Proof of $nabla f(x^*) = 0$ is necessary condition for minimizer, using taylor expansions

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












enter image description here



Look at this part:




Define the vector $p = -nabla f(x^*)$ and note that $p^Tnabla f(x^*)
= -||nabla f(x^*)||^2 <0$. Because $f$ is continuous near $x^*$, there is a scalar $T>0$ such that



$p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp) <0, forall tin [0,T]$




Why the continuity of the gradient imply that? I understand that because the gradient is continuous, we can move around smoothly and retain the signal. But I'd suppose it works for $nabla f$ only. Why it works for $p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp)$?



Also, what if I chose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ instead of the negative?







share|cite|improve this question
















  • 2




    What definition of continuity do you know?
    – user293794
    Aug 9 at 23:47










  • @user293794 the limit of the function at a point if equal to the function at that point.
    – Guerlando OCs
    Aug 9 at 23:54














up vote
0
down vote

favorite












enter image description here



Look at this part:




Define the vector $p = -nabla f(x^*)$ and note that $p^Tnabla f(x^*)
= -||nabla f(x^*)||^2 <0$. Because $f$ is continuous near $x^*$, there is a scalar $T>0$ such that



$p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp) <0, forall tin [0,T]$




Why the continuity of the gradient imply that? I understand that because the gradient is continuous, we can move around smoothly and retain the signal. But I'd suppose it works for $nabla f$ only. Why it works for $p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp)$?



Also, what if I chose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ instead of the negative?







share|cite|improve this question
















  • 2




    What definition of continuity do you know?
    – user293794
    Aug 9 at 23:47










  • @user293794 the limit of the function at a point if equal to the function at that point.
    – Guerlando OCs
    Aug 9 at 23:54












up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











enter image description here



Look at this part:




Define the vector $p = -nabla f(x^*)$ and note that $p^Tnabla f(x^*)
= -||nabla f(x^*)||^2 <0$. Because $f$ is continuous near $x^*$, there is a scalar $T>0$ such that



$p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp) <0, forall tin [0,T]$




Why the continuity of the gradient imply that? I understand that because the gradient is continuous, we can move around smoothly and retain the signal. But I'd suppose it works for $nabla f$ only. Why it works for $p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp)$?



Also, what if I chose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ instead of the negative?







share|cite|improve this question












enter image description here



Look at this part:




Define the vector $p = -nabla f(x^*)$ and note that $p^Tnabla f(x^*)
= -||nabla f(x^*)||^2 <0$. Because $f$ is continuous near $x^*$, there is a scalar $T>0$ such that



$p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp) <0, forall tin [0,T]$




Why the continuity of the gradient imply that? I understand that because the gradient is continuous, we can move around smoothly and retain the signal. But I'd suppose it works for $nabla f$ only. Why it works for $p^Tnabla f(x^*+tp)$?



Also, what if I chose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ instead of the negative?









share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Aug 9 at 23:43









Guerlando OCs

45121144




45121144







  • 2




    What definition of continuity do you know?
    – user293794
    Aug 9 at 23:47










  • @user293794 the limit of the function at a point if equal to the function at that point.
    – Guerlando OCs
    Aug 9 at 23:54












  • 2




    What definition of continuity do you know?
    – user293794
    Aug 9 at 23:47










  • @user293794 the limit of the function at a point if equal to the function at that point.
    – Guerlando OCs
    Aug 9 at 23:54







2




2




What definition of continuity do you know?
– user293794
Aug 9 at 23:47




What definition of continuity do you know?
– user293794
Aug 9 at 23:47












@user293794 the limit of the function at a point if equal to the function at that point.
– Guerlando OCs
Aug 9 at 23:54




@user293794 the limit of the function at a point if equal to the function at that point.
– Guerlando OCs
Aug 9 at 23:54










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













Let $p in mathbb R^n$, and $g:mathbb R^n to mathbb R$, so that we can write $g(x) = (g_1(x),g_2(x),ldots,g_n(x))$. Write $$G(x) = p^Tg(x) = p_1g_1(x) + p_2g_2(x) + cdots + p_ng_n(x).$$



If $g$ is continuous, then so each each $g_i$. Hence, $G$ inherits continuity from $G$. Now take $p$ as defined in your textbook, and choose $g = nabla f$.



You can choose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ if you wish: you would just need to rejig the proof a little bit to make it work. It reads nicely as is, however, so there's no reason to do this.






share|cite|improve this answer



























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    I think what you're missing is the following fact: if $F:mathbbR^nrightarrowmathbbR$ is continuous and satisfies $F(x_0)<0$ then there exists some $delta>0$ such that $F(x)<0$ for all $x$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta$. You should try to prove this from the limit definition of continuity. In your particular example, $F$ is the continuous function $p^Tnabla f(x)$ so by the fact above we know that $p^Tnabla f(x)<0$ for all $|x-x^*|<delta$ for some $delta$. We then just choose $T$ so that $|x+tp-x^*|<delta$ whenever $t<T$.






