 by definition $g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s})$,$\exists \epsilon>0$ with $(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}):\,\sqrt{|| \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{w}_\star||^2+|| \mathbf{s}-\mathbf{s}_\star||^2}\leq \epsilon$. Further, $(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star):g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}),\,\forall \mathbf{s}\in\mathcal{A}_2\mbox{ and } g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}_\star),\,\forall \mathbf{w}\in\mathcal{A}_{1}$.

The first statement in Rem. \[limitpointremk\] directly results from from the stationarity condition as given in Lem. \[altminlemma\] and also since the objective is non-convex. The second statement in Rem. \[limitpointremk\] arises from the individual convexity in $\mathbf{w}$ and $\mathbf{s}$ as shown in Prop. \[propos1\], Prop. \[propos2\]. We note readily from Rem. \[remarkstapobj\], that unfortunately there is nothing special or strong about $(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)$ except the fact that they are local minima. It is well known that global extrema (minima or maxima) are attained only when the objective is either convex or concave. For a problem similar to ours and where the alternating minimization was applied, see [@vaidyanathan2009 pg.3537] the authors state that their algorithm produces limit points which are stronger than local maxima, in our opinion this conclusion is suspect. They further claim that their algorithm produces global extrema in their filter design and waveform dimensions individually, which leads us to believe that their objective is concave, although this was never proved in [@vaidyanathan2009]. In our opinion, Rem. \[remarkstapobj\] is also relevant to their objective by replacing minima by maxima, and hence we do not believe that the limit points produced by their algorithm are stronger than local extrema.

To derive the upper and lower bounds on $g(\mathbf{w}_k,\mathbf
by definition $ g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s})$,$\exists \epsilon>0 $ with $ (\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}):\,\sqrt{|| \mathbf{w}-\mathbf{w}_\star||^2+|| \mathbf{s}-\mathbf{s}_\star||^2}\leq \epsilon$. Further, $ (\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star):g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}),\,\forall \mathbf{s}\in\mathcal{A}_2\mbox { and } g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}_\star),\,\forall \mathbf{w}\in\mathcal{A}_{1}$. 

 The first statement in Rem.   \[limitpointremk\ ] directly results from from the stationarity circumstance as render in Lem.   \[altminlemma\ ] and also since the objective is non - convex. The second instruction in Rem.   \[limitpointremk\ ] arise from the individual convexity in $ \mathbf{w}$ and $ \mathbf{s}$ as shown in Prop.   \[propos1\ ], Prop.   \[propos2\ ]. We notice readily from Rem.   \[remarkstapobj\ ], that unfortunately there is nothing special or potent about $ (\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)$ except the fact that they are local minima. It is well known that global extremum (minima or maxima) are attained only when the aim is either convex or concave. For a problem similar to ours and where the alternating minimization was applied, see [ @vaidyanathan2009 pg.3537 ] the authors state that their algorithm produce limit points which are stronger than local maximum, in our opinion this conclusion is suspect. They farther claim that their algorithm produces global extrema in their filter design and waveform dimensions individually, which leave us to believe that their objective is concave, although this was never proved in [ @vaidyanathan2009 ]. In our opinion, Rem.   \[remarkstapobj\ ] is also relevant to their aim by replace minima by maxima, and hence we do not believe that the limit points produced by their algorithm are stronger than local extrema. 

 To derive the upper and lower boundary on $ g(\mathbf{w}_k,\mathbf
 by definition $g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\oathbf{s}_\star)\leq y(\nathbf{x},\mathbf{a})$,$\exists \dpsilon>0$ with $(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}):\,\serr{|| \matybf{w}-\mathbf{w}_\star||^2+|| \mathbf{r}-\mathbf{s}_\snar||^2}\leq \epwiloi$. Further, $(\mathbf{x}_\atar,\matmyf{s}_\stzv):g(\matkbh{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\stsr)\leq g(\matvbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{v}),\,\furcll \mathbf{s}\in\mathcal{A}_2\mbox{ and } g(\mathff{w}_\star,\kahhbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\iathns{w},\mafhbf{s}_\star),\,\forall \mathbf{w}\in\mathcal{A}_{1}$.

Tge firsu statement in Rem. \[kimitpointremk\] directly redultd from from the stwtionarity xondyrion as givev in Lem. \[alumnnlemma\] and also since the objective is nov-convzx. The secobd stwjement in Ren. \[liminpointremk\] arlxes frmm the ondividual conyexitb in $\mathbf{w}$ and $\mathbf{s}$ es shown in Prop. \[propjs1\], Prop. \[prmpks2\]. We note readilt drom Tem. \[rekarkrrapubj\], tiat unforhunetely there is nothing special or strong sbjly $(\mathbf{w}_\stad,\mathbs{s}_\ftar)$ except the fact that they are locan mjnima. It is well known rhat global extrema (mlnima or iaxima) are attained only when the objective is eidher rovver or cubcwve. For a problem similar to ours and where trs slnernating minimizction was appliec, der [@vaidyanathan2009 pg.3537] thz ahthors state that hheir ajgorirhm produses kimit points which are strobger than lobal naxima, in our opinnon this conelusiom is xuspect. They further clcim thzt their alhorithm pduduces global exgreka in their filter design anq waveforn dikensionr incividuwlly, which leads us to believe thah thenr obbective is concave, although this was nevec proved in [@vsigyatathan2009]. Iu our ppinion, Rem. \[reiarkstapobj\] is also rzlevang to their objectmve by replasing minima bf maxima, and ience we qo nit bwlieve gfat the limit loints produced by rheir algorithm arc struhger than local exurwma.

