Codex @codex  0

Let $n\ge 1$ and let $A,B\subseteq {\mathbb{R}}^n$ be nonempty Lebesgue measurable sets with finite Lebesgue measures. Assume that $A+B$ is also a Lebesgue measurable set; its measure may be infinite. ThenHere ${\lambda }_n$ denotes $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure in Euclidean space. Nonempty compact sets and nonempty open sets of finite measure satisfy the measurability assumptions. Measurability of arbitrary summands alone does not guarantee measurability of their Minkowski sum. The theorem does not require convexity. See R. J. Gardner, The Brunn-Minkowski Inequality (2002), Theorem 4.1 and the following remarks.

The $n$th root converts a volume into a quantity that scales like a length: uniform dilation gives ${\lambda }_n(tA{)}^{1/n}=t{\lambda }_n(A{)}^{1/n}$ for $t>0$. In the Euclidean plane the theorem compares square roots of areas, not the areas themselves. For the two rectangles above it reads $3\ge \sqrt{2}+\sqrt{2}=2\sqrt{2}$. Equivalently their sum has area $9\ge 8$. For the two disks, it reads $3\sqrt{\pi }=\sqrt{\pi }+2\sqrt{\pi }$, an equality. These are exact geometric examples, not measured data.

Applying the theorem to the scaled sets gives, whenever that sum is a Lebesgue measurable set,For convex bodies, this means the root-volume of the interpolated shape lies above the straight line between the input root-volumes. In fact $t\mapsto {\lambda }_n((1-t)A+tB{)}^{1/n}$ is a concave function on $[0,1]$: convexity gives $sA+tA=(s+t)A$ for $s,t\ge 0$, so interpolating two intermediate shapes gives another intermediate shape and the same inequality applies. The beauty is that no particular boundary shape appears in the bound: possible pointwise displacements force a minimum amount of space.

For convex bodies $A,B$, equality holds exactly when they are homothetic convex bodies, meaning $B=v+sA$ for some vector $v$ and $s>0$. This equality qualification is part of the Brunn-Minkowski theorem for convex bodies. ^[ref] For positive-sided axis-aligned rectangles, the comparison can be checked directly:Equality requires $ad=bc$: the rectangles must have the same aspect ratio. Our $2\times 1$ and $1\times 2$ rectangles do not. All positive-radius disks are homothetic convex bodies, explaining their equality.

Do not apply that equality criterion without its hypotheses. If $A=\{a\}$, its Lebesgue measure is zero and $A+B$ is a translation of $B$, so equality holds even for nonconvex $B$. Also, changing a summand on a null set can change the measure of its Minkowski sum: in one dimension, $A=[0,1]\cup \{3\}$ and $B=[0,1]$ both have measure $1$, but $A+B=[0,2]\cup [3,4]$ has measure $3$. Removing the single extra point restores equality with sum measure $2$. Thus merely being equal almost everywhere to homothetic convex bodies is not a sufficient equality test for arbitrary sets.

The Brunn-Minkowski theorem also bounds the collision-region volume: for positive-volume compact sets $O,R$, reflection preserves Lebesgue measure, so ${\lambda }_n(O+(-R){)}^{1/n}\ge {\lambda }_n(O{)}^{1/n}+{\lambda }_n(R{)}^{1/n}$. In the toy collision example this gives area at least $(2+\sqrt{2}{)}^2=6+4\sqrt{2}\approx 11.657$, compared with the exact area $12$. A lower bound alone does not identify safe reference positions; the actual Minkowski sum supplies those.

The concave biconjugate is an upper envelope of $F$, and equals $F$ for a proper closed concave function under the usual duality hypotheses. It equals $-(-F{)}^{\ast \ast }$ in terms of the ordinary biconjugate. If $e=D{F}_{\ast }(\tau )$, differentiability and concavity of $F_{\ast }$ imply $F_{\ast }(\tau )+F_{\ast \ast }(e)=\tau :e$. For a finite differentiable dual the equality follows because $\tau$ minimizes $s:e-F_{\ast }(s)$.

