TheoremBase

Attainment comes from semicontinuity on a compact set, and monotonicity in α\alpha produces the infimum MM. Comparing the penalised maxima at two levels forces the penalty αΨ\alpha\Psi to vanish along maximisers, after which compactness and semicontinuity identify every cluster point as a maximiser of Φ\Phi over the zero set of Ψ\Psi.

Proof

Throughout, α\alpha, β\beta, ε\varepsilon and δ\delta denote real numbers, semicontinuity of Φ\Phi and Ψ\Psi is relative to KK in the metric space (X,d)(X,d), and we use freely that 2=1+12=1+1 satisfies 0<20<2: indeed 0≤10\le1 by claim 1 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field and 0≠10\ne1 in a field, so 0<10<1, and adding 11 gives 1<21<2 by claim 1 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Hence 2−12^{-1} exists and 0<2−10<2^{-1} by claim 7 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and 2−1+2−1=2⋅2−1=12^{-1}+2^{-1}=2\cdot2^{-1}=1.

Proof of claim 1. Fix α\alpha with 0<α0<\alpha. Since Ψ\Psi is lower semicontinuous on KK and 0≤α0\le\alpha, claim 3 of Sums and Nonnegative Multiples of Semicontinuous Functions shows that αΨ\alpha\Psi is lower semicontinuous on KK. By claim 1 of Semicontinuity Under Negation and Characterization of Continuity the function −(αΨ)-(\alpha\Psi) is upper semicontinuous on KK. As Φ\Phi is upper semicontinuous on KK, claim 1 of Sums and Nonnegative Multiples of Semicontinuous Functions shows that Φ+(−(αΨ))\Phi+\bigl(-(\alpha\Psi)\bigr) is upper semicontinuous on KK; its value at x∈Kx\in K is Φ(x)−αΨ(x)\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x), so it is exactly Φ−αΨ\Phi-\alpha\Psi.

Since KK is nonempty and compact in XX, claim 1 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set provides x∈Kx\in K with Φ(y)−αΨ(y)≤Φ(x)−αΨ(x)\Phi(y)-\alpha\Psi(y)\le\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x) for every y∈Ky\in K. If x′∈Kx'\in K has the same property, then taking y=x′y=x' in the inequality for xx and y=xy=x in the inequality for x′x' gives both Φ(x′)−αΨ(x′)≤Φ(x)−αΨ(x)\Phi(x')-\alpha\Psi(x')\le\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x) and the reverse inequality, so the two values coincide by antisymmetry of the total order of R\mathbb{R}. Thus MαM_{\alpha} is well defined.

Proof of claim 2. Let 0<β≤α0<\beta\le\alpha and let xx be a maximiser at level α\alpha. From β≤α\beta\le\alpha and 0≤Ψ(x)0\le\Psi(x), claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives βΨ(x)≤αΨ(x)\beta\Psi(x)\le\alpha\Psi(x); claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field turns this into −αΨ(x)≤−βΨ(x)-\alpha\Psi(x)\le-\beta\Psi(x), and adding Φ(x)\Phi(x) (claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field) yields

Mα=Φ(x)−αΨ(x)  ≤  Φ(x)−βΨ(x)  ≤  Mβ,M_{\alpha}=\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x)\;\le\;\Phi(x)-\beta\Psi(x)\;\le\;M_{\beta},

the last inequality because x∈Kx\in K and MβM_{\beta} is the maximum value of Φ−βΨ\Phi-\beta\Psi on KK.

Next let z∈Zz\in Z and 0<α0<\alpha. Then Ψ(z)=0\Psi(z)=0, so αΨ(z)=0\alpha\Psi(z)=0 by claim 1 of Zero Products and Elementary Identities in a Field; since the additive inverse of 00 is 00 and 00 is the additive identity of the field, Φ(z)−αΨ(z)=Φ(z)\Phi(z)-\alpha\Psi(z)=\Phi(z). As z∈Kz\in K, this gives Φ(z)≤Mα\Phi(z)\le M_{\alpha}.

