Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Here is a qualifying exam question which I hope someone can help me with. I have done all of it except having problem to "visualize" $\partial S$ and hence have no idea, is the intersection of $K \cap \partial S$ empty or not?

Here is the question

Assume $f: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a continuous function such that

(a) there exist points $x_0$ and $x_1\in \mathbb{R}^n$ with $f(x_0)=0$ and $f(x_1)=3$,

(b) there exist positive constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $f(x)\geq C_1|x|-C_2$ for all $x\in \mathbb{R}^n$.

Let $S:=\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^n : f(x)<2 \}$ and let $K:=\{ x\in\mathbb{R}^n : f(x)\leq 1 \}$. Define the distance from $K$ to $\partial S$ (the boundary of $S$) by the formula

$$ \text{dist} (K, \partial S) := \inf_{p\in K, q\in \partial S} |p-q|. $$

Prove that the dist$(K,\partial S) >0$. Then give an example of a continuous function $f$ satisfying (a) but dist$(K,\partial S) =0$.

End of question.

As you can see $K=f^{-1}((-\infty, 1])$ and $K\subset \{ x\in \mathbb{R}^n : ||x||\leq \frac{1+C_2}{C_1} \}$ is closed and bounded, surely $\partial S$ is closed, hence I just needed the empty intersection to draw the final conclusion.

Also is there any easy counterexample that needed to satisfied (a)?

Thanks

share|improve this question
    
The reason $(a)$ was required is to guarantee that $S$ and $K$ are nontrivial-neither empty nor all of $\mathbb{R}^n$. –  Kevin Carlson Aug 7 '12 at 2:32
    
Thanks, agreed. –  KWO Aug 7 '12 at 10:12

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

First, observe that $S$ is open. Next, use the continuity of $f$ to show that $f \le 2$ on the closure of $S$. Using the definition of $\partial S$, conclude that $f = 2$ on $\partial S$. In particular, $\partial S$ is disjoint from $K$.

share|improve this answer
    
Got it, thanks. –  KWO Aug 7 '12 at 1:52
    
@KWO Notice that $\partial S$ being disjoint from $K$ does not imply that $\text{dist} (K, \partial S)>0$. You still have work to do! –  Byron Schmuland Aug 7 '12 at 1:57
    
I know, thanks. –  KWO Aug 7 '12 at 10:11

Your Answer

 
discard

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.