Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$...











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












GIVEN



Let $K subset mathbb{R}^n$ be a nonempty, closed and convex set. The associated distance function is $d_K$. Find the subdifferential $partial d_K(x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$.





USEFUL DEFINITIONS




Convex Subdifferential


The subdifferential of a proper, lower semi-continuous, and convex function $f$ at a point $x_0 in text{dom}(f)$ is:
$$
partial f (x_0) = big{ z in mathbb{R}^n : f(x) geq f(x_0) + langle z, x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$

Normal Cone


The normal cone of a nonempty, closed, and convex set $K$ at a point $x_0 in K$ is:
$$
N_K(x_0)=big{ z:langle z, ;x-x_0 rangle leq 0,; forall x in Kbig}
$$






CONTEXT



After some research I have found out that this is a well-known result: $partial d_K (x_0) = bar{B}cap N_K (x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$. Here $bar{B}$ refers to the closed unit ball.



Note that this is true for Banach spaces. I am unsure of the result in my case. I also cannot use infimal convolution as I have not learned it yet.



However, I could not find any proof of it anywhere, and thus I am trying to prove that $Vert z Vert leq 1$ (giving $z in bar{B}$) and that $langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle leq 0$ (giving $z in N_K(x_0)$). Here $z in partial d_K (x_0)$.





ATTEMPT



Let $x_0$ be a fixed point in $K$.



The distance function $d_K(x) = inf_{y in K} Vert x - yVert$ over a convex set $K$ is convex, proper and lower semi-continuous. Since $x_0 in K$ then $d_K (x_0) = 0$.



Using the above definition, obtain:
$$
partial d_K (x_0) = big{ zeta in mathbb{R}^n : d_K(x) geq langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$



Part 1 — Normal Cone



Case 1: $x in K$


Here, $d_K (x) = 0$ and the above equation gives $partial d_K(x_0)=N_K (x_0)$.



Case 2: $x notin K$


Here, $d_K (x) = Vert x - pVert > 0$, where $p$ is the projection of $x$ onto $K$.



I am completely stuck here and have tried multiple failed attempts. How can I prove that $z in N_K (x_0)$?



Part 2 — Closed Unit Ball



Since $Vert x - p Vert geq langle z,; x-x_0 rangle$ for all $x in mathbb{R}^n$. Choose $x = z + x_0$ to obtain:



$$
Vert z + x_0 - p Vert geq langle z,; z rangle = Vert z Vert^2
$$

Since $Vert z + x_0 - p Vert leq Vert z Vert + Vert x_0 - pVert$, then obtain:
$$
Vert z Vert leq 1 + frac{Vert x_0 - p Vert}{Vert z Vert}
$$

If $x_0 in text{bdry}(K)$, then $p = text{proj}_K (z + x_0) = x_0$ since $z$ is normal (I am unsure of this). Thus the previous inequality gives $Vert z Vert leq 1$.



I have no clue what to do for $x_0 in text{int}(K)$.


(Here $text{int}$ is interior, $text{bdry}$ is boundary).





I am very confused and have put in too much time without any results. Please, any insight is immensely appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Can you prove at least an inclusion? $partial d_K(x_0)subset N_K(x_0)$ is immediate.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:54






  • 1




    $partial d_K(x_0)subset B_1$ is also clear because $d_K$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:55










  • Of course you can just work with $x_0inpartial K$, because if $x_0inmathop{mathrm{int}}(K)$ then both $partial d_K(x_0)$ and $N_K(x_0)$ are empty.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:57






  • 1




    @Federico Empty !!!!! if $x_0 in int(K)$ then $ partial d_k (x_0) = N_K (x_0) = {0} $
    – Red shoes
    Nov 22 at 18:18








  • 1




    @Redshoes right, of course, my bad; I rushed over it
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 18:19

















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












GIVEN



Let $K subset mathbb{R}^n$ be a nonempty, closed and convex set. The associated distance function is $d_K$. Find the subdifferential $partial d_K(x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$.





