Projections onto hyperbolas or bilinear constraint sets in Hilbert spaces

Abstract: Sets of bilinear constraints are important in various machine learning models. Mathematically, they are hyperbolas in a product space. In this paper, we give a complete formula for projections onto sets of bilinear constraints or hyperbolas in a general Hilbert space.

\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper, we assume that
\begin{empheq}[box=\mybluebox]{equation}
    \text{$X$ is a Hilbert space

    with inner product
    $\scal{\cdot}{\cdot}\colon X\times X\to\ensuremath{\mathbb R}$, }
\end{empheq}
and induced norm $\|\cdot\|$. In various learning models \cite{elser2019learning,elser2017products}, Elser utilizes
projections onto the \emph{bilinear constraint} set:
\begin{empheq}[box=\mybluebox]{equation}
\label{e:defC}
C_\gamma := \menge{(x,y)\in X\times
X}{\scal{x}{y}=\gamma}
\end{empheq}
where $\gamma\in\ensuremath{\mathbb R}$ is a fixed constant. Mathematically speaking, up to a rotation, this is just a hyperbola or
quadratic surface in $X\times X$. Finding projections onto quadratic curves or surfaces algorithmically
have many practical applications;
see, e.g., \cite{quadrics, conics, elser2019learning, elser2017products}.
If $\gamma=0$ in $C_{\gamma}$, then $C_0$ becomes the set `cross' in $X\times X$.
The projection formula for the `cross' has been thoroughly investigated \cite{cross}.
In \cite{elser2019learning,elser2017products}, although Elser has provided some
results on projections
onto $C_{\gamma}$ only when $X=\ensuremath{\mathbb R}^n$, complete mathematical details are not presented.

\emph{The goal of this paper is to give a complete analysis of the projection onto the set $C_{\gamma}$ with $\gamma\neq 0$,
and extend the results to a general Hilbert space.}

\noindent The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. \cref{sec:aux} gives
some general properties of bilinear constraint sets. In \cref{section:hyperbola} we
focus on full mathematical details
for the existence and explicit formula of projections onto hyperbolas. Using results
from \cref{section:hyperbola}, in
Sections~\ref{sec:positive:gam}--\ref{sec:negative:gam} we provide explicit formulas for
projections onto sets of bilinear constraints.
Our notation is standard and follows largely \cite{BC2017,Rock98}.
\section{General properties of $C_{\gamma}$}
\label{sec:aux}
In an infinite-dimensional space, the existence of projection onto a set
often requires the weak closedness of the set.
Our first result says that
although the set $C_{\gamma}$ is norm closed it is not weakly closed in $X\times X$.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:weak}

The set $C_{\gamma}$ is closed in the
norm
topology but
not closed in the weak topology in $X\times X$.
In fact, $\overline{C_{\gamma}}^{\rm weak}=X\times X$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} Evidently, $C_{\gamma}$ is norm closed. We show that
$\overline{C_{\gamma}}^{\rm weak}=X\times X$.
Let $(x,y)\in X\times X$. Consider $S=\mbox{span}\{x,y\}$.
The orthogonal decomposition theorem gives $X= S\oplus S^{\perp}$.
Because $X$ is infinite-dimensional and $S$ is at most two-dimensional, $S^{\perp}$ is infinite dimensional, so
any orthonormal base of $S^{\perp}$ must have a sequence $(e_{n})_{\ensuremath{{n\in{\mathbb N}}}}$ which converges weakly to $0$, i.e.,
$e_{n}\rightharpoonup 0$; see, e.g., \cite{kreyszig}.
Also $e_{n}\perp x$ and
$e_{n}\perp y.$
Set $\xi =\gamma-\langle x, y\rangle$. Then
\begin{align}
\scal{x-\xi e_{n}}{y-e_{n}} &=
\scal{x}{y}-\scal{x}{e_{n}}-\xi\scal{e_{n}}{y}+\xi\scal{e_{n}}{e_{n}}\\
&=\scal{x}{y}+\xi  =\gamma,
\end{align}
so $(x-\xi e_{n}, y-e_{n})\in C_{\gamma}$.
Since $(x-\xi e_{n}, y-e_{n}) \rightharpoonup (x,y)$, we have
 $(x, y)\in \overline{C_{\gamma}}^{\rm weak}$.
Because $(x,y)\in X\times X$ was arbitrary, we conclude that
$X\times X\subseteq \overline{C}^{\rm weak}$.
\end{proof}

Proposition~\ref{p:weak} indicates that finding $P_{C_{\gamma}}$, i.e., projections onto $C_{\gamma}$,
might be complicated in a general Hilbert space.
This seemingly difficult issue can be completely avoided by utilizing the structures of
the optimization problem. See Subsection~\ref{s:existence} below.

\begin{comment}
The following facts work in Hilbert space.

\begin{fact}
\label{f:Bert1}
If $x^*$ is a local minimizer of $f(x)$ subject to $h_1(x)=0,\ldots,
h_m(x)=0$ and the gradients $\nabla h_1(x^*),\ldots,\nabla h_m(x^*)$
are linearly independent, then
there a unique vector $(\lambda_1^*,\ldots,\lambda_m^*)$ such that
\begin{equation}
\nabla f(x^*) + \sum_{i=1}^{m}\lambda_i \nabla h_i(x^*) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Proposition~4.1.1]{Bertsekas}.
\end{proof}

\begin{fact}
\label{f:Bert2}
Given $f$ and $h$ are twice continuously differentiable, and let $x^{*} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb R}^n$ and $\lambda^{*} \in \ensuremath{\mathbb R}^m$ satisfy
\begin{align}
   \nabla_x L(x^{*},\lambda^{*}) = 0, ~ \nabla_{\lambda} L(x^{*},\lambda^{*}) = 0 \\
   y'\nabla^{2}_{xx}L(x^{*},\lambda^{*})y>0, ~~ \forall y\neq 0 ~\text{with}~\nabla h(x^{*})'y = 0.
\end{align}
Then $x^*$ is a strict local minimum of $f(x)$ subject to $h(x)=0$. In fact, there exist scalers $\delta>0$ and $\epsilon>0$ such that
\begin{align}
 f(x) \geq f(x^{*})+\frac{\delta}{2}\norm{x-x^{*}}^2, \quad \forall x ~\text{with}~ h(x)= 0~\text{and}~\norm{x-x^{*}} < \epsilon
\end{align}
\end{fact}
\begin{proof}
See \cite[Proposition~4.2.1]{Bertsekas}.
\end{proof}\\
Note that the above sufficient conditions do not include regularity of the vector $x^{*}$.
\end{comment}

Our next result says that when $\gamma\neq 0$, locally around
the set $C_{\gamma}$ the projection onto the set is always single-valued.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:regular}
 Let $\gamma\neq 0$, and $C_{\gamma}
= \menge{(x,y)\in X\times X}{\scal{x}{y}=\gamma}.$
For every $(x,y)\in C_{\gamma}$,
the the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{i:prox1}
$C_{\gamma}$ is prox-regular at $(x,y)$.
\item\label{i:prox2}
There exists a neighborhood of $(x,y)$
on which
the projection mapping onto $C_{\gamma}$ is monotone and Lipschitz continuous.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\ref{i:prox1}: Write
$\iota_{C_{\gamma}}(x,y)=\iota_{\{\gamma\}}(h(x,y))$ where $h(x,y)=\scal{x}{y}$. Let
$(x,y)\in C_{\gamma}$. Then
$\nabla h(x,y)=(y,x) \neq (0,0)$ because of $\gamma\neq 0$.
 Being a composition of a convex function $\iota_{\{\gamma\}}$
and a twice
differentiable function $h$ that is qualified at $(x,y)$, \cite[Proposition 2.4]{thibault} shows that
$\iota_{C_{\gamma}}$ is prox-regular at $(x,y)$, so is $C_{\gamma}$.

\ref{i:prox2}: Apply \ref{i:prox1} and \cite[Proposition 4.4]{thibault}.
\end{proof}

Observe that  Proposition~\ref{p:regular}
also follow from \cite[Proposition 13.32]{Rock98} and \cite[Exercise 13.38]{Rock98} when $X=\ensuremath{\mathbb R}^n$; and that
when $\gamma=0$, $C_{0}$ is not prox-regular at $(0,0)$. Although the projection
exists locally around $C_{\gamma}$, it is still not clear for the global existence.

