Let $(X,d)$ be a metric space. How to prove that for any closed $A$ a function $d(x,A)$ is continuous - I know that it is even Lipschitz continuous, but I have a problem with the proof: $$ |d(x,a) - d(y,a)| \leq d(x,y) $$ for any $a\in A$ - but we cannot just replace it by $|d(x,A) - d(y,A)|\leq d(x,y)$ since the minimum (or infimum in general) can be attained in different points $a\in A$ for $x$ and $y$, so we only have that $$ |d(x,A)-d(y,A)|\leq d(x,y)+\sup\limits_{a,b\in A}d(a,b) $$ which does not mean continuity.


3 Answers 3


If $a$ is in $A$, by the triangle inequality you have $$d(x,a) \leq d(x,y) + d(y,a)$$ The left hand side is at least $d(x,A)$, so we get $$d(x,A) \leq d(x,y) + d(y,a)$$ Take the infinum of this over all $a$ in $A$ and you obtain $$d(x,A) \leq d(x,y) + d(y,A)$$ Which is the same as $$d(x,A) - d(y,A) \leq d(x,y)$$ Reversing the roles of $x$ and $y$ you have $$d(y,A) - d(x,A) \leq d(x,y)$$ Combining the last two equations gives $$|d(x,A) - d(y,A)| \leq d(x,y)$$ Notice $A$ doesn't even have to be closed for this to work.

  • $\begingroup$ The following is just a thought.How can compactness be used. Suppose A is compact. We know A has convergent subsequence. Call the limit a,then what? $\endgroup$
    – user960654
    Dec 26, 2021 at 23:18

If $A = X$ (or if $\overline{A} = X$) then $d(\cdot,A) = 0$ and there's nothing to prove. If $A$ is empty, the usual conventions in the infimum yield $d(\cdot,\emptyset) = \infty$ and Lipschitz continuity doesn't really make sense. However a constant function is certainly continuous.

So, assume that $\emptyset \neq A$ and let $\varepsilon \gt 0$. Choose $a\in A$ such that $d(x,a) \leq d(x,A) + \varepsilon$. Then the triangle inequality yields $d(y,A) - d(x,A) \leq d(y,a) - d(x,a) + \varepsilon \leq d(y,x) + \varepsilon$. By symmetry we get $|d(x,A) - d(y,A)| \leq d(x,y) + \varepsilon$ and the desired result follows because $\varepsilon$ was arbitrary. Note that I didn't use that $A$ is closed. Update: Alternatively, you can choose Zarrax's way and permute two steps in this paragraph and make the argument nicer by getting rid of the explicit mentioning of $\varepsilon$ or appeal to the valuable general result mentioned by Didier.

If $A$ is non-empty and not dense, i.e., $\overline{A} \neq X$ then $1$ is in fact the best Lipschitz constant. Indeed, there are $x$ and $r\gt0$ such that $B_r(x) \cap \overline{A} = \emptyset$, so $d(x,A) \geq r \gt 0$. For every $\varepsilon \gt 0$ we can find $a \in A$ such that $d(x,a) \leq (1+\varepsilon)d(x,A)$. But then $|d(a,A) - d(x,A)| = d(x,A)\geq \frac{1}{1+\varepsilon} d(x,a)$ and the claim follows.

For a closely related thread, see here.


This is a special case of the following general situation.

Fix some nonempty set $T$ and a collection $(u_t)$ of real valued functions defined on $X$ and indexed by $t$ in $T$. Assume that each function $u_t$ is $1$-Lipschitz, that is, that for every $x$ and $y$ in $X$ and every $t$ in $T$, $|u_t(x)-u_t(y)|\leqslant d(x,y)$.

Consider the function $v=\inf\limits_{t\in T}u_t$, defined for every $x$ in $X$ by $$v(x)=\inf\{u_t(x);t\in T\}$$ Then:

  • Either, $v=-\infty$ everywhere.
  • Or, $v$ is finite everywhere and then $v$ is $1$-Lipschitz.

To prove this, start from the inequalities $v(x)\leqslant u_t(x)\leqslant u_t(y)+d(x,y)$ for every $x$ and $y$ in $X$ and every $t$ in $T$, and follow the lights...

In your setting, one can choose $T=A$ and $u_a=d(a,\ )$ for every $a$ in $A$. Then each function $u_a$ is nonnegative and $1$-Lipschitz, hence the function $$v=\inf\limits_{a\in A}u_a=d(A,\ )$$ is finite everywhere and $1$-Lipschitz.

Note that $A$ can be any nonempty subset of $X$.


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.