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.

How can I show that if $\varphi$ is a real function such that $$\varphi \left(\int_0^1 f\right)\leqslant \int_0^1 \varphi (f)$$ for any Borel-measurable real function $f$, then $\varphi$ is convex.

Ps: I realize homework questions have to be tagged as such. This isn't a homework problem. I came across this question in a text book, and I thought it was interesting.

share|improve this question
4  
Could you give the name of the book? –  Martin Sleziak Nov 16 '11 at 20:11
    
I was using a random book at the school library and I didn't look at the title/author. Sadly, I'm home now. –  Colin Nov 16 '11 at 20:25
    
There is an amibiguity in the question. Does it mean "if there is any Borel-measurable function such that this inequality holds", or does it mean "If it is the case that for any Borel-measurable function, for which this inequality holds"? It can be read either way. If you mean what I think you mean, then merely changing "any" to "every" would disambiguate it. "Any" is often a potentially ambiguous word. Be careful with it. –  Michael Hardy Nov 16 '11 at 21:50
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

You can verify the definition of convexity directly by taking a suitable $f$. Given $x_1, x_2 \in \mathbb R$ and $t \in [0,1]$, we apply the hypothesis to the step function $f : [0,1] \to \mathbb R$ given by $$ f(s) = \begin{cases} x_1, &0 \leqslant s \leqslant t, \\ x_2, &t \lt s \leqslant 1. \end{cases} $$ This gives us $$ \varphi\left(\int_0^t x_1 ds + \int_t^1 x_2 ds \right) \leqslant \int_0^t \varphi(x_1) ds + \int_t^1 \varphi(x_2) ds $$ $$ \implies \quad\varphi(tx_1 + (1-t)x_2) \leqslant t \ \varphi(x_1) + (1-t) \ \varphi(x_2), $$ which is what we want to prove.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer. So essentially, coming up with the function $f(s)$ is critical. –  Colin Nov 16 '11 at 20:15
    
@Colin Yes, that is crucial. But once we are told what to show and staring at the definition of a convex function, this is not that hard, I think. –  Srivatsan Nov 16 '11 at 20:17
add comment

I assume that $\varphi:[0,1]\to\mathbb R$.

Definition of convex is: For each $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and for each $x$, $y$ the inequality $$\varphi(\alpha x+(1-\alpha)y) \le \alpha \varphi(x) + (1-\alpha) \varphi(y).$$

Try to use the following measure: $$\mu(A) = \alpha \chi_{\{x\}}(A) + (1-\alpha) \chi_{\{y\}}(A)$$ and the function $f(x)=x$.

Here $\chi_B$ denotes the characteristic function of the set $B$ (a.k.a. indicator function). The measure $\mu$ is basically a convex combination of two Dirac measures $\delta_x$ and $\delta_y$, i.e. $$\mu(A)=\alpha \delta_x(A)+ (1-\alpha) \delta_y (A).$$

To prove that this implies convexity it suffices to show that for any function $g$ we have $$\int g \mathrm{d}\mu = \alpha g(x) + (1-\alpha) g(y).$$


EDIT: I understood the question as follows: Suppose that Jensen's inequality holds for arbitrary measure and arbitray $\varphi$, $f$. Then prove convexity. Srivatsan's answer is better, since he only uses the usual (Lebesgue) measure - which was probably the original intention of the question. (Although I have a simpler function $f$...)

share|improve this answer
    
Is $A$ an arbitrary set? –  Colin Nov 16 '11 at 20:05
    
$A$ is arbitrary subset of $[0,1]$. (I am defining the measure on $[0,1]$.) I might have misunderstood the question - I am not sure whether we can choose arbitrary measure or we should use the usual measure on $[0,1]$ only. –  Martin Sleziak Nov 16 '11 at 20:17
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.