Help in proving this inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter japplepie
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
AI Thread Summary
To prove the inequality a*log(a) + b*log(b) > c*log(c) + d*log(d) given that a + b = c + d and a*b < c*d, one approach involves using the properties of concave functions. The discussion highlights that the maximum product occurs when the values are balanced, leading to the conclusion that if a*b < c*d, then a must be less than c and b must be greater than d. The concavity of the logarithm function suggests that the weighted sum of logs will be greater for the less balanced distribution of a and b compared to c and d. Additionally, a proposed method involves analyzing the derivatives of the functions to show that they behave consistently with the inequality. This approach emphasizes the relationship between the distributions of the variables and the behavior of the logarithmic function.
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: 400
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top