1: %% This document created by Scientific Word (R) Version 2.0
2: %% Starting shell: mathart1
3:
4:
5: \documentclass[12pt,thmsa]{article}
6: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
7: \usepackage{sw20bams}
8:
9: %TCIDATA{TCIstyle=Article/art1.lat,bams,mathart1}
10:
11: \input tcilatex
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \author{Steven R. Finch and Li-Yan Zhu}
15: \title{Searching for a Shoreline}
16: \date{January 9, 2005}
17: \maketitle
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: Logarithmic spirals are conjectured to be optimal escape paths from a half
21: plane ocean. Assuming this, we find the rate of increase for both min-max
22: and min-mean interpretations of ``optimal''. For the one-dimensional analog,
23: which we call logarithmic coils, our min-mean solution differs from a
24: widely-cited published account.
25: \end{abstract}
26:
27: \footnotetext{
28: Copyright \copyright\ 2005 by Steven R. Finch. All rights reserved.}A ship
29: is lost in a dense fog at sea and must reach land as soon as possible. The
30: captain knows that the shore is straight line, but has no information about
31: its distance or direction. Equivalently, the sea is known to be a half
32: plane, but the ship's location and orientation relative to the boundary is
33: unknown. Assuming its speed is constant, what is the best path for the ship
34: to follow in its search for the shore?
35:
36: The word ``best'' can be understood in several ways \cite{FW}. We start with
37: minimizing the worst-case scenario (min-max); a relevant conjecture that the
38: family of logarithmic spirals contains the minimal path remains open. Our
39: small contribution is that of providing the computational details that
40: underlie a proposition due to Baeza-Yates, Culberson \&\ Rawlins \cite{BY1,
41: BY2, BY3}. We then adopt a different sense of ``best'' and determine the
42: logarithmic spiral that minimizes the expected pathlength (min-mean), in
43: which shoreline directions are assumed to be uniformly distributed. Except
44: for the (admittedly large) theoretical gap regarding the optimality of
45: logarithmic spirals, the calculations in this two-dimensional setting are
46: straightforward.
47:
48: We subsequently turn to the one-dimensional analog of the search problem.
49: The shore is now simply a point on a line and the spirals here are
50: necessarily self-intersecting. A\ large computer science literature on this
51: problem exists. The solution of the min-max problem was first found by Beck
52: \&\ Newman \cite{BN}. Their approach to the min-mean problem, however,
53: suffers from the assumption of a nonuniform target distribution (a certain
54: scaling property, true in the two-dimensional setting, is less apparent
55: here). We give our solution, which is distinct from theirs, and hope to
56: initiate discussion on this issue.
57:
58: The three-dimensional analog, for which shores are planes in space, would
59: seem to be very difficult. We wonder if an appropriate extension of spiral
60: has ever been examined in the past.
61:
62: \subsection{Planar Setting:\ Min-Max}
63:
64: Let $\kappa >0$. Three preliminary results are:
65:
66: \begin{lemma}
67: The distance between the line $Ax+By+C=0$ and the origin is $|C|/\sqrt{%
68: A^2+B^2}$.
69: \end{lemma}
70:
71: \begin{lemma}
72: The equation of a line tangent to the circle of radius $R$, center at the
73: origin, is $r=R\sec (\theta -\omega )$, where $\omega $ corresponds to the
74: point of tangency.
75: \end{lemma}
76:
77: \begin{lemma}
78: The equation of a line tangent to the spiral $r=e^{\kappa \theta }$ is $%
79: y-e^{\kappa \theta }\sin (\theta )=m(x-e^{\kappa \theta }\cos (\theta ))$,
80: where $\theta $ corresponds to the point of tangency and the slope is given
81: by
82: \[
83: m=\frac{\kappa \sin (\theta )+\cos (\theta )}{\kappa \cos (\theta )-\sin
84: (\theta )}.
85: \]
86: \end{lemma}
87:
88: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Lemma 1.} The unit vector $(A,B)/\sqrt{A^2+B^2}$
89: is normal to the line $Ax+By+C=0$, hence the point $(-CA,-CB)/(A^2+B^2)$ on
90: the line determines its distance from $(0,0)$.\\
91:
92: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Lemma 2.} In rectangular coordinates, the line is
93: given by
94: \[
95: y=R\sin (\omega )-\cot (\omega )\left( x-R\cos (\omega )\right) .
