We then have $$\frac{1}{2}\parallel x^{*}-x_0{\parallel }^2={inf}_{x\in X}\frac{1}{2}\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2+{\lambda }^{*}(r-J(x\left)\right).$$  This implies, on one hand, that ${\lambda }^{*}<\frac{1}{L}$  (since $r<{\alpha }_0$  ) and, on the other hand, that each global minimum of the restriction to $J^{-1}\left(r\right)$  of the functional $x\to \frac{1}{2}\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2$  is a global minimum in $X$  of the functional $x\to \frac{1}{2}\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2-{\lambda }^{*}J\left(x\right)$  . But this functional (just because ${\lambda }^{*}<\frac{1}{L}$  ) has a unique global minimum, and so $\left(i\right)$  follows. Let us now prove $\left(ii\right)$  . To this end, fix $r\in ]0,{\beta }_0[$  and consider the function $\Phi :X\times [L,+\infty [\to \mathbf{R}$  definded by $$\Phi (x,\lambda )=\frac{\lambda }{2}(\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2-r^2)-J\left(x\right)$$  for all $(x,\lambda )\in X\times [L,+\infty [$  . Applying Theorem A, we get $${sup}_{\lambda \in [L,+\infty [}{inf}_{x\in X}\Phi (x,\lambda )={inf}_{x\in X}{sup}_{\lambda \in [L,+\infty [}\Phi (x,\lambda ).$$  Arguing as before (note, in particular, that ${lim}_{\lambda \to +\infty }{inf}_{x\in X}\Phi (x,\lambda )=-\infty$  ), we get $\hat{x}\in X$  and $\hat{\lambda }\in [L,+\infty [$  such that $${sup}_{\lambda \in [L,+\infty [}\Phi (\hat{x},\lambda )={inf}_{x\in X}{sup}_{\lambda \in [L,+\infty [}\Phi (x,\lambda )$$  and $${inf}_{x\in X}\Phi (x,\hat{\lambda })={sup}_{\lambda \in [L,+\infty [}{inf}_{x\in X}\Phi (x,\lambda ).$$  So that $$\frac{\hat{\lambda }}{2}(\parallel \hat{x}-x_0{\parallel }^2-r^2)-J\left(\hat{x}\right)={inf}_{x\in X}\frac{\hat{\lambda }}{2}(\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2-r^2)-J\left(x\right)={sup}_{\lambda \in [L,+\infty [}\frac{\lambda }{2}(\parallel \hat{x}-x_0{\parallel }^2-r^2)-J\left(\hat{x}\right).$$  From this it follows at once that $\parallel \hat{x}-x_0{\parallel }^2\le r^2$  . But, if it were $\parallel \hat{x}-x_0{\parallel }^2<r^2$  we would have $\hat{\lambda }=L$  . This, in turn, would imply that $\hat{x}\in M_{\frac{1}{L}}$  , against the fact that $r<{\beta }_0$  . Hence, we have $\parallel \hat{x}-x_0{\parallel }^2=r^2$  . Consequently $$-\frac{1}{\hat{\lambda }}J\left(\hat{x}\right)={inf}_{x\in X}\frac{1}{2}(\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2-r^2)-\frac{1}{\hat{\lambda }}J\left(x\right).$$  This implies, on one hand, that $\hat{\lambda }>L$  (since $r<{\beta }_0$  ) and, on the other hand, that each global maximum of the restriction of the functional $J$  to the set $\{x\in X:\parallel x-x_0\parallel =r\}$  is a global mimimum in $X$  of the functional $x\to \frac{1}{2}\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2-\frac{1}{\hat{\lambda }}J\left(x\right)$  . Since $\hat{\lambda }>L$  , this functional has a unique global minimum, and so $\left(ii\right)$  follows. $△$  REMARK 1. It is clear from the proof that the assumption $J^{\prime }\left(x_0\right)\ne 0$  has been used to prove ${\alpha }_0>J\left(x_0\right)$  and ${\beta }_0>0$  , while it has no role in showing $\left(i\right)$  and $\left(ii\right)$  . From the proof again, it also follows that, instead of $J^{\prime }\left(x_0\right)\ne 0$  , one could require the less restrictive condition $${sup}_{x\in X\backslash \left\{x_0\right\}}\frac{J\left(x\right)-J\left(x_0\right)}{\parallel x-x_0{\parallel }^2}>\frac{L}{2}.$$  However, without this latter condition, it can happen that ${\alpha }_0=J\left(x_0\right)$  , ${\beta }_0=0$  , with $\left(i\right)$  (resp. $\left(ii\right)$  ) holding for no $r>{\alpha }_0$  (resp. for no $r>0$  ). To see this, take, for instance, $X=\mathbf{R}$  , $J\left(x\right)=\frac{1}{2}{x}^2$  , $x_0=0$  . References [1] B. RICCERI, Minimax theorems for limits of parametrized functions having at most one local minimum lying in a certain set, preprint.

Departement of Mathematics University of Catania Viale A. Doria 6 95125 Catania Italy e-mail address: ricceri@dmi.unict.it