The isodiametric problem with lattice-point constraints

Abstract: In this paper, the isodiametric problem for centrally symmetric convex bodies in the Euclidean d-space R^d containing no interior non-zero point of a lattice L is studied. It is shown that the intersection of a suitable ball with the Dirichlet-Voronoi cell of 2L is extremal, i.e., it has minimum diameter among all bodies with the same volume. It is conjectured that these sets are the only extremal bodies, which is proved for all three dimensional and several prominent lattices.

\section{Introduction}

Let $\mathbb R^d$ be the $d$-dimensional Euclidean space endowed with standard
norm $\|\cdot\|$ and inner product $\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle$. We
denote the set of full rank lattices by $\mathcal L^d$, where a (full rank) {\em
lattice} $L$ of $\mathbb R^d$ is a set of the form $L = A\mathbb{Z}^d$ with $A
\in \mbox{GL}_d(\mathbb{R})$. The columns of $A$ are called a {\em basis}
of $L$. The determinant $\det L = |\det A|$ of the lattice is independent
of the chosen basis.

For a lattice $L$, let $\mathcal K_L$ be the family of all centrally symmetric
convex bodies, that is, compact convex sets $K$ with $K = -K$, which do
not contain a non-zero lattice point in their interior. We denote the
volume ($d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure) of a convex body $K \in \mathcal K_L$
by $\vol K$ and its diameter by $\diam K=2\max_{\vec{x}\in K}
\|\vec{x}\|$. Notice that for centrally symmetric sets the diameter is
twice the circumradius.

{\em Minkowski's first fundamental theorem} (see e.g. \cite[\S~5,
Th.~2]{gru-lek} and \cite{minkowski}) gives an upper bound for the
volume of a convex body $K \in \mathcal K_L$:
\begin{theorem}[Minkowski, 1891] \label{mink-theorem}
If $L \in \mathcal L^d$ and $K\in \mathcal K_L$ then
\[
\vol K \leq 2^d\det L.
\]
\end{theorem}

Here we consider the following problem:

\begin{problem}[The isodiametric problem with lattice point constraints] \label{iso-problem}
Given a lattice $L\in\mathcal L^d$ and a real number $V\in (0,2^d\det L]$,
determine the minimum diameter
\[
\diam_L(V)=\min\left\{\diam K : K \in \mathcal K_L, \vol K = V\right\}
\]
and the bodies $K\in\mathcal K_L$ for which this minimum is attained.
\end{problem}

Since the problem is trivial for $d = 1$, we consider it only for $d \geq
2$. In Theorem~\ref{satz1} we solve it partially by giving a description
of convex bodies attaining the minimum. We conjecture
(Conjecture~\ref{conj1}) that these convex bodies are the only ones
attaining the minimum and we show that the conjecture is valid in many
cases, e.g., for a wide class of lattices
(Corollary~\ref{coro_small-radii-theorem} and
Proposition~\ref{prop:ridge}) and for many values of $V$
(Corollary~\ref{small-radii-theorem}). In particular we give a complete
answer for all lattices of dimension $d\leq 3$, for the integral lattice
$\mathbb Z^d$, the Leech lattice $\Lambda_{24}$, all root lattices $\mathsf{A}_d$
with $d \geq 2$, $\mathsf{D}_d$ with $d \geq 3$, $\mathsf{E}_d$ with
$d=6,7,8$ and all their reciprocals (Theorem \ref{t:sol_lattices}). The
$2$-dimensional case was already completely solved in \cite{hern-scott} by
different methods.

\section{Main Results}\label{sec:results}

Before stating our main results we need some more notation. For a
lattice $L \in \mathcal L^d$ we consider its {\it Dirichlet-Voronoi cell}
\[
\DV(L)=\bigl\{\vec{x}\in\mathbb R^d:\|\vec{x}\|\leq\|\vec{x}-\vec{y}\|\mbox{ for
all }\vec{y}\in L\bigr\}.
\]
Its volume is equal to $\det L$, its circumradius is equal to the {\it
inhomogeneous minimum} (also called covering radius) of $L$,
\[
\mu(L)=\min_{\vec{y} \in L} \max_{\vec{x} \in \mathbb R^d} \|\vec{x} -
\vec{y}\| =\min\bigl\{\mu\in\mathbb R:L + B_d(\mu) = \mathbb R^d\bigr\},
\]
and its inradius (also called packing radius) is half of the {\it
homogeneous minimum} of $L$,
\[
\lambda(L)=\min_{\vec{y} \in L\setminus \{\vec{0}\}} \|\vec{y}\| =
\min\bigl\{\lambda \in \mathbb R : B_d(\lambda) \cap L \neq\{\vec{0}\}\bigr\}.
\]
Here $B_d(r)=\bigl\{\vec{x}\in \mathbb R^d : \|\vec{x}\| \leq r\bigr\}$
denotes the $d$-dimensional ball centered at the origin with radius
$r$. For sets $A,B\subset\mathbb R^d$ we write
$A+B=\{\vec{a}+\vec{b}:\vec{a}\in A,\,\vec{b}\in B\}$ to denote the
Minkowski addition (vector sum). We write $\vec{y}+K$ instead of
$\{\vec{y}\}+K$.  For a set $A \subset \mathbb R^d$ and a real number
$\alpha$ we define $\alpha A=\{\alpha \vec{a}:\vec{a}\in A\}$. Then,
if $K$ is a $d$-dimensional convex body we have $\vol (\alpha K) =
\alpha^d \vol K$ and $\diam (\alpha K) = \alpha \diam K$.

Clearly, $\DV(L)$ is a {\it parallelohedron}, i.e., a convex polytope
which tiles $\mathbb R^d$ by (lattice) translations. Furthermore, every
$(d-1)$-dimensional face (facet) of $\DV(2L)$ contains exactly one
lattice point in its relative interior, and it is centrally symmetric
with respect to this point (see e.g. \cite[\S~12]{gru-lek}).

For $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$ we define the convex body $K_L(V)$ by
choosing the (unique) positive real number $r_{\!_L}(V)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{extremal-body}
K_L(V)=B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)\cap\DV(2L)
\end{equation}
has volume $V$ (see Figure \ref{extremal_sets} for an example of
$K_L(V)$ in $\mathbb R^3$).

\begin{theorem}\label{satz1}
Let $L \in \mathcal L^d$ be a lattice and let $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$. Then for
all $K \in \mathcal K_L$ with $\vol K=V$ the inequality $\diam K_L(V) \leq
\diam K$ holds.
\end{theorem}

We present a proof in Section \ref{sec:proofs}. We say that a convex body
$K\in\mathcal K_L$ is an {\em extremal body} if it is a solution of Problem
\ref{iso-problem}, hence if $\diam K=\diam K_L(V)$.

\begin{conjecture} \label{conj1}
For $L \in \mathcal L^d$ and $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$, $K_L(V)$ is the unique
extremal body.
\end{conjecture}

Notice that Conjecture~\ref{conj1} is trivially true if $r_{\!_L}(V) \leq
\lambda(L)$ because of the classical isodiametric inequality without
lattice-point constraints (see e.g. \cite[p.~83]{BonFen}), which says
that for a fixed volume the ball is the only set with minimum
diameter. In Section \ref{sec:equality-cases} we verify Conjecture
\ref{conj1} for many particular cases:

\begin{theorem}\label{t:sol_lattices}
$K_L(V)$ is the only extremal body for any $V \in (0,2^d \det L]$ and for
the following lattices (for explicit descriptions we refer to
\cite{cs-1988}): all lattices in dimension $2$ and $3$, the integral
lattice $\mathbb Z^d$, the Leech lattice $\Lambda_{24}$, all root lattices
$\mathsf{A}_d$ with $d \geq 2$, $\mathsf{D}_d$ with $d \geq 3$,
$\mathsf{E}_d$ with $d = 6,7,8$ and all their reciprocals.
\end{theorem}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{satz1}}\label{sec:proofs}

Our proof of Theorem~\ref{satz1} relies on an equivalent point of view.
Instead of minimizing the diameter among all convex bodies in $\mathcal K_L$ with
fixed volume, we maximize the volume among all convex bodies in $\mathcal K_L$
with fixed diameter. It turns out that extremal bodies also maximize
volume among all convex bodies in $\mathcal K_L$ with fixed diameter.

For any $V \in (0, 2^d \det L]$ the minimum diameter of a body
$K\in\mathcal K_L$ with volume $V$ is at most the diameter of $\DV(2L)$,
which is equal to $4\mu(L)$. Theorem~\ref{satz1} is equivalent to the
following statement.

\begin{theorem}\label{satz2}
Let $L\in\mathcal L^d$ be a lattice and let $D$ be at most $4\mu(L)$.
Define $V$ by $2r_{\!_L}(V)=D$. Then for every $K \in \mathcal K_L$ with $\diam
K = D$ the inequality $\vol K\leq\vol K_L(V)$ holds.
\end{theorem}

Here we show that Theorem~\ref{satz2} implies Theorem~\ref{satz1}. Using
an analogous argument the other direction can be proved. For $V \in
(0,2^d\det L]$ let $K \in \mathcal K_L$ be a convex body with $\vol K=V$. Suppose
that $\diam K_L(V)>\diam K$. Then Theorem~\ref{satz2} yields a
contradiction:
\[
V=\vol K_L(V)\geq\vol\left(\dfrac{\diam K_L(V)}{\diam
K}K\right)>\vol K=V.
\]
Hence, $\diam K_L(V) \leq \diam K$.

For the proof of Theorem~\ref{satz2} we recall some standard notions
from the Geometry of Numbers. A lattice $L\in\mathcal L^d$ is called {\it
admissible} for a subset $K\subset\mathbb R^d$ if $K$ has no lattice point
except the origin in its interior. In particular the lattice $L$ is
admissible for all convex bodies in $\mathcal K_L$. On the other hand, a
lattice $L\in\mathcal L^d$ is called {\it packing lattice} for $K$ if ${\rm
int}(K+\vec{x})\cap{\rm int}(K+\vec{y})=\emptyset$ for all distinct
$\vec{x},\vec{y}\in L$. Then for a centrally symmetric convex body
$K$, a lattice $L$ is a packing lattice for $K$ if and only if it is
admissible for $2K$ (see e.g.~\cite[\S 20, Th.~1]{gru-lek}).

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{satz2}]
As mentioned above, the case $r_{\!_L}(V) \leq \lambda(L)$ is covered by
the classical isodiametric inequality without lattice-point
constraints. Thus we suppose $r_{\!_L}(V)>\lambda(L)$.

Let $K \in \mathcal K_L$ be a convex body with $\diam K=2r_{\!_L}(V)$. By definition
of $\mathcal K_L$ the lattice $L$ is admissible for $K$. Therefore $2L$ is a
packing lattice for~$K$. Since $\DV(2L)$ is a parallelohedron,
\[
\vol K=\vol\bigl((2L+K)\cap \DV(2L)\bigr)
\]
(roughly speaking, the Dirichlet-Voronoi cell $\DV(2L)$ contains the
full set $K$ ``in pieces"). On the other hand, since $\diam K=2r_{\!_L}(V)$
we have $2\vec{y}+K\subseteq 2\vec{y}+B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$ for all
$\vec{y}\in L$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\label{2lk} (2L+K)\cap\DV(2L)\subseteq
\bigl[2L+B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)\bigr] \cap \DV(2L).
\end{equation}
The right hand side of \eqref{2lk} is equal to
$B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)\cap\DV(2L)=K_L(V)$, because if $\vec{x}\in
\bigl[2\vec{y} + B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)\bigr]\cap \DV(2L)$ for
$\vec{y} \in L$, then by the definition of the Dirichlet-Voronoi
cell we have $\|\vec{x}\| \leq \|\vec{x} - 2\vec{y}\| \leq r_L(V)$.
Therefore, $\vol K_L(V)\geq\vol\bigl((2L+K)\cap \DV(2L)\bigr)=\vol
K$, as required.
\end{proof}

\section{Equality Cases}\label{sec:equality-cases}

In this section we further investigate equality cases. We give
geometric conditions on the vertices (Corollary
\ref{coro_small-radii-theorem}) and on the facets (Proposition
\ref{prop:ridge}) of the Dirichlet-Voronoi cell $\DV(2L)$ which
assure the validity of Conjecture~\ref{conj1} for the corresponding
lattice $L$. As a consequence of these results we obtain a proof of
Theorem \ref{t:sol_lattices}.

Let $L\in\mathcal L^d$ be a lattice and let $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$. Then
$r_{\!_L}(V)\leq 2\mu(L)$.  We define
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:MCR}
\mathcal R=\bigl\{\vec{x}\in\mathbb R^d:\|\vec{x}-\vec{y}\|>r_{\!_L}(V),\mbox{ for all
} \vec{y} \in 2L\bigr\}.
\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}
Let $K\in\mathcal K_L$ be an extremal body. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] $\mathbb R^d =\bigl(2L + K_L(V)\bigr) \cup{\mathcal R}$,
\item[ii)] the intersection $(2L + K)\cap\mathcal R$ is empty,
\item[iii)] $\mathbb R^d=(2L+K)\cup{\mathcal R}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
For every $\vec{x} \in \mathbb R^d$ there exists $\vec{y}\in L$ such that
$\vec{x}\in2\vec{y}+\DV(2L)$. From the definition of $\DV(2L)$ we
know that $2\vec{y}$ is a nearest point of the lattice $2L$ to
$\vec{x}$. If $\vec{x}\not\in2\vec{y}+K_L(V)$, then
$\vec{x}\not\in2\vec{y}+B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$. Consequently, since
$2\vec{y}$ is a nearest point to $\vec{x}$, we have $\vec{x}\not\in
2L+B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$. Hence, $\vec{x}\in\mathcal R$. This shows i).

ii) is obvious since $\diam K=2r_{\!_L}(V)$.

For iii) suppose that $(2L+K)\cup{\mathcal R}$ is strictly contained in
$\mathbb R^d$. Then there exists a set $B$ with positive volume such that
$2L+B$ does not intersect $(2L+K)\cup{\mathcal R}$. The latter is
invariant with respect to translations of $2L$ which contradicts the
extremality of $K$.
\end{proof}

Let $K \in \mathcal K_L$ be an extremal body with respect to the lattice
$L$ and a value $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$. Since $2L$ is admissible for
$K$, there exists a closed halfspace $G_{\vec{y}}^-$ for every
$\vec{y} \in L \setminus \{\vec{0}\}$ with bounding hyperplane
$G_{\vec{y}}$ through $\vec{y}$ so that $K \subseteq G_{\vec{y}}^-$.
Since $K$ is contained in $B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$, we have the
representation
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:extremalK}
K=\bigcap_{\substack{\vec{y}\in L\setminus\{\vec{0}\},\\[1mm]
\|\vec{y}\| < r_{\!_L}(V)}} G_{\vec{y}}^- \cap B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr).
\end{equation}
Notice that we do not have to care about separation of lattice points
outside or on the boundary of $B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$.

We now consider those $\vec{y}\in L \setminus \{\vec{0}\}$ with
$\|\vec{y}\|<r_{\!_L}(V)$ which are facet-centers of the Dirichlet-Voronoi cell
$\DV(2L)$. Notice that all the facets of $\DV(2L)$ have a center since
they are centrally symmetric. In some cases we can prove that facet
defining hyperplanes of $\DV(2L)$ coincide with those of~$K$. In the
following $C_L\subset L$ denotes the set of lattice points being centers
of facets of $\DV(2L)$. Let the facets of $\DV(2L)$ be defined by
hyperplanes $H_{\vec{y}}$ passing through $\vec{y}\in C_L$ and let
$H_{\vec{y}}^-$ denote the corresponding closed halfspaces bounded by
$H_{\vec{y}}$ and containing $\DV(2L)$, so that
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:dv2l}
\DV(2L) = \bigcap_{\vec{y} \in C_L} H_{\vec{y}}^-
\end{equation}
is a non-redundant description of $\DV(2L)$.

