Proper way to check convexity or concavity for a function











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I am working with a function I would like to check if it is convex or concave. The function is the next:
$$f(x_1,x_2)= max{x_1^6,e^{x_1+3x_2^2},3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2)}$$
With $x_2>-2$



I knowusing derivatives I can check for one function but in this case I have a set of functions. How can I check convexity or concavity of this function?



Many thanks!!!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    Actually, you have only one function: the max of three different functions.
    – Cliff AB
    Dec 6 at 20:14








  • 1




    Not sure if this is on topic here. Might be better on maths.se
    – Robert Long
    Dec 6 at 22:01















up vote
4
down vote

favorite












I am working with a function I would like to check if it is convex or concave. The function is the next:
$$f(x_1,x_2)= max{x_1^6,e^{x_1+3x_2^2},3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2)}$$
With $x_2>-2$



I knowusing derivatives I can check for one function but in this case I have a set of functions. How can I check convexity or concavity of this function?



Many thanks!!!










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 4




    Actually, you have only one function: the max of three different functions.
    – Cliff AB
    Dec 6 at 20:14








  • 1




    Not sure if this is on topic here. Might be better on maths.se
    – Robert Long
    Dec 6 at 22:01













up vote
4
down vote

favorite









up vote
4
down vote

favorite











I am working with a function I would like to check if it is convex or concave. The function is the next:
$$f(x_1,x_2)= max{x_1^6,e^{x_1+3x_2^2},3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2)}$$
With $x_2>-2$



I knowusing derivatives I can check for one function but in this case I have a set of functions. How can I check convexity or concavity of this function?



Many thanks!!!










share|cite|improve this question















I am working with a function I would like to check if it is convex or concave. The function is the next:
$$f(x_1,x_2)= max{x_1^6,e^{x_1+3x_2^2},3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2)}$$
With $x_2>-2$



I knowusing derivatives I can check for one function but in this case I have a set of functions. How can I check convexity or concavity of this function?



Many thanks!!!







self-study






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 6 at 20:08









Cliff AB

12.5k12362




12.5k12362










asked Dec 6 at 20:02









Duck

762




762








  • 4




    Actually, you have only one function: the max of three different functions.
    – Cliff AB
    Dec 6 at 20:14








  • 1




    Not sure if this is on topic here. Might be better on maths.se
    – Robert Long
    Dec 6 at 22:01














  • 4




    Actually, you have only one function: the max of three different functions.
    – Cliff AB
    Dec 6 at 20:14








  • 1




    Not sure if this is on topic here. Might be better on maths.se
    – Robert Long
    Dec 6 at 22:01








4




4




Actually, you have only one function: the max of three different functions.
– Cliff AB
Dec 6 at 20:14






Actually, you have only one function: the max of three different functions.
– Cliff AB
Dec 6 at 20:14






1




1




Not sure if this is on topic here. Might be better on maths.se
– Robert Long
Dec 6 at 22:01




Not sure if this is on topic here. Might be better on maths.se
– Robert Long
Dec 6 at 22:01










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Most of the job can be done without using derivatives. Seeing squares and fourth powers suggests that perhaps we have a convex function. Indeed:





  1. $x_1^6$ is clearly convex;


  2. $exp(x_1+3x_2^2)$ is a composition of a convex function $exp(cdot)$ and a sum of convex functions, so that it is also convex;

  3. Checking the Hessian matrix of the third function shows that it also is convex;

  4. A maximum of convex functions is a convex function.


Thus, $f$ is convex.






share|cite|improve this answer




























    up vote
    0
    down vote













    If you want to look at the concavity/convexity of $f$ then you are probably going to have to find the ranges of the argument variables over which each of the sub-functions is the maximising one. This will allow you to write $f$ as a piece-wise continuous function and you can then find its second derivative via ordinary calculus techniques. To do this, define the sub-functions:



    $$begin{equation} begin{aligned}
    f_1(x_1,x_2) &= x_1^6, \[6pt]
    f_2(x_1,x_2) &= e^{x_1+3x_2^2}, \[6pt]
    f_3(x_1,x_2) &= 3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2),
    end{aligned} end{equation}$$



    and define the choice-function:



    $$M(x_1,x_2) = begin{cases}
    1 & & text{for } f_1(x_1,x_2) > max(f_2(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
    2 & & text{for } f_2(x_1,x_2) > max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
    3 & & text{otherwise}. \[6pt]
    end{cases}$$



    Your function can now be written as:



    $$f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



    Hence, at all points other than the boundaries of the changes of $M$, the second-derivative (Hessian matrix) of the function is:



    $$nabla^2 f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 nabla^2 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



    Each Hessian matrix for the sub-functions can easily be obtained from differentiation of those functions. This now gives you the curvature of your function, expressed in terms of the curvatures of the underlying functions. To implement this to find the curvature at a particular point, you simply have to find the boundaries of the regions demarcating different values of $M$.





