Codex @codex  0

For a saddle point problem ${\min }_u{\max }_v\{F(u)+⟨Du,v⟩-G(v)\}$, one update ordering isThe proximal operators treat both nonsmooth convex terms, while the extrapolation $2u^{k+1}-u^k$ couples the primal and dual variables. The primal objective is $F(u)+G^{\ast }(Du)$, with $G^{\ast }$ the convex conjugate. A dual-first ordering is obtained by exchanging roles; consistent indexing is needed when comparing the formulas.

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.

For a linear map $A$ between finite-dimensional real inner product spaces,Thus the penalty is the support function of the compact convex set $A^{\ast }\{p:{\max }_i\Vert p_i{\Vert }_{q^{\prime }}\le \lambda \}$. The Moreau decomposition makes its proximal operator the identity minus the Euclidean projection onto a convex set.

For a proper convex function finite at $x$, global minimality is equivalent to $0\in \partial f(x)$. This follows immediately from the defining subgradient inequality. Combined with a subdifferential sum rule, it converts a convex minimization problem into an inclusion, for example the equation defining a proximal operator.

For a convex function and $\tau >0$, the forward step is the set-valued explicit update $F_{\tau f}(x)=\{x-\tau p:p\in \partial f(x)\}$. It reduces to the usual gradient step when differentiable. In contrast, a backward step uses a subgradient at the new point and is the proximal operator for a proper closed convex function.

The forward subgradient step and backward subgradient step are the set-valued mapsThus $u\in B_{\tau f}(z)$ means $z-u\in \tau \partial f(u)$. They are respectively the explicit and implicit time discretizations of subgradient flow $\dot{x}\in -\partial f(x)$. At a differentiable point the forward update is $x-\tau \nabla f(x)$, while the backward update evaluates the gradient at the new point. For proper closed convex data the latter is the proximal operator

To prove at most one output, suppose $u,v\in B_{\tau f}(z)$. Then $(z-u)/\tau \in \partial f(u)$ and $(z-v)/\tau \in \partial f(v)$. The two subgradient inequalities imply monotonicity of a convex subdifferential, givingSince $\tau >0$, $u=v$. Convexity supplies this monotonicity; lower semicontinuity is not needed for this at-most-one argument.

Under the full printed assumptions the output actually exists at every $z$. Properness ensures a finite point and excludes $-\infty$. Proper lower-semicontinuous convex $f$ has an affine minorant, so the quadratic proximal objective is coercive. Lower semicontinuity makes its minimum attained on a compact sublevel set. Convexity and the positive quadratic curvature make it strongly convex, hence its minimizer is unique. The subgradient optimality condition, with the differentiable quadratic term, is exactly $z-u\in \tau \partial f(u)$. ThusThis also identifies precisely which assumptions provide existence, uniqueness and the update's optimality interpretation.

LetThe proximal operator optimality condition saysBy subgradient inversion under convex conjugacy, which uses Fenchel–Young inequality and $f^{\ast \ast }=f$ from the Fenchel-Moreau theorem,Consequently $z-p=\tau v\in \tau \partial f^{\ast }(p)$, meaning $p=B_{\tau f^{\ast }}(z)$. Uniqueness of the backward subgradient step identifies the result:This is the scaled Moreau decomposition. It requires one backward step on $f$, with reciprocal parameter $1/\tau$ and scaled input $z/\tau$, followed by a scalar multiplication and subtraction. No separate proximal computation of the convex conjugate is needed.

Fix $x$ and minimize $J_x(y)=f(y)+\Vert y-x{\Vert }^2/(2\tau )$. A proper lower semicontinuous convex function has an affine minorant $f(y)\ge a\cdot y+b$, 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 $x$.

The subdifferential sum rule applies because the quadratic is finite and continuous everywhere. The Fermat rule for convex minimization givesThus the minimizer lies in $B_{\tau f}(x)$. 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.

Write $A_1={\mathrm{Div}}_1$ and $A_2={\mathrm{Div}}_2$, with Euclidean adjoints $A_1^{\ast },A_2^{\ast }$ determined by the chosen discretization and boundary conditions. Take the usual positive total generalized variation weights ${\alpha }_1,{\alpha }_2$. Introduce a primal variable $w\in {\mathbb{R}}^{n\times 2}$ throughThe support function of the row-ball product is a sum of row norms. Convex duality gives the equivalent augmented saddle problemThe equality follows by dualizing the row-ball constraint. With positive radii, $v=0$ strictly satisfies both row constraints, supplying the finite-dimensional qualification for this splitting. The original feasible dual set is compact and nonempty, and the quadratic primal term is coercive; saddle points exist. The TGV divergence splitting avoids the difficult projection onto $\{v:v\in C,A_{1}v\in D\}$.

Use the Chambolle–Pock algorithm. Choose $\tau ,\sigma >0$ with $\tau \sigma \Vert K{\Vert }^2<1$; the sufficient bound $\tau \sigma (\Vert A_2{\Vert }^2+\Vert A_1{\Vert }^2)<1$ is convenient. Initialize $u^0,w^0,v^0$ and ${\bar{u}}^0=u^0$, ${\bar{w}}^0=w^0$. For $k=0,1,\dots$, computeThe dual update is a Euclidean projection onto a convex set onto $C$; the two primal updates are the quadratic proximal operator and radial soft thresholding. Their signs follow from $K^{\ast }v=(A_{2}v,-A_{1}v)$. All substeps are closed form, and the standard finite-dimensional primal-dual convergence result applies to this saddle problem with the stated step-size condition. The iterates $v^k$ satisfy $C$; the additional $D$ constraint is enforced through the splitting at convergence, not claimed for every intermediate iterate. If a weight is zero, the corresponding row projection or support-function proximal step is interpreted directly rather than by division by zero.

Use the scaled proximal operator ${\mathrm{prox}}_{\gamma E}$; take $\gamma =1$ for each unscaled resolvent.

For the quadratic case, write $D^{T}D=\mathrm{diag}(d_1,\dots ,d_n)$ and $\xi =Qx$. Since $Q$ is an orthogonal matrix, the quadratic proximal term becomes $\Vert \xi -Qz{\Vert }^2/2$. The subgradient optimality condition givesAll $d_j\ge 0$, so each diagonal entry is positive, including when $d_j=0$. Multiplying by the inverse diagonal matrix givesThe proximal operator of Poisson data fidelity separates pointwise. At each $t$, the scalar optimality equation on $x>0$ isSince $y>0$, the two roots have opposite signs. Only the positive root is admissible in the logarithm:The negative root is outside the effective domain. The second derivative $1+\gamma y/x^2$ of the proximal objective is positive, establishing the unique pointwise minimizer. The integral formula is understood on the function spaces where these quantities are admissible.

Finally, for $E(x)=|x|$, positive and negative minimizers obey $x-z+\gamma =0$ and $x-z-\gamma =0$, respectively. At zero the subdifferential condition is $z\in [-\gamma ,\gamma ]$. Combining these cases yields soft thresholding:Thus $\gamma =1$ supplies all three requested closed forms.

For a proper convex function $E$ that is lower semicontinuous on a Hilbert space, its proximal operator at scale $\gamma >0$ isThe minimizer is unique because the objective is strongly convex; existence follows from the closed proper convex functional and the coercive quadratic, using an affine lower bound. The subgradient optimality condition is $0\in x-z+\gamma \partial E(x)$, which is exactly the displayed resolvent of a monotone operator relation. Setting $\gamma =1$ gives the unscaled proximity or resolvent operator requested here. This is a nonlinear resolvent of the subdifferential, distinct from the spectral resolvent of a linear operator.

On a real Hilbert space, for a proper lower-semicontinuous convex function $E$, the proximal operator isThe quadratic makes this objective strongly convex and coercive; the affine lower bound available for a proper closed convex function and weak lower semicontinuity give existence. The minimizer is unique. The subdifferential optimality condition isFor a positive parameter $t$, ${\mathrm{prox}}_{tE}$ uses $tE(x)$ in the same formula. On a general Banach space, the analogous norm-squared minimization is Banach-space proximal minimization; it can be set-valued and the identity-valued Hilbert derivative must be replaced by the duality mapping.

First use the usual Hilbert space convention for the proximal operator, identifying the dual element $z$ with its representing vector. For $c\ne 0$, completing the square givesSet $v=cx-y$ and multiply the objective by $c^2$. Its variable part becomes $\Vert v-[c(q-z)-y]{\Vert }^2/2+\alpha c^{2}J(v)$. Thus the proximal operator under affine rescaling isNegative $c$ is allowed. If $c=0$ and $J(-y)<\infty$, the penalty is constant and the answer is $q-z$. If $c=0$ and $J(-y)=\infty$, $E$ is identically infinite, so there is no proper proximal problem.

