On the convexity of the quaternionic essential numerical range

Abstract: The numerical range in the quaternionic setting is, in general, a non convex subset of the quaternions. The essential numerical range is a refinement of the numerical range that only keeps the elements that have, in a certain sense, infinite multiplicity. We prove that the essential numerical range of a bounded linear operator on a quaternionic Hilbert space is convex. A quaternionic analogue of Lancaster theorem, relating the closure of the numerical range and its essential numerical range, is also provided.

\section*{Introduction}

Let $\mathbb{F}$ be the field of complex numbers or the skew field $\mathbb{H}$ of Hamilton quaternions. Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space over $\mathbb{F}$ and let $T$ be a bounded linear operator on $\mathcal{H}$. The numerical range of $T$ is the set
\[
W(T)=W_{\mathbb{F}}(T)=\{\langle Tx,x\rangle:\|x\|=1, x\in\mathcal{H}\},
\]
where $\langle \cdot\,,\cdot\,\rangle:\mathcal{H}\times\mathcal{H}\to\mathbb{F}$ is the inner product on $\mathcal{H}$. This subset of $\mathbb{F}$ was introduced and studied by Toeplitz in 1918, who proved that, when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{C}$, the outer boundary of $W(T)$ is a convex curve and conjectured that the whole numerical range was convex, see \cite{To}. Shortly after, in 1919, Hausdorff \cite{Ha} proved the conjecture. Since then, this result is known as the Toeplitz-Hausdorff Theorem.

Over the years, the investigation of the numerical range continuously increased, including the cases of linear operators on infinite dimensional complex Hilbert spaces and complex Banach spaces. In 1951, Kippenhahn \cite{Ki} introduced the study of numerical range for quaternionic operators, i.e, when $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{H}$. Soon it became evident that, although sharing many properties of its complex counterpart, the quaternionic numerical range was no longer always convex.
The bild of an operator $T$, also introduced in \cite{Ki}, is the intersection $B(T)=W_{\mathbb{H}}(T)\cap\mathbb{C}$. Since every quaternion is, up to unitary equivalence, a complex number, many properties of the numerical range are encoded in the bild, including convexity. In fact, $W_{\mathbb{H}}(T)$ is convex if, and only if, $B(T)$ is convex, see \cite{CDM3}. However, the upper bild $B^+(T)$, which is the intersection of $W_{\mathbb{H}}(T)$ with the closure of the upper half-plane, is always convex.
The pursuit of convexity remained an important issue in the quaternionic setting, with Au-Yeung establishing in \cite{Ye1} necessary and sufficient conditions for $W_{\mathbb{H}}(T)$ to be convex.

In a series of recent papers \cite{CDM1} - \cite{CDM5} the convexity and shape of the numerical range of quaternionic matrices have been studied by the first three named autors. The notion of S-spectrum in \cite{CGSS} and its relation with the numerical range on infinite dimensional quaternionic Hilbert spaces was adressed in the recent preprint \cite{CDM6}. Another geometric object in the realm of infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces is the essential numerical range of an operator $T$. It is defined as the set
\[
W_{e}(T)=W_{e,\mathbb{F}}(T)=\bigcap_{K\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})}\overline{W(T+K)},
\]
where $\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$ denotes the set of compact operators on the $\mathbb{F}$-Hilbert space $\mathcal{H}$. Taking $K$ to be the zero operator in the above definition, we see that $W_{e,\mathbb{F}}(T)\subseteq\overline{W_{\mathbb{F}}(T)}$.

This paper is devoted to the study of the essential numerical range in the quaternionic setting. The main result is theorem \ref{thm convexity} where we show that, for $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{H}$, the essential numerical range $W_{e}(T)=W_{e,\mathbb{H}}(T)$ is always a convex set. Thus, at least convexity of this essential part of the numerical range is guaranteed even in the quaternionic setting. We emphasize that this is a surprising and unexpected result since the essential numerical range is the intersection of non-convex sets and nothing indicates it is convex in its formulation.

To secure this result we use a general property (lemma \ref{lemmasequence}): given a pair of unitary sequences $x_n^{(1)}, x_n^{(2)}$ and $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, a judiscious choice of $N$ and $M$ shows that the following vectors are close to orthogonal
\[
\inn{x_N}{y_M} \approx  \inn{Tx_N}{y_M} \approx \inn{T^*x_N}{y_M}\approx 0.
\]
We can then form an essential sequence (see definition \ref{def_ess_seq}) for the convex combination $\alpha^2 \omega^{(1)}+\beta^2\omega^{(2)}$, $\omega^{(1)}, \omega^{2}\in W_e(T)$, with elements of the form $\alpha x_N^{(1)}+\beta y_M^{(2)}$. The referred quasi orthogonality implies that
\begin{align*}
&\|\alpha x_N^{(1)}+\beta x_M^{(2)}\|^2\approx \alpha^2\inn{x_N^{(1)}}{x_N^{(1)}}+\beta^2 \inn{x_M^{(2)}}{x_M^{(2)}}=1\\
&\langle T(\alpha x_N^{(1)}+\beta x_M^{(2)}), \alpha x_N^{(1)}+\beta x_M^{(2)}\rangle\approx \alpha^2\langle T x_N^{(1)}, x_N^{(1)}\rangle+\beta^2 \langle T x_M^{(2)}, x_M^{(2)}\rangle\approx \alpha^2 \omega^{(1)}+\beta^2\omega^{(2)}.
\end{align*}

We finish the paper with theorem \ref{thm lancaster quaternion}, where we prove a quaternionic version of Lancaster theorem relating the numerical range and the essential numerical range, see \cite{L}. Due to the nonconvexity of the numerical range, we need to introduce the notion of inter-convex hull (see (\ref{intraconvex hull})). The result asserts that the closure of the quaternionic numerical range is precisely the inter-convex hull of the quaternionic essential numerical range and the quaternionic numerical range, \emph{i.e} $\overline{W(T)}={\rm iconv\,}\{W_e(T), W(T)\}$. In spite of the formal similarities with its complex counterpart, there are worth mentioning differences. Foremost we can not infer that the numerical range is closed when it contains the essential numerical range (see remark \ref{remark_lancaster}) as in complex Hilbert spaces \cite[Corollary $1$]{L}. This is because the quaternionic numerical range lacks convexity and the quaternionic Lancaster theorem uses the weaker notion of inter-convex hull. In addition,  remark \ref{remark_lancaster} tells us that, even though the upper bild is convex, we still do not recover Lancaster theorem in its complex form.

\bigskip

\section{Notation and preliminaries}

The division ring of real quaternions $\mathbb{H}$, also known as Hamilton quaternions, is an algebra over the field of real numbers with basis $\{1,i,j,k\}$ and product defined by $i^2=j^2=k^2=ijk=-1$. Given a quaternion $q=q_0+q_1i+q_2j+q_3k$, its conjugate is $q^*=q_0-q_1i-q_2j-q_3k$. We call ${\rm Re\,}(q)=\frac{q+q^*}{2}$ and ${\rm Im\,}(q)=\frac{q-q^*}{2}$ the real and imaginary parts of $q$, respectively. The norm of $q$ is the nonnegative real number $|q|=\sqrt{qq^*}$. Two quaternions $q,q'\in\mathbb{H}$ are similar if there is a unitary $u\in\mathbb{H}$ such that $u^*qu=q'$, in which case we write $q\sim q'$. This is an equivalence relation and we denote the equivalence class of $q$ by $[q]$.

Let $\mathcal{H}$ denote an infinite dimensional two-sided Hilbert space over $\mathbb{H}$. In particular, the norm of $x\in\mathcal{H}$ is defined by the underlying $\mathbb{H}$-inner product as $\|x\|=\sqrt{\langle x,x\rangle}$. The inner product verifies the usual Cauchy-Schwartz inequality: $|\langle x,y\rangle|\leq\|x\|\|y\|$, for every $x,y\in\mathcal{H}$. The space of bounded, right $\mathbb{H}$-linear operators on $\mathcal{H}$ is denoted by $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, its closed ideal of compact operators by $\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$ and the group of invertible operators by $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})^{-1}$.

Every linear operator $T$ considered in the text will be a bounded linear operator in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. Given $q\in\mathbb{H}$  and $T \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, we define the operator $\Delta_q(T):\mathcal{H}\to\mathcal{H}$ by
\[
\Delta_q(T)=T^2-2{\rm Re\,}(q)T+|q|^2I,
\]
where $I$ is the identity operator. Clearly, $\Delta_q(T)\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. The spherical spectrum of $T$, abbreviated S-spectrum, is the set
\[
\sigma^S(T)=\left\{q\in\mathbb{H}:\Delta_q(T)\notin \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})^{-1}\right\},
\]
which seems to be the appropriate notion for spectral analysis of linear operators on infinite dimensional quaternionic Hilbert spaces, see \cite{CGSS}.

Let $\pi:\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})\rightarrow \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})/\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$ denote the canonical quotient map and $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})=\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})/\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$ the Calkin algebra.
Let $\pi(T)=[T]$ denote the equivalence class $T+\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$, for $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. Then $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$ is a normed algebra with $\lVert [T]\rVert=\inf_{K\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})}\lVert T+K\rVert \leq \lVert T\rVert$. We say that $T$ is a Fredholm operator if the class $[T]$ is invertible in $\mathcal{C}(\mathcal{H})$.
According to Atkinson Theorem,
$T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is a Fredholm operator if and only if its range is closed and the kernels $\ker(T)$ and $\ker(T^*)$ are finite dimensional, where $T^*\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is the adjoint of $T$.
The set of all Fredholm operators in $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is denoted by $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{H})$.

The essential S-spectrum of $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$, defined by
\begin{equation*} \label{eq01}
\sigma_{e}^S(T)=\left\{ q \in \mathbb{H} : \Delta_q(T) \notin \mathcal{F}(\mathcal{H}) \right\},
\end{equation*}
is a non-empty compact subset of $\sigma^S(T)$, see \cite{MT}.

In the sequel, we will be working in the quaternion setting, that is, the quaternions $\mathbb{H}$ are our ground field (skewfield to be more precise). Therefore,  when we write $W(T)$ or $W_e(T)$, we always refer to the quaternionic numerical range or quaternionic essential numerical range.

Finally, define the essential bild and the essentials upper and lower bilds to be, respectively, $B_e(T)=W_e(T)\cap\mathbb{C}$, $B_e^+(T)=W_e(T)\cap\mathbb{C}^+$,  and $B_e^-(T)=W_e(T)\cap\mathbb{C}^-$, where $\mathbb{C}^{\pm}$ is the closure of the respective half-planes.

\bigskip

\section{Properties of the essential  numerical range}

This section is devoted to elementary properties of the essential numerical range and to prove some criteria for a quaternion to be in the essential numerical range of an operator. The results and their proofs are identical to the complex case with some adjustments.  For the sake of completeness full proofs are provided. We start with an auxiliary result concerning compact operators.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem compact}
An operator $T$ is compact if and only if $\langle Te_n,e_n\rangle\to 0$ for every orthonormal set $(e_n)_{n}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $T\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ be compact and let $(e_n)_{n}$ be an orthonormal set.
Let $P_n$ be the projection onto $\text{span}\,\{e_1,\dots, e_n\}$. Since $T$ is compact, it is the limit of a sequence of finite rank operators, i.e.,  $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\lVert P_nT-T\rVert=0$ (see \cite[Corollary 4.5]{C}). Then
\[
\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \lVert (I-P_n)T(I-P_n)\rVert \leq\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\lVert T-P_nT\rVert \lVert I-P_n\rVert=0.
\]
Since $(I-P_n)e_{n+1}=e_{n+1}$, and using the Cauchy-Schwatz inequality, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
  \lvert \langle T e_{n+1}, e_{n+1}\rangle\rvert &=& \lvert \langle T(I-P_n) e_{n+1}, (I-P_n)e_{n+1}\rangle \rvert\\

   &\leq &  \lVert (I-P_n)T(I-P_n)\rVert.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, $\langle T e_{n}, e_{n}\rangle\to 0$.

