What do the coefficients $lambda$ and $1- lambda$ represent in the convexity condition of $f$? [closed]











up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1












I am trying to understand why the formulation $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ should be greater than $f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]$ and what does it mean geometrically.



Convexity condition of $f$:
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$










share|cite|improve this question















closed as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers Nov 24 at 15:44


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 6




    It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 23 at 21:44










  • Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 12:33






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:12






  • 1




    I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:13










  • Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
    – Dahn Jahn
    Nov 24 at 13:30















up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1












I am trying to understand why the formulation $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ should be greater than $f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]$ and what does it mean geometrically.



Convexity condition of $f$:
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$










share|cite|improve this question















closed as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers Nov 24 at 15:44


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.









  • 6




    It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 23 at 21:44










  • Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 12:33






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:12






  • 1




    I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:13










  • Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
    – Dahn Jahn
    Nov 24 at 13:30













up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
-1
down vote

favorite
1






1





I am trying to understand why the formulation $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ should be greater than $f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]$ and what does it mean geometrically.



Convexity condition of $f$:
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$










share|cite|improve this question















I am trying to understand why the formulation $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ should be greater than $f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]$ and what does it mean geometrically.



Convexity condition of $f$:
$$f[lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2]leqlambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)quadforall space 0 < lambda < 1$$







convex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Nov 25 at 8:32

























asked Nov 23 at 21:26









backprop7

296




296




closed as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers Nov 24 at 15:44


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.




closed as off-topic by user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire, Matthew Towers Nov 24 at 15:44


This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:


  • "This question is missing context or other details: Please improve the question by providing additional context, which ideally includes your thoughts on the problem and any attempts you have made to solve it. This information helps others identify where you have difficulties and helps them write answers appropriate to your experience level." – user21820, Holo, amWhy, TheSimpliFire

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.








  • 6




    It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 23 at 21:44










  • Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 12:33






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:12






  • 1




    I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:13










  • Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
    – Dahn Jahn
    Nov 24 at 13:30














  • 6




    It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 23 at 21:44










  • Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 12:33






  • 1




    Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:12






  • 1




    I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
    – PJTraill
    Nov 24 at 13:13










  • Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
    – Dahn Jahn
    Nov 24 at 13:30








6




6




It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
Nov 23 at 21:44




It's not $lambda$ that satisfies convexity, it's $f$ !
– Yves Daoust
Nov 23 at 21:44












Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
Nov 24 at 12:33




Perhaps you could amplify your question, as the title and the body seem to be asking two different things, about motivation and formalities respectively.
– PJTraill
Nov 24 at 12:33




1




1




Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
Nov 24 at 13:12




Possible duplicate of Definition of convexity
– PJTraill
Nov 24 at 13:12




1




1




I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
Nov 24 at 13:13




I have just flagged this as a duplicate of math.stackexchange.com/questions/2098008/…; this question does have a wider range of answers.
– PJTraill
Nov 24 at 13:13












Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
Nov 24 at 13:30




Also: math.stackexchange.com/questions/280585/…
– Dahn Jahn
Nov 24 at 13:30










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
16
down vote



accepted










The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



enter image description here



(credit Wikipedia)



The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
    – backprop7
    Nov 23 at 23:16












  • @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
    – gimusi
    Nov 23 at 23:21










  • I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
    – backprop7
    Nov 23 at 23:23












  • @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
    – Peter
    Nov 24 at 7:33










  • @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
    – gimusi
    Nov 24 at 7:43


















up vote
9
down vote













The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    4
    down vote













    The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.






    share|cite|improve this answer






























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.



      Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.






      share|cite|improve this answer



















      • 1




        A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
        – Nij
        Nov 24 at 0:35










      • @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
        – Yves Daoust
        Nov 24 at 12:49


















      up vote
      0
      down vote













      N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.



      The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.



      We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.



      Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.