    Finding the boundaries: I won't do this fully, but I'll get you started. Comparing just the first two of these functions you have:



    $$f_1(x_1,x_2) > f_2(x_1,x_2) quad quad iff quad quad |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}).$$



    Hence, you have:



    $$max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_2(x_1,x_2)) = begin{cases}
    x_1^6 & & text{for } |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}), \[6pt]
    e^{x_1+3x_2^2} & & text{for } |x_2| geqslant sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}). \[6pt]
    end{cases}$$



    If you keep going you can find the boundaries between this function and $f_3$ and you will eventually be able to write conditions for the boundaries of $M$.






    share|cite|improve this answer

















    • 1




      The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
      – whuber
      Dec 6 at 23:20












    • Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
      – Ben
      Dec 6 at 23:22













    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "65"
    };
    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    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
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380717%2fproper-way-to-check-convexity-or-concavity-for-a-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Most of the job can be done without using derivatives. Seeing squares and fourth powers suggests that perhaps we have a convex function. Indeed:





    1. $x_1^6$ is clearly convex;


    2. $exp(x_1+3x_2^2)$ is a composition of a convex function $exp(cdot)$ and a sum of convex functions, so that it is also convex;

    3. Checking the Hessian matrix of the third function shows that it also is convex;

    4. A maximum of convex functions is a convex function.


    Thus, $f$ is convex.






    share|cite|improve this answer

























      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Most of the job can be done without using derivatives. Seeing squares and fourth powers suggests that perhaps we have a convex function. Indeed:





      1. $x_1^6$ is clearly convex;


      2. $exp(x_1+3x_2^2)$ is a composition of a convex function $exp(cdot)$ and a sum of convex functions, so that it is also convex;

      3. Checking the Hessian matrix of the third function shows that it also is convex;

      4. A maximum of convex functions is a convex function.


      Thus, $f$ is convex.






      share|cite|improve this answer























        up vote
        5
        down vote










        up vote
        5
        down vote









        Most of the job can be done without using derivatives. Seeing squares and fourth powers suggests that perhaps we have a convex function. Indeed:





        1. $x_1^6$ is clearly convex;


        2. $exp(x_1+3x_2^2)$ is a composition of a convex function $exp(cdot)$ and a sum of convex functions, so that it is also convex;

        3. Checking the Hessian matrix of the third function shows that it also is convex;

        4. A maximum of convex functions is a convex function.


        Thus, $f$ is convex.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Most of the job can be done without using derivatives. Seeing squares and fourth powers suggests that perhaps we have a convex function. Indeed:





        1. $x_1^6$ is clearly convex;


        2. $exp(x_1+3x_2^2)$ is a composition of a convex function $exp(cdot)$ and a sum of convex functions, so that it is also convex;

        3. Checking the Hessian matrix of the third function shows that it also is convex;

        4. A maximum of convex functions is a convex function.


        Thus, $f$ is convex.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Dec 6 at 21:56









        Julius

        7531611




        7531611
























            up vote
            0
            down vote













            If you want to look at the concavity/convexity of $f$ then you are probably going to have to find the ranges of the argument variables over which each of the sub-functions is the maximising one. This will allow you to write $f$ as a piece-wise continuous function and you can then find its second derivative via ordinary calculus techniques. To do this, define the sub-functions:



            $$begin{equation} begin{aligned}
            f_1(x_1,x_2) &= x_1^6, \[6pt]
            f_2(x_1,x_2) &= e^{x_1+3x_2^2}, \[6pt]
            f_3(x_1,x_2) &= 3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2),
            end{aligned} end{equation}$$



            and define the choice-function:



            $$M(x_1,x_2) = begin{cases}
            1 & & text{for } f_1(x_1,x_2) > max(f_2(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            2 & & text{for } f_2(x_1,x_2) > max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            3 & & text{otherwise}. \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            Your function can now be written as:



            $$f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Hence, at all points other than the boundaries of the changes of $M$, the second-derivative (Hessian matrix) of the function is:



            $$nabla^2 f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 nabla^2 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Each Hessian matrix for the sub-functions can easily be obtained from differentiation of those functions. This now gives you the curvature of your function, expressed in terms of the curvatures of the underlying functions. To implement this to find the curvature at a particular point, you simply have to find the boundaries of the regions demarcating different values of $M$.





