Explicit formulas for $C^{1, 1}$ and $C^{1, \omega}_{\textrm{conv}}$ extensions of $1$-jets in Hilbert and superreflexive spaces
Daniel Azagra, Erwan Le Gruyer, and Carlos Mudarra

TL;DR
This paper provides explicit formulas for extending 1-jets to convex and $C^{1, ext{omega}}$ functions in Hilbert and superreflexive spaces, with optimal Lipschitz constants and necessary and sufficient conditions.
Contribution
It introduces simple explicit formulas for $C^{1, ext{omega}}$ and $C^{1,1}$ extensions of 1-jets, including convex functions, in Hilbert and superreflexive spaces, with optimal bounds.
Findings
Explicit formulas for $C^{1, ext{omega}}$ extensions in Hilbert spaces.
Necessary and sufficient conditions for convex $C^{1, ext{omega}}$ extensions.
Optimal Lipschitz constants for $C^{1,1}$ extensions of 1-jets.
Abstract
Given a Hilbert space, a modulus of continuity, an arbitrary subset of , and functions , , we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the jet to admit an extension with convex and of class , by means of a simple explicit formula. As a consequence of this result, if is linear, we show that a variant of this formula provides explicit extensions of general (not necessarily convex) -jets satisfying the usual Whitney extension condition, with best possible Lipschitz constants of the gradients of the extensions. Finally, if is a superreflexive Banach space, we establish similar results for the classes .
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Explicit formulas for and extensions of -jets in Hilbert and superreflexive spaces
D. Azagra
ICMAT (CSIC-UAM-UC3-UCM), Departamento de Análisis Matemático, Facultad Ciencias Matemáticas, Universidad Complutense, 28040, Madrid, Spain
,
E. Le Gruyer
INSA de Rennes & IRMAR, 20, Avenue des Buttes de Coësmes, CS 70839 F-35708, Rennes Cedex 7, France
and
C. Mudarra
ICMAT (CSIC-UAM-UC3-UCM), Calle Nicolás Cabrera 13-15. 28049 Madrid, Spain
(Date: May 26, 2017)
Abstract.
Given a Hilbert space, a modulus of continuity, an arbitrary subset of , and functions , , we provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the jet to admit an extension with convex and of class , by means of a simple explicit formula. As a consequence of this result, if is linear, we show that a variant of this formula provides explicit extensions of general (not necessarily convex) -jets satisfying the usual Whitney extension condition, with best possible Lipschitz constants of the gradients of the extensions. Finally, if is a superreflexive Banach space, we establish similar results for the classes .
Key words and phrases:
convex function, function, Whitney extension theorem
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
54C20, 52A41, 26B05, 53A99, 53C45, 52A20, 58C25, 35J96
D. Azagra was partially supported by Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, Programa Estatal de Promoción del Talento y su Empleabilidad en I+D+i, Subprograma Estatal de Movilidad. C. Mudarra was supported by Programa Internacional de Doctorado Fundación La Caixa–Severo Ochoa. Both authors partially suported by grant MTM2015-65825-P
1. Introduction and main results
If is a subset of and we are given functions , , the version of the classical Whitney extension theorem (see [29, 15, 24] for instance) theorem tells us that there exists a function with on and on if and only if the -jet satisfies the following property: there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for all We can trivially extend to the closure of so that the inequalities hold on with the same constant The function can be explicitly defined by
[TABLE]
where is a family of Whitney cubes that cover the complement of the closure of is the usual Whitney partition of unity associated to , and is a point of which minimizes the distance of to the cube Recall also that the function constructed in this way has the property that where is a constant depending only on (but going to infinity as ), and denotes the Lipschitz constant of the gradient .
In [28, 20] it was shown, by very different means, that this version of the Whitney extension theorem holds true if we replace with any Hilbert space and, moreover, there is an extension operator which is minimal, in the following sense. Given a Hilbert space with norm denoted by , a subset of , and functions , , a necessary and sufficient condition for the -jet to have a extension to the whole space is that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Moreover, the extension can be taken with best Lipschitz constants, in the sense that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
is the trace seminorm of the jet on ; see [20] and [21, Lemma 15].
