An “open-strict” Version of Hahn Banach Separation Theorem?












2












$begingroup$


Is the following statement true?



Let $X$ be a real linear space, $A,B subset X$ two disjoint convex sets with the following "algebraic openness" property: Every $x in A$ is an internal point of A, and so is every point of B and internal point of B. Then there exists a linear functional $f:X rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $t in mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x in A, y in B$ we have
$$ f(x) < t < f(y)$$



A similar version (but in the context of TVS and one of the sets is open) is given in Wikipedia, Note that it only admits a "half strict" separation. I believe that it is still true when topological openness is replaced by the "algebraic openness" definition given here, but the question is if I assume both sets are "algebraically open", is it true that I can get a strict separation from both sides? Any help is appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Is the following statement true?



    Let $X$ be a real linear space, $A,B subset X$ two disjoint convex sets with the following "algebraic openness" property: Every $x in A$ is an internal point of A, and so is every point of B and internal point of B. Then there exists a linear functional $f:X rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $t in mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x in A, y in B$ we have
    $$ f(x) < t < f(y)$$



    A similar version (but in the context of TVS and one of the sets is open) is given in Wikipedia, Note that it only admits a "half strict" separation. I believe that it is still true when topological openness is replaced by the "algebraic openness" definition given here, but the question is if I assume both sets are "algebraically open", is it true that I can get a strict separation from both sides? Any help is appreciated.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2


      1



      $begingroup$


      Is the following statement true?



      Let $X$ be a real linear space, $A,B subset X$ two disjoint convex sets with the following "algebraic openness" property: Every $x in A$ is an internal point of A, and so is every point of B and internal point of B. Then there exists a linear functional $f:X rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $t in mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x in A, y in B$ we have
      $$ f(x) < t < f(y)$$



      A similar version (but in the context of TVS and one of the sets is open) is given in Wikipedia, Note that it only admits a "half strict" separation. I believe that it is still true when topological openness is replaced by the "algebraic openness" definition given here, but the question is if I assume both sets are "algebraically open", is it true that I can get a strict separation from both sides? Any help is appreciated.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Is the following statement true?



      Let $X$ be a real linear space, $A,B subset X$ two disjoint convex sets with the following "algebraic openness" property: Every $x in A$ is an internal point of A, and so is every point of B and internal point of B. Then there exists a linear functional $f:X rightarrow mathbb{R}$ and $t in mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x in A, y in B$ we have
      $$ f(x) < t < f(y)$$



      A similar version (but in the context of TVS and one of the sets is open) is given in Wikipedia, Note that it only admits a "half strict" separation. I believe that it is still true when topological openness is replaced by the "algebraic openness" definition given here, but the question is if I assume both sets are "algebraically open", is it true that I can get a strict separation from both sides? Any help is appreciated.







      functional-analysis convex-analysis hahn-banach-theorem






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 1 at 20:21









      pitariverpitariver

      444213




      444213






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1












          $begingroup$

          IMPORTANT EDIT: A theorem related to the question stated in the OP can be found here. Theorem 4 states: If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint convex sets in $X$ and $A$ has an internal point, then $A$ and $B$ can be (weakly) separated. That is, there exists $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{R}$ such that $$sup_{ain A}f(a)leqinf_{bin B}f(b).$$



          EDIT 2: We can use this theorem to answer the question in the OP. This follows from the following proposition.



          Proposition: Let $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ be linear and non-zero. Then for any $A$ obeying the "algebraic openness" property, we have that $f(A)$ is open.



          Proof: Let $tin f(A)$. So $f(a)=t$ for some $ain A$. Because $f$ is non-zero, we find some $xin X$ such that $f(x)>0$. By the "algebraic openness" property of $A$, there exists $varepsilon>0$ such that $a+(-varepsilon,varepsilon)cdot xsubset A$. Hence, $(t-varepsilon f(x),t+varepsilon f(x))subseteq f(A)$, so $f(A)$ is open.



