Question regarding Gateaux differentiability












0












$begingroup$


Let $E$ be a normed space and $Omega subset E$ be an open convex subset. Let $ain Omega$ and $f:Omegalongrightarrow mathbb{R}$, we say $f$ is differentiable in the direction $v$ at $a$ if the following limit exists and finite
$$ f'(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
My question is, which of the following should be the correct definition of Gateaux differentiability at $a$?





  1. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear.


  2. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear and continuous.


The question I have in mind is the following




Let $Omegasubset E$ be open, convex and
$f:Omegalongrightarrowmathbb{R}$ be convex. Let $ain Omega$, if
$f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ then $f$ is Gateaux
differentiable at $a$.




If I use the first definition then it is obvious, but for the second definition then I don't see how it is true. Since we need $f$ to be bounded or continuous (to get $f$ is Lipschitz near $a$) in order to show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is continuous.





Proof for $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear given that $f$ is convex and $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $v$.



First of all given this hypothesis I can show that
$$ f'_+(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
exists and finite everywhere. Indeed, the function $varphi(s) = f(a+sv)$ for $sin (-varepsilon,varepsilon)$ is convex from a subset of $mathbb{R}longrightarrow mathbb{R}$, hence it is continuous and locally Lipschitz. By the convexity $slongmapstofrac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s}$ is decreasing as $slongrightarrow 0^+$. Together with being bounded from
$$frac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s} = frac{varphi(s) - varphi(0)}{s} geq -frac{Cs}{s} = -C.$$
we conclude that $f'_+(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $v$. It is clear that
$$f'_+(a,lambda v) = lambda f'_+(a,v).$$



Let $p(v) = f'_+(a,v)$, it is easy to see that $p:Elongrightarrow mathbb{R}$ is sublinear since for $u,vin E$, we have
begin{align*}
p(u+v) &= lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+t(u+v))-f(a)}{t}\
&leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)+f(a+2tv) -f(a)}{t}\
&leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)-f(a)}{2t} + lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tv)-f(a)}{2t} = p(u) + p(v).
end{align*}

and $0leq p(0) leq p(-v)+p(v)$, thus $-p(-v)leq p(v)$ for $vin E$.
Now let us define
$$V = {vin E: -p(-v) = p(v)} = {vin E: f'(a,v);text{exists and finite}}.$$
It is easy to see that $V$ is a linear subspace of $E$. For $u,vin V$ we have
begin{equation*}
-p(-u)-p(-v)leq -p(-u-v) leq p(u+v)leq p(u+v) = -p(-u)+p(-v).
end{equation*}

Therefore $u+vin V$. For $lambda in mathbb{R}$ and $vin V$, if $lambda >0$ then clearly $lambda vin V$, while if $lambda < 0$ then $-lambda v > 0$, thus
$$ p(-lambda v) = -lambda p(v) qquad Longrightarrow qquad -p(-lambda v) = p(lambda v)$$
Hence $lambda v in V$. From that definition it is obvious that $p|_V$ is linear.



If $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $vin E$ then $V = E$, hence $vlongmapsto f'(a,v) = p(v)$ is linear on $E$.




Can we show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is indeed continuous?











share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$

















    0












    $begingroup$


    Let $E$ be a normed space and $Omega subset E$ be an open convex subset. Let $ain Omega$ and $f:Omegalongrightarrow mathbb{R}$, we say $f$ is differentiable in the direction $v$ at $a$ if the following limit exists and finite
    $$ f'(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
    My question is, which of the following should be the correct definition of Gateaux differentiability at $a$?





    1. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear.


    2. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear and continuous.


    The question I have in mind is the following




    Let $Omegasubset E$ be open, convex and
    $f:Omegalongrightarrowmathbb{R}$ be convex. Let $ain Omega$, if
    $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ then $f$ is Gateaux
    differentiable at $a$.




    If I use the first definition then it is obvious, but for the second definition then I don't see how it is true. Since we need $f$ to be bounded or continuous (to get $f$ is Lipschitz near $a$) in order to show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is continuous.





    Proof for $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear given that $f$ is convex and $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $v$.



