TheoremBase

Four reductions: near-maximising pairs converge to the maximum point by sequential strictness; the one-sided value bounds come from the closed superlevel sets of the two functions; the remaining two follow by solving for one value in terms of the other.

Proof

Each result cited is universally quantified over the data in its own statement, and is applied here to the data named in the statement of the lemma.

Write M0=Φ(xˉ,yˉ)M_{0}=\Phi(\bar{x},\bar{y}) and R=∣xˉ−yˉ∣R=|\bar{x}-\bar{y}|, so that 0≤R0\le R by Real Inner Product Spaces (ii). By clause 1 of Sequentially Strict Maxima and Minima on a Subset of a Metric Space (i),

Φ(x,y)≤M0for every (x,y)∈A×A.\Phi(x,y)\le M_{0}\qquad\text{for every }(x,y)\in A\times A .

Fix, once and for all, a sequence (εk)k∈N(\varepsilon_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} of positive real numbers converging to 00 in (R,dR)(\mathbb{R},d_{\mathbb{R}}); such a sequence exists by Existence of a Sequence of Positive Real Numbers with Limit Zero. For x,y∈Ex,y\in E one has d(x,y)=∣x−y∣d(x,y)=|x-y| by Real Inner Product Spaces (iii), so that convergence of a sequence (xk)(x_{k}) to xx in (E,d)(E,d) means: for every positive σ∈R\sigma\in\mathbb{R} there is k0∈Nk_{0}\in\mathbb{N} with ∣xk−x∣<σ|x_{k}-x|<\sigma for every kk with k0≤kk_{0}\le k.

Claim 1 (near-maximising pairs converge). Let (xk,yk)k∈N(x_{k},y_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence in A×AA\times A with M0−εk<Φ(xk,yk)M_{0}-\varepsilon_{k}<\Phi(x_{k},y_{k}) for every k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N}. Then (xk)k∈N(x_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} converges to xˉ\bar{x} and (yk)k∈N(y_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} converges to yˉ\bar{y} in (E,d)(E,d).

Proof. For each kk we have M0−εk<Φ(xk,yk)≤M0M_{0}-\varepsilon_{k}<\Phi(x_{k},y_{k})\le M_{0}, hence 0≤M0−Φ(xk,yk)<εk0\le M_{0}-\Phi(x_{k},y_{k})<\varepsilon_{k} by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and therefore ∣Φ(xk,yk)−M0∣≤εk|\Phi(x_{k},y_{k})-M_{0}|\le\varepsilon_{k} by claims 1 and 2 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field. Since (εk)(\varepsilon_{k}) converges to 00, claim 3 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences shows that the sequence of real numbers (Φ(xk,yk))k∈N(\Phi(x_{k},y_{k}))_{k\in\mathbb{N}} converges to M0=Φ(xˉ,yˉ)M_{0}=\Phi(\bar{x},\bar{y}). The function Φ\Phi attains a sequentially strict maximum on A×AA\times A at (xˉ,yˉ)(\bar{x},\bar{y}), so clause 1 of Sequentially Strict Maxima and Minima on a Subset of a Metric Space (i) gives that the sequence ((xk,yk))k∈N((x_{k},y_{k}))_{k\in\mathbb{N}} converges to (xˉ,yˉ)(\bar{x},\bar{y}) in (E×E,d×)(E\times E,d_{\times}). The coordinate maps of Real Hilbert Spaces: Series, Products, Orthonormal Bases and Differential Calculus (ii) send (xk,yk)(x_{k},y_{k}) to xkx_{k} and to yky_{k} and (xˉ,yˉ)(\bar{x},\bar{y}) to xˉ\bar{x} and to yˉ\bar{y}, so claim 4 of Properties of the Product of Two Real Inner Product Spaces gives the assertion. This proves Claim 1.

Claim 2 (localisation of the points). For every positive ε∈R\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} there is a positive η∈R\eta\in\mathbb{R} such that every (x,y)∈A×A(x,y)\in A\times A with M0−η<Φ(x,y)M_{0}-\eta<\Phi(x,y) satisfies ∣x−xˉ∣<ε|x-\bar{x}|<\varepsilon and ∣y−yˉ∣<ε|y-\bar{y}|<\varepsilon.

