I would just like to ask a question. Suppose $K$ is a compact subset of an open set $V$ in the complex plane, how would you prove that there exists an $r > 0$ such that the union $E$ of the closed discs $\bar{D}(z;r)$, $z\in K$ is a subset of $V$.

My proof is suppose the claim is false then there exists a sequence $\{z_n\}$ such that $\bar{D}(z_n;1/n)$ is not a subset of $V$ for all $n$. This sequence has a sub-sequence $\{z_{n_k}\}$ that converges to $z$ in $K$ (compact). $V$ open so, $\bar{D}(z;r) \subset V$ for some $r > 0$, but $\bar{D}(z_{n_k};1/{n_k}) \subset \bar{D}(z;r)$ for sufficiently large $n_k$ so we have a contradiction.

Just wondering if this is correct and whether there is a more obvious proof.

Thank you.


Your proof is good, here is another that avoids explicit sequences.

Let $\phi(x) = \inf_{w \in V^c} d(x,w)$. We see that $\phi(x) > 0$ iff $x \in V$ since $V$ is open. $\phi$ 'measures' the distance from $x$ to the complement of $V$.

Since $d(x,v) \le d(x,y)+d(y,v)$, we see that $\phi(x) \le d(x,y) + \phi(y)$, and swapping $x,y$ shows that $|\phi(x)-\phi(y)| \le d(x,y)$, hence $\phi$ is continuous.

Now let $\alpha = \min_{x \in K} \phi(x)$. The minimum exists because $K$ is compact and $\phi$ is continuous. Also, because the minimum is attained for some $x^* \in K \subset V$, we see that $\alpha = \phi(x^*) >0$.

Now suppose $0<r<\alpha$, $x \in K$ and $y$ is such that $d(x,y) \le r$. Then $\phi(y) \ge \phi(x)-d(x,y)\ge \alpha-r > 0$ and so $y \in V$.


I will write this in a slightly different way, but the idea is similar to copper.hat's proof.

Question: Let $A$ be a closed set and $K$ be a compact set such that $A$ and $K$ are disjoint. Define the distance $$d(A,K) = \inf \{d(a,k): a\in A, k\in K\}$$ Prove there exists $r > 0$ such that $A$ and $\bigcup_{k\in K} \overline{D}(k;r)$ are disjoint.

Outline of proof.

  1. $d(A,K) = d(A,k)$, for some $k\in K$. (Because the distance function is continuous and achieves a minimum on the compact set $K$)
  2. $d(A,K) > 0$, because $A$ is closed and $A$, $K$ are disjoint.
  3. Let $r = \frac{1}{2}d(A,K)$.
  4. $A$ and $\bigcup_{k\in K} \overline{D}(k;r)$ are disjoint. (Suppose they are not disjoint and $a\in \bigcup_{k\in K} \overline{D}(k;r)$. Then, for some $k\in K$, $d(a,k)\leq r < d(A,K)$. Contradiction.)

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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