While the operators given by the constructions in [28, 20, 21] are not linear, they have the useful property that, when we put them to work on , they satisfy for some independent of (in fact for ); hence one can say that they are bounded, with norms independent of the dimension , provided that we endow with the seminorm given by and equip the space of jets with the trace seminorm . In contrast, the Whitney extension operator is linear and also bounded in this sense, but with norm going to as ). On the negative side, the formulas in [21] depending on Wells’s construction are more complicated than the proof of [20], which uses Zorn’s lemma and in particular is not constructive. For more information about Whitney extension problems and extension operators see [3, 10, 11, 12, 14, 13, 15, 26, 18, 21, 8, 25] and the references therein.
In this paper, among other things, we will remedy those two drawbacks by providing a very simple, explicit formula for extension of jets in Hilbert spaces: let us say that a jet on satisfies condition provided that there exists a number such that
[TABLE]
for all . This condition is equal to Wells’s necessary and sufficient condition in [28, Theorem 2]. Also, it is easy to check that this condition is absolutely equivalent to meaning that if is satisfied with some constant then is satisfied with constant (where is an absolute constant independent of the space ; in particular does not depend on the dimension of ), and viceversa. Moreover, is also absolutely equivalent to (1.1) and, in fact, the number is the smallest for which satisfies with constant ; see [21, Lemma 15].
In Theorem 3.4 below we will show that, for every defined on and satisfying the property with constant on the formula
[TABLE]
defines a function with and on and Here denotes the convex envelope of , defined by
[TABLE]
Another expression for is given by
[TABLE]
In the case that is finite dimensional, say , this expression can be made simpler: by using Carathéodory’s Theorem one can show that it is enough to consider convex combinations of at most points. That is to say, if then
[TABLE]
see [23, Corollary 17.1.5] for instance.
Let us informally explain the reasons why formula (1.2) does its job. It is well known that a function is of class , with , if and only if is convex and is concave. So, if we are given a -jet defined on which can be extended to with and , then the function will be convex and of class . Conversely, if we can find a convex and function such that is an extension of the jet then will be a extension of Thus we can reduce the extension problem for jets to the extension problem for jets. Here, as in the rest of the paper, will stand for the set of all convex functions of class .
Now, how can we solve the extension problem for jets? In [2] the following necessary and sufficient condition for extension of jets was given: for any , we say that satisfies condition on with constant provided that
[TABLE]
In [2] it is shown that a jet has an extension with if and only if satisfies ; moreover in this case one can take such that , where is a constant only depending on . The construction in [2] is explicit, but has the same disadvantage as the Whitney extension operator has, namely that . In [1] this result is extended to the Hilbert space setting, but the proof, inspired by [20], is not constructive. However, by following the ideas of the proof of [2], but using a simple formula instead of the Whitney extension theorem, we will show in Theorem 2.4 below that if a -jet defined on a subset of a Hilbert space satisfies condition then the function defined by
[TABLE]
is a convex function such that , , and . Moreover, if is another convex function with and on and then . This strategy allows us to solve the extension problem for jets with best constants and, after checking that if satisfies then satisfies , also allows us to show that the expression
[TABLE]
which is easily seen to be equal to (1.2), provides an extension formula that solves the minimal extension problem for jets, in the sense that . Besides we will also prove that if is another function with and on and , then . Since the extension of constructed by Wells in [28] also has this property, it follows that in fact (1.2) coincides with Wells’s extension. The point is of course that both our formula (1.2) and the proof that it works are much simpler than Wells’s construction and proof.
Moreover, the latent potential in this kind of formula, at least in the convex case, is not confined to extension problems in Hilbert spaces. Indeed, on the one hand, by means of a similar formula, we will show in Theorem 4.11 below that, if is a Hilbert space and is a concave, strictly increasing, modulus of continuity, with , then the condition of [2] is necessary and sufficient for a -jet defined on a subset of a Hilbert space to have an extension such that is convex and of class , with
[TABLE]
Not only does this provide a new result111Of course, Theorem 4.11 is essentially much more general than Theorem 2.4, but we deliberately present these two results in two different sections of this paper, for the following two reasons. 1) In Theorem 2.4 we are able to obtain best possible Lipschitz constants of the gradients of the extension, whereas in Theorem 4.11 we only get them up to a factor 8. 2) The proof of Theorem 4.11 is more technical and uses some machinery from Convex Analysis, such as Fenchel conjugates, smoothness and convexity moduli, etc, which could obscure the main ideas and prevent some readers interested only in the proofs of the results from easily understanding them. for the infinite-dimensional case, but also shows that the constants can be supposed to be independent of the dimension in [2, Theorem 1.4], at least if (and in particular for all of the classes ). On the other hand, we will see in Section 5 that one can even go beyond the Hilbertian case and show that a similar result holds for the class whenever is a superreflexive Banach space whose norm has modulus of smoothness of power type with ; this is the content of Theorem 5.5 below. Finally, in Section 6 we give an example showing that all of the above results fail in the Banach space .
Unfortunately, it seems very unlikely that one could use this kind of formulas to solve extension problems for general (not necessarily convex) -jets in superreflexive222It is well known that superreflexive Banach spaces are characterized as being Banach spaces with equivalent norms of class for some , and Hilbert spaces are characterized as being Banach spaces with equivalent norms of class . For general reference about renorming properties of superreflexive spaces see, for instance [7, 9]. Banach spaces with equivalent norms if . The exponent is somewhat miraculous in this respect: even for the simplest case that , it is not true in general that, given a function , there exists a constant such that is convex.
When the first version of this paper was completed, a preprint of A. Daniilidis, M. Haddou, E. Le Gruyer and O. Ley [6] concerning the same problem in Hilbert spaces was made public. The formula for extension of -jets given by [6] is different from the formula we provide in this paper. As these authors show, their formula cannot work for the Hölder differentiability classes with . Two advantages of the present approach are the fact that our formula does work for theses classes, and its simplicity.
2. Optimal convex extensions of -jets by explicit formulas in Hilbert spaces
Given an arbitrary subset of and a -jet we will say that satisfies the condition on with constant provided that
[TABLE]
The following Proposition shows that this condition is necessary for a -jet to have a convex extension to all of .
Proposition 2.1**.**
Let be convex, and assume that is not affine. Then
[TABLE]
for all , where
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if is affine, it is obvious that satisfies on every , for every .
For a proof of the above Proposition, see [1, Proposition 2.1], or Proposition 2.1 below in a more general form.
We will need to use the following characterization of differentiability of convex functions. Of course the result is well known, but we will provide a short proof for completeness, and also in order to remark that the implication is true for not necessarily convex functions as well, a fact that we will have to use later on.
Proposition 2.2**.**
For a continuous convex function the following statements are equivalent.
There exists such that
[TABLE]
* is differentiable on with *
Proof.
First we prove that implies , which is also valid for non-convex functions. Using that it follows from Taylor’s theorem that
[TABLE]
Similarly we have
[TABLE]
and combining both inequalities we get . Now we do assume that is a convex function and let us show that implies . Since
[TABLE]
for all and is convex and continuous, is differentiable on . In order to prove that it is enough to see that the function defined by is convex. Since is a continuous function, the convexity of is equivalent to:
[TABLE]
To see this, given we can write
[TABLE]
Applying with we obtain that
[TABLE]
which in turns implies ∎
Recall that for a function the convex envelope of is defined by
[TABLE]
Another expression for is:
[TABLE]
The following result shows that the operator not only preserves smoothness of functions and Lipschitz constants of their gradients , but also that, even for some nondifferentiable functions , their convex envelopes will be of class , with best possible constants, provided that the functions satisfy suitable one-sided estimates. This is a slight (but very significant for our purposes) improvement of particular cases of the results in [16], [5, Theorem 7], and [19].
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let be a Banach space. Suppose that a function has a convex, lower semicontinous minorant, and satisfies
[TABLE]
Then is a continuous convex function satisfying the same property. In view of Proposition 2.2, we conclude that is of class , with In particular, for a function we have that , with
Proof.
The function is well defined as and has a convex, lsc minorant. Now let us check the mentioned inequality. Given and we can pick and such that
[TABLE]
Since we have This leads us to
[TABLE]
By the assumption on we obtain
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, we get the desired inequality. It is clear that being a supremum of a family of lower semicontinuous convex functions that are pointwise uniformly bounded (by the function ), is convex, proper and lower semicontinuous. And because all lower semicontinuous, proper and convex functions are continuous at interior points of their domains (see [4, Proposition 4.1.5] for instance), we also have that is continuous. ∎
Theorem 2.4**.**
Given a -jet defined on satisfying property with constant on the formula
[TABLE]
defines a convex function such that , , and .
Moreover, if is another convex function with , , and , then .
