A one-dimensional Sobolev representative is absolutely continuous. For , the fundamental theorem of calculus and Holder inequality give
Thus has a representative in . The qualification about representatives matters because a Sobolev space element is an almost-everywhere equivalence class.
In two dimensions, the Sobolev fundamental theorem of calculus on lines and Fubini's theorem imply that almost every horizontal and vertical slice belongs to and has this one-dimensional Hölder continuity. The slice seminorm depends on the slice; this does not give one uniform pointwise estimate on the square. For , Morrey's inequality additionally gives a globally Hölder continuous representative of exponent . For , global continuity need not hold. For example, with a smooth cutoff around an interior point, lies in when , but is unbounded. At , the cutoff version of is unbounded while its gradient has finite squared integral, since
These examples distinguish Sobolev slicing and planar continuity from a false two-dimensional application of the interval exponent.
Put . A BV space is a function whose distributional derivative is a finite vector-valued Radon measure. Equivalently its total variation seminorm is finite:
The BV space has norm . For , integration by parts against the compactly supported field gives . Conversely the measurable choice on nonzero gradients attains the pointwise bound. Approximating this bounded field by smooth fields, using interior cutoffs and the finite measure , justifies the supremum and gives
It is a norm of the derivative measure, rather than a pointwise derivative at jump discontinuities.
There is a genuine mismatch in the printed definition of the next functional. Its constraints on and are independent. Hence its stated supremum, denoted , separates as
The scalar supremum is , by cutoffs approaching one, and the vector supremum is the variation. For an affine image signal with , this gives , whereas the displayed square-root area would give . The intended relaxed graph-area functional instead uses the coupled pointwise constraint , giving
where is the singular part of . Both readings have a minimizer, but their equations are different.
Here is the direct method in the calculus of variations for either reading. Let be the literal or the corrected , and define the energy on , assigning infinity elsewhere. A minimizing sequence has bounded energy by comparison with . Both , so its variation is bounded, and the fidelity bounds , hence also and . By bounded-variation compactness, a subsequence converges strongly in to , and after another subsequence almost everywhere. Fatou's lemma proves
The regularizer is a supremum of affine functionals continuous in , since the test-field divergence is bounded. It is therefore lower semicontinuous. Combining the two lower bounds proves existence of a minimizer. In fact the convex regularizer and the strictly convex squared fidelity make the minimizer unique up to null sets. This does not assert that the minimizer must belong to .
For the intended graph area, conditionally assume that the minimizer is in . For , differentiate at . The derivative of the integrand is bounded by , so dominated convergence applies. The weak equation is
that is,
This is the graph-area Euler-Lagrange equation. Compactly supported variations impose no boundary condition in this statement.
For the literal printed supremum, the constant drops out and one obtains total variation denoising. Its total variation calibration form is
The distributional equation means . In particular wherever the gradient is nonzero; writing this quotient without handling zero gradients would be incomplete. Formally the one-sided derivative of is
Minimality in the directions and bounds the remaining linear functional by the second integral. The Hahn-Banach theorem extends it on that zero-gradient set to a bounded vector field of magnitude at most one, furnishing and the displayed weak equation. Thus the literal definition has a nonsmooth subgradient equation, not the square-root equation above.
A rigorous Mumford–Shah functional permits nonsmooth image signals and free discontinuities. One classical admissible class consists of relatively closed countably rectifiable sets with finite Hausdorff measure , and with finite energy. No exterior boundary values are prescribed. For an existence argument, use the equivalent relaxed class
A special bounded-variation space excludes the Cantor part of a bounded-variation derivative of the derivative: . The jump set of a bounded-variation function is the relaxed image edge set. Clipping to decreases squared fidelity, does not increase the gradient term, and does not create jumps, so this bound loses no minimizers.
Take a minimizing sequence and compare with a constant image signal. Its gradient norms and jump lengths are bounded. Also
so the sequence is bounded in . The SBV compactness theorem for bounded values, superlinear gradient growth and bounded jump measure yields an limit in , weak convergence of gradients in , and lower semicontinuity of both the Dirichlet term and the jump measure. The uniform value bound upgrades convergence to , so fidelity converges. This proves existence of a relaxed minimizer. Essential closedness of Mumford–Shah jump sets then supplies a relatively closed representative , without added length, and . This completes the outline for the classical pair problem. Arbitrary Hausdorff convergence of image edge sets alone is not an adequate substitute for these compactness and regularity results. No uniqueness is claimed for segmentation.
As with fixed, bounded energy forces in . The reduced piecewise-constant Mumford–Shah problem is
Equivalently, use a Caccioppoli partition of the image signal domain and constants :
The relative perimeter counts only interior boundaries, and the factor one half counts each interface once. Adjacent equal-valued regions can be merged, removing unnecessary boundaries.
For fixed , let be its positive-area regions. Minimization over reduces to independent scalar least-squares fits:
The minimized fidelity is . Thus region means in piecewise-constant segmentation give the optimal grey values for a fixed segmentation.