The following proposition allows to prove Conjecture \ref{conj1} for
many values of $V$ and many lattices.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:equalfacets}
Let $L\in\mathcal L^d$ be a lattice and let $D$ be at most $4\mu(L)$.
Define $V$ by $2r_{\!_L}(V)=D$. Let $K\in\mathcal K_L$, given as in
\eqref{eqn:extremalK}, be extremal with respect to $L$ and $V$, and
let $\vec{y}\in C_L$ with $\|\vec{y}\| < r_{\!_L}(V)$. If the facet
$F_{\vec{y}} = H_{\vec{y}}\cap\DV(2L)$ of $\DV(2L)$ intersects
$\mathbb R^d\setminus B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$ then
$G_{\vec{y}}=H_{\vec{y}}$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
Suppose $G_{\vec{y}}\neq H_{\vec{y}}$ for some $\vec{y}\in C_L$
satisfying the assumptions of the proposition.
We construct a ball $B$ having the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[i)] $B\subset K_L(V)$,
\item[ii)] $B\cap K=\emptyset$,
\item[iii)] $B\cap\bigl[2L \setminus \{\vec{0}\}+ B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)\bigr]=\emptyset$.
\end{enumerate}
Then the lattice $2L$ is a packing lattice for $K \cup B$. Using the
argument which was applied in the proof of Theorem~\ref{satz2} we
obtain the strict inequality $\vol K<\vol(K\cup B)<\vol K_L(V)$,
which contradicts the assumption that $K$ is extremal.

It remains to construct $B$. Since the facet
$F_{\vec{y}}$ of $\DV(2L)$ intersects $\mathbb R^d\setminus
B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$ by our hypothesis, there exists a vertex
$\vec{x}$ of $F_{\vec{y}}$ with $\|\vec{x}\|>r_{\!_L}(V)$ (see
Figure \ref{fig1}).

\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=6.5cm]{loch.eps}
\caption{The ball $B$ lies inside the shaded region.}\label{fig1}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Since $F_{\vec{y}}$ is centrally symmetric with respect to
$\vec{y}$, either $\vec{x}$ or $2\vec{y}-\vec{x}$ lies in the open
halfspace $G_{\vec{y}}^+ = \mathbb R^d \setminus G_{\vec{y}}^-$. Without
loss of generality we assume $\vec{x} \in G_{\vec{y}}^+$.

On the line segment connecting $\vec{x}$ and $\vec{y}$ there is a
point $\vec{z}$ with $\|\vec{z}\| = r_{\!_L}(V)$ (see Figure \ref{fig1}).
We have $\|\vec{z}-2\vec{y}\|=r_{\!_L}(V)$ and,
since $\vec{z}$ lies in the relative interior of a facet of a
Dirichlet-Voronoi cell, for any other $\vec{y}'\in L \setminus\{\vec{0},\vec{y}\}$ it
holds $\|\vec{z}-2\vec{y}'\| > r_{\!_L}(V)$. Let
$\vec{c}=\vec{z}-\varepsilon \vec{y}$ where $\varepsilon>0$ is
chosen so that $\vec{c}$ lies in the interior of
$\DV(2L)\cap G_{\vec{y}}^+ \cap B_d\bigl(r_{\!_L}(V)\bigr)$. Thus there exists
$\delta>0$ sufficiently small such that the ball $B$ centered in
$\vec{c}$ with radius $\delta$ satisfies properties i)--iii).
\end{proof}

The following result is an immediate consequence of Proposition
\ref{prop:equalfacets}.
\begin{corollary}\label{small-radii-theorem}
Let $L\in\mathcal L^d$ be a lattice and let $D$ be at most $4\mu(L)$. Define
$V$ by $2r_{\!_L}(V)=D$.
If every facet of $\DV(2L)$ contains a vertex $\vec{x}$
with $\|\vec{x}\|>r_{\!_L}(V)$, then $K_L(V)$ is the unique extremal body
with respect to $L$ and $V$.
\end{corollary}

So Corollary \ref{small-radii-theorem} proves Conjecture \ref{conj1}
for many values of $V$. We can apply Corollary \ref{small-radii-theorem}
also to prove Conjecture \ref{conj1} for certain classes of lattices and
any value of $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$:

\begin{corollary}\label{coro_small-radii-theorem}
Let $L \in \mathcal L^d$ be a lattice such that every facet of $\DV(2L)$
contains a vertex $\vec{x}$ with $\|\vec{x}\|=2\mu(L)$. Then
$K_L(V)$ is the unique extremal body with respect to $L$ and any $V \in (0,2^d\det L]$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
The case $D<4\mu(L)$ is covered by
Corollary~\ref{small-radii-theorem}. So we assume that $D=4\mu(L)$.
If $K$ is an extremal body for the diameter $D=4\mu(L)$ then
$\mathbb R^d=2L+K$. Hence for arbitrarily small $\varepsilon>0$ the convex
body $K_{\varepsilon}=K\cap B_d(D-\varepsilon)$ is extremal for
diameter $D-\varepsilon$, since $\mathbb R^d=(2L+K_{\varepsilon})\cup\mathcal R$.
Thus applying Proposition~\ref{prop:equalfacets} to every facet of
$\DV(2L)\cap B_d(D-\varepsilon)$ we get that
$K_{\varepsilon}=\DV(2L)\cap B_d(D-\varepsilon)$. Hence $K=\DV(2L)$.
\end{proof}

Notice that even in dimension $3$ there are lattices to which
Corollary~\ref{coro_small-radii-theorem} cannot be applied. We give
an explicit example using the notation of {\em Selling parameters} from \cite{cs-1992}:
\begin{remark}
Let $L\in\mathcal L^3$ be the lattice defined by the Selling parameters
$p_{01}=2$ and $p_{ij}=1$ for $i,j=0,\dots,3$ with $i\neq j$ and the
pair $(i,j)\neq(0,1)$. A Gram matrix of a basis $A$ of $L$ is for
example
\[
A^{\top}A=\left(\begin{array}{rrr}
4 & -2 & -1 \\
-2 & 4 & -1 \\
-1 & -1 & 3 \\
\end{array}\right).
\]
The Dirichlet-Voronoi cell of $L$ is a truncated octahedron (or
permutohedron, see Figure \ref{f:permutohedron}). All the vertices of its
$4$-gonal facet given by $1023$, $0123$, $0132$, $1032$ have norm
$\sqrt{35/24}$ whereas the vertex denoted by $0213$ has norm
$\sqrt{3/2}=\mu(L)>\sqrt{35/24}$.
\end{remark}

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.3cm]{permutoh2.eps}
\caption{The truncated octahedron.}\label{f:permutohedron}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In order to overcome this problem in $\mathbb R^3$ and to solve more equality
cases, we prove the following proposition. It uses the fact that the
Dirichlet-Voronoi cell is a parallelohedron and hence every projection
along a $(d-2)$-face ({\it ridge}) is a centrally symmetric hexagon or, as
a limiting case, a parallelogram. This was independently proved by
McMullen \cite{mcmullen-1980,mcmullen-1981} and Venkov \cite{venkov-1954}.
The facets of the parallelohedron adjacent to the $4$ or $6$ translates of
a ridge are said to form a {\it $4$-belt} or {\it $6$-belt} respectively.

\begin{proposition}\label{prop:ridge}
Let $L\in\mathcal L^d$ be a lattice and let $D$ be at most $4\mu(L)$. Define $V$
by $2r_{\!_L}(V)=D$. Let $K\in\mathcal K_L$, given as in \eqref{eqn:extremalK}, be
extremal with respect to $L$ and $V$. Let $\DV(2L)$ be given as in
\eqref{eqn:dv2l} and let $\vec{y}\in C_L$ be the center of a facet
belonging to a $6$-belt of $\DV(2L)$. If $G_{\vec{z}}=H_{\vec{z}}$ for all
$\vec{z}\in C_L\setminus\{\vec{y}\}$, then also $G_{\vec{y}}=H_{\vec{y}}$
and hence $K=K_L(V)$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
We suppose that $G_{\vec{y}}\neq H_{\vec{y}}$, respectively $K \neq
K_L(V)$. Consider the sets $A=G_{\vec{y}}^+ \cap K_L(V)$ and
$B=G_{\vec{y}}^- \cap \bigl(2\vec{y}+ K_L(V)\bigr)$, see Figure
\ref{f:ridge}. Since $K_L(V)$ is centrally symmetric, the isometry
$\vec{x}\mapsto 2\vec{y}-\vec{x}$ maps the closure $\overline{A}$ to
$\overline{B}$ and hence $\vol A = \vol B$. Clearly, $\vol(A\cap
K)=0$.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=4.8cm]{ridge2.eps}
\caption{}\label{f:ridge}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

By assumption, the facet $F_{\vec{y}}=H_{\vec{y}}\cap \DV(2L)$ of
$\DV(2L)$ with center~$\vec{y}$ contains two ridges $F$ and $2\vec{y}-F$
which are also ridges of other facets in a $6$-belt. Since $F_{\vec{y}}$
is centrally symmetric with respect to $\vec{y}$ we find a relative
interior point $\vec{x}$ of either $F$ or $2\vec{y}-F$ which is contained
in $G_{\vec{y}}^-\setminus G_{\vec{y}}$. Other\-wise $G_{\vec{y}}$ would
be equal to the affine hull of $\{\vec{y}\}\cup F$ and hence equal
to~$H_{\vec{y}}$.

Without loss of generality we assume $\vec{x}\in F$ and
$F=H_{\vec{y}'}\cap F_{\vec{y}}$. We can suppose that the points of
$F$ all lie in $B_d\bigl(r_L(V)\bigr)$ and
$2\vec{y}+B_d\bigl(r_L(V)\bigr)$, because otherwise we could apply
Corollary~\ref{small-radii-theorem} to show
$G_{\vec{y}}=H_{\vec{y}}$. Therefore there exists $\varepsilon > 0$
such that $\vec{x}+\varepsilon \vec{y}$ lies in the interior of
$G_{\vec{y}}^-\cap H_{\vec{y}'}^+$ and $2\vec{y}+K_L(V)$. So there
exists a ball centered in $\vec{x}+\varepsilon \vec{y}$ and
contained in $B\setminus K$ with positive volume. It shows that
$\vol(B\cap K)<\vol B$. Hence $K_L(V)$ has larger volume than $K$
which contradicts the extremality of $K$.
\end{proof}

Corollary \ref{coro_small-radii-theorem} and Proposition
\ref{prop:ridge} can be applied to many lattices so that the
isodiametric problem is solved for them completely, that is, for
every volume respectively every diameter. In the proof of Theorem
\ref{t:sol_lattices}  below we work out this argument for several
prominent lattices, where we did not try to be exhaustive.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{t:sol_lattices}]
If the automorphism group of a lattice $L$ acts transitively on the
facet centers of $\DV(L)$, then every facet of $\DV(2L)$ contains a
vertex $\vec{x}$ with $\|\vec{x}\|=2\mu(L)$. Lattices with this
transitivity property are for example the integral lattice $\mathbb Z^d$
and the root lattices $\mathsf{A}_d$, $\mathsf{D}_d$ and
$\mathsf{E}_d$ (see \cite[Chap.~4, Chap.~22, Cor. to
Th.~5]{cs-1988}).

With a similar argument it can be shown that Corollary
\ref{coro_small-radii-theorem} applies to the Leech lattice
$\Lambda_{24}$ and the lattices $\mathsf{D}_d^*$. The facets of
$\DV(\Lambda_{24})$ are given by the lattice vectors of squared
length $4$ and $6$. The automorphism group of $\Lambda_{24}$ acts
transitively on each of these two sets. A vertex $\vec{x}$ of ``type
$\mathsf{A}_{24}$'' (see \cite[Chap.~23]{cs-1988}) satisfies
$\|\vec{x}\|=\mu(\Lambda_{24})$. This vertex is incident to $275$
facets which correspond to vectors of length $4$ and to $25$ facets
which correspond to vectors of length $6$. Hence in every facet a
vertex of type $\mathsf{A}_{24}$ can be found. The case
$\mathsf{D}_d^*$ is analogous.

Other lattices where Corollary \ref{coro_small-radii-theorem} can be
applied are all the $2$-dimen\-sional lattices and the reciprocals
$\mathsf{A}^*_d$, $\mathsf{E}_6^*$, $\mathsf{E}_7^*$ of the root lattices,
since they are examples of lattices $L$ for which every vertex $\vec{x}$
of $\DV(2L)$ satisfies $\|\vec{x}\|=2\mu(L)$ (see \cite[Chap.~4, Chap.~22,
Th.~7]{cs-1988}).

Finally in order to get the solution for $d=3$, we can use the knowledge
of all combinatorial types of Dirichlet-Voronoi cells in dimension~$3$. It
is well known (Fedorov, \cite{Fed85}) that there are five combinatorial
types of Dirichlet-Voronoi cells: {\em cube}, {\em hexarhombic
dodecahedron}, {\em rhombic dodecahedron}, {\em hexagonal prism} and the
{\em truncated octahedron}. The first four are degenerations of the last
one.

The vertices of $\DV(2L)$ can be partitioned into equivalence classes by
identifying those ones which are lattice translates or point reflections
of each other. Vertices of the same class have all the same distance to
the origin. For a vertex $\vec{x}$ of a facet with center $\vec{y}$, the
opposite vertex $2\vec{y}-\vec{x}$ of that facet belongs to the same
class. Using this symmetry it is easily checked for all but the truncated
octahedron, that every facet of $\DV(2L)$ contains a vertex $\vec{x}$ with
$\|\vec{x}\|=2\mu(L)$. Then Corollary \ref{coro_small-radii-theorem} can
be applied to derive that $K_L(V)$ is the unique extremal set.

In the remaining type, i.e., the one corresponding to the truncated
octahedron (see Figure~\ref{f:permutohedron}), we can apply
Proposition~\ref{prop:ridge}. We find that $\DV(2L)$ has three equivalence
classes of eight vertices each. Each hexagonal facet of the truncated
octahedron contains two opposite vertices of every class and each vertex
class has vertices in four quadrilateral facets (see points on vertices in
Figure \ref{f:permutohedron}). Assuming that only one class attains the
radius $2\mu(L)$, we know by Corollary~\ref{small-radii-theorem} that the
condition of Proposition~\ref{prop:ridge} holds, and therefore we obtain
$K_L(V)$ is the unique extremal set.
\end{proof}

\section{Some Consequences and Remarks}

For a lattice $L\in\mathcal L^d$, the explicit isodiametric inequality for
convex bodies $K\in \mathcal K_L$ can be stated by computing the volume
$V=\vol K_L(V)$ in terms of the diameter $\diam K_L(V)$. Notice that
the function defined as $f(r)=\vol\bigl(B_d(r)\cap \DV(2L)\bigr)$ is
clearly an increasing function of $r$. Then it follows that for any
convex body $K\in\mathcal K_L$
\begin{equation} \label{explicit-inequality}
\vol K\leq f\left(\dfrac{\diam K}{2}\right),
\end{equation}
and equality holds when (and, in many cases, only when) $K=K_L(V)$.

