For , the total variation seminorm on a domain is
Using instead gives the same definition. The zero test field shows nonnegativity, and , so this is a proper extended-real function. Each test field defines a linear functional of ; taking their supremum proves convexity, equivalently
It is not strictly convex: two distinct constant functions both have zero total variation, as does every convex combination of them.
The function of bounded variation on a domain space is
Total variation is not coercive on : for on a domain of positive measure, , whereas . This is noncoercivity of total variation on constants; a mean-zero constraint can remove the constant obstruction.
An absolutely one-homogeneous functional satisfies
with . The printed strictly positive codomain cannot hold at zero; the standard interpretation is a nonnegative, possibly extended-real functional.
For , apply the subgradient inequality at :
so . Apply it at and use one-homogeneity:
which gives the reverse inequality. Therefore
This is the Euler identity for a convex one-homogeneous functional; differentiability is unnecessary.
Use the interior-domain definition of total variation seminorm on a domain, so there is no boundary-extension term at . For any admissible scalar test function ,
Thus .
Choose . From the supplied smooth bump function, define
The two supports are disjoint and inside . Each bump has maximum , so , while and . This attains the upper bound, proving
Equivalently, its distributional derivative is , with total variation two. This is total variation of an interval indicator.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.