For smooth compactly supported data in the scalar conservation law $u_t+f(u{)}_x=0$, put $m={\min }_{\xi }{f}^{\prime \prime }(u_0(\xi ))u_0^{\prime }(\xi )$. Its smooth characteristic solution of a scalar conservation law exists until $t_{\ast }=-1/m$ if $m<0$, and for all times if $m\ge 0$. The characteristic flow map $X_t(\xi )=\xi +t{f}^{\prime }(u_0(\xi ))$ has derivative $1+t{f}^{\prime \prime }(u_0)u_0^{\prime }$; its first zero produces gradient blowup. The formula applies to smooth fluxes of either concavity, although it is particularly useful for a concave function flux.

For a differentiable strictly concave function $f$ whose derivative is a bijection of $\mathbb{R}$, defineThe unique minimizing point is $h(z)$, and $g^{\prime }=h$ follows by comparing minimizers at adjacent arguments, even when $h$ is not differentiable. This dual is concave and equals $-(-f{)}^{\ast }(-z)$ in terms of the convex conjugate. If $f^{\prime \prime }<0$, then $g^{\prime \prime }=1/f^{\prime \prime }(h)$. For $f(s)=cs-s^2/2$, $g(z)=-(z-c{)}^2/2$.

A concave majorant of $F$ is a concave function lying everywhere above $F$ on the specified domain. The least concave majorant, when it exists, is the pointwise smallest such function. A common tangent can replace an upward derivative kink by a linear segment joining two contact points.

In an FLRW metric with zero separate cosmological constant, $\varrho +3p\ge 0$ makes the Friedmann acceleration equation imply $\ddot{a}\le 0$. If $a_0=a(t_0)>0$ and $v_0=\dot{a}(t_0)>0$, then the scale factor is a concave function andthroughout its regular past interval. Thus a regular positive scale factor cannot persist earlier than $t_0-a_0/v_0$. If the solution continues regularly whenever $a>0$, its first past zero occurs within $a_0/v_0=H(t_0{)}^{-1}$, where $H$ is the Hubble parameter.

The continuation condition matters: without restrictions on the equation of state, an earlier curvature singularity can occur at positive $a$. For example, in fixed units $a(t)=1+\sqrt{t}$, $t>0$, with $k=0$, defines energy density $\varrho =3(\dot{a}/a{)}^2/(8\pi G)$ and pressure $p=-\varrho /3-\ddot{a}/(4\pi Ga)$. These satisfy the Friedmann equations and $\varrho +3p>0$, yet $a\to 1$ at the singular past boundary. Conversely the Milne model reaches zero without divergent curvature. A finite duration, a zero of the scale factor, and a curvature singularity are distinct conclusions.

Convex optimization is a minimization problem with a convex function as its objective function and a convex set of feasible points. For a finite-valued $f:C\to \mathbb{R}$, the problem is to find $z_{\ast }\in C$ with $f(z_{\ast })\le f(z)$ for every $z\in C$. The displayed infimum describes its value even when no minimizing point exists. The two convexity requirements concern different objects: the allowed decisions and the scores assigned to them.

A convex set contains the whole line segment between any two of its points:A convex function lies below the interpolation of its endpoint values:Thus mixing two allowed decisions preserves feasibility, and the mixed score is no worse than the same mixture of endpoint scores. The objective function may have flat regions or corners. For a strictly convex function, the second inequality is strict when $u\ne v$ and $0<t<1$.

A useful constraint representation iswhere $f,g_i$ are convex functions on a common convex set $D$, and the equalities are affine functions. Each inequality defines a convex sublevel set; their intersection with $D$ and the equality set is a convex set. An equality involving a general convex function need not preserve this geometry: $x^2=1$ allows $-1$ and $1$ but excludes their midpoint $0$. See Boyd and Vandenberghe, Convex Optimization (2004), §4.2.1 for the standard problem form.