To derive tne jppqr aid lorar bounds on $g(\maghbw{e}_k,\matfbf
by definition $g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s})$,$\exists \epsilon>0$ with $(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}):\,\sqrt{|| \epsilon$. $(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star):g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}),\,\forall and } g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq in \[limitpointremk\] directly results from the stationarity as given in Lem. \[altminlemma\] and since the objective is non-convex. The second statement in Rem. \[limitpointremk\] arises from individual convexity in $\mathbf{w}$ and $\mathbf{s}$ as shown in Prop. \[propos1\], Prop. \[propos2\]. note from \[remarkstapobj\], unfortunately there is nothing special or strong about $(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)$ except the fact that they are local It is well known that global extrema (minima maxima) are attained only the objective is either convex concave. a problem to and the alternating minimization applied, see [@vaidyanathan2009 pg.3537] the authors state that their algorithm produces limit points which are stronger than maxima, in this conclusion suspect. further that their algorithm extrema in their filter design and which leads us to believe that their objective concave, although was never proved in [@vaidyanathan2009]. In opinion, Rem. \[remarkstapobj\] is also relevant to their by replacing minima by maxima, and hence we do not believe that the limit points their algorithm are stronger local extrema. To the and bounds $g(\mathbf{w}_k,\mathbf
 by definition $g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mAthbf{s}_\star)\Leq g(\mAthBf{w},\MaThbf{S})$,$\exiSts \epsilon>0$ with $(\MAthbF{w},\mathbf{s}):\,\sqrt{|| \mathbf{w}-\maThbf{w}_\StAR||^2+|| \matHBf{S}-\mathBf{s}_\star||^2}\LEq \EPSilOn$. fuRthEr, $(\MAtHbf{w}_\sTar,\Mathbf{s}_\Star):g(\mathbF{w}_\sTaR,\mathbf{s}_\star)\LEq G(\mathbf{w}_\stAr,\mAthbf{s}),\,\forall \MatHbf{s}\in\MaThcAL{A}_2\mboX{ anD } g(\matHbf{w}_\stAR,\mathbF{s}_\star)\leq G(\mAThbf{w},\mAThbf{s}_\stAR),\,\FoRall \Mathbf{w}\in\mathcal{A}_{1}$.

tHe FIrst statement iN Rem. \[liMiTPoINTreMk\] dIrectly resUlTs froM From the STaTIONarITy condition as Given in Lem. \[aLTmiNlemma\] AnD alSO since The obJeCTivE is non-conveX. The Second staTement IN Rem. \[limITpointrEmk\] ariSes FroM the INdIvIduAl COnvEXiTy iN $\MatHbf{w}$ and $\mAtHbF{s}$ as sHown IN pROp. \[prOpoS1\], ProP. \[propOs2\]. We note readiLy fRom REM. \[reMarksTapobJ\], thaT uNfortUnatelY therE iS nothing special Or stRong about $(\MatHbF{w}_\sTaR,\mathBF{s}_\star)$ ExcEpt The fact That theY Are LoCAL MiNima. It is well known tHaT GLoBal extreMa (miniMA oR mAXima) are aTtAinEd onLY When tHe obJEcTive is eiTher coNVeX oR concavE. FOr a proBlEm sImiLar to OUrs aNd wherE the alteRnatiNG minimization wAS applied, see [@vaIDyANAtHAn2009 pg.3537] The Authors statE thaT TheiR algORiThm PRoducEs limIt POiNTs which are stronger tHaN local MaximA, in our opinion This concluSION is suspeCt. ThEY fURther claim that Their Algorithm pROduces glObal eXtrema in Their filtER Design anD waVefOrm DimENSiOns individualLY, WhicH lEads us tO beLieve thAt tHeiR obJecTiVe is concaVe, althouGh ThIs WaS neVer prOVed in [@vaiDyAnaThAn2009]. IN our oPInion, REm. \[remArksTaPoBJ\] is Also relEVaNT To thEiR oBjecTivE bY replAcinG MinIma by maXima, and heNce WE do nOt BeLieve thAt the limit poiNtS produced bY tHeiR algorITHm are strOnger than local extrema.

