Proof.
Let with . For , the statement is obvious, therefore we may assume that . Let be arbitrarily fixed. To show that , let be arbitrary and, for , define
|
|
|
According the Lemma 3, the equality yields that
|
|
|
Since, for , we have that , the above equality implies that
|
|
|
Applying the Lemma 3 again, it follows that .
By the assumption , we have that
|
|
|
According to the Lemma 3, the above inequality implies that
|
|
|
Since, for , we have that , the above inequality yields that
|
|
|
In view of the Lemma 3, it follows that , which obviously yields that
|
|
|
is valid, which completes th proof of .
∎
Proof.
(i) Assume that is a nonempty subinterval such that . Let be fixed. To show that also holds, let first be arbitrary elements of the interior of .
Then, are in the interior of . Consequently, for all , we have that and . Therefore, for all , the inequality holds. According to our assumption, it follows that is also valid for all . This implies that
|
|
|
Choose such that
|
|
|
Then, these inequalities yield that, for all , we have , and hence . Using that holds,
we can obtain that
|
|
|
Using the homogeneity of Gini means, it follows that
(1) holds for arbitrary elements of the interior of . Since the interior of is dense in and the Gini means are continuous functions, it follows that the above inequality is also valid for arbitrary elements of . This proves that and completes the proof of the first statement of assertion (i).
If , then we have that and hold, whence according to the previous statement, we have and , which show that the equality is valid, indeed.
Let be fixed. Observe that with , we have that , therefore, , i.e., is true. Furthermore,
observe that with , we have that
.
Therefore, , i.e., is also true. Thus the proof of assertion (i) is complete.
To verify the first statement of assertion (ii), let and . By definition, for all , we have that (1) holds. Using the substitution , for all , it follows that
|
|
|
This, in view of property (5) in Theorem 1, implies that, for all ,
|
|
|
Therefore, , that is . Thus, we have proved the inclusion .
The proof of the reversed inclusion is analogous.
To show that the second statement of assertion (ii) is also valid, let . Then, for all , we have that (1) holds. Using the substitution , for all , it follows that
|
|
|
This, in view of property (5) in Theorem 1, implies that, for all ,
|
|
|
Therefore, .
To prove assertion (iii), observe that, for all ,
|
|
|
Therefore, if , then , which, according to assertion (i) implies that .
Now the first equality in assertion (ii) yields that
for all . Thus, is a cone in this case.
If , then , consequently, for all ,
|
|
|
Using assertions (i) and (ii), we can obtain that . Therefore, for all , which proves that it is star-shaped with respect to the point .
To verify the last statement of assertion (iii), let be arbitrary. Then there exists such that , , , and . Then, according to Theorem 2, it follows that, for all ,
|
|
|
Using that , we also have that, for all ,
|
|
|
Combining these inequalities, we can conclude that
for all ,
|
|
|
which shows that . Thus, we have completed the proof of assertion (iii).
The nonemptiness of follows from the inclusion . The closedness of is an immediate consequence of the continuity of Gini means with respect to their parameters. Thus assertion (i) is shown.
Finally, we prove assertion (v). Let and denote . Then, according to Theorem 4,
we have that . Therefore, . Thus, it suffices to show that .
Let . Then there exists such that and . These inclusions imply that,
for all ,
|
|
|
Therefore, for all ,
|
|
|
which proves that .
∎
Proof.
Assume that and let satisfy (4). Then the inequality in (4) implies that
|
|
|
Equivalently, this inequality can be rewritten as
|
|
|
whence the following inequality is obtained
|
|
|
Thus, there exists a value such that
|
|
|
These inequalities imply that
|
|
|
which yields that
|
|
|
In view of the assumption , we get that
|
|
|
Using the homogeneity if Gini means, we conclude that
|
|
|
Applying the equality in (4) and the Lemma 3, we can see that . Therefore,
|
|
|
which, by Lemma 3 again, implies that (5) is valid, indeed.
Conversely, let us first assume that, for all which satisfy (4), the inequality (5) holds. To show that the inclusion is valid, let be arbitrary and denote
|
|
|
(6) |
Then, by the homogeneity of Gini means, we have that
|
|
|
According to the Lemma 3, it follows that holds and, for all , we have that , which prove that satisfy the condition (4).
Due to our assumption, we conclude that satisfy the inequality (5). Applying Lemma 3, it follows that
|
|
|
By the definition of and by the homogeneity of Gini means, multiplying this inequality by side by side, we arrive at
|
|
|
which shows that .
∎
Proof.
Assume first that
and let satisfy one of the conditions (7) or (8). Then they also fulfill
|
|
|
Using Lemma 3 and that , these conditions are equivalent to (4). Therefore, according to Theorem 6, the inequality (5) holds, by Lemma 3 again, implies that (10) is also satisfied.
To prove the reversed implication, we consider the following constrained minimization problem:
|
|
|
(11) |
where
|
|
|
We first show that the set of admissible points is compact.
It is clear that is closed, we need only to verify that is bounded. Let be fixed. First observe that the inequalities must be valid. Indeed, if were true, then, for all , we would have that , which contradicts the equality . The inequality leads to a contradiction similarly. Using also the inequalities in the definition of , it follows that, for all ,
|
|
|
which prove that . Therefore, is bounded indeed.
Consequently, the minimization problem (11) has a solution.
To find these solutions, we use the Lagrange Multiplier Rule (for a smooth problem with one equality and inequality constraints). The Lagrange function of this problem is:
|
|
|
According to the standard results, if is a solution to (11), then there exist real multipliers (not all zero) such that
|
|
|
and, for all ,
|
|
|
(12) |
There are two cases:
Case I: If .
In this case for all . Therefore, by the transversality condition, holds for all and (12) simplifies to
|
|
|
(13) |
and . We now show that .
If , then , and the equality (13) simplifies to
|
|
|
Since the function may possess at most one zero which must be different from , we have that , which contradicts the inequalities . Therefore, has to be valid and then the equality (13) simplifies to
|
|
|
The equality in the definition of the set , according to Lemma 3, is equivalent to the condition .
Therefore, satisfy condition (7) with .
Case II: If .
In this case, denote
|
|
|
Then, neither nor is empty and, for all , the equality holds. On the other hand, for all , we have that , which, by the transversality condition implies that in these cases. Therefore, (12) simplifies to
|
|
|
(14) |
If , then for , we get
|
|
|
Since the terms of this sum are nonnegative, it follows that for all , which contradicts the nontriviality of the multipliers.
If we set in (14), then we get
|
|
|
Arguing similarly for and , we can conclude that
|
|
|
(15) |
If , then we can see that satisfy condition (8) with . In the case when
, then and
|
|
|
Therefore, in this case, satisfy condition (9) with .
Consequently, by the assumption of the theorem, the inequality
(10) is satisfied, equivalently, the inequality (5) holds.
By now, we have proved that for the solutions of the constrained minimization problem, the inequality (5) is valid. Therefore, the inequality (5) must be true for all . Consequently, in view of Theorem 6, we have that .
∎