Convergence of symmetrization processes

Gabriele Bianchi; Paolo Gronchi; Richard J. Gardner

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 41 references

Convergence of symmetrization processes

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that for every subspace dimension i, there are explicit finite lists of i-dimensional subspaces such that repeated symmetrization of any compact convex set about those subspaces converges to a ball centered at the origin…

desk verdict Genuinely useful new universal sequences for symmetrizations, but one central proof (Theorem 3.9) has a fixable gap in its application of Lemma 3.6. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03259 v3 pith:IP7JJE5W submitted 2019-08-08 math.MG

Gabriele Bianchi , Richard J. Gardner , Paolo Gronchi This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.MG MSC 52A2052A3928B2052A3852A40

keywords SteinersymmetrizationSchwarzMinkowskiMinkowski-Blaschkefiberuniversalsequenceconvexbodyrotationalsymmetry

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper establishes that for every subspace dimension i, there are finite lists of i-dimensional subspaces with a strong property: if a compact convex set is symmetrized successively about the subspaces in such a list, with each list member used infinitely often, the shapes converge to a ball centered at the origin. This gives the first explicit universal sequences for Schwarz, Minkowski, Minkowski-Blaschke, and fiber symmetrizations in intermediate dimensions, where previously only hyperplane symmetrization and isolated cases were understood. The authors reach this by combining two results: a convergence theorem extending Klain's theorem for Steiner symmetrization to the other symmetrizations, and a geometric result showing that reflection or rotational symmetry in the subspaces of a carefully chosen finite set forces full rotational symmetry. A reader should care because symmetrization is a standard tool in isoperimetric-type inequalities, and knowing exactly which short lists of directions force convergence to a ball makes the tool more explicit and broadly applicable.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on two machines. The first is the symmetry extension lemma (Lemma 3.6): if a closed subset E of the unit sphere is invariant under reflection in a subspace H and has full spherical sections over translates of a subspace L, then it has full spherical sections over translates of H+L; the proof is a Jacobian rank calculation showing that a certain parametrization covers a neighborhood. Iterating this lemma gives finite reflection sets whose symmetries force E to be the whole sphere, hence force a convex body to be a ball. The second is a Klain-type convergence theorem: using a volume layering functional, the authors show that successive symmetrals along a sequence from a finite set F converge to a compact convex set L, and the symmetry extension results identify L as symmetric about every subspace in F that appears infinitely often. The two machines are connected in Section 6 to produce the universal sequences.

What would settle it

For a concrete test, set n=4, i=k=2, choose L=span{e1,e2} and H=span{e1, cos alpha e2 + sin alpha e3} with alpha in (0,pi/2), and take x=(1,1,0,0) in the notation of the proof of Lemma 3.6 case (c). The matrix D is 2x1; computing its single column explicitly and checking that it is nonzero decides whether the rank estimate rank D >= i-l = 1 holds in this instance, and a configuration where it fails would break Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.8.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is twofold. First, for any 1 <= i <= n-1 there exists a finite set U_1,...,U_k of i-dimensional subspaces such that if a sequence (H_m) is chosen from this set and each U_j occurs infinitely often, then the successive Minkowski symmetrals of any compact convex set converge to an origin-centered ball (Theorem 6.1); the same holds for Schwarz and Minkowski-Blaschke symmetrals with analogous sets (Theorem 6.9). Second, Klain's theorem, which says that successive symmetrals with respect to a sequence drawn from a finite set converge to a limit symmetric about every subspace used infinitely often, is extended from Steiner symmetrization to fiber, Minkowski, Schwarz, and Minkowski-Blaschke symmetrization, with Schwarz also valid for compact sets. The limit body is a ball exactly when the finite set of subspaces forces full rotational symmetry.

