text:
# Simulation of Cosmic Microwave Background Polarization Fields for AMiBA Experiment

## I INTRODUCTION

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) polarization can provide useful information in determining cosmological parameters that are only weakly constrained by the CMB temperature anisotropy alone, such as the epoch of reionization or the presence of tensor perturbations. The Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy (AMiBA; Lo et al. 2001), an interferometric array of 19 elements, will have full polarization capabilities in order to probe the polarization properties of the CMB. In this paper, we simulate the AMiBA polarization experiment and study the topological properties of the AMiBA mock maps through the genus statistic of $`Q`$ and $`U`$ Stokes parameter fields. We also investigate the effect of polarized Galactic foreground emission on the CMB polarization fields.

## II Simulating the AMiBA Polarization Experiment

### (a) Observational Strategy

An efficient observational strategy is essential to image the CMB polarization field. Although Subrahmanyan (2001) suggests drift scanning that is more desirable in reducing the environmental response and the cross-talk, we adopt simple observational strategy that the co-mounted array can be rotated and shifted to the adjacent points after some data acquisition. We assume that the primary beam $`A(𝐱)`$ of an elemental aperture with diameter 0.3 m is Gaussian, normalized to unity at the peak and with the FWHM of $`44^{}`$, the bandwidth of the dual polarization receivers is 20 GHz centered at 90 GHz, and the system temperature is 75 K. When 0.3 m apertures are used, the AMiBA will be sensitive to CMB polarization over the range $`700<\mathrm{}<2000`$ with signal to noise ratio of about 4 at $`\mathrm{}700`$ and 2 at $`\mathrm{}1150`$ in 24 hours (Lo et al. 2001).

We assume that 19 elements are hexagonally close-packed on a platform, as shown in Figure 1$`a`$, where the distances between adjacent aperture centers are 35 cm, giving 171 baselines with the minimum spacing of 35 cm. This configuration gives a good sampling of the $`uv`$-plane, and is useful for reconstructing the CMB polarization maps from the visibility data.

In a single pointing observation, the visibilities are assumed to be measured for 2 hours at a set of $`𝐮`$ specified by the close-packed configuration, then the instrument is rotated by $`5^{}`$ about an axis through the center of the aperture plane to obtain a different set of $`𝐮`$ with the same baseline lengths but with different orientations. In this way the $`uv`$-plane will be well-covered, allowing for good imaging. The number of rotations are chosen to be 12 times per pointing for better sampling of the $`uv`$-plane. The $`uv`$ coverage after a 24 hour observation is shown in Figure 1$`b`$. Figures 1$`c`$ and 1$`d`$ show the window function in the $`\mathrm{}`$ space and the beam pattern arising from our simulation, respectively. For large $`\mathrm{}>60`$, we can relate spherical harmonic multipole index $`\mathrm{}`$ with a baseline coordinate $`u`$ by $`\mathrm{}=2\pi u`$ with a good approximation.

The resolution in the $`𝐮`$ space is limited by the area of the sky that we have surveyed. This is equal to the size of the primary beam in a single pointing observation. We can increase the resolution of the map as well as the survey area by mosaicking several contiguous pointing observations (see White et al. 1999 for more details). Mosaicking does not increase the range of $`𝐮`$. It simply enhances our resolution by allowing us to follow more periods of a given wave, which is analogous to the Fraunhofer diffraction through many holes. In our simulated observation, we perform a mosaic survey of $`9\times 9`$ pointings with spacing $`\mathrm{FWHM}/2`$.

### (b) Simulated Observations

The visibility function sampled at a pointing position $`𝐱_p`$ on the sky is the Fourier transform of the true sky brightness $`I(𝐱)`$ weighted by the primary beam $`A(𝐱𝐱_p)`$, i.e.,

$$V(𝐮,𝐱_p)=A(𝐱𝐱_p)I(𝐱)e^{i2\pi 𝐮𝐱}d^2𝐱$$
$`(1)`$
(see, e.g., Ng 2001; Hobson, Lasenby, & Jones 1995). The size of the primary beam $`A(𝐱)`$ determines the area of the sky that is viewed and hence the size of the map, while the maximum spacing determines the resolution.

In order to simulate an observation of CMB polarization fields, we follow the prescription given in Seljak (1997) and Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997). We use the CMBFAST package (Seljak & Zaldarriaga 1996; Zaldarriaga, Seljak, & Bertschinger 1998) to get the polarization power spectrum ($`C_{\mathrm{}}^E`$) and the cross-correlation between temperature and polarization ($`C_{\mathrm{}}^C`$) in a flat $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.6`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0=0.4`$, $`h=0.6`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_bh^2=0.0125`$ (Ratra et al. 1997) in which only the E-mode (scalar mode) polarization exists and the B-mode vanishes. To generate small patches of Stokes parameter $`Q`$ and $`U`$ fields ($`5^{}\times 5^{}`$) on the sky we use small-scale limit approximation by Zaldarriaga & Seljak (1997)

$$Q(𝐱)=d^2𝐮[E(𝐮)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _𝐮B(𝐮)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _𝐮]e^{i2\pi 𝐮𝐱},$$

$$U(𝐱)=d^2𝐮[E(𝐮)\mathrm{sin}2\varphi _𝐮+B(𝐮)\mathrm{cos}2\varphi _𝐮]e^{i2\pi 𝐮𝐱},$$
$`(2)`$
where $`E(𝐮)`$ is the Fourier component in $`𝐮`$ space of E-polarization field, $`\varphi _𝐮`$ is the direction angle of the two-dimensional vector $`𝐮`$, and $`B(𝐮)=0`$. Figure 2$`a`$ shows a realization of a pure CMB $`Q`$ field in the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$CDM model in a $`5^{}\times 5^{}`$ patch on the sky.

According to equation (1), these fields are then multiplied by the primary beam and Fourier transformed to give a regular array of visibilities. An AMiBA observation is simulated by sampling the regular array at the required points in the $`uv`$-plane specified by the AMiBA observational strategy (see Fig. 1$`b`$).