USEFUL DEFINITIONS




Convex Subdifferential


The subdifferential of a proper, lower semi-continuous, and convex function $f$ at a point $x_0 in text{dom}(f)$ is:
$$
partial f (x_0) = big{ z in mathbb{R}^n : f(x) geq f(x_0) + langle z, x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$

Normal Cone


The normal cone of a nonempty, closed, and convex set $K$ at a point $x_0 in K$ is:
$$
N_K(x_0)=big{ z:langle z, ;x-x_0 rangle leq 0,; forall x in Kbig}
$$






CONTEXT



After some research I have found out that this is a well-known result: $partial d_K (x_0) = bar{B}cap N_K (x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$. Here $bar{B}$ refers to the closed unit ball.



Note that this is true for Banach spaces. I am unsure of the result in my case. I also cannot use infimal convolution as I have not learned it yet.



However, I could not find any proof of it anywhere, and thus I am trying to prove that $Vert z Vert leq 1$ (giving $z in bar{B}$) and that $langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle leq 0$ (giving $z in N_K(x_0)$). Here $z in partial d_K (x_0)$.





ATTEMPT



Let $x_0$ be a fixed point in $K$.



The distance function $d_K(x) = inf_{y in K} Vert x - yVert$ over a convex set $K$ is convex, proper and lower semi-continuous. Since $x_0 in K$ then $d_K (x_0) = 0$.



Using the above definition, obtain:
$$
partial d_K (x_0) = big{ zeta in mathbb{R}^n : d_K(x) geq langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$



Part 1 — Normal Cone



Case 1: $x in K$


Here, $d_K (x) = 0$ and the above equation gives $partial d_K(x_0)=N_K (x_0)$.



Case 2: $x notin K$


Here, $d_K (x) = Vert x - pVert > 0$, where $p$ is the projection of $x$ onto $K$.



I am completely stuck here and have tried multiple failed attempts. How can I prove that $z in N_K (x_0)$?



Part 2 — Closed Unit Ball



Since $Vert x - p Vert geq langle z,; x-x_0 rangle$ for all $x in mathbb{R}^n$. Choose $x = z + x_0$ to obtain:



$$
Vert z + x_0 - p Vert geq langle z,; z rangle = Vert z Vert^2
$$

Since $Vert z + x_0 - p Vert leq Vert z Vert + Vert x_0 - pVert$, then obtain:
$$
Vert z Vert leq 1 + frac{Vert x_0 - p Vert}{Vert z Vert}
$$

If $x_0 in text{bdry}(K)$, then $p = text{proj}_K (z + x_0) = x_0$ since $z$ is normal (I am unsure of this). Thus the previous inequality gives $Vert z Vert leq 1$.



I have no clue what to do for $x_0 in text{int}(K)$.


(Here $text{int}$ is interior, $text{bdry}$ is boundary).





I am very confused and have put in too much time without any results. Please, any insight is immensely appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question


















  • 1




    Can you prove at least an inclusion? $partial d_K(x_0)subset N_K(x_0)$ is immediate.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:54






  • 1




    $partial d_K(x_0)subset B_1$ is also clear because $d_K$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:55










  • Of course you can just work with $x_0inpartial K$, because if $x_0inmathop{mathrm{int}}(K)$ then both $partial d_K(x_0)$ and $N_K(x_0)$ are empty.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:57






  • 1




    @Federico Empty !!!!! if $x_0 in int(K)$ then $ partial d_k (x_0) = N_K (x_0) = {0} $
    – Red shoes
    Nov 22 at 18:18








  • 1




    @Redshoes right, of course, my bad; I rushed over it
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 18:19















up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











GIVEN



Let $K subset mathbb{R}^n$ be a nonempty, closed and convex set. The associated distance function is $d_K$. Find the subdifferential $partial d_K(x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$.





