2
$\begingroup$

Let $\ M\ $ be the family of all non-empty bounded regular open subsets of $\ \Bbb R,\ $ where regular means that every $\ G\in M\ $ is equal to the interior of its closure.

Let distance $\ d(G\ H)\ $ be the Hausdorff distance between the closures of $\ G\ $ and $\ H,\ $ for every $\ G\ H\,\in\,M.$

QUESTION: does there exist a function $\ s:\, M\to\Bbb R\ $ that is a metric selection, meaning that:

  • $\forall_{G\in M}\quad s(G)\in G;$

  • $\forall_{G\ H\,\in\,M}\quad |s(G)-s(H)|\ \le\ d(G\ H);$   ?

If yes,

  • can selection $\ s\ $ be injective?

==============================

There are a plethora of similar questions. For instance, one may consider metric spaces different from $\ \Bbb R,\ $ e.g. open interval $\ (-1;1)\ $ or perhaps more interestingly, the two-dimensional Euclidean sphere $\ \Bbb S^2,\ $ etc.

It'd be exciting to know how the existence of Hausdorff metric selector depends on the metric space -- say, would the answer be different for different but topologically equivalent metrics of the same topological metrizable space?

==========================

One could also ask about Lipschitz selectors (with a fixed constant or arbitrary Lipschitz; or even all continuous, etc.) rather than metric. In particular, condition $\ Lip_2\ $ would provide a much larger family of selectors, when the above metric constrain on selector $\ s\ $ is relaxed to:

$$\forall_{G\ H\,\in\,M}\quad |s(G)-s(H)|\ \le\ 2\cdot d(G\ H).$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you include the "regular" hypothesis? $\endgroup$ – Ethan Dlugie May 14 at 4:45
  • $\begingroup$ @EthanDlugie, it's cleaner this way. For instance, the Hausdorff distance between different open sets could be zero. It'd be a nuisance. $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 14 at 4:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I see, e.g. deleting a point from an open interval yields a distinct open set which is not distinct in the Hausdorff metric. Regularity forbids this. $\endgroup$ – Ethan Dlugie May 14 at 4:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I guess to this point, no selector exists if you remove the regularity hypothesis. For a selector must assign the same value to sets with Hausdorff distance $0$, but the open sets $G=(-1,1)$ and $H=G-\{s(g)\}$ have Hausdorff distance $0$. $\endgroup$ – Ethan Dlugie May 14 at 5:00
  • $\begingroup$ If you consider the weaker question, without demanding injectivity, then the difference between the two versions (all versus regular) doesn't matter. $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 14 at 5:25
1
$\begingroup$

No such selector exists. Retooling my comment above, let $G$ be the open interval $(-1,1)$. Take $\epsilon>0$ such that $\ \epsilon<\min(1-s(G), s(G)-1)\ $ hence the closed $\epsilon$-neighborhood of $s(G)$ is contained (comfortably) in $G$. Then $H=G-[s(G)-\epsilon,s(G)+\epsilon]$ is a union of two non-empty open subset of $G$, is regular as per your definition, and $d(G,H) = \epsilon.\ $ But by construction, no element of $H$ lies within distance $\epsilon$ of $s(G)$.

Clearly the problem here is that you're working with open bounded sets, so they don't contain their boundary points. Maybe you can have better luck with compact sets? I thought that was usually the class of subsets to which one applies the Hausdorff metric anyway.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For compact sets, the $\min$ function works. $\endgroup$ – Ilya Bogdanov May 14 at 13:53
  • $\begingroup$ Very good! (at the time of my first reading of your solution, I had my private comprehension problems, sorry). #### <And still, your "clearly" is clearly not clear at all. I mean your general final comment which is false>. $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 15 at 1:10
1
$\begingroup$

edit

Theorem  Let $X$ be a metric space containing a homeomorphic copy of the interval $(0, 1)$. Then the regular open sets of $X$ do not admit a uniformly continuous choice function.

I'll show just the case $X = (-2, 2)$ (the interval) and skip the epsilon-delta details and the fact there could be stuff around the embedded path, since the details of this are very similar to the original (see below).

(Note that a choice function admitting an $f$-metric choice function just means uniform continuity from $(S, d_H|_{S \times S})$ to $X$ with $f$ the modulus of continuity.)

For $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ define $$ U_n = (\arctan(n)/\frac{\pi}{2} - \epsilon_n, \arctan(n)/\frac{\pi}{2} + \epsilon_n) $$ where $\epsilon_n$ are sufficiently small so that these sets are disjoint. So we have "order type $\zeta$ many" open intervals side by side inside $(-1,1) \subset X$. Each $U_n$ is a regular open set in $(-1,1) \subset X$, and $U_n \cap U_m = \emptyset$ if $n \neq m$. The union of all these, $U = \bigcup_n U_n$, is also easily seen to be regular open.

