Spherical symmetry vs. integration

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












$textbfNotation:$



$bullet$ For $N$ vectors $textbfu_1, ldots, textbfu_N in S^n-1 subset mathbbR^n$, let $alpha_ij$ ($i < j$) denote the angle between $textbfu_i$ and $textbfu_j$



$bullet$ Let $omega_n$ be the surface area (ie. $(n-1)$-dimensional volume) of the sphere $S^n-1$.



$bullet$ Let $sigma$ be the surface measure on $S^n-1$.



$bullet$ Let $I( cdots)$ be the indicator function.



I'm reading an article in which the author is considering the integral
beginalign
frac1omega_n^N cdot int_S^n-1 cdots int_S^n-1 I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N ) hspace0.1cm d sigma(textbfu_1) cdots d sigma(textbfu_N).
endalign
By using the spherical symmetry of the integrand, he then proceeds by rewriting (1) as
beginalign
omega_n^N-1 prod_k = 1^N-1 omega_n-k int_phi_12=0^pi cdots int_phi_(N-1)N=0^pi I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N) \ nonumber times prod_1 leqslant i < j leqslant N sin^n-i-1 phi_ij hspace0.1cm dphi_(N-1)N cdots d phi_13 d phi_12
endalign
($tfrac12N(N-1)$ integrals in total), where now he only considers unit vectors of the form
beginalign*
textbfu_1 &= (1, 0, ldots, 0) \
textbfu_2 &= (cos phi_12, sin phi_12, 0, ldots, 0) \
textbfu_3 &= (cos phi_13, sin phi_13 cos phi_23, sin phi_13 sin phi_23, 0 ldots, 0) \
&hspace0.2cmvdots \
textbfu_N &= (cos phi_1N, sin phi_1N cos phi_2N, ldots, sin phi_1N cdots sin phi_(N-1)N, 0, ldots, 0).
endalign*
The idea behind the transformation of (1) into (2) is that, by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_1$ to a $1$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n$ in front of the integral; by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_2$ to a $2$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n-1$ in front of the integral; and generally, by restricting $textbfu_t$ to a $t$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n+1-t$ in front of the integral. This makes sense intuitively, but I haven't been able to actually prove it.



Any thoughts on this are very welcome!







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    $textbfNotation:$



    $bullet$ For $N$ vectors $textbfu_1, ldots, textbfu_N in S^n-1 subset mathbbR^n$, let $alpha_ij$ ($i < j$) denote the angle between $textbfu_i$ and $textbfu_j$



    $bullet$ Let $omega_n$ be the surface area (ie. $(n-1)$-dimensional volume) of the sphere $S^n-1$.



    $bullet$ Let $sigma$ be the surface measure on $S^n-1$.



    $bullet$ Let $I( cdots)$ be the indicator function.



    I'm reading an article in which the author is considering the integral
    beginalign
    frac1omega_n^N cdot int_S^n-1 cdots int_S^n-1 I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N ) hspace0.1cm d sigma(textbfu_1) cdots d sigma(textbfu_N).
    endalign
    By using the spherical symmetry of the integrand, he then proceeds by rewriting (1) as
    beginalign
    omega_n^N-1 prod_k = 1^N-1 omega_n-k int_phi_12=0^pi cdots int_phi_(N-1)N=0^pi I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N) \ nonumber times prod_1 leqslant i < j leqslant N sin^n-i-1 phi_ij hspace0.1cm dphi_(N-1)N cdots d phi_13 d phi_12
    endalign
    ($tfrac12N(N-1)$ integrals in total), where now he only considers unit vectors of the form
    beginalign*
    textbfu_1 &= (1, 0, ldots, 0) \
    textbfu_2 &= (cos phi_12, sin phi_12, 0, ldots, 0) \
    textbfu_3 &= (cos phi_13, sin phi_13 cos phi_23, sin phi_13 sin phi_23, 0 ldots, 0) \
    &hspace0.2cmvdots \
    textbfu_N &= (cos phi_1N, sin phi_1N cos phi_2N, ldots, sin phi_1N cdots sin phi_(N-1)N, 0, ldots, 0).
    endalign*
    The idea behind the transformation of (1) into (2) is that, by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_1$ to a $1$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n$ in front of the integral; by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_2$ to a $2$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n-1$ in front of the integral; and generally, by restricting $textbfu_t$ to a $t$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n+1-t$ in front of the integral. This makes sense intuitively, but I haven't been able to actually prove it.



    Any thoughts on this are very welcome!







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      $textbfNotation:$



      $bullet$ For $N$ vectors $textbfu_1, ldots, textbfu_N in S^n-1 subset mathbbR^n$, let $alpha_ij$ ($i < j$) denote the angle between $textbfu_i$ and $textbfu_j$



      $bullet$ Let $omega_n$ be the surface area (ie. $(n-1)$-dimensional volume) of the sphere $S^n-1$.



