7

Is there any standard definition for monotonicity of a multivariate function?

I suppose it's something like:

$\forall i: x_i \leq x_i' \implies f(x_1, \ldots, x_i, \ldots, x_k) \leq f(x_1, \ldots, x_i', \ldots, x_k)$

thanks!

Jonny5
  • 171
  • 1
  • 4
  • Can you actually clarify where the $\forall$ is being applied in your definition? I don't think it captures what should be intuitively monotone. – parsiad Sep 04 '13 at 15:54
  • Should there be primes on $x_1$ and $x_k$ on the right hand side? If so, our definitions agree. – parsiad Sep 04 '13 at 16:24
  • no, no primes, just 1 larger argument.. – Jonny5 Sep 06 '13 at 07:11
  • I think in terms of monotonicity, my definition is more standard. I don't know what else you would like to know here. – parsiad Sep 08 '13 at 19:50

1 Answers1

4

A sensible extension of monotonicity is the following. Let $A$ and $B$ be partially ordered sets. Let $f\colon A\rightarrow B$. $f$ is monotone if for each $x,y\in A$ s.t. $x\leq y$ we have that $f\left(x\right)\leq f\left(y\right)$. Just take $A=\mathbb{R}^{n}$ and $B=\mathbb{R}^{m}$ for the case you are interested in.

parsiad
  • 25,154
  • But this would require the $\leq$ relation to be defined on tuples from A and on those from B? – Jonny5 Sep 04 '13 at 16:19
  • 3
    We can easily define the partial ordering by: $\mathbf{x} \leq \mathbf{y}$ if $\forall n : x_n \leq y_n$ – Angelorf Jun 17 '14 at 10:07
  • With that the definition of @par is equivalent to your definition, Xaero182, since it follows from applying your definition multiple times on different $x_n$. – Angelorf Jun 17 '14 at 10:11