So, I’ve written now on Radon’s theorem and Carathéodory’s theorem, but I have yet to complete the trifecta of results in combinatorial geometry; I have yet to say anything about Helly’s theorem. Helly’s theorem says that if we have a finite collection of convex sets in with the property that every subcollection of
sets has nonempty intersection, then the entire collection has nonempty intersection. More precisely:
Theorem 1. (Helly) Let
, where
, be a finite collection of convex sets in
. If, for every
sets
,
then
We will prove Helly’s theorem using Radon’s theorem and in fact, the theorems of Helly, Radon, and Carathéodory are equivalent. I neither know the proof of this equivalence nor have a reference for a proof at hand, but I will try to find one–please drop me a comment if you have a reference! Before we prove Helly’s theorem, I want to make a couple observations on the necessity of the hypotheses.
The theorem is false if we drop the hypothesis that the are convex. Indeed, let
, and let
be a collection of distinct points in
. For each
, define the nonconvex set
Clearly, , but for any
sets
, the intersection consists of the point
.
The theorem is also false if we relax the hypothesis to every collection of subsets has nonempty intersection. Let
, and consider the collection of closed balls
and open ball
of radius
centered at
, and
, respectively. It is clear that any two balls intersect nontrivially, but the intersection of all three must be empty since
. Here’s a picture:
Proof of Theorem 1. We proceed by induction on . In the base case
, there is nothing to prove, so assume that the theorem is true for
. Then by the induction hypothesis, for any
, there exists a point
such that
If , for distinct indices
and
, then we’re done. Otherwise, by Radon’s theorem, there exists disjoint subsets
and
of
such that the intersection
contains a point . I claim that
. Indeed, we can write
,
where and
. For any
,
. Since the sets
are convex,
. Similarly, for any
,
and therefore
. We conclude that
If we don’t impose any topological conditions on the sets , then the theorem is false for infinite collections. Simply consider the collection of intervals
, for
. However, if we also require the sets
to be compact, then Helly’s theorem is true for infinite collections.
Corollary 2. Let
, where
, be a (possibly infinite) collection of compact, convex subsets of
. If, for any distinct
,
then
.
Proof. For any finite subset , the intersection
is nonempty by Helly’s theorem. Fix some
and consider the collection
of nonempty subsets of
. Since
is compact, the intersection
if and only if there exists some finite subset of indices such that
.
Helly’s theorem has many applications, as I have learned from reading Alexander Barvinok’s A Course in Convexity, which has served as the reference for this post as well as others on combinatorial geometry. The author covers a broad range of topics in convexity and has included many challenging exercises. My only complaint is that most of the applications are still theoretical, but this is to be expected given that it’s a “pure math” text.
One of the applications of Helly’s theorem is proving the existence of a hyperplane strictly separating disjoint finite sets in and
in
. The result is known as Kirchberger’s theorem, proven by P. Kirchberger in 1903, predating Helly’s theorem.
Theorem 2. (Kirchberger’s Theorem) Suppose that for any set
with
, there exists a hyperplane which strictly separates
and
. Then there exists a hyperplane which strictly separates the sets
and
. Then there exists a hyperplane which strictly separates
and
.
Proof. Note that since any hyperplane in
is of the form
, where
and
, there is a bijection between hyperplanes in
and points
.
For any points and
, we define sets in
by
I claim that are convex, open sets. For convexity, observe that
The argument for is completely analogous. To see that
and
are open, fix
and let
. If
satisfies
and
, then
Hence, contains the open neighborhood
. A completely analogous argument shows that
is open.
If we can show that, for any subset consisting of at most
points, the intersection
,
then by Helly’s theorem,
Since and
are open, for any
and
, the intersection of finitely many sets
is open. This intersection is nonempty if and only if it contains a point
, where
(otherwise, the strict inequalities
and
cannot hold). But such a point exists by our hypothesis that, for any such set
, there exists a hyperplane which strictly separates
and
.
We conclude that there exists a point in such that
which is equivalent to the existence of a hyperplane strictly separating and
.

Pingback: Helly’s Theorem and Applications II: Jung’s Theorem | Math by Matt