Notation and constants. Put ε = μ λ 2 \varepsilon=\mu\lambda^{2} ε = μ λ 2 , a positive real number, and define sequences of positive real numbers by
μ k = μ ( 1 2 ) k , δ k = ε ( 1 8 ) k ( k ∈ N ) . \mu_{k}=\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{k},\qquad \delta_{k}=\varepsilon\bigl(\tfrac{1}{8}\bigr)^{k}\qquad(k\in\mathbb{N}). μ k = μ ( 2 1 ) k , δ k = ε ( 8 1 ) k ( k ∈ N ) .
By claim 4 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series and claim 1 of Elementary Properties of Series of Real Numbers , the series ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k converges with
∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k = μ , ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k − ∑ k = 1 n μ k = μ ( 1 2 ) n for every n ∈ N . \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}=\mu,\qquad \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}=\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}\quad\text{for every }n\in\mathbb{N}. k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k = μ , k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k − k = 1 ∑ n μ k = μ ( 2 1 ) n for every n ∈ N .
Since 0 ≤ 1 8 ≤ 1 2 0\le\tfrac{1}{8}\le\tfrac{1}{2} 0 ≤ 8 1 ≤ 2 1 , claim 5 of Properties of Natural Number Powers in a Field gives ( 1 8 ) k ≤ ( 1 2 ) k \bigl(\tfrac{1}{8}\bigr)^{k}\le\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{k} ( 8 1 ) k ≤ ( 2 1 ) k , so by claim 3 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series the series ∑ k = 1 ∞ δ k \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\delta_{k} ∑ k = 1 ∞ δ k converges with ∑ k = 1 ∞ δ k ≤ ε \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\delta_{k}\le\varepsilon ∑ k = 1 ∞ δ k ≤ ε . Also δ k + 1 ≤ δ k \delta_{k+1}\le\delta_{k} δ k + 1 ≤ δ k for every k k k , by the same monotonicity of powers.
Indices. Every k ∈ N k\in\mathbb{N} k ∈ N is either 1 1 1 or of the form m + 1 m+1 m + 1 with m ∈ N m\in\mathbb{N} m ∈ N : the set of k k k with this property contains 1 1 1 and contains S ( m ) = m + 1 S(m)=m+1 S ( m ) = m + 1 whenever it contains m m m , hence is all of N \mathbb{N} N by induction as in Natural Numbers . Moreover, if n , k ∈ N n,k\in\mathbb{N} n , k ∈ N satisfy n + 1 ≤ k n+1\le k n + 1 ≤ k , then k = m + 1 k=m+1 k = m + 1 for some m m m with n ≤ m n\le m n ≤ m . Indeed k ≠ 1 k\ne1 k = 1 : if k = 1 k=1 k = 1 then n + 1 ≤ 1 n+1\le1 n + 1 ≤ 1 , while 1 ≤ n 1\le n 1 ≤ n by claim 4 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers and n ≤ n + 1 n\le n+1 n ≤ n + 1 by claims 5 and 1 of that lemma, so transitivity gives n ≤ 1 n\le1 n ≤ 1 and n + 1 ≤ n n+1\le n n + 1 ≤ n , hence n = n + 1 n=n+1 n = n + 1 by claim 2 and therefore n < n n<n n < n , which claim 2 excludes. So k = m + 1 k=m+1 k = m + 1 for some m ∈ N m\in\mathbb{N} m ∈ N ; and if n ≤ m n\le m n ≤ m failed, then m < n m<n m < n by claim 3, hence m ≤ n m\le n m ≤ n and m + 1 ≤ n + 1 m+1\le n+1 m + 1 ≤ n + 1 by claims 1 and 6, while m + 1 ≠ n + 1 m+1\ne n+1 m + 1 = n + 1 because S S S is injective by Natural Numbers , so n + 1 ≤ m + 1 n+1\le m+1 n + 1 ≤ m + 1 and m + 1 ≤ n + 1 m+1\le n+1 m + 1 ≤ n + 1 would force m + 1 = n + 1 m+1=n+1 m + 1 = n + 1 by claim 2, a contradiction.
A tail estimate. Let ( w k ) k ∈ N (w_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} ( w k ) k ∈ N be nonnegative real numbers such that ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k converges, let n ∈ N n\in\mathbb{N} n ∈ N , and let M M M be a nonnegative real with w k ≤ M w_{k}\le M w k ≤ M for every k k k with n ≤ k n\le k n ≤ k . Then
∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k − ∑ k = 1 n μ k w k ≤ M μ ( 1 2 ) n . \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}w_{k}\le M\,\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}. k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k w k − k = 1 ∑ n μ k w k ≤ M μ ( 2 1 ) n .
Indeed, one shows by induction on m m m that n ≤ m n\le m n ≤ m implies
∑ k = 1 m μ k w k − ∑ k = 1 n μ k w k ≤ M ( ∑ k = 1 m μ k − ∑ k = 1 n μ k ) : \sum_{k=1}^{m}\mu_{k}w_{k}-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}w_{k}\le M\Bigl(\sum_{k=1}^{m}\mu_{k}-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}\Bigr): k = 1 ∑ m μ k w k − k = 1 ∑ n μ k w k ≤ M ( k = 1 ∑ m μ k − k = 1 ∑ n μ k ) :
for m = 1 m=1 m = 1 we have n = 1 n=1 n = 1 by claims 4 and 2 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers and both sides vanish; and if n ≤ m + 1 n\le m+1 n ≤ m + 1 then either n = m + 1 n=m+1 n = m + 1 , when both sides vanish, or n ≤ m n\le m n ≤ m by claim 5 of that lemma, and adding μ m + 1 w m + 1 ≤ μ m + 1 M \mu_{m+1}w_{m+1}\le\mu_{m+1}M μ m + 1 w m + 1 ≤ μ m + 1 M , valid by claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field , to the inductive hypothesis gives the statement for m + 1 m+1 m + 1 . Letting m m m tend to infinity and using claim 1 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences together with the displayed value of the tail of ∑ μ k \sum\mu_{k} ∑ μ k yields the estimate.