USEFUL DEFINITIONS




Convex Subdifferential


The subdifferential of a proper, lower semi-continuous, and convex function $f$ at a point $x_0 in text{dom}(f)$ is:
$$
partial f (x_0) = big{ z in mathbb{R}^n : f(x) geq f(x_0) + langle z, x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$

Normal Cone


The normal cone of a nonempty, closed, and convex set $K$ at a point $x_0 in K$ is:
$$
N_K(x_0)=big{ z:langle z, ;x-x_0 rangle leq 0,; forall x in Kbig}
$$






CONTEXT



After some research I have found out that this is a well-known result: $partial d_K (x_0) = bar{B}cap N_K (x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$. Here $bar{B}$ refers to the closed unit ball.



Note that this is true for Banach spaces. I am unsure of the result in my case. I also cannot use infimal convolution as I have not learned it yet.



However, I could not find any proof of it anywhere, and thus I am trying to prove that $Vert z Vert leq 1$ (giving $z in bar{B}$) and that $langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle leq 0$ (giving $z in N_K(x_0)$). Here $z in partial d_K (x_0)$.





ATTEMPT



Let $x_0$ be a fixed point in $K$.



The distance function $d_K(x) = inf_{y in K} Vert x - yVert$ over a convex set $K$ is convex, proper and lower semi-continuous. Since $x_0 in K$ then $d_K (x_0) = 0$.



Using the above definition, obtain:
$$
partial d_K (x_0) = big{ zeta in mathbb{R}^n : d_K(x) geq langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$



Part 1 — Normal Cone



Case 1: $x in K$


Here, $d_K (x) = 0$ and the above equation gives $partial d_K(x_0)=N_K (x_0)$.



Case 2: $x notin K$


Here, $d_K (x) = Vert x - pVert > 0$, where $p$ is the projection of $x$ onto $K$.



I am completely stuck here and have tried multiple failed attempts. How can I prove that $z in N_K (x_0)$?



Part 2 — Closed Unit Ball



Since $Vert x - p Vert geq langle z,; x-x_0 rangle$ for all $x in mathbb{R}^n$. Choose $x = z + x_0$ to obtain:



$$
Vert z + x_0 - p Vert geq langle z,; z rangle = Vert z Vert^2
$$

Since $Vert z + x_0 - p Vert leq Vert z Vert + Vert x_0 - pVert$, then obtain:
$$
Vert z Vert leq 1 + frac{Vert x_0 - p Vert}{Vert z Vert}
$$

If $x_0 in text{bdry}(K)$, then $p = text{proj}_K (z + x_0) = x_0$ since $z$ is normal (I am unsure of this). Thus the previous inequality gives $Vert z Vert leq 1$.



I have no clue what to do for $x_0 in text{int}(K)$.


(Here $text{int}$ is interior, $text{bdry}$ is boundary).





I am very confused and have put in too much time without any results. Please, any insight is immensely appreciated.










share|cite|improve this question













GIVEN



Let $K subset mathbb{R}^n$ be a nonempty, closed and convex set. The associated distance function is $d_K$. Find the subdifferential $partial d_K(x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$.





USEFUL DEFINITIONS




Convex Subdifferential


The subdifferential of a proper, lower semi-continuous, and convex function $f$ at a point $x_0 in text{dom}(f)$ is:
$$
partial f (x_0) = big{ z in mathbb{R}^n : f(x) geq f(x_0) + langle z, x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$

Normal Cone


The normal cone of a nonempty, closed, and convex set $K$ at a point $x_0 in K$ is:
$$
N_K(x_0)=big{ z:langle z, ;x-x_0 rangle leq 0,; forall x in Kbig}
$$






CONTEXT



After some research I have found out that this is a well-known result: $partial d_K (x_0) = bar{B}cap N_K (x_0)$ for all $x_0 in K$. Here $bar{B}$ refers to the closed unit ball.



