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

I am thinking about something I just read:

The volume of the n-ball is given by $V_n(r) = \frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma (\frac n 2 + 1)}r^n$ and its surface area is $S_n(r) = \frac{\pi^{n/2}}{\Gamma (\frac n 2 + 1)}r^{n-1}n$. So far so good. Now there is this statement:

Because the volume is dependent exponentially from n, the majority of points within the ball are very close to the surface. In fact, for $n \rightarrow \infty$, the point sets 'surface' and 'volume' become identical.

Is there any way to explain this statement more precisely? My point is: Taking the fraction $\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac V S = \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} \frac r n = 0$. Thus I would assume that the surface becomes larger than the volume.

share|cite|improve this question
I think that "larger" is not the correct term, because $V_n(r)$ and $S_n(r)$ are two values that cannot be directly compared (e.g. you cannot compare square meters with cubic meter). But you can say that fixed a radious, $S_n(r)$ grows faster than $V_n(r)$ – Ikki Nov 28 '13 at 17:02
I know about that problem. But after all, both $V$ and $S$ are pointsets $V_n(r) = \{x \in \mathbb R^n| |x| \leq r \}$ (and $S_n$ likewise). How would one compare them otherwise? Anyway: The original problem is still why the volume becomes the surface (to state it a bit clumsy) – disaster Nov 28 '13 at 17:06
I think that what is meant is that if $X_n$ is a point drawn uniformly from the ball $\Bbb B_n(0,1)$, then it will be arbitrarily close to the sphere $\Bbb S_n(0,1)$ with overwhelming probability as $n\to+\infty$. More precisely, $\Pr\{d(X_n,\Bbb S_n(0,1)) \leq \varepsilon\} = 1-\varepsilon^n$. – Siméon Nov 28 '13 at 17:17
What exactly does the quotient $V/S$ tell you? You should realise that it is a length. But what does it mean? – Fly by Night Nov 28 '13 at 17:28
It's the length in the remaining dimension between the $n-1$ dimensional surface and the $n$ dimensional volume, ie., the 'difference' so to speak in between the two in the new dimension, isn't it? – disaster Nov 29 '13 at 8:29

the majority of points within the ball are very close to the surface.

Yes, this is what happens in high dimensions. But one does not need the formulas with $\Gamma$-function to see this. Consider a ball $B_1$ of radius $1$, and inside of it draw a concentric ball $B_r$ of radius $r<1$. Then the fraction of volume of $B_1$ contained in $B_r$ is simply $r^n$. And this is how the function $r^n$ looks for $n=1,2,4,8,\dots,512$:

powers of r

As you can see, in 64 dimensions there is practically nothing in $B_{0.9}$, in terms of volume. In 128 dimensions there is almost nothing in $B_{0.95}$.

In fact, for $n\to\infty$, the point sets 'surface' and 'volume' become identical.

I don't like this statement at all. In whatever sense we take $n\to\infty$, the Euclidean norm ball ought to have some convexity, which its sphere does not. (I understand the idea of imagining, e.g., the $L^1$ ball as something nonconvex, but here we consider balls for an inner product metric).

share|cite|improve this answer

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.