96: \]
97: In polar coordinates, therefore, we have
98: \[
99: r\sin (\theta )=R\sin (\omega )-\cot (\omega )\left( r\cos (\theta )-R\cos
100: (\omega )\right)
101: \]
102: and so
103: \[
104: \frac rR=\frac{\sin (\omega )+\cot (\omega )\cos (\omega )}{\sin (\theta
105: )+\cot (\omega )\cos (\theta )}=\sec (\theta -\omega ).
106: \]
107:
108: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Lemma 3.} Clearly
109: \[
110: \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{dy/d\theta }{dx/d\theta }=\frac{(e^{\kappa \theta }\sin
111: (\theta ))^{\prime }}{(e^{\kappa \theta }\cos (\theta ))^{\prime }}=\frac{%
112: \kappa \sin (\theta )+\cos (\theta )}{\kappa \cos (\theta )-\sin (\theta )}.
113: \]
114:
115: \begin{theorem}
116: Of all lines tangent to the spiral $r=e^{\kappa \theta }$, there is exactly
117: one that is tangent to the circle of radius $R$, center at the origin. Call
118: this line $L$. The tangency point of $L$ with the spiral is
119: \[
120: \theta _0=\frac 1\kappa \left( \ln (R)+\frac 12\ln (1+\kappa ^2)\right) .
121: \]
122: The tangency point of $L$ with the circle is
123: \[
124: \omega _0=\theta _0-\arccos \left( \frac 1{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}\right)
125: <\theta _0;
126: \]
127: thus $L$ has equation $r=R\sec (\theta -\omega _0)$.
128: \end{theorem}
129:
130: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem 4.} Apply Lemma 1 with $A=m$, $B=-1$ and $%
131: C=e^{\kappa \theta }(\sin (\theta )-m\cos (\theta ))$ to obtain $R^2$ as an
132: expression in $\kappa $, $\theta $, $m$. Lemma 3 further gives $m$ as an
133: expression in $\kappa $, $\theta $. We find that $R^2(1+\kappa
134: ^2)=e^{2\kappa \theta }$ and hence the formula for $\theta _0$ is true. By
135: Lemma 2, $e^{\kappa \theta _0}=R\sec (\theta _0-\omega )$ and thus the
136: formula for $\omega _0$ is true.\\
137:
138: Think of a ship, starting at the origin and moving along the spiral. Its
139: first contact point with $L$ is at $\theta _0$. We wish to compute its
140: second contact point $\theta _1$. The reason is that, in the interval $%
141: \theta _0<\theta <\theta _1$, the spiral intersects all other tangent lines
142: to the circle of radius $R$. At $\theta =\theta _1$, repetition begins so we
143: stop there:\ All possible shorelines at distance $R\,$ from the origin have
144: at this point been found.
145:
146: A\ closed-form expression for $\theta _1$ is not known, but it uniquely
147: satisfies the equation
148: \[
149: \begin{array}{ccc}
150: e^{\kappa \theta _1}=R\sec (\theta _1-\omega _0), & & \theta _0<\theta
151: _1<\theta _0+2\pi \text{.}
152: \end{array}
153: \]
154: Once we have $\theta _1$ for $R=1$, we have it for all $R$ via the formula
155: \[
156: \theta _1(R)=\frac 1\kappa \ln (R)+\theta _1(1)
157: \]
158: since
159: \[
160: \omega _0(R)=\frac 1\kappa \ln (R)+\omega _0(1),
161: \]
162: so $\theta _1(R)-\omega _0(R)=\theta _1(1)-\omega _0(1)$ and thus
163: \[
164: e^{\kappa \theta _1(R)}=Re^{\kappa \theta _1(1)}=R\sec (\theta _1(1)-\omega
165: _0(1))=R\sec (\theta _1(R)-\omega _0(R)).
166: \]
167: Such scaling behavior is valuable here -- we may consider $R=1$ without loss
168: of generality -- but this property fails in Section 3.
