Can Discontinuity and Non-Derivability Exist in Strongly Concave Functions?

In summary, we discussed the properties of a strong concave function and the set $\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid y\leq f(x)\}$ where $y=f(x)$ is a concave function. We also provided an example of a strong concave function that is not continuous and discussed its properties. Finally, we talked about the definition of a strictly concave function and how to verify if a function is strictly concave.
  • #1
mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
5,049
7
Hey! :eek:

  1. Could you give me an example of a strong concave function $f:[0,3]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that is not continuous? (Wondering)

    We have that $f''(x)<0$.

    Since the function has not to be continuous, the derivatives are neither continuous, are they? (Wondering)

    Is maybe the following one such function?

    $f(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
    -x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
    1 & \text{ if } x=0\\
    \end{matrix}\right. $

    Then $f'(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
    -2x & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
    0 & \text{ if } x=0\\
    \end{matrix}\right.$ and so $f''(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
    -2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
    0 & \text{ if } x=0\\
    \end{matrix}\right.$

    (Wondering)

    But this function isn't strong concave, is it? (Wondering)
  2. We have the set $\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid y\leq f(x)\}$, where $y=f(x)$ is a concave function. What can be said about that set? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
mathmari said:
We have that $f''(x)<0$.

Hey mathmari! (Smile)

I think that's not true.
The definition of a strictly concave function is that every line segment with end points on the graph lies strictly below the graph. See wiki.
Consider for instance $f(x)=-x^4$, which has $f''(0)=0$, but which is strictly concave. (Nerd)
Is maybe the following one such function?

$f(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
-x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
1 & \text{ if } x=0\\
\end{matrix}\right. $

Then $f'(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
-2x & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
0 & \text{ if } x=0\\
\end{matrix}\right.$ and so $f''(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
-2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
0 & \text{ if } x=0\\
\end{matrix}\right.$

(Wondering)

But this function isn't strong concave, is it? (Wondering)

Isn't $f'(0)$ undefined since there is no distinct point within $\epsilon=1/2$? (Wondering)

And no, it's not concave since the line segment from x=0 to x=3 is not completely below the graph.
We have the set $\{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 \mid y\leq f(x)\}$, where $y=f(x)$ is a concave function. What can be said about that set? (Wondering)

Isn't it a convex set? That is, every line segment with end points in the set is entirely inside the set? (Wondering)
 
  • #3
mathmari said:
Could you give me an example of a strong concave function $f:[0,3]\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ that is not continuous? (Wondering)
We have that $f''(x)<0$.
Since the function has not to be continuous, the derivatives are neither continuous, are they? (Wondering)
Is maybe the following one such function?
$f(x)=\left\{\begin{matrix}
x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\
1 & \text{ if } x=0\\
\end{matrix}\right. $
Your example is almost correct. Did you perhaps mean to write $f(x)=\begin{cases}x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\ \color{red}-1 & \text{ if } x=0 \end{cases}$ ?
 
  • #4
I like Serena said:
Hey mathmari! (Smile)

I think that's not true.
The definition of a strictly concave function is that every line segment with end points on the graph lies strictly below the graph. See wiki.
Consider for instance $f(x)=-x^4$, which has $f''(0)=0$, but which is strictly concave. (Nerd)

Isn't $f'(0)$ undefined since there is no distinct point within $\epsilon=1/2$? (Wondering)

And no, it's not concave since the line segment from x=0 to x=3 is not completely below the graph.

Ah ok... To check if indeed every line segment with end points on the graph lies strictly below the graph, do we have to see the graph? (Wondering)

Opalg said:
Your example is almost correct. Did you perhaps mean to write $f(x)=\begin{cases}x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\ \color{red}-1 & \text{ if } x=0 \end{cases}$ ?

