We provide convex decompositions for the convex open sets with polytopes or finite sets removed, some of which are minimal in a certain sense. The valence of a function f ⁣:O→Rnf\colon O \rightarrow\mathbb{R}^n, whose restrictions to all convex subsets of O⊆RnO \subseteq \mathbb{R}^n are injective, cannot exceed the number of convex components of such decompositions. It is therefore worth to investigate the smallest number of convex subsets of OO needed to cover OO. While the convex decompositions of the mentioned open complements are the main issue of this paper, a few remarks on this smallest number are provided by the end of the paper in the last section.

Contact details are reproduced from the original publication and may be historical.

Cornel Pintea

Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Babeş-Bolyai University, 400084 M. Kogălniceanu 1, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

cpintea@math.ubbcluj.ro
  1. W. Alexander: Functions which map the interior of the unit circle upon simple regions, Ann. of Math. 17 (1915/1916) 12–22.https://doi.org/10.2307/2007212Google Scholar
  2. M. Breen: Decomposition theorems for 3-convex subsets of the plane, Pacific J. Math. 53(1) (1974) 43–57.https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.1974.53.43Google Scholar
  3. M. do Carmo, E. Lima: Isometric immersions with semi-definite second quadratic forms, Arch. Math. (Basel) 20 (1969) 173–175.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01899010Google Scholar
  4. M. do Carmo: Differential Geometry of Curves and Surfaces, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (1976).Google Scholar
  5. D. Gale, H. Nikaidô: The Jacobian matrix and the global univalence of mappings, Math. Ann. 159 (1965) 81–93.https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01360282Google Scholar
  6. M. W. Hirsch: Differential Topology, Springer, New York et al. (1976).https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-9449-5Google Scholar
  7. J. F. Lawrence, W. R. Hare, J. W. Kenelly: Finite unions of convex sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 34(1) (1972) 225–228.https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-1972-0291952-4Google Scholar
  8. R. L. McKinney: On unions of two convex sets, Canad. J. Math. 18 (1966) 883–886.https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-1966-088-7Google Scholar
  9. A. P. Morse: The behaviour of a function on its critical set, Ann. of Math. 40(1) (1939) 62–70.https://doi.org/10.2307/1968544Google Scholar
  10. G. Neumann: Valence of complex-valued planar harmonic functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 357(8) (2004) 3133–3167.https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-04-03678-5Google Scholar
  11. K. Noshiro: On the theory of schlicht functions, J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido Imp. Univ. Jap., Ser. I Math. 2(3) (1934) 129–155.https://doi.org/10.14492/hokmj/1531209828Google Scholar
  12. R. S. Palais, C-l. Terng: Critical Point Theory and Submanifold Geometry, Lect. Notes in Mathematics 1353, Springer, Berlin et al. (1988).https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0087442Google Scholar
  13. A. Sard: The measure of the critical values of differentiable maps, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 48 (1942) 883–890.https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1942-07811-6Google Scholar
  14. S. Shlomo: Lectures on Differential Geometry, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1964).Google Scholar
  15. S. R. Tims: A theorem on functions schlicht in convex domains, Proc. London Math. Soc. 3(1) (1951) 200–205.https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s3-1.1.200Google Scholar
  16. F. A. Valentine: A three point convexity property, Pacific J. Math. 7 (1957) 1227–1235.https://doi.org/10.2140/pjm.1957.7.1227Google Scholar
  17. S. E. Warschawski: On the higher derivatives at the boundary in conformal mapping, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 38 (1935) 310–340.https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1935-1501813-XGoogle Scholar
  18. R. Webster: Convexity, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1994).https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198531470.001.0001Google Scholar

C. Pintea. “Convex Decompositions of Convex Open Sets with Polytopes or Finite Sets Removed.” Journal of Convex Analysis 26 (2019), No. 2, 687–698. https://doi.org/10.68381/jca26036