Nonlinear Equations - UFRJ
Nonlinear Equations - UFRJ
Nonlinear Equations - UFRJ
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
[SEC. A.5: EXTENSION OF THE ALGORITHMS... 161<br />
logarithmic in the condition number of the extremes, see [14]. Their<br />
computation is however a difficult task. A simple question that one<br />
may ask is the following: let (f t , ζ t ), 0 ≤ t ≤ 1 be a geodesic for the<br />
condition metric. Is it true that max{µ(f t , ζ t : 0 ≤ t ≤ 1} is reached<br />
at the extremes t = 0, 1? More generally, one can ask for convexity<br />
of µ along these geodesics, or even convexity of log µ (which implies<br />
convexity of µ).<br />
Following [8,9,21], let us put the question in a general setting. Let<br />
M be a Riemannian manifold and let κ : M → (0, ∞) be a Lipschitz<br />
function. We call that conformal metric in M obtained by pointwise<br />
multiplying the original one by κ the condition metric. We say that<br />
a curve γ(t) in M is a minimizing geodesic (in the condition metric)<br />
if it has minimal (condition) length among all curves with the same<br />
extremes. A geodesic in the condition metric is then by definition any<br />
curve that is locally a minimizing geodesic. Then, we say that κ is<br />
self–convex if the function<br />
t → log(κ(γ(t)))<br />
is convex for any geodesic γ(t) in M. The question is then: Is µ<br />
self–convex in W ?<br />
It is interesting to point out that the usual unnormalized condition<br />
number of linear algebra (that is, κ(A) = ‖A −1 ‖) is a self–convex<br />
function in the set of maximal rank matrices, see [8,9] In [8] it is also<br />
proved that functions given by the inverse of the distance to a (sufficiently<br />
regular) submanifold of R n is log–convex when restricted to<br />
an open set. Another interesting question is if that result can be extended<br />
to arbitrary submanifolds of arbitrary Riemannian manifolds.<br />
A.5 Extension of the algorithms for Smale’s<br />
17th problem to other subspaces<br />
The algorithms described above are all designed to solve polynomial<br />
systems which are assumed to be in dense representation. In particular,<br />
the “average” running time is for dense polynomial systems.<br />
As any affine subspace of H d has zero–measure in H d , one cannot<br />
conclude that the average running time of any of these algorithms