For instance, in the case of the 3-dimensional Euclidean space and the
integral lattice $\mathbb{Z}^3$, the isodiametric inequality is expressed
in the following way (we write $D:=\diam K$ for the sake of brevity):
\[
\def2{2}
\begin{array}{ll}
\text{If } 0<D\leq 2, & \vol K\leq \dfrac{\pi}{6}D^3\\
\text{If } 2 \leq D\leq 2\sqrt{2}, & \vol K\leq 2\pi \left( -\dfrac{D^3}{6}+\dfrac{3D^2}{4}-1 \right)\\
\text{If } 2\sqrt{2}\leq D\leq 2\sqrt{3}, & \vol K\leq 4\sqrt{D^2\!-8}+(3D^2-4)\arctan \dfrac{12-D^2}{4\sqrt{D^2-8}}\\
  & \hspace*{1.4cm} -\dfrac{2}{3}D^3\arctan \dfrac{D(12-D^2)}{(D^2+4)\sqrt{D^2-8}}
\end{array}
\]

The extremal sets for these inequalities, i.e., the sets with
maximum volume for different values of the diameter, are shown in
Figure~\ref{extremal_sets}.

\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=4cm]{diam-vol-crop.eps}\hspace{0.7cm} &
\hspace*{0.7cm}\includegraphics[width=4cm]{diam-vol2-crop.eps}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Extremal sets in $\mathbb R^3$ for the integral lattice: when
$\diam K\leq 2\sqrt{2}$ (left) and $\diam K\geq 2\sqrt{2}$
(right).}\label{extremal_sets}
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Notice that, since the diameter is twice the circumradius for centrally
symmetric~$K$, all of the inequalities above also relate volume and
circumradius of~$K$.

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Number Theory (math.NT)


Angular equivalence of normed spaces

Abstract: Angular equivalence is introduced and shown to be an equivalence relation among the norms on a fixed real vector space. It is a finer notion than the usual (topological) notion of norm equivalence. Angularly equivalent norms share certain geometric properties: A norm that is angularly equivalent to a uniformly convex norm is itself uniformly convex. The same is true for strict convexity. Extreme points of the unit balls of angularly equivalent norms occur on the same rays, and if one unit ball is a polyhedron so is the other.Among norms arising from inner products, two norms are angularly equivalent if and only if they are topological equivalent. But, unlike topological equivalence, angular equivalence is able to distinguish between different norms on a finite-dimensional space. In particular, no two $\ell^p$ norms on $\mathbb R^n$ are angularly equivalent.

\section{Introduction and Definition}

Two norms on a real vector space are equivalent if both give rise to the same notion of convergence. A wide variety of functional analysis results concern only the topology a norm generates, not the specific values taken by a given norm. In such a setting, choosing the most convenient one among several, or many, topologically equivalent norms can clarify arguments and simplify proofs.

In other situations, specific properties of individual norms are central to the theory. For example, uniform convexity is an important property of a norm that may not be shared by a topologically equivalent norm.

It is our object here to introduce a finer equivalence of norms, one that preserves certain properties of the norm that simple topological equivalence does not. The idea is straightforward; two norms are {\it angularly equivalent} if, over all pairs of non-zero vectors, the angle between the pair,  determined by one norm, is comparable to the angle between the same pair, determined by the other norm. This will be made precise shortly.

Although the theory of angles in normed spaces cannot match the elegance of its counterpart for inner product spaces, it serves here to give us a means of defining an equivalence of norms that compares vectors two by two rather than one at at time, as topological equivalence does. Thus, angular equivalence emerges as a kind of ``second order'' equivalence compared to the ``first order'' topological equivalence.

\begin{definition}\label{topequiv} Two norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, on a real vector space $X$ are {\it topologically equivalent} provided there exist positive constants $m$, $M$ such that for all $x,y\in X$,
\<{TE}
m\|x\|_1\le\|x\|_2\le M\|x\|_1.
\>
\end{definition}
Very little is needed to give the definition of angular equivalence besides an accessible concept of angle in normed spaces. We define an angle based on the $g$-functional, introduced in \cite{M1971} and studied in \cite[Chapter 4]{SIP} and references there. It it closely connected to smoothness and convexity properties of the unit ball and lends itself to straightforward calculations.

Fix vectors $x$ and $y$ in a real vector space $X$, with norm $\|\cdot\|$. A few applications of the triangle inequality are enough to show that $\frac1t(\|x+ty\|-\|x\|)$ is a non-decreasing function of $t$ taking $(-\oo,0)\cup(0,\oo)$ into $[-\|y\|,\|y\|]$.
It follows that both
\[
g^+(x,y)=\|x\|\lim_{t\to0+}\tfrac1t(\|x+ty\|-\|x\|)\quad\mbox{and}\quad g^-(x,y)=\|x\|\lim_{t\to0-}\tfrac1t(\|x+ty\|-\|x\|)
\]
exist, and satisfy
\<{gEsts}
-\|x\|\|y\|\le\|x\|(\|x\|-\|x-y\|)\le g^-(x,y)\le g^+(x,y)\le\|x\|(\|x+y\|-\|x\|)\le \|x\|\|y\|.
\>
\begin{definition}\label{norm angle} Suppose $\|\cdot\|$ is a norm on a real vector space $X$. The {\it $g$-functional} relative to $\|\cdot\|$ is the map $g:X\times X\to[0,\oo)$ given by, $g=\tfrac12(g^-+g^+)$.  If $x$ and $y$ are non-zero vectors in $X$, the {\it norm angle}\footnote{The term ``$g$-angle'' is in use, coined by Pavle Mili\v ci\' c for an angle based on a symmetrized $g$-functional.} from $x$ to $y$ is $\theta(x,y)$, defined by $0\le\theta\le\pi$ and
\[
\cos\th(x,y)=\frac{g(x,y)}{\|x\|\|y\|}.
\]
\end{definition}
We will refrain from referring to the norm angle ``between'' $x$ and $y$, since the norm angle from $x$ to $y$ may not coincide with the norm angle from $y$ to $x$. If the norm in $X$ arises from an inner product, it is easy to see that norm angles agree with angles defined by the inner product. To see that $\th(x,y)$ does not depend on the lengths of $x$ and $y$, make the substitution $s=bt/a$ in the defining limits to get $g(ax,by)=abg(x,y)$ whenever $a,b>0$. A little extra care shows that this equation holds for any $a,b\in\mathbb R$ so, in particular, $g(x,-y)=-g(x,y)$.

\begin{definition}\label{angequiv} Two norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, on a real vector space $X$ are {\it angularly equivalent} provided there exists a constant $C$ such that for all non-zero $x,y\in X$,
\<{defAE}
\tan(\theta_2(x,y)/2)\le C\tan(\theta_1(x,y)/2).
\>
Here $\theta_1(x,y)$ and $\theta_2(x,y)$ are the norm angles from $x$ to $y$ relative to $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, respectively. Also, $\tan(\pi/2)$ is taken to be $+\oo$.
\end{definition}

It is clear from the definition that angular equivalence is a reflexive and transitive relation. To see that it is also symmetric, replace $y$ by $-y$ in (\ref{defAE}). Then, for $j=1,2$, $g_j(x,-y)=-g_j(x,y)$, $\cos\theta_j(x,-y)=-\cos\theta_j(x,y)$ and
\begin{align*}
\tan(\theta_j(x,y)/2)&=\left(\frac{1-\cos\theta_j(x,y)}{1+\cos\theta_j(x,y)}\right)^{1/2}\\
&=\left(\frac{1+\cos\theta_j(x,-y)}{1-\cos\theta_j(x,-y)}\right)^{1/2}=\frac1{\tan(\theta_j(x,-y)/2)}.
\end{align*}
So if (\ref{defAE}) holds for all non-zero $x,y$ then so does
\<{symm}
\tan(\theta_1(x,y)/2)=\frac1{\tan(\theta_1(x,-y)/2)}\le \frac C{\tan(\theta_2(x,-y)/2)}=C \tan(\theta_2(x,y)/2).
\>
Thus angular equivalence is an equivalence relation.

Since (\ref{defAE}) implies (\ref{symm}) with the same constant $C$, angular equivalence has a strong form of symmetry. It follows that the constant $C$ is necessarily at least $1$.

\begin{remark} We will see later that for ``most'' $x$ and $y$, $g^-$ and $g^+$ coincide. When they differ, the choice of $g$ as the average of the two is unimportant for our purposes; the notion of angular equivalence does not depend on the value of $g$ at these exceptional pairs. Moreover, at pairs for which $g^-$ and $g^+$ coincide, any semi-inner product  necessarily agrees with their common value. So angular equivalence is not dependent on the specific functional used to define it. See \cite{SIP} for a thorough discussion of semi-inner products. This remark is supported by Theorem \ref{reduction} and Corollaries \ref{gplusminus} and \ref{LG} below.
\end{remark}

The use of the trigonometric ratio $\tan(\theta/2)$ in the definition of angular equivalence may seem arbitrary, since there are many possible ways to express the condition that two angles be comparable. Our choice is motivated by the situation for inner product spaces, where the ratio $\tan(\theta/2)$ appears in the following sharp inequality relating the best constants for topological and angular equivalence.

\begin{proposition}[\cite{LS}]\label{LinSin} Let $X$ be a real vector space equipped with inner products $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_1$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_2$, giving rise to norms $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ in the usual way.
Let $m,M\in[0,\oo]$ be the best constants in the inequality
\[
m\|x\|_1\le\|x\|_2\le M\|x\|_1,\quad x\in X.
\]
Then, for any non-zero $x,y\in X$,
\[
\tan(\theta_2(x,y)/2)\le(M/m)\tan(\theta_1(x,y)/2).
\]
The constant $M/m$ is best possible in this inequality. Here $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ are the angles between $x$ and $y$ relative to $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, respectively. (The usual angles coincide with the norm angles in inner product spaces.)
\end{proposition}

This result is a reformulation of the generalized Wielandt inequality. The original, based on \cite{W} and appearing in \cite{BH}, involves the action of an invertible matrix on $\mathbb C^n$, relating the angle between a pair of vectors and the angle between the transformed vectors. Since $M/m<\oo$ if and only if the two norms are topologically equivalent, the reformulated inequality shows that if two norms arise from inner products on the same vector space, then the norms are angularly equivalent if and only if they are topologically equivalent.

This is an indication that angular equivalence is not too much finer than topological equivalence; the two notions coincide on an important class of spaces. As an indication that angular equivalence is nonetheless considerably finer than topological equivalence see Corollaries \ref{polygon} and \ref{p=q} below, where we show that, unlike topological equivalence, norms on a finite-dimensional spaces are not all angularly equivalent. (Of course, we have not yet established that angular equivalence is in fact finer than topological equivalence. But we will; see Theorem \ref{AE-TE}.)

\section{A First Look at Angular Equivalence}

Many properties shared by angularly equivalent norms may be deduced from the definition with minimal calculation, while others emerge only after careful analysis. In this section we present a selection of the former.

Recall that if $E$ is a subset of a real vector space $X$ we say $x\in E$ is an {\it extreme point} of $E$ provided $x$ is not in any open line segment contained in $E$. When $X$ is a normed space and $E$ is the closed unit ball of $X$ this is of particular interest in functional analysis. Our first result shows that the unit balls of angularly equivalent norms share the same extreme ``directions''.

\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a real vector space having two norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$. Suppose $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are angularly equivalent and $x$ is a non-zero vector in $X$. Then $x/\|x\|_1$ is an extreme point of the $\|\cdot\|_1$-unit ball if and only if $x/\|x\|_2$ is an extreme point of the $\|\cdot\|_2$-unit ball.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} We argue the contrapositive. Suppose $x/\|x\|_2$ is not an extreme point of the $\|\cdot\|_2$-unit ball. Then there are points $y$ and $z$ in $X$ such that $(y+z)/2=x/\|x\|_2$ and the closed line segment from $y$ to $z$ is contained in the $\|\cdot\|_2$-unit ball. If $s\in [0,1]$ then $(1-s)y+sz$ and $sy+(1-s)z$ are on the line segment and hence in the $\|\cdot\|_2$-unit ball. Thus,
\[
2=\|y+z\|_2=\|(1-s)y+sz+sy+(1-s)z\|_2\le\|(1-s)y+sz\|_2+\|sy+(1-s)z\|_2\le2.
\]
It follows that $\|(1-s)y+sz\|_2=1$. In particular, observe that $\|y\|_2=\|z\|_2=1$. Now,
\begin{align*}
g_2^\pm(y,z)&=\lim_{t\to0\pm}\tfrac1t(\|y+tz\|_2-1)\\
&=\lim_{s\to0\pm}\tfrac{1-s}s(\|y+\tfrac s{1-s}z\|_2-1)\\
&=\lim_{s\to0\pm}\tfrac1s(\|(1-s)y+sz\|_2-1+s)=1.
\end{align*}
This shows that $g_2(y,z)=1$,  $\cos(\theta_2(y,z))=1$, and $\tan(\theta_2(y,z)/2)=0$. By angular equivalence, $\tan(\theta_1(y,z)/2)=0$ as well. This implies $\cos(\theta_1(y,z))=1$ and hence $g_1(y,z)=\|y\|_1\|z\|_1$. The last statement, which may be written as
\[
g_1^-(y,z)+g_1^+(y,z)=2\|y\|_1\|z\|_1,
\]
combined with
\[
g_1^-(y,z)\le g_1^+(y,z)\le\|y\|_1(\|y+z\|_1-\|y\|_1)\le \|y\|_1\|z\|_1,
\]
from (\ref{gEsts}), gives
\[
\|y\|_1(\|y+z\|_1-\|y\|_1)= \|y\|_1\|z\|_1.
\]
Since $\|y+z\|_1=\|y\|_1+\|z\|_1$ and $x/\|x\|_2=(y+z)/2$, we have
\[
\frac x{\|x\|_1}=\frac{y+z}{\|y+z\|_1}=\frac{\|y\|_1}{\|y\|_1+\|z\|_1}\frac y{\|y\|_1}+\frac{\|z\|_1}{\|y\|_1+\|z\|_1}\frac z{\|z\|_1},
\]
which is a convex combination of the points $y/\|y\|_1$ and $z/\|z\|_1$.
Thus, $x/\|x\|_1$ is an interior point of the line segment from $y/\|y\|_1$ to $z/\|z\|_1$. Since the endpoints of this segment lie in the $\|\cdot\|_1$-unit ball, convexity shows that the entire line segment does. Thus,  $x/\|x\|_1$ is not an extreme point of the $\|\cdot\|_1$-unit ball.