          Combining the two results, we have for all $ain A$ and $bin B$ that $$f(a)<sup_{alphain A}f(alpha)leqinf_{betain B}f(beta)<f(b).$$



          ORIGINAL ANSWER: The set of all sets with your "algebraic openness" property makes $X$ a topological vector space. Hence, if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, convex and open in this topology, then there exists a continuous linear functional $phi$ and a constant $sinmathbb{R}$ such that $phi(a)<sleqphi(b)$ for all $ain A$ and $bin B$. But there also exists a continuous linear functional $psi$ and a constant $tinmathbb{R}$ such that $psi(b)<tleqpsi(a)$ for all $bin B$ and $ain A$. Then $f:=phi-psi$ is a continuous linear functional such that $f(a)<s-t<f(b)$ holds for all $ain A$ and $bin B$.



          EDIT 3: We now know that the "algebraic openness" property does not define a topological vector space. Do algebraically open sets define a vector space topology?






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 0:25










          • $begingroup$
            @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 6:03












          • $begingroup$
            @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 15:11










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:45












          • $begingroup$
            Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:50












          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058837%2fan-open-strict-version-of-hahn-banach-separation-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1












          $begingroup$

          IMPORTANT EDIT: A theorem related to the question stated in the OP can be found here. Theorem 4 states: If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint convex sets in $X$ and $A$ has an internal point, then $A$ and $B$ can be (weakly) separated. That is, there exists $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{R}$ such that $$sup_{ain A}f(a)leqinf_{bin B}f(b).$$



          EDIT 2: We can use this theorem to answer the question in the OP. This follows from the following proposition.



          Proposition: Let $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ be linear and non-zero. Then for any $A$ obeying the "algebraic openness" property, we have that $f(A)$ is open.



          Proof: Let $tin f(A)$. So $f(a)=t$ for some $ain A$. Because $f$ is non-zero, we find some $xin X$ such that $f(x)>0$. By the "algebraic openness" property of $A$, there exists $varepsilon>0$ such that $a+(-varepsilon,varepsilon)cdot xsubset A$. Hence, $(t-varepsilon f(x),t+varepsilon f(x))subseteq f(A)$, so $f(A)$ is open.



          Combining the two results, we have for all $ain A$ and $bin B$ that $$f(a)<sup_{alphain A}f(alpha)leqinf_{betain B}f(beta)<f(b).$$



          ORIGINAL ANSWER: The set of all sets with your "algebraic openness" property makes $X$ a topological vector space. Hence, if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, convex and open in this topology, then there exists a continuous linear functional $phi$ and a constant $sinmathbb{R}$ such that $phi(a)<sleqphi(b)$ for all $ain A$ and $bin B$. But there also exists a continuous linear functional $psi$ and a constant $tinmathbb{R}$ such that $psi(b)<tleqpsi(a)$ for all $bin B$ and $ain A$. Then $f:=phi-psi$ is a continuous linear functional such that $f(a)<s-t<f(b)$ holds for all $ain A$ and $bin B$.



          EDIT 3: We now know that the "algebraic openness" property does not define a topological vector space. Do algebraically open sets define a vector space topology?






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 0:25










          • $begingroup$
            @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 6:03












          • $begingroup$
            @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 15:11










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:45












          • $begingroup$
            Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:50
















          1












          $begingroup$

          IMPORTANT EDIT: A theorem related to the question stated in the OP can be found here. Theorem 4 states: If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint convex sets in $X$ and $A$ has an internal point, then $A$ and $B$ can be (weakly) separated. That is, there exists $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{R}$ such that $$sup_{ain A}f(a)leqinf_{bin B}f(b).$$



          EDIT 2: We can use this theorem to answer the question in the OP. This follows from the following proposition.



          Proposition: Let $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ be linear and non-zero. Then for any $A$ obeying the "algebraic openness" property, we have that $f(A)$ is open.



          Proof: Let $tin f(A)$. So $f(a)=t$ for some $ain A$. Because $f$ is non-zero, we find some $xin X$ such that $f(x)>0$. By the "algebraic openness" property of $A$, there exists $varepsilon>0$ such that $a+(-varepsilon,varepsilon)cdot xsubset A$. Hence, $(t-varepsilon f(x),t+varepsilon f(x))subseteq f(A)$, so $f(A)$ is open.



