5

I wish to find an example to show that the inclusion in the subdifferential sum rule

$$\partial{f(x)}+\partial{g(x)}\subseteq{\partial(f+g)(x)}$$

is strict. However, I have a problem understanding the way this inclusion is stated.

This inclusion in the subdifferential sum rule is taken from the book Convex Analysis by R. Tyrrell Rockafellar, Page 223, Theorem 23.8. This theorem says:

Let $f_1,f_2,\dots,f_m$ be proper convex functions on $\mathbb{R}^n$, and $f=f_1+f_2+\cdots+f_m$, then $\partial{f_1(x)}+\cdots+\partial{f_2(x)}\subset{\partial{f(x)}}~~~\forall{x}$.


It also says if the domains of the $f_i$s have common point, then the inclusion turns into equality. From what I understand, if the domains of the $f_i$s do not have common point, then the strict inclusion should hold. One of the many examples that I tried was the pair $\sqrt{1-x}$ and $\sqrt{x-2}$. These two functions do not have any point in common in their domains. However, I do not understand how we can add two functions whose domains do not overlap.

I have two main issues:

  1. Intuitively, the subset sign should be the other way around. In the last part of the answer to this question, there is an example where the inclusion is true for the case where the subset sign is the other way around. In addition, the example is in contradiction to the inclusion statement in the question.

  2. This might be an easy question, but how can we add two functions whose domains do not intersect?

Any insight and example that can help me understand this are really appreciated!

NBS
  • 103

2 Answers2

6

Re 2: If domains don't overlap, then the sum function is $+\infty$ everywhere.

Re 1: Consider two disks in $\mathbb{R}^2$ that touch in exactly one point. To be concrete, $$A = \text{ball of radius $1$ centred at $(-1,0)$ and $B=$ ball of radius $1$ centred at $(1,0)$}.$$ Note that $A\cap B = \{(0,0)\}$. Set $z := (0,0)\in\mathbb{R}^2$. Now define $$ f(x) = \begin{cases} 0, &\text{if $x\in A$;}\\ +\infty, &\text{else} \end{cases} \quad\text{and}\quad g(x)= \begin{cases} 0, &\text{if $x\in B$;}\\ +\infty, &\text{else.} \end{cases}$$ Note that $\partial f(z)=\mathbb{R}_+(1,0) = \{(\rho,0)\,|\,\rho\geq 0\}$ and $\partial g(z)=\mathbb{R}_+(-1,0) = \{(\rho,0)\,|\,\rho \leq 0\}$; thus, $$\partial f(z)+g(z) = \mathbb{R}_+(1,0) + \mathbb{R}_-(1,0) = \mathbb{R}\times\{0\}.$$ Moreover, $$ (f+g)(x) = f(x)+g(x) = \begin{cases} 0, &\text{if $x\in A\cap B=\{(0,0)\}$;}\\ +\infty, &\text{else.} \end{cases} $$ Hence $$\partial(f+g)(z) = \mathbb{R}^2$$ which is a strict superset of $\mathbb{R}\times\{0\}$.

Comments.
(1) The sum rule is true when the underlying space is just $\mathbb{R}$ as long as the domains of the subdifferential operators intersect. It fails for merely having the domains intersect, see example by @gerw below.
(2) The sum rule can fail as shown above even when the domains do intersect nontrivially.
(3) Finally, the sum rule holds when the domains overlap sufficiently (see Rockafellar's book for details involving say the relative interior or polyhedral functions).

max_zorn
  • 5,008
  • Can you please explain why the sum function is the indicator function $\mathbbm{1}{p}$ and how do you define your inclusion in the indicator function you are referring to as $\mathbbm{1}{p}$? – NBS Apr 23 '22 at 00:10
  • Thanks for clarification! Just to make sure, by $\mathbb{R}_ (1,0)$ you are excluding these two points? Also, if you have seen the post I linked, there is a counter example to this theorem. How should we justify that? – NBS Apr 23 '22 at 03:05
  • @NBS I've added more explanations of the notation. The post you linked to shows that the inclusion you have is always true but the example here shows that equality may fail. – max_zorn Apr 23 '22 at 03:15
  • Thank you so much! – NBS Apr 23 '22 at 03:24
  • The sum rule can already fail in one dimension if the domains intersect in exactly one point, see my answer. – gerw Apr 25 '22 at 07:10
  • @gerw is correct. I have modified my remark (1) accordingly. – max_zorn Apr 26 '22 at 08:38
  • @max_zorn. There is no condition on the domain of the sum rule in the theorem I mentioned. – NBS Apr 26 '22 at 20:48
4

Here is an example in $\mathbb R^1$: Define $$ f(x) = \begin{cases} -\sqrt{x} & \text{for } x \ge 0, \\ +\infty & \text{for } x < 0, \end{cases} $$ and $$ g(x) = \begin{cases} 0 & \text{for } x \le 0, \\ +\infty & \text{for } x > 0. \end{cases} $$ Thus, $f+g$ is the indicator function of $\{0\}$. Then, \begin{align*} \partial f(0) &= \emptyset, \\ \partial g(0) &= [0,\infty), \\ \partial f(0) + \partial g(0) &= \emptyset, \\ \partial (f+g)(0) &= \mathbb R. \end{align*}

gerw
  • 33,373
  • 1
    Excellent example! You can also use $g(x) = f(-x)$ for which $\partial g(0)=\emptyset$. – max_zorn Apr 26 '22 at 08:41
  • @gerw Thank you for the example! What still keeps me confused is that a theorem should be always true. This theorem, however, has a counterexample. The one in the answer to the question I linked in my question. Can you answer this question, please? – NBS Apr 26 '22 at 16:58
  • @NBS Can you rephrase what bothers you? You mention a theorem that should be true but there is a counterexample. If you talk about the inclusion in the linked post, then indeed this inclusion is always true (and there is no counterexample). – max_zorn Apr 26 '22 at 17:27
  • @max_zorn For the case $f_1(x)=\max{0,x}$ and $f_2(x)=-f_1(-x)$. at $x=0$, $\partial{(f_1+f_2)}(0)={1}$, and $\partial{f_1}(0)+\partial{f_2}(0)=[0,2]$. Is it not a counterexample to the theorem? I took this example from link. – NBS Apr 26 '22 at 20:45
  • 2
    In your example, $f_2$ is not convex. – gerw Apr 27 '22 at 06:59