On angles between convex sets in Hilbert spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion of the angle between two subspaces has a long history, dating back to Friedrichs's work in 1937 and Dixmier's work on the minimal angle in 1949. In 2006, Deutsch and Hundal studied extensions to convex sets in order to analyze convergence rates for the cyclic projections algorithm. In this work, we characterize the positivity of the minimal angle between two convex cones. We show the existence of, and necessary conditions for, optimal solutions of minimal angle problems associated with two convex subsets as well. Moreover, we generalize a result by Deutsch on minimal angles from linear subspaces to cones. This generalization yields sufficient conditions for the closedness of the sum of two closed convex cones. This also relates to conditions proposed by Beutner and by Seeger and Sossa. Furthermore, we investigate the relation between the intersection of two cones (at least one of which is nonlinear) and the intersection of the polar and dual cones of the underlying cones. It turns out that the two angles involved cannot be positive simultaneously. Various examples illustrate the sharpness of our results.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".