169:
170: \begin{lemma}
171: The arclength of the spiral $r=e^{\kappa \theta }$ up to $\Theta $ is
172: \[
173: \sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}\dint\limits_{-\infty }^\Theta e^{\kappa \theta }d\theta =%
174: \frac{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}\kappa e^{\kappa \Theta }\text{.}
175: \]
176: \end{lemma}
177:
178: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Lemma 5.} From $dr=\kappa \,e^{\kappa \theta
179: }d\theta $, we deduce that $ds^2=r^2d\theta ^2+dr^2=e^{2\kappa \theta
180: }d\theta ^2+\kappa ^2e^{2\kappa \theta }d\theta ^2=(1+\kappa ^2)e^{2\kappa
181: \theta }d\theta ^2$.\\
182:
183: With the assumption that $R=1$, the two-dimensional min-max problem reduces
184: to minimizing $\left( \sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}/\kappa \right) e^{\kappa \theta _1}$
185: as a function of $\kappa $. While an explicit formula for $\theta _1$ in
186: terms of $\kappa $ is unavailable, a purely numerical scheme suffices to
187: give $\kappa =0.2124695594...$ with arclength $13.8111351795...$. The latter
188: is consistent with the estimate $13.81$ reported in \cite{BY1}; earlier
189: estimates $0.22325$ and $13.49$ from \cite{BY2, BY3} arose when erroneously
190: minimizing $e^{\kappa \theta _1}/\kappa $.
191:
192: We now obtain trigonometric equations that serve to define the best spiral
193: more precisely.\FRAME{ftbpFUX}{5.7588in}{4.6285in}{0pt}{\Qcb{Two helpful
194: pictures for the proof of Theorems 6 and 7.}}{}{fig1.jpg}{\special{language
195: "Scientific Word";type "GRAPHIC";maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE;display
196: "USEDEF";valid_file "F";width 5.7588in;height 4.6285in;depth 0pt;cropleft
197: "0";croptop "1.0003";cropright "0.9992";cropbottom "0";filename
198: 'C:/FIG1.JPG';file-properties "XNPEU";}}
199:
200: \begin{theorem}
201: The min-max logarithmic spiral has parameter $\kappa =\tan \alpha
202: =0.2124695594...=\ln (1.2367284662...)$ with arclength $\csc \alpha \sec
203: \beta =13.8111351795...$, where $\alpha $, $\beta $ satisfy the simultaneous
204: equations
205: \[
206: \begin{array}{ccc}
207: \dfrac 1{\tan \alpha }+\dfrac 1{\tan \beta }=\dfrac{2\pi -\alpha -\beta }{%
208: \cos ^2\alpha }, & & \dfrac{\cos \alpha }{\cos \beta }=e^{(2\pi -\alpha
209: -\beta )\tan \alpha }.
210: \end{array}
211: \]
212: \end{theorem}
213:
214: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem 6.} Define angles $\alpha $, $\beta $ and
215: lengths $u$, $v$ by
216: \[
217: \begin{array}{lll}
218: \theta _0=\alpha +\omega _0, & & u=e^{\kappa \theta _0}=\sec \alpha , \\
219: \theta _1=(2\pi -\alpha -\beta )+\theta _0, & & v=e^{\kappa \theta _1}=\sec
220: \beta .
221: \end{array}
222: \]
223: Differentiating with respect to $\alpha $, we obtain
224: \begin{equation}
225: u^{\prime }=\sec \alpha \tan \alpha =u\tan \alpha , \label{up}
226: \end{equation}
227: \[
228: v^{\prime }=\beta ^{\prime }\sec \beta \tan \beta =\beta ^{\prime }v\tan
229: \beta ,
230: \]
231: that is,
232: \begin{equation}
233: \beta ^{\prime }=\frac{v^{\prime }}v\cot \beta =v^{\prime }\cos \beta \cot
234: \beta . \label{bp}
235: \end{equation}
236: From $e^{\kappa \theta _1}=e^{\kappa \theta _0}e^{\kappa (2\pi -\alpha
237: -\beta )}$, it follows that
238: \begin{equation}
239: v=u\,e^{(2\pi -\alpha -\beta )\tan \alpha } \label{vu}
240: \end{equation}
241: hence
242: \begin{eqnarray}
243: v^{\prime } &=&\left( (2\pi -\alpha -\beta )\sec ^2\alpha -(1+\beta ^{\prime
244: })\tan \alpha \right) v+u^{\prime }\frac vu \label{vp1} \\
245: &=&\left( -v^{\prime }\tan \alpha \cos \beta \cot \beta +(2\pi -\alpha
246: -\beta )\sec ^2\alpha \right) v \nonumber
247: \end{eqnarray}
248: by \label{up}(1) and \label{bp}(2). Since the objective function
249: \[
250: e^{\kappa \theta _1}\frac{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}\kappa =v\csc \alpha
251: \]
252: is minimized when
253: \begin{equation}
254: v^{\prime }\csc \alpha -v\csc \alpha \cot \alpha =0, \label{vp2}
255: \end{equation}
256: we have the additional formula $v^{\prime }=v\cot \alpha $. Substituting
257: this twice into \label{vp1}(4) yields
258: \[
259: \cot \alpha =-v\cos \beta \cot \beta +(2\pi -\alpha -\beta )\sec ^2\alpha ,
260: \]
261: thus
262: \[
263: \cot \alpha +\cot \beta =(2\pi -\alpha -\beta )\sec ^2\alpha .