    First of all given this hypothesis I can show that
    $$ f'_+(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
    exists and finite everywhere. Indeed, the function $varphi(s) = f(a+sv)$ for $sin (-varepsilon,varepsilon)$ is convex from a subset of $mathbb{R}longrightarrow mathbb{R}$, hence it is continuous and locally Lipschitz. By the convexity $slongmapstofrac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s}$ is decreasing as $slongrightarrow 0^+$. Together with being bounded from
    $$frac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s} = frac{varphi(s) - varphi(0)}{s} geq -frac{Cs}{s} = -C.$$
    we conclude that $f'_+(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $v$. It is clear that
    $$f'_+(a,lambda v) = lambda f'_+(a,v).$$



    Let $p(v) = f'_+(a,v)$, it is easy to see that $p:Elongrightarrow mathbb{R}$ is sublinear since for $u,vin E$, we have
    begin{align*}
    p(u+v) &= lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+t(u+v))-f(a)}{t}\
    &leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)+f(a+2tv) -f(a)}{t}\
    &leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)-f(a)}{2t} + lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tv)-f(a)}{2t} = p(u) + p(v).
    end{align*}

    and $0leq p(0) leq p(-v)+p(v)$, thus $-p(-v)leq p(v)$ for $vin E$.
    Now let us define
    $$V = {vin E: -p(-v) = p(v)} = {vin E: f'(a,v);text{exists and finite}}.$$
    It is easy to see that $V$ is a linear subspace of $E$. For $u,vin V$ we have
    begin{equation*}
    -p(-u)-p(-v)leq -p(-u-v) leq p(u+v)leq p(u+v) = -p(-u)+p(-v).
    end{equation*}

    Therefore $u+vin V$. For $lambda in mathbb{R}$ and $vin V$, if $lambda >0$ then clearly $lambda vin V$, while if $lambda < 0$ then $-lambda v > 0$, thus
    $$ p(-lambda v) = -lambda p(v) qquad Longrightarrow qquad -p(-lambda v) = p(lambda v)$$
    Hence $lambda v in V$. From that definition it is obvious that $p|_V$ is linear.



    If $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $vin E$ then $V = E$, hence $vlongmapsto f'(a,v) = p(v)$ is linear on $E$.




    Can we show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is indeed continuous?











    share|cite|improve this question











    $endgroup$















      0












      0








      0





      $begingroup$


      Let $E$ be a normed space and $Omega subset E$ be an open convex subset. Let $ain Omega$ and $f:Omegalongrightarrow mathbb{R}$, we say $f$ is differentiable in the direction $v$ at $a$ if the following limit exists and finite
      $$ f'(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
      My question is, which of the following should be the correct definition of Gateaux differentiability at $a$?





      1. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear.


      2. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear and continuous.


      The question I have in mind is the following




      Let $Omegasubset E$ be open, convex and
      $f:Omegalongrightarrowmathbb{R}$ be convex. Let $ain Omega$, if
      $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ then $f$ is Gateaux
      differentiable at $a$.




      If I use the first definition then it is obvious, but for the second definition then I don't see how it is true. Since we need $f$ to be bounded or continuous (to get $f$ is Lipschitz near $a$) in order to show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is continuous.





      Proof for $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear given that $f$ is convex and $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $v$.



      First of all given this hypothesis I can show that
      $$ f'_+(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
      exists and finite everywhere. Indeed, the function $varphi(s) = f(a+sv)$ for $sin (-varepsilon,varepsilon)$ is convex from a subset of $mathbb{R}longrightarrow mathbb{R}$, hence it is continuous and locally Lipschitz. By the convexity $slongmapstofrac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s}$ is decreasing as $slongrightarrow 0^+$. Together with being bounded from
      $$frac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s} = frac{varphi(s) - varphi(0)}{s} geq -frac{Cs}{s} = -C.$$
      we conclude that $f'_+(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $v$. It is clear that
      $$f'_+(a,lambda v) = lambda f'_+(a,v).$$



      Let $p(v) = f'_+(a,v)$, it is easy to see that $p:Elongrightarrow mathbb{R}$ is sublinear since for $u,vin E$, we have
      begin{align*}
      p(u+v) &= lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+t(u+v))-f(a)}{t}\
      &leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)+f(a+2tv) -f(a)}{t}\
      &leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)-f(a)}{2t} + lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tv)-f(a)}{2t} = p(u) + p(v).
      end{align*}

      and $0leq p(0) leq p(-v)+p(v)$, thus $-p(-v)leq p(v)$ for $vin E$.
      Now let us define
      $$V = {vin E: -p(-v) = p(v)} = {vin E: f'(a,v);text{exists and finite}}.$$
      It is easy to see that $V$ is a linear subspace of $E$. For $u,vin V$ we have
      begin{equation*}
      -p(-u)-p(-v)leq -p(-u-v) leq p(u+v)leq p(u+v) = -p(-u)+p(-v).
      end{equation*}

