma(1) = m_2$. Let $\min_f(\gamma):=
  \min\{f(\gamma(t)) \colon  t \in [0,1]\}$ (the minimum exists by compactness)
  and let $s := \sup(\min_f(\gamma))$
  where the supremum is taken over all $\gamma$ as above.

 Before we proceed with the formal proof, let us sketch the main idea of the
  proof; see also Figure~\ref{f:mountains}. For contradiction assume that $Df(u) \neq 0$ for every $u \in
  S^n\setminus\{m_1, \dots, m_k\}$. Consider $\gamma$ such that $\min_f(\gamma)$ is very close to $s$. We
  will be able to argue that we can assume that such $\gamma$ is not close to
  any of the other extremes $m_3, \dots, m_k$. This guarantees that
  $\|Df(\gamma(t))\|$ is bounded from $0$ for every $t \in [0,1]$ except the
  cases when $\gamma(t)$ is close to $m_1$ or $m_2$. Using
  Lemma~\ref{l:larger_f}, we will be able to modify $\gamma$ to $\gamma'$ with
 $\min_f(\gamma') > s$ obtaining a contradiction with the definition of $s$.

  \begin{figure}
    \begin{center}
      \includegraphics{mountains}
      \caption{If we are in mountains and we want to hike from one peak to
      another without losing too much altitude, then the best way is to pass through a saddle point (see the upper path
      in blue). If we do not pass very close to a saddle point, then the positive
      gradient allows us to improve the path (see the lower path in red).}
      \label{f:mountains}
    \end{center}
  \end{figure}

 In further consideration, we consider the standard metric on $S^n$ obtained by
  the standard embedding of $S^n$ into $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ and restricting the Euclidean
  metric on $\mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ to a metric on $S^n$. For every $i \in [k]$, we pick
  two closed metric\footnote{By a metric ball we mean a ball with a given
  center and radius. This way, we distinguish a metric ball from a general
  topological ball.} balls $B_i$ and $B'_i$ centered in $m_i$. Namely, $B_i$
  is chosen so that $m_i$ is a global extreme on $B_i$. We also assume that the
  balls $B_i$ are pairwise disjoint. Next, we distinguish whether $m_i$ is a
  local maximum or minimum. If $m_i$ is a local maximum, let us define $a_i :=
  \max\{f(x)\colon x  \in \partial B_i\}$. Note that $f(m_i) > a_i$ as $m_i$ is
  a global maximum on $B_i$. Then we pick a closed ball $B'_i$ centered in $m_i$
  inside $B_i$ so that $f(x) > a_i$ for every $x \in B'_i$.
  If $m_i$ is a local
  minimum, we proceed analogously. We set $a_i :=
    \min\{f(x)\colon x  \in \partial B_i\}$ and we pick $B'_i$ so that $f(x)
    < a_i$ for every $x \in B'_i$.
    For later use, we also define $a'_i := \min\{f(x)\colon x \in B'_i\}$ for
    $i \in \{1,2\}$. Note that $a'_i > a_i$.

    Given a path $\gamma$ connecting
    $m_1$ and $m_2$, we say that $\gamma$ is \emph{avoiding} if it does not
    pass through the interior of any of the balls $B'_3, \dots, B'_k$.

  \begin{claim}
\label{c:avoiding}
    Let $\gamma$ be a path connecting $m_1$ and $m_2$. Then there is an avoiding
    path $\bar \gamma$ connecting $m_1$ and $m_2$ such that $\min_f(\bar \gamma) \geq
    \min_f(\gamma)$.
  \end{claim}

  \begin{proof}
  Assume that $\gamma$ enters a ball $B'_i$ for $i \in \{3, \dots, k\}$. Let us
    distinguish whether $m_i$ is a local maximum or minimum.

