Thanks. Corrected. The problem is that ultimately a very rigorous definition is useless. If there’s only one point, very, very far away, which is a little better, this isn’t really relevant and it would be somewhat odd to call your position a local optimum.
Minor nitpick
Strictly speaking there only has to be one far away point that is even slightly better for a point to only be a local, rather than global, optimum.
There doesn’t have to be any point that is better. A global optimum is also a local optimum.
That would be yet even useless, but I will specify better what I meant in the text.
Thanks. Corrected. The problem is that ultimately a very rigorous definition is useless. If there’s only one point, very, very far away, which is a little better, this isn’t really relevant and it would be somewhat odd to call your position a local optimum.