Put S={ Mα:α∈R, 0<α }S=\{\,M_{\alpha}:\alpha\in\mathbb{R},\ 0<\alpha\,\}. It is nonempty, containing M1M_{1}. Fix z0∈Zz_{0}\in Z, which exists because ZZ is nonempty; the previous paragraph shows that Φ(z0)≤Mα\Phi(z_{0})\le M_{\alpha} for every α\alpha with 0<α0<\alpha, so Φ(z0)\Phi(z_{0}) is a lower bound of SS. By Existence of the Infimum of a Nonempty Subset of R\mathbb{R} Bounded Below the greatest lower bound M=inf⁡SM=\inf S exists in R\mathbb{R}. For an arbitrary z∈Zz\in Z the number Φ(z)\Phi(z) is likewise a lower bound of SS, so Φ(z)≤M\Phi(z)\le M because MM is the greatest lower bound.

Proof of claim 3. Let 0<ε0<\varepsilon. By claim 4 of Approximation Property of the Supremum and the Infimum in R\mathbb{R} applied to SS there is an element of SS strictly below M+εM+\varepsilon; that is, there is α0\alpha_{0} with 0<α00<\alpha_{0} and Mα0<M+εM_{\alpha_{0}}<M+\varepsilon. Let α0≤α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha. Claim 2 gives Mα≤Mα0M_{\alpha}\le M_{\alpha_{0}}, and claim 2 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field then gives Mα<M+εM_{\alpha}<M+\varepsilon. Finally M≤MαM\le M_{\alpha} because MM is a lower bound of SS.

Proof of claim 4. We first prove the final assertion. Let 0<α0<\alpha and let xx be a maximiser at level α\alpha. From 0<α0<\alpha and 0≤Ψ(x)0\le\Psi(x), claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives 0≤αΨ(x)0\le\alpha\Psi(x); claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives −αΨ(x)≤0-\alpha\Psi(x)\le0, and adding Φ(x)\Phi(x) gives Φ(x)−αΨ(x)≤Φ(x)\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x)\le\Phi(x). Since M≤Mα=Φ(x)−αΨ(x)M\le M_{\alpha}=\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x), transitivity gives M≤Φ(x)M\le\Phi(x).

Now let 0<ε0<\varepsilon and put ε′=ε⋅2−1\varepsilon'=\varepsilon\cdot2^{-1}, so that 0<ε′≤ε0<\varepsilon'\le\varepsilon by claims 8 and 5 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. By claim 3 there is α1\alpha_{1} with 0<α10<\alpha_{1} such that

M≤Mβ<M+ε′for every β with α1≤β.M\le M_{\beta}<M+\varepsilon'\qquad\text{for every }\beta\text{ with }\alpha_{1}\le\beta .

Put α0=2α1+2\alpha_{0}=2\alpha_{1}+2. From 0<α10<\alpha_{1} and 0<20<2 we get 0<2α10<2\alpha_{1} by claim 5 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, hence 2≤2α1+22\le2\alpha_{1}+2 by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and 1<21<2 gives 1≤α01\le\alpha_{0}.

Let α0≤α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha and let xx be a maximiser at level α\alpha. Put β=α⋅2−1\beta=\alpha\cdot2^{-1}. Multiplying α0≤α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha by the nonnegative number 2−12^{-1} (claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field) gives α1+1=α0⋅2−1≤β\alpha_{1}+1=\alpha_{0}\cdot2^{-1}\le\beta, and α1≤α1+1\alpha_{1}\le\alpha_{1}+1, so α1≤β\alpha_{1}\le\beta and therefore M≤Mβ<M+ε′M\le M_{\beta}<M+\varepsilon'. Also M≤MαM\le M_{\alpha} by claim 3 applied with the same α1\alpha_{1}, or directly because MM is a lower bound of SS.

