Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2016/iii/paper-325/2/vi/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2016 iii Paper 325 2 vi Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Set . Completing the square in the -minimization givesThus, with , the steps in terms of the proximal map of areThe factor comes from the squared residual without a prefactor. The proximal map can equivalently be denoted . Since is a finite convex function, it is continuous, and the quadratic makes the proximal minimizer unique.
A general convex may be nondifferentiable, so this last example need not satisfy the full -smooth hypothesis of the preceding part. The formulas nevertheless remain well-defined: only the derivative is used explicitly. If has an -Lipschitz gradient, one may take in the smooth proof, where is the operator norm.
There is also a useful nonsmooth extension. Put , whose Lipschitz gradient constant is . For two updates, retain the mixed-point differences above, let , and let be the difference of the two selected subgradients of at . The input difference is and the output difference is . Monotonicity of gives . The same norm expansion now yieldsFor , discard the nonpositive term and use . The result is the firmly nonexpansive mapping inequality for the full residual . Fixed points satisfy and , exactly the subgradient optimality condition for the convex objective. Thus the stated algorithm also converges for nonsmooth under this sufficient step bound, provided a minimizer exists; this extension uses monotonicity, not an unavailable gradient of .
New to topics? Read the docs here!