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

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Gronwall's inequality to prove a mathematical lemma involving a nonnegative continuous function. Participants explore various approaches to manipulate the inequality and derive the desired result, focusing on the conditions and substitutions necessary for the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an inequality involving a nonnegative continuous function and seeks to prove a specific bound using Gronwall's inequality.
  • Another participant points out a potential error in the application of Gronwall's inequality, suggesting that the term in the exponential should be $\psi$ instead of $\phi$.
  • A suggestion is made to express the term $\delta_2(t-a)$ in a form compatible with Gronwall's inequality by rewriting it as $\delta_1\int_a^t \frac{\delta_2}{\delta_1}\,ds$.
  • Participants discuss the transformation of the function $\phi(t)$ by adding a constant term to facilitate the application of Gronwall's inequality.
  • There is a mention of guessing the form of functions $\alpha(t)$ and $\psi(t)$ based on the expected outcome of the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct application of Gronwall's inequality, particularly regarding the terms involved in the exponential. There is no consensus on the best approach to take, and multiple strategies are proposed.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the transformations and substitutions made are based on insights from the expected form of the solution, indicating a reliance on intuition rather than a straightforward application of the inequality.

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