    First assume that $m_i$ is a local maximum. Then $\min_f(\gamma) \leq a_i$
    because $\gamma$ has to pass through $\partial B_i$. By a homotopy,
    fixed outside the interior of $B'_i$
    we can assume that $\gamma$ avoids $m_i$ (here we use
    $n \geq 2$); see, e.g., the proof of Proposition~1.14 in~\cite{hatcher02}
    how to perform this step.\footnote{We point out that the current online
    version of~\cite{hatcher02} contains a different proof of Proposition~1.14.
    Therefore, here we refer to the printed version of the book.} In addition, by further homotopy fixed outside the
    interior of $B'_i$ we can modify $\gamma$ so that it avoids the interior of
    $B'_i$ (the second homotopy pushes $\gamma$ in direction away from $m_i$).
    This does not affect $\min_f(\gamma)$ because $f(x) > a_i$ for every $x \in
    B'_i$.

    Next let us assume that $m_i$ is a local minimum. Then $\min_f(\gamma) < a_i$
    because $\gamma$ has to pass through $\partial B'_i$ (this is not a
    symmetric argument when compared with the previous case). Modify $\gamma$
    by analogous homotopies as above; however, this time with respect to $B_i$
    (so that $\gamma$ completely avoids the interior of $B_i$). Because
    $\min_f(\gamma) < a_i$ and $f(x) \geq a_i$ for $x \in \partial B_i$, the
    minimum of $\gamma$ cannot decrease by these modifications.
    By performing these modifications for all $B'_i$ when necessary, we get the
    required $\bar \gamma$.
  \end{proof}

  Now, let us consider a diffeomorphism $\psi \colon S^n \setminus \{m_k\} \to
  \mathbb{R}^n$ given by the stereographic projection (in particular, it maps closed
  balls avoiding $m_k$ to closed balls). Let $g \colon \mathbb{R}^n
  \to \mathbb{R}$ be defined as $g := f\circ \psi^{-1}$. Let $n_i := \psi(m_i)$ for $i
  \in [k-1]$.  Once we find $v \in \mathbb{R}^n$, $v \neq n_1, \dots, n_{k-1}$ such
  that $Dg(v) = 0$, then $u := \psi^{-1}(v)$ is the required point with
  $Df(u)=0$.  Note that $n_1, n_2$ are still local maxima of $g$ and $n_3,
  \dots, n_{k-1}$ are local maxima or minima. We also set $D_i := \psi(B_i)$
  and $D'_i := \psi(B'_i)$ for $i \in [k-1]$ and $C_k := \psi(B_k \setminus
  \{m_k\})$, $C'_k := \psi(B'_k \setminus \{m_k\})$. The sets $D_i$ and $D'_i$
  are closed (metric) balls centered in $n_i$ whereas $C_k$ and $C'_k$ are
  complements of open (metric) balls in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $K$ be the compact set
  obtained from $\mathbb{R}^n$ by removing the interiors of $D'_1, \dots, D'_{k-1},
  C'_k$. Let us fix small enough $\eta > 0$ such that the closed
  $\eta$-neighborhoood $K_\eta$ of $K$ avoids $n_1, \dots, n_{k-1}$. We will
  also use the notation $K_{\eta/3}$ for the closed $\frac \eta3$-neighborhood
  of $K$. See Figure~\ref{f:Ks}.

\begin{figure}
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics{K_et_al}
    \caption{The sets $K$, $K_{\eta/3}$ and $K_\eta$ and some path $\alpha$
    connecting $n_1$ and $n_2$ of the form $\alpha = \psi \circ \gamma$ where
    $\gamma$ is avoiding. In the picture, $k = 3$.}
    \label{f:Ks}
  \end{center}
\end{figure}

  Assume, for contradiction, that $K_\eta$ does not contain $v$ with $Dg(v) =
  0$. Because $K_\eta$ is compact and $g$ is $C^1$, there is $\zeta > 0$ such
  that $\|Dg(w)\| \geq \zeta$ for every $w \in K_\eta$.

