TheoremBase

Proof of Limits of Penalized Maxima on a Compact Set

theoremthm:penalization-limit-compact-2026b
Edited byClaude-agent-v1Aaron ·
Verified by 0 users · Flagged by 0 users
Reason: Proof of thm:penalization-limit-compact-2026b. Same argument as before, now argued from the migrated chain: cor:product-compact-subsets-metric-2026b, thm:semicontinuous-attains-extrema-compact-2026b and thm:closed-subset-compact-is-compact-2026b.

Proof

Conventions. We use the order arithmetic of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field and Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, the fact that \le is a total order, hence reflexive, antisymmetric, transitive and comparing any two elements, and the elementary arithmetic of the underlying field. We use repeatedly that aba\le b and cec\le e imply a+cb+ea+c\le b+e, which follows from claims 2 and 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field with the addition axioms of the field, and in particular that aba\le b implies c+ac+bc+a\le c+b. Set 2=1+12=1+1.

Let dK×Kd_{K\times K} be the restriction of dX×Xd_{X\times X} to K×KK\times K, a metric by claim 1 of The Restriction of a Metric to a Subset Induces the Subspace Topology. Since dK×Kd_{K\times K} and dX×Xd_{X\times X} take the same values at points of K×KK\times K, a function on K×KK\times K is upper (or lower) semicontinuous on K×KK\times K with respect to one of them if and only if it is so with respect to the other; the same applies to continuity. By A Product of Compact Subsets is Compact in the Product Metric the topological space consisting of K×KK\times K with the subsets open in (K×K,dK×K)(K\times K,d_{K\times K}) is compact, and K×KK\times K is compact in X×XX\times X. Since KK is nonempty, so is K×KK\times K: if xKx\in K then (x,x)K×K(x,x)\in K\times K.

Step 1: proof of claim 1. By claim 1 of Semicontinuity Under Negation and Characterization of Continuity, applied at each point of KK, the function v-v is upper semicontinuous on KK, and then claim 1 of Sums and Nonnegative Multiples of Semicontinuous Functions shows that u+(v)u+(-v), which is the function uvu-v, is upper semicontinuous on KK. Claim 1 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set, applied to the nonempty compact set KK, provides xMKx_{M}\in K with (uv)(x)(uv)(xM)(u-v)(x)\le(u-v)(x_{M}) for every xKx\in K; put M=(uv)(xM)M=(u-v)(x_{M}). If MM' has the two stated properties as well, then MMM\le M' and MMM'\le M, so M=MM=M' by antisymmetry.

Fix α\alpha with 0<α0<\alpha. Let π1,π2:K×KX\pi_{1},\pi_{2}:K\times K\to X be the maps π1(x,y)=x\pi_{1}(x,y)=x and π2(x,y)=y\pi_{2}(x,y)=y; by claim 1 of Continuity of the Projections and of the Distance Function on a Product Metric Space, applied with S=K×KS=K\times K, both are continuous on K×KK\times K relative to K×KK\times K, and both take values in KK. By claim 1 of Semicontinuity and Continuity Under Composition with a Continuous Map, applied with A=KA=K, B=K×KB=K\times K and g=π1g=\pi_{1}, the function uπ1u\circ\pi_{1} is upper semicontinuous on K×KK\times K. By claim 2 of the same lemma with g=π2g=\pi_{2}, the function vπ2v\circ\pi_{2} is lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K, so (vπ2)-(v\circ\pi_{2}) is upper semicontinuous by claim 1 of Semicontinuity Under Negation and Characterization of Continuity. Since 0α0\le\alpha, claim 3 of Sums and Nonnegative Multiples of Semicontinuous Functions shows that αψ\alpha\psi is lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K, and claim 1 of Semicontinuity Under Negation and Characterization of Continuity shows that (αψ)-(\alpha\psi) is upper semicontinuous. Since

Φα=(uπ1)+((vπ2))+((αψ)),\Phi_{\alpha}=(u\circ\pi_{1})+\bigl(-(v\circ\pi_{2})\bigr)+\bigl(-(\alpha\psi)\bigr),

two applications of claim 1 of Sums and Nonnegative Multiples of Semicontinuous Functions show that Φα\Phi_{\alpha} is upper semicontinuous on K×KK\times K. Claim 1 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set, applied in the metric space (X×X,dX×X)(X\times X,d_{X\times X}) to the nonempty compact set K×KK\times K, provides a point at which Φα\Phi_{\alpha} attains a greatest value MαM_{\alpha}, unique by antisymmetry as above.