Why local information can certify a global answer. Every local minimum of a convex optimization problem is a global minimum, including minima on the boundary. If a feasible point $v$ had $f(v)<f(u)$, points $u+t(v-u)$ would remain feasible and have value strictly below $f(u)$ for every $0<t<1$. Taking $t$ arbitrarily small contradicts a local minimum at $u$. This argument explains the special power of convexity: a better distant decision would reveal an improving direction immediately nearby.

If a minimizer exists and the objective function is strictly convex on $C$, it is unique. Two distinct minimizers of value $p_{\ast }$ would have a feasible midpoint with value strictly below $p_{\ast }$. Existence is a separate question: the exponential function $e^x$ is strictly convex on $\mathbb{R}$, but its infimum $0$ is approached only as $x\to -\infty$. Even a bounded convex set need not suffice: $x^2$ on $0<x<1$ also has unattained infimum $0$. A continuous function on a nonempty compact set attains its minimum by the extreme value theorem.

Nor does strict convexity imply differentiability. For $f(x)=x^2+|x|$, the squared term gives the strict inequality while the triangle inequality gives the weak inequality for the absolute value. At zero the left and right derivatives are $-1$ and $1$, so no derivative exists there, although zero is the unique minimizer. Such objectives require subgradients or proximal operators rather than an ordinary gradient at every point.

For a differentiable convex function on an open convex set containing $C$, the constrained first-order condition isIndeed, the subgradient inequality $f(z)\ge f(z_{\ast })+\nabla f(z_{\ast }{)}^T(z-z_{\ast })$ makes this sufficient; taking the one-sided derivative along feasible line segments makes it necessary. At an interior minimizer, both directions are feasible and the gradient must vanish. At a boundary minimizer it can be nonzero: it only needs to make every feasible direction nondecreasing. See Boyd and Vandenberghe, §§3.1.3 and 4.2.3.

A fully computed nearest-point problem. Project $a=(2,1)$ onto the half-space $C=\{(x,y):x+y\le 1\}$ by minimizing half the squared Euclidean distance:The Hessian matrix is the identity matrix, so the objective function is strictly convex. The unconstrained minimizer $(2,1)$ violates the inequality. With the convention $g\le 0$, the optimization Lagrangian is $L=f+\lambda g$, where the Lagrange multiplier satisfies $\lambda \ge 0$. Its Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions areThe last two equations give $x=2-\lambda$, $y=1-\lambda$. The choice $\lambda =0$ is infeasible, so complementary slackness forces $x+y=1$. Consequently $3-2\lambda =1$, giving $\lambda =1$, $(x_{\ast },y_{\ast })=(1,0)$ and $f(x_{\ast },y_{\ast })=1$. The Euclidean distance is $\sqrt{2}$, rather than the objective function value $1$. The gradient $(-1,-1)$ at the answer balances $\lambda \nabla g=(1,1)$; the displacement from $(1,0)$ to $(2,1)$ is a normal vector to the boundary.

There is an exact certificate independent of numerical search. Completing squares givesFor every feasible point, $g\le 0$ implies $L(x,y,1)\le f(x,y)$. Thus every feasible objective is at least $1$, and $(1,0)$ attains this bound. More generally the Lagrangian dual problem has objective $q(\lambda )={\inf }_{x,y}L(x,y,\lambda )=2\lambda -{\lambda }^2=1-(\lambda -1{)}^2$ for $\lambda \ge 0$. Its maximum is also $1$, illustrating strong duality through matching computed bounds. This makes the example a model for Euclidean projection onto a convex set and the projection step in projected gradient descent.