  For every $w \in
K_{\eta/3}$ let $N(w)$ be the neighborhood given by Proposition~\ref{p:path_connected} (the neighborhood is
considered in the whole $\mathbb{R}^n$ not only in $K_{\eta/3}$).
By possibly restricting $N(w)$ to smaller sets,
we can assume that each $N(w)$ is open and fits into a ball of radius $\frac23
\eta$. (In particular, if $w \in K_{\eta/3}$, then $N(w) \subseteq K_\eta$.)

\begin{claim}
\label{c:Lebesgue}
  There is $\varepsilon > 0$ such that for every $x \in K_{\eta/3}$ the metric ball
  $B(x,\varepsilon) \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ centered in $x$ of radius $\varepsilon$ fits into $N(w)$ for
  some $w \in K_{\eta/3}$.
\end{claim}

\begin{proof}
This is just a modification of the Lebesgue number lemma.
  Let us consider the
  open cover $\O$ of $K_\eta$ consisting of all sets $N(w)$ together with the
  relative interiors of the sets $B'_1 \cap (K_\eta \setminus K_{\eta/3}),
  \dots, B'_{k-1} \cap (K_\eta \setminus K_{\eta/3}),
  C'_k \cap (K_\eta \setminus K_{\eta/3})$ (all sets are relatively open in $K_\eta$). Note that the newly added sets are
  disjoint from $K_{\eta/3}$. Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be the standard Lebesgue number with
  respect to the cover $\O$, that is, for every $x \in K_\eta$, the ball
  $B(x,\varepsilon)$ fits into one of the sets of $\O$; see~\cite[Lemma~27.5]{munkres}. Then the required claim
  holds with this $\varepsilon$ because if $x \in K_{\eta/3}$, then $x$ does not belong to
  any of the newly added sets of $\O$.
\end{proof}

Let $\varepsilon$ be the value obtained from Claim~\ref{c:Lebesgue}. Because
some ball $B(x, \varepsilon)$ fits into some $N(w)$ which fits into a ball of
radius $\frac23 \eta$, we get $\varepsilon \leq \frac 23\eta$.

Let us consider a path $\gamma$ in $S^n$ such that
\begin{enumerate}[(s1)]
  \item $s - \min_f(\gamma) < a'_1 - a_1$;
  \item $s - \min_f(\gamma) < a'_2 - a_2$; and
  \item $s - \min_f(\gamma) < \frac{\zeta\varepsilon}4$.
\end{enumerate}
By Claim~\ref{c:avoiding}, we can assume that
$\gamma$ is avoiding.
We will start modifying $\gamma$ to $\gamma'$ with
$\min_f(\gamma') > s$, which will be the required contradiction.
Let $\alpha :=
\psi \circ \gamma$; see the diagram at Figure~\ref{f:diag}. Then $\alpha$ connects $n_1$ and $n_2$, and $\alpha$ avoids
the interiors of $D'_3, \dots, D'_{k-1}$ and $C'_k$; see Figure~\ref{f:Ks}.

\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
 \left[0,1\right] \arrow[r,"\gamma"]\arrow[dr, "\alpha"'] & S^n\setminus\{m_k\} \subseteq S^n \arrow[r, "f"] \arrow[d,"\psi"] & \mathbb{R} \\
 & \mathbb{R}^n \arrow[ur, "g"']&
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
\caption{The maps $\alpha$, $\gamma$, $\psi$, $f$ and $g$. The two triangles
  are commutative.}
\label{f:diag}
\end{figure}
Because, $\alpha$ is a continuous function on the compact interval $[0,1]$, we
get, by the Heine-Cantor theorem, that $\alpha$ is uniformly continuous. In particular, there is $\delta > 0$
such that if $t_1, t_2 \in [0,1]$ with $|t_1 - t_2| \leq \delta$, then
$\|\alpha(t_1) - \alpha(t_2)\| \leq \frac{\varepsilon}3$. Let us consider a
positive integer $\ell > \frac 1\delta$. We will be modifying $\alpha$ in two
steps. First, we get $\alpha''$ such that $\alpha''(t) > s$ if $t =
\frac{j}\ell$ for some $j \in \{0, \dots, \ell\}$. Then we modify $\alpha''$
individually on the intervals $(\frac j \ell, \frac{j+1}\ell)$ for $j \in \{0,
\dots, \ell-1\}$ obtaining $\alpha'$ with $\min_g(\alpha') > s$. (Given a path $\beta \colon [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^n$ connecting $n_1$
and $n_2$, we define $\min_g(\beta) := \min\{g(\beta(t))\colon t \in [0,1]\} =
\min_f(\psi^{-1}\circ \beta)$.)
The required $\gamma'$ will be obtained as $\psi^{-1} \circ \alpha'$.