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction of reflection-type universal sequences rests on the Jacobian rank estimate inside the symmetry extension lemma (Lemma 3.6): in cases (a), (b), and (c), the matrix D must have rank at least i-l, and if that estimate fails for some configuration, the finite reflection sets and hence the Minkowski-universal sequences in Theorem 6.1 do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For every subspace dimension i, explicit finite sequences exist that are Minkowski-universal; previously, explicit universal sequences were essentially restricted to hyperplane symmetrization (i=n-1) or isolated examples.
The same finite-subspace sequences give weakly universal sequences for any i-symmetrization process that is monotone, invariant on H-symmetric sets, and invariant under translations orthogonal to H, via Proposition 6.3.
Klain's convergence theorem now applies to fiber, Minkowski, Schwarz, and Minkowski-Blaschke symmetrization, so the limiting body is guaranteed to respect every symmetry direction used infinitely often.
For Steiner, Schwarz, and Minkowski symmetrization, universality for compact sets is equivalent to universality for convex bodies, so the new sequences work even when the initial set is not convex.
Schwarz-universal sequences coincide with Minkowski-Blaschke-universal sequences, giving a characterization analogous to the known Steiner/Minkowski equivalence for hyperplanes.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

One could use the finite reflection sets as a rounding algorithm: alternating symmetrization about a fixed list of i-dimensional subspaces is guaranteed to converge to a ball, so the method is a deterministic alternative to random directions; convergence rates are not addressed here, so that is a natural next question.
Theorem 3.9's characterization of when rotational symmetries force a body to be spherical has a mechanical reading: a rigid body with prescribed finitely many rotational symmetries must be a ball exactly under the stated spanning and non-orthogonal-decomposability condition; one could test this by classifying symmetry groups of non-spherical solids.
The compact-set equivalence suggests that convexity of the starting set is not the main mechanism driving convergence for these symmetrizations; a plausible testable extension is whether the same equivalence holds for other processes satisfying Lemma 7.2's hypotheses, a question the paper leaves open.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's the quick take. This is a serious paper and the main theorems are new: explicit universal sequences for all i, extensions of Klain's theorem to fiber, Minkowski, Minkowski-Blaschke, and Schwarz symmetrizations, and the compact-set equivalence results. The writing is clear, proofs are detailed, and the authors include examples showing assumptions are necessary. I was convinced by the core arguments in Sections 5 and 6.

The one soft spot that matters is in the proof of Theorem 3.9. The iterative use of Lemma 3.6 with H = lin{v_p} and L = H1^⊥ + F_{p−1} is not justified as written. Because v_p is orthogonal to F_{p−1}, the lemma's hypothesis H ∩ L^⊥ = {o} can fail when v_p ∈ H1. That is not excluded by condition (ii); the n=4 example with H1^⊥ = span{e1,e2}, H2^⊥ = span{e3,e1+e4} satisfies (ii) and has exactly this problem. The natural repair is to use H = lin{w_p}; then w_p ∉ F_{p−1}^⊥, so the hypothesis holds. This looks like a typo rather than a false theorem, and I would expect the fix to go through, but it must be checked. Since Theorem 3.9 feeds Corollary 3.10 and hence Theorem 6.9, this is a main-line proof step, not a peripheral remark.

Theorem 7.1 on Schwarz symmetrization of compact sets is only sketched, but the key lemmas (49)–(51) are stated and the route through [4] is credible. I would not hold that against the paper.

Overall: no circularity, no fabricated results, and the citation pattern is appropriate. The central claims are substantial and likely correct. I would send this to referees, with the specific request to verify the repair to Theorem 3.9. Citation worthiness depends on that repair, but I expect it to hold.

