Equivalent definitions of convexity












0












$begingroup$


We defined the convexity of an $f: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ function like this:




$f$ is convex on the interval $I$ if $forall a,bin
I$, $a<b$, $forall x in I$
$$f(x)leqslant f(a)+frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}(x-a)$$




And then we had the following theorem:




The following statements are equivalent:

(i) $f$ is convex on $I$

(ii) $forall a in I$, $m_a(x)=frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is monotone increasing on $Isetminus{a}$




I tried to prove (i)$implies$(ii) like this: Let $a,x,y in I$. If $a<x<y$, then
$$f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a)$$
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} leqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) leqslant m_a(y)$$
Which is fine, but when $x<a<y$, we have that $x-a leqslant 0$, so
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} geqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) geqslant m_a(y)$$
And it's not good. Did I miss something or is the theorem false as it is stated?






real-analysis convex-analysis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To me, the original definition implies the additional constraint that x also be an element of the interval I (although it might be more precise to make the constraint explicit in the definition statement). Your counter example violates that constraint.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:22










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari You are right, I did miss that out. But I don't see why did my counterexample violate that constraint?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because there is nothing in your counter example that prevents x from being outside I (think about the case where a is the left edge of I). Actually, as I think about it more, I suspect that the original definition should require x to actually be between a and b.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari Yes, you are right. It was not mentioned in the formal definition, just before it, that's why I didn't see it. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    Actually, it looks like the definition can be further simplified so that a and b are specifically defined as the edges of I rather than some arbitrary pair of points in I.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 14:00
















0












$begingroup$


We defined the convexity of an $f: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ function like this:




$f$ is convex on the interval $I$ if $forall a,bin
I$, $a<b$, $forall x in I$
$$f(x)leqslant f(a)+frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}(x-a)$$




And then we had the following theorem:




The following statements are equivalent:

(i) $f$ is convex on $I$

(ii) $forall a in I$, $m_a(x)=frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is monotone increasing on $Isetminus{a}$




I tried to prove (i)$implies$(ii) like this: Let $a,x,y in I$. If $a<x<y$, then
$$f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a)$$
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} leqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) leqslant m_a(y)$$
Which is fine, but when $x<a<y$, we have that $x-a leqslant 0$, so
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} geqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) geqslant m_a(y)$$
And it's not good. Did I miss something or is the theorem false as it is stated?






real-analysis convex-analysis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To me, the original definition implies the additional constraint that x also be an element of the interval I (although it might be more precise to make the constraint explicit in the definition statement). Your counter example violates that constraint.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:22










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari You are right, I did miss that out. But I don't see why did my counterexample violate that constraint?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because there is nothing in your counter example that prevents x from being outside I (think about the case where a is the left edge of I). Actually, as I think about it more, I suspect that the original definition should require x to actually be between a and b.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari Yes, you are right. It was not mentioned in the formal definition, just before it, that's why I didn't see it. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    Actually, it looks like the definition can be further simplified so that a and b are specifically defined as the edges of I rather than some arbitrary pair of points in I.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 14:00














0












0








0





$begingroup$


We defined the convexity of an $f: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ function like this:




$f$ is convex on the interval $I$ if $forall a,bin
I$, $a<b$, $forall x in I$
$$f(x)leqslant f(a)+frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}(x-a)$$




And then we had the following theorem:




The following statements are equivalent:

(i) $f$ is convex on $I$

(ii) $forall a in I$, $m_a(x)=frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is monotone increasing on $Isetminus{a}$




I tried to prove (i)$implies$(ii) like this: Let $a,x,y in I$. If $a<x<y$, then
$$f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a)$$
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} leqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) leqslant m_a(y)$$
Which is fine, but when $x<a<y$, we have that $x-a leqslant 0$, so
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} geqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) geqslant m_a(y)$$
And it's not good. Did I miss something or is the theorem false as it is stated?






real-analysis convex-analysis







share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




We defined the convexity of an $f: mathbb{R} to mathbb{R}$ function like this:




$f$ is convex on the interval $I$ if $forall a,bin
I$, $a<b$, $forall x in I$
$$f(x)leqslant f(a)+frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}(x-a)$$




And then we had the following theorem:




The following statements are equivalent:

(i) $f$ is convex on $I$

(ii) $forall a in I$, $m_a(x)=frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a}$ is monotone increasing on $Isetminus{a}$