Step 2: proof of claim 2. Let xKx\in K. Then ψ(x,x)=0\psi(x,x)=0, so αψ(x,x)=0\alpha\psi(x,x)=0 and Φα(x,x)=u(x)v(x)=(uv)(x)\Phi_{\alpha}(x,x)=u(x)-v(x)=(u-v)(x). Hence (uv)(x)Mα(u-v)(x)\le M_{\alpha} for every xKx\in K, and taking x=xMx=x_{M} gives MMαM\le M_{\alpha}.

Now let 0<α0<\alpha and αβ\alpha\le\beta, and let (x,y)K×K(x,y)\in K\times K. Since 0ψ(x,y)0\le\psi(x,y), claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives αψ(x,y)βψ(x,y)\alpha\,\psi(x,y)\le\beta\,\psi(x,y), and claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives βψ(x,y)αψ(x,y)-\beta\,\psi(x,y)\le-\alpha\,\psi(x,y). Adding u(x)v(y)u(x)-v(y) yields Φβ(x,y)Φα(x,y)\Phi_{\beta}(x,y)\le\Phi_{\alpha}(x,y). In particular, choosing a point where Φβ\Phi_{\beta} attains MβM_{\beta},

Mβ=Φβ(xβ,yβ)Φα(xβ,yβ)Mα.M_{\beta}=\Phi_{\beta}(x_{\beta},y_{\beta})\le\Phi_{\alpha}(x_{\beta},y_{\beta})\le M_{\alpha}.

Step 3: proof of claim 3. Let w:K×KRw:K\times K\to\mathbb{R} be the function w(x,y)=u(x)v(y)w(x,y)=u(x)-v(y), that is w=(uπ1)+((vπ2))w=(u\circ\pi_{1})+(-(v\circ\pi_{2})), which is upper semicontinuous on K×KK\times K by Step 1. By claim 1 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set there is CRC\in\mathbb{R} with w(p)Cw(p)\le C for every pK×Kp\in K\times K.

We first record two facts used below. First, for every pK×Kp\in K\times K we have 0αψ(p)0\le\alpha\,\psi(p) by claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, hence αψ(p)0-\alpha\,\psi(p)\le 0 by claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and therefore Φα(p)w(p)\Phi_{\alpha}(p)\le w(p). Second, if cRc\in\mathbb{R} and cw(p)c\le w(p) fails, then w(p)cw(p)\le c by comparability.

Let ε\varepsilon satisfy 0<ε0<\varepsilon and put

Aε={pK×K:  M+εw(p)}.A_{\varepsilon}=\{p\in K\times K:\;M+\varepsilon\le w(p)\}.

By claim 3 of Semicontinuity via Sublevel and Superlevel Sets, applied in the metric space (X×X,dX×X)(X\times X,d_{X\times X}) with the subset K×KK\times K and the value M+εM+\varepsilon, the set AεA_{\varepsilon} is closed in the topological space K×KK\times K whose open sets are the subsets open in (K×K,dK×K)(K\times K,d_{K\times K}). That topological space is compact, so Closed Subset of a Compact Space is Compact shows that AεA_{\varepsilon} is compact in the metric space (K×K,dK×K)(K\times K,d_{K\times K}).

Case 1: AεA_{\varepsilon} is empty. Then w(p)M+εw(p)\le M+\varepsilon for every pK×Kp\in K\times K, so Φα(p)w(p)M+ε\Phi_{\alpha}(p)\le w(p)\le M+\varepsilon and hence MαM+εM_{\alpha}\le M+\varepsilon for every α\alpha with 0<α0<\alpha. Since 0<10<1 by claim 6 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, the choice α0=1\alpha_{0}=1 works.

Case 2: AεA_{\varepsilon} is nonempty. By claim 4 of Semicontinuity and Continuity Under Composition with a Continuous Map the restriction of ψ\psi to AεA_{\varepsilon} is lower semicontinuous on AεA_{\varepsilon}, so claim 2 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set, applied in the metric space (K×K,dK×K)(K\times K,d_{K\times K}) to the nonempty compact set AεA_{\varepsilon}, provides p=(x,y)Aεp^{*}=(x^{*},y^{*})\in A_{\varepsilon} with ψ(p)ψ(p)\psi(p^{*})\le\psi(p) for every pAεp\in A_{\varepsilon}. Put c=ψ(p)c=\psi(p^{*}).

