The Fermat-Torricelli problem in normed planes and spaces

Abstract: We investigate the Fermat-Torricelli problem in d-dimensional real normed spaces or Minkowski spaces, mainly for d=2. Our approach is to study the Fermat-Torricelli locus in a geometric way. We present many new results, as well as give an exposition of known results that are scattered in various sources, with proofs for some of them. Together, these results can be considered to be a minitheory of the Fermat-Torricelli problem in Minkowski spaces and especially in Minkowski planes. This demonstrates that substantial results about locational problems valid for all norms can be found using a geometric approach.

\section{Introduction}
The famous Fermat-Torricelli problem (in Location Science also called the Steiner-Weber problem) asks for the unique point $\vect{x}$ minimizing the sum of distances to arbitrarily given points $\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_n$ in Euclidean $d$-dimensional space $\mathbf{R}^d$.
In the present paper, we will consider the extension of this problem to $d$-dimensional real normed spaces (= Minkowski spaces), where we investigate mainly, but not only, the case $d=2$.

Since in arbitrary Minkowski spaces the solution set (= Fermat-Torricelli locus) is not necessarily a singleton, we study geometric descriptions of this set.
Continuing related investigations given in the papers \cite{CG, DM, DM2, KM}, we present some new geometric results about Fermat-Torricelli loci.
Alongside expositions of known results that are scattered in various sources and proofs of some of them, we make basic observations that have perhaps not been made before, and present many new results, especially in the planar case that is the most important for Location Science.
Our results together can be considered to be a mini-theory of the Fermat-Torricelli problem in Minkowski spaces and especially in Minkowski planes.
We emphasise that it is possible to find substantial results about locational problems valid \emph{for all norms} using a geometric approach, and in fact most of our results are true for all norms.

We now give an overview of the paper.

\textbf{Section~\ref{terminology}.} We introduce and give an overview of basic terminology and technical tools used in Minkowski geometry.

\textbf{Section~\ref{general}.} We first give an overview of general properties of Fermat-Torricelli points and loci (Definitions~\ref{3.1}, \ref{3.2}, \ref{3.3} and Propositions~\ref{prop0} and~\ref{lemma1}).

We then give a simple exposition of the results obtained in \cite{DM} on the characterization of Fermat-Torricelli points in terms of functionals in the dual space (Theorem~\ref{DMchar}) and that the Fermat-Torricelli locus can be obtained as the intersection of certain cones with apices $\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_n$ (Definition~\ref{3.7} and Theorem~\ref{geomchar}).
It seems to have been overlooked that this construction is a natural extension of a geometric approach to \emph{$d$-segments} presented in \cite[\S 9]{BMS} (Proposition~\ref{newexample}).
(The notion of $d$-segments was introduced by K. Menger \cite{Menger}, who also gave a historically early investigation in the spirit of Location Science \cite[p.~80]{Menger}.)
We show an application of Theorem~\ref{DMchar} in Corollary~\ref{3.6}.
We then use Theorem~\ref{geomchar} to derive various position criteria for Fermat-Torricelli loci.
In Corollary~\ref{3.9} we describe the shape of Fermat-Torricelli loci in Minkowski planes and give two examples (Examples~\ref{rectilinear} and \ref{reghex}) that will play a role in Section~\ref{specific} in characterizing the $L_1$ and hexagonal norms in the plane (Theorem~\ref{twodim}).

We introduce the new concept of $d$-concurrent $d$-segments (Definition~\ref{3.12}), describe their Fermat-Torricelli loci (Corollary~\ref{dconc}), give examples (Example~\ref{3.14}), and indicate that a result of Cieslik \cite{Cieslik2} follows as a special case (Corollary~\ref{3.15}).
We then introduce the concept of $d$-collinear set (Definition~\ref{3.16}) and characterize Fermat-Torricelli loci of these sets (Corollaries~\ref{dcoll1} and \ref{dcoll2}), thereby generalizing the results in $\mathbf{R}^1$ to general spaces.

In Corollary~\ref{3.19} we describe a general situation of when the Fermat-Torricelli locus is a singleton, and in Theorem~\ref{sc} prove that the Fermat-Torricelli locus is always a singleton exactly when the Minkowski space is strictly convex.

Finally in this section we contrast the situation between the two-dimensional and higher-dimensional cases by citing the result of Wendell and Hurter \cite{WH} that in Minkowski planes the Fermat-Torricelli locus of any set always intersects the convex hull (Theorem~\ref{3.21} and Corollary~\ref{sc2}), and the results of Cieslik \cite{MR89f:90114} and Durier \cite{Durier} that similar properties hold in higher dimensions only in Euclidean space (Theorem~\ref{durier}).
We also sketch the proof of Theorem~\ref{durier}, as its complete proof is scattered over various papers.
In Section~\ref{specific} we refine Theorem~\ref{3.21} (see e.g.\ Theorem~\ref{dc}).

\textbf{Section~\ref{specific}.}
Here we make a closer analysis of the relationship between the Fermat-Torricelli locus and the convex hull of a finite set in Minkowski planes.
We first introduce the notion of a double cluster generalizing the notion of a collinear set with an even number of points (Definition~\ref{4.1} and Example~\ref{doublecluster}) and show that if a Fermat-Torricelli point of a set in a Minkowski plane is outside the convex hull of that set, then the set must be a double cluster (Theorem~\ref{dc}).
It follows that the Fermat-Toricelli locus of a set with an odd number of points is contained in the convex hull of the set (Corollary~\ref{4.4}).

We then introduce the notion of pseudo double cluster generalizing the notion of a set with an even number of points in which all points except possibly one are collinear (Definition~\ref{4.6}) and show that if one of the vertices of the convex hull of a set in a Minkowski plane is also a Fermat-Torricelli point, then the set must be a pseudo double cluster (Theorem~\ref{prop62} and Corollary~\ref{4.8}).
We then give some results on the more subtle situation when there is a Fermat-Torricelli point on the relative interior of an edge of the convex hull (Corollaries~\ref{4.9} and \ref{4.10}, Example~\ref{4.11} and Theorem~\ref{4.12}).
As the final results in Section~\ref{specific} we mention a generalization of Proposition 6.4 of \cite{KM} (Theorem~\ref{4.13}), and characterize the Minkowski planes having parallelograms and affinely regular hexagons as unit balls as those Minkowski planes in which more than two points of a given set can be Fermat-Torricelli points of the set (Theorem~\ref{twodim}).
We give a higher-dimensional generalization of this result (Lemma~\ref{lemma2} and Theorem~\ref{highd}) characterizing $L_1$ spaces.

\textbf{Section~\ref{specific2}.}
Here we conclude our investigation into Fermat-Torricelli loci in Minkowski planes by characterizing absorbing degree two and floating degree three Fermat-Torricelli configurations in terms of special types of angles (absorbing and critical angles, Definitions~\ref{5.1} and \ref{5.2}).
We first give characterizations of these angles (Lemmas~\ref{one} and \ref{two}), which already gives a characterization of absorbing Fermat-Torricelli configurations of degree two.
We then use these results as well as a technical result (Lemma~\ref{threesegment}) to characterize degree three Fermat-Torricelli configurations in terms of critical angles (Theorem~\ref{torithree}).

\section{Terminology of Minkowski spaces}\label{terminology}
A \emph{Minkowski space} is a real finite-dimensional normed space $X$ with \emph{norm} $\norm{\cdot}:X\to\mathbf{R}$ (satisfying $\norm{\vect{x}}\geq 0$, $\norm{\vect{x}}=0$ iff $\vect{x}=\vect{o}$, $\norm{\lambda\vect{x}}=\abs{\lambda}\norm{\vect{x}}$, and most importantly, the triangle inequality $\norm{\vect{x}+\vect{y}}\leq\norm{\vect{x}}+\norm{\vect{y}}$), \emph{unit ball} $B=\{\vect{x}:\norm{\vect{x}}\leq 1\}$ and \emph{unit sphere} (or \emph{unit circle} in the two-dimensional case) $\{\vect{x}:\norm{\vect{x}}= 1\}$.
A \emph{Minkowski plane} is a two-dimensional Minkowski space.
For the facts on Minkowski spaces recalled below, see \cite[Chapters~1~and~3]{Thompson}, for general convex geometry see \cite{Schneider}, and for convex analysis see \cite{Rocka}.

Any centrally symmetric convex body $B$ centred at the origin $\vect{o}$ gives rise to a norm for which $B$ is the unit ball, i.e.,
\[ \norm{\vect{x}} = \inf\{\lambda^{-1} : \lambda\vect{x}\in B\}.\]
By the Mazur-Ulam Theorem, any two Minkowski spaces are isometric iff their unit balls are affinely equivalent, i.e., if there exists a linear mapping from one unit ball onto the other.
A Minkowski space $X$ is \emph{strictly convex} if the unit sphere contains no non-trivial \emph{line segment}
\[\vect{x}\vect{y}=\{\alpha\vect{x}+(1-\alpha)\vect{y}: 0\leq\alpha\leq 1\}, \quad \vect{x}\neq \vect{y},\]
or, equivalently, if $\norm{\vect{x}+\vect{y}} < \norm{\vect{x}}+\norm{\vect{y}}$ for any linearly independent $\vect{x}, \vect{y}\in X$.
A Minkowski space is \emph{smooth} if each boundary point of the unit ball has a unique supporting hyperplane.

Given a Minkowski space $X$ with norm $\norm{\cdot}$ and unit ball $B$, the dual norm on the dual space $X^\ast$ is defined as $\norm{\phi}=\max_{\norm{\vect{x}}=1}\phi(\vect{x})$ for any functional $\phi\in X^\ast$.
If we identify $X$ and $X^\ast$ with $d$-dimensional $\mathbf{R}^d$, then the dual unit ball $B^\ast$ is the polar body of $B$:
\[B^\ast = \{\vect{y}: \ipr{\vect{x}}{\vect{y}}\leq 1 \mbox{ for all } \vect{x}\in B\}.\]
A \emph{norming functional} of $\vect{x}\in X$ is a $\phi\in X^\ast$ such that $\norm{\phi}=1$ and $\phi(\vect{x})=\norm{\vect{x}}$.
The hyperplane $\phi^{-1}(1) = \{\vect{y}\in X : \phi(\vect{y})=1\}$ is then a hyperplane supporting the unit ball at $\vect{x}$.
By the separation theorem, each $\vect{x}\in X$ has a norming functional.
Thus a Minkowski space is smooth iff each $\vect{x}\neq\vect{o}$ has a unique norming functional.
It is also known that $X^{\ast\ast}$ is isometric to $X$, and $X$ is smooth iff $X^\ast$ is strictly convex.

We use the shorthand notation $\un{\vect{x}}$ for $\frac{1}{\norm{\vect{x}}}\vect{x}$ for any $\vect{x}\neq\vect{o}$, and $\length{\vect{x}\vect{y}}$ for the length $\norm{\vect{x}-\vect{y}}$ of the segment $\vect{x}\vect{y}$.

In some of our proofs we use the subdifferential calculus of convex functions (see \cite[\S 23]{Rocka} for proofs of the discussion below).
A functional $\phi\in X^\ast$ is a {\em subgradient} of a convex function $f: X\to\mathbf{R}$ at $\vect{x}\in X$ if for all $\vect{z}\in X$,
\[ f(\vect{z})-f(\vect{x}) \geq \phi(\vect{z}-\vect{x}).\]
In particular, $o\in X^\ast$ s a subgradient of $f$ at $\vect{x}$ iff $f$ attains its minimum value at $\vect{x}$.
The {\em subdifferential} of $f$ at $\vect{x}$ is the set $\partial f(\vect{x})$ of all subgradients of $f$ at $\vect{x}$.
This set is always non-empty, closed and convex.
The following basic property of subdifferentials is important to what follows:
If $f_1,\dots,f_n$ are convex functions on $X$, then
\[ \partial (\sum_{i=1}^n \alpha_i f_i)(\vect{x}) = \sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i\partial f_i(\vect{x})\]
for all $\vect{x}\in X$ and $\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_n\in\mathbf{R}$, where the sum on the right is Minkowski addition of sets in a vector space:
If $A,B\subseteq X$, then $A+B:=\{\vect{a}+\vect{b} : \vect{a}\in A, \vect{b}\in B\}$.
The proof, to be found in \cite{Rocka}, uses the separation theorem.
It is easily seen that the subdifferential of the norm of $X$ at $\vect{x}$ is the following:
\begin{lemma}\label{normsubdiff}
$\partial\norm{\vect{o}} = B_{X^\ast}$ \textup{(}i.e. the unit ball of $X^\ast$\textup{)}.
If $\vect{x}\neq \vect{o}$, then $\partial\norm{\vect{x}} = \{\phi\in X^\ast: \norm{\phi} = 1, \phi(\vect{x})=\norm{\vect{x}} \}$, \textup{(}i.e. the set of norming functionals of $\vect{x}$\textup{)}.
\qed
\end{lemma}
Thus, if $\vect{x}\neq \vect{o}$, $\partial\norm{\vect{x}}$ is the exposed face of the unit ball in $X$ defined by the hyperplane $\{\phi\in X^\ast: \phi(\vect{x}) = 1\}$.
Recall that a (proper) \emph{exposed face} of a convex body $B$ is an intersection of $B$ with some supporting hyperplane (see e.g.\ \cite{Schneider}).

