Research Article
Andrea Marchese and Annalisa Massaccesi
The Steiner tree problem revisited through
rectifiable πΊ-currents
Abstract: The Steiner tree problem can be stated in terms of finding a connected set of minimal length containing a given set of finitely many points. We show how to formulate it as a mass-minimization problem for 1-dimensional currents with coefficients in a suitable normed group. The representation used for these currents allows to state a calibration principle for this problem. We also exhibit calibrations in some examples.
Keywords: Steiner tree problem, rectifiable currents, calibration, flat πΊ-chains MSC 2010: 49Q15, 49Q20
||
Andrea Marchese: Max-Planck-Institut fΓΌr Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften, InselstraΓe 22, 04103 Leipzig, Germany,
e-mail: marchese@mis.mpg.de
Annalisa Massaccesi: Institut fΓΌr Mathematik der UniversitΓ€t ZΓΌrich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 ZΓΌrich, Switzerland,
e-mail: annalisa.massaccesi@math.uzh.ch
Communicated by: Giuseppe Mingione
Introduction
The classical Steiner tree problem consists in finding the shortest connected set containing π given distinct points π1, . . . , ππin βπ. Some very well-known examples are shown in Figure 1.
DOI 10.1515/acv-2014-0022 | Adv. Calc. Var. 2014; ??? (???):1β22
Research Article
Andrea Marchese and Annalisa Massaccesi
The Steiner tree problem revisited through
rectifiable πΊ-currents
Abstract: The Steiner tree problem can be stated in terms of finding a connected set of minimal length
containing a given set of finitely many points. We show how to formulate it as a mass-minimization problem for 1-dimensional currents with coefficients in a suitable normed group. The representation used for these currents allows to state a calibration principle for this problem. We also exhibit calibrations in some examples.
Keywords: Steiner tree problem, rectifiable currents, calibration, flat πΊ-chains MSC 2010: 49Q15, 49Q20
||
Andrea Marchese: Max-Planck-Institut fΓΌr Mathematik in den Naturwissenschaften, InselstraΓe 22, 04103 Leipzig, Germany,
e-mail: marchese@mis.mpg.de
Annalisa Massaccesi: Institut fΓΌr Mathematik der UniversitΓ€t ZΓΌrich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH-8057 ZΓΌrich, Switzerland,
e-mail: annalisa.massaccesi@math.uzh.ch
Communicated by: Guiseppe Mingione
Introduction
The classical Steiner tree problem consists in finding the shortest connected set containing π given distinct points π1, . . . , ππin βπ. Some very well-known examples are shown in Figure 1.
π
4π
3π
1π
2π
π
1π
2π
3π
Figure 1. Solutions for the vertices of an equilateral triangle and a square.
The problem is completely solved in β2and there exists a wide literature on the subject, mainly devoted
to improving the efficiency of algorithms for the construction of solutions: see, for instance, [13] and [14] for a survey of the problem. The recent papers [22] and [23] witness the current studies on the problem and its generalizations.
Our aim is to rephrase the Steiner tree problem as an equivalent mass-minimization problem by replacing connected sets with 1-currents with coefficients in a more suitable group than β€, in such a way that solutions
Figure 1. Solutions for the vertices of an equilateral triangle and a square.
The problem is completely solved in β2and there exists a wide literature on the subject, mainly devoted to improving the efficiency of algorithms for the construction of solutions: see, for instance, [13] and [14] for a survey of the problem. The recent papers [22] and [23] witness the current studies on the problem and its generalizations.
Our aim is to rephrase the Steiner tree problem as an equivalent mass-minimization problem by replacing connected sets with 1-currents with coefficients in a more suitable group than β€, in such a way that solutions of one problem correspond to solutions of the other, and vice-versa. The use of currents allows to exploit techniques and tools from the Calculus of Variations and the Geometric Measure Theory.
20 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
2 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
of one problem correspond to solutions of the other, and vice-versa. The use of currents allows to exploit techniques and tools from the Calculus of Variations and the Geometric Measure Theory.
Let us briefly point out a few facts suggesting that classical polyhedral chains with integer coefficients might not be the correct environment for our problem. First of all, one should make the given points π1, . . . , ππ
in the Steiner problem correspond to some integral polyhedral 0-chain supported on π1, . . . , ππ, with suitable
multiplicities π1, . . . , ππ. One has to impose that π1+ β β β + ππ= 0 in order that this 0-chain is the boundary
of a compactly supported 1-chain. In the example of the equilateral triangle, see Figure 1, the condition π3= β(π1+ π2) forces to break symmetry, leading to the minimizer in Figure 2. The desired solution is
instead depicted in Figure 1. In the second example from Figure 1, we get the βwrongβ non-connected minimizer even though all boundary multiplicities have modulus 1; see Figure 2.
π
π
1
1
1
β1
β1
1
1
β2
1
Figure 2. Solutions for the mass-minimization problems among polyhedral chains with integer coefficients.
These examples show that β€ is not the right group of coefficients.
Our framework will be that of currents with coefficients in a normed abelian group πΊ (briefly: πΊ-currents), which we will introduce in Section 1.
Currents with coefficients in a group were introduced by W. Fleming. There is a vast literature on the subject: let us mention only the seminal paper [12], the work of B. White [26, 27], and the more recent papers by T. De Pauw and R. Hardt [8] and by L. Ambrosio and M. G. Katz [3]. A closure theorem holds for these flat πΊ-chains, see [12] and [26].
In Section 2 we recast the Steiner problem in terms of a mass-minimization problem over currents with coefficients in a discrete group πΊ, chosen only on the basis of the number of boundary points. As we already said, this construction provides a way to pass from a mass-minimizer to a Steiner solution and vice-versa.
This new formulation permits to initiate a study of calibrations as a sufficient condition for minimality; this is the subject of Section 3. Classically a calibration π associated with a given oriented π-submanifold π β βπis a unit closed π-form taking value 1 on the tangent space of π. The existence of a calibration
guaran-tees the minimality of π among oriented submanifolds with the same boundary ππ. Indeed, Stokesβ theorem and the assumptions on π imply that
vol(π) = β«
π
π = β«
πσΈ
π β€ vol(πσΈ ),
for any submanifold πσΈ having the same boundary of π.
In order to define calibrations in the framework of πΊ-currents, it is convenient to view currents as linear functionals on forms, which is not always possible in the usual setting of currents with coefficients in groups. This motivates the preliminary work in Section 1, where we embed the group πΊ in a normed linear space πΈ and we construct the currents with coefficients in πΈ in the classical way. In Definition 3.5, the notion of calibration is slightly weakened in order to include piecewise smooth forms, which appear in
Figure 2. Solutions for the mass-minimization problems among polyhedral chains with integer coefficients.
Let us briefly point out a few facts suggesting that classical polyhedral chains with integer coefficients might not be the correct environment for our problem. First of all, one should make the given points π1, . . . , ππ in the Steiner problem correspond to some integral polyhedral 0-chain supported on π1, . . . , ππ, with suitable multiplicities π1, . . . , ππ. One has to impose that π1+ β β β + ππ= 0 in order that this 0-chain is the boundary of a compactly supported 1-chain. In the example of the equilateral triangle, see Figure 1, the condition π3= β(π1+ π2) forces to break symmetry, leading to the minimizer in Figure 2. The desired solution is instead depicted in Figure 1. In the second example from Figure 1, we get the βwrongβ non-connected minimizer even though all boundary multiplicities have modulus 1; see Figure 2.
These examples show that β€ is not the right group of coefficients.
Our framework will be that of currents with coefficients in a normed abelian group πΊ (briefly: πΊ-currents), which we will introduce in Section 1.
Currents with coefficients in a group were introduced by W. Fleming. There is a vast literature on the subject: let us mention only the seminal paper [12], the work of B. White [26, 27], and the more recent papers by T. De Pauw and R. Hardt [8] and by L. Ambrosio and M. G. Katz [3]. A closure theorem holds for these flat πΊ-chains, see [12] and [26].
In Section 2 we recast the Steiner problem in terms of a mass-minimization problem over currents with coefficients in a discrete group πΊ, chosen only on the basis of the number of boundary points. As we already said, this construction provides a way to pass from a mass-minimizer to a Steiner solution and vice-versa.
