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.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Exercise 3.32 page 119 of Convex Optimization is concerned with the proof that if $f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}:x\mapsto f(x)$ and $g:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}:x\mapsto g(x)$ are both convex, nondecreasing (or nonincreasing) and positive, then $h:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}:x\mapsto h(x)=f(x)g(x)$ is also convex.

Are there any generalisations or analogies of this claim to the case where both $f$ and $g$ are convex functions mapping elements from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}$, for any $n>1$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 19 down vote accepted

Yes a generalization is possible. Here is an elementary approach to the convexity of the product of two nonnegative convex functions defined on a convex domain of $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Choose $x$ and $y$ in the domain and $t$ in $[0,1]$. Your aim is to prove that $\Delta\ge0$ with $$\Delta=t(fg)(x)+(1-t)(fg)(y)-(fg)(tx+(1-t)y). $$ But $f$ and $g$ are nonnegative and convex, hence $$ (fg)(tx+(1-t)y)\le(tf(x)+(1-t)f(y))(tg(x)+(1-t)g(y)). $$ Using this and some easy algebraic manipulations, one sees that $\Delta\ge t(1-t)D(x,y)$ with $$ D(x,y)=f(x)g(x)+f(y)g(y)-f(x)g(y)-f(y)g(x), $$ that is, $$ D(x,y)=(f(x)-f(y))(g(x)-g(y)). $$ This proves a generalization of the result you quoted to any product of convex nonnegative functions $f$ and $g$ such that $D(x,y)\ge0$ for every $x$ and $y$ in the domain of $f$ and $g$.

In particular, if $f$ and $g$ are differentiable at a point $x$ in the domain, one asks that their gradients $\nabla f(x)$ and $\nabla g(x)$ are such that $z^*M(x)z\ge0$ for every $n\times 1$ vector $z$, where $M(x)$ is the $n\times n$ matrix $$ M(x)=\nabla f(x)\cdot(\nabla g(x))^*. $$

share|cite|improve this answer
If one were willing to consider smooth functions, the derivative version of this statement may make the mechanism easier to understand (depends on one's point of view, of course). – Willie Wong Mar 17 '11 at 12:13
@Willie If $f$ is not differentiable at $x$, replace the gradient of $f$ at $x$ by any subgradient of $f$ at $x$. – Did Mar 17 '11 at 13:13
Thanks a lot for your answer and all the details! – Anthony Labarre Mar 18 '11 at 9:02

Your Answer


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.