Why is it that if we have a compact set $X$ and a closed set $Y$ then the Minkowski sum $X+Y$ is necessarily closed? (Sorry for keep asking questions about the Minkowski sum, I am trying to figure out how these things work.) Thanks.

up vote 14 down vote accepted

(I assume the setting for this question is a normed vector space $V$)

Suppose $z_n$ is a sequence in $X+Y$, and assume it converges to some point $z$ in $V$. We want to show that $z$ is in $X+Y$. By definition of the Minkowski sum, there must exist $x_n \in X, y_n \in Y$ such that $z_n=x_n+y_n$. Since $X$ is compact, there is a subsequence $x_{n_i}$ such that $x_{n_i} \rightarrow x$ as $i \rightarrow \infty$, where $x$ is in $X$. Thus $y_{n_i}=z_{n_i}-x_{n_i} \rightarrow z-x$. Since $Y$ is closed, we have that $z-x$ is in $Y$, and so $z=x+(z-x)$ is in $X+Y$ as desired.


It's worth noting that it's not enough to simply have $X$ and $Y$ both closed. For example, suppose $V=\mathbb{R}$, $x=\mathbb{Z}$ and $y=\sqrt{2}\mathbb{Z}$. Then $X$ and $Y$ are both closed but $X+Y$ is a countable dense set.

  • I wonder, is there a way to relax the condition of compactness of one of the spaces? – Simon May 12 '17 at 14:54

Here's a proof that works in any topological vector space.

If $z \notin X + Y$, then for every $x \in X$ we have $z - x \notin Y$; since $Y$ is closed and addition is continuous there are open sets $B_x$ containing $x$ and $U_x$ containing $z$ such that $(U_x - B_x) \cap Y = \emptyset$. By compactness of $X$, a finite collection $B_{x_1}, \ldots, B_{x_n}$ covers $X$. Thus $U = U_{x_1} \cap \ldots \cap U_{x_n}$ is an open set containing $z$ which does not intersect $X + Y$.

Here it goes : if we denote $\overline{A}$ for the adherence of $A$, if $X$ is compact and $Y$ is another set, we have $$ \overline{X+Y} = \overline X + \overline Y. $$ $(\subseteq)$ Let $z \in \overline{X+Y}$. Thus there exists a sequence $\{z_n\} \in X+Y$ such that $z_n \to z$. But $z_n = x_n + y_n$ with $x_n \in X$ and $y_n \in Y$, and since $X$ is compact, there exists a subsequence $x_{n_k}$ such that $x_{n_k} \to x \in \overline X$. But that means $$ y_{n_k} = x_{n_k} + y_{n_k} - x_{n_k} = z_{n_k} - x_{n_k} \to z - x \in \overline Y $$ because $y_{n_k} \in Y$. Hence $z = z-x + x \in \overline X + \overline Y$, thus the inclusion.

$(\supseteq)$ Let $z \in \overline X + \overline Y$. Thus $z = x+y$ and $x_n \to x \in \overline X$, $y_n \to y \in \overline Y$ and so $x_n + y_n \to x+y = z \in \overline {X+Y}$.

I needed the compacity of $X$ to show equality but I didn't need the fact that $Y$ is. Since compact sets are closed, $X = \overline X$ and $Y = \overline Y$, so $X+Y = \overline X + \overline Y = \overline { X+Y}$.

Hope that helps,

  • Chris Eagle's proof is shorter, but I thought this would give you some more properties of Minkowski sums and make you understand things a little easier by having things worked out here. – Patrick Da Silva Nov 11 '11 at 0:18

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.