2
$\begingroup$

Suppose $X$ is a Polish space and $Y$ a compact metrizable space. Denote $P_k(Y)$ to be the collection of all non-empty, compact subsets of $X$. Denote the Hausdorff metric $d_H : P_k(Y) \rightarrow P_k(Y)$ by $d_H(A,B) = \inf \{ \varepsilon > 0 : A \subseteq B_{\varepsilon} \text{ and } B \subseteq A_{\varepsilon}\}$ where $A_{\varepsilon}$ denotes the $\varepsilon$-ball around $A$.

Let $F : X \rightarrow P_k(Y)$ be a multifunction or set-valued mapping. For any closed set $P \subseteq X$, denote $F|_P$ as the restriction of $F$ to $P$, such that $P(x) = \emptyset$ for all $x \not\in P$ and $F|_P(x) = F(x)$ for all $ x \in P.$ Define the oscilation function of $F|_P$ at $x$ by $osc(F|_P)(x) = \inf_{V \in N(x)} \sup_{x_1, x_2 \in V \cap P}{d_H(F(x_1), F(x_2))}.$

Question: How to prove that $osc(F|_P)$ is an upper semicontinuous function?

Definition: A multifunction $F : X \rightarrow Y$ is an upper semicontinuous function if $\{ x \in X : F(x) \subseteq U\}$ is an open subset of $X$ for every $U \subseteq Y$ open.

Remark: The oscillation function $osc(F|_P)$ is a real-valued function. This question is motivated by this paper, page $73$, Theorem $18.$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is $F$ upper semicontinuous? I don't think $osc(F\vert_P)$ should have any continuity properties unless it inherits it from $F$. $\endgroup$ – Theoretical Economist Mar 15 '17 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ @TheoreticalEconomist: No, $F$ needs not be upper semicontinuous. It is just any set-valued mapping. $\endgroup$ – Idonknow Mar 16 '17 at 1:43
  • $\begingroup$ Huh, interesting. Ok. Since $osc(F\vert_P)$ is a real-valued function, you want to know it is usc as a function, and not a set-valued map, correct? (Though if I remember correctly, usc functions are also usc as set-valued maps and vice-versa, so perhaps the distinction is moot.) $\endgroup$ – Theoretical Economist Mar 16 '17 at 2:39
  • $\begingroup$ @TheoreticalEconomist: Yes, I want to know whether $osc(F|_P)$ is USC as a real-valued function. $\endgroup$ – Idonknow Mar 16 '17 at 2:44
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the clarification -- was just confused by the statement of the definition of upper semicontinuity for set-valued maps when it doesn't seem the most appropriate definition to appeal to. $\endgroup$ – Theoretical Economist Mar 16 '17 at 2:50
1
+200
$\begingroup$

(1) Assume that $x_n\rightarrow x$ and $g(y):={\rm osc}\ (F|P)(y)$

Then there are neighborhood $U_n$ of $x_n, y_n,\ z_n\in U_n$ and $\delta_n,\ \varepsilon_n\rightarrow 0$ s.t. $$ g(x_n) +\varepsilon_n > \sup_{ y,\ z\in U_n}\ d_H(F(y),F(z)) \geq g(x_n) $$

and $$ d_H(F(y_n),F(z_n)) \leq \sup_{ y,\ z\in U_n}\ d_H(F(y),F(z)) < \delta_n + d_H (F(y_n), F(z_n)) $$

Hence $|d_H(F(y_n),F(z_n)) -g(x_n) |\leq \varepsilon_n+\delta_n$

(2) There is neighborhood $V_n$ of $x$ s.t. $g(x)=\lim_n\ \sup_{y,\ z\in V_n}\ d_H(F(y),F(z)) $

By re-indexing we can assume that $y_n,\ z_n\in V_n$ Hence $ g(x)\geq d_H(F(y_n),F(z_n))$ so that $$g(x)\geq \lim\ \sup_n\ d_H(F(y_n),F(z_n)) =\lim\ \sup_n\ g(x_n)$$

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For $(2) $, why there exists $V_n $ such that $g (x) = \lim_n \sup_{y,z \in V_n} $? I know that since $x_n $ converges to $x $, we can have a neighbourhood of $x $. But why must the equality hold? $\endgroup$ – Idonknow Mar 19 '17 at 14:16

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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