MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm looking for a proof in the literature or just a proof of:

Let $\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ be an open and bounded domain with satisfying the interior cone condition with parameters $r$ and $\theta$. Let $\Omega_\delta$ be the $\delta$-interior of $\Omega$ that is

$ \Omega_\delta = ${$x\in\Omega : dist(x,\partial\Omega)>\delta$}$ $

There is a $\delta_0$ sufficiently small such that $\Omega_\delta$ for $0<\delta<\delta_0$ satisfies the interior cone condition with parameters $r/2$ and $\theta/2$.

Note: I'm also only interested when $\Omega$ lies on one side of its boundary.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

I am assuming that you are using the same definition of interior cone condition which I have heard. That is, from every point $x \in \Omega$ there is some truncated cone from $x$ with an opening angle $\theta$ and radius $r$ inside $\Omega$.

The claim is not true. Consider the following domain:

share|cite|improve this answer
I assume the OP was using the same definition as you, but the definition of the $\varepsilon$-cone property I've seen in the literature says that for every point $x$ on the boundary there exists a ball $B(x,\delta)$ centered in $x$ and a direction $\xi_x$ such that for every $y$ in the considered ball, the cone with vertex $y$ directed by $\xi_x$ of angle and size $\varepsilon$ is in $\Omega$. Thus, the orientation of the cone must be the same in a neighborhood. Then your domain does not work. Near the accumulation point of the small rectangles you can't choose cones with a uniform direction. – Beni Bogosel Oct 8 '14 at 10:20
@BeniBogosel With the definition you gave, the question of the OP should have a quite immediate positive answer. This is because having a fixed direction for the cone inside the ball says that the boundary is a graph of a Lipschitz function there. The boundedness of $\Omega$ says that the boundary is compact and hence a finite union of Lipschitz graphs. – Tapio Rajala Oct 8 '14 at 18:00

What is true, however, is that if $\Omega$ satisfies the cone condition with $\theta$ and $r$, then each point in $\Omega_\delta$ has a $(\theta/2,r/2)$-cone attached to it and contained in $\Omega_{\delta\theta/20}$. The conclusion is that you still can exhaust your domain with domains with a uniform cone condition whose boundaries are almost equidistant to the boundary of $\Omega$ (just take the unions of those cones). Most likely, that's all you really need.

The proof is next to trivial. If $a\in\Omega_\delta$ and $K$ is the cone for $a$ in $\Omega$, then all points lying in the shrinked cone that are not more than $\delta/2$ away from $a$ are in $\Omega_{\delta/2}$ by the triangle inequality but all farther points are far even from the boundary of $K$ (here is where the aperture comes into the bounds) and, thereby, from $\partial \Omega$ as well.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.