          Combining the two results, we have for all $ain A$ and $bin B$ that $$f(a)<sup_{alphain A}f(alpha)leqinf_{betain B}f(beta)<f(b).$$



          ORIGINAL ANSWER: The set of all sets with your "algebraic openness" property makes $X$ a topological vector space. Hence, if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, convex and open in this topology, then there exists a continuous linear functional $phi$ and a constant $sinmathbb{R}$ such that $phi(a)<sleqphi(b)$ for all $ain A$ and $bin B$. But there also exists a continuous linear functional $psi$ and a constant $tinmathbb{R}$ such that $psi(b)<tleqpsi(a)$ for all $bin B$ and $ain A$. Then $f:=phi-psi$ is a continuous linear functional such that $f(a)<s-t<f(b)$ holds for all $ain A$ and $bin B$.



          EDIT 3: We now know that the "algebraic openness" property does not define a topological vector space. Do algebraically open sets define a vector space topology?






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 0:25










          • $begingroup$
            @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 6:03












          • $begingroup$
            @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 15:11










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:45












          • $begingroup$
            Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:50














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          IMPORTANT EDIT: A theorem related to the question stated in the OP can be found here. Theorem 4 states: If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint convex sets in $X$ and $A$ has an internal point, then $A$ and $B$ can be (weakly) separated. That is, there exists $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{R}$ such that $$sup_{ain A}f(a)leqinf_{bin B}f(b).$$



          EDIT 2: We can use this theorem to answer the question in the OP. This follows from the following proposition.



          Proposition: Let $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ be linear and non-zero. Then for any $A$ obeying the "algebraic openness" property, we have that $f(A)$ is open.



          Proof: Let $tin f(A)$. So $f(a)=t$ for some $ain A$. Because $f$ is non-zero, we find some $xin X$ such that $f(x)>0$. By the "algebraic openness" property of $A$, there exists $varepsilon>0$ such that $a+(-varepsilon,varepsilon)cdot xsubset A$. Hence, $(t-varepsilon f(x),t+varepsilon f(x))subseteq f(A)$, so $f(A)$ is open.



          Combining the two results, we have for all $ain A$ and $bin B$ that $$f(a)<sup_{alphain A}f(alpha)leqinf_{betain B}f(beta)<f(b).$$



          ORIGINAL ANSWER: The set of all sets with your "algebraic openness" property makes $X$ a topological vector space. Hence, if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, convex and open in this topology, then there exists a continuous linear functional $phi$ and a constant $sinmathbb{R}$ such that $phi(a)<sleqphi(b)$ for all $ain A$ and $bin B$. But there also exists a continuous linear functional $psi$ and a constant $tinmathbb{R}$ such that $psi(b)<tleqpsi(a)$ for all $bin B$ and $ain A$. Then $f:=phi-psi$ is a continuous linear functional such that $f(a)<s-t<f(b)$ holds for all $ain A$ and $bin B$.



          EDIT 3: We now know that the "algebraic openness" property does not define a topological vector space. Do algebraically open sets define a vector space topology?






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          IMPORTANT EDIT: A theorem related to the question stated in the OP can be found here. Theorem 4 states: If $A$ and $B$ are disjoint convex sets in $X$ and $A$ has an internal point, then $A$ and $B$ can be (weakly) separated. That is, there exists $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{R}$ such that $$sup_{ain A}f(a)leqinf_{bin B}f(b).$$



          EDIT 2: We can use this theorem to answer the question in the OP. This follows from the following proposition.



          Proposition: Let $f:Xtomathbb{R}$ be linear and non-zero. Then for any $A$ obeying the "algebraic openness" property, we have that $f(A)$ is open.



