Proof of convergence theory in optimization

ianchenmu
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The question is:


Suppose that lim x_k=x_*, where x_* is a local minimizer of the nonlinear function f. Assume that \triangledown^2 f(x_*) is symmetric positive definite. Prove that the sequence \left \{ f(x_k)-f(x_*) \right \} converges linearly if and only if \left \{ ||x_k-x_*|| \right \} converges linearly. Prove that the two sequences converge at the same rate, regardless of what the rate is. What is the relationship between the rate constant for the two sequences?







Homework Equations



n/a

The Attempt at a Solution


I guess we may use the orthogonal diagonalization of a symmetric matrix and f(x_k)-f(x_*)=\triangledown f(x_*)+\frac{1}{2}(x_k-x_*)^T\cdot\triangledown^2 f(\xi)(x_k-x_*) and \triangledown f(x_*)=0... But I got stuck here. So what's your answer?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ianchenmu said:

Homework Statement



The question is:


Suppose that lim x_k=x_*, where x_* is a local minimizer of the nonlinear function f. Assume that \triangledown^2 f(x_*) is symmetric positive definite. Prove that the sequence \left \{ f(x_k)-f(x_*) \right \} converges linearly if and only if \left \{ ||x_k-x_*|| \right \} converges linearly. Prove that the two sequences converge at the same rate, regardless of what the rate is. What is the relationship between the rate constant for the two sequences?





Homework Equations



n/a

The Attempt at a Solution


I guess we may use the orthogonal diagonalization of a symmetric matrix and f(x_k)-f(x_*)=\triangledown f(x_*)+\frac{1}{2}(x_k-x_*)^T\cdot\triangledown^2 f(\xi)(x_k-x_*) and \triangledown f(x_*)=0... But I got stuck here. So what's your answer?

My answer is that the result you are being asked to prove is wrong.
 
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