For the first step, let us first say that an interval $I_j = [\frac j \ell,
\frac{j+1}\ell]$ where $j \in \{0, \dots, \ell-1\}$ \emph{requires a
modification} if $g(\alpha(t)) \leq s$ for some $t \in I_j$. This in
particular
means that $\alpha(t) \in K$ for this $t$: Indeed, this follows from (s1) and
(s2). We already know that $\alpha$ avoids the interiors of $D'_3, \dots,
D'_{k-1}$ and $C'_k$. It remains to check that $\alpha(t)$ does not belong to
the interiors of $D'_1$ and $D'_2$ as well. Because $\alpha$ has to meet
$\partial D_1$ and $\partial D_2$, we get that $\min_f(\gamma) = \min_g(\alpha)
\leq a_1, a_2$ from the definition of $a_1$ and $a_2$. By (s1) and (s2), we get
$s < a'_1, a'_2$. Therefore, from the definition of $a'_1$ and $a'_2$, we get
that $\alpha(t)$ cannot belong neither to $D'_1$ nor to $D'_2$ as required.

By the uniform continuity, the fact that $g(\alpha(t)) \leq s$ for some $t \in
I_j$ implies that $\alpha(I_j)$ belongs to the closed
$\frac{\varepsilon}3$-neighborhood of $K$. In particular, $\alpha(I_j)$ belongs
to $K_{\eta/3}$ as $\varepsilon \leq \frac23\eta < \eta$.

Now, for each $I_j$ which requires a modification, consider the open
$\varepsilon$-ball $U_j \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$ centered in $\alpha(\frac{2j+1}{2\ell})$.
(Note that, $\frac{2j+1}{2\ell}$ is the midpoint of $I_j$.) From the previous
considerations, the centre of each $U_j$ belongs to $K_{\eta/3}$ and the whole
$U_j$ is a subset of $K_\eta$.

Now we perform the first step. Consider $t = \frac j\ell$ for some $j \in
\{0,\dots, \ell\}$. If $g(\alpha(t)) > s$, then we do nothing. Note that this
includes the cases $j = 0$ or $j=\ell$. If $g(\alpha(t)) \leq
s$, then both intervals $I_{j-1}$ and $I_j$ require a modification.
By the uniform continuity, the open ball $V_j
\subseteq \mathbb{R}^n$
centered in $\alpha(t)$ of radius $\frac{2\varepsilon}3$ is a subset of both
$U_{j-1}$ and $U_j$; see Figure~\ref{f:UV}. We observe that $V_j$ is a subset of $K_\eta$ as $V_j
\subseteq U_j$.
In particular, by the
definition of $\zeta$, we get that $\|Dg(w)\| \geq \zeta$ for every $w \in
V_j$. By Lemma~\ref{l:larger_f}, used on a closed ball of a slightly smaller
radius $\frac{\varepsilon}2$, there is a point $v$ in $V_j$ such that
\[g(v) \geq
g(\alpha(t)) + \frac{\zeta\varepsilon}4 \geq {\textstyle \min_g(\alpha)} +
\frac{\zeta\varepsilon}4 = {\textstyle \min_f(\gamma)} +
\frac{\zeta\varepsilon}4.\]
Using (s3), we get $g(v) > s$. Now, by a homotopy, we modify $\alpha$ to
$\alpha''$ so that
it stays fixed outside the interval $(t - \frac1{4\ell}, t+\frac1{4\ell})$, the
modification of $\alpha$ occurs only in $V_j$ and $\alpha''(t) = v$; see
Figure~\ref{f:12step}.
We perform
these modifications simultaneously for every $t = \frac j\ell$ with
$g(\alpha(t)) \leq
s$. This is possible as the intervals $[t - \frac1{4\ell}, t+\frac1{4\ell}]$ are
pairwise disjoint. This way, we obtain the required $\alpha''$.

