[Cross-posted from math.stackexchange]

I have a question about understanding the proof of Theorem 4.11 in the paper A Potential Theory for Monotone Multivalued Operators (accessible here). The authors claim to construct a convex functional and I'm not sure I follow their argument.

My specific question is at the end, but I provide some background from the paper below before.


The paper shows, how for a pair of dual locally convex topological vector spaces $(X,X')$ and a monotone set-valued operator $M:X \to X'$, one can define a notion of path integral along polygonal paths (as the restriction of $M$ to any straight line in one's is monotone and hence Riemann-integrable).

The authors call $M$ conservative if its path integral around any closed polygonal path in its domain (the set of points of $X$ where it is non-empty valued) is zero. The authors define the integral of $M$ along any line segment $[x,y] \subseteq \textrm{dom}(M)$ via:

$$ \int_{0}^1 \langle M(x + t(y-x)), y-x \rangle \, dt = \sup \bigg\{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\langle x_i^*, x_{i+1} - x_i\rangle\bigg\} = \inf\bigg\{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\langle x_{i+1}^*, x_{i+1}- x_i\rangle \bigg\} $$ where $x_i^* \in M(x_i)$, and the sup/inf are over all refinements of the line segment, and just follow from their respective arguments being the left/right Riemann sums of monotone increasing functions.

The authors then state the following theorem (4.11, p. 623), which I reproduce below.

Theorem 4.11: To any conservative monotone multivalued map $M:X \to X'$ with a polygonally path connected domain, there corresponds, to within an arbitrary additive constant, a convex potential $f: X \to \mathbb{R} \cup \{+\infty\}$, which is the restriction on $\textrm{dom}(M)$ of a lower semicontinuous proper convex functional. The potential $f$ is assumed to be $+\infty$ outside $\textrm{dom}(M)$ and is defined on $\textrm{dom}(M)$ by: $$ \begin{aligned} f(x) - f(x_0) & = \int_\pi \langle M(z), dz\rangle = \\ & =\sup\bigg\{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\langle x_i^*, x_{i+1}- x_i\rangle + \langle x_n^*, x- x_n\rangle \bigg\}\\ & = \inf\bigg\{\sum_{i=0}^{n-1} \langle x_{i+1}^*, x_{i+1} -x_i\rangle + \langle x^*, x-x_n\rangle\bigg\} \end{aligned} $$ where the sup/inf are again over all refinements of the poylgonal path $\pi$.

Source of confusion:

The proof argues that, by definition, on $\textrm{dom}(M)$, $f$ is equal to the lower semicontinuous proper convex function defined as the pointwise supremum of a family of continuous affine functions, the Riemann sums. I don't follow this step without the additional assumption that $\textrm{dom}(M)$ is convex. The authors are careful elsewhere, however, to specify when that is an assumption that is made.

Question: Why is $f$ convex?


Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.