Uniqueness of four-body convex central configurations for all masses

By Lemmas 6.1, 6.4 and 6.5, the number N(m) of points of \mathrm{pr}^{-1}(m) is finite and independent of m\in\mathcal M. For four equal masses, the only convex CC up to similarity is the square. Indeed, let q be such a CC with cyclic order (1234). By [AFS08, Theorem 1], applied to both diagonals, q is symmetric with respect to the lines q_1q_3 and q_2q_4, so that A_1=A_3 and A_2=A_4. By Lemma 2.3(a), the four numbers |A_l| are then equal. By (2.6), s_{ij}=\lambda'+\sigma A_iA_j/(m_im_j) takes one value on the four sides and another on the two diagonals, so q is a rhombus with equal diagonals, that is, a square. A counterclockwise square with vertices q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4 in this order and centre o satisfies q_k-o=J^{k-1}(q_1-o). So it equals (q_1-o)(1,J,-1,-J)+o\mathbb 1, and its class is the class of (1,J,-1,-J), which lies in \mathcal{S}^+. Hence N(\frac14,\frac14,\frac14,\frac14)=1, and so N\equiv1. By Lemma 6.1, \mathrm{pr} is then a bijective local real-analytic diffeomorphism, hence a real-analytic diffeomorphism. Its inverse has the form m\mapsto(s(m),m), with s:\mathcal M\to\mathcal{S}^+ real-analytic.

Now let m\in(0,\infty)^4, put \hat m=m/\sum_im_i, and let q be a convex CC for m with cyclic order (1234). It is also a CC for \hat m. If q is counterclockwise, then [q] corresponds to a point of \mathrm{pr}^{-1}(\hat m), so [q]=s(\hat m). If q is clockwise, then \bar q is a counterclockwise convex CC with the same cyclic order, and [q]=\iota(s(\hat m)). The classes s(\hat m) and \iota(s(\hat m)) are distinct, because the signs of the A_l differ, and they are mirror images of each other. So there are exactly two convex CCs with cyclic order (1234) up to orientation-preserving similarity, and exactly one up to similarity. Both are nondegenerate local minima of f_m by Theorem B, and both depend real-analytically on m. For the cyclic orders (1243) and (1324), exchange the labels 3 and 4, respectively 2 and 3, together with the corresponding masses.

Let q be a convex CC for the masses m, and let \pi, T, (a,b,c,x)\in\mathcal{E}, q'=q(a,b,c,x) and m' be as in Lemma 4.2(b). Write T(z)=T_0z+t, where T_0 is a real-linear map with |T_0u|=\nu|u| for some \nu>0, so that \langle T_0u,T_0u'\rangle=\nu^2\langle u,u'\rangle. Define a linear isomorphism \Lambda of (\mathbb{R}^2)^4 by (\Lambda v)_{\pi(i)}=T_0v_i. We have r'_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}=\nu r_{ij} and M'=M, hence U(q')=\nu^{-1}U(q) and I(q')=\nu^2I(q), and the constant \lambda' of q' equals \nu^{-3} times that of q. The corresponding pair potential \tilde\varphi(r)=\frac1r+\frac{\nu^{-3}\lambda'}{2}r^2 satisfies \tilde\varphi(\nu r)=\nu^{-1}\varphi(r). Let \Phi' be the function \Phi of q', and let p\mapsto\tilde p, \tilde p_{\pi(i)}=T(p_i), be the affine map with linear part \Lambda that sends q to q'. Then \Phi'(\tilde p)=\nu^{-1}\Phi(p), and differentiating twice at q gives Q'(\Lambda v)=\nu^{-1}Q(v), where Q' is the form Q of q'. Similarly \kappa'_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}=\nu^{-3}\kappa_{ij} and \mathrm{d}r'_{\pi(i)\pi(j)}(\Lambda v)=\langle T_0q_{ij},T_0v_{ij}\rangle/(\nu r_{ij})=\nu\,\mathrm{d}r_{ij}(v), where we used that \mathrm{d}r_e does not depend on the orientation of the edge e. Hence K'(\Lambda v)=\nu^{-1}K(v).

By Proposition 5.1 there is y\in\mathbb{R}^2 with \operatorname{tr} S(y)<\frac34, where S is the matrix of Section ? for the configuration q'; if b\le\frac18 we apply part (b) and put y=Y/b, so that S(y)=\widehat S(Y). By Section ?, S is the matrix of the CC q'. Proposition 3.5(a) gives Q'\ge(1-\operatorname{tr} S(y))K'\ge\frac14K', because K'\ge0. Since \Lambda is bijective, Q\ge\frac14K. By Lemma 2.4, K(v)>0 for v\notin\mathcal{T}, so Q(v)>0 for v\notin\mathcal{T}. By Lemma 2.2, q is a nondegenerate local minimum of f_m, and its Morse index is 0.

(a) For x\in\mathbb{R}^2\setminus\{0\} the Hessian of x\mapsto\varphi(|x|) is \varphi''\,\hat x\hat x^{\mathsf T}+\frac{\varphi'}{r}(\mathrm{Id}-\hat x\hat x^{\mathsf T})=(\varphi''-\frac{\varphi'}{r})\hat x\hat x^{\mathsf T}+\frac{\varphi'}{r}\mathrm{Id}, where r=|x| and \hat x=x/r. Evaluating at x=q_e in the direction v_e and summing over the edges gives (a). (b) Since U is homogeneous of degree -1, \nabla U is homogeneous of degree -2, so D^2U(q)[q,v]=-2\langle \nabla U(q),v\rangle=2\lambda\langle q-c,v\rangle_M by (?). Also D^2I(q)[u,v]=2\langle u-\bar u,v-\bar v\rangle_M, where \bar u=\frac1M\sum_im_iu_i, so \frac\lambda2D^2I(q)[q,v]=\lambda\langle q-c,v\rangle_M. Adding gives Q(q,v)=3\lambda\langle q-c,v\rangle_M, and Q(q,q)=3\lambda I=3U. (c) \Phi is invariant under translations and rotations. Differentiating the identities \Phi(q+t)=\Phi(q) and \nabla\Phi(e^{J\theta}q)=e^{J\theta}\nabla\Phi(q) at a critical point of \Phi shows that translations and Jq lie in \ker Q. Since J(q-c) differs from Jq by a translation, the claim follows.

The translations are \langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_M-orthogonal to the vectors with \sum_im_iv_i=0, and q-c, J(q-c) are \langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle_M-orthogonal to each other. This gives the direct sum decomposition. The space \mathcal{T}\oplus\mathbb{R}(q-c) is the tangent space at q of the orbit of the similarity group, and \dim W=4=\dim\mathcal{S}, so the differential of the projection maps W isomorphically onto T_{[q]}\mathcal{S}. The summand \mathcal{T} is Q-orthogonal to everything by Lemma 2.1(c). For w\in W, Lemma 2.1(b) gives Q(q-c,w)=Q(q,w)=3\lambda\langle q-c,w\rangle_M=0. It also gives Q(q-c)=Q(q)=3U. Finally, differentiating F=UI^{1/2} twice at a critical point, and using dU=-\frac{U}{2I}dI there, gives

Here dI(w)=2\langle q-c,w\rangle_M=0 for w\in W. Since [q] is a critical point, D^2f_m([q]) evaluated on the image of w equals D^2F(q)[w,w].

(a) Consider the 4\times4 matrix whose columns are (1,q_l)^{\mathsf T}\in\mathbb{R}^3 together with a fourth row that repeats one of its three rows. Its determinant vanishes. Expanding along the repeated row gives \sum_l(-1)^{l+1}\,2[\,\cdot\,]_l\,(1,q_l)=0, where [\,\cdot\,]_l is the triangle formed by the bodies other than l. This is the statement \sum_lA_l(1,q_l)=0. (b) Complex multiplication by \mu is a rotation composed with a dilation by |\mu|, and conjugation is a reflection. (c) The first statement is clear. If not all points coincide, choose q_i\ne q_j. If all A_l vanish, the two triangles containing q_i and q_j are degenerate, so all points lie on the line through q_i and q_j. (d) The A_l are nonzero because no triangle is degenerate. Let S be the sum of the positive A_l. By (a), S is also the sum of the absolute values of the negative A_l, and

If two of the A_l are positive, p lies in the open segment joining the two corresponding points and also in the open segment joining the other two. Two segments that cross at interior points are the diagonals of a convex quadrilateral, which is strictly convex because no three points are collinear. If three A_l are positive, p is the fourth point and is a convex combination of the other three with positive weights. For the pattern (+,-,+,-) the diagonals are q_1q_3 and q_2q_4, so the cyclic order is (1234). Moreover A_1=[234]>0 means that the triangle q_2q_3q_4 is positively oriented, that is, the quadrilateral is traversed counterclockwise. Conversely, let q_1q_2q_3q_4 be a counterclockwise strictly convex quadrilateral. No vertex lies inside the triangle of the others, so two A_l are positive and two are negative, and the equal-sign pairs are the diagonals \{1,3\} and \{2,4\}. Finally A_1=[234]>0, because three consecutive vertices of a counterclockwise convex polygon form a positively oriented triangle.

Let v\in\ker\mathrm{d}r. The triangle q_1q_2q_3 is nondegenerate, hence infinitesimally rigid. After subtracting an element of \mathcal{T} we may therefore assume v_1=v_2=v_3=0. Then \langle q_4-q_i,v_4\rangle=0 for i=1,2. The vectors q_4-q_1 and q_4-q_2 span \mathbb{R}^2, so v_4=0. Hence \ker\mathrm{d}r=\mathcal{T} and \mathrm{d}r has rank 5. By (?), \omega is a self-stress if and only if (\omega_er_e)_e is orthogonal to the image of \mathrm{d}r, which is a hyperplane. So the self-stresses form a line. By Lemma 2.3(a),

so (A_iA_j) is a self-stress, and it is nonzero. Therefore \operatorname{im}\mathrm{d}r=\tau^\perp. The last statement follows because all \kappa_e>0.

Suppose that q_1,q_2,q_3 lie on a line \ell and q_4\notin\ell, and let n be a unit normal to \ell. For i\le3, pairing (?) with n gives \omega_{i4}\langle q_4-q_i,n\rangle=0. Since \langle q_4-q_i,n\rangle\ne0, we get w_{i4}=0, that is, r_{14}=r_{24}=r_{34}=\lambda'^{-1/3}. Then the three distinct points q_1,q_2,q_3 of \ell lie on a circle centred at q_4, which is impossible.

By Lemma 2.5 no three bodies are collinear. By (?), (\omega_e) is a self-stress, so Lemma 2.4 gives (2.6) for some \sigma\in\mathbb{R}. If \sigma=0, all six distances equal \lambda'^{-1/3}, which is impossible in the plane. Note that w_e>0 if and only if r_e<\lambda'^{-1/3}. Suppose \sigma>0. If q is convex, then by Lemma 2.3(d) A_iA_j>0 on the diagonals and A_iA_j<0 on the sides, so every diagonal is shorter than every side. But if the diagonals are q_iq_k and q_jq_l and meet at p, the triangle inequality gives

a contradiction. If q is concave, say with q_4 inside the triangle q_1q_2q_3, then A_iA_4<0<A_iA_j for i,j\le3. Every interior edge q_iq_4 would then be longer than every exterior edge. But writing q_4=\alpha q_1+\beta q_2+\gamma q_3 with \alpha,\beta,\gamma>0 and \alpha+\beta+\gamma=1, we get r_{14}\le\beta r_{12}+\gamma r_{13}<\max(r_{12},r_{13}), again a contradiction.

(a) follows from (2.6), \sigma<0, and the signs of A_iA_j. For (b), multiply the relations for complementary pairs of edges: m_1m_2m_3m_4\,w_{12}w_{34}=\sigma^2A_1A_2A_3A_4, and likewise for the other two pairings. For (c), suppose that q_1q_2 is a longest side. Since w is a decreasing function of r, we have 0<w_{12}\le w_{14},w_{23}. Then w_{34}=w_{14}w_{23}/w_{12}\ge\max(w_{12},w_{14},w_{23}), so q_3q_4 is a shortest side.

By Lemma 2.1(a) and (2.6), Q(v)=K(v)-\sigma\sum_{i<j}A_iA_j|v_i-v_j|^2. Expanding the squares and using \sum_jA_j=0,

Hence Q=K+\sigma|L|^2=K-|\sigma||L|^2.