Proof. Suppose the assertion fails for some positive ε\varepsilon. Then for each k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N}, failure for the positive number εk\varepsilon_{k} provides (xk,yk)∈A×A(x_{k},y_{k})\in A\times A with M0−εk<Φ(xk,yk)M_{0}-\varepsilon_{k}<\Phi(x_{k},y_{k}) for which at least one of ∣xk−xˉ∣<ε|x_{k}-\bar{x}|<\varepsilon and ∣yk−yˉ∣<ε|y_{k}-\bar{y}|<\varepsilon fails, that is, for which ε≤∣xk−xˉ∣\varepsilon\le|x_{k}-\bar{x}| or ε≤∣yk−yˉ∣\varepsilon\le|y_{k}-\bar{y}|. By Claim 1 the sequences (xk)(x_{k}) and (yk)(y_{k}) converge to xˉ\bar{x} and to yˉ\bar{y} in (E,d)(E,d), so there is k0∈Nk_{0}\in\mathbb{N} such that ∣xk−xˉ∣<ε|x_{k}-\bar{x}|<\varepsilon and ∣yk−yˉ∣<ε|y_{k}-\bar{y}|<\varepsilon both hold for every kk with k0≤kk_{0}\le k (take the larger of the two thresholds obtained for σ=ε\sigma=\varepsilon, using claim 9 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field on the corresponding indices). For k=k0k=k_{0} this contradicts the previous sentence. This proves Claim 2.

Claim 3 (one-sided value bounds). For every positive ε∈R\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} there is a positive η∈R\eta\in\mathbb{R} such that every (x,y)∈A×A(x,y)\in A\times A with M0−η<Φ(x,y)M_{0}-\eta<\Phi(x,y) satisfies

u(x)<u(xˉ)+εandv(yˉ)−ε<v(y).u(x)<u(\bar{x})+\varepsilon\qquad\text{and}\qquad v(\bar{y})-\varepsilon<v(y).

Proof. Suppose the first inequality fails to hold for all such pairs, for every positive η\eta. Then for each k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} there is (xk,yk)∈A×A(x_{k},y_{k})\in A\times A with M0−εk<Φ(xk,yk)M_{0}-\varepsilon_{k}<\Phi(x_{k},y_{k}) and u(xˉ)+ε≤u(xk)u(\bar{x})+\varepsilon\le u(x_{k}). By Claim 1 the sequence (xk)(x_{k}) lies in AA and converges to xˉ\bar{x} in (E,d)(E,d). The real number t=u(xˉ)+εt=u(\bar{x})+\varepsilon satisfies t≤u(xk)t\le u(x_{k}) for every kk, and uu has closed superlevel sets in EE, so claim 1 of Functions with Closed Superlevel Sets: Sequential Characterisation, Semicontinuity, Perturbation and Limits gives t≤u(xˉ)t\le u(\bar{x}), that is ε≤0\varepsilon\le0 by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, contradicting 0<ε0<\varepsilon. Hence some positive η′\eta' makes the first inequality hold for all pairs as described.

The second inequality is the first one applied to −v-v and yˉ\bar{y}: if for every positive η\eta some pair (x,y)∈A×A(x,y)\in A\times A with M0−η<Φ(x,y)M_{0}-\eta<\Phi(x,y) had v(y)≤v(yˉ)−εv(y)\le v(\bar{y})-\varepsilon, that is −v(yˉ)+ε≤−v(y)-v(\bar{y})+\varepsilon\le-v(y), then choosing such a pair (xk,yk)(x_{k},y_{k}) for η=εk\eta=\varepsilon_{k} and using that (yk)(y_{k}) converges to yˉ\bar{y} by Claim 1, that −v-v has closed superlevel sets in EE, and claim 1 of Functions with Closed Superlevel Sets: Sequential Characterisation, Semicontinuity, Perturbation and Limits would give −v(yˉ)+ε≤−v(yˉ)-v(\bar{y})+\varepsilon\le-v(\bar{y}), again contradicting 0<ε0<\varepsilon. Hence some positive η′′\eta'' makes the second inequality hold. Taking for η\eta the lesser of η′\eta' and η′′\eta'', positive because it is one of them (claim 9 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field), proves Claim 3.