Reversing the roles of the two norms gives the other implication.
\end{proof}
A normed space is {\it strictly convex} if every boundary point of the unit ball is an extreme point. It is immediate that strict convexity is preserved by angular equivalence. The corresponding result for uniform convexity also holds, see Corollary \ref{UC}.
\begin{corollary}\label{strictC} Suppose $X$ be a real vector space having two angularly equivalent norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$. Then $X$ is strictly convex when equipped with $\|\cdot\|_1$ if and only if $X$ is strictly convex when equipped with $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\end{corollary}

The unit ball of finite-dimensional normed space is {\it polygonal} if and only if it has only finitely many extreme points, namely, the vertices of the polygon.
\begin{corollary}\label{polygon}
Let $X$ be a finite-dimensional real vector space having two angularly equivalent norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$. Then the $\|\cdot\|_1$-unit ball is polygonal if and only if the $\|\cdot\|_2$-unit ball is polygonal. In this case, the vertices of the two polygons lie on the same rays.
\end{corollary}

\begin{remark} If two norms are angularly equivalent on $X$ then the restrictions of those two norms to any subspace $Y$ of $X$ are also angularly equivalent. This follows easily from the definition. However, the subspace $Y$ may have extreme points that the original space did not have. For every subspace $Y$, the rays containing extreme points relative to $Y$ are the same for both norms.
\end{remark}

One of the most telling features of angular equivalence is its ability to distinguish between norms on a finite-dimensional space. Here we see that no two $\ell^p$ norms are angularly equivalent. (This only applies in finite dimensions. The angular equivalence of the usual $\ell^p$ sequence space norms is a question that does not arise naturally, since they are not norms on the same underlying vector space.)

\begin{corollary}\label{p=q} Suppose $p,q\in[1,\oo]$. For any integer $n\ge2$, the $\ell^p$ and $\ell^q$ norms on $\mathbb R^n$ are angularly equivalent only if $p=q$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} If the two norms are angularly equivalent then their restrictions to the subspace $\mathbb R^2$ of $\mathbb R^n$ (embedded in the usual way) are also angularly equivalent. So we may assume $n=2$. The unit ball in the $\ell^1$ norm is a square with vertices at $(0,\pm1)$ and $(\pm1,0)$. The unit ball in the $\ell^\oo$ norm is a square with vertices at $(\pm1,\pm1)$. When $1<p<\oo$, the unit ball in the $\ell^p$ norm is not a polygon. By Corollary \ref{polygon}, the $\ell^1$ norm and the $\ell^\oo$ norm are not angularly equivalent to each other or to any other $\ell^p$ norm.

It remains to consider $p,q\in(1,\oo)$. Fix $s>0$ and consider the vectors $(1,0)$ and $(1,s)$. The value of the $\ell^p$-norm $g$-functional for this pair is,
\[
\|(1,0)\|_{\ell^p}\lim_{t\to0}\tfrac1t(\|(1,0)+t(1,s)\|_{\ell^p}-\|(1,0)\|_{\ell^p})
=\lim_{t\to0}\tfrac1t(((1+t)^p+|t|^ps^p)^{1/p}-1)=1.
\]
Thus $\theta_{\ell^p}\equiv\theta_{\ell^p}((1,0),(1,s))$ satisfies,
\[
\cos\theta_{\ell^p}=\frac1{(1+s^p)^{1/p}}\quad\text{and}\quad
\tan^2\theta_{\ell^p}=\frac{(1+s^p)^{1/p}-1}{(1+s^p)^{1/p}+1}.
\]
By angular equivalence of the $\ell^p$ and $\ell^q$ norms, there exists a $C>0$, independent of $s$ such that
\[
\frac1C\le\bigg(\frac{(1+s^p)^{1/p}-1}{(1+s^p)^{1/p}+1}\bigg)\bigg(\frac{(1+s^q)^{1/q}+1}{(1+s^q)^{1/q}-1}\bigg) \le C
\]
Taking the limit as $s\to0+$ it is easy to see that this expression remains bounded above and below only if $p=q$.
\end{proof}

The next theorem may be viewed as a stability result for angular equivalence.

\begin{theorem}\label{sum} Suppose $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are angularly equivalent norms on a real vector space $X$. Then the norm  $\|\cdot\|_3=\|\cdot\|_1+\|\cdot\|_2$ is angularly equivalent to $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Fix non-zero $x,y\in X$. Let $g_j(x,y)$ and $\theta_j=\theta_j(x,y)$ be the $g$-functional and norm angle from $x$ to $y$ with respect to the norm  $\|\cdot\|_j$, for $j=1,2,3$. The definition of the $g$-functional shows that
\[
\frac{g_3(x,y)}{\|x\|_3}=\frac{g_1(x,y)}{\|x\|_1}+\frac{g_2(x,y)}{\|x\|_2},
\]
or equivalently,
\[
\|y\|_3\cos\theta_3=\|y\|_1\cos\theta_1+\|y\|_2\cos\theta_2.
\]
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\tan^2(\theta_3/2)=\frac{1-\cos\theta_3}{1+\cos\theta_3}
&=\frac{\frac{\|y\|_1}{\|y\|_3}(1-\cos\theta_1)+\frac{\|y\|_2}{\|y\|_3}(1-\cos\theta_2)}
{\frac{\|y\|_1}{\|y\|_3}(1+\cos\theta_1)+\frac{\|y\|_2}{\|y\|_3}(1+\cos\theta_2)}\\
&=\frac{1+\frac{\|y\|_2}{\|y\|_1}\frac{1-\cos\theta_2}{1-\cos\theta_1}}
{1+\frac{\|y\|_2}{\|y\|_1}\frac{1+\cos\theta_2}{1+\cos\theta_1}}\tan^2(\theta_1/2).
\end{align*}
But for any $A,B>0$, $\frac{1+A}{1+B}\le1+\frac AB$, so
\[
\tan^2(\theta_3/2)\le\left(1+\frac{\tan^2(\theta_2/2)}{\tan^2(\theta_1/2)}\right)\tan^2(\theta_1/2)\le (1+C^2)\tan^2(\theta_1/2),
\]
where $C$ is the constant of angular equivalence of $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ from (\ref{defAE}). Taking square roots shows that $\|\cdot\|_3$ is angularly equivalent to $\|\cdot\|_1$, and hence to $\|\cdot\|_2$ as well.
\end{proof}

With stability under sums of norms we can easily give an example to show that an angular equivalency class containing inner product norms may contain other norms as well.

\begin{example} A norm that is angularly equivalent to a norm arising from an inner product need not arise from an inner product: Consider the two norms on $\mathbb R^2$ defined by $\|(\x,\y)\|_1=(3\x^2+\y^2)^{1/2}$ and  $\|(\x,\y)\|_2=(\x^2+3\y^2)^{1/2}$. These both arise from inner products and are topologically equivalent so by Theorem \ref{LinSin} they are angularly equivalent. Theorem \ref{sum} shows that their sum, $\|(\x,\y)\|_3=\|(\x,\y)\|_1+\|(\x,\y)\|_2$ is also angularly equivalent. However, it is easy to check that $\|\cdot\|_3$ does not arise from an inner product. (For example, the parallelogram law fails for the vectors $(1,0)$ and $(0,1)$.)
\end{example}

The stability of angular equivalence does not extend to the maximum of two norms.

\begin{example} The maximum of two angularly equivalent norms is a norm that need not be angularly equivalent to the original two. Let $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ be the norms in the previous example, set $\|(\x,\y)\|_4=\max(\|(\x,\y)\|_1,\|(\x,\y)\|_2)$, and let $g_j(x,y)$ and $\theta_j=\theta_j(x,y)$ be the $g$-functional and norm angle from $x$ to $y$ with respect to the norm  $\|\cdot\|_j$, for $j=1,4$.  Now let $s>0$ and take $x=(1,1)$ and $y=(1-s,1+s)$. Calculations show that
\[
\|x+ty\|_1=2\sqrt{(1+t)^2-(1+t)ts+t^2s^2}\quad\text{and}\quad g_1(x,y)=4-2s;
\]
and also that
\[
\|x+ty\|_4=2\sqrt{(1+t)^2+(1+t)|t|s+t^2s^2},\quad
g^\pm_4(x,y)=4\pm2s,\quad\text{and}\ \  g_4(x,y)=4.
\]
But $\|x\|_1=\|x\|_4=2$, $\|y\|_1=2\sqrt{1-s+s^2}$ and  $\|y\|_4=2\sqrt{1+s+s^2}$. So, using the definition of $\cos\theta_1(x,y)$ and $\cos\theta_4(x,y)$,  we get,
\[
\tan^2(\theta_1(x,y)/2)=\frac{3s^2}{4(1-s/2+\sqrt{1-s+s^2})^2}
\]
and
\[
\tan^2(\theta_4(x,y)/2)=\frac{s+s^2}{(1+\sqrt{1+s+s^2})^2}.
\]
Clearly, there is no constant $C$ for which $\tan(\theta_4(x,y)/2)\le C\tan(\theta_1(x,y)/2)$ as $s\to0+$. Thus $\|\cdot\|_4$ is not angularly equivalent to $\|\cdot\|_1$.
\end{example}

We close this section with the promised proof that uniform convexity is preserved by angular equivalence. A real vector space $X$, with norm $\|\cdot\|$, is {\it uniformly convex} provided that for all $\ee>0$ there exists a $\dd>0$ such that if $\|x\|=\|y\|=1$ and $\|x-y\|\ge\ee$ then $\|(x+y)/2\|\le1-\dd$. First we show that unform convexity can be characterized in terms of the norm angle. The idea appears in \cite{M2002}, where closely related results are proved.

\begin{theorem} Let $X$ be a real vector space  with norm $\|\cdot\|$ and let $\th(x,y)$ denote the norm angle from $x$ to $y$. Then $X$ is uniformly convex if and only if for all $\ee>0$ there exists a $\dd>0$ such that if $\|x\|=\|y\|=1$ and $\|x-y\|\ge\ee$ then $\tan(\th(x,y)/2)\ge\dd$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Suppose $X$ is uniformly convex. Fix $\ee>0$ and choose an $\eta>0$ so that $\|(x+y)/2\|\le 1-\eta$ whenever $\|x\|=\|y\|=1$ and $\|x-y\|\ge\ee$. Set $\dd=\sqrt\eta$. If $\|x\|=\|y\|=1$ and $\|x-y\|\ge\ee$ then  (\ref{gEsts}) shows that $-1\le g(x,y)\le \|x+y\|-1\le1$ so
\[
\tan(\th(x,y)/2)=\sqrt{\frac{1-g(x,y)}{1+g(x,y)}}\ge\sqrt{\frac{1-g(x,y)}2}\ge\sqrt{1-\Big\|\frac{x+y}2\Big\|}\ge\sqrt\eta=\dd.
\]
For the converse, fix $\ee>0$ and choose an $\eta>0$ such that if $\| x\|=\| y\|=1$ and $\| x- y\|\ge\ee/4$ then $\tan(\th(x,y)/2)\ge\eta$. Set $\dd=\min(\eta^2/(1+\eta^2),\ee/4)$. Now suppose $\|x\|=\|y\|=1$ and $\|x-y\|\ge\ee$, and set $z=x+y$. If $z=0$, then the desired conclusion, $\|z/2\|\le 1-\dd$, is trivial. Otherwise,
\[
\|(2-\|z\|)x-\|z\|((z/\|z\|)-x)\|=\|x-y\|\ge\ee,
\]
so either $\|(2-\|z\|)x\|\ge 2\dd$ or $\|\|z\|((z/\|z\|)-x)\|\ge\ee-2\dd$. The first of the two implies that $\|z/2\|\le1-\dd$ and completes the proof.  The choice of $\dd$ ensures that $\ee-2\dd\ge\ee/2$ so the second implies $\|(z/\|z\|)-x\|\ge\ee/(2\|z\|)\ge\ee/4$, and we have
\[
\eta\le\tan(\th(z/\|z\|,x)/2)=\sqrt{\frac{1-g(z/\|z\|,x)}{1+g(z/\|z\|,x)}}.
\]
But this is equivalent to $g(z/\|z\|,x)\le(1-\eta^2)/(1+\eta^2)$. Using (\ref{gEsts}) again, this time with $x$ and $y$ replaced by $z$ and $x$, respectively, gives
$\|z\|-1\le g(z/\|z\|,x)$ so we have,
\[
\|z/2\|\le\tfrac12(1+g(z/\|z\|,x))\le \frac12\Big(1+\frac{1-\eta^2}{1+\eta^2}\Big)=1-\frac{\eta^2}{1+\eta^2}\le 1-\dd.
\]
\end{proof}

The next result uses the previous theorem so it is included here despite its dependence on Theorem \ref{AE-TE} below.
\begin{corollary}\label{UC} Suppose $X$ be a real vector space having two angularly equivalent norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$. Then $X$ is uniformly convex when equipped with $\|\cdot\|_1$ if and only if $X$ is uniformly convex when equipped with $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Let $C$ be the constant in the definition of angular equivalence so that, using symmetry and (\ref{defAE}), for all non-zero $x$ and $y$ in $X$ we have $\tan(\th_1(x,y)/2)\le C\tan(\th_2(x,y)/2)$.

Theorem \ref{AE-TE} shows that $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are also topologically equivalent so there exist constants $m$ and $M$ such that (\ref{TE}) holds.

Suppose $X$ is uniformly convex when equipped with $\|\cdot\|_1$ and fix $\ee>0$. Choose $\eta>0$ so that, if $\|x\|_1=\|y\|_1=1$ and $\|x-y\|_1\ge m\ee/(2M)$, then $\tan(\th_1(x,y)/2)\ge\eta$. Set $\dd=\eta/C$.

Let $\|x\|_2=\|y\|_2=1$ and $\|x-y\|_2\ge\ee$, and set $\hat x=x/\|x\|_1$ and $\hat y=y/\|y\|_1$. Clearly, $\|\hat x\|_1=\|\hat y\|_1=1$. Also, (as in the proof of the Dunkl-Williams inequality,)
\begin{align*}
\ee\le\|x-y\|_2
&=\bigg\|\frac{\hat x}{\|\hat x\|_2}-\frac{\hat y}{\|\hat x\|_2}+\frac{\hat y}{\|\hat x\|_2}-\frac{\hat y}{\|\hat y\|_2}\bigg\|_2\\
&\le\frac{\|\hat x-\hat y\|_2}{\|\hat x\|_2}+\frac{|\|\hat x\|_2-\|\hat y\|_2|}{\|\hat x\|_2}
\le\frac{2\|\hat x-\hat y\|_2}{\|\hat x\|_2}.
\end{align*}
But $\|\hat x\|_2=\|x\|_2/\|x\|_1\ge m$ so $\|\hat x-\hat y\|_1\ge (1/M)\|\hat x-\hat y\|_2\ge m\ee/(2M)$. This ensures that $\tan(\th_1(\hat x,\hat y)/2)\ge\eta$. But $\th_1(\hat x,\hat y)=\th_1(x,y)$ so angular equivalence implies $\tan(\th_2(x,y)/2)\ge\eta/C=\dd$. This shows that  $X$ is uniformly convex when equipped with $\|\cdot\|_2$. For the other implication, reverse the roles of $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$.
\end{proof}

\section{Norms in the Plane}\label{R2}

Since angular equivalence is defined in terms of pairs of vectors, it is natural to study it first in two-dimensional spaces. Our analysis in the plane is more than the investigation of a special case, however. It enables us to establish results for real vector spaces of any dimension: It is evident from the definition that, if a pair of norms on a real vector space $X$ are angularly equivalent then the restrictions of those norms to any subspace of $X$ are also angularly equivalent. We will make use of the equally evident converse: If the restrictions of two norms on $X$ to any two-dimensional subspace of $X$ are angularly equivalent {\it with constant C}, then the original norms are also angularly equivalent with the same constant $C$. Uniform control of the constant is essential here.

In the plane we can study norms by viewing the boundary of their unit balls as polar functions. The following setup and notation will be used throughout this section and the next. Here and throughout, the symbol ``$\angle$'' denotes the usual angle in the plane, not the norm angle.

