Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $X$ be a Banach space and endow the space $BC(X)$, the space of all bounded closed subsets of $X$, with the Hausdorff distance $d_H$. Fix $C_0\in BC(X)$. Is it true that $d_H(A,B)=d_H(A+C_0,B+C_0)$ for all $A,B\in BC(X)$?

Edit: Is it true when $A,B,C_0$ are convex sets?

share|cite|improve this question

Counterexample in $\mathbb R$: $A=[-1,1]$, $B=\{-1,1\}$, $C_0=[-1,1]$. Here $d_H(A,B)=1$ but $A+C_0=B+C_0=[-2,2]$. Did you want the sets to be convex, by any chance?

Okay, let's consider the convex case. Let $X$ be a real Banach space; if it's complex, forget the complex structure. Let $S$ be the unit sphere of the dual space $X^*$. Given a bounded closed set $A\subset X$, define its support function $h_A\colon S\to\mathbb R$ by $h_A(\phi)=\sup_{A}\phi$. The definition implies $h_{A+C}=h_A+h_C$ for any bounded closed sets $A,C$. In particular, the quantity $\rho(A,B)=\sup_{S}|h_A-h_B|$ is invariant under addition/translation: $\rho(A+C,B+C)=\rho(A,B)$.

So far so good, but what does $\rho$ have to do with the Hausdorff metric? The inequality $\rho(A,B)\le d_H(A,B)$ holds for general $A,B\in BC(X)$: just use the definition of $d_H$ together with the fact that $\phi$ has norm $1$. The reverse inequality is where we need convexity... and it seems that we need $X$ to be a Hilbert space too... (?)

So, suppose $X$ is Hilbert and $A$ and $B$ are convex. We can find a point $p$ in one of these sets (say, in $A$) which is at distance $>d_H(A,B)-\epsilon$ from the other set (namely, $B$). There exists $q\in B$ that minimizes the distance to $p$ (a closed convex set in a Hilbert space has a unique nearest point to any point of its complement). Let $\phi$ be the norming functional of $p-q$, simply $\phi=(p-q)/\|p-q\|$. Then $h_A(\phi)-h_B(\phi)>d_H(A,B)-\epsilon$ as required.

share|cite|improve this answer

$\newcommand{\ep}{\varepsilon}$$\newcommand{\f}{\phi}$ NOTE: this is an extension of the answer given by Leonid Kovalev. I continu with the notation from his answer.

The Hausdorff distance is given by $$d_h(A,B)=\inf\{\ep>0\colon A\subset B+B_\ep(0)\text{ and }B\subset A+B_\ep(0)\},$$ where $B_\ep(0)$ is the open ball of radius $\ep$ centered at $0$ (see here).

The identity $d_h(A,B)=\sup_{\phi\in S}h_A(\phi)-h_B(\phi)|$ holds for any convex, bounded closed, nonvoid subset of a Banach space $X$ (It need not be Hilbert)

First note that if $A=B$, then the result is clear. Now assume $A\neq B$ and let $\ep>0$ such that $A\subset B+B_\ep(0)$.

Then $h_A(\f)\le h_B(\f)+\ep$ and $h_B(\f)\le h_A(\f)+\ep$ for all $\f\in S.$ Thus $|h_A(\f)-h_B(\f)|<\ep$, hence $\sup_{\f\in S}|h_A(\f)-h_B(\f)|\le d_h(A,B).$

Next, define $$\ep:=\sup_{\f\in S}|h_A(\f)-h_B(\f)|>0,$$then $A\subset B+B_\ep(0)$ and $B\subset A+B_\ep(0).$ Thus $d_h(A,B)\le\ep$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.