TheoremBase

Proof

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 ≤\le, and the transitivity of ≤\le, 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]\lambda=\lambda_{[0,T]} for the restricted Lebesgue measure on [0,T][0,T].

Step 0 (the flow is an admissible state path). Let x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} and write S=S(x0,ξ)S=S(x_{0},\xi). By claim 2 of the flow stability lemma we have St∈ΔlS_{t}\in\Delta^{l} for every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] and ∣St−Sr∣≤Kb∣t−r∣|S_{t}-S_{r}|\le K_{b}|t-r| for all r,t∈[0,T]r,t\in[0,T]. For each γ∈{1,…,l}\gamma\in\{1,\dots,l\}, claim 4 of Elementary Properties of the Euclidean Norm on Rn\mathbb{R}^n bounds a coordinate by the norm, so ∣Stγ−Srγ∣≤∣St−Sr∣≤Kb∣t−r∣|S^{\gamma}_{t}-S^{\gamma}_{r}|\le|S_{t}-S_{r}|\le K_{b}|t-r|, where KbK_{b} is the constant fixed in the preamble of the flow stability lemma and appearing in its claim 2. Hence every component of SS is continuous on [0,T][0,T], the interval carrying the restriction of the absolute value metric: given t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] and a real ε>0\varepsilon>0, take δ=ε/(Kb+1)\delta=\varepsilon/(K_{b}+1), which is positive; then every r∈[0,T]r\in[0,T] with ∣t−r∣<δ|t-r|<\delta satisfies ∣Stγ−Srγ∣≤Kbδ<ε|S^{\gamma}_{t}-S^{\gamma}_{r}|\le K_{b}\delta<\varepsilon, covering also the case Kb=0K_{b}=0. Every component of SS is therefore measurable by claim 4 of that lemma. Thus SS is an admissible state path in the sense of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma, and the running-cost integral ΦS(ξ)\Phi_{S}(\xi) is defined.

Step 1 (the representation of FF). Keep x0x_{0}, ξ\xi and SS as in Step 0, the symbol ξ\xi denoting also an admissible representative as in the definition of the mean-field cost; such a representative exists by claim 2 of the flow stability lemma. By that definition, F(x0,ξ)F(x_{0},\xi) is the generalized mean-field cost of the pair (S,ξ)(S,\xi) under (L,G)(L,G), that is

F(x0,ξ)=∫[0,T]L(St,ξ(t)) dλ(t)+G(ST),F(x_{0},\xi)=\int_{[0,T]}L\bigl(S_{t},\xi(t)\bigr)\,d\lambda(t)+G(S_{T}),

the integral being the Lebesgue integral over [0,T][0,T], that is the integral against λ\lambda. By claim 1 of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma, applied to the admissible state path SS and to that representative, that integral equals ΦS(ξ)\Phi_{S}(\xi) and its value does not depend on which admissible representative is used. Hence

F(x0,ξ)=ΦS(ξ)+G(ST).F(x_{0},\xi)=\Phi_{S}(\xi)+G(S_{T}).

Since x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} were arbitrary in Step 0, this holds for every x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and every ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}; we refer to it below as the representation of Step 1.

Claim 1. By claim 1 of the running-cost lower-semicontinuity lemma there is a real C≥0C\ge0, depending only on LL, Δl\Delta^{l} and A\mathcal{A}, with ∣ΦS(ξ)∣≤CT|\Phi_{S}(\xi)|\le CT for every admissible state path SS and every ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}. Since A\mathcal{A} is nonempty and compact, claim 1 of the boundedness lemma for population cost data gives a real C′≥0C'\ge0 with ∣G(Σ)∣≤C′|G(\Sigma)|\le C' for every Σ∈Δl\Sigma\in\Delta^{l}. Let x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} and write S=S(x0,ξ)S=S(x_{0},\xi); by Step 0, SS is an admissible state path and ST∈ΔlS_{T}\in\Delta^{l}, and by the representation of Step 1, F(x0,ξ)=ΦS(ξ)+G(ST)F(x_{0},\xi)=\Phi_{S}(\xi)+G(S_{T}). By claim 5 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field,

