Intuition behind Gaussian isoperimetric inequality Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)What's the intuition behind and some illustrative applications of probability kernels?Backwards Compound Inequalities?Isoperimetric inequality, isodiametric inequality, hyperplane conjecture… what are the inequalities of this kind known or conjectured?Intuition behind the definition of Measurable Setsis the existence of sigma-algebra sufficient to ensure that any subset can be covered by the elements of the algebra?Intuition behind variance in terms of $L^P$ norms?Intuition behind the direct integral of a family of Hilbert spacesInequality in measure theoryIntuition behind Transition Kernels (without use of Markov Chains)Partial differential operator of a measure

Lagrange four-squares theorem --- deterministic complexity

How does light 'choose' between wave and particle behaviour?

How were pictures turned from film to a big picture in a picture frame before digital scanning?

Has negative voting ever been officially implemented in elections, or seriously proposed, or even studied?

Why can't I install Tomboy in Ubuntu Mate 19.04?

Sliceness of knots

What is the difference between a "ranged attack" and a "ranged weapon attack"?

How to run automated tests after each commit?

What does this say in Elvish?

Induction Proof for Sequences

preposition before coffee

Is it fair for a professor to grade us on the possession of past papers?

How do I find out the mythology and history of my Fortress?

Semigroups with no morphisms between them

An adverb for when you're not exaggerating

Do wooden building fires get hotter than 600°C?

Why are my pictures showing a dark band on one edge?

Where is the Data Import Wizard Error Log

AppleTVs create a chatty alternate WiFi network

How many morphisms from 1 to 1+1 can there be?

Karn the great creator - 'card from outside the game' in sealed

Why does 14 CFR have skipped subparts in my ASA 2019 FAR/AIM book?

How can I set the aperture on my DSLR when it's attached to a telescope instead of a lens?

Did Mueller's report provide an evidentiary basis for the claim of Russian govt election interference via social media?



Intuition behind Gaussian isoperimetric inequality



Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 23:30UTC (7:30pm US/Eastern)What's the intuition behind and some illustrative applications of probability kernels?Backwards Compound Inequalities?Isoperimetric inequality, isodiametric inequality, hyperplane conjecture… what are the inequalities of this kind known or conjectured?Intuition behind the definition of Measurable Setsis the existence of sigma-algebra sufficient to ensure that any subset can be covered by the elements of the algebra?Intuition behind variance in terms of $L^P$ norms?Intuition behind the direct integral of a family of Hilbert spacesInequality in measure theoryIntuition behind Transition Kernels (without use of Markov Chains)Partial differential operator of a measure










2












$begingroup$


I was wondering whether or not there's an intuitive way of understanding the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. I have been studying the Classical isoperimetric inequality and I finally understand it. I want to move to advance isoperimetric inequalities. I am interested in the Gaussian isoperimetric as it seems to have nice and practical applications in information theory.



I have no background in measure theory, but I understand that the concept of measure is a generalization of the notions of length, area and volume. I also understand that the Gaussian measure is a probability measure, meaning that it has the additional property of being normalized.



I've also looked at the definition of half spaces. I understand what a half space is. Most resources I've found do not explain the intuition behind the inequality, like the Wikipedia page , they simply provide the definition which is not easy not to understand.



How do you interpret the inequality?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    2












    $begingroup$


    I was wondering whether or not there's an intuitive way of understanding the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. I have been studying the Classical isoperimetric inequality and I finally understand it. I want to move to advance isoperimetric inequalities. I am interested in the Gaussian isoperimetric as it seems to have nice and practical applications in information theory.



    I have no background in measure theory, but I understand that the concept of measure is a generalization of the notions of length, area and volume. I also understand that the Gaussian measure is a probability measure, meaning that it has the additional property of being normalized.



    I've also looked at the definition of half spaces. I understand what a half space is. Most resources I've found do not explain the intuition behind the inequality, like the Wikipedia page , they simply provide the definition which is not easy not to understand.



