0

Hi: I've been reading an optimization text by Charles Byrne, "A First Course In Optimization". I'm currently going through the chapter where he explains things about convex sets and convex functions and projections. The material is explained well but it's also quite terse. My question has two parts.

1) Does anyone know of a text or notes that provide figures which give the geometric intuition behind the various projection/convex relations. I have Rockefellar and Lemarchal but they're not helpful for helping my brain with intuition.

2) I think that, based on a previous question that was answered beautfully and a comment in Byrne's text, I finally understand what is meant by a subspace on $R^{n}$. Byrne explains the following:

Suppose one takes $R^{3}$. Then the xy plane is a subspace, W, of $R^{3}$ and the z plane is the W_perp because it is normal to the xy plane.

Of course, this is a very visual and straightforward example.

But, this simple example and the answer to my previous question gave me some intuition that I wanted to confirm.

Slightly more generally speaking than the $R^{3}$ example above , is it okay to think of the subspace as a subset of some larger space, $R^{n}$ where the dimensions that are lost ( the ones that don't belong to the subspace ) are perpendicular to the resulting subspace.

This would then make the relation

$< x - P_{c}(x), P_{c}(y) - P_{c}(x) > = 0$ where c belong to some subspace C

understandable in the following way.

As x moves away from it's projection ( which is represented by the first term ) and $P_{c}(y)$ moves away from the same projection ( which is represented by the second term ), these two vectors must be perpendicular to each other. This is because $P_{c}(y)$ belongs to C and $x - P_{c}(x)$ doesn't and is perpendicular to all c belonging to C. Therefore, the dot product of the two vectors has to be zero.

My thinking is that, in general, if a vector x belongs to $R^{n}$ and another vector $y$ belongs to a subspace of $R^{n}$ called C, then $x - P_{c}(x)$ is orthogonal to any vector belonging to the subspace C.

Hopefully this is correct but I'm still not clear on the concept of linear manifold and why it's not necessarily a subspace. I'm gonna read about that some more. Thank you for any wisdom or intuitive references or even a good online class related to this material. To my brain, this material is sort of "advanced linear algebra".

mark leeds
  • 1,514
  • I hope my answer will satisfy you. – Blind Apr 19 '15 at 15:22
  • Every subspace contains the origin, but not every linear manifold contains the origin. The term "linear manifold" sounds complicated, but it's just a translation of a subspace. – littleO Apr 20 '15 at 02:43
  • Is $ c $ a vector? What do you mean by $ P_c (x) $ ? – littleO Apr 20 '15 at 02:45
  • @little0: Your simple explanation is clear and helpful. I still need to read Blind's explanation carefully. I meant that c is a "point" belong to C where C is a convex set and some subspace of $R^{n}$. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I asked another question before this in a different thread and this was kind o a continuation of that one. – mark leeds Apr 20 '15 at 17:36
  • @Blind: Thank you. That was great. I followed every step and the definitions are now in sync with what Charles Byrne has in his book. Now, I can go back to it and continue reading and wait for confusion to come. When it does, I will write again to this list. It's amazing. Thanks again. – mark leeds Apr 22 '15 at 04:50
  • @mark leeds I am ready to help you if I can. – Blind Apr 22 '15 at 04:52
  • @Blind: Hi. Although I checked the answer, I went back to my text and the author has something slightly different than you. He has the same theorem as you wrote for the subspace ( the one you titled: projection onto a halfspace but that's probably a typo ) but he claims that it holds for a linear manifold rather than a subspace. Note that the author also has a seperate but related theorem for the case of subspace. The result is the same as the one that you wrote for the subspace except that he has $y$ instead of $y - P_{c}(x)$ in the second term. ???? Thanks for any clarification on this. – mark leeds Apr 23 '15 at 05:42
  • @Blind: Hi: I can email you the page from Byrne's text that has the statements of the two theorems and their proofs. Or I can also latex it in another thread if you want them that way. Thanks and no rush. – mark leeds Apr 23 '15 at 15:17

1 Answers1

2

1. Projection onto a halspace

Proposition. If $C\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a subspace then $$ \langle x-P_C(x), y-P_C(x)\rangle=0 \quad \forall y\in C. $$ Proof. By the property of the metric projection, we have $$ \langle x-P_C(x), u-P_C(x)\rangle\leq 0 \quad \forall u\in C. $$ Substituting $u=y\in C$ and $u=2P_C(x)-y\in C$ into above inequality we obtain $$ \langle x-P_C(x), y-P_C(x)\rangle\leq 0, $$ $$ \langle x-P_C(x), P_C(x)-y\rangle\leq 0. $$ Therefore $$ \langle x-P_C(x), y-P_C(x)\rangle=0 \quad \forall y\in C. $$

2. Linear manifold

Definition. A set $S\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is called a subspace if for all $x,y\in S, \lambda\in\mathbb{R}^n$ we have $$ \lambda x\in S, x+y\in S. $$

REM Let $\lambda=0$ and $x\in S$. We have $0=\lambda x\in S$.

Definition. A set $M\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is called a linear manifold if $$ x,y\in M\;\Longrightarrow\;tx+(1-t)y\in M (\forall t\in\mathbb{R}). $$ Geometrical meaning.