This new formulation permits to initiate a study of calibrations as a sufficient condition for minimality; this is the subject of Section 3. Classically a calibration π associated with a given oriented π-submanifold π β βπis a unit closed π-form taking value 1 on the tangent space of π. The existence of a calibration guaran-tees the minimality of π among oriented submanifolds with the same boundary ππ. Indeed, Stokesβ theorem and the assumptions on π imply that
vol(π) = β« π
π = β« πσΈ
π β€ vol(πσΈ ), for any submanifold πσΈ having the same boundary of π.
In order to define calibrations in the framework of πΊ-currents, it is convenient to view currents as linear functionals on forms, which is not always possible in the usual setting of currents with coefficients in groups. This motivates the preliminary work in Section 1, where we embed the group πΊ in a normed linear space πΈ and we construct the currents with coefficients in πΈ in the classical way. In Definition 3.5, the notion of calibration is slightly weakened in order to include piecewise smooth forms, which appear in Examples 3.10 and 3.11, where we exhibit calibrations for the problem on the right of Figure 1 and for the Steiner tree problem on the vertices of a regular hexagon plus the center. It is worthwhile to note that our theory works for the Steiner tree problem in βπand for currents supported in βπ; we made explicit computa-tions only on 2-dimensional configuracomputa-tions for simplicity reasons. We conclude Section 3 with some remarks concerning the use of calibrations in similar contexts, see for instance [19].
The existence of a calibration is a sufficient condition for a manifold to be a minimizer; one could wonder whether this condition is necessary as well. In general, a smooth (or piecewise smooth, according to Definition 3.7) calibration might not exist; nevertheless, one can still search for some weak calibration, for instance a differential form with bounded measurable coefficients. In Section 4 we discuss a strategy in order to get the existence of such a weak calibration. A duality argument due to H. Federer [11] ensures that a weak calibration exists for mass-minimizing normal currents; the same argument works for mass-minimizing normal currents with coefficients in the normed vector space πΈ. Therefore an equivalence principle between minima among normal and rectifiable 1-currents with coefficients in πΈ and πΊ, respectively, is sufficient to conclude that a calibration exists. Proposition 4.3 guarantees that the equivalence between minima holds in the case of classical 1-currents with real coefficients; hence a weak calibration always exists. The proof of this result is subject to the validity of a homogeneity property for the candidate minimizer stated in Remark 4.4. Example 4.5 shows that for 1-dimensional πΊ-currents an interesting new phenomenon occurs, since (at least in a non-Euclidean setting) this homogeneity property might not hold; the validity of the homogeneity prop-erty may be related to the ambient space. The problem of the existence of a calibration in the Euclidean space is still open.
1 Rectifiable currents over a coefficient group
In this section we provide definitions for currents over a coefficient group, with some basic examples. Fix an open set π β βπand a normed vector space (πΈ, β β β
πΈ) with finite dimension π β₯ 1. We will denote by (πΈβ, β β β
πΈβ) its dual space endowed with the dual norm
βπβπΈβ:= sup
βπ£βπΈβ€1
β¨π; π£β©. Definition 1.1. We say that a map
π : Ξπ(βπ) Γ πΈ β β is an πΈβ-valued π-covector in βπif
(i) for all π β Ξπ(βπ), π(π, β ) β πΈβ, that is, π(π, β ) : πΈ β β is a linear function. (ii) for all π£ β πΈ, π( β , π£) : Ξπ(βπ) β β is a (classical) π-covector.
Sometimes we will use β¨π; π, π£β© instead of π(π, π£), in order to simplify the notation. The space of πΈβ-valued π-covectors in βπis denoted by Ξπ
πΈ(βπ) and it is endowed with the comass norm
βπβ := sup{βπ(π, β )βπΈβ: |π| β€ 1, π simple}. (1.1)
Remark 1.2. Fix an orthonormal system of coordinates in βπ, (e
1, . . . , eπ); the corresponding dual base in (βπ)βis (ππ₯
1, . . . , ππ₯π). Consider a complete biorthonormal system for πΈ, i.e. a pair (π£1, . . . , π£π) β πΈπ, (π€1, . . . , π€π) β (πΈβ)π
such that βπ£πβπΈ= 1, βπ€πβπΈβ = 1 and β¨π€π; π£πβ© = πΏππ. Given an πΈβ-valued π-covector π, we denote
ππ:= π( β , π£ π).
For each π β {1, . . . , π}, ππ is a π-covector in the usual sense. Hence the biorthonormal system (π£
1, . . . , π£π), (π€1, . . . , π€π) allows to write π in βcomponentsβ
π = (π1, . . . , ππ), in fact we have π(π, π£) =βπ π=1β¨π π; πβ©β¨π€ π; π£β©. In particular ππadmits the usual representation
ππ = β
1β€π1<β β β <ππβ€π
22 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
Definition 1.3. An πΈβ-valued differential π-form in π β βπ, or just a π-form when it is clear which vector space we are referring to, is a map
π : π β ΞππΈ(βπ);
we say that π isCβ-regular if every component ππis so (see Remark 1.2). We denote byCπβ(π, ΞππΈ(βπ)) the
vector space ofCβ-regular πΈβ-valued π-forms with compact support in π.
We are mainly interested in πΈβ-valued 1-forms, nevertheless we analyze π-forms in wider generality, in order to ease other definitions, such as the differential of an πΈβ-valued form and the boundary of an πΈ-current.
Definition 1.4. We define the differential dπ of aCβ-regular πΈβ-valued π-form π by components:
dππ:= d(ππ) : π β Ξπ+1(βπ), π = 1, . . . , π,
Moreover,Cπβ(π, Ξ1πΈ(βπ)) has a norm, denoted by β β β, given by the supremum of the comass norm of the
form defined in (1.1). Hence we mean
βπβ := sup
π₯βπβπ(π₯)β. (1.2)
Definition 1.5. A π-dimensional current π in π β βπ, with coefficients in πΈ, or just an πΈ-current when there is no doubt on the dimension, is a linear and continuous function
π :Cπβ(π, ΞππΈ(βπ)) β β,
where the continuity is meant with respect to the locally convex topology on the space Cπβ(π, ΞππΈ(βπ)),
built in analogy with the topology onCπβ(βπ), with respect to which distributions are dual. This defines the
weakβtopology on the space of π-dimensional πΈ-currents. Convergence in this topology is equivalent to the convergence of all the βcomponentsβ in the space of classicalΒΉ π-currents, by which we mean the following. We define for every π-dimensional πΈ-current π its components ππ, for π = 1, . . . , π, and we write
π = (π1, . . . , ππ), denoting
β¨ππ; πβ© := β¨π; Μππβ©,
for every (classical) compactly supported differential π-form π on βπ. Here Μπ
πdenotes the πΈβ-valued differen-tial π-form on βπsuch that
Μππ( β , π£π) = π, (1.3)
Μππ( β , π£π) = 0 for π ΜΈ= π. (1.4)
It turns out that a sequence of π-dimensional πΈ-currents πβweaklyβconverges to an πΈ-current π (in this case we write πββ π) if and only if the sequence of the components πβ βπ converge to ππ in the space of classical π-currents, for π = 1, . . . , π.
Definition 1.6. For a π-current π over πΈ we define the boundary operator
β¨ππ; πβ© := β¨π; dπβ© for all π = (π1, . . . , ππ) βCπβ(π, Ξπβ1πΈ (βπ))
and the mass
π(π) := sup βπββ€1β¨π; πβ©.
As one can expect, the boundary π(ππ) of every component ππ is the relative component (ππ)πof the boundary ππ.
Definition 1.7. A π-dimensional normal πΈ-current in π β βπis an πΈ-current π with the properties π(π) < +β and π(ππ) < +β. Thanks to the Riesz Theorem, π admits the following representation:
β¨π; πβ© = β« π
β¨π(π₯); π(π₯), π£(π₯)β© dππ(π₯) for all π βCπβ(π, ΞππΈ(βπ)),
where ππis a Radon measure on π, π£ : π β πΈ is summable with respect to ππand |π| = 1, ππ-a.e. A similar representation holds for the boundary ππ.