    How do you interpret the inequality?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      2












      2








      2


      0



      $begingroup$


      I was wondering whether or not there's an intuitive way of understanding the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. I have been studying the Classical isoperimetric inequality and I finally understand it. I want to move to advance isoperimetric inequalities. I am interested in the Gaussian isoperimetric as it seems to have nice and practical applications in information theory.



      I have no background in measure theory, but I understand that the concept of measure is a generalization of the notions of length, area and volume. I also understand that the Gaussian measure is a probability measure, meaning that it has the additional property of being normalized.



      I've also looked at the definition of half spaces. I understand what a half space is. Most resources I've found do not explain the intuition behind the inequality, like the Wikipedia page , they simply provide the definition which is not easy not to understand.



      How do you interpret the inequality?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I was wondering whether or not there's an intuitive way of understanding the Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. I have been studying the Classical isoperimetric inequality and I finally understand it. I want to move to advance isoperimetric inequalities. I am interested in the Gaussian isoperimetric as it seems to have nice and practical applications in information theory.



      I have no background in measure theory, but I understand that the concept of measure is a generalization of the notions of length, area and volume. I also understand that the Gaussian measure is a probability measure, meaning that it has the additional property of being normalized.



      I've also looked at the definition of half spaces. I understand what a half space is. Most resources I've found do not explain the intuition behind the inequality, like the Wikipedia page , they simply provide the definition which is not easy not to understand.



      How do you interpret the inequality?







      measure-theory inequality






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Sep 30 '13 at 14:54









      AdeebAdeeb

      378214




      378214




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          The screenshots below come from the book Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional Statistical Models.



          The classical isoperimetric inequality is well-known: given a fixed perimeter, a circle achieves the largest area, or, given a fixed area, a circle achieves the smallest perimeter among other shapes. If we recall that perimeter can be seen as the derivative of the area, this is like saying



          $$
          mu(C+epsilon O_2)lemu(A+epsilon O_2)
          $$

          where $mu$ is Lebesgue measure, $A$ is a measurable set, $C$ is a circle with $mu(C)=mu(A)$, $O_2$ is the 2D unit disk, and the "$+$" is Minkowski addition. To see why, one can subtract $mu(C)=mu(A)$ from both two sides, divide them by $epsilon$, and let $epsilonto0^+$, then he/she will get the usual form of isoperimetric inequality.



          It turns out that this form of isoperimetric inequality is more convenient to generalize: we can allow higher dimensions, Riemannian manifolds equipped with some geodesic distances other than $mathbbR^2$, or other measures. For example, we can have



          enter image description here



          where $A_epsilontriangleq A+epsilon O_n$ and same for $C_epsilon$.



          We can interpret isoperimetric inequalities from the perspective of concentration inequality: it answers that if you perturb a set with some ϵ in distance/metric, how large its size will (at least) change. In the context of probabilistic measures, the change of "size" becomes a probability.



          We need the following lemma to have a better understanding of or to prove Gaussian isoperimetric inequality:



          enter image description here



          where $gamma_n$ is the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$. One can verify the claim via doing simulation for, say $n=1$, by projecting points uniformly distributed on $sqrtmS^m+1$ onto $mathbbR^1$. If in Python:



          import numpy as np
          import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

          def runif_s(n_samples, n, m):
          rnorm = np.random.randn(n_samples, n + m + 1)
          return np.sqrt(m) * rnorm / np.linalg.norm(rnorm, axis=1)[..., np.newaxis]

          def proj_hist(data, **kwargs):
          n = 1
          plt.figure()
          plt.hist(data[:, :n], density=True, **kwargs)
          plt.title('m = %d' % (data.shape[1] - n - 1))

          if __name__ == '__main__':
          n = 1
          n_figures = 5
          n_samples = 10**4
          [proj_hist(runif_s(n_samples, n, int(m)), bins='auto') for m in np.logspace(0, 2, n_figures)]
          plt.show()


          And you may see the projected distribution is visually close to the normal distribution when $m$ grows large:
          enter image description here



          Let's return to Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. The inequality is a version of isoperimetric inequality w.r.t. Gaussian measure, by which we roughly mean, finding the counterpart of a "circle" under Gaussian measure. Recall that we already have an isoperimetrc inequality for $S^m+n$ w.r.t. Lebesgue measure (Theorem 2.2.1), and a relation between this measure and the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$ (Lemma 2.2.2), so all we have to do is to project the cap on $S^m+n$ back to $mathbbR^n$, and let $mtoinfty$. For the convenience of doing projection, we choose the cap "perpendicular" to $mathbbR^n$. If we look into the case of $n=1$ to gain intuition, the cap will be symmetric around $mathbbR^1$ with the pole lying at $-sqrtm$.