264: \]
265: Also, \label{vu}(3) implies immediately that
266: \[
267: \sec \beta =\sec \alpha \;e^{(2\pi -\alpha -\beta )\tan \alpha }
268: \]
269: which we observe is true independent of \label{vp2}(5).
270:
271: \subsection{Planar Setting:\ Min-Mean}
272:
273: On the basis of Section 1, the two-dimensional min-mean problem clearly
274: reduces to minimizing the average arclength
275: \begin{eqnarray*}
276: &&\frac 1{2\pi }\frac{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}\kappa \dint\limits_{\omega
277: _0}^{\omega _0+2\pi }e^{\kappa \theta }d\omega \\
278: &=&\frac{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}{2\pi \kappa }\left[ \dint\limits_{\theta
279: _0}^0e^{\kappa \theta }\left( 1-\frac \kappa {\sqrt{e^{2\kappa \theta }-1}%
280: }\right) d\theta +\dint\limits_0^{\theta _1}e^{\kappa \theta }\left( 1+\frac
281: \kappa {\sqrt{e^{2\kappa \theta }-1}}\right) d\theta \right] \\
282: &=&\frac{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}{2\pi \kappa }\left[ \frac{e^{\kappa \theta _1}}%
283: \kappa +\ln \left( e^{\kappa \theta _1}+\sqrt{e^{2\kappa \theta _1}-1}%
284: \right) -\frac{e^{\kappa \theta _0}}\kappa +\ln \left( e^{\kappa \theta _0}+%
285: \sqrt{e^{2\kappa \theta _0}-1}\right) \right]
286: \end{eqnarray*}
287: as a function of $\kappa $, assuming $R=1$. Define for convenience
288: \[
289: \Phi (\alpha ,\beta )=\left( -2\csc \alpha +\ln (\sec \alpha +\tan \alpha
290: )+\ln (\sec \beta +\tan \beta )\right) \left( \cot \alpha +\cot \beta
291: \right) ,
292: \]
293: \[
294: \Psi (\alpha ,\beta )=(\alpha +\beta -2\pi )(\sec \alpha \csc \beta +\csc
295: \alpha \sec \beta )\sec \alpha ,
296: \]
297: \[
298: \Xi (\alpha ,\beta )=\sec \alpha -\cot \alpha \csc \beta +(\tan \alpha \cot
299: \beta -\csc \alpha \csc \beta )\sec \alpha -(\cot ^2\alpha +\csc ^2\alpha
300: )\sec \beta .
301: \]
302:
303: \begin{theorem}
304: The min-mean logarithmic spiral has parameter $\kappa =\tan \alpha
305: =0.3732051316...=\ln (1.4523822387...)$ with arclength
306: \[
307: \frac 1{2\pi }\left( \ln (\sec \alpha +\tan \alpha )+\ln (\sec \beta +\tan
308: \beta )-(\sec \alpha -\sec \beta )\cot \alpha \right) \csc \alpha
309: =7.0321857865...,
310: \]
311: where $\alpha $, $\beta $ satisfy the simultaneous equations
312: \[
313: \begin{array}{ccc}
314: \Phi (\alpha ,\beta )+\Psi (\alpha ,\beta )=\Xi (\alpha ,\beta ), & &
315: \dfrac{\cos \alpha }{\cos \beta }=e^{(2\pi -\alpha -\beta )\tan \alpha }.