The AMiBA instrument noise on the data is simulated by adding a random complex number to each visibility whose the real and imaginary parts are drawn from a Gaussian distribution with the variance of the noise predicted in a real observation. Here we use the sensitivity per baseline per polarization defined as (Wrobel & Walker 1999; Ng 2001)

$$s_b=\frac{1}{\eta _s\eta _a}\frac{2k_BT_{sys}}{A_{phys}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Delta }\nu \tau _{acc}}},$$
$`(3)`$
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ is bandwidth, $`\tau _{acc}`$ is the correlator accumulation time, $`A_{phys}`$ is the physical area of an elemental aperture, and $`\eta _s`$ ($`\eta _a`$) is system (aperture) efficiency. Figure 2$`b`$ shows a dirty image directly FFTed from the single pointing mock visibility data. Since the dirty image contains biased field information, it cannot be used for topology analyses. Thus we need to reconstruct the original and unbiased CMB field from the observed noisy visibility data.

### (c) Image Reconstruction Using the Maximum Entropy Method

From the mock visibility data, CMB polarization fields can be reconstructed using the maximum entropy method (MEM), in which an extended emission field can be more effectively restored compared to the common CLEAN algorithm (see Narayan & Nityananda 1986 for a review, and see Conwell & Evans 1985; Chae & Yun 1994 for applications). The MEM is also more appropriate for reconstructing a non-Gaussian field, compared to the Wiener-filtering method (see, e.g., Maisinger et al. 1998). We use the methods of Cornwell & Evans (1985) for general the MEM algorithm, and of Cornwell (1988) for MEM mosaicking. However, the standard MEM method contains a logarithmic term that is inapplicable to images that have both positive and negative values, such as fluctuations in the CMB. Therefore, we consider the image to be the difference between two positive additive distributions, namely $`h_i=f_ig_i`$, and the entropy becomes

$$S(𝒉,𝒎)=\underset{i}{}\left[\psi _i2m_ih_i\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\psi _i+h_i}{2m_i}\right)\right],$$
$`(4)`$
where $`h_i`$ is the predicted map, $`m_i`$ is the default model map (Maisinger, Hobson, & Lasenby 1997; Jones et al. 1998), and $`\psi _i=[h_i^2+4m_i^2]^{1/2}`$.

The attraction of MEM is that it defines the best image as the solution of a simple optimization problem obtained by maximizing the entropy while fitting to the data. Thus extra information can simply be added as constraints in the optimization. In our application of mosaicking, $`\chi ^2`$ is defined as

$$\chi ^2=\underset{p}{}\underset{r}{}\frac{|V(𝐮_r,𝐱_p)\widehat{V}(𝐮_r,𝐱_p)|^2}{\sigma _{V,r,p}^2}.$$
$`(5)`$
Here $`\widehat{V}`$ denotes the predicted visibility, and $`\sigma _{V,r,p}^2`$ is the variance in the visibility of the $`r`$th visibility sample at the $`p`$th pointing (see Cornwell 1988 for more details).

Maximizing

$$JS\alpha \chi ^2,$$
$`(6)`$
where $`\alpha `$ is a Lagrange multiplier, gives a solution for $`𝒉`$ that maximizes the entropy and fits to the data. We find the most appropriate image iteratively using the Newton-Raphson method, i.e.,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒉=(J)^1J.$$
$`(7)`$
Here we choose the default model map as $`𝒎=5`$ $`\mu \mathrm{K}`$, constant everywhere, and the Lagrange multiplier as $`\alpha =100`$. These values are insensitive to the final solution. The mosaicked images reconstructed by MEM are very close to the original CMB polarization maps (compare Fig. 2$`c`$ with Fig. 2$`a`$). Figure 3 compares the CMB $`Q`$ and $`U`$ fields along a row in the original map (dotted curves) with those in the MEM map reconstructed from $`9\times 9`$ mosaic data (solid curves).

### (d) Galactic Foregrounds

We investigate the effects of polarized Galactic foreground emission on the CMB polarization fields. Two possible sources of the polarized Galactic emission are synchrotron and spinning dust emissions, which are known to induce at least 10 % polarization fraction at frequencies below 90 GHz (Lubin & Smoot 1981). Vibrational dust and free-free emissions are expected to be unpolarized. We use a simple toy model of Kogut & Hinshaw (2000) to make foreground polarization maps. We assume here that mean fractional polarization is 10 %, the polarized Galactic emission is proportional to the unpolarized intensity, and the effect of synchrotron emission is negligible at 90 GHz. We can model the Stokes $`Q`$ and $`U`$ components as

$$Q=f\mathrm{cos}(2\gamma )I,U=f\mathrm{sin}(2\gamma )I,$$
$`(8)`$
where $`f(𝜽)`$ is the fractional polarization, assumed to vary across the sky with $`f=0.1`$, and $`\gamma (𝜽)`$ is the polarization angle which is randomly realized with coherence angle $`\theta _c=0.^{}5`$ (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$2 of Kogut & Hinshaw 2000 for more details). We use a two-component dust model of Finkbeiner, Davis, & Schlegel (1998) to predict 90 GHz vibrational dust intensity, and a model of Kogut et al. (1996) for adding the free-free emission. The 100 $`\mu \mathrm{m}`$ dust map of Schlegel, Finkbeiner, & Davis (1998) is used as a basic template map. Figures 2$`d`$, 2$`e`$, and 2$`f`$ show the 90 GHz Galactic intensity at $`b=20^{}`$, its $`Q`$ polarized contribution, and the MEM reconstructed CMB $`Q`$ polarized field contaminated by the Galactic polarized foreground, respectively.

## III Topology of the Simulated Maps

The CMB polarization field, like the temperature anisotropy, can be used for an observational test of the Gaussianity of the primordial density fluctuation, and thus provide an important constraint on the inflationary models. We use the two-dimensional genus statistic introduced by Gott et al. (1990) as a quantitative measure for the topology of the CMB polarization fields. The genus is defined as the number of hot spots minus the number of cold spots, or equivalently,

$$g(\nu )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_C\kappa 𝑑s,$$
$`(9)`$
where $`\kappa `$ is the signed curvature of the iso-temperature contours $`C`$. Since the genus curve as a function of the temperature threshold level has a form of $`g(\nu )`$ $``$ $`\nu e^{\nu ^2/2}`$ for a Gaussian random-phase field, non-Gaussianity of a field can be detected from deviations of the genus curve from this relation. For example, non-Gaussianity can cause shift or asymmetry of the genus curve.