We conclude with some more geometric terms.
The \emph{ray} with origin $\vect{a}$ passing through $\vect{b}$ is denoted by $\Ray{\vect{a}\vect{b}}$.
An \emph{angle} $\sphericalangle \vect{x}\vect{y}\vect{z}$ in a Minkowski plane is the convex cone bounded by two rays $\Ray{\vect{y}\vect{x}}$ and $\Ray{\vect{y}\vect{z}}$ emanating from the same point $\vect{y}$.
(We allow half planes, i.e.\ $180^\circ$ angles --- in this case we take the half plane on the left if we pass from $\vect{x}$ to $\vect{z}$.)
We denote the \emph{$d$-segment} from $\vect{x}$ to $\vect{y}$ by
\[\dsegment{\vect{x}\vect{y}} := \{\vect{z}\in X:\length{\vect{x}\vect{z}} + \length{\vect{z}\vect{y}} = \length{\vect{x}\vect{y}}\}.\]
A \emph{metric ray} is a subset of $X$ that is isometric to $[0,\infty)$, and a \emph{metric line} is a subset of $X$ isometric to $\mathbf{R}^1$.

We denote the interior, closure, boundary, convex hull and affine hull of a subset $A$ of a Minkowski space by $\interior A$, $\closure A$, $\bd A$, $\conv A$ and $\aff A$, respectively.

\section{Fermat-Torricelli points and loci: General properties}\label{general}
\begin{definition}\label{3.1}
We call a point $\vect{x}_0$ a \emph{Fermat-Torricelli point} (or FT point) of distinct points $\vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n$ in a Minkowski space if $\vect{x}=\vect{x}_0$ minimizes $\vect{x}\mapsto\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$.
\end{definition}
See \cite{KM} and \cite[Chapter 2]{MR2000c:90002} for a discussion of FT points in Euclidean spaces; related investigations in Minkowski spaces are \cite{CG, Durier, DM, S6}; see also \cite{Cieslik2}.
In the Facilities Location literature (cf.\ \cite{MR1358610}) these points are also called Fermat-Weber or Steiner-Weber points.
\begin{definition}\label{3.2}
A (star) \emph{configuration} (of degree $n$) in a Minkowski space is a set of segments $\{\vect{x}\vx_i: i=1, \dots,n\}$ emanating from the same point $\vect{x}$, with $\vect{x}_i\neq\vect{x}$ for all $i$.
A configuration $\{\vect{x}\vx_i\}$ is \emph{pointed} if there is a hyperplane $H$ through $\vect{x}$ such that the interior of each segment $\vect{x}\vx_i$ is in the same open half space bounded by $H$.
A \emph{floating Fermat-Torricelli configuration} (or floating FT configuration) is a configuration $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i:i=1, \dots,n\}$ such that $\vect{x}_0$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n\}$, and an \emph{absorbing Fermat-Torricelli configuration} (or absorbing FT configuration) is a configuration $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i:i=1, \dots,n\}$ such that $\vect{x}_0$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{x}_0, \vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n\}$.
\end{definition}
We first make the following simple observations.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop0}
In any Minkowski space,
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i\}$ is a floating FT configuration, then it is also an absorbing FT configuration.
\item if $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i\}$ is an FT configuration, then so is $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{y}_i\}$ for any $\vect{y}_i\in\Ray{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i}$, $\vect{y}_i\neq \vect{x}_0$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\proof
Firstly, if $\vect{x}=\vect{x}_0$ minimizes $\vect{x}\mapsto\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$, then $\vect{x}=\vect{x}_0$ also minimizes $\vect{x}\mapsto\sum_{i=0}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$, since for any $\vect{x}\in X$ we have $\sum_{i=0}^n\length{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i}=\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i}\leq\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}\leq\sum_{i=0}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$.

Secondly, suppose $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i : i=1,\dots,n\}$ is a floating FT configuration.
(The case of an absorbing FT configuration is similar.)
Without loss of generality $\vect{x}_0=\vect{o}$.
Thus $\vect{x}=\vect{o}$ minimizes $\vect{x}\mapsto\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$.
Let $\vect{y}_i\neq\vect{o}$ be on the ray $\Ray{\vect{o}\vect{x}_i}$ for each $i=1,\dots,n$, say $\vect{y}_i=\lambda_i\vect{x}_i$ with $\lambda_i>0$.
Clearly $\{\vect{o}\vect{x}_i\}$ is an FT configuration iff $\{\vect{o}\vect{x}_i'\}$ is an FT configuration where $\vect{x}_i'=\lambda\vect{x}_i$, for any $\lambda>0$, i.e., we may scale an FT configuration.
Thus we may assume without loss of generality that each $\lambda_i\leq 1$ by making the original FT configuration sufficiently large.
Then for any $\vect{x}\in X$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{o}\vect{y}_i} & = & \sum_{i=1}^n(\length{\vect{o}\vect{x}_i}-\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{y}_i}) \\
& \leq & \sum_{i=1}^n(\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}-\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{y}_i}) \quad \text{ (since $\vect{o}$ is an FT point)} \\
& \leq & \sum_{i=1}^n(\length{\vect{x}\vect{y}_i} \quad \text{ (by the triangle inequality).}
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus $\vect{o}$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{y}_i\}$.
\qed

In contrast to the case of non-collinear points in Euclidean space, in general a set of points can have more than one FT point.
\begin{definition}\label{3.3}
The \emph{Fermat-Torricelli locus} (or FT locus) of $\vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n$ is the set $\FT(\vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n)$ of all FT points of $\vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n$.
\end{definition}
There are also corresponding definitions for weighted points, but we only consider the unweighted case.
Note that it immediately follows from the triangle inequality that $\FT(\vect{x},\vect{y})=\dsegment{\vect{x}\vect{y}}$.
Chakerian and Ghandehari \cite{CG} gave an extensive analysis of FT points in the floating case, where $X$ is a smooth and strictly convex Minkowski space.
They derive characterizations in terms of ``special polytopes'', i.e., in the terminology of \cite{KM}, polyhedral arrangements with the Viviani-Steiner property.
In our discussion we do not make in general any special assumptions such as smoothness or strict convexity, nor do we restrict our attention exclusively to the floating case.
In general we can say the following of the FT locus \cite{MR89f:90114}.

\begin{proposition}\label{lemma1}
The FT locus of any finite set is always non-empty, compact and convex.
\end{proposition}
\proof
The following is a standard argument, adapted from the Euclidean case.
If $A=\{\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_n\}$, then $\FT(A)$ is the set of all minima of the function
\[f(\vect{x}):=\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}.\]
By the triangle inequality,
\[f(\vect{x})\geq\sum_{i=1}^n(\norm{\vect{x}}-\norm{\vect{x}_i})>\sum_{i=1}^n\norm{\vect{x}_i}=f(\vect{o})\]
for any $\vect{x}$ with $\norm{\vect{x}}>2\sum_{i=1}^n\norm{\vect{x}_i}$.
Thus $\FT(A)$ is contained in the closed ball $\norm{\vect{x}}\leq 2\sum_{i=1}^n\norm{\vect{x}_i}$, and by compactness $\FT(A)$ is non-empty and compact.
That $\FT(A)$ is convex follows from the convexity of the function $f$.
\qed

Durier and Michelot \cite{DM} have given the following characterization of FT points, which extends the classical characterization in the case of Euclidean spaces.

\begin{theorem}[\cite{DM}]\label{DMchar}
Let $\vect{x}_0, \vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n$ be points in a Minkowski space.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\vect{x}_0\neq\vect{x}_1, \dots, \vect{x}_n$, then $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i:i=1, \dots,n\}$ is a floating FT configuration iff each $\vect{x}_i-\vect{x}_0$ has a norming functional $\phi_i$ such that $\sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i=o$.
\item If $\vect{x}_0=\vect{x}_j$ for some $j=1, \dots,n$, then $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_i:i=1, \dots,n, i\neq j\}$ is an absorbing FT configuration iff each $\vect{x}_i-\vect{x}_0$ $(i\neq j)$ has a norming functional $\phi_i$ such that
\[\Biggl\|\sum_{\substack{i\neq j\\ i=1}}^n\phi_i\Biggr\|\leq 1.\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\proof
Let $A=\{\vect{x}_0,\dots,\vect{x}_n\}$.
We use the subdfferential calculus.
The point $\vect{p}\in\FT(A)$ iff $\vect{p}$ minimizes the convex function
\[ f(\vect{x})=\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}, \]
iff $\vect{o}\in\partial f(\vect{x})=\partial\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}=\sum_{i=1}^n\partial\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$.
This is equivalent to the conditions stated, since, letting $g(\vect{x})=\length{\vect{x}\vx_i}$, we have by Lemma~\ref{normsubdiff} that
\[ \partial g(\vect{x}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{l@{\mbox{ if }}l}
\{\phi: \phi \mbox{ is a norming functional of } \vect{x}-\vect{x}_i\} & \vect{x}\neq \vect{x}_i \\
\{\phi: \norm{\phi}\leq 1\} & \vect{x}=\vect{x}_i.\end{array}\right. \]

Sufficiency can also be shown directly as follows:
If the purported FT point $\vect{p}\not\in A$ then for any $\vect{x}\in X$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{p}} & = & \sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{x})+\sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i(\vect{x}-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{x})+(\sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i)(\vect{x}-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_{i=1}^n\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{x}) \\
& \leq & \sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}},
\end{eqnarray*}
while if $\vect{p}=\vect{x}_j\in A$, then for any $\vect{x}\in X$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i\neq j}\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{p}}  & = & \sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{x})+\sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i(\vect{x}-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{x})+(\sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i)(\vect{x}-\vect{p}) \\
& \leq & \sum_{i\neq j}\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}}+\Bigl\|\sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i\Bigr\|\,\length{\vect{x}\vect{p}} \\
& \leq & \sum_{i=1}^n\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
\qed

The above type of calculation is useful to analyze the situation where $\FT(A)$ has more than one point (see the proofs of Theorem~\ref{sc} and Lemma~\ref{lemma2}).
Theorem~\ref{prop0} follows immediately from the above characterization, as well as the following observation.
\begin{corollary}\label{3.6}
In any Minkowski space, if $\{\vect{o}\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{o}\vect{x}_n\}$ is a floating FT configuration, then $\{\vect{o}\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{o}\vect{x}_{n-1}\}$ is an absorbing FT configuration.
\end{corollary}

The following geometric description of $\FT(A)$ (Theorem~\ref{geomchar}), due to Durier and Michelot \cite{DM}, also follows from Theorem~\ref{DMchar}.
\begin{definition}\label{3.7}
Given a unit functional $\phi\in X^*$ and a point $\vect{x}\in X$, define the cone $C(\vect{x},\phi)=\vect{x}-\{\vect{a}:\phi(\vect{a})=\norm{\vect{a}}\}$, i.e., $C(\vect{x},\phi)$ is the translate by $\vect{x}$ of the union of the rays from the origin through the exposed face $\phi^{-1}(-1)\cap B$ of the unit ball $B$ of $X$.
\end{definition}
We remark that any metric ray of $X$ with origin $\vect{x}$ is contained in $C(\vect{x},\phi)$ for some unit functional $\phi$.

Note that it follows from Proposition~\ref{lemma1} that if $\FT(A)$ consists of more than one point then it contains a point not in $A$, since then $\FT(A)$ is infinite, but $A$ is finite.
In the following theorem we need an FT point not in $A$ in order to obtain a geometric description of $\FT(A)$.
To apply this theorem we therefore first have to find such an FT point by some other means.
\begin{theorem}[\cite{DM}]\label{geomchar}
In any Minkowski space $X$ with a finite given subset $A$, suppose we are given $\vect{p}\in\FT(A)\setminus A$.
Let $\phi_i$ be a norming functional of $\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}$ for each $\vect{x}_i\in A$, such that $\sum_i\phi_i=o$.
Then $\FT(A)=\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Note that by Definition~\ref{3.7} $\vect{x}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)$ iff $\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{x})=\norm{\vect{x}_i-\vect{x}}$.
Thus if $\vect{x}\not\in A$ we have that $\vect{x}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)$ iff for each $i=1,\dots,n$, $\phi_i$ is a norming functional of $\vect{x}_i-\vect{x}$, iff $\vect{x}\in\FT(A)$ (by Theorem~\ref{DMchar} and $\sum_i\phi_i=o$).
It follows that $\FT(A)\setminus A = \bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i) \setminus A$.

If on the other hand $\vect{x}=\vect{x}_j$ for some $j$, then $\vect{x}\neq\vect{x}_i$ for all $i\neq j$, and $\vect{x}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)$ implies that for all $i\neq j$, $\phi_i$ is a norming functional of $\vect{x}_i-\vect{x}$, which implies that $\vect{x}\in\FT(A)$ (by Theorem~\ref{DMchar} and $\norm{\sum_{i\neq j}\phi_i}=\norm{-\phi_j}=1$).
Thus $\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)\subseteq\FT(A)$.

