TheoremBase

Proof

For a real number cc write c+=max⁡(c,0)c^+=\max(c,0) and c−=max⁡(−c,0)c^-=\max(-c,0), so that c=c+−c−c=c^+-c^-, ∣c∣=c++c−|c|=c^++c^-, and −c≤c−-c\le c^-. Put

ut=∑γ=1l(xtγ)−(t∈[0,T]),Kb=2l (l−1)B.u_t=\sum_{\gamma=1}^l\big(x^\gamma_t\big)^-\qquad(t\in[0,T]),\qquad K_b=2\sqrt{l}\,(l-1)B .

The maps c↦c+c\mapsto c^+ and c↦c−c\mapsto c^- are continuous, so uu is continuous on [0,T][0,T], and u0=0u_0=0 because x0∈Δlx_0\in\Delta^l has nonnegative coordinates.

Step 0: the integrands. By the lemma on affine-controlled data, ∣b^(y,α)∣≤Kb|\hat{b}(y,\alpha)|\le K_b for all (y,α)(y,\alpha), and

∣b^(y,α)−b^(y′,α′)∣≤∣b^(y,α)−b^(y′,α)∣+∣b(πΔl(y′),α)−b(πΔl(y′),α′)∣≤Λb∣y−y′∣+2l(l−1)K1∣α−α′∣,|\hat{b}(y,\alpha)-\hat{b}(y',\alpha')|\le|\hat{b}(y,\alpha)-\hat{b}(y',\alpha)|+|b(\pi_{\Delta^l}(y'),\alpha)-b(\pi_{\Delta^l}(y'),\alpha')|\le\Lambda_b|y-y'|+2\sqrt{l}(l-1)K_1|\alpha-\alpha'| ,

so each component b^γ\hat{b}^\gamma is sequentially continuous on E=Rl×AE=\mathbb{R}^l\times\mathcal{A}. The map s↦(xs,As)s\mapsto(x_s,A_s) takes values in EE, and its components are measurable: each component xγx^\gamma of xx is itself continuous, since the coordinate bound ∣xtγ−xsγ∣≤∣xt−xs∣|x^\gamma_t-x^\gamma_s|\le|x_t-x_s| of claim 4 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n transfers the defining ε\varepsilon--δ\delta condition, and is therefore measurable by claim 4 of the measurability toolkit; the components of AA are measurable by hypothesis. Hence s↦b^γ(xs,As)s\mapsto\hat{b}^\gamma(x_s,A_s) is measurable by measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps, and it is bounded by KbK_b, so the integrals in the hypothesis exist. The same applies to s↦(b^γ(xs,As))−s\mapsto\big(\hat{b}^\gamma(x_s,A_s)\big)^-, bounded by KbK_b, and to s↦uss\mapsto u_s, which is measurable by the same composition device and bounded: the hypothesis and ∣b^γ∣≤Kb|\hat{b}^\gamma|\le K_b give ∣xsγ∣≤∣x0γ∣+KbT|x^\gamma_s|\le|x^\gamma_0|+K_bT, so 0≤us≤∑γ=1l(∣x0γ∣+KbT)0\le u_s\le\sum_{\gamma=1}^{l}\bigl(|x^\gamma_0|+K_bT\bigr).

Step 1: the coordinates sum to 11. Summing the hypothesis over γ\gamma and using linearity of the integral together with the conservation identity of the lemma on affine-controlled data, applied at the point πΔl(xs)∈Δl\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)\in\Delta^l,

∑γxtγ=∑γx0γ+∫[0,t]∑γbγ(πΔl(xs),As) ds=∑γx0γ=1.\sum_\gamma x^\gamma_t=\sum_\gamma x^\gamma_0+\int_{[0,t]}\sum_\gamma b^\gamma\big(\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s),A_s\big)\,ds=\sum_\gamma x^\gamma_0=1 .

