An “open-strict” Version of Hahn Banach Separation Theorem?
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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
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
functional-analysis convex-analysis hahn-banach-theorem
asked Jan 1 at 20:21
pitariver
17518
17518
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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?
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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?
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
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?
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
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?
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?
edited yesterday
answered Jan 1 at 23:13
SmileyCraft
2,971416
2,971416
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
Roughly speaking, scalar multiplication is continuous exactly by the "algebraically openness" property, and vector addition is continuous because the property is invariant under translation.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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 $delta>0$, $vert lambda - lambda_0 vert < delta implies lambda V subset U$
– pitariver
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
@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.
– SmileyCraft
2 days ago
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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.
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
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!
– pitariver
yesterday
|
show 3 more comments
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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