If we have $x^2$ instead of $-x^2$ isn't the function convex and not concave? (Wondering)

Or did you mean $f(x)=\begin{cases}-x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\ -1 & \text{ if } x=0 \end{cases}$ ? (Wondering)

Then we have [desmos="0,3,-9,1"]-1 x=0;-x^2;[/desmos]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
mathmari said:
If we have $x^2$ instead of $-x^2$ isn't the function convex and not concave? (Wondering)

Or did you mean $f(x)=\begin{cases}-x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\ -1 & \text{ if } x=0 \end{cases}$ ? (Wondering)

Then we have
Haha, yes. I made the same mistake of missing out a minus sign. (Blush)

So the example should have been $f(x)=\begin{cases}-x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\ -1 & \text{ if } x=0 \end{cases}$.
 
  • #6
Opalg said:
Haha, yes. I made the same mistake of missing out a minus sign. (Blush)

So the example should have been $f(x)=\begin{cases}-x^2 & \text{ if } x \in (0,3]\\ -1 & \text{ if } x=0 \end{cases}$.

I like Serena said:
Isn't $f'(0)$ undefined since there is no distinct point within $\epsilon=1/2$? (Wondering)

We have that $f$ is continuous at $(0,3]$, since it is a polynomial function.
At $x=0$ we have the following: $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{-}}f(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{-}}(-1)=-1 \\ \lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{+}}(x^2)=0$$
So, the function is not continuous at $x=0$. Therfore, it is neither differentiable at $x=0$, right?
So, do we have to write the derivative only for $x\in (0,3]$ ? (Wondering)
And
mathmari said:
To check if indeed every line segment with end points on the graph lies strictly below the graph, do we have to see the graph? (Wondering)
Or do we have to use the definition? (Wondering)
 
  • #7
mathmari said:
We have that $f$ is continuous at $(0,3]$, since it is a polynomial function.
At $x=0$ we have the following: $$\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{-}}f(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{-}}(-1)=-1 \\ \lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{+}}f(x)=\lim_{x\rightarrow 0^{+}}(x^2)=0$$
So, the function is not continuous at $x=0$. Therfore, it is neither differentiable at $x=0$, right?
So, do we have to write the derivative only for $x\in (0,3]$ ? (Wondering)

Isn't $[0,3]$ the domain of $f$? (Wondering)
If so then:
$$\lim_{x\to 0^-} f(x) = \text{undefined}$$
since $f(x)$ is not defined for $x<0$.

Still, since $f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x)$, $f$ is indeed not continuous.
And that implies it's not differentiable either at $x=0$.
And Or do we have to use the definition? (Wondering)

I believe so yes.
We can use the derivative and/or the 2nd derivative only if the function is differentiable (twice) on all of its domain.
Still, that does mean that from the fact that $f''(x)<0$ on the interval $(0,3]$, that $f$ is strictly concave on $(0,3]$.
That leaves verifying that any line segment that has one end point at $(0,-1)$ is strictly below the graph. (Thinking)
 
  • #8
I like Serena said:
Isn't $[0,3]$ the domain of $f$? (Wondering)
If so then:
$$\lim_{x\to 0^-} f(x) = \text{undefined}$$
since $f(x)$ is not defined for $x<0$.

Still, since $f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x)$, $f$ is indeed not continuous.
And that implies it's not differentiable either at $x=0$.

Ah ok... (Thinking)
I like Serena said:
We can use the derivative and/or the 2nd derivative only if the function is differentiable (twice) on all of its domain.

So, can use the above function and consider only the domain $(0,3]$ or can we not use that function at all? (Wondering)
I like Serena said:
Still, that does mean that from the fact that $f''(x)<0$ on the interval $(0,3]$, that $f$ is strictly concave on $(0,3]$.

