Problem: To show that, in a topological vector space, for a given neighborhood of zero $W$, there exist two neighborhoods of zero, $V_1$, $V_2$, whose sum is contained in the first neighborhood, $V_1+V_2\subset W$.
Background: I am reviewing some foundations of functional analysis and was looking at Rudin's book. Near the beginning he states his theorem 1.10. Its point is to show that if we start with two disjoint sets in a topological vector space $X$: a compact set K and a closed set C, then there are disjoint open sets containing them. However, I got stuck in a small detail of the proof.
He shows first that if $W$ is a neighborhood of $0$ (the zero vector), then there is a neighborhood $U$ of $0$ (the zero vector) which is symmetric (in the sense that $U = - U$) and which satisfies $U + U \subset W$. He says: we note that $0+ 0 = 0$, that addition is continuous, and that $0$ therefore has neighborhoods $V_1$, $V_2$ such that $V_1 + V_2 \subset W$. etc...
This last statement I do not get. It is clear that $W$ as an open set contains other open sets (for example itself). I can construct, using the continuity of the multiplication by scalars, many other sets properly contained in $W$, contracting and, if needed, taking intersections with $W$. But it is not clear to me how to construct (or show that exist) sets with addition still in $W$.
If the vector space is finite or normed or convex this is not hard to do. In the normed case I simply take the balls centered at the origin that are half the size of the least norm of the elements of $W$, but he is stating this in the general topological vector space case. I have not found the generalization of my procedure to the general setting.
I also tried looking at all possible pairs of $0-$neighborhoods contained in $W$. If every single pair of open sets adds up to a set with nonempty intersection with $W$ then every pair of sets give a pair of points $x$, $y$ with sum $x+y$ not in $W$. I would like to show this eliminates all points but the origin (but I I am not sure I can do this). Then either we reach a contradiction, or are forced to consider $0+0=0$ as counterexample which works in the case of the discrete topology in $X$.
Since the statement is so brief, I am afraid I am missing something. Thank you for your help.