10
$\begingroup$

Let $n$ be a positive integer and $z_1,z_2,\cdots,z_n$ be complex numbers such that $$z_1+z_2+\cdots+z_n=0.$$

Problem. Find the minimum of$$ |z^2_1+1|+|z^2_2+1|+\cdots+|z^2_n+1|.$$

I considered that $$\sum_{i=1}^{n}|z^2_{i}+1|\ge\left|\sum_{i=1}^{n}z^2_{i}+1\right|,$$ then?

$\endgroup$
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ Case $n$ even: set $z_k:=(-1)^k i$ for all $k\le n$. Then $\sum_{k\le n}|z_k^2+1|=0.$ $\endgroup$ – Paolo Leonetti Mar 4 '18 at 15:43
3
+25
$\begingroup$

$\def\i{\mathrm{i}}$As is pointed out by @PaoloLeonetti, for even $n$, the minimum is $0$. Now suppose $n = 2m + 1$ where $m \in \mathbb{N}$. It will be proved that$$ \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |z_k^2 + 1| \geqslant 1. $$ The equality can be achieved for $z_1 = 0,\ z_k = (-1)^k \i\ (k \geqslant 2)$.


Lemma: If $a_1, \cdots, a_{2m + 1} \in \mathbb{R}$, $|a_k| \leqslant 1$ for $1 \leqslant k \leqslant 2m + 1$, and $\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} a_k = 0$, then$$ \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} a_k^2 \leqslant 2m. $$

Proof of lemma: If there exists $k_0$ such that $a_{k_0} = 0$, then$$ \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} a_k^2 = \sum_{k \neq k_0} a_k^2 \leqslant \sum_{k \neq k_0} 1^2 = 2m. $$

Now suppose $a_k \neq 0$ for each $k$. Since there are $2m + 1$ nonzero numbers, then either there are at least $m + 1$ positive numbers or there are at least $m + 1$ negative numbers. Without loss of generality, suppose $a_1, \cdots, a_k > 0$, $k \geqslant m + 1$, and $a_1 = \min\limits_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} a_k$. Note that$$ \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j = -\sum_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j \leqslant 2m + 1 - k \leqslant m. \tag{1} $$

Denote $S = \sum\limits_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2$. Take$$a_{1,1} = a_1 - \min(a_1, 1 - a_2),\ a_{1,2} = a_2 + \min(a_1, 1 - a_2),\ a_{1,j} = a_j\ (j \geqslant 3),$$ then\begin{align*} S_1 - S &= \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_{1,j}^2 - \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 = (a_{1,1}^2 + a_{1,2}^2) - (a_1^2 + a_2^2)\\ &= 2(a_2 - a_1) \min(a_1, 1 - a_2) + (\min(a_1, 1 - a_2))^2 \geqslant 0, \end{align*} and$$ \sum_{j = 1}^k a_{1,j} = \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j, \quad |a_{1,j}| \leqslant 1\ (1 \leqslant j \leqslant 2m + 1), \quad a_{1,1} = \min_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} a_{1, j}.$$

If $a_{1,j} = 0$, then again$$ \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 \leqslant \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_{1,j}^2 = \sum_{j > 1} a_{1,j}^2 \leqslant \sum_{j > 1} 1^2 = 2m. $$ Otherwise $a_{1,2} = 1$. Take$$ a_{2,1} = a_{1,1} - \min(a_{1,1}, 1 - a_{1,3}),\ a_{2,3} = a_{1,3} + \min(a_{1,1}, 1 - a_{1,3}),\ a_{2,j} = a_{1,j}\ (j \neq 1, 3), $$ then analogously there is $S_2 \geqslant S_1$ with$$ \sum_{j = 1}^k a_{2,j} = \sum_{j = 1}^k a_{1,j}, \quad |a_{2,j}| \leqslant 1\ (1 \leqslant j \leqslant 2m + 1), \quad a_{2,1} = \min_{1 \leqslant j \leqslant k} a_{2, j}.$$

