TheoremBase

Proof

All integrals over subintervals of [0,T][0,T] are Lebesgue integrals as in the statement, and we use linearity and monotonicity of the integral freely. We first record the standing facts. (F1) ∣∂j∂iLˉ(z)∣≤Kc|\partial_j\partial_i\bar{L}(z)|\le K_c for all i,j∈{1,…,l+m}i,j\in\{1,\dots,l+m\} and z∈Uc×Rmz\in U_c\times\mathbb{R}^m, and ∣∂γ′∂γGˉ(Σ)∣≤Kc|\partial_{\gamma'}\partial_\gamma\bar{G}(\Sigma)|\le K_c for all γ,γ′\gamma,\gamma' and Σ∈Uc\Sigma\in U_c (clause 3 of the cost extension definition); ∣∂j∂ibˉδ(z)∣≤3lK|\partial_j\partial_i\bar{b}^\delta(z)|\le3lK for all i,j,δi,j,\delta and z∈Δl×Vz\in\Delta^l\times V (part (iii) of the regularity lemma). (F2) For Σ∈Δl\Sigma\in\Delta^l and α∈A\alpha\in\mathcal{A}, the segment {(St+τ(Σ−St),α):τ∈[0,1]}\{(S_t+\tau(\Sigma-S_t),\alpha):\tau\in[0,1]\} lies in Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A}, since τΣ+(1−τ)St\tau\Sigma+(1-\tau)S_t has nonnegative coordinates summing to 11; the segment {(St,At+τ(α−At)):τ∈[0,1]}\{(S_t,A_t+\tau(\alpha-A_t)):\tau\in[0,1]\} lies in {St}×A\{S_t\}\times\mathcal{A} when A\mathcal{A} is convex, as is assumed in (b) and (c) — this clause of (F2) is used only in Step 4; and the segment {ST+τ(Σ−ST):τ∈[0,1]}\{S_T+\tau(\Sigma-S_T):\tau\in[0,1]\} lies in Δl\Delta^l. All of these lie in Uc×RmU_c\times\mathbb{R}^m (respectively UcU_c) and in Δl×V⊆U×V\Delta^l\times V\subseteq U\times V, because Δl⊂Uc\Delta^l\subset U_c, Δl⊂U\Delta^l\subset U and A⊆V\mathcal{A}\subseteq V by the extension definitions. (F3) By clause 1 of the cost extension definition and part (i) of the regularity lemma, L=LˉL=\bar{L} on Δl×Rm\Delta^l\times\mathbb{R}^m, G=GˉG=\bar{G} on Δl\Delta^l, and bδ=bˉδb^\delta=\bar{b}^\delta on Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A}.

Step 1: measurability and boundedness. Let (x,a)(x,a) be admissible. The map t↦(xt,at)∈Rl+mt\mapsto(x_t,a_t)\in\mathbb{R}^{l+m} has measurable components (continuous components being measurable by claim 3 of the integral toolkit), so by measurability of sequentially continuous functions of measurable maps the functions t↦Lˉ(xt,at)t\mapsto\bar{L}(x_t,a_t), t↦bˉδ(xt,at)t\mapsto\bar{b}^\delta(x_t,a_t), and products of these with the continuous functions t↦Ptδt\mapsto P^\delta_t are measurable (Lˉ\bar{L} and bˉδ\bar{b}^\delta being continuous at every point of their open domains by clause 1 of the CkC^k definition, and products of continuous functions of measurable maps being again such functions). They are bounded: ∣Lˉ(xt,at)∣=∣L(xt,at)∣|\bar{L}(x_t,a_t)|=|L(x_t,a_t)| is bounded, by claim 1 of the boundedness of cost data, ∣bˉδ(xt,at)∣=∣bδ(xt,at)∣≤2(l−1)B|\bar{b}^\delta(x_t,a_t)|=|b^\delta(x_t,a_t)|\le2(l-1)B by the bound on bb over Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} derived in the statement, and ∣Ptδ∣≤CP|P^\delta_t|\le C_P. The functions t↦∂γHt(St,At)t\mapsto\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t), t↦Ht(St,At)t\mapsto\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t), and t↦ytγt\mapsto y^\gamma_t are continuous on [0,T][0,T] — compositions of the continuous maps t↦(St,At)t\mapsto(S_t,A_t) and t↦Ptδt\mapsto P^\delta_t with continuous functions, by continuity of compositions and continuity of sums and products, the metric and Euclidean notions agreeing by claim 1 of the agreement lemma — hence measurable and bounded by the extreme value theorem. Consequently every integrand appearing in (a), (c), and below is measurable and bounded, hence integrable over [0,T][0,T] and over each [0,t][0,t].

