# Partially finite convex programming, Part II: Explicit lattice models

- 129 Downloads
- 26 Citations

## Abstract

In Part I of this work we derived a duality theorem for partially finite convex programs, problems for which the standard Slater condition fails almost invariably. Our result depended on a constraint qualification involving the notion of*quasi relative interior.* The derivation of the primal solution from a dual solution depended on the differentiability of the dual objective function: the differentiability of various convex functions in lattices was considered at the end of Part I. In Part II we shall apply our results to a number of more concrete problems, including variants of semi-infinite linear programming,*L*^{1} approximation, constrained approximation and interpolation, spectral estimation, semi-infinite transportation problems and the generalized market area problem of Lowe and Hurter (1976). As in Part I, we shall use lattice notation extensively, but, as we illustrated there, in concrete examples lattice-theoretic ideas can be avoided, if preferred, by direct calculation.

## AMS 1985 Subject Classifications

Primary 90C25, 49B27 Secondary 90C48, 52A07, 65K05## Key words

Convex programming duality constraint qualification semi-infinite programming constrained approximation spectral estimation transportation problem## Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

## References

- E.J. Anderson and P. Nash,
*Linear Programming in Infinite-dimensional Spaces*(Wiley, Chichester, 1987).Google Scholar - A. Ben-Tal, J.M. Borwein and M. Teboulle, “A dual approach to multidimensional
*L*_{p}spectral estimation problems,”*SIAM Journal on control and Optimization*26 (1988) 985–996.Google Scholar - A. Ben-Tal, J.M. Borwein and M. Teboulle, “Spectral estimation via convex programming,” to appear in:
*Systems and Management Science by Extremal Methods: Research Honoring Abraham Charnes at Age 70*(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992).Google Scholar - J.M. Borwein, “Convex relations in analysis and optimization,” in: S. Schaible and W.T. Ziemba, eds.,
*Generalized Concavity in Optimization and Economics*(Academic Press, New York, 1981a) pp. 335–377.Google Scholar - J.M. Borwein, “A Lagrange multiplier theorem and a sandwich theorem for convex relations,”
*Mathematica Scandinavica*48 (1981b) 189–204.Google Scholar - J.M. Borwein, “Automatic continuity and openness of convex relations,”
*Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society*99 (1987) 49–55.Google Scholar - J.M. Borwein and A.S. Lewis, “Duality relationships for entropy-like minimization problems,”
*SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization*29 (1991) 325–338.Google Scholar - J.M. Borwein and H. Wolkowicz, “A simple constraint qualification in infinite dimensional programming,”
*Mathematical Programming*35 (1986) 83–96.Google Scholar - F.H. Clarke,
*Optimization and Nonsmooth Analysis*(Wiley, New York, 1983).Google Scholar - H.W. Corley Jr. and S.D. Roberts, “A partitioning problem with applications in regional design,”
*Operations Research*20 (1972) 1010–1019.Google Scholar - C. De Boor, “On ‘best’ interpolation,”
*Journal of Approximation Theory*16 (1976) 28–42.Google Scholar - A.L. Dontchev and B.D. Kalchev, “Duality and well-posedness in convex interpolation,”
*Numerical Functional Analysis and Optimization*10 (1989) 673–689.Google Scholar - I. Ekeland and R. Temam,
*Convex Analysis and Variational Problems*(North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1976).Google Scholar - J. Favard, “Sur l'interpolation,”
*Journal de Mathematiques Pures et Appliquees*19 (1940) 281–306.Google Scholar - R.L. Francis and G.F. Wright, “Some duality relationships for the generalized Neyman—Pearson problem,”
*Journal of Optimization*4 (1969) 394–412.Google Scholar - K. Glashoff and S.-A. Gustafson,
*Linear Optimization and Approximation*(Springer, New York, 1983).Google Scholar - R.B. Holmes,
*Geometric Functional Analysis and Applications*(Springer, New York, 1975).Google Scholar - L.D. Irvine, S.P. Marin and P.W. Smith, “Constrained interpolation and smoothing,”
*Constructive Approximation*2 (1986) 129–151.Google Scholar - S. Karlin and W.J. Studden,
*Tchebycheff Systems: With Applications in Analysis and Statistics*(Wiley, New York, 1966).Google Scholar - K.O. Kortanek and M. Yamasaki, “Semi-infinite transportation problems,”
*Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications*88 (1982) 555–565.Google Scholar - T.J. Lowe and A.P. Hurter Jr., “The generalized market area problem,”
*Management Science*22 (1976) 1105–1115.Google Scholar - C.A. Micchelli, P.W. Smith, J. Swetits and J.D. Ward, “Constrained
*L*_{p}approximation,”*Constructive Approximation*1 (1985) 93–102.Google Scholar - R.T. Rockafellar, “Integrals which are convex functionals,”
*Pacific Journal of Mathematics*24 (1968) 525–539.Google Scholar - R.T. Rockafellar,
*Convex Analysis*(Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1970).Google Scholar - R.T. Rockafellar,
*Conjugate Duality and Optimization*(SIAM, Philadelphia, PA, 1974).Google Scholar - H.H. Schaefer,
*Topological Vector Spaces*(Springer, New York, 1971).Google Scholar - H.H. Schaefer,
*Banach Lattices and Positive Operators*(Springer, Berlin, 1974).Google Scholar - L.L. Schumaker,
*Spline Functions: Basic Theory*(Wiley, New York, 1981).Google Scholar - I. Singer,
*Best Approximation in Normed Linear Spaces by Elements of Linear Subspaces*(Springer, Berlin, 1970).Google Scholar - M.J. Todd, “Solving the generalized market area problem,”
*Management Science*24 (1978) 1549–1554.Google Scholar