Claim 4 (stability of the penalty). Let σ∈R\sigma\in\mathbb{R} satisfy 0<σ≤10<\sigma\le1 and let x,y∈Ex,y\in E satisfy ∣x−xˉ∣<σ|x-\bar{x}|<\sigma and ∣y−yˉ∣<σ|y-\bar{y}|<\sigma. Then

∣α2∣x−y∣2−α2R2∣ ≤ 2 ∣α∣ σ (R+1),\Bigl|\tfrac{\alpha}{2}|x-y|^{2}-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}R^{2}\Bigr|\ \le\ 2\,|\alpha|\,\sigma\,(R+1),

where R2=R RR^{2}=R\,R.

Proof. By the triangle inequality for the norm (claim 1 of The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity), applied twice in each line,

∣x−y∣≤∣x−xˉ∣+∣xˉ−yˉ∣+∣yˉ−y∣<R+2σ,R≤∣xˉ−x∣+∣x−y∣+∣y−yˉ∣<∣x−y∣+2σ,|x-y|\le|x-\bar{x}|+|\bar{x}-\bar{y}|+|\bar{y}-y|<R+2\sigma, \qquad R\le|\bar{x}-x|+|x-y|+|y-\bar{y}|<|x-y|+2\sigma,

so −2σ<∣x−y∣−R<2σ-2\sigma<|x-y|-R<2\sigma and hence ∣∣x−y∣−R∣≤2σ\bigl||x-y|-R\bigr|\le2\sigma by claim 6 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field. Since σ≤1\sigma\le1 we also have 0≤∣x−y∣+R<R+2σ+R≤2R+20\le|x-y|+R<R+2\sigma+R\le2R+2. Now ∣x−y∣2−R2=(∣x−y∣−R)(∣x−y∣+R)|x-y|^{2}-R^{2}=\bigl(|x-y|-R\bigr)\bigl(|x-y|+R\bigr), so by claim 4 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field and claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field,

∣∣x−y∣2−R2∣=∣∣x−y∣−R∣ (∣x−y∣+R)≤2σ (2R+2)=4σ (R+1).\bigl||x-y|^{2}-R^{2}\bigr|=\bigl||x-y|-R\bigr|\,\bigl(|x-y|+R\bigr)\le 2\sigma\,(2R+2)=4\sigma\,(R+1).

Multiplying by the nonnegative number ∣α∣2\tfrac{|\alpha|}{2} and using claim 4 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field again gives the claim. This proves Claim 4.

Claim 5 (the remaining value bounds). For every positive ε∈R\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} there is a positive η∈R\eta\in\mathbb{R} such that every (x,y)∈A×A(x,y)\in A\times A with M0−η<Φ(x,y)M_{0}-\eta<\Phi(x,y) satisfies

u(xˉ)−ε<u(x)andv(y)<v(yˉ)+ε.u(\bar{x})-\varepsilon<u(x)\qquad\text{and}\qquad v(y)<v(\bar{y})+\varepsilon .

Proof. Let ε\varepsilon be positive. Choose a positive σ≤1\sigma\le1 with 2∣α∣σ(R+1)<ε42|\alpha|\sigma(R+1)<\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}, as follows: if α=0\alpha=0 take σ=1\sigma=1, so that the left-hand side is 00; otherwise ∣α∣|\alpha| is positive by claim 1 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field and R+1R+1 is positive, so the quotient ε16∣α∣(R+1)\tfrac{\varepsilon}{16|\alpha|(R+1)} exists and is positive by claim 7 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and taking for σ\sigma the lesser of it and 11 gives 2∣α∣σ(R+1)≤ε8<ε42|\alpha|\sigma(R+1)\le\tfrac{\varepsilon}{8}<\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}.