\section{Projections onto hyperbolas}
\label{section:hyperbola}
For ease of analysis, we start with
\begin{empheq}{equation*}
C_{\gamma} := \menge{(x,y)\in X\times X}{h(x,y):=\scal{x}{y}-\gamma=0}
\end{empheq}
where $\gamma>0$.
Our goal is to find the projection formula
$P_{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,y_{0})$ for every $(x_{0},y_{0})\in X\times X$. That is,
\begin{empheq}{equation*}
\text{minimize} \quad f(x,y):=\|x-x_{0}\|^2+\|y-y_{0}\|^2
\quad\text{subject to} \quad (x,y) \in C_{\gamma}.\tag{P}
\end{empheq}

\subsection{Auxiliary problems and existence of projections}
\label{s:existence}
\noindent To determine the projection operator $\proj{C_{\gamma}}$ of the set $C_{\gamma}$,
we shall introduce two
equivalently
reformulated problems.
First, for every $(u_{0},v_{0})\in X\times X$, we solve the problem
\begin{empheq}{equation*}
\text{minimize} \quad f_{1}(u,v):=\|u-u_{0}\|^2+\|v-v_{0}\|^2
\quad\text{subject to} \quad (u,v) \in \ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1, \tag{$\tilde{P}_{1}$}
\end{empheq}
where  $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1:= \menge{(u,v)\in \ensuremath{{X}} \times \ensuremath{{X}}}{h_{1}(u,v):=\norm{u}^2 -\norm{v}^2-2=0}.$
Next, for every $(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0},\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0})\in X\times X$ we solve the problem
\begin{empheq}{equation*}
\text{minimize} \quad f_{\gamma}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v}):=\|\tilde{u}-\tilde{u}_{0}\|^2+\|\tilde{v}-
\tilde{v}_{0}\|^2
\quad\text{subject to} \quad (\tilde{u},\tilde{v}) \in \ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}, \tag{$\tilde{P}_{\gamma}$}
\end{empheq}
where $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}:= \menge{(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})\in \ensuremath{{X}} \times \ensuremath{{X}}}{h_{\gamma}(
\tilde{u},\tilde{v}):=\norm{\tilde{u}}^2 -\norm{\tilde{v}}^2-2\gamma=0}$.
Both $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{1}$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}$ are hyperbolas.
$\tilde{P}_{1}$ and $\tilde{P}_{\gamma}$ solve for projections $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{1}}$ and $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}$ respectively,
and their connections to
$P_{C_{\gamma}}$ are given by the \cref{p:reformulate} below. Recall
\begin{definition}[Rotation with an angle $\phi$]
\label{f:rotation}
A change of coordinates $(u,v) \in \ensuremath{{X}} \times \ensuremath{{X}}$, by rotation through an angle $\phi$, is defined by
$$
\begin{bmatrix}x\\y\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}\cos\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & -\sin\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \\
\addlinespace
\sin\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \cos\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}u\\v\end{bmatrix}.$$
\end{definition}
Put
$$A_{\phi}:=\begin{bmatrix}\cos\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & -\sin\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \\
\addlinespace
\sin\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \cos\phi\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \end{bmatrix}.$$
Then $A_{\phi}A_{-\phi}=\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}=A_{-\phi}A_{\phi}$ and $A^{-1}_{\phi}=A_{-\phi}$.
The relationships among $P_{C_{\gamma}}, P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}$ and $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{1}}$ are summarized below.
\begin{proposition}\label{p:reformulate}
The following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{i:scaling} $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}=\sqrt{\gamma}P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{1}}(\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}/\sqrt{\gamma}).$
\item\label{i:rotate} $P_{C_{\gamma}}=A_{\pi/4}P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}A_{-\pi/4}.$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\ref{i:scaling}: $(\tilde{P}_{1})$ is equivalent to $(\tilde{P}_{\gamma})$
by a change of variables of scaling
$\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}/\sqrt{\gamma}$. Indeed, using
$$
\begin{bmatrix}
u\\
v
\end{bmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\tilde{u}\\
\tilde{v}
\end{bmatrix}, \text{ and } \begin{bmatrix}
u_{0}\\
v_{0}
\end{bmatrix}
=
\frac{1}{\sqrt{\gamma}}
\begin{bmatrix}
\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\\
\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}
\end{bmatrix}
$$
$h_{\gamma}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})=0$ becomes $h_{1}(u,v)=0$, and
$f_{\gamma}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})$ becomes
$\gamma f_{1}(u,v)=\gamma(\|u-u_{0}\|^2+\|v-v_0\|^2)$.

\ref{i:rotate}: $(P)$ is equivalent to $(\tilde{P}_{\gamma})$ by a change of variables of
rational $A_{\pi/4}$. Indeed, with
$$\begin{bmatrix}
x\\
y
\end{bmatrix}
  =A_{\pi/4}\begin{bmatrix}
  \tilde{u}\\
  \tilde{v}
  \end{bmatrix}, \text{ and }
  \begin{bmatrix}
x_{0}\\
y_{0}
\end{bmatrix}
  =A_{\pi/4}\begin{bmatrix}
  \tilde{u}_{0}\\
  \tilde{v}_{0}
  \end{bmatrix}
  $$
 the objective $f(x,y) = \|x-x_0\|^2 + \|y-y_0\|^2=\|(x,y)-(x_{0},y_0)\|^2$ can be rewritten as
 \begin{align}
   f(x,y) &=

\norm{A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\begin{bmatrix}
           \tilde{u}-\tilde{u}_0 \\
          \tilde{v}-\tilde{v}_0 \end{bmatrix}
     }^2 \nonumber =
     \begin{bmatrix}
           \tilde{u}-\tilde{u}_{0} \\
          \tilde{v}-\tilde{v}_{0} \end{bmatrix}^{T}A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}^{T}A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\begin{bmatrix}
           \tilde{u}-\tilde{u}_{0} \\
          \tilde{v}-\tilde{v}_{0} \end{bmatrix} \\
&
=\norm{\tilde{u}-\tilde{u}_0}^2 + \norm{\tilde{v}-\tilde{v}_0}^2, \nonumber\label{new_obj}
  \end{align}
  and
  $h(x,y)=\scal{x}{y}-\gamma=0$ becomes $h_{\gamma}(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})=
  \|\tilde{u}\|^2-\|\tilde{v}\|^2-2\gamma=0$.
\end{proof}

In view of Proposition~\ref{p:reformulate}\ref{i:rotate}, to see
that $P_{C_{\gamma}}(x,y)\neq \varnothing$ for every $(x,y)\in X\times X$,
the following observation is crucial.

\begin{proposition}\label{p:two:dim}
For every $(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0,\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0) \in \ensuremath{{X}}\times\ensuremath{{X}}$,
the minimization problem
\begin{eqnarray}
\text{minimize} & \quad f_{\gamma}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}},\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}) =\|\tilde{u}-\tilde{u}_{0}\|^2+\|\tilde{v}-
\tilde{v}_{0}\|^2 \label{e:simple1}\\
\text{subject to} & \quad  h_{\gamma}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}},\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}) =\norm{\tilde{u}}^2 -\norm{\tilde{v}}^2-2\gamma =0
\label{e:simple2}
\end{eqnarray}
always has a solution, i.e., $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0},\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0})\neq\varnothing$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} We shall illustrate only the case $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\neq 0, \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\neq 0$, since
the other cases are similar. We claim that the optimization problem is essentially
$2$-dimensional. To this end, we expand
\begin{align}
f_{\gamma}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}},\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}) &
=\underbrace{\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|^2-2\scal{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}}+\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\|^2}+\underbrace{\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\|^2-2\scal{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}}+\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\|^2}.
\end{align}
The constraint
$$h_{\gamma}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}},\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}):=\norm{\tilde{u}}^2 -\norm{\tilde{v}}^2-2\gamma =0$$
means that only the norms $\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|$ and $\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\|$ matter.
With $\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|$ fixed, the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality in a Hilbert space, see, e.g., \cite{kreyszig},
shows that $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\mapsto\scal{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}}$
will be larger so that
the first underlined part in $f_{\gamma}$ will be smaller when
$\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}$ and $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}$ are positively co-linear, i.e, $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}=\alpha\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}$ for some
$\alpha\geq 0$. Similarly, for fixed $\|v\|$ the second underlined part in
$f_{\gamma}$ will be smaller when
$\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}=\beta\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}$ for some $\beta\geq 0$. It follows that the optimization
problem given by \eqref{e:simple1}-\eqref{e:simple2} is equivalent to
\begin{align}
\text{minimize} &\quad g(\alpha,\beta):=(1-\alpha)^2\|\tilde{u}_{0}\|^2+(1-\beta)^2\|
\tilde{v}_{0}\|^2\label{e:sunday1}\\
\text{subject to} & \quad g_{1}(\alpha,\beta):=\alpha^2\norm{\tilde{u}_{0}}^2 -
\beta^2\norm{\tilde{v}_{0}}^2-2\gamma =0, \alpha\geq 0, \beta\geq 0.\label{e:sunday2}
\end{align}
Because $g:\ensuremath{\mathbb R}^2\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb R}$ is continuous and coercive, and $g_{1}:\ensuremath{\mathbb R}^2\rightarrow\ensuremath{\mathbb R}$ is
continuous, we conclude that the optimization problem given by
\eqref{e:sunday1}-\eqref{e:sunday2} has a solution.
\end{proof}

We are now ready for the investigation of projections onto $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{1}, \ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}$ and $C_{\gamma}$.