316: \end{array}
317: \]
318: \end{theorem}
319:
320: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem 7.} By the observation at the end of the
321: proof of Theorem 6, the truth of the second equation is independent of the
322: objective function. It remains to derive the first equation. Define
323: \[
324: w=(v-u)\cot \alpha +\ln \left( v+\sqrt{v^2-1}\right) +\ln \left( u+\sqrt{%
325: u^2-1}\right) ,
326: \]
327: then
328: \begin{eqnarray}
329: w^{\prime } &=&(v^{\prime }-u^{\prime })\cot \alpha -(v-u)\csc ^2\alpha +%
330: \frac{v^{\prime }}{\sqrt{v^2-1}}+\frac{u^{\prime }}{\sqrt{u^2-1}}
331: \label{wp1} \\
332: &=&v^{\prime }\cot \alpha -u-(v-u)\csc ^2\alpha +\frac{v^{\prime }}{\sqrt{%
333: v^2-1}}+\frac{u\tan \alpha }{\sqrt{u^2-1}} \nonumber
334: \end{eqnarray}
335: using \label{up}(1). The objective function
336: \[
337: \frac{\sqrt{1+\kappa ^2}}{2\pi \kappa }\left[ \frac{e^{\kappa \theta _1}}%
338: \kappa +\ln \left( e^{\kappa \theta _1}+\sqrt{e^{2\kappa \theta _1}-1}%
339: \right) -\frac{e^{\kappa \theta _0}}\kappa +\ln \left( e^{\kappa \theta _0}+%
340: \sqrt{e^{2\kappa \theta _0}-1}\right) \right] =\frac{w\csc \alpha }{2\pi }
341: \]
342: is minimized when $w^{\prime }=w\cot \alpha $, as with \label{vp2}(5).
343: Between \label{wp1}(6) and this additional formula, we eliminate $w^{\prime
344: } $ and solve for $v^{\prime }$ in terms of $\alpha $, $\beta $, $u$, $v$.
345: Substituting the resulting expression for $v^{\prime }$ into \label{vp1}(4)
346: gives an equation involving $\Phi $, $\Psi $ and $\Xi $.
347:
348: \subsection{Linear Setting:\ Min-Max}
349:
350: Let $\gamma >1$. The one-dimensional analog of the logarithmic spiral $%
351: r=e^{\kappa \theta }$ we study here is
352: \[
353: x=(-\gamma )^{\left\lfloor t\right\rfloor }\left( 1-(\gamma
354: +1)(t-\left\lfloor t\right\rfloor )\right) .
355: \]
356: For lack of standard phraseology, we call this a \textbf{logarithmic coil}.
357: Local maximum points occur at $(x,t)=(\gamma ^{2i},2i)$ where $i$ is an
358: integer; local minimum points occur at $(x,t)=(-\gamma ^{2i-1},2i-1)$.
359:
360: Given a point $X>0$, the distance $\delta $ that the ship travels to reach $X
361: $ is
362: \[
363: \delta =X+2\dsum\limits_{j=-\infty }^{2i+1}\gamma ^j=X+\frac{2\gamma ^{2i+2}%
364: }{\gamma -1}
365: \]
366: where $\gamma ^{2i}<X\leq \gamma ^{2i+2}$, that is,
367: \[
368: i=\left\lceil \frac{\ln (X)}{2\ln (\gamma )}-1\right\rceil =\left\lfloor
369: \frac 12\left\lceil \frac{\ln (X)}{\ln (\gamma )}-1\right\rceil
370: \right\rfloor .
371: \]
372: Given a point $X<0$, the corresponding distance $\delta $ is
373: \[
374: \delta =-X+2\dsum\limits_{j=-\infty }^{2i}\gamma ^j=-X+\frac{2\gamma ^{2i+1}%
375: }{\gamma -1}
376: \]
377: where $\gamma ^{2i-1}<-X\leq \gamma ^{2i+1}$, that is,
378: \[
379: i=\left\lceil \frac{\ln (-X)}{2\ln (\gamma )}-\frac 12\right\rceil
380: =\left\lceil \frac 12\left\lceil \frac{\ln (-X)}{\ln (\gamma )}%
381: -1\right\rceil \right\rceil .
