5

Let $K\subset\mathbb{R}^n$ be a non-empty convex set. Let $\pi_K$ be the projection onto $K$, that is, $$\pi_K(x)=\mathrm{argmin}_{k\in\mathbb{R}^n}\{\|x-k\|_2:k\in K\}.$$ Let $\|\cdot\|_2$ denote the Euclidean $2$-norm. I want to show that for all $x,y\in\mathbb{R}^n$, we have $$\|\pi_K(x)-\pi_K(y)\|_2\le \|x-y\|_2.$$

An article I am reading claims this is trivial, but I'm not sure how to proceed. It seems intuitively true if $K$ is a projection onto a subspace, say onto $K=\mathrm{span}(e_1,\dots,e_k)$ for some $k<n$ (since in the last few coordinates, nothing is contributing to the $2$-norm).

2 Answers2

5

(This is a rewrite of an egregiously incorrect previous answer.)

I have always found the usual proof of this fact a little unsatisfactory and lacking in geometric intuition. Here is a more intuitive proof.

$K$ needs to be closed to ensure that a $\min$ exists.

We can assume that $\pi_K(x) \neq \pi_X(y)$ otherwise the result is trivial.

Let $L$ be the line $p(t) = \pi_K(x)+t (\pi_K(y)-\pi_K(y))$ and let $P$ be the orthogonal projection onto this line. It is straightforward to show that $\|P\| = 1$, and hence $\|Px-Py\| \le \|x-y\|$. This is the essential fact here.

Let $t_x,t_y$ be such that $p(t_x) = Px, p(t_y) = Py$. Note that we must have $t_x \le 0$ and $t_y \ge 1$, as otherwise the definition of $\pi_K(x)$ or $\pi_K(y)$ would be contradicted. Then $\|Px-Py\| = \|p(t_x)-p(t_y)\| = (t_y-t_x) \| \pi_K(x)-\pi_K(y)\| \ge \| \pi_K(x)-\pi_K(y)\|$.

Addendum:

To see why $t_x \le 0$, let $\phi(t)=\|x-p(t)\|^2 = \|x-Px\|^2+(t-t_x)^2\|\pi(x)-\pi(y)\|^2$.

Note that $\phi$ is convex, strictly decreasing for $t \le t_x$ and strictly increasing for $t \ge t_x$. Also note that $p(t) \in K$ for $t \in [0,1]$ so $\phi(t) \ge \phi(0)$ on $t \in [0,1]$.

In particular, we must have $t_x \le 0$ otherwise $\phi$ would be strictly decreasing on $[0,t_x]$ which would be a contradiction.

copper.hat
  • 178,207
  • 1
    Well, any norm and projection $\pi_K$ that satisfies the above will give the above result, but it does not hold for an arbitrary norm. At a minimum, the minimiser must be unique. – copper.hat Jun 24 '19 at 00:27
  • 1
    You can't take $c =x$ ! – Red shoes Jun 24 '19 at 19:01
  • @Redshoes: Silly me. Will fix. – copper.hat Jun 24 '19 at 19:04
  • Hmm. I can't delete my answer. – copper.hat Jun 24 '19 at 19:05
  • I dont care :) The thing is that My intuition tells me that this claim is not true for any arbitrary norm ! At least not true with lipschitz constant 1. So any proof using only the norm of the space might be incorrect. that's made me go through your proof and find the draw back. – Red shoes Jun 24 '19 at 19:13
  • Thanks for catching the issue @Red shoes. I was too suspicious about the 'any norm' part since the paper I'm reading is trying to prove it holds for general norms! This makes more sense – FakeAnalyst56 Jun 24 '19 at 19:14
  • It is not true for an arbitrary norm, it is easy to create a counterexample with the 1 or $\infty$ norm. – copper.hat Jun 24 '19 at 19:17
  • I have added a completely different proof. – copper.hat Jun 25 '19 at 14:13
5

Note that since $K$ is convex from definition of the projection you have for all $k \in K$ and $\lambda \in (0 ,1)$ that $$ \| x - \pi_{K} (x) \|^2 \leq \|x -(\lambda k +(1- \lambda) \pi_{K} (x)) \|^2 = \| x - \pi_{K} (x) - \lambda (k - \pi_{K} (x)) \|^2$$ By opening up the above norm-squared and letting $\lambda \to 0$, you can conclude that $$ \langle x - \pi_{K} (x) \; , \; k - \pi_{K} (x) \rangle \leq 0 \quad \quad \forall k\in K $$ similarly $$ \langle y - \pi_{K} (y) \; , \; k - \pi_{K} (y) \rangle \leq 0 \quad \quad \forall k\in K $$

Now by settting $k = \pi_{K} (y)$ in first inequality and then $k = \pi_{K} (x)$ in the second inequality, afteradding later inequality we have $$ \langle x-y + (\pi_{K}(y) - \pi_{K} (x) ) \; , \; \pi_{K}(y) - \pi_{K} (x) \rangle \leq 0 $$ Thus $$ \| \pi_{K}(y) - \pi_{K} (x)\|^2 \leq \langle x-y \; , \; \pi_{K}(y) - \pi_{K} (x) \rangle \leq \; \| y -x \| \; \| \pi_{K}(y) - \pi_{K} (x)\| $$ This gives you the desired inequality.

Red shoes
  • 7,184