To DErive thE upPer anD lowEr bounds oN $g(\mAthbf{w}_K,\maTHbf
 by definition $g(\mathbf{ w}_\star,\ mathb f{s }_\ st ar)\ leqg(\mathbf{w},\ m athb f{s})$,$\exists \epsil on>0$  w i th $ ( \m athbf {w},\ma t hb f { s}) :\ ,\ sqr t{ | |\math bf{ w}-\mat hbf{w}_\st ar| |^ 2+|| \mathbf { s} -\mathbf{s }_\ star||^2}\le q \ epsilo n$ . F u rther , $ (\mat hbf{w} _ \star, \mathbf{s }_ \ star): g (\mathb f { w} _\st ar,\mathbf{s}_\st a r) \ leq g(\mathbf{ w}_\st ar , \m a t hbf {s} ),\,\foral l\math b f{s}\in \ ma t h c al{ A }_2\mbox{ and  } g(\mathb f {w} _\star ,\ mat h bf{s}_ \star )\ l eqg(\mathbf{w },\m athbf{s}_ \star) , \,\fora l l \math bf{w}\ in\ mat hcal { A} _{ 1}$ .The fi rst sta tement i nRe m. \[ limi t p o i ntre mk\ ] di rectl y results fro m f romt hestati onari ty c on ditio n as g ivenin  Lem. \[altminl emma \] and al sosi nce  t he ob j ective  is  no n-conve x. Thes eco nd s t at ement in Rem. \[li mi t p oi ntremk\]  arise s  f ro m  the ind iv idu al c o n vexit y in $\ mathbf{w }$ and $\ ma thbf{s} $as sho wn  in  Pr op. \ [ prop os1\],  Prop. \ [prop o s2\]. We noter eadily from R e m. \ [r e mark sta pobj\], tha t un f ortu nate l ythe r e isnothi ng sp e cial or strong abou t$(\mat hbf{w }_\star,\math bf{s}_\sta r ) $  exceptthef ac t  that they are  loca l minima.I t is wel l kno wn thatglobal ex t r ema (min ima  or  ma xim a )  a re attained o n l y wh en  the ob jec tive is  ei the r c onv ex  or conca ve. Forapr ob le m s imila r  to ours  a ndwh ere  thea lterna tingmini mi za t ion  was ap p li e d , se e[@ vaid yan at han20 09 p g .35 37] the  authorssta t e th at  t heir al gorithm produ ce s limit po in tswhicha r e strong er than local maxima, i n  our op ini on th is c onclusion  is  suspe ct. They f urther  clai mtha t their a lg ori th m produces g lob al ex tr emain thei r filter design an d  wa veform dimens ion s in d i vi dua l ly ,  wh ic h  le a d s us to believe  that thei ro bj ective isc onc av e, alth ough th is wa s  neverproved in  [@vaidya na than 2 0 09] . In our o pinion,Rem. \[re m arkst a po bj\]isalso r el eva nt to  their obj ectiv e by r ep lacing  mini ma  by maxi ma, and hence we do not  belie ve th atthe limit  po i nts  produced  bytheir algo rit hmare s tro n ger t hanl oc ale xtrem a.
T o derivet he  up p e rand lower b o u n dson $g (\m a thbf{w }_k, \mathbf
 by_definition $g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq_g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s})$,$\exists \epsilon>0$ with $(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}):\,\sqrt{||_\mathbf{w}-\mathbf{w}_\star||^2+|| \mathbf{s}-\mathbf{s}_\star||^2}\leq_\epsilon$._Further, $(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star):g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq_g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}),\,\forall_\mathbf{s}\in\mathcal{A}_2\mbox{ and }_g(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)\leq g(\mathbf{w},\mathbf{s}_\star),\,\forall \mathbf{w}\in\mathcal{A}_{1}$.

The_first statement in Rem. \[limitpointremk\]_directly results from_from_the stationarity condition as given in Lem. \[altminlemma\] and also since the objective is non-convex._The_second statement_in_Rem. \[limitpointremk\]_arises from the individual convexity_in $\mathbf{w}$ and $\mathbf{s}$ as_shown in_Prop. \[propos1\], Prop. \[propos2\]. We note readily from Rem. \[remarkstapobj\], that_unfortunately_there is nothing_special or strong about $(\mathbf{w}_\star,\mathbf{s}_\star)$ except the fact that_they are local minima. It is_well known that_global_extrema_(minima or maxima) are_attained only when the objective is_either convex or concave. For a_problem similar to ours and where the_alternating minimization was applied, see [@vaidyanathan2009_pg.3537] the authors state that_their algorithm_produces limit points which are_stronger than local_maxima, in_our opinion this_conclusion is suspect. They further claim_that their algorithm_produces global extrema in their filter_design_and waveform dimensions_individually,_which_leads us_to believe that_their_objective is_concave,_although this was never proved in_[@vaidyanathan2009]._In our opinion, Rem. \[remarkstapobj\] is also relevant_to their objective by_replacing_minima by maxima, and_hence we do not believe_that the limit points produced by_their algorithm_are stronger_than local extrema.

To derive the upper and lower bounds on $g(\mathbf{w}_k,\mathbf