382: \]
383: Scaling as observed in Section 1 no longer works here:\ for the points $\pm 1
384: $, we have
385: \[
386: \begin{array}{ccc}
387: \delta (1)=1+\dfrac 2{\gamma -1}, & & \delta (-1)=1+\dfrac{2\gamma }{\gamma
388: -1}
389: \end{array}
390: \]
391: which are not easily related to $\delta (X)$ and $\delta (-X)$. An analysis
392: of $\delta (X)$ and $\delta (-X)$, which possess sizeable jump
393: discontinuities at $\gamma ^{2i}$ and $-\gamma ^{2i-1}$, would seem to
394: require different tools than before. Computer scientists traditionally
395: normalize by $|X|$; see Figure 2 for a sample result. For more on the
396: following theorem, see \cite{BN, Fra, Gal, AG, JS, LOS, HIKL, Sch}.\FRAME{%
397: ftbpFUX}{5.7389in}{2.1292in}{0pt}{\Qcb{Graph of $\delta (X)/|X|$ for $\gamma
398: =2.$}}{}{fig2.jpg}{\special{language "Scientific Word";type
399: "GRAPHIC";maintain-aspect-ratio TRUE;display "USEDEF";valid_file "F";width
400: 5.7389in;height 2.1292in;depth 0pt;cropleft "0";croptop "1.0006";cropright
401: "0.9995";cropbottom "0";filename 'C:/FIG2.JPG';file-properties "XNPEU";}}
402:
403: \begin{theorem}
404: The min-max logarithmic coil has parameter $\gamma =2$ with worst-case ratio
405: $\delta /|X|=9$.
406: \end{theorem}
407:
408: \noindent \textbf{Proof of Theorem 8.} For simplicity, we examine only
409: positive $X$. If $X=\gamma ^{2k+\varepsilon }$ for some small $\varepsilon
410: >0 $, then $i=k$ and $\delta /X\rightarrow (2\gamma ^2+\gamma -1)/(\gamma
411: -1) $ as $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0^{+}$. Calculus gives that $\gamma =2$ is
412: the critical point, which yields in turn the least maximum value $\delta
413: /|X|=9$.\\
414:
415: \subsection{Linear Setting:\ Min-Mean}
416:
417: The use of $\delta /|X|$ in defining the min-max coil in Section 3 seems
418: fairly natural; the formulation behind a min-mean coil, however, requires
419: some careful thought. Consider the integral
420: \[
421: I(X)=\frac 1{2X}\dint\limits_{-X}^X\frac{\delta (x)}{|x|}\,dx
422: \]
423: whose graph appears in Figure 3. (The minimum and maximum values are $1+6\ln
424: (2)=5.1588...$ and $1+12/e=5.4145...$ when $\gamma =2$.) \FRAME{ftbpFUX}{%
425: 5.3402in}{2.1793in}{0pt}{\Qcb{Graph of $I(X)$ for $\gamma =2.$}}{}{fig3.jpg}{%
426: \special{language "Scientific Word";type "GRAPHIC";maintain-aspect-ratio
427: TRUE;display "USEDEF";valid_file "F";width 5.3402in;height 2.1793in;depth
428: 0pt;cropleft "0";croptop "0.9996";cropright "1.0006";cropbottom "0";filename
429: 'C:/FIG3.JPG';file-properties "XNPEU";}}We wish to determine $\gamma $ for
430: which $I$, a kind of normalized average, is minimal. Since $I$ itself is a
431: periodic function of $X$ (although smoother than $\delta /|X|$), the word
432: ``minimal'' can be used only loosely.
433:
434: Assuming $\gamma ^{2i}<X\leq \gamma ^{2i+2}$ and $-\infty <p<i$, we have
435: \[
436: \begin{array}{ccc}
437: \dint\limits_{\gamma ^{2p}}^{\gamma ^{2p+2}}\dfrac 1x\left( x+\dfrac{2\gamma
438: ^{2p+2}}{\gamma -1}\right) dx=f(p,\gamma ,\gamma ^{2p+2}), & &
439: \dint\limits_{\gamma ^{2i}}^X\dfrac 1x\left( x+\dfrac{2\gamma ^{2i+2}}{%
440: \gamma -1}\right) dx=f(i,\gamma ,X)
441: \end{array}
442: \]
443: where
444: \[
445: f(i,\gamma ,X)=\left( X-\gamma ^{2i}\right) +\frac{2\gamma ^{2i+2}}{\gamma -1%
446: }\left( \ln (X)-2i\ln (\gamma )\right) .