Definition 1.8. A rectifiable π-current π in π β βπ, over πΈ, or a rectifiable πΈ-current is an πΈ-current admitting the following representation:
β¨π; πβ© := β« Ξ£
β¨π(π₯); π(π₯), π(π₯)β© dHπ(π₯) for all π βCπβ(βπ, ΞππΈ(π))
where Ξ£ is a countably π-rectifiable set (see [16, Definition 5.4.1]) contained in π, π(π₯) β ππ₯Ξ£ with |π(π₯)| = 1 forHπ-a.e. π₯ β Ξ£ and π β πΏ1(Hπ Ξ£; πΈ). We will refer to such a current as π = π(Ξ£, π, π). If π΅ is a Borel set and
π(Ξ£, π, π) is a rectifiable πΈ-current, we denote by π π΅ the current π(Ξ£ β© π΅, π, π).
Consider now a discrete subgroup πΊ < πΈ, endowed with the restriction of the norm β β βπΈ. If the multiplicity π takes only values in πΊ, and if the same holds in the representation of ππ, we call π a rectifiable πΊ-current. Pay attention to the fact that, in the framework of currents over the coefficient group πΈ, rectifiable πΈ-currents play the role of (classical) rectifiable current, while rectifiable πΊ-currents correspond to (classical) integral currents. Actually this correspondence is an equality, when πΈ is the group β (with the Euclidean norm) and πΊ is β€.
The next proposition gives a formula to compute the mass of a 1-dimensional rectifiable πΈ-current. Proposition 1.9. Let π = π(Ξ£, π, π) be a 1-dimensional rectifiable πΈ-current. Then
π(π) = β« Ξ£
βπ(π₯)βπΈdH1(π₯).
Since the mass is lower semicontinuous, we can apply the direct method of the Calculus of Variations for the existence of minimizers with given boundary, once we provide the following compactness result. Here we assume for simplicity that πΊ is the subgroup of πΈ generated by π£1, . . . , π£π(see Remark 1.2). A similar argument works for every discrete subgroup πΊ.
Theorem 1.10. Let (πβ)ββ₯1be a sequence of rectifiable πΊ-currents such that there exists a positive finite
con-stant πΆ satisfying
π(πβ) + π(ππβ) β€ πΆ for every β β₯ 1.
Then there exists a subsequence (πβπ)πβ₯1and a rectifiable πΊ-current π such that
πβπ
β β π.
Proof. The statement of the theorem can be proved component by component. In fact, let π1
β, . . . , πβπbe the components of πβ. Since (π£1, . . . , π£π), (π€1, . . . , π€π) is a biorthonormal system, we have
π(πβπ) + π(ππβπ) β€ π(π(πβ) + π(ππβ)) β€ ππΆ, hence, after a diagonal procedure, we can find a subsequence (πβπ)πβ₯1such that (π
π
βπ)πβ₯1weakly
βconverges to some integral current ππ, for every π = 1, . . . , π. Denoting by π the rectifiable πΊ-current, whose components are π1, . . . , ππ, we have
πβπ
β β π.
We conclude this section with some notations and basic facts about certain classes of rectifiable πΈ-currents. Given a Lipschitz path πΎ : [0, 1] β β2(parameterized with constant speed), and a coefficient π β πΊ, we define the associated 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current π = π(Ξ, π, π), where Ξ is the curve πΎ([0, 1]) and, denoting
24 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
by β(Ξ) the length of the curve Ξ, the orientation π is defined by π(πΎ(π‘)) := πΎσΈ (π‘)/β(Ξ) for a.e. π‘ β [0, 1]. It turns out that the boundary of such a current is ππ = ππΏπΎ(1)β ππΏπΎ(0), where the notation means that for every smooth πΈβ-valued map π, there holds
β¨ππ; πβ© = β¨π(πΎ(1)); πβ© β β¨π(πΎ(0)); πβ©.
Using this notation, we observe that, given some points π1, . . . , ππ and some multiplicities π1, . . . , ππin πΊ, the 0-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current π = π1πΏπ1+ β β β + πππΏππis the boundary of some 1-dimensional
rectifi-able πΊ-current with compact support π if and only if π1+ β β β + ππ= 0.
2 Steiner tree problem revisited
In this section we establish the equivalence between the Steiner tree problem and a mass-minimization problem in a family of πΊ-currents. We firstly need to choose the right group of coefficients πΊ. Once we fix the number π of points in the Steiner problem, we construct a normed vector space (πΈ, β β βπΈ) and a subgroup πΊ of πΈ, satisfying the following properties:
(P1) There exist π1, . . . , ππβ1 β πΊ and β1, . . . , βπβ1β πΈβsuch that (π1, . . . , ππβ1) with (β1, . . . , βπβ1) is a complete biorthonormal system for πΈ and πΊ is generated by π1, . . . , ππβ1.
(P2) βππ1+ β β β + πππβπΈ= 1 whenever 1 β€ π1< β β β < ππβ€ π β 1 and π β€ π β 1.
(P3) βπβπΈβ₯ 1 for every π β πΊ \ {0}. (P4) Let π = βπβ1
π=1ππππand Μπ = βπβ1π=1 Μππππsatisfy the following condition: { { { 0 β€ Μππβ€ ππ when ππ β₯ 0, 0 β₯ Μππβ₯ ππ otherwise. Then βΜπβπΈβ€ βπβπΈ.
For the moment we will assume the existence of πΊ and πΈ. The proof of their existence and an explicit repre-sentation, useful for the computations, are given in Lemma 2.6.
The next lemma has a fundamental role: through it, we can give a nice structure of 1-dimensional recti-fiable πΊ-current to every suitable competitor for the Steiner tree problem. From now on we will denote
ππ:= β(π1+ β β β + ππβ1).
Lemma 2.1. Let π΅ be a compact and connected set with finite length in βπ, containing the points π
1, . . . , ππ.
Then there exists a connected set π΅σΈ β π΅ containing π
1, . . . , ππ and a 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current ππ΅σΈ = π(π΅σΈ , π, π) such that
(i) βπ(π₯)βπΈ= 1 for a.e. π₯ β π΅σΈ ,
(ii) πππ΅σΈ is the 0-dimensional πΊ-current π1πΏπ
1+ β β β + πππΏππ.
Proof. Since π΅ is a connected, compact set of finite length, it follows that π΅ is connected by paths of finite length (see [9, Lemma 3.12]). Consider a curve π΅1which is the image of an injective path contained in π΅ going from π1to ππand associate to it the rectifiable πΊ-current π1with multiplicity βπ1, as explained in Section 1. Repeat this procedure keeping the end-point ππand replacing at each step π1with π2, . . . , ππβ1. To be precise, in this procedure, as soon as a curve π΅πintersects another curve π΅πwith π < π, we force π΅πto coincide with π΅π from that intersection point to the end-point ππ. The set π΅σΈ = π΅1βͺ β β β βͺ π΅πβ1 β π΅ is a connected set containing the points π1, . . . , ππand the 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current π = π1+ β β β + ππβ1satisfies the requirements of the lemma, in particular condition (i) is a consequence of (P2).
Via the next lemma (Lemma 2.3), we can say that solutions to the mass-minimization problem defined in Theorem 2.4 have connected supports. For the proof we need the following theorem on the structure of classical integral 1-currents. This theorem has firstly been stated as a corollary of [10, Theorem 4.2.25]. It allows us to consider an integral 1-current as a countable sum of oriented simple Lipschitz curves with integer multiplicities.
Theorem 2.2. Let π be an integral 1-current in βπ. Then π =βπΎ π=1ππ+ β β β=1πΆβ (2.1) with
(i) ππare integral 1-currents associated to injective Lipschitz paths for every π = 1, . . . , πΎ, and πΆβare integral 1-currents associated to Lipschitz paths which have the same value at 0 and 1 and are injective on (0, 1) for every β β₯ 1,
(ii) ππΆβ= 0 for every β β₯ 1.
