Minkowski Symmetrizations of Star Shaped Sets

Abstract: We provide sharp upper bounds for the number of symmetrizations required to transform a star shaped set in ${\mathbb R}^n$ arbitrarily close (in the Hausdorff metric) to the Euclidean ball.

\section{Introduction and results}\label{Sec_Intro}
A non empty compact set $K\subset {\cal R}^n$ is called {\em star shaped}
if $x\in K$ implies $[0,x]\subseteq K$. We denote the family of star
shaped sets in ${\cal R}^n$ by $\mathscr{S}^n$. Recall that given a set $K$ and a
direction $u \in S^{n-1}$, it's Minkowski symmetral is defined to be
\[
M_u(K) = \frac{K + R_u K}{2},
\]
where $R_u$ is the reflection with respect to the hyperplane
$u^\perp$.

The Minkowski symmetrization $M_u$ results in a set that is symmetric
with respect to the hyperplane $u^\perp$, thus it is natural to
expect that successive applications of this procedure in different
directions yield a sequence of sets that convergences in some sense
to the Euclidean ball.
This is indeed known in the case where $K$ is convex.
Moreover, there are estimates regarding the convergence rate.
Bourgain, Lindenstrauss and Milman \cite{BLM} obtained the first
quantitative estimate for the convergence rate of Minkowski
symmetrizations. They found a function $n_0: (0,1)\to \mathbb N$ satisfying:
\begin{thm} [Bourgain, Lindenstrauss, Milman] \label{thm-Intro-BLM}
Let $\varepsilon \in(0,1)$ and let $n\in \mathbb N$ such that
$n_0(\varepsilon)
\le n$. If $K\in {\cal K}^n$ is a convex body with mean width $M^*(K)=M_0$,
then there exist $cn\left(C(\varepsilon) + \log n\right)$ Minkowski
symmetrizations transforming $K$ into a (convex) body $\tilde{K}$,
such that
\[
(1-\varepsilon) M_0 D_n \subset
\tilde{K} \subset
(1+\varepsilon) M_0 D_n.
\]
Here $c$ is some positive constant, and the functions
$C(\varepsilon)$, $n_0(\varepsilon)$ are of the order
$\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\right)^\frac{c}{\varepsilon^2}$.
\end{thm}

In \cite{K_Rate} Klartag improved Theorem \ref{thm-Intro-BLM}, and
also removed the restriction $n_0\le n$, thus providing the first
truely isometric result
in all dimensions:
\begin{thm}[Klartag] \label{thm-Klartag}
Let $n\ge 2$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,1/2)$. If $K\in {\cal K}^n$ is a convex
set with mean width $M^*(K)=M_0$, then there exist $cn |\log
(\varepsilon)|$ Minkowski symmetrizations transforming $K$ into
$\tilde{K}$, such that
\[
(1-\varepsilon)M_0 D_n
\subseteq \tilde{K} \subseteq
(1+\varepsilon)M_0 D_n,
\] where $c$ is some universal constant.
\end{thm}

In this note we extend Klartag's theorem to $\mathscr{S}^n$. Namely, we show the following:

\begin{thm}\label{Thm_Mink-Isometric}
Let $n\ge 2$ and $\varepsilon\in(0,1/2)$. If $K\in \mathscr{S}^n$ is a star
shaped set with mean width $M^*(K)=M_0$, then there exist $Cn
|\log(\varepsilon)|$
Minkowski symmetrizations transforming $K$ into $\tilde{K}$, such that
\[
(1-\varepsilon)M_0 D_n
\subseteq \tilde{K} \subseteq
(1+\varepsilon)M_0 D_n,
\] where $C$ is some universal constant.
\end{thm}

The proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Mink-Isometric} consists of three steps.
First, we make sure that the body at hand contains a small ball around
the origin (Lemma \ref{Lem_Give-Small-Ball
). Next, we consider Minkowski symmetrizations {\em of the convex
	hull} of our star shaped body. As mentioned above, for convex bodies
Klartag showed how many steps are required in order to bring a body
isometrically close to the Euclidean ball. We apply these
symmetrizations, and get a body whose convex hull lies between two
balls of very similar radii. This can only happen if the body
contains some ``$\varepsilon$-net'' of the inner ball's sphere (Lemma
\ref{Lem_Conv=Ball-to-eps-net}). In the third and final step, we use
this fact to increase the radius of the small ball, which was
obtained in the first step.

\noindent {\bf Notations:}
The {\em support function} of a (not necessarily convex) body $K$ is
defined by $h_K(u) = \sup \{ \iprod{x}{u} \ | \  x \in  K \}$. The
width, or {\em mean width}, of a star shaped set $K$ is defined to be
$M^*(K)= \int_{S^{n-1}} h_K d\sigma$, where $\sigma$ is the
normalized Haar measure on the sphere.

\section{Proof of the Theorem
}\label{Sec_Mink}

Our first step is to generate (using Minkowski symmetrizations) a
small ball inside a (non trivial) star shaped set.

\begin{lem}\label{Lem_Give-Small-Ball}
Let $n\ge 2$, $K_0\in \mathscr{S}^n$, and let $M_0=M^*(K_0)>0$. Then there exist
$c_1n$ Minkowski symmetrizations transforming $K_0$ into $K_1$, such that
\[
\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{n}} D_n
\subseteq \frac{K_1}{M_0}
,\]
where $c_1,c_2$ are some universal constants (in fact $c_1=c$ of
Theorem \ref{thm-Klartag}).
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $R\ge M_0>0$ be the minimal radius of a centered ball enclosing
$K_0$. Then there exists some $u\in S^{n-1}$ such that $I_0=[0,Ru]
\subseteq K_0$. Let $\varepsilon = 1/e$. By Theorem \ref{thm-Klartag}
applied to $I_0$, there exist $N_1 = cn$
Minkowski symmetrizations
$M_{u_1}\dots M_{u_{N_1}}$ which transform the interval $I_0$ into a
convex body $I_1$ satisfying
\[
(1-1/e) M^*(I_0) D_n \subseteq I_1.
\]
Then
\[
(1-1/e) M^*([0,u]) D_n
\subseteq
(1-1/e) \left(\frac{RM^*([0,u])}{M_0}\right) D_n
\subseteq
\frac{I_1}{M_0}
\subseteq
\frac{K_1}{M_0},
\]
where the body $K_1$ is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_Mink-1st-Step}
K_1:=M_{u_{N_1}}\dots M_{u_1} K_0.
\end{equation}
Since $M^*([0,u])=
\frac{1}{2}\int_{S^{n-1}}|x_1|d\sigma(x)\approx
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi n}}$, the proof is complete.
\end{proof}

The inner radius $c_2/\sqrt{n}$ does not decrease under additional
symmetrizations (it may increase). Next consider Minkowski
symmetrizations which bring {\em the convex hull} of $K_1$
isometrically close to the ball. By Theorem \ref{thm-Klartag} there
exist $N_2= c n |\log(\varepsilon)|$
directions $u_1,\dots,u_{N_2}$
such that
\[
(1 - \varepsilon) D_n
\subseteq
M_{u_{N_2}}\dots M_{u_1} {\rm conv} \left( \frac{K_1}{M_0} \right)
\subseteq
(1 + \varepsilon) D_n.
\]
We define the body $K_2$ to be:
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_Mink-2nd-Step}
K_2:=M_{u_{N_2}}\dots M_{u_1} K_1.
\end{equation}

Note that Minkowski symmetrizations commute with the convex hull
operation, i.e. $M_u{\rm conv} K = {\rm conv} M_u K$, simply because in general
${\rm conv} (A+B) = {\rm conv} A + {\rm conv} B$. Thus $\frac{K_2}{M_0}$ is a star
shaped body whose convex hull is isometrically close to the ball. We
use the following standard lemma to show that such a body must
contain some $\delta$-net of the sphere. More precisely:
\begin{lem}\label{Lem_Conv=Ball-to-eps-net}
Let $n\ge 2$, $\varepsilon\in(0,1)$, and let $K\in \mathscr{S}^n$ be such that
\[(1 - \varepsilon) D_n
  \subseteq  {\rm conv} K  \subseteq
  (1 + \varepsilon) D_n.
\]
Then $K$ contains a $2\sqrt{\varepsilon}$-net of the sphere
$(1-\varepsilon) S^{n-1}$, that is
\begin{equation}\label{Eq_Delta-net}
(1-\varepsilon) S^{n-1}
\subseteq
K + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}

\begin{proof}
Let $x\in (1-\varepsilon) S^{n-1}$. We claim that the intersection
$ (x+2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n)\cap K $ is not empty. Denoting the
hyperplane supporting $(1-\varepsilon) D_n$ at the point $x$ by $H$
and the halfspace with boundary $H$ by $H^+= \{y\,|\,
\iprod{x}{x} \le \iprod{x}{y} \}$, we will show that $H^+\cap K \cap
(x+2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n)$ is not empty. Indeed,
\[
H^+ \cap K
\subseteq
H^+ \cap (1+\varepsilon) S^{n-1}
\subseteq
(x + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n),
\]
see Figure \ref{Fig_Instead-of-Proving}. The set $H^+ \cap K$ is not
empty (since $x\in (H^+ \cap{\rm conv} K)$), and thus the proof is complete.
\begin{figure}[h]
	\centering
	\includegraphics[width=0.35\textwidth]{conv_is_ball}
	\caption{The small ball around $x$ contains all points of $K$ in $H^+$.}
	\label{Fig_Instead-of-Proving}
\end{figure}
\end{proof}

Note that in fact, since $K + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n$ is star shaped, we have:
\begin{equation}
(1-\varepsilon) D_n
\subseteq
K + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n.
\end{equation}
The outer radius $1+\varepsilon$ does not increase under additional
symmetrizations (it may decrease). As for the inner radius, we begin
with the small ball obtained in Lemma \ref{Lem_Give-Small-Ball}, and
use \eqref{Eq_Delta-net} to increase it geometrically. More precisely:

\begin{lem} \label{lem-StarShapedContainsBall}
Let $n\ge 2$, $K\in \mathscr{S}^n$, $r\in(0,1)$, and $\varepsilon\in
(0,\varepsilon_0)$, where $\varepsilon_0=1/25$. Assume that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $r D_n \subseteq K$.
\item $(1-\varepsilon) D_n
\subseteq
K + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n$.
\end{itemize}
Then there exist $N=\alpha + \beta|\log \varepsilon| + \gamma|\log r|$ Minkowski symmetrizations transforming $K$
into $\tilde{K}$ satisfying
\[
(1-4\sqrt{\varepsilon}) D_n \subseteq \tilde{K},
\]
where $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are positive constants.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
In each of the two cases $r < 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ and
$2\sqrt{\varepsilon} \le r$, we argue a bit differently, so we handle
them separately. We begin with the case of smaller initial inner radius.

\noindent{\bf Case a. Increasing $r$ geometrically to reach $2\sqrt{\varepsilon}$:}

If $r < 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ we may take the second assumption and
write for any $u\in S^{n-1}$:
\[
r\frac{1-\varepsilon}{2\sqrt{\varepsilon}} D_n
\subseteq
\frac{r}{2\sqrt{\varepsilon}}K + r D_n
\subset
K + r D_n
\subseteq
K + R_u (K),
\]
So that $r\frac{1-\varepsilon}{4\sqrt{\varepsilon}} D_n
\subseteq M_u (K)$. Defining the (decreasing) function $q:(0,1)\to{\cal R}^+$
by $q(\varepsilon)= \frac{1-\varepsilon} {4\sqrt{\varepsilon}}$, we
have $q(\varepsilon)\ge q(\varepsilon_0)= 6/5$, so the inner radius
multiplies by at least $6/5$. If $2\sqrt{\varepsilon} \le r(6/5)^m$,
then after $m$ symmetrizations the inner radius reaches
$2\sqrt{\varepsilon}$.
Thus after $N_a = 4 + 3 \left|\log\left( \frac{\varepsilon}{r^2} \right)\right|$
symmetrizations, we have reduced to the second case, where
$2\sqrt{\varepsilon} \le r$.