Construction of the centres. Let T \mathcal{T} T be the set of pairs ( n , v ) (n,v) ( n , v ) with n ∈ N n\in\mathbb{N} n ∈ N and v : [ n ] → A v:[n]\to A v : [ n ] → A a map with v 1 = x 0 v_{1}=x_{0} v 1 = x 0 ; it is nonempty, since A A A contains x 0 x_{0} x 0 . For ( n , v ) ∈ T (n,v)\in\mathcal{T} ( n , v ) ∈ T define Ψ v : A → R \Psi^{v}:A\to\mathbb{R} Ψ v : A → R by
Ψ v ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − ∑ k = 1 n μ k ∣ x − v k ∣ 2 . \Psi^{v}(x)=\Phi(x)-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}|x-v_{k}|^{2}. Ψ v ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − k = 1 ∑ n μ k ∣ x − v k ∣ 2 .
The subtracted finite sum is nonnegative by claim 5 of Properties of Finite Sums , so Ψ v ≤ Φ \Psi^{v}\le\Phi Ψ v ≤ Φ and Ψ v \Psi^{v} Ψ v is bounded above; as A A A is nonempty, sup x ∈ A Ψ v ( x ) \sup_{x\in A}\Psi^{v}(x) sup x ∈ A Ψ v ( x ) exists.
Let R R R be the set of pairs ( ( n , v ) , ( n ′ , v ′ ) ) \bigl((n,v),(n',v')\bigr) ( ( n , v ) , ( n ′ , v ′ ) ) in T × T \mathcal{T}\times\mathcal{T} T × T with n ′ = n + 1 n'=n+1 n ′ = n + 1 , with v k ′ = v k v'_{k}=v_{k} v k ′ = v k for every k ∈ [ n ] k\in[n] k ∈ [ n ] , and with
Ψ v ( v n ′ ′ ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Ψ v ( x ) − δ n . \Psi^{v}(v'_{n'})\ge\sup_{x\in A}\Psi^{v}(x)-\delta_{n}. Ψ v ( v n ′ ′ ) ≥ x ∈ A sup Ψ v ( x ) − δ n .
For every ( n , v ) ∈ T (n,v)\in\mathcal{T} ( n , v ) ∈ T such a successor exists: by claim 3 of Approximation Property of the Supremum and the Infimum in R \mathbb{R} R there is a ∈ A a\in A a ∈ A with sup x ∈ A Ψ v ( x ) − δ n < Ψ v ( a ) \sup_{x\in A}\Psi^{v}(x)-\delta_{n}<\Psi^{v}(a) sup x ∈ A Ψ v ( x ) − δ n < Ψ v ( a ) , and the map v ′ : [ n + 1 ] → A v':[n+1]\to A v ′ : [ n + 1 ] → A with v k ′ = v k v'_{k}=v_{k} v k ′ = v k for k ∈ [ n ] k\in[n] k ∈ [ n ] and v n + 1 ′ = a v'_{n+1}=a v n + 1 ′ = a is well defined, because every element of [ n + 1 ] [n+1] [ n + 1 ] either lies in [ n ] [n] [ n ] or equals n + 1 n+1 n + 1 by claim 5 of Properties of the Order on the Natural Numbers .
By Axiom of Dependent Choice , applied to T \mathcal{T} T , to R R R and to the element ( 1 , v 1 ) (1,v^{1}) ( 1 , v 1 ) with v 1 1 = x 0 v^{1}_{1}=x_{0} v 1 1 = x 0 , there is a sequence ( ( n m , v m ) ) m ∈ N \bigl((n_{m},v^{m})\bigr)_{m\in\mathbb{N}} ( ( n m , v m ) ) m ∈ N in T \mathcal{T} T with ( n 1 , v 1 ) (n_{1},v^{1}) ( n 1 , v 1 ) as its first term and consecutive terms related by R R R . Then n m = m n_{m}=m n m = m for every m m m , by induction. Define x k = v k k x_{k}=v^{k}_{k} x k = v k k for k ∈ N k\in\mathbb{N} k ∈ N ; by induction on m m m , v k m = x k v^{m}_{k}=x_{k} v k m = x k for every k ∈ [ m ] k\in[m] k ∈ [ m ] . Writing
Ψ n ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − ∑ k = 1 n μ k ∣ x − x k ∣ 2 , σ n = sup x ∈ A Ψ n ( x ) , \Psi_{n}(x)=\Phi(x)-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}|x-x_{k}|^{2},\qquad \sigma_{n}=\sup_{x\in A}\Psi_{n}(x), Ψ n ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − k = 1 ∑ n μ k ∣ x − x k ∣ 2 , σ n = x ∈ A sup Ψ n ( x ) ,
we therefore have x 1 = x 0 x_{1}=x_{0} x 1 = x 0 , x k ∈ A x_{k}\in A x k ∈ A for every k k k , and
Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n for every n ∈ N . ( ∗ ) \Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})\ge\sigma_{n}-\delta_{n}\qquad\text{for every }n\in\mathbb{N}. \tag{$*$} Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n for every n ∈ N . ( ∗ )
Also Ψ n + 1 ≤ Ψ n ≤ Φ \Psi_{n+1}\le\Psi_{n}\le\Phi Ψ n + 1 ≤ Ψ n ≤ Φ pointwise, since the additional subtracted terms are nonnegative, so σ n + 1 ≤ σ n ≤ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) \sigma_{n+1}\le\sigma_{n}\le\sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x) σ n + 1 ≤ σ n ≤ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) ; and Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) \Psi_{n+1}(x_{n+1})=\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1}) Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) , because the extra term μ n + 1 ∣ x n + 1 − x n + 1 ∣ 2 \mu_{n+1}|x_{n+1}-x_{n+1}|^{2} μ n + 1 ∣ x n + 1 − x n + 1 ∣ 2 vanishes.
