5
$\begingroup$

Let $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ be a 2-dimensional real Banach space and $S=\{x\in X:\|x\|=1\}$ be its unit sphere. Assume that $S$ is smooth in the sense that for any $y\in S$ there exists a unique functional $y^*:X\to\mathbb R$ such that $y^*(y)=1=\|y^*\|$. This unique functional $y^*$ will be called the supporting functional at $y$.

Let $x,y\in S$ be points such that $$\|y-x\|+\|y+x\|=\max\{\|s-x\|+\|s+x\|:s\in S\}.$$

Question. Is $y^*(x)=0$?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Note that the condition $y^*(x)=0$ is called Birkhoff Orthogonality $\endgroup$
    – erz
    Oct 26, 2019 at 6:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Numerical computations suggest that this is not true for general $\ell^p$-norms on $\mathbb{R}^2$. For instance, for $p = 4$ and $x = (1,0)$, I wrote an Octave script which yields that $y \approx (0.8204, 0.8600)$ maximizes the expression you are interested in. But $y^*$ is the pointwise product of $y$ and $|y|^{p-2}$, so $y^*(x) \not= 0$. $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2019 at 10:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Such a norm $\|u\|$ is Fréchet differentiable for $u\neq0$, with $d\|u\|=u^*$, and the Lagrange equation for the maximizer $y\in S$ of $\|s+x\|+\|s-x\|$ for $s\in S$ is $$(y-x)^*+(y-x)^*=\lambda y^*$$ I can't imagine how this could impliy $\langle y^*,x\rangle=0$ without special assumptions on the norm. $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2019 at 11:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Do you know a single non-Hilbertian case where it holds (for all $x,y$)? $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    Oct 26, 2019 at 11:14

1 Answer 1

8
$\begingroup$

The answer is no, in general.

For a counterexample, consider the $\ell^p$-norm on $\mathbb{R}^2$ with $p=4$, and let $x = e_1 = (1,0)$.

We first note that the vectors $e_2 = (0,1)$ and $-e_2$ do not maximize the function \begin{align*} f: S \ni s \mapsto \|s-x\|+\|s+x\| \in [0,\infty). \end{align*}

Indeed, we have $f(e_2) = f(-e_2) = 2\cdot\|(1,1)\| = 2\cdot 2^{1/4}$. On the other hand, consider the vector $s_0 = 2^{-1/4} \cdot (1,1) \in S$. Then \begin{align*} f(s_0) = \|(2^{-1/4} - 1, 2^{-1/4})\| + \|(2^{-1/4}+1, 2^{-1/4})\| > 2\cdot 2^{1/4} \end{align*} (where I, admittedly, used a computer to check the latter inequality). So $f$ is neither maximized at $e_2$ nor at $-e_2$.

Hence if $y$ maximizes $f$, then the first entry of $y$ is non-zero. But $y^* \in \mathbb{R}^2$ is the pointwise product of $y$ and $|y|^{p-2}$. Thus, the first entry of $y^*$ is also non-zero, which shows that $y^*(x) \not= 0$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ When something is true for exponent $2$, and fishy for larger exponents, $p=4$ is the first case to look at! $\endgroup$ Oct 26, 2019 at 11:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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