Suppose K contains at least two points. For every ε>0, there exists a partition of K into two non-empty subsets K1 and K2, having the following properties :
a) K1 is convex and compact ; b) we have ∥x1−x2∥<ε for every x1 and x2 in K2.
Let L be the closure of the set of all extremal points of K. By the Krein-Milman th. (II, p. 55, th. 1), K is the closed convex envelope of L. Since K contains at least two points, so does L. For every x∈L, let Ax be the set of all y∈L such that ∥x−y∥≤ε/4. By the hypothesis, on K, there exists a countable subset D of L such that L=⋃x∈DAx. Since the norm is lower semi-continuous, each of the sets Ax is closed. Applying Baire’s th. (GT, IX, § 5, No. 3, th. 1) to the compact space L, we see that there exists a point a in D and an open subset U in E such that L∩U is non-empty and is contained in Aa. Since L contains at least two points, and since E is Hausdorff, we can choose U in such a way that L∈/U.
Let M be the closed convex envelope of L∩∁U. For every real number t such that 0<t<1, let Mt be the set of all vectors of the form tx1+(1−t)x2 with x1∈M and x2∈K; this is a non-empty, compact convex subset of K. We shall prove that Mt=K by reductio ad absurdum. Suppose that Mt=K; then every extremal point x in K belongs to Mt, hence can be written in the form x=tx1+(1−t)x2 with x1∈M and x2∈K. This implies that x=x1=x2, and so x∈M. By Krein-Milman th. (II, p. 55, th. 1), we have K=M, and K is the closed convex envelope of L∩∁U. By II, p. 56, corollary, this implies that L⊂L∩∁U, which contradicts the relation L∩U=∅.
Put d=supx∈K,y∈K∥x−y∥ and choose a real number t such that 0<t<1 and t<ε/4d. Put K1=Mt and K2=K−Mt. By the preceding argument, the sets K1 and K2 are non-empty, and K1 is convex and compact. Let M′ be the closed convex envelope of L∩U. Since K is the closed convex envelope of the set L=(L∩∁U)∪(L∩U), it is also the closed convex envelope of M∪M′. Let x1 and x2 be two points in K2; for i=1,2, there exist yi∈M, zi∈M′ and a real number αi such that 0≤αi≤1 and xi=αiyi+(1−αi)zi. If αi≥t, then
xi=tyi+(1−t){1−tαi−tyi+1−t1−αizi} ; this contradicts the assumption that
xi∈/Mi. Hence
αi<t, for
i=1,2, and so
∥xi−zi∥=∥αi(yi−zi)∥=αi∥yi−zi∥≤αid<dt<ε/4. For every point
z in
M′, we have
∥z−a∥≤ε/4, since
L∩U⊂Aa, and so, in particular
∥zi−a∥≤ε/4. Thus
∥x1−x2∥≤i=1∑2(∥xi−zi∥+∥zi−a∥)<ε. This completes the proof.
Bourbaki puts the proof directly after the statement, so what is above is the statement and its proof together.
Nothing.