Holder's Inequality: Proving (17) is Sufficient

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter sakodo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Inequality
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the proof of Holder's inequality, specifically the transition to the assumption of equation (17) from equation (15). It establishes that proving the inequality under the condition of normalized sequences, where the sums of the absolute values raised to powers p and q equal 1, is sufficient due to the homogeneity property of the inequality. This allows for any general sequences to be rescaled to meet the condition, thereby simplifying the proof process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Holder's inequality and its formulation.
  • Familiarity with Minkowski's inequality and its relationship to Holder's inequality.
  • Knowledge of real analysis concepts, particularly homogeneity in inequalities.
  • Basic skills in manipulating sequences and powers in mathematical proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the detailed proof of Holder's inequality in "Kolmogorov & Fomin, Introductory Real Analysis".
  • Explore the implications of homogeneity in mathematical inequalities.
  • Learn about the applications of Holder's inequality in functional analysis.
  • Investigate the relationship between Holder's inequality and other inequalities such as Cauchy-Schwarz.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of real analysis, and anyone interested in understanding advanced inequality proofs and their applications in analysis.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K