The identity \sum_lA_l(q)\,q_l=0 of Lemma 2.3(a) holds for all q. Differentiating it in the direction v gives L(v)=-\sum_l dA_l(v)\,q_l. Near q, A_l is a smooth function of the side lengths of its triangle ijk. Heron’s formula 16A_l^2=2(R_{ij}R_{ik}+R_{ij}R_{jk}+R_{ik}R_{jk})-R_{ij}^2-R_{ik}^2-R_{jk}^2 gives \partial A_l/\partial r_{ij}=r_{ij}N_{ij,l}/(8A_l), and similarly for the other two sides, with the sign of A_l taken into account. Substituting dA_l=\sum_{e\not\ni l}(\partial A_l/\partial r_e)\,\mathrm{d}r_e gives the first identity. The second is (?) applied to the self-stress (A_iA_j).

(a) Let u\in\mathbb{R}^2 be a unit vector. By Lemma 3.4 and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,

Multiplying by |\sigma| and using D_e=|\sigma|/\kappa_e gives |\sigma|\langle u,L(v)\rangle^2\le u^{\mathsf T}S(y)u\,K(v). Take the supremum over u, use \lambda_{\max}\le\operatorname{tr} for positive semidefinite matrices, and apply Proposition 3.1.

(b) This is completing the square. We have c_0>0 because \tau\ne0.

(c) By Lemma 2.4, \mathrm{d}r identifies V=(\mathbb{R}^2)^4/\mathcal{T} with the hyperplane \tau^\perp\subset\mathbb{R}^6. Under this identification K becomes the restriction of k(z)=\sum_e\kappa_ez_e^2, and by Lemma 3.4 L becomes z\mapsto\sum_e\beta_ez_e. For g\in\mathbb{R}^6,

Indeed, \sum_eg_ez_e=\sum_e(g_e+t\tau_e)z_e on \tau^\perp, so the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives “\le”. Equality holds for z_e=(g_e+t^*\tau_e)/\kappa_e, where t^* is the minimizer, because this z lies in \tau^\perp. Taking g_e=\langle u,\beta_e\rangle and multiplying by |\sigma| gives

Let \mathcal K:V\to V^* be the isomorphism defined by K. The last identity says |\sigma|\,L\mathcal K^{-1}L^{\mathsf T}=G. The generalized eigenvalues of (Q,K) are the eigenvalues of \mathcal K^{-1}Q=\mathrm{Id}-|\sigma|\mathcal K^{-1}L^{\mathsf T}L. This operator is self-adjoint for K. The operator |\sigma|\mathcal K^{-1}L^{\mathsf T}L on the five-dimensional space V has rank at most two, and its characteristic polynomial is t^3 times that of |\sigma|L\mathcal K^{-1}L^{\mathsf T}=G. This gives the list of generalized eigenvalues. The remaining statements follow from Lemma 2.2, because Q vanishes on \mathcal{T}.

Combine Proposition 3.5(a), Lemma 2.4 and Lemma 2.2.

(a) Since \delta=s_{12}+s_{34}-s_{13}-s_{24}, we get \delta\,w_{12}=\delta s_{12}-s_{12}s_{34}+s_{13}s_{24}=(s_{12}-s_{13})(s_{12}-s_{24})=\eta_{13}\eta_{24}. In the same way \delta w_{34}=(s_{34}-s_{13})(s_{34}-s_{24}) and \delta w_{13}=(s_{12}-s_{13})(s_{13}-s_{34}), \delta w_{24}=(s_{12}-s_{24})(s_{24}-s_{34}). Moreover w_{14}-w_{12}=s_{14}-s_{12} and w_{23}-w_{12}=s_{23}-s_{12}. This proves the formulas, and the signs follow from the signs of the \eta_e. The identity w_{12}w_{34}=w_{13}w_{24} is immediate from the formulas. Finally w_{34}-w_{12}=\eta_{34}, so

(b) Writing r_e^3=1/s_e, each factor of F becomes a difference of two s_e divided by their product, and both products of three factors have denominator \prod_es_e. Hence

Substituting s_{14}-s_{24}=\eta_{14}+\eta_{24}, s_{34}-s_{23}=\eta_{34}-\eta_{23}, s_{34}-s_{24}=\eta_{34}+\eta_{24}, s_{23}-s_{13}=\eta_{23}+\eta_{13} and expanding gives -P.

(c) Suppose that q is a CC for positive masses. The relation w_{12}w_{34}=w_{13}w_{24} of Proposition 2.7(b) is linear in \lambda' and forces \lambda' to be given by (?). So the w_e of the CC are those of part (a), and w_{12}w_{34}=w_{14}w_{23} gives P=0. By (2.6), m_im_j=\sigma A_iA_j/w_{ij}, so the six products m_im_j, and hence the masses, are determined up to a common factor. Conversely, suppose P=0 and put \mu_{ij}=-A_iA_j/w_{ij}. By Lemma 2.3(d), A_iA_j<0 on the sides and A_iA_j>0 on the diagonals, so part (a) gives \mu_{ij}>0 for all six edges. By part (a) and P=0, \mu_{12}\mu_{34}=\mu_{13}\mu_{24}=\mu_{14}\mu_{23}. Therefore m_1=(\mu_{12}\mu_{13}/\mu_{23})^{1/2}, m_2=\mu_{12}/m_1, m_3=\mu_{13}/m_1, m_4=\mu_{14}/m_1 are positive and satisfy m_im_j=\mu_{ij} for all i<j. With these masses \omega_{ij}=m_im_jw_{ij}=-A_iA_j, which is a self-stress by Lemma 2.4. So (?) holds, and q is a CC.

(a) is Lemma 4.1(c). (b) Label the bodies so that the cyclic order is (1234) and q_1q_2 is a longest side. By Proposition 2.7, q_3q_4 is a shortest side and both diagonals are longer than every side, so (?) holds. These relations are preserved by similarities. If the vertices are in clockwise order, apply a reflection. Then apply the orientation-preserving similarity that moves the intersection point of the diagonals to the origin and q_1 to (1,0). Now q_3=(-b,0) with b>0, and q_2=a(\cos\theta,\sin\theta), q_4=-c(\cos\theta,\sin\theta) with a,c>0. Since the order is counterclockwise, 0<\theta<\pi. So the configuration is q(a,b,c,\cos\theta), and (a,b,c,\cos\theta)\in\mathcal{C} by (?). It is a CC because the equations (?) are invariant under similarities and under a simultaneous permutation of bodies and masses. Lemma 4.1(c) gives P=0. (c) If q(a',b',c',x')=\mu\,q(a,b,c,x)+t\mathbb 1 with \mu\in\mathbb{C}^* and t\in\mathbb{C}, the similarity maps the intersection point of the diagonals to itself, so t=0. It fixes q_1=(1,0), so \mu=1.

If x\ge0 then g_3\ge0 gives a-c\ge2x\ge0, and g_4\ge0 gives 1-b\ge2ax\ge0. If x<0 then g_5\ge0 gives a-c\ge-2bx>0, and g_6\ge0 gives 1-b\ge-2cx>0. The remaining inequalities are g_1+a\,g_3=b^2+2b-ac>0, g_1+g_4=b^2+b+1-a^2>0 and g_2+a\,g_3=c^2+ac+a^2-1>0. Finally a^2<b^2+b+1\le3, and 1<a^2+ac+c^2\le3a^2.

By Lemma 4.4, a^2<1+b+b^2, so a<1+\frac12(b+b^2) and \alpha<\frac12(1+b).

For the lower bound put u=b^2+2b\le\frac{17}{64}<\frac13. Lemma 4.4 gives c<u/a and 1<a^2+ac+c^2. Since c\mapsto ac+c^2 is increasing for c>0, we get 1<a^2+u+u^2/a^2, that is, p(a^2)>0, where

The roots of p are t_\pm=\frac12\bigl(1-u\pm\sqrt{(1-3u)(1+u)}\bigr), which are real. Since p(\frac13)=(u+\frac23)(u-\frac13)<0, we have t_-<\frac13<t_+. As a^2>\frac13 and p(a^2)>0, it follows that a^2>t_+. Next, p(t)=t\,(f(t)-1) with f(t)=t+u+u^2/t, and a direct computation gives

Hence p((1-2b)^2)<0, so (1-2b)^2<t_+<a^2. This gives a>1-2b, that is, \alpha>-2.

Finally c<u/a<u/(1-2b), so \gamma=c/b<(2+b)/(1-2b).

At b=0, R_e=1 for e\ne34, so every \psi equals \frac32, a+c=1+b=1 and \hat\delta=\hat\eta_{34}=\rho^{-3}. Thus \hat P=\frac94\rho^{-3}(h_3h_4-h_1h_2) with h_1=2-\alpha+2\xi, h_2=2\gamma+\alpha+2\xi, h_3=\alpha-\gamma-2\xi and h_4=-(1+\alpha+2\xi). Expanding, the terms quadratic in \xi cancel, and h_3h_4-h_1h_2=-(3\alpha+3\gamma-3\alpha\gamma+2(1+\gamma)\xi). The last statement is the analytic implicit function theorem.

Both computations terminated without failure (Table ?). Lemma 5.4 gives (a) and (b).

(a) Solve g_1>0, g_2>0, g_5\ge0, g_6\ge0, g_3\ge0 and g_4\ge0 for x, using a,b,c>0. (b) Write h_1=2-\alpha+b(1-\alpha^2)+2a\xi, h_2=2\gamma+\alpha+b(\gamma^2+2\alpha\gamma)+2a\xi and h_4=-(1+\alpha+2a\xi). Since b>0, the conditions g_1>0, g_2>0, g_4\ge0 and g_3\ge0 are equivalent to h_1>0, h_2>0, h_4\ge0 and h_3=\alpha-\gamma-2\xi\ge0. Solve these for \xi, using a>0.

We give the proof for the direct computation and then list the changes for the chart. Let z=(p,x)\in\mathcal{E} with p=(a,b,c) and b\ge\frac18.

Step 1: p lies in a leaf. By Lemma 4.4, p\in\Omega_{\mathrm{dir}}. The initial boxes are closed and cover \Omega_{\mathrm{dir}}. Bisecting a box at a floating-point number m replaces a side [\underline z,\overline z] by [\underline z,m] and [m,\overline z], so the two closed halves cover the box. Since the computation did not fail, every box was eventually accepted or discarded. Hence p lies in a leaf B, accepted or discarded.

Step 2: x survives the localization. Since z\in\mathcal{C}, Lemma 5.2(a) and outward rounding give x\in X_0(B). We claim that during step 2 of the procedure, x always lies in an interval of the list or in a kept interval. Suppose that x\in X for an interval X being processed. In (i), g_i(z)\ge0 for all i because z\in\mathcal{C}. The g_i are polynomials, so Lemma 5.3 applies, and the enclosure of g_i contains g_i(z). So X is not dropped. In (ii), an enclosure that is positive or negative is finite, so its derivative balls are not NaN, and by Lemma 5.3 it contains P(z)=0. Hence X is not dropped. In (iii), d_4 is not NaN, so by Lemma 5.3(a) the function P is analytic near B\times X and \partial_iP\in d_i there. The mean value theorem in p, at the fixed value \bar x\in X, gives P(p,\bar x)\in\Pi:=F_{(\bar p,\bar x)}+\sum_{i\le3}d_i[-r_i,r_i]. The mean value theorem in the last variable gives 0=P(p,x)=P(p,\bar x)+\partial_xP(p,\zeta)\,(x-\bar x) for some \zeta\in X. Since \partial_xP(p,\zeta)\in d_4 and 0\notin d_4, we get x=\bar x-P(p,\bar x)/\partial_xP(p,\zeta)\in\bar x-\Pi/d_4=N. So x lies in the new interval X\cap N, and in particular this interval is not empty. In (iv), the two halves of X cover X. This proves the claim. Since the list is eventually empty, x lies in a kept interval, hence in a run X of B. In particular B is not discarded.

Step 3: the bound. So B was accepted, and the run X\ni x was certified with the recorded y. The certified enclosure is finite, so its derivative balls are not NaN, and Lemma 5.3(b) gives t_y(z)\le t_{B,X}<\frac34. By Section ?, t_y(z)=\operatorname{tr} S(y) at q(a,b,c,x).

The chart. Now let z=(b,\alpha,\gamma,\xi) with 0<b\le\frac18, and put p=(b,\alpha,\gamma). By Lemma 4.5, p\in\Omega_{\mathrm{ch}}. Lemma 5.2(b) gives \xi\in X_0(B). Since b>0, we have h_i(z)\ge0 for all i, \hat P(z)=bP(z)=0 and t_Y(z)=\operatorname{tr}\widehat S(Y). The rest of the argument is unchanged.

Let (s_0,m_0)\in\mathcal{Z}, and choose a real-analytic chart \chi of \mathcal{S}^+ near s_0. Near (s_0,m_0), the set \mathcal{Z} is the zero set of the map (u,m)\mapsto\nabla_uf(\chi^{-1}(u),m)\in\mathbb{R}^4. Its derivative with respect to u at (\chi(s_0),m_0) is the matrix of D^2f_{m_0}(s_0) in the chart. This matrix is invertible by Theorem B, since s_0 is the class of a convex CC. By the real-analytic implicit function theorem there are neighbourhoods \mathcal U of s_0 and \mathcal N of m_0 and a real-analytic map g:\mathcal N\to\mathcal U such that \mathcal{Z}\cap(\mathcal U\times\mathcal N) is the graph of g. The claims follow.

Suppose that q lies on a line with unit direction u. Let k be the body with the largest coordinate \langle q_j,u\rangle, write r_j=r_{kj}, and let all sums run over j\ne k. Then q_k-q_j=r_ju for j\ne k, and the three distances r_j are distinct, because q is collision-free. Let v\in(\mathbb{R}^2)^4 move q_k by Ju and leave the other bodies fixed. Then \mathrm{d}r_e(v)=0 for every edge e, so K(v)=0, and Lemma 2.1(a) gives

The component of (?) for i=k along u is \sum m_j(s_{kj}-\lambda')r_j=0. So \lambda'=\sum m_jr_j^{-2}/\sum m_jr_j, and

The terms of the last sum are nonnegative, and they are positive when r_i\ne r_j. So Q(v)<0. On the other hand, let Q_n and K_n be the forms Q and K of the CC q^n for the masses m^n. By Theorem B, Q_n(v)\ge\frac14K_n(v)\ge0. At collision-free configurations the multiplier \lambda=U/I depends continuously on the configuration and the masses, and hence so do \kappa_e, \omega_e and \mathrm{d}r_e(v) in Lemma 2.1(a). So Q_n(v)\to Q(v), and Q(v)\ge0, a contradiction.

Let C\subset\mathcal M be compact, and let (s_n,m_n) be a sequence in \mathrm{pr}^{-1}(C). After passing to a subsequence, m_n\to m^\infty\in C. Represent s_n by a CC q^n for m_n with centre of mass 0 and I(q^n)=1. By Lemma 6.2, after passing to a further subsequence, q^n converges to a CC q^\infty for m^\infty, and s_n\to s_\infty=[q^\infty]\in\mathcal{S}\setminus\Delta. Since s_n\in\mathcal{S}^+, the q^n are convex CCs, so q^\infty is not collinear by Lemma 6.3. By Lemma 2.5 no three of the q^\infty_l are collinear, and by Lemma 2.3(d) all A_l(q^\infty) are nonzero. As limits of the A_l(q^n) they have the signs (+,-,+,-). Hence s_\infty\in\mathcal{S}^+, and (s_\infty,m^\infty)\in\mathrm{pr}^{-1}(C). Thus every sequence in \mathrm{pr}^{-1}(C) has a subsequence that converges in \mathrm{pr}^{-1}(C). Since \mathcal{Z} is metrizable, \mathrm{pr}^{-1}(C) is compact.

A fibre p^{-1}(y) is compact because p is proper, and discrete because p is a local homeomorphism. So it is finite, say p^{-1}(y)=\{x_1,\dots,x_k\}. Choose pairwise disjoint open sets U_i\ni x_i such that p maps U_i homeomorphically onto an open set V_i\ni y, and put F=X\setminus\bigcup_iU_i. The set p(F) is closed. Indeed, if p(x_n)\to z with x_n\in F, then the x_n lie in the compact set p^{-1}(\{z\}\cup\{p(x_n):n\ge1\}), so a subsequence converges to a point x\in F with p(x)=z. Also y\notin p(F). So W=\bigcap_iV_i\setminus p(F) is an open neighbourhood of y (if k=0, then W=Y\setminus p(F)). For z\in W the fibre p^{-1}(z) lies in \bigcup_iU_i and meets each U_i in exactly one point, so it has k points. Hence the number of points in the fibres is locally constant, and therefore constant.