\noindent{\bf Case b. Increasing $r$ geometrically  towards $1$:}

Again, for any $u\in S^{n-1}$ we have
\[
\frac{(1-[2\sqrt{\varepsilon} + \varepsilon]) + r}{2} D_n
=
\frac{(1 - \varepsilon) D_n +
(r - 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}) D_n}{2}
\subseteq
\]
\[
\frac{K + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n +
(r - 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}) D_n}{2} =
\frac{K + r  D_n}{2}
\subseteq
M_u (K).
\]
So the difference $(1-[2\sqrt{\varepsilon} + \varepsilon])- r$
decreases by at least half. The inner radius exceeds $1 -
4\sqrt{\varepsilon}$ if and only if its difference from
$(1-[2\sqrt{\varepsilon} + \varepsilon])$ decreases below
$2\sqrt{\varepsilon} - \varepsilon > \sqrt{\varepsilon}$. Thus it
suffices to decrease that difference to $\sqrt{\varepsilon}$. For that
we require no more than $N_b=|\log_2(\sqrt{\varepsilon})| =
\frac{1}{\log 4} |\log(\varepsilon)|$ symmetrizations.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[{\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{Thm_Mink-Isometric}.}] To
complete the proof one has to combine the steps above. Let $K\in\mathscr{S}^n$,
such that $M^\ast(K) = 1$. By Lemma \ref{Lem_Give-Small-Ball}, there
exist $cn$ Minkowski symmetrizations that transform $K$ into a set
$K_1$ such that
\[
\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{n}}D_n \subset K_1
\]
and no Minkowski symmetrization can change this fact. Let $0 <
\varepsilon < 1/25$. By Theorem \ref{thm-Klartag}, there exist
$cn|\log\varepsilon|$ symmetrization that transform ${\rm conv}(K_1)$ into
a convex set $L$ such that $(1-\varepsilon)D_n \subset L \subset (1 +
\varepsilon)D_n$. Since $M_u {\rm conv} K = {\rm conv} M_u K$, we may apply the
same symmetrizations to $K_1$ to obtain a new set $K_2$ such that
${\rm conv}(K_2) = L$. By Lemma \ref{Lem_Conv=Ball-to-eps-net}, we get the
following:
\[
(1-\varepsilon)S^{n-1} \subset K_2 + 2\sqrt{\varepsilon}D_n.
\]
In addition,
\[
\frac{c_2}{\sqrt{n}}D_n \subset K_2.
\]
Thus, by Lemma \ref{lem-StarShapedContainsBall} there exist $\alpha +
\beta|\log\varepsilon| + \gamma\log n$ Minkowski symmetrizations that
transform $K_2$ into $K_3$ such that
\[
(1-4\sqrt{\varepsilon})D_n \subset K_3.
\]
Recall that $K_3 \subset (1+\varepsilon)D_n$. To sum it up, we
applied no more than
\[
cn + cn|\log\varepsilon| + \alpha + \beta|\log\varepsilon| +
\gamma\log n \le C n |\log\varepsilon|
\]
symmetrizations, for some universal constant $C > 0$.

During the proof we assumed that $\varepsilon < 1/25$. This can be
easily changed to $\varepsilon < 1/2$, at the cost of a different
constant in the expression $C n |\log\varepsilon|$, by always
symmetrizing the set to be $\varepsilon / 25$ close to the Euclidean
ball. By the same argument one may extend for all $\varepsilon\in
(0,1)$, and the corresponding bound on the number of symmetrizations
will become $n (C|\log\varepsilon| + C')$.
\end{proof}

Metric Geometry (math.MG); Functional Analysis (math.FA)


Error Analysis of Lagrange Interpolation on Tetrahedrons

Abstract: This paper describes the analysis of Lagrange interpolation errors on tetrahedrons. In many textbooks, the error analysis of Lagrange interpolation is conducted under geometric assumptions such as shape regularity or the (generalized) maximum angle condition. In this paper, we present a new estimation in which the error is bounded in terms of the diameter and projected circumradius of the tetrahedron. Because we do not impose any geometric restrictions on the tetrahedron itself, our error estimation may be applied to any tetrahedralizations of domains including very thin tetrahedrons.

\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
Lagrange interpolation on tetrahedrons and the associated error
estimates are important subjects in numerical analysis. In particular,
they are crucial in the error analysis of finite element methods.
Throughout this paper, $K \subset \mathbb R^3$ denotes a tetrahedron
with vertices $\mathbf{x}_i$, $i=1,\cdots,4$, and tetrahedrons are assumed to
be closed sets. Let $\lambda_i$ be the barycentric coordinates of a
tetrahedron with respect to $\mathbf{x}_i$. By definition,
we have $0 \le \lambda_i \le 1$, $\sum_{i=1}^{4} \lambda_i =1$.  Let $\mathbb N_0$
be the set of nonnegative integers, and
$\gamma = (a_1,\cdots,a_{4}) \in \mathbb N_0^{4}$ be a multi-index.
Let $k$ be a positive integer. If $|\gamma| := \sum_{i=1}^{4}a_i = k$, then
${\gamma}/{k} := \left({a_1}/{k}, \cdots, {a_{4}}/{k}\right)$
can be regarded as a barycentric coordinate in $K$.
The set $\Sigma^k(K)$ of points on $K$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
   \Sigma^k(K) := \left\{
   \frac{\gamma}{k} \in K \Bigm| |\gamma| = k, \;
     \gamma \in \mathbb N_0^{4} \right\}.
\end{equation*}
For $k$, $\mathcal{P}_k$ is the set of all polynomials of three variables
whose degree is at most $k$.  For a continuous function $v \in C^0(K)$,
the Lagrange interpolation $\mathcal{I}_K^k v \in \mathcal{P}_k$ of degree $k$ is defined as
\[
   v(\mathbf{x}) = (\mathcal{I}_K^k v)(\mathbf{x}), \quad \forall \mathbf{x} \in \Sigma^k(K).
\]
We attempt to obtain an upper bound of the error
$|v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v|_{m,p,K}$ for integers $0 \le m \le k$, where
$|\cdot|_{m,p,K}$ is the usual Sobolev semi-norm.

For now, let $K$ be a $d$-simplicial element ($d = 2, 3$).  Let
$h_K := \mathrm{diam}(K)$ and $\rho_K$ be the diameter of its inscribed
sphere.  For the error analysis of Lagrange interpolation on simplicial
elements, many textbooks on finite element methods, such as those by
Ciarlet \cite{Ciarlet}, Brenner and Scott \cite{BrennerScott}, and
Ern and Guermond \cite{ErnGuermond}, explain the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}[Shape-regularity]\label{thm:S-regularity}
Let $\sigma > 0$ be a constant.
If $h_K/\rho_K \le \sigma$, then there
 exists a constant $C=C(\sigma)$ independent of $h_K$ such that
\begin{equation}
  |v - \mathcal{I}_K^1 v|_{1,2,K} \le C  h_K |v|_{2,2,K},
   \qquad  \forall v \in H^2(K).
  \label{eq:standard-est}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Note that \eqref{eq:standard-est} does not hold if $d \ge 4$.

For the case of triangles, shape-regularity is equivalent to
the \textit{minimum angle condition} \cite{Zlamal}.  It is known
that shape-regularity is not an optimal condition on the geometry
of triangles.  If the maximum angle of a triangle is less than a fixed
constant $\theta_1 < \pi$, then the estimation \eqref{eq:standard-est}
holds with a constant $C = C(\theta_1)$.  This condition is known as
the \textit{maximum angle condition} \cite{BabuskaAziz, Jamet}.

The present authors recently reported
an error estimation in terms of the circumradius of a triangle
\cite{KobayashiTsuchiya1, KobayashiTsuchiya3, KobayashiTsuchiya4}.
Let $R_K$ be the circumradius of a triangle $K$.
\begin{theorem}[Circumradius estimates]\label{thm:circumradius-est}
Let $K$ be an arbitrary triangle.  Let
$1 \le p \le \infty$, and $k$, $m$ be integers such that $k \ge 1$ and
$0 \le  m \le k$.  Then, for the $k$th-order Lagrange interpolation
 $\mathcal{I}_K^k$ on $K$, the estimation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:circumradius-est}
   |v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v|_{m,p,K} \le C
   \left(\frac{R_K}{h_K}\right)^m h_K^{k+1-m} |v|_{k+1,p,K}
  =  C R_K^m h_K^{k+1-2m} |v|_{k+1,p,K}
\end{equation}
holds for any $v \in W^{k+1,p}(K)$,
where the constant $C=C(k,m,p)$ is independent of the geometry of $K$.
\end{theorem}
Note that the circumradius estimation
\eqref{eq:circumradius-est} is closely related to the definition of
surface area \cite{KobayashiTsuchiya2}.

The aim of this paper is to derive a similar error estimation
to Theorem~\ref{thm:circumradius-est} for tetrahedrons under no specific
geometric restrictions.

To extend the circumradius estimation \eqref{eq:circumradius-est}
to tetrahedrons, an immediate idea is to replace the circumradius
of a triangle with the radius of the circumsphere of a tetrahedron.
However, this idea can be immediately rejected by considering
the tetrahedron $K$ with vertices
$\mathbf{x}_1 = (h,0,0)^\top$, $\mathbf{x}_2 = (-h,0,0)^\top$,
$\mathbf{x}_3 = (0,-h,h^\alpha)^\top$, and $\mathbf{x}_4 = (0,h,h^\alpha)^\top$
with $h > 0$ and $\alpha > 0$.
Setting $v_1(x,y,z) := x^2 - h^2 + h^{2-\alpha}z$,
we have that $\mathcal{I}_K^1 v_1 \equiv 0$, and a simple computation yields
$|v_1 - \mathcal{I}_K^1 v_1|_{1,\infty,K} = |v_1|_{1,\infty,K} \ge h^{2-\alpha}$
and $|v_1|_{2,\infty,K} = 2$.  Hence, if $\alpha > 2$,
an inequality such as \eqref{eq:circumradius-est} does
not hold for tetrahedrons, although the radius of the circumsphere of the above $K$
converges to $0$ as $h \to 0$.  Tetrahedrons such as the above $K$ are
called \textit{slivers} \cite{Sliver}.

Thus, we introduce the projected circumradius, also denoted by
$R_K$, of a tetrahedron $K$ in Section~\ref{section:Circumradius}.
We then obtain an error estimation for tetrahedrons that is
fundamentally similar to \eqref{eq:circumradius-est}
in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.

In Section~\ref{Sect:Prei}, we state some preliminary results used in this paper.
In particular, we define the standard position and the projected
circumradius for tetrahedrons.  In Section~\ref{Sect:Squeezing}, we
recall definitions related to the quotient differences of functions
with multi-variables. We then reconfirm the Squeezing Theorem for
tetrahedrons.  In Section~\ref{sect:singular}, we obtain the error
estimation of Lagrange interpolation in terms of the singular values of
a linear transformation.  In Section~\ref{sec:geometric}, we present
a geometric interpretation of the singular values of the linear
transformation, and finally obtain the main theorem.

\section{Preliminaries}\label{Sect:Prei}
\subsection{Notation}
Let $d \ge 1$ be a positive integer and $\mathbb R^d$ be the $d$-dimensional
Euclidean space.  We denote the Euclidean norm of
$\mathbf{x} = (x_1,\cdots,x_d)^\top \in \mathbb R^d$ by $|\mathbf{x}|$.
We always regard $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb R^d$ as a column vector.
For a matrix $A$ and $\mathbf{x} \in \mathbb R^d$, $A^\top$ and $\mathbf{x}^\top$
denote their transpositions.

