Can Minkowski's Inequality Prove Summation Inequality for Positive Numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter St41n
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
St41n
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
I don't understand how it is possible to show using the Minkowski's Inequality that
(\sum x_i )^a \leq \sum x_i^a where x_i \geq 0 \forall i and 0<a<1.

I also tried to prove this without using Minkowski, but to no avail.

This is driving me crazy although it seems to be trivial in the literature.
I will appreciate any help
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hi St41n! :smile:

It seems that you must prove that (x+y)^\alpha\leq x^\alpha+y^\alpha for x,y\geq 0 and 0<\alpha<1.

For that, you must look at the function

f:\mathbb{R}^+\rightarrow \mathbb{R}:x\rightarrow 1+x^\alpha-(1+x)^\alpha

Try to show that f is increasing and has its minimum in 0. It follows that f(x)\geq 0.
 
Thank you very much for the quick reply!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top