          Let's say we now have a measurable set $A$ on $mathbbR^1$, then we can find the cap $C$ on $S^m+1$ with $mu(C)=gamma_1(A)$. The projection of the cap onto $mathbbR^1$ is the interval $[-sqrtm,b(m)]$ for some $b(m)$. By taking $mtoinfty$, the interval becomes $(-infty,b(infty)]$, and according to Lemma 2.2.2, we know that $b(infty)=Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$, giving the "circle" w.r.t. $gamma_1$ being $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$.



          The proof of the general Gaussian isoperimetric inequality follows the same intuition, except that we need to replace the ray $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$ with the hyperplane $x:langle x,u ranglelePhi^-1(gamma_n(A))$, where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector in $mathbbR^n$. Finally we will have



          enter image description here



          and its countably-infinite-dimensional version



          enter image description here
          where $mathcalC$ is the cylindrical $sigma$-algebra on $mathbbR^mathbbN$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function()
            var channelOptions =
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            ;
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
            createEditor();
            );

            else
            createEditor();

            );

            function createEditor()
            StackExchange.prepareEditor(
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader:
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            ,
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            );



            );













            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510058%2fintuition-behind-gaussian-isoperimetric-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0












            $begingroup$

            The screenshots below come from the book Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional Statistical Models.



            The classical isoperimetric inequality is well-known: given a fixed perimeter, a circle achieves the largest area, or, given a fixed area, a circle achieves the smallest perimeter among other shapes. If we recall that perimeter can be seen as the derivative of the area, this is like saying



            $$
            mu(C+epsilon O_2)lemu(A+epsilon O_2)
            $$

            where $mu$ is Lebesgue measure, $A$ is a measurable set, $C$ is a circle with $mu(C)=mu(A)$, $O_2$ is the 2D unit disk, and the "$+$" is Minkowski addition. To see why, one can subtract $mu(C)=mu(A)$ from both two sides, divide them by $epsilon$, and let $epsilonto0^+$, then he/she will get the usual form of isoperimetric inequality.



            It turns out that this form of isoperimetric inequality is more convenient to generalize: we can allow higher dimensions, Riemannian manifolds equipped with some geodesic distances other than $mathbbR^2$, or other measures. For example, we can have



            enter image description here



            where $A_epsilontriangleq A+epsilon O_n$ and same for $C_epsilon$.



            We can interpret isoperimetric inequalities from the perspective of concentration inequality: it answers that if you perturb a set with some ϵ in distance/metric, how large its size will (at least) change. In the context of probabilistic measures, the change of "size" becomes a probability.



            We need the following lemma to have a better understanding of or to prove Gaussian isoperimetric inequality:



            enter image description here



            where $gamma_n$ is the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$. One can verify the claim via doing simulation for, say $n=1$, by projecting points uniformly distributed on $sqrtmS^m+1$ onto $mathbbR^1$. If in Python:



            import numpy as np
            import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

            def runif_s(n_samples, n, m):
            rnorm = np.random.randn(n_samples, n + m + 1)
            return np.sqrt(m) * rnorm / np.linalg.norm(rnorm, axis=1)[..., np.newaxis]

            def proj_hist(data, **kwargs):
            n = 1
            plt.figure()
            plt.hist(data[:, :n], density=True, **kwargs)
            plt.title('m = %d' % (data.shape[1] - n - 1))

            if __name__ == '__main__':
            n = 1
            n_figures = 5
            n_samples = 10**4
            [proj_hist(runif_s(n_samples, n, int(m)), bins='auto') for m in np.logspace(0, 2, n_figures)]
            plt.show()