Note that this is true for Banach spaces. I am unsure of the result in my case. I also cannot use infimal convolution as I have not learned it yet.



However, I could not find any proof of it anywhere, and thus I am trying to prove that $Vert z Vert leq 1$ (giving $z in bar{B}$) and that $langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle leq 0$ (giving $z in N_K(x_0)$). Here $z in partial d_K (x_0)$.





ATTEMPT



Let $x_0$ be a fixed point in $K$.



The distance function $d_K(x) = inf_{y in K} Vert x - yVert$ over a convex set $K$ is convex, proper and lower semi-continuous. Since $x_0 in K$ then $d_K (x_0) = 0$.



Using the above definition, obtain:
$$
partial d_K (x_0) = big{ zeta in mathbb{R}^n : d_K(x) geq langle z, ; x - x_0 rangle , ; forall x in mathbb{R}^n big}
$$



Part 1 — Normal Cone



Case 1: $x in K$


Here, $d_K (x) = 0$ and the above equation gives $partial d_K(x_0)=N_K (x_0)$.



Case 2: $x notin K$


Here, $d_K (x) = Vert x - pVert > 0$, where $p$ is the projection of $x$ onto $K$.



I am completely stuck here and have tried multiple failed attempts. How can I prove that $z in N_K (x_0)$?



Part 2 — Closed Unit Ball



Since $Vert x - p Vert geq langle z,; x-x_0 rangle$ for all $x in mathbb{R}^n$. Choose $x = z + x_0$ to obtain:



$$
Vert z + x_0 - p Vert geq langle z,; z rangle = Vert z Vert^2
$$

Since $Vert z + x_0 - p Vert leq Vert z Vert + Vert x_0 - pVert$, then obtain:
$$
Vert z Vert leq 1 + frac{Vert x_0 - p Vert}{Vert z Vert}
$$

If $x_0 in text{bdry}(K)$, then $p = text{proj}_K (z + x_0) = x_0$ since $z$ is normal (I am unsure of this). Thus the previous inequality gives $Vert z Vert leq 1$.



I have no clue what to do for $x_0 in text{int}(K)$.


(Here $text{int}$ is interior, $text{bdry}$ is boundary).





I am very confused and have put in too much time without any results. Please, any insight is immensely appreciated.







general-topology proof-verification convex-analysis convex-optimization convex-geometry






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 22 at 15:18









ex.nihil

17610




17610








  • 1




    Can you prove at least an inclusion? $partial d_K(x_0)subset N_K(x_0)$ is immediate.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:54






  • 1




    $partial d_K(x_0)subset B_1$ is also clear because $d_K$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:55










  • Of course you can just work with $x_0inpartial K$, because if $x_0inmathop{mathrm{int}}(K)$ then both $partial d_K(x_0)$ and $N_K(x_0)$ are empty.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:57






  • 1




    @Federico Empty !!!!! if $x_0 in int(K)$ then $ partial d_k (x_0) = N_K (x_0) = {0} $
    – Red shoes
    Nov 22 at 18:18








  • 1




    @Redshoes right, of course, my bad; I rushed over it
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 18:19
















  • 1




    Can you prove at least an inclusion? $partial d_K(x_0)subset N_K(x_0)$ is immediate.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:54






  • 1




    $partial d_K(x_0)subset B_1$ is also clear because $d_K$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:55










  • Of course you can just work with $x_0inpartial K$, because if $x_0inmathop{mathrm{int}}(K)$ then both $partial d_K(x_0)$ and $N_K(x_0)$ are empty.
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 17:57






  • 1




    @Federico Empty !!!!! if $x_0 in int(K)$ then $ partial d_k (x_0) = N_K (x_0) = {0} $
    – Red shoes
    Nov 22 at 18:18








  • 1




    @Redshoes right, of course, my bad; I rushed over it
    – Federico
    Nov 22 at 18:19