Moreover π(π) =βπΎ π=1 π(ππ) +ββ β=1 π(πΆβ) (2.2) and π(ππ) =βπΎ π=1 π(πππ). (2.3)
Lemma 2.3. Let π = π(Ξ£, π, π) be a 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current such that the boundary ππ is the 0-current π1πΏπ1+ β β β + πππΏππ. Then there exists a rectifiable πΊ-current Μπ = π(ΜΞ£, Μπ, Μπ) such that
(i) πΜπ = ππ = π1πΏπ1+ β β β + πππΏππ,
(ii) supp(Μπ) is a connected 1-rectifiable set containing {π1, . . . , ππ} and it is contained in supp(π), (iii)H1(supp(Μπ) \ ΜΞ£) = 0,
(iv) π(Μπ) β€ π(π) and, if equality holds, then supp(π) = supp(Μπ).
Proof. Let ππ = π(Ξ£π, ππ, ππ) be the components of π, for π = 1, . . . , π β 1 (with respect to the biorthonormal system (π1, . . . , ππβ1), (β1, . . . , βπβ1)).
For every π, we can use Theorem 2.2 and write ππ =βπΎπ π=1 πππ+ββ β=1 πΆπβ. Moreover, since πππ= πΏ
ππβ πΏππ, by equation (2.3), we have πΎπ= 1 for every π. We choose Μπ the rectifiable
πΊ-current whose components are Μππ:= ππ
1. Because of (2.2), we have supp(Μππ) β supp(ππ) (the cyclic part of ππ never cancels the acyclic one).
Property (i) is easy to check. Property (iii) is also easy to check, because the corresponding property holds for every component Μππ. To prove property (ii), it is sufficient to observe that Μπ is a finite sum of currents associated to oriented curves with multiplicities, having the point ππin the support and that, by property (P1), π1, . . . , ππβ1are linearly independent, hence the support of Μπ is the union of the supports of Μππ. The inequality in property (iv) follows from (2.2) and from property (P4): indeed (2.2) implies that for every index β such that the support of πΆπ
βintersects the support of π1πin a set of positive length, thenH1-a.e. on this set the orientation of πΆπ
βcoincide with the orientation of π1π. Moreover, if π(Μπ) = π(π), then (2.2) implies that every cycle πΆπ
βis supported in supp(Μπ), hence the second part of (iv) follows.
Before stating the main theorem, let us point out that the existence of a solution to the mass-minimization problem is a consequence of Theorem 1.10.
Theorem 2.4. Assume that π0= π(Ξ£0, π0, π0) is a mass-minimizer among all 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-currents
with boundary
π΅ = π1πΏπ1+ β β β + πππΏππ.
Then π0:= supp(π0) is a solution of the Steiner tree problem. Conversely, given a set πΆ which is a solution of
the Steiner problem for the points π1, . . . , ππ, there exists a canonical 1-dimensional πΊ-current, supported on πΆ,
minimizing the mass among the currents with boundary π΅.
Proof. Since π0 is a mass-minimizer, the mass of π0 must coincide with that of the current Μπ0 given by Lemma 2.3. In particular, properties (ii) and (iv) of Lemma 2.3 guarantee that π0is a connected set.
26 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
Let π be a competitor for the Steiner tree problem and let πσΈ and π
πσΈ be the connected set and the rectifiable
1-current given by Lemma 2.1, respectively. Hence we have
H1(π) β₯H1(πσΈ )(1)= π(ππσΈ ) (2) β₯ π(π0) (3) β₯ H1(Ξ£0)(4)= H1(π0), indeed
(1) thanks to the second property of Lemma 2.1 and Proposition 1.9, we obtain π(ππσΈ ) = β«
πσΈ
βππσΈ (π₯)βπΈdH1(π₯) =H1(πσΈ ),
(2) we assumed that π0is a mass-minimizer, (3) from property (P3), we get
π(π0) = β« Ξ£0
βπ0(π₯)βπΈdH1(π₯) β₯ β« Ξ£0
1 dH1(π₯) =H1(Ξ£0),
(4) is property (iii) in Lemma 2.3.
To prove the second part of the theorem, apply Lemma 2.1 to the set πΆ. Notice that with the procedure described in the lemma, the rectifiable πΊ-current ππΆσΈ is uniquely determined, because for every point ππ,
the set πΆ contains exactly one path from ππto ππ, in fact it is well known that solutions of the Steiner tree problem cannot contain cycles; this explains the adjective βcanonicalβ. Assume by contradiction there exists a 1-dimensional πΊ-current π with ππ = π΅ and π(π) < π(ππΆσΈ ). The 1-dimensional πΊ-current Μπ obtained
applying Lemma 2.3 to π has a connected 1-rectifiable support containing {π1, . . . , ππ} and satisfies
H1(supp(Μπ)) β€ π(Μπ) β€ π(π) < π(ππΆσΈ ) =H1(supp(ππΆσΈ ) β€H1(πΆ),
which is a contradiction.
Remark 2.5. The proof given in the previous theorem shows in particular that the solutions of the mass-minimization problem do not depend on the choice of πΈ and πΊ, but are universal for every πΊ and πΈ satisfying properties (P1)β(P4).
Eventually, we give an explicit representation for πΊ and πΈ.
Lemma 2.6. For every π β β there exist a normed vector space (πΈ, β β βπΈ) and a subgroup πΊ of πΈ satisfying
prop-erties (P1)β(P4).
Proof. Let {e1, . . . , eπ} be the standard basis of βπand {dπ₯1, . . . , dπ₯π} be the dual basis. Consider πΈ := {π£ β βπ: π£ β eπ= 0}
and the homomorphism π : βπβ πΈ such that
π(π’1, . . . , π’π) := (π’1β π’π, . . . , π’πβ1β π’π, 0). (2.4) Consider on βπthe seminorm
βπ’ββ:= maxπ=1,...,ππ’ β eπβ minπ=1,...,ππ’ β eπ.
Observe that β β ββinduces via π a norm on πΈ that we denote β β βπΈ. For every π = 1, . . . , π β 1, define ππ:= π(eπ) and define ππ:= β(π1+β β β +ππβ1). Let πΊ be the subgroup of πΈ generated by π1, . . . , ππβ1. For every π = 1, . . . , πβ1 denote by βπthe element dπ₯πof πΈβ. The pair (π1, . . . , ππβ1), (β1, . . . , βπβ1) is a biorthonormal system and prop-erties (P1)β(P4) are easy to check.
Remark 2.7. The norm β β βπΈβof an element π€ = π€1β1+β β β +π€πβ1βπβ1β πΈβcan be characterized in the following
way: let us abbreviate
π€π :=πβ1β
π=1(π€πβ¨ 0) and π€
π:= βπβ1β π=1(π€πβ§ 0)
and, for every π£ = (π£1, . . . , π£πβ1, 0) β πΈ with βπ£βπΈ= 1, π(π£) := maxπ=1,...,πβ1(π£πβ¨ 0) β [0, 1]. Then βπ€βπΈβ= sup βπ£βπΈ=1 πβ1 β π=1π€ππ£π= supβπ£βπΈ=1 [π(π£)π€π+ (1 β π(π£))π€π] = sup πβ[0,1][(ππ€ π+ (1 β π)π€π] = π€πβ¨ π€π. (2.5)
Moreover we can also notice that, according to this representation of πΈ and πΊ, the only extreme points of the unit ball in πΈ are all the points of πΊ of unit norm, i.e. all the points π of the type π = Β±(ππ1+ β β β + πππ) such
that 1 β€ π1< β β β < ππβ€ π β 1 and π β€ π β 1.
3 Calibrations
As we recalled in the Introduction, our interest in calibrations is the reason why we have chosen to provide an integral representation for πΈ-currents, indeed the existence of a calibration guarantees the minimality of the associated current, as we will see in Proposition 3.2.
Definition 3.1. A smooth calibration associated with a π-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current π(Ξ£, π, π) in βπis a smooth compactly supported πΈβ-valued differential π-form π with the following properties:
(i) β¨π(π₯); π(π₯), π(π₯)β© = βπ(π₯)βπΈforHπ-a.e. π₯ β Ξ£, (ii) dπ = 0,
(iii) βπβ β€ 1, where βπβ is the comass of π, defined in (1.2).
Proposition 3.2. A rectifiable πΊ-current π which admits a smooth calibration π is a minimizer for the mass among the normal πΈ-currents with boundary ππ.