We present genus curves as a function of the area-fraction threshold level $`\nu _A`$, which is defined to be the temperature threshold level at which the corresponding iso-temperature contours enclose a fraction of the survey area equal to that of a Gaussian field (Gott et al. 1990). All measured values are averages over 15 mock AMiBA surveys. We use the 4 FWHM $`\times `$ 4 FWHM region in each mock survey field, where the MEM reconstruction gives more confident results. Figures 4$`a`$ and 4$`b`$ shows averaged histograms and genus for foreground-free (solid curve), Galactic foreground-added (open circles), and Galactic foreground-added and MEM reconstructed ($`9\times 9`$ mosaic observation, filled circles) CMB $`Q`$ fields. The last case is a result of a 24 hour integration per pointing located at Galactic latitude $`b=20^{}`$. Note that the solid curve in Figure 4$`b`$ shows the functional form expected for a random-phase Gaussian field, $`A\nu e^{\nu ^2/2}`$, and has been fitted to the foreground-free genus result by adjusting $`A`$. The result from a 24 hour integration of a region centered at $`b=35^{}`$ is shown in Figure 4$`c`$. When the integration time is only one hour per pointing, we obtain genus curves shown in Figure 4$`d`$.

Table 1 lists skewness $`(Q/\sigma )^3`$, genus-related statistics $`A`$ (amplitude), $`\mathrm{\Delta }\nu `$ (shift parameter), and $`\mathrm{\Delta }g`$ (asymmetry parameter) measured from CMB $`Q`$ fields; see Peebles (1993) for skewness and Park et al. (2001) for definition and measurement of genus-related statistics, respectively.

The results show that the polarized Galactic emissions, even at low latitude, do not have significant effect on the CMB polarization fields. Although the polarized Galactic foreground emissions at $`b=20^{}`$ cause slight asymmetry, and reduce genus amplitude (Fig. 4$`b`$ and Table 1), these effects are smaller than the statistical fluctuations due to the sample variance of the pure CMB map. The open and filled circles in each panel in Figure 4 show that the original polarization fields can be well restored from the AMiBA mosaic observational data by MEM image reconstruction technique if the integration time is 24 hours per pointing. However, if the integration time is one hour, instrumental noise increases the amplitude of the genus curve, and the presence of non-Gaussian signals due to the Galactic emission is buried.

## IV Conclusions

We have studied the topology of CMB polarization maps by simulating the AMiBA experiment and by measuring the skewness and genus statistics. The MEM turns out to be very useful in reconstructing the CMB polarization $`Q`$ and $`U`$ fields from the interferometric visibility data. Our study shows that although the polarized Galactic foreground emissions at low latitude ($`b=20^{}`$) decrease the amplitude of the genus curve and cause asymmetry of the curve, these effects are not significant compared with the sample variance in our $`2.^{}9\times 2.^{}9`$ surveys. At higher Galactic latitudes, the effects of the Galactic emissions i s shown to be negligible, and the intrinsic non-Gaussianity of the CMB polarization is easier to detect.

The major source of statistical variance of the genus statistic is the sample variance induced by our small survey area (4 FWHM $`\times `$ 4 FWHM $`=8.6\mathrm{deg}.^2`$). This can be reduced not by observing many small different patches of the sky, but by increasing the area of the survey at each location. Therefore, increasing the survey area and integration time at a given pointing is essential to accurately estimate the effects of Galactic foregrounds on the polarization maps and to detect non-Gaussian signals of cosmological origin.

We acknowledge valuable discussions with Kin-Wang Ng, Uros Seljak and Ravi Subrahmanyan. This work is supported by the BK21 program of the Korean Government.

### REFERENCES

Chae, J.-C., & Yun, H.S. 1994, Maximum power entropy method for low contrast images, JKAS, 27, 191

Cornwell, T.J. 1988, Radio-interferometric imaging of very large objects, A&A, 202, 316,

Cornwell, T.J., & Evans, K.F. 1985, A simple maximum entropy deconvolution algorithm, A&A, 143, 77

Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M., & Schlegel, D.J. 1999, Extrapolation of Galactic dust emission at 100 microns to cosmic microwave background radiation frequencies using FIRAS, ApJ, 524, 867

Gott, J.R., Park, C., Juszkiewicz, R., Bies, W.E., Bennett, D.P., Bouchet, F.R., & Stebbins, A. 1990, Topology of microwave background fluctuations – Theory, ApJ, 352, 1

Hobson, M.P., Lasenby, A.N., & Jones, M. 1995, A Bayesian method for analysing interferometer observations of cosmic microwave background fluctuations, MNRAS, 275, 863

Jones, A.W. et al. 1998, 10-GHz Tenerife cosmic microwave background observations at 8 deg resolution and their analysis using a new maximum entropy method, MNRAS, 294, 582

Kogut, A., Banday, A.J., Bennett, C.L., Górski, K.M., Hinshaw, G., Smoot, G.F., & Wright, E.L. 1996, Microwave emission at high Galactic latitude in the four-year DMR sky maps, ApJ, 464, L5

Kogut, A., & Hinshaw, G. 2000, Simulations of foreground effects for cosmic microwave background polarization, ApJ, 543, 530

Lo, K.Y., Chiueh, T.H., Martin, R.N., Ng, K.-W., Liang, H., Pen, U.-L., & Ma, C.-P. 2001, AMiBA: Array for Microwave Background Anisotropy, in New Cosmological Data and the Values of the Fundamental Parameters, IAU Symp. 201, ed. A. Lasenby & A. Wilkinson (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA, 2001)

Maisinger, K., Hobson, M.P., & Lasenby, A.N. 1997, A maximum entropy method for reconstructing interferometer maps of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation, MNRAS, 290, 313

Maisinger, K., Hobson, M.P., Lasenby, A.N., & Turok, N. 1998, The observability of topological defects with ground-based interferometers, MNRAS, 297, 531

Narayan, R., & Nityananda, R. 1986, Maximum entropy image restoration in astronomy, ARA&A, 24, 127

Ng, K.-W. 2001, Complex visibilities of cosmic microwave background anisotropies, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 123001

Park, C.-G., Park, C., Ratra, B., & Tegmark, M. 2001, Gaussianity of degree-scale cosmic microwave background anisotropy observations, ApJ, 556, 582

Peebles, P.J.E. 1993, Principles of Physical Cosmology, (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey), Chapter 19

Ratra, B., Sugiyama, N., Banday, A.J., & Górski, K.M. 1997, Cosmic microwave background anisotropy in COBE DMR-normalized open and flat-$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ cold dark matter cosmogonies, ApJ, 481, 22

Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., & Davis, M. 1998, Maps of dust infrared emission for use in estimation of reddening and cosmic microwave background radiation foregrounds, ApJ, 500, 525

Seljak, U. 1997, Measuring polarization in the cosmic microwave background, ApJ, 482, 6

Seljak, U., & Zaldarriaga, M. 1996, A line-of-sight integration approach to cosmic microwave background aniso-tropies, ApJ, 469, 437

Subrahmanyan, R. 2002, Observing the CMB with the AMiBA, in AMiBA 2001: High-Z Clusters, Missing Baryons, and CMB Polarization, ed. L.W. Chen, C.-P. Ma, K.-W. Ng, and U.-L. Pen, ASP Conference Series Vol. 257 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Fransisco, CA, 2002)

White, M., Carlstrom, J.E., Dragovan, M., & Holzapfel, W.L. 1999, Interferometric observation of cosmic microwave background anisotropies, ApJ, 514, 12

Wrobel, J.M., & Walker, R.C. 1999, Sensitivity, in Synthesis Imaging in Radio Astronomy II, ed. G.B. Taylor, C.L. Carilli, and R.A. Perley, ASP Conference Series Vol. 180 (Astronomical Society of the Pacific, San Fransisco, CA, 1999)

Zaldarriaga, M., & Seljak, U. 1997, All-sky analysis of polarization in the microwave background, Phys. Rev. D, 55, 1830

Zaldarriaga, M., Seljak, U., & Bertschinger, E. 1998, Integral solution for the microwave background anisotropies in nonflat universes, ApJ, 494, 491


format: text

text:
# Projections in normed linear spaces and sufficient enlargements

## §1. Introduction

We denote the unit ball (sphere) of a normed linear space $`X`$ by $`B(X)`$ ($`S(X)`$).

Convention. We shall use the term ball for symmetric with respect to $`0`$ bounded closed convex set with nonempty interior in a finite dimensional linear space.

###### Definition Definition 1

A ball $`A`$ in a finite dimensional normed space $`X`$ is called a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$ (or of $`B(X)`$) if for arbitrary isometric embedding $`XY`$ ($`Y`$ is a Banach space) there exists a projection $`P:YX`$ such that $`P(B(Y))A`$. A minimal sufficient enlargement is defined to be a sufficient enlargement no proper subset of which is a sufficient enlargement.

The notion of sufficient enlargement is implicit in B.Grünbaum’s paper , it was explicilty introduced by the present author in .

The notion of sufficient enlargement is of interest because it is a natural geometric notion, it characterizes possible shadows of symmetric convex body onto a subspace, whose intersection with the body is given.

The main purpose of the present paper is to continue investigation of sufficient enlargements started in . In §2 we investigate sufficient enlargements whose support functions are in some directions close to those of the unit ball of the space, §3 is devoted to sufficient enlargements for euclidean spaces.

We refer to  and  for background on Banach space theory and to  for background on the theory of convex bodies.

Some recalls. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be finite dimensional normed spaces and $`T:XY`$ be a linear operator. An $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$factorization of $`T`$ is a pair of operators $`u_1:Xl_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`u_2:l_{\mathrm{}}Y`$ satisfying $`T=u_2u_1`$. The $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$factorable norm of $`T`$ is defined to be the $`infu_1u_2`$, where the $`inf`$ is taken over all $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$factorizations.

An absolute projection constant of a finite dimensional normed linear space $`X`$ is defined to be the smallest positive real number $`\lambda (X)`$ such that for every isometric embedding $`XY`$ there exists a continuous linear projection $`P:YX`$ with $`P\lambda (X)`$.

We shall use the following observations.

###### Proposition 1

. Let $`A`$ be a ball in a finite dimensional normed linear space $`X`$. The space $`X`$ normed by the gauge functional of $`A`$ will be denoted by $`X_A`$.

The ball $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$ if and only if the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$factorable norm of the natural identity mapping from $`X`$ to $`X_A`$ is $`1`$.

###### Proposition 2

. A symmetric with respect to $`0`$ parallelepiped containing $`B(X)`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$.

###### Proposition 3

. Convex combination of sufficient enlargements for $`X`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$.

## §2. Sufficient enlargements which are in some directions close to the balls

We start with an investigation of a sufficient enlargement which is contained in a homothetic image of a circumscribed parallelepiped with the coefficient of homothety close to 1 (and of course greater than 1). Next result gives a condition under which such enlargement contains a non-trivial homothetic image of the parallelepiped.

###### Theorem 1

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$dimensional normed space. Let $`\{f_i\}_{i=1}^nS(X^{})`$ be a basis of $`X^{}`$ and let vectors $`x_iS(X)`$ be such that $`f_i(x_i)=1`$ and for some $`c_2>0`$ and each $`fB(X^{})`$ there exists at most one element $`i`$ in the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ for which $`|f(x_i)|1c_2.`$

Let $`A`$ be a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$ such that for some $`c_10`$ it is contained in the parallelepiped $`\{x:|f_i(x)|1+c_1,i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$

Let $`c_3=1\frac{2c_2}{c_2}c_1.`$ Suppose $`c_3>0`$. Then $`A`$ contains the parallelepiped $`Q:=\{x:|f_i(x)|c_3,i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}.`$

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`\{f_i\}_{i=n+1}^{\mathrm{}}S(X^{})`$ be such that $`(xX)(||x||=sup\{|f_i(x)|:i\}).`$ Then the operator $`E:Xl_{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by $`Ex:=\{f_i(x)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an isometric embedding. Let $`P:l_{\mathrm{}}E(X)`$ be a projection for which $`P(B(l_{\mathrm{}}))E(A).`$

The condition of the theorem imply that there exists a partition of $``$ into subsets $`F_1,\mathrm{},F_n`$ such that for $`iF_j`$ we have $`f_i(x_k)<1c_2`$ for $`kj`$.