\begin{figure}
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[page=1, scale=.8]{UV}
   \caption{The sets $U_{j-1}$, $U_j$ and $V_j$ in the case that
   $g(\alpha(\frac j\ell)) \leq s$.}
   \label{f:UV}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
 \begin{center}
   \includegraphics[page=2, scale=.8]{UV}
   \caption{The first and the second step of modifications of $\alpha$ on an
   interval $I_j$ requiring a modification (the modification is shown only on
   this interval).}
   \label{f:12step}
 \end{center}
\end{figure}

Finally, we perform the second step of the modification. Let $I_j = [\frac
j\ell, \frac{j+1}\ell]$ be an
interval requiring a modification. We already know that
$g(\alpha''(\frac{j}{\ell})) > s$ and $g(\alpha''(\frac{j+1}{\ell})) > s$. In
addition, we know that both $\alpha''(\frac{j}{\ell})$ and
$\alpha''(\frac{j+1}{\ell})$ belong to $U_j$ as they belong to $V_j$ or
$V_{j+1}$. We set $\alpha'(\frac{j}{\ell}) := \alpha''(\frac{j}{\ell})$ and
$\alpha'(\frac{j+1}{\ell}) := \alpha''(\frac{j+1}{\ell})$. Next, we aim to
define $\alpha'$ on $(\frac{j}{\ell}, \frac{j+1}{\ell})$, which is the interior
of $I_j$, so that $\min(g(\alpha'(I_j))) > s$. By Claim~\ref{c:Lebesgue}, $U_j$
fits into some $N(w)$ for some $w \in K_{\eta/3}$. (Here we use that the center
of $U_j$ belongs to $K_{\eta/3}$.) Now, Proposition~\ref{p:path_connected} implies that
$\alpha'(\frac{j}{\ell})$ and $\alpha'(\frac{j+1}{\ell})$ may be connected by
a path $P\colon[0,1] \to \mathbb{R}^n$ such that $g(P(t)) > s$ for every $t \in [0,1]$:
Indeed, let us assume that, without loss of generality,
$g(\alpha'(\frac{j}{\ell})) \geq g(\alpha'(\frac{j+1}{\ell})) > s$. First, draw
$P$ as a straight line from $\alpha'(\frac{j}{\ell})$ towards $\alpha'(\frac{j+1}{\ell})$ until
we reach a (first) point $x \in U_j \subseteq N(w)$ with $g(x) =
g(\alpha'(\frac{j+1}{\ell}))$; of course, it may happen that $x =
\alpha'(\frac{j+1}{\ell})$. Then by Proposition~\ref{p:path_connected}, $x$ and
$\alpha'(\frac{j}{\ell})$ can be connected within the level set $L_{g(x)}$;
see Figure~\ref{f:12step}.
(This may mean that $P$ leaves $N(w)$, or even $K_{\eta}$, but this is not problem for the
argument.)
Altogether, we set $\alpha'$ on $I_j$ so that it follows the path $P$, and this
we do independently on each interval requiring a modification. Other intervals
remain unmodified.

From the construction, we get $\min_g(\alpha') > s$; therefore the path $\gamma'
:= \psi^{-1} \circ \alpha'$ satisfies $\min_f(\gamma') = \min_g(\alpha') > s$ which
contradicts the definition of $s$.
\end{proof}

\section{Depth-like functions with few critical points}
\label{s:conclusions}

\subparagraph*{Bipyramid over a triangle.} In $\mathbb{R}^3$, we have a candidate example
of a convex body, namely the regular bipyramid $B$ over an equilateral
triangle $T$, such that there are exactly four barycentric hyperplanes (with
respect to the barycenter of $B$, which coincides with the point of maximal
depth in this case).
On the one hand, this is not surprising, because this is $n + 1$
hyperplanes, where $n = 3$ is the dimension of the ambient space. On the other
hand, if this is true, then it answers negatively, in dimension $3$, a question
from~\cite[A8]{croft_falconer_guy94}, whether $2^n - 1$ barycentric hyperplanes
always exist.