            And you may see the projected distribution is visually close to the normal distribution when $m$ grows large:
            enter image description here



            Let's return to Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. The inequality is a version of isoperimetric inequality w.r.t. Gaussian measure, by which we roughly mean, finding the counterpart of a "circle" under Gaussian measure. Recall that we already have an isoperimetrc inequality for $S^m+n$ w.r.t. Lebesgue measure (Theorem 2.2.1), and a relation between this measure and the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$ (Lemma 2.2.2), so all we have to do is to project the cap on $S^m+n$ back to $mathbbR^n$, and let $mtoinfty$. For the convenience of doing projection, we choose the cap "perpendicular" to $mathbbR^n$. If we look into the case of $n=1$ to gain intuition, the cap will be symmetric around $mathbbR^1$ with the pole lying at $-sqrtm$.



            Let's say we now have a measurable set $A$ on $mathbbR^1$, then we can find the cap $C$ on $S^m+1$ with $mu(C)=gamma_1(A)$. The projection of the cap onto $mathbbR^1$ is the interval $[-sqrtm,b(m)]$ for some $b(m)$. By taking $mtoinfty$, the interval becomes $(-infty,b(infty)]$, and according to Lemma 2.2.2, we know that $b(infty)=Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$, giving the "circle" w.r.t. $gamma_1$ being $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$.



            The proof of the general Gaussian isoperimetric inequality follows the same intuition, except that we need to replace the ray $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$ with the hyperplane $x:langle x,u ranglelePhi^-1(gamma_n(A))$, where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector in $mathbbR^n$. Finally we will have



            enter image description here



            and its countably-infinite-dimensional version



            enter image description here
            where $mathcalC$ is the cylindrical $sigma$-algebra on $mathbbR^mathbbN$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$

















              0












              $begingroup$

              The screenshots below come from the book Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional Statistical Models.



              The classical isoperimetric inequality is well-known: given a fixed perimeter, a circle achieves the largest area, or, given a fixed area, a circle achieves the smallest perimeter among other shapes. If we recall that perimeter can be seen as the derivative of the area, this is like saying



              $$
              mu(C+epsilon O_2)lemu(A+epsilon O_2)
              $$

              where $mu$ is Lebesgue measure, $A$ is a measurable set, $C$ is a circle with $mu(C)=mu(A)$, $O_2$ is the 2D unit disk, and the "$+$" is Minkowski addition. To see why, one can subtract $mu(C)=mu(A)$ from both two sides, divide them by $epsilon$, and let $epsilonto0^+$, then he/she will get the usual form of isoperimetric inequality.



              It turns out that this form of isoperimetric inequality is more convenient to generalize: we can allow higher dimensions, Riemannian manifolds equipped with some geodesic distances other than $mathbbR^2$, or other measures. For example, we can have



              enter image description here



              where $A_epsilontriangleq A+epsilon O_n$ and same for $C_epsilon$.



              We can interpret isoperimetric inequalities from the perspective of concentration inequality: it answers that if you perturb a set with some ϵ in distance/metric, how large its size will (at least) change. In the context of probabilistic measures, the change of "size" becomes a probability.



              We need the following lemma to have a better understanding of or to prove Gaussian isoperimetric inequality:



              enter image description here



              where $gamma_n$ is the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$. One can verify the claim via doing simulation for, say $n=1$, by projecting points uniformly distributed on $sqrtmS^m+1$ onto $mathbbR^1$. If in Python:



              import numpy as np
              import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

              def runif_s(n_samples, n, m):
              rnorm = np.random.randn(n_samples, n + m + 1)
              return np.sqrt(m) * rnorm / np.linalg.norm(rnorm, axis=1)[..., np.newaxis]

              def proj_hist(data, **kwargs):
              n = 1
              plt.figure()
              plt.hist(data[:, :n], density=True, **kwargs)
              plt.title('m = %d' % (data.shape[1] - n - 1))

              if __name__ == '__main__':
              n = 1
              n_figures = 5
              n_samples = 10**4
              [proj_hist(runif_s(n_samples, n, int(m)), bins='auto') for m in np.logspace(0, 2, n_figures)]
              plt.show()