1




1




Can you prove at least an inclusion? $partial d_K(x_0)subset N_K(x_0)$ is immediate.
– Federico
Nov 22 at 17:54




Can you prove at least an inclusion? $partial d_K(x_0)subset N_K(x_0)$ is immediate.
– Federico
Nov 22 at 17:54




1




1




$partial d_K(x_0)subset B_1$ is also clear because $d_K$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
– Federico
Nov 22 at 17:55




$partial d_K(x_0)subset B_1$ is also clear because $d_K$ is $1$-Lipschitz.
– Federico
Nov 22 at 17:55












Of course you can just work with $x_0inpartial K$, because if $x_0inmathop{mathrm{int}}(K)$ then both $partial d_K(x_0)$ and $N_K(x_0)$ are empty.
– Federico
Nov 22 at 17:57




Of course you can just work with $x_0inpartial K$, because if $x_0inmathop{mathrm{int}}(K)$ then both $partial d_K(x_0)$ and $N_K(x_0)$ are empty.
– Federico
Nov 22 at 17:57




1




1




@Federico Empty !!!!! if $x_0 in int(K)$ then $ partial d_k (x_0) = N_K (x_0) = {0} $
– Red shoes
Nov 22 at 18:18






@Federico Empty !!!!! if $x_0 in int(K)$ then $ partial d_k (x_0) = N_K (x_0) = {0} $
– Red shoes
Nov 22 at 18:18






1




1




@Redshoes right, of course, my bad; I rushed over it
– Federico
Nov 22 at 18:19






@Redshoes right, of course, my bad; I rushed over it
– Federico
Nov 22 at 18:19












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










If $x_0$ belongs to the boundary of $K$, then the subdifferential requested is the intersection of $N_K(x_0)$ and the closed unit ball.



If $x_0$ belongs to the interior of $K$, then it is ${0}$.



For completeness, if $x_0$ is outside $K$, then it is $(x_0-P_Kx_0)/d_K(x_0)$.



For proofs, see Bauschke-Combettes Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, second edition, Example 16.62.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    Hint: If $x notin K$ then $d_K$ is differentiable at $x$.



    Let $bar{x} in K$ is the unique point projection of $x$ on $K$



    Try to prove that it is differentiable at $x$ using definition of differentiability with $ D d_k (x) = frac{x- bar{x}}{ | x- bar{x} |} $.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
      – Federico
      Nov 22 at 17:52










    • He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
      – Red shoes
      Nov 22 at 18:12








    • 1




      But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
      – Federico
      Nov 22 at 18:16








    • 1




      I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
      – Federico
      Nov 22 at 18:18






    • 1




      Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
      – Federico
      Nov 22 at 18:28











    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "69"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009263%2ffind-the-convex-subdifferential-partial-d-k-of-the-distance-function-d-k-as%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    If $x_0$ belongs to the boundary of $K$, then the subdifferential requested is the intersection of $N_K(x_0)$ and the closed unit ball.



    If $x_0$ belongs to the interior of $K$, then it is ${0}$.



    For completeness, if $x_0$ is outside $K$, then it is $(x_0-P_Kx_0)/d_K(x_0)$.



    For proofs, see Bauschke-Combettes Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, second edition, Example 16.62.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      If $x_0$ belongs to the boundary of $K$, then the subdifferential requested is the intersection of $N_K(x_0)$ and the closed unit ball.



      If $x_0$ belongs to the interior of $K$, then it is ${0}$.



      For completeness, if $x_0$ is outside $K$, then it is $(x_0-P_Kx_0)/d_K(x_0)$.



      For proofs, see Bauschke-Combettes Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, second edition, Example 16.62.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        If $x_0$ belongs to the boundary of $K$, then the subdifferential requested is the intersection of $N_K(x_0)$ and the closed unit ball.



        If $x_0$ belongs to the interior of $K$, then it is ${0}$.



        For completeness, if $x_0$ is outside $K$, then it is $(x_0-P_Kx_0)/d_K(x_0)$.



