Tell me more ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Recently in a seminar someone mentioned that monotone maps are equivalent to gradients of scalar convex functions, but it's not clear to me why this is true. One direction of the equivalence is straightforward but the other is not (as far as I can tell).

Definition. A map $F:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ is monotone on a convex set $C$ if $$(y-x)^T(F(y)-F(x))\ge0$$ for all $x,y \in C$.

One direction of the equivalence:

Prop. Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be convex and sufficiently differentiable. Then $\nabla f$ is monotone.

Pf. Convex differentiable functions satisfy $$f(y) \ge f(x) + \nabla f(x)(y-x).$$

By choosing the points in reverse, we also have, $$f(x) \ge f(y) + \nabla f(y)(x-y).$$ Add these inequalities and rearrange to get $(\nabla f(y)-\nabla f(x))(y-x) \ge 0$.∎

Now the other direction:

Prop. Let $F:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$ be monotone and sufficiently differentiable. Then there exists a convex function $f:\mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that $F=\nabla f$.

Pf. ???

It seems like this should be easy, but I'm stuck and google/wikipedia have been of little help. I'm actually starting to doubt whether it is true.

share|improve this question
By "sufficiently differentiable", I believe you mean that the gradient exists? You assume nothing else... I think you really need more precise conditions to know what happens next, but I'm not confident about the truth behind this result. – Patrick Da Silva Feb 21 '12 at 19:26
The obvious thing to try would be $f(x) = \int_0^1 F(xt) \, dt$. A simple computation shows that $\nabla f = F$. Then maybe the monotonicity of $F$ can be used to show that $f$ is convex? – Jeff Feb 21 '12 at 20:06
@PatrickDaSilva The point was to allow anyone answering to use as many derivatives as needed. I don't think it even needs a single derivative though so long as the gradient is generalized to an element of the subderivative, but this is not really important to me so feel free to assume it is smooth. – Nick Alger Feb 21 '12 at 20:28
@Jeff Yeah, so for 1D that's totally right. But does it also hold for higher dimensions? This line of thought makes me think the result may be related to the subject of integrable systems. – Nick Alger Feb 21 '12 at 20:30
Not all fields $F$ are gradients. If $F=(F_1,\dots,F_n)$ is $C^1$, a necessary condition for $F$ to be a gradient is that $\partial F_i/\partial x_j=\partial F_j/\partial x_i$for $1\le i<j\le n$. – Julián Aguirre Feb 21 '12 at 23:14
show 1 more comment

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Not all fields $F$ are gradients. If $F=(F_1,\dots,F_n)$ is $C^1$, a necessary condition for $F$ to be a gradient is that $$ \frac{\partial F_i}{\partial x_j}=\frac{\partial F_j}{\partial x_i},\quad 1\le i<j\le n. $$

share|improve this answer
A counterexample being, for example F(x,y)=(x+y,y), which is monotone but fails this criterion so is not a gradient field. – Nick Alger Feb 22 '12 at 17:56

Consider a $C^1$ monotone vector field $f=(f_1,\ldots,f_n)$ on $\mathbb R^n$. If there exists a function $G$ on $\mathbb R^n$ such that $G'=f$ than $G$ is automatically convex. So the existance of $G$ is the only thing one should verify.

Prop. The function $G$ exists if and only if $\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_j} = \frac{\partial f_j}{\partial x_i}$ for all $i$ and $j$.

The space $\mathbb R^n$ in contraclible. So $H^1(\mathbb R^n)=0$. Consequently $f=dG$ when $df=0$. It is equivalent to condition $\frac{\partial f_i}{\partial x_j} = \frac{\partial f_j}{\partial x_i}$.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.