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.

Consider the subset $\Omega\subset\mathbf{R}^n$, $$\Omega=\{x=(x_1,...,x_n)\in\mathbf{R}^n;x_n>\varphi(x_1,...,x_n)\},$$ where $\varphi$ is a Lipschitz continuous function, that is, $\Omega$ is a unbounded set, bounded for a Lipschitz graph.

Why this set satisfies the interior sphere condtion?

Interior sphere condition means that for each $z\in\partial\Omega$, there is a ball $B_r(\xi)$ satisfying $\partial B_r(\xi)\cap\overline\Omega=\{z\}$.

share|improve this question
    
What is the "interior sphere condition"? –  Henning Makholm Nov 22 '12 at 13:42
    
I edited the question with the definition! –  José Carlos Nov 22 '12 at 13:45
    
I am not sure that your condition is the standard interior sphere condition. –  Siminore Nov 22 '12 at 13:57
    
Yes, in this form, this condition seems not to hold for $\Omega$, even with constant $\varphi$.. anyway, what is $\xi$? –  Berci Nov 22 '12 at 14:09
    
Im sorry, I repaired the definition. $\xi$ is a point of $\Omega$. This condition means that for each point $z$ in the boundary, you can construct a ball insided $\Omega$, that the boundary of this ball intersect only the point $z$. –  José Carlos Nov 22 '12 at 14:17
show 2 more comments

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

This set does certainly not satisfy the interior sphere (or interior ball) condition in general, as the example $\varphi (x) = |x_1| + \ldots + |x_{n-1}|$ shows. This functions is $1$-Lipschitz, but the condition is violated at $0$.

share|improve this answer
    
I need to use a Hopf Lemma in this set. You know how can i use this without the interior ball condition? –  José Carlos Nov 22 '12 at 14:55
    
Maybe you just need it almost everywhere? Lipschitz functions are differentiable a.e., that should give you the condition a.e. At points of non-differentiability like $0$ in the example you already have problems writing down the statement of the Hopf lemma, since there is no well-defined normal vector at these points. –  Lukas Geyer Nov 22 '12 at 19:54
    
Thank you very much Lukas Geyer. –  José Carlos Nov 22 '12 at 23:51
add comment

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.