      Therefore $u+vin V$. For $lambda in mathbb{R}$ and $vin V$, if $lambda >0$ then clearly $lambda vin V$, while if $lambda < 0$ then $-lambda v > 0$, thus
      $$ p(-lambda v) = -lambda p(v) qquad Longrightarrow qquad -p(-lambda v) = p(lambda v)$$
      Hence $lambda v in V$. From that definition it is obvious that $p|_V$ is linear.



      If $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $vin E$ then $V = E$, hence $vlongmapsto f'(a,v) = p(v)$ is linear on $E$.




      Can we show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is indeed continuous?











      share|cite|improve this question











      $endgroup$




      Let $E$ be a normed space and $Omega subset E$ be an open convex subset. Let $ain Omega$ and $f:Omegalongrightarrow mathbb{R}$, we say $f$ is differentiable in the direction $v$ at $a$ if the following limit exists and finite
      $$ f'(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
      My question is, which of the following should be the correct definition of Gateaux differentiability at $a$?





      1. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear.


      2. $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ and $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear and continuous.


      The question I have in mind is the following




      Let $Omegasubset E$ be open, convex and
      $f:Omegalongrightarrowmathbb{R}$ be convex. Let $ain Omega$, if
      $f'(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $vin E$ then $f$ is Gateaux
      differentiable at $a$.




      If I use the first definition then it is obvious, but for the second definition then I don't see how it is true. Since we need $f$ to be bounded or continuous (to get $f$ is Lipschitz near $a$) in order to show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is continuous.





      Proof for $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is linear given that $f$ is convex and $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $v$.



      First of all given this hypothesis I can show that
      $$ f'_+(a,v):=lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+tv) - f(a)}{t}.$$
      exists and finite everywhere. Indeed, the function $varphi(s) = f(a+sv)$ for $sin (-varepsilon,varepsilon)$ is convex from a subset of $mathbb{R}longrightarrow mathbb{R}$, hence it is continuous and locally Lipschitz. By the convexity $slongmapstofrac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s}$ is decreasing as $slongrightarrow 0^+$. Together with being bounded from
      $$frac{f(a+sv) - f(a)}{s} = frac{varphi(s) - varphi(0)}{s} geq -frac{Cs}{s} = -C.$$
      we conclude that $f'_+(a,v)$ exists and finite for all $v$. It is clear that
      $$f'_+(a,lambda v) = lambda f'_+(a,v).$$



      Let $p(v) = f'_+(a,v)$, it is easy to see that $p:Elongrightarrow mathbb{R}$ is sublinear since for $u,vin E$, we have
      begin{align*}
      p(u+v) &= lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+t(u+v))-f(a)}{t}\
      &leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)+f(a+2tv) -f(a)}{t}\
      &leq lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tu)-f(a)}{2t} + lim_{tlongrightarrow 0^+} frac{f(a+2tv)-f(a)}{2t} = p(u) + p(v).
      end{align*}

      and $0leq p(0) leq p(-v)+p(v)$, thus $-p(-v)leq p(v)$ for $vin E$.
      Now let us define
      $$V = {vin E: -p(-v) = p(v)} = {vin E: f'(a,v);text{exists and finite}}.$$
      It is easy to see that $V$ is a linear subspace of $E$. For $u,vin V$ we have
      begin{equation*}
      -p(-u)-p(-v)leq -p(-u-v) leq p(u+v)leq p(u+v) = -p(-u)+p(-v).
      end{equation*}

      Therefore $u+vin V$. For $lambda in mathbb{R}$ and $vin V$, if $lambda >0$ then clearly $lambda vin V$, while if $lambda < 0$ then $-lambda v > 0$, thus
      $$ p(-lambda v) = -lambda p(v) qquad Longrightarrow qquad -p(-lambda v) = p(lambda v)$$
      Hence $lambda v in V$. From that definition it is obvious that $p|_V$ is linear.