It remains to show that $A\cap\FT(A)\subseteq\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)$.
Since $\FT(A)\setminus A$ is not empty, and $\FT(A)$ is convex, hence connected, we have that any $\vect{x}_i\in A\cap\FT(A)$ is not an isolated point of $\FT(A)$.
Thus we have $\vect{x}_i\in\closure(\FT(A)\setminus A)=\closure(\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i) \setminus A)\subseteq\bigcap_{i=1}^n C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)$.
\qed

In the special case where $A$ consists of two points $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{y}$, $\FT(A)$ is the $d$-segment $\dsegment{\vect{x}\vect{y}}$, and from the above theorem can be found the description of $d$-segments obtained in \cite[Theorem~9.6]{BMS}.
We here demonstrate the planar case.
Since we may make a translation we assume without loss of generality in the following proposition that $\vect{y}=-\vect{x}$.

\begin{proposition}\label{newexample}
In a Minkowski plane for any $\vect{x}\neq\vect{o}$, we have that $\FT(\vect{x},-\vect{x})=\dsegment{\vect{x}\vect{y}}$ is the segment $\vect{x}(-\vect{x})$ whenever $\vect{x}$ is not in the relative interior of a segment on the boundary of the unit ball, while if $\vect{x}$ is in the relative interior of the maximal segment $\vect{a}\vect{b}$ on the boundary of the unit ball, then $\FT(\vect{x},-\vect{x})$ is the \textup{(}unique\textup{)} parallelogram with sides parallel to $\Line{\vect{o}\vect{a}}$ and $\Line{\vect{o}\vect{b}}$ and which has $\vect{x}$ and $-\vect{x}$ as opposite sides.
See Figure~\ref{dsegmentfig}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{fignew}
\end{center}
\caption{A $d$-segment in a Minkowski plane}\label{dsegmentfig}
\end{figure}
\proof
Take any norming functional $\phi$ of $\vect{x}$.
Then $\phi^{-1}(1)\cap B$ contains $\vect{x}$ and is either the singleton $\{\vect{x}\}$ or a segment $\vect{a}\vect{b}$.
In the case of a singleton clearly $C(\vect{x},\phi)$ is the ray $\Ray{\vect{x}(-\vect{x})}$.
Since $-\phi$ is then a norming functional of $-\vect{x}$ and $C(-\vect{x},-\phi)=\Ray{(-\vect{x})\vect{x}}$, if we apply Theorem~\ref{geomchar}, we obtain $\FT(\vect{x},-\vect{x})=\vect{x}(-\vect{x})$.

If $\phi^{-1}(1)\cap B=\vect{a}\vect{b}$, then $C(\vect{x},\phi)$ is the angle with vertex $\vect{x}$ bounded by two rays with origin $\vect{x}$ in the directions of $-\vect{a}$ and $-\vect{b}$, respectively.
Applying Theorem~\ref{geomchar} we obtain that $\FT(\vect{x},-\vect{x})$ is the intersection of these two angles, which is the parallelogram described in the statement of the proposition.

Note that if $\vect{x}$ is not in the relative interior of $\vect{a}\vect{b}$, i.e., if $\vect{x}=\vect{a}$ or $\vect{x}=\vect{b}$, then the parallelogram degenerates to the segment $\vect{x}(-\vect{x})$.
\qed

As seen in the above proof, in a Minkowski plane the cones $C(\vect{x}_i,\phi)$ are always either rays or angles, and in the light of Proposition~\ref{lemma1} we obtain the following
\begin{corollary}\label{3.9}
In a Minkowski plane $X$, the FT locus of a finite set of points is always a convex polygon, that may degenerate to a segment or a point.
\end{corollary}

We here give two examples in detail of how Theorems~\ref{DMchar} and \ref{geomchar} can be applied to find FT loci.
Later it will be seen that these examples are unique in a certain sense (Theorem~\ref{twodim}).
\begin{example}\label{rectilinear}
Let the unit ball of the Minkowski plane $X$ be the parallelogram with vertices $\{\pm\vect{x},\pm\vect{y}\}$, where $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{y}$ are any two linearly independent vectors.
If $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{y}$ form the standard basis of $\mathbf{R}^2$, then we obtain the $L_1$ plane or Manhattan plane.
In fact, a Minkowski plane is isometric to the $L_1$ plane iff its unit ball is a parallelogram.
We let $A=\{\pm\frac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y}), \pm\frac12(\vect{x}-\vect{y})\}$ (see Figure~\ref{fig1}).
We now use Theorem~\ref{geomchar} to find $FT(A)$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{fig1}
\end{center}
\caption{$\FT(A)=\conv(A)$ is possible in the rectilinear norm}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
We let $\phi_1$ be the norming functional of $\frac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y})$, i.e., the (unique) functional in $X^*$ of norm $1$ for which $\phi_1^{-1}(1)=\Line{\vect{x}\vect{y}}$.
Similarly, we let $\phi_2$ be the norming functional of $\frac12(\vect{x}-\vect{y})$, i.e., the functional of norm $1$ for which $\phi_2^{-1}(1)=\Line{\vect{x}(-\vect{y})}$.
Then the norming functionals of $-\frac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y})$ and $-\frac12(\vect{x}-\vect{y})$ are $-\phi_1$ and $-\phi_2$, respectively.
By Theorem~\ref{DMchar} we then have that $\vect{o}$ is an FT point of $A$ (since the sum of the norming functionals is $o$).
By Theorem~\ref{geomchar}  we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\FT(A) & = & C(\tfrac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y}),\phi_1)\cap C(\tfrac12(\vect{x}-\vect{y}),\phi_2) \\
& & \;\cap \,C(-\tfrac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y}),-\phi_1)\cap C(-\tfrac12(\vect{x}-\vect{y}),-\phi_2).
\end{eqnarray*}
The union of the rays from the origin through the exposed face $\phi_1^{-1}(-1)\cap B$ of the unit ball is the whole third quadrant $\sphericalangle(-\vect{x})\vect{o}(-\vect{y})$.
Thus $C(\frac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y}),\phi_1)$ is the translate of this quadrant by $\frac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y})$, i.e., the angle $\sphericalangle\frac12(-\vect{x}+\vect{y})\frac12(\vect{x}+\vect{y})\frac12(\vect{x}-\vect{y})$.
The other cones are similarly found, and their intersection is exactly the parallelogram $\conv A$, which is the shaded part in Figure~\ref{fig1}.
\end{example}

\begin{example}\label{reghex}
Let the unit ball of the Minkowski plane $X$ be an affine regular hexagon $B$, i.e., $B$ is the image of a regular hexagon with centre $\vect{o}$ under an invertible linear mapping.
If we let $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{y}$ be two consecutive vertices of $B$ then $B=\conv\{\pm\vect{x},\pm\vect{y},\pm(\vect{x}-\vect{y})\}$.
See Figure~\ref{fig2}.
We now use Theorem~\ref{geomchar} to find $\FT(\vect{o},\vect{x},\vect{y})$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.9]{fig2}
\end{center}
\caption{$\FT(A)=\conv(A)$ is possible in the regular hexagonal norm}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
Let $\vect{p}=\frac13(\vect{o}+\vect{x}+\vect{y})$, i.e., the centroid of the triangle $\triangle\vect{o}\vect{x}\vect{y}$.
As in Example~\ref{rectilinear}, if we let $\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3$ be the (unique) norming functionals of $\vect{o}-\vect{p}, \vect{x}-\vect{p}, \vect{y}-\vect{p}$, respectively, then $\phi_1+\phi_2+\phi_3=o$.
Thus $\vect{p}$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{o},\vect{x},\vect{y}\}$.
As before, we have $C(\vect{o},\phi_1)=\sphericalangle\vect{x}\vect{o}\vect{y}$, $C(\vect{x},\phi_2)=\sphericalangle\vect{o}\vect{x}\vect{y}$, $C(\vect{y},\phi_3)=\sphericalangle\vect{o}\vect{y}\vect{x}$.
By Theorem~\ref{geomchar}, $\FT(\vect{o},\vect{x},\vect{y})=\sphericalangle\vect{x}\vect{o}\vect{y}\cap\sphericalangle\vect{o}\vect{x}\vect{y}\cap\sphericalangle\vect{o}\vect{y}\vect{x}=\conv\{\vect{o},\vect{x},\vect{y}\}$,
i.e., the FT locus is the triangle $\triangle\vect{o}\vect{x}\vect{y}$.
\end{example}

\begin{definition}\label{3.12}
The $d$-segments $\dsegment{\vect{a}_i\vect{b}_i}$ are \emph{$d$-concurrent} if their intersection is non-empty.
\end{definition}
\begin{corollary}\label{dconc}
If $A=\{\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_{2k}\}$ can be matched up to form $k$ $d$-segments $\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{k+i}}$, $i=1,\dots,k$, that are $d$-concurrent, then $\FT(A)=\bigcap_{i=1}^{k}\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{k+i}}$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
Let $\vect{p}\in\bigcap_{i=1}^{k}\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{k+i}}\setminus A$.
Since $\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{k+i}}=\FT(\vect{x}_i,\vect{x}_{k+i})$, we have that $\{\vect{p}\vect{x}_i, \vect{p}\vect{x}_{k+1}\}$ is a floating FT configuration for each $i$.
By Theorem~\ref{DMchar} there is a norming functional $\phi_i$ of $\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}$ and $\phi_{k+i}$ of $\vect{x}_{k+i}-\vect{p}$ such that $\phi_i+\phi_{k+i}=\vect{o}$.
By Theorem~\ref{geomchar} we have $\FT(\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{k+i})=C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_i)\cap C(\vect{x}_{k+i},\phi_{k+i})$.
Thus $\sum_{i=1}^{2k}\phi_i=o$, and again by Theorem~\ref{DMchar}, $\{\vect{p}\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{p}\vect{x}_{2k}\}$ is a floating FT configuration.
We now apply Theorem~\ref{geomchar} again to obtain $\FT(A)=\bigcap_{i=1}^{2k}C(\vect{x}_i,\phi_k)=\bigcap_{i=1}^k\FT(\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{k+i})$.
\qed

\begin{example}\label{3.14}
In Figure~\ref{fig4} we first apply Proposition~\ref{newexample} to obtain $\dsegment{\vect{x}_1\vect{x}_3}$ and $\dsegment{\vect{x}_2\vect{x}_4}$.
We obtain that $\dsegment{\vect{x}_1\vect{x}_3}$ is the usual segment $\vect{x}_1\vect{x}_3$, since the exposed faces of the unit ball $B$ containing $\vect{x}_1$ and $\vect{x}_3$, respectively, are both singletons ($\vect{x}_1$ and $\vect{x}_3$ are not in the interiors of segments on the boundary of $B$).
Also, $\dsegment{\vect{x}_2\vect{x}_4}$ is the parallelogram with opposite sides $\vect{x}_2$ and $\vect{x}_4$ and sides parallel to the vectors from the origin to the endpoints of the segment on the boundary of $B$ containing $\vect{x}_4$.
By Corollary~\ref{3.12}, $\FT(\vect{x}_1,\vect{x}_2,\vect{x}_3,\vect{x}_4)=\dsegment{\vect{x}_1\vect{x}_3}\cap\dsegment{\vect{x}_2\vect{x}_4}$ (since the intersection is non-empty), which is the diagonal of the parallelogram $\dsegment{\vect{x}_2\vect{x}_4}$ indicated as a bold segment in Figure~\ref{fig4}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{minipage}{6.6cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.85]{fig4}
\end{center}
\caption{$d$-concurrent $d$-segments}\label{fig4}
\end{minipage}
\hfill
\begin{minipage}{6cm}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.99]{fig3}
\end{center}
\caption{$d$-concurrent $d$-segments}\label{fig3}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure}

In Figure~\ref{fig3} the Minkowski plane has an affine regular hexagon as unit ball $B$.
The set $A$ consists of the midpoints of the edges of $B$.
If we now apply Proposition~\ref{newexample} to pairs of points on opposite edges, we obtain that the $d$-segments of these pairs of points has non-empty intersection, which is the shaded hexagon in Figure~\ref{fig3}.
By Corollary~\ref{3.12}, this hexagon is $\FT(A)$.
\end{example}

The following result of Cieslik \cite{Cieslik2} generalizes the Euclidean case \cite{KM}, and follows from Corollary~\ref{dconc}.

\begin{corollary}[{\cite[Chapter~3]{Cieslik2}}]\label{3.15}
Let $\vect{a}\vect{b}\vect{c}\vect{d}$ be a convex quadrilateral in a Minkowski plane.
Then the intersection of the diagonals $\vect{a}\vect{c}\cap\vect{b}\vect{d}$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{a},\vect{b},\vect{c},\vect{d}\}$.
\end{corollary}

