If A and B are nonempty convex sets, and C = A + B, then..

In summary: Consider the set of all points within \{1, 2}, for example. Then the sum of the two sequences would indeed be in the interior of [1, 2].
  • #1
kaosAD
33
0
If A and B are nonempty convex sets. And C = A + B. How to prove int(C) = int(A) + int(B)?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
By starting with the definitions, presumably.

What have you done on this problem?

P.S.: You really ought to define terms when there might be confusion. "+", for example, could easily mean "union". In fact, that's what I thought it meant at first, but now that I've thought about the problem, I suspect that's not how you're using "+". :smile:
 
  • #3
What I mean is [tex]C = \{ x = x_1 + x_2 \ | \ x_1 \in A, x_2 \in B \}[/tex]. I don't know how to prove it.

However I am able to show C is convex. Pick [tex]x_1^1, x_2^1 \in A[/tex] and [tex]x_1^2, x_2^2 \in B[/tex]. Since A, B are convex, then for [tex]0 \leq \alpha \leq 1[/tex],

[tex]\alpha x_1^1 + (1 - \alpha) x_2^1 \in A[/tex]

and

[tex]\alpha x_1^2 + (1 - \alpha) x_2^2 \in B[/tex].

Hence [tex]\alpha (x_1^1 + x_1^2) + (1 - \alpha)(x_2^1 + x_2^2) \in C[/tex]. But this shows C is convex.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
This is what I have tried a some what modified problem. But it goes nowhere.

I will use 'cl' to mean closure and 'bd' to mean boundary. Assume A = cl(A) and B = cl(B) to make life easier for me. Let [tex]\bar{x} \in \textup{bd}(A)[/tex]. Consider a sequence [tex]\{x_k\}[/tex] belonging to int(A) and converging to a limit point [tex]\bar{x}[/tex]. Pick any [tex]y \in B[/tex]. Hence the sequence [tex]\{x_k + y\}[/tex] converges to some point, say [tex]\bar{z}[/tex]. This [tex]\bar{z}[/tex] may or may not belong to int(C). I reckon if [tex]y \in \textup{bd}(B)[/tex], then the [tex]\bar{z}[/tex] does not belong to int(C).

I don't think it goes well following this line of argument. Need some help.
 
Last edited:
  • #5
kaosAD said:
This is what I have tried a some what modified problem. But it goes nowhere.
I will use 'cl' to mean closure and 'bd' to mean boundary. Assume A = cl(A) and B = cl(B) to make life easier for me. Let [tex]\bar{x} \in \textup{bd}(A)[/tex]. Consider a sequence [tex]\{x_k\}[/tex] belonging to int(A) and converging to a limit point [tex]\bar{x}[/tex]. Pick any [tex]y \in B[/tex]. Hence the sequence [tex]\{x_k + y\}[/tex] converges to some point, say [tex]\bar{z}[/tex]. This [tex]\bar{z}[/tex] may or may not belong to int(C). I reckon if [tex]y \in \textup{bd}(B)[/tex], then the [tex]\bar{z}[/tex] does not belong to int(C).
I don't think it goes well following this line of argument. Need some help.
Have you tried some concerete examples?

Say, maybe work in R and let A = [0, 1] and B = [3, 4]. Then pick an actual sequence [itex]x_k[/itex] and point y, and see how things play out? Sometimes concrete examples help with our intuition.

Also, you make the statement "This [tex]\bar{z}[/tex] may or may not belong to int(C)." This suggests to me that you ought to try and back it up -- find an actual example where it does belong, and an actual example where it does not belong.
 
  • #6
I was right about it using your simple example. Not sure if it carries to higher dimension.
Anyway I am still not sure how to go about proving the statement.

Given A, B convex sets in [tex]\mathbb{R}^n[/tex]. Define [tex]C \triangleq A + B = \{x + y \ | \ x \in A, y \in B \}[/tex]. Consider two sequences [tex]\{x_k\} \subset \textup{int}(A), \{y_k\} \subset \textup{int}(B)[/tex] converging to [tex]\bar{x} \in \textup{bd}(A), \bar{y} \in \textup{bd}(B)[/tex], respectively, as [tex]k \to \infty[/tex]. Hence [tex]x_k + y_k \to x + y \notin \textup{int}(A) + \textup{int}(B)[/tex]. Hence [tex]x + y \notin \textup{int}(C)[/tex]. So [tex]\textup{int}(C) = \textup{int}(A + B) = \textup{int}(A) + \textup{int}(B)[/tex].

Alright, it is rubbish.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
I'm slightly confused as to what you're saying. Here's something to consider:

What if we take a sequence in [0, 1] converging to 1, and a sequence in [2, 3] converging to 2? Doesn't their sum converge to something in the interior of [0, 1] + [2, 3]?

But since we're dealing with open sets, it might be more fruitful to consider open neighborhoods of points.
 

FAQ: If A and B are nonempty convex sets, and C = A + B, then..

What does it mean for a set to be convex?

A set is convex if it contains all the points on the line segment connecting any two points within the set.

Can you give an example of two nonempty convex sets?

One example could be the set of all points within a circle and the set of all points within a square. Both of these sets are convex because any two points within the set can be connected by a line segment that is also within the set.

How is set addition defined for nonempty convex sets?

Set addition is defined as the set of all points that can be obtained by adding any point from one set to any point from the other set. In other words, for nonempty convex sets A and B, A + B = {a + b | a ∈ A, b ∈ B}.

What is the significance of the statement "C = A + B" in the context of nonempty convex sets?

The statement "C = A + B" means that the set C contains all the points that can be obtained by adding any point from set A to any point from set B. This is important because it allows us to understand the relationship between the sets A, B, and C and how they are connected through set addition.

How does set addition of nonempty convex sets relate to other mathematical concepts?

Set addition of nonempty convex sets is closely related to the concept of convex combinations. A convex combination of points from two sets A and B is any point that can be obtained by taking a weighted average of points from A and B, where the weights are nonnegative and sum to 1. In other words, set addition can be seen as a generalization of convex combinations to sets.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
703
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top