Where here we ask what happens to the infima and sets of minimisers of sequences of functions ? under what conditions do these converge? what is an appropriate notion of convergence for functions which transfers the convergence to the corresponding sequence of its minima and minimizers? This poses a question of *continuity* for the infimum (as an operator) as well as the set of minimisers (as a multi-valued operator). We aim at characterising the continuity of these operators.

Pointwise convergence of , where , to a function is not in general sufficient to guarantee convergence neither of to nor of (which is a sequence of sets) to .

It is in principle easier to answer the question “under what conditions converges to ?” because the convergence of sets requires the introduction of a new notion of convergence.

As we can see in the animation below, we may have a sequence of *continuous* functions which converge *pointwise* to a function , but neither the infima nor the sets of minimisers converge as you would expect.

What we need here is an alternative notion of convergence of sequences of functions which is better suited for the study of the convergence of infima and minimiser sets. This is exactly the *epigraphical* convergence of .

Instead of looking at at individual points we look at the *epigraphs* . The epigraph of a function is defined as

We then need to introduce a suitable notion of convergence for sequences of sets. This is the *Painleve-Kuratowski convergence*, or convergence in the Fell topology.

We then say that a sequence of functions converges *epigraphically* to a function – we denote – if the sequence of sets converges to the epigraph to in the Painleve-Kuratowski sense.

Now, according to Thm. 7.33 in (1), assuming that the sequence is *eventually level-bounded* (functions have bounded level sets for all for some ), and and and are *lower semicontinuous* (i.e., they have closed epigraphs) and proper, then

and the sets are eventually nonempty and form a bounded sequence with

where here is the outer limit of a sequence of sets.

*Note.* in the Wikipedia article on Kuratowski convergence, they use the term *limit superior* in lieu of *outer limit*. In (1) the authors use the term *outer limit* instead to avoid any confusion with the set-theoretic limit which is not a topological notion.

Note that it is possible that contains more elements than the outer limit of .

A special case is when are eventually singletons. Then, we have a strong convergence result, but this would require additional assumptions such as *strict convexity*. It is otherwise quite difficult to establish conditions for the convergence of the minimisers unless we draw restrictive assumptions, e.g., that the functions are nested like .

It is also important to note that according to the above theorem, the limit of may not exist.

Regarding the *continuity* of , we should first define a space of functions on functions and equip it with an appropriate topology to judge whether the set-valued functional

is continuous. This will be the space of *lower semi-continuous* and *proper* functions and the topology will be the topology of *total epi-convergence*. It would take a lot of time and effort to explain the notion of *total* epi-convergence, but according to Thm. 7.53 in (1), it is the same as epi-convergence in certain special cases:

when is further restricted to containing :

(i) only convex functions

(ii) only positive homogeneous functions

Also, if is nonincreasing, then epi-convergence of implies its total epi-convergence and, finally, if is equi-coercive, again epi-convergence is the same as total epi-convergence.

Under these assumptions, the mapping is outer semi-continuous.

(1) R.T. Rockafellar and R.J-B. Wets, Variational Analysis, Grundlehren

der mathematischen Wissenshaften, vol. 317, Springer, Dordrecht 2000, ISBN: 978-3-540-62772-2.