Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

Consider a function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^m \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ continuous in the $1^{st}$ argument, locally bounded in the $2^{nd}$ one.

We consider a $\delta$-neighborhood of $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, i.e. $\mathbb{B}(x,\delta)$ (closed ball with center $x$ and radius $\delta$), and we see the $2^{nd}$ argument as a $\delta$-dependent parameter $\theta_\delta \in \mathbb{R}^m$. We study

$$ \max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)} \{ f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) \} $$

We assume that for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$ we have $ \delta \mapsto f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) $ non-decreasing if $y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)$. Therefore, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, also $\delta \mapsto \max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)} \{ f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) \}$ is non-decreasing.

Say if the following proposition is true (if not, find a counterexample).

$$ \forall \epsilon > 0 \ \exists \delta >0 \text{ such that } \max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)} \{ f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) \} < \epsilon $$

Note: the proposition would hold for fixed $\delta$-independent $\theta$ as $x \mapsto f(x,\theta)$ is continuous. I suspect the proposition is true also for $\theta_\delta$ because the smaller $\delta$ is the smaller $\max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)} \{ f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) \}$ is.

share|improve this question
    
I don't understand "Therefore, for any $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, also $\delta \mapsto \max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)} \{ f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) \}$ is non-decreasing". There's one positive and one negative term; one is non-decreasing in $\delta$, the other non-increasing in $\delta$; then why should the maximum be non-decreasing? –  joriki May 2 '12 at 17:46
    
You are right: there is a typo in the question statement: for any (x,y) $\delta \mapsto f(x,\theta_\delta) - f(y,\theta_\delta)$ is non-decreasing. –  Adam May 2 '12 at 17:53
    
A minor point: How do you know the maximum exists? Shouldn't it be the supremum? –  joriki May 2 '12 at 18:07
    
I was thinking it exists because $y$ belongs to a compact set and the function is locally bounded. Am I wrong? –  Adam May 2 '12 at 18:12
    
Which compact set are you referring to? Doesn't $\mathbb B(x,\delta)$ refer to the open ball about $x$ with radius $\delta$? If it doesn't, you should introduce the notation; I think that's what it usually refers to. –  joriki May 2 '12 at 18:20
show 2 more comments

1 Answer 1

This is true, but perhaps more trivially so than you wanted it to be. Since $\delta \mapsto f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta)$ is non-decreasing for every $(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R}^n$, so is $\delta \mapsto f(y,\theta_\delta)-f(x,\theta_\delta)$, and thus it is in fact constant (with respect to $\delta$). Thus we can evaluate it at any fixed value of $\delta$, and as you already remarked, continuity in the first argument then implies the proposition.

share|improve this answer
    
Then I would say $\max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)}\{f(x,\theta_\delta)-f(y,\theta_\delta) \} \leq \max_{y \in \mathbb{B}(x,\delta)}\{f(x,\theta_{\bar{\delta}})-f(y,\theta_{\bar{\delta}}) \} < \epsilon$, for any $\bar{\delta} \geq \delta$. Do you think this works? –  Adam May 2 '12 at 19:29
    
@Adam: I think there was a misunderstanding. My point was that the expression inside the braces doesn't actually depend on $\delta$, so we have no just $\le$ but equality, and this holds for any $\bar\delta$, not just for $\bar{\delta} \geq \delta$. Perhaps you meant $y\in\mathbb B(x,\bar\delta)$ on the right-hand side? –  joriki May 2 '12 at 19:45
    
No, I didn't mean that. Notice that the proposition was like "[...] there exists $\delta$ such that...". Moreover, I think that the expression inside the brackets does depend on $\delta$. –  Adam May 2 '12 at 20:31
    
@Adam: If you disagree with my argument that the expression doesn't depend on $\delta$, you should point out where you think it goes wrong. There's little point in asking a question and then just ignoring the main argument in the answer. –  joriki May 2 '12 at 22:00
    
Sorry, I didn't want to be "not-kind". (1) Do you think my inequalities work? (2) I think that "the expression inside the brackets", i.e. $f(x,\theta_\delta) - f(y,\theta_\delta)$ does depend on $\delta$ because it's a $\theta_\delta$. In fact, if $f(x,\theta_\delta) - f(y,\theta_\delta)$ is not decreasing for decreasing $\delta$, then it can go to $\infty$ for small $\delta$s and the proposition would be false. –  Adam May 2 '12 at 22:44
show 2 more comments

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.