      If $f'(a,v)$ exists for all $vin E$ then $V = E$, hence $vlongmapsto f'(a,v) = p(v)$ is linear on $E$.




      Can we show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is indeed continuous?








      convex-analysis gateaux-derivative






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 31 '18 at 1:34







      Sean

















      asked Dec 31 '18 at 0:46









      SeanSean

      532513




      532513






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0












          $begingroup$

          The usual definition of Gateaux derivative (at $a$ in the direction $v$) is identical to the definition of directional derivative you gave. Gateaux derivative does not need to exist in all directions, let alone be linear with respect to the directional vector. The quoted passage is then simply defining what is meant by Gateaux differentiability at $a$. It is similar for instance, to defining continuity in an interval via continuity at each point of the interval.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:09










          • $begingroup$
            I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:12










          • $begingroup$
            So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
            $endgroup$
            – timur
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:18






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:19












          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057330%2fquestion-regarding-gateaux-differentiability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0












          $begingroup$

          The usual definition of Gateaux derivative (at $a$ in the direction $v$) is identical to the definition of directional derivative you gave. Gateaux derivative does not need to exist in all directions, let alone be linear with respect to the directional vector. The quoted passage is then simply defining what is meant by Gateaux differentiability at $a$. It is similar for instance, to defining continuity in an interval via continuity at each point of the interval.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:09










          • $begingroup$
            I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:12










          • $begingroup$
            So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
            $endgroup$
            – timur
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:18






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:19
















          0












          $begingroup$

          The usual definition of Gateaux derivative (at $a$ in the direction $v$) is identical to the definition of directional derivative you gave. Gateaux derivative does not need to exist in all directions, let alone be linear with respect to the directional vector. The quoted passage is then simply defining what is meant by Gateaux differentiability at $a$. It is similar for instance, to defining continuity in an interval via continuity at each point of the interval.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:09










          • $begingroup$
            I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:12










          • $begingroup$
            So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
            $endgroup$
            – timur
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:18






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:19














          0












          0








          0





          $begingroup$

          The usual definition of Gateaux derivative (at $a$ in the direction $v$) is identical to the definition of directional derivative you gave. Gateaux derivative does not need to exist in all directions, let alone be linear with respect to the directional vector. The quoted passage is then simply defining what is meant by Gateaux differentiability at $a$. It is similar for instance, to defining continuity in an interval via continuity at each point of the interval.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          The usual definition of Gateaux derivative (at $a$ in the direction $v$) is identical to the definition of directional derivative you gave. Gateaux derivative does not need to exist in all directions, let alone be linear with respect to the directional vector. The quoted passage is then simply defining what is meant by Gateaux differentiability at $a$. It is similar for instance, to defining continuity in an interval via continuity at each point of the interval.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Dec 31 '18 at 1:05









          timurtimur

          12.3k2144




          12.3k2144












          • $begingroup$
            I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:09










          • $begingroup$
            I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:12










          • $begingroup$
            So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
            $endgroup$
            – timur
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:18






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:19


















          • $begingroup$
            I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:09










          • $begingroup$
            I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:12










          • $begingroup$
            So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
            $endgroup$
            – timur
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:18






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
            $endgroup$
            – Sean
            Dec 31 '18 at 1:19
















          $begingroup$
          I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
          $endgroup$
          – Sean
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:09




          $begingroup$
          I mean, the question really is, given the hypothesis of the quote passage, can I show $vlongmapsto f'(a,v)$ is bounded? (it is linear already).
          $endgroup$
          – Sean
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:09












          $begingroup$
          I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
          $endgroup$
          – Sean
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:12




          $begingroup$
          I followed the definition of Gateaux derivative in this paper, which requires the map to be linear bounded. m-hikari.com/ams/ams-password-2008/ams-password17-20-2008/…
          $endgroup$
          – Sean
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:12












          $begingroup$
          So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
          $endgroup$
          – timur
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:18




          $begingroup$
          So are saying that convexity of $f$ implies linearity of the Gateaux derivative?
          $endgroup$
          – timur
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:18




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
          $endgroup$
          – Sean
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:19




          $begingroup$
          Yes, unless I am wrong, I am going to put the proof for that into the post now.
          $endgroup$
          – Sean
          Dec 31 '18 at 1:19


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3057330%2fquestion-regarding-gateaux-differentiability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bundesstraße 106

          Verónica Boquete

          Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten