TheoremBase

Expanding the quadratic term through the operator representing the Hessian writes TT as a sum of an affine function, a quadratic form and a multiple of ∣x−x^∣2|x-\hat x|^2, each of class C2C^2; the majorant and minorant claims are the second-order Taylor estimate, and the extremum claims follow at once.

Proof

Each result cited below is universally quantified over the data appearing in its own statement, and is applied here to the data named at the point of use. Write p=Dφ(x^)∈Hp=D\varphi(\hat{x})\in H and b=D2φ(x^)∈Sym(H)b=D^{2}\varphi(\hat{x})\in\mathrm{Sym}(H), and let Tb∈L(H)T_{b}\in\mathcal{L}(H) be the operator representing bb, so that b(z,y)=⟨Tbz,y⟩b(z,y)=\langle T_{b}z,y\rangle for all z,y∈Hz,y\in H, by claim 1 of The Bounded Symmetric Operator Represented by a Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Form on a Real Hilbert Space. The set HH is open in (H,d)(H,d), since every open ball of (H,d)(H,d) is a subset of HH, so Open Subset of a Metric Space is satisfied. Recall that d(x,y)=∣x−y∣d(x,y)=|x-y| for x,y∈Hx,y\in H, by Real Inner Product Spaces (iii).

Claim 1. Let x∈Hx\in H and put z=x−x^z=x-\hat{x}. By bilinearity and symmetry of bb (Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms on a Real Inner Product Space: Norm, Order, Identity Form and Restriction (i)),

b(z,z)=b(x,x)−b(x,x^)−b(x^,x)+b(x^,x^)=b(x,x)−2 b(x^,x)+b(x^,x^),b(z,z)=b(x,x)-b(x,\hat{x})-b(\hat{x},x)+b(\hat{x},\hat{x})=b(x,x)-2\,b(\hat{x},x)+b(\hat{x},\hat{x}),

and b(x^,x)=⟨Tbx^,x⟩b(\hat{x},x)=\langle T_{b}\hat{x},x\rangle. Likewise ⟨p,z⟩=⟨p,x⟩−⟨p,x^⟩\langle p,z\rangle=\langle p,x\rangle-\langle p,\hat{x}\rangle by bilinearity of the inner product (Elementary Identities in a Real Inner Product Space (i)). Hence, with

c0=φ(x^)−⟨p,x^⟩+12b(x^,x^)∈R,c_{0}=\varphi(\hat{x})-\langle p,\hat{x}\rangle+\tfrac{1}{2}b(\hat{x},\hat{x})\in\mathbb{R},

we have T=Q+a+qT=Q+a+q, where Q,a,q:H→RQ,a,q:H\to\mathbb{R} are given by

Q(x)=12b(x,x),a(x)=⟨p−Tbx^,x⟩+c0,q(x)=2η2 ∣x−x^∣2.Q(x)=\tfrac{1}{2}b(x,x),\qquad a(x)=\langle p-T_{b}\hat{x},x\rangle+c_{0},\qquad q(x)=\tfrac{2\eta}{2}\,|x-\hat{x}|^{2}.

By claim 2 of Affine and Quadratic Functions on a Real Hilbert Space are of Class C2C^2, Q∈C2(H)Q\in C^{2}(H) with DQ(x)=TbxDQ(x)=T_{b}x and D2Q(x)=bD^{2}Q(x)=b; by claim 1 of that lemma, a∈C2(H)a\in C^{2}(H) with Da(x)=p−Tbx^Da(x)=p-T_{b}\hat{x} and D2a(x)=0SymD^{2}a(x)=0_{\mathrm{Sym}}; and by claim 3 of that lemma, applied with α=2η\alpha=2\eta and y0=x^y_{0}=\hat{x}, q∈C2(H)q\in C^{2}(H) with Dq(x)=2η (x−x^)Dq(x)=2\eta\,(x-\hat{x}) and D2q(x)=2ηID^{2}q(x)=2\eta I. Applying claim 2 of Constants, Sums, Scalar Multiples and Differences of Differentiable Functions on an Open Subset of a Real Inner Product Space twice, T∈C2(H)T\in C^{2}(H) and, for every x∈Hx\in H,

DT(x)=Tbx+(p−Tbx^)+2η (x−x^),D2T(x)=b+0Sym+2ηI=b+2ηI,DT(x)=T_{b}x+(p-T_{b}\hat{x})+2\eta\,(x-\hat{x}),\qquad D^{2}T(x)=b+0_{\mathrm{Sym}}+2\eta I=b+2\eta I,

the last equality because 0Sym0_{\mathrm{Sym}} is the zero vector of the vector space Sym(H)\mathrm{Sym}(H), by claim 1 of Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity.