For $\delta = (\delta_1,...,\delta_d) \in \mathbb N_{0}^d$,
the multi-index $\partial^\delta$ of partial differentiation
(in the sense of the distribution) is defined by
\[
    \partial^\delta = \partial_\mathbf{x}^\delta
    := \frac{\partial^{|\delta|}\ }
   {\partial x_1^{\delta_1}...\partial x_d^{\delta_d}}, \qquad
   |\delta| := \delta_1 + ... + \delta_d.
\]

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^d$ be a (bounded) domain.  The usual Lebesgue
space is denoted by $L^p(\Omega)$ for $1 \le p \le \infty$.
For a positive integer $k$, the Sobolev space $W^{k,p}(\Omega)$ is
defined by
$\displaystyle
  W^{k,p}(\Omega) :=
  \left\{v \in L^p(\Omega) \, | \, \partial^\delta v \in L^p(\Omega), \,
   |\delta| \le k\right\}$.
For $1 \le p < \infty$, the norm and semi-norm of $W^{k,p}(\Omega)$ are defined
by
\begin{gather*}
  |v|_{k,p,\Omega} :=
  \biggl(\sum_{|\delta|=k} |\partial^\delta v|_{0,p,\Omega}^p
   \biggr)^{1/p}, \quad   \|v\|_{k,p,\Omega} :=
  \biggl(\sum_{0 \le m \le k} |v|_{m,p,\Omega}^p \biggr)^{1/p}
\end{gather*}
and $\displaystyle   |v|_{k,\infty,\Omega} :=
  \max_{|\delta|=k} \left\{\mathrm{ess}
   \sup_{\hspace{-5mm}\mathbf{x} \in\Omega}|\partial^\delta v(\mathbf{x})|\right\}$,
 $\displaystyle   \|v\|_{k,\infty,\Omega} :=
  \max_{0 \le m  \le k} \left\{|v|_{m,\infty,\Omega}\right\}$.

\subsection{The imbedding theorem}
Let $1 < p \le \infty$. From Sobolev's imbedding theorem and Morry's
inequality, we have the continuous imbeddings
\begin{gather*}
   W^{2,p}(K) \subset C^{1,1-3/p}(K), \quad p > 3, \\
   W^{2,3}(K) \subset W^{1,q}(K) \subset C^{0,1-3/q}(K),
      \quad \forall q > 3, \\
  W^{2,p}(K) \subset W^{1,3p/(3-p)}(K) \subset C^{0,2-3/p}(K),
      \quad \frac{3}{2} < p < 3, \\
  W^{3,3/2}(K) \subset W^{2,3}(K) \subset W^{1,q}(K)
  \subset C^{0,1-3/q}(K), \quad \forall q > 3, \\
  W^{3,p}(K) \subset W^{2,3p/(3-p)}(K) \subset W^{1,3p/(3-2p)}(K)
  \subset C^{0,3-3/p}(K), \quad 1 < p < \frac{3}{2}.
\end{gather*}
Although Morry's inequality may not be applied, the continuous
imbedding $W^{3,1}(K)$ $\subset C^{0}(K)$ still holds.
For the imbedding theorem, see \cite{AdamsFournier},
\cite{Brezis}, and \cite{KJF}.  In the following, we assume that $p$
is such that the imbedding $W^{k+1,p}(K) \subset C^{0}(K)$
holds, that is,
\begin{align*}
     1 \le p \le \infty, \quad  \text{ if } k+1 \ge 3
      \quad \text{ and } \quad
    \frac{3}{2} < p \le \infty, \quad \text{ if } k+1 =2.
\end{align*}

\subsection{The reference tetrahedrons}
Let $\widehat{K}$ and $\widetilde{K}$ be tetrahedrons that have the
following vertices (see Figure~\ref{ref_tetra}):
\begin{align*}
  \widehat{K} \text{ has the vertices } \; (0,0,0)^\top, \; (1,0,0)^\top, \;
  (0,1,0)^\top, \; (0,0,1)^\top, \\
  \widetilde{K} \text{ has the vertices } \; (0,0,0)^\top, \; (1,0,0)^\top, \;
  (1,1,0)^\top, \; (0,0,1)^\top.
\end{align*}
\begin{figure}[tbhp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=9cm]{reference-tetra-crop.eps}
\caption{The reference tetrahedrons $\widehat{K}$ and $\widetilde{K}$.}
\label{ref_tetra}
\end{figure}
These tetrahedrons are called the \textbf{reference tetrahedrons}.
In this paper, we denote the reference tetrahedrons by
$\mathbf{K}$, that is, $\mathbf{K}$ is either of $\{\widehat{K},\widetilde{K}\}$.

\subsection{Standard position of tetrahedrons}
When considering tetrahedrons, it is convenient to define their ``standard
coordinates.''  Take any tetrahedron $K$ with vertices
$\mathbf{x}_i$, $i = 1, \dots, 4$.  The facet $B$ with vertices $\mathbf{x}_1$,
$\mathbf{x}_2$, $\mathbf{x}_3$ is regarded as the base of $K$. Let $\alpha$ and
$\beta$, $0 < \beta \le \alpha$, be the longest and shortest
lengths of the edges of $B$.   Without loss of generality, we assume
that $\mathbf{x}_1\mathbf{x}_2$ is the longest edge of $B$;
$|\mathbf{x}_1 - \mathbf{x}_2| = \alpha$.     Consider cutting $\mathbb R^3$
with the plane that contains the midpoint of the edge $\mathbf{x}_1\mathbf{x}_2$ and
is perpendicular to the vector $\mathbf{x}_1 - \mathbf{x}_2$.  Then, there exist
two cases: (i) $\mathbf{x}_3$ and $\mathbf{x}_4$ belong to the same half-space,
or (ii) $\mathbf{x}_3$ and $\mathbf{x}_4$ belong to different half-spaces.
Let $\gamma := |\mathbf{x}_1 - \mathbf{x}_4|$.
Under appropriate rotation, translation, and reflection operations,
these situations can be written using the parameters
\begin{equation}
 \begin{cases}
  0 < \beta \le \alpha, \quad 0 < \gamma, \quad s_1^2 + t_1^2  = 1, \;
 s_1 > 0, \; t_1 > 0, \quad \beta s_1 \le \frac{\alpha}{2}, \\
 s_{21}^2 + s_{22}^2 + t_2^2 = 1, \; t_2 > 0, \quad
  \gamma s_{21} \le \frac{\alpha}{2},
 \end{cases}
 \label{eq:tetra-param}
\end{equation}
as
\begin{subequations} \label{eq:position}
\begin{gather}
 \mathbf{x}_1 = (0,0,0)^\top, \; \mathbf{x}_2 = (\alpha,0,0)^\top, \;
  \mathbf{x}_4 = (\gamma s_{21}, \gamma s_{22}, \gamma t_2)^\top,\\
  \begin{cases}
   \mathbf{x}_3 = (\beta s_1, \beta t_1,0)^\top & \text{for the case (i)} \\
   \mathbf{x}_3 = (\alpha - \beta s_1, \beta t_1,0)^\top & \text{for the case (ii)}
  \end{cases}.
\end{gather}
\end{subequations}
We refer to the coordinates in \eqref{eq:position}
as the \textit{standard position} of a tetrahedron.  In the following,
we sometimes write $h_B := \alpha$.  Let $R_B$ be the circumradius
of $B$.

\subsection{The projected circurmradius of tetrahedrons}
\label{section:Circumradius}
Suppose that a tetrahedron $K$ is at the standard position.
Let $\theta \in \mathbb R$ be such that
$-\frac{\pi}{2} \le \theta \le \frac{\pi}{2}$.
Let $\delta_\theta$ be the linear transformation defined by
the matrix
\[
   \begin{pmatrix}
      \cos\theta & -\sin\theta & 0 \\
          0 & 0 & 0 \\
          0 & 0 & 1
   \end{pmatrix}
   = \begin{pmatrix}
      1 & 0 & 0 \\
      0 & 0 & 0 \\
      0 & 0 & 1
   \end{pmatrix}
   \begin{pmatrix}
      \cos\theta & -\sin\theta & 0 \\
      \sin\theta & \cos\theta & 0 \\
          0 & 0 & 1
   \end{pmatrix}.
\]
That is, $\delta_\theta$ is a composite transformation of rotation
about the $z$-axis with angle $\theta$ and projection to the $xz$-plane.
The image $\delta_\theta(K)$ is a triangle on the $xz$-plane.  Let
$R_\theta$ be the circumradius of $\delta_\theta(K)$.  Define
\[
   R_P := \max_{\theta \in [-\pi/2,\pi/2]} R_\theta.
\]
The \textit{projected circumradius} $R_K$ of a tetrahedron $K$ is
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{def:RK}
   R_K := \min_{B} \frac{R_BR_P}{h_B},
\end{equation}
where the minimum is taken over all the facets of $K$.

\subsection{The setting of error estimation}
We define the set $\mathcal{T}_p^{k}(K) \subset W^{k+1,p}(K)$ by
\begin{gather*}
   \mathcal{T}_p^{k}(K) := \left\{v \in W^{k+1,p}(K) \Bigm|
     v(\mathbf{x}) = 0, \; \forall \mathbf{x} \in \Sigma^k(K) \right\}.
\end{gather*}
For Lagrange interpolation $\mathcal{I}_K^k(v)$, it is clear from the definition that
\[
     v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v \in \mathcal{T}_p^{k}(K), \quad \forall
     v \in W^{k+1,p}(K).
\]
For an integer $m$ such that $0 \le m \le k$, $B_p^{m,k}(K)$
is defined by
\begin{gather*}
    B_p^{m,k}(K) := \sup_{v \in \mathcal{T}_p^{k}(K)}
    \frac{|v|_{m,p,K}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K}}.
\end{gather*}
Note that we have
\begin{gather*}
 B_p^{m,k}(K) = \inf\left\{C ;
   |v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v|_{m,p,K} \le C |v|_{k+1,p,K}, \
   \forall v \in W^{k+1,p}(K)\right\},
\end{gather*}
that is, $B_p^{m,k}(K)$ is the \textit{best} constant $C$ for the
error estimation
\[
   |v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v|_{m,p,K} \le C |v|_{k+1,p,K}, \qquad
    \forall v \in W^{k+1,p}(K).
\]
Therefore, we try to obtain an upper bound of $B_p^{m,k}(K)$ in terms of
geometric quantities of $K$.

\section{The Squeezing Theorem}\label{Sect:Squeezing}
Let $a$, $b \in\mathbb R$ be such that $0 < a \le 1$ and $0 < b$.
We then define the \textit{squeezing map} $sq_1^{ab}:R^3 \to \mathbb R^3$ by
\[
  sq_1^{ab}(x,y,z) := (x, a y, b z)^\top,
   \quad (x,y,z)^\top \in \mathbb R^3.
\]
Let $K_{ab} := sq_1^{ab}(\mathbf{K})$.  In this section, we will prove the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{squeezingtheorem}
Let $k$ be a positive integer and $1 \le p \le \infty$.  There exists a
constant $C_{k,m,p}$ independent of $a$ and $b$ such that, for $m = 0, \cdots, k$,
\begin{gather*}
   B_p^{m,k}(K_{ab}) := \hspace{-0.2cm}
   \sup_{v \in \mathcal{T}_p^{k}(K_{ab})}
  \frac{|v|_{m,p,K_{ab}}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K_{ab}}}
   \le \max\{1,b^{k+1-m}\}C_{k,m,p},
\end{gather*}
where $p$ is taken such that
\begin{gather}
  \begin{cases}
      2 < p \le \infty & \text{ if } k - m = 0, \\
      \frac{3}{2} < p \le \infty & \text{ if } k = 1, \; m = 0,\\
      1 \le p \le \infty & \text{ if } k \ge 2 \text{ and } \; k-m \ge 1.
   \end{cases}
   \label{p-cond}
\end{gather}
\end{theorem}
Although the proof of Theorem~\ref{squeezingtheorem} is very similar to that of
\cite[Theorem~1.3]{KobayashiTsuchiya4}, we provide a sketch here for
readers' convenience.  Note that the restriction
$2 < p \le \infty$ for the case $k=m$ comes from the continuity of
the trace operator $t:W^{1,p}(\mathbf{K}) \ni v \mapsto v|_S \in L^1(S)$, where
$S \subset \mathbf{K}$ is a non-degenerate segment (see
\cite[Section~3]{KobayashiTsuchiya4}).
Using the counter-example given by Shenk \cite{Shenk}, we find that
this restriction cannot be improved.