For a fixed full spatial function , the image edge set must contain its jumps; any extra curve only adds length. The optimal choice is its essential jump set, with a relatively closed representative when appropriate. There is no independent relocation of boundaries while that full function is held fixed. A different common alternating step fixes the values but allows the labels to move. It minimizes the fidelity-plus-perimeter partition functional above. Without the perimeter term each point takes its nearest grey value; with it, interface length is penalized. At a smooth interface between two labels, outward normal displacement of has first variation
where is positive for an outward normal to a circle. The stationary segmentation interface curvature balance is
This is the geometric interpretation of optimizing boundaries with fixed grey levels, and distinguishes it from fixing the whole spatial image signal.
As with fixed, a constant competitor bounds the minimum independently of , forcing . compactness in the relaxed formulation leaves no jump or Cantor part of a bounded-variation derivative, so the limit is in on the connected rectangle. The reduced edge-free Mumford–Shah limit is
A set of zero length can be omitted; this does not impose a zero image signal or a Dirichlet boundary value. Comparison with any fixed competitor and lower semicontinuity justify the limit minimization.
For completeness, the bilinear form on is continuous and coercive, with . The right-hand side is bounded because on the bounded rectangle. The Lax-Milgram theorem gives a unique satisfying
It is the unique minimizer by strict convexity. Formally,
with the Neumann condition understood through this weak formulation. Equivalently, subtracting the weak equation shows that the energy increase at is for nonzero .
A regularization of an inverse problem replaces the possibly unbounded inverse by a family of continuous reconstruction operators . For compatible exact data it must recover the minimum-norm solution as . For noisy data , a parameter rule must make both bias and amplified noise tend to zero. The target is the minimum-norm solution because data cannot determine a component in the kernel of a linear map.
Tikhonov regularization minimizes
The quadratic norm penalty makes this functional strictly convex and a coercive function. Its first variation, applied to arbitrary real and imaginary perturbations, gives
The positive operator is bounded below by and has a bounded inverse. The unique Tikhonov regularization solution is
The Tikhonov stability bound follows from the singular-value gain:
Thus reconstruction is stable for each fixed positive . Stability is not uniform as : that limit restores the unbounded inverse. For exact compatible data,
The singular system of a compact operator makes this strong convergence transparent: each positive singular-value coefficient tends to zero and is bounded by the corresponding coefficient of . Consequently
whenever and , for example . This is a convergent regularization of an inverse problem, not merely a bounded formula.
The term means that the generator is the grand potential, rather than just the physical energy. With boundary variations vanishing, the Hamiltonian functional is
Its functional derivative is
so the Gross–Pitaevskii equation is . Treating and as independent variables in this variation gives the factor , not .
For repulsive interactions and , complete the square in the local energy:
The gradient contribution is nonnegative, so the homogeneous ground state has arbitrary constant complex argument and
The infinite-volume constant may be subtracted to define a relative grand potential; it does not affect the functional derivative. At fixed particle number one instead minimizes the physical energy , with as its Lagrange multiplier. For , the grand-potential minimum over is the vacuum . For the displayed unconstrained functional is unbounded below; the positive-density stable uniform state assumed in the following parts requires repulsion.
A finite-valued global minimizer of the functional is an element satisfying
Here is its effective domain. The finite-value convention avoids treating an infeasible problem as solved.
The functional is a proper extended-real function if its effective domain is nonempty; the specified codomain already excludes . It has coercivity if always implies , equivalently every finite sublevel set is bounded. It is -sequentially lower semicontinuous if
The topology in this definition matters: norm sequential lower semicontinuity and weak sequential lower semicontinuity need not coincide for a nonconvex functional.
On with its usual topology, the following examples isolate the three failures.
A nonproper functional is for every . Its effective domain is empty, so it has no finite-valued global minimizer. It nevertheless has coercivity and is sequentially lower semicontinuous. If a minimizer is instead defined only by without requiring finiteness, every point formally minimizes this function; under that convention the requested nonproper counterexample is impossible with the given codomain.
A noncoercive functional is . It is a proper extended-real function and is continuous, but its infimum zero is approached as and is never attained. Hence it has no global minimizer.
A failure of sequential lower semicontinuity is
It is a proper extended-real function with coercivity, but . Its infimum is zero, while every function value is positive. Thus it has no global minimizer.
Take the weak topology on the reflexive Banach space . A bounded linear operator is weak-to-weak continuous: implies for every , by its adjoint operator. The weak lower semicontinuity of the Hilbert norm therefore makes weakly sequentially lower semicontinuous.
This functional is finite everywhere and nonnegative. If it has coercivity, the direct method in the calculus of variations supplies a global minimizer . Squaring the residual does not change its global minimizers. Here the adjoint operator has codomain , since the source is a Banach space. Differentiating the squared residual along every real direction gives in the dual pairing, hence the normal equation for a linear inverse problem . Hence
The converse fails. For , , and , the datum is in the operator range, but while . Thus admissible data do not imply coercivity of the residual; an unpenalized null space already prevents it.
For a functional on a real Banach space, its convex conjugate is defined on the dual space by
Here is the dual pairing. For complex spaces, use its real part, equivalently regard the space as real for convex analysis. The convex conjugate is a convex function, being the supremum of affine functions of , even when itself is not convex.