The next two corollaries generalize the standard results on FT points in $\mathbf{R}^1$.
\begin{definition}\label{3.16}
A set in a Minkowski space is \emph{$d$-collinear} if it is contained in a metric line.
\end{definition}
Since two finite isometric subsets of $\mathbf{R}^1$ differ by a translation and possibly a reflection, the ordering of a $d$-collinear set is essentially unique.
\begin{corollary}\label{dcoll1}
If $A=\{\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_{2k}\}$ is a $d$-collinear set of even size in its natural order, then
\[\FT(A)=\bigcap_{i=1}^k\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{2k-i}} = \dsegment{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}_{k+1}}.\]
\end{corollary}
\proof
The first equation follows from the observation that $\vect{x}_j\in\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_k}$ for all $1\leq i\leq j\leq k\leq n$, which holds since $\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_k}=\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_j}+\length{\vect{x}_j\vect{x}_k}$, since $\{\vect{x}_i,\vect{x}_j,\vect{x}_k\}$ is isometric to a subset $\{r_1,r_2,r_3\}$ of $\mathbf{R}^1$ with $r_1\leq r_2\leq r_3$.
Thus the elements of $A$ can be matched up to form $d$-concurrent $d$-segments $\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}}$, and Corollary~\ref{3.12} applies.
The second equation follows from the fact that $\dsegment{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}_{k+1}}\subseteq\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}}$ for all $i=1,\dots,k$, which in turn is proved as follows:
Let $\vect{x}\in\dsegment{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}_{k+1}}$.
Thus $\length{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}}+\length{\vect{x}\vx_{k+1}}=\length{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}_{k+1}}$.
Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}} + \length{\vect{x}\vx_{2k-i+1}} & \leq & \length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_k}+\length{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}}+\length{\vect{x}\vx_{k+1}}+\length{\vect{x}_{k+1}\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}} \\
& & \qquad \text{ (by the triangle inequality)} \\
& = & \length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_k}+\length{\vect{x}_k\vect{x}_{k+1}}+\length{\vect{x}_{k+1}\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}} \\
& = & \length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}} \\
& & \qquad \text{ (since $\vect{x}_i,\vect{x}_k,\vect{x}_{k+1},\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}$ are on a metric line).}
\end{eqnarray*}
By the triangle inequality we then have $\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}} + \length{\vect{x}\vx_{2k-i+1}}=\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}}$, hence $\vect{x}\in\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_{2k-i+1}}$.
\qed

\begin{corollary}\label{dcoll2}
If $A=\{\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_{2k+1}\}$ is a $d$-collinear set of odd size in its natural order, then $\FT(A)=\{\vect{x}_k\}$.
\end{corollary}
\proof
By Corollary~\ref{dcoll1}, $\vect{x}_k$ is an FT point of $A\setminus\{\vect{x}_k\}$.
Therefore, for any $\vect{p}\in X$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{i=1}^{2k+1}\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{p}} & = & \length{\vect{x}_k\vect{p}} + \sum_{\substack{i=1\\ i\neq k}}^{2k+1}\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{p}} \\
& \geq & \length{\vect{x}_k\vect{p}} + \sum_{i=1}^{2k+1}\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_k} \\
& > & \sum_{i=1}^{2k+1}\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{x}_k} \mbox{ unless } \vect{p}=\vect{x}_k.
\end{eqnarray*}
\qed

The calculation in the above proof also gives the following simple

\begin{corollary}\label{3.19}
If $\vect{p}\in\FT(A)$ and $\vect{p}\not\in A$, then $\FT(A\cup\{\vect{p}\})=\{\vect{p}\}$.
\end{corollary}

It is well-known that there is a unique FT point for any non-collinear set in Euclidean space.
The essential property of Euclidean space that ensures uniqueness is its strict convexity.

\begin{theorem}\label{sc}
A Minkowski space $X$ is strictly convex  iff $\FT(A)$ is a singleton for all non-collinear subsets $A$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
If $X$ is not strictly convex, and if we let $\vect{a},\vect{b}$ be two points in the relative interior of some segment on the boundary of the unit ball, then $\FT(\vect{a},-\vect{a},\vect{b},-\vect{b})$ is not a singleton by Corollary~\ref{dcoll1}.

Conversely, suppose that $\vect{p}$ and $\vect{q}$ are distinct FT points of a finite set $A$.
Then the segment $\vect{p}\vect{q}\subseteq\FT(A)$, by Proposition~\ref{lemma1}.
Thus we may assume that $\vect{p},\vect{q}\not\in A$, since $A$ is finite.
By Theorem~\ref{DMchar}, there exist norming functionals $\phi_i$ of $\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}$ for each $\vect{x}_i\in A$ such that $\sum_i\phi_i=o$.
Thus,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_i\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{p}} & = & \sum_i\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_i\phi_i(\vect{x}_i-\vect{q}) + \sum_i\phi_i(\vect{q}-\vect{p}) \\
& \leq & \sum_i\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{q}} = \sum_i\length{\vect{x}_i\vect{p}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since there is equality throughout, it follows that each $\phi_i$ is a norming functional also of $\vect{x}_i-\vect{q}$.
Since $A$ is not collinear, we may choose an $\vect{x}_i$ such that $\vect{x}_i,\vect{p},\vect{q}$ are not collinear.
Thus $\un{\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}}$ and $\un{\vect{x}_i-\vect{q}}$ are distinct unit vectors with the same norming functional $\phi_i$.
Thus $\un{\vect{x}_i-\vect{p}}\un{\vect{x}_i-\vect{q}}$ is a segment on the boundary of the unit ball, hence $X$ is not strictly convex.
\qed

We finally note the following difference between dimension two and higher dimensions.

\begin{theorem}[\cite{WH}]\label{3.21}
In any Minkowski plane $X$, for any finite $A\subset X$ we have $\conv A\cap\FT(A)\neq\emptyset$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}\label{sc2}
In a strictly convex Minkowski plane $X$, if $A\subset X$ is finite and non-collinear, the singleton $\FT(A)$ is always contained in $\conv A$.
\end{corollary}

\begin{theorem}[\cite{Durier, MR89f:90114}]\label{durier}
Let $\dim X\geq 3$.
Then the following are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For any finite non-collinear $A\subset X$ we have $\FT(A)\subseteq\conv A$.\label{s1}
\item For any finite non-collinear $A\subset X$ we have $\FT(A)\cap\conv A\neq\emptyset$.\label{s2}
\item For any finite non-collinear $A\subset X$ we have $\FT(A)\subseteq\aff A$\label{s3}
\item For any finite non-collinear $A\subset X$ we have $\FT(A)\cap\aff A\neq\emptyset$.\label{s4}
\item $X$ is a Euclidean space.\label{s5}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\proof
We sketch the proof as its non-trivial parts are in different references.
The implications \ref{s1}$\Rightarrow$\ref{s3}$\Rightarrow$\ref{s4} are trivial.
The well-known implication \ref{s5}$\Rightarrow$\ref{s1} is in \cite[Proposition~6.1]{KM}.
See Durier \cite{Durier} or Lewicki \cite{Lewicki} for \ref{s2}$\Rightarrow$\ref{s5}, as well as Ben\'\i tez, Fern\'andez and Soriano \cite{BFS} for stronger results.
Finally, see Cieslik \cite[Theorem~2.2]{MR89f:90114} for \ref{s4}$\Rightarrow$\ref{s2}.
\qed

\medskip
In the next section we characterize the situation in Minkowski planes when there are points of the FT locus that are outside the convex hull.

\section{Specific properties of FT loci in Minkowski planes}\label{specific}
In Euclidean space it is known that if $\FT(A)=\{\vect{p}\}$, then $\vect{p}\in A\cup\interior\conv A$ (see \cite[Proposition~6.1]{KM}.
In the light of Theorem~\ref{durier} we cannot hope for a similar statement in arbitrary Minkowski spaces of dimension at least three.
We now investigate to what extent we can have an analogue in Minkowski planes.
We first consider the case where $\FT(A)$ intersects the complement of $\conv A$.
\begin{definition}\label{4.1}
We say that a set $A=\{\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_k,\vect{y}_1,\dots,\vect{y}_k\}$ forms a \emph{double cluster} with \emph{pairs} $\vect{x}_i,\vect{y}_i$ if $\un{\vect{x}_i-\vect{y}_i}$ are all contained in the same proper exposed face of the unit ball.
\end{definition}
Note that in the above definition, since we are in two dimensions, a proper exposed face of the unit ball is either a vertex (in which case the double cluster is necessarily a collinear set) or a segment.
Obviously, a double cluster forms $d$-concurrent $d$-segments.
By Corollary~\ref{dconc} the FT locus of a double cluster is a parallelogram with sides parallel to $\vect{a}$ and $\vect{b}$, where $\vect{a}\vect{b}$ is the exposed face of the unit ball in Definition~\ref{4.1}.

\begin{example}\label{doublecluster}
See Figure~\ref{fig5} for an example of a double cluster $A$ for which some FT points are not in $\conv A$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.7]{fig5}
\end{center}
\caption{A double cluster}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\end{example}

\begin{theorem}\label{dc}
Let $\vect{p}$ be an FT point of a finite set $A$ in a Minkowski plane $X$ such that $\vect{p}\not\in\conv A$.
Then $X$ is not strictly convex,
and $A$ is a double cluster.
In particular, $\FT(A)$ is the parallelogram $\bigcap_{i=1}^k\dsegment{\vect{x}_i\vect{y}_i}$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Assume without loss of generality that $\vect{p}=\vect{o}$.
For each $\vect{a}_i\in A$, choose a norming functional $\phi_i$ such that $\sum_i\phi_i=o$.
Since $\vect{o}\not\in\conv A$, we obtain that all $\phi_i$'s must be contained in a closed half plane bounded by a line $\ell$ through the origin in the dual.
Since the sum of the $\phi_i$'s is $o$, we must have that all the $\phi_i$'s must lie on $\ell$, and that there is an even number $2k$ of them, half being equal to some $\phi$, the other half to $-\phi$, say $\phi_1=\dots=\phi_k=\phi$, $\phi_{k+1}=\dots=\phi_{2k}=-\phi$.
Let $\vect{x}_i=\vect{a}_i$ and $\vect{y}_i=\vect{a}_{i+k}$ for all $i=1,\dots,k$.
It then follows that $\phi$ is a norming functional of any $\vect{x}_i-\vect{y}_j$, hence $\un{\vect{x}_i-\vect{y}_j}$ all lie on the same segment of the unit ball.
Since $\phi$ is a norming functional of all $\vect{x}_i$ and $-\vect{y}_j$, and $\vect{o}\not\in\conv\{\vect{x}_i,\vect{y}_j\}$, we obtain that $X$ is not strictly convex.
\qed

As corollary we again obtain Corollary~\ref{sc2}, as well as
\begin{corollary}\label{4.4}
In a Minkowski plane, if $|A|$ is odd, then $\FT(A)\subseteq\conv A$.
In particular, neither a floating FT configuration of odd degree nor an absorbing FT configuration of even degree can be pointed.
\end{corollary}
A double cluster can give a pointed floating FT configuration of even degree, as in Example~\ref{doublecluster}.
However, by Corollary~\ref{sc2} this is not possible in strictly convex Minkowski planes.
Pointed \emph{absorbing} FT configurations of odd degree are possible, even in the Euclidean plane (see \cite[Remark~6.3.]{KM}).
By Corollary~\ref{4.4} this can only happen if the degree is odd in any Minkowski plane.
In the Euclidean plane one can say something stronger:
If $|A|$ is even and the FT point of $A$ is not in the interior of $\conv A$, then Proposition 6.2 of \cite{KM} gives that $A$ is \emph{almost collinear}, i.e.\ $A\setminus\{\vect{p}\}$ is collinear for some $\vect{p}\in A$.
We partially generalize this result to Minkowski planes.

\begin{definition}\label{4.6}
A set $A\subset X$ is a \emph{pseudo double cluster} if $A$ is the union of a double cluster $C$ together with an FT point of $C$ (called the \emph{centre} of the pseudo double cluster) and an arbitrary point.
\end{definition}
In a strictly convex Minkowski plane, a pseudo double cluster is an almost collinear set.

\begin{theorem}\label{prop62}
Let $A=\{\vect{x}_0,\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_{2k-1}\}$ in a Minkowski plane, and suppose that $\vect{x}_0\in\FT(A)$ and $\vect{x}_0$ is a vertex of $\conv A$.
Then $A$ is a pseudo double cluster with $\vect{x}_0$ as centre.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Assume without loss of generality that $\vect{x}_0=\vect{o}$.
Choose norming functionals  $\phi_i$ of $\vect{x}_i$, $i=1,\dots,2k-1$, such that $\norm{\sum\phi_i}\leq 1$.
Since $\vect{o}$ is a vertex of $\conv A$, the $\phi_i$'s are all in a closed half plane bounded by a line $\ell$ through the origin in the dual.
Assume without loss of generality that the $\vect{x}_i$'s are ordered such that the $\phi_i$'s are in order.
Let $\ell_1$ be a supporting line of the dual unit ball at $\phi_k$, and $\ell_0$ its parallel through $o$.
Let $H$ be the half plane bounded by $\ell_0$ containing $\phi_k$.
For any $i<k<j$, $\phi_i$ is on the closed arc from $-\phi_j$ to $\phi_k$ of the dual unit circle, otherwise $o$ is an interior point of the $\phi_i$'s, contradicting the fact that the $\phi_i$'s are in a closed half plane.
It follows that $\phi_i+\phi_j\in H$.
Thus $\sum_{i=1}^{2k-1}\phi_i\in\phi_k+H$.
Thus $\norm{\sum_{i=1}^{2k-1}\phi_i}\geq 1$, and therefore, $\norm{\sum_{i=1}^{2k-1}\phi_i}= 1$.
It follows that for all $i,j$ with $i<k<j$, $\phi_i+\phi_j\in\ell_0$.
Suppose $-\phi_j\neq\phi_i$.
Then $(-\phi_j)\phi_i$ is a segment on the boundary of the unit ball, parallel to $\ell_0$.
Thus $-\phi_j,\phi_i,\phi_k$ are collinear.
Similarly, $-\phi_i,\phi_j,\phi_k$ are collinear, a contradiction.

