What is the intuition behind mathematical definition of convexity? [on hold]











up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1












$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$



How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











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















up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1












$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$



How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











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













up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1






1





$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$



How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?










share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$



How do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ satisfy the convexity of $f$?







convex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|cite|improve this question









New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday





















New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked yesterday









backprop7

296




296




New contributor




backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






backprop7 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




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














  • 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










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 $f(x_2)$.



enter image description here



(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.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • 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


















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.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    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.






    share|cite|improve this answer






























      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 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


















      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.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        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 $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (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.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • 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















        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 $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (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.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • 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













        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 $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (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.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        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 $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (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.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        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


















        • 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










        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.






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          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.






          share|cite|improve this answer























            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.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            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.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered yesterday









            user3482749

            1,447411




            1,447411






















                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.






                share|cite|improve this answer



























                  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.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    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.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    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.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited yesterday









                    Nij

                    1,99711221




                    1,99711221










                    answered yesterday









                    Mostafa Ayaz

                    12.2k3733




                    12.2k3733






















                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



















                        • 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















                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



















                        • 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













                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        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.







                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        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














                        • 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










                        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.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



























                          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.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            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.






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            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.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited 16 hours ago

























                            answered 18 hours ago









                            PJTraill

                            645518




                            645518















                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Accessing regular linux commands in Huawei's Dopra Linux

                                Can't connect RFCOMM socket: Host is down

                                Kernel panic - not syncing: Fatal Exception in Interrupt