Holder's Inequality: Proving (17) is Sufficient

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sakodo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
1 reply · 3K views
sakodo
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Hi guys, I am reading a proof on Holder's inequality. There is a line I don't understand.

Here is the extract from Kolmogorov & Fomin, Introductory Real Analysis.

"The proof of [Minkowski's inequality] is in turn based on Holder's inequality
[tex]\sum_{k=1}^n |a_k b_k|\leq (\sum_{k=1}^n|a_k\mid^p)^{\frac{1}{p}}(\sum_{k=1}^n|b_k\mid^q)^{\frac{1}{q}}. \ \ \ (15)[/tex] , where [tex]\frac<br /> {1}{p}+\frac{1}{q}=1.[/tex]

We begin by observing that the inequality (15) is homogeneous,i.e., if it holds for two points [tex](a_1,...,a_n) \ and \ (b_1,...,b_n)[/tex], then it holds for any two points
[tex](\lambda a_1,...,\lambda a_n) \ and \ (\mu b_1,...,\mu b_n)[/tex] where [tex]\lambda \ and \ \mu[/tex] are arbitrary real numbers. Therefore we need only prove (15) for the case
[tex]\sum_{k=1}^n|a_k\mid^p = \sum_{k=1}^n|b_k\mid^q = 1. \ \ \ (17)[/tex]

Thus, assuming that (17) holds, we now prove that [tex]\sum_{k=1}^n |a_k b_k|\leq 1. \ \ \ (18)[/tex]"

I understand the inequality being homogeneous, but I don't understand how he got to the assumption of (17). Why is proving the case of (17) sufficient?

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Any general an and bn can be rescaled so it satisfies the condition. Suppose you've proved it for the case
[tex] \sum_{k=1}^n |a_k|^p = \sum_{k=1}^n |b_k|^p = 1[/tex]
and you'd like to prove it for
[tex] \sum_{k=1}^n |a_k|^p = A,\quad \sum_{k=1}^n |b_k|^p = B[/tex]
All you need to do is consider the sequences [itex]a_k/A^{1/p}[/itex] and [itex]b_k/B^{1/p}[/itex], which satisfy the special case condition, since homogeneity means it's equivalent.