447: \]
448: Assuming $-\gamma ^{2j+1}\leq X<-\gamma ^{2j-1}$ and $-\infty <q<j$, we have
449: \[
450: \begin{array}{ccc}
451: \dint\limits_{-\gamma ^{2q+1}}^{-\gamma ^{2q-1}}\dfrac 1x\left( -x+\dfrac{%
452: 2\gamma ^{2q+1}}{\gamma -1}\right) dx=g(q,\gamma ,-\gamma ^{2q+1}), & &
453: \dint\limits_X^{-\gamma ^{2j-1}}\dfrac 1x\left( -x+\dfrac{2\gamma ^{2j+1}}{%
454: \gamma -1}\right) dx=g(j,\gamma ,X)
455: \end{array}
456: \]
457: where
458: \[
459: g(j,\gamma ,X)=\left( X+\gamma ^{2j-1}\right) -\frac{2\gamma ^{2j+1}}{\gamma
460: -1}\left( \ln (-X)-(2j-1)\ln (\gamma )\right) .
461: \]
462: Clearly
463: \[
464: I(X)=\frac 1{2X}\left( \dsum\limits_{p=-\infty }^{i-1}f(p,\gamma ,\gamma
465: ^{2p+2})+f(i,\gamma ,X)-\dsum\limits_{q=-\infty }^{j-1}g(q,\gamma ,-\gamma
466: ^{2q+1})-g(j,\gamma ,-X)\right)
467: \]
468: and, if $\left\lceil \ln (X)/\ln (\gamma )-1\right\rceil $ is even, then $%
469: i=j $. Upon summation, it can be proved that the minimum and maximum values
470: of $I(X)$ are, respectively,
471: \[
472: \begin{array}{ccc}
473: 1+\dfrac{\gamma (\gamma +1)}{(\gamma -1)^2}\ln (\gamma ), & & 1+\dfrac 1e%
474: \dfrac{\gamma +1}{\gamma -1}\gamma ^{\gamma /(\gamma -1)}.
475: \end{array}
476: \]
477: The former quantity is least when $\gamma =5.7041372673...$; the latter
478: quantity is least when $\gamma =3.2232549401...$. The corresponding mean
479: ratios are $4.0089813375...$ and $4.8131558458...$. These values together
480: constitute our solution to the min-mean problem.
481:
482: An alternative approach is due to Beck \&\ Newman \cite{BN, Gal, AG, KRT,
483: Alex}. It uses a single random variable $H$, assumed to be uniformly
484: distributed on the interval $[0,2)$, to sample different logarithmic coils
485: with rate of increase $\gamma $. For simplicity, take $X>0$. Then
486: \begin{eqnarray*}
487: \limfunc{E}(\delta (X)) &=&X+2\limfunc{E}\left( \dsum\limits_{j=-\infty
488: }^{2i+1}\gamma ^{j+H}\;|\;\gamma ^{2i+H}<X\leq \gamma ^{2i+2+H}\right) \\
489: \ &=&X+\frac{2\gamma ^2}{\gamma -1}\limfunc{E}\left( \gamma
490: ^{2i+H}\;|\;\frac X{\gamma ^2}\leq \gamma ^{2i+H}<X\right) \\
491: \ &=&X+\frac{2\gamma ^2}{\gamma -1}\limfunc{E}\left( X\,\gamma ^{H-2}\right)
492: \\
493: \ &=&X+\frac{2\gamma ^2}{\gamma -1}\dint\limits_0^2X\,\gamma ^{h-2}\frac
494: 12dh=X\left( 1+\frac{\gamma +1}{\ln (\gamma )}\right)
495: \end{eqnarray*}
496: and this is least when $\gamma =3.591121476669...=1/W(1/e)$, where $W$
497: denotes Lambert's function. A search strategy as such is called a mixed
498: strategy (in game theory)\ or a random strategy (in computer science). Note,
499: however, that a uniform distribution on $H$ does not imply a uniform
500: distribution on $X$. It is not clear to us whether the optimal mixed
501: strategy (with $\gamma =1/W(1/e)$) is necessarily preferable to our
502: deterministic strategy discussed earlier.
503:
504: \subsection{Acknowledgements}
505:
506: We grateful to Ricardo Baeza-Yates, John Shonder and Scott Burlington for
507: their assistance. A discussion during the first author's Visiting Lecture at
508: Oberlin College in November 2004 was also very helpful.
