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.

In Stephen Boyd's book boyd uses the theorem that a linear function is bounded below on $R^m$ only when it is zero. I can't really digest this. Csn someone tell me why this holds?

I mean if I take a line, convert it into a ray. It can start at any point. So indeed its bounded below and its linear but it doesn't mean that its zero.

Please correct if I am wrong somewhere.

share|improve this question
add comment

3 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Suppose $f$ is linear, and $f(x) \geq B$ for all $x$. Choose any $x_0$. Then $f(\lambda x_0) = \lambda f(x_0) \geq B$ for all $\lambda$.

Take $\lambda >0$, which gives $f(x_0) \geq \frac{B}{\lambda}$, and since $\lambda$ is arbitrary, we have $f(x_0) \geq 0$.

Now take $\lambda <0$, which gives $f(x_0) \leq \frac{B}{\lambda}$, which now results in $f(x_0) \leq 0$.

Together, this gives $f(x_0) = 0$. Since $x_0$ was arbitrary, we have $f=0$.

share|improve this answer
    
I don't really understand what it means to say that $\lambda$ is arbitrary. But from the above I can deduce that $f = B$. –  Shirin Feb 16 '13 at 7:41
1  
Since $f$ is linear, you have $f(\lambda x_0) = \lambda f(x_0)$ for any scalar $\lambda$. From the above you can deduce that $f=0$. Here is another approach: If $f$ is linear, then $f(\mathbb{R}^n)$ is a subspace. However, $\mathbb{R}$ only has two subspaces, itself and $\{0\}$. Since $f$ is bounded below, it must be the latter. –  copper.hat Feb 16 '13 at 8:00
    
Thats awesome.....That does clarify it.....Thanks for a wonderful explanation –  Shirin Feb 16 '13 at 8:22
    
You are very welcome. –  copper.hat Feb 16 '13 at 8:23
add comment

Hint: If $f$ is a non-zero linear function then there exists a point $x$ such that $f(x)\neq 0$. What can you say about $f(\lambda x)=\lambda f(x)$ for $\lambda\in\mathbb R$?

share|improve this answer
    
$f(\lambda x)$ will be zero only when $\lambda$ is zero. Is that what you meant? If yes I still don't get the point. –  Shirin Feb 16 '13 at 2:20
    
@Shaun See what happens when $|\lambda|$ gets large and $f(x) < 0$. –  Dominique Feb 16 '13 at 3:30
    
I am not sure what will be the implication. I am sorry but I am unable to figure out where you are getting with this....all i can see is that it will cause $\lambda f(x)$ to be some very high positive or negative value..... –  Shirin Feb 16 '13 at 3:45
add comment

I think you're getting tripped up on the fact that your linear function $f : \mathbb{R}^m \to \mathbb{R}$ is defined on all of $\mathbb{R}^m$. You cannot consider $f$ on a restricted domain (e.g., picking a ray from a line). Since $f$ is linear, we have the property that for all $x \in \mathbb{R}^m$ and all $c \in \mathbb{R}$, $$f(c x) = c f(x).$$

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.