Suppose $\|\cdot\|$ is a norm on $\mathbb R^2$ and define $r>0$ by requiring $\|r(t)(\cos t,\sin t)\|=1$ for all $t\in\mathbb R$. Then $r$ is a strictly positive, $\pi$-periodic function and the unit ball, $\{\rho(\cos t,\sin t):0\le\rho\le r(t), t\in\mathbb R\}$, is a closed, convex set with $(0,0)$ in its interior. The convexity of the unit ball readily implies that $r$ is continuous. Since $r$ is continuous and periodic it attains its minimum and maximum values; both are strictly positive. Call them $r_m$ and $r_M$, respectively. Let $O=(0,0)$ and parametrize the boundary of the ball by setting $P_t=r(t)(\cos t,\sin t)$ for all $t\in \mathbb R$. If $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$, set
\[
\s(\a,\b)=\begin{cases}\angle O P_\a P_\b,&\a>\b,\\\pi-\angle O P_\a P_\b,&\a<\b.\end{cases}
\]
 Also define $\p^-(\a)=\lim_{\b\to\a-}\s(\a,\b)$ and $\p^+(\a)=\lim_{\b\to\a+}\s(\a,\b)$. These exist by property \ref{mono} below.

\begin{lemma}\label{manyparts} Suppose $\a,\b\in\mathbb R$ with $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{reverse} $\s(\a,\b)+\a=\s(\b,\a)+\b$;
\item\label{mono}$\s(\a,t)$ is non-decreasing for $t$ in $(\a-\pi,\a)\cup(\a,\a+\pi)$;
\item\label{bounds} $0<\s(\a,\b)<\pi$ and, if $0<|\a-\b|\le\pi/2$, then
$$
0<\tan^{-1}(r_m/r_M)\le\s(\a,\b)\le\pi-\tan^{-1}(r_m/r_M)<\pi;
$$
\item\label{sinelaw}
$
r(\a)/r(\b)=\cos(\a-\b)+\sin(\a-\b)\cot\s(\a,\b)
$
and $\s$ is continuous;
\item\label{rprime} the left derivative of $r$ at $\a$ exists and equals $r(\a)\cot\p^-(\a)$, the right derivative of $r$ at $\a$ exists and equals $r(\a)\cot\p^+(\a)$, and $r$ is differentiable wherever  $\p^-=\p^+$;
\item\label{leftright} $\p^-(\a)\le\p^+(\a)$ and if $\a<\b$ then $\p^+(\a)+\a\le\p^-(\b)+\b$;\item\label{lrcts} $\p^-$ is left continuous and $\p^+$ is right continuous;
\item\label{aects} $\p^-$ and $\p^+$ are continuous at all but countably many points, and $\p^-$ is continuous at $\a$ if and only if $\p^+$ is continuous at $\a$ if and only if $\p^-(\a)=\p^+(\a)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The angles of triangle $P_\a OP_\b$ add to $\pi$. If $\a>\b$ they are $\a-\b$, $\s(\a,\b)$, and $\pi-\s(\b,\a)$ and if $\a<\b$ they are $\b-\a$, $\s(\b,\a)$ and $\pi-\s(\a,\b)$. This proves \ref{reverse}.

To prove \ref{mono}, suppose $s<t$ and both lie in $(\a-\pi,\a)\cup(\a,\a+\pi)$. If $s<t<\a$ then, by convexity, the segment $P_sP_\a$ intersects the segment $OP_t$. It follows that,
\[
\s(\a,s)=\angle 0P_\a P_s\le\angle 0P_\a P_t=\s(\a,t).
\]
If $s<\a<t$ then the segment $P_sP_t$ intersects the segment $OP_\a$. Thus
\[
\s(\a,s)+\pi-\s(\a,t)=\angle OP_\a P_s+\angle OP_\a P_t=\angle P_sP_\a P_t\le\pi.
\]
If $\a<s<t$ then the segment $P_\a P_t$ intersects the segment $OP_s$. It follows that,
\[
\pi-\s(\a,s)=\angle 0P_\a P_s\ge\angle 0P_\a P_t=\pi-\s(\a,t).
\]
In each of the three cases we have $\s(\a,s)\le\s(\a,t)$, as required.

Since $r(\a)>0$, $r(\b)>0$, and $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$, $\triangle P_\a OP_\b$ is non-degenerate. In particular, $0<\s(\a,\b)<\pi$, the first statement of \ref{bounds}. For the other, suppose $0<\a-\b<\1$. Then, using \ref{mono},
$$
\s(\a,\b)\ge\s(\a,\a-\1)=\tan^{-1}(r(\a-\1)/r(\a))\ge\tan^{-1}(r_m/r_M)>0
$$
and
\[
\s(\a,\b)\le\s(\a,\a+\1)=\pi-\tan^{-1}(r(\a+\1)/r(\a))\le\pi-\tan^{-1}(r_m/r_M)<\pi.
\]

The sine law in $\triangle OP_\a P_\b$ gives
\[
\frac{\sin\s(\a,\b)}{r(\b)}=\frac{\sin(\angle OP_\a P_\b)}{r(\b)}=\frac{\sin(\angle OP_\b P_\a)}{r(\a)}=\frac{\sin(\pi-\s(\a,\b)-(\a-\b))}{r(\a)}
\]
when $\a>\b$ and
\[
\frac{\sin(\pi-\s(\a,\b))}{r(\b)}=\frac{\sin(\angle OP_\a P_\b)}{r(\b)}=\frac{\sin(\angle OP_\b P_\a)}{r(\a)}=\frac{\sin(\s(\a,\b)-(\b-\a))}{r(\a)}
\]
when $\a<\b$. These both reduce to the equation in \ref{sinelaw}. Continuity of $r$ now implies continuity of $\s$.

To prove \ref{rprime} we use \ref{sinelaw} to get
\[
\frac{r(\a)-r(s)}{\a-s}
=r(s)\left(\frac{\cos(\a-s)-1}{\a-s}+\frac{\sin(\a-s)}{\a-s}\cot\s(\a,s)\right).
\]
The definitions of $\p^+$ and $\p^-$ (and the continuity of $r$) show that the left and right derivatives of $r$ exist and are equal to,
\[
\lim_{s\to\a-}\frac{r(\a)-r(s)}{\a-s}=r(\a)\cot\p^-(\a)\quad\text{and}\quad
\lim_{s\to\a+}\frac{r(\a)-r(s)}{\a-s}=r(\a)\cot\p^+(\a),
\]
respectively. It is immediate that $r$ is differentiable wherever $\p^+=\p^-$.

By \ref{mono},
\[
\p^-(\a)=\lim_{s\to\a-}\s(\a,s)\le\lim_{t\to\a+}\s(\a,t)=\p^+(\a).
\]
Also, if $\a<\b$ then, by \ref{reverse} and \ref{mono},
\begin{align*}
\p^+(\a)+\a&=\lim_{t\to\a+}\s(\a,t)+\a
\le\s(\a,\b)+\a\\
&=\s(\b,\a)+\b\le\lim_{s\to\b-}\s(\b,s)+\b
=\p^-(\b)+\b.
\end{align*}
These prove \ref{leftright}.

For \ref{lrcts}, observe that if $\gamma>\a$, applying \ref{leftright}, \ref{mono}, and then \ref{sinelaw} gives
\begin{align*}
\p^+(\a)&\le\lim_{s\to\a+}\p^-(s)+s-\a\le\lim_{s\to\a+}\p^+(s)
\\&=\lim_{s\to\a+}\lim_{t\to s+}\s(s,t)
\le\lim_{s\to\a+}\s(s,\gamma)=\s(\a,\gamma).
\end{align*}
Letting $\gamma\to\a+$ shows $\p^+(\a)\le \lim_{s\to\a+}\p^+(s)\le\p^+(\a)$. Thus, $\p^+$ is
right-continuous at $\a$. A similar argument shows that $\p^-$ is left-continuous.

By \ref{leftright}, the functions $s\mapsto\p^-(s)+s$ and $t\mapsto\p^+(t)+t$ are both non-decreasing and hence continuous except at countably many points. It follows that $\p^-$ and $\p^+$ are both continuous except at countably many points, the first statement of
\ref{aects}. The second may be deduced from the following consequence of \ref{leftright} and \ref{lrcts}:
\begin{align*}
\p^-(\a)&=\lim_{s\to\a-}\p^-(s)\le\lim_{s\to\a-}\p^+(s)\le\p^-(\a)\\&\le\p^+(\a)
\le\lim_{t\to\a+}\p^-(t)\le\lim_{t\to\a+}\p^+(t)=\p^+(\a).
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
The $g$-functional and norm angle for a norm on $\mathbb R^2$ can be expressed in terms of the functions $r$, $\psi$ and $\phi$.
\begin{theorem}\label{gctR2} Suppose $\|\cdot\|$ is a norm on $\mathbb R^2$, define $r$, $\s$ and $\p^\pm$ as above, and let $Q_t=(\cos t, \sin t)$ for $t\in \mathbb R$, If $a,b>0$ and $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$, then
\begin{align*}
g(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)&=\frac{ab}{r(\a)^2}\left(\cos(\a-\b)+\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))\sin(\a-\b)\right),\\
\cos\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)&
=\frac{\cot(\a-\b)+\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))}{\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s(\a,\b)},\quad\text{and}\\
\tan^2(\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)&=\frac{\cot\s(\a,\b)-\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))}{2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s(\a,\b)+\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))}.
\end{align*}
If $a,b>0$ and $\a=\b$ then
\[
g(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)=\frac{ab}{r(\a)^2},\quad\cos\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)=1,\quad\text{and}\quad \tan^2(\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)=0.
\]
If $a,b>0$ and $|\a-\b|=\pi$ then\[
g(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)=-\frac{ab}{r(\a)^2},\quad\cos\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)=-1,\ \ \text{and}\ \  \tan^2(\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)=\oo.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Since $a$ and $b$ are non-zero, for $t$ sufficiently close to zero we may define $c$ and $\g\in(\a-\1,\a+\1)$ as functions of $t$, by requiring that $cQ_\g=aQ_\a+tbQ_\b$. Evidently, both $c$ and $\g$ are differentiable. Equating components, we have the equations,
\[
c\cos\g=a\cos\a+tb\cos\b\quad\text{and}\quad c\sin\g=a\sin\a+tb\sin\b.
\]
Differentiating these with respect to $t$ gives
\[
c'\cos\g-c\g'\sin\g=b\cos\b
\quad\text{and}\quad
c'\sin\g+c\g'\cos\g=b\sin\b.
\]
This system is readily solved to yield $c'=b\cos(\b-\g)$ and $c\g'=b\sin(\b-\g)$. The definition of $r$ ensures that $\|r(t)Q_t\|=1$ for all $t$, so
\[
\tfrac1t(\|cQ_\g\|-\|aQ_\a\|)=\frac1t\left(\frac c{r(\g)}-\frac{a}{r(\a)}\right)
=\frac{\frac{c-a}tr(\a)-\frac{r(\g)-r(\a)}{\g-\a}a\frac{\g-\a}t}{r(\a)r(\g)}.
\]
As $t\to0$ we have
\[
c\to a,\quad \g\to\a,\quad\tfrac{c-a}t\to c'(0)=b\cos(\b-\a)
\quad\text{and}\quad
a\tfrac{\g-\a}t\to a\g'(0)=b\sin(\b-\a).
\]
Notice that $\g$ is a strictly monotone function of $t$ in a neighbourhood of $0$. Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{rprime} shows that
\[
\lim_{t\to0\pm}\frac{r(\g)-r(\a)}{\g-\a}=r(\a)\cot\p^\pm(\a)\quad\text{or}\quad
\lim_{t\to0\pm}\frac{r(\g)-r(\a)}{\g-\a}=r(\a)\cot\p^\mp(\a),
\]
depending on whether $\g$ is increasing or decreasing. In either case,
\begin{align*}
g(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)&=\tfrac12\|aQ_\a\|\big(\lim_{t\to0+}\tfrac1t(\|cQ_\g\|-\|aQ_\a\|)
+\lim_{t\to0-}\tfrac1t(\|cQ_\g\|-\|aQ_\a\|)\big)\\
&=\frac a{r(\a)}\frac{b\cos(\b-\a)r(\a)-r(\a)\tfrac12(\cot\p^+(\a)+\cot\p^-(\a))b\sin(\b-\a)}{r(\a)^2}\\
&=\frac{ab}{r(\a)^2}\left(\cos(\a-\b)+\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))\sin(\a-\b)\right).
\end{align*}
Using this formula and Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{sinelaw}, we get
\begin{align*}
\cos\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)&=\frac{g(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)}{\|aQ_\a\|\|bQ_\b\|}
\\&=\frac{g(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)}{ab/(r(\a)r(\b))}
=\frac{\cot(\a-\b)+\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))}{\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s(\a,\b)}.
\end{align*}
But $\tan^2(\theta/2)=(1-\cos\theta)/(1+\cos\theta)$, so,
\[
\tan^2(\theta(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)=\frac{\cot\s(\a,\b)-\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))}{2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s(\a,\b)+\tfrac12(\cot\p^-(\a)+\cot\p^+(\a))}.
\]
The formulas in the case $\a=\b$ and $|\a-\b|=\pi$ are easily established directly from the definitions of the $g$-functional and norm angle. We omit the details.
\end{proof}

If we have two norms, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, on $\mathbb R^2$ we define $r_j$, $\s_j$ and $\p^\pm_j$ as above based on $\|\cdot\|_j$, for $j=1,2$. The previous theorem shows that the angular equivalence of these two norms can be expressed in the form,
\<{AER2}
\frac{\cot\s_2(\a,\b)-A_2}{2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_2(\a,\b)+A_2}\le C^2\frac{\cot\s_1(\a,\b)-A_1}{2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_1(\a,\b)+A_1}
\>
for all $\a,\b\in \mathbb R$ with $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$. Here $A_j=\tfrac12(\cot\p_j^-(\a)+\cot\p_j^+(\a))$ for $j=1,2$. The cases $\b=\a$ and $\b=\a\pm\pi$ need not be included, as $\tan(\theta_2(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)\le C\tan(\theta_1(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)$ holds trivially in those cases.

However, one can avoid discontinuities of the functions $\p_1^\pm$ and $\p_2^\pm$. Next we see that it is enough to consider only values of $\a$ for which $A_1$ and $A_2$ simplify.

\begin{theorem}\label{reduction} The norms $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ on $\mathbb R^2$ are angularly equivalent with constant $C$ if and only if (\ref{AER2}) holds for all $\a,\b$ satisfying
\<{4conds}
\p_1^+(\a)=\p_1^-(\a),\quad \p_2^+(\a)=\p_2^-(\a),\quad \p_1^+(\b)=\p_1^-(\b)
,\quad \p_2^+(\b)=\p_2^-(\b),
\>
and $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} If the two norms are angularly equivalent, then by Theorem \ref{gctR2}, (\ref{AER2}) holds for all $\a,\b$ such that $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$. Conversely, suppose (\ref{AER2}) holds for all $\a,\b$ satisfying (\ref{4conds}) and $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$. We will show that (\ref{AER2}) holds for all $\a,\b$ satisfying $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$.

By Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{aects} the set $E=\{t\in\mathbb R:\p_1^+(t)=\p_1^-(t),\p_2^+(t)=\p_2^-(t)\}$ has a countable complement and is therefore dense in $\mathbb R$. By hypothesis, for each $\a\in E$, inequality (\ref{AER2}) holds for all $\b\in E\cap((\a-\pi,\a)\cup(\a,\a+\pi))$. The continuity of $\s_1$ and $\s_2$, from Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{sinelaw}, shows that it remains valid for all $\b\in (\a-\pi,\a)\cup(\a,\a+\pi)$. Fix a $\b\in\mathbb R$. Then (\ref{AER2}) holds for all $\a\in E\cap((\b-\pi,\b)\cup(\b,\b+\pi))$. Taking one-sided limits of (\ref{AER2}) with respect to $\a$, but only through points of $E$, gives, for each $\a\in(\b-\pi,\b)\cup(\b,\b+\pi)$, the two inequalities, (one with ``$+$'' and one with ``$-$'')
\<{pm}
\frac{\cot\s_2(\a,\b)-\cot\p^\pm_2(\a)}{2\cot(\a\!-\!\b)+\cot\s_2(\a,\b)+\cot\p^\pm_2(\a)}\le \frac{C^2(\cot\s_1(\a,\b)-\cot\p^\pm_1(\a))}{2\cot(\a\!-\!\b)+\cot\s_1(\a,\b)+\cot\p^\pm_1(\a)}.
\>
Fix an $\a\in(\b-\pi,\b)\cup(\b,\b+\pi)$. A convexity argument will show that for the fixed $\b$ and $\a$, (\ref{pm}) implies (\ref{AER2}).

Let $A_j(z)=(1-z)\cot\p_j^-(\a)+z\cot\p_j^+(t)$ for $j=1,2$. The inequality
\<{A}
\frac{\cot\s_2(\a,\b)-A_2(z)}{2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_2(\a,\b)+A_2(z)}\le C^2\frac{\cot\s_1(\a,\b)-A_1(z)}{2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_1(\a,\b)+A_1(z)}
\>
holds for $z=0,1$ because of (\ref{pm}). If we show that it holds for $z=1/2$ then we have (\ref{AER2}).

It is important to point out that in each of fractions in (\ref{A}) the numerator and denominator cannot both be zero, lest $\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_j(\a,\b)=0$. If this were true, then either $\s_j(\a,\b)=\b-\a$ or $\s_j(\a,\b)=\b-\a+\pi$. But by Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{reverse} this is $\s_j(\b,\a)=0$ or $\s_j(\b,\a)=\pi$, contrary to Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{bounds}.

Define $f:[0,1]\to[0,\oo)$ by
\begin{multline*}
f(z)=C^2(\cot\s_1(\a,\b)-A_1(z))(2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_2(\a,\b)+A_2(z))\\
-(\cot\s_2(\a,\b)-A_2(z))(2\cot(\a-\b)+\cot\s_1(\a,\b)+A_1(z)).
\end{multline*}

First consider the case $\b<\a<\b+\pi$. Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{mono} shows that for $j=0,1$ and $0\le z\le1$,
\[
0<\s_j(\a,\b)\le\p_j^-(\a)\le\p_j^+(\a)\le\s_j(\a,\b+\pi)<\pi
\]
and we get,
\[
\cot\s_j(\a,\b)\ge\cot\p_j^-(\a)\ge A_j(z)\ge\cot\p_j^+(\a)\ge\cot\s_j(\a,\b+\pi).
\]
Since $r(\b)=r(\b+\pi)$,  Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{sinelaw} implies
\[
\cos(\a-\b)+\sin(\a-\b)\cot\s_j(\a,\b)
=\cos(\a-\b-\pi)+\sin(\a-\b-\pi)\cot\s_j(\a,\b+\pi)
\]
so $\cot\s_j(\a,\b+\pi)=-2\cot(\a-\b)-\cot\s_j(\a,\b)$. We conclude that the numerators and denominators of both sides of inequality (\ref{A}) are all non-negative. It follows that (\ref{A}) holds if and only if $f(z)\ge0$.

The second case is similar. If $\b-\pi<\a<\b$ then Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{mono} shows that for $j=0,1$ and $0\le z\le1$,
\[
0<\s_j(\a,\b-\pi)\le\p_j^-(\a)\le\p_j^+(\a)\le\s_j(\a,\b)<\pi
\]
and we get,
\[
\cot\s_j(\a,\b-\pi)\ge\cot\p_j^-(\a)\ge A_j(z)\ge\cot\p_j^+(\a)\ge\cot\s_j(\a,\b).
\]
Since $r(\b)=r(\b-\pi)$,  Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{sinelaw} implies
\[
\cos(\a-\b+\pi)+\sin(\a-\b+\pi)\cot\s_j(\a,\b-\pi)
=\cos(\a-\b)+\sin(\a-\b)\cot\s_j(\a,\b)
\]
so $\cot\s_j(\a,\b-\pi)=-2\cot(\a-\b)-\cot\s_j(\a,\b)$. This time the numerators and denominators of both sides of inequality (\ref{A}) are all non-positive but again (\ref{A}) holds if and only if $f(z)\ge0$.

It remains to show that $f(1/2)\ge0$.

The function $f(z)$ is a quadratic polynomial and the coefficient of $z^2$ is
\[
-(C^2-1)(\cot\p_1^-(t)-\cot\p_1^+(t))(\cot\p_2^-(t)-\cot\p_2^+(t))\le 0
\]
so it is a concave function. Since (\ref{A}) holds for $z=0$ and $z=1$, $f(0)\ge0$ and $f(1)\ge0$. It follows that $f(z)\ge0$ for all $z\in[0,1]$ and in particular $f(1/2)\ge0$.
\end{proof}

This theorem may be used to simplify verification of angular equivalence of norms on $\mathbb R^2$ but it also shows that the notion of angular equivalence does not depend on the value of the two $g$-functionals at the exceptional pairs for which either $g$-functional fails to satisfy $g^-(x,y)= g^+(x,y)$.
\begin{corollary}\label{gplusminus} Let $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ be norms on the real vectors space $X$. To show that the norms are angularly equivalent with constant $C$ it is enough to verify (\ref{defAE}) for pairs $x,y$ satisfying $g_1^+(x,y)=g_1^-(x,y)$ and $g_2^+(x,y)=g_2^-(x,y)$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Suppose that (\ref{defAE}) holds for pairs $x,y$ satisfying $g_j^+(x,y)=g_j^-(x,y)$ for $j=1,2$. A calculation shows that this case includes all linearly dependent pairs. So fix a pair of independent vectors $x$ and $y$ in $X$. We identify their two-dimensional span with $\mathbb R^2$ by the map $(\x,\y)\mapsto \x x+\y y$ so that $\|(\x,\y)\|_j=\|\x x+\y y\|_j$ is a norm on $\mathbb R^2$ for $j=1,2$. This identification is isometric in both norms so it does not affect $g$-functional calculations or norm angles.

Using these norms on $\mathbb R^2$ we define $\p_j^+$ and $\p_j^-$ for $j=1,2$. Suppose the conditions (\ref{4conds}) hold for some $\a,\b$ satisfying $0<|\a-\b|<\pi$. The proof of Theorem \ref{gctR2} shows that $g_j^+(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)=g_j^-(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)$ for $j=1,2$ and for any $a,b>0$. But the points $aQ_\a,bQ_\b\in\mathbb R^2$ correspond to vectors in the span of $x$ and $y$. Our hypothesis, shows that $\tan(\theta_2(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)\le C\tan(\theta_1(aQ_\a,bQ_\b)/2)$. By Theorem \ref{gctR2} inequality (\ref{AER2}) also holds. Now Theorem \ref{reduction} shows that the two norms on $\mathbb R^2$ are angularly equivalent with constant $C$. The same is true for the original two norms on the span of $x$ and $y$. In particular, (\ref{defAE}) holds for the vectors $x,y$. This completes the proof.

\end{proof}

Let $X$ be a real vector space. A {\it semi-inner product in the sense of Lumer-Giles}, is a map $[\cdot,\cdot]:X\times X\to[0,\oo)$ that is linear in the first variable, homogeneous in the second, positive definite, and satisfies $[x,y]^2\le[x,x][y,y]$. It follows that $x\mapsto[x,x]^{1/2}$ is a norm on $X$. See \cite[Chapter 2]{SIP} and the references there. It is natural to define the angle $\theta_{[\cdot,\cdot]}$ from $x$ to $y$, associated with semi-inner product $[\cdot,\cdot]$, by requiring that $0\le\theta\le\pi$ and
\[
\cos\theta_{[\cdot,\cdot]}=\frac{[y,x]}{[y,y]^{1/2}[x,x]^{1/2}}.
\]
Corollary 3.6 in \cite{SIP}
shows that any semi-inner product in the sense of Lumer-Giles satisfies $g^-(x,y)\le[y,x]\le g^+(x,y)$. In particular, $[y,x]=g(x,y)$ whenever $g^-(x,y)=g^+(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in X$. This proves the following.

\begin{corollary}\label{LG} Let $X$ be a real vector space and let $[\cdot,\cdot]_1$ and $[\cdot,\cdot]_2$ be  semi-inner products in the sense of Lumer-Giles, giving rise to norms $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, respectively. If (\ref{defAE}) holds with $\theta_{[\cdot,\cdot]_1}$ and $\theta_{[\cdot,\cdot]_2}$ replacing the norm angles $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$ then $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are angularly equivalent.
\end{corollary}

It is worth pointing out that if $X$ is a normed space, setting $[y,x]=g(x,y)$ defines a semi-inner product in the sense of Lumer-Giles only under additional conditions on the norm. See \cite[Definition 4.2.9 and Proposition 4.2.10]{SIP}.

\section{Angular Equivalence Implies Topological Equivalence}

The techniques developed in the last section are used to prove that angular equivalence is finer than topological equivalence. The definitions of $r_j$, $\s_j$, and $\p_j^\pm$, relative to the norm $\|\cdot\|_j$, for $j=1,2$, that were introduced at the beginning of Section \ref{R2} will be used throughout. We begin by showing that the angular equivalence of two norms gives a relationship between their $\s$ and $\p$-functions.
\begin{lemma}\label{the}
Let $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ be angularly equivalent norms on $\mathbb R^2$. If $0<\a-\b<\1$, then
\[
(\a+\p_2^-(\a))-(\b+\p_2^+(\b))\le MC^2((\a+\p_1^-(\a))-(\b+\p_1^+(\b))),
\]
where $M=\sup\{\csc^2\s_1(t,s):s,t\in(\b,\a), s\ne t\}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $E$ be the set of points in $(\b,\a)$ at which both $\p_1^+=\p_1^-$ and $\p_2^+=\p_2^-$. By Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{aects}, $E$ contains all but countably many points of $(\b,\a)$ and $\p_1^+$, $\p_1^-$, $\p_2^+$, and $\p_2^-$ are continuous there. Fix $s,t\in E$ and let $\bar t\in(\b,\a)$. The cosecant function decreases on $(0,\1)$ and increases on $(\1,\pi)$. So if $y$ lies between $\s_1(t,s)$ and $\s_1(t,\bar t)$ we have
\[
\csc^2y\le\max(\csc^2\s_1(t,\bar t),\csc^2\s_1(t,s))\le M.
\]
The mean value theorem implies that,
\[
|\cot\s_1(t,s)-\cot\s_1(t,\bar t)|\le M|\s_1(t,\bar t)-\s_1(t,s)|.
\]
Letting $\bar t\to t$, we have
\<{MVT}
|\cot\s_1(t,s)-\cot\p_1^+(t)|\le M(|\p_1^+(t)-\s_1(t,s)|.
\>
On the other hand, the function $\csc^2$ is bounded below by $1$ so
\<{csc}
|\cot\s_2(t,s)-\cot\p_2^+(t)|\ge |\p_2^+(t)-\s_2(t,s)|.
\>

By Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{bounds} the functions $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ each take values in a compact subset of $(0,\pi)$. So do their limits, $\p_1^+$ and $\p_2^+$. But the cotangent function is unbounded near $0$. Therefore, for each $\ee>0$ there exists a $\dd>0$ such that if $0<|t-s|<\dd$ then
\[
\frac{|2\cot(t-s)+\cot\s_2(t,s)+\cot\p_2^+(t)|}{|2\cot(t-s)+\cot\s_1(t,s)+\cot\p_1^+(t)|}
\le 1+\ee.
\]
Since $t\in E$, the angular equivalence of $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$, in the form (\ref{AER2}), becomes
\[
\frac{\cot\s_2(t,s)-\cot\p_2^+(t)}{2\cot(t-s)+\cot\s_2(\a,\b)+\cot\p_2^+(t)}\le C^2\frac{\cot\s_1(t,s)-\cot\p_1^+(t)}{2\cot(t-s)+\cot\s_1(t,s)+\cot\p_1^+(t)}.
\]
Note that both sides of the inequality are non-negative. Combining it with the previous estimate gives
\<{top}
|\cot\s_2(t,s)-\cot\p_2^+(t)|\le(1+\ee)C^2|\cot\s_1(t,s)-\cot\p_1^+(t)|
\>
whenever $0<|t-s|<\dd$.

Now suppose that $s,t\in E$ and $s<t$. By Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{reverse}, $t-s=\s_j(s,t)-\s_j(t,s)$, for $j=1,2$, so (\ref{top}) combines with (\ref{csc}) and (\ref{MVT}) to give
\begin{align*}
&(t+\p_2^+(t))-(s+\p_2^+(s))\\
&\le|\p_2^+(t)-\s_2(t,s)|+|\s_2(s,t)-\p_2^+(s)|\\
&\le|\cot\s_2(t,s)-\cot\p_2^+(t)|+|\cot\p_2^+(s)-\cot\s_2(s,t)|\\
&\le(1+\ee)C^2(|\cot\s_1(t,s)-\cot\p_1^+(t)|+|\cot\p_1^+(s)-\cot\s_1(s,t)|)\\
&\le(1+\ee)MC^2(|\p_1^+(t)-\s_1(t,s)|+|\s_1(s,t)-\p_1^+(s)|)\\
&=(1+\ee)MC^2(\p_1^+(t)-\s_1(t,s)+\s_1(s,t)-\p_1^+(s))\\
&=(1+\ee)MC^2((t+\p_1^+(t))-(s+\p_1^+(s))).
\end{align*}
Removal of the absolute value signs to get the second-last line is justified by Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{mono}. Now suppose $\b<\bar\b<\bar\a<\a$ with $\bar\a,\bar\b\in E$. Since $E$ is dense $(\b,\a)$ we can choose $t_0=\bar\b<t_1<\dots<t_n=\bar\a$ with $t_k-t_{k-1}<\dd$ and $t_k\in E$ for each $k$. Then
\begin{align*}
(\bar\a+\p_2^+(\bar\a))-(\bar\b+\p_2^+(\bar\b))
&=\sum_{k=1}^n(t_k+\p_2^+(t_k))-(t_{k-1}+\p_2^+(t_{k-1}))\\
&\le(1+\ee)MC^2\sum_{k=1}^n(t_k+\p_1^+(t_k))-(t_{k-1}+\p_1^+(t_{k-1}))\\
&=(1+\ee)MC^2((\bar\a+\p_1^+(\bar\a))-(\bar\b+\p_1^+(\bar\b))).
\end{align*}
Letting $\bar\b$ decrease to $\b$ through $E$, $\bar\a$ increase to $\a$ through $E$, and $\ee\to0$ we have
\[
(\a+\p_2^-(\a))-(\b+\p_2^+(\b))
\le MC^2((\a+\p_2^-(\a))-(\b+\p_2^+(\b)).
\]
\end{proof}

Somewhat surprisingly, the next result, initially expected to be easy, turned out to be the main result of the current article because of its involved proof. It is hoped that greater familiarity with angular equivalence will reveal a simpler one.

\begin{theorem}\label{AE-TE} Let $X$ be a real vector space with norms $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$. If $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are angularly equivalent then they are also topologically equivalent.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Let $C\ge1$ be the constant in the definition of angular equivalence, that is, suppose that for all non-zero $x,y\in X$,
\[
\tan(\theta_2(x,y)/2)\le C\tan(\theta_1(x,y)/2).
\]
We will show that for all non-zero $\bar x,\bar y\in X$,
\<{altTE}
\frac{\|\bar x\|_1\|\bar y\|_2}{\|\bar x\|_2\|\bar y\|_1}\le 40C^2.
\>
Topological equivalence follows from this by fixing any non-zero $\bar y\in X$ to get $m\|\bar x\|_1\le\|\bar x\|_2$ with $m=\|\bar y\|_2/(40C^2\|y\|_1)$ and, interchanging $\bar x$ and $\bar y$ in (\ref{altTE}), $\|\bar x\|_2\le M\|\bar x\|_1$ with $M=40C^2\|\bar y\|_2/\|\bar y\|_1$.

