Unofficial archive — problems, solutions & results © IMC, reproduced with permission.

IMC / 2023 / Problems / Day 2, P9

IMC 2023 · Day 2 · P9

killer

We say that a real number VV is good if there exist two closed convex subsets XX, YY of the unit cube in R3\mathbb{R}^3, with volume VV each, such that for each of the three coordinate planes (that is, the planes spanned by any two of the three coordinate axes), the projections of XX and YY onto that plane are disjoint.

Find sup{VV is good}\sup \{ V \mid V \text{ is good} \}.

(proposed by Josef Tkadlec and Arseniy Akopyan)

Solution (official)

Hint: The two bodies can be replaced by a pair symmetric to the midpoint of the cube.

We prove that sup{VV is good}=1/4\sup \{ V \mid V \text{ is good} \} = 1/4.

We will use the unit cube U=[1/2,1/2]3U = [-1/2, 1/2]^3.

For ε0\varepsilon \to 0, the axis-parallel boxes X=[1/2,ε]×[1/2,ε]×[1/2,1/2]X = [-1/2, -\varepsilon] \times [-1/2, -\varepsilon] \times [-1/2, 1/2] and Y=[ε,1/2]×[ε,1/2]×[1/2,1/2]Y = [\varepsilon, 1/2] \times [\varepsilon, 1/2] \times [-1/2, 1/2] show that sup{V}1/4\sup \{V\} \ge 1/4.

To prove the other bound, consider two admissible convex bodies XX, YY. For any point P=[x,y,z]UP = [x, y, z] \in U with xyz0xyz \ne 0, let P={[±x,±y,±z]}\mathcal{P} = \{ [\pm x, \pm y, \pm z] \} be the set consisting of 8 points (the original PP and its 7 “symmetric” points).

If for each such PP we have P(XY)4|\mathcal{P} \cap (X \cup Y)| \le 4, then the conclusion follows by integrating. Suppose otherwise and let PP be a point with P(XY)5|\mathcal{P} \cap (X \cup Y)| \ge 5. Below we will complete the proof by arguing that:

(1) we can replace one of the two bodies (the “thick” one) with the reflection of the other body about the origin, and

(2) for such symmetric pairs of bodies we in fact have P(XY)4|\mathcal{P} \cap (X \cup Y)| \le 4, for all PP.

To prove Claim (1), we say that a convex body is thick if each of its three projections contains the origin. We claim that one of the two bodies XX, YY is thick. This is a short casework on the 8 points of P\mathcal{P}. Since P(XY)5|\mathcal{P} \cap (X \cup Y)| \ge 5, by pigeonhole principle, we find a pair of points in P(XY)\mathcal{P} \cap (X \cup Y) symmetric about the origin. If both points belong to one body (say to XX), then by convexity of XX the origin belongs to XX, thus XX is thick. Otherwise, label P\mathcal{P} as ABCDABCDABCDA'B'C'D'. Wlog AXA \in X, CYC' \in Y is the pair of points in P\mathcal{P} symmetric about the origin. Wlog at least 3 points of P\mathcal{P} belong to XX. Since XX, YY have disjoint projections, we have C,B,DXC, B', D' \notin X, so wlog B,DXB, D \in X. Then YY can contain no other point of P\mathcal{P} (apart from CC'), so XX must contain at least 4 points of P\mathcal{P} and thus AXA' \in X. But then each projection of XX contains the origin, so XX is indeed thick.

Note that if XX is thick then none of the three projections of YY contains the origin. Consider the reflection Y=YY' = -Y of YY about the origin. Then (Y,Y)(Y, Y') is an admissible pair with the same volume as (X,Y)(X, Y): the two bodies YY and YY' clearly have equal volumes VV and they have disjoint projections (by convexity, since the projections of YY miss the origin). This proves Claim (1).

Claim (2) follows from a similar small casework on the 8-tuple P\mathcal{P}: For contradiction, suppose PY=PY3|\mathcal{P} \cap Y'| = |\mathcal{P} \cap Y| \ge 3. Wlog AYA \in Y'. Then CYC' \in Y, so C,B,DYC, B', D' \notin Y', so wlog B,DYB, D \in Y'. Then B,DYB', D' \in Y, a contradiction with (Y,Y)(Y, Y') being admissible.

Remark. There are more examples with V1/4V \to 1/4, e.g. XX a union of two triangular pyramids with base ACDACD' – one with apex DD, one with apex at the origin (and YY symmetric with XX about the origin).

Remark. The word “convex” matters. E.g., in a 3×3×33 \times 3 \times 3 cube, one can set XX to be a 2×2×22 \times 2 \times 2 sub-cube, and YY to be the (non-convex) 3D L-shape consisting of 7 unit cubes. This shows that without convexity we have V7/27>1/4V \ge 7/27 > 1/4.

How the field did

contestants scored
377
average (of 10)
0.73
solved (≥ 80%)
0.8%
near-0 (≤ 10%)
73.5%
discrimination
0.41

Score distribution (field cohort)

Computed on contestants with a meaningful total (field cohort); discrimination is the corrected item–total correlation.

Similar problems

IMC 2024 · Day 1 · P5killeravg 0.1/10 · solved 1% · near-0 97% · disc 0.25
IMC 2020 · Day 1 · P3killeravg 0.1/10 · solved 1% · near-0 98% · disc 0.22
IMC 2017 · Day 2 · P10killeravg 0.2/10 · solved 2% · near-0 97% · disc 0.42
IMC 2019 · Day 2 · P10killeravg 0.6/10 · solved 2% · near-0 89% · disc 0.36