What is the intuition behind mathematical definition of convexity? [on hold]
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$
How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?
convex-analysis
New contributor
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers 14 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$
How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?
convex-analysis
New contributor
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers 14 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
6
It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
up vote
-1
down vote
favorite
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$
How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?
convex-analysis
New contributor
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$
How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?
convex-analysis
convex-analysis
New contributor
New contributor
edited yesterday
New contributor
asked yesterday
backprop7
296
296
New contributor
New contributor
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers 14 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
put on hold as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers 14 hours ago
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
6
It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
6
It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
16 hours ago
6
6
It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
1
Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
1
I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
16 hours ago
Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
16 hours ago
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
(credit Wikipedia)
The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.
Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.
1
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.
The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.
We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.
Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.
The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.
add a comment |
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
(credit Wikipedia)
The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
(credit Wikipedia)
The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
up vote
16
down vote
accepted
The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
(credit Wikipedia)
The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.
The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
(credit Wikipedia)
The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.
The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.
edited 16 hours ago
answered yesterday
gimusi
86.9k74393
86.9k74393
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
add a comment |
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
@backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
– gimusi
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
– backprop7
yesterday
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
– Peter
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
@backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
– gimusi
22 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.
add a comment |
up vote
8
down vote
up vote
8
down vote
The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.
The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.
answered yesterday
user3482749
1,447411
1,447411
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.
The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.
edited yesterday
Nij
1,99711221
1,99711221
answered yesterday
Mostafa Ayaz
12.2k3733
12.2k3733
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.
Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.
1
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.
Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.
1
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.
Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.
You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.
Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.
edited 17 hours ago
answered yesterday
Yves Daoust
121k668217
121k668217
1
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
add a comment |
1
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
1
1
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
– Nij
yesterday
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
@Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
– Yves Daoust
17 hours ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.
The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.
We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.
Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.
The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.
The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.
We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.
Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.
The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.
The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.
We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.
Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.
The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.
N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.
The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.
We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.
Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.
The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.
edited 16 hours ago
answered 18 hours ago
PJTraill
645518
645518
add a comment |
add a comment |
6
It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
yesterday
Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
1
I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
17 hours ago
Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
16 hours ago