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies convergence of successive symmetrals under sequences of subspaces. It extends Klain's finite-set convergence theorem from Steiner symmetrization to fiber, Minkowski, Schwarz, and Minkowski-Blaschke symmetrizations (Theorems 5.6, 5.7, 5.11); identifies finite reflection and rotational symmetry sets that force full rotational symmetry (Section 3); and combines these to construct Minkowski-universal sequences for all valid dimensions i (Theorem 6.1) and Schwarz- and Minkowski-Blaschke-universal sequences (Theorem 6.9). It also proves that Steiner, Schwarz, and Minkowski universality for convex bodies is equivalent to universality for compact sets (Theorems 7.3 and 7.4). The paper is carefully structured and includes examples showing that several hypotheses in the Klain-type theorems cannot be dropped.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial contribution to the symmetrization literature. The universal sequences constructed here are, to my knowledge, the first explicit ones for general i in the range 1,...,n-2, and the extensions of Klain's theorem to fiber, Minkowski, Schwarz, and Minkowski-Blaschke symmetrizations are natural and useful. The symmetry-extension lemma (Lemma 3.6) is a technically demanding result, and its proof is detailed. The paper is also commendable for its explicit examples, such as Examples 5.8, 5.9, and 6.4, which demonstrate the necessity of hypotheses in the main convergence theorems. The compact-set results in Section 7 are valuable and answer natural questions left open by earlier work. I believe the main results are likely correct, but one proof in Section 3 needs repair before the paper is fully convincing.

major comments (2)

[Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.9] The iterative application of Lemma 3.6 with H = lin{v_p} and L = H1^⊥ + F_{p-1} is not justified by the lemma's hypotheses. Since v_p is orthogonal to F_{p-1} by construction, we have L^⊥ = H1 ∩ F_{p-1}^⊥; if v_p ∈ H1, then H ∩ L^⊥ ≠ {o}, so Lemma 3.6 cannot be invoked. Nothing in condition (ii) rules this out: in R^4, take H1 = span{e3,e4} and H2 = span{e1−e4,e2}; then H1^⊥ = span{e1,e2}, H2^⊥ = span{e3,e1+e4}, condition (ii) holds, and an orthogonal basis of H2^⊥ can be chosen with v2 = e3 ∈ H1. The natural repair is to apply Lemma 3.6 with H = lin{w_p} instead: because v1 ∉ H1, we have w_p ∉ H1, hence H ∩ L^⊥ = {o}, and the required invariance R_{H^⊥}E = E follows from w_p ∈ H2^⊥. This repair should be verified explicitly in the manuscript. As written, the proof of Theorem 3.9, and therefore of Corollary 3.10 and Theorem 6.9, is incomplete.
[Corollary 3.10] The proof asserts that choosing subspaces with dim(H1^⊥ + ... + Hk^⊥) = n suffices for Theorem 3.9(ii), but the no-orthogonal-partition condition is an additional requirement that is not implied by the dimension estimate alone. For example, two complementary orthogonal subspaces satisfy the dimension equality but violate the partition condition. The proof should state that the H_j are chosen generically, or explicitly, so that both parts of Theorem 3.9(ii) hold; a generic choice avoids finitely many proper algebraic conditions. As written, the proof of Corollary 3.10 is incomplete, and this corollary is load-bearing for Theorem 6.9.

minor comments (3)

[Section 3, proof of Theorem 3.9] The sentence 'for otherwise {H1} and {H2,...,Hk} would be a partition of {H1,...,Hk} rendering (ii) false' should refer to a partition of {H1^⊥,...,Hk^⊥}, not {H1,...,Hk}, to match the statement of condition (ii).
[Theorem 7.1] Theorem 7.1 is presented as a proof sketch that delegates the main argument to [4]. The preliminary observations (49)-(51) are plausible and the reduction is natural, but if the journal requires self-contained proofs, this theorem should be expanded by following the argument of [4, Theorem 6.1] in detail.
[Throughout] The notation H1 and H1^⊥ is used interchangeably in some prose passages in Section 3; using a consistent notation, for example H1^⊥ for the orthogonal complement throughout, would reduce the risk of confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the new universal sequences are proved from independently established Klain-type convergence theorems and independently proved finite symmetry sets.

