Helly's theorem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Helly's theorem for the Euclidean plane: if a family of convex sets has a nonempty intersection for every triple of sets, then the whole family has a nonempty intersection.

Helly's theorem is a basic result in discrete geometry describing the ways that convex sets may intersect each other. It was discovered by Eduard Helly in 1913,[1] but not published by him until 1923, by which time alternative proofs by Radon (1921) and König (1922) had already appeared. Helly's theorem gave rise to the notion of a Helly family.

Contents

[edit] Statement

Suppose that

X_1,X_2,\dots,X_n

is a finite collection of convex subsets of \Bbb{R}^d, where n > d. If the intersection of every d + 1 of these sets is nonempty, then the whole collection has a nonempty intersection; that is,

\bigcap_{j=1}^n X_j\ne\varnothing.

For infinite collections one has to assume compactness: If {Xα} is a collection of compact convex subsets of Rd and every subcollection of cardinality at most d + 1 has nonempty intersection, then the whole collection has nonempty intersection.

[edit] Proof

We prove the finite version, using Radon's theorem as in the proof by Radon (1921). The infinite version then follows by the finite intersection property characterization of compactness: a collection of closed subsets of a compact space has a non-empty intersection if and only if every finite subcollection has a non-empty intersection (once you fix a single set, the intersection of all others with it are closed subsets of a fixed compact space).

Suppose first that n = d + 2. By our assumptions, there is a point x1 that is in the common intersection of

X_2,X_3,\dots,X_n.

Likewise, for every

j=2,3,\dots,n

there is a point xj that is in the common intersection of all Xi with the possible exception of Xj. We now apply Radon's theorem to the set

A=\{x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n\}.

Radon's theorem tells us that there are disjoint subsets A_1,A_2\subset A such that the convex hull of A1 intersects the convex hull of A2. Suppose that p is a point in the intersection of these two convex hulls. We claim that

p\in\bigcap_{j=1}^n X_j.

Indeed, consider any j\in\{1,2,...,n\}. Note that the only element of A that is not in Xj is xj. If x_j\in A_1, then x_j\notin A_2, and therefore X_j\supset A_2. Since Xj is convex, it then also contains the convex hull of A2 and therefore also p\in X_j. Likewise, if x_j\notin A_1, then X_j\supset A_1, and by the same reasoning p\in X_j. Since p is in every Xj, it must also be in the intersection.

Above, we have assumed that the points x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n are all distinct. If this is not the case, say xi = xk for some i\ne k, then xi is in every one of the sets Xj, and again we conclude that the intersection is nonempty. This completes the proof in the case n = d + 2.

Now suppose that n > d + 2 and that the statement is true for n − 1, by induction. The above argument shows that any subcollection of d + 2 sets will have nonempty intersection. We may then consider the collection where we replace the two sets Xn − 1 and Xn with the single set

X_{n-1}\cap X_n.

In this new collection, every subcollection of d + 1 sets will have nonempty intersection. The inductive hypothesis therefore applies, and shows that this new collection has nonempty intersection. This implies the same for the original collection, and completes the proof.

[edit] See also

[edit] Notes

[edit] References

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export
Languages