More concretely, we conjecture that the only barycentric hyperplanes are the
following: three planes perpendicular to $T$ which meet $T$ in lines realizing
the depth of $T$ (these would be the hyperplanes realizing the depth), and the
plane of $T$ (this is the one extra plane).  Unfortunately, in this case, it is
not so easy to analyze the depth function as in the case of $T \times I$.

\subparagraph*{A function with four critical points and many properties of the depth.}
Let us recall that the depth function $\delta \colon S^{n-1} \to [0,1]$
on a convex body satisfies the following properties:

\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
 \item \label{e:i} $\delta(v) = 1 - \delta(-v)$;
 \item \label{e:ii} $0 \in \conv U$ where $U \subseteq S^{n-1}$ is the set of
   the points where $\delta$ attains the minimum (by Proposition~\ref{p:irbt});
 \item \label{e:iii} $|U| \geq 3$, (by Corollary~\ref{c:three});
 \item \label{e:iv} $\delta$ is $C^1$ (by Proposition~\ref{p:C1});
 \item \label{e:v} if $U$ is finite, then $\delta$ has at least one more pair of opposite critical points (by Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}
and by (\ref{e:i})).
\end{enumerate}

We will show that our argument in the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:four} is tight in
the sense that for $n \geq 3$ there exists a function $\delta' \colon S^{n-1} \to [0,1]$
satisfying (\ref{e:i})--(\ref{e:v}) with equalities in (\ref{e:iii}) and (\ref{e:v}).

In order to define $\delta'$, it will be much more convenient to reparametrize
$\delta'$. Thus, we will exhibit $\delta'' \colon S^{n-1} \to [-1, 1]$ which
satisfies (\ref{e:ii})--(\ref{e:v}) with equalities in (\ref{e:iii}) and (\ref{e:v}) but $\delta''(v) =
-\delta''(-v)$ instead of (\ref{e:i}). Then the required $\delta'$ is obtained as
$\frac12 \delta'' + \frac 12$.

This time we decompose $\mathbb{R}^{n}$ as $\mathbb{R}^{n-2}
\times \mathbb{R}^2$ and for a point $x \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ we write $x = (y; z)$ where $y =
(y_1, \dots, y_{n-2}) \in
\mathbb{R}^{n-2}$ and $z = (z_1, z_2) \in \mathbb{R}^2$. The idea is to define $\delta''$
separately on the sphere $S^{n-3} \times \{0\}$ so that there is only one pair
of opposite critical points here (this will be the extra pair from (\ref{e:v})),
separately on the sphere $\{0\} \times S^1$ so that there are three pairs of
critical points (these will be three global minima and three global maxima from
(\ref{e:iii})), and then merge the two constructions so that the resulting function is
smooth and no new critical points arise. Unfortunately, the details are
somewhat tedious.

We actually define $\delta''$ on $\mathbb{R}^{n} \setminus
\{0\}$ considering $S^{n-1}$ as a subset of $\mathbb{R}^{n} \setminus
\{0\}$.
Now, we set
\begin{equation}
\label{e:delta''first}
  \delta''(y,z) = \frac1{10}(2\|y\| - \|y\|^3)y_1 + \frac12\|z\|(z_1^3 - z_1z_2^2 - 2z_1z_2^2).
\end{equation}
We remark that the expression $(z_1^3 - z_1z_2^2 - 2z_1z_2^2)$ is nothing else
then the real part $\Re(z^3)$, where $z = (z_1, z_2)$ is identified with the
complex number $z_1 + iz_2$. From~\eqref{e:delta''first} we easily see that
$\delta''$ is smooth on  $\mathbb{R}^{n} \setminus \{0\}$, therefore its restriction to $S^{n-1}$ is smooth as well as
the inclusion $S^{n-1} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n} \setminus \{0\}$ is a smooth embedding.
We also easily check that $\delta''(y,z) = - \delta''(-y, -z)$.