      $bullet$ Let $sigma$ be the surface measure on $S^n-1$.



      $bullet$ Let $I( cdots)$ be the indicator function.



      I'm reading an article in which the author is considering the integral
      beginalign
      frac1omega_n^N cdot int_S^n-1 cdots int_S^n-1 I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N ) hspace0.1cm d sigma(textbfu_1) cdots d sigma(textbfu_N).
      endalign
      By using the spherical symmetry of the integrand, he then proceeds by rewriting (1) as
      beginalign
      omega_n^N-1 prod_k = 1^N-1 omega_n-k int_phi_12=0^pi cdots int_phi_(N-1)N=0^pi I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N) \ nonumber times prod_1 leqslant i < j leqslant N sin^n-i-1 phi_ij hspace0.1cm dphi_(N-1)N cdots d phi_13 d phi_12
      endalign
      ($tfrac12N(N-1)$ integrals in total), where now he only considers unit vectors of the form
      beginalign*
      textbfu_1 &= (1, 0, ldots, 0) \
      textbfu_2 &= (cos phi_12, sin phi_12, 0, ldots, 0) \
      textbfu_3 &= (cos phi_13, sin phi_13 cos phi_23, sin phi_13 sin phi_23, 0 ldots, 0) \
      &hspace0.2cmvdots \
      textbfu_N &= (cos phi_1N, sin phi_1N cos phi_2N, ldots, sin phi_1N cdots sin phi_(N-1)N, 0, ldots, 0).
      endalign*
      The idea behind the transformation of (1) into (2) is that, by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_1$ to a $1$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n$ in front of the integral; by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_2$ to a $2$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n-1$ in front of the integral; and generally, by restricting $textbfu_t$ to a $t$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n+1-t$ in front of the integral. This makes sense intuitively, but I haven't been able to actually prove it.



      Any thoughts on this are very welcome!







      share|cite|improve this question














      $textbfNotation:$



      $bullet$ For $N$ vectors $textbfu_1, ldots, textbfu_N in S^n-1 subset mathbbR^n$, let $alpha_ij$ ($i < j$) denote the angle between $textbfu_i$ and $textbfu_j$



      $bullet$ Let $omega_n$ be the surface area (ie. $(n-1)$-dimensional volume) of the sphere $S^n-1$.



      $bullet$ Let $sigma$ be the surface measure on $S^n-1$.



      $bullet$ Let $I( cdots)$ be the indicator function.



      I'm reading an article in which the author is considering the integral
      beginalign
      frac1omega_n^N cdot int_S^n-1 cdots int_S^n-1 I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N ) hspace0.1cm d sigma(textbfu_1) cdots d sigma(textbfu_N).
      endalign
      By using the spherical symmetry of the integrand, he then proceeds by rewriting (1) as
      beginalign
      omega_n^N-1 prod_k = 1^N-1 omega_n-k int_phi_12=0^pi cdots int_phi_(N-1)N=0^pi I(d_ij < alpha_ij leqslant d_ij' : 1 leqslant i < j leqslant N) \ nonumber times prod_1 leqslant i < j leqslant N sin^n-i-1 phi_ij hspace0.1cm dphi_(N-1)N cdots d phi_13 d phi_12
      endalign
      ($tfrac12N(N-1)$ integrals in total), where now he only considers unit vectors of the form
      beginalign*
      textbfu_1 &= (1, 0, ldots, 0) \
      textbfu_2 &= (cos phi_12, sin phi_12, 0, ldots, 0) \
      textbfu_3 &= (cos phi_13, sin phi_13 cos phi_23, sin phi_13 sin phi_23, 0 ldots, 0) \
      &hspace0.2cmvdots \
      textbfu_N &= (cos phi_1N, sin phi_1N cos phi_2N, ldots, sin phi_1N cdots sin phi_(N-1)N, 0, ldots, 0).
      endalign*
      The idea behind the transformation of (1) into (2) is that, by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_1$ to a $1$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n$ in front of the integral; by restricting the unit vector $textbfu_2$ to a $2$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n-1$ in front of the integral; and generally, by restricting $textbfu_t$ to a $t$-dimensional subspace, one has to compensate by adding a factor of $omega_n+1-t$ in front of the integral. This makes sense intuitively, but I haven't been able to actually prove it.



      Any thoughts on this are very welcome!









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 15 at 10:31

























      asked Aug 15 at 9:51









      Teddan the Terran

      69618




      69618

























          active

          oldest

          votes











          Your Answer




          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          );
          );
          , "mathjax-editing");

          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',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: false,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          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%2f2883417%2fspherical-symmetry-vs-integration%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest



































          active

          oldest

          votes













          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes










           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2883417%2fspherical-symmetry-vs-integration%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Propositional logic and tautologies

          Distribution of Stopped Wiener Process with Stochastic Volatility