The maximum theorem provides conditions for the continuity of an optimized function and the set of its maximizers with respect to its parameters. The statement was first proven by Claude Berge in 1959.[1] The theorem is primarily used in mathematical economics and optimal control.

Statement of theorem edit

Maximum Theorem.[2][3][4][5] Let   and   be topological spaces,   be a continuous function on the product  , and   be a compact-valued correspondence such that   for all  . Define the marginal function (or value function)   by

 

and the set of maximizers   by

 .

If   is continuous (i.e. both upper and lower hemicontinuous) at  , then the value function   is continuous, and the set of maximizers  is upper-hemicontinuous with nonempty and compact values. As a consequence, the   may be replaced by  .

Variants edit

The maximum theorem can be used for minimization by considering the function   instead.

Interpretation edit

The theorem is typically interpreted as providing conditions for a parametric optimization problem to have continuous solutions with regard to the parameter. In this case,   is the parameter space,   is the function to be maximized, and   gives the constraint set that   is maximized over. Then,   is the maximized value of the function and   is the set of points that maximize  .

The result is that if the elements of an optimization problem are sufficiently continuous, then some, but not all, of that continuity is preserved in the solutions.

Proof edit

Throughout this proof we will use the term neighborhood to refer to an open set containing a particular point. We preface with a preliminary lemma, which is a general fact in the calculus of correspondences. Recall that a correspondence is closed if its graph is closed.

Lemma.[6][7][8] If   are correspondences,   is upper hemicontinuous and compact-valued, and   is closed, then   defined by   is upper hemicontinuous.

Proof

Let  , and suppose   is an open set containing  . If  , then the result follows immediately. Otherwise, observe that for each   we have  , and since   is closed there is a neighborhood   of   in which   whenever  . The collection of sets   forms an open cover of the compact set  , which allows us to extract a finite subcover  . By upper hemicontinuity, there is a neighborhood   of   such that  . Then whenever  , we have  , and so  . This completes the proof.  

The continuity of   in the maximum theorem is the result of combining two independent theorems together.

Theorem 1.[9][10][11] If   is upper semicontinuous and   is upper hemicontinuous, nonempty and compact-valued, then   is upper semicontinuous.

Proof of Theorem 1

Fix  , and let   be arbitrary. For each  , there exists a neighborhood   of   such that whenever  , we have  . The set of neighborhoods   covers  , which is compact, so   suffice. Furthermore, since   is upper hemicontinuous, there exists a neighborhood   of   such that whenever   it follows that  . Let  . Then for all  , we have   for each  , as   for some  . It follows that

 

which was desired.  

Theorem 2.[12][13][14] If   is lower semicontinuous and   is lower hemicontinuous, then   is lower semicontinuous.

Proof of Theorem 2

Fix  , and let   be arbitrary. By definition of  , there exists   such that  . Now, since   is lower semicontinuous, there exists a neighborhood   of   such that whenever   we have  . Observe that   (in particular,  ). Therefore, since   is lower hemicontinuous, there exists a neighborhood   such that whenever   there exists  . Let  . Then whenever   there exists  , which implies

 

which was desired.  

Under the hypotheses of the Maximum theorem,   is continuous. It remains to verify that   is an upper hemicontinuous correspondence with compact values. Let  . To see that   is nonempty, observe that the function   by   is continuous on the compact set  . The Extreme Value theorem implies that   is nonempty. In addition, since   is continuous, it follows that   a closed subset of the compact set  , which implies   is compact. Finally, let   be defined by  . Since   is a continuous function,   is a closed correspondence. Moreover, since  , the preliminary Lemma implies that   is upper hemicontinuous.  

Variants and generalizations edit

A natural generalization from the above results gives sufficient local conditions for  to be continuous and  to be nonempty, compact-valued, and upper semi-continuous.

If in addition to the conditions above,   is quasiconcave in   for each   and   is convex-valued, then   is also convex-valued. If   is strictly quasiconcave in   for each   and   is convex-valued, then   is single-valued, and thus is a continuous function rather than a correspondence.

If   is concave and   has a convex graph, then   is concave and   is convex-valued. Similarly to above, if   is strictly concave, then   is a continuous function.[15]

It is also possible to generalize Berge's theorem to non-compact correspondences if the objective function is K-inf-compact.[16]

Examples edit

Consider a utility maximization problem where a consumer makes a choice from their budget set. Translating from the notation above to the standard consumer theory notation,

  •   is the space of all bundles of   commodities,
  •   represents the price vector of the commodities   and the consumer's wealth  ,
  •   is the consumer's utility function, and
  •   is the consumer's budget set.

Then,

Proofs in general equilibrium theory often apply the Brouwer or Kakutani fixed-point theorems to the consumer's demand, which require compactness and continuity, and the maximum theorem provides the sufficient conditions to do so.