        For proofs, see Bauschke-Combettes Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, second edition, Example 16.62.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        If $x_0$ belongs to the boundary of $K$, then the subdifferential requested is the intersection of $N_K(x_0)$ and the closed unit ball.



        If $x_0$ belongs to the interior of $K$, then it is ${0}$.



        For completeness, if $x_0$ is outside $K$, then it is $(x_0-P_Kx_0)/d_K(x_0)$.



        For proofs, see Bauschke-Combettes Convex Analysis and Monotone Operator Theory in Hilbert Spaces, second edition, Example 16.62.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Nov 23 at 6:24









        max_zorn

        3,28361328




        3,28361328






















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Hint: If $x notin K$ then $d_K$ is differentiable at $x$.



            Let $bar{x} in K$ is the unique point projection of $x$ on $K$



            Try to prove that it is differentiable at $x$ using definition of differentiability with $ D d_k (x) = frac{x- bar{x}}{ | x- bar{x} |} $.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 17:52










            • He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
              – Red shoes
              Nov 22 at 18:12








            • 1




              But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:16








            • 1




              I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:18






            • 1




              Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:28















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            Hint: If $x notin K$ then $d_K$ is differentiable at $x$.



            Let $bar{x} in K$ is the unique point projection of $x$ on $K$



            Try to prove that it is differentiable at $x$ using definition of differentiability with $ D d_k (x) = frac{x- bar{x}}{ | x- bar{x} |} $.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 17:52










            • He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
              – Red shoes
              Nov 22 at 18:12








            • 1




              But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:16








            • 1




              I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:18






            • 1




              Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:28













            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            Hint: If $x notin K$ then $d_K$ is differentiable at $x$.



            Let $bar{x} in K$ is the unique point projection of $x$ on $K$



            Try to prove that it is differentiable at $x$ using definition of differentiability with $ D d_k (x) = frac{x- bar{x}}{ | x- bar{x} |} $.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            Hint: If $x notin K$ then $d_K$ is differentiable at $x$.



            Let $bar{x} in K$ is the unique point projection of $x$ on $K$



            Try to prove that it is differentiable at $x$ using definition of differentiability with $ D d_k (x) = frac{x- bar{x}}{ | x- bar{x} |} $.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 22 at 17:43









            Red shoes

            4,656621




            4,656621








            • 1




              Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 17:52










            • He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
              – Red shoes
              Nov 22 at 18:12








            • 1




              But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:16








            • 1




              I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:18






            • 1




              Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:28














            • 1




              Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 17:52










            • He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
              – Red shoes
              Nov 22 at 18:12








            • 1




              But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:16








            • 1




              I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:18






            • 1




              Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
              – Federico
              Nov 22 at 18:28








            1




            1




            Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 17:52




            Not relevant. Read the question. He is explicitly asking for $x_0in K$.
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 17:52












            He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
            – Red shoes
            Nov 22 at 18:12






            He said he got stuck in case two, I gave him a big hint. what I'm saying is that in case 2 $partial d_k (x_0) = { frac{x_ 0 - bar{x}}{ | x_0 - bar{x} |} } $
            – Red shoes
            Nov 22 at 18:12






            1




            1




            But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 18:16






            But if $xnotin K$ then $N_K(x)$ has nothing to do with $partial d_K(x)$
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 18:16






            1




            1




            I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 18:18




            I mean, of course what you say is correct, I just don't see what it has to do with "Find the convex subdifferential $partial d_K$ of the distance function $d_K$ associated to a convex set $K$ at in-set points $x_0 in K$."
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 18:18




            1




            1




            Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 18:28




            Actually, under the section ATTEMPT, he reaches a wrong conclusion also in Case 1.
            – Federico
            Nov 22 at 18:28


















             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3009263%2ffind-the-convex-subdifferential-partial-d-k-of-the-distance-function-d-k-as%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            Berounka

            Sphinx de Gizeh

            Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...