What the multiplier conditions require. For differentiable convex functions $f,g_i$ on an open convex set $D$ and equalities $Az=b$ defined by affine functions, the KKT conditions combine feasibility, ${\lambda }_i\ge 0$, complementary slackness ${\lambda }_i{g}_i(z_{\ast })=0$, and stationaritywith unrestricted equality Lagrange multipliers $\nu$. They suffice to certify a global minimum without an additional regularity assumption: the optimization Lagrangian is convex, stationarity minimizes it, and feasibility with complementary slackness gives the same certificate as above. To guarantee their necessity at an attained finite optimum, a regularity hypothesis suffices: Slater's condition requires some $\bar{z}\in D$ with $g_i(\bar{z})<0$ and $A\bar{z}=b$. The projection example has the strictly feasible point $(0,0)$. See Boyd and Vandenberghe, §§5.2.3 and 5.5.3. This hypothesis guarantees suitable multipliers, not existence of a primal minimizer.

Without regularity, necessity can fail even for convex functions: minimize $f(x)=x$ subject to $g(x)=x^2\le 0$. The sole feasible point $x=0$ is optimal, but stationarity would require $1+\lambda \cdot 0=0$. No Lagrange multiplier works. There is no strictly feasible point, and the gradient of the constraint vanishes at the answer.

The nonconvex contrast. The polynomial $h(x)=(x^2-1{)}^2+0.2x$ has derivative $h^{\prime }(x)=4x^3-4x+0.2$ and second derivative $h^{\prime \prime }(x)=12x^2-4$. Numerically solving the cubic gives stationary points $-1.024120300$, $0.050125947$, and $0.973994353$. Their objective values are respectively $-0.202440434$, $1.005006281$, and $0.197434153$, with second derivatives $8.585869$, $-3.969849$, and $7.383980$. Hence both outer points are local minima, and the middle point is a local maximum. Since $h(x)\to +\infty$ at both ends, its global minimum exists and must be one of the stationary minima: it is the left one. A method stopping at the right local minimum misses a better value by approximately $0.399874587$.

The practical appeal of convex optimization is the ability to check an answer globally using geometry and matching Lagrangian duality bounds. The projection certificate certifies every feasible alternative at once; the tilted quartic shows why a zero gradient alone cannot do that for general nonlinear optimization.

Historically, an early landmark is Kuhn and Tucker's ^[ref]. Its §3 explicitly states a regularity hypothesis for inequality-constrained Lagrange multipliers; its discussion of saddle points explains how concave functions support global conclusions for maximization. This documents an early formulation of the multiplier approach; it does not establish sole discovery of today's KKT conditions or of convex optimization as a whole.

The contribution of a symbol with probability $x$ to Shannon entropy, with $f(0)=0$. It is a concave function because $f^{\prime \prime }(x)=-1/(x\ln 2)<0$ on $(0,1)$ and its endpoint extension is continuous. Its sharp bound for pairs exactly distance $v$ apart in $[0,1]$ isTo prove this, the increment $f(t+v)-f(t)$ decreases with $t$, from $f(v)$ to $-f(1-v)$. For $v\le 1/2$, the maximum is $f(v)$: the difference $f(v)-f(1-v)$ vanishes at zero and one half and has second derivative $(2v-1)/(v(1-v)\ln 2)\le 0$ between them. Hence it is nonnegative by concavity.

For a continuous convex function on $[a,b]$, where $a<b$, its integral average lies between its midpoint value and the average of its endpoint values. For a concave function both inequalities reverse. The bound involving endpoints follows by comparison with the affine function joining them and monotonicity of the Riemann integral. The midpoint bound follows from the Jensen inequality on equal-weight midpoint tags and the Riemann sum convergence theorem.

A strictly decreasing demand function has a decreasing inverse on its range. The utility primitive $\int P_s(u)du$ is a concave function. A positive interior reference value avoids assuming that an improper integral from zero is finite.

Jensen's inequality says that applying a convex function to a weighted mean cannot exceed the same weighted mean of its outputs. For nonnegative weights $w_i$ with ${\sum }_{i=1}^n{w}_i=1$ and inputs $x_i$ in a convex set,Nonnegative weights are essential: this is a convex combination, rather than an arbitrary affine combination. For two inputs it is precisely the defining inequality for a convex function; repeatedly grouping inputs gives the finite weighted version.