Could you give me an example of a function that satisfy the condition $f''(x)<0$ but is not strictly concave? (Wondering)
I like Serena said:
Still, that does mean that from the fact that $f''(x)<0$ on the interval $(0,3]$, that $f$ is strictly concave on $(0,3]$.
That leaves verifying that any line segment that has one end point at $(0,-1)$ is strictly below the graph. (Thinking)

Why do we have to take any line segment that has one end point at $(0,-1)$ ? (Wondering)
 
  • #9
mathmari said:
So, can use the above function and consider only the domain $(0,3]$ or can we not use that function at all? (Wondering)

Could you give me an example of a function that satisfy the condition $f''(x)<0$ but is not strictly concave? (Wondering)

Why do we have to take any line segment that has one end point at $(0,-1)$ ? (Wondering)

Yes, we can use the function on $(0,3]$.

If a function is differentiable twice everywhere on its domain and if $f''(x)<0$, it is strictly concave.
The reverse does not always hold true.
A function does not even have to be continuous to be strictly concave (as in your example).
And a strictly concave function can still have $f''(x)=0$ for some $x$ (as in the example $f(x)=-x^4$ for $x=0$).

We have to prove that any line segment with end points on the graph lies completely below the graph.
Since we already know that $f$ is strictly concave on $(0,3]$, this is true for any line segment between points $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ with $0<a<b\le 3$.
That leaves proving it for $0=a<b\le 3$. (Thinking)
 
  • #10
I like Serena said:
Isn't $[0,3]$ the domain of $f$? (Wondering)
If so then:
$$\lim_{x\to 0^-} f(x) = \text{undefined}$$
since $f(x)$ is not defined for $x<0$.

Still, since $f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x)$, $f$ is indeed not continuous.
And that implies it's not differentiable either at $x=0$.

We have that a function $f$ is continuous at a point $x_0$
  • $x_0$ is defined
  • $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}}f(x)$ exists
  • $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}f(x)=f(x_0)}$

In this case we have the following:
  • $0$ belongs to the domain.
  • Left Integral: $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\to 0^-} f(x) = \text{undefined}}$, since $f(x)$ is not defined for $x<0$.
    Right Integral: $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x) =\lim_{x\to 0^+} (-x^2)=0 }$
  • Value of the function: $f(0)=-1$
    Since $\displaystyle{f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x)}$, the function is not continuous at the point $x=0$.

Is this correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)
I like Serena said:
We have to prove that any line segment with end points on the graph lies completely below the graph.
Since we already know that $f$ is strictly concave on $(0,3]$, this is true for any line segment between points $(a,f(a))$ and $(b,f(b))$ with $0<a<b\le 3$.
That leaves proving it for $0=a<b\le 3$. (Thinking)

Ah ok... We have the following:
\begin{align*}&f(ta+(1-t)b)>tf(a)+(1-t)f(b) \Rightarrow f(t\cdot 0+(1-t)b)>tf(0)+(1-t)(-b^2) \\ &\Rightarrow f((1-t)b)>-t-(1-t)b^2 \Rightarrow -((1-t)b)^2>-t-(1-t)b^2 \Rightarrow -(1-t)^2b^2>-t-(1-t)b^2 \\ &\Rightarrow -(1-t)^2b^2+(1-t)b^2>-t \Rightarrow (1-t)b^2(-(1-t)+1)>-t \Rightarrow (1-t)b^2(-1+t+1)>-t \\ &\Rightarrow (1-t)b^2t>-t\Rightarrow (1-t)b^2t+t>0\Rightarrow [(1-t)b^2+1]t>0\end{align*}
We have that $t\in (0,1)$, so it holds that $1-t>0$, $t>0$ and since $b>0$ and so $b^2>0$, the inequality $[(1-t)b^2+1]t>0$ holds, so it implies that all the line segments between the points $(0,-1)$ and $(b,f(b))$ are completely under the graph.

Is this correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)
 
  • #11
How could we draw the function $f$ ? At desmos the function $f(x)=-1$ for $x=0$ is not appeared. Or have I done something wrong? Do we have to use an other program? (Wondering)
I like Serena said:
Isn't it a convex set? That is, every line segment with end points in the set is entirely inside the set? (Wondering)

We have that $y=f(x)$ is a concave function. That means that every line segment with end points on the graph of that function lies strictly below the graph. In that set there are all the points that are below the graph of the function, right? (Wondering)
So, for all $x$, $y=f(x)$ is below the graph. That means that all points of the line segment belongs to that set, right? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
mathmari said:
How could we draw the function $f$ ? At desmos the function $f(x)=-1$ for $x=0$ is not appeared. Or have I done something wrong? Do we have to use an other program? (Wondering)

I found my mistake!

[desmos="-1,3,-10,1"]\left(0,-1\right);-x^2;[/desmos]
 
  • #13
mathmari said:
I found my mistake!

How about:
[desmos="-1,4,-10,1"]\left(0,-1\right);-x^2\left\{0<x\le3\right\};\left(3,-9\right);[/desmos]

Or:
\begin{tikzpicture}
%preamble \usepackage{pgfplots}
\begin{axis}[samples=51,
grid=both,
restrict x to domain=0:3,
xtick={0,1,...,3},
ytick={0,-1,...,-9}
]
\addplot[blue, ultra thick, only marks] coordinates {(0,-1) (3,-9)} ;
\addplot[blue, ultra thick] (x,-x^2) ;
\end{axis}
\end{tikzpicture}

(Wondering)
 
  • #14
Ah ok! (Nerd) Is then at the following graph:

[desmos="-10,10,-10,10"]\left(0,-1\right);-x^2\space\left\{0<x\le3\right\};-\frac{8}{3\space}x-1\space\left\{0<x\le3\right\};[/desmos]

the convex set the one that is constructed by all the elements between the two functions, or not? (Wondering)
 
  • #15
mathmari said:
Ah ok! (Nerd)

Is then at the following graph:

the convex set the one that is constructed by all the elements between the two functions, or not? (Wondering)

[desmos="-1,4,-10,1"]\left(0,-1\right);-\frac{8}{3\space}x-1\le y\le -x^2\left\{0<x\le 3\right\};[/desmos]
This is indeed a convex set.
All line segments with their end points in the set lie completely inside the set. (Happy)
 
  • #16
mathmari said:
We have that a function $f$ is continuous at a point $x_0$
  • $x_0$ is defined
  • $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}}f(x)$ exists
  • $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\rightarrow x_0}f(x)=f(x_0)}$

In this case we have the following:
  • $0$ belongs to the domain.
  • Left Integral: $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\to 0^-} f(x) = \text{undefined}}$, since $f(x)$ is not defined for $x<0$.
    Right Integral: $\displaystyle{\lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x) =\lim_{x\to 0^+} (-x^2)=0 }$
  • Value of the function: $f(0)=-1$
    Since $\displaystyle{f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x)}$, the function is not continuous at the point $x=0$.

Is this correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)

Aren't they "limits" instead of "integrals"? (Wondering)

Oh, and I'd make it $\displaystyle{f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x) = \lim_{x\to 0} f(x)}$, since we need the "regular" limit instead of the one-sided limit - they just happen to be the same in this case. (Nerd)
Ah ok... We have the following:
\begin{align*}&f(ta+(1-t)b)>tf(a)+(1-t)f(b) \Rightarrow f(t\cdot 0+(1-t)b)>tf(0)+(1-t)(-b^2) \\ &\Rightarrow f((1-t)b)>-t-(1-t)b^2 \Rightarrow -((1-t)b)^2>-t-(1-t)b^2 \Rightarrow -(1-t)^2b^2>-t-(1-t)b^2 \\ &\Rightarrow -(1-t)^2b^2+(1-t)b^2>-t \Rightarrow (1-t)b^2(-(1-t)+1)>-t \Rightarrow (1-t)b^2(-1+t+1)>-t \\ &\Rightarrow (1-t)b^2t>-t\Rightarrow (1-t)b^2t+t>0\Rightarrow [(1-t)b^2+1]t>0\end{align*}
We have that $t\in (0,1)$, so it holds that $1-t>0$, $t>0$ and since $b>0$ and so $b^2>0$, the inequality $[(1-t)b^2+1]t>0$ holds, so it implies that all the line segments between the points $(0,-1)$ and $(b,f(b))$ are completely under the graph.