Proof.
The proof follows the lines of that of [2, Theorem 1.4], but will be considerably simplified by applying Theorem 2.3 to the function defined in the statement (instead of applying the result from [19] to a function arising from a more elaborate construction involving Whitney’s classical extension techniques with dyadic cubes and associated partitions of unity). It is worth noting that the function is not differentiable in general. Nonetheless is of class because, as we next show, satisfies the one-sided estimate of Theorem 2.3.
Lemma 2.5**.**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Given and by definition of we can pick with
[TABLE]
We then have
[TABLE]
Since is arbitrary, the above proves our Lemma.
∎
Lemma 2.6**.**
We have that
[TABLE]
for every
Proof.
Given condition implies
[TABLE]
∎
The preceding lemma shows that where is defined as in Theorem 2.4, and
[TABLE]
Bearing in mind the definitions of and we then deduce that on Thus on We also note that the function , being a supremum of continuous functions, is lower semicontinuous on By Lemma 2.5 and Theorem 2.3 we then obtain that is convex and of class , with Since is convex, by definition of we have where both and coincide with on Thus on .
Also, note that on and on where is convex and is differentiable on This implies that is differentiable on with for all . It is clear, by definition of that (denoting the subdifferential of at ) for every , and this observation shows that on
Finally, consider another convex extension of the jet with Using Taylor’s theorem and the assumptions on we have that
[TABLE]
Taking the infimum over we get on On the other hand, bearing in mind that is convex, the definition of the convex envelope of a function implies on . This completes the proof of Theorem 2.4. ∎
3. Optimal extensions of -jets by explicit formulas in Hilbert spaces
In this section we will prove that formula (1.2) defines a extension of the jet on , provided that this jet satisfies a necessary and sufficient condition found by Wells in [28], which is equivalent to the classical Whitney condition for extension .
Definition 3.1**.**
We will say that a -jet defined on a subset of a Hilbert space satisfies condition with constant on provided that
[TABLE]
for all .
Let us first see why this condition is necessary.
Proposition 3.2**.**
If satisfies on with constant then is -Lipschitz on
If is a function of class with then satisfies on with constant
Proof.
Given we have
[TABLE]
By combining both inequalities we easily get
Fix and Using Taylor’s theorem we obtain
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Then we easily get
[TABLE]
∎
The following lemma will allow us to deal with the extension problem for -jets by relying on our previous solution of the convex extension problem for -jets.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Given an arbitrary subset of a Hilbert space and a -jet defined on , we have the following: satisfies on , with constant , if and only if the -jet defined by satisfies property on , with constant .
Proof.
Suppose first that satisfies on with constant We have, for all
[TABLE]
Conversely, if satisfies on with constant we have
[TABLE]
∎
Theorem 3.4**.**
Let be a subset of a Hilbert space . Given a -jet satisfying property with constant on , the formula
[TABLE]
defines a function with , , and .
Moreover, if is another function with and on and then
Proof.
From Lemma 3.3, we know that the jet defined by
[TABLE]
satisfies property on with constant Then, by Theorem 2.4, the function
[TABLE]
is convex and of class with on and . By an easy calculation we get that
[TABLE]
Now, according to Proposition 2.1, the jet satisfies condition with constant on the whole Thus, if is the function defined by
[TABLE]
we get, thanks to Lemma 3.3, that the jet satisfies condition with constant on . Hence, by Proposition 3.2, is of class , with . From the definition of and it is immediate that and on .
Finally, suppose that is another function with and on and Using all of these assumptions together with Taylor’s Theorem we have that
[TABLE]
for all Taking the infimum over we get that
[TABLE]
Since is with the jet satisfies the condition on with constant Using Lemma 3.3, we obtain that (defined as in that Lemma) satisfies on with constant In particular the function is convex, which implies that
[TABLE]
Therefore, on , from which we obtain that on . ∎
4. convex extensions of -jets by explicit formulas in Hilbert spaces
Throughout this section, unless otherwise stated, we will assume that is a Hilbert space and is a concave and increasing function such that and Also, we will denote
[TABLE]
for every . It is obvious that is differentiable with on and, because is strictly increasing, is strictly convex. The function has an inverse which is convex and strictly increasing, with We also note that
[TABLE]
In the sequel we will make intensive use of the Fenchel conjugate of a function on the Hilbert space. Recall that, given a function , the Fenchel conjugate of is defined by
[TABLE]
where may take the value at some We next gather some elementary properties of this operator which we will need later on. A detailed exposition can be found in [4, Chapter 2, Section 3] or [31, Chapter 2, Section 3] for instance.