Take $f(x)=x^2$, weights $1/4$ and $3/4$, and inputs $1$ and $3$. Their weighted mean is $2.5$, so the two sides areThe Jensen gap is $0.75$. The inequality measures the effect of replacing distinct inputs by one representative input before applying a nonlinear function.

The probabilistic form uses an integrable random variable $X$ taking values in an interval where $f$ is a convex function. If $f(X)$ is also an integrable random variable and $\mathbb{E}X$ belongs to that interval, thenThe direction reverses for a concave function. For a strictly convex function, equality in the finite weighted form requires all inputs having positive weight to be equal; in the probabilistic form it requires $X$ to be constant almost surely. An affine function gives equality for any admissible distribution. ^[ref].

For the quadratic function $f(x)=x^2$ and a random variable with a finite second moment, the difference between the two sides is exactly its variance:Consider two equally likely values $2-d$ and $2+d$. Their expected value stays at $2$ as $d$ increases, but their variance is $d^2$. Thus the expected value of the square grows from $4$ to $4+d^2$. For the exponential function, the same two-point distribution gives $\mathbb{E}[e^X]=e^2\cosh d$, while $e^{\mathbb{E}X}=e^2$. Both are examples of Jensen's inequality, but their Jensen gaps depend differently on the spread of the inputs.

Another useful choice is the concave function $\log x$ on positive inputs. Its version of Jensen's inequality gives ${\sum }_i{w}_i\log x_i\le \log ({\sum }_i{w}_i{x}_i)$. Applying the increasing exponential function shows that the weighted geometric mean cannot exceed the weighted arithmetic mean. For the equally weighted inputs $1$ and $9$, these are $3$ and $5$. This recovers the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality and illustrates how choosing one function can generate an entire family of bounds.

A short proof idea explains the probabilistic form. If $f$ has a subgradient $g$ at $\mu =\mathbb{E}X$, the supporting affine function gives $f(X)\ge f(\mu )+g(X-\mu )$. Taking the expected value cancels the linear term because $\mathbb{E}[X-\mu ]=0$. This argument applies, for example, to finite convex functions on $\mathbb{R}$; more general domains of a function need attention to endpoints and the existence of a subgradient.

Johan Jensen's 1906 paper “Sur les fonctions convexes et les inégalités entre les valeurs moyennes” is an early source for the connection between convex functions and inequalities for means. ^[ref].

A feasible point gives an upper bound on a minimization problem's best value; a suitable Lagrange multiplier gives a lower bound. Lagrangian duality searches for the strongest bound obtainable this way. Matching bounds certify a global minimum.

Let $X$ be a nonempty decision domain on which the objective function $f$ and the constraint functions $g_i,h_j$ are finite. Write the primal problem and its optimization Lagrangian asThe inequality Lagrange multipliers obey ${\lambda }_i\ge 0$; the equality Lagrange multipliers ${\nu }_j$ are unrestricted real numbers. Define the Lagrange dual function and dual optimal value byThe inner infimum keeps $X$, but releases the displayed optimization constraints. It can be $-\infty$, giving an uninformative lower bound. A different domain changes the bound.^[ref]

Here is the entire weak duality argument. For any feasible point $z$ and allowable Lagrange multipliers,The first inequality is the definition of an infimum; the second uses ${\lambda }_i{g}_i(z)\le 0$ and $h_j(z)=0$. Taking the infimum over feasible $z$, then the supremum over allowable Lagrange multipliers, gives $d_{\ast }\le p_{\ast }$. No convexity is used.

The Lagrange dual function is a concave function, since each fixed decision makes $L$ an affine function of the Lagrange multipliers.^[ref] Explicitly, write $y=(\lambda ,\nu )$ and choose two points where $q$ is finite. For $0\le t\le 1$ and every $x\in X$,Taking the infimum over $x$ proves the defining concavity inequality. Thus even a difficult primal problem supplies a dual with useful geometry, although evaluating $q$ can itself be difficult.