I tried to prove (i)$implies$(ii) like this: Let $a,x,y in I$. If $a<x<y$, then
$$f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a)$$
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} leqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) leqslant m_a(y)$$
Which is fine, but when $x<a<y$, we have that $x-a leqslant 0$, so
$$frac{f(x)-f(a)}{x-a} geqslant frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}$$
$$m_a(x) geqslant m_a(y)$$
And it's not good. Did I miss something or is the theorem false as it is stated?






real-analysis convex-analysis




real-analysis convex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 20 '18 at 13:25







Botond

















asked Dec 20 '18 at 13:07









BotondBotond

5,6822732




5,6822732








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To me, the original definition implies the additional constraint that x also be an element of the interval I (although it might be more precise to make the constraint explicit in the definition statement). Your counter example violates that constraint.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:22










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari You are right, I did miss that out. But I don't see why did my counterexample violate that constraint?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because there is nothing in your counter example that prevents x from being outside I (think about the case where a is the left edge of I). Actually, as I think about it more, I suspect that the original definition should require x to actually be between a and b.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari Yes, you are right. It was not mentioned in the formal definition, just before it, that's why I didn't see it. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    Actually, it looks like the definition can be further simplified so that a and b are specifically defined as the edges of I rather than some arbitrary pair of points in I.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 14:00














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    To me, the original definition implies the additional constraint that x also be an element of the interval I (although it might be more precise to make the constraint explicit in the definition statement). Your counter example violates that constraint.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:22










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari You are right, I did miss that out. But I don't see why did my counterexample violate that constraint?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:26






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Because there is nothing in your counter example that prevents x from being outside I (think about the case where a is the left edge of I). Actually, as I think about it more, I suspect that the original definition should require x to actually be between a and b.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    @JohnPolcari Yes, you are right. It was not mentioned in the formal definition, just before it, that's why I didn't see it. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:40










  • $begingroup$
    Actually, it looks like the definition can be further simplified so that a and b are specifically defined as the edges of I rather than some arbitrary pair of points in I.
    $endgroup$
    – John Polcari
    Dec 20 '18 at 14:00








1




1




$begingroup$
To me, the original definition implies the additional constraint that x also be an element of the interval I (although it might be more precise to make the constraint explicit in the definition statement). Your counter example violates that constraint.
$endgroup$
– John Polcari
Dec 20 '18 at 13:22




$begingroup$
To me, the original definition implies the additional constraint that x also be an element of the interval I (although it might be more precise to make the constraint explicit in the definition statement). Your counter example violates that constraint.
$endgroup$
– John Polcari
Dec 20 '18 at 13:22












$begingroup$
@JohnPolcari You are right, I did miss that out. But I don't see why did my counterexample violate that constraint?
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:26




$begingroup$
@JohnPolcari You are right, I did miss that out. But I don't see why did my counterexample violate that constraint?
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:26




1




1




$begingroup$
Because there is nothing in your counter example that prevents x from being outside I (think about the case where a is the left edge of I). Actually, as I think about it more, I suspect that the original definition should require x to actually be between a and b.
$endgroup$
– John Polcari
Dec 20 '18 at 13:33




$begingroup$
Because there is nothing in your counter example that prevents x from being outside I (think about the case where a is the left edge of I). Actually, as I think about it more, I suspect that the original definition should require x to actually be between a and b.
$endgroup$
– John Polcari
Dec 20 '18 at 13:33












$begingroup$
@JohnPolcari Yes, you are right. It was not mentioned in the formal definition, just before it, that's why I didn't see it. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:40




$begingroup$
@JohnPolcari Yes, you are right. It was not mentioned in the formal definition, just before it, that's why I didn't see it. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:40












$begingroup$
Actually, it looks like the definition can be further simplified so that a and b are specifically defined as the edges of I rather than some arbitrary pair of points in I.
$endgroup$
– John Polcari
Dec 20 '18 at 14:00




$begingroup$
Actually, it looks like the definition can be further simplified so that a and b are specifically defined as the edges of I rather than some arbitrary pair of points in I.
$endgroup$
– John Polcari
Dec 20 '18 at 14:00










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

If $x<a<y$, one should use
$$
f(a) leqslant f(x) + frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}(a-x)tag{*}
$$
instead of
$$
f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a),
$$ which holds for $a<x<y$. Then one gets
$$
m_a(x)leq m_x(y).
$$
One can also show that
$$
m_x(y) leq m_a(y)
$$ which is equivalent to $(*)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:27






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31












  • $begingroup$
    You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:37





















0












$begingroup$

You want to look up the secant lemma, as that is what is likely being a alluded too in the second part of their definition. The problem is, they wrote it incorrectly. For example, by their current definition, $x$ is convex on $I=[a,b]$ since $frac{d^2}{(dx)^2}(x)geq 0$, however, letting $f(x)=x$ in the second “equivalent” definition, we find it simplifies to $1$ which is not monotonic.