              And you may see the projected distribution is visually close to the normal distribution when $m$ grows large:
              enter image description here



              Let's return to Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. The inequality is a version of isoperimetric inequality w.r.t. Gaussian measure, by which we roughly mean, finding the counterpart of a "circle" under Gaussian measure. Recall that we already have an isoperimetrc inequality for $S^m+n$ w.r.t. Lebesgue measure (Theorem 2.2.1), and a relation between this measure and the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$ (Lemma 2.2.2), so all we have to do is to project the cap on $S^m+n$ back to $mathbbR^n$, and let $mtoinfty$. For the convenience of doing projection, we choose the cap "perpendicular" to $mathbbR^n$. If we look into the case of $n=1$ to gain intuition, the cap will be symmetric around $mathbbR^1$ with the pole lying at $-sqrtm$.



              Let's say we now have a measurable set $A$ on $mathbbR^1$, then we can find the cap $C$ on $S^m+1$ with $mu(C)=gamma_1(A)$. The projection of the cap onto $mathbbR^1$ is the interval $[-sqrtm,b(m)]$ for some $b(m)$. By taking $mtoinfty$, the interval becomes $(-infty,b(infty)]$, and according to Lemma 2.2.2, we know that $b(infty)=Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$, giving the "circle" w.r.t. $gamma_1$ being $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$.



              The proof of the general Gaussian isoperimetric inequality follows the same intuition, except that we need to replace the ray $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$ with the hyperplane $x:langle x,u ranglelePhi^-1(gamma_n(A))$, where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector in $mathbbR^n$. Finally we will have



              enter image description here



              and its countably-infinite-dimensional version



              enter image description here
              where $mathcalC$ is the cylindrical $sigma$-algebra on $mathbbR^mathbbN$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$















                0












                0








                0





                $begingroup$

                The screenshots below come from the book Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional Statistical Models.



                The classical isoperimetric inequality is well-known: given a fixed perimeter, a circle achieves the largest area, or, given a fixed area, a circle achieves the smallest perimeter among other shapes. If we recall that perimeter can be seen as the derivative of the area, this is like saying



                $$
                mu(C+epsilon O_2)lemu(A+epsilon O_2)
                $$

                where $mu$ is Lebesgue measure, $A$ is a measurable set, $C$ is a circle with $mu(C)=mu(A)$, $O_2$ is the 2D unit disk, and the "$+$" is Minkowski addition. To see why, one can subtract $mu(C)=mu(A)$ from both two sides, divide them by $epsilon$, and let $epsilonto0^+$, then he/she will get the usual form of isoperimetric inequality.



                It turns out that this form of isoperimetric inequality is more convenient to generalize: we can allow higher dimensions, Riemannian manifolds equipped with some geodesic distances other than $mathbbR^2$, or other measures. For example, we can have



                enter image description here



                where $A_epsilontriangleq A+epsilon O_n$ and same for $C_epsilon$.



                We can interpret isoperimetric inequalities from the perspective of concentration inequality: it answers that if you perturb a set with some ϵ in distance/metric, how large its size will (at least) change. In the context of probabilistic measures, the change of "size" becomes a probability.



                We need the following lemma to have a better understanding of or to prove Gaussian isoperimetric inequality:



                enter image description here



                where $gamma_n$ is the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$. One can verify the claim via doing simulation for, say $n=1$, by projecting points uniformly distributed on $sqrtmS^m+1$ onto $mathbbR^1$. If in Python:



                import numpy as np
                import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

                def runif_s(n_samples, n, m):
                rnorm = np.random.randn(n_samples, n + m + 1)
                return np.sqrt(m) * rnorm / np.linalg.norm(rnorm, axis=1)[..., np.newaxis]

                def proj_hist(data, **kwargs):
                n = 1
                plt.figure()
                plt.hist(data[:, :n], density=True, **kwargs)
                plt.title('m = %d' % (data.shape[1] - n - 1))

                if __name__ == '__main__':
                n = 1
                n_figures = 5
                n_samples = 10**4
                [proj_hist(runif_s(n_samples, n, int(m)), bins='auto') for m in np.logspace(0, 2, n_figures)]
                plt.show()