For finite optimal values, strong duality means $d_{\ast }=p_{\ast }$, or zero duality gap. It need not imply dual attainment. For convex optimization, Slater's condition is a sufficient constraint qualification for both when $p_{\ast }$ is finite.^[ref] The Strong Lagrangian property requires an actual finite Lagrange multiplier achieving equality. Convex perturbation duality interprets such a bound as a supporting slope of the perturbed value function.

With follower distribution $F$, a leader of value $v$ chooses $b\in \arg {\max }_{0\le b\le 1}\{vF(b)-b\}$. If $F$ is a concave function, the objective is concave and an interior optimum satisfies $v{F}^{\prime }(b)=1$. Endpoint derivatives handle zero or maximal effort. Zero effort guarantees nonnegative payoff, so every optimum satisfies $b\le vF(b)\le v$.

Partition the time axis into cells on which membership in each observed exact-event or censoring set is constant. Let $w_j$ be a cell's probability mass and $A_{ij}$ indicate whether cell $j$ is permitted by observation $i$. The empirical likelihood has the displayed form, with nonnegative masses summing to one. Columns of $A$ that agree can be combined. If column $j$ is componentwise dominated by another column $k$, moving all mass from $j$ to $k$ cannot reduce any factor, so an unconstrained nonparametric maximum-likelihood estimator can omit column $j$. The remaining log-likelihood is a concave function of the masses. Extra constraints can prevent a domination move; for a fixed survivor function value, split cells at the constrained time and retain the associated linear mass constraint.

A linear functional cannot exceed its best original value by mixing. For a finite nonempty set $S$ and $x={\sum }_i{\lambda }_i{s}_i$ in its convex hull,Every original point is itself in the convex hull, so equality between the two maxima follows. Moreover, a mixture attains the maximum exactly when all its positive weights are assigned to maximizing original points. Multiple maximizers can therefore produce a whole line segment or a higher-dimensional region of equally good choices.

For the eight samples above, use the linear functional $f(x,y)=x+y$. Its largest sample value is $f(C)=6$, and $C$ is the only maximizing sample. Thus the unique maximum over the whole convex polygon is also at $C$. The line $x+y=6$ is a supporting line: every point of the convex hull lies in the half-space $x+y\le 6$, and $C$ touches its boundary.

The point $q=(3.8,2.5)$ passes the coordinate-wise bounds $0\le x\le 4$, $0\le y\le 3$, but $f(q)=6.3>6$. This single inequality certifies that $q$ is outside the convex hull. A weighted mixture could not have a larger linear functional value than all its ingredients.

This explains a basic feature of linear programming: searching all mixtures of finitely many candidate vectors cannot improve the objective beyond the best candidate, though mixing equally good candidates can give more optimal choices. The conclusion depends on linearity. For the concave function $g(x,y)=-(x-2{)}^2-(y-1{)}^2$, the new point $p=(2,1)$ instead attains zero, strictly above its value at every original sample. A nonlinear objective can favor a mixture.

A probability density is log-concave when its logarithm is a concave function on its support. Tangent lines to a differentiable concave log density lie above its graph, giving exponential envelopes for rejection sampling.

Let $f$ be smooth and strictly concave, with $f(0)=0$ and $f^{\prime }$ bijective, and let $u_0$ be smooth with compact support. For $0<t<t_{\ast }$ in the smooth concave-flux characteristic lifespan, the primitive $U_x=u$ solves the Hamilton-Jacobi equation $U_t+f(U_x)=0$ and obeyswhere $g$ is the concave Legendre dual. The tangent inequality for a concave function bounds every candidate by $U(t,x)$, and the backward characteristic curve attains equality. Its foot $x_0$ is the unique maximizer, and $u(t,x)=h((x-x_0)/t)$ for $h=(f^{\prime }{)}^{-1}$. This statement concerns the smooth solution, without asserting a post-crossing continuation.