509:
510: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
511: \bibitem{FW} S. R. Finch and J. E. Wetzel, Lost in a forest, \textit{Amer.
512: Math. Monthly} 11 (2004) 645-654.
513:
514: \bibitem{BY1} R. A. Baeza-Yates, J. C. Culberson and G. J. E. Rawlins,
515: Searching in the plane, \textit{Inform. and Comput.} 106 (1993) 234--252;
516: MR1241311 (94h:90019).
517:
518: \bibitem{BY2} R. A. Baeza-Yates, J. C. Culberson and G. J. E. Rawlins,
519: Searching with uncertainty (extended abstract), \textit{First Scandinavian
520: Workshop on Algorithm Theory}, Proc. 1988 Halmstad conf., ed. R. Karlsson
521: and A. Lingas, Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci. 318, Springer-Verlag, 1988, pp.
522: 176--189.
523:
524: \bibitem{BY3} R. A. Baeza-Yates, J. C. Culberson and G. J. E. Rawlins,
525: Searching with uncertainty (full report), Research Report CS--87--68, Dept.
526: of Computer Sci., Univ. of Waterloo, 1987.
527:
528: \bibitem{BN} A. Beck and D. J. Newman, Yet more on the linear search
529: problem, \textit{Israel J. Math.} 8 (1970) 419--429; MR0274050 (42 \#8926).
530:
531: \bibitem{Fra} W. Franck, An optimal search problem, \textit{SIAM Rev.} 7
532: (1965) 503--512; errata 8 (1966) 524; MR0195637 (33 \#3835).
533:
534: \bibitem{Gal} S. Gal, \textit{Search Games}, Academic Press, 1980, pp.
535: 109--115, 137--151, 189--195; MR0585693 (82k:90146).
536:
537: \bibitem{AG} S. Alpern and S. Gal, \textit{The Theory of Search Games and
538: Rendezvous}, Kluwer, 2003, pp. 101--139, 159--160; MR2005053 (2004h:91029).
539:
540: \bibitem{JS} P. Jaillet and M. Stafford, Online searching, \textit{Oper.
541: Res.} 49 (2001) 501--515; errata 50 (2002) 744--745; MR1852357 (2002i:90032).
542:
543: \bibitem{LOS} A. L\'opez-Ortiz and S. Schuierer, The ultimate strategy to
544: search on $m$ rays? \textit{Theoret. Comput. Sci.} 261 (2001) 267--295;
545: MR1836545 (2002c:68097).
546:
547: \bibitem{HIKL} C. Hipke, C. Icking, R. Klein and E. Langetepe, How to find
548: a point on a line within a fixed distance, \textit{Discrete Appl. Math.} 93
549: (1999) 67--73; MR1684899 (2000b:65028).
550:
551: \bibitem{Sch} S. Schuierer, Lower bounds in on-line geometric searching,
552: \textit{Comput. Geom.} 18 (2001) 37--53; MR1810125 (2001k:68142).
553:
554: \bibitem{KRT} M.-Y. Kao, J. H. Reif and S. R. Tate, Searching in an unknown
555: environment: an optimal randomized algorithm for the cow-path problem,
556: \textit{Proc 4}$^{\text{th}}$\textit{\ ACM-SIAM Symp. on Discrete Algorithms
557: (SODA)}, Austin, ACM, 1993, pp. 441--447; \textit{Inform. and Comput.} 131
558: (1996) 63--79; MR1213256 (94c:68203) and MR1425815 (97k:68079).
559:
560: \bibitem{Alex} A. L\'opez-Ortiz, \textit{On-Line Target Searching in
561: Bounded and Unbounded Domains}, Technical Report CS-96-25, Dept. of Computer
562: Sci., Univ. of Waterloo, 1996. \\
563:
564: \begin{tabular}{llll}
565: & Steven R. Finch & & Li-Yan Zhu \\
566: & Clay Mathematics Institute & & SAE Magnetics (H.K.) Ltd. \\
567: & One Bow Street & & USA Corporate Office \\
568: & Cambridge, MA 02138 & & 100 S. Milpitas Blvd. \\
569: & \textit{Steven.Finch@inria.fr} & & Milpitas, CA 95035 \\
570: & & & \textit{li-yan\_zhu@saeus.com}
571: \end{tabular}
572: \end{thebibliography}
573:
574: \end{document}
575: