Lower semi-continious, compactum, minimum











up vote
0
down vote

favorite














Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.





Good day,



we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.



So my idea is the following.



$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.



So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.



So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.



This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.



But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??










share|cite|improve this question






















  • I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:13








  • 1




    $alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:16












  • @Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
    – mathfemi
    May 23 '14 at 15:17












  • @mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:18






  • 1




    Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:23















up vote
0
down vote

favorite














Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.





Good day,



we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.



So my idea is the following.



$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.



So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.



So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.



This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.



But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??










share|cite|improve this question






















  • I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:13








  • 1




    $alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:16












  • @Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
    – mathfemi
    May 23 '14 at 15:17












  • @mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:18






  • 1




    Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:23













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite













Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.





Good day,



we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.



So my idea is the following.



$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.



So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.



So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.



This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.



But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??










share|cite|improve this question















Let $M$ be a topological space, $Ksubset M$ compact, $fcolon Mtomathbb{R}cupleft{+inftyright}$ lower semi-continious. Show that $f$ takes its minimum on $K$.





Good day,



we defined lower semi-continuity as follows: $f$ is lower semi-continious on $M$ if for any $xin M$ and any $alpha < f(x)$ there is a neighbourhood $Usubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha<f(y)$ for all $yin U$.



So my idea is the following.



$f$ is lower semi-continious on $K$. Take any $xin K$ and $alpha < f(x)$, then there is a neighbourhood $U_xsubset M$ of $x$ such that $alpha < f(y)~forall yin U$.



So it is
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{xin K}U_x.
$$
Because of the compactness of $K$ there is a finite index set $I$ such that
$$
Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}.
$$
It is $f(y)>alpha~forall yin U_{x_i}, iin I$.



So for all $alpha <infty$ it is $f(x)>alpha$ for all $xin K$.



This means that it is $inf_{xin K}f(x)=-infty$.



But do not know what to do with this result, is it helpful at all??







continuity






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked May 23 '14 at 15:10









mathfemi

708520




708520












  • I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:13








  • 1




    $alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:16












  • @Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
    – mathfemi
    May 23 '14 at 15:17












  • @mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:18






  • 1




    Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:23


















  • I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:13








  • 1




    $alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:16












  • @Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
    – mathfemi
    May 23 '14 at 15:17












  • @mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
    – Patrick Da Silva
    May 23 '14 at 15:18






  • 1




    Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
    – mfl
    May 23 '14 at 15:23
















I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13






I mean, no. $f : mathbb R to mathbb R$ defined by $f(x) = |x|$ is continuous, hence lower-semi-continuous ; but $f$ does not take its minimum on the compact subset $[1,2]$ for instance. You need something more about $K$, or maybe you misformulated something. Do you mean that the infimum over $K$ of $f$ is actually a minimum?
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:13






1




1




$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16






$alpha$ depends on $x.$ So you should write $alpha_x.$ Since $K$ is compact you have $Ksubsetbigcup_{iin I}U_{x_i}$ with $I$ finite. Thus $fgeq min_{iin I}{alpha_{x_i}},$ that is, $f$ is bounded from below.
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:16














@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17






@Patrick Da Silva The statement is, that because of the compactness of $K$ the lower semi-continious function $f$ takes its minimum on $K$. Another book says that then $f$ has a minimum of $K$. Do not know what is the better way to formulate it.
– mathfemi
May 23 '14 at 15:17














@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18




@mathfemi : The way I understand it my example is a counter-example to your statement. How is my example not a counter-example, if you believe you are right? Then perhaps I can understand your statement better.
– Patrick Da Silva
May 23 '14 at 15:18




1




1




Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23




Because, by definition of lower semi-continuity, in any $U_{x_i}$ you have $f(y)>alpha_igeq min_{iin I}{alpha_i}$
– mfl
May 23 '14 at 15:23










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
1
down vote



accepted










As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.



However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.



Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).



Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.



Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
$$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    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%2f806760%2flower-semi-continious-compactum-minimum%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    1
    down vote



    accepted










    As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.



    However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.



    Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).



    Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.



    Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
    $$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
    It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      1
      down vote



      accepted










      As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.



      However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.



      Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).



      Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.



      Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
      $$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
      It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        1
        down vote



        accepted






        As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.



        However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.



        Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).



        Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.



        Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
        $$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
        It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        As mentioned by Manuel, the first step of your reasoning is wrong because the $alpha$ depends on $x$.



        However, your method of proof is quite correct, and with a minor adjustment it gives the statement you want. Here are the details.



        Set $a:=inf{ f(x);; xin K}$. This is well defined, but possibly equal to $-infty$. It is enough to show that one can find $x$ such that $f(x)=a$. (In particular, this will show that $a>-infty$).



        Assume this is not true. Then, for any $xin K$ you have $f(x)>alpha$; so you can choose a real number $alpha_x>a$ such that $f(x)>alpha_x$.



        Then your above reasoning (together with Manuel's comments) gives that one can find $x_1,dots ,x_Nin K$ such that
        $$forall xin K;: ; f(x)>alpha:=min (alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}), . $$
        It follows that $inf{ f(x);; xin K}geqalpha$, i.e. $ageqalpha$; but this is a contradiction since $alpha_{x_1},dots ,alpha_{x_N}$ are strictly greater than $a$ and hence $alpha>a$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered May 23 '14 at 15:54









        Etienne

        11.4k11340




        11.4k11340






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f806760%2flower-semi-continious-compactum-minimum%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

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen