How Can Gronwall's Inequality Help Prove a Mathematical Lemma?

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter kalish1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the application of Gronwall's inequality to prove a mathematical lemma involving a nonnegative continuous function, φ(t), defined on the interval [a,b]. The inequality states that if φ(t) is bounded by a combination of linear and integral terms involving constants δ1, δ2, and δ3, then φ(t) can be expressed in terms of an exponential function. The correct formulation of Gronwall's inequality is crucial, specifically that the exponential term should involve ψ(t) rather than φ(t). Participants suggest transformations and substitutions to derive the desired result effectively.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Gronwall's inequality and its applications in analysis.
  • Familiarity with nonnegative continuous functions and their properties.
  • Basic knowledge of integral calculus and differential equations.
  • Ability to manipulate inequalities and perform substitutions in mathematical proofs.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the detailed proof of Gronwall's inequality and its variations.
  • Explore applications of Gronwall's inequality in differential equations and dynamical systems.
  • Learn about common techniques for transforming inequalities in mathematical proofs.
  • Investigate the role of continuity and differentiability in the context of inequalities.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of analysis, and anyone involved in proving lemmas related to inequalities and differential equations will benefit from this discussion.

kalish1
Messages
79
Reaction score
0
I need to prove the following with the help of Gronwall's inequality:

If, for $t \in [a,b]$, $$\phi(t) \leq \delta_2(t-a) + \delta_1 \int_{a}^{t}\phi(s)ds + \delta_3,$$ where $\phi$ is a nonnegative continuous function on $[a,b]$, and $\delta_1>0, \delta_2 \geq 0$, and $\delta_3 \geq 0$ are constants, then $$\phi(t) \leq (\frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}+\delta_3)e^{\delta_1(t-a)} - \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}.$$

Here is the version of Gronwall's inequality that I am using:

**Gronwall:** Suppose that $a<b$ and let $\alpha, \phi,$ and $\psi$ be nonnegative continuous functions defined on the interval $[a,b]$. Moreover, suppose that $\alpha$ is differentiable on $(a,b)$ with nonnegative continuous derivative $\dot\alpha$. If, for all $t \in [a,b]$, $$\phi(t) \leq \alpha(t) + \int_{a}^{t}\psi(s)\phi(s)ds,$$ then $$\phi(t) \leq \alpha(t)e^{\int_{a}^{t}\phi(s)ds}$$ for all $t \in [a,b]$.**My attempts:**

I've tried everything with around 6 pages of work...

$1.$ I set $\alpha = (\frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}+\delta_3)$, and $\phi(t) = \delta_1$ as per the formula, and tried to match the formulae, but without success.

$2.$ I used the following link: Averaging Methods in Nonlinear Dynamical Systems - Jan A. Sanders, Ferdinand Verhulst, James Murdock - Google Books

and followed their suggestion (Lemma $1.3.3$), but that did not work. It looks like something is messed up in their proof of Lemma $1.3.3$.

$3.$ I set the top two inequalities (in my post) equal to each other and then solved for $\phi(t)$, but that yielded me something $\alpha(t) = \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}+\delta_3$, which does not work.

$4.$ I set $\phi(t) =$ R.H.S. of the top inequality in my post and then differentiated, and tried to derive the result by an approach similar to the proof of Lemma 1.3.1, but that gave me unsatisfactory results.

What more can I do?

I have crossposted this question here: homework - Need help with proving a lemma - Mathematics Stack Exchange
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kalish said:
I need to prove the following with the help of Gronwall's inequality:

If, for $t \in [a,b]$, $$\phi(t) \leq \delta_2(t-a) + \delta_1 \int_{a}^{t}\phi(s)ds + \delta_3,$$ where $\phi$ is a nonnegative continuous function on $[a,b]$, and $\delta_1>0, \delta_2 \geq 0$, and $\delta_3 \geq 0$ are constants, then $$\phi(t) \leq (\frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}+\delta_3)e^{\delta_1(t-a)} - \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}.$$

Here is the version of Gronwall's inequality that I am using:

**Gronwall:** Suppose that $a<b$ and let $\alpha, \phi,$ and $\psi$ be nonnegative continuous functions defined on the interval $[a,b]$. Moreover, suppose that $\alpha$ is differentiable on $(a,b)$ with nonnegative continuous derivative $\dot\alpha$. If, for all $t \in [a,b]$, $$\phi(t) \leq \alpha(t) + \int_{a}^{t}\psi(s)\phi(s)ds,$$ then $$\phi(t) \leq \alpha(t)e^{\int_{a}^{t}{\color{red}{\psi}}(s)ds}$$ for all $t \in [a,b]$.
You have quoted Grönwall's inequality wrongly. The $\phi$ in the exponential should be $\psi$, as indicated in red above.

You can write the term $\delta_2(t-a)$ as $$\delta_1\int_a^t \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}\,ds.$$ Now replace the function $\phi(t)$ by the new function $\phi(t) + \dfrac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}$. Take $\alpha(t)$ to be the constant $\dfrac{\delta_2}{\delta_1} + \delta_3$ and $\psi(t)$ to be the constant $1$, and apply Grönwall's inequality.
 
Opalg said:
You have quoted Grönwall's inequality wrongly. The $\phi$ in the exponential should be $\psi$, as indicated in red above.

You can write the term $\delta_2(t-a)$ as $$\delta_1\int_a^t \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}\,ds.$$ Now replace the function $\phi(t)$ by the new function $\phi(t) + \dfrac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}$. Take $\alpha(t)$ to be the constant $\dfrac{\delta_2}{\delta_1} + \delta_3$ and $\psi(t)$ to be the constant $1$, and apply Grönwall's inequality.

Sneaky! How did you know to make those substitutions and transformations??
 
kalish said:
Sneaky! How did you know to make those substitutions and transformations??

By the way, I believe $\psi(t) = \delta_1$.
 
kalish said:
Sneaky! How did you know to make those substitutions and transformations??
By looking at the answer and working backwards! The answer includes the exponential of $\delta_1(t-a)$. Comparing that with the exponential of $\int_a^t \psi(s)\,ds$ that occurs in the conclusion of Grönwall's inequality, you can guess that $\int_a^t \psi(s)\,ds = \delta_1(t-a)$, so that $\psi(t) = \delta_1$. You can guess which functions to take for $\alpha(t)$ and $\phi(t)$ in a similar way.

Just one of those tricks of the trade. (Evilgrin)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K