1

This problem has been asked here before. For example, this question Prove that the restriction $f|_K$ of $f$ to $K$ is globally Lipschitz where $K$ is a compact set only treated the continuity of $f$ on $K$ while this question $f \in C^1$ defined on a compact set $K$ is Lipschitz? already assumed $f$ to be $C^1$ function. Although, the latter was close to answering my question but used terms difficult for me to understand. So, in both cases, they have not answered my question. So, here it is

If $f:O\subset \Bbb{R}^n\to\Bbb{R}^m$ is locally Lipschitz, then prove that for any compact set $K$ in $O,$ $f \mid_K$ is Lipschitz such that $\exists \;c\in [x,y]$ such that \begin{align}\Vert f(x)-f(y) \Vert\leq c\Vert x-y \Vert,\;\;\forall\;x,y\in K\end{align}

My efforts

Let $K$ be compact in $O$. Let $x,y\in K$, then by MVT, $\exists \;r\in [x,y]$ such that \begin{align}\Vert f(x)-f(y) \Vert\leq \sup\limits_{r\in [x,y]}\Vert f'(r) \Vert\Vert x-y \Vert\end{align} \begin{align}\qquad\qquad\qquad\leq \sup\limits_{r\in K}\Vert f'(r) \Vert\Vert x-y \Vert\end{align} Since $f$ is locally Lipschitz, then it is continuous and since $K$ is compact, then the maximum is reached. So, let \begin{align}c= \sup\limits_{r\in K}\Vert f'(r) \Vert\end{align} Thus, \begin{align}\Vert f(x)-f(y) \Vert\leq c\Vert x-y \Vert,\;\;\forall\;x,y\in K\end{align}

Please, can anyone help me check if my proof is correct? If no, alternative proofs will be highly regarded! Thanks!

2 Answers2

10

While I am not a fan of proof by contradiction, it works efficiently here.

Suppose $S(x,y)={\|f(x)-f(y)| \over \|x-y\|}$ is unbounded for $x,y \in K, x \neq y$. Then we can find $x_k, y_k \in K$ such that $S(x_k,y_k) \to \infty$. Since $K$ is compact, we can assume that $x_k \to x, y_k \to y$. Since $f$ is bounded on $K$, we must have $x=y$ (otherwise $S(x_k,y_k)$ would not be unbounded). By assumption, $f$ is locally Lipschitz around $x$, hence $S(x_k,y_k) \le L$ for some (finite) $L$, which is a contradiction.


Here is a constructive proof:

Since $f$ is locally Lipschitz, for each $x$ there is some $r_x>0$ and $L_x$ such that $f$ is Lipschitz with rank $L_x$ on $B(x,r_x)$.

Then the sets $B(x, {1 \over 2} r_x)$, $x \in O$ form an open cover of $K$, so a finite number cover $K$. For convenience, denote these by $B(x_k, {1 \over 2} r_k)$ (instead of $r_{x_k}$).

Let $M= \sup_{x \in M} \|f(x)\|$, $r= {1 \over 2}\min r_k$, $L_0 = {2M \over r}$ and $L= \max (L_0, L_k)$. Then $L$ is a Lipschitz constant for $f$ on $K$.

To see this, pick $x,y \in K$. If $\|x-y\| \ge r$ then we see that ${ \|f(x)-f(y) \| \over \|x - y \|} \le {2M \over r} = L_0 \le L$. If $\|x-y\| < r$, then for some $x_k$ we have $x \in B(x_k, {1 \over 2} r_k)$. Then $y \in B(x_k, r_k)$ and so $\|f(x)-f(y) \| \le L_k \|x - y \| \le L \|x - y \|$.

copper.hat
  • 178,207
1

By our assumption, $\forall x \in O$, there is a open neighbourhood of $x$, $U_x$, and $c \in \mathbb{R}$ such that $$||f(y) - f(z)|| \leq c_x ||y-z|| \quad \forall y,z \in U_x.$$

(Thanks to @copper.hat)

Let $K \subset O$ be compact, then it is the finite union of compact connected $J_ks $, and observe that $S = \{U_x\}_{x\in K}$ is an open cover for $K$, but since $K$ is compact, we can cover with a finite subset of $S$, namely $\{U_x\}_{x \in J}$ for some finite $J \subset K$.

Now, for each $k$, define

$$c_k = max\{c_x| x \in J_k\},$$ and $$c = max\{c_k\},$$ hence $f|_K$ is Lipschitz on $K$ with Lipschitz constant $c$.

Our
  • 7,425
  • This is not quite correct. – copper.hat Aug 22 '18 at 19:35
  • Take $f=0$ on $[0,1]$ and $f=1$ on $[2,3]$. Then $f$ is of local Lipschitz rank zero, but global rank one, hence taking the $\max$ is not sufficient. In addition, there is an implicit assumption in your proof that the domain is convex and can be joined by a straight line. It is straightforward to create an example (think horseshoe shape :-)) in which there is a small local rank but large global rank. A constructive proof requires a bit more work. – copper.hat Aug 22 '18 at 20:08
  • @copper.hat Thanks for pointing out. What if we assume that $K$ has finite compact connected components, and take the max. of each component ? – Our Aug 23 '18 at 05:49
  • @copper.hat I mean when $K$ is compact, is there any chance of having infinitely many connected compact components ? – Our Aug 23 '18 at 05:57
  • 1
    Sure, for example take a strictly decreasing, convergent sequence along with the limit. In any event, my example shows why the approach of taking the max fails. – copper.hat Aug 23 '18 at 06:55
  • @copper.hat I see, thanks for the response. I will edit correspond my answer according to even though you have already provided a constructive proof in your answer. – Our Aug 23 '18 at 07:10
  • What is the reason for the down vote ? – Our Aug 24 '18 at 04:55
  • Was not me. However, your answer is not correct. See the example in my second comment. – copper.hat Aug 24 '18 at 05:10
  • @copper.hat Then if I also take the maximum of $c_k$s with the distances between the connected component, then it should be correct, right ? – Our Aug 24 '18 at 09:32
  • Well, the distances are not necessarily bounded away from zero, there may be an infinite number of components. For example, $K= { { 1 \over n } }_n \cup {0 }$. You need to consider the slopes rather than the distances. It is a surprisingly subtle argument. – copper.hat Aug 24 '18 at 14:06
  • @copper.hat how such a space compact ? I mean for the cover ${1/n}\cap {0}$, i.e all the open sets in the space, I cannot think any finite subcover. – Our Aug 24 '18 at 18:07
  • 1
    The set is closed and bounded. The open set that contains $0$ contains all but a finite number of the points. – copper.hat Aug 24 '18 at 18:23