          Proof: Let $tin f(A)$. So $f(a)=t$ for some $ain A$. Because $f$ is non-zero, we find some $xin X$ such that $f(x)>0$. By the "algebraic openness" property of $A$, there exists $varepsilon>0$ such that $a+(-varepsilon,varepsilon)cdot xsubset A$. Hence, $(t-varepsilon f(x),t+varepsilon f(x))subseteq f(A)$, so $f(A)$ is open.



          Combining the two results, we have for all $ain A$ and $bin B$ that $$f(a)<sup_{alphain A}f(alpha)leqinf_{betain B}f(beta)<f(b).$$



          ORIGINAL ANSWER: The set of all sets with your "algebraic openness" property makes $X$ a topological vector space. Hence, if $A$ and $B$ are disjoint, convex and open in this topology, then there exists a continuous linear functional $phi$ and a constant $sinmathbb{R}$ such that $phi(a)<sleqphi(b)$ for all $ain A$ and $bin B$. But there also exists a continuous linear functional $psi$ and a constant $tinmathbb{R}$ such that $psi(b)<tleqpsi(a)$ for all $bin B$ and $ain A$. Then $f:=phi-psi$ is a continuous linear functional such that $f(a)<s-t<f(b)$ holds for all $ain A$ and $bin B$.



          EDIT 3: We now know that the "algebraic openness" property does not define a topological vector space. Do algebraically open sets define a vector space topology?







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 4 at 8:17

























          answered Jan 1 at 23:13









          SmileyCraftSmileyCraft

          3,761519




          3,761519












          • $begingroup$
            Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 0:25










          • $begingroup$
            @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 6:03












          • $begingroup$
            @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 15:11










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:45












          • $begingroup$
            Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:50


















          • $begingroup$
            Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 0:25










          • $begingroup$
            @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 6:03












          • $begingroup$
            @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
            $endgroup$
            – SmileyCraft
            Jan 3 at 15:11










          • $begingroup$
            Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:45












          • $begingroup$
            Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
            $endgroup$
            – pitariver
            Jan 3 at 18:50
















          $begingroup$
          Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
          $endgroup$
          – SmileyCraft
          Jan 3 at 0:25




          $begingroup$
          Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
          $endgroup$
          – SmileyCraft
          Jan 3 at 0:25












          $begingroup$
          @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
          $endgroup$
          – pitariver
          Jan 3 at 6:03






          $begingroup$
          @SimleyCraft I a m still not sure it's necessarily true (in anycase I understand how to solve the problem with the $phi - psi$ argument). For example why should scalar mult be continues? let $x_0 in X, lambda_0 in mathbb{R}, lambda_0 x_0 in U$ open, you would want a neighborhood of $x_0$, V, for which there exists $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
          $endgroup$
          – pitariver
          Jan 3 at 6:03














          $begingroup$
          @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
          $endgroup$
          – SmileyCraft
          Jan 3 at 15:11




          $begingroup$
          @pitariver I must admit I underestimated the difficulty of proving this fact. I did already realize the problems you mentioned, but I had some ideas of proving this, however they did not work after all. I edited the post with a new answer. However I would still love to know whether the "algebraic openness" defines a linear topology.
          $endgroup$
          – SmileyCraft
          Jan 3 at 15:11












          $begingroup$
          Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
          $endgroup$
          – pitariver
          Jan 3 at 18:45






          $begingroup$
          Thanks for the link, though sadly, it still doesn't solve the problem: I asked about a strict separation, yet Theorem 4 in the paper only guarantees "weak" separation(which I already heard of). The counter example given immediately after the theorem also doesn't tell us much about this case. I am starting to wonder whether the statement is actually true, even for the "half strict" case.
          $endgroup$
          – pitariver
          Jan 3 at 18:45














          $begingroup$
          Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
          $endgroup$
          – pitariver
          Jan 3 at 18:50




          $begingroup$
          Also in regards to the "algebraically open" sets defining a TVS, I am not entirely sure it's true. Thanks for the attention so far!
          $endgroup$
          – pitariver
          Jan 3 at 18:50


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3058837%2fan-open-strict-version-of-hahn-banach-separation-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Wiesbaden

          Marschland

          Dieringhausen