                And you may see the projected distribution is visually close to the normal distribution when $m$ grows large:
                enter image description here



                Let's return to Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. The inequality is a version of isoperimetric inequality w.r.t. Gaussian measure, by which we roughly mean, finding the counterpart of a "circle" under Gaussian measure. Recall that we already have an isoperimetrc inequality for $S^m+n$ w.r.t. Lebesgue measure (Theorem 2.2.1), and a relation between this measure and the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$ (Lemma 2.2.2), so all we have to do is to project the cap on $S^m+n$ back to $mathbbR^n$, and let $mtoinfty$. For the convenience of doing projection, we choose the cap "perpendicular" to $mathbbR^n$. If we look into the case of $n=1$ to gain intuition, the cap will be symmetric around $mathbbR^1$ with the pole lying at $-sqrtm$.



                Let's say we now have a measurable set $A$ on $mathbbR^1$, then we can find the cap $C$ on $S^m+1$ with $mu(C)=gamma_1(A)$. The projection of the cap onto $mathbbR^1$ is the interval $[-sqrtm,b(m)]$ for some $b(m)$. By taking $mtoinfty$, the interval becomes $(-infty,b(infty)]$, and according to Lemma 2.2.2, we know that $b(infty)=Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$, giving the "circle" w.r.t. $gamma_1$ being $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$.



                The proof of the general Gaussian isoperimetric inequality follows the same intuition, except that we need to replace the ray $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$ with the hyperplane $x:langle x,u ranglelePhi^-1(gamma_n(A))$, where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector in $mathbbR^n$. Finally we will have



                enter image description here



                and its countably-infinite-dimensional version



                enter image description here
                where $mathcalC$ is the cylindrical $sigma$-algebra on $mathbbR^mathbbN$.






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$



                The screenshots below come from the book Mathematical Foundations of Infinite-Dimensional Statistical Models.



                The classical isoperimetric inequality is well-known: given a fixed perimeter, a circle achieves the largest area, or, given a fixed area, a circle achieves the smallest perimeter among other shapes. If we recall that perimeter can be seen as the derivative of the area, this is like saying



                $$
                mu(C+epsilon O_2)lemu(A+epsilon O_2)
                $$

                where $mu$ is Lebesgue measure, $A$ is a measurable set, $C$ is a circle with $mu(C)=mu(A)$, $O_2$ is the 2D unit disk, and the "$+$" is Minkowski addition. To see why, one can subtract $mu(C)=mu(A)$ from both two sides, divide them by $epsilon$, and let $epsilonto0^+$, then he/she will get the usual form of isoperimetric inequality.



                It turns out that this form of isoperimetric inequality is more convenient to generalize: we can allow higher dimensions, Riemannian manifolds equipped with some geodesic distances other than $mathbbR^2$, or other measures. For example, we can have



                enter image description here



                where $A_epsilontriangleq A+epsilon O_n$ and same for $C_epsilon$.



                We can interpret isoperimetric inequalities from the perspective of concentration inequality: it answers that if you perturb a set with some ϵ in distance/metric, how large its size will (at least) change. In the context of probabilistic measures, the change of "size" becomes a probability.



                We need the following lemma to have a better understanding of or to prove Gaussian isoperimetric inequality:



                enter image description here



                where $gamma_n$ is the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$. One can verify the claim via doing simulation for, say $n=1$, by projecting points uniformly distributed on $sqrtmS^m+1$ onto $mathbbR^1$. If in Python:



                import numpy as np
                import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

                def runif_s(n_samples, n, m):
                rnorm = np.random.randn(n_samples, n + m + 1)
                return np.sqrt(m) * rnorm / np.linalg.norm(rnorm, axis=1)[..., np.newaxis]

                def proj_hist(data, **kwargs):
                n = 1
                plt.figure()
                plt.hist(data[:, :n], density=True, **kwargs)
                plt.title('m = %d' % (data.shape[1] - n - 1))

                if __name__ == '__main__':
                n = 1
                n_figures = 5
                n_samples = 10**4
                [proj_hist(runif_s(n_samples, n, int(m)), bins='auto') for m in np.logspace(0, 2, n_figures)]
                plt.show()


