Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2005 ii Paper 2 25J Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2005 ii Paper 2 28J iii Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2005 ii Paper 2 29I Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2007 ia Paper 1 4D Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2007 ii Paper 3 16G Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2008 ia Paper 1 10D a Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2009 ia Paper 1 10D Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2009 ia Paper 1 4E Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-09-24
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2012 ia Paper 1 3E Solution Created 2026-09-24 Updated 2026-10-07
A continuous function at satisfies the following quantified condition:The choice of may depend on and .
For the bounded example, takeThis is a continuous function on its domain and . Along its values tend to , while along its values tend to . Hence the supremum is and the infimum is , and neither is attained. “Upper and lower bound” here means the least upper and greatest lower bounds.
For the nonnegative function on the whole real line, if the conclusion is immediate. Otherwise choose with . The limits at both infinities give such that whenever . By the extreme value theorem, a continuous function on the compact interval has a maximum there. Since , it also exceeds every value outside this interval. Thus is bounded above and attains its global maximum. Nonnegativity ensures that either the function is zero or such a positive comparison value exists; without it, a function such as would have an unattained supremum of zero.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 34 3 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
For fixed-design nonparametric regression, let and . The degree- local polynomial estimator takes the fitted intercept , whereUse a nonnegative regression kernel and an invertible local polynomial Gram matrix to obtain a unique fit. For , solving the single weighted least squares normal equation gives the local constant estimator:At the interior point , use the standard unit-integral regression kernel convention . Otherwise the leading variance below is ; unlike a kernel density estimator, the local constant estimator itself is unchanged by rescaling .
The local constant estimator is a linear estimator in nonparametric regression with weights . The independent unit-variance errors implyTo control the bias of an estimator, differentiability at this one point is enough. WriteSymmetry makes , and the supplied moment approximation gives . Therefore the linear contribution to the bias of an estimator is . The remaining contribution has absolute value at most , because only receive positive weight. This is the interior first-order bias cancellation for local constant regression, and gives squared bias of an estimator . Combining with the variance provesFor fixed , take . It satisfies both asymptotic smoothing bandwidth conditions, and the displayed remainder, multiplied by , tends to zero for this fixed . ThusLetting proves the optimized scaled pointwise error tends to zero. The order of these limits matters: no remainder uniform in has been assumed.
For the lower bound over the whole function class, the absence of a uniform bound on derivatives permits a particularly direct argument. It also avoids assuming a normal distribution for errors when the model only supplies their first two moments. Fix and . Choose a smooth bump function on the interval, with , whose support contains no design point except possibly . Such a bump exists because the design is finite; at an endpoint use the restriction of a smooth bump on the real line. Every , , belongs to the differentiability class.
If is not a design point, all observation means are zero for every . The Le Cam two-point lemma applied to has total variation distance zero and gives a lower bound tending to infinity with . In fact, the supremum of the mean squared error is infinite at every such .
If is a design point, only its response depends on . The resulting location family is the single observation ; all remaining observations are independent of and give no extra information. The single-observation location minimax bound isHere is a proof covering discrete as well as continuous errors. Give the prior distribution , independently of the noise. Put and . Consider an easier experiment in which an oracle also reveals whether , and reveals itself on the complementary event. On the event and , every possible truncated noise value places within . The flat prior distribution then makes the Bayesian posterior noise law exactly its truncated original law. The smallest conditional squared-error loss is its conditional variance , attained by the posterior mean.
The probability of that event is at least for , by restricting further to . Thus every rule's supremum risk function is at least the original Bayes risk, which is at least the easier experiment's Bayes risk, and therefore at least . Let and then . Finite second moment and zero mean give . The rule has constant mean squared error one, proving the equality.
Consequently, at every , the unrestricted differentiability class satisfies the stronger conclusionThus works for every . There is no conflict with the preceding fixed-function limit: the worst functions, including arbitrarily narrow bumps, can vary with . This is the pointwise versus uniform risk distinction. A smoothness ball with a common derivative bound would pose a different minimax risk problem.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2014 iii Paper 68 1 Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-06
A one-dimensional Sobolev representative is absolutely continuous. For , the fundamental theorem of calculus and Holder inequality giveThus 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, sinceThese 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 givesIt 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 asThe 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 , givingwhere 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 provesThe 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 isthat 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 isThe 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 isMinimality 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.