On polar convexity in finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Let $\hat {\mathbb {R}}^n$ be the one-point compactification of $\mathbb {R}^n$ obtained by adding a point at infinity. We say that a subset $A\subseteq \hat {\mathbb {R}}^n$ is $\mathbf {u}$ -convex if for every pair of points $\mathbf {z}_1, \mathbf {z}_2 \in A$ , the arc of the unique circle through $\mathbf {u}, \mathbf {z}_1$ and $\mathbf {z}_2$ , from $\mathbf {z}_1$ to $\mathbf {z}_2$ and not containing $\mathbf {u}$ , is contained in A . In this case, we call $\mathbf {u}$ a pole of A . When the pole $\mathbf {u}$ approaches infinity, $\mathbf {u}$ -convex sets become convex in the classical sense. The notion of polar convexity in the complex plane has been used to analyze the behavior of critical points of polynomials. In this paper, we extend the notion to finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces. The goal of this paper is to start building the theory of polar convexity and to show that the introduction of a pole creates a richer theory. For example, polar convexity enjoys a beautiful duality (see Theorem 4.3) that does not exist in classical convexity. We formulate polar analogues of several classical results of the alternatives, such as Gordan’s and Farkas’ lemmas; see Section 5. Finally, we give a full description of the convex hull of finitely many points with respect to finitely many poles; see Theorem 6.7.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".