Proof of Penalised Suprema: Monotonicity, Near-Maximisers, and Vanishing Penalty along a Doubling Sequence
lemmalem:penalised-supremum-limit-2026aThe suprema exist because the penalty is nonnegative; monotonicity is pointwise; the near-maximiser bound follows by comparing with the supremum at half the parameter; and the vanishing of the increments follows from convergence of a telescoping series of nonnegative terms with bounded partial sums.
Each result cited is universally quantified over the data in its own statement. Let satisfy for every .
Claim 1. Let be positive. The set is nonempty because is nonempty. For one has by claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, hence
so the set is bounded above and its supremum is a real number by the least upper bound property. Since we have and , and a supremum is an upper bound of the set, so .
Claim 2. Let be positive with and let . Then by claim 5 of Elementary Arithmetic in an Ordered Field, so
Thus is an upper bound of , and since is the least such bound, .
Claim 3. Let be positive and let satisfy . Since ,
As is positive, claim 1 applies to it and . Combining the two displays and rearranging gives
Claim 4. For put and . Each is positive and , because and is positive, so for every by claim 2. By Elementary Properties of Series of Real Numbers §telescoping the partial sums of the series are
and by claim 1, , whence for every . The set of partial sums is therefore bounded above, so the series converges by Series of Nonnegative Real Numbers, Comparison, and the Geometric Series §criterion, and consequently the sequence converges to by Elementary Properties of Series of Real Numbers §terms-vanish.
Loading…
Prerequisites
fc6ce228-8150-47fa-abd1-692d829256e5