1
$\begingroup$

I know it's a well-known result, but I have not found any clear formalization, and I need a clear formalization. So I want to know if you agree with this formalization, and this proof.

Thank you for any replies.

Let $K \subset \Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n$ with $K$ compact and $\Omega$ open. Then there exists a regular Urysohn function $\psi \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega)$, i.e. $0 \leq \psi(x) \leq 1$ $\forall x \in \Omega$ e $\psi(x)=1$ on a neighborhood of $K$, and this fact is denoted by $ K \prec \psi \prec \Omega$. My proof is the following:
Since $K$ is closed, if $\widetilde{x} \in \mathbb{R}^n \setminus \Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^n \setminus K$, for the properties of the distance we have $0 < \delta /2 < \mathrm{dist}(K,\Omega^c)=\widetilde{\delta}$. We assume that $\delta/2 < < \widetilde{\delta}$.

Let $\varphi \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega)$ with $\mathrm{supp}(\varphi) \subseteq \overline{B}(0,\delta /2)$. without considering the translations, we define: \begin{align*} K(\delta /2 ):=K + \overline{B}(0,\delta /2):=\lbrace y \in \mathbb{R}^n : \mathrm{dist}(y,K) \leq \delta \rbrace \end{align*} In other words, $\lbrace K(\delta /2) \rbrace_{\delta > 0}$ it's an increasing sequence of compact in $\Omega$ for $\delta \rightarrow \widetilde{\delta}$ with $K \subset K(\delta /2) \subset \Omega$. Define the function: \begin{align*} \psi(x):=( \chi_{K(\delta /2)} \ast \varphi)(x)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} \chi_{K(\delta /2)}(x-y) \varphi(y) dy \end{align*} Then $\psi(x)$ satisfies the required properties. In fact, we know that $\psi \in \mathcal{E}(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and also \begin{align*} \mathrm{supp}(\psi) &= \mathrm{supp}(\chi_{K(\delta /2)} \ast \varphi) \\ &\subset \mathrm{supp}(\chi_{K(\delta /2)})+ \mathrm{supp}(\varphi) \\ &\subset K(\delta /2) + \overline{B}(0,\delta /2) \\ &= K+ \overline{B}(0,\delta /2) + \overline{B}(0,\delta /2) \\ &= K+ \overline{B}(0,\delta) \\ &=K(\delta) \end{align*} Consequently, $\psi \in \mathcal{D}(\Omega)$, and $0 \leq \psi(x) \leq 1$ $\forall x \in \Omega$. and $\psi(x)=1$ $\forall x \in K$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

The usual statement of Urysohn's lemma is that we can find a function $\psi$ with $\operatorname{supp}\psi\subseteq\Omega$ and $\psi=1$ in $K$. This is different from what you stated. Other than that, the proof of the theorem is correct. Simply use $K$ instead. I would also change $\delta/2$ by $\delta/3$ in the arguments, just to be on the safe side (since then we can take some closures, etc...), but this is not really necessary.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I used $\delta /2$ only to find that $\mathrm{supp}(\psi) \subset K(\delta)$. In the end, everything depends on the choice $\delta /2 << \widetilde{\delta}$. $\endgroup$
    – user288972
    Feb 16 '16 at 23:02
  • $\begingroup$ Anyway, you say $\psi=1$ in $K$, but $K$ is compact, so is a locally compact space, and then the lemma is also true in a neighborhood (compact) of $K$. The sense is this. $\endgroup$
    – user288972
    Feb 25 '16 at 20:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JohnMartin I was just pointing out the usual statement of Urysohn's lemma. Sure, we can take $L$ compact with $K\subseteq\operatorname{int}L\subseteq L\subseteq\Omega$, apply this ``usual'' version to $L$ and obtain $\psi=1$ in a neighbourhood of $K$ (namely, $\operatorname{int}L$). However in your proof you just get $\psi=1$ in $K$, but not in a neighbourhood of $K$. Also, you didn't mention, in your statement, that $\psi$ should be zero outside $\Omega$. All that said, your proof is correct, the only problem is with the theorem's statement. $\endgroup$ Feb 26 '16 at 21:14
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I agree with these considerations $\endgroup$
    – user288972
    Feb 26 '16 at 21:42

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.