Interested by this question in math.SE, which shares a link to planetmath about definition of a simple boundary point. This link gives reference to the book Functions of one complex variable II of Conway. In this book, there is an exercise which I find interested in:

If $w$ is a simple boundary point of $\Omega$, then there is a $\delta > 0$ such that $D(w;\delta)\cap \Omega$ is connected.

I think the author means that we can find $\delta$ small arbitrary such that the connectedness happens (not so sure about this). If we can solve this problem, then we can easily determine which point is not a simple boundary point. As an example, let $\Omega = D(0;1) \backslash \{x:0\leq x < 1\}$, and $0<\beta \leq 1$, then $\beta$ cannot be a simple boundary point of $\Omega$ because if we choose $\epsilon>0$ small enough, we can't find any $\delta \in (0,\epsilon)$ such that $D(\beta;\delta)\cap \Omega$ is connected.

Could anyone give me a hint? It is hardly for me to see which direction I should go, to use the condition that $D(w;\delta)\cap \Omega$ is connected.

Base on Seub's answer, I put here some details.

For Lemma 1: the idea is picking two sequences in two connected components of $\Omega$, combining them into a sequence whose even subsequence is one sequence, and odd subsequence is the other sequence.

This lemma together with Lemma 3 (to prove, use the fact that there is a positive distance from a closed set to a point outside it) solves the problem.

About Lemma 2, for the $(\Leftarrow)$ side, let a sequence in $\Omega$ converges to $w$, then eventually that sequence will be inside the disc $D(w,\delta)$. Because $w$ is a simple boundary point of $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$, the "latter" part of that sequence can be connected by a curve converges to $w$. In addition, $\Omega$ is connected leads to the "former" part can be connected by a curve. Combining two curves with a reparemeterizing, we get a desired curve.

For the $(\Rightarrow)$ side, let a sequence in $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$ converges to $w$, then it can be connected by a curve in $\Omega$. Eventually, this curve will be inside the disc $D(w;\delta)$. So the "latter" part of the curve (which is in $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$) will connect the "latter" part of the sequence. We may choose (at first) $\delta$ small enough for $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$ connected. Then the "former" part of the sequence can be connected by a curve in $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$. We conclude.

Edit: Seub gives a counterexample in his answer!

  • $\begingroup$ Just a comment: It could be that the author assumes $\Omega$ to be a region (open and connected) although he does not state it explicitly. It is always like this in the whole Chapter 5 in Conway's book as far as I can tell. If this is the case, Saub's example cannot be used since the set $D(0,2)\setminus\cup_{n\geq1}L_{n}$ is not open. $\endgroup$ – Twi Oct 30 '16 at 20:15

I apologize for my first answer which was incorrect.

First a couple of remarks:

  • I agree with you that the author probably meant

"(...) then there exists $\delta~$ arbitrarily small such that (...)"

otherwise it is kind of silly. For example, if $\Omega$ is connected and bounded, just take $\delta$ such that $\Omega \subset D(\omega, \delta)$.

  • I think the definition of simple boundary point should be

Let $\Omega$ be an open set in $\mathbb{C}$ and $\omega$ be a point in the boundary of $\Omega$. Then we call $\omega$ a simple boundary point if whenever $(\omega_n)$ is a sequence of points of $\Omega$ converging to $\omega$ there is a continuous path $\gamma:[0,1]\rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ such that $\gamma(t) \in \Omega$ for $0 \leqslant t < 1$, $\gamma(1) = \omega$ and there is a sequence $(t_n)$ in $[0,1)$ such that $t_n \rightarrow 1$ and $\gamma(t_n) = \omega_n$ for all $n~$ sufficiently large.

This would make the definition of a simple boundary point a local one, meaning that $\omega$ is a simple boundary point of $\Omega$ iff $\forall \delta>0$, $\omega$ is a simple boundary point of $\Omega \cap D(\omega, \delta)$.

While I believe these remarks are important, they actually don't matter for what I am about to say: after thinking about it, I believe the result is false!

Here's my counter-example: let $L_n$ be the vertical line segment $\frac{1}{n+1} + i \left[-\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}\right]$ and $\Omega = D(0,2) \setminus \bigcup_{n=1}^{+\infty} L_n$. I really encourage you to draw a picture (of $\Omega$ and some "small" disk $D(0,\delta)$).

I claim that $0$ is a simple boundary point of $\Omega$. It might be a bit tedious to prove it rigorously, but it's certainly believable.

On the other hand, as soon as $\delta \leqslant 1$, $D(0, \delta) \cap \Omega$ is never connected. Indeed, let $n$ be the integer such that $\frac{1}{n+1} < \delta \leqslant \frac{1}{n}$. Then $L_n$ disconnects $D(0, \delta)$. QED.

(NB: Of course, for $\delta$ huge, e.g. $\delta > 2$, $D(0,\delta) \cap \Omega$ is connected, so the initial silly problem (without "arbitrarily small") is not contradicted. But we can cook something up similarly to contradict that too. If you insist I can tell you how, although I don't find that very important)

Now, if we wanted to fix all of this and try to say something true, I would use the "improved" definition of simple boundary point and maybe claim that

$\omega$ is a simple boundary point of $\Omega$ iff $\Omega$ is locally connected at $\omega$, meaning that there exists a basis of neighborhoods $\{U_n\}$ of $\omega$ such that $U_n \cap \Omega$ is connected for all $n$.

although for the moment it is not clear to me how to prove "$\Rightarrow$". I'll think about it if you're interested.

I hope this time I did not say too much nonsense!

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much! Your lemmas simplify much of the problem. Let me write down some details for other persons who may be interested in this exercise. $\endgroup$ – Du Phan Dec 17 '13 at 6:12
  • $\begingroup$ I think that your lemma 3 is not true. For example, look at the open square $0$, $1$, $1+i$, $i$, then for each $n\geq 2$, remove the intervals $[\frac{1}{n},\frac{1}{n}+\frac{1}{2}i]$, the the remaining is connected, open, but the points in $\{iy:0<y<\frac{1}{2}\}$ give us counterexamples. $\endgroup$ – Du Phan Dec 17 '13 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ Also, I think that Lemma 2 is a corollary of the question, rather than a lemma; because the $(\Rightarrow)$ side requires (tacitly) $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$ is connected. $\endgroup$ – Du Phan Dec 17 '13 at 8:03
  • $\begingroup$ Oops, you're right about lemma 3, sorry about that. As for lemma 2, I agree that in the first version, it is also not correct. In the second version, I meant to say "for $\delta$ sufficiently small" and I accidentally deleted it (I just realized that). Do you agree with the second version? Anyway, I need to rework my answer. I'll do that tonight (Europe time) $\endgroup$ – Seub Dec 17 '13 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ The second version of Lemma 2 is true, if we know the question is true. I don't know how to prove its $(\Rightarrow)$ side if I don't have $\Omega \cap D(w;\delta)$ connected before. By the way, I appreciate any time you spend on this question. Don't have to rush. Regards :) $\endgroup$ – Du Phan Dec 17 '13 at 10:46

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.