Let $X$ be a separable infinite-dimensional Banach space, $U$ be non-empty and open in $X$ and $E$ be finite-dimensional linear subspace of $X$.

I would like to know if there is a non-empty open subset of $U$ which does not intersect $E$

What I've done so far:

Conjecture: Yes

Since $X$ is infinite dimensional and $E$ is finite-dimensional, then $E$ must have empty interior (since no ball can be contained in $E$). Since $E$ has an empty interior and every open subset $V\subseteq U$ is open, then $E$ cannot contain $U$ or any of its open subsets $V$. Hence, $$ V \not\subseteq E \qquad (\forall V\subseteq U,\, \mbox{V open}) $$

Let us show that there is a non-empty open subset $U^*\subseteq U$ which does not intersect $E$.

In particular, let $Ball(x,r)$ be an open ball in $U$ of radius $r>0$ centered at some $x \in U$. By translation, $Ball(0,r)$ and $E-x$ are both of the same for as above, expect now $Ball(0,r)$ contains a countable basis $\{x_n\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ (by separability) of $X$.

In particular, there are $\{r_n>0\}_{n \in \mathbb{R}}$ such that the open balls $\{Ball(x_n,r_n)\}_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ are disjoint, contained within $Ball(0,r)$, and the vectors in $Ball(x_n,r_n)$ are linearly independent from $span\{x_i:i=1,\dots,n\}$. (I assume this should be possibly by inductively choosing a small enough radius)

If $E-x$ intersected each of these then it would contain a basis for $X$, contradicting its finite-dimensionality. Therefore, there is some $N\in\mathbb{N}$ for which $E-x \cap Ball(x_n,r_n)=\emptyset$; whence $$ E \cap Ball(x_n+x,r_n)=\emptyset. $$

Comments: I feel that the existence of the open balls was a bit unconvincing and likewise for the fact that $E$ must contain a basis since is does intersect all of those balls.


An open set $U$ minus a closed set $C$, regardless of which topology, is always open. You are taking the intersection of an open set, and the complement of a closed set, which is open, and thus the resulting set $U \setminus C$ is open.

The only question is, can the resulting set be empty? The empty set is a perfectly valid open set. Note that $U \setminus C = \emptyset$ if and only if $U \subseteq C$, which is to say, either $U = \emptyset$ or $C \subseteq \operatorname{int} U \neq \emptyset$.

As you've pointed out, finite-dimensional subspaces of infinite-dimensional spaces are closed and have empty interior. Thus, we cannot have $U \setminus C = \emptyset$; thus $U \setminus C$ is the open subset of $U$, disjoint from $C$, that you're looking for.

  • $\begingroup$ Oh I feel so silly now. It's totally obvious actually $\endgroup$ – AIM_BLB Jun 23 '19 at 12:31

Since $E$ is finite-dimensional, it is a closed subset of $X$ and therefore you can just take $U=E^\complement$.


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.