Let us show that $`P(B(l_{\mathrm{}}))`$ contains $`E(Q)`$. Observe that the first $`n`$ coordinate functionals on $`l_{\mathrm{}}`$ are norm-preserving extensions of functionals $`f_iE^1:E(X)`$. Therefore in order to prove that $`AQ`$ it is sufficient to prove that for every collection $`\{\theta _i\}_{i=1}^n,\theta _1=\pm 1`$ there exists a vector $`z_\theta B(l_{\mathrm{}})`$ and real numbers $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_nc_3`$ such that

$$Pz_\theta =(\theta _1b_1,\theta _2b_2,\mathrm{},\theta _nb_n,b_{n+1},b_{n+2},\mathrm{})$$

for some $`b_{n+1},b_{n+2},\mathrm{}`$.

We introduce $`z_\theta `$ as the sequence $`\{d_k\}_{k=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`d_k=\theta _jf_k(x_j)`$ if $`kF_j`$. In particular, $`d_1=\theta _1,\mathrm{},d_n=\theta _n`$. Let us show that $`Pz_\theta `$ satisfies the requirement above. Let

$$Pz_\theta =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,\alpha _{n+1},\mathrm{}).$$

Suppose that for some $`m\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we have $`\alpha _m[\theta _mc_3,\theta _m\mathrm{})`$. Let us consider the family of vectors

$$y_\delta =(1+\delta )\theta _mE(x_m)\delta z_\theta ,(\delta >0).$$

When $`\delta >0`$ is small enough, then $`y_\delta B(l_{\mathrm{}})`$. More precisely, by the conditions of the theorem it happens at least when $`(1c_2)(1+\delta )+\delta 1,`$ that is, when $`\delta \frac{c_2}{2c_2}.`$

On the other hand the $`m`$th coordinate of $`Py_\delta `$ is equal to

$$(1+\delta )\theta _m\delta \alpha _m=\theta _m+\delta (\theta _m\alpha _m).$$

So for $`0\delta c_2/(2c_2)`$ we have $`|\theta _m+\delta (\theta _m\alpha _m)|1+c_1.`$ Hence

$$1+\frac{c_2}{2c_2}(1c_3)<1+c_1\text{ or }c_3>1\frac{2c_2}{c_2}c_1.$$

This contradicts the condition on $`c_3`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$-dimensional normed space and $`Q`$ be a parallelepiped circumscribed about $`B(X)`$. Suppose there exist points $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ on faces of $`Q`$ (one point on the union of each pair of symmetric faces) such that $`x_iB(X)`$ and for every pair $`(x_i,x_j),x_ix_j`$ and every $`fB(X^{})`$ at least one of the numbers $`|f(x_i)|`$ is less than $`1`$. Then $`Q`$ is a minimal sufficient enlargement for $`X`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

By Proposition 2 only minimality requires a proof. Let $`\{f_i\}_{i=1}^nB(X^{})`$ be such that $`Q=\{x:|f_i(x)|1,i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}\}`$.

By compactness of $`B(X^{})`$ there exists $`c_2>0`$ satisfying the condition of Theorem 1. Let $`AQ`$ be a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$. Applying Theorem 1 with $`c_1=0`$ we get $`AQ`$. Hence the sufficient enlargement $`Q`$ is minimal. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark Remark 1

Condition $`|f(x_i)|1c_2`$ in Theorem 1 cannot be omitted. This statement can be derived e.g. from the following observation which is interesting itself: the proof of the M.Kadets–Snobar theorem as it is given in , (see, also , §15) shows the following. Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$dimensional normed linear space and $`EB(X)`$ be the ellipsoid of maximal volume in $`B(X)`$. Then $`\sqrt{n}E`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$. In particular $`B(l_2^n)`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`B(l_1^n).`$ Letting $`A=B(l_{\mathrm{}}^n)`$ we get the statement.

###### Remark Remark 2

The following example shows that there are no direct generalizations of Theorem 1 for non-trivially large values of $`c_1`$:

For arbitrary $`hS(l_2^n)`$ there exists a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$ which is contained in the intersection of $`3B(l_{\mathrm{}}^n)`$ and the set $`\{x:|h,x|1\}`$.

In fact, let $`P_h`$ be a projection onto the hyperplane orthogonal to $`h`$ with minimal possible norm as an operator on $`l_{\mathrm{}}^n`$ and let $`A=[h,h]+P_h(B(l_{\mathrm{}}^n)).`$ It is easy to see that $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$ satisfying all the requirements.

The next result shows that the condition of the Corollary is not necessary for $`Q`$ to be a minimal sufficient enlargement.

###### Theorem 2

There exist a two-dimensional normed linear space $`X`$ and functionals $`f_1,f_2B(X^{})`$ such that the following conditions are satisfied:

1) There exists precisely one point $`x_1B(X)`$ such that $`f_1(x_1)=1`$ and precisely one point $`x_2B(X)`$ such that $`f_2(x_2)=1`$.

2) The parallelogram $`C=\{x:|f_1(x)|1,|f_2(x)|1\}`$ is a minimal sufficient enlargement.

3) There exist a linear functional $`f_3B(X^{})`$ such that $`|f_3(x_1)|=|f_3(x_2)|=1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Consider the space whose unit ball is the euclidean disc intersected with the strip

$$\{(a_1,a_2):|a_1a_2|1\}.$$

Let $`x_1=(1,0),x_2=(0,1)`$ and let $`f_1`$ and $`f_2`$ be the coordinate functionals. It is clear that Condition 1 of the theorem is satisfied.

In our case $`C=\{(a_1,a_2):|a_1|1,|a_2|1\}.`$

It is clear that the functional $`f_3(a_1,a_2)=a_1a_2`$ satisfies Condition 3 of the theorem.

It remains to show, that $`C`$ is a minimal sufficient enlargement.

Let $`\{f_i\}_{i=4}^{\mathrm{}}S(X^{})`$ be such that $`(xX)(||x||=sup\{|f_i(x)|:i\}).`$ Then the operator $`E:Xl_{\mathrm{}}`$ defined by $`Ex:=\{f_i(x)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is an isometric embedding.

Now, if we suppose that $`C`$ is not a minimal sufficient enlargement, then there exists a projection $`P:l_{\mathrm{}}E(X)`$, such that the closure of its image is a proper part of $`E(C)`$. We show that this gives us a contradiction.

