Sign up ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose $f_1,f_2,\ldots $ is a sequence of convex functions that converges to a continuous convex $f$. Let $x_1^*,x_2^*$ be their respective (not necessarily unique) minima, and let y be a minima of $f$ (once again need not be unique). Can we prove that there exists a version of $x_1^*,x_2^*,\ldots$ such that $x_n^*\rightarrow y$ ?

share|cite|improve this question
By the way: The proper notions for convergence of minimizers is Gamma convergence: –  Dirk May 12 '12 at 11:42

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

No; here's a counterexample: let $f = 0$ and consider the minimizer $y = 0.$ Then you can construct convex functions which converge to $0$ pointwise but whose minima are always moving away from $y =0,$ e.g. $f_n(x) = (x - n)^2/n^n.$

share|cite|improve this answer

No. Let $f_n=x^2/n$ for $n$ odd and $(x-1)^2/n$ for $n$ even. Then $x_n^*$ is an alternating sequence of $1$s and $0$s, which does not converge to anything. But $f_n$ converges pointwise to $f=0$.

We can modify this to make the convergence uniform, by using an absolute value instead of a square, or to make $f$ nonconstant, by adding $\max(|x-1/2|,1)$ to $f_n$.

If $f$ has a unique minimum, the statement is true. Let $a$ be the $\lim\inf$ of $x_n^*$ and $b$ be the $\lim\sup$. Let $y$ be the unique minimum of $f$. Assume $a< y$. Clearly $f( (a+y)/2) > f(y)$. By convexity, $f(a)> f((a+y)/2)$. So for $n$ sufficiently large, $f_n(a)> f_n((a+y)/2)> f_n(y)$. But this implies that the minimum of $f_n$ is greater than $(a+y)/2$. So the $\lim \inf$ of $x_n^*$ is greater than or equal to $(a+y)/2$, which is greater than $a$. This is a contradiction so $a\geq y$. By symmetry $b\leq y$. Hence because $a \leq b$, $a=b=y$ and $y$ is the limit.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks Will. The last paragraph is unclear to me. To start did you mean if f has a unique minima? –  gmravi2003 May 11 '12 at 22:06
Yes, I did. What else is confusing? –  Will Sawin May 12 '12 at 4:46
It seems that there should be $(x-1)^2/n$ instead of $(x_1)^2/n$. –  Alex Ravsky Jan 19 at 5:27
Why $x_n^*\leq a$ occurs infinitely many times? –  Alex Ravsky Jan 19 at 5:40
@AlexRavsky fixed. –  Will Sawin Jan 19 at 14:23

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.