            Finding the boundaries: I won't do this fully, but I'll get you started. Comparing just the first two of these functions you have:



            $$f_1(x_1,x_2) > f_2(x_1,x_2) quad quad iff quad quad |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}).$$



            Hence, you have:



            $$max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_2(x_1,x_2)) = begin{cases}
            x_1^6 & & text{for } |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}), \[6pt]
            e^{x_1+3x_2^2} & & text{for } |x_2| geqslant sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}). \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            If you keep going you can find the boundaries between this function and $f_3$ and you will eventually be able to write conditions for the boundaries of $M$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
              – whuber
              Dec 6 at 23:20












            • Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
              – Ben
              Dec 6 at 23:22

















            up vote
            0
            down vote













            If you want to look at the concavity/convexity of $f$ then you are probably going to have to find the ranges of the argument variables over which each of the sub-functions is the maximising one. This will allow you to write $f$ as a piece-wise continuous function and you can then find its second derivative via ordinary calculus techniques. To do this, define the sub-functions:



            $$begin{equation} begin{aligned}
            f_1(x_1,x_2) &= x_1^6, \[6pt]
            f_2(x_1,x_2) &= e^{x_1+3x_2^2}, \[6pt]
            f_3(x_1,x_2) &= 3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2),
            end{aligned} end{equation}$$



            and define the choice-function:



            $$M(x_1,x_2) = begin{cases}
            1 & & text{for } f_1(x_1,x_2) > max(f_2(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            2 & & text{for } f_2(x_1,x_2) > max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            3 & & text{otherwise}. \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            Your function can now be written as:



            $$f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Hence, at all points other than the boundaries of the changes of $M$, the second-derivative (Hessian matrix) of the function is:



            $$nabla^2 f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 nabla^2 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Each Hessian matrix for the sub-functions can easily be obtained from differentiation of those functions. This now gives you the curvature of your function, expressed in terms of the curvatures of the underlying functions. To implement this to find the curvature at a particular point, you simply have to find the boundaries of the regions demarcating different values of $M$.





            Finding the boundaries: I won't do this fully, but I'll get you started. Comparing just the first two of these functions you have:



            $$f_1(x_1,x_2) > f_2(x_1,x_2) quad quad iff quad quad |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}).$$



            Hence, you have:



            $$max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_2(x_1,x_2)) = begin{cases}
            x_1^6 & & text{for } |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}), \[6pt]
            e^{x_1+3x_2^2} & & text{for } |x_2| geqslant sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}). \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            If you keep going you can find the boundaries between this function and $f_3$ and you will eventually be able to write conditions for the boundaries of $M$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
              – whuber
              Dec 6 at 23:20












            • Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
              – Ben
              Dec 6 at 23:22















            up vote
            0
            down vote










            up vote
            0
            down vote









            If you want to look at the concavity/convexity of $f$ then you are probably going to have to find the ranges of the argument variables over which each of the sub-functions is the maximising one. This will allow you to write $f$ as a piece-wise continuous function and you can then find its second derivative via ordinary calculus techniques. To do this, define the sub-functions:



            $$begin{equation} begin{aligned}
            f_1(x_1,x_2) &= x_1^6, \[6pt]
            f_2(x_1,x_2) &= e^{x_1+3x_2^2}, \[6pt]
            f_3(x_1,x_2) &= 3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2),
            end{aligned} end{equation}$$



            and define the choice-function:



            $$M(x_1,x_2) = begin{cases}
            1 & & text{for } f_1(x_1,x_2) > max(f_2(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            2 & & text{for } f_2(x_1,x_2) > max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            3 & & text{otherwise}. \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            Your function can now be written as:



            $$f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Hence, at all points other than the boundaries of the changes of $M$, the second-derivative (Hessian matrix) of the function is:



            $$nabla^2 f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 nabla^2 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Each Hessian matrix for the sub-functions can easily be obtained from differentiation of those functions. This now gives you the curvature of your function, expressed in terms of the curvatures of the underlying functions. To implement this to find the curvature at a particular point, you simply have to find the boundaries of the regions demarcating different values of $M$.