Consider the vectors

$$x_1(\epsilon ):=(\mathrm{cos}\epsilon ,\mathrm{sin}\epsilon ),x_2(\epsilon ):=(\mathrm{sin}\epsilon ,\mathrm{cos}\epsilon )B(X),0<\epsilon <\pi /4.$$

It is clear that for $`0<\epsilon <\pi /4`$ the following is true (the reader is advised to draw the picture): for each $`fB(X^{})`$ either

$$|f(x_1(\epsilon ))|1\mathrm{tan}\epsilon \text{ or }|f(x_2(\epsilon ))|1\mathrm{tan}\epsilon .$$

Therefore there exists a partition $`=A_1(\epsilon )A_2(\epsilon )`$ such that $`|f_i(x_1(\epsilon ))|1\mathrm{tan}\epsilon `$ for $`iA_2(\epsilon )`$ and $`|f_i(x_2(\epsilon ))|1\mathrm{tan}\epsilon `$ for $`iA_1(\epsilon )`$.

Now for $`\theta =(\theta _1,\theta _2),`$ where $`\theta _1=\pm 1,\theta _2=\pm 1,`$ we define $`z_\theta (\epsilon )l_{\mathrm{}}`$ as the vector, whose $`i`$th coordinates coincide with the coordinates of $`\theta _1Ex_1(\epsilon )`$ for $`iA_1(\epsilon )`$ and with the coordinates of $`\theta _2Ex_2(\epsilon )`$ for $`iA_2(\epsilon )`$.

It is clear that $`zB(l_{\mathrm{}})`$. Let

$$Pz_\theta (\epsilon )=(\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\mathrm{},\alpha _n,\mathrm{})l_{\mathrm{}}.$$

Let us show that

$$\theta _1\alpha _1\mathrm{cos}\epsilon 2(1\mathrm{cos}\epsilon )/\epsilon ,$$
$`(1)`$
$$\theta _2\alpha _2\mathrm{cos}\epsilon 2(1\mathrm{cos}\epsilon )/\epsilon .$$
$`(2)`$
Because $`\epsilon >0`$ and $`\theta =(\theta _1,\theta _2)=(\pm 1,\pm 1)`$ are arbitrary (1) and (2) imply $`P(B(l_{\mathrm{}}))E(C),`$ so we get a contradiction.

Suppose that either (1) or (2) is not satisfied. Without loss of generality, we may assume that (1) is not satisfied.

Consider the family of vectors

$$y_\delta =(1+\delta )\theta _1E(x_1(\epsilon ))\delta z_\theta (\epsilon )l_{\mathrm{}}(\delta >0).$$

From the definition of $`z_\theta (\epsilon )`$ it is easy to derive that

$$y_\delta _{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{max}\{1,(1+\delta )(1\mathrm{tan}\epsilon )+\delta \}.$$

Hence if $`\delta `$ is such that $`2\delta /(1+\delta )\mathrm{tan}\epsilon `$, then $`y_\delta _{\mathrm{}}1`$. In particular, $`y_{\epsilon /2}_{\mathrm{}}1`$. Since $`P(B(l_{\mathrm{}}))E(C)`$, then the modulus of the first coordinate of $`Py_{\epsilon /2}l_{\mathrm{}}`$ is $`1`$. On the other hand, we have

$$Py_{\epsilon /2}=(1+\epsilon /2)\theta _1E(x_1(\epsilon ))(\epsilon /2)Pz_\theta (\epsilon ).$$

Hence the first coordinate of $`Py_{\epsilon /2}`$ is

$$(1+\epsilon /2)\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\epsilon (\epsilon /2)\alpha _1.$$

We have

$$|(1+\epsilon /2)\theta _1\mathrm{cos}\epsilon (\epsilon /2)\alpha _1|=|(1+\epsilon /2)\mathrm{cos}\epsilon (\epsilon /2)\theta _1\alpha _1|>$$

$$(1+\epsilon /2)\mathrm{cos}\epsilon (\epsilon /2)(\mathrm{cos}\epsilon 2(1\mathrm{cos}\epsilon )/\epsilon )=1.$$

This contradiction implies that (1) and (2) are valid. Theorem 2 is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

By a prism in $`^n`$ we mean the Minkowski sum of a set $`A`$ lying in an $`(n1)`$dimensional hyperplane and a line segment that is not parallel to the hyperplane. The set $`A`$ is called a basis of the prism.

It turns out that if a sufficient enlargement $`A`$ for $`X`$ is such that its boundary intersects $`S(X)`$ in a smooth point, then $`A`$ should contain a prism, which is also a sufficient enlargement, so the investigation of such enlargement can be in certain sense reduced to investigation of $`(n1)`$dimensional sufficient enlargement.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`X`$ be an $`n`$dimensional normed space and let $`x_1S(X)`$ be a smooth point and $`hS(X^{})`$ be its supporting functional. Let $`\{x_i\}_{i=2}^nS(X)`$ be such that $`\{x_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ is a basis in $`X`$ and $`h(x_i)=0`$ for $`i\{2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Suppose that $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$, which is contained in the set $`\{xX:|h(x)|1\}.`$ Then there exists a symmetric with respect to $`0`$ prism $`M`$ with basis parallel to $`\text{lin}\{x_2,\mathrm{},x_n\}`$ such that

(a) $`MA`$;

(b) $`M`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

We consider the natural isometric embedding $`E`$ of $`X`$ into $`C(S(X^{}))`$: every vector is mapped onto its restriction (as a function on $`X^{}`$) to $`S(X^{})`$. We introduce the following notation: $`C=C(S(X^{}))`$ and $`B_C=B(C(S(X^{})))`$.

Since $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`X`$, then there exists a projection $`P:C\text{lin}\{Ex_i\}_{i=1}^n,`$ such that

$$P(B_C)E(A).$$
$`(3)`$
Projection $`P`$ can be represented as $`P(f)=_{i=1}^n\mu _i(f)Ex_i,`$ where $`\mu _i`$ are measures on $`S(X^{})`$.

Inclusion (3) implies that $`\mu _11`$. Since $`P`$ is a projection we have $`\mu _j(Ex_i)=\delta _{i,j}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},n).`$ In particular, $`\mu _1(Ex_1)=1`$. Because $`x_1`$ is a smooth point, the function $`|Ex_1|C`$ attains its maximum only at $`h`$ and $`h`$. Hence $`\mu _1`$ can be represented as $`\mu _1=b_{1,1}\delta _h+b_{2,1}\delta _h,`$ where $`\delta _h`$ and $`\delta _h`$ are Dirac measures, $`b_{1,1}0,b_{2,1}0`$ and $`b_{1,1}b_{2,1}=1`$.