If $\bar x$ and $\bar y$ are multiples of one another then (\ref{altTE}) holds trivially so we assume henceforth that they are independent. Let $Z$ be the two-dimensional subspace of $X$ spanned by $\bar x$ and $\bar y$. Choose vectors $x,y\in Z$ satisfying three conditions:
\<{123}
\|x\|_2=\|y\|_2=1;\ \ \
\|y\|_1\le\frac{\|z\|_1}{\|z\|_2}\le\|x\|_1\text{ for } 0\ne z\in Z;\ \ \  \|x\|_1\le\|x+ty\|_1\text{ for } t\ge0.
\>
To see that this is possible, take $x$ and $y$ to give the maximum and minimum, respectively, of the continuous function $z\mapsto\|z\|_1$ on the compact set $\{z\in Z:\|z\|_2=1\}$. For any non-zero $z\in Z$, $z/\|z\|_2$ is in this set so the first two conditions hold. But they also hold with $y$ replaced by $-y$. The third condition must hold either with $y$ or with $-y$; otherwise, there would exist $s,t>0$ such that $\|x+ty\|_1<\|x\|_1$ and $\|x-sy\|_1<\|x\|_1$, which leads to the contradiction,
\[
\|x\|_1=\|\tfrac s{s+t}(x+ty)+\tfrac t{s+t}(x-sy)\|_1
\le\tfrac s{s+t}\|x+ty\|_1+\tfrac t{s+t}\|x-sy\|_1<\|x\|_1.
\]

With $x$ and $y$ now fixed, we identify $Z$ with $\mathbb R^2$ by the linear map $(\x,\y)\mapsto \x x+\y y$ so that $\|(\x,\y)\|_1=\|\x x+\y y\|_1$ and $\|(\x,\y)\|_2=\|\x x+\y y\|_2$ give two norms on $\mathbb R^2$. These make the identification isometric in both norms so $g$-functional calculations are not affected. In particular, the two norms on $\mathbb R^2$ are angularly equivalent with constant $C$. Define $r_j$, $\s_j$ and $\p_j^\pm$ as above for $j=1,2$. Note that the polar graph of $r_j$ coincides with the boundary of the $\|\cdot\|_j$-unit ball---we refer to it simply as the {\it $r_j$-curve}.

The first condition of (\ref{123}) ensures that $r_2(0)=1$ and $r_2(\1)=1$. For convenience we set $a=r_1(0)$ and $b=r_1(\1)$. The second condition implies that,
\[
\frac{\|\bar x\|_1\|\bar y\|_2}{\|\bar x\|_2\|\bar y\|_1}
\le\frac{\|x\|_1}{\|y\|_1}=\frac{b}{a},
\]
so we may complete the proof of (\ref{altTE}) and the theorem by showing $b/a\le 40C^2$. Suppose instead that $b/a>40C^2$. First, we set up to apply Lemma \ref{the} with $\a=\tan^{-1}3$ and $\b=0$. Estimates will be needed for $\a+\p_1^-(\a)-\p_1^+(0)$, $\a+\p_2^-(\a)-\p_2^+(0)$,  and $M=\sup\{\csc^2(\s_1(s,t)):s,t\in(0,\a),s\ne t\}$.

For the remainder of the proof we will frequently apply the definitions of $\s$ and $\p^\pm$ and the properties in Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{reverse} and \ref{mono} without explicit reference. Also, as above, ``angle'' refers to the usual angle in $\mathbb R^2$, not the norm angle.

The third condition of (\ref{123}) shows that, in the first quadrant, the $r_1$-curve lies to the left of the line $x=a$. Therefore $\s_1(0,t)\ge\pi/2$ for $t>0$ and, in the limit, $\p_1^+(0)\ge\pi/2$. Also, the $r_1$-curve intersects the line $y=3x$ on the segment from $(0,0)$ to $(a,3a)$. Therefore $\s_1(\1,\a)$ is less than or equal to the measure of the angle from $(0,0)$ to $(0,b)$ to $(a,3a)$. That is,
\<{psiest}
\s_1(\1,\a)\le\cot^{-1}(b/a-3).
\>
Note that since $C\ge1$ our assumption that $b/a>40C^2$ implies $b/a>3$. Now,
\<{phi1}
\a+\p_1^-(\a)-\p_1^+(0)\le\a+\s_1(\a,\1)-\1=\s_1(\1,\a)\le\cot^{-1}(b/a-3).
\>

To estimate $\p_2^+(0)$ we use the angular equivalence hypothesis applied to the two norm angles from $(1,0)$ to $(\cos(-t),\sin(-t))$, for $t>0$. In the form (\ref{AER2}), it implies
\[
\frac{\cot\s_2(0,-t)-A_2}{2\cot t+\cot\s_2(0,-t)+A_2}\le C^2\frac{\cot\s_1(0,-t)-A_1}{2\cot t+\cot\s_1(0,-t)+A_1}.
\]
where $A_j=\frac12(\cot\p_j^-(0)+\cot\p_j^+(0))$, $j=1,2$. By Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{bounds}, $A_1$, $A_2$, $\s_1$ and $\s_2$ are uniformly bounded away from zero, but $\cot t\to\oo$ as $t\to0+$. Thus,
\begin{align*}
&\cot\p_2^-(0)-\cot\p_2^+(0)\\
&=2\lim_{t\to0+}
\frac{\cot\s_2(0,-t)-A_2}{2\cot t+\cot\s_2(0,-t)+A_2}(2\cot t+\cot\s_2(0,-t)+A_2)\\
&\le 2\lim_{t\to0+}C^2\frac{\cot\s_1(0,-t)-A_1}{2\cot t+\cot\s_1(0,-t)+A_1}(2\cot t+\cot\s_2(0,-t)+A_2)\\
&=C^2(\cot\p_1^-(0)-\cot\p_1^+(0)).
\end{align*}
Returning to the second condition of (\ref{123}) we see that for each $t$,
\[
\frac{r_1(t)}{r_2(t)}
=\frac{\|(\cos t) x+(\sin t) y\|_2}{\|(\cos t) x+(\sin t) y\|_1}
\ge\frac1{\|x\|_1}=a.
\]
Recalling that $r_2(0)=1$ and applying Lemma \ref{manyparts}\ref{rprime}, we get
\[
0\le\lim_{t\to0-}\frac1t\left( a-\frac{r_1(t)}{r_2(t)}\right)
=\lim_{t\to0-}a\frac{r_2(t)-1}{tr_2(t)}-\frac{r_1(t)-a}{tr_2(t)}
=a\cot\p_2^-(0)-a\cot\p_1^-(0).
\]
Thus, $\cot\p_2^-(0)\ge\cot\p_1^-(0)$ and we have
\begin{align*}
\cot\p_2^+(0)&\ge\cot\p_2^-(0)-C^2(\cot\p_1^-(0)-\cot\p_1^+(0))\\
&\ge(1-C^2)\cot\p_1^-(0)+C^2\cot\p_1^+(0)\\
&\ge(1-C^2)\cot\s_1(0,-\1)+C^2\cot\s_1(0,\1)\\
&=(1-C^2)(a/b)+C^2(-a/b)\\
&\ge-2C^2a/b.
\end{align*}
We conclude that
\[
\p_2^+(0)\le\cot^{-1}(-2C^2a/b)=\pi-\cot^{-1}(2C^2a/b).
\]

The $r_2$-curve passes through $(-1,0)$ and $(0,1)$ so, in the first quadrant, it lies below the line $y=x+1$. Thus, the $r_2$-curve intersects the line $y=3x$ on the segment from $(0,0)$ to $(1/2,3/2)$. It follows that $\s_2(\a,0)$ is greater than or equal to the measure of the apex angle of the isosceles triangle with vertices $(0,0)$, $(1/2,3/2)$, and $(1,0)$. The latter is $\pi-2\a$ so we have
\<{phi2}
\a+\p_2^-(\a)-\p_2^+(0)\ge\a+\s_2(\a,0)-\p_2^+(0)\ge\cot^{-1}(2C^2a/b)-\a.
\>

Finally we estimate $M$. Since $b/a>40C^2>3+1/3$, $\cot^{-1}(b/a-3)<\cot^{-1}(1/3)=\a$ so (\ref{psiest}) implies
\[
\s_1(\a,\1)=\s_1(\1,\a)-\a+\1\le\cot^{-1}(b/a-3)-\a+\1\le\1.
\]
Thus, for $s,t\in [0,\a)$ with $s\ne t$,
\[
\s_1(t,s)\le\s_1(t,\a)=\s_1(\a,t)+\a-t\le\s_1(\a,t)+\a\le\s_1(\a,\1)+\a\le\1+\a.
\]
Combining this with,
\[
\s_1(t,s)\ge\s_1(t,0)=\s_1(0,t)-t\ge\p_1^+(0)-t\ge\1-t\ge\1-\a
\]
gives $\1-\a\le\s_1(t,s)\le\1+\a$ and hence
\[
\csc^2\s_1(t,s)\le\csc^2(\1-\a)=10.
\]
So $M\le10$. Now Lemma \ref{the} gives,
\[
\a+\p_2^-(\a)-\p_2^+(0)\le 10C^2(\a+\p_1^-(\a)-\p_1^+(0)).
\]
Using (\ref{phi1}) and (\ref{phi2}), we have
\[
\cot^{-1}(2C^2a/b)-\a\le10C^2\cot^{-1}(b/a-3).
\]
Since $\cot^{-1}u\le1/u$ when $u>2/\pi$, and $C\ge1$, our assumption $b/a>40C^2$ yields,
\[
10C^2\cot^{-1}(b/a-3)\le10C^2\cot^{-1}(40C^2-3C^2)\le10/37<0.271
\]
and
\[
\cot^{-1}(2C^2a/b)-\a\ge\cot^{-1}(2/40)-\tan^{-1}3>0.271.
\]
This contradiction completes the proof.
\end{proof}

\section{Further Work}

There are many natural, fundamental questions about angular equivalence still to be investigated. We list a few in the  hope that interested readers will contribute to the theory. Throughout, $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are angularly equivalent norms on a real vector space $X$. By Theorem \ref{AE-TE} the two norms are also topologically equivalent.

Since the completions of $\|\cdot\|_1$ and $\|\cdot\|_2$ are norms on a common vector space it makes sense to ask,

\begin{question} Are the completions of angularly equivalent norms again angularly equivalent?
\end{question}

If $Y$ is a subspace of $X$ then it is closed with respect to $\|\cdot\|_1$ if and only if it is closed with respect to $\|\cdot\|_2$. Each of the two norms give rise to a quotient norm on $X/Y$ defined by, $\|x+Y\|_j=\inf_{y\in Y}\|x+y\|_j$, $j=1,2$.

\begin{question} Do angularly equivalent norms induce angularly equivalent norms on quotient spaces?
\end{question}

The vector space $X^*$, of continuous linear functionals on $X$, is the same for both norms. Thus, their respective dual norms $\|\cdot\|_1^*$ and $\|\cdot\|_2^*$ are norms on a common vector space. These dual norms are not, in general, angularly equivalent. See Example \ref{L1Loo}, below. So it is natural to ask,

\begin{question} Under what conditions on angularly equivalent norms are their dual norms also angularly equivalent?\end{question}

\begin{example}\label{L1Loo} The dual norms of angularly equivalent norms need not be angularly equivalent: Consider the two weighted $\ell^1$ norms, $\|(\x,\y)\|_1=2|\x|+|\y|$ and $\|(\x,\y)\|_2=|\x|+2|\y|$ on $\mathbb R^2$. A calculation shows that, with $\th_j$ denoting the $\|\cdot\|_j$-norm angle from $(\x,\y)$ to $(\mu,\nu)$,
\begin{align*}
\tan^2(\th_2/2)&=\frac{|\mu|-\mu\operatorname{sgn} \x+2(|\nu|-\nu\operatorname{sgn} \y)}{|\mu|+\mu\operatorname{sgn} \x+2(|\nu|+\nu\operatorname{sgn} \y)}\\&\le 4\frac{2(|\mu|-\mu\operatorname{sgn} \x)+|\nu|-\nu\operatorname{sgn} \y}{2(|\mu|+\mu\operatorname{sgn} \x)+|\nu|+\nu\operatorname{sgn} \y}=4\tan^2(\th_1/2).
\end{align*}
(The operator $\operatorname{sgn}$ takes the value $1$, $-1$ or $0$ when its argument is positive, negative or zero, respectively.) Thus, the two norms are angularly equivalent. However, their dual norms are given by $\|(\x,\y)\|_1^*=\max(|\x|/2,|\y|)$ and $\|(\x,\y)\|_2^*=\max(|\x|,|\y|/2)$, respectively. These have polygonal unit balls in which the vertices are not on the same rays. One unit ball has vertices at $(\pm2,\pm1)$ and the other has vertices at $(\pm1,\pm2)$. By Corollary \ref{polygon} the dual norms are not angularly equivalent.
\end{example}

The Cartesian product and tensor product of normed vector spaces can be given various different, but topologically equivalent, norms. This leads to the question,

\begin{question} How should the norm of a Cartesian or tensor product be defined to ensure that product norms are angularly equivalent whenever the norms on the factors are angularly equivalent?
\end{question}

An Orlicz space can be equipped with either of two topologically equivalent norms, the Luxemburg norm or the Orlicz norm. Both are needed because each arises naturally from the other when considering the norm on the dual space. For the special case of $L^p$ spaces, these two norms coincide (up to a constant multiple) and hence are angularly equivalent. However, the examples following \cite[Theorem 10]{K} show that there are Orlicz spaces which are strictly convex when equipped with the Luxemburg norm but are not strictly convex when equipped with the Orlicz norm. By Corollary \ref{strictC} the two norms are not angularly equivalent for such spaces. So we ask,

\begin{question} For which Orlicz spaces are the Luxemburg norm and the Orlicz norm angularly equivalent?\end{question}

A similar question could be posed for many other families. For example, topologically equivalent norms abound on the much-studied families of Banach spaces defined by Hardy, Sobolev, Besov, Triebel, Lizorkin and others.

Angular equivalence of normed spaces


A note on the asymptotics for incomplete Betafunctions

Abstract: We determine the asymptotic behaviour of certain incomplete Betafunctions.