Now it will be proved that such adjustments can be carried out for at most $k - 1$ times, i.e. there exists $1 \leqslant t \leqslant k - 1$ such that$$ a_1 \geqslant a_{1,1} \geqslant \cdots \geqslant a_{t,1} = 0. $$ If otherwise, then $a_{k - 1, 1} > 0$ and $a_{k - 1, j} = 1$ for $2 \leqslant j \leqslant k$. Thus$$ \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j = \sum_{j = 1}^k a_{k - 1, j} > \sum_{j = 2}^k a_{k - 1, j} \geqslant k - 1 \geqslant m, $$ contradictory to (1). Therefore, suppose $1 \leqslant t \leqslant k - 1$ satisfies$$ a_1 \geqslant a_{1,1} \geqslant \cdots \geqslant a_{t,1} = 0, $$ then$$ \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 \leqslant \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_{t,j}^2 = \sum_{j > 1} a_{t,j}^2 \leqslant \sum_{j > 1} 1^2 = 2m. $$


Now back to the question. Suppose $z_k = x_k + \i y_k \ (x_k, y_k \in \mathbb{R})$ for each $k$. If there exists $k$ such that $x_k \neq 0$, without loss of generality suppose $k = 1$ and $x_1 > 0$, then by $\sum z_k = 0$, there exists $l \neq 1$ such that $x_l < 0$. Without loss of generality suppose $l = 2$.

Take$$ x_1' = x_1 - \min(x_1, -x_2) \geqslant 0,\ x_2' = x_2 + \min(x_1, -x_2) \leqslant 0,\ x_k' = x_k \ (k \geqslant 3), $$ and $z_k' = x_k' + \i y_k$ for each $k$, then$$ |z_1 + \i|^2 - |z_1' + \i|^2 = x_1^2 - x_1'^2 > 0 \Longrightarrow |z_1 + \i| > |z_1' + \i|,\\ |z_2 + \i|^2 - |z_2' + \i|^2 = x_2^2 - x_2'^2 > 0 \Longrightarrow |z_2 + \i| > |z_2' + \i|. $$ Analogously,$$ |z_1 - \i| > |z_1' -\i|, \quad |z_2 - \i| > |z_2' -\i|. $$ Therefore,\begin{align*} &\mathrel{\phantom{=}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |z_k^2 + 1| - \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |z_k'^2 + 1| = (|z_1^2 + 1| + |z_2^2 + 1|) - (|z_1'^2 + 1| + |z_2'^2 + 1|)\\ &= (|z_1 + \i| \cdot |z_1 - \i| - |z_1' + \i| \cdot |z_1' - \i| ) + (|z_2 + \i| \cdot |z_2 - \i| - |z_2' + \i| \cdot |z_2' - \i| ) > 0. \end{align*}

This implies if there exists $k$ such that $x_k \neq 0$, then there is another tuple $(z_1', \cdots, z_{2m + 1}')$ satisfies $\sum z_k' = 0$ and $\sum z_k'^2 < \sum z_k^2$. Therefore,$$ \min_{\substack{z_1, \cdots, z_n \in \mathbb{C}\\\sum z_k = 0}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |z_k^2 + 1| = \min_{\substack{z_1, \cdots, z_n \in \mathbb{C}\\\sum z_k = 0\\\mathrm{Re}(z_k) = 0\ (1 \leqslant k \leqslant 2m + 1)}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |z_k^2 + 1|. $$


Now it suffices to prove that for any $y_1, \cdots, y_{2m + 1} \in \mathbb{R}$, if $\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} y_k = 0$, then$$ \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k^2| \geqslant 1. $$

If $M = \max\limits_{1 \leqslant k \leqslant 2m + 1} |y_k| > 1$, without loss of generality, suppose $y_1 = M$, then there exists $k$ such that $y_k < 0$. Without loss of generality, suppose $y_2 < 0$. Take$$ y_1' = 1,\ y_2' = y_2 + y_1 - 1, y_k' = y_k\ (k \geqslant 3), $$ then\begin{align*} &\mathrel{\phantom{=}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k^2| - \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k'^2| = |1 - y_1^2| + |1 - y_2^2| - |1 - y_2'^2|\\ &= (y_1^2 - 1) + |1 - y_2^2| - |(y_1 + y_2)(y_1 + y_2 - 2)|\\ &= (y_1^2 - 1) + |1 - y_2^2| - (y_1 + y_2)|y_1 + y_2 - 2|, \tag{2} \end{align*} where the last identity is due to $y_1 = |y_1| \geqslant |y_2| = -y_2$, i.e. $y_1 + y_2 \geqslant 0$.