Proof. Fix a competitor πσΈ which is a normal πΈ-current associated with the vectorfield πσΈ , the multiplicity πσΈ and the measure ππσΈ (according to Definition 1.7), with ππσΈ = ππ. Since π(π β πσΈ ) = 0, it follows that π β πσΈ is
a boundary of some πΈ-current π in βπ, and then π(π) = β« Ξ£ βπβπΈdHπ (3.1) (i) = β« Ξ£ β¨π(π₯); π(π₯), π(π₯)β© dHπ= β¨π; πβ© (3.2) (ii)= β¨πσΈ ; πβ© = β« βπ β¨π(π₯); πσΈ (π₯), πσΈ (π₯)β© dπ πσΈ (3.3) (iii) β€ β« βπ βπσΈ βπΈdππσΈ = π(πσΈ ), (3.4)
where each equality (respectively inequality) holds because of the corresponding property of π, as established in Definition 3.1. In particular, equality in (ii) follows from
β¨π β πσΈ ; πβ© = β¨ππ; πβ© = β¨π; dπβ© = 0.
Remark 3.3. If π is a rectifiable πΊ-current calibrated by π, then every mass-minimizer with boundary ππ is calibrated by the same form π. In fact, choose a mass-minimizer πσΈ = π(Ξ£σΈ , πσΈ , πσΈ ) with boundary ππσΈ = ππ: obviously we have π(π) = π(πσΈ ), then equality holds in (3.4), which means
β¨π(π₯); πσΈ (π₯), πσΈ (π₯)β© = βπσΈ (π₯)βπΈ forHπ-a.e. π₯ β Ξ£σΈ .
At this point we need a short digression on the representation of a πΈβ-valued 1-form π; we will consider the case π = 2, all our examples being for the Steiner tree problem in β2. Remember that in Section 2 we fixed a basis (β1, . . . , βπβ1) for πΈβ, dual to the basis (π1, . . . , ππβ1) for πΈ. We represent
π = (
π1,1dπ₯1+ π1,2dπ₯2 ...
ππβ1,1dπ₯1+ ππβ1,2dπ₯2 ) , so that, if π = π1e1+ π2e2β Ξ1(β2) and π£ = π£1π1+ β β β + π£πβ1ππβ1β πΈ, then
β¨π; π, π£β© =πβ1β
28 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisitedA. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited | 11
π
1π
2π
3π
0π
3π
1π
2Figure 3. Solution for the problem with boundary on the vertices of an equilateral triangle.
In Definition 3.1 we intentionally kept vague the regularity of the form π. Indeed π has to be a compactly supportedΒ² smooth form, a priori, in order to fit Definition 1.5. Nevertheless, in some situations it will be useful to consider calibrations with lower regularity, for instance piecewise constant forms. As long as (3.1)β(3.4) remain valid, it is meaningful to do so; for this reason we introduce the following very general definition.
Definition 3.5. A generalized calibration associated with a π-dimensional normal πΈ-current π is a linear and
bounded functional π on the space of normal πΈ-currents satisfying the following conditions: (i) π(π) = π(π),
(ii) π(ππ ) = 0 for any (π + 1)-dimensional normal πΈ-current π , (iii) βπβ β€ 1.
Remark 3.6. Proposition 3.2 still holds, since for every competitor πσΈ with ππ = ππσΈ , there holds
π(π) = π(π) = π(πσΈ ) + π(ππ ) β€ π(πσΈ ),
where π is chosen such that π β πσΈ = ππ . Suchanπ exists because π and πσΈ are in the same homology class.
As examples, we present the calibrations for two well-known Steiner tree problems in β2. Both βcalibrationsβ
in Example 3.10 and in Example 3.11 are piecewise constant 1-forms (with values in normed vector spaces of dimension 3 and 6, respectively). So firstly we need to show that certain piecewise constant forms provide generalized calibrations in the sense of Definition 3.5.
Definition 3.7. Fix a 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current π in β2, π = π(Ξ£, π, π). Assume we have a
collec-tion {πΆπ}πβ₯1which is a locally finite, Lipschitz partition of β2, where the sets πΆπhave non-empty connected
interior, the boundary of every set πΆπis a Lipschitz curve (of finite length, unless πΆπis unbounded) and
πΆπβ© πΆπ = 0 whenever π ΜΈ= π . Assume moreover that πΆ1is a closed set and for every π > 1,
πΆπβ (πΆπ\ β π<ππΆπ).
Let us consider a compactly supported piecewise constant πΈβ-valued 1-form π with
π β‘ ππ on πΆπ,
where ππβ Ξ1πΈ(β2) for every π. In particular π ΜΈ= 0 only on finitely many elements of the partition. Then we
say that π represents a compatible calibration for π if the following conditions hold:
2 Since we deal with currents that are compactly supported, we can easily drop the assumption that π has compact support.
Figure 3. Solution for the problem with boundary on the vertices of an
equilateral triangle.
Example 3.4. Consider the vector space πΈ and the group πΊ defined in Lemma 2.6 with π = 3; let π0= (0, 0), π1= (1/2, β3/2), π2= (1/2, ββ3/2), π3= (β1, 0)
(see Figure 3). Consider the rectifiable πΊ-current π supported in the cone over (π1, π2, π3), with respect to π0, with piecewise constant weights π1, π2, π3:= β(π1+ π2) on π0π1, π0π2, π0π3respectively (see Figure 3 for the orientation). This current π is a minimizer for the mass. In fact, a constant πΊ-calibration π associated with π is
π := (12dπ₯1+ β32 dπ₯2 1
2dπ₯1β β32 dπ₯2 ) .
Condition (i) is easy to check and condition (ii) is trivially verified because π is constant. To check condi-tion (iii) we note that, for the vector π = cos πΌ e1+ sin πΌ e2, we have
β¨π; π, β β© = (12cos πΌ +β32 sin πΌ 1
2cos πΌ ββ32 sin πΌ ) .
In order to compute the comass norm of π, we could use the characterization of the norm β β βπΈβgiven in
Remark 2.7, but for π = 3 computations are simpler. Since the unit ball of πΈ is convex, and its extreme points are the unit points of πΊ, it is sufficient to evaluate β¨π; π, β β© on Β±π1, Β±π2, Β±(π1+ π2). We have
|β¨π; π, π1β©| = |β¨π; π, βπ1β©| =σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨sin(πΌ +π 6)σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨ β€ 1, |β¨π; π, π2β©| = |β¨π; π, βπ2β©| =σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨sin(πΌ +5
6π)σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨σ΅¨ β€ 1, |β¨π; π, π1+ π2β©| = |β¨π; π, β(π1+ π2)β©| = |cos πΌ| β€ 1.
In Definition 3.1 we intentionally kept vague the regularity of the form π. Indeed π has to be a compactly supportedΒ² smooth form, a priori, in order to fit Definition 1.5. Nevertheless, in some situations it will be useful to consider calibrations with lower regularity, for instance piecewise constant forms. As long as (3.1)β(3.4) remain valid, it is meaningful to do so; for this reason we introduce the following very general definition. Definition 3.5. A generalized calibration associated with a π-dimensional normal πΈ-current π is a linear and bounded functional π on the space of normal πΈ-currents satisfying the following conditions:
(i) π(π) = π(π),
(ii) π(ππ ) = 0 for any (π + 1)-dimensional normal πΈ-current π , (iii) βπβ β€ 1.
Remark 3.6. Proposition 3.2 still holds, since for every competitor πσΈ with ππ = ππσΈ , there holds π(π) = π(π) = π(πσΈ ) + π(ππ ) β€ π(πσΈ ),
where π is chosen such that π β πσΈ = ππ . Such an π exists because π and πσΈ are in the same homology class. As examples, we present the calibrations for two well-known Steiner tree problems in β2. Both βcalibrationsβ in Example 3.10 and in Example 3.11 are piecewise constant 1-forms (with values in normed vector spaces of dimension 3 and 6, respectively). So firstly we need to show that certain piecewise constant forms provide generalized calibrations in the sense of Definition 3.5.
