Scribd
Upload
15 views

The Theorem of Klee On The Density of Support Points

This document presents a new proof of Klee's theorem which states that the support points of a closed, convex, and locally weakly compact set in a real Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space are dense in the boundary of the set. The proof avoids using Zorn's lemma and constructs a net to show any boundary point is a support point.

Uploaded by

Claudio Poveda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views

The Theorem of Klee On The Density of Support Points

This document presents a new proof of Klee's theorem which states that the support points of a closed, convex, and locally weakly compact set in a real Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space are dense in the boundary of the set. The proof avoids using Zorn's lemma and constructs a net to show any boundary point is a support point.

Uploaded by

Claudio Poveda
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

Note di Matematica ISSN 1123-2536, e-ISSN 1590-0932

Note Mat. 36 (2016) no. 1, 63–65. doi:10.1285/i15900932v36n1p63

The Theorem of Klee on The Density of


Support Points

Nick Stavrakas
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
[email protected]

Received: 16.11.2015; accepted: 24.3.2016.

Abstract. A new proof is given of the theorem of Victor Klee which states that the support
points of a closed, convex, and locally weakly compact set in a real Hausdorff locally convex
topological vector space are dense in the boundary of the set.

Keywords: Convex, Klee, Support Point


MSC 2000 classification: 32F27

Some years ago Klee asked in [5] if a non-empty bounded closed convex
subset K of a real Banach space B must have any support points. Bishop and
Phelps in [2] answered affirmatively. The proof of the latter used Zorn’s Lemma
on a set of cones where the cone construction was suggested by the ingenious
technique they used to show every Banach space is subreflexive [1] and both of
these results have since become part of the foundation of Functional Analysis.
Phelps [7] gave a new proof of Klee’s theorem (Theorem 2 of [7]) stated in
the abstract using a generalization the support cone construction used in [2].
The proof given here avoids the cone contruction and the explicit use of Zorn’s
Lemma employed by Phelps (Lemma 1 and Theorem 2 of [7]) and is a natural
extension of the an Rn proof ”translate a convex body in the complement of
K and intersect K ” [10, p.84]. We use the known basic results referred to as
Propositions where S is a real Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space.
Proposition 0.1 ([8]). Let A ⊂ S be a convex set with non-empty interior
and let B be a non-empty convex set disjoint from the interior of A. Then A
and B can be separated by a closed hyperplane.
Proposition 0.2 ([8]). Let A ⊂ S be a convex set with non-empty interior.
Then every boundary point of A is a support point of A.
Proposition 0.3 ([8]). Let A ⊂ S be a closed set. Then every convergent
net in A has its limit in A.
Proposition 0.4 ([4]). A topological space X is compact if and only if
every net in X has a subnet convergent to a point in X.

http://siba-ese.unisalento.it/
c 2016 Università del Salento
64 Nick Stavrakas

Theorem 0.5. (Klee) Suppose K is a non-empty convex, closed and locally


weakly compact set of a real Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space
S. Then the support points of K are dense in the boundary of K.

