13

The only proof of Jensen inequality (and most general version) that I know is a direct consequence of the Fenchel-Moreau Theorem : If $X$ is a locally convex Hausdorff topological space, let $\mu$ be a Borel probability measure and $x\in X$ be such that for all continuous linear functional $x^\ast\in X^\ast$, $\int_X \langle y,x^\ast\rangle~d\mu=\langle x,x^\ast\rangle$ then we say that $\mu$ averages to $x$, in symbol $\mu\sim x$. The Fenchel-Moreau theorem states that the bidual of a proper l.s.c. convex function $f$ is the function itself. Recall that $f^\ast(x^\ast)=\sup_{x\in X} \langle x,x^\ast \rangle-f(x)$ and $f^{\ast\ast}(x)=\sup_{x^\ast\in X^\ast} \langle x,x^\ast\rangle-f^\ast(x^\ast)$, the theorem states that on $X$, $f=f^{\ast\ast}$.

Suppose that $\mu\sim x$ and $f$ is a proper l.s.c. convex function, then by Fenchel's inequality, for any $y\in X$ and any $x^\ast\in X^\ast$, $\langle y,x^\ast\rangle\leq f(y)+f^\ast(x^\ast)$, taking the integral over $\mu$ we get \begin{align*} \langle x,x^\ast\rangle &= \int_X \langle y,x^\ast\rangle d\mu(y)\\ &\leq \int_X \left[f(y)+f^\ast(x^\ast)\right] d\mu(y)\\ &= \int_X f ~d\mu + f^\ast(x^\ast) \end{align*} and therefore $\langle x,x^\ast\rangle-f^\ast(x^\ast)\leq \int_X f ~d\mu$ for all $x^\ast\in X^\ast$, taking the supremum of the LHS over $x^\ast\in X^\ast$ we get $f(x)=f^{\ast\ast}(x)\leq \int_X f~d\mu$.


I am wondering if the result can be extended to any measurable convex function and if there is any literature on the subject. Is there something like

For any Borel probability measure $\mu$ such that $\mu\sim x\in X$ and any bounded measurable convex functional $f:X\to\mathbb R$, $f(x)\leq \int_X f~d\mu$.

Or is there any reason to believe that this would be false ? Also if true can we generalize to other measurable spaces $X$ where all points can be separated by measurable linear functional ?


I think that I have a hint of proof whenever $X$ is a convex open subset of a Banach space and $f$ is a bounded convex functional, I think this is along the lines of what @MaoWao suggests. I would like to generalize this proof to the case where $X$ is a closed and bounded subset of a Banach space. We prove that in this case $f$ is actually lower semi continuous, by way of contradiction. Suppose that there is $x\in X$ and $x_n\to x$ such that $\liminf_n f(x_n) =f(x)-\delta$ with $\delta>0$ (which we want to contradict). Since $X$ is an open set, there is $\varepsilon>0$ such that $B_{2\varepsilon}(x)\subseteq X$, for any $n$, define $y_n=x-\varepsilon\frac{x_n-x}{\| x_n-x \|}\in B_{2\varepsilon}$, in particular $y_n\in X$. Observe that for any $n$, $x= (1-\alpha_n)x_n + \alpha_n y_n$ with $\alpha_n=\frac{\| x_n-x\|}{\|x_n-x\|+\varepsilon}$ and therefore by convexity, \begin{align*} \Leftrightarrow&&(\| x_n-x\|+\varepsilon)f(x) &\leq \varepsilon f(x_n)+\| x_n-x\| f(y_n)\\ \Leftrightarrow&&\|x_n-x\| f(x) +\varepsilon (f(x)-f(x_n))\leq \|x_n-x\| f(y_n)\\ \Rightarrow && 0<\varepsilon \delta \leq \liminf_n\|x_n-x\| f(y_n)\\ \end{align*} But if $f$ is bounded then the RHS is $0$ which is a contradiction. Now since $f$ is l.s.c. then Jensen inequality applies and we are done.

I am much more interested in the case where $X$ is a closed, convex and bounded subset of Banach space, in this case it feels like a similar argument could be made by working in the largest relatively open subset of $X$ containing $x$, i.e. the largest set containing $x$ in it's relative interior, but there are many point I do not master here, any reference on that would be welcome, the only one I know is Rockafelar for finite dimension.

P. Quinton
  • 6,249
  • It is likely that this question can be challenging. If there's no luck here, you could try on MathOverflow. – Snoop Oct 12 '22 at 11:15
  • Do you want any measurable convex function or any bounded measurable function? That makes a huge difference. If a convex function on an arbitrary TVS is only bounded on a non-empty open set, it is continuous everywhere. – MaoWao Oct 12 '22 at 14:47
  • @MaoWao In my particular setting I am interested in a bounded measurable convex function on a bounded subset of Banach space. I think that your comment implies for this setting that (even without measurability) the function is lower semi continuous. Is that right ? Is there any reference I could read on the subject ? – P. Quinton Oct 12 '22 at 19:02
  • @P.Quinton The subset needs to be open (and convex of course), that's very important for this result. And yes, such a function is necessarily lower semicontinuous, but much more than that, even locally Lipschitz. You can find a proof here: http://users.mat.unimi.it/users/libor/AnConvessa/continuity_all.pdf. I don't have a good book reference for this kind of questions at hand. – MaoWao Oct 13 '22 at 15:52
  • See also here: http://individual.utoronto.ca/jordanbell/notes/semicontinuous.pdf There are some references, which I cannot check right now. – MaoWao Oct 13 '22 at 15:55
  • For non-open subsets, even lower semicontinuity can easily fail. For example, $1_{{0}}$ is convex and bounded on $[0,1]$, but not lower semicontinuous. – MaoWao Oct 13 '22 at 16:12
  • @MaoWao this is very interesting thank you I will take a look at the sources, interestingly enough for the $\mathbf 1_{{0}}$, it is still measurable and satisfy Jensen inequality, in general on $[0,1]$, bounded convex functions are of the form $f+a\mathbf 1_{{0}}+b \mathbf 1_{{1}}$ for some continuous convex function and some $a$ and $b$ positive, all of those are fine. It would be really cool to be able to conclude that bounded convex implies both measurable and Jensen, it also feels like this can be proven easilty for relative interiors. – P. Quinton Oct 14 '22 at 08:55

0 Answers0