For the converse, suppose that $T\in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is such that $\langle T e_{n}, e_{n}\rangle\to 0$, for every orthonormal set $(e_n)_{n}$. From
$\lVert T\rVert=\sup_{\|x\|=\|y\|=1}|\langle Tx, y\rangle|,$
 there exist unit vectors $x_1,y_1\in\mathcal{H}$ such that
\begin{equation*
\lvert \langle Tx_1,y_1\rangle \rvert\geq\frac{\lVert T\rVert }{2}.
\end{equation*}

A straightforward computation shows the following  ``polarization identity'', for all $x,y\in\mathcal{H}$:
\begin{equation*}
 4\langle Tx,y\rangle = {} \langle T(x+y), x+y \rangle-\langle T(x-y), x-y \rangle + \Big(\langle T(x+yi), x+yi \rangle- \langle T(x-yi), x-yi \rangle\Big)i
 \end{equation*}
\[
+k \Big(\langle T(x+yk), x+yk \rangle- \langle T(x-yk), x-yk \rangle\Big) + k \Big(\langle T(x+yj), x+yj \rangle- \langle T(x-yj), x-yj \rangle\Big)i .
\]
In particular, it follows that
 \[
|\langle Tx_1,y_1\rangle|\leq \frac{1}{4} \sum_{u\in U}
|\langle Tu,u\rangle|,
\]
where $U=\left\{x_1+\eta y_1 \, : \, \eta= \pm 1, \pm i, \pm j, \pm k\right\}$. More precisely, for some $u_0\in U$ we can write
\begin{eqnarray*}

|\langle Tx_1,y_1\rangle| & \leq & \frac{8}{4}
|\langle Tu_0,u_0 \rangle| = 2
 \Bigg| \langle  T\left(\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|}\right),  \frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|} \rangle\Bigg| \, \|u_0\|^2 \\
& \leq  & 8
 \Bigg| \langle  T\left(\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|}\right),  \frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|} \rangle\Bigg| ,
   \end{eqnarray*}
where in the last inequality we used the fact that $\|u_0\|\leq 2$.
Set $\rho_1=u_0/ \|u_0\|\in \mathcal{H} $. Then, $\rho_1$ is a unit vector such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{\lVert T\rVert}{2} \leq \lvert \langle Tx_1,y_1\rangle\rvert \leq 8 \lvert \langle T\rho_1, \rho_1\rangle \rvert
\Leftrightarrow
\frac{\lVert T\rVert}{16} \leq  \lvert \langle T\rho_1, \rho_1\rangle \rvert.
 \end{eqnarray*}

Now, let $P_1$ be the orthogonal projection onto $\text{span}\,\{\rho_1\}$. By applying the above argument to the operator $(I-P_1)T(I-P_1)$, we can find a unit vector $\rho_2$ orthogonal to $\rho_1$ such that
 \begin{eqnarray*}

   \frac{\lVert (I-P_1)T(I-P_1)\rVert}{16}
\leq   \lvert \langle T\rho_2, \rho_2\rangle \rvert.
 \end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, a recursive procedure allows us to construct an orthonormal sequence $(\rho_n)_{n}$ such that if $P_n$ is the projection onto the span of $\{\rho_1, \dots, \rho_{n}\}$ then
\[
   \frac{ \lVert (I-P_n)T(I-P_n) \rVert}{16} \leq   \lvert \langle T\rho_{n+1}, \rho_{n+1}\rangle  \rvert.
\]
Since $\rho_n$ is an orthonormal sequence, by assumption, we have $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}\langle T\rho_n, \rho_n\rangle=0$, so that
 \[
\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}  \lVert (I-P_n)T(I-P_n)  \rVert=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} l\Vert (P_nT+TP_n-P_nTP_n)-T\rVert=0,
 \]
and thus $T$ is compact (being the limit of the finite rank operators $P_nT+TP_n-P_nTP_n$).
\end{proof}

\bigskip

Next result, well-known in the complex setting (see \cite[Corollary in page 189]{FSW}), gives necessary and sufficient conditions for an element $q\in\mathbb{H}$ to belong to $W_e(T)$, for some operator $T\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. A very important class of unitary vectors regarding the essential numerical range, portrayed bellow in condition $b)$, will be called an essential sequence, see definition \ref{def_ess_seq}.
As usual, we write $x_n\rightharpoonup x$ if a sequence $(x_n)_n$ in $\mathcal{H}$ converges to $x\in\mathcal{H}$ in the weak topology.

\begin{theorem}\label{theoEssNRseq}
Let $q\in \mathbb{H}$. The following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}[a)]
  \item $q\in W_e(T)$.
  \item There exists a sequence of unit vectors $(x_n)_{n}$ in $\mathcal{H}$ such that $x_n\rightharpoonup 0$  and $\langle Tx_n,x_n\rangle\to q$.
  \item There exists an orthonormal sequence $(e_n)_{n}$ in $\mathcal{H}$ such that $\langle Te_n,e_n\rangle\to q$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
$b)\Rightarrow a).\,$ Suppose b) holds. To see that $q\in \bigcap_{K\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})}\overline{W(T+K)}$, we will show that $\langle (T+K)x_n,x_n\rangle\to q$, for every compact operator $K$. At this point we need the following well-known result: if $K$ is compact and $x_n\rightharpoonup x$, then $Kx_n\to Kx$ strongly. In particular, if $x_n\rightharpoonup 0$ then $\|Kx_n\|\to 0$.
It follows that
\[
\langle (T+K)x_n,x_n\rangle=\langle Tx_n,x_n\rangle+\langle Kx_n,x_n\rangle\to q,
\]
since we have $\left|\langle Kx_n,x_n\rangle\right|\leq\|Kx_n\|$, for every $n$.

$c)\Rightarrow b).\,$  The result follows from the fact that $e_n\rightharpoonup 0$ for every orthonormal sequence $(e_n)_n$.

$a)\Rightarrow c)$.
Since $W_e(T)=[B_e(T)]$, it is enough to prove the result for the essential upper bild.
Let $q\in B^+_e(T)$.
From
${B_{e}^+(T)}\subseteq \overline{B^+(T)}$, there is a sequence of unit vectors $(\xi_n)_n$ in $\mathcal{H}$ such that $\langle T\xi_n,\xi_n\rangle\in B^+(T)$ and $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\langle T\xi_n,\xi_n\rangle=q$.
Take $\xi_{M}$, which we call without loss of generality $\xi_1$, such that
\[
|\langle T\xi_1,\xi_1\rangle-q|\leq \frac{1}{2}.
\]

Let $\mathcal{L}_1:=\text{span}\,\{\xi_1\}$ and write $\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{L}_1\oplus\mathcal{L}_1^\bot$. Denote $P_1:\mathcal{H}\rightarrow\mathcal{H}$ the orthogonal projection onto $\mathcal{L}_1$.
From \cite[Corollary 3.3]{CDM3} we know that  the quaternionic numerical range of an operator, and therefore its upper bild,  always intersects the real line. So, we can take a real number $\mu_1\in B^+\Big((I-P_1)\restr{T}{\mathcal{L}_1^\bot}\Big)\cap\mathbb{R}$.

Let $F_1$ be the finite rank operator such that $ T+F_1 =\mu_1P_1+(I-P_1)T(I-P_1)$. Then, $F_1$ compact and,
since $q\in B_e^+(T)$, it follows that
\[
q\in \overline{B^+(T+F_1)}=\overline{B^+(\mu_1P_1+(I-P_1)T(I-P_1))}.
\]
However, it is clear that
\begin{eqnarray*}
& &B^+\left(\mu_1P_1+(I-P_1)T(I-P_1)\right) =\\

   &=& \left\{\langle (\mu_1P_1+(I-P_1)T(I-P_1)) (x_1+x_2), x_1+x_2 \rangle\, :\, (x_1,x_2)\in\Omega\right\} \cap \mathbb{C}^+ \\

   &=& \left\{\mu_1\lVert x_1\rVert^2+\lVert x_2\rVert^2\langle (I-P_1)T \frac{x_2}{\|x_2\|},\frac{x_2}{\|x_2\|} \rangle\, :\,  (x_1,x_2)\in\Omega\right\}\cap \mathbb{C}^+ ,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\Omega=\left\{(x_1,x_2):x_1\in \mathcal{L}_1, x_2\in\mathcal{L}_1^\bot, \, \lVert x_1\rVert^2+\lVert x_2\rVert^2=1\right\}$.

 Since $\mu_1\in B^+\Big((I-P_1)\restr{T}{\mathcal{L}_1^\bot}\Big)\cap \mathbb{R}$ and $B^+\Big((I-P_1)\restr{T}{\mathcal{L}_1^\bot}\Big)$ is convex (see \cite[Corollary 1]{Ye1}) we obtain
 \[
 B^+(\mu_1P_1+(I-P_1)T(I-P_1)) = B^+\Big((I-P_1)T_{|\mathcal{L}_1^\bot}\Big).
 \]
Hence, $q\in \overline{B^+\Big((I-P_1)\restr{T}{\mathcal{L}_1^\bot}\Big)}$. So there is a unit vector $\xi_2\in \mathcal{L}_1^\bot$  such that
\begin{eqnarray*}
 \lvert \langle (I-P_1)\restr{T}{\mathcal{L}_1^\bot}\xi_2,\xi_2\rangle - q\rvert  \leq  \frac{1}{2^2} & \Leftrightarrow & |\langle T \xi_2,\xi_2\rangle - q| \leq  \frac{1}{2^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}

If $\xi_1, \dots, \xi_n$ are orthonormal vectors such that
$|\langle T \xi_n,\xi_n\rangle - q| \leq \frac{1}{2^n},$
we can repeat the above procedure with $\mathcal{L}_n:=\text{span}\,\{\xi_1, \dots, \xi_n\}$, $P_n$ the orthogonal projection onto $\mathcal{L}_n$, $\mu_n\in B^+\Big((I-P_n)\restr{T}{\mathcal{L}_n^\bot}\Big)\cap\mathbb{R}$ and $F_n$ such that $T+F_n=\mu_nP_n+(I-P_n)T(I-P_n)$. We thus obtain a unit vector $\xi_{n+1}$ orthogonal to each $\xi_k$ for $1\leq k\leq n$ such that
\[
|\langle T \xi_{n+1},\xi_{n+1}\rangle - q| \leq \frac{1}{2^{n+1}}.
\]
By recursion, there exists an orthonormal sequence $(\xi_n)_{n}$ in $\mathcal{H}$ such that $\langle T\xi_n,\xi_n\rangle\to q$.

\end{proof}

We will call any sequence satisfying b) an essential sequence for $q$, as stated in the following definition.

\begin{definition}\label{def_ess_seq}
An essential sequence $(x_n)_{n}\subset \mathcal{H}$ for $q$ is a sequence of unit vectors such that $x_n\rightharpoonup 0$  and $\langle Tx_n,x_n\rangle\to q$.
\end{definition}

\bigskip
An immediate consequence of theorem \ref{theoEssNRseq} is the non-emptiness of the essential numerical range. In fact, for any orthonormal sequence $(e_n)_{n}$, the sequence $\Big(\langle Te_n,e_n\rangle\Big)_{n}$ is bounded by $\|T\|$. Then, it  has a convergent subsequence.
By c) in theorem \ref{theoEssNRseq} we have that $W_e(T)$ is non-empty. Moreover, it is clear that $W_e(T)$ is a compact set since it is closed and bounded in $\mathbb{H}$. These properties are summarized in the corollary below.

