Algebra: proving an inequality

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the non-negativity of the function f(x) defined as f(x) = (1/2+x) log [(1+x)/x] + (3/2-x) log [(1-x)/(2-x)], where 0 < x <= 1/2. Participants are exploring analytical methods to demonstrate that f(x) is greater than or equal to zero for all x in the specified interval.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of the log sum inequality and the implications of plotting the function. There are attempts to analyze the behavior of f(x) at the endpoint x = 1/2, with some questioning how to show that f(x) is decreasing on the interval (0, 1/2]. Others suggest that demonstrating the negativity of the derivative f'(x) might be a pathway to proving the original inequality.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various approaches being considered. Some participants have provided insights into the function's behavior at specific points, while others are contemplating the challenges of proving the function's properties analytically. There is no explicit consensus yet, but the exploration of different methods continues.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that proving f'(x) <= 0 may be more complex than directly showing f(x) is nonnegative. The context includes the constraints of the function being defined for 0 < x <= 1/2, and the potential simplification of f(x) in terms of KL divergence, which introduces additional considerations for the proof.

vers
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Let
f(x) = (1/2+x) log [(1+x)/x] + (3/2-x) log [(1-x)/(2-x)]
where log is natural logarithm and 0 < x <= 1/2. Show that f(x) >= 0 for all x.

Homework Equations


The only inequality that I can think of is the log sum inequality:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log_sum_inequality

The Attempt at a Solution


I try to plot f (see figure), and it seems that the statement is correct. In fact, the figure suggests that f is decreasing and equals 0 at x = 1/2. However, I can't figure out an analytical proof of this.
 

Attachments

  • f_x.jpg
    f_x.jpg
    11 KB · Views: 408
Physics news on Phys.org
I haven't done this out, but, if you find f(1/2) = 0 and that f(x) is decreasing on (0,1/2], what does that tell you about f(x) on (0,1/2]? How would you show that f(1/2) = 0 and f(x) is decreasing on (0,1/2]?

EDIT: On second thought, it may not be completely straightforward to show that f(x) is decreasing on (0,1/2]. If so, let us know what you've tried.
 
Certainly if I can show that f'(x) <=0 then the inequality is proved. However, it seems to me that showing f' being negative is even more difficult than showing f being nonnegative directly.

Tedjn said:
I haven't done this out, but, if you find f(1/2) = 0 and that f(x) is decreasing on (0,1/2], what does that tell you about f(x) on (0,1/2]? How would you show that f(1/2) = 0 and f(x) is decreasing on (0,1/2]?
 
It turns out that the function f can be simplified as
[tex] f(x) = d\left(\frac{1+x}{2} \parallel \frac{x}{2}\right) - d\left(\frac{x}{2} \parallel \frac{1+x}{2}\right)[/tex]
where
[tex] d(p \parallel q) = p \log \frac{p}{q} + (1 - p) \log \frac{1-p}{1-q}[/tex]
is the KL divergence between two Bernoulli random variables with respective expectations p and q. So all I need to do now is to show that the difference of these two KL divergences is nonnegative when x <= 1/2. Any idea how to do that?
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
2K