1
$\begingroup$

Suppose $P: \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0} $ is a differentiable map, with $P(x) = 0 \ \forall x \in \mathcal{X}$ and $P(x) > 0 \ \forall x \in \mathcal{X}^c$. Further, suppose $P$ has no stationary points in $\mathcal{X}^c$, i.e. $\nabla P(x) \ne 0 \ \forall x \in \mathcal{X}^c$.

My intuition is that $P$ eventually has a descent direction when we approach $\partial \mathcal{X}$ from $\mathcal{X}^c$. I need to make this more precise! For example, can we show that

$$ \forall x \in \partial \mathcal{X} ~ \exists \varepsilon >0 : \forall y \in \mathcal{X}^c ~ \lVert x-y\rVert<\varepsilon \Rightarrow \nabla P(y)^T(x-y)<0 ?$$

Here is what I thought of: For $x\in \partial \mathcal{X}$ and $y \in \mathcal{X}^c$ Taylor tells us that $$0 = P(y) + \nabla_xP(y)^\top(x-y) + o(\lVert x-y\rVert). $$ So this is almost what I need. However, I don't see that I can conclude here using $P(y) > 0$ that $$ \nabla_xP(y)^\top(x-y) < 0 $$ for $y$ close to $x$. Because, although $0 \approx P(y) + \nabla_xP(y)^\top(x-y)$, we also have that $P$ and all differentials decay to zero as we approach the boundary. I also thought about the MVT, but this doesn't seem to help since I need to keep my $y$ (as above) flexible.

It would be helpful if someone could point out whether this is obvious or whether I need additional assumptions. You may assume $\mathcal{X}$ to be compact.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I reposted this from math.stackexchange.com/posts/4055496/edit. I welcome suggestions to improve the title. Thanks. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ Why not the mean value theorem? For every $y \in \mathcal{X}^c$, there is $\lambda \in (0,1)$ such that $P(x) = 0 = P(y) + \nabla P(y + \lambda(x-y))^\top(x-y)$. Hence $x-y$ is a descent direction in the intermediate point $y + \lambda(x-y)$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 12:35
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is, the point where I have the descent direction is $z=y+\lambda(x-y)$. However, for my problem, I need that $z$ is a specified point or at least arbitrarily close to some other point $z'$ (we can use continuity), which we can make arbitrarily close to the boundary. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 12:51
  • $\begingroup$ Alright so a degree of explicitness is needed. I suppose you would need to assume some more on the function $P$ then. For instance, if you require the norm of $\nabla^2 P$ to be bounded on a neighborhood of $\mathcal{X}$, then you get a uniform estimate on the $o(\|x-y\|)$ term and this should lead to a more explicit result. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 10, 2021 at 13:11
  • $\begingroup$ It is unclear what you want to show. Is it the following: $\forall x\in\partial X\ \exists\epsilon>0\ \forall y\in X^c\ \|y-x\|<\epsilon\implies\nabla P(y)^T(x-y)<0$? Here $X:=\mathcal X$. Placing the quantifiers $\forall$ and $\exists$ correctly and unambiguously is usually very important. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 11, 2021 at 0:44

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand\R{\mathbb R}\newcommand\ep\epsilon\newcommand\bad{\text{bad}}$One would think that the answer is "of course no, descent does not have to monotonic". However, the no stationary points condition is a strong one. So, the answer actually is "no, but the effect seems to be small and require fine tuning to be seen".

Indeed, let $n=2$, $f:=P$, and $X:=\mathcal X=\{0\}$, so that $X^c=\R^2\setminus\{0\}$. Let us seek the counterexample of the form \begin{equation*} f(r,t)=g(r)\Big(2+\sin\frac{h(r,t)}r\Big),\tag{1} \end{equation*} where $r\in(0,\infty)$ and $t\in\R$ are the polar coordinates of a point in $X^c$; $g$ is differentiable, with $g(0+)=0$, $g'>0$, and $g'(0+)=0$; and $h(r,t)$ is differentiable in $(r,t)\in X^c$ and periodic in $t$ with period $2\pi$; we also assume that $h(r,t)\to1$ uniformly in $t$ as $r\downarrow0$, so that $\sin\frac{h(r,t)}r$ in (1) is highly oscillating as $r\downarrow0$. Here we identify $X^c$ with the set $(0,\infty)\times(-\pi,\pi]$ of the pairs $(r,t)$ of polar coordinates.

The partial derivatives of $f(r,t)$ in $r$ and $t$ are \begin{equation*} f'_r(r,t)=g'(r) \Big(2+\sin\frac{h(r,t)}r\Big) \\ +\frac{g(r)}{r^2}\,(r h'_r(r,t)-h(r,t)) \cos\frac{h(r,t)}r\tag{2} \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} f'_t(r,t)=\frac{g(r)}r\,h'_t(r,t)\cos\frac{h(r,t)}r.\tag{3} \end{equation*} We need to ensure the no stationary points condition, that is, the condition that, for any $(r,t)\in X^c$, either $f'_r(r,t)\ne0$ or $f'_t(r,t)\ne0$. If $f'_t(r,t)=0$ for some $(r,t)\in X^c$, then either (i) $\cos\frac{h(r,t)}r=0$ or (ii) $h'_t(r,t)=0$. In case (i), $f'_r(r,t)=g'(r) \big(2+\sin\frac{h(r,t)}r\big)>0$.