\medskip

\begin{corollary}
$W_e(T)$ is a non-empty and compact set.
\end{corollary}

The essential numerical range in the quaternionic setting shares many properties with either the complex essential numerical range or the quaternionic numerical range. We collect some of such properties below. The proofs are direct and  for that reason only a short hint is provided.
\bigskip

\begin{proposition}\label{prop properties ess n.r}
The following properties of the quaternionic essential numerical range hold.
\begin{enumerate}[(i)]
  \item $W_e(T+K)=W_e(T)$, for all $K\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$.
  \item $q\in W_e(T)$ if and only if $[q]\subseteq W_e(T)$.
  \item $W_e(T^*)=W_e(T)$.
  \item $W_e(T)\subseteq \overline{\mathbb{D}(0, \|\pi(T)\|)}$.
  \item If $a,b\in\mathbb{R}, W_e(aT+bI)=aW_e(T)+b$.
  \item $W_e(T+S)\subseteq W_e(T)+W_e(S)$.
  \item If $U\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ is unitary, then $W_e(UTU^*)=W_e(T)$.
  \item $W_e(T)$ contains  all eigenvalues of $T$ of infinite multiplicity.

\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
$(i)$ follows from $K+\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})=\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H}) $, for any $K \in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$; $(ii)$  results from  $q\in {W(T)}$ if and only if $[q]\subseteq {W(T)}$, for every operator $T$; $(iii)$ is a consequence of $W(T^*)=W(T)$, for every $T \in \mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$; the inclusion $W(T)\subseteq \overline{\mathbb{D}(0, \|T\|)}$ implies $(iv)$; $(v)$ holds because $W(aT+bI)=aW(T)+b$, for $a,b\in\mathbb{R}$; from $\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})+\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})=\mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$ and $W(T+S)\subseteq W(T)+W(S)$ we obtain $(vi)$; $(vii)$ follows from $W(UTU^*)=W(T)$; for $(viii)$ note that the orthonormal set $(e_n)_{n}$ of eigenvectors satisfying $Te_n=e_n q$ is an essential sequence for $q$.
\end{proof}

\medskip

From \cite[Theorem 2.9]{CDM6} we know that $\sigma^S(T+K) \subseteq \overline{W(T+K)}$, for every $K\in \mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})$. Using the notion of Weyl S-spectrum,  $\sigma_w^S(T):= \bigcap_{K\in \mathcal{K}(\mathcal{H})}\sigma^S(T+K) $, and that $\sigma_{e}^S(T)\subseteq \sigma_w^S(T)\subseteq \sigma^S(T)$ (see Definition 6.1 and Theorem 6.6 in \cite{MT}), we have the following result.

\begin{theorem}\label{Theo_Sspecturm_NR}
$\sigma_e^S(T)\subseteq W_e(T)$.
\end{theorem}

\section{Convexity}

\bigskip

In this section we establish the main result of the paper which asserts that  the quaternionic essential numerical range is convex. To see this we will show that for any
two elements $\w1, \w2$ in $W_e(T)$, their convex combination can be arbitrarily approximated by elements $\langle Tz, z\rangle$, where $z \in \mathcal{H}$ is generated by an essential sequence for $\w1$ and an essential sequence for $\w2$. To construct such elements $z\in\mathcal{H}$ we need a preparatory lemma which states a general property enjoyed by a pair of unitary sequences weakly vanishing and a bounded linear operator.

\begin{lemma}\label{lemmasequence}
Let $T\in B(\mathcal{H})$ and $\big(x^{(i)}_n\big)_n$, $i=1,2$, be unitary sequences in $\mathcal{H}$ such that $x_n^{(i)}\rightharpoonup 0$. For any $\varepsilon>0$ and $N \in \mathbb{N}$, there is $M \in \mathbb{N}$ such that $M\geq N $ and
\[
\big|\inn{x^{(1)}_N}{x^{(2)}_M}\big|\leq \varepsilon, \quad \big|\inn{Tx^{(1)}_N}{x^{(2)}_M}\big|\leq \varepsilon, \quad\text{and} \quad \big|\inn{T^*x^{(1)}_N}{x^{(2)}_M}\big|\leq \varepsilon.
\]
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $\delta>0$. Let $(e_k)_k$ be an orthonormal basis for $\mathcal{H}$ and $P_K$ be the projection onto $\text{span}\,\{e_1,\dots, e_K\}$. Since $(I-P_K)y\xrightarrow[K \to \infty]{}0$ for every $y \in \mathcal{H}$, then, for the above $\delta>0$ and $N\in\mathbb{N}$, we may find $K \in \mathbb{N}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{Kcondts}
\|(I-P_K)x^{(1)}_N\|\leq \delta, \quad \|(I-P_K)Tx^{(1)}_N\|\leq \delta \quad\text{ and }\quad \|(I-P_K)T^* x^{(1)}_N\|\leq \delta.
\end{equation}
 We can find an $M\in\mathbb{N}$  that depends on $\delta$, $N$, $K$, such that $M \geq N$ and
\begin{equation}\label{Mcondts}
|\langle x^{(2)}_M, e_k\rangle | \leq \frac{\delta}{2^{k/2}}, \text{ for every } 1 \leq k \leq K.
\end{equation}
Inequality (\ref{Mcondts}) follows  from the fact that $\big(x^{(2)}_n\big)_n$ vanishes weakly, and that implies coordinatewise convergence to zero.
It follows that
\[
\Big\|\sum_{1\leq k \leq K} \langle x^{(2)}_M, e_k\rangle \;e_k\Big\|^2 = \sum_{1\leq k \leq K} \Big| \langle x^{(2)}_M, e_k\rangle \Big|^2 \leq \delta^2
\]
and therefore,
\begin{equation} \label{convlemma4}
\big\|P_K x^{(2)}_M\big\|\leq \delta.
\end{equation}

Noting that $\Vert x^{(1)}_N\rVert=\lVert x^{(2)}_M\rVert=1$, we have
\begin{align*}
\Big|\langle x^{(1)}_N, x^{(2)}_M\rangle\Big|  &\leq \Big| \langle x^{(1)}_N, (I-P_K)x^{(2)}_M\rangle \Big| + \Big| \langle x^{(1)}_N, P_K x^{(2)}_M\rangle \Big| \\
&\leq\big\| (I-P_K)x^{(1)}_N\big\| \,\,\big\| x^{(2)}_M \big\| + \big\| x^{(1)}_N\big\|\,\,\big\|P_K x^{(2)}_M\big\|\\
&\leq 2\delta \,\,\,\,\,\,\,(\textrm{from}\,\,(\ref{Kcondts})\,\,\text{and}\,\,(\ref{convlemma4})).
\end{align*}

Using a similar reasoning, we can show that
\begin{align*}
    \big|\langle Tx^{(1)}_N, x^{(2)}_M\rangle\big|&\leq \| (I-P_K)Tx^{(1)}_N\|\,\, \|x^{(2)}_M\|+\|Tx^{(1)}_N\| \| P_K x^{(2)}_M\|\\
&\leq \| (I-P_K)Tx^{(1)}_N\|+\|T\| \,\, \delta \\
&\leq \delta+\|T\| \,\, \delta
\end{align*}
and
$\big|\langle T^*x^{(1)}_N, x^{(2)}_M\rangle\big|\leq \delta+\|T\| \,\, \delta$. Letting $\delta$ be such that $\max\{2, 1+\|T\|\}\delta\leq \varepsilon$ the lemma follows.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm convexity}
 $ W_e(T)$ is convex.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}

Convexity of $W_e(T)$ will be proved by showing that $\alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2 \in W_e(T)$ for any $\alpha^2+\beta^2=1$, when $\w1, \w2$ lie in $W_e(T)$. For that we will prove there is an essential sequence $(\tilde z_p)_p$ for $\alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2$.

 Let $\big(x^{(i)}_n\big)_n$ be an essential sequence for $\omega^{(i)}$ and denote $\omega_n^{(i)}=\langle Tx^{(i)}_n, x^{(i)}_n\rangle$, for $i=1,2$. For any $p\in \mathbb{N}$ let $\varepsilon=1/p$. One of the conditions for the sequence $\big(x^{(i)}_n\big)_n$ to be essential for $\w{i}$ is that $\w{i}_n \to \w{i}$ when $n \to \infty$. Hence, for the given $\varepsilon$, there exists  $N\geq p$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{Ncondts}
|\w1_n-\w1|\leq \varepsilon \text{ and  } |\w2_n-\w2|\leq \varepsilon, \; \text{ for } n \geq N.
\end{equation}

Pick $M$  according to the previous  lemma. For the fixed $\alpha$ and $\beta$, let $z=\alpha x^{(1)}_N+\beta x^{(2)}_M$. Since $\alpha^2+\beta^2=1$ and $\alpha \beta \leq \frac{1}{2}$, we  easily  verify that
\begin{equation}\label{convlemma1}\\
\big|\|z\|^2-1\big|\leq \big|\langle x^{(1)}_N, x^{(2)}_M\rangle \big|\leq \varepsilon.
\end{equation}
A simple computation shows that
 \begin{align*}
 \Big|\langle T z, z\rangle - \big(\alpha^2\w1_N+\beta^2\w2_M\big)\Big| &= \alpha\beta\Big|\langle Tx^{(1)}_N, x^{(2)}_M\rangle + \overline{\langle T^*x^{(1)}_N, x^{(2)}_M\rangle} \Big| \leq \varepsilon.\nonumber

 \end{align*}
From (\ref{Ncondts}), it follows that
 \begin{align}
 \Big|\langle T z, z\rangle - \big(\alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2\big)\Big|&\leq \Big|  \big(\alpha^2\w1_N+\beta^2\w2_M\big)-\big(\alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2\big) \Big|\nonumber\\
 & \,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,+ \Big|\langle T z, z\rangle - \big(\alpha^2\w1_N+\beta^2\w2_M\big)\Big|\nonumber\\
 %
&\leq \alpha^2 \Big|\w1_N - \w1\big|+ \beta^2 \Big|\w2_M - \w2\big| +\Big|\langle T z, z\rangle - \big(\alpha^2\w1_N+\beta^2\w2_M\big)\Big| \nonumber\\
&\leq  2\varepsilon.\label{convlemma2}
  \end{align}

Observing that the fixed integers $N$ and $M$ depend on $\varepsilon$, that is on $p\in\mathbb{N}$, we denote them by $N_p$ and $M_p$; likewise, we denote $z$ by $z_p$.  To get an essential sequence we have to normalize $(z_p)_p$. Write $\tilde z_p=\frac{z_p}{\|z_p\|}$. From (\ref{convlemma1}), $\|z_p\|\to 1\,\,(p\to\infty)$, and so $(\tilde z_p)_p$ is well defined.
By definition, $z_p=\alpha x^{(1)}_{N_p}+\beta x^{(2)}_{M_p}$, and $x^{(1)}_{N_p}, x^{(2)}_{M_p} \rightharpoonup 0$, when $p \to \infty$. By linearity and since $\|z_p\|\to 1$, we have that $\tilde z_p \rightharpoonup 0$. Finally, from (\ref{convlemma2}) it follows that
\[
 \langle T \tilde z_p, \tilde z_p\rangle = \frac{1}{\|z_p\|^2} \langle T z_p, z_p\rangle \to \alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2.
 \]
The sequence $(\tilde z_p)_p$ is essential for $\alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2$ and thus, by theorem \ref{theoEssNRseq}, $\alpha^2\w1+\beta^2\w2\in W_e(T).$
\end{proof}

\bigskip

Next result establishes the relation between the boundary of the numerical range and the essential numerical range. This is the quaternionic analogue of Lancaster's theorem for the complex numerical range, see \cite[Theorem 1]{L}. Since the quaternionic numerical range is not always convex, a modification is imposed and we need to introduce the notion of inter-convex hull of sets (see \cite[Definition 3.2]{CDM2}).