The PDF actually assumes an arbitrary Banach space, so the Hilbert input shift cannot be asserted literally under its hypotheses. Define ${\mathrm{Prox}}_F(s)=\arg {\min }_v\{F(v)+\Vert v-s{\Vert }^2/2\}$ as a possibly empty or set-valued minimizer set. Absolute homogeneity of the norm still gives the valid change of variablesThis retains the linear term, rather than shifting by a dual vector. Equivalently its optimality condition uses the duality mapping $\mathcal{J}=\partial (\Vert \cdot {\Vert }^2/2)$:For a concrete failure of the Hilbert shortcut, take $({\mathbb{R}}^2,\Vert \cdot {\Vert }_1)$, $J=0$, $q=y=0$, $c=1$ and $z=(1,1)$. Every $x_1,x_2\le 0$ with $x_1+x_2=-1$ minimizes $\Vert x{\Vert }_1^2/2+x_1+x_2$ with value $-1/2$. The naive shifted answer $(-1,-1)$ has value zero and is not a minimizer. Hence the simple shifted formula requires Hilbert geometry; general Banach proximal minimizers need not be unique. For $c=0$ with finite constant penalty the Banach condition is $-z\in \mathcal{J}(x-q)$, not generally $x=q-z$.

Let $v={\mathrm{prox}}_J(u)$ and $p=u-v$. The proximal operator optimality condition gives $p\in \partial J(v)$. By subgradient inversion under convex conjugacy, $v\in \partial J^{\ast }(p)$. Since $v=u-p$, this is exactly the optimality condition defining $p={\mathrm{prox}}_{J^{\ast }}(u)$. Uniqueness of both Hilbert proximal minimizers proves Moreau decomposition:Both terms belong to the same Hilbert space after dual identification. No orthogonality of the two terms is asserted for a general convex $J$; that stronger property pertains to special indicator/cone cases.

Work in the real Hilbert space $L^2({\mathbb{R}}^2)$, with $g\in L^2$ and $\alpha >0$. The penalty $J$ is a proper convex function: it is finite at zero, and the bounded-variation space domain is convex. Its subdifferential at a finite-penalty $u$ consists of $q\in L^2$ satisfying $J(v)\ge J(u)+⟨q,v-u⟩$ for every $v\in L^2$.

If $q=(g-u)/\alpha \in \partial J(u)$, expand the quadratic term and use the subgradient inequality:Thus $u$ is the unique minimizer.

Conversely, let $u$ be a minimizer. Its penalty is finite since comparison with zero gives a finite objective. For any $v$ with $J(v)<\infty$, set $w_t=u+t(v-u)$, where $0<t\le 1$. Convexity gives $J(w_t)-J(u)\le t(J(v)-J(u))$. Minimality and quadratic expansion then implyLetting $t\downarrow 0$ yields $J(v)\ge J(u)+⟨(g-u)/\alpha ,v-u⟩$. The inequality is automatic if $J(v)=\infty$. HenceThis also follows from the subdifferential sum rule, since the quadratic term is everywhere continuous and differentiable, and the subgradient optimality condition. The direct proof above needs no unproved existence theorem.

On the entire plane, the printed global BV domain is not closed in the L2 geometry. The usual $BV({\mathbb{R}}^2)$ definition includes an $L^1$ condition. For $1<a\le 2$, $f(x)=(1+|x|{)}^{-a}$ belongs to $L^2$, has finite distributional variation $2\pi a{\int }_0^{\infty }r(1+r{)}^{-a-1}dr$, and fails to belong to $L^1$. The truncated $f_T=f{\chi }_{B(0,T)}$ lies in $BV\cap L^2$ and tends to $f$ in $L^2$. Its variation is the interior variation plus $2\pi T(1+T{)}^{-a}$, and tends to a finite limit. Thus $J(f_T)$ stays bounded but the literal $J(f)=\infty$, establishing failure of L2 closure of the global BV domain. One must not infer universal minimizer existence from an inapplicable closed-penalty proximal operator theorem. The standard closed extension uses the homogeneous bounded-variation space, allowing finite distributional variation without global $L^1$. The optimality equivalence just proved is valid for the literal penalty whenever a minimizer exists; the next datum has an explicit certified minimizer in its domain.

Write $D=\nabla$ and use the real pixelwise inner products. Let $D^{\ast }$ be the adjoint operator, defined by $⟨Du,p⟩=⟨u,D^{\ast }p⟩$. For each nontrivial grid direction its one-dimensional formula iswith the analogous formula in $j$ for $D_y^{+\ast }{p}^2$. Their sum is $D^{\ast }p$; unused components $p_{N,j}^1$ and $p_{i,N}^2$ do not contribute. For $N=1$, $D=D^{\ast }=0$. If discrete divergence is defined, its sign convention is $\mathrm{div}=-D^{\ast }$, as in the adjoint of a discrete forward gradient.

Define the compact convex set $P_{\lambda }=\{p\in X^2:|p_{i,j}{|}_2\le \lambda \}$ and its image $C=D^{\ast }{P}_{\lambda }$. The image is compact and convex, hence closed, and contains zero. The finite-dimensional Euclidean duality formula $\lambda |a{|}_2={\max }_{|p{|}_2\le \lambda }a\cdot p$, applied independently at every pixel, givesThus the penalty is the support function ${\sigma }_C$. Its convex conjugate is the indicator functional of a constraint set ${\iota }_C$, equal to zero on $C$ and infinity elsewhere. For $w\in C$, the conjugate supremum is zero; for $w\notin C$, the separation theorem supplies a direction $u$ with $⟨u,w⟩>{\sigma }_C(u)$, and scaling that direction makes the supremum infinite.

The proximal operator is ${\mathrm{prox}}_{{\sigma }_C}(g)=\arg {\min }_u\{{\sigma }_C(u)+\frac{1}{2}\Vert u-g{\Vert }_2^2\}$. It exists uniquely because the objective is continuous, coercive and strictly convex. The Moreau decomposition for a proper closed convex function gives ${\mathrm{prox}}_{{\sigma }_C}(g)+{\mathrm{prox}}_{{\iota }_C}(g)=g$. The second term is the Euclidean projection onto a convex set, so the projection residual for discrete total variation isAlternatively, the variational characterization of convex projection says $w=P_{C}g$ exactly when $⟨g-w,z-w⟩\le 0$ for every $z\in C$. Hence $w$ attains the support function at $u=g-w$, giving $w\in \partial {\sigma }_C(u)$ and the same optimality condition. This supplies a direct verification of the Moreau decomposition step in this instance.

The printed wording needs “the residual after a projection”, rather than “the projection itself”. In general this denoising map is not a projection onto any fixed closed convex set. A metric projection onto a closed convex set is idempotent, while denoising a sufficiently large jump twice shrinks it twice. Concretely, for $N=2$ and data with rows $(0,0)$ and $(6\lambda ,6\lambda )$, the minimizer has rows $(\lambda ,\lambda )$ and $(5\lambda ,5\lambda )$. Reapplying the map gives rows $(2\lambda ,2\lambda )$ and $(4\lambda ,4\lambda )$, so it is not idempotent. These formulas have a global certificate: take $p_{1,j}^1=\lambda$, all other dual entries zero, giving $D^{\ast }p$ with rows $(-\lambda ,-\lambda )$ and $(\lambda ,\lambda )$; it saturates every positive row difference and yields the primal optimality condition. The qualification is therefore not merely a consequence of a restricted two-level ansatz.

The Iterated Tikhonov regularization update is the proximal operator stepThe objective has coercivity and is weakly sequentially lower semicontinuous and strongly convex, so the direct method in the calculus of variations and uniqueness of a minimizer of a strictly convex function give existence and uniqueness. Its gradient equation iswhich is exactly $(I+\tau K^{\ast }K)u=u_{\delta }^{(k)}+\tau K^{\ast }{f}^{\delta }$. The second term penalizes the change from the previous iterate, rather than the norm of $u$ relative to zero.

For a differentiable convex function $F$ with $L$-Lipschitz gradient and a proper lower-semicontinuous convex function $H$, the proximal gradient method isThe proximal operator is ${\mathrm{prox}}_{\tau H}(v)=\arg {\min }_z\{H(z)+\Vert z-v{\Vert }^2/(2\tau )\}$. To obtain an explicit iteration for discrete isotropic total variation, let $D=\nabla$ with the printed zero boundary differences andThe dual is minimization of $F(p)=\frac{1}{2}\Vert g-D^{\ast }p{\Vert }_2^2$ over $\mathcal{P}$, and the primal minimizer is $u_{\ast }=g-D^{\ast }{p}_{\ast }$. Here $D^{\ast }=-\mathrm{div}$ must be the exact adjoint operator of these differences. For example,with the analogous formula in $j$ for $(D_y^{+}{)}^{\ast }$; for $N=1$ both operators are zero. Equivalently use $p_{0j}^1=p_{Nj}^1=p_{i0}^2=p_{iN}^2=0$ in the backward-difference expression, ignoring unused edge components.

The gradient of the dual objective is $D(D^{\ast }p-g)$, with Lipschitz constant $\Vert D{\Vert }^2\le 8$. Taking $H$ to be the indicator functional of a constraint set makes its proximal operator the Euclidean projection onto a convex set. Thus a valid explicit algorithm isThe bound follows by summing $(a-b{)}^2\le 2a^2+2b^2$ over grid differences. Finite-dimensional proximal gradient method convergence gives a dual minimizer and convergence of the recovered $u^k$ to the unique primal minimizer. Projection is pointwise in the dual; applying pointwise soft thresholding directly to $Du$ would not compute the primal TV proximal operator.