∣F(x0,ξ)∣=∣ΦS(ξ)+G(ST)∣≤∣ΦS(ξ)∣+∣G(ST)∣≤CT+C′.|F(x_{0},\xi)|=\bigl|\Phi_{S}(\xi)+G(S_{T})\bigr|\le|\Phi_{S}(\xi)|+|G(S_{T})|\le CT+C' .

Put CF=CT+C′C_{F}=CT+C', a nonnegative real number depending only on the data listed in the claim. This proves claim 1.

Claim 2. Let x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} and write S=S(x0,ξ)S=S(x_{0},\xi). By Step 0, SS 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)F(x_{0},\xi)=\Phi_{S}(\xi)+G(S_{T}). This proves claim 2.

Claim 3. We apply the sequential characterization of lower semicontinuity with ambient metric space (X,dX)(X,d_{X}) and with A=XA=X, so that the restricted metric is dXd_{X} itself. By claim 3 of that lemma it suffices to verify its sequential condition at every point of XX.

Let (x0,ξ)∈X(x_{0},\xi)\in X, let ((x0j,ξj))j∈N\bigl((x^{j}_{0},\xi_{j})\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence in XX converging to (x0,ξ)(x_{0},\xi) in (X,dX)(X,d_{X}), and let ε\varepsilon be a real number with 0<ε0<\varepsilon. By claim 1 of Coordinatewise Convergence, Sequential Compactness and Density in a Product Metric Space the sequence (x0j)j∈N(x^{j}_{0})_{j\in\mathbb{N}} converges to x0x_{0} in (Δl,dΔ)(\Delta^{l},d_{\Delta}) and the sequence (ξj)j∈N(\xi_{j})_{j\in\mathbb{N}} converges to ξ\xi in (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho).

By the definition of the Euclidean distance, dΔ(x0j,x0)=∣x0j−x0∣d_{\Delta}(x^{j}_{0},x_{0})=|x^{j}_{0}-x_{0}|, and this quantity is nonnegative by claim 1 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field, so it coincides with its own absolute value by the definition of the absolute value. Hence convergence of (x0j)(x^{j}_{0}) to x0x_{0} says exactly that the real sequence (∣x0j−x0∣)j∈N\bigl(|x^{j}_{0}-x_{0}|\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} has limit 00. By claim 2 of the weak metrizability and compactness theorem, convergence of (ξj)(\xi_{j}) to ξ\xi in ρ\rho holds if and only if ξj⇀ξ\xi_{j}\rightharpoonup\xi in the sense of weak convergence; so the latter holds.

Write Sj=S(x0j,ξj)S^{j}=S(x^{j}_{0},\xi_{j}) and S=S(x0,ξ)S=S(x_{0},\xi); by Step 0 all of these are admissible state paths. Claim 6 of the flow stability lemma applies to (x0j)(x^{j}_{0}), x0x_{0}, (ξj)(\xi_{j}) and ξ\xi, since ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}, and yields: for every real η>0\eta>0 there is N∈NN\in\mathbb{N} with ∣Stj−St∣≤η|S^{j}_{t}-S_{t}|\le\eta for every t∈[0,T]t\in[0,T] and every j≥Nj\ge 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\xi_{j}\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} and ξj⇀ξ\xi_{j}\rightharpoonup\xi. That claim therefore gives

ΦS(ξ)≤lim inf⁡jΦSj(ξj),\Phi_{S}(\xi)\le\liminf_{j}\Phi_{S^{j}}(\xi_{j}),

the limit inferior being defined because the real sequence (ΦSj(ξj))j∈N\bigl(\Phi_{S^{j}}(\xi_{j})\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded by claim 1 of the same lemma.