Case 1: $y_1 + y_2 \geqslant 2$. Then by $y_1 > 1$ and $y_2 < 0$, there is\begin{align*} (2) &= (y_1^2 - 1) + |1 - y_2^2| - (y_1 + y_2)(y_1 + y_2 - 2)\\ &\geqslant (y_1^2 - 1) + (y_2^2 - 1) - (y_1 + y_2)(y_1 + y_2 - 2)\\ &= -2(y_1 - 1)(y_2 - 1) > 0. \end{align*}

Case 2: $0 < y_1 + y_2 < 2$. Then\begin{align*} (2) &= (y_1^2 - 1) + |1 - y_2^2| + (y_1 + y_2)(y_1 + y_2 - 2)\\ &\geqslant (y_1^2 - 1) + (1 - y_2^2) + (y_1 + y_2)(y_1 + y_2 - 2)\\ &= 2(y_1 - 1)(y_1 + y_2) > 0. \end{align*}

Case 3: $y_1 + y_2 = 0$. Then by $y_2 = -y_1 < -1$, there is$$ (2) = (y_1^2 - 1) + (y_2^2 - 1) - 0 = 2(y_1^2 - 1) > 0. $$

Threefore,$$ \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k'^2| < \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k^2|. $$

This implies$$ \min_{\substack{y_1, \cdots, y_{2m + 1} \in \mathbb{R}\\\sum y_k = 0}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k^2| = \min_{\substack{y_1, \cdots, y_{2m + 1} \in \mathbb{R}\\\sum y_k = 0\\|y_k| \leqslant 1\ (1 \leqslant k \leqslant 2m + 1)}} \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} |1 - y_k^2|. $$

Now it suffices to prove that for any $y_1, \cdots, y_{2m + 1} \in \mathbb{R}$, if $|y_k| \leqslant 1$ for each $k$ and $\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} y_k = 0$, then$$ \sum_{k = 1}^{2m + 1} (1 - y_k^2) \geqslant 1, $$ i.e. $\sum y_k^2 \leqslant 2m$, which is true by the lemma.


A simpler proof of lemma: Without loss of generality, suppose $a_1, \cdots, a_k \geqslant 0$ and $a_{k + 1}, \cdots, a_{2m + 1} \leqslant 0$.

If $\sum\limits_{j = 1}^k a_j^2 \leqslant k - 1$, then$$ \sum_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 = \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j^2 + \sum_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 \leqslant (k - 1) + (2m - k + 1) = 2m. $$ If $\sum\limits_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 \leqslant 2m - k$, analogously there is $\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 \leqslant 2m$.

Now suppose$$ \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j^2 > k - 1, \quad \sum_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 > 2m - k. \tag{3} $$ Because$$ k - 1 < \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j^2 \leqslant \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j = -\left( \sum_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j \right) \leqslant 2m - k, $$ then $2k < 2m + 1$, which implies $k \leqslant m$. Thus$$ m \leqslant 2m - k < \sum_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j^2 \leqslant -\left( \sum_{j = k + 1}^{2m + 1} a_j \right) = \sum_{j = 1}^k a_j \leqslant k \leqslant m, $$ a contradiction. Therefore, (3) cannot hold.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

As Paolo Leonetti has pointed out, for even $n$, the minimum $0$ is attained by splitting the $z_k$s into pairs of $i,-i$. So, we suppose $n$ is odd in the sequel.

