You are on page 1of 14

A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM IN n-SPACE AND ON THE n-SPHERE

JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. GARY LAWLOR

Abstract. We solve the isoperimetric problem both in Euclidean n-space and on the surface of a standard n-sphere, using a generalization of calibration techniques which we call metacalibration.

1. Introduction The isoperimetric problem is a classical problem of geometry. The basic question asks, among all figures with the same perimeter (iso-perimetric means “same perimeter”), which has the greatest area. The original problem is deceptively difficult to prove, and thus escaped a rigorous proof until Weierstrass in 1879 [9]. Isoperimetric problems have a long history. The first example we have in history is a story given about Dido, Queen of Cartage in Africa. She sailed to northern Africa from Phoenicia, and the locals agreed to give her as much land as she could enclose with the skin of an ox. Being clever, she cut the oxhide into very thin strips, and thereby had enough length to encircle an entire nearby hill. By using the shape of a circle, she maximized her gains from the deal [8]. As with most geometric problems, the ancient Greeks also worked on this problem. The earliest result was given by Zenodorus in a now lost text. Other ancient authors cite him though, letting us know that he proved that the circle has greater area than any polygon with the same perimeter [1]. This is an impressive result, considering the tools available to him. New and powerful tools for optimization problems in general, and thus the isoperimetric problem as well, were discovered with the invention of calculus by Newton and Leibniz. Their work provided one of the first systematic ways to prove minimization. But one of the main problems with the methods was that it was very difficult to prove that a optimizing figure actually exists. (For example, remember the classic calculus example, f (x) = x3 −x, which has a local minimum at 3−1/2 but has no global minimum.) For instance, Steiner in 1838 gave an argument that seemed to show that the circle maximized area [6]. His argument showed that the maximizer must be both convex and symmetric in all directions. The only figure satisfying this is the circle, but that does not show that the circle is actually the maximizer. It only showed that if such a maximizer did exist, it must be the circle. Weierstrass,
1

was finally able to show that the circle was in fact the true maximizer [9]. developed by Dr. Then the equations become P (µ) = µ ϕµ · n ≤ σ ϕσ · n ≤ P (σ). it picks the figure it thinks is best and then directly compares it in some way to every other figure we are considering. Gary Lawlor of Brigham Young University. Calibration uses a closed vector field ϕ to show that for a measurement function P . the complexity involved is a serious barrier in many problems. where µ is the proposed minimizer. such as the dual of the isoperimetric problem mentioned above. For example. . Also. but so far has been stumped by problems of fixed area. Rather than look at other shapes close to the original figure (like a derivative). However. The basis of the metacalibration proof is the attempt to find a intermediate function G on the figures such that we can set up the set of inequalities P (µ) = G(µ) ≤ G(σ) ≤ P (σ). Calibration has been very successful at solving problems involving fixed boundaries due to some of the properties of vector fields and their integration. such as calibration. and σ is an element in the class of competitors for the problem. Direct methods. and P measures the total perimeter of the figure. One such class of problems are what we call equitent problems. Up till recently. work differently. This method is very similar to the idea of finding an extremum by taking the first derivative. (For the isoperimetric problem. there is the worry of finding a local rather than a global maximum and the difficulty of proving that there is in fact a global maximum at all. Metacalibration.2 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. Calibration cannot handle isoperimetry directly. and so we usually look at the dual problem of finding the figure of constant area with minimized perimeter. employs a similar methodology to calibration but introduces new tools allowing it to solve new types of problems. this class of competitors is likely the set of manifolds enclosing a particular area. P (µ) = µ ϕ·n= σ ϕ · n ≤ P (σ).) If this set of inequalities can be set up. then µ minimizes P . GARY LAWLOR in 1879. what shape spans the four vertices of a square and contains a certain area? Some work has already been done on these problems [3]. most approaches to this type of problem employed indirect methods such as calculus of variations. The similarity of metacalibration to standard calibration can be seen by interpreting G as the integral of a vector field over the figure. which seek to find the minimum perimeter or surface area to contain a given area and span a boundary.

