English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

. This paper gives counterexamples for two unrelated conjectures which pertain to convexity theory. Supposef is any function defined on a closed convex set C in finitedimensional Euclidean space. Its envelope function env f is defined as the pointwise supremum of all linear functions which f dominates everywhere. It is elementary and well known that env f is convex, and hence continuous in the relative interior of C. It is similarly known that env f is lower-semicontinuous on the boundary of C. Witsenhausen [14] uses and studies envelope functions. He suggested the following orally: CONJECTURE 1. Iff is continuous everywhere on C, then envf is also continuous everywhere on C. I provide a very simple counterexample in 3-space which shows that this is not true. Incidentally, though the proof is not on paper, I feel fairly certain that Witsenhausen's conjecture is correct in 2-space. If C is a closed convex set in finite-dimensional Euclidean space, then for any point x in the space there is a unique point P(x) in C which is nearest to x. The mapping P is called the projection onto C. (Many interesting results about this mapping are given in Phelps [9], [10].) It is easy to prove and well known that P is a contraction mapping, hence continuous. It is also easy to see that P need not have much in the way of differentiability properties, for if C is a polyhedron in 2-space, then it is easy to find points and directions at which P does not even have a two-sided directional derivative. The existence in general of a one-sided directional derivative, however, is not so easy to decide. This question does not seem to be raised in such natural places as Eggleston [4] and Valentine [11]. CONJECTURE 2. For all points and directions, P has a one-sided directional derivative. My mildly complicated counterexample is a set C (in 3-space), which is the convex hull of a countable infinity of points. I suspect that the conjecture is correct in 2-space. In n-space it would be interesting to know whether the set of points and directions at which the conjecture holds is dense in EnXSn-. If not, the convex set would have to be extremely jagged!

Two convex counterexamples: A discontinuous envelope function and a nondifferentiable nearest-point mapping