Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a21e8809fe0814c2

Jump to content

Talk:Relative interior

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Zfeinst in topic Possible error

Possible error

[edit]

The equivalent definition seems incorrectly stated. The relative interior as given would appear to be the entire set, since any point in the set can be written as a combination of half itself and half itself again, meeting the criteria. Also, it cannot be straightforwardly adapted to be correct, because requiring the other two points be different from the original does not explain how the relative interior of a single point is the point itself.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.16.79 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

While I will look for a reference for that secondary definition, your argument against it isn't correct. This definition says: (convex) if and only if for every there exists a such that lies on the line between and and . So there is the error that for some point then and that would automatically mean , but otherwise you need more than just the point to lie on a single line but instead on all possible lines in the set. I hope I explained that well. Zfeinst (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
You were right that this formula was incorrect. I have found 2 books with a correct definition for finite dimensional convex sets. Zfeinst (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Relative interior is much more general concept and it can defined for any topological space. It has nothing to do with vector/affine spaces in particular. This needs to be explained. -- David — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Pal (talkcontribs) 05:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)Reply


I don't understand why any metric will work for the epsilon balls. If we take for example the discrete metric, we will find that B_{\epsilon}(x) = {x}, thus we can't speak of an interior at all. If we take for example the n-sphere with edge, than the relative interior will be simple the sphere without it's edge, but with the discrete metric it will be the whole sphere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.21.97 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)Reply