full rationale

The central claims are derived rather than assumed. Theorem 6.1 combines Theorem 5.7, a Klain-type convergence theorem proved in this paper, with Corollary 3.8, a finite reflection-symmetry forcing result proved in Section 3. Theorem 6.9 similarly combines Theorem 5.11 with Corollary 3.10, where the latter rests on Theorem 3.9, proved from Lemma 3.6 and Lemma 3.5. The extension of Klain's theorem is an external starting point [25], and the auxiliary results in Section 3 are proved from elementary linear algebra and group action arguments in the same paper. Citations to the authors' prior paper [5] are used for background containments such as F_H K subset of diamond_H K in Theorem 5.7, or for classification properties of symmetrizations; they are not premises equivalent to the universal-sequence conclusion. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness or universality claim is imported solely from a self-citation. The skeptical concern about the iteration of Lemma 3.6 in Theorem 3.9 is a possible correctness gap about whether a hypothesis is satisfied in a particular configuration; it is not a circularity, since the target conclusion is not assumed in the proof of that lemma. Overall, no specific reduction of a conclusion to its input can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard mathematical tools (Kronecker, Blaschke, Brunn-Minkowski, Urysohn) and on established properties of symmetrizations from the authors' earlier paper [5]. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced; the new content is proven from these inputs.

assumptions (5)

standard math Kronecker's approximation theorem
Used in Lemma 3.4 and Theorem 3.2 to show density of rotations generated by reflections.
standard math Blaschke's selection theorem
Used in Theorems 5.6, 5.7, 5.11, 6.10 to extract convergent subsequences of uniformly bounded convex bodies.
standard math Brunn-Minkowski inequality
Used in Lemma 5.3 and containment results in Section 4.
standard math Urysohn's inequality
Used in Lemma 4.1 to compare volumes and mean widths.
domain assumption Properties of symmetrizations from [5]
The paper relies on established results from the authors' earlier paper, e.g., fiber symmetral contained in Minkowski symmetral, and continuity properties.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convergence of symmetrization processes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IP7JJE5W

@misc{pith2026190803259,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convergence of symmetrization processes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IP7JJE5W}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03259}
}

abstract

Steiner and Schwarz symmetrizations, and their most important relatives, the Minkowski, Minkowski-Blaschke, fiber, inner rotational, and outer rotational symmetrizations, are investigated. The focus is on the convergence of successive symmetrals with respect to a sequence of $i$-dimensional subspaces of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Such a sequence is called universal for a family of sets if the successive symmetrals of any set in the family converge to a ball with center at the origin. New universal sequences for the main symmetrizations, for all valid dimensions $i$ of the subspaces, are found, by combining two groups of results. The first, published separately, provides finite sets ${\mathcal{F}}$ of subspaces such that reflection symmetry (or rotational symmetry) with respect to each subspace in ${\mathcal{F}}$ implies full rotational symmetry. In the second, proved here, a theorem of Klain for Steiner symmetrization is extended to Schwarz, Minkowski, Minkowski-Blaschke, and fiber symmetrizations, showing that if a sequence of subspaces is drawn from a finite set ${\mathcal{F}}$ of subspaces, the successive symmetrals of any compact convex set converge to a compact convex set that is symmetric with respect to any subspace in ${\mathcal{F}}$ appearing infinitely often in the sequence. It is also proved that for Steiner, Schwarz, and Minkowski symmetrizations, a sequence of $i$-dimensional subspaces is universal for the class of compact sets if and only if it is universal for the class of compact convex sets, and Klain's theorem is shown to hold for Schwarz symmetrization of compact sets.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[4]

Bianchi, A

G. Bianchi, A. Burchard, P. Gronchi, and A. Volˇ ciˇ c, Converg ence in shape of Steiner symmetrization, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 61 (2012), 1695–1710

work page 2012
[1]

Ambrus and K

G. Ambrus and K. J. B¨ or¨ oczky, Stability results for the volume of random simplices, Amer. J. Math. 136 (2014), 833–857

work page 2014
[2]

T. M. Apostol, Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory , second edition, Springer, New York, 1990

work page 1990
[3]

Bandle, Isoperimetric Inequalities and Applications , Pitman, Boston, MA, 1980

C. Bandle, Isoperimetric Inequalities and Applications , Pitman, Boston, MA, 1980

work page 1980
[5]

Bianchi, R

G. Bianchi, R. J. Gardner, and P. Gronchi, Symmetrization in geom etry, Adv. Math. 306 (2017), 51–88

work page 2017
[6]

