Minimizing L_infty Norm: Finding Closest Points to b on x-axis and y=x

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mindscrape
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Norm
Mindscrape
Messages
1,854
Reaction score
1
This is a routine minimization problem, find the closest point or points to b = (-1,2)^T that lie on (a) the x-axis and (b) the line y=x.

First I am supposed to solve it with the Euclidian norm, which is no problem, but then we are supposed to solve with the L_\infty norm. I am a little confused because the L_\infty is the max of all points, so it is asking to minimize the maximum point?? :rolleyes:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You just take the maximum absolte value over all of your coordinates.

It's just another way to conceptualize space in R^n.
 
I know what the L_\infty norm is. I am confused because the closest point will be when ||Ax-b|| is minimized, but the norm of ||Ax-b||_\infty finds the maximum absolute value, which means that either the minimum must be less than zero for the two to agree, or if the minimum distance is greater than zero the problem doesn't make sense because the maximum value won't be the minimum.

To me there seems to be a contradiction.
 
No, no. The infinity norm is the absolute value of the coordinate with the largest absolute value. Find x that minimizes this.

Consider the first problem.

You want to minimize ||(-1,2)-(x,0)||_\infty=||(-1-x,2)||_\infty. What is this if x is between 1 and 3? What is it otherwise? How can you minimize it? Is the x that minimizes the norm unique?
 
Last edited:
Oh, right, this actually does make sense - just really strange to think about. So then the idea is to minimize ||(-1-x,2)||_\infty which would be minimum of |-1-x|, and |2|. So then the minimum infinity norm would be whenever 1+x < 2 or x < 1.

Then for the line y = x the idea will be to minimize |-1-x| and |2-y|. So it would be a minimum where the two intersect.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top