Thus $-\phi_j=\phi_i$ for all $i,j$ such that $i<k<j$.
Thus $\phi_1=\dots=\phi_{k-1}=\phi$ and $\phi_{k+1}=\dots=\phi_{2k-1}=-\phi$ for some unit $\phi\in X^*$.
It follows that the pairs $\vect{x}_i, \vect{x}_{i+k}$, $i=1,\dots,k-1$, form a double cluster, which has $o=\vect{x}_0$ as an FT point.
\qed

\smallskip
The following is a complete generalization of \cite[Proposition~6.2]{KM} to strictly convex Minkowski planes.
\begin{corollary}\label{4.8}
Let $A=\{\vect{x}_0,\vect{x}_1,\dots,\vect{x}_{2k-1}\}$ be given in a strictly convex Minkowski plane, and suppose that $\vect{x}_0\in\FT(A)$ and $\vect{x}_0$ is a vertex of $\conv A$.
Then for some $j=1,\dots,2k-1$ we have that $A\setminus\{\vect{x}_j\}$ is a collinear set with $\vect{x}_0$ as middle point.
\end{corollary}

The case where an FT point is on the edge, but is not a vertex of the convex hull of $A$, is more complicated.
What prevents the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop62} from going through in this case is that the unit vector parallel to such an edge may be a singular point of the unit ball.
If this cannot happen (such as when $X$ is smooth), then we have the following generalization of the above-mentioned \cite[Prop. 6.2]{KM}.
The proofs of the following two corollaries are simple adaptations of the proof of Theorem~\ref{prop62}.
\begin{corollary}\label{4.9}
In a smooth Minkowski plane, if $|A|$ is even and $\FT(A)$ intersects $\bd\conv A$, then $A$ is a double cluster or a pseudo double cluster.
\end{corollary}

\begin{corollary}\label{4.10}
In a smooth Minkowski plane, if $A$ is not a double cluster nor a pseudo double cluster, then $\FT(A)\subseteq A\cup\interior\conv A$.
\end{corollary}

If $X$ is not smooth, then it is always possible to find (even if $X$ is strictly convex) a set $A$ with an odd or an even number of points, which has an FT point on the interior of an edge of $\conv A$, as the following example shows.

\begin{example}\label{4.11}
Let $X$ be any non-smooth plane.
Let $\pm\vect{x}_0$ be singular points on the boundary of the unit ball.
Let $\phi_0\phi_1$ be the set of all norming functionals of $\vect{p}$.
Let $\vect{x}_1$ be a unit vector with a norming functional parallel to $\phi_0\phi_1$.
Find unit functionals $\phi_2,\phi_3$ such that $\phi_3-\phi_2=\lambda(\phi_1-\phi_0)$ with $1\leq\lambda\leq 2$ and $\phi_3\neq-\phi_2$.
Let $\vect{x}_2$ be a unit vector with $-\phi_2$ as norming functional, and $\vect{x}_3$ a unit vector with $\phi_3$ as norming functional.
See Figure~\ref{fig6}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale = 0.85]{fig6}
\end{center}
\caption{An FT point on the interior of an edge of $\conv A$}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Choose $\phi,\psi\in\phi_1\phi_2$ such that $2(\phi-\psi)=\phi_3-\phi_2$.
Then $\vect{o}$ is an FT point of e.g.\ $\{\pm\vect{x}_0,\pm2\vect{x}_0,\vect{x}_2,\vect{x}_3\}$.

It is also clear that we may add some odd number of multiples of $\vect{x}_1$ and some further multiples of $\pm\vect{x}_0$, and again obtain a set which has $\vect{o}$ as FT point.
\end{example}

However, in the above example we still have an ``almost collinear'' situation in a weaker sense.
The following theorem shows that this necessarily happens.

\begin{theorem}\label{4.12}
In a Minkowski plane, if $A$ has an FT point disjoint from $A$, but on the interior of an edge of $\conv A$, then at least half of the points of $A$ must be on this edge.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Let $\vect{o}$ be an FT point of $A$ between $\vect{x}_0$ and $\vect{x}_1$ in $A$.
Let $\phi_0\phi_1$ be the segment on the boundary of the dual unit ball containing all norming functionals of $\vect{x}_0$.
Then all the norming functionals of points of $A$ that are not multiples of $\vect{x}_0$ must be on the side of the line $\ell$ through $\phi_1$ parallel to $\phi_0+\phi_1$ opposite $\phi_0$ (or on $\ell$).
In order to obtain norming functionals of each $\vect{x}\in A$ with sum $\vect{o}$ we then must have at least as many multiples of $\vect{x}_0$ as there are non-multiples.
\qed

Proposition 6.4 of \cite{KM} generalizes to all Minkowski planes as was shown in \cite{S5}:

\begin{theorem}[\cite{S5}]\label{4.13}
Let $\vect{p}_0,\vect{p}_1,\dots,\vect{p}_n$ be distinct points in a Minkowski plane such that for any distinct $i,j$ satisfying $1\leq i,j\leq n$ the closed angle $\sphericalangle \vect{p}_i\vect{p}_0\vect{p}_j$ contains the reflection in $\vect{p}_0$ of some $\vect{p}_k$.
Then $n$ is necessarily odd and $\vect{p}_0\in\FT(\vect{p}_0,\dots,\vect{p}_n)$.
\end{theorem}

For odd $n\leq 7$, and any convex $n$-gon $\vect{p}_1\dots\vect{p}_n$, there always exists $\vect{p}_0$ such that the hypotheses of the above theorem is satisfied; see \cite{Tamvakis, BR}.

We now address the question of how many points of $A$ can be contained in $\FT(A)$.
Obviously, if $A$ consists of at most two points, then $A\subseteq\FT(A)$.
Examples~\ref{rectilinear} and \ref{reghex} show that it is possible for three and four points of $A$ to be in $\FT(A)$.

\begin{theorem}\label{twodim}
Let $X$ be a Minkowski plane and $A\subset X$.
Then $|A\cap\FT(A)|\leq 4$.
If $|A\cap\FT(A)|=4$, then $X$ has a parallelogram as unit ball, and $A$ contains a homothet of $\{\pm\vect{x}\pm\vect{y}\}$, where $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{y}$ are two consecutive vertices of the unit ball.
If $|A\cap\FT(A)|=3$, then $X$ has an affine regular hexagon as unit ball, and $A$ contains a homothet of $\{\vect{o},\vect{x},\vect{y}\}$, where $\vect{x}$ and $\vect{y}$ are two consecutive vertices of the unit ball.
In both cases, $\FT(A)=\conv (A\cap\FT(A))$.
\end{theorem}

Before proving this theorem, we prove a technical lemma, and consider the higher-dimensional case.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma2}
In any $d$-dimensional Minkowski space $X$, for each point $\vect{p}\in A\cap\FT(A)$, $\vect{p}$ is a vertex of $\conv (A\cap\FT(A))$, and $\{\un{\vect{q}-\vect{p}} : \vect{q}\in A\cap\FT(A),\vect{q}\neq \vect{p}\}$ is contained in a proper exposed face of the unit ball.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let $\vect{p}\in A$.
By Theorem~\ref{DMchar} there exist norming functionals $\phi_\vect{x}$ for each $\vect{x}\in A\setminus\{\vect{p}\}$ such that $\norm{\sum_{\vect{x}\neq p}\phi_\vect{x}}\leq 1$.
Then, for any $\vect{q}\in\FT(A), \vect{q}\neq \vect{p}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{\vect{x}\in A}\length{\vect{x}\vect{q}} & = & \sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\length{\vect{x}\vect{p}} = \sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\phi_\vect{x}(\vect{x}-\vect{p}) \\
& = & \sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\phi_\vect{x}(\vect{x}-\vect{q}) + \sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\phi_\vect{x}(\vect{q}-\vect{p})\\
& \leq & \sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\length{\vect{x}\vect{q}} + \Bigl\|\sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\phi_\vect{x}\Bigr\|\length{\vect{q}\vect{p}}\\
& \leq & \sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\length{\vect{x}\vect{q}} + \length{\vect{q}\vect{p}}\\
& = & \sum_{\vect{x}\in A}\length{\vect{x}\vect{q}}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that $\phi:=\sum_{\vect{x}\in A,\vect{x}\neq \vect{p}}\phi_\vect{x}$ is a norming functional of $\vect{q}-\vect{p}$.
Thus $\{\un{\vect{q}-\vect{p}}:\vect{q}\in A\cap\FT(A),\vect{q}\neq \vect{p}\}$ is contained in the intersection of the unit ball with $\phi^{-1}(1)$.
This also means that $\phi$ strictly separates $\vect{p}$ from $(A\cap\FT(A))\setminus\{\vect{p}\}$, i.e.\ $\vect{p}$ is a vertex of $\conv (A\cap\FT(A))$.
\qed

\begin{theorem}\label{highd}
Let $X$ be a $d$-dimensional Minkowski space, and $A\subset X$.
Then $|A\cap\FT(A)|\leq 2^d$.
If, furthermore, $|A\cap\FT(A)|=2^d$, then $X$ is isometric to a $d$-dimensional $L_1$ space, with $A\cap\FT(A)$ corresponding to a homothet of the Hamming cube $\{0,1\}^d$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Let $C=A\cap\FT(A)$.
By Lemma~\ref{lemma2}, each point of $C$ is a vertex of $\conv C$.
We now show that $|C|\leq 2^d$.
For each $\vect{p}\in C$, let
\[C_\vect{p}=\{\vect{x}\in X:\vect{p}+\lambda \vect{x}\in\conv C\mbox{ for some }\lambda>0\}.\]
Each $C_\vect{p}$ is a closed cone full-dimensional in the subspace $X'=\aff C - \aff C$, and also $C_\vect{p}\cap-C_\vect{p}=\{\vect{o}\}$.
We now show that for any two distinct $\vect{p},\vect{q}\in C$, $C_\vect{p}\cap C_\vect{q}$ does not have interior points (in $X'$) in common.
Note that $\vect{q}-\vect{p}\in C_\vect{p}$ and $\vect{p}-\vect{q}\in C_\vect{q}$.
Thus, if $C_\vect{p}$ and $C_\vect{q}$ have interior points in common, $\un{C_\vect{p}}:=\{\un{\vect{x}}:\vect{x}\in C_\vect{p},\vect{x}\neq \vect{o}\}$ and $\un{C_\vect{q}}$ are contained in the same proper exposed face of the unit ball.
But then $\un{\vect{p}-\vect{q}}$ and $\un{\vect{q}-\vect{p}}$ are both contained in this face, a contradiction.
It follows that $\{C_\vect{p}:\vect{p}\in C\}$ is a packing.
Thus $\{-\vect{p}+\conv C:\vect{p}\in C\}$ is a packing of translates of $\conv C$, all having the origin in common.
Let $B=\frac{1}{2}(\conv C-\conv C)$ be the central symmetrization of $\conv C$.
Then $\{B-\vect{p}:\vect{p}\in C\}$ is a packing of mutually touching translates of $B$ in $X'$.
By results of \cite{MR25:1488} it follows that $|C|\leq 2^d$, with equality iff $B$ is a $d$-dimensional parallelotope.
This happens only if $\conv C$ is a $d$-dimensional parallelotope, in which case $\bigcup_{\vect{p}\in C}\un{C_\vect{p}}$ forms the boundary of a cross-polytope.
\qed

\proof[Proof of Theorem~\ref{twodim}]
By Theorem~\ref{highd}, $|A\cap\FT(A)|\leq 4$, and if $|A\cap\FT(A)|=4$, then $X$ has a parallelogram as unit ball.

If $|A\cap\FT(A)|=3$, then $\conv (A\cap\FT(A))$ is a triangle.
The three cones in the proof of Theorem~\ref{highd} force the unit ball to be an affine regular hexagon.
\qed

\section{Centroids and Angles}\label{specific2}
We now consider characterizations of degree two absorbing and degree three floating FT configurations in Minkowski planes.
In studying such configurations, it is useful to introduce two special types of angles.
\begin{definition}\label{5.1}
An angle $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2$ is \emph{critical} if there exists a point $\vect{x}_3\neq \vect{x}_0$ such that $\vect{x}_0$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{x}_1, \vect{x}_2, \vect{x}_3\}$.
\end{definition}
Critical angles are a direct generalization of Euclidean $120^\circ$ angles.
The ray $\Ray{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_3}$ is unique for all critical angles iff the Minkowski plane is smooth and strictly convex \cite{DGGLW}.