Definition 3.7. Fix a 1-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current π in β2, π = π(Ξ£, π, π). Assume we have a collec-tion {πΆπ}πβ₯1which is a locally finite, Lipschitz partition of β2, where the sets πΆπhave non-empty connected interior, the boundary of every set πΆπ is a Lipschitz curve (of finite length, unless πΆπ is unbounded) and πΆπβ© πΆπ = 0 whenever π ΜΈ= π . Assume moreover that πΆ1is a closed set and for every π > 1,
πΆπβ (πΆπ\ β π<ππΆπ).
Let us consider a compactly supported piecewise constant πΈβ-valued 1-form π with π β‘ π
π on πΆπ, where ππ β Ξ1πΈ(β2) for every π. In particular π ΜΈ= 0 only on finitely many elements of the partition. Then we say that π represents a compatible calibration for π if the following conditions hold:
(i) forH1-almost every point π₯ β Ξ£, β¨π(π₯); π(π₯), π(π₯)β© = βπ(π₯)βπΈ,
(ii) forH1-almost every point π₯ β ππΆπβ© ππΆπ we have
β¨ππβ ππ ; π(π₯), β β© = 0, where π is tangent to ππΆπ,
(iii) βππβ β€ 1 for every π.
We will refer to condition (ii) with the expression of compatibility condition for a piecewise constant form. Proposition 3.8. Let π be a compatible calibration for the rectifiable πΊ-current π. Then π minimizes the mass among the normal πΈ-currents with boundary ππ.
To prove this proposition we need the following result of decomposition of classical normal 1-currents, see [24] for the classical result and [21] for its generalization to metric spaces. Given a compact measure space (π, π) and a family of π-currents {ππ₯}π₯βπin βπsuch that
β« π π(ππ₯) dπ(π₯) < +β, we denote by π := β« π ππ₯dπ(π₯) the π-current π satisfying
β¨π, πβ© = β« π
β¨ππ₯, πβ© dπ(π₯) for every smooth compactly supported π-form π.
Proposition 3.9. Every normal 1-current π in βπcan be written as π =
π β« 0
ππ‘dπ‘,
where ππ‘is an integral current with π(ππ‘) β€ 2 and π(πππ‘) β€ 2 for every π‘, and π is a positive number depending
only on π(π) and π(ππ). Moreover
π(π) = π β« 0
30 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
Proof of Proposition 3.8. Firstly we see that a suitable counterpart of Stokesβ theorem holds. Namely, given a component ππof π and a classical integral 1-current π = π(Ξ£, π, 1) in β2, without boundary, then we claim that
β¨ππ; πβ© := β« Ξ£
β¨ππ(π₯); π(π₯)β© dH1(π₯) = 0. (3.5)
To prove the claim, note that it is possible to find at most countably many unit multiplicity integral 1-currents ππ= π(Ξ£π, ππ, 1) in β2, without boundary, each one supported in a single set πΆ
π, such that βπππ= π. Since ππβ‘ ππ
πon πΆπand since (ii) holds, we obtain β« Ξ£π β¨ππ(π₯); π π(π₯)β© dH1(π₯) = β« Ξ£π β¨ππ π(π₯); ππ(π₯)β© dH1(π₯) = 0 for every π; then the claim follows.
As a consequence of (3.5) we can find a family of βpotentialsβ, i.e. Lipschitz functions ππ: β2β β such that for every (classical) integral 1-current π associated to a Lipschitz path πΎ with πΎ(1) = π₯πand πΎ(0) = π¦π, there holds
β¨ππ; πβ© = ππ(π₯π) β ππ(π¦π) for every π.
Indeed, by (3.5) the above integral does not depend on the path πΎ but only on the points π₯πand π¦π. Therefore, in order to construct such potentials, it is sufficient to choose ππ(0) = 0 and
ππ(π₯) = |π₯| 1 β« 0
β¨ππ(π‘π₯); π₯|π₯|β© dπ‘.
Moreover it is easy to see that every ππis constant outside of the support of ππ, so we can assume, possibly subtracting a constant, that ππis compactly supported.
Now, consider any 2-dimensional normal πΈ-current π. Let {ππ}
πbe the components of π. For every π, use Proposition 3.9 to write ππ:= πππ= ππ β« 0 πππ‘dπ‘. Then we have β¨π; ππβ© = β π ππ β« 0 β¨ππ; πππ‘β© dπ‘ = β π ππ β« 0 ππ(π₯πππ‘) β ππ(π¦πππ‘) dπ‘.
Since for every π we have
0 = π(πππ) = ππ β« 0 πΏπ₯ πππ‘β πΏπ¦πππ‘dπ‘, it follows that ππ β« 0 π(π₯ππ π‘) β π(π¦πππ‘) dπ‘ = 0
for every π and for every compactly supported Lipschitz function π, in particular for π = ππ. Hence we have β¨π; ππβ© = 0.
Example 3.10. Consider the points π1= (1, 1), π2= (1, β1), π3= (β1, β1), π4= (β1, 1) β β2. The corresponding solution of the Steiner tree problemΒ³ are those represented in Figure 1. We associate with each point ππ with π = 1, . . . , 4 the coefficients ππβ πΊ, where πΊ is the group defined in Lemma 2.6 with π = 4: let us call
π΅ := π1πΏπ1+ π2πΏπ2+ π3πΏπ3+ π4πΏπ4.
3 In dimension π > 2, an interesting question related to this problem is the following: is the cone over the (π β 2)-skeleton of
the hypercube in βπarea minimizing, among hypersurfaces separating the faces? The question has a positive answer if and only
This 0-dimensional current is our boundary. Intuitively our mass-minimizing candidates among 1-dimen-sional rectifiable πΊ-currents are those represented in Figure 4: these currents πhor, πverare supported in the sets drawn, respectively, with continuous and dashed lines in Figure 4 and have piecewise constant coeffi-cients intended to satisfy the boundary condition ππ14 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisitedhor= π΅ = ππver.
π
1π
2π
3π
4π
1π
4π
2π
1+ π
2π
1+ π
4π
1π
4π
3π
3π
2π
verπ
1π
3π
2π
4π
horpart.
Figure 4. Solution for the mass-minimization problem.
It is easy to check that π satisfies both condition (i) and the compatibility condition of Definition 3.7. To check that condition (iii) is satisfied, we can use formula (2.5).
Example 3.11. Consider the vertices of a regular hexagon plus the center, namely
π1= (1/2, β3/2), π2= (1, 0), π3= (1/2, ββ3/2),
π4= (β1/2, ββ3/2), π5= (β1, 0), π6= (β1/2, β3/2), π7= (0, 0),
and associate with each point ππthe corresponding multiplicity ππβ πΊ, where πΊ is the group defined in
Lemma 2.6 with π = 4. A mass-minimizer for the problem with boundary π΅ =β7
π=1πππΏππ
is illustrated in Figure 5, the other one can be obtained with a π/3-rotation of the picture.
Figure 5. Solution for the mass-minimization problem.
Let us divide β2intosix cones of angle π/3, as in Figure 5; we will label each cone with a number
from 1 to 6, starting from that containing (0, 1) and moving clockwise. A compatible calibration for the two
minimizers is the following: Note 4:
Display: Shall I replace = by :=?
Figure 4. Solution for the mass-minimization problem.
In this case, a compatible calibration for both πhorand πveris defined piecewise as follows (the notation is the same as in Example 3.4 and the partition is delimited by the dotted lines):
π1β‘ ( β3 2 dπ₯1+ 12dπ₯2 (1 ββ32 )dπ₯1β12dπ₯2 (β1 +β32 )dπ₯1β1 2dπ₯2 ) , π2β‘ ( 1 2dπ₯1+ β32dπ₯2 1 2dπ₯1β β32dπ₯2 β1 2dπ₯1β (1 ββ32 )dπ₯2 ) , π3β‘ ( (1 ββ32)dπ₯1+ 12dπ₯2 β3 2dπ₯1β12dπ₯2 ββ32 dπ₯1β 12dπ₯2 ) , π4β‘ ( 1 2dπ₯1+ (1 ββ32)dπ₯2 1 2dπ₯1β (1 ββ32)dπ₯2 β1 2dπ₯1β β32dπ₯2 ) .
It is easy to check that π satisfies both condition (i) and the compatibility condition of Definition 3.7. To check that condition (iii) is satisfied, we can use formula (2.5).