Step 2: forward integral forms of the co-state and of yy. For γ∈{1,…,l}\gamma\in\{1,\dots,l\} put fγ(s)=∂γHs(Ss,As)f^\gamma(s)=\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_s(S_s,A_s) and gγ(s)=bγ(xs,as)−bγ(Ss,As)g^\gamma(s)=b^\gamma(x_s,a_s)-b^\gamma(S_s,A_s) for s∈[0,T]s\in[0,T]. The function −fγ-f^\gamma is exactly the integrand of clause 2 of the co-state definition, which is continuous on [0,T][0,T] by that clause; by claim 3 of the integral toolkit (applied to the restriction of −fγ-f^\gamma to [t,T][t,T], continuous by claim 1 of restriction stability) the Riemann integral in clause 2 equals the Lebesgue integral over [t,T][t,T] for 0≤t<T0\le t<T. Fix t∈(0,T)t\in(0,T) and let ϕ1,ϕ2,ϕ3:[0,T]→R\phi_1,\phi_2,\phi_3:[0,T]\to\mathbb{R} be the functions equal to −fγ-f^\gamma on [0,t][0,t], on (t,T](t,T], and on [t,T][t,T] respectively, and to 00 elsewhere on [0,T][0,T]; they are measurable and bounded, −fγ=ϕ1+ϕ2-f^\gamma=\phi_1+\phi_2 on [0,T][0,T], and ϕ2\phi_2 and ϕ3\phi_3 agree outside the single point tt, a set of Lebesgue measure zero, so ∫[0,T]ϕ2=∫[0,T]ϕ3\int_{[0,T]}\phi_2=\int_{[0,T]}\phi_3 by claim 2 of the null-set lemma. By claim 2 of the toolkit, the Lebesgue integral of a function over [0,t][0,t], over [t,T][t,T], or over [0,T][0,T] equals the integral over R\mathbb{R} of its zero extension, and the zero extensions of ϕ1\phi_1 and of the restriction of −fγ-f^\gamma to [0,t][0,t] coincide, as do those of ϕ3\phi_3 and of the restriction of −fγ-f^\gamma to [t,T][t,T]. Hence, by linearity, for every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T],

∫[0,T](−fγ)(s) ds=∫[0,t](−fγ)(s) ds+∫[t,T](−fγ)(s) ds,\int_{[0,T]}(-f^\gamma)(s)\,ds=\int_{[0,t]}(-f^\gamma)(s)\,ds+\int_{[t,T]}(-f^\gamma)(s)\,ds ,

with the convention that the middle term is 00 for t=0t=0 and the last is 00 for t=Tt=T (the latter being the convention of clause 2 of the co-state definition); for t=0t=0 and for t=Tt=T the identity is immediate from these conventions, both sides reducing to ∫[0,T](−fγ)\int_{[0,T]}(-f^\gamma). Clause 2 of the co-state definition at tt and at 00 therefore gives

Ptγ−P0γ=∫[t,T](−fγ)(s) ds−∫[0,T](−fγ)(s) ds=∫[0,t]fγ(s) ds,andPTγ=−∂γGˉ(ST).P^\gamma_t-P^\gamma_0=\int_{[t,T]}(-f^\gamma)(s)\,ds-\int_{[0,T]}(-f^\gamma)(s)\,ds=\int_{[0,t]}f^\gamma(s)\,ds ,\qquad\text{and}\qquad P^\gamma_T=-\partial_\gamma\bar{G}(S_T).

Likewise, by clause 2 of the trajectory-pair definition and claim 3 of the toolkit, Stγ=S0γ+∫[0,t]bγ(Ss,As) dsS^\gamma_t=S^\gamma_0+\int_{[0,t]}b^\gamma(S_s,A_s)\,ds, so by the admissibility equation and linearity

ytγ=y0γ+∫[0,t]gγ(s) ds(t∈[0,T]).y^\gamma_t=y^\gamma_0+\int_{[0,t]}g^\gamma(s)\,ds\qquad(t\in[0,T]).

Step 3: proof of (a). By linearity, and since the Riemann integral defining the mean-field cost equals the Lebesgue integral (claim 3 of the toolkit),

J[(x),(a)]−JMF[(S),(A)]=∫[0,T](L(xt,at)−L(St,At))dt+G(xT)−G(ST).J[(x),(a)]-J^{MF}[(S),(A)]=\int_{[0,T]}\big(L(x_t,a_t)-L(S_t,A_t)\big)dt+G(x_T)-G(S_T).