Since the $z_k$s sum to zero, if one of them has a positive real part, some other one must have a negative real part. Suppose $\Re(z_1)>0>\Re(z_2)$. When $t>0$ is sufficiently small, we have \begin{cases} |z_1+i|>|z_1-t+i|,\\ |z_1-i|>|z_1-t-i|,\\ |z_2+i|>|z_2+t+i|,\\ |z_2-i|>|z_2+t+i|, \end{cases} because the imaginary parts remain intact on the RHS but the sizes of the real parts diminish. However, $|z^2+1|\equiv|z+i||z-i|$. So, if we "pinch" the real parts of $z_1$ and $z_2$ continually towards the origin at the same speed, $|z_1^2+1|+|z_2^2+1|$ will become smaller and smaller until one of the real parts becomes zero. Apply the same procedure to other pairs of $z_k$s with opposite signs of real parts, we conclude that the objective function is minimised only if every $z_k$ is purely imaginary. Put $z_k=iy_k$, the minimisation problem reduces to $$ \text{minimise } \sum_k|1-y_k^2| \ \text{ subject to } \sum_ky_k=0 \text{ and } \mathbf y=(y_1,\ldots,y_n)\in\mathbb R^n. $$

Let $A=(0,1)$ and $B=(1,\infty)$. So, $\mathbb R=-B\cup\{-1\}\cup-A\cup\{0\}\cup A\cup\{1\}\cup B$. Using a similar argument to the above, we can always strictly lower the objective function value in each case below:

  1. $y_i\in-B,\ y_j\in-A\cup\{0\}$: pinch-in towards $-1$.
  2. $y_i\in-B,\ y_j\in A\cup\{1\}$: pinch-in towards the boundaries of $[-1,0]$. Note that $|(y_i+t)^2-1| + |1-(y_j-t)^2|=2t(y_i+y_j)$ plus a constant when $t>0$ is small.
  3. $y_i\in-B,\ y_j\in B$: pinch-in towards the boundaries of $[-1,1]$.
  4. $y_i\in-A,\ y_j\in A\cup\{0\}$: spread out towards the boundaries of $[-1,1]$.
  5. $y_i,y_j\in-A$: spread out towards the boundaries of $[-1,0]$. Note that when $y_i\le y_j$ and $f(t)=\left[1-(y_i-t)^2+1-(y_j+t)^2\right]$, we have $f'(t)=-2(y_j-y_i+2t)$. Hence $f'(0)=-2(y_j-y_i)\le0$ and $f''(0)=-4<0$.

It follows from cases 1 to 3 that, if some element $y_i$ of a global minimiser belongs to $-B$, no $y_j$ may belong to $-A\cup\{0\}\cup A\cup\{1\}\cup B$. In other words, all $y_j$s belong to $-B\cup\{-1\}$. But this is impossible because $\sum_ky_k=0$. Therefore, no element of $\mathbf y$ belongs to $-B$. By symmetry, no element of $\mathbf y$ belongs to $B$ too.

Hence every $\mathbf y\in[-1,1]$.

Now, if there is some $y_i\in-A$, then by the result of case 4, no $y_j$ belongs to $A\cup\{0\}$. Therefore every $y_j\in\{-1\}\cup-A\cup\{1\}$. However, by the result of case 5, $y_i$ must be the only element in $-A$. Hence all other elements are $\pm1$s. Yet, this is impossible because the $y_k$s sum to zero. So, there must be no $y_i$ in $-A$. By symmetry, there is no $y_i$ in $A$ too.

Hence every $y_j\in\{-1,0,1\}$. Since the $y_j$s sum to zero, $-1$ and $1$ must occur in pairs. It is now clear that the minimum occurs when exactly one $y_j$ is zero. Translating back, exactly one $z_j$ is zero and the rest are pairs of $-i,i$. The minimum value is $1$.