Consider now case (ii), which will necessarily occur for each real $r>0$, at least for two values of $t\in(-\pi,\pi]$, where the maximum and minimum of $h(r,t)$ in $t$ occur. Note that \begin{equation*} k:=\max_{t\in(-\pi,\pi]}\Big|\frac{\cos u}{2+\sin u}\Big|=\frac1{\sqrt3},\tag{4} \end{equation*} with the maximum attained at $u\in\{-\pi/6,-5\pi/6\}$. So, by (2), for $f'_r(r,t)\ne0$ it is enough that \begin{equation*} \frac{r^2g'(r)}{g(r)}>\max_{t\in(-\pi,\pi]}|r h'_r(r,t)-h(r,t)| \tag{5} \end{equation*} (for real $r>0$). At the points $t$ where the extrema of $|h(r,t)|$ in $t$ occur, we have $r h'_r(r,t)=0$ and hence $|r h'_r(r,t)-h(r,t)|=|h(r,t)|$. At all points $(r,t)\in X^c$ with such $t$, we want $h'_r(r,t)$ to have the same sign as $h(r,t)$, to make the restriction (5) as weak as possible.

Certain considerations suggest that it may make sense to define the differentiable $2\pi$-periodic in $t$ function $h$ by the formula \begin{equation*} h(r,t):=1-\frac{r^2}{1+r^2}\, t^2 (\pi -| t| )^2\tag{6} \end{equation*} for $t\in(-\pi,\pi]$. Then case (ii) $h'_t(r,t)=0$ (for $t\in(-\pi,\pi]$) means that $t\in\{0,\pi\}$, and \begin{equation*} f'_r(r,t)\big|_{t\in\{0,\pi\}}=g'(r) \Big(2+\sin\frac1r\Big) -\frac{g(r)}{r^2}\,\cos\frac1r.\tag{7} \end{equation*} If $g$ solves the ODE $g'(r)=k\frac{g(r)}{r^2}$ (with $k$ as in (4)) -- e.g. when $g(r)=e^{-k/r}$, then, by (7), we will have $f'_r(r,t)\ge0$. Now, to ensure that $f'_r(r,t)>0$ (still in case (ii) $h'_t(r,t)=0$), it is enough to let \begin{equation*} g(r):=(1+cr)e^{-k/r} \end{equation*} for any fixed real $c>0$ and all real $r>0$. Indeed, then \begin{equation*} r^2e^{k/r}\,f'_r(r,t)\big|_{t\in\{0,\pi\}} \\ = \Big(2+\sin\frac1r\Big) (k(1+cr)r+c r^2)-(1+c r) \cos\frac1r \\ \ge\Big(2+\sin\frac1r\Big)c r^2>0.\tag{8} \end{equation*} Thus, we have a nonnegative differentiable function on $\R^2$ vanishing only on $X=\{0\}$, with no stationary points in $X^c$.

On the other hand, \begin{equation*} \bad(r):=f'_r(r,1)\,\frac{kr^2 e^{k/r}}{k + c k r + c r^2} \\ = k(2+\sin u_r) -q(r) \cos u_r,\tag{9} \end{equation*} where \begin{equation*} u_r:=\frac1r-\frac{(\pi -1)^2 r}{1+r^2}\sim\frac1r\tag{10} \end{equation*} and \begin{equation*} q(r):=\frac{k (1+(3-2 \pi +\pi ^2) r^2-(\pi -2) \pi r^4) (c r+1)}{(1+r^2)^2(c k r+c r^2+k)} \\ =1+((\pi -1)^2-c\sqrt3) r^2+O(r^3) \end{equation*} as ($r\downarrow0$), so that \begin{equation*} q(r)>1+4r^2>1\tag{11} \end{equation*} eventually (that is, for all small enough $r>0$) if $c=1/10$ (say).

Moreover, in view of (10), the equation $u_r=-\pi/6+2\pi m$ has solutions $r_m\sim1/(2\pi m)$ for all large enough natural $m$. So (cf. (4)), for such $m$, by (11),
\begin{equation*} \bad(r_m)= \frac{\sqrt3}2(1-q(r_m))<-\frac{\sqrt3}2\,4r_m^2<0, \end{equation*} whence, by (9), the radial derivative $f'_r(r_m,1)$ is strictly negative, whereas $r_m\downarrow0$. $\Box$


Here is the graph $\{(r,\bad(r))\colon0<r<1/10,-1/100<\bad(r)<1/100\}$:

enter image description here

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for your counter-example. I will go through it and come back to you soon! $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 12, 2021 at 15:07
0
$\begingroup$

Set for instance, in polar coordinates: $$P(r,\theta):=e^{-\frac1{4r}}\Big(2+\cos\big(\theta+\frac1r\big)\Big).$$ It is quickly checked that this defines a $C^\infty$ function on $\mathbb{R^2}$ which is strictly positive on $\mathbb{R^2}\setminus\{0\}$ and vanishes at the origin, with $ \partial_r P $ changing sign in any nbd of the origin, and such that $\nabla P$ vanishes only on the origin (if $r>0$, and $\partial_\theta P$ vanishes, certainly $\partial_r P$ does not).

$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.