2. This intersection may be empty. A(y). again with some details omitted. . namely P (µ) = G(µ) ≤ G(σ) ≤ P (σ). Note that the center of a circle passing through these two points must be on the y-axis. Lemma 2. We can parameterize the figure vertically by t in the sense that at each t. there is an intersection between σ and the line {y = t}. For each t ∈ [0. we define τ (t) to be the figure described in the previous lemma. we will use metacalibrations to prove that the circle is perimeter minimizing among figures enclosing a given area. A(y) approaches zero. monotonic function. Let r1 be the radius of τ (t). since A(y) is a continuous. For any σ ∈ C. Thus. Construct the circle with center (0. An example is shown in figure 1. though we will omit many details that are the same as in the proof for the circle. We can look at the area of this circle below the x-axis as a function of y. A(y) is also continuous. namely the set of 1-dimensional piecewise smooth compact manifolds enclosing area a0 . y) that passes through the points (−l/2. Given an A and l. 0) and (l/2. Since between any two of these circles there is another. 0). seemingly insignificant change is actually quite powerful. At t. and so A(y) is strictly decreasing. the part of the new circle below the axis is contained by the part of the old circle below the axis. As y increases. But notice how ϕ changes based on each figure. In R2 . y is unique. and let l(t) be the length of intersection of that line with the interior of σ. We will then use the same method to prove that the n-ball is perimeter minimizing in Rn . ∞]. Isoperimetric Problem in R2 First we will give the full proof in R2 to introduce the style of proof. We will suppress notation. Since A(y) is monotonic. there exists a unique circle enclosing area A below a line. and leave out the t’s. for each area a ∈ [0. Let C be the set of competitors. As y goes to infinity. the figure enclosing a0 that minimizes perimeter is the circle of appropriate area. we need only to show the three (in)equalities.A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM 3 which is almost exactly the same as calibration. This small.2. for a given area a0 . A(y) approaches infinity. This will be followed by the proof of the isoperimetric problem on the surface of a n-sphere. Theorem 2.1. Metacalibration received its name from this similarity. Proof. h]. intersecting that line with length l. To prove that the circle minimizes perimeter. there exists an y such that A(y) = a. we set the bottom of the figure to be y = 0 and the top to be y = h. As y goes to negative infinity. In this paper. let A(t) be the area of the interior of σ below the line {y = t}.

We stack the two edges on top of each other. are not symmetric. which represent σ. we can consider the boundary of σ to be straight lines. We take a slice of σ between y = t and y = t + . ∂P ≥2 ∂t 1+ ∂l /2 ∂t 2 Proof. Lemma 2. For all σ ∈ C and all t ∈ [0. GARY LAWLOR Figure 1. we need that both of the derivatives are continuous except on a countable set. such as at t = 1 2 in figure 3. as shown in the figure 1. and so ∂t ∂t in order to apply the second fundamental theorem of calculus. and equal if and only if the original figure was already symmetric.4. let α be the angle between the slicing line and τ . The first is true since σ is piecewise smooth. Lemma 2. and G(t) be the perimeter of τ below {y = t}. This line is shorter than the sum of the lengths of the other two as it is a straight line. . which is not true when there is a flat horizontal portion of perimeter at some t. We will be comparing G(t) and P (t) by their derivatives. and that G and P are indeed antiderivatives of the derivatives.4 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. Finally. In figure 2. Now suppose the edges of σ are not symmetric. and then connect the other two endpoints with a third line. Constructing τ (t) Let P (t) be the perimeter of σ below {y = t}. ∂G and ∂P . The lower bound then follows by computing the length of this line. we can slide the pieces together to reduce the total perimeter by reducing to two edges. The second requires that P and G are continuous. end to end.3. h]. Any competitor σ can be rotated in order to remove any such discontinuities. If there are four or more edges. the outer edges. again as in figure 2. Since is arbitrarily small.

in order to prove minimization. Thus. and P . σ must have infinite perimeter. If σ has positive length in each of these equivalence classes. By the chain rule. letting be denoted l . Thus.1. There are uncountably many real valued angles possible. . Then rotate σ to make one of these angles horizontal in order to remove all discontinuities in P (t). Separate all flat portions of perimeter in σ into equivalence classes based on the angle between that segment and a given slicing line. or with our other definitions for G. τ (h) is a circle of area a0 for all σ. A figure with P (t) discontinuous at t = 1/2 Proof. This is because the uncountable sum of positive elements is always infinite.A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM 5 Figure 2. (1) ∂G ∂G ∂l ∂G ∂A = + ∂t ∂l ∂t ∂A ∂t ∂l ∂t We will find three of these partial derivatives. there is at least one angle in which σ has zero perimeter. Minimizing ∂P ∂t Figure 3. that G(h) ≤ P (h) for all σ. which is thus not a minimizer. where µ is the circle of area a0 since both functions measure the perimeter of the same figure. we need only show that G(σ) ≤ P (σ). Proof of Theorem 2. Since A(h) = a0 and l(h) = 0. Thus P (µ) = G(µ) = G(σ).

we will extend l by . GARY LAWLOR First. Extending by to find ∂G ∂l Next. we have that ∂G ∂G ∂G ∂A = + ∂l ∂l ∂A ∂l Since the increase in area (see figure 4) varies as 3 2 . 3/2 ∂A ∆A = lim ≈ lim =0 →0 ∆l →0 ∂l In the limit. as shown in figure 4. since A(t) changes as the length of the cross-section of σ. for example. ∂A =l ∂t Next.6 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. Again by the chain rule. We find that the perimeter is extended by cos (α). and bend the boundary of τ in the new ∂l direction. and r1 is the radius. When we take the limit as → 0 . a standard finding of differential geometry gives us ∂G 1 =κ= ∂A r1 where κ is the mean curvature of the circle τ . α is also the angle between the slicing line and the modified τ . (See.) Figure 4. to find ∂G . Frank Morgan’s Riemannian Geometry: A Beginner’s Guide [4].

3 and inequality 3 we get ∂G ≤2 ∂t l . equation 1 becomes ∂G l = cos (α)l + ∂t r1 (2) l l = 2 cos (α) + 2 2r1 Figure 5.1 2 =2 1+ l 2 2 ≤ ∂P ∂t .1 2 ≤2 l . Trigonometry then shows us that π l = cos α − 2r1 2 Thus equation 2 becomes = sin (α) ∂G l = 2 cos (α) + sin (α) ∂t 2 (3) = 2(cos (α). Finding sin(α) A radius of τ and half of the slicing line form two sides of a triangle. By combining lemma 2. sin (α)) · l .A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM 7 we find that ∂G ∆G cos(α) = lim = lim = cos (α) →0 ∆l →0 ∂l By replacement. as shown in figure 5.1 2 by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality.

We will leave out some of the details that are similar.2. but of course with different details. so we do not include the proof.2. We work in Rn+1 rather than Rn to simplify several coefficients and subscripts. the circle is perimeter minimizing. This intersection may be empty. and the top to be xn+1 = h. For any σ ∈ C. and let A be the area of intersection of that plane with the interior of σ. Lemma 3. we have that G(h) ≤ P (h) Thus for a given enclosed area. 3. · · · xn+1 for our basis. We call the radius of this ball r2 . the figure enclosing v0 that minimizes (n − 1)-dimensional perimeter is the n-ball of appropriate volume. For all σ ∈ C and all t ∈ [0. From here on. but the proof is exactly same. x2 . let V be the volume of the interior of σ below the plane {xn+1 = t}. ∂P n−1 ≥ nCn r2 ∂t 1 + r22 . For each t ∈ [0. We can parameterize the figure by t in the sense that at each t.1. area means ndimensional area. Let r1 be the radius of τ (t). At t. for a given n-volume v0 . h]. This is analogous to how we picked α in the R2 case. Isoperimetric Problem in Rn The proof in n dimensions follows the same outline. let α be the incident angle between the slicing plane and the tangent plane to τ at any point of their intersection. That τ (t) is unique up to translation given V and A is shown by a proof very similar to lemma 2. Let C be the set of competitors. h]. We use the standard x1 . pick a n-ball of area A.8 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. and perimeter means n-dimensional surface area. namely the set of n-dimensional piecewise smooth compact manifolds enclosing volume v0 . there is an intersection between σ and the plane {xn+1 = t}. Let τ (t) be the portion of the (n + 1)-ball below that plane that intersects this n-ball and that also contains volume V below that plane. we set the bottom of the figure to be xn+1 = 0. we construct τ as follows. Finally. In Rn . On some plane. Theorem 3. and G(t) be the perimeter of τ below {xn+1 = t}. volume means (n + 1)-dimensional volume. GARY LAWLOR and so h G(h) − G(0) = 0 ∂G dt ≤ ∂t h 0 ∂P dt = P (h) − P (0) ∂t Since G(0) = P (0) = 0. Let P (t) be the perimeter of σ below {xn+1 = t}.

First. By extending r2 ∂l instead of l. we extend a whole ring of τ . Next. Since V (h) = v0 and A(h) = 0. since both functions measure the perimeter of the same figure. equation 4 becomes ∂G n n−1 n = cos (α)nCn r2 r2 + Cn r2 ∂t r1 . The first is true since σ is piecewise smooth. We will again be comparing G(t) and P (t) by their derivatives. though n−1 it relies on the lower dimensional case. we proceed as we did before in finding ∂G . ∂t ∂t and so in order to apply the second fundamental theorem of calculus. and so we omit it. τ (h) is a (n + 1)-ball for all σ. The second requires that P and G are continuous. and r1 is the radius. since V (t) changes as the area of the cross-section of σ. It is similar in principle to lemma 2. Thus.1. ∂G and ∂P . ∂V n = A(t) = Cn r2 ∂t where Cn is the volume of an unit (n − 1)-ball. we need that both of the derivatives are continuous except on a countable set.4.A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM 9 We omit the proof of this lemma. which is not true when there is a flat horizontal portion of perimeter at some t. or with our other definitions for G. (4) ∂G ∂G ∂r2 ∂G ∂V = + ∂t ∂r2 ∂t ∂V ∂t We will find three of these partial derivatives. a standard finding of differential geometry gives us n ∂G =κ= ∂V r1 where κ is the mean curvature of the (n + 1)-ball τ . where r2 ∂t is the radius of the slice of τ (t). and P . the width of the ring is the same as the old ∂G . Thus P (µ) = G(µ) = G(σ). By the chain rule. ∂G Next. letting ∂r2 be denoted r2 . instead of just a line. as before. we need only show that G(σ) ≤ P (σ). see [4]. We then calculate the volume of a solid of ∂l revolution to find that ∂G n−1 = cos (α)nCn r2 ∂r2 By replacement. that G(h) ≤ P (h) for all σ. Again. Thus. in order to prove minimization. and that G and P are indeed antiderivatives of the derivatives. Proof of Theorem 3.3. to find ∂r2 . The proof that we can rotate our figure σ to remove such discontinuities is completely equivalent to lemma 2. where Cn is the volume of a unit (n − 1) ball. The nCn r2 comes from calculating the surface area for a solid of revolution.

volume refers to n-dimensional volume. we will omit some details that are very similar to the previous section. Isoperimetric Problem on a n-Sphere The general principle of this proof is the same as the previous ones. the (n + 1)-ball is perimeter minimizing. 1) by the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. GARY LAWLOR n−1 cos (α)r2 + = nCn r2 r2 r1 A radius of τ and of the ball in τ that intersects the slicing plane form two sides of a triangle. Let C be the set of competitors. 4. φ).10 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. 1) ≤ nCn r2 (r2 . 1) = nCn r2 ∂t ∂t and so h h ∂P ∂G dt ≤ dt = P (h) − P (0) G(h) − G(0) = 0 ∂t 0 ∂t Since G(0) = P (0) = 0. We call such lines φ lines. In this section. On the surface of a standard n-sphere. Theorem 4. By combining lemma 3. and let A be the area of intersection of that φ line with the interior of σ. sin (α)) · (r2 . At t. for a given n-dimensional volume v0 . (θ1 . We use standard spherical coordinates. . let V be the volume of σ below the φ line {φ = t}. · · · θn−1 . though with r2 instead of l/2.1. and perimeter refers to (n − 1)-dimensional boundary of a manifold. As before. we have that G(h) ≤ P (h) Thus for a given enclosed volume. but there are some new pieces to the proof.2 and inequality 6 we get ∂G ∂P n−1 n−1 1 + r22 ≤ ≤ nCn r2 (r2 . For any σ ∈ C. Trigonometry then shows us that r2 π = cos α − = sin (α) r1 2 Thus equation 5 becomes ∂G n−1 = nCn r2 (cos (α)r2 + sin (α)) ∂t (5) (6) n−1 n−1 = nCn r2 (cos (α). θ2 . This intersection may be empty. we can parameterize the figure by t in the sense that at each t. there is an intersection between σ and the line {φ = t}. as shown in figure 5. and area refers to (n−1) dimensional volume. namely the set of (n−1)-dimensional piecewise smooth compact manifolds enclosing volume v0 on the surface of a n-sphere. the figure enclosing v0 that minimizes perimeter is an n-dimensional geodesic ball.