\section{Introdution and results}
For integers $k,\ell\geq 1$ define
\[
P_{k,\ell} = \frac{(k+\ell)!}{(k-1)!\ell!}\int_{k/(k+\ell)}^1 t^{k-1}(1-t)^\ell\;dt.
\]
By repeated partial integration we obtain the representation
\[
P_{k, \ell} = \left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell}\sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\binom{k+\ell}{\nu}\left(\frac{k}{\ell}\right)^\nu.
\]
Vietoris\cite{Vietoris} showed that $P_{k,\ell}\leq\frac{1}{2}$. Alzer and Kwong \cite{Alzer} proved that $P_{k,\ell}\geq\frac{1}{4}$ holds for all $k, \ell$. Interest in bounds for $P_{k,\ell}$ stems from application to statistics, see \cite{Uhlmann}.

In this note we consider the asymptotic behaviour of $P_{k,\ell}$. We prove the following.
\begin{Theo}
\label{thm:main}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:k small}
P_{k, l} = e^{-k}\sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{k^2}{\ell}\right),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:ell small}
P_{k,\ell} = 1-e^{-\ell}\sum_{\nu=0}^{\ell}\frac{\ell^\nu}{\nu!} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\ell^2}{k}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:general}
P_{k, \ell} = \frac{1}{2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\min(k, \ell)}}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{Theo}
Note that the first two estimates are good if one of the parameters $k, \ell$ is rather small, whereas the third one gives information in the general case.

Comparing (\ref{eq:k small}) and (\ref{eq:ell small}) with Vietoris' result that $P_{k,\ell}\leq\frac{1}{2}$ we see that
\[
\sum_{\nu=0}^{\ell-1}\frac{\ell^\nu}{\nu!}<\frac{1}{2}e^\ell<\sum_{\nu=0}^{\ell}\frac{\ell^\nu}{\nu!}.
\]
Note that equality is impossible as $e$ is transcendental.
A more precise version of this inequality has been asked by Ramanujan (Question 294) and was answered by Karamata~\cite{Karamata}. For a detailed discussion of this result, Uhlmann's inequalities \cite{Uhlmann} and Vietoris bound we refer the reader to the historical notes by Vietoris \cite{V2}.

From Theorem~\ref{thm:main} we deduce the following.
\begin{Cor}
\label{Cor:accumulation}
The only accumulation points of the set $\{P_{k,\ell}:k, \ell\in\mathbb{N}\}$ are $\frac{1}{2}$ and the real numbers $e^{-k}\sum_{\nu=1}^{k-1}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!}$ and $1-e^{-\ell}\sum_{\nu=1}^{\ell}\frac{\ell^\nu}{\nu!}$.
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $(k_n), (\ell_n)$ are integer sequences such that the pairs $(k_n, \ell_n)$ are all distinct and that the sequence $(P_{k_n, \ell_n})$ converges. If both $k_n, \ell_n$ tend to infinity, then by (\ref{eq:general}) we have that $P_{k_n, \ell_n}$ tends to $\frac{1}{2}$. If one of these sequences does not tend to infinity, then we can pass to a subsequence and assume that $k_n$ or $\ell_n$ is constant. Then our claim follows from (\ref{eq:k small}) or (\ref{eq:ell small}).
\end{proof}
Together with Vietoris bound we obtain the following.
\begin{Cor}
We have
\[
\lim_{\ell\rightarrow\infty} P_{k, \ell} \geq \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}.
\]
\end{Cor}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\lim_{\ell\rightarrow\infty}\left(P_{k, \ell}+P_{\ell, k}\right) = 1-\frac{k^k}{e^k k!},
\]
using Stirling's formula in the form $k!=\left(\frac{k}{e}\right)^k\sqrt{2\pi k}e^{\theta/12 k}$ with $0\leq\theta\leq 1$, and $P_{\ell, k}\leq \frac{1}{2}$, we conclude
\[
\lim_{\ell\rightarrow\infty} P_{k, \ell} \geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{k^k}{e^k k!}\geq \frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi k}}.
\]
\end{proof}

\section{Preliminary estimates}

For the proof of (\ref{eq:general}) we use another representation of $P_{k,\ell}$, which is due to Raab \cite{Raab}.
\begin{Theo}
\label{thm:Raab}
We have $P_{k,\ell}=U_{k,\ell} V_{k,\ell}$, where
\[
U_{k,\ell} = \exp\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(e^{-(k+\ell)t}-e^{-kt}-e^{-\ell t}\right)\;dt,
\]
\[
V_{k, \ell} = \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu=1}^\infty\frac{c_\nu(k/\ell)}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)},
\]
and
\[
c_\nu(x) = \exp\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(e^{-\nu(1+x)t}-e^{-\nu xt}-e^{-\nu t}\right)\;dt.
\]
\end{Theo}
We first compute the occurring integrals.
\begin{Lem}
\label{Lem:integrals}
We have for $x\geq 1$
\[
\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right) e^{-xt}\;dt =  \frac{1}{12x} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{x^2}\right)
\]
and
\[
\int_0^\infty \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right) e^{-xt}\;dt = \frac{1}{2}\log x+ C + \mathcal{O}(x)
\]
for $0<x\leq 1$, where $C$ is some constant.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
The series expansion of $e^x$ yields for $t\rightarrow 0$
\[
\frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right) = \frac{1}{t^2}\left(\frac{1}{1+t/2+t^2/6+\mathcal{O}(t^3)}-1+\frac{t}{2}\right) = 1/12 + \mathcal{O}(t).
\]
For $t\rightarrow\infty$ this expression tends to 0, in particular, it is bounded for all positive $t$. Hence for $x\rightarrow\infty$ the integral in question becomes
\[
\frac{1}{12}\int_0^\infty e^{-xt}\;dt + \mathcal{O}\left(\int_0^\infty te^{-xt}\;dt\right) = \frac{1}{12 x} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{x^2}\right).
\]
For $x\rightarrow 0$ we use $e^{-xt}=1-xt + \mathcal{O}(x^2t^2)$ and obtain
\[
\int_0^1 \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right) e^{-xt}\;dt = \int_0^1 \frac{1}{t}\left(\frac{1}{e^t-1}-\frac{1}{t}+\frac{1}{2}\right)\;dt + \mathcal{O}(x)
=C_1+\mathcal{O}(x)
\]
and
\[
\int_1^\infty \frac{1}{t(e^t-1)} e^{-xt}\;dt = \int_1^\infty \frac{1}{t(e^t-1)} \;dt -x \int_1^\infty \frac{1}{e^t-1} \;dt + \mathcal{O}(x^2).
\]
As a function of $x$, the integral $\int_1^{\infty} \frac{e^{-xt}}{t^2}\;dt$ defines a function that is differentiable from the right in 0 and has bounded second derivative in $(0,\infty)$, hence, for $x\geq 0$ this integral is $1+\mathcal{O}(x)$.

Finally
\begin{multline*}
\int_1^\infty\frac{e^{-xt}}{2t}\;dt = \int_x^\infty\frac{e^{-s}}{2s}\;ds =\\
 \int_x^1\frac{dt}{2t} + \int_0^1\frac{e^{-t}-1}{2t}\;dt +\int_1^\infty\frac{e^{-t}}{2t}\;dt+\int_0^x\frac{1-e^{-t}}{2t}\;dt\\
  = -\frac{1}{2}\log x + C_3 + \mathcal{O}(x).
\end{multline*}
Combining these estimates our claim follows.
\end{proof}
From this we obtain
\begin{Lem}
\label{Lem:U}
We have
\[
U_{k, \ell} =1-\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{1}{k}+\frac{1}{\ell}-\frac{1}{k+\ell}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\min(k, \ell)^2}\right).
\]
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
From Lemma~\ref{Lem:integrals} we obtain
\[
U_{k, \ell} = \exp\left(\frac{1}{12}\left(\frac{1}{k+\ell}-\frac{1}{k}-\frac{1}{\ell}\right)+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\min(k, \ell)^2}\right)\right),
\]
inserting the Taylor series for $\exp$ and using the fact that $k, \ell\geq 1$ our claim follows.
\end{proof}
Next we compute $c_\nu(x)$.
\begin{Lem}
\label{Lem:c}
If $\nu x\geq 1$, then
\[
c_\nu(x)=1+\frac{1}{12\nu(1+x)}-\frac{1}{12\nu x}+\frac{1}{12\nu} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2 \min(1,x^2)}\right).
\]
If $\nu x\leq 1$, then
\[
c_\nu(x) = K\sqrt{\nu x} + \mathcal{O}\left(\sqrt{\frac{x}{\nu}}+(\nu x)^{3/2}\right)
\]
for some constant $K$.
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
If $\nu x>1$, then we apply Lemma~\ref{Lem:integrals} to obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_\nu(x) & = & \exp\left(\frac{1}{12\nu(x+1)}-\frac{1}{12\nu x}+\frac{1}{12\nu}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, x^2)}\right)\right)\\
 & = & 1 + \frac{1}{12\nu(x+1)}-\frac{1}{12\nu x}+\frac{1}{12\nu}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, x^2)}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
If $\nu x<1$, then $\nu(x+1)\geq 1$, and we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
c_\nu(x) & = & \exp\left(\frac{1}{12\nu(x+1)}+\frac{1}{2}\log(\nu x)+C+\frac{1}{12\nu}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2}+\nu x\right)\right)\\
 & = & K\sqrt{\nu x} + \mathcal{O}\left(\sqrt{\frac{x}{\nu}}+(\nu x)^{3/2}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{proof}

We now compute $V_{k,\ell}$.

\begin{Lem}
\label{Lem:V}
We have
\[
V_{k,\ell} = \frac{1}{2} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell}}\right)
\]
\end{Lem}
\begin{proof}
We have
\[
\sum_{\nu\leq \ell/k}\frac{c_\nu(k/\ell)}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\ll \sum_{\nu\leq \ell/k}\frac{\sqrt{\nu k/\ell}}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\ll \frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell k}}
\]
thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
V_{k,\ell} & = & \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu>\ell/k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\left(1+\frac{1}{12\nu\frac{k+\ell}{\ell}} - \frac{1}{12\nu\frac{k}{\ell}} + \frac{1}{12\nu}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, k^2/\ell^2)}\right)\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right)\\
 & = & \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu>\ell/k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\left(1 - \frac{1}{12\nu\frac{k}{\ell}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, k^2/\ell^2)}\right)\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}+\sum_{\nu>\ell/k}\frac{1}{\nu^{3/2}\sqrt{\ell}}\right)\\
 & = & \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu>\ell/k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\left(1 - \frac{1}{12\nu\frac{k}{\ell}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, k^2/\ell^2)}\right)\right)+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell}}\right)\\
\end{eqnarray*}

If $k>\ell$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
V_{k,\ell} & = & \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu=1}^\infty\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell}}+\sqrt{\ell}\sum_{\nu=1}^\infty\frac{1}{\nu^{3/2}(\nu+\ell)}\right)\\
 & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^\infty\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}(t+1)} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell}}\right)\\
  & = & \frac{1}{2} + \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{\ell}}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
We have
\[
\frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu>\ell}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\left(1 - \frac{1}{12\nu\frac{k}{\ell}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, k^2/\ell^2)}\right)\right) = \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu>\ell}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right),
\]
and for $\ell/k\leq N\leq \ell$
\[
\sum_{N\leq \nu\leq 2N}\frac{1}{\nu^{3/2}(\nu+\ell)} \leq \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}\ell}
\]
as well as
\[
\sum_{N\leq \nu\leq 2N}\frac{1}{\nu^{5/2}(\nu+\ell)} \leq \frac{1}{N^{3/2}\ell}
\]
and therefore
\[
\sqrt{\ell}\sum_{\nu\geq\ell/k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\cdot\frac{1}{\nu\frac{k}{\ell}} = \frac{\ell^{3/2}}{k}\sum_{\nu\geq \ell/k}\frac{1}{\nu^{3/2}(\nu+\ell)} =\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right)
\]
and
\[
\sqrt{\ell}\sum_{\nu\geq \ell/k} \frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\cdot\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(k^2/\ell^2)} = \frac{\ell^{5/2}}{k^2}\sum_{\nu\geq \ell/k}\frac{1}{\nu^{5/2}(\nu+\ell)} =\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right).
\]
Using these estimates we obtain
\begin{multline*}
\frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\ell/k\leq\nu\leq\ell}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)}\left(1 - \frac{1}{12\nu\frac{k}{\ell}}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\nu^2\min(1, k^2/\ell^2)}\right)\right) =\\
\frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\ell/k\leq\nu\leq\ell}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)} +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right).
\end{multline*}
For $k\leq \ell$ we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
V_{k,\ell} & = & \frac{\sqrt{\ell}}{2\pi}\sum_{\nu\geq \ell/k}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu}(\nu+\ell)} +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right)\\
 & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{1/k}^\infty\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}(t+1)} +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right)\\
 & = & \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^\infty\frac{dt}{\sqrt{t}(t+1)} +\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right)\\
 & = & \frac{1}{2}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}\right),
\end{eqnarray*}
and the proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}

We first prove (\ref{eq:k small}). Note that this inequality is only interesting if the error term is $o(1)$, in particular we may assume that $k^2<\ell$. Under this assumption we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{k, \ell} & = & \left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell}\sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\binom{k+\ell}{\nu}\left(\frac{k}{\ell}\right)^\nu\\
 & = & \sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell-\nu}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!} \exp\left(\sum_{\mu=1}^\nu\log\frac{k+\ell-\mu}{k+\ell}\right)\\
 & = & \sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell-\nu}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!} \exp\left(-\sum_{\mu=1}^\nu\frac{\mu}{k+\ell}+ \mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\mu^2}{(k+\ell)^2}\right)\right)\\
 & = & \sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell-\nu}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!} \exp\left(\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\nu^2}{\ell}\right)\right)\\
 & = & \sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!} \exp\left(\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{k^2}{\ell}\right)\right)\\
 & = & \exp\left((k+\ell)\log\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right) \sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!} \exp\left(\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{k^2}{\ell}\right)\right)\\
 & = & \exp\left(-k+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{k^2}{\ell}\right)\right) \sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!}\\
 & = & e^{-k}\sum_{\nu=0}^{k-1}\frac{k^\nu}{\nu!}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{k^2}{\ell}\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
The proof of (\ref{eq:ell small}) is quite similar. Analogously to the previous case we may assume that $\ell^2<k$.

\begin{eqnarray*}
P_{k, \ell}  & = & \left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell}\left(\left(\frac{\ell+k}{\ell}\right)^{k+\ell} - \sum_{\nu=k}^{k+\ell}\binom{k+\ell}{\nu}\left(\frac{k}{\ell}\right)^\nu\right)\\
 & = & 1-\left(\frac{\ell}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\ell}\binom{k+\ell}{\mu}\left(\frac{k}{\ell}\right)^{k+\ell-\mu}\\
 & = & 1-\left(\frac{k}{\ell+k}\right)^{k+\ell} \sum_{\mu=0}^{\ell}\binom{k+\ell}{\mu}\left(\frac{\ell}{k}\right)^{\mu}\\
 & = & 1-\exp\left(-\ell+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\ell^2}{k}\right)\right)\sum_{\mu=0}^{\ell}\frac{\ell^\mu}{\mu!}\left(\frac{k+\ell}{k}\right)^{\mu}\\
 & = & 1-e^{-\ell}\sum_{\mu=0}^{\ell}\frac{\ell^\mu}{\mu!}.
\end{eqnarray*}

Finally (\ref{eq:general}) follows from Theorem~\ref{thm:Raab}, Lemma~\ref{Lem:U} and Lemma~\ref{Lem:V}.