Convex set : characteristic cone

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical problem involving convex sets and characteristic cones, specifically addressing the relationship between a compact convex set K and a closed convex cone C in R^n. Participants explore the proof of the statement that the characteristic cone of the sum of these sets, ccone(K + C), is equal to C.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Julie presents a problem regarding the characteristic cone of a compact convex set and a closed convex cone.
  • One participant questions the terminology "characteristic cone," suggesting it may refer to a recession cone.
  • Another participant asserts that if a direction d is not in C, then the distance from points in the form x + rd to C becomes arbitrarily large as r increases.
  • Julie expresses difficulty in proving the reverse inclusion of the sets, seeking further clarification.
  • A participant suggests proving that the distance between x + rd and C grows larger, leading to implications about the boundedness of K.
  • Olga asks for clarification on why the inclusion C ⊆ ccone(K + C) is considered obvious, prompting further discussion on the argument's validity.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify the inclusion by demonstrating that elements of C remain within the characteristic cone when combined with elements of K.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing levels of understanding regarding the proof and the implications of the relationships between the sets. There is no consensus on the clarity of the argument for why C is included in ccone(K + C), indicating ongoing debate.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the definitions and implications of the terms used, particularly regarding the characteristic cone and recession cone. The discussion includes assumptions about the properties of compact and convex sets that remain unexamined.

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?
 
Well, x+rd is getting further away from C. But if d is in ccone(K+C), it must hold that x+rd is in K+C. And thus we must be able to express x+rd=k+c. But as the distance between x+rd and c becomes large, then k must become large. Thus K must be unbounded.
 
Aha! I see. I got it now. Thank you, you have saved my day :)
 
  • #10
"It is obvious that C⊆ccone(K+C)"

why is this obvious, please explain ?

/Olga
 
  • #11
Olga-Dahl said:
"It is obvious that C⊆ccone(K+C)"

why is this obvious, please explain ?

/Olga

See post #3.
 
  • #12
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)?
 
  • #13
Well, to see that

[tex]C\subseteq ccone(C+K)[/tex]

Take d in C, then for all x in C, we have that x+rd is in C. In particular rd is in C.
Now, take c+k in C+K, then c+k+rd=k+(c+rd) is in C+K (since C is convex). Thus for every x in C+K, we have that c+rd is in C+K
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K