The issue comes from the actual secant lemma being much more general, and on you mixing strict vs non strict inequalities in both parts.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31










  • $begingroup$
    It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:45











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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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%2f3047518%2fequivalent-definitions-of-convexity%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









1












$begingroup$

If $x<a<y$, one should use
$$
f(a) leqslant f(x) + frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}(a-x)tag{*}
$$
instead of
$$
f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a),
$$ which holds for $a<x<y$. Then one gets
$$
m_a(x)leq m_x(y).
$$
One can also show that
$$
m_x(y) leq m_a(y)
$$ which is equivalent to $(*)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:27






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31












  • $begingroup$
    You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:37


















1












$begingroup$

If $x<a<y$, one should use
$$
f(a) leqslant f(x) + frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}(a-x)tag{*}
$$
instead of
$$
f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a),
$$ which holds for $a<x<y$. Then one gets
$$
m_a(x)leq m_x(y).
$$
One can also show that
$$
m_x(y) leq m_a(y)
$$ which is equivalent to $(*)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:27






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31












  • $begingroup$
    You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:37
















1












1








1





$begingroup$

If $x<a<y$, one should use
$$
f(a) leqslant f(x) + frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}(a-x)tag{*}
$$
instead of
$$
f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a),
$$ which holds for $a<x<y$. Then one gets
$$
m_a(x)leq m_x(y).
$$
One can also show that
$$
m_x(y) leq m_a(y)
$$ which is equivalent to $(*)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



If $x<a<y$, one should use
$$
f(a) leqslant f(x) + frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}(a-x)tag{*}
$$
instead of
$$
f(x) leqslant f(a) + frac{f(y)-f(a)}{y-a}(x-a),
$$ which holds for $a<x<y$. Then one gets
$$
m_a(x)leq m_x(y).
$$
One can also show that
$$
m_x(y) leq m_a(y)
$$ which is equivalent to $(*)$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 20 '18 at 13:57









Botond

5,6822732




5,6822732










answered Dec 20 '18 at 13:19









SongSong

11.1k628




11.1k628












  • $begingroup$
    But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:27






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31












  • $begingroup$
    You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:37




















  • $begingroup$
    But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:27






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
    $endgroup$
    – Song
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31












  • $begingroup$
    You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:37


















$begingroup$
But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:27




$begingroup$
But why isn't the $f(x) leqslant dots$ working?
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:27




1




1




$begingroup$
I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Dec 20 '18 at 13:31






$begingroup$
I think the definition is wrong. It should require that $ xin [a,b]$, rather than $xin I$.
$endgroup$
– Song
Dec 20 '18 at 13:31














$begingroup$
You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:37






$begingroup$
You are right. It was stated in the very first "definition": The graph of $f$ is under the line passing through $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ on $[a,b]$, but somehow It was missing from the formal definition. Thank you!
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:37













0












$begingroup$

You want to look up the secant lemma, as that is what is likely being a alluded too in the second part of their definition. The problem is, they wrote it incorrectly. For example, by their current definition, $x$ is convex on $I=[a,b]$ since $frac{d^2}{(dx)^2}(x)geq 0$, however, letting $f(x)=x$ in the second “equivalent” definition, we find it simplifies to $1$ which is not monotonic.



The issue comes from the actual secant lemma being much more general, and on you mixing strict vs non strict inequalities in both parts.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31










  • $begingroup$
    It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:45
















0












$begingroup$

You want to look up the secant lemma, as that is what is likely being a alluded too in the second part of their definition. The problem is, they wrote it incorrectly. For example, by their current definition, $x$ is convex on $I=[a,b]$ since $frac{d^2}{(dx)^2}(x)geq 0$, however, letting $f(x)=x$ in the second “equivalent” definition, we find it simplifies to $1$ which is not monotonic.