To prove Theorem~\ref{squeezingtheorem}, we recall the definitions of
difference quotients of multi-variable functions, the rectangular
parallelepiped $\square_\gamma^\delta$ defined by the lattice points
$\mathbf{x}_\gamma$, $\Delta^\delta\mathbf{x}_\gamma$ in $\mathbf{K}$, and the integral
$\int_{\square_\gamma^\delta} v$ introduced in
\cite[Section~2]{KobayashiTsuchiya4}.  The set
$\Xi_p^{\delta,k} \subset W^{k+1-|\delta|,p}(\mathbf{K})$ is then defined by
\begin{align*}
  \Xi_p^{\delta,k} & := \left\{ v \in W^{k+1-|\delta|,p}(\mathbf{K}) \Bigm|
    \int_{\square_{\gamma}^{\delta}} v = 0,\quad \forall
   \square_{\gamma}^{\delta} \subset \mathbf{K} \right\}.
\end{align*}
Note that $u \in \mathcal{T}_p^{k}(\mathbf{K})$ implies
$\partial^\delta u \in \Xi_p^{\delta,k}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem32}
We have $\Xi_p^{\delta,k} \cap \mathcal{P}_{k-|\delta|} = \{0\}$.
That is, if $q \in \mathcal{P}_{k-|\delta|}$ belongs to $\Xi_p^{\delta,k}$,
then $q=0$.
\end{lemma}

\textit{Proof.}
 Note that
$\mathrm{dim} \mathcal{P}_{k-|\delta|} = \#\{\square_{lp}^\delta \subset \mathbf{K} \}$.
For example, if $k=4$ and $|\delta|=3$, then
$\mathrm{dim}\mathcal{P}_1 = 4$.  This corresponds to the fact that,
in $\mathbf{K}$, there are four cubes of size $1/4$  for $\delta=(1,1,1)$ and
there are four rectangles of size $1/2 \times 1/4$ for $\delta=(1,2,0)$.
All their vertices (corners) belong to $\Sigma^4(\mathbf{K})$
(see Figure~2). Now, suppose that $v \in \mathcal{P}_{k-|\delta|}$ satisfies
$\int_{\square_{lp}^{\delta}} q = 0$ for all
$\square_{lp}^{\delta} \subset \mathbf{K}$.  These conditions are linearly
independent and determine $q = 0$ uniquely. \hfill $\square$

\begin{figure}[htbp]\label{cubes_tetra}
\centering
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=4.5cm]{kyoko.eps}} \qquad
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=3cm]{takako.eps}} \qquad
\subfloat{\includegraphics[width=3cm]{michiko.eps}}
\caption{The four cubes and four rectangles in $\mathbf{K}$.}
\end{figure}

\vspace{0.3cm}
The constant $A_p^{\delta,k}$ is defined by
\begin{align*}
   A_p^{\delta,k} := \sup_{v \in \Xi_p^{\delta,k}} \frac{|v|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}}
  {|v|_{k+1-|\delta|,p,\mathbf{K}}}.
\end{align*}
The following lemma is an extension of \cite[Lemma~2.1]{BabuskaAziz}.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem33}
Let $p$ be such that $2 < p \le \infty$ if $k+1-|\delta|=1$ or
$1 \le p \le \infty$ if $k+1-|\delta|\ge 2$.  We then have
$A_p^{\delta,k} < \infty$.
\end{lemma}

\textit{Proof.}
See the proof of \cite[Lemma~3.3]{KobayashiTsuchiya4}.
\hfill $\square$

\vspace{0.3cm}
\textit{Proof of} Theorem~\ref{squeezingtheorem}.
First, let $1 \le p < \infty$ and $1 \le m \le k$.
For a multi-index $\gamma = (n_1, n_2, n_3) \in \mathbb N_0^3$ and a real $t \neq 0$,
set $(a, b)^{\gamma t} := a^{n_2 t}b^{n_3 t}$.  Take an arbitrary
$v \in \mathcal{T}_p^k(K_{ab})$ and pull it back to
$u := v\circ sq_1^{ab} \in \mathcal{T}_p^k(\mathbf{K})$.   We then have
{\allowdisplaybreaks
\begin{align*}
  \frac{|v|_{m,p,K_{ab}}^p}{|v|_{k+1,p,K_{ab}}^p}
   & = \frac{\sum_{|\gamma| = m} \frac{m!}{\gamma!}
      (a,b)^{-\gamma p}\left|\partial^{\gamma}u\right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p}
      {\sum_{|\delta|= k+1} \frac{(k+1)!}{\delta!}
     (a,b)^{- \delta p} \left|\partial^{\delta} u \right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p} \\
  & = \frac{\sum_{|\gamma| = m}\frac{m!}{\gamma!}(a,b)^{-\gamma p}
         \left|\partial^{\gamma}u \right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p }
       {\sum_{|\gamma| = m} \frac{m!}{\gamma!}(a,b)^{-\gamma p}
       \left(\sum_{|\eta| = k+1-m} \frac{(k+1-m)!}
             {\eta!(a,b)^{\eta p} }\left|\partial^{\eta}
                 (\partial^{\gamma}u)\right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p\right)} \\
  & \le \frac{\max\{1,b^{(k+1-m)p}\}
   \sum_{|\gamma| = m}\frac{m!}{\gamma!}(a,b)^{-\gamma p}
         \left|\partial^{\gamma}u \right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p }
       {\sum_{|\gamma| = m} \frac{m!}{\gamma!}(a,b)^{-\gamma p}
       \left(\sum_{|\eta| = k+1-m} \frac{(k+1-m)!}
             {\eta! }\left|\partial^{\eta}
                 (\partial^{\gamma}u)\right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p\right)} \\
   & = \max\{1,b^{(k+1-m)p}\}
\frac{\sum_{|\gamma| = m} \frac{m!}{\gamma!}(a,b)^{-\gamma p}
         \left|\partial^{\gamma}u \right|_{0,p,\mathbf{K}}^p}
       {\sum_{|\gamma| = m} \frac{m!}{\gamma!}
      (a,b)^{-\gamma p}
        \left|\partial^{\gamma}u \right|_{k+1-m,p,\mathbf{K}}^p} \\
    & \le \max\{1,b^{(k+1-m)p}\}\max_{|\gamma|=m}
    \left(A_p^{\gamma,k}\right)^p
   = \left(\max\{1,b^{k+1-m}\}C_{k,m,p}\right)^p,
\end{align*}
}
where $C_{k,m,p} := \max_{|\gamma|=m} A_p^{\gamma,k}$.
Proofs for the cases $1 \le p < \infty$ with $m=0$ and
$p = \infty$ with $0 \le m \le k$ are very similar.  See
the proof of \cite[Theorem~1.3]{KobayashiTsuchiya4}.
\hfill $\square$

\vspace{0.3cm}
We now generalize the squeezing map.
Let $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma \in\mathbb R$ be such that
$0 < \beta \le \alpha$ and $0 < \gamma$.
We then define the \textit{squeezing map}
$sq_2^{\alpha\beta\gamma}:\mathbb R^3 \to \mathbb R^3$ by
\[
  sq_2^{\alpha\beta\gamma}(x,y,z) := (\alpha x, \beta y, \gamma z)^\top,
   \quad (x,y,z)^\top \in \mathbb R^3.
\]
Let $K_{\alpha\beta\gamma} := sq_2^{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\mathbf{K})$.  Note that
$G_{\alpha} := sq_2^{\alpha\alpha\alpha}$ is a similar transformation.
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^3$ be a domain and an arbitrary function
$v \in W^{k,p}(\Omega)$ be pulled-back to
$u := v \circ G_\alpha \in W^{k,p}(\Omega_\alpha)$ with
$\Omega_\alpha := G_{1/\alpha}(\Omega)$.
It is straightforward to check that
\[
  |v|_{k,p,\Omega} = \alpha^{3/p-k}|u|_{k,p,\Omega_\alpha}.
\]

Now, take an arbitrary function $v \in \mathcal{T}_p^k(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma})$ and define
$u := v\circ sq_2^{\alpha\beta\gamma}$.  Then,
$u = u_1 \circ sq_1^{\frac{\beta}{\alpha},\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}$ with
$u_1 := v \circ G_\alpha$, because
$sq_2^{\alpha\beta\gamma} = G_\alpha\circ sq_1^{\frac{\beta}{\alpha},\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}$.
Therefore, it follows from Theorem~\ref{squeezingtheorem} that
\begin{align*}
   \frac{|v|_{m,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}} = \alpha^{k+1-m}
    \frac{|u_1|_{m,p,K_{\frac{\beta}{\alpha},\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}}}
   {|u_1|_{k+1,p,K_{\frac{\beta}{\alpha},\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}}}}
  & \le \alpha^{k+1-m} \max \left\{1,
   \left(\frac{\gamma}{\alpha}\right)^{k+1-m}\right\} C_{k,m,p} \\
  & = \left(\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}\right)^{k+1-m}C_{k,m,p}.
\end{align*}
Hence, we have derived the following corollary.

\begin{corollary}\label{cor:squeezing}
 Let $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma \in\mathbb R$ be such that
$0 < \beta \le \alpha$ and $0 < \gamma$.
Let $K_{\alpha\beta\gamma} := sq_2^{\alpha\beta\gamma}(\mathbf{K})$.
Assume that $k \ge 1$, $0 \le m \le k$, and $p$ is taken as
\eqref{p-cond}.   We then have
\begin{align*}
  B_p^{m,k}(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}) := \hspace{-0.2cm} \sup_{v \in \mathcal{T}_p^{k}(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma})}
  \frac{|v|_{m,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}}
  \le \left(\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}\right)^{k+1-m}C_{k,m,p}. \label{extension-3d}
\end{align*}
\end{corollary}

\section{Error estimates of Lagrange interpolation on general
 tetrahedrons}
\label{sect:singular}
In this section, we obtain an error estimation for Lagrange interpolation
on general tetrahedrons.  To this end, we apply the method developed in
\cite{KobayashiTsuchiya3}.