Proposition 4.1**.**
We have:
* and for *
If is even, then
Abusing of terminology, we will consider the Fenchel conjugate of nonnegative functions only defined on say . In order to avoid problems, we will assume that all the functions involved are extended to all of by setting for . Hence will be an even function on and therefore
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.2**.**
[See [31, Lemma 3.7.1, pg. 227].]* We have that for all and if and only if *
Definition 4.3**.**
A function is said to be uniformly convex, with modulus of convexity (being a nondecreasing function with ) provided that
[TABLE]
for all and
Theorem 4.4**.**
[See [27, Theorem 3].]* Let be a Hilbert space. If is an increasing function with for all and then the function defined by is uniformly convex, with modulus of convexity *
For a mapping , where is a subset of , we will denote
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.5**.**
Let be a Banach space. If is a continuous convex function and
[TABLE]
then is of class and for all
Proof.
The inequality of the assumption together with the continuity of proves the existence of Consider with Using repeatedly the convexity of and then the assumption, we get
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Note that, by concavity of it follows that
[TABLE]
Therefore ∎
Lemma 4.6**.**
Let be a Hilbert space, and be defined by (4.1). Then the function , satisfies the following inequality
[TABLE]
Also, is of class with for all
Proof.
By combining the fact that for any even (see Proposition 4.1 and the subsequent comment) with Proposition 4.2, we obtain that where is a convex function. Thus, we can apply Theorem 4.4 with and to deduce that
[TABLE]
for all where Then it is clear that
[TABLE]
for all Let us denote
[TABLE]
for all Since is continuous and convex on we can use [4, Theorem 5.4.1(a), pg. 252] to deduce
[TABLE]
Applying the preceding estimation to we see that
[TABLE]
By definition of it is clear that Using Proposition 4.1 together with Proposition 4.2 we have that Then it follows
[TABLE]
and therefore
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to the desired inequality. The second part follows from Proposition 4.5.
∎
Definition 4.7**.**
Given an arbitrary subset of a Hilbert space , and a -jet we will say that satisfies condition on with constant provided that
[TABLE]
Remark 4.8**.**
We have:
If satisfies on with constant then
[TABLE]
In particular
The inequality defining condition can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
Proof.
We fix and set We have that
[TABLE]
Using first Proposition 4.2 and then Jensen’s inequality (recall that is a convex function) we obtain
[TABLE]
and then
[TABLE]
Now, using the inequality defining the condition we have
[TABLE]
hence
[TABLE]
We conclude that
[TABLE]
This follows from elementary properties of the conjugate of a function; see Proposition 4.1. ∎
Remark 4.9**.**
In [2], one can find an alternative formulation of the condition for a -jet on , namely:
[TABLE]
for all If we denote the above condition by we have that and are actually equivalent.
Proof.
Since is convex, we have that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, because is increasing we easily obtain
[TABLE]
Taking first in (4.3) and then in (4.4) and also bearing in mind Proposition 4.1 we easily obtain
[TABLE]
By comparing condition (Definition 4.7) with (inequality (4.2)) we then see that both conditions are equivalent. ∎
Let us now see that is a necessary condition for convex extension of -jets.
Proposition 4.10**.**
Let be convex, and assume that is not affine. Then the -jet satisfies the condition with constant on , where
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if is affine, it is obvious that satisfies on every , for every .
Proof.
Suppose that there exist different points such that
[TABLE]
and we will get a contradiction.
Case 1. Assume further that , , and . By convexity this implies . Then we have
[TABLE]
Set
[TABLE]
and define
[TABLE]
for every . We have , , and This implies that
[TABLE]
for every , hence also that
[TABLE]
By using the assumption on and Proposition 4.2 we have
[TABLE]
which is in contradiction with the assumptions that is convex, , and . This shows that
[TABLE]
Case 2. Assume only that . Define
[TABLE]
for every . Then and . By Case 1, we get
[TABLE]
and since the Proposition is thus proved in the case when .
Case 3. In the general case, we may assume (the result is trivial for ). Consider , which satisfies the assumption of Case 2. Therefore
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to the desired inequality. ∎
Let us now present the main result of this section.