 The inter-convex hull of the sets $A$ and $B$, denoted by ${\rm iconv\,}\{A, B\}$, closes the set $A \cup B$ to the convex combinations with one element of each sets,
\begin{equation}\label{intraconvex hull}
 {\rm iconv\,}\{A, B\}=\{\alpha a+(1-\alpha) b: a \in A, \, b \in B, \, 0\leq \alpha \leq 1\}.
\end{equation}

\begin{theorem}\label{thm lancaster quaternion}

The closure of the numerical range is $\overline{W(T)}={\rm iconv\,}\{W_e(T), W(T)\}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We start proving that ${\rm iconv\,}\{W_e(T), W(T)\} \subseteq\overline{W(T)}$. Let $\bar \omega \in {\rm iconv\,}\{W_e(T), W(T)\}$. Then $\bar{\omega}= \alpha^2 \omega+\beta^2 \omega_e$ with $\omega \in W(T), \omega_e \in W_e(T)$ and $\alpha^2+\beta^2=1$.  In particular, we can take a unitary $y \in \mathcal{H}$ such that $\omega=\inn{Ty}{y}$ and an essential sequence $(y_n)_n$ for $\omega_e$. Since $y_n \rightharpoonup 0$, we have that $\lim \,\inn{y_n}{y}=\lim \, \inn{y_n}{Ty}=\lim\, \inn{y_n}{T^*y}=0$. Let $z_n=\alpha y+\beta y_n$. Then,
\[
\innt{z_n}=\alpha^2 \innt{y}+\beta^2\innt{y_n} +\alpha\beta\Big(\inn{Ty}{y_n}+\inn{Ty_n}{y}\Big) \to \alpha^2 w+\beta^2w_e=\bar{\omega}.
\]
Furthermore,
\[\|z_n\|^2=\alpha^2\|y\|^2 +\beta^2\|y_n\|^2 +\alpha\beta\Big(\inn{y}{y_n}+\inn{y_n}{y}\Big)\to 1.
\]
Thus $W(T) \ni \innt{\frac{z_n}{\|z_n\|}} \to \bar\omega$, and $\bar\omega \in \overline{W(T)}$.

To prove the converse inclusion, take $\overline\omega \in \overline{W(T)}$. There is a sequence $\left(y_n\right)_n$ in $\mathcal{H}$ satisfying $\|y_n\|=1$ and $\omega_n=\langle T y_n, y_n\rangle \to \overline\omega $. Since this sequence is in the unit circle, there is an element $y \in \mathcal{H}$ in the unit disk such that $y_n$ converges weakly to $y$.

If $y=0$, then $(y_n)_n$ is an essential sequence for $\overline\omega$. From theorem \ref{theoEssNRseq} we have $\overline\omega \in W_e(T)$.

If $\|y\|=1$, we have that $y_n\rightharpoonup y$, with $\|y\|=1=\|y_n\|$. It is well-known that in this case $y_n \rightarrow y$ (strongly). Thus, $\innt{y_n} \to \innt{y}$, that is, $ \overline\omega =  \innt{y} \in W(T)$.

Assume now that $\|y\| \neq 0,1$. Using that $\langle y_n, h\rangle \to \langle y, h\rangle$ for any $ h \in \mathcal{H}$, we can prove that $\lim \;\langle Ty_n, y\rangle=\lim \;\langle Ty, y_n\rangle= \langle Ty, y\rangle$ and therefore
\[
\lim \; \langle Ty_n, y_n\rangle =\lim \;\left[ \langle Ty, y\rangle + \langle T(y_n-y), y_n-y\rangle\right].
\]
It is easy to see that $\lim \|y_n-y\|^2= 1-\|y\|^2$. Then
\begin{align*}
\overline\omega=\lim\;\langle Ty_n, y_n\rangle= & \lim \left[\|y\|^2 \big\langle T\frac{y}{\|y\|}, \frac{y}{\|y\|}\big\rangle + \|y_n-y\|^2\Big\langle  T\frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}, \frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}\Big\rangle\right]\\
=& \|y\|^2 \big\langle T\frac{y}{\|y\|}, \frac{y}{\|y\|}\big\rangle + (1-\|y\|^2)\lim \Big\langle  T\frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}, \frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}\Big\rangle .
\end{align*}
We have just written $\overline\omega$ as a convex combination of $\omega=\langle T\frac{y}{\|y\|}, \frac{y}{\|y\|}\big\rangle \in W(T)$ and $\omega_e= \lim \;\langle  T\frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}, \frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}\Big\rangle$. We use theorem \ref{theoEssNRseq} again, observing that $\left(\frac{y_n-y}{\|y_n-y\|}\right)_n$ is an essential sequence for $w_e$, to conclude that $w_e\in W_e(T)$.  Therefore, $\overline\omega \in {\rm iconv\,}\{W_e(T), W(T)\}$.

\end{proof}

As in other results concerning the quaternionic numerical range, next corollary shows that we can simply consider what happens in the complex plane. Given a quaternion $q=q_0+q_1i+q_2j+q_3k$, we define $\pi_{(1)}(q)={\rm Re\,}(q)=q_0$ and $\pi_{(i)}(q)=q_1$.

\begin{corollary}
Let $T\in\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$. Then $\overline{B(T)}={\rm iconv\,}\{B_e(T), B(T)\}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
From theorem \ref{thm lancaster quaternion} we have
\[
{\rm iconv\,}\{B_e(T), B(T)\}\cap \mathbb{C} \subseteq {\rm iconv\,}\{W_e(T), W(T)\}\cap \mathbb{C}=\overline{W(T)}\cap \mathbb{C}.
\]
We obtain that ${\rm iconv\,}\{B_e(T), B(T)\} \subseteq \overline{B(T)}$.

For the converse inclusion, take an element $\bar\omega \in \overline{B(T)}$. According to theorem \ref{thm lancaster quaternion} there are $\omega \in W(T)$, $\omega_e \in W_e(T)$ and $\alpha \in [0,1]$, such that
\begin{equation}\label{omega_bar}
\bar\omega =\alpha \omega +(1-\alpha)\omega_e.
\end{equation}
Observe that when $\alpha=0$ or $\alpha=1$ the inclusion immediately follows. So suppose $\alpha\neq 0, 1$.

 We can write $\omega=a+bq$ and $w_e=c+dq_e$, where $a, b, c, d\in \mathbb{R}$, $q\in {\rm Im\,}(q)$,  $q_e\in {\rm Im\,}(q_e)$ and $|q|=|q_e|=1$. Therefore, we have
 \[
 \bar\omega = (\alpha a+(1-\alpha)c)+(\alpha bq+(1-\alpha)dq_e).
 \]
 Note that $\alpha bq+(1-\alpha)dq_e\in \text{span}\,\{i\}$, since $\bar\omega\in \mathbb{C}$.
 Assume that $\bar\omega\in \mathbb{C}^+$. If  $\bar\omega\in \mathbb{C}^-$, the proof is analogous.

 By circularity of the bild, there are $\omega_{(i)} \in [\omega] \cap \mathbb{C}^+$ in the bild and $\omega_{e,(i)} \in [\omega_e] \cap \mathbb{C}^+$. We can write $\omega_i=a+|b|i$ and $\omega_{e,i}=c+|d|i$.

 Define $\overline{\omega}_i=\alpha\omega_i+(1-\alpha)\omega_{e,i}$, which can be written as
 \[
 \overline{\omega}_i=(\alpha a+(1-\alpha)c)+(\alpha |b|+(1-\alpha)|d|)i.
 \]
Clearly, $\pi_{(1)}(\bar\omega)=\pi_{(1)}(\bar\omega_i)$. On the other hand, since $\alpha bq+(1-\alpha)dq_e\in \text{span}\,\{i\}$ and $|q|=|q_e|=1$, we have
\begin{align*}
0 \leq \pi_{(i)}(\bar\omega) &= \Big|\pi_{(i)}(\bar\omega)i\Big|\\
&=\Big|\alpha bq+(1-\alpha)dq_e\Big|\\
&\leq\alpha \lvert b\rvert+(1-\alpha)\lvert d\rvert\\
&=\pi_{(i)}(\bar\omega_i).
\end{align*}

Assuming that $\alpha |b|-(1-\alpha)|d|\geq 0$, let now $\widetilde{\omega}_i=\alpha\omega_i+(1-\alpha)\omega^*_{e,i}$; otherwise, define $\widetilde{\omega}_i=\alpha\omega_i^*+(1-\alpha)\omega_{e,i}$.
Clearly, $\widetilde{\omega}_i\in \mathbb{C}^+$ and $\pi_{(1)}(\widetilde{\omega_i})=\pi_{(1)}(\overline{\omega})$. We have
\begin{align*}
0 \leq \pi_{(i)}(\widetilde{\omega}_i) &= \Big|\alpha |b|-(1-\alpha)|d|\Big|\\
&=\Big|\alpha \lvert bq\rvert-(1-\alpha)\lvert dq_e^*\rvert\Big|\\
&\leq \Big|\alpha bq-(1-\alpha)dq_e^*\Big|\\
&= \Big|\alpha bq+(1-\alpha)dq_e\Big|\\
&= \pi_{(i)}(\bar\omega),
\end{align*}
since $\alpha bq+(1-\alpha)dq_e\in \text{span}\,\{i\}$ and $\overline{\omega}\in\mathbb{C}^+$.

Then we have found two elements $\bar \omega_{i}$ and $\tilde \omega_{i}$, both in ${\rm iconv\,}\{B_e(T), B(T)\}$, such that
\begin{align*}
  &\pi_{(1)}(\bar\omega)=\pi_{(1)} \big(\bar \omega_{i}\big)=\pi_{(1)}\big(\tilde \omega_{i}\big)\\
  0\leq &\pi_{(i)}\big(\tilde \omega_{i} \big)\leq \pi_{(i)}(\bar \omega) \leq \pi_{(i)} \big(\bar \omega_{i} \big).
\end{align*}

Now we will show that $\overline{\omega}$ is also in ${\rm iconv\,}\{B_e(T), B(T)\}$.
Consider the affine transformation
\begin{align*}
  & f:B_e(T)\longrightarrow \mathbb{C}\\
&f(z)=\alpha \omega_i+(1-\alpha)z. \,
\end{align*}
Since $B_e(T)$ is convex, $[\omega^*_{e,i}, \omega_{e,i}]\subset B_e(T)$. Affine transformations map lines into lines so we have
\[
f([\omega^*_{e,i}, \omega_{e,i}])= [\widetilde{\omega}_i, \overline{\omega}_i].
\]
Observe that $\widetilde{\omega}_i\neq \overline{\omega}_i$, since $\alpha\neq 1$.

Since $\overline{\omega}\in [\widetilde{\omega}_i, \overline{\omega}_i]$, there exists $\eta\in [\omega^*_{e,i}, \omega_{e,i}]\subset B_e(T)$ such that $f(\eta)=\overline{\omega},$ that is,
$\alpha \omega_i+(1-\alpha)\eta=\overline{\omega}$.
We conclude that $\overline{\omega}\in {\rm iconv\,}\{B_e(T), B(T)\}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{remark_lancaster}
In the complex setting \cite[Corollary $1$]{L} proves that the numerical range is closed if and only if the $W_{\mathbb{C},e}(T)$ is a subset of the $W_\mathbb{C}(T)$. The relation in the previous result induces the idea that the same result might hold for quaternions. However, that is not the case.

