generalized Farkas lemma
Farkas’ Lemma of convex optimization and linear programming can be formulated for topological vector spaces.
The more abstract version of Farkas’ Lemma is useful for understanding the essence of the usual version of the lemma proven for matrices, and of course, for solving optimization problems in infinite-dimensional spaces.
The key insight is that the notion of linear inequalities in a finite number of real variables can be generalized to abstract linear spaces by the concept of a cone.
0.1 Formal statements
Farkas’ Lemma may be stated in the several equivalent ways. Theorem 1 is conceptually the simplest, but Theorem 2 and 3 are more convenient for applications.
Theorem 1.
Let be a real vector spaces, and be a subspace of linear functionals on that separate points. Impose on the weak topology generated by .
Given , and a weakly-closed convex cone , the following are equivalent:
Proof.
The equivalence of conditions (a) and (c) is a fundamental property of the anti-cone, while condition (b) is merely a rephrasal of condition (c). ∎
Theorem 2 is a version of Theorem 1 where the vector space and its dual space switch roles.
Theorem 2.
Let be a real vector space, and be a subspace of linear functionals on that separate points. Impose on the weak-* topology generated by .
Given a functional , and a weak-* closed convex cone , the following are equivalent:
-
(a)
.
-
(b)
.
Proof.
Make the substitutions , , and in Theorem 1. ∎
Theorem 3 incorporates inequalities defined by linear mappings; such linear mappings are the analogues to the matrices involved in the finite-dimensional version of Farkas’ Lemma.
Theorem 3.
Let and be real vector spaces, with corresponding spaces of linear functionals and that separate points. Have and generate the weak topology for and respectively.
Given , a linear mapping , and a subset such that is a weakly-closed convex cone, the following are equivalent:
-
(a)
The linear equation has a solution .
-
(b)
If satisfies for all , then .
-
(c)
If satisfies (anti-cone of with respect to ), then .
Here denotes the pullback, restricted to and , defined by .
Proof.
Make the substitutions , , and in Theorem 1. Condition (c) is a rephrasal of condition (b). ∎
References
- 1 B. D. Craven and J. J. Kohila. “Generalizations of Farkas’ Theorem.” SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis. Vol. 8, No. 6, November 1977.
- 2 David Kincaid and Ward Cheney. Numerical Analysis: Mathematics of Scientific Computing, third edition. Brooks/Cole, 2002.
Title | generalized Farkas lemma |
Canonical name | GeneralizedFarkasLemma |
Date of creation | 2013-03-22 17:20:53 |
Last modified on | 2013-03-22 17:20:53 |
Owner | stevecheng (10074) |
Last modified by | stevecheng (10074) |
Numerical id | 7 |
Author | stevecheng (10074) |
Entry type | Theorem |
Classification | msc 46A03 |
Classification | msc 46A20 |
Classification | msc 15A39 |
Classification | msc 49J35 |
Synonym | Farkas lemma for topological vector spaces |
Synonym | generalized Farkas theorem |
Related topic | AntiCone |
Related topic | Cone5 |