Skip to main content

Continuity of a Vector Norm Mapping

· 5 min read

The Context​

In a mathematical proof to show the existence of the singular-value decomposition (SVD)1 in real matrices which I have recently come across, there is a (small) statement that is applied in it without proof, which goes like this:-

Let A∈Rm×nA \in \mathbb{R^{m \times n}} be a real matrix and x∈Rnx \in \mathbb{R}^n a real vector, then the map f:Rn→Rf : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}, defined by f(x)=∥Ax∥2f(x)=\Vert Ax \Vert_2, where ∥⋅∥2\Vert\cdot\Vert_2 represents the 2-norm (Euclidean norm), is continuous.

This statement is used to show the existence of the largest singular value of a matrix A∈Rm×nA \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}, usually denoted as σ1\sigma_1, when defining σ1:=sup⁡x∈S∥Ax∥2\sigma_1 := \sup_{x \in S} \Vert Ax \Vert_2, where SS represents the unit hypersphere centred at the origin.

This article describes a proof of the statement above, which makes use of the induced matrix norm (also known as the operator norm).

The Good Old Epsilon-Delta​

We employ the ε−δ\varepsilon-\delta definition of a continuous function for this proof, i.e.

Let (X,dX)(X,d_X) and (Y,dY)(Y,d_Y) be metric spaces. A function f:X→Yf : X \to Y is continuous in a set A⊆XA \subseteq X if for any point a∈Aa \in A and any ε>0\varepsilon > 0, there exists some δ>0\delta>0, which depends on ε\varepsilon and/or aa, such that whenever dX(x,a)<δd_X(x,a)<\delta where x∈Xx \in X, we have dY(f(x),f(a))<εd_Y(f(x),f(a))<\varepsilon.

This definition provides rigour to the notion that a continuous function leaves no 'gaps' to its graph, i.e. the distance between two points on the function graph is arbitrarily small as we 'zoom in' indefinitely so that the distance between two points on the domain becomes arbitrarily small.

In our case here, X=RnX = \mathbb{R}^n, Y=R Y=\mathbb{R} and dX=dY=∥⋅∥2d_X = d_Y = \Vert\cdot\Vert_2.

The induced matrix 2-norm, whose definition is stated as follows, also comes into play here.

∥A∥2=sup⁡x∈Rn\{0}∥Ax∥2∥x∥2, where A∈Rm×n.\Vert A \Vert_2= \sup_{x \in \mathbb{R}^n \backslash \{0\}}\frac{\Vert Ax \Vert_2}{\Vert x \Vert_2} \text{, where } A \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}.

With these in place, let's start the proof:-

Let x∈Rnx \in \mathbb{R}^n, A∈Rm×nA \in \mathbb{R^{m \times n}} and ε>0\varepsilon > 0 be arbitrary, and set δ=ε∥A∥2\delta=\dfrac{\varepsilon}{\Vert A \Vert_2}.

If A=0A = 0,i.e. AA is the zero matrix, then ff is essentially the function that maps everything to zero, which is clearly continuous2.

Next, we consider nonzero AA. We first note that from the definition of the induced matrix 2-norm, we can see that for any x,y∈Rnx,y \in \mathbb{R}^n where x≠yx \neq y, we have that

∥A∥2=sup⁡x−y∈Rn\{0}∥Ax−Ay∥2∥x−y∥2⩾∥A(x−y)∥2∥x−y∥2\Vert A \Vert_2=\sup_{x-y \in \mathbb{R}^n \backslash \{0\}}\frac{\Vert Ax-Ay \Vert_2}{\Vert x-y \Vert_2} \geqslant \frac{\Vert A(x-y) \Vert_2}{\Vert x-y \Vert_2}   ⟹  ∥Ax−Ay∥2⩽∥A∥2∥x−y∥2.(*)\implies \Vert Ax-Ay \Vert_2 \leqslant \Vert A \Vert_2 \Vert x-y \Vert_2. \tag{*}

Therefore, it follows that for y∈Rny \in \mathbb{R}^n such that ∥x−y∥2<δ\Vert x-y \Vert_2<\delta,2

∥f(x)−f(y)∥2=∥∥Ax∥2−∥Ay∥2∥2⩽∥Ax−Ay∥2⩽∥A∥2∥x−y∥2<∥A∥2⋅δ=∥A∥2⋅ε∥A∥2=ε.\begin{align*} \Vert f(x)-f(y) \Vert_2 = \left\Vert \Vert Ax \Vert_2-\Vert Ay \Vert_2 \right\Vert_2 & \leqslant \Vert Ax-Ay \Vert_2 \\ & \leqslant \Vert A \Vert_2 \Vert x-y \Vert_2 \\ & < \Vert A \Vert_2 \cdot \delta \\ & = \Vert A \Vert_2 \cdot \frac{\varepsilon}{\Vert A \Vert_2} \\ & = \varepsilon. \end{align*}

Note that the first ⩽\leqslant is due to the triangle inequality, and the second ⩽\leqslant comes from (*).

This thus concludes the proof that the map x↦∥Ax∥2x \mapsto \Vert Ax \Vert_2 is continuous.

The Nicer Things​

In fact, the statement above is a special case and combination of a number of nice results, which are stated as follows:-

The proof of each of these statements is linked as above.

Footnotes​

  1. I am linking the explainer article written by Gregory Gundersen here as I find the article straightforward to understand due to its use of plain language and lack of jargons, as well as illustrations that help readers in visualising the concept. If you want to learn more about SVDs, in particular an alternative existence proof for the SVDs of real matrices, do refer to this article as well. ↩

  2. The case when x=yx = y is immediate: we have that ∥∥Ax∥2−∥Ay∥2∥2=0<ε\left\Vert \Vert Ax \Vert_2-\Vert Ay \Vert_2 \right\Vert_2=0 < \varepsilon, by the literal definition of ε\varepsilon. The exact same argument can be applied for the case when A=0A = 0. ↩ ↩2

  3. The Wikipedia article about Lipschitz continuity is linked here. ↩