L_i}_-$ is a lens set. From Lemma \[dividepoints\] there has to be a point $p_i \in D^{L_i}_-$ with $\theta(\{p_i\} \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D^{L_i}_-) = \theta(D)$. The lines $L_i$ tend to the horizontal line through $(x_1,y_1)$, the lower extremal point of $D$. Thus, the vertical coordinate of $p_i$ tends to $y_1$, and as ${{\tilde{D}}}$ has no horizontal edges, the horizontal coordinate of $p_i$ tends to $x_1$, meaning $p_i {{\rightarrow}}(x_1,y_1)$.

From property (\[t2\]), as $\theta_{n-2}(\{p_i\} \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$, for all points $p \in D$ except for $(x_1,y_1)$ we have $\theta_{n-2}(\{p\} \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$. This, however, from Lemma \[dividepoints\] implies in particular, that for any horizontal line $M$ dividing ${{\tilde{D}}}$ into two sets of non-zero $\mi$-measure we have $\theta(D_+) \leq \theta(D)$, which from Lemma \[thetamain\] implies $\theta(D_+) = \theta(D)$, which from Lemma \[horline\] implies that $D$ is appropriate.

$\eps$-appropriateness of lens sets
-----------------------------------

This subsection puts down precisely what we meant by “long and narrow” in the idea of the proof, and show how to go from the “longness and narrowness” to $\eps$-appropriateness.

\[convexproj\] Let $C \subset \R^n$ be a convex set with $\lambda(C) > 0$, let $I \subset C$ be an interval of length $a$, and let $L$ be the line containing $I$. Let $f : C {{\rightarrow}}(0,\infty)$ be a $1\slash m$-concave function. Let $P : \R^m {{\rightarrow}}L$ be the orthogonal projection onto $L$. Let $J \subset I$ be an subinterval of length
L_i}_-$ is a lens set. From Lemma \[dividepoints\ ] there has to be a point $ p_i \in D^{L_i}_-$ with $ \theta(\{p_i\ } \times \R^{n-2 }) \leq \theta(D^{L_i}_-) = \theta(D)$. The lines $ L_i$ tend to the horizontal course through $ (x_1,y_1)$, the depleted extremal point of $ D$. Thus, the erect coordinate of $ p_i$ tends to $ y_1 $, and as $ { { \tilde{D}}}$ have no horizontal edges, the horizontal coordinate of $ p_i$ tend to $ x_1 $, meaning $ p_i { { \rightarrow}}(x_1,y_1)$. 

 From property (\[t2\ ]), as $ \theta_{n-2}(\{p_i\ } \times \R^{n-2 }) \leq \theta(D)$, for all point $ p \in D$ except for $ (x_1,y_1)$ we have $ \theta_{n-2}(\{p\ } \times \R^{n-2 }) \leq \theta(D)$. This, however, from Lemma \[dividepoints\ ] incriminate in particular, that for any horizontal line $ M$ separate $ { { \tilde{D}}}$ into two set of non - zero $ \mi$-measure we have $ \theta(D_+) \leq \theta(D)$, which from Lemma \[thetamain\ ] implies $ \theta(D_+) = \theta(D)$, which from Lemma \[horline\ ] implies that $ D$ is appropriate. 

 $ \eps$-appropriateness of lens sets 
 ----------------------------------- 

 This subsection puts down precisely what we mean by “ long and narrow ” in the idea of the validation, and show how to go from the “ longness and narrow-mindedness ” to $ \eps$-appropriateness. 

 \[convexproj\ ] Let $ C \subset \R^n$ be a convex put with $ \lambda(C) > 0 $, let $ I \subset C$ be an interval of length $ a$, and let $ L$ be the line hold $ I$. Let $ f: C { { \rightarrow}}(0,\infty)$ be a $ 1\slash m$-concave function. Let $ P: \R^m { { \rightarrow}}L$ be the extraneous project onto $ L$. Let $ J \subset I$ be an subinterval of length
L_i}_-$ ls a lens set. From Lemma \[dividepoints\] tkwre hav to bs a poing $p_i \in D^{L_i}_-$ with $\theta(\{p_i\} \timxs \R^{b-2}) \leq \theta(D^{L_i}_-) = \theta(D)$. The uines $L_i$ nend to tye hieizontal lmhe thromyh $(x_1,y_1)$, bhe lmxer extremal polnt of $D$. Thgs, the vertican zolrdinate of $p_i$ tends to $y_1$, and as ${{\tijde{D}}}$ hax jo horizontal gdges, ehe gorizontal coordinate of $p_i$ tends fo $x_1$, meening $p_i {{\rightatrow}}(x_1,y_1)$.