      The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.






      share|cite|improve this answer






























        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes








        5 Answers
        5






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes








        up vote
        16
        down vote



        accepted










        The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (credit Wikipedia)



        The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:16












        • @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
          – gimusi
          Nov 23 at 23:21










        • I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:23












        • @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
          – Peter
          Nov 24 at 7:33










        • @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
          – gimusi
          Nov 24 at 7:43















        up vote
        16
        down vote



        accepted










        The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (credit Wikipedia)



        The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.






        share|cite|improve this answer























        • What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:16












        • @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
          – gimusi
          Nov 23 at 23:21










        • I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:23












        • @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
          – Peter
          Nov 24 at 7:33










        • @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
          – gimusi
          Nov 24 at 7:43













        up vote
        16
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        16
        down vote



        accepted






        The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (credit Wikipedia)



        The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.






        share|cite|improve this answer














        The idea is that the value of $f$ at a point between $x_1$ and $x_2$ is less (or equal) than the value at the same point for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        enter image description here



        (credit Wikipedia)



        The expression $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ is just a parametrization for all the points between $x_1$ and $x_2$ on $x$ axis and $lambda f(x_1)+(1-lambda)f(x_2)$ is the corresponding parametrization for the line segment between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$.



        The concept can be generalized for more points by Jensen's inequality.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Nov 24 at 13:45

























        answered Nov 23 at 21:30









        gimusi

        91k74495




        91k74495












        • What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:16












        • @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
          – gimusi
          Nov 23 at 23:21










        • I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:23












        • @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
          – Peter
          Nov 24 at 7:33










        • @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
          – gimusi
          Nov 24 at 7:43


















        • What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:16












        • @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
          – gimusi
          Nov 23 at 23:21










        • I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
          – backprop7
          Nov 23 at 23:23












        • @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
          – Peter
          Nov 24 at 7:33










        • @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
          – gimusi
          Nov 24 at 7:43
















        What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
        – backprop7
        Nov 23 at 23:16






        What does $ lambda_1 x_1 + lambda_2 x_1 + .... lambda_n x_n$ represent geometrically? Is it the epigraph of $f$?
        – backprop7
        Nov 23 at 23:16














        @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
        – gimusi
        Nov 23 at 23:21




        @backprop7 As already stated $lambda x_1+(1-lambda)x_2$ represents the line segment from $x_1$ (for $lambda=1$) to $x_2$ (for $lambda=0$). Why are you considering $lambda x_1 + lambda x_1 + .... lambda x_n$?
        – gimusi
        Nov 23 at 23:21












        I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
        – backprop7
        Nov 23 at 23:23






        I am trying to imagine it for all points on $f$ in Jensesn's inequality.
        – backprop7
        Nov 23 at 23:23














        @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
        – Peter
        Nov 24 at 7:33




        @backprop7 - λx1+(1−λ)x2 represents a line segment. λ1x1+λ2x1+....λnxn represents a hyperplane.
        – Peter
        Nov 24 at 7:33












        @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
        – gimusi
        Nov 24 at 7:43




        @backprop7 In Jensen inequality $ lambda_1x_1+...lambda_nx_n$ with $sum lambda_i=1$ represents a point in the interval that contains all the points.
        – gimusi
        Nov 24 at 7:43










        up vote
        9
        down vote













        The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.






        share|cite|improve this answer

























          up vote
          9
          down vote













          The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.






          share|cite|improve this answer























            up vote
            9
            down vote










            up vote
            9
            down vote









            The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            The right hand side is a parameterisation of the straight line between $f(x_1)$ and $f(x_2)$. The left hand side is the point on the function with the same $x$-value as the point on the straight line on the right hand side. So this says that the straight line between any two points lies entirely above the function. Equivalently, it says that ${(x,y)|y geq f(x)}$ is a convex set, in the usual sense.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 23 at 21:29









            user3482749

            2,086414




            2,086414






















                up vote
                4
                down vote













                The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.






                share|cite|improve this answer



























                  up vote
                  4
                  down vote













                  The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.






                  share|cite|improve this answer

























                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    4
                    down vote









                    The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    The intuition is that when a function is "really" convex, for each two points $(x_,f(x))$ and $(y,f(y))$ the corresponding connecting line segment lies above the function between those two points which is a direct intuition of convexity . $0<lambda<1$ means in fact the interior of the interval between the two points.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited Nov 24 at 1:53









                    Nij

                    1,99811221




                    1,99811221










                    answered Nov 23 at 21:37









                    Mostafa Ayaz

                    13.4k3836




                    13.4k3836






















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.