Recall that an arbitrary tetrahedron $K$ is written as
\eqref{eq:position} with parameters \eqref{eq:tetra-param}.  First, we
confirm that $K$ is obtained from the reference tetrahedron $\mathbf{K}$ by an
affine linear transformation.  Define the matrices $\widehat{A}$,
$\widetilde{A}$, $G \in GL(3,\mathbb R)$ by
\begin{align*}
   \widehat{A} := \begin{pmatrix}
        1  & s_{1} & s_{21} \\
        0  & t_{1} & s_{22} \\
        0  & 0     & t_2
       \end{pmatrix}, \quad
   \widetilde{A} := \begin{pmatrix}
        1  & - s_{1} & s_{21} \\
        0  & t_{1} & s_{22} \\
        0  & 0     & t_2
       \end{pmatrix}, \quad
  G := \begin{pmatrix}
        \alpha  & 0 & 0 \\
        0  & \beta & 0 \\
        0  & 0     & \gamma
       \end{pmatrix}.
\end{align*}
We then have $K = \widehat{A}G(\widehat{K})$ for case (i) or
$K = \widetilde{A}G(\widetilde{K})$ for case (ii), that is,
$K = \widehat{A}(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma})$ or $K = \widetilde{A}(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma})$.
Note that $\widehat{A}$ and $\widetilde{A}$ can be decomposed as
$\widehat{A} = X\widehat{Y}$ and $\widetilde{A} = X\widetilde{Y}$
with
\begin{align*}
  X := \begin{pmatrix}
        1 & 0 & s_{21} \\
	0 & 1 & s_{22} \\
        0 & 0 & t_2
       \end{pmatrix}, \qquad
  \widehat{Y} := \begin{pmatrix}
        1 & s_1 & 0 \\
	0 & t_1 & 0 \\
        0 & 0 & 1
       \end{pmatrix}, \qquad
  \widetilde{Y} := \begin{pmatrix}
        1 & -s_1 & 0 \\
	0 & t_1 & 0 \\
        0 & 0 & 1
       \end{pmatrix},
\end{align*}
respectively.  We consider the singular values of $\widehat{A}$,
$\widetilde{A}$, $X$, $\widehat{Y}$, and $\widetilde{Y}$.
A straightforward computation yields
\begin{gather*}
  \det\left(X^\top X - \mu I\right)
    = (1 - \mu)\left(\mu^2 - 2\mu + t_2^2\right), \\
  \det\left(\widehat{Y}^\top \widehat{Y} - \mu I\right)
  = \det\left(\widetilde{Y}^\top \widetilde{Y} - \mu I\right)
    = (1 - \mu)\left(\mu^2 - 2\mu + t_1^2\right),
\end{gather*}
the eigenvalues of which are
$\mu = 1$, $1 \pm \sqrt{1 - t_i^2} = 1 \pm \mathbf{s}_i$, $i = 1, 2$, where
$\mathbf{s}_1 := |s_1|$ and $\mathbf{s}_2 := \sqrt{s_{21}^2 + s_{22}^2}$.
Therefore, for $\mathbf{a} \in \mathbb R^3$, we have
\begin{gather*}
  (1 - \mathbf{s}_2)|\mathbf{a}|^2 \le |X\mathbf{a}|^2 \le (1 + \mathbf{s}_2)^2|\mathbf{a}|^2, \\
  (1 - \mathbf{s}_1)|\mathbf{a}|^2 \le |Z\mathbf{a}|^2 \le (1 + \mathbf{s}_1)|\mathbf{a}|^2,
  \qquad Z = \widehat{Y} \text{ or } Z = \widetilde{Y},  \\
 \prod_{i=1}^2(1 - \mathbf{s}_i)|\mathbf{a}|^2 \le |V\mathbf{a}|^2 \le
 \prod_{i=1}^2(1 + \mathbf{s}_i)|\mathbf{a}|^2, \qquad
 V = \widehat{A} \text{ or } V = \widetilde{A}.
\end{gather*}

Let $K := V(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma})$, where $V = \widehat{A}$ or $V = \widetilde{A}$.
A function $v\in W^{r,p}(K)$ is pulled-back
to a function $u \in W^{r,p}(K_{\alpha\beta\gamma})$ by $u(\mathbf{x}) := v(V\mathbf{x})$.
Using inequality (2.1) in \cite{KobayashiTsuchiya3}, we have
\begin{gather*}
  \frac{\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{r}}{t_1^{2r}t_2^{2r}}
  \sum_{|\gamma|=r} (\partial_\mathbf{x}^\gamma u)^2
 \le \sum_{|\gamma|=r} (\partial_\mathbf{y}^\gamma v)^2 \le
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^2(1+\mathbf{s}_i)^{r}}{t_1^{2r}t_2^{2r}}
  \sum_{|\gamma|=r} (\partial_\mathbf{x}^\gamma u)^r,
\end{gather*}
where $\mathbf{y} := V\mathbf{x}$.  The fact that
$\mathrm{det}A = t_1t_2$ and inequalities (2.2), (2.3) in
\cite{KobayashiTsuchiya3} then give
\begin{align*}
   |v|_{m,p,K} & \le 3^{m\tau(p)}
 \frac{\prod_{i=1}^2(1+\mathbf{s}_i)^{m/2}}
       {(t_1 t_2)^{m-1}}  |u|_{m,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}, \\
  |v|_{k+1,p,K} & \ge 3^{-(k+1)\tau(p)}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{(k+1)/2}}{(t_1t_2)^{k}}
  |u|_{k+1,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}},   \\
   \frac{|v|_{m,p,K}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K}} & \le 3^{(k+1+m)\tau(p)}
   \frac{(t_1t_2)^{k+1-m}\prod_{i=1}^2(1+\mathbf{s}_i)^{m/2}|u|_{m,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}}
     {\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{(k+1)/2}|u|_{k+1,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}} \\
 & = 3^{(k+1+m)\tau(p)} \frac{\prod_{i=1}^2(1+\mathbf{s}_i)^{(k+1)/2}}
  {\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{m/2}}
  \frac{|u|_{m,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}}{|u|_{k+1,p,K_{\alpha\beta\gamma}}} \\
  & \le C  \frac{\left(\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}\right)^{k+1-m}}
  {\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{m/2}},
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
  \tau(p) := \begin{cases}
    \frac{1}{p} - \frac{1}{2}, & 1 \le p \le 2 \\
    \frac{1}{2} - \frac{1}{p} , & 2 \le p \le \infty
      \end{cases}, \qquad
  C := 3^{(k+1+m)\tau(p)} 2^{k+1} C_{k,m,p}.
\end{align*}
(See the inequalities in \cite[p.496]{KobayashiTsuchiya3}.)
Note that the constant $C$ depends only on $k$, $m$, and $p$.
Hence, we have derived the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}\label{thmB}
Let $K$ be an arbitrary tetrahedron with vertices given by
\eqref{eq:position} with the parameters in \eqref{eq:tetra-param}.
Let $k$, $m$ be integers with $k \ge 1$ and $0 \le m \le k$.
Let $p$ be taken as in Theorem~\ref{squeezingtheorem} according to $k$ and $m$.
Then, we have
\[
 B_p^{m,k}(K) := \sup_{v \in \mathcal{T}_p^k}\frac{|v|_{m,p,K}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K}}
  \le C  \frac{\left(\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}\right)^{k+1-m}}
  {\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{m/2}},
\]
where $C = C(k,m,p)$ is a constant independent of $K$.
\end{theorem}

\section{A geometric interpretation and the main theorem}
\label{sec:geometric}
In this section, we consider the geometric meaning of the quantity
$\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{-1/2}$ that appeared in Theorem~\ref{thmB}.
Recall that $K$ is a tetrahedron with vertices given by
\eqref{eq:position} and the parameters in \eqref{eq:tetra-param}.
Recall also that $B$ is the base of $K$ with vertices
$\mathbf{x}_1$, $\mathbf{x}_2$, $\mathbf{x}_3$.  The circumradius $R_B$
can then be written as
\[
   R_B = \frac{\sqrt{\alpha^2 - 2\alpha\beta s_1 + \beta^2}}{2t_1}.
\]
Because
\begin{align*}
   \alpha^2 - 2\alpha\beta s_1 + \beta^2 & =
  \frac{\alpha^2(2 - s_1^2)}{4} + \alpha
   \left(\frac{\alpha}{2} - \beta s_1\right)
   + \left(\frac{\alpha s_1}{2} - \beta\right)^2 \\
   & \ge \frac{\alpha^2(2 - s_1^2)}{4} \ge \frac{\alpha^2}{4},
\end{align*}
we have
\begin{align}
   R_B \ge \frac{\alpha}{4 t_1} = \frac{\alpha}{4 \sqrt{1 - \mathbf{s}_1^2}}
    \ge \frac{h_B}{4\sqrt{2} \sqrt{1 - \mathbf{s}_1}},
   \label{RB-est}
\end{align}
where we have used the definition $h_B = \alpha$.

Recall that $R_P$ was defined in Section~\ref{section:Circumradius}.
We will show that there exists a constant $C$ independent of $K$
such that
\begin{align}
    R_P \ge C\frac{\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}}{\sqrt{1 - \mathbf{s}_2}}.
   \label{RP-est}
\end{align}

Let $\mathbf{x}_3 = (\eta,\xi,0)^\top$, that is, $\xi = \beta t_1$ and
$\eta = \beta s_1$ or $\eta = \alpha - \beta s_1$.  From the
assumption, we have $0 < \eta < \alpha$ and $\xi > 0$.  Note that
\begin{align*}
   \delta_\theta(\mathbf{x}_1) = (0,0,0)^\top, \quad
  & \delta_\theta(\mathbf{x}_2) = (\alpha\cos\theta,0,0)^\top, \\
   \delta_\theta(\mathbf{x}_3) = (\eta\cos\theta-\xi\sin\theta,0,0)^\top,
  \quad &
   \delta_\theta(\mathbf{x}_4) = \gamma
  (s_{21}\cos\theta-s_{22}\sin\theta,0,t_2)^\top.
\end{align*}

Let $\underbar{x} < \overline{\mathrm{x}}$ be the $x$-coordinates of the end points of the base of
$\delta_\theta(K)$.  The assumptions given in \eqref{eq:tetra-param}
yield
\begin{align*}
   \underbar{x} \le 0, \quad \overline{\mathrm{x}} = \alpha\cos\theta, \quad
   0 \le \theta \le \frac{\pi}{2}, \qquad
   \underbar{x} =0, \quad \overline{\mathrm{x}} \ge \alpha\cos\theta, \quad
   -\frac{\pi}{2} \le \theta \le 0.
\end{align*}
Defining
$w = w(\theta) := s_{21}\cos\theta - s_{22}\sin\theta$, $R_\theta$ is
written as
\[
   R_\theta = \frac{1}{2\gamma t_2}
   \left((\overline{\mathrm{x}} - \gamma w)^2 + \gamma^2t_2^2\right)^{1/2}
   \left((\underbar{x} - \gamma w)^2 + \gamma^2t_2^2\right)^{1/2}.
\]
Take an arbitrary
$\theta \in \left[-\frac{\pi}{3},\frac{\pi}{3}\right]$.
Suppose that the inequality
\begin{align}
  \gamma w \le \frac{\underbar{x} + \overline{\mathrm{x}}}{2}
  \label{key-inequality1}
\end{align}
holds and there exists a constant $C_1$ independent of
$\theta$ such that
\begin{align}
 |\underbar{x} - \gamma w| \ge C_1 \gamma \mathbf{s}_2.  \label{key-inequality2}
\end{align}
We then have
\begin{align*}
   (\underbar{x} - \gamma w)^2 + \gamma^2 t_2^2 & \ge C_1^2
   (1 - t_2^2) + \gamma^2 t_2^2 \ge
   \min\{1, C_1^2\} \gamma^2, \\
   (\overline{\mathrm{x}} - \gamma w)^2 + \gamma^2 t_2^2 & \ge \max\left\{
      (\underbar{x} - \gamma w)^2 + \gamma^2 t_2^2, \;
      \frac{\alpha^2\cos^2\theta}{4} + \gamma^2 t_2^2 \right\} \\
  & \ge \max\left\{\min\{1,C_1^2\} \gamma^2,\, C_2^2\alpha^2\right\} \\
  & \ge \min\{C_1^2,C_2^2\}\max\{\alpha^2,\gamma^2\},
\end{align*}
where $C_2 = C_2(\theta) := \frac{\cos\theta}{2}$.
Here, we have used the fact that $\overline{\mathrm{x}}/2 \ge (\overline{\mathrm{x}}+\underbar{x})/2 \ge \gamma w$ and
$\overline{\mathrm{x}} - \gamma w \ge \overline{\mathrm{x}}/2 \ge (\alpha\cos\theta)/2$.  Hence,
setting
\[
   \frac{\min\{C_1,C_2\}\min\{1,C_1\}}{2\sqrt{2}}
  \ge \frac{\min\left\{C_1,\frac{1}{4}\right\}
   \min\{1,C_1\}}{2\sqrt{2}} =: C_3,
\]
we obtain
\begin{align*}
  R_P \ge R_\theta \ge \frac{\sqrt{2}C_3}{t_2}\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}
   = \frac{\sqrt{2}C_3 \max\{\alpha,\gamma\}}{\sqrt{1-\mathbf{s}_2^2}}
   \ge C_3 \frac{\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}}{\sqrt{1-\mathbf{s}_2}},
\end{align*}
and the key inequality \eqref{RP-est} is shown.