H. J. Brascamp and E. H. Lieb, On extensions of the Brunn-Minko wski and Pr´ ekopa-Leindler theorems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diﬀusion equation, J. Funct. Anal. 22 (1976), 366–389

work page 1976
[7]

Burchard, G

A. Burchard, G. R. Chambers, and A. Dranovski, Ergodic prope rties of folding maps on spheres, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 37 (2017), 1183–1200

work page 2017
[8]

Colesanti, Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for variational funct ionals and related problems, Adv

A. Colesanti, Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for variational funct ionals and related problems, Adv. Math. 194 (2005), 105–140

work page 2005

Show all 41 references

[9]

Coupier and Y

D. Coupier and Y. Davydov, Random symmetrizations of convex b odies, Adv. in Appl. Probab. 46 (2014), 603–621

2014
[10]

M. L. Eaton and M. Perlman, Generating O(n) with reﬂections, Paciﬁc J. Math. 73 (1977), 73–80

1977
[11]

Fradelizi, A

M. Fradelizi, A. Giannopoulos, and M. Meyer, Some inequalities abo ut mixed volumes, Israel J. Math. 135 (2003), 157–179

2003
[12]

L. E. Fraenkel, An Introduction to Maximum Principles and Symmetry in Ellip tic Problems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

2000
[13]

Fusco, F

N. Fusco, F. Maggi, and A. Pratelli, The sharp quantitative isope rimetric inequality, Ann. of Math. (2) 168 (2008), 941–980

2008
[14]

R. J. Gardner, The Brunn-Minkowski inequality, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 39 (2002), 355–405

2002
[15]

R. J. Gardner, Geometric Tomography, second edition, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006

2006
[16]

R. J. Gardner, D. Hug, and W. Weil, Operations between sets in g eometry, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 15 (2013), 2297–2352

2013
[17]

Gritzmann, J

P. Gritzmann, J. M. Wills, and D. Wrase, A new isoperimetric inequa lity, J. Reine Angew. Math. 379 (1987), 22–30

1987
[18]

P. M. Gruber, Convex and Discrete Geometry , Springer, Berlin, 2007

2007
[19]

Haberl and F

C. Haberl and F. E. Schuster, General Lp aﬃne isoperimetric inequalities, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 83 (2009), 1–26

2009
[20]

Hadwiger, Vorlesungen ¨ uber Inhalt, Oberﬂ¨ ache und Isoperimetrie, Springer, Berlin, 1957

H. Hadwiger, Vorlesungen ¨ uber Inhalt, Oberﬂ¨ ache und Isoperimetrie, Springer, Berlin, 1957

1957
[21]

W. K. Hayman, Multivalent Functions , second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994

1994
[22]

Henrot, Extremum Problems for Eigenvalues of Elliptic Operators , Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2006

A. Henrot, Extremum Problems for Eigenvalues of Elliptic Operators , Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2006

2006
[23]

Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets in PDE , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1150, Springer, Berlin, 1985

B. Kawohl, Rearrangements and Convexity of Level Sets in PDE , Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1150, Springer, Berlin, 1985. 38 GABRIELE BIANCHI, RICHARD J. GARDNER, AND PAOLO GRONCHI

1985
[24]

Kesavan, Symmetrization & Applications , World Scientiﬁc Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, 2006

S. Kesavan, Symmetrization & Applications , World Scientiﬁc Publishing, Hackensack, NJ, 2006

2006
[25]

D. A. Klain, Steiner symmetrization using a ﬁnite set of directions , Adv. in Appl. Math. 48 (2012), 340–353

2012
[26]

S. G. Krantz and H. R. Parks, The Geometry of Domains in Space , Birkh¨ auser, Boston, MA, 1999

1999
[27]

Kuratowski, Topology, Vol

K. Kuratowski, Topology, Vol. I, Academic Press, New York, 1966

1966
[28]

E. H. Lieb and M. Loss, Analysis, second edition, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001

2001
[29]

Lutwak, D

E. Lutwak, D. Yang, and G. Zhang, Lp aﬃne isoperimetric inequalities, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 56 (2000), 111–132

2000
[30]