\subsection{Finding the projection $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{1}}$}
Note that
\begin{equation}
\label{e:ngradients}
\nabla f_{1}(u,v) = (2(u-u_0),2(v-v_0))
\quad\text{and}\quad
\nabla h_{1}(u,v) = (2u,-2v).
\end{equation}
By \cite[Proposition~4.1.1]{Bertsekas}, every solution of ($\tilde{P}_{1}$) satisfies
the necessarily conditions, i.e., the KKT system of ($\tilde{P}_{1}$), given by
\begin{align}
(1+\lambda) u = u_0 \label{eq:l1}\\
(1 - \lambda) v = v_0 \label{eq:l2}\\ \|u\|^2-\|v\|^2-2=0\label{eq:l3}.
\end{align}
\begin{lemma}\label{l:bounds}
Let $u_0\neq 0,v_0\neq 0$. If $(u, v, \lambda)$ verifies \eqref{eq:l1}--\eqref{eq:l3} and
$(u,v)$ is an optimal solution of problem ($\tilde{P}_{1}$), then
the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda$
 satisfies $|\lambda|<1$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The constraint set
$$\|u\|^2-\|v\|^2=2,$$
has a special structure: replacing $u$ by $-u$, or $v$ by $-v$
the constraint is still verified.
Also consider
$$f(u,v)=\|u-u_{0}\|^2+\|v-v_{0}\|^2=\|u_{0}\|^2-2\scal{u_{0}}{u}+
\|u\|^2+\|v_0\|^2-2\scal{v_{0}}{v}+\|v\|^2,$$
Given $u_{0} \text{ and }
v_{0}$, for fixed $\|u\|$ and $\|v\|$, $f(u,v)$ becomes smaller if one choose
$\scal{u_{0}}{u}\geq 0$, and
$\scal{v_{0}}{v}\geq 0$. Indeed, one can do so by replacing $u$ by $-u$ or $v$ by $-v$ if needed.
Now by \eqref{eq:l1} and \eqref{eq:l2},
$$(1+\lambda)\scal{u_{0}}{u}=\|u_{0}\|^2, \text{ and }
(1-\lambda)\scal{v_{0}}{v}=\|v_{0}\|^2.$$
Because $u_{0}\neq 0, v_{0}\neq 0$, we have $\scal{u_{0}}{u}>0, \scal{v_{0}}{v}>0$ so that
$1+\lambda>0, 1-\lambda>0$. Hence
$|\lambda|<1.$
\end{proof}

\begin{proposition}
\label{p:2011d4.1}
Let $u_0\neq0, v_0\neq 0$. Define $p \coloneqq\norm{u_0}^2 - \norm{v_0}^2 $ and $q \coloneqq\norm{u_0}^2 + \norm{v_0}^2$.
Suppose that $u,v\in\ensuremath{{X}}$ and $\lambda\in\ensuremath{\mathbb R}$ verify \eqref{eq:l1}-\eqref{eq:l3} and $(u,v)$ is an optimal solution
to ($\tilde{P}_{1}$).
Then
the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{p:2011411}
$u = \frac{u_0}{(1+\lambda)}$, $v = \frac{v_0}{(1-\lambda)}$, and
$(1-\lambda)^2\norm{u_0}^2 - (1+\lambda)^2\norm{v_0}^2
= 2(1-\lambda^2)^2$.

\item
\label{p:2011412}
The objective function has
$
f_{1}(u,v) = \lambda^2\bigg(\frac{\|u_0\|^2}{(1+\lambda)^2}+\frac{\|v_0\|^2}{(1-\lambda)^2} \bigg).
$
\item
\label{p:2011413}
$\lambda$ is the unique solution of
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:main}
H(\lambda) \coloneqq \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} -1  = 0
\end{equation}
in $\left]-1,1\right[$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
\cref{p:2011411}: Because $u_0\neq0, v_0\neq0$, we obtain $|\lambda|<1$,
$u = \frac{u_0}{(1+\lambda)}$ and $v = \frac{v_0}{(1-\lambda)}$ by
Lemma~\ref{l:bounds} and \eqref{eq:l1}-\eqref{eq:l2}.
Then we have the following equivalences
\begin{align}
\norm{u}^2 - \norm{v}^2 =2
&\Leftrightarrow
\frac{\norm{u_0}^2}{(1+\lambda)^2} - \frac{\norm{v_0}^2}{(1-\lambda)^2} = 2 \\
&\Leftrightarrow
(1-\lambda)^2\norm{u_0}^2  - (1+\lambda)^2 \norm{v_0}^2 =2(1-\lambda)^2(1+\lambda)^2\\
&\Leftrightarrow
(1-\lambda)^2\norm{u_0}^2  - (1+\lambda)^2 \norm{v_0}^2 =2(1-\lambda^2)^2.
\end{align}
\cref{p:2011412}: Substitute $u = \frac{u_0}{(1+\lambda)}$ and $v = \frac{v_0}{(1-\lambda)}$ in $f_{1}$.\\
\cref{p:2011413}:
By \cref{p:2011411}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e:2011416}
(1-\lambda)^2\norm{u_0}^2 - (1+\lambda)^2 \norm{v_0}^2 =2(1-\lambda^2)^2.
\end{equation}
Since
\begin{align}
&\hspace{-1cm}
(1-\lambda)^2\norm{u_0}^2 - (1+\lambda)^2 \norm{v_0}^2\\
&=
\big(1+\lambda^2-2\lambda\big)\|u_0\|^2 - \big(1+\lambda^2+2\lambda\big)\|v_0\|^2\\
&=
\lambda^2\big(\|u_0\|^2-\|v_0\|^2\big)+\big(\|u_0\|^2-\|v_0\|^2\big)-2\lambda\big(\|u_0\|^2+\|v_0\|^2\big) \\
&=\lambda^2 p+p-2\lambda q, \label{e:num}
\end{align}
using \cref{e:num} on left side of \cref{e:2011416}, we obtain $\lambda^2 p+p-2\lambda q =2(1-\lambda^2)^2$,
a univariate quartic equation in $\lam$, equivalently,
\begin{align}
\label{eq:quartic1}
 H(\lambda) \coloneqq \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} -1  = 0.
\end{align}
We show that \cref{eq:quartic1} has a unique solution in $]-1,1[$.
Because $u_0\neq0, v_0\neq0$,
we know that $q >|p|$,
and using it along-with $|\lambda|<1$ from \cref{l:bounds},
we get $p\lambda \leq |p||\lambda|\leq q|\lambda|$, and
\begin{align}
H'(\lambda)
&= \frac{1}{(1-\lambda^2)^3}\big(-q(1+3\lambda^2) + p(\lambda^3+3\lambda)\big)\\
&\leq\frac{1}{(1-\lambda^2)^3}\big(-q(1+3\lambda^2) + |p||\lambda|(\lambda^2+3)\big)\\
&\leq\frac{1}{(1-\lambda^2)^3}\big(-q(1+3\lambda^2)+ q|\lambda|(\lambda^2+3)\big)\\
&= \frac{q}{(1-\lambda^2)^3}\big((|\lambda|-1)^3\big)
\\
&= \frac{-q}{((1-|\lambda|)(1+|\lambda|))^3}\big((1-|\lambda|)^3\big)
\\ &= \frac{-q}{(1+|\lambda|)^3}.
\end{align}
Since $q = \|u_0\|^2 + \|v_0\|^2 > 0$ and $(1+|\lambda|)^3 > 0$, we have $H'(\lambda)<0$ on $]-1,1[$, which implies  $H(\lambda)$
is strictly decreasing on $]-1,1[$. Notice that $\lambda = \pm 1$ are vertical asymptotes because
at $\lambda = \pm 1$ the numerator of $H(\lambda)$ is, $H(-1) = 2(p+q)=4\|u_0\|^2 > 0$ and $H(1) = 2(p - q) = - 4 \|v_0\|^2 < 0$, so
that $\lim_{\lambda \to 1^{-}} H(\lambda) = - \infty$ and $\lim_{\lambda \to -1^{+}} H(\lambda) = + \infty$. Since
$H$ is continuous, strictly decreasing, and its range is $]-\infty, \infty[$, we conclude
that $H(\lambda) = 0$ has a unique zero in $]-1,1[$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
As indicated in \cite{elser2019learning},
an approximate solution to \eqref{eq:main} can be found by the Bisection method, Newton's method, or a combined
version. See also \cite{burden2011analisis, robust}.
\end{remark}

\begin{theorem}
\label{t:hyperbola1}
Let $u_0,v_0 \in \ensuremath{{X}}$, $u_{0} \neq 0, v_{0} \neq 0$. Then $\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}(u_0,v_0)$ is a singleton, and
 $$\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}(u_0,v_0)

  =

 \left\{ \begin{bmatrix}
   \frac{u_0}{1+\lambda}\\
   \addlinespace
   \frac{v_0}{1-\lambda}

 \end{bmatrix}
 \right\}
  $$
 in which $\lambda$ is the unique root of $H(\lambda)=0$ in $]-1,1[$ where

  \begin{align*}
     H(\lambda) =
      \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} -1, \text{ and }
        \\
      p =\norm{u_0}^2 - \norm{v_0}^2, \quad q =\norm{u_0}^2 + \norm{v_0}^2.

      \end{align*}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Apply \cref{p:2011d4.1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{p:2011d4.5}
  Let $u_0,v_0 \in \ensuremath{{X}}$ with either $u_0=0$ or $v_0=0$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\label{p:2011d4.5a} When $u_0 = 0,$
we have
    \begin{align}
    \label{f:1}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}(0,v_0) = \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    u\\
    \frac{v_0}{2}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \bigg|\ \|u\|^2 = 2+ \frac{\|v_0\|^2}{4}
    \right\}.\end{align}
    \item
    \label{p:2011d4.5b}
    a) When $ v_0 = 0$ and $\|u_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2}$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \label{f:2a}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}(u_0,0) = \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{u_0}{2}\\
    v\end{bmatrix}
    \bigg| \ \|v\|^2 = \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}-2\right\}.
    \end{align}
    b) When $v_0 = 0$ and $ 0<\|u_0\|< 2\sqrt{2}$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \label{f:2b}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}(u_0,0) = \left\{\begin{bmatrix}
    \sqrt{2}\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|}\\
    0\end{bmatrix}
    \right\}.\end{align}

\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} By \eqref{eq:l1}--\eqref{eq:l3}, $(u,v)\in \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}(u_{0},v_0)$ satisfies:
\begin{align}
        (1+\lambda) u = u_0 \label{0.1}\\
        (1 - \lambda) v = v_0 \label{0.2}\\
        \|u\|^2 - \|v\|^2=2    \label{0.3},
\end{align}
for some $\lambda\in\ensuremath{\mathbb R}$.

\noindent \ref{p:2011d4.5a}: $u_0 = 0,v_0\neq0$.
\eqref{0.1} yields
 $(1+\lambda)u=0 \Rightarrow$ either $1+\lambda=0$ or $u=0$. We consider two cases.

\textbf{Case 1:}~$1+\lambda=0$, i.e., $\lambda =-1$.
By (\ref{0.2}),
$2v =v_0 \Rightarrow v = \frac{v_0}{2}$ and then
by (\ref{0.3}), $\|u\|^2-\|\frac{v_0}{2}\|^2=2 \Rightarrow \|u\|^2=2+\frac{\|v_0\|^2}{4}$. So, $(u,v)=\left(u,\frac{v_0}{2}\right)$ and
$\|u\|^2=2+\frac{\|v_0\|^2}{4}$. The objective function is
\begin{align*}
    f(u,v) =\|u-u_0\|^2+\|v-v_0\|^2
= \|u\|^2+\norm{\frac{v_0}{2}}^2
    = 2+\frac{\|v_0\|^2}{4}+\frac{\|v_0\|^2}{4}
    = 2+\frac{\|v_0\|^2}{2}.
\end{align*}

\textbf{Case 2:}~$u=0$. By (\ref{0.3}), $(0-\|v\|^2)=2$, which is impossible.\\
Combining both cases we have the formula (\ref{f:1}).

\noindent \ref{p:2011d4.5b}: $u_0 \neq 0$, but $v_0 = 0$, which implies $(1-\lambda)v =0$ by (\ref{0.2}).
We consider two cases:

\textbf{Case 1:} $1-\lambda=0$, i.e., $ \lambda = 1$.
By (\ref{0.1}), $2u = u_0 \Rightarrow u = \frac{u_0}{2}$ and then by (\ref{0.3}), $\|v\|^2 = \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}-2 \Rightarrow \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}-2 \geq 0 \Rightarrow \|u_0\|^2 \geq 8$. Thus, $(u,v)=\left(\frac{u_0}{2},v\right)$ with
$\|v\|^2=\frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}-2$, where the objective is
\begin{align*}
    f(u,v) = \|u-u_0\|^2+\|v-v_0\|^2
= \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}+\frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4} -2
    = \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{2} -2.
\end{align*}
Note that Case 1 needs $\|u_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2}$.

\textbf{Case 2:} $v=0$. Then $\|u\|^2=2 \Rightarrow \|u\|=\sqrt{2}$
by \eqref{0.3}. By (\ref{0.1}), $|1+\lambda|\|u\|=\|u_0\| \Rightarrow |1+\lambda| = \frac{\|u_0\|}{\sqrt{2}} \Rightarrow 1+\lambda = \pm \frac{\|u_0\|}{\sqrt{2}}.$
\\ \textbf{Subcase 1:}
$1+\lambda = -\frac{\|u_0\|}{\sqrt{2}}$. By (\ref{0.1}), $u = \frac{u_0}{(-\frac{\|u_0\|}{\sqrt{2}})} = - \frac{\sqrt{2} u_0}{\|u_0\|}$. Then
$$f(u,0)=\|u-u_0\|^2+\|0-v_0\|^2= \norm{-\frac{\sqrt{2} u_0}{\|u_0\|}-u_0}^2
    =
    (\|u_0\|+\sqrt{2})^2.$$
\\ \textbf{Subcase 2:}
$1+\lambda = \frac{\|u_0\|}{\sqrt{2}}.$
By \eqref{0.1},
$u = \frac{\sqrt{2} u_0}{\|u_0\|}$. Then
$$f(u,0)=\|u-u_0\|^2+\|0-v_0\|^2= \norm{u_0-\frac{\sqrt{2} u_0}{\|u_0\|}}^2
= (\|u_0\|-\sqrt{2})^2. $$
Comparing Subcase 1 and Subcase 2, we obtain $|\|u_0\|-\sqrt{2}|<\|u_0\|+\sqrt{2}$ because $\|u_0\|\neq 0$.
That is, Subcase 2 gives a smaller value at $(u,0)$ with $u=\sqrt{2}\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|}$. We need to compare it
to Case 1 whenever it happens. Note that
$$\frac{\|u_0\|^2}{2}-2<(\|u_0\|-\sqrt{2})^2\quad\text{whenever}\quad\|u_0\|\neq 2\sqrt{2}.$$
Indeed, we have
$$
    \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{2}-2<\|u_0\|^2-2\sqrt{2}\|u_0\|+2 \Longleftrightarrow \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{2} -2\sqrt{2}\|u_0\|+4 > 0\\\Longleftrightarrow

    (\|u_0\|-2\sqrt{2})^2 >0,
$$
which always holds if $\|u_0\|\neq 2\sqrt{2}$. Hence, the nearest points are given by
\begin{align}
\label{smile1}
    \left(\frac{u_0}{2},v\right)\quad
    \text{with}\quad \|v\|^2 = \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}-2,\quad\text{ when}\quad \|u_0\|\neq 2\sqrt{2}
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{smile2}
\left(\frac{u_0}{2},0\right)
=\left(\sqrt{2}\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|},0\right), \quad\text{ when}\quad \|u_0\|=2\sqrt{2}.
\end{align}
However, Case 1 occurs only when
$\|u_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2}$. Hence, when
$\|u_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2}$ the nearest points are given by
$$\left(\frac{u_0}{2},v\right)
\quad \text{with} \quad \|v\|^2 = \frac{\|u_0\|^2}{4}-2.$$
When $\|u_0\|<2\sqrt{2}$, Case 1 is impossible.
Then we only need to compare Subcase 1 and Subcase 2. Hence, the nearest point is
$$\left(\sqrt{2}\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|},0\right)\quad\text{when}\quad\|u_0\|<2\sqrt{2}.$$
Finally, since $\|u_0\|=2\sqrt{2} \Rightarrow \|v\|^2=2-2=0$, (\ref{smile1}) gives $\left(\frac{u_0}{2},
0\right)$. Also $\frac{\sqrt{2}}{\|u_0\|}=\frac{1}{2}$, therefore $\sqrt{2}\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|}=\ensuremath{\tfrac{1}{2}} u_0$.
It follows that
$\left(\frac{u_0}{2},0\right)=\left(\sqrt{2}\frac{u_0}{\|u_0\|},0\right)$
when $\|u_0\|=2\sqrt{2}$, which implies that
(\ref{smile2}) can be obtained from (\ref{smile1}) when $\|u_0\|=2\sqrt{2}$.
Hence formulas (\ref{f:2a}) and (\ref{f:2b}) hold.
\end{proof}

\subsection{Finding the projection $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}$}

\noindent $\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}$ can be found via $\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}$.

\begin{theorem}
\label{t:201147}
Let $\gamma>0, \tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0 \in \ensuremath{{X}}$, and
$\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma} =
      \menge{(\tilde{u},\tilde{v})\in \ensuremath{{X}} \times \ensuremath{{X}}}{\norm{\tilde{u}}^2 -\norm{\tilde{v}}^2 = 2\gamma}$. Then the following hold:

\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{t:201147.a} When $\tilde{u}_0 \neq 0$ and $ \tilde{v}_0 \neq 0$,
we have
$$\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)
=\left\{\begin{bmatrix}
   \frac{\tilde{u}_0}{1+\lambda}\\
   \addlinespace
   \frac{\tilde{v}_0}{1-\lambda}