The following characterizations of critical angles are well-known in the literature in the case of smooth, strictly convex planes \cite{CG, DGGLW}.
However, the generalization to arbitrary planes is simple.
\begin{lemma}\label{one}
The following are equivalent in a Minkowski plane.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2$ is a critical angle.\label{onea}
\item If a circle \textup{(}in the norm\textup{)} with centre $\vect{x}_0$ intersects the ray $\Ray{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_1}$ at $\vect{a}$ and the ray $\Ray{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2}$ at $\vect{b}$, then there exist lines $\ell_\vect{a}, \ell_\vect{b}, \ell$ supporting the circle, $\ell_\vect{a}$ at $\vect{a}$ and $\ell_\vect{b}$ at $\vect{b}$, such that $\vect{x}_0$ is the centroid of the triangle formed by $\ell_\vect{a}, \ell_\vect{b}, \ell$.\label{oneb}
\item There exist norming functionals $\phi_1$ of $\vect{x}_1-\vect{x}_0$ and $\phi_2$ of $\vect{x}_2-\vect{x}_0$ such that $\norm{\phi_1+\phi_2} = 1$.\label{onec}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\begin{definition}\label{5.2}
An angle $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2$ is \emph{absorbing} if $\vect{x}_0$ is an FT point of $\{\vect{x}_0, \vect{x}_1, \vect{x}_2\}$.
\end{definition}
Thus $\{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_1,\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2\}$ is a degree two absorbing FT configuration iff $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2$ is absorbing.
The following lemma furnishes a more direct description of absorbing angles.
In particular, an angle is absorbing iff it contains a critical angle.

\begin{lemma}\label{two}
The following are equivalent in a Minkowski plane.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2$ is an absorbing angle.\label{twoa}
\item $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2$ contains some critical angle $\sphericalangle \vect{x}_1'\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2'$.\label{twob}
\item If a circle \textup{(}in the norm\textup{)} with centre $\vect{x}_0$ intersects the ray $\Ray{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_1}$ at $\vect{a}$ and the ray $\Ray{\vect{x}_0\vect{x}_2}$ at $\vect{b}$, then there exist lines $\ell_\vect{a}, \ell_\vect{b}, \ell$ with $\ell_\vect{a}$ supporting the circle at $\vect{a}$, $\ell_\vect{b}$ at $\vect{b}$, and $\ell$ not intersecting the interior of the circle, such that $\vect{x}_0$ is the centroid of the triangle formed by $\ell_\vect{a}, \ell_\vect{b}, \ell$.\label{twoc}
\item There exist norming functionals $\phi_1$ of $\vect{x}_1-\vect{x}_0$ and $\phi_2$ of $\vect{x}_2-\vect{x}_0$ such that $\norm{\phi_1+\phi_2} \leq 1$.\label{twod}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

\proof[Proof of Lemmas~\ref{one} and \ref{two}]
\ref{one}.\ref{onea}$\iff$\ref{one}.\ref{onec} and \ref{two}.\ref{twoa}$\iff$\ref{two}.\ref{twod} are straightforward using the subdifferential calculus.
\ref{one}.\ref{oneb}$\iff$\ref{one}.\ref{onec} and \ref{two}.\ref{twoc}$\iff$\ref{two}.\ref{twod} can be proved as in \cite{CG}.
\ref{two}.\ref{twoa}$\iff$\ref{two}.\ref{twob} follows from \ref{one}.\ref{onea}$\iff$\ref{one}.\ref{onec} and \ref{two}.\ref{twoa}$\iff$\ref{two}.\ref{twod}.
\qed

\smallskip
The following theorem, generalizing the characterization of degree three floating FT configurations in the Euclidean plane, is used in a characterization of the local structure of Steiner minimal trees \cite{S6}.
It is surprising that a Euclidean result can be completely generalized to all Minkowski planes.
It is again surprising that the proof is not simple.
Since we did not include a complete proof in \cite{S6}, we here prove the result in full.

\begin{theorem}\label{torithree}
The configuration $\{\vect{o}\vect{a}_1, \vect{o}\vect{a}_2, \vect{o}\vect{a}_3\}$ is a floating FT configuration iff it is not pointed and all angles $\sphericalangle \vect{a}_i\vect{o}\vect{a}_j$ are critical.
\end{theorem}
\proof
$\Rightarrow$ The angles are all critical by definition.
By Corollary~\ref{4.4}, the configuration is not pointed.

$\Leftarrow$ Let $A_i$ be the set of norming functionals of $\vect{a}_i$ ($i=1,2,3$).
Note that if $\sphericalangle\vect{a}_i\vect{o}\vect{a}_j$ is a straight angle, then it is critical only if $A_i=-A_j$ is a non-degenerate segment.
Thus in all cases, $A_1,A_2,A_3$ are not contained in a closed half plane bounded by a line through the origin in the dual plane.
We now apply Theorem~\ref{DMchar} and the following lemma.
\qed

\begin{lemma}\label{threesegment}
In a Minkowski plane, let $A_i$ be the intersection of the unit ball with supporting line $\ell_i$ $(i=1,2,3)$ to the unit ball such that for all distinct $i,j\in\{1,2,3\}$ there exist $\vect{a}_i\in A_i$ and $\vect{a}_j\in A_j$ such that $\norm{\vect{a}_i+\vect{a}_j}=1$ and such that $A_1,A_2,A_3$ are not contained in a closed half plane bounded by a line through the origin.
Then there exist $\vect{a}_i\in A_i$, $(i=1,2,3)$ such that $\vect{a}_1+\vect{a}_2+\vect{a}_3=\vect{o}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Assume without loss of generality that $\ell_1$ is vertical, $\ell_2$ horizontal, and $\ell_1, \ell_2$ enclose the unit square $[-1,1]^2\subseteq\mathbf{R}^2$.
Then the unit ball is contained in $[-1,1]^2$.
Let $A_1=\{1\}\times[-\alpha,\beta]$ and $A_2=[-\gamma,\delta]\times\{1\}$.
Then $A_1+A_2=[1-\gamma,1+\delta]\times[1-\alpha,1+\beta]$.
Note that $\alpha,\gamma\geq 0$: If $\alpha<0$ or $\gamma<0$, then $A_1+A_2$ would be outside $[-1,1]^2$, hence $\norm{\vect{a}_1+\vect{a}_2}>1$ for all $\vect{a}_1\in A_1$ and $\vect{a}_2\in A_2$.
For similar reasons, $A_3$ must contain a point with $x$-coordinate $\leq 0$, and a point with $y$-coordinate $\leq 0$.
Since $A_1+A_2$ intersects the unit ball, there must be a unit vector in $[1-\gamma,1]\times[1-\alpha,1]$.
Since $A_1,A_2,A_3$ are not in a closed half plane, one of the following cases must occur:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $-A_3$ intersects $[1-\gamma,1]\times[1-\alpha,1]$, in which case we are done.
\item $-A_3\subseteq [1-\gamma,1]\times[\beta,1-\alpha)$ (this is possible only if $\alpha+\beta<1$).
\item $-A_3\subseteq [\delta,1-\gamma)\times[1-\alpha,1]$ (this is possible only if $\gamma+\delta<1$).
\item $-A_3=A_1$.
\item $-A_3=A_2$.
\end{enumerate}
\emph{Case 2}.
\begin{eqnarray*}
A_1+A_3&\subseteq&\{1\}\times[-\alpha,\beta] + [-1,-1+\gamma]\times(-1+\alpha,\beta]\\
&=&[0,\gamma]\times(-1,0],
\end{eqnarray*}
which does not contain a unit vector, a contradiction.

\emph{Case 3}. A similar contradiction is obtained.

\emph{Case 4}. $A_1+A_3=\{0\}\times[-\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta]$.
Since $A_1+A_3$ must contain a unit vector, $1\in[-\alpha-\beta,\alpha+\beta]$, i.e.\ $\alpha+\beta\geq 1$.
Therefore $-\beta\leq -1+\alpha<\alpha$, and the vector $\opair{-1}{-1+\alpha}\in A_3$.
Then vectors $\opair{1}{-\alpha}\in A_1$, $\opair{0}{1}\in A_2$, $\opair{-1}{-1+\alpha}\in A_3$ have sum $\vect{o}$.

\emph{Case 5}. Similar to Case 4.
\qed

\providecommand{\bysame}{\leavevmode\hbox to3em{\hrulefill}\thinspace}

Optimization and Control (math.OC); Metric Geometry (math.MG)


Monochromatic products and sums in $2$-colorings of $\mathbb{N}$

Abstract: We show that any $2$-coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ contains infinitely many monochromatic sets of the form $\{x,y,xy,x+y\},$ and more generally monochromatic sets of the form $\{x_i,\prod x_i,\sum x_i: i\leq k\}$ for any $k\in\mathbb{N}.$ Along the way we prove a monochromatic products of sums theorem that extends Hindman's theorem and a colorful variant of this result that holds in any 'balanced' coloring.

\section{Introduction}

The following conjecture of Hindman is well known, and several variants and relaxations of it have been the subject of recent attention in \cite{BM1, BM2, GG, GS, Mor, P}.

\begin{conjecture}\label{conjecture}
Any finite coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ contains monochromatic sets of the form $\{x,y,xy,x+y\}.$
\end{conjecture}

This question was first studied in 1977 by Graham, who showed that any $2$-coloring of $\{1,...,252\}$ contains a monochromatic configuration of this form, and by Hindman, who showed that any $2$-coloring of $\{2,...,990\}$ contains such a configuration \cite{Hc}.  However, these results were proven using brute force computation and left open the problem of determining if infinitely many monochromatic sets of this type can be found in any $2$-coloring of $\mathbb{N}$.

Our main result solves a generalization of this problem.

\begin{theorem}\label{main}
Given any $2$-coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ there are arbitrarily large and distinct $x_1,...,x_n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that $$\{x_i,\prod_{j\leq i}x_j, \sum_{j=1}^n x_j: i\leq n\}$$ is monochromatic.
\end{theorem}

Our methods can also be used to prove other results of a similar flavor.  For example, in \cite{GG} Goldoni and Goldoni showed that any $2$-coloring of $\{1,...,44\}$ contains (not necessarily distinct) $x,y$ such that $\{x,y,xy,x+2y\}$ is monochromatic.  We prove the following.

\begin{theorem}\label{m2}
Given any $2$-coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ and $n\in\mathbb{N}$ there are monochromatic sets of the form $\{x,y,xy,x+ny\}.$
\end{theorem}

\subsection{Techniques}

The approach in this paper builds off of recent work of Moreira, who proved the following result in \cite{Mor}.

\begin{theorem}[Moreira's Theorem]\label{M}
For any $n,k\in\mathbb{N}$ and finite coloring of $\mathbb{N},$ there is a monochromatic set of the form $$\{\prod_{j\leq i}x_j+\sum_{i<j\leq n}c_jx_j: i\leq n, \textnormal{ } 0\leq c_j\leq k\}.$$
\end{theorem}

Notice that Theorem \ref{M} would imply Theorems \ref{main} and \ref{m2} if we could ensure that the 'step sizes' $\{x_2,...,x_n\}$ were also the right color.  Our main idea is that this is possible to arrange in any sufficiently 'balanced' coloring of the naturals. To achieve this, we will work with the following generalization of Hindman's theorem \cite{Hind}.

\begin{theorem}\label{pos}
For any finite coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ and any function $f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ there is a color class $C$ and sequence of sets $S_1,S_2...\subset \mathbb{N}$ with $|S_i|=f(i)$ such that for any finite $F\subset \bigcup_i S_i$ we have $$\prod_{i: S_i\cap F\neq \emptyset}\sum_{s\in S_i\cap F} s\in C.$$
\end{theorem}

When we apply the above theorem to the constant function $f(n)=1$ we recover Hindman's finite products theorem, and when we apply it to the function $f(1)=n$ and $f(i)=0$ otherwise we recover the finite sums theorem of Folkman-Rado-Sanders.  As we will see, the step sizes $x_i$ in Moreira's Theorem \ref{M} are closely related to the other configurations that we can obtain from Theorem \ref{pos}, which we will leverage to prove our main results in the case that the colorings are sufficiently 'balanced.'

More precisely, recall that $S\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is \textbf{multiplicatively syndetic} if there is a finite set $F\subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $\mathbb{N}=S/F,$ and that $T\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is \textbf{multiplicatively thick} if its compliment is not syndetic, or equivalently if for each finite $F\subset \mathbb{N}$ there is a $a\in T$ with $aF\subset T$.  We will call a $2$-coloring $\mathbb{N}=C_0\cup C_1$ \textbf{locally balanced} if there is a thick set $T$ and syndetic sets $S_0,S_1$ with $S_i\cap T\subseteq C_i.$  In this setting we may prove a colorful extension of Theorem \ref{pos}.

\begin{proposition}\label{balanced pos}
Suppose that $\mathbb{N}=C_0\cup C_1$ is a locally balanced coloring.  There is an $i\in\{0,1\}$  such that for any $f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ there is an arbitrarily large finite $S_0\subset \mathbb{N}$ and a sequence of sets $S_1,S_2...\subset \mathbb{N}$ with $|S_j|=f(j)$ such that for any finite $F\subset \bigcup_j S_j$ we have $$\prod_{j: S_j\cap F\neq \emptyset}\sum_{s\in S_j\cap F} s $$

is in $C_i$ if $S_0\cap F\neq \emptyset$ and is in $C_{1-i}$ otherwise.

\end{proposition}

This proposition was inspired by other colorful Ramsey theorems for graphs and tournaments where each color class is sufficiently well represented; see \cite{BHMM,BLM,CHM,CM, GN,FS} for several recent results of a similar flavor.  By using Proposition \ref{balanced pos} together with the proof of Theorem \ref{M} we obtain the following:

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:local}
Any locally balanced $2$-coloring of $\mathbb{N}$ contains a monochromatic set of the form $$\{x_i,\prod_{j\leq i}x_i+\sum_{j<i\leq n}c_jx_j: i\leq n, \textnormal{ } 0\leq c_j\leq k\}.$$
\end{theorem}

From here we must only deal with the case when one color class is thick, which can be handled by adapting the proof of the two-color Schur theorem.

\section{Background information}

Our results rely on the algebraic structure of the semigroups $(\beta\mathbb{N},+)$ and $(\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ and some combinatorial notions of size derived from this structure.  In this section we briefly review the results from this theory that we will use.  See \cite{HS} and \cite{BG} for a more thorough treatment.

First, we recall that the set of ultrafilters on $\mathbb{N}$, $\beta\mathbb{N},$ may be equipped with the topology generated by the clopen sets $$\overline{A}=\{p\in\mathbb{N}: A\in p\} \textnormal{ } A\subseteq \mathbb{N}.$$

Moreover, we can extend a semigroup operation $\circ:\mathbb{N}^2\rightarrow \mathbb{N}$ to $\beta\mathbb{N}$ by defining for $p,q\in\beta\mathbb{N}$ $$p\circ q=\{A\subseteq\mathbb{N}: \{s: \{t: s\circ t\in A\}\in q\}\in p\}.$$

We will denote by $s^{-1}\circ A:=\{t: s\circ t\in A\}.$  In this language $A\in p\circ q$ if and only if $\{s: s^{-1}\circ A\in q\}\in p.$

In this way $(\beta\mathbb{N},\circ)$ can be seen to be a compact right topological semigroup, and so by the Ellis-Numakura theorem (\cite{HS}, 2.6) we know that any left ideal in $(\beta\mathbb{N},\circ)$ contains a minimal left ideal, and in turn any minimal left ideal contains an idempotent element.  Moreover, as a consequence of \cite{HS} 1.58 we also know that $L=\beta\mathbb{N}\circ e$ for any minimal left ideal $L$ and idempotent $e\in L$.  We will call such an idempotent ultrafilter \textit{minimal}.  We summarize these facts in the following lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{mi}
Any left ideal  $L\subseteq (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ contains a minimal left ideal $L$ which contains an idempotent element.  Moreover, if $e\in L$ is idempotent, then $p\cdot e=p$ for any $p\in L$.
\end{lemma}

There are several combinatorial notions of size related to minimal left ideals in $\beta\mathbb{N}$ that we will need to make use of.

\begin{definition}
Let $(\mathbb{N},\circ)$ be a semigroup.
\begin{enumerate}
    \item We say $T\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is $\circ$-thick if for any finite $F\subset \mathbb{N}$ there is an $a\in T$ such that $F\circ a\subset T$.  Equivalently (\cite{HS} 4.48), if there is a minimal left ideal $L\subset (\beta\mathbb{N},\circ)$ with $L\subseteq \overline{T}.$
    \item We say $S\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ is $\circ$-syndetic if there is a finite set $F\subset \mathbb{N}$ such that $\mathbb{N}=\bigcup_{s\in F}Ss^{-1}=S/F$.  Equivalently (\cite{HS} 4.4) if $\overline{S}\cap L\neq \emptyset$ for every minimal left ideal $L$.
    \item We say $A$ is $\circ$-piecewise syndetic if $A$ is the intersection of a thick set and a piecewise syndetic set.  Equavalently, if $\overline{A}\cap L\neq \emptyset$ for some minimal left ideal.
    \item We say $A$ is $\circ$-central if there is a minimal idempotent $p$ with $A\in p.$

    If we do not include a prefix then we mean the semigroup operation given by the usual $+$ operation on $\mathbb{N}.$
\end{enumerate}

\end{definition}

We will use the following facts about additively and multiplicatively piecewise syndetic sets, whose proofs can be derived from \cite{HS} Theorems 4.40, 5.19.2., and 5.8 along with the dilation invariance of finite sums.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:ps}

\

\begin{enumerate}

    \item If $A$ is peicewise syndetic and $A=A_1\cup A_2\cup...\cup A_r$, then some $A_i$ is piecewise syndetic.
    \item For any $k\in\mathbb{N}$, $A$ is piecewise syndetic if and only if $kA$ is piecewise syndetic.
    \item Given a sequence $(x_i)_{i\in\omega}$ let $FS(x_i)$ be the set containing all the non-repeating finite sums of $x_i$. If $C$ is multiplicatively piecewise syndetic then there are arbitrarily long sequences $(x_i)_{i\leq n}$ such that $FS(x_i)\subset C.$
\end{enumerate}

\end{lemma}

Finally, we will make use of the following variant of van der Waerden's theorem, which follows from the standard deduction of van der Waerden's theorem from the Hales-Jewett theorem.

\begin{theorem}[IP$^*_r$  van der Waerden]\label{thm:poly}

Let $A$ be a piecewise syndetic set and $k\in \mathbb{N}$.  Then there is an $n\in\mathbb{N}$ such that for any $S\subset\mathbb{N}$ with $|S|>n$ there is a $d\in FS(S)$ such that $$\bigcap_{0\leq i\leq k}(A-id)$$ is piecewise syndetic.
\end{theorem}

\section{Proofs of the main results}

\subsection{A colorful Hindman theorem}

We begin by proving refinements of Theorems \ref{pos} and \ref{balanced pos}.

\begin{theorem}\label{pos+}
For any multiplicatively central set $A$ and any function $f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$ there is a sequence of sets $S_1,S_2,...\subset \mathbb{N}$ with $|S_i|=f(i)$ such that for any finite $F\subset \bigcup_i S_i$ we have $$\prod_{i: S_i\cap F\neq \emptyset}\sum_{s\in S_i\cap F} s\in A.$$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
This follows from a simple modification of the Galvin-Glazer proof of Hindman's Theorem.

Fix a function $f:\mathbb{N}\rightarrow\mathbb{N}$.

As $A$ is multiplicatively central there is a minimal idempotent ultrafilter $e\in (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ with $A\in e.$  We inductively build the desired sets $S_i$ as follows.  First, note that $A^*=\{n: n^{-1}A\in e\}\cap A\in e$, and so by Lemma \ref{lem:ps} (3) we may find a finite set $S_1$ with $|S_1|=f(1)$ such that $FS(S_1)\subset A^*.$  Therefore, we may let $A_1=\bigcap_{s\in FS(S_1)}s^{-1}A\cap A^*$ and note that this is an element of $e$.  Let $A_1^*=\{n: n^{-1}A_1\in e\}\cap A.$

Inductively assume we have defined $S_i$, $A_i$, and $A_i^*$ as above.  We define $S_{i+1},$ $A_{i+1}$, and $A_{i+1}^*$ in essentially the same way as before.  First, by Lemma \ref{lem:ps} (3) there is a set $S_{i+1}$ with $|S_{i+1}|=f(i+1)$ such that $FS(S_{i+1})\in A_i^*.$ Once we have defined $S_{i+1}$ in this way, we let $A_{i+1}=\bigcap_{s\in FS(S_{i+1})}s^{-1}A_i^*\cap A_{i}^*$.

To verify that these choices of $S_i$ work, observe that $FS(S_i)\subset A$ for any $i$.  Now, let $s_i\in FS(S_i)$.  As $s_i\in \bigcap_{s\in FS(S_{j+1})}s^{-1}A_j^*\cap A_j^*$ for all $j+1<i$, we see that the full claim holds.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{pos++}
Let $L\subset (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ be a minimal left ideal, $e\in L$ an idempotent, and $p\in L.$  Then for any $A\in p,$ $B\in e,$ and $f:\omega\rightarrow\omega$ there is a sequence of sets $S_0,S_1,...\subset \mathbb{N}$ with $|S_i|=f(i)$ such that for any finite $F\subset \bigcup_i S_i$ we have $$\prod_{i: S_i\cap F\neq \emptyset}\sum_{s\in S_i\cap F} s$$ is in $A$ if $S_0\cap F\neq \emptyset$ and is in $B$ otherwise.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
By Lemma \ref{mi} we know that $pe=p.$  Therefore, by Lemma \ref{lem:ps} (3) we may pick $S_0$ such that $FS(S_0)\subset \{n:n^{-1}A\in e\}\cap A.$  Finally, we may apply Theorem \ref{pos+} to $B^*=\bigcap_{s\in FS(S_0)}s^{-1}A\cap B\in e$ to complete the proof.
\end{proof}

As already noted, these theorems contain both the finite products and finite sums theorems as special cases.  We also obtain the following slight refinement of a result of Hindman originally proven in \cite{Hsep}.

\begin{corollary}\label{central pos}
For any multiplicatively central set $A$ and $m,n\in\mathbb{N}$ there are sets $F,G\subset\mathbb{N}$ such that $|F|=m,$ $|G|=n,$ $FS(F)\cup FP(G)\subset A$ and $\sum F=\prod G.$

\end{corollary}

\begin{proof}
Find $S_0,...,S_{m}$ from Theorem \ref{pos+} with $|S_i|=n$.  Let $T=\{s_1,...,s_{m}\}$ with $s_i\in S_i$ arbitrary, $a=\prod T$, and $b=\sum S_0$.  Observe that $G=\{b,s_1,s_2,...,s_{m}\}$ and $F=aS_0$ satisfy the desired properties.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The balanced case}

In this subsection we prove our main results in the special case of balanced colorings.  We begin with a separate proof of the $n=2$ and $k=1$ case, as this case contains all of the ideas needed for the general result while requiring much less notation.

\begin{figure}
\centering
    \includegraphics[scale=.6]{mor_new.PNG}
    \caption{The proof of Theorem \ref{thm:local} when $n=2$ and $k=1.$  Each box represents a piecewise syndetic set.  We use Theorem \ref{pos++} along with Theorem \ref{thm:poly} to ensure that $y_0$ is red, $y_1$ is blue, and $y_0y_1$ is red.  If the final box contains a blue point $x',$ then $\{x'/y_1, y_1,x',x'/y_1+y_1\}$ is blue.  If this box contains a red point $x'$, then $\{x'/y_0y_1, y_0y_1, x', (x'/y_1+y_0^2y_1)/y_0\}$ is red.}
    \label{fig:new}
\end{figure}

\begin{theorem}
Let $T$ be a multiplicatively thick set, $M_0,M_1$ multiplicatively syndetic sets, and $\mathbb{N}=C_0\cup C_1$ a coloring such that $T\cap M_i\subseteq C_i.$  There is a monochromatic set of the form $\{x,y,xy,x+y\}.$
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
Without loss of generality we may assume that there is a minimal left ideal $L\subset (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ with $C_0\in p\in L$ and $C_1\in e\in L,$ with $e$ idempotent.  We may also assume that both $C_i$ are additively piecewise syndetic, as otherwise we may apply Lemma \ref{thm:poly} and Lemma \ref{lem:ps} (3) to find a piecewise syndetic set of starting points of monochromatic progressions whose step sizes are the same color.  As multiplying this set by the step size remains piecewise syndetic, we would have the desired result.

By applying Theorem \ref{pos++} we may find a sequence of as large as desired sets $S_0,S_1,...\subset \mathbb{N}$  with $FS(S_0)\subseteq C_0,$ $FS(S_i)\subseteq C_1,$ and $FS(S_0)\cdot FS(S_i)\subseteq C_0$ for all $i>0.$  Applying Theorem \ref{thm:poly} with $C_0$ and $S_0$ we find a $y_0\in C_0$ such that $A_0'=C_0\cap (C_0-y_0)$ is piecewise syndetic.  Notice that if there is some $x'\in y_0\cdot A_0'\cap C_0$ then we'd have $$\{\frac{x'}{y_0},y_0,\frac{x'}{y_0}+y_0,x'\}\subset C_0,$$ and so we may assume that $A_1:= y_0\cdot A_0'\cap C_1$ is piecewise syndetic.  Applying \ref{thm:poly} to $A_1$ and a sufficiently large $S_i,$ we find a $y_1\in C_1$ such that $A_1'=A_1\cap(A_1-y_1)\cap (A_1-y_0^2y_1)$ is piecewise syndetic.  If $y_1\cdot A_1'\cap C_1\neq \emptyset$ then we may finish the proof as before, so we may assume that $y_1\cdot A_1'\subseteq C_0,$ and thus contains an element $x'.$  Note that $y=y_0y_1\in C_0$ and similarly $x=\frac{x'}{y}\in C_0.$  Finally, we have that $$x+y=(x'/y_1+y_0^2y_1)/y_0\in A_1/y_0\subseteq C_0$$ and so $\{x,y,xy,x+y\}\in C_0$ is the desired set.
\end{proof}

Now we move on to the proof of our more general result.  As already mentioned, the idea is essentially the same as in the above, but now we must be more careful in setting up our induction.