Take the operator $T=\text{diag}\,\{-1+i, 1+i\}\oplus diag\{s_n\}$, where $s_n$ is a sequence that runs over $(-1/2,1/2)i\cap \mathbb{Q}i$. Applying theorem \ref{theoEssNRseq} and theorem \ref{thm convexity}, we have
\[B_e(T)=[-i/2,i/2].\]
From theorem 4.2 in \cite{CDM6}, it follows
\[
\overline{B^+(T)}=\text{conv}\{-1+i,1+i, -1/3, 1/3] \}.
\]
Nevertheless, the upper bild, and therefore the bild, is not closed. For example, the boundary line segment joining $-1/3$ to $-1+i$ does not belong to $B(T)$. Thus we have $B_e(T)=[-i/2,i/2]\subseteq B(T)$ but $B(T)$ is not closed.
\end{remark}

\bigskip


On a Detail in Hales's "Dense Sphere Packings: A Blueprint for Formal Proofs"

Abstract: In "Dense Sphere Packings: A Blueprint for Formal Proofs" Hales proves that for every packing of unit spheres, the density in a ball of radius $r$ is at most $\pi/\sqrt{18}+c/r$ for some constant $c$. When $r$ tends to infinity, this gives a proof to the famous Kepler conjecture. As formulated by Hales, $c$ depends on the packing. We follow the proofs of Hales to calculate a constant $c'$ independent of the sphere packing that exists as mentioned in "A Formal Proof of the Kepler Conjecture" by Hales et al..

\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
In \cite{Blueprint} Hales proves that for every packing of infinitely many unit spheres into three dimensional space, there exists a constant $c$ such that the \emph{density} inside a ball of radius $r$ is upper bounded by $\pi/\sqrt{18}+c/r$. Here, the density is defined as the volume of the intersection of the packed unit spheres with the container sphere of radius $r$ divided by the volume of the container sphere. The famous Kepler conjecture states that the density tends to $\pi/\sqrt{18}$ when $r$ tends to infinity which is implied by the density bound shown by Hales.

To make, for example, statements about bounds for finite packings inside a container, we need $c$ to be independent of the packing, i.e., we want a statement of the form: There exists a constant $c'$ such that for every infinite sphere packing the density inside a ball of radius $r$ is upper bounded by $\pi/\sqrt{18}+c'/r$. If it holds for an infinite packing, then this statement would also hold for a finite packing.

First, we give some definitions that are necessary to understand the crucial lemmas from \cite{Blueprint}. Then, we follow the proofs of the lemmas and calculate a constant $c'$ independent of the packing. Instead of using $\mathcal{O}$-Notation as in \cite{Blueprint}, we give more detailed calculations to be able to give an actual value for $c'$. When we cite lemmas or definitions from \cite{Blueprint} (with occasional slight modifications) we give the corresponding number of the lemma or definition in \cite{Blueprint} parenthesized. We try to give definitions as closely as possible to the point where we use them.

\section{Main Lemmas}
Let us denote by $\vol$ the Lebesgue measure on Euclidean space $\mathbb{R}^3$.

In the sequel, let $V \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ be a point set that induces a packing of infinitely many unit spheres, i.e., the points in $V$ are the centers of the spheres and thus have pairwise distance at least 2. Let $\B(\mathbf{p},r)$ be the open sphere centered at point $\mathbf{p}$ with radius $r$. Let $V(\mathbf{p},r) = V \cap \B(\mathbf{p},r)$. The \emph{density} $\density (V,\mathbf{p},r)$ inside a container sphere centered at point $\mathbf{p}$ with radius $r$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
\density(V,\mathbf{p},r)=
\frac{\vol \left( \B(\mathbf{p},r)\cap \bigcup_{\mathbf{v}\in V} \B(\mathbf{v},1) \right) }
{\vol\left( \B(\mathbf{p},r)\right) }.
\end{equation*}
In \cite{Blueprint}, it is shown that the face-centered cubic (FCC) packing of unit spheres has optimal density when $r$ tends to infinity. In the FCC-packing, the spheres are arranged in layers. In each layer, the spheres are arranged with there centers on a hexagonal grid where neighboring grid points have distance 2. The vertices of the second layer lie above centers of the triangles in the first layer. In the third layer, the vertices lie above centers of triangles in the first and in the second layer. These three layers are then repeated infinitely often. The layers are pushed together until the spheres touch. See the following picture for illustration.
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width = 0.3\textwidth]{Close_packing2.pdf}
\caption{Three layers of the FCC-packing}
\end{figure}
Consider the Voronoi diagram of the circle centers in a FCC-packing. The Voronoi cells are dodecahedra with volume $4\sqrt{2}$ which yields a density of the packing of $\pi/\sqrt{18}$.

Let $\voronoi(V,\mathbf{v})$ denote the cell of $\mathbf{v}$ in the Voronoi diagram of $V$ and, more generally, let $\voronoi(V,\underline{\mathbf{u}})$ be the intersection of the Voronoi cells for points in the list $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=[\mathbf{u}_0;\mathbf{u}_1, \dots]$.

\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.11 ]
A function $\G\colon V\to \mathbb{R}$ on a set $V \subset \mathbb{R}^3$ is \emph{negligible} if there is a constant $c_1$ such that for all $r \geq 1$,
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\mathbf{v} \in \B(\mathbf{0},r) \cap V} \G(\mathbf{v}) \leq c_1 r^2.
\end{equation*}
A function $\G\colon V \to \mathbb{R}$ is \emph{FCC-compatible} if for all $\mathbf{v} \in V$
\begin{equation*}
4\sqrt{2} \leq \vol(\voronoi(V,\mathbf{v}))+\G({\mathbf{v}}).
\end{equation*}
\label{def:FCCnegl}
\end{newdef}
\emph{FCC-compatible} means that the volume of every Voronoi cell is close to the volume of those in  the FCC-packing. Then, \emph{negligible} means, that the error is small.

Now we are ready to look at a lemma in \cite{Blueprint} from which the Kepler conjecture follows under certain assumption.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 6.13 from\cite{Blueprint}]
If there exists a negligible FCC-compatible function $\G\colon V \to \mathbb{R}$ for a saturated packing $V$, then there exists a constant $c = c(V)$ such that for all $r \geq 1$
\begin{equation*}
\density(V,\mathbf{0},r) \leq \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}+\frac{c}{r}.
\end{equation*}
\label{lem:6.13}
\end{lem}

Since this lemma is not sufficient to show the Kepler conjecture, two more lemmas are required. Therefore, we need two more definitions.

\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.34 ]
If $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=\left[\mathbf{u}_0; \dots ; \mathbf{u}_k\right]$ is a list of points in $\mathbb{R}^n$, then let $\h(\underline{\mathbf{u}})$ be the circumradius of its point set $\left\lbrace \mathbf{u}_0; \dots ; \mathbf{u}_k \right\rbrace$.
\end{newdef}

\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.88 ]
Set
\begin{equation*}
h_0 = 1.26.
\end{equation*}
Let $\funcL\colon\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}$ be the piecewise linear function
\begin{equation*}
\funcL(h) = \begin{cases}
\frac{h_0-h}{h_0-1} &,h\leq h_0 \\
0 &,h \geq h_0.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\label{def:L}
\end{newdef}
We call a packing \emph{saturated} if no unit sphere can be added to the packing.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 6.95]
For any saturated packing $V$ and any $\mathbf{u}_0 \in V$,
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\mathbf{u}_1 \in V : \h\left(\mathbf{u}_0,\mathbf{u}_1\right)\leq h_0} \funcL\left(\h\left\lbrace\mathbf{u}_0,\mathbf{u}_1\right\rbrace\right)\leq 12.
\label{eq:lem6.95}
\end{equation}
\label{lem:6.95}
\end{lem}
We will not discuss the proof of this lemma since it is irrelevant to calculate the constant $c'$ explained in Section~\ref{sec:Introduction}. It is a computer proof anyways.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 6.97 ]
Inequality~(\ref{eq:lem6.95}) implies that for every saturated packing $V$, there exists a negligible FCC-compatible function $\G\colon V \to \mathbb{R}$.
\label{lem:6.97}
\end{lem}
Lemmas~\ref{lem:6.13},~\ref{lem:6.95}~and~\ref{lem:6.97} together imply the Kepler conjecture. As mentioned above, we are interested in replacing the constant $c$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.13} by a constant $c'$ that is independent of the packing $V$. In the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:6.13} in \cite{Blueprint} it is shown that
\begin{equation}
\density(V,\mathbf{0},r)\leq \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}\left(1+\frac{3}{r}\right)^3 + c_1\frac{\left(r+1\right)^2}{r^34\sqrt{2}},
\label{eq:lem:6.13}
\end{equation}
where $c_1$ is the constant from Definition~\ref{def:FCCnegl} for the FCC-compatible negligible function $\G\colon V\to \mathbb{R}$ that exists by assumption. So, what we need to show in order to find $c'$ is the following: There exists a constant $d$ independent of the function $\G$ and therefore of the packing $V$ such that we can set $c_1=d$ in Definition~\ref{def:FCCnegl} and Lemma~\ref{lem:6.97} still holds.

In the following, we derive such a constant $d$, reproduce the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:6.97}, and show that the constructed FCC-compatible function also fulfills the stronger definition of negligible for $c_1=d$.

\section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:6.97}}
For the following function, we will show that it is FCC-compatible and negligible:
\begin{equation}
\G(\mathbf{u})=-\vol \left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right)+8m_1-
\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V\setminus\left\lbrace\mathbf{u}\right\rbrace} 8m_2 \funcL\left(\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u};\mathbf{v}\right]\right)\right)
\end{equation}
for constants $m_1$ and $m_2$ defined later and the function $\funcL$ as described in Definition~\ref{def:L}.

To prove that this function is FCC-compatible and negligible, another lemma is used. For this lemma we need more definitions.

In the following, if we talk about cells, we mean so called \emph{Marchal cells}. We refer the reader to Definition 6.51 in \cite{Blueprint} since we will not need most of the definition for the calculations made here. Cells are defined by four points in $V$ and a number $0\leq k \leq 4$ and are denoted by $\cell(\underline{\mathbf{u}},k)$ ("$k$-cell") for $\underline{\mathbf{u}}$ is a list of four points with some extra property to be explained later. 4-cells are always tetrahedra. The cells form a partition of $\mathbb{R}^3$. For a cell $X \neq \emptyset$, let $V(X) = X \cap V$ for a saturated packing $V$ (Definition 6.62 and Lemma 6.63 in \cite{Blueprint}).