The step estimate. Write D j = ∣ x j + 1 − x j ∣ D_{j}=|x_{j+1}-x_{j}| D j = ∣ x j + 1 − x j ∣ . We claim that D j ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) j D_{j}\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{j} D j ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) j for every j ∈ N j\in\mathbb{N} j ∈ N .
For j = 1 j=1 j = 1 : by ( ∗ ) (*) ( ∗ ) and Ψ 1 ( x 1 ) = Φ ( x 1 ) \Psi_{1}(x_{1})=\Phi(x_{1}) Ψ 1 ( x 1 ) = Φ ( x 1 ) we get Ψ 1 ( x 2 ) ≥ σ 1 − δ 1 ≥ Ψ 1 ( x 1 ) − δ 1 = Φ ( x 1 ) − δ 1 \Psi_{1}(x_{2})\ge\sigma_{1}-\delta_{1}\ge\Psi_{1}(x_{1})-\delta_{1}=\Phi(x_{1})-\delta_{1} Ψ 1 ( x 2 ) ≥ σ 1 − δ 1 ≥ Ψ 1 ( x 1 ) − δ 1 = Φ ( x 1 ) − δ 1 , while Ψ 1 ( x 2 ) = Φ ( x 2 ) − μ 1 D 1 2 ≤ Φ ( x 1 ) + ε − μ 1 D 1 2 \Psi_{1}(x_{2})=\Phi(x_{2})-\mu_{1}D_{1}^{2}\le\Phi(x_{1})+\varepsilon-\mu_{1}D_{1}^{2} Ψ 1 ( x 2 ) = Φ ( x 2 ) − μ 1 D 1 2 ≤ Φ ( x 1 ) + ε − μ 1 D 1 2 by the hypothesis on x 0 = x 1 x_{0}=x_{1} x 0 = x 1 . Hence μ 1 D 1 2 ≤ ε + δ 1 ≤ 2 ε \mu_{1}D_{1}^{2}\le\varepsilon+\delta_{1}\le2\varepsilon μ 1 D 1 2 ≤ ε + δ 1 ≤ 2 ε , and since μ 1 = μ ( 1 2 ) \mu_{1}=\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr) μ 1 = μ ( 2 1 ) ,
D 1 2 ≤ 2 ε μ ( 1 2 ) = 4 λ 2 = ( 4 λ ( 1 2 ) ) 2 . D_{1}^{2}\le\frac{2\varepsilon}{\mu(\tfrac{1}{2})}=4\lambda^{2}=\Bigl(4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)\Bigr)^{2}. D 1 2 ≤ μ ( 2 1 ) 2 ε = 4 λ 2 = ( 4 λ ( 2 1 ) ) 2 .
For j = n + 1 j=n+1 j = n + 1 : by ( ∗ ) (*) ( ∗ ) at n + 1 n+1 n + 1 and Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) \Psi_{n+1}(x_{n+1})=\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1}) Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ,
Ψ n ( x n + 2 ) − μ n + 1 D n + 1 2 = Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 2 ) ≥ σ n + 1 − δ n + 1 ≥ Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) − δ n + 1 = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) − δ n + 1 , \Psi_{n}(x_{n+2})-\mu_{n+1}D_{n+1}^{2}=\Psi_{n+1}(x_{n+2})\ge\sigma_{n+1}-\delta_{n+1}\ge\Psi_{n+1}(x_{n+1})-\delta_{n+1}=\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})-\delta_{n+1}, Ψ n ( x n + 2 ) − μ n + 1 D n + 1 2 = Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 2 ) ≥ σ n + 1 − δ n + 1 ≥ Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) − δ n + 1 = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) − δ n + 1 ,
while ( ∗ ) (*) ( ∗ ) at n n n gives Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n ≥ Ψ n ( x n + 2 ) − δ n \Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})\ge\sigma_{n}-\delta_{n}\ge\Psi_{n}(x_{n+2})-\delta_{n} Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n ≥ Ψ n ( x n + 2 ) − δ n . Combining,
μ n + 1 D n + 1 2 ≤ δ n + δ n + 1 ≤ 2 δ n = 2 ε ( 1 8 ) n , \mu_{n+1}D_{n+1}^{2}\le\delta_{n}+\delta_{n+1}\le2\delta_{n}=2\varepsilon\bigl(\tfrac{1}{8}\bigr)^{n}, μ n + 1 D n + 1 2 ≤ δ n + δ n + 1 ≤ 2 δ n = 2 ε ( 8 1 ) n ,
so, dividing by μ n + 1 = μ ( 1 2 ) n + 1 \mu_{n+1}=\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n+1} μ n + 1 = μ ( 2 1 ) n + 1 and using claim 3 of Properties of Natural Number Powers in a Field ,
D n + 1 2 ≤ 2 ε μ ⋅ 2 ⋅ ( 1 4 ) n = 4 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n = 16 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n + 1 = ( 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n + 1 ) 2 . D_{n+1}^{2}\le\frac{2\varepsilon}{\mu}\cdot 2\cdot\Bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\Bigr)^{n}=4\lambda^{2}\Bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\Bigr)^{n}=16\lambda^{2}\Bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\Bigr)^{n+1}=\Bigl(4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n+1}\Bigr)^{2}. D n + 1 2 ≤ μ 2 ε ⋅ 2 ⋅ ( 4 1 ) n = 4 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n = 16 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n + 1 = ( 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n + 1 ) 2 .
