Intereting Posts

$P_n(x):=1+ \sum_{m=1}^n\dfrac{x^m}{m!}$ has no real root for even $n$ and exactly one real root for odd $n$
Are functions dependent
Is any type of geometry $not$ “infinitesimally Euclidean”?
Ring of $\mathbb{Z}_2$-valued functions
Paradox as to Measure of Countable Dense Subsets?
Assume that $ 1a_1+2a_2+\cdots+na_n=1$, where the $a_j$ are real numbers.
Nowhere continuous function limit
$C$ be the curve of intersection of sphere $x^2+y^2+z^2=a^2$ and plane $x+y+z=0$ ; to evaluate $\int_C ydx + z dy +x dz$ by Stoke's theorem?
Counterexample for a non-measurable function?
Does having a codimension-1 embedding of a closed manifold $M^n \subset \mathbb{R}^{n+1}$ require $M$ to be orientable?
Does $A^{-1}A=G$ imply that $AA^{-1}=G$?
If the infinite cardinals aleph-null, aleph-two, etc. continue indefinitely, is there any meaning in the idea of aleph-aleph-null?
Why is a projection matrix symmetric?
How prove this inequality $\frac{a-b}{b+c}+\frac{b-c}{c+d}+\frac{c-d}{d+e}+\frac{d-e}{e+a}+\frac{e-a}{a+b}\ge 0$
Is this a measure on the sigma algebra of countable and cocountable subsets of R?

A friend of mind had a question that I couldn’t answer. It is well-known that if $K$ is a closed, convex subset of a Hilbert space $H$ (say over the reals) then, for any point $p \in H$, there exists a *unique* point $p’$ in $K$ closest to $p$. We would like to know whether the following converse is true.

If $K \subset H$ is a closed subset such that, for all points $p \in H$, there exists a unique point $p’ \in K$ closest to $p$, does it follows that $K$ is convex?

I’m not sure what the answer is – even when $H$ is the plane!

- One of the diagonals in a hexagon cuts of a triangle of area $\leq 1/6^{th}$ of the hexagon
- A geometric inequality, proving $8r+2R\le AM_1+BM_2+CM_3\le 6R$
- Inequality of length of side of triangle
- The Area of an Irregular Hexagon
- parallel postulate of Euclidean geometry and curvature
- Alternate proof for $a^2+b^2+c^2\le 9R^2$

OK, I found some time to read/understand the document that Michael Biro

linked below, so I thought I would add a summary. In what follows, $K$ is a subset of the finite-dimensional Hilbert space $\mathbb{R}^n$ such that, for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, there is a unique $P(x) \in K$ as close as possible to $x$. That is, $P(x)$ is the only point in $K$ with $\| x-P(x)\| = \mathrm{dist}(x,K)$. In particular, $\mathrm{dist}(x,K)$ is positive when $x \notin K$, so $K$ is clearly closed. Another easy observation is given below.

Lemma 1.If $x \in \mathbb{R}^n \setminus K$, then $P(y) = P(x)$ for all $y$ on

the line segment joining $x$ to $P(x)$.

Proof.We have

$$ \|x – P(y)\| \leq \|x – y\| + \|y – P(y)\| \leq \|x-y\| + \|y-P(x)\| =

\|x – P(x)\|$$

whence $P(y) = P(x)$. The final equality above uses the assumption that

$y$ is on the line segment joining $x$ to $P(x)$.

It is reasonable to expect Lemma 1 to hold when $y$ is merely on

the ray extending from $P(x)$ through $x$. This is true, but far less simple to prove. In fact, the proof seems to need the Brouwer fixed point theorem. To apply Brouwer, we shall need continuity of the projection.

Lemma 2.$P$ is continuous.

Proof.Suppose $x_n \to x$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. We want to show

$P(x_n) \to P(x)$. Note the $P(x_n)$ are clearly at least bounded.

Use the Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem to reduce proving $P(x_n) \to P(x)$

to proving $P(x_{n_k}) \to P(x)$ for every subsequence such that $P(x_{n_k})$ converges. If $P(x_{n_k}) \to y \in K$, then

$$ \|x-y\| = \lim_{k \to \infty} \|x_{n_k} – P(x_{n_k})\| = \lim_{k \to

\infty} \mathrm{dist}(x_{n_k}, S) = \mathrm{dist}(x,K)$$

which implies $y=P(x)$.