                And you may see the projected distribution is visually close to the normal distribution when $m$ grows large:
                enter image description here



                Let's return to Gaussian isoperimetric inequality. The inequality is a version of isoperimetric inequality w.r.t. Gaussian measure, by which we roughly mean, finding the counterpart of a "circle" under Gaussian measure. Recall that we already have an isoperimetrc inequality for $S^m+n$ w.r.t. Lebesgue measure (Theorem 2.2.1), and a relation between this measure and the standard Gaussian measure on $mathbbR^n$ (Lemma 2.2.2), so all we have to do is to project the cap on $S^m+n$ back to $mathbbR^n$, and let $mtoinfty$. For the convenience of doing projection, we choose the cap "perpendicular" to $mathbbR^n$. If we look into the case of $n=1$ to gain intuition, the cap will be symmetric around $mathbbR^1$ with the pole lying at $-sqrtm$.



                Let's say we now have a measurable set $A$ on $mathbbR^1$, then we can find the cap $C$ on $S^m+1$ with $mu(C)=gamma_1(A)$. The projection of the cap onto $mathbbR^1$ is the interval $[-sqrtm,b(m)]$ for some $b(m)$. By taking $mtoinfty$, the interval becomes $(-infty,b(infty)]$, and according to Lemma 2.2.2, we know that $b(infty)=Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$, giving the "circle" w.r.t. $gamma_1$ being $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$.



                The proof of the general Gaussian isoperimetric inequality follows the same intuition, except that we need to replace the ray $x:xle Phi^-1(gamma_1(A))$ with the hyperplane $x:langle x,u ranglelePhi^-1(gamma_n(A))$, where $u$ is an arbitrary unit vector in $mathbbR^n$. Finally we will have



                enter image description here



                and its countably-infinite-dimensional version



                enter image description here
                where $mathcalC$ is the cylindrical $sigma$-algebra on $mathbbR^mathbbN$.







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Apr 1 at 23:57

























                answered Apr 1 at 20:45









                ziyuangziyuang

                1,3201826




                1,3201826



























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded
















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid


                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function ()
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f510058%2fintuition-behind-gaussian-isoperimetric-inequality%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Triangular numbers and gcdProving sum of a set is $0 pmod n$ if $n$ is odd, or $fracn2 pmod n$ if $n$ is even?Is greatest common divisor of two numbers really their smallest linear combination?GCD, LCM RelationshipProve a set of nonnegative integers with greatest common divisor 1 and closed under addition has all but finite many nonnegative integers.all pairs of a and b in an equation containing gcdTriangular Numbers Modulo $k$ - Hit All Values?Understanding the Existence and Uniqueness of the GCDGCD and LCM with logical symbolsThe greatest common divisor of two positive integers less than 100 is equal to 3. Their least common multiple is twelve times one of the integers.Suppose that for all integers $x$, $x|a$ and $x|b$ if and only if $x|c$. Then $c = gcd(a,b)$Which is the gcd of 2 numbers which are multiplied and the result is 600000?

                    Ingelân Ynhâld Etymology | Geografy | Skiednis | Polityk en bestjoer | Ekonomy | Demografy | Kultuer | Klimaat | Sjoch ek | Keppelings om utens | Boarnen, noaten en referinsjes Navigaasjemenuwww.gov.ukOffisjele webside fan it regear fan it Feriene KeninkrykOffisjele webside fan it Britske FerkearsburoNederlânsktalige ynformaasje fan it Britske FerkearsburoOffisjele webside fan English Heritage, de organisaasje dy't him ynset foar it behâld fan it Ingelske kultuergoedYnwennertallen fan alle Britske stêden út 'e folkstelling fan 2011Notes en References, op dizze sideEngland

                    Հադիս Բովանդակություն Անվանում և նշանակություն | Դասակարգում | Աղբյուրներ | Նավարկման ցանկ