Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

Chvatal's Art Gallery Theorem

Chvatal's Art Gallery theorem came in response to Victor Klee's Art Gallery question. Klee posed his question to Václav Chvátal, then a young mathematician at University of Montreal, in August, 1973. An account of Chvátal's solution - conceptually simple, but entailing a few special cases - appears in [Honsberger, pp. 104-110]. A later, almost trivial proof, has been discovered by Steve Fisk, Bowdoin College. He learned of Klee's question from Chvátal's article, but found the proof unappealing. He continued thinking about the problem and came up with a solution while dozing off on a bus travelling somewhere in Afghanistan. [Berger, pp. 219-228, or Aigner, pp. 165-168, and in greater detail O'Rourke, pp. 3-]. I shall outline that proof below.

The problem is this:

  Given a simple n-gon, what is the minimum number of vertices from which it is possible to view every point in the interior of the polygon? (Answer: [n/3].)

(A polygon is simple if it has no self-intersections. More accurately, the sides of such a polygon may only meet in their endpoints, and never more than two at a time.)

It is clear that if the polygon is convex, its whole interior can be viewed from any one vertex. In general, this is of course not true. So the question is not about a particular polygon, but about the entire family of simple polygons: what is the worst case scenario? What is the minimum number of vertices that would answer the question for every admissible n-gon? [n/3] is the answer to the latter question! It is very easy to construct and example (think of a comb with n triangular teeth) where the required number of vertices is exactly [n/3].

The applet below lets you experiment with various polygonal curves. It could be in two modes: you can either draw diagonals of the polygon or move its vertices around. The idea is to create a polygon triangulation by drawing its diagonals. When finished, i.e., after the maximum possible number of the (non intersecting) diagonals have been drawn, the applet will display one of the possible groups of corners from which the whole interior of the polygon is observable.


This applet requires Sun's Java VM 2 which your browser may perceive as a popup. Which it is not. If you want to see the applet work, visit Sun's website at http://www.java.com/en/download/index.jsp, download and install Java VM and enjoy the applet.


Buy this applet

The proof proceeds in a few steps:

  1. Triangulate the polygon with its diagonals.

  2. Show that for such a diagonal triangulation of the polygon, its vertices can be colored with three colors, such that all three colors are present in every triangle of the triangulation.

  3. Choose the vertices of the polygon assigned the least frequent color.

Starting from the end, assume a diagonal triangulation has been found satisfying 1 and 2. For example, assume there are B blue vertices, R red vertices and G green vertices. Then obviously B + R + G = n. One of the numbers, does not exceed the other two. Without loss of generality we may assume that

  B R and B G.

Then

  3·B B + R + G = n,

so that B n/3, and, since B is a whole number,

  B [n/3].

Now, still going backwards, given a diagonal triangulation, how do we color the vertices to satisfy #2? Observe that, in a diagonal triangulation, the sides of any triangle are either sides or the diagonals of the polygon, and at most 2 may be of the latter kind. The triangles could only abut each other at the diagonals, not the sides of the polygon. Furthermore, only two triangles in a triangulation may share the same diagonal. It follows that each triangle in a triangulation is adjacent two 1 or 2 other triangles. The neighboring triangles share a side and, consequently, two vertices.

Start with any triangle of the triangulation and color its vertices with three colors in a random fashion. Its neighbor triangles already have two vertices assigned two different colors; the requirements of #2 force a unique color on the remaining vertex. Continue in this manner with 1 or, as the case may be, 2 adjacent triangles until all vertices have been assigned a color. The process stops when on either end we run into a triangle composed of 2 sides and 1 diagonal of the polygon.

Finally, the diagonal triangulation is always possible. The proof is by induction. Any diagonal that lies entirely in the interior of a polygon splits the latter into two with fewer sides. Find such a diagonal and then apply this same consideration to both constituent polygons until only triangles remain. A triangle, i.e., a 3-gon, is the only element of its only triangulation. The proof of #1 seems thus to be complete. However, it is based on the premise that any simple polygon has at least one diagonal that lies entirely in the interior of the polygon. Is that so?

To see that the answer is affirmative, pick any vertex A and an adjacent vertex B. Consider a ray with the end point at A originally in the direction of B. Let it rotate from its initial position towards the interior of the polygon. Sooner or later, the ray will pass through another of the polygon's vertices. Let C be the first vertex when this happens. Then either AC or BC (or both) will serve our purpose. For then, by construction, there could not possibly be any vertices inside the triangle ABC. Had there been any, they would have been met earlier than C by the rotating ray.)

References

  1. M. Aigner, G. Ziegler, Proofs from THE BOOK, Springer, 2000
  2. E. B. Burger, M. Starbird, The Heart of Mathematics, Key College Publishing, 2000
  3. R. Honsberger, Mathematical Gems II, MAA, 1976
  4. J. O'Rourke, Computational Geometry in C, Cambridge University Press, 2001

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28760748Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

drawing puzzle
Posted by martin gran
31 messages
06:53 PM, May-09-08

conway's game of life
Posted by frequency
0 messages
11:52 PM, May-12-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

A Riddle
Posted by idavis1
33 messages
06:59 AM, May-15-08

Josephus Flavius (correction)
Posted by David Turner
1 messages
09:42 AM, May-14-08