Taking x=x^x=\hat{x} gives DT(x^)=Tbx^+p−Tbx^+2η 0H=p=Dφ(x^)DT(\hat{x})=T_{b}\hat{x}+p-T_{b}\hat{x}+2\eta\,0_{H}=p=D\varphi(\hat{x}). Evaluating the defining formula for TT at x^\hat{x}, the last three terms vanish: x^−x^=0H\hat{x}-\hat{x}=0_{H}, ⟨p,0H⟩=0\langle p,0_{H}\rangle=0 by Elementary Identities in a Real Inner Product Space (ii), ∣b(0H,0H)∣≤∥b∥ ∣0H∣ ∣0H∣=0|b(0_{H},0_{H})|\le\lVert b\rVert\,|0_{H}|\,|0_{H}|=0 by claim 2 of Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity so that b(0H,0H)=0b(0_{H},0_{H})=0 by claim 1 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field, and ∣0H∣2=0|0_{H}|^{2}=0. Hence T(x^)=φ(x^)T(\hat{x})=\varphi(\hat{x}).

For the norm bound, D2T(x)−D2φ(x^)=(b+2ηI)−b=2ηID^{2}T(x)-D^{2}\varphi(\hat{x})=(b+2\eta I)-b=2\eta I in the vector space Sym(H)\mathrm{Sym}(H). For all x′,y′∈Hx',y'\in H,

∣(2ηI)(x′,y′)∣=∣2η ⟨x′,y′⟩∣=∣2η∣ ∣⟨x′,y′⟩∣≤∣2η∣ ∣x′∣ ∣y′∣|(2\eta I)(x',y')|=|2\eta\,\langle x',y'\rangle|=|2\eta|\,|\langle x',y'\rangle|\le|2\eta|\,|x'|\,|y'|

by Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms on a Real Inner Product Space: Norm, Order, Identity Form and Restriction (iv), claim 4 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field and The Cauchy–Schwarz Inequality in a Real Inner Product Space; moreover ∣2η∣=2 ∣η∣|2\eta|=2\,|\eta| by claim 4 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field, and 0≤2∣η∣0\le 2|\eta| by claim 1 of that lemma and claim 2 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Claim 2 of Elementary Properties of Bounded Symmetric Bilinear Forms: Norm, Quadratic Form, Order and Continuity therefore gives ∥2ηI∥≤2∣η∣\lVert 2\eta I\rVert\le 2|\eta|, which is the asserted bound.

Finally, let U′⊆HU'\subseteq H be open in (H,d)(H,d). By claim 4 of Basic Properties of Differentiability on an Open Subset of a Real Inner Product Space, applied with the open sets U′⊆HU'\subseteq H, the restriction of TT to U′U' belongs to C2(U′)C^{2}(U') and has the gradients and Hessians of TT at the points of U′U'.

Claim 2. Suppose 0<η0<\eta. By claim 2 of Segment Derivatives, the Second-Order Taylor Expansion, and the Second-Order Condition at a Local Extremum, applied to φ∈C2(U)\varphi\in C^{2}(U) at the point x^\hat{x} with the positive number η\eta in the role of its ε\varepsilon, there is a positive ρ∈R\rho\in\mathbb{R} such that every z∈Hz\in H with ∣z∣<ρ|z|<\rho satisfies x^+z∈U\hat{x}+z\in U and

∣φ(x^+z)−φ(x^)−⟨p,z⟩−12b(z,z)∣≤η ∣z∣2.\Bigl|\varphi(\hat{x}+z)-\varphi(\hat{x})-\langle p,z\rangle-\tfrac{1}{2}b(z,z)\Bigr|\le\eta\,|z|^{2}.

Let x∈Hx\in H satisfy ∣x−x^∣<ρ|x-\hat{x}|<\rho and put z=x−x^z=x-\hat{x}, so that x=x^+zx=\hat{x}+z and ∣z∣<ρ|z|<\rho; then x∈Ux\in U, and by claim 3 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field together with claim 6 of that lemma,

φ(x)−φ(x^)−⟨p,z⟩−12b(z,z)≤η ∣z∣2,\varphi(x)-\varphi(\hat{x})-\langle p,z\rangle-\tfrac{1}{2}b(z,z)\le\eta\,|z|^{2},

which, rearranged by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, is exactly φ(x)≤T(x)\varphi(x)\le T(x).