                        Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



















                        • 1




                          A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
                          – Nij
                          Nov 24 at 0:35










                        • @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
                          – Yves Daoust
                          Nov 24 at 12:49















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.



                        Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



















                        • 1




                          A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
                          – Nij
                          Nov 24 at 0:35










                        • @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
                          – Yves Daoust
                          Nov 24 at 12:49













                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote










                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote









                        You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.



                        Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.






                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        You can see a convex function as "always turning left", so that it cannot meet a straight line more than twice.



                        Your equation describes the curve and a chord between two points, and expresses that they do not intersect.







                        share|cite|improve this answer














                        share|cite|improve this answer



                        share|cite|improve this answer








                        edited Nov 24 at 12:49

























                        answered Nov 23 at 21:46









                        Yves Daoust

                        123k668219




                        123k668219








                        • 1




                          A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
                          – Nij
                          Nov 24 at 0:35










                        • @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
                          – Yves Daoust
                          Nov 24 at 12:49














                        • 1




                          A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
                          – Nij
                          Nov 24 at 0:35










                        • @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
                          – Yves Daoust
                          Nov 24 at 12:49








                        1




                        1




                        A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
                        – Nij
                        Nov 24 at 0:35




                        A parametric spiral is always turning left (or right) and therefore in this description must be convex (or concave) yet may cross any straight line an infinite number of times. Is the spiral therefore convex or not?
                        – Nij
                        Nov 24 at 0:35












                        @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
                        – Yves Daoust
                        Nov 24 at 12:49




                        @Nij: I wanted a short answer, this is why I didn't discuss that. I'll change curve to function.
                        – Yves Daoust
                        Nov 24 at 12:49










                        up vote
                        0
                        down vote













                        N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.



                        The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.



                        We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.



                        Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.



                        The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.






                        share|cite|improve this answer



























                          up vote
                          0
                          down vote













                          N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.



                          The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.



                          We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.



                          Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.



                          The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.






                          share|cite|improve this answer

























                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            0
                            down vote









                            N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.



                            The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.



                            We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.



                            Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.



                            The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.






                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            N.B. I have posted a copy of this answer for the question Definition of convexity, which is essentially the same, though the answer given did not cover the background as I do here.



                            The idea of convexity is is applicable in the first place to shapes or their surfaces and means bulging with no dents. This concept can be applied when the shape is a set of points in a space for which we can define a “dent”; Euclidean spaces will do. It can also apply to part of the surface with no dents.



                            We can think of a dent as a place where you can draw a straight line segment joining two points in the set but leaving the set somewhere along that segment. If the set is “well-behaved” and has a surface, such a segment leaves the set at some point and re-enters it another, there is a subsegment joining points on the surface. In this case, we may define convex by saying all points on such segments lie in the set.



                            Derived from that, a function is described as convex when the set of points above (or maybe below) of its graph is convex. Note that a function may be convex upwards or downwards, with the unqualified form meaning “convex downwards”. Further, as in your case, we call a function convex on an interval if the set of points above the graph with $x$ in that interval is convex.



                            The formulation with $λ$ and $1-λ$ formalises the above definition for the case of a function, that all points on a segment between points on the graph lie in the set: one side gives the value of the function $λ$ of the way along $[x_1,x_2]$, the other, the point that far along the segment joining two points on the line; the inequality says the point on the segment is above the graph, i.e. in the set.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Nov 24 at 13:30

























                            answered Nov 24 at 12:19









                            PJTraill

                            649518




                            649518















                                Popular posts from this blog

                                Сан-Квентин

                                Алькесар

                                Josef Freinademetz