Property of convex sets.












0












$begingroup$


Let $X$ be a normed space, $S$ a subset of $X$ and let $x_0in X$. Consider the two propositions:



(1) There exists $r>0$ such that $B(x_0,r)subset S$. (That is, $x_0$ is an interior point of $S$.)



(2) For every $yin X$, there exists $varepsilon_y>0$ such that $x_0+tyin S$ for all $|t|<varepsilon_y$.



Surely (1) implies (2). (We can take $varepsilon_r=r/||y||$.) I found out that (1) does not always holds if (2) holds.



I ask the following question: if $S$ is convex, does it follow that (2)$implies$(1) ?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Let $X$ be a normed space, $S$ a subset of $X$ and let $x_0in X$. Consider the two propositions:



    (1) There exists $r>0$ such that $B(x_0,r)subset S$. (That is, $x_0$ is an interior point of $S$.)



    (2) For every $yin X$, there exists $varepsilon_y>0$ such that $x_0+tyin S$ for all $|t|<varepsilon_y$.



    Surely (1) implies (2). (We can take $varepsilon_r=r/||y||$.) I found out that (1) does not always holds if (2) holds.



    I ask the following question: if $S$ is convex, does it follow that (2)$implies$(1) ?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0


      0



      $begingroup$


      Let $X$ be a normed space, $S$ a subset of $X$ and let $x_0in X$. Consider the two propositions:



      (1) There exists $r>0$ such that $B(x_0,r)subset S$. (That is, $x_0$ is an interior point of $S$.)



      (2) For every $yin X$, there exists $varepsilon_y>0$ such that $x_0+tyin S$ for all $|t|<varepsilon_y$.



      Surely (1) implies (2). (We can take $varepsilon_r=r/||y||$.) I found out that (1) does not always holds if (2) holds.



      I ask the following question: if $S$ is convex, does it follow that (2)$implies$(1) ?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Let $X$ be a normed space, $S$ a subset of $X$ and let $x_0in X$. Consider the two propositions:



      (1) There exists $r>0$ such that $B(x_0,r)subset S$. (That is, $x_0$ is an interior point of $S$.)



      (2) For every $yin X$, there exists $varepsilon_y>0$ such that $x_0+tyin S$ for all $|t|<varepsilon_y$.



      Surely (1) implies (2). (We can take $varepsilon_r=r/||y||$.) I found out that (1) does not always holds if (2) holds.



      I ask the following question: if $S$ is convex, does it follow that (2)$implies$(1) ?







      general-topology functional-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 10 at 23:49









      Gabriel RibeiroGabriel Ribeiro

      1,454523




      1,454523






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          When $S$ is convex and closed and $X$ is a Banach Space, then yes. Condition (2) is known as being in the "core" or "algebraic interior" of the set. There's a simple Baire Category Theorem argument that the two conditions are equivalent in these circumstances.



          Basically, without loss of generality, you can assume $x_0 = 0$ by translating as required. Then, $nS$ is a cover of $X$ by countably many closed sets. By the BCT, one such set must have an interior point. But, since all sets are just scalings of each other, this means all such sets must have an interior point. In other words, there must be some $x_1 in S$ and $r > 0$ such that $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$.



          From the core condition (2), there must be some $t > 0$ such that
          $$x_0 + t(x_0 - x_1) in S.$$
          Let the above point be $x_2$. Then
          $$x_0 = frac{t}{t + 1} x_1 + frac{1}{t + 1} x_2,$$
          and a simple convexity argument, using $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$, shows us that
          $$Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S.$$
          To see this, suppose $y in Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right]$. Let
          $$z = frac{(t + 1)y - x_2}{t}.$$
          Then
          $$|z - x_1| = frac{t + 1}{t}left|y - frac{1}{t+1}x_2 - frac{t}{t+1}x_1right| = frac{t + 1}{t}|y - x_0| le r,$$
          hence $z in B[x_1; r] subseteq S$. On the other hand,
          $$y = frac{t}{t+1}z + frac{1}{t + 1}x_2 in S,$$
          thus showing $Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S$ as required, hence $x_0 in operatorname{int} S$.





          As for counterexamples when the above do not hold, consider an infinite-dimensional real normed linear space $X$. Then $X$ admits a discontinuous linear functional $phi$.



          Consider the epigraph $E$ of $phi^2$, in the space $X times mathbb{R}$. It's not hard to verify that $E$ is convex, using the fact that $phi$ is linear. I claim that $(0, 1)$ is in the core of $E$, but not the interior.



          To see that $(0, 1)$ is in the core, consider the restriction of $phi$ to any one-dimensional subspace of $X$. This restriction becomes a parabola, the epigraph of which is contained in $E$, and in which the point $(0, 1)$ is an interior point. Thus, we can always travel some distance in any given direction and still remain inside $E$.



          Now, suppose that $(0, 1)$ is an interior point of $E$. Then, there must exist some $r > 0$ such that
          $$B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E.$$
          In particular, if $x$ is in the unit ball of $X$, then
          $$(rx, 1) in B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E implies phi(x) le frac{1}{r}.$$
          That is, $phi$ is bounded (with $|phi| le 1/r$). This is a contradiction, so $(0, 1)$ is not an interior point of $E$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
            $endgroup$
            – gerw
            Jan 11 at 8:11











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069327%2fproperty-of-convex-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          When $S$ is convex and closed and $X$ is a Banach Space, then yes. Condition (2) is known as being in the "core" or "algebraic interior" of the set. There's a simple Baire Category Theorem argument that the two conditions are equivalent in these circumstances.



          Basically, without loss of generality, you can assume $x_0 = 0$ by translating as required. Then, $nS$ is a cover of $X$ by countably many closed sets. By the BCT, one such set must have an interior point. But, since all sets are just scalings of each other, this means all such sets must have an interior point. In other words, there must be some $x_1 in S$ and $r > 0$ such that $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$.



          From the core condition (2), there must be some $t > 0$ such that
          $$x_0 + t(x_0 - x_1) in S.$$
          Let the above point be $x_2$. Then
          $$x_0 = frac{t}{t + 1} x_1 + frac{1}{t + 1} x_2,$$
          and a simple convexity argument, using $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$, shows us that
          $$Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S.$$
          To see this, suppose $y in Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right]$. Let
          $$z = frac{(t + 1)y - x_2}{t}.$$
          Then
          $$|z - x_1| = frac{t + 1}{t}left|y - frac{1}{t+1}x_2 - frac{t}{t+1}x_1right| = frac{t + 1}{t}|y - x_0| le r,$$
          hence $z in B[x_1; r] subseteq S$. On the other hand,
          $$y = frac{t}{t+1}z + frac{1}{t + 1}x_2 in S,$$
          thus showing $Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S$ as required, hence $x_0 in operatorname{int} S$.





          As for counterexamples when the above do not hold, consider an infinite-dimensional real normed linear space $X$. Then $X$ admits a discontinuous linear functional $phi$.



          Consider the epigraph $E$ of $phi^2$, in the space $X times mathbb{R}$. It's not hard to verify that $E$ is convex, using the fact that $phi$ is linear. I claim that $(0, 1)$ is in the core of $E$, but not the interior.



          To see that $(0, 1)$ is in the core, consider the restriction of $phi$ to any one-dimensional subspace of $X$. This restriction becomes a parabola, the epigraph of which is contained in $E$, and in which the point $(0, 1)$ is an interior point. Thus, we can always travel some distance in any given direction and still remain inside $E$.



          Now, suppose that $(0, 1)$ is an interior point of $E$. Then, there must exist some $r > 0$ such that
          $$B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E.$$
          In particular, if $x$ is in the unit ball of $X$, then
          $$(rx, 1) in B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E implies phi(x) le frac{1}{r}.$$
          That is, $phi$ is bounded (with $|phi| le 1/r$). This is a contradiction, so $(0, 1)$ is not an interior point of $E$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
            $endgroup$
            – gerw
            Jan 11 at 8:11
















          3












          $begingroup$

          When $S$ is convex and closed and $X$ is a Banach Space, then yes. Condition (2) is known as being in the "core" or "algebraic interior" of the set. There's a simple Baire Category Theorem argument that the two conditions are equivalent in these circumstances.



          Basically, without loss of generality, you can assume $x_0 = 0$ by translating as required. Then, $nS$ is a cover of $X$ by countably many closed sets. By the BCT, one such set must have an interior point. But, since all sets are just scalings of each other, this means all such sets must have an interior point. In other words, there must be some $x_1 in S$ and $r > 0$ such that $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$.



          From the core condition (2), there must be some $t > 0$ such that
          $$x_0 + t(x_0 - x_1) in S.$$
          Let the above point be $x_2$. Then
          $$x_0 = frac{t}{t + 1} x_1 + frac{1}{t + 1} x_2,$$
          and a simple convexity argument, using $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$, shows us that
          $$Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S.$$
          To see this, suppose $y in Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right]$. Let
          $$z = frac{(t + 1)y - x_2}{t}.$$
          Then
          $$|z - x_1| = frac{t + 1}{t}left|y - frac{1}{t+1}x_2 - frac{t}{t+1}x_1right| = frac{t + 1}{t}|y - x_0| le r,$$
          hence $z in B[x_1; r] subseteq S$. On the other hand,
          $$y = frac{t}{t+1}z + frac{1}{t + 1}x_2 in S,$$
          thus showing $Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S$ as required, hence $x_0 in operatorname{int} S$.





          As for counterexamples when the above do not hold, consider an infinite-dimensional real normed linear space $X$. Then $X$ admits a discontinuous linear functional $phi$.



          Consider the epigraph $E$ of $phi^2$, in the space $X times mathbb{R}$. It's not hard to verify that $E$ is convex, using the fact that $phi$ is linear. I claim that $(0, 1)$ is in the core of $E$, but not the interior.



          To see that $(0, 1)$ is in the core, consider the restriction of $phi$ to any one-dimensional subspace of $X$. This restriction becomes a parabola, the epigraph of which is contained in $E$, and in which the point $(0, 1)$ is an interior point. Thus, we can always travel some distance in any given direction and still remain inside $E$.



          Now, suppose that $(0, 1)$ is an interior point of $E$. Then, there must exist some $r > 0$ such that
          $$B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E.$$
          In particular, if $x$ is in the unit ball of $X$, then
          $$(rx, 1) in B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E implies phi(x) le frac{1}{r}.$$
          That is, $phi$ is bounded (with $|phi| le 1/r$). This is a contradiction, so $(0, 1)$ is not an interior point of $E$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
            $endgroup$
            – gerw
            Jan 11 at 8:11














          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          When $S$ is convex and closed and $X$ is a Banach Space, then yes. Condition (2) is known as being in the "core" or "algebraic interior" of the set. There's a simple Baire Category Theorem argument that the two conditions are equivalent in these circumstances.



          Basically, without loss of generality, you can assume $x_0 = 0$ by translating as required. Then, $nS$ is a cover of $X$ by countably many closed sets. By the BCT, one such set must have an interior point. But, since all sets are just scalings of each other, this means all such sets must have an interior point. In other words, there must be some $x_1 in S$ and $r > 0$ such that $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$.



          From the core condition (2), there must be some $t > 0$ such that
          $$x_0 + t(x_0 - x_1) in S.$$
          Let the above point be $x_2$. Then
          $$x_0 = frac{t}{t + 1} x_1 + frac{1}{t + 1} x_2,$$
          and a simple convexity argument, using $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$, shows us that
          $$Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S.$$
          To see this, suppose $y in Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right]$. Let
          $$z = frac{(t + 1)y - x_2}{t}.$$
          Then
          $$|z - x_1| = frac{t + 1}{t}left|y - frac{1}{t+1}x_2 - frac{t}{t+1}x_1right| = frac{t + 1}{t}|y - x_0| le r,$$
          hence $z in B[x_1; r] subseteq S$. On the other hand,
          $$y = frac{t}{t+1}z + frac{1}{t + 1}x_2 in S,$$
          thus showing $Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S$ as required, hence $x_0 in operatorname{int} S$.





          As for counterexamples when the above do not hold, consider an infinite-dimensional real normed linear space $X$. Then $X$ admits a discontinuous linear functional $phi$.



          Consider the epigraph $E$ of $phi^2$, in the space $X times mathbb{R}$. It's not hard to verify that $E$ is convex, using the fact that $phi$ is linear. I claim that $(0, 1)$ is in the core of $E$, but not the interior.



          To see that $(0, 1)$ is in the core, consider the restriction of $phi$ to any one-dimensional subspace of $X$. This restriction becomes a parabola, the epigraph of which is contained in $E$, and in which the point $(0, 1)$ is an interior point. Thus, we can always travel some distance in any given direction and still remain inside $E$.



          Now, suppose that $(0, 1)$ is an interior point of $E$. Then, there must exist some $r > 0$ such that
          $$B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E.$$
          In particular, if $x$ is in the unit ball of $X$, then
          $$(rx, 1) in B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E implies phi(x) le frac{1}{r}.$$
          That is, $phi$ is bounded (with $|phi| le 1/r$). This is a contradiction, so $(0, 1)$ is not an interior point of $E$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          When $S$ is convex and closed and $X$ is a Banach Space, then yes. Condition (2) is known as being in the "core" or "algebraic interior" of the set. There's a simple Baire Category Theorem argument that the two conditions are equivalent in these circumstances.



          Basically, without loss of generality, you can assume $x_0 = 0$ by translating as required. Then, $nS$ is a cover of $X$ by countably many closed sets. By the BCT, one such set must have an interior point. But, since all sets are just scalings of each other, this means all such sets must have an interior point. In other words, there must be some $x_1 in S$ and $r > 0$ such that $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$.



          From the core condition (2), there must be some $t > 0$ such that
          $$x_0 + t(x_0 - x_1) in S.$$
          Let the above point be $x_2$. Then
          $$x_0 = frac{t}{t + 1} x_1 + frac{1}{t + 1} x_2,$$
          and a simple convexity argument, using $B[x_1; r] subseteq S$, shows us that
          $$Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S.$$
          To see this, suppose $y in Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right]$. Let
          $$z = frac{(t + 1)y - x_2}{t}.$$
          Then
          $$|z - x_1| = frac{t + 1}{t}left|y - frac{1}{t+1}x_2 - frac{t}{t+1}x_1right| = frac{t + 1}{t}|y - x_0| le r,$$
          hence $z in B[x_1; r] subseteq S$. On the other hand,
          $$y = frac{t}{t+1}z + frac{1}{t + 1}x_2 in S,$$
          thus showing $Bleft[x_0; frac{tr}{1+t}right] subseteq S$ as required, hence $x_0 in operatorname{int} S$.





          As for counterexamples when the above do not hold, consider an infinite-dimensional real normed linear space $X$. Then $X$ admits a discontinuous linear functional $phi$.



          Consider the epigraph $E$ of $phi^2$, in the space $X times mathbb{R}$. It's not hard to verify that $E$ is convex, using the fact that $phi$ is linear. I claim that $(0, 1)$ is in the core of $E$, but not the interior.



          To see that $(0, 1)$ is in the core, consider the restriction of $phi$ to any one-dimensional subspace of $X$. This restriction becomes a parabola, the epigraph of which is contained in $E$, and in which the point $(0, 1)$ is an interior point. Thus, we can always travel some distance in any given direction and still remain inside $E$.



          Now, suppose that $(0, 1)$ is an interior point of $E$. Then, there must exist some $r > 0$ such that
          $$B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E.$$
          In particular, if $x$ is in the unit ball of $X$, then
          $$(rx, 1) in B[(0, 1); r] subseteq E implies phi(x) le frac{1}{r}.$$
          That is, $phi$ is bounded (with $|phi| le 1/r$). This is a contradiction, so $(0, 1)$ is not an interior point of $E$.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 11 at 0:42

























          answered Jan 11 at 0:26









          Theo BenditTheo Bendit

          19.3k12353




          19.3k12353








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
            $endgroup$
            – gerw
            Jan 11 at 8:11














          • 1




            $begingroup$
            It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
            $endgroup$
            – gerw
            Jan 11 at 8:11








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
          $endgroup$
          – gerw
          Jan 11 at 8:11




          $begingroup$
          It is possible to make the counterexample a little bit more easy: Just consider the preimage $phi^{-1}([-1,1])$ in $X$. It is easy to check that $0$ belongs to the core but not to the interior.
          $endgroup$
          – gerw
          Jan 11 at 8:11


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3069327%2fproperty-of-convex-sets%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Human spaceflight

          Can not write log (Is /dev/pts mounted?) - openpty in Ubuntu-on-Windows?

          張江高科駅