In both cases the two numbers compared are nonnegative, so claim 1 of Monotonicity of Squaring on the Nonnegative Elements of an Ordered Field and trichotomy give D j ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) j D_{j}\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{j} D j ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) j , as claimed, since by the index observation every j j j is 1 1 1 or of the form n + 1 n+1 n + 1 .
Convergence of the centres. Apply claim 5 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series with the weights ( 1 2 ) k \bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{k} ( 2 1 ) k , the bound M = 4 λ M=4\lambda M = 4 λ and the numbers w k = D k / ( 1 2 ) k w_{k}=D_{k}\bigl/\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{k} w k = D k / ( 2 1 ) k , which satisfy 0 ≤ w k ≤ 4 λ 0\le w_{k}\le4\lambda 0 ≤ w k ≤ 4 λ by the step estimate: the series ∑ k = 1 ∞ D k \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}D_{k} ∑ k = 1 ∞ D k converges and, writing T T T for its sum and T n T_{n} T n for its partial sums,
T − T n ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n for every n ∈ N . T-T_{n}\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}\quad\text{for every }n\in\mathbb{N}. T − T n ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n for every n ∈ N .
Moreover T ≤ 4 λ T\le4\lambda T ≤ 4 λ : by the step estimate 0 ≤ D k ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) k 0\le D_{k}\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{k} 0 ≤ D k ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) k , and the series with terms 4 λ ( 1 2 ) k 4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{k} 4 λ ( 2 1 ) k converges with sum 4 λ 4\lambda 4 λ by claim 1 of Elementary Properties of Series of Real Numbers , so claim 3 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series applies.
Thus ∑ k = 1 ∞ ( x k + 1 − x k ) \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}(x_{k+1}-x_{k}) ∑ k = 1 ∞ ( x k + 1 − x k ) converges absolutely, hence converges by claim 5 of Elementary Properties of Series in a Real Inner Product Space , and therefore ( x k ) k ∈ N (x_{k})_{k\in\mathbb{N}} ( x k ) k ∈ N converges by claim 3 of that lemma. Let x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ denote its limit in H H H .
By induction, ∣ x m + 1 − x 1 ∣ ≤ T m ≤ T ≤ 4 λ |x_{m+1}-x_{1}|\le T_{m}\le T\le4\lambda ∣ x m + 1 − x 1 ∣ ≤ T m ≤ T ≤ 4 λ for every m m m , using The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity §triangle in the inductive step and claim 2 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series for T m ≤ T T_{m}\le T T m ≤ T ; since ∣ x 1 − x 1 ∣ = 0 |x_{1}-x_{1}|=0 ∣ x 1 − x 1 ∣ = 0 , we get ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ |x_{k}-x_{1}|\le4\lambda ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ for every k k k . Similarly, by induction on m m m one obtains, for n ≤ m n\le m n ≤ m ,
∣ x m + 1 − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ T m − T n ≤ T − T n ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n , |x_{m+1}-x_{n+1}|\le T_{m}-T_{n}\le T-T_{n}\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}, ∣ x m + 1 − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ T m − T n ≤ T − T n ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n ,
the case m = n m=n m = n being trivial and the step using the triangle inequality. By the index observation, this gives
∣ x k − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n whenever n + 1 ≤ k . ( ∗ ∗ ) |x_{k}-x_{n+1}|\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}\qquad\text{whenever }n+1\le k. \tag{$**$} ∣ x k − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n whenever n + 1 ≤ k . ( ∗ ∗ )
Since ∣ ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ − ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ ∣ ≤ ∣ x k − x ˉ ∣ \bigl||x_{k}-x_{1}|-|\bar{x}-x_{1}|\bigr|\le|x_{k}-\bar{x}| ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ − ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ ∣ x k − x ˉ ∣ by The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity §reverse-triangle , the sequence ( ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ ) (|x_{k}-x_{1}|) ( ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ ) converges to ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ |\bar{x}-x_{1}| ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ , so claim 1 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences gives ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ |\bar{x}-x_{1}|\le4\lambda ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ; the same argument applied to ( ∗ ∗ ) (**) ( ∗ ∗ ) gives ∣ x ˉ − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n |\bar{x}-x_{n+1}|\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n} ∣ x ˉ − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n .
The centre y ˉ \bar{y} y ˉ and the collapse of the perturbation. Since ∣ μ k x k ∣ = μ k ∣ x k ∣ ≤ μ k ( ∣ x 1 ∣ + 4 λ ) |\mu_{k}x_{k}|=\mu_{k}|x_{k}|\le\mu_{k}\bigl(|x_{1}|+4\lambda\bigr) ∣ μ k x k ∣ = μ k ∣ x k ∣ ≤ μ k ( ∣ x 1 ∣ + 4 λ ) , claim 3 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series shows that ∑ k = 1 ∞ ∣ μ k x k ∣ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|\mu_{k}x_{k}| ∑ k = 1 ∞ ∣ μ k x k ∣ converges, so ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x k \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}x_{k} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x k converges by claim 5 of Elementary Properties of Series in a Real Inner Product Space . Define
y ˉ = μ − 1 ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x k . \bar{y}=\mu^{-1}\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}x_{k}. y ˉ = μ − 1 k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k x k .
