v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization v2010.10.26 - Convex Optimization
410 CHAPTER 5. EUCLIDEAN DISTANCE MATRIXFigure 118: Rendering of Fermat point in acrylic on canvas by Suman Vaze.Three circles intersect at Fermat point of minimum total distance from threevertices of (and interior to) red/black/white triangle.Barvinok’s Proposition 2.9.3.0.1 predicts existence for either formulation(920) or (922) such that implicit equality constraints induced by subspacemembership are ignored⌊√ ⌋8(N(N −1)/2) + 1 − 1rankG , rankV DV ≤= N − 1 (923)2because, in each case, the Gram matrix is confined to a face of positivesemidefinite cone S N + isomorphic with S N−1+ (6.6.1). (E.7.2.0.2) This boundis tight (5.7.1.1) and is the greatest upper bound. 5.85.4.2.3.2 Example. First duality.Kuhn reports that the first dual optimization problem 5.9 to be recorded inthe literature dates back to 1755. [Wıκımization] Perhaps more intriguing5.8 −V DV | N←1 = 0 (B.4.1)5.9 By dual problem is meant, in the strongest sense: the optimal objective achieved bya maximization problem, dual to a given minimization problem (related to each otherby a Lagrangian function), is always equal to the optimal objective achieved by theminimization. (Figure 58 Example 2.13.1.0.3) A dual problem is always convex.
5.4. EDM DEFINITION 411is the fact: this earliest instance of duality is a two-dimensional Euclideandistance geometry problem known as a Fermat point (Figure 118) namedafter the French mathematician. Given N distinct points in the plane{x i ∈ R 2 , i=1... N} , the Fermat point y is an optimal solution tominimizeyN∑‖y − x i ‖ (924)i=1a convex minimization of total distance. The historically first dual problemformulation asks for the smallest equilateral triangle encompassing (N = 3)three points x i . Another problem dual to (924) (Kuhn 1967)maximize{z i }subject toN∑〈z i , x i 〉i=1N∑z i = 0i=1‖z i ‖ ≤ 1∀i(925)has interpretation as minimization of work required to balance potentialenergy in an N-way tug-of-war between equally matched opponents situatedat {x i }. [374]It is not so straightforward to write the Fermat point problem (924)equivalently in terms of a Gram matrix from this section. Squaring insteadminimizeαN∑‖α−x i ‖ 2 ≡i=1minimizeD∈S N+1 〈−V , D〉subject to 〈D , e i e T j + e j e T i 〉 1 2 = ďij∀(i,j)∈ I−V DV ≽ 0 (926)yields an inequivalent convex geometric centering problem whoseequality constraints comprise EDM D main-diagonal zeros and knowndistances-square. 5.10 Going the other way, a problem dual to totaldistance-square maximization (Example 6.7.0.0.1) is a penultimate minimumeigenvalue problem having application to PageRank calculation by searchengines [231,4]. [340]Fermat function (924) is empirically compared with (926) in [61,8.7.3],but for multiple unknowns in R 2 , where propensity of (924) for producing5.10 α ⋆ is geometric center of points x i (973). For three points, I = {1,2,3} ; optimalaffine dimension (5.7) must be 2 because a third dimension can only increase totaldistance. Minimization of 〈−V,D〉 is a heuristic for rank minimization. (7.2.2)
- Page 359 and 360: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 361 and 362: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 363 and 364: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 365 and 366: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 367 and 368: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 369 and 370: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 371 and 372: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 373 and 374: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 375 and 376: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 377 and 378: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 379 and 380: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 381 and 382: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 383 and 384: 4.6. CARDINALITY AND RANK CONSTRAIN
- Page 385 and 386: 4.7. CONSTRAINING RANK OF INDEFINIT
- Page 387 and 388: 4.7. CONSTRAINING RANK OF INDEFINIT
- Page 389 and 390: 4.7. CONSTRAINING RANK OF INDEFINIT
- Page 391 and 392: 4.8. CONVEX ITERATION RANK-1 391whi