Is this correct? Could I improve something? (Wondering)

We're starting with what we need to prove. I don't think we're supposed to that.
Don't we need a chain of reasoning in the opposite direction? (Worried)

I think we should state $f(ta+(1-t)b)\overset{?}{>}tf(a)+(1-t)f(b)$, with a question mark, indicating that's what we need to prove.
We could start with the last expression and then work our way back, with the arrows in the opposite direction... (Thinking)
 
  • #17
I like Serena said:
This is indeed a convex set.
All line segments with their end points in the set lie completely inside the set. (Happy)

(Happy)
I like Serena said:
Aren't they "limits" instead of "integrals"? (Wondering)

Oh yes... (Blush)
I like Serena said:
Oh, and I'd make it $\displaystyle{f(0)=-1\ne 0 = \lim_{x\to 0^+} f(x) = \lim_{x\to 0} f(x)}$, since we need the "regular" limit instead of the one-sided limit - they just happen to be the same in this case. (Nerd)

Ah ok... (Nerd)
I like Serena said:
We're starting with what we need to prove. I don't think we're supposed to that.
Don't we need a chain of reasoning in the opposite direction? (Worried)

I think we should state $f(ta+(1-t)b)\overset{?}{>}tf(a)+(1-t)f(b)$, with a question mark, indicating that's what we need to prove.
We could start with the last expression and then work our way back, with the arrows in the opposite direction... (Thinking)

Do you mean that we should write it as follows? (Wondering) We want to prove that $f(ta+(1-t)b)>tf(a)+(1-t)f(b)$ for $a=0$, so $f((1-t)b)>tf(0)+(1-t)f(b)$, i.e. $-((1-t)b)^2>-t-(1-t)b^2$.

We have that $1-t>0$ and $t>0$ and $b>0$, so $b^2>0$.
We have that $(1-t)b^2+1>(1-t)b^2>0$. Since $t>0$, we get $[(1-t)b^2+1]t>0$.
Therefore, we have the following:
$$(1-t)b^2t+t>0 \Rightarrow (1-t)b^2(t+1-1)>-t \Rightarrow (1-t)b^2(-(1-t)+1)>-t \\ \Rightarrow -(1-t)^2b^2+(1-t)b^2>-t \Rightarrow -(1-t)^2b^2>-t-(1-t)b^2$$Or should we write it in an other way? (Wondering)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

FAQ: Can Discontinuity and Non-Derivability Exist in Strongly Concave Functions?

1. What is a concave function?

A concave function is a mathematical function that has a graph that is curved downward, giving it a "cup-like" appearance. This means that as the input variable increases, the rate of change of the function decreases.

2. How is a concave function different from a convex function?

A convex function has a graph that is curved upward, while a concave function has a graph that is curved downward. In other words, the rate of change of a convex function increases as the input variable increases, while the rate of change of a concave function decreases.

3. What is a concave set?

A concave set is a subset of a vector space where a line segment connecting any two points in the set lies entirely within the set. In other words, the set is "curved" inwards towards its center, similar to a concave function.

4. How can concavity be measured?

Concavity can be measured using the second derivative of a function. If the second derivative is negative, the function is concave. Additionally, the degree of concavity can be measured by the magnitude of the second derivative.

5. What are some real-life examples of concave functions and sets?

Concave functions and sets are commonly seen in economics and finance, such as in utility functions or production possibility frontiers. They can also be seen in natural phenomena, such as the shape of a water droplet or the curvature of a hill.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top