  • A linear manifold is a translation of a subspace.

  • $M\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a linear manifold iff $M$ contains the straight line connecting any two points belonging to $M$.

Example.

(1) In $\mathbb{R}$:

  • $\{0\}$ and $\mathbb{R}$ are subspaces;

  • A point and the whole space $\mathbb{R}$ are linear manifolds.

(2) In $\mathbb{R}^2$:

  • $\{0\}$, straight lines go through origin, $\mathbb{R}^2$ are subspaces;

  • A point, a line, and the whole space $\mathbb{R}^2$ are linear manifolds.

(3) In $\mathbb{R}^3$:

  • $\{0\}$, straight lines, planes go through origin, $\mathbb{R}^3$ are subspaces;

  • A point, a line, a plane and the whole space $\mathbb{R}^3$ are linear manifolds.

(4) In $\mathbb{R}^n$: A point, a line, a plane, a subspace, a hyperplane and the whole space $\mathbb{R}^n$ are linear manifolds.

Relationships of linear manifolds and subspaces

Proposition 1. If $M\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ is a subspace then $M$ is a linear manifold containing $0$.

Proof. Let $x,y\in M, \lambda\in\mathbb{R}$. Since $M$ is a subspace, $\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y\in M$. Hence, $M$ is a linear manifold. Certainly, $0\in M$.

Proposition 2. Let $M\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a linear manifold and $0\in M$. Then $M$ is a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$.

Proof. Suppose that $M$ is a linear manifold. Let $x,y\in M, \lambda\in\mathbb{R}$. Since $0\in M$ and $M$ is a linear manifold $$ \lambda x=\lambda x+(1-\lambda)0\in M, $$ $$ x+y=2[(1/2)x+(1/2)y]+(-1)0\in M. $$ Hence, $M$ is a subspace.

Proposition 3. Let $M\subset\mathbb{R}^n$. Then, M is a linear manifold if and only if there exists a subspace $S\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ and a vector $a\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that $M=S+\{a\}$.

Proof. Suppose $M$ is a linear manifold. Let $a\in M$ and put $S:=M-a$. We will prove that $S$ is a subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$. Indeed, lẹt $x,y\in M-a, \lambda\in\mathbb{R}$. Then there exist $x_a, y_a\in M$ such that $$ x=x_a-a; y=y_a-a; $$ We have $\lambda x+(1-\lambda)y=\lambda (x_a-a)+(1-\lambda)(y_a-a)=[\lambda x_a+(1-\lambda)y_a]-a\in M-a=S$ since $M$ is a linear manifold. Hence $S$ is a linear manifold. Since $0=a-a\in M-a=S$, $M$ is a subspace by Proposition 2.

Suppose that $M=S+a$ with $S$ is subspace of $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $a\in \mathbb{R}^n$. Let $x,y\in M, \lambda\in\mathbb{R}$. Then there exists $x_a, y_a\in S$ such that $x=x_a+a, y=y_a+a$. We have $$ \lambda x+(1-\lambda)y=\lambda(x_a+a)+(1-\lambda)(y_a+a)=[\lambda x_a+(1-\lambda)y_a]+a\in S+a=M $$ since $S$ is subpsace. Hence, $M$ is a linear manifold.

Blind
  • 1,116
  • Thanks. I feel like you're providing a private course in linear algebra for convex optimization. I will print out and read carefully as I always do. As I mentioned earlier, do you obtain these various proofs-relations from a book or notes or just from your brain ? Also, I don't have Boyd's text at the moment ( well. I know I bought it in the past but I can't find it which is quite annoying ) but might that be a text for intuition-figures etc. Thanks again and I'll check it when I understand it. That could take some time. – mark leeds Apr 19 '15 at 19:53
  • @mark leeds If you find interesting with my answer, please accept my solution. Thank you. – Blind Apr 20 '15 at 00:26
  • Hi Blind: I'm confident that I will accept it but I need to go through it carefully and I haven't had the chance to yet. Your thorough and helpful answer is appreciated. – mark leeds Apr 20 '15 at 17:32
  • Little O said it very simply and it made sense to me but I want to try and understand teh mathematics of it which is what you wrote. I didn't even go over propistion 3 yet, but I'm even confused on one piece in rop1 and one piece in prop 2. In prop 1, I don't see why "Certainly, O belongs to M". – mark leeds Apr 20 '15 at 18:31
  • In Prop 2, I don't see "Hence, M is a subspace". I stopped there and will try to understand Prop 3 later. Thanks for any clearing my "denseness". P.S: The way Byrne's defines subspace looks quite similar to how you define linear manifold. I'll fight through both and try to connect the dots. – mark leeds Apr 20 '15 at 18:40
  • I have to leave now but here is how subspace is defined in "A First Course In Optimization:": A subset of $R^{n}$ is a subspace is for every x and y in S and scalars $\alpha$ and $\beta $, the linear combination $\alpha * x + \beta * y $ again belongs to S. But that sounds similar to your linear manifold definition. Thanks. – mark leeds Apr 20 '15 at 18:45
  • Previous should have read : " A subset S of $R^{n}$". Sorry for confusion. – mark leeds Apr 20 '15 at 18:48