Lutwak, D

E. Lutwak, D. Yang, and G. Zhang, Orlicz centroid bodies, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 84 (2010), 365–387,

2010
[31]

Lutwak and G

E. Lutwak and G. Zhang, Blaschke-Santal´ o inequalities, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 47 (1997), 1–16

1997
[32]

Montgomery and H

D. Montgomery and H. Samelson, Transformation groups of sp heres, Ann. of Math. 44 (1943), 454–470

1943
[33]

Paouris and P

G. Paouris and P. Pivovarov, Random ball-polyhedra and inequalit ies for intrinsic volumes, Monatsh. Math. 182 (2017), 709–729

2017
[34]

P´ olya and G

G. P´ olya and G. Szeg¨ o,Isoperimetric Inequalities in Mathematical Physics , Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1951

1951
[35]

Saroglou, On some problems concerning symmetrization oper ators, Forum Math

C. Saroglou, On some problems concerning symmetrization oper ators, Forum Math. 31 (2019), 479–489

2019
[36]

Schneider, Convex Bodies: The Brunn-Minkowski Theory , second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014

R. Schneider, Convex Bodies: The Brunn-Minkowski Theory , second edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2014

2014
[37]

D. W. Stroock, Essentials of Integration Theory for Analysis , Springer, New York, 2011

2011
[38]

Tonelli, Sulle propriet´ a di minimo della sfera, Rend

L. Tonelli, Sulle propriet´ a di minimo della sfera, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 39 (1915), 109–138

1915
[39]

Tsolomitis, Quantitative Steiner/Schwarz-type symmetriza tion, Geom

A. Tsolomitis, Quantitative Steiner/Schwarz-type symmetriza tion, Geom. Dedicata 60 (1996), 187–206

1996
[40]

Volˇ ciˇ c, On iterations of Steiner symmetrization,Ann

A. Volˇ ciˇ c, On iterations of Steiner symmetrization,Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. (4) 195 (2016), 1685–1692

2016
[41]

Zhang, The aﬃne Sobolev inequality, J

G. Zhang, The aﬃne Sobolev inequality, J. Diﬀerential Geom. 53 (1999), 183–202. Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica “U. Dini”, Univer sit`a di Firenze, Viale Morgagni 67/A, Firenze, Italy I-50134 E-mail address : gabriele.bianchi@unifi.it Department of Mathematics, Wester...

1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [4]

Bianchi, A

G. Bianchi, A. Burchard, P. Gronchi, and A. Volˇ ciˇ c, Converg ence in shape of Steiner symmetrization, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 61 (2012), 1695–1710

work page 2012

[2] [1]

Ambrus and K

G. Ambrus and K. J. B¨ or¨ oczky, Stability results for the volume of random simplices, Amer. J. Math. 136 (2014), 833–857

work page 2014

[3] [2]

T. M. Apostol, Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory , second edition, Springer, New York, 1990

work page 1990

[4] [3]

Bandle, Isoperimetric Inequalities and Applications , Pitman, Boston, MA, 1980

C. Bandle, Isoperimetric Inequalities and Applications , Pitman, Boston, MA, 1980

work page 1980

[5] [5]

Bianchi, R

G. Bianchi, R. J. Gardner, and P. Gronchi, Symmetrization in geom etry, Adv. Math. 306 (2017), 51–88

work page 2017

[6] [6]

H. J. Brascamp and E. H. Lieb, On extensions of the Brunn-Minko wski and Pr´ ekopa-Leindler theorems, including inequalities for log concave functions, and with an application to the diﬀusion equation, J. Funct. Anal. 22 (1976), 366–389

work page 1976

[7] [7]

Burchard, G

A. Burchard, G. R. Chambers, and A. Dranovski, Ergodic prope rties of folding maps on spheres, Discrete Contin. Dyn. Syst. 37 (2017), 1183–1200

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Colesanti, Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for variational funct ionals and related problems, Adv

A. Colesanti, Brunn-Minkowski inequalities for variational funct ionals and related problems, Adv. Math. 194 (2005), 105–140

work page 2005