Now suppose $g$ is a choice function for regular opens. Then $g(U) \in U_n$ for some $n \in \mathbb{Z}$. Slide $U_L = \bigcup_{m \leq n} U_m$ continuously to the left side of $X$, join it to a single component and morph it into the interval $V_L = (-5/3,-4/3)$. Slide then $U_R = \bigcup_{m > n} U_m$ to the right side, join it to a single component and morph it to $V_R = (4/3,5/3)$. The choice must follow along, i.e. $$ g(U) \in U_L \implies g(V_L \cup V_R) \in V_L. $$

But if we define $U_L' = \bigcup_{m < n} U_m$ and $U_R' = \bigcup_{m \geq n} U_m$, and do the exact same with these sets, we get $$ g(U) \in U_R' \implies g(V_L \cup V_R) \in V_R. $$

That is the contradiction that squares up the proof.

original

OP has suggested that I write an answer based on my comment. Here's one possible statement you get from that idea, quick write-up, I'll fix later if I screwed up the epsilons.

Let $X$ be a metric space and $S \subset \mathcal{P}(X)$ a set of sets in $X$. Let $f : \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ be a function. A function $g : S \to X$ is an $f$-metric choice function for $S$ if $g(A) \in A$ for all $A \in S$, and $d(g(A), g(B)) \leq f(d_H(A, B))$ for all $A, B \in S$. We say $S$ then admits an $f$-metric choice function.

Theorem  Let $f : \mathbb{R}_+ \to \mathbb{R}_+$ satisfy $\lim_{x \to 0} f(x) = 0$ and let $X$ be a metric space containing a homeomorphic copy of $S^1$. Then the regular open sets of $X$ do not admit an $f$-metric choice function.

Proof. Let $h : S^1 \to X$ be the embedding of $S^1$ into $X$, and let $\epsilon > 0$ be such that opposite points on $S^1$ map at least distance $\epsilon$ apart form each other in the map $h$. Let $0 < \delta < \epsilon/10$ be such that $f(x) < \epsilon/10$ for $x < 3\delta$.

Identify $S^1$ as $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$. To each $a \in S^1$ associate the set $$ k(a) = k_1(a) \cup k_2(a) $$ where $$ k_1(a) = \overline{B_{\delta}(h(a))}^\circ $$ and $$ k_2(a) = \overline{B_{\delta}(h(a+1/2))}^\circ \subset X. $$ If $\delta > 0$ is small enough, $k(a)$ is regular open for all $a$. (The interior of the closure of an open set is regular open, so $k_i(a)$ is. The union of two regular opens may not be regular open in general, but since $\delta < \epsilon/10$ this happens.) Again because $\delta < \epsilon / 10$, the sets $k_1(a)$ and $k_2(a)$ are disjoint.

Suppose we had a choice function $g$ for the regular opens that is $f$-continuous. W.l.o.g. we may assume $g(k(a)) \in k_1(a)$ for some $a \in S^1$. Then by picking small enough increments, it is easy to see that in fact $g(k(a)) \in k_1(a)$ for all $a \in S^1$.

(Here's some algebra to show that in case it's not obvious: If the distance between $h(a)$ and $h(a')$ is at most $\delta$, then the distance between $k_1(a)$ and $k_2(a')$ is at least $\epsilon - 3\delta > \epsilon/10$, and $$ d_H(k(a), k(a')) \leq \max(d_H(k_1(a), k_1(a')), d_H(k_2(a), k_2(a'))) \leq 3\delta, $$ so $g(k(a')) \in k_1(a')$ whenever $g(k(a)) \in k_1(a)$ and $|a'-a|$ is small enough.)

But now we have a contradiction since $$ g(k(a)) \in k_1(a) $$ and $$ g(k(a)) = g(k(a+1/2)) \in k_1(a+1/2) = k_2(a) $$ and $k_1(a) \cap k_2(a) = \emptyset$. Square.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Your assumption about $\ X\ $ containing a topological circle is painful since it excludes $\ \Bbb R\ $ (and the homeomorphic images of $\ \Bbb R).\ $ Fortunately, you do not need the full force of your assumption. It's enough for your argument to assume that $\ X\ $ contains a non-degenerated arc, a homeomorphic image of $\ [0;1].\ $ Indeed, this will allow you to create a "similar" circle in the space of sets, which circle you can use for your modified proof. ("Similar" with respect to your goal). $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 15 at 1:44
  • $\begingroup$ To be fair, I've mentioned $\ S^2\ $ which contains circles. $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 15 at 1:57
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, the larger a space the harder to find selectors. $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 15 at 2:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Not sure how a circle in the space of sets helps. I have a different trick for an arc (for continuous choice) which I can add in a few hours. $\endgroup$ – Ville Salo May 15 at 6:13
  • $\begingroup$ Ville, you use the circle in $\ X\ $ just to use an induced circle (or closed orbit) in the space of the sets -- that's how your proof works. But when you have that circle in the space of sets (by whichever way), you don't need another one in $\ X.$ $\endgroup$ – Wlod AA May 15 at 6:40

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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