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Let $n=2m+1$ for some $m\in\mathbb{N}$. Denote by $z:=(z_1,...,z_n)$ and $$S(z):=\sum_{k=1}^n|z_k^2+1|$$ The problem can be expressed as $$\min_{z\in\mathbb{C}}S(z)\hspace{0.2cm}\text{subject to}\hspace{0.2cm}z_1+...+z_n=0$$ Let $\tilde{z}:=(\tilde{z}_1,...,\tilde{z}_n)$ with $\tilde{z}_1=0$ and $\tilde{z}_k=(-1)^ki$ for $k\geqslant 2$. Then $S(\tilde{z})=1$. Clearly if $z^*$ is a minimizer then $S(z^*)\leqslant S(\tilde{z})$.

$\textbf{Observation 1:}$ If $z^*$ is a minimizer then $z^*_k\notin\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$ for every $k$. If there is some $k$ such that $z^*_k\in\mathbb{R}\setminus\{0\}$ then $S(z^*)\geqslant |(z^*_k)^2+1|>1$. Hence a contradiction.

$\textbf{Observation 2:}$ If $z^*$ is a minimizer then at most one $z^*_k=0$. If there are more then one (say two) $z_k^*=0, z^*_l=0$ then $S(z^*)\geqslant |(z^*_k)^2+1|+|(z^*_l)^2+1|=2>1$. Again a contradiction.

$\textbf{Observation 3:}$ Let $z_k:=a_k+ib_k$ where $a_k,b_k\in\mathbb{R}$ for each $k$. If $z$ is a minimizer then $|a_k|\leqslant 1$ and $|b_k|\leqslant2$ for all $k$. That is to say $z_k\in\mathbb{B}(0,\sqrt{5}):=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:|z|\leqslant\sqrt{5}\}$ for each $k$. Now $$|z_k^2+1|^2=|(a_k+ib_k)^2+1|^2=|a_k^2-b_k^2+1+2ia_kb_k|^2\\=(a^2_k-b^2_k+1)^2+4a^2_kb^2_k=(a^2_k+b^2_k+1)^2-4b^2_k\\=(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)$$ If for some $k$ we have $|a_k|>1$ or $|b_k|>2$ then $$S(z)\geqslant |z^2_k+1|=\sqrt{(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)}>1=S(\tilde{z})$$ Therefore such a $z$ would not be a minimum. Clearly for $\tilde{z}$ we have $\tilde{a}_k=0$ for all $k$ and $\tilde{b}_1=0, \tilde{b}_k=(-1)^k$ for all $k$. Surely for the claim to hold it is sufficient to prove that if $z^*$ is a minimizer at least one $z^*_k=0$.

$\textbf{Observation 4:}$ Using the notation $z_k=a_k+ib_k$ the constraint $z_1+...+z_n=0$ is equivalent $\sum_k a_k=0$ and $\sum_kb_k=0$. Let $a:=(a_1,...,a_n), b:=(b_1,...,b_n)$ then the original problem can be rephrased in terms of $a_k,b_k$ as follows $$\min_{z}S(z)=\min_{a,b\in A^n}\sum_{k=1}^n\sqrt{(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)}\hspace{0.2cm}\text{subject to}\hspace{0.2cm}\sum_{k=1}^na_k=\sum_{k=1}^nb_k=0$$ where $A:=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb{R}^2:|x|\leqslant 1, |y|\leqslant 2\}$ (by observation 3 it is sufficient to look at this set $A$). The above problem is just a standard optimization problem of convex kind since constraints, set $A$ and the objective function are convex. Also notice that direct inspection reveals that the minimum cannot occur on the boundary of $A^n$. In either case $|a_k|=1$ or $|b_k|=2$ for some $k$ yields $S(z)>1$. Therefore the minimum must be attained in the interior of $A^n$. The Lagrangian for this problem would be: $$L(a,b,\lambda,\beta):=\sum_{k=1}^n\sqrt{(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)}-\lambda \sum_{k=1}^na_k-\beta \sum_{k=1}^nb_k$$ restricted to $(a,b)\in A^n$ (I am not including this restriction in the Lagrangian because it gets messier). If $(a,b)$ is an optimal solution and the objective function is continuously differentiable there then from the first order conditions we get all $k$: $$\frac{2a_k(a_k^2+b_k^2+1)}{\sqrt{(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)}}=\lambda$$ $$\frac{2b_k(a_k^2+b_k^2-1)}{\sqrt{(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)}}=\beta$$ Notice that by observation $1$ there is no $k$ such that $a_k\neq 0$ and $b_k=0$. Moreover since we are interested in points other than $\tilde{z}$ (or its permutation) then we can also assume that there is no $k$ for which $z_k=0$ that is simultaneously $a_k=b_k=0$. We distinguish now few cases which can be candidates for the first order conditions above:

