Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

ArXiv:1301.7652 and Euler homogeneous function theorem

  1. Dec 30, 2014 #1

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Let ##F : R^n \to R## be a degree-1 positive-homogeneous function. I.e., ##F(\lambda y) = \lambda F(y),## for all real ##\lambda>0## and any nonzero ##y\in R^n##.

    In this paper, near the middle of p2 at eq(4), the authors introduce
    $$\ell_a ~=~ \frac{\partial F}{\partial y^a} ~,$$and then they claim that because ##F## is 1-homogeneous, it follows that ##\ell_a## is necessarily of the form:
    ##\ell_a ~=~ y^a/F ~.##

    ISTM that one can only claim that ##\ell_a## is 0-homogeneous (by the Euler homogeneous function theorem), and there are other 0-homogeneous functions besides their ##y^a/F## .

    Am I missing something, or are the authors wrong?

    Edit: Maybe they meant ##F/y^a## ? But that still seems wrong if ##n > 1##.
     
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2014
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 1, 2015 #2

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    The authors are most definitely wrong, even if it's a typo and they actually mean your edit. Almost any homogeneous function would give a solid counterexample. Not to say that the indices are wrong.

    What I think they did is saying that ##y^a \ell_a = F##, which is indeed the Euler homogeneous function theorem. Then they somehow forget that this is a sum and divide to obtain ##\ell_a = F/y^a## (which I think they meant). From a rigorous point of view, this is nonsense. But perhaps the rest of the paper goes through by only using the relation ##y^a \ell_a = F##?
     
  4. Jan 1, 2015 #3

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Oh, what a relief! Micromass returns unexpectedly from the wilderness! After 50+ views and no replies, I was becoming depressed.

    Yes.

    OK, good -- in the sense that this is indeed what I thought.

    I suppose I should email the authors, though I suspect they won't appreciate it.

    I'll have to check that.

    Thank you indeed.
     
  5. Jan 1, 2015 #4

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    It's a bit interesting though that the indices in ##\ell_a = F/y^a## are correct. Clearly the equation is nonsense, but perhaps we can give a rigorous meaning to it nevertheless. I need to think of this.
     
  6. Jan 1, 2015 #5

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Consider the example function ##F(x,y) := x_\alpha y^\alpha##, where ##F## is 1-homogeneous in the vector ##y##. We have
    $$\ell_\lambda ~:=~ \frac{\partial F}{\partial y^\lambda} ~=~ x_\lambda ~,$$and indeed
    $$\ell_\mu y^\mu ~=~ F(x,y) ~.$$However,
    $$\ell_\lambda ~\ne~ \frac{F}{y^\lambda} ~=~ \frac{x_\alpha y^\alpha}{y^\lambda} ~.$$
     
  7. Jan 1, 2015 #6

    micromass

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    Yes, I know that it's nonsense. But I was thinking of changing the meaning of /, to make things work out nice. But this is obviously not what the paper does. Your counterexample is indeed a good one to the relation in the paper.
     
  8. Jan 2, 2015 #7

    strangerep

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Argh! I think I see what they probably intended...

    From their definition of ##h_{ab}## in eq(4), it follows that ##y^b h_{ab} = 0##. Then, contracting both sides of their eq(5) with ##y^b##, we get
    $$0 ~=~ g_{ab} y^b - \ell_a \ell_b y^b ~=~ y_a - \ell_a F ~.$$ Hence
    $$y_a ~=~ \ell_a F$$and so, (for ##F\ne 0##),
    $$\ell_a ~=~ y_a/F ~.$$
    But their sequence of statements is totally messed up (sigh).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: ArXiv:1301.7652 and Euler homogeneous function theorem
Loading...