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

Lowe Semicontinuity

  1. Dec 14, 2005 #1
    Lower Semicontinuity

    I found this in the web:
    We say that [tex]f[/tex] is lower semi-continuous at [tex]x_0[/tex] if for every [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex] there exists a neighborhood [tex]U[/tex] of [tex]x_0[/tex] such that [tex]f(x) > f(x_0) - \epsilon[/tex] for all [tex]x[/tex] in [tex]U[/tex]. Equivalently, this can be expressed as

    [tex]\liminf_{x \to x_0} f(x) \geq f(x_0).[/tex]

    The first definition is quite clear to me (by looking at an example of lower semicontinuity diagram). But I don't understand its equivalence to the second definition. Could someone draw the connection?
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Dec 14, 2005 #2

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Looks pretty straight forward to me. Suppose [tex]f(x) > f(x_0) - \epsilon[/tex] for all x in some neighborhood U. Let xn be a sequence converging to x0. Then eventually, it will be in U. Since we can ignore x's that are not in U, its limit must satisfy [tex]lim f(x_n)\geq f(x_0)[/tex] and so of course must lim inf.

    Conversely suppose [tex]\liminf_{x \to x_0} f(x) \geq f(x_0)[/tex] and suppose there were no neighborhood U as above. Let Un be (x0- 1/n, x0+ 1/n). Since none of these can satisfy [tex]f(x) > f(x_0) - \epsilon[/tex] for all x in Un, there must exist xn in Un such that [tex]f(x) \leq f(x_0) - \epsilon[/tex]. But then, for that sequence, [tex]lim f(x_n)\leq f(x_0)[/tex], contradicting [tex]\liminf_{x \to x_0} f(x) \geq f(x_0)[/tex].

    Just in case some one out there is thinking "lower semi-continuous" must have something to do with "continuous", let me point out that the function f(x)= 1000 if x is not 0, 0 if x= 0 is lower semi-continuous at x=0!
     
  4. Dec 14, 2005 #3
    This is the part I don't understand. Suppose [tex]f(x) > f(x_0) - \epsilon[/tex] for all x in some neighborhood U. Then for some x in the neighborhood of U, [tex]f(x) < f(x_0)[/tex] may hold true since [tex]\epsilon >0[/tex]. I am lost.

    I agree with this one.
     
    Last edited: Dec 14, 2005
  5. Dec 14, 2005 #4
    Oh I see my problem now. The keyword that I missed was "for every [tex]\epsilon > 0[/tex], ...." .
    I have one last question. How does one read [tex]\liminf_{x \to x_0}[/tex]? Infimum of x at the limit point?
     
  6. Dec 15, 2005 #5

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    No, the "infimum of x at x0" is x0!

    Strictly speaking "lim inf" applies to sequences. Normally "lim inf xn" means the infimum of all subsequential limits. "lim inf f(x)", as x goes to x0 is the infinimum of all possible subsequential limits of {f(xn)} over all possible sequences {xn} converging to x0.
     
  7. Dec 19, 2005 #6

    benorin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    An alternate definition of lower semicontinuity (from Real and Complex Analysis, by Walter Rudin) is [itex]f:X\rightarrow \mathbb{R}[/itex], where X is a topological space is lower semicontinuous if

    [tex]\left\{ x:f(x)>\alpha\right\}\mbox{ is an open set in X, } \forall \alpha\in\mathbb{R}[/tex].

    It's not a friendly definition, but it is equivalent. Upper semicontinuity is defined the same with "<" in place of ">".
     
  8. Dec 27, 2005 #7
    Infimum of semicontinuous function

    hello again,

    Let [tex]f[/tex] be lower semicontinous function. Say the infimum of [tex]f[/tex] exists and that [tex]f(x^*) = \inf_{x \in \textup{dom}(f)} f(x)[/tex]. Let [tex]\{x_k\}[/tex] be a sequence converging to [tex]x^*[/tex]. Since [tex]f[/tex] is lower semicontinuous, so

    [tex]\liminf_{k \to \infty} f(x_k) \geq f(x^*)[/tex].

    I am having problem imagining how the sequence would be like. The only one I can think of is [tex]\{x^*, x^*, x^*, \ldots \}[/tex]. Is this valid?
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2005
  9. Dec 27, 2005 #8

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    my favorite definition of upper semi continuous is that the value jumps up at individual points. e.g. the dimension of the kernel of a matrix of functions is upper semicontinuous, because the kernel can be bigger at points where the determinants of more submatrices vanish.

    lower semi continuous is just the opposite: the value jumps down at points. so the dimension of the cokernel of a family of maps should do that i guess.
     
  10. Dec 28, 2005 #9
    Sorry I am not able to comprehend your reply -- mainly due to my lack of understanding.

    Anyway, I manage to clear my doubt now. Please ignore my silly 'sequence' in my last post.

    However I've a new question. Supposing [tex]f, \{x_k\}[/tex] and [tex]x^*[/tex] are as defined in my last post. Since f is lower semicontinuous at [tex]x^*[/tex], hence

    [tex]\liminf_{k \to \infty} f(x_k) \geq f(x^*) = \inf_{x \in \textup{ dom}(f)} f(x)[/tex].

    This can be equivalently written as [tex]\lim_{k \to \infty} f(x_k) \geq f(x^*)[/tex]. Is this true?
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2005
  11. Dec 28, 2005 #10

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    2015 Award

    epsilon, schmepsilon, if f(x) = 1 for all x except x=0, and f(0) = 0, is f lower semicontinuous?
     
  12. Dec 29, 2005 #11

    benorin

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Sure, characteristic functions of open sets are always LSC (Lower SemiContinuous).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?