Step 2: distance to the simplex. We claim ∣xt−πΔl(xt)∣≤2ut|x_t-\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_t)|\le2u_t for every tt. Note first that ∣z∣≤∑γ∣zγ∣|z|\le\sum_\gamma|z^\gamma| for z∈Rlz\in\mathbb{R}^l, since ∣z∣2=∑γ(zγ)2≤(∑γ∣zγ∣)2|z|^2=\sum_\gamma(z^\gamma)^2\le\big(\sum_\gamma|z^\gamma|\big)^2. Write vγ=(xtγ)+v^\gamma=(x^\gamma_t)^+. By Step 1,

∑γvγ=∑γxtγ+∑γ(xtγ)−=1+ut.\sum_\gamma v^\gamma=\sum_\gamma x^\gamma_t+\sum_\gamma(x^\gamma_t)^-=1+u_t .

If ut=0u_t=0 then all coordinates of xtx_t are nonnegative and, by Step 1, xt∈Δlx_t\in\Delta^l, so the claim holds with both sides 00. Otherwise put y=v/(1+ut)y=v/(1+u_t), which has nonnegative coordinates summing to 11, hence lies in Δl\Delta^l. The coordinates of xt−vx_t-v are −(xtγ)−-(x^\gamma_t)^-, so ∣xt−v∣≤ut|x_t-v|\le u_t, and ∣v∣≤∑γvγ=1+ut|v|\le\sum_\gamma v^\gamma=1+u_t, so

∣v−y∣=(1−11+ut)∣v∣=ut1+ut ∣v∣≤ut.|v-y|=\Big(1-\frac{1}{1+u_t}\Big)|v|=\frac{u_t}{1+u_t}\,|v|\le u_t .

By the triangle inequality, ∣xt−y∣≤2ut|x_t-y|\le2u_t, and since πΔl(xt)\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_t) is a nearest point of Δl\Delta^l to xtx_t and y∈Δly\in\Delta^l, the projection lemma gives ∣xt−πΔl(xt)∣≤∣xt−y∣≤2ut|x_t-\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_t)|\le|x_t-y|\le2u_t.

Step 3: an increment inequality. We first record: for all real numbers c,ec,e,

c−−e−≤(e−c)+ 1{c<0},c^--e^-\le(e-c)^+\,\mathbf{1}\{c<0\} ,

where 1{⋅}\mathbf{1}\{\cdot\} is 11 if the condition holds and 00 otherwise. Indeed, if c≥0c\ge0 the left side is −e−≤0-e^-\le0 and the right side is 00; if c<0c<0 and e≥0e\ge0 the left side is −c≤e−c=(e−c)+-c\le e-c=(e-c)^+; and if c<0c<0 and e<0e<0 the left side is e−c≤(e−c)+e-c\le(e-c)^+.

Fix 0≤r≤t≤T0\le r\le t\le T and γ\gamma, and apply this with c=xtγc=x^\gamma_t and e=xrγe=x^\gamma_r. Suppose xtγ<0x^\gamma_t<0. Using −c≤c−-c\le c^- pointwise and monotonicity of the integral,

xrγ−xtγ=−∫[r,t]b^γ(xs,As) ds≤∫[r,t](b^γ(xs,As))− ds.x^\gamma_r-x^\gamma_t=-\int_{[r,t]}\hat{b}^\gamma(x_s,A_s)\,ds\le\int_{[r,t]}\big(\hat{b}^\gamma(x_s,A_s)\big)^-\,ds .

By the inflow bound of the lemma on affine-controlled data, applied at πΔl(xs)∈Δl\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)\in\Delta^l,

b^γ(xs,As)=bγ(πΔl(xs),As)≥−(l−1)B πΔl(xs)γ,\hat{b}^\gamma(x_s,A_s)=b^\gamma\big(\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s),A_s\big)\ge-(l-1)B\,\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)^\gamma ,

and πΔl(xs)γ≥0\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)^\gamma\ge0, so (b^γ(xs,As))−≤(l−1)B πΔl(xs)γ\big(\hat{b}^\gamma(x_s,A_s)\big)^-\le(l-1)B\,\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)^\gamma. By the coordinate bound and Step 2,

πΔl(xs)γ≤xsγ+∣πΔl(xs)−xs∣≤xsγ+2us.\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)^\gamma\le x^\gamma_s+\big|\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_s)-x_s\big|\le x^\gamma_s+2u_s .

Moreover, for s∈[r,t]s\in[r,t], the hypothesis and ∣b^γ∣≤Kb|\hat{b}^\gamma|\le K_b give xsγ=xtγ−∫[s,t]b^γ(xq,Aq) dq≤xtγ+Kb(t−r)<Kb(t−r)x^\gamma_s=x^\gamma_t-\int_{[s,t]}\hat{b}^\gamma(x_q,A_q)\,dq\le x^\gamma_t+K_b(t-r)<K_b(t-r), because xtγ<0x^\gamma_t<0. Combining the last three displays,

xrγ−xtγ≤(l−1)B∫[r,t](Kb(t−r)+2us)ds=(l−1)B Kb(t−r)2+2(l−1)B∫[r,t]us ds.x^\gamma_r-x^\gamma_t\le(l-1)B\int_{[r,t]}\big(K_b(t-r)+2u_s\big)ds=(l-1)B\,K_b(t-r)^2+2(l-1)B\int_{[r,t]}u_s\,ds .

When xtγ≥0x^\gamma_t\ge0 the elementary inequality has right-hand side 00, so in all cases

(xtγ)−−(xrγ)−≤(l−1)B Kb(t−r)2+2(l−1)B∫[r,t]us ds.\big(x^\gamma_t\big)^--\big(x^\gamma_r\big)^-\le(l-1)B\,K_b(t-r)^2+2(l-1)B\int_{[r,t]}u_s\,ds .

Summing over the ll values of γ\gamma,

ut−ur≤l(l−1)B Kb (t−r)2+2l(l−1)B∫[r,t]us ds.u_t-u_r\le l(l-1)B\,K_b\,(t-r)^2+2l(l-1)B\int_{[r,t]}u_s\,ds .

Step 4: telescoping. Fix t∈(0,T]t\in(0,T] and a natural number nn, and put sk=kt/ns_k=kt/n for k∈{0,…,n}k\in\{0,\dots,n\}. Applying Step 3 on each [sk−1,sk][s_{k-1},s_k] and adding, the left sides telescope to ut−u0=utu_t-u_0=u_t, and, since the intervals [sk−1,sk][s_{k-1},s_k] overlap only in single points, which have Lebesgue measure zero, linearity of the integral gives

ut≤l(l−1)B Kb n(tn)2+2l(l−1)B∫[0,t]us ds=l(l−1)B Kb t2n+2l(l−1)B∫[0,t]us ds.u_t\le l(l-1)B\,K_b\,n\Big(\frac{t}{n}\Big)^2+2l(l-1)B\int_{[0,t]}u_s\,ds=\frac{l(l-1)B\,K_b\,t^2}{n}+2l(l-1)B\int_{[0,t]}u_s\,ds .

The left side does not depend on nn, so letting nn grow gives

ut≤2l(l−1)B∫[0,t]us ds,u_t\le2l(l-1)B\int_{[0,t]}u_s\,ds ,

an inequality which also holds trivially at t=0t=0.

Step 5: conclusion. The function uu is bounded and measurable on [0,T][0,T], as recorded in Step 0, and satisfies the hypothesis of Gronwall's lemma for bounded measurable functions with a=0a=0 and c=2l(l−1)Bc=2l(l-1)B. Therefore ut≤0u_t\le0 for every tt. Since ut≥0u_t\ge0 by construction, ut=0u_t=0, so every coordinate of xtx_t is nonnegative; with Step 1 this gives xt∈Δlx_t\in\Delta^l. Finally b^(xt,At)=b(πΔl(xt),At)=b(xt,At)\hat{b}(x_t,A_t)=b(\pi_{\Delta^l}(x_t),A_t)=b(x_t,A_t) by the fixed-point clause of the projection lemma. ■\blacksquare

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…