Taking t=Tt=T in the uniform estimate shows that the real sequence (∣STj−ST∣)j∈N\bigl(|S^{j}_{T}-S_{T}|\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} has limit 00. Fix a∈Aa\in\mathcal{A}, which is possible because A\mathcal{A} is nonempty, and consider the sequence ((STj,a))j∈N\bigl((S^{j}_{T},a)\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} in Δl×Rm\Delta^{l}\times\mathbb{R}^{m}: the Euclidean distances from STjS^{j}_{T} to STS_{T} converge to 00, and those from aa to aa are 00. Condition 1 of the population cost data therefore gives that the real sequence (G(STj))j∈N\bigl(G(S^{j}_{T})\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} has limit G(ST)G(S_{T}).

By claim 8 of Elementary Order Arithmetic in an Ordered Field there is a real ε1\varepsilon_{1} with 0<ε10<\varepsilon_{1} and ε1+ε1=ε\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{1}=\varepsilon. By claim 3 of Basic Properties of the Limit Inferior and Limit Superior of a Bounded Real Sequence there is N1∈NN_{1}\in\mathbb{N} such that

lim inf⁡jΦSj(ξj)−ε1<ΦSk(ξk)for every k≥N1.\liminf_{j}\Phi_{S^{j}}(\xi_{j})-\varepsilon_{1}<\Phi_{S^{k}}(\xi_{k})\qquad\text{for every }k\ge N_{1}.

Combining with ΦS(ξ)≤lim inf⁡jΦSj(ξj)\Phi_{S}(\xi)\le\liminf_{j}\Phi_{S^{j}}(\xi_{j}) and adding −ε1-\varepsilon_{1} to both sides of that inequality gives

ΦS(ξ)−ε1<ΦSk(ξk)for every k≥N1.\Phi_{S}(\xi)-\varepsilon_{1}<\Phi_{S^{k}}(\xi_{k})\qquad\text{for every }k\ge N_{1}.

By the convergence of (G(STj))\bigl(G(S^{j}_{T})\bigr) to G(ST)G(S_{T}) there is N2∈NN_{2}\in\mathbb{N} with ∣G(STk)−G(ST)∣<ε1|G(S^{k}_{T})-G(S_{T})|<\varepsilon_{1} for every k≥N2k\ge N_{2}. By claim 3 of Properties of the Absolute Value in an Ordered Field we have −∣G(STk)−G(ST)∣≤G(STk)−G(ST)-|G(S^{k}_{T})-G(S_{T})|\le G(S^{k}_{T})-G(S_{T}), whence −ε1<G(STk)−G(ST)-\varepsilon_{1}<G(S^{k}_{T})-G(S_{T}) and so

G(ST)−ε1<G(STk)for every k≥N2.G(S_{T})-\varepsilon_{1}<G(S^{k}_{T})\qquad\text{for every }k\ge N_{2}.

Let NN be the larger of the two natural numbers N1N_{1} and N2N_{2}, and let k≥Nk\ge N. Adding G(STk)G(S^{k}_{T}) to both sides of the first displayed strict inequality and ΦS(ξ)−ε1\Phi_{S}(\xi)-\varepsilon_{1} 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

F(x0,ξ)−ε=(ΦS(ξ)−ε1)+(G(ST)−ε1)<ΦSk(ξk)+G(STk)=F(x0k,ξk),F(x_{0},\xi)-\varepsilon=\bigl(\Phi_{S}(\xi)-\varepsilon_{1}\bigr)+\bigl(G(S_{T})-\varepsilon_{1}\bigr)<\Phi_{S^{k}}(\xi_{k})+G(S^{k}_{T})=F(x^{k}_{0},\xi_{k}),

where the outer equalities hold by the representation of Step 1 (claim 2) and ε1+ε1=ε\varepsilon_{1}+\varepsilon_{1}=\varepsilon.