Because 2−1+2−1=12^{-1}+2^{-1}=1 we have β+β=α\beta+\beta=\alpha, so

Mα=Φ(x)−αΨ(x)=(Φ(x)−βΨ(x))−βΨ(x)  ≤  Mβ−βΨ(x),M_{\alpha}=\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x)=\bigl(\Phi(x)-\beta\Psi(x)\bigr)-\beta\Psi(x)\;\le\;M_{\beta}-\beta\Psi(x),

using x∈Kx\in K for the last step. Adding βΨ(x)−Mα\beta\Psi(x)-M_{\alpha} to both sides gives βΨ(x)≤Mβ−Mα\beta\Psi(x)\le M_{\beta}-M_{\alpha}. From M≤MαM\le M_{\alpha} we get −Mα≤−M-M_{\alpha}\le-M, hence Mβ−Mα≤Mβ−M<ε′M_{\beta}-M_{\alpha}\le M_{\beta}-M<\varepsilon'. Therefore βΨ(x)<ε′\beta\Psi(x)<\varepsilon', and multiplying by the positive number 22 (claim 10 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field) gives

αΨ(x)=2βΨ(x)<2ε′=ε.\alpha\Psi(x)=2\beta\Psi(x)<2\varepsilon'=\varepsilon .

That 0≤αΨ(x)0\le\alpha\Psi(x) was shown above. Since 1≤α0≤α1\le\alpha_{0}\le\alpha and 0≤Ψ(x)0\le\Psi(x), claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives Ψ(x)=1⋅Ψ(x)≤αΨ(x)<ε\Psi(x)=1\cdot\Psi(x)\le\alpha\Psi(x)<\varepsilon, and 0≤Ψ(x)0\le\Psi(x) holds by hypothesis.

Finally, adding αΨ(x)\alpha\Psi(x) to Mα=Φ(x)−αΨ(x)M_{\alpha}=\Phi(x)-\alpha\Psi(x) gives Φ(x)=Mα+αΨ(x)\Phi(x)=M_{\alpha}+\alpha\Psi(x). Combining Mα<M+ε′M_{\alpha}<M+\varepsilon' with αΨ(x)<ε\alpha\Psi(x)<\varepsilon and ε′≤ε\varepsilon'\le\varepsilon gives Φ(x)<M+ε′+ε≤M+2ε\Phi(x)<M+\varepsilon'+\varepsilon\le M+2\varepsilon, while M≤Φ(x)M\le\Phi(x) was proved above.

Proof of claim 5. The terms of (xk)k∈N(x_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} lie in KK, which is nonempty and compact in XX, so by Every Sequence in a Compact Subset of a Metric Space Has a Cluster Point There the sequence has a cluster point in (X,d)(X,d) lying in KK.

Let x^∈K\hat{x}\in K be any cluster point of (xk)k∈N(x_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}.

Step (a): Ψ(x^)=0\Psi(\hat{x})=0. Let 0<ε0<\varepsilon. Since Ψ\Psi is lower semicontinuous at x^\hat{x} relative to KK, there is δ\delta with 0<δ0<\delta such that every y∈Ky\in K with d(x^,y)<δd(\hat{x},y)<\delta satisfies Ψ(x^)−ε<Ψ(y)\Psi(\hat{x})-\varepsilon<\Psi(y). By claim 4 there is α0\alpha_{0} with 1≤α01\le\alpha_{0} such that Ψ(x)<ε\Psi(x)<\varepsilon for every α\alpha with α0≤α\alpha_{0}\le\alpha and every maximiser xx at level α\alpha. By the hypothesis on (αk)k∈N(\alpha_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}}, applied with R=α0R=\alpha_{0}, there is N∈NN\in\mathbb{N} with α0<αk\alpha_{0}<\alpha_{k} for every kk with N≤kN\le k. Applying Cluster Point of a Sequence in a Metric Space with the radius δ\delta and this NN produces k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} with N≤kN\le k and d(xk,x^)<δd(x_{k},\hat{x})<\delta; by the symmetry axiom of Metric Space also d(x^,xk)<δd(\hat{x},x_{k})<\delta. For this kk we have α0≤αk\alpha_{0}\le\alpha_{k}, so Ψ(xk)<ε\Psi(x_{k})<\varepsilon, while xk∈Kx_{k}\in K gives Ψ(x^)−ε<Ψ(xk)\Psi(\hat{x})-\varepsilon<\Psi(x_{k}). Hence Ψ(x^)−ε<ε\Psi(\hat{x})-\varepsilon<\varepsilon, that is Ψ(x^)<2ε\Psi(\hat{x})<2\varepsilon.