Theorem 4.11**.**
Given a -jet defined on satisfying the property with constant on the formula
[TABLE]
defines a convex function with and , and
[TABLE]
In particular,
For the proof we will use the following auxiliary results.
Proposition 4.12** (Generalized Young’s inequality for the Fenchel conjugate).**
Let be a convex function. Then
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.13**.**
We have
[TABLE]
for every
Proof.
Given condition with constant (together with Remark 4.8 ) leads us to
[TABLE]
where and Applying Proposition 4.12 we obtain that the last term is greater than or equal to ∎
The previous Lemma shows that , where is defined as in Theorem 4.11, and
[TABLE]
By definition of and it is then obvious that on Thus on
Lemma 4.14**.**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Given and by definition of we can pick with
[TABLE]
We then have
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from Lemma 4.6. ∎
Now, if we define , with the same proof as that of Theorem 2.3, we get that
[TABLE]
Because is convex, by virtue of Proposition 4.5, we have that with
[TABLE]
Finally, the same argument involving the function as that at the end of Section 2 shows that and on
5. extensions of convex jets in superreflexive Banach spaces
Throughout this section, and unless otherwise stated, will denote a superreflexive Banach space, an equivalent norm on and the dual norm of on . By Pisier’s results (see [22, Theorem 3.1]), we may assume that the norm is uniformly smooth with modulus of smoothness of power type for some . Hence, there exists a constant , depending only on this norm, such that
[TABLE]
For a mapping where is a subset of we will denote
[TABLE]
By a -jet defined on we mean a pair of functions where and .
Definition 5.1**.**
Given an arbitrary subset of and a -jet we will say that satisfies the condition on with constant provided that
[TABLE]
Remark 5.2**.**
If satisfies on with constant then
Proof.
Using inequality we obtain for all
[TABLE]
By summing up both inequalities we easily get
[TABLE]
which immediately implies the desired estimate. ∎
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let be a Banach space, let be convex with and assume that is not affine. Then satisfies the condition on with constant
On the other hand, if is affine and continuous, it is obvious that satisfies on every , for every .
Proof.
Suppose that there exist different points such that
[TABLE]
and we will get a contradiction.
Case 1. Assume further that , , and . By convexity this implies . Then we have
[TABLE]
Let us fix 0<\varepsilon\leq\frac{r}{2}\big{\|}Df(x)\big{\|}_{*}^{-\left(1+\frac{1}{\alpha}\right)} and pick with and
[TABLE]
We define for every We have , , and This implies that
[TABLE]
for every , hence also that
[TABLE]
Using first (5.2) and then (5.3) we have
[TABLE]
which is in contradiction with the assumptions that is convex, , and This shows that
[TABLE]
Case 2. Assume only that . Define for every . Then and . By Case 1, we get
[TABLE]
and since the Proposition is thus proved in the case when .
Case 3. In the general case, we may assume (the result is trivial for ). Consider , which satisfies the assumption of Case 2. Therefore
[TABLE]
which is equivalent to the desired inequality. ∎
Proposition 5.4**.**
If is a continuous convex function on and
[TABLE]
then is of class and
Proof.
Similar to the proof of Proposition 4.5. ∎
Our main result in this section is the following.
Theorem 5.5**.**
Given a -jet defined on satisfying the property with constant on the formula
[TABLE]
defines a convex function with , , and
[TABLE]
where is the constant of (5.1).
Proof.
The general scheme of the proof is similar to that of Theorem 2.4. We will need to use the following auxiliary results.
Proposition 5.6** (Young’s inequality).**
Let with Then
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.7**.**
We have
[TABLE]
for every
Proof.
Given condition with constant implies
[TABLE]
where and . By applying Proposition 5.6 with
[TABLE]
we obtain that
[TABLE]
This proves the Lemma. ∎
The preceding lemma shows that , where is defined as in Theorem 5.5, and
[TABLE]
Then, using the definition of and , we also have that on . Thus on
Lemma 5.8**.**
We have
[TABLE]
where is as in (5.1).
Proof.