Fix $\varphi$ such that
\[
   0 < \varphi < \frac{\pi}{6}, \qquad
   \sin2\varphi\tan2\varphi \le \frac{1}{6}.
\]
In the following, we will show that, according to
$\mathbf{x}_4 = (\gamma s_{21}, \gamma s_{22}, \gamma t_2)^\top$, we can
take an appropriate
$\theta \in \left[-\frac{\pi}{3},\frac{\pi}{3}\right]$ such that
conditions \eqref{key-inequality1} and \eqref{key-inequality2}
hold with $C_1 = \sin\varphi$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent
\textbf{Case 1.} Suppose that $|s_{22}|\tan\varphi \le |s_{21}|$. \\
In this case, we set $\theta = 0$ and have $\underbar{x} = 0$, $\overline{\mathrm{x}} = \alpha$,
and $\gamma w = \gamma s_{21} \le \alpha/2 = (\underbar{x} + \overline{\mathrm{x}})/2$
because of \eqref{eq:tetra-param}.  Hence, \eqref{key-inequality1} holds.
For \eqref{key-inequality2}, we note that
\begin{align*}
   |\underbar{x} - \gamma w| = \gamma|s_{21}| & = \gamma
   \left(s_{21}^2\sin^2\varphi + s_{21}^2\cos^2\varphi\right)^{1/2} \\
  & \ge \gamma
   \left(s_{21}^2\sin^2\varphi + s_{22}^2\sin^2\varphi\right)^{1/2}
   = \gamma \mathbf{s}_2 \sin\varphi,
\end{align*}
and so \eqref{key-inequality2} holds with $C_1 := \sin\varphi$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent
\textbf{Case 2:} Suppose that $|s_{22}|\tan\varphi > |s_{21}|$
and $3\gamma s_{22} \tan2\varphi \le \alpha$. \\
In this case, set $\theta = -2\varphi$. We then have $\underbar{x} = 0$
and $\overline{\mathrm{x}} \ge \alpha\cos\theta = \alpha \cos2\varphi$.  If
$s_{22} > 0$, then
\begin{align*}
 \gamma w & = \gamma (s_{21}\cos2\varphi + s_{22}\sin2\varphi)
  \le \gamma (s_{22}\cos2\varphi\tan\varphi + s_{22}\sin2\varphi) \\
  & = \frac{\gamma s_{22}}{2}
   (3 \sin2\varphi - 2\sin^2\varphi\tan\varphi) \\
  & \le \frac{2\gamma s_{22}}{2}\sin2\varphi
   \le \frac{\alpha \cos2\varphi}{2} \le \frac{\underbar{x} + \overline{\mathrm{x}}}{2}.
\end{align*}
   If $s_{22} \le 0$, then
\begin{align*}
 \gamma w & = \gamma (s_{21}\cos2\varphi + s_{22}\sin2\varphi)
  \le \gamma (- s_{22}\cos2\varphi\tan\varphi + s_{22}\sin2\varphi) \\
  & = \gamma s_{22}\tan\varphi \le 0 \le \frac{\underbar{x} + \overline{\mathrm{x}}}{2}.
\end{align*}
Thus, in either case, \eqref{key-inequality1} holds.
For \eqref{key-inequality2}, we note that
\begin{align*}
   |\underbar{x} - \gamma w| & = \gamma
  |s_{21}\cos2\varphi + s_{22}\sin2\varphi| \ge \gamma \left(
  |s_{22}|\sin2\varphi - |s_{21}|\cos2\varphi\right) \\
  & \ge \gamma \left(
  |s_{22}|\sin2\varphi - |s_{22}|\cos2\varphi\tan\varphi\right)
  = \gamma|s_{22}|\tan\varphi \\
  & = \gamma \left(
    s_{22}^2 \sin^2\varphi\tan^2\varphi + s_{22}^2\sin^2\varphi
   \right)^{1/2} \\
  & = \gamma \left(s_{21}^2 \sin^2\varphi + s_{22}^2\sin^2\varphi
   \right)^{1/2} = \gamma\mathbf{s}_2\sin\varphi,
  \end{align*}
and so \eqref{key-inequality2} holds with $C_1 := \sin\varphi$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
\noindent
\textbf{Case 3:} Suppose that $|s_{22}|\tan\varphi > |s_{21}|$
and $3\gamma s_{22} \tan2\varphi > \alpha$. \\
In this case, set $\theta = 2\varphi$.  We then have
\[
   \underbar{x} = \min\{\eta\cos2\varphi - \xi\sin2\varphi,0\}, \qquad
    \overline{\mathrm{x}} = \alpha \cos2\varphi.
\]
If $\eta\cos2\varphi - \xi\sin2\varphi \le 0$, then
\begin{align*}
   \underbar{x} & = \eta\cos2\varphi - \xi\sin2\varphi
   = \alpha \cos2\varphi + (\eta - \alpha) \cos2\varphi
      - \xi\sin2\varphi \\
  & \ge \alpha \cos2\varphi -
   \left((\eta - \alpha)^2 + \xi^2\right)^{1/2}
   \ge \alpha \cos2\varphi - \alpha = -2\alpha \sin^2\varphi,
\end{align*}
because the lengths of all edges of the base are less than $\alpha$.
Even if $\eta\cos2\varphi - \xi\sin2\varphi \ge 0 = \underbar{x}$, the above
inequality obviously holds.  Because
\begin{align*}
  \gamma w & = \gamma (s_{21}\cos2\varphi - s_{22}\sin2\varphi) \\
  & \le \gamma (s_{22}\cos2\varphi\tan\varphi - s_{22}\sin2\varphi)
  = -\gamma s_{22}\tan\varphi,
\end{align*}
we have
\begin{align*}
  \underbar{x} - \gamma w & \ge -2\alpha\sin^2\varphi + \gamma s_{22}\tan\varphi \\
  & \ge -2\alpha\sin^2\varphi + \frac{\alpha\tan\varphi}{6\tan2\varphi}
 + \frac{\gamma}{2} s_{22}\tan\varphi \\
  & = \alpha\left(\frac{1}{6}- \sin2\varphi\tan2\varphi\right)
   \frac{\tan\varphi}{\tan2\varphi}
   + \frac{\gamma}{2} s_{22}\tan\varphi
    \ge \frac{\gamma}{2} s_{22}\tan\varphi > 0.
\end{align*}
Therefore,
\[
   \gamma w < \underbar{x} < \frac{\underbar{x} + \overline{\mathrm{x}}}{2},
\]
and \eqref{key-inequality1} holds.
For \eqref{key-inequality2}, we note that
\begin{align*}
   |\underbar{x} - \gamma w| & \ge \frac{\gamma}{2} s_{22}\tan\varphi \\
  & = \gamma \left(
    s_{22}^2 \sin^2\varphi\tan^2\varphi + s_{22}^2\sin^2\varphi
   \right)^{1/2} \\
  & \ge \gamma \left(s_{21}^2 \sin^2\varphi + s_{22}^2\sin^2\varphi
   \right)^{1/2} = \gamma\mathbf{s}_2\sin\varphi,
  \end{align*}
and so \eqref{key-inequality2} holds with $C_1 := \sin\varphi$.

\vspace{0.3cm}
Using inequalities \eqref{RB-est} and \eqref{RP-est}, we have shown the
following lemma.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:geometric}
Let $K$ be a tetrahedron with vertices given by \eqref{eq:position}
and the parameters in \eqref{eq:tetra-param}.
We then have
\[
  \prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{-1/2} \le C
   \frac{R_BR_P}{h_B\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}},
\]
where $C$ is a constant independent of $K$.
\end{lemma}

Take a facet $B$ so that $R_BR_P/h_B = R_K$.
Combining Theorem~\ref{thmB} and Lemma~\ref{lemma:geometric} with the
projected circumradius $R_K$, we have
\begin{align*}
 B_p^{m,k}(K) := \sup_{v \in \mathcal{T}_p^k}\frac{|v|_{m,p,K}}{|v|_{k+1,p,K}}
  & \le C  \frac{\left(\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}\right)^{k+1-m}}
  {\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{m/2}} \\
  & \le C \left(\frac{R_BR_P}{h_B}\right)^m
    \left(\max\{\alpha,\gamma\}\right)^{k+1-2m} \\
  & \le C R_K^m h_K^{k+1-2m},
\end{align*}
where the constant $C = C(k,m,p)$ is independent of $K$
with vertices \eqref{eq:position}.  Note that Sobolev (semi-)norms
are affected by rotation up to a constant.  Therefore, we have
derived the following result, which is the main theorem of this
paper.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
Let $K$ be an arbitrary tetrahedron.  Let $h_K:=\mathrm{diam}K$ and
$R_K$ be the projected circumradius of $K$ defined by
\eqref{def:RK}.  Assume that $k$, $m$ are integers with $k \ge 1$,
$0 \le m \le k$, and $p$ $(1 \le p \le \infty)$ is taken as in \eqref{p-cond}.
Then, for arbitrary $v \in W^{k+1,p}(K)$,
there exists a constant $C = C(k,m,p)$ independent of $K$ such that
\begin{align}
  |v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v|_{m,p,K} \le C R_K^m h_K^{k+1-2m}|v|_{k+1,p,K}
   = C \left(\frac{R_K}{h_K}\right)^m h_K^{k+1-m}|v|_{k+1,p,K}.
  \label{main-est}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Note that the error estimation \eqref{main-est} is exactly same as
\eqref{eq:circumradius-est}.

\section{Concluding remarks}
In this final section, we present some remarks on the newly obtained
error estimation.

(1) For finite element error analysis, the most important
case is $p=2$ and $m=1$.  In this case, $k$ should be greater than or
equal to $2$
because of the restriction in \eqref{p-cond}.  In this case, the main
estimation is
\[
   |v - \mathcal{I}_K^k v|_{1,p,K} \le C R_K h_K^{k-1}|v|_{k+1,p,K}
   = C \left(\frac{R_K}{h_K}\right) h_K^{k}|v|_{k+1,p,K}.
\]

Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb R^3$ be a bounded polygonal domain.
Suppose that we compute a numerical solution of the Poisson equation
\[
    -\Delta u = f \text{ in } \Omega, \quad
    u = 0 \text{ on } \partial\Omega
\]
by the finite element method with conforming simplicial elements.
One difficulty we may encounter in the numerical computation is the bad
triangulation of $\Omega$ with many slivers \cite{Sliver}.  Consider
the typical sliver $K$ mentioned in Section~\ref{intro}, whose vertices are
$(\pm h,0,0)^\top$ and $(0,\pm h,h^\alpha)^\top$.  We can see that
$R_K = \mathcal{O}(h_K^{2-\alpha})$ and
$R_Kh_K^{k-1} = \mathcal{O}(h_K^{k+1-\alpha})$.  Thus, if we use
a $k$th-order conforming Lagrange finite element method with
triangulation that contains many slivers like $K$, the theoretical
convergence rate may be $\mathcal{O}(h^{k+1-\alpha})$.  This is
worse than the expected rate $\mathcal{O}(h^{k})$, but we can still
expect convergence if $k+1-\alpha > 0$.   Therefore,
bad triangulation with many slivers can be remedied by using
higher-order Lagrange elements.