  \end{bmatrix}
  \right\},
  $$
in which $\lambda$ is the unique root of $H(\lambda)=0$ in $\left]-1, 1\right[$, where
  \begin{align*}
     H(\lambda) =
      \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} -\gamma,~
      p =\norm{\tilde{u}_0}^2 - \norm{\tilde{v}_0}^2,~ q =\norm{\tilde{u}_0}^2 + \norm{\tilde{v}_0}^2.
      \end{align*}
\item \label{t:201147.b} When $\tilde{u}_0 = 0,$
we have
    \begin{align}
    \label{k:1}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(0,\tilde{v}_0) = \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}\tilde{u}\\
    \frac{\tilde{v}_0}{2}\end{bmatrix}
    \bigg|\ \|\tilde{u}\|^2 =
    2\gamma+ \frac{\|\tilde{v}_0\|^2}{4}\right\}.\end{align}
    \item
    \label{t:201147.c}
    a) When $ \tilde{v}_0 = 0$ and $ \|\tilde{u}_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2\gamma}$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \label{k:2a}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\tilde{u}_0,0) = \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{\tilde{u}_0}{2}\\
    \tilde{v}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \bigg| \ \|\tilde{v}
    \|^2 = \frac{\|\tilde{u}_0\|^2}{4}-2\gamma\right\}.
    \end{align}
    b) When $ \tilde{v}_0 = 0$ and
    $0<\|\tilde{u}_0\|< 2\sqrt{2\gamma}$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \label{k:2b}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\tilde{u}_0,0) = \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \sqrt{2\gamma}\frac{\tilde{u}_0}{\|\tilde{u}_0\|}\\
    0
    \end{bmatrix}
    \right\}.
    \end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Proposition~\ref{p:reformulate}\ref{i:scaling} states
$$\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\tilde{u}_0,\tilde{v}_0)=\sqrt{\gamma}\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_1}\left(
\frac{\tilde{u}_{0}}{\sqrt{\gamma}},\frac{\tilde{v}_{0}}{\sqrt{\gamma}}\right).$$
Apply \cref{t:hyperbola1} and \cref{p:2011d4.5}.
\end{proof}

\section{Projections onto bilinear constraint set $C_{\gamma}$ when $\gamma>0$}
\label{sec:positive:gam}
$P_{C_{\gamma}}$ can be found via $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}$, which is the main result of this section.
\begin{theorem}
\label{t:withgamma}
Let $\gamma>0,~x_0,y_0 \in X$, and $C_{\gamma} =
      \menge{(x,y)\in X \times X}{\scal{x}{y} = \gamma}$.
Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item \label{i:xy:notbothe}
    When $x_0 \neq  \pm y_0$, the projection is a singleton:

    \begin{align*}
\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,y_0)
          =\left\{\begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{x_0-\lam y_0}{1-\lam^2} \\
    \addlinespace
    \frac{y_0-\lam x_0}{1-\lam^2}
    \end{bmatrix}\right\},
    \end{align*}
    in which $\lambda$ is the unique solution of $H(\lambda)=0$ in $\left]-1,1\right[$, where
    \begin{align*}
      H(\lambda) =
      \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} -\gamma,~
      p =2\scal{x_0}{y_0},~\text{ and } q =\norm{x_0}^2 + \norm{y_0}^2.
  \end{align*}
   \item\label{i:u:zero}
    When $x_0 =-y_0$,  the projection is a set:
    $$\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,-x_0) =\left\{
  \begin{bmatrix}
  \frac{x_{0}}{2}+\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
  \addlinespace
  -\frac{x_0}{2}+\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}{\sqrt{2}}
   \end{bmatrix}
  \bigg|\ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|^2=2\gamma+ \frac{\|x_0\|^2}{2},~~ \ensuremath{\tilde{u}} \in X \right\}.$$

    \item\label{i:v:zero1}
    a) When $x_0 =y_0$ and $\|x_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{\gamma}$,
    the projection is a set:
    $$\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,x_0) =  \left\{

   \begin{bmatrix}
   \frac{x_0}{2}-\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
   \addlinespace
   \frac{x_0}{2}+\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}{\sqrt{2}}
   \end{bmatrix}
   \bigg|\ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\|^2=\frac{\|x_0\|^2}{2}-2\gamma,~~ \ensuremath{\tilde{v}} \in X \right\}.$$
  b) When $x_0 =y_0$ and $0<\|x_0\|< 2\sqrt{\gamma}$, the projection
  is a singleton:
    $$\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,x_0) =  \left\{\sqrt{\gamma}\begin{bmatrix}\frac{x_{0}}{\|x_{0}\|}\\
    \addlinespace
    \frac{x_{0}}{\|x_{0}\|}
    \end{bmatrix}\right\}.
    $$

   \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Proposition~\ref{p:reformulate}\ref{i:rotate} states
\begin{equation}\label{e:pformula}
\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,y_0) = A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}

  \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}A_{-\frac{\pi}{4}}(x_{0},y_{0}).

    \end{equation}
It suffices to apply \cref{t:201147}. Indeed, with
\begin{equation}\label{e:point}
\begin{bmatrix}
\tilde{u}_{0}\\
\tilde{v}_{0}
\end{bmatrix} =A_{-\pi/4}\begin{bmatrix}
x_{0}\\
y_{0}
\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}
\frac{x_{0}+y_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\addlinespace
\frac{-x_{0}+y_{0}}{\sqrt{2}}
\end{bmatrix},
\end{equation}
using \eqref{e:pformula} and \eqref{e:point} Theorem~\ref{t:201147} gives:
\bigskip

\ref{i:xy:notbothe}:  When $x_{0}\neq \pm y_{0}$, we have $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\neq 0, \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\neq 0$.
By \cref{t:201147}\cref{t:201147.a}, we get
$\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0,\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0)= [\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0}{(1+\lam)},\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0}{(1-\lam)}]^T$, so
\begin{align*}
\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,y_0) &= \left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}\\
   \addlinespace
   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \\
  \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{1}{1+\lambda}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & 0\\
   \addlinespace
   0 & \frac{1}{1-\lambda}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \\
  \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}\\
   \addlinespace
   -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \\
  \end{array} } \right]\begin{bmatrix}
           x_0 \\
          y_0 \end{bmatrix}\\&=  \left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   \frac{1}{1-\lambda^2}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \frac{-\lambda}{1-\lambda^2}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}}\\
   \addlinespace
   \frac{-\lambda}{1-\lambda^2}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} & \frac{1}{1-\lambda^2}\ensuremath{\operatorname{Id}} \\
  \end{array} } \right]\left[ {\begin{array}{cc}
   x_0\\
   y_0
  \end{array} } \right].
 \end{align*}
 Also,
 $\|p\|=\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\|^2-\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\|^2=2\scal{x_{0}}{y_{0}},$ and
 $\|q\|=\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\|^2+\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\|^2=\|x_{0}\|^2+\|y_{0}\|^2$.

  \ref{i:u:zero}:
  For $x_0=-y_0$, we have $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}=0, \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}=-\sqrt{2}x_{0}$, so
  \begin{align*}
      \proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,-x_0)&=A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}
      }(0,-\sqrt{2}x_0)\\
  &=\left\{A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\begin{bmatrix}
  \ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\\
  \addlinespace
  \frac{-x_0}{\sqrt{2}}
  \end{bmatrix}\bigg|\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|^2=2\gamma+\frac{\|-\sqrt{2}x_0\|^2}{4}=2\gamma+\frac{\|x_0\|^2}{2}, \ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\in X\right\}.
  \end{align*}

  \ref{i:v:zero1}:
  When $x_0\neq -y_0$, and $x_0=y_0$, we have $x_0\neq 0, (x_0,y_0)=(x_0,x_0)$, so that
  $\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}=0$ and
  $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0 = \frac{x_0+y_0}{\sqrt{2}}=\sqrt{2}x_0.$  Then
  $\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2\gamma} \Leftrightarrow \|x_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{\gamma}.$

  a) When $\|x_{0}\|\geq 2\sqrt{\gamma}$, we have
  \begin{align*}
    \proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,x_0)&=A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\sqrt{2}x_0,0)\\
    &=A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\left\{\begin{bmatrix}
  \frac{x_0}{\sqrt{2}}\\
  \addlinespace
  \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}
  \end{bmatrix}\bigg|\ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\|^2=\frac{\|\sqrt{2}x_0\|^2}{4}-2\gamma=\frac{\|x_0\|^2}{2}-2\gamma,
  \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\in X \right\}.
  \end{align*}

  b) When $0<\|x_0\|<2\sqrt{\gamma}$, we have $\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0\|<2\sqrt{2\gamma}$, so
  \begin{align*}
      \proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,x_0)&=A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}
      (\sqrt{2}x_0,0)=A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}\begin{bmatrix}
  \sqrt{2\gamma} \frac{\sqrt{2} x_0}{\|\sqrt{2}x_0\|}\\
  \addlinespace
  0
  \end{bmatrix}
  =A_{\frac{\pi}{4}}
  \begin{bmatrix}
  \sqrt{2\gamma} \frac{x_0}{\|x_0\|}\\
  \addlinespace
  0
  \end{bmatrix}.
  \end{align*}

\end{proof}

\section{Projections onto hyperbola $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}$ and bilinear constraint set $C_{\gamma}$ when $\gamma<0$}
\label{sec:negative:gam}
Armed with the results in Sections~\ref{section:hyperbola} and ~\ref{sec:positive:gam},
we can study $P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}$ and
$P_{C_{\gamma}}$ when $\gamma<0$.
Define
$$T_{1}: X\times X\rightarrow X\times X: (x,y)\mapsto (y,x),\text{ and }$$
$$T_{2}:X\times X\rightarrow X\times X: (x,y)\mapsto (x,-y).$$
\begin{theorem}
\label{t:20114711}
Let $\gamma<0, \ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0,\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0 \in \ensuremath{{X}}$, and $\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma} =
      \menge{(u,v)\in \ensuremath{{X}} \times \ensuremath{{X}}}{\norm{u}^2 -\norm{v}^2 = 2\gamma}$.
Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item \label{t:20114711.a} When $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0 \neq 0, \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0 \neq 0$, we have
$$\proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0,\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0)
  =

