MHB Why isn't the "l1"-norm differentiable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OhMyMarkov
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiable
OhMyMarkov
Messages
81
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone!

I've searched a lot for this one, but couldn't find an answer:

If x is in R^N then ||x||_0 = x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_N. Why, then, isn't this norm differentiable?

(Btw, how to make LaTeX work?)

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone!

I've searched a lot for this one, but couldn't find an answer:

If x is in R^N then ||x||_0 = x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_N. Why, then, isn't this norm differentiable?

(Btw, how to make LaTeX work?)

Thank you!
Put your math in between $\$$ signs. For example

$\$$||x||_0 = x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_N$\$ $ gives $ ||x||_0 = x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_N $.
 
OhMyMarkov said:
Hello everyone!

I've searched a lot for this one, but couldn't find an answer:

If x is in R^N then ||x||_0 = x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_N. Why, then, isn't this norm differentiable?
I think you mean $\|x\|_0 = |x_1| + |x_2| + ... + |x_N|$ (without the absolute values it is not a norm). The geometric reason for non-differentiability of the norm is that the unit sphere $\{x:\|x\|_0=1\}$ has "corners". In one dimension, the function $f(x)=|x|$ is not differentiable at $x=0$. In $R^N$, the function $\|x\|_0$ is not differentiable at an extreme point of the unit sphere, such as the point $(1,0,\ldots,0).$
 
Ohh, I missed the part with the absolute values... It's all clear now
 
Opalg said:
I think you mean $\|x\|_0 = |x_1| + |x_2| + ... + |x_N|$ (without the absolute values it is not a norm). The geometric reason for non-differentiability of the norm is that the unit sphere $\{x:\|x\|_0=1\}$ has "corners". In one dimension, the function $f(x)=|x|$ is not differentiable at $x=0$. In $R^N$, the function $\|x\|_0$ is not differentiable at an extreme point of the unit sphere, such as the point $(1,0,\ldots,0).$
Hi Opalg,

I like your explanation from geometric point of view. It is very helpful. But Still it is confusing in terms of matrix calculus. could you elaborate the answer? Please.

Thank you
Venki
 
Last edited:
Venki said:
Hi Opalg,

I like your explanation from geometric point of view. It is very helpful. But Still it is confusing in terms of matrix calculus. could you elaborate the answer? Please.

Thank you
Venki

It is because |x| is not differentiable at the corner x=0.

CB
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K