(2) Let $K$ be a tetrahedron with the inscribed sphere $S_K$.
If the regularity assumption is imposed on $K$, there exists
a constant $\sigma$ such that $h_K/\rho_K \le \sigma$, where
$\rho_K := \mathrm{diam}S_K$.
Suppose that $K$ is at the standard position.  Recall
$\delta_\theta$, the projection introduced in
Section~\ref{section:Circumradius}.  It is clear that
$\delta_\theta(S_K) \subset \delta_\theta(K)$ and
$\mathrm{diam}\delta_\theta(S_K) = \rho_K$.  Therefore, recalling that $R_P$
is the maximum value of the circumradius of $\delta_\theta(K)$, there
exists a constant $C$ such that $R_P \le C h_K$.
The regularity assumption implies the maximum angle condition, and
as was pointed out in \cite[Section~4.1]{KobayashiTsuchiya3}, the
maximum angle condition of $B$ implies the boundedness of $R_B/h_B$.
Thus, Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is an extension of the standard estimation
\eqref{eq:standard-est}.

(3) For tetrahedrons, a (generalized) maximum angle condition was given
by K\v{r}\'{i}\v{z}ek \cite{Krizek2}, \cite{Duran}.
A slightly more general condition has been stated by Jamet \cite{Jamet}.
The authors conjecture that Theorem~\ref{thm:main} is an extension
of these results.

(4) In Theorem~\ref{thmB}, we obtained an error estimation for
Lagrange interpolation on tetrahedrons in terms of the singular values
${\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{-1/2}}$ of the linear transformation.
In Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we showed that the projected circumradius
is a geometric interpretation of the singular values.  The authors,
however, are not completely sure whether the projected circumradius is
the \textit{best} interpretation.

Further research on the geometry of tetrahedrons is required
to ascertain the geometric properties of the singular values
${\prod_{i=1}^2(1-\mathbf{s}_i)^{-1/2}}$ and the projected circumradius,
and the relationship between these singular values and prior results.


Fixed point and spectral characterization of finite dimensional C*-algebras

Abstract: We show that the following conditions on a C*-algebra are equivalent: (i) it has the fixed point property for nonexpansive mappings, (ii) the spectrum of every self adjoint element is finite, (iii) it is finite dimensional. We prove that (i) implies (ii) using constructions given by Goebel, that (ii) implies (iii) using projection operator properties derived from the spectral and Gelfand-Naimark-Segal theorems, and observe that (iii) implies (i) by Brouwer's fixed point theorem.

\section{Statement of Result}
\label{introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We let ${\Bbb C},$ ${\Bbb R},$ ${\Bbb Q},$ ${\Bbb Z},$ ${\Bbb N} = \{1,2,3,4,...\},$ and
${\Bbb T} = \{ \, z \in {\Bbb C} \, : \, |z| = 1 \, \}$ denote the fields of
complex, real, and rational numbers, the ring of integers, the set
of natural numbers, and the circle group. If ${\cal B }$ is a Banach
space and $K \subset {\cal B }$ then a map $M \, : \, K \rightarrow K$
is {\it nonexpansive} if $||M(x) - M(y)|| \leq ||x-y||, \, x, y
\in K,$ and ${\cal B }$ has the {\it fixed point property for
nonexpansive maps} (FPP) if $M$ has a fixed point whenever $M$ is
nonexpansive and $K$ is a nonempty bounded closed convex subset of
${\cal B },$ \cite{goebel}. Throughout this paper ${\cal A }$ denotes a (not
necessarily unital) $C^*$--algebra with ${\cal A } \neq \{ 0\}$ and
$\widetilde {\cal A }$ denotes ${\cal A }$ if ${\cal A }$ is unital and the
unitization of ${\cal A }$ otherwise and $I$ denotes its unit.
$\text{Inv}(\widetilde {\cal A })$ denotes the set of invertible
elements in $\widetilde {\cal A }$ and the {\it spectrum} of an element
$A \in {\cal A }$ is defined by
    $\hbox{spec}(A) = \{ \, \mu \in {\Bbb C} \, : \, \mu \, I - A \notin
    \text{Inv}(\widetilde {\cal A })\, \},$
\cite{murphy}. We let ${\cal A }_s, {\cal A }_u,$ and ${\cal A }_n$ denote the sets
of self-adjoint, unitary, and normal elements in ${\cal A }.$ The
following result relates fixed point and spectral properties of
$C^*$--algebras.

\bigskip
\begin{theorem}
\label{pro:GNS} The following properties of a $C^*$--algebra ${\cal A }$
are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item ${\cal A }$ has the FPP,
\item ${spec}\, (A)$ is finite whenever $A \in {\cal A }_s,$
\item ${\cal A }$ has finite dimension.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof.} Proposition \ref{pro1} shows that property (1)
implies property (2), Proposition \ref{pro2} shows that property
(2) implies property (3), and Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem
(\cite{goebel}, Theorem 7.1) shows that property (3) implies
property (1).
\hfill$\square$\\
\section{Derivation of Proposition \ref{pro1}}
\label{derivations1} \setcounter{equation}{0}
Throughout this section $S$ denotes a compact subset of ${\Bbb C}.$
We observe that set $C(S),$ consisting of continuous complex valued functions on $S$ and equipped with adjoint $A^* = \overline A$ and norm $||A|| = \max_{\, s \in S} |A(s)|,$ is a unital abelian $C^*$--algebra and that for every $p \in S$ the subset $I_p(S),$ consisting of functions in $C(S)$ that vanish at $p,$ is an ideal of $C(S).$
If $A \in {\cal A }$ then $\hbox{spec}(A)$ is a compact subset of the
disc of radius $||A||$ centered at $0.$ Furthermore, ${\cal A }_s$ and
${\cal A }_u$ are subsets of ${\cal A }_n,$ $A \in {\cal A }_s$ implies
$\hbox{spec}(A) \subseteq [ \, -||A||,||A|| \, ],$ and $A \in
{\cal A }_u$ implies $\hbox{spec}\, (A) \subseteq {\Bbb T}.$ For $A \in {\cal A },$
the $C^*$--subalgebra $C^*(A)$ of ${\cal A }$ generated by $A$ and the
$C^*$--subalgebra $C^*(A,I)$ of $\widetilde {\cal A }$ generated by $A$
and $I$ are abelian iff $A \in {\cal A }_n.$
\begin{lem}
\label{abelian}
If $A \in {\cal A }_n$ and
$z \, : \, \hbox{spec} \, (A) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}$
denotes the inclusion map then there exists an isometric $*$--isomorphism
$\phi \, : \, C^*(A,I) \rightarrow C(\hbox{spec} \, (A))$
such that $\phi(A) = z$ and $\phi(I) = 1.$ If $A \in
{\cal A }_s$ then
$0 \notin \hbox{spec} \, (A) \implies \phi(C^*(A)) = C(\hbox{spec} \, (A))$
and
$0 \in \hbox{spec} \, (A) \implies \phi(C^*(A)) = I_0(\hbox{spec} \, (A)).$
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.}
The Gelfand theorem for abelian $C^*$--algebras implies that the maximal ideal space $\Omega(C^*(A,I))$ of $C^*(A,I),$ identified with the set of multiplicative linear functionals $\omega \, : \, C^*(A,I) \rightarrow {\Bbb C}$ equipped with the weak$^*$ topology, is a compact Hausdorff space and that $C^*(A,I)$ is isomorphic to $C(\Omega(C^*(A,I)))$ under the Gelfand transform $B \rightarrow \widehat B$ defined by $\widehat {B}(\omega) = \omega(B).$ We observe that $\widehat {A} \, : \, \Omega(C^*(A,I)) \rightarrow \hbox{spec} \, (A)$ is a homeomorphism and that the function $\phi \, : \, C^*(A,I) \rightarrow C(\hbox{spec} \, (A))$ defined by  $\phi(B) = \widehat {B} \circ (\widehat {A})^{-1}, \, B \in C^*(A,I),$ satisfies the asserted properties, see also (\cite{murphy}, Theorem 2.1.13), (\cite{strocchi}, Proposition 1.5.3). The second assertion follows from the Weierstrass approximation theorem.
\hfill$\square$\\