Example 3.11. Consider the vertices of a regular hexagon plus the center, namely π1= (1/2, β3/2), π2= (1, 0),
π3= (1/2, ββ3/2), π4= (β1/2, ββ3/2), π5= (β1, 0), π6= (β1/2, β3/2), π7= (0, 0),
and associate with each point ππ the corresponding multiplicity ππβ πΊ, where πΊ is the group defined in Lemma 2.6 with π = 4. A mass-minimizer for the problem with boundary
π΅ =β7 π=1πππΏππ
32 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisitedA. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited | 15
π
1π
6π
2π
3π
4π
5π
7Figure 5. Solution for the mass-minimization problem.
Again, it is not difficult to check that π satisfies both condition (i) and the compatibility condition of Definition 3.7. To check that condition (iii) is satisfied, we use formula (2.5).
Remark 3.12. We may wonder whether or not the calibration given in Example 3.11 can be adjusted so to work
for the set of the vertices of the hexagon (without the seventh point in the center): the answer is negative, in fact the support of the current in Figure 5 is not a solution for the Steiner tree problem on the six points, the perimeter of the hexagon minus one side being the shortest graph, as proved in [15].
Remark 3.13. In both Examples 3.10 and 3.11, once we fixed the partition and we decided to look for a
piece-wise constant calibration for our candidates, the construction of π was forced by both conditions (i) of Definition 3.1 and the compatibility condition of Definition 3.7. Notice that the calibration for Example 3.11 has evident analogies with the one exhibited in Example 3.4. Actually we obtained the first one simply pasting suitably βrotatedβ copies of the second one.
In the following remarks we intend to underline the analogies and the connections with calibrations in similar contexts. See [20, Chapter 6] for an overview on the subject of calibrations.
Remark 3.14 (Functionals defined on partitions and null lagrangians). There is an interesting and deep
anal-ogy between calibrations and null lagrangians, analanal-ogy that still holds in the group-valued coefficients framework. Consider some points {π1, . . . , ππ} β βπwith
|ππβ ππ| = 1 for all π ΜΈ= π, (3.7)
and fix an open set with Lipschitz boundary Ξ© β βπ. It is natural to study the variational problem
inf{β«
Ξ©
|π·π’| : π’ β BV(Ξ©; {π1, . . . , ππ}), π’|πΞ©β‘ π’0}. (3.8)
It turns out that β«Ξ©|π·π’| is the same energy we want to minimize in the Steiner tree problem, β«Ξ©|π·π’| being the length of the jump set of π’.
This problem concerns the theory of partitions of an open set Ξ© in a finite number of sets of finite perimeter. This theory was developed by Ambrosio and Braides in [1, 2], which we refer to for a complete exposition.
Figure 5. Solution for the mass-minimization problem. Let us divide β2 into six cones of angle π/3, as in Figure 5; we will label each cone with a number from 1 to 6, starting from that containing (0, 1) and moving clockwise. A compatible calibration for the two minimizers is the following:
π1β‘ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( ββ32 dπ₯1+ 1 2dπ₯2 β3 2dπ₯1+12dπ₯2 0 0 0 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , π2β‘ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 dπ₯2 β3 2 dπ₯1β 12dπ₯2 0 0 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , π3β‘ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 0 β3 2dπ₯1+12dπ₯2 βdπ₯2 0 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , π4β‘ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 0 0 β3 2dπ₯1β12dπ₯2 ββ32 dπ₯1β 12dπ₯2 0 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , π5β‘ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( 0 0 0 0 βdπ₯2 ββ32dπ₯1+1 2dπ₯2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) , π6β‘ ( ( ( ( ( ( ( dπ₯2 0 0 0 0 ββ32 dπ₯1β 1 2dπ₯2 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) . (3.6)
Again, it is not difficult to check that π satisfies both condition (i) and the compatibility condition of Definition 3.7. To check that condition (iii) is satisfied, we use formula (2.5).
Remark 3.12. We may wonder whether or not the calibration given in Example 3.11 can be adjusted so to work for the set of the vertices of the hexagon (without the seventh point in the center): the answer is negative, in fact the support of the current in Figure 5 is not a solution for the Steiner tree problem on the six points, the perimeter of the hexagon minus one side being the shortest graph, as proved in [15].
Remark 3.13. In both Examples 3.10 and 3.11, once we fixed the partition and we decided to look for a piece-wise constant calibration for our candidates, the construction of π was forced by both conditions (i) of Definition 3.1 and the compatibility condition of Definition 3.7. Notice that the calibration for Example 3.11 has evident analogies with the one exhibited in Example 3.4. Actually we obtained the first one simply pasting suitably βrotatedβ copies of the second one.
In the following remarks we intend to underline the analogies and the connections with calibrations in similar contexts. See [20, Chapter 6] for an overview on the subject of calibrations.
Remark 3.14 (Functionals defined on partitions and null lagrangians). There is an interesting and deep anal-ogy between calibrations and null lagrangians, analanal-ogy that still holds in the group-valued coefficients
framework. Consider some points {π1, . . . , ππ} β βπwith
|ππβ ππ| = 1 for all π ΜΈ= π, (3.7)
and fix an open set with Lipschitz boundary Ξ© β βπ. It is natural to study the variational problem inf{β«
Ξ©
|π·π’| : π’ β BV(Ξ©; {π1, . . . , ππ}), π’|πΞ© β‘ π’0}. (3.8) It turns out that β«Ξ©|π·π’| is the same energy we want to minimize in the Steiner tree problem, β«Ξ©|π·π’| being the length of the jump set of π’.16 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
π
4π
2π
1π
3Ξ©
Figure 6. Boundary data.
Remark 3.15 (Clusters with multiplicities). In [19], F. Morgan applies flat chains with coefficients in a group πΊ
to soap bubble clusters and immiscible fluids, following the idea of B. White in [25]. For a detailed comparison of [19] with our technique, see [18,Section3.2.3]. Here we just notice that the definition of calibration in [19] works well in the case of free abelian groups and this is the main difference with our approach.
Remark 3.16 (Paired calibrations). It is worth mentioning another analogy between the technique of
cal-ibrations (for currents with coefficients in a group) illustrated in this paper and the technique of paired calibrations in [17]. In particular, in the specific example of the truncated cone over the 1-skeleton of the tetrahedron in β3(the surface with least area among those separating the faces of the tetrahedron), one can
detect a correspondence even at the level of the main computations. See [18,Section3.2.3] for the details. Following an idea of Federer (see [11]), in [17, 19] (and in [5, 6], as well) one can observe the exploitation of the duality between minimal surfaces and maximal flows through the same boundary. We will examine this duality in Section 4, but we conclude the present section with a remark closely related to this idea.
Remark 3.17 (Covering spaces and calibrations for soap films). In [6] Brakke develops new tools in
Geomet-ric Measure Theory for the analysis of soap films: as the underlying physical problem suggests, one can represent a soap film as the superposition of two oppositely oriented currents. In order to avoid cancellations of multiplicities, the currents are defined in a covering space and, as stated in [6], the calibration technique still holds.
Let us remark that cancellations between multiplicities were a significant obstacle for the Steiner tree problem, too. The representation of currents in a covering space goes in the same direction of currents with coefficients in a group, though, as in Remark 3.16, a sort of PoincarΓ© duality occurs in the formulation of the Steiner tree problem (1-dimensional currents in βπ) with respect to the soap film problem (currents of
codimension 1 in βπ).
4 Existence of the calibration and open problems
Once we established that the existence of a calibration is a sufficient condition for a rectifiable πΊ-current to be a mass-minimizer, we may wonder if the converse is also true: does a calibration (of some sort) exist for
Figure 6. Boundary data.
This problem concerns the theory of partitions of an open set Ξ© in a finite number of sets of finite perimeter. This theory was developed by Ambrosio and Braides in [1, 2], which we refer to for a complete exposition.
The analog of a calibration in this context is a null lagrangianβ΄ with some special properties: again, the existence of such an object, associated with a function π’, is a sufficient condition for π’ to be a minimizer for the variational problem (3.8) with a given boundary condition.
We refer to [18, Section 3.2.4] for a detailed survey of the analogy.