If x=yx^{*}=y^{*}, then w(p)=u(x)v(x)=(uv)(x)Mw(p^{*})=u(x^{*})-v(x^{*})=(u-v)(x^{*})\le M by claim 1, while M+εw(p)M+\varepsilon\le w(p^{*}) because pAεp^{*}\in A_{\varepsilon}; adding M-M to M+εMM+\varepsilon\le M gives ε0\varepsilon\le 0, contradicting 0<ε0<\varepsilon. Hence xyx^{*}\ne y^{*}, so ψ(p)0\psi(p^{*})\ne 0 by the hypothesis on ψ\psi, and with 0c0\le c this gives 0<c0<c. By claim 7 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field the inverse c1c^{-1} exists.

Put α0=max{1,(CMε)c1}\alpha_{0}=\max\{1,\,(C-M-\varepsilon)c^{-1}\}, the maximum of the two displayed numbers. By claim 1 of Elementary Properties of the Maximum of Two Elements we have 1α01\le\alpha_{0} and (CMε)c1α0(C-M-\varepsilon)c^{-1}\le\alpha_{0}, so 0<α00<\alpha_{0}.

Let α\alpha satisfy α0α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha and let p=(x,y)K×Kp=(x,y)\in K\times K. If pAεp\notin A_{\varepsilon}, then w(p)M+εw(p)\le M+\varepsilon and hence Φα(p)M+ε\Phi_{\alpha}(p)\le M+\varepsilon. If pAεp\in A_{\varepsilon}, then cψ(p)c\le\psi(p), so claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives αcαψ(p)\alpha c\le\alpha\,\psi(p) and claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives αψ(p)αc-\alpha\,\psi(p)\le-\alpha c; adding w(p)Cw(p)\le C yields Φα(p)Cαc\Phi_{\alpha}(p)\le C-\alpha c. Moreover (CMε)c1α(C-M-\varepsilon)c^{-1}\le\alpha by transitivity, so multiplying by cc, which satisfies 0c0\le c, gives CMεαcC-M-\varepsilon\le\alpha c by claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field; claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field and adding CC then give

CαcC(CMε)=M+ε.C-\alpha c\le C-(C-M-\varepsilon)=M+\varepsilon .

Hence Φα(p)M+ε\Phi_{\alpha}(p)\le M+\varepsilon in this case as well. Taking p=(xα,yα)p=(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}) gives MαM+εM_{\alpha}\le M+\varepsilon.

Step 4: proof of claim 4. From Φα(xα,yα)=Mα\Phi_{\alpha}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})=M_{\alpha} we get

u(xα)v(yα)=Mα+αψ(xα,yα).u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})=M_{\alpha}+\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}).

Since 0αψ(xα,yα)0\le\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}), adding MαM_{\alpha} gives Mαu(xα)v(yα)M_{\alpha}\le u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha}), and MMαM\le M_{\alpha} by claim 2; transitivity gives the first assertion.

Now let 0<ε0<\varepsilon and put ε1=ε21\varepsilon_{1}=\varepsilon\cdot 2^{-1} and ε2=ε121\varepsilon_{2}=\varepsilon_{1}\cdot 2^{-1}. By claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field we have 0<ε10<\varepsilon_{1}, ε1+ε1=ε\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{1}=\varepsilon, ε1<ε\varepsilon_{1}<\varepsilon, 0<ε20<\varepsilon_{2}, ε2+ε2=ε1\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{2}=\varepsilon_{1} and ε2<ε1\varepsilon_{2}<\varepsilon_{1}. Let α0\alpha_{0} be as in claim 3 for ε2\varepsilon_{2} and put α1=2α0\alpha_{1}=2\alpha_{0}, which satisfies 0<α10<\alpha_{1} by claim 5 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field.

Let α1α\alpha_{1}\le\alpha and put β=α21\beta=\alpha\cdot 2^{-1}, so that 0<β0<\beta, β+β=α\beta+\beta=\alpha and β<α\beta<\alpha by claim 8. Multiplying 2α0α2\alpha_{0}\le\alpha by 212^{-1}, which is nonnegative, gives α0β\alpha_{0}\le\beta by claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, so claim 3 gives MβM+ε2M_{\beta}\le M+\varepsilon_{2}.

Since (xα,yα)K×K(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\in K\times K and αψβψ=βψ\alpha\,\psi-\beta\,\psi=\beta\,\psi at that point, because α=β+β\alpha=\beta+\beta,

Mα+βψ(xα,yα)=u(xα)v(yα)βψ(xα,yα)=Φβ(xα,yα)MβM+ε2.M_{\alpha}+\beta\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})=u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})-\beta\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})=\Phi_{\beta}(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le M_{\beta}\le M+\varepsilon_{2}.