  \left\{\begin{bmatrix}
   \frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0}{1-\lambda}\\
   \addlinespace
   \frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0}{1+\lambda}

  \end{bmatrix}
  \right\}
  $$
 in which $\lambda$ is the unique root of $H(\lambda)=0$ in $\left]-1,1\right[$,
  where \begin{align*}
     H(\lambda) =
      \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} +\gamma,~
      p =\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0}^2 - \norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0}^2,~\text{ and } q =\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0}^2 + \norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0}^2.
      \end{align*}
      \item \label{t:20114711.c} When $\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0 = 0$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0,0) =
    \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0}{2}\\
    \ensuremath{\tilde{v}}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \bigg|\ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\|^2 =  \frac{\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0\|^2}{4}-2\gamma\right\}.
    \end{align}

      \item \label{t:20114711.b}
    a) When $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0 = 0$ and $ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{2(-\gamma)}$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(0,\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0) = \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\\
    \frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0}{2}
    \end{bmatrix}
   \bigg|\
    \|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|^2 = \frac{\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0\|^2}{4}+2\gamma\right\}.
    \end{align}
    b) When $\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_0 = 0$ and $0<\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0\|< 2\sqrt{2(-\gamma)}$, we have
    \begin{align}
    \proj{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}(0,\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0) = \left\{\begin{bmatrix}
    0\\
    \sqrt{2(-\gamma)}\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0}{\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_0\|}\end{bmatrix}
    \right\}.
    \end{align}
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Since
$$\minimize ~ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}-\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\|^2+\|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}-\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\|^2 \quad \text{subject to}\quad \norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}^2 -\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}^2= 2\gamma$$
is equivalent to
$$\minimize ~ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}-\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}_{0}\|^2+
\|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}-\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}_{0}\|^2 \quad \text{subject to}\quad \norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}^2 -\norm{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}^2= 2(-\gamma),$$
we have
$P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{\gamma}}=T_{1}P_{\ensuremath{\tilde{C}}_{-\gamma}}T_{1}.$ It suffices to apply
\cref{t:201147}.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}
\label{t:negativegamma}
Let $\gamma<0,~x_0,y_0 \in X$, and $C_{\gamma} =
      \menge{(x,y)\in X \times X}{\scal{x}{y} = \gamma}$.
Then the following hold:
\begin{enumerate}
    \item
    When $x_0 \neq  \pm y_0$, the projection is a singleton:

    \begin{align*}
\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,y_0)
          =
          \left\{\begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{x_0+\lam y_0}{1-\lam^2} \\
    \addlinespace
    \frac{y_0+\lam x_0}{1-\lam^2}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \right\}
     \end{align*}
    in which  $\lambda$ is the unique solution of $H(\lambda)=0$ in
    $\left]-1,1\right[$, where
    \begin{align*}
      H(\lambda) =
      \frac{(\lambda^2 + 1 ) p - 2\lambda q}{2(1-\lambda^2)^2} +\gamma,~
      p =-2\scal{x_0}{y_0},~\text{ and } q =\norm{x_0}^2 + \norm{y_0}^2.
  \end{align*}
   \item
    When $x_0 =y_0$,  the projection is a set:
    $$\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,x_0) =\left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{x_{0}}{2}+\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
    \addlinespace
    \frac{x_{0}}{2}-\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}}{\sqrt{2}}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \bigg|\ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{u}}\|^2=-2\gamma+ \frac{\|x_0\|^2}{2},~~ \ensuremath{\tilde{u}} \in X\right\}.$$

    \item
    a) When $x_0 =-y_0$ and $\|x_0\|\geq 2\sqrt{-\gamma}$,
    the projection is a set:
    $$\proj{C_{\gamma}}(x_0,-x_0) =  \left\{
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{x_{0}}{2}-\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}{\sqrt{2}}\\
    \addlinespace
    \frac{-x_{0}}{2}-\frac{\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}}{\sqrt{2}}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \bigg|\ \|\ensuremath{\tilde{v}}\|^2=\frac{\|x_0\|^2}{2}+2\gamma,
    ~~ \ensuremath{\tilde{v}} \in X\right\}.$$
  b) When $x_0 =-y_0$ and $0<\|x_0\|< 2\sqrt{-\gamma}$, the projection
  is a singleton:
    $$\proj{C_1}(x_0,-x_0) =  \left\{
    \sqrt{-\gamma}
    \begin{bmatrix}
    \frac{x_{0}}{\|x_{0}\|}\\
    \addlinespace
    \frac{-x_{0}}{\|x_{0}\|}
    \end{bmatrix}
    \right\}.$$

   \end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} Since
$$\minimize ~ \|x-x_{0}\|^2+\|y-y_{0}\|^2 \quad \text{subject to}\quad \scal{x}{y}= \gamma$$
is equivalent to
$$\minimize ~ \|x-x_{0}\|^2+\|z-(-y_{0})\|^2 \quad \text{subject to}\quad \scal{x}{z}= -\gamma,$$
we have
$P_{C_{\gamma}}=T_{2}P_{C_{-\gamma}}T_{2}$. It remains to apply Theorem~\ref{t:withgamma}.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgments}
HHB and XW were supported by NSERC Discovery grants. MKL was supported by SERB-UBC fellowship and HHB and XW's NSERC Discovery grants. This work was presented at the SIAM Conference on Optimization in July 20--23, 2021 by MKL.

Optimization and Control (math.OC); Functional Analysis (math.FA); Numerical Analysis (math.NA)


The ratio of domination and independent domination numbers on trees

Abstract: Let $\gamma(G)$ and $i(G)$ be the domination number and the independent domination number of $G$, respectively. In 1977, Hedetniemi and Mitchell began with the comparison of of $i(G)$ and $\gamma(G)$ and recently Rad and Volkmann posted a conjecture that $i(G)/ \gamma(G) \leq \Delta(G)/2$, where $\Delta(G)$ is the maximum degree of $G$. In this work, we prove the conjecture for trees and provide the graph achieved the sharp bound.

\section{Introduction}
Throughout this paper $G = (V, E)$ is a   simple undirected graph with vertex set $  V(G)$ and edge set $ E(G)$.    For  $v\in V(G)$,  $N_G(v)=\{ w\in V(G):  vw\in E(G)\}$ is
the  open neighborhood of $v$ and $N_G[v]=N_G(v) \cup \{v\}$ is
the  closed neighborhood of $v$ in $G$.  If $N_G(v) = \phi$,   $v$ is called an isolated vertex.    For $S\subseteq V(G)$, $N_G(S)$ is the open neighborhood of $S$,  $N_G[S]=N_G(S)\cup S$ is the  closed neighborhood of $S$ and  $G-S$ is a subgraph induced by $V(G)-S$.    A graph $F$ is   a forest if it has no cycles.  Specially,  $F$ is a tree if it contains only one component. A double star is a tree with exactly two vertices of  degree greater than 1. In paticular, if the two vertices have same degree, then it is called a balanced double star.
The line graph $L(G)$ of  a connected graph is a graph such that each vertex of $L(G)$ represents an edge of $G$  and two vertices of $L(G)$ are adjacent if and only if their corresponding edges share a common endpoint in $G$.

It is known that a vertex set $D \subset V(G)$  is a  dominating set if every vertex of $V(G)-D$ is adjacent to some vertices of $D$. The minimum cardinality of a dominating set is called the domination number, denoted by $\gamma(G)$.  Similarly,
a vertex set $I \subset V(G)$  is  an independent dominating set if $I$ is both an independent set and a dominating set in $G$, where an independent set  is a set of vertices in a graph such that  no two of which are adjacent. The minimum cardinality of  an independent dominating set is called the  independent domination number, denoted by $ i(G)$. Currently, lots of  work relating domination number and independent domination number have been studied, referred to surveys \cite{2,4}.

