Help in proving this inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter japplepie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
japplepie
Messages
93
Reaction score
0
Can somebody help me please, I've tried solving this for hours but I still couldn't get it.

Given that a, b, c, d are positive integers and a+b=c+d.

Prove that if a∗b < c∗d,
then a∗log(a)+b∗log(b) > c∗log(c)+d∗log(d)

How do I do it?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Start with the multiplication... You know that if ## A+B=C+D = N,the maximum for the product A*B or C*D is (N/2)^2.
So if AB < CD, then C and D are more central...which gives you A < C ≤ D < B.
From there use the fact that the log function is concave down.

Please post a little bit more about what you have tried, and where you are stuck.
 
The closest I've got is I've tried to log both sides of the 1st inequality giving log(a)+log(b) < log(c)+log(d) then I tried to make one side similar the the 2nd inequality but then I realized that I'm going in circles.

How do I use the concave down point?
 
Given a new constrant that A+B = C+D = 1
Does showing that:
d[ -1(a*log(a)+(1-a)*log(1-a)) ] / d[a] * d[ a*(1-a) ] / d[a] to be always greater than or equal to zero prove the original claim?

Since satisfying this means that the two functions grow and shrink together (albeit not in the exact amount).
y=-1/log(2)*(x*log(x)+(1-x)*log(1-x)) {[0,1]} // the a*log(a)+b*log(b)
y=x*(1-x) {[0,1]} // the a*b
upload_2015-10-23_17-0-19.png
 

Attachments

  • graph.jpg
    graph.jpg
    35.7 KB · Views: 398
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