The map R → H \mathbb{R}\to H R → H sending s s s to s x 1 s\,x_{1} s x 1 is linear and bounded, so claim 6 of Elementary Properties of Series in a Real Inner Product Space , together with claim 8 of that lemma, gives ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x 1 = μ x 1 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}x_{1}=\mu x_{1} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x 1 = μ x 1 . Hence, by claim 1 of Elementary Properties of Series in a Real Inner Product Space , the series ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ( x k − x 1 ) \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}(x_{k}-x_{1}) ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ( x k − x 1 ) converges with sum μ y ˉ − μ x 1 \mu\bar{y}-\mu x_{1} μ y ˉ − μ x 1 , and by claim 5 of that lemma and claim 3 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series ,
μ ∣ y ˉ − x 1 ∣ = ∣ ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ( x k − x 1 ) ∣ ≤ ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k = 4 λ μ , \mu\,|\bar{y}-x_{1}|=\Bigl|\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}(x_{k}-x_{1})\Bigr|\le\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}|x_{k}-x_{1}|\le4\lambda\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}=4\lambda\mu, μ ∣ y ˉ − x 1 ∣ = k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k ( x k − x 1 ) ≤ k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k ∣ x k − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k = 4 λ μ ,
so ∣ y ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ |\bar{y}-x_{1}|\le4\lambda ∣ y ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ . Together with ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ |\bar{x}-x_{1}|\le4\lambda ∣ x ˉ − x 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ , x 1 = x 0 x_{1}=x_{0} x 1 = x 0 and The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity §triangle , this proves claim 1 of the theorem, the bound ∣ x ˉ − y ˉ ∣ ≤ 8 λ |\bar{x}-\bar{y}|\le8\lambda ∣ x ˉ − y ˉ ∣ ≤ 8 λ following from ∣ x ˉ − x 0 ∣ + ∣ x 0 − y ˉ ∣ ≤ 8 λ |\bar{x}-x_{0}|+|x_{0}-\bar{y}|\le8\lambda ∣ x ˉ − x 0 ∣ + ∣ x 0 − y ˉ ∣ ≤ 8 λ .
Next, let x ∈ A x\in A x ∈ A and put w k ( x ) = ∣ x − x k ∣ 2 w_{k}(x)=|x-x_{k}|^{2} w k ( x ) = ∣ x − x k ∣ 2 . By The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity §triangle , ∣ x − x k ∣ ≤ ∣ x − x 1 ∣ + 4 λ |x-x_{k}|\le|x-x_{1}|+4\lambda ∣ x − x k ∣ ≤ ∣ x − x 1 ∣ + 4 λ , so the w k ( x ) w_{k}(x) w k ( x ) are nonnegative and bounded by M ( x ) = ( ∣ x − x 1 ∣ + 4 λ ) 2 M(x)=\bigl(|x-x_{1}|+4\lambda\bigr)^{2} M ( x ) = ( ∣ x − x 1 ∣ + 4 λ ) 2 ; by claim 5 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series the series ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( x ) \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}(x) ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( x ) converges. By Elementary Identities in a Real Inner Product Space §expansion ,
μ k w k ( x ) = μ k ∣ x ∣ 2 − 2 μ k ⟨ x , x k ⟩ + μ k ∣ x k ∣ 2 . \mu_{k}w_{k}(x)=\mu_{k}|x|^{2}-2\mu_{k}\langle x,x_{k}\rangle+\mu_{k}|x_{k}|^{2}. μ k w k ( x ) = μ k ∣ x ∣ 2 − 2 μ k ⟨ x , x k ⟩ + μ k ∣ x k ∣ 2 .
The series ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ∣ x ∣ 2 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}|x|^{2} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ∣ x ∣ 2 converges to μ ∣ x ∣ 2 \mu|x|^{2} μ ∣ x ∣ 2 by claim 1 of Elementary Properties of Series of Real Numbers ; the series ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ∣ x k ∣ 2 \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}|x_{k}|^{2} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ∣ x k ∣ 2 converges, by claim 3 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series , to a real number K K K ; and by claim 7 of Elementary Properties of Series in a Real Inner Product Space , applied to the convergent series ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x k \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}x_{k} ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x k and the vector x x x , together with conditions (a) and (c) of Real Inner Product Space §inner-product ,
∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k ⟨ x , x k ⟩ = ⟨ ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k x k , x ⟩ = μ ⟨ x , y ˉ ⟩ . \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}\langle x,x_{k}\rangle=\Bigl\langle\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}x_{k},\,x\Bigr\rangle=\mu\,\langle x,\bar{y}\rangle . k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k ⟨ x , x k ⟩ = ⟨ k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k x k , x ⟩ = μ ⟨ x , y ˉ ⟩ .
Hence, by claim 1 of Elementary Properties of Series of Real Numbers and Elementary Identities in a Real Inner Product Space §expansion once more,
∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( x ) = μ ∣ x ∣ 2 − 2 μ ⟨ x , y ˉ ⟩ + K = μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 + C 0 , C 0 = K − μ ∣ y ˉ ∣ 2 , \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}(x)=\mu|x|^{2}-2\mu\langle x,\bar{y}\rangle+K=\mu|x-\bar{y}|^{2}+C_{0},\qquad C_{0}=K-\mu|\bar{y}|^{2}, k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k w k ( x ) = μ ∣ x ∣ 2 − 2 μ ⟨ x , y ˉ ⟩ + K = μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 + C 0 , C 0 = K − μ ∣ y ˉ ∣ 2 ,
with C 0 C_{0} C 0 independent of x x x . Writing
Ψ ∞ ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( x ) , \Psi_{\infty}(x)=\Phi(x)-\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}(x), Ψ ∞ ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k w k ( x ) ,
we therefore have Ψ ∞ = Ψ − C 0 \Psi_{\infty}=\Psi-C_{0} Ψ ∞ = Ψ − C 0 on A A A , where Ψ ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 \Psi(x)=\Phi(x)-\mu|x-\bar{y}|^{2} Ψ ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 . Since the partial sums of a series of nonnegative terms are at most its sum, by claim 2 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series , we also have Ψ ∞ ≤ Ψ n \Psi_{\infty}\le\Psi_{n} Ψ ∞ ≤ Ψ n on A A A for every n n n .
