Timeline for Is it true that the set $\{x\colon \partial\phi(x)\subset B_r(0)\}$ is convex when $\phi$ is convex?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23 at 13:33 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Feb 23 at 10:58 | vote | accept | user522653 | ||
| Feb 23 at 10:57 | comment | added | user522653 | That's a great example. Thank you! | |
| Feb 22 at 21:05 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | The counterexample is now greatly simplified (and the description of the tortuous way it was found is removed). | |
| Feb 22 at 20:57 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 723 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 20:48 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 127 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 18:42 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 195 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 18:31 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 18:25 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 17:24 | comment | added | Iosif Pinelis | @user522653 : The maximum is to be taken only over the rectangle $R$, and then the resulting function is to be extended. | |
| Feb 22 at 16:03 | comment | added | user522653 | Thanks! There's something I still don't understand. If $f$ is taken as $\sup$ of all affine functions lying below the triangular strip, then it should be $+\infty$ for $y\in (-\infty,-h)\cup (h,+\infty)$. How can it be extended? | |
| Feb 22 at 15:52 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 116 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 15:22 | history | undeleted | Iosif Pinelis | ||
| Feb 22 at 15:22 | history | edited | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 67 characters in body
|
| Feb 22 at 14:50 | history | deleted | Iosif Pinelis | via Vote | |
| Feb 22 at 14:47 | history | answered | Iosif Pinelis | CC BY-SA 4.0 |