See also edit

Notes edit

  1. ^ Ok, Efe (2007). Real Analysis with Economics Applications. Princeton University Press. p. 306. ISBN 978-0-691-11768-3.
  2. ^ The original reference is the Maximum Theorem in Chapter 6, Section 3 Claude Berge (1963). Topological Spaces. Oliver and Boyd. p. 116. Famously, or perhaps infamously, Berge only considers Hausdorff topological spaces and only allows those compact sets which are themselves Hausdorff spaces. He also requires that upper hemicontinuous correspondences be compact-valued. These properties have been clarified and disaggregated in later literature.
  3. ^ Compare with Theorem 17.31 in Charalambos D. Aliprantis; Kim C. Border (2006). Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide. Springer. pp. 570. ISBN 9783540295860. This is given for arbitrary topological spaces. They also consider the possibility that   may only be defined on the graph of  .
  4. ^ Compare with Theorem 3.5 in Shouchuan Hu; Nikolas S. Papageorgiou (1997). Handbook of Multivalued Analysis. Vol. 1: Theory. Springer-Science + Business Media, B. V. p. 84. They consider the case that   and   are Hausdorff spaces.
  5. ^ Theorem 3.6 in Beavis, Brian; Dobbs, Ian (1990). Optimization and Stability Theory for Economic Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 83–84. ISBN 0-521-33605-8.
  6. ^ Compare with Theorem 7 in Chapter 6, Section 1 of Claude Berge (1963). Topological Spaces. Oliver and Boyd. p. 112. Berge assumes that the underlying spaces are Hausdorff and employs this property for   (but not for  ) in his proof.
  7. ^ Compare with Proposition 2.46 in Shouchuan Hu; Nikolas S. Papageorgiou (1997). Handbook of Multivalued Analysis. Vol. 1: Theory. Springer-Science + Business Media, B. V. p. 53. They assume implicitly that   and   are Hausdorff spaces, but their proof is general.
  8. ^ Compare with Corollary 17.18 in Charalambos D. Aliprantis; Kim C. Border (2006). Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide. Springer. pp. 564. ISBN 9783540295860. This is given for arbitrary topological spaces, but the proof relies on the machinery of topological nets.
  9. ^ Compare with Theorem 2 in Chapter 6, Section 3 of Claude Berge (1963). Topological Spaces. Oliver and Boyd. p. 116. Berge's argument is essentially the one presented here, but he again uses auxiliary results proven with the assumptions that the underlying spaces are Hausdorff.
  10. ^ Compare with Proposition 3.1 in Shouchuan Hu; Nikolas S. Papageorgiou (1997). Handbook of Multivalued Analysis. Vol. 1: Theory. Springer-Science + Business Media, B. V. p. 82. They work exclusively with Hausdorff spaces, and their proof again relies on topological nets. Their result also allows for   to take on the values  .
  11. ^ Compare with Lemma 17.30 in Charalambos D. Aliprantis; Kim C. Border (2006). Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide. Springer. pp. 569. ISBN 9783540295860. They consider arbitrary topological spaces, and use an argument based on topological nets.
  12. ^ Compare with Theorem 1 in Chapter 6, Section 3 of Claude Berge (1963). Topological Spaces. Oliver and Boyd. p. 115. The argument presented here is essentially his.
  13. ^ Compare with Proposition 3.3 in Shouchuan Hu; Nikolas S. Papageorgiou (1997). Handbook of Multivalued Analysis. Vol. 1: Theory. Springer-Science + Business Media, B. V. p. 83. They work exclusively with Hausdorff spaces, and their proof again relies on topological nets. Their result also allows for   to take on the values  .
  14. ^ Compare with Lemma 17.29 in Charalambos D. Aliprantis; Kim C. Border (2006). Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide. Springer. pp. 569. ISBN 9783540295860. They consider arbitrary topological spaces and use an argument involving topological nets.
  15. ^ Sundaram, Rangarajan K. (1996). A First Course in Optimization Theory. Cambridge University Press. p. 239. ISBN 0-521-49770-1.
  16. ^ Theorem 1.2 in Feinberg, Eugene A.; Kasyanov, Pavlo O.; Zadoianchuk, Nina V. (January 2013). "Berge's theorem for noncompact image sets". Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications. 397 (1): 255–259. arXiv:1203.1340. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2012.07.051. S2CID 8603060.

References edit

  • Claude Berge (1963). Topological Spaces. Oliver and Boyd. pp. 115–117.
  • Charalambos D. Aliprantis; Kim C. Border (2006). Infinite Dimensional Analysis: A Hitchhiker's Guide. Springer. pp. 569-571. ISBN 9783540295860.
  • Shouchuan Hu; Nikolas S. Papageorgiou (1997). Handbook of Multivalued Analysis. Vol. 1: Theory. Springer-Science + Business Media, B. V. pp. 82–89.