Separation Theorem. Given a convex and closed set S⊂Rd and a point p∈/S, there is a separation plane between S and p.
Proof.
Define δ=min{∥s−p∥:s∈S}, where ∥⋅∥ is the ℓ2 norm.
Lemma. There is a point s⋆∈S that achieves ∥s⋆−p∥=δ.
Proof:
Pick arbitrary point s∈S and let r=∥s−p∥.
Define S′=S∩{∥x−p∥≤r}. Observe that S′ is nonempty, bounded, and closed.
Define a function f:S′→R as f(s)=∥s−p∥, which is a continuous.
Since S′ is bounded and closed, there exists a point s⋆ that minimizes f(s).
We claim that f(s⋆)=δ. Otherwise, there is a point s′′∈S, s.t., f(s⋆)>∥s′′−p∥>δ. But this implies s′′∈S′, a contradicting s⋆=mins∈S′f(s).
□
Lemma.s⋆ is unique.
Proof: The uniqueness results from the convexity of S. If not, let s′′ be another optimal point. Now ∥q−s′∥=δ and ∥q−s′′∥=δ. The middle point between s′ and s′′ is clearly closer to p than both s′ and s′′, as
The inequality is tight if s′=s′′. Therefore, we use s⋆ to indicate the unique point.
□
Lemma.(p−s⋆)T(x−s⋆)=0 is a separation plane between S and p.
Proof.
First, observe that (p−s⋆)T(p−s⋆)=δ2>0 since p∈/S and S is closed.
Further, for each s∈S, let
a=s⋆−p, and
b=s−s⋆.
We claim that ⟨b,a⟩≥0.
For all λ∈(0,1), by convexity, λ⋅(s−s⋆)+s⋆∈S.
By the definition of s⋆,
∥λ(s−s⋆)+s⋆−p∥2≥∥p−s⋆∥2=∥a∥2.
On the other hand,
∥λ(s−s⋆)+s⋆−p∥2=λ2∥b∥2+2λ⟨b,a⟩+∥a∥2
Therefore, λ2∥b∥2+2λ⟨b,a⟩≥0. As λ→0, we obtained the desired result.
□
Corollary. Given a convex and closed set S⊂Rd and a point p∈∂S (the boundary of S), there is supporting hyperplane passing through p and containing S in one of its half-spaces.
Proof.
Since p∈∂S, there is a countable, bounded sequence of points pk such that pk∈/S and pk→p.
Let sk be the projection of pk to S.
Clearly ∥sk−pk∥≤∥p−pk∥.
By triangle inequality,
∥sk−p∥≤∥sk−pk∥+∥pk−p∥≤2∥p−pk∥→0.
It follows that sk→p.
For each pk, we can find a supporting hyperplane fk(x)=⟨ak,x−pk⟩, such that
∥ak∥=0 and,
⟨ak,s−sk⟩≥0 for all s∈S, where sk is the projection of pk to S.
Replacing ak by ak/∥ak∥, we can assume without lose of generality that ∥ak∥=1.
The sequence {ak} is therefore bounded.
There is a converging subsequence {aℓ} of {ak} such that aℓ→a.
Finally,