By (F3) and the definition of Ht\mathcal{H}_t, at every tt we have L(xt,at)=Ht(xt,at)+∑δPtδ bδ(xt,at)L(x_t,a_t)=\mathcal{H}_t(x_t,a_t)+\sum_\delta P^\delta_t\,b^\delta(x_t,a_t) and L(St,At)=Ht(St,At)+∑δPtδ bδ(St,At)L(S_t,A_t)=\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)+\sum_\delta P^\delta_t\,b^\delta(S_t,A_t), so the integrand equals Ht(xt,at)−Ht(St,At)+∑δPtδ gδ(t)\mathcal{H}_t(x_t,a_t)-\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)+\sum_\delta P^\delta_t\,g^\delta(t). For each δ\delta, integration by parts for indefinite Lebesgue integrals applies with ut=Ptδu_t=P^\delta_t, f=fδf=f^\delta, vt=ytδv_t=y^\delta_t, g=gδg=g^\delta (both fδf^\delta and gδg^\delta are integrable by Step 1, and the integral forms are those of Step 2); part (ii) of that lemma, which also records the integrability of fδyδf^\delta y^\delta and of PδgδP^\delta g^\delta, together with linearity, gives

∫[0,T]Ptδ gδ(t) dt=PTδ yTδ−P0δ y0δ−∫[0,T]fδ(t) ytδ dt=−∂δGˉ(ST) yTδ−P0δ y0δ−∫[0,T]∂δHt(St,At) ytδ dt.\int_{[0,T]}P^\delta_t\,g^\delta(t)\,dt=P^\delta_T\,y^\delta_T-P^\delta_0\,y^\delta_0-\int_{[0,T]}f^\delta(t)\,y^\delta_t\,dt=-\partial_\delta\bar{G}(S_T)\,y^\delta_T-P^\delta_0\,y^\delta_0-\int_{[0,T]}\partial_\delta\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)\,y^\delta_t\,dt .

Summing over δ\delta, substituting, and using G=GˉG=\bar{G} on Δl\Delta^l from (F3) yields the identity of (a).

Step 4: proof of (b). Fix tt, Σ∈Δl\Sigma\in\Delta^l, α∈A\alpha\in\mathcal{A}, and abbreviate w=Σ−Stw=\Sigma-S_t. Algebraically,

Ht(Σ,α)−Ht(St,At)−∑γ∂γHt(St,At)wγ=I+II+III,\mathcal{H}_t(\Sigma,\alpha)-\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)-\sum_\gamma\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)w^\gamma=\mathrm{I}+\mathrm{II}+\mathrm{III},

where I=Ht(St,α)−Ht(St,At)\mathrm{I}=\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,\alpha)-\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t), II=Ht(Σ,α)−Ht(St,α)−∑γ∂γHt(St,α)wγ\mathrm{II}=\mathcal{H}_t(\Sigma,\alpha)-\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,\alpha)-\sum_\gamma\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,\alpha)w^\gamma, and III=∑γ(∂γHt(St,α)−∂γHt(St,At))wγ\mathrm{III}=\sum_\gamma\big(\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,\alpha)-\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)\big)w^\gamma.

Term II. Apply part (ii) of the multivariate Taylor expansion with n=l+mn=l+m, x=(St,α)x=(S_t,\alpha), y=(Σ,α)y=(\Sigma,\alpha) — the segment lying in Δl×A\Delta^l\times\mathcal{A} by (F2), and the difference vector having components wγw^\gamma in the first ll coordinates and 00 in the last mm, with Euclidean length ∣w∣|w| — to f=Lˉf=\bar{L} on the open set Uc×RmU_c\times\mathbb{R}^m with the second-derivative bound of that lemma taken to be KcK_c, and to each f=bˉδf=\bar{b}^\delta on the open set U×VU\times V with that bound taken to be 3lK3lK, the bounds (F1) holding on the segment (the symbol M2M_2 is reserved for the constant Kc+3lKCPK_c+3lKC_P of the statement). Multiplying the bˉδ\bar{b}^\delta estimates by −Ptδ-P^\delta_t, adding, and using ∑δ∣Ptδ∣≤CP\sum_\delta|P^\delta_t|\le C_P gives ∣II∣≤12(l+m)(Kc+3lKCP)∣w∣2=C2∣w∣2|\mathrm{II}|\le\tfrac{1}{2}(l+m)(K_c+3lKC_P)|w|^2=C_2|w|^2.

