3 ms·
No, it's not standard. I doubt that it is in Counterexamples in Analysis, one of my favorite books. No, don't need a non-empty interior for the closed set. T
by graycat 10y ago
No, it's not standard. I doubt that it is in Counterexamples in Analysis, one of my favorite books.
No, don't need a non-empty interior for the closed set. The closed set can even be empty. The function is to be zero on the closed set and positive otherwise. For a single point could use just the squared distance to the point, i.e., a parabola.
For a closed set like the Mandelbrot set and for the general case, have to try harder.
For a fast version of the proof, outside the closed set is an open set. If it is empty, then just let the function f = 0.
Else in that open set, pick a countable dense set. Roughly for each point in that countable dense set, solve the problem for that set, and then add all the countably many partial solutions in a convergent way.
A key is a Baby Rudin exercise of a function g: R --> R where
g(x) = 0 for x <= 0
g(x) > 0 for x > 0
and g is infinitely differentiable.
Sure, g is based on an exponential.
Then for f: R^2, at each of the
countably many points, spin g
to make a smooth hill where the
bottom of the hill just touches the
closed set C. The spin, being
intuitive here, also works for f: R^n.
Sure, for each of the countably infinitely many points, the spin, in g(z), z is the
distance to the to the point. I'm being
intuitive and sloppy here to be brief and easier to understand.
Then in R^2, at the origin,
for each positive rational of the
form p/q in lowest terms,
have a ray from the origin
at angle p radians and
length 1/q. That's a bizarre
closed set. Then at
the origin, the Zangwill and
KTCQ don't agree, are independent.
Here, again, I'm being
brief.
- petters 10y agoSorry, I misread the theorem earlier. Thanks!