or spheres. For n = 3. Figure 6. We will again be comparing G(t) and P (t) by their derivatives. and so this shows just a piece of the problem. Along the φ line {φ = t}.2. we can consider the flat radius of this ball as well. Many of these quantities are shown in figure 6 for the case where n = 3. This is again analogous to how we picked α in the R2 isoperimetric problem. as is τ . let α be the incident angle between the φ line and the tangent plane to τ at any point of their intersection. ∂G and ∂P . ∂t ∂t and so in order to apply the second fundamental theorem of calculus. and again relies on the lower dimensional case. we need . we omit the proof of this lemma. The nCn r2 is similarly from calculating the surface area for a solid of revolution. Let τ (t) be the portion of the n ball below that φ line that intersects this (n − 1) ball and that also contains volume V below the φ line. For all σ ∈ C and all t ∈ (0. where Cn is the volume of a unit (n − 1) ball. Finally. Let P (t) be the perimeter of σ below {φ = t}. we construct τ as follows. Call this flat radius r2 .A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM 11 For each t ∈ [0. We call the geodesic radius of this ball r3 . ∂P n−1 ≥ nCn r2 1 + (r3 − e)2 ∂t where e is the the change in r3 due to the natural expansion and contraction of φ lines as φ increases. It is of course very difficult to draw a 4-dimensional sphere on paper. A slice of a sphere on a 4 ball Lemma 4. It is almost the same as the omitted n−1 proof for lemma 3. π]. That τ (t) is unique up to translation along the φ line given V and A is shown by a proof again very similar to lemma 2. If we consider this ball to be in Rn+1 . pick a (n − 1) ball of area A. the φ lines are 3 balls. Again.2. π). and G(t) be the perimeter of τ below {φ = t}.2.

giving us that ∂G n−1 = cos (α)nCn r2 ∂r3 Next. Thus P (µ) = G(µ) = G(σ). GARY LAWLOR that both of the derivatives are continuous except on a countable set. since both functions measure the perimeter of the same figure.12 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. dt We will find two of these partial derivatives. Thus. consider a similar figure to that for ∂r2 in the previous section. Since V (π) = v0 and A(π) = 0. we can find the change in perimeter. we need only show that G(σ) ≤ P (σ). for ∂G . Proof of Theorem 3. Very similarly. and so we will leave it as it is. and its perimeter Pν (t). An extension of τ This gives us a new application of the chain rule. ∂φ Create τ (t). By the chain rule.1. that G(π) ≤ P (π) for all σ. The second requires that P and G are continuous. ∂G ∂G For ∂r3 . The dt last term here will cancel later. and P . However. Thus we get (8) dPν ∂G ∂G dV n−1 dr3 = + cos (α)nCn r2 + dt ∂φ dt ∂V dt . Figure 7. Call this new extended figure ν. τ (π) is a n-ball for all σ. as in figure 7. and so dφ = 1. or with our other definitions for G. (7) dG ∂G dφ ∂G dr3 ∂G dV = + + dt ∂φ dt ∂r3 dt ∂V dt We will set φ ≡ t. we will consider a different figure. several pieces are the same as before.4. instead of calculating directly. and that G and P are indeed antiderivatives of the derivatives. extend the n-ball infinitesimally. letting dr3 be denoted r3 . in order to prove minimization. and take a limit. but instead of changing it as usual. as they are true for all n-balls on a n-sphere. Another way to think of this would be to have the competitor σ actually be the n-ball. which is not true when there is a flat horizontal portion of perimeter at some t. By a proof very similar to lemma 2. we can move the pole of our φ lines to remove such discontinuities. The first is true since σ is piecewise smooth. as before.