- Page 393 and 394: 4.8. CONVEX ITERATION RANK-1 393the
- Page 395 and 396: Chapter 5Euclidean Distance MatrixT
- Page 397 and 398: 5.2. FIRST METRIC PROPERTIES 397to
- Page 399 and 400: 5.3. ∃ FIFTH EUCLIDEAN METRIC PRO
- Page 401 and 402: 5.3. ∃ FIFTH EUCLIDEAN METRIC PRO
- Page 403 and 404: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 403The collecti
- Page 405 and 406: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 4055.4.2 Gram-f
- Page 407 and 408: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 407We provide a
- Page 409: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 4095.4.2.3.1 Ex
- Page 413 and 414: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 413Figure 120:
- Page 415 and 416: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 415is found fro
- Page 417 and 418: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 417one less dim
- Page 419 and 420: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 419equality con
- Page 421 and 422: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 421How much dis
- Page 423 and 424: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 423105ˇx 4ˇx
- Page 425 and 426: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 425now implicit
- Page 427 and 428: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 427by translate
- Page 429 and 430: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 429Crippen & Ha
- Page 431 and 432: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 431where ([√t
- Page 433 and 434: 5.4. EDM DEFINITION 433because (A.3
- Page 435 and 436: 5.5. INVARIANCE 4355.5.1.0.1 Exampl
- Page 437 and 438: 5.5. INVARIANCE 437x 2 x 2x 3 x 1 x
- Page 439 and 440: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 441 and 442: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 443 and 444: 5.6. INJECTIVITY OF D & UNIQUE RECO
- Page 445 and 446: 5.7. EMBEDDING IN AFFINE HULL 4455.
- Page 447 and 448: 5.7. EMBEDDING IN AFFINE HULL 447Fo
- Page 449 and 450: 5.7. EMBEDDING IN AFFINE HULL 4495.
- Page 451 and 452: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 453 and 454: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 455 and 456: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 457 and 458: 5.8. EUCLIDEAN METRIC VERSUS MATRIX
- Page 459 and 460: 5.9. BRIDGE: CONVEX POLYHEDRA TO ED
5.4. EDM DEFINITION 411is the fact: this earliest instance of duality is a two-dimensional Euclideandistance geometry problem known as a Fermat point (Figure 118) namedafter the French mathematician. Given N distinct points in the plane{x i ∈ R 2 , i=1... N} , the Fermat point y is an optimal solution tominimizeyN∑‖y − x i ‖ (924)i=1a convex minimization of total distance. The historically first dual problemformulation asks for the smallest equilateral triangle encompassing (N = 3)three points x i . Another problem dual to (924) (Kuhn 1967)maximize{z i }subject toN∑〈z i , x i 〉i=1N∑z i = 0i=1‖z i ‖ ≤ 1∀i(925)has interpretation as minimization of work required to balance potentialenergy in an N-way tug-of-war between equally matched opponents situatedat {x i }. [374]It is not so straightforward to write the Fermat point problem (924)equivalently in terms of a Gram matrix from this section. Squaring insteadminimizeαN∑‖α−x i ‖ 2 ≡i=1minimizeD∈S N+1 〈−V , D〉subject to 〈D , e i e T j + e j e T i 〉 1 2 = ďij∀(i,j)∈ I−V DV ≽ 0 (926)yields an inequivalent convex geometric centering problem whoseequality constraints comprise EDM D main-diagonal zeros and knowndistances-square. 5.10 Going the other way, a problem dual to totaldistance-square maximization (Example 6.7.0.0.1) is a penultimate minimumeigenvalue problem having application to PageRank calculation by searchengines [231,4]. [340]Fermat function (924) is empirically compared with (926) in [61,8.7.3],but for multiple unknowns in R 2 , where propensity of (924) for producing5.10 α ⋆ is geometric center of points x i (973). For three points, I = {1,2,3} ; optimalaffine dimension (5.7) must be 2 because a third dimension can only increase totaldistance. Minimization of 〈−V,D〉 is a heuristic for rank minimization. (7.2.2)