Now, for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ we find representations

$$\mu _i=b_{1,i}\delta _h+b_{2,i}\delta _h+\nu _i,$$

where $`\nu _i`$ don’t have atoms in $`h`$ and $`h`$. To unify the notation we set $`\nu _1=0`$.

We introduce new measures

$$\omega _i:=(b_{1,i}b_{2,i})\delta _h+\nu _i.$$

It is clear that $`\omega _j(Ex_i)=\delta _{i,j}(i,j=1,\mathrm{},n).`$ Hence $`Q(f):=_{i=1}^n\omega _i(f)Ex_i`$ is also a projection onto lin$`\{Ex_i\}_{i=1}^n`$.

Let us show that

$$Q(B_C)\text{cl}(P(B_C)).$$
$`(4)`$
Let $`fB_C`$. Since $`\nu _i`$ don’t have atoms in $`\pm h`$, then for every $`\epsilon >0`$ there exists a function $`gB_C`$ such that $`g(h)=f(h)`$, $`g(h)=f(h)`$ and $`|\nu _i(f)\nu _i(g)|<\epsilon `$ for all $`i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. This implies that

$$i\{1,\mathrm{},n\}|\omega _i(f)\mu _i(g)|<\epsilon .$$

Since $`\epsilon >0`$ is arbitrary (4) follows. Hence $`Q(B_C)E(A).`$ Now we shall show that $`M:=E^1(\text{cl}(Q(B_C)))`$ is the required prism.

The fact that $`M`$ is a sufficient enlargement follows by a standard argument from the fact that $`C`$ is an $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-space (see ).

It remains to show that $`E(M)`$ is a prism with basis parallel to lin$`\{Ex_2,\mathrm{},Ex_n\}`$.

We have

$$E(M)=\text{cl}\{f(h)Ex_1+\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}(b_{1,i}b_{2,i})f(h)Ex_i+\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}\nu _i(f)Ex_i:fB_C\}.$$

It is clear that the closures of the sets

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\alpha :=\{\underset{i=2}{\overset{n}{}}\nu _i(f)Ex_i:fB_C,f(h)=\alpha \}$$

don’t depend on $`\alpha `$. So $`M`$ is a prism of required form. The theorem is proved. $`\mathrm{}`$

## §3. Sufficient enlargements for euclidean spaces

Dealing with sufficient enlargements for $`l_2^n`$ it is useful to introduce the following definition.

###### Definition Definition 2

A sufficient enlargement $`A`$ for $`l_2^n`$ is said to be small if

$$_{O(n)}T(A)𝑑\mu (T)=\lambda (l_2^n)B(l_2^n),$$

where $`\mu `$ is the normalized Haar measure on the orthogonal group $`O(n)`$ and $`\lambda (l_2^n)`$ is the absolute projection constant.

###### Remark Remark

Proposition 3 implies that

$$_{O(n)}T(A)𝑑\mu (T)\lambda (l_2^n)B(l_2^n)$$

for arbitrary sufficient enlargement $`A`$. This explains the choice of the term “small”.

The following result supplies us with a wide and interesting class of small sufficient enlargements.

###### Theorem 4

Let $`G`$ be a finite subgroup of $`O(n)`$ such that each linear operator on $`^n`$ commuting with all elements of $`G`$ is a scalar multiple of the identity. Then for every $`yS(l_2^n)`$ the Minkowski sum of segments

$$A=\frac{n}{|G|}\underset{gG}{}[g(y),g(y)]$$

is a small sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

First we prove

$$(x^n)(x=\frac{n}{|G|}\underset{gG}{}x,g(y)g(y)).$$
$`(5)`$
Let us introduce a linear operator $`T:l_2^nl_2^n`$ by the equality

$$Tx=\underset{gG}{}x,g(y)g(y)$$
$`(6)`$
Let us show that $`hT=Th`$ for each $`hG`$. In fact

$$hT(x)=\underset{gG}{}x,g(y)hg(y)=\underset{gG}{}h(x),hg(y)hg(y)=$$

$$\underset{gG}{}h(x),g(y)g(y)=Th(x).$$

Hence $`T=\lambda I`$ for some $`\lambda `$.

The equality of traces in (6) shows that $`\lambda n=|G|`$. Hence $`\lambda =\frac{|G|}{n}`$. The assertion (5) follows.

Now, (5) implies that the identity operator on $`l_2^n`$ admits factorization $`I=T_2T_1,`$ where $`T_1:l_2^nl_{\mathrm{}}^G`$ and $`T_2:l_{\mathrm{}}^Gl_2^n`$ are defined as follows

$$T_1(x)=\{x,g(y)\}_{gG}\text{ and }T_2(\{a_g\}_{gG})=\frac{n}{|G|}\underset{gG}{}a_gg(y).$$

It is clear that $`T_1=1`$ and $`A=T_2(B(l_{\mathrm{}}^G))`$, therefore $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement (see Proposition 1).

The enlargement $`A`$ is small by the following observation. A calculation of B.Grünbaum  shows that

$$zl_2^n_{O(n)}T([z,z])𝑑\mu (T)=\frac{z\lambda (l_2^n)}{n}B(l_2^n).$$
$`(7)`$
Therefore

$$_{O(n)}T(A)𝑑\mu (T)=\frac{n}{|G|}\underset{gG}{}\frac{g(y)\lambda (l_2^n)}{n}B(l_2^n)=\lambda (l_2^n)B(l_2^n).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark Remark 1

It is easy to find examples showing that for different $`yS(l_2^n)`$ we get quite different sufficient enlargements.

###### Remark Remark 2

Many different groups satisfying the condition of Theorem 4 are given by the representation theory of finite groups. In particular, every irreducible real representation of a finite group satisfies the condition (after a proper choice of an inner product on $`^n`$).

Small sufficient enlargements have the following nice property.

###### Theorem 5

Let $`A`$ be a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^{n+m}=l_2^nl_2^m`$ and suppose that the images $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ of $`A`$ by the orthogonal projections onto $`l_2^n`$ and $`l_2^m`$ are small sufficient enlargements for $`l_2^n`$ and $`l_2^m`$. Then $`A=A_1+A_2`$ (Minkowski sum).

###### Demonstration Proof

We claim: if $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are small sufficient enlargements for $`l_2^n`$ and $`l_2^m`$, then $`A_1+A_2l_2^{n+m}`$ is a small sufficient enlargement.