we find that dPν ∆Pν 1 n−1 = lim = nCn r2 →0 dt sin (α) dr3 ∆r3 = lim = cot (α) + e →0 dt Figure 8. Note that ∂G and dr3 are in fact different here than dt ∂φ dt before. This is illustrated in figure 8. we get n−1 = nCn r2 (( Replacing ∂G ∂φ ∂G dV ∂G dV dG n−1 n−1 = nCn r2 (sin (α) − cos (α)e) − + nCn r2 cos (α)r3 + dt ∂V dt ∂V dt n−1 = nCn r2 (sin (α) + cos (α)(r3 − e)) If we split up this into two vectors and use the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality we find an upper bound for dG dt dG n−1 = nCn r2 (cos (α). we will use the same notation. and dV is just A.A METACALIBRATION PROOF OF THE ISOPERIMETRIC PROBLEM 13 ∂G ∂G where ∂V dV is the same in both pictures because ∂V is the same for all such dt figures. then we find that ∆Pν = sin(α) nCn r2 and ∆r3 = (cot(α)+e. where e represents the change in r3 due to the natural expansion of φ lines on a n-sphere. 1) dt . but since they will only be used briefly. sin (α)) · (r3 − e. Finding dPν dt and dr3 dt Using those equations. If we then take the limit as → 0. and rearranging equation 8 we get 1 ∂G dV ∂G n−1 = nCn r2 ( − cos (α)(cot (α) + e)) − ∂φ sin (α) ∂V dt 1 − cos2 (α) ∂G dV ) − cos (α)e) − sin (α) ∂V dt ∂G dV n−1 = nCn r2 (sin (α) − cos (α)e) − ∂V dt in equation 7. n−1 If we set ∆t = .

Mathematische Werke. Riemannian Geometry: A Beginner’s Guide. 1) (9) By combining lemma 4. A sharp isoperimetric inequality for rank one symmetric spaces. the n-ball is perimeter minimizing. 1838. but metacalibration has the potential to solve previously unsolved problems.. 1998. 5. we have that G(π) ≤ P (π) Thus for a given volume on the surface of a n-sphere. volume 2. [8] Sir William Thomson. Preprint. Inventiones Mathematicae. u . Math. 1989. and others.. A natural next step would be to attempt to prove that the standard triple bubble in the plane is perimeter minimizing. A K Peters. Manuscripta Mathematica. volume 7. [5] Donald Sampson and James Dilts. Thies. MacMillan and Co. References [1] Viktor Blasjo. 2003.2 and inequality 9. Einfache beweise der isoperimetrischen haupts¨tze. [7] T. we get dP dG n−1 n−1 1 + (r3 − e)2 ≤ ≤ nCn r2 (r3 − e. [2] WT. 112:526–566.14 JAMES DILTS ADVISED BY DR. The tetrahedral soap film with trapped bubble. Preprint. but only a few results have been reached [2] [7]. 1927. We think that the method presented in this paper can and will be successful in this area. such as bubbles trapped in tetrahedral soap films [3]. The isoperimetric problem in more generalized symmetric spaces has been studied. The American Mathematical Monthly. Popular Lectures and Addresses. 98(1):39–58. the double bubble in Rn [5]. [3] Drew Johnson. Hsiang. Reine Angew. 2005. Metacalibration proof of the double bubble conjecture in Rn . which we are currently working on. Further Research This paper has presented a proof for an already solved problem. but by the new and powerful method of metacalibration. Mayer and M¨ller. Metacalibration has also been useful in solving other minimization problems. [9] Karl Weierstrass. 1) = nCn r2 dt dt and so π π dG dP G(π) − G(0) = dt ≤ dt = P (π) − P (0) 0 dt 0 dt Since G(0) = P (0) = 0. [4] Frank Morgan. GARY LAWLOR n−1 ≤ nCn r2 (r3 − e. J. [6] Jakob Steiner. The evolution of the isoperimetric problem. The results prove may not be difficult to solve with traditional methods. 1894. a 18:281–296. On the uniqueness of isoperimetric solutions and imbedded soap bubbles in non-compact symmetric spaces. 111(1):97–104.