Remark 3.15 (Clusters with multiplicities). In [19], F. Morgan applies flat chains with coefficients in a group πΊ to soap bubble clusters and immiscible fluids, following the idea of B. White in [25]. For a detailed comparison of [19] with our technique, see [18, Section 3.2.3]. Here we just notice that the definition of calibration in [19] works well in the case of free abelian groups and this is the main difference with our approach.
Remark 3.16 (Paired calibrations). It is worth mentioning another analogy between the technique of cal-ibrations (for currents with coefficients in a group) illustrated in this paper and the technique of paired calibrations in [17]. In particular, in the specific example of the truncated cone over the 1-skeleton of the tetrahedron in β3(the surface with least area among those separating the faces of the tetrahedron), one can detect a correspondence even at the level of the main computations. See [18, Section 3.2.3] for the details. Following an idea of Federer (see [11]), in [17, 19] (and in [5, 6], as well) one can observe the exploitation of the duality between minimal surfaces and maximal flows through the same boundary. We will examine this duality in Section 4, but we conclude the present section with a remark closely related to this idea.
Remark 3.17 (Covering spaces and calibrations for soap films). In [6] Brakke develops new tools in Geomet-ric Measure Theory for the analysis of soap films: as the underlying physical problem suggests, one can 4 See [7] for an overview on null lagrangians.
34 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
represent a soap film as the superposition of two oppositely oriented currents. In order to avoid cancellations of multiplicities, the currents are defined in a covering space and, as stated in [6], the calibration technique still holds.
Let us remark that cancellations between multiplicities were a significant obstacle for the Steiner tree problem, too. The representation of currents in a covering space goes in the same direction of currents with coefficients in a group, though, as in Remark 3.16, a sort of PoincarΓ© duality occurs in the formulation of the Steiner tree problem (1-dimensional currents in βπ) with respect to the soap film problem (currents of codimension 1 in βπ).
4 Existence of the calibration and open problems
Once we established that the existence of a calibration is a sufficient condition for a rectifiable πΊ-current to be a mass-minimizer, we may wonder if the converse is also true: does a calibration (of some sort) exist for every mass-minimizing rectifiable πΊ-current?
Let us step backward: does it occur for classical integral currents? The answer is quite articulate, but we can briefly summarize the state of the art we will rely upon.
We consider a boundary π΅0, that is, a (π β 1)-dimensional rectifiable πΊ-current without boundary, and we compare the following minima:
MπΈ(π΅0) := min{π(π) : π is a normal π-dimensional πΈ-current, ππ = π΅0}
and
MπΊ(π΅0) := min{π(π) : π is a rectifiable π-dimensional πΊ-current, ππ = π΅0}.
ObviouslyMπΈ(π΅0) β€MπΊ(π΅0), the main issue is to establish whether they coincide or not. In fact, a normal
πΈ-current π with boundary π΅0admits a generalized calibration if and only if π(π) =MπΈ(π΅0), as we recall in Proposition 4.2. In the classical case (πΈ = β and πΊ = β€) it is known that
(i) Mβ(π΅0) may be strictly less thanMβ€(π΅0) (and, if this happens, a solution forMβ€(π΅0) cannot be
cali-brated),
(ii) Mβ€(π΅0) =Mβ(π΅0) if π = 1, as we prove in Proposition 4.3.
At the end of this section, we show that this outlook changes significantly when we replace the ambient space βπwith a suitable metric space.
Remark 4.1. For every mass-minimizing classical normal π-current π, there exists a generalized calibration π in the sense of Definition 3.5. Moreover, by means of the Riesz Representation Theorem, π can be represented by a measurable map from π to Ξπ(βπ). This result is contained in [11].
In particular, Remark 4.1 provides a positive answer to the question of the existence of a generalized cali-bration for mass-minimizing integral currents of dimension π = 1, because minima among both normal and integral currents coincide, as we prove in Proposition 4.3. It is possible to apply the same technique in the class of normal πΈ-currents, therefore we have the following proposition.
Proposition 4.2. For every mass-minimizing normal πΈ-current π, there exists a generalized calibration. The following fact is probably in the folklore, unfortunately we were not able to find any literature on it. We give a proof here in order to enlighten the problems arising in the case of currents with coefficients in a group.
Proposition 4.3. Consider the boundary of an integral 1-current in βπ, represented as π΅0= β πβ β π=1πππΏπ₯π+ π+ β π=1πππΏπ¦π, ππ, ππ β β. (4.1) ThenMβ(π΅0) =Mβ€(π΅0).
Proof. Let us assume that the minimum among normal currents is attained at some current π0, that is, π(π0) =Mβ(π΅0).
Let {πβ}βββbe an approximation of π0made by polyhedral 1-currents such that β π(πβ) β π(π0) as β β β,
β ππβ= π΅0for all β β β,
β the multiplicities allowed in πβare only integer multiples of 1β.
The existence of such a sequence is a consequence of the Polyhedral Approximation Theorem (see [10, Theo-rem 4.2.24] or [16] for the detailed statement and the proof). Thanks to TheoTheo-rem 2.2, it is possible to decompose such a πβas a sum of two addenda:
πβ= πβ+ πΆβ, (4.2)
so that
π(πβ) = π(πβ) + π(πΆβ) for all β β₯ 1 and
β ππΆβ= 0, so πΆβcollects the cyclical part of πβ,
β πβdoes not admit any decomposition πβ= π΄ + π΅ satisfying ππ΄ = 0 and π(πβ) = π(π΄) + π(π΅).
It is clear that πβis the sum of a certain number of polyhedral currents πβπ,πeach one having boundary a non-negative multiple of β1 βπΏπ₯π+ 1 βπΏπ¦πand satisfying π(πβ) = β π,ππ(π π,π β ). We replace each ππ,π
β with the oriented segment ππ,π, from π₯πto π¦πhaving the same boundary as πβπ,π(therefore having multiplicity a non-negative multiple of1
β). This replacement is represented in Figure 7. 18 | A. Marchese and A. Massaccesi, The Steiner tree problem revisited
It is clear that πβis the sum of a certain number of polyhedral currents πβπ,πeach one having boundary a
non-negative multiple of β1 βπΏπ₯π+ 1 βπΏπ¦πand satisfying π(πβ) = β π,ππ(π π,π β ). We replace each ππ,π
β with the oriented segment ππ,π, from π₯πto π¦πhaving the same boundary as πβπ,π(therefore
having multiplicity a non-negative multiple of1
β). This replacement is represented in Figure 7.
π¦
ππ
βπ,ππ
π,πβπΆ
βπ₯
πFigure 7. Replacement with a segment.
Since this replacement obviously does not increase the mass, there holds
π(πβ) β₯ π(πβ),
where πβ= βπ,πππ,πβ. In other words we can write
πβ= β« πΌ
π dπβ,
as an integral of currents, with respect to a discrete measure πβsupported on the finite set πΌ of unit
multi-plicity oriented segments with the first extreme among the points π₯1, . . . , π₯πβand second extreme among the
points π¦1, . . . , π¦π+. It is also easy to see that the total variation of πβhas eventually the following bound from
above:
βπββ β€ minπ(πβ) π ΜΈ=ππ(π₯π, π¦π)β€
π(π0) + 1
minπ ΜΈ=ππ(π₯π, π¦π).
Hence, up to subsequences, πβconverges to some positive measure π on πΌ and so the normal 1-current
π = β« πβπΌ π dπ satisfies ππ = π΅0 (4.3) and π(π) β€ π(π0) =Mπ(π΅0).
In order to conclude the proof of the theorem, we need to show that π can be replaced by an integral current π with same boundary and mass π(π ) = π(π) β€Mπ(π΅0). Since πΌ is the set of unit multiplicity
Figure 7. Replacement with a segment.
Since this replacement obviously does not increase the mass, there holds π(πβ) β₯ π(πβ),
where πβ= βπ,πππ,πβ . In other words we can write πβ= β«
πΌ π dπβ,
as an integral of currents, with respect to a discrete measure πβsupported on the finite set πΌ of unit multi-plicity oriented segments with the first extreme among the points π₯1, . . . , π₯πβand second extreme among the
- 10.1515/acv-2014-0022 Downloaded from PubFactory at 08/24/2016 10:17:03AM via UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek ZΓΌrich