At the moment we do not need the fact that $`A_1+A_2`$ is a sufficient enlargement, but because the proof is simple, we sketch it. By Proposition 1 the fact that $`A_1`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$ means that the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$factorable norm of the identical embedding of $`l_2^n`$ into $`^n`$ normed by the gauge functional of $`A_1`$ is not greater than $`1`$, the analogous assertion is valid for $`l_2^m`$ and $`A_2`$. Now, it is easy to see that the $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$factorable norm of the identical embedding of $`l_2^n_2l_2^m`$ into $`^{n+m}`$ normed by the gauge functional of $`A_1+A_2`$ is $`1`$.

The fact that the sufficient enlargement $`A_1+A_2`$ is small can be proved in the following way:

$$_{O(n+m)}T(A_1+A_2)𝑑\mu (T)=$$

$$_{O(n+m)}T(_{O(n)}T_1(A_1)𝑑\mu _1(T_1)+_{O(m)}T_2(A_2)𝑑\mu _2(T_2))𝑑\mu (T)=$$

(here $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ are normalized Haar measures on $`O(n)`$ and $`O(m)`$ respectively)

$$_{O(n+m)}T(\lambda (l_2^n)B(l_2^n)+\lambda (l_2^m)B(l_2^m))𝑑\mu (T)=$$

$$_{O(n+m)}T(_{O(n)}T_1(Q_1)𝑑\mu _1(T_1)+_{O(m)}T_2(Q_2)𝑑\mu _2(T_2))𝑑\mu (T)=$$

(here $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ are cubes cicumscribed about $`B(l_2^n)`$ and $`B(l_2^m)`$ respectively)

$$_{O(n+m)}T(Q_1+Q_2)𝑑\mu (T)=\lambda (l_2^{n+m})B(l_2^{n+m})$$

(by B.Grünbaum’s result ).

Now the theorem follows from the following direct consequence of the remark after Definition 2: small sufficient enlargements are minimal, in particular, no proper subset of $`A_1+A_2`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^{n+m}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`X`$ be a finite dimensional normed linear space. Denote by M the set of all sufficient enlargements of minimal volume for $`X`$. Results of  (Theorem 6) imply the following result.

###### Theorem 6

The set M contains a parallelepiped.

Easy examples (e.g. two-dimensional space whose ball is regular hexagon) show that M may contain balls which are not parallelepipeds. But it turns out that for Euclidean spaces M contains only parallelepipeds.

###### Theorem 7

If $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement of minimal volume for $`l_2^n`$, then $`A`$ is a cube circumscribed about $`B(l_2^n)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`A`$ be a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$ and vol$`A=2^n`$. We may assume without loss of generality (see Proposition 1) that $`A`$ is a zonoid. Therefore (see , p. 183), its support function can be represented in the form

$$h(A,x)=_{S^{n1}}|x,v|𝑑\rho (v)\text{ for }x^n$$

with some even measure $`\rho `$ on $`S^{n1}`$.

We denote by $`D`$ the set of all smooth points on the boundary of $`A`$. It is known (see , p. 73) that the complement of $`D`$ in the surface of $`A`$ has zero surface measure. Let $`T:DS^{n1}`$ be the spherical image map (see , p. 78), that is: $`T(d)`$ is the unique outer unit normal vector of $`A`$ at $`d`$. Let $`\mu `$ be the measure on $`S^{n1}`$ defined by

$$\mu (\mathrm{\Omega })=m_{n1}(T^1(\mathrm{\Omega })),$$

where $`m_{n1}`$ is the surface area measure on the boundary of $`A`$.

It is clear that

$$\text{vol}A=\frac{1}{n}_{S^{n1}}h(A,x)𝑑\mu (x)=\frac{1}{n}_{S^{n1}}_{S^{n1}}|x,v|𝑑\rho (v)𝑑\mu (x).$$

The $`(n1)`$dimensional volume of the orthogonal projection of $`A`$ onto the hyperplane orthogonal to $`wS^{n1}`$ can be computed as

$$\alpha (w)=\frac{1}{2}_{S^{n1}}|x,w|𝑑\mu (x).$$

We proceed by induction on the dimension. The case $`n=1`$ is trivial. Suppose that we have proved the result for $`n1`$. Now, let $`A`$ be a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$ and vol$`A=2^n`$.

By Fubini theorem

$$2^n=\text{vol}A=\frac{1}{n}_{S^{n1}}2\alpha (w)𝑑\rho (w).$$

Since $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement, it is easy to derive from (7) that var$`(\rho )n`$.

It is clear that an orthogonal projection of $`A`$ onto an $`(n1)`$dimensional subspace is a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^{n1}`$. It is clear also that every parallelepiped containing $`B(l_2^{n1})`$ has volume $`2^{n1}`$. Therefore by Theorem 6 $`\alpha (w)2^{n1}`$. It follows that almost everywhere (in the sense of $`\rho `$) $`\alpha (w)=2^{n1}`$.

By induction hypothesis orthogonal projections in directions $`w`$ for which $`\alpha (w)=2^{n1}`$ are cubes. Let us choose one such direction, say $`w_1`$, and let us denote by $`w_2,w_3,\mathrm{},w_n`$ an orthonormal basis in the subspace orthogonal to $`w_1`$ such that the orthogonal projection of $`A`$ onto lin$`\{w_2,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$ is

$$[w_2,w_2]+\mathrm{}+[w_n,w_n].$$

In particular

$$A\{x:|x,w_2|1\}.$$

By Theorem 3 $`A`$ contains a prism $`M`$ with the basis parallel to

$$\text{lin}\{w_1,w_3,w_4,\mathrm{},w_n\}$$

such that $`M`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^n`$. Since $`A`$ is a sufficient enlargement of minimal volume then $`M=A`$. Let $`N=A`$lin$`\{w_1,w_3,w_4,\mathrm{},w_n\}`$. It is easy to see that $`N`$ is a sufficient enlargement for $`l_2^{n1}`$ and vol$`{}_{n}{}^{}A=2`$vol$`{}_{n1}{}^{}N`$. Hence vol$`{}_{n1}{}^{}N=2^{n1}`$. By induction hypothesis $`N`$ is a cube. Hence $`A`$ is also a cube. $`\mathrm{}`$