Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose we have unit sphere in space $R^n$ which is inscribed sphere of a hypercube. Let we have epsilon-net on the facets of hypercube. For examle, in 3-D this epsilon-net is given as the set of points with coordinates:

$(-1,\hspace{2mm} -1+i*h,\hspace{2mm} -1+j*h)$

$(1,\hspace{2mm} -1+i*h,\hspace{2mm} -1+j*h)$

$(-1+i*h, \hspace{2mm} -1,\hspace{2mm} -1+j*h)$

$(-1+i*h, \hspace{2mm} 1,\hspace{2mm} -1+j*h)$

$(-1+i*h, \hspace{2mm} -1+j*h,\hspace{2mm} -1)$

$(-1+i*h, \hspace{2mm} -1+j*h,\hspace{2mm} 1)$

In R^n we form the set of points analogically.

Then we join every point from this set with the origin ( in 3-D - $(0,0,0)$) by straight line. This lines intersect with our unit sphere in some kind of points. So we have a set of points at sphere which ic called 'base of covering'.

It's need to find by analitycal way the radius of covering (or try to get up and low appreciations).

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

The sort of point you'll have most trouble covering will be at half distance between the projections of $(1,0,0,\dotsc,h,h)$ and $(1,h,h,\dotsc,0,0)$, where $\lfloor(n-1)/2\rfloor$ entries are $0$ in one vector and $h$ in the other and $\lceil(n-1)/2\rceil$ the other way around. The geodesic distance between those two points on the sphere is

$$\arccos\frac1{\sqrt{1+\lfloor(n-1)/2\rfloor h^2}\sqrt{1+\lceil(n-1)/2\rceil h^2}}\;,$$

and the covering radius is half of that. For odd $n$, this simplifies to


and for small $h$ this is approximately


(Again the covering radius is half of that.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Thks, this is my suggestion too. But I can't improve this for any dimension $n$. Can you help me? – Sh.N. May 15 '12 at 17:17
@Sh.N.: I don't understand -- this is already for any dimension $n$; what is there to improve? Did you mean "prove"? – joriki May 15 '12 at 22:08
I want to say that this is only low appreciation of radius. For example, in 3-D the distance between projections of $(1, 0, 0)$ and $(1,h,h)$ less than the distance between projections of $(1, h, 0)$ and $(1,0, h)$. Besides that, the program which computes this radius automatically proves it. – Sh.N. May 16 '12 at 3:39
@Sh.N.: I'm sorry, I thought I checked which of these has the greater distance, but I forgot to take into account that taking the arccosine reverses the order :-) I've corrected the answer. – joriki May 16 '12 at 7:57
Thank you very much! – Sh.N. May 16 '12 at 10:07

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.