Uniqueness of solutions to the logarithmic Minkowski problem in \(\mathbb{R}^3\) (Q2105752)

The Logarithmic Minkowski problem (LMP) says: Find necessary and sufficient conditions on a finite Borel measure \(\mu\) on \(\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\) so that \(\mu\) is the cone-volume measure of a convex body \(K\) in \(\mathbb{R}^n\). If \(n \mu =f \mathcal{H}^{n-1}\) (where \(\mathcal{H}^{n-1}\) is the is \((n-1)\)-dimensional Hausdorff measure), the associated partial differential equation for the logarithmic Minkowski problem is a Monge-Ampère type equation on \(\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\). In the introduction the authors include a summary of the results obtained on the existence and uniqueness of the solutions in dimension 2 and some problems that arise in higher dimensions. The proof of uniqueness of solutions is more complicated than its existence. In this paper the authors prove the uniqueness in dimension 3 under some conditions. Theorem 1.1. Suppose \(\frac{1}{\lambda } \leq f \leq \lambda\) for some \(\lambda \geq 0\), then there exists a small constant \(\epsilon_0\geq 0\), depending only on \(\lambda\), such that if \(\| f-1\|_{C^\alpha}\leqslant \epsilon_0\) the solution of the problem LMP is unique in \(\mathbb{R}^3\). The authors produce a sequence of solutions bounded from below and above such that the convex bodies corresponding to this sequence either converge to an infinite straight line or converge to a two dimensional plane obtaining a uniform upper bound of solutions to the logarithmic Minkowski problem. Establishing this result (Lemma 1.1) is the main goal since the proof of the theorem follows from the regularity theory of Monge-Ampère equations and the inverse function theorem. The paper is organized as follows: after a long introduction with a detailed explanation of previous results, there is a section on preliminaries recalling some notions and results in the theory of convex bodies; Section 3 is the proof of Lemma 1.1, (it is a long proof explained in detail, 8 1/2 pages); finally in Section 4 the authors conclude the proof of Theorem 1.1.