MHB Definite Integration of a concave upward function- Inequality

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the definite integration of a concave upward function and whether the upper bound of a specific integral is "9." Participants explore the implications of the function's second derivative being positive and the relationship between the function and its secant line. They discuss the challenges of integrating inequalities and the conditions under which a function remains above its secant line. The conversation emphasizes the need for careful consideration of integration limits and the behavior of derivatives in establishing the properties of concave functions. Overall, the thread seeks to clarify the integration process and its implications for concave upward functions.
mathisfun1
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Attachments

  • IMG-20140805-WA001.jpg
    IMG-20140805-WA001.jpg
    44.5 KB · Views: 112
Physics news on Phys.org
On the last integral, is the upper bound "9"?
 
Rido12 said:
On the last integral, is the upper bound "9"?
Yes.
 
Hello and welcome to MHB! :D

Can you tell us what you've tried or what your thoughts are on how to begin, so our helpers have an idea where you are stuck and then can provide better help?
 
MarkFL said:
Hello and welcome to MHB! :D

Can you tell us what you've tried or what your thoughts are on how to begin, so our helpers have an idea where you are stuck and then can provide better help?
Thank you so much!
I began with the condition that the secant must lie above the curve at all points if the curve is concave upward but that seem to lead nowhere. I also tried to utilise the fact that the double derivative of f(X) will be positive but to no avail.
Any help will be appreciated.
 
I think I would begin with the minimal case:

$$0<f^{\prime\prime}(x)$$

So, integrating, what can you say about $f$?
 
MarkFL said:
I think I would begin with the minimal case:

$$0<f^{\prime\prime}(x)$$

So, integrating, what can you say about $f$?

Wouldn't integrating this inequality conclude the same thing as what we are given, that f is a concave upward function?
 
mathisfun said:
Wouldn't integrating this inequality conclude the same thing as what we are given, that f is a concave upward function?

What did you get when integrating?
 
MarkFL said:
What did you get when integrating?

That f(x) is greater than zero, but that seems to be contradictory as a negative function may also have positive derivative. :(
 
  • #10
Let's begin with:

$$0<f^{\prime\prime}(x)$$

And so, on $$[1,k]$$ where $$1<k\in\mathbb{R}$$ there must be some constant $C$ such that:

$$C<f^{\prime}(x)$$

What happens if you integrate again?
 
  • #11
MarkFL said:
Let's begin with:

$$0<f^{\prime\prime}(x)$$

And so, on $$[1,k]$$ where $$1<k\in\mathbb{R}$$ there must be some constant $C$ such that:

$$C<f^{\prime}(x)$$

What happens if you integrate again?
If f1(X)>f2(x)
doesn't implies that the indefinite integration of f1(x) will be greater than f2(x). This is only applicable when both sides are integrated within limits and thus when integrating from 0 to x, constant gets eliminated.
 
  • #12
Let's try another approach...you mentioned that if the function is concave up, then it must lie beneath its secant line, or:

$$f(x)<\frac{f(b)-f(a)}{b-a}(x-a)+f(a)$$

What do you find upon integrating both sides from $a$ to $b$?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K