Claim 3. Suppose η<0\eta<0, so that −η-\eta is positive by claim 4 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Applying claim 2 of Segment Derivatives, the Second-Order Taylor Expansion, and the Second-Order Condition at a Local Extremum as in claim 2 above, but with −η-\eta in the role of its ε\varepsilon, we obtain a positive ρ\rho such that every x∈Hx\in H with ∣x−x^∣<ρ|x-\hat{x}|<\rho lies in UU and satisfies, with z=x−x^z=x-\hat{x},

−(−η) ∣z∣2≤φ(x)−φ(x^)−⟨p,z⟩−12b(z,z),-(-\eta)\,|z|^{2}\le\varphi(x)-\varphi(\hat{x})-\langle p,z\rangle-\tfrac{1}{2}b(z,z),

again by claim 3 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field and claim 6 of that lemma. Since −(−η)=η-(-\eta)=\eta, rearranging by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field gives T(x)≤φ(x)T(x)\le\varphi(x).

Claim 4. Suppose 0<η0<\eta and let ρ\rho be as furnished by claim 2. Let δ0\delta_{0} be a positive real number witnessing, as in Local Maximum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space, that the function with value g(x)−φ(x)g(x)-\varphi(x) at xx has a local maximum at x^\hat{x} relative to AA. Put δ1=min⁡{δ0,ρ}\delta_{1}=\min\{\delta_{0},\rho\}, which is positive and satisfies δ1≤δ0\delta_{1}\le\delta_{0} and δ1≤ρ\delta_{1}\le\rho by claims 1 and 2 of Elementary Properties of the Minimum of Two Elements.

Let y∈Ay\in A satisfy d(x^,y)<δ1d(\hat{x},y)<\delta_{1}. Then d(x^,y)<ρd(\hat{x},y)<\rho and d(x^,y)<δ0d(\hat{x},y)<\delta_{0} by claim 2 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Now ∣y−x^∣=d(y,x^)=d(x^,y)<ρ|y-\hat{x}|=d(y,\hat{x})=d(\hat{x},y)<\rho by the symmetry axiom, so φ(y)≤T(y)\varphi(y)\le T(y) by claim 2; hence 0≤T(y)−φ(y)0\le T(y)-\varphi(y) by claim 3 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, and since

(g(y)−φ(y))−(g(y)−T(y))=T(y)−φ(y),\bigl(g(y)-\varphi(y)\bigr)-\bigl(g(y)-T(y)\bigr)=T(y)-\varphi(y),

the same claim gives g(y)−T(y)≤g(y)−φ(y)g(y)-T(y)\le g(y)-\varphi(y). From d(x^,y)<δ0d(\hat{x},y)<\delta_{0} we get g(y)−φ(y)≤g(x^)−φ(x^)g(y)-\varphi(y)\le g(\hat{x})-\varphi(\hat{x}), and g(x^)−φ(x^)=g(x^)−T(x^)g(\hat{x})-\varphi(\hat{x})=g(\hat{x})-T(\hat{x}) because T(x^)=φ(x^)T(\hat{x})=\varphi(\hat{x}) by claim 1. Combining these by transitivity of the order gives g(y)−T(y)≤g(x^)−T(x^)g(y)-T(y)\le g(\hat{x})-T(\hat{x}). Thus δ1\delta_{1} witnesses that the function with value g(x)−T(x)g(x)-T(x) at xx has a local maximum at x^\hat{x} relative to AA.

Claim 5. Suppose η<0\eta<0 and let ρ\rho be as furnished by claim 3. The argument of claim 4 applies verbatim with Local Minimum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space in place of Local Maximum of a Function Relative to a Subset of a Metric Space, using T(y)≤φ(y)T(y)\le\varphi(y) from claim 3 in place of φ(y)≤T(y)\varphi(y)\le T(y), which gives g(y)−φ(y)≤g(y)−T(y)g(y)-\varphi(y)\le g(y)-T(y), and the inequality g(x^)−φ(x^)≤g(y)−φ(y)g(\hat{x})-\varphi(\hat{x})\le g(y)-\varphi(y) in place of its reverse.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…