    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: false,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      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%2f2877833%2fproof-of-nabla-fx-0-is-necessary-condition-for-minimizer-using-taylor%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes








      2 Answers
      2






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Let $p in mathbb R^n$, and $g:mathbb R^n to mathbb R$, so that we can write $g(x) = (g_1(x),g_2(x),ldots,g_n(x))$. Write $$G(x) = p^Tg(x) = p_1g_1(x) + p_2g_2(x) + cdots + p_ng_n(x).$$



      If $g$ is continuous, then so each each $g_i$. Hence, $G$ inherits continuity from $G$. Now take $p$ as defined in your textbook, and choose $g = nabla f$.



      You can choose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ if you wish: you would just need to rejig the proof a little bit to make it work. It reads nicely as is, however, so there's no reason to do this.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Let $p in mathbb R^n$, and $g:mathbb R^n to mathbb R$, so that we can write $g(x) = (g_1(x),g_2(x),ldots,g_n(x))$. Write $$G(x) = p^Tg(x) = p_1g_1(x) + p_2g_2(x) + cdots + p_ng_n(x).$$



        If $g$ is continuous, then so each each $g_i$. Hence, $G$ inherits continuity from $G$. Now take $p$ as defined in your textbook, and choose $g = nabla f$.



        You can choose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ if you wish: you would just need to rejig the proof a little bit to make it work. It reads nicely as is, however, so there's no reason to do this.






        share|cite|improve this answer






















          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          Let $p in mathbb R^n$, and $g:mathbb R^n to mathbb R$, so that we can write $g(x) = (g_1(x),g_2(x),ldots,g_n(x))$. Write $$G(x) = p^Tg(x) = p_1g_1(x) + p_2g_2(x) + cdots + p_ng_n(x).$$



          If $g$ is continuous, then so each each $g_i$. Hence, $G$ inherits continuity from $G$. Now take $p$ as defined in your textbook, and choose $g = nabla f$.



          You can choose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ if you wish: you would just need to rejig the proof a little bit to make it work. It reads nicely as is, however, so there's no reason to do this.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Let $p in mathbb R^n$, and $g:mathbb R^n to mathbb R$, so that we can write $g(x) = (g_1(x),g_2(x),ldots,g_n(x))$. Write $$G(x) = p^Tg(x) = p_1g_1(x) + p_2g_2(x) + cdots + p_ng_n(x).$$



          If $g$ is continuous, then so each each $g_i$. Hence, $G$ inherits continuity from $G$. Now take $p$ as defined in your textbook, and choose $g = nabla f$.



          You can choose $p = nabla f(x^*)$ if you wish: you would just need to rejig the proof a little bit to make it work. It reads nicely as is, however, so there's no reason to do this.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 10 at 0:04









          Theoretical Economist

          3,1962628




          3,1962628




















              up vote
              0
              down vote













              I think what you're missing is the following fact: if $F:mathbbR^nrightarrowmathbbR$ is continuous and satisfies $F(x_0)<0$ then there exists some $delta>0$ such that $F(x)<0$ for all $x$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta$. You should try to prove this from the limit definition of continuity. In your particular example, $F$ is the continuous function $p^Tnabla f(x)$ so by the fact above we know that $p^Tnabla f(x)<0$ for all $|x-x^*|<delta$ for some $delta$. We then just choose $T$ so that $|x+tp-x^*|<delta$ whenever $t<T$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                up vote
                0
                down vote













                I think what you're missing is the following fact: if $F:mathbbR^nrightarrowmathbbR$ is continuous and satisfies $F(x_0)<0$ then there exists some $delta>0$ such that $F(x)<0$ for all $x$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta$. You should try to prove this from the limit definition of continuity. In your particular example, $F$ is the continuous function $p^Tnabla f(x)$ so by the fact above we know that $p^Tnabla f(x)<0$ for all $|x-x^*|<delta$ for some $delta$. We then just choose $T$ so that $|x+tp-x^*|<delta$ whenever $t<T$.






                share|cite|improve this answer






















                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  0
                  down vote









                  I think what you're missing is the following fact: if $F:mathbbR^nrightarrowmathbbR$ is continuous and satisfies $F(x_0)<0$ then there exists some $delta>0$ such that $F(x)<0$ for all $x$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta$. You should try to prove this from the limit definition of continuity. In your particular example, $F$ is the continuous function $p^Tnabla f(x)$ so by the fact above we know that $p^Tnabla f(x)<0$ for all $|x-x^*|<delta$ for some $delta$. We then just choose $T$ so that $|x+tp-x^*|<delta$ whenever $t<T$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  I think what you're missing is the following fact: if $F:mathbbR^nrightarrowmathbbR$ is continuous and satisfies $F(x_0)<0$ then there exists some $delta>0$ such that $F(x)<0$ for all $x$ such that $|x-x_0|<delta$. You should try to prove this from the limit definition of continuity. In your particular example, $F$ is the continuous function $p^Tnabla f(x)$ so by the fact above we know that $p^Tnabla f(x)<0$ for all $|x-x^*|<delta$ for some $delta$. We then just choose $T$ so that $|x+tp-x^*|<delta$ whenever $t<T$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Aug 10 at 14:09









                  user293794

                  1,519512




                  1,519512






















                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


























                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2877833%2fproof-of-nabla-fx-0-is-necessary-condition-for-minimizer-using-taylor%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      這個網誌中的熱門文章

                      Is there any way to eliminate the singular point to solve this integral by hand or by approximations?

                      Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?

                      Carbon dioxide