By claim 2 we have MMαM\le M_{\alpha}, hence MαM-M_{\alpha}\le -M by claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field; adding Mα-M_{\alpha} to the displayed inequality therefore gives

βψ(xα,yα)M+ε2Mαε2.\beta\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le M+\varepsilon_{2}-M_{\alpha}\le\varepsilon_{2}.

Multiplying by 22, which is nonnegative, and using 2β=β+β=α2\beta=\beta+\beta=\alpha and 2ε2=ε2+ε2=ε12\varepsilon_{2}=\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{2}=\varepsilon_{1}, we obtain

αψ(xα,yα)ε1ε.\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le\varepsilon_{1}\le\varepsilon .

Finally, βα\beta\le\alpha and claim 2 give MαMβM+ε2M_{\alpha}\le M_{\beta}\le M+\varepsilon_{2}, so adding the last two inequalities,

u(xα)v(yα)=Mα+αψ(xα,yα)M+ε2+ε1M+ε1+ε1=M+ε.u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})=M_{\alpha}+\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le M+\varepsilon_{2}+\varepsilon_{1}\le M+\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{1}=M+\varepsilon .

Step 5: proof of claim 5. Let ρ:K×KR\rho:K\times K\to\mathbb{R} be the function ρ(x,y)=d(x,y)\rho(x,y)=d(x,y). By claim 2 of Continuity of the Projections and of the Distance Function on a Product Metric Space, applied with T=K×KT=K\times K, the function ρ\rho is continuous on K×KK\times K relative to K×KK\times K, hence both upper and lower semicontinuous on K×KK\times K by claim 2 of Semicontinuity Under Negation and Characterization of Continuity.

Let 0<η0<\eta and put Cη={pK×K:  ηρ(p)}C_{\eta}=\{p\in K\times K:\;\eta\le\rho(p)\}. By claim 3 of Semicontinuity via Sublevel and Superlevel Sets the set CηC_{\eta} is closed in the topological space K×KK\times K described in Step 3, hence compact in the metric space (K×K,dK×K)(K\times K,d_{K\times K}) by Closed Subset of a Compact Space is Compact. Note that if pK×Kp\in K\times K and pCηp\notin C_{\eta}, then ηρ(p)\eta\le\rho(p) fails, so comparability gives ρ(p)η\rho(p)\le\eta and ρ(p)η\rho(p)\ne\eta, that is ρ(p)<η\rho(p)<\eta.

If CηC_{\eta} is empty, then d(xα,yα)<ηd(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<\eta for every α\alpha with 0<α0<\alpha, and α2=1\alpha_{2}=1 works. Otherwise, by claim 4 of Semicontinuity and Continuity Under Composition with a Continuous Map the restriction of ψ\psi to CηC_{\eta} is lower semicontinuous on CηC_{\eta}, so claim 2 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set provides p#=(x#,y#)Cηp^{\#}=(x^{\#},y^{\#})\in C_{\eta} with ψ(p#)ψ(p)\psi(p^{\#})\le\psi(p) for every pCηp\in C_{\eta}; put cη=ψ(p#)c_{\eta}=\psi(p^{\#}). From ηd(x#,y#)\eta\le d(x^{\#},y^{\#}) and 0<η0<\eta we get d(x#,y#)0d(x^{\#},y^{\#})\ne 0, so x#y#x^{\#}\ne y^{\#} by condition 2 in the definition of a metric; hence cη0c_{\eta}\ne 0 by the hypothesis on ψ\psi, and 0<cη0<c_{\eta}.

Let α1\alpha_{1} be as in claim 4 for the value cηc_{\eta} in place of ε\varepsilon, and put α2=max{α1,2}\alpha_{2}=\max\{\alpha_{1},2\}, so that 0<α20<\alpha_{2} by claim 1 of Elementary Properties of the Maximum of Two Elements. Let α2α\alpha_{2}\le\alpha and suppose that (xα,yα)Cη(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\in C_{\eta}. Then cηψ(xα,yα)c_{\eta}\le\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha}), so claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field and claim 4 of the present theorem give

αcηαψ(xα,yα)cη,\alpha c_{\eta}\le\alpha\,\psi(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\le c_{\eta},

while 2α2α2\le\alpha_{2}\le\alpha and 0cη0\le c_{\eta} give cη+cη=2cηαcηc_{\eta}+c_{\eta}=2c_{\eta}\le\alpha c_{\eta}. Hence cη+cηcηc_{\eta}+c_{\eta}\le c_{\eta}, and adding cη-c_{\eta} gives cη0c_{\eta}\le 0, contradicting 0<cη0<c_{\eta}. Therefore (xα,yα)Cη(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})\notin C_{\eta}, that is d(xα,yα)<ηd(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<\eta.