Suppose 0<Ψ(x^)0<\Psi(\hat{x}). Applying the previous paragraph with ε=Ψ(x^)⋅4−1\varepsilon=\Psi(\hat{x})\cdot4^{-1}, which is positive by claims 7 and 5 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, gives Ψ(x^)<2ε=Ψ(x^)⋅2−1\Psi(\hat{x})<2\varepsilon=\Psi(\hat{x})\cdot2^{-1}, contradicting claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Hence Ψ(x^)≤0\Psi(\hat{x})\le0, and with the standing hypothesis 0≤Ψ(x^)0\le\Psi(\hat{x}) we conclude Ψ(x^)=0\Psi(\hat{x})=0, so x^∈Z\hat{x}\in Z.

Step (b): Φ(x^)=M\Phi(\hat{x})=M. Since x^∈Z\hat{x}\in Z, claim 2 gives Φ(x^)≤M\Phi(\hat{x})\le M. For the reverse inequality, let 0<ε0<\varepsilon. Since Φ\Phi is upper semicontinuous at x^\hat{x} relative to KK, there is δ\delta with 0<δ0<\delta such that every y∈Ky\in K with d(x^,y)<δd(\hat{x},y)<\delta satisfies Φ(y)<Φ(x^)+ε\Phi(y)<\Phi(\hat{x})+\varepsilon. Applying Cluster Point of a Sequence in a Metric Space with the radius δ\delta and with NN any element of N\mathbb{N} produces k∈Nk\in\mathbb{N} with d(xk,x^)<δd(x_{k},\hat{x})<\delta, hence d(x^,xk)<δd(\hat{x},x_{k})<\delta. By the final assertion of claim 4 applied at level αk\alpha_{k} we have M≤Φ(xk)M\le\Phi(x_{k}), and therefore

M≤Φ(xk)<Φ(x^)+ε.M\le\Phi(x_{k})<\Phi(\hat{x})+\varepsilon .

Suppose Φ(x^)<M\Phi(\hat{x})<M. Applying the previous sentence with ε=(M−Φ(x^))⋅2−1\varepsilon=\bigl(M-\Phi(\hat{x})\bigr)\cdot2^{-1}, which is positive, gives M<Φ(x^)+(M−Φ(x^))⋅2−1M<\Phi(\hat{x})+\bigl(M-\Phi(\hat{x})\bigr)\cdot2^{-1}; but adding −Φ(x^)-\Phi(\hat{x}) to both sides turns this into M−Φ(x^)<(M−Φ(x^))⋅2−1M-\Phi(\hat{x})<\bigl(M-\Phi(\hat{x})\bigr)\cdot2^{-1}, contradicting claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Hence M≤Φ(x^)M\le\Phi(\hat{x}), and antisymmetry gives Φ(x^)=M\Phi(\hat{x})=M.

Finally, x^∈Z\hat{x}\in Z by step (a), and claim 2 gives Φ(z)≤M=Φ(x^)\Phi(z)\le M=\Phi(\hat{x}) for every z∈Zz\in Z, so Φ\Phi attains a maximum over ZZ at x^\hat{x} with value MM. ■\blacksquare

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…