Proof. We may assume S is the closed linear hull of K so K is not contained


in a closed hyperplane of S. Also if int(K) 6= ∅ then every boundary point
of K is a support point of K by Proposition 2 and we are done so we may
assume int(K) = ∅. Let k ∈ K and there exists a closed convex neighborhood
Pk of k with Pk ∩ K weakly compact. If Mk is a closed convex neighborhood
of k let Nk = Mk ∩ Pk and then Nk ∩ K is weakly compact with k ∈ Nk ∩ K.
As int(K) = ∅ and K is closed choose y ∈ int (Nk ∼ K) and without loss of
generality we may assume y = 0v , the origin. Since K is closed there exists a
closed convex neighborhood N0v ⊂ Nk with 0v ∈ intN0v and N0v ∩ K = ∅.
For each real α, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1, let N (α, k) = (αk + N0v ) ∩ Nk and then either
N (α, k) ∩ K 6= ∅ and N (α, k) ∩K is weakly compact or N (α, k) ∩ K = ∅.
Let θ = inf {α, 0 ≤ α ≤ 1|N (α, k) ∩ K 6= ∅} and θ exists as N (1, k) ∩ K 6= ∅.
We assert θ < 1. If ϕn is a sequence of reals with 0 < ϕn < 1 and ϕn → 1
then as (k − ϕn k) → 0v there exists a positive integer M such for all n ≥ M,
(k − ϕn k) ∈ N0v for otherwise 0v is in the boundary of N0v , contradiction. Thus
(k − ϕM k) ∈ N0v and so k ∈ (ϕM k + N0v ) which gives k ∈ N (ϕM , k) ∩ K and
as ϕM < 1 the assertion follows and θ < 1.
We assert that if N = int (N (θ, k)) ∩ K then N = ∅. If θ = 0 this is true
since N (0, k) = N0v and N0v ∩ K = ∅. Suppose θ > 0 and the assertion is false.
Then there exists k1 ∈ N with k1 ∈ int (N (θ, k)). Since k1 ∈ int (N (θ, k)) there
exists δ with 0 < δ < θ such that if λ ∈ [θ − δ, θ + δ] then λk1 ∈ int (N (θ, k)).
Let k2 = (θ + δ)k1 and as k2 ∈ int (N (θ, k)) we may write k2 = θk + n for
some n ∈ N0v . Then k1 ∈ (0v , k2 ) ⊂ (0v , θk + n] and so there exists a positive
β < 1 with k1 = βk2 . Then k1 = βk2 = β(θk + n) = βθk + βn and as β < 1 we
have βn ∈ N0v . Thus k1 ∈ N (βθ, k) contradicting the definition of θ because
βθ < θ and the assertion is established and so int (N (θ, k)) ∩ K = ∅. Since
int (N (θ, k)) ∩ K = ∅, Proposition 1 implies the existence of a continuous linear
functional f and a real β with f (N (θ, k)) ≤ β and f (K) ≥ β. The definition of
θ implies for every δ ∈ (0, 1 − θ) that N (θ + δ, k) ∩ K 6= ∅. For each δ ∈ (0, 1 − θ)
choose xδ ∈ N (θ + δ, k) ∩ K. Define a binary relation  on {xδ } by xδ1  xδ2 if
δ1 ≤ δ2 . Then ({xδ } , ) is a net and since {xδ } ⊂ Nk ∩ K the net ({xδ } , ) has
a convergent subnet by Proposition 4 as Nk ∩ K is weakly compact. Without
loss of generality we may suppose xδ → x ∈ K and the net of numbers δ → 0.
Since xδ ∈ N (θ + δ, k) ∩ K we may write xδ = (θ +δ) k + nδ0v for each δ where
nδ0v ∈ N0v . Since xδ → x and δ → 0 then the net nδ0v = {xδ − (θ + δ) k} →
(x− θk) and so (x− θk) ∈ N0v by Proposition 3. Let n = (x− θk) and then
x = (θk + n) ∈ (N (θ, k) ∩ K). Then f (x) = β, f (K) ≥ β and K 6⊂ {z|f (z) = β}
The Theorem of Klee on The Density of Support Points 65

so x is a support point of K. For any k ∈ K, as Mk is any closed convex


neighborhood of k, and Nk ⊂ Mk we conclude the support points of K are
dense in K and this completes the proof. The approach here was suggested
the work of Cel [3] and by the author’s proof [9] of Krasnoselsky’s Lemma for
weak compacta in a real Hausdorff locally convex topological vector space which
answered a question of Valentine [10, p. 84] of extending this Lemma for weak
compacta to locally convex spaces. QED

References
[1] E. Bishop and R.R. Phelps: A Proof That Every Banach Space Is Subreflexive, Bull.
Amer. Math. Soc., 67, (1961) , 97-98.
[2] E. Bishop and R.R. Phelps: The Support Functionals Of A Convex Set, Proceedings
Of Symposia In Pure Mathematics, Vol VII, (1963), AMS Providence R.I. 27-36 (V.L.
Klee Editor).
[3] J. Cel: A Representation Formula For Weakly Compact Starshaped Sets, Note Di Math-
ematika, 19 (1999), 207-212.
[4] J. L. Kelley: General Topology, D. Van Nostrand, N.Y., (1955).
[5] V.L. Klee: Extremal Structure Of Convex Sets II, Math Zeit., 69 (1958), 90-104.
[6] V.L. Klee: Convex Sets in Linear Spaces, Duke Math. J., 18 (1951), 443-466.
[7] R.R. Phelps: Support Cones And Their Generalizations, Proceedings Of Symposia In
Pure Mathematics, Vol VII, (1963), AMS Providence R.I. 393-402 (V.L. Klee Editor).
[8] H.H. Schaefer: Topological Vector Spaces, Macmillian, N.Y. (1966).
[9] N. Stavrakas: Norm Averaging And Krasnoselsky’s Lemma, Bull. Polish Acad. Sci., 44
(1996), 103-117.
[10] F.A. Valentine: Convex Sets, McGraw Hill, N.Y. (1964).
Copyright of Note di Matematica is the property of Note di Matematica and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

You might also like