\vspace{2mm}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:local}]
Without loss of generality we may assume that there is a minimal left ideal $L\subset (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ with $C_0\in p\in L$ and $C_1\in e\in L,$ with $e$ idempotent.  We may also assume that both $C_i$ are additively piecewise syndetic, as otherwise we may apply Lemma \ref{thm:poly} and Lemma \ref{lem:ps} (3) to find a piecewise syndetic set of starting points of monochromatic progressions whose step sizes are the same coloring.  As multiplying this set by the step size remains piecewise syndetic, we would have the desired result.

Our goal is to find a sequence of piecewise syndetic sets $A_i,$ and sequences of naturals $t_i$ and $y_i$ such that for each $i\in\mathbb{N}$:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item $$A_{m+1}=C_{t_{i+1}}\cap y_m(A_{m}\cap\bigcap_{f=1}^{\prod_{j<m} k!y_j^3} (A_{m}-fy_m))$$
    \item Whenever $t_{a},t_{a+1},...,t_b$ is a sequence such that either no $C_{t_i}\subseteq C_0$ or only $C_{t_a}\subseteq C_0,$ then $\prod_{a\leq i<b}y_i\in C_{t_a}.$
\end{enumerate}

Notice that if we do not insist on satisfying property (2) above then we may simply use the van der Waerden theorem and Lemma \ref{lem:ps} to choose the $y_i$ and $t_i$ at each step.  This is precisely how Moreira's proof of Theorem \ref{M} proceeds.  Therefore, if we can carefully choose the numbers $y_i$ to satisfy property (2) then we will be done.  For this, we use Theorem \ref{pos++}.

To begin, let $A_0=C_0$ and $t_0=0$.

Inductively assume we have defined a sequence of  monochromatic piecewise syndetic sets $A_0,...,A_m,$ and sequences $y_0,...,y_{m-1},t_0,...,t_{m}\in \mathbb{N}$ satisfying properties (1) and (2) above.

As we know $t_0=0$, first suppose $t_m=0$.  By Theorem \ref{pos++} we may choose a sequence $S_0,S_1,...\subset \mathbb{N}$ satisfying the conclusion of the theorem, where $f(n)\rightarrow \infty$ and $f(0)$ is large enough so that $A_{m}\cap\bigcap_{f=1}^{\prod_{j<m} k!y_j^3} (A_{m}-fy_m)$ is piecewise syndetic for some $y_m\in FS(S_0)$ (using Lemma \ref{thm:poly}).  Let $A_{m+1}$ and $t_{m+1}$ be defined as in property (1) of the induction.

If $t_{m+1}=0$ then we are in a position to repeat the process just described.  Otherwise, we know $A_{m+1}\subseteq C_1$.  Using Lemma \ref{thm:poly}, we know that for all large enough $n$ there is a $y_{m+1}\in FS(S_n)$ such that $A_{m+1}\cap\bigcap_{f=1}^{\prod_{j<m+1} k!y_j^3} (A_{m+1}-fy_{m+1})$ is piecewise syndetic.  Define $A_{m+2}$ and $t_{m+2}$ as in property (1) of the induction, and repeat this construction for all $A_{m+i}$ (choosing the $y_j$ from different $S_n$) until $t_{m+i}=1.$  Note that the $y_m.y_{m+1},...,y_{m+i}$ chosen this way satisfy property (2) the induction as the $S_i$ satisfy Theorem \ref{pos++}.

With the induction complete, by the pigeonhole principle there are either $n+1$ numbers $i$ such that $t_i=0$ or else there are arbitrarily many consecutive integers $a,...,b$ such that $t_i=1$ for $i\in \{a,...,b\}$.  In either case, let $c_0,..,c_n$ be these integers in increasing order.  Notice that the elements of $\bigcup_i A_{c_i}\subseteq C$ for some color class $C$.

For integers $i<j$, let $x_{i,j}=y_{i}y_{i+1}...y_{j-1}$.  By property (2) of our construction we know that $x_{c_i,c_{i+1}}\in C$.  Moreover, by property (1) we know that $A_{b}\subseteq x_{a,b}A_{a}$ for each $a<b.$

To complete the proof, let $x\in A_b$ and $f\in [k!\prod y_s ] $.  We will show that $x/x_{a,b}+fx_{a,b}\in A_a$ for $a<b$.  We have: $$x_{a,b}(x/x_{a,b}+fx_{a,b})\in A_b+fx_{a,b}^2\subset y_{b-1}(A_{b-1}-fx_{a,b}^2/y_{b-1})+fx_{a,b}^2 $$ $$\subset y_{b-1}A_{b-1}\subset y_{b-1}x_{a,b-1}A_a= x_{a,b}A_a.$$

As $x/x_{a,b}+fx_{a,b}\in A_a,$ we may repeat the above argument to show that $x/(x_{a',a}\cdot x_{a,b})+f'x_{a',a}+fx_{a,b}/x_{a',a}\in A_{a'}$ for $a'<a,$ and so on, obtaining all of the sums of the desired type.  Applying this fact to $b=c_n$ we see that $x_0=x/x_{c_0,c_n}$ and $x_i=x_{c_{i-1},c_i}$ for $i>0$ are the desired integers.
\end{proof}

\subsection{The thick case}

Applying Theorem \ref{thm:local} reduces the proofs of Theorems \ref{main} and \ref{m2} to the case where at least one of the color classes is multiplicatively thick.  In this situation we can 'almost' ignore color changes caused by multiplication, and so the case analysis needed to complete the proofs is essentially the same as that needed to prove that any $2$-coloring of $\{1,...,5\}$ contains monochrochromatic sets of the form $\{x,y,x+y\}.$

In the following we fix a $2$-coloring $\mathbb{N}=A\cup B.$

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{m2}]
By Theorem \ref{thm:local} we may assume that there is some minimal left ideal $L\subseteq (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ such that $L\subseteq \overline{A}.$ By definition this tells us that $A$ is multiplicatively thick, and so for any finite $F\subset \mathbb{N}$ there is an $a\in A$ such that $Fa\subset A.$  Iterating this property, we find a sequence $n<a_0,...,a_4\in A$ such that $[n^2a_0^2 \cdot...\cdot a_i^2] a_{i+1}\subset A$ for all $i\in [4]$.

From here the proof follows from considering several cases:

\begin{enumerate}
    \item We may assume that $a_j+na_i\in B$ for any $i<j,$ as otherwise $x=a_j$ and $y=a_i$ are as desired.

    \item We may assume $(a_3+na_2)(a_1+na_0)\in B,$ as otherwise $x=(a_1+na_0)a_3$ and $y=(a_1+na_0)a_2$ are as desired.

    \item We may assume $(a_3+na_2)+n(a_1+na_0)=a_3+n(a_2+a_1+na_0)\in A,$ as otherwise we can take $x=a_3+na_2$ and $y=a_1+na_0.$

    \item We may assume $a_4+n((a_3+na_2)+n(a_1+na_0))\in B,$ as otherwise we can take $x=a_4$ and $y=(a_3+na_2)+n(a_1+na_0).$

    \vspace{1mm}

    From here we finish by considering the color of $y=a_2+a_1+na_0.$

    \item If $y\in A,$ then we can let $x=a_3.$  By construction of the $a_i$ we know $x\in A$ and $xy\in A,$ and by point (3) we know that $x+ny\in A.$

    \item If $y\in B,$ then consider $x=a_4+na_3.$  By point (1) we know $x\in B$ and by point (4) we know $x+ny=a_4+n(a_3+a_2+a_1+na_0)\in B,$ so we may assume that $xy\in A.$  To finish we can let $x'=a_4y$ and $y'=a_3y.$  Then by the construction of the $a_i$ we know $x',y',x'y'\in A,$ and by the above we know $x'+ny'=xy\in A,$ so these numbers are as desired.
\end{enumerate}

\end{proof}

Theorem \ref{main} will follow from a very similar, albeit more index heavy, analysis.

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{main}]
By Theorem \ref{thm:local} we may assume that there is a minimal left ideal $L\subseteq (\beta\mathbb{N},\cdot)$ such that $L\subseteq \overline{A}$.  By definition this tells us that $A$ is multiplicatively thick, and thus we may find a sequence $(a_i)_{i\in\omega}$ such that $[a_0^n \cdot...\cdot a_i^n] a_{i+1}\subset A$ for all $i\in \mathbb{N}.$  From here we just have an annoying case analysis that is very similar to the analysis that shows that any two coloring of the set $\{1,n,n+1,n^2,n^2+n-1\}$ contains $n$ (not necessarily distinct) $x_i$ such that $\{x_i,\sum x_i\}$ is monochromatic.

\begin{enumerate}
    \item We may assume $\sum_{i\in I}a_i\in B$ for any $I\subseteq \mathbb{N}$ with $|I|=n.$

    \item We may assume $\prod_{i\leq j}c_i\in B$ for any sequence of numbers $c_1,...,c_n$ which are the sum of $n$ $a_i$ in increasing order (i.e. the index of all of the elements that sum to $c_i$ is less than the index of any of the elements that sum to $c_j$ for $i<j$).  Otherwise, for $c_j=b_1+...+b_n$ we can take $x_i=\prod_{k<j}c_jb_{n+1-i}$ to finish.

    \item We may assume $\sum_{i\in [n]}c_i\in A$ for $c_i$ as above, as otherwise this and Point (2) would ensure that the $c_i$ are the desired elements of $B.$  In particular, we may assume that the sum of any $n^2$ $a_i$ is in $A.$

    \item We may assume that the sum of $n^2+n-1$ many $a_i$ is in $B,$ as otherwise letting $x_1$ be the sum of the $n^2$ smallest indexed $a_i$ and $x_{1+i}$ the $n^2+i$'th $a_i$ gives the desired integers by Point (3).

    \vspace{1mm}

    To finish, consider numbers $b=\sum_{i\in I} a_i$ where $|I|=n+1.$  We case on whether there are infinitely many such numbers in $A$ or in $B.$

    \item If there are infinitely many such $b\in A,$ consider index sets $I_2,...,I_{n}$ where $|I_i|=n+1,$ $\max{I_i}<\min{I_j}$ for $i<j,$ and $x_i=\sum_{i\in I_i}a_i\in A.$  Let $x_1=a_k$ where $k>\max{I_{n}}.$ Then $\prod_{i\leq j}x_i\in A$ by the choice of $x_1,$ and $\sum x_i\in A$ by Point (3).

    \item If there are infinitely many such $b\in B,$ consider index sets $I_2,...,I_{n}$ where $|I_i|=n+1,$ $\max{I_i}<\min{I_j}$ for $i<j,$ and $x_i=\sum_{i\in I_i}a_i\in B.$  Let $I_1$ be an index set such that $|I_1|=n,$ $\min{I_1}>\max{I_{n}},$ and $x_1=\sum_{i\in I_n}a_i\in B$ by Point (1).  Then $\sum x_i$ is the sum of $(n-1)(n+1)+n=n^2+n-1$ $a_i,$ and so is in $B$ by Point (4).  Therefore, if $x_1\cdot \prod_{2\leq i\leq j}x_i\in B$ for all $j<n$ then we're done, so we may assume that $x_1\cdot \prod_{2\leq i\leq j}x_i\in A$ for at least one $j.$ In this case, suppose that $I_1$ indexes the elements $b_1,...,b_n\in (a_i)_{i\in\mathbb{N}}.$ Let $x'_i=b_i\cdot \prod_{2\leq i\leq j}x_i.$  Then $x'_i\in A$ and $\prod_{i\leq j}x'_i\in A$ for each $j\in [n]$ by the choice of the $(a_i),$ and $\sum x'_i\in A$ by the previous sentence.

\end{enumerate}

\end{proof}

\section{Concluding remarks}

While the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:local} can be adapted to deal with some of the cases that arise when considering partitions of $\mathbb{N}$ with more than $2$ colors (for example, when each color class is syndetic), the proof of the thick case seems to be much less versatile.  Finding a more abstract approach to this case seems like a natural first barrier to attempt to overcome when generalizing these results.  In upcoming work with Sabok we make some progress towards this and give a somewhat different approach to the thick case that, in particular, allows us to generalize Theorem \ref{m2} to arbitrarily long arithmetic progressions.  However, this approach still relies on some analysis that does not generalize naturally to more than $2$-colorings.

Finally, we mention that the situation is quite different when considering coloring of $\mathbb{Q}$ rather than $\mathbb{N},$ where the thick case is not nearly as problematic.  In fact, in upcoming work with Sabok we prove (generalizations of) Theorem \ref{M} for any finite coloring of $\mathbb{Q}.$