From property (\[t2\]), as $\tjeta_{j-2}(\{p_i\} \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \tjeta(D)$, for aol pjunts $p \in D$ dxcept for $(x_1,y_1)$ we have $\jheta_{n-2}(\{p\} \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$. This, howerer, from Lenmq \[dleidepoints\] mmplief in particular, that for anu horizontal llne $M$ diciding ${{\tilde{D}}}$ into twm sets of non-zero $\ii$-measure wz have $\theta(D_+) \leq \thera(E)$, whiwh fsom Uwmmx \[tgevamzin\] imolixs $\theta(D_+) = \fheta(D)$, whicy from Lemma \[horlint\] iiikies that $D$ js appwo[riate.

$\eps$-appropriateness of lens sets
-----------------------------------

Thps shbsection puts down prexisely what we meant hy “long agd narrow” in the idea of the proof, and show how tm go hrum uhc “uinhness and narrowness” to $\eps$-appropriateness.

\[condsxkrom\] Let $C \subset \R^k$ be a convex set eihh $\jambda(C) > 0$, let $I \subset C$ be an interval lf lengjh $a$, abd let $L$ fe tne line containing $I$. Let $f : C {{\rightarroc}}(0,\indty)$ be a $1\slash m$-coucave functiun. Lgt $P : \T^m {{\rightarrow}}L$ be the oxthogohal projectlon onto $M$. Let $J \subset I$ ce sn subinterval of length
L_i}_-$ is a lens set. From Lemma has be a $p_i \in D^{L_i}_-$ \theta(D^{L_i}_-) \theta(D)$. The lines tend to the line through $(x_1,y_1)$, the lower extremal of $D$. Thus, the vertical coordinate of $p_i$ tends to $y_1$, and as has no horizontal edges, the horizontal coordinate of $p_i$ tends to $x_1$, meaning {{\rightarrow}}(x_1,y_1)$. property as \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$, for all points $p \in D$ except for $(x_1,y_1)$ we have $\theta_{n-2}(\{p\} \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$. This, however, from Lemma \[dividepoints\] in particular, that for horizontal line $M$ dividing ${{\tilde{D}}}$ two of non-zero we $\theta(D_+) \theta(D)$, which from \[thetamain\] implies $\theta(D_+) = \theta(D)$, which from Lemma \[horline\] implies that $D$ is appropriate. $\eps$-appropriateness of lens ----------------------------------- This down precisely we by and narrow” in of the proof, and show how the “longness and narrowness” to $\eps$-appropriateness. \[convexproj\] Let \subset \R^n$ a convex set with $\lambda(C) > let $I \subset C$ be an interval of $a$, and let $L$ be the line containing $I$. Let $f : C {{\rightarrow}}(0,\infty)$ be m$-concave function. Let $P \R^m {{\rightarrow}}L$ be orthogonal onto Let \subset I$ an subinterval of length
L_i}_-$ is a lens set. From Lemma \[diviDepoints\] thEre haS to Be a PoInt $p_I \in D^{l_i}_-$ with $\theta(\{p_i\} \tIMes \R^{N-2}) \leq \theta(D^{L_i}_-) = \theta(D)$. The lInes $L_I$ tENd to THe HorizOntal liNE tHROugH $(x_1,Y_1)$, tHe lOwER eXtremAl pOint of $D$. thus, the verTicAl Coordinate of $P_I$ tEnds to $y_1$, and As ${{\tIlde{D}}}$ has no hoRizOntal eDgEs, tHE horiZonTal coOrdinaTE of $p_i$ tEnds to $x_1$, meAnINg $p_i {{\riGHtarrow}}(X_1,Y_1)$.

frOm prOperty (\[t2\]), as $\theta_{n-2}(\{p_i\} \TImES \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$, foR all poInTS $p \IN d$ exCepT for $(x_1,y_1)$ we haVe $\Theta_{N-2}(\{P\} \times \R^{N-2}) \LeQ \THEta(d)$. this, however, frOm Lemma \[diviDEpoInts\] imPlIes IN partiCular, ThAT foR any horizonTal lIne $M$ dividIng ${{\tilDE{D}}}$ into tWO sets of Non-zerO $\mi$-MeaSure WE hAvE $\thEtA(d_+) \leQ \ThEta(d)$, WhiCh from LeMmA \[tHetamAin\] iMPLIEs $\thEta(d_+) = \theTa(D)$, whIch from Lemma \[hOrlIne\] iMPliEs thaT $D$ is aPproPrIate.

$\ePs$-apprOpriaTeNess of lens sets
-----------------------------------

THis sUbsection PutS dOwn PrEciseLY what wE meAnt By “long aNd narroW” In tHe IDEA oF the proof, and show hoW tO GO fRom the “loNgness ANd NaRRowness” tO $\ePs$-aPproPRIatenEss.