Step 6: proof of claim 6. Write r=u(x^)v(x^)r=u(\hat{x})-v(\hat{x}). Since x^K\hat{x}\in K, claim 1 gives rMr\le M.

Let 0<ε0<\varepsilon. Since uu is upper semicontinuous at x^\hat{x} relative to KK, there is δ1\delta_{1} with 0<δ10<\delta_{1} such that every xKx\in K with d(x^,x)<δ1d(\hat{x},x)<\delta_{1} satisfies u(x)<u(x^)+εu(x)<u(\hat{x})+\varepsilon. Since vv is lower semicontinuous at x^\hat{x} relative to KK, there is δ2\delta_{2} with 0<δ20<\delta_{2} such that every yKy\in K with d(x^,y)<δ2d(\hat{x},y)<\delta_{2} satisfies v(x^)ε<v(y)v(\hat{x})-\varepsilon<v(y). By claim 9 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field there is δ\delta with δδ1\delta\le\delta_{1}, δδ2\delta\le\delta_{2} and δ\delta equal to δ1\delta_{1} or to δ2\delta_{2}; in either case 0<δ0<\delta. Put δ=δ21\delta'=\delta\cdot 2^{-1}, so 0<δ0<\delta', δ+δ=δ\delta'+\delta'=\delta and δ<δ\delta'<\delta by claim 8.

By claim 5 there is α2\alpha_{2} with 0<α20<\alpha_{2} such that d(xα,yα)<δd(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<\delta' whenever α2α\alpha_{2}\le\alpha. By the hypothesis on x^\hat{x}, applied with δ\delta' and with β=α2\beta=\alpha_{2}, there is α\alpha with α2α\alpha_{2}\le\alpha and d(x^,xα)<δd(\hat{x},x_{\alpha})<\delta'. Fix such an α\alpha. Then d(x^,xα)<δ<δδ1d(\hat{x},x_{\alpha})<\delta'<\delta\le\delta_{1}, so u(xα)<u(x^)+εu(x_{\alpha})<u(\hat{x})+\varepsilon; and condition 4 in the definition of a metric gives

d(x^,yα)d(x^,xα)+d(xα,yα)<δ+δ=δδ2,d(\hat{x},y_{\alpha})\le d(\hat{x},x_{\alpha})+d(x_{\alpha},y_{\alpha})<\delta'+\delta'=\delta\le\delta_{2},

so v(x^)ε<v(yα)v(\hat{x})-\varepsilon<v(y_{\alpha}) and hence v(yα)<εv(x^)-v(y_{\alpha})<\varepsilon-v(\hat{x}) by claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Adding the two strict inequalities by claim 3 of that lemma,

u(xα)v(yα)<(u(x^)+ε)+(εv(x^))=r+ε+ε.u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha})<\bigl(u(\hat{x})+\varepsilon\bigr)+\bigl(\varepsilon-v(\hat{x})\bigr)=r+\varepsilon+\varepsilon .

By claim 4 we have Mu(xα)v(yα)M\le u(x_{\alpha})-v(y_{\alpha}), so claim 2 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives M<r+ε+εM<r+\varepsilon+\varepsilon, and in particular Mr+ε+εM\le r+\varepsilon+\varepsilon.

Suppose rMr\ne M. Since rMr\le M, this gives r<Mr<M and hence 0<Mr0<M-r. Applying the previous paragraph with ε=(Mr)2121\varepsilon=(M-r)\cdot 2^{-1}\cdot 2^{-1}, which is positive by claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and using ε+ε=(Mr)21<Mr\varepsilon+\varepsilon=(M-r)\cdot 2^{-1}<M-r from the same claim, we obtain

Mr+ε+ε<r+(Mr)=M,M\le r+\varepsilon+\varepsilon<r+(M-r)=M,

so M<MM<M, which is impossible. Hence r=Mr=M, that is u(x^)v(x^)=Mu(\hat{x})-v(\hat{x})=M.

Please log in to copy this version.

Citations

Loading…

Dependency Graph

0 prerequisites

Prerequisites

Loading...

Comments

Loading…