Definition ((closed) Convex Hull) Let $M \subset X$. Then $$ \text{co}(M) := \left\{ \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \lambda_i x_i: N \in \mathbb{N}, \lambda_i \in [0,1], \sum_{i = 1}^{N} \lambda_i = 1, x_i \in M \ \forall i \in \{1, \ldots, N\} \right\} $$ Furthermore, the closed convex hull $\overline{\text{co}}(M)$ is the closure of $\text{co}(M)$ with respect to the norm on $X$.

Here (attention: this is in German and apparently "kompakt" actually means "relativ kompakt") Mazur proves the following

Theorem Let $Z$ be a precompact subset of a Banach space $X$. Then the smallest convex superset of $Z$, $W$ precompact as well.

I have some questions regarding the proof, which are detailed below, so I will try to lay out the proof here for you. I am a German native speaker so there shouldn't be anything lost in translation.

Since the statement is trivial for finite $Z$, we assume that $Z$ is infinite. Since $Z$ is precompact there exists a countable dense subset $A$. Let $A = (x_k)_{k\in \mathbb{N}} \subset Z$ be an enumerate. We define $$ V := \left\{ \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} a_n x_n: a_k \ge 0 \ \forall k \in \mathbb{N}, \sum_{n \in \mathbb{N}} a_n = 1 \right\}. $$ We know show that $V$ is precompact.

Let $\varepsilon > 0$. Since $A \subset Z$ is totally bounded, there exists a finite subset $(x_{n_j})_{j \in \{1, \ldots, p\}} \subset (x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$, such that for every $x_n$ there exists a $k \in \{1, \ldots, p\}$ such that \begin{align} \tag{$\star$} \| x_n - x_{n_k} \| \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \end{align} holds. Therefore, one can partition $(x_n)_{n \in \mathbb{N}}$ into $p$ subsequences $(x_{n_k, 1}, x_{n_k,2})_{k = 1}^{p}$, such that for all $k \in \{1, \ldots, p\}$ and all $\ell$ \begin{equation*} \| x_{n_{k, \ell}} - x_{n_k} \| \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \end{equation*} holds. Define \begin{equation*} S := \left\{ \sum_{k = 1}^{p} b_k x_{n_k}: b_k \ge 0 \ \forall k \in \{1, \ldots, p\}, \sum_{k = 1}^{p} b_k = 1 \right\}, \end{equation*} which is totally bounded. Therefore there exist $s_1, \ldots s_q \in S$ such that $$ \forall y \in S \ \exists k \in \{1, \ldots, q\}: \| y - y_k \| \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2}. $$ Lastly we show that $$ \forall x \in V \ \exists k\in \{1, \ldots, q\}: \| x - y_k \| < \varepsilon $$ holds. If $x \in V$, it is of the form $x = \sum_{n = 1}^{\infty} a_n x_n$. We define $$ b_k := \sum_{j = 1}^{p} a_{n_{k,j}}, \quad y := \sum_{k = 1}^{p} b_k x_{n_k} \in S. $$ Therefore there exists a $k \in \{1, \ldots, q \}$, such that $\| y - y_k \| \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$. Since we have \begin{align*} x - y = & a_{n_{1,1}}(x_{n_{1,1}} - x_{n_1}) + a_{n_{1,2}}(x_{n_{1,2}} - x_{n_1}) + \ldots + \\ & + a_{n_{2,1}}(x_{n_{2,1}} - x_{n_2}) + a_{n_{2,2}}(x_{n_{2,2}} - x_{n_2}) + \ldots + \\ & + \ldots \\ & + a_{n_{p,1}}(x_{n_{p,1}} - x_{n_2}) + a_{n_{p,2}}(x_{n_{p,2}} - x_{n_p}) + \ldots \end{align*} and ($\star$) implies $\| x - y \| \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2}$ we conclude \begin{equation*} \| x - y_k \| \le \| x - y \| + \| y - y_k \| \le \frac{\varepsilon}{2} + \frac{\varepsilon}{2} = \varepsilon. \end{equation*}

Since $V$ is precompact and convex, so is $\overline{V}$. Since we have $Z = \overline{A}$ and therefore $Z \subset \overline{A}$ and also $A \subset V$ we have $Z \subset \overline{V}$.

Since $W$ is the smallest convex superset of $Z$, we have $W \subset \overline{V}$ which is precompact.

My Questions

  1. Where does the partitioning statement come from? I get that since we have one finite subsequence, at least one of the partitions is finite, but why does the inequality hold?
  2. Where do the $a_{n_k}$ come from? Are constructed analogously to the $x_{n_k}$?
  3. I am aware of this answer proving the statement in question. I suspect that his answer just omits all the technical detail from this proof but takes exactly the same approach. Is this correct?
  1. Since $A=(x_k)$ is totally bounded, it admits a finite $\frac {\varepsilon}{2}$-net $(x_{n_j})$ consisting of its points. It provides the partition of $A$ into $p$ subsequences. Their (in)finiteness is irrelevant to the proof.

  2. For a fixed $k$, $a_{n_k}$ are these of $a_n$, for which $x_n$ belongs to a sequence $(x_{n_k})$.

  3. I think copper.hat’s proof is almost the same, but it is a bit more simple and straightforward. The omitted technical details are clear to a professional.


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.