Reason: First published proof of thm:l2-convex-projection-2026a. Cauchy-Schwarz is referenced inline at the head of the proof as claims 4, 5 and 6 of the inner-product lemma; later uses are back-references to that statement.
Proof
Throughout, ∥⋅∥ abbreviates ∥⋅∥L2 and ⟨⋅,⋅⟩ abbreviates ⟨⋅,⋅⟩L2, and we use claims 4, 5 and 6 of the inner-product lemma: the pairing is symmetric and linear in each argument, ⟨w,w⟩=∥w∥2, the norm vanishes only at the zero element, ∥cw∥=∣c∣∥w∥ for real c, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality ∣⟨w,w′⟩∣≤∥w∥∥w′∥ and the triangle inequality hold, and dL2 is a metric. Expanding by bilinearity, for all a,b∈H,
∥a−b∥2+∥a+b∥2=2∥a∥2+2∥b∥2.(P)
Claim 1.Existence. Fix u∈H and let S={∥u−v∥:v∈C}, a nonempty set of real numbers bounded below by 0. Let δ be its greatest lower bound, which exists because the real numbers are a Dedekind complete ordered field; note δ≥0.
For each n∈N the number δ+1/n is not a lower bound of S, so there is vn∈C with ∥u−vn∥<δ+1/n, whence ∥u−vn∥2<δ2+2δ/n+1/n2. Let n,m∈N. Applying (P) with a=u−vn and b=u−vm, and noting a−b=vm−vn and a+b=2(u−21vn−21vm), so that ∥a+b∥2=4∥u−21vn−21vm∥2 by absolute homogeneity, we get
Let ε>0 be real. Since the real numbers are Archimedean, choose N∈N with N>(16δ+8)/ε2. For n≥N we have 1/n2≤1/n≤1/N, hence
n4δ+n22≤N4δ+2<4ε2,
and likewise for m≥N. So for all n,m≥N the right-hand side of the previous display is less than ε2/2, giving ∥vn−vm∥2<ε2 and therefore ∥vn−vm∥<ε, since both quantities are nonnegative and squaring is strictly increasing on the nonnegative reals. Thus (vn)n is a Cauchy sequence in (H,dL2). By completeness of L2([0,T];Rd) it converges to some p∈H, and p∈C because C is closed. Indeed, suppose p∈/C. Then p lies in the complement H∖C, which is open, so there is a real ρ>0 with {ζ∈H:dL2(ζ,p)<ρ}⊆H∖C. Since (vn)n converges to p, there is n with dL2(vn,p)<ρ, so that vn∈H∖C; but vn∈C, a contradiction.
Moreover ∥u−p∥=δ: from the triangle inequality, ∥u−vn∥−∥u−p∥≤∥vn−p∥, which has limit 0, so the real sequence (∥u−vn∥)n has limit ∥u−p∥; since δ≤∥u−vn∥<δ+1/n for every n, that same sequence also has limit δ: given a real η>0, the Archimedean property supplies N∈N with 1/N<η, and then ∥u−vn∥−δ<1/n≤1/N<η for every n≥N. Limits of real sequences are unique by uniqueness of limits, so ∥u−p∥=δ. As δ is a lower bound of S, p satisfies ∥u−p∥≤∥u−v∥ for every v∈C.
Uniqueness. Suppose p,p′∈C both satisfy the minimising inequality; then each of ∥u−p∥ and ∥u−p′∥ lies in S and is a lower bound of S. Such a number equals δ: it is at least δ because δ is a lower bound of S and the number lies in S, and it is at most δ because it is a lower bound of S while δ is the greatest lower bound. Hence ∥u−p∥=∥u−p′∥=δ. Applying (P) with a=u−p, b=u−p′ and using 21p+21p′∈C exactly as above,
∥p−p′∥2=2δ2+2δ2−4u−21p−21p′2≤4δ2−4δ2=0,
so p=p′. We write πC(u) for this unique element.
Claim 2. Suppose first that ⟨u−p,v−p⟩≤0 for every v∈C. For v∈C, bilinearity gives
since the middle term is nonnegative and the last is nonnegative. Taking nonnegative square roots, ∥u−p∥≤∥u−v∥ for every v∈C, so p=πC(u) by the uniqueness in claim 1.
Conversely suppose p=πC(u) and let v∈C. For a real s with 0<s≤1, convexity gives (1−s)p+sv=p+s(v−p)∈C, so
∥u−p∥2≤∥u−p−s(v−p)∥2=∥u−p∥2−2s⟨u−p,v−p⟩+s2∥v−p∥2.
Hence 2s⟨u−p,v−p⟩≤s2∥v−p∥2, and dividing by 2s>0,
⟨u−p,v−p⟩≤2s∥v−p∥2for every real s with 0<s≤1.
If ⟨u−p,v−p⟩ were a positive number η, choosing s with 0<s≤1 and s<2η/(∥v−p∥2+1) would give 2s∥v−p∥2<η, a contradiction. Therefore ⟨u−p,v−p⟩≤0.
Claim 3. If u∈C then ∥u−u∥=0≤∥u−v∥ for every v∈C, so u satisfies the minimising inequality and πC(u)=u by uniqueness. Since πC takes values in C by construction, it maps H onto C.
Claim 4. Let u,u′∈H and put p=πC(u), p′=πC(u′). Applying claim 2 to u with the test element p′∈C, and to u′ with the test element p∈C,
⟨u−p,p′−p⟩≤0,⟨u′−p′,p−p′⟩≤0.
Adding the first to the second after replacing p−p′ by −(p′−p) in the second, that is adding ⟨u−p,p′−p⟩≤0 and −⟨u′−p′,p′−p⟩≤0, gives by bilinearity
⟨(u−u′)−(p−p′),p′−p⟩≤0.
Since ⟨p−p′,p′−p⟩=−∥p−p′∥2, this reads ⟨u−u′,p′−p⟩+∥p−p′∥2≤0, that is
∥p−p′∥2≤⟨u−u′,p−p′⟩≤∥u−u′∥∥p−p′∥
by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality. If ∥p−p′∥=0 the asserted inequality is immediate; otherwise dividing by the positive number ∥p−p′∥ gives ∥p−p′∥≤∥u−u′∥. In either case dL2(πC(u),πC(u′))≤dL2(u,u′), which is exactly the assertion that πC is Lipschitz with constant 1.