The following three definitions build upon each other.
\begin{newdef}[Definition 3.7]
A set $C$ is \emph{r-radial} at center $\mathbf{v}$ if the two conditions $C \subset \B(\mathbf{v},r)$ and $\mathbf{v}+ \mathbf{u} \in C$ imply $\mathbf{v}+t\mathbf{u} \in C$ for all $t$ satisfying $0 < \Vert\mathbf{u}\Vert t < r$. A set $C$ is \emph{eventually radial} at center $\mathbf{v}$ if $C \cap \B(\mathbf{v},r)$ is r-radial at center $\mathbf{v}$ for some $r>0$.
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 3.11 ]
When $C$ is measurable and eventually radial at center $\mathbf{v}$, define the \emph{solid angle} of $C$ at $\mathbf{v}$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\sol(C,\mathbf{v}) = 3\frac{\vol\left(C \cap \B\left(\mathbf{v},r\right)\right)}{r^3},
\end{equation*}
where $r$ is as in the definition of eventually radial. By Lemma 3.10 in \cite{Blueprint}, this yields the same value when replacing r by $r'$ for any $0 \le r'\le r$.
 \end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.66]
Define the \emph{total solid angle} of a cell $X$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\tsol(X)=\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(X)} \sol(X,\mathbf{v}).
\end{equation*}
\end{newdef}
We will use this definition later. The following seven definitions build upon each other.
\begin{newdef}[Definition 5.43]
Recall that a set $A \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ is \emph{affine} if for every $\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w} \in A$ and every $t \in \mathbb{R}$,
\begin{equation*}
t\mathbf{v} + \left( 1-t\right)\mathbf{w} \in A.
\end{equation*}
Recall that the \emph{affine hull} of $P \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ (denoted $\aff(P)$) is the smallest affine set containing $P$. The \emph{affine dimension} of $P$ (written $\dimaff (P)$ is $\card (S)-1$, where $S$ is a set of smallest cardinality such that $P \subset \aff(S)$. In particular, the affine dimension of the empty set is $-1$. [...]
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.18]
Let $V$ be a saturated packing. When $k=0,1,2,3$, let $\underline{V}(k)$ be the set of lists $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=\left[\mathbf{u}_0; \dots; \mathbf{u}_k\right]$ of length $k+1$ with $\mathbf{u}_i \in V$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\dimaff \left(\Omega\left(V,\left[\mathbf{u}_0; \dots; \mathbf{u}_j\right]\right)\right)= 3-j
\end{equation*}
for all $0<j\leq k$. Set $\underline{V}(k)=\emptyset$ for $k >3$.
\label{def:6.18}
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.24]
Let $V$ be a saturated packing and let $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=\left[\mathbf{u}_0; \dots ;\mathbf{u}_k\right] \in \underline{V}(k)$ for some $k$. Define points $\omega_j = \omega_j(V, \underline{\mathbf{u}}) \in \mathbb{R}^3$ by recursion over $j \le k$
\begin{align*}
\omega_0 &= \mathbf{u}_0\\
\omega_{j+1} &= \text{ the closest point to $\omega_j$ on $\voronoi\left(V, \left[\mathbf{u}_0; \dots ;\mathbf{u}_{j+1}\right]\right)$},
\end{align*}
Set $w(V,\underline{\mathbf{u}}) =\omega_k(V,\underline{\mathbf{u}})$, when $\underline{\mathbf{u}} \in \underline{V}(k)$. The set $V$ is generally fixed and is dropped from the notation.
\end{newdef}
Let $\conv\lbrace \mathbf{v}_0,\dots, \mathbf{v_n}\rbrace$ denote the convex hull of the point set $\lbrace \mathbf{v}_0,\dots, \mathbf{v_n}\rbrace$.
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.51]
Let $V$ be a saturated packing. Let $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=\left[\mathbf{u}_0; \dots ; \mathbf{u}_3\right] \in \underline{V}(3)$. Define $\xi(\underline{\mathbf{u}})$ as follows. If $\sqrt{2} \le \h\left(\left[\mathbf{u}_0;\dots ;\mathbf{u}_2\right]\right)$, then let $\xi(\underline{\mathbf{u}})=\omega\left(\left[\mathbf{u}_0;\dots ;\mathbf{u}_2\right]\right)$. If $\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u}_0;\dots ;\mathbf{u}_2\right]\right) < \sqrt{2} \le \h(\underline{\mathbf{u}})$, define $\xi(\underline{\mathbf{u}})$ to be the unique point in
\begin{equation*}
\conv \left\lbrace \omega\left(\left[\mathbf{u}_0;\dots ;\mathbf{u}_2\right]\right), \omega\left(\underline{\mathbf{u}}\right)\right\rbrace
\end{equation*}
at distance $\sqrt{2}$ from $\mathbf{u}_0$. [...]
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 2.66]
When $\mathbf{v}_0 \neq \mathbf{v}_1$, write $\dih_V\left(\left\lbrace\mathbf{v}_0, \mathbf{v}_1\right\rbrace,\left\lbrace\mathbf{v}_2, \mathbf{v}_3\right\rbrace\right)$ for the angle $\gamma \in \left[0,\pi\right]$ formed by
\begin{align*}
\overline{\mathbf{w}}_2 &= (\mathbf{w}_1 \cdot \mathbf{w}_1) \mathbf{w}_2 - (\mathbf{w}_1 \cdot \mathbf{w}_2)\mathbf{w}_1 \text{ and}\\
\overline{\mathbf{w}}_3 &= (\mathbf{w}_1 \cdot \mathbf{w}_1) \mathbf{w}_3 - (\mathbf{w}_1 \cdot \mathbf{w}_3)\mathbf{w}_1,
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{w}_i = \mathbf{v}_i - \mathbf{v}_0$.
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.67]
Let $E(X)$ be the set of \emph{extremal edges} of the $k$-cell $X$ in a saturated packing $V$. More precisely, let
\begin{equation*}
E(X) = \left\lbrace\left\lbrace\mathbf{u}_i, \mathbf{u}_j\right\rbrace : \mathbf{u}_i \neq \mathbf{u}_j \in V(X) \right\rbrace.
\end{equation*}
In particular, $E(X)$ is empty for $0$ and $1$-cells and contains $\binom{k}{2}$ pairs when $2\le k \le 4$.
\label{def:6.67}
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.68]
Let $V$ be a saturated packing. Let $X$ be a $k$-cell, where $2\le k \le 4$. Let $\varepsilon \in E(X)$. We define the dihedral angle $\dih(X, \varepsilon)$ of $X$ along $\varepsilon$ as follows. Explicitly, if $X$ is a null set, then set $\dih(X,\varepsilon)=0$. Otherwise, choose $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=[\mathbf{u}_0;\mathbf{u}_1;\mathbf{u}_2;\mathbf{u}_3] \in \underline{V}(3)$ such that $X=cell(\underline{\mathbf{u}},k)$ and $\varepsilon = \lbrace \mathbf{u}_0, \mathbf{u}_1\rbrace$. Set $\dih(X,\varepsilon)=\dih_V\left(\left\lbrace \mathbf{u}_0, \mathbf{u}_1\right\rbrace, \left\lbrace\mathbf{v}, \mathbf{w}\right\rbrace\right)$, where
\begin{align*}
\left\lbrace\mathbf{v},\mathbf{w}\right\rbrace =
\begin{cases}
\left\lbrace\xi(\underline{\mathbf{u}}), \omega(\underline{\mathbf{u}})\right\rbrace & ,k=2\\
\left\lbrace\mathbf{u}_2,\xi(\underline{\mathbf{u}})\right\rbrace & ,k=3\\
\left\lbrace\mathbf{u}_2, \mathbf{u}_3\right\rbrace &,k=4.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
This is independent of the choice of $\underline{\mathbf{u}}$ defining $X$.
\end{newdef}
Now, we need just two more definitions before we can state the lemma mentioned above. The second one builds upon all the previously given definitions.
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.70]
Define the following constants [...]:
\begin{align*}
\sol_0 &= 3\arccos\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)-\pi\\
\tau_0 &= 4\pi - 20\sol_0\\
m_1 &= \sol_0 2 \frac{\sqrt{2}}{\tau_0} \approx 1.012\\
m_2 & = \left(6\sol_0 - \pi\right)\frac{\sqrt{2}}{6\tau_0} \approx 0.0254\\
\end{align*}
[...]
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.79]
For any cell $X$ of a saturated packing, define the function $\gamma(X,\ast)$ on $\left\lbrace f \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}\right\rbrace$ by
\begin{equation*}
\gamma(X,f) = \vol\left(X\right) - \left(\frac{2m_1}{\pi}\right)\tsol\left(X\right) + \left(\frac{8m_2}{\pi}\right)\sum_{\varepsilon \in E(X)} \dih\left(X,\varepsilon\right)f\left(h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right).
\end{equation*}
\end{newdef}
Now, we can state the lemma.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 6.86]
Let $f$ be any bounded, compactly supported function. Set
\begin{equation*}
\G\left(\mathbf{u}_0,f\right)=-\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}_0\right)\right)+8m_1 - \sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V \setminus \left\lbrace \mathbf{u}_0\right\rbrace} 8m_2f\left(\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u}_0;\mathbf{u}\right]\right)\right).
\end{equation*}
If
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V \setminus \left\lbrace\mathbf{u}\right\rbrace} f\left(\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u};\mathbf{v}\right]\right)\right) \le 12,
\end{equation*}
then $\G(\ast,f)$ is FCC-compatible. Moreover, if there exists a constant $c_0$ such that for all $r \ge 1$
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{X \subset \B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)} \gamma\left(X,f\right) \ge c_0 r^2,
\end{equation*}
then $\G(\ast,f)$ is negligible. \footnote{In the sequel, by slight abuse of notation $\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}$ refers to the summation only over all Marchal cells $X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)$.}
\label{lem:6.86}
\end{lem}
This Lemma almost implies that there is a FCC-compatible negligible function. Using this Lemma, it is sufficient to show that Lemma~\ref{lem:6.95} implies the existence of suitable $\G$ and $f$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86} to prove Lemma~\ref{lem:6.97}. We will turn to this later. Now, we focus on the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86}. Since we are only interested in the constant in the definition of negligible, we will only outline this part of the proof here. The idea of the proof of negligibility is as follows. If one can show that
\begin{align}
-\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\G\left(\mathbf{u},f\right) &\geq \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\gamma\left(X,f\right) + c_2 r^2\label{eq:GandGamma}\\
\intertext{for some constant $c_2$. Then by the assumption in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86}}\nonumber\\
-\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\G\left(\mathbf{u},f\right) &\geq \left(c_0 +c_2\right)r^2,\label{eq:negligible}
\end{align}
which directly implies, that $\G(\ast,f)$ is negligible for $c_1 = -(c_0 + c_2)$ in Definition~\ref{def:FCCnegl}. Since we are only interested in the independence of $c_1$ of the packing $V$, we will now focus on calculating the constant $c_2$ and thereby showing that $c_2$ is independent of the packing. We will get an estimate on $c_0$ later satisfying the conditions in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86}.

\subsection{Calculation of $c_2$}
In this section we go through the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86} and show that
\begin{equation*}
-\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\G\left(\mathbf{u},f\right) \geq \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\gamma\left(X,f\right) + c_2 r^2
\end{equation*}
for some constant $c_2$ independent of the packing $V$.

Observe that the equalities
\begin{align*}
&-\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\G\left(\mathbf{u},f\right) = \\
&\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right)-\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}8m_1 + \sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V \setminus \left\lbrace \mathbf{u}\right\rbrace} 8m_2f\left(\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u};\mathbf{v}\right]\right)\right)
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
&\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\gamma\left(X,f\right) = \\
&\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(X\right) - \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\left(\frac{2m_1}{\pi}\right)\tsol\left(X\right) + \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\left(\frac{8m_2}{\pi}\right)\sum_{\varepsilon \in E(X)} \dih\left(X,\varepsilon\right)f\left(h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right)
\end{align*}
have each three summands and we will relate them in this order. So, we start by showing that
\begin{align}
\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right) \geq \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(X\right) - \frac{56}{3}\pi r^2.\label{eq:GandGammFirst}
\end{align}
By Lemma 6.7 in \cite{Blueprint}, $\voronoi(V,\mathbf{v}) \subset \B(\mathbf{v},2)$, so we have
\begin{align*}
\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right) & \geq \vol\left(\B\left(\mathbf{0}, r-2\right)\right)\\
&=\vol\left(\B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)\right) - \vol\left(\B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)\setminus\B\left(\mathbf{0},r-2\right)\right)\\
&\geq \sum_{X \subset \B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)}\vol\left(X\right) - \left(\frac{4}{3}\pi r^3 - \frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r-2\right)^3\right),\\
\intertext{since Marchal cells form a partition of space as mentioned above. So we get }
\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right) & \geq \sum_{X \subset \B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)}\vol\left(X\right) - 8 \pi r^2 - \frac{32}{3}\pi.\\
\intertext{Since negligible is only defined for $r\geq 1$, we can assume $r\geq 1$ here. So we have}\\
\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right) &\geq \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(X\right) - \frac{56}{3}\pi r^2,
\end{align*}
which proves (\ref{eq:GandGammFirst}).

Next, we will show that
\begin{align}
-\sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)} 8 m_1 \ge -\left(\frac{2m_1}{\pi}\right)\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\tsol(X)-m_1 \cdot 2240 r^2.\label{eq:GandGammaSecond}
\end{align}
First, we need to estimate the diameter  of a Marchal cell. For a cell $X=\cell(\underline{\mathbf{u}},k)$ for $\underline{\mathbf{u}}=[\mathbf{u}_0;\dots] \in \underline{V}(3)$ it holds that
\begin{align*}
X = \cell(\underline{\mathbf{u}},k) &\subset \voronoi(V,\mathbf{u}_0) \cup \dots \cup \voronoi(V,\mathbf{u}_{k-1})\\
\intertext{(see the proof of Lemma 6.63 in \cite{Blueprint}). By Lemma 6.7, $\voronoi(V,\mathbf{v}) \subset \B(\mathbf{v},2)$, so we get}
X &\subset \B(\mathbf{u}_0,2) \cup \dots \cup \B(\mathbf{u}_{k-1},2).
\end{align*}
By Definition~\ref{def:6.18}, the Voronoi cells $\voronoi(V,\mathbf{u}_0), \dots, \voronoi(V,\mathbf{u}_{k-1})$ share at least one point and so the spheres $\B(\mathbf{u}_0,2), \dots, \B(\mathbf{u}_{k-1},2)$ do. Therefore, we can conclude that the diameter of a Marchal cell is at most 4.

Now,
\begin{align*}
\sum_{X\subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\tsol(X) &= \sum_{X\subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(X)} \sol(X,\mathbf{v})\\
\intertext{by definition. Since the diameter of each cell is at most 4, we can rewrite this as}
\sum_{X\subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\tsol(X)&= \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4)}\sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(X)}\sol(X,\mathbf{u}) - \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4):X \nsubseteq
\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(X)}\sol(X,\mathbf{u})\\
&\ge \sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\mathbf{v}\in V(X)}\sol\left(X,\mathbf{v}\right) - \sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(\mathbf{0},r+4)\setminus V(\mathbf{0},r-4)}\sum_{X:\mathbf{u}\in V(X)} \sol(X,\mathbf{u}),\\
\intertext{since $V(X) = X \cap V$ and a cell with diameter at most 4 that is not completely contained in a sphere of radius $r$ cannot intersect the sphere with the same center of radius $r-4$. Next, we use that the solid angles around one point sum up to $4\pi$. Furthermore, to estimate the number of points $\mathbf{u}\in V(\mathbf{0},r+4)\setminus V(\mathbf{0},r-4)$, we use the following volume argument. Each $\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r+4)\setminus V(\mathbf{0},r-4)$ is the center of a packed unit sphere and therefore the volume of those unit spheres sum up to less than the volume of $\B(\mathbf{0},r+5)\setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-5)$. Vice versa dividing $\vol(\B(\mathbf{0},r+5)\setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-5))$ by the volume of a unit sphere yields an upper bound on the number of points, so we get}
\sum_{X\subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\tsol(X) &\geq \sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)} 4\pi - \left(\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r+5\right)^3-\frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r-5\right)^3}{\frac{4}{3}\pi}\right)4\pi\\
&=  \sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)} 4\pi - (30r^2 + 250)4\pi\\
&\ge  \sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)} 4\pi - 1120\pi r^2,\\
\intertext{since $r\geq 1$.}
\end{align*}
By rearranging, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
-\left(\frac{2m_1}{\pi}\right)\sum_{X\subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\tsol(X) - 2240m_1 r^2 \le -\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)} 8m_1,
\end{equation*}
proving (\ref{eq:GandGammaSecond}).

Finally, we show that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V \setminus \left\lbrace \mathbf{u}\right\rbrace} 8m_2f\left(\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u};\mathbf{v}\right]\right)\right) \ge \frac{8m_2}{\pi}\sum_{X\in\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\varepsilon\in E(X)} \dih(X,\varepsilon)f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right).\label{eq:GandGammThird}
\end{equation}
For any $\varepsilon \in E(X)$ it holds that $\varepsilon \subset V(X) \subset X$ by Definition~\ref{def:6.67}, and Lemma~6.63 in \cite{Blueprint}. This implies
\begin{align*}
\sum_{X\subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\varepsilon\in E(X)} \dih(X,\varepsilon)f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right) &\le \sum_{\varepsilon=\lbrace\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\rbrace \subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon\in E(X)} \dih\left(X,\varepsilon\right)f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right)\\
&= \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}2\pi f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right),\\
\intertext{since the dihedral angle around an edge sums up to $2\pi$.\footnotemark When summing over ordered pairs, each edge appears twice, so we have to divide by two and get}
\sum_{X\subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\varepsilon\in E(X)} \dih(X,\varepsilon)f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right)
&\le \sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)\setminus \lbrace \mathbf{u}\rbrace} \pi f\left(\h\left(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\right)\right).
\end{align*}
\footnotetext{Here, we follow the argumentation of Hales \cite{Blueprint}. The author noticed that in Lemma 6.69 in \cite{Blueprint}, it is required that $\h(\varepsilon)<\sqrt{2}$ to have that the dihedral angles sum up to $2\pi$. Since Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86} is only used for $f=\funcL$ and $\funcL(\h(\varepsilon))=0$ for $\h(\varepsilon)\ge\sqrt{2}$, this does not cause any problems.}
So, for the last summand we get by rearrangement
\begin{equation*}
\frac{8m_2}{\pi} \sum_{X\in\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\varepsilon\in E(X)} \dih(X,\varepsilon)f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right) \le \sum_{\mathbf{u}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V(\mathbf{0},r)\setminus \lbrace \mathbf{u}\rbrace} 8m_2 f\left(\h\left(\mathbf{u},\mathbf{v}\right)\right),
\end{equation*}
showing (\ref{eq:GandGammThird}).

Combining (\ref{eq:GandGammFirst}), (\ref{eq:GandGammaSecond}), and (\ref{eq:GandGammThird}), we have
\begin{align*}
&-\G\left(\mathbf{u},f\right) \\
&=\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(\voronoi\left(V,\mathbf{u}\right)\right)-\sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}8m_1 + \sum_{\mathbf{u} \in V(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\mathbf{v}\in V \setminus \left\lbrace \mathbf{u}\right\rbrace} 8m_2f\left(\h\left(\left[\mathbf{u};\mathbf{v}\right]\right)\right) \\
&\ge\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\vol\left(X\right) - \frac{56}{3}\pi r^2 -\left(\frac{2m_1}{\pi}\right)\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\tsol(X)-m_1 \cdot 2240 r^2 + \\
&\frac{8m_2}{\pi}\sum_{X\in\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\varepsilon\in E(X)} \dih(X,\varepsilon)f\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right)\\
&=\sum_{X \subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)}\gamma(X,f) - \left(\frac{56}{3}+m_1\cdot 2240\right)r^2,
\intertext{i.e. (\ref{eq:GandGamma}) holds with $c_2 = -\frac{56}{3}-m_1\cdot 2240$.}
\end{align*}

As mentioned above, we only need to show that the conditions in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86} hold for some $f$ to prove Lemma~\ref{lem:6.97}. The first condition holds for $f=\funcL$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:6.95}. It remains to show that the second condition also holds for $f=\funcL$, namely $\sum_{X \subset \B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)} \gamma\left(X,\funcL\right) \ge c_0 r^2$. Then, we will have showed that the function $\G(\ast,\funcL)$ is FCC-compatible and negligible for $c_1=-(c_0 + c_2)$ in Definition~\ref{def:FCCnegl}. For $c_2$ we already showed that it is independent of the packing, now, we will do so for $c_0$, i.e. prove that $\sum_{X \subset \B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)} \gamma\left(X,\funcL\right) \ge c_0 r^2$ holds for a $c_0$ independent of the packing.

