Separation Theorem. Given a convex and closed set S⊂RdS \subset \mathbb{R}^d and a point p∉Sp \notin S, there is a separation plane between SS and pp.

Proof. Define δ=min⁡{∥s−p∥:s∈S}\delta = \min \{ \Vert s - p \Vert : s \in S \}, where ∥⋅∥\Vert \cdot \Vert is the ℓ2\ell_2 norm.

Lemma. There is a point s⋆∈Ss^\star \in S that achieves ∥s⋆−p∥=δ\Vert s^\star - p \Vert = \delta.

Proof:

  1. Pick arbitrary point s∈Ss \in S and let r=∥s−p∥r = \Vert s - p \Vert.
  2. Define S′=S∩{∥x−p∥≤r}S' = S \cap \{\Vert x - p \Vert \le r \}. Observe that S′S' is nonempty, bounded, and closed.
  3. Define a function f:S′→Rf: S' \rightarrow R as f(s)=∥s−p∥f(s) = \Vert s - p \Vert, which is a continuous.
  4. Since S′S' is bounded and closed, there exists a point s⋆s^\star that minimizes f(s)f(s).
  5. We claim that f(s⋆)=δf(s^\star) = \delta. Otherwise, there is a point s′′∈Ss'' \in S, s.t., f(s⋆)>∥s′′−p∥>δf(s^\star) > \Vert s'' - p\Vert > \delta. But this implies s′′∈S′s'' \in S', a contradicting s⋆=min⁡s∈S′f(s)s^\star = \min_{s \in S'} f(s).

□\square

Lemma. s⋆s^\star is unique.

Proof: The uniqueness results from the convexity of SS. If not, let s′′s'' be another optimal point. Now ∥q−s′∥=δ\Vert q - s'\Vert = \delta and ∥q−s′′∥=δ\Vert q - s''\Vert = \delta. The middle point between s′s' and s′′s'' is clearly closer to pp than both s′s' and s′′s'', as

∥p−(s′+s′′)/2∥=∥(p−s′)/2+(p−s′′)/2∥≤1/2∥p−s′∥+1/2∥p−s′′∥=δ \Vert p - (s' + s'') / 2\Vert = \Vert (p - s') / 2 + (p - s'') / 2\Vert \le 1/2 \Vert p - s'\Vert + 1/2 \Vert p - s''\Vert = \delta

The inequality is tight if s′≠s′′s' \neq s''. Therefore, we use s⋆s^\star to indicate the unique point.

□\square

Lemma. (p−s⋆)T(x−s⋆)=0(p - s^\star)^T(x - s^\star) = 0 is a separation plane between SS and pp.

Proof.

First, observe that (p−s⋆)T(p−s⋆)=δ2>0(p - s^\star)^T(p - s^\star) = \delta^2 > 0 since p∉Sp \notin S and SS is closed.

Further, for each s∈Ss \in S, let

  • a=s⋆−pa = s^\star - p, and
  • b=s−s⋆b = s - s^\star.

We claim that <b,a>≥0\left< b, a \right> \ge 0.

For all λ∈(0,1)\lambda \in (0, 1), by convexity, λ⋅(s−s⋆)+s⋆∈S\lambda \cdot (s - s^\star) + s^\star \in S. By the definition of s⋆s^\star,

∥λ(s−s⋆)+s⋆−p∥2≥∥p−s⋆∥2=∥a∥2. \Vert \lambda(s - s^\star) + s^\star - p\Vert ^2 \ge \Vert p - s^\star\Vert ^2 = \Vert a \Vert ^2.

On the other hand,

∥λ(s−s⋆)+s⋆−p∥2=λ2∥b∥2+2λ<b,a>+∥a∥2 \Vert \lambda(s - s^\star) + s^\star - p\Vert ^2 = \lambda^2 \Vert b \Vert ^2 + 2 \lambda \left< b, a \right> + \Vert a \Vert ^2

Therefore, λ2∥b∥2+2λ<b,a>≥0\lambda^2 \Vert b \Vert ^2 + 2 \lambda \left< b, a \right> \ge 0. As λ→0\lambda\rightarrow 0, we obtained the desired result.

□\square

Corollary. Given a convex and closed set S⊂RdS \subset \mathbb{R}^d and a point p∈∂Sp \in \partial S (the boundary of SS), there is supporting hyperplane passing through pp and containing SS in one of its half-spaces.

Proof. Since p∈∂Sp \in \partial S, there is a countable, bounded sequence of points pkp_k such that pk∉Sp_k \notin S and pk→pp_k \rightarrow p.

Let sks_k be the projection of pkp_k to SS. Clearly ∥sk−pk∥≤∥p−pk∥\Vert s_k - p_k \Vert \le \Vert p - p_k \Vert. By triangle inequality,

∥sk−p∥≤∥sk−pk∥+∥pk−p∥≤2∥p−pk∥→0. \Vert s_k - p \Vert \le \Vert s_k - p_k \Vert + \Vert p_k - p \Vert \le 2 \Vert p - p_k \Vert \rightarrow 0.

It follows that sk→ps_k \rightarrow p.

For each pkp_k, we can find a supporting hyperplane fk(x)=<ak,x−pk>f_k (x) = \left< a_k, x - p_k \right>, such that

  1. ∥ak∥≠0\Vert a_k \Vert \neq 0 and,
  2. <ak,s−sk>≥0\left< a_k, s - s_k \right> \ge 0 for all s∈Ss \in S, where sks_k is the projection of pkp_k to SS.

Replacing aka_k by ak/∥ak∥a_k / \Vert a_k \Vert, we can assume without lose of generality that ∥ak∥=1\Vert a_k \Vert = 1.

The sequence {ak}\{ a_k \} is therefore bounded. There is a converging subsequence {aℓ}\{ a_\ell \} of {ak}\{ a_k \} such that aℓ→aa_\ell \rightarrow a.
Finally,

lim⁡<aℓ,s−sℓ>=<a,s−p>≥0. \lim \left< a_\ell, s - s_\ell \right> = \left< a, s - p\right> \ge 0.

■\blacksquare