Convex set : characteristic cone

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
12 replies · 4K views
wjulie
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Hello :)
I have been giving a mathematical problem. But I find difficulties solving this. Therefore, I will be very grateful if anybody might wanted to help?
The problem is

"Let K be a compact convex set in R^n and C a closed convex cone in R^n. Show that
ccone (K + C) = C."

- Julie.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi wjulie and welcome to PF! :smile:

I'm not familiar with the terminology "characteristic cone", is it perhaps the same thing as a recession cone? ( http://planetmath.org/encyclopedia/DirectionOfAConvexSet.html )

It is obvious that [itex]C\subseteq ccone(K+C)[/itex]. Assume that this inclusion was strict, then there would be a direction d which is not in C. This d has a >0 distance from C. Thus the multiples of d grow further away from C. That is, the distance from d to C becomes arbitrarily big. But we still have that d is in ccone(K+C). Can you find a contradiction with that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for your reply :) and yes, a characteristic cone is the same as a recession cone.
T S.jpg

Then I must show that T = S

I can show that if a belongs to S, then a must belong to T as well.
Let a=y+d belong to C.
if y belongs to C, and because C [itex]\subseteq[/itex] C+K, then y must belong to C+K
Therefore a=y+d must belong to C+K.

But how about the other way? I'm finding it quite difficult.
 
I think you made a mistake in your picture since T and S are exactly the same there. :biggrin:

But I see what you mean. Let's prove this in steps. Let's begin with this: let d be a direction not in C. Can you prove that the distance between x+rd and C becomes arbitrarily large as r becomes large?

I.e. can you show that [itex]d(x+rd,C)\rightarrow +\infty[/itex] as [itex]r\rightarrow +\infty[/itex]?
 
hmm i can't quite see the trick. But K has no direction because it is compact?
 
Do you see intuitively why it must be true?
Consider for example the cone [itex]C=\{(x,0)~\vert~x\in \mathbb{R}\}[/itex] in [itex]\mathbb{R}^2[/itex]. Take something not in C, for example (1,1). Do you see that multiples of (1,1) are getting further away from C? That is, if [itex]r\rightarrow +\infty[/itex], then the distance between (r,r) becomes arbitrarily large.

The general case is quite the same...
 
i can see the intuitive behind it now. But when i have shown that this distance grow larger, what's next? Where are we heading?
 
Aha! I see. I got it now. Thank you, you have saved my day :)
 
"It is obvious that C⊆ccone(K+C)"

why is this obvious, please explain ?

/Olga
 
micromass said:
See post #3.

Well, that isn't a useable argument, in my opinion though...

Isn't that just at proof of y+d belonging to the set (K+C), and not the characteristic cone(K+C)?