The residuals. Fix n ∈ N n\in\mathbb{N} n ∈ N and put
R n = ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( x n + 1 ) − ∑ k = 1 n μ k w k ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) − Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) . R_{n}=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}(x_{n+1})-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}w_{k}(x_{n+1})=\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})-\Psi_{\infty}(x_{n+1}). R n = k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k w k ( x n + 1 ) − k = 1 ∑ n μ k w k ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) − Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) .
Since w n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = 0 w_{n+1}(x_{n+1})=0 w n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = 0 , the partial sums up to n n n and up to n + 1 n+1 n + 1 agree, so R n R_{n} R n is also the tail beyond n + 1 n+1 n + 1 . By ( ∗ ∗ ) (**) ( ∗ ∗ ) , w k ( x n + 1 ) ≤ 16 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n w_{k}(x_{n+1})\le16\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n} w k ( x n + 1 ) ≤ 16 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n for every k k k with n + 1 ≤ k n+1\le k n + 1 ≤ k , so the tail estimate, applied with the index n + 1 n+1 n + 1 , gives
0 ≤ R n ≤ 16 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n μ ( 1 2 ) n + 1 . 0\le R_{n}\le16\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n}\,\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n+1}. 0 ≤ R n ≤ 16 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n μ ( 2 1 ) n + 1 .
Put ρ n = R n + δ n \rho_{n}=R_{n}+\delta_{n} ρ n = R n + δ n . Since ( 1 4 ) n ≤ 1 \bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n}\le1 ( 4 1 ) n ≤ 1 we get R n ≤ 16 λ 2 μ ( 1 2 ) n R_{n}\le16\lambda^{2}\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n} R n ≤ 16 λ 2 μ ( 2 1 ) n , so ( R n ) (R_{n}) ( R n ) and ( δ n ) (\delta_{n}) ( δ n ) , hence ( ρ n ) (\rho_{n}) ( ρ n ) , converge to 0 0 0 by claim 4 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series , claims 1 and 3 of Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences and claim 2 of Order Properties of Limits of Real Sequences . Moreover, dividing the two bounds by μ n + 1 = μ ( 1 2 ) n + 1 \mu_{n+1}=\mu\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n+1} μ n + 1 = μ ( 2 1 ) n + 1 ,
R n μ n + 1 ≤ 16 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n , δ n μ n + 1 = ε μ ⋅ 2 ⋅ ( 1 4 ) n = 2 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n , \frac{R_{n}}{\mu_{n+1}}\le16\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n},\qquad \frac{\delta_{n}}{\mu_{n+1}}=\frac{\varepsilon}{\mu}\cdot2\cdot\Bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\Bigr)^{n}=2\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n}, μ n + 1 R n ≤ 16 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n , μ n + 1 δ n = μ ε ⋅ 2 ⋅ ( 4 1 ) n = 2 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n ,
so ρ n / μ n + 1 ≤ 18 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n \rho_{n}\bigl/\mu_{n+1}\le18\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n} ρ n / μ n + 1 ≤ 18 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n , and this sequence converges to 0 0 0 .
Near-optimality, and x ˉ ∈ A \bar{x}\in A x ˉ ∈ A . By ( ∗ ) (*) ( ∗ ) and Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) \Psi_{n+1}(x_{n+1})=\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1}) Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) we have σ n + 1 ≥ Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n \sigma_{n+1}\ge\Psi_{n+1}(x_{n+1})=\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})\ge\sigma_{n}-\delta_{n} σ n + 1 ≥ Ψ n + 1 ( x n + 1 ) = Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n . By induction, σ n + 1 ≥ σ 1 − ∑ k = 1 n δ k \sigma_{n+1}\ge\sigma_{1}-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\delta_{k} σ n + 1 ≥ σ 1 − ∑ k = 1 n δ k for every n n n , and since ∑ k = 1 n δ k ≤ ∑ k = 1 ∞ δ k ≤ ε \sum_{k=1}^{n}\delta_{k}\le\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\delta_{k}\le\varepsilon ∑ k = 1 n δ k ≤ ∑ k = 1 ∞ δ k ≤ ε by claim 2 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series , and σ 1 ≥ Ψ 1 ( x 1 ) = Φ ( x 1 ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − ε \sigma_{1}\ge\Psi_{1}(x_{1})=\Phi(x_{1})\ge\sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x)-\varepsilon σ 1 ≥ Ψ 1 ( x 1 ) = Φ ( x 1 ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − ε , we obtain
σ m ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε for every m ∈ N , \sigma_{m}\ge\sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x)-2\varepsilon\qquad\text{for every }m\in\mathbb{N}, σ m ≥ x ∈ A sup Φ ( x ) − 2 ε for every m ∈ N ,
the case m = 1 m=1 m = 1 being the bound on σ 1 \sigma_{1} σ 1 itself and the remaining cases following from the index observation.
