Throughout we use the order arithmetic of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field. Its clauses 1 and 10 are stated for strict inequalities; the corresponding statements for ≤, and the transitivity of ≤, follow by treating the equality case (and, for multiplication, the case of a zero multiplier) separately, and we use them under this convention without further comment. We write λ=λ[0,T] for the restricted Lebesgue measure on [0,T].
Step 0 (the flow is an admissible state path). Let x0∈Δl and ξ∈UA and write S=S(x0,ξ). By claim 2 of the flow stability lemma we have St∈Δl for every t∈[0,T] and ∣St−Sr∣≤Kb∣t−r∣ for all r,t∈[0,T]. For each γ∈{1,…,l}, claim 4 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn bounds a coordinate by the norm, so ∣Stγ−Srγ∣≤∣St−Sr∣≤Kb∣t−r∣, where Kb is the constant fixed in the preamble of the flow stability lemma and appearing in its claim 2. Hence every component of S is continuous on [0,T], the interval carrying the restriction of the absolute value metric: given t∈[0,T] and a real ε>0, take δ=ε/(Kb+1), which is positive; then every r∈[0,T] with ∣t−r∣<δ satisfies ∣Stγ−Srγ∣≤Kbδ<ε, covering also the case Kb=0. Every component of S is therefore measurable by claim 4 of that lemma. Thus S is an admissible state path in the sense of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma, and the running-cost integral ΦS(ξ) is defined.
the integral being the Lebesgue integral over [0,T], that is the integral against λ. By claim 1 of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma, applied to the admissible state path S and to that representative, that integral equals ΦS(ξ) and its value does not depend on which admissible representative is used. Hence
F(x0,ξ)=ΦS(ξ)+G(ST).
Since x0∈Δl and ξ∈UA were arbitrary in Step 0, this holds for every x0∈Δl and every ξ∈UA; we refer to it below as the representation of Step 1.
Put CF=CT+C′, a nonnegative real number depending only on the data listed in the claim. This proves claim 1.
Claim 2. Let x0∈Δl and ξ∈UA and write S=S(x0,ξ). By Step 0, S is an admissible state path in the sense of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma, and by the representation of Step 1, F(x0,ξ)=ΦS(ξ)+G(ST). This proves claim 2.
Claim 3. We apply the sequential characterization of lower semicontinuity with ambient metric space (X,dX) and with A=X, so that the restricted metric is dX itself. By claim 3 of that lemma it suffices to verify its sequential condition at every point of X.
Write Sj=S(x0j,ξj) and S=S(x0,ξ); by Step 0 all of these are admissible state paths. Claim 6 of the flow stability lemma applies to (x0j), x0, (ξj) and ξ, since ξ∈UA, and yields: for every real η>0 there is N∈N with ∣Stj−St∣≤η for every t∈[0,T] and every j≥N. This is precisely the uniform-convergence hypothesis of claim 4 of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma, whose other hypotheses hold because ξj∈UA and ξj⇀ξ. That claim therefore gives
ΦS(ξ)≤jliminfΦSj(ξj),
the limit inferior being defined because the real sequence (ΦSj(ξj))j∈N is bounded by claim 1 of the same lemma.
Taking t=T in the uniform estimate shows that the real sequence (∣STj−ST∣)j∈N has limit 0. Fix a∈A, which is possible because A is nonempty, and consider the sequence ((STj,a))j∈N in Δl×Rm: the Euclidean distances from STj to ST converge to 0, and those from a to a are 0. Condition 1 of the population cost data therefore gives that the real sequence (G(STj))j∈N has limit G(ST).
Combining with ΦS(ξ)≤liminfjΦSj(ξj) and adding −ε1 to both sides of that inequality gives
ΦS(ξ)−ε1<ΦSk(ξk)for every k≥N1.
By the convergence of (G(STj)) to G(ST) there is N2∈N with ∣G(STk)−G(ST)∣<ε1 for every k≥N2. By claim 3 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field we have −∣G(STk)−G(ST)∣≤G(STk)−G(ST), whence −ε1<G(STk)−G(ST) and so
G(ST)−ε1<G(STk)for every k≥N2.
Let N be the larger of the two natural numbers N1 and N2, and let k≥N. Adding G(STk) to both sides of the first displayed strict inequality and ΦS(ξ)−ε1 to both sides of the second, using claim 1 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field each time, and then chaining the two resulting strict inequalities by claim 2 of that lemma, we obtain
where the outer equalities hold by the representation of Step 1 (claim 2) and ε1+ε1=ε.
Thus the sequential condition of claim 1 of the sequential characterization holds at (x0,ξ). Since (x0,ξ)∈X was arbitrary, claim 3 of that lemma shows that F is lower semicontinuous on X for dX. This proves claim 3.
Claim 4. Fix x0∈Δl and define Fx0:UA→R by Fx0(ξ)=F(x0,ξ); claim 4 asserts that Fx0 is lower semicontinuous on UA for the metric ρ, applying the sequential characterization with ambient metric space (UA,ρ) and A=UA. Let ξ∈UA, let (ξj)j∈N be a sequence in UA converging to ξ in (UA,ρ), and let ε>0 be real. The constant sequence with every term x0 converges to x0 in (Δl,dΔ), because dΔ(x0,x0)=0. Hence by claim 1 of Coordinatewise Convergence, Sequential Compactness and Density in a Product Metric Space the sequence ((x0,ξj))j∈N converges to (x0,ξ) in (X,dX). By claim 3, already proved, F is lower semicontinuous on X, so claim 1 of the sequential characterization, in its necessity direction, gives N∈N with F(x0,ξ)−ε<F(x0,ξj) for every j≥N; that is, Fx0(ξ)−ε<Fx0(ξj) for every j≥N. As ξ was arbitrary, claims 1 and 3 of that lemma show that Fx0 is lower semicontinuous on UA for ρ. Since x0∈Δl was arbitrary, this proves claim 4.
Claim 5. Fix x0∈Δl and keep the notation Fx0 of the previous paragraph, which is lower semicontinuous on UA by claim 4. First, UA is nonempty: with R=supα∈A∣α∣ as in the lemma on affine-controlled data, a finite nonnegative real number by claim 1 there, so that ∣a∣≤R for every a∈A, claim 1 of the control-set properties lemma shows that UA contains the class of a constant map with value in A, and A is nonempty. By claim 3 of the weak metrizability and compactness theorem, UA is a compact subset of the metric space (UA,ρ); the hypotheses of that theorem on A hold because A is nonempty, compact and convex.
Applying claim 2 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set with metric space (UA,ρ), with the nonempty compact subset K=UA and with the lower semicontinuous function Fx0, we obtain ξ∗∈UA with Fx0(ξ∗)≤Fx0(ξ) for every ξ∈UA, that is F(x0,ξ∗)≤F(x0,ξ) for every ξ∈UA. This proves claim 5.