0
$\begingroup$

There is a theorem saying that for any convex set $Q$, $x\in \text{int } Q \Leftrightarrow N_Q(x)=\{0\}$. I'm trying to prove the backward direction, and my argument is as follows: If $N_Q(x)=\{0\}$, then equivalently any nonzero vector cannot be in the normal cone at $x$, which means that any nonzero vector must make some acute angle with $y-x$ for some $y\in Q$. I'm trying to argue that this implies $\exists \epsilon>0$ such that $B_\epsilon (x)\subset Q$, but there seems to be a gap in the argument. How can I fill in this gap? Or are there other ways to prove this?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Assume that $N_{Q}(x) = \{0\}$. For the sake of contradiction, take $x \in \mathbf{bd}(Q)$, the set's boundary. Then, the supporting hyperplane theorem implies that $\exists v \in \mathbb{R}^d, v \neq 0$ such that

$$ \langle v, x \rangle \geq \langle v, y \rangle, \; \forall y \in Q \implies \langle v, y - x \rangle \leq 0, \; \forall y \in Q \Leftrightarrow v \in N_Q(x). $$

This contradicts your assumption on $N_Q$, since $v$ is guaranteed to be nonzero. Hence $x$ must indeed be in $\mathrm{int}(Q)$.

$\endgroup$

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.