$\textbf{Case 1:}$ $a_k=a_{k+1}$ and $b_k=b_{k+1}$ for all $k$ which from the constraints implies $a_k=b_k=0$ for all $k$. But this cannot be a minimum since $S(0)=n>1$.

$\textbf{Case 2:}$ If for some $j$ we have $a_j=0$ then necessarily $a_k=0$ for all $k$. If some $b_k=0$ then back to case of $\tilde{z}$. So assume for all $k$ we have $b_k\neq 0$.Then this implies from the second equation for all $k$ we have $$\frac{2b_k(b^2_k-1)}{|b^2_k-1|}=\beta\Rightarrow |b_k|=|b_{k+1}|$$ From the constraint $\sum_kb_k=0$ we must have half of $b_k$ negative and the other half positive but this is impossible since $n=2m+1$ is an odd number.

$\textbf{Case 3:}$ There is some $j$ such $b_j=0$ but then $a_j=0$ and back to $\tilde{z}$.

$\textbf{Case 4:}$ There is some $j$ such that $a^2_j+b^2_j-1=0$ but then for all $k$ we have $a^2_k+b^2_k-1=0$ hence $$\lambda=\frac{2a_k(a_k^2+b_k^2+1)}{\sqrt{(a^2_k+(b_k-1)^2)(a^2_k+(b_k+1)^2)}}=\frac{2a_k}{|a_k|}$$ This implies that all $a_k$ have the same sign and since $a_k\neq 0$ for all $k$ then $\sum_ka_k=0$ cannot hold.

$\textbf{Case 5:}$ When $a^2_k+b^2_k-1>0 \hspace{0.1cm}(<0)$ then $b_k$ must have the same sign for all $k$. Since $b_k\neq 0$ for all $k$ then $\sum_kb_k=0$ cannot hold.

These cases cover all possibilities of interior points being critical points. Only $a_k=b_k=0$ for all $k$ is a critical point but that is not a minimum. On the other hand $S(z)$ is continuous and $A^n$ is a compact set so by Weierstrass theorem $S(z)$ must necessarily attain its minimum on $A^n$. Previous arguments showed that the minimum can be attained in the interior $A^n$ only. Since no interior point where the objective function is continuously differentiable can be a minimum it then forces $\tilde{z}$ (or its permutations) to be a minimum.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Why is that$$S(\vec z_0)=\min_{\vec z\in\mathbb{C}^n}S(\vec z)\Longleftrightarrow S^*(\vec z_0)=\min_{\vec z\in\mathbb{C}^n}S^*(\vec z)?$$ $\endgroup$ – Saad Mar 10 '18 at 13:37
  • $\begingroup$ If you think of $|z|$ as a norm of a vector then the minimum of a sum of lengths of some given vectors is the same as the minimum of the sum of their squares. $\endgroup$ – Arian Mar 10 '18 at 13:59
  • $\begingroup$ If you really can rigorously prove that, please write it down. $\endgroup$ – Saad Mar 10 '18 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ Consider the problem $\min_{x,y}\{||x||+||y||\}$ and $\min_{x,y}\{||x||^2+||y||^2\}$ over $\mathbb{R}^2$. In the both cases the minimizer is the same (from first order conditions). You can generalize this to any finite number of vectors and possibly with some constraints as well. $\endgroup$ – Arian Mar 10 '18 at 14:11
  • $\begingroup$ In the case presented by you. the two minima are the same simply due to the fact that the minimum points are both $(\vec 0, \vec 0)$. Your plausible statement, in fact, is not true in general scenarios. $\endgroup$ – Saad Mar 10 '18 at 14:37

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.