From now on, let us assume that $(y,z) \in S^{n-1}$, that is $\|y\|^2 + \|z\|^2 = 1$.
If $y \neq 0$, we get
\begin{equation}
\label{e:delta''y}
  (2\|y\| - \|y\|^3)y_1 = (1 - (1 - \|y\|^2)^2)\frac{y_1}{\|y\|} =
  (1-\|z\|^4)\frac{y_1}{\|y\|},
\end{equation}
and if $z \neq 0$, we get (in complex numbers)
\begin{equation}
\label{e:delta''z}
  \|z\|(z_1^3 - z_1z_2^2 - 2z_1z_2^2) = \|z\|^4 \frac{\Re (z^3)}{\|z\|^3} =
  \|z\|^4 \Re((z/\|z\|)^3).
\end{equation}
Altogether~\eqref{e:delta''first}, \eqref{e:delta''y} and~\eqref{e:delta''z}
give
\begin{equation}
\label{e:delta''second}
  \delta''(y,z) =
  \begin{cases}
    (1-\|z\|^4)\frac1{10}\frac{y_1}{\|y\|} + \|z\|^4 \frac12\Re((z/\|z\|)^3)
 \hbox{ if } y,z \neq 0,\\
     \frac12\Re(z^3)
 \hbox{ if } y = 0,\\
    \frac1{10}y_1
\hbox{ if } z = 0.\\
  \end{cases}
\end{equation}

In particular,~\eqref{e:delta''second} implies that for $y,z \neq 0$, $\delta''(y,z)$ is a convex combination of $\frac1{10}
\frac{y_1}{\|y\|}$ and $\frac12\Re((z/\|z\|)^3)$, which attain values in
$[-1/10, 1/10]$ and $[-1/2,1/2]$ respectively.  Therefore
$\delta''(S^{n-1}) \subseteq [-1/2,1/2]$.

Now we check that $\delta''$ attains exactly three global minima on $S^{n-1}$.
We observe that $\delta''(0,e^{i(2k+1)/3)\pi}) = -1/2$ for $k = 0,1,2$
by~\eqref{e:delta''second}. Therefore $\delta''$ attains the
minimum at these three points. On the other hand, we realize that these are the
only three points where $\delta''(y,z) = -1/2$. Indeed, if $y = 0$, then
$\delta''(y,z) = -1/2$ only if $\Re(z^3) = -1$, which occurs only if
$z = e^{i(2k+1)\pi/3}$ for $k = 0,1,2$. If $z = 0$, then $\delta''(y,z) \geq
-1/10$ by~\eqref{e:delta''second}. Finally, if $y,z \neq
0$, then the convex combination from~\eqref{e:delta''second}
has the strictly
positive coefficient $(1- \|z\|^4)$ at $\frac1{10} \frac{y_1}{\|y\|}$, which
implies $\delta''(y,z) > \frac12\Re((z/\|z\|)^3) \geq -1/2$. This
characterization of global minima also gives property (\ref{e:ii}).

It remains to check that there is exactly one extra pair of opposite critical
points of $\delta''$. This could be done via Lagrange multipliers but the
computations seem to be slightly tedious, thus we provide a different argument.
In advance, we announce that these extra critical points
will be $(e_1, 0)$ and $(-e_1,0)$, where $e_1 \in S^{n-3} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n-2}$ is the first coordinate
vector $e_1 = (1,0,\dots, 0)$. We will rule out all other options, thus
these points have to be indeed critical by Proposition~\ref{p:one_more_point}.