Since Ψ n ≤ Φ \Psi_{n}\le\Phi Ψ n ≤ Φ , ( ∗ ) (*) ( ∗ ) gives Φ ( x n + 1 ) ≥ Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε − δ n \Phi(x_{n+1})\ge\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})\ge\sigma_{n}-\delta_{n}\ge\sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x)-2\varepsilon-\delta_{n} Φ ( x n + 1 ) ≥ Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) ≥ σ n − δ n ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε − δ n . Let η \eta η be positive and choose M ∈ N M\in\mathbb{N} M ∈ N with δ n < η \delta_{n}<\eta δ n < η for M ≤ n M\le n M ≤ n . The sequence ( y m ) m ∈ N (y_{m})_{m\in\mathbb{N}} ( y m ) m ∈ N with y m = x M + m + 1 y_{m}=x_{M+m+1} y m = x M + m + 1 lies in A A A and converges to x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ , because M ≤ M + m M\le M+m M ≤ M + m for every m m m and ( x k ) (x_{k}) ( x k ) converges to x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ ; and Φ ( y m ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε − η \Phi(y_{m})\ge\sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x)-2\varepsilon-\eta Φ ( y m ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε − η for every m m m . By claim 1 of Functions with Closed Superlevel Sets: Sequential Characterisation, Semicontinuity, Perturbation and Limits , x ˉ ∈ A \bar{x}\in A x ˉ ∈ A and Φ ( x ˉ ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε − η \Phi(\bar{x})\ge\sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x)-2\varepsilon-\eta Φ ( x ˉ ) ≥ sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) − 2 ε − η . As η \eta η was arbitrary, Comparison of Real Numbers with Arbitrary Positive Slack gives
sup x ∈ A Φ ( x ) ≤ Φ ( x ˉ ) + 2 ε = Φ ( x ˉ ) + 2 μ λ 2 , \sup_{x\in A}\Phi(x)\le\Phi(\bar{x})+2\varepsilon=\Phi(\bar{x})+2\mu\lambda^{2}, x ∈ A sup Φ ( x ) ≤ Φ ( x ˉ ) + 2 ε = Φ ( x ˉ ) + 2 μ λ 2 ,
which is claim 3 of the theorem.
x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ maximises Ψ \Psi Ψ . The map H → R H\to\mathbb{R} H → R , x ↦ μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 + C 0 x\mapsto\mu|x-\bar{y}|^{2}+C_{0} x ↦ μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 + C 0 , is continuous: ∣ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ − ∣ x ′ − y ˉ ∣ ∣ ≤ ∣ x − x ′ ∣ \bigl||x-\bar{y}|-|x'-\bar{y}|\bigr|\le|x-x'| ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ − ∣ x ′ − y ˉ ∣ ≤ ∣ x − x ′ ∣ by The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity §reverse-triangle , so x ↦ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ x\mapsto|x-\bar{y}| x ↦ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ is continuous, and the assertion follows from Continuity Between Metric Spaces is Equivalent to Sequential Continuity with claims 1, 2 and 3 of Arithmetic of Limits of Real Sequences . Since Ψ ∞ ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − ( μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 + C 0 ) \Psi_{\infty}(x)=\Phi(x)-\bigl(\mu|x-\bar{y}|^{2}+C_{0}\bigr) Ψ ∞ ( x ) = Φ ( x ) − ( μ ∣ x − y ˉ ∣ 2 + C 0 ) , claim 3 of Functions with Closed Superlevel Sets: Sequential Characterisation, Semicontinuity, Perturbation and Limits shows that Ψ ∞ \Psi_{\infty} Ψ ∞ has closed superlevel sets in H H H .
Let x ∈ A x\in A x ∈ A and n ∈ N n\in\mathbb{N} n ∈ N . Then
Ψ ∞ ( x ) ≤ Ψ n ( x ) ≤ σ n ≤ Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) + δ n = Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) + R n + δ n = Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) + ρ n , \Psi_{\infty}(x)\le\Psi_{n}(x)\le\sigma_{n}\le\Psi_{n}(x_{n+1})+\delta_{n}=\Psi_{\infty}(x_{n+1})+R_{n}+\delta_{n}=\Psi_{\infty}(x_{n+1})+\rho_{n}, Ψ ∞ ( x ) ≤ Ψ n ( x ) ≤ σ n ≤ Ψ n ( x n + 1 ) + δ n = Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) + R n + δ n = Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) + ρ n ,
using ( ∗ ) (*) ( ∗ ) for the third inequality. Let η \eta η be positive and choose M M M with ρ n < η \rho_{n}<\eta ρ n < η for M ≤ n M\le n M ≤ n ; then Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) − η \Psi_{\infty}(x_{n+1})\ge\Psi_{\infty}(x)-\eta Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) − η for such n n n . The sequence ( y m ) (y_{m}) ( y m ) with y m = x M + m + 1 y_{m}=x_{M+m+1} y m = x M + m + 1 lies in A A A , converges to x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ , and satisfies Ψ ∞ ( y m ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) − η \Psi_{\infty}(y_{m})\ge\Psi_{\infty}(x)-\eta Ψ ∞ ( y m ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) − η for every m m m , so claim 1 of Functions with Closed Superlevel Sets: Sequential Characterisation, Semicontinuity, Perturbation and Limits gives Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) − η \Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x})\ge\Psi_{\infty}(x)-\eta Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) − η . As η \eta η was arbitrary, Comparison of Real Numbers with Arbitrary Positive Slack gives Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) \Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x})\ge\Psi_{\infty}(x) Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) ≥ Ψ ∞ ( x ) , and hence Ψ ( x ˉ ) ≥ Ψ ( x ) \Psi(\bar{x})\ge\Psi(x) Ψ ( x ˉ ) ≥ Ψ ( x ) , for every x ∈ A x\in A x ∈ A .
Sequential strictness. Since x n + 1 ∈ A x_{n+1}\in A x n + 1 ∈ A , the previous paragraph gives Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) \Psi_{\infty}(x_{n+1})\le\Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x}) Ψ ∞ ( x n + 1 ) ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) , so the displayed chain yields
σ n ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) + ρ n for every n ∈ N . \sigma_{n}\le\Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x})+\rho_{n}\qquad\text{for every }n\in\mathbb{N}. σ n ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) + ρ n for every n ∈ N .
Let z ∈ A z\in A z ∈ A and n ∈ N n\in\mathbb{N} n ∈ N . By claim 2 of Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series , the sum of ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( z ) \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}(z) ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( z ) is at least its ( n + 1 ) (n+1) ( n + 1 ) -st partial sum, so
Ψ n ( z ) − Ψ ∞ ( z ) = ∑ k = 1 ∞ μ k w k ( z ) − ∑ k = 1 n μ k w k ( z ) ≥ μ n + 1 ∣ z − x n + 1 ∣ 2 , \Psi_{n}(z)-\Psi_{\infty}(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\mu_{k}w_{k}(z)-\sum_{k=1}^{n}\mu_{k}w_{k}(z)\ge\mu_{n+1}\,|z-x_{n+1}|^{2}, Ψ n ( z ) − Ψ ∞ ( z ) = k = 1 ∑ ∞ μ k w k ( z ) − k = 1 ∑ n μ k w k ( z ) ≥ μ n + 1 ∣ z − x n + 1 ∣ 2 ,
and since Ψ n ( z ) ≤ σ n ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) + ρ n \Psi_{n}(z)\le\sigma_{n}\le\Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x})+\rho_{n} Ψ n ( z ) ≤ σ n ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) + ρ n we obtain
μ n + 1 ∣ z − x n + 1 ∣ 2 ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) − Ψ ∞ ( z ) + ρ n . \mu_{n+1}\,|z-x_{n+1}|^{2}\le\Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x})-\Psi_{\infty}(z)+\rho_{n}. μ n + 1 ∣ z − x n + 1 ∣ 2 ≤ Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) − Ψ ∞ ( z ) + ρ n .
Now let ( z m ) m ∈ N (z_{m})_{m\in\mathbb{N}} ( z m ) m ∈ N be a sequence in A A A such that ( Ψ ( z m ) ) (\Psi(z_{m})) ( Ψ ( z m )) converges to Ψ ( x ˉ ) \Psi(\bar{x}) Ψ ( x ˉ ) ; equivalently, ( Ψ ∞ ( z m ) ) (\Psi_{\infty}(z_{m})) ( Ψ ∞ ( z m )) converges to Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) \Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x}) Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) , the two functions differing by the constant C 0 C_{0} C 0 . Put θ m = Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) − Ψ ∞ ( z m ) \theta_{m}=\Psi_{\infty}(\bar{x})-\Psi_{\infty}(z_{m}) θ m = Ψ ∞ ( x ˉ ) − Ψ ∞ ( z m ) , a nonnegative sequence converging to 0 0 0 .
Let η \eta η be positive. Since ( 18 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n ) \bigl(18\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n}\bigr) ( 18 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n ) and ( 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n ) \bigl(4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}\bigr) ( 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n ) converge to 0 0 0 , choose n n n with
ρ n μ n + 1 ≤ 18 λ 2 ( 1 4 ) n < η 2 16 and 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n < η 2 . \frac{\rho_{n}}{\mu_{n+1}}\le18\lambda^{2}\bigl(\tfrac{1}{4}\bigr)^{n}<\frac{\eta^{2}}{16}\qquad\text{and}\qquad 4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n}<\frac{\eta}{2}. μ n + 1 ρ n ≤ 18 λ 2 ( 4 1 ) n < 16 η 2 and 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n < 2 η .
With this n n n fixed, μ n + 1 \mu_{n+1} μ n + 1 is a positive real number, so there is M ∈ N M\in\mathbb{N} M ∈ N with θ m / μ n + 1 < η 2 16 \theta_{m}\bigl/\mu_{n+1}<\tfrac{\eta^{2}}{16} θ m / μ n + 1 < 16 η 2 for every m m m with M ≤ m M\le m M ≤ m . For such m m m ,
∣ z m − x n + 1 ∣ 2 ≤ θ m μ n + 1 + ρ n μ n + 1 < η 2 16 + η 2 16 = η 2 8 ≤ ( η 2 ) 2 , |z_{m}-x_{n+1}|^{2}\le\frac{\theta_{m}}{\mu_{n+1}}+\frac{\rho_{n}}{\mu_{n+1}}<\frac{\eta^{2}}{16}+\frac{\eta^{2}}{16}=\frac{\eta^{2}}{8}\le\Bigl(\frac{\eta}{2}\Bigr)^{2}, ∣ z m − x n + 1 ∣ 2 ≤ μ n + 1 θ m + μ n + 1 ρ n < 16 η 2 + 16 η 2 = 8 η 2 ≤ ( 2 η ) 2 ,
hence ∣ z m − x n + 1 ∣ < η 2 |z_{m}-x_{n+1}|<\tfrac{\eta}{2} ∣ z m − x n + 1 ∣ < 2 η by claim 1 of Monotonicity of Squaring on the Nonnegative Elements of an Ordered Field and trichotomy, and therefore, by The Norm Metric of a Real Inner Product Space: Triangle Inequalities, Limits and Continuity §triangle and ∣ x ˉ − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ( 1 2 ) n |\bar{x}-x_{n+1}|\le4\lambda\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}\bigr)^{n} ∣ x ˉ − x n + 1 ∣ ≤ 4 λ ( 2 1 ) n ,
∣ z m − x ˉ ∣ ≤ ∣ z m − x n + 1 ∣ + ∣ x n + 1 − x ˉ ∣ < η 2 + η 2 = η . |z_{m}-\bar{x}|\le|z_{m}-x_{n+1}|+|x_{n+1}-\bar{x}|<\frac{\eta}{2}+\frac{\eta}{2}=\eta . ∣ z m − x ˉ ∣ ≤ ∣ z m − x n + 1 ∣ + ∣ x n + 1 − x ˉ ∣ < 2 η + 2 η = η .
As η \eta η was an arbitrary positive real number, ( z m ) (z_{m}) ( z m ) converges to x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ . Together with the maximality established above, this shows that Ψ \Psi Ψ attains a sequentially strict maximum on A A A at x ˉ \bar{x} x ˉ , which is claim 2 of the theorem.