\[cONvExproj\] LeT $C \subsET \R^N$ bE a conveX sEt with $\LaMbdA(C) > 0$, lEt $I \suBSet C$ Be an inTerval of LengtH $A$, and let $L$ be the lINe containing $I$. lEt $F : c {{\RiGHtarRow}}(0,\Infty)$ be a $1\slaSh m$-cONcavE funCTiOn. LET $P : \R^m {{\rIghtaRrOW}}L$ BE the orthogonal projeCtIon ontO $L$. Let $j \subset I$ be an sUbinterval OF LEngth
L_i}_-$ is a lens set. Fro m Lemma \[ divid epo int s\ ] th erehas to be a po i nt $ p_i \in D^{L_i}_-$ wit h $\t he t a(\{ p _i \} \t imes \R ^ {n - 2 })\l eq  \t he t a( D^{L_ i}_ -) = \t heta(D)$.The  l ines $L_i$ t e nd  to the ho riz ontal line t hro ugh $( x_ 1,y _ 1)$,the  lowe r extr e mal po int of $D $. Thus,t he vert i c al  coo rdinate of $p_i$t en d s to $y_1$, an d as $ {{ \ ti l d e{D }}} $ has no h or izont a l edges ,  t h e hor i zontal coordi nate of $p_ i $ t ends t o$x_ 1 $, mea ning$p _ i { {\rightarro w}}( x_1,y_1)$ .

Fro m  proper t y (\[t2 \]), a s $ \th eta_ { n- 2} (\{ p_ i \}\ ti mes \R^ {n-2}) \ le q\thet a(D) $ , f or a llpoin ts $p  \in D$ excep t f or $ ( x_1 ,y_1) $ wehave  $ \thet a_{n-2 }(\{p \}  \times \R^{n-2 }) \ leq \thet a(D )$ . T hi s, ho w ever,fro m L emma \[ dividep o int s\ ] i mp lies in particular ,t h at  for any  horiz o nt al line $M$  d ivi ding $ {{\ti lde{ D }} }$ intotwo se t sof  non-ze ro  $\mi$ -m eas ure  we h a ve $ \theta (D_+) \l eq \t h eta(D)$, which from Lemma \[ t he t a ma i n\]imp lies $\thet a(D_ + ) =\the t a( D)$ ,  whic h fro mL em m a \[horline\] impli es  that$D$ i s appropriate .

$\eps$- a p p ropriate ness of lens sets
---- ----- ---------- - -------- ----- --

This  subsecti o n  puts do wnpre cis ely w ha t we meant by “ long  a nd narr ow”  in the  id eaofthe  p roof, and  show ho wto  g ofro m the “longnes sand  n arr ownes s ” to $ \eps$ -app ro pr i ate ness.
\ [c o n vexp ro j\ ] Le t $ C\subs et \ R ^n$  be a c onvex set  wi t h $\ la mb da(C) >  0$, let $I \ su bset C$ be  a n i nterva l of lengt h $a$, and let $L$ be t h e linecon taini ng $ I$. Let $ f :  C {{\ rig h tarrow }}(0,\ infty )$  be a  $1\s l a sh  m$ -c oncave fun c t ion . Let  $ P :\R^m {{ \rightarrow}}L$ be the  orthogonal p roj ecti o n  o nto $L $ . L et $J\ s ubset I$ be ansubinterva lo flength
L_i}_-$ is_a lens_set. From Lemma \[dividepoints\]_there has_to_be a_point_$p_i \in D^{L_i}_-$_with $\theta(\{p_i\} \times_\R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D^{L_i}_-) =_\theta(D)$. The lines_$L_i$_tend to the horizontal line through $(x_1,y_1)$, the lower extremal point of $D$. Thus,_the_vertical coordinate_of_$p_i$_tends to $y_1$, and as_${{\tilde{D}}}$ has no horizontal edges,_the horizontal_coordinate of $p_i$ tends to $x_1$, meaning $p_i_{{\rightarrow}}(x_1,y_1)$.

From_property (\[t2\]), as_$\theta_{n-2}(\{p_i\} \times \R^{n-2}) \leq \theta(D)$, for all points $p_\in D$ except for $(x_1,y_1)$ we_have $\theta_{n-2}(\{p\} \times_\R^{n-2})_\leq_\theta(D)$. This, however, from_Lemma \[dividepoints\] implies in particular, that_for any horizontal line $M$ dividing_${{\tilde{D}}}$ into two sets of non-zero $\mi$-measure_we have $\theta(D_+) \leq \theta(D)$, which_from Lemma \[thetamain\] implies $\theta(D_+)_= \theta(D)$,_which from Lemma \[horline\] implies_that $D$ is_appropriate.

$\eps$-appropriateness of_lens sets
-----------------------------------

This subsection_puts down precisely what we meant_by “long and_narrow” in the idea of the_proof,_and show how_to_go_from the_“longness and narrowness”_to_$\eps$-appropriateness.

\[convexproj\] Let_$C_\subset \R^n$ be a convex set_with_$\lambda(C) > 0$, let $I \subset C$_be an interval of_length_$a$, and let $L$_be the line containing $I$._Let $f : C {{\rightarrow}}(0,\infty)$ be_a $1\slash_m$-concave function._Let $P : \R^m {{\rightarrow}}L$ be the orthogonal projection onto $L$._Let $J \subset I$ be an_subinterval of length