Thus the sequential condition of claim 1 of the sequential characterization holds at (x0,ξ)(x_{0},\xi). Since (x0,ξ)∈X(x_{0},\xi)\in X was arbitrary, claim 3 of that lemma shows that FF is lower semicontinuous on XX for dXd_{X}. This proves claim 3.

Claim 4. Fix x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and define Fx0:UA→RF_{x_{0}}:\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}\to\mathbb{R} by Fx0(ξ)=F(x0,ξ)F_{x_{0}}(\xi)=F(x_{0},\xi); claim 4 asserts that Fx0F_{x_{0}} is lower semicontinuous on UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} for the metric ρ\rho, applying the sequential characterization with ambient metric space (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho) and A=UAA=\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}. Let ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}, let (ξj)j∈N(\xi_{j})_{j\in\mathbb{N}} be a sequence in UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} converging to ξ\xi in (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho), and let ε>0\varepsilon>0 be real. The constant sequence with every term x0x_{0} converges to x0x_{0} in (Δl,dΔ)(\Delta^{l},d_{\Delta}), because dΔ(x0,x0)=0d_{\Delta}(x_{0},x_{0})=0. Hence by claim 1 of Coordinatewise Convergence, Sequential Compactness and Density in a Product Metric Space the sequence ((x0,ξj))j∈N\bigl((x_{0},\xi_{j})\bigr)_{j\in\mathbb{N}} converges to (x0,ξ)(x_{0},\xi) in (X,dX)(X,d_{X}). By claim 3, already proved, FF is lower semicontinuous on XX, so claim 1 of the sequential characterization, in its necessity direction, gives N∈NN\in\mathbb{N} with F(x0,ξ)−ε<F(x0,ξj)F(x_{0},\xi)-\varepsilon<F(x_{0},\xi_{j}) for every j≥Nj\ge N; that is, Fx0(ξ)−ε<Fx0(ξj)F_{x_{0}}(\xi)-\varepsilon<F_{x_{0}}(\xi_{j}) for every j≥Nj\ge N. As ξ\xi was arbitrary, claims 1 and 3 of that lemma show that Fx0F_{x_{0}} is lower semicontinuous on UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} for ρ\rho. Since x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} was arbitrary, this proves claim 4.

Claim 5. Fix x0∈Δlx_{0}\in\Delta^{l} and keep the notation Fx0F_{x_{0}} of the previous paragraph, which is lower semicontinuous on UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} by claim 4. First, UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} is nonempty: with R=sup⁡α∈A∣α∣R=\sup_{\alpha\in\mathcal{A}}|\alpha| as in the lemma on affine-controlled data, a finite nonnegative real number by claim 1 there, so that ∣a∣≤R|a|\le R for every a∈Aa\in\mathcal{A}, claim 1 of the control-set properties lemma shows that UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} contains the class of a constant map with value in A\mathcal{A}, and A\mathcal{A} is nonempty. By claim 3 of the weak metrizability and compactness theorem, UA\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} is a compact subset of the metric space (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho); the hypotheses of that theorem on A\mathcal{A} hold because A\mathcal{A} is nonempty, compact and convex.

Applying claim 2 of Semicontinuous Functions Attain Their Extrema on a Compact Set with metric space (UA,ρ)(\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}},\rho), with the nonempty compact subset K=UAK=\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} and with the lower semicontinuous function Fx0F_{x_{0}}, we obtain ξ∗∈UA\xi^{*}\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}} with Fx0(ξ∗)≤Fx0(ξ)F_{x_{0}}(\xi^{*})\le F_{x_{0}}(\xi) for every ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}, that is F(x0,ξ∗)≤F(x0,ξ)F(x_{0},\xi^{*})\le F(x_{0},\xi) for every ξ∈UA\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{\mathcal{A}}. This proves claim 5.

Citations

Loading…

Dependencies

Uses0

Loading…

Comments

Log in to comment.

Loading…