            Finding the boundaries: I won't do this fully, but I'll get you started. Comparing just the first two of these functions you have:



            $$f_1(x_1,x_2) > f_2(x_1,x_2) quad quad iff quad quad |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}).$$



            Hence, you have:



            $$max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_2(x_1,x_2)) = begin{cases}
            x_1^6 & & text{for } |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}), \[6pt]
            e^{x_1+3x_2^2} & & text{for } |x_2| geqslant sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}). \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            If you keep going you can find the boundaries between this function and $f_3$ and you will eventually be able to write conditions for the boundaries of $M$.






            share|cite|improve this answer












            If you want to look at the concavity/convexity of $f$ then you are probably going to have to find the ranges of the argument variables over which each of the sub-functions is the maximising one. This will allow you to write $f$ as a piece-wise continuous function and you can then find its second derivative via ordinary calculus techniques. To do this, define the sub-functions:



            $$begin{equation} begin{aligned}
            f_1(x_1,x_2) &= x_1^6, \[6pt]
            f_2(x_1,x_2) &= e^{x_1+3x_2^2}, \[6pt]
            f_3(x_1,x_2) &= 3x_1^2-x_1x_2+x_2^4-log(x_2+2),
            end{aligned} end{equation}$$



            and define the choice-function:



            $$M(x_1,x_2) = begin{cases}
            1 & & text{for } f_1(x_1,x_2) > max(f_2(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            2 & & text{for } f_2(x_1,x_2) > max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_3(x_1,x_2)), \[6pt]
            3 & & text{otherwise}. \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            Your function can now be written as:



            $$f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Hence, at all points other than the boundaries of the changes of $M$, the second-derivative (Hessian matrix) of the function is:



            $$nabla^2 f(x_1,x_2) = sum_{m=1}^3 nabla^2 f_{m}(x_1,x_2) cdot mathbb{I}(M(x_1,x_2) = m).$$



            Each Hessian matrix for the sub-functions can easily be obtained from differentiation of those functions. This now gives you the curvature of your function, expressed in terms of the curvatures of the underlying functions. To implement this to find the curvature at a particular point, you simply have to find the boundaries of the regions demarcating different values of $M$.





            Finding the boundaries: I won't do this fully, but I'll get you started. Comparing just the first two of these functions you have:



            $$f_1(x_1,x_2) > f_2(x_1,x_2) quad quad iff quad quad |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}).$$



            Hence, you have:



            $$max(f_1(x_1,x_2), f_2(x_1,x_2)) = begin{cases}
            x_1^6 & & text{for } |x_2| < sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}), \[6pt]
            e^{x_1+3x_2^2} & & text{for } |x_2| geqslant sqrt{max(0, 2 ln|x_1| - tfrac{1}{3} x_1}). \[6pt]
            end{cases}$$



            If you keep going you can find the boundaries between this function and $f_3$ and you will eventually be able to write conditions for the boundaries of $M$.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Dec 6 at 23:16









            Ben

            20.2k22497




            20.2k22497








            • 1




              The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
              – whuber
              Dec 6 at 23:20












            • Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
              – Ben
              Dec 6 at 23:22
















            • 1




              The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
              – whuber
              Dec 6 at 23:20












            • Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
              – Ben
              Dec 6 at 23:22










            1




            1




            The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
            – whuber
            Dec 6 at 23:20






            The problem with this approach is that convexity can fail merely by failing at a single boundary point. For instance, the function $xto x^2+mathbb{I}(xge 0)$ is locally convex almost everywhere in your sense of having a positive-definite Hessian, but nevertheless it's not convex due to that jump at $0.$ "Simply have to find the boundaries" is not an easy problem, either!
            – whuber
            Dec 6 at 23:20














            Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
            – Ben
            Dec 6 at 23:22






            Yes, that's true. I suppose I was just looking at convexity at a single point or over a subregion (i.e., locally). Even with this approach you could falsify concavity/convexity by finding a point that counters it.
            – Ben
            Dec 6 at 23:22




















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Cross Validated!


            • 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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            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%2fstats.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f380717%2fproper-way-to-check-convexity-or-concavity-for-a-function%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

            If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

            Alcedinidae

            Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]