On the higher-dimensional harmonic analog of the Levinson log log theorem

Abstract: Let $M\colon (0,1) \to [e,+\infty)$ be a decreasing function such that $\int\limits_{0}^{1}\log\log M(y)dy<+\infty$. Consider the set $H_M$ of all functions $u$ harmonic in $P:=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^n: x\in \mathbb{R}^{n-1}, y\in \mathbb{R}, |x|<1, |y|<1 \}$ and satisfying $|u(x,y)| \leq M(|y|)$. We prove that $H_M$ is a normal family in $P$.

\section{Preliminaries.}

 Let $P$ be a rectangle $(-a,a)\times(-b,b)$ in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and let $M:(0,b)\to [e,+\infty)$ be a decreasing function. Consider the set $\EuScript{F}_M$ of all functions $f$ holomorhpic in $P$ such that $|f(x,y)| \leq M(|y|)$, $(x,y)\in P$. The classical Levinson theorem asserts that $\EuScript F_M$ is a normal family in $P$ if $\int\limits_{0}^{b}\log\log M(y)dy<+\infty$. We refer the reader to \cite{B71, C, D96,D58,D88,G70,H71,K88,L40,M60,M76,R91,R09,R78,Y81} for various proofs, history of the question and related topics. This statement is sharp, i.e. for regular (continuous and decreasing) majorants $M$ the family $\EuScript F_M$ is normal if and only if $\int\limits_{0}^{b}\log\log M(y)dy<+\infty$ (see \cite{K88},p.379--383 and \cite{B71}).

 A function $\log^+x$ is defined by $$\log^+x= \begin{cases} \log x, \quad x\geq1
\\ 0, \quad  x\leq 1.
 \end{cases}$$
 Our result is the following theorem, which extends the Levinson $\log\log$ theorem for holomorphic functions to  harmonic  functions in $\mathbb{R}^n$, $n \geq 2$.
\begin{theorem} \label{main}
Let $\Omega$ denote the set $\{(x,y):  x\in \mathbb R^{n-1}, y\in \mathbb R,|x|<R, |y|<H \}$, where $R$ and $H$ are some positive numbers. Suppose a function $M\!\!:(0,H) \to  \mathbb R_+$ is  decreasing and
\begin{equation} \label{loglog}
\int\limits_{0}^{H}\log^{+}\log^{+}M(y)dy<+\infty.
\end{equation}
 Then the set $\EuScript H_M$ of all functions $u$ harmonic in $\Omega$ and satisfying $|u(x,y)| \leq M(|y|)$, $(x,y) \in \Omega$, is uniformly bounded on any compact subset of $\Omega$.
\end{theorem}
  This result has been proved by Dyn'kin in \cite{D96} by a different method under some stronger regularity conditions imposed on $M$. For any compact set $K\subset \Omega$ our approach provides an explicit estimate for $\sup\limits_{u\in \EuScript H_M}\sup\limits_{K}|u|$ in terms of $M$, $K$ and $\Omega$. We obtain Theorem \ref{main} as a corollary of the "holomorphic" Levinson theorem by a reduction to axially-symmetric functions $u$. First, we prove the Theorem \ref{main} in dimension $4$, it implies the $3$-dimensional case. Then we reduce the case of odd $n$ to the case $n=3$. The case of even $n$ follows by adding the fake variable. The main obstacle, which appears in the higher-dimensional harmonic analog of the Levinson $\log\log$ theorem, is the fact that $\log|\nabla u|$ is not necesseraily subharmonic for a general harmonic function $u$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$ if $n\geq 3$.

   Some of the proofs of the "holomorphic" Levinson $\log\log$ theorem are of complex nature, some use implicitly or explicitly  harmonic measure estimates in cusp-like domains, but most of the proofs require the monotinicity condition on $M$, except for  the brilliant idea due to Domar (see  \cite{K88},\cite{D58},\cite{D88}), which avoids any regularity assumptions on $M$, even the monotonicity. We will sketch Domar's proof in Section \ref{D}, and use it to obtain explicit uniform estimates for $\EuScript H_M$ in higher dimensions. We don't know whether Theorem \ref{main} is valid for arbitrary majorants $M$ satisfying \eqref{loglog} (even for $n=2$).

  For any $x,y \in \mathbb R^n$ let $d(x,y)$ denote the Euclidean distance between $x$ and $y$. For any $X,Y \subset \mathbb R^n$ we use the notation $d(X,Y)$ for $\inf\{d(x,y): x\in X, y \in Y  \}$. The symbol $\lambda_n$ will denote the $n$-dimensional Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb R^n$.

\section{Domar's argument} \label{D}

\begin{theorem} \label{Levinson}
 Let $f$ be a holomorphic function in a rectangle $P:={(-a,a)\times(-b, b)}$. Suppose that a function $M(y)$ satisfies $\int\limits_{-b}^{b}\log^{+}\log^{+}M(y)dy<+\infty$ and   $|f(x+iy)|\leq M(y)$ for  all $(x,y) \in P$.
Then for any compact set $K\subset P$ there exists a constant $C=C(M,d(K,\partial P))$   such that $\sup\limits_{K}|f|<C$.
 \end{theorem}

     Theorem \ref{Levinson} immediately follows from the next lemma on subharmonic functions, since $\log |f|$ is subharmonic.
\begin{lemma} \label{subharmonic lemma}
 Let $v$ be a subharmonic function in a rectangle $P:={(-a,a)\times(-b, b)}$. Suppose that a function $\tilde M$ satisfies $\int\limits_{-b}^{b}\log^{+}\tilde M(y)dy<+\infty$ and   $v(x+iy)\leq \tilde M(y)$ for  all $(x,y) \in P$.
 Then for any compact set $K\subset P$ there exists a constant $C=C(\tilde M,d(K,\partial \Omega))$   such that $\sup\limits_{K}v\leq C$.
\end{lemma}
 \begin{proof}[Sketch of the proof]

  Let $F(t):= \lambda_1(\{y \in (-b,b)\colon \tilde M(y)\geq t\})$ denote the complementary cumulative distribution function of $\tilde M(y)$. The logarithmic integral condition $\int_{-b}^{b}\log^{+}\tilde M(y)dy<+\infty$ can be reformulated in terms of $F$, namely $\sum\limits_{i=0}^{+\infty} F(2^i)<+\infty$ if
 $\int_{-b}^{b}\log^{+}\tilde M(y)dy<+\infty$ (see \cite{K88}, p.378--379). Then there exists a positive number $C$ such that
\vspace{-5pt}
\begin{equation}
\label{DE} \sum\limits_{i=-1}^{+\infty} F( 2^i C)<\frac{\pi}{8} d(K,\partial P).
\end{equation}

Our aim is to show that $\sup\limits_{K} v \leq C$. Assume the contrary. Suppose there is $z_0\in K$ with $v(z_0)>C$.
 Let $A_t$ denote the set $\{z \in P: u(z) \geq t \}$.

\begin{proposition*}
 If a point $z \in P$ satisfies $v(z) \geq \EuScript C$ with $\EuScript C>0$,  and $d(z, \partial P) > \frac{8}{\pi}F(\EuScript C/2)$, then there is a $\zeta \in P$ such that $d(z,\zeta)\leq \frac{8}{\pi}F(\EuScript C/2)$ and $v(\zeta) \geq 2\EuScript C$.
\end{proposition*}
 Consider the ball $B$ centered at $z$ with radius $r=\frac{8}{\pi}F(\EuScript C/2)$, note that $B\in P$, since $d(z, \partial P) > \frac{8}{\pi}F(\EuScript C/2)$. Now, the subharmonicity of $v$ will be exploited:
$\EuScript C\leq v(z) \leq \frac{1}{\lambda_2(B)} \int\limits_{B} v = \frac{1}{\lambda_2(B)} ( \int\limits_{B \setminus A_{\EuScript C/2}} v + \int\limits_{B \cap A_{\EuScript C/2}} v) \leq
\EuScript C/2 +  \frac{1}{\lambda_2(B)} \int\limits_{B \cap A_{\EuScript C/2}} v$.
 Hence $\EuScript C/2 \leq \frac{1}{\lambda_2(B)} \int\limits_{B \cap A_{\EuScript C/2}} v \leq \frac{1}{\pi r^2}  \sup\limits_{B} v  \cdot \lambda_2(B \cap A_{\EuScript C/2}) \leq \frac{1}{\pi r^2}  \sup\limits_{B} v  \cdot \lambda_1(\{x| \quad \!\!\! \exists\quad \!\!\!  y:(x,y) \in B \cap A_{\EuScript C/2}\}) \cdot \lambda_1(\{y: \quad \!\!\!\exists \!\!\! \quad x: (x,y) \in B \cap A_{\EuScript C/2}\}) \leq \frac{1}{\pi r^2}  \sup\limits_{B} v  \cdot 2r F(\EuScript C/2)= \frac{1}{4} \sup\limits_{B} v $.
Thus $2C \leq \sup\limits_{B} v $ and the proposition is proved.

Using the proposition and taking $z_0$ in place of $z$ and $C$ in place of $\EuScript C$ we obtain a point $z_1$ such that $v(z_1) \geq 2C$ and $d(z_1,z_0)\leq \frac{8}{\pi}F(C/2)$.  Recall that $d(z_0, \partial P) >  \frac{8}{\pi} \sum\limits_{i=-1}^{+\infty} F( 2^i C)$, hence $d(z_1,\partial P) > \frac{8}{\pi} \sum\limits_{i=0}^{+\infty} F( 2^i C)$.
 Exploiting the proposition infinitely many times we obtain a sequence $\{ z_i \}_{i=0}^{+\infty}$ such that $v(z_i) \geq 2^i C$ and $d(z_i, z_{i+1}) \leq \frac{8}{\pi}F(2^{i-1}C)$.
 By \eqref{DE} $z_i$ have a limit point $z\in P$,  hence $v(z)\geq \lim\limits_{i \to \infty} v(z_i)=+\infty$, and  a contradiction is obtained.
\end{proof}
 \begin{remark} \label{estimateD}
 Domar's argument also provides explicit estimates in Threorem \ref{Levinson} of $C(M,d(K,\partial P))$. Define $F(t)$  by $F(t)=\lambda_1(\{ y : \log^+M(y)\geq t\})$. If $C>0$ and $d(K, \partial P) >  \frac{8}{\pi} \sum\limits_{i=-1}^{+\infty} F( 2^i C)$ , then $|f| \leq \exp(C)$ on $K$.
\end{remark}

\section{Axially-Symmetric Harmonic Functions.}

   Consider $\mathbb R^n=\{x= (x_1,\dots, x_n): x_i \in \mathbb R \}$.
 By $\rho$ we denote $\sqrt{\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n-1} x_i^2}$ and $h:=x_n$.  A function $u$ defined in $\mathbb R^n$ is called axially-symmetric  if $u=u(\rho,h)$, i.e. $u$ is invariant under orthogonal transforamtions of the first $(n-1)$ coordinates.   An axially-symmetric  harmonic function $u$ satisfies the elliptic Euler-Darboux equation:
\begin{equation} \label{ED}
 \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \rho^2}  + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial h ^2}  + \frac{n-2}{\rho}\frac{\partial u}{\partial \rho}=0.
\end{equation}
 We are going to use two ideas. The first one reduces axially-symmetric  harmonic functions in $\mathbb R^4$ to ordinary harmonic functions in $\mathbb R^2$. The second trick reduces axially-symmetric  harmonic functions in $\mathbb R^{2k+3}$ to harmonic functions in $\mathbb R^3$. It will help in dimension $n \geq 5$.  We refer the reader to \cite{A87}, \cite{H96}, \cite{E56}, \cite{E65}, \cite{K}, \cite{H91}, \cite{R68}, \cite{R74}, \cite{W48}, \cite{W53} and references therein, where these and related ideas  appear in a different context, however we are not able to locate their origin.

\subsection{From $\mathbb{R}^4$ to $\mathbb{R}^2$  \label{from R4} }

  Suppose $u$ is an axially-symmetric  harmonic function in an axially-symmetric  domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^4$. Consider the set $\tilde \Omega_+ \subset \mathbb{R}^2 $ defined by  $x \in \Omega \iff (\rho(x), h (x)) \in \tilde \Omega_+ . $
 It is easy to see from \eqref{ED} that the function
\begin{equation} \label{R4}
\tilde u(\rho,h) = \rho u(|\rho|, h)
\end{equation}

 is harmonic in Int $\tilde \Omega_+$. Define ${\tilde\Omega_-}$ by $x \in \Omega \iff (-\rho(x), h (x)) \in \tilde \Omega_- . $ Let $\tilde \Omega$ be the union of $\tilde \Omega_+$ and $\tilde \Omega_-$. Then $\tilde \Omega$ is a  domain in $\mathbb{R}^2$, symmetric with respect to the line $\rho=0$. By the Schwarz reflection principle we see that \eqref{R4} defines an odd (with respect to $\rho$) harmonic function in $\tilde \Omega$.

\subsection{From $\mathbb{R}^{2k+3}$ to $\mathbb{R}^3$. \label{from 2k+3}}
 Let $u=u(\rho,h)$ be an axially-symmetric harmonic function in $\mathbb{R}^{2k+3}$.
 Put
\begin{equation} \label{2k+3} v(\varphi, \rho,h)= \rho^k e^{ik\varphi}u(\rho,h), \end{equation}
 where $(\varphi, \rho,h)$ are cylindrical coordinates in $\mathbb{R}^3$. Then $v$ is  a harmonic (complex-valued) function in $\mathbb R^3$.  Indeed,
 $$\Delta v = \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial\rho^2} + \frac{1}{\rho}\frac{\partial v}{\partial\rho} +\frac{1}{\rho^2}\frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial\varphi^2} + \frac{\partial^2 v}{\partial h^2}=0+\rho^k e^{ik\varphi}(\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial \rho^2}  + \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial h ^2}  + \frac{2k+1}{\rho}\frac{\partial u}{\partial \rho} )=0.$$
 The last argument shows that $v$ is harmonic in $\mathbb R^3 \setminus \{ \rho =0 \}$. Note that $v$ is continuous up to the line $\{ \rho=0\}$, which is a removable singularity for bounded harmonic functions (see \cite{ABR},p.200). Thus $v$ is harmonic in $\mathbb R^3$.
\section{ Proof of Theorem \ref{main}.}
\subsection{ Proof of the case $n=4$.}

 Fix $\varepsilon>0$: $R,H>\varepsilon$. Take any $x_0\in \mathbb R^{n-1}$  with $|x_0|<R-\varepsilon$. Consider any function $u$ from $\EuScript H_M$. It is sufficient to show that there is $C=C(M,H,\varepsilon)$ such that $|u(x_0,h)|\leq C$ for any $h$: $|h|< H - \varepsilon$. Denote the set $ \{(x,y)\colon x \in \mathbb R^{n-1}, y \in \mathbb R, |x|<\varepsilon, |y|< H)\}$ by $P_\varepsilon$ and consider the function $\tilde u: P_\varepsilon \to \mathbb R$ defined by $\tilde u(x,y)= u(x-x_0,y)$. Note that $|\tilde u(x,y)| \leq M(|y|)$ on $P_\varepsilon$.

Let us make an axial symmetrization step. Denote by $O(3)$ the group of orthogonal transformations in $\mathbb R^3$, let $dS$ be the Haar measure on $O(3)$. For any $g \in O(3)$  we use the notation $\tilde u_g$ for the function $\tilde u(gx,y)$. It is clear that $\tilde u_g$ is harmonic in $P_\varepsilon$, $\tilde u_g(0,y)=\tilde u(0,y)=u(x_0,y)$ and $|u_g(x,y)|\leq M(|y|)$  on $P_\varepsilon$.
 Put $w(x,y):= \int_{O(3)} u_g(x,y)dS(g)$, $(x,y)\in P_\varepsilon$, it is evident that $w$ also enjoys the  properties from the preceding sentence and $w=w(\rho,h)$ is axially-symmetric. We have reduced $4$-dimensional case to the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
 Suppose $w=w(\rho,h)$ is an axially-symmetric harmonic function in the truncated cylinder $P_\varepsilon$ and $|w(x,y)| \leq M(|y|)$, then there is a constant $C=C(M,H,\varepsilon)$ such that $|w(0,y)|< C$ for any $y \in (-H+\varepsilon, H- \varepsilon)$.
\end{lemma}
 \textbf{Proof.}
   Put $v(\rho,h):=\rho w(|\rho|,h)$, by Section \ref{from R4} $v$ is harmonic in $(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon) \times (-H, H) $. Denote $\rho+ih$ by $\zeta$, and  $ \frac{\partial v}{\partial \rho} - i \frac{\partial v}{\partial h}$ by $f$, then $f$ is a holomorphic function in $(-\varepsilon,\varepsilon) \times (-H, H)$. Denote the set $(-\varepsilon/2,\varepsilon/2)\times (-H+\varepsilon/2, H - \varepsilon/2 )$ by $\tilde P_{\varepsilon/2}$.

Take any $\zeta=(\rho,h) \in \tilde P_{\varepsilon/2}$ with $h \leq \varepsilon$ and consider a disk $B_{h/2}(\zeta):=\{z: |z-\zeta|< h/2 \}$. Since $|u(\rho,h)|\leq M(|h|)$ and $M$ is decreasing $\sup\{|v|(x)\colon x \in B_{h/2}(\zeta) \} \leq  M(h/2)$. Applying standard Cauchy's estimates of derivatives of harmonic functions we obtain $|\nabla v|(\zeta) \leq C_1 \frac{\sup\{|v|(x)\colon x \in B_{h/2}(\zeta) \}}{h/2} \leq C_2 \frac{M(h/2)}{h}$, by $C_1,C_2, C_3 $ we will denote absolute constants, whose value is  less than $100$. We note that $|f|=|\nabla v|$, hence $|f|(\zeta)\leq C_2 \frac{M(h/2)}{h}$.

 If $\zeta \in \tilde P_{\varepsilon/2}$ with $h \geq \varepsilon$, then $B_{\varepsilon/4}(\zeta) \subset (-\varepsilon,\varepsilon) \times (-H, H)$. Using in a similar way Cauchy's estimates we obtain $|f(\zeta)| \leq C_3 \frac{M(h/2)}{\varepsilon}$. We therefore have $|f(\zeta)| \leq \max(\frac{100}{\varepsilon}, \frac{100}{h})M(h/2)$ for any $\zeta \in \tilde P_{\varepsilon/2}$.    Denote $ \max(\frac{100}{\varepsilon}, \frac{100}{h})M(h/2)$ by $\tilde M(h)$. It follows from the inequality $ \log^+{a}+\log^+{b}+\log2 \geq \log^+(a+b)$ that $\int\limits_{-H}^{H}\log^{+}\log^{+}M(y)dy<+\infty$ implies  $\int\limits_{  -H+\varepsilon/2}^{ H-\varepsilon/2}\log^{+}\log^{+} \tilde M(y)dy<+\infty$.

Now, we are in a position to  apply Theorem \ref{Levinson} to the function $f$ holomorphic in $\tilde P_{\varepsilon/2}$ with the majorant $\tilde M$, that gives us  a positive constant $C=C(M,H,\varepsilon)$: $|f(0,h)|<C$ for $h \in (-H+\varepsilon, H-\varepsilon)$. Recall that $ v(\rho,h)= \rho \tilde  u(\rho,h)$, it yields $|u(0,h)|=|v_\rho(0,h)|\leq|f| \leq C(M,H,\varepsilon)$.

\begin{remark} Let $\tilde F(t)$ denote $\lambda_1( \{h\in (-H+\varepsilon/2, H -\varepsilon/2): \max(\frac{100}{\varepsilon}, \frac{100}{h})M(h/2) \geq \exp(t)\})$, then $C(M,H,\varepsilon)$ can be given explicitly in terms of $\tilde F$ in view of Remark \ref{estimateD}. Namely, if $\varepsilon/2 >  \frac{8}{\pi} \sum\limits_{i=-1}^{+\infty} \tilde F( 2^i C)$ for a positive constant $C$, then $u(x,y) \leq \exp(C)$ for all $(x,y)$ with $|x|\leq R-\varepsilon, |h| \leq H-\varepsilon$ .
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
    The $4$-dimensional case of Theorem \ref{main} implies the $3$-dimensional one (as well as the $2$-dimensional) because we can always add a fake coordinate to $\mathbb R^3$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{  Proof of the case $n\geq 5$.} We will consider only the case of odd $n=2k+3$. Now, we know that Theorem \ref{main} holds for $n=2,3,4$. We will prove the case of odd $n=2k+3$ reducing it to the case $n=3$ with the help of idea discussed in Section \ref{from 2k+3}. The case of even $n$ follows immediately.
    Like in the proof of $4$-dimensional case we can perform the axial-symmetrisation step and Theorem \ref{main} is reduced to the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
Suppose $u=u(\rho,h)$ is an axially-symmetric harmonic function in a truncated cylinder $P_\varepsilon= \{(x \in \mathbb R^{n-1}, y \in \mathbb R, |x|<\varepsilon, |y|< H)\}$ such that $|u(x,y)| \leq M(|y|)$. Then there is a constant $\EuScript{C}=\EuScript{C}(n,M,H,\varepsilon)$ such that $|u(0,y)|< \EuScript{C}$ for $y \in (-H+\varepsilon, H- \varepsilon)$.
\end{lemma}
  Following Section \ref{from 2k+3} we consider a function $v$ defined by $v(\varphi,\rho,h)= Re( \rho^k e^{ik\varphi} u(\rho,h))$ on the set $\{\varphi \in [0,2\pi), \rho \in [0,\varepsilon), h \in (-H+\varepsilon,H+\varepsilon)  \}$, where $v$ is harmonic. With the help of a $3$-dimensional case of Theorem \ref{main} we can obtain $ |v(\varphi,\rho,h)|<C(M,H,\varepsilon/2)$ for $\varphi \in [0,2\pi), \rho \in [0,\varepsilon/2), h \in (-H+\varepsilon/2,H-\varepsilon/2)$. Then for any $h \in (-H+\varepsilon,H-\varepsilon)$  and the ball $B$ centered at the point $(0,0,h)$ with radius $\varepsilon/2$ we have $\sup\limits_{B} |v| \leq C(M,H,\varepsilon/2)$.  Applying standard estimates of the higher derivatives of harmonic functions we obtain $\frac{\partial^k}{\partial \rho^k}v \leq C(k) \frac{C(M,H,\varepsilon/2)}{(\varepsilon/2)^k}$ on the set $\{ \varphi\in [0,2\pi), \rho =0, h \in (-H+\varepsilon/2, H-\varepsilon/2) \}$ , where $C(k)$ is a constant depending only on dimension ($n=2k+3$). Take $\varphi=\rho=0$ and see that $\frac{\partial^k v}{\partial \rho^k}(0,0,h)= k! u(0,h)$. Thus $|u(0,h)| \leq C(k) \frac{C(M,H,\varepsilon/2)}{(\varepsilon/2)^k}$ for $h \in (-H+\varepsilon, H+\varepsilon)$.
\section{Application to the universal polynomial expansions of harmonic functions.}
  Consider the unit ball $\mathbb{B}:=B_1(0)$ in $\mathbb R^n$. Any function $h$ harmonic in $\mathbb{B}$ admits  power series expansion $h=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} h_n$, where $h_n$ is a homogeneous harmonic polynomial of degree $n$. It is said that $h$ belongs to the collection ${U}_H$, of harmonic functions in $B$ with universal homogeneous polynomial expansions, if for any compact set $K\subset \mathbb R^n \setminus \mathbb{B}$ with connected complement and any harmonic function $u$ in a neighbourhood of $K$, there is a subsequence $\{N_k\}$ of $\mathbb{N}$ such that $\sum^{N_k}_0 h_n \to u$ uniformly on $K$. This class of universal functions has been studied in \cite{M13}, \cite{GK14},  \cite{GT06}, \cite{BGNP}. The following statement improves Theorem $7$ from \cite{GK14} on the boundary behavior of functions from $U_H$ .
\begin{theorem} \label{universality}
 Let $\psi:[0,1) \to \mathbb R^+$ be an increasing function such that $\int_0^1 \log^+\log^+ \psi(t) dt < +\infty$.
 If $h=\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty} h_n$ enjoys $|h(x)| \leq \psi(|x|)$ on $B_r(\omega)\cap \mathbb{B}$ for some $\omega \in \partial \mathbb{B}$ and $r>0$, then $f \notin U_H$.
\end{theorem}
 We won't prove Theorem \ref{universality} here, because
 all necessary ingredients of the proof with one exception are given in \cite{GK14}, where Theorem \ref{universality} is proved under the stronger assumption $\int_0^1 \log^+ \psi(t) dt < +\infty$ in place of $\int_0^1 \log^+\log^+ \psi(t) dt < +\infty$. The only missing ingredient in \cite{GK14}, which allows to replace one $\log$ by $\log \log$, is the
 "harmonic" analog of the Levinson $\log\log$ theorem in higher dimensions (its version in a ball, which follows from Theorem \ref{main} with the help of Kelvin transform).

 \section{A question on one-sided estimates.}
  Suppose that $z_0$ is a point in a square $Q=(-1,1)\times (-1,1)$ and $M$ is a positive (decreasing and regular) function on $(0,1)$. Under what assumptions on $M$  the family $F^+_M$ of all functions $f$ holomorphic in $Q$, and satisfying $Im (f(z))\leq M(|Im(z)|)$, $f(z_0)= 0$ is normal in $Q$?

\section*{Acknowledgments} This research was supported by the Chebyshev Laboratory (Department of Mathematics
and Mechanics, St. Petersburg State University) under the RF Government grant
11.G34.31.0026, and by JSC "Gazprom Neft". We are grateful to D. Khavinson for explaining the application of the "harmonic" analog of the Levinson $\log \log$ theorem to the question on the boundary behavior  of the universal power expansions of harmonic functions.

Analysis of PDEs (math.AP); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA); Complex Variables (math.CV)


Efficient Solutions in Generalized Linear Vector Optimization

Abstract: This paper establishes several new facts on generalized polyhedral convex sets and shows how they can be used in vector optimization. Among other things, a scalarization formula for the efficient solution sets of generalized vector optimization problems is obtained. We also prove that the efficient solution set of a generalized linear vector optimization problem in a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space is the union of finitely many generalized polyhedral convex sets and it is connected by line segments.

\section{Introduction}
\markboth{\centerline{\it Introduction}}{\centerline{\it N.N.~Luan}} \setcounter{equation}{0}

One calls a vector optimization problem {\it linear} if the objective function is linear and the constraint set is a polyhedral convex set. Due to the classical Arrow-Barankin-Blackwell theorem (the ABB theorem; see \cite{ABB_1953, Jahn, Luc}), for a finite dimensional linear vector optimization problem, the Pareto solution set and the weak Pareto solution set are connected by line segments and each of them is an union of finitely many faces of the constraint set. Extensions of the result for linear vector optimization problems in Banach spaces can be seen in \cite{Yang_Yen_2010, ZhengYang_2008}, where the focus point was piecewise linear vector optimization. In \cite{Zheng_1998}, it was shown that set of positive proper efficient points is dense in the set of efficient points with a pointed convex cone in a topological vector space.

\medskip
Scalarization methods, by which one replaces a vector optimization problem by a scalar optimization problem depending on a parameter, have attracted attentions of many researchers (see, e.g., Eichfelder in \cite{Eich08a}, Hoa, Phuong and Yen in \cite{Hoa_Phuong_Yen_2005}, Huong and Yen in \cite{Huong_Yen_2014}, Jahn in  \cite{Jahn, Jahn_1984}, Luc in \cite{Luc, Luc_1987, Luc2016}, Pascoletti and Serafini in \cite{Pascoletti_Serafini}, Yen and Phuong in \cite{Yen_Phuong_2000}, Zheng in \cite{Zheng_2000}).

\medskip
Recently,  in locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces setting, using a representation for generalized polyhedral convex sets, Luan and Yen \cite{Luan_Yen_2015} have obtained solution existence theorems for generalized linear programming problems, a scalarization formula for the weakly efficient solution set of a generalized linear vector optimization problem, and proved that the latter is the union of finitely many generalized polyhedral convex sets. It is reasonable to look for similar results for the corresponding efficient solution set.

\medskip
Our aim is to establish several new facts on generalized  polyhedral convex sets and shows how they can be used in vector optimization. Among other things, a scalarization formula for the efficient solution set of a generalized vector optimization problem is obtained. We also prove that the efficient solution set of a generalized linear vector optimization problem in a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space is the union of finitely many generalized polyhedral convex sets and it is connected by line segments. The present paper can be considered as a continuation of \cite{Luan_Yen_2015}.

\medskip
The organization of our paper is as follows. Section 2 is devoted to an investigation on generalized polyhedral convex  sets. On that basis, Section 3 solves some questions about the efficient solution set of generalized linear vector optimization problems which arised after the paper by Luan and Yen \cite{Luan_Yen_2015}.

\section{Properties of Generalized Polyhedral Convex Sets}
\markboth{\centerline{\it Properties of Generalized Polyhedral Convex  Sets}}{\centerline{\it N.N.~Luan}} \setcounter{equation}{0}

In this section, first we give a sufficient condition for the image of a generalized polyhedral convex set via a continuous linear map to be a generalized convex polyhedron. Second, we characterize the relative interior of a generalized polyhedral convex cone and of its dual cone. The obtained results will be used intensively in the sequel.

\subsection{Images of  generalized  convex polyhedra}
Let $X$ be a {\it locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space} with the dual space denoted by $X^*$. For any $x^* \in X^*$ and $x \in X$, $\langle x^*, x \rangle$ indicates the value of $x^*$ at $x$.

\begin{definition}{\rm (See \cite[p.~133]{Bonnans_Shapiro_2000})  A subset $C \subset X$ is said to be a \textit{generalized polyhedral convex set} (a \textit{generalized convex polyhedron} for short) if there exist $x^*_i \in X^*$, $\alpha_i \in \mathbb R$, $i=1,2,\dots,p$, and a closed affine subspace $L \subset X$, such that
\begin{equation*}
			C=\big\{ x \in X \mid x \in L, \; \langle x^*_i, x \rangle \leq \alpha_i,\ \;  i=1,\dots,p\big\}.
\end{equation*}
If $C$ admits the last representation for $L=X$ and for some $x^*_i \in X^*$, $\alpha_i \in \mathbb R$, $i=1,2,\dots,p$, then it is called a \textit{polyhedral convex set} (or a \textit{convex polyhedron}).}
\end{definition}

From the definition it follows that a generalized polyhedral convex set is a closed set. Note also that, in the finite dimensional space, $D$  is a generalized polyhedral convex set if and only if $D$ is a convex polyhedron.

The following representation theorem for generalized convex polyhedral in the spirit of \cite{Rock_book_1970} is crucial  for our subsequent proofs.

\begin{theorem}{\rm  (\cite[Theorem~2.7]{Luan_Yen_2015})}\label{Luan_Yen_2015_main} A nonempty subset $D \subset X$ is a generalized convex polyhedron if and only if there exist $u_1, \dots, u_k \in X$, $v_1, \dots, v_{\ell} \in X$, and a closed linear subspace  $X_0 \subset X$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{rep_D}
		\begin{aligned}
		D=\Bigg\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i u_i + \sum\limits_{j=1}^\ell \mu_j v_j \mid & \lambda_i \geq 0, \ \forall i=1,\dots,k,    \\
		&\sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i=1,\ \, \mu_j \geq 0,\ \forall j=1,\dots,\ell   \Bigg\}+X_0.&&
		\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\medskip
We are now in a position to extend Lemma 3.2 from the paper of Zheng and Yang \cite{ZhengYang_2008}, which was given in a normed spaces setting, to the case of convex polyhedra in locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces.

\begin{proposition}\label{image_of_D} If $T: X \rightarrow Y$ is a linear mapping between locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces with $Y$ being a space of finite dimension and if $D \subset X$ is a generalized polyhedral convex set, then $T(D)$ is a convex polyhedron of $Y$.
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} Suppose that $D$ is of the form \eqref{rep_D}. We have
	\begin{equation*}
	\begin{aligned}
	T(D)=\Bigg\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i (Tu_i) + \sum\limits_{j=1}^\ell \mu_j (Tv_j) \mid &\,  \lambda_i \geq 0, \ \forall i=1,\dots,k,    \\
	&\sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i=1,\ \, \mu_j \geq 0,\ \forall j=1,\dots,\ell   \Bigg\}+T(X_0).&&
	\end{aligned}
	\end{equation*}
As $T(X_0)$ is a linear subspace of the finite dimensional space $Y$, $T(X_0)$ is a closed linear subspace. Hence, by Theorem \ref{Luan_Yen_2015_main}, $T(D)$ is a polyhedral convex set of $Y$.
\end{proof}

One may wonder: \textit{Whether the assumption on the finite dimensionality of $Y$ can be removed from Proposition \ref{image_of_D}, or not?} Let us solve this question by an example.
\begin{example}{\rm Let $X=C[0, 1]$ be the linear space of continuous real valued functions on the interval $[0, 1]$ with the norm defined by $||x||=\max\big\{|x(t)| \, \mid \, t \in [0,1] \big\}$.
Let $Y~=C_0[0,1]:=\big\{y \in C[0,1] \, \mid \, y(0)=0 \big\}$
and let $T: X \rightarrow Y$ be the bounded linear operator given by $(Tx)(t)=\int_{0}^{t}x(\tau) d \tau, $ where integral is Riemannian. Clearly, $X$ is a generalized polyhedral convex set in $X$ and
			\begin{equation*}
			T(X)=\Big\{ y \in C_0[0,1] \mid y \text{ is continuously differentiable on } (0,1) \Big\}.
			\end{equation*}
To show that $T(X)$ is dense in $Y$, we take any $y \in Y$. By the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem~1.1, p.~52]{Lang_1993} and  \cite[Corollary~1.3, p.~54]{Lang_1993}), there exists a sequence of polynomial functions in one variable $\{p_k\}$ converging uniformly to~$y$ in~$Y$. Put $q_k(t)=p_k(t)-p_k(0)$ for all $t \in [0,1]$. It is easily seen that $\{q_k\}$ converges uniformly to $y$ in $Y$  and $\{q_k\} \subset T(X)$. As $T(X) \neq Y$, we see that $T(X)$ is a non-closed linear subspace set of~$Y$. Hence, $T(X)$ cannot be a generalized polyhedral convex set.
}\end{example}

A careful analysis of Example 2.1 leads us to the following question: \textit{Whether the image of a generalized polyhedral convex set via a surjective linear operator from a Banach space to another Banach space is a generalized polyhedral convex set, or not?}

\begin{example}{\rm Let $X=C[0, 1] \times C[0,1]$ with the norm defined by
				\begin{equation*}
				||(x, u)||=\max_{t \in [0, 1]} |x(t)|+\max_{t \in [0, 1]} |u(t)|,
				\end{equation*}
$Y=C[0,1]$ and a linear mapping $T: X \rightarrow Y$ be defined by
				\begin{equation*}
				T(x, u)(t)=\int_{0}^{t}x(\tau) d \tau + u(t),
				\end{equation*}
where integral is Riemannian. Note that $D:=C[0,1] \times \{0\}$ is a generalized polyhedral convex set of $X$, but
				\begin{equation*}
				T(D)=\Big\{ y \in C_0[0,1] \mid y \text{ is continuously differentiable on } (0,1) \Big\}
				\end{equation*}
is not a generalized polyhedral convex set of $Y$.
}\end{example}

\subsection{The relative interior of a polyhedral convex cone}
\begin{definition}{\rm (See \cite[p.~20]{Bonnans_Shapiro_2000})  For a convex subset $A$ of a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space $X$, we say that a point $u$ belongs to the \textit{relative interior} of~$A$, denoted by ${\rm ri}A$, if there exists a neighborhood $U$ of $u$ in $X$ such that $U \cap {\rm cl(aff}A) \subset  A$, where ${\rm cl(aff}A)$ is the closure of the affine hull of $A$. }
\end{definition}

By \cite[Theorem 6.4]{Rock_book_1970} and \cite[Lemma 2.5]{Luan_Yen_2015}, if $X$ is a finite-dimensional Hausdorff topological vector space, and $A \subset X$ is a nonempty convex set, then $u \in {\rm ri}A$ if and only if, for every $x \in A$, there exists $\varepsilon >0$ such that $u-\varepsilon(x-u)$ belongs to $A$.

One says that a subset $C$ of a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space is a {\it cone} if $\lambda u \in C$ for all $u \in C$ and for every $\lambda >0$. Note that a cone may not contain~0.

\begin{theorem}\label{reps_riC}  If $C \subset X$ is a generalized polyhedral convex cone in a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space. If $C=\left\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^p \lambda_i u_i \mid \lambda_i \geq 0,\ i=1,\dots,p  \right\}$, where $u_i \in X$ for $i=1,\dots,p$, then
				\begin{equation}\label{reps_riC_eq}
				{\rm ri}C=\left\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^p \lambda_i u_i \mid \lambda_i > 0,\ i=1,\dots,p  \right\}.
				\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} Let $X_0:={\rm{span}}\{u_1,\dots,u_p\}$ be the linear subspace generated by the vectors $u_1,\dots,u_p$. As $C$ is a convex cone of $X_0$ which is a space of finite dimension,  $u \in {\rm ri}C$ if and only if, for every $x \in C$, there exists $\varepsilon >0$ such that $u-\varepsilon(x-u) \in C$. Given any $u \in {\rm ri}C$, we will show that $u$ belongs to the right-hand-side of \eqref{reps_riC_eq}. Let $x=\sum\limits_{i=1}^p u_i \in C$ and let $\varepsilon >0$ be such that $v:=u-\varepsilon(x-u)$ belongs to $C$. Suppose that $v= \sum\limits_{i=1}^p \alpha_i u_i$, where $\alpha_i \geq 0$ for $i=1,\dots,p$. It is clear that
			\begin{equation*}
			u=\frac{1}{1+\varepsilon}v+\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon}x\\
			=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p}\left(\frac{\alpha_i}{1+\varepsilon}+\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} \right)u_i= \sum\limits_{i=1}^{p} \lambda_i u_i,
			\end{equation*}
where $\lambda_i:=\frac{\alpha_i}{1+\varepsilon}+\frac{\varepsilon}{1+\varepsilon} >0$, $i=1,\dots,p$. This establishes the inclusion ``$\subset$'' in \eqref{reps_riC_eq}.

Now, let $u$ be an arbitrary element from the set on the right-hand-side of \eqref{reps_riC_eq}. Suppose that $u=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p} \lambda_i u_i$, where $\lambda_i>0$ for all  $i=1,\dots,p$. For any $x \in C$, one can choose $\alpha_1 \geq 0, \dots, \alpha_p \geq 0$, satisfying $x=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p} \alpha_i u_i$. Put
			\begin{equation*}
			v_{\varepsilon}=u-\varepsilon(x-u)=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{p} \big(\lambda_i -\varepsilon(\alpha_i - \lambda_i) \big)u_i,
			\end{equation*}
where $\varepsilon >0$. As $\lambda_i >0$ for all  $i=1,\dots,p$, we can find an $\varepsilon >0$ satisfying $\lambda_i -\varepsilon(\alpha_i - \lambda_i) \geq 0$ for all $i=1,\dots,p$. Hence, for this $\varepsilon$, we have $v_{\varepsilon} \in C$. The inclusion ``$\supset$'' in \eqref{reps_riC_eq} has been proved.
\end{proof}

\medskip
Let $Y$ be a locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space. Suppose that $K \subset Y$ is a polyhedral convex cone defined by
			\begin{equation}\label{reps_K}
			K=\Big\{ y \in Y \mid \langle y^*_j, y \rangle \leq 0,\ j=1,\dots,q  \Big\},
			\end{equation}
where $y^*_j \in Y^*\setminus\{0\}$ for all $j=1,\dots,q$. Define $\ell(K)=K \cap (-K)$. It is clear that
			\begin{equation*}
			\ell(K)=\big\{ y \in Y \mid \langle y^*_j, y \rangle = 0,\ j=1,\dots,q  \big\}.
			\end{equation*}

The first assertion of the following proposition describes the interior of a polyhedral convex cone.

\begin{proposition}\label{reps_intK}  Let $K \subset Y$ be a polyhedral convex cone of the form \eqref{reps_K}. The following are valid:
			\begin{description}
					\item{\rm (a)} The interior of $K$ has the represention
							\begin{equation}\label{reps_intK_eq}
									{\rm int}K=\big\{ y \in Y \mid \langle y^*_j, y \rangle < 0,\ j=1,\dots,q  \big\}.
							\end{equation}
					\item{\rm (b)} The set $K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ is a convex cone and
							\begin{equation}\label{reps_1b}
					K \setminus{\ell(K)}=\Big\{ y \in K \mid \text{there exists $j \in \{1,\dots,q\}$ such that } \langle y^*_j, y \rangle< 0  \Big\}.
							\end{equation}
			\end{description}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} (a)  As $ \big\{ y \in Y \mid \langle y^*_j, y \rangle < 0,\ j=1,\dots,q  \big\} $ is an open subset of $K$, we have the inclusion ``$\supset$'' in \eqref{reps_intK_eq}. Now, to obtain the reverse inclusion, arguing by contradiction, we suppose that there exists $\bar{y} \in {\rm int}K$ for which there is $j_1 \in \{1,\dots,q\}$ such that $  \langle y^*_{j_1},  \bar{y} \rangle=0$. Since $\bar{y} \in {\rm int}K$, one can find a balanced neighborhood $V \subset Y$ of 0 satisfying $\bar{y}+V \subset K$. Then we have
			\begin{equation*}
			0 \geq \langle y^*_{j_1},  \bar{y} +v \rangle= \langle y^*_{j_1}, v \rangle
			\end{equation*}
for all $v \in V$.  It follows that $\langle y^*_{j_1}, v \rangle = 0$ for all $v \in V$. As $y^*_{j_1} \neq 0$,  there exists $y \in Y$ with $\langle y^*_{j_1}, y \rangle \not=0$. Since $ty \in V$ for sufficiently small $t>0$, we get $\langle y^*_{j_1}, y \rangle=0$, a~contradiction.  Thus, we have proved the inclusion ``$\subset$'' in \eqref{reps_intK_eq}.

\medskip
(b) Clearly, $y \in K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ if and only if   $\langle y^*_j, y \rangle \leq~0$ for all $ j=1,\dots,q,$ and there exists $j \in \{1,\dots,q\}$ such that $\langle y^*_j, y \rangle< 0$.  \eqref{reps_1b} holds true. The fact that $K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ is a cone is obvious. Hence to show that $K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ is convex, we take any $u, v \in K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ and $\lambda \in (0,1)$. By the convexity of $K$, $\lambda u + (1-\lambda) v \in K$. As $u \in  K \setminus{\ell(K)}$, one can find an index $j_0 \in \{1,\dots,q\}$ such that $ \langle y^*_{j_0}, u \rangle< 0 $. Since
			\begin{equation*}
			\langle y^*_{j_0}, \lambda u + (1-\lambda) v \rangle = \lambda \langle y^*_{j_0}, u \rangle + (1-\lambda) \langle y^*_{j_0}, v \rangle \leq \lambda \langle y^*_{j_0}, u \rangle  < 0,
			\end{equation*}
we have $\lambda u + (1-\lambda) v \in K \setminus{\ell(K)}$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}\label{col_reps_intK}{\rm From Proposition \ref{reps_intK} it follows that ${\rm int}K \subset K \setminus{\ell(K)}$. The last inclusion can be strict. To see this, choose $Y=\mathbb{R}^n$ and $K=\mathbb{R}^n_+$.}
\end{remark}

To proceed furthermore, we put $Y_0=\big\{ y \in Y \, \mid \,  \langle y^*_j, y \rangle =0,\ j=1,\dots,q \big\}$ and note that $\ell(K)=Y_0$. Because $Y_0$ is a closed linear subspace of finite codimension of~$Y$, there exists a finite-dimensional linear subspace $Y_1$ of $Y$, such that $Y=Y_0 + Y_1$ and $Y_0 \cap Y_1=\{0\} $.  By \cite[Theorem 1.21(b)]{Rudin_1991}, $Y_1$ is closed. Clearly,
	\begin{equation*}
	K_1:=\big\{ y \in Y_1 \mid \langle y^*_j, y \rangle \leq 0, \; j=1,\dots,q\big\}
	\end{equation*}
is a pointed polyhedral convex cone in $Y_1$ and $K=Y_0+K_1$.

\medskip
For the case $Y=\mathbb{R}^n$, a result similar to the following one was given in \cite[Lemma~2.6,~p. 89]{Luc}.
\begin{lemma}\label{decomp_K_diff_lK} It holds that
				\begin{equation}\label{decomp_for_K_diff_lK_eq}
				K \setminus \ell(K)=Y_0+K_1 \setminus \{0\}.
				\end{equation}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} For each $v \in K \setminus \ell(K)$, there exist $v_0 \in Y_0$ and $v_1 \in K_1$ satisfying $v=~v_0+~v_1$. By Proposition \ref{reps_intK}, one can find $j_0 \in \{1,\dots,q\}$ such that $\langle y^*_{j_0}, v \rangle < 0$. Since $\langle y^*_{j_0}, v_1 \rangle =   \langle y^*_{j_0}, v \rangle - \langle y^*_{j_0}, v_0 \rangle <0$,  so $v_1$ is non zero. Hence $v=v_0+v_1 \in Y_0 +  K_1 \setminus \{0\}$. We have shown that $K \setminus \ell(K) \subset Y_0+K_1 \setminus \{0\}$.

To obtain \eqref{decomp_for_K_diff_lK_eq}, take any $v=v_0+v_1$ with $v_0 \in Y_0$ and $v_1 \in K_1 \setminus \{0\}$. Then $v \in Y_0+K_1=K$.  As $Y_0 \cap \big(Y_1 \setminus \{0\} \big)  =\emptyset$, we must have $v_1 \not \in Y_0$. Choose $j_1~\in~\{1,\dots,q\}$ such that $\langle y^*_{j_1}, v_1 \rangle <0$.  Since $\langle y^*_{j_1}, v \rangle =   \langle y^*_{j_1}, v_0 \rangle + \langle y^*_{j_1}, v_1 \rangle <0$,  we see that $v \in K \setminus \ell(K)$.
\end{proof}

\medskip
By \cite[Proposition 2.42] {Bonnans_Shapiro_2000}, we can represent the positive dual cone
			\begin{equation*}
			K^*:= \big\{ y^* \in Y^* \mid \langle y^*, y \rangle \geq 0 \ \; \forall y \in K   \big\}
			\end{equation*}
of $K$ as
			\begin{equation}\label{represent_Kstar}
			K^*=\left\{\sum\limits_{j=1}^q \lambda_j (-y^*_j) \mid \lambda_j \geq 0, j=1,\dots,q  \right\}.
			\end{equation}

\begin{lemma}\label{Kstar_property}
				If $y^* \in K^*$ then $\langle y^*, y \rangle =0$ for all $y \in Y_0$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof} If $y^* \in K^*$ then, for any $y \in Y_0$, one has $\langle y^*, y \rangle  \geq 0$ and $\langle y^*, -y \rangle  \geq 0$; hence $\langle y^*, y \rangle =0$.
\end{proof}

\medskip
Now we are in position to describe the relative interior of the dual cone $K^*$ by using the set $K\setminus{\ell(K)}$, which can be computed by \eqref{reps_1b}.
\begin{theorem}\label{decomp_riKstar}
				If $K$ is not a linear subspace of $Y$,	then a vector $y^* \in Y^*$ belongs to ${\rm ri}K^*$ if and only if $\langle y^*, y \rangle >0$ for all $y \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}  {\it Necessity:} Suppose that $y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*$. By Theorem \ref{reps_riC} and formula \eqref{represent_Kstar}, there exist $\lambda_j >0$ for $j=1,\dots,q$, such that  $y^*=\sum\limits_{j=1}^q \lambda_j (-y^*_j)$. For any $y \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$, by Proposition~\ref{reps_intK} one can find $j_0 \in \{1,\dots,q\}$ satisfying $\langle y^*_{j_0}, y \rangle< 0$. Then we have
			\begin{equation*}
			\begin{aligned}
			\langle y^*, y \rangle &= (-\lambda_{j_0}) \langle y^*_{j_0}, y \rangle + \sum\limits_{j=1, j\neq j_0}^q (-\lambda_j) \langle y^*_{j}, y \rangle\\
			&\geq (-\lambda_{j_0}) \langle y^*_{j_0}, y \rangle >0,
			\end{aligned}
			\end{equation*}
as derised.

{\it Sufficiency:} Suppose that $y^* \in Y^*$ and $\langle y^*, y \rangle >0$ for all $y \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$. To show that $y^* \in K^*$, we assume the contrary: There exists $\bar{y} \in K$ with $\langle y^*, \bar{y} \rangle  <0$. Since $\langle y^*, y \rangle >0$ for all $y \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$, this inequality forces $\bar{y} \in \ell(K) = Y_0$. Given any $y_1 \in K_1 \setminus\{0\}$,  by  \eqref{decomp_for_K_diff_lK_eq}, we have $t\bar{y}+y_1 \in K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ for every $t \in \mathbb{R}$.  As $\langle y^*, \bar{y} \rangle <0$, we can find $t >0$ such that
			\begin{equation*}
			\langle y^*, t\bar{y}+y_1 \rangle =t\langle y^*, \bar{y}\rangle+\langle y^*, y_1 \rangle <0.
			\end{equation*}
This contradicts the hypothesis that $\langle y^*, y \rangle >0$ for all $y \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$. Thus $y^* \in K^*$.

Since $K$ is not a linear supspace of $Y$, $K_1 \neq \{0\}$. By \cite[Theorem~19.1]{Rock_book_1970}, one can find $v_i \in Y_1 \setminus\{0\}, \, i=1,\dots,\ell,$ such that
			\begin{equation*}
			K_1=\left\lbrace\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\ell} \mu_i v_i   \; \mid \; \mu_i \geq 0, \; \ i=1,\dots, \ell\right\rbrace.
			\end{equation*}
Since $v_i \in K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ for $i=1,\dots,\ell$, by \eqref{decomp_for_K_diff_lK_eq}, it follows that
			\begin{equation}\label{y_star_v_i}
			\langle y^*, v_i  \rangle>0, \; i=1,\dots,\ell.
			\end{equation}
Take any $\widetilde{y}^* \in K^*$ and put $v^*_{\varepsilon}=y^* - \varepsilon (\widetilde{y}^*-y^*)$ with $\varepsilon >0$. By \eqref{y_star_v_i}, there exists $\varepsilon >0$ such that
			\begin{equation}\label{v_star_v_i}
			\langle v^*_{\varepsilon}, v_i  \rangle>0,\; \  i=1,\dots,\ell.
			\end{equation}
As $K=Y_0+K_1$,  for every $y \in K$ one can find $y_0 \in Y_0$ and $\mu_i \geq 0$, $i=1,\dots,\ell,$ such that $y=y_0+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\ell}\mu_i v_i$. Because $y^*, \widetilde{y}^* \in K^*$, by Lemma \ref{Kstar_property} one has $\langle y^*, y_0 \rangle =0$ and $\langle \widetilde{y}^*, y_0 \rangle =0$. Hence, from \eqref{y_star_v_i} it follows that
			\begin{equation*}
			\begin{aligned}
			\langle v_{\varepsilon}^*, y \rangle &= \left\langle v_{\varepsilon}^* , y_0+\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\ell}\mu_i v_i \right\rangle\\
			&=\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\ell}\mu_i  \langle  v^*_{\varepsilon}, v_i \rangle \geq 0.
			\end{aligned}
			\end{equation*}
So we have $ \langle v_{\varepsilon}^*, y \rangle \geq 0$ for every $y \in K$. This means that $v_{\varepsilon}^* \in K^*$. We have thus  proved that, for  any $\widetilde{y}^* \in K^*$, there exists $\varepsilon >0$ such that $y^*-\varepsilon(\widetilde{y}^*-y^*) \in K^*$. Since $K^*$ is a convex cone in the finite dimensional space ${\rm span}\{y^*_1,\dots,y_q^*\}$, by \cite[Theorem~6.4]{Rock_book_1970}, we can infer that $y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*$.
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}{\rm
If $K=Y_0$, then $K^*=Y_0^{\perp}$ where
					\begin{equation*}
					Y_0^{\perp}:=\{y^* \in Y^* \mid \langle y^*, y \rangle = 0, \ \forall y \in Y_0\}
					\end{equation*}
is the annihilator of $Y_0$. So we have ${\rm ri}K^*=K^*$.
}\end{remark}

\section{Efficient Solutions}
\markboth{\centerline{\it Efficient Solutions}}{\centerline{\it N.N.~Luan}} \setcounter{equation}{0}

Following \cite{Luan_Yen_2015}, we consider a {\it generalized linear vector optimization problem}
\begin{equation*}
				{\rm (VLP)} \qquad \quad {{\rm min}_K} \big\{Mx \mid x \in D\big\},
\end{equation*}
where $M: X \rightarrow Y$ is a continuous linear mapping between locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces, $D \subset X$ a generalized polyhedron, $K \subset Y$ a polyhedral convex cone of the form \eqref{reps_K}.

\medskip
A vector $u \in D$ is said to be an \textit{efficient solution} (resp.,  a \textit{weakly efficient solution}) of {\rm (VLP)}  if there does not exist any $x \in D$ such that $Mu - Mx \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$  (resp.,  $Mu - Mx \in {\rm int}K$). The set of all the efficient solutions (resp.,  \textit{weakly efficient solution}) is denoted by $E$ (resp.,  $E^w$).

Clearly, when $K$ is a pointed cone, i.e., $\ell(K)=\left\{ 0 \right\}$, then $u \in E$ if and only if there does not exist any $x \in D$ with $Mu - Mx \in K\setminus\{0\}$.

\begin{remark}{\rm As ${\rm int} K \subset K\setminus{\ell(K)}$ by Remark \ref{col_reps_intK}, we have $E \subset E^w$.}
\end{remark}

Now, by a standard scalarization scheme in vector optimization, we consider the scalar problems
				\begin{equation*}
				{\rm (LP)}_{y^*} \qquad \min \Big\{\langle y^*, Mx \rangle \mid x \in D\Big\} \quad (y^* \in Y^*).
				\end{equation*}

\medskip
Let $\pi_0: Y \rightarrow Y/Y_0$, $y \mapsto y+Y_0$ for all $y \in Y$, be the canonical projection from $Y$ on the quotient space $Y/Y_0$. It is clear that the operator $\Phi_0: Y/Y_0 \rightarrow Y_1$, $[y_1]:=y_1 +Y_0 \mapsto y_1$ for all $y_1 \in Y_1$, is a linear bijective mapping. By \cite[Theorem~1.41({\it a})]{Rudin_1991}, $\pi_0$ is a linear continuous mapping. Moreover, $\Phi_0$ is a homeomorphism by \cite[Lemma~2.5]{Luan_Yen_2015}. Hence, the operator $\pi:=\Phi_0\circ \pi_0: Y \rightarrow Y_1$ is linear and continuous. Therefore, by Proposition \ref{image_of_D}, $D_1:=\left(\pi \circ M\right) (D)$ is a convex polyhedron in $Y_1$.

We now show how of checking the inclusion $u \in E$, for every $u \in D$, verification a relation in the finite dimensional space $Y_1$.

\begin{proposition}\label{relative_eff}
For any $u \in D$, one has $u \in E$ if and only if
					\begin{equation}\label{relative_eff_eq1}
					\big(\left(\pi \circ M\right) u- D_1\big)  \cap \big( K_1\setminus\{0\}\big) =~\emptyset.
					\end{equation}
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof} {\it Necessity:} Suppose the contrary that there is some $u \in E$ with
				\begin{equation*}
				\left( u_1 - D_1\right)  \cap \big( K_1\setminus\{0\}\big) \neq~\emptyset,
				\end{equation*}
where $u_1:=\left(\pi \circ M\right) u=\pi(Mu)$. Setting $u_0=Mu-u_1$, we have $Mu=u_0+u_1$ with $u_1=\pi(Mu) \in Y_1$. So $y_0 \in Y_0$. Select an element $v_1 \in K_1 \setminus\{0\}$ such that $v_1 \in u_1 - D_1$.  As $u_1-v_1 \in D_1=\left( \pi \circ M\right) (D)$, there exist $y \in D$ and $y_0 \in Y_0$ satisfying $My=y_0+(u_1-v_1)$. Since
				\begin{equation*}
				Mu-My = (u_0+u_1)-\big(y_0+(u_1-v_1)\big)=(u_0-y_0)+v_1 \in Y_0 + K_1 \setminus\{0\},
				\end{equation*}
by Lemma \ref{decomp_K_diff_lK}, we have $Mu-My \in  K \setminus{\ell(K)} $. This contradicts the assumption $u \in  E$. We have thus proved that if $u \in E$ then \eqref{relative_eff_eq1} holds.

\medskip
{\it Sufficiency:} Ab absurdo, suppose that there exists $u \in D$ satisfying \eqref{relative_eff_eq1},  but $u \not \in E$. As $\big(Mu-M(D)\big) \cap  \big( K \setminus{\ell(K)} \big)  \neq \emptyset$, one can find $y \in D$ and $v \in K \setminus{\ell(K)}$ satisfying $Mu-My=v$. Invoking Lemma \ref{decomp_K_diff_lK}, we can assert that $v \in Y_0+K_1 \setminus\{0\}$, i.e., $v=v_0+v_1$ for some $v_0 \in Y_0$ and $v_1 \in K_1 \setminus\{0\}$. Then, from the equality $Mu-My=v_0+v_1$ we get
				\begin{equation*}
				\begin{aligned}
				\pi(Mu)-\pi(My)=\pi(Mu-My)&=\pi(v_0+v_1)\\
				&=\pi(v_0)+\pi(v_1)=v_1.
				\end{aligned}
				\end{equation*}
It follows that $v_1 \in \Big( \pi(Mu)  -\pi(M(D))  \Big) \cap \Big( K_1 \setminus\{0\}\Big) $.  This is incompatible with \eqref{relative_eff_eq1}. The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\medskip
To make this exposition comprehensive, we how have a new look on a technical lemma of \cite{Luc} by giving another proof for it.

\begin{lemma}\label{sclar_finite_dimen} {\rm (\cite[Lemma 2.6, p.~89]{Luc})} Suppose that $Z$ is a finite dimensional locally convex Hausdorff topological vector space. Let $A$ be a convex polyhedron containing~0 and $K \subset Z$ be a pointed polyhedral convex cone. If $A \cap\big(  K\setminus\{0\}\big)  =\emptyset$, then there exists $z^* \in Z^*$ such that
					\begin{equation}\label{sclar_finite_dimen_eq1}
					\langle z^*, z  \rangle \leq 0 < \langle z^*,v \rangle
					\end{equation}
for all $z \in A$ and for any $v \in K\setminus\{0\}$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}  Suppose that $K=\big\{ z \in Z \mid \langle z^*_j,z \rangle \leq 0,  \ j=1,\dots,q   \big\}$, where $z^*_j \in Z^*$ for $j=1,\dots,q.$ It is clear that
				\begin{equation*}
				\begin{aligned}
				B:=\Bigg\{  z \in K \mid \sum_{j=1}^{q}\langle z^*_j,z \rangle =-1 \Bigg\}&&
				\end{aligned}
				\end{equation*}
is a compact convex polyhedron and $K \setminus\{0\} = \bigcup\limits_{t >0}(tB)$. According to \cite[Theorem~19.1]{Rock_book_1970}, there exist $u_i \in A$, $i=1,\dots,k$, $d_j \in Z$, $j=1,\dots,r,$ such that
				\begin{equation*}
				\begin{aligned}
				A=\Bigg\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i u_i + \sum\limits_{j=1}^r \gamma_j d_j \mid &\,  \lambda_i \geq 0, \ \forall i=1,\dots,k,    \\
				&\sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i=1,\ \, \gamma_j \geq 0,\ \forall j=1,\dots,r   \Bigg\}.&&
				\end{aligned}
				\end{equation*}
Since $0 \in A$, we must have $d_j \in A$ for $j=1,\dots,r$. Consider the cone
				\begin{equation*}
				\begin{aligned}
				C:=\Bigg\{ \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i u_i + \sum\limits_{j=1}^r \gamma_j d_j \mid &\,  \lambda_i \geq 0, \ \forall i=1,\dots,k,    \gamma_j \geq 0,\ \forall j=1,\dots,r   \Bigg\}.
				\end{aligned}
				\end{equation*}
Clearly, $C$ is a  pointed polyhedral convex cone and $A \subset C$. Note that, for any $z \in C$, there exist $u \in A$ and $\delta >0$ such that $z=\delta u$.  (Indeed, given any $z \in C$, one can find $\lambda_i \geq 0$, $i=1,\dots,k,$ and $\gamma_j \geq 0$, $j=1,\dots,r,$ such that $z= \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i u_i + \sum\limits_{j=1}^r \gamma_j d_j$. If $\lambda_i=0$ for all $i=1,\dots,k$, then $z= \sum\limits_{j=1}^r \gamma_j d_j \in A$; hence we can choose $u=z$ and $\delta=1$. If there exists $\lambda_i >0$ then we choose $\delta = \sum\limits_{i=1}^k \lambda_i >0$ and $u=\frac{1}{\delta}z \in A$.) Since $A \cap (K\setminus\{0\}) =\emptyset$, by our assumptions,  we have $B \cap C =\emptyset$. Since $B, C$ are closed convex subsets of $Z$ and $B$ is compact,  by the strongly separation theorem  (see, e.g., \cite[Theorem 2.~14]{Bonnans_Shapiro_2000}), there exists $z^* \in Z^*$ such that
				\begin{equation}\label{sep_C_and_B}
				\sup\limits_{z \in C} \langle z^*, z \rangle < \inf\limits_{b \in B} \langle z^*, b \rangle.
				\end{equation}
Since $0 \in C$, $0 \leq \sup\limits_{z \in C} \langle z^*, z \rangle$. Hence, from \eqref{sep_C_and_B} it follows that $0 < \inf\limits_{b \in B} \langle z^*, b \rangle$. Therefore, $ \langle z^*, v \rangle > 0$ for all $v \in K\setminus\{0\}$. For every $z \in C$, the inequality $\sup\limits_{t >0} \langle z^*, tz \rangle <~\inf\limits_{b \in B} \langle z^*, b \rangle$ forces $\langle z^*, z \rangle \leq 0$. Hence, \eqref{sclar_finite_dimen_eq1} is valid.
\end{proof}

\begin{theorem}\label{scalar_theorem}
If $K$ is not a linear subspace of $Y$, then $u \in Y$ is an efficient solution of {\rm (VLP)} if and only if there exists $y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*$ satisfying 	$u \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right)$. In other words,
					\begin{equation}\label{repr_efficient_solution_set_1}
					E=\bigcup\limits_{y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*} {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right).
					\end{equation}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} If $u \in E$, then \eqref{relative_eff_eq1} holds by Proposition \ref{relative_eff}. According to Proposition \ref{image_of_D} and \cite[Corollary 19.3.2]{Rock_book_1970}, $\pi(Mu) - D_1$ is a convex polyhedron in $Y_1$. Using Lemma \ref{sclar_finite_dimen} for the convex polyhedron $\pi(Mu) - D_1$ corresponding the pointed polyhedral convex cone $K_1$ in $Y_1$, one can find $v^* \in Y_1^*$ such that
				\begin{equation}\label{scalar_theorem_eq1}
				\langle v^*, w  \rangle \leq 0 < \langle v^*,v \rangle, \quad \forall w \in \pi(Mu) - D_1, \forall v \in K_1\setminus\{0\}.
				\end{equation}
Setting $y^*=v^* \circ \pi$ and note that $y^* \in Y^*$. For any $x \in D$, since  $\pi(Mu) - \pi(Mx)  \in \pi(Mu) - D_1$, we have
				\begin{equation*}
				\langle y^*, Mu-Mx  \rangle = \langle v^*, \pi(Mu)-\pi(Mx) \rangle  \leq 0.
				\end{equation*}
Hence, we obtain $\langle y^*, Mu \rangle \leq \langle y^*, Mx \rangle$ for all $x \in D$; so $u \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right)$. Let us show that $y^* \in {\rm ri} K^*$. Given any $y \in K\setminus {\ell(K)}$, by Lemma \ref{decomp_K_diff_lK} one can find $y_0 \in Y_0$ and $y_1 \in  K_1\setminus\{0\}$ such that $y=y_0+y_1$. Then
				\begin{equation*}
				\langle y^*, y  \rangle = \langle v^*, \pi(y)  \rangle =\langle v^*, y_1  \rangle >0
				\end{equation*}
by \eqref{scalar_theorem_eq1}. By Theorem \ref{decomp_riKstar}, $y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*$.  The inclusion $E \subset \bigcup\limits_{y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*} {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right)$ has been established.

Now, to obtain the reverse inclusion, suppose on contrary that there exists $u \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right)$, with $y^* \in {\rm ri}K^*$, but $ u  \not \in E$. Select an $x \in D$ such that $Mu - Mx \in K\setminus{\ell(K)}$. Then, $\langle y^*, Mu-Mx \rangle >0$ by Theorem \ref{decomp_riKstar}. This contradicts the condition $u \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right)$. The proof of \eqref{repr_efficient_solution_set_1} is thus complete.
\end{proof}

\medskip
The scalarization formula  \eqref{repr_efficient_solution_set_1} allows us to obtain the following result on the structure of the efficient solution set of {\rm (VLP)}.

\begin{theorem}\label{structure_efficient_solution_set} The efficient solution set $E$ of {\rm (VLP)} is the union of finitely many generalized polyhedral convex sets.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} The conclusion follows from \eqref{repr_efficient_solution_set_1} and an argument similar to that of the proof of \cite[Theorem 4.5]{Luan_Yen_2015}.
\end{proof}

\medskip
If the spaces in question are finite dimensional, then the result in   Theorem \ref{structure_efficient_solution_set} expresses one conclusion of the Arrow-Barankin-Blackwell Theorem. The second assertion the latter is that $E$ is connected by line segments. A natural question arises: \textit{Whether the efficient solution set $E$ of {\rm (VLP)} is connected by line segments, or not?}

\medskip
According to \cite{Luc}, the connected by line segments of the efficient solution set $E$ in finite dimensional setting can be proved by a scheme the suggested by Podinovski and Nogin \cite{Podinovski_Nogin}. We now show that an adaption of the scheme on show work for the locally convex Hausdorff topological vector spaces setting which we are interested in.

\begin{theorem}\label{eff_sol_arcwise}
The efficient solution set $E$ of {\rm (VLP)} is connected by line segments, i.e., for any $u, v$ in $E$, there eixst some elements $u_1,\dots, u_r$ of $E$, with $u_1=u$ and $u_r=v$, such that $[u_i, u_{i+1}] \subset E$ for $i=1,2,\dots,r-1$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof} According to Theorem \ref{scalar_theorem}, given any $u, v$ in $E$, one can find $\xi^*_0, \xi^*_1 \in \textrm{ri}K^*$  such that
			\begin{equation*}
				u \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_0}\right), \quad v \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_1}\right).
			\end{equation*}
Since $\textrm{ri}K^*$ is a convex set, $\xi^*_t:=(1-t)\xi^*_0+t \, \xi^*_1$ belongs to  $\textrm{ri}K^*$ for every $t \in [0,1]$.  Noting that $\langle y^*, Mx \rangle = \langle M^*y^*,x \rangle$, by \cite[Proposition 3.6]{Luan_Yen_2015}, we can find finitely many nonempty generalized polyhedral convex sets $F_1, \dots, F_q$, which are subsets of $D$ such that, for any $y^* \in Y^*$ with ${\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right)$ is nonempty, the latter solution set coincides with one of the set $F_i$, $i=1,\dots,q$.

By remembering the family $\{F_1,\dots,F_q\}$ we can assume that ${\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_0}\right)=F_1$. For each $i \in \{1,\dots,q\}$, put
\begin{equation*}
\Delta(i)=\left\{t \in [0,1] \, \mid \, F_i \subset {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_t}\right)  \right\}.
\end{equation*}
To show that $\Delta(i)$ is a convex set, we take any $t_1, t_2 \in \Delta(i)$ and $\lambda \in (0,1)$. For $\bar{t}:=(1-\lambda)t_1+\lambda t_2$ and for any $u \in F_i$, one has
	\begin{equation*}
	\langle \xi^*_{\bar{t}}, Mx-Mu \rangle = (1-\lambda) \langle \xi^*_{t_1}, Mx- Mu \rangle + \lambda \langle \xi^*_{t_2}, Mx- Mu \rangle \geq 0, \quad \forall x \in D.
	\end{equation*}
Thus $u \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{\bar{t}}}\right)$. It follows that $F_i \subset {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{\bar{t}}}\right) $; so $\bar{t} \in \Delta(i)$. The convexity of $\Delta(i)$ has been proved.

If $\Delta(i)$ has only one element, it is closed. Now, suppose that $[t_1, t_2) \subset \Delta(i)$, $t_1 < t_2$. Since $\bar{t}:=(1-\lambda)t_1+\lambda t_2 \in \Delta(i)$ for all $\lambda \in (0,1)$, for any $u \in F_i$ and $x \in D$, one has
\begin{equation*}
0 \leq \langle \xi^*_{\bar{t}}, Mx-Mu \rangle = (1-\lambda) \langle \xi^*_{t_1}, Mx- Mu \rangle + \lambda \langle \xi^*_{t_2}, Mx- Mu \rangle.
\end{equation*}
Letting $\lambda \to 1$, we obtain $\langle \xi^*_{t_2}, Mx- Mu \rangle \geq 0$ for all $u \in F_i$ and $x \in D$. This implies that $F_i \subset {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{t_2}}\right) $, i.e., $t_2 \in \Delta(i)$. Similarly, one can show that  if $(t_1, t_2] \subset \Delta(i)$ then $t_1 \in \Delta(i)$. We have thus proved that $\Delta(i)$ is a closed convex set for each $i=1,\dots,q$. Invoking Theorem 3.1 from \cite{Luan_Yen_2015}, it is easy to prove that the set of $y^* \in Y^*$ with ${\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{y^*}\right) \neq \emptyset$ is convex cone. Hence, for any $t \in [0,1]$, ${\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{t}}\right)  \neq \emptyset$. It follows that $[0,1]=\bigcup\limits_{i=1}^q \Delta(i)$. Consequently, there exist some numbers $t_1, \dots, t_m$ from $[0,1]$ with $t_1 \leq \dots \leq t_{m}$, $t_1=0$, $t_{m}=1$, and $m-1$ indexes $i_1, \dots, i_{m-1}$ such that $[t_j,t_{j+1}] \subset \Delta(i_j)$ for all $j=1,\dots,m-1$. Clearly, $u \in F_{i_0}$ and there exists $i_r$ satisfying $v \in  F_{i_r}$.  Given  $u_{j} \in  F_{i_j}$ for $j=1,\dots,r$, where $u_1=u$ and $u_r=v$. For each $j=1,\dots,r-1$, since $t_{j+1}\in \Delta(i_j) \cap \Delta(i_{j+1})$,  it follows that $u_j \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{t_{j+1}}}\right) $ and $u_{j+1} \in {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{t_{j+1}}}\right) $. Hence,
		\begin{equation*}
	[u_j,u_{j+1}] \subset  {\rm argmin} \left( {\rm (LP)}_{\xi^*_{t_{j+1}}}\right)  \subset E.
		\end{equation*}
We have already been proved that the line segments $[u_j,u_{j+1}], j=1,\dots,r-1$, connect the vectors $u, v$ in $E$.  The proof is complete.
\end{proof}

\medskip
A similar relust for the weakly efficient solution set of {\rm (VLP)}.
\begin{theorem}
	If ${\rm int}K \neq \emptyset$, then the weakly efficient solution set $E^w$ of {\rm (VLP)} is connected by line segments.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
  Let us first prove that the cone $K^*\setminus\{0\}$ is convex. Assume by contradiction that there exist $y^*_1$, $y^*_2 \in K^*\setminus\{0\}$ and $\lambda \in (0,1)$ satisfying $$y^*:=(1-\lambda)y^*_1+\lambda y^*_2 \notin K^*\setminus\{0\}.$$ Since $y^*_1$, $y^*_2 \in K^*$, which is a convex cone, $y^* \in K^*$; hence $y^*=0$. This implies that $\langle y^*_1, y \rangle =0$ for every $y \in K$. By ${\rm int}K \neq \emptyset$, it is not difficult to show that $\langle y^*_1, y \rangle =0$ for all $y \in Y$, which contradicts the assumption $y^*_1 \in K^*\setminus\{0\}$.

  Now, by \cite[Theorem 4.5]{Luan_Yen_2015}, we apply the proof scheme of Theorem \ref{eff_sol_arcwise}, with ${\rm ri}K^*$ being replaced by $K^*\setminus\{0\}$, to obtain $E^w$ is connected by line segments.
\end{proof}

\section*{Acknowledgements}
\noindent
The author would like to thank Professor Nguyen Dong Yen for his guidance and useful remarks.

\section*{Funding}
\noindent
This research was supported by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number 101.01-2014.37.