Can any two bounded functions be transformed into a maximum of two functions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ackbach
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion proves that for any two bounded functions \( g_1, g_2: \mathbb{R} \to [1, \infty) \), there exist functions \( h_1, h_2: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R} \) such that the supremum of the product \( g_1(s)^x g_2(s) \) can be expressed as a maximum of a linear combination of \( h_1(t) \) and \( h_2(t) \). The proof utilizes the convexity of the function \( f(x) = \sup_{s \in \mathbb{R}} \{x \log g_1(s) + \log g_2(s)\} \) and demonstrates that the maximum is achieved at specific points. This result is significant in the context of functional analysis and optimization.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of bounded functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with convex functions and their characteristics
  • Knowledge of the supremum and maximum concepts in real analysis
  • Proficiency in logarithmic functions and their applications
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of convex functions in detail
  • Explore the implications of the supremum in functional analysis
  • Learn about the weighted AM-GM inequality and its applications
  • Investigate further examples of affine functions and their supremum
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in functional optimization and convex analysis will benefit from this discussion.

Ackbach
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,148
Reaction score
94
Here is this week's POTW:

-----

Prove that, for any two bounded functions $g_1, g_2: \mathbb{R} \to [1, \infty)$, there exist functions $h_1, h_2: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ such that, for every $x \in \mathbb{R},$
$$
\sup_{s \in \mathbb{R}} (g_1(s)^x g_2(s)) = \max_{t \in \mathbb{R}} (x h_1(t) + h_2(t)).
$$

-----

Remember to read the https://mathhelpboards.com/showthread.php?772-Problem-of-the-Week-%28POTW%29-Procedure-and-Guidelines to find out how to https://mathhelpboards.com/forms.php?do=form&fid=2!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My apologies for not getting to this last week - I do have an excuse, actually: I was at NIWeek. In any case, no one answered last week's POTW, which was Problem B-5 in the 2012 Putnam Archive. The solution, attributed to Kiran Kedlaya and associates, follows.

[sp]Define the function
\[\newcommand{\RR}{\mathbb{R}}
f(x) = \sup_{s \in \RR} \{x \log g_1(s) + \log g_2(s)\}.
\]
As a function of $x$, $f$ is the supremum of a collection of affine functions, so it is convex. The function $e^{f(x)}$ is then also convex, as may be checked directly from the definition: for $x_1, x_2 \in \RR$ and $t \in [0,1]$, by the weighted AM-GM inequality
\begin{align*}
t e^{f(x_1)} + (1-t) e^{f(x_2)}&\geq e^{t f(x_1) + (1-t)f(x_2)} \\
&\geq e^{f(t x_1 + (1-t)x_2)}.
\end{align*}
For each $t \in \RR$, draw a supporting line to the graph of $e^{f(x)}$ at $x=t$; it has the form $y = x h_1(t) + h_2(t)$ for some $h_1(t), h_2(t) \in \RR$. For all $x$, we then have
\[
\sup_{s \in \RR} \{g_1(s)^x g_2(s) \} \geq x h_1(t) + h_2(t)
\]
with equality for $x = t$. This proves the desired equality (including the fact that the maximum on the right side is achieved).
[/sp]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K