Let $(y,z) \in S^{n-1}$ be a critical point. If $y = 0$, then $\delta''(0, z) =
\frac 12\Re(z^3)$ by~\eqref{e:delta''second} when restricted to $\{0\} \times
S^1 \subseteq S^{n-1}$ (where $0 \in \mathbb{R}^{n-2}$ in this case). Therefore $(0,
z)$ has to be critical point of the restriction as well. It is easy to analyse
that the only critical points of $\frac 12\Re(z^3)$ are of the form $z =
e^{ik\pi/3}$ where $k \in \{0,\dots, 5\}$, which are the minima and the maxima
opposite to the minima. If $z = 0$, then $\delta''(y,0) = \frac{1}{10}y_1$
when restricted to $S^{n-3} \times \{0\} \subseteq S^{n-1}$ (where $0 \in
\mathbb{R}^2$ in this case). Again, it is easy to analyze that $e_1$ and $-e_1$ are the
only critical points. (Here they are the maximum and minimum in the restriction
respectively, but they are not even local extremes on whole $S^{n-1}$.)
Finally, we consider the case $y, z \neq 0$. First, we fix $y$ and let $z$ vary
subject to $\|y\|^2 + \|z\|^2 = 1$, which implies that $\|z\|$ is fixed as well. Then $\delta''(y, z) =  a_y + b_y\Re((z/\|z\|)^3)$ by~\eqref{e:delta''second} where
$a_y$ and $b_y$ are constants depending on $y$. This implies that if $(y,z)$ is
critical, then $z/\|z\| = e^{ik\pi/3}$ where $k \in \{0,\dots, 5\}$. Next, we fix
$z$ and let $y$ vary. By a similar idea as above, we deduce that if $(y,z)$ is
critical, then $y = (\pm y_1, 0,\dots,0)$. Finally, let us fix both $y$ and $z$
and consider the
$2$-plane $\rho(y,z)$ given by all vectors $(t_y y, t_z z)$ for $t_y, t_z \in
\mathbb{R}$. This $2$-plane meets $S^{n-1}$ in a circle. For $(t_y y, t_z z)$ in
$\rho(y,z) \cap S^{n-1}$ the equation~\eqref{e:delta''second} gives
\begin{align*}
    \delta''(t_y, t_z) &= (1 - t_z^4 \|z\|^{4})\frac{1}{10}\frac{y_1}{\|y\|} +
  t_z^4\|z\|\frac12 \Re((z/\|z\|)^3)\\
  &= \frac{1}{10}\frac{y_1}{\|y\|} + t_z^4
  \|z\|^{4}\left(\frac 12 \Re((z/\|z\|)^3) -
  \frac{1}{10}\frac{y_1}{\|y\|}\right).
\end{align*}
Therefore $(t_y y, t_z z)$, for $t_y, t_z \neq 0$, may be the critical point of
$\delta''$ only if
\begin{equation}
\label{e:z_not_y}
  \frac 12 \Re((z/\|z\|)^3) = \frac{1}{10}\frac{y_1}{\|y\|}
\end{equation}
 which is independent of the values $t_y$ and $t_z$. If we recall the previous
 two conditions on the critical point $(y,z)$, we get $\Re((z/\|z\|)^3) = \pm
 1$ and $\frac{y_1}{\|y\|} = \pm1$, therefore~\eqref{e:z_not_y} may not hold
 simultaneously. This finishes the analysis of the critical points of
 $\delta''$.

\iffull
\section*{Acknowledgements} We thank Stanislav Nagy for introducing us to Gr\"{u}nbaum's questions,
for useful discussions on the topic, for providing us with many references, and
for comments on a preliminary version of this paper. We thank Jan Kyn\v{c}l and
Pavel Valtr for letting us know about a more general counterexample they found.
We thank Roman Karasev for providing us with
references~\cite{karasev11,blagojevic-karasev16} and for comments on a
preliminary version of this paper. Finally, we thank an anonymous referee for
many comments on a preliminary version of the paper which, in particular,
yielded an important correction in Section~\ref{s:one_more_point}.
\fi

Combinatorics (math.CO); Computational Geometry (cs.CG); Probability (math.PR)

Barycentric cuts through a convex body