3
$\begingroup$

Given a function $f: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ which has only one critical point and it's a local minimum, for what $n$ is it a global minimum?

For a convex function with one variable a local minimum is always global.

For functions with two variables, it's not true. There are many counterexamples:

$f(x,y) = e^{3x} + y^3-3ye^x$.

Here the only solution of $f_x=3e^{3x}-3ye^x=0$, and $f_y=3y^2-3e^x=0$ is $(0,1)$ which is a local minimum by the second derivative test.

But $f(0,-3)=-17<f(0,1)=-1$

$f(x,y)=x^2+y^2(1+x)^3$ has the same property.

What about higher dimensions?

Could you help me determine the condition on $n$ for which the only local minimum is global?

Thank you.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You need to consider $f_x=0$ or $f_y=0$, not and. $\endgroup$ – Tim Ratigan Dec 7 '13 at 9:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why? I thought that in critical points both derivatives have value zero. $\endgroup$ – Roses Dec 7 '13 at 9:20
  • $\begingroup$ That's true, but $f_x$ can start growing while $f_y$ is still negative, for example, and then $f_y$ becomes positive later, thus going from strictly decreasing to strictly increasing without a critical point. By considering or, you find local maxima/minima when you disregard the other variable, which tells you considerably more. $\endgroup$ – Tim Ratigan Dec 7 '13 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I realize my first comment might have been misconstrued, it looks somewhat forceful upon rereading. $\endgroup$ – Tim Ratigan Dec 7 '13 at 9:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This web page has the graph of mentioned function for anyone wanting a graphical example: math.tamu.edu/~tvogel/gallery/node16.html $\endgroup$ – meguli Aug 8 '17 at 18:04
3
$\begingroup$

Using your example, one can show that similar examples exists for all $n\geq 3$: Let $F :\mathbb R^{2+n} \to \mathbb R$, $n\geq 1$ be defined by

$$F(x, y, z_1, \cdots, z_n) = f(x, y) + \epsilon(z_1^2 + \cdots + z_n^2)$$

where $f$ is the first example you gave. Then $dF=0$ only at the point $(0,1,0,\cdots, 0)$ and it is a local minimum by the second derivative test. Also $F(0,-3, 0,\cdots, 0) <F(0,-1, 0\cdots, 0)$ for some small $\epsilon$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very, very much. I'm afraid I don't have enough reputation to vote up. Maybe it's a stupid question, but how small should $\epsilon$ be to make the construction work? $\endgroup$ – Roses Dec 7 '13 at 10:33
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, I am a bit misleading. Actually any positive $\epsilon$ would do. Because in order that $dF=0$, $z_1, \cdots, z_n$ has to be zero, and it is a local minimum as long as $\epsilon >0$. Also, $F(0, -3, 0, \cdots, 0)< F(0,1,0, \cdots, 0)$ has nothing to do with $\epsilon$. $\endgroup$ – user99914 Dec 7 '13 at 10:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, I see. The fact that $\epsilon$ is a constant is enough to show that $z_i$'s must be zero. Thank you a lot. $\endgroup$ – Roses Dec 7 '13 at 10:50

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.