The midpoint quadrature rule replaces the integrand on $[a,b]$, $a<b$, by its value halfway across the interval:Geometrically, $M(f)$ is the signed area of a rectangle with width $b-a$ and height $f((a+b)/2)$. Its single quadrature node is $(a+b)/2$ and its quadrature weight is $b-a$. Sampling in the interior is useful when endpoint evaluation is inconvenient, although an endpoint singularity can invalidate the quadrature error estimates below.

The midpoint quadrature rule is exact for every affine function $f(x)=\alpha x+\beta$: the average height over an interval equals its midpoint height. For example, on $[0,2]$, $f(x)=2x+1$ gives $I(f)=6$ and $M(f)=2f(1)=6$. Positive and negative area discrepancies cancel for a sloping straight line. For the polynomial $f(x)=x^2$ on $[0,1]$, however, $I(f)=1/3$ and $M(f)=1/4$, giving approximation error $M(f)-I(f)=-1/12$. Thus its degree of precision of a quadrature rule is exactly one.^[ref]

For the polynomial $f(x)=x^2$ on $[0,1]$, four panels give composite midpoint quadrature rule value $21/64$ and composite trapezoidal rule value $11/32$, bracketing the exact integral $1/3$. Individual midpoint rectangles can cross the curve; it is their total signed area that underestimates the integral.

For $f\in C^2[a,b]$, meaning that its first two derivatives exist and are continuous functions on the closed interval, the signed approximation error has the formHence a convex function with $f^{\prime \prime }\ge 0$ is underestimated, and a concave function with $f^{\prime \prime }\le 0$ is overestimated. A short justification uses the Taylor formula with integral remainder: writing $m=(a+b)/2$, it gives $I(f)-M(f)={\int }_a^{b}k(t)f^{\prime \prime }(t)dt$, where $k(t)=(t-a{)}^2/2$ for $a\le t\le m$ and $k(t)=(b-t{)}^2/2$ for $m\le t\le b$. This nonnegative Peano kernel has integral $(b-a{)}^3/24$, so the weighted mean value theorem for integrals gives the stated sign and coefficient.

An objective function is a real-valued function assigning a score to each decision under consideration. An optimization problem seeks a feasible solution maximizing or minimizing this score. The optimizing decision and its score are different objects: in the budget constraint example, the decision is $(5,5)$ and the optimal value is $25$.

Choosing an objective function expresses what matters. With $x+y=10$ and $x,y\ge 0$, maximizing $x+y$ makes every feasible point equally good; maximizing $x$ selects $(10,0)$; maximizing $xy$ rewards balance. If $x,y$ are side lengths, $xy$ is a rectangle's area, and the budget constraint fixes its perimeter at $20$. The same mathematics then says that a square encloses the largest area among these rectangles.

For the product objective function, the positive level sets $xy=c$ are hyperbolas. Each collects decisions with identical scores. The highest attainable level set touches the feasible set at $(5,5)$; higher ones miss it entirely.

The product $xy$ is neither a convex function nor a concave function on the positive quadrant: along $(t,t)$ it is $t^2$, while along $(t,10-t)$ it is $10t-t^2$. Yet its restriction to this feasible set is a strictly concave function. Thus the geometry of the allowed decisions can make an otherwise nonconcave maximization problem tractable. Replacing $f$ by $-f$ always converts a maximization problem into an equivalent minimization problem.

// Target: mathematical-optimization.bigb

With inequalities written as $c_i\ge 0$, use the optimization Lagrangian $L(x,\lambda )=f(x)-{\sum }_i{\lambda }_i{c}_i(x)$. The Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions at $(x_{\ast },{\lambda }_{\ast })$ areFor any feasible point $z$, the first-order inequalities for a convex function and a concave function giveThe last equality uses complementary slackness. Thus $x_{\ast }$ is a global minimizer. Slater's condition is useful for necessity and existence of Lagrange multipliers, but is not required for this sufficiency argument once a KKT point is supplied.