Given and by definition of we can pick with
[TABLE]
We then have
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from inequality (5.1). ∎
Then, by defining , and with the same proof as that of Theorem 2.3, we deduce that
[TABLE]
Because is convex and continuous, by virtue of Proposition 5.4, we have that with
[TABLE]
Finally, the same argument involving the function as that at the end of Section 2 shows that and on . ∎
6. Final comments
Let us finish this paper with some comments and an example which show that we cannot expect the above results to hold true for a general Banach space , unless is superreflexive.
On the one hand, observe that a necessary condition for the validity of a Whitney extension theorem of class for a Banach space is that there is a smooth bump function whose derivative is -continuous on . Indeed, let , and define and by
[TABLE]
It is trivial to check that the jet satisfies the assumptions of the Whitney extension theorem. If a Whitney-type extension theorem were true for , then there would exist a function such that for and . Then according to [7, Theorem V.3.2] the space would be superreflexive.
It is unkown whether for every superreflexive Banach space (other than a Hilbert space) a Whitney-type extension theorem for the class holds true at least for some modulus . It is also unknown whether a Whitney-type extension theorem holds true for every class if is a Hilbert space and is not linear. However the results of this paper provide some answers to analogous questions for the classes .
On the other hand, one could ask whether superreflexivity of is necessary in order to obtain Whitney-type extension theorems for the classes , and wonder whether Banach spaces like , with sufficiently many differentiable functions (and even with real-analytic equivalent norms), could admit such Whitney-type theorems. The following example answers this question in the negative.
Example 6.1**.**
Let (the Banach space of all sequences of real numbers that converge to [math], endowed with the sup norm). Then for every modulus of continuity there are discrete sets and -jets with , satisfying condition on , and such that for no do we have and .
For simplicity we will only give the proof in the case that , that is to say, for the classes . In the general case the same proof works, with obvious changes. Let be the canonical basis of (that is to say , etc), and let be the associated coordinate functionals; thus we have that , , and . Let
[TABLE]
and define and by
[TABLE]
It is easy to check that
[TABLE]
hence satisfies property on . Assume now that there exists such that extends the jet . If then, by taking such that , we have, either with or with , that
[TABLE]
and by convexity it follows that for all , while . Then, by composing with a suitable real function, we may easily obtain a function with and for all . But then again, using for instance [7, Theorem V.3.2], would be a superreflexive space, which is absurd. ∎
Observe also that the proof of Proposition 5.3 shows that is a necessary condition for extension. The above example shows that in the case that this condition is no longer sufficient, and therefore any characterization of the class of -jets defined on subsets of which admit extensions to would have to involve some new conditions.
7. Acknowledgements
We are very grateful to Fedor Nazarov for pointing out to us that, even though the function in the statement of Theorem 2.4 is not differentiable in general, its convex envelope always is of class . We also wish to thank the referee for several suggestions that improved the exposition.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] D. Azagra and C. Mudarra, An Extension Theorem for convex functions of class C 1 , 1 superscript 𝐶 1 1 C^{1,1} on Hilbert spaces , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 446 (2017), 1167-1182.
- 2[2] D. Azagra and C. Mudarra, Whitney Extension Theorems for convex functions of the classes C 1 superscript 𝐶 1 C^{1} and C 1 , ω superscript 𝐶 1 𝜔 C^{1,\omega} , Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 114 (2017), 133-158.
- 3[3] Y. Brudnyi, P. Shvartsman, Whitney’s extension problem for multivariate C 1 , ω superscript 𝐶 1 𝜔 C^{1,\omega} -functions . Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 353 (2001), 2487–2512.
- 4[4] J. M. Borwein and J. D. Vanderwerff, Convex Functions: Constructions, Characterizations and Counterexamples , Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Cambridge University Press, 2010.
- 5[5] M. Cepedello, On regularization in superreflexive Banach spaces by infimal convolution formulas , Studia Math. 129 (1998), 265–284.
- 6[6] A. Daniilidis, M. Haddou, E. Le Gruyer and O. Ley, Explicit formulas for C 1 , 1 superscript 𝐶 1 1 C^{1,1} Glaeser-Whitney extensions of 1-fields in Hilbert spaces , preprint, ar Xiv:1706.01721
- 7[7] R. Deville, G. Godefroy, V. Zizler, Smoothness and renormings in Banach spaces . Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, 64. Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow; copublished in the United States with John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1993.
- 8[8] B. Dacorogna and W. Gangbo, Extension theorems for a vector valued maps , J. Math. Pure Appl. 85 (2006), 313–344.