\subsection{Calculation of $c_0$}
In this section, we will show that
\begin{equation}
\sum_{X \subset \B\left(\mathbf{0},r\right)} \gamma\left(X,f\right) \ge c_0 r^2\label{eq:Gamma}
\end{equation}
holds for $f=\funcL$ for a constant $c_0$ independent of the packing that defines the cells $X$. We will need more definitions for this proof and we will try to give them as closely as possible to the point where they are used.
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.70 and 6.88]
Set
\begin{align*}
h_+ &= 1.3254.\\
\intertext{Let $\M \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be the piecewise polynomial function}
\M (h)&= \begin{cases}
\frac{\sqrt{2}-h}{\sqrt{2}-1}\frac{h_+-h}{h_+-1}\frac{17h-9h^2-3}{5} &,h \le \sqrt{2}\\
0 &,h>\sqrt{2}.
\end{cases}\\
\intertext{Let $h_-\approx1.23175$ be the unique root of the quadratic polynomial $\M(h)-\funcL(h)$ that lies in the interval $[1.231,1.232]$.}
\end{align*}
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.89]
A \emph{critical edge} $\varepsilon$ of a saturated packing $V$ is an unordered pair that appears as an element of $E(X)$ for some $k$-cell $X$ of the packing $V$ such that $h(\varepsilon) \in [h_-,h_+]$. Let $\EC(X)$ be the set of critical edges that belong to $E(X)$. If $X$ is any cell such that $\EC(X)$ is not empty, let the \emph{weight} $\wt(X)$ of $X$ be $1/\operatorname{card}(\EC(X))$.
\label{def:critEdge}
\end{newdef}
Now, we can start with estimating $\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,\funcL)$.
\begin{align}
\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,\funcL) &= \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r) : \EC(X) \neq \emptyset} \gamma(X,\funcL) + \underbrace{\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r): \EC(X) = \emptyset} \gamma(X,\funcL)}_{\geq 0 \text{ by Lemma 6.92 in \cite{Blueprint}}}\nonumber\\
&\ge \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r) : \EC(X) \neq \emptyset} \gamma(X,\funcL)\nonumber\\
&=  \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r) : \EC(X) \neq \emptyset} \left(\gamma(X,\funcL) \underbrace{\sum_{\varepsilon \in \EC(X)}\wt(X)}_{=1 \text{ by Definition~\ref{def:critEdge}}}\right)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r) : \EC(X) \neq \emptyset}\sum_{\varepsilon \in \EC(X)}\gamma(X,\funcL)\wt(X)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon \in \EC(X)} \gamma(X,\funcL)\wt(X) - \underbrace{\sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon \in \EC(X), X \nsubseteq \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,\funcL)\wt(X)}_{=:\alpha}\label{eq:gammaIntermediate}
\end{align}
Next, we will show that the term $\alpha$ is upper bounded by a constant~times~$r^2$.
\begin{align}
\alpha &= \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon \in \EC(X), X \nsubseteq \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,\funcL)\wt(X)\nonumber\\
&\le \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)} \sum_{\varepsilon \in \EC(X)} \gamma(X,\funcL)\wt(X),\label{eq:1}
\intertext{since the diameter of $X$ is at most 4 and $X$ intersects the boundary of $\B(\mathbf{0},r)$. By (\ref{eq:1}),}
\alpha &\le \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)}\left(\gamma(X,\funcL) \underbrace{\sum_{\varepsilon \in \EC(X)} \wt(X)}_{=1 \text{ by Definition~\ref{def:critEdge}}}\right).\label{eq:2}
\intertext{Next, we plug in the definition of $\gamma(X,L)$. By (\ref{eq:2}),}
\alpha &\le\sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)}
\left(\vol\left(X\right) - \underbrace{\left(\frac{2m_1}{\pi}\right)\tsol\left(X\right)}_{\ge 0 \text{ by definition}} + \left(\frac{8m_2}{\pi}\right)\sum_{\varepsilon \in E(X)} \dih\left(X,\varepsilon\right)\funcL\left(h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right)\right)\nonumber\\
&\le \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)} \vol\left(X\right)+ \sum_{X \in \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)}\left(\frac{8m_2}{\pi}\right)\sum_{\varepsilon \in E(X)} \dih\left(X,\varepsilon\right)\funcL\left(h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right).\label{eq:3}
\intertext{Since Marchal cells are a partition of the space, the volume of the cells contained in a spherical shell sums up to at most the volume of the spherical shell. Furthermore, it holds for any $\varepsilon \in E(X)$ that $\varepsilon \subset V(X) \subset X$, so we get from (\ref{eq:3})}
\alpha &\le \frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r+4\right)^3-\frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r-4\right)^3 + \frac{8m_2}{\pi}\sum_{\varepsilon\subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon\in E(X)}\dih\left(X,\varepsilon\right)\funcL\left(h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right).\label{eq:4}
\intertext{Since the dihedral angle for edges $\varepsilon$ with $\h(\varepsilon)<\sqrt{2}$ sums up to $2\pi$ (see Lemma~6.69 in \cite{Blueprint}) and for $\h(\varepsilon)\ge \sqrt{2}$ the factor $\funcL(\h(\varepsilon))=0$, we obtain from (\ref{eq:4})}
\alpha &\le 32\pi r^2 + \frac{512}{3} \pi + \sum_{\varepsilon\subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)}16m_2\funcL\left(h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right).\label{eq:5}
\intertext{Now, we want to estimate the number of edges such that $\funcL(\h(\varepsilon)) > 0$. First, we give an upper bound on the number of points in $V$ inside the spherical shell as follows. By decreasing the inner radius and increasing the outer radius by 1, all unit spheres packed with centers in the original shell are completely contained in the enlarged shell. Then, we divide the volume of the enlarged shell by the volume of a unit sphere. Next, we want to give  an upper bound on the number of points in $V$ with distance at most 2.52 from a given point, since for longer edges $\funcL(\h(\varepsilon))=0$. We do this in a similar way as before by a volume argument. By multiplying these two values, we count each edge twice, so we have to divide by 2. In addition, the function $\funcL$ is upper bounded by $1.26/0.26$. So, by (\ref{eq:5})}
\alpha&\le 32\pi r^2 + \frac{512}{3} \pi +\underbrace{\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r+5\right)^3-\frac{4}{3}\pi\left(r-5\right)^3}{\frac{4}{3}\pi}}_{\ge | V \cap \left(\B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4)\right)|}\cdot\underbrace{\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi \cdot 3.52^3}{\frac{4}{3}\pi}}_{\ge |V \cap \B(\mathbf{v},2.52)| \text{ for any }\mathbf{v}}\cdot \frac{1}{2}\cdot16m_2\cdot\frac{126}{26}\nonumber\\
&\le 32\pi r^2 + \frac{512}{3}\pi + \left(30r^2 + 250\right)\cdot 3.52^3\cdot 8 \cdot \frac{63}{13}\cdot 0.0255\nonumber\\
&\le 1394.1 r^2 + 11315.6\nonumber
\intertext{As mentioned before, we can assume $r\ge 1$ and obtain}
\alpha&\le 12710 r^2.\label{eq:alpha}
\end{align}
Now, we know from inequalities (\ref{eq:gammaIntermediate}) and (\ref{eq:alpha}) that
\begin{align}
\sum_{X \subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,L) \ge \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon \in \EC(X)} \gamma(X,L)\wt(X) - 12710^2.\label{eq:gammaIntermediate2}
\end{align}
To proceed with the estimation, we need two more definitions.
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.90]
Set
\begin{equation*}
\beta_0(h) = 0.005\left(1-\frac{\left(h- h_0\right)^2}{\left(h_+ - h_0\right)^2}\right).
\end{equation*}
If $X$ is a 4-cell with exactly two critical edges and if those edges are opposite, then set
\begin{equation*}
\beta(\varepsilon,X) = \beta_0\left(\h\left(\varepsilon\right)\right) - \beta_0\left(\h\left(\varepsilon'\right)\right), \text{ where } \EC(X) = \lbrace\varepsilon,\varepsilon'\rbrace.
\end{equation*}
Otherwise, for all other edges in all other cells, set $\beta(\varepsilon,X)=0$.
\end{newdef}
\begin{newdef}[Definition 6.91]
Let $V$ be a saturated packing. Let $\varepsilon \in \EC(X)$ be a critical edge of a $k$-cell $X$ of $V$ for some $2\le k\le 4$. A \emph{cell cluster} is the set
\begin{equation*}
\CL(\varepsilon) = \left\lbrace X : \varepsilon \in \EC(X)\right\rbrace
\end{equation*}
of all cells around $\varepsilon$. Define
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma(\varepsilon) = \sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon)} \gamma(X,L)\wt(X) + \beta(\varepsilon,X).
\end{equation*}
\end{newdef}
Using these definitions, we can rewrite inequality (\ref{eq:gammaIntermediate2}) as follows.
\begin{align}
\sum_{X \subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,L) &\ge \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X:\varepsilon \in \EC(X)} \gamma(X,L)\wt(X) - 12710^2\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \left(\Gamma(\varepsilon) - \sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon)}\beta(\varepsilon,X)\right) - 12710r^2\nonumber\\
&=\sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \Gamma(\varepsilon) - \underbrace{\sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon)}\beta(\varepsilon,X)}_{=: \zeta}- 12710r^2\label{eq:gammaIntermediate3}
\end{align}
Next, we will upper bound the term $\zeta$.
\begin{align}
\zeta &= \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon)}\beta(\varepsilon,X)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon): X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\beta(\varepsilon,X) + \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon):X \nsubseteq \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\beta(\varepsilon,X)\nonumber\\
&= \sum_{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\varepsilon \in \EC(X)}\beta(\varepsilon,X) + \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{X \in \CL(\varepsilon):X \nsubseteq \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\beta(\varepsilon,X)\nonumber\\
&= 0+\sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\substack{X \in \CL(\varepsilon):X \nsubseteq \B(\mathbf{0},r)\\ \wedge X \text{ is 4-cell with}|\EC(X)|=2}}\beta(\varepsilon,X),\label{eq:6}
\intertext{since $\beta(\varepsilon,X) > 0$ only for 4-cells with exactly two critical edges $\varepsilon, \varepsilon'$ and $\beta(\varepsilon,X) + \beta(\varepsilon',X)=0$. Furthermore, $\beta(\varepsilon,X) \le 0.005$, so we get from (\ref{eq:6})}\nonumber\\
 \zeta &\le \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)}\sum_{\substack{X \in \CL(\varepsilon):X \nsubseteq \B(\mathbf{0},r)\\ \wedge X \text{ is 4-cell with }|\EC(X)|=2}} 0.005. \label{eq:7}
\intertext{Next, we want to exchange the inner and outer sum. Since the inner sum is zero for non-critical edges and the cells intersect the boundary of $\B(\mathbf{0},r)$, we get from (\ref{eq:7})}\nonumber\\
\zeta &\le\sum_{\substack{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4) :\\ X \text{ is a 4-cell with }|\EC(X)|=2}}\sum_{\varepsilon\in \EC(X)} 0.005\nonumber\\
&\le\sum_{\substack{X \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r+4) \setminus \B(\mathbf{0},r-4) : \\X \text{ is a 4-cell}}} 0.01.\label{eq:8}
\intertext{Now, we will estimate the number of points in $V$ inside the sperical shell as before. A 4-cell is the convex hull of four points in $V$ with circumradius at most $\sqrt{2}$ (see Definition~6.51 in \cite{Blueprint}). Therefore, for a fixed point $\mathbf{v}\in V$ all points that can form a 4-cell with $\mathbf{v}$ must lie inside a ball of radius $2\sqrt{2}$ centered at $\mathbf{v}$. As before, we calculate an upper bound on the number of points in $V$ inside a ball of radius $2\sqrt{2}$. Then, the number of subsets of size three that can be formed with these points is an upper bound on the number of 4-cells a point in $V$ can be part of. By multiplying these numbers, we count each 4-cell 4 times, so we divide by 4. So, we get from (\ref{eq:8})}\nonumber\\
\zeta & \le \frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi(r+5)^3 - \frac{4}{3}\pi(r-5)^3}{\frac{4}{3}\pi} \cdot {\left\lfloor\frac{\frac{4}{3}\pi(2\sqrt{2}+1)^3}{\frac{4}{3}\pi}\right\rfloor \choose 3} \cdot \frac{1}{4}\cdot 0.01\nonumber\\
& = \frac{\left(30r^2 + 250\right)}{4}\cdot {\left\lfloor\left( 2\sqrt{2}+1\right)^3\right\rfloor \choose 3}\cdot 0.01\nonumber\\
&= \left(7.5 r^2 + 62.5\right)\cdot 27720\cdot 0.01\nonumber\\
&= 2079r^2 + 17325.\nonumber\\
\intertext{Again, we can assume $r\ge 1$, so}\nonumber
\zeta &\le 19404 r^2.
\end{align}
Now, we plug this into inequality~(\ref{eq:gammaIntermediate3}) and obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{X \subset\B(\mathbf{0},r)} \gamma(X,L) &\ge \sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \Gamma(\varepsilon) - 19404r^2- 12710r^2\\
&= \underbrace{\sum_{\varepsilon \subset \B(\mathbf{0},r)} \Gamma(\varepsilon)}_{\ge 0 \text{ by Theorem~6.93 in \cite{Blueprint}}}-32114r^2\\
&\ge - 32114r^2,
\end{align*}
i.e. (\ref{eq:Gamma}) holds for $c_0= -32114$.

We showed that both conditions in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.86} hold and therefore the function $\G(\ast,\funcL)$ is FCC-compatible and negligible (see (\ref{eq:negligible}) and the explanation thereafter) for
\begin{align*}
c_1=-(c_0 + c_2) &= \frac{56}{3}+m_1\cdot 2240 + 32114\\
 &\le  \frac{56}{3}+1.013\cdot 2240 + 32114\\
 &\le 34402.
\end{align*}
By (\ref{eq:lem:6.13}), the constant in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.13} only depends on constants and $c_1$. So it is independent of the packing since we showed that $c_1$ is. Therefore, we turn now to inequality (\ref{eq:lem:6.13}) and will later plug in $c_1$ as calculated above.
\begin{align*}
\density(V,\mathbf{0},r)&\leq \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}\left(1+\frac{3}{r}\right)^3 + c_1\frac{\left(r+1\right)^2}{r^34\sqrt{2}}\\
&= \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}\left(1+\frac{9}{r}+\frac{27}{r^2}+\frac{27}{r^3}\right)+c_1\frac{r^2+2r+1}{r^3 4\sqrt{2}}\\
&=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}} + \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}}\left(\frac{9}{r}+\frac{27}{r^2}+\frac{27}{r^3}\right) + c_1\left(\frac{1}{r4\sqrt{2}}+\frac{2}{r^24\sqrt{2}}+\frac{1}{r^34\sqrt{2}}\right)
\intertext{Since $r\ge 1$, we have $\frac{1}{r^3} \le \frac{1}{r^2} \le \frac{1}{r}$ and get}
&\le \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}} + \frac{63\pi}{\sqrt{18}r}+\frac{c_1}{\sqrt{2}r}\\
&= \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}} + \frac{21\pi+c_1}{\sqrt{2}r}\\
&=\frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}} + \frac{21\pi+34402}{\sqrt{2}}\cdot\frac{1}{r}.
\end{align*}

Summarizing, we showed that the constant in Lemma~\ref{lem:6.13} does not depend on the particular packing $V$ but only on the constant for the assumed existing FCC-compatible negligible function. Then, we showed that there is a FCC-compatible negligible function for which the definition for negligible holds for a constant independent of the packing. So, we can state the main result of this work as follows.
\begin{thm}
For a saturated packing $V$ and all $r\ge 1$ it holds that
\begin{equation*}
\density(V,\mathbf{0},r) \le \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}} + \frac{21\pi+34402}{\sqrt{2}}\cdot\frac{1}{r} \le \frac{\pi}{\sqrt{18}} + 24373\cdot\frac{1}{r}.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}

\bibliographystyle{hplain}