Term III. For each γ\gamma, the function ∂γLˉ\partial_\gamma\bar{L} is of class C1C^1 on Uc×RmU_c\times\mathbb{R}^m by clause 2 of the CkC^k definition (as Lˉ\bar{L} is of class C2C^2), with partial derivatives ∂i∂γLˉ\partial_i\partial_\gamma\bar{L} bounded by KcK_c there; and ∂γbˉδ\partial_\gamma\bar{b}^\delta is of class C1C^1 on U×VU\times V by part (i) of the regularity lemma, with partial derivatives bounded by 3lK3lK on Δl×V\Delta^l\times V. Part (i) of the Taylor lemma along the segment from (St,At)(S_t,A_t) to (St,α)(S_t,\alpha), which lies in {St}×A\{S_t\}\times\mathcal{A} by (F2) and has length ∣α−At∣|\alpha-A_t|, gives ∣∂γLˉ(St,α)−∂γLˉ(St,At)∣≤l+m Kc ∣α−At∣|\partial_\gamma\bar{L}(S_t,\alpha)-\partial_\gamma\bar{L}(S_t,A_t)|\le\sqrt{l+m}\,K_c\,|\alpha-A_t| and ∣∂γbˉδ(St,α)−∂γbˉδ(St,At)∣≤l+m 3lK ∣α−At∣|\partial_\gamma\bar{b}^\delta(S_t,\alpha)-\partial_\gamma\bar{b}^\delta(S_t,A_t)|\le\sqrt{l+m}\,3lK\,|\alpha-A_t|, whence ∣∂γHt(St,α)−∂γHt(St,At)∣≤l+m M2 ∣α−At∣|\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,\alpha)-\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)|\le\sqrt{l+m}\,M_2\,|\alpha-A_t| for every γ\gamma. Since ∣wγ∣≤∣w∣|w^\gamma|\le|w| for each of the ll coordinates, ∣III∣≤ll+m M2 ∣α−At∣ ∣w∣=C1∣α−At∣∣w∣|\mathrm{III}|\le l\sqrt{l+m}\,M_2\,|\alpha-A_t|\,|w|=C_1|\alpha-A_t||w|.

Combining, the left-hand side is at least I−C1∣w∣∣α−At∣−C2∣w∣2\mathrm{I}-C_1|w||\alpha-A_t|-C_2|w|^2, which is the first inequality of (b). For the second, apply part (ii) of the Taylor lemma to f=Gˉf=\bar{G} on the open set UcU_c, of class C2C^2 by clause 2 of the cost extension definition, with n=ln=l, x=STx=S_T, y=Σy=\Sigma, the segment lying in Δl\Delta^l by (F2), and with the second-derivative bound of that lemma taken to be KcK_c by (F1).

Step 5: proof of (c). By (b) applied at each tt with Σ=xt\Sigma=x_t and α=at\alpha=a_t, and by the hypothesis on r0r_0, the integrand of (a) satisfies, at every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T],

Ht(xt,at)−Ht(St,At)−∑γ∂γHt(St,At)ytγ ≥ r0∣at−At∣2−C1∣yt∣∣at−At∣−C2∣yt∣2 ≥ r02∣at−At∣2−(C2+C122r0)∣yt∣2,\mathcal{H}_t(x_t,a_t)-\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)-\sum_\gamma\partial_\gamma\mathcal{H}_t(S_t,A_t)y^\gamma_t\ \ge\ r_0|a_t-A_t|^2-C_1|y_t||a_t-A_t|-C_2|y_t|^2\ \ge\ \tfrac{r_0}{2}|a_t-A_t|^2-\Big(C_2+\tfrac{C_1^2}{2r_0}\Big)|y_t|^2 ,

the last step by the elementary inequality 2uv≤u2+v22uv\le u^2+v^2 with u=r0 ∣at−At∣u=\sqrt{r_0}\,|a_t-A_t| and v=C1∣yt∣/r0v=C_1|y_t|/\sqrt{r_0}. The functions t↦∣at−At∣2t\mapsto|a_t-A_t|^2 and t↦∣yt∣2t\mapsto|y_t|^2 are measurable and bounded (Step 1 and the composition lemma), so integrating this pointwise inequality over [0,T][0,T] by monotonicity, inserting the terminal bound of (b) at Σ=xT\Sigma=x_T into the identity of (a), and moving ∑γP0γy0γ\sum_\gamma P^\gamma_0y^\gamma_0 to the left-hand side gives (c). ■\blacksquare

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…