\bigskip
The following result generalizes Goebel's Example 2.3 in
\cite{goebel}.
\begin{lem}
\label{goebel1}
If $S$ is infinite then $C(S)$ does not
have the FPP.
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.} Choose a limit point $p \in S$ and define the set
$$
    K = \{ \, A \in C(S) \, : \,
    %
    \ 0 \leq \|A\| \leq 1, \ A(p) = 1 \, \}.
$$
Choose $B \in K$ with $|B(s)| < 1$ for $s \neq p$ and define the
map
$M_B \, : \, K \rightarrow K$
by
$ M_B(x) =  BA.$
Then $K$ is a bounded closed convex set and the map $M_B$ is
nonexpansive and does not have a fixed point. \hfill$\square$\
\begin{lem}
\label{goebel2}
If $S$ is infinite and $p \in S$ then $I_p(S)$ does not have the FPP.
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.} If there exists a limit point $q \in S$ such that
$q \neq p$ then an argument similar to that used in Lemma
\ref{goebel1} shows that $I_p(S)$ does not have the FPP. Otherwise
$p$ is the only limit point of $S$ and then $I_p(S)$ is
isomorphic, as a Banach space, to the Banach space $c_0$
consisting of all complex valued convergent sequences. Let $K$ be
the unit ball in $c_0.$ Then $K$ is a bounded close convex set and
Goebel's Example 4.1 in \cite{goebel} shows that the mapping
$M \, : \, K \rightarrow K$
defined by
$M(A) = (1-||a||,a_1,a_2,...), \ a \in c_0$
is nonexpansive and does not have a fixed point. Therefore $c_0,$
and hence $I_p(S),$ does not have the FPP. \hfill$\square$\
\begin{pro}
\label{pro1}
If ${\cal A }$ has the FPP and $A \in {\cal A }$ then $\hbox{spec}\, (A)$ is
finite.
\end{pro}
\textbf{Proof.} Assume that $A \in {\cal A }_s$ and $\hbox{spec}\, (A)$
is infinite. It suffices to show that ${\cal A }$ does not have the FPP.
Lemma \ref{abelian} shows that $C^*(A)$ is either isomorphic to
$C(\hbox{spec}\, (A))$ or isomorphic to $I_0(\hbox{spec}\, (A)).$
Therefore Lemma \ref{goebel1} and Lemma \ref{goebel2} show that
the subalgebra $C^*(A)$ of ${\cal A },$ and hence ${\cal A },$ does not have
the FPP. \hfill$\square$\
\section{Projections}
\label{projections} \setcounter{equation}{0}
The set of projections
    ${\cal P } = \{ \, P \in {\cal A }_s \, : \, P^2 = P \, \}$
in ${\cal A }$ admits the partial order
    $P \leq Q  \mbox{ iff } PQ = QP = P.$
We write $P < Q$ if $P \leq Q$ and $P \neq Q.$ We say $P$ and $Q$ are orthogonal if $PQ = QP = 0$ and then write $P \perp Q.$ If $P, Q \in {\cal P }$ then $P + Q \in {\cal P }$ iff $P \perp Q.$ A projection $P$ is maximal if there does not exist a projection $Q$  such that $P < Q.$ If ${\cal A }$ is unital then $I$ is the unique maximal projection. A projection $P \in {\cal P }$ is minimal if $P \neq 0$ and there does not exist a nonzero $Q \in {\cal P }$ such that $Q < P.$ Otherwise $P-Q$ is a nonzero projection and $P = Q + (P-Q).$
\begin{lem}
\label{spec}
If $A \in {\cal A }_s,$ $A \neq 0,$ and $\hbox{spec}\, (A)$ is finite,
then there exist pairwise orthogonal nonzero projections
$P_1,...,P_d \in {\cal P } \cap C^*(A)$
and nonzero elements
$\lambda_1,...,\lambda_d \in \hbox{spec}\, (A)$
such that
    $A = \sum_{j=1}^{d} \lambda_j \, P_j.$
Furthermore, $\overline {AH} = AH$ and there exists a $P_A \in {\cal P }$ such that $P_AH = AH.$
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.} By assumption $\hbox{spec}\, (A)$ is finite and
since $A \neq 0$ it contains at least one nonzero element. Let $d
\in {\Bbb N},$ let $\lambda_1,...,\lambda_d$ be the distinct nonzero
elements in $\hbox{spec}\, (A),$ and define $\pi_j \in
C(\hbox{spec}\, (A)), j = 1,...,d$ by $\pi_j(\lambda_i) = 1$ if
$i=j$ and zero otherwise. Let $\phi \, : \, C^*(A,I) \rightarrow
C(\hbox{spec} \, (A))$ be the isometric $*$--isomorphism in Lemma
\ref{abelian} and define $P_j = \phi^{-1}(\pi_j), j = 1,...,d.$
Then Lemma \ref{abelian} ensures that $P_1,..,P_d$ are pairwise
orthogonal minimal projection operators in $C^*(A)$ and that their
sum equals $A.$ The second assertion follows by defining $P_A =
\sum_{j=1}^{d} P_j.$ \hfill$\square$\
\begin{rem}
\label{spectral}
Lemma \ref{spec} is a special case of the spectral theorem for normal elements in a $C^*$--algebra \cite{murphy} and for normal operators on a Hilbert space \cite{halmos}. Furthermore, for each $j = 1,...,d,$
    $P_j = AL_j(A)/\lambda_j$ where $L_j$
is the Lagrange interpolating polynomial of degree $d-1$ that satisfies
    $L_j(\lambda_i) = 1$ if $i=j$ and equals zero otherwise.
\end{rem}
\begin{lem}
\label{AN}
If $\hbox{spec}\,  \, (A)$ is finite for every $A \in {\cal A }_s$ then
every sequence in ${\cal P }$ that either strictly increases or
strictly decreases must terminate.
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.} Assume to the contrary that there exists an
infinite sequence $P_n, \ n \in {\Bbb N}$ that is either strictly
increasing or strictly decreasing and construct the sequence of
nonzero projections $Q_n \in {\cal P }$ by $Q_n = P_{n+1} - P_n$ if
$P_n$ increases and $Q_n = P_{n} - P_{n+1}$ if $P_n$ decreases.
Then $A_k = \sum_{n=1}^{k} (1/n)Q_n, \, k \in {\Bbb N}$ is a Cauchy
sequence in ${\cal A }_s$ that converge to $A \in {\cal A }_s$ and
$\hbox{spec}\, (A) = \{ \, 1/n \, : \, n \in {\Bbb N} \, \} \cup \{ \,
0 \, \}$ is infinite. This contradiction concludes the proof.
\hfill$\square$\
\begin{cor}
\label{maxmin}
If $\hbox{spec}\, (A)$ is finite for every $A \in {\cal A }_s$ then
for every nonzero $P \in {\cal P }$ there exists a maximal $P_{max} \in {\cal P }$ and
a minimal $P_{1} \in {\cal P }$ such that $P_{1} \leq P \leq P_{max}.$ Furthermore, there exist $d \in {\Bbb N}$ and nonzero pairwise orthogonal
minimal $P_1,...,P_d \in {\cal P }$ such that $P = \sum_{j=1}^{d} P_j.$
\end{cor}
\textbf{Proof.} The first assertion follows since otherwise there
exists an infinite sequence of projections that either strictly
increase or strictly decreases thus contradicting Lemma \ref{AN}.
The second assertion follows by recursively applying the first
assertion to the projection $P-P_1$ whenever $P-P_1 \neq 0.$
\hfill$\square$\
For any Hilbert space $H$ the set ${\cal B }(H),$ consisting of bounded
operators on $H,$ forms a $C^*$--algebra under the adjoint and
operator norm. A $C^*$--subalgebra ${\cal A }$ of ${\cal B }(H)$ is called nondegenerate
if $\overline {{\cal A } \, H} = H.$
\begin{lem}
\label{GNS}
Every $C^*$ algebra ${\cal A }$ is isomorphic to a nondegenerate $C^*$--subalgebra
${\cal A }$ of ${\cal B }(H)$ for some Hilbert space $H.$
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.} This isomorphism is given by the
Gelfand-Naimark-Segal construction \cite{murphy}.
\hfill$\square$\\

\medskip
Througout the remainder of this paper we identify ${\cal A }$ with a
nondegenerate $C^*$--subalgebra of ${\cal B }(H)$ for some Hilbert space $H$ as justified by Lemma \ref{GNS}. If $H_1$ and $H_2$ are closed subspaces of $H$ that are orthogonal we write $H_1 \perp H_2$ and if in addition their sum equals $H$ we write $H = H_1 \bigoplus H_2$ and $H_2 = H_{1}^{\perp}.$ We observe that for every $P, Q \in {\cal P },$ $PH$ is a closed subspace of $H,$ $P$ is the operator that orthogonally projects vectors onto $PH,$ $\hbox{ker}\, (P) = (PH)^{\perp},$ and $P \perp Q$ iff $PH \perp QH.$ We also observe that for every $A \in {\cal A }_s,$
    $H = \hbox{ker}\, (A) \bigoplus \overline {AH}.$
\begin{cor}
\label{unital}
If $\hbox{spec}\, \, (A)$ is finite for every $A \in {\cal A }_s$ then ${\cal A }$ is unital.
\end{cor}
\textbf{Proof.} Lemma \ref{spec} and Corollary \ref{maxmin} ensure
that there exists a maximal projection $P \in {\cal P }.$ It suffices to
show that $PH = H.$ Assume to the contrary that $PH \neq H.$ Since
${\cal A }$ is nondegenerate there exists $A \in {\cal A }$ such that $AH$ is
not a subset of $PH$ and hence
$\hbox{ker} (P)$ is not a subset of $\hbox{ker} (A) = \hbox{ker} (A^*A).$
Therefore, since $Q \in {\cal A }_s$ defined by
    $Q = P + A^*A$
satisfies
    $\hbox{ker} (Q) = \hbox{ker} (P) \bigcap \hbox{ker} (A),$
it follows that $\hbox{ker} (Q)$ is a proper subset of $\hbox{ker} (P)$
and hence
    $PH$
is a proper subspace of
    $\overline {QH}.$
Lemma \ref{spec} implies that $\overline {QH} = QH$ and that there
exists $T \in {\cal P }$ such that $TH = QH.$ This implies that $P < T$
thus contradicting the assumption that $P$ is maximal.
\hfill$\square$\
\section{Derivation of Proposition \ref{pro2}}
\label{derivations2} \setcounter{equation}{0}
If $H_1$ and $H_2$ are closed subspaces of $H$ we let $Hom_{{\cal A }}(H_1,H_2)$ denote the subspace consisting of $A \in {\cal A }$ such that $AH_1 \subset H_2$ and such that the restriction of $A$ to $H_{1}^{\perp}$ equals $0.$ An element $U \in {\cal A }$ is called a partial isometry if $U^*U \in {\cal P }.$
\begin{lem}
\label{polar}
Every $A \in {\cal A }$ can be factored uniquely as
$A = U|A|$
where
$H_1 = \left(\hbox{ker} (A)\right)^{\perp},$
$H_2 = \overline {AH},$
$|A| \in Hom_{{\cal A }}(H_1,H_1)$ is the semipositive operator such that $|A|^2 = A^*A,$
and
$U \in Hom_{{\cal A }}(H_1,H_2)$ is a surjective partial isometry such that $U^*U$ is orthogonal projection onto $H_1.$
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.} This is the polar decomposition theorem
\cite{murphy}.\hfill$\square$\\

\medskip Throughout this remainder of this section we will assume
that ${\cal A }$ satisfies the property that $A \in {\cal A }_s$ implies that
${spec}\, (A)$ is finite. Therefore Lemma \ref{spec} and Lemma
\ref{polar} ensures that $AV$ is closed whenever $V$ is a closed
subspace of $H$ and $A \in {\cal A }.$
\begin{lem}
\label{dim1}
    If $P \in {\cal P }$ is minimal and $A \in Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH, PH)$ then there exists
    $c \in {\Bbb C}$ such that $A = cP.$ Therefore, since $P$ is a nonzero element
    in $Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH, PH),$ it follows that
$\dim \left( Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH, PH) \right) = 1.$
\end{lem}
\textbf{Proof.}
    Since $A_r = \frac{1}{2}\left(A + A^*\right)$ and $A_i = \frac{1}{2i}\left(A - A^*\right)$ are in ${\cal A }_s \cap Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH, PH),$ Lemma \ref{spec} implies that $A_r$ and $A_i$ are either zero or linear combinations having nonzero real coefficients of projections. Each projection is in $Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH, PH)$ and therefore is $\leq P.$ Since $P$ is minimal each projection must vanish or equal $P.$ Since $A = A_r + iA_i$ the proof is complete.
\hfill$\square$\
\begin{cor}
\label{dim2}
    If $P, Q \in {\cal P }$ are minimal then
    $\dim \left( Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH, QH) \right) \in \{0,1\}.$
\end{cor}
\textbf{Proof.}
    If nonzero elements $A, B \in Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH,QH)$ have polar decompositions $A = U|A|$ and $B = O|B|$ then $O^*U \in Hom_{{\cal A }}(PH,QH)$ and Lemma \ref{dim1} implies that $|A|,$ $|B|,$ and $O^*U$ are multiples of $P.$ This completes the proof.
\hfill$\square$\
\begin{pro}
\label{pro2}
${\cal A }$ is finite dimensional.
\end{pro}
\textbf{Proof.} Corollary \ref{unital} and Lemma \ref{maxmin}
imply that $I \in {\cal A }$ and that there exists minimal projections
$P_1,...,P_d$ such that $I = \sum_{j=1}^{d} P_j.$ Therefore every
$A \in {\cal A }$ can be expressed as the sum
$A = \sum_{i,j=1}^{d} A_{ij}$
where
$A_{ij} = P_i A P_j \in Hom_{{\cal A }}(P_jH,P_iH).$
Therefore
${\cal A } = \bigoplus_{i,j = 1}^{d} Hom_{{\cal A }}(P_jH,P_iH)$
and hence Corollary \ref{dim2} implies that $\dim {\cal A } \leq d^2.$
\hfill$\square$\
\begin{rem}
\label{matrep}
In Corollary \ref{dim2} we can define an equivalence relation on the set $\{1,...,d\}$ by $i \sim j$ iff $\dim \left( Hom_{{\cal A }}(P_jH,P_iH) \right) = 1.$ This partitions the set into $n \in {\Bbb N}$ equivalence classes having cardinalities $d_1,...,d_n \in {\Bbb N}$ with $d = \sum_{k = 1}^{n} d_k.$ Therefore ${\cal A }$ is isomorphic to
$\bigoplus_{k = 1}^{n} {\cal B }({\Bbb C}^d),$
which is a sum of matrix algebras, and
${\cal A }$ is abelian iff each $d_k = 1.$
\end{rem}
\section{Conclusions and Future Research}
\label{conclusions} \setcounter{equation}{0}
This paper derives simple criteria for a $C^*$--algebra to be
finite dimensional and describes the structure of the algebra
using properties of their projections that are related to fixed
point and spectral theory. A sharpened understanding of these
properties may be useful in quantum mechanics where
$C^*$--algebras provide the core mathematical foundation
\cite{strocchi}. Future research will examine the geometry of more complicated topological algebras that include the approximately finite dimensional $C^*$--algebras defined by Bratteli \cite{bratteli} and classified by Elliott \cite{elliott}, and the abelian Banach $*$--algebras whose fixed point properties were studied by
Dhompongsa and Fupinwong \cite{dhompongsa-fupinwong}.
\\ \\
{\it Acknowledgments} The authors thank Kazimierz Goebel for
helpful discussions.

Operator Algebras (math.OA); Functional Analysis (math.FA)