The issue comes from the actual secant lemma being much more general, and on you mixing strict vs non strict inequalities in both parts.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31










  • $begingroup$
    It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:45














0












0








0





$begingroup$

You want to look up the secant lemma, as that is what is likely being a alluded too in the second part of their definition. The problem is, they wrote it incorrectly. For example, by their current definition, $x$ is convex on $I=[a,b]$ since $frac{d^2}{(dx)^2}(x)geq 0$, however, letting $f(x)=x$ in the second “equivalent” definition, we find it simplifies to $1$ which is not monotonic.



The issue comes from the actual secant lemma being much more general, and on you mixing strict vs non strict inequalities in both parts.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



You want to look up the secant lemma, as that is what is likely being a alluded too in the second part of their definition. The problem is, they wrote it incorrectly. For example, by their current definition, $x$ is convex on $I=[a,b]$ since $frac{d^2}{(dx)^2}(x)geq 0$, however, letting $f(x)=x$ in the second “equivalent” definition, we find it simplifies to $1$ which is not monotonic.



The issue comes from the actual secant lemma being much more general, and on you mixing strict vs non strict inequalities in both parts.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 20 '18 at 13:27









R.JacksonR.Jackson

1688




1688












  • $begingroup$
    I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31










  • $begingroup$
    It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:45


















  • $begingroup$
    I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:31










  • $begingroup$
    It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:33










  • $begingroup$
    I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – Botond
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:39










  • $begingroup$
    Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
    $endgroup$
    – R.Jackson
    Dec 20 '18 at 13:45
















$begingroup$
I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:31




$begingroup$
I think $f(x)=x$ is both convex and concave. Also, $m_a(x)=frac{x-a}{x-a}=1$, which is increasing, because $1=m_a(x)geq m_a(y)=1$. So it looks ok for me.
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:31












$begingroup$
It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
$endgroup$
– R.Jackson
Dec 20 '18 at 13:33




$begingroup$
It’s not monotonically increasing, however, since its constant.
$endgroup$
– R.Jackson
Dec 20 '18 at 13:33












$begingroup$
I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:39




$begingroup$
I think it is monotonically increasing and decreasing at the same time, but neither strictly increasing nor strictly decreasing.
$endgroup$
– Botond
Dec 20 '18 at 13:39












$begingroup$
Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
$endgroup$
– R.Jackson
Dec 20 '18 at 13:45




$begingroup$
Right, nvm, I had the definition of monotonic wrong it just means non-decreasing.
$endgroup$
– R.Jackson
Dec 20 '18 at 13:45


















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.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047518%2fequivalent-definitions-of-convexity%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

Bressuire

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
Read more

Cabo Verde

Image
  Nota: Cabo-verdiano redireciona para este artigo. Para a língua falada em Cabo Verde, veja crioulo cabo-verdiano. Para outros significados, veja Cabo Verde (desambiguação). Coordenadas: 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cabo Verde República de Cabo Verde Bandeira Brasão de Armas Lema: Unidade, Trabalho, Progresso Hino nacional: Cântico da Liberdade Gentílico: cabo-verdiano [ 1 ] Capital Praia 14° 55' N 23° 31' O Cidade mais populosa Praia Língua oficial Português Governo República unitária semipresidencialista [ 2 ]  - Presidente Jorge Carlos Fonseca  - Primeiro-ministro Ulisses Correia e Silva História    - Descoberta 1460   - Independência 00 • de Portugal 5 de Julho de 1975   - Multipartidarismo 13 de Janeiro de 1990  Área    - Total 4 033 km² (146.º)  - Água (%) 0,08 População    - Estimativa para 2017 560 899 [ 3 ] hab. (173.º)
Read more

Gyllenstierna

Image
.mw-parser-output .infobox{border:1px solid #aaa;background-color:#f9f9f9;color:black;margin:.5em 0 .5em 1em;padding:.2em;float:right;clear:right;width:22em;text-align:left;font-size:88%;line-height:1.6em}.mw-parser-output .infobox td,.mw-parser-output .infobox th{vertical-align:top;padding:0 .2em}.mw-parser-output .infobox caption{font-size:larger}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered{border-collapse:collapse}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered th{border:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .borderless th{border:0}.mw-parser-output .infobox-showbutton .mw-collapsible-text{color:inherit}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedtoprow th{border:0;border-top:1px solid #aaa;border-right:1px solid #aaa}.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow td,.mw-parser-output .infobox.bordered .mergedrow th{border:0;border-right:1px solid
Read more