2
$\begingroup$

Let $\Gamma(x)$ be a correspondence (i.e. a set-valued function) between two Euclidean spaces which is continuous (i.e. both lower- and upper-hemicontinuous). If $y$ is a point in the interior of $\Gamma(x_0)$ it seems plausible from drawing graphs that there should be an open set $U$ containing $x_0$ such that $y$ is in the interior of $\Gamma(x)$ for all $x \in U$.

Is this a correct theorem? I would appreciate some references or other pointers.

2 Answers 2

1

It seems that the claim does not hold. Define $\Gamma:\mathbb{R}\to\mathcal{P}(\mathbb{R})$ by $\Gamma(x)=\mathbb{Q}$, if $x\neq 0$, and $\Gamma(0)=\mathbb{R}$.

$\Gamma$ is upper hemicontinuous everywhere. Pick $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and an open neighbourhood $V$ of $\Gamma(x)$. If $x=0$, choose $U=\mathbb{R}$, and if $x\neq 0$, choose $U=\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$. Then $\Gamma(y)$ is a subset of $V$ for each $y\in U$.

$\Gamma$ is lower hemicontinuous everywhere. Pick $x\in\mathbb{R}$ and an open set $V$ intersecting $\Gamma(x)$. Note that $V$ contains a rational number, so we can choose $U=\mathbb{R}$. Certainly $\Gamma(y)$ intersects $V$ for each $y\in U$.

The claim does not hold in this case. The point $y=0$ is in the interior of $\Gamma(0)=\mathbb{R}$, but any open set $U$ containing $0$ contains another point $x$ too. Since the interior of $\Gamma(x)=\mathbb{Q}$ is empty, it certainly does not contain $y$.

  • 0
    @Jyotirmoy Bhattacharya: You are absolutely right. Thanks for pointing out the mistake. Fortunately the example still works, but we have to be a little more careful proving the upper hemicontinuousness. I fixed the answer.2011-10-08
0

If I haven't overlooked something, this should be a counterexample:

Define $\Gamma$ on $\mathbb R$ as follows: $\Gamma(x)=\begin{cases} [0,1]\setminus\mathbb Q; &x<0 \\ {[0,1]}; & x\ge 0 \end{cases}$

The above property fails for $x_0=0$ and any $y$ from the interior of $\Gamma(x_0)$.

EDIT: The following example shows that the claim is false for compact-valued multifunctions, too: $\Gamma(x)=\begin{cases} [x-1,x]\cup[-x,-x+1]; &x<0 \\ {[-1,1]}; & x\ge 0 \end{cases}$

Now $x_0=y=0$.

  • 0
    You probably wanted to reason that it is not upper hemicontinuous because it fails closed graph property or because it fails closedness under limits - see Aliprantis-Border, [p. 561, Theorem 17.10](http://books.google.com/books?id=4h$I$q6ExH7NoC&pg=PA561) $a$nd [p. 563, Theorem 17.16](http://books.google.com/books?id=4h$I$q6ExH7NoC&pg=PA563). Note th$a$t these theorems use the assumption that the correspondence is closed-valued/compact-valued.2011-10-09