 In 1977,  S. Hedetniemi and S. Mitchell \cite {1977} showed that for any tree T,
 $\frac{ i(L(T))} { \gamma (L(T))} =1$, where $ L(T)$ is the line graph of T.
Because any line graph is a $K_{1,3}$-free graph,
 R. B. Allan and R. Laskar \cite {1978} extended the previous result  in 1978 and obtained that if a graph  does not have an induced subgraph isomorphic to $K_{1,3}$, then $  i(G)/ \gamma(G) = 1$.
Recently, Goddard et al.\cite{3} considered the ratio $i(G)/ \gamma(G) $ for regular graphs and proved that $i(G)/ \gamma(G) \leq  3/2$ for cubic graphs. In 2013, Southey and Henning \cite{6} improved the previous result to $i(G)/ \gamma(G)  \leq 4/3$ for connected cubic graphs except for $K_{3,3}$.
During the same year, Rad and Volkmann \cite{5}  got an upper bound of $i(G)/\gamma(G)$ for a graph $G$ and prosposed the conjecture.
 \vskip 2mm {\bf Theorem 1}\emph{ (Rad and Volkmann \cite{5})
Let $G$ be a graph, then
$$ \frac{i(G)}{\gamma(G)} \leq
 \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
   \frac{\Delta(G)}{2},\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\; \;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\;&& \mbox{if } 3 \leq \Delta(G) \leq 5,
  \\\Delta(G) -3 +\frac{2}{\Delta(G) - 1},&&   \mbox{if } \Delta(G) \geq 6.
\end{array}\right.$$
}
{\bf Conjecture 2} \emph{(Rad and Volkmann \cite{5})
Let $G$  be a graph with $\Delta(G) \geq 3$, then $i(G)/\gamma(G) \leq \Delta(G)/2$.
}

In 2014, Furuta et al.\cite{7} showed that $i(G)/ \gamma(G)  \leq \Delta(G) - 2 \sqrt{\Delta(G)} +2$  for  a graph $G$ and gave the graph achieved the new bound.  However,
when $\Delta(G)$ is big enough, then $ \Delta(G) - 2 \sqrt{\Delta(G)} +2 > \Delta(G) / 2.$ Now there is a natural question that\\
{\it Q:  Is there  other class of graphs,  which has an affirmative answer for Conjecture 2? }

Motivated by Conjecture 2 and the above question, we prove that Conjeture 2 is true for the tree and provide the graph $G $, which  attains the sharp bound $\Delta(G)/2$.
\begin{figure}[thb]
\center
\begin{tikzpicture}
\tikzstyle {every node} =[fill=black!60,circle,inner sep=0.5pt,text=white] \path
      (2,0) node(0) {$w_1$}
      (4,0) node(1) {$w_2$}
      (1,1.5) node(2) {$v_1$}
      (1,0.5) node(3) {$v_2$}
      (1, -0.5)node(4){$*$}
      (1,-1.5) node (5) {$v_s$}
      (5,1.5) node(6)  {$u_1$}
      (5,0.5) node (7) {$u_2$}
      (5,-0.5) node (8) {$*$}
      (5,-1.5) node (9) {$u_s$}
       ;
\draw[black,line width=1pt]  (0)--(1) (0)--(2) (0)--(3)  (0)--(4) (0)--(5)
                                       (1)--(6) (1)--(7) (1)--(8) (1)--(9)
;
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{A balanced double star}
\label{fig:cor}
\end{figure}

 \vskip 2mm {\bf Theorem 3} \emph{
Let $G$ be a forest, then $$ \frac{i(G)}{\gamma(G)} \leq
 \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
1,\;\;\; && \mbox{if } \Delta(G) \leq 2,
  \\\frac{\Delta(G)}{2},&&   \mbox{if } \Delta(G) \geq 3,
\end{array}\right.$$ and the equalities hold if either $\Delta(G) \leq 2$ or each component of $G$ is a balanced double star(see figure 1).
}

As an immediate consequence of Theorem 3, we obtain that

 \vskip 2mm {\bf Theorem 4} \emph{
Let $G$ be a tree, then $$ \frac{i(G)}{\gamma(G)} \leq
 \left\{ \begin{array}{rcl}
1,\;\;\; && \mbox{if } \Delta(G) \leq 2,
  \\\frac{\Delta(G)}{2},&&   \mbox{if } \Delta(G) \geq 3,
\end{array}\right.$$ and the equalities hold if either $\Delta(G) \leq 2$ or $G$ is a balanced double star(see figure 1).
}

\section{Proof of Theorem 3}

In this section, we will prove Theorem 3 and start with an interesting lemma.

 \vskip 2mm {\bf Lemma 1} \emph{
Let $r_1, r_2,r_3,r_4,t$ be positive numbers with $\frac{r_1}{r_2} \leq t$ and $\frac{r_3}{r_4} \leq t$. Then $\frac{r_1+r_3}{r_2+r_4} \leq t$.
}

Since $r_1 \leq r_2 t, r_3 \leq r_4 t$, we  replace $r_1$, $r_3$ and obtain that Lemma 1 is true. Next we will give the main proof of this note.

{\bf Proof of Theorem 3.}
For $\Delta(G) \leq 1$, $G$ contains only isolated vertices or edges and $i(G) = \gamma(G)$, that is,  $i(G)/ \gamma(G)  =1$.  Next, we will consider the case of $\Delta(G) \geq 2$ and
  begin with the case that  the forest $G$ contains only one component, that is,  $G$ is a tree.

Let $D$ be a minimum dominating set of $G$. Then $G[D]$ is also
a forest. We build $\{G_i\}, \{x_i\}$ with $i \geq 1$ as follows:  Let $G_1 = G[D]$ and $ x_1 \in V(G_1)$ with $d_{G_1}(x_1) = 0$ or $1$; For $i \geq 2$, if $V(G_i-N_{G_{i}}[x_{i}]) = \phi$, then stop and set $i = k$. Otherwise, let $G_{i} = G_{i-1}-N_{G_{i-1}}[x_{i-1}]$ and $x_{i} \in V(G_i)$ with $d_{G_i}(x_i) =0 $ or $ 1$.

Set $X = \{x_1,x_2,...,x_k\}$. Then $X$ is an independent dominating set of $G[D]$
and  $\{N_{G_i}[x_i], 1 \leq i \leq k\}$ is a   partition of $D$, that is, $\sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} (d_{G_i}(x_i) +1) = |D| = \gamma(G)$. Choose $I \subset V(G) - D$ such that
  $X \cup I$ is an independent dominating set of $G$, that is,
$
i(G) \leq |X|+|I| = k+ |I|.
$
Since $D$ is a dominating set of $G$, then $I = \cup_{v \in {D-X}}(N_G(v) \cap I) = \cup_{1 \leq i \leq k} (\cup_{v \in {N_{G_i}(x_i)}}(N_G(v) \cap I))$.
By the choice of $x_i$, for $1 \leq i \leq k$ and $v \in N_{G_i}(x_i)$, we have $d_{G_i}(x_i) \leq d_{G_i}(v)$. Thus,
$|N_G(v) \cap I| \leq d_G(v) - d_{G_i}(v) \leq \Delta(G) - d_{G_i}(x_i)$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
|I|   & \leq &\sum_{1 \leq i \leq k}( \sum _{v \in N_{G_i}(x_i)} |N_{G}(v) \cap I|)  \nonumber \\
&\leq  &  \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} (\sum_{v \in N_{G_i}(x_i)} (\Delta(G) - d_{G_i}(x_i)))  \nonumber \\
&= & \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} (\sum_{v\in N_{G_i}(x_i)} \Delta (G)) -  \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} ( \sum_{v \in N_{G_i}(x_i)} d_{G_i}(x_i))  \nonumber\\
&=& (|D| - k ) \Delta(G) - \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k}d_{G_i}(x_i)^2.
\end{eqnarray}

By $(1)$  and $|D| = \gamma(G)$, we can obtain that  \begin{eqnarray}
i(G) &\leq & k+ |I| \nonumber \\
&\leq &  k+ (|D| - k ) \Delta(G) - \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k}d_{G_i}(x_i)^2  \nonumber \\
&=& \Delta(G)\gamma(G) - \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k } (\Delta(G) -1 +d_{G_i}(x_i)^2), \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
that is, $$
\frac{i(G)}{\gamma(G)} \leq  \Delta(G) - \frac{ \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k } (\Delta(G) -1 +d_{G_i}(x_i)^2)}{\gamma(G)}.
$$

Now, it suffices to show that $ - \frac{ \sum_{1 \leq i \leq k } (\Delta(G) -1 +d_{G_i}(x_i)^2)}{\gamma(G)} \leq -\frac{\Delta(G)}{2}$, that is,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} (\Delta(G) - 1 + d_{G_i}(x_i)^2)  &\geq& \frac{1}{2} \Delta(G) \gamma(G)  \nonumber \\&=& \frac{1}{2} \Delta(G) (\sum_{1 \leq i \leq k} (d_{G_i}(x_i) +1))
\end{eqnarray}
By the construction of $G_i, x_i$,   $d_{G_i}(x_i) = d_{G_i}(x_i)^2 = 0$ or $1$.
Thus, $(2)$ is the same as $(3)$ below.
\begin{eqnarray}
 &&\Leftrightarrow
k\Delta(G) - k + \sum_{1\leq i \leq k} d_{G_i}(x_i)  - \frac{1}{2} \Delta(G)(\sum_{1\leq i \leq k} d_{G_i}(x_i) )   \nonumber \\&& \;\;\;\;\; -\frac{1}{2} \Delta(G) k  \geq 0  \nonumber
\\&&
 \Leftrightarrow
(1- \frac{1}{2} \Delta(G)) ((\sum_{1\leq i \leq k} d_{G_i}(x_i) ) - k) \geq 0
\end{eqnarray}

Furthermore, $d_{G_i}(x_i) = 0$ or $1$ yields that   $(\sum_{1\leq i \leq k} d_{G_i}(x_i) ) - k \leq 0$.
Since $\Delta(G) \geq 2$,  then
 $1- \frac{1}{2} \Delta(G) \leq 0$. Thus, $(3)$ is true, that is, Theorem 3 is true for the tree.

