Biconjugate 2026-10-06
The biconjugate of is the convex conjugate of its convex conjugate:It is the supremum of all affine minorants. For a proper function with an affine minorant, the Fenchel-Moreau theorem identifies it with the closed convex envelope; a proper lower semicontinuous convex function equals its biconjugate.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 65 1 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
For an extended-real function define its Fenchel conjugate by and its biconjugate by . The Fenchel-Moreau theorem states, in the standard proper-envelope setting,Here the right side is the largest lower semicontinuous convex function below , equivalently the function whose epigraph is the closed convex hull of . It is enough to assume is proper and has an affine minorant, ensuring this envelope is proper. In particular, for a proper convex function that is lower semicontinuous, .
First, by the definition of the convex conjugate. The biconjugate is a supremum of continuous affine functions, so it is convex, lower semicontinuous and no greater than . Second, the best intercept for an affine minorant with slope is : for all precisely when . Thus is the supremum of all affine minorants.
To prove that no part of the closed convex envelope is missed, set . The half-space representation of a closed convex set from part (a), applied in , separates any from by an inequality . Because is upward closed, . If , division by gives an affine minorant with .
A vertical separator has . Let be an existing affine minorant. Combine with to obtainSince , a sufficiently small positive makes this affine function exceed . Thus vertical half-spaces can be approximated by nonvertical epigraph supports. Every point below the envelope is excluded by an affine minorant, so the supremum of these minorants is exactly the envelope. This is the decisive use of part (a).
Properness and the minorant convention matter for unrestricted extended-real functions. For example, on has no affine minorant; and . With the corresponding improper-envelope convention its closed convex envelope is also . The theorem should not silently describe such an envelope as proper. The identically function is another degenerate case, handled separately by extended-real conventions.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 65 3 b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Fix and minimize . A proper lower semicontinuous convex function has an affine minorant , as follows by separating a point below its closed epigraph. HenceThe quadratic dominates the linear term, proving coercivity. Properness supplies at least one finite trial value, lower semicontinuity passes to limits, and finite-dimensional compactness makes a bounded minimizing sequence converge along a subsequence to a minimizer. Thus the proximal operator exists at every .
The subdifferential sum rule applies because the quadratic is finite and continuous everywhere. The Fermat rule for convex minimization givesThus the minimizer lies in . The uniqueness proved in part (a), or strict convexity of the quadratic sum, now yieldsThis proof displays the separate roles of properness, lower semicontinuity, convexity and finite dimension. In particular, compactness here is not inferred merely from strict convexity.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2016 iii Paper 325 1 iii Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
Use the conventionThis proximal map is also the resolvent of a monotone operator . A proper lower semicontinuous convex function has an affine minorant, so the quadratic term makes this minimization coercive and strongly convex. A unique minimizer exists for every . Its subgradient optimality condition isThe Moreau–Yosida regularisation is . The conjugate of an infimal convolution and the quadratic conjugate giveThe factor here is essential. Apply subgradient inversion under convex conjugacy, followed by the subdifferential sum rule with the everywhere differentiable quadratic:The last equivalence is precisely the unique proximal minimization condition. ThusThis proves both existence and uniqueness of the subgradient, rather than only identifying a possible element. The finite convex function is therefore differentiable, with , the gradient of a Moreau envelope.
For completeness, monotonicity of applied to the two proximal conditions givesHence is firmly nonexpansive. Expanding the same inequality shows that is firmly nonexpansive too. In particular, is -Lipschitz continuous. None of this requires a bounded effective domain; the result applies to the next example as well.