Timeline for Difference between 'generalized gradient' and 'subgradient' ?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2018 at 6:25 | comment | added | user123124 | I cannot see how the clarke gradients are local in comparison to the subgradient. There is still some linear form that need to be lower then some directioal derivative. You mind elaborating? | |
| S Apr 27, 2016 at 19:29 | history | suggested | davidparks21 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Updated broken link
|
| Apr 27, 2016 at 19:18 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 27, 2016 at 19:29 | |||||
| Jan 14, 2013 at 13:14 | comment | added | arsmath | That makes sense, but you might want to add a note to that effect. | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 12:26 | comment | added | Suvrit | The paper limited its discussion to convex functions, and does not indeed need generalized gradients. However, the same framework generalizes to nonconvex problems, so we left the formulation in terms of generalized gradients (for future ease) :-) | |
| Jan 14, 2013 at 10:22 | comment | added | Christian Clason | I would also recommend Winfried Schirotzek's very nice book Nonsmooth Analysis, which comprehensively covers many generalized differentials and their relations (in infinite dimensions). | |
| Jan 13, 2013 at 22:19 | history | answered | arsmath | CC BY-SA 3.0 |