Next we will consider the case that $G$ has more than one component. In this case,  each component of $G$ is either  an isolated vertex or a tree, say $G_1, G_2, ..., G_s$ with an integer $s \geq 2$. For $1 \leq j \leq s $, if $G_j$ is an isolated vertex, then $i(G_j)/\gamma(G_j) = 1/1 \leq \Delta(G)/2$; If $G_j$ is a tree, by the above proof,   $i(G_j)/\gamma(G_j) \leq   \Delta(G)/2$.  Finally,   using Lemma 1,    $i(G)/\gamma(G) \leq  \Delta(G)/2$ holds for the forest.
 Furthermore, if $\Delta(G) \leq 2$, all  forests achieve the bound; if $\Delta(G) \geq 3$, the union of balanced double stars attain the bound. Thus, Theorem 3 is true.

 $\hfill\Box$


A simple mnemonic to compute sums of powers

Abstract: We give a simple recursive formula to obtain the general sum of the first $N$ natural numbers to the $r$th power. Our method allows one to obtain the general formula for the $(r+1)$th power once one knows the general formula for the $r$th power. The method is very simple to remember owing to an analogy with differentiation and integration. Unlike previously known methods, no knowledge of additional specific constants (such as the Bernoulli numbers) is needed. This makes it particularly suitable for applications in cases when one cannot consult external references, for example mathematics competitions.

\section{Introduction}

Sums of powers have fascinated mathematicians for centuries. The sum of the first $N$ natural numbers is given by the simple well-known formula
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n = 1+2+\cdots + N = \frac{N(N+1)}{2} \ .
    \label{sum r=1}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, while occasionally useful, the general formulas for the sums of higher powers are much less well-known. For example, one has
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^2 = \frac{1}{3} N^3 + \frac{1}{2} N^2 + \frac{1}{6} N \ .
    \label{sum r=2}
\end{equation}
In fact once a formula of the type of eq. \eqref{sum r=1} or \eqref{sum r=2} is given, its proof is a trivial exercise by using induction. However, \textit{guessing} the formula in the first place is non-trivial.

Here we will provide a simple-to-remember method to recursively compute formulas for sums of a generic power $r \in \mathbb{N}$:
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^r \equiv S(N;r) \ .
    \label{sum r}
\end{equation}
In other words, our method allows us to obtain $S(N;r+1)$ from $S(N;r)$, and therefore recursively all the $S(N;r)$. In general, $S(N;r)$ will be a polynomial in $N$ of degree $r+1$.

\section{Faulhaber's Formula}\label{sec:faulhaber}

In the early 18th century, Jacob Bernoulli obtained a general formula for the sums of powers, now known as Faulhaber's formula,
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^r = \frac{1}{r+1}\sum_{j=0}^r (-1)^j {r+1 \choose j} B_j N^{r+1-j} \ ,
    \label{faulhaber}
\end{equation}
where the $B_j$ are the Bernoulli numbers with $B_1 = -1/2$. The proof of eq. \eqref{faulhaber} is straightforward starting from one of the forms of the Euler-Maclaurin identity \cite{spivey}.
While technically this is a solution to the problem, it is very hard to remember. Moreover, despite the apparent simplicity of eq. \eqref{faulhaber}, the computation of the Bernoulli numbers is itself non-trivial. Formulas are either implicit or involve double summations of complicated summands. For these reasons we look for an easier-to-remember method that one can perform with pen and paper without having to look up additional references.

\section{A simple mnemonic for sums of powers}

Here we illustrate the mnemonic to recursively compute sums of powers, while in the next section we give a proof of the correctness of the method. Let's consider the concrete example of the computation of $\sum_{n=1}^N n^2$. Here we first do something \say{illegal}, that is we differentiate the whole sum with respect to $N$, and by this we mean that we differentiate term-by-term. Doing this we obtain the sum of one power lower $\sum_{n=1}^N n^2$, which we know:
\begin{equation}
    \frac{d}{dN} \sum_{n=1}^N n^2 \overset{?}{=} \sum_{n=1}^N \frac{d}{dn} (n^2) =2\sum_{n=1}^N n = N(N+1) = N^2+N \ .
    \label{miao}
\end{equation}
This is clearly not a valid operation, however one can formally think of it as a map between polynomials that happens to be given by a term-by-term derivative. In order to recover the original sum, one may exploit the analogy with differentiation and integration, whereby integrating reverses the derivative. Thus integrating the end result of \eqref{miao}, one obtains
\begin{equation}
    \int_0^N N^2 +N \,\, dN =\frac{1}{3} N^3 + \frac{1}{2} N^2 \ .
\end{equation}
Comparing with eq. \eqref{sum r=2}, this is almost the correct result, lacking only the linear term $N/6$. The procedure thus works as follows:
\begin{itemize}
  \item Differentiate the sum term-by-term and substitute the formula for the lower sum of power;
  \item Integrate the resulting polynomial;
  \item Add a linear term $CN$ and fix the constant $C$ by requiring that the sum give $1$ for $N=1$ as it should.
\end{itemize}
Thus one is able to recursively obtain all the sums of powers for any $r$ starting from either $r=1$ or trivially $r=0$. In the next section we prove that this method indeed gives the correct result. This method can be easily remembered (\say{differentiate, then integrate and add a linear term}).

Now we compute the first few sums of powers as an example. Starting with $r=0$,
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^r=\sum_{n=1}^N 1 = N
\end{equation}
trivially. Now we apply our procedure to the $r=1$ case. First we integrate and sum the resulting sequence:
\begin{equation}
    \frac{d}{dN} \sum_{n=1}^N n = \sum_{n=1}^N 1 = N \ .
\end{equation}
Then we integrate and add a linear term, finding
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n = \frac{1}{2} N^2 + CN \ .
\end{equation}
Substituting $N=1$ we find $1/2 + C = 1$, that is $C=1/2$, so
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n = \frac{1}{2} N(N + 1) \ ,
\end{equation}
which is the correct formula. Now for $r=2$ we have
\begin{equation}
    \frac{d}{dN} \sum_{n=1}^N n^2 = 2\sum_{n=1}^N n = N^2+N \ .
\end{equation}
Integrating and adding a linear term
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^2 = \frac{1}{3} N^3+\frac{1}{2} N^2 + CN \ .
\end{equation}
Substituting $N=1$ we have $1/3+1/2 + C = 1$, that is $C=1/6$, so that
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^2 = \frac{1}{3} N^3+\frac{1}{2} N^2 + \frac{1}{6}N \ .
\end{equation}
For $r=3$, we have
\begin{equation}
    \frac{d}{dN} \sum_{n=1}^N n^3 = 3\sum_{n=1}^N n^2 = N^3+\frac{3}{2} N^2 + \frac{1}{2}N \ .
\end{equation}
Again integrating and adding a linear term
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^3 =\frac{1}{4}N^4+\frac{1}{2} N^3 + \frac{1}{4}N^2 + CN \ .
\end{equation}
For $N=1$ we have $1/4+1/2 + 1/4 + C = 1$, that is $C=0$, so
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^3 =\frac{1}{4}N^4+\frac{1}{2} N^3 + \frac{1}{4}N^2 \ .
\end{equation}
For $r=4$,
\begin{equation}
    \frac{d}{dN} \sum_{n=1}^N n^4 = 4\sum_{n=1}^N n^3 = N^4+2 N^3 + N^2 \ .
\end{equation}
Therefore
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^4 =\frac{1}{5}N^5+\frac{1}{2} N^4 + \frac{1}{3}N^3 + CN \ ,
\end{equation}
where $C=-1/30$, so that
\begin{equation}
    \sum_{n=1}^N n^4 =\frac{1}{5}N^5+\frac{1}{2} N^4 + \frac{1}{3}N^3 - \frac{1}{30}N \ .
\end{equation}
In principle one can keep going and compute the formula for an arbitrary $r$.

\section{Proof of correctness}

Here we prove that the method explained in the previous section is correct. To do so, define
\begin{equation}
    S(N;r) = \sum_{n=1}^N n^r \ ,
\end{equation}
where $S(N;r)$ is a polynomial in $N$. Then the statement of the previous method is essentially that
\begin{equation}
    S(N;r) = CN + r \int_0^N S(N;r-1)\,dN
\end{equation}
for some constant $C$. To show that this is true, we compute the integral using Faulhaber's formula:
\begin{align*}
    r\int_0^N S(N;r-1)\,dN &=r\int_0^N \frac{1}{r}\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} (-1)^j {r \choose j} B_j N^{r-j}\,dN =\\
    &=\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} (-1)^j {r \choose j} B_j \frac{1}{r+1-j} N^{r+1-j}=\\
    &=\frac{1}{r+1}\sum_{j=0}^{r-1} (-1)^j {r+1 \choose j} B_j N^{r+1-j}=\\
    &=S(N;r) - \frac{1}{r+1} (-1)^r {r+1 \choose r} B_r N =\\
    &=S(N;r) -(-1)^r B_r N
\end{align*}
That is
\begin{equation}
    S(N;r) = (-1)^r B_r N + r \int_0^N S(N;r-1)\,dN \ .
\end{equation}
This is precisely the statement that we meant to prove, with an explicit value for the constant $C$. While this may be useful, we prefer to determine $C$ by setting $S(N;r)=1$ for $N=1$ as it is easier to remember.