Property of convex sets.
$begingroup$
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) ?
general-topology functional-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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) ?
general-topology functional-analysis
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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) ?
general-topology functional-analysis
$endgroup$
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
general-topology functional-analysis
asked Jan 10 at 23:49
Gabriel RibeiroGabriel Ribeiro
1,454523
1,454523
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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 $E$.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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 $E$.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $E$.
$endgroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $E$.
$endgroup$
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 $E$.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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