We now use the Brouwer fixed point theorem to improve Lemma 1.

Lemma 3.If $x \in \mathbb{R}^n \setminus K$, then $P(y) = P(x)$ for all $y$ on the ray extending from $P(x)$ through $x$.

Proof.Suppose the whole ray does not project to $P(x)$. Using Lemmas 1 & 2, argue that $x$ can be moved out along the ray until everything on the closed segment from $P(x)$ to $x$ projects to $P(x)$, but everything further out on the ray doesnotproject to $P(x)$. Let $B$ be a closed ball centred on $x$ disjoint from $K$. Define a map $\Phi : B \to \partial B$ by sending $y \in B$ to the unique point $\Phi(y) \in \partial B$ such that $x$ is on the segment joining $P(y)$ to $\Phi(y)$. It is easy to derive an explicit formula and continuity of $\Phi$ follows from Lemma 2. By Brouwer, $\Phi$ has a fixed point. It turns out there can only be one fixed point and we will say exactly what it is. Suppose that $y$ is a fixed point of $\Phi$. Then $x$ is on the segment from $P(y)$ to $y=\Phi(y)$ so $P(y) = P(x)$ by Lemma 1. But, this determines $y$ uniquely to be the point on $\partial B$ antipodal to $P(x)$. But, now we have a contradiction since this $y$ is beyond $x$ on the ray from $P(x)$ through $x$ and should therefore have $P(y) \neq P(x)$ by assumption.

With Lemma 3 out of the way, it is easy to prove Motzkin’s theorem using the idea in Rahul’s comment below.

Motzkin’s Theorem.Every subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with the “unique nearest point property” is convex.

Proof.Suppose that $x \in \mathbb{R}^n \setminus K$. By Lemma 3, for any point $y$ on the ray from $P(x)$ through $x$, we have $P(x) = P(y)$ so that the open ball $B_y$ centred on $y$ with $P(x)$ on the boundary is disjoint from $K$. As $y$ becomes unbounded, we see that $K$ is separated from $x$ by the half-plane through $P(x)$ with normal vector $x-P(x)$. Obviously this precludes the possibility that $x$ is a convex combination of two points in $K$.

- What is the norm of the operator $L((x_n)) \equiv \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{x_n}{\sqrt{n(n+1)}}$ on $\ell_2$?
- Generalizing $(-1)^{n}$ by using $k$th-level figurate numbers
- Transforming $2D$ outline into $3D$ plane
- Sum of Closed Operators Closable?
- Find an angle of an isosceles triangle
- Sphere packing question AGAIN.
- A Polygon is inscribed in a circle $\Gamma$
- Tracing a curve along itself - can the result have holes?
- Volume of a hypersphere
- Complex Numbers Geometry

It’s true in Euclidean space, but not in general unless $K$ is weakly closed. You can see a proof for Euclidean space here

the answer is no!

Let $H=\mathbb R$ (real numbers), and take $K=[1,2]\cup [3,4]$. ($\cup$ means union)

then K has the closest point property while it is not convex!

- When the trig functions moved from the right triangle to the unit circle?
- What is the set-theoretic definition of a function?
- ZF Set Theory – If $|A|^{|B|} = |B|$, then $|A| = 1 = |B|.$
- Showing that $(A_{ij})=\left(\frac1{1+x_i+x_j}\right)$ is positive semidefinite
- Least number of weights required to weigh integer weights
- Are these definitions of submanifold equivalent?
- Calculating the divisors of the coordinate functions on an elliptic curve
- Prove that $3\sum\limits_{i=0}^k\binom{n}{3i}\leq2^n+2$
- Why is $b^x \overset{\mathrm{def}}{=} \sup \left\{ b^t \mid t \in \Bbb Q,\ t \le x \right\}$ for $b > 1$ a sensible definition?
- Vandermonde Determinant
- Why is the Logarithm of a negative number undefined?
- Residue integral: $\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} \frac{e^{ax}}{1+e^x} dx$ with $0 \lt a \lt 1$.
- How to prove $\gcd(a^2,b^2) = (\gcd(a,b))^2$?
- Prove a square is homeomorphic to a circle
- Proving the congruence $p^{q-1}+q^{p-1} \equiv 1 \pmod{pq}$