Let η1\eta_{1} be a number provided by Claim 2 for σ\sigma, let η2\eta_{2} be one provided by Claim 3 for ε2\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}, and let η\eta be the least of η1\eta_{1}, η2\eta_{2} and ε4\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}, positive because it is one of them.

Let (x,y)∈A×A(x,y)\in A\times A satisfy M0−η<Φ(x,y)M_{0}-\eta<\Phi(x,y). Then ∣x−xˉ∣<σ|x-\bar{x}|<\sigma and ∣y−yˉ∣<σ|y-\bar{y}|<\sigma by Claim 2, so Claim 4 and claim 6 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field give

α2R2−ε4<α2∣x−y∣2;\tfrac{\alpha}{2}R^{2}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}<\tfrac{\alpha}{2}|x-y|^{2};

and Claim 3 gives u(x)<u(xˉ)+ε2u(x)<u(\bar{x})+\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2} and v(yˉ)−ε2<v(y)v(\bar{y})-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}<v(y). From the definition of Φ\Phi,

u(x)=Φ(x,y)+v(y)+α2∣x−y∣2>(M0−ε4)+(v(yˉ)−ε2)+(α2R2−ε4)=u(xˉ)−ε,u(x)=\Phi(x,y)+v(y)+\tfrac{\alpha}{2}|x-y|^{2} >\Bigl(M_{0}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}\Bigr)+\Bigl(v(\bar{y})-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}\Bigr)+\Bigl(\tfrac{\alpha}{2}R^{2}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}\Bigr) =u(\bar{x})-\varepsilon,

the last equality because M0=u(xˉ)−v(yˉ)−α2R2M_{0}=u(\bar{x})-v(\bar{y})-\tfrac{\alpha}{2}R^{2}. Likewise

−v(y)=Φ(x,y)−u(x)+α2∣x−y∣2>(M0−ε4)−(u(xˉ)+ε2)+(α2R2−ε4)=−v(yˉ)−ε,-v(y)=\Phi(x,y)-u(x)+\tfrac{\alpha}{2}|x-y|^{2} >\Bigl(M_{0}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}\Bigr)-\Bigl(u(\bar{x})+\tfrac{\varepsilon}{2}\Bigr)+\Bigl(\tfrac{\alpha}{2}R^{2}-\tfrac{\varepsilon}{4}\Bigr) =-v(\bar{y})-\varepsilon,

that is v(y)<v(yˉ)+εv(y)<v(\bar{y})+\varepsilon by claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. This proves Claim 5.

Conclusion. Let ε∈R\varepsilon\in\mathbb{R} be positive. Let η1\eta_{1}, η2\eta_{2} and η3\eta_{3} be numbers provided for ε\varepsilon by Claims 2, 3 and 5 respectively, and let η\eta be the least of the three, positive because it is one of them. Let (x,y)∈A×A(x,y)\in A\times A satisfy Φ(xˉ,yˉ)−η<Φ(x,y)\Phi(\bar{x},\bar{y})-\eta<\Phi(x,y). Claim 2 gives ∣x−xˉ∣<ε|x-\bar{x}|<\varepsilon and ∣y−yˉ∣<ε|y-\bar{y}|<\varepsilon. Claims 3 and 5 give

u(xˉ)−ε<u(x)<u(xˉ)+ε,v(yˉ)−ε<v(y)<v(yˉ)+ε,u(\bar{x})-\varepsilon<u(x)<u(\bar{x})+\varepsilon, \qquad v(\bar{y})-\varepsilon<v(y)<v(\bar{y})+\varepsilon,

that is −ε<u(x)−u(xˉ)<ε-\varepsilon<u(x)-u(\bar{x})<\varepsilon and −ε<v(y)−v(yˉ)<ε-\varepsilon<v(y)-v(\bar{y})<\varepsilon by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, whence ∣u(x)−u(xˉ)∣<ε|u(x)-u(\bar{x})|<\varepsilon and ∣v(y)−v(yˉ)∣<ε|v(y)-v(\bar{y})|<\varepsilon by claim 9 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field. This is the assertion of the lemma.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…