How can we compare the lower envelope of a function with the function itself?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter joypav
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the comparison between the lower envelope function g and the original function f, defined on the interval [a,b]. It establishes that g(x) is always less than or equal to f(x), with equality occurring if and only if f is lower semi-continuous at x. Additionally, it confirms that if f is bounded, then g is lower semi-continuous. Furthermore, any lower semi-continuous function φ that is less than or equal to f will also be less than or equal to g across the interval [a,b].

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of lower semi-continuous functions
  • Familiarity with the concepts of limits and infimum
  • Knowledge of real-valued functions and their properties
  • Basic mathematical notation and definitions related to supremum and infimum
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of lower semi-continuous functions in detail
  • Explore the implications of bounded functions on continuity and limits
  • Learn about the applications of lower envelopes in optimization problems
  • Investigate the relationship between continuity and the behavior of functions at boundary points
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying real analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of functions and their continuity, particularly in the context of lower semi-continuity and envelope functions.

joypav
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Problem:
Let f be a real-valued function defined on [a,b]. We define the lower envelope of f to be the function g defined by
$g(y) = sup_{\delta>0}inf_{\left| x-y \right|<\delta} f(x)$

(a) Show that for each $x \in [a,b]$, $g(x) \leq f(x)$ and $g(x) = f(x)$ if and only if f is lower semi-continuous at x.

(b) If f is bounded, then g is lower semi-continuous.

(c) If $\phi$ is any lower semi-continuous function such that $\phi(x) \leq f(x)$ for all $x \in [a,b]$, then $\phi(x) \leq g(x)$ for all $x \in [a,b]$.

Proof:
Part (a).
I am confused by the definition for the lower envelope. How do we compare g(x) and f(x)? I am confused about what x would be approaching in our definition for g(y), which is basically the liminf.


Part (b).
Let $\epsilon > 0$.
Then, $\exists \delta > 0$ such that,
$f(x) > g(x_0) + \epsilon$ for $x \in (x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta)$

Let $x \in (x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta)$ be given and let $n = \delta - \left| x-x_0 \right|$.
Then,
$g(x) = lim_{y \rightarrow x}inf f(y) \geq inf_{y \in (x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta)} f(y) \geq g(x_0) + \epsilon$

x arbitrary in $ (x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta) $
$\implies lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}inf g(x) \geq inf_{x \in (x_0-\delta, x_0+\delta)} g(x) \geq g(x_0) + \epsilon$

$\epsilon$ arbitrary
$\implies lim_{x\rightarrow x_0} g(x) \geq g(x_0)$.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi joypav,

I agree that it can be a bit confusing on how to compare $g(x)$ with $f(x)$, especially since we are using $y$ to define the function $g$ and $x$ as a dummy variable in $g$'s definition. Nevertheless, in order to match the notation of part (a), let's first make the changes $y \mapsto x$ and $x\mapsto t.$ Now $t$ is the dummy variable instead of $x$ so that $$g(x)=\sup_{\delta >0}\inf_{|t-x|<\delta}f(t).$$ Now, note that for each $\delta >0$, $$\inf_{|t-x|<\delta}f(t)\leq f(x), \qquad\qquad (*)$$ because $t=x$ will satisfy $|t-x|<\delta$ for all $\delta >0.$ Thus, since $(*)$ holds for all $\delta >0,$ $f(x)$ is an upper bound for the set $$\left\{\inf_{|t-x|<\delta} f(t):\delta >0\right\}.$$ Hence, $f(x)$ must be greater than or equal to the supremum over this set; i.e., $$g(x)\leq f(x).$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K