Tell me more ×
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.

Let $\|\cdot\|$ be a norm on $\mathbb{R}^n$. Let $C:=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n\,:\,\|x\| \leq 1\}$, that is to say let $C$ be a convex compact symmetric set of non empty interior. Let $H$ be a linear subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$ of dimension $n-1$. Is it true that there exists $z\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such as $\|z\|=1$ and \begin{align*} \Big[(H \cap \partial C) + \mathbb{R}z\Big] \cap \mathring{C} = \emptyset \quad\text{ ? } \end{align*} If not, please, give me a counter-example ! It appears to me that $z\in H^\perp$ should be a proper candidate, but though I might see why this is working for the $\| \cdot \|_p$ norms for example in low dimensions, I did not manage to prove it generally.

Thanks in advance.

Xou.

share|improve this question
Did you mean $\leq$ in the definition of $C$? – copper.hat Sep 26 '12 at 15:11
What's for you $\,\Bbb Rz\,$?? – DonAntonio Sep 26 '12 at 15:12
@DonAntonio: Presumably $\{\lambda z \}_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}}$? – copper.hat Sep 26 '12 at 15:13
what is $\mathring{C}$? – robjohn Sep 26 '12 at 15:16
Most likely the interior. – Stefan Sep 26 '12 at 15:28
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

If $z \neq 0$ the result is not true in general.

Here is a counterexample.

Let $C = \{ (x_1,x_2) | x_1^2+x_2^2 = 1 \}$. Let $H$ = $\{ x | x_2 = \sqrt{2}\}$. Then $H \cap \partial C = \{(\pm \sqrt{2}, \sqrt{2})^T \}$, and $(H \cap \partial C) + \mathbb{R}z = \{ \lambda z + \sqrt{2} (1,1)^T, \lambda z + \sqrt{2} (-1,1)^T \}_{\lambda \in \mathbb{R}} $.

enter image description here

(Picture inspired by @robjohn.)

Now let $\phi(x) = \frac{1}{2} (x_1^2+x_2^2)$ and let $z \neq 0$. We will show that for any $z$, there exists $ x \in H \cap \partial C$ and a $\lambda$ such that $\phi(x+\lambda z) < \frac{1}{2}$, which implies that $x+\lambda z \in C^\circ$.

In particular, all we need to do is to show that $\frac{\partial \phi(x)}{\partial x} z \neq 0$, since if this is the case, it is straightforward to show that there exists a $\lambda$ such that $\phi(x+\lambda z) < \phi(x) = \frac{1}{2}$.

Suppose, to the contrary, that $\frac{\partial \phi(x)}{\partial x}z = x^T z = 0$ for all $ x \in H \cap \partial C$. Then this implies that $ \sqrt{2} (\pm 1, 1) z = 0$, which implies that $z = 0$ since $(\pm 1, 1)^T$ are linearly independent, which contradicts our assumption that $z \neq 0$.

share|improve this answer
By $\frac{\partial \phi(x)}{\partial x}$, do you mean $\nabla\phi$? At least it seems that $\frac{\partial \phi(x)}{\partial x}$ is supposed to be a vector. Assuming so, then this looks good (+1). – robjohn Sep 26 '12 at 17:53
@robjohn: Sort of, $\frac{\partial \phi(x)}{\partial x} h = \langle \nabla\phi(x), h \rangle $. $\frac{\partial \phi(x)}{\partial x}\in (\mathbb{R}^n)^*$, whereas $\nabla\phi \in \mathbb{R}^n$. (And thanks!) – copper.hat Sep 26 '12 at 19:57
I am so sorry, I think my english is not good enough : I meant a linear hyperplan (i.e. containing 0), that is a subspace of dimension $n-1$. In your example, you could only use lines crossing zero, and you may check that the orthogonal direction does the job for $z$. – xounamoun Sep 26 '12 at 21:14

Unless I am misunderstanding something, the following seems to be a counterexample.

Given the standard Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and the plane $x_1=.6$, $H\cap\partial C$ is the circle $$ \{x:x_1=.6\text{ and }x_2^2+x_3^2=.64\} $$ No matter what $z$ is (other than $0$), the elliptic cylinder $(H \cap \partial C) + \mathbb{R}z$ will intersect $\mathring{C}$.

$\hspace{3.3cm}$enter image description here

Given any $z$, if there is an $h\in H\cap\partial C$ so that $h+\mathbb{R}z$ does not intersect $\mathring{C}$, then $z$ must be perpendicular to the normal to $\partial C$ at $h$. In order that $h+\mathbb{R}z$ does not intersect $\mathring{C}$ for all $h\in H\cap\partial C$, $z$ would have to be perpendicular to each normal to $\partial C$ at a point of $H\cap\partial C$.

Therefore, $z$ would need to be perpendicular to $(.6,.8,0)$ and $(.6,0,.8)$, thus parallel to their cross product $(.64,-.48,-.48)$. Furthermore, $z$ would need to be perpendicular to $(.6,-.8,0)$ and $(.6,0,.8)$, thus parallel to their cross product $(-.64,-.48,.48)$. However, since $(.64,-.48,-.48)$ and $(-.64,-.48,.48)$ are not parallel, $z$ cannot be parallel to them both, unless it is $0$.

Thus, there is no $z$ that so that $\left[(H\cap\partial C)+\mathbb{R}z\right]\cap\mathring{C}=\emptyset$.

Revised Question

Consider the maximum norm on $\mathbb{R}^3$ given by $$ \|x\|=\max(|x_1|,|x_2|,|x_3|) $$ Under this norm, $C$ is a cube of side $2$.

Let $H$ be the plane $x_1+x_2+x_3=0$. This plane intersects all $6$ sides of $\partial C$. Each of the following points is on $H$ and a different side of $\partial C$: $$ \small\left\{\left(1,-\frac12,-\frac12\right),\left(-\frac12,1,-\frac12\right),\left(-\frac12,-\frac12,1\right),\left(-1,\frac12,\frac12\right),\left(\frac12,-1,\frac12\right),\left(\frac12,\frac12,-1\right)\right\} $$

As argued in the answer to the original question, $z$ must be perpendicular to the normal to $C$ at all points of $H\cap\partial C$. However, the normals to the cube span $\mathbb{R}^3$, so there can be no such $z$ other than $z=0$.

True in Two

Due to the fact that $\|-x\|=\|x\|$, the normal to $\partial C=\{x:\|x\|=1\}$ at any $x$ is the opposite of the normal at $-x$. In $\mathbb{R}^2$, $H\cap\partial C$ consists of two points, $h$ and $-h$. Thus, if $z$ is perpendicular to the normal to $\partial C$ at $h$, then neither $h+\mathbb{R}z$ nor $-h+\mathbb{R}z$ intersect $\mathring{C}$.

share|improve this answer
Same remark as above. I am so sorry because you both gave good, precise and furthermore drawn answers ! Since the plane has to pass through zero, again the orthogonal direction seems to work (the intersection is made through one of the "big circles" of the sphere). – xounamoun Sep 26 '12 at 21:17
@xounamoun: Unfortunately, the subspace $x_1+x_2+x_3=0$ fails against the maximum norm. – robjohn Sep 27 '12 at 14:57
Ok, I agree ! Thanks ! – xounamoun Sep 27 '12 at 16:02
@xounamoun: However, it appears to be true in $\mathbb{R}^2$. – robjohn Sep 27 '12 at 16:53
Yeah, I noticed this before, this is probably because the intersection seems to be always reduced to 2 points. Actually, this question is related to a lemma used in the study of Schauder bases. I was quite sure that the result may not be true generally in finite dimension because it would simplify considerably some classical proof ! Ok I just read the proof " true in two ", I agree also ! – xounamoun Sep 28 '12 at 7:54

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.